Saturday, June 18, 2016

Ray Martinez at talk.origins, 2007



Here is an exchange at talk.origins in April 26, 2007.
The common denominator is Ray Martinez, a hardcore creationist and fundamentalist as well as a crackpot.
It is quite interesting to read and compare what he wrote back then with what he writes today. Presently it seems that he's posting his crap at the Pandas Thumb instead of his usual hangout at talk.origins.
 
On Apr 19, 1:16 pm, John Harshman <jharshman.diespam...@pacbell.net>
wrote:
> Elf M. Sternberg wrote:
> > From the article:
> > ----------------------------------------------------------------
> > It would surprise many to know that Charles Darwin, the founder of
> > modern evolutionary theory, was not a scientist but a
> > theologian.
>
> It would surprise many more to know that whether or not one is a
> scientist depends solely on what degrees one has.
>
> > Darwin only had a divinity degree and no formal training
> > in the sciences. Yet, the staunch evolutionists who make fun of
> > theologians using science to defend creation
>
> Do you think he could name even one such theologian? What I generally
> see are fundamentalists (seldom if ever theologians) making a hash of
> science in attempts to attack evolution.
>
> > would never criticize the
> > great Darwin on the grounds that he was a mere theologian.
>
> Yes, because that would be a very stupid argument. A divinity degree
> doesn't make you a theologian, nor does lack of a science degree prevent
> you from being a scientist. Deeds, not degrees, are the relevant
> criteria, and by those criteria Darwin was a scientist, and creationists
> are not.
>

If this is your view then how come you never jump in and correct one
of many evolutionists at Talk Origins who assert a higher degree
holder is not qualified to render any opinion outside of his major?

This "standard" eliminates Daniel Dennett (philosophy) from having any
scholarly status in evolution. Dennett, in my opinion, is the
brightest all-around evolutionary scholar alive.

Of course the "brights" here at T.O. who take said position do so ad
hoc when confronting Creationist sources, so I guess I really have no
point.

In reality, we know anyone who holds a graduate degree is qualified to
render an opinion and be used as a source. Said degree simply means
the person has the intellect to obtain a doctorate and that the
intellect is then qualified to master and speak on any discipline if
they so choose. Velikovsky had a Ph.D. in psychology and was a genius
ancient history researcher of whom Einstein used as a source for
information in that discipline. When Einstein died he was in the
process of re-reading "Worlds in Collision."

Ray
…………………………….

On Apr 19, 3:41 pm, John Harshman <jharshman.diespam...@pacbell.net>
wrote:
> Ray Martinez wrote:
> > On Apr 19, 1:16 pm, John Harshman <jharshman.diespam...@pacbell.net>
> > wrote:
>
> >>Elf M. Sternberg wrote:
>
> >>>From the article:
>
> I don't recall any such claims. What people do tend to claim is that a
> person who knows nothing about a subject is unqualified to render an
> opinion. Now one moderately good clue as to whether a person knows
> anything can be his degree, since one supposedly has to know something
> about a field to get a degree in it. But whether or not the person
> spouts ignorant nonsense is a better guide.
>
Ray:
> > This "standard" eliminates Daniel Dennett (philosophy) from having any
> > scholarly status in evolution. Dennett, in my opinion, is the
> > brightest all-around evolutionary scholar alive.
>

> This standard wouldn't eliminate Dennett, even if you applied it. (Which
> you shouldn't, and nobody does.) Dennett is a philosopher of science,
> and is well qualified by formal degrees to speak on philosophy of
> science, including biology. He has also been known to say the odd
> sensible thing too.
>
> > Of course the "brights" here at T.O. who take said position do so ad
> > hoc when confronting Creationist sources, so I guess I really have no
> > point.
>
> The last part of your sentence is clearly true.
>
> > In reality, we know anyone who holds a graduate degree is qualified to
> > render an opinion and be used as a source. Said degree simply means
> > the person has the intellect to obtain a doctorate and that the
> > intellect is then qualified to master and speak on any discipline if
> > they so choose. Velikovsky had a Ph.D. in psychology and was a genius
> > ancient history researcher of whom Einstein used as a source for
> > information in that discipline. When Einstein died he was in the
> > process of re-reading "Worlds in Collision."
>
> Velikovsky was a wacko who was ignorant of most subjects, including all
> the sciences and, according to people who should know, archaeology and
> comparative mythology. Dropping Einstein's name doesn't change that
> fact. Nor does his possession of a doctorate. So yes, you have provided
> an example in which a degree tells you nothing about a person's
> qualifications. Like I said, deeds are what counts, not degrees.
>
> Mind you, I throw my degree around whenever I find it useful, as a
> shorthand clue that I may know something about evolutionary biology. But
> if I subsequently spout nonsense, you have grounds to question my
> competence.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

Velikovsky was an atheist who singlehandedly showed major Biblical
claims true corresponding to historical reality. Because he was an
atheist this means his conclusions are supremely objective and immune
from a pro-supernatural bias dismissal. This is why he was tarred and
feathered by the Sagan establishment; "one of our own refused to
participate in the Bible-must-be-myth conspiracy." Velikovsky was a
truest of scholar; personal worldview not the least bit threatened by
proving that the Earth stood still. You do not have an objective bone
in your body, John, much less in your defective torch-carrying
Saganistic mind. The greatest scholar of the 20th century (Dr. Scott)
said Velikovsky was the greatest scholar of the 20th century "because
he proved them all wrong - that's why he is so hated." Your reply,
like a few others, proves Dr. Scott absolutely correct.

Ray
………………….
On Apr 19, 12:46 pm, "Elf M. Sternberg" <e...@drizzle.com> wrote:
> From the article:
> ----------------------------------------------------------------
> It would surprise many to know that Charles Darwin, the founder of
> modern evolutionary theory, was not a scientist but a
> theologian. Darwin only had a divinity degree and no formal training
> in the sciences. Yet, the staunch evolutionists who make fun of
> theologians using science to defend creation would never criticize the
> great Darwin on the grounds that he was a mere theologian.
>
> ....
>
> Darwin's and Mendel's works contradict each other. Darwin taught that
> there were no limits to biological variation and that, if given enough
> time, a fish could evolve into a human being. Mendel, on the other
> hand, showed that there are natural limits to biological
> variations. Variations within biological kinds (such as varieties of
> dogs, cats, horses, cows, etc.) are possible but not variations across
> biological kinds, especially from simpler kinds to more complex
> ones. Mendel showed that evolution is limited to within the "kinds".
>
> ....
>
> If humans must use intelligence to perform genetic engineering, to
> meaningfully manipulate the genetic code, then what does that say
> about the origin of the genetic code itself!
> ----------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Read a familiar collection of strawmen athttp://www.bestsyndication.com/?q=041907_charles-darwin-biography-evo...
>
> Elf M. Sternberg

Darwin's degree was in the classics AND theology, having graduated
tenth in his class at Christ's College in Cambridge in April of 1831.
Darwin quickly lost interest in becoming a Clergyman and was taught
science by a host of educated men, like Lyell and Sedgwick
(Creationists). But it is apparent from the abundant historical
literature that Darwin read everything that he could get his hands on,
and asked anyone who had expertise in any field many questions.
Basically, Darwin was self-taught about science, a natural genius who
excelled and eventually surpassed his mentors. When Wallace was asked
who was the greatest thinker of the age he said Spencer, followed by
Huxley, and if I recall correctly, then Bates, then Darwin.

Ray
…………………
On Apr 19, 10:09 pm, Rodjk #613 <rjka...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Apr 20, 4:58 am, Ray Martinez <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Apr 19, 3:41 pm, John Harshman <jharshman.diespam...@pacbell.net>
> > wrote:
>
> > > Ray Martinez wrote:
> > > > On Apr 19, 1:16 pm, John Harshman <jharshman.diespam...@pacbell.net>
> > > > wrote:
>
> > > >>Elf M. Sternberg wrote:
>
> > > >>>From the article:
> > > >>>----------------------------------------------------------------
> > > >>>It would surprise many to know that Charles Darwin, the founder of
> > > >>>modern evolutionary theory, was not a scientist but a
> > > >>>theologian.
>
> > > >>It would surprise many more to know that whether or not one is a
> > > >>scientist depends solely on what degrees one has.
>
> > > >>>Darwin only had a divinity degree and no formal training
> > > >>>in the sciences. Yet, the staunch evolutionists who make fun of
> > > >>>theologians using science to defend creation
>
> > > >>Do you think he could name even one such theologian? What I generally
> > > >>see are fundamentalists (seldom if ever theologians) making a hash of
> > > >>science in attempts to attack evolution.
>
> > > >>>would never criticize the
> > > >>>great Darwin on the grounds that he was a mere theologian.
>
> > > >>Yes, because that would be a very stupid argument. A divinity degree
> > > >>doesn't make you a theologian, nor does lack of a science degree prevent
> > > >>you from being a scientist. Deeds, not degrees, are the relevant
> > > >>criteria, and by those criteria Darwin was a scientist, and creationists
> > > >>are not.
>
> > > > If this is your view then how come you never jump in and correct one
> > > > of many evolutionists at Talk Origins who assert a higher degree
> > > > holder is not qualified to render any opinion outside of his major?
>
> > > I don't recall any such claims. What people do tend to claim is that a
> > > person who knows nothing about a subject is unqualified to render an
> > > opinion. Now one moderately good clue as to whether a person knows
> > > anything can be his degree, since one supposedly has to know something
> > > about a field to get a degree in it. But whether or not the person
> > > spouts ignorant nonsense is a better guide.
>
> > > > This "standard" eliminates Daniel Dennett (philosophy) from having any
> > > > scholarly status in evolution. Dennett, in my opinion, is the
> > > > brightest all-around evolutionary scholar alive.
>
> > > This standard wouldn't eliminate Dennett, even if you applied it. (Which
> > > you shouldn't, and nobody does.) Dennett is a philosopher of science,
> > > and is well qualified by formal degrees to speak on philosophy of
> > > science, including biology. He has also been known to say the odd
> > > sensible thing too.
>
> > > > Of course the "brights" here at T.O. who take said position do so ad
> > > > hoc when confronting Creationist sources, so I guess I really have no
> > > > point.
>
> > > The last part of your sentence is clearly true.
>
> > > > In reality, we know anyone who holds a graduate degree is qualified to
> > > > render an opinion and be used as a source. Said degree simply means
> > > > the person has the intellect to obtain a doctorate and that the
> > > > intellect is then qualified to master and speak on any discipline if
> > > > they so choose. Velikovsky had a Ph.D. in psychology and was a genius
> > > > ancient history researcher of whom Einstein used as a source for
> > > > information in that discipline. When Einstein died he was in the
> > > > process of re-reading "Worlds in Collision."
>
> > > Velikovsky was a wacko who was ignorant of most subjects, including all
> > > the sciences and, according to people who should know, archaeology and
> > > comparative mythology. Dropping Einstein's name doesn't change that
> > > fact. Nor does his possession of a doctorate. So yes, you have provided
> > > an example in which a degree tells you nothing about a person's
> > > qualifications. Like I said, deeds are what counts, not degrees.
>
> > > Mind you, I throw my degree around whenever I find it useful, as a
> > > shorthand clue that I may know something about evolutionary biology. But
> > > if I subsequently spout nonsense, you have grounds to question my
> > > competence.- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > - Show quoted text -
>
> > Velikovsky was an atheist who singlehandedly showed major Biblical
> > claims true corresponding to historical reality.
>
> Well, Velikovsky was Jewish. He was not an atheist.http://www.varchive.org/obs/index.htmfor some of his writings on the

I said he was Jewish and an atheist. You are not paying attention or
doing what Darwinists always do: misrepresent.

Jews can be atheists - ding dong. Maybe you could explain to us how
being Jewish automatically makes said person know that God exists?


> subject.
> Also, from Wikipedia:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immanuel_Velikovskyit discusses his
> religious views.
> As usual, your facts are wrong..
>

Wikipedia is not a source since Britney Spears could contribute - ding
dong.

As usual, just another Darwinist without any sense and who thinks the
convenience of Wikipedia = facts. How any person could even think of
using Wikipedia and be taken seriously shows that the average
Darwinist is an unread yuppie who thinks evidence is found and
established by googling. Anyone can contribute at Wikipedia. "If it is
on the Net it must be true" = Darwinian "intelligence."

Velikovsky is famous for positing outrageous natural explanations to
explain suupernatural phenomena, like his best friend Einstein, both
were strict atheists who bait and switched the meaning of God to avoid
controversy and the stigma. Read Jammer for a detailed account of
Einstein's crafty ways of evading the atheist label - ding dong.

Ray
…………………..
On Apr 20, 12:16 am, richardalanforr...@googlemail.com wrote:
> On Apr 19, 10:31 pm, Ray Martinez <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Apr 19, 1:16 pm, John Harshman <jharshman.diespam...@pacbell.net>
> > wrote:
>
> > > Elf M. Sternberg wrote:
> > > > From the article:
> > > > ----------------------------------------------------------------
> > > > It would surprise many to know that Charles Darwin, the founder of
> > > > modern evolutionary theory, was not a scientist but a
> > > > theologian.
>
> > > It would surprise many more to know that whether or not one is a
> > > scientist depends solely on what degrees one has.
>
> > > > Darwin only had a divinity degree and no formal training
> > > > in the sciences. Yet, the staunch evolutionists who make fun of
> > > > theologians using science to defend creation
>
> > > Do you think he could name even one such theologian? What I generally
> > > see are fundamentalists (seldom if ever theologians) making a hash of
> > > science in attempts to attack evolution.
>
> > > > would never criticize the
> > > > great Darwin on the grounds that he was a mere theologian.
>
> > > Yes, because that would be a very stupid argument. A divinity degree
> > > doesn't make you a theologian, nor does lack of a science degree prevent
> > > you from being a scientist. Deeds, not degrees, are the relevant
> > > criteria, and by those criteria Darwin was a scientist, and creationists
> > > are not.
>
> > If this is your view then how come you never jump in and correct one
> > of many evolutionists at Talk Origins who assert a higher degree
> > holder is not qualified to render any opinion outside of his major?
>
> This is simply false. I can think of no instance of any "evolutionist"
> questioning the opinions of anyone based on their qualifications.
>

Routine business for the Darwinists here at T.O. is to dismiss
evidence if said person has no degree in said discipline. But I
already admitted that it is only done TO Creationists when their
source is either an evolutionist or creationist; AND more importanty,
when the fact hurts ToE.

Eugenie Scott has no degree in biology; but she is a leader in the
confront Creationists movement and speaks authoritatively about
evolution. I have no problem using her as a source; but when facts she
produces is perceived to hurt ToE by persons here "Scott has no
biology degree" - ad hoc argument comes faster than a speeding bullet
= totally invalid argument. Scott is a scholar and most qualified to
speak on all issues concerning evolution, whether scientific or
philosophical.

The point is that everything is illegitimate when it hurts ToE. This
is why I told Harshman (and now I am telling you) that he does not
have an objective bone in his body. Jonathan Wells has two Ph.D.s. He
is most qualified to speak about biology and religion whether any
evolutionist admits or not.

T.O. is a subjective slice of Darwinism; completely ignorant to
evolutionary scholarship; and thinks their preconceptions are facts
even when evolutionary authorities are shown to contradict. That's the
objective fact about this Usenet.

I never tire of pointing out that the average person here is actually
uneducated and unread. Darwin's camp (Lyell, Hooker, Huxley, Wallace)
invented the term "Darwinism" yet there are at least 15 persons here
at T.O. who think the word is a Creationist plot. ALL books on
evolution use the term and it has one meaning: persons who accept ToE.
ALL evolutionary scholars use said term in ALL their publications (all
means all). This is how we know the average T.O.ite here is an unread
moron.


> More to the point, *I* have no qualification in evolutionary biology -
> my degrees are in architecture and business management - but I have
> never had the validity of my arguments questioned either here, or by
> any evolutionary biologist on the basis of my qualifications. In
> science, qualifications are of less relevance than the quality of
> evidence and argument you produce. When submitting a paper to a
> scientific journal the editors do not ask for your qualifications.
>
> I should add that this is deeply hypocritical of you, Ray. You
> constantly refer to your beloved "Stamford PhD" Dr Scott and insist
> that what he says is true because of his qualifications.
>

I have never said that, Richard.

> Do you honestly think that anyone is fooled by such nonsense, Ray?
>
> RF

You are misrepresenting. Dr. Scott is correct because the evidence
says so. Dr. Scott has said at least ten thousand times: "go and check
me out and see if such and such is not true." I have and not even one
time have I ever found him to be wrong about anything. Not even one
time.

