The Great Debate (Ken Miller/Robert Pennock VS Michael Behe)
John Falsename
Part 2: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FhYYL9Y1oJE
Part 3: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mzrQMYoFIvc
Very impressed with Miller's presentation and how he hammers Behe in
this confrontation. It reminds me how hilarious this whole concept of
IC is. People like Behe are willing to admit that Common Decent and
Macro-Evolution is true but is still convinced that if there is an
intelligent agent. it created the bacterial flagellum and the blood
clotting system. Astonishing!
Frank J
Unless he changed his mind, Behe was pretty clear in "Darwin's Black"
box that he accepted common descent but *not* "macroevolution."
Definitions, and how IDers routinely use them variably to suit the
argument, aside, I interpret that to mean that he accepts that genetic
changes occurred "in vivo," but denies that "RM + NS" is sufficient to
cause for it above some undefined taxonomic level (above species per
his later book). Of course he has not lifted a finger to suggest, let
alone test, what other process caused it. Plus his appeal to an
*unspecified* designer is especially pathetic compared to Miller and
Haught. They *clearly* say it's God, but that does not stop them from
commenting on *how* Goddidit. In contrast, Behe is a slave to the big
tent, so the less he says about his alternate "theory" the better.
cassandra
That's pretty much my understanding. It's rather sad that Behe went
through so much trouble to come up with his Irreducible Complexity, as
an objective way to identify a point beyond which RM+NS is supposed to
fail. But when he actually applies IC to real life examples, his
argument reduces to the same old "it looks designed to me" he started
with.
TheBicyclingGuitarist
>
> Unless he changed his mind, Behe was pretty clear in "Darwin's Black"
> box that he accepted common descent but *not* "macroevolution."
If one accepts common descent, how can one not accept macroevolution?
I am confused how anyone can admit dogs cats and people share a common
ancestor and in the same breath deny that macroevolution happens.
cassandra
http://www.arn.org/docs/behe/mb_dm11496.htm
If I understand his point correctly, Behe says RM+NS is insufficient
to cause macroevolution, ie development of new species from old, thus
a need for an intelligent designer to overcome the virtual
impossibilities. So, yes, everything is related by Common Descent,
but the mechanism was ID not macroevolution.
chris thompson
Which is a strawman, since Behe should know that natural selection is
not the only mechanism driving evolution- nor, it seems, even the most
important when it comes to speciation.
Chris
cassandra
wrote:
My impression is everything Behe says about IC is a strawman. For
example, in the QA portion, Miller tries to pin down Behe about how to
test for IC. He points out that all of Behe's examples for IC have
naturally occuring equivalents that lack Behe's allegedy irreducible
parts and still remain functioning. To which Behe replies those parts
are actually redundant. Miller's point: the parts must be either
irreducible or redundant, but not both. Then Miller points out that
all of Behe's examples for IC with allegedly functionless parts, in
fact have parts with independent functions. To which Behe replies the
independent functions aren't relevant to IC functionality. Miller's
point: the parts are either functionless and so are not evolvable, or
they have function and so are not IC.. Apparently Behe is deaf and
blind to how he undermines his own arguments, which is a common
weakness among anti-evolutionists.
However, relating to the specific question TheBicyclingGuitarist
asked; Behe explains clearly how he accepts Common Descent but not
macroevolution. He also says he accepts evolution using the same
reasoning.
Frank J
>
> - Show quoted text -
I saw a few minutes of the first video. I could not see the
participants well, but from the voices I'm 90% sure it was Miller and
Dembski. Miller had a slide of the early geologic ages, and asked
Dembski when and where the designs were inserted - a question I would
*love* to hear asked much more often! Dembski danced around, as one
would expect from a "big tent" guy, but never denied the millions and
billions of years. He even repeated what he said before (many times?)
that all the designs could have been inserted at the Big Bang - though
he was careful not to commit to it. What struck me most is that what
he said would infuriate a YEC or classic OEC *leader*. But he is
confident that his target audience - rank & file Biblical literalists
and new-age non-literalists - will forgive, or tune out, his indirect
concessions to mainstream science, and just latch on to his constant
"Darwinism can't do it" chants.
