Elsberry evading crucial message?
Ray Martinez
propagated in an essay published by Wesley Elsberry had come to the
final stage here:
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/57ff59d095f68c54?
But Elsberry has not replied. The above message requires Elsberry to
either edit his essay or explain why this is not necessary.
I think Elsberry is busy with a previous committment of research. I
think that this activity has caused his absence. I also think he is
obligated to reply to this pending matter.
Ray
Boikat
Maybe you're not important enough. Now go back to pretending to be
working on your "paper". You know, the one that's going to make you
the laughing stock of T.O. for *years*.
Boikat
'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank
>
> I think Elsberry is busy with a previous committment of research. I
> think that this activity has caused his absence. I also think he is
> obligated to reply to this pending matter.
>
I think you are all mouth and no balls. (shrug)
I also think you should be working on your, uh, Invulnerable
Scientific Paper (snicker, giggle) instead of shooting your mouth off
here.
================================================
Lenny Flank
"There are no loose threads in the web of life"
Editor, Red and Black Publishers
http://www.RedAndBlackPublishers.com
f-newguy
"Ray Martinez" <pyram...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1f813ece-d7af-47a9...@z6g2000pre.googlegroups.com...
lol
Your sense of your own importance is absurdly inflated, Ray.
You're nothing but a running joke on usenet.
Rupert Morrish
Why should anyone care who you think owes you a reply? You regularly
ignore polite posts asking you to clarify your position.
If it comes to who owes who what, you owe me twenty dollars.
>
> Ray
>
Rolf
"Ray Martinez" <pyram...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1f813ece-d7af-47a9...@z6g2000pre.googlegroups.com...
Pending matter? Boy, you got a lot to catch up on!
> Ray
>
Frank J
He's also been busy "complimenting" me. In a way that scientists
normaly do to each other, and in a way that is almost unheard of among
IDers. And in return I have been reevaluating some of my claims. Also
something that is almost unheard of among IDers, or any "kind" of
creationist.
Inez
> The issue concerning Phillip Johnson to be a "non-scripturalist..." as
> propagated in an essay published by Wesley Elsberry had come to the
> final stage here:
>
> http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/57ff59d095f68c54?
>
> But Elsberry has not replied. The above message requires Elsberry to
> either edit his essay or explain why this is not necessary.
Perhaps you are not his boss.
> I think Elsberry is busy with a previous committment of research. I
> think that this activity has caused his absence. I also think he is
> obligated to reply to this pending matter.
>
> Ray
I had a look at Mr. Elsberry's posting history. He has only made 32
posts this year, almost all in August. Last year he made 3 posts.
2006 was his high, at 41 posts, the 4 previous year totals were 7, 3,
3, and 2. Perhaps he had another address he posts from, but otherwise
I think the problem is that you're trying to pick on someone who just
isn't here very often. I certainly don't recall seeing that name
much.
Wesley R. Elsberry
I've responded to Ray at length in the previous thread. So far as I can
tell, all Ray has is goal-post shifting and his usual miscomprehension of
what has been said previously. None of that requires a response on my part,
and nothing Ray has said so far shows any need for amendment of stuff I've
previously written. We started with Ray explicitly declaring he didn't
understand stuff I had written, followed up by Ray retracting his claim of
error on my part, so as far as I'm concerned, we're done.
[Quote]
RM> I explain Wesley's position as legalism motivated by a desire to not
RM> edit or correct his essay.
Why would I want to change it to something erroneous? If Ray wants to
memorialize his mistakes, he can write those up himself.
[End quote -- WRE]
Ray seems to be having difficulty understanding that, too.
--
"You can't teach an old dogma new tricks." -- Dorothy Parker
Ray Martinez
wrote:
> In <1f813ece-d7af-47a9-8b92-dbd0a77f9...@z6g2000pre.googlegroups.com> on
In the link provided I asked: what is to prevent anyone from making
the same mistake I had, which was remembering that Johnson had quoted
scripture in "Defeating Darwinism By Opening Minds" then concluding
that Wesley had made an error by arguing Johnson never deployed
scripture against evolutionary theory?
I agree with Wesley, that Johnson is a "non-scripturalist...." but I
think it is quite obvious that Wesley needs to footnote his essay so
that the above instance does not harm his identification, otherwise a
well read person (like myself) might, like I said, make the same error
and think Wesley has made a glaring mistake.
This is hardly unreasonable and no big deal since I really could care
less if Wesley's essay is error-free. I have simply made this
suggestion for the reasons explained. Now I am through here.
Ray
Rupert Morrish
Your error could have been prevented if you had thought about it before
typing.
> which was remembering that Johnson had quoted
> scripture in "Defeating Darwinism By Opening Minds" then concluding
> that Wesley had made an error by arguing Johnson never deployed
> scripture against evolutionary theory?
>
> I agree with Wesley, that Johnson is a "non-scripturalist...." but I
> think it is quite obvious that Wesley needs to footnote his essay so
> that the above instance does not harm his identification, otherwise a
> well read person (like myself) might, like I said, make the same error
> and think Wesley has made a glaring mistake.
