The Association for Science Education adds its voice for evolution

Association for Science Education: "....[SNIP] Intelligent Design [SNIP]....is not science at all. Intelligent Design belongs to a different domain and should not be presented to learners as a competing or alternative scientific idea. As such, Intelligent Design has no place in the science education of young people in school."

Could we expect Darwinists to say anything else?

What is the point?

Could we expect Darwinists to say anything else? What is the point?

Yes, what is the point of telling the truth about ID lies and liars? We should just save our breath. It should be so obvious that anyone could figure it out for themselves.

Strangely, there are still a few around who haven't.

PvM: "What’s a Darwinist? Perhaps you mean scientist? What’s the point? To clarify to the public that ID is scientifically infertile and does not belong in science classrooms?"

I meant what I said and said what I meant. A Darwinist is a person who accepts the modern theory as first proposed by Darwin (and his thinking), the foundation of which still stands strong among the purveyors of evolutionary "science."

As to the original point and issue: again; what is the point since we already know that evolutionists (is that a better term) think that ID is not Science?

Can you answer a simple question?

As to the original point and issue: again; what is the point since we already know that evolutionists (is that a better term) think that ID is not Science?

I am here to give you people another article to refute which was given to me by a creationist:
http://www.livingdinos.com/dinosaur.html
The reason I'm asking you people to refute these things is that, although I believe evolution is true, I don't have a degree in biology, so my arguments wouldn't be as scientific or eloquent as yours.

Since we all use light bulbs, then we are all Edisonists. If someone had a beef against light bulbs, then he or she would slander Thomas Edison to cast a stigma onto light bulb use. But light bulbs and other electrical devices have gone beyond anything Edison could have envisioned. So the term 'Edisonist' is silly. So it is with 'Darwinist' or "Freudist' or 'Newtonist'. The term 'creationist' works just fine, because it's base, the story in Genesis, never changes.

Izzhov, that livingdino article doesn't deserve a response from someone with a Ph.D, since I don't have one, I will comment. There have been thousands of Elvis sightings, so creationists must think he is alive too. All we have to do is catch him, fingerprint and DNA test him, then we have proof. Is proof too much to ask for? Apparently, for creationists, it is.

Darwinist, evolutionist, atheist, agnostic, secular humanist, anything that ain’t my religionist; these are all words to label as bad and evil anyone who doesn’t subscribe to the sectarian views of Ray Martinez. These are a few of the favorite hate-words of the religious fanatics gunning for a fight.

We can see Ray’s heroes on the religion TV channels railing against science and evolution as the cause of all the evil in the world. This is one of the techniques they use to rally their followers to sectarian wars against secular society. You can see the flashing hatred in the eyes of the congregation as the cameras pan the nodding heads of the faithful. You can sense it in the bills introduced into State Legislatures to crowd out evolution in the biology classes. You can see it in Philip Johnson’s diatribes against “naturalism”. You can read it in Dembski’s scorn of scientists who challenge him to present data or who point out his bollixed-up computer programs. It lies just beneath the surface in the letters-to-the-editors of local newspapers.

Such peaceful, loving people, these. War good, knowledge bad!

Ray Martinez: PvM: "What’s a Darwinist? Perhaps you mean scientist? What’s the point? To clarify to the public that ID is scientifically infertile and does not belong in science classrooms?" I meant what I said and said what I meant. A Darwinist is a person who accepts the modern theory as first proposed by Darwin (and his thinking), the foundation of which still stands strong among the purveyors of evolutionary "science."

Modern-day proponents of the Theory of Evolution do not call themselves "Darwinist," as that term is only properly used by science historians to refer to Darwin's immediate colleagues and supporters. Creationists use the terms "Darwinist" and "Darwinism" to unsubtly imply that supporters of the Theory of Evolution are heathen cultists, hence the reason why so many biologists bristle at the idea of being labeled a "Darwinist."

Ray Martinez: PvM: "What’s a Darwinist? Perhaps you mean scientist? What’s the point? To clarify to the public that ID is scientifically infertile and does not belong in science classrooms?" I meant what I said and said what I meant. A Darwinist is a person who accepts the modern theory as first proposed by Darwin (and his thinking), the foundation of which still stands strong among the purveyors of evolutionary "science."

What's the point? Well, simple, really. Those indulging in the apologetics of creationism constantly maintain that evolution is somehow in "trouble", that ID is a competing, viable theory that challenges evolutionary biology, and that it is backed up by a growing number of scientists. Because politicians and the public are largely ignorant of the actual evidence for biological evolution and the underlying religious/political motivation behind those pushing ID (as well as the lack of a scientific basis for ID), science education has come under increasing pressure, as intended by those pushing ID and creationism. Therefore, societies such as the ASE feel compelled to produce formal statements backed up by their membership to forcefully convey to the public the fact that mainstream scientists do not support ID, do not view it as science, and do not find any reason for its inclusion in science courses at any level, especially given that its stated purpose is to undermine accepted science in both fact and methodology. These are professional scientists who understand full well the implications of ID and creationism if taught as science.

Now it is true, Mr. Martinez, that those who live in a self-constructed "reality" where everything is based on pre-conceived ideological absolutes, will find such statements as evidence of some sort of weird conspiracy against those absolutes. Alternatively, those who feel they have a death-grip on cosmic truth on the basis of ideological dogma automatically assume that anyone disagreeing with them must be stupid and, ironically, deluded. Therefore such people are inclined to view statements such as those of the ASE as validation of the stupidity of those who disagree with them.

So, apart from the point mentioned above, the secondary answer is that to you, Mr. Martinez, there is no point whatsoever. No fact, no evidence, no logic, and no argument can possibly convince you that you are wrong. I may as well try to convince a pile of dog shit to smell nice.

I may as well try to convince a pile of dog shit to smell nice.

perfect.

Here’s what I have to say about the article “Are Dinosaurs Still Living?” linked above. I don’t have a degree in biology Izzhov, but I do have the internet.

When anyone tells you something like “Most people that have seen them, never tell anyone for fear that people will think they are silly and foolish”, it’s a safe bet to go ahead and say they’re full of crap. It takes two people to keep a secret. And one of them has to be dead.

What they said about the coelacanth is true (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coelacanth). However, I doubt anyone ever said they evolved legs (scientists thought it had gone extinct). A coelacanth is not a dinosaur, it is a fish, just like sharks, who have been around for hundreds of millions of years.

“During the flood most dinosaurs sank to the bottom, while the birds and lighter animals stayed near the surface of the mud and water” That’s crap. We don’t find elephants, rhinos, whales, etc in the same layers as dinosaurs. And what about all the small dinosaurs like compsognathus that appear at the same layers as those bigger dinos?

“If you were in a court of law and had 20,000 witnesses on your side, then you would have a very strong case.” Anyone who knows anything about the court system knows that witness testimony is the most unreliable form of evidence. Like the other poster said, many people claim to have seen Elvis after he died.

I tried Googling Georg Von Forstner, but he doesn’t seem to exist outside of creationist websites. Curious.

The part about the 12,000 pound octopus is suspect as well, because it was probably a whale (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gigantic_octopus)

You can read about the “plesiosaur” photo here: http://www.csicop.org/si/2003-07/monster.html
Not very convincing.

This article has absolutely no concrete evidence of dinosaurs being alive today. However, people see them all the time. We now call them “birds”.

mplavcan: I may as well try to convince a pile of dog shit to smell nice.

My brother saw a dinosaur once, in the fog in the suburbs outside Vancouver.

He was on acid.

True story.

dinosaurs did in fact exist along side of humans, the proof is that Fred and Wilma saw many, and this is well documented, to confirm, just google "Fintstones". also you can see a saddled dinosaur in Kentucky, some guy name "Hamm" allows kids to ride on them. So put that in your pipe and smoke it. The truth hurts all you non believers!

Can you answer a simple question?

— Ray Martinez

Let's hope the British wake up at last

Association for Science Education: “….[SNIP] Intelligent Design [SNIP]….is not science at all. Intelligent Design belongs to a different domain and should not be presented to learners as a competing or alternative scientific idea. As such, Intelligent Design has no place in the science education of young people in school.” Could we expect Darwinists to say anything else?

What is the point?

Can you answer a simple question?

Let’s hope the British wake up at last

— Michael Roberts

I am here to give you people another article to refute which was given to me by a creationist: http://www.livingdinos.com/dinosaur.html The reason I’m asking you people to refute these things is that, although I believe evolution is true, I don’t have a degree in biology, so my arguments wouldn’t be as scientific or eloquent as yours.

What’s a Darwinist?

A Darwinist is a person who accepts the modern theory as first proposed by Darwin (and his thinking), the foundation of which still stands strong among the purveyors of evolutionary “science.”

Modern-day proponents of the Theory of Evolution do not call themselves “Darwinist,” as that term is only properly used by science historians to refer to Darwin’s immediate colleagues and supporters.

The reason I’m asking you people to refute these things is that, although I believe evolution is true, I don’t have a degree in biology, so my arguments wouldn’t be as scientific or eloquent as yours.

Re. the Dinos article, let's just pick out a few choice lines from early on:

"The Bible says there was a world wide flood that directly resulted in multiple layers being formed."

The Bible doesn't say anything but multiple layers. This guy apparently hasn't read his own holy text. Imagine how reliable a source he must be.

"Noah’s Flood is the only way to explain how fish fossils have been found with undigested fossilized fish left inside them."

Total non sequitur. How exactly is a _flood_ supposed to kill a lot of _fish_? And if he means that the fish were left behind on land when the flood receded... what does that have to do with stomach contents? In any case, conventional taphonomy can easily account for fossile with undigested stomach contents: they died before they finished digesting. Duh.

Anyway, we have much more interesting fossils than that. We have fossils of ichthyosaurs that died in childbirth. How cool is that?

"How trillions of creatures became fossilized (fossilization is rare), and how fossilized clams were found in the closed position (which proves they were buried alive)."

If fossilisation is rare, and we have trillions of fossils, then I guess fossilisation must have been going on for a very long time. Like, hundreds of millions of years. I have no idea what is point is about clams. Does he imagine that only Noah's flood is capable of burying clams? I mean, what?

There you go, three sentences, every one filled with errors and lies. See why we don't take creationists seriously?

