A lesson in begging the question with Peter Nyikos

[Ray Martinez]

In the Drake topic authored by Peter the messages are in the 400s,
which requires too much clicking to get there; so I want to start
afresh and raise a certain point.

Peter (a Directed Panspermist) has entire civilizations of highly
intelligent and technologically advanced extraterrestrial life
existing in our galaxy, yet his Atheist brothers over at JPL have yet
to discover even one extremophile on Mars or outside of the Earth's
atmosphere!

Ray

[Robert Camp]

There's enough wrong with DP that you don't need to offer as silly a
counterargument as this, Ray.

Although 'absence of evidence' can in some cases be compelling, it's a
meaningless measure in cases like this where we know so comparatively
little about the rest of the universe that it's unreasonable to even
lay claim to an "absence."

Of course, if at some point you decide to base your argument on what
we know of physics, biology and intelligent beings you'll be on much
more solid ground.

RLC

[UC]

Well we know how we came about. It wasn't easy or pretty.

[Ray Martinez]

On Sep 4, 1:23�pm, Robert Camp <robertlc...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> On Sep 4, 1:13�pm, Ray Martinez <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > In the Drake topic authored by Peter the messages are in the 400s,
> > which requires too much clicking to get there; so I want to start
> > afresh and raise a certain point.
>
> > Peter (a Directed Panspermist) has entire civilizations of highly
> > intelligent and technologically advanced extraterrestrial life
> > existing in our galaxy, yet his Atheist brothers over at JPL have yet
> > to discover even one extremophile on Mars or outside of the Earth's
> > atmosphere!
>
> There's enough wrong with DP that you don't need to offer as silly a
> counterargument as this, Ray.
>

All this really says is that Robert cannot refute.

Since he indicates hostility toward DPism, his comment makes no sense.
And since Robert is an Atheist he is obviously upset over the fact
that not even one extremophile has ever been discovered outside of our
atmosphere.

> Although 'absence of evidence' can in some cases be compelling, it's a
> meaningless measure in cases like this where we know so comparatively
> little about the rest of the universe that it's unreasonable to even
> lay claim to an "absence."
>

Screwball logic.

Suddenly it is "unreasonable" to conclude for absence in view of

absence.

> Of course, if at some point you decide to base your argument on what
> we know of physics, biology and intelligent beings you'll be on much
> more solid ground.
>
> RLC

Robert finishes with a non-sequitur.

Ray

[Robert Camp]

On Sep 4, 1:48�pm, Ray Martinez <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Sep 4, 1:23�pm, Robert Camp <robertlc...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Sep 4, 1:13�pm, Ray Martinez <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > In the Drake topic authored by Peter the messages are in the 400s,
> > > which requires too much clicking to get there; so I want to start
> > > afresh and raise a certain point.
>
> > > Peter (a Directed Panspermist) has entire civilizations of highly
> > > intelligent and technologically advanced extraterrestrial life
> > > existing in our galaxy, yet his Atheist brothers over at JPL have yet
> > > to discover even one extremophile on Mars or outside of the Earth's
> > > atmosphere!
>
> > There's enough wrong with DP that you don't need to offer as silly a
> > counterargument as this, Ray.
>
> All this really says is that Robert cannot refute.
>
> Since he indicates hostility toward DPism, his comment makes no sense. And since Robert is an Atheist he is obviously upset over > the fact that not even one extremophile has ever been discovered outside of our atmosphere.

> > Although 'absence of evidence' can in some cases be compelling, it's a
> > meaningless measure in cases like this where we know so comparatively
> > little about the rest of the universe that it's unreasonable to even
> > lay claim to an "absence."
>
> Screwball logic.
>
> Suddenly it is "unreasonable" to conclude for absence in view of
> absence.

I'll address this bit because it's the only thing in your post that
comes anywhere near coherence.

"Absence of evidence" can mean something only when we have enough
experience with the conditions under which evidence can be discovered
such that it's reasonable to conclude we've seen enough to expect that
no evidence will be found. For example, we've seen enough of our solar
system at this point, we know enough about astrophysics, our tools of
observation are good enough, that we can feel pretty confident when we
say the absence of evidence for angels pushing the planets in their
orbits allows us to conclude that doesn't happen.

We are just now feeling our way along in our first steps on other
planets, and that's just in our local environment. Our ability to
gather the kind of information that would allow us to infer that
there's an actual "absence of evidence" compelling enough to allow us
to conclude anything about the existence of life elsewhere in the
universe is nascent.

We simply don't know enough to know there's an absence of evidence.

RLC

[jillery]

I felt exactly the same way when my parents gave me The Talk.

[Glenn]

"jillery" <69jp...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:nluc481qtoegbq6ti...@4ax.com...

You felt you knew how you came about, or that you didn't feel easy or pretty?

[jillery]

Yeppers. Ray is using a standard anti-science tactic of conflating
affirmative knowledge of absence with trivial ignorance.

[raven1]

On Tue, 4 Sep 2012 14:52:18 -0700 (PDT), Robert Camp

Of course it doesn't. The planets freely choose to move in those
orbits.

---
raven1
aa # 1096
EAC Vice President (President in charge of vice)
BAAWA Knight

[Robert Camp]

On Sep 4, 3:33�pm, raven1 <quoththera...@nevermore.com> wrote:
> On Tue, 4 Sep 2012 14:52:18 -0700 (PDT), Robert Camp
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

Well thank god someone around here understands that objectivity and
subjectivity are valuable and encouraged...and freedom is good for
rocks...even, y'know.. the ones floating around in space.

RLC

[Rolf]

"Ray Martinez" <pyram...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:3a8b6aee-62e4-4d1e...@oz6g2000pbc.googlegroups.com...

Got nothing better to do, like getting the most sensational book since the
Bible into print?

Another low-down for Ray.

[Burkhard]

Not much of a problem for his position. DP Peter style does not
predict that life came from other planets in this solar system (the
advantage, if this were their claim, would be that it is more easily
testable, the disadvantage that the test woudl fail - but it isn't
their position anyway) In fact, for his argument to work our solar
system is the last place you'd look for extraterrestrial life - the
advantage he thinks DP has over earth -based explanations is that
other systems can be much older than our system, and hence the chances
that abiogenesis have happened correspondingly higher.

Your argument is a bit like doubting that settlers from England
colonised America, because you could not find any English folks after
looking long and hard at Brazos Island only .

[pnyikos]

On Sep 4, 4:13�pm, Ray Martinez <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> In the Drake topic authored by Peter the messages are in the 400s,
> which requires too much clicking to get there;

Yeah, I can't blame you. That thread, and a companion thread which is
in the 500s, are both in what basketball aficionados call "garbage
time": the opposition is so far behind, they just keep fouling me,
hoping that I will miss some free throws, and that they can get the
rebounds.

All figuratively speaking, of course.

> so I want to start
> afresh and raise a certain point.
>
> Peter (a Directed Panspermist) has entire civilizations of highly
> intelligent and technologically advanced extraterrestrial life
> existing in our galaxy,

No, I only hypothesize one civilization, the panspermists who lived
ca. 4 billion years ago.

I believe there is a good chance there are several, maybe many other
civilizations that owe their existence to seedings that the
panspermists carried out, but that isn't part of my hypothesis.

> yet his Atheist brothers

I resent the insinuation that I am an atheist. I have never been one,
and my intellectual integrity, coupled with a huge store of knowledge
that I've accumulated in my lifetime, will keep me from becoming one.

> over at JPL have yet
> to discover even one extremophile on Mars or outside of the Earth's
> atmosphere!
>
> Ray

I replied to this no-brainer, in direct reply to you, at least a week
ago. The galaxy is so enormous, it would be folly to think that all
planets are as inhospitable to life as Mars is.

I think there are plenty of planets as favorable towards life as the
early earth, or more favorable, ONCE IT GETS STARTED.

The part in caps is where I part company with practically everyone in
this newsgroup. My fellow "evolutionists" keep harping on the claim
that I have no evidence of directed panspermia, but they are
blissfully unaware that there is no evidence that abiogenesis took
place here ON EARTH.

Peter Nyikos

[pnyikos]

On Sep 4, 4:23�pm, Robert Camp <robertlc...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> On Sep 4, 1:13 pm, Ray Martinez <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > In the Drake topic authored by Peter the messages are in the 400s,
> > which requires too much clicking to get there; so I want to start
> > afresh and raise a certain point.
>
> > Peter (a Directed Panspermist) has entire civilizations of highly
> > intelligent and technologically advanced extraterrestrial life
> > existing in our galaxy, yet his Atheist brothers over at JPL have yet
> > to discover even one extremophile on Mars or outside of the Earth's
> > atmosphere!
>
> There's enough wrong with DP that you don't need to offer as silly a
> counterargument as this, Ray.

On the contrary, almost all arguments against DP are silly, including
the ones you indulged in.

April, wasn't it?

> Although 'absence of evidence' can in some cases be compelling, it's a
> meaningless measure in cases like this where we know so comparatively
> little about the rest of the universe that it's unreasonable to even
> lay claim to an "absence."
>
> Of course, if at some point you decide to base your argument on what
> we know of physics, biology and intelligent beings you'll be on much
> more solid ground.

It ain't happened yet. Right on Drake equation thread and the other
thread I told Ray about, Paul Gans claimed he wanted to discuss the
physics of DP, but instead we got, just from the inimitable Gans:

1. A snow job about how panspermists are unlikely to hit their
targets because planetary orbits are "chaotic".

2. A snow job about how the solar wind would blow a spaceship bigger
than the Saturn V off course.

3. A comment that I suspect was an attempt at a snow job about
Project Daedalus, but could have been due to ignorance about both it
and Project Orion, even though I had specifically told him to google
Project Daedalus earlier and he seemed to have gone ahead and done so:

"Uncontrolled fusion is a bomb, a very very deadly bomb.
I doubt such a reaction could power a rocket."

4. Trolling about how he couldn't understand how microbes could build
a spaceship.

5. A dumb question about where the methane on the early earth could
have come from.

6. A dumb question about how cyanobacteria could have developed the
Krebs Citric Cycle, as though he didn't believe it could have evolved.

All this comes under the rubric of "garbage time," as I described in
my own reply to Ray's post.

Peter Nyikos

[pnyikos]

On Sep 5, 2:43�pm, Burkhard <b.scha...@ed.ac.uk> wrote:
> On Sep 4, 9:13 pm, Ray Martinez <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > In the Drake topic authored by Peter the messages are in the 400s,
> > which requires too much clicking to get there; so I want to start
> > afresh and raise a certain point.
>
> > Peter (a Directed Panspermist) has entire civilizations of highly
> > intelligent and technologically advanced extraterrestrial life
> > existing in our galaxy, yet his Atheist brothers over at JPL have yet
> > to discover even one extremophile on Mars or outside of the Earth's
> > atmosphere!
>
> > Ray
>
> Not much of a problem for his position. DP Peter style �does not
> predict �that life came from other planets in this solar system (the
> advantage, if this were their claim, would be that it is more easily
> testable, the disadvantage that the test woudl fail - but it isn't
> their position anyway)

Correct.

> In fact, for his argument to work our solar
> system is the last place you'd look for extraterrestrial life

...unless the panspermists tried to send it to Mars or Europa or Titan
as well...

> - the
> advantage he thinks DP has over earth -based explanations is that
> other systems can be much older than our system, and hence the chances
> that abiogenesis have happened correspondingly higher.

Burkhard killfiled me a good ways back, so he has an excuse for not
knowing that this is not my main argument for DP. Back in 1996-2001 I
did use it from time to time, while also noting that a reducing
atmosphere is still the most efficient way of getting amino acids,
etc. spontaneously forming, while the early earth is now believed to
have had a neutral atmosphere.

Still, my main hypothesis is that panspermists, on the average, would
seed so many planets, that it is more likely that any one intelligent
species is the result of panspermia, rather than the one civilization
in the whole galaxy that arose via abiogenesis.

As to why this doesn't apply to the panspermists, I don't think the
universe is old enough to make it likely that any technological
civilization at present time is a third generation, so to speak.

> Your argument is a bit like doubting that settlers from England
> colonised America, because you could not find any English folks after
> looking long and hard at Brazos Island only .

If anything, the advantage is with this hypothetical doubter of
settlers.

Whether you agree with panspermia or not, my one sentence answer to
Ray's no-brainer makes a good case for that.

Peter Nyikos

[Ray Martinez]

On Sep 7, 5:58�pm, pnyikos <nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> On Sep 4, 4:13�pm, Ray Martinez <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > In the Drake topic authored by Peter the messages are in the 400s,
> > which requires too much clicking to get there;
>
> Yeah, I can't blame you. �That thread, and a companion thread which is
> in the 500s, are both in what basketball aficionados call "garbage
> time": the opposition is so far behind, they just keep fouling me,
> hoping that I will miss some free throws, and that they can get the
> rebounds.
>
> All figuratively speaking, of course.
>
> > so I want to start
> > afresh and raise a certain point.
>
> > Peter (a Directed Panspermist) has entire civilizations of highly
> > intelligent and technologically advanced extraterrestrial life
> > existing in our galaxy,
>
> No, I only hypothesize one civilization, the panspermists who lived
> ca. 4 billion years ago.
>

Only one! Priceless!

Yet your Atheist brothers over at JPL have yet to find even one
extremophile!

From: http://www.ufocasebook.com/bestufopictures10.html

http://www.ufocasebook.com/2007/chad2.jpg

http://www.ufocasebook.com/2007/chad3.jpg

http://www.ufocasebook.com/2007/7013a.jpg

http://www.ufocasebook.com/2007/0516sc4.jpg

http://www.ufocasebook.com/2007/0516sc1.jpg

The above links are the best UFO photos ever taken (in my opinion).
What is your position on UFOs, Peter?

Why not use this type of evidence, as opposed to no evidence for your
ancient civilization?

> I believe there is a good chance there are several, maybe many other
> civilizations that owe their existence to seedings that the
> panspermists carried out, �but that isn't part of my hypothesis.
>

Where did you obtain these ideas, Professor Nyikos? Where did Crick
obtain them (and so forth)? Star Trek, H.G. Wells?

> > yet his Atheist brothers
>
> I resent the insinuation that I am an atheist.

Why? Crick & Orgel were Atheists and DPists. Real Theists and Deists
credit God with First Cause (don't they)? DPism is a pro-Atheism
construct (space aliens were responsible for biological First Cause,
not God); hence why you are, in fact, an Atheist. If not, post a link
that shows you arguing for the existence of God? Do so and I will
promptly retract.

> I have never been one,
> and my intellectual integrity, coupled with a huge store of knowledge
> that I've accumulated in my lifetime, will keep me from becoming one.
>

Then it should be no problem to comply with my request (seen above),
should it? Produce knowledge that supports the existence of God?

> > over at JPL have yet
> > to discover even one extremophile on Mars or outside of the Earth's
> > atmosphere!
>
> > Ray
>
> I replied to this no-brainer, in direct reply to you, at least a week
> ago. �The galaxy is so enormous, it would be folly to think that all
> planets are as inhospitable to life as Mars is.
>

So, in other words, you offer an assumption as "evidence"----correct?

Of course my question is rhetorical. Science has yet to discover any
evidence of life outside the Earth's atmosphere, even extremophiles.
My point stands: Peter Nyikos assumes the existence of one very
ancient intelligent civilization that seeded life on our planet (he
begged the question); while denying Atheism----which implies deistic
belief at a minimum; yet this belief has no participation in
biological First Cause.

Peter will now stuff his deity somewhere in the scenario in an attempt
to show that he is not an Atheist. Too bad he had to be prompted. Real
believers are usually eager to do so without being prodded.

> I think there are plenty of planets as favorable towards life as the
> early earth, or more favorable,

More question begging....

There isn't a shred of evidence that supports. Unless, of course, you
choose the UFO photos.

> ONCE IT GETS STARTED.
>
> The part in caps is where I part company with practically everyone in
> this newsgroup. �My fellow "evolutionists" keep harping on the claim
> that I have no evidence of directed panspermia, but they are
> blissfully unaware that there is no evidence that abiogenesis took
> place here ON EARTH.
>
> Peter Nyikos

There isn't a shred of evidence for either because Genesis 1:1 is
true----that's the point, Atheist.

