By their fruits, May 2011
Ron O
on TO. It hasn't gotten any better. It has been going down hill if
anyone can believe that. Probably a third or more of the posts can be
attributed as responses to Pagano's geocentric nonsense. In an age
where we have launched space probes to the most distant planets we are
arguing about a fixed earth with a sun and the rest of the universe
going around it. I should note that Pagano is also one of the few
remaining IDiot supporters of the current creationist intelligent
design scam. No, you can't make this junk up I think that the only
other IDiots left are Kalkidas and Nyikos. It takes a special person
to continue to support a bunch of scam artists that have been running
the bait and switch scam on their own creationist support base for the
last 9 years. All that any IDiot has ever gotten out of the ID perps
to teach in the public schools is a switch scam that doesn't even
mention that ID ever existed. The only IDiots left are the ignorant,
incompetent and or dishonest. There are no other types left that
would support such a bogus scam, and that reality is reflected in
their posts.
Past thread with links to others of the group:
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/19bb6bdc0156e61b?hl=en
I have to note that these are a select group of posters. They are the
only ones left that still make the effort to defend the claptrap that
they have been fed. It does take a special kind of person to
constantly debase themselves as the anti-science regulars have to do.
You can use Google to view their profiles and get more of their
posts. For the most part I haven't selected any posts for specific
reasons (except for Nyikos). I just take the first ones that I
encounter scrolling throiugh TO, so if you want to get the full effect
you will likely have to use Google. If I have miss anyone that has
posted in the last couple of weeks tack them on.
Albert Tatlock a Jack Mckiney disciple
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/68872dc047e00544?hl=en
Suzanne:
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/676b4131e84f1488?hl=en
Iaoua iaoua:
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/f6e58dcb615bf705?hl=en
Pagano:
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/8c9a2de2bf604bf0?hl=en
Ray:
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/93b4dfedcfbc0cc6?hl=en
Glenn:
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/71767f5169d228a3?hl=en
Kalkidas:
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/e1c6baaf25934ba1?hl=en
Backspace:
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/a8b4d7f2632bf7ad?hl=en
Biblearcheology: post and run
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/35c463f5888d98fe?hl=en
Another anti evolution guy claiming to have a PhD: Alan Kleinman MD
PhD
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/b1a78beef1cd8c76?hl=en
Don Winslow? Can’t tell:
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/36451cdd63888590?hl=en
Dan Watts?:
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/335072f0e2b97246?hl=en
Bv:
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/9d98629b8373ca8f?hl=en
John falsename:
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/browse_frm/thread/638d3f824976ea2d?hl=en#
Kasimgul:
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/5bb7f72d994b3dcb?hl=en
Nyikos is a special case (I am mainly concerned with his discussions
with me so take that for whatever it is worth). He was a regular
poster in the 1990s, but he took a long break from TO. By his own
admission he hadn't posted to TO since 2001. He came back in December
and immediately put his foot in the intelligent design scam. Nyikos
has tried just about every dirty trick in the book to deny that the
bait and switch has gone down on all the IDiots like himself. It is a
tragic form of denial that may be typical of any IDiots left. They
have to lie to themselves at this point. Kalkidas even put in his two
cents and all Kalk had previously manages was the misdirection ploy.
You can't make this junk up. I put up this case because it is
special. No other IDiot has tried to defend the bait and switch scam
currently going down on all the IDiot supporter of the current
intelligent design creationist scam. Pags, nor Kalk never tried. In
some respects Nyikos was just ignorant and incompetent enough to give
it a try, and he has shown himself to be dishonest to boot. An
example of all three of the attributes that any IDiot requires, at
least, one of to remain an IDiot. They have to be ignorant,
incompetent and or dishonest. When the bait and switch has been going
down for the last 9 years, there are no other types left. The ID
perps did not run the bait and switch scam on the science side, but
the bait and switch was run their own creationist supporters. What
type of supporters can they possibly have left?
The original thread that started the discussion. It may have been
Nyikos’ first return post.
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/browse_frm/thread/949b80db368cbdf6?hl=en#
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/847ce21086cefcc7?hl=en
Nyikos starts a thread to run a misdirection ploy:
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/9103f16d366f7d45?hl=en
Dirty debating tactics:
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/browse_frm/thread/1fa939f3bef59e44?hl=en#
Nyikos is into projection. He started razing me about participating
in this thread when I didn’t know it existed and claimed that I was
running from posts that were not even addressed to me. You can’t make
this up. A guy claiming dirty debating tactics that claims to be
debating me, but doesn’t bother to do it by responding to the posts in
question, but starts a new thread going into discussions behind the
other person’s back.
Pagano (as a fellow IDiot) gets into the act:
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/browse_frm/thread/159a1fb9abc58d9e?hl=en#
Scottish verdict:
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/browse_frm/thread/b5ff2d83215dd624?hl=en#
Scottish verdict re:
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/browse_frm/thread/3da12f4886717c1f?hl=en#
Nyikos can't give up on starting new threads. What is sad is that
I've told him that all he needs to do is get a friend to read this
pamphlet and the quote in question and tell him what it means, but he
hasn't seemed to have done the obvious. What is tragic is that before
the stupid denial Nyikos snipped this quote out several times and
either lied about it or ignored it and would not address it as
evidence that the ID perps were still claiming to have the ID science
to teach in the public schools. I just used it as evidence that the
bait and switch is still going down because all anyone ever gets from
the ID perps is the teach the controversy switch scam that doesn't
even mention ID as ever having existed. There is no doubt that they
ran the bait and switch on their own creationist support base in the
past. The fact that no IDiot rube ever got any ID science to teach
tells anyone that. Nyikos even started bringing up his academic
credentials to try to support his bogus dishonesty. That is really
sad. Zero means nothing to such a mathematician. Not a single
example of anyone that got the promised ID science to teach in the
public schools should tell a mathematician that the bait and switch
has been going down, but it isn't enough for Nyikos. The ID perps
have never denied claiming that the rubes could teach the nonexistent
science of ID in the public schools they have only claimed that they
never wanted the ID science to be "mandated" to be taught. This is
the same type of hairsplitting nonsense that Nyikos employs to lie
about reality. Nyikos has even stooped to blaming the IDiot rubes for
screwing up the ID scam. You can't make this junk up.
