3 Questions for Evos
Ray Martinez
1)How did ape sperm produce a being way more intelligent - modern
humans ?
2)How did random mutation produce a male and a female in the same time
and place to propagate a new species ?
Of course, the second question assumes as fact that two different
species cannot mate and reproduce which is a fact of nature.
3)Funny how NONE of Darwin's foundational claims have been harmed
according to Darwinists.
This must be a miracle since the modern capabilities of technology-rich
biology did not exist in Darwin's day.
To have ALL his presuppositions "confirmed" by modern science is
nothing short of a miracle, or as any honest objective person realizes
- fraud through and through.
Are we to believe 19th century Darwin got all the essentials correct ?
LOL !
your eternal friend,
Ray Martinez
Bobby D. Bryant
"This is your brain on creationism."
--
Bobby Bryant
Austin, Texas
Ray Martinez
"This is your brain on creationism."
RAY:
Insult = admission you cannot refute.
Cheezits
> 1)How did ape sperm produce a being way more intelligent - modern
> humans ?
It didn't - modern humans came from more primitive humans. The "more
intelligent" part didn't happen all in one generation. It was a gradual
process.
> 2)How did random mutation produce a male and a female in the same time
> and place to propagate a new species ?
It didn't. A new species doesn't arise from one mutation. The differences
accumulate over time. I think you need to learn a bit about how speciation
occurs.
> This must be a miracle since the modern capabilities of technology-rich
> biology did not exist in Darwin's day.
What are you talking about here?
Sue
--
"It's not smart or correct, but it's one of the things that
make us what we are." - Red Green
Deadrat
"Ray Martinez" <pyram...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1119410332....@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
> Hi Evos:
>
Welcome back, Fundy.
>
>
> 1)How did ape sperm produce a being way more intelligent - modern
> humans ?
In the usual way.
>
> 2)How did random mutation produce a male and a female in the same time
> and place to propagate a new species ?
You seem to be laboring under the misconception that new species arise as
the result of a single random mutation. I recommend a little study of
population genetics.
>
> Of course, the second question assumes as fact that two different
> species cannot mate and reproduce which is a fact of nature.
>
> 3)Funny how NONE of Darwin's foundational claims have been harmed
> according to Darwinists.
That's why I'm pushing for labels in biology texts that say, "No
foundational
claims have been harmed in the writing of this book."
>
> This must be a miracle since the modern capabilities of technology-rich
> biology did not exist in Darwin's day.
>
> To have ALL his presuppositions "confirmed" by modern science is
> nothing short of a miracle, or as any honest objective person realizes
> - fraud through and through.
>
> Are we to believe 19th century Darwin got all the essentials correct ?
>
Darwin got descent with modification and natural selection right. Since
he didn't know modern genetics, some of his guesses about mechanisms
were off base. Einstein didn't have many of today's technologies available
when he came up with the theory of relativity. Do you suppose Einstein
got that mostly right or wrong?
> LOL !
(L)eaving (O)ut (L)ogic?
Deadrat
Harlequin
> Hi Evos:
>
> 1)How did ape sperm produce a being way more intelligent - modern
> humans ?
Strawman: Ape sperm did not produce modern humans.
> 2)How did random mutation produce a male and a female in the same time
> and place to propagate a new species ?
Strawman: Animal species are not formed by single mutations.
Males simply breed with females in their populations.
> Of course, the second question assumes as fact that two different
> species cannot mate and reproduce which is a fact of nature.
Oversimplification: The species boundaries tend to be a bit blurry
at places. Often different species could breed with each other
but almost never do in the wild. Sometimes it is very difficult
for members of different species to succesfully breed with each
other. And sometimes it is impossible.
> 3)Funny how NONE of Darwin's foundational claims have been harmed
> according to Darwinists.
If you are saying that scientists accept everything Darwin said you
would be dead wrong. Darwin was wrong about some fundamental
things. But then again, no scientist in any field of Darwin's time
would not have said some very fundamentally wrong things from the
viewpoint of 2005.
> This must be a miracle since the modern capabilities of
> technology-rich biology did not exist in Darwin's day.
I might consider you stop inventing or parroting strawman arguments
to be a miracle.
> To have ALL his presuppositions "confirmed" by modern science is
> nothing short of a miracle, or as any honest objective person realizes
> - fraud through and through.
Fraud, like you strawman.
> Are we to believe 19th century Darwin got all the essentials correct ?
>
> LOL !
No you are not.
> your eternal friend,
>
> Ray Martinez
You are not my friend since you certainly do not act like one.
--
Anti-spam: replace "usenet@sdc." with "harlequin2@"
"Scam artists all use the 'debate ploy': perpetual-motion-machine
inventors, magnet therapists, UFO conspiracy theorists, all of them.
They win just by being on the same platform."
- Bob Park
ash...@hotmail.com
> Hi Evos:
Hi Creo
>
>
> 1)How did ape sperm produce a being way more intelligent - modern
> humans ?
Gradually, over thousands of generations. And it didn't just happen in
sperm, but also in eggs and the random combination of the two.
> 2)How did random mutation produce a male and a female in the same time
> and place to propagate a new species ?
Long before there was male & female, similar single celled organisms
would just swap generic material (creatures like this still exist
today). Being male is a tactic whereby you give some genetic material
but don't accept any.
>
> Of course, the second question assumes as fact that two different
> species cannot mate and reproduce which is a fact of nature.
>
> 3)Funny how NONE of Darwin's foundational claims have been harmed
> according to Darwinists.
>
> This must be a miracle since the modern capabilities of technology-rich
> biology did not exist in Darwin's day.
>
> To have ALL his presuppositions "confirmed" by modern science is
> nothing short of a miracle, or as any honest objective person realizes
> - fraud through and through.
>
> Are we to believe 19th century Darwin got all the essentials correct ?
This situation isn't that different to Newton's much earlier Theory Of
Gravity. He got most of the essenstials spot-on. It wasn't until around
the time of Eintstein that flaws were found in his work.
Do you find Newton's accuracy as equally hard to believe?
> LOL !
>
> your eternal friend,
>
> Ray Martinez
Peace.
Ashley Moore
Raymond E. Griffith
Martinez at pyram...@yahoo.com wrote on 6/21/05 11:35 PM:
Nah. Just an expression of exasperation.
You continually distort the science, demonstrate that you don't know the
first thing you are talking about, and think that you are God's answer to
all of us evil "evos" -- and you want respect and courtesy?
If you want to talk, then go to school, learn something, and then come back
and say something intelligent. Quit asserting that science says things it
doesn't. All that does is make you both ignorant and a liar. Yes, both.
Do you really think God is pleased with you, Mr. Martinez? Do you think God
is happy with the way you drive people away from Him with your lies and
self-delusional dreams of your own brilliance?
"Sober up as you should and stop sinning! For some have no knowledge of God
-- I say this to your shame." (1 Corinthians 15:34).
Raymond E. Griffith
Grogs
news:Qa5ue.1404$re....@newssvr19.news.prodigy.com:
Funny you should mention Einstein. Issac Newton came to mind when I read
the bit about Darwin. Using *17th* Century techniques, Issac Newton
developed his theories of mechanics and gravitation. Over 300 years
later, it is still taught in physics classes. Only in very specialized
cases (primarily astrophysics and cosmology) that Newton probably never
even dreamed of does it give a result that differs significantly from
Einstein's General Relativity.
Tom McDonald
Long time no read. Just over a month it's been since you skipped
out on a debate with Richard Clayton on the topic of the Common
Ancestry of humans and Chimpanzees.
Just before you left, you wrote:
"Richard Clayton disappeared on me but this is a big fast moving
board.
Thank You,
Ray Martinez"
[Message-ID: <1116376015.7...@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com>]
He stuck around; you split.
So are you back to begin your debate with Richard Clayton? I am
looking forward to it.
--
Tom McDonald
http://ahwhatdoiknow.blogspot.com/
AC
At what point can I start invoking the Rules of Raydom?
AC
I'm afraid you've violated the Second Law of Raydom. To recap:
1. If you disagree with Ray, you're an atheist.
2. Ray is never wrong. See #1 if you point out that he is.
Bobby D. Bryant
> in article 1119411309.8...@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com, Ray
> Martinez at pyram...@yahoo.com wrote on 6/21/05 11:35 PM:
>
>> BOBBY:
>>
>> "This is your brain on creationism."
>>
>> RAY:
>>
>> Insult = admission you cannot refute.
>>
>
> Nah. Just an expression of exasperation.
Correct. If you watch carefully, you'll see that I actually try to
engage people who are wrong but appear to be amenable to reason.
Ray doesn't fit that category, and it isn't because he isn't wrong.
Steven J.
"Ray Martinez" <pyram...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1119410332....@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
>
>
>
> 1)How did ape sperm produce a being way more intelligent - modern
> humans ?
>
> 2)How did random mutation produce a male and a female in the same time
> and place to propagate a new species ?
>
common enough that there's a colloquial name for it: the "first French
speaker" problem (i.e. when did Latin-speaking parents raise the first
French-speaking child, and whom did he speak to?). At any given time in
our ancestry, there was a breeding population whose individuals varied in
intelligence and other traits. Go back a million years, or two or three or
four million, and some of those "ape-men" would be, in some respects
(posture, or length of arms, or shape of jaw, or size of brain) a little
closer to modern "human" traits than their fellows.
Note that the three-million-year-old ape-man with the slightly larger brain
might not be the same one with the slightly-more-human limb proportions, or
the slightly-more-human jaw shape and size. Maybe one ape-man has the more
nearly modern brain size, and his apewoman mate has the slightly more modern
body proportions. Over time, step by step, the more modern traits became
commoner and showed up more and more often in the same individuals, until
the entire population, over time, became more and more like us (well, over
enough time, they became us, period).
>
> Of course, the second question assumes as fact that two different
> species cannot mate and reproduce which is a fact of nature.
>
Actually, as "species" is commonly used by biologists (stable populations
that *don't* interbreed in the wild), it's fairly common for individuals of
different species to be able to mate and produce offspring. Often these
offspring are sterile (e.g. the usual results when horses and donkeys
interbreed), but sometimes different species are fully interfertile (e.g.
there are different species of cichlid fish that can mate and produce
fertile offspring, but they don't, under normal circumstances, because they
seek a mate with certain color patterns and the species have different color
patterns).
