Ray Martinez and Pandas Thumb.

[Rolf Aalberg]

Ray lately has made some appearances at Pandas Thumb. He is not wanted
there since he has not got anything to contribute. He is an even bigger
idiot now than he was a few years ago. I hope he will stay away from PT.

A clip from

http://pandasthumb.org/archives/2013/05/what-passes-for.html#comment-panels
:


Don�t feed the Martinez troll

Please do not feed the Martinez troll. I will allow it 1 comment;
further comments will be sent to the Bathroom Wall.

Matt Young said:
Why not just ban him completely? He never tells the truth and seems to
exist only to spew hatred.

Not my decision. There are several trolls whom I would ban completely,
rather than go to the bother of catching them and sending their dreck to
the BW. But then they would cry �Censorship!� and create other problems.
Besides, a lot of readers seem to enjoy beating their heads against the
wall by engaging these trolls on the BW, and maybe their excrescences
are instructive at times.

Ray says:
Matt: There is nothing trollish and certainly nothing worthy of being
banned by pointing out that the Fundies accept conceptual existence of
Darwin�s main scientific claims. It seems you and a few others are upset
with the messenger instead of the message.

If you don�t want me to post here then just say so, I will �ban� myself.
And again, all my points are perfectly legitimate. It seems you guys
lack whatever it takes to produce a quality response, which is the real
reason for the call to have me banned or shipped to Siberia (BW).
******************

My comment here at t.o. is:
It is a matter of policy that people are not banned at PT. Regular
cranks like FL, Robert Byers, Steve P and others have long been there.

They, like Ray, have to be suffered like a fly in the ointment. The
problem is not the mere appearance but how they lead to derailing of the
threads.

We know they are creationists and have heard it all before and so they
might as well stay away until they've made a breakthrough, like Ray's
been threatening to do for many years now, publishing the book that will
put Darwin to rest forever.

Rolf

[Thrinaxodon]

On May 6, 5:36 am, Rolf Aalberg <rolf.aalb...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Ray lately has made some appearances at Pandas Thumb. He is not wanted
> there since he has not got anything to contribute. He is an even bigger
> idiot now than he was a few years ago. I hope he will stay away from PT.
>
> A clip from
>

> http://pandasthumb.org/archives/2013/05/what-passes-for.html#comment-...
> :
>
> Don t feed the Martinez troll

>
> Please do not feed the Martinez troll. I will allow it 1 comment;
> further comments will be sent to the Bathroom Wall.
>
> Matt Young said:
> Why not just ban him completely? He never tells the truth and seems to
> exist only to spew hatred.
>
> Not my decision. There are several trolls whom I would ban completely,
> rather than go to the bother of catching them and sending their dreck to

> the BW. But then they would cry Censorship! and create other problems.

> Besides, a lot of readers seem to enjoy beating their heads against the
> wall by engaging these trolls on the BW, and maybe their excrescences
> are instructive at times.
>
> Ray says:
> Matt: There is nothing trollish and certainly nothing worthy of being
> banned by pointing out that the Fundies accept conceptual existence of

> Darwin s main scientific claims. It seems you and a few others are upset

> with the messenger instead of the message.
>

> If you don t want me to post here then just say so, I will ban myself.

> And again, all my points are perfectly legitimate. It seems you guys
> lack whatever it takes to produce a quality response, which is the real
> reason for the call to have me banned or shipped to Siberia (BW).
> ******************
>
> My comment here at t.o. is:
> It is a matter of policy that people are not banned at PT. Regular
> cranks like FL, Robert Byers, Steve P and others have long been there.
>
> They, like Ray, have to be suffered like a fly in the ointment. The
> problem is not the mere appearance but how they lead to derailing of the
> threads.
>
> We know they are creationists and have heard it all before and so they
> might as well stay away until they've made a breakthrough, like Ray's
> been threatening to do for many years now, publishing the book that will
> put Darwin to rest forever.
>
> Rolf

I was there, I should have pointed out, he acts the same way at t.o.,
oh wait, I already did.

[Roger Shrubber]

It is very very wrong to ban Ray.
The notion that Ray derails threads is misguided.
There exists an over-arching concept/goal of inspiring higher quality
communication of scientific principles. Ray provides a useful foil.
The flaws in his screeds are myriad, I assert. But they are not
unique. And the quest to lucidly address the flaws in bad arguments
remains.

What is the purpose of The Panda's Thumb? I think one of the purposes
should be the cultivation of the ability to respond to nonsense.
A lifetime of experience demonstrates that this is significantly
more difficult than is trivially anticipated. I don't think that
the likes of Ray present a profound threat to scientific theories
from a rigorous perspective but he does provide an opportunity.

Realistically, most of those who respond to Ray will flail and
produce less than convincing refutations. But, it's a process.
You read people who do an inadequate job of responding to him
and you learn something about how to, and how not to, respond
to pseudoscience. You learn something about how it's easier
to spew nonsense than to espouse a rational alternative.

As the saying goes, it's a process. It's a valuable process.
And I think the PT is a place for the process to occur.

[Rolf Aalberg]

The problem is that Ray shuns intelligent discourse. He rejects all
science, evidence, or facts. He insist that there is no such thing as
natural selection. Mutations are errors and as such they are useless.
Whatever a scientist or spokesperson for evolution says is dismissed as
irrelevant because they are by default atheists, and all atheists are
liars, everything one might say is labelled 'predictable' because he is
a Darwinist. evolutionist, atheist or whatever and that's that. Besides,
they'll all rot in hell.

He rejects William Dembski, Casey Luskin and other creationists because
they don't fit his definition of a true Christian Paleyan immutabilist.

It seems to me that most of the creationists we find at PT or AtBC at
least make en attempt at addressing scientific issues, but Ray is
playing a game of rhetorics, almost like how to prove the moon is made
of green cheese.

His On Topic: Pollock joke is a good example.

No, I don't find Ray either useful or amusing, he's a pathetic moron.

[Paul J Gans]

Roger Shrubber <rog.sh...@gmail.com> wrote:
>Rolf Aalberg wrote:
>> Ray lately has made some appearances at Pandas Thumb. He is not wanted
>> there since he has not got anything to contribute. He is an even bigger
>> idiot now than he was a few years ago. I hope he will stay away from PT.
>>
>> A clip from
>>
>> http://pandasthumb.org/archives/2013/05/what-passes-for.html#comment-panels
>> :
>>
>>

>> Don?t feed the Martinez troll

>>
>> Please do not feed the Martinez troll. I will allow it 1 comment;
>> further comments will be sent to the Bathroom Wall.
>>
>> Matt Young said:
>> Why not just ban him completely? He never tells the truth and seems to
>> exist only to spew hatred.
>>
>> Not my decision. There are several trolls whom I would ban completely,
>> rather than go to the bother of catching them and sending their dreck to

>> the BW. But then they would cry ?Censorship!? and create other problems.

>> Besides, a lot of readers seem to enjoy beating their heads against the
>> wall by engaging these trolls on the BW, and maybe their excrescences
>> are instructive at times.
>>
>> Ray says:
>> Matt: There is nothing trollish and certainly nothing worthy of being
>> banned by pointing out that the Fundies accept conceptual existence of

>> Darwin?s main scientific claims. It seems you and a few others are upset

>> with the messenger instead of the message.
>>

>> If you don?t want me to post here then just say so, I will ?ban? myself.

Right on!

--
--- Paul J. Gans

[Roger Shrubber]

> natural selection. Mutations are errors and as such they are useless.M

Makes it difficult to "win" an argument with him, doesn't it.
Frustrating, isn't it? Maybe you were expecting something that
would allow you to spike the ball and do an End-Zone dance.
That won't happen. It seldom does. I can't recall anyones
spouse and children awaiting them with a finish-line tape
in the driveway as they come home from a morning jog either.
But there's still value in exercise.

> Whatever a scientist or spokesperson for evolution says is dismissed as
> irrelevant because they are by default atheists, and all atheists are
> liars, everything one might say is labelled 'predictable' because he is
> a Darwinist. evolutionist, atheist or whatever and that's that. Besides,
> they'll all rot in hell.

Sounds like he's getting to you. Why? There are many people who
will defend the indefensible, doggedly. I note that they learn
to do so more effectively than most people who try to refute
them or try to defend truth. Thus my comments about the importance
of _the process_.

The process begins with naive people thinking they can
just recite some facts and they will win a debate.
Ah, to be young and innocent. Some never get past the
frustration of that not being effective. But some do.
Be a scientist. Observe. Be objective in your observation.
Don't just cheer for your team.

> He rejects William Dembski, Casey Luskin and other creationists because
> they don't fit his definition of a true Christian Paleyan immutabilist.
>
> It seems to me that most of the creationists we find at PT or AtBC at
> least make en attempt at addressing scientific issues, but Ray is
> playing a game of rhetorics, almost like how to prove the moon is made
> of green cheese.
>
> His On Topic: Pollock joke is a good example.
>
> No, I don't find Ray either useful or amusing, he's a pathetic moron.

Forgive me but if you find him this irritating he is exactly
what you need.

[Rolf Aalberg]

I don't care as long as he stays here and I wish he would stay away from
PT, that's all. I know from way back that it is impossible to engage him
in a reasonable discussion. You seem to be very familiar with his modus
operandi.

I am mostly interested in learning new things and RM doesn't have
anything to offer besides nonsense.

[John S. Wilkins]

Rolf Aalberg <rolf.a...@gmail.com> wrote:

> On 06.05.2013 12:58, Roger Shrubber wrote:
> > Rolf Aalberg wrote:
> >> Ray lately has made some appearances at Pandas Thumb. He is not wanted
> >> there since he has not got anything to contribute. He is an even bigger
> >> idiot now than he was a few years ago. I hope he will stay away from PT.
> >>
> >> A clip from
> >>
> >> http://pandasthumb.org/archives/2013/05/what-passes-for.html#comment-panels
> >>
> >> :
> >>
> >>

> >> Don't feed the Martinez troll

> >>
> >> Please do not feed the Martinez troll. I will allow it 1 comment;
> >> further comments will be sent to the Bathroom Wall.
> >>
> >> Matt Young said:
> >> Why not just ban him completely? He never tells the truth and seems to
> >> exist only to spew hatred.
> >>
> >> Not my decision. There are several trolls whom I would ban completely,
> >> rather than go to the bother of catching them and sending their dreck to

> >> the BW. But then they would cry "Censorship!" and create other problems.

> >> Besides, a lot of readers seem to enjoy beating their heads against the
> >> wall by engaging these trolls on the BW, and maybe their excrescences
> >> are instructive at times.
> >>
> >> Ray says:
> >> Matt: There is nothing trollish and certainly nothing worthy of being
> >> banned by pointing out that the Fundies accept conceptual existence of

> >> Darwin's main scientific claims. It seems you and a few others are upset

> >> with the messenger instead of the message.
> >>

> >> If you don't want me to post here then just say so, I will "ban" myself.

Nevertheless he is on topic and the very person this group was intended
for dealing with. If you don't like reading him, use a killfile for
threads he contributes to, as I do.
--
John S. Wilkins, Associate, Philosophy, University of Sydney
http://evolvingthoughts.net
But al be that he was a philosophre,
Yet hadde he but litel gold in cofre

[Paul J Gans]

Roger Shrubber <rog.sh...@gmail.com> wrote:

>There are many people who
>will defend the indefensible, doggedly. I note that they learn
>to do so more effectively than most people who try to refute
>them or try to defend truth. Thus my comments about the importance
>of _the process_.

>The process begins with naive people thinking they can
>just recite some facts and they will win a debate.
>Ah, to be young and innocent. Some never get past the
>frustration of that not being effective. But some do.
>Be a scientist. Observe. Be objective in your observation.
>Don't just cheer for your team.

You raise an interesting point and one that I've mulled over
many times. What is the point of debate? (I use the
term loosely.) I can answer only for myself.

One of the habits ingrained in me over years and years of
teaching is that I can't abide wrong information not being
challenged nor can I avoid answering questions if I know
the answer.

I don't do this out of any nastiness and I know I sound
boringly pedantic when I do it. For me, talk.origins
provides my pedant fix as well as being a friendly place
to hang out.

And I must admit that I've never won a debate. Indeed,
the only battle here I've ever seen "won" was the Great
Saturnist Debate where the infidels were driven from
the field to regroup elsewhere. So really nothing was
accomplished.

Every so often someone posts that it is good to answer
creationist (or other nutty) arguments because it may
help the LURKERS.

There are lurkers and they may be convinced. I can't know
because they are LURKERS, and like dark matter, cannot
be examined by any technique available to us.

On the other hand, I have learned oodles. While it is
also true that most of what I have learned is bad puns,
I have picked up some other bits of information as well.
I suspect I'm not alone in this.

[Ray Martinez]

On May 6, 5:57�am, Rolf Aalberg <rolf.aalb...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 06.05.2013 12:58, Roger Shrubber wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > Rolf Aalberg wrote:
> >> Ray lately has made some appearances at Pandas Thumb. He is not wanted
> >> there since he has not got anything to contribute. He is an even bigger
> >> idiot now than he was a few years ago. I hope he will stay away from PT.
>
> >> A clip from
>

> >>http://pandasthumb.org/archives/2013/05/what-passes-for.html#comment-...
>
> >> :
>
> >> Don t feed the Martinez troll

>
> >> Please do not feed the Martinez troll. I will allow it 1 comment;
> >> further comments will be sent to the Bathroom Wall.
>
> >> Matt Young said:
> >> Why not just ban him completely? He never tells the truth and seems to
> >> exist only to spew hatred.
>
> >> Not my decision. There are several trolls whom I would ban completely,
> >> rather than go to the bother of catching them and sending their dreck to

> >> the BW. But then they would cry Censorship! and create other problems.

> >> Besides, a lot of readers seem to enjoy beating their heads against the
> >> wall by engaging these trolls on the BW, and maybe their excrescences
> >> are instructive at times.
>
> >> Ray says:
> >> Matt: There is nothing trollish and certainly nothing worthy of being
> >> banned by pointing out that the Fundies accept conceptual existence of

> >> Darwin s main scientific claims. It seems you and a few others are upset

> >> with the messenger instead of the message.
>

> >> If you don t want me to post here then just say so, I will ban myself.

Completely false. I am routinely silenced by evo Moderators who don't
have the brains to counter what I say.

> He rejects all
> science, evidence, or facts.

Completely false; rather, generally speaking, I continually point out
that Victorian Creationism had a different explanation of evidence
which produced far different conclusions.

> He insist that there is no such thing as
> natural selection.

Absolutely true. No such phenomenon exists in nature.

> Mutations are errors and as such they are useless.
> Whatever a scientist or spokesperson for evolution says is dismissed as
> irrelevant because they are by default atheists, and all atheists are
> liars, everything one might say is labelled 'predictable' because he is
> a Darwinist. evolutionist, atheist or whatever and that's that. Besides,
> they'll all rot in hell.

The complaint seen above says evos don't like a taste of their own
medicine.

> He rejects William Dembski, Casey Luskin and other creationists because
> they don't fit his definition of a true Christian Paleyan immutabilist.

One cannot call persons (Dembski & Luskin) who accept Darwin's main
theoretical claim (natural selection/species mutability) Creationists
or any label identified with teleology. A cannot be A and not -A at
the same time; logically impossible.

> It seems to me that most of the creationists we find at PT or AtBC at
> least make en attempt at addressing scientific issues, but Ray is
> playing a game of rhetorics, almost like how to prove the moon is made
> of green cheese.

All this says is that my arguments are the most difficult to address.

> His On Topic: Pollock joke is a good example.
>
> No, I don't find Ray either useful or amusing, he's a pathetic moron.

Only pathetic morons believe replication errors produced diversity.

Ray

[jillery]

On Mon, 6 May 2013 19:58:55 -0700 (PDT), Ray Martinez
<pyram...@yahoo.com> wrote:

>Only pathetic morons believe replication errors produced diversity.

Ignoring the pathetic ad hominem, and assuming you don't include
yourself as a pathetic moron, I am curious how you conclude that
replications errors do not produce diversity. Care to elaborate?

[Rolf Aalberg]

Thank you. We are a lot of pathetic morons, a pity Darwin and can't be
here to share out fate along with Dawkins, Wilkins and so many others.

Are replication errors replication errors? It seems to me that changes
to DNA can be so many things. And we now know that genetic foundations
for evolutionary changes actually can be present in DNA long before they
become active.

There also is another aspect of natural selection that often is
overlooked. NS is a stabilizing force by contributing to keeping the
genome fit. It weeds out both fatal, and the more or less negative
changes/mutations. Without NS, a species would of course soon become
extinct if it didn't discriminate between bad, neutral, and of course
beneficial mutations.

In reproduction and survival/propagation, all that matters is whether an
individual is a neutral, positive or negative influence on a population.

In other words, without natural selection, life as we know it would not
be possible. A denial of that force is downright ridiculous.

There's a reason why not all creationists deny the power of NS, except
some have created loopholes like Dembski with CSI, or Behe with IC but
you won't believe them unless you have particular reasons.

But I presume RM as always will have the right answer for you.

[Stephanus]

On May 6, 1:57�pm, Rolf Aalberg <rolf.aalb...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 06.05.2013 12:58, Roger Shrubber wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > Rolf Aalberg wrote:
> >> Ray lately has made some appearances at Pandas Thumb. He is not wanted
> >> there since he has not got anything to contribute. He is an even bigger
> >> idiot now than he was a few years ago. I hope he will stay away from PT.
>
> >> A clip from
>

> >>http://pandasthumb.org/archives/2013/05/what-passes-for.html#comment-...
>
> >> :
>
> >> Don t feed the Martinez troll

>
> >> Please do not feed the Martinez troll. I will allow it 1 comment;
> >> further comments will be sent to the Bathroom Wall.
>
> >> Matt Young said:
> >> Why not just ban him completely? He never tells the truth and seems to
> >> exist only to spew hatred.
>
> >> Not my decision. There are several trolls whom I would ban completely,
> >> rather than go to the bother of catching them and sending their dreck to

> >> the BW. But then they would cry Censorship! and create other problems.

> >> Besides, a lot of readers seem to enjoy beating their heads against the
> >> wall by engaging these trolls on the BW, and maybe their excrescences
> >> are instructive at times.
>
> >> Ray says:
> >> Matt: There is nothing trollish and certainly nothing worthy of being
> >> banned by pointing out that the Fundies accept conceptual existence of

> >> Darwin s main scientific claims. It seems you and a few others are upset

> >> with the messenger instead of the message.
>

> >> If you don t want me to post here then just say so, I will ban myself.

Amen to that!

[Miriam Rogers]

On May 7, 10:55�pm, Stephanus <srensbu...@gmail.com> wrote:
..
>
> �Mutations are errors and as such they are useless.
>
How do you know that?

[Stephanus]

http://pandasthumb.org/archives/2013/05/what-passes-for.html#comment-
Ray wrote:
The YEC Fundies are out of their minds. The science test simply
reflects their whacked out claims. In response, the evos are laughing
uncontrollibly and at the same time saddened to see the minds of
children being brainwashed by absolute nonsense.

Yet let�s not lose sight of the fact that these same people, the YECs,
accept conceptual existence of natural selection, microevolution, and
macroevolution within (not between) created kinds.

RM (Old Earth, Paleyan IDist-species immutabilist)
------------------
Ray, I am as you know a YEC and you credit me with convincing you that
natural selection is an unfalsifiable claim of logic.
Would you please indicate to me why my YEC are wrong? Note all the
apostles, early Xtians and Jews believed the earth was 6000 old. If
this is not true, then Xtianity is doomed in any case and all this
effort to expose natural selection as erroneous amounts to nothing
then.

[Stephanus]

Ask Ray, he is the expert in that department. My interest is in how
claims of logic gets confused with falsifiable forces.
As far as I can see thought the whole "mutation" business seems to be
an unfortunate metaphor .

[jillery]

On Tue, 07 May 2013 14:31:29 +0200, Rolf Aalberg
<rolf.a...@gmail.com> wrote:

>On 07.05.2013 07:41, jillery wrote:
>> On Mon, 6 May 2013 19:58:55 -0700 (PDT), Ray Martinez
>> <pyram...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Only pathetic morons believe replication errors produced diversity.
>>
>>
>> Ignoring the pathetic ad hominem, and assuming you don't include
>> yourself as a pathetic moron, I am curious how you conclude that
>> replications errors do not produce diversity. Care to elaborate?
>>
>
>Thank you. We are a lot of pathetic morons, a pity Darwin and can't be
>here to share out fate along with Dawkins, Wilkins and so many others.
>
>Are replication errors replication errors?

I assume that's a trick question.

> It seems to me that changes
>to DNA can be so many things. And we now know that genetic foundations
>for evolutionary changes actually can be present in DNA long before they
>become active.

I'm not sure what you mean. Care to give an example of what you're
talking about in the above paragraph?

>There also is another aspect of natural selection that often is
>overlooked. NS is a stabilizing force by contributing to keeping the
>genome fit. It weeds out both fatal, and the more or less negative
>changes/mutations. Without NS, a species would of course soon become
>extinct if it didn't discriminate between bad, neutral, and of course
>beneficial mutations.

Except that what is bad, neutral, and beneficial mostly depends on the
environment, which changes from time to time and place to place.

