There are a few new faces since the July thread, but you can find the various accounts for some of the regulars in the July post. I'm not going to repeat a lot of background, anyone interested can go back to the July post below. Google also has a feature where you can look up the profiles of the posters and find a lot of their old posts. http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/a01f009ef41f9647?hl=en
I usually take a random post as an example. In fact if the post is too far gone I usually pick another so that no one can claim that I am picking on this group of posters. To get the full effect you probably don’t have to go to more than 20 posts from any of these guys to find out how bogus they and their arguments are. As adman found out last quarter the title of this thread isn’t just mocking how mentally incompetent these posters are, but this is the entire list of those that I have found currently posting on the anti-evolution side. “Ye shall know them by their fruits.” http://www.bartleby.com/108/40/7.html
These are the fruits of anti-evolution religious bigotry. What should that tell any thinking human being? One thing that you will be hard pressed to find is anyone claiming to have an honest and valid anti- evolution argument. All the regulars except addledman know that they have none. They know this with enough conviction that they are not willing to even try to put one forward any longer. They have tried hundreds and they have all blown up in their faces. Just follow this thread and see if any of the regulars puts up their version of an honest and valid argument. All they have to do is tell us what the argument is and what it means to them, give us a reference to the argument so we can look it up ourselves and sit back and be educated. Any lurker can get their feet wet by trying this 2 or 3 times or however many times it takes to get the same message. You have to have a thick skin because these arguments were usually bogus when they were made up, and there isn’t much tolerance for people still ignorant enough to be fooled by them. Just ask adman about the “moondust” argument or any of the hundreds of others that he has tried.
For the majority of Christians in developed countries anti-evolution is not part of their theology. This seems to dumbfound the religious bigots. Guys like Ray and adman have both claimed that even the other isn’t a real Christian. It is that sad. They know who the real ChristiansTM are, they just can't agree among themselves. There is the Clergy Letter project that has a list of 10,000 clergy that are not anti-evolution. They have started a Rabbi list too. http://www.butler.edu/clergyproject/rel_evol_sun.htm
The following is not a random sample but a threefer in the same thread with Ray crying for help. NashT does about the same thing, and adman smears people that aren’t even posting. When you read their posts you should always have the psychiatric term of projection firmly fixed in your mind. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychological_projection
Glenn? Where has Glenn gone? Pitman is also MIA. Gabriel posted a couple of weeks ago.
More new guys than usual have shown up recently. This is likely due to the hype about Darwin’s birthday. As I have mentioned the regulars are a select group. They are the ignorant, incompetent and/or dishonest that just can’t give up even though they realize that they never had an argument. Most of the newbies will just give up when the realization hits them that they have no valid arguments, some will become hard and bitter like NashT and Glenn and only poke from the snide lines, and others will cluelessly natter on like adman. Not a bright future for any of them.
evolutionguru: Another deluded guy with a misnomer as a tag. One that is stupid enough to use arguments that have been so thoroughly refuted that a major creationist organization tells their followers not to use them anymore. http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/62ad5e241bff4105?hl=en
> There are a few new faces since the July thread, but you can find the > various accounts for some of the regulars in the July post. I'm not > going to repeat a lot of background, anyone interested can go back to > the July post below. Google also has a feature where you can look up > the profiles of the posters and find a lot of their old posts.http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/a01f009ef41f9647?hl=en
> I usually take a random post as an example. In fact if the post is > too far gone I usually pick another so that no one can claim that I am > picking on this group of posters. To get the full effect you probably > don’t have to go to more than 20 posts from any of these guys to find > out how bogus they and their arguments are. As adman found out last > quarter the title of this thread isn’t just mocking how mentally > incompetent these posters are, but this is the entire list of those > that I have found currently posting on the anti-evolution side. “Ye > shall know them by their fruits.”http://www.bartleby.com/108/40/7.html
> These are the fruits of anti-evolution religious bigotry. What should > that tell any thinking human being? One thing that you will be hard > pressed to find is anyone claiming to have an honest and valid anti- > evolution argument. All the regulars except addledman know that they > have none. They know this with enough conviction that they are not > willing to even try to put one forward any longer. They have tried > hundreds and they have all blown up in their faces. Just follow this > thread and see if any of the regulars puts up their version of an > honest and valid argument. All they have to do is tell us what the > argument is and what it means to them, give us a reference to the > argument so we can look it up ourselves and sit back and be educated. > Any lurker can get their feet wet by trying this 2 or 3 times or > however many times it takes to get the same message. You have to have > a thick skin because these arguments were usually bogus when they were > made up, and there isn’t much tolerance for people still ignorant > enough to be fooled by them. Just ask adman about the “moondust” > argument or any of the hundreds of others that he has tried.
> For the majority of Christians in developed countries anti-evolution > is not part of their theology. This seems to dumbfound the religious > bigots. Guys like Ray and adman have both claimed that even the other > isn’t a real Christian. It is that sad. They know who the real > ChristiansTM are, they just can't agree among themselves. There is > the Clergy Letter project that has a list of 10,000 clergy that are > not anti-evolution. They have started a Rabbi list too.http://www.butler.edu/clergyproject/rel_evol_sun.htm
> The following is not a random sample but a threefer in the same thread > with Ray crying for help. NashT does about the same thing, and adman > smears people that aren’t even posting. When you read their posts you > should always have the psychiatric term of projection firmly fixed in > your mind.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychological_projection
Most evolution-deniers (and evolution-misrepresenters who may or may not personally doubt evolution) are degenerating from supporting, or even vaguely defending, their particular alternetive. Tactically that's godd, because it avoids calling attention to the fatal flaws in their position and how contradicts other common creationist positions. But Ray is degenerating the opposite way. While he still evades key questions about his particular version, he is less evasive than most, and more willing to criticize other creationists. His defenses may sound more "out there" (e.g. denying "microevolution" too) IMO they say far more about creationists/IDers who refuse to challenge him than they do about him.
Nashton is the most pathetic. Reduced to being a "cheerleader to the trolls". BTW I'm not convinced that [M]adman and Spin are not Lokis. If they are, the cheerleading would be even more pathetic.
> More new guys than usual have shown up recently. This is likely due > to the hype about Darwin’s birthday. As I have mentioned the regulars > are a select group. They are the ignorant, incompetent and/or > dishonest that just can’t give up even though they realize that they > never had an argument. Most of the newbies will just give up when the > realization hits them that they have no valid arguments, some will > become hard and bitter like NashT and Glenn and only poke from the > snide lines, and others will cluelessly natter on like adman. Not a > bright future for any of them.
> evolutionguru: Another deluded guy with a misnomer as a tag. One > that is stupid enough to use arguments that have been so thoroughly > refuted that a major creationist organization tells their followers > not to use them anymore.http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/62ad5e241bff4105?hl=en
Ron O wrote: > There are a few new faces since the July thread, but you can find the > various accounts for some of the regulars in the July post. I'm not > going to repeat a lot of background, anyone interested can go back to > the July post below. Google also has a feature where you can look up > the profiles of the posters and find a lot of their old posts. > http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/a01f009ef41f9647?hl=en
> I usually take a random post as an example. In fact if the post is > too far gone I usually pick another so that no one can claim that I am > picking on this group of posters. To get the full effect you probably > don’t have to go to more than 20 posts from any of these guys to find > out how bogus they and their arguments are. As adman found out last > quarter the title of this thread isn’t just mocking how mentally > incompetent these posters are, but this is the entire list of those > that I have found currently posting on the anti-evolution side. “Ye > shall know them by their fruits.” > http://www.bartleby.com/108/40/7.html
> These are the fruits of anti-evolution religious bigotry. What should > that tell any thinking human being? One thing that you will be hard > pressed to find is anyone claiming to have an honest and valid anti- > evolution argument.