But, again, this is not relevant to the question of human evolution. A
primitive ape doesn't have to give birth to a fully modern human (a member
of a completely different species). Rather, one species *gradually* evolves
into another. Note that in nature there are what are called "ring species."
For example, in England there are both herring gulls and lesser black-backed
gulls -- two distinct species that don't interbreed. As you travel west,
you don't find more black-backed gulls, but you find more populations of
herring gulls, which can interbreed with the English herring gulls. Then,
as you travel further and further west, you find the gull populations
(although they can always interbreed with their neighbors to east and west)
become more and more like lesser black-backed gulls, until finally they
*are* populations of black-backed gulls -- two different species, although
there is no place where one species is replaced by clear members of the
other. Evolution has the same thing happening in time rather than space.
>
> 3)Funny how NONE of Darwin's foundational claims have been harmed
> according to Darwinists.
>
What, in your view, are "Darwin's foundational claims?" His claims about
how heredity worked were either hopelessly vague or wrong, so those views
have been "harmed" and replaced, although they might not be viewed as
"foundational." His views of common descent and the importance of natural
selection have stood up to further testing. In many respects his theories
were broad outlines of a fully theory, with the details filled in over the
last century or so.
>
> This must be a miracle since the modern capabilities of technology-rich
> biology did not exist in Darwin's day.
>
Maxwell's equations have also stood up pretty well, although physics in the
19th century did not have the capabilities of 21st-century physicists. Why
do you assume that better methods of investigation *must* overturn rather
than confirm earlier theories?
>
> To have ALL his presuppositions "confirmed" by modern science is
> nothing short of a miracle, or as any honest objective person realizes
> - fraud through and through.
>
How have you learned what honest objective persons recognize? I would not
think you could have first-hand knowledge of such matters.
>
> Are we to believe 19th century Darwin got all the essentials correct ?
>
Again, what are "all the essentials?" He got common descent and descent
with modification right. He appears to have got natural selection as a
means of adaption right, and most evolutionists think he had a point with
his theory of sexual selection.
>
> LOL !
>
> your eternal friend,
>
> Ray Martinez
>
-- Steven J.
Tom McDonald
I haven't disagreed with Ray. In fact, I believe that he agreed
to the debate with Clayton. If anything, I'm *agreeing* that he
should undertake the debate he said he wanted.
I suspect Ray might not see it that way, as I think he
disappeared so as to avoid having to follow through with the
debate. That he might disagree with. But the only way he can
disagree with that is to engage in the debate, so all of us win
anyway.
Richard Forrest
Ray Martinez wrote:
> Hi Evos:
>
>
>
> 1)How did ape sperm produce a being way more intelligent - modern
> humans ?
The same way it always has: sex.
Humans are apes. It's not a great leap.
>
> 2)How did random mutation produce a male and a female in the same time
> and place to propagate a new species ?
Gender in some organisms is not as clear-cut as it is in vertebrates.
At it's simplest, it is the exchange of genetic information, which some
bacteria do. One can trace the intermediate stages by which gender
identity becomes established as male and female by reference to living
organisms.
>
> Of course, the second question assumes as fact that two different
> species cannot mate and reproduce which is a fact of nature.
>
This is a very confused statement.
1) It is not a fact that different species cannot mate. There are
rather insalubrious areas of the internet which make this unpleasantly
and explicitly clear.
2) It is not a fact that two different species cannot reproduce.
Horses and donkeys are different species. They can reproduce - mules
and hinnies.
> 3)Funny how NONE of Darwin's foundational claims have been harmed
> according to Darwinists.
>
Why? Perhaps Darwin got it right because he was a very careful
observer.
> This must be a miracle since the modern capabilities of technology-rich
> biology did not exist in Darwin's day.
>
Unless Darwin got it right in the first place because he was a very
careful observer. Incidentally, many of the methods used by modern
biologists and palaeontologists differ little from those used in
Darwin's day. Meticulous observation and attention to detail are still
the most valuable tools in their methodology.
I presume you think that it is a miracle that we still think that the
planets orbit the sun. After all, that discovery was made long before
Darwin's time, and the technology of astronomy has advanced rather a
long way since then.
> To have ALL his presuppositions "confirmed" by modern science is
> nothing short of a miracle, or as any honest objective person realizes
> - fraud through and through.
>
1) Darwin did not have any 'presuppositions'. He built his theory from
close observation of the natural world.
2) Darwin did not get it all right - his speculations on how
inheritance works were wrong.
The accusation that a large sector of the scientific community has been
involved in systematic fraud for 150 years, appart from being utterly
ridiculous, is also deeply insulting to the scientists involved.
> Are we to believe 19th century Darwin got all the essentials correct ?
>
Pretty well.
Are we to believe that the 17th century Tycho Brahe got all the
essentials correct?
> LOL !
>
> your eternal friend,
>
> Ray Martinez
It seems that gross personal insult against tens of thousands of people
without any foundation in their behaviour, or evidence to support
accusations of dishonesty is acceptable within your religion.
Perhaps you could tell which religion you espouse? it is quite
evidently not Christianity.
RF
sny...@joshuaisd.org
> humans ?
Your question is flawed on too many levels to answer.
> 2)How did random mutation produce a male and a female in the same time
> and place to propagate a new species ?
Your question reveals a distinct ignorance of reproduction and
genetics. I urge you to take a college-level biology class before you
ask a question like that.
> Of course, the second question assumes as fact that two different
> species cannot mate and reproduce which is a fact of nature.
Really, then feel free to enter a cage with an angry Liger in it. If
your statement is true then the Liger does not exist and you won't be
harmed.
Andrew Arensburger
> 1)How did ape sperm produce a being way more intelligent - modern
> humans ?
> 2)How did random mutation produce a male and a female in the same time
> and place to propagate a new species ?
If you doubt this is possible, how is it there are PYGMIES +
DWARFS??
(Thanks to PZ Meiarzhe for the inspiration: http://tinyurl.com/7w3oz )
--
Andrew Arensburger, Systems guy University of Maryland
arensb.no-...@umd.edu Office of Information Technology
My name is Bond... Covalent Bond.
Puppet_Sock
[snip]
> Funny you should mention Einstein. Issac Newton came to mind when I read
> the bit about Darwin. Using *17th* Century techniques, Issac Newton
> developed his theories of mechanics and gravitation. Over 300 years
> later, it is still taught in physics classes. Only in very specialized
> cases (primarily astrophysics and cosmology) that Newton probably never
> even dreamed of does it give a result that differs significantly from
> Einstein's General Relativity.
It all depends on how accurately you perform the experiments.
If you get accurate enough, then a CRT accelerates electrons
to speeds that are appreciably relativisitic. Just as one
example. If you get accurate enough, then you notice that
Gold and Silver are different colours, and ask why. Just
as another example.
Socks
VoiceOfReason
> Hi Evos:
>
>
>
> 1)How did ape sperm produce a being way more intelligent - modern
> humans ?
They evolved over time. Basic biology covers this.
> 2)How did random mutation produce a male and a female in the same time
> and place to propagate a new species ?
See above.
> Of course, the second question assumes as fact that two different
> species cannot mate and reproduce which is a fact of nature.
>
> 3)Funny how NONE of Darwin's foundational claims have been harmed
> according to Darwinists.
Natural selection and descent with modification have stood the test of
time, though 150 years of research have added substantially to the
details.
> This must be a miracle since the modern capabilities of technology-rich
> biology did not exist in Darwin's day.
Modern technology didn't exist in Newton's day either, but he's still
one of the most noted scientists in history.
> To have ALL his presuppositions "confirmed" by modern science is
> nothing short of a miracle,
Nothing miraculous at all, Darwin just did a lot of work and a lot of
good research.
> or as any honest objective person realizes
> - fraud through and through.
Argument by innuendo is a pathetic tactic. It's a good indicator of a
weak position.
> Are we to believe 19th century Darwin got all the essentials correct ?
>
> LOL !
See above re: innuendo. The same is true of sarcasm.
> your eternal friend,
Not likely. My friends are not so dishonest.
> Ray Martinez
Stuart
Ray Martinez wrote:
> Hi Evos:
>
>
>
> 1)How did ape sperm produce a being way more intelligent - modern
> humans ?
It didn't. Humans didn't spring from Apes.
>
> 2)How did random mutation produce a male and a female in the same time
> and place to propagate a new species ?
Populations evolve, not individiuals.
Is there any facet of evolutionary theory you are not wholly ignorant
of?
>
> Of course, the second question assumes as fact that two different
> species cannot mate and reproduce which is a fact of nature.
Actually it doesn't. And different species can mate and produce
offspring. Ask the wholfin .
>
> 3)Funny how NONE of Darwin's foundational claims have been harmed
> according to Darwinists.
Well lets see, what were Darwin's foundational claims..
Mutations continually occur as a matter of course giving rise to
variation.
Mutations are heritable
Natural selection acts on mutations.
Seems Darwin is in pretty good shape.
>
> This must be a miracle since the modern capabilities of technology-rich
> biology did not exist in Darwin's day.
Miracles are your department Ray. ITs ia miracle you learned to breath.
>
> To have ALL his presuppositions "confirmed" by modern science is
> nothing short of a miracle, or as any honest objective person realizes
> - fraud through and through.
>
> Are we to believe 19th century Darwin got all the essentials correct ?
>
> LOL !
Oh no. He had no model for heridity, and his gemmules theory was
nonsensical.
Thanks for playing Ray.
Your mommy is calling you now. Run along.
Stuart
john...@my-deja.com
Ray Martinez wrote:
> Hi Evos:
>
>
>
> 1)How did ape sperm produce a being way more intelligent - modern
> humans ?
>
Modern humans didn't descend from apes in a single generation. No
competent biologist or biology reference makes this claim. Anyone
who's spent more than 10 minutes studying evolution (I mean really
studying it, not just swallowing the garbage produced by ICR or AiG or
any number of anti-evolutionist cranks) would realize that this is a
phenomenally <Dexter>stewpid</Dexter> question.
> 2)How did random mutation produce a male and a female in the same time
> and place to propagate a new species ?
>
Distinct sexes did not arise in a single generation, either. Swapping
of genetic material between organisms predates distinct sexes, and
there are still plenty of hermaphroditic critters around (earthworms
being but one example, IIRC).
> Of course, the second question assumes as fact that two different
> species cannot mate and reproduce which is a fact of nature.
>
Depends on the species. Plenty of hybrid plants around. Some distinct
animal species can interbreed.
