All Seeing Madman, Super Troll
Ilas
he's good.
alextangent
> I can't believe he (or they) is still winding you all up. Got to admit,
> he's good.
Dembski's class all getting 100% on their assignments, I suppose.
Still, good <> right.
Ron O
> I can't believe he (or they) is still winding you all up. Got to admit,
> he's good.
He is mentally incompetent. If All-screeching-denial wasn't stupid
enough to keep putting up the anti-evolution claptrap the posting on
TO would be cut at least in half, likely more. He is serious in his
own way and a troubled individual that can't put 2 and 2 together to
get 4 if it doesn't fit into his preconceived notions. Just look at
the recent threads that he as started with his bad creato logic. He
has enough on the ball to understand that he comes up short, but he
isn't mentally capable of dealing with that fact. He really believes
that he is defending something, it just doesn't make sense, but with
the mentally incompetent you can't expect it to make sense. I might
have a link to one of the old adman accounts in the July By their
Fruits. thread You can check out the manic phase that adman went
through when he realized that he was up a creek without a paddle. He
was likely using several accounts back then, but the one that I found
had 3000 posts one month. Posting thousands day and night. You don't
do that to troll unless you are an insane loki. Look at his reaction
when he figured out what I meant by "fruit" and how he went bonkers
and started several threads manically trying to claim that everyone
else had the problem. He had to outright lie about the guys that
signed the clergy letter project and instead of admitting that, that
was bogus kept it up on other threads.
The guy is for real. He really is as pathetic as he seems. I don't
know what the proper way to deal with such an individual is. He does
provide the excuse for pointing out how bad the anti-evolution
arguments are. This is something that the other regular anti-
evolution posters have learned not to do and they avoid putting up the
claptrap. Adman just can't learn from experience. He is probably
just as serious as Ray, NashT, Pagano, Glenn, and Pitman, but he is
too incompetent to adapt to the reality that his side is stuck with
the short end of the stick.
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/a01f009ef41f9647?hl=en
Ron Okimoto
All-Seeing-I
You spend so much time to write this:
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/a01f009ef41f9647?hl=en
and then call ME "a troubled individual" and "mentally incompetent"?
[GIGGLES]... hey pal. YOU seem to be the one with the obsessions. Not
me.....
Maybe you should seek professional help.
DO IT SOON TOO!
In the mean time, you may want to get one of these:
http://www.realstraightjackets.com/
Frank J
> I can't believe he (or they) is still winding you all up. Got to admit,
> he's good.
Agreed, but I blame fellow "Darwinists" more than I credit ASI.
Ironically one of the reasons I am still not sure if he/she/they is/
are Loki(s) is that so many "Darwinists" keep taking the bait
(responding to PRATTs) instead of asking their own questions about
ASI's alternate "theory." I could be wrong, but I think a Loki might
have given up by now.
Ron O
So adman, have you come to grips with the kind of fruit that you are
and what that means by your own Biblical interpretation? Just think
of what it means when people think that you are faking?
Ron Okimoto
Mark Evans
Ron Okimoto does not exhibit the manic activity you do and he shows
signs of logic and rationality. You, on the other hand, demonstrate
signs of a decaying mental state. Maybe lithium would help but I
doubt it. You can't mediate stupid.
Mark Evans
T Pagano
What is more scary is that Okimoto----who is capable of little beyond
ad hominem nonsense----is teaching grad students. Me thinks Okimoto
is the pot calling the kettle...
Harshman the Hall Monitor is working out to be the smartest of these
blind, zealously faithful atheists.
He generally makes an effort to get the creationist position (as
presented) correctly. That is, he offers very few strawmen. And
overall he is one of the few who actually thinks for himself and
presents the "best" the evolutionist position has to offer. While I
suspect he actually believes what he offers he rarely over-sells it.
This is not to say that Harshman's belief about how biological novelty
arose and developed is correct. The evidence in a variety of sciences
has pointed to limits to change. Behe pointed this out with several
real examples in his latest book.
Darwin in his own right was an advocate of his position, but he was
also honest about the shortfalls of his magnum opus. He knew what
would rightly knock his theory from our background knowledge; that
made him a genuine scientist interested in purging our background
knowledge of falsity. In this regard modern secular scientists are
NOT the same. Darwinism has long ceased being a scientific theory. Is
has become dogma.
Given the state of our current knowledge, particularly paleontology,
cellular biology and genetics would Darwin still be a Darwinist?
Regards,
T Pagano
All-seeing-I
>
> - Show quoted text -
Ron, don't use the bible to make your points. You have zero
understanding of what the bible is exactly about.
Devils Advocaat
[snipped for brevity and focus]
> Given the state of our current knowledge, particularly paleontology,
> cellular biology and genetics would Darwin still be a Darwinist?
>
[snipped for brevity and focus]
Charles Darwin was never a Darwinist.
That is like calling Jesus Christ a Christian.
After all a Darwinist is someone who follows the teachings of Darwin.
Just as a Christian is someone who follows the teachings of Christ.
All-seeing-I
>
> - Show quoted text -
Harshman occasionally gets his evolutionary panties in a wad too, like
Ron O does all of the time. Just not as often.
I will give Harshman credit. At least he is honest and he never tries
to incorrectly use the bible to make a point.
Ron O is a clear cut case for too much edcuation making one stupid
Ron O
By their fruit, adman. What kind of fruit are you. Good or bad?
Ron Okimoto
Ron O
Hey, addledman? Haven't you figured out, yet that I have used your
own interpretation of the Bible? I never claimed that it was mine.
Ron Okimoto
John Harshman
> Harshman the Hall Monitor is working out to be the smartest of these
> blind, zealously faithful atheists.
Gee, thanks. I keep asking how I got to be Hall Monitor and what exactly
that means to you, but you never reply.
> He generally makes an effort to get the creationist position (as
> presented) correctly. That is, he offers very few strawmen. And
> overall he is one of the few who actually thinks for himself and
> presents the "best" the evolutionist position has to offer. While I
> suspect he actually believes what he offers he rarely over-sells it.
You suspect I'm not lying? Stop, you'll embarrass me with all this praise.
> This is not to say that Harshman's belief about how biological novelty
> arose and developed is correct. The evidence in a variety of sciences
> has pointed to limits to change. Behe pointed this out with several
> real examples in his latest book.
I will note that Behe actually believes that all life is descended from
a common ancestor. My difference with him is in the mechanism of
mutation, no more. Once again you fail to understand the issues.
Do you agree with Behe that humans and chimps are related by common
ancestry? If not, why not?
> Darwin in his own right was an advocate of his position, but he was
> also honest about the shortfalls of his magnum opus. He knew what
> would rightly knock his theory from our background knowledge; that
> made him a genuine scientist interested in purging our background
> knowledge of falsity. In this regard modern secular scientists are
> NOT the same. Darwinism has long ceased being a scientific theory. Is
> has become dogma.
Of course you have nothing to back that up with.
> Given the state of our current knowledge, particularly paleontology,
> cellular biology and genetics would Darwin still be a Darwinist?
Yes, to some degree. He was wrong about some things, right about others.
The big thing he got wrong was the nature of inheritance. He was pretty
good about the rest of it, though of course we now know much more than
he did, and have a much more rigorous theory.
Tony recruits Darwin in his support! What could be more bizarre?
Ron O
Pags complaining about ad homs? What a joker. Just look at the title
change. Poor Pags. Incomptence can't be a very good way of life.
