`I've got a little list'
pnyikos
Greig about last December, and two other lists, both of which have
Paul Gans as their sole confirmed member (although there are several
promising candidates for each). Gans also has (at least) three lists,
one of them heavily to port [in more conventional language, he leans
way to the left politically] and two of which I may be the sole
member.
On Dec 18 2010, 8:53 pm, Paul J Gans <gan...@panix.com> wrote:
in http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/6aff50fa1edeca89
> Mark Isaak <eci...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> >On Fri, 17 Dec 2010 13:01:56 -0800, pnyikos wrote:
> >> Gans does not see me as a friend, that much is certain.
>
> >> Assuming that he has seen what I wrote to John Harshman about my being
> >> willling and eager to let bygones be bygones with everyone (Yes,
> >> everyone on Usenet) who has not crossed me in the last 7 years EXCEPT
> >> Howard Hershey....
[...]
> Has everyone forgotten that our friend is impossible to pin down,
I believe Ron Okimoto fits the description of "Gans's friend" and that
he fits the "impossible to pin down" description; but I certainly
don't fit the former and I doubt that I fit the latter any more than
anyone posting here.
> will not deal with embarrassing questions,
If anything, I am notorious for dealing with embarrassing questions
and asking the questioner, "How about you?" Funny how none of the
questioners seems to want to deal with that comeback.
[...]
> And when have bygones meant anything?
They mean a lot to me. Both when I returned in late 2008 to the
abortion newsgroups, and when I returned to talk.origins this past
December, I have not held anyone's pre-break behavior against them
until many months of abuse--with the sole exception of Howard Hershey.
> He was a fool when he
> was here last
Here's Gans's first list:
FOOLS
I don't know whether he puts anyone but me on this list.
>
>(a venerable fool, but a fool nontheless),
And here is his second list, again with me as the sole member he is
mentioning here:
VENERABLE FOOLS
> he
> was a fool when he followed me to other newsgroups (a venerable
> fool, but a fool nonetheless, and now that he has resurfaced with
> the same silly arguments,
Of course, the arguments have changed somewhat, but Gans cannot be
expected to pay attention.
> he is still a fool (etc.)
>
> I see no reason to treat him seriously. My feeling is that each
> person here may deal with him as they see fit. I do.
>
> If I keep it up perhaps he'll put me on a list.
Yes, two of them [turnabout is fair play]. You will see what they are
in my next post to this thread.
By the way, the title of this thread is a famous quotation from _The
Mikado_, by Gilbert and Sullivan, and is one of three reasons I can
think of for people calling various categories that I've carefully
described "lists".
It is probably meant to invoke visions of the list of the Lord High
Executioner in that G&S play; Nixon's "enemies lists"; and Fouche's
warning members of the Revolutionary Assembly in France that
"Robespierre has a list and you are on it." But as you will see, my
two "lists" are more benign even than the two Gans lists you see
above.
Peter Nyikos
> --
> --- Paul J. Gans
SkyEyes
> ...three of them to be exact,
How positively Nixonian of you. Next you'll be telling you that you
are not a crook.
Brenda Nelson, A.A.#34
skyeyes nine at cox dot net OR
skyeyes nine at yahoo dot com
pnyikos
> ...three of them to be exact, one a "wish list" that I told David Iain
> Greig about last December, and two other lists, both of which have
> Paul Gans as their sole confirmed member (although there are several
> promising candidates for each). Gans also has (at least) three lists,
> one of them heavily to port [in more conventional language, he leans
> way to the left politically] and two of which I may be the sole
> member.
> > He was a fool when he
> > was here last
>
> Here's Gans's first list:
>
> FOOLS
>
> I don't know whether he puts anyone but me on this list.
>
>
>
> >(a venerable fool, but a fool nontheless),
>
> And here is his second list, again with me as the sole member he is
> mentioning here:
>
> VENERABLE FOOLS
>
And now for two lists of which Gans is the sole confirmed member,
although there are several promising candidates:
ANTI-CREATIONISTS' ANTI-CREATIONISTS
These are people who cannot comprehend why someone who
believes in evolution and obviously knows a lot about it would
not either (1) join in the orgy of creationist-bashing and
creationism-trashing that goes on in t.o. or at least
(2) suppress all his curiosity about unresolved riddles
of evolution in this ng.
People in this category:
Paul Gans
SPOOFERS
This category was described earlier in the following post, which
directly followed up to one of Gans's where he revealed how
ambivalent he was in his approach to me:
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/547048f4bdc70192
Excerpt covering part of the description:
"...spoofers...lack the courage to be moral and
at the same time cannot deny the desire to be
moral. The result is that the audience is
cheated and deceived. It is neither shocked into
moral consciousness, nor freed, for the moment,
from moral considerations. It is mired in
ambivalence, and the result is malaise."
--Robert Paul Dye, "The Death of Silence," _Journal
of Broadcasting, vol. 12 no. 3 (Summer 1968).
=================== end of excerpt
Peter Nyikos
pnyikos
> On Feb 11, 3:31 pm, pnyikos <nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>
> > ...three of them to be exact,
>>Greig about last December, and two other lists, both of which have
>>Paul Gans as their sole confirmed member (although there are
>>several promising candidates for each). Gans also has (at least)
>>three lists, one of them heavily to port [in more conventional language,
>>he leans way to the left politically] and two of which I may be the sole
>>member.
>
> are not a crook.
How positively silly of you to ignore some of the other words you
deleted:
=========== begin repost
By the way, the title of this thread is a famous quotation from _The
Mikado_, by Gilbert and Sullivan, and is one of three reasons I can
think of for people calling various categories that I've carefully
described "lists".
It is probably meant to invoke visions of the list of the Lord High
Executioner in that G&S play; Nixon's "enemies lists"; and Fouche's
warning members of the Revolutionary Assembly in France that
"Robespierre has a list and you are on it." But as you will see, my
two "lists" are more benign even than the two Gans lists you see
above.
Peter Nyikos
================= end of repost
I admit, the second list ("SPOOFERS") may not be benign as seen by
someone with deep-seated traditional Judeo-Christian values, but I
doubt that there are many of them among the anti-creationists.
Don't confuse "anti-creationists" with "anti-creationists' anti-
creationists", a much more demanding category.
NOTE TO READERS: I use a convention when restoring text deleted by
those making nasty cracks about me: when you see a space between the
"chevrons" ( the attribution symbols, >) on the left of quoted
material, that is what the person to whom I am replying left in.
On the other hand, when there is no space (as is the case with all
but one of the lines from the first post to this thread) between the
chevrons, that line contains text restored by me.
Peter Nyikos
Peter Nyikos
Will in New Haven
If you don't want you garbage deleted, don't post your garbage in the
first place.
--
Will in New Haven
Mike Painter
> By the way, the title of this thread is a famous quotation from _The
> Mikado_, by Gilbert and Sullivan, and is one of three reasons I can
> think of for people calling various categories that I've carefully
> described "lists".
Of course but can you say "short sharp shock" real fast?
Frank J
>
> > ...three of them to be exact,
>
> How positively Nixonian of you. Next you'll be telling you that you
> are not a crook.
Or a witch.
Ron O
> ...three of them to be exact, one a "wish list" that I told David Iain
> Greig about last December, and two other lists, both of which have
> Paul Gans as their sole confirmed member (although there are several
> promising candidates for each). Gans also has (at least) three lists,
> one of them heavily to port [in more conventional language, he leans
> way to the left politically] and two of which I may be the sole
> member.
>
> On Dec 18 2010, 8:53 pm, Paul J Gans <gan...@panix.com> wrote:
>
> > Mark Isaak <eci...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> > >On Fri, 17 Dec 2010 13:01:56 -0800, pnyikos wrote:
> > >> Gans does not see me as a friend, that much is certain.
>
> > >> Assuming that he has seen what I wrote to John Harshman about my being
> > >> willling and eager to let bygones be bygones with everyone (Yes,
> > >> everyone on Usenet) who has not crossed me in the last 7 years EXCEPT
> > >> Howard Hershey....
>
> [...]
>
> > Has everyone forgotten that our friend is impossible to pin down,
>
> I believe Ron Okimoto fits the description of "Gans's friend" and that
> he fits the "impossible to pin down" description; but I certainly
> don't fit the former and I doubt that I fit the latter any more than
> anyone posting here.
You personal failure is someone elses fault. Should we call your list
making insanity or a personality quirk? At least I seem to have made
a Nyikos list. If Nyikos can review his lists he will probably see
that I never made one before. It is sort of a badge of honor to make
a Nyikos list when he is doing it to make himself feel better about
getting his butt kicked.
When did lying to yourself become a way of life?
>
> > will not deal with embarrassing questions,
>
> If anything, I am notorious for dealing with embarrassing questions
> and asking the questioner, "How about you?" Funny how none of the
> questioners seems to want to deal with that comeback.
Notorious is the correct word, but the rest of the sentence seems to
be a lie. Misdirection ploys, abject denial, lying, blaming the
victims, "school kids," and "implicated" are just bogus and dishonest
ploys. Running and pretending and snipping out what you can't deal
with isn't anything to be proud of.