Ray

[Greg G.]

On Sep 7, 8:58�pm, pnyikos <nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
...

> I replied to this no-brainer, in direct reply to you, at least a week
> ago. �The galaxy is so enormous, it would be folly to think that all
> planets are as inhospitable to life as Mars is.
>
> I think there are plenty of planets as favorable towards life as the
> early earth, or more favorable, ONCE IT GETS STARTED.

Astronomers have detected many Jupiter-sized planets in the habitable
zone around stars in our galaxy. Jupiter and Saturn have about five
dozen moons each. It wouldn't be much of a stretch to suppose those
other planets have a few dozen moons each, too, and they would all be
in the habitable zone for that star.

A statistical analysis based on a survey of millions of stars
suggests that there's at least one planet for every star in the
sky, and probably more. That would add up to 160 billion
planets or so in the Milky Way.

"We conclude that stars are orbited by planets as a rule, rather
than the exception," an international research team reports
today
in the journal Nature.

http://cosmiclog.nbcnews.com/_news/2012/01/11/10115679-160-billion-planets-in-the-milky-way?lite

[jillery]

On Sat, 8 Sep 2012 16:54:09 -0700 (PDT), "Greg G." <ggw...@gmail.com>
wrote:

So once again the principle of mediocrity is illustrated. Earth is
just one planet among many, orbiting one star among many, in a galaxy
among many.

I'm still waiting for someone to explain why anyone should assume
abiogenesis is especially unlikely.

[J.J. O'Shea]

On Sat, 8 Sep 2012 21:08:12 -0400, jillery wrote
(in article <02qn48lan9hcr6gu7...@4ax.com>):

> On Sat, 8 Sep 2012 16:54:09 -0700 (PDT), "Greg G." <ggw...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>

>> On Sep 7, 8:58ï¿œpm, pnyikos <nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>> ...
>>> I replied to this no-brainer, in direct reply to you, at least a week

>>> ago. ï¿œThe galaxy is so enormous, it would be folly to think that all

>>> planets are as inhospitable to life as Mars is.
>>>
>>> I think there are plenty of planets as favorable towards life as the
>>> early earth, or more favorable, ONCE IT GETS STARTED.
>>
>> Astronomers have detected many Jupiter-sized planets in the habitable
>> zone around stars in our galaxy. Jupiter and Saturn have about five
>> dozen moons each. It wouldn't be much of a stretch to suppose those
>> other planets have a few dozen moons each, too, and they would all be
>> in the habitable zone for that star.
>>
>> A statistical analysis based on a survey of millions of stars
>> suggests that there's at least one planet for every star in the
>> sky, and probably more. That would add up to 160 billion
>> planets or so in the Milky Way.
>>
>> "We conclude that stars are orbited by planets as a rule, rather
>> than the exception," an international research team reports
>> today
>> in the journal Nature.
>>
>> http://cosmiclog.nbcnews.com/_news/2012/01/11/10115679-160-billion-planets-i
>> n-the-milky-way?lite
>
>
> So once again the principle of mediocrity is illustrated. Earth is
> just one planet among many, orbiting one star among many, in a galaxy
> among many.
>
> I'm still waiting for someone to explain why anyone should assume
> abiogenesis is especially unlikely.
>

Because... well, because.

--
email to oshea dot j dot j at gmail dot com.

[Greg G.]

On Sep 8, 9:08�pm, jillery <69jpi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Sat, 8 Sep 2012 16:54:09 -0700 (PDT), "Greg G." <ggw...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> >On Sep 7, 8:58�pm, pnyikos <nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> >...
> >> I replied to this no-brainer, in direct reply to you, at least a week
> >> ago. �The galaxy is so enormous, it would be folly to think that all
> >> planets are as inhospitable to life as Mars is.
>
> >> I think there are plenty of planets as favorable towards life as the
> >> early earth, or more favorable, ONCE IT GETS STARTED.
>
> >Astronomers have detected many Jupiter-sized planets in the habitable
> >zone around stars in our galaxy. Jupiter and Saturn have about five
> >dozen moons each. It wouldn't be much of a stretch to suppose those
> >other planets have a few dozen moons each, too, and they would all be
> >in the habitable zone for that star.
>
> > � � �A statistical analysis based on a survey of millions of stars
> > � � �suggests that there's at least one planet for every star in the
> > � � �sky, and probably more. That would add up to 160 billion
> > � � �planets or so in the Milky Way.
>
> > � � "We conclude that stars are orbited by planets as a rule, rather
> > � � �than the exception," an international research team reports
> >today
> > � � �in the journal Nature.
>

> >http://cosmiclog.nbcnews.com/_news/2012/01/11/10115679-160-billion-pl...

>
> So once again the principle of mediocrity is illustrated. �Earth is
> just one planet among many, orbiting one star among many, in a galaxy
> among many.
>
> I'm still waiting for someone to explain why anyone should assume
> abiogenesis is especially unlikely.

On every planet with liquid water that we have explored, it appears
that abiogenesis has occured within a 100 million years or so of it
being possible.

Lawrence Krauss explains that dark energy suggests that space itself
containing superclusters of galaxies may accelerate them to beyond
light speed. Only things within space are limited to c, but space
itself is not. When they reach that speed, other superclusters will be
invisible. Other physicists say that other universes can pop up into
those universes, so there may be old superclusters out there that we
can't see. There is no limit on these bubble universes.

Physicists are uncomfortable with this because it makes probabilities
irrelevant.

[Paul J Gans]

J.J. O'Shea <try.n...@but.see.sig> wrote:
>On Sat, 8 Sep 2012 21:08:12 -0400, jillery wrote
>(in article <02qn48lan9hcr6gu7...@4ax.com>):

>> On Sat, 8 Sep 2012 16:54:09 -0700 (PDT), "Greg G." <ggw...@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>

>>> On Sep 7, 8:58?pm, pnyikos <nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>>> ...
>>>> I replied to this no-brainer, in direct reply to you, at least a week

>>>> ago. ?The galaxy is so enormous, it would be folly to think that all

>>>> planets are as inhospitable to life as Mars is.
>>>>
>>>> I think there are plenty of planets as favorable towards life as the
>>>> early earth, or more favorable, ONCE IT GETS STARTED.
>>>
>>> Astronomers have detected many Jupiter-sized planets in the habitable
>>> zone around stars in our galaxy. Jupiter and Saturn have about five
>>> dozen moons each. It wouldn't be much of a stretch to suppose those
>>> other planets have a few dozen moons each, too, and they would all be
>>> in the habitable zone for that star.
>>>
>>> A statistical analysis based on a survey of millions of stars
>>> suggests that there's at least one planet for every star in the
>>> sky, and probably more. That would add up to 160 billion
>>> planets or so in the Milky Way.
>>>
>>> "We conclude that stars are orbited by planets as a rule, rather
>>> than the exception," an international research team reports
>>> today
>>> in the journal Nature.
>>>
>>> http://cosmiclog.nbcnews.com/_news/2012/01/11/10115679-160-billion-planets-i
>>> n-the-milky-way?lite
>>
>>
>> So once again the principle of mediocrity is illustrated. Earth is
>> just one planet among many, orbiting one star among many, in a galaxy
>> among many.
>>
>> I'm still waiting for someone to explain why anyone should assume
>> abiogenesis is especially unlikely.
>>

>Because... well, because.

Because we can't authoritatively say how it happened.

The problem is not the failure of imagination, it is the total
lack of agreement as to what the primordeal environment was like.
It is possible that the earliest forms of life would not be
recognized as such by anyone today. Too different.

--
--- Paul J. Gans

[Paul J Gans]

Greg G. <ggw...@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Sep 8, 9:08?pm, jillery <69jpi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Sat, 8 Sep 2012 16:54:09 -0700 (PDT), "Greg G." <ggw...@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> >On Sep 7, 8:58?pm, pnyikos <nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>> >...
>> >> I replied to this no-brainer, in direct reply to you, at least a week

>> >> ago. ?The galaxy is so enormous, it would be folly to think that all

>> >> planets are as inhospitable to life as Mars is.
>>
>> >> I think there are plenty of planets as favorable towards life as the
>> >> early earth, or more favorable, ONCE IT GETS STARTED.
>>
>> >Astronomers have detected many Jupiter-sized planets in the habitable
>> >zone around stars in our galaxy. Jupiter and Saturn have about five
>> >dozen moons each. It wouldn't be much of a stretch to suppose those
>> >other planets have a few dozen moons each, too, and they would all be
>> >in the habitable zone for that star.
>>

>> > ? ? ?A statistical analysis based on a survey of millions of stars
>> > ? ? ?suggests that there's at least one planet for every star in the
>> > ? ? ?sky, and probably more. That would add up to 160 billion
>> > ? ? ?planets or so in the Milky Way.
>>
>> > ? ? "We conclude that stars are orbited by planets as a rule, rather
>> > ? ? ?than the exception," an international research team reports
>> >today
>> > ? ? ?in the journal Nature.
>>
>> >http://cosmiclog.nbcnews.com/_news/2012/01/11/10115679-160-billion-pl...
>>
>> So once again the principle of mediocrity is illustrated. ?Earth is

>> just one planet among many, orbiting one star among many, in a galaxy
>> among many.
>>
>> I'm still waiting for someone to explain why anyone should assume
>> abiogenesis is especially unlikely.

>On every planet with liquid water that we have explored, it appears
>that abiogenesis has occured within a 100 million years or so of it
>being possible.

>Lawrence Krauss explains that dark energy suggests that space itself
>containing superclusters of galaxies may accelerate them to beyond
>light speed. Only things within space are limited to c, but space
>itself is not. When they reach that speed, other superclusters will be
>invisible. Other physicists say that other universes can pop up into
>those universes, so there may be old superclusters out there that we
>can't see. There is no limit on these bubble universes.

>Physicists are uncomfortable with this because it makes probabilities
>irrelevant.

'
People love to speculate. Most label their thoughts as
speculations. Such speculations should not be considered
as necessarily even possible.

[jillery]

On Sat, 8 Sep 2012 21:37:08 -0400, "J.J. O'Shea"
<try.n...@but.see.sig> wrote:

>On Sat, 8 Sep 2012 21:08:12 -0400, jillery wrote
>(in article <02qn48lan9hcr6gu7...@4ax.com>):
>
>> On Sat, 8 Sep 2012 16:54:09 -0700 (PDT), "Greg G." <ggw...@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>

>>> On Sep 7, 8:58�pm, pnyikos <nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>>> ...
>>>> I replied to this no-brainer, in direct reply to you, at least a week

>>>> ago. �The galaxy is so enormous, it would be folly to think that all

>>>> planets are as inhospitable to life as Mars is.
>>>>
>>>> I think there are plenty of planets as favorable towards life as the
>>>> early earth, or more favorable, ONCE IT GETS STARTED.
>>>
>>> Astronomers have detected many Jupiter-sized planets in the habitable
>>> zone around stars in our galaxy. Jupiter and Saturn have about five
>>> dozen moons each. It wouldn't be much of a stretch to suppose those
>>> other planets have a few dozen moons each, too, and they would all be
>>> in the habitable zone for that star.
>>>
>>> A statistical analysis based on a survey of millions of stars
>>> suggests that there's at least one planet for every star in the
>>> sky, and probably more. That would add up to 160 billion
>>> planets or so in the Milky Way.
>>>
>>> "We conclude that stars are orbited by planets as a rule, rather
>>> than the exception," an international research team reports
>>> today
>>> in the journal Nature.
>>>
>>> http://cosmiclog.nbcnews.com/_news/2012/01/11/10115679-160-billion-planets-i
>>> n-the-milky-way?lite
>>
>>
>> So once again the principle of mediocrity is illustrated. Earth is
>> just one planet among many, orbiting one star among many, in a galaxy
>> among many.
>>
>> I'm still waiting for someone to explain why anyone should assume
>> abiogenesis is especially unlikely.
>>
>
>Because... well, because.

Yeppers, pretty much what we have been given so far.

[jillery]

On Sat, 8 Sep 2012 18:55:33 -0700 (PDT), "Greg G." <ggw...@gmail.com>

Not to be a pedantic contrarian, but IIUC it's the distnace between us
is expanding at superluminal speed. For those galaxies' galactic
neighbors, they are/were moving apart no differently than our galactic
neighbors.

<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superluminal#Universal_expansion>

>Other physicists say that other universes can pop up into
>those universes, so there may be old superclusters out there that we
>can't see. There is no limit on these bubble universes.
>
>Physicists are uncomfortable with this because it makes probabilities
>irrelevant.

I suppose multiple universes do complicate those things a bit.

[jillery]

If we really don't know anything about abiogenesis, then there is no
rational basis for assuming its probability, either on an absolute
scale, or relative to other events. But extant life provides us with
at least one clue, that its methods and mechanisms follow the laws of
physics. This suggests that first life is a natural phenomenon with
natural causes, and the principle of mediocrity suggest that
abiogenesis will happen/has happened wherever conditions allow it.

[Nick Keighley]

not if they confine themselves to the observable universe.

[pnyikos]

You may not realize it, but you've exemplified the thread title here:

Subject: Re: A lesson in begging the question with Peter Nyikos

You are assuming the very thing I am disputing here--that there is
evidence that earth life is due to abiogenesis ON EARTH (as opposed to
being seeded here) and you are implying that this in some way answers
jillery's question.

That is a fine example of the REAL meaning of the term, "begging the
question."

> Lawrence Krauss explains that dark energy suggests that space itself
> containing superclusters of galaxies may accelerate them to beyond
> light speed. Only things within space are limited to c, but space
> itself is not. When they reach that speed, other superclusters will be
> invisible.

This meshes very nicely with the big bang theory, so that the two
together imply space is finite and hence so is the number of
galaxies. It's just that we have a hard time estimating the number
then, because we don't know how extreme inflation was in the super-
inflationary part of the universe's history.

> Other physicists say that other universes can pop up into
> those universes,

You'd think Hawking and Mlodinow subscribed to this, but somehow they
seem to think that universes always pop up outside existing ones.

> so there may be old superclusters out there that we
> can't see. There is no limit on these bubble universes.
>
> Physicists are uncomfortable with this because it makes probabilities
> irrelevant.

Atheistic physicists should welcome it with open arms. If there are
still any who think that our ca. 13 billion year old space-time
continuum is all there is, they need to look at the six constants of
Martin Rees and ponder what he writes:

"These six numbers constitute a recipe for a universe. Moreover, the
outcome is sensitive to their values: if any one of them were to be
untuned , there would be no stars and no life. Is this tuning just a
brute fact, a coincidence? Or is it the providence of a benign
Creator? I take the view that it is neither. An infinity of other
universes may well exist where the numbers are different.

"Most would be stillborn or sterile. We could only have emerged (and
therefore we naturally now find ourselves) in a universe with the
right combination. This realization offers a radically new
perspective on our universe, on our place in it, and on the nature of
physical laws.

"It is astonishing that an expanding universe, whose starting point is
so simple that it can specified by just a few numbers, can evolve
(if these numbers are suitable tuned ) into our intricately
structured cosmos."
http://www.ichthus.info/BigBang/Docs/Just6num.pdf

Peter Nyikos

[pnyikos]

On Sep 9, 12:08�am, jillery <69jpi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Sun, 9 Sep 2012 02:23:24 +0000 (UTC), Paul J Gans
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> <gan...@panix.com> wrote:

> >J.J. O'Shea <try.not...@but.see.sig> wrote:
> >>On Sat, 8 Sep 2012 21:08:12 -0400, jillery wrote

> >>(in article <02qn48lan9hcr6gu7o9qpc0aaj0115a...@4ax.com>):

>
> >>> On Sat, 8 Sep 2012 16:54:09 -0700 (PDT), "Greg G." <ggw...@gmail.com>
> >>> wrote:
>
> >>>> On Sep 7, 8:58?pm, pnyikos <nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> >>>> ...
> >>>>> I replied to this no-brainer, in direct reply to you, at least a week
> >>>>> ago. ?The galaxy is so enormous, it would be folly to think that all
> >>>>> planets are as inhospitable to life as Mars is.
>
> >>>>> I think there are plenty of planets as favorable towards life as the
> >>>>> early earth, or more favorable, ONCE IT GETS STARTED.
>
> >>>> Astronomers have detected many Jupiter-sized planets in the habitable
> >>>> zone around stars in our galaxy. Jupiter and Saturn have about five
> >>>> dozen moons each. It wouldn't be much of a stretch to suppose those
> >>>> other planets have a few dozen moons each, too, and they would all be
> >>>> in the habitable zone for that star.
>
> >>>> A statistical analysis based on a survey of millions of stars
> >>>> suggests that there's at least one planet for every star in the
> >>>> sky, and probably more. That would add up to 160 billion
> >>>> planets or so in the Milky Way.
>
> >>>> "We conclude that stars are orbited by planets as a rule, rather
> >>>> than the exception," an international research team reports
> >>>> today
> >>>> in the journal Nature.
>

> >>>>http://cosmiclog.nbcnews.com/_news/2012/01/11/10115679-160-billion-pl...