Izzhov said, "although I believe evolution is true, I don’t have a degree in biology, so my arguments wouldn’t be as scientific or eloquent as yours."

You know, so what that you don't have a degree in biology? Science is about facts that anyone can, in principle, observe--not about pronouncements from authority figures. There is lot of material on evolution geared to intelligent non-scientists. A good beginning is the TalkOrigins website, but you can branch out from there to magazines, books, and other Internet sites-- and, if the subject interests you enough, to scientific papers.

Since real, working scientists must concentrate their research in relatively limited areas where they have extremely detailed knowledge, their general understanding isn't necessarily any more 'expert' than yours is-- except that scientists have the confidence that they can understand the facts for themselves, without relying on an authority figure to interpret the world for them. But you don't need a degree in biology to do that. All you need is a working brain. And you have that already, right?

Soteos wrote:

"When anyone tells you something like “Most people that have seen them, never tell anyone for fear that people will think they are silly and foolish”, it’s a safe bet to go ahead and say they’re full of crap. It takes two people to keep a secret. And one of them has to be dead."

Agreed. I once had a family member tell me that a living dinosaur had been caught by people on a fishing boat and that proved that the Bible we right, the earth was 6,000 years old and dinosaurs were still around. When I asked where this supposed dinosaur was, he replied that they had to release it because they were afraid that it would die! Really! No pictures, no tissue samples, not even a drawing, nothing! Of course I replied that if they were really that stupid that they didn't deserve to be believed even if they had caught a real dinosaur.

The point is that when people are willing to believe anything without evidence you can convince them of almost anything, as long as they want to believe it. And of course once they believe it it becomes true, so you can't argue with them. Believe me, these are not the kind of people you want teaching science in schools.

And by the way, it's a lot easier for two people to keep a secret if both of them are dead. Still no guarantees, but it helps.

The core of Darwin’s theory, AFAIU hereditary traits, variation and selection, survived their subsumption into the modern theory.

— Torbjorn Larsson

Some biologists who concentrates on selection as a default research strategy, seems to call themselves “darwinists” (small d), at least Dawkins seems to have done so at one time or other. OTOH I don’t think that darwinists call themselves “Darwinists” or would identify any “Darwinism” as a subset of evolutionary mechanisms. That is AFAIU fully a historical term, another science term abused by the know-nothings of IDC shame

"Darwinism" and "Darwinist" aren't nearly strong enough for a true creationist to use as a pejorative. A stronger suffix (that shows our true left-leaning, political-apostate, militaristic-atheism) is "-ista".

We are Darwinistas! The brutally democratic crucible of scientific peer review is only a canard. It is the politburo of science that dictates the revelations of nature.

Science Nut, without authorization, mentioned the existence of the "Politburo of Science." He will now be visited in the middle of the night by the Darwinista Storm Troopers - for relocation at the status of a non-poster.

He would have been spared if he had stuck with the dastardly cabal of repressive academics who only wish to stifle true knowledge.

I am here to give you people another article to refute which was given to me by a creationist: http://www.livingdinos.com/dinosaur.html The reason I’m asking you people to refute these things is that, although I believe evolution is true, I don’t have a degree in biology, so my arguments wouldn’t be as scientific or eloquent as yours.

I don’t think that darwinists call themselves “Darwinists” or would identify any “Darwinism” as a subset of evolutionary mechanisms. That is AFAIU fully a historical term, another science term abused by the know-nothings of IDC shame

I am a Darwinist

Darwinism rejects all supernatural phenomena and causations. The theory of evolution by natural selection explains the adaptedness and diversity of the world solely materialistically.

Thursday, Feb. 9 -- "Where Do We Go From Here? The Future of Darwinism in American Society," at the Museum of the Earth, 10 a.m.-11:30 a.m. This panel discussion, moderated by Cornell Provost Biddy Martin, will examine the impact of the recent Dover decision on the future of Darwinism.

Ray Martinez: Association for Science Education: "....[SNIP] Intelligent Design [SNIP]....is not science at all. Intelligent Design belongs to a different domain and should not be presented to learners as a competing or alternative scientific idea. As such, Intelligent Design has no place in the science education of young people in school." Could we expect Darwinists to say anything else? What is the point?

mplavcan: What’s the point? Well, simple, really. Those indulging in the apologetics of creationism constantly maintain that evolution is somehow in “trouble”, that ID is a competing, viable theory that challenges evolutionary biology, and that it is backed up by a growing number of scientists.

Nigel D Do you have two brain cells to rub together? Obviously (to those of us who can figure it out, anyway), the ASE is issuing a direct counter to the Wedge strategy.

Popper's Ghost ["Can you answer a simple question?"] He did: “To clarify to the public that ID is scientifically infertile and does not belong in science classrooms”.

Mike Elzinga: Darwinist, evolutionist, atheist, agnostic, secular humanist, anything that ain’t my religionist; these are all words to label as bad and evil anyone who doesn’t subscribe to the sectarian views of Ray Martinez. These are a few of the favorite hate-words of the religious fanatics gunning for a fight.

could anyone expect Atheists to say anything else about Intelligent Design

Again; I am asking a question: Since the ASE are evolutionists could we expect them to say anything else about the current ID movement (their perceived enemy)?

Hey, Michael roberts, we British woke up years ago.

Our home grown creationists have been peddling their lies for a number of years, their most recent attempt was last year. So far, everyone from the government down to David Attenborough has come out to say that ID/creationism is wrong and doesn't belong in science classrooms.

Since the ASE are evolutionists could we expect them to say anything else about the current ID movement (their perceived enemy)?

Again, the ASE is a group of scientists and teachers. And they recognize ID as not being science. Whatever you think of that doesn't matter. It still doesn't make ID science.

Again, since your are a evolutionist are you eligible to say or believe anything else about ID (your perceived enemy)?

Any human is. Furthermore, as ID tries to pass itself as science, anyone is eligible to support or criticize it. Thus, yes of course.

We already know evolutionists despise IDists, what is the point?

One could ask the same question to ID supporters: since we already know they'll support ID in the face of any and every evidence, however compelling they are, what's the point of them repeating it over and over as if repetition made fact?

The OP said that ID was not science and a host of other similar things.

Which are all the sentiment of the scientific community on ID.

But could anyone expect Atheists to say anything else about Intelligent Design?

Well yes, if ID had a shred of evidence to support it, you could expect scientists and eve gasp atheists to support it.

I guess that the original co-discoverer of natural selection started “your fight”?

FL: Lots of "know-nothings" on the evolutionist side, it would seem!! FL :)

Ray Martinez:

Ray Martinez: Popper's Ghost ["Can you answer a simple question?"] He did: “To clarify to the public that ID is scientifically infertile and does not belong in science classrooms”.

But could anyone expect Atheists to say anything else about Intelligent Design?

Ray Martinez: I am still looking for an answer to my question. It appears that a number of persons have misunderstood, even though what I thought was the plainest prose possible. Again; I am asking a question: Since the ASE are evolutionists could we expect them to say anything else about the current ID movement (their perceived enemy)?

Ray Martinez is an ignorant troll, nothing you say to him will make a dent, your arguments are way above his level, so please don't feed the troll, maybe he will just go back to Dr. Dino's site.

It bears repeating to both Ray Martinez and FL, in that Intelligent Design is rejected by scientists because it is not science. In its most basic form, Intelligent Design is an appeal to ignorance, in that because we do not understand (insert biological phenomenom here), it was designed by a mysterious "designer," and we, mere mortals, can never hope to further understand it.
Furthermore, none of the current proponents of Intelligent Design have demonstrated how the saying of something being "designed" is capable of leading to further scientific inquiry.
Also, no Intelligent Design proponent has been able to demonstrate that any of them have the ability or even desire to explain anything about or with this alleged hypothesis, not FL, nor anyone in the Discovery Institute.

I think Ray has made it pretty clear that he knows nothing except hate-talk and starting fights. He is trying to be the stereotype of his sectarian world, and he has succeeded with obvious pride.

FL: Lots of "know-nothings" on the evolutionist side, it would seem!! FL :)

Ray Martinez: Popper’s Ghost [“Can you answer a simple question?”] He did: “To clarify to the public that ID is scientifically infertile and does not belong in science classrooms”.

Mr. Martinez:

I answered your "plain" question with a plain answer, as did several other people. So let's try this another way. You want to know if a biologist could provide any other opinion. The answer is, YES, absolutely. Biologists could support ID without ambiguity. The caveat here that seems to be eluding your abilities is that biologists will only provide that answer if there is evidence to support it. There is none. Zip. Zero. The "evidence" put up by the ID folks is demonstrably wrong. Period. End of story. Nothing more to say. I work as a professional scientist, and in my own field of expertise, as well as those that I am versed in, these guys aren't wrong -- they are stupidly wrong. Reading their stuff goes from laughable to sad to scary, especially when you realize that these clowns want to legislate that this crap be taught in schools as science.

Now I'm sorry that you can't wrap your brain around this. My guess is that you believe that Darwinists just base their views on faith and faith alone, distorting the evidence and interpreting it through a "materialistic, atheistic worldview", as promulgated daily over at Answers in Genesis and a host of other sites. Yeah, right. Believe it or not (in your case, little doubt there), there are huge volumes of data backing up the fact of evolution, and not one scrap that backs up either creationism or ID. Sorry. So while the answer is "yes" a biologist could answer another way, it is also "no" because any objective biologist with a shred of integrity cannot answer so if they base their opinion on evidence and not ideology. You question is equivalent to asking whether a mathemetician could give any other answer than "4" for the quesiton of what is 2+2.

So thank you for demonstrating the last sentence of my previous post hit the nail on the head.

Sheesh.

Also, no Intelligent Design proponent has been able to demonstrate that any of them have the ability or even desire to explain anything about or with this alleged hypothesis, not FL, nor anyone in the Discovery Institute.

So some evolutionists use the term “Darwinism” or “Darwinist” as a matter of custom. So what? That does not make them “know-nothings".

Ray Martinez unable to read: Again; I am asking a question: Since the ASE are evolutionists could we expect them to say anything else about the current ID movement (their perceived enemy)?

The Association for Science Education – a professional association for teachers of science in Britain and around the world, with over 15,000 members – recently issued a statement (PDF) on science education, “intelligent design,” and creationism, reading in part:

Hey Ray answer me this, who is more influential and powerful. A bunch of kooky monkey lovin' "Darwinists" or the intelligent designer himself? My money is on the monkey people!

