Wilkins' true nature revealed in book
r norman
noticed that our own philosopher John pays homage to the most cheating
discredited evolutionist of all time by putting Haeckel's drawing on
the cover of his book?
More seriously, John, I had previously bought a copy of "Art Forms in
Nature" (a reproduction, I can't afford an original!) and find it
incredibly beautiful. Either you or one of your editors chose well.
r norman
wrote:
Even worse, Wilkins provides a veritable quote-mine bonanza: "One
thing that ought to be clear from this book so far is that the
standard stories and assumptions from the architects of the modern
synthesis are often simply incorrect." (p. 232). Well, then. Is
there ANY evolutionist who is correct? Shouldn't we just throw out
the whole thing, bathwater and all it may contain?
Ray Martinez
> I don't know if this has been commented on before, but has anybody
> noticed that our own philosopher John pays homage to the most cheating
> discredited evolutionist of all time by putting Haeckel's drawing on
> the cover of his book?
>
Your dishonest evo brothers here at Talk Origins act like they do not
know that Haeckel was a fraud and cheat. They whitewash his lies.
This is one reason why evolution is rejected by the public: evos are
known to be liars. If they can't admit that which has been shown and
proven (Haeckel a fraud) then they can't be trusted to communicate
complicated scientific evidence.
Ray
SNIP....
r norman
Thank you for jumping at the bait. It thought it would take longer.
Ray Martinez
>
> - Show quoted text -
In other words you didn't mean what you said. In a recent thread I
pointed out that all evolutionists argue dishonestly, embracing
obfuscation. Again: you guys cannot be trusted (the hallmark of
Atheism).
Ray
bpuharic
wrote:
>I don't know if this has been commented on before, but has anybody
i wanna know about his drinking habits and if he has tall, buxom
swedish misstresses....
oh...i think that's tiger woods...
Bob Casanova
appeared in talk.origins, posted by Ray Martinez
<pyram...@yahoo.com>:
Set the hook! Set the hook!
--
Bob C.
"Evidence confirming an observation is
evidence that the observation is wrong."
- McNameless
r norman
Anybody who takes the trouble of looking at the cover of Wilkin's book
(available for free at http://www.ucpress.edu/books/pages/11391.php,
a picture of the cover, that is, the book is not available for free!)
will immediately recognize Haeckel's "Kunstformen der Natur", NOT the
embryological drawings! Haeckel was a widely recognized scholar who
did a tremendous amount of work on radiolaria, sponges, and other
groups as well as being a gifted artist and illustrator of nature.
Wilkins credit Haeckel in the book for originating the concept of
monophyly, a very important topic in today's evolutionary thinking,
and for popularizing the use of the term 'phylum', another classically
accepted term. Haeckel's ideas on embryology have long been dismissed
and the famous "faked drawings" are simply replaced by truthful
drawings and carefully documented photographs that illustrate exactly
the same similarities in embryological development that Haeckel was
illustrating, albeit with very different interpretations.
It is far past the time for creationists get over the stupid Haeckel
business. And if it obfuscation you want, have you ever carefully
looked at an explanation of how scripture really conforms to factual
events?
Mitchell Coffey
> On Tue, 08 Dec 2009 16:10:24 -0700, r norman <r_s_nor...@comcast.net>
Wilkins only drinks with moderation these days. However, Ingegard and
her twin, Hulda, remain his constant companions.
Mitchell Coffey
All-seeing-I
>
> - Show quoted text -
I wonder how much he pays them
[snicker]
J/K
*Hemidactylus*
> On Dec 8, 3:10 pm, r norman<r_s_nor...@comcast.net> wrote:
>> I don't know if this has been commented on before, but has anybody
>> noticed that our own philosopher John pays homage to the most cheating
>> discredited evolutionist of all time by putting Haeckel's drawing on
>> the cover of his book?
>>
>
> Your dishonest evo brothers here at Talk Origins act like they do not
> know that Haeckel was a fraud and cheat. They whitewash his lies.
>
> This is one reason why evolution is rejected by the public: evos are
>
it myself. I've found people will often give me something in return for
the privilege of whitewashing Haeckel's lies.
--
~it ends here~
*Hemidactylus*
Dana Tweedy
Wow, Ray, you swallowed that one, hook, line and sinker....
DJT
r norman
You think slinging Mark Twain at a creationist is likely to hit any
targets?
Paul J Gans
Who is this "moderation" guy? And why does Wilkins drink with
him? Is this one of those Ozzish "matey" things? And then there
is the Tasmanian Blue Devil beer. Makes him mean. And no real beer
should ever be blue.
--
--- Paul J. Gans
el cid
> On Tue, 8 Dec 2009 15:49:03 -0800 (PST), Ray Martinez
>
>
>
>
>
> >On Dec 8, 3:39�pm, r norman <r_s_nor...@comcast.net> wrote:
> >> On Tue, 8 Dec 2009 15:31:50 -0800 (PST), Ray Martinez
>
> >> <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >> >On Dec 8, 3:10 pm, r norman <r_s_nor...@comcast.net> wrote:
> >> >> I don't know if this has been commented on before, but has anybody
> >> >> noticed that our own philosopher John pays homage to the most cheating
> >> >> discredited evolutionist of all time by putting Haeckel's drawing on
> >> >> the cover of his book?
>
> >> >Your dishonest evo brothers here at Talk Origins act like they do not
> >> >know that Haeckel was a fraud and cheat. They whitewash his lies.
>
> >> >This is one reason why evolution is rejected by the public: evos are
> >> >known to be liars. If they can't admit that which has been shown and
> >> >proven (Haeckel a fraud) then they can't be trusted to communicate
> >> >complicated scientific evidence.
>
> >> >Ray
>
> >> >SNIP....
>
> >> Thank you for jumping at the bait. �It thought it would take longer.- Hide quoted text -
>
> >> - Show quoted text -
>
> >In other words you didn't mean what you said. In a recent thread I
> >pointed out that all evolutionists argue dishonestly, embracing
> >obfuscation. Again: you guys cannot be trusted (the hallmark of
> >Atheism).
>
> Anybody who takes the trouble of looking at the cover of Wilkin's book
> a picture of the cover, that is, the book is not available for free!)
> will immediately recognize Haeckel's "Kunstformen der Natur", NOT the
> embryological drawings! �Haeckel was a widely recognized scholar who
* * * Too Many Words * * *
I'm sorry, you'll have to condense whatever it is you want to say
to fit on a bumpersticker and readable from at least 2 car lengths
back.
Of course, I've noted the page count on Wilkins books portends a
different strategy.
chris thompson
Hmm. I don't think that's accurate. Wilkins drank with us, after all.
I want him to come back in summer so we can drink and then I can toss
him into the Rockaway surf.
Chris
Mitchell Coffey
Of course, John also has Ulla, Ingegar's other twin.
Mitchell
Stuart
Probably not too much..
How many copies do you think a work on philosophy will sell?
Stuart
Ye Old One
>On Dec 8, 3:10�pm, r norman <r_s_nor...@comcast.net> wrote:
>> I don't know if this has been commented on before, but has anybody
>> noticed that our own philosopher John pays homage to the most cheating
>> discredited evolutionist of all time by putting Haeckel's drawing on
>> the cover of his book?