QUOTE:
Has ID Been Banned from Public Schools?
No. Science teachers have the right to teach science. Since ID is a
legitimate scientific theory, it should be constitutional to discuss
in
science classrooms and it should not be banned from schools. If a
science teacher wants to voluntarily discuss ID, she should have
the academic freedom to do so.
END QUOTE:
http://www.discovery.org/a/4299
Who can read this and not understand that the ID perps are claiming
that they have the ID science to teach in the pubilc schools? The
pamphlet was written by the guys that have been selling ID since the
1990s.
The obvious reason that the bait and switch had to go down on the
IDiot rubes is that there never was any ID science to teach. Even the
top level ID perps knew this to be a fact. Philip Johnson gave up on
the ID scam back in 2006 and hasn't supported it since (that I know
of). Johnson was probably the key person that got the ID scam rolling
in the early 1990s (they call it the ID movement), and he obviously
knew that they had nothing to teach. He didn't take any
responsibility for running the ID scam for a decade, he just pointed
the finger at the science ID perps as never having come up with the
science worth teaching.
Philip Johnson giving up on the ID scam:
QUOTE:
I also don’t think that there is really a theory of intelligent
design
at the present time to propose as a comparable alternative to the
Darwinian theory, which is, whatever errors it might contain, a fully
worked out scheme. There is no intelligent design theory that’s
comparable. Working out a positive theory is the job of the
scientific
people that we have affiliated with the movement. Some of them are
quite convinced that it’s doable, but that’s for them to prove…No
product is ready for competition in the educational world.
END QUOTE:
http://sciencereview.berkeley.edu/articles.php?issue=10&article=evolution
Ron Okimoto
Frank J
> I am sort of late for another compilation of the anti-science faction
> on TO. It hasn't gotten any better. It has been going down hill if
> anyone can believe that. Probably a third or more of the posts can be
> attributed as responses to Pagano's geocentric nonsense. In an age
> where we have launched space probes to the most distant planets we are
> arguing about a fixed earth with a sun and the rest of the universe
> going around it. I should note that Pagano is also one of the few
> remaining IDiot supporters of the current creationist intelligent
> design scam. No, you can't make this junk up I think that the only
> other IDiots left are Kalkidas and Nyikos.
I guess you're not including Ray, because has criticized the DI's
scam. Though he rarely initiates any convesation about them (nor do
many besides me who reply to him). He seems to want it both ways with
the DI, whereas the other TO regular evolution-deniers either embrace
them or preten they don't exist.
> It takes a special person
> to continue to support a bunch of scam artists that have been running
> the bait and switch scam on their own creationist support base for the
> last 9 years. All that any IDiot has ever gotten out of the ID perps
> to teach in the public schools is a switch scam that doesn't even
> mention that ID ever existed. The only IDiots left are the ignorant,
> incompetent and or dishonest. There are no other types left that
> would support such a bogus scam, and that reality is reflected in
> their posts.
>
> Past thread with links to others of the group:http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/19bb6bdc0156e61b?hl=en
>
> I have to note that these are a select group of posters. They are the
> only ones left that still make the effort to defend the claptrap that
> they have been fed. It does take a special kind of person to
> constantly debase themselves as the anti-science regulars have to do.
> You can use Google to view their profiles and get more of their
> posts. For the most part I haven't selected any posts for specific
> reasons (except for Nyikos). I just take the first ones that I
> encounter scrolling throiugh TO, so if you want to get the full effect
> you will likely have to use Google. If I have miss anyone that has
> posted in the last couple of weeks tack them on.
"Anthony022071" whose main thread is "Against the theory of
evolution". He is a classic evader of my questions about his "theory."
preferring to troll for others better at taking his bait (answering
PRATTs).
>
> Albert Tatlock a Jack Mckiney disciplehttp://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/68872dc047e00544?hl=en
>
> Suzanne:http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/676b4131e84f1488?hl=en
>
> Iaoua iaoua:http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/f6e58dcb615bf705?hl=en
>
> Pagano:http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/8c9a2de2bf604bf0?hl=en
>
> Ray:http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/93b4dfedcfbc0cc6?hl=en
>
> Glenn:http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/71767f5169d228a3?hl=en
>
> Kalkidas:http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/e1c6baaf25934ba1?hl=en
>
> Backspace:http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/a8b4d7f2632bf7ad?hl=en
>
> Biblearcheology: post and runhttp://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/35c463f5888d98fe?hl=en
>
> Another anti evolution guy claiming to have a PhD: Alan Kleinman MD
> PhDhttp://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/b1a78beef1cd8c76?hl=en
>
> Don Winslow? Can’t tell:http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/36451cdd63888590?hl=en
>
> Dan Watts?:http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/335072f0e2b97246?hl=en
>
> Bv:http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/9d98629b8373ca8f?hl=en
>
> John falsename:http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/browse_frm/thread/638d3f8...
> Nyikos’ first return post.http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/browse_frm/thread/949b80d...http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/847ce21086cefcc7?hl=en
>
> Nyikos starts a thread to run a misdirection ploy:http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/9103f16d366f7d45?hl=en
>
> Dirty debating tactics:http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/browse_frm/thread/1fa939f...
>
> Nyikos is into projection. He started razing me about participating
> in this thread when I didn’t know it existed and claimed that I was
> running from posts that were not even addressed to me. You can’t make
> this up. A guy claiming dirty debating tactics that claims to be
> debating me, but doesn’t bother to do it by responding to the posts in
> question, but starts a new thread going into discussions behind the
> other person’s back.
>
> Pagano (as a fellow IDiot) gets into the act:http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/browse_frm/thread/159a1fb...
>
> Scottish verdict:http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/browse_frm/thread/b5ff2d8...
>
> Scottish verdict re:http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/browse_frm/thread/3da12f4...
> http://sciencereview.berkeley.edu/articles.php?issue=10&article=evolu...
>
> Ron Okimoto
Ron O
I have Ray on the list. I just didn't mention that he considers
himself to be the only creationist posting on TO and the only real
Christian. I missed Anthony.
