Sean Pitman: Cutting to the Chase
Ilas
greatest scientific discovery *of all time*. You have disproved evolution
and proved intelligent beings or entities are not limited to this world
(and incidentally gone further towards proving a god than anybody in
history). Why do you not publish this astounding research in reputable peer
reviewed journals for the lesser scientists to pick over? Usenet is really
not the place for such astonishing news (and I mean that without a trace of
sarcasm; it really would be astonishing). If there is no problem with it,
the Nobel, and ever lasting worldwide admiration is yours. So, when are you
going to publish it? If you're not, why not? (Please answer that last one
without reference to a world wide atheist conspiracy).
Frank J
Nice try, but as Dembski said, ID accommodates all the results of
"Darwinism," so there really is nothing in ID that qualifies for peer-
reviewed science journals. And - this is very important - *not*
because anyone "expels" IDers other than IDers *themselves*. Dembski
admitted that too with his famous comment that ID does not need to
"connect the dots," and with his admission that he *prefers* the non-
peer reviewed literature to peddle his "theory."
But unlike Dembski and the other "don't ask, don't tell" IDers, Sean
apparently has evidence for more than just ID. Apparently he thinks
that humans do not share common ancestors with other species. Now
*that* qualifies for peer-reviewed science journals - and virtually
guarantees him fame and fortune if he can deliver the evidence.
He even has an advantage over mainstream scientists because he can
submit his proposal here, and we can give him free help with writing
it:
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/7563bdc1848942b6?hl=en
Robert Camp
If I'm not mistaken (and I very well could be, I don't read all of his
posts nor have I visited his website), Sean doesn't claim to have
proof of ID. He claims to have a testable hypothesis along the lines
of SETI research (he's wrong about this but that's a different story).
He seems to see his 1000aa challenge as a reasonable and pertinent
test of that hypothesis (he's also wrong about this, and that too is
another story).
Sean has admitted to being a creationist so it's no stretch to say
that he certainly believes an Intelligent Designer has been
substantially involved. And there's plenty wrong with his ideas
(including a whole host of problems with his hypothesis itself) but in
my experience he's been careful enough not to claim to have proof of
anything.
RLC
fc...@verizon.net
He's very careful, at least lately, to only claim to have an argument
for the improbability of "RM/NS" to affect certain biological changes
- not even a qualitative barrier as Behe had with IC (though Behe too
seems to have retreated to improbability arguments (also bogus) in
"Edge of Evolution"). The first thing any scientist who truly believed
that something other than RM/NS is necessary (or far more probable)
would to would be to clearly state and test his alternative, and
reject it if it doesn't pass the tests. None of that requires stating
whether one believes that a designer (or some supernatural process)
was necessary. In my reply to Ilas I offer Sean the opportunity to do
that.
Any bets that he'll take the offer?
Hey Ray, if you're reading, the offer goes to you too.
Robert Camp
Well, he hasn't taken it any of the multiple times it's been suggested
before, so I don't suppose this time will be any different.
> Hey Ray, if you're reading, the offer goes to you too.
C'mon, that's not fair. Sean, at least, has the tools to apprehend and
address your ideas (regardless of whether he does so). Ray has
cognitive deficits that make it impossible for him to identify and
evaluate reality. Your offer could be the straw responsible for
sending him off dancing naked in the mall or driving his car backwards
on the freeway (assuming he hasn't already).
RLC (noctiluca)
seanpi...@naturalselection.0catch.com
There's not a "conspiracy" per se - at least not in any sort of
conscious manner. However, there is a very intense passion against
anything remotely resembling a challenge of the fundamental doctrines
of the ToE. Even mainstream scientists are human and prone to very
strong feelings against anything and anyone who challenges pet ideas.
In fact, the ToE is held onto so strongly and so passionately by many
mainstream scientists today that it takes on an almost sacred status
for them. These men and women are often just as dogmatic and
passionate about their belief in the ToE as any group of hardened
sectarian fundamentalists in any church-going community. Many within
mainstream science have been ostracized and have even lost their jobs
for daring to question the holy untouchable doctrines of the ToE.
My point is that this isn't some topic of dispassionate
consideration. It reaches into the very soul of who many people think
they are. Such people are simply not going to consider anything
counter to the ToE in a thoughtful dispassionate non-biased manner.
Many may suggest otherwise, that scientists are dispassionate in their
work and search for "truth", but I am not so optimistic. This isn't
because I've never published in scientific journals. I have published
quite a number of times - in the fields of general pathology and
hematopathology. One of my publications was used to challenge and
change the basis of a form of Hodgkin lymphoma classification.
However, those areas of mainstream science are not as passionately
defended as is the ToE.
Sean Pitman
www.DetectingDesign.com
seanpi...@naturalselection.0catch.com
>
>
>
> > On Jan 28, 6:45 am, Ilas <nob...@this.address.com> wrote:
>
> > >Sean, you claim to have proof of ID. If so, there's no doubt this is the
> > > greatest scientific discovery *of all time*. You have disproved evolution
> > > and proved intelligent beings or entities are not limited to this world
> > > (and incidentally gone further towards proving a god than anybody in
> > > history). Why do you not publish this astounding research in reputable peer
> > > reviewed journals for the lesser scientists to pick over? Usenet is really
> > > not the place for such astonishing news (and I mean that without a trace of
> > > sarcasm; it really would be astonishing). If there is no problem with it,
> > > the Nobel, and ever lasting worldwide admiration is yours. So, when are you
> > > going to publish it? If you're not, why not? (Please answer that last one
> > > without reference to a world wide atheist conspiracy).
>
> > If I'm not mistaken (and I very well could be, I don't read all of his
> > proof of ID. He claims to have a testable hypothesis along the lines
> > of SETI research (he's wrong about this but that's a different story).
> > He seems to see his 1000aa challenge as a reasonable and pertinent
> > test of that hypothesis (he's also wrong about this, and that too is
> > another story).
>
> > that he certainly believes an Intelligent Designer has been
> > substantially involved. And there's plenty wrong with his ideas
> > (including a whole host of problems with his hypothesis itself) but in
> > my experience he's been careful enough not to claim to have proof of
> > anything.
>
> > RLC
>
> He's very careful, at least lately, to only claim to have an argument
> for the improbability of "RM/NS" to affect certain biological changes
> - not even a qualitative barrier as Behe had with IC (though Behe too
> seems to have retreated to improbability arguments (also bogus) in
> "Edge of Evolution"). The first thing any scientist who truly believed
> that something other than RM/NS is necessary (or far more probable)
> would to would be to clearly state and test his alternative, and
> reject it if it doesn't pass the tests. None of that requires stating
> whether one believes that a designer (or some supernatural process)
> that.
>
> Any bets that he'll take the offer?
>
> Hey Ray, if you're reading, the offer goes to you too.
My proposed "alternative" to RM/NS is human-level ID. This
alternative hypothesis has already been tested beyond the 1000 fsaar
level of functional complexity and has passed the test. Humans can
and are producing functional biosystems well beyond the 1000 fsaar
threshold level. Nothing in mindless nature comes remotely close - to
include RM/NS.
So, having successfully met your "challenge" - what do I "win"? ; )
Sean Pitman
www.DetectingDesign.com
hersheyh
> On Jan 28, 6:45 am, Ilas <nob...@this.address.com> wrote:
>
> > Sean, you claim to have proof of ID. If so, there's no doubt this is the
> > greatest scientific discovery *of all time*. You have disproved evolution
> > and proved intelligent beings or entities are not limited to this world
> > (and incidentally gone further towards proving a god than anybody in
> > history). Why do you not publish this astounding research in reputable peer
> > reviewed journals for the lesser scientists to pick over? Usenet is really
> > not the place for such astonishing news (and I mean that without a trace of
> > sarcasm; it really would be astonishing). If there is no problem with it,
> > the Nobel, and ever lasting worldwide admiration is yours. So, when are you
> > going to publish it? If you're not, why not? (Please answer that last one
> > without reference to a world wide atheist conspiracy).
>
> There's not a "conspiracy" per se - at least not in any sort of
> conscious manner. However, there is a very intense passion against
> anything remotely resembling a challenge of the fundamental doctrines
> of the ToE.
Might I suggest, then, that you not mention your alternative magical
fairy hypothesis, but simply produce a paper where you explain in
sufficiently accurate and detailed fashion (including a description of
all your math) all the evidence that proteins larger than 1000 fsaars
cannot arise by what you amusingly label RM/NS? Having done that, all
you need is to say that a mechanism other than what you amusingly
label RM/NS is needed to explain the existence of such systems.
*If* your argument that such systems cannot be produced by RM/NS is
any good, even the most ardent evolutionary biologist could support
it. After all, what could be more exciting than the possiblity that
something other than RM/NS is required for proteins larger than 1000
fsaar's. You can let them search for alternatives. Maybe they might
come up with one that is more testable than your "magical intelligent
agent that leaves no clues".
> Even mainstream scientists are human and prone to very
> strong feelings against anything and anyone who challenges pet ideas.
> In fact, the ToE is held onto so strongly and so passionately by many
> mainstream scientists today that it takes on an almost sacred status
> for them. These men and women are often just as dogmatic and
> passionate about their belief in the ToE as any group of hardened
> sectarian fundamentalists in any church-going community. Many within
> mainstream science have been ostracized and have even lost their jobs
> for daring to question the holy untouchable doctrines of the ToE.
Gee. The original ToE included Lamarckian ideas about inheritance,
didn't imagine DNA evidence and molecular clocks or neutral changes.
The doctrine doesn't seem to be hoy or untouchable. But you don't
have to argue against the ToE; you just have to present evidence that
current understanding of RM/NS cannot account for the existence of
systems with more than 1000 fsaars. But you do have to do a better
job of it than you have being doing in this forum so far. I have seen
some pretty awful publications that got accepted about evolution by
someone who distorts papers and research even worse than you do --
e.g., Jeffrey Schwartz's truly awful book "Sudden Origins" and a short
paper that summarized that book.
> My point is that this isn't some topic of dispassionate
> consideration. It reaches into the very soul of who many people think
> they are. Such people are simply not going to consider anything
> counter to the ToE in a thoughtful dispassionate non-biased manner.
> Many may suggest otherwise, that scientists are dispassionate in their
> work and search for "truth", but I am not so optimistic. This isn't
> because I've never published in scientific journals. I have published
> quite a number of times - in the fields of general pathology and
> hematopathology. One of my publications was used to challenge and
> change the basis of a form of Hodgkin lymphoma classification.
> However, those areas of mainstream science are not as passionately
> defended as is the ToE.
You don't have to attack the ToE. Just show evidence that a new
mechanism other than RM/NS is needed for proteins larger than 1000
fsaars.
>
> Sean Pitmanwww.DetectingDesign.com
Gene Poole
AFAIK, humans are doing nothing but glorified cut-n-paste, but maybe you
know something I don't. Care to offer a reference to humans inventing
novel 1000 "fsaar" biosystems?
pol...@msx.dept-med.pitt.edu
Really ? All your blubbering 'improbability' arguments can do is show
- AT BEST - some mechanism
other than blind chance was responsible.
The leap to 'therefore, MAGICAL SKY PIXIE DIDIT !!11!11!!1' is
premature, given that selection is NOT blind chance.
>> Humans can
> > and are producing functional biosystems well beyond the 1000 fsaar
> > threshold level. Nothing in mindless nature comes remotely close - to
> > include RM/NS.
>
> AFAIK, humans are doing nothing but glorified cut-n-paste, but maybe you
> know something I don't. Care to offer a reference to humans inventing
> novel 1000 "fsaar" biosystems?
According to Pitman math, the 'odds' of pasting a sequence in the
'correct' spot goes as an exponential the bigger the pieces are, so
the 'odds' of something 'useful' arising are IMPOSSIBLE this side of
'trillions and trillions of years'.
So, the 'odds' of alcohol dehydrogenase getting spliced into yellow
emperor to create the jingwei gene is only 1 in 20^300 or less;
therefore, since this is soooooo improbable, the bacterial flagellum
MUST have been specially crafted by an unknown external intelligence
that somehow did something sometime in the past for some reason.
