Re: Ray Martinez and MRSA

On 1 Dec, 01:31, Ray Martinez <pyramid...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Nov 30, 4:16 pm, Greg Guarino <gdguar...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:



On Sun, 30 Nov 2008 10:42:43 -0800 (PST), Ray Martinez

<pyramid...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Nov 29, 3:28 pm, Greg Guarino <gdguar...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Sat, 29 Nov 2008 10:31:29 -0800 (PST), Ray Martinez

<pyramid...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Nov 29, 8:22 am, Greg Guarino <gdguar...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Fri, 28 Nov 2008 19:24:55 -0800 (PST), Ray Martinez

<pyramid...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Nov 28, 4:27 am, Frank J <f...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Nov 28, 4:28 am, Devils Advocaat <mankyg...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

On 28 Nov, 09:22, Rolf <snul...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

Hi Ray, How do you thing MRSA originated? Would "selection" be relevant?

Rolf

If he is unwilling to defend his positions on species immutability,
wolves and dogs being separate and distinct species, and explain how
wolf/dog hybrids can exist if his positions be true, then how likely
is it that he will be able or willing to explain the emergence of
Methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus?

IIRC Ray is unique (or nearly so) even among creationists for arguing
that "RM+NS" does not even explain changes *within* species.

True.

Creationists do not accept unguided material causation (UMC) existing
in reality because it presupposes the absence of Divine causation. The
latter is known to be operating in nature based on the observation of
design and specified complexity seen in nature.

Sean Pitman accepts both. He accepts UMC to explain the existence of
evil, suffering and random phenomena. What Sean does not understand is
that UMC was postulated because Divine causation (ID) was judged to be
absent from nature. Of course he who has foundational understanding of
Bible knows that evil and suffering are effects of the Fall. Therefore
to accept UMC on said basis is to declare rejection of the Biblical
explanation (and its full explication in the Torah).

In fact
it's hard to find creationists (outside the "rank and file") these
days who will admit that "species" is the limit of "RM+NS". The more
savvy anti-evolutionists these days even avoid the word "kinds" and
leave it to the audience to infer it.

They do this because they are unsure and confused. "Kinds" is a very
bad Biblical quote-mine. It is a pet theory, wholly subjective, total
nonsense.

Evolution is antithetic to Genesis. The former advocates natural
agency; the latter supernatural agency. The former says God is not
involved with nature; the latter says God is involved----hands-on
(Theism).

Creationist confusion is caused by not understanding the above
paragraph. It took me two years to understand. Anyone who says that
Genesis advocates evolution is incredibly ignorant or a double agent.

Ray

I don't know if you still intend to produce a "paper", but judging
from your posts, you have exactly one point to make, and you repeat it
at every opportunity. It seems unlikely that your paper would have
anything different to offer.

Greg Guarino- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

It appears that you are irritated with the point because it exposes
Darwinism to be based on Atheism ideology.

You have either underestimated my threshold of irritation or, more
likely, overestimated the impact of your (one) argument. You have
tacitly agreed that your thesis will indeed be limited to that
argument.

Unfounded and unprovoked anger continues from Guarino (as seen in the
false claim made above).

There is nothing wrong with being angry, Greg, but unless you have a
reason it is, as described, above.

It has become an all-purpose shield, protecting you against
having to confront any and all inconvenient ideas. And that's what
prevents you from being any kind of real irritant; you don't engage or
attempt to refute any of the arguments made, you dismiss them as
inspired by Satan and "uncorrected" by a God whose threshold of
irritation is lower than most people would expect from a Supreme
Being.

Completely made-up nonsense.

I have engaged everyone.

As for "exposing", you have done some of that, but not in the way you
intend. I asked you recently to narrow down your estimate of how many
people in the world "walk with God". You have so far demurred,

I answered you at least two separate times only to have all of my
points and answers ignored. Now, for the third time: there is no
exact, or even inexact, actual figure. The fact that you asked such a
question shows how incredibly naive or stupid that you are. The
percentage is always comparable to a fraction or handful. I even
showed you many examples from scripture supporting "fraction" or
"handful."

Your question or demand is incredibly stupid because it is self-
evident that no one could know such a number or figure. The Bible
paints a consistent picture: the *percentage* of persons actually
walking with God is a fraction or handful of any given whole. What
don't you understand? Obviously your lack of a theological IQ (=
Atheism) is the cause of your astronomic stupidity here. In fact, the
Bible explains Atheism as rejects who were too stupid to pass muster
with God.

but I
think it's safe to say that the vast majority of people fall into the
"other" category. I am very skeptical that a person could come to the
conclusion that most of his neighbors, co-workers and maybe even
family are traitors, or whatever word you'd prefer,  based on religion
alone. It suggests some sort of predisposition.

You "think"?

That's your problem, dumbass----you are "thinking" from the wrong
orifice.

The comments above exhibit original unfounded and unprovoked anger I
identified early on in our exchanges. Said comments are explained as
the deliberate misrepresentation of an enemy.

It's a perverse idea for a religious person to have, that those who
"walk with God" have to expect to distrust most of the people they
meet. Is that God's intention for His followers?

Greg Guarino

Comments presuppose the non-existence of the Master Deceiver, Satan;
and his control over the world at-large. Said presupposition is, of
course, ordinary Atheism ideology.

Those who walk with God are bound to think the best about a person----
like He did with us when we were not walking with Him. If a person
betrays trust then you are obliged to forgive them from the heart,
before God, however. The manifestation of this forgiveness toward said
hypothetical person is contingent upon them asking to be forgiven.

But since you are incredibly stupid, lacking common sense, I must
point out that the above comments apply to personal relationships. We
are not obliged to trust a stranger or abandon our common sense when
dealing with strangers. Too bad I had to say this but you are one
stupid mother fucker.

Ray

I may or may not decide to respond in more detail; I'm satisfied with
my half of the argument. But for now I challenge you to read the
exchange above to anyone you like and ask them which participant
sounds angry.

Greg Guarino- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

I said or admitted in my exchange that there is nothing wrong with
being angry as long as you have a valid reason. Unlike you I have a
valid reason: your stupidity.

Stupidity makes me angry. The degree of anger seen in my post is in
direct ratio equal to the degree of stupidity seen in your post(s).

Ray

Wow! Projection el supremo!

Wombat

.

Loading