Ray Martinez has surely won by now, non?
geokstr
number of the posters though, like John Wilkins, Mark Isaak, John
Harshman, boikat and many others. However, I am confused as to why you
are still here and bother to argue what you now must know are but
feeble positions, since they must have been smashed to smithereens
long ago by Ray Martinez.
You see, even though it had been postponed for a couple years already,
back then I'm pretty sure that Ray was on the cusp of publishing the
ultimate proof of the existence of the God, which was going to totally
destroy any evidence for evolution, the Big Bang, and any concept of
universe older than 6,000 years, etc. It was also going to prove once
and for all that the Flood happened just like the Bible said it did,
that Eve had a pet T. Rex, and that Creation only took 6 24-hour earth
days, after which the Creator took Sunday off to watch his favorite
NFL team, presumably, the Saints. Therefore, it seems logical that by
now you would have suffered a humiliating defeat, and slunk back to
the Dark Side of the Force that all atheists are said to inhabit.
What happened? Where is Ray's Ultimate Magnum Opus so that I may read
it myself and be converted to the path of righteousness?
Boikat
> Long time no been here, like several years at least. I remember a
> number of the posters though, like John Wilkins, Mark Isaak, John
> Harshman, boikat and many others. However, I am confused as to why you
> are still here and bother to argue what you now must know are but
> feeble positions, since they must have been smashed to smithereens
> long ago by Ray Martinez.
We missed the memo.
>
> You see, even though it had been postponed for a couple years already,
> back then I'm pretty sure that Ray was on the cusp of publishing the
> ultimate proof of the existence of the God, which was going to totally
> destroy any evidence for evolution, the Big Bang, and any concept of
> universe older than 6,000 years, etc. It was also going to prove once
> and for all that the Flood happened just like the Bible said it did,
> that Eve had a pet T. Rex, and that Creation only took 6 24-hour earth
> days, after which the Creator took Sunday off to watch his favorite
> NFL team, presumably, the Saints. Therefore, it seems logical that by
> now you would have suffered a humiliating defeat, and slunk back to
> the Dark Side of the Force that all atheists are said to inhabit.
>
> What happened? Where is Ray's Ultimate Magnum Opus so that I may read
> it myself and be converted to the path of righteousness?
Usually, one can find a copy at the grocery store in the same isle you
find paper towels, and other "one use" paper products. Sadly, the
pages are still blank.
Boikat
Friar Broccoli
> Long time no been here, like several years at least. I remember a
> number of the posters though, like John Wilkins, Mark Isaak, John
> Harshman, boikat and many others. However, I am confused as to why you
> are still here and bother to argue what you now must know are but
> feeble positions, since they must have been smashed to smithereens
> long ago by Ray Martinez.
>
> You see, even though it had been postponed for a couple years already,
> back then I'm pretty sure that Ray was on the cusp of publishing the
> ultimate proof of the existence of the God, which was going to totally
> destroy any evidence for evolution, the Big Bang, and any concept of
> universe older than 6,000 years, etc.
Ray is an OEC, which to me seems harder to defend than YEC.
I mean isn't it easier to deny all of reality instead of only part of
it?
Paul J Gans
It has been published by Wikileaks, but misclassified. You'll
have to search through all their posted documents to find it.
--
--- Paul J. Gans
chris thompson
Pretty sure this is a current poster using a nym.
Chris
UC
A who?
John S. Wilkins
It's an abbreviation of "pseudonym". A widely adopted usage in the
language community.
--
John S. Wilkins, Philosophy, Bond University
http://evolvingthoughts.net
But al be that he was a philosophre,
Yet hadde he but litel gold in cofre
UC
John S. Wilkins
Internet users in English and many other European languages. They form a
community. You might not be familiar with the notion. I can recommend
some reading.
geokstr
As a matter of fact, you are incorrect. I was a daily lurker, sometime
poster under the same ID for a couple years, probably until about 2007
or so, IIRC. It was during the period that Ray was threatening to
publish his irrefutable, indisputable, incontestable, incontrovertible
proof of the existence of God within the next couple weeks over the
course of at least a year, maybe more. He must have done so by now, so
what is the point of your still being here when you must have already
lost?
:-)
David Hare-Scott
The one you are not a member of.
D
Rolf
> On Dec 6, 2:49 pm, geokstr <gkop80...@aol.com> wrote:
>> Long time no been here, like several years at least. I remember a
>> number of the posters though, like John Wilkins, Mark Isaak, John
>> Harshman, boikat and many others. However, I am confused as to why
>> you are still here and bother to argue what you now must know are but
>> feeble positions, since they must have been smashed to smithereens
>> long ago by Ray Martinez.
>>
>> You see, even though it had been postponed for a couple years
>> already, back then I'm pretty sure that Ray was on the cusp of
>> publishing the ultimate proof of the existence of the God, which was
>> going to totally destroy any evidence for evolution, the Big Bang,
>> and any concept of universe older than 6,000 years, etc.
>
> Ray is an OEC, which to me seems harder to defend than YEC.
> I mean isn't it easier to deny all of reality instead of only part of
> it?
>
I believe has a theory about two creations. The last one about six thousand
years ago, on top of the remains of the orginal creation. Neat, isn't it?
Frank J
> number of the posters though, like John Wilkins, Mark Isaak, John
> Harshman, boikat and many others. However, I am confused as to why you
> are still here and bother to argue what you now must know are but
> feeble positions, since they must have been smashed to smithereens
> long ago by Ray Martinez.
>
> You see, even though it had been postponed for a couple years already,
> back then I'm pretty sure that Ray was on the cusp of publishing the
> ultimate proof of the existence of the God, which was going to totally
> destroy any evidence for evolution, the Big Bang, and any concept of
> universe older than 6,000 years, etc.
The good old YEC meme. I'm beginning to think that it would continue
to spread for centuries even if every evolution denier conceded
evolution.
For the record, Ray admits the billion of years ages for the earth and
universe. He claims that the current biosphere is much younger, but
evades all questions regarding its age and that of previous
biospheres.
Not that that makes his "theory" any more promising than YEC or flat-
earthism, of course.
> It was also going to prove once
> and for all that the Flood happened just like the Bible said it did,
> that Eve had a pet T. Rex, and that Creation only took 6 24-hour earth
> days, after which the Creator took Sunday off to watch his favorite
> NFL team, presumably, the Saints. Therefore, it seems logical that by
> now you would have suffered a humiliating defeat, and slunk back to
> the Dark Side of the Force that all atheists are said to inhabit.
>
> What happened? Where is Ray's Ultimate Magnum Opus so that I may read
> it myself and be converted to the path of righteousness?
Ray knows that if it refuted anything it would be other brands of
*creationism,* including the YEC version that sells best. For that and
possibly other reasons he has postponed it indefinitely. But he still
provides entertainment to those of us who like train wrecks.
Walter Bushell
Paul J Gans <gan...@panix.com> wrote:
<snip>
> >What happened? Where is Ray's Ultimate Magnum Opus so that I may read
> >it myself and be converted to the path of righteousness?
>
> It has been published by Wikileaks, but misclassified. You'll
> have to search through all their posted documents to find it.
>
--
The Chinese pretend their goods are good and we pretend our money
is good, or is it the reverse?
geokstr
Sorry, I didn't recall that Ray was an OEC and not a YEC. Perhaps my
memories were confused between him and Sean Pitman. But my larger
point stands. Between the two of them, they should have demolished you
godless types by now with their irrefutable logic and larger order of
intelligence.
Instead, I see you all still "laughing at the superior intellect".
:-)
Is Pitman still around too?
Dana Tweedy
> publish his irrefutable, indisputable, incontestable, incontrovertible
> proof of the existence of God within the next couple weeks over the
> course of at least a year, maybe more.
Three years later, Ray is still making the same "threat", although his
stated goal is to "refute" evolution. He's now claiming he will ruin
all our lives. So far there's no sign that Ray has gotten any farther
than the threat making stage.
> He must have done so by now, so
> what is the point of your still being here when you must have already
> lost?
We are apparently all still in denial.....
>
> :-)
>
DJT
Frank J
I haven't seen his posts in months, maybe a year. But even when he was
posting a lot he would evade my simple questions about his "theory"
and troll for others who were more willing to keep the topic on what
is or isn't "weak" about "Darwinism".
Even his site was nearly all about what he finds wrong with
"Darwinism," with precious little defense of YEC. Which makes me
wonder if he was only peddling it because it sells, and isn't really
confident that any evidence backs it up.
Ray Martinez
Funny thing, as I write this message, 17 previous messages have been
posted. All, except one, do not answer your main question; and the one
that does answer barely gets the answer right. But the fact of the
matter is that all of the previous posters know the answer to your
main question, they are just too angry and dishonest to give it.
Quite some time ago I admitted that I should not have made any
deadlines, having missed them all. I then announced that I will set no
more deadlines; that I am writing and researching full time; and that
my work will be worth the wait. I also announced that I had had a
Eureka moment, discovering irrefutable evidence that will falsify the
scientific veracity of Darwinian evolution.
Nothing has changed, all of the above remains true.
It takes time to conduct research and get ones facts straight. I have
figured out a unique way to falsify the cancer called Darwinism. When
I am finished my work will be posted on my own website, without
paywall, and I will promptly announce the fact to the Group.
For the record: I am an OECreatorist, Paleyan IDist-species
immutabilist and I am in my sixth year of writing and research. And I
am, of course, a Protestant Evangelical and a Democrat.
Ray
deadrat
Let's see.
You admitted that you shouldn't have set any deadlines. Check.
You've missed all the deadlines you set. Check.
You said you'd set no more deadlines. Check.
You announced that you are writing and researching full time. Check.
You announced that your work will be worth the wait. Check.
You announced that you had a "Eurkea moment." Check
Yep. All true.
>
> It takes time to conduct research and get ones facts straight. I have
> figured out a unique way to falsify the cancer called Darwinism. When
> I am finished my work will be posted on my own website, without
> paywall, and I will promptly announce the fact to the Group.
It should be priceless.
Boikat
Actually, amused, is the better term.
>
> Quite some time ago I admitted that I should not have made any
> deadlines, having missed them all. I then announced that I will set no
> more deadlines; that I am writing and researching full time; and that
> my work will be worth the wait. I also announced that I had had a
> Eureka moment, discovering irrefutable evidence that will falsify the
> scientific veracity of Darwinian evolution.
