Re: Is Ron O. Brain damaged?

On Jul 14, 1:44 pm, "Dana Tweedy" <reddfr...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Ray Martinez wrote:
On Jul 14, 12:28 pm, "Dana Tweedy" <reddfr...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

snipi









Dana lashing out at a Stanford Ph.D. because he recognizes the
Stanford Ph.D. to represent a grave threat to the scientific
veracity of Darwinism.

I'm hardly "lashing out" at Mr. Scott, or his fabled Ph.D. I'm
giving you an example of how two concepts can fit inside each other.
I'm putting it in terms that perhaps you can understand. Mr. Scott
fits within the set
of persons known as "dishonest televangelists", but still is Gene
Scott. Likewise humans fit within the concept of "ape", while still
being humans.

Mr. Scott provided no threat to evolutionary theory, nor did he
present any scientific evidence that would contradict the theory. He
was just a dishonest televangelist.
snip

Your unprovoked attack on a Stanford Ph.D. tells us that you are angry
and scared-

Again, Ray, there's no "attack" here, just an illustration of my point.  Mr.
Scott's dishonesty, and televangelist status are already well known.    I'm
neither angry, or frightened.   You have assumed incorrectly.

---lashing out in slander because you perceive and consider
him to be a grave threat to evolution.

As I've pointed out just above, Mr. Scott is no threat at all to
evolutionary theory. Never was, never will be.       I was using Mr.. Scott
as an example of how something can be within another group.    There was no
"slander", (the correct term for your charge is "libel", and that doesn't
apply, as the characterization of Mr. Scott is accurate)  only a
illustration of the concept of groups within groups.

If he provides no threat to
evolutionary theory then your comments are pointless, making no
sense.

My "comments" are an attempt to illustrate to you that two concepts are not
exclusive.     You were claiming that since the concept of "apes" and the
concept of "human" both exist, they can't be the same.     My purpose was to
give you an example in terms you could understand.      To re-state:

Gene Scott was an unethical, dishonest televangelist.   Not all unethical
dishonest televangelists, however are Gene Scott.   Gene fits within the
group, while remaining himself.     Likewise, humans are apes, but not apes
are humans.

Do you understand the point I'm making?

DJT





Ray- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

We recognize and explain the degree of slander seen in the above
comments, written by a Darwinist, attempting to slash a Stanford
Ph.D., ordained Minister and anti-evolutionist, to correspond to the
degree that his arguments are considered to harm evolutionary theory;
otherwise said comments are pointless, having no purpose.

Ray

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Boom Op/Utility-Little Rock
    ... somebody to fit the bill. ...     Scott L. ...
    (rec.arts.movies.production.sound)
  • Re: FAQ Scott Barak Abraham
    ... Scott is an unemployed 57 + year old disgusting grossly overweight whacko ...   a.. ... Never allow logic or reason get in the way of a good lie. ... the same old lies posted by a dickless freak. ...
    (rec.skiing.alpine)
  • Re: FAQ Scott Barak Abraham
    ... Typical rsa. ... Scott is an unemployed 57 + year old disgusting grossly overweight whacko ...   a.. ... Never allow logic or reason get in the way of a good lie. ...
    (rec.skiing.alpine)
  • Re: Properly Understanding the Rocks
    ... of our planet from its initial creation to the present time." ... Ussher's chronology which was based on internal evidence from the Bible ... The World Wide Flood    2348 BC ... hypotheses are derived from and made to fit ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Equation of line fitting data
    ... The thought was to use an equation with reasonable fit to ... data points minus the number of paramaters in the approximation. ... The rmse of Jim Bunch's approximation is .702. ...
    (sci.stat.math)