Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
The BlowHard Okimoto can't run from his own claims that creationists are anti-science
4 views
Skip to first unread message
T Pagano
Feb 11, 2012, 7:42:33 PM2/11/12
to
Okimoto has done an arrogant backpeddle after I challenged the
blowhard to prove that any single creationist was anti science or that
the whole class was anti science.
Here is the link to Okimoto's latest blowhardery:
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/browse_thread/thread/6af7fdc9ef5c504d?hl=en#
[BEGIN OKIMOTO QUOTE]
Nothing really noteworthy about this edition. I basically create this
thread to keep track of the anti-science posters. I post this thread
about 3 times a year. I've only been doing it for a few years and I
wish that I had done it before. It is a simple means of keeping track
of these posters. A search using "By their fruits" will pick up a lot
of the older threads but a lot of other junk. I link back to them in
series below. Anyone can use the links to the posts and Google to
view the poster's profiles and get all the posts that they can stand
to read from these posters. These are the fruit of the creationist
anti-science movement. I went back to Jan 19 and looked at threads,
and Glenn seems to be missing. I hope that he is OK and doing well.
[END OKIMOTO QUOTE]
Here Okimoto admits to not only accusing specific creationists of
being anti-Science he keeps track of them and follows their "supposed"
anti science behavior. Yet for 5 days not only hasn't Okimoto been
able to prove his anti-Science claim he has denied he's made it. The
coward.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[BEGIN OKIMOTO QUOTE]
Religiously minded folk that don't want to make the list can look up
other creationists that wouldn't make the list:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clergy_Letter_Project
[END QUOTE]
Here Okimoto implies that every religiously-minded person is also a
creationist. And that any creationist who had not assented to the
Clergy Letter was, ipso facto, anti science. Talk about idiotic
claims he could never defend. All religiously minded people are not
creationists. And since creationism and the statements of the Clergy
Letter are contradictory why would a creationist assent to it? The
idiot atheist doesn't say.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The blow hard atheist can try to run from his own words but he's not
going to be too successful.
Regards,
T Pagano
Ray Martinez
Feb 11, 2012, 8:51:23 PM2/11/12
to
On Feb 11, 4:42 pm, T Pagano <not.va...@address.net> wrote:
> Okimoto has done an arrogant backpeddle after I challenged the
> blowhard to prove that any single creationist was anti science or that
> the whole class was anti science.
>
> Here is the link to Okimoto's latest blowhardery:
>
> http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/browse_thread/thread/6af7...
> Okimoto has done an arrogant backpeddle after I challenged the
> blowhard to prove that any single creationist was anti science or that
> the whole class was anti science.
>
> Here is the link to Okimoto's latest blowhardery:
>
>
> [BEGIN OKIMOTO QUOTE]
> Nothing really noteworthy about this edition. I basically create this
> thread to keep track of the anti-science posters. I post this thread
> about 3 times a year. I've only been doing it for a few years and I
> wish that I had done it before. It is a simple means of keeping track
> of these posters. A search using "By their fruits" will pick up a lot
> of the older threads but a lot of other junk. I link back to them in
> series below. Anyone can use the links to the posts and Google to
> view the poster's profiles and get all the posts that they can stand
> to read from these posters. These are the fruit of the creationist
> anti-science movement. I went back to Jan 19 and looked at threads,
> and Glenn seems to be missing. I hope that he is OK and doing well.
> [END OKIMOTO QUOTE]
>
> Here Okimoto admits to not only accusing specific creationists of
> being anti-Science he keeps track of them and follows their "supposed"
> anti science behavior. Yet for 5 days not only hasn't Okimoto been
> able to prove his anti-Science claim he has denied he's made it. The
> coward.
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> [BEGIN OKIMOTO QUOTE]
> Nothing really noteworthy about this edition. I basically create this
> thread to keep track of the anti-science posters. I post this thread
> about 3 times a year. I've only been doing it for a few years and I
> wish that I had done it before. It is a simple means of keeping track
> of these posters. A search using "By their fruits" will pick up a lot
> of the older threads but a lot of other junk. I link back to them in
> series below. Anyone can use the links to the posts and Google to
> view the poster's profiles and get all the posts that they can stand
> to read from these posters. These are the fruit of the creationist
> anti-science movement. I went back to Jan 19 and looked at threads,
> and Glenn seems to be missing. I hope that he is OK and doing well.