>>
>
>Your dishonest evo brothers here at Talk Origins act like they do not
>know that Haeckel was a fraud and cheat. They whitewash his lies.
What lies would those be Dishonest Ray?
>
>This is one reason why evolution is rejected by the public: evos are
>known to be liars. If they can't admit that which has been shown and
>proven (Haeckel a fraud)
Please explain why you think he was a fraud Dishonest Ray?
>then they can't be trusted to communicate
>complicated scientific evidence.
>
>Ray
>
>SNIP....
>
--
Bob.
People may not always remember exactly what you said, but they will
always remember just how bright you made them feel.
VoiceOfReason
<...>
> This is one reason why evolution is rejected by the public: evos are
> known to be liars.
My irony meter just exploded in a shower of sparks, but I was laughing
too hard to care. :-D
Eric Root
I'm glad I invested in whitewash lo these many years ago.
Eric Root
Eric Root
They pay him.
Desertphile
> On Dec 8, 3:10�pm, r norman <r_s_nor...@comcast.net> wrote:
> > I don't know if this has been commented on before, but has anybody
> > noticed that our own philosopher John pays homage to the most cheating
> > discredited evolutionist of all time by putting Haeckel's drawing on
> > the cover of his book?
> Your dishonest evo brothers here at Talk Origins act like they do not
> know that Haeckel was a fraud and cheat. They whitewash his lies.
Appears mental.
> This is one reason why evolution is rejected by the public: evos are
> known to be liars. If they can't admit that which has been shown and
> proven (Haeckel a fraud) then they can't be trusted to communicate
> complicated scientific evidence.
I've no idea what "evos" are, but it is widely known that Haeckel
exagerated his drawing, which is why they are not used in any
science text book.
--
http://desertphile.org
Desertphile's Desert Soliloquy. WARNING: view with plenty of water
"Why aren't resurrections from the dead noteworthy?" -- Jim Rutz
Desertphile
<ecph...@hotmail.com> wrote:
Tom Sawyer made me whitewash Haeckel's lies.
Ray Martinez
> On Tue, 8 Dec 2009 15:49:03 -0800 (PST), Ray Martinez
>
>
>
>
>
> >On Dec 8, 3:39�ｿｽpm, r norman <r_s_nor...@comcast.net> wrote:
> >> On Tue, 8 Dec 2009 15:31:50 -0800 (PST), Ray Martinez
>
> >> <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >> >On Dec 8, 3:10 pm, r norman <r_s_nor...@comcast.net> wrote:
> >> >> I don't know if this has been commented on before, but has anybody
> >> >> noticed that our own philosopher John pays homage to the most cheating
> >> >> discredited evolutionist of all time by putting Haeckel's drawing on
> >> >> the cover of his book?
>
> >> >Your dishonest evo brothers here at Talk Origins act like they do not
> >> >know that Haeckel was a fraud and cheat. They whitewash his lies.
>
> >> >This is one reason why evolution is rejected by the public: evos are
> >> >known to be liars. If they can't admit that which has been shown and
> >> >proven (Haeckel a fraud) then they can't be trusted to communicate
> >> >complicated scientific evidence.
>
> >> >Ray
>
> >> >SNIP....
>
>
> >> - Show quoted text -
>
> >In other words you didn't mean what you said. In a recent thread I
> >pointed out that all evolutionists argue dishonestly, embracing
> >obfuscation. Again: you guys cannot be trusted (the hallmark of
> >Atheism).
>
> Anybody who takes the trouble of looking at the cover of Wilkin's book
> a picture of the cover, that is, the book is not available for free!)
> will immediately recognize Haeckel's "Kunstformen der Natur", NOT the
> did a tremendous amount of work on radiolaria, sponges, and other
> groups as well as being a gifted artist and illustrator of nature.
> Wilkins credit Haeckel in the book for originating the concept of
> monophyly, a very important topic in today's evolutionary thinking,
> and for popularizing the use of the term 'phylum', another classically
> and the famous "faked drawings"
You meant *infamous* faked drawings.
> are simply replaced by truthful
> drawings
Yep, he lied.
> and carefully documented photographs that illustrate exactly
> the same similarities in embryological development that Haeckel was
> illustrating, albeit with very different interpretations.
>
Ending comments attempt to whitewash fraud.
> It is far past the time for creationists get over the stupid Haeckel
> business. �ｿｽ
It only stays alive when modern Darwinists deny: Haeckel committed
fraud, that is, a person who knew Darwin personally and was his chief
supporter in Germany. This is one reason why anti-evolutionism is
popular: some evolutionists lie; they lie about evidence and they lie
when they say Haeckel did not commit fraud. Since you have
acknowledged the lies of Haeckel I am talking about a handful of
howlers. Of course many prominent evolutionists have long ago
acknowledeged this fraud.
This issue so clearly shows how some evolutionists will lie to your
face. This is one reason why I am not a evolutionist. To see a handful
of evolutionists in this topic act like Haeckel did nothing wrong
tells the public everything they need to know about evolutionists
since you too have read these lies and said nothing. Since you have
acknowledged Haeckel's sins your silence makes no sense. I can guess
that you understand that the howlers are doing their job----which
makes it even worse for you; the same makes you appear afraid. I
wouldn't hesitate to disassociate myself from a Creationist "howler."
> And if it obfuscation you want, have you ever carefully
> looked at an explanation of how scripture really conforms to factual
> events? �ｿｽ- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Yes, I have.
Scripture certainly provides an *appearance* of not corresponding to
known facts (mostly due to translation errors), however. IF one takes
the time to listen to a real Bible scholar or theologian the
appearance evaporates rather quickly. Scripture is complex; it takes a
little time to understand God's word. Most Darwinists are not willing
to take the time to listen to anyone who does not have their worldview
in mind.
Ray
John Stockwell
It may be that Haeckel committed a fraud. However, if you read
_Objectivity_ by Daston and Galison, you will find that
Haeckel's method was an acceptable one for the time.
When biologists amassed atlases of biological structures, there
was a sort of tug of war of philosophies on what to show. Do
you show pictures of exact examples, or do you look at a lot
of examples and distill out an idealization of the average appearance
of the structure of the structures? This problem largely has
been made moot by our modern standards of photographic, or
other mechanical representations.
For the case of comparative embryology, modern biology books
show actual photographs of embryonic and fetal stages of
organism development. These charts look Haeckel-like, but are
not idealizations, and are not intented to state that
"ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny".
-John
>
> Ray
>
> SNIP....
Dana Tweedy
snipping Ray getting defensive about being caught with his pants down.
>> And if it obfuscation you want, have you ever carefully
>> looked at an explanation of how scripture really conforms to factual
>> events? - Hide quoted text -
>>
>> - Show quoted text -
>
> Yes, I have.
>
> Scripture certainly provides an *appearance* of not corresponding to
> known facts (mostly due to translation errors),
Interesting that Ray feels that the superficial appearance of design in
nature is enough to prove the existence of a "invisible designer" , but the
"appearance" that the Bible doesn't match facts, even though on much, much
stronger grounds, can be ignored. Ray claims that the lack of
correspondence with the facts is due to "translation errors", but doesn't
know enough about the original texts to know what those errors are. The
lack of evidence of a global flood, for instance can hardly be traced to
"translation error". Nor is the evidence that all existing life forms did
not appear at the same geolgoic time, contrary to the Bible creation
stories, can be excused by "translation errors".
