Re: Huge Creationist Paper


Ray Martinez wrote:
(snip)


When Creos say NS is unfalsifiable they are talking about Evos who
explain everything by saying "NS-did-it". But forget Creos, your own
geneticists admit the obvious:

(snip pathetic quote mine that tries to slip out of a classic
intra-creationism contradiction)

BTW, Richard Dawkins, in "The Blind Watchmaker", 14 years after the
quote you mined, and 20 years ago, took pains to differentiate
Darwinian evolution from the "NS is everthing" caricature.


Did you also falsify "macroevolution" too, IOW did you address any of
Douglas Theobald's potential falsifiers?


Yes, I have falsified macroevolution, and I never heard of Douglas
Theobald.

Chez Watt!!!


I have clearly and invulnerably falsified:

1. NS

2. Macroevolution

3. Human evolution

4. Gradualality

5. Theistic evolutionism (my personal favorite). I am going to
humiliate Ken Miller and the Clergy Letter Project and enjoy every
moment.

6. Common ancestry

7. Charles Darwin will be taken to task like no one has ever seen
before.

There are horribly ignorant Darwinists who do not understand how the
19th century effects things today. When I destroy the foundation
everything built on it goes with it.

In addition, I will PROVE that:

C'mon, you know "prove" is for math.


1. Special Creation is true.

Do you mean "independent abiogenesis"? You can't say no, because, if
you falsified common ancestry, that's all that's left. So you might as
well use technical terms.

Do you say exactly which species originated independently, and when?

Do you reference Schwabe or Senapathy, who are AFAIK, the only ones who
even attempted to make independent abiogenesis sound scientific.

And please don't tell me you never heard of them either.


2. design = Designer. Paley remains true.

Dembski apparently disagrees. Do you challenge him directly in your
paper, or is every pseudoscientific anti-evolutionist "sacred" in the
"big tent"?


This
very important section is already written. I have missed so many
deadlines that I am afraid to set anymore. God has now enabled me to
spend full time on the project that He has given me. My goal is no
later than November, but obviously I cannot make any promises.

Without giving anything away (because I am thoroughly looking forward
to the shock value) my theory, based on the totality of available
evidence, says the general ToE is a valid explanation of biological
reality, but wholly and demonstrably incorrect.

Ray

Well I hope that you are not giving anything away, because all I can
detect from your comments is the same old argument from incredulity
wrapped in a bait-and-switch with the argument from design.

If this claim had any merit then you would have taken the time to
actually explain and apply it to something I said.

Except that you hadn't said anything that hadn't been said 1000x
before. Even what you add above is the same old stuff, and much of
which the "don't ask, don't tell" ID crowd is backpedaling away from.

If you really have something new you should be eager to rub it in the
faces of IDers, and YECs (if it's OEC) or OECs (if it's YEC), and not
just "Darwinists".


SNIP....

and that you will surprise
us with something that no anti-evolutionist has given us to date - a
hypothesis that stands on its own merits, and not on a precieved (or
fabricated) weakness in any other one.

I promise that I will deliver exactly what you state above: an
absolutely original and unique thesis and the extraordinary evidence to
back it up. After Huxley read the "Origin" he remarked: "How stupid of
me not to have thought of that." I believe Creationists will say the
same after reading my work, and evos will be enraged.

Which creationists will be enraged? If you are giving away bits and
pieces, you might as well start talking about at least *when* your
"special creation" events occurred.

If you really debunk evolution, I'd have no problem with that - few
defenders of evolution will. And if, unlike the DI crowd, you really
catch the designer red-handed, and it is indeed God, I'd be
disappointed that He was outsmarted, but I'd have to live with it.

In any case if you do have the first original theory that replaces
evolution, it will necessarily also replace all but one, if not all, of
the mutually contradictory creationisms.

Ooh, maybe that's why Ed Conrad has been so scarce. You and he have
been working behind the scenes to finally develop "man as old as coal"?

Ray

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Creationism Debunked in Larger Context
    ... On Mar 17, 8:13 pm, Richard Clayton ... Are you saying evolution has been observed? ... "Design" in this context is a loaded word; you might as well marvel at ... Genesis special creation jump start looms large and repels ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Ray Martinez
    ... the properties of Mind and His power to said antonym: ... Of course evolution admits that ... IF design does not imply designer or Designer then by the same ... ASSERTS the patterns resultant of evolution and not special creation. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Op-Ed: Intelligent design not testable; it cant be a scientific
    ... I've got a better one for you: "What is the theory of intelligent design, and how can it be tested using the scientific method?"Until you can answer this, intelligent design is navel-gazing sophistry. ... the evidence unambiguously supports evolution. ... If creation science or Dembski's "explanatory filter" had better a alternative to evolution-based mechanisms, they could make a killing on it. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: The Evidence Keeps Piling Up Against The Creationists
    ... over people that believe in evolution, ... is any sort of "proof" that creation did not happen. ... share some common design features. ... How animals were designed will probably never be known. ...
    (rec.sport.football.college)
  • Re: OT: lets ignore bvallelys political postings
    ... ntelligent Design: The Origin of Biological Information and the Higher ... In a recent volume of the Vienna Series in a Theoretical Biology ... form first arose during the evolution of life. ... and classes of animals also arose at this ...
    (rec.arts.theatre.musicals)