Re: evolution: can someone please correct (or confirm???) my

On Apr 29, 6:52 pm, Robert Weldon <rwel...@xxxxxx> wrote:
On Apr 29, 6:20 pm, Ray Martinez <pyramid...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

On Apr 29, 11:07 am, DJT <mousede...@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

On Apr 29, 10:01 am, Ray Martinez <pyramid...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

On Apr 29, 1:41 am, Ernest Major <{$t...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

In message
<d8697a8e-f0b8-433b-a296-cef00a9ac...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Ray
Martinez <pyramid...@xxxxxxxxx> writes

In the case of Wells, he came to reject evolution because the evidence
does not support the claims. Wells has said this plainly and clearly
whether it is available on the Internet or not. It is why all persons
reject evolution: the evidence does not support the claims. Evolution
is Atheist ideology packaged as science.

Ray

Wells' (and your) assertion would be more convincing if offered with an
explanation of why the evidence does not support the claims.

Because the explanation is utterly false when we look at nature and
seen its design and organized complexity on a scale that is, like
Paley said "beyond all computation."

That's an assertion, not evidence.   The appearance of design, and
"organized complexity" is known to be the result of natural
processes.   Therefore assuming a supernatural being is not
warranted.

This means causation is Divine
and not material.

That's only if you could show that there is no means of causation,
other than the "Divine".   You'd also have to show some actual
examples of observed design coming form a divine cause.

 >Material (= mindless) absent Mind cannot

***create*** the nature we see.

This assumption is wrong.   Material does not equal "mindless" and
undirected natural processes do create phenomena.    There's no
evidence that what we see requires a "mind".

 >The "evidence" briefly described below

cannot create the nature we have.

This assertion is contradicted by many examples.

The evidence does do not support the
claims. Only the needs of your preexisting Atheism make it support the
claims.

You keep forgetting that you are ignorant of the evidence.   One does
not require atheism to understand how science works.

I am
familiar with some of the evidence (the totality is too large for any
one person to be familiar with it), and I find that the evidence
supports the factuality of common descent with modification through the
agency of natural selection and other processes.

Hello Dana! Are you there?

Yes, I'm here.

Have you read what Ernest Major just wrote?

Yep, he's right.   You, however are still wrong in defining evolution
as change due to natural selection.

Major said the agency of natural selection (and other processes) is
responsible for modification evolution.

What he said was that natural selection and other processes are
responsible for common descent by modification.   He did not say
"modification evolution".     I have no problem with that.    What
Steven, and myself have been trying to get you to understand is that
your definition of evolution, ie. "modification of an individual by
natural selection" is wrong.     Natural selection, and variation,
causes changes in populations, not individuals.  Evolution itself does
not require natural selection.   It can happen by genetic drift, and
other factors.

What Ernest said was correct, but you are still wrong.

Ernest: Dana has denied up and down the term 'modification' to be
involved in evolution.

Actually, I've never "denied" that at all.   Ray is either making
things up, or is very confused.   What I have denied is Ray's bizarre
ideas that evolution is "modification" of an individual by natural
selection.   Populations are what evolves, not individuals.

I have repeatedly said what you have just said.

No, Ray, you have made claims that were very different, and
incorrect.    You were trying to claim that evolution is
"modification" of an individual by "natural selection" (which you seem
to think means something like 'natural causes'.

I have said this in the context of announcing the basic claim of
evolution.

Which you got entirely wrong.   Evolution does not happen by
individual modification during the organism's lifetime.

While I do not believe the claim it is nonetheless how a
population allegedly evolves: natural selection modifies an organism
(for its good - Charles Darwin) then organism breeds and releases said
modification into its breeding population; the next generation
inherits modification = gradualism also known as 'evolution.'

This is what is wrong.    Natural selection does NOT modify an
individual.   Natural selection acts like a filter in a population,
"choosing" which of the inborn mutations will propagate into the
population.     You have also misquoted Darwin.   Mutations, or
variations, as Darwin knew them, are random in respect to the needs of
the individual.

   Mutations are not "for the good" of the individual, they happen
randomly, and if the organism is lucky enough to get a mutation which
does give it some advantage, that will more likely get passed on to
the next generation.  Th

Now lets watch Dana distort, nit pick, misrepesent, caricature, and of
course, deny.

