Intelligent Design Book Meets Obstacle After Proponents of - talk.origins

The old Google Groups will be going away soon, but your browser is incompatible with the new version.
Message from discussion Intelligent Design Book Meets Obstacle After Proponents of
Path: r9ni98147pbh.0!nntp.google.com!news1.google.com!news2.google.com!news.glorb.com!usenet.stanford.edu!darwin.ediacara.org!there.is.no.cabal
From: John Stockwell <john.19071...@gmail.com>
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: Intelligent Design Book Meets Obstacle After Proponents of
Date: Wed, 25 Apr 2012 13:49:19 -0700 (PDT)
Organization: http://groups.google.com
Lines: 227
Sender: n...@darwin.ediacara.org
Approved: robo...@ediacara.org
Message-ID: <32347994.20.1335386959331.JavaMail.geo-discussion-forums@ynkl30>
References: <e779951a-50dd-4100-8dd5-63097542a993@f2g2000yqh.googlegroups.com> <DsSdnaJjqeyvRejS4p2dnAA@giganews.com> <ea7a1797-c797-452a-b398-cbbe1011217d@f6g2000vbc.googlegroups.com> <b8e47c44-01dc-44dc-b857-8d58de07c4c1@em9g2000vbb.googlegroups.com> <6384898.990.1333470803758.JavaMail.geo-discussion-forums@ynbv36> <57b1f457-a50e-40c0-9ff6-f6a2077d40d1@2g2000yqk.googlegroups.com> <11631158.544.1333649598738.JavaMail.geo-discussion-forums@ynib40> <22c61cf0-87d1-4ac6-9a2f-d094ac002f57@n19g2000yqk.googlegroups.com> <5890257.1445.1333995651993.JavaMail.geo-discussion-forums@ynlp3> <131edaa1-0931-4214-9dd6-f751894b0f0f@h20g2000yqd.googlegroups.com> <7929066.446.1334697487453.JavaMail.geo-discussion-forums@yndc3> <39add92c-0ed2-498b-b038-f538ec1a1f03@e42g2000yqa.googlegroups.com> <32632442.746.1334787393724.JavaMail.geo-discussion-forums@yncd8> <b85d5459-2838-4eb7-a10b-b11170c7649c@h5g2000vbx.googlegroups.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: darwin
Mime-Version: 1.0
NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 25 Apr 2012 21:06:14 +0000 (UTC)
Cc: nyik...@bellsouth.net
In-Reply-To: <b85d5459-2838-4eb7-a10b-b11170c7649c@h5g2000vbx.googlegroups.com>
Complaints-To: groups-ab...@google.com
Injection-Info: glegroupsg2000goo.googlegroups.com; posting-host=138.67.12.12; posting-account=brOM-AoAAAChaAJEiH5z610-YOTfECd9
User-Agent: G2/1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit

On Monday, April 23, 2012 2:09:05 PM UTC-6, pnyikos wrote:
> On Apr 18, 6:16 pm, John Stockwell <john.19071...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Wednesday, April 18, 2012 12:31:15 PM UTC-6, pnyikos wrote:
> > > On Apr 17, 5:18 pm, John Stockwell <john.19071...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > On Monday, April 16, 2012 11:59:10 AM UTC-6, pnyikos wrote:
> > > > > On Apr 9, 2:20 pm, John Stockwell <john.19071...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > > > > IC has turned out to be a meaningless concept.
> >
> > > > >     One hundred repetitions three nights a week
> > > > >     for four years, thought Bernard Marx, who was
> > > > >     an expert on hypnopaedia.  Sixty-two thousand
> > > > >     repetitions make one truth.  Idiots!
> > > > >        --Aldous Huxley, in _Brave New World_
> 
> [...]
> > > > > Newsgroups: talk.origins
> > > > > From: pnyikos <nyik...@bellsouth.net>
> > > > > Date: Mon, 9 Apr 2012 08:54:52 -0700 (PDT)
> > > > > Subject: Re: I am now a Creationist
> >
> > > > > On Apr 7, 5:53 am, jillery <69jpi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> > > > > > Yeah, I thought so too.
> >
> > > > > I didn't encounter you back then, unless you used a different
> > > > > pseudonym back then.
> >
> > > > > You are like some of the worst people I encountered back then, but the
> > > > > ones I have in mind have almost all either left in droves or cleaned
> > > > > up their act to a greater or lesser extent.  The sole exceptions of
> > > > > whom I am aware are  Paul Gans and John Stockwell.
> >
> > > > How sweet, Peter. By "cleaned up our act" that would
> > > > mean "become ID sycophants" I presume.
> >
> > > No, it means behaving like a responsible adult.  You could start by
> > > cleaning up what you've just said.  Then you can make a resolution to
> > > cease your attempts at amateur psychologizing ("toughlove, Peter" and
> > > all that) and desist from them until you get a doctoral degree in
> > > psychology.
> >
> > Really? Touches a nerve in you Peter?  If I got a degree
> > in psychology then I would be able to charge for it. As
> > an amateur I can only dispense diagnoses for free.
> 
> You should pay anyone who is willling to take your daft "diagnoses"
> seriously.  If you had a doctorate in psychology you would realize how
> daft they are.

But since you don't have a doctorate in psychology either, then what does your 
opinion mean? Wake up and smell the
narcissism, Peter. Why do you take all of
this so seriously? Why do you make lists
and vindictively pursue people? Oh you have
improved vastly in the intervening years.
You aren't treating usenet the way an
addict treats his drug. You have almost gotten down to recreational user status,
but you are still the same old Peter,
seething with vindictive spite.



