Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
Day 7: Okimoto failed to defend his hot air claim that creationists are anti science individually or collectively
36 views
Skip to first unread message
T Pagano
Feb 13, 2012, 10:25:23 PM2/13/12
to
Okimoto failed to defend his hot air claim that creationists are anti
science individually or collectively. In other words Okimoto is a
blowhard, who is more often than not, as full of shit as a Christmas
turkey.
Even some of the troll atheists in the forum have more guts (and
brains) than this blowhard.
And I'm done.
Regards,
T Pagano
science individually or collectively. In other words Okimoto is a
blowhard, who is more often than not, as full of shit as a Christmas
turkey.
Even some of the troll atheists in the forum have more guts (and
brains) than this blowhard.
And I'm done.
Regards,
T Pagano
John Stockwell
Feb 13, 2012, 11:22:22 PM2/13/12
to
Ron O
Feb 14, 2012, 7:35:01 AM2/14/12
to
What is ridiculous is that there likely isn't a sane, competent and
informed person posting in this group that would deny that Pagano can
be classified as anti-science. You can define it away, but you can't
change that fact. Just get Pags to recite his objections to
biological evolution or any science that he has to deny (he is the
only geocentrist posting on TO that I know of). Just get him to rant
about the evils of methodological naturalism that is the corner stone
of modern science.
Pags has had so many bits whacked off in his brave knight sir Tony
routine that all that is left is a twitching sphincter. Yes Pags,
just like Nyikos I am calling you an asshole. If you don't like the
definition give me an alternative for someone that changes thread
titles to something bogus or creates bogus threads with bogus titles
just to run from their own mistakes. What mistakes are you running
from? Wasn't it just a stupid mistake, and what did you blow it up
into?
Shouldn't the title of this thread have been something like Pagano
fails again or just Pagano failed? What do you think that you
succeeded in doing when you refute your own challenge by your very
existence?
Ron Okimoto
Mitchell Coffey
Feb 14, 2012, 9:47:40 AM2/14/12
to
On Feb 13, 10:25 pm, T Pagano <not.va...@address.net> wrote:
[snip]
This is truely disturbing.
Mitchell Coffey
[snip]
> as full of shit as a Christmas turkey.
[snip]
This is truely disturbing.
Mitchell Coffey
Kalkidas
Feb 14, 2012, 1:21:26 PM2/14/12
to
Cubist
Feb 14, 2012, 1:45:37 PM2/14/12
to
On Feb 13, 7:25 pm, T Pagano <not.va...@address.net> wrote:
< In other words Okimoto is a blowhard, who is more often than not,
as
> full of shit as a Christmas turkey.
Please tell me where you shop for your Xmas dinner. I wish to be sure
< In other words Okimoto is a blowhard, who is more often than not,
as
> full of shit as a Christmas turkey.
I *never* buy *anything* from that store.
Burkhard
Feb 14, 2012, 1:58:18 PM2/14/12
to
worrying, but explains a lot about his posts if that;s who they serve
them chez pagano.
John Harshman
Feb 14, 2012, 2:03:53 PM2/14/12
to
T Pagano wrote:
>
> And I'm done.
If only that were true.
>
> And I'm done.
If only that were true.
Ray Martinez
Feb 14, 2012, 4:09:04 PM2/14/12
to
Ray
Ray Martinez
Feb 14, 2012, 4:08:46 PM2/14/12
to
On Feb 14, 4:35 am, Ron O <rokim...@cox.net> wrote:
> On Feb 13, 9:25 pm, T Pagano <not.va...@address.net> wrote:
>
> > Okimoto failed to defend his hot air claim that creationists are anti
> > science individually or collectively. In other words Okimoto is a
> > blowhard, who is more often than not, as full of shit as a Christmas
> > turkey.
>
> > Even some of the troll atheists in the forum have more guts (and
> > brains) than this blowhard.
>
> > And I'm done.
>
> > Regards,
> > T Pagano
>
> Is this it?
>
> What is ridiculous is that there likely isn't a sane, competent and
> informed person posting in this group that would deny that Pagano can
> be classified as anti-science.
Since Tony accepts the concepts of natural selection, microevolution,
> On Feb 13, 9:25 pm, T Pagano <not.va...@address.net> wrote:
>
> > Okimoto failed to defend his hot air claim that creationists are anti
> > science individually or collectively. In other words Okimoto is a
> > blowhard, who is more often than not, as full of shit as a Christmas
> > turkey.
>
> > Even some of the troll atheists in the forum have more guts (and
> > brains) than this blowhard.
>
> > And I'm done.
>
> > Regards,
> > T Pagano
>
> Is this it?
>
> What is ridiculous is that there likely isn't a sane, competent and
> informed person posting in this group that would deny that Pagano can
> be classified as anti-science.
macroevolution, and common descent to exist in nature, by your own
standards and criteria he cannot be ANTI-science, Ron. If acceptance
of conceptual existence of the main claims of Darwinism is "anti-
science" what do you call persons like me who reject the existence of
all these concepts in nature? I routinely refer to myself as an anti-
evolutionist, Tony cannot.
Your description/label of Tony as "anti-science" is refuted. You are
actually making the case that Tony is not as atheistic as he should
be.
Ray
RAM
Feb 14, 2012, 6:34:01 PM2/14/12
to
RAM
Feb 14, 2012, 6:51:56 PM2/14/12
to
On Feb 14, 3:08 pm, Ray Martinez <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Feb 14, 4:35 am, Ron O <rokim...@cox.net> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Feb 13, 9:25 pm, T Pagano <not.va...@address.net> wrote:
>
> > > Okimoto failed to defend his hot air claim that creationists are anti
> > > science individually or collectively. In other words Okimoto is a
> > > blowhard, who is more often than not, as full of shit as a Christmas
> > > turkey.
>
> > > Even some of the troll atheists in the forum have more guts (and
> > > brains) than this blowhard.
>
> > > And I'm done.
>
> > > Regards,
> > > T Pagano
>
> > Is this it?
>
> > What is ridiculous is that there likely isn't a sane, competent and
> > informed person posting in this group that would deny that Pagano can
> > be classified as anti-science.
>
> Since Tony accepts the concepts of natural selection, microevolution,
> macroevolution, and common descent to exist in nature, by your own
> standards and criteria he cannot be ANTI-science, Ron. If acceptance
> of conceptual existence of the main claims of Darwinism is "anti-
> science" what do you call persons like me who reject the existence of
> all these concepts in nature?
Perversely ignorant? Irrational? Scientifically ignorant? Idiotic
> On Feb 14, 4:35 am, Ron O <rokim...@cox.net> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Feb 13, 9:25 pm, T Pagano <not.va...@address.net> wrote:
>
> > > Okimoto failed to defend his hot air claim that creationists are anti
> > > science individually or collectively. In other words Okimoto is a
> > > blowhard, who is more often than not, as full of shit as a Christmas
> > > turkey.
>
> > > Even some of the troll atheists in the forum have more guts (and
> > > brains) than this blowhard.
>
> > > And I'm done.
>
> > > Regards,
> > > T Pagano
>
> > Is this it?
>
> > What is ridiculous is that there likely isn't a sane, competent and
> > informed person posting in this group that would deny that Pagano can
> > be classified as anti-science.
>
> Since Tony accepts the concepts of natural selection, microevolution,
> macroevolution, and common descent to exist in nature, by your own
> standards and criteria he cannot be ANTI-science, Ron. If acceptance
> of conceptual existence of the main claims of Darwinism is "anti-
> science" what do you call persons like me who reject the existence of
> all these concepts in nature?
Christianist? Surrealistically Christianist? And the standard . . .
Willfully ignorant Christianist?
> I routinely refer to myself as an anti-
> evolutionist, Tony cannot.
your particularistic Christianist beliefs. Tony is anti-science.
>
> Your description/label of Tony as "anti-science" is refuted.
No you need logic not redefinitions of words to accomplish that.
> Your description/label of Tony as "anti-science" is refuted.
Try again.
> You are
> actually making the case that Tony is not as atheistic as he should
> be.
snip
Ray Martinez
Feb 14, 2012, 7:45:11 PM2/14/12
to
Darwinists think. RAM (our Darwinist) is arguing conceptual acceptance
of all the main claims of Darwinism still corresponds to "anti-
science." I might add: the argument shows that Darwinism and Atheism
are synonyms. The fact that Tony retains conceptual ID beliefs is the
spoiler. Objective Darwinism does not allow any teleology whatsoever.