Ron Okimoto
Steven L.
"Ron O" wrote in message
news:9b38e3b2-4597-4cad...@dr5g2000vbb.googlegroups.com...
> I am sort of late for another compilation of the anti-science faction
> on TO. It hasn't gotten any better. It has been going down hill if
> anyone can believe that. Probably a third or more of the posts can be
> attributed as responses to Pagano's geocentric nonsense. In an age
> where we have launched space probes to the most distant planets we are
> arguing about a fixed earth with a sun and the rest of the universe
> going around it.
The way this NG is going,
I expect that in 2012 we're going to be debating flat-earthers.
http://theflatearthsociety.org/cms/
-- Steven L.
Frank J
Sorry, I can't resist a sneak preview. ;-)
Boikat
I'm sure Paggy can justify a flat earth in his mind, somehow, and from
his unique frame of reference.
Boikat
Ron O
We could go backwards. Apparently modern flat earth creationism had a
resurgence when the Origin of Species was published. It was one
response to the exposure to the concept of biological evolution.
These types had already taken a big hit from modern science when the
earth was found to not be the center of the universe, and its travels
through space could be described by Newton with understandable natural
laws. They apparently decided to deny reality and go what the Bible
told them. There is a hierarchy of sciency creationism. Flat
earthers are at the bottom, geocentric and young earth creationists
are a little above the flat earthers, scientific creationists hold the
broad middle ground and the intelligent design scam artists currently
hold the top spot (the cover of the big tent). It should be telling
that the most "scientific" of the creationist apologists are the ones
that are currently running a stupid bait and switch scam on their own
creationist support base. They sell the science of intelligent
design, but only give the rubes a switch scam that doesn't even
mention that intelligent design ever existed. As I point out Nyikos
is an example of an IDiot follower of the guys that perpetrated the
intelligent design creationist scam. There is an obvious disconnect
between what the ID perps sold the rubes and what real science is, but
the guys competent enough to understand that reality have to lie to
themselves about it. Ignorance of this fact is about the only
legitimate excuse any IDiot has. None of them want to be labeled
incompetent and or dishonest. As Nyikos illustrates they will pull
every dishonest trick in the book to try to lie their way out of that
reality.
As I have mentioned in previoius threads with this title, the reason
to list the anti-science creationist posters is to allow anyone to
evaluate them. I recall how adman reacted when he realized what the
title meant. This was the Bible talking to him and he understood what
kind of fruit he was. These are the fruit of the anti-science
creationist movement. Nyikos and Pagano are the fruit of the
intelligent design movement. What should that tell anyone with a
brain?
By their fruit you will recognize them. Do people pick grapes from
thornbushes, or figs from thistles?
http://bible.cc/matthew/7-16.htm
There are religious alternatives. Not all creationists are like the
ones we have posting on the anti-science side of the issue. It isn't
all bad. We do get black berries from thorn bushes and thistles may
be weeds in your field, but they feed a lot of birds.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clergy_Letter_Project
Ron Okimoto
Ron O
>
> Suzanne:http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/676b4131e84f1488?hl=en
>
> Iaoua iaoua:http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/f6e58dcb615bf705?hl=en
>
> Pagano:http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/8c9a2de2bf604bf0?hl=en
>
> Ray:http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/93b4dfedcfbc0cc6?hl=en
>
> Glenn:http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/71767f5169d228a3?hl=en
>
> Kalkidas:http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/e1c6baaf25934ba1?hl=en
>
> Backspace:http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/a8b4d7f2632bf7ad?hl=en
>
>
> Another anti evolution guy claiming to have a PhD: Alan Kleinman MD
>
> Don Winslow? Can’t tell:http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/36451cdd63888590?hl=en
>
> Dan Watts?:http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/335072f0e2b97246?hl=en
>
> Bv:http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/9d98629b8373ca8f?hl=en
>
>
> Nyikos starts a thread to run a misdirection ploy:http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/9103f16d366f7d45?hl=en
>
>
> Nyikos is into projection. He started razing me about participating
> in this thread when I didn’t know it existed and claimed that I was
> running from posts that were not even addressed to me. You can’t make
> this up. A guy claiming dirty debating tactics that claims to be
> debating me, but doesn’t bother to do it by responding to the posts in
> question, but starts a new thread going into discussions behind the
> other person’s back.
>
>
> Scottish verdict:http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/browse_frm/thread/b5ff2d8...
>
> Scottish verdict re:http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/browse_frm/thread/3da12f4...
>
>
> Ron Okimoto
I left out NashT:
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/a24ae8dd7740d114?hl=en
Ron Okimoto
Frank J
(snip)
> There is a hierarchy of sciency creationism. Flat
> earthers are at the bottom, geocentric and young earth creationists
> are a little above the flat earthers, scientific creationists hold the
> broad middle ground and the intelligent design scam artists currently
> hold the top spot (the cover of the big tent).
You might recall the original NCSE version of the "creation-evolution
continuum" which had it in that order, with ID "highest," and just
under theistic evolution. That was not long after "Darwin's Black
Box," where Behe appeared to represent an "official" ID position. That
it conceded old life and common descent made it logical to put it
closest to TE. Albeit with a hard line dividing them that is
essentially the boundary between science and pseudoscience.
Although no major IDer ever challenged Behe directly, and his position
remains the only one so detailed by the DI, their insistence in
avoiding any criticism of traditional OEC, oe even YEC, geocentrism,
etc., earned their status as a "big tent" scam. So the updated NCSE
"continuum" has ID *overlapping* the traditional creationist positions
instead of "closer to science."
I would take it even further. Because OEC, YEC, and even flat-earthism
make testable claims about *their* "theory" they are in that sense
closer to science than ID, though still solidly in pseudoscience
territory. There are also the honesty and integrity factors which
further demote ID with respect to traditional creationism.
ID is not "creationism lite," it's "pseudoscience xtreme."
