Re: Question for Ray Martinez

On Jun 5, 11:42 pm, Ray Martinez <pyramid...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
snip

No, it does not presuppose that. It presupposes that there are at
least some creationists who do not have facts or good arguments (it
does not even presuppose that these creationists are liars: they might
in principle believe their own falsehoods and bad arguments). So let
me sketch out my argument step by step.

You singled out Dr. Scott and presupposed dishonesty.

That's because you were claiming that Mr. Scott's IQ was a reason to
accept his claims.


Now you deny
what anyone can go back and read for them self. In reply, like I
already did, I simply pointed out that you are a Atheist-evolutionist
and Dr. Scott is a Supernaturalist-Theist.

But that's not relevant to whether or not he is right or wrong. Mr.
Scott is wrong, even if he is a "Supernaturalist-Theist".


Presupposition explained.

No "presupposition" involved.

Now if you have any evidence to back up your supposition we could only
wonder why it has not been produced?

Ray, you have been asked repeatedly to produce any evidence that Mr.
Scott has the IQ that you claim. Also, it's been provided to you
evidence that Mr. Scott has dishonestly claimed academic honors he did
not earn.




We are glad that your kind disapproves of Dr. Scott, logically, it
means he threatens your theory and worldview, hence, again, the
presupposition is explained.

Again, there is no logic in that construction. It's just an excuse
for you ignore legitamate criticisim.



I assume there are some stupid, ignorant, or dishonest creationists
(judging from your disparaging remarks about "fundie" Christians, I
can only infer that you assume the same). Even if the idea they are
defending are right, their arguments are bad and do not validly
support their position.

This identification could include anyone, especially evolutionists,
don't you agree, or are you unable to be objective?

Yes, but you haven't shown any reason to believe that other's
arguments are bad, or not valid.


An "atheist-evolutionist" will disagree with such bad creationists.
He may also disagree with intelligent, honest, and knowledgeable
creationists, if any such exist, but that is a side issue.

Entire comment is subterfuge for the following phrase: "if any such
exist" referring to "knowledgeable creationists" = predictable belief
of a evolutionist. Since the writer of the comment is an evolutionist
and since he has assumed a Theist scholar in an equally predictable
and insulting manner, once again, what is the point, since we already
know that evolutionists reject all opposing Theists?

What "evolutionists" reject is bad arguments, and bad science. Any
"theists" who present evidence to support their position are not
opposed. Creationists are opposed because they are unable to support
their claims, and resort to dishonesty to make their points.



Therefore, you cannot assume that, simply because an "atheist
evolutionist" disagrees with and criticizes a creationist, that the
creationist cannot be a bad (dishonest, stupid, ignorant)
creationist.

This is a demand that an Atheist-evolutionist should be able to smear
Theist scholars that threaten his theory without fear that their
status as an Atheist-evolutionist be exposed.

The "status" as an "Atheist evolutionist" is irrelevant to the
veracity of the claim. That's why ad hominem is a logical fallacy.


Since all evolutionists practice the same against anyone who opposes
their theory the demand is downright ridiculous: "eye for eye, tooth
for tooth" is the Biblical way.

Actually, Ray, the "Biblical way" is to turn the other cheek, or do
you feel that Jesus' words don't have any importance? All
"evolutionists" do not "practice the same way" against anyone who
opposes the theory of evolution. They only oppose those who
dishonestly attack science.



The answer is no, we will always point out invective directed at
Theist scholars if it is by an Atheist because it makes sense.

No, Ray, it's ad hominem, a classic logical fallacy. Also, you simply
assume that anyone who criticizes your heroes is an "Atheist" without
any evidence.

On the
other hand, we recognize the fact that the invective exists in the
first place because of the perceived threat to your theory and
worldview and lack of ANY evidence to justify the invective since it
is always communicated by assumption and presupposition in the
phraseology.