"Christian" Evolutionists are most certainly buffoons, accepting a
subjective and thus corruptive version of evolutionary theory.
Ray
RAM
Feb 14, 2012, 7:24:14 PM2/14/12
to
On Feb 13, 9:25 pm, T Pagano <not.va...@address.net> wrote:
> Okimoto failed to defend his hot air claim that creationists are anti
> science individually or collectively. In other words Okimoto is a
> blowhard, who is more often than not, as full of shit as a Christmas
> turkey.
Pure projection from the Prime Bloviator. I often felt like using
> science individually or collectively. In other words Okimoto is a
> blowhard, who is more often than not, as full of shit as a Christmas
> turkey.
your crude (and not very Christian) comment about you. But I thought
it would distract from my hammering you about your ignorance of
science qua science. Like your documented misunderstandings of
scientific induction.
Ron is correct in his assessment of you that you are anti-science. It
is "selective" anti-science evidence that characterizes you and all
the other Creationists (Christian, Muslim, and whatever Kalkidas
[Chris Devol] is at present) who post here. Ray may be the exception
in that he attempts to distance himself from anything resembling
science and thus rejects all science. But given his irrationality it
is difficult in the extreme to assert anything consistent about his
positions other than anti-evolution obtuseness.
>
> Even some of the troll atheists in the forum have more guts (and
> brains) than this blowhard.
Be honest. I know that is asking something hard for you, a
> Even some of the troll atheists in the forum have more guts (and
> brains) than this blowhard.
demonstrated liar to do, but this is an over-reaction from someone who
has shown pride in consistently making stupid anti-science arguments
in bland non-hostile rhetoric. He really got the goods on you didn't
he?
>
> And I'm done.
Your history of being done is well documented and the more you post
the kookier your persona becomes.
Burkhard
Feb 14, 2012, 8:21:27 PM2/14/12
to
scientific knowledge - how many geocentric astronomers do you think
there are? Nor did he ever commit to the majority of ideas of the ToE
b) even if he did, that alone would not rule out an anti-science
attitude. You can believe all of contemporary science, and nonetheless
be anti-science, if te reason you have these believes is anti-science.
"I believe in the ToE/particle mechanics/theory of relativity because
when I ate a bit of peyote, the great god coyote appeared to me and
told me they are true" is an anti-science attitude. _What_ you believe
is not enough to make you pro-science, _why_ you believe it is at
least as important.
*Hemidactylus*
Feb 14, 2012, 9:03:31 PM2/14/12
to
On 02/14/2012 09:47 AM, Mitchell Coffey wrote:
> On Feb 13, 10:25 pm, T Pagano<not.va...@address.net> wrote:
> [snip]
>> as full of shit as a Christmas turkey.
> [snip]
>
> This is truely disturbing.
I surely don't want to buy my turkeys from the same place Pags is.
> On Feb 13, 10:25 pm, T Pagano<not.va...@address.net> wrote:
> [snip]
>> as full of shit as a Christmas turkey.
> [snip]
>
> This is truely disturbing.
*Hemidactylus*
Feb 14, 2012, 9:04:34 PM2/14/12
to
RAM
Feb 15, 2012, 1:13:58 AM2/15/12
to
evolution to be unquestionably well documented. Your self deluding
religious compulsions make you engage in nonsensical and silly
constructions of reality when it comes to sciences clear evidence of
some religious beliefs being empirically wrong in the areas of
evolution, a global flood and a young earth. All of your posts are
irrational and involve conceptual distortions. However, they are
valuable as evidence of the types of distortions individuals engage in
when emotionally held religious beliefs are challenged empirically.
Other than that you have nothing to offer (including the silly
assertion of some earth shattering critical of evolution magnum
opus).
> is arguing conceptual acceptance
> of all the main claims of Darwinism still corresponds to "anti-
> science."
are dysfunctional for honestly dealing with the increasing complexity
of life.
> I might add: the argument shows that Darwinism and Atheism
> are synonyms.
theistic" and making no commitments one way or the other as to the
existence of a deity.
You insist otherwise for emotional reasons based in dubious religious
commitments and clearly not for any rational reasons.
> The fact that Tony retains conceptual ID beliefs is the
> spoiler. Objective Darwinism does not allow any teleology whatsoever.
> "Christian" Evolutionists are most certainly buffoons,
deity. And I have no argument argument about their position. Unlike
your buffoonery, they understand science.
> accepting a
> subjective and thus corruptive version of evolutionary theory.
"subjective version." If it were, it would not be considered a
scientific theory,
snip
backspace
Feb 15, 2012, 6:52:09 AM2/15/12
to
Garamond Lethe
Feb 15, 2012, 7:02:00 AM2/15/12
to
Bob Casanova
Feb 15, 2012, 12:03:01 PM2/15/12
to
On Wed, 15 Feb 2012 03:52:09 -0800 (PST), the following
appeared in talk.origins, posted by backspace
<steph...@gmail.com>:
>Is science the same thing as falsificationism?
Once you define "falsificationism" your question can be
addressed.
--
Bob C.
"Evidence confirming an observation is
evidence that the observation is wrong."
- McNameless
appeared in talk.origins, posted by backspace
<steph...@gmail.com>:
>Is science the same thing as falsificationism?
addressed.
--
Bob C.
"Evidence confirming an observation is
evidence that the observation is wrong."
- McNameless
Ray Martinez
Feb 15, 2012, 2:44:32 PM2/15/12
to
ignoring the fact that said person accepts all the main conceptual
claims of ToE. Your off-issue rambling makes you appear loony and
unable to address and/or refute.
> > is arguing conceptual acceptance
> > of all the main claims of Darwinism still corresponds to "anti-
> > science."
>
> This is the kind of distortion that come from religious beliefs that
> are dysfunctional for honestly dealing with the increasing complexity
> of life.
>
accept all its main conceptual claims?
Stop evading.
General Audience: This is why we reject evolution.
Ray (anti-evolutionist)
Dana Tweedy
Feb 15, 2012, 4:57:54 PM2/15/12
to
snip
>
> Excuse me, the issue was labelling a person (Tony) anti-science while
> ignoring the fact that said person accepts all the main conceptual
> claims of ToE.
The reason people label Tony as anti science is that he rejects the
basic methodological naturalism that science requires. His acceptance
of some of the findings of science does not make him a supporter of
science.
> Your off-issue rambling makes you appear loony and
> unable to address and/or refute.
this is merely your way of calling the kettle black.
>
>>> is arguing conceptual acceptance
>>> of all the main claims of Darwinism still corresponds to "anti-
>>> science."
>>
>> This is the kind of distortion that come from religious beliefs that
>> are dysfunctional for honestly dealing with the increasing complexity
>> of life.
>>
>
> How can a person be anti-science in the minds of Evolutionists but
> accept all its main conceptual claims?
Because Tony rejects the main tool of science, ie methodological
naturalism. Ray, you are also mistaking findings of science for
"conceptual claims".
>
> Stop evading.
Where has he evaded anything?
>
> General Audience: This is why we reject evolution.
Ray, you reject evolution due to your arrogance, ignorance, and because
your hero told you to. It has nothing to do with any kind of
intellectual reasoning.
DJT
>
> Excuse me, the issue was labelling a person (Tony) anti-science while
> ignoring the fact that said person accepts all the main conceptual
> claims of ToE.
basic methodological naturalism that science requires. His acceptance
of some of the findings of science does not make him a supporter of
science.
> Your off-issue rambling makes you appear loony and
> unable to address and/or refute.
>
>>> is arguing conceptual acceptance
>>> of all the main claims of Darwinism still corresponds to "anti-
>>> science."
>>
>> This is the kind of distortion that come from religious beliefs that
>> are dysfunctional for honestly dealing with the increasing complexity
>> of life.
>>
>
> How can a person be anti-science in the minds of Evolutionists but
> accept all its main conceptual claims?
naturalism. Ray, you are also mistaking findings of science for
"conceptual claims".
>
> Stop evading.
Where has he evaded anything?
>
> General Audience: This is why we reject evolution.
your hero told you to. It has nothing to do with any kind of
intellectual reasoning.
