Question for Ray Martinez
Frank J
people really do exist.
While this question is directed specifically to Ray, because he
particularly likes the word "Darwinist," other anti-evolutionists are
encouraged to offer their opinions.
Person A believes that God creates life and interacts with His
creation. He thinks that life has a ~4 billion history on earth, and
that species share "biological continuity" and speciate via processes
that include genetic variation and natural selection. He also thinks
that souls are inserted in some of those temporary biological systems
called "organisms," then live on after the organism dies. And that
souls, not genes, set humans apart from other species.
Person B is an agnostic. He thinks that humans and dogs originated
independently (no biological continuity, thus separate "kinds"), and
that "random mutation and natural selection" are insufficient to
explain the origin of new "kinds."
Which in your opinion is a "Darwinist", and explain why?
1. Person A
2. Person B
3. Both
4. Neither
Frank J
Ray is apparently offline this weekend. On vacation I hope, because he
has been overworked lately, between his paper and TO. So before this
thread gets buried, I'll offer this question again to all anti-
evolutionists. I'll even add another option:
5. Insufficient Information
Jim Willemin
>
> Ray is apparently offline this weekend. On vacation I hope, because he
> has been overworked lately, between his paper and TO. So before this
> thread gets buried, I'll offer this question again to all anti-
> evolutionists. I'll even add another option:
>
> 5. Insufficient Information
>
>
For what it's worth, I think Ray posts from a public library, though I could easily be mistooken. His rather erratic posting
schedule suggests that he isn't sitting at his home computer every night, and his monomania suggests that he would be if he had
one. Too, I seem to recall some offhand references to books on library shelves at hand in some of his posts, though I don't
feel like finding them. (I predict Ray will find your question meaningless, and decline to answer, since according to him
anyone who does not accept Genesis *must* be an atheist, therefore person A cannot exist.)
Bill Wayne
Prior experience seems to show that Ray doesn't accept much variation
between people. In previous discussions, he said a person like "A"
isn't a true Christian and is lying about his beliefs. Therefore, in
his mind, he is both an atheist and a "Darwinist". B doesn't accept
the bible, so he must be a "Darwinist", too.
Ray Martinez
> This is not hypothetical like Zoe's "resurrection" question. These
> people really do exist.
>
> While this question is directed specifically to Ray, because he
> particularly likes the word "Darwinist," other anti-evolutionists are
> encouraged to offer their opinions.
>
"All" scholars use the word Darwinist. Anyone who denies is revealing
their unread status.
> Person A believes that God creates life and interacts with His
> creation. He thinks that life has a ~4 billion history on earth, and
> that species share "biological continuity" and speciate via processes
> that include genetic variation and natural selection. He also thinks
> that souls are inserted in some of those temporary biological systems
> called "organisms," then live on after the organism dies. And that
> souls, not genes, set humans apart from other species.
>
> Person B is an agnostic. He thinks that humans and dogs originated
> independently (no biological continuity, thus separate "kinds"), and
> that "random mutation and natural selection" are insufficient to
> explain the origin of new "kinds."
>
> Which in your opinion is a "Darwinist", and explain why?
>
> 1. Person A
> 2. Person B
> 3. Both
> 4. Neither
Person A is not a Darwinist since Darwin became famous for excluding
the supernatural to explain reality.
If any person thinks that Darwin was intending to show how God
created, then stay tuned for my paper as I will prove beyond any
shadow of a doubt that Darwin was doing no such thing, he was, in
fact, doing the exact opposite. Since all Atheists rabidly support
evolution Person A is a subjective enterprise.
Person B cannot be an Agnostic because the scholarly definition of
that word does not encompass the description offered. The description
by itself is not one of a Darwinist because "Darwin [allegedly]
demonstrated that the difference between humans and other animals is
one of degree not kind" (van Wyhe, darwin online uk, Biography); and
more importantly, a person cannot be a Darwinist unless they accept
natural selection.
Ray
Ray Martinez
wrote:
Yeah I post from various libraries. Ken Ham taught me that if you want
to secure your privacy from howlers use a pseudonym and never post
anything from home. One out of two in my case.
Ray
Stile4aly
Wait a minute. Person A describes theistic evolution to a T, and yet
now you're claiming that person A is not a Darwinist? In the past,
you've said that theistic evolutionists are as they argue, and are a
"Darwinist claiming to be a theist which is mutually impossible.
" (http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/e703fffa40f3eb70?
dmode=source). Why the contradiction now?
>
> If any person thinks that Darwin was intending to show how God
> created, then stay tuned for my paper as I will prove beyond any
> shadow of a doubt that Darwin was doing no such thing, he was, in
> fact, doing the exact opposite. Since all Atheists rabidly support
> evolution Person A is a subjective enterprise.
Noone suggests that Darwin was trying to explain how God was created.
He was trying to explain the diversity of life on Earth. If your
paper spends any significant period trying to prove false an argument
that noone espouses, then it's a huge waste of time.
>
> Person B cannot be an Agnostic because the scholarly definition of
> that word does not encompass the description offered. The description
> by itself is not one of a Darwinist because "Darwin [allegedly]
> demonstrated that the difference between humans and other animals is
> one of degree not kind" (van Wyhe, darwin online uk, Biography); and
> more importantly, a person cannot be a Darwinist unless they accept
> natural selection.
Ok, but you've just said that person A isn't a Darwinist even though
he is described as accepting that God uses genetic variation and
natural selection. So, clearly, accepting natural selection alone
isn't enough to be a Darwinist. Additionally, you say that person B
isn't a Darwinist even though he is an agnostic. So, not
acknowledging God's existence isn't enough to rate someone as a
Darwinist. I can only conclude that in your opinion, one must be both
an non-theist (either atheist or agnostic) and accept natural
selection. But, you've railed against theistic evolutionists so many
times in the past, claiming that they are atheists in drag, so to
speak. So, at this point, your actual beliefs are quite nebulous.
>
> Ray
Steven J.
> On May 27, 6:14 am, Frank J <f...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
> > This is not hypothetical like Zoe's "resurrection" question. These
> > people really do exist.
>
> > While this question is directed specifically to Ray, because he
> > particularly likes the word "Darwinist," other anti-evolutionists are
> > encouraged to offer their opinions.
>
> "All" scholars use the word Darwinist. Anyone who denies is revealing
> their unread status.
>
usage of "all" scholars, unless you are limiting the term "scholar" to
the Dr. and Pastor Scott and a handful of their sycophants (in which
case, who besides a Gene Scott idolator would care what "all scholars"
think?). But even if *all* scholars used the term "Darwinist," that
would not establish that they use it to mean what you use it to mean.
It is not enough to show that a word exists and is used by scholars;
you have to show that it means what you say it means.
>
> > Person A believes that God creates life and interacts with His
> > creation. He thinks that life has a ~4 billion history on earth, and
> > that species share "biological continuity" and speciate via processes
> > that include genetic variation and natural selection. He also thinks
> > that souls are inserted in some of those temporary biological systems
> > called "organisms," then live on after the organism dies. And that
> > souls, not genes, set humans apart from other species.
>
> > Person B is an agnostic. He thinks that humans and dogs originated
> > independently (no biological continuity, thus separate "kinds"), and
> > that "random mutation and natural selection" are insufficient to
> > explain the origin of new "kinds."
>
> > Which in your opinion is a "Darwinist", and explain why?
>
> > 1. Person A
> > 2. Person B
> > 3. Both
> > 4. Neither
>
> Person A is not a Darwinist since Darwin became famous for excluding
> the supernatural to explain reality.
>
Excluding the supernatural to explain reality is characteristic of
many branches of science: no chemistry: e.g. meteorology, as has been
noted before, explains rain without reference to the "windows of
heaven" or the wrath or benevolence of God. The goal of any
scientific theory is to find a way to account for phenomena without
miracles, since miracles don't actually "explain" things in a
scientific sense: that is, they don't tell us why things are one way
rather than some other possible way.
>
> If any person thinks that Darwin was intending to show how God
> created, then stay tuned for my paper as I will prove beyond any
> shadow of a doubt that Darwin was doing no such thing, he was, in
> fact, doing the exact opposite. Since all Atheists rabidly support
> evolution Person A is a subjective enterprise.
>
atheists." Ayn Rand, before she died, was noted for ardent atheism
but refused to either accept or reject the idea of evolution. Surely
there might still be a few atheists of that sort.
Second, you are engaged in a rather egregious logical fallacy, known
as "affirming the consequent." Just as "all dogs are mammals, my pet
is a mammal, therefore, my pet is a dog" is invalid (my pet might be a
cat, hamster, rabbit, or other non-canine mammal), so "all atheists
rabidly support evolution, Person A supports evolution, therefore
Person A is, or to be consistent ought to be, an atheist" is
wretchedly bad logic. One might as well argue "all atheists rabidly
support heliocentrism, Ray Martinez believes the Earth orbits the sun,
therefore Ray Martinez is a subjective enterprise."
Third, it's not like we don't believe that we're going to someday be
able to read this fabulous paper of yours ... no, wait, it's exactly
like that. Sorry.
>
> Person B cannot be an Agnostic because the scholarly definition of
> that word does not encompass the description offered. The description
> by itself is not one of a Darwinist because "Darwin [allegedly]
> demonstrated that the difference between humans and other animals is
> one of degree not kind" (van Wyhe, darwin online uk, Biography); and
> more importantly, a person cannot be a Darwinist unless they accept
> natural selection.
>
It is nowhere said that Person B does not accept natural selection; it
says that Person B holds that natural selection cannot produce "new
kinds." Darwin himself held that natural selection was not the sole
mechanism of evolution, and never suggested that it could account for
the origin of life. Suppose someone accepted the idea (dating back to
Lamarck) that single-celled organisms originate (somehow) and evolve
along a single line (without branching or giving rise to multiple
species at the same time): a view of multiple evolutionary ladders
rather than a single evolutionary tree. Such a person would not be a
"Darwinist," but not quite for the reason you suggest.
>
> Ray
-- Steven J.
Cemtech
pyram...@yahoo.com says...
Gee, I'm not a Darwinist after all. =)
--
Steve "Chris" Price
Associate Professor of Computational Aesthetics
Amish Chair of Electrical Engineering
University of Ediacara "A fine tradition since 630,000,000 BC"
Cemtech
pyram...@yahoo.com says...
Look out Ray! Black helecopters! Quick, put on this shiny hat.
Yea, security isn't very good these days. It helps to be a professional
to keep one's systems clean and secure. =(
Mark Isaak
> In article <1180494426.4...@p47g2000hsd.googlegroups.com>,
> pyram...@yahoo.com says...
>> On May 28, 6:54 am, Jim Willemin <jim***willemin@hot***mail.com>
>> wrote:
>> > [...]
>> >
>> > For what it's worth, I think Ray posts from a public library, though
>> > I could easily be mistooken. His rather erratic posting schedule
>> > suggests that he isn't sitting at his home computer every night, and
>> > his monomania suggests that he would be if he had one. Too, I seem
>> > to recall some offhand references to books on library shelves at hand
>> > in some of his posts, though I don't feel like finding them. (I
>> > predict Ray will find your question meaningless, and decline to
>> > answer, since according to him anyone who does not accept Genesis
>> > *must* be an atheist, therefore person A cannot exist.)
>>
>> Yeah I post from various libraries. Ken Ham taught me that if you want
>> to secure your privacy from howlers use a pseudonym and never post
>> anything from home. One out of two in my case.
>
> Look out Ray! Black helecopters! Quick, put on this shiny hat.
>
> Yea, security isn't very good these days. It helps to be a professional
> to keep one's systems clean and secure. =(
Considering how Ken Ham swindled his business partners, it appears that
Ray has good reason to worry about securing his privacy from him.
http://www.christianfaithandreason.com/june_creationmag.html
--
Mark Isaak eciton (at) earthlink (dot) net
"Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of
the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are
being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and
exposing the country to danger." -- Hermann Goering
Dana Tweedy
"Ray Martinez" <pyram...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1180494085.2...@p77g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
> On May 27, 6:14 am, Frank J <f...@comcast.net> wrote:
>> This is not hypothetical like Zoe's "resurrection" question. These
>> people really do exist.
>>
>> While this question is directed specifically to Ray, because he
>> particularly likes the word "Darwinist," other anti-evolutionists are
>> encouraged to offer their opinions.
>>
>
> "All" scholars use the word Darwinist. Anyone who denies is revealing
> their unread status.
While it may be true that some "scholars" , or even many "scholars" use the
term Darwinist, they normally use the term to refer to scientists who agree
with Darwin in the mechanism of evolutionary change, not to mean "someone
who accepts evolution", or even "someone who worships Darwin". Pointing
out that one does not need to be a "Darwinist" to accept evolution does not
reveal an "unread status".
>
>
>> Person A believes that God creates life and interacts with His
>> creation. He thinks that life has a ~4 billion history on earth, and
>> that species share "biological continuity" and speciate via processes
>> that include genetic variation and natural selection. He also thinks
>> that souls are inserted in some of those temporary biological systems
>> called "organisms," then live on after the organism dies. And that
>> souls, not genes, set humans apart from other species.
>>
>> Person B is an agnostic. He thinks that humans and dogs originated
>> independently (no biological continuity, thus separate "kinds"), and
>> that "random mutation and natural selection" are insufficient to
>> explain the origin of new "kinds."
>>
>> Which in your opinion is a "Darwinist", and explain why?
>>
>> 1. Person A
>> 2. Person B
>> 3. Both
>> 4. Neither
>
> Person A is not a Darwinist since Darwin became famous for excluding
> the supernatural to explain reality.
How odd, Ray, as you often call me a "Darwinist" even though the person A
position is very close to mine. However you are mistaken, as Darwin was
not famous for "excluding the supernatural to explain reality". Science
seeks naturalistic explanations for natural events, and is not interested in
exluding the supernatural. Science just has no way of including the
supernatural, so there is no need to "exclude" it. In any case, Darwin was
famous for discovering a workable mechanism to explain how life diversifies
and changes over time. Darwin's fame came from devising a theory that
could be tested, and which explains the evidence better than any other
scientifc theory. Supernatural explanations cannot be tested, and can't be
falsified, therefore they are useless, as far as science is concerned.
>
> If any person thinks that Darwin was intending to show how God
> created, then stay tuned for my paper as I will prove beyond any
> shadow of a doubt that Darwin was doing no such thing, he was, in
> fact, doing the exact opposite.
Most of us don't have an unlimited life span, so waitng for your "paper"
would be an exercise in futility. Darwin was not intending to show how God
created, and no one claims that he did. Darwin, however most likely
believed that this was how God did create, and it's the position that many
people who accept the science of evolution, and also beleive in God
maintain.
Even if, by some miracle, your paper is publshed before the sun runs out of
Hydrogen, I suspect it will not "prove" anything about Darwin, or his
beliefs.
> Since all Atheists rabidly support
> evolution Person A is a subjective enterprise.
First of all, not all atheists support evolution, rabidly or otherwise.
Even if they did, it would only mean that atheists support scientific
theories. Atheists also largely support that the sun is the center of the
solar system, and that wearing seatbelts saves lives. Does that mean
either of those two are atheist positions?
>
> Person B cannot be an Agnostic because the scholarly definition of
> that word does not encompass the description offered.
Agnostic means that one is not sure of the existance of God, or gods.
> The description
> by itself is not one of a Darwinist because "Darwin [allegedly]
> demonstrated that the difference between humans and other animals is
> one of degree not kind" (van Wyhe, darwin online uk, Biography); and
> more importantly, a person cannot be a Darwinist unless they accept
> natural selection.
Natural selection is only part of Darwin's mechanism, as as already pointed
out, Person B is not rejecting natural selection, but that it's insufficient
to produce new "kinds".
Humans are related to other life on Earth, that much is an established fact.
DJT
Cemtech
eci...@earthlink.net says...
> On Wed, 30 May 2007 08:48:59 -0700, Cemtech wrote:
>
> > In article <1180494426.4...@p47g2000hsd.googlegroups.com>,
> > pyram...@yahoo.com says...
> >> On May 28, 6:54 am, Jim Willemin <jim***willemin@hot***mail.com>
> >> wrote:
> >> > [...]
> >> >
> >> > For what it's worth, I think Ray posts from a public library, though
> >> > I could easily be mistooken. His rather erratic posting schedule
> >> > suggests that he isn't sitting at his home computer every night, and
> >> > his monomania suggests that he would be if he had one. Too, I seem
> >> > to recall some offhand references to books on library shelves at hand
> >> > in some of his posts, though I don't feel like finding them. (I
> >> > predict Ray will find your question meaningless, and decline to
> >> > answer, since according to him anyone who does not accept Genesis
> >> > *must* be an atheist, therefore person A cannot exist.)
> >>
> >> Yeah I post from various libraries. Ken Ham taught me that if you want
> >> to secure your privacy from howlers use a pseudonym and never post
> >> anything from home. One out of two in my case.
> >
> > Look out Ray! Black helecopters! Quick, put on this shiny hat.
> >
> > Yea, security isn't very good these days. It helps to be a professional
> > to keep one's systems clean and secure. =(
>
> Considering how Ken Ham swindled his business partners, it appears that
> Ray has good reason to worry about securing his privacy from him.
> http://www.christianfaithandreason.com/june_creationmag.html
Oh dear. I hope Dr. Carl Wieland doesn't declare a Christian Jehad on
Ken Ham. He'll probably hijack a kite and fly it into the museum.
Intersting link, thanks. =)
Ray Martinez
I'll get back to you on this ASAP.
>
>
> > If any person thinks that Darwin was intending to show how God
> > created, then stay tuned for my paper as I will prove beyond any
> > shadow of a doubt that Darwin was doing no such thing, he was, in
> > fact, doing the exact opposite. Since all Atheists rabidly support
> > evolution Person A is a subjective enterprise.
>
> No one suggests that Darwin was trying to explain how God was created.
You are unread or ignorant. If I had the time I could produce a link
showing Dana Tweedy saying that Darwin was attempting to prove how God
really created, then pasting the last sentence or two of the "Origin"
as support.
> He was trying to explain the diversity of life on Earth.
Darwin was attempting to answer Paley; design is not actual; to
whatever degree that it seems to exist it was produced by natural
selection - not God. He also was attempting to disprove special
creation. Obviously you have forgotten what the "Origin" actually
says. Paley answered Hume and Erasmus Darwin. These are uncontested
historical facts strewn about in historical sources ad naseum.
> If your
> paper spends any significant period trying to prove false an argument
> that noone espouses, then it's a huge waste of time.
>
Most TEists and a lot of Atheists believe that Darwin was attempting
to prove how an unidentified God really created. TEists also believe
that evolution was guided by God. We know Darwin was doing the exact
opposite and that there is no source for guided evolution.
Both TEists and Atheists cite "I was a Theist" (Darwin) when I wrote
the "Origin" and, of course, the last sentences.
>
>
> > Person B cannot be an Agnostic because the scholarly definition of
> > that word does not encompass the description offered. The description
> > by itself is not one of a Darwinist because "Darwin [allegedly]
> > demonstrated that the difference between humans and other animals is
> > one of degree not kind" (van Wyhe, darwin online uk, Biography); and
> > more importantly, a person cannot be a Darwinist unless they accept
> > natural selection.
>
> Ok, but you've just said that person A isn't a Darwinist even though
> he is described as accepting that God uses genetic variation and
> natural selection. So, clearly, accepting natural selection alone
> isn't enough to be a Darwinist.
Correct. You must also not have any Deity beliefs that claim reality
was caused by the Divine.
> Additionally, you say that person B
> isn't a Darwinist even though he is an agnostic.
Negative. I said that person was not an Agnostic and I said why. This
error means what is built on the error (what is written below)
perpetuates said error so there is no reason to comment any further.
> So, not
> acknowledging God's existence isn't enough to rate someone as a
> Darwinist. I can only conclude that in your opinion, one must be both
> an non-theist (either atheist or agnostic) and accept natural
> selection. But, you've railed against theistic evolutionists so many
> times in the past, claiming that they are atheists in drag, so to
> speak. So, at this point, your actual beliefs are quite nebulous.
>
>
>
>
>
> > Ray- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Ray
Richard Clayton
> Yeah I post from various libraries. Ken Ham taught me that if you want
> to secure your privacy from howlers use a pseudonym and never post
> anything from home. One out of two in my case.
Just what were you afraid the "howlers" would do, anyway? Viciously
read textbooks at you? Vote to increase National Science Foundation
subsidies? Religious fundamentalists are the ones notable for acts of
terrorism, Ray.
By the way, I hate to stand between you and your paranoia, but I
sincerely doubt any poster to this newsgroup wishes harm upon you.
Ray Martinez
> "Ray Martinez" <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
That is why the "Origin" was accepted, you are forgetting that natural
selection was rejected by everyone except a small handful of fanatics.
> Science
> seeks naturalistic explanations for natural events, and is not interested in
> exluding the supernatural.
I have already identified this person as confused and/or deceived. The
comment above is prima facie evidence to that end.
> Science just has no way of including the
> supernatural, so there is no need to "exclude" it. In any case, Darwin was
> famous for discovering a workable mechanism to explain how life diversifies
> and changes over time. Darwin's fame came from devising a theory that
> could be tested, and which explains the evidence better than any other
> scientifc theory. Supernatural explanations cannot be tested, and can't be
> falsified, therefore they are useless, as far as science is concerned.
>
>
>
> > If any person thinks that Darwin was intending to show how God
> > created, then stay tuned for my paper as I will prove beyond any
> > shadow of a doubt that Darwin was doing no such thing, he was, in
> > fact, doing the exact opposite.
>
> Most of us don't have an unlimited life span, so waitng for your "paper"
> would be an exercise in futility. Darwin was not intending to show how God
> created, and no one claims that he did. Darwin, however most likely
> believed that this was how God did create, and it's the position that many
> people who accept the science of evolution, and also beleive in God
> maintain.
>
Crytsal clear evidence of a confused person:
"Darwin was not intending to show how God created"
followed by,
"Darwin, however most likely believed that this was how God did
create"
In any event, welcome back from rehab, Dana.
Ray
Rolf
Should I keep my computer online 24 hours a day in expectation of yoyr paper
and he return of Jesus, or could you provide information about when these
sublime evnets will take place? The end of the world have been predicted
time and again, but still nothing has happened. Please, we are thisting for
enlightenment.
Rolf
----- Original Message -----
From: "Ray Martinez" <pyram...@yahoo.com>
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Sent: Wednesday, May 30, 2007 5:07 AM
Subject: Re: Question for Ray Martinez
You certainly must be a VIP, I never need post from anywhere excpet my home.
Guess I am worthless, Ray hardly ever bother to reply to me, but alas, I
know why.
> Ray
>
>
Dana Tweedy
snip
>> > If any person thinks that Darwin was intending to show how God
>> > created, then stay tuned for my paper as I will prove beyond any
>> > shadow of a doubt that Darwin was doing no such thing, he was, in
>> > fact, doing the exact opposite. Since all Atheists rabidly support
>> > evolution Person A is a subjective enterprise.
>>
>> No one suggests that Darwin was trying to explain how God was created.
>
> You are unread or ignorant. If I had the time I could produce a link
> showing Dana Tweedy saying that Darwin was attempting to prove how God
> really created, then pasting the last sentence or two of the "Origin"
> as support.
Since I never said that, how could you "produce" such a link? Darwin was
not attempting to prove how God created. He was offering a testable natural
explanation for the diversity of life. Darwin probably did believe that
evolution was God's way of creating, but he did not attempt to "prove" that
in any way.
>
>> He was trying to explain the diversity of life on Earth.
>
> Darwin was attempting to answer Paley;
Darwin's argument has little, or nothing to do with Paley's claims.
> design is not actual;
The point is that the appearance of design does not necessarily mean there
is a deliberate designer. Natural processes can, and do produce the
appearance of design.
> to
> whatever degree that it seems to exist it was produced by natural
> selection - not God.
Of course, there is no reason why God could not have used natural selection
as his means of creating. Natural selection is a process that is known to
exist, and can be seen operating.
> He also was attempting to disprove special
> creation.
No, that idea was already a non starter as far as science was concerned, by
the time Darwin was born. It would have been impossible to disprove
"special creation" as there is no way to disprove a supernatural claim.
What Darwin showed was that common descent was a better explanation.
> Obviously you have forgotten what the "Origin" actually
> says.
Ray, since you haven't read the book, why do you think you know what it
says?
> Paley answered Hume and Erasmus Darwin. These are uncontested
> historical facts strewn about in historical sources ad naseum.
Ray, your assumptions and speculations are not "uncontested historical
facts". Whatever Paley may have done, it's irrelevant to the science that
Darwin produced.
>
>> If your
>> paper spends any significant period trying to prove false an argument
>> that noone espouses, then it's a huge waste of time.
>>
>
> Most TEists and a lot of Atheists believe that Darwin was attempting
> to prove how an unidentified God really created.
Ray, since you don't understand what Theistic Evolutionists, or atheists
believe, why are you so confident you can speak for them? No one claims
that Darwin was attempting to prove how God created. It's impossible to
prove anything about God, or his actions as far as science is concerned.
You are missing the distinction between Thestic Evolution, which is a
religious belief, and evolution, which is a scientific theory. Darwin was
attempting to establish a scentific theory, not a religious position.
Theistic evolutionists tend to believe that God created using evolution, but
none of them claim such a thing can be "proven".
> TEists also believe
> that evolution was guided by God.
Again, please don't presume to speak for people you don't understand, and
don't have any concept of what they believe.
> We know Darwin was doing the exact
> opposite and that there is no source for guided evolution.
Actually, Ray, we don't know that. We know that Darwin was attempting to
provide a scientific explanation for the diversity of life. It's up to the
individual to decide how that relates to one's religious beliefs. The
"source" for guided evolution is one's religious beliefs, which is just as
good a "source" as for any of your claims.
>
> Both TEists and Atheists cite "I was a Theist" (Darwin) when I wrote
> the "Origin" and, of course, the last sentences.
Because Darwin was a theist, and did believe in God. He was never an
atheist, even during his worst crisis of faith.
>
>>
>>
>> > Person B cannot be an Agnostic because the scholarly definition of
>> > that word does not encompass the description offered. The description
>> > by itself is not one of a Darwinist because "Darwin [allegedly]
>> > demonstrated that the difference between humans and other animals is
>> > one of degree not kind" (van Wyhe, darwin online uk, Biography); and
>> > more importantly, a person cannot be a Darwinist unless they accept
>> > natural selection.
>>
>> Ok, but you've just said that person A isn't a Darwinist even though
>> he is described as accepting that God uses genetic variation and
>> natural selection. So, clearly, accepting natural selection alone
>> isn't enough to be a Darwinist.
>
> Correct. You must also not have any Deity beliefs that claim reality
> was caused by the Divine.
so, those of use who believe that the Deity used evolution to cause the
reality of common descent, and diversity of life, aren't "Darwinist"?
>
>> Additionally, you say that person B
>> isn't a Darwinist even though he is an agnostic.
>
> Negative. I said that person was not an Agnostic and I said why.
Your claim is somewhat fuzzy. Why do you claim he is not agnostic?
> This
> error means what is built on the error (what is written below)
> perpetuates said error so there is no reason to comment any further.
Which is to say, you can't answer Stile4aly's question.
>
>
>> So, not
>> acknowledging God's existence isn't enough to rate someone as a
>> Darwinist. I can only conclude that in your opinion, one must be both
>> an non-theist (either atheist or agnostic) and accept natural
>> selection. But, you've railed against theistic evolutionists so many
>> times in the past, claiming that they are atheists in drag, so to
>> speak. So, at this point, your actual beliefs are quite nebulous.
>>
>>
note no answer..
DJT
Dana Tweedy
> On May 30, 11:33 am, "Dana Tweedy" <reddfr...@comcast.net> wrote:
>> "Ray Martinez" <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>>
>> news:1180494085.2...@p77g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
>>
>> > On May 27, 6:14 am, Frank J <f...@comcast.net> wrote:
>> >> This is not hypothetical like Zoe's "resurrection" question. These
>> >> people really do exist.
>>
>> >> While this question is directed specifically to Ray, because he
>> >> particularly likes the word "Darwinist," other anti-evolutionists are
>> >> encouraged to offer their opinions.
>>
>> > "All" scholars use the word Darwinist. Anyone who denies is revealing
>> > their unread status.
>>
>> While it may be true that some "scholars" , or even many "scholars" use
>> the
>> term Darwinist, they normally use the term to refer to scientists who
>> agree
>> with Darwin in the mechanism of evolutionary change, not to mean "someone
>> who accepts evolution", or even "someone who worships Darwin".
>> Pointing
>> out that one does not need to be a "Darwinist" to accept evolution does
>> not
>> reveal an "unread status".
Note no comment here.... Why is Ray running away?
snip
>> > Person A is not a Darwinist since Darwin became famous for excluding
>> > the supernatural to explain reality.
>>
>> How odd, Ray, as you often call me a "Darwinist" even though the person A
>> position is very close to mine. However you are mistaken, as Darwin
>> was
>> not famous for "excluding the supernatural to explain reality".
>
> That is why the "Origin" was accepted, you are forgetting that natural
> selection was rejected by everyone except a small handful of fanatics.
Natural selection was not "rejected by everyone". The Origin of Species
was accepted because it was a brilliant scientific work, which solidified
Darwin's reputation as a scientist. Where do you get the idea that
"everyone" rejected natural selection?
>
>> Science
>> seeks naturalistic explanations for natural events, and is not interested
>> in
>> exluding the supernatural.
>
> I have already identified this person as confused and/or deceived.
No, you have claimed this, but never correctly identified any confusion or
deception.
> The
> comment above is prima facie evidence to that end.
In what way? Science does not seek supernatural explanations. It never
has. Where is there any evidence of confusion here?
>
>> Science just has no way of including the
>> supernatural, so there is no need to "exclude" it. In any case, Darwin
>> was
>> famous for discovering a workable mechanism to explain how life
>> diversifies
>> and changes over time. Darwin's fame came from devising a theory that
>> could be tested, and which explains the evidence better than any other
>> scientifc theory. Supernatural explanations cannot be tested, and can't
>> be
>> falsified, therefore they are useless, as far as science is concerned.
Ray is again, unable to answer.....
>>
>>
>>
>> > If any person thinks that Darwin was intending to show how God
>> > created, then stay tuned for my paper as I will prove beyond any
>> > shadow of a doubt that Darwin was doing no such thing, he was, in
>> > fact, doing the exact opposite.
>>
>> Most of us don't have an unlimited life span, so waitng for your "paper"
>> would be an exercise in futility. Darwin was not intending to show how
>> God
>> created, and no one claims that he did. Darwin, however most likely
>> believed that this was how God did create, and it's the position that
>> many
>> people who accept the science of evolution, and also beleive in God
>> maintain.
>>
>
> Crytsal clear evidence of a confused person:
How does ths possibly indicate confusion on my part?
>
> "Darwin was not intending to show how God created"
He was intendng to show how life evolved. How God created is a religious
position. Darwin was writing a scientific work, not a religious one.