Ray
………………..
On Apr 20, 4:11 am, DJT <mousede...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> On Apr 19, 11:54 pm, Ray Martinez <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> snip
>
>
>
> > Darwin's degree was in the classics AND theology, having graduated
> > tenth in his class at Christ's College in Cambridge in April of 1831.
> > Darwin quickly lost interest in becoming a Clergyman
>
> Darwin never really had interest in being a Clergyman, that was his
> father's idea.
>
> > and was taught
> > science by a host of educated men, like Lyell and Sedgwick
> > (Creationists).
>
> Lyell and Sedgwick were both scientists, who although they did believe
> in creation, they were not Biblical literalists.  You would
> undoubtedly call them "atheists".
>

Sedgwick died a Christian-Creationist. Lyell was the last inner circle
confidant of Darwin to finally convert to evolution because he
believed God supervised nature prior.


> > But it is apparent from the abundant historical
> > literature that Darwin read everything that he could get his hands on,
> > and asked anyone who had expertise in any field many questions.
> > Basically, Darwin was self-taught about science, a natural genius who
> > excelled and eventually surpassed his mentors. When Wallace was asked
> > who was the greatest thinker of the age he said Spencer, followed by
> > Huxley, and if I recall correctly, then Bates, then Darwin.
>
> Then why all the ad hominem attacks on Darwin by you?
>
> DJT

Do not mistake my objectivity as saying that Darwin was correct. You
can be a genius and wrong at the same time. Darwin was a genius who
used his intellect in behalf of his "clandestine" worldview: atheism.
Dennett is a genius, but he is completely wrong. Dawkins, in so many
words said Paley was a genius but he was "wrong, gloriously
wrong" (1986).

Ray
…………………….
On Apr 20, 9:34 am, "Rolf" <r...@tele2.no> wrote:
> "Ray Martinez" <pyramid...@yahoo.com> skrev i meldingnews:1177030705.403890.134890@b58g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Apr 19, 3:41 pm, John Harshman <jharshman.diespam...@pacbell.net>
> > wrote:
> > > Ray Martinez wrote:
> > > > On Apr 19, 1:16 pm, John Harshman <jharshman.diespam...@pacbell.net>
> > > > wrote:
>
> > > >>Elf M. Sternberg wrote:
>
> > > >>>From the article:
> > > >>>----------------------------------------------------------------
> > > >>>It would surprise many to know that Charles Darwin, the founder of
> > > >>>modern evolutionary theory, was not a scientist but a
> > > >>>theologian.
>
> > > >>It would surprise many more to know that whether or not one is a
> > > >>scientist depends solely on what degrees one has.
>
> > > >>>Darwin only had a divinity degree and no formal training
> > > >>>in the sciences. Yet, the staunch evolutionists who make fun of
> > > >>>theologians using science to defend creation
>
> > > >>Do you think he could name even one such theologian? What I generally
> > > >>see are fundamentalists (seldom if ever theologians) making a hash of
> > > >>science in attempts to attack evolution.
>
> > > >>>would never criticize the
> > > >>>great Darwin on the grounds that he was a mere theologian.
>
> > > >>Yes, because that would be a very stupid argument. A divinity degree
> > > >>doesn't make you a theologian, nor does lack of a science degree
> prevent
> > > >>you from being a scientist. Deeds, not degrees, are the relevant
> > > >>criteria, and by those criteria Darwin was a scientist, and
> creationists
> > > >>are not.
>
> > > > If this is your view then how come you never jump in and correct one
> > > > of many evolutionists at Talk Origins who assert a higher degree
> > > > holder is not qualified to render any opinion outside of his major?
>
> > > I don't recall any such claims. What people do tend to claim is that a
> > > person who knows nothing about a subject is unqualified to render an
> > > opinion. Now one moderately good clue as to whether a person knows
> > > anything can be his degree, since one supposedly has to know something
> > > about a field to get a degree in it. But whether or not the person
> > > spouts ignorant nonsense is a better guide.
>
> > > > This "standard" eliminates Daniel Dennett (philosophy) from having any
> > > > scholarly status in evolution. Dennett, in my opinion, is the
> > > > brightest all-around evolutionary scholar alive.
>
> > > This standard wouldn't eliminate Dennett, even if you applied it. (Which
> > > you shouldn't, and nobody does.) Dennett is a philosopher of science,
> > > and is well qualified by formal degrees to speak on philosophy of
> > > science, including biology. He has also been known to say the odd
> > > sensible thing too.
>
> > > > Of course the "brights" here at T.O. who take said position do so ad
> > > > hoc when confronting Creationist sources, so I guess I really have no
> > > > point.
>
> > > The last part of your sentence is clearly true.
>
> > > > In reality, we know anyone who holds a graduate degree is qualified to
> > > > render an opinion and be used as a source. Said degree simply means
> > > > the person has the intellect to obtain a doctorate and that the
> > > > intellect is then qualified to master and speak on any discipline if
> > > > they so choose. Velikovsky had a Ph.D. in psychology and was a genius
> > > > ancient history researcher of whom Einstein used as a source for
> > > > information in that discipline. When Einstein died he was in the
> > > > process of re-reading "Worlds in Collision."
>
> > > Velikovsky was a wacko who was ignorant of most subjects, including all
> > > the sciences and, according to people who should know, archaeology and
> > > comparative mythology. Dropping Einstein's name doesn't change that
> > > fact. Nor does his possession of a doctorate. So yes, you have provided
> > > an example in which a degree tells you nothing about a person's
> > > qualifications. Like I said, deeds are what counts, not degrees.
>
> > > Mind you, I throw my degree around whenever I find it useful, as a
> > > shorthand clue that I may know something about evolutionary biology. But
> > > if I subsequently spout nonsense, you have grounds to question my
> > > competence.- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > - Show quoted text -
>
> > Velikovsky was an atheist who singlehandedly showed major Biblical
> > claims true corresponding to historical reality. Because he was an
> > atheist this means his conclusions are supremely objective and immune
> > from a pro-supernatural bias dismissal.
>
> WTF doeas that mean? Am I reading what I think I am reading?
>
> "The conclusions of an atheist are supremely objective and immune from a
> pro-superantural bias dismissal"
>
> That is what Ray wrote, isn't it? And doesnt that simply mean that the words
> of an atheist are 'supremely objective'?
>
> Well then, so what?
>

The context was conclusions which prove certain Biblical claims
correct. Since Velikovsky was an atheist nobody can accuse him of a
supernatural bias. Velikovsky would explain the miracle to really be
natural phenomena, but the point was (and is) the Bible is correct:
what Joshua said really happened; confirmed incontrovertibly by other
civilizations recording said event too, but obviously not knowing why
or causation.


> Can Ray really, as I must conclude from what he writes, be so stupid that he
> claims an atheist is supremeley objective - but only as long as he supports
> a creationist argument, is that it? From all else that I have seen of Ray's
> writings, his opinion is that 'evolutionists=atheists=liars'.
>

Explained above, which you seem unable to understand. This is WHY
Velikovsky was so hated. Here we have an atheist producing irrefutable
evidence showing Biblical history absolutely correct. This is why it
is "supremely objective." Velikovsky simply re-explained the miracle
to be natural phenomena but the "damage" was done. Since he proved
said claim correct we dismiss his explanations (being an atheist)
which leaves said miracle event true and proven. What don't you
understand? Carl Sagan understood that's why he led the charge to have
Velikovsky blacklisted. Imagine that; rational men like Sagan behaving
like a third-world moron; advocating censorship of a scholar? If
Velikovsky was a real nut he would go unnoticed, but he was a genius,
an atheist, and he proved certain Biblical claims absolutely true. His
attempted censorship and blacklisting is also excellent evidence
supporting the existence of Satan.


> Velikovsky definitely was a crank and AFAIK, Worlds in Collision have long
> since been properly debunked. Velikovsky belongs in the particular hall of
> fame together with Adamski, Däniken, Dembski, Behe, Michael Egnor, Dr. Scott
> and then some.
>

His scholarship has stood the test of time. Velikovsky proves that
atheists are not loyal to wherever the evidence leads, but will never
embrace or acknowledge the evidence which proves the Bible correct -
that's what Velikovsky proves. He was a brutally honest scholar who
operated under one premise: lets test the Bible and see if the claims
are confirmed in other civilizations? Other atheists, like Sagan,
assume the Bible incorrect and refuse to acknowledge the evidence
showing their biased assumptions false. Velikovsky is undoubtedly the
only atheist to make it to heaven based on his intergrity to
acknowledge the evidence even if it harmed his own worldview. This is
why Dr. Scott called him "the greatest scholar of the 20th
century....he proved them all wrong that's why he is SO HATED" (caps
mine).


Ray


SNIP....
………………..
On Apr 20, 9:35 am, snex <s...@comcast.net> wrote:
> On Apr 20, 11:27 am, Ray Martinez <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Apr 20, 4:11 am, DJT <mousede...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
> > > On Apr 19, 11:54 pm, Ray Martinez <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > snip
>
> > > > Darwin's degree was in the classics AND theology, having graduated
> > > > tenth in his class at Christ's College in Cambridge in April of 1831.
> > > > Darwin quickly lost interest in becoming a Clergyman
>
> > > Darwin never really had interest in being a Clergyman, that was his
> > > father's idea.
>
> > > > and was taught
> > > > science by a host of educated men, like Lyell and Sedgwick
> > > > (Creationists).
>
> > > Lyell and Sedgwick were both scientists, who although they did believe
> > > in creation, they were not Biblical literalists.  You would
> > > undoubtedly call them "atheists".
>
> > Sedgwick died a Christian-Creationist. Lyell was the last inner circle
> > confidant of Darwin to finally convert to evolution because he
> > believed God supervised nature prior.
>
> > > > But it is apparent from the abundant historical
> > > > literature that Darwin read everything that he could get his hands on,
> > > > and asked anyone who had expertise in any field many questions.
> > > > Basically, Darwin was self-taught about science, a natural genius who
> > > > excelled and eventually surpassed his mentors. When Wallace was asked
> > > > who was the greatest thinker of the age he said Spencer, followed by
> > > > Huxley, and if I recall correctly, then Bates, then Darwin.
>
> > > Then why all the ad hominem attacks on Darwin by you?
>
> > > DJT
>
> > Do not mistake my objectivity as saying that Darwin was correct. You
> > can be a genius and wrong at the same time. Darwin was a genius who
> > used his intellect in behalf of his "clandestine" worldview: atheism.
> > Dennett is a genius, but he is completely wrong. Dawkins, in so many
> > words said Paley was a genius but he was "wrong, gloriously
> > wrong" (1986).
>
> > Ray
>
> slight difference between paley and modern creationists: modern
> creationists lie.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

About what?

Ray
………………….
On Apr 20, 10:22 am, snex <s...@comcast.net> wrote:
> On Apr 20, 12:14 pm, Ray Martinez <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Apr 20, 9:35 am, snex <s...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
> > > On Apr 20, 11:27 am, Ray Martinez <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > > On Apr 20, 4:11 am, DJT <mousede...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
> > > > > On Apr 19, 11:54 pm, Ray Martinez <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > > > snip
>
> > > > > > Darwin's degree was in the classics AND theology, having graduated
> > > > > > tenth in his class at Christ's College in Cambridge in April of 1831.
> > > > > > Darwin quickly lost interest in becoming a Clergyman
>
> > > > > Darwin never really had interest in being a Clergyman, that was his
> > > > > father's idea.
>
> > > > > > and was taught
> > > > > > science by a host of educated men, like Lyell and Sedgwick
> > > > > > (Creationists).
>
> > > > > Lyell and Sedgwick were both scientists, who although they did believe
> > > > > in creation, they were not Biblical literalists.  You would
> > > > > undoubtedly call them "atheists".
>
> > > > Sedgwick died a Christian-Creationist. Lyell was the last inner circle
> > > > confidant of Darwin to finally convert to evolution because he
> > > > believed God supervised nature prior.
>
> > > > > > But it is apparent from the abundant historical
> > > > > > literature that Darwin read everything that he could get his hands on,
> > > > > > and asked anyone who had expertise in any field many questions.
> > > > > > Basically, Darwin was self-taught about science, a natural genius who
> > > > > > excelled and eventually surpassed his mentors. When Wallace was asked
> > > > > > who was the greatest thinker of the age he said Spencer, followed by
> > > > > > Huxley, and if I recall correctly, then Bates, then Darwin.
>
> > > > > Then why all the ad hominem attacks on Darwin by you?
>
> > > > > DJT
>
> > > > Do not mistake my objectivity as saying that Darwin was correct. You
> > > > can be a genius and wrong at the same time. Darwin was a genius who
> > > > used his intellect in behalf of his "clandestine" worldview: atheism.
> > > > Dennett is a genius, but he is completely wrong. Dawkins, in so many
> > > > words said Paley was a genius but he was "wrong, gloriously
> > > > wrong" (1986).
>
> > > > Ray
>
> > > slight difference between paley and modern creationists: modern
> > > creationists lie.- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > - Show quoted text -
>
> > About what?
>
> well, you, for example, lie about what tweedy said about african
> pygmies. although it was an unnecessary diversion and irrelevant to
> the debate, tweedy's statement was not racism. he was not claiming
> that pygmies are more closely related to apes or any other animals
> than they are to any other group of humans. evolution places pygmies
> closer to all other humans than it does to any other group, and tweedy
> agrees. what he was saying was that pygmies might be transitional *to
> some future species* if everybody else dies off. you still refuse to
> admit you are wrong on this matter and apologize to him for calling
> him a racist.
>
>
>
>
>
> > Ray- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

Dana, without any hesitation or forethought, thought nothing of
placing Africans and quas-transitional in the same sentence. I rightly
identified that this is gutter racism, completely unacceptable in
modernity, and I also offered to drop the entire issue if Dana would
simply acknowledge and say something to the effect of "I agree that
Africans and quasi-transtional should not be placed in the same
sentence." But no, Dana refuses. Then I posted the evidence showing
how racism is institutionalized in ToE providing the reason why Dana
does not think it was wrong.

Human evolution is gutter racism born in Darwin's racist mind AFTER he
rejected God to have created Adam. This is what happens when God is
rejected: said persons are inclined to believe anything (certain human
beings resembling apes). In the early part of the last century
Darwinists were caging Africans attempting to show "human evolution."
The claim ORIGINATED in racism and progressed in racism and is racism.
That's why the total volume of said fossil evidence is scant because
the claim is not true. Oh the depths the atheist will go to evade the
reality of God.