>In reproduction and survival/propagation, all that matters is whether an
>individual is a neutral, positive or negative influence on a population.
>
>In other words, without natural selection, life as we know it would not
>be possible. A denial of that force is downright ridiculous.
>
>There's a reason why not all creationists deny the power of NS, except
>some have created loopholes like Dembski with CSI, or Behe with IC but
>you won't believe them unless you have particular reasons.
>
>But I presume RM as always will have the right answer for you.

Ray Martinez or Random Mutation?

[chris thompson]

On May 6, 8:57�am, Rolf Aalberg <rolf.aalb...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 06.05.2013 12:58, Roger Shrubber wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > Rolf Aalberg wrote:
> >> Ray lately has made some appearances at Pandas Thumb. He is not wanted
> >> there since he has not got anything to contribute. He is an even bigger
> >> idiot now than he was a few years ago. I hope he will stay away from PT.
>
> >> A clip from
>

> >>http://pandasthumb.org/archives/2013/05/what-passes-for.html#comment-...
>
> >> :
>
> >> Don t feed the Martinez troll

>
> >> Please do not feed the Martinez troll. I will allow it 1 comment;
> >> further comments will be sent to the Bathroom Wall.
>
> >> Matt Young said:
> >> Why not just ban him completely? He never tells the truth and seems to
> >> exist only to spew hatred.
>
> >> Not my decision. There are several trolls whom I would ban completely,
> >> rather than go to the bother of catching them and sending their dreck to

> >> the BW. But then they would cry Censorship! and create other problems.

> >> Besides, a lot of readers seem to enjoy beating their heads against the
> >> wall by engaging these trolls on the BW, and maybe their excrescences
> >> are instructive at times.
>
> >> Ray says:
> >> Matt: There is nothing trollish and certainly nothing worthy of being
> >> banned by pointing out that the Fundies accept conceptual existence of

> >> Darwin s main scientific claims. It seems you and a few others are upset

> >> with the messenger instead of the message.
>

> >> If you don t want me to post here then just say so, I will ban myself.

Yes. But others really do think as he does. Banning him turns you into
what you oppose.

Chris

[Ray Martinez]

On May 6, 10:41�pm, jillery <69jpi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Mon, 6 May 2013 19:58:55 -0700 (PDT), Ray Martinez
>

> <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >Only pathetic morons believe replication errors produced diversity.
>
> Ignoring the pathetic ad hominem, and assuming you don't include
> yourself as a pathetic moron, I am curious how you conclude that
> replications errors do not produce diversity. �Care to elaborate?

First, you deserve commendation for admitting and defending the basic
claim made by evo theory that says replication errors produced
diversity. I say this because your evo brother, Dana Tweedy, is
currently accusing me of misrepresenting evo theory for pointing out
the basic fact concerning replication errors/accidents producing
diversity. He feels the fact is indefensible before a general
audience. So he asserts the same is not true.

And the best evidence falsifying replication errors not producing
diversity is the wondrous complexity seen in diversity. Sober minds
understand diversity cannot be the product of error, accident, or
chance.

Ray

[Ray Martinez]

On May 6, 3:58�am, Roger Shrubber <rog.shrub...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Rolf Aalberg wrote:
> > Ray lately has made some appearances at Pandas Thumb. He is not wanted
> > there since he has not got anything to contribute. He is an even bigger
> > idiot now than he was a few years ago. I hope he will stay away from PT.
>
> > A clip from
>

> >http://pandasthumb.org/archives/2013/05/what-passes-for.html#comment-...
> > :
>
> > Don t feed the Martinez troll

>
> > Please do not feed the Martinez troll. I will allow it 1 comment;
> > further comments will be sent to the Bathroom Wall.
>
> > Matt Young said:
> > Why not just ban him completely? He never tells the truth and seems to
> > exist only to spew hatred.
>
> > Not my decision. There are several trolls whom I would ban completely,
> > rather than go to the bother of catching them and sending their dreck to

> > the BW. But then they would cry Censorship! and create other problems.

> > Besides, a lot of readers seem to enjoy beating their heads against the
> > wall by engaging these trolls on the BW, and maybe their excrescences
> > are instructive at times.
>
> > Ray says:
> > Matt: There is nothing trollish and certainly nothing worthy of being
> > banned by pointing out that the Fundies accept conceptual existence of

> > Darwin s main scientific claims. It seems you and a few others are upset

> > with the messenger instead of the message.
>

> > If you don t want me to post here then just say so, I will ban myself.

> > And again, all my points are perfectly legitimate. It seems you guys
> > lack whatever it takes to produce a quality response, which is the real
> > reason for the call to have me banned or shipped to Siberia (BW).
> > ******************
>
> > My comment here at t.o. is:
> > It is a matter of policy that people are not banned at PT. Regular
> > cranks like FL, Robert Byers, Steve P and others have long been there.
>
> > They, like Ray, have to be suffered like a fly in the ointment. The
> > problem is not the mere appearance but how they lead to derailing of the
> > threads.
>
> > We know they are creationists and have heard it all before and so they
> > might as well stay away until they've made a breakthrough, like Ray's
> > been threatening to do for many years now, publishing the book that will
> > put Darwin to rest forever.
>
> It is very very wrong to ban Ray.

Objective fact.

Yet it happens frequently at evo controlled boards, including
Dembski's blog Uncommon Descent. One cannot produce ANY post that I've
written that deserves banning. I posted some choice criticism of
Dembski's pro-evolution views and within a few days I was banned by a
couple of his lap dogs.

> The notion that Ray derails threads is misguided.

So true at boards that forbid the practice.

> There exists an over-arching concept/goal of inspiring higher quality
> communication of scientific principles. Ray provides a useful foil.
> The flaws in his screeds are myriad, I assert. But they are not
> unique. And the quest to lucidly address the flaws in bad arguments
> remains.
>
> What is the purpose of The Panda's Thumb? I think one of the purposes
> should be the cultivation of the ability to respond to nonsense.
> A lifetime of experience demonstrates that this is significantly
> more difficult than is trivially anticipated. I don't think that
> the likes of Ray present a profound threat to scientific theories
> from a rigorous perspective but he does provide an opportunity.
>
> Realistically, most of those who respond to Ray will flail and
> produce less than convincing refutations.

So true.

> But, it's a process.
> You read people who do an inadequate job of responding to him
> and you learn something about how to, and how not to, respond
> to pseudoscience. You learn something about how it's easier
> to spew nonsense than to espouse a rational alternative.
>
> As the saying goes, it's a process. It's a valuable process.
> And I think the PT is a place for the process to occur.

And every negative comment that you've made, concerning me, is either
completely true OR completely false. I side, of course, with the
latter. The ONLY REASON I'm banned or censored is because evos don't
possess the intelligence or knowledge to counter what I say. They get
angry and exercise the Stalin that's in them all. And they learned
these Stalinistic practices from their higher brothers in the Supreme
Court and Federal judiciary who have imposed their pro-Naturalism and
evolution bias into the Constitution, rendering Creationism and
Intelligence unconstitutional to advocate in publicly funded
structures.

Ray

[Robert Camp]

Do you understand that you essentially just said, "Replication errors
do not produce diversity because I know that diversity cannot be the
product of replication errors?"

Do you understand how sophomoric that answer is, especially in light
of your continued bleating about others being "pathetic morons?"

As you are capable of cobbling together things resembling coherent
sentences (not to say they include coherent ideas) I refuse to believe
you have no reasoning apparatus whatsoever. However atrophied it might
be, I urge you to try using it. You might enjoy the feeling of getting
something right once in a while.

[Roger Shrubber]

I apologize for the fact that my comments asserted flaws in your
positions without providing any specifics or justifications.
Nobody should consider those broad brush characterizations as
being useful in judging the validity of any of your specific
claims or arguments.

[Ray Martinez]

On May 7, 9:49�am, Stephanus <srensbu...@gmail.com> wrote:

> http://pandasthumb.org/archives/2013/05/what-passes-for.html#comment-Ray wrote:
>
> The YEC Fundies are out of their minds. The science test simply
> reflects their whacked out claims. In response, the evos are laughing
> uncontrollibly and at the same time saddened to see the minds of
> children being brainwashed by absolute nonsense.
>

> Yet let s not lose sight of the fact that these same people, the YECs,

> accept conceptual existence of natural selection, microevolution, and
> macroevolution within (not between) created kinds.
>
> RM (Old Earth, Paleyan IDist-species immutabilist)
> ------------------
> Ray, I am as you know a YEC and you credit me with convincing you that
> natural selection is an unfalsifiable claim of logic.

I credit you with helping me **confirm** how illogical natural
selection really is. The degree of help, provided by your arguments,
is quite significant. You created re-phrase topic after re-phrase
topic that simply showed, over and abundantly, how logically
indefensible natural selection actually is. You ran rings around your
evo opponents.

Yet then again, unfortunately, in this context, when I asked why do
you accept the scientific validity of natural selection? I've never
received an answer. Please don't feel too bad; I essentially asked
Kalkidas the same: Why do you rightly condemn Darwinian evolution as
unscientific Materialism, but accept the scientific validity of
Darwin's main claims (natural selection/species mutability)? He has
never answered either. Atheist-Evolutionist Peter Nyikos finally came
to his aid and posted some unmemorable nonsense in his defense.

> Would you please indicate to me why my YEC are wrong?

Because the Bible says the Earth is very old (reality confirms).

> Note all the
> apostles, early Xtians and Jews believed the earth was 6000 old. If
> this is not true, then Xtianity is doomed in any case and all this
> effort to expose natural selection as erroneous amounts to nothing
> then.

Why is all doomed if the Earth is not young?

It is manifestly RIDICULOUS to say dinosaurs roamed the Earth with
Adamkind and that these creatures were represented on the Ark. These
claims are made-up, based on need (a young Earth). Again, the Bible
clearly indicates that the Earth is quite old. It doesn't say how old
but certain Prophets saw the Earth before the Fall. They saw Lucifer
in Eden before he fell. From Genesis 1:2 onward is a re-creation or
restoration of an Earth devasted by the fall of Lucifer. And God told
Adam to *re-plenish* the Earth, not plenish the Earth. All of these
events imply immense age if considered soberly. Your YEC beliefs are
based on the authority of one particular translation. One particular
translation cannot be used in the fashion that you guys are using it.

Ray

[Ray Martinez]

Very rare objectivity.

Ray

[Ray Martinez]

I concur; your representation of what I said is pathetic, moronic.

Ray

[Roger Shrubber]

And yet, at a molecular level, we understand that replication
errors occur and produce offspring with differences. We even
know the fundamental reasons why a small error rate in copying
is unavoidable. We also know other mechanisms for mutating
DNA and know these to be inevitable. So we know DNA changes.
As a simple matter of English, these molecular changes certainly
produce molecular diversity.

In simple systems like yeast, or bacteria, we can document
these changes in colonies we are investigating and find
new phenotypes emerging. I'm at a loss as to how that is
not diversity happening before our eyes resulting from
mutation.

Similarly, we can survey existing yeast strains that show
greater divergence than occurs during the timescale of human
observation, that look to have diverged some thousands of
years ago, and find many variations in phenotype. We can
map the cause of these differences to specific molecular
differences that are in nature very much like those changes
we observe in the lab.

So, changes at the molecular level are not merely observed,
they are inevitable. They have been directly correlated to
changes in phenotype. Changes in phenotype is diversity.

[Robert Camp]

Indeed?

I'm happy to be corrected. Please go ahead and explain how it is you
know that replication errors do not produce diversity. And do so
without reference to "what everybody knows," or "what sober minds
already understand," or "what pathetic evos would know if they weren't
so ignorant."

In other words, offer a coherent answer to the question.

[Dana Tweedy]

On 5/7/13 1:01 PM, Ray Martinez wrote:
> On May 6, 10:41 pm, jillery <69jpi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Mon, 6 May 2013 19:58:55 -0700 (PDT), Ray Martinez
>>
>> <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>> Only pathetic morons believe replication errors produced diversity.
>>
>> Ignoring the pathetic ad hominem, and assuming you don't include
>> yourself as a pathetic moron, I am curious how you conclude that
>> replications errors do not produce diversity. Care to elaborate?
>
> First, you deserve commendation for admitting and defending the basic
> claim made by evo theory that says replication errors produced
> diversity. I say this because your evo brother, Dana Tweedy, is
> currently accusing me of misrepresenting evo theory for pointing out
> the basic fact concerning replication errors/accidents producing
> diversity.

No, what I'm calling you a liar about is when you equivocate replication
errors with the whole process of evolution. Errors in reproduction of
DNA are the raw material by which evolution works. Implying it's the
whole process of evolution is dishonest.

> He feels the fact is indefensible before a general
> audience. So he asserts the same is not true.

Ray, you don't know anything about how I feel. What I find
"indefensible" is your lying openly about something you know is not
true. Errors in DNA replication are well known to the general public.

>
> And the best evidence falsifying replication errors not producing
> diversity is the wondrous complexity seen in diversity.

Ray, the "wondrous complexity" found in life is a product of the process
of evolution. The process of evolution includes mutations, but
mutations are not all there is to evolution. When you equivocate like
this, you are openly lying.

> Sober minds
> understand diversity cannot be the product of error, accident, or
> chance.

Ray, you wouldn't know what a "sober mind" would understand. You
haven't shown any evidence, or even made any reasonable argument that
diversity cannot be the product of a process that involves DNA
reproduction errors. Errors in DNA reproduction provide the raw
material for diversity. If there were no errors, and DNA reproduced
with complete fidelity, there would be no diversity at all.


DJT

[Mark Isaak]

On 5/7/13 12:30 PM, Ray Martinez wrote:
> [...]

> One cannot produce ANY post that I've
> written that deserves banning.

Note, however, that some people in some places deserve banning not based
on a single post, but for making a large number of posts which, after
the first few, say nothing new.

I don't know if you, Ray, fall into that category anywhere, but I can
easily imagine it happening.

--
Mark Isaak eciton (at) curioustaxonomy (dot) net
"It is certain, from experience, that the smallest grain of natural
honesty and benevolence has more effect on men's conduct, than the most
pompous views suggested by theological theories and systems." - D. Hume

[Dana Tweedy]

Then he represented you correctly.

DJT


>
> Ray
>

[Dana Tweedy]

On 5/7/13 2:06 PM, Ray Martinez wrote:
> On May 7, 9:49 am, Stephanus <srensbu...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> http://pandasthumb.org/archives/2013/05/what-passes-for.html#comment-Ray wrote:
>>
>> The YEC Fundies are out of their minds. The science test simply
>> reflects their whacked out claims. In response, the evos are laughing
>> uncontrollibly and at the same time saddened to see the minds of
>> children being brainwashed by absolute nonsense.
>>
>> Yet let s not lose sight of the fact that these same people, the YECs,
>> accept conceptual existence of natural selection, microevolution, and
>> macroevolution within (not between) created kinds.
>>
>> RM (Old Earth, Paleyan IDist-species immutabilist)
>> ------------------
>> Ray, I am as you know a YEC and you credit me with convincing you that
>> natural selection is an unfalsifiable claim of logic.
>
> I credit you with helping me **confirm** how illogical natural
> selection really is.

You have not established that natural selection is illogical. You have
only asserted that, and refused to accept any correction on your mistakes.

> The degree of help, provided by your arguments,
> is quite significant.

If 0 is significant.....

> You created re-phrase topic after re-phrase
> topic that simply showed, over and abundantly, how logically
> indefensible natural selection actually is. You ran rings around your
> evo opponents.

Ray, nothing has demonstrated that natural selection is impossible, or
illogical, and if Stephie is running around in circles, it's not
"running rings" around anyone.

>
> Yet then again, unfortunately, in this context, when I asked why do
> you accept the scientific validity of natural selection? I've never
> received an answer. Please don't feel too bad; I essentially asked
> Kalkidas the same: Why do you rightly condemn Darwinian evolution as
> unscientific Materialism, but accept the scientific validity of
> Darwin's main claims (natural selection/species mutability)? He has
> never answered either. Atheist-Evolutionist Peter Nyikos finally came
> to his aid and posted some unmemorable nonsense in his defense.

Ray, on the other hand has never produced a single thing to support his
assertion that natural selection is illogical. He's asserted that he
doesn't understand natural selection, no matter how simply, and basic
the explanations he's been given.

From this, Ray claims he "understands" natural selection to be
'nonsense'. When asked why it's "nonsense", it's because he doesn't
understand it.... Obviously something is only "nonsense" if Ray can't
be bothered to understand it.

>
>> Would you please indicate to me why my YEC are wrong?
>
> Because the Bible says the Earth is very old (reality confirms).

The Bible doesn't say how old the Earth is, Ray. If you think it does,
please provide chapter and verse.

>
>> Note all the
>> apostles, early Xtians and Jews believed the earth was 6000 old. If
>> this is not true, then Xtianity is doomed in any case and all this
>> effort to expose natural selection as erroneous amounts to nothing
>> then.
>
> Why is all doomed if the Earth is not young?

The Bible doesn't say what the age of the Earth is.

>
> It is manifestly RIDICULOUS to say dinosaurs roamed the Earth with
> Adamkind and that these creatures were represented on the Ark.

It's just as ridiculous to say that natural selection is nonsense.

> These
> claims are made-up, based on need (a young Earth).

Just as your own claims about natural selection are made up.

> Again, the Bible
> clearly indicates that the Earth is quite old.

Where does it do that, Ray? Chapter and Verse, please.

> It doesn't say how old
> but certain Prophets saw the Earth before the Fall.

Which "prophets?"

> They saw Lucifer
> in Eden before he fell. From Genesis 1:2 onward is a re-creation or
> restoration of an Earth devasted by the fall of Lucifer.

Evidence for this assertion, please.

> And God told
> Adam to *re-plenish* the Earth, not plenish the Earth.

Ray, the ancient Hebrew does not use the word "replenish". That's a
word in English, which was used to translate the earlier words.
See:
http://www.apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=11&article=1146

" The Hebrew word, which unfortunately is translated �replenish� in the
King James Version of 1611, does not mean to �replenish.� That word is
male�, and means simply �to fill� (Davidson, 1863, p. 488; cf., Brown,
Driver, and Briggs, 1962, p. 22; see also, Harris, Archer, and Waltke,
1980, 1:505-506). Interesting is the fact that this very same word is
used in Genesis 1:22 where the command is given by God to �fill the
waters of the seas.� Later versions of the Bible (ASV, RSV, NASB, NIV,
et al.) have rendered the verb properly as merely �fill.�

> All of these
> events imply immense age if considered soberly.

Actually, it's just your own assumption, without any Biblical support.

> Your YEC beliefs are
> based on the authority of one particular translation.

Whereas your own aren't based on anything at all..... YEC, and your own
assumption are both contradicted by the evidence.

> One particular
> translation cannot be used in the fashion that you guys are using it.

Nor can any reasonable person use it in the fashion you are using it
either.

DJT

[Ray Martinez]

George Gaylord Simpson:

"Man is the result of a purposeless and materialistic process that did
not have him in mind. He was not planned."

Jacques Monod:

"announced that 'the mechanism of Darwinism is at last securely
founded,' and that as a result 'man has to understand that he is a
mere accident.'"

Diversity is a general term used to refer to living things, past and
present. So, in essence, evolutionary theory, as represented in your
commentary, seen above, says life, including human life, is the
product of replication errors, alternatively called accident or
chance.

We contend, based solely on appearance and observation, that diversity
and its wondrous complexity, does not reflect any of the following
concepts: error, accident, chance, purposelessness, or that which
looks unplanned----but just the opposite. Specifically, organization
cannot result from any of these adjectives, nor is the same an
expectation. If the Evolutionist should disagree then perhaps he or
she could create a list of adjectives that rule out the possibility of
intricate order and organization? Next: If the alleged selection
process, or that which handles divesity lastly, cannot be described by
any of the adjectives mentioned, what is Monod and Simpson talking
about?

Ray

PS: I'm also specifically addressing the above message to Robert Camp
and Dana Tweedy.

[Dana Tweedy]

Well, of course you are wrong. Even if what he said was not
"completely true" it doesn't have to be completely false either.

> The ONLY REASON I'm banned or censored is because evos don't
> possess the intelligence or knowledge to counter what I say.

Actually, Ray, the 'evos' are much more intelligent than you (granted,
that's not saying much). The reason you keep getting banned is because
you can't argue honestly, or coherently. You always start with logical
fallacies, and eventually resort to name calling, and being personally
offensive.

> They get
> angry and exercise the Stalin that's in them all.

Few people get angry with you, Ray. Most are either amused, or bemused
by your claims. Of course, you don't recognize the "Stalin" in
yourself when you start talking about how things will be in your
theocratic utopia...

> And they learned
> these Stalinistic practices from their higher brothers in the Supreme
> Court and Federal judiciary who have imposed their pro-Naturalism and
> evolution bias into the Constitution,

There is no "pro evolution" bias in the Federal Judiciary. That's your
own error as the courts are generally found to support reason, and
reality, instead of your own bizarre fantasy world.

> rendering Creationism and
> Intelligence unconstitutional to advocate in publicly funded
> structures.

Creationism, and "Intelligence" have never been found to be
Unconstitutional. Creationism is a religious belief, and as such is
protected by the 1st amendment. No one can force you to renounce such
a belief, no matter how silly and against reality it might appear.
Likewise intelligence is why most educated persons reject creationism,
and find it's subset of "Intelligent design" to be a sham.