>
> followed by,
>
> "Darwin, however most likely believed that this was how God did
> create"
Yes, but you are missing the distiction that I'm making. Darwin was
writing a scientific work, he was not trying to "prove" anything about God.
Science doesn't deal in questions about God, it deals in questions about how
nature works. Darwin's scientific works are separate from his religious
opinions.
>
> In any event, welcome back from rehab, Dana.
Where do you get the idea that I was at rehab, Ray? What would I need
rehabbing from, anyway? Are you just trying to avoid the fact that you
can't address any of my points in a rational manner?
DJT
Ray Martinez
> "Ray Martinez" <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>
> news:1180558111.3...@o5g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...
> snip
>
> >> > If any person thinks that Darwin was intending to show how God
> >> > created, then stay tuned for my paper as I will prove beyond any
> >> > shadow of a doubt that Darwin was doing no such thing, he was, in
> >> > fact, doing the exact opposite. Since all Atheists rabidly support
> >> > evolution Person A is a subjective enterprise.
>
> >> No one suggests that Darwin was trying to explain how God was created.
>
> > You are unread or ignorant. If I had the time I could produce a link
> > showing Dana Tweedy saying that Darwin was attempting to prove how God
> > really created, then pasting the last sentence or two of the "Origin"
> > as support.
>
> Since I never said that, how could you "produce" such a link?
You have and you just cannot admit that your view has changed. Many
Darwinists on this Usenet have said the same thing, again you are a
confused person.
> Darwin was
> not attempting to prove how God created. He was offering a testable natural
> explanation for the diversity of life. Darwin probably did believe that
> evolution was God's way of creating, but he did not attempt to "prove" that
> in any way.
>
The confusion and contradiction continues: "Darwin was not attempting
to prove how God created"; followed by: "Darwin probably did believe
that evolution was God's way of creating, but he did not attempt to
"prove" that in any way."
Mind you, this person really believes what is written makes sense - he
is not being deceptive.
Ray
SNIP....
Ray Martinez
Not a true Darwinist. A Darwinist is a person who accepts the
conclusions of Darwin; those conclusions say God does not exist
because evolution is true. This is why TEists are called TEists, but
sometimes I and others call them Darwinists anyway because their
religious beliefs are virtually non-existent. Educated persons know
that Darwin was an Atheist at least 20 years before "Origin" was
published.
> In the past,
> you've said that theistic evolutionists are as they argue, and are a
> "Darwinist claiming to be a theist which is mutually impossible.
> " (http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/e703fffa40f3eb70?
> dmode=source). Why the contradiction now?
>
Yes, I have said things "like that." TEists are confused, they think
evolution is science - the real way God created. Evolution is not
science, but scientism - the religion of Atheists and Materialists.
But TEists THINK that it is legitimate science, which explains their
peaceful co-existence with the Atheist and proves that they are
confused.
Why else would Theists embrace Evolution if they did not believe it
was science supporting the real way their God created?
Ray
Dana Tweedy
snip
>> > You are unread or ignorant. If I had the time I could produce a link
>> > showing Dana Tweedy saying that Darwin was attempting to prove how God
>> > really created, then pasting the last sentence or two of the "Origin"
>> > as support.
>>
>> Since I never said that, how could you "produce" such a link?
>
> You have and you just cannot admit that your view has changed.
Ray, I have never claimed that Darwin ever attempted to prove how God
"really created" in his book "The Origin of Species". I have not
"changed" my view. As I've already pointed out, Darwin was writing a
scientific work, not a religious one. It's impossible to "prove" that God
did anything as far as science is concerned.
> Many
> Darwinists on this Usenet have said the same thing, again you are a
> confused person.
I suspect you cannot give a single example of any "Darwinist" who has made
such a statement. If you think I ever claimed that Darwin attempted to
prove how God created, then you are the confused one.
>
>> Darwin was
>> not attempting to prove how God created. He was offering a testable
>> natural
>> explanation for the diversity of life. Darwin probably did believe that
>> evolution was God's way of creating, but he did not attempt to "prove"
>> that
>> in any way.
>>
>
> The confusion and contradiction continues:
There is no confusion on my part, and no contradicton. You are missing
the point, perhaps deliberately.
>"Darwin was not attempting
> to prove how God created"; followed by: "Darwin probably did believe
> that evolution was God's way of creating, but he did not attempt to
> "prove" that in any way."
Where do you see any contradiction, or confusion in the above? Darwin
was establishing scientific theory, not delivering a sermon. He did not
attempt to prove that God did anything. He did, however believe that God
existed, and most likely believed that God used evolution as his means of
creation. Darwin knew that it's impossible to prove a religious belief
through science. Therefore he did not try to prove how God created.
Let me spell it out to you in simple terms.... Darwin was not trying to
prove how God created. Darwin was trying (and largely succeeded in that)
to show what natural processes produced the change in populations of livng
things that had been already observed. In a completely different matter,
Darwin believed in God, and that God used those same natural processes as
his means of creation.
The first one is a scientific position, the second a religious one. Darwin
succeeded in "proving" beyond a reasonable doubt that life evolved. There
is no way he could possibly have proved that God created this way.
>
> Mind you, this person really believes what is written makes sense - he
> is not being deceptive.
Mind you that Ray is apparently incapable of considering the possibility
that he might be mistaken, and that his inability to understand is the fault
of himself, not others.
DJT
Dana Tweedy
snip
>> > Person A is not a Darwinist since Darwin became famous for excluding
>> > the supernatural to explain reality.
>>
>> Wait a minute. Person A describes theistic evolution to a T, and yet
>> now you're claiming that person A is not a Darwinist?
>
> Not a true Darwinist. A Darwinist is a person who accepts the
> conclusions of Darwin;
That's not how you have been using the term.
> those conclusions say God does not exist
> because evolution is true.
Darwin never stated any such conclusion. In fact, Darwin continued to
believe in God, even after discovering that evolution is true. It's only
the Creationsts and some atheists who claim that God doesn't exist if
evolution is true.
Image that, Ray agreeing with atheists....
> This is why TEists are called TEists, but
> sometimes I and others call them Darwinists anyway because their
> religious beliefs are virtually non-existent.
Another thing that Ray is badly mistaken about...
> Educated persons know
> that Darwin was an Atheist at least 20 years before "Origin" was
> published.
The class of persons who are educated does not include Ray. Darwin was
never an atheist. At most, he was an agnostic.
>> In the past,
>> you've said that theistic evolutionists are as they argue, and are a
>> "Darwinist claiming to be a theist which is mutually impossible.
>> " (http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/e703fffa40f3eb70?
>> dmode=source). Why the contradiction now?
>>
>
> Yes, I have said things "like that." TEists are confused, they think
> evolution is science - the real way God created.
Evolution is science, Ray. You are confused if you really think that it's
not.
> Evolution is not
> science, but scientism - the religion of Atheists and Materialists.
Atheists don't have a religion, Ray. There is no such religion as
"scientism". Evolution is not a religion, it's a scientific theory.
Please attempt to learn the difference.
> But TEists THINK that it is legitimate science,
For the same reason that anyone thinks it's a legitamate science, because it
is. There isn't a working scientist in the world who does not consider
evolution to be a legitamate science.
> which explains their
> peaceful co-existence with the Atheist and proves that they are
> confused.
Ray, a Christian seeks peaceful co-existance with anyone. Jesus tells us to
love everyone, even our enemies (not that I consider atheists "enemies").
There is no confusion in accepting science as science. It shows the depth
of your own confusion when you try to label a science "religion".
>
> Why else would Theists embrace Evolution if they did not believe it
> was science supporting the real way their God created?
Because the evidence for evolution is too strong for a reasonable person to
deny. However believing that God created by means of evolution is not in
any way a scientific finding, it's a religious belief just like any other
religious belief. Evolution is science, but any assumption about how God
created is religious.
DJT
Ray Martinez
> On May 29, 9:01 pm, Ray Martinez <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote:> On May 27, 6:14 am, Frank J <f...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
> > > This is not hypothetical like Zoe's "resurrection" question. These
> > > people really do exist.
>
> > > While this question is directed specifically to Ray, because he
> > > particularly likes the word "Darwinist," other anti-evolutionists are
> > > encouraged to offer their opinions.
>
> > "All" scholars use the word Darwinist. Anyone who denies is revealing
> > their unread status.
>
> Ray, I think it very unlikely that you have actually surveyed the
> usage of "all" scholars, unless you are limiting the term "scholar" to
> the Dr. and Pastor Scott and a handful of their sycophants (in which
> case, who besides a Gene Scott idolator would care what "all scholars"
> think?). But even if *all* scholars used the term "Darwinist," that
> would not establish that they use it to mean what you use it to mean.
> It is not enough to show that a word exists and is used by scholars;
> you have to show that it means what you say it means.
>
I am pleased that an Atheist like yourself and a person who believes
apes morphed into men reject Dr. and Pastor Scott. The approval of
your kind would surely prove them to be deluded persons.
> > > Person A believes that God creates life and interacts with His
> > > creation. He thinks that life has a ~4 billion history on earth, and
> > > that species share "biological continuity" and speciate via processes
> > > that include genetic variation and natural selection. He also thinks
> > > that souls are inserted in some of those temporary biological systems
> > > called "organisms," then live on after the organism dies. And that
> > > souls, not genes, set humans apart from other species.
>
> > > Person B is an agnostic. He thinks that humans and dogs originated
> > > independently (no biological continuity, thus separate "kinds"), and
> > > that "random mutation and natural selection" are insufficient to
> > > explain the origin of new "kinds."
>
> > > Which in your opinion is a "Darwinist", and explain why?
>
> > > 1. Person A
> > > 2. Person B
> > > 3. Both
> > > 4. Neither
>
> > Person A is not a Darwinist since Darwin became famous for excluding
> > the supernatural to explain reality.
>
> Darwin became famous for arguing that humans are related to apes.
> Excluding the supernatural to explain reality is characteristic of
> many branches of science:
Then we agree that Darwin became famous for excluding the supernatural
to explain reality, which left him with a mandatory origin from
animals. The Darwinian Revolution eventually succeeded in deconverting
other disciplines to also exclude the supernatural = basic history -
you get an A+
> no chemistry: e.g. meteorology, as has been
> noted before, explains rain without reference to the "windows of
> heaven" or the wrath or benevolence of God. The goal of any
> scientific theory is to find a way to account for phenomena without
> miracles, since miracles don't actually "explain" things in a
> scientific sense: that is, they don't tell us why things are one way
> rather than some other possible way.
>
Negative.
The goal of science is to unfold the awesome wonder of God's power
seen in reality. The goal of Darwinian scientism is to pretend that
God does not exist and steal the credit from Him and claim your silly
theories created reality.
> > If any person thinks that Darwin was intending to show how God
> > created, then stay tuned for my paper as I will prove beyond any
> > shadow of a doubt that Darwin was doing no such thing, he was, in
> > fact, doing the exact opposite. Since all Atheists rabidly support
> > evolution Person A is a subjective enterprise.
>
> First, Ray, I strongly suspect that you have not actually polled "all
> atheists." Ayn Rand, before she died, was noted for ardent atheism
> but refused to either accept or reject the idea of evolution. Surely
> there might still be a few atheists of that sort.
>
Intelligent persons know that *all* in this context means vast
majority; a handful of freaks do not jeopardize said truth nor should
they prevent the word from being used how I used it.
> Second, you are engaged in a rather egregious logical fallacy, known
> as "affirming the consequent." Just as "all dogs are mammals, my pet
> is a mammal, therefore, my pet is a dog" is invalid (my pet might be a
> cat, hamster, rabbit, or other non-canine mammal), so "all atheists
> rabidly support evolution, Person A supports evolution, therefore
> Person A is, or to be consistent ought to be, an atheist" is
> wretchedly bad logic.
Wrong. I did not say "Person A supports evolution therefore the same
is an Atheist." I said that all Atheists support evolution therefore
evolution proves (or claims to prove) the atheist worldview =
invulnerable logic. Why else would ALL Atheists rabidly support
evolution (rhetorical question)?
> One might as well argue "all atheists rabidly
> support heliocentrism, Ray Martinez believes the Earth orbits the sun,
> therefore Ray Martinez is a subjective enterprise."
>
The difference is that heliocentrism or feeding baby buzzards has
nothing to do with origins and who's worldview corresponds to the
truth of reality. Atheists support evolution in droves for obvious
reasons.
> Third, it's not like we don't believe that we're going to someday be
> able to read this fabulous paper of yours ... no, wait, it's exactly
> like that. Sorry.
>
Oh did I tell you that I have made an original scientific discovery?
That I stumbled upon it and had the classic Eureka! moment and that I
have been exposing it to falisification scenarios for months now and
it repels all of them and that this discovery falsifies the Theory of
Evolution?
Yes, my work will be worth the wait. What I wouldn't give to see your
face the moment you ascertain that your theory is false. God forgives;
there is plenty of room on the Ark of Jesus.
> > Person B cannot be an Agnostic because the scholarly definition of
> > that word does not encompass the description offered. The description
> > by itself is not one of a Darwinist because "Darwin [allegedly]
> > demonstrated that the difference between humans and other animals is
> > one of degree not kind" (van Wyhe, darwin online uk, Biography); and
> > more importantly, a person cannot be a Darwinist unless they accept
> > natural selection.
>
> It is nowhere said that Person B does not accept natural selection; it
> says that Person B holds that natural selection cannot produce "new
> kinds." Darwin himself held that natural selection was not the sole
> mechanism of evolution, and never suggested that it could account for
> the origin of life.
Darwin and all neo-Darwinists say that NS is not the sole means of
modification but the main and that IT (= NS) is the main cause of
common ancestry. Are you saying that NS had no part in producing
original phyla? Where on the tree of life do you begin NS? Gould says
that NS is represented in the central trunk area on the tree of life
(2002).
Ray
SNIP....
Dana Tweedy
snip
>> Ray, I think it very unlikely that you have actually surveyed the
>> usage of "all" scholars, unless you are limiting the term "scholar" to
>> the Dr. and Pastor Scott and a handful of their sycophants (in which
>> case, who besides a Gene Scott idolator would care what "all scholars"
>> think?). But even if *all* scholars used the term "Darwinist," that
>> would not establish that they use it to mean what you use it to mean.
>> It is not enough to show that a word exists and is used by scholars;
>> you have to show that it means what you say it means.
>>
>
> I am pleased that an Atheist like yourself and a person who believes
> apes morphed into men reject Dr. and Pastor Scott.
Why would you be pleased with that? There's nothing that indicates that
either atheists, or those who accept basic scientific facts are poor judges
of character, or lack thereof...
> The approval of
> your kind would surely prove them to be deluded persons.
Well, no, the "approval" of Steven would only show that he was deluded.
Mr. Scott, and Ms Barbi Bridges may, or may not be deluded, but they
certianly do not count as scholars, or persons of note.
Please notice, that you don't deal with Steven's points in the above
paragraph. What are you afraid of?
snip
>> Darwin became famous for arguing that humans are related to apes.
>> Excluding the supernatural to explain reality is characteristic of
>> many branches of science:
>
> Then we agree that Darwin became famous for excluding the supernatural
> to explain reality, which left him with a mandatory origin from
> animals.
Steven does not seem to be agreeing with that. In fact he pointed out that
it's science that excludes supernatural explanations, not Darwin himself.
There is no "manditory origin from animals", but the facts indicate that
humans are animals, mammals, and specifically apes.
> The Darwinian Revolution eventually succeeded in deconverting
> other disciplines to also exclude the supernatural = basic history -
> you get an A+
And as usual, Ray fails basic history, as well as biology. Science
excluded supernatural influences long before Darwin was even born.
Medicine was one of the last to reject supernatural claims..
>
>> no chemistry: e.g. meteorology, as has been
>> noted before, explains rain without reference to the "windows of
>> heaven" or the wrath or benevolence of God. The goal of any
>> scientific theory is to find a way to account for phenomena without
>> miracles, since miracles don't actually "explain" things in a
>> scientific sense: that is, they don't tell us why things are one way
>> rather than some other possible way.
>>
>
> Negative.
Yet Ray is unable to support this emphatic "Negative".
>
> The goal of science is to unfold the awesome wonder of God's power
> seen in reality.
Where has that ever been a goal of Science? Science is an attempt to
explain the universe without regard to supernatural explanations.
> The goal of Darwinian scientism is to pretend that
> God does not exist and steal the credit from Him and claim your silly
> theories created reality.
There is no "Darwinian scientism", only science. There is no desire of
scientists to claim God doesn't exist, or to "steal credit" from God.
That's just your own delusion. Theories don't create reality, Ray, they
explain it. Also, what do you find "silly" about scientific theories"?
Please be specific.
>
>> > If any person thinks that Darwin was intending to show how God
>> > created, then stay tuned for my paper as I will prove beyond any
>> > shadow of a doubt that Darwin was doing no such thing, he was, in
>> > fact, doing the exact opposite. Since all Atheists rabidly support
>> > evolution Person A is a subjective enterprise.
>>
>> First, Ray, I strongly suspect that you have not actually polled "all
>> atheists." Ayn Rand, before she died, was noted for ardent atheism
>> but refused to either accept or reject the idea of evolution. Surely
>> there might still be a few atheists of that sort.
>>
>
> Intelligent persons know that *all* in this context means vast
> majority;
Why do you assume you'd know what "intelligent persons" do? The term "all"
does not mean "the vast majority", it means "entirely".
> a handful of freaks do not jeopardize said truth nor should
> they prevent the word from being used how I used it.
Ray, you are the "freak" who is using the term incorrectly.
>
>
>> Second, you are engaged in a rather egregious logical fallacy, known
>> as "affirming the consequent." Just as "all dogs are mammals, my pet
>> is a mammal, therefore, my pet is a dog" is invalid (my pet might be a
>> cat, hamster, rabbit, or other non-canine mammal), so "all atheists
>> rabidly support evolution, Person A supports evolution, thefore
>> Person A is, or to be consistent ought to be, an atheist" is
>> wretchedly bad logic.
>
> Wrong. I did not say "Person A supports evolution therefore the same
> is an Atheist."
That is, however what you have been claiming all along.
> I said that all Atheists support evolution therefore
> evolution proves (or claims to prove) the atheist worldview
That's where the false logic comes in. Evolution makes no such claim.
Those atheists who do support evolution do so for the same reason theists
support evolution, because it's the best explanation for the evidence.
=
> invulnerable logic.
False logic is not 'invulnerable".
> Why else would ALL Atheists rabidly support
> evolution (rhetorical question)?
Not all atheists "rabidly support" evolution. Even if they did, they
support it for the same reason theists do. Because it's the best
explanation for the evidence. Steven already explained your bad logic.
>
>> One might as well argue "all atheists rabidly
>> support heliocentrism, Ray Martinez believes the Earth orbits the sun,
>> therefore Ray Martinez is a subjective enterprise."
>>
>
> The difference is that heliocentrism or feeding baby buzzards has
> nothing to do with origins and who's worldview corresponds to the
> truth of reality.
Evolution has nothing to do with "who's worldview corresponds to the truth
of realty" either It explains the evidence, and nothing more.
Heliocentrism has to do with the origin of the solar system, and does
contradict a literal reading of the Bible.
> Atheists support evolution in droves for obvious
> reasons.
For the same reason theists do, because it explains the evidence better than
any other scientific theory.
>
>> Third, it's not like we don't believe that we're going to someday be
>> able to read this fabulous paper of yours ... no, wait, it's exactly
>> like that. Sorry.
>>
>
> Oh did I tell you that I have made an original scientific discovery?
Do you imagine that anyone believes this?
> That I stumbled upon it and had the classic Eureka! moment and that I
> have been exposing it to falisification scenarios for months now and
> it repels all of them and that this discovery falsifies the Theory of
> Evolution?
Considering your poor grasp of logic, and inability to accept your own
falibility, it's not likely you have the ability to accurately falsifiy
anything.... But do tell, what is this "discovery"?
>
> Yes, my work will be worth the wait.
You've said this before, with little reason to believe you.
> What I wouldn't give to see your
> face the moment you ascertain that your theory is false.
You've claimed this before too, and failed to follow up with anything. I
suspect your 'discovery' is more of the same.
> God forgives;
> there is plenty of room on the Ark of Jesus.
Jesus has an Ark too? Did he get it used from Noah?
>
>
>> > Person B cannot be an Agnostic because the scholarly definition of
>> > that word does not encompass the description offered. The description
>> > by itself is not one of a Darwinist because "Darwin [allegedly]
>> > demonstrated that the difference between humans and other animals is
>> > one of degree not kind" (van Wyhe, darwin online uk, Biography); and
>> > more importantly, a person cannot be a Darwinist unless they accept
>> > natural selection.
>>
>> It is nowhere said that Person B does not accept natural selection; it
>> says that Person B holds that natural selection cannot produce "new
>> kinds." Darwin himself held that natural selection was not the sole
>> mechanism of evolution, and never suggested that it could account for
>> the origin of life.
>
> Darwin and all neo-Darwinists say that NS is not the sole means of
> modification
Where did anyone say that natural selection was the sole means of
"modification"? Genetic drift, sexual selection, mutations, etc, are all
parts of genetic changes in populations.
> but the main and that IT (= NS) is the main cause of
> common ancestry.
No, the main cause of common ancestory is reproduction. Natural selection
is only part of the picture.
> Are you saying that NS had no part in producing
> original phyla?
No, that's not what Steven said. It's not even close to what he said.
> Where on the tree of life do you begin NS?
Natural selection most likely began with the first self replicating
organism.
>Gould says
> that NS is represented in the central trunk area on the tree of life
> (2002).
I suspect you are misunderstanding what Gould wrote. What is the proper
citition for this claim?
DJT
Cemtech
pyram...@yahoo.com says...
And the letter/book/article that you have from Darwin that states this?
--
And Dishonest Ray is always right!
"Dr. Scott is never, I repeat, never wrong about anything. However,
there was one thing he was wrong about, ..." - Ray Martinez
Ray Martinez
> "Ray Martinez" <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>
> news:1180569840.1...@p47g2000hsd.googlegroups.com...
> snip
>
> >> > You are unread or ignorant. If I had the time I could produce a link
> >> > showing Dana Tweedy saying that Darwin was attempting to prove how God
> >> > really created, then pasting the last sentence or two of the "Origin"
> >> > as support.
>
> >> Since I never said that, how could you "produce" such a link?
>
> > You have and you just cannot admit that your view has changed.
>
> Ray, I have never claimed that Darwin ever attempted to prove how God
> "really created" in his book "The Origin of Species". I have not
> "changed" my view.
Since you never admit to anything it does not matter. You and many
others have said it. The ending of the "Origin" is used to say that
Darwin was attempting to show how God really created WHEN anyone says
he was not; when anyone says the ending is proof that Darwin was
showing how God really created the same is then dismissed for what it
was: meaningless First Cause concession.
You are playing the tactic with a variation, which is why I said your
view has changed, Dana.
Its okay to admit that ones view has changed; mine has concerning
TEists: they are demonstrably confused. A while back John Wilkins told
me that his view concerning Ernst Mayr and his views about Darwinian
history has changed. Everyone's view changes - it's no big deal.
> As I've already pointed out, Darwin was writing a
> scientific work, not a religious one. It's impossible to "prove" that God
> did anything as far as science is concerned.
>
All Darwinists believe Darwin was conducting legitimate science, what
is your point?
All Darwinists believe that God cannot be seen via science, what is
your point?
If these are your points then did you forget that I knew these basic
beliefs of Darwinists already?
Again, you have forgotten that you at least mentioned that Darwin was
attempting to prove how God reallly created. It may have been a
mistake, but you said it, Dana.
> > Many
> > Darwinists on this Usenet have said the same thing, again you are a
> > confused person.
>
> I suspect you cannot give a single example of any "Darwinist" who has made
> such a statement. If you think I ever claimed that Darwin attempted to
> prove how God created, then you are the confused one.
>
I don't need to dredge up what I have read many times only to have a
brazen denial take place. It does not really matter since TEists
across the nation believe it as they also think evolution is guided.
Why else do they accept evolution? They must believe that it supports
God or they would not support.
You have now said that Darwin was not attempting to prove how God
really created. Please do not invoke the ending and contradict
yourself in the future.
>
>
> >> Darwin was
> >> not attempting to prove how God created. He was offering a testable
> >> natural
> >> explanation for the diversity of life. Darwin probably did believe that
> >> evolution was God's way of creating, but he did not attempt to "prove"
> >> that
> >> in any way.
>
> > The confusion and contradiction continues:
>
> There is no confusion on my part, and no contradicton. You are missing
> the point, perhaps deliberately.
>
> >"Darwin was not attempting
> > to prove how God created"; followed by: "Darwin probably did believe
> > that evolution was God's way of creating, but he did not attempt to
> > "prove" that in any way."
>
> Where do you see any contradiction, or confusion in the above? Darwin
> was establishing scientific theory, not delivering a sermon.
Darwin was not conducting science, he was conducting Materialism under
the guise of science.
> He did not
> attempt to prove that God did anything.
Obviously.
> He did, however believe that God
> existed, and most likely believed that God used evolution as his means of
> creation.
Contradiction. But you cannot see it because you are confused (=
TEist).
> Darwin knew that it's impossible to prove a religious belief
> through science. Therefore he did not try to prove how God created.
>
Now you swing back the other way.
You are attempting to say that evolution is reality; says nothing
about God; Darwin had God-beliefs; those beliefs did not enter his
theory either way; God is not seen in reality = confusion or extreme
naivete.
Intelligent persons know that bias is a part of everyones theory;
apparently you are naive enough to believe the impossible or you are
favoring your theory in the best possible way, which explains the
nonsensical contradictory comments.
> Let me spell it out to you in simple terms.... Darwin was not trying to
> prove how God created. Darwin was trying (and largely succeeded in that)
> to show what natural processes produced the change in populations of livng
> things that had been already observed. In a completely different matter,
> Darwin believed in God, and that God used those same natural processes as
> his means of creation.
>
Genuine confusion:
1. "Darwin was not trying to prove how God created"
2. "Darwin believed in God, and that God used those same natural
processes as his means of creation"
Since Dana is a TEist, my view that they are confused is well
supported.
> The first one is a scientific position, the second a religious one. Darwin
> succeeded in "proving" beyond a reasonable doubt that life evolved. There
> is no way he could possibly have proved that God created this way.
>
How could he since he was not trying to, did you forget what you said
two comments ago?
>
>
> > Mind you, this person really believes what is written makes sense - he
> > is not being deceptive.
>
> Mind you that Ray is apparently incapable of considering the possibility
> that he might be mistaken, and that his inability to understand is the fault
> of himself, not others.
>
> DJT
My only point: TEists are demonstrably confused persons.
Dana has demonstrated that he is confused or deliberately attempting
to paint a Darwin that did not exist. Since Dana never provides any
references for his Darwin views the same points to the fact that they
only exist in his mind - purely subjective. Of course, he could
produce a few cites and prove me wrong, we will wait and see.
Ray
Dana Tweedy
> On May 30, 5:43 pm, "Dana Tweedy" <reddfr...@comcast.net> wrote:
>> "Ray Martinez" <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>>
>> news:1180569840.1...@p47g2000hsd.googlegroups.com...
>> snip
>>
>> >> > You are unread or ignorant. If I had the time I could produce a link
>> >> > showing Dana Tweedy saying that Darwin was attempting to prove how
>> >> > God
>> >> > really created, then pasting the last sentence or two of the
>> >> > "Origin"
>> >> > as support.
>>
>> >> Since I never said that, how could you "produce" such a link?
>>
>> > You have and you just cannot admit that your view has changed.
>>
>> Ray, I have never claimed that Darwin ever attempted to prove how God
>> "really created" in his book "The Origin of Species". I have not
>> "changed" my view.
>
> Since you never admit to anything it does not matter.
Ray, lying about me doesn't help your case. I have never claimed that
Darwin attempted to prove how God created. He was not writing about his
religious beliefs, he was writing about science.
> You and many
> others have said it.
You are wrong. I have never said it, and neither has anyone else.
> The ending of the "Origin" is used to say that
> Darwin was attempting to show how God really created WHEN anyone says
> he was not;
Wrong again. The reference to the Creator at the end of Origin shows that
Darwin was not attempting to deny God, or establish atheism.
> when anyone says the ending is proof that Darwin was
> showing how God really created the same is then dismissed for what it
> was: meaningless First Cause concession.
Ray, again you are missing the point, possibly deliberately. Darwin was
not making a religious argument for how God created. He was making a
scientific case for evolution. The fact that Darwin did not reject God
does not mean that he was trying to prove how God created.
>
> You are playing the tactic with a variation, which is why I said your
> view has changed, Dana.
Again, Ray, you are simply wrong. I have not changed my view, and I'm not
playing any "tactic". Your claim is false, and you are unable to support
it, which means you just lie some more about me.
>
> Its okay to admit that ones view has changed; mine has concerning
> TEists: they are demonstrably confused.
Ray, as I have already stated, my view has not changed. You are wrong about
Theistic Evolutionists, and you are wrong about my views.
> A while back John Wilkins told
> me that his view concerning Ernst Mayr and his views about Darwinian
> history has changed. Everyone's view changes - it's no big deal.
Be that as it may, you are still wrong. I have never claimed that Darwin
was trying to prove how God created. That is a religious belief, and
Darwin knew that a religious belief cannot be "proven" in a scientific
manner.
You cannot produce any citations where I ever claimed that Darwin was trying
to prove how God created. Please stop lying about me.
>
>> As I've already pointed out, Darwin was writing a
>> scientific work, not a religious one. It's impossible to "prove" that
>> God
>> did anything as far as science is concerned.
>>
>
> All Darwinists believe Darwin was conducting legitimate science, what
> is your point?
Darwin *was* conducting legitmate science. It's not "Darwinists" who accept
this, but any reasonable person who views the evidence. The point is that
Darwin was not trying to support his religious opinions. He was proposing a
scientific theory to explain the evidence.
>
> All Darwinists believe that God cannot be seen via science, what is
> your point?
Again, it's not "Darwinists" but anyone who is familiar with the working of
science. God, or any other supernatural being is beyond the ability of
science to make a comment upon.
>
> If these are your points then did you forget that I knew these basic
> beliefs of Darwinists already?
Again, there aren't "basic beliefs" of "Darwinism". There is no religious
position as "Darwinism". The only use of the term that is meaninful is to
indicate those scientists who accept the mechanism proposed by Darwin to
explain evolution.
You don't "know" what those who accept science believe, you only go by your
own mistaken ideas.
>
> Again, you have forgotten that you at least mentioned that Darwin was
> attempting to prove how God reallly created.
No, Ray, I never "mentioned" that at all. You are mistaken. I never
mentioned, asserted, inferred, suggested, or any other such term that you
might want to use.
> It may have been a
> mistake, but you said it, Dana.
Ray, I never said that. Why do you insist on lying about something that can
be easily verified?
>
>
>> > Many
>> > Darwinists on this Usenet have said the same thing, again you are a
>> > confused person.
>>
>> I suspect you cannot give a single example of any "Darwinist" who has
>> made
>> such a statement. If you think I ever claimed that Darwin attempted to
>> prove how God created, then you are the confused one.