Odd that the intelligent designer can create EVERYTHING but he's impotent when it comes to little old science organizations and federal courts of law. Seems like Darwinists have been making a monkey out of the intelligent designer for decades now.

FL seems to be another one who has put up lots of posts on Panda's Thumb, everyone of them revealing profound ignorance and contributing nothing except a confirmation of the stereotype he apparently represents.

Makes one wonder why these people display an obvious pride in that kind of dullness. Don't they understand that the entire world can see? Perhaps buffoons just enjoy being buffoons.

That is true, but it ought to make you evolutionists a little more careful about calling OTHER folks “know-nothings” when you yourselves clearly don’t have all the facts straight!!

Michod’s talk was the perfect lead-in for the penultimate lecture of the conference by the acknowledged star of the weekend, Lynn Margulis, famous for her pioneering research on symbiogenesis. Margulis began graciously by acknowledging the conference hosts and saying, “This is the most wonderful conference I’ve ever been to, and I’ve been to a lot of conferences.” She then got to work, pronouncing the death of neo-Darwinism. Echoing Darwin, she said “It was like confessing a murder when I discovered I was not a neo-Darwinist.” But, she quickly added, “I am definitely a Darwinist though. I think we are missing important information about the origins of variation. I differ from the neo-Darwinian bullies on this point.” She then outlined the basis of her theory of the origin of the cell nucleus as a fusion between archaebacteria (thermoplasma) and Eubacteria (Spirochaeta). “We live on a bacterial planet,” she reflected. “The cell is the fundamental unit of life. A minimal cell has DNA, mRNA, tRNA, rRNA, amino acylating enzymes, polymerases, sources of energy and electrons, lipoprotein membranes, and ion channels, all contained within a cell wall, and is an autopoietic (self-regulating feedback) system.” The biggest break in life, she explained, was between the prokaryotes (cells with nucleoids: monera, prokaryota; archaebacteria, eubacteria) and eukaryotes (cells with nuclei: protoctista, fungi, plantae, animalia).

FL: Dale says,

So some evolutionists use the term “Darwinism” or “Darwinist” as a matter of custom. So what? That does not make them “know-nothings".

That is true, but it ought to make you evolutionists a little more careful about calling OTHER folks "know-nothings" when you yourselves clearly don't have all the facts straight!! FL :)

Torbjörn Larsson, OM: OTOH I don't think that darwinists call themselves "Darwinists" or would identify any "Darwinism" as a subset of evolutionary mechanisms. That is AFAIU fully a historical term, another science term abused by the know-nothings of IDC shame.

mplavcan: .... You question is equivalent to asking whether a mathemetician could give any other answer than “4” for the quesiton of what is 2+2.

2 + 2 ≠ 4!

Martinez accidently making a correct point: We already know evolutionists despise IDists, what is the point?

Why is FL wasting so much time on this issue

another science term abused by the know-nothings of IDC shame

I mostly find Ray's comments here fascinating because he's quite clearly stating that it should be taken as simply assumed that scientists and science educators are "Darwinists" and thus opposed to ID, to the extent that stating this observation any further is cruelly redundant. Odd, if this is so obvious I wonder why the Discovery Institute does not seem to have noticed. Ray, have you considered taking your case to the DI?

Anyway:

It seems like there's been a lot of statements of this kind coming from Europe in specific in the last year or so. Am I just imagining this, and if not, did something specific set this off? Has there been some kind of rise in creationist activity in Europe that I haven't seen that they're responding to, or did the EU statement last year just set off some kind of fad? "Oh, hey, Intelligent Design, I don't think we've ever condemned that. We should get around to that soon..."

It seems like there’s been a lot of statements of this kind coming from Europe in specific in the last year or so.

I'll bite, what's wrong with "another science term abused by the know-nothings of IDC shame"

after all, they have no theory, no research, no peer reviewed papers, and no proof. That kind of sounds like "know-nothings". if the glove fits, then wear it.

Time and time again, we ask IDists for their theory and/or evidence, their papers, all to no avail, they just have none. Absolutely no progress in over 10 years. That's justification for the "know-nothing" comments, don't you think?

Coin: I mostly find Ray’s comments here fascinating because he’s quite clearly stating that it should be taken as simply assumed that scientists and science educators are “Darwinists” and thus opposed to ID....SNIP

Misrepresentation. The issue was scientists and educators and authors’ who oppose ID. Evolutionists are the only ones who oppose ID. Why would any person think that these persons are not evolutionists? Is this person saying that evolutionists do not oppose ID? Is this person saying that they are creationists?

Why would any person think that these persons are not evolutionists?

Again, I ask: when evolutionists deride ID is any other reaction possible?

New question: how come not even one evolutionist could supply this answer in their own words?

Evolutionists are the only ones who oppose ID.

Since nobody BUT evolutionists insist that evolution is science,...

...the only objective definition of ‘science’ is that the facts of scientific investigation exist and two major views offer an explanation of this database of information. ...

Therefore, evolution is not science, but a view that interprets scientific data just like ID or Creationism.

neo-anti-luddite (plagiarizing Ray Martinez): When IDists deride evolution, is any other reaction possible? [I will answer the question] Answer: No, because IDists oppose evolution bitterly. Next question: So what? IDists seek to misrepresent the issue as “evolution v. ID” instead of “science v. ID” because they say that ID is science. Since we already know that ID opposes evolution, they have nothing but a predictable opinion, and what is the point since we already know what ID thinks of evolution? When IDists presume to be speaking for “science,” I would say that this is also quite predictable, and about as objective as the filtered comments section of an ID website. Since nobody but IDists insist that ID is science, the only objective definition of “science” is that the facts of scientific investigation exist and only one view offers an explanation of this database of information (hint: it ain’t ID). Therefore, ID is not science, but a view that interprets scientific data just like creationism.

And when evolutionists presuppose upon themselves to be speaking for ‘science’ I would say that this is also quite predictable, and about as objective as nominating yourself. Since nobody BUT evolutionists insist that evolution is science, the only objective definition of ‘science’ is that the facts of scientific investigation exist and two major views offer an explanation of this database of information. Therefore, evolution is not science, but a view that interprets scientific data just like ID or Creationism.

the only objective definition of ‘science’ is that the facts of scientific investigation exist and two major views offer an explanation of this database of information.

Martinez lying: The issue was ‘scientists and educators and authors’ who oppose ID. Evolutionists are the only ones who oppose ID

Misrepresentation. The issue was ‘scientists and educators and authors’ who oppose ID. Evolutionists are the only ones who oppose ID.

Oh, I see now. So you're saying there's no point in coming forward and stating oneself to be a scientist or educator who supports evolution, because that just means you're an evolutionist, and everyone already knows that evolutionists support evolution? So there's no point in stating yourself to be an evolutionist, because everyone is already well aware that if you were an evolutionist, then you would be an evolutionist.

It's kind of like that old This Modern World strip: "No one cares what liberals think!" "Except other liberals." "And who cares about them!"

The thing about Raytard is that he is a well-known creo troll, who perhaps came here because the talkorigins forum was down for a time (at least I didn't get through the one time I tried--when I became curious about why he was trolling here).

He doesn't improve, he doesn't think, he just repeats himself ad nauseum, using tired old creo/ID lies. Play with him if you wish, but don't say that you weren't warned.

Glen D
http://tinyurl.com/2kxyc7

Question for Ray Martinez: What part of "ID promoters do not follow any scientific method in their works" do you not understand???

The issue was ‘scientists and educators and authors’ who oppose ID.

Evolutionists are the only ones who oppose ID.

Martinez said, "Evolutionists are the only ones who oppose ID."
Martinez clearly needs to be introduced to Brenda Tucker.

hoary puccoon: Martinez said, "Evolutionists are the only ones who oppose ID." Martinez clearly needs to be introduced to Brenda Tucker.

Dale Husband: Question for Ray Martinez: What part of "ID promoters do not follow any scientific method in their works" do you not understand???

We already know that evolutionists have this predictable opinion about ID, what is the point?

Martinez trolling: We already know that evolutionists have this predictable opinion about ID, what is the point?

raven: The people who oppose ID include the majority of the world's Xians....

....the vast majority of scientists, and many or most educated people in general. Anyone who has an appreciation for the truth and is a member of the reality based community. If you want to call them evolutionists fine. Most would call themselves just "people", "humans", Americans, parents, Catholics, and the like.

It takes a real dim bulb to categorize the human race on the basis of their attitude towards a religious pseudoscience chiefly espoused by cults in the south central USA.

In addition, in my brief appearance, I have been called a troll and other insults ... I think that this rude treatment supports the accusation that evolutionists cannot entertain rational discussion or defend their views.

Question for Ray Martinez: What part of “ID promoters do not follow any scientific method in their works” do you not understand???

We already know that evolutionists have this predictable opinion about ID, what is the point?

There is nothing unusual about experts being able and willing to identify fraud and put out fraud alerts. ID/Creationism has such a long track record of fraud and scamming taxpayers, school districts and state boards of education that a fraud alert is long overdue. When a fraud alert finally does come out, scammers who whine are simply engaging in displacement and self pity rather than learning that they have been caught.

Recovering the millions of dollars scammed out of school districts and taxpayers may be nearly impossible, but warning others is a responsible thing for the scientific community to do. We scientists have been too lenient while being preoccupied with our work, but now it is time for the shit to hit the fan. We have the knowledge and expertise to advise the public in this matter, so the fraudsters are just going to have to live with it.

Ray is a typical fundamentalist who rants on one moment about how evil moral relativism is, and then the next moment falls into a black hole of relativistic sophistry the moment the evidence turns against him.

In other words Ray, "I knew you were going to say that" is no more persuasive now than it was when you were 10 and tried to claim you controlled the universe. Time to grow up.

raven:

Martinez trolling: We already know that evolutionists have this predictable opinion about ID, what is the point?

The point is, with creepy trolls such as yourself, you have to repeat the same thing over and over a few times before you realize you are wasting your time. You're just trolling because you apparently have nothing better to do with your time than to waste other peoples. ID needs better trolls. They are getting lamer and lamer as ID sinks back into the ooze.

