Ray, please define "scientific evidence"

7 views
Skip to first unread message

Rolf

unread,
Jan 23, 2009, 3:17:58 AM1/23/09
to
Ray says:
"Creationism is an explanation and interpretation of scientific evidence."

As far as I can tell, definition of words is an essential part of Ray's
attempt at debunking evolution in his forthcoming paper..

I hope it is not too much to ask for, that Ray let us know the definition.
That (hopefully) will enable me to revise my opinion about the ToE and
(hopefully?) abandon that heresy, see the light and no longer be an atheist.
Ray, you must understand that you can save my soul, and (hopefully) also
many other souls by prividing access to truth by the simple measure of
providing the true definition of "scientific evidence".

I know you have it; you could not argue against evolution the way you are
doing in this forum without access to the definition.

With anticipation, Rolf


Rolf

unread,
Jan 26, 2009, 1:03:54 PM1/26/09
to

Seems that was asking for more than Ray can answer. But that is what we have
come to expect He doesn't have real answers to real questions; he just
pretends he didn't read it.


Message has been deleted

wf3h

unread,
Jan 26, 2009, 8:52:07 PM1/26/09
to
On Jan 26, 8:36 pm, Ray Martinez <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > pretends he didn't read it.- Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -
>
> Rolf: I have been researching and writing a scientific paper, starting
> my fouth year real soon. Two years in I announced conversion to fixism
> or species immutability.

pretty soon everything in ray's world will become immutabile...nothing
will change. his thinking...such as it is..will grind to a halt. his
fingers will stop over the keys, never to type another thing....

and the world will be a better place

JohnN

unread,
Jan 26, 2009, 9:14:54 PM1/26/09
to

Ray: "Scientific evidence is blue."

JohnN

Harry K

unread,
Jan 26, 2009, 11:22:56 PM1/26/09
to
On Jan 26, 5:36 pm, Ray Martinez <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Jan 26, 10:03 am, "Rolf" <rolf.aalb...@tele2.no> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > pretends he didn't read it.- Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -
>
> Rolf: I have been researching and writing a scientific paper, starting
> my fouth year real soon.

<snip>
> Ray

Has it really been that long already? And you still havn't even got
the title page done. Amazing.

Harry K

Boikat

unread,
Jan 27, 2009, 12:57:25 AM1/27/09
to

IIUC, he skipped the title page and went straight to the Glossery so
he could make up his own definitions...

Boikat

Ye Old One

unread,
Jan 27, 2009, 7:28:30 AM1/27/09
to
On Mon, 26 Jan 2009 17:36:21 -0800 (PST), Ray Martinez
<pyram...@yahoo.com> enriched this group when s/he wrote:

>On Jan 26, 10:03 am, "Rolf" <rolf.aalb...@tele2.no> wrote:

>> pretends he didn't read it.- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> - Show quoted text -
>
>Rolf: I have been researching and writing a scientific paper, starting

>my fouth year real soon. Two years in I announced conversion to fixism

>or species immutability. This means that I had accepted microevolution
>like the vast majority of Creationists. I could find no evidence,
>during a two year search, supporting the claim of species
>mutability----none. Whatever scientific evidence is I could not find
>any that supported the claim of mutability. Maybe I don't know what
>"scientific evidence" is?

Don't you think you should find out? I mean, you can't even attempt to
write a "scientific paper" if you don't even understand what
scientific evidence is.

>Can you show me any scientific evidence
>supporting the claim that species are immutable?

No, because science does not claim that.

> I will make it easy
>for you: show me ONE solitary piece----just one. I think it is
>evolutionists who do not know what "scientific evidence" is? Evidence
>supporting my position: the nine great scientific authorities that
>Darwin mentioned on page 310 of the "Origin"----all species
>immutabilists and of course, Creationists.

Creationism is not, and never has been, science.


>
>Waiting....
>
>Ray

--
Bob.

Rolf

unread,
Jan 27, 2009, 7:03:02 AM1/27/09
to
Ray Martinez wrote:
> On Jan 26, 10:03 am, "Rolf" <rolf.aalb...@tele2.no> wrote:
>> questions; he just pretends he didn't read it.- Hide quoted text -

>>
>> - Show quoted text -
>
> Rolf: I have been researching and writing a scientific paper, starting
> my fouth year real soon. Two years in I announced conversion to fixism
> or species immutability. This means that I had accepted microevolution
> like the vast majority of Creationists. I could find no evidence,
> during a two year search, supporting the claim of species
> mutability----none. Whatever scientific evidence is I could not find
> any that supported the claim of mutability. Maybe I don't know what
> "scientific evidence" is? Can you show me any scientific evidence
> supporting the claim that species are immutable? I will make it easy

> for you: show me ONE solitary piece----just one. I think it is
> evolutionists who do not know what "scientific evidence" is? Evidence
> supporting my position: the nine great scientific authorities that
> Darwin mentioned on page 310 of the "Origin"----all species
> immutabilists and of course, Creationists.
>
> Waiting....
>
> Ray

Thanks for the reply, Ray. I'll have to do some backtracking; I believe ypu
said somewhere you are busy making up diefinitions. I take that to mean you
are not satisfied with a lot of definitions that are in common use and want
to present your own particular set of definitions aimed at making readers of
your forthcoming paper realize and understand that evolution is nonsense.

And, I believe 'scientific evidence' is one of the terms that you want to
define in your own way.

To me, scientific evidence is like what scientists do when they use methods
like geology, palaentology, dendrochronology, radiometric dating, molecular
biology and so on. To me, what was written by Darwin and anyone else in the
18th or 19 centurieas are absolutely without merit as scientific evidence.

Much of what was written in the 20th century is no longer of much importance
either, there is more fascinating stuff already published in the 21st
century than any of us could possibly hope to cover. But people like you
think they can ignore what science has done the past 50 years because you
think what somebody wrote 150 years ago is more authorative; is, in fact, in
your mind 'scientific evidence'

Right?

Rolf


Burkhard

unread,
Jan 27, 2009, 7:57:14 AM1/27/09
to

and gomboc shaped. But not on Thursdays from 2-2.30

Devils Advocaat

unread,
Jan 27, 2009, 8:28:08 AM1/27/09
to

When it is shaped like the oozalum bird. :P

Devils Advocaat

unread,
Jan 27, 2009, 8:25:46 AM1/27/09
to
On 27 Jan, 01:36, Ray Martinez <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Jan 26, 10:03 am, "Rolf" <rolf.aalb...@tele2.no> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > pretends he didn't read it.- Hide quoted text -

>
> > - Show quoted text -
>
> Rolf: I have been researching and writing a scientific paper, starting
> my fouth year real soon.

You first made your claim about this paper that will refute Darwins
theory of evolution back in September 2005, and promised it would be
made available in about six weeks.

This means that you have already had four years, and are about four
months into your fifth year, and still your paper is not available.

You haven't even published the abstract of the paper which would
introduce us all to the content.

And you cannot offer even the raw data that has led you to your
conclusions, which in and of itself should be sufficient to prove your
ideas as sound, or otherwise.

> Two years in I announced conversion to fixism
> or species immutability. This means that I had accepted microevolution
> like the vast majority of Creationists. I could find no evidence,
> during a two year search, supporting the claim of species
> mutability----none.

Where did you look for this evidence?

What papers did you read?

What species did you examine?

How do you explain hybridisation if all species are immutable?

> Whatever scientific evidence is I could not find
> any that supported the claim of mutability. Maybe I don't know what
> "scientific evidence" is? Can you show me any scientific evidence
> supporting the claim that species are immutable?

You are the one that claims that species are immutable, so you are the
one who should present the evidence for it.

On the other hand if you want someone to present evidence that species
are mutable, that is relatively easy.

There are numerous examples of hybridisation which have given rise to
fertile species that cannot interbreed with the parent population.

I am sure that the more knowledgeable posters in talk.origins can
provide you with any number of such examples.