Frank J
I think he's quite aware that he undermines his own arguments. But as
long as his target audience doesn't understand and/or care, it's not
much concern to him. He gave up caring what his fellow scientists
think before most of us ever heard of him.
I often try to look at it from the position of nonscientists who are
not hopeless Biblical literalists, but are quick to welcome "evidence
of God" *or* "evidence" that mainstream science is wrong. From people
like Behe they hear cool sound bites that (wrongly) suggest that
evolution is "in crisis." But from the critics who "have Behe's
number" they hear mostly confusing technical refutations. In addition,
most people simply do not understand the nature of a scientific
explanation, and what it takes to support it, or falsify it.
>
> However, relating to the specific question TheBicyclingGuitarist
> asked; Behe explains clearly how he accepts Common Descent but not
> macroevolution. He also says he accepts evolution using the same
> reasoning.- Hide quoted text -
Ron O
How old is this video?
Behe has claimed that he never supported teaching intelligent design
in the public schools since, at least, 2003 when the ID perps began
publically running the bait and switch on their own creationist
supporters. No legislator or school board has ever gotten any ID
science to teach because the ID perps knew that it never existed to
teach. Dembski admonished Wells and Meyers for lying to the Ohio
State Board of Education (early 2003) when they claimed that
intelligent design was science and could be taught and then ran the
bait and switch on the Ohio board, giving them the "Teach the
Controversy" scam instead. Dembski of all the ID perps that
consistently overstates his case came out and said that the ID perps
should not over state their case about intelligent design. Nelson was
even more direct and said that his fellow ID perps should acknowledge
that they never had a scientific theory of ID to teach when the bait
and switch went down in Ohio. So you don't have to guess that by 2003
the ID perps knew that they didn't have the ID science.
If anyone watches this discussion they should look at it with the eye
that both Dembski and Behe knew that they were misleading the public
about the "science" of intelligent design, and I'd look for the scam
wiggle words and ambiguous statements that allowed them to live with
the dishonest scam that they knew that they were perpetrating at the
time. That is about all you are going to get out of this discussion.
These guys knew that what they had didn't make the grade and Miller
and Pennock were not needed to tell them that.
Ron Okimoto
cassandra
Yes. Skipping over the first 13 minutes of introductory comments of
part 1, the first speaker is identified as Dembski. Behe and Miller
get into it on part 2. I hoped that listening to IC's arguments
directly from Behe and Dembski would reveal some nugget of truth that
was somehow obscured or overlooked in other media. I can testify that
is not the case.
> Miller had a slide of the early geologic ages, and asked
> Dembski when and where the designs were inserted - a question I would
> *love* to hear asked much more often! Dembski danced around, as one
> would expect from a "big tent" guy, but never denied the millions and
> billions of years. He even repeated what he said before (many times?)
> that all the designs could have been inserted at the Big Bang - though
> he was careful not to commit to it. What struck me most is that what
> he said would infuriate a YEC or classic OEC *leader*. But he is
> confident that his target audience - rank & file Biblical literalists
> and new-age non-literalists - will forgive, or tune out, his indirect
> concessions to mainstream science, and just latch on to his constant
> "Darwinism can't do it" chants.- Hide quoted text -
cassandra
> On Sep 14, 3:31 pm, John Falsename <distrustinr...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Part 1:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CmMVgOTCukQ
>
> > Part 2:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FhYYL9Y1oJE
>
> > Part 3:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mzrQMYoFIvc
>
> > Very impressed with Miller's presentation and how he hammers Behe in
> > this confrontation. It reminds me how hilarious this whole concept of
> > IC is. People like Behe are willing to admit that Common Decent and
> > Macro-Evolution is true but is still convinced that if there is an
> > intelligent agent. it created the bacterial flagellum and the blood
> > clotting system. Astonishing!