No, that's your excuse for ignoring the evidence that opposes your
claims. There is a great deal of evidence to support evolution, and a
great deal of evidence that creationists are largely dishonest.


Furthermore, you cannot thereby assume that a
creationist who is being criticized by an "atheist evolutionist" is
being "slandered;" he may be represented quite honestly and
accurately.

Moreover, you cannot assume that a evolutionist who is being
criticized by a creationist is being slandered; he may be representing
the evolutionist quite accurately.

He may be, but the evidence indicates that in this case he is not.
Again, it's the evidence, not the person that you need to address.


You regard Dr. Gene Scott as the greatest biblical scholar of the 20th
century, perhaps the greatest expert on both theology and science who
ever lived. Unless someone has, unbeknownst to me, conferred
infallibility on you, your opinion of Dr. Scott does not make him a
great scholar or expert or even honest. Nor have you presented
anything beyond your own opinion (and his own opinion, to be sure, but
if I don't know if his opinions can be trusted, how can I trust his
opinion on whether he can be trusted?) to support your assessment of
him. The arguments you offer, which I presume you learned from Dr.
Scott, are not brilliant, or based on facts, or even particularly
sane, so what inference ought a reasonable person draw (tentatively,
to be sure) about your mentor? And please note, as indicated in the
argument above, that my low opinion of your arguments does not show
that you are right.

When we remember that the person who has written the above slander,

The above is not "slander" or even libel, for the simple reason that
it's true.

which is presupposed true in every phrase,

Not a "presupposition" but a simple fact. Mr. Scott was not a well
recognized scholar, and the "arguments" you have presented here are
bad, and illogical.


is a Atheist-evolutionist
and that I am a Creationist and that Dr. Scott is known by him to have
claimed to refuted his precious theory,

Mr. Scott's claims of "refutation" are worthless. Unless Mr. Scott
presented physical evidence in a scientific manner, he has "refuted"
nothing.

the insults are instantly
explained and entirely predictable when these basic facts are pointed
out. Was the opinion expressed of this Atheist concerning Theists ever
in doubt or a surprise?

Are the statements true, or not? That's the only question here.




Again, we know that Atheists hate Theists, what is your point?

Where do you get the idea that atheists hate theists? You may hate
atheists, and anyone who opposes you, but that doesn't mean it's the
other way around.



As another poster has noted, most "atheist-evolutionists" have a low
opinion of Hitler. Does this prove Hitler was right?

Everyone who is sane has a low opinion of Hitler, what is the point?

Everyone who is sane, and has studied the evidence has a low opinion
of Mr. Scott as well.



I might add that one of the scholars being attacked has refuted
Evolution and the attack of evolutionists who are aware of this fact
is quite expected. If a refutation had not taken place then,
logically, there would be no attack or predictably false
presuppositions. The degree of slander and misrepresentation is
logically equal to the degree that their scholarship threatens
evolutionary theory or equal to the degree that the refutation is
perceived to be true by the evolutionist.

Now, I recall that you earlier took the position (regarding, IIRC,
your libels against Dana Tweedy, but I may be thinking of your libels
against someone else) that an honest person would never reply to false
and defamatory attacks against him.

Does the fact that you and Dana are evolutionists and that I am a
Creationist have anything to do with making up a libel charge against
me?

No, the fact that you have libelled me has something to do with that.
Remember, you claimed that I was a racist, and a liar, and a thief?
Remember you haven't produced any evidence to support any of those
claims?


Yes, I have said that decent persons would never reply to obvious
enraged slander.

Which is not true. Decent persons do reply to your obvious enraged
slander.


Sometimes decent persons out of righteous anger make
the mistake and reply (like I have done too) but my point was that as
a GENERAL POLICY it is best to let the slander artist "have the last
word" because response gives validity to what the perp knows is
false.

Actual people disagree with that, Ray. Denying your libel does not
give it validity.