> I will make it easy
> for you: show me ONE solitary piece----just one. I think it is
> evolutionists who do not know what "scientific evidence" is? Evidence
> supporting my position: the nine great scientific authorities that
> Darwin mentioned on page 310 of the "Origin"----all species
> immutabilists and of course, Creationists.

So the only evidence you can muster for your position on species
immutability are the religiously influenced opinions of nine
scientists that Darwin named in Origin of the Species.

You really will have to try harder than that Ray.
>
> Waiting....
>
> Ray- Hide quoted text -

Mike Painter

unread,
Jan 27, 2009, 10:00:52 AM1/27/09
to
Ray Martinez wrote:
> Can you show me any scientific evidence
> supporting the claim that species are immutable? I will make it easy

> for you: show me ONE solitary piece
Ray finally got something right.

Burkhard

unread,
Jan 27, 2009, 10:18:26 AM1/27/09
to
On 27 Jan, 01:36, Ray Martinez <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote:
Maybe I don't know what

> "scientific evidence" is? Can you show me any scientific evidence


> supporting the claim that species are immutable?

> Waiting....
>
> Ray

Sorry, can't - there seems not to be any. Apparently, its more a weird
religious belief of sorts.

[M]adman

unread,
Jan 27, 2009, 12:08:36 PM1/27/09
to

Which means you do not UC


Ray Martinez

unread,
Jan 27, 2009, 1:44:58 PM1/27/09
to

I meant to say "mutable."

You and Mike Painter have made the same point in response to my error.

I have never seen any evidence supporting the proposition that species
are mutable.

Ray

Ray Martinez

unread,
Jan 27, 2009, 1:42:56 PM1/27/09
to

Mike is the only person to see the glaring error.

Obviously I meant to say "mutable" and not "immutable."

Ray

Ray Martinez

unread,
Jan 27, 2009, 2:15:31 PM1/27/09
to

And since that time I have created many messages admitting that this
deadline and many others were a huge mistake. You have yet to
acknowledge.

> This means that you have already had four years, and are about four
> months into your fifth year, and still your paper is not available.
>

Error.

I am about to enter my fourth year.

> You haven't even published the abstract of the paper which would
> introduce us all to the content.
>
> And you cannot offer even the raw data that has led you to your
> conclusions, which in and of itself should be sufficient to prove your
> ideas as sound, or otherwise.
>
> > Two years in I announced conversion to fixism
> > or species immutability. This means that I had accepted microevolution
> > like the vast majority of Creationists. I could find no evidence,
> > during a two year search, supporting the claim of species
> > mutability----none.
>
> Where did you look for this evidence?
>

I repeat: I decided to go back to the very beginning. I started in the
18th century to study the origin of evolutionary thinking. It wasn't
until this century that transmutation began to be considered by
scientific minds. I wanted to know *exactly* what the concept meant
each and every time that it was proposed. I wanted to know the claims
made in behalf of the concept each and every time that it was
proposed. The concept itself evolved in its meaning and claims. When I
got to Charles Darwin I discovered that he was the first to propose
the concept in a context that excluded Divine involvement and
spontaneous generation. "Ironically," his concept of transmutation was
accepted by science immediately. When studying the "Origin" I
discovered that transmutation is but an *interpretation* of evidence.
Darwin never saw evolution in action: everything is deduced to have
occurred after the alleged fact (as it is today).

I then began to study William Paley through the writings of evolution
scholars. I discovered that these writers, who I assumed were going to
be hostile, were in fact the exact opposite. They held Paley in high
regard following the lead of Charles Darwin.

Why would anyone want to interpret evidence in favor of transmutation
and ignore the observation of design and organized complexity seen in
every aspect of nature? Said observations tells us plainly that Divine
power is operating in reality. What caused Charles Darwin to turn on
William Paley? I am afraid that I cannot answer this question. The
point is that he did. What falsifies Darwin's interpretation of
evidence? If the interpretation is false why did science accept it
immediately? If Creationism is true why is Darwinism held to be true
by science today? If Darwinism is true why does Creationism (=
Paleyism) still flourish? Why was Darwin's theory accepted but his
main claim (natural selection) rejected by most scientists until the
synthesis? NOBODY has offered satisfactory answers to these
questions----NOBODY.

Ray

> > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

Ray Martinez

unread,
Jan 27, 2009, 2:31:15 PM1/27/09
to
> William Paley? I am afraid that I cannot answer this question....

But I am going to offer an explanation anyway. The question cannot be
answered satisfactorily. It's like asking why did Adam and Eve eat
from the tree? Even though each of them had an excuse, we just don't
why they chose to disobey God.

Ray

Ray Martinez

unread,
Jan 27, 2009, 2:33:03 PM1/27/09
to
On Jan 27, 5:25 am, Devils Advocaat <mankyg...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:

Darwin was not attacking a religious position. The "Origin" is
considered a scientific book by Darwinists.

Ray


> You really will have to try harder than that Ray.
>
>
>
>
>
> > Waiting....
>
> > Ray- Hide quoted text -
>

> > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

wf3h

unread,
Jan 27, 2009, 2:49:45 PM1/27/09
to
On Jan 27, 2:15 pm, Ray Martinez <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> I repeat: I decided to go back to the very beginning. I started in the
> 18th century to study the origin of evolutionary thinking. It wasn't
> until this century that transmutation began to be considered by
> scientific minds. I wanted to know *exactly* what the concept meant
> each and every time that it was proposed. I wanted to know the claims
> made in behalf of the concept each and every time that it was
> proposed. The concept itself evolved in its meaning and claims. When I
> got to Charles Darwin I discovered that he was the first to propose
> the concept in a context that excluded Divine involvement and
> spontaneous generation.

really? sure about that? what about the ancient greeks?

and, of course, the development of science increasingly shows less
reliance on the supernatural (since SN explanations don't work) and
more reliance on natural processes...across ALL sciences

>
> I then began to study William Paley through the writings of evolution
> scholars. I discovered that these writers, who I assumed were going to
> be hostile, were in fact the exact opposite. They held Paley in high
> regard following the lead of Charles Darwin.
>
> Why would anyone want to interpret evidence in favor of transmutation
> and ignore the observation of design and organized complexity seen in
> every aspect of nature?

well...primarily because it's meaningless. evolution is observed. it
can be tested.

design? it's the most commonly used failed idea in history. it's been
used to explain EVERYTHING and it's ALWAYS failed. 100% of the time.

so why would you accept it?

>Said observations tells us plainly that Divine
> power is operating in reality.

what is 'divine power'?

when i turn on an electric light i get an amp or so at 120V (in the
US). this gives me 60 watts. that's defineable 'power'.

'divine power' is meaningless. it's part of your problem. you expect
science to accept an arbitrary, meaningless definition of an idea
that's a failure.


>If Darwinism is true why does Creationism (=
> Paleyism) still flourish?

why did jim jones' people drink kool aid?

why do islamist terrorists blow themselves up to kill children? why do
they fly planes into buildings?

answer: religion. that's why creationism exists: for the same reason
suicide bombers do. if religion's powerful enough to have women strap
TNT to their bodies and murder children, it's certainly powerful
enough to have people believe idiotic things about nature.

Wombat

unread,
Jan 27, 2009, 4:29:14 PM1/27/09
to

So, have you more or less ignored Mendel and the Modern Synthesis? If
so, your "paper" is worthless. You really need to leave the 19th
century and study genetics. Frankly, words fail me.

Wombat

Ray Martinez

unread,
Jan 27, 2009, 5:42:12 PM1/27/09
to
> > > > Ray- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

>
> - Show quoted text -

I didn't even get to Mendel.

Mendel was a special creationist. He was working to support special
creation----not evolution.