DJT
Ray Martinez
Feb 15, 2012, 10:57:46 PM2/15/12
to
On Feb 15, 1:57 pm, Dana Tweedy <reddfrog...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 2/15/12 12:44 PM, Ray Martinez wrote:> On Feb 14, 10:13 pm, RAM<ramather...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> snip
>
>
>
> > Excuse me, the issue was labelling a person (Tony) anti-science while
> > ignoring the fact that said person accepts all the main conceptual
> > claims of ToE.
>
> The reason people label Tony as anti science is that he rejects the
> basic methodological naturalism that science requires. His acceptance
> of some of the findings of science does not make him a supporter of
> science.
>
He accepts existence of natural selection, micro/macro evolution and
> On 2/15/12 12:44 PM, Ray Martinez wrote:> On Feb 14, 10:13 pm, RAM<ramather...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> snip
>
>
>
> > Excuse me, the issue was labelling a person (Tony) anti-science while
> > ignoring the fact that said person accepts all the main conceptual
> > claims of ToE.
>
> The reason people label Tony as anti science is that he rejects the
> basic methodological naturalism that science requires. His acceptance
> of some of the findings of science does not make him a supporter of
> science.
>
common descent, which means he accepts Methodological Naturalism. He
cannot be labelled as "anti-science." Of course you seem to suddenly
be denying the very meaning of MN as opposed to Naturalism. I will
await your explanation.
Ray
Bob Casanova
Feb 16, 2012, 11:59:04 AM2/16/12
to
On Wed, 15 Feb 2012 19:57:46 -0800 (PST), the following
appeared in talk.origins, posted by Ray Martinez
<pyram...@yahoo.com>:
>On Feb 15, 1:57 pm, Dana Tweedy <reddfrog...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> The reason people label Tony as anti science is that he rejects the
>> basic methodological naturalism that science requires. His acceptance
>> of some of the findings of science does not make him a supporter of
>> science.
>He accepts existence of natural selection, micro/macro evolution and
>common descent, which means he accepts Methodological Naturalism.
Since he says he specifically rejects it your logic would
seem to be flawed. But then, flawed logic is your forte.
appeared in talk.origins, posted by Ray Martinez
<pyram...@yahoo.com>:
>On Feb 15, 1:57 pm, Dana Tweedy <reddfrog...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> The reason people label Tony as anti science is that he rejects the
>> basic methodological naturalism that science requires. His acceptance
>> of some of the findings of science does not make him a supporter of
>> science.
>He accepts existence of natural selection, micro/macro evolution and
>common descent, which means he accepts Methodological Naturalism.
seem to be flawed. But then, flawed logic is your forte.
Burkhard
Feb 16, 2012, 12:39:53 PM2/16/12
to
On Feb 16, 3:57 am, Ray Martinez <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Feb 15, 1:57 pm, Dana Tweedy <reddfrog...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On 2/15/12 12:44 PM, Ray Martinez wrote:> On Feb 14, 10:13 pm, RAM<ramather...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > snip
>
> > > Excuse me, the issue was labelling a person (Tony) anti-science while
> > > ignoring the fact that said person accepts all the main conceptual
> > > claims of ToE.
>
> > The reason people label Tony as anti science is that he rejects the
> > basic methodological naturalism that science requires. His acceptance
> > of some of the findings of science does not make him a supporter of
> > science.
>
> He accepts existence of natural selection, micro/macro evolution and
> common descent, which means he accepts Methodological Naturalism.
That is a pretty bad non-sequitur. One can accept NS, micro-macro
> On Feb 15, 1:57 pm, Dana Tweedy <reddfrog...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On 2/15/12 12:44 PM, Ray Martinez wrote:> On Feb 14, 10:13 pm, RAM<ramather...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > snip
>
> > > Excuse me, the issue was labelling a person (Tony) anti-science while
> > > ignoring the fact that said person accepts all the main conceptual
> > > claims of ToE.
>
> > The reason people label Tony as anti science is that he rejects the
> > basic methodological naturalism that science requires. His acceptance
> > of some of the findings of science does not make him a supporter of
> > science.
>
> He accepts existence of natural selection, micro/macro evolution and
> common descent, which means he accepts Methodological Naturalism.
evolution and common descent, and nonetheless reject methodological
naturalism.
Several creation stories have something like NS and common descent,
e.g. the Greek mythology. If you believe it as revealed spiritual
truth, you accept all these elements yet not necessarily
methodological naturalism.
Conversely, it is possible in principle to accept methodological
naturalism and nonetheless not belief in NS etc - that would have been
true for instance for a secular scientists before Darwin, who simply
had not made the relevant observations.
Dana Tweedy
Feb 16, 2012, 4:35:56 PM2/16/12
to
On 2/15/12 8:57 PM, Ray Martinez wrote:
> On Feb 15, 1:57 pm, Dana Tweedy<reddfrog...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On 2/15/12 12:44 PM, Ray Martinez wrote:> On Feb 14, 10:13 pm, RAM<ramather...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> snip
>>
>>
>>
>>> Excuse me, the issue was labelling a person (Tony) anti-science while
>>> ignoring the fact that said person accepts all the main conceptual
>>> claims of ToE.
>>
>> The reason people label Tony as anti science is that he rejects the
>> basic methodological naturalism that science requires. His acceptance
>> of some of the findings of science does not make him a supporter of
>> science.
>>
>
> He accepts existence of natural selection,
Because it is too well established to deny.
> On Feb 15, 1:57 pm, Dana Tweedy<reddfrog...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On 2/15/12 12:44 PM, Ray Martinez wrote:> On Feb 14, 10:13 pm, RAM<ramather...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> snip
>>
>>
>>
>>> Excuse me, the issue was labelling a person (Tony) anti-science while
>>> ignoring the fact that said person accepts all the main conceptual
>>> claims of ToE.
>>
>> The reason people label Tony as anti science is that he rejects the
>> basic methodological naturalism that science requires. His acceptance
>> of some of the findings of science does not make him a supporter of
>> science.
>>
>
> He accepts existence of natural selection,
> micro/macro evolution and
> common descent,
> which means he accepts Methodological Naturalism.
that natural processes are the only testable explanation for natural
events. Tony still believes that appeal to the supernatural is
acceptable for explaining natural events.
> He
> cannot be labelled as "anti-science."
beliefs.
> Of course you seem to suddenly
> be denying the very meaning of MN as opposed to Naturalism. I will
> await your explanation.
naturalism, or strong philosophic naturalism. Methodological
naturalism is the tool used by science which limits explanations to
testable ideas. Philosophic naturalism is the belief that nothing
beyond the natural exists. None of my points above "deny" the meaning
of methodological naturalism.
Out of curiosity, what do you think "methodological naturalism" means?
snipping points Ray is afraid to address.
DJT
T Pagano
Feb 17, 2012, 3:17:48 PM2/17/12
to
On Tue, 14 Feb 2012 13:08:46 -0800 (PST), Ray Martinez
<pyram...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>On Feb 14, 4:35 am, Ron O <rokim...@cox.net> wrote:
>> On Feb 13, 9:25 pm, T Pagano <not.va...@address.net> wrote:
>>
>> > Okimoto failed to defend his hot air claim that creationists are anti
>> > science individually or collectively. In other words Okimoto is a
>> > blowhard, who is more often than not, as full of shit as a Christmas
>> > turkey.
>>
>> > Even some of the troll atheists in the forum have more guts (and
>> > brains) than this blowhard.
>>
>> > And I'm done.
>>
>> > Regards,
>> > T Pagano
>>
>> Is this it?
>>
>> What is ridiculous is that there likely isn't a sane, competent and
>> informed person posting in this group that would deny that Pagano can
>> be classified as anti-science.
>
>Since Tony accepts the concepts of natural selection, microevolution,
>macroevolution, and common descent to exist in nature, by your own
>standards and criteria he cannot be ANTI-science, Ron.
Natural selection, (so-called) microevolution, and common descent are
<pyram...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>On Feb 14, 4:35 am, Ron O <rokim...@cox.net> wrote:
>> On Feb 13, 9:25 pm, T Pagano <not.va...@address.net> wrote:
>>
>> > Okimoto failed to defend his hot air claim that creationists are anti
>> > science individually or collectively. In other words Okimoto is a
>> > blowhard, who is more often than not, as full of shit as a Christmas
>> > turkey.