Ron Okimoto
>
> Harshman the Hall Monitor is working out to be the smartest of these
> blind, zealously faithful atheists.
>
> He generally makes an effort to get the creationist position (as
> presented) correctly. That is, he offers very few strawmen. And
> overall he is one of the few who actually thinks for himself and
> presents the "best" the evolutionist position has to offer. While I
> suspect he actually believes what he offers he rarely over-sells it.
> This is not to say that Harshman's belief about how biological novelty
> arose and developed is correct. The evidence in a variety of sciences
> has pointed to limits to change. Behe pointed this out with several
> real examples in his latest book.
>
> Darwin in his own right was an advocate of his position, but he was
> also honest about the shortfalls of his magnum opus. He knew what
> would rightly knock his theory from our background knowledge; that
> made him a genuine scientist interested in purging our background
> knowledge of falsity. In this regard modern secular scientists are
> NOT the same. Darwinism has long ceased being a scientific theory. Is
> has become dogma.
>
> Given the state of our current knowledge, particularly paleontology,
> cellular biology and genetics would Darwin still be a Darwinist?
>
> Regards,
Bob Casanova
appeared in talk.origins, posted by Frank J
<fc...@verizon.net>:
The basic problem is that questions regarding any "alternate
theory", like replies pointing out logical and factual
errors in his posts, are generally ignored while he goes on
to post the same errors in a new thread. This seems to be
typical of most creationists and other fundies (it's obvious
with Nashie, not so much with Spinnie, although Spinnie
seems to go in and out of consciousness, sometimes within a
single post), so it's impossible to determine from this if
he's a troll or just an especially ignorant and persistent,
but sincere, pest.
--
Bob C.
"Evidence confirming an observation is
evidence that the observation is wrong."
- McNameless
Ye Old One
Nah! He's nuts.
--
Bob.
When D-G made Madman out of clay he forgot to magic the brain. I think
that explains everything.
Ye Old One
Yes, and I know the truth really hurts you.
>
>[GIGGLES]... hey pal. YOU seem to be the one with the obsessions. Not
>me.....
>
>Maybe you should seek professional help.
>
>DO IT SOON TOO!
>
>In the mean time, you may want to get one of these:
>http://www.realstraightjackets.com/
You get yours free with your padded cell.
--
Bob.
People may not always remember exactly what you said, but they will
always remember just how bright you made them feel.
All-seeing-I
>
> - Show quoted text -
If you used my imterpretation you would no longer believe man evolved
from an ape.
alextangent
The only way I can think of to correctly use the bible is to make a
fire.
>
> Ron O is a clear cut case for too much edcuation making one stupid
The view from the gallery has you with a glorious mountain of
magnificent stupid. What's wrong with an education?
Ray Martinez
Hey Einstein: Adman or "All Seeing" is an evolutionist----he accepts
the MAIN claim of evolution (species mutability). No wonder he is
incompetent. This means that you produced a screed against one of your
own.
Take a nap, Ron. There is always tomorrow.
Ray
Ray Martinez
> T Pagano wrote:
> > Harshman the Hall Monitor is working out to be the smartest of these
> > blind, zealously faithful atheists.
>
> Gee, thanks. I keep asking how I got to be Hall Monitor and what exactly
> that means to you, but you never reply.
>
> > He generally makes an effort to get the creationist position (as
> > presented) correctly. That is, he offers very few strawmen. And
> > overall he is one of the few who actually thinks for himself and
> > presents the "best" the evolutionist position has to offer. While I
> > suspect he actually believes what he offers he rarely over-sells it.
>
> You suspect I'm not lying? Stop, you'll embarrass me with all this praise.
>
> > This is not to say that Harshman's belief about how biological novelty
> > arose and developed is correct. The evidence in a variety of sciences
> > has pointed to limits to change. Behe pointed this out with several
> > real examples in his latest book.
>
> I will note that Behe actually believes that all life is descended from
> a common ancestor. My difference with him is in the mechanism of
> mutation, no more. Once again you fail to understand the issues.
>
Just recently you attempted to explicate how IC systems evolve. We
then pointed out that the whole point of IC systems is unevolvability.
You should have been arguing that IC systems do not exist.
Misunderstanding of this magnitude concerning a 101 issue testifies
that you are indeed a hall monitor who happens to have a doctorate
degree.
Ray
SNIP....
Burkhard
> On Nov 26, 10:01 am, John Harshman <jharsh...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>> T Pagano wrote:
>>> Harshman the Hall Monitor is working out to be the smartest of these
>>> blind, zealously faithful atheists.
>> Gee, thanks. I keep asking how I got to be Hall Monitor and what exactly
>> that means to you, but you never reply.
>>
>>> He generally makes an effort to get the creationist position (as
>>> presented) correctly. That is, he offers very few strawmen. And
>>> overall he is one of the few who actually thinks for himself and
>>> presents the "best" the evolutionist position has to offer. While I
>>> suspect he actually believes what he offers he rarely over-sells it.
>> You suspect I'm not lying? Stop, you'll embarrass me with all this praise.
>>
>>> This is not to say that Harshman's belief about how biological novelty
>>> arose and developed is correct. The evidence in a variety of sciences
>>> has pointed to limits to change. Behe pointed this out with several
>>> real examples in his latest book.
>> I will note that Behe actually believes that all life is descended from
>> a common ancestor. My difference with him is in the mechanism of
>> mutation, no more. Once again you fail to understand the issues.
>>
>
> Just recently you attempted to explicate how IC systems evolve.
Not the way Behe initially defined them in Darwin's Black box, which was
simply as:
"By irreducibly complex I mean a single system composed of several
well-matched, interacting parts that contribute to the basic function,
wherein the removal of any one of the parts causes the system to
effectively cease functioning" DBB p 39
>We
> then pointed out that the whole point of IC systems is unevolvability.
While it was arguably the reason Behe developed the term, it is not
part of its definition. Therefore, it is an empirical question whether
or not IC systems are evolvable.
> You should have been arguing that IC systems do not exist.
Not really, not the why Behe introduced the term. It is perfectly
possible that IC systems as defined by Behe exist. Of course, it was
rather easy to show that they can, in fact, evolve.
> Misunderstanding of this magnitude concerning a 101 issue testifies
> that you are indeed a hall monitor who happens to have a doctorate
> degree.
>
As always when you use the expression "101 issue", you misunderstood the
idea. Behe's definition is clear, unevolvability is not part of the
definition, it is a property he claims (wrongly) that these systems have.
> Ray
>
> SNIP....
>
Ray Martinez
You have been told that the main claim made in behalf of IC systems is
unevolvability. This is why Black Box creates and created a furor. The
only choice for the Darwinist is to show that IC systems do not exist.
If IC systems can evolve then IC systems do not exist. Since you have
chosen to ignore the basic fact of the matter the same shows the
degree of dishonesty in your game.
Ray
Burkhard
You have made this _claim_ without giving references or citations. I
gave you the definition Behe himself proposed, just read it.
Unevolvability is not mentioned.
This is why Black Box creates and created a furor.
The motive why someone introduces a term and is irrelevant for the
meaning of the term.
The
> only choice for the Darwinist is to show that IC systems do not exist.
No, just that there are evolutionary mechanisms that can create them.
Which is why Behe himself calls them a "challenge". The ToE simply rose
to that challenge - which was not difficult
> If IC systems can evolve then IC systems do not exist.