If, as you claim, you've "discovered irrefutabe evidence" that
falsifies the ToE, then your "research" is already done. But, that
was pointed out to you when you made the claim, and that was some time
ago. So, like someone eho claims to have "irrefutable evidence" that
"Sasquatch exists", and refuses to present the evidence, there is
great doubt about your claim So would go so far as to say, "You're a
bald faced liar".
>
> Nothing has changed, all of the above remains true.
Especially the part of not "publishing".
>
> It takes time to conduct research and get ones facts straight. I have
> figured out a unique way to falsify the cancer called Darwinism.
Sticking your fingers in your ears and wearing a blindfold will not
make the ToE go away. Sorry.
> When
> I am finished my work will be posted on my own website, without
> paywall, and I will promptly announce the fact to the Group.
And nobody is holding their breath.
>
> For the record: I am an OECreatorist, Paleyan IDist-species
> immutabilist and I am in my sixth year of writing and research. And I
> am, of course, a Protestant Evangelical and a Democrat.
No. You're one of the longest running jokes on T.O. You can at least
pleasure in that fact.
Boikat
rossum
wrote:
>Sadly, the pages are still blank.
They are *meant* to be blank. Ray is now a Zen Buddhist. :)
rossum
Bob Casanova
appeared in talk.origins, posted by UC
<uraniumc...@yahoo.com>:
The one of which you're demonstrably ignorant.
--
Bob C.
"Evidence confirming an observation is
evidence that the observation is wrong."
- McNameless
Bob Casanova
appeared in talk.origins, posted by Ray Martinez
<pyram...@yahoo.com>:
>On Dec 6, 11:49 am, geokstr <gkop80...@aol.com> wrote:
>> Long time no been here, like several years at least. I remember a
>> number of the posters though, like John Wilkins, Mark Isaak, John
>> Harshman, boikat and many others. However, I am confused as to why you
>> are still here and bother to argue what you now must know are but
>> feeble positions, since they must have been smashed to smithereens
>> long ago by Ray Martinez.
>>
>> You see, even though it had been postponed for a couple years already,
>> back then I'm pretty sure that Ray was on the cusp of publishing the
>> ultimate proof of the existence of the God, which was going to totally
>> destroy any evidence for evolution, the Big Bang, and any concept of
>> universe older than 6,000 years, etc. It was also going to prove once
>> and for all that the Flood happened just like the Bible said it did,
>> that Eve had a pet T. Rex, and that Creation only took 6 24-hour earth
>> days, after which the Creator took Sunday off to watch his favorite
>> NFL team, presumably, the Saints. Therefore, it seems logical that by
>> now you would have suffered a humiliating defeat, and slunk back to
>> the Dark Side of the Force that all atheists are said to inhabit.
>>
>> What happened? Where is Ray's Ultimate Magnum Opus so that I may read
>> it myself and be converted to the path of righteousness?
>
>Funny thing, as I write this message, 17 previous messages have been
>posted. All, except one, do not answer your main question; and the one
>that does answer barely gets the answer right.
Let's see; there are two questions you might be referring
to:
1) "What happened?"
2) "Where is Ray's Ultimate Magnum Opus so that I may read
it myself and be converted to the path of righteousness?"
The answer to 1) is "Ray reneged"
The answer to 2) is "It doesn't exist"
> But the fact of the
>matter is that all of the previous posters know the answer to your
>main question, they are just too angry and dishonest to give it.
Why should anyone be angry about the answers? They're
demonstrably true,
>Quite some time ago I admitted that I should not have made any
>deadlines, having missed them all. I then announced that I will set no
>more deadlines; that I am writing and researching full time; and that
>my work will be worth the wait. I also announced that I had had a
>Eureka moment, discovering irrefutable evidence that will falsify the
>scientific veracity of Darwinian evolution.
>
>Nothing has changed, all of the above remains true.
Yep, you reneged. I said that.
>It takes time to conduct research and get ones facts straight. I have
>figured out a unique way to falsify the cancer called Darwinism. When
>I am finished my work will be posted on my own website, without
>paywall, and I will promptly announce the fact to the Group.
Yep, it doesn't exist. I said that too.
>For the record: I am an OECreatorist, Paleyan IDist-species
>immutabilist and I am in my sixth year of writing and research. And I
>am, of course, a Protestant Evangelical and a Democrat.
For the record, you're a posturing failure, and none of your
beliefs are supported by evidence.
Democrat, huh? Hmmmm...
Frank J
> On Dec 6, 2:49 pm, geokstr <gkop80...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> > Long time no been here, like several years at least. I remember a
> > number of the posters though, like John Wilkins, Mark Isaak, John
> > Harshman, boikat and many others. However, I am confused as to why you
> > are still here and bother to argue what you now must know are but
> > feeble positions, since they must have been smashed to smithereens
> > long ago by Ray Martinez.
>
> > You see, even though it had been postponed for a couple years already,
> > back then I'm pretty sure that Ray was on the cusp of publishing the
> > ultimate proof of the existence of the God, which was going to totally
> > destroy any evidence for evolution, the Big Bang, and any concept of
> > universe older than 6,000 years, etc.
>
> Ray is an OEC, which to me seems harder to defend than YEC.
> I mean isn't it easier to deny all of reality instead of only part of
> it?
Your last sentence is trivially true, but as you surely know, the
common version of YEC is just like OEC in that it concedes some things
(heliocentric, quasi- spherical Earth) and denies others,
demonstrating a selectivity that just happens to match what it wants
to be true.
>
>
>
> > It was also going to prove once
> > and for all that the Flood happened just like the Bible said it did,
> > that Eve had a pet T. Rex, and that Creation only took 6 24-hour earth
> > days, after which the Creator took Sunday off to watch his favorite
> > NFL team, presumably, the Saints. Therefore, it seems logical that by
> > now you would have suffered a humiliating defeat, and slunk back to
> > the Dark Side of the Force that all atheists are said to inhabit.
>
> > What happened? Where is Ray's Ultimate Magnum Opus so that I may read
> > it myself and be converted to the path of righteousness?- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Ray Martinez
> On Tue, 7 Dec 2010 12:34:48 -0800 (PST), the following
> appeared in talk.origins, posted by Ray Martinez
>
> - Show quoted text -
Bob's post is full of anger/slander and solid proof supporting my
explanation as to why no one answered the main question sought by
topic author.
I said all of the respondees (evos) knew the answer but they are "too
angry....to give it."
Ray
Charles Brenner
Even with a concrete object like Sasquatch there would be more work to
get the evidence into shape than you apparently can imagine, so even
accepting your analogy your implication is simplistic. And the analogy
isn't very good. If you had ever had the experience yourself of trying
to explain a significantly novel discovery, especially if the argument
involves some philosophically subtle component, you would have
experienced difficulties like Ray describes.
I don't doubt that you are right on the final outcome. But by chance.
Boikat
Where's the anger? Where's the slander?
> I said all of the respondees (evos) knew the answer but they are "too
> angry....to give it."
Only in your imaginary world, Ray.
Boikat
Boikat
Except that Ray has had plenty of time since his announced
"epiphany". The simple fact is that Ray has nothing, and he's making
excuses.
>
> I don't doubt that you are right on the final outcome. But by chance.
Boikat
Rolf
Hi there, Ray!
How neat, your Eureka moment still fuelling your research. The problem with
that is, you are not foing anything like research into matters that matter
wrt. evolution.
Your research is 100% dedicated to reading ancient books and writings,
transforming the yield into silly conclusions about how they disprove
evolution.
You never engage the scientific issues, the results of 150 years of research
in all fields of science.
How come scinece is marvellously effective in solving all sorts of problems
and creating solutions like computers, space travel, sattelite navigation
systems, smart bombs, systems to allow an operator safely located in the
USA, by remote control to target and kill taliban fanatics in Pakistan and
even to create buckminsterfullerenes and graphenes. That's the same people
that acoring to your many insane claims like evolution is nonsense or that
"the concept of natural selection doesn't exist in nature"
Poor Ray, you'll be sweating in the real Hell before you have published
anything for us even to laugh at.
Besides, must be much more than six years simnce you promised I'd be the
first to read you paper. I wans't even 70 then, now I am 80...
tim.anderson
Ray
The original poster asked these questions:
What happened? Where is Ray's Ultimate Magnum Opus so that I may read
it myself and be converted to the path of righteousness?
Your response appears to be: it doesn't exist.
Thank you for your time.
jillery
This could be a genuine case of time dilation; Ray is falling into a
Black Hole.
Or Ray is trying to outlive his critics. As he keeps making new ones,
I think that's even more unlikely.
> > Nothing has changed, all of the above remains true.
>
> > It takes time to conduct research and get ones facts straight. I have
> > figured out a unique way to falsify the cancer called Darwinism. When
> > I am finished my work will be posted on my own website, without
> > paywall, and I will promptly announce the fact to the Group.
>
> > For the record: I am an OECreatorist, Paleyan IDist-species
> > immutabilist and I am in my sixth year of writing and research. And I
> > am, of course, a Protestant Evangelical and a Democrat.
>
> > Ray- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
Frank J
> On Tue, 7 Dec 2010 12:34:48 -0800 (PST), the following
> appeared in talk.origins, posted by Ray Martinez
Anti-evolution activists demand that taxpayers pay for what students
can already learn on their parents' dime, so on that issue they're all
more like Democrats than Republicans. And what they want taught,
however indirectly (by promoting unreasonable doubt of evolution), is
"revisionist prehistory." AIUI it's the far left that promotes
"revisionist history," presumably also at taxpayer expense.
Once I counted RNCSE's list of politicians who promoted anti-evolution
legislation, and they were about 20% Democrats. I suspect that the %
would be even higher (and lower for Republicans) if they said what
they truly believed, as opposed to what they think will get them more
votes.
> --
>
> Bob C.
>
> "Evidence confirming an observation is
> evidence that the observation is wrong."