For Sean, bare improbably is the hallmark of 'intelligent' design - if
a system is 'too improbable' to exist according to HIS crappy
mathemagics, then the ONLY possible explanation is 'direct
intervention by an unknown intelligence that somehow did something !!
11!!!'
Robert Camp
> On Jan 28, 6:45 am, Ilas <nob...@this.address.com> wrote:
<snip>
> My point is that this isn't some topic of dispassionate
> consideration. It reaches into the very soul of who many people think
> they are. Such people are simply not going to consider anything
> counter to the ToE in a thoughtful dispassionate non-biased manner.
> Many may suggest otherwise, that scientists are dispassionate in their
> work and search for "truth", but I am not so optimistic. This isn't
> because I've never published in scientific journals. I have published
> quite a number of times - in the fields of general pathology and
> hematopathology. One of my publications was used to challenge and
> change the basis of a form of Hodgkin lymphoma classification.
> However, those areas of mainstream science are not as passionately
> defended as is the ToE.
Well, let's be fair and recognize that there *is* another
interpretation available here. It might just be that you had your
facts right as to whatever data challenged the lymphoma
classification, and are resisted regarding the ToE because you are
just wrong (heroic iconoclast complex notwithstanding).
Now why don't we all take a quick, honest look at our motivations and
see just what kind of philosophical precommitments might be causing
any of us to passionately attack or defend a particular point of view.
Hmmm...well I don't know about anybody else but there are no standards
or principles in my worldview (or my empirical perspective) that might
be jeopardized by inconvenient scientific facts. How about you, Sean?
Any possibility there could be philosophical absolutes that might be
causing some bias on your part?
Introspection's not your strong point, is it?
RLC
Robert Camp
Wonderful. So what?
If true, all that means is that you have tested the hypothesis that
humans can produce a particular level of biological complexity. This
is *not* a test of whether natural systems and structures like
flagella are designed any more than me roasting some veggies on my
grill is a test of whether all fire-damaged plants are the result of
spatula-wielding lunatics with propane.
What will be produced by legitimate tests of your hypothesis is
evidence (or not) of the purposeful activity of the non-human-but-
human-level-intelligence being(s) who managed to intervene in the
evolution of life on earth without leaving the slightest trace. You
need to find unambiguous positive evidence for your hypothesis, not
some toothless demonstration that humans can do something. In the face
of the tsunami of evidence against your hypothesis, that silly bit of
distraction is a faucet leak.
RLC (noctiluca)
fc...@verizon.net
You win an opportunity to respond to my Request for Proposals. Enjoy.
>
> Sean Pitmanwww.DetectingDesign.com- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Seanpit
That "faucet leak" as you call it, undermines the very heart of the to
- the mechanism of RM/NS. The demonstration is that RM/NS doesn't
come remotely close to doing the job. In fact, it shows a very clear
exponential decline both in demonstration and by statistical
analysis. Take this evidence, together with the fact that humans can
do the job, and you have just as solid a basis for the ID-only
hypothesis as SETI has for their ETI hypothesis.
heekster
seanpi...@naturalselection.0catch.com wrote:
>On Jan 28, 6:45 am, Ilas <nob...@this.address.com> wrote:
>> Sean, you claim to have proof of ID. If so, there's no doubt this is the
>> greatest scientific discovery *of all time*. You have disproved evolution
>> and proved intelligent beings or entities are not limited to this world
>> (and incidentally gone further towards proving a god than anybody in
>> history). Why do you not publish this astounding research in reputable peer
>> reviewed journals for the lesser scientists to pick over? Usenet is really
>> not the place for such astonishing news (and I mean that without a trace of
>> sarcasm; it really would be astonishing). If there is no problem with it,
>> the Nobel, and ever lasting worldwide admiration is yours. So, when are you
>> going to publish it? If you're not, why not? (Please answer that last one
>> without reference to a world wide atheist conspiracy).
>
>There's not a "conspiracy" per se - at least not in any sort of
>conscious manner. However, there is a very intense passion against
>anything remotely resembling a challenge of the fundamental doctrines
>of the ToE.
Yeah. Willful ignorance and repeated outright lying does tend to get
the hackles up on competent scientists.
>Even mainstream scientists are human and prone to very
>strong feelings against anything and anyone who challenges pet ideas.
>In fact, the ToE is held onto so strongly and so passionately by many
>mainstream scientists today that it takes on an almost sacred status
>for them. These men and women are often just as dogmatic and
>passionate about their belief in the ToE as any group of hardened
>sectarian fundamentalists in any church-going community. Many within
>mainstream science have been ostracized and have even lost their jobs
>for daring to question the holy untouchable doctrines of the ToE.
>
You have to be able to show your work.
You haven't done that.
>My point is that this isn't some topic of dispassionate
>consideration. It reaches into the very soul of who many people think
>they are. Such people are simply not going to consider anything
>counter to the ToE in a thoughtful dispassionate non-biased manner.
>Many may suggest otherwise, that scientists are dispassionate in their
>work and search for "truth", but I am not so optimistic.
Of course. You know that your IDiocy is bullshit.
So do the scientists and mathematicians who have read your silly
bloviations, here.
> This isn't
>because I've never published in scientific journals. I have published
>quite a number of times - in the fields of general pathology and
>hematopathology.
which don't really have anything to do with evolution, as discussed
here.
> One of my publications was used to challenge and
>change the basis of a form of Hodgkin lymphoma classification.
Thanks, but I've had my fill of red herring. And, it seems that you
were always a co-author,with a minimum of two other co-authors, and
that "your" papers were only published from 2003 through 2006.
>However, those areas of mainstream science are not as passionately
>defended as is the ToE.
>
Are you implying that you put forth the same sort of junk science
there, that you do here, with respect to evolution and your IDiocy
"theory"? The latter one that explains nothing, has never been
observed, and has no evidence?
Seanpit
That is an attack on the ToE . . . since the mechanism of random
mutation and natural selection (RM/NS) is at the very root of the
ToE. Everybody would understand the implications of such a
paper . . .
Sean Pitman
www.DetectingDesign.com
Seanpit
We are all biased - me, you, and even mainstream scientists. That's
the point. We should all at least be aware of this and acknowledge
it. Bias can be good, and it can be bad. A lot of good papers get
rejected, not because they are bad, but because of bias. Of course, a
lot of bad papers get rejected as well. So, we all do what we can to
work around our own biases and the biases of others. Ultimately, it
is the each person decides what makes the most sense for him or her
self - with personal biases in play of course.
> RLC
Sean Pitman
www.DetectingDesign.com
wf3h
> conscious manner. However, there is a very intense passion against
> anything remotely resembling a challenge of the fundamental doctrines
> of the ToE. Even mainstream scientists are human and prone to very
> strong feelings against anything and anyone who challenges pet ideas.
gee. who coulda guessed. and, as a chemist, if someone said atoms
don't exist, or that there are no such things as molecules, i'd think
they were pretty strange as well
> In fact, the ToE is held onto so strongly and so passionately by many
> mainstream scientists today that it takes on an almost sacred status
> for them.
yes, madrassa educated christians who think in 14th century terms
often describe science in this manner. they can't think of anything
but religion...because that's how they're taught by their church...so
they try to apply this to science
These men and women are often just as dogmatic and
> passionate about their belief in the ToE as any group of hardened
> sectarian fundamentalists in any church-going community. Many within
> mainstream science have been ostracized and have even lost their jobs
> for daring to question the holy untouchable doctrines of the ToE.
which, of course, is a lie. i graduated from lehigh university in
1986, the year behe was hired as an asst. prof. he was promoted to
full professor with tenure AFTER he published his creationist screed
'darwin's black box'.
sean just doesn't know much about anything except creationist
propaganda.
>
> My point is that this isn't some topic of dispassionate
> consideration. It reaches into the very soul of who many people think
> they are. Such people are simply not going to consider anything
> counter to the ToE in a thoughtful dispassionate non-biased manner.
yeah, science does do that. it makes you consider rational, logical
processes in nature rather than 4th century explanations based on
demons, goblins, superstitions, etc.
the difference is that scientists will reject an idea if the evidence
is against it. einstein's theories are proof of that
but there is NOTHING that will compel sean to give up his taliban like
belief in christian fundamentalism.
> Many may suggest otherwise, that scientists are dispassionate in their
> work and search for "truth", but I am not so optimistic. This isn't
> because I've never published in scientific journals. I have published
> quite a number of times - in the fields of general pathology and
> hematopathology. One of my publications was used to challenge and
> change the basis of a form of Hodgkin lymphoma classification.
?? i thought you said scientists wouldn't publish anything that
challenged the mainstream. were you lying above, or are you lying
now?
do you often try to wreck your own arguments like this?
wf3h
> On Jan 29, 2:02 pm, Robert Camp <robertlc...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> >
> > Introspection's not your strong point, is it?
>
> We are all biased - me, you, and even mainstream scientists. That's
> the point. We should all at least be aware of this and acknowledge
> it.
scientists are objective about their biases. as gould pointed out,
scientists dont deny we have biases...but objectivity means we change
our minds based on the evidence
you're a madrassa educated religious fanatic. there's NOTHING that can
change your mind. by definition you CANT be objective. your mind CAN
NOT be changed by evidence because your religion prohibits it.
wf3h
> My proposed "alternative" to RM/NS is human-level ID. This
> alternative hypothesis has already been tested beyond the 1000 fsaar
> level of functional complexity and has passed the test.
no, it hasn't. and here is where sean's lack of scientific education
and his madrassa-like religious training shows its faults
RM/NS is a mechanism.sean admits it can cause evolution under certain
conditions.
but ID is not a mechanism. there is no 'ID" i can take in a lab and
test. it does not tell me how DNA is created or how its modified with
time.
sean thinks it is a 'hypothesis' (sic). but no scientist would use
terminology in this manner. testing a hypothesis means a very rigorous
definition of a mechanism, an expected outcome and produces
statistical data to support or reject it.
ID has none of these features. it is not a hypothesis. it is not
science. but sean thinks it is. and he's wrong.
Humans can
> and are producing functional biosystems well beyond the 1000 fsaar
> threshold level. Nothing in mindless nature comes remotely close - to
> include RM/NS.
sean is wrong here, too. venter and his group have shown there are no
thermodynamic or kinetic restrictions on formation of DNA that can
code for proteins of any length. in fact, they have to tag their work
so they can distinguish it from naturally produced DNA. so sean is
wrong...again.
in fact, this is from venter's site telling exactly WHY they tag the
DNA:
The genome also contains added “watermark” sequences located at
intergenic sites known to tolerate transposon insertions, for
identification of the genome as synthetic
the researchers doing the work do not think the DNA they see in nature
is 'synthetic' in the same way theirs is. they do not distinguish
between DNA that codes for any length of proteins at all
and humans have learned to manufacture diamonds that are virtually
indistinguishable from natural diamonds. the artificial ones have to
labeled...just like venter labels his DNA.
>
> So, having successfully met your "challenge" - what do I "win"? ; )
nothing. you haven't won a thing because your entire argument is
wrong.
wf3h
actually it shows that even you admit most proteins are the product of
evolution since about 90% of proteins are, by your own admission,
subject to evolution
AND we know that there are no thermodynamics or kinetics barriers to
the production in nature of large DNA molecules that can code for
large proteins. the work of craig venter has shown this.
and, unfortunately for your position, creationism is wrong. you
haven't demonstrated any data in support of it, and it's got a 2000
year track record of failure. it's never been right once. it's always
been wrong.
In fact, it shows a very clear
> exponential decline both in demonstration and by statistical
> analysis. Take this evidence, together with the fact that humans can
> do the job, and you have just as solid a basis for the ID-only
> hypothesis as SETI has for their ETI hypothesis.
if you were doing science you'd have a testable mechanism instead of
an analogy.
SETI is based on electromagnetism. DNA is chemistry. there is simply
no basis for your comparison whatsoever.
Ray Martinez
Frank: I am a Creationist because Creationism is a scientific fact.
RM+NS is proposed because Genesis 1 and 2 are judged to be false:
Divine power is NOT operating in reality.
Divine power causes each species to exist in nature. Darwin rejected
Creationism as just defined. This is WHY he sought another causation
explanation of natural or material origin. Creationism rejects the
existence of RM+NS. We accept Divine power operating in reality. This
fact renders all further enquiry into causation to be unnecessary. Do
you understand?