No. IC systems are simply systems, again quoting Behe, that have
"several well-matched, interacting parts that contribute to the basic
function, wherein the removal of any one of the parts causes the system
to effectively cease functioning". If it can be shown that such a
system evolves, then it remains IC - it is still impossible to remove a
part without the system becoming unable to function. Unevolvability is
not part of the definition, rather Behe posits it as a theory that all
IC systems are also unevolvable.
Since you have
> chosen to ignore the basic fact of the matter the same shows the
> degree of dishonesty in your game.
Unlike you, I was able to support my analysis by a direct quote from
Behe which speaks for itself - whereas you simply make things up, as usual.
>
> Ray
>
Bruce Stephens
[...]
> You have been told that the main claim made in behalf of IC systems is
> unevolvability.
That is the main claim, sure. But that's all it is: a claim. It is not
the case that it is part of the definition of IC. After all, that would
make the argument rather empty.
> This is why Black Box creates and created a furor. The only choice for
> the Darwinist is to show that IC systems do not exist. If IC systems
> can evolve then IC systems do not exist.
Nonsense. An IC system is "A single system which is composed of several
interacting parts that contribute to the basic function, and where the
removal of any one of the parts causes the system to effectively cease
functioning."
There could still be IC systems even if all such systems could evolve.
[...]
Mike Lyle
[...John Harshman...]
> Misunderstanding of this magnitude concerning a 101 issue testifies
> that you are indeed a hall monitor who happens to have a doctorate
> degree.
>
and what are your degrees? You must presumably have some standing to
make supercilious remarks about "101 issues".
--
Mike.
Ye Old One
None of us do. All of us realize that we are apes.
--
Bob.
You have not been charged for this lesson - learn from it rather than
continuing to make a fool of yourself.
Ray Martinez
wrote:
The point is: having a degree should guarantee understanding of 101
issues. I have no degree. Dr. John Harshman does not understand the
main basic claim of Behe ICism. Nothing can change the fact that I
exposed his ignorance concerning a basic 101 issue: IC claims
unevolvability. The only issue is existence of phenomena, not
evolvability. Since his ego will not ever allow him to admit we all
now must endure his endless excuses, obfuscations, denials and face
saving attempts.
Ray
Ron O
Can you tell anyone what this has to do with your interpretation of
the Biblical "By their Fruits?"
Ron Okimoto
John Harshman
> On Nov 26, 10:01 am, John Harshman <jharsh...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>> T Pagano wrote:
>>> Harshman the Hall Monitor is working out to be the smartest of these
>>> blind, zealously faithful atheists.
>> Gee, thanks. I keep asking how I got to be Hall Monitor and what exactly
>> that means to you, but you never reply.
>>
>>> He generally makes an effort to get the creationist position (as
>>> presented) correctly. That is, he offers very few strawmen. And
>>> overall he is one of the few who actually thinks for himself and
>>> presents the "best" the evolutionist position has to offer. While I
>>> suspect he actually believes what he offers he rarely over-sells it.
>> You suspect I'm not lying? Stop, you'll embarrass me with all this praise.
>>
>>> This is not to say that Harshman's belief about how biological novelty
>>> arose and developed is correct. The evidence in a variety of sciences
>>> has pointed to limits to change. Behe pointed this out with several
>>> real examples in his latest book.
>> I will note that Behe actually believes that all life is descended from
>> a common ancestor. My difference with him is in the mechanism of
>> mutation, no more. Once again you fail to understand the issues.
>>
>
> Just recently you attempted to explicate how IC systems evolve. We
> then pointed out that the whole point of IC systems is unevolvability.
Who are "we"?
> You should have been arguing that IC systems do not exist.
> Misunderstanding of this magnitude concerning a 101 issue testifies
> that you are indeed a hall monitor who happens to have a doctorate
> degree.
Ah, you and the voices in your head.
John Harshman
> On Nov 26, 3:06 pm, "Mike Lyle" <mike_lyle...@REMOVETHISyahoo.co.uk>
> wrote:
>> Ray Martinez wrote:
>>
>> [...John Harshman...]> Misunderstanding of this magnitude concerning a 101 issue testifies
>>> that you are indeed a hall monitor who happens to have a doctorate
>>> degree.
>> OK, since these things obviously matter to you, what is your occupation
>> and what are your degrees? You must presumably have some standing to
>> make supercilious remarks about "101 issues".
>>
>> --
>> Mike.
>
> The point is: having a degree should guarantee understanding of 101
> issues. I have no degree. Dr. John Harshman does not understand the
> main basic claim of Behe ICism.
Yes I do. You don't. As many people have explained to you already,
non-evolvability isn't part of the definition of IC. Behe thinks that IC
systems are unlikely to evolve (he actually agrees that it's possible,
which destroys your point all by itself), and in this he is wrong, but
that isn't part of the definition. And many people have explained ways
in which IC systems can indeed evolve.
> Nothing can change the fact that I
> exposed his ignorance concerning a basic 101 issue: IC claims
> unevolvability.
Again, no it doesn't. Behe's definition is clear on this point: it
doesn't mention evolution at all. And it would be silly if he did,
because then IC systems would be unable to evolve by definition, and
trying to show they can't evolve would be tautological and useless.
> The only issue is existence of phenomena, not
> evolvability. Since his ego will not ever allow him to admit we all
> now must endure his endless excuses, obfuscations, denials and face
> saving attempts.
If you want to redefine IC as "unable to arise through evolution", how
will you detect an IC system, operationally?
David Hare-Scott
> On Thu, 26 Nov 2009 04:25:11 -0800 (PST), the following
> appeared in talk.origins, posted by Frank J
> <fc...@verizon.net>:
>
>> On Nov 26, 3:50 am, Ilas <nob...@this.address.com> wrote:
>>> I can't believe he (or they) is still winding you all up. Got to
>>> admit, he's good.
>>
>> Agreed, but I blame fellow "Darwinists" more than I credit ASI.
>> Ironically one of the reasons I am still not sure if he/she/they is/
>> are Loki(s) is that so many "Darwinists" keep taking the bait
>> (responding to PRATTs) instead of asking their own questions about
>> ASI's alternate "theory." I could be wrong, but I think a Loki might
>> have given up by now.
>
> The basic problem is that questions regarding any "alternate
> theory", like replies pointing out logical and factual
> errors in his posts, are generally ignored while he goes on
> to post the same errors in a new thread.
This is exactly what happens. If pressed he makes vague claims that he "is
not religious" but you cannot get any more from him about what he actually
believes or how living things as we see them came about. Adman is about as
genuine as a $3 note.
This seems to be
> typical of most creationists and other fundies (it's obvious
> with Nashie, not so much with Spinnie, although Spinnie
> seems to go in and out of consciousness, sometimes within a
> single post), so it's impossible to determine from this if
> he's a troll or just an especially ignorant and persistent,
> but sincere, pest.
Spinny is mainly sincere in my view although given to being provocative. He
is not as smart as he imagines, he has forays into mathematics and physics
now and then that show his enthusiasm exceeds his understanding. Very
possibly has a problem with ingesting mind altering substances which
contributes to his mood swings and gibberish when he types to himself.
David
Ron O
> Ron O wrote:
> > On Nov 26, 2:50 am, Ilas <nob...@this.address.com> wrote:
> >> I can't believe he (or they) is still winding you all up. Got to admit,
> >> he's good.
>
> > enough to keep putting up the anti-evolution claptrap the posting on TO
> > would be cut at least in half, likely more. He is serious in his own
> > way and a troubled individual that can't put 2 and 2 together to get 4
> > if it doesn't fit into his preconceived notions.