> however. IF one takes
> the time to listen to a real Bible scholar or theologian the
> appearance evaporates rather quickly.
Which means that if one rationalizes, and twists things enough, one can
overlook the factual errors found in the Bible. Of course, Ray's
definition of a "Real Bible Scholar" is "one that Ray agrees with". The
fact that most Bible scholars freely admit that the Bible is not in
concordance with science is again, overlooked.
> Scripture is complex; it takes a
> little time to understand God's word
which means that it's much easier for the gullible, like Ray, to be taken in
by a con men and charlatains.
> Most Darwinists are not willing
> to take the time to listen to anyone who does not have their worldview
> in mind.
Actually, "Darwinists", ie, those interested in science, have many different
and often conflicting "worldviews". The only "worldview" required to
accept science is a belief that evidence matters, and the scientific method
is useful.
DJT
>
> Ray
Ye Old One
<pyram...@yahoo.com> enriched this group when s/he wrote:
As usual you exaggerate greatly.
>
>> are simply replaced by truthful
>> drawings
>
>Yep, he lied.
No, he didn't. There was no dishonesty involved - just wish the same
could be said of you.
>
>> and carefully documented photographs that illustrate exactly
>> the same similarities in embryological development that Haeckel was
>> illustrating, albeit with very different interpretations.
>>
>
>Ending comments attempt to whitewash fraud.
What fraud?
>
>> It is far past the time for creationists get over the stupid Haeckel
>> business. �ｿｽ
>
>It only stays alive when modern Darwinists deny: Haeckel committed
>fraud,
He didn't.
> that is, a person who knew Darwin personally and was his chief
>supporter in Germany. This is one reason why anti-evolutionism is
>popular:
Nope.
> some evolutionists lie; they lie about evidence and they lie
>when they say Haeckel did not commit fraud.
He didn't.
> Since you have
>acknowledged the lies of Haeckel I am talking about a handful of
>howlers. Of course many prominent evolutionists have long ago
>acknowledeged this fraud.
There was no fraud.
>
>This issue so clearly shows how some evolutionists will lie to your
>face. This is one reason why I am not a evolutionist. To see a handful
>of evolutionists in this topic act like Haeckel did nothing wrong
He did two things wrong. He slightly, and I do mean slightly,
exaggerated some features on a couple of the drawings, and mislabeled
one drawing - though that was not really his fault.
In most modern books the drawings are replaced with photos. Guess what
Dishonest Ray? They show exactly the same features.
>tells the public everything they need to know about evolutionists
>since you too have read these lies and said nothing. Since you have
>acknowledged Haeckel's sins your silence makes no sense. I can guess
>that you understand that the howlers are doing their job----which
>makes it even worse for you; the same makes you appear afraid. I
>wouldn't hesitate to disassociate myself from a Creationist "howler."
Oh?
>
>> And if it obfuscation you want, have you ever carefully
>> looked at an explanation of how scripture really conforms to factual
>> events? �ｿｽ- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> - Show quoted text -
>
>Yes, I have.
Oh?
>
>Scripture certainly provides an *appearance* of not corresponding to
>known facts (mostly due to translation errors), however. IF one takes
>the time to listen to a real Bible scholar or theologian the
>appearance evaporates rather quickly.
I've talked to a Bishop of the CofE and no, you are wrong.
> Scripture is complex; it takes a
>little time to understand God's word. Most Darwinists are not willing
>to take the time to listen to anyone who does not have their worldview
>in mind.
I listened, for many years. I found so many holes, and no answers.
On the other hand science provides answers.
>
>Ray
>
--
Bob.
You have not been charged for this lesson - learn from it rather than
continuing to make a fool of yourself.
John Wilkins
<wf...@comcast.net> wrote:
That's how my PR guy has sun it, yes.
>
John Wilkins
<r_s_n...@comcast.net> wrote:
> On Tue, 08 Dec 2009 16:10:24 -0700, r norman <r_s_n...@comcast.net>
> wrote:
>
> >I don't know if this has been commented on before, but has anybody
> >noticed that our own philosopher John pays homage to the most cheating
> >discredited evolutionist of all time by putting Haeckel's drawing on
> >the cover of his book?
> >
> >More seriously, John, I had previously bought a copy of "Art Forms in
> >Nature" (a reproduction, I can't afford an original!) and find it
> >incredibly beautiful. Either you or one of your editors chose well.
>
> Even worse, Wilkins provides a veritable quote-mine bonanza: "One
> thing that ought to be clear from this book so far is that the
> standard stories and assumptions from the architects of the modern
> synthesis are often simply incorrect." (p. 232). Well, then. Is
> there ANY evolutionist who is correct? Shouldn't we just throw out
> the whole thing, bathwater and all it may contain?
>
You bastard. Wait until I'm at a conference with spotty internet access
and limited time, and then do this...
John Wilkins
<r_s_n...@comcast.net> wrote:
> I don't know if this has been commented on before, but has anybody
> noticed that our own philosopher John pays homage to the most cheating
> discredited evolutionist of all time by putting Haeckel's drawing on
> the cover of his book?
>
> More seriously, John, I had previously bought a copy of "Art Forms in
> Nature" (a reproduction, I can't afford an original!) and find it
> incredibly beautiful. Either you or one of your editors chose well.
>
I picked it. I love Kunstformen...
John Wilkins
And yes, it was quite deliberate....
Kermit
> On Dec 8, 4:17�pm, r norman <r_s_nor...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Tue, 8 Dec 2009 15:49:03 -0800 (PST), Ray Martinez
>
> > <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > >> On Tue, 8 Dec 2009 15:31:50 -0800 (PST), Ray Martinez
>
> > >> <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > >> >On Dec 8, 3:10 pm, r norman <r_s_nor...@comcast.net> wrote:
> > >> >> I don't know if this has been commented on before, but has anybody
> > >> >> noticed that our own philosopher John pays homage to the most cheating
> > >> >> discredited evolutionist of all time by putting Haeckel's drawing on
> > >> >> the cover of his book?
>
> > >> >Your dishonest evo brothers here at Talk Origins act like they do not
> > >> >know that Haeckel was a fraud and cheat. They whitewash his lies.
>
> > >> >This is one reason why evolution is rejected by the public: evos are
> > >> >known to be liars. If they can't admit that which has been shown and
> > >> >proven (Haeckel a fraud) then they can't be trusted to communicate
> > >> >complicated scientific evidence.
>
> > >> >Ray
>
> > >> >SNIP....
>
>
> > >> - Show quoted text -
>
> > >In other words you didn't mean what you said. In a recent thread I
> > >pointed out that all evolutionists argue dishonestly, embracing
> > >obfuscation. Again: you guys cannot be trusted (the hallmark of
> > >Atheism).
>
> > Anybody who takes the trouble of looking at the cover of Wilkin's book
> > (available for free athttp://www.ucpress.edu/books/pages/11391.php,
> > a picture of the cover, that is, the book is not available for free!)