William Dembski: "God is not an absentee landlord" ("Intelligent
Design" 1999).
Ray
Ray Martinez
Need I remind that Sean Pitman is a microevolutionist who accepts the
existence of RM+NS----just like you and every other Atheist. The vast
majority of Fundamentalists (includes YEC moron Ken Ham) accept
microevolution and a role for RM+NS----just like you and every other
Atheist.
I feel no insult in being rejected by the collection of confusion seen
above. In fact I feel relief----glad I got rejected (slandered).
Invulnerable fact of logic concerning the Creation-Evolution debate:
whoever Atheists and Evolutionists reject the most is the most correct
and the most feared.
Ray Martinez, Old Earth-Young Biosphere Creationist, Paleyan Designist-
species immutabilist (= total rejection of RM+NS to exist).
Robert Camp
Y'see, Ray, the above is just the kind of thing that makes me worry
about you. I don't think you even realize how orthogonal to logical
and coherent thought some of the things you say are. Seriously, see a
professional.
RLC
Robert Camp
Even if true - and I'll once again point to the fact that none of the
experts here agree with you that it is - but even if true that would
not support an inference to design. It might circumscribe both the
capacity of RM/NS and the nature of scientific knowledge. But if used
to prop up an otherwise completely unevidenced idea like your human-
level designers it's nothing more than another bogus argument from
ignorance.
> In fact, it shows a very clear
> exponential decline both in demonstration and by statistical
> analysis. Take this evidence, together with the fact that humans can
> do the job, and you have just as solid a basis for the ID-only
> hypothesis as SETI has for their ETI hypothesis.
No, you don't. You have special pleading, phony statistics, logical
fallacies and wishful thinking cobbled together to look like
hypothesis and testing. But it's not. And unlike SETI (as if there
weren't enough differences already) there are staggering amounts of
empirical evidence and logical contradiction that must be ignored to
even consider such a preposterous speculation.
What you offer has nothing to do with actual evidence. It's what
people who cannot make a scientific argument fall back on when they
don't want to accept reality.
Robert Camp
Agreed
> That's the point. We should all at least be aware of this and acknowledge
> it.
Agreed. And I actually do think you're aware of your biases. I just
think you, like some others, have chosen to cast your lot with those
conceits that serve your purposes. I'm just asking that you and others
like you stop acting and arguing as if everyone makes equivalent
choices. We don't. Evaluating evidence based upon a personal belief in
theological absolutes is *not* equivalent to building a biased
perspective based upon experience and evidence.
You've decided to embrace a certain degree of ignorance, molding your
evaluation of reality around a previously imposed imperative. Those of
us with whom you argue have not (for the most part) done so. It is a
crucial distinction. Institutional intransigence is on a very
different scale from religious hubris.
For what it's worth, though, I think you've gone a greater distance
toward eliminating that bias from your arguments than most
creationists.
> Bias can be good, and it can be bad. A lot of good papers get
> rejected, not because they are bad, but because of bias. Of course, a
> lot of bad papers get rejected as well. So, we all do what we can to
> work around our own biases and the biases of others. Ultimately, it
> is the each person decides what makes the most sense for him or her
> self - with personal biases in play of course.
That's fine, as far as it goes. But usually included in the work of
deciding what makes sense is an honest appraisal of one's own limits,
something that, for most people, means looking to those who are more
educated, experienced and accomplished. I think this is second nature
for virtually everyone except, unsurprisingly, those whose religious
hubris seems to act to circumvent that particular instinct.
RLC (noctiluca)
> > RLC
>
> Sean Pitmanwww.DetectingDesign.com
hersheyh
It's not really an attack on the ToE. It is merely putting some
constraints and limitations to what a particular mechanism (what you
so amusingly mislabel as RM/NS) can do. After all, you would not be
arguing against the idea of common descent by arguing that the
mechanism of RM/NS cannot be responsible for protein "systems" above
1000 fsaars. You would merely be presenting evidence saying that a
different mechanism *of some sort* would be needed to explain that
type of system.
After all, the ToE has accommodated mechanisms other than RM/NS in the
past (like neutral drift), reconsiders possible quasi-Lamarckian
phenomena from time to time, is arguing about the existence of "group
selection" and the role of evo-devo even now, and is even
reconsidering how much horizontal evolutionary change occurs and
occurred at different times during life's history on this planet.
All you need to present is your (what you so amusingly pass off as)
evidence that clearly demonstrates (to any candid mind) that some new
explanation for the appearance of particularly large 'systems' is
needed. I can assure you that no scientist would even imagine,
assuming they candidly understood your brilliant work, that the now
desperately needed alternative forced upon us by the failure of RM/NS
that you so brilliantly presented must be an invisible undetectable
something that did something somehow at some time and place because
this represents a true dichotomy where the inability to explain it by
RM/NS means a spectral undetectable "IDdidit". Real scientists just
don't think that way. They will just wonder what possible testable
natural explanation they can come up with to explain this suddenly
unsolved problem and then try to test those *possible* explanations.
Real scientists have no problem saying that there are things they
cannot currently explain.
But how will we know if you don't try? If all we get are these
pitiful little hints and vague hand-wavings about of numbers and
supposed models of total sequence space.
>
> Sean Pitmanwww.DetectingDesign.com
'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank
Q. "Why don't you publish your wonderful math, Sean?"
A. "The big bad atheistic scientific conspiracy won't let
me !!!!!!!!!"
(snicker) (giggle)
How many times has your world-shattering paper been unfairly rejected
by the Global Atheist Scientific Conspiracy, Sean?
Ohhhhhhh, that's right -- you've never actually SUBMITTED it to
anybody, have you . . . . . .
Know what that reminds me of, Sean? It reminds me of the time that
your ID/creationist pals weeped and whined and cried to the judge that
the big bad scientists were unfairly repressing and suppressing all
the wonderful science that the ID/creationists were doing -- only to
be reminded by the judge that they hadn't actually, uh, presented to
him any papers that had been, ya know, unfairly rejected. Indeed, as
it turned out, the ID/creationists hadn't ever even, uh, actually, ya
know, submitted any scientific papers at all to any scientific
journal. Ever.
Just like you.
(snicker) (giggle)
That worldwide conspiracy of scientists must be awfully busy, though,
Sean, if they have enough time to simultaneously suppress all the
wonderful world-changing science that I keep hearing about from kooks
and nutters like you -- the moon landing was faked, space aliens
built the pyramids, the government built the B-2 bomber from a flying
saucer, vaccines cause autism, ESP is real, HIV doesn't cause AIDS,
life on earth is really only 6,000 years old, cold fusion could solve
the energy crisis, homeopathic medicine could cure us all, Bigfoot and
Nessie are real, global warming is a liberal fake, blah blah blah
blah.
It really is a shame that scientists keep repressing all those
wonderful miraculous paradigm-shattering discoveries, huh, Sean.
Those bastards. Especially with such a zealous partisan political
defense of mainstream science against its poor downtrodden critics by
the Bush Administration for the past eight years, which ruthlessly
crushed anything and everything that challenged either, uh, mainstream
science or, uh, atheism.
(snicker) (giggle)
One wonders, though, how scientists manage to find the time, in the
middle of all that repressing and dogma-enforcing, to also hunt down
and suppress anything that shows there's a God -- uh, I mean An
Unknown Intelligent Designer. Maybe all the, uh, CHRISTIANS who are
scientists (and who also happen to, ya know, think you're full of
shit) could just focus on Nessie and Bigfoot suppression instead, and
leave all the god-proving-science-repression to just the atheists.
That'd be a much more efficient division of labor, wouldn't it.
(snicker) (giggle)
No WONDER nobody takes you seriously, Sean. You're a non-reality-based
paranoid nutjob.
(snicker) (giggle) <--- yes, Sean, I am laughing at you
Oh, and Sean, if everybody -- absolutely EVERYBODY -- to whom you have
explained your mathy statisticy sciency blockbuster-of-all-human-
history scientific discovery, thinks it's horse shit, which do you
think is more likely: (1) you actually DO have a world-changing
science-destroying discovery of immense earth-shaking historic
importance and are just too stupid and incompetent to explain it
sufficiently clearly for anyone else to understand it, or (2) your
argument really is horse shit.
Which of those is more likely, Sean . . . .
(snicker) (giggle) <----- yes, Sean, I am laughing at you
================================================
Lenny Flank
"There are no loose threads in the web of life"
Editor, Red and Black Publishers
http://www.RedandBlackPublishers.com
Dana Tweedy
> On Jan 28, 4:35 pm, Robert Camp <robertlc...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> Need I remind that Sean Pitman is a microevolutionist who accepts the
> existence of RM+NS
As does anyone who has the ability to evaluate the evidence.
> just like you and every other Atheist.
Not only do you fail basic logic, Ray, you can't even count. Random
mutations are known to exist, and natural selection is known to exist.
It's only you who is foolish enough to deny the existence of those basic
biological processes.
> The vast
> majority of Fundamentalists (includes YEC moron Ken Ham) accept
> microevolution and a role for RM+NS----just like you and every other
> Atheist.
Which means that "fundamentalist morons" are more in tune with reality than
you are. Microevolution can be observed in real time. Natural selection
and random mutations are also observed. Denying them just makes you look
more foolish.
>
> I feel no insult in being rejected by the collection of confusion seen
> above. In fact I feel relief----glad I got rejected (slandered).
You got "rejected" because you are wrong. You haven't been "slandered" at
all.
>
> Invulnerable fact of logic concerning the Creation-Evolution debate:
> whoever Atheists and Evolutionists reject the most is the most correct
> and the most feared.
Ray, this is why you fail logic. You being wrong doesn't make you right,
or "feared". It just makes you a laughing stock.
>
> Ray Martinez, Old Earth-Young Biosphere Creationist, Paleyan
> Designist-
> species immutabilist (= total rejection of RM+NS to exist).
Any other silly titles you want to give yourself?
DJT
'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank
Dana Tweedy
>> Hey Ray, if you're reading, the offer goes to you too.
>
> Frank: I am a Creationist because Creationism is a scientific fact.
Ray, you are a creationist because you are ignorant of biology, science, and
facts.
>
> RM+NS is proposed because Genesis 1 and 2 are judged to be false:
> Divine power is NOT operating in reality.
Random mutation was a discovery from observations. Natural selection also
is an observed fact of nature. Genesis had nothing to do with either fact.
"Divine power" is beyond the ability of science to detect. If you feel
that the existence of natural selection, and random mutations mean God is
absent in nature, then you are promoting "atheist ideology".
>
> Divine power causes each species to exist in nature.
Do you have any evidence to support this claim?
> Darwin rejected
> Creationism as just defined.
Darwin rejected non scientific, and false explanations for the diversity of
life. That's why Darwin is famous.
> This is WHY he sought another causation
> explanation of natural or material origin.
He sought another causation because "Goddidit" is not science. You always
mistakenly assume that rejection of creationism is due to rejection of God.
Scientists reject creationism, not because it supposedly supports God, but
because it's not scientific. Atheism has nothing to do with the
rejection of creationism. That's why many religious scientists reject
creationism as well.
> Creationism rejects the
> existence of RM+NS.
No, Ray. YOU reject the existence of those obvious, and well established
facts. You do so because you are too ignorant, or too prideful to admit
you are wrong.
> We accept Divine power operating in reality.
And why can't "Divine power" be manifest by using natural processes, such as
random mutation and natural selection?
> This
> fact renders all further enquiry into causation to be unnecessary. Do
> you understand?
It certianly clears up any lingering doubt there might have been (however
unlikely) that your "paper" is going to be scientific.
>
> William Dembski: "God is not an absentee landlord" ("Intelligent
> Design" 1999).
Dembski is entitled to his own religious opinion, but that doesn't mean he's
right. He's using the classic fallacy of "false dichotomy". The
choice isn't just "God is an absentee landlord" and "God is a micromanager".