>
> it is fun to poke him with a stick and necessary sometimes to correct his
> falsehoods. Not the most ridiculous ones, i.e. most of them, but the ones
> that sound superficially serious and could perhaps convince an newbie
> lurker.
>
> But the way it is going now, the troll gets *way* too much attention.
>
> I would like DIG to add that flag to his message IDs again. but I'm
> afraid to ask.
Other creationists likely wish All-screeching-denial was a troll.
Addledman doesn't have me hooked. Compared to most I simply basically
ignore him unless he responds to one of my posts. There are slow days
when there is nothing better to do, but I never respond to Ray.
Addledman may be incompetent and likely insane, but he is more of a
happy drunk than someone that you worry is so far gone that they could
hurt themselves or others. I also haven't given up hope that
addledman won't eventually see the light. He isn't a total loss or he
wouldn't get so upset when his arguments blow up in his face or he is
caught doing something that he is embarrassed about.. His manic
phases indicate that somethings do get through.
Ron Okimoto
T Pagano
<jhar...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>T Pagano wrote:
snip
Surfaced briefly? Harshman is a tad confused....yet again. I've made
18 posts since 22 November.
And Harshman alone (for at least the last 18 months) has the means at
his disposal to cause me to stay afloat where ever he thinks I ought
to be. It is his wisdom which stays his hand lest I bury more of his
brethren.
BTW I should have finished answering all the direct responses to my
transformational challenge by the end of the weekend. Things are
looking like the claim of extensive evidence (or any evidence) of the
transformational claims of neoDarwinism is yet another urban myth.
Just as the atheist claim that creationists are anti science crumbled
without a single substantiating quote.
Just as the claim that creationists misuse Scripture as a science text
crumbled without a single substantiating quote (Ray's quote has been
taken out of context).
NeoDarwinism as an explanation for biological diversity has been a
corpse for 150 years. With its continuing decomposition there won't
be much left to defend soon. I suggest that those in the
evolutionary biology field seek other work.
Regards,
T Pagano
BTW, I've always been at periscope depth ready to fire a full spread
of torpedoes at any target Harshman desires. Harshman barks for his
brethren but wisely avoids having me sink them. I knew Harshman was
the smartest of the bunch.
bpuharic
wrote:
>On Thu, 26 Nov 2009 10:01:22 -0800, John Harshman
><jhar...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>
>>T Pagano wrote:
>
>snip
>
>
>Surfaced briefly? Harshman is a tad confused....yet again. I've made
>18 posts since 22 November.
>
>And Harshman alone (for at least the last 18 months) has the means at
>his disposal to cause me to stay afloat where ever he thinks I ought
>to be. It is his wisdom which stays his hand lest I bury more of his
>brethren.
>
>BTW I should have finished answering all the direct responses to my
>transformational challenge by the end of the weekend. Things are
>looking like the claim of extensive evidence (or any evidence) of the
>transformational claims of neoDarwinism is yet another urban myth.
>
>Just as the atheist claim that creationists are anti science crumbled
>without a single substantiating quote.
what kind of 'quote' are you looking for? the quotes that say science
must be replaced with reliance on 'ancient texts?' the quotes that say
science is atheism?
those look pretty 'anti science' to me.
>
>Just as the claim that creationists misuse Scripture as a science text
>crumbled without a single substantiating quote (Ray's quote has been
>taken out of context).
ray's quote out of context. uh huh. and all seeing's view that
scripture prohibits changes outside of 'kinds'
seems pagano doesnt read before he writes
>
>NeoDarwinism as an explanation for biological diversity has been a
>corpse for 150 years.
those of us who are scientists disagree....but pagano, with his much
vaunted religious fanaticism, certainly has a unique viewpoint.
With its continuing decomposition there won't
>be much left to defend soon. I suggest that those in the
>evolutionary biology field seek other work.
>
so you guys have said. and so you guys have been wrong.
bpuharic
<pyram...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>The point is: having a degree should guarantee understanding of 101
>issues. I have no degree. Dr. John Harshman does not understand the
>main basic claim of Behe ICism. Nothing can change the fact that I
>exposed his ignorance concerning a basic 101 issue: IC claims
>unevolvability. The only issue is existence of phenomena, not
>evolvability. Since his ego will not ever allow him to admit we all
>now must endure his endless excuses, obfuscations, denials and face
>saving attempts.
>
>Ray
since i'm not an evolutionary biologist, but am a scientist, i have no
dog in this fight.
it looks to me like the biologists have a satisfactory explanation for
the evolution of IC systems
i've talked to behe about his view on evolution. he's extremely
paranoid and tends to rant.
and other creationsits? for 2000 years they tried to explain every
feature of nature with creationism
they ALWAYS failed. always
bpuharic
>You have been told that the main claim made in behalf of IC systems is
>unevolvability. This is why Black Box creates and created a furor.
really? behe's testimony in 'kitzmiller' collapsed when he admitted he
didn't know that IC systems could evolve
The
>only choice for the Darwinist is to show that IC systems do not exist.
really? then why was the concept of IC INVENTED by 'darwinists'?
and creationists? still sacrificing goats to appease gods who 'cause
disease'
back to your cave, ray
bpuharic
<pyram...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>Just recently you attempted to explicate how IC systems evolve. We
>then pointed out that the whole point of IC systems is unevolvability.
which is meaningless. IC systems can, and do certainly evolve.
>You should have been arguing that IC systems do not exist.
no one says they don't exist. but the fact is they evolve
>Misunderstanding of this magnitude concerning a 101 issue testifies
>that you are indeed a hall monitor who happens to have a doctorate
>degree.
>
behe collapsed on the stand under withering fire showing he was
unaware IC systems can, and do, evolve.
the rest of creationism is already a trainwreck
bpuharic
wrote:
>>
>>In the mean time, you may want to get one of these:
>>http://www.realstraightjackets.com/
>
>What is more scary is that Okimoto----who is capable of little beyond
>ad hominem nonsense----is teaching grad students. Me thinks Okimoto
>is the pot calling the kettle...
>
>Harshman the Hall Monitor is working out to be the smartest of these
>blind, zealously faithful atheists.
>
>He generally makes an effort to get the creationist position (as
>presented) correctly. That is, he offers very few strawmen. And
>overall he is one of the few who actually thinks for himself and
>presents the "best" the evolutionist position has to offer. While I
>suspect he actually believes what he offers he rarely over-sells it.
>This is not to say that Harshman's belief about how biological novelty
>arose and developed is correct. The evidence in a variety of sciences
>has pointed to limits to change. Behe pointed this out with several
>real examples in his latest book.
really? those of us who've talked to behe don't see much in his
position at all. and you have failed
1. to give any examples
2. to cite any examples where creationism has been correct in its 2000
year history.
2000 years. no successes at all. not a single one. ever
>
>Darwin in his own right was an advocate of his position, but he was
>also honest about the shortfalls of his magnum opus. He knew what
>would rightly knock his theory from our background knowledge; that
>made him a genuine scientist interested in purging our background
>knowledge of falsity. In this regard modern secular scientists are
>NOT the same. Darwinism has long ceased being a scientific theory. Is
>has become dogma.
meaningless string of creationist cliches. hey tony, do something
original, OK? you've had your ass handed to you so many times you have
overdosed on it.
>
>Given the state of our current knowledge, particularly paleontology,
>cellular biology and genetics would Darwin still be a Darwinist?