A well-read person would understand the difference between
scripturalists and non-scripturalists. A well-read person would
understand why quoting scripture in a chapter heading is not the same
thing as invoking scripture in defense of an argument. A well-read
person would have attempted to comprehend Wesley's position before
attacking it.
You are not well-read. You are a person who has looked at a lot of books.
>
> This is hardly unreasonable and no big deal since I really could care
> less if Wesley's essay is error-free. I have simply made this
> suggestion for the reasons explained. Now I am through here.
Does that mean you're going to work on your paper?
>
> Ray
>
Ray Martinez
You have misunderstood.
Johnson did quote scripture in said book. I take the position that
said quoting was deployed against evolutionary theory while Wesley
says it was not despite book title "Defeating Darwinism By Opening
Minds." The "error" I admitted to was rejecting Wesley's
identification of Johnson to be a "non-scripturalist...." After
reading Wesley's explanations, in our exchanges, I agree that Johnson
is a "non-scripturalist...." despite quoting scripture one time.
> > which was remembering that Johnson had quoted
> > scripture in "Defeating Darwinism By Opening Minds" then concluding
> > that Wesley had made an error by arguing Johnson never deployed
> > scripture against evolutionary theory?
>
> > I agree with Wesley, that Johnson is a "non-scripturalist...." but I
> > think it is quite obvious that Wesley needs to footnote his essay so
> > that the above instance does not harm his identification, otherwise a
> > well read person (like myself) might, like I said, make the same error
> > and think Wesley has made a glaring mistake.
>
> A well-read person would understand the difference between
> scripturalists and non-scripturalists. A well-read person would
> understand why quoting scripture in a chapter heading is not the same
> thing as invoking scripture in defense of an argument.
You have made the same error I made. By not reading the exchanges
between Wesley and I you have wrongly assumed the quoting to be an
epigram. It was not. Said quoting was an integral part of a scientific
argument and claim. Wesley claims said argument is not deployed
against evolutionary theory.
This is why he refuses to edit his essay with a footnote. This was the
cause of my "error." If Wesley had accounted for this quoting and
explained what he explained in the exchanges I would have never made
said "error." Wesley's essay does not account for Johnson's argument
and use of said scripture.
> A well-read
> person would have attempted to comprehend Wesley's position before
> attacking it.
>
> You are not well-read. You are a person who has looked at a lot of books.
>
Groundless anger.
>
>
> > This is hardly unreasonable and no big deal since I really could care
> > less if Wesley's essay is error-free. I have simply made this
> > suggestion for the reasons explained. Now I am through here.
>
> Does that mean you're going to work on your paper?
>
>
>
>
>
> > Ray- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Ray
Rupert Morrish
So, you were wrong, and Wesley was right, and therefore Wesley needs to
correct his essay. Is that the broad thrust of your argument?
>
>
>>> which was remembering that Johnson had quoted
>>> scripture in "Defeating Darwinism By Opening Minds" then concluding
>>> that Wesley had made an error by arguing Johnson never deployed
>>> scripture against evolutionary theory?
>>> I agree with Wesley, that Johnson is a "non-scripturalist...." but I
>>> think it is quite obvious that Wesley needs to footnote his essay so
>>> that the above instance does not harm his identification, otherwise a
>>> well read person (like myself) might, like I said, make the same error
>>> and think Wesley has made a glaring mistake.
>> A well-read person would understand the difference between
>> scripturalists and non-scripturalists. A well-read person would
>> understand why quoting scripture in a chapter heading is not the same
>> thing as invoking scripture in defense of an argument.
>
> You have made the same error I made.
I guess one of is is not as described then. Shall you be the atheist
today, or will I be the Scott-worshiper?
> By not reading the exchanges
> between Wesley and I you have wrongly assumed the quoting to be an
> epigram. It was not.
I had conflated the discussions of bible quotes in Johnson and Paley. My
bad.
> Said quoting was an integral part of a scientific
> argument and claim.
How is a quote from the bible part of a scientific argument?
> Wesley claims said argument is not deployed
> against evolutionary theory.
Given your track record, I harbour grave doubts that this is actually
what Wesley said.
> This is why he refuses to edit his essay with a footnote. This was the
> cause of my "error." If Wesley had accounted for this quoting and
> explained what he explained in the exchanges I would have never made
> said "error." Wesley's essay does not account for Johnson's argument
> and use of said scripture.
Nor need Wesley account for every utterance of Johnson's in order to
categorize him as one whose opposition to evolution is not based on his
reading of the bible.
>
>> A well-read
>> person would have attempted to comprehend Wesley's position before
>> attacking it.
>>
>> You are not well-read. You are a person who has looked at a lot of books.
>>
>
> Groundless anger.
I am not angry. This statement of yours is further evidence that you
have serious deficiencies in comprehending what you read.
>
>>
>>> This is hardly unreasonable and no big deal since I really could care
>>> less if Wesley's essay is error-free. I have simply made this
>>> suggestion for the reasons explained. Now I am through here.
>> Does that mean you're going to work on your paper?
[crickets]
Duly noted.