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/45504023a7e8b421?hl=en
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/343bc0b5d6cb3626?hl=en
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/browse_frm/thread/c60cb1344526ce96?hl=en#
These are unaswered posts in a thread that Nyikos started as a second
bogus attempt to misdirect the argument from another thread
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/90475aed32153cfa?hl=en
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/4c879043a5f23088?hl=en
There are many other posts from as far back as Dec that he has been
running from. Sad, but true. I might have to make my own list and
put up all the open ended posts that Nyikos has fled from.
It is sort of sad how low someone is willing to stoop to defend a
bunch of liars that don't care much at all how stupid that they make
rubes like Nyikos look. For some reason Nyikos can't face reality
about the bait and switch. Why even try to defend the ID perps?
Admit that you fell for a bogus scam that even the guys that sold it
to you aren't willing to support when they have to and move on. The
only IDiots left that still support the ID scam are the ignorant,
incompetent and or dishonest. Right now Nyikos is only demonstrating
how incompetent and dishonest he can be. I haven't met a single IDiot
that was informed, competent and honest. Why is that? Why should the
IDiots be represented by guys like Nyikos, Kalkidas, Pagano, Pitman
etc. Shouldn't the guys that are doing it because of their religious
beliefs be the ones that are honest about what they are doing? At
some level nearly all except the truely incompetent understand how
bogus the whole scam is, but it seems to be all they have left. That
isn't a very good reason to support anything.
Beats me why guys like Nyikos are willing to make themselves look like
degenerate fools in order to keep lying to themselves about an issue
where the guys that sold them the ID scam ran the bait and switch on
them over 8 years ago. The ID perps didn't run the bait and switch on
the science side, they ran the bait and switch on their own support
base. For Nyikos this is as plain as the nose on his face, and yet he
has to try his bag of dishonest tricks to keep lying to himself.
Ron Okimoto
> > --- Paul J. Gans- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
jillery
David Iain Greig
> ...three of them to be exact, one a "wish list" that I told David Iain
> Greig about last December,
DIG or even D_G (Dunderscoreg) is fine.
*Hemidactylus*
> On Feb 11, 3:31 pm, pnyikos<nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>> ...three of them to be exact,
>
> How positively Nixonian of you. Next you'll be telling you that you
> are not a crook.
I see no reason to think of him as a crook. Nyikos has a penchant for
list-making, but comparing him to Nixon is a bit over the top.
--
*Hemidactylus*
Chief Pastor
United Church of Jesus Christ the Procrastinator
"He's suffering performance anxiety"
*Hemidactylus*
> ...but if you stop drinking, you should keep your balance.
>
and chicken wings. Mmmmmmm...beer and chicken wings. Being a
mathematician, he's the guy stuck trying to calculate who owes what on
the tab without a calculator :-)
Someone compared him to Nixon and now he's a drinker. This thread's not
going too well. The problem goes both ways and he's poked, he will poke
back.
Richard Harter
<nyi...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
[snip]
Three lists for evolutionists under the sky
Seven for the creationists with their heads of stone
Nine for the lurkers doomed to cry
One for the List Lord on his dark throne
In talk.origins where the posters lie
One list to rule them all, one list to name them
One list to bring them all and in the darkness blame them.
In talk.origins where the posters lie
Michael Siemon
Burkhard
> On Fri, 11 Feb 2011 14:31:12 -0800 (PST), pnyikos<nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>
> [snip]
>
> � � Three lists for evolutionists under the sky
> � � Seven for the creationists with their heads of stone
> � � Nine for the lurkers doomed to cry
> � � One for the List Lord on his dark throne
>
> � � In talk.origins where the posters lie
> � � One list to rule them all, one list to name them
> � � One list to bring them all and in the darkness blame them.
> � � In talk.origins where the posters lie
ach, precious.....
pnyikos
> On 02/12/2011 11:06 AM, jillery wrote:> ...but if you stop drinking, you should keep your balance.
>
> Does he drink? If so, he's probably a lot of fun after a couple pitchers
> and chicken wings. Mmmmmmm...beer and chicken wings.
I did share a couple of pitchers with about a dozen of my colleagues
in my younger days. I still do that on rare occasions, but after at
most two mugs of beer I switch to non-alcoholic beverages.
> Being a
> mathematician, he's the guy stuck trying to calculate who owes what on
> the tab without a calculator :-)
A good one. But it's been at least a decade since I last I went
drinking with non-mathematicians.
> Someone compared him to Nixon and now he's a drinker. This thread's not
> going too well. The problem goes both ways and he's poked, he will poke
> back.
Yup. Especially since these people have been crying "Wolf!" about
what they call my lists for so long, they can't stop.
The last set of "lists" I did before this was a straightforward
categorization of talk.abortion and alt.abortion regulars according to
where they stood on the morality of abortion, and what sorts of laws
(if any) they want it to be restricted by.
I had seen a need for such a list since several people were frequently
misrepresented as to one criterion or the other.
And even though I was as objective as it is possible to be about such
a set of "lists," and even though I explicitly apologized in advance
for any errors in the listing, offering to correct them if they are
brought to my attention,
(1) only one regular said he had been mis-categorized, and I
acknowledged the correction and will correct the listing next time,
and
(2) all the other regulars who dared to reply went on crying "Wolf!"
about how despicable it is for me to be posting lists like this.
Peter Nyikos
Paul J Gans
Harter, you are excellent!
jillery
Incredible.
Bob Casanova
talk.origins, posted by c...@tiac.net (Richard Harter):
Whatever you're doing for cash is wasting your substance.
;-)
Harter for t.o Poet Laureate?
--
Bob C.
"Evidence confirming an observation is
evidence that the observation is wrong."
- McNameless
Richard Harter
wrote:
>On Wed, 16 Feb 2011 04:40:16 GMT, the following appeared in
>talk.origins, posted by c...@tiac.net (Richard Harter):
>
>>On Fri, 11 Feb 2011 14:31:12 -0800 (PST), pnyikos
>><nyi...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>>[snip]
>>
>> Three lists for evolutionists under the sky
>> Seven for the creationists with their heads of stone
>> Nine for the lurkers doomed to cry
>> One for the List Lord on his dark throne
>>
>> In talk.origins where the posters lie
>> One list to rule them all, one list to name them
>> One list to bring them all and in the darkness blame them.
>> In talk.origins where the posters lie
>
>Whatever you're doing for cash is wasting your substance.
>;-)
>
>Harter for t.o Poet Laureate?
Actually I published that poem in 1998; reprinting it seemed
appropriate.
jillery
Depending on the interpretation of the topic, I think my comment
humorous, if not appropriate. If Pnyikos has a problem with it, he
should look to his own house first, before throwing stones.
Rodjk #613
> On Fri, 11 Feb 2011 14:31:12 -0800 (PST), pnyikos<nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>
> [snip]
>
> Three lists for evolutionists under the sky
> Seven for the creationists with their heads of stone
> Nine for the lurkers doomed to cry
> One for the List Lord on his dark throne
> In talk.origins where the posters lie
>
> One list to rule them all, one list to name them
> One list to bring them all and in the darkness blame them.
> In talk.origins where the posters lie
Corrected for you...
;)
Rodjk #613
Bob Casanova
talk.origins, posted by c...@tiac.net (Richard Harter):
>On Wed, 16 Feb 2011 13:01:48 -0700, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off>
>wrote:
>
>>On Wed, 16 Feb 2011 04:40:16 GMT, the following appeared in
>>talk.origins, posted by c...@tiac.net (Richard Harter):
>>
>>>On Fri, 11 Feb 2011 14:31:12 -0800 (PST), pnyikos
>>><nyi...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>>>[snip]
>>>
>>> Three lists for evolutionists under the sky
>>> Seven for the creationists with their heads of stone
>>> Nine for the lurkers doomed to cry
>>> One for the List Lord on his dark throne
>>>
>>> In talk.origins where the posters lie
>>> One list to rule them all, one list to name them
>>> One list to bring them all and in the darkness blame them.
>>> In talk.origins where the posters lie
>>
>>Whatever you're doing for cash is wasting your substance.
>>;-)
>>
>>Harter for t.o Poet Laureate?
>
>Actually I published that poem in 1998;
That doesn't affect my comments, though.
> reprinting it seemed
>appropriate.
Agreed.
Bob Casanova
appeared in talk.origins, posted by "Rodjk #613"
<rjk...@gmail.com>:
Now *that's* anal.
>;)
Well, yeah...
gregwrld
>
> Does he drink? If so, he's probably a lot of fun after a couple pitchers
> and chicken wings. Mmmmmmm...beer and chicken wings. Being a
> mathematician, he's the guy stuck trying to calculate who owes what on
> the tab without a calculator :-)
Fair warning: beer, chicken wings and calculators do not go together
well.
>
> Someone compared him to Nixon and now he's a drinker. This thread's not
> going too well. The problem goes both ways and he's poked, he will poke
> back.
As long as he doesn't poke his calculator with greasy fingers it might
work
out OK for him...
gregwrld
pnyikos
> On Wed, 16 Feb 2011 13:01:48 -0700, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off>
> wrote:
>
>
>
> >On Wed, 16 Feb 2011 04:40:16 GMT, the following appeared in
> >talk.origins, posted by c...@tiac.net (Richard Harter):
>
> >>On Fri, 11 Feb 2011 14:31:12 -0800 (PST), pnyikos
> >><nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> >>[snip]
>
> >> Three lists for evolutionists under the sky
> >> Seven for the creationists with their heads of stone
You would have liked me to post that kind of list, wouldn't you?
