On Friday, August 26, 2016 at 7:10:03 PM UTC-4, Ray Martinez wrote:
> On Thursday, August 25, 2016 at 12:16:22 PM UTC-7, Peter Nyikos wrote:
> > On Wednesday, August 24, 2016 at 7:41:24 PM UTC-4, Ray Martinez wrote:
> > > On Tuesday, August 23, 2016 at 8:21:28 AM UTC-7, Peter Nyikos wrote:
> > > > On Saturday, August 20, 2016 at 4:36:37 PM UTC-4, Ray Martinez wrote:
> > > > > On Friday, August 19, 2016 at 6:11:40 PM UTC-7, Peter Nyikos wrote:
> > > > > > On Thursday, August 18, 2016 at 8:16:42 PM UTC-4, *Hemidactylus* wrote:
> > > > > > > Google Groups Line Wrap Nightmare below!!! WTF!!!
> > > > > > > > On 08/18/2016 04:32 PM, Ray Martinez wrote:
> > > > > > > >
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/talk.origins/IjGHRwVchPA/OEeuHsM2BAAJ
> > > >
> > > > > > > > Mayr: "There is indeed one belief that all true original Darwinians
> > > > > > > > held in common, and that was their rejection of creationism,
> > > > > > > > their rejection of special creation. This was the flag around which
> > > > > > > > they assembled and under which they marched.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > See, now Mayr is narrowing them down further by sticking in "original"
> > > > > > -- not that even wild horses could drag Ray into an acknowledgement of this.
> >
> > They still haven't dragged it out of Ray. Nor have I, or anyone else.
>
> Dragged what out? I posted the quotation days ago.
> And suddenly the Evolutionists are unable to understand an uncomplicated
> statement by one of their own scholars?
I understood it, but given the grandiose conclusions you try to
draw from it, I wonder whether YOU understand it.
> Original Darwinists MEANS Darwin's first batch of scientific converts.
Hence, only a tiny batch of Darwinists, unlike later batches who had
a more nuanced view of things, believing in evolution without
necessarily thinking that there was no supernatural involvement with it.
And not all converts of Darwin were scientific. Some might have been
like Stalin, to whom Darwinism was just a weapon against Christianity.
You certainly agree with Stalin about that, don't you?
> Thus Mayr is talking about the core of scientists that FIRST came to accept Naturalism, species mutability, and common descent. Every Darwinian biologist today "descends" from this core. They hold to the EXACT same position: evolution is unguided, not controlled by God (Mayr).
Where did Mayr say that? not in anything you've quoted from him here.
He wasn't stupid enough to say something like "Every Darwinian
biologist today "descends" from this core."
> So Mayr establishes where science obtained its current position regarding unguided evolution: from DARWIN 1859 and his original converts.
>
> What is it that you don't understand?
I understand that you are putting words into Mayr's mouth.
>
> Since this original core accepted Darwin's view of evolution (unguided)
> said view represents the objective;
The objective of a tiny group, who like the first converts to just
about anything, might be expected to be far more extreme and zealous
than those who come later.
>any view found to disagree represents the subjective,
You are making a ridiculous wordplay on the word "objective." You
think conflating two totally different meanings of the word
is fiendishly clever, don't you?
"Hitting the target is the objective of the archer. Any view
found to disagree with that use of the arrow is subjective."
More importantly, you are now going way beyond what you
quoted from Mayr in your crusade against Christians who
sin a lot less against Jesus's commandment against bearing
false witness than you do:
> which first and foremost includes the "view" of AAQ and Eddie and all other "Christian" Evolutionists, even William Dembski.
In another post you acknowledged that anyone who believes in divinely
guided evolution does not conform to your idea of an evolutionist.
How much longer will you go on talking out of both sides of your
mouth like this?
> >
> > > > > > <snip of more of the same, but only for the sake of brevity>
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > > 3. Darwin's Origin of Species----the book which contains the theory of
> > > > > > > > natural selection, a theory that science still accepts----mentions the
> > > > > > > > Creator, but does not assign any role IN the production of species.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > It does not deny it outright either, though, does it? Darwin freely
> > > > > > acknowledged that there were many phenomena that he could not
> > > > > > account for, like the Cambrian explosion.
> >
> > Of course, Ray did not acknowledge the existence of this
> > comment on what he had posted. In fact, he lied (see below)
> > that I had not addressed any of the points in his OP.
>
> What does the point have to do with the OP?
It comes IMMEDIATELY AFTER something you wrote in the OP, and refers
directly to it. And you've given me one more reason for saying
it to Hemi instead of you: you are playing a Harshman-style
game of pretending not to see something that an average 8-year old
can see.
> That's why I didn't address
I see: you are playing dumb to avoid the clear fact that you
lied about me not addressing anything in the OP. And the part
you chose to play dumb about were YOUR own words.
> > > > > > > > So God is accounted for in the specific context of not involved
> > > > > > > > in biological production (= atheistic).
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Riddle me this, if you can, Hemi: was Darwin himself one of those
> > > > > > "original true Darwinists" or did they just appropriate his name
> > > > > > for their movement?
> >
> > Hemi doesn't know enough about Darwin to commit himself on this
> > question. I believe the same is true of Ray, but he cannot
> > even bring himself to say ANYTHING one way or the other about it.
>
> Freaking loony as it gets!
You are describing your own (deliberate?) misunderstanding of
the plain meaning of what I wrote.
YOU said up there that the "original true Darwinists" were
Darwin's first converts. Would you think it is freaky loony to
think that St. Peter wasn't one of St. Peter's first *converts*?
>As if Darwin isn't the founder of
> accepted evolution! As if there isn't literally 10,000 books written after 1950 saying exactly that!
So you think the founder of anything is one of the founder's first
converts?
Are you so convinced of this that anyone who doesn't
think that is "freaky loony"? If so, you have the emotional age
of an infant.
Will you claim not to understand why I am asking these questions?
Then you will, in effect, be admitting to having a very low IQ.
> "original true Darwinists" presupposes Darwin the founder!
Sorry, you will have to quote something from Mayr to that effect.
Unless you do that, I will assume that you are cherry-picking
from what he wrote.
> And you're able to understand complicated scientific arguments found in journals but suddenly said phrase doesn't imply Darwin the founder of the ToE?!!??!!
"Darwinist" is a word subject to many meanings.
>
> This degree of ignorance, or stupidity, is exactly why I don't answer every "point" made by a John Doe, but you're a university professor, Peter, you have no excuse.
As a university professor, I have come across more than one example
of how the converts of someone distorted the founder's ideas so much
that the historian writing about it said, "It's a real question whether
___________ was one of the ___________ists." If I think hard enough,
I might be able to remember one or two specific examples of this.
Anyway, I can give you an example of such an incident.
When St. Francis returned to the group of Franciscans
that he had founded, he was appalled to see how far they
and those who had joined them had strayed
from the simple rule of life he had originally founded.
At that moment, he might well have wanted people to stop calling him a
"Franciscan" until he had straightened things out.
IIRC he never really succeeded in straightening things out.
You've made me curious to delve deeply into that part of history.
In fact, I'll say goodnight here, and turn in early for the weekend,
and resume replying to your post on Monday.
Have a nice weekend.
Peter Nyikos