> - McNameless- Hide quoted text -
Frank J
> Friar Broccoli wrote:
> > On Dec 6, 2:49 pm, geokstr <gkop80...@aol.com> wrote:
> >> Long time no been here, like several years at least. I remember a
> >> number of the posters though, like John Wilkins, Mark Isaak, John
> >> Harshman, boikat and many others. However, I am confused as to why
> >> you are still here and bother to argue what you now must know are but
> >> feeble positions, since they must have been smashed to smithereens
> >> long ago by Ray Martinez.
>
> >> You see, even though it had been postponed for a couple years
> >> already, back then I'm pretty sure that Ray was on the cusp of
> >> publishing the ultimate proof of the existence of the God, which was
> >> going to totally destroy any evidence for evolution, the Big Bang,
> >> and any concept of universe older than 6,000 years, etc.
>
> > Ray is an OEC, which to me seems harder to defend than YEC.
> > I mean isn't it easier to deny all of reality instead of only part of
> > it?
>
> I believe has a theory about two creations. The last one about six thousand
> years ago, on top of the remains of the orginal creation. Neat, isn't it?
I think he admitted to *at least* 2 creations (he calls them
"biospheres"). He is very reluctant to share his thoughts about the
past ones, however.
As much as he dislikes the DI, he heeds Phillip Johnson's advice of
avoiding "when" questions (to keep peace between YECs and OECs) until
after "naturalism" is defeated. Which pretty much destroys any
pretense that the objection is over the science.
>
>
>
> >> It was also going to prove once
> >> and for all that the Flood happened just like the Bible said it did,
> >> that Eve had a pet T. Rex, and that Creation only took 6 24-hour
> >> earth days, after which the Creator took Sunday off to watch his
> >> favorite NFL team, presumably, the Saints. Therefore, it seems
> >> logical that by now you would have suffered a humiliating defeat,
> >> and slunk back to the Dark Side of the Force that all atheists are
> >> said to inhabit.
>
> >> What happened? Where is Ray's Ultimate Magnum Opus so that I may read
> >> it myself and be converted to the path of righteousness?- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
TomS
<2a0a532a-b602-42cb...@j29g2000yqm.googlegroups.com>, Frank J
stated..."
[...snip...]
>Once I counted RNCSE's list of politicians who promoted anti-evolution
>legislation, and they were about 20% Democrats. I suspect that the %
>would be even higher (and lower for Republicans) if they said what
>they truly believed, as opposed to what they think will get them more
>votes.
Isn't that an oxymoron?
--
---Tom S.
Surely, God could have caused birds to fly with their bones made of solid gold,
with their veins full of quicksilver, with their flesh heavier than lead
The Crime of Galileo (1976) by Giorgio De Santillana, p. 167
Devils Advocaat
Charles Brenner
"Plenty"? Sounds like an uninformed claim from someone who has never
themself prepared any paper for publication, let alone one in any way
comparable to Ray's. What if anything do you know about the amount of
time needed? I know a lot -- I recently published a paper that is
important for me and that took me 10 years after I first thought I had
the problem virtually licked ("epiphany").
> The simple fact is that Ray has nothing, and he's making
> excuses.
First you said he's lying and that's what I objected to. Now you claim
he's making excuses based on the illogic that since *you* think (for
no reason) that he's had "plenty of time", *he* should conclude the
same.
Whether or not he has nothing is a third issue, which can be, if you
like, your fall-back position after retracting "lying" and "excuses".
gregwrld
If you were helping Ray write his paper would it
get done any quicker? Just askin'...
gregwrld
Charles Brenner
Not a thought you would entertain if you'd read my previous post (the
one on Dec 7). But even understanding that you are making a random
post without realizing the context in which you are posting, sorry I
can't imagine your possible point or the perspective from which you
pose this counterfactual.
> Just askin'...
Ah, ok. Not thinking'. Got it.
Boikat
Raytad claims he already has the "irrefutable proof" that will destroy
"darwinism".
> let alone one in any way
> comparable to Ray's. What if anything do you know about the amount of
> time needed? I know a lot -- I recently published a paper that is
> important for me and that took me 10 years after I first thought I had
> the problem virtually licked ("epiphany").
Good for you! So, maybe Raytard shoudl admit that he does not have
irrefutable proof.
>
> > The simple fact is that Ray has nothing, and he's making
> > excuses.
>
> First you said he's lying and that's what I objected to
That's your opinin. My opinion is that he is a liar.
> Now you claim
> he's making excuses based on the illogic that since *you* think (for
> no reason) that he's had "plenty of time", *he* should conclude the
> same.
It's his running mouth, not mine.
>
> Whether or not he has nothing is a third issue, which can be, if you
> like, your fall-back position after retracting "lying" and "excuses
I retract nothing until it is demonstrated that Ray is not lying, and
not making excuses to cover his lies.
Boikat
Bob Casanova
appeared in talk.origins, posted by Ray Martinez
>Bob's post is full of anger/slander
Really? Pointing out the facts is "anger"? You must be very
tranquil. And please point out the slander (actually
"libel"; slander is spoken, not written, yet another error
by "Inerrant Ray").
> and solid proof supporting my
>explanation as to why no one answered the main question sought by
>topic author.
Oh, *that* question. The answer is "No, he hasn't, since he
reneged on his vow to release the Famous Paper in 2007. Or
was it 1907? As I pointed out in my first response.
>I said all of the respondees (evos) knew the answer but they are "too
>angry....to give it."
You say a lot of things for which you have no evidence; this
is just one more in a long, long list.
Bob Casanova
talk.origins, posted by TomS <TomS_...@newsguy.com>:
>"On Wed, 8 Dec 2010 03:13:10 -0800 (PST), in article
><2a0a532a-b602-42cb...@j29g2000yqm.googlegroups.com>, Frank J
>stated..."
>[...snip...]
>>Once I counted RNCSE's list of politicians who promoted anti-evolution
>>legislation, and they were about 20% Democrats. I suspect that the %
>>would be even higher (and lower for Republicans) if they said what
>>they truly believed, as opposed to what they think will get them more
>>votes.
>
>You're speaking of politicians, and saying "what they truly believed"?
>
>Isn't that an oxymoron?
For most, yes, but there are a few exceptions.
Ray Martinez
Exactly my experience.
My evo critics are simply slinging shit (howler monkeys protecting
their turf) because they actually perceive and believe that I have
something. In case you don't know I have admitted to many mistakes,
like making stupid deadlines that I could not keep, but you certainly
wouldn't learn of this fact from these particular evos. I apologized
profusely. And I have infomed the Group why it is taking so long. But
again, you certainly won't learn of these facts from *these* evos.
Once again, as you certainly know, research and organization takes
time. Your comments about your experience is my experience too. I
thought I could pound this project out in a year. Then I thought two
years....three years....What is taking so long is the organization of
my facts and arguments. A fact can be argued so many different ways. I
have, of course, several unique claims. Organizing the facts in such a
way that best supports these claims is taking all the time (as is the
research itself).
May I remind: Darwin "clearly conceived" his theory by 1839, but did
not publish until 1859.
Ray
[....]
Ray Martinez
Because without the surrounding structure, I won't be able to ruin
your lives the way in which they deserve to be ruined.
Atheists are of secondary importance, I am really after TEists like
Miller and Dembski.
Ray
Bill
If you have irrefutable evidence that the theory of evolution is
false, that will be an astounding scientific discovery, well worth the
wait, even if it takes you 20 years. You will almost certainly get a
Nobel prize.
Charles Brenner
You're getting more confused, not less. If my story has any
application to Ray the moral would be to persist, not to give up.
> > > The simple fact is that Ray has nothing, and he's making
> > > excuses.
>
> > First you said he's lying and that's what I objected to
>
> That's your opinin. My opinion is that he is a liar.
More confusion on your part. What I objected to was your purported
proof that he must be lying. You have done well to back down to
calling it an opinion, but you're probably still wrong. More likely
he's (if wrong) just confused. You of all people should understand the
possible effect of being confused.
Charles Brenner
That I doubt and it makes no sense. If you actually have something
smart, why would you suspect that people who don't behave
intelligently do grasp it?
Dana Tweedy
> On Dec 8, 4:53 am, Devils Advocaat<mankyg...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>> Ray if you have as you claim "irrefutable evidence" then that evidence
>> should be good enough on its own to destroy evolutionary theory in one
>> fell swoop.
>>
>> So why not present the evidence as it is?
>
> Because without the surrounding structure, I won't be able to ruin
> your lives the way in which they deserve to be ruined.
Ray, if you actually had any rational argument the "surrounding
structure" would be superfluous. Present your claims, and let them be
evaluated for what they are. Trying to re-define terms, and make up
your own meanings for commonly used phrases only makes your writing
incomprehensible.
Also, your concern with "ruining lives" shows that you are acting out of
malice, hatred, and jealousy, not something a Christian would do.
>
> Atheists are of secondary importance, I am really after TEists like
> Miller and Dembski.
Dembski is not a theistic evolutionist. Dr. Miller is, but your
"paper" if it ever does get released, will have no more impact than a
spitwad against a battleship.
Ray, you have no credibility and no one cares about the ravings of an
ignorant, and embittered nobody like yourself.
DJT
Dana Tweedy
If you really think so, Ray, you are more deluded than anyone imagined.
Everyone knows you have nothing, which is why you are being asked to
present your "paper" sooner rather than later.
> In case you don't know I have admitted to many mistakes,
But you refuse to admit your most common, and serious mistakes. You are
mistaken in your belief that science is in the business of supporting
science. You are mistaken in your belief that modern science rejects
Biblical claims out of hand. You are mistaken that there is no
evidence for evolution.
So far you've not admitted to these mistakes, plus many others.
> like making stupid deadlines that I could not keep, but you certainly
> wouldn't learn of this fact from these particular evos. I apologized
> profusely. And I have infomed the Group why it is taking so long. But
> again, you certainly won't learn of these facts from *these* evos.
The "facts" are that you are unable to support your claims, and your
hiding behind the "paper" is just posturing.
>
> Once again, as you certainly know, research and organization takes
> time.
Yes, it does. What you have been doing is not research, however. You
are just feeding your biases.
> Your comments about your experience is my experience too. I
> thought I could pound this project out in a year. Then I thought two
> years....three years....What is taking so long is the organization of
> my facts and arguments.
Which is clearly something you are unable to do, because the facts go
against you, and you lack the ability to form reasonable arguments.