> [END OKIMOTO QUOTE]
>
> Here Okimoto admits to not only accusing specific creationists of
> being anti-Science he keeps track of them and follows their "supposed"
> anti science behavior. Yet for 5 days not only hasn't Okimoto been
> able to prove his anti-Science claim he has denied he's made it. The
> coward.
>
>
> [BEGIN OKIMOTO QUOTE]
> Religiously minded folk that don't want to make the list can look up
> other creationists that wouldn't make the list:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clergy_Letter_Project
> [END QUOTE]
>
> Here Okimoto implies that every religiously-minded person is also a
> creationist. And that any creationist who had not assented to the
> Clergy Letter was, ipso facto, anti science. Talk about idiotic
> claims he could never defend. All religiously minded people are not
> creationists. And since creationism and the statements of the Clergy
> Letter are contradictory why would a creationist assent to it? The
> idiot atheist doesn't say.
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> [BEGIN OKIMOTO QUOTE]
> Religiously minded folk that don't want to make the list can look up
> other creationists that wouldn't make the list:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clergy_Letter_Project
> [END QUOTE]
>
> Here Okimoto implies that every religiously-minded person is also a
> creationist. And that any creationist who had not assented to the
> Clergy Letter was, ipso facto, anti science. Talk about idiotic
> claims he could never defend. All religiously minded people are not
> creationists. And since creationism and the statements of the Clergy
> Letter are contradictory why would a creationist assent to it? The
> idiot atheist doesn't say.
>
>
> The blow hard atheist can try to run from his own words but he's not
> going to be too successful.
>
> Regards,
> T Pagano
Until you address many of your own claims that are under challenge,
> The blow hard atheist can try to run from his own words but he's not
> going to be too successful.
>
> Regards,
> T Pagano
your pursuit of poor Ron Okimoto is undermined. (Your inability to see
the fact is most alarming.) For example: Don't you think it is
downright flimsy to propagate as fact evolution enjoying a respectable
degree of scientific acceptance circa 1800 based on one
**intellectual** (Erasmus Darwin) who advocated the **concept** using
his talents in poetry? Why don't you just retract the claim and move
on? Darwin wrote, in "The Origin," that he was challenging
immutability (1859:6) and on page 310 of the same volume he named nine
eminent naturalists in the context of their unanimous and vehement
opposition to mutability. Both facts destroy any notion that evolution
enjoyed any respectable degree of scientific acceptance circa 1800.
By the way: I am not the least bit offended in being viewed anti-
science by the likes of any Evolutionist. The claim is fundamentally
correct. It recognizes the fact that Darwinian evolution vs. Natural
Theology/Creationism/ID are mutually exclusive bitter enemies involved
in a winner-take-all battle. We Paleyans know that any explication of
nature that uses Naturalism-Materialism assumptions is anti-science
since Supernatural assumptions were held by naturalists from invention
of the printing press until the rise of Darwinism.
Ray (Paleyan IDist-anti-evolutionist)
jillery
Feb 11, 2012, 11:25:18 PM2/11/12
to
evolved.
Dana Tweedy
Feb 11, 2012, 11:57:32 PM2/11/12
to
> For example: Don't you think it is
> downright flimsy to propagate as fact evolution enjoying a respectable
> degree of scientific acceptance circa 1800 based on one
> **intellectual** (Erasmus Darwin) who advocated the **concept** using
> his talents in poetry?
Darwin's writing is supported by much more than simply Erasmus Darwin's
book. It's rather "flimsy" of you to imply that that was the only
support available.
> Why don't you just retract the claim and move
> on?
> Darwin wrote, in "The Origin," that he was challenging
> immutability (1859:6)
That view was already on the way out when Darwin published.
