pnyikos might consider compiling a list of those contributors to the forum ignorant of ID theory
T Pagano
some of the academic heavy weights like Wilkins, Harshman and Okimoto
who have repeatedly demonstrated that they have never cracked open the
requisite reading. Harshman, for example, admits his blissful
ignorance. Perhaps even Gans would be on the list. A quick trip down
memory lane at the Google archive should easily determine that.
Just a thought. . .
Regards,
T Pagano
TomS
<apagano-flofl6t61d069...@4ax.com>, T Pagano stated..."
I am a lightweight, so don't deserve mentioning in such august
company, but I freely admit not having heard of any ID theory.
Does anyone have a candidate theory?
That is, something which offers an explanation which doesn't
involve descent with modification, yet offers an explanation
for - oh, just to take one example - why the human body has chimps
and other apes as the closest living neighbors in the tree of life.
Note that I do not insist upon evidence for the theory, or that
the theory be scientific or naturalistic.
If nobody can offer such a theory, then I guess that I'd have to
agree with Pagano that the list would be long and embarrassing.
"Long", in the sense that everybody would belong on the list.
"Embarrassing", to be, sure, to the advocates of ID.
--
---Tom S.
"... the heavy people know some magic that can make things move and even fly,
but they're not very bright, because they can't survive without their magic
contrivances"
Xixo, in "The Gods Must Be Crazy II"
Adam R.
"T Pagano" <not....@address.net> wrote in message
news:apagano-flofl6t61d069...@4ax.com...
And once that list is done, we can start on the lists for the Expanding
Earth and Phlogiston.
Wow, these are going to be some long lists.
--
Adam
Ron O
> "On Sun, 13 Feb 2011 09:10:59 -0500, in article
>
>
>
> >The list would be long and embarassing. �It would undoubtedly include
> >some of the academic heavy weights like Wilkins, Harshman and Okimoto
> >who have repeatedly demonstrated that they have never cracked open the
> >ignorance. �Perhaps even Gans would be on the list. �A quick trip down
> >memory lane at the Google archive should easily determine that.
>
> >Just a thought. . .
>
> >Regards,
> >T Pagano
>
> I am a lightweight, so don't deserve mentioning in such august
> company, but I freely admit not having heard of any ID theory.
>
> Does anyone have a candidate theory?
>
> That is, something which offers an explanation which doesn't
> involve descent with modification, yet offers an explanation
> for - oh, just to take one example - why the human body has chimps
> and other apes as the closest living neighbors in the tree of life.
>
> Note that I do not insist upon evidence for the theory, or that
> the theory be scientific or naturalistic.
>
> If nobody can offer such a theory, then I guess that I'd have to
> agree with Pagano that the list would be long and embarrassing.
> "Long", in the sense that everybody would belong on the list.
> "Embarrassing", to be, sure, to the advocates of ID.
>
> --
> ---Tom S.
> "... the heavy people know some magic that can make things move and even fly,
> but they're not very bright, because they can't survive without their magic
> contrivances"
> Xixo, in "The Gods Must Be Crazy II"
When the bait and switch went down in Ohio Nelson came out and said
that the collective of ID perps should admit that they never had a
scientific theory of Intelligent design to teach, but then he went
right into working on the switch scam and let his fellow ID perps
continue to sell ID.
Philip Johnson admitted that the "science" ID perps never came up with
anything competitive with what real science already had, This is the
same Philip Johnson that the other ID perps called the godfather of
the intelligent design movement because he was the main mover in
getting the ID scam rolling in the early 1990s.
QUOTE:
I also don�t think that there is really a theory of intelligent design
at the present time to propose as a comparable alternative to the
Darwinian theory, which is, whatever errors it might contain, a fully
worked out scheme. There is no intelligent design theory that�s
comparable. Working out a positive theory is the job of the scientific
people that we have affiliated with the movement. Some of them are
quite convinced that it�s doable, but that�s for them to prove�No
product is ready for competition in the educational world.
END QUOTE:
http://sciencereview.berkeley.edu/articles.php?issue=10&article=evolution
I like this quote because Johnson doesn't take any of the blame for
running the ID scam for over a decade, he just points the finger of
failure at the science ID perps for never coming up with any ID
science worth teaching. It pretty much means that the ID perps
understood that they never had what they were claiming to have. Has
any IDiot rube ever gotten the scientific theory of intelligent design
to teach to school kids? No. If such a scientific theory exists why
run the bait and switch on their own support base instead of putting
it forward? All the creationist rubes get is an obfuscation scam that
doesn't mention that ID ever existed from the same guys that lied to
them about having the ID science in the first place.
To be fair, Dembski has claimed to have come up with a new law of
thermodynamics since Johnson said this, but for the last couple of
years the new law of thermodynamics doesn't seem to be mentioned very
often by the ID perps. You can't make this junk up. What kind of
IDiot would claim to have a new law of thermodynamics so that he could
support a stupid political scam where the perpetrators have had to run
the bait and switch scam on their own creationist supporters like
Pagano and Nyikos.
Having a scientific theory of intelligent design is the least of the
ID perps worries when they are the ones running the bait and switch on
the clueless that still believe them. Did the IDiots in Louisiana get
any ID science to put in their textbooks last November? If the ID
perps have a scientific theory of ID where is it when they need to
give it to the rubes that fell for their lies?
Pagano is just too incompetent to comprehend reality. It is pretty
sad to continue be an IDiot when the only IDiots left that support the
ID scam are the ignorant, incompetent and or dishonest. Where are the
honest IDiots that are trying to do some real science instead of
bending over for the guys that lied to them about ID?
Ron Okimoto
Paul J Gans
I'm a caloric man myself. Can't be too careful about which
theories you endorse...
--
--- Paul J. Gans
TomS
<598aebd3-48e9-4dd4...@i39g2000prd.googlegroups.com>, Ron O
stated..."
[...snip...]
> Has
>any IDiot rube ever gotten the scientific theory of intelligent design
>to teach to school kids? No. If such a scientific theory exists why
>run the bait and switch on their own support base instead of putting
>it forward?
I suggest that you need not add the qualifier "scientific" to "theory".
If there were a theological or spiritual theory which explained why
humans have eyes like other vertebrates rather than like insects or
like molluscs (or like potatoes), that would be interesting, but, as
far as I know, there is none.
Will in New Haven
No doubt your first thought.
Actually, a scientific education isn't much help in understanding ID
theory. Knowing about con games and fraud is much more likely to help
one understand the subject.
--
Will in New Haven
"Suckers got no business with their money." Titanic Thompson
Ron O
> "On Sun, 13 Feb 2011 07:09:48 -0800 (PST), in article
It has been expressed as a view that ID is bad theology too, but the
ID perps are still claiming to have a scientific theory of intelligent
design to teach to school kids. You can download their education
briefing packet here:
http://www.discovery.org/a/4299
Apparently the ID perps wrote this in 2007 and have their excuse for
Dover in it. They are still claiming to have the science to teach,
but the rubes in Florida didn't get any of it when they wanted to
teach the science of intelligent design in 2008-2009. Around half a
dozen county school board and probably just as many legislators were
claiming that they were going to teach the science of intelligent
design in Florida, but the Discovery Institute ran in the bait and
switch and what happened to those claims? The Discovery Institute
flew Casey Luskin to Florida because it was such a gigantic fiasco in
the making. So much for this briefing packet. If they had the ID
science where is it when they need it?
From the briefing packet:
QUOTE:
Is Intelligent Design a Scientific Theory?
Yes. The scientific method is commonly described as a fourstep
process involving observations, hypothesis, experiments,
and conclusion. ID begins with the observation that intelligent
agents produce complex and specified information (CSI). Design
theorists hypothesize that if a natural object was designed, it will
contain high levels of CSI. Scientists then perform experimental
tests upon natural objects to determine if they contain
complex and specified information. One easily testable form
of CSI is irreducible complexity, which can be discovered by
experimentally reverse-engineering biological structures to see
if they require all of their parts to function. When ID researchers
find irreducible complexity in biology, they conclude that such
structures were designed.
END QUOTE:
QUOTE:
Has ID Been Banned from Public Schools?
No. Science teachers have the right to teach science. Since ID is a
legitimate scientific theory, it should be constitutional to discuss
in
science classrooms and it should not be banned from schools. If a
science teacher wants to voluntarily discuss ID, she should have
the academic freedom to do so.
END QUOTE:
If there is something that a teacher can teach, why didn't the Florida
rubes get any ID science to teach?
Why didn't the Louisiana rubes get any ID science to put in their
textbooks last October-November 2010?
Someone is obviously lying.
I wonder who that could be?
Remember that by the time that they wrote this briefing the Discovery
Institute had been running the bait and switch scam on all the rubes
that wanted to teach the science of intelligent design for over half a
decade. Meyer ran the first public bait and switch on the Ohio rubes
in early 2002. They even tried to run the bait and switch on the
Dover rubes, but the Dover rubes had already hired their own lawyers
and were set on testing ID in the courts. Not a single creationist
rube that has claimed to want to teach the science of intelligent
design in the public schools has ever gotten any ID science to teach.
Ron Okimoto
Bob Casanova
in talk.origins, posted by T Pagano <not....@address.net>:
For the benefit of those of us essentially ignorant of the
topic, please cite where a statement of the Theory of
Intelligent Design can be found, preferably with links to
the tests which have been performed and which were designed
to falsify it. Thanks...
>Just a thought. . .
Please continue thinking, but only after you supply that
cite.
--
Bob C.
"Evidence confirming an observation is
evidence that the observation is wrong."
- McNameless
Nathan Levesque
One, it's only a theory in the common sense meaning of the word. Note
that I'm not committing the fallacy of equivocation, I indicated which
meaning of the word I was using. Take notes creationists.
It has yet, due to lack of any real peer review publications, failed
to meet the level of hypothesis in science.
So if academics are ignorant of it, we all know where the blame should
go--right back to the IDiots.
Bill
Oh, I'm just a passive puppet in the hands of Harshman, but I too will
freely admit to never having "cracked open" any book by Dembski.
Nothing you've ever said has led me to expect that it would be
interesting.
raven1
wrote:
I'm blissfully ignorant about certain aspects of ID, Tony, so if you
could humor me for a moment, and answer a few questions here:
1) By what metric is complexity measured?
2) How does one determine that something is "irreducibly complex",
other than through personal incredulity?
3) What scientific research in the area of ID has been conducted since
the Dover trial, in which its proponents admitted under oath that no
such research had ever occurred?
TomS
<0e57d46c-20dd-4d05...@f30g2000yqa.googlegroups.com>, Ron O
stated..."
Perhaps some of the denizens of t.o may be interested in this essay at
RationalWiki.org
<http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Scientific_theory#Creationism_is_not_a_theory>
Maybe some of you can improve upon it. Or, who knows, maybe someone has
a *response* to it.
TomS
<0e57d46c-20dd-4d05...@f30g2000yqa.googlegroups.com>, Ron O
stated..."
>
Perhaps some of the denizens of t.o may be interested in this essay at
RationalWiki.org
<http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Scientific_theory#Creationism_is_not_a_theory>
Maybe some of you can improve upon it. Or, who knows, maybe someone has
a *response* to it.
TomS
<0e57d46c-20dd-4d05...@f30g2000yqa.googlegroups.com>, Ron O
stated..."
>
Perhaps some of the denizens of t.o may be interested in this essay at
RationalWiki.org
<http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Scientific_theory#Creationism_is_not_a_theory>
Maybe some of you can improve upon it. Or, who knows, maybe someone has
a *response* to it.
TomS
<0e57d46c-20dd-4d05...@f30g2000yqa.googlegroups.com>, Ron O
stated..."
>
Perhaps some of the denizens of t.o may be interested in this essay at
RationalWiki.org
<http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Scientific_theory#Creationism_is_not_a_theory>
Maybe some of you can improve upon it. Or, who knows, maybe someone has
a *response* to it.
Ron O
> "On Sun, 13 Feb 2011 11:51:02 -0800 (PST), in article
>
> Maybe some of you can improve upon it. Or, who knows, maybe someone has
> a *response* to it.
>
> --
> ---Tom S.
> "... the heavy people know some magic that can make things move and even fly,
> but they're not very bright, because they can't survive without their magic
> contrivances"
Someone can add the Behe Dover admission that intelligent design
science was equivalent to astrology. After his testimony Behe tried
to set the record straight, but ended up clarifying why ID wasn't
science. He claimed that he meant the astrology as it was practiced
in the dark ages. When we didn't know any better and even scientists
like Newton could be alchemists and Kepler could be court
astrologers. Not a very good way to view intelligent design, but
actually accurate because at that time intelligent design was the
default explanation for anything that we didn't understand about
nature. The designer did it. Who made the seasons change? Who
pulled the sun and moon across the sky? Who made thunder and
lightning? Who caused disease? Who made those complex babies? Who
made the complex flagellum? It isn't a scientific theory, it is only
a place holder for when we don't have all the answers.
Ironically one of the claims against the Discovery Institute was that
they were trying to take us back to the dark ages, a time when their
views could be taken seriously, and Behe confirmed it with his Dover
testimony and further clarification.
Ron Okimoto
TomS
<f1chl6p538941um19...@4ax.com>, raven1 stated..."
[...snip...]
>1) By what metric is complexity measured?
1a) Is complexity an extensive or an intensive property?
John Harshman
qualitiative or quantitative, and if the latter, how to measure it.
Tony, who has mastered all the Dembski literature, has been singularly
unhelpful.
Randy C
>
> - Show quoted text -
I am by no means an advocate of ID, but Dembski, primarily because he
is a mathematician, would probably say that CSI is quantitative. In
fact he has defined a "universal probability bound" which he defines
as "A degree of improbability below which a specified event of that
probability cannot reasonably be attributed to chance regardless of
whatever probabilitistic resources from the known universe are
factored in." He has set that bound at 10^-150.
The problem is, of course, that you can't actually calculate the odds
of something occurring unless you know the process involved. You can
calculate the odds of getting heads 100 times in a row only if you
know that the coin has two sides, only one of which is a head. If,
instead, you are using a two-headed coin, then the odds of getting 100
heads in a row are 100%.
So trying to calculate the odds of something occurring in nature is
impossible. Therefore CSI, is like everything else in ID. It is a
complete scam.
John Harshman
> On Feb 14, 9:47 am, John Harshman <jharsh...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>> Bill wrote:
>>> On Feb 13, 9:10 pm, T Pagano <not.va...@address.net> wrote:
>>>> The list would be long and embarassing. It would undoubtedly include
>>>> some of the academic heavy weights like Wilkins, Harshman and Okimoto
>>>> who have repeatedly demonstrated that they have never cracked open the
>>>> requisite reading. Harshman, for example, admits his blissful
>>>> ignorance. Perhaps even Gans would be on the list. A quick trip down
>>>> memory lane at the Google archive should easily determine that.
>>>> Just a thought. . .
>>>> Regards,
>>>> T Pagano
>>> Oh, I'm just a passive puppet in the hands of Harshman, but I too will
>>> freely admit to never having "cracked open" any book by Dembski.
>>> Nothing you've ever said has led me to expect that it would be
>>> interesting.
>> I'm still trying to find the passage that tells me whether CSI is
>> qualitiative or quantitative, and if the latter, how to measure it.
>> Tony, who has mastered all the Dembski literature, has been singularly
>> unhelpful.
> I am by no means an advocate of ID, but Dembski, primarily because he
> is a mathematician, would probably say that CSI is quantitative.
Can you assign a probability to that?
> In
> fact he has defined a "universal probability bound" which he defines
> as "A degree of improbability below which a specified event of that
> probability cannot reasonably be attributed to chance regardless of
> whatever probabilitistic resources from the known universe are
> factored in." He has set that bound at 10^-150.
How is that relevant to measuring CSI?
> The problem is, of course, that you can't actually calculate the odds
> of something occurring unless you know the process involved. You can
> calculate the odds of getting heads 100 times in a row only if you
> know that the coin has two sides, only one of which is a head. If,
> instead, you are using a two-headed coin, then the odds of getting 100
> heads in a row are 100%.
How is that relevant to measuring CSI?
> So trying to calculate the odds of something occurring in nature is
> impossible. Therefore CSI, is like everything else in ID. It is a
> complete scam.
There's another way to calculate odds, which is to observe many similar
cases. But IDers don't do that either. If only Tony would help by
quoting the passage in which the way to measure CSI is explained.
Paul J Gans
>"On Sun, 13 Feb 2011 23:37:32 -0500, in article
><f1chl6p538941um19...@4ax.com>, raven1 stated..."
>[...snip...]
>>1) By what metric is complexity measured?
>[...snip...]
>1a) Is complexity an extensive or an intensive property?
In this case it is an intuitive property. Folks know it when
they see it.
jillery
> >[...snip...]
> >>1) By what metric is complexity measured?
> >[...snip...]
> >1a) Is complexity an extensive or an intensive property?
>
> In this case it is an intuitive property. Folks know it when
> they see it.
Like pornography, beauty, truth, evil, purpose, meaning, right, the
existence of God, and one's extant opinions, all are self-evident.
Got it.
Harry K
If you are talking about the _scientific " Theory of ID"it, there
isn't one.
They isn't even a "Hypothesis of ID".
The best you have is "WAG of ID" and even it has very little
scientific evidence for it.
Harry K
pnyikos
The Subject line could use a little tweaking: "...those... ignorant of
what DI says about ID theory."
However, I would need about half a year more of experience before I'd
want to start naming people fitting that category.
The pejorative word "list" was coined by people wishing to discredit
me, as SkyEyes tried to brazenly do a few days ago, with some
irrelevant sneers alluding to Nixon's "enemies list". In each case,
the so-called "list" named those people fitting into a well-defined
category, whose criteria were totally and deliberately ignored by the
people in the category (or their allies), alleging that it is a list
of all people who have offended me.
That's the game Paul Gans indirectly played when I first posted the
people who fit into the "Bandar-Log" category, which I carefully gave
the criteria for, shortly after becoming a talk.origins regular in
1995. Gans repeatedly begged and pleaded to be put on it long before
I could see him fitting the definition, and once I even explained to
him why one of his contributions fell short.
This was how he tried to discredit me, by goading me into violating
the criteria. But I refused to play along, and only said he satisfied
them after amassing a sufficient amount of evidence.
Peter Nyikos
pnyikos
> "On Sun, 13 Feb 2011 09:10:59 -0500, in article
The Subject line could use a little tweaking: "...those... ignorant of
what DI says about ID theory." See my explanation in my preceding
post.
> >The list would be long and embarassing. �It would undoubtedly include
> >some of the academic heavy weights like Wilkins, Harshman and Okimoto
> >who have repeatedly demonstrated that they have never cracked open the
> >requisite reading. �Harshman, for example, admits his blissful
> >ignorance. �Perhaps even Gans would be on the list. �A quick trip down
> >memory lane at the Google archive should easily determine that.
>
> >Just a thought. . .
>
> >Regards,
> >T Pagano
>
> I am a lightweight, so don't deserve mentioning in such august
> company, but I freely admit not having heard of any ID theory.
You can't even figure out what "Intelligent Design" means from the
dictionary definition of words. I even told you that, in the context
relevant to Behe, it had to do with intelligent designs of organisms
and their parts.
Have you ever looked up the word "organism" in the dictionary, or have
you been relying on the creatively edited OED entry that "Spartakus"
posted back in 2008, in support of his pseudoscientific claim that a
human fetus is part of the woman's body?