Ray Martinez, Christian-Creationist
……………..
On Apr 20, 10:47 am, snex <s...@comcast.net> wrote:
> On Apr 20, 12:38 pm, Ray Martinez <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Apr 20, 10:22 am, snex <s...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
> > > On Apr 20, 12:14 pm, Ray Martinez <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > > On Apr 20, 9:35 am, snex <s...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
> > > > > On Apr 20, 11:27 am, Ray Martinez <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > On Apr 20, 4:11 am, DJT <mousede...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > On Apr 19, 11:54 pm, Ray Martinez <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > snip
>
> > > > > > > > Darwin's degree was in the classics AND theology, having graduated
> > > > > > > > tenth in his class at Christ's College in Cambridge in April of 1831.
> > > > > > > > Darwin quickly lost interest in becoming a Clergyman
>
> > > > > > > Darwin never really had interest in being a Clergyman, that was his
> > > > > > > father's idea.
>
> > > > > > > > and was taught
> > > > > > > > science by a host of educated men, like Lyell and Sedgwick
> > > > > > > > (Creationists).
>
> > > > > > > Lyell and Sedgwick were both scientists, who although they did believe
> > > > > > > in creation, they were not Biblical literalists.  You would
> > > > > > > undoubtedly call them "atheists".
>
> > > > > > Sedgwick died a Christian-Creationist. Lyell was the last inner circle
> > > > > > confidant of Darwin to finally convert to evolution because he
> > > > > > believed God supervised nature prior.
>
> > > > > > > > But it is apparent from the abundant historical
> > > > > > > > literature that Darwin read everything that he could get his hands on,
> > > > > > > > and asked anyone who had expertise in any field many questions.
> > > > > > > > Basically, Darwin was self-taught about science, a natural genius who
> > > > > > > > excelled and eventually surpassed his mentors. When Wallace was asked
> > > > > > > > who was the greatest thinker of the age he said Spencer, followed by
> > > > > > > > Huxley, and if I recall correctly, then Bates, then Darwin.
>
> > > > > > > Then why all the ad hominem attacks on Darwin by you?
>
> > > > > > > DJT
>
> > > > > > Do not mistake my objectivity as saying that Darwin was correct. You
> > > > > > can be a genius and wrong at the same time. Darwin was a genius who
> > > > > > used his intellect in behalf of his "clandestine" worldview: atheism.
> > > > > > Dennett is a genius, but he is completely wrong. Dawkins, in so many
> > > > > > words said Paley was a genius but he was "wrong, gloriously
> > > > > > wrong" (1986).
>
> > > > > > Ray
>
> > > > > slight difference between paley and modern creationists: modern
> > > > > creationists lie.- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > > > - Show quoted text -
>
> > > > About what?
>
> > > well, you, for example, lie about what tweedy said about african
> > > pygmies. although it was an unnecessary diversion and irrelevant to
> > > the debate, tweedy's statement was not racism. he was not claiming
> > > that pygmies are more closely related to apes or any other animals
> > > than they are to any other group of humans. evolution places pygmies
> > > closer to all other humans than it does to any other group, and tweedy
> > > agrees. what he was saying was that pygmies might be transitional *to
> > > some future species* if everybody else dies off. you still refuse to
> > > admit you are wrong on this matter and apologize to him for calling
> > > him a racist.
>
> > > > Ray- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > - Show quoted text -
>
> > Dana, without any hesitation or forethought, thought nothing of
> > placing Africans and quas-transitional in the same sentence. I rightly
> > identified that this is gutter racism, completely unacceptable in
> > modernity, and I also offered to drop the entire issue if Dana would
> > simply acknowledge and say something to the effect of "I agree that
> > Africans and quasi-transtional should not be placed in the same
> > sentence." But no, Dana refuses. Then I posted the evidence showing
> > how racism is institutionalized in ToE providing the reason why Dana
> > does not think it was wrong.
>
> > Human evolution is gutter racism born in Darwin's racist mind AFTER he
> > rejected God to have created Adam. This is what happens when God is
> > rejected: said persons are inclined to believe anything (certain human
> > beings resembling apes). In the early part of the last century
> > Darwinists were caging Africans attempting to show "human evolution."
> > The claim ORIGINATED in racism and progressed in racism and is racism.
> > That's why the total volume of said fossil evidence is scant because
> > the claim is not true. Oh the depths the atheist will go to evade the
> > reality of God.
>
> > Ray Martinez, Christian-Creationist
>
> you see, you just lied again, demonstrating how modern creationists
> lie. if everybody but pygmies die off, then pygmies will be
> transitional to whatever species of humans exist 100,000 years from
> now (if any do). that is the very meaning of transitional. when
> creationists ask where the transitional fossils are, they are asking
> for the fossils that connect one species to the next. a group of
> humans that connects modern humans with whatever comes next is
> transitional, by definition.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

We have Africans and transitional = gutter racism attempting
justification; packaged as "science." Could we expect anything else
from the atheist?

Ray
……………..
On Apr 20, 11:17 am, "Bob T." <b...@synapse-cs.com> wrote:
> On Apr 20, 11:02 am, Ray Martinez <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Apr 20, 10:47 am, snex <s...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
> > > On Apr 20, 12:38 pm, Ray Martinez <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > > On Apr 20, 10:22 am, snex <s...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
> > > > > On Apr 20, 12:14 pm, Ray Martinez <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > On Apr 20, 9:35 am, snex <s...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > On Apr 20, 11:27 am, Ray Martinez <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > On Apr 20, 4:11 am, DJT <mousede...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > > On Apr 19, 11:54 pm, Ray Martinez <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > snip
>
> > > > > > > > > > Darwin's degree was in the classics AND theology, having graduated
> > > > > > > > > > tenth in his class at Christ's College in Cambridge in April of 1831.
> > > > > > > > > > Darwin quickly lost interest in becoming a Clergyman
>
> > > > > > > > > Darwin never really had interest in being a Clergyman, that was his
> > > > > > > > > father's idea.
>
> > > > > > > > > > and was taught
> > > > > > > > > > science by a host of educated men, like Lyell and Sedgwick
> > > > > > > > > > (Creationists).
>
> > > > > > > > > Lyell and Sedgwick were both scientists, who although they did believe
> > > > > > > > > in creation, they were not Biblical literalists.  You would
> > > > > > > > > undoubtedly call them "atheists".
>
> > > > > > > > Sedgwick died a Christian-Creationist. Lyell was the last inner circle
> > > > > > > > confidant of Darwin to finally convert to evolution because he
> > > > > > > > believed God supervised nature prior.
>
> > > > > > > > > > But it is apparent from the abundant historical
> > > > > > > > > > literature that Darwin read everything that he could get his hands on,
> > > > > > > > > > and asked anyone who had expertise in any field many questions.
> > > > > > > > > > Basically, Darwin was self-taught about science, a natural genius who
> > > > > > > > > > excelled and eventually surpassed his mentors. When Wallace was asked
> > > > > > > > > > who was the greatest thinker of the age he said Spencer, followed by
> > > > > > > > > > Huxley, and if I recall correctly, then Bates, then Darwin.
>
> > > > > > > > > Then why all the ad hominem attacks on Darwin by you?
>
> > > > > > > > > DJT
>
> > > > > > > > Do not mistake my objectivity as saying that Darwin was correct. You
> > > > > > > > can be a genius and wrong at the same time. Darwin was a genius who
> > > > > > > > used his intellect in behalf of his "clandestine" worldview: atheism.
> > > > > > > > Dennett is a genius, but he is completely wrong. Dawkins, in so many
> > > > > > > > words said Paley was a genius but he was "wrong, gloriously
> > > > > > > > wrong" (1986).
>
> > > > > > > > Ray
>
> > > > > > > slight difference between paley and modern creationists: modern
> > > > > > > creationists lie.- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > > > > > - Show quoted text -
>
> > > > > > About what?
>
> > > > > well, you, for example, lie about what tweedy said about african
> > > > > pygmies. although it was an unnecessary diversion and irrelevant to
> > > > > the debate, tweedy's statement was not racism. he was not claiming
> > > > > that pygmies are more closely related to apes or any other animals
> > > > > than they are to any other group of humans. evolution places pygmies
> > > > > closer to all other humans than it does to any other group, and tweedy
> > > > > agrees. what he was saying was that pygmies might be transitional *to
> > > > > some future species* if everybody else dies off. you still refuse to
> > > > > admit you are wrong on this matter and apologize to him for calling
> > > > > him a racist.
>
> > > > > > Ray- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > > > - Show quoted text -
>
> > > > Dana, without any hesitation or forethought, thought nothing of
> > > > placing Africans and quas-transitional in the same sentence. I rightly
> > > > identified that this is gutter racism, completely unacceptable in
> > > > modernity, and I also offered to drop the entire issue if Dana would
> > > > simply acknowledge and say something to the effect of "I agree that
> > > > Africans and quasi-transtional should not be placed in the same
> > > > sentence." But no, Dana refuses. Then I posted the evidence showing
> > > > how racism is institutionalized in ToE providing the reason why Dana
> > > > does not think it was wrong.
>
> > > > Human evolution is gutter racism born in Darwin's racist mind AFTER he
> > > > rejected God to have created Adam. This is what happens when God is
> > > > rejected: said persons are inclined to believe anything (certain human
> > > > beings resembling apes). In the early part of the last century
> > > > Darwinists were caging Africans attempting to show "human evolution."
> > > > The claim ORIGINATED in racism and progressed in racism and is racism.
> > > > That's why the total volume of said fossil evidence is scant because
> > > > the claim is not true. Oh the depths the atheist will go to evade the
> > > > reality of God.
>
> > > > Ray Martinez, Christian-Creationist
>
> > > you see, you just lied again, demonstrating how modern creationists
> > > lie. if everybody but pygmies die off, then pygmies will be
> > > transitional to whatever species of humans exist 100,000 years from
> > > now (if any do). that is the very meaning of transitional. when
> > > creationists ask where the transitional fossils are, they are asking
> > > for the fossils that connect one species to the next. a group of
> > > humans that connects modern humans with whatever comes next is
> > > transitional, by definition.- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > - Show quoted text -
>
> > We have Africans and transitional = gutter racism attempting
> > justification; packaged as "science." Could we expect anything else
> > from the atheist?
>
> If Dana had been saying that pygmies were transitional to past
> hominids, you might have a point.  However, everyone here knows that
> Dana was positing a future situation in which pygmies might be
> transitional to future humans.  This has been pointed out to you many
> times before, and yet you persist in lying about it.  Could we expect
> anything else from Ray the Liar?  We could not.
>

I know that is what Dana said. I said in response that to place
Africans in the same sentence with transitional is racist. This has
been pointed out to you many times, yet you persist in
misrepresenting.

Ray
……………..
On Apr 20, 9:14 pm, "Steven J." <steve...@altavista.com> wrote:
> On Apr 20, 2:52 pm, Ray Martinez <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Apr 20, 11:17 am, "Bob T." <b...@synapse-cs.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Apr 20, 11:02 am, Ray Martinez <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > > On Apr 20, 10:47 am, snex <s...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
> > > > > On Apr 20, 12:38 pm, Ray Martinez <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > On Apr 20, 10:22 am, snex <s...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > On Apr 20, 12:14 pm, Ray Martinez <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > On Apr 20, 9:35 am, snex <s...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > > On Apr 20, 11:27 am, Ray Martinez <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > > > On Apr 20, 4:11 am, DJT <mousede...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > > > > On Apr 19, 11:54 pm, Ray Martinez <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > snip
>
> > > > > > > > > > > > Darwin's degree was in the classics AND theology, having graduated
> > > > > > > > > > > > tenth in his class at Christ's College in Cambridge in April of 1831.
> > > > > > > > > > > > Darwin quickly lost interest in becoming a Clergyman
>
> > > > > > > > > > > Darwin never really had interest in being a Clergyman, that was his
> > > > > > > > > > > father's idea.
>
> > > > > > > > > > > > and was taught
> > > > > > > > > > > > science by a host of educated men, like Lyell and Sedgwick
> > > > > > > > > > > > (Creationists).
>
> > > > > > > > > > > Lyell and Sedgwick were both scientists, who although they did believe
> > > > > > > > > > > in creation, they were not Biblical literalists.  You would
> > > > > > > > > > > undoubtedly call them "atheists".
>
> > > > > > > > > > Sedgwick died a Christian-Creationist. Lyell was the last inner circle
> > > > > > > > > > confidant of Darwin to finally convert to evolution because he
> > > > > > > > > > believed God supervised nature prior.
>
> > > > > > > > > > > > But it is apparent from the abundant historical
> > > > > > > > > > > > literature that Darwin read everything that he could get his hands on,
> > > > > > > > > > > > and asked anyone who had expertise in any field many questions.
> > > > > > > > > > > > Basically, Darwin was self-taught about science, a natural genius who
> > > > > > > > > > > > excelled and eventually surpassed his mentors. When Wallace was asked
> > > > > > > > > > > > who was the greatest thinker of the age he said Spencer, followed by
> > > > > > > > > > > > Huxley, and if I recall correctly, then Bates, then Darwin.
>
> > > > > > > > > > > Then why all the ad hominem attacks on Darwin by you?
>
> > > > > > > > > > > DJT
>
> > > > > > > > > > Do not mistake my objectivity as saying that Darwin was correct. You
> > > > > > > > > > can be a genius and wrong at the same time. Darwin was a genius who
> > > > > > > > > > used his intellect in behalf of his "clandestine" worldview: atheism.
> > > > > > > > > > Dennett is a genius, but he is completely wrong. Dawkins, in so many
> > > > > > > > > > words said Paley was a genius but he was "wrong, gloriously
> > > > > > > > > > wrong" (1986).
>
> > > > > > > > > > Ray
>
> > > > > > > > > slight difference between paley and modern creationists: modern
> > > > > > > > > creationists lie.- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > > > > > > > - Show quoted text -
>
> > > > > > > > About what?
>
> > > > > > > well, you, for example, lie about what tweedy said about african
> > > > > > > pygmies. although it was an unnecessary diversion and irrelevant to
> > > > > > > the debate, tweedy's statement was not racism. he was not claiming
> > > > > > > that pygmies are more closely related to apes or any other animals
> > > > > > > than they are to any other group of humans. evolution places pygmies
> > > > > > > closer to all other humans than it does to any other group, and tweedy
> > > > > > > agrees. what he was saying was that pygmies might be transitional *to
> > > > > > > some future species* if everybody else dies off. you still refuse to
> > > > > > > admit you are wrong on this matter and apologize to him for calling
> > > > > > > him a racist.
>
> > > > > > > > Ray- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > > > > > - Show quoted text -
>
> > > > > > Dana, without any hesitation or forethought, thought nothing of
> > > > > > placing Africans and quas-transitional in the same sentence. I rightly
> > > > > > identified that this is gutter racism, completely unacceptable in
> > > > > > modernity, and I also offered to drop the entire issue if Dana would
> > > > > > simply acknowledge and say something to the effect of "I agree that
> > > > > > Africans and quasi-transtional should not be placed in the same
> > > > > > sentence." But no, Dana refuses. Then I posted the evidence showing
> > > > > > how racism is institutionalized in ToE providing the reason why Dana
> > > > > > does not think it was wrong.
>
> > > > > > Human evolution is gutter racism born in Darwin's racist mind AFTER he
> > > > > > rejected God to have created Adam. This is what happens when God is
> > > > > > rejected: said persons are inclined to believe anything (certain human
> > > > > > beings resembling apes). In the early part of the last century
> > > > > > Darwinists were caging Africans attempting to show "human evolution."
> > > > > > The claim ORIGINATED in racism and progressed in racism and is racism.
> > > > > > That's why the total volume of said fossil evidence is scant because
> > > > > > the claim is not true. Oh the depths the atheist will go to evade the
> > > > > > reality of God.
>
> > > > > > Ray Martinez, Christian-Creationist
>
> > > > > you see, you just lied again, demonstrating how modern creationists
> > > > > lie. if everybody but pygmies die off, then pygmies will be
> > > > > transitional to whatever species of humans exist 100,000 years from
> > > > > now (if any do). that is the very meaning of transitional. when
> > > > > creationists ask where the transitional fossils are, they are asking
> > > > > for the fossils that connect one species to the next. a group of
> > > > > humans that connects modern humans with whatever comes next is
> > > > > transitional, by definition.- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > > > - Show quoted text -
>
> > > > We have Africans and transitional = gutter racism attempting
> > > > justification; packaged as "science." Could we expect anything else
> > > > from the atheist?
>
> > > If Dana had been saying that pygmies were transitional to past
> > > hominids, you might have a point.  However, everyone here knows that
> > > Dana was positing a future situation in which pygmies might be
> > > transitional to future humans.  This has been pointed out to you many
> > > times before, and yet you persist in lying about it.  Could we expect
> > > anything else from Ray the Liar?  We could not.
>
> > I know that is what Dana said. I said in response that to place
> > Africans in the same sentence with transitional is racist. This has
> > been pointed out to you many times, yet you persist in
> > misrepresenting.
>
> And I maintain that to insist, as you do, that Africans cannot be
> mentioned in the same sentence with "transitional form" is, itself,
> racist.  You are implying that Africans cannot evolve, which in turn
> implies that they are not proper biological organisms.  You, Ray, are
> asserting that Africans are inhuman zombies!  You ought to be ashamed
> of yourself, and apologize abjectly, and grovel for forgiveness.
>
> Also, your paper is late.
>
>
>
> > Ray
>
> -- Steven J.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

"Punctuated" attempt asserting that human evolution and its necessary
African component is not racism, or, in other words, special pleading:
"we deserve an exemption" because "this is science" card. In any other
political or social context it is gutter racism to place Africans and
transitional in the same context. Why do Darwinists get a free pass?
There is only one possible answer: existence of Satan.

And yes, my paper is very late, but I promise it will be worth the
wait.

And by the way: I will allude to the racism institutionalized in
Darwinism very briefly in my work, it is, in essence, a secondary
effect of Materialism and the camoflauge of Science that the former
hides behind.