> A fact can be argued so many different ways. I
> have, of course, several unique claims.
True, but none of them are supported by anything other than your
imagination.
> Organizing the facts in such a
> way that best supports these claims is taking all the time (as is the
> research itself).
Ray, you are doing your 'research' entirely the wrong way. One doesn't
make one's conclusion, and then look for facts to support it, as you
have done. You should let the facts lead to their own conclusion.
>
> May I remind: Darwin "clearly conceived" his theory by 1839, but did
> not publish until 1859.
You should also be reminded that Darwin, like any good scientist, used
that time to look for evidence for, and against his ideas. He changed
his theory as he gathered evidence. He wasn't simply looking to confirm
his assumptions.
DJT
Bruce Stephens
[...]
> My evo critics are simply slinging shit (howler monkeys protecting
> their turf) because they actually perceive and believe that I have
> something.
I don't have that impression at all. Have you considered you might be
mistaken?
[...]
Ray Martinez
>
> - Show quoted text -
Slinging shit (or howling as it is known in these context, the same of
which is slander) is how Darwinists operate. These actions presuppose
the object (in this case myself) to represent a real and viable threat
to the health of ToE. This is why Boikey and others refused to answer
the questions posed in the OP. They wanted to make it look like I made
an outrageous claim and then disappeared without explanation. Just the
opposite is true. Yes, I made an eye-opening claim----and I did not
disappear. My first post in this topic summarizes the entire
situation. I have posted such a message regularly, especially when
someone wonders about the status of my book. Yet these evos refuse to
pass the message along, choosing to lie and sling their shit. Like I
said they really believe that I had a Eureka moment. Oh, by the way,
did any of them mention that? If not, why not?
Ray
Ray Martinez
wrote:
Darwinists only sling shit (slander/misrepresentation) at persons who
pose a threat to their theory. Apparently these evos see something
that you do not. Whoever suffers the greatest slander attack the same
is judged to represent the greatest danger to ToE. Objective persons
know that ToE is easy pickens for anyone who is intelligent. Contrary
to the reputation of evo authorities in the secular world, no one in
the religious world is the least bit impressed or intimidated. The
best evidence against ToE is the claims of ToE (like mindlessness,
which reflects the intellectuality of evo authorities).
Ray (Protestant Evangelical)
Bill
>
> > - Show quoted text -
>
> comprised, in its entirety, by Darwinists.
>
> Ray
But once you've published your irrefutable critique of Darwinism, the
balance of power will shift, and the Nobel jury will consist entirely
of Creatorists. You underestimate the impact you are going to have.
Ray Martinez
> On 12/8/10 4:53 PM, Ray Martinez wrote:
>
> > On Dec 8, 4:53 am, Devils Advocaat<mankyg...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
> >> Ray if you have as you claim "irrefutable evidence" then that evidence
> >> should be good enough on its own to destroy evolutionary theory in one
> >> fell swoop.
>
> >> So why not present the evidence as it is?
>
> > Because without the surrounding structure, I won't be able to ruin
> > your lives the way in which they deserve to be ruined.
>
> Ray, if you actually had any rational argument the "surrounding
> structure" would be superfluous. Present your claims, and let them be
> evaluated for what they are. Trying to re-define terms, and make up
> your own meanings for commonly used phrases only makes your writing
> incomprehensible.
>
Dana is bothered by the fact that I do not accept his made-up
definitions of basic terms.
> Also, your concern with "ruining lives" shows that you are acting out of
> malice, hatred, and jealousy, not something a Christian would do.
>
Quite the contrary. Real Christians oppose, with all their heart and
strength, the theory that says the Bible is false, that is, the theory
that all Atheists accept, defend and promote.
Biblical veracity is a long settled fact.
>
>
> > Atheists are of secondary importance, I am really after TEists like
> > Miller and Dembski.
>
> Dembski is not a theistic evolutionist.
He claims to be a Christian while accepting microevolution,
macroevolution, common descent and natural selection (except for the
production of ultra-complex biological phenomena).
> Dr. Miller is, but your
> "paper" if it ever does get released, will have no more impact than a
> spitwad against a battleship.
>
I already know that evidence has no effect on the minds of Darwinists.
But I have figured out a way to force the issue.
> Ray, you have no credibility and no one cares about the ravings of an
> ignorant, and embittered nobody like yourself.
>
> DJT
Comment presupposes that other IDists have credibility with Dana the
Darwinist.
Ray (Paleyan IDist)
John Vreeland
SO we will have to wait twenty years? Darwin published only because
he feared being scooped.
Wait, you aren't going to spend a decade studying barnacles, are you?
Sorry Ray, but none of us believe you have anything. We cannot even
imagine living in the sort of universe in which you might possibly
have something useful to say in order to support your thesis. That
would be a very strange place.
But I hope your argument is interesting, and novel. That in itself
would be an important victory. ALso, you could win prizes. I am
pretty sure that anyone who manages to overturn biological evolution
will win a Nobel. But screw that--you would become the most important
scientist of the century, overnight. And I could say, "yeah, I knew
Ray Martinez when he was somebody's sock puppet." So, good luck.
Isaac Newton
Charles Darwin
Albert Einstein
Ray Martinez
--
My years on the mudpit that is Usnenet have taught me one important thing: three Creation Scientists can have a serious conversation, if two of them are sock puppets.
Dana Tweedy
> On Dec 8, 5:04 pm, Dana Tweedy<reddfr...@bresnan.net> wrote:
>> On 12/8/10 4:53 PM, Ray Martinez wrote:
>>
>>> On Dec 8, 4:53 am, Devils Advocaat<mankyg...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>>>> Ray if you have as you claim "irrefutable evidence" then that evidence
>>>> should be good enough on its own to destroy evolutionary theory in one
>>>> fell swoop.
>>
>>>> So why not present the evidence as it is?
>>
>>> Because without the surrounding structure, I won't be able to ruin
>>> your lives the way in which they deserve to be ruined.
>>
>> Ray, if you actually had any rational argument the "surrounding
>> structure" would be superfluous. Present your claims, and let them be
>> evaluated for what they are. Trying to re-define terms, and make up
>> your own meanings for commonly used phrases only makes your writing
>> incomprehensible.
>>
>
> Dana is bothered by the fact that I do not accept his made-up
> definitions of basic terms.
Like usual, Ray is wrong again. I don't make up odd definitions of
common terms. I'm hardly "bothered" that Ray is unwilling to use common
accepted definitions.
>
>> Also, your concern with "ruining lives" shows that you are acting out of
>> malice, hatred, and jealousy, not something a Christian would do.
>>
>
> Quite the contrary. Real Christians oppose, with all their heart and
> strength, the theory that says the Bible is false, that is, the theory
> that all Atheists accept, defend and promote.
"The Theory" doesn't say the Bible is false, as already pointed out many
times. Furthermore, as Ray already knows, not all atheists "accept"
"defend" or "promote" the theory of evolution. Even if they did, it
wouldn't matter to the veracity of evolutionary theory.
>
> Biblical veracity is a long settled fact.
"Settled" by whom? Again, Ray simply tries the "Big Lie" gambit.
>
>>
>>
>>> Atheists are of secondary importance, I am really after TEists like
>>> Miller and Dembski.
>>
>> Dembski is not a theistic evolutionist.
>
> He claims to be a Christian while accepting microevolution,
> macroevolution, common descent and natural selection (except for the
> production of ultra-complex biological phenomena).
Which means he's a creationist, like you, Ray.
>
>> Dr. Miller is, but your
>> "paper" if it ever does get released, will have no more impact than a
>> spitwad against a battleship.
>>
>
> I already know that evidence has no effect on the minds of Darwinists.
Actually, Ray, you only know that you run away from any discussion of
the evidence.
> But I have figured out a way to force the issue.
Not running away from the evidence would be a start.
>
>> Ray, you have no credibility and no one cares about the ravings of an
>> ignorant, and embittered nobody like yourself.
>>
>> DJT
>
> Comment presupposes that other IDists have credibility with Dana the
> Darwinist.
Where does my statement have any such "presupposition"? That you have
no credibility doesn't mean that any other IDist has scientific
credibility either.
Ray, your well known aversion to evidence means you must know you have
nothing. Why not simply admit you are wrong?
DJT
Christopher Denney
> On Dec 8, 5:04 pm, Dana Tweedy <reddfr...@bresnan.net> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On 12/8/10 4:53 PM, Ray Martinez wrote:
>
> > > On Dec 8, 4:53 am, Devils Advocaat<mankyg...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
> > >> Ray if you have as you claim "irrefutable evidence" then that evidence
> > >> should be good enough on its own to destroy evolutionary theory in one
> > >> fell swoop.
>
> > >> So why not present the evidence as it is?
>
> > > Because without the surrounding structure, I won't be able to ruin
> > > your lives the way in which they deserve to be ruined.
>
> > Ray, if you actually had any rational argument the "surrounding
> > structure" would be superfluous. Present your claims, and let them be
> > evaluated for what they are. Trying to re-define terms, and make up
> > your own meanings for commonly used phrases only makes your writing
> > incomprehensible.
>
> Dana is bothered by the fact that I do not accept his made-up
> definitions of basic terms.
projection
> > Also, your concern with "ruining lives" shows that you are acting out of
> > malice, hatred, and jealousy, not something a Christian would do.
>
> Quite the contrary. Real Christians oppose, with all their heart and
> strength, the theory that says the Bible is false, that is, the theory
> that all Atheists accept, defend and promote.
What going against christ's teachings when some one says something
against your interpretation of the bible?
> Biblical veracity is a long settled fact.
If you think that then why sin to "protect" ghod?
> > > Atheists are of secondary importance, I am really after TEists like
> > > Miller and Dembski.
>
> > Dembski is not a theistic evolutionist.
>
> He claims to be a Christian while accepting microevolution,
> macroevolution, common descent and natural selection (except for the
> production of ultra-complex biological phenomena).
>
> > Dr. Miller is, but your
> > "paper" if it ever does get released, will have no more impact than a
> > spitwad against a battleship.
>
> I already know that evidence has no effect on the minds of Darwinists.
> But I have figured out a way to force the issue.
>
[snip]
Ah so you're a terrorist then.
Planning to blow up the world and bring us all to ghod?