Please, let's distinguish "honest" from "valid."
There cannot be *any* "valid" anti-evolution arguments--since the evidence is 100% clear that evolution of species indisputably happened. That ship has sailed.
But there can at least be *honest* arguments from sincere creationists, who at least state *their* model of the story of life on Earth, and who try to logically argue for it.
I regard Ray Martinez and Suzanne and "TheMac37" as sincere. Each in his own way has told us what they truly believe. They generally eschew rhetorical tricks and sophistries.
"TheMac37" comes closest to an old-style creationist like Henry Morris, whom I believe was sincere too (though flat wrong).
I don't put any of these three in the same category as the trolls like "All-Seeing-I".
And these three don't deserve to be abused like the trolls.
-- Steven L. Email: sdlit...@earthlinkNOSPAM.net Remove the NOSPAM before replying to me.
>Ron O wrote: >> There are a few new faces since the July thread, but you can find the >> various accounts for some of the regulars in the July post. I'm not >> going to repeat a lot of background, anyone interested can go back to >> the July post below. Google also has a feature where you can look up >> the profiles of the posters and find a lot of their old posts. >> http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/a01f009ef41f9647?hl=3De= >n >>=20 >> I usually take a random post as an example. In fact if the post is >> too far gone I usually pick another so that no one can claim that I am >> picking on this group of posters. To get the full effect you probably >> don=92t have to go to more than 20 posts from any of these guys to find >> out how bogus they and their arguments are. As adman found out last >> quarter the title of this thread isn=92t just mocking how mentally >> incompetent these posters are, but this is the entire list of those >> that I have found currently posting on the anti-evolution side. =93Ye >> shall know them by their fruits.=94 >> http://www.bartleby.com/108/40/7.html >>=20 >> These are the fruits of anti-evolution religious bigotry. What should >> that tell any thinking human being? One thing that you will be hard >> pressed to find is anyone claiming to have an honest and valid anti- >> evolution argument. =20
>Please, let's distinguish "honest" from "valid."
>There cannot be *any* "valid" anti-evolution arguments--since the=20 >evidence is 100% clear that evolution of species indisputably happened.=20 > That ship has sailed.
>But there can at least be *honest* arguments from sincere creationists,=20 >who at least state *their* model of the story of life on Earth, and who=20 >try to logically argue for it.
>I regard Ray Martinez and Suzanne and "TheMac37" as sincere. Each in his=20 >own way has told us what they truly believe. They generally eschew=20 >rhetorical tricks and sophistries.
>"TheMac37" comes closest to an old-style creationist like Henry Morris,=20 >whom I believe was sincere too (though flat wrong).
>I don't put any of these three in the same category as the trolls like=20 >"All-Seeing-I".
>And these three don't deserve to be abused like the trolls.
Has anyone stated a model of the story of life on Earth from a YEC point of view - other than an Omphalos model, with things having the appearance of age (trees with tree rings, starlight from distant stars, animals with acquired knowledge)? Or from any other creationist point of view?
-- ---Tom S. the failure to nail currant jelly to a wall is not due to the nail; it is due to the currant jelly. Theodore Roosevelt, Letter to William Thayer, 1915 July 2
Most of the rest are simply boring loons. Nando is an interesting loon. I grant that he has the usual "I am bright and you guys are stupid" syndrome. Much of his discourse is simply a litany of insults and dubious claims. However he is coming from an interesting place.
Consider his proposition that there is freedom when things can happen one way or another. This actually accords with a common usage. Thus, when we talk about a physical system we talk about constraints and degrees of freedom. In this kind of usage, freedom merely means that action is not completely constrained.
Then there is that business about choice. Consider the motion of the moon. We can calculate its movement with consider precision but not perfectly. In other words it can go one way or another. Nando would say that it exercised a choice. That sounds odd to us because the moon has no mind and without a mind how can choosing be done. One can argue contrariwise that choice happened, ergo choice can be made mindlessly. Then again one can argue that there is no choice, merely an absence of knowledge on our part of all of the constraints. That argument, however, is an enormous act of unverifiable faith.
Underneath all of the bluster and massive failures of reading comprehension there is an interesting structure of ideas, a whole world view. It may be ultimately inconsistent but I don't think that it necessarily is; what is more likely is that the meaning of his words slither and slide as he slithers and slides from one sentence to another.
Richard Harter, c...@tiac.net http://home.tiac.net/~cri, http://www.varinoma.com Infinity is one of those things that keep philosophers busy when they could be more profitably spending their time weeding their garden.
> "On Sat, 14 Nov 2009 12:49:35 -0500, in article > <pa6dnf4j1LMzcGPXnZ2dnUVZ_gedn...@earthlink.com>, Steven L. stated..."
> >Ron O wrote: > >> There are a few new faces since the July thread, but you can find the > >> various accounts for some of the regulars in the July post. I'm not > >> going to repeat a lot of background, anyone interested can go back to > >> the July post below. Google also has a feature where you can look up > >> the profiles of the posters and find a lot of their old posts. > >>http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/a01f009ef41f9647?hl=3De= > >n > >>=20 > >> I usually take a random post as an example. In fact if the post is > >> too far gone I usually pick another so that no one can claim that I am > >> picking on this group of posters. To get the full effect you probably > >> don=92t have to go to more than 20 posts from any of these guys to find > >> out how bogus they and their arguments are. As adman found out last > >> quarter the title of this thread isn=92t just mocking how mentally > >> incompetent these posters are, but this is the entire list of those > >> that I have found currently posting on the anti-evolution side. =93Ye > >> shall know them by their fruits.=94 > >>http://www.bartleby.com/108/40/7.html > >>=20 > >> These are the fruits of anti-evolution religious bigotry. What should > >> that tell any thinking human being? One thing that you will be hard > >> pressed to find is anyone claiming to have an honest and valid anti- > >> evolution argument. =20
> >Please, let's distinguish "honest" from "valid."
> >There cannot be *any* "valid" anti-evolution arguments--since the=20 > >evidence is 100% clear that evolution of species indisputably happened.=20 > > That ship has sailed.
> >But there can at least be *honest* arguments from sincere creationists,=20 > >who at least state *their* model of the story of life on Earth, and who=20 > >try to logically argue for it.
> >I regard Ray Martinez and Suzanne and "TheMac37" as sincere. Each in his=20 > >own way has told us what they truly believe. They generally eschew=20 > >rhetorical tricks and sophistries.
> >"TheMac37" comes closest to an old-style creationist like Henry Morris,=20 > >whom I believe was sincere too (though flat wrong).
> >I don't put any of these three in the same category as the trolls like=20 > >"All-Seeing-I".
> >And these three don't deserve to be abused like the trolls.
> Has anyone stated a model of the story of life on Earth from a YEC > point of view - other than an Omphalos model, with things having the > appearance of age (trees with tree rings, starlight from distant > stars, animals with acquired knowledge)? Or from any other creationist > point of view?
I doubt any of them has a complete model. From what I've read here and elsewhere, each YEC has a slightly different take on what their model is (that is, when you can actually detect more than just evolution-bashing).
So even within YECism, it seems that many people reading the SAME book still can't come up with consistent explanations for their "model," which of course makes it useless.