Ray

Ye Old One

unread,
Jan 27, 2009, 7:03:07 PM1/27/09
to
On Tue, 27 Jan 2009 11:15:31 -0800 (PST), Ray Martinez

<pyram...@yahoo.com> enriched this group when s/he wrote:

And yet, if you had not invented a brother in order to give you an
excuse to start posting again, you would have had one hell of a lot
more time to have spent on your writing. Your dishonesty has been your
problem for a long time.

Why not just shut up. Stop posting. Finish the paper, Then come back
with a big fanfare?


>
>> This means that you have already had four years, and are about four
>> months into your fifth year, and still your paper is not available.
>>
>
>Error.
>
>I am about to enter my fourth year.

Learn to count.


>
>> You haven't even published the abstract of the paper which would
>> introduce us all to the content.
>>
>> And you cannot offer even the raw data that has led you to your
>> conclusions, which in and of itself should be sufficient to prove your
>> ideas as sound, or otherwise.
>>
>> > Two years in I announced conversion to fixism
>> > or species immutability. This means that I had accepted microevolution
>> > like the vast majority of Creationists. I could find no evidence,
>> > during a two year search, supporting the claim of species
>> > mutability----none.
>>
>> Where did you look for this evidence?
>>
>
>I repeat: I decided to go back to the very beginning. I started in the
>18th century to study the origin of evolutionary thinking. It wasn't
>until this century that transmutation began to be considered by
>scientific minds. I wanted to know *exactly* what the concept meant
>each and every time that it was proposed.

Then you need to go back far further in history.


[snip lots more Ray Crap(tm) to save space.]

And still you have not defined scientific evidence. Why is that?

--
Bob.

Ye Old One

unread,
Jan 27, 2009, 7:04:00 PM1/27/09
to
On Tue, 27 Jan 2009 11:31:15 -0800 (PST), Ray Martinez

<pyram...@yahoo.com> enriched this group when s/he wrote:

Why bring bronze age fiction into it?


>
>Ray
--
Bob.

Ye Old One

unread,
Jan 27, 2009, 7:04:53 PM1/27/09
to
On Tue, 27 Jan 2009 10:42:56 -0800 (PST), Ray Martinez

<pyram...@yahoo.com> enriched this group when s/he wrote:

>On Jan 27, 7:00 am, "Mike Painter" <mddotpain...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>> Ray Martinez wrote:
>> >   Can you show me any scientific evidence
>> > supporting the claim that species are immutable? I will make it easy
>> > for you: show me ONE solitary piece
>>
>> Ray finally got something right.
>
>Mike is the only person to see the glaring error.

Liar!


>
>Obviously I meant to say "mutable" and not "immutable."
>
>Ray

--
Bob.

JohnN

unread,
Jan 27, 2009, 7:44:02 PM1/27/09
to

The African Oozalum or the European Oozalum bird?

JohnN

wf3h

unread,
Jan 27, 2009, 8:23:07 PM1/27/09
to
On Jan 27, 5:42 pm, Ray Martinez <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
> Mendel was a special creationist. He was working to support special
> creation----not evolution.
>

he didn't know about evolution. had he done so, since the catholic
church has no theological commitment to creationism, he probably would
have supported evolution since later catholic priests and theologians
have done so

your position is insupportable

Dana Tweedy

unread,
Jan 27, 2009, 8:31:10 PM1/27/09
to
Ray Martinez wrote:
> On Jan 27, 5:25 am, Devils Advocaat <mankyg...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
snip

>>
>> You first made your claim about this paper that will refute Darwins
>> theory of evolution back in September 2005, and promised it would be
>> made available in about six weeks.
>>
>
> And since that time I have created many messages admitting that this
> deadline and many others were a huge mistake. You have yet to
> acknowledge.

It really doesn't matter that you later found that setting deadlines was a
mistake. You made promises that you weren't able to keep. Worse, you
kept making such promises.


>
>> This means that you have already had four years, and are about four
>> months into your fifth year, and still your paper is not available.
>>
>
> Error.
>
> I am about to enter my fourth year.

Again, it really doesn't matter, as you haven't shown any sign of progress.

>
>> You haven't even published the abstract of the paper which would
>> introduce us all to the content.
>>
>> And you cannot offer even the raw data that has led you to your
>> conclusions, which in and of itself should be sufficient to prove
>> your ideas as sound, or otherwise.
>>
>>> Two years in I announced conversion to fixism
>>> or species immutability. This means that I had accepted
>>> microevolution like the vast majority of Creationists. I could find
>>> no evidence, during a two year search, supporting the claim of
>>> species mutability----none.
>>
>> Where did you look for this evidence?
>>
>
> I repeat: I decided to go back to the very beginning. I started in the
> 18th century to study the origin of evolutionary thinking.

"Evolutionary thinking" goes far beyond that, Ray.

> It wasn't
> until this century that transmutation began to be considered by
> scientific minds.

As pointed out before, that's not true. The idea of "transmutation" ( a
really poor word to describe speciation) goes back to ancient Greece, at
least.

> I wanted to know *exactly* what the concept meant
> each and every time that it was proposed. I wanted to know the claims
> made in behalf of the concept each and every time that it was
> proposed. The concept itself evolved in its meaning and claims. When I
> got to Charles Darwin I discovered that he was the first to propose
> the concept in a context that excluded Divine involvement and
> spontaneous generation.

You seem to have missed the concept of how science works. No scientific
concept involves the "Divine".

> "Ironically," his concept of transmutation was
> accepted by science immediately.

Why is this ironic? Darwin provided plenty of evidnece to support his
statments, and the concept that species weren't fixed was already on it's
way to acceptance.

> When studying the "Origin" I
> discovered that transmutation is but an *interpretation* of evidence.

All scientific concepts are interpretation of evidence, Ray.

> Darwin never saw evolution in action: everything is deduced to have
> occurred after the alleged fact (as it is today).

Ray, evolution has been observed in action in modern times, and Darwin
inferred evolutionary change from the evidence.

>
> I then began to study William Paley through the writings of evolution
> scholars. I discovered that these writers, who I assumed were going to
> be hostile, were in fact the exact opposite. They held Paley in high
> regard following the lead of Charles Darwin.

Nevertheless, Paley's ideas were religious in nature, not scientific.
Attempts to prove God's existence are not scientific.


>
> Why would anyone want to interpret evidence in favor of transmutation
> and ignore the observation of design and organized complexity seen in
> every aspect of nature?

It's not really a matter of "wanting" to. The evidence clearly indicates
that species do change. There isn't an "observation of design" but an
appearance of design, which can be explained by natural processes.
"Organized complexity" also isn't an indication of design, but a property of
natural processes.

> Said observations tells us plainly that Divine
> power is operating in reality.

No, that's a religious belief. Neither the appearance of design, or
"organized complexity" require the invoking of a supernatural entity.

> What caused Charles Darwin to turn on
> William Paley?

Darwin didn't "turn on" Paley. He simply discovered a scientific
alternative to Paley's religious explanation.

> I am afraid that I cannot answer this question.

That's because you don't understand that Darwin wasn't trying to oppose
Paley. Darwin was proposing a scientific explanation for the diversity of
nature. He realized that natural processes could explain Paley's
observations. Although evolution doesn't require God's direct influence,
it doesn't rule out the possiblity of God either.

> The
> point is that he did. What falsifies Darwin's interpretation of
> evidence?

So far, nothing has falsified Darwin's scientific theory. Several
observations potentially could falsify it, but no one has ever seen those
conditions.

> If the interpretation is false why did science accept it
> immediately?

Simple answer: The theory isn't false.

> If Creationism is true why is Darwinism held to be true
> by science today?

Creationism isn't true, and it's a religious belief, which is why it's not
science.

> If Darwinism is true why does Creationism (=
> Paleyism) still flourish?

In science, creationism or Paley's beliefs don't "flourish". They are
both religious beliefs. They are held by religious persons, for religious
reasons.

>Why was Darwin's theory accepted but his
> main claim (natural selection) rejected by most scientists until the
> synthesis?