> >>>> n-the-milky-way?lite
>
> >>> So once again the principle of mediocrity is illustrated. �Earth is
> >>> just one planet among many, orbiting one star among many, in a galaxy
> >>> among many.
>
> >>> I'm still waiting for someone to explain why anyone should assume
> >>> abiogenesis is especially unlikely.
>
> >>Because... well, because.
>
> >Because we can't authoritatively say how it happened.
>
> >The problem is not the failure of imagination, it is the total
> >lack of agreement as to what the primordeal environment was like.
> >It is possible that the earliest forms of life would not be
> >recognized as such by anyone today. �Too different.
>
> If we really don't know anything about abiogenesis, then there is no
> rational basis for assuming its probability, either on an absolute
> scale, or relative to other events. �But extant life provides us with
> at least one clue, that its methods and mechanisms follow the laws of
> physics. �This suggests that first life is a natural phenomenon with
> natural causes,

Remove the word "first" and it's a no-brainer. Leave it in, and the
suggestion is a very, very weak one.

> and the principle of mediocrity suggest that
> abiogenesis will happen/has happened wherever conditions allow it.

"jillery" is here indulging in another example of question-begging, by
implying that since abiogenesis happened ON EARTH (the very thing I
disputed in my first post to this thread), it THEREFORE is suggested
by the principle of mediocrity that abiogenesis will happen/has

happened wherever conditions allow it.

And so, although the Subject line seemed to at first going begging for
examples, two have been provided, one by Greg G. and the other here.

Subject: Re: A lesson in begging the question with Peter Nyikos

Peter Nyikos

[pnyikos]

On Sep 8, 6:18�ｿｽpm, Ray Martinez <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Sep 7, 5:58�ｿｽpm, pnyikos <nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote:

> > On Sep 4, 4:13�ｿｽpm, Ray Martinez <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > In the Drake topic authored by Peter the messages are in the 400s,
> > > which requires too much clicking to get there;
>

> > Yeah, I can't blame you. �ｿｽThat thread, and a companion thread which is

> > in the 500s, are both in what basketball aficionados call "garbage
> > time": the opposition is so far behind, they just keep fouling me,
> > hoping that I will miss some free throws, and that they can get the
> > rebounds.
>
> > All figuratively speaking, of course.
>
> > > so I want to start
> > > afresh and raise a certain point.
>
> > > Peter (a Directed Panspermist) has entire civilizations of highly
> > > intelligent and technologically advanced extraterrestrial life
> > > existing in our galaxy,
>
> > No, I only hypothesize one civilization, the panspermists who lived
> > ca. 4 billion years ago.
>
> Only one! Priceless!

Actually, it's a no-brainer, given that I think abiogenesis is a less-
than-once-in-a-galaxy event, and that the existence of a creator of
our universe has a low (but far from 0) probability.

Of course, if our universe was supernatually created, it is quite
plausible that this same creator caused life to appear on countless
planets in our galaxy alone.

> Yet your Atheist brothers over at JPL have yet to find even one
> extremophile!

I've deleted some links to silly UFO pictures, none of them the least
bit relevant to this discussion, unless you seriously think some of
those actually have intelligent aliens in them.

Say...maybe THAT is why you think the idea of there being only one
intelligent extraterrestrial civilization is priceless! ;-)

> The above links are the best UFO photos ever taken (in my opinion).
> What is your position on UFOs, Peter?

I am a skeptic. The only plausible example was described by Ruppelt,
the director of Project Blue Book in the 1950's, and his verdict was:
"It was an unknown. The best." Problem is, he got the whole story
second hand, from pilots and ground observers who might have been
trying to perpetrate a hoax.

[snip]

> > I believe there is a good chance there are several, maybe many other
> > civilizations that owe their existence to seedings that the

> > panspermists carried out, �ｿｽbut that isn't part of my hypothesis.

>
> Where did you obtain these ideas, Professor Nyikos? Where did Crick
> obtain them (and so forth)? Star Trek, H.G. Wells?

Reason. Something in which you seem to be sadly deficient.

> > > yet his Atheist brothers
>
> > I resent the insinuation that I am an atheist.
>
> Why? Crick & Orgel were Atheists and DPists. Real Theists and Deists
> credit God with First Cause (don't they)?

Learn what "First Cause" means, bozo. It has to do with the creation
of our whole universe AT THE LATEST.

> DPism is a pro-Atheism
> construct (space aliens were responsible for biological First Cause,
> not God); hence why you are, in fact, an Atheist.

Guilt by association.

> If not, post a link
> that shows you arguing for the existence of God? Do so and I will
> promptly retract.

Sorry, we need to clear up an important detail first.

> > I have never been one,
> > and my intellectual integrity, coupled with a huge store of knowledge
> > that I've accumulated in my lifetime, will keep me from becoming one.

[snip to get to important detail]

> Peter will now stuff his deity somewhere in the scenario in an attempt
> to show that he is not an Atheist. Too bad he had to be prompted. Real
> believers are usually eager to do so without being prodded.

It appears from this paragraph that the word "agnostic" is not part of
your vocabulary. [Seems like you have a "real believer"/Atheist
dichotomy here.]

Look up the original meanings in a dictionary [do you even own one?]
and don't get sidetracked by later broadenings of the term as in "I am
agnostic about the existence of UFO's with extraterrestrial aliens in
them".

Remainder deleted, to be replied to later, but probably only after
this important detail is cleared up.

Peter Nyikos

[Robert Camp]

All the above indicates is that you have missed the slightly wry
implications of Greg's comment: that regardless of our lack of a
complete understanding of abiogenesis, there is simply no reason to
look elsewhere for the explanation.

Even assuming (for discussion) the existence of an "abiogenesis
conundrum" there is no warrant for inferring the answer lies
elseplanet without demonstration of several things, including,

- there is no reason to believe that the details of this issue might
have been lost to deep time
- our physical and theoretical tools are advanced enough to be capable
of recovering the data we need
- we know enough to be sure the answers should have presented
themselves by now

The point continues to be that you have yet to show why, even given
your purported abiogenesis problem, it makes more sense to prefer an
assumption of extraterrestrial abiogenesis plus panspermia over the
much more parsimonious earthly abiogenesis.

(And of course this is all beside the fact that your "explanation"
doesn't explain the problem for which you've invoked it in the first
place.)

> That is a fine example of the REAL meaning of the term, "begging the question."

Not at all. It's an example of recognizing the difference between
reasonable and unreasonable assumptions.

I have a relative who believes she has seen a UFO. Is it begging the
question for me to assume that she has misinterpreted some natural
earthly phenomenon?

Fans of homeopathy believe their symptoms have been alleviated by
products with essentially zero active ingredient. Is it begging the
question for me to assume that they have not stumbled upon some
heretofore undiscovered breach of the laws of physics?

ID proponents feel sure that the hand of their designer can be
discovered in natural phenomena. Is it begging the question for me to
suggest that there is no "there" there absent hard evidence?

In all of these cases (as well as yours) I will admit that there is a
greater than zero chance that the dissenting opinion is correct, but
experience is clearly on the side of betting against each one of them.
Assuming, without demonstrating, any of them (including yours) amounts
to "begging the question."

RLC

[jillery]

Yeppers.

[pnyikos]

On the contrary, I've dealt with the implications countless times, and
recognized his as belonging to the same genre.

> that regardless of our lack of a
> complete understanding of abiogenesis, there is simply no reason to
> look elsewhere for the explanation.

That's like saying, in a detective mystery story, that because we have
a prime suspect, there is no reason to look elsewhere for the real
culprit.

There is a detective series in Italy, "Don Mateo," in which just about
every episode follows the same line: the police are pretty sure they
have the culprit, then their first suspect is found to have a pretty
good alibi and the evidence points to another suspect now, and they
even go ahead and arrest the second suspect since the evidence is so
good-- and then the culprit turns out to be yet a third person.

> Even assuming (for discussion) the existence of an "abiogenesis
> conundrum" there is no warrant for inferring the answer lies
> elseplanet without demonstration of several things, including,

"even assuming that the person here did not die by accident or commit
suicide, there is no warrant for thinking the killling was done by
anyone other than than the obvious suspect, without ..."

> - there is no reason to believe that the details of this issue might
> have been lost to deep time

"no reason to believe" is really stacking the deck here.

> - our physical and theoretical tools are advanced enough to be capable
> of recovering the data we need

"the data we need" can take on hundreds of forms, and I suspect you
won't be satisfied with anything less than contact with the
civilization that did the panspermia, or a discovery of records of
what it did.

> - we know enough to be sure the answers should have presented
> themselves by now

This is utterly ridiculous. You are, in effect, saying that we SHOULD
have all the needed evidence in our hands right now.

Let me guess: your next move will be to accuse me of "irrelevant
dwelling on minutiae" as you did back when we last tangled in the
first half of May, and to suspect me of "deliberate evasiveness"
because I reply to your points individually instead of politely
waiting till the end of your post before jumping in, and because I
don't respond to the "rhetorical foundations" of what you are saying.

Trouble is, when I played the game your way, waiting patiently until
the end, and focusing on your "rhetorical foundations," you
disappeared from that thread. And no wonder: in that post (see url
below), I demonstrated with multiple links how completely unfair and
cowardly you had been.

This is the first time I've encountered you on this issue since you
ran away, but you act below as though you had been in the thick of the
mountains of discussion on this issue since you ran away:

> The point continues to be that you have yet to show why, even given
> your purported abiogenesis problem, it makes more sense to prefer an
> assumption of extraterrestrial abiogenesis plus panspermia over the
> much more parsimonious earthly abiogenesis.

Here is the url for the May 15 post where I played the game your way:

http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/680932ba1943a802

Will you pull a Paul Gans, and lie that the linked post does not show
all I claimed for it (except for your running away from it)?

Remainder of Robert Camp bilge deleted, to be replied to if either
(1) anyone besides Camp shows interest
or
(2) Camp faces squarely the May 15 post from which he ran away.

Peter Nyikos

[pnyikos]

On Sep 10, 8:48�pm, jillery <69jpi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Mon, 10 Sep 2012 15:45:12 -0700 (PDT), Robert Camp

> <robertlc...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >On Sep 10, 2:53�pm, pnyikos <nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> >> On Sep 8, 9:58�pm, "Greg G." <ggw...@gmail.com> wrote:

> >> > On every planet with liquid water that we have explored, it appears
> >> > that abiogenesis has occured within a 100 million years or so of it
> >> > being possible.
>
> >> You may not realize it, but you've exemplified the thread title here:
>
> >> Subject: Re: A lesson in begging the question with Peter Nyikos
>
> >> You are assuming the very thing I am disputing here--that there is
> >> evidence that earth life is due to abiogenesis ON EARTH (as opposed to
> >> being seeded here) and you are implying that this in some way answers
> >> jillery's question.

Robert Camp deleted the rest of Greg G.'s statement, and my reply to
it, although (or is it because?) it would have made it easier to
address the following statement by Robert [I've snipped things I've
dealt with in direct reply to Camp]:

> >(And of course this is all beside the fact that your "explanation"
> >doesn't explain the problem for which you've invoked it in the first
> >place.)

Robert is begging the question here: Greg G's scenario of perhaps
infinitely many universes like ours solves the "problem" which I never
claimed needed an answer in the first place: how did abiogenesis
happen ANYWHERE?

The way it answers it is that, given enough time, anything, no matter
how wildly improbable, can be expected to happen.

The reasoning behind the anthropic principle takes us the rest of the
way: we are in a universe where abiogenesis happened because (barring
a supernatural creator, or travel between universes) we could not
possibly be in a universe where it did not happen.

I've proposed the same answer numerous times, but Camp decided to
insult my intelligence by claiming I had missed Greg's point.

The REAL issue before us, though, is whether that took place on earth,
or somewhere else, and what are the relative probabilities of the one
being true or the other. Robert Camp totally ignores this issue in
his post, which "jillery" applauded with:

[snip to get to point]

> Yeppers.

"jillery" shows her/his true colors: showing solidarity with Camp
without having the foggiest idea how much of what he wrote is true.
[S]he has killfiled me, you see.

Her one-word show of solidarity with Camp does not meet condition (1)
that I wrote about in direct reply to Camp, but I thought I'd humor
readers who think otherwise by replying to one more piece of bilge by
Camp above, in addition to what I replied to below, while deleting the
rest.

Peter Nyikos

[Robert Camp]

No, it's not like that at all. What you're describing is a mistake of
ignoring the experience which cautions us to hedge bets, cover bases.
We do this because we understand that natural investigation is not
guaranteed to produce one hundred percent certainty, because we
realize that sometimes data are lost and we have to rely upon
inference to the best explanation available. So of course pursuing
other reasonable avenues of investigation is a prudent methodology.

Inference to DP does not fall into that category. No, the correct
analogy in your detective mystery story would be; having no clear
suspect at all, and as a result concluding that aliens must be the
perpetrators. You would probably call that an unreasonable inference,
and you would be correct.

> There is a detective series in Italy, "Don Mateo," in which just about
> every episode follows the same line: the police are pretty sure they
> have the culprit, then their first suspect is found to have a pretty
> good alibi and the evidence points to another suspect now, and they
> even go ahead and arrest the second suspect since the evidence is so
> good-- and then the culprit turns out to be yet a third person.

I'm sure this would be interesting were it relevant.

> > Even assuming (for discussion) the existence of an "abiogenesis
> > conundrum" there is no warrant for inferring the answer lies
> > elseplanet without demonstration of several things, including,
>
> "even assuming that the person here did not die by accident or commit
> suicide, there is no warrant for thinking the killling was done by
> anyone other than than the obvious suspect, without ..."

You see, this is the problem with trying to make hay out of a flawed
analogy. You look silly.

> > - there is no reason to believe that the details of this issue might
> > have been lost to deep time
>
> "no reason to believe" is really stacking the deck here.

> > - our physical and theoretical tools are advanced enough to be capable
> > of recovering the data we need
>
> "the data we need" can take on hundreds of forms, and I suspect you
> won't be satisfied with anything less than contact with the
> civilization that did the panspermia, or a discovery of records of
> what it did.

Not true. I would be satisfied with anything resembling a good reason
for which we should prefer an inference to alien abiogenesis coupled
with planet-seeding over plain, simple earthly abiogenesis.

> > - we know enough to be sure the answers should have presented
> > themselves by now
>
> This is utterly ridiculous. �You are, in effect, saying that we SHOULD
> have all the needed evidence in our hands right now.

As I have urged you to do before, please read things through so that
you understand what is being said prior to chopping it up for
response. If you go back and read for context you'll realize that I
was not saying that at all. I was saying these are the things *you*
need to demonstrate for your inference to be warranted.

> Let me guess: your next move will be to accuse me of "irrelevant
> dwelling on minutiae" as you did back when we last tangled in the
> first half of May, �and to suspect me of "deliberate evasiveness"
> because I reply to your points individually instead of politely
> waiting till the end of your post before jumping in, and because I
> don't respond to the "rhetorical foundations" of what you are saying.

I'd just be happy if you appeared to understand that to which you
reply.