>>
>
> I don't need to dredge up what I have read many times only to have a
> brazen denial take place.
Which is to say, you can't support your claim. Face it, Ray, you are
wrong. I have never said that. You are not able to produce a single
instance of me, or anyone else making that claim.
> It does not really matter since TEists
> across the nation believe it as they also think evolution is guided.
Again, you are missing the distinction. Believing is not the same as
saying that it can be proven. Science cannot prove that God used
evolution as his means of creation. Science can, and does show that
evolution is a fact. How one reconciles this with one's religious beliefs
is irrelevant to the fact of evolution.
> Why else do they accept evolution?
Because it's the scentific theory that best explains the evidence. How
many times do you need to be reminded of this??
> They must believe that it supports
> God or they would not support.
You seem to be ignoring the fact that other people have faith, something you
seem to lack. Evolution is a scientific theory, it's irrelevant to
whether or not it supports God. Evolution does not - repeat - not deny
the existance of God. That doesn't mean it supports it either. If you
choose to believe in God, as I do, one must take it on faith.
>
> You have now said that Darwin was not attempting to prove how God
> really created.
I have said that, and that's what I meant. Darwin was not attempting to
prove how God created, although Darwin did believe that is how God created.
What he believed and what he could "prove" are different thngs.
> Please do not invoke the ending and contradict
> yourself in the future.
Ray, I don't contradict myself, and I do not contradict myself when I point
out that Darwin believed in what cannot be proven. Darwin was a scientist,
and he proposed a scientific theory. He was not trying to prove his
religious beliefs. How God created is a religious belief, not a scientifc
theory.
snip
>> >"Darwin was not attempting
>> > to prove how God created"; followed by: "Darwin probably did believe
>> > that evolution was God's way of creating, but he did not attempt to
>> > "prove" that in any way."
>>
>> Where do you see any contradiction, or confusion in the above? Darwin
>> was establishing scientific theory, not delivering a sermon.
>
> Darwin was not conducting science, he was conducting Materialism under
> the guise of science.
No, Ray, he was conducting science. "Materialism" as you call it is the
necessary condition of science, is more accurately called "methodological
naturalism". Darwin, like every other scientist makes use of this
necessary condition.
Again, where do you see a contradiction in my statements?
>
>
>> He did not
>> attempt to prove that God did anything.
>
> Obviously.
However he did believe that God created using evolution. What he believed,
and what he tried to prove are different things.
>
>
>> He did, however believe that God
>> existed, and most likely believed that God used evolution as his means of
>> creation.
>
> Contradiction. But you cannot see it because you are confused (=
> TEist).
Where is the contradiction? Darwin knew that his religious beliefs are
not open to "proof", or "disproof". The scientific theory of evolution,
however can be objectively evaluated, and is open to disproof. So far, no
one has managed to find anything that disproves evolution. Likewise there
is a massive amount of evidence that evolution is correct.
On the other hand, the existance of God is not open to scientific evidence.
It must be taken on faith.
>
>> Darwin knew that it's impossible to prove a religious belief
>> through science. Therefore he did not try to prove how God created.
>>
>
> Now you swing back the other way.
No,. Ray, my statments are consistent. You are missing the important
distinction between religious beliefs, which are not "provable" with
scientific statements which can be disproven. Darwin gave evidence that
firmly established the fact that life evolved, and gave a workable
SCIENTIFIC theory that explained how this happened. He did not give any
evidence that God used evolution as his means of creation, even though
that's what he believed. He did not attempt to "prove" God used evolution,
because it's impossible to establish that objectively, using scientific
means.
If one accepts that God exists, and that he used evolution to create, one
must take that on faith alone. If you want to show that life evolved,
and that natural selection is how it works, there is a massive amount of
objective evidence that supports that statement. Can you see how the two
are different?
>
> You are attempting to say that evolution is reality; says nothing
> about God;
No, like usual, you get it wrong. What I'm saying is that evolution is a
reality. What it says about God is up to the individual to decide for him
or herself, based on one's faith.
> Darwin had God-beliefs; those beliefs did not enter his
> theory either way;
That's because a scientific theory cannot make any assumptions about "God
beliefs".
> God is not seen in reality = confusion or extreme
> naivete.
God is not something that science is able to determine. Whether or not "God
is seen in reality" is a personal belief, not an objective, or scientific
statement. It's neither confusion or naievte to accept this basic
theological point.
>
> Intelligent persons know that bias is a part of everyones theory;
Again, why are you assuming you know what intelligent persons do? Bias
may be part of "everyone's theory" but science has a way of minimizing that
bias. That's why it's evidence that decides scientific matters, not
personal opinions, or religious beliefs.
> apparently you are naive enough to believe the impossible or you are
> favoring your theory in the best possible way, which explains the
> nonsensical contradictory comments.
Again, Ray, none of my statements are "nonsensical" or "contradictory". If
Darwin's theory did not hold up to scientific scrutiny, it would have been
rejected long ago. It survives because it explains the evidence. The
theory of evolution is not "my" theory, it's the one that best explains the
evidence in a scientific manner. My beliefs have nothing to do with the
veracity of the theory.
>
>> Let me spell it out to you in simple terms.... Darwin was not trying to
>> prove how God created. Darwin was trying (and largely succeeded in
>> that)
>> to show what natural processes produced the change in populations of
>> livng
>> things that had been already observed. In a completely different
>> matter,
>> Darwin believed in God, and that God used those same natural processes as
>> his means of creation.
>>
>
> Genuine confusion:
>
> 1. "Darwin was not trying to prove how God created"
Ray, you keep failing to demonstrate any confusion by your own.
>
> 2. "Darwin believed in God, and that God used those same natural
> processes as his means of creation"
Again, look, it says nothing here about what Darwin was trying to prove
regarding God. God's actions are not part of Darwin's thesis.
>
> Since Dana is a TEist, my view that they are confused is well
> supported.
How? You haven't supported anything, just asserted it yet again. Darwin
was presenting a scientific theory, not his personal religious beliefs.
>
>
>> The first one is a scientific position, the second a religious one.
>> Darwin
>> succeeded in "proving" beyond a reasonable doubt that life evolved.
>> There
>> is no way he could possibly have proved that God created this way.
>>
>
> How could he since he was not trying to, did you forget what you said
> two comments ago?
Ray, you seem to be forgetting that I'm talking about two separate concepts.
Darwin established by scientific means that evolution occurred. He did
not, and could not establish how God created, as that's a religious opinion.
Darwin did not try to prove that God used evolution to create. He tried to
prove that evolution happened, and succeeded. He used science to prove
evolution, he did not use science to prove God.
>
>
>>
>>
>> > Mind you, this person really believes what is written makes sense - he
>> > is not being deceptive.
>>
>> Mind you that Ray is apparently incapable of considering the possibility
>> that he might be mistaken, and that his inability to understand is the
>> fault
>> of himself, not others.
>>
>> DJT
>
> My only point: TEists are demonstrably confused persons.
That "point" is not supported by any evidence.
>
> Dana has demonstrated that he is confused or deliberately attempting
> to paint a Darwin that did not exist.
Ray, it's obviously your own confusion here that is on display. I'm not
confused, nor am I trying to distort Darwin's works, as you are trying to
do.
> Since Dana never provides any
> references for his Darwin views the same points to the fact that they
> only exist in his mind - purely subjective.
Ray, you didn't ask for any "references". The fact that Darwin published a
scientific work, not a religious one should be obvious. There are plenty
of references to Darwin mentioning his beliefs, including his belief in God.
You mentioned yourself the final paragraph of "Origin of Species".
> Of course, he could
> produce a few cites and prove me wrong, we will wait and see.
Interesting that while Ray entirely fails to provide any citations that I
ever claimed that Darwin tried to prove God used evolution to create, now he
wants 'citations' that Darwin produced science, not religion.
But in the interest of showing Ray wrong:
"I may say that the impossibility of conceiving that this grand and wondrous
universe, with our conscious selves, arose through chance, seems to me the
chief argument for the existence of God; but whether this is an argument of
real value, I have never been able to decide. I am aware that if we admit a
first cause, the mind still craves to know whence it came from and how it
arose. Nor can I overlook the difficulty from the immense amount of
suffering through the world. I am, also, induced to defer to a certain
extent to the judgment of many able men who have fully believed in God; but
here again I see how poor an argument this is. The safest conclusion seems
to me to be that the whole subject is beyond the scope of man's intellect;
but man can do his duty."
Charles Darwin to N. D. Doedes, 2 April 1873
"I thank you for your Judgment & honour you for it, that theology & science
should each run its own course & that in the present case I am not
responsible if their meeting point should still be far off."
Charles Darwin to Mary Boole, 14 December 1866
http://www.darwinproject.ac.uk/content/blogcategory/36/63/
"Darwin exchanged letters with nearly 2000 correspondents in the course of
his life, including professional scientists, schoolteachers, colonial
settlers, missionaries, and plant and animal breeders. At least 200 of his
correspondents were clergymen, some of whom were personal friends and many
of whom provided Darwin with data for his publications. He often relied on
information and support from scientific colleagues who had strong religious
convictions, and he was approached for advice on the implications of his
work for morality and religious belief. The letters show that Darwin's work
could mean many different things to different people. Some saw Darwinism as
a threat to religion, but many found ways of reconciling their beliefs with
an evolutionary view of nature."
http://www.darwinproject.ac.uk/content/view/110/104/
"One of Darwin's most intimate correspondents and leading supporters was the
American botanist Asa Gray, a devout Presbyterian.
Gray helped to arrange for Origin to be published in America, and wrote a
series of reviews in leading journals. One point that Gray argued at some
length was that natural selection was not inconsistent with natural
theology. Darwin, according to Gray, said only that nature proceeded
according to fixed laws; he wrote only of secondary causes, not of first
causes. He left questions such as the origin of life, and the design of
nature's laws open, for theologians to answer as they might. "
So, Ray, I've provided the citations you asked for. Let's see you provide
any citations where I ever claimed that Darwin was trying to prove that God
used evolution as his means of creation.
DJT
Steven J.
> On May 29, 11:12 pm, "Steven J." <steve...@altavista.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On May 29, 9:01 pm, Ray Martinez <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote:> On May 27, 6:14 am, Frank J <f...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
> > > > This is not hypothetical like Zoe's "resurrection" question. These
> > > > people really do exist.
>
> > > > While this question is directed specifically to Ray, because he
> > > > particularly likes the word "Darwinist," other anti-evolutionists are
> > > > encouraged to offer their opinions.
>
> > > "All" scholars use the word Darwinist. Anyone who denies is revealing
> > > their unread status.
>
> > Ray, I think it very unlikely that you have actually surveyed the
> > usage of "all" scholars, unless you are limiting the term "scholar" to
> > the Dr. and Pastor Scott and a handful of their sycophants (in which
> > case, who besides a Gene Scott idolator would care what "all scholars"
> > think?). But even if *all* scholars used the term "Darwinist," that
> > would not establish that they use it to mean what you use it to mean.
> > It is not enough to show that a word exists and is used by scholars;
> > you have to show that it means what you say it means.
>
> I am pleased that an Atheist like yourself and a person who believes
> apes morphed into men reject Dr. and Pastor Scott. The approval of
> your kind would surely prove them to be deluded persons.
>
person is deluded. But suppose it were so: my disagreement with them
would not prove that he is *not* deluded. Let me introduce you to
another formal fallacy of logic: denying the antecedent. If I argued
"All dogs are mammals, but my pet is not a dog, therefore, my pet is
not a mammal," I would be committing this fallacy. Likewise, "if a
Darwinist agrees with someone, that person is deluded, but Darwinists
disagree with Dr. and Pastor Scott, therefore, they are not deluded"
is the same fallacy. The Scotts manage to be deluded no matter how
many other deluded people disagree with them.
By the way, you have not shown, or even argued, that "Darwinist" is
used by actual historians or philosophers of science to mean what you
say it means.
>
Are you saying that I agree with you?! Hie thee to a psychiatrist,
you poor sad delusional child, since you yourself have declared that
my approval of your position would show you deluded.
Oh, wait. I don't agree with you. Darwin sought to put biology on
the same footing as other sciences, which seek to explain reality
without miracles, which is to say that the idea of explaining reality
without the supernatural is rather older than Darwin himself. For
that matter, a commitment even to philosophical naturalism doesn't
commit anyone to a human origin from animals (except in the sense that
we *are* animals, as everyone from Aristotle to Linneaus noted, and
therefore, presumably, so were our parents). Rather, the nested
hierarchy of life, together with the observed workings of
reproduction, variation, and heredity, imply such an origin.
>
> > no chemistry: e.g. meteorology, as has been
> > noted before, explains rain without reference to the "windows of
> > heaven" or the wrath or benevolence of God. The goal of any
> > scientific theory is to find a way to account for phenomena without
> > miracles, since miracles don't actually "explain" things in a
> > scientific sense: that is, they don't tell us why things are one way
> > rather than some other possible way.
>
> Negative.
>
> The goal of science is to unfold the awesome wonder of God's power
> seen in reality. The goal of Darwinian scientism is to pretend that
> God does not exist and steal the credit from Him and claim your silly
> theories created reality.
>
When I was in my early teens, I was reading a church youth magazine,
and came across an article on being open-minded. It argued that we
should exhibit a moderate skepticism and openness to new evidence
regarding all our views, except those regarding the Bible and God. I
found this exception troubling; if the Bible's claims are correct,
surely the evidence ought to support them, or at least not contradict
them, and there should be no danger in being skeptical about the
Bible. You own claim is even more troubling: if the universe truly
reveals the wonder and power of God, then why should we assume from
the start that any particular theory of how God created or *how* the
universe reveals "the awesome wonder of God's power" is correct. Or,
in short, if you're right, science cannot help but reveal the glory of
God; we need not constrain our theories by what we think, in advance,
will best do that. And if you're wrong, of course, then you're wrong,
and science ought not be constrained by your notions of scientific
propriety.
By the way, the goal of evolutionary theory is not to pretend that God
does not exist, but to explain the nested hierarchy of homologies, the
biogeography of species, and the patterns of faunal succession in the
fossil record. Darwin himself remarked that he did not think his
theories should disturb religious persons, and he refused to have a
book on communism dedicated to him because he objected to its militant
atheist tone. So it seems very odd to assert that the *goal* of his
theories was to disprove God (something most evolutionists regard as
impossible anyway).
>
> > > If any person thinks that Darwin was intending to show how God
> > > created, then stay tuned for my paper as I will prove beyond any
> > > shadow of a doubt that Darwin was doing no such thing, he was, in
> > > fact, doing the exact opposite. Since all Atheists rabidly support
> > > evolution Person A is a subjective enterprise.
>
> > First, Ray, I strongly suspect that you have not actually polled "all
> > atheists." Ayn Rand, before she died, was noted for ardent atheism
> > but refused to either accept or reject the idea of evolution. Surely
> > there might still be a few atheists of that sort.
>
> Intelligent persons know that *all* in this context means vast
> majority; a handful of freaks do not jeopardize said truth nor should
> they prevent the word from being used how I used it.
>
Intelligent persons know that "a vast majority" can be indicated by
modifying "all" with "nearly," or "almost," or "virtually." Another
point, of course, is that even if virtually all atheists accept
evolution, is it sensible to say that they "rabidly support
evolution?" It seems to me that some atheists support evolution in a
rather laid-back, lackadaisical manner; they hold that it's true but
don't think about it much or care what you think about it. For that
matter (but here I am requiring more than the simplest logic from
you), is it reasonable to regard someone as "rabid" merely because he
insists on supporting the theory supporting by the evidence and
opposing ideas that contradict that evidence.
>
> > Second, you are engaged in a rather egregious logical fallacy, known
> > as "affirming the consequent." Just as "all dogs are mammals, my pet
> > is a mammal, therefore, my pet is a dog" is invalid (my pet might be a
> > cat, hamster, rabbit, or other non-canine mammal), so "all atheists
> > rabidly support evolution, Person A supports evolution, therefore
> > Person A is, or to be consistent ought to be, an atheist" is
> > wretchedly bad logic.
>
> Wrong. I did not say "Person A supports evolution therefore the same
> is an Atheist." I said that all Atheists support evolution therefore
> evolution proves (or claims to prove) the atheist worldview =
> invulnerable logic. Why else would ALL Atheists rabidly support
> evolution (rhetorical question)?
>
Ray, you just argued that "if (virtually) all atheists agree with X,
then they think that X proves atheism." Virtually all atheists hold
that atoms exist, and very few of them, I think, hold that atomism
proves atheism. Now, some atheists might hold that heliocentrism
proves atheism, or at least falsifies the Bible; does this show either
that heliocentrism is false, or even that atheists agree with it only
because it disagrees with the Bible? You are barely even pretending
to be rational here.
>
> > One might as well argue "all atheists rabidly
> > support heliocentrism, Ray Martinez believes the Earth orbits the sun,
> > therefore Ray Martinez is a subjective enterprise."
>
> The difference is that heliocentrism or feeding baby buzzards has
> nothing to do with origins and who's worldview corresponds to the
> truth of reality. Atheists support evolution in droves for obvious
> reasons.
>
The Bible asserts that individual followers of God are formed in their
mother's womb by God; it seems to assert that each individual is a
creation of God, as much as the human species itself. If naturalistic
explanations for embryology do not kick God off His throne, why should
naturalistic explanations for biological diversity and complexity do
so? Or, if contradicting traditional readings of the Bible is the
point, then why should post-Copernican astronomy, which denies that
God has fixed the Earth immovably in space, not revoke God's Kingship
of the universe? Try to think outside the box that Dr. Scott built
for you.
>
> > Third, it's not like we don't believe that we're going to someday be
> > able to read this fabulous paper of yours ... no, wait, it's exactly
> > like that. Sorry.
>
> Oh did I tell you that I have made an original scientific discovery?
>
No, I don't believe you've told me that.
>
> That I stumbled upon it and had the classic Eureka! moment and that I
> have been exposing it to falisification scenarios for months now and
> it repels all of them and that this discovery falsifies the Theory of
> Evolution?
>
Ray, you can't even do elementary logic. You don't understand
elementary biology. I have some slight doubts about both the validity
and relevance of this discovery.
>
> Yes, my work will be worth the wait. What I wouldn't give to see your
> face the moment you ascertain that your theory is false. God forgives;
> there is plenty of room on the Ark of Jesus.
>
Again, Ray, "let not him who girdeth on his armor on boast himself as
him who putteth it off (1 Kings 20:11)." When or if this paper
appears its readers can decide whether it was worth the wait or
demonstrates that anything, other than your belief that you have a
grasp of reality, is false.
>
> > > Person B cannot be an Agnostic because the scholarly definition of
> > > that word does not encompass the description offered. The description
> > > by itself is not one of a Darwinist because "Darwin [allegedly]
> > > demonstrated that the difference between humans and other animals is
> > > one of degree not kind" (van Wyhe, darwin online uk, Biography); and
> > > more importantly, a person cannot be a Darwinist unless they accept
> > > natural selection.
>
> > It is nowhere said that Person B does not accept natural selection; it
> > says that Person B holds that natural selection cannot produce "new
> > kinds." Darwin himself held that natural selection was not the sole
> > mechanism of evolution, and never suggested that it could account for
> > the origin of life.
>
> Darwin and all neo-Darwinists say that NS is not the sole means of
> modification but the main and that IT (= NS) is the main cause of
> common ancestry. Are you saying that NS had no part in producing
> original phyla? Where on the tree of life do you begin NS? Gould says
> that NS is represented in the central trunk area on the tree of life
> (2002).
>
Natural selection is the main cause of adaption. It is not clear how
large a role adaption plays in cladogenesis (origin of multiple
descendant lines from an original ancestral lineage). Since the
"original phyla" are characterized by particular adaptions, presumably
natural selection played a major role in forming them, but it may or
may not have played a major role in separating their ancestors from
one another.
>
> Ray
>
> SNIP....
-- Steven J.
Ye Old One
enriched this group when s/he wrote:
>I am pleased that an Atheist like yourself and a person who believes
>apes morphed into men
No such person exists Dishonest Ray. Why do you keep lying?
> reject Dr. and Pastor Scott. The approval of
>your kind would surely prove them to be deluded persons.
Any decent human being would reject scum like them. Criminals who
steal money from people who can often ill afford it.
Remember Dishonest Ray, I'm saying the following about you evil guide
and mentor - Gene 'Expletive Deleted' Scott.
I call him a liar.
I call him a fraud.
I call him a con artist.
I call him foul mouthed.
I call him a worshiper of evil.
I claim he stole money from people who could ill afford to loose it.
I accuse him of leading a luxury lifestyle at the expense of gullible
people.
I call him an evil man.
I call him a money grabbing bastard.
I call him dishonest.
None of those statements are libel (or are you stupidly keep saying
"slander") as all of them are 100% true.
I am really happy to defend all those statements in court if you would
like to sue me Dishonest Ray. Go on, make my day :)
--
Bob.
Ye Old One
<redd...@comcast.net> enriched this group when s/he wrote:
>
>"Ray Martinez" <pyram...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>news:1180573468.4...@u30g2000hsc.googlegroups.com...
>snip
>
>>> Ray, I think it very unlikely that you have actually surveyed the
>>> usage of "all" scholars, unless you are limiting the term "scholar" to
>>> the Dr. and Pastor Scott and a handful of their sycophants (in which
>>> case, who besides a Gene Scott idolator would care what "all scholars"
>>> think?). But even if *all* scholars used the term "Darwinist," that
>>> would not establish that they use it to mean what you use it to mean.
>>> It is not enough to show that a word exists and is used by scholars;
>>> you have to show that it means what you say it means.
>>>
>>
>> I am pleased that an Atheist like yourself and a person who believes
>> apes morphed into men reject Dr. and Pastor Scott.
>
>Why would you be pleased with that? There's nothing that indicates that
>either atheists, or those who accept basic scientific facts are poor judges
>of character, or lack thereof...
>
>> The approval of
>> your kind would surely prove them to be deluded persons.
>
>Well, no, the "approval" of Steven would only show that he was deluded.
>Mr. Scott, and Ms Barbi Bridges may,
Must say, I love he new website :)
http://barbibridges.org/default.aspx
[snip lots of attempted education of Dishonest Ray]
--
Bob.
wf...@comcast.net
wrote:
>
>Not a true Darwinist. A Darwinist is a person who accepts the
>conclusions of Darwin; those conclusions say God does not exist
well, science certainly says RAY'S god doesn't exist. ray seems to
think he's the only person in the entire world who believes in god so
it's no wonder everone else is an atheist.
wf...@comcast.net
wrote:
>
>Then we agree that Darwin became famous for excluding the supernatural
>to explain reality,
physics and chemistry also exclude the supernatual. are you saying
evolution is as scientific as those?
which left him with a mandatory origin from
>animals. The Darwinian Revolution eventually succeeded in deconverting
>other disciplines to also exclude the supernatural = basic history -
>you get an A+
now let's see....for 2000 years folks said the supernatural explained
events in nature.
they failed to produce a SINGLE example. supernaturalism has a 2000
year headstart on science and yet it's failed every single time. it
has a perfect record
yet ray thnks it is better than science...
>
>
>The goal of science is to unfold the awesome wonder of God's power
>seen in reality
the goal of science is to understand how nature works. god can not be
explained scientifically so he can not be understood scientifically.
>
>Wrong. I did not say "Person A supports evolution therefore the same
>is an Atheist." I said that all Atheists support evolution therefore
>evolution proves (or claims to prove) the atheist worldview =
>invulnerable logic. Why else would ALL Atheists rabidly support
>evolution (rhetorical question)?
for the same reasons christians muslims and jews support evolution:
it's a fact.
>
>> One might as well argue "all atheists rabidly
>> support heliocentrism, Ray Martinez believes the Earth orbits the sun,
>> therefore Ray Martinez is a subjective enterprise."
>>
>
>The difference is that heliocentrism or feeding baby buzzards has
>nothing to do with origins and who's worldview corresponds to the
>truth of reality. Atheists support evolution in droves for obvious
>reasons.
a fact is a fact regardless of whose 'worldview' it supports. facts
are not determined by subjective belief.
>
Ye Old One
enriched this group when s/he wrote:
>On Wed, 30 May 2007 21:45:02 -0400, "Dana Tweedy"
><redd...@comcast.net> enriched this group when s/he wrote:
>
>>
>>"Ray Martinez" <pyram...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>>news:1180573468.4...@u30g2000hsc.googlegroups.com...
>>snip
>>
>>>> Ray, I think it very unlikely that you have actually surveyed the
>>>> usage of "all" scholars, unless you are limiting the term "scholar" to
>>>> the Dr. and Pastor Scott and a handful of their sycophants (in which
>>>> case, who besides a Gene Scott idolator would care what "all scholars"
>>>> think?). But even if *all* scholars used the term "Darwinist," that
>>>> would not establish that they use it to mean what you use it to mean.
>>>> It is not enough to show that a word exists and is used by scholars;
>>>> you have to show that it means what you say it means.
>>>>
>>>
>>> I am pleased that an Atheist like yourself and a person who believes
>>> apes morphed into men reject Dr. and Pastor Scott.
>>
>>Why would you be pleased with that? There's nothing that indicates that
>>either atheists, or those who accept basic scientific facts are poor judges
>>of character, or lack thereof...
>>
>>> The approval of
>>> your kind would surely prove them to be deluded persons.
>>
>>Well, no, the "approval" of Steven would only show that he was deluded.
>>Mr. Scott, and Ms Barbi Bridges may,
>
>Must say, I love he new website :)
Sorry, that should read "her new website".
Frank J
> On May 27, 6:14 am, Frank J <f...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
> > This is not hypothetical like Zoe's "resurrection" question. These
> > people really do exist.
>
> > While this question is directed specifically to Ray, because he
> > particularly likes the word "Darwinist," other anti-evolutionists are
> > encouraged to offer their opinions.
>
> "All" scholars use the word Darwinist. Anyone who denies is revealing
> their unread status.
I never said that they didn't, only that they shouldn't. Nevertheless,
anti-evolution activists use the word much more frequently than
defenders of mainstream science, and their use of the word seems to be
increasing. That is to be expected, because when one does not have a
prayer at a competing theory, one tends to personify as much as
possible, in order to push emotional buttons.
>
>
>
> > Person A believes that God creates life and interacts with His
> > creation. He thinks that life has a ~4 billion history on earth, and
> > that species share "biological continuity" and speciate via processes
> > that include genetic variation and natural selection. He also thinks
> > that souls are inserted in some of those temporary biological systems
> > called "organisms," then live on after the organism dies. And that
> > souls, not genes, set humans apart from other species.
>
> > Person B is an agnostic. He thinks that humans and dogs originated
> > independently (no biological continuity, thus separate "kinds"), and
> > that "random mutation and natural selection" are insufficient to
> > explain the origin of new "kinds."
>
> > Which in your opinion is a "Darwinist", and explain why?
>
> > 1. Person A
> > 2. Person B
> > 3. Both
> > 4. Neither
>
> Person A is not a Darwinist since Darwin became famous for excluding
> the supernatural to explain reality.
Except that it is a scietific explanation itself, by definition, that
necessarily excludes the supernatural *in the explanation*. It never
rules out that some "supernatural" agent is ultimately responsible.
Darwin was neither the first nor last to offer such an explanation.
And to drive the point home he later added the "breathed by the
Creator" qualifier.
>
> If any person thinks that Darwin was intending to show how God
> created, then stay tuned for my paper as I will prove beyond any
> shadow of a doubt that Darwin was doing no such thing, he was, in
> fact, doing the exact opposite. Since all Atheists rabidly support
> evolution Person A is a subjective enterprise.
>
> Person B cannot be an Agnostic because the scholarly definition of
> that word does not encompass the description offered.
Nor does it rule it out.
> The description
> by itself is not one of a Darwinist because "Darwin [allegedly]
> demonstrated that the difference between humans and other animals is
> one of degree not kind" (van Wyhe, darwin online uk, Biography); and
> more importantly, a person cannot be a Darwinist unless they accept
> natural selection.
>
> Ray- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
So neither A or B is a "Darwinist". Let's see how long that will last.
Frank J
Can it be any clearer that you are mixing up 2 concepts? If by "origin
from animals" you mean that humans are biologically descended from
other animals, then there are 4 formal possibilities:
1. Speciation, natural proximate cause.
2. Independent abiogenesis, natural proximate cause.
3. Speciation, supernatural proximate cause.
4. Independent abiogenesis, supernatural proximate cause.
Before Darwin, science had already narrowed it down to "1 or 3." Like
Lamarck before him, Darwin provided a mechanism that made the "1 or 3"
conclusion "more than a hypothesis" (to use Pope John Paul II's
words).
Speaking of Popes, Pope Benedict XVI likes to emphasize that its 3,
not 1, but he needs to be clearer that that is a statement of faith
(as is "1, not 3"), not a scientific conclusion.
In any case, the bait and switch from "natural vs. supernatural" to
"speciation vs. independent abiogenesis" is a trick originated by
classic creationists and perfected by IDers. I trust that your paper
will move beyond such nonsense.
(snip)
Ray Martinez
In other words, you are unread and ignorant, as if we did not already
suspect this since you think evolution is science.
Your rants and slander against Dr. and Pastor Scott betrays rage that
persons with IQs of 186 and above reject your theory. Since you are
also a confirmed racist, in addition to your intolerable Atheism, we
are glad that such persons like yourself disapprove of theist
scholars. We don't need or want your kind.
Ray
SNIP....
Richard Clayton
Damn! My IQ's only 185. I guess that explains why I'm an
evilushinnist.
> Since you are
> also a confirmed racist
Liar.
> in addition to your intolerable Atheism
Intolerable by whom? You don't get a say in who gets to believe what.
> we
> are glad that such persons like yourself disapprove of theist
> scholars. We don't need or want your kind.
Are you using the royal "we" or do you have a mouse in your pocket?
Tiny Bulcher
Tough shit. You've got us. What are you going to do about it? Wave your
paper at us?
Jim Willemin
<snip>
>
> Your rants and slander against Dr. and Pastor Scott betrays rage that
> persons with IQs of 186 and above reject your theory. Since you are
> also a confirmed racist, in addition to your intolerable Atheism, we
> are glad that such persons like yourself disapprove of theist
> scholars. We don't need or want your kind.
>
Until, of course, something goes wrong, or something needs to be fixed, or
someone gets sick, or badly hurt. Then hey, presto, the reality-based
folks are in great demand, as is the reality-based knowledge that makes
things work, and heals folks, and grows enough food for folks, and has the
best chance of letting us survive to become ancestors. Man, it must be
nice to be able to live in such a fantasy world and know that the human
compassion of 'intolerable Atheists' will save your ass when it finds
itself in a sling.
Oh - in case it is an unfamiliar concept, 'compassion' means being nice to
strangers and helping them because it is the right thing to do.
Dana Tweedy
"Ray Martinez" <pyram...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1180643165....@u30g2000hsc.googlegroups.com...
snip
>> By the way, you have not shown, or even argued, that "Darwinist" is
>> used by actual historians or philosophers of science to mean what you
>> say it means.