> > will immediately recognize Haeckel's "Kunstformen der Natur", NOT the
> > did a tremendous amount of work on radiolaria, sponges, and other
> > groups as well as being a gifted artist and illustrator of nature.
> > Wilkins credit Haeckel in the book for originating the concept of
> > monophyly, a very important topic in today's evolutionary thinking,
> > and for popularizing the use of the term 'phylum', another classically
> > and the famous "faked drawings"
>
> You meant *infamous* faked drawings.
>
> > are simply replaced by truthful
> > drawings
>
> Yep, he lied.
>
> > and carefully documented photographs that illustrate exactly
> > the same similarities in embryological development that Haeckel was
> > illustrating, albeit with very different interpretations.
>
> Ending comments attempt to whitewash fraud.
He fudged data, yup, that's a no-no in science. Creationists do this
every time they deny verifiable data or come up with fake crap or
quote mine. You can't *do honest Creationism.
Haeckel saw a pattern and came up with a testable model to explain
it. Unfortunately the model failed further scrutiny. The data he
fudged was mostly showing drawings out of scale and presenting various
embryos together with the implication that the were at the same stage
of development, when they weren't, completely.
However, the pattern is real (most vertebrate embryos are very similar
at early stages of development, and only diverge later). His drawings
are otherwise accurate and beautiful. Other scientists discovered his
errors (conceptual and ethical) and called him out on them. It's
always the scientists that catch these errors (oops - I remember a
Japanese investigative reporter who caught a Japanese archaeologist
committing fraud). No Creationists have. You guys don't understand
science well enough to see errors or fraud, and haven't any verifiable
facts of your own. That's OK; the next time a scientist show he's
human the others will be happy to take him (or her) down a peg.
>
> > It is far past the time for creationists get over the stupid Haeckel
> > business. �
>
> It only stays alive when modern Darwinists deny: Haeckel committed
> fraud, that is, a person who knew Darwin personally and was his chief
> supporter in Germany. This is one reason why anti-evolutionism is
> popular: some evolutionists lie; they lie about evidence and they lie
> when they say Haeckel did not commit fraud.
It was mostly wishful thinking on his part.
> Since you have
> acknowledged the lies of Haeckel I am talking about a handful of
> howlers. Of course many prominent evolutionists have long ago
> acknowledeged this fraud.
We have known about this for a century. Is this all you have?
From Wikipedia:
"He supported the theory [of recapitulation] with embryo drawings that
have since been shown to be oversimplified and in part inaccurate, and
the theory is now considered an oversimplification of quite
complicated relationships"
He was a major name in biology, and contributed much to evolutionary
biology. An over strong attachment to one of his ideas was his
greatest fault.
>
> This issue so clearly shows how some evolutionists will lie to your
> face. This is one reason why I am not a evolutionist. To see a handful
> of evolutionists in this topic act like Haeckel did nothing wrong
> tells the public everything they need to know about evolutionists
> since you too have read these lies and said nothing. Since you have
> acknowledged Haeckel's sins your silence makes no sense. I can guess
> that you understand that the howlers are doing their job----which
> makes it even worse for you; the same makes you appear afraid. I
> wouldn't hesitate to disassociate myself from a Creationist "howler."
<snort>
>
> > And if it obfuscation you want, have you ever carefully
> > looked at an explanation of how scripture really conforms to factual
> > events? �- Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -
>
> Yes, I have.
>
> Scripture certainly provides an *appearance* of not corresponding to
> known facts (mostly due to translation errors), however. IF one takes
> the time to listen to a real Bible scholar or theologian the
> appearance evaporates rather quickly. Scripture is complex; it takes a
> little time to understand God's word. Most Darwinists are not willing
> to take the time to listen to anyone who does not have their worldview
> in mind.
>
> Ray
kermit
r norman
wrote:
I was pretty sure that it was A Statement, beyond simply being an
absolutely stunning illustration.
Ye Old One
Actually, he didn't really. He may have been guilty of slightly over
exaggerating some features on a couple of drawings, he also failed to
correct the fact that the same picture was used in two different
sequences (I think one of them was a dog) but beyond that he did very
well.
> Creationists do this
>every time they deny verifiable data or come up with fake crap or
>quote mine. You can't *do honest Creationism.
>
>Haeckel saw a pattern and came up with a testable model to explain
>it. Unfortunately the model failed further scrutiny. The data he
>fudged was mostly showing drawings out of scale and presenting various
>embryos together with the implication that the were at the same stage
>of development, when they weren't, completely.
I don't think the last part is completely valid but I would agree with
the rest.
>
>However, the pattern is real (most vertebrate embryos are very similar
>at early stages of development, and only diverge later). His drawings
>are otherwise accurate and beautiful. Other scientists discovered his
>errors (conceptual and ethical) and called him out on them. It's
>always the scientists that catch these errors (oops - I remember a
>Japanese investigative reporter who caught a Japanese archaeologist
>committing fraud). No Creationists have. You guys don't understand
>science well enough to see errors or fraud, and haven't any verifiable
>facts of your own. That's OK; the next time a scientist show he's
>human the others will be happy to take him (or her) down a peg.
Very well put.
Good post Kermit.
--
Bob.
Theists think all gods but theirs are false. Atheists simply don't
make an exception for the last one.
Ray Martinez
> On Dec 8, 4:31 pm, Ray Martinez <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > On Dec 8, 3:10 pm, r norman <r_s_nor...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
> > > I don't know if this has been commented on before, but has anybody
> > > noticed that our own philosopher John pays homage to the most cheating
> > > discredited evolutionist of all time by putting Haeckel's drawing on
> > > the cover of his book?
>
> > Your dishonest evo brothers here at Talk Origins act like they do not
> > know that Haeckel was a fraud and cheat. They whitewash his lies.
>
> > This is one reason why evolution is rejected by the public: evos are
> > known to be liars. If they can't admit that which has been shown and
> > proven (Haeckel a fraud) then they can't be trusted to communicate
> > complicated scientific evidence.
>
> It may be that Haeckel committed a fraud. However, if you read
> _Objectivity_ by Daston and Galison, you will find that
> Haeckel's method was an acceptable one for the time.
>
Are you saying that your sources are saying that fraud was accepted at
that time?
Unfreakingbelievable. You need to better express yourself.
> When biologists amassed atlases of biological structures, there
> was a sort of tug of war of philosophies on what to show. Do
> you show pictures of exact examples, or do you look at a lot
> of examples and distill out an idealization of the average appearance
> of the structure of the structures? �This problem largely has
> been made moot by our modern standards of photographic, or
> other mechanical representations.
>
> For the case of comparative embryology, modern biology books
> show actual photographs of embryonic and fetal stages of
> organism development. These charts look Haeckel-like, but are
> not idealizations, and are not intented to state that
> "ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny".
>
> -John
>
>
>
>
>
> > Ray
>
> > SNIP....- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Ray
Devils Advocaat
> On Dec 9, 11:07�am, John Stockwell <john.19071...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Dec 8, 4:31 pm, Ray Martinez <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Dec 8, 3:10 pm, r norman <r_s_nor...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
> > > > I don't know if this has been commented on before, but has anybody
> > > > noticed that our own philosopher John pays homage to the most cheating
> > > > discredited evolutionist of all time by putting Haeckel's drawing on
> > > > the cover of his book?