>>
>> > Even some of the troll atheists in the forum have more guts (and
>> > brains) than this blowhard.
>>
>> > And I'm done.
>>
>> > Regards,
>> > T Pagano
>>
>> Is this it?
>>
>> What is ridiculous is that there likely isn't a sane, competent and
>> informed person posting in this group that would deny that Pagano can
>> be classified as anti-science.
>
>Since Tony accepts the concepts of natural selection, microevolution,
>macroevolution, and common descent to exist in nature, by your own
>standards and criteria he cannot be ANTI-science, Ron.
undeniable and observable. That Ray denies them makes him
delusional.
I have over 1800 posts available at the talk.origins google archive
and Ray couldn't produce one them which even implies that I accept
so-called macro evolution. Ray is well aware of this fact and as a
result Ray has now become a liar. Since Ray resorts to lying his word
is now worthless.
> If acceptance
>of conceptual existence of the main claims of Darwinism is "anti-
>science" what do you call persons like me who reject the existence of
>all these concepts in nature? I routinely refer to myself as an anti-
>evolutionist, Tony cannot.
macro-evolution.
>
>Your description/label of Tony as "anti-science" is refuted. You are
>actually making the case that Tony is not as atheistic as he should
>be.
>
>Ray
the forum. Okimoto is a blowhard but he doesn't lie. Only two other
people in the forum since 1998 have told an obvious lie: Dr Lenny
Flank and Stockwell. And now there's Ray Martinez. He is word is now
worthless.
Ray has degenerated to become the worst of the worst.
Regards,
T Pagano
John Harshman
Feb 17, 2012, 3:29:30 PM2/17/12
to
least come very close to admitting that a number of species are related
by common descent, and officially anything beyond the species level
counts as macroevolution. Of course you have ignored my challenge in
which you were asked to clarify the degree to which you accept
macroevolution. But weasel as you may, you have already agreed to some.
> Ray is well aware of this fact and as a
> result Ray has now become a liar. Since Ray resorts to lying his word
> is now worthless.
dishonest than another.
John Stockwell
Feb 17, 2012, 5:37:40 PM2/17/12
to
science
have coined as a way of attempting to understand what science is
about.
Philospher Karl Popper, having been raised as a mathematician, took
the mathematicians notion of "disproof by counter example" as his
model
for science. Within his lifetime he was forced to back water on that
idea.
-John
Burkhard
Feb 17, 2012, 6:08:15 PM2/17/12
to
not registered for any course, just went to any lecture he fancied,
and that covered quite a range. When he finally formally registered, I
think it was for psychology and pedagogy, with math and physics as
minor subjects (his degree essentially gave him the right to teach the
two to secondary school children)
What you describe sounds more like Lakatos, and his development from
Proof and Refutations (which is indeed about mathematics) to The
Methodology of Scientific Research Programmes, which was about the
empirical sciences 9and though sympathetic to Popper, one of the first
main nails in his coffin)
Ray Martinez
Feb 17, 2012, 6:21:44 PM2/17/12
to
On Feb 16, 1:35 pm, Dana Tweedy <reddfrog...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 2/15/12 8:57 PM, Ray Martinez wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Feb 15, 1:57 pm, Dana Tweedy<reddfrog...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> On 2/15/12 12:44 PM, Ray Martinez wrote:> On Feb 14, 10:13 pm, RAM<ramather...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >> snip
>
> >>> Excuse me, the issue was labelling a person (Tony) anti-science while
> >>> ignoring the fact that said person accepts all the main conceptual
> >>> claims of ToE.
>
> >> The reason people label Tony as anti science is that he rejects the
> >> basic methodological naturalism that science requires. His acceptance
> >> of some of the findings of science does not make him a supporter of
> >> science.
>
> > He accepts existence of natural selection,
>
> Because it is too well established to deny.
>
> > micro/macro evolution and
> > common descent,
>
> all of which are too well established for any sane person to deny..
>
> > which means he accepts Methodological Naturalism.
>
> No, it doesn't. Accepting methodological naturalism means one accepts
> that natural processes are the only testable explanation for natural
> events. Tony still believes that appeal to the supernatural is
> acceptable for explaining natural events.
>
IF true, that is, IF Tony accepts Intelligent agency causing
> On 2/15/12 8:57 PM, Ray Martinez wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Feb 15, 1:57 pm, Dana Tweedy<reddfrog...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> On 2/15/12 12:44 PM, Ray Martinez wrote:> On Feb 14, 10:13 pm, RAM<ramather...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >> snip
>
> >>> Excuse me, the issue was labelling a person (Tony) anti-science while
> >>> ignoring the fact that said person accepts all the main conceptual
> >>> claims of ToE.
>
> >> The reason people label Tony as anti science is that he rejects the
> >> basic methodological naturalism that science requires. His acceptance
> >> of some of the findings of science does not make him a supporter of
> >> science.
>
> > He accepts existence of natural selection,
>
> Because it is too well established to deny.
>
> > micro/macro evolution and
> > common descent,
>
> all of which are too well established for any sane person to deny..
>
> > which means he accepts Methodological Naturalism.
>
> No, it doesn't. Accepting methodological naturalism means one accepts
> that natural processes are the only testable explanation for natural
> events. Tony still believes that appeal to the supernatural is
> acceptable for explaining natural events.
>
selection, microevolution and common descent, then I would have to
agree: Tony rejects MN. This means that he really doesn't accept
natural selection, microevolution and common descent because these
concepts were accepted as caused by unintelligent natural forces or
mechanisms.
Tony doesn't understand the logical necessity of effects or products
corresponding to the correct agent of causation. He conflates them
each and everytime.
IF Intelligence is causing then no effect or product can be described
as evolutionary.
IF unintelligence is causing then no effect or product can be
described as designed.
Effects must correspond to the correct agent of causation, if not
confusion is propagated; that is, the fusion of contrary concepts.
I suspect that Tony accepts both agents of causation operating in
nature. He is not an absolutist. The historic Darwinism v. Creationism
debate presupposes absolutism (his term, I like it). Tony has been
hoodwinked by Dembski and Behe who accept both agents operating in
nature contrary to every historic and scientific fact. So much for
degrees, these do not guarantee the propagation of truth no matter how
basic the truth might be.
> > He
> > cannot be labelled as "anti-science."
>
> Sure he can, as he rejects scientific findings which contradict his
> beliefs.
>
> > Of course you seem to suddenly
> > be denying the very meaning of MN as opposed to Naturalism. I will
> > await your explanation.
>
> It's clear you neither understand what is meant by methodological
> naturalism, or strong philosophic naturalism. Methodological
> naturalism is the tool used by science which limits explanations to
> testable ideas. Philosophic naturalism is the belief that nothing
> beyond the natural exists. None of my points above "deny" the meaning
> of methodological naturalism.
>
> Out of curiosity, what do you think "methodological naturalism" means?
>
is scientific fact, one can believe these facts to support their view
of God, whether it be Atheism, Deism, Agnosticism or Theism.
Ray
Dana Tweedy
Feb 17, 2012, 9:39:52 PM2/17/12
to
On 2/17/12 4:21 PM, Ray Martinez wrote:
> On Feb 16, 1:35 pm, Dana Tweedy<reddfrog...@gmail.com> wrote:
snip
> On Feb 16, 1:35 pm, Dana Tweedy<reddfrog...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> which means he accepts Methodological Naturalism.
>>
>> No, it doesn't. Accepting methodological naturalism means one accepts
>> that natural processes are the only testable explanation for natural
>> events. Tony still believes that appeal to the supernatural is
>> acceptable for explaining natural events.
>>
>
> IF true, that is, IF Tony accepts Intelligent agency causing
> selection, microevolution and common descent, then I would have to
> agree: Tony rejects MN. This means that he really doesn't accept
> natural selection, microevolution and common descent because these
> concepts were accepted as caused by unintelligent natural forces or
> mechanisms.
science it doesn't matter if the process is purely "unintelligent" or
has an intelligent origin. The process remains the same.
>
> Tony doesn't understand the logical necessity of effects or products
> corresponding to the correct agent of causation. He conflates them
> each and everytime.
effect must have a cause, one doesn't need to know the cause to observe
the effect.
>
> IF Intelligence is causing then no effect or product can be described
> as evolutionary.
population over generations. There is no requirement the changes be
caused by an "unintelligent" agent. One may describe any change that
involves change in allele frequencies in populations over generations as
evolutionary, no matter what the cause.