> Ron O wrote: > > There are a few new faces since the July thread, but you can find the > > various accounts for some of the regulars in the July post. I'm not > > going to repeat a lot of background, anyone interested can go back to > > the July post below. Google also has a feature where you can look up > > the profiles of the posters and find a lot of their old posts. > >http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/a01f009ef41f9647?hl=en
> > I usually take a random post as an example. In fact if the post is > > too far gone I usually pick another so that no one can claim that I am > > picking on this group of posters. To get the full effect you probably > > don’t have to go to more than 20 posts from any of these guys to find > > out how bogus they and their arguments are. As adman found out last > > quarter the title of this thread isn’t just mocking how mentally > > incompetent these posters are, but this is the entire list of those > > that I have found currently posting on the anti-evolution side. “Ye > > shall know them by their fruits.” > >http://www.bartleby.com/108/40/7.html
> > These are the fruits of anti-evolution religious bigotry. What should > > that tell any thinking human being? One thing that you will be hard > > pressed to find is anyone claiming to have an honest and valid anti- > > evolution argument.
> Please, let's distinguish "honest" from "valid."
You can't do that with the scam arguments because they may contain some valid points, but these pieces of information are quite often misrepresented so as to make the argument dishonest.
Just take the example of the creationists claiming that there are no transitional fossils.
It is valid to claim that we cannot tell if a fossil is transitional in the sense that it or its species gave rise to later related populations, or not, but it doesn't matter to the argument.
> There cannot be *any* "valid" anti-evolution arguments--since the > evidence is 100% clear that evolution of species indisputably happened. > That ship has sailed.
These guys are the flat earthers of the modern era. If they were not they could put together an argument that was both honest and valid.
> But there can at least be *honest* arguments from sincere creationists, > who at least state *their* model of the story of life on Earth, and who > try to logically argue for it.
That is the other side of the coin. Anyone can be "sincerly" ignorant, but that doesn't make a lie the truth. Hence the valid side of the argument. Most of these guys find out that they have been scammed by the arguments and that they were not what they thought they were.
> I regard Ray Martinez and Suzanne and "TheMac37" as sincere. Each in his > own way has told us what they truly believe. They generally eschew > rhetorical tricks and sophistries.
That is because sencerity does not require mental competence or actually knowing what you are talking about. So what? It still doesn't make an invalid argument valid or a dishonest argument honest.
> "TheMac37" comes closest to an old-style creationist like Henry Morris, > whom I believe was sincere too (though flat wrong).
He just didn't understand that the world had passed his views by hundreds of years ago, and he didn't know how badly off the anti- evolution arugments were. That could be a case of simple ignorance, but in his case it may have been willful ignorance because he claimed to have looked into this issue for the last 7 years.
> I don't put any of these three in the same category as the trolls like > "All-Seeing-I".
I think that you are wrong about adman. He is likely a legitimate anti-evolution creationist. He is just mentally incompetent. That makes him as sincere as Ray, but Ray has deeper problems and needs help. His family should get him the help that he needs before they have to go on camera and claim that they never knew how troubled Ray was.
> And these three don't deserve to be abused like the trolls.
I don't call them trolls. They are representative of what we have had to deal with on the anti-evolution side for over a decade. I started reading the group around 1993. These guys haven't gotten any better. Anyone that wants to believe that anti-evolution creationists have an argument just has to look up the guys that support that side.
That is the purpose of the list. These guys are their own worst enemies.
> Most of the rest are simply boring loons. Nando is an > interesting loon. I grant that he has the usual "I am bright and > you guys are stupid" syndrome. Much of his discourse is simply a > litany of insults and dubious claims. However he is coming from > an interesting place.
> Consider his proposition that there is freedom when things can > happen one way or another. This actually accords with a common > usage. Thus, when we talk about a physical system we talk about > constraints and degrees of freedom. In this kind of usage, > freedom merely means that action is not completely constrained.
> Then there is that business about choice. Consider the motion of > the moon. We can calculate its movement with consider precision > but not perfectly. In other words it can go one way or another. > Nando would say that it exercised a choice. That sounds odd to > us because the moon has no mind and without a mind how can > choosing be done. One can argue contrariwise that choice > happened, ergo choice can be made mindlessly. Then again one can > argue that there is no choice, merely an absence of knowledge on > our part of all of the constraints. That argument, however, is > an enormous act of unverifiable faith.
> Underneath all of the bluster and massive failures of reading > comprehension there is an interesting structure of ideas, a whole > world view. It may be ultimately inconsistent but I don't think > that it necessarily is; what is more likely is that the meaning > of his words slither and slide as he slithers and slides from one > sentence to another.
> Richard Harter, c...@tiac.nethttp://home.tiac.net/~cri,http://www.varinoma.com > Infinity is one of those things that keep philosophers busy when they > could be more profitably spending their time weeding their garden.
Write it up and try to get some psych major to do a thesis on Nando.
> On Nov 14, 9:22 am, Ron O <rokim...@cox.net> wrote:
SNIP:
> > For the majority of Christians in developed countries anti-evolution > > is not part of their theology. This seems to dumbfound the religious > > bigots. Guys like Ray and adman have both claimed that even the other > > isn’t a real Christian. It is that sad. They know who the real > > ChristiansTM are, they just can't agree among themselves. There is > > the Clergy Letter project that has a list of 10,000 clergy that are > > not anti-evolution. They have started a Rabbi list too.http://www.butler.edu/clergyproject/rel_evol_sun.htm
> > The following is not a random sample but a threefer in the same thread > > with Ray crying for help. NashT does about the same thing, and adman > > smears people that aren’t even posting. When you read their posts you > > should always have the psychiatric term of projection firmly fixed in > > your mind.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychological_projection
> Most evolution-deniers (and evolution-misrepresenters who may or may > not personally doubt evolution) are degenerating from supporting, or > even vaguely defending, their particular alternetive. Tactically > that's godd, because it avoids calling attention to the fatal flaws in > their position and how contradicts other common creationist positions. > But Ray is degenerating the opposite way. While he still evades key > questions about his particular version, he is less evasive than most, > and more willing to criticize other creationists. His defenses may > sound more "out there" (e.g. denying "microevolution" too) IMO they > say far more about creationists/IDers who refuse to challenge him than > they do about him.
Ray may be the most troubled person posting on TO at this time. He needs help and he isn't getting any by posting to TO.
> Nashton is the most pathetic. Reduced to being a "cheerleader to the > trolls". BTW I'm not convinced that [M]adman and Spin are not Lokis. > If they are, the cheerleading would be even more pathetic.
NashT used to trot out the usual creationist bogousity, but he found out the hard way that it was all bogus. Instead of trying to dig deeper and look for some real arguments he just gave up and decided that he would just snipe from the sidelines contributing nothing except the sense of defeat that such behavior engenders.
> Remind me to change the subject line to "Ron O shows his true > colors". ;-)
That is about all Pags can do. He could surprise everyone by putting up an honest and valid anti-evolution argument, but who is going to hold their breath waiting?
SNIP:
> > Glenn? Where has Glenn gone? Pitman is also MIA. Gabriel posted a > > couple of weeks ago.
> On Nov 14, 1:40 pm, TomS <TomS_mem...@newsguy.com> wrote:
> > "On Sat, 14 Nov 2009 12:49:35 -0500, in article > > <pa6dnf4j1LMzcGPXnZ2dnUVZ_gedn...@earthlink.com>, Steven L. stated..."