By that standard, I suppose, it
follows that evolutionists would not attack Dr. Scott's and your
arguments if they were lousy and dishonest.
Of course, you yourself
often and indignantly defend Dr. Scott and yourself, which implies
either that our attacks on the two of you are truthful and logical, or
that you do not believe your own rules about defending oneself against
libel.

Sometimes the attack does not rise to the level of a "Dana Tweedy
slander tantrum" and I feel like I can make logical rebuttal.

Ray, I have never "slandered" you, or anyone else, and I do not throw
a tantrum, as you have done.

But if
the message crosses the line, which is a judgement call, then I just
ignore because I know they are absolutely enraged and my arguments
caused the rage.

Ray, your ability to detect "rage" is badly broken. You ignore
people because you know you can't dispute.

For example: Dana is in a slander rant-a-thon against
Pastor Scott presently.

I have never slandered Ms. Bridges, and don't ever intend to do so.


He is lashing out attempting to hurt me and
slander her because my arguments have so affected him.

Ray, why would I "lash out" at Ms. Bridges over your "arguements"?
Why would I be "affected" by your constant running away from my
statements?


I have not and
I will not answer him a word.

You already have, Ray.

The slander-rants against Pastor Scott
means Dana is utterly enraged with the facts as I argue them and he
has lost his composure seeking hurt and classic poison the well.

Poor Ray, so badly mistaken, and unable to defend himself.....

In
reality, he is equally jealous, and he knows I am about to deliver the
most devasting blow against his theory.

What possibly do I have to be jealous about, Ray? You've been
threatening to "deliver" this "blow" for years now. Do you really
think anyone believes you have the ability to deliver anything of
note?

Dana is the one person who
perfectly understands all of my arguments and he has finally cracked
and become a full time howler.

Oh, Ray, you are amusing some times. I understand your "arguments"
are badly constructed, and you are unable to honestly defend your
claims. That's why you libel me.


I will continue to post knowing his
rage is caused by the facts of my logic.

I don't have any "rage" and you haven't displayed any "logic" or
"facts".

Since I have, for the most
part, almost never used Pastor Scott as a source, this shows that Dana
is out of control lashing out at her to get at me.

Why do you imagine I'm "lashing out"? You have claimed that Ms
Bridges is a renouned Biblical scholar, and that her IQ is 186 or
above. I'm just asking you to provide evidence of that. So far you
have failed utterly.


We know that the
test of the true Gospel Preacher is that he or she is being slandered
(= proof of Satan's control on said persons who do it).

Ray, then Ms. Bridges is not a "true Gospel Preacher" at all. I've
never slandered the woman, and I never intend to. Everything I've
said about her is correct, and a matter of public record.


Certainly most evolutionists hold that it is good to attack
lies and stupidity, so they would attack Dr. Scott's arguments if they
were stupid and dishonest, in which case those arguments would not
constitute a "refutation," but merely another creationist tirade which
threatened nothing but the understanding of confused laymen. Do you
not suppose that people might be offended by lies, even if they
themselves are not tempted to believe those lies?

From "in which case" on I do not understand your point.
Logically, the rejection and slander of Theist scholars by any
evolutionist is the best indication that said scholars are as such,
the approval of the evolutionist would mean the scholar is not a real
scholar or a real Theist.

Ray, that position is so stupid, so irrational, that I can only
conclude that the only reason you accept it is that you have no other
possible defense to make of Dr. Scott's rabid and delusional tirades
(or, as you refer to it, "scholarship").

In other words you cannot refute.

No, he means you are already refuted. Your "argument" is too silly to
even comment on.


Since you are a Atheist-evolutionist and Dr. Scott is not, but a
scholar who has produced devastating facts against your theory your
opinion of him is entirely predictable and welcomed since the approval
of your kind would make him like you - a deluded moron unconscious of
that fact.

What "devistating facts" has Mr. Scott produced? Where can these
"devistating facts" be seen in any legitamate scientific journal?

DJT

.