>
> IF unintelligence is causing then no effect or product can be
> described as designed.
agree with your mistake.
>
> Effects must correspond to the correct agent of causation, if not
> confusion is propagated; that is, the fusion of contrary concepts.
Unintelligent forces can produce the appearance of design, and
"intelligent" beings can produce things that are unintelligent. There
is no reason at all that the 'effect' must correspond with the agent.
You've been shown your assertion on this to be wrong, time, and time
again. Why do you persist?
>
> I suspect that Tony accepts both agents of causation operating in
> nature.
operate at the same time.
> He is not an absolutist. The historic Darwinism v. Creationism
> debate presupposes absolutism (his term, I like it).
> Tony has been
> hoodwinked by Dembski and Behe who accept both agents operating in
> nature contrary to every historic and scientific fact.
this claim? Intelligent beings are known in nature, for at least the
last 100,000 years. Both are found in nature all the time.
> So much for
> degrees, these do not guarantee the propagation of truth no matter how
> basic the truth might be.
have no fact within them.
>
>>> He
>>> cannot be labelled as "anti-science."
>>
>> Sure he can, as he rejects scientific findings which contradict his
>> beliefs.
>>
>>> Of course you seem to suddenly
>>> be denying the very meaning of MN as opposed to Naturalism. I will
>>> await your explanation.
>>
>> It's clear you neither understand what is meant by methodological
>> naturalism, or strong philosophic naturalism. Methodological
>> naturalism is the tool used by science which limits explanations to
>> testable ideas. Philosophic naturalism is the belief that nothing
>> beyond the natural exists. None of my points above "deny" the meaning
>> of methodological naturalism.
>>
>> Out of curiosity, what do you think "methodological naturalism" means?
>>
>
> It means as long as one accepts what the scientific establishment says
> is scientific fact, one can believe these facts to support their view
> of God, whether it be Atheism, Deism, Agnosticism or Theism.
impression is entirely mistaken.
Methodological naturalism is not about accepting what the
"establishment" says, or holding any particular religious belief. It's
accepting that for the purposes of science, only testable, and
falsifiable ideas are presented to explain natural events. It's a
necessary condition for doing science, as untestable ideas are
impossible to confirm, or reject.
Science is not in the business of supporting, or denying religious
beliefs. Whatever religious position one holds, it is a matter of
faith, or lack of faith.
DJT
T Pagano
Feb 17, 2012, 9:53:10 PM2/17/12
to
On Fri, 17 Feb 2012 12:29:30 -0800, John Harshman
<jhar...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>T Pagano wrote:
>> On Tue, 14 Feb 2012 13:08:46 -0800 (PST), Ray Martinez
>> <pyram...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On Feb 14, 4:35 am, Ron O <rokim...@cox.net> wrote:
>>>> On Feb 13, 9:25 pm, T Pagano <not.va...@address.net> wrote:
>>>>
snip
<jhar...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>T Pagano wrote:
>> On Tue, 14 Feb 2012 13:08:46 -0800 (PST), Ray Martinez
>> <pyram...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On Feb 14, 4:35 am, Ron O <rokim...@cox.net> wrote:
>>>> On Feb 13, 9:25 pm, T Pagano <not.va...@address.net> wrote:
>>>>
>> I have over 1800 posts available at the talk.origins google archive
>> and Ray couldn't produce one them which even implies that I accept
>> so-called macro evolution.
>
>Actually, you do accept macroevolution, to a certain degree. You have at
>least come very close to admitting that a number of species are related
>by common descent,
seems to explain little more than non progressive changes like
antibiotic resistance. Changes which almost vanish when the
antibiotic environment vanishes. Progressive, transformational change
is disconfirmed at every observable point. Lenski's 20+ year and
45,000+ generation E coli experiment likewise shows the utter
hopelessness of anything faintly resembling coherent, progressive,
transformational change. So "Macroevolution" is false. Ray is aware
of my views in this area and so to accuse me of accepting [purely
naturalistic] macroevolution amounts to a bold faced lie. But I
digress. . . . .
Special Creation is the model that God instantly created, a finite
number of fully-formed and mature original kinds. The historical
model suggests that all other populations that have existed on Earth
descended from these original kinds. And that the radiations from the
original kinds are NOT the result of Darwin's mechanism but the result
of information already contained within the population of each
originial kind. There is no naturalistic process of macroevolution.
Admittedly the model is immature and vague but only slightly more so
than the hand waving of neoDarwinism. Nonetheless it is consistent
with the fossil record. The model does not predict gradualistic
transformational change. Even from a theoretical perspective it is
distinguishable from neoDarwinian "macroevolution. Our own Dr
Theobald showed in his peer reviewed Nature article that his cladistic
analysis could distinguish between the two.
> and officially anything beyond the species level
>counts as macroevolution.
false from abiogenetic root to the end nodes. This also presumes that
"species" is of any diagnostic value in evaluating neoDarwinian
macroevolutionary claims. Cichlids speciate rapidly and yet they have
not transformed into anything else.
If neoDarwinian gradualistic evolutionary change were true "species"
is merely a point on a linear path; it has no real significance.
Furthermore Gould's Punc Eq didn't consider all speciation events to
be equally likely to produce transformational change. And PE hasn't
proved terribly fruitful either. So in what way is "species"
significant?
> Of course you have ignored my challenge in
>which you were asked to clarify the degree to which you accept
>macroevolution. But weasel as you may, you have already agreed to some.
process. And by all accounts it is false. It is an unobservable
and undirected process which argues that in approximately 1 billion
years, 1-2 million species were created that never existed before. Yet
Wolperts' "No Free Lunch" THEOREMS proved conclusively that EVERY
evolutionary algorithm (including the neoDarwinian one) is no better
or worse at finding fitness peaks than a blind search.
The best evidence that the defeated Elsberry could produce for
transformational change was the minor changes of a foram shell from
less spherical to more spherical. It took 15 million years for the
minor change and nothing new was created. And Harshman thinks the
same process can produce a bacterial flagellum, heart, liver, eye and
brain?
The creationist model does not require an evolutionary algorithm. The
information for the various populations radiating from the original
kinds is programmed in. It may be that the latest research into the
epigenome may shed some light on this.
>> Ray is well aware of this fact and as a
>> result Ray has now become a liar. Since Ray resorts to lying his word
>> is now worthless.
>
>There's no real point in arguing about which creationist is more
>dishonest than another.
therefore we are dishonest. Unfortunately that isn't dishonesty.
Otherwise offer the link where I have intentionally offered a
statement as true which I knew to be false. Ray knows that I dispute
macroevolution yet he claimed I accepted it. This is dishonest.
Regards,
T Pagano
RAM
Feb 17, 2012, 10:00:37 PM2/17/12
to
On Feb 17, 8:53 pm, T Pagano <not.va...@address.net> wrote:
> On Fri, 17 Feb 2012 12:29:30 -0800, John Harshman
>
> On Fri, 17 Feb 2012 12:29:30 -0800, John Harshman
>
it?
John Harshman
Feb 17, 2012, 11:38:26 PM2/17/12
to
T Pagano wrote:
> On Fri, 17 Feb 2012 12:29:30 -0800, John Harshman
> <jhar...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>
>> T Pagano wrote:
>>> On Tue, 14 Feb 2012 13:08:46 -0800 (PST), Ray Martinez
>>> <pyram...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Feb 14, 4:35 am, Ron O <rokim...@cox.net> wrote:
>>>>> On Feb 13, 9:25 pm, T Pagano <not.va...@address.net> wrote:
>>>>>
>
> snip
>
>
>>> I have over 1800 posts available at the talk.origins google archive
>>> and Ray couldn't produce one them which even implies that I accept
>>> so-called macro evolution.
>> Actually, you do accept macroevolution, to a certain degree. You have at
>> least come very close to admitting that a number of species are related
>> by common descent,
>
>
> Abiogenesis is false (or at best stagnated)
Irrelevant even if correct.