>
those of us who are chemists certainly know he would
and those of us who are chemists know creationism is useless
bpuharic
<ap...@email.com> wrote:
>
>Ron, don't use the bible to make your points. You have zero
>understanding of what the bible is exactly about.
hhmmmm....seems you and he have something in common
John Harshman
> On Thu, 26 Nov 2009 10:01:22 -0800, John Harshman
> <jhar...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>
>> T Pagano wrote:
>
> snip
>
>
> Surfaced briefly? Harshman is a tad confused....yet again. I've made
> 18 posts since 22 November.
Yes, and you never stick with a thread long enough to be pinned down.
> And Harshman alone (for at least the last 18 months) has the means at
> his disposal to cause me to stay afloat where ever he thinks I ought
> to be. It is his wisdom which stays his hand lest I bury more of his
> brethren.
>
> BTW I should have finished answering all the direct responses to my
> transformational challenge by the end of the weekend. Things are
> looking like the claim of extensive evidence (or any evidence) of the
> transformational claims of neoDarwinism is yet another urban myth.
"La la la, I can't hear you" is shorter and snappier.
> Just as the atheist claim that creationists are anti science crumbled
> without a single substantiating quote.
>
> Just as the claim that creationists misuse Scripture as a science text
> crumbled without a single substantiating quote (Ray's quote has been
> taken out of context).
>
> NeoDarwinism as an explanation for biological diversity has been a
> corpse for 150 years. With its continuing decomposition there won't
> be much left to defend soon. I suggest that those in the
> evolutionary biology field seek other work.
That would be longer than NeoDarwinism has existed, so it would be a
good trick. The demise of evolution has been predicted continuously for
the past 150 years, though. Rather like predictions of the End Times.
> Regards,
> T Pagano
>
> BTW, I've always been at periscope depth ready to fire a full spread
> of torpedoes at any target Harshman desires. Harshman barks for his
> brethren but wisely avoids having me sink them. I knew Harshman was
> the smartest of the bunch.
If you weren't chickenshit, you'd stay on the surface and fight it out.
Lurking at periscope depth is a tactic of the weak. And trying to pass
responsibility for you surfacing (or not surfacing) is another tactic of
weakness. If you want to show your prowess, stick around and answer my
posts, past the first round.
Ilas
news:b532d3d7-606a-4a62...@v15g2000prn.googlegroups.com:
> Hey Einstein: Adman or "All Seeing" is an evolutionist----he accepts
> the MAIN claim of evolution (species mutability). No wonder he is
> incompetent. This means that you produced a screed against one of your
> own.
Good grief, he IS good. He's even got Ray wound up.
Ilas
news:krjtg59tf6hvr4d9v...@4ax.com:
> On Thu, 26 Nov 2009 08:50:25 GMT, Ilas <nob...@this.address.com>
> enriched this group when s/he wrote:
>
>>I can't believe he (or they) is still winding you all up. Got to admit,
>>he's good.
>
> Nah! He's nuts.
No, he's not. Really, he's not. Follow the trajectory of his posts from
when he arrived - it goes from your bog standard creationist idiocy to
"wow, I can say anything, no matter how loopy, and somebody will take me
seriously" in a remarkably short time.
I'm not saying he's not religious, I'm not even saying he's not a
creationist. For all I know, he may be an atheist, he may be a loki, he may
be a fundie, he may be just a troll, but what I do know is he doesn't
believe even half of what he posts. He just likes the attention, and he
certainly gets that.
Ernest Major
<16d773de-d4a9-4b24...@b36g2000prf.googlegroups.com>, Ray
Martinez <pyram...@yahoo.com> writes
If you define IC systems by the property of being unevolvable then you
are left with the problem of identifying them. No IC system under this
definition has been identified. Furthermore the whole idea of
irreducibly complexity becomes vacuous, boiling down to a claim that
unevolvable systems are unevolvable - you might as well avoid the
obfuscation and write unevolvable.
If you define IC systems (as Behe did) as systems which lose their
function when any part is removed then you have the glimmering of an
objective criterion by which IC systems can be identified. (There are
problems with non-arbitrarily defining system, part and function.)
Behe's problem is that his assertion that systems showing that property
cannot evolve is false - not only can IC systems evolve, but they were
predicted to arise by evolutionary processes long before Behe ever set
pen to paper.
>Misunderstanding of this magnitude concerning a 101 issue testifies
>that you are indeed a hall monitor who happens to have a doctorate
>degree.
You mean that we shouldn't have believed Tony when he told us that IC
systems were as per the 2nd definition.
>
>Ray
>
>SNIP....
>
--
alias Ernest Major
Ernest Major
<jhar...@pacbell.net> writes
>You suspect I'm not lying? Stop, you'll embarrass me with all this praise.
>
>> This is not to say that Harshman's belief about how biological novelty
>> arose and developed is correct. The evidence in a variety of sciences
>> has pointed to limits to change. Behe pointed this out with several
>> real examples in his latest book.
>
>I will note that Behe actually believes that all life is descended from
>a common ancestor. My difference with him is in the mechanism of
>mutation, no more. Once again you fail to understand the issues.
I've just come across a 2007 essay from the Panda's Thumb. The limits to
change seem to be far beyond where Pagano or Behe claim that they are.
http://pandasthumb.org/archives/2007/05/on-the-evolutio-1.html
--
alias Ernest Major
Ernest Major
Pagano <not....@address.net> writes
>
>Just as the atheist claim that creationists are anti science crumbled
>without a single substantiating quote.
>
yourself shortly afterwards. Your rejection of induction as a source of
knowledge makes you anti-science.
You've been pushing that form of epistemological nihilism for over a
decade, but for a more recent example (August 2008).
" However, no where does Rusty Sites remediate the long standing
"problem of induction" which says that observations we can make are in
no way connected to those we cannot make. The observations we can
make are not even connected to the probability of occurrence of those
we cannot make. In theories about Origins where most observations
concerning PREhistory can't be made places serious limitations of the
efficacy of the scientific method. "
--
alias Ernest Major
Erwin Moller
> I can't believe he (or they) is still winding you all up. Got to admit,
> he's good.
>
The best!
Erwin Moller
--
"There are two ways of constructing a software design: One way is to
make it so simple that there are obviously no deficiencies, and the
other way is to make it so complicated that there are no obvious
deficiencies. The first method is far more difficult."
-- C.A.R. Hoare
Frank J
> On Nov 26, 10:01 am, John Harshman <jharsh...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > T Pagano wrote:
> > > Harshman the Hall Monitor is working out to be the smartest of these
> > > blind, zealously faithful atheists.
>
> > Gee, thanks. I keep asking how I got to be Hall Monitor and what exactly
> > that means to you, but you never reply.
>
> > > He generally makes an effort to get the creationist position (as
> > > presented) correctly. That is, he offers very few strawmen. And
> > > overall he is one of the few who actually thinks for himself and
> > > presents the "best" the evolutionist position has to offer. While I
> > > suspect he actually believes what he offers he rarely over-sells it.
>
>
> > > This is not to say that Harshman's belief about how biological novelty
> > > arose and developed is correct. The evidence in a variety of sciences
> > > has pointed to limits to change. Behe pointed this out with several
> > > real examples in his latest book.
>
> > I will note that Behe actually believes that all life is descended from
> > a common ancestor. My difference with him is in the mechanism of
> > mutation, no more. Once again you fail to understand the issues.