> 3)Funny how NONE of Darwin's foundational claims have been harmed
> according to Darwinists.
>
Darwin got his foundational claims mostly right the first time. It's
not impossible for someone who knows how to do actual science. And he
*expected* future scientists to poke holes in his theory.
> This must be a miracle since the modern capabilities of technology-rich
> biology did not exist in Darwin's day.
>
> To have ALL his presuppositions "confirmed" by modern science is
> nothing short of a miracle, or as any honest objective person realizes
> - fraud through and through.
>
> Are we to believe 19th century Darwin got all the essentials correct ?
>
Actually, he didn't, because the actual mechanism of heredity had not
been discovered yet. Again, Darwin himself realized that his theory
would need to be modified as further research was done.
And on the flip side -- we still teach 18th century Newtonian mechanics
in physics classes; do you think this is a problem as well? Yeah, they
fall down when talking things that are very massive, very small, or
travelling very fast, but for the bulk of the things we deal with on a
daily basis, F=ma still applies quite well.
Augray
<andr...@gmail.com> wrote in
news:<1119448443.2...@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>:
>
>
> Richard Forrest wrote:
> > Ray Martinez wrote:
>
> [snippage]
>
> > > your eternal friend,
> > >
> > > Ray Martinez
> >
> > It seems that gross personal insult against tens of thousands of people
> > without any foundation in their behaviour, or evidence to support
> > accusations of dishonesty is acceptable within your religion.
> >
> > Perhaps you could tell which religion you espouse? it is quite
> > evidently not Christianity.
>
> I believe it's the Cult of Ray.
No, not *that* Cult of Ray.
Thore "Tocis" Schmechtig
> 1)How did ape sperm produce a being way more intelligent - modern
> humans ?
This question alone is proof that you don't know shit about evolutionary
theory. _Learn_ about what you try to fight before you babble.
> 2)How did random mutation produce a male and a female in the same time
> and place to propagate a new species ?
More display of complete ignorance.
> Are we to believe 19th century Darwin got all the essentials correct ?
Are we to believe that someone who knows, metaphorically, "even less than
nothing" about evolutionary theory is to be taken seriously when ranting
about it?
Now, for the fence-sitters possibly reading this:
Ad 1. Evolutionary theory proposes _small_ changes in each step of
procreation... changes that _over many many generations_ add up to finally
make a population intersterile with its relatives.
Ad 2. There's species even today (unless I'm severely mistaken...
professional biologists, feel free to correct me ;) ) that can reproduce
both sexually and asexually. What more do you need? First, sexual
reproduction evolves as an "alternative" to simple copying of the DNA with
occasional mutations. Over time, sexual reproduction proves more
advantageous than the asexual alternative. Hence, over still more time,
sexual procreation becomes the "favored" way of reproduction.
(quotation marks used because "favored", to me, assumes that there is some
sentience to "favor" something ;) )
--
Regards
Thore "Tocis" Schmechtig
Scooter the Mighty
Ray Martinez wrote:
> Hi Evos:
>
>
>
> 1)How did ape sperm produce a being way more intelligent - modern
> humans ?
Human's are apes, so it's not very surprising when ape sperm does it's
little job.
>
> 2)How did random mutation produce a male and a female in the same time
> and place to propagate a new species ?
If you were willing to pay attention you'd know that speciation happens
over thousands and millions of years. Small changes build up, slowly
changing a subpopulation of a species until they no longer resemble
their progenitors.
>
> Of course, the second question assumes as fact that two different
> species cannot mate and reproduce which is a fact of nature.
>
> 3)Funny how NONE of Darwin's foundational claims have been harmed
> according to Darwinists.
>
I thought there were supposed to be 3 questions. This looks a little
bit like a statement.
Dragonmaster Lou
> Hi Evos:
>
>
>
> 1)How did ape sperm produce a being way more intelligent - modern
> humans ?
It didn't. It produced an animal slightly more intelligent. Then a few
generations later, slightly more intelligent still, and so on until you
get to modern humans.
This is an oversimplification, but the point is that it didn't happen
overnight. It took, oh, last I read, about 5 million years or so.
> 2)How did random mutation produce a male and a female in the same time
> and place to propagate a new species ?
Speciation doesn't work that way. Again, it's slight differences that
accumulate over time. Eventually, they add up so that they can't
reproduce with the other species. Take two males, one with the random
mutation and one without. The RM (random mutation) male can still reproduce
with ordinary females just like his brother, because the differences are
still small. However, if we assume that the RM male's descendants keep
accumulating mutations that his brother's descendants don't
accumulate, sooner or later the differences will be large enough that
RM's great-great-great-great-great grandkids can't breed with his
brother's great-great-great-great-great grandkids.
> Of course, the second question assumes as fact that two different
> species cannot mate and reproduce which is a fact of nature.
Actually, they can, although they almost never produce fertile offspring
-- it depends on how closely related the two species are. Donkeys and
horses produce sterile mules, lions and tigers produce [usually] sterile
ligers and tigons (there has been a report of a fertile female tigon),
etc. What do they have in common? They're closely related species,
meaning that the differences in their basic genetic makeups aren't too
different.
> 3)Funny how NONE of Darwin's foundational claims have been harmed
> according to Darwinists.
>
> This must be a miracle since the modern capabilities of technology-rich
> biology did not exist in Darwin's day.
>
> To have ALL his presuppositions "confirmed" by modern science is
> nothing short of a miracle, or as any honest objective person realizes
> - fraud through and through.
The modern capabilities of technology-rich gravity measuring devices
didn't exist in Newton's day, but that didn't stop him from coming up
with his theory of universal gravitation.
> Are we to believe 19th century Darwin got all the essentials correct ?
Are we to believe 17th century Newton got all the essentials correct?
--
-------------------- http://www.techhouse.org/lou ----------------------
"Dragonmaster Lou" | "Searching for a distant star, heading off to
lou at tealstudios com| Iscandar, leaving all we love behind, who knows
Tech House Alum | what dangers we'll find..."
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
shane
> Hi Evos:
>
>
>
> 1)How did ape sperm produce a being way more intelligent - modern
> humans ?
>
I'll answer a question with a question. Are you smarter than your parents?
> 2)How did random mutation produce a male and a female in the same time
> and place to propagate a new species ?
>
Twins?
> Of course, the second question assumes as fact that two different
> species cannot mate and reproduce which is a fact of nature.
>
IOW, "assumes as a fact that which is a fact." Why the need for the
assumption then?
> 3)Funny how NONE of Darwin's foundational claims have been harmed
> according to Darwinists.
>
> This must be a miracle since the modern capabilities of technology-rich
> biology did not exist in Darwin's day.
>
> To have ALL his presuppositions "confirmed" by modern science is
> nothing short of a miracle, or as any honest objective person realizes
> - fraud through and through.
>
> Are we to believe 19th century Darwin got all the essentials correct ?
>
> LOL !
>
> your eternal friend,
>
The address of your eternal residence is, i believe, in some doubt.
> Ray Martinez
>
--
shane
And the truth shall set you free.
allanm
Ray Martinez wrote:
> Hi Evos:
>
>
>
> 1)How did ape sperm produce a being way more intelligent - modern
> humans ?
>
> 2)How did random mutation produce a male and a female in the same time
> and place to propagate a new species ?
>
> Of course, the second question assumes as fact that two different
> species cannot mate and reproduce which is a fact of nature.
>
> 3)Funny how NONE of Darwin's foundational claims have been harmed
> according to Darwinists.
>
> This must be a miracle since the modern capabilities of technology-rich
> biology did not exist in Darwin's day.
>
> To have ALL his presuppositions "confirmed" by modern science is
> nothing short of a miracle, or as any honest objective person realizes
> - fraud through and through.
Confirmation of a theory by newly discovered facts is a powerful strike
in favour of that theory. If you honestly believe that, for 160 years,
all contrary evidence has been suppressed, and supporting evidence
distorted or invented, by the tens of thousands of people involved in
the many interlocking fields concerned..... for no apparent purpose
other than to p1ss off the likes of you..... and not a single Good
Christian whistleblower prepared to stand up and disclose exactly how
this global fraud has been perpetrated? This scenario would require the
influenec of someone both omnipotent and omniscient.
>
> Are we to believe 19th century Darwin got all the essentials correct ?
>
Other than blending inheritance, yes. Turns out Mendelian inheritance
was the ideal solution to the problem he pondered.
> LOL !
>
> your eternal friend,
>
> Ray Martinez
The Last Conformist
Richard Forrest wrote:
> Ray Martinez wrote:
[snippage]
> > your eternal friend,
> >
> > Ray Martinez
>
> It seems that gross personal insult against tens of thousands of people
> without any foundation in their behaviour, or evidence to support
> accusations of dishonesty is acceptable within your religion.
>
> Perhaps you could tell which religion you espouse? it is quite
> evidently not Christianity.
I believe it's the Cult of Ray.
Bob Casanova
talk.origins, posted by "Ray Martinez"
<pyram...@yahoo.com>:
>BOBBY:
>
>"This is your brain on creationism."
>
>RAY:
>
>Insult = admission you cannot refute.
No, it's a observation that your questions imply such a
departure from reality in your "knowledge" that there's no
way to answer them without subjecting you to a complete
course of biology, since they make it obvious you know
nothing at all about either evolution or the ToE and
essentially nothing about science.
--
Bob C.
"Evidence confirming an observation is
evidence that the observation is wrong."
- McNameless
Bob Casanova
talk.origins, posted by sny...@joshuaisd.org:
Stomped to death by mules (or even by hinnies) would be more
appropriate.
Mark VandeWettering
>
> You continually distort the science, demonstrate that you don't know
> the first thing you are talking about
>
> back
> and say something intelligent.
>
>
> Atheist rant.
>
> IOW, you are name-calling.....saying I am stupid.
Is it name calling if you actually are stupid?
And ignorant?
> Thats a very unique insult that is never known to exist even in grade
> school.
I suspect this is hardly the first time you've heard this charge.
> Of course your tirade assumes yourself intelligent.
>
> How intelligent is anyone who believes man evolved from an animal ?
Man is an animal.
> Like Romans says, this belief is a penalty from God for denying Him
> Creator status, and persons suffering the penalty are observedly
> "sophisticated morons" = all Darwinists (Romans 1:22).
