Re: Is Elsberry on-the-run?

On Aug 6, 6:07 pm, "*Hemidactylus*" <ecpho...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Aug 6, 7:26 pm, Ray Martinez <pyramid...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:



On Aug 6, 3:42 pm, "*Hemidactylus*" <ecpho...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

On Aug 6, 3:17 pm, Ray Martinez <pyramid...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:> Is Wesley on-the-run, or is he attempting to appear brave, or is he
busy with real life?

http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/16c9240dc1560bb7

http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/058425c1aa051bda

Ray, have you run away from our little discussion about whether Paley
quoted (=made reference to) Scripture in _Natural Theology_? Is your
spat with Elsberry a convenient cover for the fact that you mistakenly
hid your dogmatic assertion behind the authority of a secondary source
on Paley? Does it bother you that an atheist like me called you on an
important detail of Paleyian Designism and its relation to Holy
Scripture? Are you hoping talk.origins regulars and lurkers will
forget that blunder of yours?

It's ironic that you go after Elsberry by accusing him of running
away? Are you projecting?

I answered your post. You have yet to create a rebuttal that addresses
my answer.

You are an evading twit. I know this is a complete waste of time on my
part because you are incapable of honest discussion, but here it goes
anyway:

Exhibit A:http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/128459d6af54b707?hl=en

You assert: [begin Ray] Paley 1802, which all ID science is based on,
does not contain a single reference to scripture. Paley, of course,
was an ordained Minister accountable to a local congregation. [end
Ray]


I have since provided a reference by a major scholar.

You and especially your readers here can see plainly that you asserted
that Paley in _Natural Theology_ "does not contain a single reference
to scripture". Is this correct? Am I misreading your words? Given the
boldness of your assertion I merely need point to a single reference
to scripture to blow your assertion out of the water (=refute you
soundly). Are you ready now Ray? Follow closely. Put your thinking cap
on because we can't have you daydreaming about your paper right now.

Exhibit B:http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/7a14ba3fd2ffb8d5?hl=en

I refute your assertion: [begin Hemi] In William Paley's book _Natural
Theology_ look at Chapter XXIII called "Of the Personality of Deity".
Paley opens the second paragraph of this chapter as follows:

[begin Paley quote] "No man hath seen God at any time." [end Paley
quote]


STOP.

I agree that those words appear in Paley 1802. But no reference to a
Bible verse is provided by Paley. But we know said phrase does appear
in the Bible.

Paley is simply using Biblical terminology to make a point. He cannot
in good conscience utter such a phrase without somehow indicating that
it is not an original thought----hence the quote marks, but no chapter
and verse reference is provided.

Now Ray, I'm sure you have a Bible handy. Or you can ask the Big Guy
himself. Its the red phone on your desk. If you thumb to either John
1:18 or to 1 John 4:12  you will notice that Paley was making a
REFERENCE TO SCRIPTURE!

Reference means book, chapter and verse. None of these appear. I have
begun above to explain why.

You asserted above that Paley makes not a
single scriptural reference and I soundly refuted you with one
instance of Paley doing just that. [end Hemi quote]

So here we have me soundly refuting you. I did make a minor typo in
that Paley's chapter XXIII is "Of the Personality of the Deity". But
all can see your dogmatic assertion is soundly refuted. You said there
was not a single instance of Paley referencing scripture and I
supplied that single instance that makes your assertion wrong. So at
this point any decent person would admit their error and move on. But
you are incapable of this. Let's continue shall we?...(note ellipsis)

Exhibit C:http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/ef2ab01ff21014ed?hl=en

[begin Ray] Scholars, like History of Science scholar, Keith Thomson
(an evolutionist) do not consider the phrase you have quoted to be a
Bible reference. Paley employs quote marks but he does not provide any
reference to a verse of scripture. Said phrase is generic enough since
he is making a point concerning his thesis.

http://books.google.com/books?id=ndZrFZ_aNlkC&printsec=frontcover&dq=...

[Key words: "neither is the Bible"]

Professor Thomson, "Before Darwin" (2005:10):

"Miracles are not mentioned in Paley's book. Interestingly enough,
neither is the Bible."

What I said is based on Thomson. [end Ray]

In this post you hide behind the authority of  Keith Thomson by
quoting a passage from his book that does not square with the Paley
quote I provide above.

I agree with Keith Thomson that said phrase does not constitute a
mention of the Bible (in view of the length of the entire paper).

Please listen closely:

I have admitted that said phrase does appear in the Bible but Paley is
not arguing the Bible, that is why it is not a reference with proper
attribution. Thomson, who is an evolutionist, recognizes this.

In a previous topic, as you know, I have tangled with Wesley Elsberry.
Initially I argued that since Phillip Johnson quoted one Bible verse
in one book of his against evolutionary theory that this single
REFERENCE does not harm his identification of Johnson to be a "non-
scripturalist...."

Both Wesley and I agree that Johnson made one scripture reference in
one antievolution book of his and that this single occurence does
nothing to harm the fact that Wesely correctly identifies him to not
use scripture as a basis and reason to reject evolutionary theory.

Concerning Paley you are missing the point: his actual *thesis* does
not mention the Bible (Thomson); his use of one Biblical phrase,
properly understood as termonology because it lacks proper
attribution, does not harm Thomson's fact.