> and on page 310 of the same volume he named nine
> eminent naturalists in the context of their unanimous and vehement
> opposition to mutability.
fixity of species. He didn't say they were "unanimous and vehement" in
opposition to mutability.
> Both facts destroy any notion that evolution
> enjoyed any respectable degree of scientific acceptance circa 1800.
Even if you could call the spin you put on Darwin's words 'fact', they
> Both facts destroy any notion that evolution
> enjoyed any respectable degree of scientific acceptance circa 1800.
still don't negate the small but "respectable" number of scientists who
did offer evolutionary ideas prior to Darwin.
>
> By the way: I am not the least bit offended in being viewed anti-
> science by the likes of any Evolutionist. The claim is fundamentally
> correct.
> It recognizes the fact that Darwinian evolution vs. Natural
> Theology/Creationism/ID are mutually exclusive bitter enemies involved
> in a winner-take-all battle.
Calling the two "bitter enemies" and suggesting a "winner take all
battle" is more of Ray's silliness. Science and religion are not
enemies, and do not need to be at odds. God exists no matter what
science finds, and religious beliefs do not affect scientific findings.
> We Paleyans know that any explication of
> nature that uses Naturalism-Materialism assumptions is anti-science
> since Supernatural assumptions were held by naturalists from invention
> of the printing press until the rise of Darwinism.
bizarre ideas any more credible, or make your own single self into a
popular movement. You remain alone in your claims. Paley himself
would not have agreed with you, and would have told you that you have
his ideas all wrong.
Appeals to the supernatural were unscientific in Paley's time, and
remain unscientific now. Science has always made use of methodological
naturalism as a necessary condition. Holding a belief in the
supernatural is not the same as assuming a supernatural role in nature
for every natural process.
You are wrong about science, and won't admit your error.
DJT
*Hemidactylus*
Feb 12, 2012, 8:17:01 AM2/12/12
to
On 02/11/2012 07:42 PM, T Pagano wrote:
>
> Okimoto has done an arrogant backpeddle after I challenged the
> blowhard to prove that any single creationist was anti science or that
> the whole class was anti science.
Ray seems to be anti-science in his stunning refusal to acknowledge that
>
> Okimoto has done an arrogant backpeddle after I challenged the
> blowhard to prove that any single creationist was anti science or that
> the whole class was anti science.
populations change allelically over time (=evolution). You at least
allow for this I assume. So the way you worded your challenge above we
have one prima facie case of "any single creationist was anti science".
*Hemidactylus*
Feb 12, 2012, 8:19:27 AM2/12/12
to
I rest my case presented in my previous post on this thread.
Your turn.
[awaiting thread title change...3...2...1...and it is...]
Ron O
Feb 13, 2012, 8:00:38 AM2/13/12
to
On Feb 11, 6:42 pm, T Pagano <not.va...@address.net> wrote:
> Okimoto has done an arrogant backpeddle after I challenged the
> blowhard to prove that any single creationist was anti science or that
> the whole class was anti science.
>
> Here is the link to Okimoto's latest blowhardery:
>
> http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/browse_thread/thread/6af7...
> Okimoto has done an arrogant backpeddle after I challenged the
> blowhard to prove that any single creationist was anti science or that
> the whole class was anti science.
>
> Here is the link to Okimoto's latest blowhardery:
>
>
> [BEGIN OKIMOTO QUOTE]
> Nothing really noteworthy about this edition. I basically create this
> thread to keep track of the anti-science posters. I post this thread
> about 3 times a year. I've only been doing it for a few years and I
> wish that I had done it before. It is a simple means of keeping track
> of these posters. A search using "By their fruits" will pick up a lot
> of the older threads but a lot of other junk. I link back to them in
> series below. Anyone can use the links to the posts and Google to
> view the poster's profiles and get all the posts that they can stand
> to read from these posters. These are the fruit of the creationist
> anti-science movement. I went back to Jan 19 and looked at threads,
> and Glenn seems to be missing. I hope that he is OK and doing well.