Actually, I saw too little of creationists to be able to post that
many lists about them.
> >> Nine for the lurkers doomed to cry
> >> One for the List Lord on his dark throne
>
> >> In talk.origins where the posters lie
> >> One list to rule them all, one list to name them
> >> One list to bring them all and in the darkness blame them.
> >> In talk.origins where the posters lie
>
> >Whatever you're doing for cash is wasting your substance.
> >;-)
>
> >Harter for t.o Poet Laureate?
>
> Actually I published that poem in 1998; reprinting it seemed
> appropriate.
It was appropriate back then; 'tain't so now. See my reply to
Hemidactylus of a few days ago.
Peter Nyikos
pnyikos
> On Feb 15, 10:10 pm, *Hemidactylus* <ecpho...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On 02/12/2011 11:06 AM, jillery wrote:> ...but if you stop drinking, you should keep your balance.
>
> > Does he drink? If so, he's probably a lot of fun after a couple pitchers
> > and chicken wings. Mmmmmmm...beer and chicken wings. Being a
> > mathematician, he's the guy stuck trying to calculate who owes what on
> > the tab without a calculator :-)
>
> > Someone compared him to Nixon and now he's a drinker. This thread's not
> > going too well. The problem goes both ways and he's poked, he will poke
> > back.
And I did indeed, but I went very easy on Hemidactylus; not so with
jillery below.
> > --
> > *Hemidactylus*
> > Chief Pastor
> > United Church of Jesus Christ the Procrastinator
> > "He's suffering performance anxiety"
>
> Depending on the interpretation of the topic, I think my comment
> humorous, if not appropriate. If Pnyikos has a problem with it, he
> should look to his own house first, before throwing stones.
Been there, done that. On the other hand, you have failed misearbly
in documenting that I belong to the list on which you've repeatedly
tried to put me:
TROLLS
I shot down two attempts, and you ran away from the demonstration of
how utterly baseless the charge "You are trolling again" was in one
post, and how utterly false the claim "...like a troll" was on another
thread. To add to the hypocrisy of it all, you pretended to be
miffed at how *I* was not posting substantive on-topic things.
Peter Nyikos
*Hemidactylus*
> On Feb 15, 10:10 pm, *Hemidactylus*<ecpho...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> On 02/12/2011 11:06 AM, jillery wrote:> ...but if you stop drinking, you should keep your balance.
>>
>> Does he drink? If so, he's probably a lot of fun after a couple pitchers
>> and chicken wings. Mmmmmmm...beer and chicken wings. Being a
>> mathematician, he's the guy stuck trying to calculate who owes what on
>> the tab without a calculator :-)
>
> Fair warning: beer, chicken wings and calculators do not go together
> well.
>
>>
>> Someone compared him to Nixon and now he's a drinker. This thread's not
>> going too well. The problem goes both ways and he's poked, he will poke
>> back.
>
> As long as he doesn't poke his calculator with greasy fingers it might
> work
> out OK for him...
>
tab of a drunken wingfest on a cellphone. Given PN is a math professor
he should handle this task better (he could at least topologically
criticize the wait staff about the smallness of the wings with
equations), but it would be fun to watch if for nothing more than t.o.
posterity. Harter could craft a poem about it.
jillery
It is my observation that your posting style promotes confusion over
clarity, and grandstanding over discussion. It is consistent with
someone who is more interested in inflammatory replies and less
interested in discussing specific topics. For these reasons and
others, I conclude you are a troll, one who posts for the purpose of
evoking OT replies. Posts like the above only help to affirm my
opinion. That is all I have to say on this point. I stop here.
pnyikos
So you claim. But I doubt that you can make good that claim in the
eyes of someone like Bob Casanova, or DIG, or even John Wilkins.
In fact, I think you only venture that opinion because you've seen
John Harshman make noises in that direction, and because you have a
faithful shill in Tom S.
But you should know two things: Harshman is someone who, in my
experience, can dish out criticism, but can't take it; and Tom S. has
a history of crashingly incompetent posting to talk.abortion and
alt.abortion. He may have learned from his follies there, but then
again maybe not.
> It is consistent with
> someone who is more interested in inflammatory replies
Your inflammatory replies to me do interest me, because they are such
good illustrations of at least three dirty debating tactics. I said
earlier that I plan to post on them this month, but Ron Okimoto is
posting far more inflammatory replies to me, and so there will be
another delaty in my documentation.
But as I said, you may rest assured: the mills of justice grind
slowly, but they grind exceeding fine.
>and less
> interested in discussing specific topics.
I don't see you in most of the threads where I discuss specific
topics. And I discuss a lot of topics. Less than an hour ago, for
instance, I found one that was right down my alley:
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/b7aa55ddf80a41e3?dmode=source
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/06bb07ab260b6ba3?dmode=source
I see you've been active on that thread already. Perhaps you would
like to discuss this topic too.
Peter Nyikos
John S. Wilkins
> On Feb 21, 11:59 pm, jillery <69jpi...@gmail.com> wrote:
...
> > It is my observation that your posting style promotes confusion over
> > clarity, and grandstanding over discussion.
>
> So you claim. But I doubt that you can make good that claim in the
> eyes of someone like Bob Casanova, or DIG, or even John Wilkins.
Does this mean I'm on a List now? I have waited so long...
Peter, occasionally you say things that are brilliant, and occasionally
you say things that are interesting. Sometimes they are both. Most of
the time, however, I agree with jillery. You tend to do the things he
says you do, from my perspective.
I have been rather tempted of late to ask you what it is you think you
are achieving here. For example, your panspermia hypothesis: is it a
thought experiment, a substantive claim (you often talk as if these are
known truths), or a rhetorical ploy? Why the personal attacks? Okay, you
cop a fair bit too, but my recollection is that you came in here with
all guns blazing, so you get what you sow.
Of all your posts here, I found your discussions of phylogeny most
interesting (and all completely wrong, of course, but philosophers never
let that get in the way of a good discussion). Most of the time, though,
you are playing schoolyard debating: "Are too!" "Is not!".
Since you invoked my Name...
--
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
John S. Wilkins
> pnyikos <nyi...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>
> > On Feb 21, 11:59 pm, jillery <69jpi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> ...
> > > It is my observation that your posting style promotes confusion over
> > > clarity, and grandstanding over discussion.
> >
> > So you claim. But I doubt that you can make good that claim in the
> > eyes of someone like Bob Casanova, or DIG, or even John Wilkins.
>
> Does this mean I'm on a List now? I have waited so long...
>
> Peter, occasionally you say things that are brilliant, and occasionally
> you say things that are interesting. Sometimes they are both. Most of
> the time, however, I agree with jillery. You tend to do the things he
> says you do, from my perspective.
>
> I have been rather tempted of late to ask you what it is you think you
> are achieving here. For example, your panspermia hypothesis: is it a
> thought experiment, a substantive claim (you often talk as if these are
> known truths), or a rhetorical ploy? Why the personal attacks? Okay, you
> cop a fair bit too, but my recollection is that you came in here with
> all guns blazing, so you get what you sow.
>
> Of all your posts here, I found your discussions of phylogeny most
> interesting (and all completely wrong, of course, but philosophers never
> let that get in the way of a good discussion). Most of the time, though,
> you are playing schoolyard debating: "Are too!" "Is not!".
>
> Since you invoked my Name...
Peter: Are you going to reply? I thought this was a reasonable question.
Paul J Gans
He's a heart breaker, that one is.
Roger schruber
fnord
> [snip]
>
> Three lists for evolutionists under the sky
> Seven for the creationists with their heads of stone
> Nine for the lurkers doomed to cry
> One for the List Lord on his dark throne
>
> In talk.origins where the posters lie
> One list to rule them all, one list to name them
> One list to bring them all and in the darkness blame them.
> In talk.origins where the posters lie
The lists go ever on and on
Out from the post where they began
Now far ahead the lists have grown
And I must join them if I can
Pursuing them with eager puns
Thread.Diluting.Kaffeeklatsch affrays
Gray shaded meltdown scams
But why we care, we cannot say
pnyikos
> John S. Wilkins <j...@wilkins.id.au> wrote:
>
>
>
> > pnyikos <nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>
> > > On Feb 21, 11:59 pm, jillery <69jpi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > ...
> > > > It is my observation that your posting style promotes confusion over
> > > > clarity, and grandstanding over discussion.
>
> > > So you claim. But I doubt that you can make good that claim in the
> > > eyes of someone like Bob Casanova, or DIG, or even John Wilkins.
>
> > Does this mean I'm on a List now? I have waited so long...
>
> > Peter, occasionally you say things that are brilliant, and occasionally
> > you say things that are interesting. Sometimes they are both. Most of
> > the time, however, I agree with jillery. You tend to do the things he
> > says you do, from my perspective.
>
> > I have been rather tempted of late to ask you what it is you think you
> > are achieving here. For example, your panspermia hypothesis: is it a
> > thought experiment, a substantive claim (you often talk as if these are
> > known truths), or a rhetorical ploy? Why the personal attacks? Okay, you
> > cop a fair bit too, but my recollection is that you came in here with
> > all guns blazing, so you get what you sow.
>
> > Of all your posts here, I found your discussions of phylogeny most
> > interesting (and all completely wrong, of course, but philosophers never
> > let that get in the way of a good discussion). Most of the time, though,
> > you are playing schoolyard debating: "Are too!" "Is not!".