You kept asking asinine questions in response to perfectly simple
answers by me which should have laid the matter to rest. Instead you
trolled as follows:
___________________
/| /| |
|
||__|| | "You seem to have |
/ O O\ | the talent for |
/ \ | babbling incoherently" |
/ \ \|___________________|
/ _ \ \ ||
/ |\____\ \ ||
/ | | | |\__/ ||
/ \|_|_|/ | _ ||
/ / \ |____| ||
/ | | | --|
| | | |__ _ --|
* _ | |_|_|_| | \-/
*-- _--\ _ \ | ||
/ _ \\ | / `
* / \_ /- | | |
* ___ c_c_c_C/ \Tom S.____________
> Does anyone have a candidate theory?
Not one nearly as well developed as the neo-Darwinian synthesis. That
august personage, Ron Okimoto-san, quoted Phillip Johnson stating that
fact.
The science of intelligent design is still in its infancy, like the
science of evolution was in the days of Lamarck or even earlier.
> That is, something which offers an explanation which doesn't
> involve descent with modification, yet offers an explanation
> for - oh, just to take one example - why the human body has chimps
> and other apes as the closest living neighbors in the tree of life.
That need not be part of any scientific theory of design. On one
level, the theory would give some criteria for detecting design and
wouldn't involve itself with such matters.
On another level, various design theorists argue for various phenomena
being due to intelligent design, and I doubt that any of them consider
the human body to have been designed *ex nihilo*. Behe certainly does
not. Neither do most other Roman Catholic biologists who are aware of
the Vatican documents on this matter.
Peter Nyikos
pnyikos
I hope Gans isn't on the list of people who thinks he can drink all
the ice cold beer he wants, on the erroneous grounds that the food
Calories he ingests are outweighed by the calories needed to warm the
beer up to body temperature.
In case anyone here falls into that trap, note the capitalization of
the second "Calorie" and the modifier "food".
Peter Nyikos
Robert Camp
Nobody cares.
Did you spend this much time in your previous inhabitation of t.o
droning on so fretfully about the horrible slings and arrows you've
been made to suffer? Do you plan to spend the bulk of your return
crowing about fanciful triumphs like Pagano does?
I think there are times that you actually have interesting things to
offer, but if you keep on with the personal paranoia the only poster
who's going to bother responding to you is Ray, who may have something
to say about you working his turf.
RLC
*Hemidactylus*
yours would be:
[PN] "(S3/T8) Running the Jolly Roger Up the Flagpole To See If
Anyone Will Salute It. This consists of making farfetched
and demeaning personal assertions which the maker has no
intention of responsibly supporting
if challenged. [The "demeaning personal assertions" is an indispensible
component, otherwise I would not be using the term "Jolly Roger",
the name for a pirate flag.] Typically, when the accuser
is called upon to support his claim or retract, he will either
run away [see above] or change the subject or make some comment
that may superficially look like support but doesn't come
within a country mile of justifying the earlier assertion.
In any case, it is quite clear from the person's behavior
that he wants to say "nevermind," as a famous
comedian put it, but wants to save face by not saying it.
Were the pirate flag to be hoisted by someone not
in good with the dominant clique in talk.origins, he would
quite justifiably and efficiently be blown
out of the water. But when one is in good with the
dominant clique, the end result is usually a silent lowering
of the Jolly Roger, only to hoist it again on some
other issue. " [PN]
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/60f7d48950acef92
But seriously, this categorization of posters is one of those things you
should try to avoid. It brings back memories of all the negativity of
the past here. Some of it was funny both ways in jest, but things then
tended to get very heated and they will likely again. Just a thought.
There will be disagreements between you and others that post here, but
dredging up bits of the past only serves as a recapitulation
(oops...loaded term) ;-)
Your lists were legendary, but maybe these lists tended to take on a
life of their own.
--
*Hemidactylus*
Chief Pastor
United Church of Jesus Christ the Procrastinator
"He's suffering performance anxiety"
Robert Camp
> On Feb 13, 9:32 am, TomS <TomS_mem...@newsguy.com> wrote:
>
> > "On Sun, 13 Feb 2011 09:10:59 -0500, in article
> > <apagano-flofl6t61d069map00cnmrn3gol7ufb...@4ax.com>, T Pagano stated..."
>
> The Subject line could use a little tweaking: "...those... ignorant of
> what DI says about ID theory." �See my explanation in my preceding
> post.
>
> > >The list would be long and embarassing. It would undoubtedly include
> > >some of the academic heavy weights like Wilkins, Harshman and Okimoto
> > >who have repeatedly demonstrated that they have never cracked open the
> > >requisite reading. Harshman, for example, admits his blissful
> > >ignorance. Perhaps even Gans would be on the list. A quick trip down
> > >memory lane at the Google archive should easily determine that.
>
> > >Just a thought. . .
>
> > >Regards,
> > >T Pagano
>
> > I am a lightweight, so don't deserve mentioning in such august
> > company, but I freely admit not having heard of any ID theory.
>
> You can't even figure out what "Intelligent Design" means from the
> dictionary definition of words.
True, but irrelevant to the point about there being no ID "theory."
>�I even told you that, in the context
> relevant to Behe, it had to do with intelligent designs of organisms
> and their parts.
It is possible that there are people who don't consider your opinion
the final word on the subject. In any case, these comments are again
irrelevant to the observation that there is no ID "theory." We all
know what ID has to do with, and what it has nothing to do with, the
latter being empirical investigation of either design or intelligence.
> Have you ever looked up the word "organism" in the dictionary, or have
> you been relying on the creatively edited OED entry that "Spartakus"
> posted back in 2008, in support of his pseudoscientific claim that a
> human fetus is part of the woman's body?
>
> �You kept asking asinine questions in response to perfectly simple
> answers by me which should have laid the matter to rest.
This is quite silly, and the following reinforces that impression.
>�Instead you
No, not at all like that. The "science" of ID hasn't bothered to
describe its principal objectives in any consistent fashion, or define
its terms, leaving things like "design" and "intelligence" and
"complexity" and "specificity" and "information" (and many more)
methodologically unconstrained. The "science" of ID hasn't even
distilled a unified theoretical approach to the nature of origins and
development, leaving "Intelligent Design" as broad (and shallow) as to
include virtually all of biological evolution (Behe), or none
(Nelson).
The "science" of ID theory is nothing more than a vague, untested and
untestable hypothesis, insulated from any and all critical analysis by
the amazingly unscientific stipulation that we need know nothing about
the designer.
The "science" of ID has a long way to go before it gets anywhere close
to infancy.
> > That is, something which offers an explanation which doesn't
> > involve descent with modification, yet offers an explanation
> > for - oh, just to take one example - why the human body has chimps
> > and other apes as the closest living neighbors in the tree of life.
>
> That need not be part of any scientific theory of design. �
I agree. But the problem is that quite a few of the leading ID
"theorists" have difficulty with the notion of humans being related to
chimps. So we all have reason to worry about any "scientific" theory
of design developed under their aegis.
> On one
> level, the theory would give some criteria for detecting design and
> wouldn't involve itself with such matters.
>
> On another level, various design theorists argue for various phenomena
> being due to intelligent design, and I doubt that any of them consider
> the human body to have been designed *ex nihilo*. �Behe certainly does
> not. �Neither do most other Roman Catholic biologists who are aware of
> the Vatican documents on this matter.
And they, like Behe, will be the first to be intensely scrutinized if
and when the DI ever achieves its goals.
RLC
pnyikos
> > I am a lightweight
Truer words were never spoken by Tom S. See my reply to him ca. an
hour and a half ago.
[undocumented claim about Nelson deleted here]
> Philip Johnson
Phillip Johnson
> admitted that the "science" ID perps never came up with
> anything competitive with what real science already had, �
The word "real" is begging the question: Ron O. is wrong in thinking
that there cannot be a science of Intelligent Design.
And, of course, "perps" is also begging the question, especially since
Ron O. doesn't try to identify exactly who they are here, let alone
explain why they deserve the pejorative word "perps".
> QUOTE:
> I also don't think that there is really a theory of intelligent design
> at the present time to propose as a comparable alternative to the
> Darwinian theory, which is, whatever errors it might contain, a fully
> worked out scheme.
Note the qualifiers. "the Darwinian theory" refers to the neo-
Darwinian synthesis, a far cry from what Darwin presented in _Origin
of Species_. That's because Johnson is talking about ID being a
potential rival to what is a going concern in the public schools, not
to a much more fragmentary prototype. And so, by saying "at the
present time," he is making it clear that he is contrasting less than
two decades to over two centuries.
>There is no intelligent design theory that is
> comparable. Working out a positive theory is the job of the scientific
> people that we have affiliated with the movement. Some of them are
> quite convinced that it s doable, but that s for them to prove No
> product is ready for competition in the educational world.
> END QUOTE:
Darwin would just be a strawman; so what Johnson is obviously talking
about IS the neo-Darwinian synthesis, augmented by insight into
punctuated equilibrium by Gould and others.
Even if someone were to interpret "Darwinian" as referring to
Darwin's
original theory, he'd be hit from two directions. One is that Darwin
didn't have a theory ready for competition in the educational world
of
his time either. Darwin, for one thing, could not give a coherent
account of why variation occurs, or why offspring are so similar to
their parents, or what allows variations to accumulate to the point
where a bacterium has a human being as one of its remote descendants.
The other direction is that Darwin took decades to publish his
findings after collecting the raw data, and he also stood on the
shoulders of giants llike Lamarck, and all those who collected huge
amounts of fossils, to give some outline to the possible lines of
descent. Small wonder that the DI has not been able to accumulate
comparable evidence for ID in the much shorter time available to it.
> I like this quote because Johnson doesn't take any of the blame for
> running the ID scam for over a decade,
The word "running" may give Johnson more credit than he deserves, if
it is interpreted to mean that he was the mastermind of what Ron calls
a scam.
> he just points the finger at
> the "science" ID perps for never developing the science that it would
> have taken to make the ID scam legit.
If Ron O. thinks the above is a description of what he quotes from
Johnson up there, he is at best woefully ignorant of the scientific
issues, and at worst a mental basket case.
Peter Nyikos
Paul J Gans
Yup. And even more important, naming the best restaurants in town
is in the same class.
John Harshman
Who is more self-absorbed: you or Tony? Would you hazard a guess?
pnyikos
<bill.re...@taylorandfrancis.com> wrote:
> On Feb 13, 9:10 am, T Pagano <not.va...@address.net> wrote:
>
> > The list would be long and embarassing. It would undoubtedly include
> > some of the academic heavy weights like Wilkins, Harshman and Okimoto
> > who have repeatedly demonstrated that they have never cracked open the
> > requisite reading. Harshman, for example, admits his blissful
> > ignorance. Perhaps even Gans would be on the list. A quick trip down
> > memory lane at the Google archive should easily determine that.
That trip would be long and arduous for me. I haven't read anything
from talk.origins in the years 2002-2009 and only a month's worth in
2010.
> > Just a thought. . .
>
> No doubt your first thought.
>
> Actually, a scientific education isn't much help in understanding ID
> theory. Knowing about con games and fraud is much more likely to help
> one understand the subject.
>
> --
> Will in New Haven
> "Suckers got no business with their money." Titanic Thompson
Are you a sucker for Ron Okimoto, or do you have your own evidence
that the DI is guilty of con games and fraud?
Your opening wisecrack doesn't suggest a Yes answer to the latter.
Peter Nyikos
pnyikos
> "On Sun, 13 Feb 2011 07:09:48 -0800 (PST), in article
> <598aebd3-48e9-4dd4-aed6-f1f05ba7e...@i39g2000prd.googlegroups.com>, Ron O
> stated..."
> [...snip...]> Has
> >any IDiot rube ever gotten the scientific theory of intelligent design
> >to teach to school kids? No.
Of course not. As I said in a follow-up to Ron O.'s ally "Rodjk#613",
quoting from RonO [who in turn was mostly quoting Phillip Johnson]:
-------------------- begin excerpt
> In the same piece he is again quoted:
> QUOTE:
> For his part, Johnson agrees: I think the fat lady has sung for any
> efforts to change the approach in the public schools; the courts are
> just not going to allow it. They never have. The efforts to change
> things in the public schools generate more powerful opposition than
> accomplish anything. I don't think that means the end of the issue at
> all.
Ron O does not realize how damaging this last sentence is from his
point of view.
> In some respects, he later goes on, I m almost relieved, and
> glad. I think the issue is properly settled. It s clear to me now that
> the public schools are not going to change their line in my lifetime.
Johnson is no spring chicken. "in my lifetime" is thus a reallistic
assessment, in the light of what is said above.
> That isn t to me where the action really is and ought to be.
Of course not. Trying to get public schools to teach Intelligent
Design AT THIS TIME would be premature.
> END QUOTE:
> http://sciencereview.berkeley.edu/articles.php?issue=10&article=evolu...
> Taking no responsibility for the dishonest scam, just admitting
> defeat.
Your turn, "Rodjk#613": tell us all how Johnson's words are supposed
to either "admit defeat" as to the scientific merits of ID, or to
show
that there is a dishonest scam going on.
Good luck trying to get a coherent description of what the alleged
bait, and what the alleged switch are, from Ron O's incredibly long-
winded and repetitious posts on that "The futility of Intelligent
Desgin[*sic*]" thread.
The time would probably be better spent agreeing with me about what
Johnson said, and trying to find evidence for yourself, from the
original sources, of a bait and switch scam by DI.
> That is the furthest any of the ID perps have come to coming
> clean on the issue. That in itself is pretty sad.
What IS sad is the way Ron O keeps dodging my arguments and labeling
them with various pejorative words.
================= end of quote from
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/64b188664dc64eb0
I haven't looked over the whole thread from which the above is taken,
but when last I posted on that thread, both "Rodjk#613" and Ron
Okimoto were burying their heads in the sand about the post from which
the above excerpt is taken.
> > If such a scientific theory exists why
> >run the bait and switch on their own support base instead of putting
> >it forward?
>
> [...snip...]
>
> I suggest that you need not add the qualifier "scientific" to "theory".
>
> If there were a theological or spiritual theory which explained why
> humans have eyes like other vertebrates rather than like insects or
> like molluscs (or like potatoes), that would be interesting, but, as
> far as I know, there is none.
It's quite simple, really: any creationist aware of the creationist
literature would say:
1. Squid, octopi, and cuttlefish live in the ocean, where light is
filtered, hence they don't need the protection of the rods and cones
that the extra layer of nerve tissue on top of them gives humans, etc.
from direct sunlight.
2. Most other mollusks have much simpler eyes. Nautiluses just have
pinholes, totally inadequate for what the human eye is designed to
do.
3. Giving intelligent beings like humans compound eyes like those
given insects would have been a sick joke.
4. That goes a hundred times over for giving them eyes like potatoes.
DISCLAIMER: I am describing how a savvy creationist would handle your
question, Tom S. I reject the idea that all these creatures were
created *ex nihilo*.
You were too generous to yourself when you called yourself a
"lightweight". Using boxing terminology, you aren't even a
flyweight.
Once I read about how they extended the weight categories downward for
young boxers: one range was called "mosquitoweight'. I don't remember
what the lowest range was, but if it was "gnatweight," it fits you
pretty well. Did you ever read the Aesop fable about the ox and the
gnat?
Peter Nyikos
pnyikos
> On Feb 13, 10:19 am, TomS <TomS_mem...@newsguy.com> wrote:
>
>
> > [...snip...]
>
[snip]
> > "... the heavy people
...do not include gnatweight Tom S.
> It has been expressed as a view that ID is bad theology too, but the
> ID perps are still claiming to have a scientific theory of intelligent
> design to teach to school kids.
>
> You can download their education
> briefing packet here:
>
> http://www.discovery.org/a/4299
Here is a direct link:
http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/filesDB-download.php?command=download&id=1453
and from the following excerpt, it appears that Ron Okimoto has been
lying about the Dover people being "rubes":
Discovery Institute actively opposed the Dover school district
policy featured in PBS’s “Judgment Day” and urged that
the policy be repealed even before a lawsuit was filed. In
continuing to promote their policy to require the mention of
intelligent design in the classroom, both the Dover school
board and the law firm representing it were going against
the express wishes and policy recommendations of the
intelligent design community. Thus, they should not be
regarded as legitimate spokespersons for intelligent design.
=========== end of excerpt
No wonder Ron O. gave the wrong link.
> Apparently the ID perps wrote this in 2007 and have their excuse for
> Dover in it.
The above condemnation is apparently what Ron O. is calling an
"excuse". It looks like a classic blame-the-victim ploy by Ron.
And it looks to me like he indulged in a Pre-Emptive Peremptory Ploy
by accusing *ME* of blaming the (Dover and Ohio) "victims"!
The Pre-emptive Peremptory Ploy can be a one-shot thing or it can be
frequently employed for a long time until the payoff comes.
The preliminary step(s) consist[s] of making a carefully chosen,
unsupported (and usually unsupportable) accusation about a person--
call him/her X-- of which the accuser (or someone the accused is in
good with) is (or is expected to be) grossly guilty.
The payoff comes when the grossly guilty party earns the accusation,
Person X points it out, and then the accuser claims that Person X is
indulging in a Pee Wee Hermanism, or projecting, or hitting some high
score on "the irony meter". [Back in the 90's it was more commonly
called the "the irony-o-meter".]
Because there are no experimental successes that would enable them to
teach SCIENCE FACTS of ID or IC being confirmed in this or that case,
at least not yet, is my guess.
> Someone is obviously lying.
>
> I wonder who that could be?
My guess: Ron Okimoto is pulling another bait and switch, baiting with
"scientific theory," quoting DI out of context, and switching to
"science" to be understood as actual triumphs of the scientific method
supporting ID that DI is claiming be taught in the public schools.
Peter Nyikos
pnyikos
> "On Sun, 13 Feb 2011 11:51:02 -0800 (PST), in article
You've beaten this tom-tom four times, Tom. Even once was too much.
> Maybe some of you can improve upon it. Or, who knows, maybe someone has
> a *response* to it.
I stopped reading in the first line, where it falsely classifies
Intelligent Design as a branch of Creationism.
T'aint so.
But then, what should anyone expect from an intellectual gnatweight
like you?
Peter Nyikos
T Pagano
Professor you're preaching to the choir. I've seen their over
inflated, silly nonsense for too long.
Not that you need my help. . .the enemy of my enemies. . .
Regards,
T Pagano
Ron O
> On Feb 13, 2:51�pm, Ron O <rokim...@cox.net> wrote:> On Feb 13, 10:19�am, TomS <TomS_mem...@newsguy.com> wrote:
>
> > > [...snip...]
>
> [snip]
>
> > > "... the heavy people
>
> ...do not include gnatweight Tom S.
>
> > It has been expressed as a view that ID is bad theology too, but the
> > ID perps are still claiming to have a scientific theory of intelligent
> > design to teach to school kids.
>
>
> and from the following excerpt, it appears that Ron Okimoto has been
> lying about the Dover people being "rubes":
Didn't I say that the Discovery Institute tried to run the bait and
switch on the Dover rubes?
What do you think that the Discovery Institute is claiming? They are
admitting that they didn't want the Dover rubes to go through with
trying to teach the bogus ID junk. They are misrepresenting what they
did, but what do you expect from scam artists. You only have to look
at what happened to all the other rubes that fell for the ID scam to
know what really happened.
>
> Discovery Institute actively opposed the Dover school district
> policy featured in PBS�s �Judgment Day� and urged that
> the policy be repealed even before a lawsuit was filed. In
> continuing to promote their policy to require the mention of
> intelligent design in the classroom, both the Dover school
> board and the law firm representing it were going against
> the express wishes and policy recommendations of the
> intelligent design community. Thus, they should not be
> regarded as legitimate spokespersons for intelligent design.