> [END OKIMOTO QUOTE]
>
> Here Okimoto admits to not only accusing specific creationists of
> being anti-Science he keeps track of them and follows their "supposed"
> anti science behavior. Yet for 5 days not only hasn't Okimoto been
> able to prove his anti-Science claim he has denied he's made it. The
> coward.
I have no idea why Pags objects to the anti-science tag because all he
> [BEGIN OKIMOTO QUOTE]
> Nothing really noteworthy about this edition. I basically create this
> thread to keep track of the anti-science posters. I post this thread
> about 3 times a year. I've only been doing it for a few years and I
> wish that I had done it before. It is a simple means of keeping track
> of these posters. A search using "By their fruits" will pick up a lot
> of the older threads but a lot of other junk. I link back to them in
> series below. Anyone can use the links to the posts and Google to
> view the poster's profiles and get all the posts that they can stand
> to read from these posters. These are the fruit of the creationist
> anti-science movement. I went back to Jan 19 and looked at threads,
> and Glenn seems to be missing. I hope that he is OK and doing well.
> [END OKIMOTO QUOTE]
>
> Here Okimoto admits to not only accusing specific creationists of
> being anti-Science he keeps track of them and follows their "supposed"
> anti science behavior. Yet for 5 days not only hasn't Okimoto been
> able to prove his anti-Science claim he has denied he's made it. The
> coward.
has to do is describe why he is against biological evolution and what
is wrong with the science for anyone to understand that is exactly
what he is. Go for it Pags do the Pag act again and refute yourself
in your own denial.
Keeping track is just that. I find it easier to make this list and do
a google search than to put it in some folder somewhere and forget
where I put it. I just let the web be my storage. Not only that, but
there are times with some posters like spinny, adman etc where you
needed a score card to remember what their various monikers were.
The major reason is so that anyone that wants to can use the list to
get a broad appreciation as to how limited and pathetic the whole anti-
evolution racket is at this time. I even put in the disclaimer that a
lot of the posters are a select group and may not represent the
average anti-evolution ignorant boob on the streets. Adman went nuts
when he found out what the title really meant. These guys are the
fruit of the anti-evolution and various religious movements. Fruit in
the Biblical sense. It is the Bible talking to these guys and some of
them get it.
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> [BEGIN OKIMOTO QUOTE]
> Religiously minded folk that don't want to make the list can look up
> other creationists that wouldn't make the list:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clergy_Letter_Project
> [END QUOTE]
>
> Here Okimoto implies that every religiously-minded person is also a
> creationist. And that any creationist who had not assented to the
> Clergy Letter was, ipso facto, anti science. Talk about idiotic
> claims he could never defend. All religiously minded people are not
> creationists. And since creationism and the statements of the Clergy
> Letter are contradictory why would a creationist assent to it? The
> idiot atheist doesn't say.
creationist, that is the standard definition. How could I not defend
that? Isn't that what a creationist is? You can add things, but that
is the basic definition.
Pags and all the other one track boneheads can't come to grips with
the fact that there are multiple forms of creationism. Just in this
group you have guys from Ray to Nyikos. There are creationists that
are theistic evolutionists and various forms of those. They are a
subset of the old earth creationists. You have Kalk who is a Hindu
creationist.
Trying to pigeon hole creationists is just a dodge to lie about what
guys like Pags want to deny or lie about at the time. It is a stupid
thing to try to do and really no reason to do it. Guys like Pags do
not make the list because they are creationists. They make the list
for being the type of person that could write a Pagano post. It is
what they do because they are creationists, not that they are
creationists.
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> The blow hard atheist can try to run from his own words but he's not
> going to be too successful.
and are atheists. The Clergy that signed the clergy letter project do
not believe in a creator? What a joker. One of the hallmarks of the
people that often make the list is how dishonest they are. What makes
it bad is that they may think that they are doing the bogus things for
God.
Ron Okimoto
>
> Regards,
> T Pagano
Rolf
Feb 13, 2012, 10:40:21 AM2/13/12
to
> Ray (Paleyan IDist-anti-evolutionist)
0 new messages