Day 5: Okimoto has failed to prove that any single creationist or the whole class is anti science

[T Pagano]

Okimoto made a hot air claim that several creationists by name had
made his "anti science" list. He ingloriously listed links to posts
which he (apparently) thought representative of their indiscretions.
And he implied that every other creationist who failed to "sign on" to
the Clergy Letter was also anti science. As of yet this blow hard,
Okimoto, has yet to offer a single fact to prove that anyone is anti
science.

As with virtually every post he makes he produces no argument or facts
to support anything.




Regards,
T Pagano

[Frank J]

At least Ron considers you a "creationist," which I'm sure you agree
with.

Meanwhile Ray recently called you an "evolutionist." I look forward to
your 5+ days of threads demanding support of that.

[jillery]

On Sat, 11 Feb 2012 14:10:08 -0500, T Pagano <not....@address.net>
wrote:

Big YAWN.

[Ron O]

What is sad is that tomorrow Pags will declare victory and then run
away. He will not have addressed the issue that made him start this
challenge and he will have accomplished just as much as anyone else
that made the list that he is so upset about. He will have
accomplished nothing except to make himself look like a loser.

Hey Pags, are you going to address your foul up that made you start
this challenge or just use this stupid challenge to run?

http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/8f42854340c3e7ec?hl=en

It was just a stupid mistake on your part and you are blowing it up to
make yourself look like the IDiot that you are.

Why torture yourself for 7 days. Next time just make the challenge
for a couple of days then you wouldn't make yourself look like such a
loser for so many days. You could not do the count down and just
declare victory in 7 days or a month or a year. Just some helpful
suggestions for next time you want to make an ass of yourself.

Here is the thread that got Pags so upset that he had to start lying
about reality.
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/04a3b574e722a8f4?hl=en

My initial response to Pags bogus response.
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/592ef6a0efceeb31?hl=en

Pagano's fellows on the list are a diverse group of posters. Pags and
some others on the list what to pigeon hole the group so that they can
try to worm their way off the list. Anyone just has to read enough of
their posts to understand why they are on the list.

I just give anyone the opportunity to use Google, look up the poster's
Google profile and read as many of their posts as anyone can stand. I
do not tell anyone what posts to read, in fact, if I accidently pick
one of their posts that is really stupid I pick another so that I
can't be accused of foul play. This happened twice when I was looking
for posts for the current list (two different posters). I could pick
out their "greatest misses" and turn the thread into something
humorous, but it really is just so that I can use a few keywords and
my own name and pick up this list when I need to look up a past
poster. I have used it quite a lot in the past year trying to keep
track of all the lies that Nyikos keeps going on about, but that is
due to Nyikos' interest in the list and the fact that I link back to
the bogus threads that he started in some previous lists. It is nice
to be able to easily find the thread pull up a post from last April
and demonstrate that Nyikos is lying again.

The list isn't even as nefarious as that. I wish that I had the list
when Philip Johnson, Julie, Karl Crawford, etc posted. Now you have
to wade through pages of junk to try to find any of their posts in a
search.

Ron Okimoto

[John Vreeland]

On Sat, 11 Feb 2012 20:48:40 -0500, jillery <69jp...@gmail.com>
wrote:

i had the impression that Pagano was avowedly anti-science. Maybe he
is using a different definition of the word "science."
--
Some aspects of life would be a lot easier if Creationists were required to carry warning signs. Fortunately, many of them already do.

[jillery]

On Mon, 13 Feb 2012 09:44:58 -0500, John Vreeland
<john.v...@ieee.org> wrote:

>On Sat, 11 Feb 2012 20:48:40 -0500, jillery <69jp...@gmail.com>
>wrote:
>
>>On Sat, 11 Feb 2012 14:10:08 -0500, T Pagano <not....@address.net>
>>wrote:
>>
>>>Okimoto made a hot air claim that several creationists by name had
>>>made his "anti science" list. He ingloriously listed links to posts
>>>which he (apparently) thought representative of their indiscretions.
>>>And he implied that every other creationist who failed to "sign on" to
>>>the Clergy Letter was also anti science. As of yet this blow hard,
>>>Okimoto, has yet to offer a single fact to prove that anyone is anti
>>>science.
>>>
>>>As with virtually every post he makes he produces no argument or facts
>>>to support anything.
>>
>>
>>Big YAWN.
>
>i had the impression that Pagano was avowedly anti-science. Maybe he
>is using a different definition of the word "science."

That's a common dodge. My impression is most people who spout
anti-science rhetoric get very upset when they are told they are
anti-science. Their defense is they do believe in science, just not
the kind Darwinists believe in. Sound familiar?