Science Avenger: Ray is a typical fundamentalist who rants on one moment about how evil moral relativism is, and then the next moment falls into a black hole of relativistic sophistry the moment the evidence turns against him. In other words Ray, "I knew you were going to say that" is no more persuasive now than it was when you were 10 and tried to claim you controlled the universe. Time to grow up.

FL lied:

Stanton says: Also, no Intelligent Design proponent has been able to demonstrate that any of them have the ability or even desire to explain anything about or with this alleged hypothesis, not FL, nor anyone in the Discovery Institute.

Already wrote my page worth of explanations to you Stanton, in the other thread there; that’s over with already. So unless you want to dispute (or better yet, concede) the fact that evolutionists continue to describe themselves with terms like “Darwinists” and “Darwinism” (which IS the point of my post), there’s not much more there to talk about!

Both viewpoints claim that their respective interpetations of the same scientific evidence correspond to reality, which, therefore justify its presuppositions. Creationism is superior: the observation of design seen in nature and organisms logically corresponds to the work of invisible Designer.

Again; I am asking a question: Since the ASE are evolutionists could we expect them to say anything else about the current ID movement (their perceived enemy)?

Of course we couldn't -- everything the evolutionists have said about ID is observably true (which is why we expect them to say it), and the IDers have made absolutely no progress in disproving any of it. You can ask the same dumbass question as many times as you want, but that's the only answer you'll get. The fact that you're now playing the crybaby-victim card ("What's the use nobody listens everybody already hates us WAAAAAAAAH!"), proves you've lost the argument.

Why would any Christian oppose a theory that says the intelligence of their Savior’s Father is seen in reality?

Because the "theory" is a pack of lies and they don't need lies to prop up their faith?

Oh, and before you start pretending you're the only "true Christian," you'll need to show what you've done in the real world in compliance with the teachings of Christ. Helping the needy counts, bearing false witness against innocent people doesn't.

Already wrote my page worth of explanations to you Stanton, in the other thread there; that’s over with already.

Quit lying, FL -- we all know you've never been able even to define any of your central concepts (information, complexity, specification, yada yada yada...), let alone defend your arguments. Everything you say gets debunked, you run away, and then you pop up on another thread making the same assertions we've already debunked. You know this is true, otherwise you would have happily provided a link to your "page worth of explanations." You have nothing to offer, and you don't even understand the creationist arguments you paste well enough to explain them.

I am still looking for an answer to my question.

He did: “To clarify to the public that ID is scientifically infertile and does not belong in science classrooms”.

I have said nothing that merits being called a troll.

An Internet troll, or simply troll in Internet slang, is someone who intentionally posts controversial or contrary messages in an on-line community such as an on-line discussion forum with the intention of baiting users into an argumentative response.

This means my opponents are unable to refute the logic employed and seek to cover and deflect away from this fact by slandering the man.

Why are you here Ray?

Ray Martinez: I am not a DI IDist and I have said nothing that merits being called a troll. This means my opponents are unable to refute the logic employed and seek to cover and deflect away from this fact by slandering the man. The original on-going point is that the logic employed exposes the evolutionists to have no objective criteria to justify their assertion that evolution IS science. This inability has resulted in the troll slander. I have never seen any dictionary or other type of source define 'science' with the word 'evolution' in it. Evolution is a viewpoint constrained by its presuppositions; the same does not allow pro-Theist interpretations or conclusions; therefore its explanations are predetermined. Creationsim is a viewpoint constrained by its presuppositions; the same does not allow pro-Atheist interpretations or conclusions; therefore its explanations are also predetermined. Both viewpoints claim that their respective interpetations of the same scientific evidence correspond to reality, which, therefore justify its presuppositions. Creationism is superior: the observation of design seen in nature and organisms logically corresponds to the work of invisible Designer. Evolution special pleads the same observation to correspond to an alleged natural process that deceives the mind into thinking that said observation is real, but it is an illusion (Dawkins 1986). Based on the fact that Creationism does not special plead said observation away, but takes it at face value, our presuppositions are superior and honest corresponding to reality. Evolution disregards said observation in favor of an atheistic supposition that negates the face value meaning of design. This is why all polls say that at least 50% of Americans are Creationists, we reject evolution "science" based on Atheist presuppositions that start with the assumption that reality is deceiving us.

You mean persons ***claiming*** to be Christians oppose ID? Said claim is refuted by the fact that they accept the same ***origins theory*** that all Atheists accept. Objectivity and logic say that Christians and Atheists do not believe the same thing concerning ***origins***.

Ray's not a pathological liar. There's no reason to doubt that he believes all the statements you quoted. But his reasoning and his approach to argumentation and rhetoric are dishonest. His posts are a stream of fallacies, but pointing any of them out has no effect upon him. The origin of these fallacies is his ignorance and dimwittedness, but his dishonesty keeps them intact.

Ray Martinez: Evolution is a viewpoint constrained by its presuppositions; the same does not allow pro-Theist interpretations or conclusions; therefore its explanations are predetermined. Creationsim is a viewpoint constrained by its presuppositions; the same does not allow pro-Atheist interpretations or conclusions; therefore its explanations are also predetermined.

In psychology, mythomania (also known as pseudologia fantastica or pathological lying) is a condition involving compulsive lying by a person with no obvious motivation.

This is absolutely ridiculous!

I reject Creationism because I don’t beleive in a God who is a liar.

Popper's Ghost, I stand corrected! I checked the sources and found your assesment of the situation to be correct. I apologize!

Hey, at least I am willing to admit to errors when they are shown to me, unlike the Creationist bigots!

So, there's probably no hope for waiting for Ray to demonstrate Intelligent Design's superior explanatory power by explaining how the heteromorph ammonite Nipponites mirabilis displays "intelligent design"?

Why would any Christian oppose a theory that says the intelligence of their Savior’s Father is seen in reality? You mean persons ***claiming*** to be Christians oppose ID?

No Ray Martinez is no troll, he really believes his nonsensical claims. Check out the newsgroups, he is everywhere with his content free claims.

Well, Coyne is worse than an atheist, he is a catholic...

Funny how some Christians are quick to reject their own.

Claiming that Christians who do not support ID/Creationism are not really true Christians is an underhanded form of arrogant bigotry. It is essentially saying that the supporters of ID/Creationism are the "True Christians" and everyone else is a hell-bound heathen.

We’ve seen this argument before, but no evidence is ever provided to show that these claimants have exclusive insight into the mind of any deity. There seems to be more evidence that they don't have any insights whatsoever. It's all bluster.

We’ve seen this argument before, but no evidence is ever provided to show that these claimants have exclusive insight into the mind of any deity. There seems to be more evidence that they don’t have any insights whatsoever. It’s all bluster.

Hey, at least I am willing to admit to errors when they are shown to me, unlike the Creationist bigots!

No Ray Martinez is no troll, he really believes his nonsensical claims.

An Internet troll, or simply troll in Internet slang, is someone who intentionally posts controversial or contrary messages in an on-line community such as an on-line discussion forum with the intention of baiting users into an argumentative response.

Trolls are recognizable by the fact that the have no real interest in learning about the topic at hand - they simply want to utter flame bait. Like the ugly creatures they are named after, they exhibit no redeeming characteristics, and as such, they are recognized as a lower form of life on the net, as in, "Oh, ignore him, he's just a troll."

Why would any Christian oppose a theory that says the intelligence of their Savior’s Father is seen in reality?

The saddest fact about the whole ID/creationist scam and fiasco is that the creationist scams ultimately rely on the ignorance, incompetence, and/or dishonesty of their supporters. They exploit people like FL and Ray. If they really had an argument they wouldn't have to do that, but the guys running the show know that they don't have what they need to make their claims something that they can actually support with honest efforts.

The last generation of scientific creationists had the out that they believed that the junk that they were foisting off on people was valid "scientific" argument. They could and can be classed as incompetent. Heck they made no bones about calling their organizations Christian ministries. The latest ID/creationist scam may have started out due to honest incompetence, but the perpetrators figured out that they came up short long ago. They also tried to dishonestly hide their religious/political intent. They decided to run a bait and switch scam on their own creationist supporters when their position became untenable. Now, about the only people that still support the ID/creationist scam are guys like FL and Ray, or people too ignorant or incompetent to know better. Heck, the guys that perpetrated the ID scam have a new scam that can't even mention that ID or creationism ever existed. They even try to claim that they never wanted to teach ID with claims like they never wanted ID to be "mandated," but their own political propaganda admits that they targeted legislators and school boards to get ID taught in the public schools.

It all turned out to be a pretty lame scam, and the fact that the same perps that lied to people about intelligent design have been able to get the creationist rubes to take the switch scam only goes to show that they rely on the old adage that you can't con an honest man. The only guys that they should get to take such a switch are people too incompetent to know better or people whose intent was to participate in a dishonest scam in the first place. People that knew that the intent wasn't what they were claiming. As sad as that is, that is the state of ID/creationism today.

Anyone that wants to counter claim, just put up your evidence that the ID perps did not run the bait and switch scam on school boards like Ohio. The only school board or legislator that has wanted to teach ID since 2002 that didn't take the switch or drop the subject has been Dover and we all know what happened there. What did ID become? Who has been running the bait and switch on anyone stupid enough to buy into the teach ID creationist scam? Who came up with the switch scam as far back as 1999? What has all the ID bluster meant since 1999 if the ID perps knew that they needed a replacement scam that far back? A replacement scam where they can't even mention that ID has ever existed in the public face of the new scam? All ID is as the moment is smoke to fool the creationist rubes into thinking that there is some controversy that they want to teach, but when the rubes get the new scam they find out that ID/creationism can't even be mentioned. Who would go forward with the scam after finding that out? Probably guys little better off than FL and Ray.

Guys like Ray and FL aren't symptoms of creationist thinking, they are pretty much required to make the current dishonest creationists scams a going concern.

just curious
people like Ray or FL, are they proud of their ignorance, do they even know they are ignorant, do they reject knowledge for fear of damnation, do they ever learn anything.

continuing to wallow in ignorance is no fun, but it is the choice they have made. You can almost hear them tell their children, "...look kids I want you to be stupid like me"

I know 2 similar types, both had their children move out as soon as they were old enough, without any further contact. (loving family) That may be a side effect of being ignorant.