> Trouble is, when I played the game your way, waiting patiently until
> the end, and focusing on your "rhetorical foundations," you
> disappeared from that thread. And no wonder: in that post (see url
> below), I demonstrated with multiple links how completely unfair and
> cowardly you had been.

The only times I stopped responding to you it was because you stopped
being substantive.

> This is the first time I've encountered you on this issue since you
> ran away, but you act below as though you had been in the thick of the
> mountains of discussion on this issue since you ran away:

And this kind of silliness ("ran away") is an excellent example of you
trying to drag a discussion into the weeds of petulant discord rather
than dealing with substance.

RLC

<snip>

[Ray Martinez]

On Sep 10, 3:18�pm, pnyikos <nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> On Sep 8, 6:18 pm, Ray Martinez <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Sep 7, 5:58 pm, pnyikos <nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote:

> > > On Sep 4, 4:13 pm, Ray Martinez <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > > In the Drake topic authored by Peter the messages are in the 400s,
> > > > which requires too much clicking to get there;
>

> > > Yeah, I can't blame you. That thread, and a companion thread which is

> > > in the 500s, are both in what basketball aficionados call "garbage
> > > time": the opposition is so far behind, they just keep fouling me,
> > > hoping that I will miss some free throws, and that they can get the
> > > rebounds.
>
> > > All figuratively speaking, of course.
>
> > > > so I want to start
> > > > afresh and raise a certain point.
>
> > > > Peter (a Directed Panspermist) has entire civilizations of highly
> > > > intelligent and technologically advanced extraterrestrial life
> > > > existing in our galaxy,
>
> > > No, I only hypothesize one civilization, the panspermists who lived
> > > ca. 4 billion years ago.
>
> > Only one! Priceless!
>
> Actually, it's a no-brainer, given that I think abiogenesis is a less-
> than-once-in-a-galaxy event, and that the existence of a creator of
> our universe has a low (but far from 0) probability.
>

Evidence supporting a claim that you are an Atheist.

> Of course, if our universe was supernatually created, it is quite
> plausible that this same creator caused life to appear on countless
> planets in our galaxy alone.
>

Just the opposite is true: it is NOT plausible, especially in view of
what the Bible says. Again, the master point is that you are giving an
excellent lesson in how to beg a question.

> > Yet your Atheist brothers over at JPL have yet to find even one
> > extremophile!
>
> I've deleted some links to silly UFO pictures, none of them the least
> bit relevant to this discussion, unless you seriously think some of
> those actually have intelligent aliens in them.
>

Simply doesn't follow. Those pictures can be offered as evidence
supporting highly intelligent alien life. Yet Peter would rather beg
the question in behalf of DPism.

Concerning those photos: You appear frightened. If I had to guess you
fear a crackpot label, yet you have no qualms advocating DPism (space
aliens are responsible for biological First Cause). Your mind is
already in outer space, at least the photos provide some evidence as
opposed to having no evidence for DPism. Your advocacy in behalf of
DPism is based entirely on science fiction concepts, invented by
Hollywood, that have flooded our culture since the 1940s.

> Say...maybe THAT is why you think the idea of there being only one
> intelligent extraterrestrial civilization is priceless! � ;-)
>
> > The above links are the best UFO photos ever taken (in my opinion).
> > What is your position on UFOs, Peter?
>
> I am a skeptic. �The only plausible example was described by Ruppelt,
> the director of Project Blue Book in the 1950's, and his verdict was:
> "It was an unknown. �The best." �Problem is, he got the whole story
> second hand, from pilots and ground observers who might have been
> trying to perpetrate a hoax.
>

Other than the photos, the number one incident that appears in many of
the best scholarly books on said phenomena is the incident that
occurred in Rendlesham forest. The military officers that encountered
a UFO were trained to decipher hoax from truth. They simply had no
motive to make anything up. The point is: We know for a fact that a
UFO landed at Rendlesham (and that's all we know). The fact that you
peddle no-evidence DPism while rejecting the evidence that does exist
is quite perplexing.

> [snip]
>
> > > I believe there is a good chance there are several, maybe many other
> > > civilizations that owe their existence to seedings that the

> > > panspermists carried out, but that isn't part of my hypothesis.

>
> > Where did you obtain these ideas, Professor Nyikos? Where did Crick
> > obtain them (and so forth)? Star Trek, H.G. Wells?
>
> Reason. �Something in which you seem to be sadly deficient.
>

In other words, you have no answer. "Reason" is about as subjective
and mysterious as it gets.

You've been checkmated right here until you tell us where these ideas
originated? Crick & Orgel did make mention of a source in their
imfamous paper. Its hard to believe a man with your credentials could
fall for such nonsense like DPism. As far as I'm concerned your
source is science fiction concepts, invented by Hollywood, that have
flooded our culture since the 1940s.

> > > > yet his Atheist brothers
>
> > > I resent the insinuation that I am an atheist.
>
> > Why? Crick & Orgel were Atheists and DPists. Real Theists and Deists
> > credit God with First Cause (don't they)?
>
> Learn what "First Cause" means, bozo. �It has to do with the creation
> of our whole universe AT THE LATEST.
>

Still pulling your punches?

I am talking about topic: BIOLOGICAL First Cause. You had no basis to
think otherwise.

> > DPism is a pro-Atheism
> > construct (space aliens were responsible for biological First Cause,
> > not God); hence why you are, in fact, an Atheist.
>
> Guilt by association.
>

No, guilt by evidence and sound logic.

> > If not, post a link
> > that shows you arguing for the existence of God? Do so and I will
> > promptly retract.
>
> Sorry, we need to clear up an important detail first.
>

Answer the question, Peter.

Suddenly you are looking mighty nervous on the stand. I will object to
any request by your attorney to break for lunch.

> > > I have never been one,
> > > and my intellectual integrity, coupled with a huge store of knowledge
> > > that I've accumulated in my lifetime, will keep me from becoming one.
>
> [snip to get to important detail]
>
> > Peter will now stuff his deity somewhere in the scenario in an attempt
> > to show that he is not an Atheist. Too bad he had to be prompted. Real
> > believers are usually eager to do so without being prodded.
>
> It appears from this paragraph that the word "agnostic" is not part of
> your vocabulary. [Seems like you have a "real believer"/Atheist
> dichotomy here.]
>

Peter claims to be Agnostic, which is one pussy hair away from
Atheism. Since both worldviews live their lives as if no God exists,
you are a practicing Atheist.

Yet Peter has presented himself to be some sort of believer since his
return to Talk.Origins.

> Look up the original meanings in a dictionary [do you even own one?]
> and don't get sidetracked by later broadenings of the term as in "I am
> agnostic about the existence of UFO's with extraterrestrial aliens in
> them".
>
> Remainder deleted, to be replied to later, but probably only after
> this important detail is cleared up.
>
> Peter Nyikos

What detail?

You appear shook, needing time to think.

So be it.

Ray

[pnyikos]

I am not ignoring any relevant experience, and what I've snipped below
does nothing to indicate otherwise.
[snip]

> Inference to DP does not fall into that category. No, the correct
> analogy in your detective mystery story would be; having no clear
> suspect at all,

The "clear suspect" is what I belived it to be for most of my life,
"Mother earth", until I realized that there is NO evidence for
abiogenesis having happened HERE.

> and as a result concluding that aliens must be the
> perpetrators.

"must be" is a grotesque lampoon of everything I've written on the
subject. Is this the "flawed inference" of which you wrote next?

> You would probably call that an unreasonable inference,
> and you would be correct.

[snip of tangent by me and more flamebait by you]

> As I have urged you to do before, please read things through so that
> you understand what is being said prior to chopping it up for
> response.

> > Let me guess: your next move will be to accuse me of "irrelevant
> > dwelling on minutiae" as you did back when we last tangled in the
> > first half of May, �and to suspect me of "deliberate evasiveness"
> > because I reply to your points individually instead of politely
> > waiting till the end of your post before jumping in, and because I
> > don't respond to the "rhetorical foundations" of what you are saying.

You've given the readers another little taste of a demand, based on
false premises, that I politely wait to the end. The false premise
now is that I didn't realize that "....inference to be warranted" is
EXACTLY what you were doing.

> If you go back and read for context you'll realize that I
> was not saying that at all. I was saying these are the things *you*
> need to demonstrate for your inference to be warranted.

> I'd just be happy if you appeared to understand that to which you
> reply.

I did that many times in April and May, but you ignored that and kept
moving the goalposts while pretending that they had been set in
concrete all along.

> > Trouble is, when I played the game your way, waiting patiently until
> > the end, and focusing on your "rhetorical foundations," you
> > disappeared from that thread. And no wonder: in that post (see url
> > below), I demonstrated with multiple links how completely unfair and
> > cowardly you had been.
>
> The only times I stopped responding to you it was because you stopped
> being substantive.

...because you were being flagrantly hypocritical, becoming less and
less substantive yourself, and I see no point in going any further
until that hypocrisy is laid bare. You were also insufferably
domineering, and I made that clear too, by playing the game according
to your rules for once.

> > This is the first time I've encountered you on this issue since you
> > ran away, but you act below as though you had been in the thick of the
> > mountains of discussion on this issue since you ran away:

I snipped your response to this, since you latched on for dear life
to the words "ran away" and ignored the rest of what I wrote, and also
snipped the incriminating words which elicited it.

Yet another little demonstration of your hypocrisy.

Peter Nyikos

[pnyikos]

An agnostic, you mean. Your idiotic *ad hominem* about agnostics
later on [see my second reply, coming up soon after this one] doesn't
excuse your substitution of "Atheist."

Yet more evidence of dishonesty by you.

> > Of course, if our universe was supernatually created, it is quite
> > plausible that this same creator caused life to appear on countless
> > planets in our galaxy alone.
>
> Just the opposite is true: it is NOT plausible, especially in view of
> what the Bible says. Again, the master point is that you are giving an
> excellent lesson in how to beg a question.

By you, when you claim it is not plausible, yet never having given any
reason for your claim. I on the other hand have reminded you many
times that C.S. Lewis took very seriously the idea that God DID cause
*intelligent* life to appear on three planets of our solar system
alone.

Just why would God leave the whole universe uninhabited for three
quarters of its life span to date? Extraordinary claims like that
call for extraordinary justification.

> > > Yet your Atheist brothers over at JPL have yet to find even one
> > > extremophile!
>
> > I've deleted some links to silly UFO pictures, none of them the least
> > bit relevant to this discussion, unless you seriously think some of
> > those actually have intelligent aliens in them.
>
> Simply doesn't follow. Those pictures can be offered as evidence
> supporting highly intelligent alien life.

Pathetic "evidence". You are welcome to the whole shebang, which you
can file away along with your ideas about Atlantis.

> Concerning those photos: You appear frightened.

Wishful thinking, unsupported by any credible evidence.

[empty taunts deleted]

> > > The above links are the best UFO photos ever taken (in my opinion).
> > > What is your position on UFOs, Peter?
>
> > I am a skeptic. �The only plausible example was described by Ruppelt,
> > the director of Project Blue Book in the 1950's, and his verdict was:
> > "It was an unknown. �The best." �Problem is, he got the whole story
> > second hand, from pilots and ground observers who might have been
> > trying to perpetrate a hoax.
>
> Other than the photos, the number one incident that appears in many of
> the best scholarly books on said phenomena is the incident that
> occurred in �Rendlesham forest.

How about naming one of those "best scholarly books"? Unfortunately,
I haven't seen my copy of Ruppelt's book in decades. I might have
lent it to someone and never gotten it back.

But I googled Ruppelt just now, and, fortunately, the whole book seems
to have been put on line. Here is the chapter which has the account
to which I referred:

http://www.nicap.org/rufo/rufo-17.htm

> The military officers that encountered
> a UFO were trained to decipher hoax from truth. They simply had no
> motive to make anything up.

What makes you think that? There have been many hoaxes by trained
military in the past, including a report by WWII pilots flying "over
the hump" beyond the Himalayas and claiming they looked up at a peak
when they were at 30,000 feet. Over a decade after the war they
admitted that they had made the whole story up.

> The point is: We know for a fact that a
> UFO landed at Rendlesham (and that's all we know).

According to the Wikipedia entry, we don't even know that.

Continued in next post.

Peter Nyikos

[Robert Camp]

Perhaps it wasn't clear that my comments were in regard to your
analogy. I didn't say you were ignoring anything, I said those
individuals in your story were ignoring prior experience.

> > Inference to DP does not fall into that category. No, the correct
> > analogy in your detective mystery story would be; having no clear
> > suspect at all,
>
> The "clear suspect" is what I belived it to be for most of my life,
> "Mother earth", until I realized that there is NO evidence for
> abiogenesis having happened HERE.

Although I think you are incorrect, none of my arguments have
challenged this putative observation. I've accepted it for the
purposes of discussing other points.

> > and as a result concluding that aliens must be the
> > perpetrators.
>
> "must be" is a grotesque lampoon of everything I've written on the
> subject. �Is this the "flawed inference" of which you wrote next?

Okay, I'll withdraw the "must be" (though one would think someone who
believes "there is NO evidence for abiogenesis having happened HERE"
shouldn't see much difficulty in that interpretation) and change it to
"are a good bet to be."

It's a naive inference either way.

RLC

[pnyikos]

On Sep 11, 10:28�pm, Ray Martinez <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Sep 10, 3:18�pm, pnyikos <nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote:

> > On Sep 8, 6:18 pm, Ray Martinez <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Sep 7, 5:58 pm, pnyikos <nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote:

Picking up where I left off, and leaving UFO's completely behind for
the nonce, we come to:

> > > > I believe there is a good chance there are several, maybe many other
> > > > civilizations that owe their existence to seedings that the
> > > > panspermists carried out, but that isn't part of my hypothesis.
>
> > > Where did you obtain these ideas, Professor Nyikos? Where did Crick
> > > obtain them (and so forth)? Star Trek, H.G. Wells?
>
> > Reason. Something in which you seem to be sadly deficient.
>
> In other words, you have no answer.

I have given answers at great length. "Reason" is my one word
summary, and I refuse to let you goad me into doing 1,000 line posts
just to avoid catcalls like this one, and drop-of-the-hat charges of
me begging the question.

[baseless taunts by you deleted]

> > > > > yet his Atheist brothers
>
> > > > I resent the insinuation that I am an atheist.
>
> > > Why? Crick & Orgel were Atheists and DPists. Real Theists and Deists
> > > credit God with First Cause (don't they)?
>
> > Learn what "First Cause" means, bozo. It has to do with the creation
> > of our whole universe AT THE LATEST.
>
> Still pulling your punches?

Yup. But not in my next comment.

> I am talking about topic: BIOLOGICAL First Cause. You had no basis to
> think otherwise.

You are lying. You included "Deists" up there, and I refuse to
believe that you have gotten this far without knowing what a Deist is.

> > > DPism is a pro-Atheism
> > > construct (space aliens were responsible for biological First Cause,
> > > not God); hence why you are, in fact, an Atheist.
>
> > Guilt by association.
>
> No, guilt by evidence and sound logic.

I am beginning to think the unthinkable: that you are an anti-
creationist fanatic pretending to be a believer in God, the better to
turn people off to creationism and theism.

Why, for instance, do you relentlessly pursue the creationist
Kaldidas, instead of innumerable anti-creationist, atheistic zealots?

> > > If not, post a link
> > > that shows you arguing for the existence of God? Do so and I will
> > > promptly retract.
>
> > Sorry, we need to clear up an important detail first.
>
> Answer the question, Peter.
>
> Suddenly you are looking mighty nervous on the stand.

You never tire of wishful thinking, do you, you deluded jerk?

> I will object to
> any request by your attorney to break for lunch.
>
> > > > I have never been one,
> > > > and my intellectual integrity, coupled with a huge store of knowledge
> > > > that I've accumulated in my lifetime, will keep me from becoming one.
>
> > [snip to get to important detail]
>
> > > Peter will now stuff his deity somewhere in the scenario in an attempt
> > > to show that he is not an Atheist. Too bad he had to be prompted. Real
> > > believers are usually eager to do so without being prodded.
>
> > It appears from this paragraph that the word "agnostic" is not part of
> > your vocabulary. [Seems like you have a "real believer"/Atheist
> > dichotomy here.]
>
> Peter claims to be Agnostic, which is one pussy hair away from
> Atheism.