>
> > > Your dishonest evo brothers here at Talk Origins act like they do not
> > > know that Haeckel was a fraud and cheat. They whitewash his lies.
>
> > > This is one reason why evolution is rejected by the public: evos are
> > > known to be liars. If they can't admit that which has been shown and
> > > proven (Haeckel a fraud) then they can't be trusted to communicate
> > > complicated scientific evidence.
>
> > It may be that Haeckel committed a fraud. However, if you read
> > _Objectivity_ by Daston and Galison, you will find that
> > Haeckel's method was an acceptable one for the time.
>
> Are you saying that your sources are saying that fraud was accepted at
> that time?
>
> Unfreakingbelievable. You need to better express yourself.
>
"creation ex materia (from a clay-like ground)" as the process by
which new species are supposed to come into existence.
Ray Martinez
> Ray Martinez wrote:
>
> snipping Ray getting defensive about being caught with his pants down.
>
> >> And if it obfuscation you want, have you ever carefully
> >> looked at an explanation of how scripture really conforms to factual
> >> events? - Hide quoted text -
>
> >> - Show quoted text -
>
> > Yes, I have.
>
> > Scripture certainly provides an *appearance* of not corresponding to
> > known facts (mostly due to translation errors),
>
> Interesting that Ray feels that the superficial appearance of design in
> nature is enough to prove the existence of a "invisible designer" , but the
> "appearance" that the Bible doesn't match facts, even though on much, much
> stronger grounds, can be ignored. � �Ray claims that the lack of
> correspondence with the facts is due to "translation errors", but doesn't
Just the opposite is true: I have spent a large part of my adult life
learning and listening to experts in Biblical translation.
Creationists study Theology because we know Theos exists. Darwinists
study nature because they are Atheists. Our Church owns many original
manuscripts and facsimilies of the most ancient and famous. We know
what the original says thanks to our scholars.
> The
> lack of evidence of a global flood, for instance can hardly be traced to
> "translation error". � Nor is the evidence that all existing life forms did
> not appear at the same geolgoic time, contrary to the Bible creation
> stories, can be excused by "translation errors".
>
I have never said the Flood or Creation claims are translation errors.
Because they make claims about reality, they are scientific, and they
are either true or false. I am currently writing a large work that
seeks to show Genesis 1 and 2 scientifically true.
Botton line: Christians disagree; the Flood and Creationism are
supported by the evidence. Of course if one accepts pro-Atheism
assumptions about reality (Naturalism-Materialism) then the Bible is
false, "proven" as such by starting assumption.
> > however. IF one takes
> > the time to listen to a real Bible scholar or theologian the
> > appearance evaporates rather quickly.
>
> Which means that if one rationalizes, and twists things enough, one can
> overlook the factual errors found in the Bible. �
That's not what I said.
> Of course, Ray's
> definition of a "Real Bible Scholar" is "one that Ray agrees with". �
The same is true concerning you.
> The
> fact that most Bible scholars freely admit that the Bible is not in
> concordance with science is again, overlooked.
>
I agree: most say such things.
> > Scripture is complex; it takes a
> > little time to understand God's word
>
> which means that it's much easier for the gullible, like Ray, to be taken in
> by a con men and charlatains.
>
Atheists have no choice but to say the Bible is false. One time one
Atheist said it was not (I. Velikovsky) and he was promptly
blacklisted.
> > Most Darwinists are not willing
> > to take the time to listen to anyone who does not have their worldview
> > in mind.
>
> Actually, "Darwinists", ie, those interested in science, have many different
> and often conflicting "worldviews". � �The only "worldview" required to
> accept science is a belief that evidence matters, and the scientific method
> is useful.
>
> DJT
>
>
>
>
>
> > Ray- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
The issue is: correct interpretation of evidence. To say that ID does
not exist in nature is a lie since we see it plainly. We also have
personal relationship with God.
Darwinism is systematic evidence denial. Again: what choice does the
Atheist have?
Ray
r norman
Ray, of course, will not listen to this, but for the record ---
The reason people are not at all concerned about Haeckel's drawings
has to do with the nature of the material that the drawings were
intended to depict. Does the "fraud" consist of making up things that
do not exist, of making drawings out of whole cloth to advance some
theory? Absolutely not! Everybody at the time who had ever looked at
embryos of different vertebrates and everybody since that time who has
ever looked at embryos of different vertebrates knows that the
structures shown on the drawings do truly exist. And all work then
and since has confirmed the biological significance of the similar
structures as being due to shared developmental patterns now know to
be due to shared genetic developmental programs. Every bit of
evidence then and now indicates that these similarities demonstrate
shared heritage (i.e., common descent) for this group of animals.
So what constitutes the "fraud"? Merely that the way Haeckel chose to
select and draw the features exaggerated the similarities and
misstated the timing as to exactly when in development the structures
appeared. People now simply pass dismiss this as "Haeckel was wrong
about these details" and that is the end of that. People also have
long since completely discarded Haeckel's notions about evolution and
development and moved on. Nobody says "Haeckel was a fraud because he
proposed discredited theories." People merely say "he was wrong". The
so-called "fraud" did not cause the course of science to go astray in
the slightest because the significance of the similarities between
vertebrate embryos truly exists and is important.
Ye Old One
<pyram...@yahoo.com> enriched this group when s/he wrote:
>On Dec 9, 11:36�am, "Dana Tweedy" <reddfr...@bresnan.net> wrote:
>> Ray Martinez wrote:
>>
>> snipping Ray getting defensive about being caught with his pants down.
>>
>> >> And if it obfuscation you want, have you ever carefully
>> >> looked at an explanation of how scripture really conforms to factual
>> >> events? - Hide quoted text -
>>
>> >> - Show quoted text -
>>
>> > Yes, I have.
>>
>> > Scripture certainly provides an *appearance* of not corresponding to
>> > known facts (mostly due to translation errors),
>>
>> Interesting that Ray feels that the superficial appearance of design in
>> nature is enough to prove the existence of a "invisible designer" , but the
>> "appearance" that the Bible doesn't match facts, even though on much, much
>> stronger grounds, can be ignored. � �Ray claims that the lack of
>> correspondence with the facts is due to "translation errors", but doesn't
>> know enough about the original texts to know what those errors are. � �
>
>Just the opposite is true: I have spent a large part of my adult life
>learning and listening to experts in Biblical translation.
And then you went and listened to Gene 'Expletive Deleted' Scott -
another cretinist who had to lie about his education to make himself
look big.
>Creationists study Theology
Most do not. They reject education.
> because we know Theos exists. Darwinists
>study nature because they are Atheists. Our Church owns many original
>manuscripts and facsimilies of the most ancient and famous. We know
>what the original says thanks to our scholars.
We study nature because we want to learn.
>
>> The
>> lack of evidence of a global flood, for instance can hardly be traced to
>> "translation error". � Nor is the evidence that all existing life forms did
>> not appear at the same geolgoic time, contrary to the Bible creation
>> stories, can be excused by "translation errors".
>>
>
>I have never said the Flood or Creation claims are translation errors.
>Because they make claims about reality, they are scientific, and they
>are either true or false.
Both are false. End of story.
> I am currently writing a large work that
>seeks to show Genesis 1 and 2 scientifically true.