>>
>
> In other words, you are unread and ignorant, as if we did not already
> suspect this since you think evolution is science.
No, Ray, he means that you are wrong in the way you use the term
"Darwinist".
>
> Your rants and slander against Dr. and Pastor Scott betrays rage that
> persons with IQs of 186 and above reject your theory.
Ray, what evidence do you have that either Mr. Scott, or Ms. Bridges had an
IQ of such? Why do you assume that Steven's comments regarding your
heroes is "slander" (hint, slander is spoken, libel is written, and neither
applies if what is said is true).
Mr. Scott and Ms. Bridges "reject" evolution apparently on religious reasons
(although it's quite possible that neither actually reject the concept, but
were speaking to their audience).
> Since you are
> also a confirmed racist,
Steven is not a racist. Your hysterical claims of racism have never been
"confirmed" by anyone.
>in addition to your intolerable Atheism,
What is "intolerable" about his atheism?
> we
> are glad that such persons like yourself disapprove of theist
> scholars. We don't need or want your kind.
Ray, Mr. Scott and Ms Bridges were not "scholars" in any normal sense of the
term. Your propensity to speak of yourself in the plural is however rather
odd.... But the above just indicates your usual pattern of running away when
unable to muster a coherent defense.
DJT
Ye Old One
enriched this group when s/he wrote:
Evolution is a fact. The ToE is the science that explains it.
>
>Your rants and slander
Moron. When will you educate yourself and learn that slander is spoken
- not written?
> against Dr. and Pastor Scott betrays rage that
>persons with IQs of 186 and above reject your theory.
Can you find one?
> Since you are
>also a confirmed racist,
Who is?
> in addition to your intolerable Atheism, we
>are glad that such persons like yourself disapprove of theist
>scholars. We don't need or want your kind.
Dishonest Ray at his best.
>
>
>Ray
>
>SNIP....
Still no email from you Dishonest Ray. Is there a reason?
--
Bob.
Ray Martinez
> On May 29, 11:01 pm, Ray Martinez <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > On May 27, 6:14 am, Frank J <f...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
> > > This is not hypothetical like Zoe's "resurrection" question. These
> > > people really do exist.
>
> > > While this question is directed specifically to Ray, because he
> > > particularly likes the word "Darwinist," other anti-evolutionists are
> > > encouraged to offer their opinions.
>
> > "All" scholars use the word Darwinist. Anyone who denies is revealing
> > their unread status.
>
> I never said that they didn't, only that they shouldn't.
Understood.
> Nevertheless,
> anti-evolution activists use the word much more frequently than
> defenders of mainstream science, and their use of the word seems to be
> increasing.
Not so. Browne, Desmond & Moore, Ruse, Dennett, Dawkins, Pennock,
Mayr, and Gould (just to name a few) use the word and many other
variations incessantly in all their publications. The word and its
variations refers to persons who accept the interpretations,
philosophy and conclusions of Charles Darwin and neo-Darwinism -
nothing else. When ever anti-evolutionists use any of said words they
carry the exact same meaning, except if they denote and argue
otherwise. You have no case or point.
> That is to be expected, because when one does not have a
> prayer at a competing theory, one tends to personify as much as
> possible, in order to push emotional buttons.
>
Everyone uses words emotively, you have no case or point.
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > > Person A believes that God creates life and interacts with His
> > > creation. He thinks that life has a ~4 billion history on earth, and
> > > that species share "biological continuity" and speciate via processes
> > > that include genetic variation and natural selection. He also thinks
> > > that souls are inserted in some of those temporary biological systems
> > > called "organisms," then live on after the organism dies. And that
> > > souls, not genes, set humans apart from other species.
>
> > > Person B is an agnostic. He thinks that humans and dogs originated
> > > independently (no biological continuity, thus separate "kinds"), and
> > > that "random mutation and natural selection" are insufficient to
> > > explain the origin of new "kinds."
>
> > > Which in your opinion is a "Darwinist", and explain why?
>
> > > 1. Person A
> > > 2. Person B
> > > 3. Both
> > > 4. Neither
>
> > Person A is not a Darwinist since Darwin became famous for excluding
> > the supernatural to explain reality.
>
> Except that it is a scietific explanation itself, by definition, that
> necessarily excludes the supernatural *in the explanation*. It never
> rules out that some "supernatural" agent is ultimately responsible.
Yes, it does. As I just got done explaining to dip-shit that the
ending of the Origin is used for that exact purpose whenever some
Creationist says otherwise; its only purpose is to "shield" the
atheist theory.
Here you are, an Atheist, attempting to argue a supernatural First
Cause possibility, quite absurd, Frank.
Ray
SNIP...
Ray Martinez
How so?
Once God is dismissed, the only other direction to look for origins is
down/animals.
> If by "origin
> from animals" you mean that humans are biologically descended from
> other animals, then there are 4 formal possibilities:
>
No, that is what evolution says, not me, I am a Creationist-IDist-
acceptor of science.
> 1. Speciation, natural proximate cause.
> 2. Independent abiogenesis, natural proximate cause.
> 3. Speciation, supernatural proximate cause.
> 4. Independent abiogenesis, supernatural proximate cause.
>
> Before Darwin, science had already narrowed it down to "1 or 3." Like
> Lamarck before him,
Lamarck cemented the idea that humans developed by animals, he did not
know how, but since God was not an option, he had his (rejected)
theories. His taxonomies placed mankind in the animal kingdom, which
said placement is not evidence, but an act of faith at that point.
Neither Darwin nor any original Darwinist actually believed in a
supernatural First Cause. Darwin's famous Autobiography quote claiming
agnostic status was made in the strict context of First Cause. This is
basic Darwin historiography 101.
Speciation has never existed in any original scientific or historical
context as being caused by supernatural agency. There are many
Creationists who assert as much but there is no actual evidence or
data supporting the claim.
Ray
gotta go
SNIP...
Dana Tweedy
snip
>
>> Nevertheless,
>> anti-evolution activists use the word much more frequently than
>> defenders of mainstream science, and their use of the word seems to be
>> increasing.
>
> Not so. Browne, Desmond & Moore, Ruse, Dennett, Dawkins, Pennock,
> Mayr, and Gould (just to name a few) use the word and many other
> variations incessantly in all their publications.
How many publications have Mayr and Gould published recently? Again, the
way they used the term is different from how you are using it.
> The word and its
> variations refers to persons who accept the interpretations,
> philosophy and conclusions of Charles Darwin and neo-Darwinism -
> nothing else.
Except for the "philosophy" part.
> When ever anti-evolutionists use any of said words they
> carry the exact same meaning, except if they denote and argue
> otherwise. You have no case or point.
Except that anti evolutionists tend to use the term to mean "those who
worship Darwin".
>
>> That is to be expected, because when one does not have a
>> prayer at a competing theory, one tends to personify as much as
>> possible, in order to push emotional buttons.
>>
>
> Everyone uses words emotively, you have no case or point.
But everyone does not use words "emotively" in the same way.
snip
>> > Person A is not a Darwinist since Darwin became famous for excluding
>> > the supernatural to explain reality.
>>
>> Except that it is a scietific explanation itself, by definition, that
>> necessarily excludes the supernatural *in the explanation*. It never
>> rules out that some "supernatural" agent is ultimately responsible.
>
> Yes, it does.
How, exactly?
> As I just got done explaining to dip-shit that the
> ending of the Origin is used for that exact purpose whenever some
> Creationist says otherwise; its only purpose is to "shield" the
> atheist theory.
There is no "sheild" necessary, or intended. The ending of Origin of
Species demonstrates that Darwin was not an atheist, and did not intend to
support atheism.
>
> Here you are, an Atheist, attempting to argue a supernatural First
> Cause possibility, quite absurd, Frank.
Frank ,even if he is an atheist, is not attempting to argue a "First Cause".
He's saying that science does not rule out a possible supernatural first
cause.
DJT
Dana Tweedy
sniip
>>
>> > > Darwin became famous for arguing that humans are related to apes.
>> > > Excluding the supernatural to explain reality is characteristic of
>> > > many branches of science:
>>
>> > Then we agree that Darwin became famous for excluding the supernatural
>> > to explain reality, which left him with a mandatory origin from
>> > animals.
>>
>> Can it be any clearer that you are mixing up 2 concepts?
>
> How so?
The two concepts you are mixing are:
1. Darwin's scientific work.
2. Darwin's religious opinions.
>
> Once God is dismissed, the only other direction to look for origins is
> down/animals.
First of all, animals are not "down". Second, science does not allow
supernatural explanations, but there are plenty of other possible
explanations other than coming from other animals. That conclusion is drawn
from the evidence. It was known that humans were animals long before there
was any idea of evolution.
>
>
>> If by "origin
>> from animals" you mean that humans are biologically descended from
>> other animals, then there are 4 formal possibilities:
>>
>
> No, that is what evolution says, not me, I am a Creationist-IDist-
> acceptor of science.
Yet you reject science, and the scientific method, almost completely.
>
>
>> 1. Speciation, natural proximate cause.
>> 2. Independent abiogenesis, natural proximate cause.
>> 3. Speciation, supernatural proximate cause.
>> 4. Independent abiogenesis, supernatural proximate cause.
>>
>> Before Darwin, science had already narrowed it down to "1 or 3." Like
>> Lamarck before him,
>
> Lamarck cemented the idea that humans developed by animals,
That was known before Lamarck.
> he did not
> know how, but since God was not an option, he had his (rejected)
> theories.
The supernatural is not a scientific option, and never has been.
> His taxonomies placed mankind in the animal kingdom, which
> said placement is not evidence, but an act of faith at that point.
It was Linneaus, not Lamarck, who's taxinomy placed humans correctly within
the animal kingdom. Linneus believed that God created humans.
>
> Neither Darwin nor any original Darwinist actually believed in a
> supernatural First Cause.
That of course is nonsense. Darwin himself admitted believing in a "first
cause".
> Darwin's famous Autobiography quote claiming
> agnostic status was made in the strict context of First Cause. This is
> basic Darwin historiography 101.
Which you obviously have failed.
>
> Speciation has never existed in any original scientific or historical
> context as being caused by supernatural agency.
That's because appeal to a supernatural agency is not scientific.
> There are many
> Creationists who assert as much but there is no actual evidence or
> data supporting the claim.
Speciation is a natural event, which is caused by known factors. There is
no need to invoke a supernatural explanation.
DJT
Lee Jay
> ... I am a Creationist-IDist-acceptor of science.
Only Ray could say something like this and mean it.
Are you also a Bush administration-politician-speaker of the truth?
Lee Jay
Steven J.
> On May 30, 10:48 pm, "Steven J." <steve...@altavista.com> wrote:
>
>
> > I do not, of course, concede that my agreeing with someone proves that
> > person is deluded. But suppose it were so: my disagreement with them
> > would not prove that he is *not* deluded. Let me introduce you to
> > another formal fallacy of logic: denying the antecedent. If I argued
> > "All dogs are mammals, but my pet is not a dog, therefore, my pet is
> > not a mammal," I would be committing this fallacy. Likewise, "if a
> > Darwinist agrees with someone, that person is deluded, but Darwinists
> > disagree with Dr. and Pastor Scott, therefore, they are not deluded"
> > is the same fallacy. The Scotts manage to be deluded no matter how
> > many other deluded people disagree with them.
>
> > By the way, you have not shown, or even argued, that "Darwinist" is
> > used by actual historians or philosophers of science to mean what you
> > say it means.
>
> In other words, you are unread and ignorant, as if we did not already
> suspect this since you think evolution is science.
>
biology is science, and that evolutionary theory is a scientific
theory. And why do creationists always use "in other words," to start
a sentence that has nothing to do with the views that are supposedly
being paraphrased? And I note that you have not defended the
proposition that actual philosophers or historians of science use
"Darwinism" in the sense that you mean it.
>
> Your rants and slander against Dr. and Pastor Scott betrays rage that
> persons with IQs of 186 and above reject your theory. Since you are
> also a confirmed racist, in addition to your intolerable Atheism, we
> are glad that such persons like yourself disapprove of theist
> scholars. We don't need or want your kind.
>
or irrational (of course, I know of no evidence beyond the assertion
of people I don't trust, that either Dr. or Pastor Scott has a 186
IQ). I'm sure that there are very smart people (as measured by IQ
tests) who are bigoted, irrational, bizarrely ignorant, or flat-out
bonkers, even to the extent of rejecting common descent of humans and
other species. A 186 IQ does nothing to make shared pseudogenes and
endogenous retroviruses in human and other primate genomes go away; it
does not turn ER1470 into either a "fully-formed human," a "fully-
formed ape," or a racist conspiracy by paleoanthropologists. Talking
up Dr. Scott's (or is it Pastor Scott's) supposed 186 IQ is just
another argument from inappropriate authority; if one doesn't know
what one is talking about, no IQ is high enough to make one an expert
on the matter.
I'm not sure why I'm bothering to post this. You seem to have sailed
right past my argument that having deluded people disagree with you
doesn't prove you're right. And your accusations of "racism" have
gone past outrageous and are now merely stupid and boring (given that
*you* were the first person to bring up Africans and "transitional" in
the same sentence, how can it be racist of Dana Tweedy or myself
merely to reply to you, without you being a racist yourself? you
really ought to heed that line from Jesus about motes and beams in
people's eyes).
Ye Old One
<pyram...@yahoo.com> enriched this group when s/he wrote:
>Once God is dismissed, the only other direction to look for origins is
>down/animals.
You see Dishonest Ray, this is one of the best examples of your mental
problems. You see animals as beneath you, you believe animals are
lower than you.
You are an animal Dishonest Ray. You cannot escape that basic fact of
nature. You are not the fastest animal, not the strongest, you
eyesight is very poor in all respects when compared to some other
animals. Your sense of smell is crude, you hearing limited, you brain
isn't the most complex and your body design has so many faults it is
sometimes hard to believe that it functions.
The one any only thing that you have going for you is the adaptability
of your species.
--
Bob.
Frank J
It would be interesting to check the ratio of usage of "Darwinist(s)"
to "Darwinism" among "evolutionists" and anti-evolutionists, and the
"change with time" among the latter. A good bet is that it was always
higher among anti-evolutionists, and getting high still in recent
years, as threy realize they have nothing left but pointing fingers.
Nevertheless, there is a *big* difference in meaning from the context
when "evolutionists" and anti-evolutionists use the terms. As much as
you want to believe otherwise, the former rarely imply anything about
philosophy.
>
> > That is to be expected, because when one does not have a
> > prayer at a competing theory, one tends to personify as much as
> > possible, in order to push emotional buttons.
>
> Everyone uses words emotively, you have no case or point.
But with anti-evolution activists, that's *all* they have. Take a
technical paper at random written by an evolutionary biologist, and
see how much whining about "creationists" or "fundies" it has.
I'm a theist, remember. And even agnostics like Darwin knew that
science could never rule out a "first cause," so there's nothing to
"shield." While Darwin's words "read like" a 1st cause (implying that
the Creator away after creating the first life) many evolutionary
biologists, as you know, are clearer that one can not rule out
continuous involvement either. And there's no reason to think that
Darwin would have disagreed.
>
> Ray
>
> SNIP...- Hide quoted text -
Frank J
Of course not. "Naturalistic" independent abiogenesis of a eukaryote
lineage would remain a formal, testable, option. And as you know but
"keep getting amnesia" there are some brave souls actually trying to
test that hypothesis. In fact, if you strip away their irrelevant "god-
of-the-gaps" nonsense, YECs are looking for evidence to support a
"naturalistic" 6-day "self-assembly" of the universe and its life.
>
> > If by "origin
> > from animals" you mean that humans are biologically descended from
> > other animals, then there are 4 formal possibilities:
>
> No, that is what evolution says, not me, I am a Creationist-IDist-
> acceptor of science.
You mean misrepresenter of science. And yes, I only asked you to
clarify what you think "evolution says," not necessarily what you
believe.
>
> > 1. Speciation, natural proximate cause.
> > 2. Independent abiogenesis, natural proximate cause.
> > 3. Speciation, supernatural proximate cause.
> > 4. Independent abiogenesis, supernatural proximate cause.
>
> > Before Darwin, science had already narrowed it down to "1 or 3." Like
> > Lamarck before him,
>
> Lamarck cemented the idea that humans developed by animals, he did not
> know how, but since God was not an option, he had his (rejected)
> theories. His taxonomies placed mankind in the animal kingdom, which
> said placement is not evidence, but an act of faith at that point.
>
> Neither Darwin nor any original Darwinist actually believed in a
> supernatural First Cause. Darwin's famous Autobiography quote claiming
> agnostic status was made in the strict context of First Cause. This is
> basic Darwin historiography 101.
>
> Speciation has never existed in any original scientific or historical
> context as being caused by supernatural agency. There are many
> Creationists who assert as much but there is no actual evidence or
> data supporting the claim.
Speciation, by any reasonable scientific definition has been observed
in real time, in the lab and in the wild. But I suppose that if one
wants to misrepresent evolution and the nature of science, one can
simply redefine speciation to exclude anything observed directly. But
even if not-directly-observed-speciations involved some "supernatural
intervention" or "yet-undiscovered non-Darwinian process" (how would
anyone tell the difference anyway?), common descent remains a less-
extraordinary claim than independent abiogenesis. From the reviews, it
seems that Michael Behe will admit that once again in his upcoming
book.
>
> Ray
>
> gotta go
Ray Martinez
I have repeatedly. You are not paying attention, mistaken or
deliberately lying.
> > Your rants and slander against Dr. and Pastor Scott betrays rage that
> > persons with IQs of 186 and above reject your theory. Since you are
> > also a confirmed racist, in addition to your intolerable Atheism, we
> > are glad that such persons like yourself disapprove of theist
> > scholars. We don't need or want your kind.
>
> Ray, I know of no upper limit to IQ, beyond which one cannot be stupid
> or irrational (of course, I know of no evidence beyond the assertion
> of people I don't trust, that either Dr. or Pastor Scott has a 186
> IQ). I'm sure that there are very smart people (as measured by IQ
> tests) who are bigoted, irrational, bizarrely ignorant, or flat-out
> bonkers, even to the extent of rejecting common descent of humans and
> other species. A 186 IQ does nothing to make shared pseudogenes and
> endogenous retroviruses in human and other primate genomes go away; it
> does not turn ER1470 into either a "fully-formed human," a "fully-
> formed ape," or a racist conspiracy by paleoanthropologists. Talking
> up Dr. Scott's (or is it Pastor Scott's) supposed 186 IQ is just
> another argument from inappropriate authority; if one doesn't know
> what one is talking about, no IQ is high enough to make one an expert
> on the matter.
>
High IQ is a valid fact.
Like beauty, persons who do not have it say things similar to what you
have said.
> I'm not sure why I'm bothering to post this. You seem to have sailed
> right past my argument that having deluded people disagree with you
> doesn't prove you're right.
Negative.
I sailed right past an Atheist rant against scholars that do threaten
the "facts" of your worldview.
> And your accusations of "racism" have
> gone past outrageous and are now merely stupid and boring (given that
> *you* were the first person to bring up Africans and "transitional" in
> the same sentence, how can it be racist of Dana Tweedy or myself
> merely to reply to you, without you being a racist yourself? you
> really ought to heed that line from Jesus about motes and beams in
> people's eyes).
>
I reject human evolution because it was born in racism and the "scant
facts" in support confirm. Don't feel too bad ALL Darwinists are
racists.
Darwin rejects God and then sees how certain human beings resemble
apes, and with no evidence in hand in 1838 he declares man descended
from apes = Atheism.
What choice does the Atheist have for human origins?
Apes and mankind were already similar how many years preceding Darwin?
This is what happens when God is rejected, Steven, the racist
absurdity of human evolution. Calling it "science" does not fool
anyone with an objective brain.
Ray
Tiny Bulcher
Including the black ones?
> Darwin rejects God and then sees how certain human beings resemble
> apes, and with no evidence in hand in 1838 he declares man descended
> from apes = Atheism.
>
> What choice does the Atheist have for human origins?
>
> Apes and mankind were already similar how many years preceding Darwin?
Well, several million years at least ..
> This is what happens when God is rejected, Steven, the racist
> absurdity of human evolution. Calling it "science" does not fool
> anyone with an objective brain.
I wonder who has one of those? Not a Scottite fanatic, certainly.
Note to Richard Dawkins: Give it up, Rich, you're never going to convert as
many people to atheism as Ray does with this stuff.
Dana Tweedy
snip>> I think evolution is descent with modification. I think evolutionary
>> biology is science, and that evolutionary theory is a scientific
>> theory. And why do creationists always use "in other words," to start
>> a sentence that has nothing to do with the views that are supposedly
>> being paraphrased? And I note that you have not defended the
>> proposition that actual philosophers or historians of science use
>> "Darwinism" in the sense that you mean it.
>>
>
> I have repeatedly.
Asserted is not the same as "defended".
> You are not paying attention, mistaken or
> deliberately lying.
Or, more likely, he is correct, and you haven't defended your claims.
>
>
>> > Your rants and slander against Dr. and Pastor Scott betrays rage that
>> > persons with IQs of 186 and above reject your theory. Since you are
>> > also a confirmed racist, in addition to your intolerable Atheism, we
>> > are glad that such persons like yourself disapprove of theist
>> > scholars. We don't need or want your kind.
>>
>> Ray, I know of no upper limit to IQ, beyond which one cannot be stupid
>> or irrational (of course, I know of no evidence beyond the assertion
>> of people I don't trust, that either Dr. or Pastor Scott has a 186
>> IQ). I'm sure that there are very smart people (as measured by IQ
>> tests) who are bigoted, irrational, bizarrely ignorant, or flat-out
>> bonkers, even to the extent of rejecting common descent of humans and
>> other species. A 186 IQ does nothing to make shared pseudogenes and
>> endogenous retroviruses in human and other primate genomes go away; it
>> does not turn ER1470 into either a "fully-formed human," a "fully-
>> formed ape," or a racist conspiracy by paleoanthropologists. Talking
>> up Dr. Scott's (or is it Pastor Scott's) supposed 186 IQ is just
>> another argument from inappropriate authority; if one doesn't know
>> what one is talking about, no IQ is high enough to make one an expert
>> on the matter.
>>
>
> High IQ is a valid fact.
Perhaps, but the claim that either Gene Scott, or Ms. Bridges has a high IQ
is not. Furthermore, did you miss Steven's point, that having a high IQ
does not mean that someone is right, reasonable, or even sane.
>
> Like beauty, persons who do not have it say things similar to what you
> have said.
What evidence do you have that either Gene, or Barbie have an inordinately
high IQ? Even if they did have a high IQ, how does that make them right?
>
>
>> I'm not sure why I'm bothering to post this. You seem to have sailed
>> right past my argument that having deluded people disagree with you
>> doesn't prove you're right.
>
> Negative.
Then why haven't you addressed the argument?
>
> I sailed right past an Atheist rant against scholars that do threaten
> the "facts" of your worldview.
What "atheist rant"? And where do either Gene, or Barbie's statements
"threaten" anything?
>
>> And your accusations of "racism" have
>> gone past outrageous and are now merely stupid and boring (given that
>> *you* were the first person to bring up Africans and "transitional" in
>> the same sentence, how can it be racist of Dana Tweedy or myself
>> merely to reply to you, without you being a racist yourself? you
>> really ought to heed that line from Jesus about motes and beams in
>> people's eyes).
>>
>
> I reject human evolution because it was born in racism and the "scant
> facts" in support confirm.
Ray, you already know that it was not "born in racism", but even if it was,
that doesn't affect the validity of the theory. Also, there are plenty of
facts that confirm and support the theory of evolution.
> Don't feel too bad ALL Darwinists are
> racists.
Even those who are black?
>
> Darwin rejects God and then sees how certain human beings resemble
> apes, and with no evidence in hand in 1838 he declares man descended
> from apes = Atheism.
Darwin did not reject God, and all humans resemble apes. Darwin had plenty
of evidence n 1838 to support the idea of human evolution, and there is much
more today. None of those statements equal atheism..
>
> What choice does the Atheist have for human origins?
They have pleny of choices, but only one scientific theory. That's why
theists support evolution as well.
>
> Apes and mankind were already similar how many years preceding Darwin?
At least 5 million years. What's more they are still similiar.
> This is what happens when God is rejected, Steven, the racist
> absurdity of human evolution.
Ray, you still haven't demonstrated that evolution is either racist, or
absurd. You have asserted this many times, but you have ignored the many
refutations.
> Calling it "science" does not fool
> anyone with an objective brain.
Why would you know what someone with an objective brain would do?
Evolution is science, and no amount of whining on your part makes it
anything else.
DJT
Ye Old One
<pyram...@yahoo.com> enriched this group when s/he wrote:
In this case, it is you that always lies.
>
>
>> > Your rants and slander against Dr. and Pastor Scott betrays rage that
>> > persons with IQs of 186 and above reject your theory. Since you are
>> > also a confirmed racist, in addition to your intolerable Atheism, we
>> > are glad that such persons like yourself disapprove of theist
>> > scholars. We don't need or want your kind.
>>
>> Ray, I know of no upper limit to IQ, beyond which one cannot be stupid
>> or irrational (of course, I know of no evidence beyond the assertion
>> of people I don't trust, that either Dr. or Pastor Scott has a 186
>> IQ). I'm sure that there are very smart people (as measured by IQ
>> tests) who are bigoted, irrational, bizarrely ignorant, or flat-out
>> bonkers, even to the extent of rejecting common descent of humans and
>> other species. A 186 IQ does nothing to make shared pseudogenes and
>> endogenous retroviruses in human and other primate genomes go away; it
>> does not turn ER1470 into either a "fully-formed human," a "fully-
>> formed ape," or a racist conspiracy by paleoanthropologists. Talking
>> up Dr. Scott's (or is it Pastor Scott's) supposed 186 IQ is just
>> another argument from inappropriate authority; if one doesn't know
>> what one is talking about, no IQ is high enough to make one an expert
>> on the matter.
>>
>
>High IQ is a valid fact.
It is. But an IQ in the 180s is very rare - and not something
demonstrated by either of the dishonest Scotts.
>
>Like beauty, persons who do not have it say things similar to what you
>have said.
>
>
>> I'm not sure why I'm bothering to post this. You seem to have sailed
>> right past my argument that having deluded people disagree with you
>> doesn't prove you're right.
>
>Negative.
Then answer the arguements - if you can.
>
>I sailed right past an Atheist rant against scholars that do threaten
>the "facts" of your worldview.
>
>> And your accusations of "racism" have
>> gone past outrageous and are now merely stupid and boring (given that
>> *you* were the first person to bring up Africans and "transitional" in
>> the same sentence, how can it be racist of Dana Tweedy or myself
>> merely to reply to you, without you being a racist yourself? you
>> really ought to heed that line from Jesus about motes and beams in
>> people's eyes).
>>
>
>I reject human evolution because it was born in racism
No, in fact the reverse is true. Human evolution grew out of a
realization that racism had no basis because we were all related -
very closely.
> and the "scant
>facts" in support confirm. Don't feel too bad ALL Darwinists are
>racists.
Then what is YOUR excuse for being a racist? I remember you trying to
deny the right of Africans to be possible tansitionals to the next
step after man.
>
>Darwin rejects God and then sees how certain human beings resemble
>apes, and with no evidence in hand in 1838 he declares man descended
>from apes = Atheism.
Man is an ape. How can we descend?
>
>What choice does the Atheist have for human origins?
>
>Apes and mankind were already similar how many years preceding Darwin?
20 million years?
>This is what happens when God is rejected, Steven, the racist
>absurdity of human evolution. Calling it "science" does not fool
>anyone with an objective brain.
You demonstrate you do not have a brain.
>
>
>Ray
>
--
Bob.
wf...@comcast.net
and christianity's 20 century war against the jews was love and
cream??
its 5 century war of genocide and slavery against blacks was a peace
rally?
Steven J.
> On May 31, 9:23 pm, "Steven J." <steve...@altavista.com> wrote:
>
>
> > > > By the way, you have not shown, or even argued, that "Darwinist" is
> > > > used by actual historians or philosophers of science to mean what you
> > > > say it means.
>
> > > In other words, you are unread and ignorant, as if we did not already
> > > suspect this since you think evolution is science.
>
tapeworm?
>
> > I think evolution is descent with modification. I think evolutionary
> > biology is science, and that evolutionary theory is a scientific
> > theory. And why do creationists always use "in other words," to start
> > a sentence that has nothing to do with the views that are supposedly
> > being paraphrased? And I note that you have not defended the
> > proposition that actual philosophers or historians of science use
> > "Darwinism" in the sense that you mean it.
>
> I have repeatedly. You are not paying attention, mistaken or
> deliberately lying.
>
assert that you made it but apparently no one was paying attention.
Perhaps this would work with your infamous paper: just tell people you
posted it, and that somehow we all missed it.
>
-- [snip]
>
> > Ray, I know of no upper limit to IQ, beyond which one cannot be stupid
> > or irrational (of course, I know of no evidence beyond the assertion
> > of people I don't trust, that either Dr. or Pastor Scott has a 186
> > IQ). I'm sure that there are very smart people (as measured by IQ
> > tests) who are bigoted, irrational, bizarrely ignorant, or flat-out
> > bonkers, even to the extent of rejecting common descent of humans and
> > other species. A 186 IQ does nothing to make shared pseudogenes and
> > endogenous retroviruses in human and other primate genomes go away; it
> > does not turn ER1470 into either a "fully-formed human," a "fully-
> > formed ape," or a racist conspiracy by paleoanthropologists. Talking
> > up Dr. Scott's (or is it Pastor Scott's) supposed 186 IQ is just
> > another argument from inappropriate authority; if one doesn't know
> > what one is talking about, no IQ is high enough to make one an expert
> > on the matter.
>
> High IQ is a valid fact.
>
that have to do with my point?
>
> Like beauty, persons who do not have it say things similar to what you
> have said.
>
physics, took an IQ test and scored, IIRC, 127. He was very proud of
this result, noting that a lot of people had won the Nobel prize, but
very few had done it with an IQ in the 120s. Feynman accepted
evolution, of course. Marilyn vos Savant, who, according to the
Guinness Book of World Records, has the highest IQ on record, has
rejected the teaching of creationism and intelligent design. Since
high IQ is a valid fact, I expect you to acknowledge her opinion as
more valid than Pastor Scott's, and abandon your belief in
creationism.
Okay, what I really expect you to do is admit that mere IQ scores
don't automatically make someone right about anything.
Okay, what I really expect you to do is rant, lie, and evade the
point. But you could try to surpass my expectations.
>
> > I'm not sure why I'm bothering to post this. You seem to have sailed
> > right past my argument that having deluded people disagree with you
> > doesn't prove you're right.
>
> Negative.
>
No, really, you did.
>
> I sailed right past an Atheist rant against scholars that do threaten
> the "facts" of your worldview.
>
A point about the logic of your argument is not a rant against anyone.