>
> GRIFFITH:
>
> Do you really think God is pleased with you, Mr. Martinez? Do you think
> God
> is happy with the way you drive people away from Him with your lies and
>
> self-delusional dreams of your own brilliance?
>
> "Sober up as you should and stop sinning! For some have no knowledge of
> God
> -- I say this to your shame." (1 Corinthians 15:34).
>
> MARTINEZ:
>
> An atheist quoting Scripture. LOL !
>
> IOW, someone who believes the Bible a myth suddenly runs to it under
> the delusion that his use of it will somehow be correct and effective.
>
> This reveals that you think deep down that God really wants you and is
> waiting hat in hand for you to open your hearts door for Him.
>
> In reality, you (atheists) are the aged-movie star convinced of her
> self importance ready for her close-up.
>
> IOW, you are a loser who couldn't make it with God.
I find it not at all surprising that your God doesn't like those whom
you don't like.
Mark
Ray Martinez
So are you back to begin your debate with Richard Clayton? I am
looking forward to it.
RAY:
I couldn't find Richard for a couple of days and figured life goes on.
First, thanks Tom for your interest. Maybe you would like to take
Richard's place ?
But here is a legitimate problem:
Usenet is a very fast moving board - almost like a chat line.
I cannot post EVERYDAY, but every other until Thursdays and Fridays
when I have lots of time.
This means in this Usenet board the topic will be off the edge in a day
or two buried in sediments of other evolving topics which are of more
interest to the average attention deficit disorder yuppie known to
loiter here.
I want a serious debate - like on a normal debate board.
I am presently banned at most of the atheist/Darwinist boards as this
is the m.o. of atheists in the 20th century (banishment/Siberia)
towards their opponents.
Why do atheists ban their opponents ?
Answer: implacable rage.
I AM READY TO DEBATE ANY DARWINIST ABOUT THEIR FOSSILS .
waiting.....
Ray Martinez
Robert Weldon
> GRIFFITH:
>
> You continually distort the science, demonstrate that you don't know
> the first thing you are talking about
>
> If you want to talk, then go to school, learn something, and then come
> back
> and say something intelligent.
>
> MARTINEZ:
>
> Atheist rant.
>
> IOW, you are name-calling.....saying I am stupid.
>
> school.
>
>
> How intelligent is anyone who believes man evolved from an animal ?
>
> Creator status, and persons suffering the penalty are observedly
> "sophisticated morons" = all Darwinists (Romans 1:22).
>
> GRIFFITH:
>
> Do you really think God is pleased with you, Mr. Martinez? Do you think
> God
> is happy with the way you drive people away from Him with your lies and
>
> self-delusional dreams of your own brilliance?
>
> "Sober up as you should and stop sinning! For some have no knowledge of
> God
> -- I say this to your shame." (1 Corinthians 15:34).
>
> MARTINEZ:
>
> An atheist quoting Scripture. LOL !
>
> IOW, someone who believes the Bible a myth suddenly runs to it under
> the delusion that his use of it will somehow be correct and effective.
>
> This reveals that you think deep down that God really wants you and is
> waiting hat in hand for you to open your hearts door for Him.
>
> In reality, you (atheists) are the aged-movie star convinced of her
> self importance ready for her close-up.
>
> IOW, you are a loser who couldn't make it with God.
Just a quick point, but just because someone doesn't agree with you Ray, or
even calls you an idiot, doesn't mean they are an atheist.
>
Chris Krolczyk
Ray Martinez wrote:
> BOBBY:
>
> "This is your brain on creationism."
>
> RAY:
>
> Insult = admission you cannot refute.
Ray's posts = the same repetitive, content-free
crap reposted over and over again.
-Chris Krolczyk
Chris Krolczyk
Ray Martinez wrote:
> MARTINEZ:
>
> An atheist quoting Scripture. LOL !
This assumption that everyone who can accept the ToE
on its own merits is an "atheist" (which would seem
to mean "anyone who disagrees with Ray" in RaySpeak,
instead of the usual meaning) is such an old canard,
Ray. Take a shot at developing a new one, would you?
-Chris Krolczyk
Chris Krolczyk
Ray Martinez wrote:
> Who changed the topic title
Tom McDonald.
Having trouble readins subject lines, Ray?
> and what is your question ?
*Ahem*
"So are you back to begin your debate with
Richard Clayton?" would seem to be it.
> Reveal yourself.
He has. Care to take a better shot at actually
*reading* his posts first?
-Chris Krolczyk
Ray Martinez
It didn't - modern humans came from more primitive humans. The "more
intelligent" part didn't happen all in one generation. It was a
gradual
process.
RAY:
My question was rhetorical.
Ape sperm cannot produce an astronomically more intelligent being.
But, like a true evolutionist you have asserted that it only produced a
slightly better version - gradually.
There isn't one shred of evidence to support this.
In retrospect the naturalist must conclude it did but he cannot produce
any evidence to that end.
You are asking me to believe in hocus pocus without an objective
source. Blind unintelligent processes cannot luck out and produce
improvement - nonsense.
The human eye, ear, and brain defy graduality, as does bat sonar and
migratory birds.
BTW, where can I review evidence of bat evolution ?
I will finish this reply - ASAP
RM
Ray Martinez
Ray's posts = the same repetitive, content-free
crap reposted over and over again.
RAY:
To the degree you are correct is in direct ratio to the degree that my
opponents initiate "content-free crap over and over again."
IOW, you cannot take what you dish out.
Ray M.
The Last Conformist
You're forgeting the Rules of Raydom.
Chris Krolczyk
Ray Martinez wrote:
> CHRIS:
>
> Ray's posts = the same repetitive, content-free
> crap reposted over and over again.
>
> RAY:
>
> To the degree you are correct is in direct ratio to the degree that my
> opponents initiate "content-free crap over and over again."
You're as poor a bullshit artist as ever, Ray.
I've noticed that a very large number of people
who bother to reply to you *start out* by posting
completely valid rebuttals to your ranting and
raving and usually give up when they realize
that they're responding to a brick wall. Deadrat
and Harlequin's reponses in this thread certainly
qualify, even if you don't accept them as such.
In short, whatever *your* definition of "content"
is, it isn't the same as the one in the dictionary.
What a shock.
> IOW, you cannot take what you dish out.
"Taking" verbal diarrhea from a clueless git
is supposed to be difficult these days?
-Chris Krolczyk
Justin A. Cobb
> You are asking me to believe in hocus pocus without an objective
> source.
<snip>
Funny you should say that.
Justin A. Cobb
Ray Martinez
> CHRIS:
> RAY:
-Chris Krolczyk
RAY:
http://www.mentalhealth.com/drug/p30-r05.html
Risperidone can make the voices stop Chris.
I am your friend.
Please click on the link and start your journey back.
My email is 24 hours - I will be your sponsor.
Ray M.
Dana Tweedy
> CHEEZITS:
>
> It didn't - modern humans came from more primitive humans. The "more
> intelligent" part didn't happen all in one generation. It was a
> gradual
> process.
>
> RAY:
>
> My question was rhetorical.
Then why did you ask?
>
> Ape sperm cannot produce an astronomically more intelligent being.
Perhaps not in your case..... In any case, evolution does not suggest
that a single sperm will produce an "astronomically more intelligent" being.
All it need do is produce a being that is incrementally more intelligent.
(For that matter, why do you feel that humans are "astronomically more
intelligent" than other apes?)
>
> But, like a true evolutionist you have asserted that it only produced a
> slightly better version - gradually.
Right, that's what evolution suggests. Change is gradual, not in huge
leaps.
>
> There isn't one shred of evidence to support this.
Except for the molecular, fossil, genetic, physiological, anatomical,
behavioral and biogeographical evidence that has been collected over the
last 150 years..
>
> In retrospect the naturalist must conclude it did but he cannot produce
> any evidence to that end.
Except the reams of evidence as mentioned above.
>
> You are asking me to believe in hocus pocus without an objective
> source.
No, that's what Creationists are claiming. Magic is part and parcel of
Creationist claims. Evolution, as with all other sciences, relies of
natural processes.
> Blind unintelligent processes cannot luck out and produce
> improvement - nonsense.
Why do you think that evolution is "improvement"? Evolution is change.
>
> The human eye, ear, and brain defy graduality, as does bat sonar and
> migratory birds.
In what way do they "defy graduality"? Bat sonar and bird migration are
perfectly capable of developing by gradual means. Human eyes, ears and
brain are hardly unique structures in nature.
>
> BTW, where can I review evidence of bat evolution ?
Have you tried a Google search for that phrase? I got over 850,000 hits in
just over 0.15 seconds. (granted some are about the baseball bat) Here are
a few of the sites:
http://animal.discovery.com/news/briefs/20050131/bat.html
http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1511/is_11_19/ai_57564244
http://www.physorg.com/news2856.html
http://forests.org/articles/reader.asp?linkid=38461
>
> I will finish this reply - ASAP
I predict it will be more of the same: denial, ignorance and arrogance.
DJT
Chris Krolczyk
Ray Martinez wrote:
>
> Risperidone can make the voices stop Chris.
>
> I am your friend.
>
> Please click on the link and start your journey back.
>
> My email is 24 hours - I will be your sponsor.
So, Ray, at what point in life *did* you decide
that being an ignorant, sanctimonious asshole
was your best claim to significance in life?
Shortly after you dropped out of fifth grade,
right?
(Quotes left in, if only to prove *why*
Ray gets classified as such.)
-Chris Krolczyk
Tom McDonald
> TOM:
>
> So are you back to begin your debate with Richard Clayton? I am
> looking forward to it.
>
> RAY:
>
> I couldn't find Richard for a couple of days and figured life goes on.
>
> First, thanks Tom for your interest. Maybe you would like to take
> Richard's place ?
No. I have popcorn and diet cola, and a comfy chair. I'm looking
forward to you and Richard going at it.
>
> But here is a legitimate problem:
>
> Usenet is a very fast moving board - almost like a chat line.
Usenet is not a BBS. While there are lots of posts, and lots of
threads, people interested in a particular thread will watch it,
even if there is a hiatus of a few days between posts by one of
the main participants. Even on Google Groups, you can easily find
the thread and contribute to it when you choose.
>
> I cannot post EVERYDAY, but every other until Thursdays and Fridays
> when I have lots of time.
That would be fine.
>
> This means in this Usenet board the topic will be off the edge in a day
> or two buried in sediments of other evolving topics which are of more
> interest to the average attention deficit disorder yuppie known to
> loiter here.