Face it Ray, you can't support your claims with evidence, or argument.
That's why you cry about the rules of law, and the rules of science
being against you.


DJT



>
> Ray
>

[jillery]

On Tue, 7 May 2013 12:01:19 -0700 (PDT), Ray Martinez
<pyram...@yahoo.com> wrote:

>On May 6, 10:41�pm, jillery <69jpi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Mon, 6 May 2013 19:58:55 -0700 (PDT), Ray Martinez
>>
>> <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> >Only pathetic morons believe replication errors produced diversity.
>>
>> Ignoring the pathetic ad hominem, and assuming you don't include
>> yourself as a pathetic moron, I am curious how you conclude that
>> replications errors do not produce diversity. �Care to elaborate?
>
>First, you deserve commendation for admitting and defending the basic
>claim made by evo theory that says replication errors produced
>diversity. I say this because your evo brother, Dana Tweedy, is
>currently accusing me of misrepresenting evo theory for pointing out
>the basic fact concerning replication errors/accidents producing
>diversity. He feels the fact is indefensible before a general
>audience. So he asserts the same is not true.

Since I am very skeptical of what you claim other people say, I do
hope you will cite where Dana says what you claim he says. Of course,
he may very well be right. I admit and defend nothing. I am merely
asking a question.

>And the best evidence falsifying replication errors not producing
>diversity is the wondrous complexity seen in diversity. Sober minds
>understand diversity cannot be the product of error, accident, or
>chance.

Why not? Diversity simply means differences. Error, accident, and
chance can all cause differences and so diversity.

[Dana Tweedy]

That's Simpson's opinion. Of course, there's no evidence to suggest
humans were planned. If one chooses to believe that God used evolution
to create humans, there's no evidence to say no.

>
> Jacques Monod:
>
> "announced that 'the mechanism of Darwinism is at last securely
> founded,' and that as a result 'man has to understand that he is a
> mere accident.'"

Again, that's his opinion. If one chooses to believe that humans are
not "mere accident", but part of a God's overall plan, evolutionary
theory can't tell you no.

>
> Diversity is a general term used to refer to living things, past and
> present.

It's used to refer to the vast differences in living things, past and
present. If living things were all the same, they wouldn't be diverse.

> So, in essence, evolutionary theory, as represented in your
> commentary, seen above, says life, including human life, is the
> product of replication errors, alternatively called accident or
> chance.

Which is the lie you keep telling. Replication errors is not the whole
mechanism of evolution. Natural selection is why "chance" is not a
proper description.

>
> We contend,

who is the "we"?

> based solely on appearance and observation, that diversity
> and its wondrous complexity, does not reflect any of the following
> concepts: error, accident, chance, purposelessness, or that which
> looks unplanned----but just the opposite.

You are committing the logical fallacy of assuming your conclusion. You
aren't basing your claim on appearance, or observation, but on wishful
thinking. You want there to be evidence of a supernatural being, so you
mistakenly assume you can tell what does, or does not look designed.

You don't grasp that processes that don't have a mind, and don't have
the ability to plan can often produce things that superficially look
"designed".

You seem to think that if something is the result of natural
processes, it would have to look totally chaotic. This is not the case,
as can be demonstrated over, and over again.

> Specifically, organization
> cannot result from any of these adjectives, nor is the same an
> expectation.

There is a massive amount of evidence that shows this assumption to be
wrong. By the way, "adjectives" are just a way of adding description,
not actual processes. Plants don't photosynthesize because they are
described as "green", but because they contain chlorophyll, which
happens to be perceived as green. "Purposelessness" is not a feature
of a natural process, it's merely a description of it's lack of capacity
for intent.

> If the Evolutionist should disagree then perhaps he or
> she could create a list of adjectives that rule out the possibility of
> intricate order and organization?

Why? Adjectives are merely particles of speech. They don't restrain
natural processes. Intricate order, and organization can be produced by
unplanned, and undirected processes.

> Next: If the alleged selection
> process, or that which handles divesity lastly, cannot be described by
> any of the adjectives mentioned, what is Monod and Simpson talking
> about?

They are talking about the process of evolution, which does not require
intervention by a supernatural being to operate. Their statements above
are expressions of opinion, not a limitation to the way nature works.

>
> Ray
>
> PS: I'm also specifically addressing the above message to Robert Camp
> and Dana Tweedy.
>

Are you going to run away from the answers again?


DJT

[jillery]

On Tue, 07 May 2013 15:56:13 -0600, Dana Tweedy
<reddf...@gmail.com> wrote:

>On 5/7/13 1:01 PM, Ray Martinez wrote:
>> On May 6, 10:41 pm, jillery <69jpi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> On Mon, 6 May 2013 19:58:55 -0700 (PDT), Ray Martinez
>>>
>>> <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>> Only pathetic morons believe replication errors produced diversity.
>>>
>>> Ignoring the pathetic ad hominem, and assuming you don't include
>>> yourself as a pathetic moron, I am curious how you conclude that
>>> replications errors do not produce diversity. Care to elaborate?
>>
>> First, you deserve commendation for admitting and defending the basic
>> claim made by evo theory that says replication errors produced
>> diversity. I say this because your evo brother, Dana Tweedy, is
>> currently accusing me of misrepresenting evo theory for pointing out
>> the basic fact concerning replication errors/accidents producing
>> diversity.
>
>No, what I'm calling you a liar about is when you equivocate replication
>errors with the whole process of evolution. Errors in reproduction of
>DNA are the raw material by which evolution works. Implying it's the
>whole process of evolution is dishonest.

Yeppers, I assumed what Ray said you said is effectively the opposite
of what you said. As you know, Ray is very bad at paraphrasing.

[Roger Shrubber]

I have provided you with very low level specific observations
of what mutations are, and how they are observed to produce
variation in phenotype. You begin your response with high level
projected consequences. Am I to conclude that you are
rejecting observations because you don't like where they
lead?

> Diversity is a general term used to refer to living things, past and
> present. So, in essence, evolutionary theory, as represented in your
> commentary, seen above, says life, including human life, is the
> product of replication errors, alternatively called accident or
> chance.

I would challenge you to find "Diversity" defined as such.
If you want to discuss the concepts above, you would probably
use the word diversity in construction with other terms but
that is a far cry from embedding the entire concepts into the
singular word diversity.

But beyond contrived distortions of the English language, you
are correct that:
1 the observation of molecular changes that are necessarily
coupled to replication of DNA
2 the observation that changes in DNA can produce changes
in phenotypes
3 the observations of the natural history of genomes and the
changes in phenotypes, modeled mathematically

These observations lead to the conclusion that the observed
diversity on Earth, including humans, is consistent with natural
changes which occur at the molecular level by processes that
are observed and predicted to behave stochastically. That
is randomly. Of course just because the input signal is random
does not mean the ultimate result is random because there
is selective biasing. Many processes that begin with random
processes have biasing selection that produce order.

> We contend, based solely on appearance and observation, that diversity
> and its wondrous complexity, does not reflect any of the following
> concepts: error, accident, chance, purposelessness, or that which
> looks unplanned----but just the opposite. Specifically, organization
> cannot result from any of these adjectives, nor is the same an
> expectation. If the Evolutionist should disagree then perhaps he or
> she could create a list of adjectives that rule out the possibility of
> intricate order and organization?

I fear your usage of _diversity_ is loaded in what I consider to
be an unnatural and incoherent way. Most importantly, I do not
know if you intend this as a general principle or are restricting
yourself to living organisms. If you mean _the observed diversity
of the biosphere_, it would be better to spell it out to avoid
unnecessary confusion arising from definitions that are unique
to you.

Next, you have the cart before the horse with the rest of your
description of adjectives. Words do not control reality. They
are tools that attempt to communicate reality. And invoking
special exceptions for a suite of words that cannot be used
when coupled to _diversity_sensu_Ray_ is nothing more than
asserting your preferred conclusion.

Meanwhile, to the heart of the matter, you are wrong about
stochastic processes being unable to be the seeds for
observations of spectacularly patterned intricacy. The
obvious example is snowflakes, rooted in random molecular
interactions, filtered through chemical preferences, and
producing mathematically restricted patterns that are
both diverse and constrained. Order from chaos.

Perhaps you will want to retort that the magnitude of order
is not comparable but that is different than your first
argument which would forbid any order from chaos.
(I'm sure you've addressed snowflakes before, but I
confess I have not followed you closely enough to recall
your response)

> Next: If the alleged selection
> process, or that which handles divesity lastly, cannot be described by
> any of the adjectives mentioned, what is Monod and Simpson talking
> about?

Selection is bias. It is a weighting function that changes
a probability distribution. A sieve changes the probability
of objects passing through it as a function of their size.
If the holes are of uniform size, objects with a radius
significantly less than the radius of the holes pass with
a high probability that decreases until the radius exceeds
the size of the holes. Natural sieves exist that were not
built to purpose. They are therefore, purposeless. They
behave the same way independently of the your or my
intention. You or I can try to design a sieve and it will
function dependent on its physical structure regardless
of our purpose, hopes or dreams in crafting it.

Selection bias, like a sieve, exists based on environmental
factors that exist outside of the requirements of a
purpose. An intelligent agent might alter environmental
factors to change selection bias but whatever changes
occur, they will be ignorant of the intelligent agents
intent. Purpose is therefore an unnecessary and elusive
connection.

It is a cold hard reality. Ultimately, I think that Monod
and Simpson were speaking to that cold reality that
observes that no purpose is required to account for
what is observed as life. It is clear that you reject
this conclusion but not at all clear how you can
reject it as a matter of logic and observation.

[Dana Tweedy]

On 5/7/13 8:35 PM, jillery wrote:
> On Tue, 07 May 2013 15:56:13 -0600, Dana Tweedy
> <reddf...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On 5/7/13 1:01 PM, Ray Martinez wrote:
>>> On May 6, 10:41 pm, jillery <69jpi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> On Mon, 6 May 2013 19:58:55 -0700 (PDT), Ray Martinez
>>>>
>>>> <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>>> Only pathetic morons believe replication errors produced diversity.
>>>>
>>>> Ignoring the pathetic ad hominem, and assuming you don't include
>>>> yourself as a pathetic moron, I am curious how you conclude that
>>>> replications errors do not produce diversity. Care to elaborate?
>>>
>>> First, you deserve commendation for admitting and defending the basic
>>> claim made by evo theory that says replication errors produced
>>> diversity. I say this because your evo brother, Dana Tweedy, is
>>> currently accusing me of misrepresenting evo theory for pointing out
>>> the basic fact concerning replication errors/accidents producing
>>> diversity.
>>
>> No, what I'm calling you a liar about is when you equivocate replication
>> errors with the whole process of evolution. Errors in reproduction of
>> DNA are the raw material by which evolution works. Implying it's the
>> whole process of evolution is dishonest.
>
>
> Yeppers, I assumed what Ray said you said is effectively the opposite
> of what you said. As you know, Ray is very bad at paraphrasing.

He's not even very good at openly lying. He lies all the time, but is
very bad at it.


DJT

[Rolf]

"Dana Tweedy" <reddf...@gmail.com> skrev i melding
news:YradnRnjO7KQDxTM...@giganews.com...

We are spared all that here. We got our constititution in 1814 and it may
have been influence by the SU constitution; but ours state explicitly that
the Christian religion is the state religion, with teh king as the highest
'custidan of the Church.

"Religion" was a subject in the curriculum at prioamry school and I got top
grades, because I only read the lesson once and that was enough. My next
triumph was in the last year when we got to study the Eart, the planets and
such. The last day of my 6 years in school our teacher declared "Mr. Aalberg
knows everything except his school work."

I presume the way we relate to religion may have something with our Viking
heritage to do; Christianity was rammed down our throats by King Olav (St.
Olav):

12 years old he went on his first viking raid. He spent the winter with Duke
Richard II of Normandie (1013-1014) He was baptized in Rouen (Capital of
Normandie) In 1014 he contributed o the Anglo-Saxon king Adalred II's
recapture of London from the Danes, and tore down the London bridge. After
returning to Norway he employed the classical Christian methods introducing
the new God to the nation.

No "pro evolution" bias here, just common sense, pragmatism, an American
'invention'!
That's all, thank you all for an interesting thread!

> There is no "pro evolution" bias in the Federal Judiciary. That's your
> own error as the courts are generally found to support reason, and
> reality, instead of your own bizarre fantasy world.
>
>
>
>
> > rendering Creationism and
> > Intelligence unconstitutional to advocate in publicly funded
> > structures.
>
> Creationism, and "Intelligence" have never been found to be

> Unconstitutional. Creationism is a religious blief, and as such is

[Ray Martinez]

The examples chosen in your previous comments (yeast and bacteria) do
not reflect the main object of explanation of the Creation/Evolution
debate. Origin of sexually reproducing animal species, not bacteria
and yeast, are the main object of explanation in said debate. Paley
analogized the same as "watches" and Darwin simply referred to said
object as "species" (hence "On The Origin Of Species By Means Of
Natural Selection," 1859). Because your examples are subordinate or
"easier to explain" than the main object the same cannot be used, in a
primary fashion, to support the claims of evolutionary theory. In
essence, he who explains the origin of species (the hardest to
explain) then earns the right to explain easier phenomena (low level
changes in bacteria, for example).

> You begin your response with high level
> projected consequences. Am I to conclude that you are
> rejecting observations because you don't like where they
> lead?

Don't get me wrong; IF low level *evolutionary* change occurs, then
"high level projected consequences" (cumulative selection) comes with
it and cannot be denied to have occurred as well. It's the YEC
Fundamentalist who denies the latter while generally accepting the
former. Said denial is wholly illogical. But I am not a YEC
Fundamentalist; rather, I am a OEC species immutabilist: the concept
of microevolution does not exist in nature. Variation, in and by
itself, is not evolution.

And I don't reject observations; rather, I reject certain
interpretations of certain observations. And evolution is inferred,
not observed.

> > Diversity is a general term used to refer to living things, past and
> > present. So, in essence, evolutionary theory, as represented in your
> > commentary, seen above, says life, including human life, is the
> > product of replication errors, alternatively called accident or
> > chance.
>
> I would challenge you to find "Diversity" defined as such.

Diversity doesn't refer to all living things, past and present? You're
quibbling.

> If you want to discuss the concepts above, you would probably
> use the word diversity in construction with other terms but
> that is a far cry from embedding the entire concepts into the
> singular word diversity.
>
> But beyond contrived distortions of the English language, you
> are correct that:
> 1 the observation of molecular changes that are necessarily
> coupled to replication of DNA
> 2 the observation that changes in DNA can produce changes
> in phenotypes
> 3 the observations of the natural history of genomes and the
> changes in phenotypes, modeled mathematically
>
> These observations lead to the conclusion that the observed
> diversity on Earth, including humans, is consistent with natural
> changes which occur at the molecular level by processes that
> are observed and predicted to behave stochastically. That
> is randomly.

You've just reiterated the claim that replication error is responsible
for the production of diversity. The Simpson and Monod quotes said the
same. The claim is highly illogical. Both evolutionary authorities and
design authorities agree that diversity reflects high quality
organized complexity and that this phenomena is the main object of
explanation within the main object of explanation (species) in the
Creation/Evolution debate. Thus organized complexity cannot be a
logical expectation or outcome of the following concepts: error,
accident, random, chance. Again, logically speaking, if you should
disagree, please tell us which concepts have correspondence with
organization or order and which concepts do not?

> Of course just because the input signal is random
> does not mean the ultimate result is random because there
> is selective biasing. Many processes that begin with random
> processes have biasing selection that produce order.

These comments say a non-random process handles the admittedly random
process; thus the effect of order or organization is logically
appeased, however. One can easily find scientific and scholarly
descriptions of the non-random process that contradict, like
"mindless," "unguided," "undirected," and "unintelligent." Again, if
these concepts have correspondence with organization and order, then
which concepts do not?

> > We contend, based solely on appearance and observation, that diversity
> > and its wondrous complexity, does not reflect any of the following
> > concepts: error, accident, chance, purposelessness, or that which
> > looks unplanned----but just the opposite. Specifically, organization
> > cannot result from any of these adjectives, nor is the same an
> > expectation. If the Evolutionist should disagree then perhaps he or
> > she could create a list of adjectives that rule out the possibility of
> > intricate order and organization?
>
> I fear your usage of _diversity_ is loaded in what I consider to
> be an unnatural and incoherent way. Most importantly, I do not
> know if you intend this as a general principle or are restricting
> yourself to living organisms. If you mean _the observed diversity
> of the biosphere_, it would be better to spell it out to avoid
> unnecessary confusion arising from definitions that are unique
> to you.

Well, I have now done so in my previous comments.

> Next, you have the cart before the horse with the rest of your
> description of adjectives. Words do not control reality. They
> are tools that attempt to communicate reality.

No, the cart is not before the horse; let me briefly explain. Words
are but concepts and concepts are claims that say a corresponding
thing, object or phenomenon exists. If a corresponding thing, object
or phenomenon does not exist then the concept or word is a false
claim.

In the context of our discussion I am saying the concept of "random
mutation" and "natural selection" do not correspond to any effect (in
this case order or organized complexity) and therefore the claim is
illogical. Note that my conclusion does not, in this case, say the
claim is false, only that it is illogical. But I am, of course, saying
the claim is false as well since no effect can be said to reflect any
of the stated adjectives or descriptions.

> And invoking
> special exceptions for a suite of words that cannot be used
> when coupled to _diversity_sensu_Ray_ is nothing more than
> asserting your preferred conclusion.

No, that's MY claim: YOU are demanding special exemptions from
accepted logic. Error does not have correspondence with high quality
organization.

> Meanwhile, to the heart of the matter, you are wrong about
> stochastic processes being unable to be the seeds for
> observations of spectacularly patterned intricacy.

My arguments, seen above, *prove* otherwise.

> The obvious example is snowflakes, rooted in random molecular
> interactions, filtered through chemical preferences, and
> producing mathematically restricted patterns that are
> both diverse and constrained. Order from chaos.

We disagree: Sound logic says the effect (order) falsifies the
description of the cause (chaos); this is exactly why I said earlier
that we reject certain interpretations of certain observations.

I will address the remainder of your message ASAP....

Ray

> reject it as a matter of logic and observation.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

[Gary Bohn]

On Monday, May 6, 2013 3:36:02 AM UTC-6, Rolf Aalberg wrote:
> Ray lately has made some appearances at Pandas Thumb. He is not wanted
>
> there since he has not got anything to contribute. He is an even bigger
>
> idiot now than he was a few years ago. I hope he will stay away from PT.
>
>
>
> A clip from
>
>
>

> http://pandasthumb.org/archives/2013/05/what-passes-for.html#comment-panels

> Rolf

Where's the fun in ignoring the Ray Troll?

[SkyEyes]

On May 8, 2:12�pm, "Rolf" <rolf.aalb...@gmail.com> wrote:

> I presume the way we relate to religion may have something with our Viking
> heritage to do;

Rolf, my brother! My ancestors were Vikings, too.

Brenda Nelson, A.A.#34
skyeyes nine at cox dot net OR
skyeyes nine at yahoo dot com

[Roger Shrubber]

I choose simple model organisms because it is easiest to find
crystal clear examples, and because they don't carry as much
emotional baggage. Also, your claims about what can be done
are pure manufacture. I grant you that demonstrating that
yeast can evolve by natural selection is not proof that humans
did. But I don't need to earn the right to show that evolution
occurs in yeast.

> > You begin your response with high level
> > projected consequences. Am I to conclude that you are
> > rejecting observations because you don't like where they
> > lead?

> Don't get me wrong; IF low level *evolutionary* change occurs, then
> "high level projected consequences" (cumulative selection) comes with
> it and cannot be denied to have occurred as well. It's the YEC
> Fundamentalist who denies the latter while generally accepting the
> former. Said denial is wholly illogical. But I am not a YEC
> Fundamentalist; rather, I am a OEC species immutabilist: the concept
> of microevolution does not exist in nature. Variation, in and by
> itself, is not evolution.

Actually, it is evolution. However, what biologists claim to
observe as evolution is more indeed even more than just
the creation of variation.

> And I don't reject observations; rather, I reject certain
> interpretations of certain observations. And evolution is inferred,
> not observed.

The generation of variation is as much an observation as
most things that qualify, in the standard colloquial usage, for that
label.
But I'm unclear on your position.

Do you acknowledge that DNA replication is observed to produce
diversity at the molecular level (DNA sequence)?

Do you acknowledge that the observed differences in sequence
are observed to produce phenotypic variation?

> > > Diversity is a general term used to refer to living things, past and
> > > present. So, in essence, evolutionary theory, as represented in your
> > > commentary, seen above, says life, including human life, is the
> > > product of replication errors, alternatively called accident or
> > > chance.
>
> > I would challenge you to find "Diversity" defined as such.
>
> Diversity doesn't refer to all living things, past and present? You're
> quibbling.

No, as a naked word it doesn't. You will not find a biology textbook
with "diversity" in the glossary with your accompanying definition.
It has its basic English definition and then can be used in constructs
that include describing the wealth of variation observed in the
biosphere. But "diversity" does not hold any magic meaning in
biology.

I'm only making a big deal about this because it is very hard
to communicate when one party presumes words mean things
that they do not mean to the other party.

> > If you want to discuss the concepts above, you would probably
> > use the word diversity in construction with other terms but
> > that is a far cry from embedding the entire concepts into the
> > singular word diversity.