>
> > And your accusations of "racism" have
> > gone past outrageous and are now merely stupid and boring (given that
> > *you* were the first person to bring up Africans and "transitional" in
> > the same sentence, how can it be racist of Dana Tweedy or myself
> > merely to reply to you, without you being a racist yourself? you
> > really ought to heed that line from Jesus about motes and beams in
> > people's eyes).
>
> I reject human evolution because it was born in racism and the "scant
> facts" in support confirm. Don't feel too bad ALL Darwinists are
> racists.
>
That's a silly reason to reject evolution. Ray, abolitionism was
"born in racism," as much as evolutionary theory was (indeed, there is
significant overlap between early evolutionists and abolitionists);
scarcely any of the early abolitionists thought that black Africans
were the equals of white people. Is opposition to slavery therefore
racist? On the other hand, William Shockley, inventor of the
transistor, was a far more virulent racist than, say, Charles Darwin
or Abraham Lincoln, yet transistors seem to work for all that. The
merits of theory do not depend on the morals or motives of its
proponents, but only on how well it fits the evidence.
>
> Darwin rejects God and then sees how certain human beings resemble
> apes, and with no evidence in hand in 1838 he declares man descended
> from apes = Atheism.
>
Galen, the noted Greek physician, had seen that human beings
("certain," in this case, must mean "all") resemble apes, and noted it
more than 16 centuries earlier than Darwin. Karl von Linne, the noted
Swedish botanist and taxonomist, had noted the resemblance and
classified humans among apes and monkeys in the Primates. No one
needed to reject God to note the nested hierarchy of life, or the
strong resemblance between human beings and other primates.
Obviously, once one has concluded that the nested hierarchy is
explained by common ancestry, then one must conclude that humans are
descended from nonhuman apes.
>
> What choice does the Atheist have for human origins?
>
Given the evidence, the same choice the theist does: common ancestry
of humans and other species, with nonhuman African apes as our closest
relatives. If one ignores the evidence, of course, one has other
options: a perennially popular one has been that humans have always
existed, and did not have an origin.
>
> Apes and mankind were already similar how many years preceding Darwin?
>
Between a quarter million years and six million years, depending on
what one is willing to call "mankind." Prior to six million years
ago, our ancestors were not merely similar to the ancestors of
chimpanzees, but were the same individual apes; prior to about a
quarter million years ago, our species, _Homo sapiens_, probably did
not exist, although other hominine species did.
>
> This is what happens when God is rejected, Steven, the racist
> absurdity of human evolution. Calling it "science" does not fool
> anyone with an objective brain.
>
Ray, there are creationists who assert (and if one insists that the
evidence be interpreted or ignored in order to force-fit with dogma,
this is no harder or sillier than denying our shared ancestry with
gorillas) that white people do not share ancestry with black Africans
or other "mud people." There are other creationists who acknowledge
the kinship of white people and other human "races," but insist that
these other "races" labor under biblical curses or, at least, that God
wants them separated from the white race. Will you concede that
therefore, creationism must be racist? I do not think you ought to do
so, yet surely there is more reason to do so as there is reason to
condemn evolutionary theory as racist.
Ray, calling evolution "racist" and "absurd" will not fool anyone with
an objective brain. Alas, that category seems to exclude you.
>
> Ray
-- Steven J.
J.J. O'Shea
(in article <1180848893....@w5g2000hsg.googlegroups.com>):
>>>> In other words, you are unread and ignorant, as if we did not already
>>>> suspect this since you think evolution is science.
>>
> Who is this "we" of whom you speak? Are your posts co-authored by a
> tapeworm?
In his case, the tapeworm is the brains of the outfit.
--
email to oshea dot j dot j at gmail dot com.
Rolf
"Ray Martinez" <pyram...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1180811440.9...@p47g2000hsd.googlegroups.com...
Objective in Rayspeak=brainwashed.
>
> Ray
>
>
Ray Martinez
> On Jun 2, 1:10 pm, Ray Martinez <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote:> On May 31, 9:23 pm, "Steven J." <steve...@altavista.com> wrote:
>
> -- [snip]
>
> > > > > By the way, you have not shown, or even argued, that "Darwinist" is
> > > > > used by actual historians or philosophers of science to mean what you
> > > > > say it means.
>
> > > > In other words, you are unread and ignorant, as if we did not already
> > > > suspect this since you think evolution is science.
>
> Who is this "we" of whom you speak? Are your posts co-authored by a
> tapeworm?
>
We (= Creationists and Christians).
Your "point" says anyone with a high IQ who does not agree with the
atheist origins theory, that this fact means they do not have a high
IQ or the fact is not relevant. When the subject has nothing to do
with your theory then it reverts back to relevancy and validity.
> > Like beauty, persons who do not have it say things similar to what you
> > have said.
>
> I once read that Richard Feynman, after winning the Nobel charge in
> physics, took an IQ test and scored, IIRC, 127. He was very proud of
> this result, noting that a lot of people had won the Nobel prize, but
> very few had done it with an IQ in the 120s. Feynman accepted
> evolution, of course. Marilyn vos Savant, who, according to the
> Guinness Book of World Records, has the highest IQ on record, has
> rejected the teaching of creationism and intelligent design. Since
> high IQ is a valid fact, I expect you to acknowledge her opinion as
> more valid than Pastor Scott's, and abandon your belief in
> creationism.
>
My point was not your misrepresentation, the point was that very
intelligent persons reject your theory. I already knew very
intelligent persons accept your theory. The point is that you cannot
admit the former to exist against your theory like do against
Creationism: the point is that you are not objective, since you are a
Darwinist it is not surprising.
> Okay, what I really expect you to do is admit that mere IQ scores
> don't automatically make someone right about anything.
>
Never said that.
> Okay, what I really expect you to do is rant, lie, and evade the
> point. But you could try to surpass my expectations.
>
> > > I'm not sure why I'm bothering to post this. You seem to have sailed
> > > right past my argument that having deluded people disagree with you
> > > doesn't prove you're right.
>
> > Negative.
>
> No, really, you did.
>
> > I sailed right past an Atheist rant against scholars that do threaten
> > the "facts" of your worldview.
>
> A point about the logic of your argument is not a rant against anyone.
>
Please re-paste this argument and I will instantly show you your
faulty logic.
> > > And your accusations of "racism" have
> > > gone past outrageous and are now merely stupid and boring (given that
> > > *you* were the first person to bring up Africans and "transitional" in
> > > the same sentence, how can it be racist of Dana Tweedy or myself
> > > merely to reply to you, without you being a racist yourself? you
> > > really ought to heed that line from Jesus about motes and beams in
> > > people's eyes).
>
> > I reject human evolution because it was born in racism and the "scant
> > facts" in support confirm. Don't feel too bad ALL Darwinists are
> > racists.
>
> That's a silly reason to reject evolution. Ray, abolitionism was
> "born in racism," as much as evolutionary theory was (indeed, there is
> significant overlap between early evolutionists and abolitionists);
> scarcely any of the early abolitionists thought that black Africans
> were the equals of white people. Is opposition to slavery therefore
> racist? On the other hand, William Shockley, inventor of the
> transistor, was a far more virulent racist than, say, Charles Darwin
> or Abraham Lincoln, yet transistors seem to work for all that. The
> merits of theory do not depend on the morals or motives of its
> proponents, but only on how well it fits the evidence.
>
Radios and what not have nothing to do with human origins. Racists
exist and have existed in all walks. The point is that their existence
decided human origins after God was rejected as Creator. This fact
negates the claim to have no original source in science, but racism.
Subsequent data is interpreted to support the idea regardless of its
"scantness" and lack of correspondence to reality. Human evolution is
silly and a necessity for the Atheist.
> > Darwin rejects God and then sees how certain human beings resemble
> > apes, and with no evidence in hand in 1838 he declares man descended
> > from apes = Atheism.
>
> Galen, the noted Greek physician, had seen that human beings
> ("certain," in this case, must mean "all") resemble apes, and noted it
> more than 16 centuries earlier than Darwin. Karl von Linne, the noted
> Swedish botanist and taxonomist, had noted the resemblance and
> classified humans among apes and monkeys in the Primates. No one
> needed to reject God to note the nested hierarchy of life, or the
> strong resemblance between human beings and other primates.
> Obviously, once one has concluded that the nested hierarchy is
> explained by common ancestry, then one must conclude that humans are
> descended from nonhuman apes.
>
Apes and humans were always similar "therefore human evolution is
true" = can't you see how faulty your logic is?
Stupid question since an Atheist cannot admit. Funny how only Atheists
made the assertion since God was rejected.
> -- Steven J.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Ray
Lee Jay
> On Jun 2, 10:34 pm, "Steven J." <steve...@altavista.com> wrote:
> > Some people have high IQs, I certainly acknowledge that. What does
> > that have to do with my point?
>
> Your "point" says anyone with a high IQ who does not agree with the
> atheist origins theory, that this fact means they do not have a high
> IQ or the fact is not relevant. When the subject has nothing to do
> with your theory then it reverts back to relevancy and validity.
Generally speaking, high-IQ is less correlated with being correct,
than is low-gullibility, especially on subjects like this one.
Lee Jay
DJT
snip
> > > > > In other words, you are unread and ignorant, as if we did not already
> > > > > suspect this since you think evolution is science.
>
> > Who is this "we" of whom you speak? Are your posts co-authored by a
> > tapeworm?
>
> We (= Creationists and Christians).
Ray, what makes you think you are qualified to speak for either
group? I haven't seen any Christians, or any Creationists, for that
matter, who agree with you on anything.....
snip
> > > High IQ is a valid fact.
>
> > Some people have high IQs, I certainly acknowledge that. What does
> > that have to do with my point?
>
> Your "point" says anyone with a high IQ who does not agree with the
> atheist origins theory, that this fact means they do not have a high
> IQ or the fact is not relevant.
Ray, do you really get that from what Steven wrote? What Steven was
saying is that a high IQ does not mean one is right. A side issue is
that there isn't any evidence that either Gene, or Barbie have that
high an IQ.
> When the subject has nothing to do
> with your theory then it reverts back to relevancy and validity.
Again, where do you get this idea. Steven was not saying that people
with a high IQ are always right, that is what you seem to be
asserting.
>
> > > Like beauty, persons who do not have it say things similar to what you
> > > have said.
>
> > I once read that Richard Feynman, after winning the Nobel charge in
> > physics, took an IQ test and scored, IIRC, 127. He was very proud of
> > this result, noting that a lot of people had won the Nobel prize, but
> > very few had done it with an IQ in the 120s. Feynman accepted
> > evolution, of course. Marilyn vos Savant, who, according to the
> > Guinness Book of World Records, has the highest IQ on record, has
> > rejected the teaching of creationism and intelligent design. Since
> > high IQ is a valid fact, I expect you to acknowledge her opinion as
> > more valid than Pastor Scott's, and abandon your belief in
> > creationism.
>
> My point was not your misrepresentation, the point was that very
> intelligent persons reject your theory.
Ray, first of all, there isn't any evidence that either Gene, or
Barbie are "very intelligent" (more than anyone else), and second,
even if that were true, that is no reason to suspect they reject the
theory for any rational reason.
The point is that even people with high IQs can be wrong.
> I already knew very
> intelligent persons accept your theory.
But you don't seem to understand why.
> The point is that you cannot
> admit the former to exist against your theory like do against
> Creationism: the point is that you are not objective, since you are a
> Darwinist it is not surprising.
The existance of people who reject evolution does not mean the theory
is wrong, even if some of those people have a high IQ. It's another
matter that there isn't any evidence that the people you claim have
the IQ you say they do.
>
> > Okay, what I really expect you to do is admit that mere IQ scores
> > don't automatically make someone right about anything.
>
> Never said that.
It is, however what you are implying.
snip
> > A point about the logic of your argument is not a rant against anyone.
>
> Please re-paste this argument and I will instantly show you your
> faulty logic.
Ray, can't you look back a few posts and "re paste it yourself?
snip
> > That's a silly reason to reject evolution. Ray, abolitionism was
> > "born in racism," as much as evolutionary theory was (indeed, there is
> > significant overlap between early evolutionists and abolitionists);
> > scarcely any of the early abolitionists thought that black Africans
> > were the equals of white people. Is opposition to slavery therefore
> > racist? On the other hand, William Shockley, inventor of the
> > transistor, was a far more virulent racist than, say, Charles Darwin
> > or Abraham Lincoln, yet transistors seem to work for all that. The
> > merits of theory do not depend on the morals or motives of its
> > proponents, but only on how well it fits the evidence.
>
> Radios and what not have nothing to do with human origins.
The physics behind them, however do have implications about human
origins.
> Racists
> exist and have existed in all walks.
Including Creationists. Why aren't you asserting that all
creationists are racist?
> The point is that their existence
> decided human origins after God was rejected as Creator.
That is just not true, Ray, and you know it. Darwin never rejected
God as a creator. The fact that all humans are closely related to
other apes was well known long before Darwin was born.
>This fact
> negates the claim to have no original source in science, but racism.
Your claim is what's negated by the evidence. The fact that humans
and apes are very close in anatomy and behavior was known thousands of
years before Darwin.
> Subsequent data is interpreted to support the idea regardless of its
> "scantness" and lack of correspondence to reality.
Yet the subsequent evidence is quite extensive, and not "scant" at
all. You are unable to address a single piece of that evidence, yet
you dismiss it all without any second thought.
> Human evolution is
> silly and a necessity for the Atheist.
Both claims are false, as you already know. But even if the were
both correct, you haven't shown why human evolution is wrong.
>
> > > Darwin rejects God and then sees how certain human beings resemble
> > > apes, and with no evidence in hand in 1838 he declares man descended
> > > from apes = Atheism.
>
> > Galen, the noted Greek physician, had seen that human beings
> > ("certain," in this case, must mean "all") resemble apes, and noted it
> > more than 16 centuries earlier than Darwin. Karl von Linne, the noted
> > Swedish botanist and taxonomist, had noted the resemblance and
> > classified humans among apes and monkeys in the Primates. No one
> > needed to reject God to note the nested hierarchy of life, or the
> > strong resemblance between human beings and other primates.
> > Obviously, once one has concluded that the nested hierarchy is
> > explained by common ancestry, then one must conclude that humans are
> > descended from nonhuman apes.
>
> Apes and humans were always similar "therefore human evolution is
> true" = can't you see how faulty your logic is?
That's not what he's saying, but the faulty logic is yours. Apes and
humans are always similar, which means that it's not absurd, or racist
for Darwin to have recognized this. Human evolution is true, and
the similarity of humans and other apes is just one piece of the
massive amount of evidence that establishes that fact.
>
> Stupid question since an Atheist cannot admit.
Where do you get the idea that an atheist cannot admit being wrong?
You are the one who is unable to admit his errors, not any atheists I
have seen.
> Funny how only Atheists
> made the assertion since God was rejected.
I'm not an atheist, Ray, neither was Darwin, Asa Gray, Tielhard
DeChardan, Dobizhansky, Kenneth Miller, and many other evolutionary
scientists. It's not "only atheists" who accept that humans are
closely related to other apes.
snip of what Ray ignored.
DJT
Steven J.
> On Jun 2, 10:34 pm, "Steven J." <steve...@altavista.com> wrote:
>
> > On Jun 2, 1:10 pm, Ray Martinez <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote:> On May 31, 9:23 pm, "Steven J." <steve...@altavista.com> wrote:
>
-- [snip]
>
> > > > > suspect this since you think evolution is science.
>
> > Who is this "we" of whom you speak? Are your posts co-authored by a
> > tapeworm?
>
> We (= Creationists and Christians).
>
hatreds and stupidities with the views of all Christians or even all
creationists.
evolutionary theory, although I do not think they are behaving very
intelligently when they do that. Where have I said otherwise? I
have, to be sure, expressed some doubt that Dr. and Pastor Scott ought
to be numbered among these very intelligent people; it's easier to lie
about one's IQ score than to actually score 186 on any of the standard
tests, and nothing I know about the Scotts suggests that their
assertions are strongly constrained by honesty.
I don't believe I've ever claimed that evolutionary theory ought to be
accepted because very intelligent people accept it. I'm pretty sure
I've argued that you ought to give weight to the overwhelming majority
of experts in biology who accept it, but the authority I ascribe to
these people is based on their actual knowledge of the evidence, not
to their IQ scores. So, if I don't advance the IQ of its supporters
as a reason to accept evolutionary theory, why is it inconsistent of
me to reject the IQ scores of creationists as a reason to reject
evolutionary theory?
>
> > Okay, what I really expect you to do is admit that mere IQ scores
> > don't automatically make someone right about anything.
>
> Never said that.
>
Then why should anyone care that someone with a 186 IQ is a
creationist?
>
> > Okay, what I really expect you to do is rant, lie, and evade the
> > point. But you could try to surpass my expectations.
>
Well, you could have tried, but apparently you didn't.
>
> > > > I'm not sure why I'm bothering to post this. You seem to have sailed
> > > > right past my argument that having deluded people disagree with you
> > > > doesn't prove you're right.
>
> > > Negative.
>
> > No, really, you did.
>
> > > I sailed right past an Atheist rant against scholars that do threaten
> > > the "facts" of your worldview.
>
> > A point about the logic of your argument is not a rant against anyone.
>
> Please re-paste this argument and I will instantly show you your
> faulty logic.
>
Here it is:
I do not, of course, concede that my agreeing with someone proves that
person is deluded. But suppose it were so: my disagreement with them
would not prove that he is *not* deluded. Let me introduce you to
another formal fallacy of logic: denying the antecedent. If I argued
"All dogs are mammals, but my pet is not a dog, therefore, my pet is
not a mammal," I would be committing this fallacy. Likewise, "if a
Darwinist agrees with someone, that person is deluded, but Darwinists
disagree with Dr. and Pastor Scott, therefore, they are not deluded"
is the same fallacy. The Scotts manage to be deluded no matter how
many other deluded people disagree with them.
Let the Ray Martinez logic lesson begin.
>
-- [snip]
>
> > > I reject human evolution because it was born in racism and the "scant
> > > facts" in support confirm. Don't feel too bad ALL Darwinists are
> > > racists.
>
> > That's a silly reason to reject evolution. Ray, abolitionism was
> > "born in racism," as much as evolutionary theory was (indeed, there is
> > significant overlap between early evolutionists and abolitionists);
> > scarcely any of the early abolitionists thought that black Africans
> > were the equals of white people. Is opposition to slavery therefore
> > racist? On the other hand, William Shockley, inventor of the
> > transistor, was a far more virulent racist than, say, Charles Darwin
> > or Abraham Lincoln, yet transistors seem to work for all that. The
> > merits of theory do not depend on the morals or motives of its
> > proponents, but only on how well it fits the evidence.
>
> Radios and what not have nothing to do with human origins. Racists
> exist and have existed in all walks. The point is that their existence
> decided human origins after God was rejected as Creator. This fact
> negates the claim to have no original source in science, but racism.
> Subsequent data is interpreted to support the idea regardless of its
> "scantness" and lack of correspondence to reality. Human evolution is
> silly and a necessity for the Atheist.
>
Ray, the evidence for common ancestry of humans and other primates --
the consistent nested hierarchy of the primates, shared pseudogenes
and endogenous retroviruses in humans and other primates, fossils that
straddle any dividing line you might wish to draw between "fully-
formed humans" and "fully-formed apes" -- exists, no matter what
motives you ascribe to evolutionists for noticing it. There *is* an
original source for the contention in the science, and your constant
accusations of "racism" are an attempt at distraction. The evidence
for human evolution is, indeed, quite copious, with fossil,
biogeographical, biochemical and archaeological evidence all
supporting shared human ancestry with other primates.
Charles Darwin, like very other evolutionist, asserted that *all*
humans resemble nonhuman apes. Darwin noted that according to his
theory (unlike some forms of creationism current in his day), humans
of different "races" necessarily shared common ancestors with each
other (i.e. the races could not have been separately created).
Evolution, with its emphasis on individual variation within all
populations, is contrary to racism (to the idea that there is some
racial "essence" that unites all members of one "race" and makes them
distinct from other "races") in a way that creationism, with its ideas
of "curses" on all descendants of some ancestor and the insistence
that all evidence of shared ancestry can equally well be attributed to
separate creation by a common Creator, can never be.
Note that Darwin, according to his notebooks, rejected God (or at
least the specific claims of Christian theism) after he became
convinced of human evolution, not before. Some of his contemporary
supporters, such as Asa Gray, never abandoned their belief in the
biblical Creator God, but still accepted evolution. You seem to have
historical events in the wrong order for the cause-and-effect chain
you want.
>
> > > Darwin rejects God and then sees how certain human beings resemble
> > > apes, and with no evidence in hand in 1838 he declares man descended
> > > from apes = Atheism.
>
> > Galen, the noted Greek physician, had seen that human beings
> > ("certain," in this case, must mean "all") resemble apes, and noted it
> > more than 16 centuries earlier than Darwin. Karl von Linne, the noted
> > Swedish botanist and taxonomist, had noted the resemblance and
> > classified humans among apes and monkeys in the Primates. No one
> > needed to reject God to note the nested hierarchy of life, or the
> > strong resemblance between human beings and other primates.
> > Obviously, once one has concluded that the nested hierarchy is
> > explained by common ancestry, then one must conclude that humans are
> > descended from nonhuman apes.
>
> Apes and humans were always similar "therefore human evolution is
> true" = can't you see how faulty your logic is?
>
Ray, are you as stupid as that response makes you look? Apes and
humans have always been seen as similar, therefore Darwin needed no
racist motivation to see human-ape similarity, therefore human
evolution is not grounded in any important way on anyone's racist
beliefs. The similarities themselves do not prove evolution is
correct; rather, the overall *pattern* of similarities and
differences, together with the pattern of fossil hominins (more
primitive and "apelike" older, and more like modern humans later, and
the oldest members of each group in Africa, where the most similar
nonhuman apes live today), are the evidence for human-ape common
ancestry.
>
> Stupid question since an Atheist cannot admit. Funny how only Atheists
> made the assertion since God was rejected.
>
If you mean that "atheists did not advocate common descent until they
rejected theism," well, atheists didn't exist and couldn't advocate
anything until they rejected theism. Still, it seems there were
atheists in the 18th century who did not advocate evolution; it was
not the rejection of God but the accumulation of evidence that
motivated them. If you mean that "only atheists have advocated common
descent," you are, of course, utterly and typically wrong.
>
-- [snip]
>
> Ray
-- Steven J.
J.J. O'Shea
(in article <1180914484.5...@g4g2000hsf.googlegroups.com>):
>> Who is this "we" of whom you speak? Are your posts co-authored by a
>> tapeworm?
>>
>
> We (= Creationists
I was right. The tapeworm _is_ the brains of the outfit.
DJT
> On Sun, 3 Jun 2007 19:48:04 -0400, Ray Martinez wrote
>
> >> Who is this "we" of whom you speak? Are your posts co-authored by a
> >> tapeworm?
>
> > We (= Creationists
>
> I was right. The tapeworm _is_ the brains of the outfit.
Now, now, there's no reason to be insulting to tapeworms. Do you
really think a tapeworm would commit so many logical fallacies?
DJT
Earle Jones
Ray Martinez <pyram...@yahoo.com> wrote:
*
Gene Scott, of course, avoiding using words "emotively" used calm and
rational argument. And he assures us that he is not a "grinnin'
imbecile", although his words would convince us otherwise.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J6Fqms_Iw8M
Ray, you should do yourself a favor and find a different guru -- any
guru would do. Pick a guru at random -- throw a dart at the phone book
-- and it is likely to be an improvement over Stanford PhD Gene Scott.
earle
*
Rolf
Ray's argument is what's silly, no atheists before the ToE?
Ye Old One
<pyram...@yahoo.com> enriched this group when s/he wrote:
>On Jun 2, 10:34 pm, "Steven J." <steve...@altavista.com> wrote:
>> On Jun 2, 1:10 pm, Ray Martinez <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote:> On May 31, 9:23 pm, "Steven J." <steve...@altavista.com> wrote:
>>
>> -- [snip]
>>
>> > > > > By the way, you have not shown, or even argued, that "Darwinist" is
>> > > > > used by actual historians or philosophers of science to mean what you
>> > > > > say it means.
>>
>> > > > In other words, you are unread and ignorant, as if we did not already
>> > > > suspect this since you think evolution is science.
>>
>> Who is this "we" of whom you speak? Are your posts co-authored by a
>> tapeworm?
>>
>
>We (= Creationists and Christians).
But you rarely find any that agree/support you Dishonest Ray. Doesn't
that tell you something?
It is true that the higher the IQ the more resistant a person is to
the lies of religion.
>
>> > Like beauty, persons who do not have it say things similar to what you
>> > have said.
>>
>> I once read that Richard Feynman, after winning the Nobel charge in
>> physics, took an IQ test and scored, IIRC, 127. He was very proud of
>> this result, noting that a lot of people had won the Nobel prize, but
>> very few had done it with an IQ in the 120s. Feynman accepted
>> evolution, of course. Marilyn vos Savant, who, according to the
>> Guinness Book of World Records, has the highest IQ on record, has
>> rejected the teaching of creationism and intelligent design. Since
>> high IQ is a valid fact, I expect you to acknowledge her opinion as
>> more valid than Pastor Scott's, and abandon your belief in
>> creationism.
>>
>
>My point was not your misrepresentation, the point was that very
>intelligent persons reject your theory.
There may, indeed, be a few high IQ people who have not studied
evolution.
> I already knew very
>intelligent persons accept your theory. The point is that you cannot
>admit the former to exist against your theory like do against
>Creationism: the point is that you are not objective, since you are a
>Darwinist it is not surprising.
Can you come up with anyone with a high IQ that supports you Dishonest
Ray?
And a true understanding of human origins exposes racists like you far
better than any other science.
>Racists
>exist and have existed in all walks. The point is that their existence
>decided human origins after God was rejected as Creator.
Science has never looked at god as a creator.
> This fact
>negates the claim to have no original source in science, but racism.
>Subsequent data is interpreted to support the idea regardless of its
>"scantness" and lack of correspondence to reality. Human evolution is
>silly and a necessity for the Atheist.
Hardly necessary Dishonest Ray. But it is supported by so much
evidence.
>
>
>> > Darwin rejects God and then sees how certain human beings resemble
>> > apes, and with no evidence in hand in 1838 he declares man descended
>> > from apes = Atheism.
>>
>> Galen, the noted Greek physician, had seen that human beings
>> ("certain," in this case, must mean "all") resemble apes, and noted it
>> more than 16 centuries earlier than Darwin. Karl von Linne, the noted
>> Swedish botanist and taxonomist, had noted the resemblance and
>> classified humans among apes and monkeys in the Primates. No one
>> needed to reject God to note the nested hierarchy of life, or the
>> strong resemblance between human beings and other primates.
>> Obviously, once one has concluded that the nested hierarchy is
>> explained by common ancestry, then one must conclude that humans are
>> descended from nonhuman apes.
>>
>
>Apes and humans were always similar "therefore human evolution is
>true" = can't you see how faulty your logic is?
Humans are apes, part of the superfamily Hominidae.
>
>Stupid question since an Atheist cannot admit. Funny how only Atheists
>made the assertion since God was rejected.
Hohohohoho!
--
Bob.
Ye Old One
Chez Watt nomination, in the "Chicken and the Egg" category:
>Funny how only Atheists
>made the assertion since God was rejected.
--
Bob.
Earle Jones
Ray Martinez <pyram...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On May 29, 11:12 pm, "Steven J." <steve...@altavista.com> wrote:
> > On May 29, 9:01 pm, Ray Martinez <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote:> On May 27,
> > 6:14 am, Frank J <f...@comcast.net> wrote:
> >
> > > > This is not hypothetical like Zoe's "resurrection" question. These
> > > > people really do exist.
> >
> > > > While this question is directed specifically to Ray, because he
> > > > particularly likes the word "Darwinist," other anti-evolutionists are
> > > > encouraged to offer their opinions.
> >
> > > "All" scholars use the word Darwinist. Anyone who denies is revealing
> > > their unread status.
> >
> > Ray, I think it very unlikely that you have actually surveyed the
> > usage of "all" scholars, unless you are limiting the term "scholar" to
> > the Dr. and Pastor Scott and a handful of their sycophants (in which
> > case, who besides a Gene Scott idolator would care what "all scholars"
> > think?). But even if *all* scholars used the term "Darwinist," that
> > would not establish that they use it to mean what you use it to mean.
> > It is not enough to show that a word exists and is used by scholars;
> > you have to show that it means what you say it means.
> >
>
> I am pleased that an Atheist like yourself and a person who believes
> apes morphed into men reject Dr. and Pastor Scott. The approval of
> your kind would surely prove them to be deluded persons.
*
More easily, you can witness Scott's delusion on YouTube.
(Get the children out of the room.)
earle
*
Klaus Hellnick
> On May 31, 4:26 pm, Ray Martinez <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> On May 30, 10:48 pm, "Steven J." <steve...@altavista.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> On May 30, 8:04 pm, Ray Martinez <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>> On May 29, 11:12 pm, "Steven J." <steve...@altavista.com> wrote:
>>>>> On May 29, 9:01 pm, Ray Martinez <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote:> On May 27, 6:14 am, Frank J <f...@comcast.net> wrote:
>>>>>>> This is not hypothetical like Zoe's "resurrection" question. These
>>>>>>> people really do exist.
>>>>>>> While this question is directed specifically to Ray, because he
>>>>>>> particularly likes the word "Darwinist," other anti-evolutionists are
>>>>>>> encouraged to offer their opinions.
>>>>>> "All" scholars use the word Darwinist. Anyone who denies is revealing
>>>>>> their unread status.
>>>>> Ray, I think it very unlikely that you have actually surveyed the
>>>>> usage of "all" scholars, unless you are limiting the term "scholar" to
>>>>> the Dr. and Pastor Scott and a handful of their sycophants (in which
>>>>> case, who besides a Gene Scott idolator would care what "all scholars"
>>>>> think?). But even if *all* scholars used the term "Darwinist," that
>>>>> would not establish that they use it to mean what you use it to mean.
>>>>> It is not enough to show that a word exists and is used by scholars;
>>>>> you have to show that it means what you say it means.
>>>> I am pleased that an Atheist like yourself and a person who believes
>>>> apes morphed into men reject Dr. and Pastor Scott. The approval of
>>>> your kind would surely prove them to be deluded persons.
>>> person is deluded. But suppose it were so: my disagreement with them
>>> would not prove that he is *not* deluded. Let me introduce you to
>>> another formal fallacy of logic: denying the antecedent. If I argued
>>> "All dogs are mammals, but my pet is not a dog, therefore, my pet is
>>> not a mammal," I would be committing this fallacy. Likewise, "if a
>>> Darwinist agrees with someone, that person is deluded, but Darwinists
>>> disagree with Dr. and Pastor Scott, therefore, they are not deluded"
>>> is the same fallacy. The Scotts manage to be deluded no matter how
>>> many other deluded people disagree with them.
>>> say it means.
>> In other words, you are unread and ignorant, as if we did not already
>> suspect this since you think evolution is science.
>>
>> persons with IQs of 186 and above reject your theory.