You are either showing your abysmal ignorance of what agnosticism
means, or you are being dishonest again. And your gratuitous use of
"pussy" is one more little straw in the wind for those who wish to
think the unthinkable (see above) about you.

Granted, lots of self-styled agnostics ARE a hair's breadth away from
atheism, but you have ample evidence already that I am not that kind
of agnostic. You just love to pretend it does not exist.

> Since both worldviews live their lives as if no God exists,

That is so far from describing me, it isn't funny.

> you are a practicing Atheist.

You might as well be a shill for Ron Okimoto, the way your are
behaving here.

> Yet Peter has presented himself to be some sort of believer since his
> return to Talk.Origins.

Okimoto also loves to pretend that there is no difference between
beliefs and hopes. I HOPE there is a benevolent God, but I am too
much of a realist to stake everything I have on that hope, or even to
be able to say truthfully that I believe that God exists.

> > Look up the original meanings in a dictionary [do you even own one?]
> > and don't get sidetracked by later broadenings of the term as in "I am
> > agnostic about the existence of UFO's with extraterrestrial aliens in
> > them".
>
> > Remainder deleted, to be replied to later, but probably only after
> > this important detail is cleared up.
>
> > Peter Nyikos
>
> What detail?

Playing dumb? I wanted to clear up what your perception of "agnostic"
is before proceeding.

> You appear shook, needing time to think.

Wishful thinking. I have a lovely post to show you, one where you are
even mentioned, and which you would have seen if you hadn't
disappeared from the thread where it was made.

However, I'm applying a mild Koltanowski Sanction at this point before
showing it to you.

I'm only "going to sleep" for a day or two, or at most five. You can
make it one day by starting to behave like a mature adult instead of a
troll.

> So be it.
>
> Ray

Is this you claiming victory in preparation to disappearing from this
thread? If so, make it five, and expect to see the post in some
thread where you will be active then.

Peter Nyikos

[pnyikos]

More hypocrisy from Robert Camp, whose petulancy about my choice of
words ("ran away") is a smokescreen to avoid dealing with the real
message in the paragraph to which he is replying. To keep the
smokescreen from dissipating, he deleted the paragraph to which I was
referring above.

His hypocrisy is further evident from the way he had nothing of
substance to say in the May 10 post that he did before dissapearing
from the thread in the wake of my May 15 answer.

Here is the answer, which includes documentation of his earlier
"runnings away." Readers may be fooled into thinking he is being
substantive in his last two paragraphs, but both were posted in utter
defiance of what had transpired between us before, which had included
massive deletia by him of arguments he preferred not to face.

__________________ begin post_____________

Newsgroups: talk.origins, alt.agnosticism
From: pnyikos <nyik...@bellsouth.net>
Date: Tue, 15 May 2012 06:16:52 -0700 (PDT)
Local: Tues, May 15 2012 9:16 am
Subject: Re: Intelligent Design Book Meets Obstacle After Proponents
of

On May 10, 11:09 pm, Robert Camp <robertlc...@hotmail.com> wrote:

> On May 10, 10:53 am, pnyikos <nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote:

> > On May 10, 1:34 am, Robert Camp <robertlc...@hotmail.com> wrote:

> > > On May 9, 6:11 pm, pnyikos <nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote:


> > > > On May 9, 4:10 pm, Robert Camp <robertlc...@hotmail.com> wrote:


> > > > > On May 9, 10:33 am, pnyikos <nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote:


> > > > > > On May 9, 12:43 am, Robert Camp <robertlc...@hotmail.com> wrote:


> > > > > > > On May 8, 8:17 pm, pnyikos <nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote:


> > > > > > > > On May 7, 2:45 pm, Robert Camp <robertlc...@hotmail.com> wrote:


> > > > > > > > > On May 7, 10:57 am, pnyikos <nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote:


> <snip>


> > So what is it exactly that you think I am missing out on?


> > > Otherwise, perhaps a quick summary of what I'm *not* arguing would be
> > > helpful.


> > > - I'm not saying that panspermia is wrong
> > > - I'm not saying that panspermia is impossible, or even improbable
> > > (though it doesn't seem currently to be calculable)
> > > - I'm not saying that panspermia is unscientific
> > > - I'm not saying that panspermia (at least as you envision it) is not
> > > internally consistent
> > > - I'm not saying that I disagree with your assumptions about
> > > incomplete knowledge of early biochemistry (neither do I agree with
> > > them, I simply accept them for the purposes of discussion)


> > > If you wish to continue, you can stop arguing against any or all of
> > > the above and that should save us loads of time.


> > You've left me with little or nothing to discuss. What's the point
> > you're making that I don't seem to have grasped yet?


> Even accepting as a given all of your assumptions (as I understand
> them) about the data describing the development of biochemistry prior
> to prokaryotes on this planet, an inference to panspermia as an
> explanation for this "problem" is neither necessary nor sufficient. It
> is a conjecture with no apparent connection to the data (unnecessary),
> as well as one that is impotent to actually explain the
> "problem" (insufficient).


> That doesn't mean it's wrong (in the strict sense), or impossible or
> unscientific...just extraneous. By no means am I suggesting that
> parsimony is a determinative heuristic. But it is a useful tool for
> narrowing the field of research. We don't know for sure why whales
> sing, and it's possible that whale-song may actually be an
> extraterrestrially-seeded means of communication. But, as with
> panspermia, it would be a sucker's bet to devote time or energy to
> that avenue of investigation. There's simply no good reason to go
> there (unless you'd prefer not to have future spaceships messing up
> Golden Gate Park).


> RLC



This time, Robert, I have played the game according to your rules. I
have not inserted anything after your first paragraph, so you can't
accuse me of "irrelevant comments about minutiae," nor have I
inserted anything between sentences anywhere, lest I strengthen your
suspicions that I am indulging in "deliberate evasiveness".

Instead, I've read everything through, to better divine "the
substance
of [your] argument" and your "point about the rhetorical foundations
in response to [my] claims."


And, judging from the placement of your real "context" in earlier
posts, the substance and the rhetorical foundations are summarized
thus:


"I, Robert Camp, love to make fun of directed panspermia, because I
believe it is a pile of crap."


NOTE TO OTHER READERS:


You can read about Camp's use of "irrelevant comments about
minutiae," and also how he characterized my rebuttal to "minutiae"
such as you see in his first paragraph above as a "content-free
response", in the following post:

http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/1fbcca002ba678bc?dmod...
Message-ID: <a8044b53-a7a5-44ed-9973-
c12315f14...@vi6g2000pbc.googlegroups.com>

This post also features my challenges to these bizarre descriptions
of
his. He deleted both his comments and his challenges in his
response,
where you can read about "context," as in:

"Please stop chopping up paragraphs and responding to the bits out
of
context. It's beginning to suggest deliberate evasiveness."
and
"had you read everything through you would have noticed
that my point was about the rhetorical foundation upon which my
comments in response to your claims ("championing of homegrown
abiogenesis") rested."
and
"missing the substance of the
argument and focusing on irrelevant detail."

http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/6513d0883c7709e4?dmod...
Message-ID:
<4560ce2c-2789-44fa-9cfd-70a43f415...@2g2000yqp.googlegroups.com>

I challenged him on all this in my reply:

http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/3c03c33affbee922
Message-ID: <fdeb4565-650b-4412-
bed4-6167830ac...@l17g2000vbj.googlegroups.com>


and the post to which I am replying here was his response to that,
but
you can't find either his allegations nor my challenges in this post,
because their place at the beginning has been taken by the symbol
string

> <snip>

Peter Nyikos
=================== end of post archived
at http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/680932ba1943a802

By the way, the first of Camp's last two paragraphs was just a rehash
of earlier unsupported claims, hence evasive of my question, and the
second is inconsistent, the taunt at the end belying the modest-
sounding beginning.

[pnyikos]

There is no prior experience relevant to abiogenesis happening ON
EARTH.

> > > Inference to DP does not fall into that category. No, the correct
> > > analogy in your detective mystery story would be; having no clear
> > > suspect at all,
>
> > The "clear suspect" is what I belived it to be for most of my life,
> > "Mother earth", until I realized that there is NO evidence for
> > abiogenesis having happened HERE.
>
> Although I think you are incorrect, none of my arguments have
> challenged this putative observation. I've accepted it for the
> purposes of discussing other points.
>
> > > and as a result concluding that aliens must be the
> > > perpetrators.
>
> > "must be" is a grotesque lampoon of everything I've written on the
> > subject.  Is this the "flawed inference" of which you wrote next?
>
> Okay, I'll withdraw the "must be" (though one would think someone who
> believes "there is NO evidence for abiogenesis having happened HERE"
> shouldn't see much difficulty in that interpretation)

Utter bilge. You should have reserved the parenthetical part for what
you say next:

> and change it to
> "are a good bet to be."

I don't even go that far. I have repeated *ad infinitum* that
directed panspermia is a HYPOTHESIS, which I happen to believe
[although I only give it odds of about 4 to 1 even in my own mind].

Often I have also said that I can understand why others might disagree
with the reasoning I use, or come up with different probabilities than
mine.

> It's a naive inference either way.

Don't be so pompous: you haven't seen what I infer it from. That
transpired between your last post to that May thread [see repost from
that thread done a few minutes ago] and August.

Peter Nyikos

[Robert Camp]

Of course not. That's another reason why your analogy is poor.

Are you paying attention? I'm asking in all seriousness because you
seem to be having trouble understanding the context of my replies.

- You characterized my comments by way of analogy to your detective
mystery story.
- I argued that your analogy was inapt and noted some inconsistencies
that made it so - one of which was the nature of prior experience in
investigating crimes (the point of which was to demonstrate that such
base-covering as you described invokes no new extraneous assumptions
about causality).
- I then offered what I considered, and still consider, a more
appropriate analogy.

What we are now discussing is the relative merit of our two analogies
as they simulate the assumptions inherent in your position on directed
panspermia. You need to keep this context in mind if you want to
intelligibly take issue with this portion of my comments (although at
this point I'm not sure it's worth it anymore).

> > > > Inference to DP does not fall into that category. No, the correct
> > > > analogy in your detective mystery story would be; having no clear
> > > > suspect at all,
>
> > > The "clear suspect" is what I belived it to be for most of my life,
> > > "Mother earth", until I realized that there is NO evidence for
> > > abiogenesis having happened HERE.
>
> > Although I think you are incorrect, none of my arguments have
> > challenged this putative observation. I've accepted it for the
> > purposes of discussing other points.
>
> > > > and as a result concluding that aliens must be the
> > > > perpetrators.
>
> > > "must be" is a grotesque lampoon of everything I've written on the
> > > subject. �Is this the "flawed inference" of which you wrote next?
>
> > Okay, I'll withdraw the "must be" (though one would think someone who
> > believes "there is NO evidence for abiogenesis having happened HERE"
> > shouldn't see much difficulty in that interpretation)
>
> Utter bilge. �You should have reserved the parenthetical part for what
> you say next:
>
> > and change it to
> > "are a good bet to be."
>
> I don't even go that far. �I have repeated *ad infinitum* that
> directed panspermia is a HYPOTHESIS,

That is not in dispute. What I argue is that it is an unwarranted
hypothesis, even based upon your stated reasons for hypothesizing it.

> which I happen to believe
> [although I only give it odds of about 4 to 1 even in my own mind].

For or against?

Do you also consider the odds that aliens are responsible for crimes
for which we have no earthly suspects about 4 to 1 as well? If not,
why not?

> Often I have also said that I can understand why others might disagree
> with the reasoning I use, or come up with different probabilities than
> mine.

One would think this might be because you accept that others see
evidence for abiogenesis where you have missed it. If so, don't the
caps you used for "NO" and "HERE" above seem just a tad presumptuous?

RLC

[pnyikos]

For the analogy to be poor, you would have to specify which prior
experience of detectives is relevant. Below, you get a little more
specific, but still general enough so that, without going into a lot
more detail, you have no case for my analogy being poor.

> Are you paying attention?

Of course I am, and nothing I wrote below suggests otherwise.

>I'm asking in all seriousness because

> - You characterized my comments by way of analogy to your detective
> mystery story.
> - I argued that your analogy was inapt and noted some inconsistencies
> that made it so - one of which was the nature of prior experience in
> investigating crimes
(the point of which was to demonstrate that such
> base-covering as you described invokes no new �extraneous assumptions
> about causality).
> - I then offered what I considered, and still consider, a more
> appropriate analogy.

Then YOU need to pay more attention to what *I* said.

> What we are now discussing is the relative merit of our two analogies
> as they simulate the assumptions inherent in your position on directed
> panspermia. You need to keep this context in mind if you want to
> intelligibly take issue with this portion of my comments (although at
> this point I'm not sure it's worth it anymore).

> > > > > Inference to DP does not fall into that category. No, the correct
> > > > > analogy in your detective mystery story would be; having no clear
> > > > > suspect at all,

> > > > The "clear suspect" is what I belived it to be for most of my life,
> > > > "Mother earth", until I realized that there is NO evidence for
> > > > abiogenesis having happened HERE.
>
> > > Although I think you are incorrect, none of my arguments have
> > > challenged this putative observation. I've accepted it for the
> > > purposes of discussing other points.

You missed the point of my opening clause. *I* stopped thinking of
earth as THE prime suspect, but I am completely alone in this respect.

The "accumulated mass of evidence" that keeps getting used in
arguments with me is
(a) We are here and
(b) amino acids and other essential organic compounds have formed
spontaneously in simulations of what are believed to be pre-earth
conditions.

The people arguing with me make it all seem like this makes earth THE
prime suspect for abiogenesis.

And you have made it crystal clear in your May 10 travesty that you
also consider earth to be THE prime suspect.

And so, YOUR analogy is hopelessly flawed from the get-go, because it
assumes that there is no clear suspect.

Concluded in next reply.

Peter Nyikos

[pnyikos]

On Sep 12, 7:22�pm, Robert Camp <robertlc...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> On Sep 12, 2:52�pm, pnyikos <nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote:

> > On Sep 12, 4:02�pm, Robert Camp <robertlc...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Sep 12, 12:22�pm, pnyikos <nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>
> > > > On Sep 11, 8:18�pm, Robert Camp <robertlc...@hotmail.com> wrote:

> > > > > Inference to DP does not fall into that category. No, the correct
> > > > > analogy in your detective mystery story would be; having no clear
> > > > > suspect at all,

> > > > > and as a result concluding that aliens must be the
> > > > > perpetrators.
>
> > > > "must be" is a grotesque lampoon of everything I've written on the
> > > > subject.

But the grotesqueness pales in comparison to the incredibly loaded
question you ask below.

> > > Okay, I'll withdraw the "must be" (though one would think someone who
> > > believes "there is NO evidence for abiogenesis having happened HERE"
> > > shouldn't see much difficulty in that interpretation)
>
> > Utter bilge. You should have reserved the parenthetical part for what
> > you say next:
>
> > > and change it to
> > > "are a good bet to be."
>
> > I don't even go that far. I have repeated *ad infinitum* that
> > directed panspermia is a HYPOTHESIS,

[snip]

> > which I happen to believe
> > [although I only give it odds of about 4 to 1 even in my own mind].
>
> For or against?

Figure it out for yourself. I gave you all the clues you need. The
average 10 year old could solve this mystery.

> Do you also consider the odds that aliens are responsible for crimes
> for which we have no earthly suspects about 4 to 1 as well? If not,
> why not?

Because I am not the hopelessly insane person that your question
strongly suggests I am.

And so, you reveal what a shameless hypocrite you were when you wrote:

"And this kind of silliness ("ran away") is an excellent
example of you trying to drag a discussion into the weeds
of petulant discord rather than dealing with substance."

> > Often I have also said that I can understand why others might disagree
> > with the reasoning I use, or come up with different probabilities than
> > mine.
>
> One would think this might be because you accept that others see
> evidence for abiogenesis where you have missed it.