> It should be telling
> that the most "scientific" of the creationist apologists are the ones
> that are currently running a stupid bait and switch scam on their own
> creationist support base. They sell the science of intelligent
> design, but only give the rubes a switch scam that doesn't even
> mention that intelligent design ever existed. As I point out Nyikos
> is an example of an IDiot follower of the guys that perpetrated the
> intelligent design creationist scam. There is an obvious disconnect
> between what the ID perps sold the rubes and what real science is, but
> the guys competent enough to understand that reality have to lie to
> themselves about it. Ignorance of this fact is about the only
> legitimate excuse any IDiot has. None of them want to be labeled
> incompetent and or dishonest. As Nyikos illustrates they will pull
> every dishonest trick in the book to try to lie their way out of that
> reality.
>
> As I have mentioned in previoius threads with this title, the reason
> to list the anti-science creationist posters is to allow anyone to
> evaluate them. I recall how adman reacted when he realized what the
> title meant. This was the Bible talking to him and he understood what
> kind of fruit he was. These are the fruit of the anti-science
> creationist movement. Nyikos and Pagano are the fruit of the
> intelligent design movement. What should that tell anyone with a
> brain?
>
> By their fruit you will recognize them. Do people pick grapes from
> thornbushes, or figs from thistles?http://bible.cc/matthew/7-16.htm
>
> There are religious alternatives. Not all creationists are like the
> ones we have posting on the anti-science side of the issue. It isn't
> all bad. We do get black berries from thorn bushes and thistles may
> be weeds in your field, but they feed a lot of birds.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clergy_Letter_Project
>
> Ron Okimoto- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Ron O
My order was how the creationists see the hierarchy, not the ones that
are closer to science.
The YEC, flat earth, geocentric view (the whole boat) is the most
scientific in the sense that it produces the most scientifically
testable hypotheses and, can be tested, but about the least scientific
in the sense that it has been tested and found to be untenable. ID is
nothing but untestable hypotheses at this time. The ID perps pretty
much keep it that way on purpose.
Ron Okimoto
pnyikos
> Nyikos is a special case (I am mainly concerned with his discussions
> with me so take that for whatever it is worth).
In fact, you've ignored the huge number of posts I've done on directed
panspermy and the ID hypotheses that go along with them. You are so
madly in love with the baseless notion of yours that a bait and switch
by DI has "gone down on" me that you are living by the motto, "My mind
is made up, don't confuse me with the facts."
Or is it more like, "I am Okimoto the Almighty, the facts are ALL on
my side, and I don't need to look at any other posts by Nyikos."?
Anyway, I do find it a bit strange that you would complain about me
not sticking to one thread with you and then start a thread like this
with me as one of the main attractions. But let that pass...
> He was a regular
> poster in the 1990s, but he took a long break from TO. By his own
> admission he hadn't posted to TO since 2001.
Bizarre use of the word "admission". Is English your second language?
> He came back in December
> and immediately put his foot in the intelligent design scam. Nyikos
> has tried just about every dirty trick in the book to deny that the
> bait and switch has gone down on all the IDiots like himself.
"Dirty trick" number one: I kept on asking you what the bait was, and
what the switch was.
"Dirty trick" number two: as you kept beating around the bush, I
finally tried, out of sheer frustration, to guess what they might be:
__________________ begin excerpt from reply to you
I have to obey your orders to hurry up and defend a "bait and switch"
that you haven't even described in detail
> Why keep running. You wanted proof that the Discovery Institute was
> involved. I gave it to you. Then you claimed that you didn't believe
> what I said about Ohio and I gave you the evidence that what I claimed
> was true. Then you started on about it isn't the bait and switch
> unless the ID perps were running both scams at the same time. I gave
> you evidence that they are still using the bogus ID junk as bait
The words "bogus" and "junk" are your cowardly shorthand for an
explicit description.
Judging from the way you moved the goalposts wrt the challenge by
Martinez, if you are ever backed into a corner and forced to describe
it, it will probably go something like this:
"DI perps say that they don't take a stand on who or what the
designer of this or that might be, but they will not rule out a divine
designer. That is the bait. Then, when fundies like those in Dover
or in Ohio start preaching that the designer is divine, and DI
officials are called in to testify on the matter, they switch to
saying something they've been saying since 2003: that though they
don't claim that the designer is divine, it is worthwhile to teach
about the controversy."
Did I get it right?
==================== end of excerpt from
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/2f9dda8074fee234
You couldn't even comprehend that I was giving my best guess as to
what the bait was, and what the switch was:
_______________________begin excerpt from your reply
> they switch to
> saying something they've been saying since 2003: that though they
> don't claim that the designer is divine, it is worthwhile to teach
> about the controversy."
Beats me where did you get this from. It looks like you just made it
up. Why the quote marks?
Blaming the victims is vile. The sad fact is that the ID perps depend
on their supporters to be either ignorant and or incompetent, or
dishonest enough to do what they want anyway. That is just the plain
and simple truth. Blaming the rubes for being exactly what the ID
scam requires is just stupid.
> Did I get it right?
You did if you said it while looking in the mirror and noted that you
are one of the rubes that you are blaming for screwing up the ID
scam.
================ end of excerpt from
"Dirty trick" number 3: in the latter half of April, having FINALLY
figured out what the *alleged* bait was (namely, the claim that the DI
had a scientific theory of ID in a form ready to teach at the public
school level), I started a thread devoted to the single theme of
whether you had ANY evidence besides a pathetic ripped-out-of-context
quote that never explicitly made any such claim.
You kept trying to confuse the issue and to distract readers by making
all kinds of defamatory accusations against me, but...
"Dirty trick" number 4: I kept deleting all your attempts to talk
about the switch, reminding you that without bait there can be no
switch, and all your defamatory accusations, and relentlessly pursued
the one issue of your evidence for the bait.
Your one quote came from a website that was composed AFTER the Dover
case, yet you claimed the bait and switch scam had been going on for
years before that, and your ONLY documentation for that was the lame
bleating that they wouldn't have had that one out-of-context statement
if they hadn't been guity of dangling that very bait!!!!!
> It is a
> tragic form of denial
For once in your life, look in the mirror and ask just WHO is in
denial about WHAT.
> that may be typical of any IDiots left. They
> have to lie to themselves at this point. Kalkidas even put in his two
> cents
yes..on that April thread.
>and all Kalk had previously manages was the misdirection ploy.