Because Darwin didn't have a good explanation for inheritance, and what
natural selection worked on. Darwin's observations of change in
populations was accepted because the evidence he presented could not be
denied.

> NOBODY has offered satisfactory answers to these
> questions----NOBODY.

The problem is, Ray, that you refuse to accept many satisfactory answers.
The question has been answered many times. One can only wonder why you
keep refusing to accept it.

>
> Ray

The questions below really required answers, Ray.

DJT


Dana Tweedy

unread,
Jan 27, 2009, 8:33:37 PM1/27/09
to
Ray Martinez wrote:
snipo

>> Why would anyone want to interpret evidence in favor of transmutation
>> and ignore the observation of design and organized complexity seen in
>> every aspect of nature? Said observations tells us plainly that
>> Divine power is operating in reality. What caused Charles Darwin to
>> turn on William Paley? I am afraid that I cannot answer this
>> question....
>
> But I am going to offer an explanation anyway. The question cannot be
> answered satisfactorily.

Again, your question is flawed. Darwin didn't "turn on" Paley, he
superceded him.

> It's like asking why did Adam and Eve eat
> from the tree? Even though each of them had an excuse, we just don't
> why they chose to disobey God.

Ray, Paley wasn't God, and Darwin didn't betray him. Paley's ideas were
superceded by Darwin's scientific work.

DJT


Dana Tweedy

unread,
Jan 27, 2009, 8:38:50 PM1/27/09
to
Ray Martinez wrote:
> On Jan 27, 1:29 pm, Wombat <tri...@multiweb.nl> wrote:
snip

>
> I didn't even get to Mendel.
>
> Mendel was a special creationist.

Not in any reasonable sense of the term.

> He was working to support special
> creation----not evolution.

Ray, "special creation" is a religious belief, not a scientific concept.

Even if Mendel was "working to support special creation" ( an assertion
that's not very credible), Mendel's work ended up supporting evolution.
Mendel's work on genes added the missing piece to Darwin's work on
inheritance.


DJT


Dana Tweedy

unread,
Jan 27, 2009, 8:41:59 PM1/27/09
to
Ray Martinez wrote:
> On Jan 27, 5:25 am, Devils Advocaat <mankyg...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
snip

>> So the only evidence you can muster for your position on species
>> immutability are the religiously influenced opinions of nine
>> scientists that Darwin named in Origin of the Species.
>>
>
> Darwin was not attacking a religious position. The "Origin" is
> considered a scientific book by Darwinists.


It's quite correct that Darwin was not attacking a religious position. He
was replacing a religious belief with a scientific one. Darwin wasn't
trying to attack anyone, or anything. Origin of Species is a scientific
book, but the idea of fixity of species was still religiously influenced.

DJT


Ye Old One

unread,
Jan 27, 2009, 8:56:41 PM1/27/09
to
On Tue, 27 Jan 2009 14:42:12 -0800 (PST), Ray Martinez

<pyram...@yahoo.com> enriched this group when s/he wrote:

>Mendel was a special creationist. He was working to support special
>creation----not evolution.
>
>Ray

No, Mendel was, above all else, a good scientist - led by the evidence
and the result of his experiments. I've no doubt at all that he would
have welcomed the idea of evolution to explain what he found.

--
Bob.

Dana Tweedy

unread,
Jan 27, 2009, 9:00:36 PM1/27/09
to
Ray Martinez wrote:
> On Jan 26, 10:03 am, "Rolf" <rolf.aalb...@tele2.no> wrote:
snip

> Rolf: I have been researching and writing a scientific paper, starting
> my fouth year real soon.

Ray, it's abundantly that your "paper" is not scientific. It's a
religious apologetic. You've admitted yourself you don't intend to submit
it to any scientific journal, and that you don't expect to influence any
actual scientists. You stated it was for those who already believe in
creationism.

>Two years in I announced conversion to fixism
> or species immutability.

Which is silly, considering the evidence that shows that species are not
fixed.

> This means that I had accepted microevolution
> like the vast majority of Creationists. I could find no evidence,
> during a two year search, supporting the claim of species
> mutability----none.

This claim is false on it's face. You have been given many pieces of
evidence that species are not fixed. You refuse to accept the evidence,
but it exists nevertheless.

> Whatever scientific evidence is I could not find
> any that supported the claim of mutability. Maybe I don't know what
> "scientific evidence" is?

Bingo!

>Can you show me any scientific evidence

> supporting the claim that species are immutable? I will make it easy


> for you: show me ONE solitary piece----just one.

It's your job to present evidence to support your own postion. However if
you want a piece of evidence that supports "mutability", here's one:

In any population individuals' genetic make up varies.

> I think it is
> evolutionists who do not know what "scientific evidence" is?

Since you admit you don't know what scientific evidence is, why would you
say that?

> Evidence
> supporting my position: the nine great scientific authorities that
> Darwin mentioned on page 310 of the "Origin"----all species
> immutabilists and of course, Creationists.

Ray, that's not evidence supporting your position. It's only evidence that
scientists at one time believed in fixity of species. The fact that such a
belief was religiously motovated is a strike against you.


DJT


Devils Advocaat

unread,
Jan 28, 2009, 3:27:52 AM1/28/09
to

Last December in a thread entitled “An Easy Challenge For Ray
Martinez” you raised the same claim about Fr. Gregor Mendel and
posited the following link as supporting your claim:

http://tomclegg.net/tom/mendel.html

But I pointed out certain extracts from that link that contradicted
your position regarding Fr. Gregor Mendel, which I will repost here
for your benefit.

Start of extracts:

"Much of Mendel's research concerned hybridism and its role in
evolution."

And also from your source webpage, it seem that Linnaeus by 1759 found
it "impossible to doubt that there are new species produced by hybrid
generation"

So it seems to me that your source webpage doesn't defend your
position.

End of extracts.

I also pointed you to a link in which you could read the English
translation of Fr. Gregor Mendel's paper, which I will repost here
again for your benefit.

http://www.mendelweb.org/Mendel.html

And I also pointed out that there is nothing explicit or implicit in
Mendel's work to suggest that he was a creationist of any kind, or
that his work was devoted to supporting that concept.

I wonder why you failed to respond back then, and why you now
resurrect the notion that Fr. Gregor Mendel was a creationist?

Wombat

unread,
Jan 28, 2009, 3:41:06 AM1/28/09
to

That is as maybe. Mendel's work, when rediscovered, led to the Modern
Synthesis, which shows that species are not immutable. QED.
You are like someone frantically reading Roger Bacon looking for
evidence for the Atomic Theory.

Wombat

Devils Advocaat

unread,
Jan 28, 2009, 3:49:23 AM1/28/09
to
On 27 Jan, 19:15, Ray Martinez <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote:

> > > Rolf: I have been researching and writing a scientific paper, starting
> > > my fouth year real soon.
>
> > You first made your claim about this paper that will refute Darwins
> > theory of evolution back in September 2005, and promised it would be
> > made available in about six weeks.
>
> And since that time I have created many messages admitting that this
> deadline and many others were a huge mistake. You have yet to
> acknowledge.
>
> > This means that you have already had four years, and are about four
> > months into your fifth year, and still your paper is not available.
>
> Error.
>
> I am about to enter my fourth year.
>

My mistake I did miscalculate somewhat, but you are not "about to
enter your fourth year" of working on your paper.

Lets go through it step by step.

You told Rolf back in Sept 2005 you were working on this paper, if
this is the case then you were already in your first year of work on
the said paper.

So, I will presume that you started that very month.

This would make Sept 2006 the start of your second year.

And Sept 2007 the start of your third year.

Finally making Sept 2008 the start of your fourth year.

Conclusion, you are already in your fourth year of work on the said
paper, and not about to begin your fourth year.

Devils Advocaat

unread,
Jan 28, 2009, 3:51:31 AM1/28/09
to

The African Oozalum bird, but not when it is migrating and carrying
cocoanuts.