And "One", namely you, would be wrong, but you have a feeble excuse:
you have missed the discussion from mid-May thru July.

Peter Nyikos

[Robert Camp]

You continue to misconstrue all of this. Just above is another good
example. Your comments make a connection between what you see as my
position and my analogy. But my analogy was not intended to
characterize my position (which you correctly observe assumes earthly
abiogenesis as the best explanation), it was meant to analogize *your*
position. If this wasn't painfully obvious from the fact that the
analogy includes aliens, it should have been made clear by my many
references (e.g., "...my comments were in regard to your analogy.").

I won't say this muddle is entirely your responsibility, but it's
clear this is getting us nowhere. So I see no need to discuss the
whole analogy thing any further.

As to the original issue, I will simply note that you have yet to
produce any reason for preferring an inference to extraterrestrial
abiogenesis over an earthly origin. What you see as a profoundly
unequivocal lack of evidence for earthly abiogenesis is, even if true,
not reason enough to infer ET abiogenesis and world-seeding behavior.
There are intermediate assumptions which, while still somewhat
fanciful, are more reasonable than your hypothesis (biochemical
components rained down from our planet's local environment). The leap
you propose - besides not actually explaining the problem for which it
is hypothesized - is unparsimonious in the extreme.

As I have previously, I'll emphasize that I'm *not* saying the idea
(directed panspermia) isn't fun to think about, doesn't make for a
good story, or even that it couldn't work. I'm just saying that none
of those things are reasons to think it might be true.

RLC

[Robert Camp]

On Sep 13, 12:32�pm, pnyikos <nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> On Sep 12, 7:22�pm, Robert Camp <robertlc...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Sep 12, 2:52�pm, pnyikos <nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> > > On Sep 12, 4:02�pm, Robert Camp <robertlc...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > On Sep 12, 12:22�pm, pnyikos <nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>
> > > > > On Sep 11, 8:18�pm, Robert Camp <robertlc...@hotmail.com> wrote:

<snip>

> > > I don't even go that far. �I have repeated *ad infinitum* that
> > > directed panspermia is a HYPOTHESIS,
> [snip]
> > > which I happen to believe
> > > [although I only give it odds of about 4 to 1 even in my own mind].
>
> > For or against?
>
> Figure it out for yourself. �I gave you all the clues you need. �The
> average 10 year old could solve this mystery.
>
> > Do you also consider the odds that aliens are responsible for crimes
> > for which we have no earthly suspects about 4 to 1 as well? If not,
> > why not?
>
> Because I am not the hopelessly insane person that your question
> strongly suggests I am.

My question suggests no such thing. It asks you to draw those
distinctions between the two hypotheses (alien world-seeders and alien
criminals) that make one reasonable per your perspective and the other
not. If one need be insane to hypothesize the latter then it should be
a simple matter for you to elaborate why.

RLC

[pnyikos]

On Sep 13, 4:12�pm, Robert Camp <robertlc...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> On Sep 13, 12:32�pm, pnyikos <nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>
> > On Sep 12, 7:22�pm, Robert Camp <robertlc...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Sep 12, 2:52�pm, pnyikos <nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> > > > On Sep 12, 4:02�pm, Robert Camp <robertlc...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > On Sep 12, 12:22�pm, pnyikos <nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>
> > > > > > On Sep 11, 8:18�pm, Robert Camp <robertlc...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > > > I don't even go that far. �I have repeated *ad infinitum* that
> > > > directed panspermia is a HYPOTHESIS,
> > [snip]
> > > > which I happen to believe
> > > > [although I only give it odds of about 4 to 1 even in my own mind].
>
> > > For or against?
>
> > Figure it out for yourself. �I gave you all the clues you need. �The
> > average 10 year old could solve this mystery.

Your asinine question above is just one of many parts of your track
record that I allude to in my next comment.

> > > Do you also consider the odds that aliens are responsible for crimes
> > > for which we have no earthly suspects about 4 to 1 as well? If not,
> > > why not?
>
> > Because I am not the hopelessly insane person that your question
> > strongly suggests I am.
>
> My question suggests no such thing.

Sorry, with your track record, I cannot believe you are being sincere
here.

>It asks you to draw those
> distinctions between the two hypotheses (alien world-seeders and alien
> criminals) that make one reasonable per your perspective and the other
> not. If one need be insane to hypothesize the latter then it should be
> a simple matter for you to elaborate why.

You know why, yourself, I'm sure. What you don't know is why I think
completely differently about something I hypothesize to have occurred
almost 4 billion years ago, and I've told you why you are so ignorant
about that.

But I won't dispel your ignorance until you stop pretending you know
more about my position than you do. You tried to give that impression
from the get-go, in spades, since you started posting on this thread.

With that attitude, you should be able to make up a plausible-sounding
tale about why I give 4 to 1 odds in my own mind in favor of directed
pasmpermia vs. abiogenesis as the source of life on earth.

You've come close to doing just that several times. What's stopping
you?

Peter Nyikos

[Robert Camp]

On Sep 14, 12:32�pm, pnyikos <nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> On Sep 13, 4:12�pm, Robert Camp <robertlc...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Sep 13, 12:32�pm, pnyikos <nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>
> > > On Sep 12, 7:22�pm, Robert Camp <robertlc...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > On Sep 12, 2:52�pm, pnyikos <nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> > > > > On Sep 12, 4:02�pm, Robert Camp <robertlc...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > On Sep 12, 12:22�pm, pnyikos <nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > On Sep 11, 8:18�pm, Robert Camp <robertlc...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > <snip>
>
> > > > > I don't even go that far. �I have repeated *ad infinitum* that
> > > > > directed panspermia is a HYPOTHESIS,
> > > [snip]
> > > > > which I happen to believe
> > > > > [although I only give it odds of about 4 to 1 even in my own mind].
>
> > > > For or against?
>
> > > Figure it out for yourself. �I gave you all the clues you need. �The
> > > average 10 year old could solve this mystery.

<snip tantrum>

> > > > Do you also consider the odds that aliens are responsible for crimes
> > > > for which we have no earthly suspects about 4 to 1 as well? If not,
> > > > why not?
>
> > > Because I am not the hopelessly insane person that your question
> > > strongly suggests I am.
>

> > My question suggests no such thing. It asks you to draw those

> > distinctions between the two hypotheses (alien world-seeders and alien
> > criminals) that make one reasonable per your perspective and the other
> > not. If one need be insane to hypothesize the latter then it should be
> > a simple matter for you to elaborate why.

<snip evasion>

Would you like to take another shot at answering my question? If not,
that's fine, but it's really all I'm interested in addressing.

RLC

[Mark Isaak]

On 9/14/12 12:31 PM, pnyikos wrote:
>
> But I won't dispel your ignorance until you stop pretending you know
> more about my position than you do.

You're going to have to phrase it better than that to win a Chez Watt.
How about this:

"But I won't answer your question until you prove to me that you already
know the answer."

--
Mark Isaak eciton (at) curioustaxonomy (dot) net
"It is certain, from experience, that the smallest grain of natural
honesty and benevolence has more effect on men's conduct, than the most
pompous views suggested by theological theories and systems." - D. Hume

[pnyikos]

On Sep 14, 5:27�pm, Mark Isaak <eci...@curioustax.onomy.net> wrote:
> On 9/14/12 12:31 PM, pnyikos wrote:

Below, I had referred to statements by Camp like the following, right
on this thread:

"As to the original issue, I will simply note that you have yet to
produce any reason for preferring an inference to extraterrestrial
abiogenesis over an earthly origin."

The statement following the "I will simply note that" is demonstrably
false. There are others like it, in which Camp implies that has been
following arguments about directed panspermia closely, whereas he
completely absented himself from all discussions of it between early
May and the start of this thread; and this thread continues to be the
only place where he is talking about it.

Hence my reaction:

>
> > But I won't dispel your ignorance until you stop pretending you know
> > more about my position than you do.
>
> You're going to have to phrase it better than that to win a Chez Watt.
> How about this:
>
> "But I won't answer your question until you prove to me that you already
> know the answer."

Was this inspired by oft-repeated tall tales by Gans about how I
expect people to read everything I wrote? I commented on this earlier
today on the thread where he has really been laying it on thick:

Date: Wed, 19 Sep 2012 12:43:43 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: Re: Strange Logic (was something else entirely)

On Sep 7, 12:18 am, "Glenn" <glennshel...@invalid.invalid> wrote:

> "pnyikos" <nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote in message

> news:98d14c19-5d38-42b2...@a19g2000yqd.googlegroups.com...
> > On Sep 6, 3:18 pm, Paul J Gans <gan...@panix.com> wrote:
> > > Walter Bushell <pr...@panix.com> wrote:
> > > >In article
> > > ><70cd54e8-5aad-4fb5-820a-ea0b8a72b...@l14g2000yqo.googlegroups.com>,
> > > > pnyikos <nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> > > >> Methanogens survived just fine, and have found new dwelling places in
> > > >> the stomachs of ruminants. They are in part responsible for global
> > > >> warming, and for some strange reason, most of the people who keep
> > > >> emphasizing carbon dioxide don't seem to know that methane is a far
> > > >> more potent greenhouse gas than CO2
.
> > > >But methane has a relatively short life in the atmosphere.

> > > And is largely produced by living entities. All of which
> > > raises the question of where the primeordeal methane came
> > > from.

> > Methane is simple enough to be produced en masse abiotically, not
> > unlike water. Where do you think all the methane on Titan and Neptune
> > came from?

> Space cows.

Were I like Paul Gans, I would say that this is what he thinks. Then
if Gans protests that I am misreading him, I would continue like him,
and say that it is his fault since he is very unclear as to what he
means.

If he claims that he already gave a different explanation elsewhere,
then I could really go into high Gans-gear, accusing him of demanding
that people read every one of his posts.

But there are two big reasons why I am not like this.

1. Gans enjoys far more popularity in this NG than I do, and has not
given me permission to act in this way, even though he has given
himself permission to act in this way, and is able to get away with it
on account of his popularity.

2. It goes against my conscience.

Peter Nyikos
============== end of included excerpt

[J.J. O'Shea]

On Fri, 21 Sep 2012 15:00:31 -0400, pnyikos wrote
(in article
<3b3ae57e-b56c-41d8...@v15g2000yqi.googlegroups.com>):

> 2. It goes against my conscience.

BWA-HA-HA-HA-HA!!!

--
email to oshea dot j dot j at gmail dot com.

[Mark Isaak]

You are replying to Gans, so why is my name at the top?

[J.J. O'Shea]

On Sat, 22 Sep 2012 11:55:05 -0400, Mark Isaak wrote
(in article <k3kn0p$rst$1...@dont-email.me>):

Because he's pulling his usual 'wait a week to two weeks and see if
everyone's forgotten about this subthread' bullshit. Your post went out at
17:23 on 14 Sept. He replied at 15:00 on 21 Sept. He doesn't want to reply
directly to Gans, because if he does, Gans might see it, even though he
waited a week to reply. This way he can say that he replied _and that Gans
failed to reply to him_.

He does this bullshit often, and he's been doing it for years. A few months
back I replied to one of his posts which was about 20 days old, just to see
what would happen. The hypocritical little shitbag chided me for waiting for
so long, calling me, and I quote, 'O'Shea van Winkle'.

This kind of behavior is yet another reason why I despise the lying scumbag.

[pnyikos]

On Sep 22, 7:40 am, "J.J. O'Shea" <try.not...@but.see.sig> wrote:
> On Fri, 21 Sep 2012 15:00:31 -0400, pnyikos wrote
> (in article

> <3b3ae57e-b56c-41d8-8c3e-7bdce6f70...@v15g2000yqi.googlegroups.com>):

>
> > 2. It goes against my conscience.
>
> BWA-HA-HA-HA-HA!!!

There is a serious question of whether you even know what a conscience
is. So far, I've seen nothing to indicate that you aren't a
psychopath:

psychopathic personality
1: an emotionally and behaviorally disordered state characterized by
clear perception of reality
except for the individual's social and moral obligations and often by
the pursuit of immediate
personal gratification....

You seem to take immediate personal gratification in lying your head
off about me, and accusing me of being "scum". I deduce this from
your claiming you don't dislike me because I "amuse" you.

I expect you to go into your usual broken record routine, continuing
to deceive readers with the allegation that I am "dishonest" and that
I am a "creationist."

Fortunately, you've been outed on that second bit when you showed
that you have a nonsensical definition of "creationist" which
encompasses the atheist Francis Crick. But every time you omit this
information and claim I am a "creationist", you are deceiving every
reader who has not seen you being "outed" on this.

Do you have a similar nonsensical meaning that you attach to
"dishonest" which allows you to say that I am the most dishonest
creationist posting to t.o.?

TEST OF J.J. O'SHEA-SIMULATING SOFTWARE :-)
PLEASE IGNORE :-)

> I am the most dishonest creationist posting to t.o.

Thank you for admitting this and saving me the trouble of proving it.

--
email to oshea dot j dot j at gmail dot com.

END OF TEST :-) :-) :-)

Peter Nyikos

[pnyikos]

Are you playing dumb, Mark? Your name is not at the top of the
included post, which is only a subset of my whole reply to you.

NOTE TO (OTHER ?) READERS: If you scroll way up, you will see that
there is text due to Mark Isaak above, kidding me in connection with
"Chez Watt", above the included post.

Ordinarily I would just give a link to the included reply to Walter
Bushell, but I didn't want to just put an url for the included post,
because I thought I recalled Mark telling me on an earlier occasion
that he ignores urls that I include in my replies to him.

[pnyikos]

On Sep 27, 2:40 pm, pnyikos <nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> On Sep 22, 11:55 am, Mark Isaak <eci...@curioustax.onomy.net> wrote:

[snip to get to the context of a statement of mine that needs
correcting]

> > You are replying to Gans, so why is my name at the top?
>
> Are you playing dumb, Mark?  Your name is not at the top of the
> included post, which is only a subset of my whole reply to you.
>
> NOTE TO (OTHER ?) READERS:  If you scroll way up, you will see that
> there is text due to Mark Isaak above, kidding me in connection with
> "Chez Watt", above the included post.
>
> Ordinarily I would just give a link to the included reply to Walter
> Bushell,

Correction: the reply was to Glenn.

Peter Nyikos

[pnyikos]

On Sep 22, 1:15�pm, "J.J. O'Shea" <try.not...@but.see.sig> wrote:
> On Sat, 22 Sep 2012 11:55:05 -0400, Mark Isaak wrote

> (in article <k3kn0p$rs...@dont-email.me>):

I wasn't replying to Gans in the included excerpt, I was replying to
Glenn, as anyone scrolling up to the top of the included excerpt can
see.

> Because he's pulling his usual 'wait a week to two weeks

...because I am involved in many threads, and I have to give certain
threads priority over others in the limited (though still rather
extensive) time I devote to posting each week.

I still use the old Google Groups, which allows me up to 60 days to
reply to posts, and some people hardly deserve more frequent replies
anyway because they are highly dishonest. This includes J. J. O'Shea,
to whose post I am replying here.

[snip bullshit by O'Shea]

>Your post went out at
> 17:23 on 14 Sept. He replied at 15:00 on 21 Sept. He doesn't want to reply
> directly to Gans, because if he does, Gans might see it,

...and pretend he didn't see it. He cherry-picks posts to reply to,
especially among my replies to him.

Back in June or July, he ignored a solidly on-topic reply by me to
him for about a week. The reply involved some ridiculous claims he
made about directed panspermia, involving some physics;

While ignoring it, he alleged to jillery and/or O'Shea that he was
interested in discussing physics with me, but it's a shame it won't
happen. That's because he was cherry-picking off-topic replies by me
to off-topic allegations by him.

I kept telling him about that on-topic reply of mine, and finally he
made a big show of having looked up the post I was telling him
about...

....and then he cherry-picked a few bits out of that post, omitting
most of the meaty stuff, and falsely alleged that the post did not
conform to what I had said about it.

>even though he
> waited a week to reply. This way he can say that he replied _and that Gans
> failed to reply to him_.