> On Fri, 17 Feb 2012 12:29:30 -0800, John Harshman
> <jhar...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>
>> T Pagano wrote:
>>> On Tue, 14 Feb 2012 13:08:46 -0800 (PST), Ray Martinez
>>> <pyram...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Feb 14, 4:35 am, Ron O <rokim...@cox.net> wrote:
>>>>> On Feb 13, 9:25 pm, T Pagano <not.va...@address.net> wrote:
>>>>>
>
> snip
>
>
>>> I have over 1800 posts available at the talk.origins google archive
>>> and Ray couldn't produce one them which even implies that I accept
>>> so-called macro evolution.
>> Actually, you do accept macroevolution, to a certain degree. You have at
>> least come very close to admitting that a number of species are related
>> by common descent,
>
>
> Abiogenesis is false (or at best stagnated)
> and Darwin's mechanism
> seems to explain little more than non progressive changes like
> antibiotic resistance.
> Changes which almost vanish when the
> antibiotic environment vanishes. Progressive, transformational change
> is disconfirmed at every observable point. Lenski's 20+ year and
> 45,000+ generation E coli experiment likewise shows the utter
> hopelessness of anything faintly resembling coherent, progressive,
> transformational change.
> So "Macroevolution" is false.
Ah, I see your problem. You appear to have a personal definition of
"macroevolution". This is not the common definition. I'm not sure what
definition Ray is using, but it appears to count any speciation. So it's
quite a different definition from yours. His is actually closer to the
usual one than yours is.
> Ray is aware
> of my views in this area and so to accuse me of accepting [purely
> naturalistic] macroevolution amounts to a bold faced lie. But I
> digress. . . . .
by accident.
> Special Creation is the model that God instantly created, a finite
> number of fully-formed and mature original kinds. The historical
> model suggests that all other populations that have existed on Earth
> descended from these original kinds. And that the radiations from the
> original kinds are NOT the result of Darwin's mechanism but the result
> of information already contained within the population of each
> originial kind. There is no naturalistic process of macroevolution.
by whatever mechanism, it's macroevolution.
> Admittedly the model is immature and vague but only slightly more so
> than the hand waving of neoDarwinism.
falsified by the data, at least assuming we can pin you down on what
some particular "kinds" might encompass. I've tried to get you to agree
to a few specifics, without success. For example, I've made several
attempts to determine if you think all paleognath birds are a single
kind, or perhaps all birds. So far either no answer or a weaselly answer.
> Nonetheless it is consistent
> with the fossil record.
identify the kinds and determine which strata represent the original
creation, before diversification of the kinds. Go ahead and give it a
shot, though.
> The model does not predict gradualistic
> transformational change.
non-transformational change, though, doesn't it? Oddly, if you believe
the claims of stasis advocates, the fossil record doesn't show much of
any sort of gradual change, whether transformational or not. Therefore,
if the evolution model is falsified, so is yours.
> Even from a theoretical perspective it is
> distinguishable from neoDarwinian "macroevolution. Our own Dr
> Theobald showed in his peer reviewed Nature article that his cladistic
> analysis could distinguish between the two.
the basis of the data?
>> and officially anything beyond the species level
>> counts as macroevolution.
>
> This is according to the atheist framework which by all accounts is
> false from abiogenetic root to the end nodes.
define words any way you like. That's glory for you.
> This also presumes that
> "species" is of any diagnostic value in evaluating neoDarwinian
> macroevolutionary claims. Cichlids speciate rapidly and yet they have
> not transformed into anything else.
> If neoDarwinian gradualistic evolutionary change were true "species"
> is merely a point on a linear path; it has no real significance.
necessary linear. But you are correct that the usual species concepts
have trouble if extended too far either in time or in space. They work
best in one time and place.
> Furthermore Gould's Punc Eq didn't consider all speciation events to
> be equally likely to produce transformational change. And PE hasn't
> proved terribly fruitful either. So in what way is "species"
> significant?
transformational change. Gould would say it takes several speciation
events to add up to a big change. Species are significant generally
because of their existence in the modern world. Would you agree that
there are such things as separate species today? If not, why not?
>> Of course you have ignored my challenge in
>> which you were asked to clarify the degree to which you accept
>> macroevolution. But weasel as you may, you have already agreed to some.
>
> I don't accept it at all----it is a purely naturalistic, neoDarwinian
> process. And by all accounts it is false. It is an unobservable
> and undirected process which argues that in approximately 1 billion
> years, 1-2 million species were created that never existed before.
accept macroevolution within "kinds". Pay attention.
> Yet
> Wolperts' "No Free Lunch" THEOREMS proved conclusively that EVERY
> evolutionary algorithm (including the neoDarwinian one) is no better
> or worse at finding fitness peaks than a blind search.
which Wolpert himself denies. Felsenstein briefly described Dembski's
most serious misunderstanding: NFL applies when averaged over all
posssible fitness surfaces, in most of which there is no correlation of
fitness values between adjacent points. A random fitness surface means
that no search is better than random. However, on real fitness surfaces,
where adjacent points are correlated, search algorithms have something
to go on.
> The best evidence that the defeated Elsberry could produce for
> transformational change was the minor changes of a foram shell from
> less spherical to more spherical.
weasel word was your later addendum.
> It took 15 million years for the
> minor change and nothing new was created. And Harshman thinks the
> same process can produce a bacterial flagellum, heart, liver, eye and
> brain?
course for soft anatomy the fossil record isn't the main evidence. On
the other hand, for such readily preserved features as middle ear bones,
the fossil record is pretty good.
> The creationist model does not require an evolutionary algorithm. The
> information for the various populations radiating from the original
> kinds is programmed in. It may be that the latest research into the
> epigenome may shed some light on this.
of a meaningless buzzword you heard recently. Do you have any evidence
at all for this contention of preprogrammed diversity? I thought not.
>>> Ray is well aware of this fact and as a
>>> result Ray has now become a liar. Since Ray resorts to lying his word
>>> is now worthless.
>> There's no real point in arguing about which creationist is more
>> dishonest than another.
>
> Yes, of course. We all disagree with the all-knowing atheists and
> therefore we are dishonest. Unfortunately that isn't dishonesty.
dishonesty lies mostly in claims to have won this or that battle, while
in reality what you do is post once, ignore the refutations, run away,
and return later on to make entirely unmodified claims as if the
refutations had never happened. That's seriously dishonest.
> Otherwise offer the link where I have intentionally offered a
> statement as true which I knew to be false.
> Ray knows that I dispute
> macroevolution yet he claimed I accepted it. This is dishonest.
standard one, while the one you reject is your personal definition.
John Harshman
Feb 17, 2012, 11:38:57 PM2/17/12
to
Bob Casanova
Feb 18, 2012, 12:40:42 PM2/18/12
to
On Wed, 15 Feb 2012 10:03:01 -0700, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off>:
>On Wed, 15 Feb 2012 03:52:09 -0800 (PST), the following
>appeared in talk.origins, posted by backspace
><steph...@gmail.com>:
>
>>Is science the same thing as falsificationism?
>
>Once you define "falsificationism" your question can be
>addressed.
[Crickets...]
No longer interested, huh? Typical.
in talk.origins, posted by Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off>:
>On Wed, 15 Feb 2012 03:52:09 -0800 (PST), the following
>appeared in talk.origins, posted by backspace
><steph...@gmail.com>:
>
>>Is science the same thing as falsificationism?
>
>Once you define "falsificationism" your question can be
>addressed.
No longer interested, huh? Typical.
RAM
Feb 18, 2012, 12:56:42 PM2/18/12
to
"close imitation," or "purloining and publication" of another author's
"language, thoughts, . . .
Stolen from the following web site: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plagiarism
Bob Casanova
Feb 18, 2012, 1:22:09 PM2/18/12
to
On Fri, 17 Feb 2012 15:17:48 -0500, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by T Pagano <not....@address.net>:
<snip>
>Natural selection, (so-called) microevolution, and common descent are
>undeniable and observable. That Ray denies them makes him
>delusional.
>
>I have over 1800 posts available at the talk.origins google archive
>and Ray couldn't produce one them which even implies that I accept
>so-called macro evolution. Ray is well aware of this fact and as a
>result Ray has now become a liar. Since Ray resorts to lying his word
>is now worthless.
This is fascinating. Common descent is "undeniable and
observable", but macroevolution isn't.
Exactly what do macroevolution and common descent entail, in
your mind, which keeps them from being inextricably
entwined, O Great Guru?
Er, you *do* realize that common descent involves
speciation, which is macroevolution, right?