> > >Ron O wrote: > > >> There are a few new faces since the July thread, but you can find the > > >> various accounts for some of the regulars in the July post. I'm not > > >> going to repeat a lot of background, anyone interested can go back to > > >> the July post below. Google also has a feature where you can look up > > >> the profiles of the posters and find a lot of their old posts. > > >>http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/a01f009ef41f9647?hl=3De= > > >n > > >>=20 > > >> I usually take a random post as an example. In fact if the post is > > >> too far gone I usually pick another so that no one can claim that I am > > >> picking on this group of posters. To get the full effect you probably > > >> don=92t have to go to more than 20 posts from any of these guys to find > > >> out how bogus they and their arguments are. As adman found out last > > >> quarter the title of this thread isn=92t just mocking how mentally > > >> incompetent these posters are, but this is the entire list of those > > >> that I have found currently posting on the anti-evolution side. =93Ye > > >> shall know them by their fruits.=94 > > >>http://www.bartleby.com/108/40/7.html > > >>=20 > > >> These are the fruits of anti-evolution religious bigotry. What should > > >> that tell any thinking human being? One thing that you will be hard > > >> pressed to find is anyone claiming to have an honest and valid anti- > > >> evolution argument. =20
> > >Please, let's distinguish "honest" from "valid."
> > >There cannot be *any* "valid" anti-evolution arguments--since the=20 > > >evidence is 100% clear that evolution of species indisputably happened.=20 > > > That ship has sailed.
> > >But there can at least be *honest* arguments from sincere creationists,=20 > > >who at least state *their* model of the story of life on Earth, and who=20 > > >try to logically argue for it.
> > >I regard Ray Martinez and Suzanne and "TheMac37" as sincere. Each in his=20 > > >own way has told us what they truly believe. They generally eschew=20 > > >rhetorical tricks and sophistries.
> > >"TheMac37" comes closest to an old-style creationist like Henry Morris,=20 > > >whom I believe was sincere too (though flat wrong).
> > >I don't put any of these three in the same category as the trolls like=20 > > >"All-Seeing-I".
> > >And these three don't deserve to be abused like the trolls.
> > Has anyone stated a model of the story of life on Earth from a YEC > > point of view - other than an Omphalos model, with things having the > > appearance of age (trees with tree rings, starlight from distant > > stars, animals with acquired knowledge)? Or from any other creationist > > point of view?
> I doubt any of them has a complete model. From what I've read here > and elsewhere, each YEC has a slightly different take on what their > model is (that is, when you can actually detect more than just > evolution-bashing).
> So even within YECism, it seems that many people reading the SAME book > still can't come up with consistent explanations for their "model," > which of course makes it useless.
Pope John Paul II's phrase for the evidence for evolution,"convergence, neither sought nor fabricated," says at least as much about creationism as it says about evolution. When "scientific" creationism was concocted, the goal was to seek, and fabricate if necessary, only the "evidences" that supports the predetermined conclusion. The early "scientific" creationists attempted to force those "evidences" to "converge" on a compromise position, heliocentric YEC, which avoided the more absurd (even to the average nonscientist) flat-earthism and geocentrism, and the theologically risky OEC positions. But even with that cheating, they could not force the "evidences" to converge even on an alternate age of the earth, let alone define a "kind". And that's even within YEC. OECs were a whole other thorn in their side. So even before their monumental court losses, the "evolution" of the strategy toward "don't ask, don't tell what the Creator/designer did, when or how, just promote doubt of evolution" had begun.
>On Nov 14, 2:49=A0pm, VoiceOfReason <papa_...@cybertown.com> wrote: >> On Nov 14, 1:40=A0pm, TomS <TomS_mem...@newsguy.com> wrote:
>> > "On Sat, 14 Nov 2009 12:49:35 -0500, in article >> > <pa6dnf4j1LMzcGPXnZ2dnUVZ_gedn...@earthlink.com>, Steven L. stated..."
>> > >Ron O wrote: >> > >> There are a few new faces since the July thread, but you can find th= >e >> > >> various accounts for some of the regulars in the July post. =A0I'm n= >ot >> > >> going to repeat a lot of background, anyone interested can go back t= >o >> > >> the July post below. =A0Google also has a feature where you can look= > up >> > >> the profiles of the posters and find a lot of their old posts. >> > >>http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/a01f009ef41f9647?hl= >=3D3De=3D >> > >n >> > >>=3D20 >> > >> I usually take a random post as an example. =A0In fact if the post i= >s >> > >> too far gone I usually pick another so that no one can claim that I = >am >> > >> picking on this group of posters. =A0To get the full effect you prob= >ably >> > >> don=3D92t have to go to more than 20 posts from any of these guys to= > find >> > >> out how bogus they and their arguments are. =A0As adman found out la= >st >> > >> quarter the title of this thread isn=3D92t just mocking how mentally >> > >> incompetent these posters are, but this is the entire list of those >> > >> that I have found currently posting on the anti-evolution side. =A0= >=3D93Ye >> > >> shall know them by their fruits.=3D94 >> > >>http://www.bartleby.com/108/40/7.html >> > >>=3D20 >> > >> These are the fruits of anti-evolution religious bigotry. =A0What sh= >ould >> > >> that tell any thinking human being? =A0One thing that you will be ha= >rd >> > >> pressed to find is anyone claiming to have an honest and valid anti- >> > >> evolution argument. =3D20
>> > >Please, let's distinguish "honest" from "valid."
>> > >There cannot be *any* "valid" anti-evolution arguments--since the=3D20 >> > >evidence is 100% clear that evolution of species indisputably happened= >.=3D20 >> > > =A0That ship has sailed.
>> > >But there can at least be *honest* arguments from sincere creationists= >,=3D20 >> > >who at least state *their* model of the story of life on Earth, and wh= >o=3D20 >> > >try to logically argue for it.
>> > >I regard Ray Martinez and Suzanne and "TheMac37" as sincere. Each in h= >is=3D20 >> > >own way has told us what they truly believe. =A0They generally eschew= >=3D20 >> > >rhetorical tricks and sophistries.
>> > >"TheMac37" comes closest to an old-style creationist like Henry Morris= >,=3D20 >> > >whom I believe was sincere too (though flat wrong).
>> > >I don't put any of these three in the same category as the trolls like= >=3D20 >> > >"All-Seeing-I".
>> > >And these three don't deserve to be abused like the trolls.
>> > Has anyone stated a model of the story of life on Earth from a YEC >> > point of view - other than an Omphalos model, with things having the >> > appearance of age (trees with tree rings, starlight from distant >> > stars, animals with acquired knowledge)? Or from any other creationist >> > point of view?
>> I doubt any of them has a complete model. =A0From what I've read here >> and elsewhere, each YEC has a slightly different take on what their >> model is (that is, when you can actually detect more than just >> evolution-bashing).
>> So even within YECism, it seems that many people reading the SAME book >> still can't come up with consistent explanations for their "model," >> which of course makes it useless.
>Pope John Paul II's phrase for the evidence for >evolution,"convergence, neither sought nor fabricated," says at least >as much about creationism as it says about evolution. When >"scientific" creationism was concocted, the goal was to seek, and >fabricate if necessary, only the "evidences" that supports the >predetermined conclusion. The early "scientific" creationists >attempted to force those "evidences" to "converge" on a compromise >position, heliocentric YEC, which avoided the more absurd (even to the >average nonscientist) flat-earthism and geocentrism, and the >theologically risky OEC positions. But even with that cheating, they >could not force the "evidences" to converge even on an alternate age >of the earth, let alone define a "kind". And that's even within YEC. >OECs were a whole other thorn in their side. So even before their >monumental court losses, the "evolution" of the strategy toward "don't >ask, don't tell what the Creator/designer did, when or how, just >promote doubt of evolution" had begun.