>
> then pointed out that the whole point of IC systems is unevolvability.
You really should leave it to those who concede that "microevolution"
occurs to make that assertion. Any trace of doubt that evolution-
deniers are simply defining "evolution" to suit the argument - and
changing it when necessary - is removed by your unique definition.
> You should have been arguing that IC systems do not exist.
IDers can't even agree on a definition of IC. But I have to admit
that, intentionally or not, they came up with a brilliant word game.
In the early days critics were divided between "it's not IC" and "it's
IC but it evolved."
Whatever you call it, mainstream science has come up with *testable*
explanations. They do not, nor will they likely ever have, an atom-by-
atom account of the formation of the first "IC system" or even "how
this 'IC' system arose from this other 'IC' system," but they have
*something* and it *works.*
In stark contrast, anti-evolution arguments keep *retreating*. Your
buddy Behe conceded from the beginning that humans *descended* from
other species, but at least suggested that they didn't "evolve" from
them (whatever that means). Now (after "Edge") he seems to be
backpedaling from even that.
Oh, well at least the malaria parasite is still a candidate for
"created in God'd image." ;-)
> Misunderstanding of this magnitude concerning a 101 issue testifies
> that you are indeed a hall monitor who happens to have a doctorate
> degree.
>
> Ray
>
> SNIP....- Hide quoted text -
Dana Tweedy
> On Nov 26, 10:01 am, John Harshman <jharsh...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>> T Pagano wrote:
>>> Harshman the Hall Monitor is working out to be the smartest of these
>>> blind, zealously faithful atheists.
>>
>> Gee, thanks. I keep asking how I got to be Hall Monitor and what
>> exactly that means to you, but you never reply.
>>
>>> He generally makes an effort to get the creationist position (as
>>> presented) correctly. That is, he offers very few strawmen. And
>>> overall he is one of the few who actually thinks for himself and
>>> presents the "best" the evolutionist position has to offer. While I
>>> suspect he actually believes what he offers he rarely over-sells it.
>>
>> You suspect I'm not lying? Stop, you'll embarrass me with all this
>> praise.
>>
>>> This is not to say that Harshman's belief about how biological
>>> novelty arose and developed is correct. The evidence in a variety
>>> of sciences has pointed to limits to change. Behe pointed this out
>>> with several real examples in his latest book.
>>
>> I will note that Behe actually believes that all life is descended
>> from
>> a common ancestor. My difference with him is in the mechanism of
>> mutation, no more. Once again you fail to understand the issues.
>>
>
> Just recently you attempted to explicate how IC systems evolve. We
> then pointed out that the whole point of IC systems is unevolvability.
Which just shows how wrong you are, Ray. IC systems can evolve.
> You should have been arguing that IC systems do not exist.
Why? I doesn't matter to evolution if they do, or don't exist, as they can
evolve.
> Misunderstanding of this magnitude concerning a 101 issue testifies
> that you are indeed a hall monitor who happens to have a doctorate
> degree.
Again, Ray, you are the one who is wrong. Why should that affect John's
position?
DJT
Dana Tweedy
> On Nov 26, 2:27 pm, Burkhard <b.scha...@ed.ac.uk> wrote:
snip
>> As always when you use the expression "101 issue", you misunderstood
>> the idea. Behe's definition is clear, unevolvability is not part of
>> the definition, it is a property he claims (wrongly) that these
>> systems have.
>>
>>> Ray
>>
>>> SNIP....
>
> You have been told that the main claim made in behalf of IC systems is
> unevolvability.
And you have been shown that this "main claim" of yours is wrong.
>This is why Black Box creates and created a furor. The
> only choice for the Darwinist is to show that IC systems do not exist.
Yet they can evolve, as has been shown. Why do you keep ignoring this
fact?
> If IC systems can evolve then IC systems do not exist.
Doesn't follow, Ray. "Irreducibly Complex" does not mean "unevolvable", no
matter what you imagine.
>Since you have
> chosen to ignore the basic fact of the matter the same shows the
> degree of dishonesty in your game.
Once more you need to be reminded that just because you have a belief, it
doesn't make it a "basic fact". The real fact is that "IC" systems can
evolve, which means that Behe's claims are irrelevant.
DJT
Dana Tweedy
> On Nov 26, 3:06 pm, "Mike Lyle" <mike_lyle...@REMOVETHISyahoo.co.uk>
> wrote:
>> Ray Martinez wrote:
>>
>> [...John Harshman...]> Misunderstanding of this magnitude concerning
>> a 101 issue testifies
>>> that you are indeed a hall monitor who happens to have a doctorate
>>> degree.
>>
>> OK, since these things obviously matter to you, what is your
>> occupation
>> and what are your degrees? You must presumably have some standing to
>> make supercilious remarks about "101 issues".
>>
>> --
>> Mike.
>
> The point is: having a degree should guarantee understanding of 101
> issues.
Have you considered that maybe you don't know what a "101" issue is, in
evolutionary biology? Your assessment of what issues are "101" is wrong
here, and is invaribly wrong whenever you make such a claim.
> I have no degree. Dr. John Harshman does not understand the
> main basic claim of Behe ICism.
Again, how do you know it's not you who is wrong here? Dr. Harshman
undoubtedly understands the issue better than you do, and your own
intellectual and religious blinders render your assessments suspect.
>Nothing can change the fact that I
> exposed his ignorance concerning a basic 101 issue: IC claims
> unevolvability.
No one but you, however makes that claim. Behe may have wanted to
establish that, but it was quickly shown he was wrong. IC systems can
evolve.
>The only issue is existence of phenomena, not
> evolvability. Since his ego will not ever allow him to admit we all
> now must endure his endless excuses, obfuscations, denials and face
> saving attempts.
I would suggest that it's not John who won't admit being wrong. You, Ray,
have made a mistake. You've made the claim that IC systems can't evolve,
and you can't support that claim. You simply repeat it as if it were
established, and chide others for not "knowing" something that is absolutely
false.
DJT
Dana Tweedy
> On Nov 26, 7:02 am, Ron O <rokim...@cox.net> wrote:
snip
> Hey Einstein: Adman or "All Seeing" is an evolutionist----he accepts
> the MAIN claim of evolution (species mutability).
By that token, all "creationists" are "evolutionists. That species are
changable is a moot point. It's been established long before Darwin ever
published.
> No wonder he is
> incompetent. This means that you produced a screed against one of your
> own.
No, Addy is anti-science, just like you are.
>
> Take a nap, Ron. There is always tomorrow.
And you'll lose tomorrow too, Ray.
DJT
Frank J
> On Thu, 26 Nov 2009 07:22:52 -0800 (PST), All-Seeing-I
>
>
>
>
>
> <allseei...@usa.com> wrote:
> >> On Nov 26, 2:50 am, Ilas <nob...@this.address.com> wrote:
>
> >> > he's good.
>
> >> enough to keep putting up the anti-evolution claptrap the posting on
> >> TO would be cut at least in half, likely more. He is serious in his
> >> own way and a troubled individual that can't put 2 and 2 together to
> >http://www.realstraightjackets.com/
>
> What is more scary is that Okimoto----who is capable of little beyond
> ad hominem nonsense----is teaching grad students. Me thinks Okimoto
> is the pot calling the kettle...
>
> blind, zealously faithful atheists.
>
> presented) correctly. That is, he offers very few strawmen. And
> overall he is one of the few who actually thinks for himself and
> presents the "best" the evolutionist position has to offer. While I
> suspect he actually believes what he offers he rarely over-sells it.