> > But beyond contrived distortions of the English language, you
> > are correct that:
> > 1 the observation of molecular changes that are necessarily
> > coupled to replication of DNA
> > 2 the observation that changes in DNA can produce changes
> > in phenotypes
> > 3 the observations of the natural history of genomes and the
> > changes in phenotypes, modeled mathematically
>
> > These observations lead to the conclusion that the observed
> > diversity on Earth, including humans, is consistent with natural
> > changes which occur at the molecular level by processes that
> > are observed and predicted to behave stochastically. That
> > is randomly.

> You've just reiterated the claim that replication error is responsible
> for the production of diversity. The Simpson and Monod quotes said the
> same. The claim is highly illogical.

The fact that they (replication "errors") produce molecular level
diversity is both an observation and a necessary consequence of
our understanding of the chemistry involved. You have issues
with the word diversity so call it DNA sequence variants.

DNA sequence variants also produce phenotypic variants.
This is an observation. It is a highly reproduced observation.
We can even somewhat successfully predict some of the
phenotypes we can get by hypothetical sequence variants
and confirm some of our predictions.

To this point, it is not only logical, it is observed.

Now there's added baggage to what you call "diversity"
but that's OK, my logical pathway is not complete
at this point.

> Both evolutionary authorities and
> design authorities agree that diversity reflects high quality
> organized complexity and that this phenomena is the main object of
> explanation within the main object of explanation (species) in the
> Creation/Evolution debate.

I don't much listen to authorities. Further, it is unclear what you
mean when you use the term "diversity". What more explicit
phrase can I substitute in its place to learn your meaning.
Perhaps _the total sum of all organisms observed in
the biosphere_? Or are you claiming a pattern of variation
observed in the biosphere? Or are you looking in an
ecological sense at the interactions between organisms
within populations and across populations?

The term _organized complexity_ is similarly problematic.

I'm used to concepts like mass or temperature that one
can measure. With them you can develop rules for
how they change. Masses add. Temperature does not.
I can explore the distinction between mass and weight.
People use the term complexity is many ways that
turn out to be mutually exclusive.

If I have complex object A and complex object B and
put them together is the total complexity of A+B the sum
of their individual complexities? Is it the average?
Is it the product of the two complexities?

I have seen people use the term "complexity" in
ways that would have the total follow each of those
rules, addition, averaging and multiplication. And
then, they switch and use it in a sense that requires
different math while going on as if they meant the
same thing next time they used "complexity".

And you've added "organized" as a modifier. In
this case, because organized can me different things
we have a multiplication of the complexities of
meaning for each word. Unless you can provide
discrete didactic examples of what your term means
we are destined to simple talk past each other.

> Thus organized complexity cannot be a
> logical expectation or outcome of �the following concepts: error,
> accident, random, chance. Again, logically speaking, if you should
> disagree, please tell us which concepts have correspondence with
> organization or order and which concepts do not?

Errors can produce accurate results.
A student will use the wrong formula and further make a
mathematical error but occasionally still produce the right
final result.

Random roles of the dice can be integrated to produce
highly organized distributions. So adding up lots of
random things produces a highly structured result.
Your presumption that random or chance events have
to lead to disordered chaos is observed to be flawed.

> > Of course just because the input signal is random
> > does not mean the ultimate result is random because there
> > is selective biasing. Many processes that begin with random
> > processes have biasing selection that produce order.
>
> These comments say a non-random process handles the admittedly random
> process; thus the effect of order or organization is logically
> appeased, however. One can easily find scientific and scholarly
> descriptions of the non-random process that contradict, like
> "mindless," "unguided," "undirected," and "unintelligent." Again, if
> these concepts have correspondence with organization and order, then
> which concepts do not?

I'm having trouble parsing what you wrote above.
Ultimately, random processes produce results from a distribution of
possibilities. A fair six sided die land on any of 6 sides with an
equal probability yielding a total of 1 - 6, evenly distributed.

A pair of such dice produce a distribution that is still based upon
random events but it yields a distribution that is not evenly
distributed for all totals. The dice did not become "guided"
or "directed" between the two cases. The results are complex
in some meanings of the term. The organization is mathematically
controlled. I will spare you too many more basic examples but
if the mathematical function that describe the distribution have
more variables, the distribution can become more complex
in the straightforward sense that it required more variables
to characterize it. That is one of the standard meanings of
complexity.

So contrary to your gut impression, processes that have
random nature at a low level are not precluded from developing
structured outcomes. Order can emerge from chaos and
it is observed to emerge from chaos. You want some
language to describe a type of chaos from which no
order can be derived but that is a flawed understanding
of the universe. It is contrary to observation.

It's as if you think any sense of randomness is like a
zero value so that no matter what you multiple by, you
still are left with zero. You want a set of words to map
to this zero value so you can linguistically project that
because you had a linguistic equivalent of a zero, any
product using that adjective must yield a zero. But randomness
doesn't work that way and neither does language.

The types of molecular variation that exist with DNA replication
is chemically/biochemically controlled. The types of organisms
that survive to reproduce is environmentally controlled. Environments
are complex things in and of themselves in the sense that they
are the result of many independent and mutually dependent
variables. Complex controlling "math" is observed to provide
for the potential of complex outcomes. And I mean that both
inclusive of and outside of biological contexts.
In biological contexts, the environment even changes with
feedback from the individual and other organisms.
This does not require the development of complexity
(in the sense of life forms that survive being shaped by
many different competing and interacting variables),
but it permits it. And in a very real sense, it "encourages"
the development of complexity (same sense) merely by
opening the door to the possibility. Put another way, there
are so many possibilities to develop "complexity" that the
integrated probability of doing so approaches 1.

[eridanus]

El lunes, 6 de mayo de 2013 13:57:13 UTC+1, Rolf escribi�:
> On 06.05.2013 12:58, Roger Shrubber wrote:

> --------------
> The problem is that Ray shuns intelligent discourse. He rejects all
> science, evidence, or facts. He insist that there is no such thing as
> natural selection. Mutations are errors and as such they are useless.
> Whatever a scientist or spokesperson for evolution says is dismissed as
> irrelevant because they are by default atheists, and all atheists are
> liars, everything one might say is labelled 'predictable' because he is
> a Darwinist. evolutionist, atheist or whatever and that's that. Besides,
> they'll all rot in hell.
>
> He rejects William Dembski, Casey Luskin and other creationists because
> they don't fit his definition of a true Christian Paleyan immutabilist.
>
> It seems to me that most of the creationists we find at PT or AtBC at
> least make en attempt at addressing scientific issues, but Ray is
> playing a game of rhetorics, almost like how to prove the moon is made
> of green cheese.
>
> His On Topic: Pollock joke is a good example.
> No, I don't find Ray either useful or amusing, he's a pathetic moron.

There is not any rational approach to manage this problem of Ray. Have
you ever tried to argue with people that believe in ghosts? Or with
people that believe in UFOs and the government is hiding the proves?

Convictions are a category of thinking more related with psychology
than with science. Once one stray out of trivial matters, there is
not other than... reasonable doubts or convictions. In science we
have not dogmas, but reasonable doubts instead. While out of science
you can have convictions, that contain "certitudes", "truths" and "lies"
There us a detector of "lies", in "Scientology" that can be like a
detector of lies when they are interrogating you.

In a way, the cults and pseudo-science cults are for people that still
remain in a state of childhood dependency. They need a sort of father
in chief, and the rest are all brothers and sisters. You can see the
analogy. Other analogy is when you are a part of an sheep herd, and
you are like in the parable the lost sheep, and the priest is the
shepherd. Then, being part of a religion or cult is like being part
of an herd of sheep. As a sheep, you attend only to graze and to take
care of the dogs, that go after the strayed sheep and push them back
towards the herd.

Eridanus

[Rolf Aalberg]

Hi sister, AFAIK there still are people honoring the Asa faith and have
ceremonial get-togethers here, but I suppose it more for fun than dead
serious.

Rolf

[Stephanus]

On May 7, 10:57�pm, Mark Isaak <eci...@curioustax.onomy.net> wrote:
> On 5/7/13 12:30 PM, Ray Martinez wrote:
>
> > [...]
> > One cannot produce ANY post that I've
> > written that deserves banning.
>
> Note, however, that some people in some places deserve banning not based
> on a single post, but for making a large number of posts which, after
> the first few, say nothing new.
>
> I don't know if you, Ray, fall into that category anywhere, but I can
> easily imagine it happening.

Dana Tweedy certainly does, will you ban him please, very please? He
clutters up my Google reader and I am not the only
person who can't understand why Ray even replies to him, he only adds
noise.
Dana Tweedy and a lot of others should rather setup their own wiki
pages, state your case and link to it here, this cuts
down on spam. In my personal case I only make the odd post every two
months, the rest is at
http://tautology.wikia.com/wiki/Tautology_Wiki

See Dana, no need to engage in incessant passive aggressive behavior
towards Ray.

I only read
Nyikos
Burkhard
Heart sugeon from France, forgot his handle now.
Wilkins (who does not say much recently)
Ray Matinez
Roy Okimoto, but he seems to have been traumatized by Nyikos, he is
on the verge of having a breakdown.

I do not want to read:
Tweedy
Iridanus or something like that , the spanish poster, his English is
unreadable.

[Gary Bohn]

Did I just hear Ray's head asplode?

[Gary Bohn]

Ray has been on TO for more than a decade, I doubt he's suddenly become bannable. I think Dana has too.

[Ray Martinez]

On May 9, 8:03�am, Stephanus <srensbu...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On May 7, 10:57�pm, Mark Isaak <eci...@curioustax.onomy.net> wrote:
>
> > On 5/7/13 12:30 PM, Ray Martinez wrote:
>
> > > [...]
> > > One cannot produce ANY post that I've
> > > written that deserves banning.
>
> > Note, however, that some people in some places deserve banning not based
> > on a single post, but for making a large number of posts which, after
> > the first few, say nothing new.
>
> > I don't know if you, Ray, fall into that category anywhere, but I can
> > easily imagine it happening.
>
> Dana Tweedy certainly does, will you ban him please, very please? He
> clutters up my Google reader and I am not the only
> person who can't understand why Ray even replies to him, he only adds
> noise.
> Dana Tweedy and a lot of others should rather setup their own wiki
> pages, state your case and link to it here, this cuts
> down on spam. In my personal case I only make the odd post every two

> months, the rest is athttp://tautology.wikia.com/wiki/Tautology_Wiki

>
> See Dana, no need to engage in incessant passive aggressive behavior
> towards Ray.
>
> I only read
> Nyikos
> Burkhard
> Heart sugeon from France, forgot his handle now.
> Wilkins (who does not say much recently)
> Ray Matinez
> Roy Okimoto, �but he seems to have been traumatized by Nyikos, he is
> on the verge of having a breakdown.
>
> I do not want to read:
> Tweedy
> Iridanus or something like that , the spanish poster, his English is
> unreadable.

For the record: Of course I read you too and have created many
unaswered messages. And like yourself, I owe replies to several other
members. And I read everyone. I answer messages that present the
greatest threat to my viewpoints. Since Dana argues "Christian-
Evolutionism" as good as anyone, this is why I respond. Probably the
greatest threat to Christianity and Bible is "Christian-Evolutionism."
It seeks to destroy our Faith from within. So this is why I answer
Dana and several others who seek to destroy Bible and Christianity.

It could be said, Stephan, that since you accept natural selection and
microevolution you are an unwitting victim of the atheistic "Christian-
Evolutionism" agenda. So once again, like I just mentioned, I
respond to those who present the greatest threat to Christianity and
Bible.

Ray (Old Earth, Paleyan IDist-species immutabilist)

[Ray Martinez]

On May 7, 7:48�pm, Roger Shrubber <rog.shrub...@gmail.com> wrote:

[snip material addressed previously....]

> Perhaps you will want to retort that the magnitude of order
> is not comparable but that is different than your first
> argument which would forbid any order from chaos.
> (I'm sure you've addressed snowflakes before, but I
> confess I have not followed you closely enough to recall
> your response)

We disagree: the process that creates snowflakes cannot be described
as chaotic or disorderly, but designed. Our disagreement can be traced
directly to interpretive starting assumptions.

> > Next: If the alleged selection
> > process, or that which handles divesity lastly, cannot be described by
> > any of the adjectives mentioned, what is Monod and Simpson talking
> > about?
>
> Selection is bias. It is a weighting function that changes
> a probability distribution. A sieve changes the probability
> of objects passing through it as a function of their size.
> If the holes are of uniform size, objects with a radius
> significantly less than the radius of the holes pass with
> a high probability that decreases until the radius exceeds
> the size of the holes. Natural sieves exist that were not
> built to purpose. They are therefore, purposeless. They
> behave the same way independently of the your or my
> intention. You or I can try to design a sieve and it will
> function dependent on its physical structure regardless
> of our purpose, hopes or dreams in crafting it.
>
> Selection bias, like a sieve, exists based on environmental
> factors that exist outside of the requirements of a
> purpose. An intelligent agent might alter environmental
> factors to change selection bias but whatever changes
> occur, they will be ignorant of the intelligent agents
> intent. Purpose is therefore an unnecessary and elusive
> connection.

I find your selection commentary altogether incoherent. Don't get
wrong; I believe that you think it makes sense, yet you're completely
unaware of the fact that it does not. Yes, Richard Dawkins is correct.
A delusion is at work, but it's working on those who believe in
evolution, not God. Natural selection only exists in your imagination,
not nature or the wild.

> It is a cold hard reality. Ultimately, I think that Monod
> and Simpson were speaking to that cold reality that
> observes that no purpose is required to account for
> what is observed as life. It is clear that you reject
> this conclusion but not at all clear how you can
> reject it as a matter of logic and observation.

Ultimately, you're arguing (along with Simpson and Monod) that error
and unguided unintelligence produced the wondrous complexity seen in
nature, diversity, species. Logically speaking, causation (everything
written before the word "produced") does not have correspondence with
effects (everything written after the word "produced"); therefore your
causation claims epitomize illogic. In this precise context I then
point out that you appear completely unaware of this fact; hence, the
delusion is working on those who believe in evolution, not God.

[Roger Shrubber]

On May 10, 8:17�am, Ray Martinez <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On May 7, 7:48 pm, Roger Shrubber <rog.shrub...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> [snip material addressed previously....]

> [ regarding snowflakes as examples of ordered complexity ]

> > Perhaps you will want to retort that the magnitude of order
> > is not comparable but that is different than your first
> > argument which would forbid any order from chaos.
> > (I'm sure you've addressed snowflakes before, but I
> > confess I have not followed you closely enough to recall
> > your response)

> We disagree: the process that creates snowflakes cannot be described
> as chaotic or disorderly, but designed. Our disagreement can be traced
> directly to interpretive starting assumptions.

The process of snowflake formation is the end result of
a number of sub processes. You can reasonably say
that the sum total process of snowflake formation is
not random. It does produce "ordered complexity" for
very common meaning of those words.

Some of the sub processes that are part of the total
process have random behavior at their core. Random
in this well trodden scientific sense is the collisions of
gas molecules. A very complex distribution of H2O
gas molecules, paired H2O molecules that behave
like a gas, small suspended water droplets, small
suspended ice crystals and a curtain gas that is mostly
N2 and O2 are all randomly bouncing off each other.
The distribution of kinetic and internal energy of all
of these components is continually randomized through
collisions. The process is described as random
using definitions of random that extend to before
Darwin. This usage of random reflects mathematics.

I make this point to address your desire to couple
descriptions that involve the term random with
what you claim to be logically impossible outcomes.
You assert that you can't get "ordered complexity"
from a process that includes a random element.

But snowflakes formation does include a random
subprocess. It also includes a selection bias. When
new water molecules collide with a growing crystal
there are a number of things that can happen. It
can bounce away in an elastic collision. It can lose
its energy and transfer it to another water molecule
that flies off. It can stick and some other molecule
can collide with the growing crystal taking away
slightly more energy than it hit with. I won't enumerate
all the possibilities but there are many. These
occur randomly. What isn't very random is how the
water that stays around orients itself. The water
that is present but not yet oriented in patterns
associated with snowflake structure randomly
bounced about due to the many collisions and
vibrations. When it randomly happens to orient
itself in a way that fits the stable snowflake pattern,
it becomes less likely that it will continue to more
than when it isn't in that stable pattern. As this
repeats [Carl Sagan voice] billions upon billions
of times, for billions upon billions of molecules, a
pattern emerges. And mind you, many many times
a water molecule finds a fit to the growing pattern
but along comes another molecules colliding with
it and knocking it out of position, randomly. But
sometimes the rate of being knocked out of position
drops below the rate of being knocked into position.
This happens when the temperature is just right.
If it's too cold, the new water molecules get added
and stick around even in less favorable orientation.
How quickly water gets added also matters.

But the point I'm beating to death is that one non-random
process coupled to many prior random processes
is observed to produce ordered complexity.

This can also be shown with simple mathematical
models. A complete process that generates "ordered
complexity" in the sense I believe you mean, can have
random subprocesses.

You assertion that you cannot get "ordered complexity"
from anything that has a random element is simply
misguided. It is a losing argument. You need to abandon
it.

Note that "can produce ordered complexity" does not
mean "has to produce ordered complexity". Most snow
is note the beautiful flake kind.

[Roger Shrubber]

On May 10, 8:17�am, Ray Martinez <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On May 7, 7:48 pm, Roger Shrubber <rog.shrub...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> [snip material addressed previously....]

In things that one finds to be incoherent, there are things that
make sense, or appear to make sense on way, and then
transitions that are missing or illogical. It's hard for me to
know where I failed to communicate, or where I made a logical
error, if you don't provide some guidance for where my
commentary on sieves and bias failed to inform you.

> > It is a cold hard reality. Ultimately, I think that Monod
> > and Simpson were speaking to that cold reality that
> > observes that no purpose is required to account for
> > what is observed as life. It is clear that you reject
> > this conclusion but not at all clear how you can
> > reject it as a matter of logic and observation.

> Ultimately, you're arguing (along with Simpson and Monod) that error
> and unguided unintelligence produced the wondrous complexity seen in
> nature, diversity, species. Logically speaking, causation (everything
> written before the word "produced") does not have correspondence with
> effects (everything written after the word "produced"); therefore your
> causation claims epitomize illogic. In this precise context I then
> point out that you appear completely unaware of this fact; hence, the
> delusion is working on those who believe in evolution, not God.

It is a lesson of chemistry that random movement, coupled to a
small bias, can produce complex ordered results. It is a matter
of mathematics moreso than chemistry. It may not be intuitive and
thus your rejection of it is not unique.

Just regarding the production of structured complexity from
processes that include significant random subprocesses, you
will find that your assertion of illogic is wrong. You wish to
be able to argue from a perspective of immutable rhetoric
where the words random, unstructured, unguided used in
descriptions of elements of a process preclude structured
and complex results. That rhetoric fails. It is inconsistent
with proven mathematics. It is inconsistent with proven
chemistry. There's no sane reason to expect it to be valid
for biology.

[Dana Tweedy]

On 5/8/13 8:59 PM, Ray Martinez wrote:
> On May 7, 7:48 pm, Roger Shrubber <rog.shrub...@gmail.com> wrote:

snipping

>>
>>> "announced that 'the mechanism of Darwinism is at last securely
>>> founded,' and that as a result 'man has to understand that he is a
>>> mere accident.'"
>>
>> I have provided you with very low level specific observations
>> of what mutations are, and how they are observed to produce
>> variation in phenotype.
>
> The examples chosen in your previous comments (yeast and bacteria) do
> not reflect the main object of explanation of the Creation/Evolution
> debate.

There is no debate in science regarding creation/evolution. That was
settled long ago, with creationism being a religious belief. The "main
object of explanation" in biology is all life.

> Origin of sexually reproducing animal species, not bacteria
> and yeast, are the main object of explanation in said debate.

No, sexually reproducing animals are just one small subset of all life.

> Paley
> analogized the same as "watches" and Darwin simply referred to said
> object as "species" (hence "On The Origin Of Species By Means Of
> Natural Selection," 1859).

Neither Paley, or Darwin limited their statements to only "sexually
reproducing animal species". Paley, in any case was no proposing a
scientific theory, but making a religious apologetic.

> Because your examples are subordinate or
> "easier to explain" than the main object the same cannot be used, in a
> primary fashion, to support the claims of evolutionary theory.

Where do you get the idea that bacteria, or yeast are "easier to
explain"? Creationism, in any case, does not explain anything in a
scientific manner. It's the "subordinate" explanation, as it's
untestable, and unfalsifiable.

> In
> essence, he who explains the origin of species (the hardest to
> explain) then earns the right to explain easier phenomena (low level
> changes in bacteria, for example).

Again, creationism is not an explanation for anything, so it not even in
the same class as a scientific theory. Animal species are not harder
to explain than bacteria, or yeast species.

>
>> You begin your response with high level
>> projected consequences. Am I to conclude that you are
>> rejecting observations because you don't like where they
>> lead?
>
> Don't get me wrong; IF low level *evolutionary* change occurs, then
> "high level projected consequences" (cumulative selection) comes with
> it and cannot be denied to have occurred as well.

Evolutionary change has been observed to occur. You lose.

> It's the YEC
> Fundamentalist who denies the latter while generally accepting the
> former.

Your own form of fundamentalism is not any better.