And, considering that YEC didn't exist for very long before it was forced into that position - and remember that internal inconsistencies were not enough motivation -
-- ---Tom S. the failure to nail currant jelly to a wall is not due to the nail; it is due to the currant jelly. Theodore Roosevelt, Letter to William Thayer, 1915 July 2
> On Nov 14, 11:49 am, "Steven L." <sdlit...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> > Ron O wrote: > > > There are a few new faces since the July thread, but you can find the > > > various accounts for some of the regulars in the July post. I'm not > > > going to repeat a lot of background, anyone interested can go back to > > > the July post below. Google also has a feature where you can look up > > > the profiles of the posters and find a lot of their old posts. > > >http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/a01f009ef41f9647?hl=en
> > > I usually take a random post as an example. In fact if the post is > > > too far gone I usually pick another so that no one can claim that I am > > > picking on this group of posters. To get the full effect you probably > > > don’t have to go to more than 20 posts from any of these guys to find > > > out how bogus they and their arguments are. As adman found out last > > > quarter the title of this thread isn’t just mocking how mentally > > > incompetent these posters are, but this is the entire list of those > > > that I have found currently posting on the anti-evolution side. “Ye > > > shall know them by their fruits.” > > >http://www.bartleby.com/108/40/7.html
> > > These are the fruits of anti-evolution religious bigotry. What should > > > that tell any thinking human being? One thing that you will be hard > > > pressed to find is anyone claiming to have an honest and valid anti- > > > evolution argument.
> > Please, let's distinguish "honest" from "valid."
> You can't do that with the scam arguments because they may contain > some valid points, but these pieces of information are quite often > misrepresented so as to make the argument dishonest.
> Just take the example of the creationists claiming that there are no > transitional fossils.
> It is valid to claim that we cannot tell if a fossil is transitional > in the sense that it or its species gave rise to later related > populations, or not, but it doesn't matter to the argument.
> > There cannot be *any* "valid" anti-evolution arguments--since the > > evidence is 100% clear that evolution of species indisputably happened. > > That ship has sailed.
> These guys are the flat earthers of the modern era. If they were not > they could put together an argument that was both honest and valid.
> > But there can at least be *honest* arguments from sincere creationists, > > who at least state *their* model of the story of life on Earth, and who > > try to logically argue for it.
> That is the other side of the coin. Anyone can be "sincerly" > ignorant, but that doesn't make a lie the truth. Hence the valid side > of the argument. Most of these guys find out that they have been > scammed by the arguments and that they were not what they thought they > were.
> > I regard Ray Martinez and Suzanne and "TheMac37" as sincere. Each in his > > own way has told us what they truly believe. They generally eschew > > rhetorical tricks and sophistries.
> That is because sencerity does not require mental competence or > actually knowing what you are talking about. So what? It still > doesn't make an invalid argument valid or a dishonest argument honest.
> > "TheMac37" comes closest to an old-style creationist like Henry Morris, > > whom I believe was sincere too (though flat wrong).
> He just didn't understand that the world had passed his views by > hundreds of years ago, and he didn't know how badly off the anti- > evolution arugments were. That could be a case of simple ignorance, > but in his case it may have been willful ignorance because he claimed > to have looked into this issue for the last 7 years.
> > I don't put any of these three in the same category as the trolls like > > "All-Seeing-I".
> I think that you are wrong about adman. He is likely a legitimate > anti-evolution creationist. He is just mentally incompetent. That > makes him as sincere as Ray, but Ray has deeper problems and needs > help. His family should get him the help that he needs before they > have to go on camera and claim that they never knew how troubled Ray > was.
Could we expect a Darwinst to say anything else about a Creatorist?
Why? Why do Darwinists play slander cards?
Answer: Inability to refute Creationism arguments----that's why. Logic dictates that Darwinists slander me because they are angry over the fact that they cannot refute anything that I say.
>On Nov 14, 12:09 pm, Ron O <rokim...@cox.net> wrote: >> On Nov 14, 11:49 am, "Steven L." <sdlit...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>> > Ron O wrote: >> > > There are a few new faces since the July thread, but you can find the >> > > various accounts for some of the regulars in the July post. I'm not >> > > going to repeat a lot of background, anyone interested can go back to >> > > the July post below. Google also has a feature where you can look up >> > > the profiles of the posters and find a lot of their old posts. >> > >http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/a01f009ef41f9647?hl=en
>> > > I usually take a random post as an example. In fact if the post is >> > > too far gone I usually pick another so that no one can claim that I am >> > > picking on this group of posters. To get the full effect you probably >> > > don’t have to go to more than 20 posts from any of these guys to find >> > > out how bogus they and their arguments are. As adman found out last >> > > quarter the title of this thread isn’t just mocking how mentally >> > > incompetent these posters are, but this is the entire list of those >> > > that I have found currently posting on the anti-evolution side. “Ye >> > > shall know them by their fruits.” >> > >http://www.bartleby.com/108/40/7.html
>> > > These are the fruits of anti-evolution religious bigotry. What should >> > > that tell any thinking human being? One thing that you will be hard >> > > pressed to find is anyone claiming to have an honest and valid anti- >> > > evolution argument.
>> > Please, let's distinguish "honest" from "valid."
>> You can't do that with the scam arguments because they may contain >> some valid points, but these pieces of information are quite often >> misrepresented so as to make the argument dishonest.
>> Just take the example of the creationists claiming that there are no >> transitional fossils.
>> It is valid to claim that we cannot tell if a fossil is transitional >> in the sense that it or its species gave rise to later related >> populations, or not, but it doesn't matter to the argument.
>> > There cannot be *any* "valid" anti-evolution arguments--since the >> > evidence is 100% clear that evolution of species indisputably happened. >> > That ship has sailed.
>> These guys are the flat earthers of the modern era. If they were not >> they could put together an argument that was both honest and valid.
>> > But there can at least be *honest* arguments from sincere creationists, >> > who at least state *their* model of the story of life on Earth, and who >> > try to logically argue for it.
>> That is the other side of the coin. Anyone can be "sincerly" >> ignorant, but that doesn't make a lie the truth. Hence the valid side >> of the argument. Most of these guys find out that they have been >> scammed by the arguments and that they were not what they thought they >> were.
>> > I regard Ray Martinez and Suzanne and "TheMac37" as sincere. Each in his >> > own way has told us what they truly believe. They generally eschew >> > rhetorical tricks and sophistries.
>> That is because sencerity does not require mental competence or >> actually knowing what you are talking about. So what? It still >> doesn't make an invalid argument valid or a dishonest argument honest.
>> > "TheMac37" comes closest to an old-style creationist like Henry Morris, >> > whom I believe was sincere too (though flat wrong).
>> He just didn't understand that the world had passed his views by >> hundreds of years ago, and he didn't know how badly off the anti- >> evolution arugments were. That could be a case of simple ignorance, >> but in his case it may have been willful ignorance because he claimed >> to have looked into this issue for the last 7 years.
>> > I don't put any of these three in the same category as the trolls like >> > "All-Seeing-I".
>> I think that you are wrong about adman. He is likely a legitimate >> anti-evolution creationist. He is just mentally incompetent. That >> makes him as sincere as Ray, but Ray has deeper problems and needs >> help. His family should get him the help that he needs before they >> have to go on camera and claim that they never knew how troubled Ray >> was.
>Could we expect a Darwinst to say anything else about a Creatorist?
>Why? Why do Darwinists play slander cards?
The don't. Can you find a single example?
No? Thought not.
>Answer: Inability to refute Creationism arguments----that's why. Logic >dictates that Darwinists slander me because they are angry over the >fact that they cannot refute anything that I say.
