Re: Darwinist Professor: "Michael F**king Behe" Is ..."

On May 23, 4:33 pm, Ray Martinez <pyramid...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On May 22, 5:40 pm, geop...@xxxxxxxxxxx wrote:

On May 22, 6:48 pm, Ray Martinez <pyramid...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

On May 21, 3:46 pm, geop...@xxxxxxxxxxx wrote:

On May 21, 7:27 pm, Ray Martinez <pyramid...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

On May 20, 6:39 pm, geop...@xxxxxxxxxxx wrote:

On May 20, 11:26 pm, Ray Martinez <pyramid...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

On May 20, 9:40 am, geop...@xxxxxxxxxxx wrote:

On May 19, 6:54 pm, Ray Martinez <pyramid...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

On May 19, 9:55 am, Frank J <f...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

On May 19, 4:34 am, MatthewTan <elearningstre...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

One way to make oneself world-famous if academic excellence is
lacking : self-corruption.

http://www.evolutionnews.org/2007/05/michael_fcking_behe_corrupts_a.html

Darwinist Professor: "Michael F**king Behe" Is Shamefully Corrupting
American Science Education
Michael Egnor

Darwinists lack two traits desirable for scientists: decorum and a
developed sense of irony. University of Minnesota Associate Professor
of Biology and star Darwinist science blogger P.Z. Myers provides
evidence for this observation in a recent scatological tirade on
Pharyngula, the popular Darwinist science blog that is read daily by
thousands of young scientists and aspiring scientists.

[...]

I added the asterisks. Both Behe and Myers are college biology
professors who teach young biologists and biochemists the methods of
scientific inquiry and, by example, teach students the appropriate
standards of scientific discourse.

Which professor is shamefully corrupting American science education?

Behe of course. Here's why:

Myers' job is to provide technical arguments against ID/creationism to
other critics. He does that job well, becasue we can tune out his
irrelevant philosphical arguments, which don't misrepresent the
science anyway. But most noncientists cannot tease apart the
differences, so his arguments, and occasional 4-letter words, if made
to the general public, would probably help more than hinder the ID
scammers.

Frank: By calling the IDists scammers you are really saying that they
are liars; that is, that they know for a fact that ID is false and are
willfully perpetuating a lie. Can you please tell us what makes you
think that Dembski or Wells or Behe know that Darwinian materialism-
evolution is true, and why any one of them are campaigning against the
truth via ID science?

Hey Ray, here's the splash page of Dembski's forum for high school
kids.

http://www.overwhelmingevidence.com/

Count the lies. The title itself is arguably one; the evidence is not
in the least overwhelming, but I'll let that one slide. Judge Jones an
activist?

Did not the Darwinian Judge rule as expected?

By whom? How does that make him an activist?

Jones was and is a Darwinist, was his ruling ever in doubt?

Was and is he? I don't remember this being claimed before the trial.

You are either naive or pretending to be. All Federal Judges are
Evolutionists. How else did Creationism suddenly become
unconstitutional?

It's ALWAYS been unconstitutional, because it is religious. The IDers
aim of the trial was to have it ruled that ID was /not/ creationism!

Show me the rulings before the 20th century?

The rulings in the 20th century were based on the Constitution that
was written in the 18th century. The Constitution did not change in
between.



We

who is we?

Persons struggling to understand your logic in lieu of the facts that
contradict.

Are you all writing these posts?

suggest
that you think for just a few minutes before you post. Jones is a
believer in evolution - how could he not rule in favor of the ACLU?

Evolution is not a belief, but even if Jones /accepted/ evolution...
the trial was about the question of whether ID is, or is not, science.
Jones correctly ruled it was not.

Since Jones is an evolutionist his decision was obviously
predetermined.

If Jones would have ruled contrary you would be using my logic and
making my argument in reverse.

No. I may suspect that he is a creationist, but it's also possible he
could be deceived. His verdict would show where he was wrong.

Okay, Jones is deceived, I have no problem with that.

Are you being facetious? I think the "deceived" was linked to his
being a creationist.



Can you not be objective and admit this self-evident axiomatic truth?

Objective doesn't mean I have to agree with you.

In this case it does.

Objective means he cannot agree with you.



Please allow the question to be rhetorical since it is obvious that
you did not take into account the obvious (Jones was and is a
Evolutionist).

Doesn't matter. He could have found ID was science. He didn't because
it isn't.

Since you and Jones are evolutionists your opinions are about as
objective as a Judge deciding a case involving his ex-wife. The only
real issue is your inability to be objective and admit what is
obvious. Since very few evolutionists have ever shown the ability to
be objective in these matters please do not feel slighted.

I'm not, I'm feeling more ad hommed. So, because I'm pro-evo, you feel
Jones was wrong and ID is science then?

So because I am pro-ID you feel Jones was right and ID is not science?