John van Wyhe is Darwin scholar. He has published a fascinating paper
advancing an original claim of fact: that Darwin DID NOT delay
publishing his evolution theory----that he published his theory
according to a plan worked out many years beforehand, hence no
intentional delay. This argument contradicts ALL published
scholarship, and, more importantly, it contradicts what Darwin himself
has said:

Charles Darwin:

"I gained much by my delay in publishing from about 1839, when the
theory was clearly conceived, to 1859; and I lost nothing by
it...." (Autobio:124).

The van Wyhe paper:

http://darwin-online.org.uk/people/van_Wyhe_2007_Mind_the_gap_did_Darwin_avoid_publishing_his_theory.pdf

"WHAT DELAY?

In his autobiography (written from 1876) Darwin wrote, ‘I gained much
by my delay in publishing from about 1839, when the theory was clearly
conceived, to 1859; and I lost nothing by it’. Here, it might be
argued, is a straightforward admission of intentional delay by Darwin
himself. But not so. Only with avoidance already in mind can it be
read in this way. Darwin’s family, friends and contemporaries such as
Francis Darwin, Huxley, Wallace and scores of biographers also read
this passage but left behind no trace that they thought Darwin dared
not publish. Here is the rub. The phrase ‘my delay in publishing’ has
two legitimate and straightforward interpretations.

1. ‘Delay’ means the time during which publication was avoided.

2. ‘Delay’ means the span of time that happened to transpire between
conceiving and publishing (with no avoidance involved)."

Ray: Of course van Wyhe also uses many other quotes by Darwin that
support his interpretation of the passage. The point is that scholars
determine facts. They do make errors but some things are not as they
seem at first glance.

Conclusion: The appearance of said phrase in Paley 1802 does not harm
Thomson's fact for all the reasons stated and argued in this post.

I provide TWO instances above where this quoted
passage apears in the New Testament John 1:18 and 1 John 4:12. If you
are honest you will look at your copy of Paley's _Natural Theology_
(assuming you have one) and then look up these passages in the New
Testament and realize that Paley directly quotes from scripture. Given
his theological background this is the only explanation for the
matching of these biblical passages with what appears in Paley's book.
If you are honest you will admit this and concede your error. Said
phrase is decidely not generic enough. It appears twice in the New
Testament. If you evade the facts of Scripture, how can you claim to
be a true Christian? If you deny Paley's quote is scriptural you are
bearing false witness. You made a mistake. You got called on it, but
you wish to pretend there is no mistake made. This evasion of yours is
shameful.

Anyway to rehash the recent history you are already rewriting:

Exhibit D:http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/6745667ab469f64f?hl=en

[begin Hemi] What I said is based on Paley. Google the quote "No man
hath seen God at any time." and see what you come up with. You were
making a dogmatic assertion based upon a second hand source. I do
admit my copy of Paley is based on an edition later than the 1802.
Maybe that edition lacks "No man hath seen God at any time." I dunno.
But my edition has the phrase. [end Hemi]

To which you replied:

Exhibit E:http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/203f60dffcb8e25c?hl=en

[begin Ray] I never denied. I agree Paley said it. [end Ray]

So you concede that Paley said it. The quote that appears twice in the
New Testament as I've shown does appear in Paley's book.

You go on with more in this post: [begin Ray] Now in this present
issue Paley uses Biblical terminology but he does not reference a
Bible verse. This single
occurrence does not constitute mentioning the Bible in Professor
Thomson's opinion (who is a evolutionist). I agree with Thomson. [end
quote]

Paley does more than use "Biblical terminology". He quotes a passage
that appears twice in the New Testament. That's a smoking gun. You are
refuted. He may not have "referenced" the source as I provide about
but if you were honest you would admit that it is a verbatim quote.
Please provide a quote of Thomsom where he specifically addresses this
Biblical verse quoted by Paley. Maybe he overlooked it. Regardless I
am not talking to Thomsom. I am talking to you. Both of us can see the
perfect matching between Paley's quote and the verses referenced
implicitly from the Bible. Your assertion is sunk (=bunk). Concede my
point.

And here's Exhibit F:http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/032ad6118a11b35f?hl=en

Which you failed to rebut or even follow up...

I will consider any further evasion as a concession that you were
wrong.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Ray


.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Is Elsberry on-the-run?
    ... quoted Scripture in _Natural Theology_? ... hid your dogmatic assertion behind the authority of a secondary source ... Paley 1802, which all ID science is based on, ... does not contain a single reference to scripture. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Is Elsberry on-the-run?
    ... Ray, have you run away from our little discussion about whether Paley ... quoted Scripture in _Natural Theology_? ... does not contain a single reference to scripture. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Is Elsberry on-the-run?
    ... Ray, have you run away from our little discussion about whether Paley ... quoted Scripture in _Natural Theology_? ... does not contain a single reference to scripture. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Is Elsberry on-the-run?
    ... quoted Scripture in _Natural Theology_? ... Paley 1802, which all ID science is based on, ... does not contain a single reference to scripture. ... John van Wyhe is a Darwin scholar. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Another of Richards Strawman "Lists"
    ... famous for doing this - listing off dozens of reference with nothing ... pointless and unhelpful as quote mining. ... that deals with the evolution of novel systems that require at least ... And I have posted evidence that this is the case. ...
    (talk.origins)