That is when the European one substitutes for the African.
>
> JohnN- Hide quoted text -

Devils Advocaat

unread,
Jan 28, 2009, 5:04:41 PM1/28/09
to

In previous threads you have called Darwin an atheist, a creationist,
and a scientist (the last by suggesting Origin was a scientific work),
and may I point out that you have suggested yourself that Darwin's
work was one of atheist materialism, and later a work of science
without I may add any other qualifiers. You really do need to clarify
exactly where you stand on Darwin and his work, otherwise you will
continue to make a fool of yourself over and over again. And while we
are on the subject, when are you going to even try to explain the
existence of viable and fertile hybrids, if your position on species
immutability is as valid as you insist it to be?

Ray Martinez

unread,
Jan 28, 2009, 5:49:12 PM1/28/09
to

Here is a quote from the first paragraph in the link paper:

"Mendel himself was interested in the question of evolution, but
ironically his experiments were done in support of the theory of
special creation."

> And also from your source webpage, it seem that Linnaeus by 1759 found
> it "impossible to doubt that there are new species produced by hybrid
> generation"
>
> So it seems to me that your source webpage doesn't defend your
> position.
>
> End of extracts.
>

The Linnaeus quote seems to suggest that Linnaeus modified his special
creation viewpoint. The next paragraph supports this interpretation.
The conclusion of the paper seems to say that Mendel concluded
hybridization to be SO complicated that he had no conclusion. But as
far as Linnaeus is concerned the paper said his conclusions were not
based on any experiments.

Your point here is to use Linnaeus as a source supporting the claim
that hybridization *may* lead to new species. I grant you the point,
however. The point exists in the context of our single source (the
link paper); and in the context of the fact that it simply *modified*
or provided an asterisk to Linnaeus special creation hypothesis. In
other words: Linnaeus made *an* exemption. The vast majority of
species, except for his hybridization view, were still caused to exist
by special creation.

And I would like to remind that I am only concerned with animal
species----not plants.

> I also pointed you to a link in which you could read the English
> translation of Fr. Gregor Mendel's paper, which I will repost here
> again for your benefit.
>
> http://www.mendelweb.org/Mendel.html
>
> And I also pointed out that there is nothing explicit or implicit in
> Mendel's work to suggest that he was a creationist of any kind, or
> that his work was devoted to supporting that concept.
>
> I wonder why you failed to respond back then, and why you now
> resurrect the notion that Fr. Gregor Mendel was a creationist?
>

The first quote from the first link above says he was a special
creationist.

>
>
>
>
> > Ray- Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

Ray

Ray Martinez

unread,
Jan 28, 2009, 5:52:24 PM1/28/09
to
> Wombat- Hide quoted text -

>
> - Show quoted text -

You have misunderstood.

Darwinists *interpreted* Mendel to support their theories. We
disagree. Mendel refutes these theories. This is our *interpretation.*

Ray

Ray Martinez

unread,
Jan 28, 2009, 6:06:09 PM1/28/09
to
On Jan 28, 12:49 am, Devils Advocaat <mankyg...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
> On 27 Jan, 19:15, Ray Martinez <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > > > Rolf: I have been researching and writing a scientific paper, starting
> > > > my fouth year real soon.
>
> > > You first made your claim about this paper that will refute Darwins
> > > theory of evolution back in September 2005, and promised it would be
> > > made available in about six weeks.
>
> > And since that time I have created many messages admitting that this
> > deadline and many others were a huge mistake. You have yet to
> > acknowledge.
>
> > > This means that you have already had four years, and are about four
> > > months into your fifth year, and still your paper is not available.
>
> > Error.
>
> > I am about to enter my fourth year.
>
> My mistake I did miscalculate somewhat, but you are not "about to
> enter your fourth year" of working on your paper.
>
> Lets go through it step by step.
>
> You told Rolf back in Sept 2005 you were working on this paper, if
> this is the case then you were already in your first year of work on
> the said paper.
>

Let's push it back to Spring 2005. This is when the actual work began
as far as I can remember without consulting my notes.

Spring 2005 to Spring 2009 = 4 years.

Yeah, I guess when Spring arrives I will be starting my 5th year.

> So, I will presume that you started that very month.
>
> This would make Sept 2006 the start of your second year.
>
> And Sept 2007 the start of your third year.
>
> Finally making Sept 2008 the start of your fourth year.
>
> Conclusion, you are already in your fourth year of work on the said

> paper, and not about to begin your fourth year.- Hide quoted text -


>
> - Show quoted text -

I agree.

I didn't realize.

My error.

Ray

redd...@bresnan.net

unread,
Jan 28, 2009, 6:15:29 PM1/28/09
to
On Jan 28, 3:52 pm, Ray Martinez <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Jan 28, 12:41 am, Wombat <tri...@multiweb.nl> wrote:
>
snip


>
> > > Mendel was a special creationist. He was working to support special
> > > creation----not evolution.
>
> > > Ray
>
> > That is as maybe.  Mendel's work, when rediscovered, led to the Modern
> > Synthesis, which shows that species are not immutable.  QED.
> > You are like someone frantically reading Roger Bacon looking for
> > evidence for the Atomic Theory.
>
> > Wombat- Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -
>
> You have misunderstood.

No, he hasn't.


>
> Darwinists *interpreted* Mendel to support their theories.

Because Mendel's work did support evolution.

> We
> disagree.

Who is the "we" here, Ray?

> Mendel refutes these theories. This is our *interpretation.*

On what do you base this ''interpretation"? Mendel showed that
inheritance was a matter of discrete units, rather than blending.
His work provided a missing piece of the puzzle which vindicated
Darwin's mechanism of variation and selection . The discovery of
genes led to the understanding of the role of mutations in providing
variations in the population.

How could Mendel's work possibly refute evolutionary theory?


DJT

>
> Ray

redd...@bresnan.net

unread,
Jan 28, 2009, 6:23:08 PM1/28/09
to
On Jan 28, 3:49 pm, Ray Martinez <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Jan 28, 12:27 am, Devils Advocaat <mankyg...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
snip


>
> > "Much of Mendel's research concerned hybridism and its role in
> > evolution."
>
> Here is a quote from the first paragraph in the link paper:
>
> "Mendel himself was interested in the question of evolution, but
> ironically his experiments were done in support of the theory of
> special creation."

Ray, you've claimed that in order to accept special creation, one must
accept that species are fixed. Mendel's works showed that species
aren't fixed. In any case, "special creation" isn't a theory, it's a
religious belief. The writer of the article didn't even support his
own claim.

>
> > And also from your source webpage, it seem that Linnaeus by 1759 found
> > it "impossible to doubt that there are new species produced by hybrid
> > generation"
>
> > So it seems to me that your source webpage doesn't defend your
> > position.
>
> > End of extracts.
>
> The Linnaeus quote seems to suggest that Linnaeus modified his special
> creation viewpoint.

like any good scientist, Linnaeus changed his position when he studied
the evidence.

> The next paragraph supports this interpretation.
> The conclusion of the paper seems to say that Mendel concluded
> hybridization to be SO complicated that he had no conclusion.

Which still refutes your belief that species are fixed.

> But as
> far as Linnaeus is concerned the paper said his conclusions were not
> based on any experiments.

Linnaeus' conclusions were based on direct observations from breeding
experiments. Where do you get this stuff from, Ray?


>
> Your point here is to use Linnaeus as a source supporting the claim
> that hybridization *may* lead to new species.

Which means that even in Linnaeus' time, the idea of fixity of species
was contradicted.

> I grant you the point,
> however. The point exists in the context of our single source (the
> link paper); and in the context of the fact that it simply *modified*
> or provided an asterisk to Linnaeus special creation hypothesis. In
> other words: Linnaeus made *an* exemption.

and an exception means that species are not fixed.

> The vast majority of
> species, except for his hybridization view, were still caused to exist
> by special creation.