And you rambled on for one of your stultifying long paragraphs without
EVER explaining what he was allegedly misdirecting people from, or
what his misdirection consisted of.
> You can't make this junk up.
You are doing it all the time. Trouble is, you think your made up
junk is reality.
> I put up this case because it is
> special. No other IDiot has tried to defend the bait and switch scam
> currently going down on all the IDiot supporter of the current
> intelligent design creationist scam.
Leave out the word "other" and you would be right: you kept badgering
me to defend it, as I already pointed out in the quote above, and I
kept refusing because the evidence for the "bait" as you describe it
is something only you and one other person is impressed by.
Continued in next reply.
Peter Nyikos
Ron O
> On May 22, 10:24 am, Ron O <rokim...@cox.net> wrote:
>
> > Nyikos is a special case (I am mainly concerned with his discussions
> > with me so take that for whatever it is worth).
>
> In fact, you've ignored the huge number of posts I've done on directed
> panspermy and the ID hypotheses that go along with them. You are so
> madly in love with the baseless notion of yours that a bait and switch
> by DI has "gone down on" me that you are living by the motto, "My mind
> is made up, don't confuse me with the facts."
Who cares about directed pamspermia? The teach ID movement was a
bogus scam. Deal with it.
>
> Or is it more like, "I am Okimoto the Almighty, the facts are ALL on
> my side, and I don't need to look at any other posts by Nyikos."?
It may seem like that because all the facts are on my side. You keep
running into that fact, and have to lie about it constantly.
>
> Anyway, I do find it a bit strange that you would complain about me
> not sticking to one thread with you and then start a thread like this
> with me as one of the main attractions. But let that pass...
This is a repeating thread that I do to list the anti-science
posters. It is to let any lurkers be able to determine for themselves
how senseless and stupid the creationist/ID arguments are. You just
add to the list and are a special case because you are the only one
stupid enough to contest that the bogus scam has been going down.
None of the other IDiots would contest that fact. They all run from
reality. You were stupid enough to deny reality and then keep lying
about it over months. That is a very special case.
>
> > He was a regular
> > poster in the 1990s, but he took a long break from TO. By his own
> > admission he hadn't posted to TO since 2001.
>
> Bizarre use of the word "admission". Is English your second language?
Not Bizarre, just the facts. You have made the claim that you had not
posted since 2001. That is an admission in anyones book. Are you
going to make some other claim? It is by your own admission. I do
not claim to know if you ever posted between that time and Dec. 2010.
This is the kind of dishonest and bogus hairsplitting that Nyikos has
become to be known for. What is a teacher doing when she "discusses"
something in class? Stupid denial is still stupid denial.
>
> > He came back in December
> > and immediately put his foot in the intelligent design scam. Nyikos
> > has tried just about every dirty trick in the book to deny that the
> > bait and switch has gone down on all the IDiots like himself.
>
> "Dirty trick" number one: I kept on asking you what the bait was, and
> what the switch was.
You kept lying about not getting the information. You kept snipping
out the information and claiming that it was never given. You have
never addressed the information given to you.
That is probably your primary dirty trick. Snipping and lying about
what you have snipped out. Anyone that wants to waste the time to
look over our exchange will realize that after 5 to 10 of your posts.
>
> "Dirty trick" number two: as you kept beating around the bush, I
> finally tried, out of sheer frustration, to guess what they might be:
Projection is a sign of insanity in this case. I have been as direct
as possible, and you have always been the one to try and twist reality
in order to lie about it. What a bonehead.
>
> __________________ begin excerpt from reply to you
>
> I have to obey your orders to hurry up and defend a "bait and switch"
> that you haven't even described in detail
Lying again. Why even pretend at this point?
Count how many times you have gotten the description of the bait and
switch scam and get back to me. Tell me what details were left out in
each description. There must be at least 10 descriptions just in
responses to lies like this one about not getting the description.
>
> > Why keep running. You wanted proof that the Discovery Institute was
> > involved. I gave it to you. Then you claimed that you didn't believe
> > what I said about Ohio and I gave you the evidence that what I claimed
> > was true. Then you started on about it isn't the bait and switch
> > unless the ID perps were running both scams at the same time. I gave
> > you evidence that they are still using the bogus ID junk as bait
>
> The words "bogus" and "junk" are your cowardly shorthand for an
> explicit description.
This wasn't the description of the bait and switch and you know it.
What a lying scum bag. This are just examples of what you have done
when confronted by the evidence.
>
> Judging from the way you moved the goalposts wrt the challenge by
> Martinez, if you are ever backed into a corner and forced to describe
> it, it will probably go something like this:
Lyiing about other people is stupid when you are such a low life.
>
> "DI perps say that they don't take a stand on who or what the
> designer of this or that might be, but they will not rule out a divine
> designer. That is the bait. Then, when fundies like those in Dover
> or in Ohio start preaching that the designer is divine, and DI
> officials are called in to testify on the matter, they switch to
> saying something they've been saying since 2003: that though they
> don't claim that the designer is divine, it is worthwhile to teach
> about the controversy."
>
> Did I get it right?
Nyikos makes up these stories so that he can lie to himself about
lying about the issue. No, you can't make this junk up.
Blaming the victims of the ID scam is sort of vile, but that is what
Nyikos has to stoop to. The ID perps did not run the bait and switch
on the science side. They ran the bait and switch on their own
creationist support base. That is why I call them scam artists.
Their own supporters like Nyikos were scammed. Now, all Nyikos can do
is lie about reality, and make up stories to make himself feel better
that he wasn't one of the rubes that actually tried to teach the bogus
ID science, and had the bait and switch run on them by the ID perps.
The ID perps sold the IDiot rubes like Nyikos that they had the ID
science to teach to school kids, but when it came time to put up or
shut up they did neither and ran the bait and switch on their own
supporters and only gave them a stupid obfuscation scam that doesn't
even mention that ID ever existed to teach in the public schools.
that is the classic bait and switch scam and Nyikos has spent months
denying reality.
> ==================== end of excerpt from
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/2f9dda8074fee234
>
> You couldn't even comprehend that I was giving my best guess as to
> what the bait was, and what the switch was:
You were just lying to your self again. Your best effort is stupid
and dishonest. Live with it.