DJT
Ilas
news:d212ffb5-8835-4697...@z6g2000pre.googlegroups.com:
> On Jan 28, 6:45 am, Ilas <nob...@this.address.com> wrote:
>> Sean, you claim to have proof of ID. If so, there's no doubt this is
>> the greatest scientific discovery *of all time*. You have disproved
>> evolution and proved intelligent beings or entities are not limited
>> to this world (and incidentally gone further towards proving a god
>> than anybody in history). Why do you not publish this astounding
>> research in reputable pe
> er
>> reviewed journals for the lesser scientists to pick over? Usenet is
>> reall
> y
>> not the place for such astonishing news (and I mean that without a
>> trace
> of
>> sarcasm; it really would be astonishing). If there is no problem with
>> it, the Nobel, and ever lasting worldwide admiration is yours. So,
>> when are y
> ou
>> going to publish it? If you're not, why not? (Please answer that last
>> one without reference to a world wide atheist conspiracy).
>
> There's not a "conspiracy" per se - at least not in any sort of
> conscious manner. However, there is a very intense passion against
> anything remotely resembling a challenge of the fundamental doctrines
> of the ToE.
I see. But if it were not for that, you'd turn the ToE over tomorrow? Sean,
do you actually know you're lying? Is there not even a little voice in the
back of your head saying "liar, liar, pants on fire"?
Ye Old One
Creationism has no base in science - it is religious hogwash.
>
>RM+NS is proposed because Genesis 1 and 2 are judged to be false:
>Divine power is NOT operating in reality.
>
>Divine power causes each species to exist in nature.
There is no evidence for anything divine.
>Darwin rejected
>Creationism as just defined.
Because it doesn't match reality.
>This is WHY he sought another causation
>explanation of natural or material origin. Creationism rejects the
>existence of RM+NS. We accept Divine power operating in reality.
And yet cannot find a single scrap of evidence to support that.
>This
>fact renders all further enquiry into causation to be unnecessary. Do
>you understand?
No.
>
>William Dembski: "God is not an absentee landlord" ("Intelligent
>Design" 1999).
Gods are the invention of primitive man.
>
>Ray
--
Bob.
Seanpit
>
> Frank: I am a Creationist because Creationism is a scientific fact.
>
> RM+NS is proposed because Genesis 1 and 2 are judged to be false:
> Divine power is NOT operating in reality.
>
> Divine power causes each species to exist in nature. Darwin rejected
> Creationism as just defined. This is WHY he sought another causation
> explanation of natural or material origin. Creationism rejects the
> existence of RM+NS. We accept Divine power operating in reality. This
> fact renders all further enquiry into causation to be unnecessary. Do
> you understand?
>
> William Dembski: "God is not an absentee landlord" ("Intelligent
> Design" 1999)
So, tell me Ray, does God produce genetic conditions like cystic
fibrosis, achondroplasia, Huntington's chorea, chronic myelogenous
leukemia, sickle cell anemia, etc? If not, how do these genetic
diseases arise?
> Ray
Sean Pitman
www.DetectingDesign.com
wf3h
.
>
> All you need to present is your (what you so amusingly pass off as)
> evidence that clearly demonstrates (to any candid mind) that some new
> explanation for the appearance of particularly large 'systems' is
> needed. I can assure you that no scientist would even imagine,
> assuming they candidly understood your brilliant work, that the now
> desperately needed alternative forced upon us by the failure of RM/NS
> that you so brilliantly presented must be an invisible undetectable
> something that did something somehow at some time and place because
> this represents a true dichotomy where the inability to explain it by
> RM/NS means a spectral undetectable "IDdidit". Real scientists just
> don't think that way. They will just wonder what possible testable
> natural explanation they can come up with to explain this suddenly
> unsolved problem and then try to test those *possible* explanations.
> Real scientists have no problem saying that there are things they
> cannot currently explain.
>
> But how will we know if you don't try? If all we get are these
> pitiful little hints and vague hand-wavings about of numbers and
> supposed models of total sequence space.
>
>
>
sean seems to be waiting until he channels ellen white's message
detailing the next step in the new paradigm: supernaturalism as
science. of course, sean won't realize that idea is 10,000 years old.
in his madrassa it's cutting edge technology.
Ray Martinez
Are you telling me that you reject the Biblical explanationS for the
existence of evil and suffering?
Ray
Caranx latus
> On Jan 28, 4:19 pm, f...@verizon.net wrote:
<snip>
> We accept Divine power operating in reality. This
> fact renders all further enquiry into causation to be unnecessary. Do
> you understand?
Translation: "Goddidit. Stop asking questions."
Ray Martinez
Absolutely correct.
Ray
'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank
Cool, a fundie-fight.
Go GET that heretic, dude . . . . . .
(snicker) (giggle)
'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank
>
> So, tell me Ray, does God produce genetic conditions like cystic
> fibrosis, achondroplasia, Huntington's chorea, chronic myelogenous
> leukemia, sickle cell anemia, etc? If not, how do these genetic
> diseases arise?
>
Thedevildunnit.
Now Sean, if you're finished debating theology with the uneducated
netloon, would you mind answering some science questions for me about
your, uh, wonderful new scientific paradigm that will change the world
forever and, uh, doesn't have anything to do with religion nothing at
all not a thing no sirree bob . . . ?
If you need me to repeat my questions for you, jsut let me know.
fc...@verizon.net
But even if you were right only one of the mutually contradictory
creationist accounts would be fact. So if you thing that your account
is fact then AIG's young-earth/young-life and RTB's old-earth/old-life
are just as false as your dreaded "Darwinism" no matter how many
Creators and designers are running the show.
Now please admit it.
>
> RM+NS is proposed because Genesis 1 and 2 are judged to be false:
> Divine power is NOT operating in reality.
>
> Divine power causes each species to exist in nature. Darwin rejected
> Creationism as just defined. This is WHY he sought another causation
> explanation of natural or material origin. Creationism rejects the
> existence of RM+NS. We accept Divine power operating in reality. This
> fact renders all further enquiry into causation to be unnecessary. Do
> you understand?
>
> William Dembski: "God is not an absentee landlord" ("Intelligent
> Design" 1999).
Sorry, but Dembski was expressing his personal faith, just like Miller
or Collins. When it suits his purpose he will admit that the designer
he claims to have found by empirical methods is not necessarily God.
So you can't have that both ways either.
>
> Ray- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
John Stockwell
Well, there you go. That is why we don't like the "goddidit" answer.
It is a science-stopper.
>
> Ray
Ray Martinez
Frank: you need to travel with an interpreter since I have no idea as
to what you are talking about.
>
>
> > RM+NS is proposed because Genesis 1 and 2 are judged to be false:
> > Divine power is NOT operating in reality.
>
> > Divine power causes each species to exist in nature. Darwin rejected
> > Creationism as just defined. This is WHY he sought another causation
> > explanation of natural or material origin. Creationism rejects the
> > existence of RM+NS. We accept Divine power operating in reality. This
> > fact renders all further enquiry into causation to be unnecessary. Do
> > you understand?
>
> > William Dembski: "God is not an absentee landlord" ("Intelligent
> > Design" 1999).
>
> Sorry, but Dembski was expressing his personal faith, just like Miller
> or Collins. When it suits his purpose he will admit that the designer
> he claims to have found by empirical methods is not necessarily God.
>
> So you can't have that both ways either.
>
No, Dembski was making a conclusion based on the evidence. And Dembski
does contradict himself. This is what happens when a movement defines
itself and its terms with a political and legal objective in mind.
The two biggest lies told by Darwinism and DI IDism: "our biological
production theories say nothing about God."
Axiomatic truth: ALL biological production theories say something
about God; either for or against.
Ray
Ray Martinez
It says Theism is true and Atheism is false.
Your reply says God did not do it; yes, that is the main atheistic
claim of Darwinism.
Ray
Caranx latus
"Axiomatic truth" is your stock phrase for "something that I need to
assert as true because I can't support it otherwise". In fact, Ray, NO
biological production theory says anything about God at all. If you
want to infer that lack of claims about God are equivalent to claims
about the lack of God, that's up to you but you aren't applying valid
logic if you do so.
> Ray
Ray Martinez
Now we know that you do not know what axiomatic truth is.
Ray
Caranx latus
Two things, Ray. Firstly, it's you that does not know what an
axiomatic truth is.
"In traditional logic, an axiom or postulate is a proposition that is
not proved or demonstrated but considered to be either self-evident,
or subject to necessary decision. Therefore, its truth is taken for
granted, and serves as a starting point for deducing and inferring
other (theory dependent) truths."
Secondly, there is no "we" in your statement above: you don't
represent anyone except yourself. It's well past time you stopped
trying to puff yourself up to look more imposing: you are a blowhard,
not a blowfish.
> Ray
Bob Casanova
appeared in talk.origins, posted by Ray Martinez
<pyram...@yahoo.com>:
What was the reason again for children born with genetic (or
other) diseases? Something about the evil they had done?
Are we getting into reincarnation and the wheel, here?
--
Bob C.
"Evidence confirming an observation is
evidence that the observation is wrong."
- McNameless
Earle Jones
<ab852324-520f-4ecc...@t39g2000prh.googlegroups.com>,
Ray Martinez <pyram...@yahoo.com> wrote:
*
Ray, that would make a great abstract/summary of your forthcoming paper:
"Goddiddit. Stop asking questions."
earle
*
Earle Jones
<45d6ceee-147a-4752...@y1g2000pra.googlegroups.com>,
Ray Martinez <pyram...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Jan 30, 2:22 pm, Caranx latus <kar...@sympatico.ca> wrote:
[...]
> >
> > "Axiomatic truth" is your stock phrase for "something that I need to
> > assert as true because I can't support it otherwise". In fact, Ray, NO
> > biological production theory says anything about God at all. If you
> > want to infer that lack of claims about God are equivalent to claims
> > about the lack of God, that's up to you but you aren't applying valid
> > logic if you do so.
> >
>
> Now we know that you do not know what axiomatic truth is.
>
> Ray
*
Ray, what is the axiomatic truth about God?
earle
*
hersheyh
> In article
> <ab852324-520f-4ecc-8811-802a49e94...@t39g2000prh.googlegroups.com>,
> Ray Martinez <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Jan 30, 11:53 am, Caranx latus <kar...@sympatico.ca> wrote:
> > > On Jan 29, 10:06 pm, Ray Martinez <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > > On Jan 28, 4:19 pm, f...@verizon.net wrote:
>
> > > <snip>
>
> > > > We accept Divine power operating in reality. This
> > > > fact renders all further enquiry into causation to be unnecessary. Do
> > > > you understand?
>
> > > Translation: "Goddidit. Stop asking questions."
>
> > Absolutely correct.
>
> > Ray
>
> *
> Ray, that would make a great abstract/summary of your forthcoming paper:
>
> "Goddiddit. Stop asking questions."
>
> earle
> *
Abstract? Summary? Don't you mean the entire paper? Anything more
would be redundant and unnecessary. Which makes one wonder why it is
taking him so long.
hersheyh
Shouldn't that be either with or without? As in the difference
between the Greek prefix a- and the Greek prefix anti-? ;-)
Caranx latus
Now that Ray has shown himself to be a staunch anti-intellectual,
would that mean that he is without an intellect? You know, that kinda
works in this case.
mur...@tntech.edu
> [...snippo...]
> The two biggest lies told by Darwinism and DI IDism: "our biological
> production theories say nothing about God."
>
> Axiomatic truth: ALL biological production theories say something
> about God; either for or against.
Does the Schrodinger equation say something for God or against God?
---DPM
Dana Tweedy
Then why are you (at least claiming to be) bothering to waste your time
writing this "paper" of yours? You have just announced that your "paper"
will not resemble science in any way (as if anyone though it might).
DJT
Dana Tweedy
> On Jan 30, 2:02 pm, John Stockwell <john.19071...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Jan 30, 1:26 pm, Ray Martinez <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On Jan 30, 11:53 am, Caranx latus <kar...@sympatico.ca> wrote:
>>
>>>> On Jan 29, 10:06 pm, Ray Martinez <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>>>>> On Jan 28, 4:19 pm, f...@verizon.net wrote:
>>
>>>> <snip>
>>
>>>>> We accept Divine power operating in reality. This
>>>>> fact renders all further enquiry into causation to be
>>>>> unnecessary. Do you understand?