Which was a religious belief, not a scientific conclusion. "Special
creation" was never observed, but simply assumed due to Linnaeus'
religious beliefs.


>
> And I would like to remind that I am only concerned with animal
> species----not plants.

Plants are eukaryotes, Ray. Why would you dismiss one of the major
kingdoms of life? Heredity works practically the same in animals
as it does in plants.


DJT

Ray Martinez

unread,
Jan 28, 2009, 6:41:01 PM1/28/09
to

Are their viable and fertile hybrids? If so, then they reproduce. So
what? What is your point?

Darwin was a Creationist into his late 20s. We have his admissions. In
1837 and 1838 he suddenly converted to Materialism-Atheism. We have
his admissions.

Sometimes I do not qualify science when referring to Darwinism,
sometimes I do----depends on the context. My official position on
Darwin's "Origin Of Species" (1859):

I refer to it as a work of science for "in the meantime" objective
purposes.

After I present and argue my evidence I will conclude in my paper that
the "Origin" is a work of scientism or science fiction. The "Origin"
conclusions have no scientific validity whatsoever----none. Darwinists
are morons----literally. And I have the scientific evidence to prove
everything I say----everything.

Charles Darwin was the most fanatical Atheist hate monger to ever
live. Darwinism is Atheism ideology packaged as "science." It has one
goal: trash the Bible and Christianity under a false pretext of pro-
Deism. Again, I have the evidence to prove everything that I say. It
has been suppressed by Darwinists who are, of course, totally
dishonest (= the main "attribute" of Atheism). Darwinists feel their
dishonesty is justified. They believe the destruction of the Bible
justifies all lies that cover the pro-Atheism nature of evolution.
This fundamental nature must be covered or Christian evolutionists are
proven to be exactly what they are: dumb Fundamentalists who have been
made fools and buffoons by Atheists. But nothing can cover the fact
that all Atheists are Darwinists. Christian evolutionists are fools
and buffoons----Fundamentalists as society has come to know them.

Ray

redd...@bresnan.net

unread,
Jan 28, 2009, 8:14:49 PM1/28/09
to
On Jan 28, 4:41 pm, Ray Martinez <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote:


snip


> > In previous threads you have called Darwin an atheist, a creationist,
> > and a scientist (the last by suggesting Origin was a scientific work),
> > and may I point out that you have suggested yourself that Darwin's
> > work was one of atheist materialism, and later a work of science
> > without I may add any other qualifiers. You really do need to clarify
> > exactly where you stand on Darwin and his work, otherwise you will
> > continue to make a fool of yourself over and over again. And while we
> > are on the subject, when are you going to even try to explain the
> > existence of viable and fertile hybrids, if your position on species
> > immutability is as valid as you insist it to be?
>

snip


>
> Are their viable and fertile hybrids?

Yes, there are.

> If so, then they reproduce. So
> what? What is your point?

That it refutes your belief that species are "immutable" special "one
off" creations.

>
> Darwin was a Creationist into his late 20s.

Darwin accepted the belief of fixity of species. Note that's not the
same as creationism, either in the modern sense, or in your own
bizarre and unique definition.

> We have his admissions. In
> 1837 and 1838 he suddenly converted to Materialism-Atheism. We have
> his admissions.

Who is the "we" here, Ray? Darwin never became an atheist, but he
did accept the scientific use of methodological naturalism. In his
later years, he became agnostic, but never fully abandoned a belief in
some type of God.

>
> Sometimes I do not qualify science when referring to Darwinism,

and you shouldn't. "Darwinism" is plain old ordinary science.

> sometimes I do----depends on the context. My official position on
> Darwin's "Origin Of Species" (1859):
>
> I refer to it as a work of science for "in the meantime" objective
> purposes.

Which only means you lack any kind of consistency. It's fact or
fiction, whenever the mood strikes you,

>
> After I present and argue my evidence

unlikely ever to happen....

> I will conclude in my paper that
> the "Origin" is a work of scientism or science fiction.

More evidence that you don't grasp what science is.

> The "Origin"
> conclusions have no scientific validity whatsoever----none.

Hundreds of thousands of educated scientists disagree with that.
Why should anyone accept your claim?

> Darwinists
> are morons----literally. And I have the scientific evidence to prove
> everything I say----everything.

How about less sizzle, and more steak? If you had "scientific
evidence" you'd have presented it. You have nothing but your own
ignorance and misunderstanding of what constitutes scientific
evidence.


>
> Charles Darwin was the most fanatical Atheist hate monger to ever
> live.

Darwin was neither a "hate monger" or an atheist. What you plan to
gain by libeling Darwin like this is unknown. Even if Darwin were an
ogre, it's his work, not his personality that matters.

> Darwinism is Atheism ideology packaged as "science."

That claim is false, as has been explained to you many times.
Darwin's theory does not support atheism, and doesn't make any
atheistic claims.

> It has one
> goal: trash the Bible and Christianity under a false pretext of pro-
> Deism.

If that's it's "goal" it was a very odd way of achieving it. Both
the Bible, and Christianity are not harmed by it in the least. The
only thing that's "harmed" is the reputation and intelligence of those
who fight against evolutionary theory on religious grounds.


> Again, I have the evidence to prove everything that I say.

If you had, you'd have used it. Therefore you have nothing.

> It
> has been suppressed by Darwinists who are, of course, totally
> dishonest (= the main "attribute" of Atheism).

You haven't demonstrated that anyone but yourself has been
dishonest. Nor is dishonesty a "main attribute" of atheism, but it
is a main attribute of creationists.

> Darwinists feel their
> dishonesty is justified.

This appears to be projection on Ray's part.

> They believe the destruction of the Bible
> justifies all lies that cover the pro-Atheism nature of evolution.

There is no "pro atheism" nature of evolution. How is evolution
supposed to "destroy" the Bible anyway?

> This fundamental nature must be covered or Christian evolutionists are
> proven to be exactly what they are: dumb Fundamentalists who have been
> made fools and buffoons by Atheists.

Yet it's not the Christians who accept evolution who are seen as fools
and buffoons. That is how creationists are perceived. Christians
who accept evolution do so because of the scientific value of the
concept, not because of, or in spite of atheists. Atheism, and
atheists are entirely irrelevant to the fact of evolution.

> But nothing can cover the fact
> that all Atheists are Darwinists.

Well, except for the simple fact that not all atheists are
"Darwinists". Even if it were true, it's still irrelevant to the
veracity of evolution.

> Christian evolutionists are fools
> and buffoons----Fundamentalists as society has come to know them.

Once again, Ray misunderstand the word 'fundamentalism", and
mistakenly believes it to be an insult. Christians who accept
evolution aren't seen as fools, they are seen as reasonable persons.
It's creationists who are in fact both foolish and
"fundamentalists". Fundamentalism is not an insult, but a
description of their religious position. Creationists aren't fools
because of their fundamentalism ,but because they ignore evidence, and
follow gross falsehoods.


DJT

Devils Advocaat

unread,
Jan 28, 2009, 8:29:50 PM1/28/09
to

Wolf/dog hybrids are viable and fertile.

Cow/bison hybrids are viable and fertile.

Dolphin/False Killer Whale hybrids are viable and fertile.

You say "so what?", but you have also insisted that all species are
immutable.

Immutability means not subject to change.

So if this is the case there should be no variation within a species.

And there should be no hybrids.

I will ask you now, yet again, explain the existence of hybrids, if
your position on the immutability of species is correct and supported
by scientific evidence?


>
> Darwin was a Creationist into his late 20s. We have his admissions. In
> 1837 and 1838 he suddenly converted to Materialism-Atheism. We have
> his admissions.

Have you any citations that support this idea that Darwin was a
creationist and then became an atheist?

I know from having read much of his works that he was neither.

Perhaps you can prove me wrong?