>
> evilushinnist.
>
>> Since you are
>> also a confirmed racist
>
>
>> in addition to your intolerable Atheism
>
>
>> we
>> are glad that such persons like yourself disapprove of theist
>> scholars. We don't need or want your kind.
>
>
He seems more likely to have a rodent stuffed elsewhere.
Klaus
Ray Martinez
> In article <1180659554.660558.127...@m36g2000hse.googlegroups.com>,
>
> - Show quoted text -
Since you are an Atheist-Darwinist your disapproval and slander of Dr.
Scott means he was exactly what he was: a Stanford Ph.D. with three
Ph.D. minors and the leading Bible scholar in the world. Glad to hear
of your disapproval.
Ray
Tiny Bulcher
>
> Since you are an Atheist-Darwinist your disapproval and slander of Dr.
> Scott means he was exactly what he was: a Stanford Ph.D. with three
> Ph.D. minors and the leading Bible scholar in the world. Glad to hear
> of your disapproval.
Since you are a raving loony, your worship of Gene Scott means bugger all.
Does or did anybody else, in the whole world, ever, other than the late
Scott himself, agree with you about the eminence of his scholarship? Hint:
somebody sane would help youur case.
Lee Jay
> On Jun 3, 10:36 pm, Earle Jones <earle.jo...@comcast.net> wrote:
> > Ray, you should do yourself a favor and find a different guru -- any
> > guru would do. Pick a guru at random -- throw a dart at the phone book
> > -- and it is likely to be an improvement over Stanford PhD Gene Scott.
>
> Scott means he was exactly what he was: a Stanford Ph.D. with three
> Ph.D. minors and the leading Bible scholar in the world. Glad to hear
> of your disapproval.
Earle approved of Gene being a Stanford Ph.D. as shown in the quote
above. Does your response to Earle's approval mean Gene actually
wasn't a Stanford Ph.D.?
Lee Jay
Dana Tweedy
snipi
>
> Since you are an Atheist-Darwinist your disapproval and slander of Dr.
> Scott means he was exactly what he was:
Earle did not express any slander of Mr. Scott. Also, the above is ad
hominem, which is a logcal fallacy.
>a Stanford Ph.D. with three
> Ph.D. minors and the leading Bible scholar in the world.
Mr. Scott was not recognized as a leading Bible scholar, even when he was
alive. Now that he's dead, he's certianly not the "leading Bible scholar".
> Glad to hear
> of your disapproval.
Instead of being glad of the disapproval, why not try to show where Earle
was wrong? Or is that to difficult?
DJT
Ray Martinez
> On Jun 3, 6:48 pm, Ray Martinez <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote:> On Jun 2, 10:34 pm, "Steven J." <steve...@altavista.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Jun 2, 1:10 pm, Ray Martinez <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote:> On May 31, 9:23 pm, "Steven J." <steve...@altavista.com> wrote:
>
> -- [snip]
>
> > > > > > In other words, you are unread and ignorant, as if we did not already
> > > > > > suspect this since you think evolution is science.
>
> > > Who is this "we" of whom you speak? Are your posts co-authored by a
> > > tapeworm?
>
> > We (= Creationists and Christians).
>
> "We" = "people who agree with you." Please do not confuse your own
> hatreds and stupidities with the views of all Christians or even all
> creationists.
>
Since the above comment was written by an Atheist-evolutionist we
could only wonder why he thinks he speaks for his enemies?
We know Atheist-evolutionists believe all Theist scholars who oppose
Evolution are dishonest, what is your point?
> I don't believe I've ever claimed that evolutionary theory ought to be
> accepted because very intelligent people accept it.
Yes you have. When you say that the vast majority of biologists accept
and confirm evolution you are saying the exact same thing, perfectly
synonymous.
> I'm pretty sure
> I've argued that you ought to give weight to the overwhelming majority
> of experts in biology who accept it, but the authority I ascribe to
> these people is based on their actual knowledge of the evidence, not
> to their IQ scores.
My point is now proven, your silly unobjective qualifiers aside.
> So, if I don't advance the IQ of its supporters
> as a reason to accept evolutionary theory, why is it inconsistent of
> me to reject the IQ scores of creationists as a reason to reject
> evolutionary theory?
>
> > > Okay, what I really expect you to do is admit that mere IQ scores
> > > don't automatically make someone right about anything.
>
> > Never said that.
>
> Then why should anyone care that someone with a 186 IQ is a
> creationist?
>
Because Darwinists think everyone who denies their theory is a
Fundamentalist. There are plenty of geniuses and Ph.D.s who reject
evolutionary theory because the facts are missing and the philosophy
excludes the correct interpretation of evidence.
But the issue was not dogs or pets or mammals. The issue is that an
evolutionist (you in this case) disagree and disapprove with persons
who are not evolutionists and who produce facts that threaten the
health and reputation of your theory; therefore, your disagreements,
disapprovals, insults, etc.etc. are expected since we know of no
evolutionist who has not treated all persons who oppose your theory
the exact same way. You are demanding that a suspension of logic be
recognized. You are saying that an evolutionist should be able to
oppose persons who oppose your theory and not have the fact that you
are an Atheist and they are Theists be pointed out.
Your argument above seeks to generalize things and misrepresent the
original issue: your rants towards Dr. and Pastor Scott. In response I
point out that your status as a Atheist-evolutionist makes your
"opinion" of them entirely predictable and of no surprise since they
produce facts which harm your theory, and, in this context, I contend
that if a person like you, that is, an Atheist-evolutionist were to
ever approve of these types of persons then that hypothetical approval
would surely make them as you are and we would not be having this
debate.
Your argument omits the specific facts (Atheist-evolutionist insulting
scholars who oppose evolutionary theory) and attempts to objectify the
invective by masking the aforementioned specifics in generalities that
anyone would agree with.
Negative.
The evidence for human evolution is scant at best and THAT evidence is
also highly contested. Human evolution is ASSUMED based on animal
common ancestry.
In addition, there is no branching tree evidence seen in any line of
evidence. The Cambrian explosion plainly falsifies.
Ray
SNIP...
Dana Tweedy
snip
>> "We" = "people who agree with you." Please do not confuse your own
>> hatreds and stupidities with the views of all Christians or even all
>> creationists.
>>
>
> Since the above comment was written by an Atheist-evolutionist we
> could only wonder why he thinks he speaks for his enemies?
We can only wonder why you think you speak for Christians, or Creationists.
Steven has shown that he's more accurately portaying those with differing
views.
snip
>> I'm perfectly willing to admit that very intelligent people reject
>> evolutionary theory, although I do not think they are behaving very
>> intelligently when they do that. Where have I said otherwise? I
>> have, to be sure, expressed some doubt that Dr. and Pastor Scott ought
>> to be numbered among these very intelligent people; it's easier to lie
>> about one's IQ score than to actually score 186 on any of the standard
>> tests, and nothing I know about the Scotts suggests that their
>> assertions are strongly constrained by honesty.
>>
>
> We know Atheist-evolutionists believe all Theist scholars who oppose
> Evolution are dishonest, what is your point?
The point, which you are ignoring, is that having a high IQ doesn't make one
right. Moreover you haven't shown any reason why your claim that Mr.
Scott, or Ms. Bridges actually have a high IQ.
Not all "theist" scholars who oppose evolution are dishonest, but many
who oppose evolution have shown themselves to be dishonest (such as Hovind,
Gish, Ham, etc) As Steven mentioned, it's easier to lie about one's IQ,
than to have a high IQ.
>
>
>> I don't believe I've ever claimed that evolutionary theory ought to be
>> accepted because very intelligent people accept it.
>
> Yes you have. When you say that the vast majority of biologists accept
> and confirm evolution you are saying the exact same thing, perfectly
> synonymous.
Sorry, Ray, not even close. The vast majority of biologists accept and
confirm evolution because of the evidence, not because they are intelligent.
>
>> I'm pretty sure
>> I've argued that you ought to give weight to the overwhelming majority
>> of experts in biology who accept it, but the authority I ascribe to
>> these people is based on their actual knowledge of the evidence, not
>> to their IQ scores.
>
> My point is now proven, your silly unobjective qualifiers aside.
Ray, you seem to have an odd idea of what is 'proven'. Refuted does not
mean "proven". Did you miss that Steven is saying that it's not the IQ of
the individuals, but their familiarity wth the evidenc?
>
>
>> So, if I don't advance the IQ of its supporters
>> as a reason to accept evolutionary theory, why is it inconsistent of
>> me to reject the IQ scores of creationists as a reason to reject
>> evolutionary theory?
>>
>> > > Okay, what I really expect you to do is admit that mere IQ scores
>> > > don't automatically make someone right about anything.
>>
>> > Never said that.
>>
>> Then why should anyone care that someone with a 186 IQ is a
>> creationist?
>>
>
> Because Darwinists think everyone who denies their theory is a
> Fundamentalist.
That's because those who deny the evidence for evolution do so because of
their fundamentalist religious beliefs. Fundamentalism and IQ are not
mutually exclusive.
> There are plenty of geniuses and Ph.D.s who reject
> evolutionary theory because the facts are missing and the philosophy
> excludes the correct interpretation of evidence.
Can you present any of these "geniuses" who reject evolution "because the
facts are missing"? I suspect there aren't any more than you could count
on one hand of a quadruple amputee. It's also interesting that you claim
that "the philosophy excudes the correct interpetation of the evidence".
That tends to iindicate you already know what the "correct interpetation"
is, without actually going through a process to determine what that "correct
interpetation" is.
snip
>> I do not, of course, concede that my agreeing with someone proves that
>> person is deluded. But suppose it were so: my disagreement with them
>> would not prove that he is *not* deluded. Let me introduce you to
>> another formal fallacy of logic: denying the antecedent. If I argued
>> "All dogs are mammals, but my pet is not a dog, therefore, my pet is
>> not a mammal," I would be committing this fallacy. Likewise, "if a
>> Darwinist agrees with someone, that person is deluded, but Darwinists
>> disagree with Dr. and Pastor Scott, therefore, they are not deluded"
>> is the same fallacy. The Scotts manage to be deluded no matter how
>> many other deluded people disagree with them.
>>
>> Let the Ray Martinez logic lesson begin.
>>
>
> But the issue was not dogs or pets or mammals.
Ray, it's called an analogy.
> The issue is that an
> evolutionist (you in this case) disagree and disapprove with persons
> who are not evolutionists and who produce facts that threaten the
> health and reputation of your theory;
But the "persons" in this case did no such thing. You are asserting that
they did, but do not produce any evidence showing yourself to be correct.
> therefore, your disagreements,
> disapprovals, insults, etc.etc. are expected since we know of no
> evolutionist who has not treated all persons who oppose your theory
> the exact same way.
Actually, Ray, that's not true. Persons who oppose the theory of
evolution are expected to give evidence to support their case. Creationists
have failed to do so. Steven is pointing out that your claim, that
"disapproval" of the Scotts by people who you think are deluded, does not
mean that they are not deluded. Their delusion is independent of that
claim.
> You are demanding that a suspension of logic be
> recognized.
Where does he demand that?
> You are saying that an evolutionist should be able to
> oppose persons who oppose your theory and not have the fact that you
> are an Atheist and they are Theists be pointed out.
Yes, Ray, because what is being argued is the facts, not the personality of
the person presenting the facts. That is why ad hominem is a logical
fallacy.
>
> Your argument above seeks to generalize things and misrepresent the
> original issue: your rants towards Dr. and Pastor Scott.
Steven's opinion of the Scotts is irrelevant to the fact that the Scotts are
not great scholars, and even if they have a high IQ, that doesn't mean they
are right.
> In response I
> point out that your status as a Atheist-evolutionist makes your
> "opinion" of them entirely predictable and of no surprise since they
> produce facts which harm your theory, and, in this context, I contend
> that if a person like you, that is, an Atheist-evolutionist were to
> ever approve of these types of persons then that hypothetical approval
> would surely make them as you are and we would not be having this
> debate.
Ray, that's the classic defininition of the fallacy of ad hominem.
>
> Your argument omits the specific facts (Atheist-evolutionist insulting
> scholars who oppose evolutionary theory)
that's not a fact, and even if it were, it's irrelevant.
> and attempts to objectify the
> invective by masking the aforementioned specifics in generalities that
> anyone would agree with.
Ray, it's your own invective that you have tried to "objectify".
snip
> Negative.
>
> The evidence for human evolution is scant at best and THAT evidence is
> also highly contested. Human evolution is ASSUMED based on animal
> common ancestry.
Ray, you are ignoring the wealth of evidence, then are asserting it's
"scant". The evidence for evolution is not 'highly contested'. Human
evolution is supported by, among other factors, the evidence of animal
similarity.
>
> In addition, there is no branching tree evidence seen in any line of
> evidence. The Cambrian explosion plainly falsifies.
The "branching tree" is seen in many fossil lines, and the Cambrian
explosion does nothing of the sort. At least learn something about the
subject you are speaking about.
DJT
Steven J.
> On Jun 3, 6:12 pm, "Steven J." <steve...@altavista.com> wrote:
>
> > On Jun 3, 6:48 pm, Ray Martinez <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote:> On Jun 2, 10:34 pm, "Steven J." <steve...@altavista.com> wrote:
>
>
> > > We (= Creationists and Christians).
>
> > "We" = "people who agree with you." Please do not confuse your own
> > hatreds and stupidities with the views of all Christians or even all
> > creationists.
>
> Since the above comment was written by an Atheist-evolutionist we
> could only wonder why he thinks he speaks for his enemies?
>
raised me, among others, and who taught me in Sunday School. I
disagree with creationists; I do not regard most of them as my
enemies. I used to be a creationist, and have read some of their
writings; surely I might have some understanding of their views. Or
do you assume the writings and speeches of creationists are too opaque
to convey any understanding of their ideas?
On the other hand, we *know* (you have told us, assuming we can trust
anything you say) that "fundamentalist" creationists like Ken Ham
disagree with you. So on your own telling, at least some creationists
don't share your views on at least some issues; how can it be a
stretch to infer that you don't speak for all creationists?
>
-- [snip]
>
>
> > > My point was not your misrepresentation, the point was that very
> > > intelligent persons reject your theory. I already knew very
> > > intelligent persons accept your theory. The point is that you cannot
> > > admit the former to exist against your theory like do against
> > > Creationism: the point is that you are not objective, since you are a
> > > Darwinist it is not surprising.
>
> > I'm perfectly willing to admit that very intelligent people reject
> > evolutionary theory, although I do not think they are behaving very
> > intelligently when they do that. Where have I said otherwise? I
> > have, to be sure, expressed some doubt that Dr. and Pastor Scott ought
> > to be numbered among these very intelligent people; it's easier to lie
> > about one's IQ score than to actually score 186 on any of the standard
> > tests, and nothing I know about the Scotts suggests that their
> > assertions are strongly constrained by honesty.
>
> We know Atheist-evolutionists believe all Theist scholars who oppose
> Evolution are dishonest, what is your point?
>
I think some anti-evolutionist scholars are merely confused and ill-
informed. I have two simple points: first, we don't *know* what the
IQ scores of either Dr. or Pastor Scott are (all we know is that a
claim has been made, and it might or might not be true), and second,
that having a high IQ does not guarantee that one's views are informed
or reasonable.
>
> > I don't believe I've ever claimed that evolutionary theory ought to be
> > accepted because very intelligent people accept it.
>
> Yes you have. When you say that the vast majority of biologists accept
> and confirm evolution you are saying the exact same thing, perfectly
> synonymous.
>
This is a meaning of "perfectly synonymous" that I have not
previously encountered. Not all biologists have extremely high IQs,
and most people with extremely high IQs are not biologists. I am
saying that people who are familiar with the evidence are more likely
to have correct answers to the questions addressed by the evidence
than are people who are not familiar with the evidence; this says
nothing about the relative IQ of the two groups.
>
> > I'm pretty sure
> > I've argued that you ought to give weight to the overwhelming majority
> > of experts in biology who accept it, but the authority I ascribe to
> > these people is based on their actual knowledge of the evidence, not
> > to their IQ scores.
>
> My point is now proven, your silly unobjective qualifiers aside.
>
Ray, in American English, "proven" and "disproven" are normally
regarded as antonyms, not synonyms. Please try to use these words in
the standard sense.
>
-- [snip]
>
> > > Never said that.
>
> > Then why should anyone care that someone with a 186 IQ is a
> > creationist?
>
> Because Darwinists think everyone who denies their theory is a
> Fundamentalist.
>
"Fundamentalist" does not mean "unintelligent." Now, if you
distinguish between "unintelligent" (lacking intellectual ability) and
"stupid" (not using the intellectual abilities one has), then a person
may easily be both stupid and have a high (if underutilized) IQ. Note
that I don't even think that all creationists are particularly stupid;
they just don't give much thought to the whole question of origins and
accept unexamined ideas uncritically. I suspect we all do this with
regard to some ideas.
Strictly speaking, of course, a "fundamentalist" is a Christian who
adheres to the "five points of fundamentalism," separates himself
religiously from people who reject these points, and adheres to
premillenial dispensationalism. There are hard-core Calvinist
(preterist) young-earth creationists who, by this standard, are not
fundamentalists. Likewise, the Christian Churches and Churches of
Christ, who regard premillennial dispensationalism as bad science
fiction and heretical to boot, and who also oppose Calvinism, are not,
strictly speaking, fundamentalists, even though many of them are
YECs. Nor are evangelical Christians who accept both YEC (although,
in fact, some fundamentalists are OECs) and premillennial
dispensationalism, but are willing to worship with Christians who
reject these ideas "fundamentalists" in the strict sense.
>
> There are plenty of geniuses and Ph.D.s who reject
> evolutionary theory because the facts are missing and the philosophy
> excludes the correct interpretation of evidence.
>
A similar point applies to PhDs as applies to "geniuses." Having a
PhD is supposed to make you an expert in one field; without extensive
study, that expertise does not extend to other fields. Expertise in
philosophy, theology, or art history does not automatically confer
understanding of paleontology, genetics, zoology, embryology, or other
relevant disciplines. And, again, neither genius nor graduate degrees
makes the facts (from the twin nested hierarchy to fossils to
biogeography) go away. It seems to me, rather, that there are some
geniuses (or at least bright people, if very few highly creative
scientific innovators) and PhDs who have arrived, for personal
religious reasons, at a "correct interpretation" that requires them to
insist that the evidence either does not exist or for some reason does
not "count."
>
-- [snip]
>
> > > Please re-paste this argument and I will instantly show you your
> > > faulty logic.
>
> > Here it is:
>
> > I do not, of course, concede that my agreeing with someone proves that
> > person is deluded. But suppose it were so: my disagreement with them
> > would not prove that he is *not* deluded. Let me introduce you to
> > another formal fallacy of logic: denying the antecedent. If I argued
> > "All dogs are mammals, but my pet is not a dog, therefore, my pet is
> > not a mammal," I would be committing this fallacy. Likewise, "if a
> > Darwinist agrees with someone, that person is deluded, but Darwinists
> > disagree with Dr. and Pastor Scott, therefore, they are not deluded"
> > is the same fallacy. The Scotts manage to be deluded no matter how
> > many other deluded people disagree with them.
>
> > Let the Ray Martinez logic lesson begin.
>
> But the issue was not dogs or pets or mammals. The issue is that an
> evolutionist (you in this case) disagree and disapprove with persons
> who are not evolutionists and who produce facts that threaten the
> health and reputation of your theory; therefore, your disagreements,
> disapprovals, insults, etc.etc. are expected since we know of no
> evolutionist who has not treated all persons who oppose your theory
> the exact same way. You are demanding that a suspension of logic be
> recognized. You are saying that an evolutionist should be able to
> oppose persons who oppose your theory and not have the fact that you
> are an Atheist and they are Theists be pointed out.
>
Ray, the issue is that it does not matter whether I would disagree
with the Scotts if they actually presented facts and good arguments.
What matters is whether they've made up their "facts" or whether their
arguments are deranged, and the fact that an "atheist Darwinist"
disagrees with them does not prove that they have offered real facts
that threaten anything. And it is not a "suspension of logic" to
point out that someone is not right merely because someone else you
disagree with disagrees with them. It is not a "suspension of logic"
to call you on an _ad hominem_ argument.
>
> Your argument above seeks to generalize things and misrepresent the
> original issue: your rants towards Dr. and Pastor Scott. In response I
> point out that your status as a Atheist-evolutionist makes your
> "opinion" of them entirely predictable and of no surprise since they
> produce facts which harm your theory, and, in this context, I contend
> that if a person like you, that is, an Atheist-evolutionist were to
> ever approve of these types of persons then that hypothetical approval
> would surely make them as you are and we would not be having this
> debate.
>
My opinions of another person change what that person is, so that I
can make someone right or wrong merely by disagreeing or agreeing with
him? Indeed, according to you, I can make someone agree with me just
by thinking he agrees with me -- apparently, I cannot be wrong about
whether people agree with me or not. What extraordinary, almost
godlike powers you attribute to me.
>
> Your argument omits the specific facts (Atheist-evolutionist insulting
> scholars who oppose evolutionary theory) and attempts to objectify the
> invective by masking the aforementioned specifics in generalities that
> anyone would agree with.
>
Well, any rational person would agree with the generalities. You,
obviously, do not agree.
>
-- [snip]
>
> > Ray, the evidence for common ancestry of humans and other primates --
> > the consistent nested hierarchy of the primates, shared pseudogenes
> > and endogenous retroviruses in humans and other primates, fossils that
> > straddle any dividing line you might wish to draw between "fully-
> > formed humans" and "fully-formed apes" -- exists, no matter what
> > motives you ascribe to evolutionists for noticing it. There *is* an
> > original source for the contention in the science, and your constant
> > accusations of "racism" are an attempt at distraction. The evidence
> > for human evolution is, indeed, quite copious, with fossil,
> > biogeographical, biochemical and archaeological evidence all
> > supporting shared human ancestry with other primates.
>
> Negative.
>
> The evidence for human evolution is scant at best and THAT evidence is
> also highly contested. Human evolution is ASSUMED based on animal
> common ancestry.
>
Ray, I indicate some of the evidence for specifically HUMAN evolution,
and you simply hand-wave this away and say that human evolution is
"assumed," without offering the slightest example of why particular
evidence is "contested" or what alternative interpretations exist.
>
> In addition, there is no branching tree evidence seen in any line of
> evidence. The Cambrian explosion plainly falsifies.
>
The Cambrian explosion addresses, at most, the fossil evidence, not
the DNA evidence, which plainly shows branching at the phylum level
and above. There are a few pre-Cambrian fossils of animals: worm
tracks, jellyfish, the enigmatic Ediacaran fauna. There are fossils
that seem plausible precursors to multiple Cambrian groups. The
Cambrian fossils show only that it is hard to trace the fossil record
before animals developed hard parts (shells, teeth, bones, etc.), not
that no common ancestors of phyla existed. Even if we could infer
that the phyla had no common ancestors, this would not refute the
fossil (as well as DNA) evidence for branching trees within the
various phyla.
>
> Ray
>
> SNIP...
-- Steven J.
Earle Jones
Ray Martinez <pyram...@yahoo.com> wrote:
*
Hey Ray!
I also think that Adolf Hitler was a mean son-of-a-bitch that wanted to
kill all the Jews. I disapproved of his actions and slander him at
every opportunity.
Does that mean that Hitler was really right, since I am just but an
atheist Darwinist?
earle
*
Earle Jones
Lee Jay <ljfi...@msn.com> wrote:
*
My understanding is that Scott did actually receive a PhD from Stanford
in the Department of Education. As a graduate of Stanford, I am not
proud to admit this. (I received my MS in Electrical Engineering at
Stanford.)
There was an interesting piece in the Stanford Alumni Newsletter
published at Scott's death a couple of years ago. His passion was for
"horses, cigars, and comely women" not necessarily in that order!
Read "Maverick Evangelist" OBITUARY: GENE SCOTT, PHD '57, 1929-2005
Stanford Magazine, May-June, 2005
http://www.stanfordalumni.org/news/magazine/2005/mayjun/classnotes/
scott.html
The TinyURL will work better: http://tinyurl.com/28q7ej
Excerpts:
"Scott became famous for a TV ministry that mixed exhaustive
examination of Bible passages with relentless demands for donations.
His broadcasts showcased his passion for horses, cigars, comely women
and profanity. To ensure that telecasts weren't disrupted, attendance
at Sunday sermons required an advance ticket. He recoiled from the
designation televangelist, however."
"Travis [Mark Travis -- the preacher's chief of staff] considers
Scott's flamboyant TV persona a shtick to draw viewers, who would then
linger for the sermons. And draw viewers it did: in a 1994 Los Angeles
Times article, their tithes were estimated at more than $1 million per
month. His faithful wrote on their checks that the funds could be used
in any way Scott saw fit, thus thwarting FCC inquiries into church
finances. His salary of $1 per year plus unlimited expenses allowed
him to live handsomely, collecting stamps, art, Bible texts, show
horses and coins. Scott once said that if he were stranded on a desert
island, God would provide a market for sand. He was profiled in a 1980
documentary, God's Angry Man, by Werner Herzog, and lampooned on
Saturday Night Live by Robin Williams."
"Critics called him a cult leader, pompous and an embarrassment to the
Christian church. Evangelical Christian ethicist David Gill says Scott
"appealed to angry people who identified with his outlaw image." In
the Hereafter, Scott told followers, he planned to "punch Adam in the
mouth" for all the trouble he caused mankind."
Here's a piece by Los Angeles Times writer Glenn Bunting:
http://gonsalves.org/favorite/scott/scott.htm
"Partially obscured by cigar smoke, the face appears puffed with rage
and ready to explode. Piercing blue eyes stare through half-framed
reading specs and gold-rimmed shades, worn one on top of the other. A
mouthful of perfectly aligned, pearl-white teeth sneers behind a wispy
beard. Shocking white hair stands out each night from under assorted
head wear--a Stetson, a Stanford cap, a crown, even a sombrero.
This bizarre visage lures television viewers to Dr. Gene Scott, pastor
and supreme leader of the Los Angeles University Cathedral. But it is
his provocative, profanity-laced monologues that keep them tuning in.
Scott's eclectic broadcast mixes high-voltage Scripture and obnoxious
solicitations (for money, naturally) with taped footage of his
church's world-champion American saddlebred show horses prancing to
the tunes of Sinatra and Springsteen. Toss in heavy doses of call-in
hero worship from South Africa to Santa Barbara along with amusing
commentary on current events and the result is a sort of religious
Rush Limbaugh.
"Nuke 'em in the name of Jesus!" Scott ranted during the Gulf War,
boasting that he was the only minister urging President Bush to bomb
Iraq. Recently, after three years of extensive dental work, Scott
joked to his congregation that "there'll be fewer weeks in 1994 that I
come here wanting to kill. So, get on the telephone!"
"Get on the telephone!" is Scott's favorite bark. It's his way of
ordering the faithful to send cash. And send they do, more than $1
million a month, according to some estimates."
from the Pasadena Star News:
http://thomashawk.com/2005/02/dr-gene-scott-dead-at-75.html
Dr. Gene Scott Dead at 75 Pasadena Star-News - News First the good
doctor Hunter S. Thompson and now the crazed out whacked-in-the-head
enigmatic mega broadcaster doctor Gene Scott is gone.
For those of you who were never bored enough to actually sit through
any of Dr. Scott's television, and that is probably most of you, he
was a sight to see. Dr. Scott was a megalomaniac who would smoke
cigars, talk about UFOs and the Lost Tribe, berate his audience for
not sending enough money in, and come up with complex graphical
biblical teaching on a big white dry erase board. When he got tired of
talking he'd run video loops of his horses running around or other
similar nonesense.
Dr. Scott was the pastor of the Los Angeles University Cathedral but
he was so much more than this. In the past few decades most
televangelists have been easily identifiable as cheap hucksters and
hypocrites with very simple business models that prey on the weak --
folks like Jim Bakker, Pat Robertson, Jerry Falwell and Jimmy
Swaggart. Dr. Scott preyed on the weak as well but he was never as
easy to figure out and remained a constant enigma to those who might
run across him while channel surfing UHF back before cable or
satellite tv. He was a Stanford educated preacher who definitely had
more than a few screws loose.
****
This is Ray Martinez' guru.
It explains a lot.
earle
*
Lee Jay
> In article <1180985034.599288.148...@n4g2000hsb.googlegroups.com>,
> Lee Jay <ljfin...@msn.com> wrote:
> > On Jun 4, 1:10 pm, Ray Martinez <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > On Jun 3, 10:36 pm, Earle Jones <earle.jo...@comcast.net> wrote:
> > > > Ray, you should do yourself a favor and find a different guru -- any
> > > > guru would do. Pick a guru at random -- throw a dart at the phone book
> > > > -- and it is likely to be an improvement over Stanford PhD Gene Scott.
>
> > > Since you are an Atheist-Darwinist your disapproval and slander of Dr.
> > > Scott means he was exactly what he was: a Stanford Ph.D. with three
> > > Ph.D. minors and the leading Bible scholar in the world. Glad to hear
> > > of your disapproval.
>
> > Earle approved of Gene being a Stanford Ph.D. as shown in the quote
> > above. Does your response to Earle's approval mean Gene actually
> > wasn't a Stanford Ph.D.?
>
> > Lee Jay
>
> *
> My understanding is that Scott did actually receive a PhD from Stanford
> in the Department of Education. As a graduate of Stanford, I am not
> proud to admit this. (I received my MS in Electrical Engineering at
> Stanford.)
I know he did. I'm just using Ray's "logic" that what a "Darwinist"
says actually proves the opposite.
Lee Jay
Rolf
How is that leadership determined? Because you say so? You know what, Ray -
it is entirely possible to have a Ph.D. and still be an idiot; just check up
on Dr. Egnor, Dembski, Behe and the lot - they are all in your league!
Rolf
"Ray Martinez" <pyram...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1180998356.5...@o5g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...
Here you go again. There is no contestion, no assumption except in the mind
of creationists. And they are the most unreliable people on the planet WRT
science. Human evolution is NOT assumed, but rests comfortably on evidence.
But you know nothing about that.
> In addition, there is no branching tree evidence seen in any line of
> evidence. The Cambrian explosion plainly falsifies.
>
More nonsene, won't you ever learn? You know nothing about the Cambrian
"explosion" or anything else WRT evolution, so why do you pretend? There
simply isn't no room for real knowledge in that brain of yours besides the
stuff you got from Dr. Scott.
> Ray
>
>
>
> SNIP...
>
Ray Martinez
We know the person who wrote the above opinion is an Atheist-
evolutionist because the comment presupposes that scholars who oppose
evolution do not have facts, good arguments and are liars. Since all
Atheist-evolutionists slander all scholars who oppose evolution this
way we could only wonder what the point is?
I might add that one of the scholars being attacked has refuted
Evolution and the attack of evolutionists who are aware of this fact
is quite expected. If a refutation had not taken place then,
logically, there would be no attack or predictably false
presuppositions. The degree of slander and misrepresentation is
logically equal to the degree that their scholarship threatens
evolutionary theory or equal to the degree that the refutation is
perceived to be true by the evolutionist.