Hohohohohoho!!!
>
>Botton line: Christians disagree; the Flood and Creationism are
>supported by the evidence.
No they are not.
> Of course if one accepts pro-Atheism
>assumptions about reality (Naturalism-Materialism) then the Bible is
>false, "proven" as such by starting assumption.
Proven false by examination Dishonest Ray.
[snip even more of Dishonest Ray's usual brand of stupidity.]
bpuharic
<pyram...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>On Dec 12, 12:08�pm, r norman <r_s_nor...@comcast.net> wrote:
>> On Sat, 12 Dec 2009 11:09:25 -0800 (PST), Ray Martinez
>>
>>
>
>Fraud is not fraud afterall.
>
>The lengths some Darwinists will go to protect a cheat. Whattaworld.
>
>If Darwinists would attempt this whopper (uncomplicated issue of a
>Darwinist getting caught fudging data) then just think what they do
>with the complicated evidence?
>
>Norman: jettison Haeckel and be done with it. Why do want ToE
>connected with Haeckel?
>
>Ray
>
>Ray
haeckel died 90 years ago. if this is the best that creationists can
come up with, given the more recent frauds perpetrated by religion, we
can safely say creationism is the problem
r norman
<pyram...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> vertebrate embryos truly exists and is important.- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> - Show quoted text -
>
>A classic whitewash.
>
>Fraud is not fraud afterall.
>
>The lengths some Darwinists will go to protect a cheat. Whattaworld.
>
>If Darwinists would attempt this whopper (uncomplicated issue of a
>Darwinist getting caught fudging data) then just think what they do
>with the complicated evidence?
>
>Norman: jettison Haeckel and be done with it. Why do want ToE
>connected with Haeckel?
>
In case you hadn't noticed, the theory of evolution is not connected
with Haeckel at all. That is the point that you can never understand.
Ye Old One
<pyram...@yahoo.com> enriched this group when s/he wrote:
>On Dec 12, 12:08嚙緘m, r norman <r_s_nor...@comcast.net> wrote:
>> On Sat, 12 Dec 2009 11:09:25 -0800 (PST), Ray Martinez
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> >On Dec 9, 11:07嚙窮m, John Stockwell <john.19071...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >> On Dec 8, 4:31 pm, Ray Martinez <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>> >> > On Dec 8, 3:10 pm, r norman <r_s_nor...@comcast.net> wrote:
>>
>> >> > > I don't know if this has been commented on before, but has anybody
>> >> > > noticed that our own philosopher John pays homage to the most cheating
>> >> > > discredited evolutionist of all time by putting Haeckel's drawing on
>> >> > > the cover of his book?
>>
>> >> > Your dishonest evo brothers here at Talk Origins act like they do not
>> >> > know that Haeckel was a fraud and cheat. They whitewash his lies.
>>
>> >> > This is one reason why evolution is rejected by the public: evos are
>> >> > known to be liars. If they can't admit that which has been shown and
>> >> > proven (Haeckel a fraud) then they can't be trusted to communicate
>> >> > complicated scientific evidence.
>>
>> >> It may be that Haeckel committed a fraud. However, if you read
>> >> _Objectivity_ by Daston and Galison, you will find that
>> >> Haeckel's method was an acceptable one for the time.
>>
>> >Are you saying that your sources are saying that fraud was accepted at
>> >that time?
>>
>> >Unfreakingbelievable. You need to better express yourself.
>>
>> >> When biologists amassed atlases of biological structures, there
>> >> was a sort of tug of war of philosophies on what to show. Do
>> >> you show pictures of exact examples, or do you look at a lot
>> >> of examples and distill out an idealization of the average appearance
>> >> of the structure of the structures? 嚙確his problem largely has
>> >> been made moot by our modern standards of photographic, or
>> >> other mechanical representations.
>>
>> >> For the case of comparative embryology, modern biology books
>> >> show actual photographs of embryonic and fetal stages of
>> >> organism development. These charts look Haeckel-like, but are
>> >> not idealizations, and are not intented to state that
>> >> "ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny".
>>
>> Ray, of course, will not listen to this, but for the record ---
>>
>> The reason people are not at all concerned about Haeckel's drawings
>> has to do with the nature of the material that the drawings were
>> intended to depict. 嚙瘩oes the "fraud" consist of making up things that
>> do not exist, of making drawings out of whole cloth to advance some
>> theory? 嚙璀bsolutely not! 嚙瘟verybody at the time who had ever looked at
>> embryos of different vertebrates and everybody since that time who has
>> ever looked at embryos of different vertebrates knows that the
>> structures shown on the drawings do truly exist. 嚙璀nd all work then
>> and since has confirmed the biological significance of the similar
>> structures as being due to shared developmental patterns now know to
>> be due to shared genetic developmental programs. 嚙瘟very bit of
>> evidence then and now indicates that these similarities demonstrate
>> shared heritage (i.e., common descent) for this group of animals.
>>
>> So what constitutes the "fraud"? 嚙瞎erely that the way Haeckel chose to
>> select and draw the features exaggerated the similarities and
>> misstated the timing as to exactly when in development the structures
>> appeared. 嚙瞑eople now simply pass dismiss this as "Haeckel was wrong
>> about these details" and that is the end of that. 嚙瞑eople also have
>> long since completely discarded Haeckel's notions about evolution and
>> development and moved on. 嚙瞇obody says "Haeckel was a fraud because he
>> proposed discredited theories." 嚙瞑eople merely say "he was wrong". The
>> so-called "fraud" did not cause the course of science to go astray in
>> the slightest because the significance of the similarities between
>> vertebrate embryos truly exists and is important.- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> - Show quoted text -
>
>A classic whitewash.
>
>Fraud is not fraud afterall.
Fraud has a very sp3ecific meaning. Haeckel did not commit fraud.
>
>The lengths some Darwinists will go to protect a cheat. Whattaworld.
>
>If Darwinists would attempt this whopper (uncomplicated issue of a
>Darwinist getting caught fudging data) then just think what they do
>with the complicated evidence?
>
>Norman: jettison Haeckel and be done with it. Why do want ToE
>connected with Haeckel?
Because he was a very good scientist.
>
>Ray
Burkhard
>>
>> - Show quoted text -
>
>
> Fraud is not fraud afterall.
>
>
> If Darwinists would attempt this whopper (uncomplicated issue of a
> Darwinist getting caught fudging data)
Because it wasn't data - the data is the observation the embryo, and
everyone can check that data (which is of course what happened) The
pictures are not the evidence for the theory, the pictures are the
illustration chosen by the author to explain the theory - he would have
published the article just as well without them.
Of course, I can see how for certain types of religious persons, it is
difficult to distinguish the book/text, with what the book/text is about.
then just think what they do
> with the complicated evidence?
>
> Norman: jettison Haeckel and be done with it. Why do want ToE
> connected with Haeckel?
>
> Ray
>
> Ray
>
Mike Lyle
> On Sat, 12 Dec 2009 17:54:00 -0800 (PST), Ray Martinez
> <pyram...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>> Norman: jettison Haeckel and be done with it. Why do want ToE
>> connected with Haeckel?
>>
>
> In case you hadn't noticed, the theory of evolution is not connected
> with Haeckel at all. That is the point that you can never understand.