>
> Sometimes I do not qualify science when referring to Darwinism,
> sometimes I do----depends on the context. My official position on
> Darwin's "Origin Of Species" (1859):
>
> I refer to it as a work of science for "in the meantime" objective
> purposes.
>
> After I present and argue my evidence I will conclude in my paper that
> the "Origin" is a work of scientism or science fiction. The "Origin"
> conclusions have no scientific validity whatsoever----none. Darwinists
> are morons----literally. And I have the scientific evidence to prove
> everything I say----everything.

You keep making these assertions and claiming that your paper will
support your position, but you never even offer a single scrap of
evidence in all your posts, so forgive me (and many others) if we
doubt your assertions.


>
> Charles Darwin was the most fanatical Atheist hate monger to ever
> live. Darwinism is Atheism ideology packaged as "science." It has one
> goal: trash the Bible and Christianity under a false pretext of pro-
> Deism. Again, I have the evidence to prove everything that I say. It
> has been suppressed by Darwinists who are, of course, totally
> dishonest (= the main "attribute" of Atheism). Darwinists feel their
> dishonesty is justified. They believe the destruction of the Bible
> justifies all lies that cover the pro-Atheism nature of evolution.
> This fundamental nature must be covered or Christian evolutionists are
> proven to be exactly what they are: dumb Fundamentalists who have been
> made fools and buffoons by Atheists. But nothing can cover the fact
> that all Atheists are Darwinists. Christian evolutionists are fools
> and buffoons----Fundamentalists as society has come to know them.

Curious isn't it how you keep going on and on about having evidence
for this, that and the other, yet when people ask for even one little
bit of this evidence you keep saying wait for the paper.

Your posturing about your evidence and your forthcoming paper are much
like that description of life as uttered by Macbeth in his grieving
for the death of his wife.

"Life's but a walking shadow, a poor player that struts and frets his
hour upon the stage and then is heard no more. It is a tale told by an
idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing."

Wombat

unread,
Jan 29, 2009, 2:44:24 AM1/29/09
to

What's with the Royal "We". Since you say you didn't look at Mendel's
work how can you know.
If you are trying to refute the modern Theory of Evolution scuffling
around in the 19th century is blatant stupidity. You need to show
that the MODERN theory is wrong, not Darwin's theory which was in the
doldrums in the first few years of the 29th century, because the
mechanism of heredity was missing, so I understand.

Wombat

Wombat

unread,
Jan 29, 2009, 2:54:56 AM1/29/09
to

If you say so, Ray. Pity it doesn't show in your posts most of which
are argument by assertion.

>
> Charles Darwin was the most fanatical Atheist hate monger to ever
> live. Darwinism is Atheism ideology packaged as "science." It has one
> goal: trash the Bible and Christianity under a false pretext of pro-
> Deism. Again, I have the evidence to prove everything that I say. It
> has been suppressed by Darwinists who are, of course, totally
> dishonest (= the main "attribute" of Atheism). Darwinists feel their
> dishonesty is justified. They believe the destruction of the Bible
> justifies all lies that cover the pro-Atheism nature of evolution.
> This fundamental nature must be covered or Christian evolutionists are
> proven to be exactly what they are: dumb Fundamentalists who have been
> made fools and buffoons by Atheists. But nothing can cover the fact
> that all Atheists are Darwinists. Christian evolutionists are fools
> and buffoons----Fundamentalists as society has come to know them.
>
> Ray

Typical. You start to lose on points and then you go into the hate
mongering mode that very few people find to be an edifying aspect to
your personality.

Wombat

Ye Old One

unread,
Jan 29, 2009, 8:04:38 AM1/29/09
to
On Wed, 28 Jan 2009 14:52:24 -0800 (PST), Ray Martinez

<pyram...@yahoo.com> enriched this group when s/he wrote:

>Darwinists *interpreted* Mendel to support their theories. We
>disagree. Mendel refutes these theories. This is our *interpretation.*
>
>Ray

Who is this "we" Dishonest Ray? you and your nonexistent brother?

--
Bob.

Ray Martinez

unread,
Jan 29, 2009, 1:43:00 PM1/29/09
to

Total ignorance.

The number of books published defending Darwin's theory is nothing
less than staggering.

You need to log off and get to the libraries and book stores.

Mendel provides no support of Darwinism----none. Darwinists
intentionally misrepresent the fact that Mendelism refutes Darwinism.
Mendel was a special creationist, a monk, who accepted Church
authority. Again, you are totally ignorant of basic facts. This is
what happens when you take the word of a error-prone corruption artist
like John Wilkins and fail to check things out for yourself.

Ray

Ye Old One

unread,
Jan 29, 2009, 2:03:54 PM1/29/09
to
On Thu, 29 Jan 2009 10:43:00 -0800 (PST), Ray Martinez

<pyram...@yahoo.com> enriched this group when s/he wrote:

And the number of books that put up any convincing argument against it
are - ZERO.


>
>You need to log off and get to the libraries and book stores.
>
>Mendel provides no support of Darwinism----none. Darwinists
>intentionally misrepresent the fact that Mendelism refutes Darwinism.

Wrong, as usual.

>Mendel was a special creationist,

He was a scientist. A good one. He would have known that creationism
is not science.

> a monk, who accepted Church
>authority. Again, you are totally ignorant of basic facts. This is
>what happens when you take the word of a error-prone corruption artist
>like John Wilkins and fail to check things out for yourself.
>
>Ray

--
Bob.

Ray Martinez

unread,
Jan 29, 2009, 2:13:33 PM1/29/09
to

The unions are rare, difficult.

How long until reversion occurs?

Immutability is not harmed by artificial breeding. Immutability refers
to species that exist in the undisturbed wild. Wherever a new species
is found----that is where it was introduced by a direct act of special
creation ex materia. There is no other way for species to appear. It
goes without saying: animals do not have powers to change themselves
into something else; neither do human beings.Transmutation is
impossible. Transmutation is Atheism ideology. Transmutation is
voodoo. There is no evidence of transmutation. Evolution is an
assumption evading the observation of design seen in every aspect of
nature. This overwhelming observation corresponds to invisible
Designer and tells us that *each species* were caused to exist by
Divine power intruding into reality.

> Cow/bison hybrids are viable and fertile.
>
> Dolphin/False Killer Whale hybrids are viable and fertile.
>
> You say "so what?", but you have also insisted that all species are
> immutable.
>
> Immutability means not subject to change.
>
> So if this is the case there should be no variation within a species.
>
> And there should be no hybrids.
>
> I will ask you now, yet again, explain the existence of hybrids, if
> your position on the immutability of species is correct and supported
> by scientific evidence?
>

Hybridity is not evidence of mutability. You have made a fundamental
error.

Immutability means species do not transmutate into a different
species.

> > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

Ray

Burkhard

unread,
Jan 29, 2009, 3:08:27 PM1/29/09
to
On Jan 29, 6:43 pm, Ray Martinez <pyramid...@yahoo.com>

>
> Mendel provides no support of Darwinism----none. Darwinists
> intentionally misrepresent the fact that Mendelism refutes Darwinism.
> Mendel was a special creationist, a monk, who accepted Church
> authority. Again, you are totally ignorant of basic facts. This is
> what happens when you take the word of a error-prone corruption artist
> like John Wilkins and fail to check things out for yourself.
>
> Ray

Mendel may or may not have WANTED to refute Darwin - what his theory
DOES is giving support to Darwinism. The intentions of a scientist are
irrelevant, the arguments and evidence they provide speak for
themselves.

Burkhard

unread,
Jan 29, 2009, 3:41:36 PM1/29/09
to

>
> Immutability is not harmed by artificial breeding. Immutability refers
> to species that exist in the undisturbed wild. Wherever a new species
> is found----that is where it was introduced by a direct act of special
> creation ex materia. There is no other way for species to appear. It
> goes without saying: animals do not have powers to change themselves
> into something else; neither do human beings.Transmutation is
> impossible. Transmutation is Atheism ideology. Transmutation is
> voodoo. There is no evidence of transmutation. Evolution is an
> assumption evading the observation of design seen in every aspect of
> nature. This overwhelming observation corresponds to invisible
> Designer and tells us that *each species* were caused to exist by
> Divine power intruding into reality.