Gans is set in his ways, so it was Glenn I replied to, hoping that at
least one person might actually learn something about Gans thereby.
Gans already knows what a rotten scoundrel he is, there is no need to
tell him about it.

> He does this bullshit often, and he's been doing it for years. A few months
> back I replied to one of his posts which was about 20 days old, just to see
> what would happen. The hypocritical little shitbag chided me for waiting for
> so long, calling me, and I quote, 'O'Shea van Winkle'.

O'Shea is lying, no surprise there. There was no mention of how long
he waited for my post, and the "van Winkle" designation had to do with
his claim that I put people on lists. See:

http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/c3c33f8beaedf00c

I hadn't done that in t.o. since 2001. There is no record in Google
of a J. J. O'Shea having posted to t.o. that far back, so he either
browsed through the archives to learn about my lists, or else he is
relying on scuttlebutt that I put people on lists -- perhaps due to
Gans himself.

Peter Nyikos

[pnyikos]

On Sep 14, 4:42 pm, Robert Camp <robertlc...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> On Sep 14, 12:32 pm, pnyikos <nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Sep 13, 4:12 pm, Robert Camp <robertlc...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Sep 13, 12:32 pm, pnyikos <nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>
> > > > On Sep 12, 7:22 pm, Robert Camp <robertlc...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > On Sep 12, 2:52 pm, pnyikos <nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> > > > > > On Sep 12, 4:02 pm, Robert Camp <robertlc...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > On Sep 12, 12:22 pm, pnyikos <nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > On Sep 11, 8:18 pm, Robert Camp <robertlc...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > <snip>
>
> > > > > > I don't even go that far. I have repeated *ad infinitum* that
> > > > > > directed panspermia is a HYPOTHESIS,
> > > > [snip]
> > > > > > which I happen to believe
> > > > > > [although I only give it odds of about 4 to 1 even in my own mind].
>
> > > > > For or against?
>
> > > > Figure it out for yourself. I gave you all the clues you need. The
> > > > average 10 year old could solve this mystery.
>

[snip gratuitous put-down]

> > > > > Do you also consider the odds that aliens are responsible for crimes
> > > > > for which we have no earthly suspects about 4 to 1 as well? If not,
> > > > > why not?
>
> > > > Because I am not the hopelessly insane person that your question
> > > > strongly suggests I am.
>
> > > My question suggests no such thing. It asks you to draw those
> > > distinctions between the two hypotheses (alien world-seeders and alien
> > > criminals) that make one reasonable per your perspective and the other
> > > not. If one need be insane to hypothesize the latter then it should be
> > > a simple matter for you to elaborate why.
>
> <snip evasion>
>
> Would you like to take another shot at answering my question? If not,
> that's fine, but it's really all I'm interested in addressing.

Thanks for confirming yet again that you are not interested in
discussing directed panspermia rationally with me. This was already
pretty clear in May, when the following exchange took place between
us.

___________ begin excerpts__________


On May 10, 11:09 pm, Robert Camp <robertlc...@hotmail.com> wrote:

[huge snip]

This post also features my challenges to these bizarre descriptions
of his. He deleted both his comments and his challenges in his
response, where you can read about "context," as in:

"Please stop chopping up paragraphs and responding to the bits out
of context. It's beginning to suggest deliberate evasiveness."
and
"had you read everything through you would have noticed
that my point was about the rhetorical foundation upon which my
comments in response to your claims ("championing of homegrown
abiogenesis") rested."
and
"missing the substance of the
argument and focusing on irrelevant detail."

http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/6513d0883c7709e4?dmod...

I challenged him on all this in my reply:

http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/3c03c33affbee922

and the post to which I am replying here was his response to that,
but you can't find either his allegations nor my challenges
in this post, because their place at the beginning has been taken
by the symbol string

> <snip>

Peter Nyikos

=================== end of excerpts
from http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/680932ba1943a802

By the way, scuttlebutt by O'Shea notwithstanding, I would be
delighted if Camp actually read this post all the way through despite
my delay in answering.

That way, it might finally sink in that I have caught on to his
control-freak polemical games, and he just might clean up his act
(very unlikely) or ignore the whole thread (more likely) the next time
I start a thread on directed panspermia.

I think I'll do it shortly after the general election in November,
when people will probably have more time to discuss it than between
now and then.

Peter Nyikos

[J.J. O'Shea]

On Thu, 27 Sep 2012 14:27:19 -0400, pnyikos wrote
(in article
<762204ad-81e2-4cc9...@b8g2000yqh.googlegroups.com>):

> On Sep 22, 7:40 am, "J.J. O'Shea" <try.not...@but.see.sig> wrote:
>> On Fri, 21 Sep 2012 15:00:31 -0400, pnyikos wrote
>> (in article
>> <3b3ae57e-b56c-41d8-8c3e-7bdce6f70...@v15g2000yqi.googlegroups.com>):
>>
>>> 2. It goes against my conscience.
>>
>> BWA-HA-HA-HA-HA!!!
>
> There is a serious question of whether you even know what a conscience
> is.

I know very well what one is... and that you lack one, oh liar of liars.

> So far, I've seen nothing to indicate that you aren't a
> psychopath:
>
> psychopathic personality
> 1: an emotionally and behaviorally disordered state characterized by
> clear perception of reality
> except for the individual's social and moral obligations and often by
> the pursuit of immediate
> personal gratification....
>
> You seem to take immediate personal gratification in lying your head
> off about me, and accusing me of being "scum". I deduce this from
> your claiming you don't dislike me because I "amuse" you.

I despise you, not dislike you. There's a difference.

>
> I expect you to go into your usual broken record routine, continuing
> to deceive readers with the allegation that I am "dishonest" and that
> I am a "creationist."

You are.

>
> Fortunately, you've been outed on that second bit when you showed
> that you have a nonsensical definition of "creationist" which
> encompasses the atheist Francis Crick. But every time you omit this
> information and claim I am a "creationist", you are deceiving every
> reader who has not seen you being "outed" on this.

So? Then he's a creationist too. I don't give a shit about him, he doesn't
post here.

>
> Do you have a similar nonsensical meaning that you attach to
> "dishonest" which allows you to say that I am the most dishonest
> creationist posting to t.o.?
>
> TEST OF J.J. O'SHEA-SIMULATING SOFTWARE :-)
> PLEASE IGNORE :-)
>
>> I am the most dishonest creationist posting to t.o.
>
> Thank you for admitting this and saving me the trouble of proving it.

And there he is, actually altering the text of my post and showing that he
is, after all, the liar of liars.

>
> --
> email to oshea dot j dot j at gmail dot com.
>
> END OF TEST :-) :-) :-)
>
> Peter Nyikos

who has just demonstrated that he is the single most dishonest creationist
currently posting on t.o.

[J.J. O'Shea]

On Thu, 27 Sep 2012 15:07:17 -0400, pnyikos wrote
(in article
<b9aa1a72-9010-4a8d...@w3g2000yqe.googlegroups.com>):

And there he is, being massively dishonest again.

and more dishonesty by Peter. As expected.

>
>> He does this bullshit often, and he's been doing it for years. A few months
>> back I replied to one of his posts which was about 20 days old, just to see
>> what would happen. The hypocritical little shitbag chided me for waiting for
>> so long, calling me, and I quote, 'O'Shea van Winkle'.
>
> O'Shea is lying, no surprise there. There was no mention of how long
> he waited for my post, and the "van Winkle" designation had to do with
> his claim that I put people on lists. See:
>
> http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/c3c33f8beaedf00c
>
> I hadn't done that in t.o. since 2001. There is no record in Google
> of a J. J. O'Shea having posted to t.o. that far back, so he either
> browsed through the archives to learn about my lists, or else he is
> relying on scuttlebutt that I put people on lists -- perhaps due to
> Gans himself.

Actually, nope. But hey, you're the liar of liars. Keep it up.

>
> Peter Nyikos
who is the current champion liar on t.o and the single most dishonest

creationist currently posting on t.o.

[Mark Isaak]

Yes, you hit the "Reply" button (or its equivalent) while viewing a post
by me. But your reply was to Gans. That is weird.

[J.J. O'Shea]

On Thu, 27 Sep 2012 21:19:21 -0400, Mark Isaak wrote
(in article <k42tur$2lj$1...@dont-email.me>):

Nah. That is Peter.

[pnyikos]

On Sep 27, 4:35 pm, "J.J. O'Shea" <try.not...@but.see.sig> wrote:
> On Thu, 27 Sep 2012 14:27:19 -0400, pnyikos wrote
> (in article

> <762204ad-81e2-4cc9-85bd-5286b2b5a...@b8g2000yqh.googlegroups.com>):

>
> > On Sep 22, 7:40 am, "J.J. O'Shea" <try.not...@but.see.sig> wrote:
> >> On Fri, 21 Sep 2012 15:00:31 -0400, pnyikos wrote
> >> (in article
> >> <3b3ae57e-b56c-41d8-8c3e-7bdce6f70...@v15g2000yqi.googlegroups.com>):
>
> >>> 2. It goes against my conscience.
>
> >> BWA-HA-HA-HA-HA!!!
>
> > There is a serious question of whether you even know what a conscience
> > is.

[Pee Wee Hermanism by O'Shea deleted here]

> >  So far, I've seen nothing to indicate that you aren't a
> > psychopath:
>
> > psychopathic personality
> > 1: an emotionally and behaviorally disordered state characterized by
> > clear perception of reality
> > except for the individual's social and moral obligations and often by
> > the pursuit of immediate
> > personal gratification....
>
> > You seem to take immediate personal gratification in lying your head
> > off about me, and accusing me of being "scum".  I deduce this from
> > your claiming you don't dislike me because I "amuse" you.

[counterfeit responsiveness by O'Shea deleted]

> > I expect you to go into your usual broken record routine, continuing
> > to deceive readers with the allegation that I am "dishonest" and that
> > I am a "creationist."

[fulfillment of my "usual broken record routine" prediction deleted]

> > Fortunately, you've been outed on  that second bit when you showed
> > that you have a nonsensical definition of "creationist" which
> > encompasses the atheist Francis Crick.  But every time you omit this
> > information and claim I am a "creationist", you are deceiving every
> > reader who has not seen you being "outed" on this.
>
> So? Then he's a creationist too. I don't give a shit about him, he doesn't
> post here.

Thanks for letting the readers know how irrationally you can behave.

>
>
> > Do you have a similar nonsensical meaning that you attach to
> > "dishonest" which allows you to say that I am the most dishonest
> > creationist posting to t.o.?

You ducked this question.

> > TEST OF J.J. O'SHEA-SIMULATING SOFTWARE  :-)
> > PLEASE IGNORE  :-)
>
> >> I am the most dishonest creationist posting to t.o.
>
> > Thank you for admitting this and saving me the trouble of proving it.
>
> And there he is, actually altering the text of my post and showing that he
> is, after all, the liar of liars.

There was no post of yours whose text was being altered. The whole
thing was a joke, as the smileys make abundantly clear. What's more,
I've used this convention many times, and IMO only someone as devoid
of a conscience as yourself would respond the way you did.

>
>
> > --
> > email to oshea dot j dot j at gmail dot com.
>
> > END OF TEST  :-)   :-)   :-)
>
> > Peter Nyikos

Note, I haven't said a word about how successful or unsuccessful that
"test" was supposed to be. If the shoe fits, wear it.

Peter Nyikos

[pnyikos]

On Sep 27, 4:35 pm, "J.J. O'Shea" <try.not...@but.see.sig> wrote:
> On Thu, 27 Sep 2012 15:07:17 -0400, pnyikos wrote
> (in article

> <b9aa1a72-9010-4a8d-bf9b-f0289478d...@w3g2000yqe.googlegroups.com>):

[snip additional bullshit by O'Shea]

> >> Your post went out at
> >> 17:23 on 14 Sept. He replied at 15:00 on 21 Sept. He doesn't want to reply
> >> directly to Gans,

I'd do it if I had the time, but as indicated below, I fear it would
be a waste of time, of which I will have even less of in October than
I had in September.

> > because if he does, Gans might see it,
>
> > ...and pretend he didn't see it.  He cherry-picks posts to reply to,
> > especially among my replies to him.
>
> > Back in June or July,  he ignored a solidly on-topic reply by me to
> > him for about a week. The reply involved some ridiculous claims he
> > made about directed panspermia, involving some physics;
>
> > While ignoring it, he  alleged to jillery and/or O'Shea  that he was
> > interested in discussing physics with me, but it's a shame it won't
> > happen. That's because he was cherry-picking off-topic replies by me
> > to off-topic allegations by him.
>
> >  I kept telling him about that on-topic reply of mine, and finally he
> > made a big show of having looked up the post I was telling him
> > about...
>
> > ....and then he cherry-picked a few bits out of that post, omitting
> > most of the meaty stuff, and falsely alleged that the post did not
> > conform to what I had said about it.
>
> >> even though he
> >> waited a week to reply. This way he can say that he replied _and that Gans
> >> failed to reply to him_.
>
> > Gans is set in his ways, so it was Glenn I replied to, hoping that at
> > least one person might actually learn something about Gans thereby.
> > Gans already knows what a rotten scoundrel he is, there is no need to
> > tell him about it.
>
> and more dishonesty by Peter. As expected.

Actually, I would prefer that Gans *did* see it, so that he can see
that he isn't putting anything over on me. I'd even ask you to e-mail
him copies of every post where I mention him, except that you are so
dishonest, you are likely to lie about each one that this is yet
another statement about him that I am hoping he doesn't see.

> >> He does this bullshit often, and he's been doing it for years. A few months
> >> back I replied to one of his posts which was about 20 days old, just to see
> >> what would happen. The hypocritical little shitbag chided me for waiting for
> >> so long, calling me, and I quote, 'O'Shea van Winkle'.
>
> > O'Shea is lying, no surprise there.  There was no mention of how long
> > he waited for my post, and the "van Winkle" designation had to do with
> > his claim that I put people on lists.

O'Shea does not deny this, let alone correct it. He only denies
something much further below.

> See:
>
> >http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/c3c33f8beaedf00c
>
> > I hadn't done that in t.o. since 2001.   There is no record in Google
> > of a J. J. O'Shea having posted to t.o. that far back, so he either
> > browsed through the archives to learn about my lists, or else he is
> > relying on scuttlebutt that I put people on lists -- perhaps due to
> > Gans himself.
>
> Actually, nope.

OK, so it isn't due to Gans. Big whoop.

Peter Nyikos

[pnyikos]

What are you talking about? The only reply to Gans documented above
came before the included post (which was a reply to Glenn) was made,
and the whole post [not to be confused with the included post] was a
reply to you, as is this one.

Are you saying YOU made the post wondering where the primordial
methane came from, and that I've been thinking all this time that it
was a post by Gans?

Peter Nyikos

[J.J. O'Shea]

On Mon, 1 Oct 2012 14:49:20 -0400, pnyikos wrote
(in article
<9529723e-b61d-4dda...@h4g2000yqo.googlegroups.com>):

> On Sep 27, 4:35 pm, "J.J. O'Shea" <try.not...@but.see.sig> wrote:
>> On Thu, 27 Sep 2012 14:27:19 -0400, pnyikos wrote
>> (in article
>> <762204ad-81e2-4cc9-85bd-5286b2b5a...@b8g2000yqh.googlegroups.com>):
>>
>>> On Sep 22, 7:40 am, "J.J. O'Shea" <try.not...@but.see.sig> wrote:
>>>> On Fri, 21 Sep 2012 15:00:31 -0400, pnyikos wrote
>>>> (in article
>>>> <3b3ae57e-b56c-41d8-8c3e-7bdce6f70...@v15g2000yqi.googlegroups.com>):
>>
>>>>> 2. It goes against my conscience.
>>
>>>> BWA-HA-HA-HA-HA!!!
>>
>>> There is a serious question of whether you even know what a conscience
>>> is.
>
> [Pee Wee Hermanism by O'Shea deleted here]

dishonesty detected.