>
> > Since you invoked my Name...
>
> Peter: Are you going to reply? I thought this was a reasonable question.
Yes both, [your questions, as opposed to some of your comments, are
reasonable], but give me a day or two more. I've been very heavily
engaged with some new developments.
Peter Nyikos
pnyikos
> pnyikos <nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> > On Feb 21, 11:59 pm, jillery <69jpi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> ...
> > > It is my observation that your posting style promotes confusion over
> > > clarity, and grandstanding over discussion.
>
> > So you claim. But I doubt that you can make good that claim in the
> > eyes of someone like Bob Casanova, or DIG, or even John Wilkins.
>
> Does this mean I'm on a List now? I have waited so long...
Don't tell me you are into this kind of talk!
Before I go on: I owe you a reply to your fascinating discussion of
consciousness (Keyword: zombies), but I can't find the thread: Google
Advanced Search only goes back to ca. Feb 25, and the earliest date I
can find for you on that topic is Feb 28.
If you give me an url in your reply here, I'll make sure and respond
early next week. I'm quite busy today and I don't post on weekends
except under extraordinary circumstances.
> Peter, occasionally you say things that are brilliant, and occasionally
> you say things that are interesting. Sometimes they are both. Most of
> the time, however, I agree with jillery. You tend to do the things he
> says you do, from my perspective.
Jillery is a highly dishonest person, but if you are like ca. 95% of
the people here, you don't want to know about it.
> I have been rather tempted of late to ask you what it is you think you
> are achieving here. For example, your panspermia hypothesis: is it a
> thought experiment, a substantive claim
The latter.
> (you often talk as if these are
> known truths),
Only on threads where I've made it clear that this is a theory, I
hope. A respectable one, having been originated by Nobel Laureate
Francis Crick and Leslie Orgel.
>or a rhetorical ploy? Why the personal attacks?
See the following reply to Harshman, a little while ago, for the
lowdown on that--it comes at the end, but what came earlier sheds some
light on it.
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/dea934d5be2a1179
Okay, you
> cop a fair bit too, but my recollection is that you came in here with
> all guns blazing, so you get what you sow.
A very erroneous recollection. I came in here promoting directed
panspermia and using it as a springboard for talking about ID, as well
as setting the record straight on what Behe's positions are.
I was perfectly willing to let bygones be bygones with everyone except
Hershey, and I kidded in a good natured way with Paul Gans until I
realized he was deliberately ignoring me.
The attacks from Ron O. and jillery were what got my hackles up.
Contrast that with my behavior in sci.bio.paleontology, where these
bozos and others never show up.
> Of all your posts here, I found your discussions of phylogeny most
> interesting (and all completely wrong, of course,
The phylogeny is great, it's the way it is recorded that I take issue
with. Cladistic classification is fine for extant species, lousy for
extinct ones--and the further back they are and the more varied their
remote descendants, the worse it gets.
> but philosophers never
> let that get in the way of a good discussion). Most of the time, though,
> you are playing schoolyard debating: "Are too!" "Is not!".
With documentation, unlike most of my adversaries, especially jillery.
> Since you invoked my Name...
> --
> John S. Wilkins, Associate, Philosophy, University of Sydneyhttp://evolvingthoughts.net
pnyikos
If you saw the depths to which talk.abortion has sunk since 1992, you
might understand. I did lists back then, and the people who have a
stranglehold on it there now are members of what I then called the
Keegan "Tweed" Ring and allies they have picked up along the line.
Those low-lifes could safely be ignored as late as 1997. Now they
have almost completely taken over the newsgroup.
All that is needed for evil to prevail
is for good men to do nothing.
--Edmund Burke
Peter Nyikos
Peter Nyikos
jillery
<snip to point>
>
> .
>
> With documentation, unlike most of my adversaries, especially jillery.
FWIW I don't consider you an adversary. I consider you a waste of
time.
pnyikos
> Before I go on: I owe you a reply to your fascinating discussion of
> consciousness (Keyword: zombies), but I can't find the thread: Google
> Advanced Search only goes back to ca. Feb 25, and the earliest date I
> can find for you on that topic is Feb 28.
I meant to say, of course, that Google Advanced Search only goes as
far as ca. Feb 25 and does not access later posts.
Peter Nyikos
pnyikos
That's a standard troll line.
Actions speak louder than words. Here is documentation of some of
YOUR actions where you treated me as an adversary:
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/7ad63e3a6c0a35c5
In our first real tiff, you ignored the url I provided on another
issue; let's see how you react to this one. [I'm also curious to see
whether John Wilkins takes note of it.]
And if you claim that you apologized on that thread, be sure to
specify what it was that you apologized FOR. It sure wasn't your
numerous baseless defamatory accusations. You went on pretending they
never existed.
jillery
> On Mar 11, 10:14 am, jillery <69jpi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Mar 11, 10:05 am, pnyikos <nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>
> > <snip to point>
>
> > > .
>
> > > With documentation, unlike most of my adversaries, especially jillery.
>
> > FWIW I don't consider you an adversary. I consider you a waste of
> > time.
>
> That's a standard troll line.
As is yours.
HAND
pnyikos
Actually only one of the baseless false accusations was seriously
defamatory. But there were others, that came earlier, and the one
place where I had jillery dead to rights, with overwhelming
documentation, was the only place where jillery apologized for
ANYTHING.
And here is an excerpt from a post showing how meaningless even that
apology was:
------------------------- begin excerpt
below,
you even put the word "accusation" into quotes, as though you had
never made false accusations like the following:
"You just sat back and enjoyed the show,
as is the nature of trolls."
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/08d3ce6f4ec9b45a
In other words, you were apologizing for a simple non-recognition of
words, but none of the false accusations that I've quoted. Non-
recognition is not something that even requires an apology.
> Apparently you now think I was insincere.
When I made the statement to which you are replying, that was not my
belief. However, it is my belief now that you have either retracted
your apology or weasel-worded it to the point where it is meaningless.
> > and made it
> > clear that the accusations WERE false.
>
> You made it clear that you think my "accusations" are false.
Note the weaseling "you think" and the weaseling use of quotes in
"accusations".
Do you deny that you falsely accused me when you said the thing I've
quoted above?
=================== end of excerpt from
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/cc2888632537811f
As befits a TRUE troll, jillery ran away from the question.
Peter Nyikos
pnyikos
Go ahead and joke--you "FWIW" is a lie and you know it.
And since you deleted the url for the post where I showed what a lie
it is, you now get the full treatment:
Newsgroups: talk.origins
From: pnyikos <nyik...@bellsouth.net>
Date: Mon, 31 Jan 2011 19:39:41 -0800 (PST)
Local: Mon, Jan 31 2011 10:39 pm
Subject: Re: a farewell
Reply | Reply to author | Forward | Print | View thread | Show
original | Remove | Report this message | Find messages by this
author
On Jan 29, 9:29 am, jillery <69jpi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Jan 28, 9:57 pm, pnyikos <nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> > On Jan 26, 12:37 am, jillery <69jpi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > On Jan 25, 2:19 pm, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off> wrote:
> > > > On Mon, 24 Jan 2011 12:14:41 -0800 (PST), the following
> > > > appeared in talk.origins, posted by jillery
> > > > <69jpi...@gmail.com>:
> > > > >On Jan 24, 1:39 pm, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off> wrote:
> > > > >> On Sun, 23 Jan 2011 20:21:00 -0800 (PST), the following
> > > > >> appeared in talk.origins, posted by jillery
> > > > >> <69jpi...@gmail.com>:
[Ray Martinez:]
> > > > >> >> > Another life wasted and ruined by evolution and that evil Atheist,
> > > > >> >> > Charles Darwin.
> > > > >> >> > Ray
[Nyikos]
> > > > >> >> His ideas had many evil consequences,
> > > > >> >Identify and substantiate just one.
> > > > >> Eugenics, especially as practiced in the 1930s and 1940s in
> > > > >> Germany; substantiation is left as an exercise for the
> > > > >> reader. Note that Peter didn't say that the consequences
> > > > >> derived from *valid* application of Darwin's ideas.
> > > > >I see you interpreted "his" to refer to Darwin, while I interpreted
> > > > >"his" to refer to El Cid.
> > > > Aha! Yes, I did, since the preceding comment was about
> > > > Darwin and the continuation below seemed to refer to Darwin.
> > And Bob is right, see below.
...about the continuation, by me.
> The preceding comment was not about Darwin but about El Cid.
It was about BOTH. Take a look at the words of Martinez way up
there. And Darwin is by far the most important target of that
comment.
> > > Since you mentioned it, the comment to which Pnyikos aparrently
> > > responded started with "another life ruined". Given the context and
> > > the topic, I'm pretty sure that refers to El Cid,
> > That much does, yes, but I was focused on what came in the comment
> > AFTER that.
> Thank you for finally specifying your intent.
The post to which you are responding was done on the 28th. I already
set the record straight about my intent on the 24th, right on this
thread, in *direct* follow-up to you:
------------------------------------ begin excerpt
> > >> > Another life wasted and ruined by evolution and that evil Atheist,
> > >> > Charles Darwin.
> > >> > Ray
> > >> His ideas had many evil consequences,
> > >Identify and substantiate just one.