That's the only way can think of a person like you could "force the
issue" of course it wouldn't force anything except the end of lives.
(i.e. another sin to add to your tally)
Dana Tweedy
Actually, Ray, no one has slandered you at all. Even if you use the
term correctly, speaking the truth is not slander.
> These actions presuppose
> the object (in this case myself) to represent a real and viable threat
> to the health of ToE.
Again, only in your wildest delusions. No on sees you as a threat,
Ray. You are only a source of amusement.
> This is why Boikey and others refused to answer
> the questions posed in the OP.
The "questions" were obviously sarcasm. Not surprising that you missed
it.
> They wanted to make it look like I made
> an outrageous claim and then disappeared without explanation.
Of course, you've done both.
> Just the
> opposite is true. Yes, I made an eye-opening claim----and I did not
> disappear.
You certainly ran away from any serious discussion of the evidence, and
you've failed utterly to provide any evidence to support your claims.
Now you are simply using the "paper" as a convenient hiding spot.
> My first post in this topic summarizes the entire
> situation.
The situation is that you ran away from any serious discussion, and are
pretending to be working on a "paper" that doesn't exist. You bluster,
and sputter, but produce nothing of note.
> I have posted such a message regularly, especially when
> someone wonders about the status of my book.
Which no one takes seriously.
> Yet these evos refuse to
> pass the message along, choosing to lie and sling their shit.
No one has to do anything but tell the truth to show your inability to
support your claims.
> Like I
> said they really believe that I had a Eureka moment.
No, "they" don't, Ray.
> Oh, by the way,
> did any of them mention that? If not, why not?
Because you haven't had any such "eureka" moment. If you had, you'd
have presented your evidence already. That you haven't, shows you have
nothing.
DJT
Dana Tweedy
> On Dec 8, 5:17 pm, Bruce Stephens<bruce+use...@cenderis.demon.co.uk>
> wrote:
>> Ray Martinez<pyramid...@yahoo.com> writes:
>>
>> [...]
>>
>>> My evo critics are simply slinging shit (howler monkeys protecting
>>> their turf) because they actually perceive and believe that I have
>>> something.
>>
>> I don't have that impression at all. Have you considered you might be
>> mistaken?
>>
>> [...]
>
> Darwinists only sling shit (slander/misrepresentation) at persons who
> pose a threat to their theory.
Actually, Ray, no one has done so to you, and you certainly show no
threat to evolution. If anyone has "slandered" (ie libeled) anyone,
it's you accused others here (including myself) of things you know to be
untrue. You've also badly misrepresented many things, including
recently, Darwin's claims about fossil record.
> Apparently these evos see something
> that you do not.
Or, Ray, you are just being delusional again.
> Whoever suffers the greatest slander attack the same
> is judged to represent the greatest danger to ToE.
Since no one opposing evolution has suffered any such "slander attack",
where do you get such an idea?
> Objective persons
> know that ToE is easy pickens for anyone who is intelligent.
Ray, you have no idea what "objective persons" know, and you also know
that there has been no intelligent opposition to evolution for at least
150 years.
> Contrary
> to the reputation of evo authorities in the secular world, no one in
> the religious world is the least bit impressed or intimidated.
The purpose of science is not to impress, or intimidate religion.
Religious leaders throughout the world have accepted evolution, and
modern religious thinkers have no problem with the theory.
> The
> best evidence against ToE is the claims of ToE (like mindlessness,
> which reflects the intellectuality of evo authorities).
This goes to show that Ray either entirely misunderstands the claims of
evolution, or simply is employing the "Big Lie" gambit again.
DJt
Charles Brenner
The above theory, while bizarre, is consistent with part of what you
observe from your tormentors. But it doesn't even begin to answer the
(friendly) objection that I posed, so it's a non-starter.
Boikat
Sorry, but it's been my experiance that any time someone makes a
claim, then refuses to back it up, and falls back on making all kinds
of excuses for not supporting their claim are liars. Ray has done
nothing to alter that.
Boikat
Boikat
Boikat
<snip>
Full stop. You don't have squat, except hot air, an over inflated
ego, delusions of adequacy, and little else.
Boikat
Boikat
> On Dec 8, 5:04 pm, Dana Tweedy <reddfr...@bresnan.net> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On 12/8/10 4:53 PM, Ray Martinez wrote:
>
> > > On Dec 8, 4:53 am, Devils Advocaat<mankyg...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
> > >> Ray if you have as you claim "irrefutable evidence" then that evidence
> > >> should be good enough on its own to destroy evolutionary theory in one
> > >> fell swoop.
>
> > >> So why not present the evidence as it is?
>
> > > Because without the surrounding structure, I won't be able to ruin
> > > your lives the way in which they deserve to be ruined.
>
> > Ray, if you actually had any rational argument the "surrounding
> > structure" would be superfluous. Present your claims, and let them be
> > evaluated for what they are. Trying to re-define terms, and make up
> > your own meanings for commonly used phrases only makes your writing
> > incomprehensible.
>
> Dana is bothered by the fact that I do not accept his made-up
> definitions of basic terms.
>
> > Also, your concern with "ruining lives" shows that you are acting out of
> > malice, hatred, and jealousy, not something a Christian would do.
>
> Quite the contrary. Real Christians oppose, with all their heart and
> strength, the theory that says the Bible is false, that is, the theory
> that all Atheists accept, defend and promote.
>
> Biblical veracity is a long settled fact.
I've asked for you evidence to support that claim, and as expected,
you never supported it.
<snip>
Boikat
Boikat
> On Dec 8, 4:53 am, Devils Advocaat <mankyg...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>
> > Ray if you have as you claim "irrefutable evidence" then that evidence
> > should be good enough on its own to destroy evolutionary theory in one
> > fell swoop.
>
> > So why not present the evidence as it is?
>
> Because without the surrounding structure, I won't be able to ruin
> your lives the way in which they deserve to be ruined.
Bullshit. You have nothing, everyone knows it, including you.
>
> Atheists are of secondary importance, I am really after TEists like
> Miller and Dembski.
I'm sure they would appreciat your joke.
Boikat
John S. Wilkins
> On Dec 8, 5:53 pm, Ray Martinez <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > On Dec 8, 4:53 am, Devils Advocaat <mankyg...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
> >
> > > Ray if you have as you claim "irrefutable evidence" then that evidence
> > > should be good enough on its own to destroy evolutionary theory in one
> > > fell swoop.
> >
> > > So why not present the evidence as it is?
> >
> > Because without the surrounding structure, I won't be able to ruin
> > your lives the way in which they deserve to be ruined.
>
> Bullshit. You have nothing, everyone knows it, including you.
I strong expect Ray will present a farrago of historical statements
misrepresenting the actual history (we've seen a bit of it here) along
with theological assertions as to the "meaning" of these ideas and
events. It's an old theologian's response to evolution: Charles Hodge
effectively redefined Darwinian theory as atheism in order to "rebut"
it.
>
> >
> > Atheists are of secondary importance, I am really after TEists like
> > Miller and Dembski.
>
> I'm sure they would appreciat your joke.
>
I think this is the crucial point. Creationists do not want to change
the minds of those who are not Christians. It is all about taking
control of the thoughts of their coreligionists; so theistic
evolutionists are the most worrisome to them. Odd, then, that for many
atheists, they are also the most worrisome. Me, I don't care what
someone's theology is, so long as their science is okay.
--
John S. Wilkins, Philosophy, Bond University
http://evolvingthoughts.net
But al be that he was a philosophre,
Yet hadde he but litel gold in cofre
Ernest Major
<eed9ee59-673e-40d8...@o23g2000prh.googlegroups.com>, Ray
Martinez <pyram...@yahoo.com> writes
>On Dec 8, 4:42 pm, Charles Brenner <cbren...@berkeley.edu> wrote:
>> On Dec 8, 3:49 pm, Ray Martinez <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> > On Dec 8, 8:25 am, Charles Brenner <cbren...@berkeley.edu> wrote:
>>
>> > > On Dec 8, 12:13 am, Boikat <boi...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>>
>> > > > On Dec 7, 10:57 pm, Charles Brenner <cbren...@berkeley.edu> wrote:
>>
>> > > > > On Dec 7, 1:18 pm, Boikat <boi...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>>
>> > > > > > On Dec 7, 2:34 pm, Ray Martinez <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>> > > > > > > I then announced that I will set no
>> > > > > > > more deadlines; that I am writing and researching full
>> > > > > > > my work will be worth the wait. I also announced that I had had a
>> > > > > > > Eureka moment, discovering irrefutable evidence that will
>> > > > > > >falsify the
>> > > > > > > scientific veracity of Darwinian evolution.
>>
>> > > > > > If, as you claim, you've "discovered irrefutabe evidence" that
>> > > > > > falsifies the ToE, then your "research" is already done. But, that
>> > > > > > was pointed out to you when you made the claim, and that
>> > > > > >was some time
>> > > > > > ago. So, like someone eho claims to have "irrefutable
>> > > > > >evidence" that
>> > > > > > "Sasquatch exists", and refuses to present the evidence, there is
>> > > > > > great doubt about your claim So would go so far as to say,
>> > > > > >
>>
>> > > > > Even with a concrete object like Sasquatch there would be
>> > > > >more work to
>> > > > > get the evidence into shape than you apparently can imagine, so even
>> > > > > accepting your analogy your implication is simplistic. And
>> > > > > isn't very good. If you had ever had the experience yourself
>> > > > > to explain a significantly novel discovery, especially if the
>> > > > >argument
>> > > > > involves some philosophically subtle component, you would have
>> > > > > experienced difficulties like Ray describes.
>>
>> > > > Except that Ray has had plenty of time since his announced
>> > > > "epiphany".
>>
>> > > "Plenty"? Sounds like an uninformed claim from someone who has never
>> > > themself prepared any paper for publication, let alone one in any way
>> > > comparable to Ray's. What if anything do you know about the amount of
>> > > time needed? I know a lot -- I recently published a paper that is
>> > > important for me and that took me 10 years after I first thought I had
>> > > the problem virtually licked ("epiphany").
>>
>> > Exactly my experience.
>>
>> > My evo critics are simply slinging shit (howler monkeys protecting
>> > their turf) because they actually perceive and believe that I have
>> > something.