>
>>>  So far, I've seen nothing to indicate that you aren't a
>>> psychopath:
>>
>>> psychopathic personality
>>> 1: an emotionally and behaviorally disordered state characterized by
>>> clear perception of reality
>>> except for the individual's social and moral obligations and often by
>>> the pursuit of immediate
>>> personal gratification....
>>
>>> You seem to take immediate personal gratification in lying your head
>>> off about me, and accusing me of being "scum".  I deduce this from
>>> your claiming you don't dislike me because I "amuse" you.
>
> [counterfeit responsiveness by O'Shea deleted]

More dishonesty detected.

>
>>> I expect you to go into your usual broken record routine, continuing
>>> to deceive readers with the allegation that I am "dishonest" and that
>>> I am a "creationist."
>
> [fulfillment of my "usual broken record routine" prediction deleted]

and yet more dishonesty detected.

>
>>> Fortunately, you've been outed on  that second bit when you showed
>>> that you have a nonsensical definition of "creationist" which
>>> encompasses the atheist Francis Crick.  But every time you omit this
>>> information and claim I am a "creationist", you are deceiving every
>>> reader who has not seen you being "outed" on this.
>>
>> So? Then he's a creationist too. I don't give a shit about him, he doesn't
>> post here.
>
> Thanks for letting the readers know how irrationally you can behave.

You're welcome.

>
>>
>>
>>> Do you have a similar nonsensical meaning that you attach to
>>> "dishonest" which allows you to say that I am the most dishonest
>>> creationist posting to t.o.?
>
> You ducked this question.

If you're gonna dishonestly delete my answers, why should I bother?

>
>
>>> TEST OF J.J. O'SHEA-SIMULATING SOFTWARE  :-)
>>> PLEASE IGNORE  :-)
>>
>>>> I am the most dishonest creationist posting to t.o.
>>
>>> Thank you for admitting this and saving me the trouble of proving it.
>>
>> And there he is, actually altering the text of my post and showing that he
>> is, after all, the liar of liars.
>
> There was no post of yours whose text was being altered. The whole
> thing was a joke, as the smileys make abundantly clear. What's more,
> I've used this convention many times, and IMO only someone as devoid
> of a conscience as yourself would respond the way you did.

And more dishonesty detected.

>
>>
>>
>>> --
>>> email to oshea dot j dot j at gmail dot com.
>>
>>> END OF TEST  :-)   :-)   :-)
>>
>>> Peter Nyikos
>
> Note, I haven't said a word about how successful or unsuccessful that
> "test" was supposed to be. If the shoe fits, wear it.

And there you are again.

>
> Peter Nyikos
still the single most dishonest creationist currently posting on t.o.

[J.J. O'Shea]

On Mon, 1 Oct 2012 14:58:46 -0400, pnyikos wrote
(in article
<99e57e69-e811-4ea9...@a11g2000yqb.googlegroups.com>):

>
> Actually, I would prefer that Gans *did* see it, so that he can see that he
> isn't putting anything over on me. I'd even ask you to e-mail him copies of
> every post where I mention him, except that you are so dishonest, you are
> likely to lie about each one that this is yet another statement about him
> that I am hoping he doesn't see.

And more dishonesty detected.

>
>>>> He does this bullshit often, and he's been doing it for years. A few
>>>> months
>>>> back I replied to one of his posts which was about 20 days old, just to
>>>> see
>>>> what would happen. The hypocritical little shitbag chided me for waiting
>>>> for
>>>> so long, calling me, and I quote, 'O'Shea van Winkle'.
>>
>>> O'Shea is lying, no surprise there.  There was no mention of how long
>>> he waited for my post, and the "van Winkle" designation had to do with
>>> his claim that I put people on lists.
>
> O'Shea does not deny this, let alone correct it. He only denies something
> much further below.

Actually, my reply was intended to encompass the whole thing. But, hey...

>
>
>> See:
>>
>>> http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/c3c33f8beaedf00c
>>
>>> I hadn't done that in t.o. since 2001.   There is no record in Google
>>> of a J. J. O'Shea having posted to t.o. that far back, so he either
>>> browsed through the archives to learn about my lists, or else he is
>>> relying on scuttlebutt that I put people on lists -- perhaps due to
>>> Gans himself.
>>
>> Actually, nope.
>
> OK, so it isn't due to Gans. Big whoop.

You are, again, and as usual, proceeding from an entirely false premise. And
as long as you continue to do so, despite my pointing this out many, many,
MANY times, you will continue to attack the wrong thing... stuff that I
simply don't give a shit about. I don't _care_ about your quarrel with Gans.
I simply don't give a damn. However, every time you drag him in further makes
my points that you're a despicable waste of oxygen, so by all means continue.

>
> Peter Nyikos
still the single most dishonest creationist currently posting on t.o.

[pnyikos]

On Oct 1, 4:59�pm, "J.J. O'Shea" <try.not...@but.see.sig> wrote:
> On Mon, 1 Oct 2012 14:58:46 -0400, pnyikos wrote
> (in article

> <99e57e69-e811-4ea9-b27d-284a501f7...@a11g2000yqb.googlegroups.com>):

>
>
>
> > Actually, I would prefer that Gans *did* see it, so that he can see that he
> > isn't putting anything over on me. �I'd even ask you to e-mail him copies of
> > every post where I mention him, except that you are so dishonest, you are
> > likely to lie about each one that this is yet another statement about him
> > that I am hoping he doesn't see.
>
> And more dishonesty detected.
>
>
>
> >>>> He does this bullshit often, and he's been doing it for years. A few
> >>>> months
> >>>> back I replied to one of his posts which was about 20 days old, just to
> >>>> see
> >>>> what would happen. The hypocritical little shitbag chided me for waiting
> >>>> for
> >>>> so long, calling me, and I quote, 'O'Shea van Winkle'.
>
> >>> O'Shea is lying, no surprise there. There was no mention of how long
> >>> he waited for my post, and the "van Winkle" designation had to do with
> >>> his claim that I put people on lists.
>
> > O'Shea does not deny this, let alone correct it. �He only denies something
> > much further below.
>
> Actually, my reply was intended to encompass the whole thing. But, hey...

...you want to go on record as having denied the description I gave of
the only post I could find that seems remotely like YOUR description?
And you aren't going to challenge the details of my description?

> >> See:
>
> >>>http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/c3c33f8beaedf00c
>
> >>> I hadn't done that in t.o. since 2001. There is no record in Google
> >>> of a J. J. O'Shea having posted to t.o. that far back, so he either
> >>> browsed through the archives to learn about my lists, or else he is
> >>> relying on scuttlebutt that I put people on lists -- perhaps due to
> >>> Gans himself.
>
> >> Actually, nope.
>
> > OK, so it isn't due to Gans. �Big whoop.
>
> You are, again, and as usual, proceeding from an entirely false premise.

OK, so it isn't due to you having browsed through archives to learn
about my lists. Are you trying to claim that the archives DO show a
J.J. O'Shea posting that far back to talk.origins?

[small snip]

> I don't _care_ about your quarrel with Gans. I simply don't give a damn.
> However, every time you drag him in further makes
> my points that you're a despicable waste of oxygen,
> so by all means continue.

Is that any way to show gratitude towards someone who went out of his
way AT LEAST twice to show solidarity with you? It happened at least
that many times on the thread on expanding the Drake equation, alone:

http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/bde1c2bfbb709b02

http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/418f761a0666ade7

Peter Nyikos

[pnyikos]

On Oct 1, 4:54�pm, "J.J. O'Shea" <try.not...@but.see.sig> wrote:
> On Mon, 1 Oct 2012 14:49:20 -0400, pnyikos wrote
> (in article

> <9529723e-b61d-4dda-9b30-5993ef718...@h4g2000yqo.googlegroups.com>):

You are going to have to lie more creatively than this, if you want to
pass the Turing test.

This is an allusion to a thread where you made a brief appearance, but
exited long ago. After your lone post to that thread, I entered it
and said a few things about you in this connection.

urls on request.

Peter Nyikos

[J.J. O'Shea]

On Thu, 11 Oct 2012 15:29:49 -0400, pnyikos wrote
(in article
<5d3f6b67-f1d3-4bcf...@n16g2000yqi.googlegroups.com>):

> On Oct 1, 4:54ï¿œpm, "J.J. O'Shea" <try.not...@but.see.sig> wrote:
>> On Mon, 1 Oct 2012 14:49:20 -0400, pnyikos wrote
>> (in article
>> <9529723e-b61d-4dda-9b30-5993ef718...@h4g2000yqo.googlegroups.com>):
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> On Sep 27, 4:35ï¿œpm, "J.J. O'Shea" <try.not...@but.see.sig> wrote:
>>>> On Thu, 27 Sep 2012 14:27:19 -0400, pnyikos wrote
>>>> (in article
>>>> <762204ad-81e2-4cc9-85bd-5286b2b5a...@b8g2000yqh.googlegroups.com>):
>>

>>>>> On Sep 22, 7:40ï¿œam, "J.J. O'Shea" <try.not...@but.see.sig> wrote:
>>>>>> On Fri, 21 Sep 2012 15:00:31 -0400, pnyikos wrote
>>>>>> (in article
>>>>>> <3b3ae57e-b56c-41d8-8c3e-7bdce6f70...@v15g2000yqi.googlegroups.com>):
>>
>>>>>>> 2. It goes against my conscience.
>>
>>>>>> BWA-HA-HA-HA-HA!!!
>>
>>>>> There is a serious question of whether you even know what a conscience
>>>>> is.
>>
>>> [Pee Wee Hermanism by O'Shea deleted here]
>>
>> dishonesty detected.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>

>>>>> ï¿œSo far, I've seen nothing to indicate that you aren't a

>>>>> psychopath:
>>
>>>>> psychopathic personality
>>>>> 1: an emotionally and behaviorally disordered state characterized by
>>>>> clear perception of reality
>>>>> except for the individual's social and moral obligations and often by
>>>>> the pursuit of immediate
>>>>> personal gratification....
>>
>>>>> You seem to take immediate personal gratification in lying your head

>>>>> off about me, and accusing me of being "scum". ï¿œI deduce this from

>>>>> your claiming you don't dislike me because I "amuse" you.
>>
>>> [counterfeit responsiveness by O'Shea deleted]
>>
>> More dishonesty detected.
>>
>>
>>
>>>>> I expect you to go into your usual broken record routine, continuing
>>>>> to deceive readers with the allegation that I am "dishonest" and that
>>>>> I am a "creationist."
>>
>>> [fulfillment of my "usual broken record routine" prediction deleted]
>>
>> and yet more dishonesty detected.
>>
>>
>>

>>>>> Fortunately, you've been outed on ï¿œthat second bit when you showed

>>>>> that you have a nonsensical definition of "creationist" which

>>>>> encompasses the atheist Francis Crick. ï¿œBut every time you omit this

>>>>> information and claim I am a "creationist", you are deceiving every
>>>>> reader who has not seen you being "outed" on this.
>>
>>>> So? Then he's a creationist too. I don't give a shit about him, he doesn't
>>>> post here.
>>
>>> Thanks for letting the readers know how irrationally you can behave.
>>
>> You're welcome.
>>
>>
>>
>>>>> Do you have a similar nonsensical meaning that you attach to
>>>>> "dishonest" which allows you to say that I am the most dishonest
>>>>> creationist posting to t.o.?
>>
>>> You ducked this question.
>>
>> If you're gonna dishonestly delete my answers, why should I bother?
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>

>>>>> TEST OF J.J. O'SHEA-SIMULATING SOFTWARE ￜ:-)
>>>>> PLEASE IGNORE ￜ:-)

>>
>>>>>> I am the most dishonest creationist posting to t.o.
>>
>>>>> Thank you for admitting this and saving me the trouble of proving it.
>>
>>>> And there he is, actually altering the text of my post and showing that he
>>>> is, after all, the liar of liars.
>>

>>> There was no post of yours whose text was being altered. ï¿œThe whole
>>> thing was a joke, as the smileys make abundantly clear. ï¿œWhat's more,

>>> I've used this convention many times, and IMO only someone as devoid
>>> of a conscience as yourself would respond the way you did.
>>
>> And more dishonesty detected.
>>
>>
>>
>>>>> --
>>>>> email to oshea dot j dot j at gmail dot com.
>>

>>>>> END OF TEST ￜ:-) ￜ :-) ￜ :-)

>>
>>>>> Peter Nyikos
>>
>>> Note, I haven't said a word about how successful or unsuccessful that

>>> "test" was supposed to be. ï¿œIf the shoe fits, wear it.

>>
>> And there you are again.
>>
>>
>>
>>> Peter Nyikos
>>
>> still the single most dishonest creationist currently posting on t.o.
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> email to oshea dot j dot j at gmail dot com.
>
> You are going to have to lie more creatively than this, if you want to
> pass the Turing test.

Your problem is that I'm not lying... and you know it.

>
> This is an allusion to a thread where you made a brief appearance, but
> exited long ago. After your lone post to that thread, I entered it
> and said a few things about you in this connection.

What makes you think that I give a fuck?

>
> urls on request.
>
> Peter Nyikos

who is the single most dishonest creationist currently posting on t.o.

[J.J. O'Shea]

On Thu, 11 Oct 2012 15:19:18 -0400, pnyikos wrote
(in article
<669e53e8-594f-4e85...@b8g2000yqh.googlegroups.com>):

> On Oct 1, 4:59ï¿œpm, "J.J. O'Shea" <try.not...@but.see.sig> wrote:
>> On Mon, 1 Oct 2012 14:58:46 -0400, pnyikos wrote
>> (in article
>> <99e57e69-e811-4ea9-b27d-284a501f7...@a11g2000yqb.googlegroups.com>):
>>
>>
>>
>>> Actually, I would prefer that Gans *did* see it, so that he can see that he

>>> isn't putting anything over on me. ï¿œI'd even ask you to e-mail him copies

>>> of
>>> every post where I mention him, except that you are so dishonest, you are
>>> likely to lie about each one that this is yet another statement about him
>>> that I am hoping he doesn't see.
>>
>> And more dishonesty detected.
>>
>>
>>
>>>>>> He does this bullshit often, and he's been doing it for years. A few
>>>>>> months
>>>>>> back I replied to one of his posts which was about 20 days old, just to
>>>>>> see
>>>>>> what would happen. The hypocritical little shitbag chided me for waiting
>>>>>> for
>>>>>> so long, calling me, and I quote, 'O'Shea van Winkle'.
>>
>>>>> O'Shea is lying, no surprise there. There was no mention of how long
>>>>> he waited for my post, and the "van Winkle" designation had to do with
>>>>> his claim that I put people on lists.
>>

>>> O'Shea does not deny this, let alone correct it. ï¿œHe only denies something

>>> much further below.
>>
>> Actually, my reply was intended to encompass the whole thing. But, hey...
>
> ...you want to go on record as having denied the description I gave of
> the only post I could find that seems remotely like YOUR description?
> And you aren't going to challenge the details of my description?
>
>>>> See:
>>
>>>>> http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/c3c33f8beaedf00c
>>
>>>>> I hadn't done that in t.o. since 2001. There is no record in Google
>>>>> of a J. J. O'Shea having posted to t.o. that far back, so he either
>>>>> browsed through the archives to learn about my lists, or else he is
>>>>> relying on scuttlebutt that I put people on lists -- perhaps due to
>>>>> Gans himself.
>>
>>>> Actually, nope.
>>

>>> OK, so it isn't due to Gans. ï¿œBig whoop.

>>
>> You are, again, and as usual, proceeding from an entirely false premise.
>
> OK, so it isn't due to you having browsed through archives to learn
> about my lists. Are you trying to claim that the archives DO show a
> J.J. O'Shea posting that far back to talk.origins?

Wrong false premise.

This is fun.

>
> [small snip]
>> I don't _care_ about your quarrel with Gans. I simply don't give a damn.
>> However, every time you drag him in further makes
>> my points that you're a despicable waste of oxygen,
>> so by all means continue.
>
> Is that any way to show gratitude towards someone who went out of his
> way AT LEAST twice to show solidarity with you? It happened at least
> that many times on the thread on expanding the Drake equation, alone:

Which part of "I don't give a damn" is unclear?

>
> http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/bde1c2bfbb709b02
>
> http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/418f761a0666ade7
>
> Peter Nyikos

the one and only most dishonest creationist currently posting on t.o.