>>
>>>> Translation: "Goddidit. Stop asking questions."
>>
>>> Absolutely correct.
>>
>> Well, there you go. That is why we don't like the "goddidit" answer.
>> It is a science-stopper.
>>
>
> It says Theism is true and Atheism is false.
No, it says that your type of "theism" is opposed to scientific
investigation, and is intellectually barren. Fortunately, most real
theists reject that idea, and accept that curiosity, and thirst for
knowledge doesn't require atheism.
>
> Your reply says God did not do it; yes, that is the main atheistic
> claim of Darwinism.
"Darwinism" only refers to a particular mechanism of evolutionary change.
It says nothing about God, or his role in nature. Again, Ray, why can't
God use natural processes as his means of creation?
DJT
Dana Tweedy
snip
>>> Frank: I am a Creationist because Creationism is a scientific fact.
>>
>> But even if you were right only one of the mutually contradictory
>> creationist accounts would be fact. So if you thing that your account
>> is fact then AIG's young-earth/young-life and RTB's
>> old-earth/old-life are just as false as your dreaded "Darwinism" no
>> matter how many Creators and designers are running the show.
>>
>> Now please admit it.
>>
>
> Frank: you need to travel with an interpreter since I have no idea as
> to what you are talking about.
He's saying that if you are right, then all other creationists are just as
wrong as the "Darwinists". It's amazing that you can't figure that out
yourself.
snip
>> Sorry, but Dembski was expressing his personal faith, just like
>> Miller or Collins. When it suits his purpose he will admit that the
>> designer he claims to have found by empirical methods is not
>> necessarily God.
>>
>> So you can't have that both ways either.
>>
>
> No, Dembski was making a conclusion based on the evidence.
What evidence do you feel Dembski was basing this "conclusion" on?
> And Dembski
> does contradict himself. This is what happens when a movement defines
> itself and its terms with a political and legal objective in mind.
Dembski was expressing a religious opinion, in short, telling God what he
must do.
>
> The two biggest lies told by Darwinism and DI IDism: "our biological
> production theories say nothing about God."
Evolution is a scientific theory, and no scientific theory makes a comment
on God's existence, or actions. The DI coyly tries to omit God, because
they know that it's unconstitutional to teach religion in science classes.
>
> Axiomatic truth: ALL biological production theories say something
> about God; either for or against.
Once again. Ray, when you make up some wild and unsupported assertion, it's
not "axiomatic fact". Scientific theories say nothing about God. Your
claim is false on it's face.
DJT
Dana Tweedy
>>> Axiomatic truth: ALL biological production theories say something
>>> about God; either for or against.
>>
>> "Axiomatic truth" is your stock phrase for "something that I need to
>> assert as true because I can't support it otherwise". In fact, Ray,
>> NO biological production theory says anything about God at all. If
>> you want to infer that lack of claims about God are equivalent to
>> claims about the lack of God, that's up to you but you aren't
>> applying valid logic if you do so.
>>
>
> Now we know that you do not know what axiomatic truth is.
In "Rayspeak", the term "axiomatic truth" means "some odd idea that Ray
wants to believe". HTH.
DJT
mur...@tntech.edu
So... let me see if I've got this right. The man you consider to be
the greatest scholar the world has ever known advised you to *stop
asking questions*. And for this, you (probably) gave him lots of
money so that he could enjoy beautiful horses and fast women.
Wow. Maybe he *was* the greatest genius who ever lived.
I just hope you don't own any guns, because if you ever figure out
what happened, and you go over the edge...
---DPM
>
> Ray
John S. Wilkins
Here's the abstract: God. God, God, God, God, God - God God God; God God
God God God God God God God God. God God God God God God God God God.
God. Godgodgod/God. God.
--
John S. Wilkins, Philosophy, University of Sydney
scienceblogs.com/evolvingthoughts
But al be that he was a philosophre,
Yet hadde he but litel gold in cofre
Caranx latus
And a first crack at the screenplay:
Man: Morning!
Waitress: Morning!
Man: Well, what've you got?
Waitress: Well, there's egg and bacon; egg sausage and bacon; egg and
God; egg bacon and God; egg bacon sausage and God; God bacon sausage
and God; God egg God God bacon and God; God sausage God God bacon God
tomato and God; God God God egg and God; God God God God God God baked
beans God God God; or Lobster Thermidor a Crevette with a mornay sauce
served in a Provencale manner with shallots and aubergines garnished
with truffle pate, brandy and with a fried egg on top and God.
-- with apologies to Monty Python
Burkhard
Against: For verily, V(r) is an abomination unto God
TomS
<5c46481c-fc59-4a2d...@a39g2000prl.googlegroups.com>, Ray
Martinez stated..."
[...snip...]
>The two biggest lies told by Darwinism and DI IDism: "our biological
>production theories say nothing about God."
>
>Axiomatic truth: ALL biological production theories say something
>about God; either for or against.
What do theories of reproduction say about God?
Is the theory of vaccination for or against God? ("Vaccination
produces immunity.")
--
---Tom S.
"As scarce as truth is, the supply has always been in excess of the demand."
attributed to Josh Billings
'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank
> Sean, you claim to have proof of ID. If so, there's no doubt this is the
> greatest scientific discovery *of all time*. You have disproved evolution
> and proved intelligent beings or entities are not limited to this world
> (and incidentally gone further towards proving a god than anybody in
> history). Why do you not publish this astounding research in reputable peer
> reviewed journals for the lesser scientists to pick over? Usenet is really
> not the place for such astonishing news (and I mean that without a trace of
> sarcasm; it really would be astonishing). If there is no problem with it,
> the Nobel, and ever lasting worldwide admiration is yours. So, when are you
> going to publish it? If you're not, why not? (Please answer that last one
> without reference to a world wide atheist conspiracy).
Hmm, looks like Sean has flown the coop. Again.
Seanpit
>
> Are you telling me that you reject the Biblical explanationS for the
> existence of evil and suffering?
What is your Biblical explanation for these genetic diseases? Do you
think Satan sits down and deliberately manipulates each new
"spontaneous" case of cystic fibrosis? Really? It seems to me a
degenerative effect that is one of the side effects of God removing
his sustaining power from those who have asked him to leave - not from
any sort of deliberate manipulation by spiritual forces of darkness.
What about getting old? - and dieing of old age and old age diseases?
Do you think Satan directly produces that sort of genetic
deterioration as well? If so, Satan would have to be very very busy
indeed causing everyone to experience genetic decay at a pretty
constant predictable rate . . .
> Ray
Sean Pitman
www.DetectingDesign.com
Paul J Gans
And here all along I thought there was only supposed to be one God!
--
--- Paul J. Gans
Ray Martinez
> On Jan 30, 11:43 am, Ray Martinez <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > Are you telling me that you reject the Biblical explanationS for the
> > existence of evil and suffering?
>
> What is your Biblical explanation for these genetic diseases?
Disease, in its almost endless manifestations, would not exist if Adam
& Eve did not fall. Based on what happened in the Garden, God cursed
them (and us), the Earth----everything. The Bible, at no time, ever
addresses the fairness of this. It declares it so. We are all born in
Adam's sin and downfall. Reality corroborates these curses. The New
Testament says ALL curses fell on Christ when He was crucified. Jesus
is likened to be the second Adam. The benefits of Christ, receiving
them, have one precondition: faith. When faith in Christ is practiced
God will manifest these benefits in reality to "whosoever wills." The
Bible, at no time, ever addresses the fairness of this. It declares it
so. As a practicing Christian, Sean, you know all of these basic
things.
fc...@verizon.net
Are you saying that none of the organisms in those biosphere before
Adam and Eve got any diseases? Were there bacteria and viruses back
then?
>
> > > Ray
>
> > Sean Pitmanwww.DetectingDesign.com- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Caranx latus
>
> > On Jan 30, 11:43 am, Ray Martinez <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > Are you telling me that you reject the Biblical explanationS for the
> > > existence of evil and suffering?
>
> > What is your Biblical explanation for these genetic diseases?
>
> Disease, in its almost endless manifestations, would not exist if Adam
> & Eve did not fall. Based on what happened in the Garden, God cursed
> them (and us), the Earth----everything. The Bible, at no time, ever
> addresses the fairness of this. It declares it so. We are all born in
> Adam's sin and downfall. Reality corroborates these curses. The New
> Testament says ALL curses fell on Christ when He was crucified. Jesus
> is likened to be the second Adam. The benefits of Christ, receiving
> them, have one precondition: faith. When faith in Christ is practiced
> God will manifest these benefits in reality to "whosoever wills." The
> Bible, at no time, ever addresses the fairness of this. It declares it
> so. As a practicing Christian, Sean, you know all of these basic
> things.
Ray, do you believe that a person born with a genetic disease is cured
of that disease when they accept Christ as their savior?
fc...@verizon.net
Yeah, but somewhere in the full paper we should see "Gthe unnamed,
unembodied intelligent designerod."
> --
> John S. Wilkins, Philosophy, University of Sydney
> scienceblogs.com/evolvingthoughts
> But al be that he was a philosophre,
> Yet hadde he but litel gold in cofre- Hide quoted text -
Ray Martinez
>
>
>
> > Are you telling me that you reject the Biblical explanationS for the
> > existence of evil and suffering?
>
> What is your Biblical explanation for these genetic diseases? Do you
> think Satan sits down and deliberately manipulates each new
> "spontaneous" case of cystic fibrosis? Really?
Satan is the master geneticist----no doubt. Because of the Fall he was
awarded temporary charge over the cosmos, the Earth, and mankind. He
exploits the domain God has given him to its fullest.
The facts concerning the ebola virus, in my opinion, correspond
perfectly to the mind and objective of Satan. What you don't seem to
understand is that RM+NS is proposed and offered because God is judged
to be absent from reality. This is why all Atheists fanatically
promote Darwinism. Darwin became an Atheist-Materialist in
1837-1838----the exact same two years that he conceived his theory.
There is no such thing as material and Intelligent causation operating
in reality; it is one or the other----not both.
Ray
Ray Martinez
>
> > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Disease did not exist before the Fall: the Garden was a Paradise.
Ray
fc...@verizon.net
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Jan 29, 10:06 pm, Ray Martinez <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Jan 28, 4:19 pm, f...@verizon.net wrote:
>
>
> > > > > > Sean, you claim to have proof of ID. If so, there's no doubt this is the
> > > > > > greatest scientific discovery *of all time*. You have disproved evolution
> > > > > > and proved intelligent beings or entities are not limited to this world
> > > > > > (and incidentally gone further towards proving a god than anybody in
> > > > > > history). Why do you not publish this astounding research in reputable peer
> > > > > > reviewed journals for the lesser scientists to pick over? Usenet is really
> > > > > > not the place for such astonishing news (and I mean that without a trace of
> > > > > > sarcasm; it really would be astonishing). If there is no problem with it,
> > > > > > the Nobel, and ever lasting worldwide admiration is yours. So, when are you
> > > > > > going to publish it? If you're not, why not? (Please answer that last one
> > > > > > without reference to a world wide atheist conspiracy).
>
>
> > But even if you were right only one of the mutually contradictory
> > creationist accounts would be fact. So if you thing that your account
> > is fact then AIG's young-earth/young-life and RTB's old-earth/old-life
> > are just as false as your dreaded "Darwinism" no matter how many
> > Creators and designers are running the show.
>
> > Now please admit it.
>
> Frank: you need to travel with an interpreter since I have no idea as
> to what you are talking about.
>
My bad. I mistyped "think" as "thing." Now reread the paragraph that
way and tell me how - or whether - you think that mutually
contradictory accounts can be true at the same time.
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > > RM+NS is proposed because Genesis 1 and 2 are judged to be false:
> > > Divine power is NOT operating in reality.
>
> > > Divine power causes each species to exist in nature. Darwin rejected
> > > Creationism as just defined. This is WHY he sought another causation
> > > explanation of natural or material origin. Creationism rejects the
> > > existence of RM+NS. We accept Divine power operating in reality. This
> > > fact renders all further enquiry into causation to be unnecessary. Do
> > > you understand?
>
> > > William Dembski: "God is not an absentee landlord" ("Intelligent
> > > Design" 1999).