> =========== end of excerpt
>
> No wonder Ron O. gave the wrong link.
You are such a liar that I don't know how you can go on. It was a
perfectly valid link and all you had to do is click on the download
button. It was a link to the actual Discovery Institute site to
download it. What a boneheaded liar.
>
> > Apparently the ID perps wrote this in 2007 and have their excuse for
> > Dover in it.
>
> The above condemnation is apparently what Ron O. is calling an
> "excuse". �It looks like a classic blame-the-victim ploy by Ron.
There isn't much doubt that the ID perps are lying about what they
claim to have done. Has anyone gotten any ID science to teach? All
you have to do is find out where they have delivered the ID science
and you can prove me wrong. Since you can't, who is lying? I'll give
you a hint the initials are D.I.
>
> And it looks to me like he indulged in a Pre-Emptive Peremptory Ploy
> by accusing *ME* of blaming the (Dover and Ohio) "victims"!
>
> The Pre-emptive Peremptory Ploy can be a one-shot thing or it can be
> frequently employed for a long time until the payoff comes.
>
> The preliminary step(s) consist[s] of making a carefully chosen,
> unsupported (and usually unsupportable) accusation about a person--
> call him/her X-- �of which the accuser (or someone the accused is in
> good with) is (or is expected to be) grossly guilty.
>
> The payoff comes when the grossly guilty party earns the accusation,
> Person X points it out, and then the accuser claims that Person �X is
> indulging in a Pee Wee Hermanism, or projecting, or hitting some high
> score on �"the irony meter". �[Back in the 90's it was more commonly
> called the "the irony-o-meter".]
That could be true in some case, but the reason that I put up these
quotes is that it demonstrates that the ID perps are still using
intelligent design as the bait to run in the switch scam. They are
still claiming to have the science of ID to teach, but what happens
when someone wants to teach the junk?
Provide the instance where any teacher has ever gotten the ID or IC
experimental science to teach to school kids. The bait and switch
goes down 100% of the time that anyone pops up and claims to be able
to teach the junk. Just name a single instance where the bait and
switch did not go down.
>
> > Someone is obviously lying.
>
> > I wonder who that could be?
>
> My guess: Ron Okimoto is pulling another bait and switch, baiting with
> "scientific theory," quoting DI out of context, and switching to
> "science" to be understood as actual triumphs of the scientific method
> supporting ID that DI is claiming �be taught in the public schools.
>
> Peter Nyikos-
Lying is such a way of life for Nyikos that it is just sad. Why
support a bunch of dishonest scam artist that are running the bait and
switch scam on their own creationist support base.
If there is some honest ID science to teach and some teacher can
honestly teach the stuff, why isn't there an ID lesson plan that any
honest teacher could use to teach the junk? Isn't it strange that a
bunch of PhDs cannot make up an honest lesson plan. Nyikos knows what
a lesson plan is. You just have to state what you want to teach, give
the materials that are needed such as textbooks, and tell how you want
to teach the subject. State what you expect the students to learn
from the lesson and then give the way in which you are going to
evaluate if the students actually learned what you wanted them to
learn. Why should an honest teacher believe the ID perps when they
are not willing to produce a lesson plan that would demonstrate that
they had anything worth teaching?
What did happen in Florida after the ID perps wrote this? Why didn't
the Florida rubes get any ID science to teach? What ID science did
the Louisiana rubes get to put in their textbooks?
This is why Nyikos has to lie and run. There is no excuse for the
bait and switch that the ID perps have been running on their own
supporters like Nyikos. He knows this, but can't face reality. Why
even bother to lie about it?
Ron Okimoto
Ron O
> On Feb 13, 11:19�am, TomS <TomS_mem...@newsguy.com> wrote:
>
> > "On Sun, 13 Feb 2011 07:09:48 -0800 (PST), in article
> > <598aebd3-48e9-4dd4-aed6-f1f05ba7e...@i39g2000prd.googlegroups.com>, Ron O
> > stated..."
> > >any IDiot rube ever gotten the scientific theory of intelligent design
>
> Of course not. �As I said in a follow-up to Ron O.'s ally "Rodjk#613",
> quoting from RonO [who in turn was mostly quoting Phillip Johnson]:
Why not just go back to the original post and address what is in it?
Why run from the posts and then do junk like this. You have removed
the quote from context because there is also another Johnson quote
that goes with it. Why do this? Isn't it bogus and dishonest? When
did lying and dishonesty become your only means of defending a bunch
of scam artists that probably don't care how stupid that they make
rubes like you look. They depend on their supporters to be ignorant,
incompetent and dishonest. You certainly do not disappoint them.
>
> -------------------- begin excerpt
>
> > In the same piece he is again quoted:
> > QUOTE:
> > For his part, Johnson agrees: I think the fat lady has sung for any
> > efforts to change the approach in the public schools; the courts are
> > just not going to allow it. They never have. The efforts to change
> > things in the public schools generate more powerful opposition than
> > accomplish anything. I don't think that means the end of the issue at
> > all.
>
> Ron O does not realize how damaging this last sentence is from his
> point of view.
This is after Johnson admits that the ID perps never had the science
to teach in the public schools in the quote that you didn't put in. I
also agree with Johnson that it isn't the end of the issue. There is
one born every minute so there is no shortage of rubes. The fact that
the ID perps are still running the bait and switch is evidence of
that. When you have been running the bait and switch for 8 years even
the ID perps likely wonder how stupid their supporters have to be to
still claim to want to teach the junk and get the bait and switch run
on them.
These are the lame ID perps. Johnson didn't take any blame for
running the ID scam for a decade, he just pointed the finger at the
"science" ID perps for never coming up with the science that would
have made the scam legit.
QUOTE:
I also don�t think that there is really a theory of intelligent design
at the present time to propose as a comparable alternative to the
Darwinian theory, which is, whatever errors it might contain, a fully
worked out scheme. There is no intelligent design theory that�s
comparable. Working out a positive theory is the job of the scientific
people that we have affiliated with the movement. Some of them are
quite convinced that it�s doable, but that�s for them to prove�No
product is ready for competition in the educational world.
END QUOTE:
http://sciencereview.berkeley.edu/articles.php?issue=10&article=evolution
I wonder why Nyikos left out this quote? Dishonesty is just a way of
life for IDiots like Nyikos.
>
> > In some respects, he later goes on, I m almost relieved, and
> > glad. I think the issue is properly settled. It s clear to me now that
> > the public schools are not going to change their line in my lifetime.
>
> Johnson is no spring chicken. �"in my lifetime" is thus a reallistic
> assessment, in the light of what is said above.
He is still alive and the bait and switch has continued to go down on
any rube stupid enough to not have gotten the message for an
additional half a decade since spring 2006. How sad is that?
>
> > That isn t to me where the action really is and ought to be.
>
> Of course not. �Trying to get public schools to teach Intelligent
> Design AT THIS TIME would be premature.
Premature? That must be why you ignored the quotes in your response
in the post above from the ID scam information packet that claimed
that teachers could teach intelligent design and that there was the
science to teach. Where is the claim that teaching intelligent design
is premature? This is using ID as the bait because Nyikos knows that
all anyone has ever gotten from the ID perps is a switch scam that
doesn't even mention that ID ever existed. Where is the valid ID
science in the switch scam?
From the briefing packet:
Here is the perfectly valid link to the packet:
http://www.discovery.org/a/4299
>
> > END QUOTE:
> >http://sciencereview.berkeley.edu/articles.php?issue=10&article=evolu...
> > Taking no responsibility for the dishonest scam, just admitting
> > defeat.
>
> Your turn, "Rodjk#613": tell us all how Johnson's words are supposed
> to either "admit defeat" as to the scientific merits of ID, or to
> show
> that there is a dishonest scam going on.
It would be easier to respond if you had left the post intact and
hadn't snipped out relevant material that demonstrates how bogus your
point is.
>
> Good luck trying to get a coherent description of what the alleged
> bait, and what the alleged switch are, from Ron O's incredibly long-
> winded and repetitious posts on that "The futility of Intelligent
> Desgin[*sic*]" thread.
Nyikos knows what the bait and switch is. Dishonest denial is all he
has left. Lying is just a way of life for him, and every IDiot like
him. How sad is that? Was there ever any honest intent among the
IDiots?
>
> The time would probably be better spent agreeing with me about what
> Johnson said, and trying to find evidence for yourself, from the
> original sources, of a bait and switch scam by DI.
Why should people agree with you about Johnson after I put in the
material that you left out that shows what Johnson was talking about?
>
> > That is the furthest any of the ID perps have come to coming
> > clean on the issue. �That in itself is pretty sad.
>
> What IS sad is the way Ron O keeps dodging my arguments and labeling
> them with various pejorative words.
Put up the arguments that I have dodged. There seem to be a lot of
open ended posts that you have run from and none from me. Just put up
an example of a dodge on my part. You have tried dishonest
misdirection ploys, but you know what you did. bringing that up again
would only make you look like more of a loser. Address the issues at
hand without misdirection ploys, running, lying, snipping and
pretending etc.
What is this post but a bogus attempt to misrepresent reality?
> ================= end of quote fromhttp://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/64b188664dc64eb0
>
> I haven't looked over the whole thread from which the above is taken,
> but when last I posted on that thread, both "Rodjk#613" and Ron
> Okimoto were burying their heads in the sand about the post from which
> the above excerpt is taken.
This is just a lame excuse for running away. How stupid and bogus can
a person get? Nyikos started that thread as a second attempt at his
bogus misdirection ploy that he tried in the first thread he posted in
on TO. He was called on it in that first thread. Not a good way to
start again, but that is Nyikos' problem. The only IDiots supporters
of the ID scam that are left are the ignorant, incompetent and or
dishonest and Nyikos has demonstrated himself to be all three.
>
> > >�If such a scientific theory exists why
> > >run the bait and switch on their own support base instead of putting
> > >it forward?
>
> > [...snip...]
>
> > I suggest that you need not add the qualifier "scientific" to "theory".
>
> > If there were a theological or spiritual theory which explained why
> > humans have eyes like other vertebrates rather than like insects or
> > like molluscs (or like potatoes), that would be interesting, but, as
> > far as I know, there is none.
>
> It's quite simple, really: any creationist aware of the creationist
> literature would say:
>
> 1. Squid, octopi, and cuttlefish live �in the ocean, where light is
> filtered, hence they don't need the protection of the rods and cones
> that the extra layer of nerve tissue on top of them gives humans, etc.
> from direct sunlight.
This is stupid because vertebrate eyes also evolved under water. We
inherited our eyes from our fish ancestors. Why would fish not have
the same eyes as an aquatic mollusc.
>
> 2. Most other mollusks have much simpler eyes. �Nautiluses just have
> pinholes, totally inadequate for what the human eye is designed to
> do.
So what? Do you think that Tom was talking about all mollusc eyes?
Why go for number 2 after acknowledging number 1?
>
> 3. Giving intelligent beings like humans compound eyes like those
> given insects would have been a sick joke.
About as sick as giving vertebrates the eye of a fish with a built in
blind spot because the junk in front of the receptors has to pass back
into the brain.
There are more insect species than just about any other lifeform on
the planet and they seem to do allright with the eyes that they have.
>
> 4. �That goes a hundred times over for giving them eyes like potatoes.
Irony is lost on some people.
>
> DISCLAIMER: I am describing how a savvy creationist would handle your
> question, Tom S. �I reject the idea that all these creatures were
> created *ex nihilo*.
Not too savvy, but you can't expect better from Nyikos.
>
> You were too generous to yourself when you called yourself a
> "lightweight". �Using boxing terminology, you aren't even a
> flyweight.
>
> Once I read about how they extended the weight categories downward for
> young boxers: one range was called "mosquitoweight'. �I don't remember
> what the lowest range was, but if it was "gnatweight," it fits you
> pretty well. �Did you ever read the Aesop fable about the ox and the
> gnat?
>
> Peter Nyikos
This is the same guy that complains about name calling. Sad dishonest
loser.
Have you ever thought about putting forward an honest argument? I
can't even imagine why anyone that has been shown to be such a chump
would continue to support a group of bogus liars that scammed him
about intelligent design. The ID perps likely laugh all the way to
the bank betting on chumps like Nyikos to continue to be around. They
don't just have to rely on one being born every minute. The IDiots
are continually reborn.
Ron Okimoto
*Hemidactylus*
Fanning the flames.
John Harshman
Tony, you do realize that Peter is a [shudder] evolutionist. Don't you?
Ron O
> On Feb 13, 10:09 am, Ron O <rokim...@cox.net> wrote:
>
> > > I am a lightweight
>
> Truer words were never spoken by Tom S. �See my reply to him ca. an
> hour and a half ago.
>
> [undocumented claim about Nelson deleted here]
>
> > Philip Johnson
>
> Phillip Johnson
>
> > admitted that the "science" ID perps never came up with
> > anything competitive with what real science already had,
>
> The word "real" is begging the question: Ron O. is wrong in thinking
> that there cannot be a science of Intelligent Design.
Only begs a question for the totally incompetent.
Even the ID perps that sold you the bogus science of intelligent
design ran the bait and switch on the IDiot rubes rather than try to
support it when they had to.
That is the sad reality that Nyikos lives in, but he has to be a bogus
lying low life about the whole situation.
>
> And, of course, "perps" is also begging the question, especially since
> Ron O. doesn't try to identify exactly who they are here, let alone
> explain why they deserve the pejorative word "perps".
When you perpetrate a bait and switch scam you are a perp.
Demonstrate that they aren't. Put up the science of intelligent
design that anyone that ever wanted to teach it ever got from the ID
perps. Why can't you go to the Discovery Institute and load up on all
the ID science that they gave to the Ohio State board of education.
What about the Louisiana rubes that claimed that there was ID science
that they wanted to include in their science textbooks just last
October-November? A dishonest perp is just a perp. No more no less.
>
> > QUOTE:
> > I also don't think that there is really a theory of intelligent design
> > at the present time to propose as a comparable alternative to the
> > Darwinian theory, which is, whatever errors it might contain, a fully
> > worked out scheme.
>
> Note the qualifiers. �"the Darwinian theory" refers to the neo-
> Darwinian synthesis, a far cry from what Darwin presented in _Origin
> of Species_. �That's because �Johnson is talking about ID being a
> potential rival to what is a going concern in the public schools, not
> to a much more fragmentary prototype. �And so, by saying "at the
> present time," he is making it clear that he is �contrasting less than
> two decades to over two centuries.
Note that Nyikos is trying to spin something that really can't be
spun. You have to wonder if someone can actually lie to themselves
like this and take themselves seriously. When did lying and bogousity
become such a way of life. I can't even imagine doing what Nyikos has
done in order to pretend that he hasn't been scammed by the ID perps.
>
> >There is no intelligent design theory that is
> > comparable. Working out a positive theory is the job of the scientific
> > people that we have affiliated with the movement. Some of them are
> > quite convinced that it s doable, but that s for them to prove No
> > product is ready for competition in the educational world.
> > END QUOTE:
>
> Darwin would just be a strawman; so what Johnson is obviously talking
> about IS the neo-Darwinian synthesis, augmented by insight into
> punctuated equilibrium by Gould and others.
No one cares about that. What a bogus IDiot. He is clearly saying
that the ID science never existed. Nothing is ready, and who claimed
that they had the science to teach to school kids? What did Dembski
claim was going to pass the constitution test? You know how they were
selling ID when you were still posting in the late 1990's so why lie
to yourself like this? Why talk about neo-Darwinian Synthesis when
the quote means that ID was just a bogus scam for over a decade? The
bait and switch had already been going down for around 4 years when
Johnson made this statement. It had been going down for three years
before the ID perps lost in court, so they knew for quite some time
that ID was bogus and didn't make the grade. Johnson only made it
official that even the top ID perps knew that the ID science had never
been there. They may have had the hope, but hope isn't what they sold
to rubes like Nyikos.
>
> Even if someone were to interpret "Darwinian" as referring to
> Darwin's
> original theory, he'd be hit from two directions. �One is that Darwin
> didn't have a theory ready for competition in the educational world
> of
> his time either. �Darwin, for one thing, could not give a coherent
> account of why variation occurs, or why offspring are so similar to
> their parents, or what allows variations to accumulate to the point
> where a bacterium has a human being as one of its remote descendants.
No one cares about this it is just a stupid ploy to misdirect the
argument away from the real message from Johnson's quote. What kind
of worm would try something this stupid and dishonest?
>
> The other direction is that Darwin took decades to publish his
> findings after collecting the raw data, and he also stood on the
> shoulders of giants llike Lamarck, and all those who collected huge
> amounts of fossils, to give some outline to the possible lines of
> descent. �Small wonder that the DI has not been able to accumulate
> comparable evidence for ID in the much shorter time available to it.
The DI didn't even start their Biologic Institute until after they had
their butt kicked in Dover and it came out that they hadn't done the
ID science that they should have done before they ever claimed to be
able to teach anything about ID in the public schools.
It doesn't matter how long the scam has been going on. One day would
be too long for the bait and switch scam. Over 8 years of running the
bait and switch is just too bogus to comprehend. The only IDiots left
that support the ID scam are the ignorant, incompetent and or
dishonest. Nyikos is all three so Nyikos has to find some other IDiot
that doesn't fit that bill in order to demonstrate that I am wrong.
Who could support a bogus scam perpetrated by a bunch of scam artists
that have been running the bait and switch on their own supporters for
over 8 years?
>
> > I like this quote because Johnson doesn't take any of the blame for
> > running the ID scam for over a decade,
>
> The word "running" may give Johnson more credit than he deserves, if
> it is interpreted to mean that he was the mastermind of what Ron calls
> a scam.
Johnson is credited by the other ID perps as getting the scam rolling
in the early 1990s. He is still listed at the Discovery Institute as
the program advisor to the ID scam wing of the Discovery Institute.
ID is a scam. Nyikos just has to demonstrate that the bait and switch
never went down to demonstrate that it isn't a scam. He knows Meyer
ran the first public bait and switch personally, and he was and still
is the director of the ID scam wing of the Discovery Institute. The
same DI that used to claim that ID was their business when Nyikos was
still posting and until they started running the bait and switch on
their own supporters.
I've even put up evidence that they are still using ID as the bait to
run in the switch scam. These ID perps are still claiming that
teachers can teach the science of intelligent design, but what do the
teachers get to teach? Even Nyikos is backtracking and trying to
claim that teaching the ID science is "premature." This from a guy
that lived through the ID claptrap of the 1990s. So what are the ID
perps claiming that the teachers can teach when even Nyikos now
concedes that the ID science was never there to teach? How many weeks
did it take for Nyikos to make that concession? It is better than
running and abject denial, but it is a little late to excuse all the
dishonest and bogus behavior that came before it.
>
> > �he just points the finger at
> > the "science" ID perps for never developing the science that it would
> > have taken to make the ID scam legit.
>
> If Ron O. thinks the above is a description of what he quotes from
> Johnson up there, he is at best woefully ignorant of the scientific
> issues, �and at worst a mental basket case.
>
> Peter Nyikos
Nyikos probably can't tell the truth if is life depended on it. It is
so sad that the ID perps depend on losers like Nyikos for support.
Nyikos even tried to blame his fellow IDiot victims of the ID scam for
blowing the scam. That has to be sad in anyones book. Blaming IDiots
for being exactly what the ID scam requires them to be. Ignorant,
incompetent, and or dishonest. You can't make this junk up.
There was no honest intent apparent in this entire post by Nyikos.