He probably understands it: he's just haeckling.
--
Mike.
Earle Jones
Ye Old One <use...@mcsuk.net> wrote:
> On Sat, 12 Dec 2009 11:52:06 -0800 (PST), Ray Martinez
> <pyram...@yahoo.com> enriched this group when s/he wrote:
>
> >On Dec 9, 11:36�am, "Dana Tweedy" <reddfr...@bresnan.net> wrote:
> >> Ray Martinez wrote:
> >>
> >> snipping Ray getting defensive about being caught with his pants down.
> >>
> >> >> And if it obfuscation you want, have you ever carefully
> >> >> looked at an explanation of how scripture really conforms to factual
> >> >> events? - Hide quoted text -
> >>
> >> >> - Show quoted text -
> >>
> >> > Yes, I have.
> >>
> >> > Scripture certainly provides an *appearance* of not corresponding to
> >> > known facts (mostly due to translation errors),
> >>
> >> Interesting that Ray feels that the superficial appearance of design in
> >> nature is enough to prove the existence of a "invisible designer" , but the
> >> "appearance" that the Bible doesn't match facts, even though on much, much
> >> stronger grounds, can be ignored. � �Ray claims that the lack of
> >> correspondence with the facts is due to "translation errors", but doesn't
> >> know enough about the original texts to know what those errors are. � �
> >
> >Just the opposite is true: I have spent a large part of my adult life
> >learning and listening to experts in Biblical translation.
>
> And then you went and listened to Gene 'Expletive Deleted' Scott -
> another cretinist who had to lie about his education to make himself
> look big...
YOO: I don't think Scott lied about his education, at least to my
knowledge. He received a PhD from the School of Education at Stanford
University (my alma mater.)
Ray will say that he received his PhD directly from the university. He
is right. All PhDs are degrees at Stanford are conferred by the
university and not by the specific department.
earle
*
Reddfrogg
> On Dec 9, 11:36�am, "Dana Tweedy" <reddfr...@bresnan.net> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > Ray Martinez wrote:
>
> > snipping Ray getting defensive about being caught with his pants down.
>
> > >> And if it obfuscation you want, have you ever carefully
> > >> looked at an explanation of how scripture really conforms to factual
> > >> events? - Hide quoted text -
>
> > >> - Show quoted text -
>
> > > Yes, I have.
>
> > > Scripture certainly provides an *appearance* of not corresponding to
> > > known facts (mostly due to translation errors),
>
> > Interesting that Ray feels that the superficial appearance of design in
> > nature is enough to prove the existence of a "invisible designer" , but the
> > "appearance" that the Bible doesn't match facts, even though on much, much
> > stronger grounds, can be ignored. � �Ray claims that the lack of
> > correspondence with the facts is due to "translation errors", but doesn't
> > know enough about the original texts to know what those errors are. � �
>
> Just the opposite is true: I have spent a large part of my adult life
> learning and listening to experts in Biblical translation.
Ray, you listen to only to those who say what you want to hear, not to
experts. You know little about Bible translations, and even less
about the texts the translations are built on.
> Creationists study Theology because we know Theos exists.
Creationists largely avoid study, as it just gets in the way of their
beliefs.
> Darwinists
> study nature because they are Atheists.
No. Scientists study nature because that's where the answers are.
Theology isn't going to give you any insight into the workings of
nature. Only studying nature will do that. In any case, many
scientists are not atheist.
> Our Church owns many original
> manuscripts and facsimilies of the most ancient and famous. We know
> what the original says thanks to our scholars.
No, you only 'know" what you want to hear, and refuse to accept the
evidence to the contrary. Owning original manuscripts doesn't mean
you know what they mean, or the proper way to interpret them.
>
> > The
> > lack of evidence of a global flood, for instance can hardly be traced to
> > "translation error". � Nor is the evidence that all existing life forms did
> > not appear at the same geolgoic time, contrary to the Bible creation
> > stories, can be excused by "translation errors".
>
> I have never said the Flood or Creation claims are translation errors.
Which is ignoring the point. Claims about the Flood is one major
area where the Bible is contradicted by the facts. If you claim that
any factual errors in the Bible are "translation errors", you are
saying that the Flood is a translation error.
> Because they make claims about reality, they are scientific,
No. Making a claim about reality does not make it scientific. If
the claim is not testable, not falsifiable, and makes no testable
predictions, it's not scientific.
> and they
> are either true or false.
By that standard, the claims about the global flood are false. This
was found out by devout Christians who studied the rocks, and rock
layers. They found no evidence of a global flood.
> I am currently writing a large work that
> seeks to show Genesis 1 and 2 scientifically true.
Whatever you "seek", you have a snowball's chance of demonstrating it
to be true.
>
> Botton line: Christians disagree;
Actually, many Christians, especially those who have actually studied
the rocks, do not agree with you. The evidence doesn't support a
global flood.
> the Flood and Creationism are
> supported by the evidence.
Yet every time someone requests that evidence, you run away. Noah's
Flood is not supported by any evidence. Again, this was established
long before Darwin, by devout Christian scientists.
> Of course if one accepts pro-Atheism
> assumptions about reality (Naturalism-Materialism) then the Bible is
> false, "proven" as such by starting assumption.
The methodological naturalism used by science is not "pro atheism".
Anyone, including Christians, Muslims, Jews, Buddhists, and those
without religion can use it. That's one of your major mistakes,
thinking that science is "pro atheism".
It's also telling that you are openly admitting that not unless one
starts out assuming one's conclusion, and totally abandoning science,
can the Bible be "true".
>
> > > however. IF one takes
> > > the time to listen to a real Bible scholar or theologian the
> > > appearance evaporates rather quickly.
>
> > Which means that if one rationalizes, and twists things enough, one can
> > overlook the factual errors found in the Bible. �
>
> That's not what I said.
It may not have been what you wanted to convey, but it is what you
ended up saying. Your "real Bible scholar" is one who will twist
things to overlook the factual errors.
>
> > Of course, Ray's
> > definition of a "Real Bible Scholar" is "one that Ray agrees with". �
>
> The same is true concerning you.
That's false. A "real Bible Scholar" is one who's studied the
material, and takes the time to understand it. Someone who doesn't
try to twist the material to fit some pre-determined belief. I
recognize that I'm not going to always agree with a Biblical Scholar,
but I respect that person's opinion.
By that standard, Gene Scott was no "real Bible Scholar". It's not
because I disagree with Gene, but because he was a fraud. He spent
more time trying to twist the Bible to fit his own dubious agenda.
That's why no recognized scholar cites Gene as a reference. No
legitimate Bible scholar takes Gene's spews seriously.
>
> > The
> > fact that most Bible scholars freely admit that the Bible is not in
> > concordance with science is again, overlooked.
>
> I agree: most say such things.
But you don't understand why they say such things. You attribute it
to some kind of shadowy conspiracy, rather than accept it's the
consensus drawn from the evidence. You see "atheists" lurking
everywhere.
>
> > > Scripture is complex; it takes a
> > > little time to understand God's word
>
> > which means that it's much easier for the gullible, like Ray, to be taken in
> > by a con men and charlatains.
>
> Atheists have no choice but to say the Bible is false.