>
> > Sorry, but Dembski was expressing his personal faith, just like Miller
> > or Collins. When it suits his purpose he will admit that the designer
> > he claims to have found by empirical methods is not necessarily God.
>
> > So you can't have that both ways either.
>
> No, Dembski was making a conclusion based on the evidence. And Dembski
> does contradict himself. This is what happens when a movement defines
> itself and its terms with a political and legal objective in mind.
You are certainly correct that Dembsli contradicts himself. And if you
can supply a clear reference whare he admits finding God based on
evidence, I'll gladly retract what I said.
>
> The two biggest lies told by Darwinism and DI IDism: "our biological
> production theories say nothing about God."
>
> Axiomatic truth: ALL biological production theories say something
> about God; either for or against.
But they cancel out. I admit that I personally take evolution as
"another sign of God's creativity," but that cancels out others taking
evolution - and the weather for that matter - as a sign of no God.
I actually think that they partially cancel out with ID/creationism
too. But instead of "God/no God", it's "God/caricature God." To me
what makes it inappropriate for science class is not that it promotes
God, but rather promotes a cartoon caricature of God to most students.
Thus it inhibits the "free exercise thereof" by discouraging the view
of God promoted by many major religions. Plus by teaching students to
bear false witness about the evidence ("Explore Evolution" may be even
worse than "Pandas" in that respect) it promotes a religious view that
rejects at least one Commandment.
>
> Ray
Nomen Publicus
> Disease, in its almost endless manifestations, would not exist if Adam
> & Eve did not fall. Based on what happened in the Garden, God cursed
> them (and us), the Earth----everything. The Bible, at no time, ever
> addresses the fairness of this. It declares it so. We are all born in
> Adam's sin and downfall. Reality corroborates these curses. The New
> Testament says ALL curses fell on Christ when He was crucified. Jesus
> is likened to be the second Adam. The benefits of Christ, receiving
> them, have one precondition: faith. When faith in Christ is practiced
> God will manifest these benefits in reality to "whosoever wills." The
> Bible, at no time, ever addresses the fairness of this. It declares it
> so. As a practicing Christian, Sean, you know all of these basic
> things.
So, an all knowing god, created mankind KNOWING that adam&eve would fail to
follow instructions. That all knowing god then not only punishes the ones
who did wrong but all other humans, _forever_.
This is not the act of a loving god. This is the act of a evil, vindictive
god.
Just as well gods do not exist.
--
Don't pray in my school, and I won't think in your church
Steven L.
> On Jan 29, 2:34 pm, Robert Camp <robertlc...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> On Jan 29, 11:16 am, seanpitnos...@naturalselection.0catch.com wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>> On Jan 28, 4:19 pm, f...@verizon.net wrote:
>>>> On Jan 28, 11:20 am, Robert Camp <robertlc...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>>> On Jan 28, 6:45 am, Ilas <nob...@this.address.com> wrote:
>>>>>> Sean, you claim to have proof of ID. If so, there's no doubt this is the
>>>>>> greatest scientific discovery *of all time*. You have disproved evolution
>>>>>> and proved intelligent beings or entities are not limited to this world
>>>>>> (and incidentally gone further towards proving a god than anybody in
>>>>>> history). Why do you not publish this astounding research in reputable peer
>>>>>> reviewed journals for the lesser scientists to pick over? Usenet is really
>>>>>> not the place for such astonishing news (and I mean that without a trace of
>>>>>> sarcasm; it really would be astonishing). If there is no problem with it,
>>>>>> the Nobel, and ever lasting worldwide admiration is yours. So, when are you
>>>>>> going to publish it? If you're not, why not? (Please answer that last one
>>>>>> without reference to a world wide atheist conspiracy).
>>>>> If I'm not mistaken (and I very well could be, I don't read all of his
>>>>> proof of ID. He claims to have a testable hypothesis along the lines
>>>>> of SETI research (he's wrong about this but that's a different story).
>>>>> He seems to see his 1000aa challenge as a reasonable and pertinent
>>>>> test of that hypothesis (he's also wrong about this, and that too is
>>>>> another story).
>>>>> that he certainly believes an Intelligent Designer has been
>>>>> substantially involved. And there's plenty wrong with his ideas
>>>>> (including a whole host of problems with his hypothesis itself) but in
>>>>> my experience he's been careful enough not to claim to have proof of
>>>>> anything.
>>>>> RLC
>>>> He's very careful, at least lately, to only claim to have an argument
>>>> for the improbability of "RM/NS" to affect certain biological changes
>>>> - not even a qualitative barrier as Behe had with IC (though Behe too
>>>> seems to have retreated to improbability arguments (also bogus) in
>>>> "Edge of Evolution"). The first thing any scientist who truly believed
>>>> that something other than RM/NS is necessary (or far more probable)
>>>> would to would be to clearly state and test his alternative, and
>>>> reject it if it doesn't pass the tests. None of that requires stating
>>>> whether one believes that a designer (or some supernatural process)
>>>> that.
>>>> Any bets that he'll take the offer?
>>>> Hey Ray, if you're reading, the offer goes to you too.
>>> alternative hypothesis has already been tested beyond the 1000 fsaar
>>> level of functional complexity and has passed the test. Humans can
>>> and are producing functional biosystems well beyond the 1000 fsaar
>>> threshold level.
>> Wonderful. So what?
>>
>> If true, all that means is that you have tested the hypothesis that
>> humans can produce a particular level of biological complexity. This
>> is *not* a test of whether natural systems and structures like
>> flagella are designed any more than me roasting some veggies on my
>> grill is a test of whether all fire-damaged plants are the result of
>> spatula-wielding lunatics with propane.
>>
>> What will be produced by legitimate tests of your hypothesis is
>> evidence (or not) of the purposeful activity of the non-human-but-
>> human-level-intelligence being(s) who managed to intervene in the
>> evolution of life on earth without leaving the slightest trace. You
>> need to find unambiguous positive evidence for your hypothesis, not
>> some toothless demonstration that humans can do something. In the face
>> of the tsunami of evidence against your hypothesis, that silly bit of
>> distraction is a faucet leak.
>
> That "faucet leak" as you call it, undermines the very heart of the to
> - the mechanism of RM/NS. The demonstration is that RM/NS doesn't
> come remotely close to doing the job. In fact, it shows a very clear
> exponential decline both in demonstration and by statistical
> analysis. Take this evidence, together with the fact that humans can
> do the job, and you have just as solid a basis for the ID-only
> hypothesis as SETI has for their ETI hypothesis.
No, that's a logical fallacy.
What you are claiming is equivalent to the UFO proponents when they say:
1. Some mysterious lights in the sky have never been properly
identified. (TRUE)
2. I can fly in an aerial balloon, and with the proper equipment on
board, I can produce some lights in the sky which look mysterious. (TRUE)
3. Therefore, those mysterious lights in the sky which haven't been
identified must be of intelligent origin too. (NO, DAMMIT!)
The fact that one cause of certain phenomena is human-caused, doesn't
mean that all such similar phenomena are human-caused.
--
Steven L.
Email: sdli...@earthlinkNOSPAM.net
Remove the NOSPAM before replying to me.
Steven L.
> On Fri, 30 Jan 2009 11:43:32 -0800 (PST), the following
> appeared in talk.origins, posted by Ray Martinez
> <pyram...@yahoo.com>:
>
>> On Jan 30, 6:06 am, Seanpit <sean...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> On Jan 29, 7:06 pm, Ray Martinez <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> Frank: I am a Creationist because Creationism is a scientific fact.
>>>> Divine power is NOT operating in reality.
>>>> Divine power causes each species to exist in nature. Darwin rejected
>>>> Creationism as just defined. This is WHY he sought another causation
>>>> explanation of natural or material origin. Creationism rejects the
>>>> existence of RM+NS. We accept Divine power operating in reality. This
>>>> fact renders all further enquiry into causation to be unnecessary. Do
>>>> you understand?
>>>> William Dembski: "God is not an absentee landlord" ("Intelligent
>>>> Design" 1999)
>>> fibrosis, achondroplasia, Huntington's chorea, chronic myelogenous
>>> leukemia, sickle cell anemia, etc? If not, how do these genetic
>>> diseases arise?
>>>
>>>> Ray
>>> Sean Pitmanwww.DetectingDesign.com
>> Are you telling me that you reject the Biblical explanationS for the
>> existence of evil and suffering?
>
> other) diseases? Something about the evil they had done?
If you're a fundamentalist Protestant, a theological descendant of
Calvin, then that is *exactly* what you believe.
You believe that each of us is guilty of original sin from the moment we
were *conceived*. That means that if a fetus develops an abnormality in
the womb and is born with that defect, why that's just punishment for
that baby's original sin.
Steven L.
Don't forget the chorus:
"God, God, God, Goddity God, oh Goddity God!"
Steven L.
> On Jan 30, 8:02 pm, Earle Jones <earle.jo...@comcast.net> wrote:
>> In article
>> <ab852324-520f-4ecc-8811-802a49e94...@t39g2000prh.googlegroups.com>,
>> Ray Martinez <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>> On Jan 30, 11:53 am, Caranx latus <kar...@sympatico.ca> wrote:
>>>> On Jan 29, 10:06 pm, Ray Martinez <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>>> On Jan 28, 4:19 pm, f...@verizon.net wrote:
>>>> <snip>
>>>>> We accept Divine power operating in reality. This
>>>>> fact renders all further enquiry into causation to be unnecessary. Do
>>>>> you understand?
>>>> Translation: "Goddidit. Stop asking questions."
>>> Absolutely correct.
>>> Ray
>> *
>> Ray, that would make a great abstract/summary of your forthcoming paper:
>>
>> "Goddiddit. Stop asking questions."
>>
>> earle
>> *
>
> Abstract? Summary? Don't you mean the entire paper? Anything more
> would be redundant and unnecessary. Which makes one wonder why it is
> taking him so long.
He's still adding the footnotes and citations thus:
"God [1,2,3] did [4] it.[5,6] Stop asking [7] questions.[8,9]"
Steven L.
> There's not a "conspiracy" per se - at least not in any sort of
> conscious manner. However, there is a very intense passion against
> anything remotely resembling a challenge of the fundamental doctrines
> of the ToE. Even mainstream scientists are human and prone to very
> strong feelings against anything and anyone who challenges pet ideas.
> In fact, the ToE is held onto so strongly and so passionately by many
> mainstream scientists today that it takes on an almost sacred status
> for them. These men and women are often just as dogmatic and
> passionate about their belief in the ToE as any group of hardened
> sectarian fundamentalists in any church-going community.
There were huge vested interests against other scientific theories:
The tobacco industry fought tooth and nail against the theory that
smoking causes cancer.
The makers of consumer products in spray cans fought against the theory
that halocarbons were causing holes in the ozone layer.
But in both of these cases, within a couple of decades at most, both
theories became universally accepted--not just by scientists but even by
the general public.
Other heretical theories that got accepted within a couple of decades in
my lifetime include: Peptic ulcers being caused by infection rather
than by emotional stress; the dinosaurs being warm-blooded; and the
dinosaurs being wiped out by bolide impact. All of these overturned
long-held theories. There was resistance to each of them at first. It
took 20 years of research and advocacy to establish that infection can
cause peptic ulcers. But it was successful.
If there really were a scientifically valid refutation of the ToE, it
too would be universally accepted within 10 or 20 years at most.
Guaranteed.
Sure there is resistance to any new theory which seeks to overturn
long-held ideas. It takes work to gather enough evidence to convince
the skeptics--and even longer to defeat vested interests in the old
ways. But as you can see from the above examples, IT DOES HAPPEN if the
science is valid.
That it hasn't happened with the ToE in 100 years is convincing evidence
that no valid refutations have been found.
> My point is that this isn't some topic of dispassionate
> consideration. It reaches into the very soul of who many people think
> they are.
The theory that smoking can cause cancer meant the possible loss of tens
of billions of dollars in revenue to the tobacco companies. They fought
like hell against that theory--it meant the loss of their own profits
and stock options and whatnot. But the science won and the tobacco
companies lost--just about everybody knows by now that smoking can cause
cancer. Even *smokers* know that. Ask Obama.
Science will win--eventually--if the science is valid.
