Re: Shattering the Myths of Darwinism by cultist Richard Milton


"Ray Martinez" <pyramidial@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:1173822352.112471.77710@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
On Mar 12, 11:06 pm, F...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx (Fredric L. Rice) wrote:
"Ray Martinez" <pyramid...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Mar 11, 3:44 pm, Augray <aug...@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Ray, I've already pointed out to you that Milton doesn't know what
he's talking about.
Seehttp://groups.google.ca/group/talk.origins/msg/e1e770d064ed3e7f
You did no such thing. Like Mr. Rice has done all you did was call
Milton a liar.

Actually Richard had been exposed as just another Creationist
kook approximately the day that his book came out. I mean good
grief, the insane butt*** thinks evolution has everything to
do with chance -- and the guy believes in astrology, for god's
sake. Can't get much more of a buttfuckingly stupid cultist
than that, can he?


The words and phrases that you have chosen tell us that you are in a
state of rant.

Ray, your ability to determine when someone else is in a "state of rant" is
very poor. You seem to call anyone who disagrees with your in a "state of
rant". Furthermore, even if you were correct, and Fredric is in a "state
of rant", that does not mean that he is wrong. Can you present any
evidence to support your own position, and to contradict his?

There could be many good reasons to justify said state
but in your case, based on what you have written, we see none.

Again, Ray, what's with the "we"? You are speaking only for yourself.

What we
actually see is an evolutionist "pretending" to be enraged that
someone would connect chance with the Theory of Evolution.

Where is Mr. Rice "enraged"?

Objective
and educated persons

( a set of persons who not include Ray. )

know that ToE asserts chance events at the
genetic level have produced the panoply of life that we see today.

Random mutations are only part of the mechanism of evolution.

But
your "genuine" dialogue vehemently protesting this caricature assumes
chance is not a major component of evolutionary theory. How do we
reconcile these facts?

Chance is only a part of evolutionary theory, and not the "major component".


Let me interpet:

As mentioned before your ability to interpet is rather limited, due to your
own inablity to understand the other's arguments.

Mr. Rice is feigning rage to make a point (chance has no central part
in evolutionary theory)

That's not what Mr. Rice is saying. Ray already gets it wrong.

because evolutionists have decided that they
can no longer make their theory plausible to the general public

There is no need to make a scientific theory "plausible" to the general
public. It only need fit the evidence.

having
a senseless concept (chance) in a central role for the production of
the wonder of nature.

Again, Ray, "chance" in the form of random mutations is only part of the
theory of evolution. Selection is not "chance".

Even though chance (and other synonyms like
random and accident) will always remain central to evolutionary
theory, Darwinists have decided to misrepresent their theory
nontheless for the reason just stated.

Again, we have Ray deliberately misstating the position of another,
something he protests when others do it, even by mistake. Mr. Rice does
not misrepresent evolutionary theory, but Ray certianly does.


When cornered evolutionists grant a antithetic explanation to the
concept of chance attempting to frame it as anything but haphazzard.
They attempt to have it both ways, that is, they want "guided" chance
= no such thing.

Once again, we have Ray making a deliberate misstatement. Evolution is a
process by which random mutations are selected by natural forces.
Scientists do not want it "both ways".


Chance means God did not do it.

No, "chance" means there is no predictiable pattern. There is no evidence
to suggest that God did, or did not ''do it".


In order to have it both ways they
assign special meanings to chance that are antonymic attempting to
soften the blow.

Another deliberate misstatement. There is no desire to "soften the blow"
of anything.

But straight thinkers,

(i.e. Not Ray)

who have no desire to look the
other way,

(also Not Ray)

must point out this antonymic nonsense. Chance means bat
sonar and the eye and the brain and migratory birds just happened
gradually and luckily = reasons why evolutionists need to redefine and
misrepresent a word we all learned in the second grade (chance).

Actually, Ray, Bat sonar, and Bird migration did not "just happen" but were
the result of mutation and selection, a process that's already been
demonstrated to produce genetic change in populations. Also, Ray does not
answer why it would be impossible for either bat sonar, or bird migration to
have developed in a gradual manner. Even human beings, with relatively
poor hearing, can echolocate.



Mr. Rice's "outburst" betrays the obvious nonsense of the main claim
of evolutionary theory and the need to cover this fact. No matter how
much "honest" Darwinists misrepresent; we all know what chance means
and your theory says It produced nature = the depths atheists have
gone to get rid of God.

Another deliberate misstatement. Chance is only part of evolution, not the
whole thing. It's random mutations producing variation in a population,
with natural selection providing the non-random direction.

In reality, chance is guided by the assertions
of Darwinists,

How could the chance mutations be possibly guided by assertions of anyone?

in hindsight, while hiding behind educational
credentials, daring anyone to say what I just said.

You can say whatever you want, Ray, but you are known to be wrong. Why
should anyone listen to your assertions?


How has the Theory of Evolution prospered with Chance as its Deity?

Begging the question. Chance is not a deity, and it's not treated as one
by the theory of evolution. The theory of evolution has prospered because
it explains the evidence.


Any theory which uses Naturalism for its presuppositions is a
punishment from God for denying Him the credit and status of Creator
(Dr. Gene Scott). Success of senseless theory explained.

Mr. Scott was wrong about a great many things, the above included. God
obviously does not punish persons for using their intellect. There are
many devout Christians who give God credit for creation who also accept the
scientific method, which reqires methodological naturalism. If Ray wishes
to claim all of science is a "punishment" from the small, petty, deceitful,
and tyrannical being Ray worships, that's his own problem. It's clear,
however that Ray is not worshiping the God of Christ, and the Bible.


DJT


.