Ray, you've done a such a good job of distorting, caricature, and
misrepresenting.    I can only try to correct you many errors.    As
you know, I don't "nit pick" "misrepresent" , caricature, or deny the
truth.    What I do is try to show where you are wrong.   It's hardly
my fault if you are so badly mistaken.

That Wells wrote "The Icons of Evolution", rather than a book showing
how the evidence does not support evolution, suggests that Wells is not
able to support his assertion.
--
alias Ernest Major

The title is a major insult while being absolutely accurate.

Why is it an "insult"?   It's already been shown it's not accurate.

Evolution
is idol or icon worship.

No, it's science.  This also goes to show how much you've
misunderstood Wells own intentions.

The icons are its ideas that are proposed in
a context of denying God creator credit, or the context of Materialism-
Naturalism, which exists to do just that by starting presupposition.

Except that many people who accept evolution, also give God credit as
the ultimate creator.    There is no need to deny God, and science
doesn't do that anyway.   You are just wrong again.

Ray- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

This reply by Dana proves that this Group is dishonest to the bone,
especially John Harshman. Pointing out that Harshman is not a scholar
is proven everytime he refuses to put a lay evolutionist liar, like
Dana Tweedy, in his place. The deliberate lies and contradictions
spoken by Dana Tweedy in this post expose every evolutionist in this
Group to have no integrity, confirming what we already knew.

Ray, the only deliberate lies and contractions here are yours and
yours only, and you damned well know it.  Car to show some integrity
and actually show us, with exact quotes and detailed explanations,
where Dana has lied.  Note, don't be surprised if the only one who
agrees with your opinion on the matter is you.


Dana has egregiously misrepresented each and every thing I say (=
lies). Pretending that these lies do not exist fulfills my
prediction.

Why do evolutionists clown the debate with egregious
misrepresentations?

Answer: It is a compliment. It is a recognition that I represent a
serious threat to the vercacity of evolution; the tactic employed
(egregious misrepresentation) is the only way I can be thwarted due to
the inability to refute. In other words, egregious misrepresentation
is standard howler treatment or poisoning the well, as it is commonly
known.



The silence is explained as such: evolutionists know Dana is lying but
his lies are excused because he is dealing with a creationist. This
means they know he is lying as a tactic - ad hoc.

The silence is explained as such: the sane people who follow this
board agree with what Dana is saying, and know that you are a lying
weasel.



I, on the other hand, would not and have not hesitated to expose
design liars.

Really??? I haven't seen you expose Harun Yayha yet, even when his
lies were explicitely shown to you?



This is what separates creationists from evolutionists. The latter
believes lying is okay if the veracity of their theory is at stake.
They are too dumb and angry to see that standing up to liars in their
own ranks is what reinforces their theory.

Yes, you finally get something correct, a common trait of creationists
is a believe that lying is ok if it is in support of their version of
their particular religion.  This is shown clearly, time and time
again, when you get angry when the sane, rational people point out
where you are lying, usually in exquisite and well documented detail.



All evolutionists are afraid of Dana Tweedy, not willing to read this
post and call a liar a liar. This is exactly what makes John Harshman
the absolute nobody that he is. True scholars are not afraid to expose
anyone who lies. Harshman knows Dana is a liar but he doesn't mind
because I dared to point out his errors and give him a taste of his
own medicine. Harshman cannot be trusted to tell the truth no matter
what. This is why he is here at Talk Origins playing king among a pack
of lying howlers instead of separating himself and confronting liars
in his own ranks. This is why I have observed that Harshman has
sacrificed his "degree." He is just too stupid and dishonest to see
this point.

Really? I am not particularly afraid of Dana.  I do, however, respect
his opinion in his area of expertise and subject knowledge.  And I
fail to see what you are trying to accomplish with your libel of John
Harshman.  All you are accomplishing is making yourself look even more
of a lying weasel, something I really didn't think was possible. I
considered you to already be at the absolute maximum limit of the
lying weasel range, but you have managed to break through the barrier
and establish your own microcosm, congratulations on that rather
dubious accomplishment.



Ray Martinez, Designist.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Should be:

Ray Martinez, Stark raving loony lying weasel

Your resident "scholar" will be treated as he treats others. And there
is nothing you can do about it.

Ray




.

Relevant Pages