Mike Elzinga: Claiming that Christians who do not support ID/Creationism are not really true Christians is an underhanded form of arrogant bigotry. It is essentially saying that the supporters of ID/Creationism are the "True Christians" and everyone else is a hell-bound heathen. SNIP...

Adolf Hitler (1922): http://homepages.paradise.net.nz/mischedj/ca_hitler.html "My feelings as a Christian points me to my Lord and Savior as a fighter. It points me to the man who once in loneliness, surrounded by a few followers, recognized these Jews for what they were and summoned men to fight against them and who, God's truth! was greatest not as a sufferer but as a fighter."

Ron Okimoto: The saddest fact about the whole ID/creationist scam and fiasco is that the creationist scams ultimately rely on the ignorance, incompetence, and/or dishonesty of their supporters. They exploit people like FL and Ray. If they really had an argument they wouldn't have to do that, but the guys running the show know that they don't have what they need to make their claims something that they can actually support with honest efforts. The last generation of scientific creationists had the out that they believed that the junk that they were foisting off on people was valid "scientific" argument. They could and can be classed as incompetent. Heck they made no bones about calling their organizations Christian ministries. The latest ID/creationist scam may have started out due to honest incompetence, but the perpetrators figured out that they came up short long ago. They also tried to dishonestly hide their religious/political intent. They decided to run a bait and switch scam on their own creationist supporters when their position became untenable. Now, about the only people that still support the ID/creationist scam are guys like FL and Ray, or people too ignorant or incompetent to know better. Heck, the guys that perpetrated the ID scam have a new scam that can't even mention that ID or creationism ever existed. They even try to claim that they never wanted to teach ID with claims like they never wanted ID to be "mandated," but their own political propaganda admits that they targeted legislators and school boards to get ID taught in the public schools. It all turned out to be a pretty lame scam, and the fact that the same perps that lied to people about intelligent design have been able to get the creationist rubes to take the switch scam only goes to show that they rely on the old adage that you can't con an honest man. The only guys that they should get to take such a switch are people too incompetent to know better or people whose intent was to participate in a dishonest scam in the first place. People that knew that the intent wasn't what they were claiming. As sad as that is, that is the state of ID/creationism today. Anyone that wants to counter claim, just put up your evidence that the ID perps did not run the bait and switch scam on school boards like Ohio. The only school board or legislator that has wanted to teach ID since 2002 that didn't take the switch or drop the subject has been Dover and we all know what happened there. What did ID become? Who has been running the bait and switch on anyone stupid enough to buy into the teach ID creationist scam? Who came up with the switch scam as far back as 1999? What has all the ID bluster meant since 1999 if the ID perps knew that they needed a replacement scam that far back? A replacement scam where they can't even mention that ID has ever existed in the public face of the new scam? All ID is as the moment is smoke to fool the creationist rubes into thinking that there is some controversy that they want to teach, but when the rubes get the new scam they find out that ID/creationism can't even be mentioned. Who would go forward with the scam after finding that out? Probably guys little better off than FL and Ray. Guys like Ray and FL aren't symptoms of creationist thinking, they are pretty much required to make the current dishonest creationists scams a going concern.

As we can see, anyone can CLAIM to be a Christian.

Ray Martinez, please demonstrate how your accusations of "darwinists" and "evolutionists" being "atheists" justifies how Intelligent Design is actually a science. Or better yet, please demonstrate the alleged superior explanatory power of Creationism, or please leave.

Dale Husband:

Ray Martinez: I am not a DI IDist and I have said nothing that merits being called a troll. This means my opponents are unable to refute the logic employed and seek to cover and deflect away from this fact by slandering the man. The original on-going point is that the logic employed exposes the evolutionists to have no objective criteria to justify their assertion that evolution IS science. This inability has resulted in the troll slander. I have never seen any dictionary or other type of source define 'science' with the word 'evolution' in it. Evolution is a viewpoint constrained by its presuppositions; the same does not allow pro-Theist interpretations or conclusions; therefore its explanations are predetermined. Creationsim is a viewpoint constrained by its presuppositions; the same does not allow pro-Atheist interpretations or conclusions; therefore its explanations are also predetermined. Both viewpoints claim that their respective interpretations of the same scientific evidence correspond to reality, which, therefore justify its presuppositions. Creationism is superior: the observation of design seen in nature and organisms logically corresponds to the work of invisible Designer. Evolution special pleads the same observation to correspond to an alleged natural process that deceives the mind into thinking that said observation is real, but it is an illusion (Dawkins 1986). Based on the fact that Creationism does not special plead said observation away, but takes it at face value, our presuppositions are superior and honest corresponding to reality. Evolution disregards said observation in favor of an atheistic supposition that negates the face value meaning of design. This is why all polls say that at least 50% of Americans are Creationists, we reject evolution "science" based on Atheist presuppositions that start with the assumption that reality is deceiving us.

I'd like to refer everyone to this webpage in Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mythomania A pathological liar is someone who often embellishes his or her stories in a way that he or she believes will impress people. It may be that a pathological liar is different from a normal liar in that a pathological liar believes the lie he or she is telling to be true—at least in public—and is "playing" the role. He or she sometimes is seen to have a serious mental problem that needs to be rectified. It is not clear, however, that this is the case. It could also be that pathological liars know precisely what they are doing. Confused hashes of history and wishes are called confabulation. "Pathological liar" is a synonym for symptoms. Even though pathological lying is not recognized as a clinical disorder, legal court cases often require that the plaintiff prove that the defendant is aware that he or she is lying. This proof is most important in cases of slander and/or liability. Pathological liars often actually convince themselves that they are telling the truth, which in turn can alter polygraph tests and other questioning. Some have observed that when caught in a lie, pathological liars tend to become hostile or try to disregard the fact they lied; often playing it off as a joke. A compulsive liar will resort to telling lies, regardless of the situation. Again, everyone lies from time to time, but for a compulsive liar telling lies is routine - it becomes a habit and a way of life. Simply put, for a compulsive liar, lying becomes second nature. Not only do compulsive liars bend the truth about issues large and small, but they take comfort in it. Lying feels right to a compulsive liar. Telling the truth, on the other hand, is difficult and uncomfortable for a compulsive liar. And like any other behavior which provides comfort and an escape from discomfort (i.e., alcohol, drugs, sex), lying can become very addictive and hard to stop. For the compulsive liar, lying feels safe and this fuels the desire to lie even more.

Stanton repeats himself: Ray Martinez, b>please demonstrate how your accusations of "darwinists" and "evolutionists" being "atheists" justifies how Intelligent Design is actually a science. Or better yet, please demonstrate the alleged superior explanatory power of Creationism, or please leave.

Stanton repeats himself: Ray Martinez, please demonstrate how your accusations of "darwinists" and "evolutionists" being "atheists" justifies how Intelligent Design is actually a science. Or better yet, please demonstrate the alleged superior explanatory power of Creationism, or please leave.

Ray Martinez: As we can see, anyone can CLAIM to be a Christian.

Scott: Father George V. Coyne, director of the Vatican Observatory, opposes ID not on scientific grounds, but on religious grounds.

Who or what, pray tell, is the official arbiter of who is or is not a Christian, and who gave said arbiter that position?

(Ray, I'm beginning to feel left out; you never answer *my* questions...) ;-)

((Does that qualify as troll-baiting?))

The above message is a rant that simply recognizes and admits that the author cannot refute or provide an intelligent response to my original message about objectivity and presuppositions.

You've had plenty of responses, and you ignored them all, and lied by saying you've never got a response. That's why we call you a liar. That, and the fact that you're resorting to rank, disgusting religious bigotry.

In case you're actually willing to admit a new idea into your head, your "message" was nothing more than the same crybaby-subjectivism that grade-school kids use to weasel out of an argument they've lost: what was once a matter of fact suddenly becomes a matter of opinion, and everyone's opinion is as valid as everyone else's, therefore the loser can pretend he's still right even after he's been conclusively proven wrong.

PS: if you're trying to convince us your God is objectively real, then pretending that reality is a matter of subjective "presupposition" is not the way to go.

This means that God is never an option from the outset

Bill Gascoyne:

Again; I am asking a question: Since the ASE are evolutionists could we expect them to say anything else about the current ID movement (their perceived enemy)?

Is your implication that one should be expected to lie about one's enemies?

Nobody ever admits to respect for an enemy? It is not possible to learn from an enemy, or perhaps just to admit having done so? No one ever says anything truthful about an enemy? Defeating one's enemy is more important than honesty?

Ray Martinez: My logic is intended to drive the debate away from concealing bias and address bias and examine whose bias is more justified.

Ray Martinez: Evolutionists deny bias by a never ending circular argument: “we are science, and if you disagree you are disagreeing with science and evidence and this and that….”

Ray,

The point is that your charge of predictability appears to be worded so as to imply that our motivation is something other than honest and truthful.

OK, so our camp is predictable and so is yours. Who is right? One, both, or neither? Proof, please.

While I'm at it, point blank, do you believe that God left scientifically verifiable fingerprints on creation? If yes, does this make faith superfluous? If no, what's your complaint?

The situation is more complicated still.

2 + 2 ≠ 4!

Small quote from Lynn Margulies: I am a Darwinist

Margulis began graciously by acknowledging the conference hosts and saying, “This is the most wonderful conference I’ve ever been to, and I’ve been to a lot of conferences.” She then got to work, pronouncing the death of neo-Darwinism. Echoing Darwin, she said “It was like confessing a murder when I discovered I was not a neo-Darwinist.” But, she quickly added, “I am definitely a Darwinist though. I think we are missing important information about the origins of variation. I differ from the neo-Darwinian bullies on this point.”

Lots of “know-nothings” on the evolutionist side, it would seem!!

So, in light of the facts, who around here, is willing to admit that the following insult was baseless and needless?

another science term abused by the know-nothings of IDC shame

I give up, no more responses to the unyielding troll
he doesn't read or understand any of the clarifications posted, so it's a waste of time. Please everyone, no responses, make feeding the troll a crime, Please!

Ray has only been able to make assertions to the effect that his religion is superior to all others; everyone else just has inferior opinions.