>
> How old is this video?
From the drop-down text associated with it, the video was posted
8/20/2010, but the debate itself happened way back in 4/23/2002. This
might help explain some of the apparent temporal paradoxes you see.
cassandra
Whether Behe is clueless or he doesn't care what he sounds like, it's
a distinction without a difference. If I leaned toward conspiracy, I
could convince myself Behe and Dembski are provacateurs with the
express purpose of showing just how dumb IC and anti-evolution
arguments are.
> I often try to look at it from the position of nonscientists who are
> not hopeless Biblical literalists, but are quick to welcome "evidence
> of God" *or* "evidence" that mainstream science is wrong. From people
> like Behe they hear cool sound bites that (wrongly) suggest that
> evolution is "in crisis." But from the critics who "have Behe's
> number" they hear mostly confusing technical refutations. In addition,
> most people simply do not understand the nature of a scientific
> explanation, and what it takes to support it, or falsify it.
My understanding is Behe's logical flaws are recognizable by non-
technical and/or non-scientific minds. IOW you don't have to
understand how even a mousetrap works in order to recognize Behe
argues for two mutually exclusive assumptions. It isn't rocket
science.
Frank J
Sure, but one has to listen beyond 5-second sound bites. And very few
people I know, sadly even few of the scientists I know personally, do
much more than that.
I recall the first time I read an ID argument. For a few minutes it
sounded convincing. It was only my above-average interest that made me
soon react with a "chez watt!"
>
>
>
> > > However, relating to the specific question TheBicyclingGuitarist
> > > asked; Behe explains clearly how he accepts Common Descent but not
> > > macroevolution. He also says he accepts evolution using the same
> > > reasoning.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
cassandra
A sound byte here and a sound byte there, and pretty soon you have
something to chew on :)
I readily admit to the same personal experience. It's human nature to
be attracted to new ideas for their own sake. It doesn't matter if
they are old ideas in a new wrapper, or just something you haven't
heard before. A way to get beyond the glitz to any substance
underneath is to hold up the idea to public scrutiny in the light of
day over time. That's what these debates do IMO.
Steven L.
"John Falsename" <distrus...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:13484817-3945-4d2f...@x18g2000pro.googlegroups.com:
As the opening talk pointed out, most scientists were opposed to even
having this debate at all, not wanting to grant the ID proponents even
the dignity of a hearing.
And I'll bet that most evolutionists on this NG would have recommended
the same thing: Ignore the ID proponents.
The fact that you're eager to show us this debate proves that would have
been a mistake.
The American Museum of Natural History isn't only for scientists. It's
for the general public as a fantastic educational resource. (I was born
and raised in NYC, and I used to love that place!) And given the
interest in ID among the general public, it would be a mistake for any
museum (or school) dedicated to informing the public to ignore it.
-- Steven L.
Kalkidas
"Ron O" <roki...@cox.net> wrote in message
news:eb38d64b-74d1-4e5a...@c13g2000vbr.googlegroups.com...
> On Sep 14, 3:31 pm, John Falsename <distrustinr...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Part 1:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CmMVgOTCukQ
>>
>> Part 2:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FhYYL9Y1oJE
>>
>> Part 3:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mzrQMYoFIvc
>>
>> Very impressed with Miller's presentation and how he hammers Behe in
>> this confrontation. It reminds me how hilarious this whole concept of
>> IC is. People like Behe are willing to admit that Common Decent and
>> Macro-Evolution is true but is still convinced that if there is an
>> intelligent agent. it created the bacterial flagellum and the blood
>> clotting system. Astonishing!
>
>
> .....
> .....perps
> .....bait and switch.....
> .....
> .....perps .....
> .....lying .....
> .....
> .....
> bait and switch.....
> .....scam.....perps .....
> ..... perps
> .....
> .....perps .....
> .....bait
> and switch.....
> .....perps......
>
> .....
> .....misleading.....
> .....scam
> .....
> .....dishonest scam .....perpetrating.....