> arose and developed is correct. The evidence in a variety of sciences
> has pointed to limits to change. Behe pointed this out with several
> real examples in his latest book.
Behe accepts common descent. Do you? Or will you pander to any
pseudoscientist who whines about "Darwinism"?
>
> Darwin in his own right was an advocate of his position, but he was
> also honest about the shortfalls of his magnum opus. He knew what
> would rightly knock his theory from our background knowledge; that
> made him a genuine scientist interested in purging our background
> knowledge of falsity. In this regard modern secular scientists are
> NOT the same. Darwinism has long ceased being a scientific theory. Is
> has become dogma.
>
> Given the state of our current knowledge, particularly paleontology,
> cellular biology and genetics would Darwin still be a Darwinist?
Darwin was never a "Darwinist" in the sense you mean, and would surely
object to using the word in any sense.
But you still keep changing the subject line to some cheap shot, which
says more about you than about Darwin, Ron, John, and even [M]adman.
>
> Regards,
> T Pagano- Hide quoted text -
Mike Lyle
> On Nov 26, 3:06 pm, "Mike Lyle" <mike_lyle...@REMOVETHISyahoo.co.uk>
> wrote:
>> Ray Martinez wrote:
>>
>> [...John Harshman...]> Misunderstanding of this magnitude concerning
>> a 101 issue testifies
>>> that you are indeed a hall monitor who happens to have a doctorate
>>> degree.
>>
>> OK, since these things obviously matter to you, what is your
>> occupation
>> and what are your degrees? You must presumably have some standing to
>> make supercilious remarks about "101 issues".
>>
>> --
>> Mike.
>
> The point is: having a degree should guarantee understanding of 101
> main basic claim of Behe ICism. Nothing can change the fact that I
> exposed his ignorance concerning a basic 101 issue: IC claims
> evolvability. Since his ego will not ever allow him to admit we all
> now must endure his endless excuses, obfuscations, denials and face
> saving attempts.
>
Perhaps a few "101" courses would have helped you.
--
Mike.
Mitchell Coffey
> On Nov 26, 9:43 am, Ron O <rokim...@cox.net> wrote:
>
> > So adman, have you come to grips with the kind of fruit that you are
> > and what that means by your own Biblical interpretation? Just think
> > of what it means when people think that you are faking?
>
> > Ron Okimoto- Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -
>
> understanding of what the bible is exactly about.
Do you deny claiming that ancient Hebrews had no real religion? Do
you deny that your understanding causes you to claim that the Jews
killed Christ?
Free Lunch
in talk.origins:
Ray has the advantage in knowing that he is the only person on earth who
understands biology and God perfectly. I think that only Ed ever came
close to this level of otherly sane,
macaddicted
> BTW, I've always been at periscope depth ready to fire a full spread
> of torpedoes at any target Harshman desires. Harshman barks for his
> brethren but wisely avoids having me sink them. I knew Harshman was
> the smartest of the bunch.
Sadly, as always, Pags has the safeties off the and the torpedoes loaded
backwards.
--
macaddicted
Wisdom is radiant and unfading and she is easily discerned
by those who love her and is found by those who seek her.
Wisdom 6:12 (NRSV)
Bob Casanova
in talk.origins, posted by T Pagano <not....@address.net>:
>Surfaced briefly?
Yes, and as usual acting like a spoiled child.
--
Bob C.
"Evidence confirming an observation is
evidence that the observation is wrong."
- McNameless
Bob Casanova
in talk.origins, posted by Free Lunch
<lu...@nofreelunch.us>:
"Otherly sane"...I like that! How about "differently
ensanitied"? ;-)
T Pagano
<jhar...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>T Pagano wrote:
>
>> Harshman the Hall Monitor is working out to be the smartest of these
>> blind, zealously faithful atheists.
>
>Gee, thanks. I keep asking how I got to be Hall Monitor and what exactly
>that means to you, but you never reply.
snip
When ever I hammer (at least) Wilkins or Elsberry you apparently keep
them informed. Or at least that was my perception.
And you tend on occasion to monitor and correct some of the worst
offending trolls on your side of the line.
That qualifies as a hall monitor. At least that moniker is less
difficult to fathom than the "rollock."
Regards,
T Pagano
Ye Old One
enriched this group when s/he wrote:
>On Thu, 26 Nov 2009 10:01:22 -0800, John Harshman
><jhar...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>
>>T Pagano wrote:
>>
>>> Harshman the Hall Monitor is working out to be the smartest of these
>>> blind, zealously faithful atheists.
>>
>>Gee, thanks. I keep asking how I got to be Hall Monitor and what exactly
>>that means to you, but you never reply.
>
>snip
>
>When ever I hammer (at least) Wilkins or Elsberry
Never seen that happen, not once.
> you apparently keep
>them informed. Or at least that was my perception.
>
>And you tend on occasion to monitor and correct some of the worst
>offending trolls on your side of the line.
>
>That qualifies as a hall monitor. At least that moniker is less
>difficult to fathom than the "rollock."
>
>Regards,
>T Pagano
--
Bob.
You have not been charged for this lesson - learn from it rather than
continuing to make a fool of yourself.
Free Lunch
in talk.origins:
>On Fri, 27 Nov 2009 12:01:05 -0600, the following appeared
>in talk.origins, posted by Free Lunch
><lu...@nofreelunch.us>:
>
>>On Fri, 27 Nov 2009 08:34:23 GMT, Ilas <nob...@this.address.com> wrote
>>in talk.origins:
>>
>>>Ray Martinez <pyram...@yahoo.com> wrote in
>>>news:b532d3d7-606a-4a62...@v15g2000prn.googlegroups.com:
>>>
>>>> Hey Einstein: Adman or "All Seeing" is an evolutionist----he accepts
>>>> the MAIN claim of evolution (species mutability). No wonder he is
>>>> incompetent. This means that you produced a screed against one of your
>>>> own.
>>>
>>>Good grief, he IS good. He's even got Ray wound up.
>>
>>Ray has the advantage in knowing that he is the only person on earth who
>>understands biology and God perfectly. I think that only Ed ever came
>>close to this level of otherly sane,
>
>"Otherly sane"...I like that! How about "differently
>ensanitied"? ;-)
Very nice, particularly when you pronounce it.
Mitchell Coffey
> On Thu, 26 Nov 2009 10:01:22 -0800, John Harshman
>
> >T Pagano wrote:
>
> >> Harshman the Hall Monitor is working out to be the smartest of these
> >> blind, zealously faithful atheists.
>
> >Gee, thanks. I keep asking how I got to be Hall Monitor and what exactly
> >that means to you, but you never reply.
>
> snip
>
[snip]
As in the (at least) two times you hammered Wilkins by claiming the
fact that Wilkins did not believe Hume had been an atheist was
evidence of Wilkins incompetence as a philosopher? As in the (at
least) two times you hammered Wilkins by claiming David Hume was still
alive? Or as in the numerous times you've refused to defend your
constant, fundamental assertion about Hume's opinion of inductive
reasoning, by posting actual, relevant quotes from Hume? Or are these
not counted in the times you hammered Wilkins, and your claim applies
to other instances?
Mitchell Coffey
Free Lunch
talk.origins:
>On Fri, 27 Nov 2009 16:52:34 -0500, T Pagano <not....@address.net>
>enriched this group when s/he wrote:
>
>>On Thu, 26 Nov 2009 10:01:22 -0800, John Harshman
>><jhar...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>>
>>>T Pagano wrote:
>>>
>>>> Harshman the Hall Monitor is working out to be the smartest of these
>>>> blind, zealously faithful atheists.
