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


"Ray Martinez" <pyramidial@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:db0cf399-a068-44f2-90fa-f93f364f9823@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
On Apr 29, 9:48 pm, "Steven J." <steve...@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
snip


It's not clear to me how something Dana says can prove that John
Harshman is "dishonest to the bone;" Harshman is under no moral
obligation to read every post here, much less comment on it, nor is he
responsible for what other posters say.

Harshman is a prolific poster; and in this case and in these context
he very well knows and sees a howler at work. I wouldn't say a word if
it was run-of-the-mill dishonesty, but in this case it is severe.

Why is your being wrong John's problem?

John's silence proves he really does not have a degree. He is hiding
behind the skirt of Dana Tweedy because I dared to challenge him.

Ray, why do you imagine John is "hiding" behind anything. What you said
was wrong, and no amount of your blustering and whining is going to change
that.

Harshman also maligns fellow degree holders therefore he will receive
the same treatment whether it comes from him personally or whether he
remains silent and allows the degree of someone else to be trashed.

Wells deserves any "maligning" he gets, as he makes false statements.
Having a Ph.D. does not mean one must cover up the lies of others with a
Ph.D. Wells was wrong in his book, and again, no amount of rants,
whining, or trash talk about John Harshman will make Wells correct.


In any case, it seems to me
that Dana is absolutely right, here: you have repeatedly defined
"evolution" as change in a population over time caused by either
natural selection, or by natural selection along with other natural
mechanisms. Dana and I have repeatedly pointed out that the term
"evolution," as used and understood by actual scientists, applies to
any change in the frequency of inheritable traits in a population over
time, regardless of what causes the change. If natural selection
plays no role at all in changing a population, change in that
population over time, if it occurs, is still evolution.


You are out for revenge, like Dana. My views on evolution are basic
and uncomplicated. You are an enraged howler.

Well, your views on evolution are still wrong. Why would Steven, or
myself want "revenge" on you for being wrong?



Now, you are free to say that you were misunderstood, and that you
accept this, and we can stop arguing. But neither Dana nor I have
ever stated that natural selection is not a major mechanism of
evolution, but only that evolution can occur without natural selection
being involved. This does not seem a terribly difficult concept to
grasp,

That is what I just said.

Actually, Ray, that's not what you said. You were trying to define
evolution as "modification" due to natural selection. That's not the
definition that anyone recognizes.


and the reason that John Harshman does not criticize Dana when
he says things like this is that Harshman, like every other
biologists, already knows and accepts this.

You are babbling.

No, he's being correct. You are mistaken, and won't admit your error.




Again, it's not clear
what value your paper can have if you cannot grasp simple points like
this.


You are just very angry, this much is obvious. If I posed no threat to
evolution you would not give me the time of day.

Where do you get the impression that Steven is angry? The reason this
newsgroup exists is to correct those like yourself who make wrong statements
about evolution. You do pose no threat, but that doesn't mean you aren't
fun to poke at.




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.

No, the silence is explained by Dana being right, and you being
utterly uncomprehending of important distinctions.


Rage via severe misrepresentation.

Where has Steven misrepresented you?


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

I think you misused "expose" where you meant "endorse," above. You
have, after all, endorsed a creationist liar like Ben Stein.


Anti-semitism.

How so? Calling Ben Stein a liar does not equate to being anti-Jewish.


In fact evolution is anti-semitism;

Oh good grief, Ray. Another made up assertion.

it says the Jews who wrote Genesis
conspired to fool the world.

No, it does not. Evolution is an explanation for the evidence, it does
not imply that the writers of Genesis were trying to fool anyone.

But thank God he raised up Charles Darwin
to expose their conspiracy.

Ray, you are really being irrational now. There's no reason to suppose
that anyone thought the Jews were conspiring by writing Genesis.


Human evolution beginning in Africa, Jewish conspiracies, evolution
has it all.

The reason human evolution is believed to have began in Africa, is because
the evidence shows the first humans coming from there. There is no
assumption of a "Jewish conspiracy". You are the one who is calling
science an "anti God conspiracy", for no reason at all.





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.

I would have thought, personally, that evidence is what reinforces
evolutionary theory.


Like Harshman, you are just too stupid to see that the shooting down
of liars in your ranks makes evolution (or any cause) gain credibility
and objectivity.

Whereas "shooting down liars" is helpful, neither Steven, or John have any
liars on the "evolutionist" ranks to "shoot down". They only have you as
the liar here.

Tolerating howlers shows you cannot refute, that is
why it is practiced.

Then why are you refuted all the time?

Your thinking here confirms a lot. I, on the
other hand, have exposed design liars without flinching, like David
Berlinski.

Where have you "exposed" Berlinski? Why not admit that Harun Yayha was
lying?

Evolutionists have not this courage or intergrity. If any
creationist acted like Dana Tweedy or yourself I would be the first to
attack them. The Group here is just too stupid and angry to see and
implement these points.

Ray, if the creationists acted like me, they'd admit they have no evidence,
and would tell the truth. Creationist, unfortunately for them, act like
you.

snip



I already said all of you defend Dana.

Because I'm right. If I were wrong, or doing what Ray accuses me of, I'd be
slapped down in a minute.

We do not expect any honesty.

Not from Ray, anyway.



It shows how dishonest that you are, confirming what we already knew.

My telling the truth, and not letting you get by with lies, and ignorance
only shows your own dishonesty.

DJT


.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: evolution: can someone please correct (or confirm???) my
    ... Pointing out that Harshman is not a scholar ... Dana Tweedy, in his place. ... "evolution," as used and understood by actual scientists, applies to ... have, after all, endorsed a creationist liar like Ben Stein. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Racism: Dana finally admits and he should be applauded
    ... Now Dana is going to get confused and think his ... rarely a good strategy, Ray. ... evolution is, as *everyone* has pointed out, extremely poor. ... and we have Darwin originating the claim with the ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Dana Tweedy: error or ignorance?
    ... behind the skirt of Dana Tweedy because I dared to challenge him. ... Ray, why do you imagine John is "hiding" behind anything. ... natural selection, or by natural selection along with other natural ... "evolution," as used and understood by actual scientists, applies to ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Evolutionism: a synonym for atheist-friendly presuppositions - why cant Dana understand?
    ... No, Ray, both you and Snex are mistaken. ... you are the first evolutionist I have ever seen stand up to Dana ... I undertstand from your point of view that IF evolution is true then I ... Atheists don't have church services. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Shhhhh - Ray is working on The Paper!
    ... Evolution under it's current defination is a lie. ... Thinking all of then are liars is an "utterly wacked out"idea. ... I'm perfectly willing to grant ... I'm far less willing to grant the possibility that you saw ...
    (talk.origins)