> .....
> .....
> .....
--- news://freenews.netfront.net/ - complaints: ne...@netfront.net ---
Caranx latus
> "Ron O" <rokim...@cox.net> wrote in message
Did you need help with the other words that Ron wrote, Kalk?
Desertphile
It means Behe's gods (the Christian ones) were evil fiends who got
off on misery, suffering, and horror.
--
http://desertphile.org
Desertphile's Desert Soliloquy. WARNING: view with plenty of water
"Why aren't resurrections from the dead noteworthy?" -- Jim Rutz
cassandra
>
> - Show quoted text -
This is one reason why some scientists are inclined to ignore anti-
evolutionist arguments.
Kalkidas
"Caranx latus" <kar...@sympatico.ca> wrote in message
news:da7fbb6e-f28b-4d5d...@q9g2000vbd.googlegroups.com...
What other words?
TomS
<qnv1961dv1f3og4vb...@4ax.com>, Desertphile stated..."
>
>On Tue, 14 Sep 2010 13:31:19 -0700 (PDT), John Falsename
><distrus...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Part 1: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CmMVgOTCukQ
>>
>> Part 2: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FhYYL9Y1oJE
>>
>> Part 3: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mzrQMYoFIvc
>>
>> Very impressed with Miller's presentation and how he hammers Behe in
>> this confrontation. It reminds me how hilarious this whole concept of
>> IC is. People like Behe are willing to admit that Common Decent and
>> Macro-Evolution is true but is still convinced that if there is an
>> intelligent agent. it created the bacterial flagellum and the blood
>> clotting system. Astonishing!
>
>It means Behe's gods (the Christian ones) were evil fiends who got
>off on misery, suffering, and horror.
>
>
The Intelligent Designers who made bacteria more virulent by giving
them flagella, those who made the adaptive immune system more
effective against bacteria?
Those who made predators more adept at catching prey by giving them
eyes, those who made the prey more adept at escaping predators by
giving them eyes?
In his latest book, Behe describes how malaria evolves to defeat the
best design of humans in combatting malaria, while the evolution of
sickle-cell anemia does a better job of that, but unfortunately also
causes the anemia.
Which side are the designers on?
--
---Tom S.
Surely, God could have caused birds to fly with their bones made of solid gold,
with their veins full of quicksilver, with their flesh heavier than lead
The Crime of Galileo (1976) by Giorgio De Santillana, p. 167
Caranx latus
Ah, yes... Much is explained.
Richard Clayton
I've always admired Ron O's willingness to call it like it is.
--
[The address listed is a spam trap. To reply, take off every zig.]
Richard Clayton
"I keep six honest serving men (they taught me all I knew); their names
are What and Why and When and How and Where and Who." — Rudyard Kipling
Ron O
> On Sep 15, 7:43 am, Ron O <rokim...@cox.net> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Sep 14, 3:31 pm, John Falsename <distrustinr...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > Part 1:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CmMVgOTCukQ
>
> > > Part 2:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FhYYL9Y1oJE
>
> > > Part 3:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mzrQMYoFIvc
>
> > > Very impressed with Miller's presentation and how he hammers Behe in
> > > this confrontation. It reminds me how hilarious this whole concept of
> > > IC is. People like Behe are willing to admit that Common Decent and
> > > Macro-Evolution is true but is still convinced that if there is an
> > > intelligent agent. it created the bacterial flagellum and the blood
> > > clotting system. Astonishing!
>
> > How old is this video?
>
> From the drop-down text associated with it, the video was posted
> 8/20/2010, but the debate itself happened way back in 4/23/2002. This
> might help explain some of the apparent temporal paradoxes you see.
2002 would mean that the ID perps knew that the bait and switch was
going to go down and they were just pretending. Sad but true.