Most of us have decent attention spans. The 'off the edge' you
mention is an artifact of Google Groups, and perhaps discussion
boards. Usenet itself isn't like that.
If you were to try a dedicated newsreader, or even something
like Outlook Express (hack--ptoee!), Mozilla Thunderbird, the
newest Netscape, Opera, etc., it'd be much easier for you to stay
oriented. Plus those programs automatically quote what you're
replying to, so you don't have to. Google Groups can do that,
too. I did it yesterday. Give it a try.
>
> I want a serious debate - like on a normal debate board.
Propose one. We have had some success with a debate structure we
developed here. Our structure requires that the debaters agree on
a debate format, with judges that are agreeable to both, and
rules on evidence, time, etc., also mutually agreed upon.
>
> I am presently banned at most of the atheist/Darwinist boards as this
> is the m.o. of atheists in the 20th century (banishment/Siberia)
> towards their opponents.
Do you have a board you are not banned from and think is fair?
If so, propose it.
>
> Why do atheists ban their opponents ?
>
> Answer: implacable rage.
Your view. I suspect there were other reasons.
BTW, it is possible to be banned from T.O.; for cause, and until
clearly stated criteria are met. However, have you been banned
here? Since you seem to think nearly everyone here is an atheist
(even notorious theists), do you expect to be banned here, too?
>
> I AM READY TO DEBATE ANY DARWINIST ABOUT THEIR FOSSILS .
>
> waiting.....
Interesting.
--
Tom McDonald
http://ahwhatdoiknow.blogspot.com/
Tom McDonald
> Who changed the topic title and what is your question ?
>
> Reveal yourself.
>
> Ray M.
>
It was me, Ray. Geez, get a newsreader, will ya? It's blazingly
obvious to anyone with one.
Read back in this sub-thread to my post.
On the off chance that is not something you can do on Google,
here was my question:
"So are you back to begin your debate with Richard Clayton?"
--
Tom McDonald
http://ahwhatdoiknow.blogspot.com/
Steven J.
"Ray Martinez" <pyram...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1119484861....@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>
> It didn't - modern humans came from more primitive humans. The "more
> intelligent" part didn't happen all in one generation. It was a
> gradual
> process.
>
> RAY:
>
> My question was rhetorical.
>
>
> Ape sperm cannot produce an astronomically more intelligent being.
>
>
> But, like a true evolutionist you have asserted that it only produced a
> slightly better version - gradually.
>
> There isn't one shred of evidence to support this.
>
correct, necessarily *must* be either fully human or fully ape. Yet
creationists cannot agree among themselves as to which category, e.g. ER1470
"clearly" belong. One can arrange these skulls on a graph, from purely
apelike (in the case of the australopiths) to fully modern, with no
significant gaps on the graph. We have fossil evidence of a gradual
transition; surely that is at least a "shred of evidence."
Chromosomes typically have special structures -- telomeres -- at the ends
and another structure -- the centromere -- near the middle. Human
chromosome two has, in addition to the usual centromere and telomere, a
vestigial telomere and centromere, as though it was formed by the fusion of
two different chromosomes. Oddly, in chimpanzees, the homologs to the genes
on chromosome 2 are split between two different chromosomes, each of which
has the genes in virtually the same sequence as human chromosome 2. That
is, our chromosomes look, for all the world, like the product of an
evolutionary history; surely this is at least a "shred of evidence."
Humans, unlike most animals, cannot make their own vitamin C. The GULO
gene, needed to make an enzyme that helps produce vitamin C, is disabled in
a particular way in humans; it has become a pseudogene. Oddly, other great
apes and old world monkeys also have a GULO pseudogene, disabled in the same
way. One might argue from "common design" that all our species were
identically disabled because we could get vitamin C from fruit; guinea pigs,
for example, also have a pseudogene rather than a functional GULO gene, but
theirs is disabled differently from the primate version. This is explicable
in terms of evolution by natural selection (mutations that disable the gene
aren't harmful if you get enough vitamin C in the diet, and the mutant
version is passed on to all descendants), but hard to explain in terms of
common design or separate origins for humans and other apes. Surely, again,
this is a "shred of evidence."
>
> In retrospect the naturalist must conclude it did but he cannot produce
> any evidence to that end.
>
Perhaps you should ask the naturalist before you draw this conclusion.
>
> You are asking me to believe in hocus pocus without an objective
> source. Blind unintelligent processes cannot luck out and produce
> improvement - nonsense.
>
Genetic algorithms suggest you are mistaken.
>
> The human eye, ear, and brain defy graduality, as does bat sonar and
> migratory birds.
>
Eyes built along the same "box camera" principles as the human eye, but
simpler (missing parts or with simpler parts) are known from many species.
Indeed, the eye is the classic example of a complex structure that can be
built gradually, with each step useful in its own right and slightly better
(for some purposes) than its predecessors. The planarian has two simple
eyespots -- tiny light-sensitive patches capable of only rudimentary vision.
The amphioxus has funnel-shaped dents holding its retinas, allowing them to
focus slightly and better estimate where light is coming from. The
chambered nautilus has a "pinhole-camera" eye, with an enclosed eye and
iris, but with no lens. Likewise, color sensitivity can be built up one
step at a time.
As for bat sonar, humans don't have sonar, but can use echos to crudely gage
distance to large obstancles. So, of course, could the ancestors of bats.
This echo-using capacity can surely be built up incrementally. It seems
very odd to assert that brains cannot evolve incrementally, given the
enormous array of brain sizes and complexity that all serve their possessors
in nature.
>
> BTW, where can I review evidence of bat evolution ?
>
> I will finish this reply - ASAP
>
> RM
>
-- Steven J.
Raymond E. Griffith
Martinez at pyram...@yahoo.com wrote on 6/22/05 7:11 PM:
> GRIFFITH:
>
> You continually distort the science, demonstrate that you don't know
> the first thing you are talking about
>
> If you want to talk, then go to school, learn something, and then come
> back
> and say something intelligent.
>
> MARTINEZ:
>
> Atheist rant.
>
Sigh. You have just said another thing which is profoundly unintelligent.
Were you to have done the least amount of reading of my postings, it would
be abundantly clear that I am not the slightest bit atheist. I am a
Christian, saved by the grace of God by the Work of Christ.
And as a Christian, I believe it is our duty to be truthful and honest and
knowledgeable. I find you to be none of the above.
> IOW, you are name-calling.....saying I am stupid.
Well, the shoe fits you very well. And making an accurate observation is
*not* "name-calling". The fact is that you speak out of ignorance, that you
are ignorant, and that you are ignorant of the very ignorance you possess.
So yes. You *are* stupid. And what is worse is that you are deliberately so
since there is the opportunity to learn and you will not avail yourself of
it.
>
> Thats a very unique insult that is never known to exist even in grade
> school.
>
> Of course your tirade assumes yourself intelligent.
I would be willing to compare credentials with you at any time. We could
decide on a third party to send the information to, who could then report
back to the group. Would you be willing to do that?
But as for intelligent -- I am at least willing to learn about that which I
do not know. And I am willing to be corrected where I am in error.
The Scriptures have a lot to say about those who remain stubbornly in error.
Balaam, I believe, is noted to have come to a terrible end because, although
the Lord forcibly corrected him on more than one occasion he still wanted to
do things his way. "He who is often reproved, yet hardens his neck, shall
suddenly be destroyed, and that without remedy."
>
> How intelligent is anyone who believes man evolved from an animal ?
Hmmm. The researchers who created the medicines you use are rather
intelligent, don't you think? The genetic evidence is very clear. The
relationships are solidly in place. We are mammals, our physical structure
is definitely that of an animal.
So what's the problem? Don't you think the Lord can use the processes He put
into place in His own creation to accomplish His purposes? Or do you have
such a small God?
>
> Like Romans says, this belief is a penalty from God for denying Him
> Creator status, and persons suffering the penalty are observedly
> "sophisticated morons" = all Darwinists (Romans 1:22).
>
> GRIFFITH:
>
> Do you really think God is pleased with you, Mr. Martinez? Do you think
> God
> is happy with the way you drive people away from Him with your lies and
>
> self-delusional dreams of your own brilliance?
>
> "Sober up as you should and stop sinning! For some have no knowledge of
> God
> -- I say this to your shame." (1 Corinthians 15:34).
>
> MARTINEZ:
>
> An atheist quoting Scripture. LOL !
As I note, I am certainly *not* an atheist. And I happen to believe
Scripture should be obeyed.
Suppose that the Lord should deliver a godly rebuke by way of a donkey --
should the rebuke be heeded? Balaam should have listened to the ass and not
made an ass of himself.
And whether or not you like the rebuke given to you by me, still the rebuke
is valid. You should listen. God will not let you go on sinning in His name
without incident.
>
> IOW, someone who believes the Bible a myth suddenly runs to it under
> the delusion that his use of it will somehow be correct and effective.
In other words, you have nothing to say against the rebuke. You will simply
dismiss the valid message because you dislike the messenger. Typical.
>
> This reveals that you think deep down that God really wants you and is
> waiting hat in hand for you to open your hearts door for Him.
>
> In reality, you (atheists) are the aged-movie star convinced of her
> self importance ready for her close-up.
>
> IOW, you are a loser who couldn't make it with God.
Who is name-calling now? You do it all the time, but don't like to be the
recipient of it. Hypocrite!
Wrong from the start and wrong at the end, wrong in the middle as well.
Wrong, Mr. Martinez, and the truth you bend may see you at last in ....
I hope you wake up to righteousness and stop sinning. You are disgracing the
God you claim to believe and serve.
Regards,
Raymond E. Griffith
shane
> CHEEZITS:
>
> It didn't - modern humans came from more primitive humans. The "more
> intelligent" part didn't happen all in one generation. It was a
> gradual
> process.
>
> RAY:
>
> My question was rhetorical.
>
> Ape sperm cannot produce an astronomically more intelligent being.
>
> But, like a true evolutionist you have asserted that it only produced a
> slightly better version - gradually.
>
>
So Ray, are you smarter than your parents, just as smart or less smart?
think carefully, the answer will be enlightening for us all if you are
bold enough to answer it. Then from that answer, think about what the
answer means for the whole human population, for say 10 generations, 100
generations, 1000 generations.
<snip>
--
shane
The truth will set you free.
Bob Pease
How many voices, Winston?