Ray
………………
On Apr 21, 3:33 am, Alexander <alexanderhud...@btinternet.com> wrote:
> On Apr 20, 6:11 pm, Ray Martinez <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Apr 20, 9:34 am, "Rolf" <r...@tele2.no> wrote:
>
> > > "Ray Martinez" <pyramid...@yahoo.com> skrev i meldingnews:1177030705.403890.134890@b58g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
>
> > > > On Apr 19, 3:41 pm, John Harshman <jharshman.diespam...@pacbell.net>
> > > > wrote:
> > > > > Ray Martinez wrote:
> > > > > > On Apr 19, 1:16 pm, John Harshman <jharshman.diespam...@pacbell.net>
> > > > > > wrote:
>
> > > > > >>Elf M. Sternberg wrote:
>
> > > > > >>>From the article:
> > > > > >>>----------------------------------------------------------------
> > > > > >>>It would surprise many to know that Charles Darwin, the founder of
> > > > > >>>modern evolutionary theory, was not a scientist but a
> > > > > >>>theologian.
>
> > > > > >>It would surprise many more to know that whether or not one is a
> > > > > >>scientist depends solely on what degrees one has.
>
> > > > > >>>Darwin only had a divinity degree and no formal training
> > > > > >>>in the sciences. Yet, the staunch evolutionists who make fun of
> > > > > >>>theologians using science to defend creation
>
> > > > > >>Do you think he could name even one such theologian? What I generally
> > > > > >>see are fundamentalists (seldom if ever theologians) making a hash of
> > > > > >>science in attempts to attack evolution.
>
> > > > > >>>would never criticize the
> > > > > >>>great Darwin on the grounds that he was a mere theologian.
>
> > > > > >>Yes, because that would be a very stupid argument. A divinity degree
> > > > > >>doesn't make you a theologian, nor does lack of a science degree
> > > prevent
> > > > > >>you from being a scientist. Deeds, not degrees, are the relevant
> > > > > >>criteria, and by those criteria Darwin was a scientist, and
> > > creationists
> > > > > >>are not.
>
> > > > > > If this is your view then how come you never jump in and correct one
> > > > > > of many evolutionists at Talk Origins who assert a higher degree
> > > > > > holder is not qualified to render any opinion outside of his major?
>
> > > > > I don't recall any such claims. What people do tend to claim is that a
> > > > > person who knows nothing about a subject is unqualified to render an
> > > > > opinion. Now one moderately good clue as to whether a person knows
> > > > > anything can be his degree, since one supposedly has to know something
> > > > > about a field to get a degree in it. But whether or not the person
> > > > > spouts ignorant nonsense is a better guide.
>
> > > > > > This "standard" eliminates Daniel Dennett (philosophy) from having any
> > > > > > scholarly status in evolution. Dennett, in my opinion, is the
> > > > > > brightest all-around evolutionary scholar alive.
>
> > > > > This standard wouldn't eliminate Dennett, even if you applied it. (Which
> > > > > you shouldn't, and nobody does.) Dennett is a philosopher of science,
> > > > > and is well qualified by formal degrees to speak on philosophy of
> > > > > science, including biology. He has also been known to say the odd
> > > > > sensible thing too.
>
> > > > > > Of course the "brights" here at T.O. who take said position do so ad
> > > > > > hoc when confronting Creationist sources, so I guess I really have no
> > > > > > point.
>
> > > > > The last part of your sentence is clearly true.
>
> > > > > > In reality, we know anyone who holds a graduate degree is qualified to
> > > > > > render an opinion and be used as a source. Said degree simply means
> > > > > > the person has the intellect to obtain a doctorate and that the
> > > > > > intellect is then qualified to master and speak on any discipline if
> > > > > > they so choose. Velikovsky had a Ph.D. in psychology and was a genius
> > > > > > ancient history researcher of whom Einstein used as a source for
> > > > > > information in that discipline. When Einstein died he was in the
> > > > > > process of re-reading "Worlds in Collision."
>
> > > > > Velikovsky was a wacko who was ignorant of most subjects, including all
> > > > > the sciences and, according to people who should know, archaeology and
> > > > > comparative mythology. Dropping Einstein's name doesn't change that
> > > > > fact. Nor does his possession of a doctorate. So yes, you have provided
> > > > > an example in which a degree tells you nothing about a person's
> > > > > qualifications. Like I said, deeds are what counts, not degrees.
>
> > > > > Mind you, I throw my degree around whenever I find it useful, as a
> > > > > shorthand clue that I may know something about evolutionary biology. But
> > > > > if I subsequently spout nonsense, you have grounds to question my
> > > > > competence.- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > > > - Show quoted text -
>
> > > > Velikovsky was an atheist who singlehandedly showed major Biblical
> > > > claims true corresponding to historical reality. Because he was an
> > > > atheist this means his conclusions are supremely objective and immune
> > > > from a pro-supernatural bias dismissal.
>
> > > WTF doeas that mean? Am I reading what I think I am reading?
>
> > > "The conclusions of an atheist are supremely objective and immune from a
> > > pro-superantural bias dismissal"
>
> > > That is what Ray wrote, isn't it? And doesnt that simply mean that the words
> > > of an atheist are 'supremely objective'?
>
> > > Well then, so what?
>
> > The context was conclusions which prove certain Biblical claims
> > correct. Since Velikovsky was an atheist nobody can accuse him of a
> > supernatural bias. Velikovsky would explain the miracle to really be
> > natural phenomena, but the point was (and is) the Bible is correct:
> > what Joshua said really happened; confirmed incontrovertibly by other
> > civilizations recording said event too, but obviously not knowing why
> > or causation.
>
> Was Velikovsky an atheist?  Can you provide a realiable reference for
> that Ray?  I was under the impression he was a fairly keen Zionist,
> but of course this doesn't necessarily imply religiosity one way or
> the other.
>

Velikovsky was an ardent naturalist (believer in Naturalism) the same
is a synonymous with atheism. Also, you need to define Zionist or
Zionism before using it.

> As for the Bible being correct ... well - even if a historical event
> correlates to the record in the Bible this doesn't mean that the event
> was either recorded accurately or happened in the way it was
> eventually related.  The most we can say, if at all, is that certain
> Egyptian dynasties could be tied to the Exodus over a certain period -
> but the chances are we'll never know for sure.  As no record of Moses
> trials and tribulations exist categorically outside of the Old
> Testament itself the Bible becomes self-referential again.
>

A mish mash of jumbled and contradictory points.


> In any event the only 'miracles' Velikovsky was trying to explain were
> the catastrophic events of a global scale, such as the deluge.  The
> rest was an attempt at comparative archaeology which rests on so many
> dubious or false assumptions it's hard to know where to start.
>

You are obviously totally ignorant to Velikovsky's thesis and claims.



>
>
>
>
>
>
> > > Can Ray really, as I must conclude from what he writes, be so stupid that he
> > > claims an atheist is supremeley objective - but only as long as he supports
> > > a creationist argument, is that it? From all else that I have seen of Ray's
> > > writings, his opinion is that 'evolutionists=atheists=liars'.
>
> > Explained above, which you seem unable to understand. This is WHY
> > Velikovsky was so hated. Here we have an atheist producing irrefutable
> > evidence showing Biblical history absolutely correct. This is why it
> > is "supremely objective." Velikovsky simply re-explained the miracle
> > to be natural phenomena but the "damage" was done. Since he proved
> > said claim correct we dismiss his explanations (being an atheist)
> > which leaves said miracle event true and proven. What don't you
> > understand? Carl Sagan understood that's why he led the charge to have
> > Velikovsky blacklisted. Imagine that; rational men like Sagan behaving
> > like a third-world moron; advocating censorship of a scholar? If
> > Velikovsky was a real nut he would go unnoticed, but he was a genius,
> > an atheist, and he proved certain Biblical claims absolutely true. His
> > attempted censorship and blacklisting is also excellent evidence
> > supporting the existence of Satan.
>
> Er .... Ray.... he never proved anything, even in his own lifetime.
> If you measure his 'success' on the number of books sold and the
> rejection of his theories by the mainstream scientific establishment
> then he joins such luminaries as Von Daniken.  His arguments are just
> as convincing to scientists and arcaeologists.
>
> Carl Sagan didn't lead a charge to have him blacklisted - I'm happy to
> be demonstrated wrong on this point if you can provide any evidence.
> The AAAS asked Sagan to refute the 'science' behind Velikovsky's
> assumptions, which Sagan did on a number of occasions.  That's about
> it.
>

In case you did not know, Velikovsky was the target of an infamous
plot to have him censored and blacklisted by the Sagan scientific
establishment. This is very recent history. You should read up on the
travesty before opening your ignorant mouth. Richard Milton, in his
1997 book "Shattering the Myths of Darwinism" rightly pointed out that
if Velikovsky was in [Russia] his personal safety would have been in
jeopardy.

Ray


SNIP..
……………..
On Apr 21, 12:26 pm, DJT <mousede...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> On Apr 21, 3:07 pm, Ray Martinez <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> snip
>
>
>
> > > Was Velikovsky an atheist?  Can you provide a realiable reference for
> > > that Ray?  I was under the impression he was a fairly keen Zionist,
> > > but of course this doesn't necessarily imply religiosity one way or
> > > the other.
>
> > Velikovsky was an ardent naturalist (believer in Naturalism) the same
> > is a synonymous with atheism.
>
> "Naturalism" is not the same thing as atheism, Ray.   Do you have any
> evidence that Velikovsky was an athesit?
>
> >Also, you need to define Zionist or
> > Zionism before using it.
>
> Why?  You use plenty of terms without defining them.
>
>
>
> > > As for the Bible being correct ... well - even if a historical event
> > > correlates to the record in the Bible this doesn't mean that the event
> > > was either recorded accurately or happened in the way it was
> > > eventually related.  The most we can say, if at all, is that certain
> > > Egyptian dynasties could be tied to the Exodus over a certain period -
> > > but the chances are we'll never know for sure.  As no record of Moses
> > > trials and tribulations exist categorically outside of the Old
> > > Testament itself the Bible becomes self-referential again.
>
> > A mish mash of jumbled and contradictory points.
>
> Which is to say, you can't answer any of them.
>
>
>
> > > In any event the only 'miracles' Velikovsky was trying to explain were
> > > the catastrophic events of a global scale, such as the deluge.  The
> > > rest was an attempt at comparative archaeology which rests on so many
> > > dubious or false assumptions it's hard to know where to start.
>
> > You are obviously totally ignorant to Velikovsky's thesis and claims.
>
> Again, this demonstrates you aren't able to answer the points.
>
> snip
>
> > > Carl Sagan didn't lead a charge to have him blacklisted - I'm happy to
> > > be demonstrated wrong on this point if you can provide any evidence.
> > > The AAAS asked Sagan to refute the 'science' behind Velikovsky's
> > > assumptions, which Sagan did on a number of occasions.  That's about
> > > it.
>
> > In case you did not know, Velikovsky was the target of an infamous
> > plot to have him censored and blacklisted by the Sagan scientific
> > establishment.
>
> What evidence do you have of this "plot"?
>

I suppose you are going to deny the Holocaust next, Dana?

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9D0CE1D7153BF93BA25751C0A965948260


> > This is very recent history. You should read up on the
> > travesty before opening your ignorant mouth.
>
> But Ray, you "open your ignorant mouth" quite often.  Why should only
> you get to do this?
>
> > Richard Milton, in his
> > 1997 book "Shattering the Myths of Darwinism" rightly pointed out that
> > if Velikovsky was in [Russia] his personal safety would have been in
> > jeopardy.
>
> Ah, you are relying on the word of Richard Milton, who already is
> known to report false claims.  What evidence does Milton cite for this
> claim?
>
> DJT

It is a recent historical fact: Velikovsky was the target of
censorship. The N.Y. Times article is tame because its writers are
atheists and Darwinists, but they admit.

Many books have been written on the subject. Your "ignorance" is
"shocking."

And you prove my observation that all is illegitimate if it is
perceived to harm ToE.

If something harms ToE or atheism the source is wrong or contains
unsupported assertions, in other words, no evidence or arguments exist
against ToE or atheism = Dana Tweedy's belief, which is really
"tactic": phrase everything to be just the opposite if it harms my
view = the concept behind Holocaust denial.

Example (in reverse): "Darwin did not produce any evidence to back up
his assertions." Dana replaces "Darwin" with anyone who produces
evidence against ToE = Dana's tactic.

Why does Dana do this? He cannot refute the evidence therefore he must
call it other than what it is (or even deny that it exists). That's
why he relies on "tactic."

All you are doing is denying reality because the culprits are pro-
evolution. Since you are an unrepentant racist, atheist, Darwinist and
liar all is conducive.

Ray
…………….
On Apr 21, 2:24 pm, Richard Clayton <pockZIGetnZIG...@verizon.net>
wrote:
> Richard Clayton wrote:
> > Ray Martinez wrote:
>
> >> You are misrepresenting. Dr. Scott is correct because the evidence
> >> says so. Dr. Scott has said at least ten thousand times: "go and check
> >> me out and see if such and such is not true." I have and not even one
> >> time have I ever found him to be wrong about anything. Not even one
> >> time.
>
> >     Here's one, Ray: You said he claimed to have a degree that was
> > specifically from the university itself, rather than from any particular
> > department, and it was therefore the last handed out at graduation and
> > marked with special honor.
>
> >     Did he really say that? Because the Stanford registrar's office says
> > it's bullshit.
>
>         No response, Ray?
> --
> [The address listed is a spam trap. To reply, take off every zig.]
> Richard Clayton
> "Remember, always be yourself. Unless you suck." - Joss Whedon- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

Where did Stanford say that?

The real issue is why haven't you included your evidence to support
your assertion?

In other words, you are caught red-handed in a lie.

Ray
……………
On Apr 21, 2:40 pm, snex <s...@comcast.net> wrote:
> On Apr 21, 4:34 pm, Ray Martinez <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Apr 21, 2:24 pm, Richard Clayton <pockZIGetnZIG...@verizon.net>
> > wrote:
>
> > > Richard Clayton wrote:
> > > > Ray Martinez wrote:
>
> > > >> You are misrepresenting. Dr. Scott is correct because the evidence
> > > >> says so. Dr. Scott has said at least ten thousand times: "go and check
> > > >> me out and see if such and such is not true." I have and not even one
> > > >> time have I ever found him to be wrong about anything. Not even one
> > > >> time.
>
> > > >     Here's one, Ray: You said he claimed to have a degree that was
> > > > specifically from the university itself, rather than from any particular
> > > > department, and it was therefore the last handed out at graduation and
> > > > marked with special honor.
>
> > > >     Did he really say that? Because the Stanford registrar's office says
> > > > it's bullshit.
>
> > >         No response, Ray?
> > > --
> > > [The address listed is a spam trap. To reply, take off every zig.]
> > > Richard Clayton
> > > "Remember, always be yourself. Unless you suck." - Joss Whedon- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > - Show quoted text -
>
> > Where did Stanford say that?
>
> > The real issue is why haven't you included your evidence to support
> > your assertion?
>
> > In other words, you are caught red-handed in a lie.
>
> > Ray
>
> http://registrar.stanford.edu/shared/contacts.htm
>
> call them up.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

Why?

Ray
……………
On Apr 21, 3:41 pm, snex <s...@comcast.net> wrote:
> On Apr 21, 5:31 pm, Ray Martinez <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Apr 21, 2:40 pm, snex <s...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
> > > On Apr 21, 4:34 pm, Ray Martinez <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > > On Apr 21, 2:24 pm, Richard Clayton <pockZIGetnZIG...@verizon.net>
> > > > wrote:
>
> > > > > Richard Clayton wrote:
> > > > > > Ray Martinez wrote:
>
> > > > > >> You are misrepresenting. Dr. Scott is correct because the evidence
> > > > > >> says so. Dr. Scott has said at least ten thousand times: "go and check
> > > > > >> me out and see if such and such is not true." I have and not even one
> > > > > >> time have I ever found him to be wrong about anything. Not even one
> > > > > >> time.
>
> > > > > >     Here's one, Ray: You said he claimed to have a degree that was
> > > > > > specifically from the university itself, rather than from any particular
> > > > > > department, and it was therefore the last handed out at graduation and
> > > > > > marked with special honor.
>
> > > > > >     Did he really say that? Because the Stanford registrar's office says
> > > > > > it's bullshit.
>
> > > > >         No response, Ray?
> > > > > --
> > > > > [The address listed is a spam trap. To reply, take off every zig.]
> > > > > Richard Clayton
> > > > > "Remember, always be yourself. Unless you suck." - Joss Whedon- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > > > - Show quoted text -
>
> > > > Where did Stanford say that?
>
> > > > The real issue is why haven't you included your evidence to support
> > > > your assertion?
>
> > > > In other words, you are caught red-handed in a lie.
>
> > > > Ray
>
> > >http://registrar.stanford.edu/shared/contacts.htm
>
> > > call them up.- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > - Show quoted text -
>
> > Why?
>
> > Ray
>
> well, you said that gene scott said "go and check it out for
> yourself." you also said that every single time you have gone and
> checked it out for yourself, he was right. so what could it hurt to go
> and check it out for yourself one more time?- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

Commentary presupposes that the greatest scholar of all time is a
liar. The presupposition is explained when we remember that Snex is an
atheist and a Darwinist and that Dr. Scott has refuted the Theory of
Evolution.