>>>
>>>Gee, thanks. I keep asking how I got to be Hall Monitor and what exactly
>>>that means to you, but you never reply.
>>
>>snip
>>
>>When ever I hammer (at least) Wilkins or Elsberry
>
>Never seen that happen, not once.
He probably meant "When ever I make a silly claim that persuades me that
I hammered (target) even though everyone in the froup is laughing at me
for being so silly."
Ye Old One
enriched this group when s/he wrote:
>On Fri, 27 Nov 2009 22:22:13 GMT, Ye Old One <use...@mcsuk.net> wrote in
>talk.origins:
>
>>On Fri, 27 Nov 2009 16:52:34 -0500, T Pagano <not....@address.net>
>>enriched this group when s/he wrote:
>>
>>>On Thu, 26 Nov 2009 10:01:22 -0800, John Harshman
>>><jhar...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>>T Pagano wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Harshman the Hall Monitor is working out to be the smartest of these
>>>>> blind, zealously faithful atheists.
>>>>
>>>>Gee, thanks. I keep asking how I got to be Hall Monitor and what exactly
>>>>that means to you, but you never reply.
>>>
>>>snip
>>>
>>>When ever I hammer (at least) Wilkins or Elsberry
>>
>>Never seen that happen, not once.
>
>He probably meant "When ever I make a silly claim that persuades me that
>I hammered (target) even though everyone in the froup is laughing at me
>for being so silly."
Yes, that does indeed sound far more plausible.
--
Bob.
heekster
>On Thu, 26 Nov 2009 10:01:22 -0800, John Harshman
><jhar...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>
>>T Pagano wrote:
>>
>>> Harshman the Hall Monitor is working out to be the smartest of these
>>> blind, zealously faithful atheists.
>>
>>Gee, thanks. I keep asking how I got to be Hall Monitor and what exactly
>>that means to you, but you never reply.
>
>snip
>
>When ever I hammer (at least) Wilkins or Elsberry
That is like a boxer saying that he he beat the hell out of the other
guy's fists, with his face. How long exactly, have you been
delusional?
>you apparently keep
>them informed. Or at least that was my perception.
>
Your perceptions are distorted and inaccurate.
John Wilkins
Pagano <not....@address.net> wrote:
> On Thu, 26 Nov 2009 10:01:22 -0800, John Harshman
> <jhar...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>
> >T Pagano wrote:
> >
> >> Harshman the Hall Monitor is working out to be the smartest of these
> >> blind, zealously faithful atheists.
> >
> >Gee, thanks. I keep asking how I got to be Hall Monitor and what exactly
> >that means to you, but you never reply.
>
> snip
>
> When ever I hammer (at least) Wilkins or Elsberry you apparently keep
> them informed. Or at least that was my perception.
No, Tony, you aren't in my killfile yet... and John has never emailed
me about anything happening on the group that I can recall, not in 15
years.
Jim Lovejoy
John Harshman <jhar...@pacbell.net> wrote in news:jf6dnR1bFadc-
5LWRV...@giganews.com:
>> BTW I should have finished answering all the direct responses to my
>> transformational challenge by the end of the weekend. Things are
>> looking like the claim of extensive evidence (or any evidence) of the
>> transformational claims of neoDarwinism is yet another urban myth.
>
> "La la la, I can't hear you" is shorter and snappier.
As well as more honest, but we know how little weight *that* carries with
Pagano.
Eric Root
> On Thu, 26 Nov 2009 10:01:22 -0800, John Harshman
>
>
> Surfaced briefly? Harshman is a tad confused....yet again. I've made
> 18 posts since 22 November.
>
> And Harshman alone (for at least the last 18 months) has the means at
> his disposal to cause me to stay afloat where ever he thinks I ought
> to be. It is his wisdom which stays his hand lest I bury more of his
> brethren.
>
> BTW I should have finished answering all the direct responses to my
> transformational challenge by the end of the weekend. Things are
> looking like the claim of extensive evidence (or any evidence) of the
> transformational claims of neoDarwinism is yet another urban myth.
>
Really? You've read all the literaature and done relevant experiments
yourself?
It isn't honest to argue that there isn't evidnece for something just
because we don't like playing your games on the internet. You have to
go to the primary literature.
> Just as the atheist claim that creationists are anti science crumbled
> without a single substantiating quote.
>
Atheists aren't the only ones that consider creationists to be anti-
science. We normal, mainstream Christians, as well as many others,
also recognize that creationists are anti-science. We know this from
how you behave. Substantiating quotes is a childish game of quote-
mining, or proof-texting, if you will. But, since you want a quote,
here you go:
"Atheists aren't the only ones that consider creationists to be anti-
science. We normal, mainstream Christians, as well as many others,
also recognize that creationists are anti-science. We know this from
how you behave." -Eric Root
And you can quote me.
> Just as the claim that creationists misuse Scripture as a science text
> crumbled without a single substantiating quote (Ray's quote has been
> taken out of context).
>
It's still true. If you think the Bible overrides science, then that
is what we mean by it, and you are dishonest for pretending otherwise.
> NeoDarwinism as an explanation for biological diversity has been a
> corpse for 150 years. With its continuing decomposition there won't
> be much left to defend soon. I suggest that those in the
> evolutionary biology field seek other work.
Yeah, right, like tomorrow we are suddenly going to find out the world
is really flat. You are so full of bull.
>
> Regards,
> T Pagano
>
> BTW, I've always been at periscope depth ready to fire a full spread
> of torpedoes at any target Harshman desires. Harshman barks for his
> brethren but wisely avoids having me sink them. I knew Harshman was
> the smartest of the bunch.
Instead of all the hot air, why don't you actually make an argument
for whatever you believe? Or, even develop a shred of honesty, and
try to reply to the many times you've had your butt handed to you (for
instance, any time you've disagreed with one of us?)
Also, try to get control of all that obsessive whining about atheists.
Eric Root
John Harshman
> On Thu, 26 Nov 2009 10:01:22 -0800, John Harshman
> <jhar...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>
>> T Pagano wrote:
>>
>>> Harshman the Hall Monitor is working out to be the smartest of these
>>> blind, zealously faithful atheists.
>> Gee, thanks. I keep asking how I got to be Hall Monitor and what exactly
>> that means to you, but you never reply.
>
> snip
>
> When ever I hammer (at least) Wilkins or Elsberry you apparently keep
> them informed. Or at least that was my perception.
Your perception, as usual, is wrong. I have never informed either of
them, nor would I in the unlikely event that any such hammering ever
took place.
> And you tend on occasion to monitor and correct some of the worst
> offending trolls on your side of the line.
I've noticed that creationists seldom do this. Instead, they support one
another even if the post they're supporting is the most egregious
insanity. (The main exception is Ray, who occasionally criticizes other
creationists for being insufficiently pure.)
> That qualifies as a hall monitor. At least that moniker is less
> difficult to fathom than the "rollock."
So you intend it as a compliment? Who knew?
All-Seeing-I
> I can't believe he (or they) is still winding you all up. Got to admit,
> he's good.
You say the same crap every dew weeks. Why is that?
Ye Old One
Just because it is true does not make it crap.
--
Bob.
The truth is like ice water, it shocks you when it hits you, but no
one's ever died from it. Do yourself a favour and try it sometime.