> > Eugenics, especially as practiced in the 1930s and 1940s in
> > Germany; substantiation is left as an exercise for the
> > reader. Note that Peter didn't say that the consequences
> > derived from *valid* application of Darwin's ideas.
> I see you interpreted "his" to refer to Darwin, while I interpreted
> "his" to refer to El Cid.
Of course, I meant Darwin. Read Ray's last sentence, and mark well
whom the label "evil Atheist" is attached to.
============================ end of excerpt from
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/8b232e06237e13af
Message-ID: <3fedc1a3-27cf-4d08-
b891-7005c9284...@u6g2000yqk.googlegroups.com>
What's more, you replied DIRECTLY to this post of the 24th the next
day, leaving in the above statement "Of course..." but ignoring it:
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/e94a87a445cedef2
> > > and mentions Darwin
> > > only in reference to him. As I said, his entire comment could apply
> > > to either.
> > Whose? Not mine, certainly.
> Yes yours, most certainly.
Utterly false, see above.
> > I know what I meant, and your persistent
> > efforts at mind-reading are not appreciated.
> This is the first time you even bothered to clarify this point, so
> your assertion of "persistent" is lame.
False, see documentation above.
> > > Why are you so unwilling to give me the same benefit of
> > > the doubt I give to you?
> > I am the one who responded, and as I said,
> It is Bob who challenged me.
I was referring to my response to Martinez.
> You just sat back and enjoyed the show,
> as is the nature of trolls.
A grotesque, defamatory falsehood.
> > "Of course, I meant Darwin. Read Ray's last sentence, and mark well
> > whom the label "evil Atheist" is attached to.
That was what I said already on the 24th, see above.
> As I said in my first post,
> which you ignored,
On the contrary, as you can see, my clarification on the 24th was in
DIRECT follow-up to the first post in which you made your confusion
evident.
> I recognize either interpretation as valid. OTOH
> Bob persists in presenting his as the more valid, and thus arises yet
> another useless thread.
The irony is priceless. You have wasted several posts, especially
the
one to which I am replying, in continuing a dispute which should have
been laid to rest on the 24th, and WOULD have been had you bothered
to
read all of the words in your reply on the 25th.
If you reply to what I am saying here, I suggest you take your own
advice from earlier on this thread:
"Have you no shame? If you're not just trolling,
and really want to discuss this, start another topic."
-- http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/69dc92836e6f57a5
Message-ID:
<51b9b561-43fd-4005-94ea-9ce8ad871...@k42g2000yqa.googlegroups.com>
Ironically enough, the post in which these words of yours appeared
STILL featured my words from Jan. 24, "Of course, I meant..." above
them, undeleted.
Peter Nyikos
================== end of post archived at
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/7ad63e3a6c0a35c5
John S. Wilkins
> On Feb 25, 8:08 pm, j...@wilkins.id.au (John S. Wilkins) wrote:
> > pnyikos <nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> > > On Feb 21, 11:59 pm, jillery <69jpi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > ...
> > > > It is my observation that your posting style promotes confusion over
> > > > clarity, and grandstanding over discussion.
> >
> > > So you claim. But I doubt that you can make good that claim in the
> > > eyes of someone like Bob Casanova, or DIG, or even John Wilkins.
> >
> > Does this mean I'm on a List now? I have waited so long...
>
> Don't tell me you are into this kind of talk!
>
> Before I go on: I owe you a reply to your fascinating discussion of
> consciousness (Keyword: zombies), but I can't find the thread: Google
> Advanced Search only goes back to ca. Feb 25, and the earliest date I
> can find for you on that topic is Feb 28.
>
> If you give me an url in your reply here, I'll make sure and respond
> early next week. I'm quite busy today and I don't post on weekends
> except under extraordinary circumstances.
I don't use Google News myself, so I can't, I'm afraid. It has dropped
off my server.
>
> > Peter, occasionally you say things that are brilliant, and occasionally
> > you say things that are interesting. Sometimes they are both. Most of
> > the time, however, I agree with jillery. You tend to do the things he
> > says you do, from my perspective.
>
> Jillery is a highly dishonest person, but if you are like ca. 95% of
> the people here, you don't want to know about it.
I don't track personal stuff for anybody but me, and often not then,
either.
>
> > I have been rather tempted of late to ask you what it is you think you
> > are achieving here. For example, your panspermia hypothesis: is it a
> > thought experiment, a substantive claim
>
> The latter.
>
> > (you often talk as if these are
> > known truths),
>
> Only on threads where I've made it clear that this is a theory, I
> hope. A respectable one, having been originated by Nobel Laureate
> Francis Crick and Leslie Orgel.
How do you know it, then? Is there hard evidence? I haven't seen you
overcome the obvious problems of nonterrestrial OoL. Did I miss it?
>
> >or a rhetorical ploy? Why the personal attacks?
>
> See the following reply to Harshman, a little while ago, for the
> lowdown on that--it comes at the end, but what came earlier sheds some
> light on it.
>
> http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/dea934d5be2a1179
>
>
> Okay, you
> > cop a fair bit too, but my recollection is that you came in here with
> > all guns blazing, so you get what you sow.
>
> A very erroneous recollection. I came in here promoting directed
> panspermia and using it as a springboard for talking about ID, as well
> as setting the record straight on what Behe's positions are.
>
> I was perfectly willing to let bygones be bygones with everyone except
> Hershey, and I kidded in a good natured way with Paul Gans until I
> realized he was deliberately ignoring me.
>
> The attacks from Ron O. and jillery were what got my hackles up.
>
> Contrast that with my behavior in sci.bio.paleontology, where these
> bozos and others never show up.
>
> > Of all your posts here, I found your discussions of phylogeny most
> > interesting (and all completely wrong, of course,
>
> The phylogeny is great, it's the way it is recorded that I take issue
> with. Cladistic classification is fine for extant species, lousy for
> extinct ones--and the further back they are and the more varied their
> remote descendants, the worse it gets.
You should read some pattern cladists then. But cladistics doesn't given
you ancestors; as they fall out as sister groups even if it happens that
the fossil species truly is the ancestor.
>
>
> > but philosophers never
> > let that get in the way of a good discussion). Most of the time, though,
> > you are playing schoolyard debating: "Are too!" "Is not!".
>
> With documentation, unlike most of my adversaries, especially jillery.
I can only report how I see it.
jillery
<snip repetitive rant>
>
> .
>
Does chewing your cud in public do anything but prove what I say about
you?
I have no interest in supporting another useless, pointless, long-
winded, asinine troll topic of your creation. Find some other fish
for you troll bait.
pnyikos
> pnyikos <nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> > On Feb 25, 8:08 pm, j...@wilkins.id.au (John S. Wilkins) wrote:
> > > pnyikos <nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> > > > On Feb 21, 11:59 pm, jillery <69jpi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > ...
> > > > > It is my observation that your posting style promotes confusion over
> > > > > clarity, and grandstanding over discussion.
>
> > > > So you claim. But I doubt that you can make good that claim in the
> > > > eyes of someone like Bob Casanova, or DIG, or even John Wilkins.
>
> > > Does this mean I'm on a List now? I have waited so long...
>
> > Don't tell me you are into this kind of talk!
>
> > Before I go on: I owe you a reply to your fascinating discussion of
> > consciousness (Keyword: zombies), but I can't find the thread: Google
> > Advanced Search only goes back to ca. Feb 25, and the earliest date I
> > can find for you on that topic is Feb 28.
>
> > If you give me an url in your reply here, I'll make sure and respond
> > early next week. I'm quite busy today and I don't post on weekends
> > except under extraordinary circumstances.
>
> I don't use Google News myself, so I can't, I'm afraid. It has dropped
> off my server.
I can find it, given enough time. But I am so busy this week, it'll
have to wait till next week. And by that time, Google may be back up
to date or at least as far as March 1.
> > > I have been rather tempted of late to ask you what it is you think you
> > > are achieving here. For example, your panspermia hypothesis: is it a
> > > thought experiment, a substantive claim
>
> > The latter.
>
> > > (you often talk as if these are
> > > known truths),
>
> > Only on threads where I've made it clear that this is a theory, I
> > hope. A respectable one, having been originated by Nobel Laureate
> > Francis Crick and Leslie Orgel.
>
> How do you know it, then?
What's this "know it" jazz? It's a respectable theory, nothing more
and nothing less. Just like the alternative scientific theory that
life began spontaneously and naturally on earth. [Then there is the
supernatural theory, but we need not concern ourselves about that
here.]
>Is there hard evidence?
Neither for that nor for the alternative scientific theory. AFAIK,
all arguments in favor of the latter in talk.origins boil down to:
Mother Earth did it, this I know
For Ockham's Razor tells me so.
> I haven't seen you
> overcome the obvious problems of nonterrestrial OoL.
The events in question took place ca. 3.9 billion years ago. Do you
really expect any intelligent species to survive for 3.9 billion
years? If so, you are decidedly in the minority as far as this ng.
is concerned.
I had other arguments, but perhaps you saw them and found them
wanting?
> Did I miss it?
You seem to have read very little of what I've written on the
subject. Why didn't you join in the festivities earlier? Why did it
take a thread about personal differences to get you really started?
[...]
> > > Of all your posts here, I found your discussions of phylogeny most
> > > interesting (and all completely wrong, of course,
>
> > The phylogeny is great, it's the way it is recorded that I take issue
> > with. Cladistic classification is fine for extant species, lousy for
> > extinct ones--and the further back they are and the more varied their
> > remote descendants, the worse it gets.