Ray
……………..
On Apr 21, 4:03 pm, snex <s...@comcast.net> wrote:
> On Apr 21, 5:51 pm, Ray Martinez <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Apr 21, 3:41 pm, snex <s...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
> > > On Apr 21, 5:31 pm, Ray Martinez <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > > On Apr 21, 2:40 pm, snex <s...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
> > > > > On Apr 21, 4:34 pm, Ray Martinez <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > On Apr 21, 2:24 pm, Richard Clayton <pockZIGetnZIG...@verizon.net>
> > > > > > wrote:
>
> > > > > > > Richard Clayton wrote:
> > > > > > > > Ray Martinez wrote:
>
> > > > > > > >> You are misrepresenting. Dr. Scott is correct because the evidence
> > > > > > > >> says so. Dr. Scott has said at least ten thousand times: "go and check
> > > > > > > >> me out and see if such and such is not true." I have and not even one
> > > > > > > >> time have I ever found him to be wrong about anything. Not even one
> > > > > > > >> time.
>
> > > > > > > >     Here's one, Ray: You said he claimed to have a degree that was
> > > > > > > > specifically from the university itself, rather than from any particular
> > > > > > > > department, and it was therefore the last handed out at graduation and
> > > > > > > > marked with special honor.
>
> > > > > > > >     Did he really say that? Because the Stanford registrar's office says
> > > > > > > > it's bullshit.
>
> > > > > > >         No response, Ray?
> > > > > > > --
> > > > > > > [The address listed is a spam trap. To reply, take off every zig.]
> > > > > > > Richard Clayton
> > > > > > > "Remember, always be yourself. Unless you suck." - Joss Whedon- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > > > > > - Show quoted text -
>
> > > > > > Where did Stanford say that?
>
> > > > > > The real issue is why haven't you included your evidence to support
> > > > > > your assertion?
>
> > > > > > In other words, you are caught red-handed in a lie.
>
> > > > > > Ray
>
> > > > >http://registrar.stanford.edu/shared/contacts.htm
>
> > > > > call them up.- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > > > - Show quoted text -
>
> > > > Why?
>
> > > > Ray
>
> > > well, you said that gene scott said "go and check it out for
> > > yourself." you also said that every single time you have gone and
> > > checked it out for yourself, he was right. so what could it hurt to go
> > > and check it out for yourself one more time?- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > - Show quoted text -
>
> > Commentary presupposes that the greatest scholar of all time is a
> > liar. The presupposition is explained when we remember that Snex is an
> > atheist and a Darwinist and that Dr. Scott has refuted the Theory of
> > Evolution.
>
> > Ray
>
> it doesnt presuppose anything at all. *you* said that gene scott said
> to check it out for yourself, so by failing to do so, you are
> disobeying him.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

Why would I want to check out something that I have no trouble
believing?

The one who doubts should check it out?

Besides, we know you dumb Darwinian Fundies are jealous of Dr. Scott
and are extremely angry that he refuted your theory. I think you
should concentrate your efforts in refuting his refutation - oh wait -
you are - that's why you have invented this latest issue = inability
to refute.

But we know that you are enraged for being identified a racist. Like
Dana and Richard, you are just lashing out. By the way, Snex, I can
see that you have gotten over that little tiff of disagreement that
you had with Dana. Pointing out his hypocrisy concerning his alleged
Christianity was the wrong thing to do. Now you see the value of a
"Christian" evolutionist - how they protect and cover for you atheist
evolutionists. Now you need Dana - desparately - his services are
invaluable in the origins debate with Creationists. I bet you never
challenge Dana again, he put you in your place and you have learned
your lesson like a good little lap dog.

Dr. Scott is never, I repeat, never wrong about anything. However,
there was one thing he was wrong about, which he admitted on
television in front of the world, care to guess what that was?

Ray
……………..
On Apr 21, 9:45 pm, "Steven J." <steve...@altavista.com> wrote:
> On Apr 21, 12:55 pm, Ray Martinez <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Apr 20, 9:14 pm, "Steven J." <steve...@altavista.com> wrote:
>
> -- [snip]
>
> > > And I maintain that to insist, as you do, that Africans cannot be
> > > mentioned in the same sentence with "transitional form" is, itself,
> > > racist.  You are implying that Africans cannot evolve, which in turn
> > > implies that they are not proper biological organisms.  You, Ray, are
> > > asserting that Africans are inhuman zombies!  You ought to be ashamed
> > > of yourself, and apologize abjectly, and grovel for forgiveness.
>
> > > Also, your paper is late.
>
> > > > Ray
>
> > > -- Steven J.
>
> > "Punctuated" attempt asserting that human evolution and its necessary
> > African component is not racism, or, in other words, special pleading:
> > "we deserve an exemption" because "this is science" card. In any other
> > political or social context it is gutter racism to place Africans and
> > transitional in the same context. Why do Darwinists get a free pass?
> > There is only one possible answer: existence of Satan.
>
> Ray, you have never bothered to justify the rather astonishing
> assertion that it *is* racism to use the words "African" and "racism"
> in the same context. 

Don Imus was fired for something much less antiseptic. I can only
interpret your "query" above as rhetorical attempting to act like it
is not. Since Darwinists have gotten away with it by successfully
brainwashing society with the "it is science" card your "query" is
just as I said.

What would happen if a Fox network newscaster said "African-pygmies
could be transitional if....." Would he obtain the "it is science"
exemption?

The success of the exemption is spectacular proof for the existence of
an invisble Satan.

> All human populations have evolved.  All human
> populations are capable of further evolution.  In this respect, humans
> do not differ from any other biological species.  It is hardly special
> pleading to point out that "all human populations" include African
> human populations. 

Forty percent of the American population says we did not evolve.
Atheists have no choice but to believe in the "miracle."

> Of course, "special pleading" means to ask for one
> set of rules for everyone else, and then try to find some
> justification for different rules for oneself.  I'd say you're very
> good at it, except that you never bother to plead; you simply assert
> and insult and, when truly desperate, spout gibberish (e.g. accusing
> me of making a "punctuated" attempt, as though that word had any
> discernable meaning in this context).
>

Punctuated means rapid, you made a quick rapid attempt in one
paragraph justifying why racism is not racism. And I never initiate
insult, but I do admit to dishing out the same medicine that is
initiated upon me/us first.



> > And yes, my paper is very late, but I promise it will be worth the
> > wait.
>
> You also promised that it would be here over a year ago.  Do you
> understand that you have not given me much reason to trust your word?
>

Misrepresentation.

Movie releases are delayed for various reasons, so are books, so are
CDs, and appointments and engagements, etc.etc. It's not an issue of
trust, all deadlines are understood to be subject to revision as
circumstances dictate. My Dad one time promised to take us to Dodger
Stadium, he never showed up, he got sick unexpectedly.

You know all this which still leaves unexplained why you have
misrepresented? Oh wait, could it be that  I am a Creationist and you
are a Darwinist? There, I gave you an excuse - you are welcome.

> > And by the way: I will allude to the racism institutionalized in
> > Darwinism very briefly in my work, it is, in essence, a secondary
> > effect of Materialism and the camoflauge of Science that the former
> > hides behind.
>
> Well, as long as you keep the allusions brief.
>

It will be, I know when to stop, besides I can scientifically disprove
ToE. I have done my homework, you will see. My thesis is 100 percent
original. I don't need to focus on that which is insulated by the "it
is science" card.

It took me year just to learn how to write. I underestimated
everything. My project is quite voluminous, maybe 300 pages, I said
MAYBE.

Ray
………………
On Apr 22, 2:52 pm, Ken Rode <kar...@sympatico.ca> wrote:
> On Apr 22, 5:34 pm, Ray Martinez <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > On Apr 21, 9:45 pm, "Steven J." <steve...@altavista.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Apr 21, 12:55 pm, Ray Martinez <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > > On Apr 20, 9:14 pm, "Steven J." <steve...@altavista.com> wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
> > It will be, I know when to stop, besides I can scientifically disprove
> > ToE. I have done my homework, you will see. My thesis is 100 percent
> > original. I don't need to focus on that which is insulated by the "it
> > is science" card.
> >Fromhttp://groups.google.ca/group/talk.origins/msg/f9d64b40e54ef0da?hl=en&
>
> ------ begin quote -----
>
> The title of the article will be:
>
> "DARWINISM REFUTED
>
> The stunning Biblical explanation and refutation of the modern
> scientific attempt to erase the Creator. Based upon the interpretation
> of Romans 1:17-25 by Dr. Gene Scott Ph.D. Stanford University.
>
> 'TAKING DARWIN TO TASK' by Ray Martinez"
>
> I will take the original contribution to knowledge made by Dr. Scott
> to
> show how the textual evidence of the Bible refutes Darwinism/ToE, and
> based on the scholarship of Dr. Scott and his original contribution I
> will make an original contribution to knowledge and take Charles
> Darwin
> to task (and the cleaners) and falsify your theory into oblivion. My
> work will be copyrighted.
>
> ----- end quote -----
>
> These statements of yours, from October 11, 2005, don't jibe with your
> statement in this thread that your "thesis is 100 percent original".
> Which would you like to correct?
>

Most papers presuppose and build on the work of others. This is still
true, but things have changed - drastically, Ken.

What has changed:

1. The title remains the same "Darwinism Refuted". The sub-title has
changed and is not important right now. It has changed due to the
following reasons:

2. To refute Darwinsm and the Theory of Evolution, besides building on
the work of others (which has not changed), I needed to start from
scratch and learn what ToE actually CLAIMS and if the CLAIMS are,
indeed, supported by the evidence. During the last three years I have
spent most of my time investigating the CLAIMS of ToE and attempting
to verify said data to see if it supports the CLAIMS.

I have read every book imaginable and have lived in libraries. During
my research I have "stumbled upon" the most devasting falsification of
ToE will you ever read. I have spent the last year (besides learning
how to write) exposing my discovery to falisification scenarios. It
has repelled all such attempts. This is what I was referring to when I
said "100 percent original thesis." I can prove ToE scientifically
false, built on the foundation of others (including Paley and Behe)
but I have an original contribution to make. Diligent research has
paid off.

Ray
……………….
On Apr 22, 11:47 am, David Iain Greig <dgr...@ediacara.org> wrote:
> Ray Martinez <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > Sedgwick died a Christian-Creationist.
>
> Sedgwick, however, abandoned Flood Geology by 1831. 
>
> http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/postmonth/apr02.html
>
> --D.

It appears so. But accepting a Great Flood is not necessary in getting
along with Christ and special creation.

Ray
………………
On Apr 22, 4:07 pm, Ken Rode <kar...@sympatico.ca> wrote:
> On Apr 22, 6:29 pm, Ray Martinez <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Apr 22, 2:52 pm, Ken Rode <kar...@sympatico.ca> wrote:
>
> > > On Apr 22, 5:34 pm, Ray Martinez <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > > On Apr 21, 9:45 pm, "Steven J." <steve...@altavista.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > On Apr 21, 12:55 pm, Ray Martinez <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > On Apr 20, 9:14 pm, "Steven J." <steve...@altavista.com> wrote:
>
> > > <snip>
>
> > > > It will be, I know when to stop, besides I can scientifically disprove
> > > > ToE. I have done my homework, you will see. My thesis is 100 percent
> > > > original. I don't need to focus on that which is insulated by the "it
> > > > is science" card.
> > > >Fromhttp://groups.google.ca/group/talk.origins/msg/f9d64b40e54ef0da?hl=en&
>
> > > ------ begin quote -----
>
> > > The title of the article will be:
>
> > > "DARWINISM REFUTED
>
> > > The stunning Biblical explanation and refutation of the modern
> > > scientific attempt to erase the Creator. Based upon the interpretation
> > > of Romans 1:17-25 by Dr. Gene Scott Ph.D. Stanford University.
>
> > > 'TAKING DARWIN TO TASK' by Ray Martinez"
>
> > > I will take the original contribution to knowledge made by Dr. Scott
> > > to
> > > show how the textual evidence of the Bible refutes Darwinism/ToE, and
> > > based on the scholarship of Dr. Scott and his original contribution I
> > > will make an original contribution to knowledge and take Charles
> > > Darwin
> > > to task (and the cleaners) and falsify your theory into oblivion. My
> > > work will be copyrighted.
>
> > > ----- end quote -----
>
> > > These statements of yours, from October 11, 2005, don't jibe with your
> > > statement in this thread that your "thesis is 100 percent original".
> > > Which would you like to correct?
>
> > Most papers presuppose and build on the work of others. This is still
> > true, but things have changed - drastically, Ken.
>
> > What has changed:
>
> > 1. The title remains the same "Darwinism Refuted". The sub-title has
> > changed and is not important right now. It has changed due to the
> > following reasons:
>
> > 2. To refute Darwinsm and the Theory of Evolution, besides building on
> > the work of others (which has not changed), I needed to start from
> > scratch and learn what ToE actually CLAIMS and if the CLAIMS are,
> > indeed, supported by the evidence. During the last three years I have
> > spent most of my time investigating the CLAIMS of ToE and attempting
> > to verify said data to see if it supports the CLAIMS.
>
> > I have read every book imaginable and have lived in libraries. During
> > my research I have "stumbled upon" the most devasting falsification of
> > ToE will you ever read. I have spent the last year (besides learning
> > how to write) exposing my discovery to falisification scenarios. It
> > has repelled all such attempts. This is what I was referring to when I
> > said "100 percent original thesis." I can prove ToE scientifically
> > false, built on the foundation of others (including Paley and Behe)
> > but I have an original contribution to make. Diligent research has
> > paid off.
>
> That you've been able to prove to your satisfaction something that you
> were inclined to believe anyway doesn't strike me as all that earth-
> shattering, Ray.

Since you are an atheist you have no choice but to believe ToE.

> I have every expectation that your paper will be full
> of poorly structured arguments, ad hominem, appeals to authority,
> errors of fact, rash generalizations, private definitions, internal
> inconsistencies, outright contradictions, etc.

When hasn't an atheist-Darwinist thought this of any Creationist paper
or work?

Ken, we already know what your opinion is, please tell us what the
point is?

By the way, "educated" Darwinist that you are: "appeals to authority"
is also known as having sources for your claims and assertions,
otherwise the same is subjective or storytelling, which is what you
are defending. All Darwinian and Theist scholars have and use sources;
T.O. is the Fundamentalists of Darwinism because none of you have any
sources for your claims - it's all made up as you go. Even Darwin felt
bad about not being able to include his sources in the original
"Origin." He was honest to admit up front. My point is that anyone who
believes an appeal to an authority is invalid is because they cannot
produce any source for their views and are attempting to assert
preconceptions = fact. You are uneducated and do not understand how
facts are established. As much as you think your word is trustworthy,
we do not, obtain a source or be ready to have your opinions be
treated as such.

> You know, the kind of
> things you exhibit in your writing here. "Devastating" is what it
> won't be.
>
> On the other hand, I am impressed by your sheer doggedness. Most
> people that I know wouldn't spend several years simply to rationalize
> their beliefs.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

Atheists spend every waking moment of their lives rationalizing away a
universe full of evidence proving the existence of God. "Wherein you
judge another you are guilty yourself."

Ray
……………….
On Apr 22, 4:26 pm, Jim Willemin <jim***willemin@hot***mail.com>
wrote:
> Ray Martinez <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote in news:1177282511.937035.179560
> @e65g2000hsc.googlegroups.com:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Apr 22, 11:47 am, David Iain Greig <dgr...@ediacara.org> wrote:
> >> Ray Martinez <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> >> > Sedgwick died a Christian-Creationist.
>
> >> Sedgwick, however, abandoned Flood Geology by 1831. 
>
> >>http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/postmonth/apr02.html
>
> >> --D.
>
> > It appears so. But accepting a Great Flood is not necessary in getting
> > along with Christ and special creation.
>
> > Ray
>
> Am I mistaken or is Ray saying that it is possible to be a True Christian
> and also to disbelieve some of the Bible (specifically the Great Flood)? 

I meant what I said and said what I meant. And what I said is
misrepresented above. I said a person does not *have to* accept a
Great Flood to get along with Christ. Where does the Bible say: "Thou
must accept Great Flood or you cannot be saved or know Jesus"?

You can get going with Jesus and settle peripheral matters later, Jim.

> It begins to seem as if Ray is beginning to change his mind about the need
> for Christians to believe the entire bible is literally true. 