BTW, what is Chris doing that the VOICES would want to stop him?
Voice Squadron, ...commit,,,Atack on my code charlie.
Christapo Unit Dispatched...
Plonk enabled
Commit
FLECTAMUS GENUA
Plonkemus Raimundus
LEVATE
Bye Ray
Bob Pease
Richard Clayton
> Hi Evos:
>
> 1)How did ape sperm produce a being way more intelligent - modern
> humans ?
Ape sperm produces humans all the time, as humans ARE apes. To answer
the intent of your question, though, rather than the exact working,
evolution does not happen in a single huge leap. It takes place over
thousands of generations.
> 2)How did random mutation produce a male and a female in the same time
> and place to propagate a new species ?
See above. That question is like asking "who did the first person to
speak English talk to?" Each generation is generally interfertile with
its peers. See also ring species.
> Of course, the second question assumes as fact that two different
> species cannot mate and reproduce which is a fact of nature.
Are horses and donkeys the same species? What about lions and tigers?
Of course, a blurry boundary between closely related species is exactly
what the theory of evolution suggests we should expect.
> 3)Funny how NONE of Darwin's foundational claims have been harmed
> according to Darwinists.
>
> This must be a miracle since the modern capabilities of technology-rich
> biology did not exist in Darwin's day.
>
> To have ALL his presuppositions "confirmed" by modern science is
> nothing short of a miracle, or as any honest objective person realizes
> - fraud through and through.
>
> Are we to believe 19th century Darwin got all the essentials correct ?
And strangely enough, Newton's theories still remain predictive,
useful, and to all appearances correct, even after 300 years. Of course,
there have been modifications and refinements to his original ideas, as
there have been for Darwin's, but for the most part F still equals ma.
> LOL !
>
> your eternal friend,
>
> Ray Martinez
Welcome back. I presume you will be posting a reply in our debate thread?
--
[The address listed is a spam trap. To reply, take off every zig.]
Richard Clayton
"During wars laws are silent." -- Cicero
Richard Clayton
> Hi Ray,
>
> Long time no read. Just over a month it's been since you skipped
> out on a debate with Richard Clayton on the topic of the Common
> Ancestry of humans and Chimpanzees.
>
> Just before you left, you wrote:
>
> "Richard Clayton disappeared on me but this is a big fast moving
> board.
Interesting. You know, I never noticed that post. I do not think I can
be blamed for Ray missing the debate thread; I explicitly stated in a
reply to one of his posts that I was creating a new thread for the debate.
> He stuck around; you split.
>
> So are you back to begin your debate with Richard Clayton? I am
> looking forward to it.
As am I.
Richard Clayton
> GRIFFITH:
>
> You continually distort the science, demonstrate that you don't know
> the first thing you are talking about
>
> If you want to talk, then go to school, learn something, and then come
> back
> and say something intelligent.
>
> MARTINEZ:
>
> Atheist rant.
>
>
> school.
>
> Of course your tirade assumes yourself intelligent.
>
>
> Creator status, and persons suffering the penalty are observedly
> "sophisticated morons" = all Darwinists (Romans 1:22).
>
> GRIFFITH:
>
> Do you really think God is pleased with you, Mr. Martinez? Do you think
> God
> is happy with the way you drive people away from Him with your lies and
>
> self-delusional dreams of your own brilliance?
>
> "Sober up as you should and stop sinning! For some have no knowledge of
> God
> -- I say this to your shame." (1 Corinthians 15:34).
>
> MARTINEZ:
>
> An atheist quoting Scripture. LOL !
>
> the delusion that his use of it will somehow be correct and effective.
>
> waiting hat in hand for you to open your hearts door for Him.
>
> In reality, you (atheists) are the aged-movie star convinced of her
> self importance ready for her close-up.
>
> IOW, you are a loser who couldn't make it with God.
Raymond Griffith is not an atheist.
Geoff
> Hi Evos:
>
> 1)How did ape sperm produce a being way more intelligent - modern
> humans ?
Man, you couldn't even hold me for two lines! You are an idiot.
Richard Clayton
> TOM:
>
> So are you back to begin your debate with Richard Clayton? I am
> looking forward to it.
>
> RAY:
>
> I couldn't find Richard for a couple of days and figured life goes on.
I very clearly stated the title of the new thread. You cannot have
looked very hard.
[snip]
> I AM READY TO DEBATE ANY DARWINIST ABOUT THEIR FOSSILS .
>
> waiting.....
>
> Ray Martinez
The previously-agreed debate thread still awaits your response, Ray.
Deadrat
> TOM:
>
> So are you back to begin your debate with Richard Clayton? I am
> looking forward to it.
>
> RAY:
>
> I couldn't find Richard for a couple of days and figured life goes on.
>
> First, thanks Tom for your interest. Maybe you would like to take
> Richard's place ?
>
> But here is a legitimate problem:
>
> Usenet is a very fast moving board - almost like a chat line.
>
> I cannot post EVERYDAY, but every other until Thursdays and Fridays
> when I have lots of time.
>
> This means in this Usenet board the topic will be off the edge in a day
> or two buried in sediments of other evolving topics which are of more
> interest to the average attention deficit disorder yuppie known to
> loiter here.
>
> I want a serious debate - like on a normal debate board.
>
> I am presently banned at most of the atheist/Darwinist boards as this
> is the m.o. of atheists in the 20th century (banishment/Siberia)
> towards their opponents.
I assume you mean you are *currently* banned. Pray tell, which boards
banned you, and what reasons did they give?
>
> Why do atheists ban their opponents ?
>
> Answer: implacable rage.
>
Well, you're obviously not banned on t.o. And that noise you hear in
response
to your posts? It's not the implacable, enraged gnashing of teeth. Answer:
uncontrollable giggling.
Deadrat
> GRIFFITH:
>
> You continually distort the science, demonstrate that you don't know
> the first thing you are talking about
>
> If you want to talk, then go to school, learn something, and then come
> back
> and say something intelligent.
>
> MARTINEZ:
>
> Atheist rant.
>
> IOW, you are name-calling.....saying I am stupid.
>
> Thats a very unique insult that is never known to exist even in grade
> school.
>
> Of course your tirade assumes yourself intelligent.
>
> How intelligent is anyone who believes man evolved from an animal ?
>
> Like Romans says, this belief is a penalty from God for denying Him
> Creator status, and persons suffering the penalty are observedly
> "sophisticated morons" = all Darwinists (Romans 1:22).
Romans 1:22 says no such thing. You've been shown this repeatedly.
I've even posted the passage. Doesn't your Bible tell you it's wrong
to lie? If so, wouldn't it be doubly wrong to lie about the Bible?
<snip>
Alexander
"The Last Conformist" <andr...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1119486714.7...@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
.... and the generic rules of creationism - disagreement = heresy
Augray
wrote in news:<1119483089....@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>:
> TOM:
>
> So are you back to begin your debate with Richard Clayton? I am
> looking forward to it.
>
> RAY:
>
> I couldn't find Richard for a couple of days and figured life goes on.
>
> First, thanks Tom for your interest. Maybe you would like to take
> Richard's place ?
>
> But here is a legitimate problem:
>
> Usenet is a very fast moving board - almost like a chat line.
>
> I cannot post EVERYDAY, but every other until Thursdays and Fridays
> when I have lots of time.
>
> This means in this Usenet board the topic will be off the edge in a day
> or two buried in sediments of other evolving topics which are of more
> interest to the average attention deficit disorder yuppie known to
> loiter here.
>
> I want a serious debate - like on a normal debate board.
>
> I am presently banned at most of the atheist/Darwinist boards as this
> is the m.o. of atheists in the 20th century (banishment/Siberia)
> towards their opponents.
>
> Why do atheists ban their opponents ?
>
> Answer: implacable rage.
>
> I AM READY TO DEBATE ANY DARWINIST ABOUT THEIR FOSSILS .
Once Richard is through tearing you to shreds, I'd be quite happy to
debate you about the fossil evidence for the evolution of birds.
> waiting.....
Get thee to
http://groups-beta.google.com/group/talk.origins/browse_frm/thread/e1f9c6b8d64a7d88/
> Ray Martinez
Bob Pease
"Alexander" <alexande...@virgin.net> wrote in message
news:REvue.572$iT1...@newsfe1-win.ntli.net...
Basically, it's
Shut the fuck up and listen to the TRUTH
RJ Pease
Harvest Dancer
> Hi Evos:
>
>
>
> 1)How did ape sperm produce a being way more intelligent - modern
> humans ?
Since humans are apes, I think the answer to this is self evident.
> 2)How did random mutation produce a male and a female in the same time
> and place to propagate a new species ?
>
> Of course, the second question assumes as fact that two different
> species cannot mate and reproduce which is a fact of nature.
Good question. Have you studied the evolution of reproduction?
> 3)Funny how NONE of Darwin's foundational claims have been harmed
> according to Darwinists.
>
> This must be a miracle since the modern capabilities of technology-rich
> biology did not exist in Darwin's day.
>
> To have ALL his presuppositions "confirmed" by modern science is
> nothing short of a miracle, or as any honest objective person realizes
> - fraud through and through.
>
> Are we to believe 19th century Darwin got all the essentials correct ?
Actually, several of Darwin's foundational claims have been harmed
according to scientists, though I don't know who these "Darwinists"
are. One of them was when scientists came up with "punc-eq" as opposed
to Darwin's gradualism.
> LOL !
Yes, you are quite funny.
> your eternal friend,
>
> Ray Martinez
Jason Harvestdancer
Harvest Dancer
Ray Martinez wrote:
> BOBBY:
>
> "This is your brain on creationism."
>
> RAY:
>
> Insult = admission you cannot refute.
Jason Harvestdancer:
One cannot refute pure unadulterated fantasy.
john...@my-deja.com
Ray Martinez wrote:
> CHEEZITS:
>
> It didn't - modern humans came from more primitive humans. The "more
> intelligent" part didn't happen all in one generation. It was a
> gradual
> process.
>
> RAY:
>
> My question was rhetorical.
>
Your question was stupid.
> Ape sperm cannot produce an astronomically more intelligent being.
>
First of all, define what you mean by ape. Humans *are* apes, and
there've been a few (Aristotle, Leibniz, Newton, Einstein, to name a
few) who could could be considered "astronomically more intelligent"
than their peers.
> But, like a true evolutionist you have asserted that it only produced a
> slightly better version - gradually.