<snip>
in talk.origins, posted by T Pagano <not....@address.net>:
<snip>
>Natural selection, (so-called) microevolution, and common descent are
>undeniable and observable. That Ray denies them makes him
>delusional.
>
>I have over 1800 posts available at the talk.origins google archive
>and Ray couldn't produce one them which even implies that I accept
>so-called macro evolution. Ray is well aware of this fact and as a
>result Ray has now become a liar. Since Ray resorts to lying his word
>is now worthless.
observable", but macroevolution isn't.
Exactly what do macroevolution and common descent entail, in
your mind, which keeps them from being inextricably
entwined, O Great Guru?
Er, you *do* realize that common descent involves
speciation, which is macroevolution, right?
<snip>
Bob Casanova
Feb 18, 2012, 1:29:01 PM2/18/12
to
On Fri, 17 Feb 2012 12:29:30 -0800, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by John Harshman
<jhar...@pacbell.net>:
>T Pagano wrote:
<snip>
>> Natural selection, (so-called) microevolution, and common descent are
>> undeniable and observable. That Ray denies them makes him
>> delusional.
>>
>> I have over 1800 posts available at the talk.origins google archive
>> and Ray couldn't produce one them which even implies that I accept
>> so-called macro evolution.
>Actually, you do accept macroevolution, to a certain degree. You have at
>least come very close to admitting that a number of species are related
>by common descent, and officially anything beyond the species level
>counts as macroevolution.
According to this Wiki entry (yeah, I know...)...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Macroevolution
macroevolution is the correct term for speciation as well as
above-species evolution.
If that is correct Tony rejects macroevolution but accepts
common descent, which necessarily includes macroevolution;
I'd argue that even if macroevolution were restricted to
evolution above the level of species it would still be
required by common descent. Just my 20 mills...
in talk.origins, posted by John Harshman
<jhar...@pacbell.net>:
>T Pagano wrote:
<snip>
>> Natural selection, (so-called) microevolution, and common descent are
>> undeniable and observable. That Ray denies them makes him
>> delusional.
>>
>> I have over 1800 posts available at the talk.origins google archive
>> and Ray couldn't produce one them which even implies that I accept
>> so-called macro evolution.
>Actually, you do accept macroevolution, to a certain degree. You have at
>least come very close to admitting that a number of species are related
>by common descent, and officially anything beyond the species level
>counts as macroevolution.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Macroevolution
macroevolution is the correct term for speciation as well as
above-species evolution.
If that is correct Tony rejects macroevolution but accepts
common descent, which necessarily includes macroevolution;
I'd argue that even if macroevolution were restricted to
evolution above the level of species it would still be
required by common descent. Just my 20 mills...
RAM
Feb 18, 2012, 2:09:32 PM2/18/12
to
quote. I was trying to be too cute by half and without reviewing
what I wrote (my bad habit), I hit "Send."
Ray Martinez
Feb 18, 2012, 3:13:25 PM2/18/12
to
macroevolution to exist in nature.
For Tony (excuse me, John): I answered your charge of lying in the
spin-off topic you created with my name in the topic title. Your
inability to see or understand that you do accept a limited amount of
macroevolution is indicative of your overall problem: lack of
objective understanding of the basic claims of Darwinian evolution.
The fact that you think immutability presupposes or allows for its
antonym (limited mutability) is probably the best indication of your
problem (subjective understanding).
Ray
>
> - Show quoted text -
Frank J
Feb 18, 2012, 6:02:16 PM2/18/12
to
On Feb 17, 9:53 pm, T Pagano <not.va...@address.net> wrote:
(snip incessant whining, with no mention of, let alone attempt to
support, an alterneta explanation)
> It is an unobservable
> and undirected process which argues that in approximately 1 billion
> years, 1-2 million species were created that never existed before.
That's about the # of new species that appeared in your lifetime
alone, but it's instructive to know that, after all these years you
still refuse to describe evolution - the fact or the theory - as
mainstream science does.
> Yet
> Wolperts' "No Free Lunch" THEOREMS proved conclusively that EVERY
> evolutionary algorithm (including the neoDarwinian one) is no better
> or worse at finding fitness peaks than a blind search.
You need to replace a few million irony meters with that one. Do the
words "written in Jello" mean anything to you?
>
> The best evidence that the defeated Elsberry could produce for
> transformational change was the minor changes of a foram shell from
> less spherical to more spherical. It took 15 million years for the
> minor change and nothing new was created. And Harshman thinks the
> same process can produce a bacterial flagellum, heart, liver, eye and
> brain?
>
> The creationist model does not require an evolutionary algorithm. The
> information for the various populations radiating from the original
> kinds is programmed in. It may be that the latest research into the
> epigenome may shed some light on this.
>
> >> Ray is well aware of this fact and as a
> >> result Ray has now become a liar. Since Ray resorts to lying his word
> >> is now worthless.
>
> >There's no real point in arguing about which creationist is more
> >dishonest than another.
>
> Yes, of course. We all disagree with the all-knowing atheists
As well as many *theists*:
http://ncse.com/media/voices/religion
http://www.theclergyletterproject.org/
> therefore we are dishonest. Unfortunately that isn't dishonesty.
>
> Otherwise offer the link where I have intentionally offered a
> statement as true which I knew to be false. Ray knows that I dispute
> macroevolution yet he claimed I accepted it. This is dishonest.
Link please. Ray denies "micro" as well as "macro." Are you sure that
he didn't complain that you accept "micro"? Or if not that it may have
been a typo or "Freudian slip"?
>
> Regards,
> T Pagano
(snip incessant whining, with no mention of, let alone attempt to
support, an alterneta explanation)
> It is an unobservable
> and undirected process which argues that in approximately 1 billion
> years, 1-2 million species were created that never existed before.
alone, but it's instructive to know that, after all these years you
still refuse to describe evolution - the fact or the theory - as
mainstream science does.
> Yet
> Wolperts' "No Free Lunch" THEOREMS proved conclusively that EVERY
> evolutionary algorithm (including the neoDarwinian one) is no better
> or worse at finding fitness peaks than a blind search.
words "written in Jello" mean anything to you?
>
> The best evidence that the defeated Elsberry could produce for
> transformational change was the minor changes of a foram shell from
> less spherical to more spherical. It took 15 million years for the
> minor change and nothing new was created. And Harshman thinks the
> same process can produce a bacterial flagellum, heart, liver, eye and
> brain?
>
> The creationist model does not require an evolutionary algorithm. The
> information for the various populations radiating from the original
> kinds is programmed in. It may be that the latest research into the
> epigenome may shed some light on this.
>
> >> Ray is well aware of this fact and as a
> >> result Ray has now become a liar. Since Ray resorts to lying his word
> >> is now worthless.
>
> >There's no real point in arguing about which creationist is more
> >dishonest than another.
>
> Yes, of course. We all disagree with the all-knowing atheists
http://ncse.com/media/voices/religion
http://www.theclergyletterproject.org/
> therefore we are dishonest. Unfortunately that isn't dishonesty.
>
> Otherwise offer the link where I have intentionally offered a
> statement as true which I knew to be false. Ray knows that I dispute
> macroevolution yet he claimed I accepted it. This is dishonest.
he didn't complain that you accept "micro"? Or if not that it may have
been a typo or "Freudian slip"?
>
> Regards,
> T Pagano
Bob Casanova
Feb 21, 2012, 11:12:15 AM2/21/12
to
On Sat, 18 Feb 2012 11:22:09 -0700, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off>:
>On Fri, 17 Feb 2012 15:17:48 -0500, the following appeared
>in talk.origins, posted by T Pagano <not....@address.net>:
>
><snip>
>
>>Natural selection, (so-called) microevolution, and common descent are
>>undeniable and observable. That Ray denies them makes him
>>delusional.
>>
>>I have over 1800 posts available at the talk.origins google archive
>>and Ray couldn't produce one them which even implies that I accept
>>so-called macro evolution. Ray is well aware of this fact and as a
>>result Ray has now become a liar. Since Ray resorts to lying his word
>>is now worthless.
>
>This is fascinating. Common descent is "undeniable and
>observable", but macroevolution isn't.
>
>Exactly what do macroevolution and common descent entail, in
>your mind, which keeps them from being inextricably
>entwined, O Great Guru?
>
>Er, you *do* realize that common descent involves
>speciation, which is macroevolution, right?