Logically, the rejection and slander of Theist scholars by any
evolutionist is the best indication that said scholars are as such,
the approval of the evolutionist would mean the scholar is not a real
scholar or a real Theist.
> or whether their
> arguments are deranged, and the fact that an "atheist Darwinist"
> disagrees with them does not prove that they have offered real facts
> that threaten anything.
The remainder of the comment says the exact opposite of the logic
argued above. This means that this evolutionist is genuinely confused.
The "logic" of the evolutionist says: "Atheist disagreement of a
Theist who rejects Evolution has nothing to do with the atheism of the
Atheist."
Dear Atheist: please email me if you want in; for I have just obtained
controlling interest in a bridge in Brooklyn, looks like a cash cow.
If I receive the email then we can safely say that the Atheist-
evolutionist is confused. If I do not receive a reply then we have
just another Atheist-evolutionist attempting to objectify perverted
logic for the purpose of insulting his enemies, which still leaves us
asking, what is the point since all Atheist-evolutionists reject all
scholars who oppose their theory?
> And it is not a "suspension of logic" to
> point out that someone is not right merely because someone else you
> disagree with disagrees with them. It is not a "suspension of logic"
> to call you on an _ad hominem_ argument.
>
Denial by contentless assertion.
The Atheist-evolutionist wants his worldview status ignored and his
rants against Theist scholars to be "objective facts" = suspension of
logic.
I wonder if he would allow the same in reverse? What would he say if a
Theist-Creationist demanded the same against Atheist scholars?
The point is, if it is not already obvious, is that the evolutionist
has no ability to be objective, which is the known problem of all
persons who believe in evolution.
> > Your argument above seeks to generalize things and misrepresent the
> > original issue: your rants towards Dr. and Pastor Scott. In response I
> > point out that your status as a Atheist-evolutionist makes your
> > "opinion" of them entirely predictable and of no surprise since they
> > produce facts which harm your theory, and, in this context, I contend
> > that if a person like you, that is, an Atheist-evolutionist were to
> > ever approve of these types of persons then that hypothetical approval
> > would surely make them as you are and we would not be having this
> > debate.
>
> My opinions of another person change what that person is, so that I
> can make someone right or wrong merely by disagreeing or agreeing with
> him? Indeed, according to you, I can make someone agree with me just
> by thinking he agrees with me -- apparently, I cannot be wrong about
> whether people agree with me or not. What extraordinary, almost
> godlike powers you attribute to me.
>
>
>
>
>
> > Your argument omits the specific facts (Atheist-evolutionist insulting
> > scholars who oppose evolutionary theory) and attempts to objectify the
> > invective by masking the aforementioned specifics in generalities that
>
> ...
>
> read more »- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
Ye Old One
<pyram...@yahoo.com> enriched this group when s/he wrote:
He was dishonest in many way, not least about his education.
He was a con-artist.
His "church" was/is a fraud.
He was not a scholar of any repute.
He was a liar.
He was a thief.
He was foul mouthed.
He lined his pockets and built a personal fortune at the expense of
poor people.
He was a crooked businessman, flouting business laws many times.
He was a very evil man.
He was, almost certainly, a mental case.
I've still not had your email Dishonest Ray, I'm really looking
forward to a court case.
--
Bob.
Greg Guarino
<stev...@altavista.com> wrote:
>the enigmatic Ediacaran fauna
Short-statured ancestors of modern jockeys, IIRC.
:)
Greg Guarino
Tiny Bulcher
>
> The point is, if it is not already obvious, is that the evolutionist
> has no ability to be objective, which is the known problem of all
> persons who believe in evolution.
Whereas being 'brainwashed by the Bible' allows complete objectivity on the
matter. Let's add another entry to the Ray Martinez Dictionary;
'Objectivity; the condition of being a partisan fanatic anti-evolutionist'.
(I'm gravely tempted to add 'Cambrian Explosion; atrocity commited by the
Welsh Liberation Army', but that would be unfair, so I won't).
Dana Tweedy
snippng a great deal that Ray ignored
>> Ray, the issue is that it does not matter whether I would disagree
>> with the Scotts if they actually presented facts and good arguments.
>> What matters is whether they've made up their "facts"
>
> We know the person who wrote the above opinion is an Atheist-
> evolutionist because the comment presupposes that scholars who oppose
> evolution do not have facts, good arguments and are liars.
Whether or not this is "presupposed" it is true.
> Since all
> Atheist-evolutionists slander all scholars who oppose evolution this
> way we could only wonder what the point is?
This claim is not true. All "atheists-evolutionists" do not slander all
"scholars who oppose evolution".
>
> I might add that one of the scholars being attacked has refuted
> Evolution
Where have they refuted evolution? Please present the scientific journal
articles where this has been done...
> and the attack of evolutionists who are aware of this fact
> is quite expected.
How can one be aware of what has never happened?
> If a refutation had not taken place then,
> logically, there would be no attack or predictably false
> presuppositions.
Which is what we find.
> The degree of slander and misrepresentation is
> logically equal to the degree that their scholarship threatens
> evolutionary theory or equal to the degree that the refutation is
> perceived to be true by the evolutionist.
Since there is no slander, or misrepresentation (except by you) obviously
there is no theat. There is no "refutation" of evolution by any "theist
scholar".
>
> Logically, the rejection and slander of Theist scholars by any
> evolutionist is the best indication that said scholars are as such,
Again, Ray, that's not logical, and it's not even close to what really
occurs. Even if "evolutionist" were slandering (ie libeling) "theist
scholars" that still doesn't mean the "theist scholars" are correct.
> the approval of the evolutionist would mean the scholar is not a real
> scholar or a real Theist.
Ray, did you miss how Steven pointed out such a construct is a blatent
logical fallacy?
>
>> or whether their
>> arguments are deranged, and the fact that an "atheist Darwinist"
>> disagrees with them does not prove that they have offered real facts
>> that threaten anything.
>
> The remainder of the comment says the exact opposite of the logic
> argued above.
What was "argued above" is not logic, but flatly illogical special pleading.
> This means that this evolutionist is genuinely confused.
Or, it means that Ray is wrong yet again.
> The "logic" of the evolutionist says: "Atheist disagreement of a
> Theist who rejects Evolution has nothing to do with the atheism of the
> Atheist."
That is true. It has to do with the reason why the "theist" rejects
evolution.
>
> Dear Atheist: please email me if you want in; for I have just obtained
> controlling interest in a bridge in Brooklyn, looks like a cash cow.
Ray, just because you bought a bridge from a con man doesn't mean others
want to buy it from you.
>
> If I receive the email then we can safely say that the Atheist-
> evolutionist is confused.
Or you can safely say that you are attempting to commit fraud.
> If I do not receive a reply then we have
> just another Atheist-evolutionist attempting to objectify perverted
> logic for the purpose of insulting his enemies, which still leaves us
> asking, what is the point since all Atheist-evolutionists reject all
> scholars who oppose their theory?
Your claim is not true. Moreover, not everyone who accepts evolution is an
atheist.
>
>
>> And it is not a "suspension of logic" to
>> point out that someone is not right merely because someone else you
>> disagree with disagrees with them. It is not a "suspension of logic"
>> to call you on an _ad hominem_ argument.
>>
>
> Denial by contentless assertion.
That's what your own claims are. Attacking the individual because of his
beliefs, not his arguments, is ad hominem.
>
> The Atheist-evolutionist wants his worldview status ignored and his
> rants against Theist scholars to be "objective facts" = suspension of
> logic.
But the "worldview" status does not affect the veracity of one's claims.
That's why ad hominem is a fallacy.
>
> I wonder if he would allow the same in reverse? What would he say if a
> Theist-Creationist demanded the same against Atheist scholars?
Most likely, he would. If a theist-creationist were to present any real
evidence that supports creation, a real scientist would be hard pressed to
ignore that evidence. So, Ray, present your evidence.
>
> The point is, if it is not already obvious, is that the evolutionist
> has no ability to be objective, which is the known problem of all
> persons who believe in evolution.
Whereas your own "objectivity" is seriously in doubt, and your ability to
accurately state what others do is non existant. You have only shown that
it's you who is incapable of being objective, and incapable of arguing
honestly and logically.
snippinig more ignored points...
What are you running away from Ray?
Steven J.
> On Jun 4, 6:48 pm, "Steven J." <steve...@altavista.com> wrote:
>
>
> > Ray, the issue is that it does not matter whether I would disagree
> > with the Scotts if they actually presented facts and good arguments.
> > What matters is whether they've made up their "facts"
>
> We know the person who wrote the above opinion is an Atheist-
> evolutionist because the comment presupposes that scholars who oppose
> evolution do not have facts, good arguments and are liars. Since all
> Atheist-evolutionists slander all scholars who oppose evolution this
> way we could only wonder what the point is?
>
least some creationists who do not have facts or good arguments (it
does not even presuppose that these creationists are liars: they might
in principle believe their own falsehoods and bad arguments). So let
me sketch out my argument step by step.
I assume there are some stupid, ignorant, or dishonest creationists
(judging from your disparaging remarks about "fundie" Christians, I
can only infer that you assume the same). Even if the idea they are
defending are right, their arguments are bad and do not validly
support their position.
An "atheist-evolutionist" will disagree with such bad creationists.
He may also disagree with intelligent, honest, and knowledgeable
creationists, if any such exist, but that is a side issue.
Therefore, you cannot assume that, simply because an "atheist
evolutionist" disagrees with and criticizes a creationist, that the
creationist cannot be a bad (dishonest, stupid, ignorant)
creationist. Furthermore, you cannot thereby assume that a
creationist who is being criticized by an "atheist evolutionist" is
being "slandered;" he may be represented quite honestly and
accurately.
You regard Dr. Gene Scott as the greatest biblical scholar of the 20th
century, perhaps the greatest expert on both theology and science who
ever lived. Unless someone has, unbeknownst to me, conferred
infallibility on you, your opinion of Dr. Scott does not make him a
great scholar or expert or even honest. Nor have you presented
anything beyond your own opinion (and his own opinion, to be sure, but
if I don't know if his opinions can be trusted, how can I trust his
opinion on whether he can be trusted?) to support your assessment of
him. The arguments you offer, which I presume you learned from Dr.
Scott, are not brilliant, or based on facts, or even particularly
sane, so what inference ought a reasonable person draw (tentatively,
to be sure) about your mentor? And please note, as indicated in the
argument above, that my low opinion of your arguments does not show
that you are right.
As another poster has noted, most "atheist-evolutionists" have a low
opinion of Hitler. Does this prove Hitler was right?
>
> I might add that one of the scholars being attacked has refuted
> Evolution and the attack of evolutionists who are aware of this fact
> is quite expected. If a refutation had not taken place then,
> logically, there would be no attack or predictably false
> presuppositions. The degree of slander and misrepresentation is
> logically equal to the degree that their scholarship threatens
> evolutionary theory or equal to the degree that the refutation is
> perceived to be true by the evolutionist.
>
Now, I recall that you earlier took the position (regarding, IIRC,
your libels against Dana Tweedy, but I may be thinking of your libels
against someone else) that an honest person would never reply to false
and defamatory attacks against him. By that standard, I suppose, it
follows that evolutionists would not attack Dr. Scott's and your
arguments if they were lousy and dishonest. Of course, you yourself
often and indignantly defend Dr. Scott and yourself, which implies
either that our attacks on the two of you are truthful and logical, or
that you do not believe your own rules about defending oneself against
libel. Certainly most evolutionists hold that it is good to attack
lies and stupidity, so they would attack Dr. Scott's arguments if they
were stupid and dishonest, in which case those arguments would not
constitute a "refutation," but merely another creationist tirade which
threatened nothing but the understanding of confused laymen. Do you
not suppose that people might be offended by lies, even if they
themselves are not tempted to believe those lies?
>
> Logically, the rejection and slander of Theist scholars by any
> evolutionist is the best indication that said scholars are as such,
> the approval of the evolutionist would mean the scholar is not a real
> scholar or a real Theist.
>
Ray, that position is so stupid, so irrational, that I can only
conclude that the only reason you accept it is that you have no other
possible defense to make of Dr. Scott's rabid and delusional tirades
(or, as you refer to it, "scholarship").
>
> > or whether their
> > arguments are deranged, and the fact that an "atheist Darwinist"
> > disagrees with them does not prove that they have offered real facts
> > that threaten anything.
>
> The remainder of the comment says the exact opposite of the logic
> argued above. This means that this evolutionist is genuinely confused.
>
I think your conclusion that I have contradicted myself shows that you
are confused, perhaps genuinely, although your confusions seem oddly
tactically useful to you.
>
> The "logic" of the evolutionist says: "Atheist disagreement of a
> Theist who rejects Evolution has nothing to do with the atheism of the
> Atheist."
>
The logic of the evolutionist says that one's motives for disagreeing
with something tell you nothing about the merits of one's arguments.
Suppose an atheist disagrees with Gene Scott merely because Gene Scott
believed in a god (Dr. Scott himself, by all appearances). That does
not mean that Dr. Scott's arguments against evolution were worth the
paper they were scrawled on, or that the atheist's arguments were bad
or wrong. You have to look at the actual facts and arguments, not
just the religious positions of the advocates.
>
> Dear Atheist: please email me if you want in; for I have just obtained
> controlling interest in a bridge in Brooklyn, looks like a cash cow.
>
Gullible little buffoon, aren't you?
>
> If I receive the email then we can safely say that the Atheist-
> evolutionist is confused. If I do not receive a reply then we have
> just another Atheist-evolutionist attempting to objectify perverted
> logic for the purpose of insulting his enemies, which still leaves us
> asking, what is the point since all Atheist-evolutionists reject all
> scholars who oppose their theory?
>
Ray, another point of logic: the fact that I don't assume all
creationists are liars, scoundrels, and idiots does not mean that I
assume that *no* creationists are liars, scoundrels, and buffoons.
I'm sure you're lying about the bridge in New York, not because you're
a creationist, but because you're a proven liar and fool.
>
> > And it is not a "suspension of logic" to
> > point out that someone is not right merely because someone else you
> > disagree with disagrees with them. It is not a "suspension of logic"
> > to call you on an _ad hominem_ argument.
>
> Denial by contentless assertion.
>
Yes, that's what you do.
>
> The Atheist-evolutionist wants his worldview status ignored and his
> rants against Theist scholars to be "objective facts" = suspension of
> logic.
>
Again, why waste time with "worldview status" when there are actual
facts and arguments relevant to evolution and creation to be
considered?
>
> I wonder if he would allow the same in reverse? What would he say if a
> Theist-Creationist demanded the same against Atheist scholars?
>
We're perfectly willing to discuss the evidence for your views,
assuming you have any.
>
> The point is, if it is not already obvious, is that the evolutionist
> has no ability to be objective, which is the known problem of all
> persons who believe in evolution.
>
Mote. Eye. Beam.
>
-- [snip of points not addressed]
>
> Ray
-- Steven J.
Ray Martinez
> On Jun 5, 12:48 pm, Ray Martinez <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote:> On Jun 4, 6:48 pm, "Steven J." <steve...@altavista.com> wrote:
>
> -- [snip of points not addressed]
>
> > > Ray, the issue is that it does not matter whether I would disagree
> > > with the Scotts if they actually presented facts and good arguments.
> > > What matters is whether they've made up their "facts"
>
> > We know the person who wrote the above opinion is an Atheist-
> > evolutionist because the comment presupposes that scholars who oppose
> > evolution do not have facts, good arguments and are liars. Since all
> > Atheist-evolutionists slander all scholars who oppose evolution this
> > way we could only wonder what the point is?
>
> No, it does not presuppose that. It presupposes that there are at
> least some creationists who do not have facts or good arguments (it
> does not even presuppose that these creationists are liars: they might
> in principle believe their own falsehoods and bad arguments). So let
> me sketch out my argument step by step.
>
You singled out Dr. Scott and presupposed dishonesty. Now you deny
what anyone can go back and read for them self. In reply, like I
already did, I simply pointed out that you are a Atheist-evolutionist
and Dr. Scott is a Supernaturalist-Theist. Presupposition explained.
Now if you have any evidence to back up your supposition we could only
wonder why it has not been produced?
We are glad that your kind disapproves of Dr. Scott, logically, it
means he threatens your theory and worldview, hence, again, the
presupposition is explained.
> I assume there are some stupid, ignorant, or dishonest creationists
> (judging from your disparaging remarks about "fundie" Christians, I
> can only infer that you assume the same). Even if the idea they are
> defending are right, their arguments are bad and do not validly
> support their position.
>
This identification could include anyone, especially evolutionists,
don't you agree, or are you unable to be objective?
> An "atheist-evolutionist" will disagree with such bad creationists.
> He may also disagree with intelligent, honest, and knowledgeable
> creationists, if any such exist, but that is a side issue.
>
Entire comment is subterfuge for the following phrase: "if any such
exist" referring to "knowledgeable creationists" = predictable belief
of a evolutionist. Since the writer of the comment is an evolutionist
and since he has assumed a Theist scholar in an equally predictable
and insulting manner, once again, what is the point, since we already
know that evolutionists reject all opposing Theists?
> Therefore, you cannot assume that, simply because an "atheist
> evolutionist" disagrees with and criticizes a creationist, that the
> creationist cannot be a bad (dishonest, stupid, ignorant)
> creationist.
This is a demand that an Atheist-evolutionist should be able to smear
Theist scholars that threaten his theory without fear that their
status as an Atheist-evolutionist be exposed.
Since all evolutionists practice the same against anyone who opposes
their theory the demand is downright ridiculous: "eye for eye, tooth
for tooth" is the Biblical way.
The answer is no, we will always point out invective directed at
Theist scholars if it is by an Atheist because it makes sense. On the
other hand, we recognize the fact that the invective exists in the
first place because of the perceived threat to your theory and
worldview and lack of ANY evidence to justify the invective since it
is always communicated by assumption and presupposition in the
phraseology.
> Furthermore, you cannot thereby assume that a
> creationist who is being criticized by an "atheist evolutionist" is
> being "slandered;" he may be represented quite honestly and
> accurately.
>
Moreover, you cannot assume that a evolutionist who is being
criticized by a creationist is being slandered; he may be representing
the evolutionist quite accurately.
> You regard Dr. Gene Scott as the greatest biblical scholar of the 20th
> century, perhaps the greatest expert on both theology and science who
> ever lived. Unless someone has, unbeknownst to me, conferred
> infallibility on you, your opinion of Dr. Scott does not make him a
> great scholar or expert or even honest. Nor have you presented
> anything beyond your own opinion (and his own opinion, to be sure, but
> if I don't know if his opinions can be trusted, how can I trust his
> opinion on whether he can be trusted?) to support your assessment of
> him. The arguments you offer, which I presume you learned from Dr.
> Scott, are not brilliant, or based on facts, or even particularly
> sane, so what inference ought a reasonable person draw (tentatively,
> to be sure) about your mentor? And please note, as indicated in the
> argument above, that my low opinion of your arguments does not show
> that you are right.
>
When we remember that the person who has written the above slander,
which is presupposed true in every phrase, is a Atheist-evolutionist
and that I am a Creationist and that Dr. Scott is known by him to have
claimed to refuted his precious theory, the insults are instantly
explained and entirely predictable when these basic facts are pointed
out. Was the opinion expressed of this Atheist concerning Theists ever
in doubt or a surprise?
Again, we know that Atheists hate Theists, what is your point?
> As another poster has noted, most "atheist-evolutionists" have a low
> opinion of Hitler. Does this prove Hitler was right?
>
Everyone who is sane has a low opinion of Hitler, what is the point?
> > I might add that one of the scholars being attacked has refuted
> > Evolution and the attack of evolutionists who are aware of this fact
> > is quite expected. If a refutation had not taken place then,
> > logically, there would be no attack or predictably false
> > presuppositions. The degree of slander and misrepresentation is
> > logically equal to the degree that their scholarship threatens
> > evolutionary theory or equal to the degree that the refutation is
> > perceived to be true by the evolutionist.
>
> Now, I recall that you earlier took the position (regarding, IIRC,
> your libels against Dana Tweedy, but I may be thinking of your libels
> against someone else) that an honest person would never reply to false
> and defamatory attacks against him.
Does the fact that you and Dana are evolutionists and that I am a
Creationist have anything to do with making up a libel charge against
me?
Yes, I have said that decent persons would never reply to obvious
enraged slander. Sometimes decent persons out of righteous anger make
the mistake and reply (like I have done too) but my point was that as
a GENERAL POLICY it is best to let the slander artist "have the last
word" because response gives validity to what the perp knows is
false.
> By that standard, I suppose, it
> follows that evolutionists would not attack Dr. Scott's and your
> arguments if they were lousy and dishonest.
> Of course, you yourself
> often and indignantly defend Dr. Scott and yourself, which implies
> either that our attacks on the two of you are truthful and logical, or
> that you do not believe your own rules about defending oneself against
> libel.
Sometimes the attack does not rise to the level of a "Dana Tweedy
slander tantrum" and I feel like I can make logical rebuttal. But if
the message crosses the line, which is a judgement call, then I just
ignore because I know they are absolutely enraged and my arguments
caused the rage. For example: Dana is in a slander rant-a-thon against
Pastor Scott presently. He is lashing out attempting to hurt me and
slander her because my arguments have so affected him. I have not and
I will not answer him a word. The slander-rants against Pastor Scott
means Dana is utterly enraged with the facts as I argue them and he
has lost his composure seeking hurt and classic poison the well. In
reality, he is equally jealous, and he knows I am about to deliver the
most devasting blow against his theory. Dana is the one person who
perfectly understands all of my arguments and he has finally cracked
and become a full time howler. I will continue to post knowing his
rage is caused by the facts of my logic. Since I have, for the most
part, almost never used Pastor Scott as a source, this shows that Dana
is out of control lashing out at her to get at me. We know that the
test of the true Gospel Preacher is that he or she is being slandered
(= proof of Satan's control on said persons who do it).
> Certainly most evolutionists hold that it is good to attack
> lies and stupidity, so they would attack Dr. Scott's arguments if they
> were stupid and dishonest, in which case those arguments would not
> constitute a "refutation," but merely another creationist tirade which
> threatened nothing but the understanding of confused laymen. Do you
> not suppose that people might be offended by lies, even if they
> themselves are not tempted to believe those lies?
>
>From "in which case" on I do not understand your point.
> > Logically, the rejection and slander of Theist scholars by any
> > evolutionist is the best indication that said scholars are as such,
> > the approval of the evolutionist would mean the scholar is not a real
> > scholar or a real Theist.
>
> Ray, that position is so stupid, so irrational, that I can only
> conclude that the only reason you accept it is that you have no other
> possible defense to make of Dr. Scott's rabid and delusional tirades
> (or, as you refer to it, "scholarship").
>
In other words you cannot refute.
Since you are a Atheist-evolutionist and Dr. Scott is not, but a
scholar who has produced devastating facts against your theory your
opinion of him is entirely predictable and welcomed since the approval
of your kind would make him like you - a deluded moron unconscious of
that fact.
> > > or whether their
> > > arguments are deranged, and the fact that an "atheist Darwinist"
> > > disagrees with them does not prove that they have offered real facts
> > > that threaten anything.
>
> > The remainder of the comment says the exact opposite of the logic
> > argued above. This means that this evolutionist is genuinely confused.
>
> I think your conclusion that I have contradicted myself shows that you
> are confused, perhaps genuinely, although your confusions seem oddly
> tactically useful to you.
>
Since you are a Evolutionist and I am a Creationist, guess what?
> > The "logic" of the evolutionist says: "Atheist disagreement of a
> > Theist who rejects Evolution has nothing to do with the atheism of the
> > Atheist."
>
> The logic of the evolutionist says that one's motives for disagreeing
> with something tell you nothing about the merits of one's arguments.
> Suppose an atheist disagrees with Gene Scott merely because Gene Scott
> believed in a god (Dr. Scott himself, by all appearances). That does
> not mean that Dr. Scott's arguments against evolution were worth the
> paper they were scrawled on, or that the atheist's arguments were bad
> or wrong. You have to look at the actual facts and arguments, not
> just the religious positions of the advocates.
>
Straw man since our exchanges began in the specific context of you
insulting Dr. Scott by supposition phraseology. Now you are acting
like your insults were based on facts and arguments.
> > Dear Atheist: please email me if you want in; for I have just obtained
> > controlling interest in a bridge in Brooklyn, looks like a cash cow.
>
> Gullible little buffoon, aren't you?
>
> > If I receive the email then we can safely say that the Atheist-
> > evolutionist is confused. If I do not receive a reply then we have
> > just another Atheist-evolutionist attempting to objectify perverted
> > logic for the purpose of insulting his enemies, which still leaves us
> > asking, what is the point since all Atheist-evolutionists reject all
> > scholars who oppose their theory?
>
> Ray, another point of logic: the fact that I don't assume all
> creationists are liars, scoundrels, and idiots does not mean that I
> assume that *no* creationists are liars, scoundrels, and buffoons.
> I'm sure you're lying about the bridge in New York, not because you're
> a creationist, but because you're a proven liar and fool.
>
Since you are a Evolutionist and I am a Creationist, that means I am
the exact opposite of a liar and fool. Your approval would mean that I
was a liar and fool since you are a person who promotes the lies of
evolutionary theory.
I am very pleased that the last "Creationist Loon Census" topic by
evolutionists that I was voted Chief Loon (= logically means I am the
brightest and most sane).
> > > And it is not a "suspension of logic" to
> > > point out that someone is not right merely because someone else you
> > > disagree with disagrees with them. It is not a "suspension of logic"
> > > to call you on an _ad hominem_ argument.
>
> > Denial by contentless assertion.
>
> Yes, that's what you do.
>
> > The Atheist-evolutionist wants his worldview status ignored and his
> > rants against Theist scholars to be "objective facts" = suspension of
> > logic.
>
> Again, why waste time with "worldview status" when there are actual
> facts and arguments relevant to evolution and creation to be
> considered?
>
Question presupposes that I refuse to address facts, when in reality,
I am exposing the predictable biased rants of an Atheist against
Theists; there were no facts being discussed.
Anytime you want to argue facts I am most game.
> > I wonder if he would allow the same in reverse? What would he say if a
> > Theist-Creationist demanded the same against Atheist scholars?
>
> We're perfectly willing to discuss the evidence for your views,
> assuming you have any.
>
Likewise.
> > The point is, if it is not already obvious, is that the evolutionist
> > has no ability to be objective, which is the known problem of all
> > persons who believe in evolution.
>
> Mote. Eye. Beam.
>
> -- [snip of points not addressed]
>
>
>
> > Ray
>
> -- Steven J.
Ray
Steven J.
> On Jun 5, 7:00 pm, "Steven J." <steve...@altavista.com> wrote:
>
>
> You singled out Dr. Scott and presupposed dishonesty. Now you deny
> what anyone can go back and read for them self. In reply, like I
> already did, I simply pointed out that you are a Atheist-evolutionist
> and Dr. Scott is a Supernaturalist-Theist. Presupposition explained.
> Now if you have any evidence to back up your supposition we could only
> wonder why it has not been produced?
>
pointed out below, I infer that mainly from your own presentation of
his arguments). My point, though, was that you cannot assume, simply
because I am an "atheist-evolutionist" (I would prefer "agnostic
evolutionist," but that's another side issue), that my disagreement
with him proves that he is right, any more than I can assume that
simply because you, or Dr. Scott, disagree with someone that that
person must be right. There is no one who is so wrong on so many
issues that he acquires the magical power to make other people right
merely by disagreeing with them, or even by vilifying them. Nor is
there anyone so utterly mistaken that any criticism he makes of
someone must constitute libel or slander.
>
> We are glad that your kind disapproves of Dr. Scott, logically, it
> means he threatens your theory and worldview, hence, again, the
> presupposition is explained.
>
"leads other people to reject evolutionary theory?" I suppose that it
true of him, but all that shows is that I think his ideas are harmful
and false. If his ideas are harmful and false, my opposition to them
does not somehow make them helpful and true. Or do you mean that he
has shown that evolutionary theory is actually false? That does not
follow; that he has convinced assorted scientific (and theological)
illiterates that evolution is false does not make evolution false.
>
> > I assume there are some stupid, ignorant, or dishonest creationists
> > (judging from your disparaging remarks about "fundie" Christians, I
> > can only infer that you assume the same). Even if the idea they are
> > defending are right, their arguments are bad and do not validly
> > support their position.
>
> This identification could include anyone, especially evolutionists,
> don't you agree, or are you unable to be objective?
>
I think that is how you were using the word as well. I do not see how
evolutionists could be anti-evolutionists. But yes, there could be
stupid, ignorant, or dishonest proponents of evolutionary theory
(although, since the evidence, from faunal succession in the fossil
record to the vestigial telomere and centromere on human chromosome 2,
support evolution, a stupid evolutionist would have less motive than a
stupid creationist to lie about the evidence). One can find stupid,
ignorant, bad people in support of nearly any proposition; that does
not make the proposition false. By the same token, that does not make
the stupid, ignorant, bad people intelligent, educated, good people.
>
> Entire comment is subterfuge for the following phrase: "if any such
> exist" referring to "knowledgeable creationists" = predictable belief
> of a evolutionist. Since the writer of the comment is an evolutionist
> and since he has assumed a Theist scholar in an equally predictable
> and insulting manner, once again, what is the point, since we already
> know that evolutionists reject all opposing Theists?
>
opponents does not tell you which of us is right.
I have encountered, in my perusal of creationist arguments, very few
that strike me as possibly knowledgeable and honest, and those are
always speaking on subjects I know little about. When they address
subjects where I am informed, they make blatant, easily avoided errors
and egregious errors in logic. Now, since I haven't read all
creationists, I cannot be certain that no knowledgeable and honest
ones exist, but the sample thus far is not encouraging. My point,
again, is that my prejudice, if such it is, against creationists is by
itself no reason to suppose that any creationist actually is honest
and knowledgeable (although I would suppose that some are the former
and others are the latter).
>
-- [snip]
>
> This is a demand that an Atheist-evolutionist should be able to smear
> Theist scholars that threaten his theory without fear that their
> status as an Atheist-evolutionist be exposed.
>
This is a demand that the atheist-evolutionist should be able to
address a creationist argument without having his own arguments
treated as a "smear" simply because he rejects creationism.
>
> Since all evolutionists practice the same against anyone who opposes
> their theory the demand is downright ridiculous: "eye for eye, tooth
> for tooth" is the Biblical way.
>
As opposed to "bless those who curse you, do good to those who hate
you?" Was the gospel of Luke written by James, perhaps?
In any case, it seems to me that the correct application of "an eye
for an eye" would be "a rational argument for a rational argument,"
not a resort to "what else would an atheist-Darwinist say?"
>
> The answer is no, we will always point out invective directed at
> Theist scholars if it is by an Atheist because it makes sense. On the
> other hand, we recognize the fact that the invective exists in the
> first place because of the perceived threat to your theory and
> worldview and lack of ANY evidence to justify the invective since it
> is always communicated by assumption and presupposition in the
> phraseology.