>>
>> That I doubt and it makes no sense. If you actually have something
>> smart, why would you suspect that people who don't behave
>> intelligently do grasp it?- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> - Show quoted text -
>
>Slinging shit (or howling as it is known in these context, the same of
>which is slander) is how Darwinists operate.
How long have you been a Darwinist?
>These actions presuppose
>the object (in this case myself) to represent a real and viable threat
>to the health of ToE. This is why Boikey and others refused to answer
>the questions posed in the OP. They wanted to make it look like I made
>an outrageous claim and then disappeared without explanation. Just the
>opposite is true. Yes, I made an eye-opening claim----and I did not
>disappear. My first post in this topic summarizes the entire
>situation. I have posted such a message regularly, especially when
>someone wonders about the status of my book. Yet these evos refuse to
>pass the message along, choosing to lie and sling their shit. Like I
>said they really believe that I had a Eureka moment. Oh, by the way,
>did any of them mention that? If not, why not?
I am agnostic on the question as to whether you had a Eureka moment, but
your subsequent behaviour makes it look like that you're bluffing. If
you did have one (and haven't already recognised its flaws), if you gave
an outline of its content here, we could probably tell you what the
flaws are, and save you wasting more of your time.
>
>Ray
>
--
alias Ernest Major
Burkhard
Well, in between he published:
1838-43: Zoology of the Voyage of H.M.S. Beagle: published between
1839 and 1843 in five Parts (and nineteen numbers) by various authors,
edited and superintended by Charles Darwin, who contributed sections
to two of the Parts:
* 1838: Part 1 No. 1 Fossil Mammalia, by Richard Owen (Preface and
Geological introduction by Darwin)
* 1838: Part 2 No. 1 Mammalia, by George R. Waterhouse
(Geographical introduction and A notice of their habits and ranges by
Darwin)
1839: Journal and Remarks (The Voyage of the Beagle)
1842: The Structure and Distribution of Coral Reefs
1844: Geological Observations of Volcanic Islands
1846: Geological Observations on South America
1849: Geology from A Manual of scientific enquiry; prepared for the
use of Her Majesty's Navy: and adapted for travellers in general.,
John F.W. Herschel ed.
1851: A Monograph of the Sub-class Cirripedia, with Figures of all
the Species. The Lepadidae; or, Pedunculated Cirripedes.
1851: A Monograph on the Fossil Lepadidae, or, Pedunculated
Cirripedes of Great Britain
1854: A Monograph of the Sub-class Cirripedia, with Figures of all
the Species. The Balanidae (or Sessile Cirripedes); the Verrucidae,
etc.
1854: A Monograph on the Fossil Balanidæ and Verrucidæ of Great Britain
Frank J
Ray, you know darn well that Dembski is the exact opposite of a TE,
and that he even admitted that his ID is "no friend" of TE. Dembski
probably personally *believes* something like TE (despite throwing
bones to YECs, he is an old-Earth-old-lifer and never challenged Behe
on common descent). But he (and the DI in general) despises the TE
approach. Sure, they take more cheap shots at atheists, which
constantly undermines, at least to those who pay attention, their
pretense of only objecting to the science. But they have admitted that
TEs are their chief enemy.
BTW, I'm still waiting for your answers to my simple questions on the
other thread:
Frank J
Actually it will undermine efforts by other "kinds" of creationist,
and most likely call attention to the fatal weaknesses in his own
"theory." I think he has long realized that his best option is to just
keep delaying it indefinitely.
Frank J
OK, please remember this for the next time:
Dembski's admitted position on common descent is "not sure." Behe is
the one who fully conceded it. That Dembski has not challenged Behe
could mean that he privately knows that Behe is right, but thinks that
admitting CD is bad strategy. Or he may privately doubt it and just
think that debating other big-tenters is bad strategy. For the record
I strongly suspect the former.
Behe, and Dembski have both *criticized* "macroevolution". Given how
they bait-and-switch definitions one can never know what they mean by
"macroevolution," but both have clearly stated that they do not think
that certain species that share common ancestors descended from those
ancestors by "RM + NS." They are of course, very careful to avoid
proposing, much less testing, where (between which lineages) and when
(in geologic time, which thsy both accept) those exceptions to "RM +
NS" occurred. The few examples they give, e.g. "the" bacterial
flagellum, are sufficiently remote in time and relatedness to our
species that they are of no use to those who desperately want evidence
of a recent, independent origin of our species. Then again, those who
are that desperate will fantasize any anti-evolution sound bite as
validating their particular fairy tale.
>
> > Dr. Miller is, but your
> > "paper" if it ever does get released, will have no more impact than a
> > spitwad against a battleship.
>
> I already know that evidence has no effect on the minds of Darwinists.
> But I have figured out a way to force the issue.
>
> > Ray, you have no credibility and no one cares about the ravings of an
> > ignorant, and embittered nobody like yourself.
>
> > DJT
>
> Comment presupposes that other IDists have credibility with Dana the
> Darwinist.
>
> Ray (Paleyan IDist)- Hide quoted text -
Frank J
> Boikat <boi...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> > On Dec 8, 5:53 pm, Ray Martinez <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > On Dec 8, 4:53 am, Devils Advocaat <mankyg...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>
> > > > Ray if you have as you claim "irrefutable evidence" then that evidence
> > > > should be good enough on its own to destroy evolutionary theory in one
> > > > fell swoop.
>
> > > > So why not present the evidence as it is?
>
> > > Because without the surrounding structure, I won't be able to ruin
> > > your lives the way in which they deserve to be ruined.
>
> > Bullshit. You have nothing, everyone knows it, including you.
>
> I strong expect Ray will present a farrago of historical statements
> misrepresenting the actual history (we've seen a bit of it here) along
> with theological assertions as to the "meaning" of these ideas and
> events. It's an old theologian's response to evolution: Charles Hodge
> effectively redefined Darwinian theory as atheism in order to "rebut"
> it.
>
So we can expect a Hodge podge from Ray?
>
>
> > > Atheists are of secondary importance, I am really after TEists like
> > > Miller and Dembski.
>
> > I'm sure they would appreciat your joke.
>
> I think this is the crucial point. Creationists do not want to change
> the minds of those who are not Christians. It is all about taking
> control of the thoughts of their coreligionists; so theistic
> evolutionists are the most worrisome to them. Odd, then, that for many
> atheists, they are also the most worrisome. Me, I don't care what
> someone's theology is, so long as their science is okay.
> --
> John S. Wilkins, Philosophy, Bond Universityhttp://evolvingthoughts.net
John S. Wilkins
> On Dec 9, 3:27 am, j...@wilkins.id.au (John S. Wilkins) wrote:
> > Boikat <boi...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> > > On Dec 8, 5:53 pm, Ray Martinez <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > > On Dec 8, 4:53 am, Devils Advocaat <mankyg...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
> >
> > > > > Ray if you have as you claim "irrefutable evidence" then that evidence
> > > > > should be good enough on its own to destroy evolutionary theory in one
> > > > > fell swoop.
> >
> > > > > So why not present the evidence as it is?
> >
> > > > Because without the surrounding structure, I won't be able to ruin
> > > > your lives the way in which they deserve to be ruined.
> >
> > > Bullshit. You have nothing, everyone knows it, including you.
> >
> > I strong expect Ray will present a farrago of historical statements
> > misrepresenting the actual history (we've seen a bit of it here) along
> > with theological assertions as to the "meaning" of these ideas and
> > events. It's an old theologian's response to evolution: Charles Hodge
> > effectively redefined Darwinian theory as atheism in order to "rebut"
> > it.
> >
>
> So we can expect a Hodge podge from Ray?
I wish I'd said that, he said Wildely.
Charles Brenner
Is that really your experience, or just something you made up? In my
experience nailing someone down as telling an actual lie rather than
being confused or some other vague explanation is very rare, and even
those rare cases only occur when there is a tangible fact involved
rather than, as here, a person's state of mind. You may be (like Ray)
a person who often believes that others lie, but if you have the
actual confirmed experience that you claim you have an astonishing
life. So I suppose you are blowing smoke.
Boikat
Yup.
> or just something you made up?
You may now officially smeg off.
<snip>
Boikat
Earle Jones
<f541f18f-b4df-4974...@o4g2000yqd.googlegroups.com>,
Frank J <fc...@verizon.net> wrote:
*
Exactly! Ray holds center stage right now. Why would he do anything to
change the situation?
He has everyone on both sides of the creation/evolution discussion
talking about him. My guess is that he will keep doing what he has been
doing for the past ten years -- chanelling Gene Scott!
earle
*
Boikat
When asked if "Goddidit" was going to be the central to his "paper",
he replied "Emphatically, yes!". That pretty much settled the
question of scientific merit.
Boikat
gregwrld
> On Dec 8, 11:20 am, gregwrld <GCzeba...@msn.com> wrote:
> > > comparable to Ray's. What if anything do you know about the amount of
> > > time needed? I know a lot -- I recently published a paper that is
> > > important for me and that took me 10 years after I first thought I had
> > > the problem virtually licked ("epiphany").
>
> > > > excuses.
>
> > > he's making excuses based on the illogic that since *you* think (for
> > > no reason) that he's had "plenty of time", *he* should conclude the
> > > same.
>
> > > Whether or not he has nothing is a third issue, which can be, if you
> > > like, your fall-back position after retracting "lying" and "excuses".
>
> > If you were helping Ray write his paper would it
> > get done any quicker?
>
> Not a thought you would entertain if you'd read my previous post (the
> one on Dec 7). But even understanding that you are making a random
> post without realizing the context in which you are posting, sorry I
> can't imagine your possible point or the perspective from which you
> pose this counterfactual.
>
> > Just askin'...
>
> Ah, ok. Not thinking'. Got it.
Whoosh...
gregwrld
Charles Brenner
Considering my reaction to your answer I understand your feeling about
Ray. If Ray makes a bald and implausible claim like you have and then,
when called upon to justify it responded in as shirty fashion as you
do (he doesn't -- not quite), one would be inclined to believe he
lied.
Scott Balneaves
> On Dec 8, 4:53 am, Devils Advocaat <mankyg...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>> Ray if you have as you claim "irrefutable evidence" then that evidence
>> should be good enough on its own to destroy evolutionary theory in one
>> fell swoop.