Your position is irrelevant to anybody else's position on Jones'
ruling or ID's status with regard to science.

The star witness for the defense admitted that ID was not science, so
the case was closed on that point.



The same man described by DaveScot as a good old boy on
their side, or something? And then there's that 'old time darwinist
religion' that he is claimed to love - a libel at best,

Darwinism is Atheist religion packaged as "science" protected by
fellow Darwinists in sheeps clothing.

Show me evidence for this and I'll believe you. You can't.

Show me why it isn't science, also.

Again, you keep making the same mistakes. All Atheists rabidly support
and defend Evolution because they know that it proves their worldview.

Ray, you have a colossal difficulty with logic. 'A implies B' does not
mean 'B implies A'. Just because atheists accept evolution, and
science, does not mean that evolution was created for atheistic
reasons. Can you grasp that? I know you don't WANT to, but can you see
the flaw in your logic?

Darwin was an Atheist and the whole point and reason for being of
Evolution says God does not exist in nature. Again, since all Atheists
rabidly support Evolution this is invulnerable evidence supporting the
preceding fact. Your "logic" is deliberately false attempting to
conceal a pig (= Atheist-Evolution) in a silk dress.

Ray, I just pointed out why this is a logical fallacy. You just
repeated it without explaining why my logic is false. Pretty lame,
don't you feel?

It is grossly illogical to believe that Evolution is not pro-atheism
since all atheists rabidly support Evolution, pretty lame, don't you
agree?

Not at all, since people of all faiths all over the world addept
evolution based on the evidence.

Besides, it's clear that your definition of Christian is not the same
one others have. To me, Christians worship God; to you, they worship
the Bible.

Since you are an Atheist-evolutionist and I am a Christian-creationist
your misrepresentations and disapproval of me is the best evidence
that I am a genuine Christian because an Atheist-evolutionist would
never correctly represent or agree with a real Christian.

We don't agree with Bozo either. I dub the above "The Bozo Argument".

But the fact that some geniuses were laughed at does not imply that
all who are laughed at are geniuses. They laughed at Columbus, they
laughed at Fulton, they laughed at the Wright Brothers. But they also
laughed at Bozo the Clown.
--Carl Sagan


Your claim that evolution's PURPOSE is to deny God is, quite frankly,
a fucking lie, since you cannot possibly evidence it, and people have
pointed out to you time after time that all science is equally
atheistic.

ALL scholars and persons know that the whole point of Evolution is to
say that the God of Genesis is a liar and does not exist.

No, the Bible says "there is no god" in 18 different verses.

Why else
would all Atheists rabidly support Evolution?

Because that support is compelled by the evidence.

Your viewpoint means one
of two things: (1) You are genuinely ignorant or naive or confused or
deceived or unread; or (2) you are lying engaged in the Talk.Origins
agenda of denying the round Earth facts of scholarship which agree
UNANIMOUSLY that Evolution claims to refute Genesis and its Deity.

(1) Educated people tend to disbelieve creationism so your calim is
invalid.
(2) A nice vinagrette would go with that word salad.

This is why persons like John Harshman and John Wilkins are two-bit
minds who know how to pass classes and buy a degree. They have
sacrificed whatever validity that their degrees bring normal people
that have them by feeding this local Talk.Origins agenda of denying
what all other scholarship ASSUMES and validates: Evolution says God
does not exist and that Darwin's whole intent was to prove the Bible
wrong. Nobody denies these things except Talk.Origins - NOBODY.

Correct. NOBODY! Well, except for a few biologists, nearly all of them
really. And nearly every geologist. The astropysicists. Hell, about
90% of college grads. Most of Europe. Most of Asia. Most of Australia.
Canada. And anybody who has heard of Darwin in South America and
Africa.

Why
would Harshman and Wilkins (two Atheists) deny these things? Since
they are Atheists denying proves them liars. Why would any Atheist
fight to say Evolution does not attack the existence of God? (this is
rhetorical).

It's the evidence, stupid.

The evidence out of your own mouth, as written in the comment just
above, proves you are genuinely confused-deceived or unread:

Geo wrote: It is a fucking lie to say the purpose of evolution is to

deny God, THEN in the same breath he says, "and people have pointed
out to you time after time that all science is equally atheistic."

How could a component (evolution) not be just as atheistic as the
whole? Since you have admitted that the whole is atheistic....you are
confused.

Notice the word "equally", Ray? "Atheistic" means "without a god" not
"anti-god".

I agree that the numerical ranks of persons involved in Science accept
Darwinian evolution and that it is equally atheistic - never have I
denied this fact but on the contrary, I have proclaimed it until I was
blue in the face.

When you are blue in the face, it means your brain isn't getting
enough oxygen. Don't worry, though, you are immune to brain damage.