I challenge you to show the Group where I said what you have me
saying.

Fuck you, you aint nothing but a deliberate liar.

Ray
…………….
On Apr 22, 4:45 pm, Ken Rode <kar...@sympatico.ca> wrote:
> On Apr 22, 7:26 pm, Jim Willemin <jim***willemin@hot***mail.com>
> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > Ray Martinez <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote in news:1177282511.937035.179560
> > @e65g2000hsc.googlegroups.com:
>
> > > On Apr 22, 11:47 am, David Iain Greig <dgr...@ediacara.org> wrote:
> > >> Ray Martinez <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > >> > Sedgwick died a Christian-Creationist.
>
> > >> Sedgwick, however, abandoned Flood Geology by 1831.
>
> > >>http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/postmonth/apr02.html
>
> > >> --D.
>
> > > It appears so. But accepting a Great Flood is not necessary in getting
> > > along with Christ and special creation.
>
> > > Ray
>
> > Am I mistaken or is Ray saying that it is possible to be a True Christian
> > and also to disbelieve some of the Bible (specifically the Great Flood)?
> > It begins to seem as if Ray is beginning to change his mind about the need
> > for Christians to believe the entire bible is literally true.   Unless he
> > is mis-stating his position here (possibly from expedience or rhetorical
> > considerations) he is saying baldly that you need not believe in the Flood
> > as long as you believe in the special creation of kinds and you believe in
> > Christ.  I wonder why?
>
> Ray has never been, to my knowledge, a fundamentalist. To be a
> fundamentalist Christian, it is necessary to accept the entire Bible
> as literally true -- that's the definition. However, Ray has
> emphatically rejected the book of James on several occasions.
>
> The rest appears to be as you indicate. I don't know that I've ever
> seen Ray write anything about the Flood. Pyramids, yes... eels, yes...
> British Israelites, yes... the Flood, not that I recall.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

That's not the definition of a Fundamentalist.

A Fundamentalist "believes in the fundamentals of the New Testament;
Mosaic Law with Christ added on" = satanic message of James packaged
around some undeniably good and righteous self-evident truths.

Paul's message is from Christ Himself: If you perform ANY work of
Mosaic Law with the intent of maintaining standing with God "you have
fallen from grace and have made Christ of no effect."

A Fundamentalist is someone who who has perverted the message of
Christ by fusing together the Old and New Testaments = message of
James.

Generically, a Fundamentalist is an empty headed moron who has
believes something anyway contrary to all the evidence (= Darwinists).

Ray
…………..
On Apr 22, 4:57 pm, Harvest Dancer <harvestdan...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> On Apr 22, 4:34 pm, Ray Martinez <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Apr 21, 9:45 pm, "Steven J." <steve...@altavista.com> wrote:
> > > On Apr 21, 12:55 pm, Ray Martinez <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > > On Apr 20, 9:14 pm, "Steven J." <steve...@altavista.com> wrote:
>
> > > -- [snip]
>
> > > > > And I maintain that to insist, as you do, that Africans cannot be
> > > > > mentioned in the same sentence with "transitional form" is, itself,
> > > > > racist.  You are implying that Africans cannot evolve, which in turn
> > > > > implies that they are not proper biological organisms.  You, Ray, are
> > > > > asserting that Africans are inhuman zombies!  You ought to be ashamed
> > > > > of yourself, and apologize abjectly, and grovel for forgiveness.
>
> > > > > Also, your paper is late.
>
> > > > > > Ray
>
> > > > > -- Steven J.
>
> > > > "Punctuated" attempt asserting that human evolution and its necessary
> > > > African component is not racism, or, in other words, special pleading:
> > > > "we deserve an exemption" because "this is science" card. In any other
> > > > political or social context it is gutter racism to place Africans and
> > > > transitional in the same context. Why do Darwinists get a free pass?
> > > > There is only one possible answer: existence of Satan.
>
> > > Ray, you have never bothered to justify the rather astonishing
> > > assertion that it *is* racism to use the words "African" and "racism"
> > > in the same context. 
>
> > Don Imus was fired for something much less antiseptic. I can only
> > interpret your "query" above as rhetorical attempting to act like it
> > is not. Since Darwinists have gotten away with it by successfully
> > brainwashing society with the "it is science" card your "query" is
> > just as I said.
>
> > What would happen if a Fox network newscaster said "African-pygmies
> > could be transitional if....." Would he obtain the "it is science"
> > exemption?
>
> I'm not asking a Fox network newscaster, I'm asking you.  Why is it
> racism to say "transitional" and "African" in the same sentence?
>

Rhetorical point "concealed" and presented as a "legitimate question."

It is also a brazen defense of gutter racism, to say it plainly.

Ray

SNIP....
………….
On Apr 22, 6:06 pm, "Steven J." <steve...@altavista.com> wrote:
> On Apr 22, 4:34 pm, Ray Martinez <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Apr 21, 9:45 pm, "Steven J." <steve...@altavista.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Apr 21, 12:55 pm, Ray Martinez <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> -- [snip]
>
> > > > "Punctuated" attempt asserting that human evolution and its necessary
> > > > African component is not racism, or, in other words, special pleading:
> > > > "we deserve an exemption" because "this is science" card. In any other
> > > > political or social context it is gutter racism to place Africans and
> > > > transitional in the same context. Why do Darwinists get a free pass?
> > > > There is only one possible answer: existence of Satan.
>
> > > Ray, you have never bothered to justify the rather astonishing
> > > assertion that it *is* racism to use the words "African" and "racism"
> > > in the same context. 
>
> > Don Imus was fired for something much less antiseptic. I can only
> > interpret your "query" above as rhetorical attempting to act like it
> > is not. Since Darwinists have gotten away with it by successfully
> > brainwashing society with the "it is science" card your "query" is
> > just as I said.
>
> Ray, you have never bothered to justify the rather astonishing
> assertion that it *is* racism to use the words "African" and
> "transitional" in the same context.  Also, I think that "antiseptic"
> does not mean what you think it means, unless you really meant that
> Dana Tweedy's remarks kill more germs than Don Imus's radio show.
>

You have evaded my previous commentary. Why? This usually indicates
that the commentary is confirmed.

Your first "question" is a rhetorical point attempting to assert that
gutter racism is not as such when the "it is science" card is played.
Again, what makes you different from Imus? The latter and his remarks
were much more antiseptic than your gutter racism.

> > What would happen if a Fox network newscaster said "African-pygmies
> > could be transitional if....." Would he obtain the "it is science"
> > exemption?
>
> Ray, it *is* science, and is not racism. 

It is gutter racism. The hypocritical exemption Darwinists receive can
only be explained by the existence of Satan.

> Nothing but hysterical
> hypersensitivity (or the tactical feigning of such sensitivity) could
> regard it as such.  Would some racial huckster demand that it be
> treated as racism?  Perhaps; is it not enough that you have debased
> yourself to the level of a Gene Scott?  Must you adopt Al Sharpton as
> a role model as well?  Are you aiming for some Guiness World Record in
> hypocrisy and paranoia?
>

We already know what atheist-Darwinists think of theist scholars and
African-American leaders, what is your point?


> > The success of the exemption is spectacular proof for the existence of
> > an invisble Satan.
>
> So your positioin is this:  the fact that no one who knows anything
> about evolutionary theory thinks that evolutionary theory is racist
> (and, for that matter, that no one who knows anything about Dana
> Tweedy thinks that Dana is racist) is proof of Satan, as opposed to,
> e.g. proof that evolutionary theory and Dana Tweedy are not, in fact,
> racist.  Or, more generally, the fact that no one with a clue and a
> functioning brain agrees with you proves that you are right and that
> everyone else is deluded by Satan.
>

Why has Steven completely twisted the simple point?

The simple point: Placing Africans and transitional in the same
context is gutter racism.

This explains why he has atttempted to twist and misrepresent the
simple issue and point.



> Ray, I'm not very optimistic about this upcoming paper of yours
> ("upcoming," in the sense that Ultima Pangea is upcoming, but not
> necessarily that fast, of course).  I have this horrible feeling
> (based on everything you write) that it's going to be scores of pages
> of "every scientifically literate person on Earth disagrees with me,
> and that just proves that Gene Scott was right about God's penalty and
> Satan."  It's a very ambitious sort of conspiracy-theoretical tripe,
> but it's still conspiracy-theoretical tripe.
>

When has any Darwinist been optimistic about any unfriendly paper?
Somehow I do not feel slighted. I can and will prove ToE
scientifically false. That's what I said up-thread - no wonder you are
unoptimistic. Has any Darwinist been optimistic about a claim of
falsification? Does anyone know what this guy is talking about?



> > > All human populations have evolved.  All human
> > > populations are capable of further evolution.  In this respect, humans
> > > do not differ from any other biological species.  It is hardly special
> > > pleading to point out that "all human populations" include African
> > > human populations. 
>
> > Forty percent of the American population says we did not evolve.
> > Atheists have no choice but to believe in the "miracle."
>
> I do not see that the above remarks really address my point.  If you
> wish, you may read my paragraph above as "according to all
> evolutionists, including Dana Tweedy, all human populations evolved,
> etc."  You have not offered any reason for your exclusion of Africans
> from the human race.
>

You had no point. All you did was to say that you believe in human
evoution. We know this, what is your point? This is the second time in
the same post that you have told us something that we already knew but
did not make a point.

The issue is that you are attempting to act like placing Africans and
transitional is the same context is not gutter racism. In response, I
point out the continued attempt to justify and rationalize.

> Neither reproduction, nor mutations, nor inheritance, nor natural
> selection, are "miracles." 

True. What is your point? Did you forget that we are talking about
racist human evolution from African genesis?

> And while the percentage of Japanese or
> French people who accept evolution is much higher than the percentage
> of Americans, the percentage of Turks or Saudi Arabs is smaller.
> Since, according to your biblical typology, the majority is always
> wrong, is evolution false in the Western world and true in Muslim
> lands?
>

Identify a majority IN the Bible and their counterpart in reality,
then make your point, like I do.

> > > Of course, "special pleading" means to ask for one
> > > set of rules for everyone else, and then try to find some
> > > justification for different rules for oneself.  I'd say you're very
> > > good at it, except that you never bother to plead; you simply assert
> > > and insult and, when truly desperate, spout gibberish (e.g. accusing
> > > me of making a "punctuated" attempt, as though that word had any
> > > discernable meaning in this context).
>
> > Punctuated means rapid, you made a quick rapid attempt in one
> > paragraph justifying why racism is not racism. And I never initiate
> > insult, but I do admit to dishing out the same medicine that is
> > initiated upon me/us first.
>
> "Punctuated" does not mean "rapid."  "Punctuated" means divided up, or
> interrupted; "punctuated equilibria" are periods of
> "equilibrium" (balance, stasis) which are interrupted and divided from
> one another by periods of change. 

Interrupted or punctuated by rapid spurts of evolution.

> And, of course, I attempted, not to
> justify racism, but to show why certain remarks are not racist, no
> matter how much you wish them to be.  And perhaps you should take up
> "repaying evil with good."  For that matter, perhaps you should take
> up repaying good with good.  Dana made a civil and truthful response
> to a provocative but, I suppose, legitimate question, and you tried to
> use his courtesy to libel him.  That is the very opposite of
> Christlike; one might go so far as to label it Satanic.
>

Dana is a brainwashed victim of much smarter and older Darwinists. He
thought nothing of placing Africans and transitional is the same
sentence and context. I reported the indignity. He dug in his heels.
You offer comfort and rationalization and are equally guilty. Now I,
the messenger, is being shot.

It is gutter racism. This is what happens when God is rejected:
persons end up embracing just about the worst social sin to explain
reality without Him. In fact, that is one of the central messages of
the Bible: exclude God = sin = human evolution/Africans are
transitional. Evolution excludes God. The Atheist creation myth
relying on gutter racism.

"But the majority of Darwinists are Christians"

In the Bible the majority are "believers" and they were wrong.

1/12th of Christ's Apostles were traitors. One denied Him three times.
Except for John, none were present at the Crucifixion; imagine that?

The Bible is true corresponding to reality, unfortunately.

Ray

SNIP...
……………
On Apr 22, 10:02 pm, Earle Jones <earle.jo...@comcast.net> wrote:
> In article <1177275352.519974.251...@q75g2000hsh.googlegroups.com>,
>  Ray Martinez <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Apr 21, 4:03 pm, snex <s...@comcast.net> wrote:
> > > On Apr 21, 5:51 pm, Ray Martinez <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > > On Apr 21, 3:41 pm, snex <s...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
> > > > > On Apr 21, 5:31 pm, Ray Martinez <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > On Apr 21, 2:40 pm, snex <s...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > On Apr 21, 4:34 pm, Ray Martinez <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > On Apr 21, 2:24 pm, Richard Clayton
> > > > > > > > <pockZIGetnZIG...@verizon.net>
> > > > > > > > wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > > Richard Clayton wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > Ray Martinez wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > > >> You are misrepresenting. Dr. Scott is correct because the
> > > > > > > > > >> evidence
> > > > > > > > > >> says so. Dr. Scott has said at least ten thousand times: "go
> > > > > > > > > >> and check
> > > > > > > > > >> me out and see if such and such is not true." I have and not
> > > > > > > > > >> even one
> > > > > > > > > >> time have I ever found him to be wrong about anything. Not
> > > > > > > > > >> even one
> > > > > > > > > >> time.
>
> > > > > > > > > >     Here's one, Ray: You said he claimed to have a degree
> > > > > > > > > >     that was
> > > > > > > > > > specifically from the university itself, rather than from any
> > > > > > > > > > particular
> > > > > > > > > > department, and it was therefore the last handed out at
> > > > > > > > > > graduation and
> > > > > > > > > > marked with special honor.
>
> > > > > > > > > >     Did he really say that? Because the Stanford registrar's
> > > > > > > > > >     office says
> > > > > > > > > > it's bullshit.
>
> > > > > > > > >         No response, Ray?
> > > > > > > > > --
> > > > > > > > > [The address listed is a spam trap. To reply, take off every
> > > > > > > > > zig.]
> > > > > > > > > Richard Clayton
> > > > > > > > > "Remember, always be yourself. Unless you suck." - Joss Whedon-
> > > > > > > > > Hide quoted text -
>
> > > > > > > > > - Show quoted text -
>
> > > > > > > > Where did Stanford say that?
>
> > > > > > > > The real issue is why haven't you included your evidence to
> > > > > > > > support
> > > > > > > > your assertion?
>
> > > > > > > > In other words, you are caught red-handed in a lie.
>
> > > > > > > > Ray
>
> > > > > > >http://registrar.stanford.edu/shared/contacts.htm
>
> > > > > > > call them up.- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > > > > > - Show quoted text -
>
> > > > > > Why?
>
> > > > > > Ray
>
> > > > > well, you said that gene scott said "go and check it out for
> > > > > yourself." you also said that every single time you have gone and
> > > > > checked it out for yourself, he was right. so what could it hurt to go
> > > > > and check it out for yourself one more time?- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > > > - Show quoted text -
>
> > > > Commentary presupposes that the greatest scholar of all time is a
> > > > liar. The presupposition is explained when we remember that Snex is an
> > > > atheist and a Darwinist and that Dr. Scott has refuted the Theory of
> > > > Evolution.
>
> > > > Ray
>
> > > it doesnt presuppose anything at all. *you* said that gene scott said
> > > to check it out for yourself, so by failing to do so, you are
> > > disobeying him.- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > - Show quoted text -
>
> > Why would I want to check out something that I have no trouble
> > believing?
>
> > The one who doubts should check it out?
>
> > Besides, we know you dumb Darwinian Fundies are jealous of Dr. Scott
> > and are extremely angry that he refuted your theory. I think you
> > should concentrate your efforts in refuting his refutation - oh wait -
> > you are - that's why you have invented this latest issue = inability
> > to refute.
>
> > But we know that you are enraged for being identified a racist. Like
> > Dana and Richard, you are just lashing out. By the way, Snex, I can
> > see that you have gotten over that little tiff of disagreement that
> > you had with Dana. Pointing out his hypocrisy concerning his alleged
> > Christianity was the wrong thing to do. Now you see the value of a
> > "Christian" evolutionist - how they protect and cover for you atheist
> > evolutionists. Now you need Dana - desparately - his services are
> > invaluable in the origins debate with Creationists. I bet you never
> > challenge Dana again, he put you in your place and you have learned
> > your lesson like a good little lap dog.
>
> > Dr. Scott is never, I repeat, never wrong about anything. However,
> > there was one thing he was wrong about, which he admitted on
> > television in front of the world, care to guess what that was?
>
> > Ray
>
> *
> I remember it well:  Scott said that this guy Martinez thinks he is
> my second coming.  My person feeling is that he doesn't know his ass
> from his elbow, and believe me, he does not!  And Goddammit -- send
> more money!
>
> Remember that "...Scott was never, I repeat, never wrong about
> anything."
>
>    (See Gene 3:16)
>
> earle
> *
> If you have time and need some light entertainment, read the
> Stanford Magazine article about the infamous Gene Scott:
>
> http://www.stanfordalumni.org/news/magazine/2005/mayjun/classnotes/sc
> ott.html
>
> ....or use the TinyURL:  http://tinyurl.com/28q7ej
>
> Scott was a profane and foul-mouthed womanizing horse trader who
> sucked money from the ignorant unwashed masses.
>
> Unfortunately, we share the same alma mater.
>
> earle
> *- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

Since you are a Atheist-Darwinist and Dr. Scott is the greatest
scholar of all time we are glad you disapprove of him. Your approval
would have surely falsified his impeccable status.