Actually, and on average, atheists don't care about the Bible. If
it's false, they will say it is, and if some parts are confirmed, they
will accept that too. They don't see the Bible as having any kind
of authority.
> One time one
> Atheist said it was not (I. Velikovsky) and he was promptly
> blacklisted.
Velikovsky wasn't "blacklisted", he was considered a kook, and for
good reason. If Velikovsky had been able to support any of his
bizarre claims, scientists would have to have listened to him. As it
stood, he just showed his own ignorance and foolishness.
Again, you are seeing conspiracies where there are none.
>
> > > Most Darwinists are not willing
> > > to take the time to listen to anyone who does not have their worldview
> > > in mind.
>
> > Actually, "Darwinists", ie, those interested in science, have many different
> > and often conflicting "worldviews". � �The only "worldview" required to
> > accept science is a belief that evidence matters, and the scientific method
> > is useful.
>
> > DJT
>
> > > Ray- Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -
>
> The issue is: correct interpretation of evidence.
The correct interpretation of the evidence is, of couse, the one that
best matches the evidence, wherever that leads. The correct
interpretation may show something I believed to be wrong. I'm
willing to accept that.
You, on the other hand, like many fanatics in the past, seem to
think the "correct" interpretation has to be the one that fits your
personal prejudice.
That's why the theory of evolution scares you so much. It coesn't fit
what you want to be true.
To a scientist, is an interpretation doesn't fit the evidence, the
interpretation is changed. To you, if the interpretation doesn't fit,
then you throw out the evidence, and call those who made the
interpretation "atheists".
> To say that ID does
> not exist in nature is a lie since we see it plainly.
Ray, what you "see plainly" is a mirage, a fantasy of your own making
There's no need to invoke the direct action of a supernatural being
to explain the appearance of design. It's much better explained by
the action of natural forces. You, like some atheists, think this
means that God has no role, and no existence. That's where you go
wrong.
You don't like this, because it indicates to you that maybe, your
petty, small, and restricted vison of God is flawed. Instead of
considering that maybe you have it wrong, you insist that you MUST be
right, and all the evidence, all the findings, and all the
observations gathered over the last thousands of years, must be wrong.
You invent plots by "Darwinists" and "Atheists" trying to fool
everyone. You ignore the evidence that God left behind by his
creation, because it doesn't fit your own measly and tiny conception
you have of God.
> We also have
> personal relationship with God.
Your "personal relationship" with God doesn't seem to have made you a
better person, or a more honest one. Instead of giving you faith to
face reality, you keep hiding from it. Instead of being an example
of an honest, and forthright follower of God, you instead appear
frightened, and worried that something as harmless as a scientific
theory will steal God away from you.
>
> Darwinism is systematic evidence denial. Again: what choice does the
> Atheist have?
The theory of evolution is not denial of evidence, but embracing the
evidence, and allowing it to lead to new, and exciting
discoveries.
An atheist may have many choices for what to believe, but science has
a proven track record of success in teasing out the secrets of the
world. Any atheist, and any Christian who understands that, would be
a fool to throw it away.
DJT
Ye Old One
<earle...@comcast.net> enriched this group when s/he wrote:
>In article <79u7i55jdb1vig6b2...@4ax.com>,
> Ye Old One <use...@mcsuk.net> wrote:
>
>> On Sat, 12 Dec 2009 11:52:06 -0800 (PST), Ray Martinez
>> <pyram...@yahoo.com> enriched this group when s/he wrote:
>>
>> >On Dec 9, 11:36!m, "Dana Tweedy" <reddfr...@bresnan.net> wrote:
>> >> Ray Martinez wrote:
>> >>
>> >> snipping Ray getting defensive about being caught with his pants down.
>> >>
>> >> >> And if it obfuscation you want, have you ever carefully
>> >> >> looked at an explanation of how scripture really conforms to factual
>> >> >> events? - Hide quoted text -
>> >>
>> >> >> - Show quoted text -
>> >>
>> >> > Yes, I have.
>> >>
>> >> > Scripture certainly provides an *appearance* of not corresponding to
>> >> > known facts (mostly due to translation errors),
>> >>
>> >> Interesting that Ray feels that the superficial appearance of design in
>> >> nature is enough to prove the existence of a "invisible designer" , but the
>> >> "appearance" that the Bible doesn't match facts, even though on much, much
>> >> stronger grounds, can be ignored. ay claims that the lack of
>> >> correspondence with the facts is due to "translation errors", but doesn't
>> >> know enough about the original texts to know what those errors are.
>> >
>> >Just the opposite is true: I have spent a large part of my adult life
>> >learning and listening to experts in Biblical translation.
>>
>> And then you went and listened to Gene 'Expletive Deleted' Scott -
>> another cretinist who had to lie about his education to make himself
>> look big...
>
>YOO: I don't think Scott lied about his education, at least to my
>knowledge. He received a PhD from the School of Education at Stanford
>University (my alma mater.)
>
>Ray will say that he received his PhD directly from the university. He
>is right. All PhDs are degrees at Stanford are conferred by the
>university and not by the specific department.do honesty think it
On this subject I honestly think it was Dishonest Ray that lied.
The claim, which was proven wrong last year when someone took the time
to write to Stanford, was that Gene 'Expletive Deleted' Scott was
awarded a special degree because of his academic excellence. That he
was the only, eve, recipient of said degree and that it marked his
multi-discipline education that was so very special Stanford must have
been honored to have him :)
--
Bob.
Burkhard
the PhD was indeed awarded (on Reinhold Niebuhr) and yes, I think he
said it was the only PhD in "Philosophy of education", but it is not
unheard of to make up ad hoc subject areas for PhDs like this.
This is from Stanford's own alumni newsletter, which gives as year of
his PhD 1957:
http://www.stanfordalumni.org/news/magazine/2005/mayjun/classnotes/scott.html
Ye Old One
Found what I was looking for. Message from Richard Clayton, dated 23
Apr 2007.
Message-ID: <1177361725.6...@p77g2000hsh.googlegroups.com>
[quote]
No, Ray. The one caught red-handed in a lie is Gene Scott. I emailed
the Stanford registrar's office and asked for verification of Scott's
claim that his degree was "cross-departmental in Philosophy and
Religion" and "was granted by the University itself and not by any
department" and therefore "the hardest degree to earn and the last
one(s) handed-out at graduation." (Note that these words were taken
almost verbatim from your own posts, Ray.)
Here's what the Stanford Registrar's Office had to say on the matter:
"I don't know of any degrees of the sort you've described. We haven't
ever 'rated' our degrees, we'd prefer to believe they were all hard-
earned! and stanford has never awarded honorary degrees. the claim
does smack a bit of gilding the lily, tho', doesn't it?"
So Gene Scott lied to you... and he lied to you on a matter that was
trivially easy to fact-check, for no purpose better than to serve his
bloated ego. He conned you, Ray. If he'd lie to you on a subject where
proving him wrong was so simple, who knows what else he might have
lied to you about? Why continue to idolize somebody who clearly held
his audience in such low regard?
[end quote]
Personally, I doubt it was him lying, I think it was Dishonest Ray. I
base that on being unable to find anyone other than Dishonest Ray
making the claim.
HTH.
--
Bob.