>Ray (Protestant Creatorist)
-- Bob.
The truth is like ice water, it shocks you when it hits you, but no one's ever died from it. Do yourself a favour and try it sometime.
> On Nov 14, 12:09 pm, Ron O <rokim...@cox.net> wrote:
> > On Nov 14, 11:49 am, "Steven L." <sdlit...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> > > Ron O wrote: > > > > There are a few new faces since the July thread, but you can find the > > > > various accounts for some of the regulars in the July post. I'm not > > > > going to repeat a lot of background, anyone interested can go back to > > > > the July post below. Google also has a feature where you can look up > > > > the profiles of the posters and find a lot of their old posts. > > > >http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/a01f009ef41f9647?hl=en
> > > > I usually take a random post as an example. In fact if the post is > > > > too far gone I usually pick another so that no one can claim that I am > > > > picking on this group of posters. To get the full effect you probably > > > > don’t have to go to more than 20 posts from any of these guys to find > > > > out how bogus they and their arguments are. As adman found out last > > > > quarter the title of this thread isn’t just mocking how mentally > > > > incompetent these posters are, but this is the entire list of those > > > > that I have found currently posting on the anti-evolution side. “Ye > > > > shall know them by their fruits.” > > > >http://www.bartleby.com/108/40/7.html
> > > > These are the fruits of anti-evolution religious bigotry. What should > > > > that tell any thinking human being? One thing that you will be hard > > > > pressed to find is anyone claiming to have an honest and valid anti- > > > > evolution argument.
> > > Please, let's distinguish "honest" from "valid."
> > You can't do that with the scam arguments because they may contain > > some valid points, but these pieces of information are quite often > > misrepresented so as to make the argument dishonest.
> > Just take the example of the creationists claiming that there are no > > transitional fossils.
> > It is valid to claim that we cannot tell if a fossil is transitional > > in the sense that it or its species gave rise to later related > > populations, or not, but it doesn't matter to the argument.
> > > There cannot be *any* "valid" anti-evolution arguments--since the > > > evidence is 100% clear that evolution of species indisputably happened. > > > That ship has sailed.
> > These guys are the flat earthers of the modern era. If they were not > > they could put together an argument that was both honest and valid.
> > > But there can at least be *honest* arguments from sincere creationists, > > > who at least state *their* model of the story of life on Earth, and who > > > try to logically argue for it.
> > That is the other side of the coin. Anyone can be "sincerly" > > ignorant, but that doesn't make a lie the truth. Hence the valid side > > of the argument. Most of these guys find out that they have been > > scammed by the arguments and that they were not what they thought they > > were.
> > > I regard Ray Martinez and Suzanne and "TheMac37" as sincere. Each in his > > > own way has told us what they truly believe. They generally eschew > > > rhetorical tricks and sophistries.
> > That is because sencerity does not require mental competence or > > actually knowing what you are talking about. So what? It still > > doesn't make an invalid argument valid or a dishonest argument honest.
> > > "TheMac37" comes closest to an old-style creationist like Henry Morris, > > > whom I believe was sincere too (though flat wrong).
> > He just didn't understand that the world had passed his views by > > hundreds of years ago, and he didn't know how badly off the anti- > > evolution arugments were. That could be a case of simple ignorance, > > but in his case it may have been willful ignorance because he claimed > > to have looked into this issue for the last 7 years.
> > > I don't put any of these three in the same category as the trolls like > > > "All-Seeing-I".
> > I think that you are wrong about adman. He is likely a legitimate > > anti-evolution creationist. He is just mentally incompetent. That > > makes him as sincere as Ray, but Ray has deeper problems and needs > > help. His family should get him the help that he needs before they > > have to go on camera and claim that they never knew how troubled Ray > > was.
> Could we expect a Darwinst to say anything else about a Creatorist?
> Why? Why do Darwinists play slander cards?
> Answer: Inability to refute Creationism arguments----that's why.
Wrong. It's because creationists keep spewing the same old *refuted* claims, over and over again.
> Logic...
Don't use words you do not understand.
> dictates that Darwinists slander me because they are angry over the > fact that they cannot refute anything that I say.
> On Nov 14, 12:09 pm, Ron O <rokim...@cox.net> wrote: >> On Nov 14, 11:49 am, "Steven L." <sdlit...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>> > Ron O wrote: >> > > There are a few new faces since the July thread, but you can find >> > > the various accounts for some of the regulars in the July post. >> > > I'm no > t >> > > going to repeat a lot of background, anyone interested can go >> > > back to the July post below. Google also has a feature where you >> > > can look > up >> > > the profiles of the posters and find a lot of their old posts. >> > >http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/a01f009ef41f9647?hl >> > >= > en
>> > > I usually take a random post as an example. In fact if the post >> > > is too far gone I usually pick another so that no one can claim >> > > that I a > m >> > > picking on this group of posters. To get the full effect you >> > > proba > bly >> > > don’t have to go to more than 20 posts from any of these guys to >> > > fi > nd >> > > out how bogus they and their arguments are. As adman found out >> > > las > t >> > > quarter the title of this thread isn’t just mocking how mentally >> > > incompetent these posters are, but this is the entire list of >> > > those that I have found currently posting on the anti-evolution >> > > side. > “Ye >> > > shall know them by their fruits.” >> > >http://www.bartleby.com/108/40/7.html
>> > > These are the fruits of anti-evolution religious bigotry. What >> > > sho > uld >> > > that tell any thinking human being? One thing that you will be >> > > har > d >> > > pressed to find is anyone claiming to have an honest and valid >> > > anti- evolution argument.
>> > Please, let's distinguish "honest" from "valid."
>> You can't do that with the scam arguments because they may contain >> some valid points, but these pieces of information are quite often >> misrepresented so as to make the argument dishonest.
>> Just take the example of the creationists claiming that there are no >> transitional fossils.
>> It is valid to claim that we cannot tell if a fossil is transitional >> in the sense that it or its species gave rise to later related >> populations, or not, but it doesn't matter to the argument.
>> > There cannot be *any* "valid" anti-evolution arguments--since the >> > evidence is 100% clear that evolution of species indisputably >> > happened. That ship has sailed.
>> These guys are the flat earthers of the modern era. If they were not >> they could put together an argument that was both honest and valid.
>> > But there can at least be *honest* arguments from sincere >> > creationists, who at least state *their* model of the story of life >> > on Earth, and who try to logically argue for it.
>> That is the other side of the coin. Anyone can be "sincerly" >> ignorant, but that doesn't make a lie the truth. Hence the valid >> side of the argument. Most of these guys find out that they have >> been scammed by the arguments and that they were not what they >> thought they were.
>> > I regard Ray Martinez and Suzanne and "TheMac37" as sincere. Each >> > in hi > s >> > own way has told us what they truly believe. They generally eschew >> > rhetorical tricks and sophistries.
>> That is because sencerity does not require mental competence or >> actually knowing what you are talking about. So what? It still >> doesn't make an invalid argument valid or a dishonest argument >> honest.
>> > "TheMac37" comes closest to an old-style creationist like Henry >> > Morris, whom I believe was sincere too (though flat wrong).
>> He just didn't understand that the world had passed his views by >> hundreds of years ago, and he didn't know how badly off the anti- >> evolution arugments were. That could be a case of simple ignorance, >> but in his case it may have been willful ignorance because he claimed >> to have looked into this issue for the last 7 years.
>> > I don't put any of these three in the same category as the trolls >> > like "All-Seeing-I".