>
> _______________________begin excerpt from your reply
>
> > they switch to
> > saying something they've been saying since 2003: that though they
> > don't claim that the designer is divine, it is worthwhile to teach
> > about the controversy."
>
> Beats me where did you get this from. It looks like you just made it
> up. Why the quote marks?
This is my response to his stupid story.
>
> Blaming the victims is vile. The sad fact is that the ID perps depend
> on their supporters to be either ignorant and or incompetent, or
> dishonest enough to do what they want anyway. That is just the plain
> and simple truth. Blaming the rubes for being exactly what the ID
> scam requires is just stupid.
>
> > Did I get it right?
>
> You did if you said it while looking in the mirror and noted that you
> are one of the rubes that you are blaming for screwing up the ID
> scam.
> ================ end of excerpt from
>
> "Dirty trick" number 3: in the latter half of April, having FINALLY
> figured out what the *alleged* bait was (namely, the claim that the DI
> had a scientific theory of ID in a form ready to teach at the public
> school level), I started a thread devoted to the single theme of
> whether you had ANY evidence besides a pathetic ripped-out-of-context
> quote that never explicitly made any such claim.
It took until the later half of April? What a loser. This was
probably when you started snipping out that quote from the pamphlet
and lying about what teachers are doing when they discuss things in
class. It wasn't a realization it was just a continuation of your
dishonest and bogus behavior about the whole mess. It wasn't until I
put the quote back several times and told you not to snip it out again
that you started lying about the quote in anyway that you could.
Ripped out of context, what a laugh. This is the guy that will cut up
a whole paragraph to concentrate on one phrase that doesn't even have
to be the complete sentence. Snipping and lying is your primary dirty
debating tactic and you know it. Projection about someone else
altering or ignoring context is insane at this point.
>
> You kept trying to confuse the issue and to distract readers by making
> all kinds of defamatory accusations against me, but...
I just gave the evidence over and over. I produced everything that
you wanted. You can't deny that. There has been nothing that I have
not been able to back up. Just put forward a single example in our
exchanges of something that I could not verify. How many times have
you run from the verification or just snipped it out and lied about it
ever being given?
Did Behe try to set the record straight in public about his astrology
admission during the Dover court case? Who ran the bait and switch
scam on the Ohio rubes in 2002? What has confused the issue is your
bogus lying about the subject instead of facing reality.
>
> "Dirty trick" number 4: I kept deleting all your attempts to talk
> about the switch, reminding you that without bait there can be no
> switch, and all your defamatory accusations, and relentlessly pursued
> the one issue of your evidence for the bait.
Is this some type of attempt to rewrite history? You kept deleting a
lot of things and lying about what you had deleted. Switch scam junk
was likely just one of the topics.
>
> Your one quote came from a website that was composed AFTER the Dover
> case, yet you claimed the bait and switch scam had been going on for
> years before that, and your ONLY documentation for that was the lame
> bleating that they wouldn't have had that one out-of-context statement
> if they hadn't been guity of dangling that very bait!!!!!
Put up the instance. No one should trust your recollection on
anything. When was this supposed to have occurred?
>
> > It is a
> > tragic form of denial
>
> For once in your life, look in the mirror and ask just WHO is in
> denial about WHAT.
Well, anyone can look into the series of posts and evaluate for
themselves that you are the rube in denial.
>
> > that may be typical of any IDiots left. They
> > have to lie to themselves at this point. Kalkidas even put in his two
> > cents
>
> yes..on that April thread.
No, support for your bogus antics, just some weird attempt to justify
his own bogus responses.
>
> >and all Kalk had previously manages was the misdirection ploy.
>
> And you rambled on for one of your stultifying long paragraphs without
> EVER explaining what he was allegedly misdirecting people from, or
> what his misdirection consisted of.
Just what you are lying about. The fact that the bait and switch has
been going down on any IDiot rube stupid enough to have believed the
ID perps propaganda. Kalk couldn't deny the facts. He could only
misdirect from the facts and hope that was good enough. You have done
no better. Outright lying on your part is probably worse than running
the misdirection ploy and running away.
>
> > You can't make this junk up.
>
> You are doing it all the time. Trouble is, you think your made up
> junk is reality.
Projection is a sign of insanity. Demonstrate that I have made up
anything. On the other hand we have your machinations about "teach"
and "discuss" or "taught" and "could" etc. Who was making junk up and
couldn't bring themselves to face a simple reality staring them in the
face?
>
> > I put up this case because it is
> > special. No other IDiot has tried to defend the bait and switch scam
> > currently going down on all the IDiot supporter of the current
> > intelligent design creationist scam.
>
> Leave out the word "other" and you would be right: you kept badgering
> me to defend it, as I already pointed out in the quote above, and I
> kept refusing because the evidence for the "bait" as you describe it
> is something only you and one other person is impressed by.
Nyikos requested further information in his initial post. Badgering
means that once he got it and tried to deny it, reality got rubbed in
his face and he has had to keep lying to himself about it. He can't
let it go. He could have run like all the others, but he seems unable
to admit being bogus and dishonest. This is a guy that can't even
admit that he was wrong about claiming that I was running from a post
for three whole days when there was no reason that I should have known
about the post because he had posted the response to another poster.
Three days compared to the months that he has run from some post
responses. Nyikos can't even live up to his own bogus standards.
Really, anyone can just go to the links and read our exchanges to
determine who the liar and pretender is.
Ron Okimoto
Steven L.
"Frank J" wrote in message
news:7fbad32e-fe6b-4f4f...@v31g2000vbs.googlegroups.com...
On May 22, 10:54 am, "Steven L." <sdlit...@earthlinkNOSPAM.net> wrote:
> "Ron O" wrote in message
>
> Sorry, I can't resist a sneak preview. ;-)
Not me honey.
Thanks to the helpful replies I received on newsreaders,
I intend to killfile, rather than participate in, any such discussions.
Next up in 2013: Deniers that microbes cause any human diseases.
-- Steven L.
Bill
Someday Pagano will stumble upon stereographic projections of a sphere
on a plane, realize that one can do an appropriate coordinate
transformation and, bingo, he'll be a flat earther. Just give him
time.