> Said denial is wholly illogical.

As is your claims that natural selection does not exist.

> But I am not a YEC
> Fundamentalist;

You are an even loonier type of fundamentalist.

> rather, I am a OEC species immutabilist: the concept
> of microevolution does not exist in nature. Variation, in and by
> itself, is not evolution.

Microevolution can be observed in real time. Variation is part of
microevolution, and if species were immutable, variation should not
exist.

>
> And I don't reject observations;

An outright lie. You reject observations of evolution.

> rather, I reject certain
> interpretations of certain observations.

You reject reality, because it opposes your fantasy.

> And evolution is inferred,
> not observed.

Evolution is observed, and all observation requires an inference. You
can't possibly claim that "design" is observed, but evolution is not.

>
>>> Diversity is a general term used to refer to living things, past and
>>> present. So, in essence, evolutionary theory, as represented in your
>>> commentary, seen above, says life, including human life, is the
>>> product of replication errors, alternatively called accident or
>>> chance.
>>
>> I would challenge you to find "Diversity" defined as such.
>
> Diversity doesn't refer to all living things, past and present? You're
> quibbling.

Diversity refers to differences in living things. Clonal organisms
don't display much diversity. Diversity does not mean "all life". If
species were indeed immutable, diversity would be unlikely to exist.

>
>> If you want to discuss the concepts above, you would probably
>> use the word diversity in construction with other terms but
>> that is a far cry from embedding the entire concepts into the
>> singular word diversity.
>>
>> But beyond contrived distortions of the English language, you
>> are correct that:
>> 1 the observation of molecular changes that are necessarily
>> coupled to replication of DNA
>> 2 the observation that changes in DNA can produce changes
>> in phenotypes
>> 3 the observations of the natural history of genomes and the
>> changes in phenotypes, modeled mathematically
>>
>> These observations lead to the conclusion that the observed
>> diversity on Earth, including humans, is consistent with natural
>> changes which occur at the molecular level by processes that
>> are observed and predicted to behave stochastically. That
>> is randomly.
>
> You've just reiterated the claim that replication error is responsible
> for the production of diversity.

and you just repeated your lie. Replication error, by itself is not
responsible for the production of diversity. Replication error is part
of the mechanism, but not the whole process.

> The Simpson and Monod quotes said the
> same. The claim is highly illogical.

No, the claim is not what you are saying. Diversity is the result of a
combination of mutations and selection, over many generations. There's
nothing illogical about the process.

> Both evolutionary authorities and
> design authorities agree that diversity reflects high quality
> organized complexity

Can you point to anyone who has actually defined what "high quality
organized complexity" really means? I doubt there is a single
"evolutionary authority" that would agree with Ray here.

> and that this phenomena is the main object of
> explanation within the main object of explanation (species) in the
> Creation/Evolution debate.

"organized complexity" is a known property of natural processes, Ray.
Your mistake is in claiming it can only be produced by deliberate
intent. That is illogical.

> Thus organized complexity cannot be a
> logical expectation or outcome of the following concepts: error,
> accident, random, chance.

Unless there is some process by which the random changes in DNA are
affected by a non random bias. That process is natural selection.

That's why your statements above are lies. You know that no
"evolutionary authority" thinks that evolution is only "accident".

> Again, logically speaking,

Ray, you and logic are not on speaking terms.....

> if you should
> disagree, please tell us which concepts have correspondence with
> organization or order and which concepts do not?

Natural processes that involve non-random bias correspond with
organization and order. Natural selection is that process, when coupled
with random changes in DNA.

Why do you keep ignoring the fact of natural selection? Why are you
afraid to admit it's real?

>
>> Of course just because the input signal is random
>> does not mean the ultimate result is random because there
>> is selective biasing. Many processes that begin with random
>> processes have biasing selection that produce order.
>
> These comments say a non-random process handles the admittedly random
> process;

Which is true. There are many examples of non random processes
introducing order to random raw material.

> thus the effect of order or organization is logically
> appeased, however.

Again, Ray, you know nothing about logic, or how it's applied.

> One can easily find scientific and scholarly
> descriptions of the non-random process that contradict, like
> "mindless," "unguided," "undirected," and "unintelligent."

Which is irrelevant to the fact that order can be imposed on chaotic raw
material.

> Again, if
> these concepts have correspondence with organization and order, then
> which concepts do not?

The "concepts" that do not are those without a non random component.
"unintelligent" and "random" are not the same thing, or even close.
"Unguided" and "chaotic" are also not the same. "Mindless" and
"disorganized" are also not identical terms.

>
>>> We contend, based solely on appearance and observation, that diversity
>>> and its wondrous complexity, does not reflect any of the following
>>> concepts: error, accident, chance, purposelessness, or that which
>>> looks unplanned----but just the opposite. Specifically, organization
>>> cannot result from any of these adjectives, nor is the same an
>>> expectation. If the Evolutionist should disagree then perhaps he or
>>> she could create a list of adjectives that rule out the possibility of
>>> intricate order and organization?
>>
>> I fear your usage of _diversity_ is loaded in what I consider to
>> be an unnatural and incoherent way. Most importantly, I do not
>> know if you intend this as a general principle or are restricting
>> yourself to living organisms. If you mean _the observed diversity
>> of the biosphere_, it would be better to spell it out to avoid
>> unnecessary confusion arising from definitions that are unique
>> to you.
>
> Well, I have now done so in my previous comments.

In your previous comments you just showed your own confusion arising
from your unique definitions. The diversity of life is a good example
of a random distribution. If species were indeed immutable, and fixed,
there would be much less diversity to life.

>
>> Next, you have the cart before the horse with the rest of your
>> description of adjectives. Words do not control reality. They
>> are tools that attempt to communicate reality.
>
> No, the cart is not before the horse; let me briefly explain. Words
> are but concepts and concepts are claims that say a corresponding
> thing, object or phenomenon exists.

No,that is not the function of words. Words can often refer to abstract
concepts that do not exist in reality.

> If a corresponding thing, object
> or phenomenon does not exist then the concept or word is a false
> claim.

Ray, words are not claims. They are particles of speech. Words can
convey claims, but are not claims themselves.

>
> In the context of our discussion I am saying the concept of "random
> mutation" and "natural selection" do not correspond to any effect (in
> this case order or organized complexity) and therefore the claim is
> illogical.

The above is just pseudo intellectual gobbledygook. Natural selection
is a phrase that "corresponds" to a real, observable process. Random
mutation is another phrase that refers to something that can be directly
observed to happen. Both together can produce order, and complexity,
as has been observed to happen. There is no "claim", just a
description of a known process.

> Note that my conclusion does not, in this case, say the
> claim is false, only that it is illogical.

Ray, that's not a conclusion there, but just your assumption. There's
nothing illogical about natural selection, or random mutations.

> But I am, of course, saying
> the claim is false as well since no effect can be said to reflect any
> of the stated adjectives or descriptions.

The effects can be observed directly. Reality always trumps
assumptions. Your "adjectives" argument is just your misunderstanding
of how language is used by human beings.

>
>> And invoking
>> special exceptions for a suite of words that cannot be used
>> when coupled to _diversity_sensu_Ray_ is nothing more than
>> asserting your preferred conclusion.
>
> No, that's MY claim:

Your claim is just an unsupported assumption. You have nothing that
actually confirms your belief.

> YOU are demanding special exemptions from
> accepted logic.

Ray, no one is asking for exemptions from "accepted logic". What
people are saying is your assumptions, and wishful thinking are not logic.

> Error does not have correspondence with high quality
> organization.

Again, unless you can define what you mean by "high quality
organization", you are just making noise. Errors are often found in
organized, complex things, and there's no reason why errors in DNA
replication, which produce variations (the raw material for selection),
can't be part of an organized process.

>
>> Meanwhile, to the heart of the matter, you are wrong about
>> stochastic processes being unable to be the seeds for
>> observations of spectacularly patterned intricacy.
>
> My arguments, seen above, *prove* otherwise.

You have a very odd usage of "prove", Ray. Your arguments above are
only seen to reinforce your own errors. They don't prove anything.

>
>> The obvious example is snowflakes, rooted in random molecular
>> interactions, filtered through chemical preferences, and
>> producing mathematically restricted patterns that are
>> both diverse and constrained. Order from chaos.
>
> We disagree:

You are wrong.

> Sound logic says the effect (order) falsifies the
> description of the cause (chaos);

Again, you mistake wishful thinking and unsupported assumption for
"sound logic". Order can indeed come from chaos, as is often observed
in the real world.

> this is exactly why I said earlier
> that we reject certain interpretations of certain observations.

No, you reject what you can't understand, and fear. You were told to
reject evolution, and have not spent a single moment considering logic,
or reason.

>
> I will address the remainder of your message ASAP....

Ray runs away again..


DJT

[Dana Tweedy]

On 5/9/13 5:17 PM, Ray Martinez wrote:
> On May 7, 7:48 pm, Roger Shrubber <rog.shrub...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> [snip material addressed previously....]
>
>> Perhaps you will want to retort that the magnitude of order
>> is not comparable but that is different than your first
>> argument which would forbid any order from chaos.
>> (I'm sure you've addressed snowflakes before, but I
>> confess I have not followed you closely enough to recall
>> your response)
>
> We disagree:

But you are wrong. And there's no "we", it's just the singular you.

> the process that creates snowflakes cannot be described
> as chaotic or disorderly, but designed.

How is it "designed", Ray? If the process that produces snowflakes can
be called "designed" why can't the process that produces living species
by random mutation and non random selection be called "designed" as well?

> Our disagreement can be traced
> directly to interpretive starting assumptions.

Yes, your "starting assumption" is that whatever you want to be true, is
true. Sane people don't use such starting assumptions.

>
>>> Next: If the alleged selection
>>> process, or that which handles divesity lastly, cannot be described by
>>> any of the adjectives mentioned, what is Monod and Simpson talking
>>> about?
>>
>> Selection is bias. It is a weighting function that changes
>> a probability distribution. A sieve changes the probability
>> of objects passing through it as a function of their size.
>> If the holes are of uniform size, objects with a radius
>> significantly less than the radius of the holes pass with
>> a high probability that decreases until the radius exceeds
>> the size of the holes. Natural sieves exist that were not
>> built to purpose. They are therefore, purposeless. They
>> behave the same way independently of the your or my
>> intention. You or I can try to design a sieve and it will
>> function dependent on its physical structure regardless
>> of our purpose, hopes or dreams in crafting it.
>>
>> Selection bias, like a sieve, exists based on environmental
>> factors that exist outside of the requirements of a
>> purpose. An intelligent agent might alter environmental
>> factors to change selection bias but whatever changes
>> occur, they will be ignorant of the intelligent agents
>> intent. Purpose is therefore an unnecessary and elusive
>> connection.
>
> I find your selection commentary altogether incoherent.

Apparently because you refuse to accept anything you have been told to
oppose. You haven't spent a moment thinking about it.

> Don't get
> wrong; I believe that you think it makes sense, yet you're completely
> unaware of the fact that it does not.

It does make sense, Ray. You lack the ability to tell what makes sense.
You only can assume your own conclusions.

> Yes, Richard Dawkins is correct.
> A delusion is at work, but it's working on those who believe in
> evolution, not God.

Many people believe in God, and accept evolution. And many people who
claim to be creationists are worshiping only themselves.

> Natural selection only exists in your imagination,
> not nature or the wild.

Natural selection can be observed happening, Ray. It's easily tested,
and has never been falsified.

>
>> It is a cold hard reality. Ultimately, I think that Monod
>> and Simpson were speaking to that cold reality that
>> observes that no purpose is required to account for
>> what is observed as life. It is clear that you reject
>> this conclusion but not at all clear how you can
>> reject it as a matter of logic and observation.
>
> Ultimately, you're arguing (along with Simpson and Monod) that error
> and unguided unintelligence produced the wondrous complexity seen in
> nature, diversity, species.

Not all by itself, which is why I'm calling you on your lie.

> Logically speaking,

Again, Ray, you and logic are not on speaking terms.

> causation (everything
> written before the word "produced") does not have correspondence with
> effects (everything written after the word "produced"); therefore your
> causation claims epitomize illogic.

Ray, your own assuming your own conclusion, and your lack of mental
acumen is what's illogical. There are many observed examples in nature
of order coming from chaos. There's never been a single observed
instance of a supernatural being producing anything, anywhere, at any
time.

> In this precise context I then
> point out that you appear completely unaware of this fact; hence, the
> delusion is working on those who believe in evolution, not God.

Ray, your "fact" is merely your own unsupported assertion. You are the
one expressing a delusion, that being the delusion you know anything
about logic, of fact.

DJT

[Dana Tweedy]

On 5/9/13 9:03 AM, Stephanus wrote:
> On May 7, 10:57 pm, Mark Isaak <eci...@curioustax.onomy.net> wrote:
>> On 5/7/13 12:30 PM, Ray Martinez wrote:
>>
>>> [...]
>>> One cannot produce ANY post that I've
>>> written that deserves banning.
>>
>> Note, however, that some people in some places deserve banning not based
>> on a single post, but for making a large number of posts which, after
>> the first few, say nothing new.
>>
>> I don't know if you, Ray, fall into that category anywhere, but I can
>> easily imagine it happening.
>
> Dana Tweedy certainly does, will you ban him please, very please?

For what, exactly?

> He
> clutters up my Google reader and I am not the only
> person who can't understand why Ray even replies to him, he only adds
> noise.

You could try reading what I write, and not merely dismissing it.

> Dana Tweedy and a lot of others should rather setup their own wiki
> pages, state your case and link to it here, this cuts
> down on spam. In my personal case I only make the odd post every two
> months, the rest is at
> http://tautology.wikia.com/wiki/Tautology_Wiki
>
> See Dana, no need to engage in incessant passive aggressive behavior
> towards Ray.

I am not "passive aggressive" against Ray. I oppose Ray because he's
wrong, and because I enjoy tweaking his pompousness.

>
> I only read
> Nyikos
> Burkhard
> Heart sugeon from France, forgot his handle now.
> Wilkins (who does not say much recently)
> Ray Matinez
> Roy Okimoto, but he seems to have been traumatized by Nyikos, he is
> on the verge of having a breakdown.
>
> I do not want to read:
> Tweedy
> Iridanus or something like that , the spanish poster, his English is
> unreadable.

If you don't want to read my posts, you don't have to.


DJT
>

[Dana Tweedy]

Is this also why you keep running away from discussions with me?

> Probably the
> greatest threat to Christianity and Bible is "Christian-Evolutionism."
> It seeks to destroy our Faith from within. So this is why I answer
> Dana and several others who seek to destroy Bible and Christianity.

Actually, Ray, its you who is doing damage to the Bible, and to
Christianity. I'm trying to defend Christianity against the mindless,
the unthinking, and the selfish, like you. You do violence to the Bible
by treating it as if it were science, exposing yourself, and the Bible
to ridicule.

People who see your actions, and your claims to represent Christians
can only come away with a negative opinion of your absurd illogical
assertions, and your very poor witness for Christ.

>
> It could be said, Stephan, that since you accept natural selection and
> microevolution you are an unwitting victim of the atheistic "Christian-
> Evolutionism" agenda.

There is no such agenda, Ray. This paranoia is also harmful to the
perception of Christianity, and lends support to those who mock
Christians as unlearned, and insane.

> So once again, like I just mentioned, I
> respond to those who present the greatest threat to Christianity and
> Bible.

So, why don't you respond to yourself?


DJT

[Ray Martinez]

On May 9, 5:40�pm, Roger Shrubber <rog.shrub...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On May 10, 8:17 am, Ray Martinez <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > On May 7, 7:48 pm, Roger Shrubber <rog.shrub...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > [snip material addressed previously....]
> > � [ regarding snowflakes as examples of ordered complexity ]
> > > Perhaps you will want to retort that the magnitude of order
> > > is not comparable but that is different than your first
> > > argument which would forbid any order from chaos.
> > > (I'm sure you've addressed snowflakes before, but I
> > > confess I have not followed you closely enough to recall
> > > your response)
> > We disagree: the process that creates snowflakes cannot be described
> > as chaotic or disorderly, but designed. Our disagreement can be traced
> > directly to interpretive starting assumptions.
>
> The process of snowflake formation is the end result of
> a number of sub processes. You can reasonably say
> that the sum total process of snowflake formation is
> not random. It does produce "ordered complexity" for
> very common meaning of those words.

Okay; and below you're going to argue that random sub-processes
undergird as well....

Believe me when I say: Thanks for the lesson.

> But the point I'm beating to death is that one non-random
> process coupled to many prior random processes
> is observed to produce ordered complexity.

I'm assuming, for the sake of argument, your snowflake production
facts accurate and true. That said, lest one should forget, we are
really discussing the alleged scientific veracity of evolutionary
biological processes. In support of these processes snowflake
production facts are presented to show the basic cause-and-effect
scheme, random/non-random/ordered complexity, true.

To be quite honest, I'm disadvantaged. I do not possess knowledge
concerning snowflake formation. But as anyone can see you have
established the basic cause-and-effect scheme. Thus snowflake
production supports the same biological scheme offered by evolutionary
theory. Ordered effects can result from causes that include non-
ordered elements.

Response: At first glance I would say your argument hinges on the
epistemological meaning of "random" as it is used in service to the
description of snowflake production. The reason I say this is because
we know in the Creation/Evolution debate the word "random,"
epistemologically, conveys "unintelligence and undesignedness." Yet
logically, in both examples (snowflake production and evolutionary
theory), you are still in the same predicament; extrication has not
occurred: terms used to describe causation contradict terms used to
describe effects. The fact that you keep "shrugging your shoulders"
concerning this problem is quite unsatisfactory.

I will finish replying tomorrow/ASAP....

Ray

[Roger Shrubber]

To be brutally honest, I am simplifying things but not in a way
that distorts the essential reality. The point is easier to prove
with statistical mechanical simulation but I don't think that
discussion is as tangibly understood without more formal
training.

> Response: At first glance I would say your argument hinges on the
> epistemological meaning of "random" as it is used in service to the
> description of snowflake production. The reason I say this is because
> we know in the Creation/Evolution debate the word "random,"
> epistemologically, conveys "unintelligence and undesignedness." Yet

Two points. You have been advocating that words like "random"
permit a direct analysis of a claim because "random" encodes
meaning that logically precludes later "non-random" results.
Essentially, once tainted with randomness, always random. So
I read you. Challenge the first is to demonstrate that this assertion
about the nature of language constructs with "random" don't
work that way. Challenge the second is to show you that
random precursors can produce structured and complex products.

The word random is a problematic word in may ways that have
nothing whatsoever to do with theological matters. And mathematicians
have go so far as to describe types of randomness. At a
pragmatic level, I prefer consideration of random from the point
of view of adhering to phenomenological behavior that demonstrates
a samples distribution of behaviors that adheres to a pattern that
which is repeated by multiple sampling. What the hack does that
mean? It means that distribution of coin flip results on Monday
will be like the coin flip results on Tuesday, and not only will
the tend to be alike, the ways in which they are not alike will
also fit to a pattern that matches to out understanding of
statistical sampling. There's a great deal there, but that's one
form of random that can be measured and verified. It's a kind
we can "know". That is what I hope to mean by random.
I can't know that there isn't some guiding intelligence that
is willfully determining every flip of the coin but I can know that
if they are doing so, they have carefully hidden all traces of an
emergent pattern that would distinguish their willful manipulation
from something that is quintessentially random.

> logically, in both examples (snowflake production and evolutionary
> theory), you are still in the same predicament; extrication has not
> occurred: terms used to describe causation contradict terms used to
> describe effects. The fact that you keep "shrugging your shoulders"
> concerning this problem is quite unsatisfactory.
>
> I will finish replying tomorrow/ASAP....

I'm not shrugging my shoulders. I'm demonstrating that your
assertion that you can't get complex structure from random
precursors is counter-factual. You assert that structure
emerging from randomness is illogical. If by that you mean
it is metaphysically forbidden, you're wrong. If you mean it's
counterintuitive, I'm trying to provide you with education
that gets you past this misguided intuition.

Contrary to your presumption, your statement about what
is illogical is not a belief I ever held or am likely to ever
hold as it contradicts the world I observe. I understand
that it relates to the world you observe. I think your observation
has overlooked some things. All I'm doing is pointing a few
of them out to you.

[Rolf Aalberg]

Hihihihi--------- choking on laughter.


>
> DJT
>

[Greg Guarino]

On 5/7/2013 12:50 PM, Stephanus wrote:

> As far as I can see thought the whole "mutation" business seems to be
> an unfortunate metaphor .

Really? How "far" have you looked, exactly? Have you taken the time to
find out what mutations are?

[Stephanus]

Accepting Natural selection - depends what you mean with natural
selection? At http://tautology.wikia.com/wiki/Tautology_Wiki
I refer to those conjuring up dead tautologies - natural selection -
as *semiotic necromancers*. Thus I don't understand how you could say
I accept the tautological narrative for which natural selection is a
metaphor.

Note that by Natural selection I mean :..... the Malthusian, Matthew,
Lamarcian, Erasmus Darwinian natural(unintentional) means of
competitive preservation(selection) in the struggle for life. ....
Both you and Nyikos has demonstrated how this principle is post-hoc
because we would be told the same story if the other creature came to
dominate its ecological niche.
This claim of logic is phrased within the Adaptationist premise, which
I as a YEC object to because information is never acquired, only
expressed. See
http://tautology.wikia.com/wiki/Adaptation

Please quote from my wiki where I in any way *accept* the ludicrous
nonsense that is natural selection. The conclusion namely acquisition
of attributes does not derive logically from the tautology that is
natural selection(natural means of preservation).