>>
>> So why not present the evidence as it is?
>
> Because without the surrounding structure, I won't be able to ruin
> your lives the way in which they deserve to be ruined.
Our lives "deserve" to be ruined? Who decided this?
Scott Balneaves
> On Dec 8, 5:04 pm, Dana Tweedy <reddfr...@bresnan.net> wrote:
>> On 12/8/10 4:53 PM, Ray Martinez wrote:
>>
>> > On Dec 8, 4:53 am, Devils Advocaat<mankyg...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>> >> Ray if you have as you claim "irrefutable evidence" then that evidence
>> >> should be good enough on its own to destroy evolutionary theory in one
>> >> fell swoop.
>>
>> >> So why not present the evidence as it is?
>>
>> > Because without the surrounding structure, I won't be able to ruin
>> > your lives the way in which they deserve to be ruined.
>>
>> structure" would be superfluous. Present your claims, and let them be
>> evaluated for what they are. Trying to re-define terms, and make up
>> your own meanings for commonly used phrases only makes your writing
>> incomprehensible.
>>
>
> definitions of basic terms.
>
>> malice, hatred, and jealousy, not something a Christian would do.
>>
>
> strength, the theory that says the Bible is false, that is, the theory
> that all Atheists accept, defend and promote.
>
> Biblical veracity is a long settled fact.
If that's true, why does atheism, Islam, Hinduism, Buddhism, et al, exist?
>> > Atheists are of secondary importance, I am really after TEists like
>> > Miller and Dembski.
>>
>> Dembski is not a theistic evolutionist.
>
> He claims to be a Christian while accepting microevolution,
> macroevolution, common descent and natural selection (except for the
> production of ultra-complex biological phenomena).
>
>> Dr. Miller is, but your
>> "paper" if it ever does get released, will have no more impact than a
>> spitwad against a battleship.
>>
>
> I already know that evidence has no effect on the minds of Darwinists.
> But I have figured out a way to force the issue.
I can hardly wait myself.
Ray, I will go on record, right here, right now, in offering to pay you
$100.00 USD, by certified cheque or paypal, in exchange for what you have of your
paper *at this very moment.* You send me your address, I send you the money,
and when it's sitting pretty in your bank acount, just e-mail me a .doc or a
.pdf.
sbal...@alburg.net, should you decide to take me up on the offer.
I will abide by all provisions of American Copyright Law.
Boikat
Ray responded to requests for his evidence with evasions and excuses.
"Shirty" or otherwise, he lied, or he would have presented his
evidence, which he already claims is irrefutable, therefore, no more
research is needed. Catching on yet?
Boikat
Boikat
Makes you wonder if his trolly has slipped the tracks like nando's?
But, then again, that's been Raytards claim all along.
Boikat
Ray Martinez
> Boikat <boi...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> > On Dec 8, 5:53 pm, Ray Martinez <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > On Dec 8, 4:53 am, Devils Advocaat <mankyg...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>
> > > > Ray if you have as you claim "irrefutable evidence" then that evidence
> > > > should be good enough on its own to destroy evolutionary theory in one
> > > > fell swoop.
>
> > > > So why not present the evidence as it is?
>
> > > Because without the surrounding structure, I won't be able to ruin
> > > your lives the way in which they deserve to be ruined.
>
> > Bullshit. You have nothing, everyone knows it, including you.
>
> I strong expect Ray will present a farrago of historical statements
The single reason-for-being purpose of John Wilkins and Talk.Origins
is to deny the pro-Atheism history and position of Darwinism. Since
very many 'Christians' are evolutionists, they consider their endeavor
to be a sacred duty.
> (we've seen a bit of it here) along
> with theological assertions as to the "meaning" of these ideas and
> events. It's an old theologian's response to evolution: Charles Hodge
> effectively redefined Darwinian theory as atheism in order to "rebut"
> it.
>
As if the rabid and unanimous accceptance of Darwinism by Atheists
does not indicate evolution to be using pro-Atheism assumptions and
coming to pro-Atheism conclusions.
Wilkins epitomizes the short-sighted revisionist. He thinks he can act
as if the bull is somehow concealed in the china shop. History shows
that his kind have their day, then fade, having wasted their lives.
Since the Reformation, the Bible always exists and remains in a state
of triumph.
>
>
> > > Atheists are of secondary importance, I am really after TEists like
> > > Miller and Dembski.
>
> > I'm sure they would appreciat your joke.
>
> I think this is the crucial point. Creationists do not want to change
> the minds of those who are not Christians. It is all about taking
> control of the thoughts of their coreligionists; so theistic
> evolutionists are the most worrisome to them. Odd, then, that for many
> atheists, they are also the most worrisome. Me, I don't care what
> someone's theology is, so long as their science is okay.
> --
> John S. Wilkins, Philosophy, Bond Universityhttp://evolvingthoughts.net
> But al be that he was a philosophre,
> Yet hadde he but litel gold in cofre
Don't get me wrong, I am a very enthusiastic player in the Us & Them-
and-everyone-else-stay-out-of-our-business game. But the Thems (=
Atheists) are easy prey. It is the Atheists in sheeps clothing who are
the hardest to defeat because of the amount of time and text needed to
establish word definitions.
Ray
Ray Martinez
Evangelicals, anti-evolutionists. Darwinism is a cancer. It has
deceived and ruined the lives of tens of millions of people, while
singlehandedly corrupting the U.S. Constitution, our society and our
culture.
Prior to 1883, in England, Atheism was illegal to propagate. It only
became legal when Judge(s), who were influenced by the triumph of
Darwinism, ruled otherwise.
Ray (Protestant Evangelical, species immutabilist)
RichD
> You see, even though it had been postponed for a couple
> years already, back then I'm pretty sure that Ray was on
> the cusp of publishing the ultimate proof of the existence
> of the God, which was going to totally destroy any evidence for
> evolution, the Big Bang, and any concept of
> universe older than 6,000 years, etc. It was also going to prove
> that Creation only took 6 24-hour earth days,
> after which the Creator took Sunday off to watch his favorite
> NFL team, presumably, the Saints.
Or maybe the Cardinals -
Wouldn't it be funny, if Allah really does exist,
and created the universe just as the Koran says,
all the fossils and everything are fake, just to
fool everyone? Like he's a big cosmic joker.
That would be funny.
--
Rich
Boikat
> On Dec 9, 1:58 pm, Scott Balneaves <sbaln...@alburg.net> wrote:
>
> > Ray Martinez <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > On Dec 8, 4:53 am, Devils Advocaat <mankyg...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
> > >> Ray if you have as you claim "irrefutable evidence" then that evidence
> > >> should be good enough on its own to destroy evolutionary theory in one
> > >> fell swoop.
>
> > >> So why not present the evidence as it is?
>
> > > Because without the surrounding structure, I won't be able to ruin
> > > your lives the way in which they deserve to be ruined.
>
> > Our lives "deserve" to be ruined? Who decided this?
>
> Evangelicals, anti-evolutionists. Darwinism is a cancer.
Saya who?
> It has
> deceived and ruined the lives of tens of millions of people,
How? Examples?
> while
> singlehandedly corrupting the U.S. Constitution, our society and our
> culture.
<sniff> I smell bullshit.
>
> Prior to 1883, in England, Atheism was illegal to propagate. It only
> became legal when Judge(s), who were influenced by the triumph of
> Darwinism, ruled otherwise.
Awwwwwwwwwww....... So?
Boikat
John Harshman
Do you think atheism should be illegal to propagate?
Boikat
That's what they make dictionaries for, idiot. What you mean is that
you want everyone to use *your* personal definitions. As I recall,
one of your delaying tactics was claiming you had to write your own
glossery. Sorry to break it to you, but your personal definitions
will not damage the ToE, much less destroy the ToE or ruin anyone's
lives.
Boikat
Tom McDonald
<snip>
> Don't get me wrong, I am a very enthusiastic player in the Us & Them-
> and-everyone-else-stay-out-of-our-business game. But the Thems (=
> Atheists) are easy prey. It is the Atheists in sheeps clothing who are
> the hardest to defeat because of the amount of time and text needed to
> establish word definitions.
So we will be treated to a whole glossary of terms like 'cannibal'? I
can't wait.
The best way for you to ruin this theistic evolutionist's life is to
not finish your paper. I have nothing else to live for. :-)
Ray Martinez
>
> I will abide by all provisions of American Copyright Law.
>
>
>
>
>
> >> Ray, you have no credibility and no one cares about the ravings of an
> >> ignorant, and embittered nobody like yourself.
>
> >> DJT
>
> > Comment presupposes that other IDists have credibility with Dana the
> > Darwinist.
>
>
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
I will post a juicy excerpt immediately if you can provide ANY
evidence supporting species modification accomplished by an unguided
material agent or process. Of course this is the very reason why I am
producing such a work. I can prove that species are immutable.
Science, before 1859, remains correct.
Ray
Ray Martinez
>
> - Show quoted text -
That's right; and none of these works are about the origin of species
(evolution).
Ray
Ray Martinez
>
> - Show quoted text -
Unless the Biblical Creator (Master Scientist) is involved, it aint
scientific.
Ray
Ray Martinez
> On 12/8/10 8:28 PM, Ray Martinez wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Dec 8, 5:04 pm, Dana Tweedy<reddfr...@bresnan.net> wrote:
>
> >>> On Dec 8, 4:53 am, Devils Advocaat<mankyg...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
> >>>> Ray if you have as you claim "irrefutable evidence" then that evidence
> >>>> should be good enough on its own to destroy evolutionary theory in one
> >>>> fell swoop.
>
> >>>> So why not present the evidence as it is?
>
> >>> Because without the surrounding structure, I won't be able to ruin
> >>> your lives the way in which they deserve to be ruined.
>
> >> structure" would be superfluous. Present your claims, and let them be
> >> evaluated for what they are. Trying to re-define terms, and make up
> >> your own meanings for commonly used phrases only makes your writing
> >> incomprehensible.
>
> > Dana is bothered by the fact that I do not accept his made-up
> > definitions of basic terms.
>
> common terms. I'm hardly "bothered" that Ray is unwilling to use common
> accepted definitions.