It is interesting that his religious views don’t allow him to acknowledge hard, objective data that are agreed upon by people from various ethnic, national, religious, and non-religious backgrounds. In fact, he acknowledges no data whatsoever. He offers none to support his “superior” sectarian views, and he remains totally blind to data and evidence from many areas of science that support what we know about the universe.

This has to be deliberate indoctrination on the part of his religious handlers. Very similar to Mark Hausam and others who appear here with their cocky bigotry in order to show off their “religious superiority”.

I suspect that whatever gods there might be, they wouldn’t want to admit to designing Intelligent Design promoters. It would be an embarrassment to have to acknowledge that, as a god, you created such illiterate, closed-minded creatures. Clear evidence of bungling; not intelligent design.

Well, I see Ray Martinez is still being stupid.

Calling evolution "pro-Atheist" is a lie, period. Merely repeating that evolution is pro-Atheist, that evolution is pro-Atheist, that evolution is pro-Atheist, that evolution is pro-Atheist, that evolution is pro-Atheist, that evolution is pro-Atheist, that evolution is pro-Atheist, that evolution is pro-Atheist, that evolution is pro-Atheist, that evolution is pro-Atheist, that evolution is pro-Atheist, that evolution is pro-Atheist, that evolution is pro-Atheist, that evolution is pro-Atheist, that evolution is pro-Atheist, that evolution is pro-Atheist, and that evolution is pro-Atheist doesn't prove that it is pro-Atheist. It only proves that you won't listen to those who know otherwise.

richCares: I give up, no more responses to the unyielding troll he doesn't read or understand any of the clarifications posted, so it's a waste of time. Please everyone, no responses, make feeding the troll a crime, Please!

Ray Martinez:

richCares: I give up, no more responses to the unyielding troll he doesn't read or understand any of the clarifications posted, so it's a waste of time. Please everyone, no responses, make feeding the troll a crime, Please!

A call for censorship - the Atheist way of recent history. Mao tse-Tung, Castro, Pol Pot, the old Soviet Politburo agree: censorship works. Anyone who can read can see that I have responded and that the evolutionists have evaded the specific points.

Also, Ray Martinez, it is up to you to show us how evolution is pro-Athiest, and not merely anti-fundamentalist. Can you do that?

Yes, clearly not responding to a raving lunatic is censorship.

Oh golly, now I'm just like Castro.

FFS.

Actually, making troll-feeding a crime would be censorship, but of us, not Ray.

Maybe we can find a pseudo-blog with an auto-response bot for Ray so he can troll to his heart's content and feel like he's accomplishing something.

Dale Husband: Also, Ray Martinez, it is up to you to show us how evolution is pro-Athiest, and not merely anti-fundamentalist. Can you do that?

Bill Gascoyne: Ray, The point is that your charge of predictability appears to be worded so as to imply that our motivation is something other than honest and truthful.

OK, so our camp is predictable and so is yours. Who is right? One, both, or neither? Proof, please.

While I'm at it, point blank, do you believe that God left scientifically verifiable fingerprints on creation?

If yes, does this make faith superfluous? If no, what's your complaint?

Dale Husband: Also, Ray Martinez, it is up to you to show us how evolution is pro-Athiest....SNIP....Can you do that?

Dale Husband:

Ray Martinez:

richCares: I give up, no more responses to the unyielding troll he doesn't read or understand any of the clarifications posted, so it's a waste of time. Please everyone, no responses, make feeding the troll a crime, Please!

A call for censorship - the Atheist way of recent history. Mao tse-Tung, Castro, Pol Pot, the old Soviet Politburo agree: censorship works. Anyone who can read can see that I have responded and that the evolutionists have evaded the specific points.

How are you being censored? Or is this only more proof of your dishonesty? Turning reality upside down, as you have done, is the ultimate fallacy.

The [Bible] defines faith, for the most part, as a verb and not a noun.

— Ray

Faith is based on the facts of God’s word

— Ray

While I’m at it, point blank, do you believe that God left scientifically verifiable fingerprints on creation?

— Ray

Of course.

The general revelation given to all humanity to deduce His existence from is material reality and the observation of design seen therein, which logically corresponds to the work of invisible Designer. Evolution special pleads the observation to be an illusion if it exists at all. Since your presuppositions do not allow a face value correspondence, evolution is Atheist ideology concealed as science.

Ray Martinez:

Dale Husband: Also, Ray Martinez, it is up to you to show us how evolution is pro-Athiest....SNIP....Can you do that?

Evolution uses Materialism-Naturalism philosophy to interpret and explain evidence; the same presupposes that God is not seen or involved in reality and these philosophies exclude God (listen closely) as a possibility to explain reality. This is clearly pro-Atheist. In addition, all Atheists rabidly defend and support evolution. Why? Answer: re-read the previous paragraph.

Some persons are calling me a troll and to be ignored (= censorship). The call, in my opinion, is really frustration caused by the inability to refute.

Repeating your rubbish here instead of finishing your paper, Ray?

To all less familiar with Ray: he does not understand logic. When you ask him to show that 'anti-fundie' implies 'pro-atheist', he simply cannot understand what that means.

Ray: Most atheists accept evolution because they accept the findings of science, and the evidence says that evolution happened.

You like to try to paint this as 'evolution is a front for atheism', on the grounds that the materialistic, no-god-needed theory of evolution, is perfect for atheists.

And I agree with you on the point that the ToE is perfect for people who don't want to believe in a god. It's true. Can't deny that. Who needs god to make all the animals when they can evolve from one microlife, which itself could have formed via chemical evolution? It's a perfect naturalistic justification.

IT IS ALSO WHAT THE EVIDENCE SHOWS.

That's the bit that makes all that you say, Ray, a steaming pile of crap. ATHEISTS don't say that life evolved. The evidence does - evidence you have not once refuted, or even addressed. You claim you're writing a paper to destroy Darwinism - as I (the Straggler) explained to you on talk origins, that is not going to dent evolution, because the fact of evolution rests on the evidence, not Darwin.

Reality is your enemy, Ray, not atheism. It's unfortunate that reality is siding with atheists, but, nonetheless, it is the truth. If you dislike that truth, perhaps you should have a word with the chap who put it there. I hear he lives on a cloud.

Or you can even argue the evidence. That will be fun.

So will you stop this evolution = atheism crap? No. You won't. You'll pretend that I've used some twisted atheist rhetoric that means whatever you want it to mean, like you always do. Because you can't handle a debate with people who know what they're talking about, or where the words don't mean what you want them to.

I'm also going to reiterate my big bang example. Atheists accept BBT for the same reason they accept evolution - the evidence.

Why does every atheist support BBT, Ray? Is BBT, which was invented by a priest and clearly puts a huge hole in atheism by pointing to a moment of creation, also atheistic, or are you just full of shit? I await your non-answer and subsequent repeat of the crap I've just refuted.

Hey Ray:

I am Catholic, and yet I accept modern evolutionary theory. It's consistent with the evidence that we've found for over 150 years. There are no other good scientific explanations for the origin of diversity of species on Earth apart from the modern theory of evolution. And I know that I'm Catholic: I agreed to as much when I was confirmed as a young man. I'm sponsoring my cousin's confirmation later this month, in fact. So big ol' check on the Catholic part. And last time I checked, Catholics aren't atheists. In fact, I'm 99% sure that Catholics qualify as Christians. So I am a Christian who accepts the science of modern evolutionary theory.

Please justify your argument that Christianity and Evolution are incompatible in light of these facts. And while you're at it, please explain to me why "Father George V. Coyne, director of the Vatican Observatory, opposes ID not on scientific grounds, but on religious grounds" isn't a Christian either (thanks, Scott, for the name). Or maybe you can explain why my histology professor from my undergrad was both an elder in the local Presbyterian church and an ardent supporter of the modern theory of evolution.

Dembski was asked this two years ago, and he flat refused to answer to a room full of students.

Think you can do any better?

JackelopeKing said: I am Catholic, and yet I accept modern evolutionary theory. It’s consistent with the evidence that we’ve found for over 150 years. SNIP...Please justify your argument that Christianity and Evolution are incompatible in light of these facts.

And while you’re at it, please explain to me why “Father George V. Coyne, director of the Vatican Observatory, opposes ID not on scientific grounds, but on religious grounds” isn’t a Christian either (thanks, Scott, for the name). Or maybe you can explain why my histology professor from my undergrad was both an elder in the local Presbyterian church and an ardent supporter of the modern theory of evolution. Dembski was asked this two years ago, and he flat refused to answer to a room full of students.

Ray Martinez, you have not demonstrated the alleged descriptive power of Creationism, nor have you explained why it is wrong for people to oppose attempts to teach religious handwringing as science to children.

Furthermore, where in the Bible does it specifically state that describing the fact that there are variations with each successive generation of living organisms is an affront to God, and why is it that only Protestants have been able to find it and not Catholics?

The Bible is hostile to evolution.

I see Ray Martinez still didn't respond properly to my earlier question and is content to merely slander his opposition by equating support of evolution with support for atheism. Need I say more about the troll's idiocy?

Said Christians are deceived (evidence of the existence of the invisible person of Satan).

With this said: why would a Catholic, that is, a Theist, accept pro-Atheist suppositions and not pro-Theist suppositions? The fact that you have accepted pro-Atheist suppositions to interpret reality is evidence refuting your claim that you are a Catholic because logically a Catholic or a Theist would side and use pro-Theist suppositions.

Ray Martinez said:
The whole point of evolution is to say that God did not create biological reality.

Um, what? I don't see that in my textbooks. The whole point of evolution, according to Campbell and Reece, is to explain the origin of biological diversity on Earth. Heck, just about every textbook and article I've ever read on the subject of the theory of evolution has lacked this caveat. You have no ***objective*** source for your belief that "the whole point of evolution is to say that God did not create biological reality".

Ray Martinez said:
why would a Catholic, that is, a Theist, accept pro-Atheist suppositions and not pro-Theist suppositions? The fact that you have accepted pro-Atheist suppositions to interpret reality is evidence refuting your claim that you are a Catholic because logically a Catholic or a Theist would side and use pro-Theist suppositions.

Why would I make suppositions if I want to be intellectually honest? Evolution's validity is a scientific question, not a religious one.

Ray Martinez said:
Therefore I am correct: you CLAIM to be a Catholic, as opposed to “you are a Catholic.” The claim is falisified by your admission that you accept evolution which uses pro-Atheist suppositions.