>> I think that you are wrong about adman. He is likely a legitimate >> anti-evolution creationist. He is just mentally incompetent. That >> makes him as sincere as Ray, but Ray has deeper problems and needs >> help. His family should get him the help that he needs before they >> have to go on camera and claim that they never knew how troubled Ray >> was.
> Could we expect a Darwinst to say anything else about a Creatorist?
> Why? Why do Darwinists play slander cards?
> Answer: Inability to refute Creationism arguments----that's why. Logic > dictates that Darwinists slander me because they are angry over the > fact that they cannot refute anything that I say.
> Ray (Protestant Creatorist)
In a twisted way that makes sense.
Since people who accept reality (evolution) have no problem refuting everything you say, that explains why they don't feel a need to slander you.
> On Nov 21, 5:31 pm, Ray Martinez <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > On Nov 14, 12:09 pm, Ron O <rokim...@cox.net> wrote:
> > > On Nov 14, 11:49 am, "Steven L." <sdlit...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> > > > Ron O wrote: > > > > > There are a few new faces since the July thread, but you can find the > > > > > various accounts for some of the regulars in the July post. I'm not > > > > > going to repeat a lot of background, anyone interested can go back to > > > > > the July post below. Google also has a feature where you can look up > > > > > the profiles of the posters and find a lot of their old posts. > > > > >http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/a01f009ef41f9647?hl=en
> > > > > I usually take a random post as an example. In fact if the post is > > > > > too far gone I usually pick another so that no one can claim that I am > > > > > picking on this group of posters. To get the full effect you probably > > > > > don’t have to go to more than 20 posts from any of these guys to find > > > > > out how bogus they and their arguments are. As adman found out last > > > > > quarter the title of this thread isn’t just mocking how mentally > > > > > incompetent these posters are, but this is the entire list of those > > > > > that I have found currently posting on the anti-evolution side. “Ye > > > > > shall know them by their fruits.” > > > > >http://www.bartleby.com/108/40/7.html
> > > > > These are the fruits of anti-evolution religious bigotry. What should > > > > > that tell any thinking human being? One thing that you will be hard > > > > > pressed to find is anyone claiming to have an honest and valid anti- > > > > > evolution argument.
> > > > Please, let's distinguish "honest" from "valid."
> > > You can't do that with the scam arguments because they may contain > > > some valid points, but these pieces of information are quite often > > > misrepresented so as to make the argument dishonest.
> > > Just take the example of the creationists claiming that there are no > > > transitional fossils.
> > > It is valid to claim that we cannot tell if a fossil is transitional > > > in the sense that it or its species gave rise to later related > > > populations, or not, but it doesn't matter to the argument.
> > > > There cannot be *any* "valid" anti-evolution arguments--since the > > > > evidence is 100% clear that evolution of species indisputably happened. > > > > That ship has sailed.
> > > These guys are the flat earthers of the modern era. If they were not > > > they could put together an argument that was both honest and valid.
> > > > But there can at least be *honest* arguments from sincere creationists, > > > > who at least state *their* model of the story of life on Earth, and who > > > > try to logically argue for it.
> > > That is the other side of the coin. Anyone can be "sincerly" > > > ignorant, but that doesn't make a lie the truth. Hence the valid side > > > of the argument. Most of these guys find out that they have been > > > scammed by the arguments and that they were not what they thought they > > > were.
> > > > I regard Ray Martinez and Suzanne and "TheMac37" as sincere. Each in his > > > > own way has told us what they truly believe. They generally eschew > > > > rhetorical tricks and sophistries.
> > > That is because sencerity does not require mental competence or > > > actually knowing what you are talking about. So what? It still > > > doesn't make an invalid argument valid or a dishonest argument honest.
> > > > "TheMac37" comes closest to an old-style creationist like Henry Morris, > > > > whom I believe was sincere too (though flat wrong).
> > > He just didn't understand that the world had passed his views by > > > hundreds of years ago, and he didn't know how badly off the anti- > > > evolution arugments were. That could be a case of simple ignorance, > > > but in his case it may have been willful ignorance because he claimed > > > to have looked into this issue for the last 7 years.
> > > > I don't put any of these three in the same category as the trolls like > > > > "All-Seeing-I".
> > > I think that you are wrong about adman. He is likely a legitimate > > > anti-evolution creationist. He is just mentally incompetent. That > > > makes him as sincere as Ray, but Ray has deeper problems and needs > > > help. His family should get him the help that he needs before they > > > have to go on camera and claim that they never knew how troubled Ray > > > was.
> > Could we expect a Darwinst to say anything else about a Creatorist?
> > Why? Why do Darwinists play slander cards?
> > Answer: Inability to refute Creationism arguments----that's why.
> Wrong. It's because creationists keep spewing the same old *refuted* > claims, over and over again.
> > Logic...
> Don't use words you do not understand.
> > dictates that Darwinists slander me because they are angry over the > > fact that they cannot refute anything that I say.
> On Nov 14, 9:50 am, Frank J <f...@verizon.net> wrote:
> > On Nov 14, 9:22 am, Ron O <rokim...@cox.net> wrote:
> SNIP:
> > > For the majority of Christians in developed countries anti-evolution > > > is not part of their theology. This seems to dumbfound the religious > > > bigots. Guys like Ray and adman have both claimed that even the other > > > isn’t a real Christian. It is that sad. They know who the real > > > ChristiansTM are, they just can't agree among themselves. There is > > > the Clergy Letter project that has a list of 10,000 clergy that are > > > not anti-evolution. They have started a Rabbi list too.http://www.butler.edu/clergyproject/rel_evol_sun.htm
> > > The following is not a random sample but a threefer in the same thread > > > with Ray crying for help. NashT does about the same thing, and adman > > > smears people that aren’t even posting. When you read their posts you > > > should always have the psychiatric term of projection firmly fixed in > > > your mind.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychological_projection
> > Most evolution-deniers (and evolution-misrepresenters who may or may > > not personally doubt evolution) are degenerating from supporting, or > > even vaguely defending, their particular alternetive. Tactically > > that's godd, because it avoids calling attention to the fatal flaws in > > their position and how contradicts other common creationist positions. > > But Ray is degenerating the opposite way. While he still evades key > > questions about his particular version, he is less evasive than most, > > and more willing to criticize other creationists. His defenses may > > sound more "out there" (e.g. denying "microevolution" too) IMO they > > say far more about creationists/IDers who refuse to challenge him than > > they do about him.
> Ray may be the most troubled person posting on TO at this time. He > needs help and he isn't getting any by posting to TO.
Many angry comments, like the one seen above, appear in this topic in several posts written by Ron Okimoto. Logic dictates that whoever is slandered the most by Darwinists is the most feared, that is, whoever is slandered the most poses the most danger to the health of their evolution theory. Ron cannot contain himself. His anger says that I am the person who poses the most danger to the scientific veracity of evolution. Of course, Ron is absolutely correct.
> Logic dictates that whoever is slandered the most by Darwinists is the > most feared, that is, whoever is slandered the most poses the most > danger to the health of their evolution theory.
That doesn't follow logically. Also it's not slander (since it's written). And talk.origins has almost no impact to the general health (or otherwise) of evolutionary theory (this is just usenet, after all).
Ray Martinez wrote: > On Nov 14, 2:23 pm, Ron O <rokim...@cox.net> wrote:
<snip>
>> Ray may be the most troubled person posting on TO at this time. He >> needs help and he isn't getting any by posting to TO.