>
> You should read some pattern cladists then.
What's that got to do with anything I've written?
>But cladistics doesn't given
> you ancestors; as they fall out as sister groups even if it happens that
> the fossil species truly is the ancestor.
Yeah, so everything is at the leaves. And yet cladistics is touted to
be "scientific" because it gives the phylogeny! Even direct ancestors
are assumed to be sisters, and with the paucity of the fossil record,
you couldn't tell the difference between an ancestral echidna and a
platypus from the cladistic tree alone.
> > > but philosophers never
> > > let that get in the way of a good discussion). Most of the time, though,
> > > you are playing schoolyard debating: "Are too!" "Is not!".
>
> > With documentation, unlike most of my adversaries, especially jillery.
>
> I can only report how I see it.
You've never seen an exchange involving me that is remotely like the
schoolyard debate you are "quoting", have you?
Peter Nyikos
pnyikos
> On Mar 11, 11:12 am, pnyikos <nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>
> <snip repetitive rant>
What you call a repetitive rant is me documenting my decisive
refutation of a repetitive rant of yours in which you repeatedly made
essentially the same false accusation about me. This is what you are
snipping and this is the post to which you are responding:
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/a60055eefefe3481
Another post I made a little bit before that, also to this thread,
documents how you shamelessly pretended that you hadn't made false
accusations about me:
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/2116b58ee979cc25
At the end I say you ran away from my calling you to account for your
shameless pretense, and even that was an understatement.
You never followed up to the post from which I am quoting,
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/cc2888632537811f
... but only to a post where I corrected a minor inaccuracy. And
there, like a polemicist who is only concerned with how clever his
repartee is, you snipped everything and posted simply:
"<snip rant>
"Even when you argue with yourself, you still lose the argument."
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/7c94a492d6fae645
And clever repartee, devoid of any basis in reality, is still your
strong suit--in fact, your only suit in this post:
> Does chewing your cud in public do anything but prove what I say about
> you?
It refutes what you say about me, troll.
> I have no interest in supporting another useless, pointless, long-
> winded, asinine troll topic of your creation. Find some other fish
> for you troll bait.
This rant of yours is like the Cretan calling all Cretans liars. I've
watched you long enough in interaction with others to see that this
kind of repartee gives you enormous satisfaction.
Peter Nyikos
John S. Wilkins
> On Mar 12, 12:27 pm, j...@wilkins.id.au (John S. Wilkins) wrote:
> > pnyikos <nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> > > On Feb 25, 8:08 pm, j...@wilkins.id.au (John S. Wilkins) wrote:
...
> > > > I have been rather tempted of late to ask you what it is you think you
> > > > are achieving here. For example, your panspermia hypothesis: is it a
> > > > thought experiment, a substantive claim
> >
> > > The latter.
> >
> > > > (you often talk as if these are
> > > > known truths),
> >
> > > Only on threads where I've made it clear that this is a theory, I
> > > hope. A respectable one, having been originated by Nobel Laureate
> > > Francis Crick and Leslie Orgel.
> >
> > How do you know it, then?
>
> What's this "know it" jazz? It's a respectable theory, nothing more
> and nothing less. Just like the alternative scientific theory that
> life began spontaneously and naturally on earth. [Then there is the
> supernatural theory, but we need not concern ourselves about that
> here.]
There are an infinite number of hypotheses. For one or more of them to
become theories, which of course is a promotion (theories are what
hypotheses want to be when they grow up), you need to have some reasons
for thinking that they might be true. So I ask again, why do you think
it might be true, rather than just shooting the breeze like stoned
undergraduates? For example, I gather (although I didn't see it myself,
not paying attention) that you name and describe the planet on which
life *did* evolve. Throom? Anyway, I know you did not mean it literally,
but in case you did, what evidence do you have for thinking such a place
exists, to whatever level of specificity you intend?
I know that we think polymers of life and other preconditions for it
came from space - that was always the case once we had the nebular
hypothesis for the formation of the solar system. And we increasingly
think more of these polymers came from space as we investigate
carbonaceous chondrites and comets. But life itself? Let alone that
ridiculous hypothesis of Wickramsingh that particular viral diseases
come from space. We already have perfectly good hypotheses, and even
direct observations, of the evolution of viruses on earth. So it's a
matter of parsimony - what makes it worth considering?
>
> >Is there hard evidence?
>
> Neither for that nor for the alternative scientific theory. AFAIK,
> all arguments in favor of the latter in talk.origins boil down to:
>
> Mother Earth did it, this I know
> For Ockham's Razor tells me so.
Careful with Ockham's Razor, or you'll cut yourself. But let's consider
this (I presume you mean it as a dismissal).
Knowledge is based on some Bayesian likelihood. We know any claim
because we have reasons (priors and observed evidence) to think the
knowledge claim is warranted. Other senses of "to know" that require
certainty are restricted to omniscient beings with infinite amounts of
computational ability and storage space, so if humans know anything,
they do it in Bayesian fashion.
One therefore must implicitly calculate the most likely scenario in
order to know anything. That is all Ockham's Razor means. We are
fallible, and so our epistemology must permit defeasible beliefs to be
knowledge (or we must say that we only have more or less knowledge
claims, but I like to think I know a thing or two), and so we *can* say,
if the likelihoods work out the right way, that we know that life arose
on earth. There are no other scenarios of equal or higher likelihood.
If you can bias the inferences in another direction, either on the basis
of evidence I do not know, or theory I do not understand yet, do so. I
am interested in OoL, so I would like to know.
>
> > I haven't seen you
> > overcome the obvious problems of nonterrestrial OoL.
>
> The events in question took place ca. 3.9 billion years ago. Do you
> really expect any intelligent species to survive for 3.9 billion
> years? If so, you are decidedly in the minority as far as this ng.
> is concerned.
>
> I had other arguments, but perhaps you saw them and found them
> wanting?
No, but here is my problem. To argue that any aspect of life is designed
*now*, from 3.9bya, is to posit entities capable of doing the sort of
computation and inference over a range of conditions that are so
computationally intractable and malleable (could they have predicted the
K-T bolide?) that you are, in effect, positing a deity. As I once said
before, anything that can predict what functions will be needed and how
they will play out over 3.9 billion years is as near to a god as dammit.
>
> > Did I miss it?
>
> You seem to have read very little of what I've written on the
> subject. Why didn't you join in the festivities earlier? Why did it
> take a thread about personal differences to get you really started?
You Invoked *me*, remember? I was happy to sit around doing my actual
work and sniping with one-liners.
>
> [...]
> > > > Of all your posts here, I found your discussions of phylogeny most
> > > > interesting (and all completely wrong, of course,
> >
> > > The phylogeny is great, it's the way it is recorded that I take issue
> > > with. Cladistic classification is fine for extant species, lousy for
> > > extinct ones--and the further back they are and the more varied their
> > > remote descendants, the worse it gets.
> >
> > You should read some pattern cladists then.
>
> What's that got to do with anything I've written?
I merely mention them as cladists who do not think that one can identify
ancestors. You made a general comment about phylogenetics. I was
pointing out an exception.
>
> >But cladistics doesn't given
> > you ancestors; as they fall out as sister groups even if it happens that
> > the fossil species truly is the ancestor.
>
> Yeah, so everything is at the leaves. And yet cladistics is touted to
> be "scientific" because it gives the phylogeny! Even direct ancestors
> are assumed to be sisters, and with the paucity of the fossil record,
> you couldn't tell the difference between an ancestral echidna and a
> platypus from the cladistic tree alone.
Hence the comment about pattern cladists.
>
> > > > but philosophers never
> > > > let that get in the way of a good discussion). Most of the time, though,
> > > > you are playing schoolyard debating: "Are too!" "Is not!".
> >
> > > With documentation, unlike most of my adversaries, especially jillery.
> >
> > I can only report how I see it.
>
> You've never seen an exchange involving me that is remotely like the
> schoolyard debate you are "quoting", have you?
>
I do think so. Pity I didn't pay close enough attention to save the
references, but I really do not care to do that sort of thing, even when
I am involved. Life is too short to play those games.
pnyikos
> pnyikos <nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> > On Mar 12, 12:27 pm, j...@wilkins.id.au (John S. Wilkins) wrote:
> > > pnyikos <nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> > > > On Feb 25, 8:08 pm, j...@wilkins.id.au (John S. Wilkins) wrote:
> ...
> > > > > I have been rather tempted of late to ask you what it is you think you
> > > > > are achieving here. For example, your panspermia hypothesis: is it a
> > > > > thought experiment, a substantive claim
>
> > > > The latter.
>
> > > > > (you often talk as if these are
> > > > > known truths),
>
> > > > Only on threads where I've made it clear that this is a theory, I
> > > > hope. A respectable one, having been originated by Nobel Laureate
> > > > Francis Crick and Leslie Orgel.
>
> > > How do you know it, then?
>
> > What's this "know it" jazz? It's a respectable theory, nothing more
> > and nothing less. Just like the alternative scientific theory that
> > life began spontaneously and naturally on earth. [Then there is the
> > supernatural theory, but we need not concern ourselves about that
> > here.]
>
> There are an infinite number of hypotheses.