And similarly, your claim to be a Christian must be falsified because you have already lied in this thread. Judeo-Christian morality is based (in part) upon the Ten Commandments, among which is a little condemnation against lying. Funny how that works.

Stanton said:
Ray Martinez, please show the specific Biblical passages that state that studying the lineages of organisms, such as orchids, wheat, corn, goats, pigeons, trilobites, snails, brontotheres, horses or pigs, is an affront to God, or please leave.

Seconded. I request a specific reference that I can look up and read for myself. My priest will be interested to hear that he hasn't been a Christian for all these years because Ray Martinez said so.

You can think that you are a Christian, but the source of your Christianity (the Bible) does not support evolution. The Bible is hostile to evolution.

Mike Elzinga:

You can think that you are a Christian, but the source of your Christianity (the Bible) does not support evolution. The Bible is hostile to evolution.

There it is; the purest and most vile form of bigotry. So many of these crackpots who show up here actually seem to take pride in their bigotry, yet they can never show how their sectarian beliefs trump all others. The not the Bible that is hostile to evolution; it’s the dumb clucks who think they have exclusive insight into the mind of a god yet can’t even read another book (including the book of Nature). What is it that makes these idiots think they are poster children for their religion? Apparently they aren’t even intelligent enough to be embarrassed by stupid comments like that. And they call this witnessing?

Mike Elzinga:

You can think that you are a Christian, but the source of your Christianity (the Bible) does not support evolution. The Bible is hostile to evolution.

There it is; the purest and most vile form of bigotry. So many of these crackpots who show up here actually seem to take pride in their bigotry, yet they can never show how their sectarian beliefs trump all others. The not the Bible that is hostile to evolution; it’s the dumb clucks who think they have exclusive insight into the mind of a god yet can’t even read another book (including the book of Nature). What is it that makes these idiots think they are poster children for their religion? Apparently they aren’t even intelligent enough to be embarrassed by stupid comments like that. And they call this witnessing?

Ray Martinez, please show the specific Biblical passages that state that studying the lineages of organisms, such as orchids, wheat, corn, goats, pigeons, trilobites, snails, brontotheres, horses or pigs, is an affront to God, or please leave.

Now that I know he is uneducated I will not read anymore of his messages.

— Ray

Some persons are calling me a troll and to be ignored (= censorship).

— Ray also

A call for censorship - the Atheist way of recent history. Mao tse-Tung, Castro, Pol Pot, the old Soviet Politburo agree: censorship works.

— Ray also

The Bible is hostile to evolution.

No, Ray, YOUR INTERPRETATION of the Bible is hostile to evolution. There are plenty of Christians who are smarter, wiser, and more compassionate than you, who obey Christ's teachings more dilligently than you do, who have absolutely no problem with evolution -- because they understand that the Bible is a) not a literal document, b) filled with the sort of truth that just can't be described in literal terms, and c) not really meant to describe anything other than Man's relationship to God.

Mike Elzinga: What is it that makes these idiots think they are poster children for their religion?

The problem here is the unbelievable massive ignorance of persons like Elzinga. Now that I know he is uneducated I will not read anymore of his messages.

Ray Martinez is physically incapable of producing the specific Biblical passages that support his alleged claim of Biblical hostility to Evolutionary Biology.
And yet, he has the unmitigated gall to claim that the people at this blog are ignorant.
...
"Now kiddies, can you say 'hypocrite'?"

troll lesson 2, they don't read nor care nor understand what you say, but they do need you to answer/rebut them, That's so they can answer and try to control the issue. You can eliminate him by using Mozilla Firefox Seamonkey.

the only way to eliminate a troll (ignorance) is to totally ignore him, never respond. Yah, CENSORHIP! I visit Panda's thumb every day and do not relish wading through his stupidity. Anyone responding to him in the future will be reported to the censure police, and you don't want them showing up at your door, so stop feeding him (or else)!

resonding to valid comments or disagreements is valuable and fun. But as you note from his responses, there is no debate nor any valid issue. Please, don't let him take over Panda's Thumb, Please, Please, Please.

157 comments, and it still smells like dog shit, eh?

Ray Martinez: A call for censorship - the Atheist way of recent history. Mao tse-Tung, Castro, Pol Pot, the old Soviet Politburo agree: censorship works. Anyone who can read can see that I have responded and that the evolutionists have evaded the specific points.

Ray Martinez: The problem here is the unbelievable massive ignorance of persons like Elzinga. Now that I know he is uneducated I will not read anymore of his messages.

Hi Ray. Fence sitter here. Let me just sum up your posts in 3 words. Arrogant, self-righteous moron.
I am not an atheist either. I am sure you would disagree with this since somehow you think you have been appointed judge of who believes and doesn't believe. Have you actually read any of the science backing evolutionary theory?
No, you haven't. I can tell, even though I am just a layman. Don't you know that evolution doesn't even address the existence/non-existence of God? Doesn't even try to. I had hope for you in the beginning. Really, I did. I even thought you were being treated rudely. Now I feel stupid for being so wrong. In the end, you represent everything that makes me steer clear of religion. So if anyone is to blame for my lack of faith, its not those "evilutionists", its deluded, ignorant nutjobs like yourself.
If I am really heading towards hell, you can be sure if someone along the way asks why, I will include your name in my list of reasons. And I will feel justified.

It is sort of disheartening about human nature that there are so many people like Ray that can't understand that there are many ways to view God, or your existence. If they looked in the mirror and they were competent they would see immediately why there is a need for a separation between church and state. Just think if guys like Ray got to dictate religion to the masses? There is a problem in that guys like Ray probably are not mentally competent. The even bigger problem is that there are people that are competent enough to know better, but are willing to exploit any means available to them to persue their religious/political ends. Pathetic people like Ray are just cannon fodder to these political jerks. What is really amazing and even more disheartening is how many people bend over and take it.

Just look at the latest creationist failure that intelligent design became. The guys that started and perpetrated the teach ID scam figured out years ago that it probably wasn't going to make the grade and developed a back up plan that they are using in perpetrating the bait and switch on anyone that was stupid enough to buy into the teach ID scam. Why would honest people take the switch? The guys that perpetrated the ID scam knew it was a lie, or had a good enough notion that it was to scamble for a backup plan before the turn of the century, several years before they ran the bait and switch in Ohio in 2002.

What if the lie that was intelligent design had passed through the courts? They would need judges willing to look the other way, and able to buy into the dishonesty, but it could happen if enough "right" thinking judges get put in place. The "winners" would be forced to live that lie or constantly demonstrate what a lie it was by introducing creationism and their religious beliefs whenever they could. Both options are pretty pathetic for people doing it for God or due to their religious beliefs. So the ID perps are lucky that they were shown to be dishonest perps early enough so that the guys with the "truth" wouldn't have to lie constantly about what they were doing. How sad is that reality? If you are lying about what you are doing it is the lie that wins, and you have to live with it. So why support the ID replacement creationist scam? It is just more lies that you will have to live with or demonstrate to be lies if you get what you want. It is like believing that you won a pony when all you end up with is a pile of horse manure that you have to dig through in an effort to see if there could be a pony in there somewhere. Of course there will be people like the ID perps on the sidelines telling you that there is a pony in there somewhere, you just have to keep digging.

How far from finding the pony do you get the more layers of desception that you have to put on what you are doing. The sordid history will tell you that if there is a pony in there it is under a pile that is high and deep. They used to hawk science that supported the Bible. After that failed, they dropped the Bible and tried a generic intelligent designer. Now the ID perps are selling a scam about teaching the controversy, but they can't even mention intelligent design or creationism as part of he controversy. How many layers of manure are you willing to dig through to find the pony? Is it a possibility that the pony may not be under the pile? Even if it is, what kind of existence does the pony have living in a pile of manure?

It is obvious that there are a lot of religious people unwilling to compromise their integrity to run dishonest scams for the good of their religious and or political beliefs. People as incompetent as Ray are unable to comprehend that, and there are people, even more pathetic, willing to exploit their ignorance and mental incompetence.

There it is; the purest and most vile form of bigotry.

I even thought you were being treated rudely.

Martinez excommunicating the last 3 Popes: Catholicism, ultimately, is based on the Bible. The Bible, in turn, specifically and explicitly says life was created by God’s power. Evolution, in turn, says living things were not created by God’s power.

Aw shucks, it looks like 24 hours and no reply from Ray. And here I thought he was going to prove to me that he's the guy who gets to decide who is and who isn't Christian. Or maybe he ventured off to do some research in the secret ID lab on secret ID experiments which will finally blow the lid off the evil Atheist-Darwinist Materialist Communist Pastafarian-ist conspiracy that has a stranglehold on America?

Jackelope King: Ray Martinez said: The whole point of evolution is to say that God did not create biological reality. Um, what? I don't see that in my textbooks.

The whole point of evolution, according to Campbell and Reece, is to explain the origin of biological diversity on Earth. Heck, just about every textbook and article I've ever read on the subject of the theory of evolution has lacked this caveat. You have no ***objective*** source for your belief that "the whole point of evolution is to say that God did not create biological reality".

Ray Martinez said: why would a Catholic, that is, a Theist, accept pro-Atheist suppositions and not pro-Theist suppositions? The fact that you have accepted pro-Atheist suppositions to interpret reality is evidence refuting your claim that you are a Catholic because logically a Catholic or a Theist would side and use pro-Theist suppositions. Why would I make suppositions if I want to be intellectually honest? Evolution's validity is a scientific question, not a religious one.

Ray Martinez said: Therefore I am correct: you CLAIM to be a Catholic, as opposed to “you are a Catholic.” The claim is falisified by your admission that you accept evolution which uses pro-Atheist suppositions. And similarly, your claim to be a Christian must be falsified because you have already lied in this thread. Judeo-Christian morality is based (in part) upon the Ten Commandments, among which is a little condemnation against lying. Funny how that works.

Ray Martinez, I have asked you this three times: Please show the specific Biblical passages that state that studying the lineages of organisms, such as orchids, wheat, corn, goats, pigeons, trilobites, snails, brontotheres, horses or pigs, is an affront to God, or please leave.
...
On the other hand, given as how you refuse to produce these passages, and how you have repeatedly refused to demonstrate the allegedly superior explanatory power of Creationism, AND that you have given yourself the power to arbitrate who can and can not be actual Christians, despite contrary statements made by Jesus Christ, you are nothing but a liar and a blasphemer who is out to make trouble. It is clear that your intent here is to cause trouble and foment ill will in "God's name," even though doing such things is blasphemy according to the Bible, so please leave if you do not desire to contribute anything positive.