What kind of reality do IDiots have to live in that makes them like
this? Was there ever any honest intent in the whole ID fiasco? From
the time they swapped out creationism for intelligent design in Pandas
and People did any of them really believe that they were doing
anything at all honest? What kind of effort relies on losers like
Nyikos for support?
Ron Okimoto
pnyikos
> On Feb 14, 6:01�am, TomS <TomS_mem...@newsguy.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > "On Sun, 13 Feb 2011 11:51:02 -0800 (PST), in article
> > <0e57d46c-20dd-4d05-a30d-ac16498f2...@f30g2000yqa.googlegroups.com>, Ron O
> > stated..."
>
> > >> "On Sun, 13 Feb 2011 07:09:48 -0800 (PST), in article
> > >> <598aebd3-48e9-4dd4-aed6-f1f05ba7e...@i39g2000prd.googlegroups.com>, Ron O
> > >> stated..."
> > >>[...snip...]>
> > >> >any IDiot rube ever gotten the scientific theory of intelligent design
> > >> >run the bait and switch on their own support base instead of putting
> > >> >it forward?
>
> > >> [...snip...]
>
> > >> I suggest that you need not add the qualifier "scientific" to "theory".
>
> > >> If there were a theological or spiritual theory which explained why
> > >> humans have eyes like other vertebrates rather than like insects or
> > >> like molluscs (or like potatoes), that would be interesting, but, as
> > >> far as I know, there is none.
>
> > >> ---Tom S.
> > >> "... the heavy people know some magic that can make things move and even fly,
> > >> but they're not very bright, because they can't survive without their magic
> > >> contrivances"
> > >> Xixo, in "The Gods Must Be Crazy II"
>
> > >design to teach to school kids. �You can download their education
> > >but the rubes in Florida didn't get any of it when they wanted to
> > >teach the science of intelligent design in 2008-2009. �Around half a
> > >dozen county school board and probably just as many legislators were
> > >claiming that they were going to teach the science of intelligent
> > >design in Florida, but the Discovery Institute ran in the bait and
> > >switch and what happened to those claims? �The Discovery Institute
> > >flew Casey Luskin to Florida because it was such a gigantic fiasco in
> > >the making. �So much for this briefing packet. �If they had the ID
> > >science where is it when they need it?
>
> > >rubes get any ID science to teach?
>
> > >textbooks last October-November 2010?
>
>
> > >I wonder who that could be?
>
> > >Institute had been running the bait and switch scam on all the rubes
> > >that wanted to teach the science of intelligent design for over half a
> > >in early 2002. �They even tried to run the bait and switch on the
> > >Dover rubes, but the Dover rubes had already hired their own lawyers
> > >and were set on testing ID in the courts. �Not a single creationist
> > >rube that has claimed to want to teach the science of intelligent
> > >design in the public schools has ever gotten any ID science to teach.
>
> > >Ron Okimoto
>
> > Perhaps some of the denizens of t.o may be interested in this essay at
> > RationalWiki.org
>
> > <http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Scientific_theory#Creationism_is_not_a_t...>
>
> > a *response* to it.
>
> > ---Tom S.
> > "... the heavy people know some magic that can make things move and even fly,
> > but they're not very bright, because they can't survive without their magic
> > contrivances"
>
> Someone can add the Behe Dover admission that intelligent design
> science was equivalent to astrology.
RonO is lying. The "admission" which he is distorting beyond
recognition was in the deposition prior to the Dover trial, and here
it is being quoted during Behe's testimony by the cross-examiner:
----------- begin relevant excerpt
Q: And I asked you, "Is astrology a theory under that
definition?" And you answered, "Is astrology? It could be,
yes." Right?
A That s correct.
==================== end of excerpt from pp. 41-42 of
http://www.aclupa.org/downloads/Day11PMSession.pdf
"That definition" was clarified earlier in the testimony, on pp.
38-39. Excerpt follows RonO's "testimony":
> �After his testimony Behe tried
> to set the record straight, but ended up clarifying why ID wasn't
> science.
What RonO is lying about here took place during the testimony, not
after it.
>�He claimed that he meant the astrology as it was practiced
> in the dark ages.
RonO is cherry-picking and distorting something that Behe said AFTER
he carefully explained what he meant by a "scientific theory":
----------------------- begin excerpt from pp. 38-39,
------------------------ with line numbers in the margins.
2 But in
3 fact, the scientific community uses the word "theory" in
4 many times as synonymous with the word "hypothesis," other
5 times it uses the word as a synonym for the definition
6 reached by the National Academy, and at other times it uses
7 it in other ways.
8 Q But the way you are using it is synonymous with the
9 definition of hypothesis?
10 A No, I would disagree. It can be used to cover
11 hypotheses, but it can also include ideas that are in fact
12 well substantiated and so on. So while it does include
13 ideas that are synonymous or in fact are hypotheses, it also
14 includes stronger senses of that term.
15 Q And using your definition, intelligent design is a
16 scientific theory, correct?
17 A Yes.
18 Q Under that same definition astrology is a
19 scientific theory under your definition, correct?
20 A Under my definition, a scientific theory is a
21 proposed explanation which focuses or points to physical,
22 observable data and logical inferences. There are many
23 things throughout the history of science which we now think
24 to be incorrect which nonetheless would fit that -- which
25 would fit that definition. Yes, astrology is in fact one,
1 and so is the ether theory of the propagation of light, and
2 many other -- many other theories as well.
3 Q The ether theory of light has been discarded,
4 correct?
5 A That is correct.
6 Q But you are clear, under your definition, the
7 definition that sweeps in intelligent design, astrology is
8 also a scientific theory, correct?
9 A Yes, that s correct. And let me explain under my
10 definition of the word "theory," it is -- a sense of the
11 word "theory" does not include the theory being true, it
12 means a proposition based on physical evidence to explain
13 some facts by logical inferences. There have been many
14 theories throughout the history of science which looked good
15 at the time which further progress has shown to be
16 incorrect. Nonetheless, we can t go back and say that
17 because they were incorrect they were not theories. So many
18 many things that we now realized to be incorrect, incorrect
19 theories, are nonetheless theories.
20 Q Has there ever been a time when astrology has been
21 accepted as a correct or valid scientific theory, Professor
22 Behe?
23 A Well, I am not a historian of science. And
24 certainly nobody -- well, not nobody, but certainly the
25 educated community has not accepted astrology as a science
for a long long time. But if you go back, you know, Middle
2 Ages and before that, when people were struggling to
3 describe the natural world, some people might indeed think
4 that it is not a priori -- a priori ruled out that what
5 we -- that motions in the earth could affect things on the
6 earth, or motions in the sky could affect things on the
7 earth.
============ end of excerpt
> �When we didn't know any better and even scientists
> like Newton could be alchemists and Kepler could be court
> astrologers. �Not a very good way to view intelligent design, but
...but Behe never *equated* intelligent design with astrology, either
then or now. If RonO wants to play games with the word "equated" he
might as well go the whole hog and lie that Behe "equated" all of
science with astrology, since it all fits Behe's rather broad,
informal definition of "scientific theory."
> actually accurate because at that time intelligent design was the
> default explanation for anything that we didn't understand about
> nature. �The designer did it. �Who made the seasons change? �Who
> pulled the sun and moon across the sky? �Who made thunder and
> lightning? �Who caused disease? �Who made those complex babies? �Who
> made the complex flagellum? �It isn't a scientific theory, it is only
> a place holder for when we don't have all the answers.
The above left in because RonO plays games with the word "dishonest"
and calls me dishonest for not leaving in everything from the post to
which I am replying --- AND because RonO's post is short enough so
that leaving in everything he wrote won't make this post of mine so
long that people reading it in Google won't have to click "read more"
in order to be able to see it all.
> Ironically one of the claims against the Discovery Institute was that
> they were trying to take us back to the dark ages, a time when their
> views could be taken seriously, and Behe confirmed it with his Dover
> testimony and further clarification.
One grand lie to rule them all. I am now convinced that Ron Okimoto
was lying when he said Behe had admitted to not having a coherent,
verified *definition* of irreducible complexity, and that is the
reason he pulled a bait and switch scam on Ray Martinez, switching to
Intelligent Design after having baited someone else with Irreducible
Complexity.
TEST OF OKIMOTO-SIMULATING SOFTWARE :-)
PLEASE IGNORE :-) :-) :-) :-)
I can't believe you are still doing this misdirection ploy after I've
told you repeatedly that I will address this issue when you do what
you are supposed to do: defend the Discovery Institute's bait and
switch scam, like I've been telling you to do from the very beginning.
What a sad loser you are. You've pulled one misdirection ploy after
another in this post. I will not allow myself to be diverted by a rat
posting all these misdirections about what Behe did and didn't say.
You know what you need to do, Nyikos. Hop to it. I did and you
didn't.
END OF TEST :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-)
pnyikos
It's not a category at all. It is a dirty debating strategy/tactic
that various people indulge in from time to time.
> [PN] "(S3/T8) Running the Jolly Roger Up the Flagpole To See If
> Anyone Will Salute It. �This consists of making farfetched
> and demeaning personal assertions which the maker has no
> intention of responsibly supporting
> if challenged. �[The "demeaning personal assertions" is an indispensible
> component, otherwise I would not be using the term "Jolly Roger",
> the name for a pirate flag.] �Typically, when the accuser
> is called upon to support his claim or retract, he will either
> run away [see above] or change the subject or make some comment
> that may superficially look like support but doesn't come
> within a country mile of justifying the earlier assertion.
> In any case, it is quite clear from the person's behavior
> that he wants to say "nevermind," as a famous
> comedian put it, but wants to save face by not saying it.
>
> Were the pirate flag to be hoisted by someone not
> in good with the dominant clique in talk.origins, he would
> quite justifiably and efficiently be blown
> out of the water. �But when one is in good with the
> dominant clique, the end result is usually a silent lowering
> of the Jolly Roger, only to hoist it again on some
> other issue. " [PN]
>
> http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/60f7d48950acef92
That post was a compilation of dirty debating tactics and strategies.
It's like a compilation of logical fallacies that you find in standard
logic textbooks, and I keep adding to it and refining the descriptions
from time to time.
> But seriously, this categorization of posters is one of those things you
> should try to avoid. It brings back memories of all the negativity of
> the past here. Some of it was funny both ways in jest, but things then
> tended to get very heated and they will likely again.
Yes, I've learned from that to go more heavy on the tactics/strategies
and light on the categorizations of people. And I don't even post
lists of dirty debating tactics/strategies any more. What I do is:
(1) recall the one(s) that fit right when they are being employed
(like the Pre-Emptive Peremptory Ploy that I described in response to
what looked like an example by Ron O. the other day) and
(2) devote new threads to one or the other tactic/strategy,
immediately documenting especially salient examples.
> Just a thought.
> There will be disagreements between you and others that post here, but
> dredging up bits of the past
II only did that with Hershey in December and January, and now with
Gans, because Gans has spurned the idea of letting bygones be bygones,
and I refuse to be put at a permanent disadvantage wrt people like
that.
> only serves as a recapitulation
> (oops...loaded term) ;-)
>
> Your lists were legendary, but maybe these lists tended to take on a
> life of their own.
Yes, and that "life" consisted of people dissing me for them but not
even challenging me to show that the various people fitted the
descriptions.
I like for things to be out in the open, unlike a lot of people here
who make wild accusations of others, while the victims are unaware of
how many others that person has leveled similar accusations against,
and on what specious grounds.
A lot of those victimizers have been shown in the past to be lying
about this and that person, but if the new victim doesn't know that,
he is at a big disadvantage.
Peter Nyikos
pnyikos
I don't think either of us can compete with the tongue-lashings you
gave me for merely saying you were slow on the uptake wrt a simple
thing that I explained twice, then explained a second time in response
to the first tongue-lashing.
I could go on, and did in another post.
Peter Nyikos
pnyikos
would disappear from sight in my reply to RonO that the did for him.
They didn't, and so the post got the "read more" treatment by Google.
So I am reposting what I posted, minus all but two lines of the quoted
text at the beginning.
John Harshman
But you haven't answered the question.
Bob Casanova
in talk.origins, posted by Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off>:
>On Sun, 13 Feb 2011 09:10:59 -0500, the following appeared
>in talk.origins, posted by T Pagano <not....@address.net>:
>
>>The list would be long and embarassing. It would undoubtedly include
>>some of the academic heavy weights like Wilkins, Harshman and Okimoto
>>who have repeatedly demonstrated that they have never cracked open the
>>requisite reading. Harshman, for example, admits his blissful
>>ignorance. Perhaps even Gans would be on the list. A quick trip down
>>memory lane at the Google archive should easily determine that.
>
>For the benefit of those of us essentially ignorant of the
>topic, please cite where a statement of the Theory of
>Intelligent Design can be found, preferably with links to
>the tests which have been performed and which were designed
>to falsify it. Thanks...
>
>>Just a thought. . .
>
>Please continue thinking, but only after you supply that
>cite.
[Crickets...]
As usual.
Brave, brave Sir Tony...
--
Bob C.
"Evidence confirming an observation is
evidence that the observation is wrong."
- McNameless
Ron O
Another lie from Nyikos. He just can't stop. Sad but true. I can
split hairs too. When did I say that the admission was during his
court testimony? Didn't Behe make this admission in Dover? He may
have also made it in other places, but he did make it in Dover. What
a loser. How can Nyikos even take himself seriously?
>
> ----------- begin relevant excerpt
> Q: And I asked you, "Is astrology a theory under that
> definition?" And you answered, "Is astrology? It could be,
> yes." Right?
> A That s correct.
> ==================== end of excerpt from pp. 41-42 ofhttp://www.aclupa.org/downloads/Day11PMSession.pdf
>
> "That definition" was clarified earlier in the testimony, on pp.
> 38-39. Excerpt follows RonO's "testimony":
>
> > After his testimony Behe tried
> > to set the record straight, but ended up clarifying why ID wasn't
> > science.
He did. After his testimony he made claims of what he meant. His
opposition was making a big deal about it and he did try to give his
interpretation of what he meant in his defense. Beats me why that
should be an issue.
>
> What RonO is lying about here took place during the testimony, not
> after it.
What did Behe acknowledge? This is the type of misrepresentation that
Nyikos has to constantly try. What difference does it make? What did
Behe mean or claim that he meant. And he was quoted after his
testimony about the issue. So what difference does it make? This is
as stupid as "implicated" or "involved" when the ID perps were both
implicated and involved in the running the bait and switch. What a
pathetic loser. Does what you are trying to lie about change reality?
>
> > He claimed that he meant the astrology as it was practiced
> > in the dark ages.
>
> RonO is cherry-picking and distorting something that Behe said AFTER
> he carefully explained what he meant by a "scientific theory":
Does it matter? Astology as it was practiced in the dark ages before
we knew any better was science according to Behe's definition. Why
deny it? No one had yet demonstrated it to be bogus, and some
scientists hadn't yet given up on it or, at least were using it to pay
the bills. Just like some "scientists" are still using ID to pay the
bills. Doesn't mean much in the face of reality does it?
So what? Does it change the reality that even the ID perps understood
that ID was such a poor example of what Behe called science that they
had already been running the bait and swtich scam for over 2 years by
the time Behe testified? Even the ID perps understood that they
didn't have the science to teach. You can't deny that using anything
that Behe testified about. The decision to run the bait and switch
was made years before Behe testified. Judgement had already been
passed on ID by the ID perps themselves.
It is just a fact that science equivalent to astrology as it was
practiced in the dark ages isn't any type of science that even the ID
perps are willing to put up as something worth teaching when it came
time to put up or shut up.
>
> > When we didn't know any better and even scientists
> > like Newton could be alchemists and Kepler could be court
> > astrologers. Not a very good way to view intelligent design, but
>
> ...but Behe never *equated* intelligent design with astrology, either
> then or now. If RonO wants to play games with the word "equated" he
> might as well go the whole hog and lie that Behe "equated" all of
> science with astrology, since it all fits Behe's rather broad,
> informal definition of "scientific theory."
Your own quote says differently. He was read back his testimony and
he acknowledged it. What does "That is correct" mean to even an IDiot
as lost as you are? Isn't that his testimony? Not only that, but if
I want to split hairs I never stated that it was during his testimony
even though it obviously was. A point was made to enter it into
Behe's cross. He was specifically asked about it and acknowledged
it. Reread what I actually wrote and appologize if you have any
integrity at all.
Does it change reality to try and make such a distinction? You are
still a liar, that hasn't changed. Did you have any honest intent
when you decided to try this dishonest ploy? Can you tell honest from
dishonest or doesn't it matter to you any longer?
Attempting a bogus and dishonest ploy and calling someone else a liar
is about par for you. How can you stand to live with yourself?
Ron Okimoto
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > actually accurate because at that time intelligent design was
>
> ...
>
> read more »
Ron O
> Drat, I thought the huge quantity of quoted text �at the beginning
> would disappear from sight in my reply to RonO that the did for him.
> They didn't, and so the post got the "read more" treatment by Google.
>
> So I am reposting what I posted, minus all but two lines of the quoted
> text at the beginning.
>
> On Feb 14, 7:28 am, Ron O <rokim...@cox.net> wrote:
>
> > Someone can add the Behe Dover admission that intelligent design
> > science was equivalent to astrology.
>
> RonO is lying. �The "admission" which he is distorting beyond
> recognition was in the deposition prior to the Dover trial, and here
> it is being quoted during Behe's testimony by the cross-examiner:
>
> ----------- begin relevant excerpt
> Q: And I asked you, "Is astrology a theory under that
> definition?" And you answered, "Is astrology? It could be,
> yes." Right?
> A That s correct.
Trying to rewrite history is stupid. See my response to your first
attempt.
QUOTE
6 Q But you are clear, under your definition, the
> 7 definition that sweeps in intelligent design, astrology is
> 8 also a scientific theory, correct?
> 9 A Yes, that s correct.
END QUOTE:
What about equivalent is lost on you? By Behe's definition both
astrology and intelligent design are scientific theories. What is the
problem? Behe can't exclude astrology from his definition that would
call ID a scientific theory. The vast majority of scientists disagree
with Behe's definition for obvious reasons.
>
> > actually accurate because at that time intelligent design was the
> > default explanation for anything that we didn't understand about
> > nature. The designer did it. Who made the seasons change? Who
> > pulled the sun and moon across the sky? Who made thunder and
> > lightning? Who caused disease? Who made those complex babies? Who
> > made the complex flagellum? It isn't a scientific theory, it is only
> > a place holder for when we don't have all the answers.
>
> The above left in because RonO plays games with the word "dishonest"
> and calls me dishonest for not leaving in everything from the post to
> which I am replying �--- AND because RonO's post is short enough so
> that leaving in everything he wrote won't make this post of mine so
> long that people reading it in Google won't have to click "read more"
> in order to be able to see it all.
No, only when you snip and run. You have left this in, but have run
from it at the same time. You are misdirecting the argument because
you have no counter to the statement. That is also bogus and
dishonest. You would likely have been better off just snipping and
running like you usually do. You have to run because it is the reason
why Behe can equate astrology from the dark ages with intelligent
design, because at that time they were equivalent and intelligent
design never advanced past that point.
>
> > Ironically one of the claims against the Discovery Institute was that
> > they were trying to take us back to the dark ages, a time when their
> > views could be taken seriously, and Behe confirmed it with his Dover
> > testimony and further clarification.
>
> One grand lie to rule them all.
Perfectly true. Demonstrate that it is a lie. You probably recall
the accusations that the Discovery Institute was just trying to drag
science back to the dark ages because you were still posting back
then. What kind of loser would claim that someone else was lying when
that is all he intended to do in this post? Did you have an honest
point to make?