Ron O
Philip Johnson was also an AIDs denier so you will have to post date
your prediction by a decade or so.
Ron Okimoto
Ron O
SNIP:
>
> Biblearcheology: post and runhttp://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/35c463f5888d98fe?hl=en
Biblearcheology is claiming that he has evidence that the Ark really
exists. Will the evidence ever appear?
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/33763557cedb2a06?hl=en
Ron Okimoto
Frank J
>
> - Show quoted text -
The other day thought of another reply to "ID is not creationism." I
don't know why I hadn't thought of it 10 years ago, but the next time
some IDer whines that I'll just say "You're right, ID is not
creationism, it's *supercreationism*"
John S. Wilkins
Creationism with 'roid rage.
--
John S. Wilkins, Associate, Philosophy, University of Sydney
http://evolvingthoughts.net
But al be that he was a philosophre,
Yet hadde he but litel gold in cofre
Ron O
> But al be that he was a philosophre,
> Yet hadde he but litel gold in cofre
Probably just due to 'roids. Distribution of special seat cushions
would likely decrease the incidence. It isn't that they lack
intestinal fortitude, they just have a problem keeping them in.
Ron Okimoto
TomS
<fcff4aa0-8bef-4371...@gc3g2000vbb.googlegroups.com>, Frank J
stated..."
I am tempted to suggest "macrocreationism", just for the fun of it,
but I know that that would be misunderstood.
ISTM that when someone says that ID is not creationism, they are trying
to deny equating them, as if someone were claiming that ID is equivalent
to every variety of creationism, or else that ID is equivalent to some
particular variety of creationism, such as young earth creationism. OEC
is creationism, yet I don't know that there is any industry of denying
that.
But we know that there are other varieties of creationism, such as
old earth creationism. And we know that there are varieties of YEC,
such as geocentrist YEC (as well as heliocentrist YEC). And, as long
as ID refuses any positive description of what it asserts, how are
*we* going to give any acceptable description? Even calling it
"evolution denial" is not quite to the point, as long as some ID-ers
accept some evolution sometimes.
--
---Tom S.
"... the heavy people know some magic that can make things move and even fly,
but they're not very bright, because they can't survive without their magic
contrivances"
Xixo, in "The Gods Must Be Crazy II"
Ron O
> "On Thu, 26 May 2011 15:40:49 -0700 (PDT), in article
What about omegacreationism or 'megacreationism?
Alpha-omega?
Right now we are stuck with BT creationism or Big Tent.
Is there some acronym for the enemy of my enemy is often my enemy
after we get rid of our common enemy?
Ron Okimoto
Ron O
Could be an addition, Rui Monteiro:
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/d959704983a26300?hl=en
Ernest Major
<97e630b7-f509-4a2e...@d28g2000yqf.googlegroups.com>, Ron
O <roki...@cox.net> writes
>On May 22, 9:24 am, Ron O <rokim...@cox.net> wrote:
>
>Could be an addition, Rui Monteiro:
>http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/d959704983a26300?hl=en
>
I don't see any reason to conclude that he is a creationist, though what
his position is obscured by his imperfect fluency in English.
--
alias Ernest Major
Ron O
> In message
> <97e630b7-f509-4a2e-a07e-72669fe82...@d28g2000yqf.googlegroups.com>, Ron
> O <rokim...@cox.net> writes
>
> >On May 22, 9:24 am, Ron O <rokim...@cox.net> wrote:
>
> >Could be an addition, Rui Monteiro:
> >http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/d959704983a26300?hl=en
>
> I don't see any reason to conclude that he is a creationist, though what
> his position is obscured by his imperfect fluency in English.
> --
> alias Ernest Major
I'm just guessing. I read three of his posts and couldn't figure out
his position except the negativity and that usually means he belongs
on the list.
Ron Okimoto
Ron O
> On May 22, 9:24 am, Ron O <rokim...@cox.net> wrote:
>
> Could be an addition, Rui Monteiro:http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/d959704983a26300?hl=en
Missed Anthony:
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/8f22deb3cdc250b6?hl=en
Nashton
Something is eventually going to give.
Get help.
What a freak!
Frank J
> "On Thu, 26 May 2011 15:40:49 -0700 (PDT), in article
The ID peddlers realized years ago that critics of the anti-evolution
movement define "creationism" very differently than the general public
does. The public defines it as honest belief in a literal
interpretation of Genesis. For most that means YEC, but that appears
to be only because YEC pseudoscience has "trickled down" to the public
better than OEC pseudoscience. If not for Henry Morris and a few
others (including George McCready Price who paved the way) day-age or
gap would probably be the creationism of choice among the public by
now. That is, if W J Bryan is any indication. I think also that the
public includes Omphalos, which only adds to the "forgiving" attitude
even among those who don't personally buy creationism.
But since the early days of "scientific" YEC, critics have been using
"creationism" for any system that seeks to *first* discredit
evolution, and then propose a design-based alternative. Thus the
modern ID strategy was included in the definition even before it
existed.
So I see "ID is not creationism" as a game played by ID peddlers where
the goal is to get the critic to say "ID is too creationism!" After
which the ID peddler can rattle off a few differences and impress
fence-sitters, while some critics shoot themselves in the foot with
"sneaking in God" and "lying for Jesus." Meanwhile, the creationist
(public definition) rube infers from ID that it validates his
particular fairy tale, and equates ID with creationism. And the ID
peddlers get strangely silent.
>
> But we know that there are other varieties of creationism, such as
> old earth creationism. And we know that there are varieties of YEC,
> such as geocentrist YEC (as well as heliocentrist YEC). And, as long
> as ID refuses any positive description of what it asserts, how are
> *we* going to give any acceptable description? Even calling it
> "evolution denial" is not quite to the point, as long as some ID-ers
> accept some evolution sometimes.
Whatever we call it, I think the most important thing to impress on
people (especially fence-sitters) is that it is a deceptive game, hell-
bent on avoiding taking its own positions (let alone testing them),
and doing whatever they can to unite people against "big bad science."
If we take that approach, even people who are sympathetic to old-style
YEC and OEC would find ID appalling.