My entire world view is framed in terms of the
http://tautology.wikia.com/wiki/Pattern_or_design premise. Therefore
'natural selection' the oxymoron can be no more a tautology than the
pleonasm free gift as I showed at
http://tautology.wikia.com/wiki/Preferential_decision.

[Ray Martinez]

On May 9, 5:40�pm, Roger Shrubber <rog.shrub...@gmail.com> wrote:

[snip material addressed previously....]

> ....This can also be shown with simple mathematical

> models. A complete process that generates "ordered
> complexity" in the sense I believe you mean, can have
> random subprocesses.
>
> You assertion that you cannot get "ordered complexity"
> from anything that has a random element is simply
> misguided. It is a losing argument. You need to abandon
> it.

The two paragraphs seen above nicely summarize your opposition to my
claims and/or arguments. But I don't think you truly understand what I
am saying. Thus, once more, please permit brief reiteration and re-
explanation. There are two essential elements that comprise scientific
argument: (1) the empirics; (2) the logic. In my arguments the latter
is under fire, not the former. Moreover, the latter (the logic) is
exempt from falsification requirements. In other words, how one
chooses to explain his facts----the logic----is a separate issue. It
is this issue that I am criticizing. That said, the cause-and-effect
claims of evolutionary theory are illogical. And from this point
forward I am challenging the claim that the selection process can be
described as "non-random." In relevant literature said process is
described as mindless, unguided, undirected, and unintelligent. So,
once again, all I'm doing is pointing out that these collective cause-
and-effect claims are, in fact, illogical. Organized complexity is not
a logical expectation of error, accident, unguidedness, or
unintelligence.

> Note that "can produce ordered complexity" does not
> mean "has to produce ordered complexity". �Most snow

> is not the beautiful flake kind.

So noted.

Ray

[Ray Martinez]

Because you're explicating the main scientific claim of Materialism
(fully material biological causation processes) I don't "understand"
any of it. Nothing you say makes any sense whatsoever. But again, I do
understand that your subject is diversity and species allegedly
produced by these materialistic processes.
And please don't get insulted. A host of Atheist-Evolutionist scholars
say Biblical Theology is total incoherent nonsense. Of course we
Creationists spend the majority of our time studying the Bible, not
creation. So there you have it. Both parties contend the claims and
doctrine of the other conveys total nonsense.

> > > It is a cold hard reality. Ultimately, I think that Monod
> > > and Simpson were speaking to that cold reality that
> > > observes that no purpose is required to account for
> > > what is observed as life. It is clear that you reject
> > > this conclusion but not at all clear how you can
> > > reject it as a matter of logic and observation.
> > Ultimately, you're arguing (along with Simpson and Monod) that error
> > and unguided unintelligence produced the wondrous complexity seen in
> > nature, diversity, species. Logically speaking, causation (everything
> > written before the word "produced") does not have correspondence with
> > effects (everything written after the word "produced"); therefore your
> > causation claims epitomize illogic. In this precise context I then
> > point out that you appear completely unaware of this fact; hence, the
> > delusion is working on those who believe in evolution, not God.
>
> It is a lesson of chemistry that random movement, coupled to a
> small bias, can produce complex ordered results. It is a matter
> of mathematics moreso than chemistry. It may not be intuitive and
> thus your rejection of it is not unique.

So very true: the same is utterly counterintuitive, illogical. I think
you've accidentally stumbled upon my on-going claim of fact.

> Just regarding the production of structured complexity from
> processes that include significant random subprocesses, you
> will find that your assertion of illogic is wrong. You wish to
> be able to argue from a perspective of immutable rhetoric
> where the words random, unstructured, unguided used in
> descriptions of elements of a process preclude structured
> and complex results. That rhetoric fails. It is inconsistent
> with proven mathematics. It is inconsistent with proven
> chemistry. There's no sane reason to expect it to be valid
> for biology.

The main points seen in these comments were addressed in a message
posted a few minutes ago. So I will not revisit.

Ray

[Dana Tweedy]

On May 10, 12:44�pm, Ray Martinez <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On May 9, 5:40 pm, Roger Shrubber <rog.shrub...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> [snip material addressed previously....]
>
> > ....This can also be shown with simple mathematical
> > models. A complete process that generates "ordered
> > complexity" in the sense I believe you mean, can have
> > random subprocesses.
>
> > You assertion that you cannot get "ordered complexity"
> > from anything that has a random element is simply
> > misguided. It is a losing argument. You need to abandon
> > it.
>
> The two paragraphs seen above nicely summarize your opposition to my
> claims and/or arguments. But I don't think you truly understand what I
> am saying. Thus, once more, please permit brief reiteration and re-
> explanation. There are two essential elements that comprise scientific
> argument: (1) the empirics; (2) the logic. In my arguments the latter
> is under fire, not the former.

Actually, you fail in both. you have no idea what the empirics are,
and you are incapable of telling the difference between valid logic
and wishful thinking.

> Moreover, the latter (the logic) is
> exempt from falsification requirements. In other words, how one
> chooses to explain his facts----the logic----is a separate issue.

Ray, logic is not an explanation of facts. Logic is is a way of
determining between correct, and incorrect reasoning. Theories are
explanations of facts.

> It
> is this issue that I am criticizing.

Of course, before criticizing anything, you should make an attempt to
understand what you presume to critique. You obviously have made no
effort to understand either the empiric evidence, or the logic behind
scientific thinking.

> That said, the cause-and-effect
> claims of evolutionary theory are illogical.

No, they are not. the cause of evolutionary change is known, and the
effect is readily observed.

> And from this point
> forward I am challenging the claim that the selection process can be
> described as "non-random."

Ok, on what basis do you make that challenge?

>In relevant literature said process is
> described as mindless, unguided, undirected, and unintelligent.

None of the above words mean "random". Processes are not beings, and
lack any kind of neural system, so they can't be described as having a
mind. That does not mean a process has a random effect. Gravity is
mindless, unguided, etc, but its effect is decidedly non random.

> So,
> once again, all I'm doing is pointing out that these collective cause-
> and-effect claims are, in fact, illogical.

Your statement above has nothing to do with logic. You have again
confused logic with your wishful thinking. Nothing about the
description of a process lacking in neural material prevents that
process from having a very specific effect.

> Organized complexity is not
> a logical expectation of error, accident, unguidedness, or
> unintelligence.

Ray, one again you misuse the term "logic". You confuse logic with
your naive intuition. This is more assuming your own conclusion. If
you want anyone to accept what you said above, you have to show
reasons why organized complexity can't come from non intelligent
processes. Remember, logic is a study of reasoning, and if you can't
reason accurately, you fail logic.

>
> > Note that "can produce ordered complexity" does not
> > mean "has to produce ordered complexity". Most snow
> > is not the beautiful flake kind.
>
> So noted.

Which means you missed the point.

DJT

[Dana Tweedy]

Which is not only expressing ignorance on your part,(Methodological
naturalism is not a "claim" of science, its a tool necessary to any
scientific explanation), it also makes your earlier claims to
understand natural selection an obvious lie.

> Nothing you say makes any sense whatsoever.

To a fool wisdom makes no sense.

> But again, I do
> understand that your subject is diversity and species allegedly
> produced by these materialistic processes.

Correction: observed to produce diversity in living things. That
would include speciation.

> And please don't get insulted. A host of Atheist-Evolutionist scholars
> say Biblical Theology is total incoherent nonsense.

Your inability to understand theology should not be projected onto
"atheists".

> Of course we
> Creationists spend the majority of our time studying the Bible, not
> creation. So there you have it. Both parties contend the claims and
> doctrine of the other conveys total nonsense.
>

That makes it doubly sad that you get Bible studies wrong as well as
science. No one but you says that science is nonsense.

>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > > > It is a cold hard reality. Ultimately, I think that Monod
> > > > and Simpson were speaking to that cold reality that
> > > > observes that no purpose is required to account for
> > > > what is observed as life. It is clear that you reject
> > > > this conclusion but not at all clear how you can
> > > > reject it as a matter of logic and observation.
> > > Ultimately, you're arguing (along with Simpson and Monod) that error
> > > and unguided unintelligence produced the wondrous complexity seen in
> > > nature, diversity, species. Logically speaking, causation (everything
> > > written before the word "produced") does not have correspondence with
> > > effects (everything written after the word "produced"); therefore your
> > > causation claims epitomize illogic. In this precise context I then
> > > point out that you appear completely unaware of this fact; hence, the
> > > delusion is working on those who believe in evolution, not God.
>
> > It is a lesson of chemistry that random movement, coupled to a
> > small bias, can produce complex ordered results. It is a matter
> > of mathematics moreso than chemistry. It may not be intuitive and
> > thus your rejection of it is not unique.
>
> So very true: the same is utterly counterintuitive, illogical.

Counterintuitive is not the same as illogical. thats one of your
major errors.

> I think
> you've accidentally stumbled upon my on-going claim of fact.
>

You claim is one of emotion, not fact.

> �> Just regarding the production of structured complexity from
>
> > processes that include significant random subprocesses, you
> > will find that your assertion of illogic is wrong. You wish to
> > be able to argue from a perspective of immutable rhetoric
> > where the words random, unstructured, unguided used in
> > descriptions of elements of a process preclude structured
> > and complex results. That rhetoric fails. It is inconsistent
> > with proven mathematics. It is inconsistent with proven
> > chemistry. There's no sane reason to expect it to be valid
> > for biology.
>
> The main points seen in these comments were addressed in a message
> posted a few minutes ago. So I will not revisit.
>

Of course your points were in there too.


DJT

[Ray Martinez]

When has that ever occurred?

I am known on the Internet as a bully who picks on Evolutionists. I
hang around looking for them. I've beaten so many, intellectually,
they choose to ban me and plead that I go away. You're an abnormal who
likes to get beat up. And when I beat you up you immediately ask for
more, as seen in your comment above.

> > Probably the
> > greatest threat to Christianity and Bible is "Christian-Evolutionism."
> > It seeks to destroy our Faith from within. So this is why I answer
> > Dana and several others who seek to destroy Bible and Christianity.
>
> Actually, Ray, its you who is doing damage to the Bible, and to
> Christianity. � I'm trying to defend Christianity against the mindless,
> the unthinking, and the selfish, like you. �You do violence to the Bible
> by treating it as if it were science, exposing yourself, and the Bible
> to ridicule.

You're a deluded "Christian," a victim of pernicious propaganda
created by angry/older Atheists who are controlled by Satan.

> � �People who see your actions, and your claims to represent Christians

> can only come away with a negative opinion of your absurd illogical
> assertions, and your very poor witness for Christ.

The objective facts say otherwise.

> > It could be said, Stephan, that since you accept natural selection and
> > microevolution you are an unwitting victim of the atheistic "Christian-
> > Evolutionism" � agenda.
>
> There is no such agenda, Ray. �This paranoia is also harmful to the
> perception of Christianity, and lends support to those who mock
> Christians as unlearned, and insane.

Denying the existence of the Atheist agenda is the first unspoken
requirement of the agenda.

Ray

[Ray Martinez]

> selection? Athttp://tautology.wikia.com/wiki/Tautology_Wiki

> I refer to those conjuring up dead tautologies - natural selection -
> as *semiotic necromancers*. Thus I don't understand how you could say
> I accept the tautological narrative for which natural selection is a
> metaphor.
>
> Note that by Natural selection I mean :..... the Malthusian, Matthew,
> Lamarcian, Erasmus Darwinian natural(unintentional) means of
> competitive preservation(selection) in the struggle for life. ....
> Both you and Nyikos has demonstrated how this principle is post-hoc
> because we would be told the same story if the other creature came to
> dominate its ecological niche.
> This claim of logic is phrased within the Adaptationist premise, which
> I as a YEC object to because information is never acquired, only

> expressed. Seehttp://tautology.wikia.com/wiki/Adaptation

>
> Please quote from my wiki where I �in any way *accept* the ludicrous
> nonsense that is natural selection. The conclusion namely acquisition
> of attributes does not derive logically from the tautology that is
> natural selection(natural means of preservation).
>

> My entire world view is framed in terms of thehttp://tautology.wikia.com/wiki/Pattern_or_design�premise. Therefore

> 'natural selection' the oxymoron can be no more a tautology than the

> pleonasm free gift as I showed athttp://tautology.wikia.com/wiki/Preferential_decision.

>
>
>
> > �So once again, like I just mentioned, I
> > respond to those who present the greatest threat to Christianity and
> > Bible.
>
> > Ray (Old Earth, Paleyan IDist-species immutabilist)

I interpret your message as saying you reject the scientific and
logical veracity of natural selection. Good. I stand corrected. But
your fellow YECs are in a very bad position, Stephan. To rail against
Materialism but accept conceptual existence of natural selection
equates to an irreconcilable and inexcusable contradiction. ALL of the
scientific claims of Darwin contradict Scripture and nature and are
completely false.

Ray (species immutabilist)

[Dana Tweedy]

Several times this very week. Most notably is when you ran away from
the discussion we were having over fossil KNM 15000. Since then
you've run away too many times for me to count. You often preface
your cowardice by claiming you'll never respond to me again.

>
> I am known on the Internet as a bully who picks on Evolutionists.

I have no doubt you imagine yourself as such, but everyone here knows
you run away faster than a scared rabbit whenever evidence is
mentioned. No one here considers you a bully.

> I
> hang around looking for them. I've beaten so many, intellectually,
> they choose to ban me and plead that I go away.

What is the color of the sky in that little world of yours, Ray? you
have never defeated anyone. nor have you demonstrated any
intelligence. The only ones who ask for you to be banned do so
because your posts are often offensive, not because you have won any
points.

> You're an abnormal who
> likes to get beat up. And when I beat you up you immediately ask for
> more, as seen in your comment above.
>

Ray, you have never beaten me in any of our discussions, and you are
always the one to run away. Where do you get the idea that you have
ever won anything?

> > > Probably the
> > > greatest threat to Christianity and Bible is "Christian-Evolutionism."
> > > It seeks to destroy our Faith from within. So this is why I answer
> > > Dana and several others who seek to destroy Bible and Christianity.
>
> > Actually, Ray, its you who is doing damage to the Bible, and to
> > Christianity. I'm trying to defend Christianity against the mindless,
> > the unthinking, and the selfish, like you. You do violence to the Bible
> > by treating it as if it were science, exposing yourself, and the Bible
> > to ridicule.
>
> You're a deluded "Christian," a victim of pernicious propaganda
> created by angry/older Atheists who are controlled by Satan.

Is this supposed to be some of that intellect? It's nothing but name
calling. You have never demonstrated the truth of any of your
epithets.

Seriously, have you ever considered that your actions might be more
helpful to "atheists" or "Satan"? Why else would you be driving
genuine believers away from truth and rationality?

>
> > People who see your actions, and your claims to represent Christians
> > can only come away with a negative opinion of your absurd illogical
> > assertions, and your very poor witness for Christ.
>
> The objective facts say otherwise.

What objective facts are those? Do you even know the difference
between an objective fact and your own subjective fantasies?

Can you produce a single person here who thinks your antics reflect
well on Christianity?

>
> > > It could be said, Stephan, that since you accept natural selection and
> > > microevolution you are an unwitting victim of the atheistic "Christian-
> > > Evolutionism" agenda.
>
> > There is no such agenda, Ray. This paranoia is also harmful to the
> > perception of Christianity, and lends support to those who mock
> > Christians as unlearned, and insane.
>
> Denying the existence of the Atheist agenda is the first unspoken
> requirement of the agenda.
>

As I said before, "insane Troll Logic". My denial of something that
doesn't exist is not evidence it does exist. There is no "atheist
agenda", Ray. That's a figment of your delusion.

DJT

[Dana Tweedy]

> > My entire world view is framed in terms of thehttp://tautology.wikia.com/wiki/Pattern_or_designpremise. Therefore

> > 'natural selection' the oxymoron can be no more a tautology than the
> > pleonasm free gift as I showed athttp://tautology.wikia.com/wiki/Preferential_decision.
>
> > > So once again, like I just mentioned, I
> > > respond to those who present the greatest threat to Christianity and
> > > Bible.
>
> > > Ray (Old Earth, Paleyan IDist-species immutabilist)
>
> I interpret your message as saying you reject the scientific and
> logical veracity of natural selection. Good

How is this good? It suggests a descent into madness. Note he gives
no reasonable arguments to reject the fact of natural selection. He
is forced into strained rhetoric in order to deny the truth.

> . I stand corrected.

If only you would recognize where you are in error.

> But
> your fellow YECs are in a very bad position, Stephan. To rail against
> Materialism but accept conceptual existence of natural selection
> equates to an irreconcilable and inexcusable contradiction.

Since science doesn't require Materialism, only methodological
naturalism, any railing against Materialism is pointless.

> ALL of the
> scientific claims of Darwin contradict Scripture and nature and are
> completely false.

Actually, none of Darwin's scientific work contradicts nature, and
very little contradicts a reasonable interpretation of the Bible.
Since the Bible is not a science book, and was never intended to be
treated as one, a scientific theory contradicting Bible verses is not
a problem for science. If you are foolish enough to treat the Bible
as authoritative in areas it was never intended to be treated that
way, that's your own error.


DJT

[Greg Guarino]

On 5/10/2013 3:12 PM, Ray Martinez wrote:

> Because you're explicating the main scientific claim of Materialism
> (fully material biological causation processes) I don't "understand"
> any of it.

That's where you're wrong, and consistently so. I think it might be best
for you to put the word "main" on sabbatical for a while. "Fully" can
keep it company. Roger is asking you to think analytically; if he's
wrong, there must be a flaw in his chain of explanation. Help him find it.

Roger has detailed processes that produce non-random results through the
action of the natural laws of physics, chemistry and biology. Mutation
and selection do not require a "material" origin of life on Earth, and
certainly do not require there to be no God.

Do you agree that Mama and Papa Gerbil can produce a litter of gerbil
offspring by material processes? That is exactly the amount of
"materialism" that is required for Natural Selection.

If past experience is any guide, you will reply that I have just claimed
that ordinary reproduction and Natural Selection are synonymous. I have
not. But the "materialism" required for the two is identical; that our
features are inherited through DNA from our parents and develop by
chemical and biological processes as we grow (in interaction with the
environment).

[Ray Martinez]

My question was rhetorical.

And I have repeatedly told you why I don't want to discuss human
evolution, which renders your comment above dishonest.

> > I am known on the Internet as a bully who picks on Evolutionists.
>
> I have no doubt you imagine yourself as such, but everyone here knows
> you run away faster than a scared rabbit whenever evidence is
> mentioned. �No one here considers you a bully.

Your denial was expected.

> > I
> > hang around looking for them. I've beaten so many, intellectually,
> > they choose to ban me and plead that I go away.
>
> What is the color of the sky in that little world of yours, Ray? �you
> have never defeated anyone. �nor have you demonstrated any
> intelligence. �The only ones who ask for you to be banned do so
> because your posts are often offensive, not because you have won any
> points.

A propagandistic interpretation of the facts.

> > �You're an abnormal who

> > likes to get beat up. And when I beat you up you immediately ask for
> > more, as seen in your comment above.
>
> Ray, you have never beaten me in any of our discussions, and you are
> always the one to run away. � Where do you get the idea that you have
> ever won anything?

You're unable to refute anything I say or argue. This is seen mainly
in typical replies utilizing flat contentless denials.

> > > > Probably the
> > > > greatest threat to Christianity and Bible is "Christian-Evolutionism."
> > > > It seeks to destroy our Faith from within. So this is why I answer
> > > > Dana and several others who seek to destroy Bible and Christianity.
>
> > > Actually, Ray, its you who is doing damage to the Bible, and to
> > > Christianity. I'm trying to defend Christianity against the mindless,
> > > the unthinking, and the selfish, like you. You do violence to the Bible
> > > by treating it as if it were science, exposing yourself, and the Bible
> > > to ridicule.
>
> > You're a deluded "Christian," a victim of pernicious propaganda
> > created by angry/older Atheists who are controlled by Satan.
>
> Is this supposed to be some of that intellect? � It's nothing but name
> calling. �You have never demonstrated the truth of any of your
> epithets.

Again, one could not expect agreement.

> Seriously, have you ever considered that your actions might be more
> helpful to "atheists" or "Satan"? � Why else would you be driving
> genuine believers away from truth and rationality?

Support your claim and name a genuine believer who I drove away? Of
course you're parroting angry nonsense created by Atheist-Evolutionist
Peter Nyikos.

> > > People who see your actions, and your claims to represent Christians
> > > can only come away with a negative opinion of your absurd illogical
> > > assertions, and your very poor witness for Christ.
>
> > The objective facts say otherwise.
>
> What objective facts are those? �Do you even know the difference
> between an objective fact and your own subjective fantasies?

My messages constantly expose the fact that you're guilty of
propagating subjective thought. This explains your comment above.
"Christian Evolutionism" is a subjective enterprise, supported by the
fact that the claims of Creation/design and the claims of Darwinian
evolution contradict diametrically.

> Can you produce a single person here who thinks your antics reflect
> well on Christianity?