Your logic is entirely non-existent if you cannot see the obvious
blatant contradiction in your statement, but since you believe apes
morphed into over millions of years nothing of this sort really
surprises us.

Nothing wrong with his logic, you just overlooked the word "equally".



Nobody denies that the whole purpose and point of Evolution is to
explain reality apart from God = Atheism. You are genuinely confused
or uneducated or a combination of both.

Then meteorology is atheistic, you twit. The purpose of evolution is
to explain all these weird patterns of wildlife. It does, for the
most. The Bible does not.

The purpose of Evolution is to explain reality apart from the power
and claims of the Genesis Deity, you ignoramus.

The purpose of the Theory of Evolution is to explain the evidence. If
certain interpretations of an ancient text disagree with the
implications of the evidence, that text must be reinterpreted or
rejected.

Unanimous Atheist support of
the Theory of Evolution means the ToE is the Atheist version of
origins.

That still doesn't mean the ToE was created FOR atheists - just that
they accept it.

Since Darwin was an Atheist before 1840 - yes it does.

Non sequitur. If you had a disease and the cure was developed by an
atheist, would you reject it on those grounds?

I was an atheist when I wrote a JavaScript program as an exercise to
help people learn to read fingerspelling for sign language. Does that
mean I did it for atheism? I had some exercises that fingerspelled
Bible verses because I got a lot of emails telling me they were
learning it for their church.

The world was trying to find an explanation for a bunch of evidence
that proved the Genesis story was not literal. Darwin found an
explanation that cannot be refuted on rational grounds.

If lots of people used the Bible as a doorstop, would you argue that
the Bible was created for that purpose?

Any Christians who support are confused and have no source to
justify their views since neither the Bible or Evolution can
objectively accommodate them.

Unless they happen to worship God and his creation, instead of his
book.

What is the source of infomation about the God that they supposedly
worship?

The Bible. They worship the god described by the Bible, not the
description.

How did they come to know about His existence?

They were brainwashed by their environment.

Whatever source is cited if it contains false information then the
Deity who is presented therein must be false or man-made.

So, since your source was shown to be false by the evidence before
Darwin's time, your deity must be false.


Conversely, where does Evolution say that this God had any role in
reality?

Evolution doesn't mention any supernatural intervention.

Like I said, they have no source to justify their subjective views.

Except for the evidence which you are forced to ignore.

They are deceived, like Judge Jones who only cares about the approval
of the secular world and his career = the exact things the Bible says
that believers betray God for (backsliding as it is called). Jones is
a grinning embecile, a traitor of the highest order, but then again,
any Christian who cooperates with the AtheistCLU is not a Christian
and therefore cannot be a traitor. Jones is an Atheist-Darwinist based
on his words and actions. Why does he go to Church? All rats go to
Church to justify themselves. I can show you in the New Testament
where demons in possession of certain persons went to the Synagogue
and got along nicely with everyone until Jesus showed up one day.

You ignore the testimony of the trial as well. The Christians on the
school board lied and were proven to have lied. The defense witness
admitted that ID was not science. There was nothing presented in the
trial that could have supported any decision but the one Jones gave.
He would have to deny everything that was presented for 40 days and 40
nights. Of course, you deny this. Your whole life is a denial of
facts, a denial of logic, a denial of evidence, and a denial of
reality.



Since you forgot that Jones was a Darwinist and a "Christian" we see
why you have asked this question.

Actually, I did not know Jones was a darwinist, and I don't believe
you.

Then how do you explain his ruling?

The evidence of the ruling says he is a Darwinist and not a
Creationist. Are you mentally handicapped?

The trial was about ID, silly. JJJ ruled that ID was creationism,
which means it's not allowed in the science classes.

If you're claiming ID /is/ creationism, then all the people who
testified that it wasn't are liars. Should JJJ have ruled in favour of
liars?

Creationism is a scientific theory presenting the evidence of God and
the Constitution says nothing about excluding God from anything.

Name one testable implication of that theory. Otherwise, it's not at
all scientific.

Darwinists and Atheists have made it say what it does not say.

Huh? It says what it says.

We are
only trying to educate children that God is the Creator

"Educate" is used as a euphemism for "brainwash".

and that
Science supports.

Science does not support God as the creator. It doesn't deny it, but
the evidence does show how it was accomplished.

Please stop making things what they are not. If
Evolution does not oppose God (like you claim) then you have nothing
to worry about. Surely you can agree with that?

Evolution doesn't oppose any god, it's the gods that oppose each
other. If there was one true god, his believers would agree with one
another more often, especially on religious matters. If a scripture
can be interpreted more than one way, it cannot be relied upon.

Ray
--
Greg G.

The shepherd drives the wolf from the sheep's throat, for which the
sheep thanks the shepherd as his liberator, while the wolf denounces
him for the same act as the destroyer of liberty.
--Abraham Lincoln


.