>


> Hybridity is not evidence of mutability. You have made a fundamental
> error.
>
> Immutability means species do not transmutate into a different
> species.
>
>

>
> Ray

Humans are simply part of the environment, the distinction between
"artificial " and "natural " hybridisation scientifically
meaningless. And yes, Hybridisation is evidence of mutability: a new
species emerges fromthe old ones.

Even without human intervention, hybridisation occurs frequently, in
fact, much more frequently as we have assumed in the past. For
traditional Drawinism, this is a problkem, by the way: it really
messes up the tree of life concept into something much messier.

From the new Scientist:
"It could be time to ditch the old idea that hybrids are sterile
individuals that cannot possibly have played a role in shaping the
history of life on Earth. Hybridisation is a significant force in
animal evolution, according to retired marine biologist Donald
Williamson, formerly of the University of Liverpool, UK. His
conclusion comes from a lifetime studying marine animals such as
starfish, sea urchins and molluscs, many of which lead a strange
double life, starting out as larvae and metamorphosing into adult
forms."

On hybridisation and how NEW species arise, including wild species,
see e.g.

Lexer C, Rosenthal DM, Raymond O, Donovan LA, Rieseberg LH.Genetics of
species differences in the wild annual sunflowers, Helianthus annuus
and H. petiolaris.Genetics. 2005 Apr;169(4):2225-39

Rieseberg, L.H., and J.H. Willis. Plant speciation. 2007. Science
317:910-914.

Rieseberg, L.H., T.E. Wood, and E. Baack. 2006. The nature of plant
species. Nature 440:524-527.

Baack EJ, Whitney KD, Rieseberg LH. Hybridization and genome size
evolution: timing and magnitude of nuclear DNA content increases in
Helianthus homoploid hybrid species. New Phytol. 2005 Aug;167(2):
623-30.

Klaus Schwenk, Nora Brede Bruno Streit: Genetic exchange and the
origin of adaptations: prokaryotes to primates

Arnold, M.L. & Meyer, A. 2006 Natural hybridization in primates: one
evolutionary mechanism. Zoology 109, 261–276

Grant, P.R. & Grant, B.R. 1992 Hybridization of bird species. Science
256, 193–197,

Ochman, H., Lawrence, J.G. & Groisman, E.A. 2000 Lateral gene transfer
and the nature of bacterial innovation. Nature 405, 299–304,

Mallet, J. (2001): The speciation revolution. J. Evol. Biol. 14:
887-888.

Mallet, J., Beltrán, M., Neukirchen, W., & Linares, M. (2007).
Natural hybridization in heliconiine butterflies: the species boundary
as a continuum. BMC Evolutionary Biology 7:28. Heliconiine hybrid
database

Mallet, J. (2007). Hybrid speciation. Nature 446: 279-283

Wombat

unread,
Jan 29, 2009, 3:53:34 PM1/29/09
to

Perhaps you should take your own advice and get a modern primer on
Evolution, not a 19th century, outmoded text.

>
> Mendel provides no support of Darwinism----none. Darwinists
> intentionally misrepresent the fact that Mendelism refutes Darwinism.
> Mendel was a special creationist, a monk, who accepted Church
> authority. Again, you are totally ignorant of basic facts. This is
> what happens when you take the word of a error-prone corruption artist
> like John Wilkins and fail to check things out for yourself.
>
> Ray

Idiot. Mendel complements Darwin, as all who have looked at the
matter concur.
That you cannot see that is your problem, and is one of many. The
Catholic Church, of which Mendel was a member, has no real problem
with evolution. Seems you're trying to play both sides against the
middle, and failing miserably.
Mendel's work provided the heredity part of the puzzle that Darwin
lacked. The Modern Synthesis aka the Modern Theory of Evolution is
your target but you are assailing 19th century science which has long
been superceded.
That you seem unable to grasp this simple fact is a source of great
amusement to all who have the critical faculties you clearly lack.
Your so-called, but non-existent, paper would be a busted flush. You
actually have nothing or you would produce it. If your 'eureka'
moment was not just a brainstorm you would produce it and all would
kneel at your feet.
It also doesn't exist, though, does it Ray. Why not admit the whole
thing is one big leg pull.

Wombat

hersheyh

unread,
Jan 29, 2009, 4:14:24 PM1/29/09
to
On Jan 29, 1:43 pm, Ray Martinez <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Jan 28, 11:44 pm, Wombat <tri...@multiweb.nl> wrote:

[snip]


>
> Mendel provides no support of Darwinism----none.

Well, some scientists, probably including Mendel, thought Mendel's
genetic theories did not support Darwinism... before sometime around
1930. That is, Mendelism was thought to be opposed to Darwinism even
after the acceptance of the idea that genetics was particulate rather
than blending. But, crucially, before the understanding that those
particulate genes could mutate or change.

In old creationist quote mines (back in the 1960s) they always used to
find a Thomas Hunt Morgan (famous early geneticist) quote from about
1910 (creationists are always about 50 years behind in their
understanding of science) that rejected evolution because he thought,
at that time, that 'genes' were 'unchangeable'.

But the idea of gene immutability, just like species immutability, has
gone the way of the dodo (or the feathered theropod it came from).
Sic transit gloria.

I personally find it interesting that both Darwin and Mendel were
wrong about some things and right about others. That is what makes
science so different from religions and cultic beliefs in the perfect
Billy Bob Gene.

> Darwinists
> intentionally misrepresent the fact that Mendelism refutes Darwinism.

At the time, yes, Mendel, *because* he proposed a non-blending
inheritance mechanism, was clearly against that part of Darwin's ideas
and probably did believe that variation capacity was limited. Mendel
was certainly right about the mechanism of inheritance where Darwin
was wrong. No one denies that.

http://naturalselection.0catch.com/Files/gregormendel.html

"Mendel's ideas on heredity and evolution were diametrically opposed
to those of Darwin and his followers (although neither Mendel nor
Darwin knew of the other’s work).2 Darwin believed in the inheritance
of acquired characters. This led him to his famous theory of
continuous evolution. Mendel, in contrast, rejected both the idea of
inheritance of acquired characters (mutations) as well as the concept
of continuous evolution. The laws discovered by him were understood to
be the laws of constant elements for a great but finite variation, not
only for cultured varieties but also for species in the wild.3 In
his short treatise, Experiments in Plant Hybridization, Mendel
incessantly speaks of "constant characters", "constant offspring",
"constant combinations", "constant forms", "constant law", "a constant
species" etc. (in such combinations the adjective "constant" occurs 67
times in his original paper). He was convinced that the laws of
heredity he had discovered corroborated Gärtner's conclusion "that
species are fixed with limits beyond which they cannot change". And
as Dobzhansky aptly put it, "It is...not a paradox to say that if
someone should succeed in inventing a universally applicable, static
definition of species, he would cast serious doubts on the validity of
the theory of evolution"."

I presume you are the genius that has, rejecting over 80 years of
evidence about genetic mutation, has succeeded "in inventing a
universally applicable, static definition of species." Probably by
claiming, like Mendel might, that alleles cannot change. That
mutation never occurs. That, however, was an idea of Mendel's that
was wrong. By the 1930s it was known to be wrong. Just as wrong as
Darwin's idea of pangenesis.

> Mendel was a special creationist, a monk, who accepted Church
> authority.

Irrelevant whether he was a creationist or not. What matters is what
he was right about (and wrong about). Just like it is irrelevant
whether Darwin was a pantheist, a deist, a Christian, an agnostic, or
an atheist. What matters is what he was right about (and wrong
about).

Devils Advocaat

unread,
Jan 29, 2009, 4:47:23 PM1/29/09