[Crickets...]
....and Tony the Brave retreats yet again...
in talk.origins, posted by Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off>:
>On Fri, 17 Feb 2012 15:17:48 -0500, the following appeared
>in talk.origins, posted by T Pagano <not....@address.net>:
>
><snip>
>
>>Natural selection, (so-called) microevolution, and common descent are
>>undeniable and observable. That Ray denies them makes him
>>delusional.
>>
>>I have over 1800 posts available at the talk.origins google archive
>>and Ray couldn't produce one them which even implies that I accept
>>so-called macro evolution. Ray is well aware of this fact and as a
>>result Ray has now become a liar. Since Ray resorts to lying his word
>>is now worthless.
>
>This is fascinating. Common descent is "undeniable and
>observable", but macroevolution isn't.
>
>Exactly what do macroevolution and common descent entail, in
>your mind, which keeps them from being inextricably
>entwined, O Great Guru?
>
>Er, you *do* realize that common descent involves
>speciation, which is macroevolution, right?
....and Tony the Brave retreats yet again...
Ray Martinez
Feb 21, 2012, 2:19:37 PM2/21/12
to
On Feb 17, 6:39 pm, Dana Tweedy <reddfrog...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 2/17/12 4:21 PM, Ray Martinez wrote:> On Feb 16, 1:35 pm, Dana Tweedy<reddfrog...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> snip
>
> >>> which means he accepts Methodological Naturalism.
>
> >> No, it doesn't. Accepting methodological naturalism means one accepts
> >> that natural processes are the only testable explanation for natural
> >> events. Tony still believes that appeal to the supernatural is
> >> acceptable for explaining natural events.
>
> > IF true, that is, IF Tony accepts Intelligent agency causing
> > selection, microevolution and common descent, then I would have to
> > agree: Tony rejects MN. This means that he really doesn't accept
> > natural selection, microevolution and common descent because these
> > concepts were accepted as caused by unintelligent natural forces or
> > mechanisms.
>
> As has been pointed out to you many times over, this is not true. To
> science it doesn't matter if the process is purely "unintelligent" or
> has an intelligent origin. The process remains the same.
>
Abiogenesis "research" continues unabated and is, of course, the view
> On 2/17/12 4:21 PM, Ray Martinez wrote:> On Feb 16, 1:35 pm, Dana Tweedy<reddfrog...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> snip
>
> >>> which means he accepts Methodological Naturalism.
>
> >> No, it doesn't. Accepting methodological naturalism means one accepts
> >> that natural processes are the only testable explanation for natural
> >> events. Tony still believes that appeal to the supernatural is
> >> acceptable for explaining natural events.
>
> > IF true, that is, IF Tony accepts Intelligent agency causing
> > selection, microevolution and common descent, then I would have to
> > agree: Tony rejects MN. This means that he really doesn't accept
> > natural selection, microevolution and common descent because these
> > concepts were accepted as caused by unintelligent natural forces or
> > mechanisms.
>
> As has been pointed out to you many times over, this is not true. To
> science it doesn't matter if the process is purely "unintelligent" or
> has an intelligent origin. The process remains the same.
>
of science today.
>
>
> > Tony doesn't understand the logical necessity of effects or products
> > corresponding to the correct agent of causation. He conflates them
> > each and everytime.
>
> Ray, you are the one who confuses cause and effect. Although every
> effect must have a cause, one doesn't need to know the cause to observe
> the effect.
>
>
>
> > IF Intelligence is causing then no effect or product can be described
> > as evolutionary.
>
> Wrong again, Ray. Evolution is defined as allele change within a
> population over generations. There is no requirement the changes be
> caused by an "unintelligent" agent. One may describe any change that
> involves change in allele frequencies in populations over generations as
> evolutionary, no matter what the cause.
>
one can believe it is caused by an intelligent agent. Tony believes
exactly that yet he is rejected as anti-science.
Apparently Dana has forgotten the overall context. He will undoubtedly
blame me, his opponent, since he is incapable of making a mistake when
conversing with an IDist.
>
>
> > IF unintelligence is causing then no effect or product can be
> > described as designed.
>
> This is your own conceit. No one else agrees, and no one is required to
> agree with your mistake.
>
Finish reply ASAP.
Ray
Ray Martinez
Feb 21, 2012, 4:04:36 PM2/21/12
to
What I said is perfectly logical and remains true regardless. What you
are saying is utterly illogical. This is why evolution is rejected:
design corresponds to Intelligence, not unintelligence; evolution
corresponds to unintelligence, not Intelligence.
>
>
> > I suspect that Tony accepts both agents of causation operating in
> > nature.
>
> If so, he would be most likely correct. There's no reason both can't
> operate at the same time.
>
advocates.
By his own standards, and Ron Okimoto's, Dana is anti-science. He
allows Intelligent causation.
Ray
Ray Martinez
Feb 21, 2012, 4:20:16 PM2/21/12
to
"Naturalism."
> >> Out of curiosity, what do you think "methodological naturalism" means?
>
> > It means as long as one accepts what the scientific establishment says
> > is scientific fact, one can believe these facts to support their view
>
> > of God, whether it be Atheism, Deism, Agnosticism or Theism.
>
> Wrong. No wonder you don't understand methodological naturalism. Your
> impression is entirely mistaken.
>
> Methodological naturalism is not about accepting what the
> "establishment" says, or holding any particular religious belief. It's
> accepting that for the purposes of science, only testable, and
> falsifiable ideas are presented to explain natural events. It's a
> necessary condition for doing science, as untestable ideas are
> impossible to confirm, or reject.
>
> Science is not in the business of supporting, or denying religious
> beliefs. Whatever religious position one holds, it is a matter of
> faith, or lack of faith.
>
> DJT
"As has been pointed out to you many times over, this is not true. To
science it doesn't matter if the process is purely "unintelligent" or
has an intelligent origin. The process remains the same....Wrong
science it doesn't matter if the process is purely "unintelligent" or
again, Ray. Evolution is defined as allele change within a population
over generations. There is no requirement the changes be caused by an
"unintelligent" agent. One may describe any change that involves
change in allele frequencies in populations over generations as
evolutionary, no matter what the cause" (Dana Tweedy).
over generations. There is no requirement the changes be caused by an
"unintelligent" agent. One may describe any change that involves
change in allele frequencies in populations over generations as
(Ray Martinez:) "I suspect that Tony accepts both agents of causation
operating in nature."
"If so, he would be most likely correct. There's no reason both can't
operate at the same time" (Dana Tweedy).
"If so, he would be most likely correct. There's no reason both can't
Like I said, "methodological naturalism" means as long as one accepts
the facts produced by Darwinian science one can believe whatever one
wishes regarding their view of God, whether that view is Atheism,
Deism, Agnosticism or Theism.
The quotes by Dana support my definition (despite his ignorant and
laughable assertion that evolution allows Intelligent causation/
Creationism).
Ray
Ray Martinez
Feb 21, 2012, 8:50:22 PM2/21/12
to
I said Tony accepts the concept of macroevolution to exist in nature.
It is true, he accepts macro within (not between) original kinds; this
is why I said he accepts the concept of macroevolution to exist in
nature, however. IF Tony accepts Intelligent causation producing said
effect then he does NOT accept the concept to exist in nature.
Ray
Rolf
Feb 22, 2012, 4:13:57 AM2/22/12
to
existence, it is just or habit of creating words to explain aspects of
nature.
> Ray
Rolf
Feb 26, 2012, 9:27:56 AM2/26/12
to
Evolution is based on interpretation of a lot of facts and observations, all
of which you are in complete ignorance and denial. It does not in any way
depend on what Darwin wrote. It depends on 150 years of scientific
investigation.
Now please tell: How do you know the designer is invisible? When did he do
it, where, and by what methods?
Is 'invisible designer' just another name for God? If that is what it is,
why don't you say god if you mean God?
Rolf
Feb 26, 2012, 9:33:04 AM2/26/12
to
Isn't it a fact the there is only one way of doinf science: With honesty and
integrity study and observe the world (not dubious, ancient scriptures!) and
draw conclusions based on sound application of intellect.
Not by robotic repetition of "I belive Goddidit therefore it is true".
> The quotes by Dana support my definition (despite his ignorant and
> laughable assertion that evolution allows Intelligent causation/
> Creationism).
>
0 new messages