Talk.Origins exists, in part, to seduce undecided Christians into
accepting evolution. The feat is only accomplished by concealing, via
propaganda and misrepresention, the objective pro-Atheism claims of
evolutionary theory.

> > > > It could be said, Stephan, that since you accept natural selection and
> > > > microevolution you are an unwitting victim of the atheistic "Christian-
> > > > Evolutionism" agenda.
>
> > > There is no such agenda, Ray. This paranoia is also harmful to the
> > > perception of Christianity, and lends support to those who mock
> > > Christians as unlearned, and insane.
>
> > Denying the existence of the Atheist agenda is the first unspoken
> > requirement of the agenda.
>
> As I said before, "insane Troll Logic". � My denial of something that
> doesn't exist is not evidence it does exist. �There is no "atheist
> agenda", Ray. �That's a figment of your delusion.
>
> DJT

Since Atheists exist in large numbers, and since they are extremely
angry, they indeed have an agenda. That agenda seeks to destroy their
enemies, Bible and Christianity, from within. Of course you must deny
existence of said agenda or else you'd be declaring yourself a fool,
doing their bidding. But I do believe that you really think no such
agenda exists. I've already said that you've been completely duped by
the agenda created by older/angry Atheists controlled by Satan.

Ray

[Ray Martinez]

On May 10, 1:32�pm, Greg Guarino <gdguar...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 5/10/2013 3:12 PM, Ray Martinez wrote:
>
> > Because you're explicating the main scientific claim of Materialism
> > (fully material biological causation processes) I don't "understand"
> > any of it.
>
> That's where you're wrong, and consistently so. I think it might be best
> for you to put the word "main" on sabbatical for a while. "Fully" can
> keep it company. Roger is asking you to think analytically; if he's
> wrong, there must be a flaw in his chain of explanation. Help him find it.

Your reply has almost nothing to do with what I said. Not a good
start, Greg.

> Roger has detailed processes that produce non-random results through the
> action of the natural laws of physics, chemistry and biology. Mutation
> and selection do not require a "material" origin of life on Earth, and
> certainly do not require there to be no God.

Relevance?

> Do you agree that Mama and Papa Gerbil can produce a litter of gerbil
> offspring by material processes? That is exactly the amount of
> "materialism" that is required for Natural Selection.

As I suspected, you don't know what Materialism is or means.

> If past experience is any guide, you will reply that I have just claimed
> that ordinary reproduction and Natural Selection are synonymous. I have
> not. But the "materialism" required for the two is identical; that our
> features are inherited through DNA from our parents and develop by
> chemical and biological processes as we grow (in interaction with the
> environment).

Materialism: interpretive philosophy that says immaterial power and
intelligence does not exist in nature; causation that precludes
immaterial origin, involvement, or influence; causal agencies that
always originate from the closed system of material nature.

Ray

[jillery]

Why not?

[Earle Jones]

In article
<eb3c7fb9-a3d4-4f44...@z10g2000yqd.googlegroups.com>,

> created by angry/older Atheists who are controlled by Satan...

*
I am certainly older, not particularly angry, but if I am "controlled by
Satan" I would like to know about it.

How does one tell if one is controlled by Satan? Is there a measure
that would disclose this?

Please let me know.

earle
*

[Dana Tweedy]

Another language correction.. A rhetorical question is not one that
has an answer you don't want to hear. You have often ran away from
discussions.

>
> And I have repeatedly told you why I don't want to discuss human
> evolution, which renders your comment above dishonest.
>

Ray, it doesn't matter what excuses you make up after the fact. You
ran away, and you know it. You don't want to discuss human evolution
because the evidence is much too strong for even you to deny. That's
why you ran away.

> > > I am known on the Internet as a bully who picks on Evolutionists.
>
> > I have no doubt you imagine yourself as such, but everyone here knows
> > you run away faster than a scared rabbit whenever evidence is
> > mentioned. No one here considers you a bully.
>
> Your denial was expected.

"Expected" because its true. You are not a bully, Ray. Anyone here
can take your lunch money any time they want. Most people here don't
bother because you are pathetic.


>
> �> > I

>
> > > hang around looking for them. I've beaten so many, intellectually,
> > > they choose to ban me and plead that I go away.
>
> > What is the color of the sky in that little world of yours, Ray? you
> > have never defeated anyone. nor have you demonstrated any
> > intelligence. The only ones who ask for you to be banned do so
> > because your posts are often offensive, not because you have won any
> > points.
>
> A propagandistic interpretation of the facts.

What I said was a true statement. Note you can't even begin to
refute it.

>
> > > You're an abnormal who
> > > likes to get beat up. And when I beat you up you immediately ask for
> > > more, as seen in your comment above.
>
> > Ray, you have never beaten me in any of our discussions, and you are
> > always the one to run away. Where do you get the idea that you have
> > ever won anything?
>
> You're unable to refute anything I say or argue.

Ray, I have refuted everything you've claimed, and I don't even have
to work at it. I've refuted your claims about Darwin being an
atheist. I've refuted your claims about natural selection being
nonsense. I've refuted your claims about " logic" and wor meanings,
etc,etc....

> This is seen mainly
> in typical replies utilizing flat contentless denials.

You seem to have forgotten its you who issues the flat denials and
never bothers to back them up. You are the one who is fond of the
phrase "absolutely false" without any support..

>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > > > > Probably the
> > > > > greatest threat to Christianity and Bible is "Christian-Evolutionism."
> > > > > It seeks to destroy our Faith from within. So this is why I answer
> > > > > Dana and several others who seek to destroy Bible and Christianity.
>
> > > > Actually, Ray, its you who is doing damage to the Bible, and to
> > > > Christianity. I'm trying to defend Christianity against the mindless,
> > > > the unthinking, and the selfish, like you. You do violence to the Bible
> > > > by treating it as if it were science, exposing yourself, and the Bible
> > > > to ridicule.
>
> > > You're a deluded "Christian," a victim of pernicious propaganda
> > > created by angry/older Atheists who are controlled by Satan.
>
> > Is this supposed to be some of that intellect? It's nothing but name
> > calling. You have never demonstrated the truth of any of your
> > epithets.
>
> Again, one could not expect agreement.

Again, you can't hope to dispute my statement because it is true. The
above was "content less" name calling.

>
> > Seriously, have you ever considered that your actions might be more
> > helpful to "atheists" or "Satan"? Why else would you be driving
> > genuine believers away from truth and rationality?
>
> Support your claim and name a genuine believer who I drove away?

Ah, there's the rub. Anyone I would consider a "genuine believer" or
who you would? Since you are the only "genuine believer" in your
little world, it would very difficult to meet. I don't know the names
of various lurker a who have read your hyperbole, and venom and have
been turned away. I know, however your parody of Christians is very
off putting.

> Of
> course you're parroting angry nonsense created by Atheist-Evolutionist
> Peter Nyikos.
>

Ignoring for the moment the name calling, I wasn't even thinking
about Nyikos when I was writing. Unlike you, other people have
original thoughts.

> > > > People who see your actions, and your claims to represent Christians
> > > > can only come away with a negative opinion of your absurd illogical
> > > > assertions, and your very poor witness for Christ.
>
> > > The objective facts say otherwise.
>
> > What objective facts are those? Do you even know the difference
> > between an objective fact and your own subjective fantasies?
>
> My messages constantly expose the fact that you're guilty of
> propagating subjective thought.

Ray, I asked you to provide any " objective facts" which "say
otherwise". It is hardly surprising you have none.

I freely admit I have subjective opinions on a lot of things, but my
statements about science are based on objective fact. What you
don't seem to realize is ALL of your own statements are entirely
subjective. You are not arguing from a position of objectivity.

> This explains your comment above.
> "Christian Evolutionism" is a subjective enterprise, supported by the
> fact that the claims of Creation/design and the claims of Darwinian
> evolution contradict diametrically.

Ray, the above is entirely your own subjective belief as well. Your
own bizarre and absurd religious dogmas are just as subjective as any
of my religious beliefs. I openly and freely admit this. ANY
religious belief is subjective.

>


> > Can you produce a single person here who thinks your antics reflect
> > well on Christianity?
>
> Talk.Origins exists, in part, to seduce undecided Christians into
> accepting evolution. The feat is only accomplished by concealing, via
> propaganda and misrepresention, the objective pro-Atheism claims of
> evolutionary theory.

Again, instead of objective fact, you provide subjective, and paranoid
fantasy. There are no pro atheism claims of science, and the purpose
of T.O. In not to "seduce" anyone. Your accusations are absurd and
groundless.

>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > > > > It could be said, Stephan, that since you accept natural selection and
> > > > > microevolution you are an unwitting victim of the atheistic "Christian-
> > > > > Evolutionism" agenda.
>
> > > > There is no such agenda, Ray. This paranoia is also harmful to the
> > > > perception of Christianity, and lends support to those who mock
> > > > Christians as unlearned, and insane.
>
> > > Denying the existence of the Atheist agenda is the first unspoken
> > > requirement of the agenda.
>
> > As I said before, "insane Troll Logic". My denial of something that
> > doesn't exist is not evidence it does exist. There is no "atheist
> > agenda", Ray. That's a figment of your delusion.
>
> > DJT
>
> Since Atheists exist in large numbers,

that seems to scare you a great deal. Atheists are not nearly as
numerous as you imagine.

> and since they are extremely
> angry,

why are you assuming atheists are angry? have you ever actually met
any of these shadowy atheists? it would seem you are projecting
your own anger and frustration with life onto others. Apparently your
own lack of faith in God has made you an angry and unpleasant person.

> they indeed have an agenda.

See, here is where you show you cant apply basic logic. You base this
on two unsupported, and daft assumptions. 1. that atheists exist "in
large numbers" when the number of people who identify as atheist is
relatively small. according to the Washington Post, atheists make up
only 5% of the US. #2, that these atheists are "extremely angry".
I dont have any data that indicates the emotional state of any segment
of the population.

Worse, even if 1 and 2 were true, it does not follow that just because
a group is numerous, and angry, that they would have an agenda. The
vast majority of atheists are just individuals, with little or no
organization. How would they carry out such an agenda, even if it did
exist?

> .That agenda seeks to destroy their

> enemies, Bible and Christianity, from within.

You are assuming that atheists consider Christians, or the Bible to be
their enemies. Normal people dont think that way. Why would you
assume that?

> Of course you must deny
> existence of said agenda or else you'd be declaring yourself a fool,
> doing their bidding.

Ray, as I've mentioned before, if the "agenda" were to destroy
Christianity, you are doing much more to bring that about than I am.
You are the one making self professed Christians look foolish and
uneducated fools.

> But I do believe that you really think no such
> agenda exists.

No such agenda exists, Ray. It's a symptom of your paranoid delusions.

> I've already said that you've been completely duped by
> the agenda created by older/angry Atheists controlled by Satan.

But as you already know, that is just the rantings of an unstable
mind. If you had any actual logic or reason on your side, you
wouldn't need to make such silly, unfounded accusations.

DJT

By the way, in case you didn't notice, I refuted all your statements
yet again.

[Earle Jones]

In article
<4706be19-de0a-4174...@i3g2000yqf.googlegroups.com>,

*
materialism
noun

1 a tendency to consider material possessions and physical comfort as
more important than spiritual values.

2 Philosophy: the doctrine that nothing exists except matter and its
movements and modifications.

� the doctrine that consciousness and will are wholly due to material
agency

earle
*

[Dana Tweedy]

On May 10, 4:04�pm, Ray Martinez <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On May 10, 1:32 pm, Greg Guarino <gdguar...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On 5/10/2013 3:12 PM, Ray Martinez wrote:
>
> > > Because you're explicating the main scientific claim of Materialism
> > > (fully material biological causation processes) I don't "understand"
> > > any of it.
>
> > That's where you're wrong, and consistently so. I think it might be best
> > for you to put the word "main" on sabbatical for a while. "Fully" can
> > keep it company. Roger is asking you to think analytically; if he's
> > wrong, there must be a flaw in his chain of explanation. Help him find it.
>
> Your reply has almost nothing to do with what I said. Not a good
> start, Greg.

That is because Greg is graciously pointing out your mistake, Ray.
You should be thanking him.

>
> > Roger has detailed processes that produce non-random results through the
> > action of the natural laws of physics, chemistry and biology. Mutation
> > and selection do not require a "material" origin of life on Earth, and
> > certainly do not require there to be no God.
>
> Relevance?

Ray, have you lost track of the discussion so soon? The relevance is
that your earlier claims that science requires there to be no God is
wrong.

>
> > Do you agree that Mama and Papa Gerbil can produce a litter of gerbil
> > offspring by material processes? That is exactly the amount of
> > "materialism" that is required for Natural Selection.
>
> As I suspected, you don't know what Materialism is or means.

Greg knows the established meaning of the word. He may not know what
odd meaning you give it. But then , Greg appears sane, a handicap in
seeing things your way.

>
> > If past experience is any guide, you will reply that I have just claimed
> > that ordinary reproduction and Natural Selection are synonymous. I have
> > not. But the "materialism" required for the two is identical; that our
> > features are inherited through DNA from our parents and develop by
> > chemical and biological processes as we grow (in interaction with the
> > environment).
>
> Materialism: interpretive philosophy that says immaterial power and
> intelligence does not exist in nature; causation that precludes
> immaterial origin, involvement, or influence; causal agencies that
> always originate from the closed system of material nature.
>

Ah, that's the Crazy Ray meaning. That's not how it's used in
science. There is no reason anyone but Ray would know, or use that
meaning.

DJT

[Dana Tweedy]

On May 10, 4:32�pm, Earle Jones <earle.jo...@comcast.net> wrote:
> In article
> <eb3c7fb9-a3d4-4f44-9f06-933d0fb10...@z10g2000yqd.googlegroups.com>,

That's easy. If you are more intelligent than Ray, or if you tell
Ray he is wrong, and if you can easily demonstrate why Ray is wrong,
you must be controlled by Satan.


DJT
>
> earle
> *

[Roger Shrubber]

That is illogical. Whatever reason you think I had for writting
something, what I actually write stands apart. If it was written
completely annonymously and you have no hint whatsoever who wrote
something or why you just look at the words and parse them. They
do or don't make sense.

> any of it. Nothing you say makes any sense whatsoever. But again, I do
> understand that your subject is diversity and species allegedly
> produced by these materialistic processes.

No. I really don't intend to take you all the way. My points
are directed toward your particular line of reasoning that
asserts one cannot in general get "ordered complexity" from
processes that are in some way random.

You are arguing that this is prima facie impossible. I
am attempting to demonstrate to you that this general
argument is not true.

Regarding the above discussion it is about sieves. It
is about how they work. When a mixture of sand and
gravel pass over a series of sieves a sorting occurs.
But it isn't magic or perfect. You don't get all the
smallest grained sand in one bin, medium in the next
and perfect gradations per sieve. But you do get pretty
good order established. And when you break it down to
how it actually happens it's the accumulated effect of
lots and lots of random movement as the gravel and
sand pass along the sieves and some non random biases
in the probability of what falls through to the next
level.

> And please don't get insulted. A host of Atheist-Evolutionist scholars
> say Biblical Theology is total incoherent nonsense. Of course we
> Creationists spend the majority of our time studying the Bible, not
> creation. So there you have it. Both parties contend the claims and
> doctrine of the other conveys total nonsense.

Rest assured I don't feel insulted.

>>>> It is a cold hard reality. Ultimately, I think that Monod
>>>> and Simpson were speaking to that cold reality that
>>>> observes that no purpose is required to account for
>>>> what is observed as life. It is clear that you reject
>>>> this conclusion but not at all clear how you can
>>>> reject it as a matter of logic and observation.
>>> Ultimately, you're arguing (along with Simpson and Monod) that error
>>> and unguided unintelligence produced the wondrous complexity seen in
>>> nature, diversity, species. Logically speaking, causation (everything
>>> written before the word "produced") does not have correspondence with
>>> effects (everything written after the word "produced"); therefore your
>>> causation claims epitomize illogic. In this precise context I then
>>> point out that you appear completely unaware of this fact; hence, the
>>> delusion is working on those who believe in evolution, not God.
>>
>> It is a lesson of chemistry that random movement, coupled to a
>> small bias, can produce complex ordered results. It is a matter
>> of mathematics moreso than chemistry. It may not be intuitive and
>> thus your rejection of it is not unique.

> So very true: the same is utterly counterintuitive, illogical. I think
> you've accidentally stumbled upon my on-going claim of fact.

It isn't an accident. I did not stumble on it. It is your
core claim. I am trying to get to to actually examine it
instead of just asserting it.

An analogy about multiplication.
We know that
positive number X positive number = positive number
positive number X negative number = negative number
negative number x negative number = positive number

Some find the last of those three to be a counterintuitive
result. They might even call it illogical for certain
loose notions of "logic". If you were tutoring a student
who claimed it was illogical, how would you address that
intuition on their part? I find this last question to
be interesting. One has to dig beyond the final claim
of _it_ being illogical and find out why they claim that.

From what I've been able to gather, you have an intuition
that if you combine something random with anything, you
get a random result. You seem to think this can be examined
within an English construct so that if an adjective like
random or undirected is employed, you must have a random
or undirected result.

I can't get you to provide justification for this, you
claim it to be obvious. I could just assert back "no it
isn't" but that really achieves nothing.

My path to address this claim is to provide counter-examples
to show that what you believe is a reliable rule is not.
That's what I've been trying to do. But every time we
get close, you want to jump back out and repeat the
assertion. I'm close to giving up trying.

[Mark Isaak]

On 5/10/13 11:44 AM, Ray Martinez wrote:
> On May 9, 5:40 pm, Roger Shrubber <rog.shrub...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> [snip material addressed previously....]
>
>> ....This can also be shown with simple mathematical
>> models. A complete process that generates "ordered
>> complexity" in the sense I believe you mean, can have
>> random subprocesses.
>>
>> You assertion that you cannot get "ordered complexity"
>> from anything that has a random element is simply
>> misguided. It is a losing argument. You need to abandon
>> it.
>
> The two paragraphs seen above nicely summarize your opposition to my
> claims and/or arguments. But I don't think you truly understand what I
> am saying. Thus, once more, please permit brief reiteration and re-
> explanation. There are two essential elements that comprise scientific
> argument: (1) the empirics; (2) the logic. In my arguments the latter
> is under fire, not the former. Moreover, the latter (the logic) is
> exempt from falsification requirements.

That is not true. For logic to be sound, the premises of the argument
must be true, which subjects them to falsification requirements.
Further, logic has *another* requirement, which, to the best of my
knowledge, you have never met: to wit, demonstrating that all the
syllogisms are valid.

> In other words, how one
> chooses to explain his facts----the logic----is a separate issue. It
> is this issue that I am criticizing. That said, the cause-and-effect
> claims of evolutionary theory are illogical. And from this point
> forward I am challenging the claim that the selection process can be
> described as "non-random." In relevant literature said process is
> described as mindless, unguided, undirected, and unintelligent. So,
> once again, all I'm doing is pointing out that these collective cause-
> and-effect claims are, in fact, illogical. Organized complexity is not
> a logical expectation of error, accident, unguidedness, or
> unintelligence.

So how, exactly, would you express your argument in valid syllogisms?
And note that that word "exactly" is not in there just for show.

--
Mark Isaak eciton (at) curioustaxonomy (dot) net
"It is certain, from experience, that the smallest grain of natural
honesty and benevolence has more effect on men's conduct, than the most
pompous views suggested by theological theories and systems." - D. Hume

[Mark Isaak]

On 5/10/13 12:34 PM, Ray Martinez wrote:
> On May 9, 7:26 pm, Dana Tweedy <reddfrog...@gmail.com> wrote:

>> [...]

>> Is this also why you keep running away from discussions with me?
>
> When has that ever occurred?
>
> I am known on the Internet as a bully who picks on Evolutionists. I
> hang around looking for them. I've beaten so many, intellectually,
> they choose to ban me and plead that I go away. You're an abnormal who
> likes to get beat up. And when I beat you up you immediately ask for
> more, as seen in your comment above.

No, Ray, you are by no stretch of imagination a bully. A bully attacks
people to cause them suffering, and I rarely, if ever, see you do that.
There are unflattering terms which may be applied to you, but "bully"
is not one of them.

Personally, I think of you as a deluded "Christian," a victim of
pernicious propaganda created by angry/older effective Atheists who are
controlled by Satan.

[Bob Berger]

In article <kmk45n$i35$1...@dont-email.me>, Mark Isaak says...

>
>On 5/10/13 11:44 AM, Ray Martinez wrote:
>> On May 9, 5:40 pm, Roger Shrubber <rog.shrub...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> [snip material addressed previously....]
>>
>>> ....This can also be shown with simple mathematical
>>> models. A complete process that generates "ordered
>>> complexity" in the sense I believe you mean, can have
>>> random subprocesses.
>>>
>>> You assertion that you cannot get "ordered complexity"
>>> from anything that has a random element is simply
>>> misguided. It is a losing argument. You need to abandon
>>> it.
>>
>> The two paragraphs seen above nicely summarize your opposition to my
>> claims and/or arguments. But I don't think you truly understand what I
>> am saying. Thus, once more, please permit brief reiteration and re-
>> explanation. There are two essential elements that comprise scientific
>> argument: (1) the empirics; (2) the logic. In my arguments the latter
>> is under fire, not the former. Moreover, the latter (the logic) is
>> exempt from falsification requirements.
>
>That is not true. For logic to be sound, the premises of the argument
>must be true, which subjects them to falsification requirements.
>Further, logic has *another* requirement, which, to the best of my
>knowledge, you have never met: to wit, demonstrating that all the
>syllogisms are valid.