>
> --
> ---Tom S.
> "... the heavy people know some magic that can make things move and even fly,
> but they're not very bright, because they can't survive without their magic
> contrivances"
> Xixo, in "The Gods Must Be Crazy II"- Hide quoted text -
Ron O
Sorry that I left you off the list NashT. You definitely belong on
the list. NashT is an example of a sniper. He basically has enough
on the ball to understand that he has nothing to contribute so he has
decided to contribute nothing. Long time posters often give up trying
to defend the anti science claptrap and if they can't bring themselves
to stop posting they turn into worthless snipers. All they can do is
take pot shots from the sidelines as if that will change their
pathetic reality. Use Google to check out more of NashT''s posts.
Ron Okimoto
Ron O
The biggest difference between ID perps and the scientific
creationists is that ID turned into a bogus scam on the creationist
support base. Since then it hasn't been much different. They are
even using most of the old obfuscationist arguments of the scientific
creationists in their switch scam. That has to be pathetic in anyones
book. When the scam that replaced scientific creationism and claimed
for years that they were not scientific creationists have to stoop to
using the secondary scam of the scientific creationists, what should
that tell anyone with a functional brain? When you have to resort to
the second string ploy that is sad. It should not escape anyone's
notice that the primary ploys for both groups of anti science
pretenders was that they had the science to back up their beliefs.
The obfuscation science denial junk was only the window dressing that
they had to resort to because they never had any science worth spit.
>
> > But we know that there are other varieties of creationism, such as
> > old earth creationism. And we know that there are varieties of YEC,
> > such as geocentrist YEC (as well as heliocentrist YEC). And, as long
> > as ID refuses any positive description of what it asserts, how are
> > *we* going to give any acceptable description? Even calling it
> > "evolution denial" is not quite to the point, as long as some ID-ers
> > accept some evolution sometimes.
>
> Whatever we call it, I think the most important thing to impress on
> people (especially fence-sitters) is that it is a deceptive game, hell-
> bent on avoiding taking its own positions (let alone testing them),
> and doing whatever they can to unite people against "big bad science."
> If we take that approach, even people who are sympathetic to old-style
> YEC and OEC would find ID appalling.
As you indicate some of the ID perps claim to accept biological
evolution as a fact of nature, but they talk out of both sides of
their mouths at once. They claim that theistic evolutionists are
their worst enemies. That should clue in any big tent supporters that
the closer that you get to the beliefs of the ID perps the worse off
you are. They are only using the clueless YEC as cannon fodder. The
YEC are so far out of whack that they are beneath contempt. Who's
beliefs are going to be taught in the public schools? No one has seen
that lesson plan from the ID perps. The big tent doesn't work when
you have to put your best foot forward. It is sad that the ID perps
have put up space aliens as being the most scientific intelligent
dsigners. Where is the lesson plan that explains why that is the
case? What will most of the other IDiots think about putting that in
the lesson? Why wouldn't the best ID science be taught? Intelligent
design is just a bogus scam. Even most of the IDiots realize that by
now, or we would have seen hundreds of sample ID lesson plans by now.
Any education major or PhD that has taught a class should be able to
write up a lesson plan. You just have to say what you want to teach,
how you are going to teach it, what materials you are going to use
(textbooks, scientific articles, powerpoint, web links, etc), what the
students are supposed to be learning from the lesson, and how you are
going to evaluate if the students learned what you wanted them to
learn. After all these years, where is the ID perp's ID lesson plan?
Ron Okimoto
Ron O
Mark Hammond just started posting.
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/3bee373a9c94bf73?hl=en
Arkalen
creationist point of view, and more someone who has decided they'll give
the creationist point of view a chance but don't really know what's what
yet - and doesn't claim to.
Ron O
He could be anything at this point. He just claims to be YEC.
Ron Okimoto
Ron O
>
> Continued in next reply.
>
> Peter Nyikos
Your next reply never showed up. This was before the TO outage, but
you never know. You are just getting around to other May posts.
Ron Okimoto
Ron O
Nykios, it has been over a month and the continuation never showed up.
You are running from so many posts at this time that I thought that
I'd remind you about at least one.
You probably owe me an appology about starting that Dirty Debating
tactics thread too. Snipping out what you are guilty of doesn't mean
that you aren't guilty. It was a stupid misunderstanding, wasn't it?
One that you had made up in your own pathetic mind. Should you have
accused me of dirty debating tactics when there was nothing for me to
misdirect the argument from? What about accusing me of running from a
post for three whole days when you had posted it to someone else and
there was no reason that I should have known about it. Three days
when you have run from some posts for months. You can't even admit
your stupid mistakes and live up to your own bogus expectations.
Sort of sad that the only IDiots left that support the bogus ID perps
are guys like you. Hopefully, most are just ignorant and or
incompetent. It would be sad if they were all as dishonest as you
are. Really, I don't know when I have interacted with someone that
literally wallows in their dishonesty. Most just lie and run. I
realize that you have done plenty of running, but you have come up
with a lot of bogus lies and misrepresentations along the way. Don't
you wish that the bait and switch scam had never gone down. Don't you
wish that any of the ID perps could be honest enough to live down to
their foilbles. How sad was the Johnson finger pointing when he was
one of the ringleaders that cooked up the ID scam? What kind of worm
would point the finger at someone else and not take responsibility for
their own actions in the matter? Right now the bait and switch is
going down on Michele Bachmann who was only a rube that fell for the
ID scam. How sad is it that she likely knew it was a creationist
scam, but she was just ignorant of how much of a scam it is? The ID
perps aren't running the bait and switch on the science side of the
issue. The ID perps are running the bait and switch scam on their own
creationist supporters.
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/8c3e9a65ba10bf01?hl=en
Who sold and are still selling the rubes that they have the ID science
to teach to school kids? Who Is running the bait and switch on any
IDiot rube too ignorant, stupid or dishonest enough to claim to want
to teach the nonexistent science of intelligent design? Why do the
IDiots only get a switch scam that doesn't even mention that ID ever
existed instead of any ID science to teach? There are no honest,
competent and informed IDiots left that support the ID perps are
there?
Ron Okimoto