But no such thing has ever happened to refute the ToE.
fc...@verizon.net
>
> > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -
>
> Disease did not exist before the Fall: the Garden was a Paradise.
That does not answer my questions. Try again. I have many more
questions, but I'm trying to keep it simple for you.
>
> Ray
Bob Casanova
in talk.origins, posted by "Steven L."
<sdli...@earthlink.net>:
Yep. And that's why I generally refer to such
fundamentalists as "mentally defective".
--
Bob C.
"Evidence confirming an observation is
evidence that the observation is wrong."
- McNameless
Ray Martinez
>
> - Show quoted text -
100 percent true.
And here's the abstract of just about every evolution paper and book
ever written: "On The Origin Of Species By Means Of Natural
Selection" (Darwin 1859); "The Genetical Theory Of Natural
Selection" (Fisher 1930); natural selection, natural selection,
natural selection, natural selection, natural selection, natural
selection, natural selection, natural selection, natural selection,
natural selection, natural selection, natural selection, natural
selection, natural selection, natural selection, natural selection-did-
it.
That is the choice: God-Intelligent-supernatural causation OR material-
natural (selection) causation (not both; are you listening/
understanding Sean Pitman?).
Ray
Gene Poole
>> include RM/NS.
>>
>
> AFAIK, humans are doing nothing but glorified cut-n-paste, but maybe you
> know something I don't. Care to offer a reference to humans inventing
> novel 1000 "fsaar" biosystems?
I'm still waiting on that reference Sean.
Ye Old One
Nuts! Totally nuts.
--
Bob.
Ye Old One
<pyram...@yahoo.com> enriched this group when s/he wrote:
>On Jan 31, 7:55 am, Seanpit <sean...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Jan 30, 11:43 am, Ray Martinez <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> > Are you telling me that you reject the Biblical explanationS for the
>> > existence of evil and suffering?
>>
>> What is your Biblical explanation for these genetic diseases?
>
>Disease, in its almost endless manifestations, would not exist if Adam
>& Eve did not fall.
Adam and Eve are fictional characters in a bronze age creation myth.
> Based on what happened in the Garden, God cursed
>them (and us), the Earth----everything. The Bible, at no time, ever
>addresses the fairness of this. It declares it so. We are all born in
>Adam's sin and downfall.
Speak for yourself Dishonest Ray, I was born in bed.
> Reality corroborates these curses. The New
>Testament says ALL curses fell on Christ when He was crucified. Jesus
>is likened to be the second Adam. The benefits of Christ, receiving
>them, have one precondition: faith. When faith in Christ is practiced
>God will manifest these benefits in reality to "whosoever wills." The
>Bible, at no time, ever addresses the fairness of this. It declares it
>so. As a practicing Christian, Sean, you know all of these basic
>things.
You are nuts.
--
Bob.
Ray Martinez
>
>
>
> > Are you telling me that you reject the Biblical explanationS for the
> > existence of evil and suffering?
>
> What is your Biblical explanation for these genetic diseases? Do you
> think Satan sits down and deliberately manipulates each new
> "spontaneous" case of cystic fibrosis? Really? It seems to me a
> degenerative effect that is one of the side effects of God removing
> his sustaining power from those who have asked him to leave - not from
> any sort of deliberate manipulation by spiritual forces of darkness.
>
I would venture to say that very few people (if any) ask God to
leave.
Both cancer and AIDS behave as if a supernatural intelligence designed
them in full knowledge of genetics and chemistry. Their insidious
ability to evade understanding and cure by our best minds supports
this claim.
Walter Lammerts (doctor of genetics; Creationist, species
immutabilist) is quoted in Ronald L. Numbers "The Creationists" as
accepting Satan to be a "master geneticist." There is no other way to
explain the number of diseases that act and behave designed evading
cures by our best doctors. These diseases could not be generated by an
antithesis: mindless and unguided material forces----logically
impossible.
Darwinists are completely wrong about life, Sean; they are wholly
dishonest and implacable, pro-Atheism fanatics----brazen liars; since
nature looks designed by a Divine Being, inside and out. They would
give God the finger to His face by denying this design and telling us
that the concept is an illusion, that our brains and eyes are
deceiving us.
Once again: based on the observation and results of design and
organized complexity seen in every aspect of nature, to a degree
beyond computation (Paley 1802) mutation or variation CANNOT be
random, but it is produced by a designed mechanism reflecting its
origin in Divine power. Natural selection is a short list of truisms
euphemistically bestowed the title of a "mechanism." You seem to
forget that the full and objective claim of natural selection is
"creative force." By eliminating the bad it preserves the good. This
is a paradoxical claim advocating voodoo. It fails any and all sound
logic, especially the logic in which it is offered: Naturalism.
The RM+NS that you accept, Sean, does not exist since the objective
claim of RM+NS is "creator of species and mankind," not God. The RM+NS
that you accept is therefore counterfeit (subjective and sourceless).
Only a moron or God hating Atheist would believe that differential
reproduction is the main creator of life (= impossible), replacing
God. Darwin and Darwinists are (supernaturally) confused,
corresponding to the moron of eternity: the disobedience of Pharaoh.
Scientific Fact: New species appear the way Genesis says original
species appeared (there is no other way); "God is not an absentee
landlord" (Dembski 1999); species are immutable; transmutation is
impossible, a false interpretation of evidence----secular voodoo that
seeks to dispense with God. Dr. Gene Scott said persons who dispense
with God as an explanation of nature (acceptance of Darwinism) have
already been dispensed with by God----that is why they dispense with
Him.
How do you explain "Christians" who accept and support the exact same
biological production theory that Richard Dawkins fanatically
promotes, and not Genesis?
Natural selection dispenses with God. Since you do not dispense with
God that is why I said the NS that you accept is counterfeit.
SNIP....
Ray
wf3h
>
> Both cancer and AIDS behave as if a supernatural intelligence designed
> them in full knowledge of genetics and chemistry. Their insidious
> ability to evade understanding and cure by our best minds supports
> this claim.
ray, the problem with your creationism is that this claim can be made
about anything. tsunamis evade our control. ID? hurricanes? ID?
in fact, this is precisely why ID isn't science. it has no predictive
value and can not be tested
>
> Walter Lammerts (doctor of genetics; Creationist, species
> immutabilist) is quoted in Ronald L. Numbers "The Creationists" as
> accepting Satan to be a "master geneticist." There is no other way to
> explain the number of diseases that act and behave designed evading
> cures by our best doctors. These diseases could not be generated by an
> antithesis: mindless and unguided material forces----logically
> impossible.
sure this is a way to explain it: we havent figured out yet how to
control them. every disease has been there. TB, polio...at one time we
couldnt control those either. so does god 'de-design' a disease when
we learn how to cure it?
this is the type of nonsense you creationists bring on yourselves
>
> Darwinists are completely wrong about life, Sean; they are wholly
> dishonest and implacable, pro-Atheism fanatics----brazen liars; since
> nature looks designed by a Divine Being, inside and out. They would
> give God the finger to His face by denying this design and telling us
> that the concept is an illusion, that our brains and eyes are
> deceiving us.
in your opinon. this is merely an opinion and it's shared by only a
few fringe cultists like yourself
> How do you explain "Christians" who accept and support the exact same
> biological production theory that Richard Dawkins fanatically
> promotes, and not Genesis?
uh...the same way that christians and atheists both agree that atoms
exist, ray. facts are facts.
> =
VoiceOfReason
As a myth it's totally feasible. As a view of reality it's... well,
it's kinda... in a metaphysical view, it's... oh screw it, you're
right, it's nuts.
Dana Tweedy
>
> 100 percent true.
>
> And here's the abstract of just about every evolution paper and book
> ever written: "On The Origin Of Species By Means Of Natural
> Selection" (Darwin 1859); "The Genetical Theory Of Natural
> Selection" (Fisher 1930); natural selection, natural selection,
> natural selection, natural selection, natural selection, natural
> selection, natural selection, natural selection, natural selection,
> natural selection, natural selection, natural selection, natural
> selection, natural selection, natural selection, natural
> selection-did-
> it.
Ray, you seem to have forgotten that natural selection is only part of the
mechanism of evolution. Furthermore, natural selection can be observed to
be acting on populations. No one has ever observed God creating new
species by magic.
>
> That is the choice: God-Intelligent-supernatural causation OR
> material-
> natural (selection) causation (not both; are you listening/
> understanding Sean Pitman?).
Once again, Ray, why can't "God-Intelligent-supernatural" make use of
natural causation as his means of creation? That makes a hash of your
false dichotomy.
DJT
Dana Tweedy
> On Jan 31, 7:55 am, Seanpit <sean...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Jan 30, 11:43 am, Ray Martinez <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>> Are you telling me that you reject the Biblical explanationS for the
>>> existence of evil and suffering?
>>
>> What is your Biblical explanation for these genetic diseases? Do you
>> think Satan sits down and deliberately manipulates each new
>> "spontaneous" case of cystic fibrosis? Really? It seems to me a
>> degenerative effect that is one of the side effects of God removing
>> his sustaining power from those who have asked him to leave - not
>> from any sort of deliberate manipulation by spiritual forces of
>> darkness.
>>
>
> I would venture to say that very few people (if any) ask God to
> leave.
You seem to believe, however that God acts like an insecure adolescent, who
drives people away, rather than risk rejection.
>
> Both cancer and AIDS behave as if a supernatural intelligence designed
> them in full knowledge of genetics and chemistry. Their insidious
> ability to evade understanding and cure by our best minds supports
> this claim.
Cancer and AIDS behave as ordinary diseases. How do you know how something
designed by a superantural intelligence behaves, considering that no such
thing has ever been observed?
>
> Walter Lammerts (doctor of genetics; Creationist, species
> immutabilist) is quoted in Ronald L. Numbers "The Creationists" as
> accepting Satan to be a "master geneticist."
Mr. Lammerts is entitled to his opinion, but that doesn't mean that genetic
diseases are the product of Satan.
> There is no other way to
> explain the number of diseases that act and behave designed evading
> cures by our best doctors.
Genetic mutation explains the diseases quite well, without involving a
unwarranted assumption.
> These diseases could not be generated by an
> antithesis: mindless and unguided material forces----logically
> impossible.
Ray, you fail logic again. There's no reason why genetic diseases can't
be produced by natural forces. There's no logical reason to assume they
cannot.
>
> Darwinists are completely wrong about life, Sean; they are wholly
> dishonest and implacable, pro-Atheism fanatics
"Darwinists" Ray, are simply scientists who are looking to explain the
diversity of life. There's nothing dishonest, or 'pro atheism" about
evolution, or those who study it.
> ----brazen liars; since
> nature looks designed by a Divine Being, inside and out.
You are assuming your personal opinion is an objective fact, despite
evidence to the contrary. Also, Ray, since no one has ever observed
anything designed by a Divine Being, how would you know what something
designed by a divine being looks like?
> They would
> give God the finger to His face by denying this design and telling us
> that the concept is an illusion, that our brains and eyes are
> deceiving us.
Scientists don't have the gall to tell God how he must create. Your
belief in "design" doesn't make it design, and human brains and eyes are
easily deceived. However, you again are assuming you would know "design"
when you see it. Since there is nothing objectively known to be designed
by a supernatural being to compare it with, making that assumption is
unwarranted, and premature.
>
> Once again: based on the observation and results of design and
> organized complexity seen in every aspect of nature,
Again, Ray, there isn't any observation of design, and certainly no
"results" of the design assumption. You have the appearance of design,
which is much better explained as the result of natural processes. The
appearance of design has been observed to be produced by natural processes.
No one has ever observed a supernatural being designing and producing
anything by supernatural means.
> to a degree
> beyond computation (Paley 1802) mutation or variation CANNOT be
> random, but it is produced by a designed mechanism reflecting its
> origin in Divine power.
Your assumption is wrong. Mutations are random, and show absolutely no
evidence of pre-planning.
> Natural selection is a short list of truisms
> euphemistically bestowed the title of a "mechanism."
If you feel that Natural Selection is a "truism" than you are irrational to
claim it doesn't exist.
> You seem to
> forget that the full and objective claim of natural selection is
> "creative force."
Natural selection, acting on random mutations is a creative force, as can
easily be demonstrated in computer simulations.