Eric J: Hi Ray. Fence sitter here. Let me just sum up your posts in 3 words. Arrogant, self-righteous moron.

I am not an atheist either. I am sure you would disagree with this since somehow you think you have been appointed judge of who believes and doesn't believe.

Have you actually read any of the science backing evolutionary theory? No, you haven't. I can tell, even though I am just a layman. Don't you know that evolution doesn't even address the existence/non-existence of God?

Doesn't even try to. I had hope for you in the beginning. Really, I did. I even thought you were being treated rudely. Now I feel stupid for being so wrong. In the end, you represent everything that makes me steer clear of religion. So if anyone is to blame for my lack of faith, its not those "evilutionists", its deluded, ignorant nutjobs like yourself. If I am really heading towards hell, you can be sure if someone along the way asks why, I will include your name in my list of reasons. And I will feel justified.

You are ignorant and unread if you believe that evolution and its philosophy does not presuppose the non-existence of God in reality. Educated persons know that it does.

unread?

pray tell, which references would you recommend where it is proven that evolution itself presupposes the non-existence of anything, including a deity.

Was that in Origin?

hmm, not that I recall...

in any of the writings of those that contributed to the theory since?

Fisher... nope.

Hamilton... nope.

Trivers.... nope.

help us out here... which are the texts that define this argument?

Your slander instantly disproves your claim to be a “fence sitter.

slander, eh? better hire a lawyer and sue 'em right quick then!

you're passing up a chance at some serious cash, man!

Transmutation says Genesis is wrong and if Genesis is wrong then it is a man-made text and not a God inspired text as per the claim.

here's a simple question:

are there any parables in the bible, Ray?

I mean, not that i think the bible is anything but inspired by human imagination and oral traditions, but your argument is ridiculous even on casual reading of the thing.

Therefore I am correct: you CLAIM to be a Catholic, as opposed to “you are a Catholic.” The claim is falisified by your admission that you accept evolution which uses pro-Atheist suppositions.

Have we learned nothing?

some of us have, some of us have not.

Ray Martinez: By the way: people who believe apes morphed into men should not be calling anyone a moron, don't you think?

Ray Martinez: Then why do you accept the presuppositions of Materialism which are pro-Atheist? Logically, real non-Atheists would never accept suppositions that rule God out as a possibility to explain reality.

Ray Martinez: You are ignorant and unread if you believe that evolution and its philosophy does not presuppose the non-existence of God in reality. Educated persons know that it does.

we would still be riding livestock.

oh so THAT'S what you're supposed to do with those things.

if Genesis is wrong then it is a man-made text and not a God inspired text as per the claim.

Hmmm, More than peculiar. Not only has Ray Martinez excommunicated the last 4 Popes, he has also excommunicated the majority of the world's Xians.

The majority of the word's Xians, 1/2 of whom are Catholic are OK with evolution. Including the Mormons. The Genesis is real bunch are a few cults in South Central USA.

Who would have thought the New Messiah would be...a delusional internet troll. Yes, the lord does work in strange ways.

Hey Ray, when you kick the Pope out of the Vatican, I'm sure it will be on TV. Let us know. The Mormon Pope is called First President for some obscure American reason. He is in Salt Lake City. Let us know when you depose him. Then work on all the mainstream protestant sects. Going to be a busy few months, get some sleep and drink plenty of liquids.

Stanton: Ray Martinez, I have asked you this three times: Please show the specific Biblical passages that state that studying the lineages of organisms, such as orchids, wheat, corn, goats, pigeons, trilobites, snails, brontotheres, horses or pigs, is an affront to God, or please leave.

Evolution spends no time studying God’s word but says that Genesis is false

Ray Martinez: ...I feel like a fool.

Ray Martinez, you are a liar and a blasphemer.
You specifically stated that the Bible opposes evolution, and it has taken you, what, 50 comments? to answer my request, which you've answered with falsehoods.
Evolution spends time studying the diversity of life, PERIOD.
Furthermore, you have not bothered to demonstrate the alleged superior descriptive power of Creationism.
Why is that?
Is it because that Creationism has no descriptive power whatsoever? Why are you in no hurry to prove me wrong? Maybe it's because you're more interested in lying and slandering in Jesus' name? Again, you're at liberty to prove me wrong.

Now that Ray has been exposed as an angry, self-righteous bigot, he seems to be wearing his bigotry with more bluster. His immaturity wants all attention directed to himself no matter how badly it reflects on his sectarian cohorts. His many “enemies” couldn’t produce a better caricature of his religious views than he himself does.

The major reason he isn’t censured is that people need to see inside the minds of these bigots in order to understand the political motivations behind the Wedge Document. So fire away, Ray; let everyone know how a bigot thinks. This is one of the best ways to help people to decide they don’t want your kind preaching to their kids in a biology class.

The Bible says God controls desire for Him; therefore, if you have no desire to know God or do not care what He thinks of you, then He has probably withdrawn the urge and given up, on you, someone who claimed to be a "fence sitter."

You are ignorant and unread if you believe that evolution and its philosophy does not presuppose the non-existence of God in reality. Educated persons know that it does.

Then why do you accept the presuppositions of Materialism which are pro-Atheist? Logically, real non-Atheists would never accept suppositions that rule God out as a possibility to explain reality.

Ray claimed: Question presupposes that I have said that the Bible says that these things are wrong.

I have never said any such thing.

Ray said, a few posts ago: You can think that you are a Christian, but the source of your Christianity (the Bible) does not support evolution. The Bible is hostile to evolution.

Allow me to channel Jon Stewart for a moment.

"Ray! Listen to Ray! Ray just said it, Ray! Listen to him!"

Ray continued: Evolution spends no time studying God’s word but says that Genesis is false. And we have a fourm full of ignorant and brainwashed evolutionists who actually think that evolution and the Bible are compatible and that evolution does not claim that the Bible is false from cover to cover.

Ray, do you need a hug? I'm here for ya, buddy.

But here's the thing: how does the modern theory of evolution "[say] that Genesis is false"? Genesis is a book of the Bible which describes man's relationship with God, and how by virtue of free will and choice, man can turn away from God, or turn back to Him. That's it. Though the stories within that book, Genesis establishes the antiquity of that relationship (by telling stories of the earliest peoples).

How does the theory of evolution presume to speak on this? There's nothing in it about man's relationship with God, or the paradox of the gift of free choice and the capacity for sin. Not a bit. Origin of Species? I guess Chuck forgot his mean ol' Atheist monologue, buddy. Maybe he hid it in his hat, or more likely, his beard.

But maybe you mean to say that the theory of evolution doesn't agree with a literal interpretation of Genesis, Ray? That of course assumes that the Bible is meant to be taken literally. But I nearly forgot: you can excommunicate popes! I'll be sure Benedict gets the message, buddy. Ah... but before I do, could you clear something up for me, Ray? An old chestnut has been really gnawing away for awhile, and I just have to know:

Why are your religious beliefs more valid than mine? Or anyone else's in this thread? Or Lenny Flank's Pizza Guy? Why are you the sole arbiter of what is and is not Christian? How is your interpretation of the Bible any better than anyone else's, let alone Biblical scholars who find the idea of a literal reading of Genesis to unwarranted?

And I need to thank you, Ray. It's always so refreshing to talk to a creationist who isn't afraid to proclaim loudly that Intelligent Design is all about religion, that their beef with evolution is because of their particular brand of Christianity, and that their motivation is purely religious. You guys are so helpful! Really, you make our job of standing up for sound science education all the easier. Thanks a bunch, Ray, you ol' rascal!

But if you need that hug, the offer stands, buddy. Hugs make the world go round.

...Actually, wait. That sounds like a perfectly valid scientific theory in the vein of Intelligent Design! The Totally Way-Scientific Theory of Friendly Gravity states that objects attract one another because deep down, everyone just wants a hug, and if people don't give enough hugs out, then the planet will spiral out into space! So do your part and give Ray a hug before his grumpiness dooms us all! And call the Discovery Institute! I smell a grant! If those suckers'll support Intelligent Design, they'll support anything!

"Even the weakest disputant is made so conceited by what he calls religion, as to think himself wiser than the wisest who thinks differently from him."

Walter Savage Landor (1775-1864)

Darwin’s proposal was a direct reply to Paley’s positive argument for the existence of God derived through nature (Watchmaker thesis).

The germ of the idea is to be found in ancient writers who used sundials and ptolemiac epicycles to illustrate the divine order of the world. These types of examples can be seen in the work of the ancient philosopher Cicero, especially in his De natura deorum, ii. 87 and 97 (see Hallam, Literature of Europe, ii. 385, note.). During the Enlightenment, the watch analogy occurred in the writings of Robert Boyle and Joseph Priestley. Thus, Paley's use of the watch (and other mechanical objects like it) continued a long and fruitful tradition of analogical reasoning that was well received by those who read Natural Theology when it was published in 1802.

Darwin was an Atheist-materialist as early as 1837. ... Darwin was an Atheist since his late 20s.

Though Darwin wrote of religion as a tribal survival strategy, he still believed that God was the ultimate lawgiver. His belief dwindled, and with the death of his daughter Annie in 1851, Darwin finally lost all faith in Christianity. He continued to help the local church with parish work, but on Sundays would go for a walk while his family attended church.

Meanwhile, in the real world, it doesn’t matter whether Darwin was religious or atheist when he became a scientist.

Indeed it doesn't, but then why do idiots like you, Ray, every day try to bring up the canard of Darwin's "deathbed conversion"?

er, sorry, I mistook larsson's comment for Ray's.

still haven't gotten used to this new display.

who said something used to be at the BOTTOM of a comment.

PvM:

Evolution spends no time studying God’s word but says that Genesis is false

What does the Bible say about Christians who spread falsehoods?

And we have a fourm[sic] full of ignorant and brainwashed evolutionists who actually think that evolution and the Bible are compatible and that evolution does not claim that the Bible is false from cover to cover.