>
> I am now convinced that �Ron Okimoto
> was lying when he said Behe had admitted to not having a coherent,
> verified *definition* of irreducible complexity, and that is the
> reason he pulled a bait and switch scam on Ray Martinez, switching to
> Intelligent Design �after having baited someone else with �Irreducible
> Complexity.
Misdirection ploys are dishonest. You never did have any honest
intent when you wrote this post, did you? What kind of lame loser
would keep pulling the trigger when the gun keeps blowing up in his
face?
>
> TEST OF OKIMOTO-SIMULATING SOFTWARE � :-)
> PLEASE IGNORE � :-) � :-) � :-) � :-)
>
> I can't believe you are still doing this misdirection ploy after I've
> told you repeatedly that I will address this issue when you do what
> you are supposed to do: defend the Discovery Institute's bait and
> switch scam, like I've been telling you to do from the very beginning.
The truth hurts, and if you wouldn't try the lame and dishonest
misdirection ploy I wouldn't be able to call you on it. Really, how
stupid can anyone be? Why try the stupid misdirection ploy instead of
face the issues at hand? Who cares about Behe's testimony (even
though my description was accurate) when you can't deal with the
stupid bait and switch scam that has been going on for over 8 years
and for over 2 years by the time that Behe had to testify? Running
and pretending, misdirection ploys, lying, blaming the victims etc.
What kind of low life loser would keep doing something stupid and
dishonest when he has been called on it multiple times before?
>
> What a sad loser you are. �You've pulled one misdirection ploy after
> another in this post. �I will not allow myself to be diverted by a rat
> posting all these misdirections about what Behe did and didn't say.
> You know what you need to do, Nyikos. �Hop to it. I did and you
> didn't.
>
> END OF TEST � :-) �:-) �:-) �:-) �:-) �:-) �:-) �:-)
If only it was funny. A lying loser like you that had no honest
intent when he wrote his post is worse than just incompetent. Really,
can anyone be proud of posts like you have written? Do you have any
integrity left? Do you think that the ID perps are cheering for you?
What kind of people would run a bogus bait and switch scam on their
own pathetic supporters? What kind of supporters would continue to
bend over and take it?
Ron Okimoto
Walter Bushell
Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off> wrote:
> [Crickets...]
>
> As usual.
>
> Brave, brave Sir Tony...
Now, now. You know what happened to the minstrels.
Remember the story of Bunny Phoo Phoo, "Hare today; soup tomorrow."
--
The Chinese pretend their goods are good and we pretend our money
is good, or is it the reverse?
Frank J
> some of the academic heavy weights like Wilkins, Harshman and Okimoto
> who have repeatedly demonstrated that they have never cracked open the
> requisite reading. Harshman, for example, admits his blissful
> ignorance. Perhaps even Gans would be on the list. A quick trip down
> memory lane at the Google archive should easily determine that.
>
>
> T Pagano
ID "theory" is *defined* such that the only way to *not* be accused of
being ignorant is to rave about it.
Read those embarrassingly bad letters-to-the-editor (google several
years of Jason Spaceman's posts for a start) by Biblical creationists
who confuse ID with their brand of creationism, despite painstaking
efforts of ID peddlers to differentiate ID from the mutually-
contradictory brands of Biblical creationism. Do the ID peddlers ever
accuse *them* of being ignorant of ID "theory"? Will pnyikos include
*them* on his list?
Frank J
> "On Sun, 13 Feb 2011 09:10:59 -0500, in article
> <apagano-flofl6t61d069map00cnmrn3gol7ufb...@4ax.com>, T Pagano stated..."
>
>
>
> >some of the academic heavy weights like Wilkins, Harshman and Okimoto
> >who have repeatedly demonstrated that they have never cracked open the
> >requisite reading. Harshman, for example, admits his blissful
> >ignorance. Perhaps even Gans would be on the list. A quick trip down
> >memory lane at the Google archive should easily determine that.
>
> >Just a thought. . .
>
> >Regards,
> >T Pagano
>
> company, but I freely admit not having heard of any ID theory.
>
>
> involve descent with modification, yet offers an explanation
> for - oh, just to take one example - why the human body has chimps
> and other apes as the closest living neighbors in the tree of life.
C'mon, you of all know the irony that the closest thing to an ID
"theory" ever put forth by the peddlers of the scam *includes* descent
with modification. That being Behe's "first ancestral cell" in
"Darwin's Black Box." Even those IDers who peddle the "common descent
vs. common design" nonsense know that it's a false dichotomy
"designed" to placate their Biblical fans.
>
> Note that I do not insist upon evidence for the theory, or that
> the theory be scientific or naturalistic.
>
> If nobody can offer such a theory, then I guess that I'd have to
> agree with Pagano that the list would be long and embarrassing.
> "Long", in the sense that everybody would belong on the list.
> "Embarrassing", to be, sure, to the advocates of ID.
Bob Casanova
in talk.origins, posted by Walter Bushell <pr...@panix.com>:
>In article <6saol6ttomuo19os0...@4ax.com>,
> Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off> wrote:
>
>> [Crickets...]
>>
>> As usual.
>>
>> Brave, brave Sir Tony...
>
>Now, now. You know what happened to the minstrels.
Absolutely; they get to blow raspberries at Tony while he
runs away.
>Remember the story of Bunny Phoo Phoo, "Hare today; soup tomorrow."
--
Bob C.
JohnN
> >"On Sun, 13 Feb 2011 23:37:32 -0500, in article
> ><f1chl6p538941um19219nf37cro6mli...@4ax.com>, raven1 stated..."
> >[...snip...]
> >>1) By what metric is complexity measured?
> >[...snip...]
> >1a) Is complexity an extensive or an intensive property?
>
> In this case it is an intuitive property. Folks know it when
> they see it.
>
> --- Paul J. Gans
Can a human actually see Irreducible Complexity with the imperfect
Intelligently Designed eyes made by the Intelligent Creator?
JohnN
pnyikos
> On Feb 16, 9:35 am, pnyikos <nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> > > Someone can add the Behe Dover admission that intelligent design
> > > science was equivalent to astrology.
>
> > RonO is lying. The "admission" which he is distorting beyond
> > recognition was in the deposition prior to the Dover trial, and here
> > it is being quoted during Behe's testimony by the cross-examiner:
>
> Another lie from Nyikos. He just can't stop. Sad but true. I can
> split hairs too. When did I say that the admission was during his
> court testimony?
I never claimed you said it. So much for YOUR brand of splitting
hairs.
Ernest Major would have a field day accusing you of bearing false
witness with your next accusations, were he as brave as I am.
> Didn't Behe make this admission in Dover? He may
> have also made it in other places, but he did make it in Dover. What
> a loser. How can Nyikos even take himself seriously?
When did you start to learn English? It is the distortion beyond
recognition that constitutes the lie you told, not the insignificant
detail of where the statement was made.
> > ----------- begin relevant excerpt
> > Q: And I asked you, "Is astrology a theory under that
> > definition?" And you answered, "Is astrology? It could be,
> > yes." Right?
> > A That s correct.
> > ==================== end of excerpt from pp. 41-42 of
> >http://www.aclupa.org/downloads/Day11PMSession.pdf
I call upon readers to witness the fact that Ron O did NOT deny that
this was what he alleged to constitute "equating intelligent design
with astrology". And so, his lie is plain for all to see, once you
see what that definition was:
> > "That definition" was clarified earlier in the testimony, on pp.
> > 38-39. Excerpt follows RonO's "testimony":
>
> > > After his testimony Behe tried
> > > to set the record straight, but ended up clarifying why ID wasn't
> > > science.
>
> He did. After his testimony he made claims of what he meant.
Essentially dentical to his UNAMBIGUOUS and THOROUGH clarification
that took place IN THE TESTIMONY, of what me meant, I trust.
That clarification is documented below.
> His
> opposition was making a big deal about it and he did try to give his
> interpretation of what he meant in his defense.
There was no need to give any. His clarification was very thorough in
his testimony.
> Beats me why that
> should be an issue.
It isn't--it's the dishonest spin you put on the interpretation,
culminating in the lie to top all lies:
"Ironically one of the claims against the Discovery Institute was
that
they were trying to take us back to the dark ages, a time when
their
views could be taken seriously, and Behe confirmed it with his
Dover
testimony and further clarification."
> > What RonO is lying about here took place during the testimony, not
> > after it.
>
> What did Behe acknowledge?
Nothing like the defamatory thing you have him acknowledging
("confirmed it")
> This is the type of misrepresentation that
> Nyikos has to constantly try.
There is no misrepresentation by me here, and Ron O. is lying with his
implication that I try to misrepresent things.
> What difference does it make?
What difference does it make that you defamed Behe and even now are
not lifting a finger to prove that your defamation was merited? Maybe
none to a person with YOUR idea of what is shameful.
You are disgracing the name "Okimoto" with your defamation, in the
eyes of anyone with a traditional Judeo-Christian sense of morality
who sees what you have been doing. Maybe in the eyes of the Okimotos
that never embraced this tradition, you are bringing honor to the
name. But I hope their morality isn't *that* different from the Judeo-
Christian.
> What did
> Behe mean or claim that he meant. And he was quoted after his
> testimony about the issue.
If you have any quotes after the testimony that would exonerate you of
slander, let's see them. Not a year from now, but right in your reply
to this post. Otherwise you stand accused of outright slander against
Behe and the Discovery Institute.
So what difference does it make? This is
> as stupid as "implicated" or "involved" when the ID perps were both
> implicated and involved in the running the bait and switch.
It WAS stupid of you not to show that they were impllicated, but
merely involved to some extent, and kept accusing me of moving the
goalposts when I wanted to see why they were *implicated* in an actual
bait and switch scam.
It was downright hilarious to see your reaction when I first explained
the meaning of "implicated" to you and explained why what I did was
NOT a moving of goalposts. Your response was, in effect, "What
difference does it make whether they were implicated or not, as long
as they were implicated?" followed by the usual repetitive drivel.
>What a
> pathetic loser. Does what you are trying to lie about change reality?
You took the words out of my mouth. :-)
> > > He claimed that he meant the astrology as it was practiced
> > > in the dark ages.
>
> > RonO is cherry-picking and distorting something that Behe said AFTER
> > he carefully explained what he meant by a "scientific theory":
>
> Does it matter?
Nice to see that you have NOTHING to add to it that would exonerate
you of outright slander. But I'll give you one more chance before
formally accusing you of slander.
[furious backpedaling by Okimoto, but never retracting the defamation,
deleted here]
TO BE CONTINUED
Peter Nyikos
pnyikos
> On Feb 13, 9:32 am, TomS <TomS_mem...@newsguy.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > "On Sun, 13 Feb 2011 09:10:59 -0500, in article
> > <apagano-flofl6t61d069map00cnmrn3gol7ufb...@4ax.com>, T Pagano stated..."
>
> > >The list would be long and embarassing. It would undoubtedly include
> > >some of the academic heavy weights like Wilkins, Harshman and Okimoto
> > >who have repeatedly demonstrated that they have never cracked open the
> > >requisite reading. Harshman, for example, admits his blissful
> > >ignorance. Perhaps even Gans would be on the list. A quick trip down
> > >memory lane at the Google archive should easily determine that.
>
> > >Just a thought. . .
>
> > >Regards,
> > >T Pagano
>
> > I am a lightweight, so don't deserve mentioning in such august
> > company, but I freely admit not having heard of any ID theory.
>
> > Does anyone have a candidate theory?
>
> > That is, something which offers an explanation which doesn't
> > involve descent with modification, yet offers an explanation
> > for - oh, just to take one example - why the human body has chimps
> > and other apes as the closest living neighbors in the tree of life.
>
> C'mon, you of all know the irony that the closest thing to an ID
> "theory" ever put forth by the peddlers of the scam
Nice to know YOU don't think of me as one of the peddlers of the
scam. On the other hand, Ron O seems to vacillate between thinking of
me as a "rube" and thinking of me as a "perp". Most of his explicit
accusations go with "rube", but for a while his main demand was that I
"defend the bait and switch scam," as though I were one of the "perps"
in his eyes.
>*includes* descent
> with modification.
There is irony only in the eyes of those who cannot see how others who
think for themselves come out with conclusions at odds with the two
extremes, creation ex nihilo of millions of species separately, and
common descent from the first progenotes (as Woese calls them).
>That being Behe's "first ancestral cell" in
> "Darwin's Black Box."
That was only one hypothesis put forth, to show that the bulk of his
book need not lead to creationism but is compatible with scientific
methodology.
>Even those IDers who peddle the "common descent
> vs. common design" nonsense know that it's a false dichotomy
> "designed" to placate their Biblical fans.
Heh. Heh. Here YOU talk about false dichotomy after having implicitly
embraced it yourself.
>
>
> > Note that I do not insist upon evidence for the theory, or that
> > the theory be scientific or naturalistic.
>
> > If nobody can offer such a theory,
I offered one long ago, and have been expounding on it ever since I
resumed posting to t.o. in December.
> > then I guess that I'd have to
> > agree with Pagano that the list would be long and embarrassing.
> > "Long", in the sense that everybody would belong on the list.
> > "Embarrassing", to be, sure, to the advocates of ID.
Garbage in, garbage out.
Peter Nyikos
Paul J Gans
First, I was kidding around. Second, it is the ID folks who
are making unusual claims. There's plenty of evidence *for*
evolution. It is up to them to produce evidence (not rhetoric)
for intelligent design.
So far we've seen no presentation of ways to determine if something
is intelligently designed. Hence my comment above.
Ron O
> On Feb 16, 7:55 pm, Ron O <rokim...@cox.net> wrote:
>
> > On Feb 16, 9:35 am, pnyikos <nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> > > > Someone can add the Behe Dover admission that intelligent design
> > > > science was equivalent to astrology.
>
> > > RonO is lying. The "admission" which he is distorting beyond
> > > recognition was in the deposition prior to the Dover trial, and here
> > > it is being quoted during Behe's testimony by the cross-examiner:
>
> > Another lie from Nyikos. He just can't stop. Sad but true. I can
> > split hairs too. When did I say that the admission was during his
> > court testimony?
>
> I never claimed you said it. So much for YOUR brand of splitting
> hairs.
You called me a liar. Just look what you wrote. There is no doubt
that Behe made that admission during the Dover fiasco and you know
it. You were the one claiming that I lied when all you could claim is
that I wasn't specific enough for you. I was specific enough to get
the point across and your hair splitting to call me a liar is not just
stupid, but pathologically stupid.
>
> Ernest Major would have a field day accusing you of bearing false
> witness with your next accusations, were he as brave as I am.
I doubt that. Since you were the one making bogus claims and trying
to say that someone else was lying. What an abject loser.
>
> > Didn't Behe make this admission in Dover? He may
> > have also made it in other places, but he did make it in Dover. What
> > a loser. How can Nyikos even take himself seriously?
>
> When did you start to learn English? It is the distortion beyond
> recognition that constitutes the lie you told, not the insignificant
> detail of where the statement was made.
No, just the facts and you know what you tried to do, claiming that it
is someone elses fault is so lame that why even try to do it?
>
> > > ----------- begin relevant excerpt
> > > Q: And I asked you, "Is astrology a theory under that
> > > definition?" And you answered, "Is astrology? It could be,
> > > yes." Right?
> > > A That s correct.
> > > ==================== end of excerpt from pp. 41-42 of
> > >http://www.aclupa.org/downloads/Day11PMSession.pdf
>
> I call upon readers to witness the fact that Ron O did NOT deny that
> this was what he alleged to constitute "equating intelligent design
> with astrology". And so, his lie is plain for all to see, once you
> see what that definition was:
Yes, Behe certainly did not deny it. What do you think equivalent
means in this case? Behe could not distinguish between the science of
astrology and intelligent design. Most scientists do not have the
problem of not being able to distinguish their science from
astrology. Biological evolution doesn't have that problem.
>
> > > "That definition" was clarified earlier in the testimony, on pp.
> > > 38-39. Excerpt follows RonO's "testimony":
>
> > > > After his testimony Behe tried
> > > > to set the record straight, but ended up clarifying why ID wasn't
> > > > science.
>
> > He did. After his testimony he made claims of what he meant.
>
> Essentially dentical to his UNAMBIGUOUS and THOROUGH clarification
> that took place IN THE TESTIMONY, of what me meant, I trust.
Doesn't mean that when people started making fun of him about it that
he didn't come out and say the same thing, does it? I recall that he
did and it was funny when he did it. Why would an ID perp think that
claiming that ID was the same type of "science" as astrology as it was
practiced in the dark ages? I'll grant that Behe said middle ages,
but those were the dark ages, just look it up.
>
> That clarification is documented below.
>
> > His
> > opposition was making a big deal about it and he did try to give his
> > interpretation of what he meant in his defense.
>
> There was no need to give any. His clarification was very thorough in
> his testimony.
Behe felt that it was necessary. Nyikos likely would have just run
away, but Behe tried to set the record straight that he was not
talking about astrology as it is practiced today, he meant as
practiced when we didn't know any better.
>
> > Beats me why that
> > should be an issue.
>
> It isn't--it's the dishonest spin you put on the interpretation,
> culminating in the lie to top all lies:
No, just the facts. Beats me what difference it makes. Behe still
made the admission and he meant what I claimed that he meant. At
least that is what he claimed in his clarifications. Did Behe admit
that intelligent design was the same type of science as astrology
practiced in the dark ages? Does it matter if he made the
clarifications twice or once? Why would repeating something make your
point any less bogus?
>
> "Ironically one of the claims against the Discovery Institute was
> that
> they were trying to take us back to the dark ages, a time when
> their
> views could be taken seriously, and Behe confirmed it with his
> Dover
> testimony and further clarification."
>
> > > What RonO is lying about here took place during the testimony, not
> > > after it.
>
> > What did Behe acknowledge?
>
> Nothing like the defamatory thing you have him acknowledging
> ("confirmed it")
Is ID science in the same category as astrology of the dark ages? Did
Behe admit this or not? He admitted that if ID were science then
astrology is also science. What does that mean to you? Did not I
also state that he was talking about astrology as it was practiced in
the dark ages? All true, and trying to misrepresent what I claimed is
stupid, when it was accurate. Demonstrate otherwise. What type of
science is ID? Isn't it the same type that astrology is? What does
it mean when someone admits that if intelligent design is science then
something else is also science? What a dishonest loser.
>
> > This is the type of misrepresentation that
> > Nyikos has to constantly try.
>
> There is no misrepresentation by me here, and Ron O. is lying with his
> implication that I try to misrepresent things.
About all you have done is misrepresent the issue, misdirect the
argument, lie, blame the victims etc. When do you think that you will
try something more honest?
>
> > What difference does it make?
>
> What difference does it make that you defamed Behe and even now are
> not lifting a finger to prove that your defamation was merited? Maybe
> none to a person with YOUR idea of what is shameful.
What defamation? Behe said it and he did what I claimed so if there
was anything wrong with what he said and did why would it be
defamation unless it was dishonest or something? I never said that
Behe lied about it or misrepresented the issue. In fact, he was more
honest than you have ever been in this thread. I agree with Behe that
if intelligent design is considered to be science then astrology as it
was practiced in the dark ages is also science. I would even go
further, alchemy of the dark ages would also be science if intelligent
design is considered to be science. Is that defaming myself? It may
be foreign to you, but some people do tell the truth from time to
time. ID as it is practiced by the ID perps isn't legitimate science
at this time. The main reason for this is because it is just a bogus
scam for them. There may be someone working on something that they
might call intelligent design science, but you never hear about them
because they likely haven't come up with anything worth talking about
at this time. When they do, I am sure that we will hear from them.