DAMN the syllogisms, full speed ahead!

[Thrinaxodon]

One of the more unflattering terms, is ignoramus.

[gdgu...@gmail.com]

On May 10, 6:04�pm, Ray Martinez <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On May 10, 1:32 pm, Greg Guarino <gdguar...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On 5/10/2013 3:12 PM, Ray Martinez wrote:
>
> > > Because you're explicating the main scientific claim of Materialism
> > > (fully material biological causation processes) I don't "understand"
> > > any of it.
>
> > That's where you're wrong, and consistently so. I think it might be best
> > for you to put the word "main" on sabbatical for a while. "Fully" can
> > keep it company. Roger is asking you to think analytically; if he's
> > wrong, there must be a flaw in his chain of explanation. Help him find it.
>
> Your reply has almost nothing to do with what I said. Not a good
> start, Greg.

I think it does. Roger asks you to consider a small, focused question:
can an unguided process produce a non-random result? You reply that
you can't understand any of it because it is Materialism and thus
makes no sense to you. But it isn't Materialism, at least not as you
describe it. You say that Materialism "precludes" immaterial origin.
If so, then Materialism is not required for the processes that Roger
describes, only that SOME things happen via the commonly-held laws of
physics and chemistry.

> > Roger has detailed processes that produce non-random results through the
> > action of the natural laws of physics, chemistry and biology. Mutation
> > and selection do not require a "material" origin of life on Earth, and
> > certainly do not require there to be no God.
>
> Relevance?

Natural Selection does not require the Materialism you describe below.
Thus there may be some other reason you don't understand it.

> > Do you agree that Mama and Papa Gerbil can produce a litter of gerbil
> > offspring by material processes? That is exactly the amount of
> > "materialism" that is required for Natural Selection.
>
> As I suspected, you don't know what Materialism is or means.

It's easy to be fooled then, when you cite "Materialism" as an
impediment to understanding a process that doesn't require it. I ask
again, when two gerbils mate and produce offspring, does God need to
guide the process, or is it accomplished via the standard biology?

I'll assume the latter.

Natural Selection is merely a pattern of that same normal reproduction
over a whole population. It thus requires no more philosophical
Materialism than the single pair of gerbils..

> > If past experience is any guide, you will reply that I have just claimed
> > that ordinary reproduction and Natural Selection are synonymous. I have
> > not. But the "materialism" required for the two is identical; that our
> > features are inherited through DNA from our parents and develop by
> > chemical and biological processes as we grow (in interaction with the
> > environment).
>
> Materialism: interpretive philosophy that says immaterial power and
> intelligence does not exist in nature; causation that precludes
> immaterial origin, involvement, or influence; causal agencies that
> always originate from the closed system of material nature.
>
> Ray

We don't need such a philosophy to accept or understand natural
selection.

[Rolf Aalberg]

Looks like i started something here.

Haven't been as amused at t.o. in a long time.
Didn't know it could be so much fun!
Without even having to write a word.

Roger Shrubber, as well as several others have made things very clear,
and Ray have responded the only way he is capable of; his own peculiar
definition of words and concepts.

But what else can he do? He knows - without any evidence, just
intuitively that the Bible is 100% true and that's that, so what, you
silly Darwinian Atheists?

One of the things he thinks he understand is chaos and order.

The problem is that the way he understands them is not in accord with
science. So what does he do? He f**ks science, what else?

According to Ray, what a Noble prize winner like Robert B. Lauglin says
is not just irrelevant; it also is 100% false if it says anythinng Ray
disagree with.

See how easy it is, just disagree and say it isn't so, and you chalk up
another victory for Ray style reason.

Anyway, let me quote Laughlin:

QUOTE
� it is wise to recall how intractable previous generations found the
problems facing them, and how they courageously followed dues dropped by
nature to breakthrough and solution. The miracle of color in nature
pointed to chemical principles that eventually led to the invention of
aniline dyes. The mirade of rectification in rocks pointed to the
principles of semiconduction that led to the invention of the
transistor. In each of these cases, moving forward required the
invention of entire thought processes, practices not recognized as
lacking until long after they had been invented. Today we are
contemplating the miracle of life and the principles of organization at
the nanoscale to which it points. It is conceivable that this problem
will be impossible to solve, but I don't think so. We have the same
important piece of information about this problem as we had for dyes,
semiconductors, and all the other technical marvels that have now made
their way into the economy and become woven into our lives: nature
already did it. Admittedly, it had a vast stretch of geologic time over
which to do its research, but then that is also true for the other things.
UNQUOTE

I got one more thing to say. On the subject of Chaos vs. Order, I
believe Roger have said all that needs to be said, but I will present my
own thinking on the subject, using decks of cards:

I believe that repeated shuffling of cards, i.e. randomness in action,
in due time will generate any and all of all the possible permutations
of the cards. And that holds true even for astronomical numbers of cards.

To me, that seems to mean that even if there may be only one winning
configuration it is bound to come up sooner or later. the probability is
1, and it may just as well happen today as not before every other
configuration have come up several times.

It is only a matter of time and probability. If it isn't improbable, it
will happen.

One other thing. According to Ray, any order in the universe is the
result of divine intervention. Without God, everything would be 'chaos'
But that is not how nature works: i see all kinds of order in the
universe wherever I look but no reason to thin it is not natural,
explainable in terms of the laws of nature; physics and chemistry.

Take our planet, it is not a piece of chaos. Air, oceans and rocks -
they all know their place. Why? Gold, diamonds, Iron ore - everything is
what it should be according to the scientific view.

No signs of divine intervention.

Besides, many organic compounds have been found in outer space. AFAIK,
it was a surprise and not expected by science? But amino acids are
building blocks of biology and according to Ray, such ordered chemical
compounds have no right to exist anywhere God did not put them. So how
come they are all over 'the place'?

Maybe the are leftovers from PN's little greeen men...

Questions about biology will have to wait. We'll have to restore order
in the universe first.

Rolf

[Stephanus]

> > My entire world view is framed in terms of thehttp://tautology.wikia.com/wiki/Pattern_or_designpremise. Therefore

> > 'natural selection' the oxymoron can be no more a tautology than the
> > pleonasm free gift as I showed athttp://tautology.wikia.com/wiki/Preferential_decision.
>
> > > So once again, like I just mentioned, I
> > > respond to those who present the greatest threat to Christianity and
> > > Bible.
>
> > > Ray (Old Earth, Paleyan IDist-species immutabilist)
>
> I interpret your message as saying you reject the scientific and
> logical veracity of natural selection. Good. I stand corrected. But
> your fellow YECs are in a very bad position, Stephan.

A fact that drives me to tears because they will eventually lose their
salvation if they persist in their folly of semiotic necromancy.
Googling http://www.answersingenesis.org/ and natural selection
brings up nothing under popper or falsification and delusional
nonsense about "accepting" natural selection. Note that physics
equations are never 'accepted', only claims of logic have to be
accepted.

> To rail against
> Materialism but accept conceptual existence of natural selection
> equates to an irreconcilable and inexcusable contradiction.

Tell me about it, if you as a non-YEC gets this then I don't know what
to say about www.icr.org and AIG. I think personally that AIG is
simply a money making scam. God did *not* tell them to build a $22mil
dino adventure park. Our investigation is solely a grammatical one.

> ALL of the scientific claims of Darwin contradict Scripture and nature and are
> completely false.

Absolutely

> Ray (species immutabilist)

I can only pray you will become YEC.

[Gary Bohn]

That will likely have the same outcome as most prayer.

[Burkhard]

says who?

"At best, they did not understand why one of the most prominent
pioneers of quantum physics
did not ACCEPT the theory when it established itself on what they
thought were firm bases an
manifested itself as the most powerful theory in the history of
physics." (Paty, Michel. "The nature of Einstein's objections to the
Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics." Foundations of
physics 25.1 (1995): 183-204)

"Let us accept the theory ofdm-spikes of Kuijpers et al. (1981) as a
basis for interpreting our events" (Karlick�, M. "Narrowband dm-spikes
as indication of flare mass ejection." Solar physics 92.1-2 (1984):
329-342.)

"is not the well-bounded, cohesive lump it appears to be; nor is it
even the jiggling cloud of particles
that classical physics urges us ... of relativity and our spatial
intuitions is no objection to the theory;
given the experimental evidence, it is clear that we must ACCEPT the
theory.." (Lewis, Peter J. "Quantum mechanics, orthogonality, and
counting." The British journal for the philosophy of science 48.3
(1997): 313-328)

just for starters...

[Robert Camp]

On May 11, 8:43�am, Stephanus <srensbu...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On May 10, 8:48�pm, Ray Martinez <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > On May 10, 7:50 am, Stephanus <srensbu...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On May 9, 11:45 pm, Ray Martinez <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > > On May 9, 8:03 am, Stephanus <srensbu...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > On May 7, 10:57 pm, Mark Isaak <eci...@curioustax.onomy.net> wrote:
>
> > > > > > On 5/7/13 12:30 PM, Ray Martinez wrote:

<snip>

> > �To rail against

> > Materialism but accept conceptual existence of natural selection
> > equates to an irreconcilable and inexcusable contradiction.
>
> Tell me about it, if you as a non-YEC gets this then I don't know what

> to say about �www.icr.organd AIG. I think personally that AIG is

> simply a money making scam. God did *not* tell them to build a $22mil
> dino adventure park. Our investigation is solely a grammatical one.

Do all religious nuts refer to themselves by use of the majestic
plural?

We find that disturbing.

[Ray Martinez]

My argument is here (and remains unaddressed):

https://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/7f2a5634887db881?hl=en

And yes, overall, I am saying natural evolution is "prima facie
impossible" (RS). One of the main reasons evolution was rejected by
science before Darwin was because it was viewed as self-evidently
impossible. And moreover, once again, I am henceforth challenging the
claim that natural selection can be described as "non-random."

> Regarding the above discussion it is about sieves. It
> is about how they work. When a mixture of sand and
> gravel pass over a series of sieves a sorting occurs.
> But it isn't magic or perfect. You don't get all the
> smallest grained sand in one bin, medium in the next
> and perfect gradations per sieve. But you do get pretty
> good order established. And when you break it down to
> how it actually happens it's the accumulated effect of
> lots and lots of random movement as the gravel and
> sand pass along the sieves and some non random biases
> in the probability of what falls through to the next
> level.

Fine; I have always understood what a sieve is and what it does. What
I don't understand is how the concept is seen, manifested, or
transferred into nature. The gulf here between the sieve object and
nature is wide and completely black in my mind.

> core claim. I am trying to get [you] to actually examine it

> instead of just asserting it.

Yes, it's my core claim and if you really understood it you wouldn't
say it was asserted. Again, I've provided a link above that will take
you to a message in this thread that contains my core claim, re-
explained, which remains, as I just said, unaddressed and
misunderstood.

> An analogy about multiplication.
> We know that
> � �positive number X positive number = positive number
> � �positive number X negative number = negative number
> � �negative number x negative number = positive number
>
> Some find the last of those three to be a counterintuitive
> result. They might even call it illogical for certain
> loose notions of "logic". �If you were tutoring a student
> who claimed it was illogical, how would you address that
> intuition on their part? I find this last question to
> be interesting. One has to dig beyond the final claim
> of _it_ being illogical and find out why they claim that.

It's not only illogical, but manifestly impossible (unless the
supernatural is involved).

> �From what I've been able to gather, you have an intuition

> that if you combine something random with anything, you
> get a random result.

No, I'm saying (in part) that no effect exists to justify the causal
description of "random" which is a term that carries the full claim of
Materialism along with it.

> You seem to think this can be examined
> within an English construct so that if an adjective like
> random or undirected is employed, you must have a random
> or undirected result.

No, once again, I'm saying your claims are illogical. I'm not, at this
particular point, or juncture, saying the claim is scientifically
false; only that the logic is quite ill. In behalf of evolutionary
theory you have admitted the cause-and-effect scheme to be: random
cause/non-random results or effects; therefore, whether you understand
or not, or admit or not, the scheme IS illogical.

> I can't get you to provide justification for this, you
> claim it to be obvious. I could just assert back "no it
> isn't" but that really achieves nothing.

The problem is your inability to understand that I am only attacking
the logic and that the logic is ill, bad, nonsensical,
counterintuitive, etc.etc. Yet you do, like other evo authorities,
admit that the general theory is counterintuitive.

> My path to address this claim is to provide counter-examples
> to show that what you believe is a reliable rule is not.
> That's what I've been trying to do. But every time we
> get close, you want to jump back out and repeat the
> assertion. I'm close to giving up trying.

Ultimately, we are saying, since the logic is as described, the
descriptions of said causal phenomena are inaccurate (to be kind).

Ray

[Ray Martinez]

On May 10, 3:32�pm, Earle Jones <earle.jo...@comcast.net> wrote:
> In article
> <eb3c7fb9-a3d4-4f44-9f06-933d0fb10...@z10g2000yqd.googlegroups.com>,

Basic Christian Theology says anyone not under the control of Christ
and the Holy Spirit is automatically deceived and under the control of
Satan. The reason you don't know about it is because you are, like I
said, deceived and Satan leaves the deceived alone lest they become
aware of their status.

Ray

[Ray Martinez]

On May 10, 3:40�pm, Earle Jones <earle.jo...@comcast.net> wrote:
> In article

> <4706be19-de0a-4174-98d8-232288b58...@i3g2000yqf.googlegroups.com>,

> movements and modifications; the doctrine that consciousness and will are wholly due to material
> agency


Earlier I provided the following definition:

"Materialism: interpretive philosophy that says immaterial power and
intelligence does not exist in nature; causation that precludes
immaterial origin, involvement, or influence; causal agencies that
always originate from the closed system of material nature.

The above has near perfect correspondence with #2 above.

Ray

[Rolf Aalberg]

We all want to know. Then we'd all abandon our Darwinian Atheism and bow
to the one true what's his name again?

> earle
> *
>

[Rolf Aalberg]

Right, just tell us how to become aware like. That's the way to save
mankind, I presume? Get at it!

> Ray
>

[Rolf Aalberg]

I'd love to see you two praying together for the salvation of each
other's soul. Pure delight.


>

[Burkhard]

On May 11, 1:59�am, Mark Isaak <eci...@curioustax.onomy.net> wrote:
> On 5/10/13 12:34 PM, Ray Martinez wrote:
>
> > On May 9, 7:26 pm, Dana Tweedy <reddfrog...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> [...]
> >> Is this also why you keep running away from discussions with me?
>
> > When has that ever occurred?
>
> > I am known on the Internet as a bully who picks on Evolutionists. I
> > hang around looking for them. I've beaten so many, intellectually,
> > they choose to ban me and plead that I go away. You're an abnormal who
> > likes to get beat up. And when I beat you up you immediately ask for
> > more, as seen in your comment above.
>
> No, Ray, you are by no stretch of imagination a bully. �A bully attacks
> people to cause them suffering, and I rarely, if ever, see you do that.
> � There are unflattering terms which may be applied to you, but "bully"
> is not one of them.
>
> Personally, I think of you as a deluded "Christian," a victim of
> pernicious propaganda created by angry/older effective Atheists who are
> controlled by Satan.
>

When I saw Ray's post, I laughed so loud I may have gotten hernia.
Savaged by a chihuahua....

[Robert Camp]

On May 10, 12:34�pm, Ray Martinez <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On May 9, 7:26�pm, Dana Tweedy <reddfrog...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

> > Is this also why you keep running away from discussions with me?
>
> When has that ever occurred?
>
> I am known on the Internet as a bully who picks on Evolutionists. I
> hang around looking for them. I've beaten so many, intellectually,
> they choose to ban me and plead that I go away. You're an abnormal who
> likes to get beat up. And when I beat you up you immediately ask for
> more, as seen in your comment above.

Are you just thumping your chest, Ray, or do you really believe this?
The former is understandable, if childish, but the latter is simply
unhinged from reality. As someone who enjoys sparring with you despite
your train of thought so often coming off the rails, I urge you yet
again to seek help.

[Ray Martinez]

On May 11, 8:43锟絘m, Stephanus <srensbu...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Googling 锟絟ttp://www.answersingenesis.org/锟絘nd natural selection

> brings up nothing under popper or falsification and delusional
> nonsense about "accepting" natural selection. Note that physics
> equations are never 'accepted', only claims of logic have to be
> accepted.
>

> > 锟絋o rail against

> > Materialism but accept conceptual existence of natural selection
> > equates to an irreconcilable and inexcusable contradiction.
>
> Tell me about it, if you as a non-YEC gets this then I don't know what

> to say about 锟絯ww.icr.organd AIG. I think personally that AIG is

> simply a money making scam. God did *not* tell them to build a $22mil
> dino adventure park. Our investigation is solely a grammatical one.
>

> > ALL of the 锟絪cientific claims of Darwin contradict Scripture and nature and are
> > completely false.
>
> Absolutely

So you agree: species are immutable?

> > Ray (species immutabilist)
>
> I can only pray you will become YEC.

YECism epitomizes pseudo-science. Before the rise of Darwinian
evolution, Christian naturalists had already determined the Earth to
be old. So YECism is an anti-scriptural and ignorant 20th century
invent/reaction to Darwinism. Neither the Bible nor reality supports a
young Earth. You're just following the crowd.

Ray (Protestant Evangelical, Old Earth, species immutabilist)

[jillery]

On Sat, 11 May 2013 11:02:13 -0700 (PDT), Ray Martinez
<pyram...@yahoo.com> wrote:


[...]

>Basic Christian Theology says anyone not under the control of Christ
>and the Holy Spirit is automatically deceived and under the control of
>Satan. The reason you don't know about it is because you are, like I
>said, deceived and Satan leaves the deceived alone lest they become
>aware of their status.

If Satan leaves the deceived alone, then how are they under his
control?

[Ray Martinez]

On May 10, 11:46�pm, "g...@risky-biz.com" <gdguar...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On May 10, 6:04 pm, Ray Martinez <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > On May 10, 1:32 pm, Greg Guarino <gdguar...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On 5/10/2013 3:12 PM, Ray Martinez wrote:
>
> > > > Because you're explicating the main scientific claim of Materialism
> > > > (fully material biological causation processes) I don't "understand"
> > > > any of it.
>
> > > That's where you're wrong, and consistently so. I think it might be best
> > > for you to put the word "main" on sabbatical for a while. "Fully" can
> > > keep it company. Roger is asking you to think analytically; if he's
> > > wrong, there must be a flaw in his chain of explanation. Help him find it.
>
> > Your reply has almost nothing to do with what I said. Not a good
> > start, Greg.
>
> I think it does. Roger asks you to consider a small, focused question:
> can an unguided process produce a non-random result? You reply that
> you can't understand any of it because it is Materialism and thus
> makes no sense to you.

Not true; you have butchered the exchanges.

> But it isn't Materialism, at least not as you

> describe it. You say that Materialism "precludes" immaterial origin.....

....as well as immaterial involvement and influence. Again, you're
butchering what was said.

> If so, then Materialism is not required for the processes that Roger
> describes, only that SOME things happen via the commonly-held laws of
> physics and chemistry.

When I told Roger that I didn't "understand" (quote marks in original)
the context was semi-lengthy commentary he had written explicating
natural selection. What you don't seem to understand is the fact that
natural selection is a fully material process; hence the immaterial
not involved. This plain and simple fact indicates that you don't
understand the fact that natural selection is Materialism, that is, a
fully material causation claim.

> > > Roger has detailed processes that produce non-random results through the
> > > action of the natural laws of physics, chemistry and biology. Mutation
> > > and selection do not require a "material" origin of life on Earth, and
> > > certainly do not require there to be no God.
>
> > Relevance?
>
> Natural Selection does not require the Materialism you describe below.

Where is the immaterial in natural selection?

Of course my question is rhetorical.

> Thus there may be some other reason you don't understand it.

But I didn't say I don't understand it; rather, I said I don't
"understand" it; meaning I understand natural selection to be
nonsense; meaning you and Roger don't understand that what you're
saying about natural selection is nonsense. In short, it's way worse
than you think or imagine (for evolutionary theorists).

For example: Robert Camp claims to understand natural selection. But
what he doesn't understand is the fact that natural selection, the
claim itself, is illogical, circular, nonsense. I understand natural
selection as such; so I do indeed understand natural selection. Since
Robert Camp does not understand natural selection as illogical,
circular, nonsense, he doesn't understand natural selection.

One can substitute Robert Camp's name and insert the name of any
Evolutionist, including Darwin, Dawkins, Harshman, Coyne, Theobald,
Greg Guarino, Mark Isaak, etc.etc.

Darwinism or Darwinology is total delusion; no such selection
phenomenon exists in nature; and no Evolutionist has ever shown or
supported its existence. Theobald admits natural selection is an
"explanatory mechanism," meaning the same is a short list of truisms
(things known to exist) explained to act a mechanism causing
evolutionary or adaptive change. The explanation defies all sound
logic, common sense, and is utterly incoherent.

I've shown that you don't know or understand what Materialism is,
which is quite shocking since you claim to understand natural
selection.

Ray