Can you name any besides the two panspermia hypotheses (undirected,
Arrhenius, Hoyle, Wickramsinghe; directed, Crick, Orgel) that have
appeared in peer-reviewed papers?
> For one or more of them to
> become theories, which of course is a promotion (theories are what
> hypotheses want to be when they grow up), you need to have some reasons
> for thinking that they might be true.
Can you name any peer-reviewed articles in which someone tried to show
that homegrown abiogenesis is MORE likely than either of the
panspermia hypotheses?
If not, the playing field is level.
>So I ask again, why do you think
> it might be true, rather than just shooting the breeze like stoned
> undergraduates?
Your "rather than" suggests that you are ignorant of both what I have
written on the subject and what Crick and Orgel have written. One
place you might start is a thread which I revisited yesterday after
over a month's absence:
"Directed panspermy, Nyikos style II"
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/d0bdfaf667b658ec
Some of my earlier posts there might be even more suitable for you to
comment on, like this duo:
.
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/00fb1395d156bf40
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/5a2fc1c891c45205
or this duo:
.
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/2b4814b673135e76
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/fe49535d6fd068e4
or you might just want to start with the first post in the thread
and work your way down:
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/a3f67b2251d84e5a
Here is the url for the whole thread:
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/browse_thread/thread/5e840a9968c6d5fe/a3f67b2251d84e5a
> For example, I gather (although I didn't see it myself,
> not paying attention) that you name and describe the planet on which
> life *did* evolve. Throom?
NO!!!!! that was just a convenient name for the "home planet" for one
of my hypotheses, the one (Scenario 3C) which stated that an
intelligent life form based on a much simpler biochemistry than ours
(RNA-based instead of protein-based, but incorporating simple
structural proteins) designed some prokaryotes and maybe some
primitive eukaryotes and seeded earth with them.
The idea is that after using some nanotechnology to produce the
comparatively simple proteins that they could use, they realized that
the nanotechnology could be an easy basis for a radically new life
form.
I have two other hypotheses. My debating opponents christened the
planet for Scenario 3A (biochemistry of panspermists essentially like
our own) "Xordax". The third hypothesis, that the panspermists had a
protein translation mechanism using substantially fewer amino acids
than ours (Scenario 3B) has not had a name of a hypothetical planet
assigned to it. Would you like to make one up?
> Anyway, I know you did not mean it literally,
> but in case you did, what evidence do you have for thinking such a place
> exists, to whatever level of specificity you intend?
It may not exist at all, what with 3.9 billion or so years having
elapsed. The "home sun" may have swelled and incinerated that
planet. And that gives one possible motivation the panspermists might
have had for seeding other worlds: trying to "terra"form a planet for
occupation by themselves.
> I know that we think polymers of life and other preconditions for it
> came from space - that was always the case once we had the nebular
> hypothesis for the formation of the solar system. And we increasingly
> think more of these polymers came from space as we investigate
> carbonaceous chondrites and comets. But life itself?
No, the person to discuss that undirected panspermia hypothesis with
is Brig Klyce. Remember him?
> Let alone that
> ridiculous hypothesis of Wickramsingh that particular viral diseases
> come from space. We already have perfectly good hypotheses, and even
> direct observations, of the evolution of viruses on earth.
Viruses are generally believed to have evolved from escaped fragments
of prokaryotic or eukaryotic genomes, aren't they?
>So it's a
> matter of parsimony - what makes it worth considering?
Parsimony, without knowledge of the existing evidence and reasoning,
is a very weak rule of thumb. Much more powerful is the following
reasoning: it stretches credibility to hypothesize that space viruses
all utilize the same genetic code, yet are unable to exploit it
without huge inputs (ribosomes, etc.) from living cells, all of the
known ones of which are earthbound.
> > >Is there hard evidence?
>
> > Neither for that nor for the alternative scientific theory. AFAIK,
> > all arguments in favor of the latter in talk.origins boil down to:
...(1) a rather naive parsimony, or as I put it earlier:
> > Mother Earth did it, this I know
> > For Ockham's Razor tells me so.
>
> Careful with Ockham's Razor, or you'll cut yourself. But let's consider
> this (I presume you mean it as a dismissal).
>
> Knowledge is based on some Bayesian likelihood. We know any claim
> because we have reasons (priors and observed evidence) to think the
> knowledge claim is warranted. Other senses of "to know" that require
> certainty are restricted to omniscient beings with infinite amounts of
> computational ability and storage space, so if humans know anything,
> they do it in Bayesian fashion.
>
> One therefore must implicitly calculate the most likely scenario in
> order to know anything. That is all Ockham's Razor means.
To be precise: Ockham's razor tells us to go with the simplest of
competing hypotheses THAT TAKE ALL EVIDENCE AND REASONING available
into consideration.
TO BE CONTINUED
Peter Nyikos
John S. Wilkins
So far I have seen about thrity different "on-earth" hypotheses in peer
reviewed journals. They range from ocean-based (including black smoker
and ocean foam) hypotheses, clay-based (several of those), several other
mineral-based, volcanic/geyser based, and each of those has RNA-first
and "metabolism-first" variants (a silly distinction, in my view).
I have seen RNA, PNA, and DNA versions. I have seen versions in which
chemical reactions are maintained by selection and those in which
enzymes occur accidentally. I have seen RNA-self catalysis theories.
But why should it matter they are peer reviewed? Or rather, if it
matters, shouldn't they be peer reviewed by the right guys (i.e., not
mathematicians or astronomers, but biochemists)?
>
> > For one or more of them to become theories, which of course is a
> > promotion (theories are what hypotheses want to be when they grow up),
> > you need to have some reasons for thinking that they might be true.
>
> Can you name any peer-reviewed articles in which someone tried to show
> that homegrown abiogenesis is MORE likely than either of the
> panspermia hypotheses?
Well yes, but that's not the point. The real issue is what makes it
likely or not. You are asserting that panspermia is more likely than
terrestrial abiogenesis. Why? Give me reasons. Moreover, you are
equivocating here. You assert that not only did life come to us from
space, but that it came already complex as a result of intelligent
seeding. For that you have zero evidence. I might accept, for example,
that some already complex molecules came from space, and yet think that
Throom is a fantasy without reasonable foundation.
>
> If not, the playing field is level.
>
> >So I ask again, why do you think it might be true, rather than just
> >shooting the breeze like stoned undergraduates?
>
> Your "rather than" suggests that you are ignorant of both what I have
> written on the subject and what Crick and Orgel have written. One
> place you might start is a thread which I revisited yesterday after
> over a month's absence:
>
> "Directed panspermy, Nyikos style II"
> http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/d0bdfaf667b658ec
>
> Some of my earlier posts there might be even more suitable for you to
> comment on, like this duo:
> .
> http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/00fb1395d156bf40
> http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/5a2fc1c891c45205
> or this duo:
> .
> http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/2b4814b673135e76
> http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/fe49535d6fd068e4
> or you might just want to start with the first post in the thread
> and work your way down:
> http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/a3f67b2251d84e5a
> Here is the url for the whole thread:
> http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/browse_thread/thread/5e840a996
> 8c6d5fe/a3f67b2251d84e5a
Thanks. I'm giving a rather big talk today, and I have a friend visiting
this weekend, so it may take a while for me to read and comment.
>
> > For example, I gather (although I didn't see it myself,
> > not paying attention) that you name and describe the planet on which
> > life *did* evolve. Throom?
>
> NO!!!!! that was just a convenient name for the "home planet" for one
> of my hypotheses, the one (Scenario 3C) which stated that an
> intelligent life form based on a much simpler biochemistry than ours
> (RNA-based instead of protein-based, but incorporating simple
> structural proteins) designed some prokaryotes and maybe some
> primitive eukaryotes and seeded earth with them.
>
> The idea is that after using some nanotechnology to produce the
> comparatively simple proteins that they could use, they realized that
> the nanotechnology could be an easy basis for a radically new life
> form.
>
> I have two other hypotheses. My debating opponents christened the
> planet for Scenario 3A (biochemistry of panspermists essentially like
> our own) "Xordax". The third hypothesis, that the panspermists had a
> protein translation mechanism using substantially fewer amino acids
> than ours (Scenario 3B) has not had a name of a hypothetical planet
> assigned to it. Would you like to make one up?
I can make up hundreds. Why should I? How do you support the
reasonableness of these scenarios? I have been reading science fiction
since I was a child, and so I know that scenarios are innumerable,
limited only by imagination and knowledge. But I can usually tell the
difference between a reasonable scientific hypothesis and SF.
>
>
> > Anyway, I know you did not mean it literally,
> > but in case you did, what evidence do you have for thinking such a place
> > exists, to whatever level of specificity you intend?
>
> It may not exist at all, what with 3.9 billion or so years having
> elapsed. The "home sun" may have swelled and incinerated that
> planet. And that gives one possible motivation the panspermists might
> have had for seeding other worlds: trying to "terra"form a planet for
> occupation by themselves.
Then why do you think it exists or something like it? I *know* why I
think that the original life on earth existed (life exists now, and
common descent is evident) even tough it has been obliterated (so far as
we know). Why do you think any of these scenarios are likely?
>
> > I know that we think polymers of life and other preconditions for it
> > came from space - that was always the case once we had the nebular
> > hypothesis for the formation of the solar system. And we increasingly
> > think more of these polymers came from space as we investigate
> > carbonaceous chondrites and comets. But life itself?