Tell me Ray, did a grey wolf give birth to the first Boston Terrier
pups, or did it take generations of selective breeding to get from the
wolfy condition to the cute doggy condition?
>
> There isn't one shred of evidence to support this.
>
There are reams of evidence, from fossils to genetic studies to
observing changes in modern populations.
Evolution moves in incremental steps, generation by generation. Every
individual in a (sexually reproducing) population is unique, different
from their parents and siblings (excepting n-tuplets, of course). Each
generation is slightly different from its parent generation, which was
different from *its* parent generation, etc. You know this is true:
you are not a carbon copy of your parents, and they are not carbon
copies of their parents, and your kids (if you have any) are not carbon
copies of you (we can hope, anyway).
We've exploited the process of evolution for millenia; we call it
"agriculture" and "animal husbandry." The corn on the cob you enjoy at
weekend barbeques started out as a short stalk of grass with a few
seeds; untold generations of Meso-American farmers selected and bred
the plants with the most seeds, coming up with slightly improved (for
our purposes) plants every season. Just as corn plants didn't suddenly
pop out primitive grass seed, and just as Boston Terriers didn't
suddenly start popping out of wolves, modern humans didn't suddenly
spring up in the middle of a bunch of chimps.
Therefore, asking how "ape" sperm could lead to a vastly more
intelligent being is a *stupid* question.
> In retrospect the naturalist must conclude it did but he cannot produce
> any evidence to that end.
>
He can draw inferences from the processes I described above. He can
look at the fossil record and find intermediates between apes and
humans.
> You are asking me to believe in hocus pocus without an objective
> source. Blind unintelligent processes cannot luck out and produce
> improvement - nonsense.
>
A blind, unintelligent process picks winning lottery numbers, which can
lead to an improvement for at least one lucky individual.
> The human eye, ear, and brain defy graduality, as does bat sonar and
> migratory birds.
>
Why? What prevents a rudimentary structure from being refined over
generations into the structures we know today?
Ray Martinez
Raymond Griffith is not an atheist.
MARTINEZ:
His positions, opinions, an rants says he is.
I only know what he types into his messages.
RM
Ray Martinez
Romans 1:22 says no such thing. You've been shown this repeatedly.
I've even posted the passage. Doesn't your Bible tell you it's wrong
to lie? If so, wouldn't it be doubly wrong to lie about the Bible?
RAY:
Why do Darwinists think that "showing" a person something, which is a
synonym for opinion means that it is correct ?
Where was I shown and where did I accept the factuality of this opinion
?
I have Divinity degrees and know exactly what the Greek says in Romans.
Romans 1:22
"wise" = "sophistry", the origin of our english word sophisticated.
"fools" = the Greek word that the english gets "moron" from.
The context is persons who refuse to recognize God as Creator.
This refusal triggers the penalty above = insight removal -
"sophisticated moroness" ensues = all Darwinists/atheists and most
TEists.
Ray Martinez
Ray Martinez
My banishment from the major debate boards is a conspiracy lead and
organized by Mark Isaak even though I cannot prove it.
TOM:
Propose one. We have had some success with a debate structure we
developed here. Our structure requires that the debaters agree on
a debate format, with judges that are agreeable to both, and
rules on evidence, time, etc., also mutually agreed upon.
RAY:
I just found the link set-up by Clayton.
I am going there now to read it.
Tom, thanks for your interest even though it is in hopes of seeing a
floor wiping by Clayton.
May I remind that it is generally considered that Foley trounced Milton
- this fact proves that Milton is not a creationist as he let Jim get
away with preposterous assumptions that were just too voluminous to
even dent. Thats why Richard stopped posting.
RM
Dylan
Ray Martinez wrote:
> Hi Evos:
>
>
>
> 1)How did ape sperm produce a being way more intelligent - modern
> humans ?
What makes you think ape sperm produced a being way more intelligent?
--Dylan
> 2)How did random mutation produce a male and a female in the same time
> and place to propagate a new species ?
What makes you think random mutation produced a male and a female inthe
same time and place to propagate a new species? --Dylan
> Of course, the second question assumes as fact that two different
> species cannot mate and reproduce which is a fact of nature.
>
> 3)Funny how NONE of Darwin's foundational claims have been harmed
> according to Darwinists.
How do you know? --Dylan
> This must be a miracle since the modern capabilities of technology-rich
> biology did not exist in Darwin's day.
Are you assuming that it was today's modern capabilities of
technology-rich biology that caused Darwin to fail to put together the
"modern synthesis" back in his day? Why don't you assume it was it his
failure to utilize the biological contributions of Mendel instead?
--Dylan
> To have ALL his presuppositions "confirmed" by modern science is
> nothing short of a miracle, or as any honest objective person realizes
> - fraud through and through.
Are you assuming here that today's evolutionists -- among whom I am
one -- claim that all Darwin's presuppositions have been
"confirmed"? --Dylan
> Are we to believe 19th century Darwin got all the essentials correct ?
Are we to believe that 21st century science gets all the essentials
correct? How to you propose to determine that this is or is not the
case? --Dylan
> LOL !
>
> your eternal friend,
>
> Ray Martinez
God bless you, Ray. --Dylan
Bill Hudson
> Hi Tom:
>
> My banishment from the major debate boards is a conspiracy lead and
> organized by Mark Isaak even though I cannot prove it.
>
Then why do you bother to allege it?
In my opinion, the chance of Mark Issak organizing a conspiracy to ban
you from "major debate boards" (whatever those are) is about equal to
your chance of winning fairly set-up debate... which is to say "nil".
--
Bill Hudson
The email address above is a spamtrap. My real address
is hudsonwj at yahoo dot com
Dylan
Ray Martinez wrote:
> CHEEZITS:
>
> It didn't - modern humans came from more primitive humans. The "more
> intelligent" part didn't happen all in one generation. It was a
> gradual
> process.
>
> RAY:
>
> My question was rhetorical.
>
> Ape sperm cannot produce an astronomically more intelligent being.
>
> But, like a true evolutionist you have asserted that it only produced a
> slightly better version - gradually.
>
> There isn't one shred of evidence to support this.
How do you know? --Dylan
> In retrospect the naturalist must conclude it did but he cannot produce
> any evidence to that end.
How do you know? --Dylan
> You are asking me to believe in hocus pocus without an objective
> source. Blind unintelligent processes cannot luck out and produce
> improvement - nonsense.
Are you assuming that you have an objective source that proves the
theory and practice of modern evolution to be hocus pocus? What makes
you think evolutionists think blind unintelligent processes cannot luck
out and produce improvement? What criteria distinguish nonsense from
sense? --Dylan
> The human eye, ear, and brain defy graduality, as does bat sonar and
> migratory birds.
How so? --Dylan
> BTW, where can I review evidence of bat evolution ?
How do you know bat phylogeny defies graduality if you don't know where
to find the evidence? --Dylan
> I will finish this reply - ASAP
>
> RM
May God grant you the time and opportunity, Ray. --Dylan
Dylan
Ray Martinez wrote:
> DEADRAT:
>
> Romans 1:22 says no such thing. You've been shown this repeatedly.
> I've even posted the passage. Doesn't your Bible tell you it's wrong
> to lie? If so, wouldn't it be doubly wrong to lie about the Bible?
>
> RAY:
>
> Why do Darwinists think that "showing" a person something, which is a
> synonym for opinion means that it is correct ?
>
> Where was I shown and where did I accept the factuality of this opinion
> ?
>
> I have Divinity degrees and know exactly what the Greek says in Romans.
What divinity degrees? Were they earned? What school conferred them?
When were you graduated? Did you do a dissertation? If so, what was its
thesis and conclusion? --Dylan
> Romans 1:22
>
> "wise" = "sophistry", the origin of our english word sophisticated.
>
> "fools" = the Greek word that the english gets "moron" from.
It is the English word "moron" that arrives to our modern language from
the Greek "moros" -- meaning "foolish, stupid. "Fool" is an English
word. It was not a Greek word. It derives from the Anglo French "fol,"
which came from the earlier Latin word "follis" meaning "bellows, bag."
At that time in Europe, "follis" was akin to the Old High German (OHG)
"bolla" meaning "blister" as well as the OHG word "balg" meaning "bag."
--Dylan
> The context is persons who refuse to recognize God as Creator.
Bzzzzzt! Wrong answer, Ray. The context (Romans 1:21) is persons who
ALREADY DO recognize God as Creator, but refuse to glorify him as
Creator and give thanks. Nowhere in Romans or anywhere else in the New
Testament does Paul ever refer to people who do not already recognize
God as Creator. When he speaks of them he always speaks of them as
people who already recognize God as Creator -- and even WORSHIP him
as the "Unknown God" (on Athens' Mars Hill), for instance. Nowhere does
Paul or any other New Testament writer speak against what we today
recognize as modern intellectual atheists (or agnostics), such as some
of the finest, and highly ethical, posters on T.O. You can speak
against them if you want to, but nowhere does the Bible source such
assertions. --Dylan
Ray Martinez
My banishment from the major debate boards is a conspiracy lead and
organized by Mark Isaak even though I cannot prove it.
BILL responds:
Then why do you bother to allege it?
RAY:
I was joking.
Your credulity is shocking, but then again you believe man evolved from
an animal based on similarity.
RM
Dana Tweedy
> DEADRAT:
>
> Romans 1:22 says no such thing. You've been shown this repeatedly.
> I've even posted the passage. Doesn't your Bible tell you it's wrong
> to lie? If so, wouldn't it be doubly wrong to lie about the Bible?
>
> RAY:
>
> Why do Darwinists think that "showing" a person something, which is a
> synonym for opinion means that it is correct ?
>
> Where was I shown and where did I accept the factuality of this opinion
> ?
>
> I have Divinity degrees
Where did you buy them from? How much did they cost?
> and know exactly what the Greek says in Romans.
Maybe, but your assumptions are entirely wrong.
>
> Romans 1:22
>
> "wise" = "sophistry", the origin of our english word sophisticated.
>
> "fools" = the Greek word that the english gets "moron" from.
>
> The context is persons who refuse to recognize God as Creator.
What about those who don't refuse to recognize God as Creator, and still
accept evolutionary theory? The context of the passage in Romans is about
sexual immorality, not acceptance of a scientific theory.
>
> This refusal triggers the penalty above = insight removal
That interpetation is what's wildly irrational about your statement. The
passage is not about "insight removal", but about immorality.