>
>
>
> >> Also, your concern with "ruining lives" shows that you are acting out of
> >> malice, hatred, and jealousy, not something a Christian would do.
>
> > Quite the contrary. Real Christians oppose, with all their heart and
> > strength, the theory that says the Bible is false, that is, the theory
> > that all Atheists accept, defend and promote.
>
> times. Furthermore, as Ray already knows, not all atheists "accept"
> "defend" or "promote" the theory of evolution. Even if they did, it
> wouldn't matter to the veracity of evolutionary theory.
>
>
>
> > Biblical veracity is a long settled fact.
>
>
>
>
> >>> Atheists are of secondary importance, I am really after TEists like
> >>> Miller and Dembski.
>
>
> > He claims to be a Christian while accepting microevolution,
> > macroevolution, common descent and natural selection (except for the
> > production of ultra-complex biological phenomena).
>
>
>
>
> >> Dr. Miller is, but your
> >> "paper" if it ever does get released, will have no more impact than a
> >> spitwad against a battleship.
>
> > I already know that evidence has no effect on the minds of Darwinists.
>
> the evidence.
>
> > But I have figured out a way to force the issue.
>
>
>
>
> >> Ray, you have no credibility and no one cares about the ravings of an
> >> ignorant, and embittered nobody like yourself.
>
> >> DJT
>
> > Comment presupposes that other IDists have credibility with Dana the
> > Darwinist.
>
> no credibility doesn't mean that any other IDist has scientific
> credibility either.
>
That's the point, Einstein. No IDist has any credibility in your eyes
or the eyes of any Darwinist. So when you say I have no credibility, I
don't feel slighted.
Ray
[....]
Boikat
Until you present evidence to support the claimed *existence* of your,
so called, "biblical creator", it ain't science, it's accertion
without evidence, and relies on your personal blind faith.
As was said when you admitted that "Goddidit" was central to your
"thesis" many years ago, any scientific validity of your "thesis" just
flew out the window. That still applies, and therefore, your thesis
is of no threat to the ToE, and (not that anyone was concerned)
"darwinsist", however you define them, will sleep just as well after
you post your crap as they have in the past.
But keep up the bluster. Like I said, you're the longest running joke
on T.O.
Boikat
Prof Weird
> On Dec 9, 2:06 pm, Scott Balneaves <sbaln...@alburg.net> wrote:
(massive snip of standard Raytardian gibbertwittery)
> I will post a juicy excerpt immediately if you can provide ANY
> evidence supporting species modification accomplished by an unguided
> material agent or process.
Bacteria that can digest nylon (or any other of hundreds of recently
synthesized compounds that do not exist in nature).
Herbicide resistance in plants.
Antibiotic resistance in bacteria.
Insecticide resistance in insects.
Transposon tagging in labs - the flies are bred, but where (or IF) the
transposon integrates is NOT under control of any intelligent agent.
The lizards of Pod Mrcaru - they developed caecal valves in their
intestine THAT THE PARENTAL SPECIES LACKED.
Brassicae - cabbages, broccoli, kale, brussel sprouts, kohlrabi,
spring greens, romanescu, cauliflower are ALL derived from the wild
cabbage. "Cabbages are a vegetable affront to essentialism and the
immutability of species" - "The Greatest Show On Earth", Richard
Dawkins.
Selective breeding of dogs, cattle, cats, etc. Breeders can only work
with variants that arise (and no, screaming bible verses at them will
NOT influence what traits manifest).
The mice of Gough island - they are three times larger than usual
mice, AND CARNIVOROUS !
Species were modified by known mechanisms; no intervention by Magical
Sky Pixies required.
> Of course this is the very reason why I am
> producing such a work. I can prove that species are immutable.
RiiIIiiIIiight ! You usually 'prove' that by redefining words on the
fly - if reality contradicts your delusions, you declare that reality
is in error (and all that report about it are Satan-deluded liars)
> Science, before 1859, remains correct.
Too bad that, IN REALITY, science advances with every new discovery.
You are at least 150 years out of date !
Dana Tweedy
> On Dec 8, 8:09 pm, Dana Tweedy<reddfr...@bresnan.net> wrote:
>>> Comment presupposes that other IDists have credibility with Dana the
>>> Darwinist.
>>
>> Where does my statement have any such "presupposition"? That you have
>> no credibility doesn't mean that any other IDist has scientific
>> credibility either.
>>
>
> That's the point, Einstein.
If that was your "point", Ray, you phrased it very badly.
Your assertion was that my comment "presupposes" that other IDists
have any credibility. That is, of course untrue. Calling me a
"Darwinist" is meaningless, as I have no real preference for what
particular mechanism of evolutionary change is dominant in evolution. I
think Darwin was probably right about part of the mechanism, but his
knowledge was incomplete.
> No IDist has any credibility in your eyes
> or the eyes of any Darwinist.
That's because ID doesn't have any scientific credibility. It's not
because I am a "Darwinist" as you claim, but because ID is not science.
It wouldn't matter if I accepted, or rejected Darwin's ideas about the
particular mechanism of evolutionary change.
Creationism is a religious belief, not science.
> So when you say I have no credibility, I
> don't feel slighted.
Ray, the whole point is that you don't have *any* scientific
credibility. Making claims about science is pointless for you, because
no one who has any education or influence in science takes anything you
say seriously. It's not just me, but anyone who knows even a little
about about how science works.
That other creationists also are not credible doesn't add any
credibility to your own fantasies.
DJT
Dana Tweedy
> On Dec 9, 2:06 pm, Scott Balneaves<sbaln...@alburg.net> wrote:
>
> I will post a juicy excerpt immediately if you can provide ANY
> evidence supporting species modification accomplished by an unguided
> material agent or process.
Sure, Ray: Here's one piece of evidence ie. "Variation is found in all
populations of reproducing organisms".
Another piece of evidence: Organisms produce more offspring than can
possibly survive.
> Of course this is the very reason why I am
> producing such a work. I can prove that species are immutable.
Actually, Ray, it's quite easy to show that species are mutable, and the
fact of variation in populations insures that species must change over
time.
> Science, before 1859, remains correct.
The doctrine of species immutability was shown to be wrong even before
1859, Ray. That's why Darwin's work was accepted so quickly after
presenting it. Science was ready to accept that the older idea was wrong.
DJT
Dana Tweedy
Actually, Ray it's quite the contrary. If you propose a supernatural
actor as an explanation, your idea is religious, not scientific.
DJT
Dana Tweedy
> On Dec 9, 12:27 am, j...@wilkins.id.au (John S. Wilkins) wrote:
>> Boikat<boi...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>>> On Dec 8, 5:53 pm, Ray Martinez<pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>> On Dec 8, 4:53 am, Devils Advocaat<mankyg...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>>>>> Ray if you have as you claim "irrefutable evidence" then that evidence
>>>>> should be good enough on its own to destroy evolutionary theory in one
>>>>> fell swoop.
>>
>>>>> So why not present the evidence as it is?
>>
>>>> Because without the surrounding structure, I won't be able to ruin
>>>> your lives the way in which they deserve to be ruined.
>>
>>> Bullshit. You have nothing, everyone knows it, including you.
>>
>> I strong expect Ray will present a farrago of historical statements
>> misrepresenting the actual history [....]
>
> The single reason-for-being purpose of John Wilkins and Talk.Origins
> is to deny the pro-Atheism history and position of Darwinism.
Ray, there is no "pro atheism" history, or position of "Darwinism".
Darwin's ideas were scientific, which doesn't support atheism, or
theistic ideas.
> Since
> very many 'Christians' are evolutionists, they consider their endeavor
> to be a sacred duty.
Really? Do you have any evidence of that assertion? Evolution is a
scientific theory, not a religious belief. It isn't anyone's "sacred
duty".
>
>> (we've seen a bit of it here) along
>> with theological assertions as to the "meaning" of these ideas and
>> events. It's an old theologian's response to evolution: Charles Hodge
>> effectively redefined Darwinian theory as atheism in order to "rebut"
>> it.
>>
>
> As if the rabid and unanimous accceptance of Darwinism by Atheists
> does not indicate evolution to be using pro-Atheism assumptions and
> coming to pro-Atheism conclusions.
As Ray already knows, the acceptance of evolution among atheists is
neither "unanimous" or "rabid". Evolution is accepted by reasonable
persons of all religious traditions, and those who believe in no
religious beliefs. This is because evolution is good science. Any
"pro atheism" assumptions are Ray's and Ray's alone.
>
> Wilkins epitomizes the short-sighted revisionist. He thinks he can act
> as if the bull is somehow concealed in the china shop.
Mixed metaphors! Get your freshly mixed metaphors here!
> History shows
> that his kind have their day, then fade, having wasted their lives.
What "history" has shown this?
> Since the Reformation, the Bible always exists and remains in a state
> of triumph.
Ray, the Bible is a book of religious beliefs. As far as science is
concerned it's nothing more, or less. While the Bible certainly
exists, it's not considered a source of scientific information, and
hasn't been since before Newton.
>
>>
>>
>>>> Atheists are of secondary importance, I am really after TEists like
>>>> Miller and Dembski.
>>
>>> I'm sure they would appreciat your joke.
>>
>> I think this is the crucial point. Creationists do not want to change
>> the minds of those who are not Christians. It is all about taking
>> control of the thoughts of their coreligionists; so theistic
>> evolutionists are the most worrisome to them. Odd, then, that for many
>> atheists, they are also the most worrisome. Me, I don't care what
>> someone's theology is, so long as their science is okay.
>> --
>> John S. Wilkins, Philosophy, Bond Universityhttp://evolvingthoughts.net
>> But al be that he was a philosophre,
>> Yet hadde he but litel gold in cofre
>
> Don't get me wrong, I am a very enthusiastic player in the Us& Them-
> and-everyone-else-stay-out-of-our-business game. But the Thems (=
> Atheists) are easy prey.
Ray, the vast majority of atheists are much more intelligent than you
are, admittedly that's not saying much.
> It is the Atheists in sheeps clothing who are
> the hardest to defeat because of the amount of time and text needed to
> establish word definitions.
Again, Ray, making up "definitions" of commonly used words and phrases
is unnecessary, and only makes your writing incomprehensible. It's
clear that you are trying to re-define things because you know you will
lose using standard meanings.
DJT