Ron Okimoto
>
>
>
> > Behe has claimed that he never supported teaching intelligent design
> > in the public schools since, at least, 2003 when the ID perps began
> > publically running the bait and switch on their own creationist
> > supporters. No legislator or school board has ever gotten any ID
> > science to teach because the ID perps knew that it never existed to
> > teach. Dembski admonished Wells and Meyers for lying to the Ohio
> > State Board of Education (early 2003) when they claimed that
> > intelligent design was science and could be taught and then ran the
> > bait and switch on the Ohio board, giving them the "Teach the
> > Controversy" scam instead. Dembski of all the ID perps that
> > consistently overstates his case came out and said that the ID perps
> > should not over state their case about intelligent design. Nelson was
> > even more direct and said that his fellow ID perps should acknowledge
> > that they never had a scientific theory of ID to teach when the bait
> > and switch went down in Ohio. So you don't have to guess that by 2003
> > the ID perps knew that they didn't have the ID science.
>
> > If anyone watches this discussion they should look at it with the eye
> > that both Dembski and Behe knew that they were misleading the public
> > about the "science" of intelligent design, and I'd look for the scam
> > wiggle words and ambiguous statements that allowed them to live with
> > the dishonest scam that they knew that they were perpetrating at the
> > time. That is about all you are going to get out of this discussion.
> > These guys knew that what they had didn't make the grade and Miller
> > and Pennock were not needed to tell them that.
>
> > Ron Okimoto-
Ron O
> "Ron O" <rokim...@cox.net> wrote in message
Poor rube. Just think what you could do if you could deny that the
bait and switch scam hasn't gone down 100% of the time. That would
mean that you might have an argument instead of stupid abject denial
in the face of reality.
The only ID supporters left are ignorant, incompetent and or
dishonest. Since you are no longer ignorant, what is your excuse?
Ron Okimoto
Ron O
Dishonesty and willful ignorance is the hallmark of the current ID
supporters. What kind of support base could you possibly have when
you have run the bait and switch scam on them.
Ron Okimoto
Ron O
wrote:
> On 15-Sep-10 11:58 AM, Kalkidas wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
The saddest thing is that I have been calling ID what it is for over
half a decade and not a single ID supporter has ever tried to deny
that the bait and switch is going down. Usually you can expect
someone as brain dead as Kalk to try to deny it, but they don't even
try. That one thing truely astounds me after years of observing
creationist stupidity. You get all kinds of denial from creationists,
but not a single ID supporter has ever denied that the bait and switch
is going down in response to one of my posts.
The most criticism that I get is from the science side because they
don't think that I am being nice, but I never called ID a scam until
they ran the bait and switch in public in 2003.
Ron Okimoto
>
> --
> [The address listed is a spam trap. To reply, take off every zig.]
> Richard Clayton
> "I keep six honest serving men (they taught me all I knew); their names
> are What and Why and When and How and Where and Who." — Rudyard Kipling- Hide quoted text -
Kalkidas
> bait and switch scam....
> ....stupid abject denial
> .....
>
> .....ignorant, incompetent ....
> dishonest......
--- news://freenews.netfront.net/ - complaints: ne...@netfront.net ---
Kalkidas
> .......
> ....bait and switch scam.....
Ron O
You know what is really sad. You don't even try to deny it. How does
it make you feel when this is all you can do and you are helpless
against reality? Why would anyone like you post? What is your
excuse?
Ron Okimoto
Frank J
> "On Wed, 15 Sep 2010 11:15:44 -0600, in article
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >On Tue, 14 Sep 2010 13:31:19 -0700 (PDT), John Falsename
> ><distrustinr...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >> Part 1:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CmMVgOTCukQ
>
> >> Part 2:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FhYYL9Y1oJE
>
> >> Part 3:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mzrQMYoFIvc
>
> >> Very impressed with Miller's presentation and how he hammers Behe in
> >> this confrontation. It reminds me how hilarious this whole concept of
> >> IC is. People like Behe are willing to admit that Common Decent and
> >> Macro-Evolution is true but is still convinced that if there is an
> >> intelligent agent. it created the bacterial flagellum and the blood
> >> clotting system. Astonishing!