>
> You are disgracing the name "Okimoto" with your defamation, in the
> eyes of anyone with a traditional Judeo-Christian sense of morality
> who sees what you have been doing. Maybe in the eyes of the Okimotos
> that never embraced this tradition, you are bringing honor to the
> name. But I hope their morality isn't *that* different from the Judeo-
> Christian.
Nyikos is just a lying sack of shit. You can take that to the bank.
I've never written that about anyone else on TO, but Nyikos is a
special case because he just can't accept responsibility for his own
bogus behavior and has to claim that it is someone else that is lying
when he knows that he is only doing it to try to cover his own
dishonest butt. Why is it always someone elses fault?
I have ethics, but Nyikos obviously does not. Was there ever any
honest intent on Nyikos' part when he made this post? I doubt it. I
will stand behind everything that I have written. Nyikos can't say
that. Well he can say it, but it would just be another bogus lie.
>
> > What did
> > Behe mean or claim that he meant. And he was quoted after his
> > testimony about the issue.
>
> If you have any quotes after the testimony that would exonerate you of
> slander, let's see them. Not a year from now, but right in your reply
> to this post. Otherwise you stand accused of outright slander against
> Behe and the Discovery Institute.
I found this by just googling "Behe and astrology"
QUOTE:
Media Misquotes on Astrology:
•"Another misperception came out in the Q&A session. Behe was asked if
he believed astrology was science because he had been quoted all over
the media as saying astrology would fit in with his definition of
science. Behe stated that at that point in the trial they were
discussing the definition of science. He was asked if astrology was
science and Behe said he stated astrology was considered science in
the 13th and 14th century and that it in part led to astronomy. He was
referring to historical times, not current times. But, the media only
picked up his reference to astrology being acceptable in his
definition of science." (Reasonable Kansans Blog)
END QUOTE:
This is quoted on the Discovery Institute's propaganda page:
http://www.evolutionnews.org/2006/12/michael_behe_speaks_in_kansas002939.html
You will observe how it is either the Discovery Institute or Behe that
is altering what he claimed in his testimony.
I found this on the first page of the search. Looks like Behe tried
to clarify what he said after his testimony, right?
>
> So what difference does it make? This is
>
> > as stupid as "implicated" or "involved" when the ID perps were both
> > implicated and involved in the running the bait and switch.
>
> It WAS stupid of you not to show that they were impllicated, but
> merely involved to some extent, and kept accusing me of moving the
> goalposts when I wanted to see why they were *implicated* in an actual
> bait and switch scam.
Again, what difference does it make when it was the ID perps that were
running the bait and switch?
Were they not both implicated and involved in that case. Trying to
split hairs about something as stupid as this just demonstrates to
what extent you are willing to lower yourself.
"Implicated?" They are still running the bait and switch scam on any
rube stupid enough to claim to want to teach the science of
intelligent design. It is obvious that implicated or involved have
little bearing on the current reality of the bogus ID bait and switch
scam.
>
> It was downright hilarious to see your reaction when I first explained
> the meaning of "implicated" to you and explained why what I did was
> NOT a moving of goalposts. Your response was, in effect, "What
> difference does it make whether they were implicated or not, as long
> as they were implicated?" followed by the usual repetitive drivel.
Hey, Nyikos this means that you are an incompetent fool because you
tried to make a big deal about a difference in words that doesn't
change the reality of the situation. Do you understand that what you
tried was dishonest and bogus? It isn't hilarious, it is just sad
that anyone would have even tried the bogus ploy.
>
> >What a
> > pathetic loser. Does what you are trying to lie about change reality?
>
> You took the words out of my mouth. :-)
Reality hasn't changed and you are still a pathetic liar. The bait
and switch still went down and is still going down. Dishonest denial
is not just dishonest, but stupid.
>
> > > > He claimed that he meant the astrology as it was practiced
> > > > in the dark ages.
>
> > > RonO is cherry-picking and distorting something that Behe said AFTER
> > > he carefully explained what he meant by a "scientific theory":
>
> > Does it matter?
>
> Nice to see that you have NOTHING to add to it that would exonerate
> you of outright slander. But I'll give you one more chance before
> formally accusing you of slander.
You are a pathetic liar. Denial won't change that. Are you talking
about slandering Behe? Accurately stating what he did and said is
slander? Is what Behe admitted so bad that it would be considered to
be slander to demonstrate that he actually did the things that I
claimed? Like I said, I agree with Behe about astrology of the dark
ages and intelligent design of today. If intelligent design is
science then astrology as it was practiced in the dark ages is
science. Am I slandering myself?
>
> [furious backpedaling by Okimoto, but never retracting the defamation,
> deleted here]
Snip and run. lying about running is just pathetic. Didn't I just
say that you were a pathetic liar?
Did you have any honest intent when you wrote this post?
Ron Okimoto
Frank J
> JohnN <jnorri...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >On Feb 14, 12:05 pm, Paul J Gans <gan...@panix.com> wrote:
> >> TomS <TomS_mem...@newsguy.com> wrote:
> >> >"On Sun, 13 Feb 2011 23:37:32 -0500, in article
> >> ><f1chl6p538941um19219nf37cro6mli...@4ax.com>, raven1 stated..."
> >> >[...snip...]
> >> >>1) By what metric is complexity measured?
> >> >[...snip...]
> >> >1a) Is complexity an extensive or an intensive property?
>
> >> In this case it is an intuitive property. Folks know it when
> >> they see it.
>
> >> --
> >> --- Paul J. Gans
> >Can a human actually see Irreducible Complexity with the imperfect
> >Intelligently Designed eyes made by the Intelligent Creator?
>
> First, I was kidding around. Second, it is the ID folks who
> are making unusual claims. There's plenty of evidence *for*
> evolution. It is up to them to produce evidence (not rhetoric)
> for intelligent design.
They don't even need to do that. All they need to do is state what
happened, when, and how in biological history, with about the same
"pathetic level of detail" as mainstream science has. In fact they
started out on that path, but then realized that it conceded almost
everything to mainstream science, and thus would alienate many YECs
and OECs. So their game since then is to pretend that they don't need
to "connect dots."
>
> So far we've seen no presentation of ways to determine if something
> is intelligently designed. Hence my comment above.
Again, they really don't need to say that anything is intelligently
designed, only that it's "not evolution." Their target audience infers
not just a designer, but usually God anyway. And they also infer their
particular childhood fairy tale from the "weaknesses" of evolution,
usually oblivious to the fact that others infer fairy tales that
contradict theirs.
With pseudoscience, sometimes less really is more.
>
> --
> --- Paul J. Gans- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Frank J
You are one of the more original evolution-deniers. Then again, so is
Ray.
> On the other hand, Ron O seems to vacillate between thinking of
> me as a "rube" and thinking of me as a "perp". Most of his explicit
> accusations go with "rube", but for a while his main demand was that I
> "defend the bait and switch scam," as though I were one of the "perps"
> in his eyes.
I see no hard line between rube and perp. Even the professionals at
the traditional YEC and OEC outfits seem to be at least part rube. The
DI gang is pure perp.
>
> >*includes* descent
> > with modification.
>
> There is irony only in the eyes of those who cannot see how others who
> think for themselves come out with conclusions at odds with the two
> extremes, creation ex nihilo of millions of species separately, and
> common descent from the first progenotes (as Woese calls them).
You must like Dembski's article from ~10 years ago where in the same
paragraph he mentions Behe's acceptance of common descent (I think he
prefaced it with "universal") and Woese's "explicit denial" of it.
Dembski of course gives no hint of his own position. Later he said
that he did not think that humans and other apes *evolved* from common
ancestors. I immediately thought "technically, neither does Behe." But
many critics took the bait and crowed that Dembski denied common
descent, when in truth we still don't know.
>
> >That being Behe's "first ancestral cell" in
> > "Darwin's Black Box."
>
> That was only one hypothesis put forth, to show that the bulk of his
> book need not lead to creationism but is compatible with scientific
> methodology.
It's the only one *he* put forth. And he has been retreating from
that, and all others, ever since.
>
> >Even those IDers who peddle the "common descent
> > vs. common design" nonsense know that it's a false dichotomy
> > "designed" to placate their Biblical fans.
>
> Heh. Heh. Here YOU talk about false dichotomy after having implicitly
> embraced it yourself.
No. It's entirely conceivable that common designs could have been
implemented in a "biological continuum," either by evolutionary
processes, or by some "saltational" ones.
>
>
>
> > > Note that I do not insist upon evidence for the theory, or that
> > > the theory be scientific or naturalistic.
>
> > > If nobody can offer such a theory,
>
> I offered one long ago, and have been expounding on it ever since I
> resumed posting to t.o. in December.
Can you list a link to the original post?
>
> > > then I guess that I'd have to
> > > agree with Pagano that the list would be long and embarrassing.
> > > "Long", in the sense that everybody would belong on the list.
> > > "Embarrassing", to be, sure, to the advocates of ID.
>
> Garbage in, garbage out.
>
> Peter Nyikos- Hide quoted text -
TomS
<4eb86622-3dc8-46b0...@o39g2000prb.googlegroups.com>, Frank J
stated..."
Either one must concede almost everything to mainstream science, or
else one must adhere to a truly embarrassing position. (They are
clever enough to realize just how absurd are things like the Vapor
Canopy.)
>
>>
>> So far we've seen no presentation of ways to determine if something
>> is intelligently designed. Hence my comment above.
>
>Again, they really don't need to say that anything is intelligently
>designed, only that it's "not evolution." Their target audience infers
>not just a designer, but usually God anyway. And they also infer their
>particular childhood fairy tale from the "weaknesses" of evolution,
>usually oblivious to the fact that others infer fairy tales that
>contradict theirs.
>
>With pseudoscience, sometimes less really is more.
>
>>
>> --
>> --- Paul J. Gans- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> - Show quoted text -
>
>
pnyikos
> On Feb 16, 9:35 am, pnyikos <nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>
> > On Feb 14, 7:28 am, Ron O <rokim...@cox.net> wrote:
>
> > > On Feb 14, 6:01 am, TomS <TomS_mem...@newsguy.com> wrote:
> > > > > You can download their education
> > > > >briefing packet here:
That's for teachers who want to exercise their free speech rights.
It says nothing about what they want the teachers to teach. The
Wedge document was never officially accepted by the Discovery
Institute.
> > > > >http://www.discovery.org/a/4299
Quote the RELEVANT things from it, Okimoto. For instance:
"For the record, we do not propose that intelligent design should
be mandated in public schools, which is why we strongly
opposed the school district policy at issue in the Kitzmiller v.
Dover case. However, if you voluntarily choose to raise the issue
of intelligent design in your classroom, it is vitally important
that any information you present accurately convey the views
of the scientists and scholars who support intelligent design,
not a caricature of their views. Otherwise you will be engaging
in indoctrination, not education."
> > > > >Apparently the ID perps wrote this in 2007 and have their excuse for
> > > > >Dover in it. They are still claiming to have the science to teach,
Not as is, not to the public schools. Read the above quote until it
starts to sink in.
Then read the rest of the long website, and maybe you'll see all kinds
of things in there that have not registered on your radar screen.
> > > > >but the rubes in Florida didn't get any of it when they wanted to
> > > > >teach the science of intelligent design in 2008-2009. Around half a
> > > > >dozen county school board and probably just as many legislators were
> > > > >claiming that they were going to teach the science of intelligent
> > > > >design in Florida, but the Discovery Institute ran in the bait and
> > > > >switch and what happened to those claims?
What was the bait in this case? The above briefing packet? The
little snippet that I left in below hardly is enough to hang such a
weighty claim on.
> > > > > The Discovery Institute
> > > > >flew Casey Luskin to Florida because it was such a gigantic fiasco in
> > > > >the making. So much for this briefing packet. If they had the ID
> > > > >science where is it when they need it?
"So much for the briefing packet." It looks like you REALLY think the
briefing packet was the bait. So what's all this nonsense about
flying someone down to Florida and then running the BAIT AND switch?
[...]
> > > > > When ID researchers
> > > > >find irreducible complexity in biology, they conclude that such
> > > > >structures were designed.
> > > > >END QUOTE:
Now, this is something that did not register on MY radar screen until
you posted it. I will notify Behe about it; I think he will agree
that it needs to be carefully qualified or taken out. It clashes with
his own careful statements in _Darwin's Black Box_.
Continued in my next post.
Peter Nyikos
pnyikos
> On Feb 16, 9:35 am, pnyikos <nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>
> > On Feb 14, 7:28 am, Ron O <rokim...@cox.net> wrote:
> > > Someone can add the Behe Dover admission that intelligent design
> > > science was equivalent to astrology.
>
> > RonO is lying. The "admission" which he is distorting beyond
> > recognition was in the deposition prior to the Dover trial, and here
> > it is being quoted during Behe's testimony by the cross-examiner:
[snip comment by Ron O, addressed in my first follow-up to his post.
This is the third.]
> > ----------- begin relevant excerpt
> > Q: And I asked you, "Is astrology a theory under that
> > definition?" And you answered, "Is astrology? It could be,
> > yes." Right?
> > A That s correct.
> > ==================== end of excerpt from pp. 41-42 of
> >http://www.aclupa.org/downloads/Day11PMSession.pdf
>
> > "That definition" was clarified earlier in the testimony, on pp.
> > 38-39. Excerpt follows RonO's "testimony":
>
> > > After his testimony Behe tried
> > > to set the record straight, but ended up clarifying why ID wasn't
> > > science.
What utter rot!
> He did.
[irrelevant additional comments, not supporting "He did," deleted]
> > What RonO is lying about here took place during the testimony, not
> > after it.
That is, Behe clarified everything in testimony far beyond what was
needed, and far beyond the little cherry-picked item Ron O. took out
of context; what came out afterwards was superfluous, and only done
because the questioners hadn't really absorbed what Behe had said
during his testimony.
[...]
> > > He claimed that he meant the astrology as it was practiced
> > > in the dark ages.
>
> > RonO is cherry-picking and distorting something that Behe said AFTER
> > he carefully explained what he meant by a "scientific theory":
[...]
> > ----------------------- begin excerpt from pp. 38-39,
> > ------------------------ with line numbers in the margins.
[...]
> > 15 Q And using your definition, intelligent design is a
> > 16 scientific theory, correct?
>
> > 17 A Yes.
>
> > 18 Q Under that same definition astrology is a
> > 19 scientific theory under your definition, correct?
And here came that definition:
> > 20 A Under my definition, a scientific theory is a
> > 21 proposed explanation which focuses or points to physical,
> > 22 observable data and logical inferences. There are many
> > 23 things throughout the history of science which we now think
> > 24 to be incorrect which nonetheless would fit that -- which
> > 25 would fit that definition. Yes, astrology is in fact one,
> > 1 and so is the ether theory of the propagation of light, and
> > 2 many other -- many other theories as well.
Note, he is not JUST talking about astrology here, but something that
was accepted by physicists until the famous Michelson-Morley
experiment.
> > 3 Q The ether theory of light has been discarded,
> > 4 correct?
>
> > 5 A That is correct.
>
> > 6 Q But you are clear, under your definition, the
> > 7 definition that sweeps in intelligent design, astrology is
> > 8 also a scientific theory, correct?
>
> > 9 A Yes, that s correct. And let me explain under my
> > 10 definition of the word "theory," it is -- a sense of the
> > 11 word "theory" does not include the theory being true, it
> > 12 means a proposition based on physical evidence to explain
> > 13 some facts by logical inferences. There have been many
> > 14 theories throughout the history of science which looked good
> > 15 at the time which further progress has shown to be
> > 16 incorrect. Nonetheless, we can t go back and say that
> > 17 because they were incorrect they were not theories. So many
> > 18 many things that we now realized to be incorrect, incorrect
> > 19 theories, are nonetheless theories.
And now comes the part about the middle ages:
> > 1But if you go back, you know, Middle
> > 2 Ages and before that, when people were struggling to
> > 3 describe the natural world, some people might indeed think
> > 4 that it is not a priori -- a priori ruled out that what
> > 5 we -- that motions in the earth could affect things on the
> > 6 earth, or motions in the sky could affect things on the
> > 7 earth.
> > ============ end of excerpt
>
> > > When we didn't know any better and even scientists
> > > like Newton could be alchemists and Kepler could be court
> > > astrologers. Not a very good way to view intelligent design, but
>
> > ...but Behe never *equated* intelligent design with astrology, either
> > then or now. If RonO wants to play games with the word "equated" he
> > might as well go the whole hog and lie that Behe "equated" all of
> > science with astrology, since it all fits Behe's rather broad,
> > informal definition of "scientific theory."
>
> Your own quote says differently.
A lie, a clearly palpable and documentable lie.
> He was read back his testimony and
> he acknowledged it. What does "That is correct" mean to even an IDiot
> as lost as you are? Isn't that his testimony?
It is a miniscule part of his testimony. Read the above, for perhaps
the first time in your life, and learn something.
Maybe NOW you will go the whole hog, eh? :-)
[pack of lies by Ron O. about me deleted here]
Peter Nyikos
richardal...@gmail.com
From the Judges ruling:
"Fuller agreed that ID aspires to “change the ground rules” of science
and lead
defense expert Professor Behe admitted that his broadened definition
of science,
which encompasses ID, would also embrace astrology."
[Page 68 of 139]
Was Judge Jones lying as well?
>
> ----------- begin relevant excerpt
> Q: And I asked you, "Is astrology a theory under that
> definition?" And you answered, "Is astrology? It could be,
> yes." Right?
> A That s correct.
> ==================== end of excerpt from pp. 41-42 ofhttp://www.aclupa.org/downloads/Day11PMSession.pdf
>
> "That definition" was clarified earlier in the testimony, on pp.
> 38-39. Excerpt follows RonO's "testimony":
>
> > After his testimony Behe tried
> > to set the record straight, but ended up clarifying why ID wasn't
> > science.
>
> What RonO is lying about here took place during the testimony, not
> after it.
So was Judge Jones lying in his summary?
>
> > He claimed that he meant the astrology as it was practiced
> > in the dark ages.
>
> RonO is cherry-picking and distorting something that Behe said AFTER
> he carefully explained what he meant by a "scientific theory":
>
...a definition which would allow astrology be considered as a
scientific theory, as Judge Jones stated in his summary.
Was Judge Jones lying?
Well, according to the Judges summary:
Page 68 of 139
"First, defense expert Professor
Fuller agreed that ID aspires to “change the ground rules” of science
and lead
defense expert Professor Behe admitted that his broadened definition
of science,
which encompasses ID, would also embrace astrology."
> If RonO wants to play games with the word "equated" he
> might as well go the whole hog and lie that Behe "equated" all of
> science with astrology, since it all fits Behe's rather broad,
> informal definition of "scientific theory."
So Behe is seeking to have the definition of the term "theory" in
science changed so that he can carry on calling ID a scientific
theory?
>
> > actually accurate because at that time intelligent design was
>
> ...
>
> read more »
pnyikos
> On Feb 16, 11:06 am, pnyikos <nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> > ...but Behe never *equated* intelligent design with astrology, either
> > then or now. If RonO wants to play games with the word "equated" he
> > might as well go the whole hog and lie that Behe "equated" all of
> > science with astrology, since it all fits Behe's rather broad,
> > informal definition of "scientific theory."
>
> Trying to rewrite history is stupid.
Then why do you keep doing it? Keep reading.
> See my response to your first
> attempt.
See my response to THAT, posted a short while ago, and note the bit,
"A lie, a very palpable and documentable lie."
> QUOTE
> 6 Q But you are clear, under your definition, the>
>7 definition that sweeps in intelligent design, astrology is
> > 8 also a scientific theory, correct?