>
I concede that much of the invective directed against Dr. Scott and
Pastor Scott by atheists makes sense. I deny that those who launch
invective against them have no evidence to justify the invective.
>
-- [snip]
>
> Moreover, you cannot assume that a evolutionist who is being
> criticized by a creationist is being slandered; he may be representing
> the evolutionist quite accurately.
>
I do not assume that an evolutionist being criticized by a creationist
is being slandered. On occasion, though, I know enough about the
evolutionist in question to know that, in fact, he is being slandered
(or libeled; would it kill you to get the distinction straight? and
even if it did, shouldn't you welcome martyrdom?). It is a gross
misrepresentation of the facts to present Charles Darwin as motivated
by racism to propound human evolution; it is idiotic libel to accuse
Dana Tweedy of racism.
>
-- [snip]
>
> When we remember that the person who has written the above slander,
> which is presupposed true in every phrase, is a Atheist-evolutionist
> and that I am a Creationist and that Dr. Scott is known by him to have
> claimed to refuted his precious theory, the insults are instantly
> explained and entirely predictable when these basic facts are pointed
> out. Was the opinion expressed of this Atheist concerning Theists ever
> in doubt or a surprise?
>
Slander is spoken, libel is written, you ignorant idolator of
televangelists. And pointing out that I have a motive to criticize or
even insult Dr. Scott says nothing about whether the criticisms are
valid and the insults true. That is the entire point of my posts to
this thread.
>
> Again, we know that Atheists hate Theists, what is your point?
>
I love a number of theists; I suspect that this is true of most
atheists (and agnostics). My point is that even if I hated Dr. Scott,
that would be no grounds to assume that I was wrong about evolution or
that he was right about creationism.
>
> > As another poster has noted, most "atheist-evolutionists" have a low
> > opinion of Hitler. Does this prove Hitler was right?
>
> Everyone who is sane has a low opinion of Hitler, what is the point?
>
Logically (by RayLogic), that proves that Hitler threatened the
worldview of these atheist-evolutionists, and therefore their insults
were predictable, and if they had agreed with Hitler, that would have
proved Hitler wrong, but since they disagree with Hitler, Hitler was
probably right (and Eva Braun was a great Bible scholar).
>
-- [snip]
>
> Does the fact that you and Dana are evolutionists and that I am a
> Creationist have anything to do with making up a libel charge against
> me?
>
I don't know. Does that fact that Dana and I accept evolutionary
theory and that you are a creationist have anything to do with the
fact that you libeled Dana?
>
> Yes, I have said that decent persons would never reply to obvious
> enraged slander. Sometimes decent persons out of righteous anger make
> the mistake and reply (like I have done too) but my point was that as
> a GENERAL POLICY it is best to let the slander artist "have the last
> word" because response gives validity to what the perp knows is
> false.
>
Reasonable people may disagree about this, of course (though what the
possible positions of reasonable people have to do with you is
unclear). There is certainly a case to be made that falsehoods ought
to be opposed and refuted, lest by standing unopposed they may appear
to be credible or acceptable.
>
-- [snip]
>
> Sometimes the attack does not rise to the level of a "Dana Tweedy
> slander tantrum" and I feel like I can make logical rebuttal.
>
Ray, don't trust your feelings.
>
> But if
> the message crosses the line, which is a judgement call, then I just
> ignore because I know they are absolutely enraged and my arguments
> caused the rage. For example: Dana is in a slander rant-a-thon against
> Pastor Scott presently. He is lashing out attempting to hurt me and
> slander her because my arguments have so affected him. I have not and
> I will not answer him a word. The slander-rants against Pastor Scott
> means Dana is utterly enraged with the facts as I argue them and he
> has lost his composure seeking hurt and classic poison the well. In
> reality, he is equally jealous, and he knows I am about to deliver the
> most devasting blow against his theory. Dana is the one person who
> perfectly understands all of my arguments and he has finally cracked
> and become a full time howler. I will continue to post knowing his
> rage is caused by the facts of my logic. Since I have, for the most
> part, almost never used Pastor Scott as a source, this shows that Dana
> is out of control lashing out at her to get at me. We know that the
> test of the true Gospel Preacher is that he or she is being slandered
> (= proof of Satan's control on said persons who do it).
>
No, Ray, it does not follow that if Gospel Preachers will be
slandered, that any self-proclaimed teacher who is criticized and
reviled is [a] being slandered and therefore [b] must be a Gospel
Preacher. I once ran across a Jehovah's Witness, who, when I casually
spoke of the JW's as a "cult" (as I had been taught they were),
announced that he was glad because I was "persecuting" him, and this
showed that he was correct, because Jesus warned that his followers
would be persecuted. That pretty much every sect and heresy of
Christianity (including many that regarded each other as anathema) had
been persecuted at some time and place by someone seemed to escape his
notice (as, for that matter, did the point that calling a sect a
"cult" is not persecution, anymore than calling a fool a fool is
slander). Look at the venom that is hurled, these days, against
Muslims in many quarters; does this prove that Muhammed is a true
prophet and that Islam is the One True Faith? Or does it merely show
that a lot of Muslims really annoy a lot of non-Muslims lately? By
the same token, you're being promoted to Head Loon by popular vote
does not show that you are the greatest defender of Truth here.
>
-- [snip]
>
I think, though, I'll follow your example here. I think will not post
further in this subthread, unless you bring up an actual argument for
creation or against evolution. I'm tired of arguing about arguments,
rather than arguing about evolution. So you may have the last rant,
if you want it.
>
> Ray
-- Steven J.
Jim Willemin
news:1181106919....@q69g2000hsb.googlegroups.com:
SNIP
> I think, though, I'll follow your example here. I think will not post
> further in this subthread, unless you bring up an actual argument for
> creation or against evolution. I'm tired of arguing about arguments,
> rather than arguing about evolution. So you may have the last rant,
> if you want it.
>
> -- Steven J.
>
Steven, I must commend you on the clarity and patience with which you have
attempted to reason with Ray in this thread. To my mind there is no more
telling indication of who makes sense than the stark contrast between the
lucid, coherent arguments and illustrations you make and the ravings of
Martinez. I think both you and Dana deserve some kind of award for
undertaking the thankless task of providing a foil to some of the most
insane stuff I have read since Charlie Cagle and the Expanding Earth.
Anyhow, thanks.
-- Jim
DJT
snip
> > No, it does not presuppose that. It presupposes that there are at
> > least some creationists who do not have facts or good arguments (it
> > does not even presuppose that these creationists are liars: they might
> > in principle believe their own falsehoods and bad arguments). So let
> > me sketch out my argument step by step.
>
> You singled out Dr. Scott and presupposed dishonesty.
That's because you were claiming that Mr. Scott's IQ was a reason to
accept his claims.
> Now you deny
> what anyone can go back and read for them self. In reply, like I
> already did, I simply pointed out that you are a Atheist-evolutionist
> and Dr. Scott is a Supernaturalist-Theist.
But that's not relevant to whether or not he is right or wrong. Mr.
Scott is wrong, even if he is a "Supernaturalist-Theist".
> Presupposition explained.
No "presupposition" involved.
> Now if you have any evidence to back up your supposition we could only
> wonder why it has not been produced?
Ray, you have been asked repeatedly to produce any evidence that Mr.
Scott has the IQ that you claim. Also, it's been provided to you
evidence that Mr. Scott has dishonestly claimed academic honors he did
not earn.
>
> We are glad that your kind disapproves of Dr. Scott, logically, it
> means he threatens your theory and worldview, hence, again, the
> presupposition is explained.
Again, there is no logic in that construction. It's just an excuse
for you ignore legitamate criticisim.
>
> > I assume there are some stupid, ignorant, or dishonest creationists
> > (judging from your disparaging remarks about "fundie" Christians, I
> > can only infer that you assume the same). Even if the idea they are
> > defending are right, their arguments are bad and do not validly
> > support their position.
>
> This identification could include anyone, especially evolutionists,
> don't you agree, or are you unable to be objective?
Yes, but you haven't shown any reason to believe that other's
arguments are bad, or not valid.
>
> > An "atheist-evolutionist" will disagree with such bad creationists.
> > He may also disagree with intelligent, honest, and knowledgeable
> > creationists, if any such exist, but that is a side issue.
>
> Entire comment is subterfuge for the following phrase: "if any such
> exist" referring to "knowledgeable creationists" = predictable belief
> of a evolutionist. Since the writer of the comment is an evolutionist
> and since he has assumed a Theist scholar in an equally predictable
> and insulting manner, once again, what is the point, since we already
> know that evolutionists reject all opposing Theists?
What "evolutionists" reject is bad arguments, and bad science. Any
"theists" who present evidence to support their position are not
opposed. Creationists are opposed because they are unable to support
their claims, and resort to dishonesty to make their points.
>
> > Therefore, you cannot assume that, simply because an "atheist
> > evolutionist" disagrees with and criticizes a creationist, that the
> > creationist cannot be a bad (dishonest, stupid, ignorant)
> > creationist.
>
> This is a demand that an Atheist-evolutionist should be able to smear
> Theist scholars that threaten his theory without fear that their
> status as an Atheist-evolutionist be exposed.
The "status" as an "Atheist evolutionist" is irrelevant to the
veracity of the claim. That's why ad hominem is a logical fallacy.
>
> Since all evolutionists practice the same against anyone who opposes
> their theory the demand is downright ridiculous: "eye for eye, tooth
> for tooth" is the Biblical way.
Actually, Ray, the "Biblical way" is to turn the other cheek, or do
you feel that Jesus' words don't have any importance? All
"evolutionists" do not "practice the same way" against anyone who
opposes the theory of evolution. They only oppose those who
dishonestly attack science.
>
> The answer is no, we will always point out invective directed at
> Theist scholars if it is by an Atheist because it makes sense.
No, Ray, it's ad hominem, a classic logical fallacy. Also, you simply
assume that anyone who criticizes your heroes is an "Atheist" without
any evidence.
> On the
> other hand, we recognize the fact that the invective exists in the
> first place because of the perceived threat to your theory and
> worldview and lack of ANY evidence to justify the invective since it
> is always communicated by assumption and presupposition in the
> phraseology.
No, that's your excuse for ignoring the evidence that opposes your
claims. There is a great deal of evidence to support evolution, and a
great deal of evidence that creationists are largely dishonest.
>
> > Furthermore, you cannot thereby assume that a
> > creationist who is being criticized by an "atheist evolutionist" is
> > being "slandered;" he may be represented quite honestly and
> > accurately.
>
> Moreover, you cannot assume that a evolutionist who is being
> criticized by a creationist is being slandered; he may be representing
> the evolutionist quite accurately.
He may be, but the evidence indicates that in this case he is not.
Again, it's the evidence, not the person that you need to address.
>
> > You regard Dr. Gene Scott as the greatest biblical scholar of the 20th
> > century, perhaps the greatest expert on both theology and science who
> > ever lived. Unless someone has, unbeknownst to me, conferred
> > infallibility on you, your opinion of Dr. Scott does not make him a
> > great scholar or expert or even honest. Nor have you presented
> > anything beyond your own opinion (and his own opinion, to be sure, but
> > if I don't know if his opinions can be trusted, how can I trust his
> > opinion on whether he can be trusted?) to support your assessment of
> > him. The arguments you offer, which I presume you learned from Dr.
> > Scott, are not brilliant, or based on facts, or even particularly
> > sane, so what inference ought a reasonable person draw (tentatively,
> > to be sure) about your mentor? And please note, as indicated in the
> > argument above, that my low opinion of your arguments does not show
> > that you are right.
>
> When we remember that the person who has written the above slander,
The above is not "slander" or even libel, for the simple reason that
it's true.
> which is presupposed true in every phrase,
Not a "presupposition" but a simple fact. Mr. Scott was not a well
recognized scholar, and the "arguments" you have presented here are
bad, and illogical.
> is a Atheist-evolutionist
> and that I am a Creationist and that Dr. Scott is known by him to have
> claimed to refuted his precious theory,
Mr. Scott's claims of "refutation" are worthless. Unless Mr. Scott
presented physical evidence in a scientific manner, he has "refuted"
nothing.
> the insults are instantly
> explained and entirely predictable when these basic facts are pointed
> out. Was the opinion expressed of this Atheist concerning Theists ever
> in doubt or a surprise?
Are the statements true, or not? That's the only question here.
>
> Again, we know that Atheists hate Theists, what is your point?
Where do you get the idea that atheists hate theists? You may hate
atheists, and anyone who opposes you, but that doesn't mean it's the
other way around.
>
> > As another poster has noted, most "atheist-evolutionists" have a low
> > opinion of Hitler. Does this prove Hitler was right?
>
> Everyone who is sane has a low opinion of Hitler, what is the point?
Everyone who is sane, and has studied the evidence has a low opinion
of Mr. Scott as well.
>
> > > I might add that one of the scholars being attacked has refuted
> > > Evolution and the attack of evolutionists who are aware of this fact
> > > is quite expected. If a refutation had not taken place then,
> > > logically, there would be no attack or predictably false
> > > presuppositions. The degree of slander and misrepresentation is
> > > logically equal to the degree that their scholarship threatens
> > > evolutionary theory or equal to the degree that the refutation is
> > > perceived to be true by the evolutionist.
>
> > Now, I recall that you earlier took the position (regarding, IIRC,
> > your libels against Dana Tweedy, but I may be thinking of your libels
> > against someone else) that an honest person would never reply to false
> > and defamatory attacks against him.
>
> Does the fact that you and Dana are evolutionists and that I am a
> Creationist have anything to do with making up a libel charge against
> me?
No, the fact that you have libelled me has something to do with that.
Remember, you claimed that I was a racist, and a liar, and a thief?
Remember you haven't produced any evidence to support any of those
claims?
>
> Yes, I have said that decent persons would never reply to obvious
> enraged slander.
Which is not true. Decent persons do reply to your obvious enraged
slander.
> Sometimes decent persons out of righteous anger make
> the mistake and reply (like I have done too) but my point was that as
> a GENERAL POLICY it is best to let the slander artist "have the last
> word" because response gives validity to what the perp knows is
> false.
Actual people disagree with that, Ray. Denying your libel does not
give it validity.
>
> > By that standard, I suppose, it
> > follows that evolutionists would not attack Dr. Scott's and your
> > arguments if they were lousy and dishonest.
> > Of course, you yourself
> > often and indignantly defend Dr. Scott and yourself, which implies
> > either that our attacks on the two of you are truthful and logical, or
> > that you do not believe your own rules about defending oneself against
> > libel.
>
> Sometimes the attack does not rise to the level of a "Dana Tweedy
> slander tantrum" and I feel like I can make logical rebuttal.
Ray, I have never "slandered" you, or anyone else, and I do not throw
a tantrum, as you have done.
> But if
> the message crosses the line, which is a judgement call, then I just
> ignore because I know they are absolutely enraged and my arguments
> caused the rage.
Ray, your ability to detect "rage" is badly broken. You ignore
people because you know you can't dispute.
> For example: Dana is in a slander rant-a-thon against
> Pastor Scott presently.
I have never slandered Ms. Bridges, and don't ever intend to do so.
> He is lashing out attempting to hurt me and
> slander her because my arguments have so affected him.
Ray, why would I "lash out" at Ms. Bridges over your "arguements"?
Why would I be "affected" by your constant running away from my
statements?
> I have not and
> I will not answer him a word.
You already have, Ray.
> The slander-rants against Pastor Scott
> means Dana is utterly enraged with the facts as I argue them and he
> has lost his composure seeking hurt and classic poison the well.
Poor Ray, so badly mistaken, and unable to defend himself.....
> In
> reality, he is equally jealous, and he knows I am about to deliver the
> most devasting blow against his theory.
What possibly do I have to be jealous about, Ray? You've been
threatening to "deliver" this "blow" for years now. Do you really
think anyone believes you have the ability to deliver anything of
note?
> Dana is the one person who
> perfectly understands all of my arguments and he has finally cracked
> and become a full time howler.
Oh, Ray, you are amusing some times. I understand your "arguments"
are badly constructed, and you are unable to honestly defend your
claims. That's why you libel me.
> I will continue to post knowing his
> rage is caused by the facts of my logic.
I don't have any "rage" and you haven't displayed any "logic" or
"facts".
> Since I have, for the most
> part, almost never used Pastor Scott as a source, this shows that Dana
> is out of control lashing out at her to get at me.
Why do you imagine I'm "lashing out"? You have claimed that Ms
Bridges is a renouned Biblical scholar, and that her IQ is 186 or
above. I'm just asking you to provide evidence of that. So far you
have failed utterly.
> We know that the
> test of the true Gospel Preacher is that he or she is being slandered
> (= proof of Satan's control on said persons who do it).
Ray, then Ms. Bridges is not a "true Gospel Preacher" at all. I've
never slandered the woman, and I never intend to. Everything I've
said about her is correct, and a matter of public record.
>
> > Certainly most evolutionists hold that it is good to attack
> > lies and stupidity, so they would attack Dr. Scott's arguments if they
> > were stupid and dishonest, in which case those arguments would not
> > constitute a "refutation," but merely another creationist tirade which
> > threatened nothing but the understanding of confused laymen. Do you
> > not suppose that people might be offended by lies, even if they
> > themselves are not tempted to believe those lies?
>
> >From "in which case" on I do not understand your point.
> > > Logically, the rejection and slander of Theist scholars by any
> > > evolutionist is the best indication that said scholars are as such,
> > > the approval of the evolutionist would mean the scholar is not a real
> > > scholar or a real Theist.
>
> > Ray, that position is so stupid, so irrational, that I can only
> > conclude that the only reason you accept it is that you have no other
> > possible defense to make of Dr. Scott's rabid and delusional tirades
> > (or, as you refer to it, "scholarship").
>
> In other words you cannot refute.
No, he means you are already refuted. Your "argument" is too silly to
even comment on.
>
> Since you are a Atheist-evolutionist and Dr. Scott is not, but a
> scholar who has produced devastating facts against your theory your
> opinion of him is entirely predictable and welcomed since the approval
> of your kind would make him like you - a deluded moron unconscious of
> that fact.
What "devistating facts" has Mr. Scott produced? Where can these
"devistating facts" be seen in any legitamate scientific journal?
DJT
DJT
snip of earlier stuff
> > I think your conclusion that I have contradicted myself shows that you
> > are confused, perhaps genuinely, although your confusions seem oddly
> > tactically useful to you.
>
> Since you are a Evolutionist and I am a Creationist, guess what?
It's irrelevant, as it's the facts, not the person you should be
arguing.
>
> > > The "logic" of the evolutionist says: "Atheist disagreement of a
> > > Theist who rejects Evolution has nothing to do with the atheism of the
> > > Atheist."
>
> > The logic of the evolutionist says that one's motives for disagreeing
> > with something tell you nothing about the merits of one's arguments.
> > Suppose an atheist disagrees with Gene Scott merely because Gene Scott
> > believed in a god (Dr. Scott himself, by all appearances). That does
> > not mean that Dr. Scott's arguments against evolution were worth the
> > paper they were scrawled on, or that the atheist's arguments were bad
> > or wrong. You have to look at the actual facts and arguments, not
> > just the religious positions of the advocates.
>
> Straw man since our exchanges began in the specific context of you
> insulting Dr. Scott by supposition phraseology.
You were the one who brought up Mr. Scott, and his mythically high
IQ.
> Now you are acting
> like your insults were based on facts and arguments.
His statements are based on facts.
>
> > > Dear Atheist: please email me if you want in; for I have just obtained
> > > controlling interest in a bridge in Brooklyn, looks like a cash cow.
>
> > Gullible little buffoon, aren't you?
>
> > > If I receive the email then we can safely say that the Atheist-
> > > evolutionist is confused. If I do not receive a reply then we have
> > > just another Atheist-evolutionist attempting to objectify perverted
> > > logic for the purpose of insulting his enemies, which still leaves us
> > > asking, what is the point since all Atheist-evolutionists reject all
> > > scholars who oppose their theory?
>
> > Ray, another point of logic: the fact that I don't assume all
> > creationists are liars, scoundrels, and idiots does not mean that I
> > assume that *no* creationists are liars, scoundrels, and buffoons.
> > I'm sure you're lying about the bridge in New York, not because you're
> > a creationist, but because you're a proven liar and fool.
>
> Since you are a Evolutionist and I am a Creationist, that means I am
> the exact opposite of a liar and fool.
Why would it mean that, Ray? Why isn't an evolutionists able to see
bad arguments, and deceptions?
> Your approval would mean that I
> was a liar and fool since you are a person who promotes the lies of
> evolutionary theory.
What "lies" are they, Ray?
>
> I am very pleased that the last "Creationist Loon Census" topic by
> evolutionists that I was voted Chief Loon (= logically means I am the
> brightest and most sane).
Again, why would it mean that? Do you really imagine that people who
accept science aren't able to see and identify a loon?
>
> > > > And it is not a "suspension of logic" to
> > > > point out that someone is not right merely because someone else you
> > > > disagree with disagrees with them. It is not a "suspension of logic"
> > > > to call you on an _ad hominem_ argument.
>
> > > Denial by contentless assertion.
>
> > Yes, that's what you do.
>
> > > The Atheist-evolutionist wants his worldview status ignored and his
> > > rants against Theist scholars to be "objective facts" = suspension of
> > > logic.
>
> > Again, why waste time with "worldview status" when there are actual
> > facts and arguments relevant to evolution and creation to be
> > considered?
>
> Question presupposes that I refuse to address facts, when in reality,
> I am exposing the predictable biased rants of an Atheist against
> Theists; there were no facts being discussed.
>
> Anytime you want to argue facts I am most game.
Odd that you say that, Ray, because when we were discussing the facts
of fossil KNM WT 15000, you ran away. Care to try again?
>
> > > I wonder if he would allow the same in reverse? What would he say if a
> > > Theist-Creationist demanded the same against Atheist scholars?
>
> > We're perfectly willing to discuss the evidence for your views,
> > assuming you have any.
>
> Likewise.
So, why do you run away from discussions of the facts, and evidence?
DJT
Rolf
"Ray Martinez" <pyram...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1181069284.5...@q19g2000prn.googlegroups.com...
And you are the only one who knows. Ought you not stop in your tracks and
contemplate why you are such a completely ignorant and horribly biased
creationist? You never have anything to offer WRT facts, evidence and the
science behind the ToE; instead, you display a morbid itnerest in your
fellow men and their mentality. Why don't you take Jesus' words seriously,
you know about throwing the first stone?
Rolf
Says you, who never discusss facts. You are only interested in the heart and
soul of your opponents, but have zero insight into your own dark soul.
Ray Martinez
> On Jun 5, 9:42 pm, Ray Martinez <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote:> On Jun 5, 7:00 pm, "Steven J." <steve...@altavista.com> wrote:
>
> -- [snip]
>
> > You singled out Dr. Scott and presupposed dishonesty. Now you deny
> > what anyone can go back and read for them self. In reply, like I
> > already did, I simply pointed out that you are a Atheist-evolutionist
> > and Dr. Scott is a Supernaturalist-Theist. Presupposition explained.
> > Now if you have any evidence to back up your supposition we could only
> > wonder why it has not been produced?
>
> I do in fact think that Dr. Scott was dishonest (although, as I
> pointed out below, I infer that mainly from your own presentation of
> his arguments).
You mean an Atheist-evolutionist like yourself actually believes an
anti-evolutionist and Theist scholar is dishonest?
Really?
Very rare for an Atheist-evolutionist to say that a Theist pro-ID
scholar is dishonest. I am shocked!
In reality, for your assumption to have any validity whatsoever you
would have to prove that you have a solid record of saying that anti-
evolutionist Theist scholars are honest, then the "shocking claim"
above might begin to be taken seriously. Since we know that all
Atheist-evolutionists say that all Theist pro-ID scholars are
dishonest, your "shocking claim" about Dr. Scott makes us wonder what
the point is since you Atheists believe all scholars who oppose you
are dishonest.
I ask again, we know you have no respect for any scholar that opposes
you, what is your point?
> My point, though, was that you cannot assume, simply
> because I am an "atheist-evolutionist" (I would prefer "agnostic
> evolutionist," but that's another side issue), that my disagreement
> with him proves that he is right,
Why would any charge of dishonesty not determine the motive when no
dishonesty is shown but only assumed or presupposed?
A supposition of dishonesty that does not show, by evidence, alleged
dishonesty, indicates to inteligent persons that an axe is being
grinded.
Since you are an Atheist and Dr. Scott was a Christian scholar your
belief about him was predetermined and is no surprise. You are a
stereotypical Atheist slandering a Christian while attempting to
objectify your hate via silly "arguments" like "my Atheism has nothing
to do with it" = liar, which proves you are deluded or confused for
attempting such intelligence insulting nonsense in the first place.
Since you are an Atheist-evolutionist, you are not very smart to begin
with, you are angry and throwing predictable insults around toward
anyone who has a brain and disagrees with your moronic evolution
beliefs.
I am very happy to see a moron of your worldview and caliber reject
Dr. Scott, the approval of your kind would have surely made him as
say.
Really?
Are you saying that an Atheist like yourself thinks most creationist
arguments are unknowledgeable and dishonest?
Why would an Atheist think that about creationist arguments?
I wonder what Creationists think about Atheist-evolutionist arguments?
To be quite honest I did not know (until you just told me) that
Atheists think most creationist arguments are worthless. Thanks.
> When they address
> subjects where I am informed, they make blatant, easily avoided errors
> and egregious errors in logic.
In fact, when we read anything written by an Atheist concerning
origins, the Bible, or things of this nature, one re-occurring thought
leaps out of the pages: defective mind.
Your writings reflect a defective mind unable to think straight or
employ an ounce of common sense or logic. Facts are entirely absent,
but presupposed, and because you are an Atheist your conclusions are
predetermined.
> Now, since I haven't read all
> creationists, I cannot be certain that no knowledgeable and honest
> ones exist, but the sample thus far is not encouraging.
Since you are an Atheist we are not suprised that you think
Creationists are dishonest. Logically, anytime an Atheist approves of
a Creationist then the Creationist is not a real Creationist.
Since I am a Creationist and since you think I am dishonest this is
the best proof that I am honest.
In short, anytime that a person who believes in human evolution thinks
you are dishonest, that person has it made and they are confirmed
honest.
> My point,
> again, is that my prejudice, if such it is, against creationists is by
> itself no reason to suppose that any creationist actually is honest
> and knowledgeable (although I would suppose that some are the former
> and others are the latter).
>
Since you are an Atheist and you are talking about persons who are
your enemies (Creationists), your opinion of them is entirely
predictable. Motive of opinion is explained.
Since you are an Atheist and they are IDists your "opinion" is
predictable. What is the point since we already know what Atheists
think of IDists?
All Atheists reject and slander all IDists, this means said criticisms
are predictable opinions. Again, what is the point?
> > Again, we know that Atheists hate Theists, what is your point?
>
> I love a number of theists; I suspect that this is true of most
> atheists (and agnostics). My point is that even if I hated Dr. Scott,
> that would be no grounds to assume that I was wrong about evolution or
> that he was right about creationism.
>
Intelligent persons cannot ignore ulterior motives, like opposing
worldviews which instantly explains everything.
Ray
SNIP....
Robert Weldon
> On Jun 5, 7:00 pm, "Steven J." <steve...@altavista.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Jun 5, 12:48 pm, Ray Martinez <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote:> On Jun 4, 6:48 pm, "Steven J." <steve...@altavista.com> wrote:
>
> > -- [snip of points not addressed]
>
>
> Sometimes the attack does not rise to the level of a "Dana Tweedy
> slander tantrum" and I feel like I can make logical rebuttal. But if
> the message crosses the line, which is a judgement call, then I just
> ignore because I know they are absolutely enraged and my arguments
> caused the rage. For example: Dana is in a slander rant-a-thon against
> Pastor Scott presently. He is lashing out attempting to hurt me and
> slander her because my arguments have so affected him.
What "slander" would that be Ray, (and by the way, you have been
corrected on the proper usage of slander and libel many times already,
why do you persist it incorrectly)? The fact that she used to be a
soft core porn star? It is not "slander" (or libel for that matter),
it is the documented truth, why don't you just ask her directly? I
will admit that she is much easier to look at than the "good" doctor
was.
>I have not and I will not answer him a word.
Why not, because you know he is correct, but just won't admit it?
> The slander-rants against Pastor Scott
> means Dana is utterly enraged with the facts as I argue them and he
> has lost his composure seeking hurt and classic poison the well.
No, he is pointing out the truth.
>In
> reality, he is equally jealous, and he knows I am about to deliver the
> most devasting blow against his theory.
(sarcasm mode on) Yes, we are all quaking in our boots with this long
promised vapourpaper. (/sarcasm mode off)What is the current ETA
anyway?
> Dana is the one person who
> perfectly understands all of my arguments and he has finally cracked
> and become a full time howler. I will continue to post knowing his
> rage is caused by the facts of my logic.
What arguements? What facts? all you post is ad hom statements,
arguement by assertion, and incomprehensible foul language studded
rants.
>Since I have, for the most
> part, almost never used Pastor Scott as a source, this shows that Dana
> is out of control lashing out at her to get at me. We know that the
> test of the true Gospel Preacher is that he or she is being slandered
> (= proof of Satan's control on said persons who do it).
>
But according to Raylogic, ad hom = inability to refute.
>
>
>
> > Certainly most evolutionists hold that it is good to attack
> > lies and stupidity, so they would attack Dr. Scott's arguments if they
> > were stupid and dishonest, in which case those arguments would not
> > constitute a "refutation," but merely another creationist tirade which
> > threatened nothing but the understanding of confused laymen. Do you
> > not suppose that people might be offended by lies, even if they
> > themselves are not tempted to believe those lies?
>
> >From "in which case" on I do not understand your point.
> > > Logically, the rejection and slander of Theist scholars by any
> > > evolutionist is the best indication that said scholars are as such,
> > > the approval of the evolutionist would mean the scholar is not a real
> > > scholar or a real Theist.
>
> > Ray, that position is so stupid, so irrational, that I can only
> > conclude that the only reason you accept it is that you have no other
> > possible defense to make of Dr. Scott's rabid and delusional tirades
> > (or, as you refer to it, "scholarship").
>
> In other words you cannot refute.
In other words, you cannot refute Ray.
>
> Since you are a Atheist-evolutionist and Dr. Scott is not, but a
> scholar who has produced devastating facts against your theory your
> opinion of him is entirely predictable and welcomed since the approval
> of your kind would make him like you - a deluded moron unconscious of
> that fact.
>
Again, using Raylogic, ad-hom=inability to refute, therefore you have
lost Ray, yet again.
>
>
> > > > or whether their
Tiny Bulcher
> Since I am a Creationist and since you think I am dishonest this is
> the best proof that I am honest.
>
> In short, anytime that a person who believes in human evolution thinks
> you are dishonest, that person has it made and they are confirmed
> honest.
Is this some of your famous invulnerable logic? Now, I'm no logician, but it
seems to me that your assertion above rests on an a priori assumption that
all Creationists are honest.
Prove it.