>
> No, the person to discuss that undirected panspermia hypothesis with
> is Brig Klyce. Remember him?
Vaguely. He offered arguments for his view as I recall.
>
>
> > Let alone that
> > ridiculous hypothesis of Wickramsingh that particular viral diseases
> > come from space. We already have perfectly good hypotheses, and even
> > direct observations, of the evolution of viruses on earth.
>
> Viruses are generally believed to have evolved from escaped fragments
> of prokaryotic or eukaryotic genomes, aren't they?
That's one hypothesis. The other is that viruses have their own origin
and phylogeny. The former is more likely. But wasn't it Wickramsinghe
who proposed an ET origin for viruses?
>
> >So it's a
> > matter of parsimony - what makes it worth considering?
>
> Parsimony, without knowledge of the existing evidence and reasoning,
> is a very weak rule of thumb. Much more powerful is the following
> reasoning: it stretches credibility to hypothesize that space viruses
> all utilize the same genetic code, yet are unable to exploit it
> without huge inputs (ribosomes, etc.) from living cells, all of the
> known ones of which are earthbound.
That *is* parsimony. The best hypothesis is the one with the fewest ad
hoc assumptions.
>
> > > >Is there hard evidence?
> >
> > > Neither for that nor for the alternative scientific theory. AFAIK,
> > > all arguments in favor of the latter in talk.origins boil down to:
>
> ...(1) a rather naive parsimony, or as I put it earlier:
>
> > > Mother Earth did it, this I know
> > > For Ockham's Razor tells me so.
> >
> > Careful with Ockham's Razor, or you'll cut yourself. But let's consider
> > this (I presume you mean it as a dismissal).
> >
> > Knowledge is based on some Bayesian likelihood. We know any claim
> > because we have reasons (priors and observed evidence) to think the
> > knowledge claim is warranted. Other senses of "to know" that require
> > certainty are restricted to omniscient beings with infinite amounts of
> > computational ability and storage space, so if humans know anything,
> > they do it in Bayesian fashion.
> >
> > One therefore must implicitly calculate the most likely scenario in
> > order to know anything. That is all Ockham's Razor means.
>
> To be precise: Ockham's razor tells us to go with the simplest of
> competing hypotheses THAT TAKE ALL EVIDENCE AND REASONING available
> into consideration.
>
> TO BE CONTINUED
>
> Peter Nyikos
Take your time. I am rather tied up right now.
pnyikos
> pnyikos <nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> > On Mar 12, 12:27 pm, j...@wilkins.id.au (John S. Wilkins) wrote:
[deletia of things dealt with earlier today]
> One therefore must implicitly calculate the most likely scenario in
> order to know anything. That is all Ockham's Razor means. We are
> fallible, and so our epistemology must permit defeasible beliefs to be
> knowledge (or we must say that we only have more or less knowledge
> claims, but I like to think I know a thing or two), and so we *can* say,
> if the likelihoods work out the right way, that we know that life arose
> on earth. There are no other scenarios of equal or higher likelihood.
>
> If you can bias the inferences in another direction, either on the basis
> of evidence I do not know, or theory I do not understand yet, do so.
I did it earlier this afternoon on that thread,
"Directed panspermy, Nyikos style II"
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/abf590b604813b87
I welcome your input there.
> I
> am interested in OoL, so I would like to know.
>
>
>
> > > I haven't seen you
> > > overcome the obvious problems of nonterrestrial OoL.
>
> > The events in question took place ca. 3.9 billion years ago. Do you
> > really expect any intelligent species to survive for 3.9 billion
> > years? If so, you are decidedly in the minority as far as this ng.
> > is concerned.
>
> > I had other arguments, but perhaps you saw them and found them
> > wanting?
>
> No, but here is my problem. To argue that any aspect of life is designed
> *now*, from 3.9bya,
...is to argue in a way I've never argued. The furthest I've gone is
to hypothesize that the bacterial flagellum is (1) a holdover from
those earliest days and (2) that it was designed by the panspermists
who seeded earth according to my overall hypothesis.
> is to posit entities capable of doing the sort of
> computation and inference over a range of conditions that are so
> computationally intractable and malleable (could they have predicted the
> K-T bolide?) that you are, in effect, positing a deity. As I once said
> before, anything that can predict what functions will be needed and how
> they will play out over 3.9 billion years is as near to a god as dammit.
I can't figure out what sorts of things you have in mind here.
It doesn't take even a rocket scientist to see the obvious advantages
motility provides, and the bacterial flagellum is a really cool way of
providing it.
> > [...]
> > > > > Of all your posts here, I found your discussions of phylogeny most
> > > > > interesting (and all completely wrong, of course,
>
> > > > The phylogeny is great, it's the way it is recorded that I take issue
> > > > with. Cladistic classification is fine for extant species, lousy for
> > > > extinct ones--and the further back they are and the more varied their
> > > > remote descendants, the worse it gets.
>
> > > You should read some pattern cladists then.
>
> > What's that got to do with anything I've written?
>
> I merely mention them as cladists who do not think that one can identify
> ancestors.
Huh? Everything I've read in sci.bio.paleontology, sci.bio.evolution,
and talk.origins leads me to believe that ALL professional cladists
say that.
Do the pattern cladists have a monopoly on all three newsgroups?
> You made a general comment about phylogenetics. I was
> pointing out an exception.
AFAIK, you were pointing out an ironclad rule. Can you demonstrate
otherwise?
And even YOU said it below:
> > >But cladistics doesn't give
> > > you ancestors; as they fall out as sister groups even if it happens that
> > > the fossil species truly is the ancestor.
>
> > Yeah, so everything is at the leaves. And yet cladistics is touted to
> > be "scientific" because it gives the phylogeny! Even direct ancestors
> > are assumed to be sisters, and with the paucity of the fossil record,
> > you couldn't tell the difference between an ancestral echidna and a
> > platypus from the cladistic tree alone.
>
> Hence the comment about pattern cladists.
Peter Nyikos
pnyikos
All of that is subsumed under the general rubric of "the alternative
scientific theory that life began spontaneously and naturally on
earth."
And note, all of this could just as easily have happened on another
planet. Maybe a lot more easily, on some planets. So the only reason
I put "on earth" is that the people who write these articles just
naturally assume that they are describing the conditions under which
life arose *on earth.* But I believe there is little real reasoning
behind this natural assumption in most cases.
And maybe the assumption is really in the minds of the majority of
readers, who have been through little of the literature in any real
depth.
> But why should it matter they are peer reviewed?
"rather than just shooting the breeze like stoned
undergraduates"
Sound familiar?
> Or rather, if it
> matters, shouldn't they be peer reviewed by the right guys (i.e., not
> mathematicians or astronomers, but biochemists)?
Biochemists can only speak to the strictly biochemical aspects without
reference to the planet earth. Once they start talking about
conditions on the primitive earth, there are scientists better
qualified to address that. Also when they start talking about the
probability of this or that having occurred spontaneously.
> > > For one or more of them to become theories, which of course is a
> > > promotion (theories are what hypotheses want to be when they grow up),
> > > you need to have some reasons for thinking that they might be true.
>
> > Can you name any peer-reviewed articles in which someone tried to show
> > that homegrown abiogenesis is MORE likely than either of the
> > panspermia hypotheses?
>
> Well yes,
Then do so.
>but that's not the point. The real issue is what makes it
> likely or not. You are asserting that panspermia is more likely than
> terrestrial abiogenesis. Why? Give me reasons.
Since you are very busy this week, [comments to that effect snipped
below] I suggest we continue this next week on that Directed Panspermy
thread, where I HAVE given reasons earlier today. If the posts expire
in the meantime in your newsreader, I can make copies for you.
> Moreover, you are
> equivocating here. You assert that not only did life come to us from
> space, but that it came already complex as a result of intelligent
> seeding.
That's hardly equivocating.
> For that you have zero evidence.
On this "list" thread, yes, and you have presented zero evidence for
it having started on earth on this thread. The playing field is level
on this thread.
I don't like repeating myself, so that's why I am suggesting a change
of venue to that other thread.
[...]
> > > For example, I gather (although I didn't see it myself,
> > > not paying attention) that you name and describe the planet on which
> > > life *did* evolve. Throom?
>
> > NO!!!!! that was just a convenient name for the "home planet" for one
> > of my hypotheses, the one (Scenario 3C) which stated that an
> > intelligent life form based on a much simpler biochemistry than ours
> > (RNA-based instead of protein-based, but incorporating simple
> > structural proteins) designed some prokaryotes and maybe some
> > primitive eukaryotes and seeded earth with them.
>
> > The idea is that after using some nanotechnology to produce the
> > comparatively simple proteins that they could use, they realized that
> > the nanotechnology could be an easy basis for a radically new life
> > form.
>
> > I have two other hypotheses. My debating opponents christened the
> > planet for Scenario 3A (biochemistry of panspermists essentially like
> > our own) "Xordax". The third hypothesis, that the panspermists had a
> > protein translation mechanism using substantially fewer amino acids
> > than ours (Scenario 3B) has not had a name of a hypothetical planet
> > assigned to it. Would you like to make one up?
>
> I can make up hundreds. Why should I?
No need to. I can make up one myself. Just thought you might like to
do the honors, like the person who made up the name "Xordax" and got
it adopted instantly by quite a few participants.
Peter Nyikos