> > 9 A Yes, that s correct.
That only reiterates what he said earlier, AFTER he made it clear what
the definition was. See that response to "THAT", again.
> END QUOTE:
>
> What about equivalent is lost on you?
I am very well acquainted with the way propagandists use it, including
the leftist abortion rights propagandists who dominate talk.abortion.
They seize upon one common element and use it to discredit their
opponents with "You are equating ______ with ____". It's a case of
what I call The One Shade of Gray Meltdown, and they take great pains
to paint it as dark gray as possible.
And you are using it in the same way here. ALL science, including the
queen of sciences, physics (unless you count math as a science, which
I don't), falls under the broad definition of Behe for "scientific
theory". So why AREN'T you going the whole hog?
>By Behe's definition both
> astrology and intelligent design are scientific theories. What is the
> problem? Behe can't exclude astrology from his definition that would
> call ID a scientific theory. The vast majority of scientists disagree
> with Behe's definition for obvious reasons.
I doubt that the average scientist who reads the following, without
knowing its source, would take exception to it:
> > 20 A Under my definition, a scientific theory is a
> > 21 proposed explanation which focuses or points to physical,
> > 22 observable data and logical inferences.
Continued in my next reply.
Peter Nyikos
pnyikos
> > On Feb 14, 7:28 am, Ron O <rokim...@cox.net> wrote:
[about the middle ages:]
> > > at that time intelligent design was the
> > > default explanation for anything that we didn't understand about
> > > nature. The designer did it. Who made the seasons change? Who
> > > pulled the sun and moon across the sky? Who made thunder and
> > > lightning? Who caused disease? Who made those complex babies? Who
> > > made the complex flagellum? It isn't a scientific theory, it is only
> > > a place holder for when we don't have all the answers.
>
> > The above left in because RonO plays games with the word "dishonest"
> > and calls me dishonest for not leaving in everything from the post to
> > which I am replying [...]
> No, only when you snip and run. You have left this in, but have run
> from it at the same time.
So now, anyone you've targeted for defamation, who follows up to
anything you post, without discussing everything in it, gets charged
with running away?
When I did NOT follow up to some posts of yours at all, you accused
me of "running away from the thread"! even though I was very active
on the thread, replying to posts by others.
You give new meaning to the term, "captive audience".
> You are misdirecting the argument because
> you have no counter to the statement.
The statement is a grotesque oversimplification of the position of
Discovery Institute.
It also looks like an attempt to rely on a "plausible deniability"
defense if you ever got sued for libel by Behe. You could say, "when
I said he confirmed that the Discovery Institute wants to take us back
to the dark ages, I only meant the following..."
But while a jury manipulated by a cunning defense attorney might buy
that, I don't think anyone HERE in talk.origins who knows the
connotations of "wants to take us back to the dark ages" and has read
your words in the context of massive spewings of hate for the
Discovery Institute will buy the claim.
[keywords: Galileo, Inquisition, witch]
> That is also bogus and
> dishonest.
There you go again, using the word "dishonest" in a way no sane
responsible person should use it.
>You would likely have been better off just snipping and
> running like you usually do. You have to run because it is the reason
> why Behe can equate astrology from the dark ages with intelligent
> design, because at that time they were equivalent and intelligent
> design never advanced past that point.
The Discovery Institute has advanced the methods way beyond that
point. So have many theists writing about the incredible fine-tuning
of the basic physical constants.
> > > Ironically one of the claims against the Discovery Institute was that
> > > they were trying to take us back to the dark ages, a time when their
> > > views could be taken seriously, and Behe confirmed it with his Dover
> > > testimony and further clarification.
>
> > One grand lie to rule them all.
>
> Perfectly true. Demonstrate that it is a lie. You probably recall
> the accusations that the Discovery Institute was just trying to drag
> science back to the dark ages because you were still posting back
> then.
Are you pretending that the grand lie was NOT the accusation that
Behe confirmed it, but the perfectly true preamble that preceded it?
No wonder you talk about misdirection ploys. You are a cunning
practitioner of the art.
> What kind of loser would claim that someone else was lying
By the way, those accusations are malicious, given the connotations of
"drag science back to the dark ages." The dark ages PRECEDED the
middle ages by the way a lot of historians use those terms, and they
were even worse in the eyes of most people who make that
distinction.
> when
> that is all he intended to do in this post? Did you have an honest
> point to make?
"Have you stopped beating your wife yet?"
Peter Nyikos
Bob Casanova
appeared in talk.origins, posted by Paul J Gans
<gan...@panix.com>:
>JohnN <jnor...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>On Feb 14, 12:05 pm, Paul J Gans <gan...@panix.com> wrote:
>>> TomS <TomS_mem...@newsguy.com> wrote:
>>> >"On Sun, 13 Feb 2011 23:37:32 -0500, in article
>>> ><f1chl6p538941um19219nf37cro6mli...@4ax.com>, raven1 stated..."
>>> >[...snip...]
>>> >>1) By what metric is complexity measured?
>>> >[...snip...]
>>> >1a) Is complexity an extensive or an intensive property?
>>>
>>> In this case it is an intuitive property. Folks know it when
>>> they see it.
>>Can a human actually see Irreducible Complexity with the imperfect
>>Intelligently Designed eyes made by the Intelligent Creator?
>
>First, I was kidding around.
That was obvious; so was JohnN (IMHO).
> Second, it is the ID folks who
>are making unusual claims. There's plenty of evidence *for*
>evolution. It is up to them to produce evidence (not rhetoric)
>for intelligent design.
>
>So far we've seen no presentation of ways to determine if something
>is intelligently designed. Hence my comment above.
Given that Irreducible Complexity isn't an observation of
any sort, but an expression of incredulity (unless, of
course, the proponents think they themselves are omniscient,
which they may) it's a moot point. By its nature, IC implies
total knowledge of nature and reality.
Walter Bushell
Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off> wrote:
> On Thu, 17 Feb 2011 03:45:57 -0500, the following appeared
> in talk.origins, posted by Walter Bushell <pr...@panix.com>:
>
> >In article <6saol6ttomuo19os0...@4ax.com>,
> > Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off> wrote:
> >
> >> [Crickets...]
> >>
> >> As usual.
> >>
> >> Brave, brave Sir Tony...
> >
> >Now, now. You know what happened to the minstrels.
>
> Absolutely; they get to blow raspberries at Tony while he
> runs away.
Canon say the party runs out of food and they had to eat the minstrels
"and there was much rejoicing".
>
> >Remember the story of Bunny Phoo Phoo, "Hare today; soup tomorrow."
--
Inez
> The list would be long and embarassing. It would undoubtedly include
> some of the academic heavy weights like Wilkins, Harshman and Okimoto
> who have repeatedly demonstrated that they have never cracked open the
> requisite reading. Harshman, for example, admits his blissful
> ignorance. Perhaps even Gans would be on the list. A quick trip down
> memory lane at the Google archive should easily determine that.
>
> Just a thought. . .
>
> Regards,
> T Pagano
That list might well include everyone on the world, so I hope you
fellows have a large supply of pencils. You can certainly put me on
the list; if there is a scientific theory of ID for living things I'm
certainly ignorant of it.
Frank J
> "On Fri, 18 Feb 2011 06:03:59 -0800 (PST), in article
All of the "alternate" positions are embarrasingly bad to scientists
and science-literate nonscientists. But many nonscientists who
consider full-grown organisms popping out of the dust as absurd as a
flat-Earth, might find Behe's 4 billion years of "virtual evolution"
convincing, especially if they want to believe that "Darwinism" is
"weak." OTOH it's at least more consistent to deny everything and just
claim that the universe was created last Thursday. As you know, most
science-challenged people, for cultural reasons, prefer some
"intermediate" position (e.g YEC, day-age, gap), but many (most?) in
that group realize that they must at least play favorites with the
evidence to defend their position, and that even then they will likely
contradict others who do the same. So they almost instinctively learn
to say as little as possible about their position, and concentrate on
spreading misinformation about evolution.
>
> >> So far we've seen no presentation of ways to determine if something
> >> is intelligently designed. Hence my comment above.
>
> >Again, they really don't need to say that anything is intelligently
> >designed, only that it's "not evolution." Their target audience infers
> >not just a designer, but usually God anyway. And they also infer their
> >particular childhood fairy tale from the "weaknesses" of evolution,
> >usually oblivious to the fact that others infer fairy tales that
> >contradict theirs.
>
> >With pseudoscience, sometimes less really is more.
>
> >> --
> >> --- Paul J. Gans- Hide quoted text -
>
> >> - Show quoted text -
>
> --
> ---Tom S.
> "... the heavy people know some magic that can make things move and even fly,
> but they're not very bright, because they can't survive without their magic
> contrivances"
> Xixo, in "The Gods Must Be Crazy II"- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
Inez
one way or another about evolution and arrive at their "opinions"
based on how they think that will make them look to their social
group. I know no end of people who claim to "believe in God" but who
don't actually go to any sort of church or have any defined spiritual
beliefs beyond liking to think that some mysterious paternal force
will prevent them from getting cancer or being hit by a bus. I
suspect few of them ever rise to the level of thinking about
evidence.
pnyikos
> On Feb 13, 9:10 am, T Pagano <not.va...@address.net> wrote:
>
> > The list would be long and embarassing. It would undoubtedly include
> > some of the academic heavy weights like Wilkins, Harshman and Okimoto
> > who have repeatedly demonstrated that they have never cracked open the
> > requisite reading. Harshman, for example, admits his blissful
> > ignorance. Perhaps even Gans would be on the list.
Gans is so ignorant, he thought I was a creationist just because I
exposed the lies of one evolutionist after another, but couldn't find
examples of clear-cut lies (as opposed to mountains of ignorance) by
the creationists.
I suffer fools gladly, knaves not gladly and in some cases, not at
all.
> > A quick trip down
> > memory lane at the Google archive should easily determine that.
>
> > Just a thought. . .
>
> > Regards,
> > T Pagano
>
> ID "theory" is *defined* such that the only way to *not* be accused of
> being ignorant is to rave about it.
Maybe by the ignorant. Not by me.
> Read those embarrassingly bad letters-to-the-editor (google several
> years of Jason Spaceman's posts for a start)
I've read some of what he's written, and I can't recall any sign of
ignorance by him as to what ID is or could be. If you can steer me to
some good examples, that would be a great start.
>by Biblical creationists
> who confuse ID with their brand of creationism, despite painstaking
> efforts of ID peddlers to differentiate ID from the mutually-
> contradictory brands of Biblical creationism. Do the ID peddlers ever
> accuse *them* of being ignorant of ID "theory"? Will pnyikos include
> *them* on his list?
From them so far, I've only encountered ignorance by Ray Martinez, and
he's mostly focused on his ignorance of other issues.
If you can document some examples of other creationists showing
ignorance, that would be a great start.
Peter Nyikos
Frank J
I think that's not just "a lot" but the great majority, most of whom
know everything they know about evolution via misleading popular sound
bites. Most adults long forgot what they learned in high school
biology.
> know no end of people who claim to "believe in God" but who
> don't actually go to any sort of church or have any defined spiritual
> beliefs beyond liking to think that some mysterious paternal force
> will prevent them from getting cancer or being hit by a bus. I
> suspect few of them ever rise to the level of thinking about
> evidence.
Exactly. That's why it's a battle of sound bites, competing for
minimal attention spans (due more to lack of interest than anything),
and that sound bites of incredulity have a cumulative effect, even if
they contradict other sound bites of incredulity.
Frank J
I am referring to the letters' authors, not Jason, who merely posts
those letters, and apparently finds them amusing at best.
You, and readers, know how to search for them. Not all of them are
examples, of course, of Biblical literalists completely confusing the
ID strategy with a diret promotion of their particular brand of
creationism. But I have seen quite a few over the years.
>
> >by Biblical creationists
> > who confuse ID with their brand of creationism, despite painstaking
> > efforts of ID peddlers to differentiate ID from the mutually-
> > contradictory brands of Biblical creationism. Do the ID peddlers ever
> > accuse *them* of being ignorant of ID "theory"? Will pnyikos include
> > *them* on his list?
>
> From them so far, I've only encountered ignorance by Ray Martinez, and
> he's mostly focused on his ignorance of other issues.
>
> If you can document some examples of other creationists showing
> ignorance, that would be a great start.
What is it with evolution-deniers always trying to get others to do
their job?
I'll just throw out a few of the biggest names. You can tell me
whether you think they belong on your list or not:
Ken Ham
William Dembski
Michael Behe
>
> Peter Nyikos
pnyikos
<richardalanforr...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Feb 16, 3:35 pm, pnyikos <nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>
> > On Feb 14, 7:28 am, Ron O <rokim...@cox.net> wrote:
>
> > > Someone can add the Behe Dover admission that intelligent design
> > > science was equivalent to astrology.
>
> > RonO is lying. The "admission" which he is distorting beyond
> > recognition was in the deposition prior to the Dover trial, and here
> > it is being quoted during Behe's testimony by the cross-examiner:
>
> From the Judges ruling:
> "Fuller agreed that ID aspires to “change the ground rules” of science
> and lead
> defense expert Professor Behe admitted that his broadened definition
> of science,
> which encompasses ID, would also embrace astrology."
> [Page 68 of 139]
> Was Judge Jones lying as well?
Did the word "equivalent" not register on your radar screen?
> > ----------- begin relevant excerpt
> > Q: And I asked you, "Is astrology a theory under that
> > definition?" And you answered, "Is astrology? It could be,
> > yes." Right?
> > A That s correct.
> > ==================== end of excerpt from pp. 41-42 of
> >http://www.aclupa.org/downloads/Day11PMSession.pdf
>
> > "That definition" was clarified earlier in the testimony, on pp.
> > 38-39. Excerpt follows RonO's "testimony":
>
> > > After his testimony Behe tried
> > > to set the record straight, but ended up clarifying why ID wasn't
> > > science.
>
> > What RonO is lying about here took place during the testimony, not
> > after it.
>
> So was Judge Jones lying in his summary?
Did Judge Jones claim that Behe had clarified why ID wasn't science?
Are you shackling yourself to Ron Okimoto's claim that Behe clarified
why ID isn't science? Can you succeed in demonstrating it instead of
wildly waving your hands like Okimoto is doing?
>
>
> > > He claimed that he meant the astrology as it was practiced
> > > in the dark ages.
>
> > RonO is cherry-picking and distorting something that Behe said AFTER
> > he carefully explained what he meant by a "scientific theory":
>
> ...a definition which would allow astrology be considered as a
> scientific theory,
Along with the phlogiston theory when people didn't have the data to
refute it, along with the luminiferous ether theory before the
Michelson-Morley experiment.
It was still a scientific theory for a short while afterwards:
reputable physicists hypothesized such things as the earth dragging
the ether with it, the ether causing a compression of the Michelson-
Morley apparatus in the direction of its movement, etc.
Also, there was no viable alternative that would explain the wave
nature of light as it travels through space. Now special relativity
has a comprehensive theory that gives an alternative explanation for
the compression (yes, Virginia, there is compression there!) and the
quantum theory has resulted in a "marriage" between the wave and
corpuscle theories.
>as Judge Jones stated in his summary.
>
> Was Judge Jones lying?
Nice display of hand waving there.
> > ----------------------- begin excerpt from pp. 38-39,
> > ------------------------ with line numbers in the margins.
> > 2 But in
> > 3 fact, the scientific community uses the word "theory" in
> > 4 many times as synonymous with the word "hypothesis," other
> > 5 times it uses the word as a synonym for the definition
> > 6 reached by the National Academy, and at other times it uses
> > 7 it in other ways.
> > 8 Q But the way you are using it is synonymous with the
> > 9 definition of hypothesis?
> > 10 A No, I would disagree. It can be used to cover
> > 11 hypotheses, but it can also include ideas that are in fact
> > 12 well substantiated and so on.
That "so on" could include a reference to the usual use of
"hypothesis" as an explanation for the limited number of facts
enumerated in a research paper. The Discovery Institute is using a
theory that addresses a huge and heterogeneous and growing assortment
of phenomena. Its researchers -- the better ones at least -- don't
automatically hypothesize that this or that is due to design without
carefully scrutinizing the data.
> >So while it does include
> > 13 ideas that are synonymous or in fact are hypotheses, it also
> > 14 includes stronger senses of that term.
> > 15 Q And using your definition, intelligent design is a
> > 16 scientific theory, correct?
> > 17 A Yes.
> > 18 Q Under that same definition astrology is a
> > 19 scientific theory under your definition, correct?
Behe very sensibly delayed answering the question, perhaps knowing the
mindset of his critics better than they know their own:
> > 20 A Under my definition, a scientific theory is a
> > 21 proposed explanation which focuses or points to physical,
> > 22 observable data and logical inferences.
Note the use of "many things" below. The scuttlebutt in this thread
depends on a tunnel vision that only sees the question and what Behe
said that was in direct answer to it.
> >There are many
> > 23 things throughout the history of science which we now think
> > 24 to be incorrect which nonetheless would fit that -- which
> > 25 would fit that definition. Yes, astrology is in fact one,
> > 1 and so is the ether theory of the propagation of light, and
> > 2 many other -- many other theories as well.
The questioner, to give him credit, did not succumb to the tunnel
vision which seems to have you in its grip, Richard Alan Forrest.
> > 3 Q The ether theory of light has been discarded,
> > 4 correct?
> > 5 A That is correct.
[...]
> >There have been many
> > 14 theories throughout the history of science which looked good
> > 15 at the time which further progress has shown to be
> > 16 incorrect. Nonetheless, we can t go back and say that
> > 17 because they were incorrect they were not theories. So many
> > 18 many things that we now realized to be incorrect, incorrect
> > 19 theories, are nonetheless theories.
[...]
> > ============ end of excerpt
>
> > > When we didn't know any better and even scientists
> > > like Newton could be alchemists and Kepler could be court
> > > astrologers. Not a very good way to view intelligent design, but
>
> > ...but Behe never *equated* intelligent design with astrology, either
> > then or now.
>
> Well, according to the Judges summary:
Even with my highlighting with asterisks, the word "equated" didn't
register on your radar screen.
See what I wrote about the propagandistic uses of the word "equated"
in response to Ron O.
[repetition of above summary deleted]
> > If RonO wants to play games with the word "equated" he
> > might as well go the whole hog and lie that Behe "equated" all of
> > science with astrology, since it all fits Behe's rather broad,
> > informal definition of "scientific theory."
>
> So Behe is seeking to have the definition of the term "theory" in
> science changed
No. He is simply not adopting the "awestruck" definition that
scientists typically use when they have a grand theory that they want
to make a cornerstone of a huge swath of science. Like Dobzhansky's
awestruck claim that "nothing in biology makes sense except in the
light of evolution."
Well, the basis of all life as we know it is DNA and enzymes and the
protein translation mechanism, and evolution has yet to shine much
light on any of them. It's biochemistry that makes sense of these
three things and how each is absolutely dependent on the other two.
Evolutionary scientists merely take the grand theory of the genetic
code, etc. and utilize it in making sense of evolution.
You don't know much about any of this, do you?
Peter Nyikos
pnyikos
but an inference drawn from numerous observations, including the data
on genetically engineered mice that Doolittle got completely wrong and
Behe got right.
You can read about it on pp. 12-15 of the following transcript.
http://www.aclupa.org/downloads/Day11AM.pdf
You can also read aboutof Michael Ruse's uncritical reading of
Doolittle (pp. 20-21) and Neil Greenspan's (pp. 22-23). These
scientists,and many others, simply took Doolittle's word for what
those mice were like and never bothered to read the original research
article.