But we know you are enraged because a Stanford Ph.D. who accepts the
facts of supernaturalism has refuted your theory. Outbursts of
hysteria are signs that the truth hurts.

Ray
…………….
On Apr 23, 1:55 pm, Richard Clayton <rich.e.clay...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Apr 21, 5:34 pm, Ray Martinez <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Apr 21, 2:24 pm, Richard Clayton <pockZIGetnZIG...@verizon.net>
> > wrote:
>
> > > Richard Clayton wrote:
> > > > Ray Martinez wrote:
>
> > > >> You are misrepresenting. Dr. Scott is correct because the evidence
> > > >> says so. Dr. Scott has said at least ten thousand times: "go and check
> > > >> me out and see if such and such is not true." I have and not even one
> > > >> time have I ever found him to be wrong about anything. Not even one
> > > >> time.
>
> > > >     Here's one, Ray: You said he claimed to have a degree that was
> > > > specifically from the university itself, rather than from any particular
> > > > department, and it was therefore the last handed out at graduation and
> > > > marked with special honor.
>
> > > >     Did he really say that? Because the Stanford registrar's office says
> > > > it's bullshit.
>
> > >         No response, Ray?
> > > --
> > > [The address listed is a spam trap. To reply, take off every zig.]
> > > Richard Clayton
> > > "Remember, always be yourself. Unless you suck." - Joss Whedon- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > - Show quoted text -
>
> > Where did Stanford say that?
>
> > The real issue is why haven't you included your evidence to support
> > your assertion?
>
> > In other words, you are caught red-handed in a lie.
>
> No, Ray. The one caught red-handed in a lie is Gene Scott. I emailed
> the Stanford registrar's office and asked for verification of Scott's
> claim that his degree was "cross-departmental in Philosophy and
> Religion" and "was granted by the University itself and not by any
> department" and therefore "the hardest degree to earn and the last
> one(s) handed-out at graduation." (Note that these words were taken
> almost verbatim from your own posts, Ray.)
>
> Here's what the Stanford Registrar's Office had to say on the matter:
> "I don't know of any degrees of the sort you've described.  We haven't
> ever 'rated' our degrees, we'd prefer to believe they were all hard-
> earned!  and stanford has never awarded honorary degrees.  the claim
> does smack a bit of gilding the lily, tho', doesn't it?"
>

First we remind everyone that Clayton is an Athiest-Darwinist and Dr.
Scott is a Theist-Supernaturalist who has refuted Clayton's theory:

And we remind everyone that Clayton has been identified as an
unrepentant racist for advocating that it is acceptable to place
Africans and transitional in the same sentence and context. Clayton is
furious and out for blood - lashing out.

"Stanford University" (according to Richard Clayton) writes:

"I don't know of any degrees of the sort you've described.  We haven't
ever 'rated' our degrees, we'd prefer to believe they were all hard-
earned!  and stanford has never awarded honorary degrees.  the claim
does smack a bit of gilding the lily, tho', doesn't it?"

Why didn't Clayton tell us the persons name who wrote this
"professional" looking reply? How many errors in grammar and
punctuation is seen above? And *this* person speaks for Stanford
University? Where in the "statement" does it say that Dr. Scott, in
the 1950s, did not earn the degree in question, that is, cross
departmental, but from the University itself, handed-out last at
graduation? What does "honorary degrees" have to do with anything?

Whoever claimed "honorary degree"?

Dr. Scott's is cross departmental in Philosophy and Religion, and he
has three Ph.D. minors (45 units each) in Geography, Psychology and
Comparitive Religion. Dr. Scott was trained to be a professional
educator; he spent his life doing just that. He was honored on the
Stanford allumni magazine, and his doctoral dissertation (theology of
Reinhold Niebuhr and its influence on Christian education) is
available in the Stanford Library.

An honorary degree is an insult usually handed-out to celebrities
(uneducated persons). Someone has made a major blunder. But the
"reply" said they do not hand out these kinds of degrees.

It is obvious that Clayton *may* have contacted Stanford - we don't
know for sure. And we do not know what Clayton said in his
correspondence because we have not seen the original email with date
attached. These observations are obvious since the "reply" above does
not match the "contested claim" of Dr. Scott.

Clayton wants us to believe that some unnamed person at Stanford (who
cannot even write), claiming to speak for the University, but without
mentioning Dr. Scott, knows the criteria and facts of Ph.D.
requirements in the 1950s, and the Ph.D. programs offered, and this
same hooded individual and their "reply" above contradicts Dr. Scott.

What does all of this mean?

Confirms that Clayton is a racist and is enraged to the point that he
will offer flimsy "evidence" as seen above to get revenge on his
worldview enemies. Produce a name at Stanford, Richard that will say
they are talking about Dr. Scott and that in the 1950s the last
diplomas handed-out at graduation were not from the University itself
to the Ph.D.s who earned that highest degree and honor. Do it or you
are caught in a red-faced lie.

Ray
……………..
On Apr 23, 3:20 pm, "Steven J." <steve...@altavista.com> wrote:
> On Apr 23, 11:50 am, Ray Martinez <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Apr 22, 6:06 pm, "Steven J." <steve...@altavista.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Apr 22, 4:34 pm, Ray Martinez <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> -- [snip]
>
> > > > Don Imus was fired for something much less antiseptic. I can only
> > > > interpret your "query" above as rhetorical attempting to act like it
> > > > is not. Since Darwinists have gotten away with it by successfully
> > > > brainwashing society with the "it is science" card your "query" is
> > > > just as I said.
>
> > > Ray, you have never bothered to justify the rather astonishing
> > > assertion that it *is* racism to use the words "African" and
> > > "transitional" in the same context.  Also, I think that "antiseptic"
> > > does not mean what you think it means, unless you really meant that
> > > Dana Tweedy's remarks kill more germs than Don Imus's radio show.
>
> > You have evaded my previous commentary. Why? This usually indicates
> > that the commentary is confirmed.
>
> Which previous commentary?  The thing about Don Imus?  He was fired
> for calling a women's basketball team ... well, as one commentator put
> it, a term so vile it can only be heard 24 hours a day on stations
> playing hip-hop music. 

Wrong. He was not fired for what you are implying. He was fired for
something, by comparsion to the gutter racism you are attempting to
justify and rationalize, antiseptichttp://dictionary.reference.com/browse/antiseptic.

> He ought not have done that, although he'd got
> away with doing similar things for years.  He was not fired for
> asserting that African Pygmies are fully human and have the same
> evolutionary potential as other humans.  I think it unlikely that he
> would have been fired for making such a point, but that was, after
> all, exactly what Dana was saying.
>

You should stop placing all the blame on poor Dana. Since you agree
that there is no gutter racism in placing Africans and transitional in
the same sentence and context - you are the unrepentant gutter racist.

Steven J. Thompson is an admitted racist.

> > Your first "question" is a rhetorical point attempting to assert that
> > gutter racism is not as such when the "it is science" card is played.
> > Again, what makes you different from Imus? The latter and his remarks
> > were much more antiseptic than your gutter racism.
>
> Could you define the term "antiseptic" as you are using it?  Anyway,
> Ray, *you* were the one who brought up African Pygmies and
> "transitional forms" in the same context. 

I am a Creationist (as you know) and I asked Dana IF said pygmies were
transitional. Dana said they could be if.....

I then pointed out that the comment is racist, that there is never any
justification in this day and age to make such a demeaning comment.
And here you are defending, playing the "it is science" card. Since
when is gutter racism science? We know Darwin originated modern human
evolution theory after rejecting God as Creator, then his racist mind
then "saw" the "similarities" between human beings and apes "in the
London zoo" (Larson 2004:67). What could cause "rational" and educated
men to think that an idea conceived in racism is science? Answer: the
level of hatred of God.








*You* were the one who
> suggested that African Pygmies might appear to be less than human.  If
> you did not suspect that these Africans were less human than other
> members of _Homo sapiens, why did you not ask the equally sensible
> question, could Sherpas or Swiss be considered transitional forms?
> Dana would have given you the exact same answer to that question, so
> it is only your own choice of Pgymies as a subject that introduces
> "gutter racism" into the topic.
>
> > > > What would happen if a Fox network newscaster said "African-pygmies
> > > > could be transitional if....." Would he obtain the "it is science"
> > > > exemption?
>
> > > Ray, it *is* science, and is not racism. 
>
> > It is gutter racism. The hypocritical exemption Darwinists receive can
> > only be explained by the existence of Satan.
>
> Again, how can it be racism, much less "gutter" racism (presumably,
> the vilest and stupidest sort of racism) to assert, as Dana did, that
> all humans are equally human and all groups have the potential to be a
> transitional form to some other sort of human?  How can it be racism,
> much less gutter racism, to assume that people can read for meaning
> and interpret remarks in context?
>
> > > Nothing but hysterical
> > > hypersensitivity (or the tactical feigning of such sensitivity) could
> > > regard it as such.  Would some racial huckster demand that it be
> > > treated as racism?  Perhaps; is it not enough that you have debased
> > > yourself to the level of a Gene Scott?  Must you adopt Al Sharpton as
> > > a role model as well?  Are you aiming for some Guiness World Record in
> > > hypocrisy and paranoia?
>
> > We already know what atheist-Darwinists think of theist scholars and
> > African-American leaders, what is your point?
>
> "Atheist-Darwinists" generally distinguish between different theist
> scholars (Pope Benedict is not John Haught, and neither of them, thank
> the Higher Power of your choice, is Gene Scott), and between different
> African-American leaders.  Is it not "gutter racism" to lump disparate
> people with disparate positions and credentials into a single
> undifferentiated mass, based merely on aspects of their religious
> creed or ethnic background?
>
> > > > The success of the exemption is spectacular proof for the existence of
> > > > an invisble Satan.
>
> > > So your positioin is this:  the fact that no one who knows anything
> > > about evolutionary theory thinks that evolutionary theory is racist
> > > (and, for that matter, that no one who knows anything about Dana
> > > Tweedy thinks that Dana is racist) is proof of Satan, as opposed to,
> > > e.g. proof that evolutionary theory and Dana Tweedy are not, in fact,
> > > racist.  Or, more generally, the fact that no one with a clue and a
> > > functioning brain agrees with you proves that you are right and that
> > > everyone else is deluded by Satan.
>
> > Why has Steven completely twisted the simple point?
>
> It seems to me that I have accurately represented the simple point:
> you cannot admit that you are wrong, or that your opponents are right,
> on any point, and will go to the most paranoid and absurd lengths to
> justify your obstinance.
>
> > The simple point: Placing Africans and transitional in the same
> > context is gutter racism.
>
> Woe betide those poor Kenyans trying to deal with the Turkana boy; no
> matter what position they take, they're Africans placing themselves in
> the same context as "transitional," so they must be gutter racists.
>
> > This explains why he has atttempted to twist and misrepresent the
> > simple issue and point.
>
> > > Ray, I'm not very optimistic about this upcoming paper of yours
> > > ("upcoming," in the sense that Ultima Pangea is upcoming, but not
> > > necessarily that fast, of course).  I have this horrible feeling
> > > (based on everything you write) that it's going to be scores of pages
> > > of "every scientifically literate person on Earth disagrees with me,
> > > and that just proves that Gene Scott was right about God's penalty and
> > > Satan."  It's a very ambitious sort of conspiracy-theoretical tripe,
> > > but it's still conspiracy-theoretical tripe.
>
> > When has any Darwinist been optimistic about any unfriendly paper?
>
> Ray, we "Darwinists" here have been known to complain about the poor
> quality of the local creationists.  Most of us would love an argument
> against evolution that actually forced us to think and work to pick it
> apart.  If we thought your paper was going to be any good, there would
> be a lot of enthusiasm for it, if only for the opportunity it gave to
> locate errors and pick them apart.  But your arguments, as Wolfgang
> Pauli once put it in reference to a different matter, are not only not
> right, they're not even wrong.  They don't have enough to do with the
> subject they're supposed to refute to be wrong about it.
>
> > Somehow I do not feel slighted. I can and will prove ToE
> > scientifically false. That's what I said up-thread - no wonder you are
> > unoptimistic. Has any Darwinist been optimistic about a claim of
> > falsification? Does anyone know what this guy is talking about?
>
> Phillip Gingerich was enthusiastic enough about the evidence (genetic
> and fossil) that showed that whales evolved from primitive
> artiodactyls rather than from mesonychids, even though he had long
> backed the mesonychid connection, which was falsfied by the new
> evidence.  Does that count?
>
>
>
>
>
> > > > > All human populations have evolved.  All human
> > > > > populations are capable of further evolution.  In this respect, humans
> > > > > do not differ from any other biological species.  It is hardly special
> > > > > pleading to point out that "all human populations" include African
> > > > > human populations. 
>
> > > > Forty percent of the American population says we did not evolve.
> > > > Atheists have no choice but to believe in the "miracle."
>
> > > I do not see that the above remarks really address my point.  If you
> > > wish, you may read my paragraph above as "according to all
> > > evolutionists, including Dana Tweedy, all human populations evolved,
> > > etc."  You have not offered any reason for your exclusion of Africans
> > > from the human race.
>
> > You had no point. All you did was to say that you believe in human
> > evoution. We know this, what is your point? This is the second time in
> > the same post that you have told us something that we already knew but
> > did not make a point.
>
> My first point is that scientific facts are not determined by polling
> data.  In politics, what 40% of Americans think matters; they're
> potentially a pressure group that will need to be either placated or
> persuaded somehow.  But in science, the majority can be either right
> or wrong, depending on what the evidence shows.  My second point is
> that evolution, whether of humans or of other species, is not a
> miracle, is not incredible, and is accepted on evidence rather than on
> faith.  My third point is that even if polls were relevant (again,
> they are not), and even if evolution were a religious belief (again,
> it is not), saying that all human populations are the result of
> evolution and all have the potential for further evolution is in no
> way racist.  My fourth point is that nothing you have said offers even
> a bad argument against any of the first three points; you just assert
> things without bothering to support them.
>
> > The issue is that you are attempting to act like placing Africans and
> > transitional is the same context is not gutter racism. In response, I
> > point out the continued attempt to justify and rationalize.
>
> The issue here is that you are wrong, and refuse either to admit it or
> to offer evidence and arguments for your position.
>
> > > Neither reproduction, nor mutations, nor inheritance, nor natural
> > > selection, are "miracles." 
>
> > True. What is your point? Did you forget that we are talking about
> > racist human evolution from African genesis?
>
> Ray, one of my pet peeves is the modern tendency to promiscuously
> accuse one's opponents of racism.  "Darwinists" do  this too, by the
> way: a common "Darwinist" taunt to creationists is "humans ...
>
> read more »- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
………………
On Apr 23, 3:20 pm, "Steven J." <steve...@altavista.com> wrote:
> On Apr 23, 11:50 am, Ray Martinez <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Apr 22, 6:06 pm, "Steven J." <steve...@altavista.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Apr 22, 4:34 pm, Ray Martinez <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> -- [snip]
>
> > > > Don Imus was fired for something much less antiseptic. I can only
> > > > interpret your "query" above as rhetorical attempting to act like it
> > > > is not. Since Darwinists have gotten away with it by successfully
> > > > brainwashing society with the "it is science" card your "query" is
> > > > just as I said.
>
> > > Ray, you have never bothered to justify the rather astonishing
> > > assertion that it *is* racism to use the words "African" and
> > > "transitional" in the same context.  Also, I think that "antiseptic"
> > > does not mean what you think it means, unless you really meant that
> > > Dana Tweedy's remarks kill more germs than Don Imus's radio show.
>
> > You have evaded my previous commentary. Why? This usually indicates
> > that the commentary is confirmed.
>
> Which previous commentary?  The thing about Don Imus?  He was fired
> for calling a women's basketball team ... well, as one commentator put
> it, a term so vile it can only be heard 24 hours a day on stations
> playing hip-hop music.  He ought not have done that, although he'd got
> away with doing similar things for years.  He was not fired for
> asserting that African Pygmies are fully human and have the same
> evolutionary potential as other humans.  I think it unlikely that he
> would have been fired for making such a point, but that was, after
> all, exactly what Dana was saying.
>
> > Your first "question" is a rhetorical point attempting to assert that
> > gutter racism is not as such when the "it is science" card is played.
> > Again, what makes you different from Imus? The latter and his remarks
> > were much more antiseptic than your gutter racism.
>
> Could you define the term "antiseptic" as you are using it?  Anyway,
> Ray, *you* were the one who brought up African Pygmies and
> "transitional forms" in the same context.  *You* were the one who
> suggested that African Pygmies might appear to be less than human.  If
> you did not suspect that these Africans were less human than other
> members of _Homo sapiens, why did you not ask the equally sensible
> question, could Sherpas or Swiss be considered transitional forms?
> Dana would have given you the exact same answer to that question, so
> it is only your own choice of Pgymies as a subject that introduces
> "gutter racism" into the topic.
>

I am a Creationist - I reject human evolution, Steven J. Einstein.

