Re: Elsberry a "creationist" (= obvious deception).

On Jul 20, 7:52 pm, Ray Martinez <pyramid...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Jul 20, 3:46 pm, Earle Jones <earle.jo...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:





In article
<85b5bfbe-1058-4160-85f4-e58ae336c...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
 Ray Martinez <pyramid...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

On Jul 19, 6:06 pm, j.wilki...@xxxxxxxxx (John Wilkins) wrote:
Rolf <rolf.aalb...@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
Seeing all the unbeliavbly idiotic stuff posted at PT by people even more
'advanced' than Ray, I find it very hard to belive he ever was banned
there.
But OTOH, I don't see no reason why he should post there nor here; he
should
just hurry up and get his paper out. Then there will no longer be any
dispute about evolution and people will 'flood' the churches.

Martyrdom has always been sweet for xtians.

As far as we can tell, Ray hasn't been banned from PT - he simply has
never posted any comments there in the first place (at least not under
the name "Martinez"). The martyr complex is all in his head.
--
John S. Wilkins, Postdoctoral Research Fellow, Philosophy
University of Queensland - Blog: scienceblogs.com/evolvingthoughts
"He used... sarcasm. He knew all the tricks, dramatic irony, metaphor,
bathos, puns, parody, litotes and... satire. He was vicious."

I post under my real name like here.

PvM, your lap dog, erased all my posts and prevented all future posts
from posting (= illegal clandestine banning).

Intelligent people know what this means. I am objective enough to have
said that Psycho Dave (Atheist evolutionist) was banned at UD because
he could not be refuted. It's not a matter of opinion: if a legit
person of any persuasion is banned it is because they cannot be
refuted. Of course no evolutionist has this degree of objectivity
concerning me.

Anybody want to guess as to what Wesley Elsberry and William Dembski
have in common?

*
Fourteen letters in their names?

Elsberry identifies himself as a 'creationist evolutionist'.

See:  http://www.antievolution.org/people/wre/essays/ea.html

Dembski is a creationist anti-evolutionist.

What they have in common is belief in creation.

Elsberry's writing is very readable, by the way.  He seems at first
glance to be consistent and logical.

earle
*

   "It is likely that the combination of Uniquely Creationist and
    Creationist Evolutionist categories is the largest group of all."

           --Wesley Elsberry- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

The link is an argument by a double agent attempting two things: deny
Atheism, affirm Deism.

Elsberry is an ordinary Atheist.

(Bad Horshack impression) Oh! Oh! I want to be a *extraordinary*
atheist! What do I gotta do? Oh, Oh, what if I promise to never bad
mouth ID/creationism without bad mouthing Gene Scott too?

We know he is as such the same way
Dawkins knew he had been deceived by Creationists----by the questions
they asked. We know Elsberry is an Atheist by what he writes and says.
To use the term "creationist" to be part of how he describes himself,
that is, a well known hardcore evolutionist, tells anyone who is not
naive that Elsberry is a brazen liar----an Atheist.

Of course Elsberry has no source for his so called "Creator"
beliefs----they are entirely made up. Elsberry feigns Deism because
Atheism is indefensible and he seeks to promote evolution as a Deist
in order to deceive undecided Theists into accepting evolution as
friendly to their worldview. Of course these are age-old antics
originating in Enlightenment Atheism (feigning Deism to fool
believers).

And Phillip Johnson is not a "non-scripturalist creationist anti-
evolutionist." He accepts Scripture.

A postmodern version at least, in which the Earth and life can be as
old or young as you want it to be.


Simply read his books. Elsberry
should do the same before making these types of egregious errors.

The web page diagram also tells us that Elsberry is confused. Since he
created the diagram he thinks it makes sense. Again, this is proof to
the degree that Elsberry is a most typical deluded Atheist since the
diagram makes no sense at all.

Ray- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -


.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Elsberry a "creationist" (= obvious deception).
    ... Elsberry identifies himself as a 'creationist evolutionist'. ... What they have in common is belief in creation. ... Atheism is indefensible and he seeks to promote evolution as a Deist ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Elsberry a "creationist" (= obvious deception).
    ... Atheism is indefensible and he seeks to promote evolution as a Deist ... The web page diagram also tells us that Elsberry is confused. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Ben Stein: Win His Career
    ... about evolution *& atheism in the first part of the post. ... of creationism which include some of the points the OP brought ... that diseases are a judgment sent by God on those who have displeased ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Elsberry a "creationist" (= obvious deception).
    ... Atheism is indefensible and he seeks to promote evolution as a Deist ... The web page diagram also tells us that Elsberry is confused. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Elsberry a "creationist" (= obvious deception).
    ... Elsberry identifies himself as a 'creationist evolutionist'. ... What they have in common is belief in creation. ... Atheism is indefensible and he seeks to promote evolution as a Deist ...
    (talk.origins)