> By eliminating the bad it preserves the good.
Actually, natural selection doesn't make any such distinction between "good"
or "bad". Natural selection removes harmful variations from the gene
pool, and favors those that offer some kind of advantage.
> This
> is a paradoxical claim advocating voodoo.
Why do you imagine it's either? It's not a paradox that natural
selection does not permit harmful variations to spread, and favors
beneficial variations. What determines what is harmful, or beneficial, is
the environment.
> It fails any and all sound
> logic, especially the logic in which it is offered: Naturalism.
Once again, Ray, you must realize that your grasp of what is logical is
severely limited
>
> The RM+NS that you accept, Sean, does not exist since the objective
> claim of RM+NS is "creator of species and mankind," not God.
Once again, Ray, why can't God use natural selection and random mutations as
part of the mechanism by which he creates? Natural selection and random
mutations do exist, no matter how much you wish they did not. If God
created, that must be how he did so.
> The RM+NS
> that you accept is therefore counterfeit (subjective and sourceless).
Random mutation and natural selection have been directly observed. It's
your own irrational beliefs that are "sourceless and subjective".
> Only a moron or God hating Atheist would believe that differential
> reproduction is the main creator of life (= impossible),
Differential reproduction is only part of the mechanism that produces the
diversity of life. Just because you refuse to accept fact, does not mean
that natural processes are impossible. Accepting the evidence neither
makes one a 'moron', nor do atheists hate God. Your own lack of vision
and sense are not indictments of others.
> replacing
> God. Darwin and Darwinists are (supernaturally) confused,
> corresponding to the moron of eternity: the disobedience of Pharaoh.
Your misunderstanding of nature is your own fault. Don't blame others for
your own failings.
>
> Scientific Fact: New species appear the way Genesis says original
> species appeared (there is no other way);
There's no evidence that suggests that species appear by a supernatural
being poofing them into existence. Speciation of a conventional manner
has been observed many times.
> "God is not an absentee
> landlord" (Dembski 1999);
Dembski's statement is his own religious opinon. God isn't bound by
whatever Dembski claims.
>species are immutable; transmutation is
> impossible,
Both statements are false. No matter how often you repeat them, they are
still false.
> a false interpretation of evidence----secular voodoo that
> seeks to dispense with God.
Wrong again. The purpose of science is to understand the world, not to
dispense with God.
> Dr. Gene Scott said persons who dispense
> with God as an explanation of nature (acceptance of Darwinism) have
> already been dispensed with by God----that is why they dispense with
> Him.
Mr. Scott was wrong about a lot of things. This is no exception.
>
> How do you explain "Christians" who accept and support the exact same
> biological production theory that Richard Dawkins fanatically
> promotes, and not Genesis?
By understanding that Christians choose to accept the truth. Richard
Dawkins does not "fanatically" promote evoution, he studies the science of
the theory. Genesis is a religious writing, not science.
>
> Natural selection dispenses with God.
Not if God uses natural selection as his means of creation.
> Since you do not dispense with
> God that is why I said the NS that you accept is counterfeit.
Your claim is wrong, no matter why you say it.
DJT
VoiceOfReason
Ray Martinez wrote:
<...>
> That is the choice: God-Intelligent-supernatural causation OR material-
> natural (selection) causation (not both; are you listening/
> understanding Sean Pitman?).
That you are unable to reconcile your beliefs with science is your own
problem. Most Christians do not suffer from that limitation.
Burkhard
> Ray Martinez <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > Disease, in its almost endless manifestations, would not exist if Adam
> > & Eve did not fall. Based on what happened in the Garden, God cursed
> > them (and us), the Earth----everything. The Bible, at no time, ever
> > addresses the fairness of this. It declares it so. We are all born in
> > Adam's sin and downfall. Reality corroborates these curses. The New
> > Testament says ALL curses fell on Christ when He was crucified. Jesus
> > is likened to be the second Adam. The benefits of Christ, receiving
> > them, have one precondition: faith. When faith in Christ is practiced
> > God will manifest these benefits in reality to "whosoever wills."
So everybody after the crucifiction of Christ who fell ill, ever,
even with a minor cold, did so only because he wasn't sufficiently
faithfull? Mhhhh, my guess is that then, nobody ever had succifient
faith in Christ - ao we are ALL atheists now?
'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank
I wonder if Ray has ever been sick . . . . . . .
================================================
Lenny Flank
"There are no loose threads in the web of life"
Editor, Red and Black Publishers
http://www.RedandBlackPublishers.com
Steven L.
Well, if there were no bacteria or viruses, then vegetation would grow
infinitely and never decay or rot away. Pretty soon, Adam and Eve would
be living in the densest jungle ever, having to claw their way through
it (machetes hadn't been invented yet). That doesn't sound like a
"paradise" to me.
Steven L.
No, the myth that disease didn't exist and Adam and Eve lived forever is
at least self-consistent.
My problem with it is that we humans live in symbiosis with certain
"friendly" *non-pathogenic* bacteria, the "normal flora."
My questions for the creationists would be:
1. What was the composition of the blood in Adam's circulatory system
when he was created by God? Did it contain albumin (products of past
consumption of protein)?
2. Did God create Adam and Eve with hair, or were they hairless and
bald? (Hair takes quite a while to grow)
3. If Adam and Eve were truly created as bacteria-free, how come they
didn't suffer massive diarrhea and malnutrition from the lack of
symbiotic "normal flora" in their gut? (We actually depend on certain
strains of bacteria in our gut to help us absorb water and certain
nutrients.)
4. If there were no bacteria, what happened when Adam and Eve ate some
fruit and threw away the core, rind, seeds, etc.? The stuff just stayed
on the ground forever and didn't decay or rot away? Or did they have a
dumpster for trash? Did God come along periodically and collect the trash?
Steven L.
No, as I explained in another post, certain fundamentalist Protestants,
the theological descendants of Calvinism, believe that "original sin" is
so all-pervasive with humanity that each one of us was cursed with it
from the moment we were *conceived*. So every fetus and every infant is
automatically guilty of original sin. Since you can't expect fetuses
and infants to pray to God, they are vulnerable to being "cursed" with
spina bifida, childhood leukemia, and other congenital defects.
You gotta admit, it's at least a self-consistent faith-based explanation.
Steven L.
Ray's post is significant, because it shows exactly what Ray and his
fundamentalist brethren can't let go of the literal Genesis creation myth.
So if I were trying to explain evolution to an audience, I think I would
first ask for a show of hands: How many believe (as does Ray) that the
story of Jesus is meaningless without a literal Fall? If most in the
audience raise their hands, then I think I would just sit down and give
up. I would have lost the fight, right there, without saying one word
about evolution. Those folks cannot ever accept evolution (or even the
scientific theories of the origin and age of the Earth), no matter how
it's explained or justified.
Steven L.
> On Jan 30, 5:13 pm, Ray Martinez <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> On Jan 30, 1:46 pm, f...@verizon.net wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>> On Jan 29, 10:06 pm, Ray Martinez <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>> On Jan 28, 4:19 pm, f...@verizon.net wrote:
>>>>> On Jan 28, 11:20 am, Robert Camp <robertlc...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>> On Jan 28, 6:45 am, Ilas <nob...@this.address.com> wrote:
>>>>>>> Sean, you claim to have proof of ID. If so, there's no doubt this is the
>>>>>>> greatest scientific discovery *of all time*. You have disproved evolution
>>>>>>> and proved intelligent beings or entities are not limited to this world
>>>>>>> (and incidentally gone further towards proving a god than anybody in
>>>>>>> history). Why do you not publish this astounding research in reputable peer
>>>>>>> reviewed journals for the lesser scientists to pick over? Usenet is really
>>>>>>> not the place for such astonishing news (and I mean that without a trace of
>>>>>>> sarcasm; it really would be astonishing). If there is no problem with it,
>>>>>>> the Nobel, and ever lasting worldwide admiration is yours. So, when are you
>>>>>>> going to publish it? If you're not, why not? (Please answer that last one
>>>>>>> without reference to a world wide atheist conspiracy).
>>>>>> If I'm not mistaken (and I very well could be, I don't read all of his
>>>>>> proof of ID. He claims to have a testable hypothesis along the lines
>>>>>> of SETI research (he's wrong about this but that's a different story).
>>>>>> He seems to see his 1000aa challenge as a reasonable and pertinent
>>>>>> test of that hypothesis (he's also wrong about this, and that too is
>>>>>> another story).
>>>>>> that he certainly believes an Intelligent Designer has been
>>>>>> substantially involved. And there's plenty wrong with his ideas
>>>>>> (including a whole host of problems with his hypothesis itself) but in
>>>>>> my experience he's been careful enough not to claim to have proof of
>>>>>> anything.
>>>>>> RLC
>>>>> He's very careful, at least lately, to only claim to have an argument
>>>>> for the improbability of "RM/NS" to affect certain biological changes
>>>>> - not even a qualitative barrier as Behe had with IC (though Behe too
>>>>> seems to have retreated to improbability arguments (also bogus) in
>>>>> "Edge of Evolution"). The first thing any scientist who truly believed
>>>>> that something other than RM/NS is necessary (or far more probable)
>>>>> would to would be to clearly state and test his alternative, and
>>>>> reject it if it doesn't pass the tests. None of that requires stating
>>>>> whether one believes that a designer (or some supernatural process)
>>>>> that.
>>>>> Any bets that he'll take the offer?
>>>>> Hey Ray, if you're reading, the offer goes to you too.
>>> creationist accounts would be fact. So if you thing that your account
>>> is fact then AIG's young-earth/young-life and RTB's old-earth/old-life
>>> are just as false as your dreaded "Darwinism" no matter how many
>>> Creators and designers are running the show.
>>> Now please admit it.
>> Frank: you need to travel with an interpreter since I have no idea as
>> to what you are talking about.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>>> Divine power is NOT operating in reality.
>>>> Divine power causes each species to exist in nature. Darwin rejected
>>>> Creationism as just defined. This is WHY he sought another causation
>>>> explanation of natural or material origin. Creationism rejects the
>>>> fact renders all further enquiry into causation to be unnecessary. Do
>>>> you understand?
>>>> Design" 1999).
>>> Sorry, but Dembski was expressing his personal faith, just like Miller
>>> or Collins. When it suits his purpose he will admit that the designer
>>> he claims to have found by empirical methods is not necessarily God.
>>> So you can't have that both ways either.
>> No, Dembski was making a conclusion based on the evidence. And Dembski
>> does contradict himself. This is what happens when a movement defines
>> itself and its terms with a political and legal objective in mind.
>>
>> production theories say nothing about God."
>>
>> Axiomatic truth: ALL biological production theories say something
>> about God; either for or against.
>
> assert as true because I can't support it otherwise". In fact, Ray, NO
> biological production theory says anything about God at all.
No, I actually agree with Ray about that, and I disagree with you.
Orthodox science refutes a literal Genesis myth, which undefcuts that
sect of Protestantism which regards a literal Fall as central to
understanding the significance of Jesus.
That is *NOT* a problem you can just wish away by claiming "science
doesn't say something about God." There are millions of decent,
law-abiding folks who regard the Fall and the story of Jesus as
indissolubly linked.
I happen to agree with them about that much at least. Without the Fall,
Jesus gets reduced to being nothing more than a nice young rabbi who
taught his congregation to be nice too, and who got executed by the
Romans for his allegedly subversive ideas. No more significant than all
the other rabble-rousers that the Romans executed for sedition.
Steven L.
> On Jan 30, 4:13 pm, Ray Martinez <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>> [...snippo...]
>> The two biggest lies told by Darwinism and DI IDism: "our biological
>> production theories say nothing about God."
>>
>> Axiomatic truth: ALL biological production theories say something
>> about God; either for or against.
>
>
The Schrodinger equation is not usually considered to be a biological
theory.
The Big Bang theory certainly *implies* something about God.
hersheyh
I recommend pooling together a fund to give Ray a free gift of a
year's supply of the typical "drinking water" of Zimbabwe. Let's see
how "faithful" he is when the test has a bit more at stake than merely
getting an earful from the reality-based community. Offer should be
open to Sean as well. After all, it isn't the water...