-
> "sophisticated moroness" ensues = all Darwinists/atheists and most
> TEists.
Maybe it just means they are in their first year at college?
DJT
AC
Ray Martinez <pyram...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Who changed the topic title and what is your question ?
>
> Reveal yourself.
Good grief. What are you, an exorcist? Perhaps for your next trick you can
cast demons into swine.
AC
>> Ape sperm cannot produce an astronomically more intelligent being.
>
AC
Bill Hudson
> RAY previously:
>
> My banishment from the major debate boards is a conspiracy lead and
> organized by Mark Isaak even though I cannot prove it.
>
> BILL responds:
>
> Then why do you bother to allege it?
>
> RAY:
>
> I was joking.
Wasn't funny, and didn't come across as a joke.
>
> Your credulity is shocking, but then again you believe man evolved from
> an animal based on similarity.
No, I believe that all life (including man) is related by common descent
based on the evidence.
>
> RM
Richard Clayton
Then you are not reading his messages very carefully; Mr. Griffith has
spoken of his faith many times.
Ray Martinez
I posted a message in our debate but it has not appeared.
Whats going on ?
Ray
Dylan
At long last God is shutting you down? --Dylan
Mark VandeWettering
> RAY previously:
>
> My banishment from the major debate boards is a conspiracy lead and
> organized by Mark Isaak even though I cannot prove it.
>
> BILL responds:
>
> Then why do you bother to allege it?
>
> RAY:
>
> I was joking.
You are as funny as you are knowledgeable.
> Your credulity is shocking, but then again you believe man evolved from
> an animal based on similarity.
Man is an animal.
Mark
> RM
Richard Clayton
I do not know. I presume you posted it in the "Closed Debate" thread?
If not, what was the thread title?
Ray Martinez
Raymond Griffith is not an atheist.
MARTINEZ:
Yeah now I know, but I wonder why I thought he was ?
BTW, I made a post in the closed thread but it is nowhere to be found.
This is why I only come around the Usenet format when I am dreadfully
bored.
RM
Ray Martinez
I just don't understand the system here.
I can paste the link of the topic in an address bar but after clicking
Talk Origins "view all titles" appears and not the topic.
This is stupid.
I saved my post to my email so its not a lost cause.
RM
Bob Casanova
talk.origins, posted by "Ray Martinez"
<pyram...@yahoo.com>:
>GRIFFITH:
>
>You continually distort the science, demonstrate that you don't know
>the first thing you are talking about
>
>If you want to talk, then go to school, learn something, and then come
>back
>and say something intelligent.
>
>MARTINEZ:
>
>Atheist rant.
>
>IOW, you are name-calling.....saying I am stupid.
No, he's saying you're ignorant; a far different thing.
Willfully persisting in ignorance when knowledge is
available would be stupid. Pride in one's ignorance would be
even more stupid.
<snip>
--
Bob C.
"Evidence confirming an observation is
evidence that the observation is wrong."
- McNameless
Ray Martinez
Why are you - a card carrying ACLU atheist defending a christian ?
Could it be whomever is really not as such ?
Your endorsement supports his wrongness.
Ray
Raymond E. Griffith
Martinez at pyram...@yahoo.com wrote on 6/23/05 7:41 PM:
Why are you asking for a naturalistic explanation? God did it, of course. He
didn't want what you wrote to be posted.
Go back and do it right.
Grief! These religious types who turn into methodological naturalists at the
first bit of trouble with a computer!
Regards,
Raymond E. Griffith
Raymond E. Griffith
Martinez at pyram...@yahoo.com wrote on 6/23/05 2:47 PM:
Sigh. I gave you my testimony of salvation and reliance upon the work of
Christ for it. Thankfully, you aren't God.
As for "rants", you are the one who rants. You present no evidence, use no
reasoning, and positively foam at the mouth in your rabid hatred of those
who are unlike you or who disagree with you.
As I noted before, were you to read any of my posts, you would find clear
enough evidence that I am indeed a Christian and unashamed of it.
But I am ashamed of such people as you and Jist the Grendel, who make the
faith of Christ look worthless by your reliance upon lies. There is no
evidence of any of the fruit of the Spirit in your writings. I wonder why
not, if you are as spiritual as you claim to be? Why is there no evidence of
love or joy in your posts? Why are you impatient and cruel? Why is there no
evidence of obedience to the Scriptures in how you treat others?
How do others see the Christ you represent? Do they glorify God for your
good works? Or do they reject God for your obviously ungodly behavior?
You need to think about it.
Regards,
Raymond E. Griffith
Raymond E. Griffith
Martinez at pyram...@yahoo.com wrote on 6/23/05 8:02 PM:
> CLAYTON:
>
> Raymond Griffith is not an atheist.
>
> MARTINEZ:
>
> Yeah now I know, but I wonder why I thought he was ?
Lack of attention? Delusions? Speaking without thought? A mental decision
that those who disagree with the Almighty Martinez must be rabid atheists? A
lack of regard for the truth of the matter?
All of these seem like plausible explanations.
By the way, when you are wrong, it is customary to apologize for the error.
It is even a Christian teaching.
>
> BTW, I made a post in the closed thread but it is nowhere to be found.
> This is why I only come around the Usenet format when I am dreadfully
> bored.
>
> RM
>
Hmmm. My grandmother always said than an idle mind is the devil's workshop.
Perhaps you would do better if you paid attention instead of making offhand
accusations.
So now you know the truth. I am a Christian. What are you going to do with
this knowledge?
Regards,
Raymond E. Griffith
Tom McDonald
I'm praying for a response that does not provide additional
support for the 'Rules of Raydom' thesis.
--
Tom McDonald
http://ahwhatdoiknow.blogspot.com/
boikat
> Below is the text in my email that says my post was undeliverable:
>
>
>
>
> The original message was received at Thu, 23 Jun 2005 12:32:32 -0700
> from cwag49.prod.google.com [10.11.58.49]
>
> ----- The following addresses had permanent fatal errors -----
> <recZIGl...@verizon.net>
> (reason: 550 5.1.1 unknown or illegal alias:
> recZIGl...@verizon.net)
>
> ----- Transcript of session follows -----
> ... while talking to relay.verizon.net.:
> >>> RCPT To:<recZIGl...@verizon.net>
> <<< 550 5.1.1 unknown or illegal alias: recZIGl...@verizon.net
> 550 5.1.1 <recZIGl...@verizon.net>... User unknown
>
> ----- Message header follows -----
>
> Return-Path: <pyram...@yahoo.com>
> Received: from K058049
> by proxy.google.com with ESMTP id j5NJWWDt030067
> for <recZIGl...@verizon.net>; Thu, 23 Jun 2005 12:32:32 -0700
> Received: (from produser@localhost)
> by Google Production with id j5NJWWOF019612
> for recZIGl...@verizon.net; Thu, 23 Jun 2005 12:32:32 -0700
> X-Authentication-Warning: cwag49.prod.google.com: produser set sender
> to pyram...@yahoo.com using -f
> Received: from 65.116.143.82 by g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com with HTTP;
> Thu, 23 Jun 2005 19:32:32 +0000 (UTC)
> From: "Ray Martinez" <pyram...@yahoo.com>
> To: "Richard Clayton" <recZIGl...@verizon.net>
> Subject: Re: Closed Debate Thread: Common Ancestry of Humans and
> Chimpanzees
> Date: Thu, 23 Jun 2005 12:32:32 -0700
> Message-ID: <1119555152.3...@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>
> References: <q2vhe.1923$pb1.1331@trnddc08>
> User-Agent: G2/0.2
> MIME-Version: 1.0
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
>
> ----- Message body suppressed -----
>
Suppressed by whom?
Boikat
Ray Martinez
Suppressed by whom?
RAY:
I don't know - thats what the message said when it returned it to my
email as undeliverable.
If I had to guess though - Mark Isaak.
RM
Raymond E. Griffith
Martinez at pyram...@yahoo.com wrote on 6/23/05 9:11 PM:
> Anytime, anywhere Griffith - Bible debate.
>
> You and I.
>
> There are no Darwinian/atheist Mods to save your despicable TEist ass.
>
> Ray Martinez
>
Why should I want to debate someone acting as nasty and unprincipled as you
are behaving?
Sigh. Can't you see what you are doing? You are bringing the faith of Christ
into disrepute.
I have nothing to debate you on, nor any desire to prove myself to you. I
will try to discuss the Scriptures in a calm, rational, and reasonable
manner. I will try to discuss the evidences of history and science in a good
spirit. I see no reason for a debate.
Your heart is not right with God. Your pride is hurt, in part because a
believer in Christ is calling you on your bad behavior. Why else would you
issue such an inane challenge? That is not how God's children are commanded
to act.
I don't care how much Scripture you know, if it is not doing a work of grace
in your heart to bring you into conformity with the character of Christ, you
are empty and worthless. Paul in 1 Corinthians 13 said that without love,
all the knowledge in the world would make you no more than a noisy gong or
tinkling cymbal.
On a practical note, I am not at all sure how much Scripture you know, and
the way you mishandle Scripture now and mingle it with your bitter spirit, I
am unwilling to give you such a forum.
Now if you allow the grace of God to be demonstrated in your life and
speech, then perhaps we may talk amicably, even if we disagree in some
areas. So turn down the rhetoric, why don't you?
"Awake to righteousness and stop sinning. Some do not know the Lord. I speak
this to your shame." Paul, 1 Corinthians 15, in a discussion of the
practical effects of the doctrine of the resurrection. If you are a
Christian, then let the Scripture speak to you and change your character and
behavior to be more like the Lord's.
Regards,
Raymond E. Griffith
boikat
Then again, if you check the address you were sending to, you would see a
bunch of "ZIG's" I believe. Maybe if you *removed them*, it'd work better.
Boikat
--
<42><
Dana Tweedy
> Bob:
>
> Why are you - a card carrying ACLU atheist defending a christian ?
Ray, the ACLU has defended Christians many times. Are you really not aware
of this?
>
> Could it be whomever is really not as such ?
If he could then whomever is really not as such as he is whomever is such
really not.
>
> Your endorsement supports his wrongness.
Your lack of understanding, and unChristian words indicate whom you serve.
DJT
AC
I suspect the Devil interfered. Immediately vacate your house, strip out of
your clothes and run down the street screaming "Save me oh lord!"