>
> >It means Behe's gods (the Christian ones) were evil fiends who got
> >off on misery, suffering, and horror.
>
> The Intelligent Designers who made bacteria more virulent by giving
> them flagella, those who made the adaptive immune system more
> effective against bacteria?
>
> Those who made predators more adept at catching prey by giving them
> eyes, those who made the prey more adept at escaping predators by
> giving them eyes?
>
> In his latest book, Behe describes how malaria evolves to defeat the
> best design of humans in combatting malaria, while the evolution of
> sickle-cell anemia does a better job of that, but unfortunately also
> causes the anemia.
>
> Which side are the designers on?
Mine, I think. It may take 1-2 billion more years, a mere blink of an
eye, or a wiggle of a noodly appendage, for the designer(s), but the
autotrophs will rule again.
>
> --
> ---Tom S.
> Surely, God could have caused birds to fly with their bones made of solid gold,
> with their veins full of quicksilver, with their flesh heavier than lead
> The Crime of Galileo (1976) by Giorgio De Santillana, p. 167- Hide quoted text -
Kalkidas
> ....
> ....bait and switch....
> ....brain dead....
>....
> ....stupidity.....,
> ....bait and switch
> .....
>
> ....
> ....scam .....
> ....bait and switch.....
Caranx latus
> it make you feel when this is all you can do and you are helpless
> against reality? Why would anyone like you post? What is your
> excuse?
You seem to have picked up a parasite, Ron. Apparently, in his next
life, Kalk would like to come back as a tick.
Dick C.
@adenine.netfront.net:
>
> "Ron O" <roki...@cox.net> wrote in message
> news:eb38d64b-74d1-4e5a-a503-bef995a2de73
So you want to report an honest appraisal of what is happening as abuse?
Get real. The Discovery Institute, who is the leading institute of the
scam, has nothing to teach, no scientific research, and nothing to back
up what the sell. And when some poor rube tries to do what they pretend
to claim by teaching it, it ends up in the courts and the D.I.
immediately runs and hides. Leaving the rubes to either lie in court or
admit that what they did was based on religion. The fundamentalist
christian religion.
--
Dick #1349
"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary
safety
deserve neither liberty nor safety."
~Benjamin Franklin
Home Page: dickcr.iwarp.com
email: dic...@gmail.com
Kalkidas
"Dick C." <foo.d...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:Xns9DF4C43FBB3C5...@188.40.43.230...
freenews adds that signature to all posts. I had nothing to do with it.
Don't be paranoid.
cassandra
Hard to tell if that is a step down or a step up.
cassandra
> "John Falsename" <distrustinr...@gmail.com> wrote in message
I would like to answer your comments here by way of illustration.
Toward the end of part 3, the debate participants answer questions
from the audience. @23:40, someone asks Behe in paraphrase if IC is
falsifiable. Part of his answer is as follows:
"If a scientist went into the laboratory and grew a bacterial culture
for a long time, say tens of thousands of generations, and saw that
some new IC system was produced, then my claims would be gone. It's
straightforwardly falsifiable. If we can show that new IC systems can
be observed arising in the laboratory, then there is no need to say
that it required intelligence to do that."
In 1988 Richard Lenski started an experiment using E. coli, as Behe
described. In 2008 Lenski published his observation that his E. coli
evolved a new function to aerobically metabolize citrate.
http://www.pnas.org/content/105/23/7899.abstract
By every reasonable standard, Lenski's experiment fully satisfies
every single point Behe specified. Any reasonable person might assume
Behe would rightly and publicly announce that IC is falsified.
Instead he wrote this:
http://www.amazon.com/gp/blog/post/PLNK3U696N278Z93O
Clearly Behe has no intention of honoring his own words. Further, as
illustated by this thread and others in TO and elsewhere, IC
proponents refuse to engage on the substance of the issues. Finally,
the cited videos illustrate IC proponents' use of illogic and
repetition.
Since IC proponenets don't treat their own words with any dignity, why
do you think anybody else should?