> Many angry comments, like the one seen above, appear in this topic in > several posts written by Ron Okimoto. Logic dictates that whoever is > slandered the most by Darwinists is the most feared, that is, whoever > is slandered the most poses the most danger to the health of their > evolution theory. Ron cannot contain himself. His anger says that I am > the person who poses the most danger to the scientific veracity of > evolution. Of course, Ron is absolutely correct.
As always, Ray, you demonstrate that you can't tell the difference between a valid argument and one that uses logical fallacies. Logic does *not* dictate that the most defamed person is the most feared.
Ron thinks you're troubled. What term would you use for someone like yourself, Mr. Most-Danger-To-The-Scientific-Veracity-Of-Evolution, who is clearly a legend in their own mind?
> On Nov 14, 2:23 pm, Ron O <rokim...@cox.net> wrote:
> > On Nov 14, 9:50 am, Frank J <f...@verizon.net> wrote:
> > > On Nov 14, 9:22 am, Ron O <rokim...@cox.net> wrote:
> > SNIP:
> > > > For the majority of Christians in developed countries anti-evolution > > > > is not part of their theology. This seems to dumbfound the religious > > > > bigots. Guys like Ray and adman have both claimed that even the other > > > > isn’t a real Christian. It is that sad. They know who the real > > > > ChristiansTM are, they just can't agree among themselves. There is > > > > the Clergy Letter project that has a list of 10,000 clergy that are > > > > not anti-evolution. They have started a Rabbi list too.http://www.butler.edu/clergyproject/rel_evol_sun.htm
> > > > The following is not a random sample but a threefer in the same thread > > > > with Ray crying for help. NashT does about the same thing, and adman > > > > smears people that aren’t even posting. When you read their posts you > > > > should always have the psychiatric term of projection firmly fixed in > > > > your mind.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychological_projection
> > > Most evolution-deniers (and evolution-misrepresenters who may or may > > > not personally doubt evolution) are degenerating from supporting, or > > > even vaguely defending, their particular alternetive. Tactically > > > that's godd, because it avoids calling attention to the fatal flaws in > > > their position and how contradicts other common creationist positions. > > > But Ray is degenerating the opposite way. While he still evades key > > > questions about his particular version, he is less evasive than most, > > > and more willing to criticize other creationists. His defenses may > > > sound more "out there" (e.g. denying "microevolution" too) IMO they > > > say far more about creationists/IDers who refuse to challenge him than > > > they do about him.
> > Ray may be the most troubled person posting on TO at this time. He > > needs help and he isn't getting any by posting to TO.
> Many angry comments, like the one seen above, appear in this topic in > several posts written by Ron Okimoto.
I don't see any anger, only a sadness that another of God's children is so disturbed, and a frustration that we are unable to help you.
> Logic dictates that whoever is > slandered the most by Darwinists is the most feared, that is, whoever > is slandered the most poses the most danger to the health of their > evolution theory.
No one is slandered. If anything too many of the perps are dismissed as mere rubes, and allowed to get away with their bait-and-switch scams. (I figured you'd enjoy the 4 "Ronisms" :-) )
> Ron cannot contain himself. His anger says that I am > the person who poses the most danger to the scientific veracity of > evolution. Of course, Ron is absolutely correct.
Me three. Every night I pray, "Please God, grant me another day without having to face Ray's devastating paper." ;-)
> On Nov 21, 4:17 pm, Boikat <boi...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> > On Nov 21, 5:31 pm, Ray Martinez <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > On Nov 14, 12:09 pm, Ron O <rokim...@cox.net> wrote:
> > > > On Nov 14, 11:49 am, "Steven L." <sdlit...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> > > > > Ron O wrote: > > > > > > There are a few new faces since the July thread, but you can find the > > > > > > various accounts for some of the regulars in the July post. I'm not > > > > > > going to repeat a lot of background, anyone interested can go back to > > > > > > the July post below. Google also has a feature where you can look up > > > > > > the profiles of the posters and find a lot of their old posts. > > > > > >http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/a01f009ef41f9647?hl=en
> > > > > > I usually take a random post as an example. In fact if the post is > > > > > > too far gone I usually pick another so that no one can claim that I am > > > > > > picking on this group of posters. To get the full effect you probably > > > > > > don’t have to go to more than 20 posts from any of these guys to find > > > > > > out how bogus they and their arguments are. As adman found out last > > > > > > quarter the title of this thread isn’t just mocking how mentally > > > > > > incompetent these posters are, but this is the entire list of those > > > > > > that I have found currently posting on the anti-evolution side. “Ye > > > > > > shall know them by their fruits.” > > > > > >http://www.bartleby.com/108/40/7.html
> > > > > > These are the fruits of anti-evolution religious bigotry. What should > > > > > > that tell any thinking human being? One thing that you will be hard > > > > > > pressed to find is anyone claiming to have an honest and valid anti- > > > > > > evolution argument.
> > > > You can't do that with the scam arguments because they may contain > > > > some valid points, but these pieces of information are quite often > > > > misrepresented so as to make the argument dishonest.
> > > > Just take the example of the creationists claiming that there are no > > > > transitional fossils.
> > > > It is valid to claim that we cannot tell if a fossil is transitional > > > > in the sense that it or its species gave rise to later related > > > > populations, or not, but it doesn't matter to the argument.
> > > > > There cannot be *any* "valid" anti-evolution arguments--since the > > > > > evidence is 100% clear that evolution of species indisputably happened. > > > > > That ship has sailed.
> > > > These guys are the flat earthers of the modern era. If they were not > > > > they could put together an argument that was both honest and valid.
> > > > > But there can at least be *honest* arguments from sincere creationists, > > > > > who at least state *their* model of the story of life on Earth, and who > > > > > try to logically argue for it.
> > > > That is the other side of the coin. Anyone can be "sincerly" > > > > ignorant, but that doesn't make a lie the truth. Hence the valid side > > > > of the argument. Most of these guys find out that they have been > > > > scammed by the arguments and that they were not what they thought they > > > > were.
> > > > > I regard Ray Martinez and Suzanne and "TheMac37" as sincere. Each in his > > > > > own way has told us what they truly believe. They generally eschew > > > > > rhetorical tricks and sophistries.
> > > > That is because sencerity does not require mental competence or > > > > actually knowing what you are talking about. So what? It still > > > > doesn't make an invalid argument valid or a dishonest argument honest.
> > > > > "TheMac37" comes closest to an old-style creationist like Henry Morris, > > > > > whom I believe was sincere too (though flat wrong).
> > > > He just didn't understand that the world had passed his views by > > > > hundreds of years ago, and he didn't know how badly off the anti- > > > > evolution arugments were. That could be a case of simple ignorance, > > > > but in his case it may have been willful ignorance because he claimed > > > > to have looked into this issue for the last 7 years.
> > > > > I don't put any of these three in the same category as the trolls like > > > > > "All-Seeing-I".
> > > > I think that you are wrong about adman. He is likely a legitimate > > > > anti-evolution creationist. He is just mentally incompetent. That > > > > makes him as sincere as Ray, but Ray has deeper problems and needs > > > > help. His family should get him the help that he needs before they > > > > have to go on camera and claim that they never knew how troubled Ray > > > > was.
> > > Could we expect a Darwinst to say anything else about a Creatorist?
> > > Why? Why do Darwinists play slander cards?
> > > Answer: Inability to refute Creationism arguments----that's why.
> > Wrong. It's because creationists keep spewing the same old *refuted* > > claims, over and over again.
> > > Logic...
> > Don't use words you do not understand.
> > > dictates that Darwinists slander me because they are angry over the > > > fact that they cannot refute anything that I say.
|