> 
> >
> 
> 
> > > Also, I find it fascinating that Pagano named you as just about the
> > > only person he ever caught lying in talk.origins.
> 
> As if to try and confirm Pagano's "diagnosis," you misrepresented this
> last bit by me, even though I said the following immediately
> afterwards:


Basically by repeating Pagano's false accusation you were engaging in mean-spirited
innuendo.


> 
> [interpolants by you deleted here]
> 
> > > You never struck me
> > > as deserving the epithet "liar", only "insufferable know-it-all jerk."
> 
> [Pee Wee Hermanism by Stockwell and much more deleted, to get to the
> point:]

But Peter, you *are* an insufferable know-it-all-jerk, whereas I am not.


> 
> > You are definitely an ID sycophant, and you pimp for creationists. The fact that you would believe an accusation
> > made against me by Pagano, without checking the facts first proves it.
> 
> It's not a fact.  Re-read what I wrote if that isn't clear to you.
> Commenting that you were named as something is not the same as
> believing that something.  The "never struck me" should have made it
> clear to you.

You mean like:
"It never struck me, Peter, that you were
a wife beater, only an insufferable sycophantic narcissist." 


> 
> > > The following was addressed to "jillery", but you were one of the
> > > people I had in mind as being part of the prospective "hard core":
> >
> > > > > Only one person in this newsgroup is worse than you AFAIK, and you
> > > > > seem to have a very good opinion of him.  The two of you, plus a few
> > > > > allies, are  a hard core in this newsgroup analogous to the hard core
> > > > > who transformed another newsgroup into a hellhole.  [That's the
> > > > > newsgroup I spoke of to Arkalen. If I see a good reason for it, I'll
> > > > > say which newsgroup it is.]
> >
> > > > > If you are young enough, you might do the same to talk.origins if the
> > > > > membership of talk.origins shrinks to what I call "reverse critical
> > > > > mass."
> >
> > > > There would just be you, Pagano and Martinez.
> >
> > > That's another "insufferable jerk" comment.  That other newsgroup was
> > > taken over by the hard core while I was on my decade-long absence from
> > > THAT newsgroup.  And the hard core was part of the "dominant side" as
> > > far as the substantive issues of that newsgroup is concerned, just as
> > > you and "jillery" and the worse-than-jillery person are on the
> > > "dominant side" of the substantive issues -- creationism and
> > > abiogenesis and intelligent design -- in talk.origins.
> >
> > The only "substantive issues" are those that involve
> > creationists, ID creationists, and other pseudoscientists
> > desiring to have their junk taught in schools.
> 
> Fallacy of begging the question noted.
> 
> Example: you have yet to display any pseudoscience by Behe,

Darwin's Black Box, all of the parts
that deal with attempting to make a philosophical argument for "design" are
pseudoscience.

> or
> Minnich, for example.

Kintzmiller vs. Dover 2005 was 8 years ago.
It is incumbent upon you to deliver some
actual relevant science done by Minnich
that shows that ID is more than just a
label.

>  So does everyone else in this newsgroup.  The
> best anyone came up with was over a decade ago, and that was where
> Behe wrote something and then, as though he were writing a law with
> lots of "the foregoing notwithstanding" clauses he said something that
> contradicted a literal interpretation of what he'd said before.
> 
> I came down pretty hard on Behe for that, myself.  Much harder than
> anyone in this newsgroup except "Dr. Dr." Kleinman came down on one
> scientist who said that the law of multiplication of probabilities
> does not work in evolution, and then wrote things that made it clear
> that he didn't mean all uses, just careless uses.
> 
> > Everything  else here is entertainment and flypaper for cranks.
> 
> And how does your unsupported, defamatory  claim that I am a pimp for
> creationists fit into all this?

You apparently are still "sticking around".
Flypaper.



> 
> > And in fact, it is almost a test for crankdom if you think
> > anything important is decided on this group.
> 
> Including the question of whether you are a liar?  I deleted a good
> bit of attempt by you to exonerate yourself of that charge, which
> seems to suggest you do care whether people here perceive you as a
> liar or not.

You raised a question, I answered it and got a swipe in on Pagano at the same time, enough that he has started replying to my posts again.




> >
> >
> > > It was the departure of most of the moderate people on the "dominant
> > > side" that took that newsgroup to "reverse critical mass"--and after
> > > that, all the moderate regulars on the "dominant side" left, leaving
> > > the hard core to usurp the newsgroup and behave in a far more hellish
> > > way than they dared do before.
> >
> > > I expect the three of you also to behave far more hellishly if
> > > talk.origins ever drops below "reverse critical mass". "Jillery," for
> > > example, would be able to stick arguments out long after it is obvious
> > > that 'e has lost them, instead of deleting everything substantive and
> > > running with an innocence-feigning parting shot, as is her/his custom
> > > nowadays.
> >
> > About the only thing of value that you have posted
> > are your discussions with Dr.^2  Kleinmann. After all
> > of these years, you applied your expertise in mathematics
> > to stick it to an evolution denier. For that you should
> > be praised.
> 
> I've also written lots of persuasive stuff about the horse sequence in
> arguments with creationists, because few people here know about it as
> much as I do.

Ah, but you see as a vertebrate paleontologist you are an amateur, but as a respected and respectable mathematician, your opinion carries more weight. And make
no mistake Peter, I have the utmost 
respect you as a
mathematician.  

(As a origin of life theorist, you get a raspberry. If you have to invent an alien civilization to solve a problem of chemistry, then that might be an indicator that we need to know more about chemistry.)



> 
> Peter Nyikos


-John
Create a group - Google Groups - Google Home - Terms of Service - Privacy Policy
Account Options