Ernest Major
<e...@joes.pub> writes
(emphasising) Ron Okimoto's position. But that is not consistent with
your prior posts. If someone were to assume that you weren't shooting
yourself in the foot, then indeed they might be led into strange
interpretations.
--
alias Ernest Major
Ron O
Maybe we should ask him what he expects to be reincarnated as in his
next life considering what he is doing in this life. If you do drop
down into spineless invertebrates how long does it take you to climb
back up the ladder, or is humanity considered up? Probably the worst
that could happen is to come back as something that might be immortal
like a hydra. Unless something in the environment kills them they can
apparently live forever. That would suck in terms of any chance of
advancing up the ladder.
Ron Okimoto
Ron O
Your mental incompetence is your only argument. That has to be sad.
Don't you wish that you could, at least, try to claim that the
statements are not true? You force yourself to read the junk, so you
seem to be a masochist of some type. What do you think that you are
accomplishing? Just imagine what it would be like to have an actual
argument. Since you don't even attempt one, what does that tell you?
Willful ignorance isn't an argument, so why is that all you have?
Ron Okimoto
Ron O
No excuse? No denial that the bait and switch has gone down 100% of
the time? What a surprise. It must be depressing to be you. Do you
even comprehend what it means when you understand how bogus ID is and
this is all your pathetic mind can come up with to do? It has to
register somewhere that you should have some type of argument, and yet
you can't even manage to deny it. You aren't alone. Not a single ID
supporter has ever even tried to deny that the bait and switch has
been perpetrated by the ID perps. You know why. It would be like
trying to deny that the sun emerges at dawn. Every time a rube
legislator or school board pops up and wants to teach the bogus
science of intelligent design the bait and switch goes down. The ID
perps were running the bait and switch years before they lost in court
and even tried to run the bait and switch on the Dover rubes. You
know what that means, but willful ignorance is your only out. How sad
is that?
Ron Okimoto
Dick C.
news:i6rv5s$1jo$1...@news.eternal-september.org:
>
> "Dick C." <foo.d...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:Xns9DF4C43FBB3C5...@188.40.43.230...
>> "Kalkidas" <e...@joes.pub> wrote in news:i6qqfk$n5s$1
Paranoid? . What I do see is you selectively cutting and quoting only a
few words of thepost by Ron O. and then say nothing except post the link
to report abuse. And that was never in the original post to begin with.
The OP came from Google groups, not Freenews.
By the way, the only place the report abuse line is placed is in the
headers section. Not at the end of the post. But then you have no
arguement so you are left with trying to dupe us into reporting an
honest post as abuse.
Richard Clayton
It's Kalkidas's classic neener-neener dance. Plugging his ears and
screaming "LA LA LA LA LA I CAN'T HEAR YOU" is all he's got.
What I'm really curious about is this: Is this simply an attempt
simultaneously to run away and claim victory? Or is Kalkidas more
concerned about reassuring HIMSELF you're not saying anything of value?
This may be a sort of externalized crimestop.
Kalkidas
"Ernest Major" <{$to$}@meden.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:nuldgYIj...@meden.invalid...
Ha. I think you know exactly what my point is. But I'll elucidate: The
excessive use of a very small vocabulary of invectives is an indication
either of Tourette's Syndrome or of having nothing to say other than what is
conveyed in those invectives. I believe that Tourette's manifests itself in
speech, not in writing. Therefore, I regard Ron's repeated use of "perp",
"scam", "rube", and "bait and switch" as constituting the gist of his
message. So I simply distilled it down to its active ingredients. In other
words, I "read between the lines."
I'm always happy to argue with someone capable of reason. But with a feces
thrower all I can do is collect the feces and throw it back.
Kalkidas
Try to understand. I post from at least three different news servers,
depending on which one is working OK at the time I post. I do not post from
Google. If I happen to use the freenews server for a particular post,
freenews inserts that signature automatically, after I have sent the
message. The other servers do not insert anything.