I asked a question pretty much knowing what the answer would be. Dana,
without any hesitation gave what he thought to be a scientific answer.
Negative. Placing Africans and transitional in the same sentence and
context is gutter racism. Calling it "science" shows that human
evolution is a completely illegitimate enterprise; hatred of God-
daring anyone to call a racist a racist. This is what happens when God
is rejected - you end up believing anything; like gutter racism is
science. Since you have no conscience or idea about what I am saying
you are confirmed brainwashed and deluded, which is exactly what I
have told Dana.

> > > > What would happen if a Fox network newscaster said "African-pygmies
> > > > could be transitional if....." Would he obtain the "it is science"
> > > > exemption?
>
> > > Ray, it *is* science, and is not racism. 
>
> > It is gutter racism. The hypocritical exemption Darwinists receive can
> > only be explained by the existence of Satan.
>
> Again, how can it be racism, much less "gutter" racism (presumably,
> the vilest and stupidest sort of racism) to assert, as Dana did, that
> all humans are equally human and all groups have the potential to be a
> transitional form to some other sort of human?  How can it be racism,
> much less gutter racism, to assume that people can read for meaning
> and interpret remarks in context?
>

How is placing Africans and transitional in the same sentence and
context not gutter racism? Since human evolution claims the African
linkage into modern man - forget Dana, the entire "discipline" is
racist and comparable to eugenics.

You Darwinists are completely deluded.

"It is science" does not hocus pocus make said racism suddenly
legitimate science. You are literally insane and unable to see it. The
CLAIM began in Darwin's racist mind after he rejected God as Creator.
Darwin was a materialist, which is extreme heresy-atheism. Oh wait,
that is what all you god-damn Darwinists are. ToE is built on
Materialism, so if you think of yourself as a Christian, tell me how
is it that you can bow to the philosophy of atheism and still be a
Christian? "It is science." Atheism is science and ass kissing
Christians are bowing to Baal? Where do you get the idea that Jesus
approves? What is your source? The Source says Jesus descended from
Adam, why would He give you and exemption? The point is that Satan has
you deceived into thinking that Jesus has given you the "it is
science" exemption.

"The essence of being deceived: you THINK that you are all right with
God (but you are not)."

If what you believe does not match the Bible = you are deceived. If
you use an atheism-based origins theory to control interpretation of
Scripture you are deceived. Dana thinks everyone who thinks that the
Bible CLAIMS special creation is deceived, this would include Darwin
and most atheists involved in the Creation-Evolution debate. Darwin
spent a considerable amount of the "Origin" "refuting" special
creation and he had a degree in theology, or Dana is involved in a ad
hoc "argument" intended just for me.

> > > Nothing but hysterical
> > > hypersensitivity (or the tactical feigning of such sensitivity) could
> > > regard it as such.  Would some racial huckster demand that it be
> > > treated as racism?  Perhaps; is it not enough that you have debased
> > > yourself to the level of a Gene Scott?  Must you adopt Al Sharpton as
> > > a role model as well?  Are you aiming for some Guiness World Record in
> > > hypocrisy and paranoia?
>
> > We already know what atheist-Darwinists think of theist scholars and
> > African-American leaders, what is your point?
>
> "Atheist-Darwinists" generally distinguish between different theist
> scholars (Pope Benedict is not John Haught, and neither of them, thank
> the Higher Power of your choice, is Gene Scott), and between different
> African-American leaders.  Is it not "gutter racism" to lump disparate
> people with disparate positions and credentials into a single
> undifferentiated mass, based merely on aspects of their religious
> creed or ethnic background?
>
> > > > The success of the exemption is spectacular proof for the existence of
> > > > an invisble Satan.
>
> > > So your positioin is this:  the fact that no one who knows anything
> > > about evolutionary theory thinks that evolutionary theory is racist
> > > (and, for that matter, that no one who knows anything about Dana
> > > Tweedy thinks that Dana is racist) is proof of Satan, as opposed to,
> > > e.g. proof that evolutionary theory and Dana Tweedy are not, in fact,
> > > racist.  Or, more generally, the fact that no one with a clue and a
> > > functioning brain agrees with you proves that you are right and that
> > > everyone else is deluded by Satan.
>
> > Why has Steven completely twisted the simple point?
>
> It seems to me that I have accurately represented the simple point:
> you cannot admit that you are wrong, or that your opponents are right,
> on any point, and will go to the most paranoid and absurd lengths to
> justify your obstinance.
>

It is Darwinists who say Africans are the link between modern man and
ape ancestor. You MUST call it science, it is a necessity. I am not
deluded into thinking you will ever admit the obvious. It does not
matter what you say or assert; human evolution is gutter racism: the
depths the Atheist will go to give God the finger.



> > The simple point: Placing Africans and transitional in the same
> > context is gutter racism.
>
> Woe betide those poor Kenyans trying to deal with the Turkana boy; no
> matter what position they take, they're Africans placing themselves in
> the same context as "transitional," so they must be gutter racists.
>
> > This explains why he has atttempted to twist and misrepresent the
> > simple issue and point.
>
> > > Ray, I'm not very optimistic about this upcoming paper of yours
> > > ("upcoming," in the sense that Ultima Pangea is upcoming, but not
> > > necessarily that fast, of course).  I have this horrible feeling
> > > (based on everything you write) that it's going to be scores of pages
> > > of "every scientifically literate person on Earth disagrees with me,
> > > and that just proves that Gene Scott was right about God's penalty and
> > > Satan."  It's a very ambitious sort of conspiracy-theoretical tripe,
> > > but it's still conspiracy-theoretical tripe.
>
> > When has any Darwinist been optimistic about any unfriendly paper?
>
> Ray, we "Darwinists" here have been known to complain about the poor
> quality of the local creationists.  Most of us would love an argument
> against evolution that actually forced us to think and work to pick it
> apart.  If we thought your paper was going to be any good, there would
> be a lot of enthusiasm for it, if only for the opportunity it gave to
> locate errors and pick them apart.  But your arguments, as Wolfgang
> Pauli once put it in reference to a different matter, are not only not
> right, they're not even wrong.  They don't have enough to do with the
> subject they're supposed to refute to be wrong about it.
>

Commentary presupposes that Darwinists would accept falsification on
any matter previously accepted. This has never happened. You are not
open to falsification. You could not even admit that Darwin assumed
human evolution is 1838 with no evidence in hand, but based it on
mutability of [bird] species [and racist "similarity" to living apes].
He says this in his Autobio (Barlow ed.1958:130) and yet you guys
still cannot admit. You never admit to ANYTHING, which makes your
commentary above utterly worthless tripe. I should point out that
scholars admit, it is only the ordinary and subjective Darwinists who
cannot.

> > Somehow I do not feel slighted. I can and will prove ToE
> > scientifically false. That's what I said up-thread - no wonder you are
> > unoptimistic. Has any Darwinist been optimistic about a claim of
> > falsification? Does anyone know what this guy is talking about?
>
> Phillip Gingerich was enthusiastic enough about the evidence (genetic
> and fossil) that showed that whales evolved from primitive
> artiodactyls rather than from mesonychids, even though he had long
> backed the mesonychid connection, which was falsfied by the new
> evidence.  Does that count?
>
>
>
>
>
> > > > > All human populations have evolved.  All human
> > > > > populations are capable of further evolution.  In this respect, humans
> > > > > do not differ from any other biological species.  It is hardly special
> > > > > pleading to point out that "all human populations" include African
> > > > > human populations. 
>
> > > > Forty percent of the American population says we did not evolve.
> > > > Atheists have no choice but to believe in the "miracle."
>
> > > I do not see that the above remarks really address my point.  If you
> > > wish, you may read my paragraph above as "according to all
> > > evolutionists, including Dana Tweedy, all human populations evolved,
> > > etc."  You have not offered any reason for your exclusion of Africans
> > > from the human race.
>
> > You had no point. All you did was to say that you believe in human
> > evoution. We know this, what is your point? This is the second time in
> > the same post that you have told us something that we already knew but
> > did not make a point.
>
> My first point is that scientific facts are not determined by polling
> data. 

Except when a TEist says a high percentage of scientists are
Christians. That is exactly what the TEist is saying without actually
saying it.

> In politics, what 40% of Americans think matters; they're
> potentially a pressure group that will need to be either placated or
> persuaded somehow.  But in science, the majority can be either right
> or wrong, depending on what the evidence shows.  My second point is
> that evolution, whether of humans or of other species, is not a
> miracle, is not incredible, and is accepted on evidence rather than on
> faith. 

Negative. It is packaged as evidence, based on presuppositions that
eliminate all other options (= Materialism).

> My third point is that even if polls were relevant (again,
> they are not), and even if evolution were a religious belief (again,
> it is not), saying that all human populations are the result of
> evolution and all have the potential for further evolution is in no
> way racist.  My fourth point is that nothing you have said offers even
> a bad argument against any of the first three points; you just assert
> things without bothering to support them.
>

Such as....

I think you will now run away.


Ray

SNIP....
…………..


On Apr 23, 10:16 pm, "Steven J." <steve...@altavista.com> wrote:
> On Apr 23, 10:46 pm, Ray Martinez <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote:> On Apr 23, 3:20 pm, "Steven J." <steve...@altavista.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Apr 23, 11:50 am, Ray Martinez <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > > On Apr 22, 6:06 pm, "Steven J." <steve...@altavista.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > On Apr 22, 4:34 pm, Ray Martinez <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> -- [snip of matters previously addressed]
>
>
>
>
>
> > > > When has any Darwinist been optimistic about any unfriendly paper?
>
> > > Ray, we "Darwinists" here have been known to complain about the poor
> > > quality of the local creationists.  Most of us would love an argument
> > > against evolution that actually forced us to think and work to pick it
> > > apart.  If we thought your paper was going to be any good, there would
> > > be a lot of enthusiasm for it, if only for the opportunity it gave to
> > > locate errors and pick them apart.  But your arguments, as Wolfgang
> > > Pauli once put it in reference to a different matter, are not only not
> > > right, they're not even wrong.  They don't have enough to do with the
> > > subject they're supposed to refute to be wrong about it.
>
> > Commentary presupposes that Darwinists would accept falsification on
> > any matter previously accepted. This has never happened. You are not
> > open to falsification. You could not even admit that Darwin assumed
> > human evolution is 1838 with no evidence in hand, but based it on
> > mutability of [bird] species [and racist "similarity" to living apes].
> > He says this in his Autobio (Barlow ed.1958:130) and yet you guys
> > still cannot admit. You never admit to ANYTHING, which makes your
> > commentary above utterly worthless tripe. I should point out that
> > scholars admit, it is only the ordinary and subjective Darwinists who
> > cannot.
>
> Ray, the fact that you egregiously misread Darwin's writings to
> support your own preconceptions does not amount to a falsification of
> anything.  You understand neither Darwin nor our own replies to you,
> and misread this as proof that we cannot be persuaded to abandon a
> disproved belief.
>

The Darwinist cannot refute what I said, which was based on what
Darwin's mouth plainly said and based on what my scholarly source has
said. In an attempt to get around this unpleasantry the Darwinist (who
in this particular case is Steven J. Thompson) ceases debate and
discussion, and suddenly employs what I will call "Tactic" - a way to
sow doubt in the face of crystal clear evidence that the Darwinist
does not like.

Tactic, in this instance, is the introduction of a circular argument -
the "accusation" of "misunderstanding." By claiming his opponent
"misunderstands" (as opposed to legitimate disagreement) Thompson has
**initiated** a "circular tactic argument." It is as such because I
then *could* say and claim, in rebuttal, the same thing concerning
Thompson - that he misunderstands - and around and around we go.

Objective observers already know that Creationists (like myself) and
Darwinists (like Thompson) disagree on just about everything from the
outset. But the Darwinist, in this case, cannot win said argument
because the evidence contradicts his already spoken-up for
preconceptions, and now he must rely on Tactic to save face. In
addition, the introduction of this tactic  ("circular misunderstanding
defense") presupposes superior correcting the inferior = "you
misunderstand." But we already know that it is disagreement and not a
misunderstanding because said combatants are a Creationist and
Darwinist. It is Tactic attempting to confuse plain evidence that
Thompson cannot refute, driven by the fact that he has already spoken-
up for the refuted position.

I had previously claimed that no matter what, Darwinists never admit
to anything - no matter how clear the evidence might be.

Darwin, in 1876, writing in prose, plainly and honestly tells us that
as soon as he determined species mutable productions "[he] could not
avoid the belief that man must come under the same law."

"As soon as I had become, in the year 1837 or 1838, convinced that
species were mutable productions, I could not avoid the belief that
man must come under the same law" (Barlow ed. 1958:130).

We know in the time frame stated that Darwin himself, previously, also
believed in the fixity of species, but now, after having had his bird
specimens examined, came to the conclusion that fixity is false...."I
could [then] not avoid the belief that man must come under the same
law" (1838).

Darwin did not produce his man book until 1871, and "Origin" at this
point was still twenty-one years away - a volume that he admits avoids
man.

Professor of History Edward J. Larson has said that Darwin, in the
same 1838 time frame thought that certain human beings resembled
"primates in the London zoo" and he quotes Darwin in this same context
admitting exactly that (2004:67). Since we know Darwin was openly
racist (Victorian England) it obviously played a role in his belief.

But the point here is that in 1838 Darwin admits that he assumed human
evolution based on [bird] mutability. Thompson does not like this
fact. He wants his preconceptions confirmed: "human evolution based on
evidence from the outset" and he wants the facts that it was
originally conceived in racism and assumption covered because *this
origin* for modern human evolution theory is unflattering and damning
to its "reputation" of "always being evidenced based."

Now we see the need for Tactic.

If Darwinists like Thompson are willing to be this brazenly dishonest,
that is, concerning an admission written in prose, and employ the
Tactic of "misunderstanding" we could only wonder what they have done
with complicated genetic and molecular evidence where the general
public has to take their word on it?

Thompson's tactic is an insult to ones intelligence and proves that
Darwinists, no matter how clear the evidence, deny (= lie).
Previously, Thompson attempts to undermine the assumption-based
beginning for human evolution by saying that Darwin had collected
evidence for human evolution. Not in or before ***1838,*** and Darwin,
as we have seen, plainly admits. We will leave the door open for
Thompson right here, that is, produce clear evidence (with Darwin and
scholarly support like I did) that he had accumulated evidence for
human evolution by 1838, or remain reliant upon said Tactic
("misunderstanding") to dismiss the prose of Darwin's admission. Since
no other Darwinist has objected to Thompson's "circular tactic
argument" we know he has proverbially winked at them, that is, do not
object : it is understood that "we need this Tactic because we have a
Creationist who has produced and argued some damning crystal clear
evidence that harms the reputation of our theory."

Thompson should have been honest like Darwin and Larson (who is an
evolutionist) and simply countered with: "the evidence now vindicates
Darwin's assumption." But Thompson did not do that. I might add that
Darwinian historians (scholars) do not deny the prose of Darwin's
admission. Ordinary Darwinists like Thompson, on a routine basis, on
the Internet, based on an unwillingness to admit that their
preconceptions are wrong, are the ones who engage in Tactic.

Ray Martinez, Creationist

No comments:

Post a Comment