I am not trying to "report abuse". Nor am I trying to get anyone else to
"report abuse". It's just the signature of the server, which is inserted at
the end of EVERY POST WHATSOEVER.
Don't be paranoid.
Desertphile
wrote:
Behe's gods hate us humans, hate most life on Earth, and probably
came from the lowest depth of Hell: nothing less explains the
flagella.
--
http://desertphile.org
Desertphile's Desert Soliloquy. WARNING: view with plenty of water
"Why aren't resurrections from the dead noteworthy?" -- Jim Rutz
Desertphile
Perhaps this (above) is like a mini "post of the month," worthy of
nomination, but I don't know.
The debate was pre-Dover Area Board of Education trial: it is
therefore kind of rendered moot, since Behe and the Discovery
Institute Church had the perfect opportunity to present their
evidence..... and they were utterly destroyed by the facts.
Dick C.
news:i6tegj$ms2$1...@news.eternal-september.org:
You made several posts exactly the same, the only thing on them was the
report abuse line at the bottom. What is one to think?
Ron O
My take is that it is just some sort of excuse to maintain his willful
ignorance. I can't imagine being that mentally incompetent so I can't
guess at the reasons that he thinks it is valid.
Ron Okimoto
Ron O
> "Ernest Major" <{$t...@meden.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
>
> news:nuldgYIj...@meden.invalid...
>
>
>
>
>
> > In message <i6rv5s$1j...@news.eternal-september.org>, Kalkidas
> > <e...@joes.pub> writes
>
> >>"Dick C." <foo.dic...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> >>news:Xns9DF4C43FBB3C5...@188.40.43.230...
> >>> "Kalkidas" <e...@joes.pub> wrote in news:i6qqfk$n5s$1
> >>> @adenine.netfront.net:
>
>
> >>> So you want to report an honest appraisal of what is happening as abuse?
>
> >>freenews adds that signature to all posts. I had nothing to do with it.
> >>Don't be paranoid.
>
> > Taking in isolation, your posts would give the impression of supporting
> > (emphasising) Ron Okimoto's position. But that is not consistent with your
> > prior posts. If someone were to assume that you weren't shooting yourself
> > in the foot, then indeed they might be led into strange interpretations.
>
> Ha. I think you know exactly what my point is. But I'll elucidate: The
> excessive use of a very small vocabulary of invectives is an indication
> either of Tourette's Syndrome or of having nothing to say other than what is
> conveyed in those invectives. I believe that Tourette's manifests itself in
> speech, not in writing. Therefore, I regard Ron's repeated use of "perp",
> "scam", "rube", and "bait and switch" as constituting the gist of his
> message. So I simply distilled it down to its active ingredients. In other
> words, I "read between the lines."
>
> I'm always happy to argue with someone capable of reason. But with a feces
This is even fruitier than I expected. Can anyone actually lie to
themselves in this way?
Sometimes you just have to call a spade a spade. Sometimes words
aren't anything, but what they are. If ID were not a scam or guys
like you are not rubes for falling for it, wouldln't you try to deny
it? Wouldn't you have a legitimate argument that you could use to
counter the claim? The words stand because they are applicable and
you know it or you would be able to explain why they are not
applicable. What a loser. How can anyone lie to themselves as you
are doing. Can't you even tell what you are doing? Wouldn't it be
better to actually have a valid response?
The only people left that still support the ID scam are ignorant,
incompetent and or dishonest. You obviously fall in the dishonest and
mentally incompetent group because you can't claim ignorance. You can
only pretend that what you are not ignorant of doesn't matter. How
bpuharic
>Ha. I think you know exactly what my point is. But I'll elucidate: The
>excessive use of a very small vocabulary of invectives is an indication
>either of Tourette's Syndrome
those of us who HAVE tourette's syndrome can be surprisingly
loquacious.
or of having nothing to say other than what is
>conveyed in those invectives. I believe that Tourette's manifests itself in
>speech, not in writing.
i've never had a problem in writing. you're probably right. but
speech is more spontaneous...