> but an expression of incredulity (unless, of
> course, the proponents think they themselves are omniscient,
> which they may)
Well, Bob, I'm afraid that you belong on the list that Tony Pagano
suggested I compile in the post that began this thread.
>it's a moot point. By its nature, IC implies
> total knowledge of nature and reality.
In fact, I've never seen a more remarkable misconception than this
one.
Peter Nyikos
pnyikos
<sigh> I guess I'd better stress ID in the next follow-up I do to you
on the subject of directed panspermy. It's been hovering in the
background all the time, what with any panspermists having to be
highly intelligent and knowledgeable about what kinds of organisms are
likely to survive the long trip through space.
Genetic engineering certainly must have come into consideration, and
probably was used, perhaps to a far greater degree and a far more
advanced way than anything we've done so far. That's intelligent
design in the quite literal sense of the concept.
Peter Nyikos
pnyikos
What is it with you, implying I am an evolution denier? Haven't I
corrected you enough times on this already?
> I'll just throw out a few of the biggest names. You can tell me
> whether you think they belong on your list or not:
>
> Ken Ham
I don't recall coming across his name before. Where's the evidence
that he is a creationist?
> William Dembski
> Michael Behe
Do you really think these two are creationists???? What cockamamy
definition of "creationist" ARE you using???
Peter Nyikos
pnyikos
> On Feb 17, 6:53 pm, pnyikos <nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> > On Feb 17, 6:03 am, Frank J <f...@verizon.net> wrote:
[to Tom S.]
> > > C'mon, you of all know the irony that the closest thing to an ID
> > > "theory" ever put forth by the peddlers of the scam
>
> > Nice to know YOU don't think of me as one of the peddlers of the
> > scam.
>
> You are one of the more original evolution-deniers.
I'm really tempted to compile a list of people who incorrigibly repeat
the false claim that I am an evolution denier.
I've believed in the evolution of all earth life from simple organisms
since I was 7. Let's see how long YOU have believed in evolution.
>Then again, so is
> Ray.
Ray is the evolution deniers' evolution denier. He doesn't even
believe in microevolution, AFAIK.
> > On the other hand, Ron O seems to vacillate between thinking of
> > me as a "rube" and thinking of me as a "perp". Most of his explicit
> > accusations go with "rube", but for a while his main demand was that I
> > "defend the bait and switch scam," as though I were one of the "perps"
> > in his eyes.
>
> I see no hard line between rube and perp. Even the professionals at
> the traditional YEC and OEC outfits seem to be at least part rube. The
> DI gang is pure perp.
Prove it.
The biggest perp I know of in talk.origins is Ron Okimoto: he is a
dedicated perpetrator of injustice against the Discovery Institute,
Behe, and me.
But jillery seems to be giving him some competition, at least where I
am concerned. And if you don't stop calling me an evolution denier,
you will be a perpetrator of injustice too, albeit not a particularly
dedicated one.
> > >*includes* descent
> > > with modification.
>
> > There is irony only in the eyes of those who cannot see how others who
> > think for themselves come out with conclusions at odds with the two
> > extremes, creation ex nihilo of millions of species separately, and
> > common descent from the first progenotes (as Woese calls them).
>
> You must like Dembski's article from ~10 years ago where in the same
> paragraph he mentions Behe's acceptance of common descent (I think he
> prefaced it with "universal") and Woese's "explicit denial" of it.
Well, Woese can be read that way, as I said somewhere in talk.origins
yesterday. [I'm involved in so many threads, I've given up memorizing
where I said what. That would be fatal if I were dishonest, but
nobody has been able to pin any act of dishonesty on me on Usenet,
despite mountains of blatherings by Ron O about how this and that is
supposed to be dishonest.]
> Dembski of course gives no hint of his own position. Later he said
> that he did not think that humans and other apes *evolved* from common
> ancestors. I immediately thought "technically, neither does Behe."
I don't follow you at all here. Are you sure you know what you are
talking about?
> But
> many critics took the bait and crowed that Dembski denied common
> descent, when in truth we still don't know.
Well, how DO you interpret what you are citing about him and
"evolved"?
> > >That being Behe's "first ancestral cell" in
> > > "Darwin's Black Box."
>
> > That was only one hypothesis put forth, to show that the bulk of his
> > book need not lead to creationism but is compatible with scientific
> > methodology.
>
> It's the only one *he* put forth.
False. He also mentioned directed panspermia, Crick's version, which
could include lots of originally designed organisms. You can see him
talking about it in the Dover transcripts too.
>And he has been retreating from
> that, and all others, ever since.
I don't believe you about the "all others" part. Of course, if you
think that one ancestral cell bit is all he put forth, then of course
you feel free to say anything about the empty set.
> > I offered one long ago, and have been expounding on it ever since I
> > resumed posting to t.o. in December.
>
> Can you list a link to the original post?
Sorry, I've expounded on it so often, I no longer have any
recollection of what my original post on this might have been. It was
back in 1996, I believe, but it might have been the following year.
Peter Nyikos
John Harshman
!
>> William Dembski
>> Michael Behe
>
> Do you really think these two are creationists???? What cockamamy
> definition of "creationist" ARE you using???
I'll give you Behe. But what makes you think Dembski isn't a
creationist? He believes in a literal, worldwide flood, appears to deny
that humans and chimps are related at all, and professes to have no clue
about how old the earth is.
Ron O
> On Feb 16, 8:25 pm, Ron O <rokim...@cox.net> wrote:
>
> > On Feb 16, 11:06 am, pnyikos <nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> > > ...but Behe never *equated* intelligent design with astrology, either
> > > then or now. If RonO wants to play games with the word "equated" he
> > > might as well go the whole hog and lie that Behe "equated" all of
> > > science with astrology, since it all fits Behe's rather broad,
> > > informal definition of "scientific theory."
>
> > Trying to rewrite history is stupid.
>
> Then why do you keep doing it? Keep reading.
Are you saying that Behe lied and both ID and astrology are not the
same type of science?
>
> > See my response to your first
> > attempt.
>
> See my response to THAT, posted a short while ago, and note the bit,
> "A lie, a very palpable and documentable lie."
>
> > QUOTE
> > 6 Q But you are clear, under your definition, the>
> >7 definition that sweeps in intelligent design, astrology is
> > > 8 also a scientific theory, correct?
> > > 9 A Yes, that s correct.
>
> That only reiterates what he said earlier, AFTER he made it clear what
> the definition was. See that response to "THAT", again.
This quote came when Behe was brought back on track because he was
waffling. The lawyer had to make him focus on the topic at hand and
confirm what he had previously said.
>
> > END QUOTE:
>
> > What about equivalent is lost on you?
>
> I am very well acquainted with the way propagandists use it, including
> the leftist abortion rights propagandists who dominate talk.abortion.
> They seize upon one common element and use it to discredit their
> opponents with "You are equating ______ with ____". It's a case of
> what I call The One Shade of Gray Meltdown, and they take great pains
> to paint it as dark gray as possible.
Behe didn't mean modern astrology. I have already said that, so what
is your beef. ID science is the same as astrology of the dark ages.
Why can't Behe make that same claim about biological evolution? Why
couldn't he have said that ID was the same type of science as
biological evolution? There is no propaganda here. It is just a fact
that ID is not considered to be science by the vast majority of
scientists. Only a few IDiots and ID perps think that it qualifies as
science. Even Meyer had to admit that ID was only science in his mind
to the Ohio rubes. They understood what he told them because some of
the members of the state board put forward a resolution that they
change the definition of science so that they could teach ID as
science in the science class. That is a fact. Why would the Ohio
rubes make that proposal if it was clear to them that ID was the type
of science that they could teach? Why did they end up bending over
and taking a switch scam from the guys that they know lied to them
about the science of ID? You know what they got. It is just a bogus
obfuscation scam that doesn't mention that ID ever existed.
There is no propaganda here, only the facts. You just can't deal with
the facts in an honest manner. IDiots like you are the reason that ID
is such a degenerate fiasco. When did it become more important to lie
to yourself about the science of ID instead of rolling up your sleeves
and trying to fix what was broken? Don't you think that it is tragic
that the ID perps would be more concerned with continuing to run the
bait and switch rather than demonstrate that they know where they came
up short and put up some type of plan to try to fix what is broken?
There isn't a single IDiot or ID perp that I know of that is doing
that. They are all like you and just pretending that the science will
magically appear and will make all the lies OK, but the bait and
switch has been going down for over 8 years and no miracles have
happened, have they?
>
> And you are using it in the same way here. ALL science, including the
> queen of sciences, physics (unless you count math as a science, which
> I don't), falls under the broad definition of Behe for "scientific
> theory". So why AREN'T you going the whole hog?
No, I am not. The bulk of them were not making the distinction
between the bogus astrology of today compared to the claptrap that
passed for astrology of the dark ages. Behe knew what type of science
ID was. Because ID was the default explanation at the time that
astrology was practiced by "scientists" and it never progressed passed
that type of science. The ID of today is no better science than
alchemy and vitalism. That is just a fact.
>
> >By Behe's definition both
>
> > astrology and intelligent design are scientific theories. What is the
> > problem? Behe can't exclude astrology from his definition that would
> > call ID a scientific theory. The vast majority of scientists disagree
> > with Behe's definition for obvious reasons.
>
> I doubt that the average scientist who reads the following, without
> knowing its source, would take exception to it:
That is not the modern definition of a scientific theory. It may have
been enough back in the dark ages, but ID doesn't even qualify as a
testable hypothesis today. An untestable hypothesis is so far from
what modern science considers to be a scientific theory that you are
stupid if any definition of theory that would include ID was the same
thing.
>
> > > 20 A Under my definition, a scientific theory is a
> > > 21 proposed explanation which focuses or points to physical,
> > > 22 observable data and logical inferences.
There has to be more because a theory is more than just making things
up. ID never got to first base. A modern scientific theory is the
highest level that an a scientific explanation can attain. It has to
have been verified and tested. It has to be the best scientific
explanation available or it is a failed theory. It isn't just some
stupid notion like the corn harvest determines the outcome of the
Superbowl because Uncle Joe says so and has lived through a lot of
harvests and Superbowls. That is literally what your three lines
equates to without further elucidation that would exclude ID as being
a valid scientific theory. Behe is just using the loose use of
"theory" that any one can use. "I've got a theory" is not the same as
"the scientific theory of intelligent design is..." You know the
difference between a verified valid scientific theory and an untested
hypothesis. So stop pretending that Behe's waffling means jack.
Ron Okimoto
Ron O
> On Feb 16, 8:25 pm, Ron O <rokim...@cox.net> wrote:
>
> > On Feb 16, 11:06 am, pnyikos <nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> > > On Feb 14, 7:28 am, Ron O <rokim...@cox.net> wrote:
>
> [about the middle ages:]
>
> > > > at that time intelligent design was the
> > > > default explanation for anything that we didn't understand about
> > > > nature. The designer did it. Who made the seasons change? Who
> > > > pulled the sun and moon across the sky? Who made thunder and
> > > > lightning? Who caused disease? Who made those complex babies? Who
> > > > made the complex flagellum? It isn't a scientific theory, it is only
> > > > a place holder for when we don't have all the answers.
>
> > > The above left in because RonO plays games with the word "dishonest"
> > > and calls me dishonest for not leaving in everything from the post to
> > > which I am replying [...]
> > No, only when you snip and run. You have left this in, but have run
> > from it at the same time.
>
> So now, anyone you've targeted for defamation, who follows up to
> anything you post, without discussing everything in it, gets charged
> with running away?
No, but when you lie about what you snip out it does make it an issue,
and you have done that repeatedly.
>
> When I did NOT follow up to some posts of yours at all, you accused
> me of "running away from the thread"! even though I was very active
> on the thread, replying to posts by others.
You ran because you usually evaded by asking for more evidence or
lying and when confronted with the additional evidence or exposed as a
liar you ran.
>
> You give new meaning to the term, "captive audience".
You are about the saddest lying evader that I have encountered in a
long time. Claiming that someone else is running when you know what
you are running from. Claiming that someone else is lying to cover
your own dishonest butt. You are just sad.
>
> > You are misdirecting the argument because
> > you have no counter to the statement.
>
> The statement is a grotesque oversimplification of the position of
> Discovery Institute.
You are misdirecting the argument in order to run from what you can't
deal with. That is just the facts. Lying about it isn't going to
change reality. Instead of misdirection why not face the issue
instead of lying and running? The bait and switch has been going down
for over 8 years. The same guys that sold you the ID claptrap are
running the bait and switch scam. Not only that, but you now know
that they are still claiming that some poor ignorant or incompetent
teacher can teach the science of ID when they aren't willing to
demonstrate that there is anything to teach by putting up a lesson
plan to show the poor teacher what it is that she can legally do.
That is so bogus that you should be ashamed to even try to defend the
Discovery Institute. They should have admitted that they never had
the science like Johnson did and tell the rubes that they should give
up on teaching anything about intelligent design or creationism until
they get their act together and develop the science to the point that
they can actually teach it.
Only the ignorant, incompetent and or dishonest continue to support
the ID scam and you know this to be a fact. You would demonstrate
otherwise if you could, but you would rather run and pretend, lie,
blame the victims, misdirect the argument, and what good does it do
you. It doesn't change reality does it? It just makes you look like
a low life loser.
>
> It also looks like an attempt to rely on a "plausible deniability"
> defense if you ever got sued for libel by Behe. You could say, "when
> I said he confirmed that the Discovery Institute wants to take us back
> to the dark ages, I only meant the following..."
No. I said that I have seen it stated that the ID perps just want to
take science back to the dark ages. You have seen similar statements
so you know that, that is true. It is just a fact that Behe's
testimony can be used to verify that statement. Behe wants science as
it was practiced in the dark ages to be allowed as viable science in
modern classrooms.
>
> But while a jury manipulated by a cunning defense attorney might buy
> that, I don't think anyone HERE in talk.origins who knows the
> connotations of "wants to take us back to the dark ages" and has read
> your words in the context of massive spewings of hate for the
> Discovery Institute will buy the claim.
No manipulation needed, just take the Behe quote and let it speak for
itself. The jury might have to be told the difference between a wild
assed guess and a modern scientific theory, but any competent person
would see the difference.
>
> [keywords: Galileo, Inquisition, witch]
Wasn't it the IDiots of the day that did that? Wasn't that at around
the end of the dark ages? Wasn't that one of the reasons why it was
considered to be the dark ages? Talk about shooting yourself in the
foot. What a bumbling IDiot. Not only that, but I would likely be
the Galileo character that they were trying to roast, not the other
way around. What is the difference between a modern scientific theory
and what Behe was describing?
>
> > That is also bogus and
> > dishonest.
>
> There you go again, using the word "dishonest" in a way no sane
> responsible person should use it.
Well, if you weren't so dishonest I wouldn't be able to say it without
looking like a liar. Since I am not lying what is your problem?
Misdirection ploys are dishonest. Just because it is a way of life
for you doesn't change that fact.
>
> >You would likely have been better off just snipping and
> > running like you usually do. You have to run because it is the reason
> > why Behe can equate astrology from the dark ages with intelligent
> > design, because at that time they were equivalent and intelligent
> > design never advanced past that point.
>
> The Discovery Institute has advanced the methods way beyond that
> point. So have many theists writing about the incredible fine-tuning
> of the basic physical constants.
So, why are they still running the bait and switch. They are still
claiming that some poor rube teacher can teach the junk, but what
happens when someone claims to want to teach the science of
intelligent design? If the ID claptrap had made the grade we would
already be teaching it.
>
> > > > Ironically one of the claims against the Discovery Institute was that
> > > > they were trying to take us back to the dark ages, a time when their
> > > > views could be taken seriously, and Behe confirmed it with his Dover
> > > > testimony and further clarification.
>
> > > One grand lie to rule them all.
>
> > Perfectly true. Demonstrate that it is a lie. You probably recall
> > the accusations that the Discovery Institute was just trying to drag
> > science back to the dark ages because you were still posting back
> > then.
>
> Are you pretending that the grand lie was NOT the accusation that
> Behe confirmed it, but the perfectly true preamble that preceded it?
Behe did exactly what I said. You can twist it any way you want, but
it doesn't change the reality of the fact that ID is not modern
science. It doesn't qualify to be a modern scientific theory because
a scientific theory such as biological evolution is more than just a
wild assed guess about something and you know it.
>
> No wonder you talk about misdirection ploys. You are a cunning
> practitioner of the art.
I stand by what I have claimed and you can't deny it. Just
demonstrate that ID has a scientific theory equivalent to biological
evolution. You can't do that because ID never got past the part where
they made the junk up.
>
> > What kind of loser would claim that someone else was lying
>
> By the way, those accusations are malicious, given the connotations of
> "drag science back to the dark ages." The dark ages PRECEDED the
> middle ages by the way a lot of historians use those terms, and they
> were even worse in the eyes of most people who make that
> distinction.
It is called the middle ages because it falls between the era of the
Roman empire and the early modern era of enlightenment. There is a
modern distinction, but it doesn't help you much. I don't use the
term the way a lot of historians use it. I guess that I am just old
fashioned. I guess I just don't care about changing things when they
were still burning people at the stake throughout the middle ages and
not just the early stages of it. When did the Renaissance start?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Middle_Ages
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_Ages
>
> > when
> > that is all he intended to do in this post? Did you have an honest
> > point to make?
>
> "Have you stopped beating your wife yet?"
>
> Peter Nyikos
Ending with a dishonest ploy. What a loser. Did you have any honest
intent when you wrote this post? Your lies and dishonesty are
apparent. What evidence do you have that I have ever even struck my
wife a single time? Only a sad lying loser would not accept the
difference in that. Only a degenerate sack of shit would end a post
like that.
Ron Okimoto
Paul J Gans
>I think that a lot of people (at least here in the US) don't care much
>one way or another about evolution and arrive at their "opinions"
>based on how they think that will make them look to their social
>group. I know no end of people who claim to "believe in God" but who
>don't actually go to any sort of church or have any defined spiritual
>beliefs beyond liking to think that some mysterious paternal force
>will prevent them from getting cancer or being hit by a bus. I
>suspect few of them ever rise to the level of thinking about
>evidence.
In my opinion you are so right! I think this even extends to
a fair number of politicians as well.
pnyikos
Why the exclamation mark? Why should I have come across his name
before?
> >> William Dembski
> >> Michael Behe
>
> > Do you really think these two are creationists???? What cockamamy
> > definition of "creationist" ARE you using???
>
> I'll give you Behe. But what makes you think Dembski isn't a
> creationist? He believes in a literal, worldwide flood, appears to deny
> that humans and chimps are related at all, and professes to have no clue
> about how old the earth is.
I'll take your word for this for the nonce, but I'd like to see some
documentation eventually. I've associated Dembski with some fairly
level-headed articles; for instance, his long treatise on his version
of Irreducible Complexity, where he talks about the "Irreducible Core"
of a system; also about how low a probability one should assign
something before hypothesizing that it is the result of ID. He also
did some neat comparisons of DI with SETI.
Do the <sarcasm on> SETI perps think they have the e.t. science to
teach to the school kids? <sarcasm off>
Peter Nyikos
Ron O
> On Feb 16, 7:55 pm, Ron O <rokim...@cox.net> wrote:
>
> > On Feb 16, 9:35 am, pnyikos <nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>
> > > On Feb 14, 7:28 am, Ron O <rokim...@cox.net> wrote:
>
> > > > On Feb 14, 6:01 am, TomS <TomS_mem...@newsguy.com> wrote:
> > > > > > You can download their education
> > > > > >briefing packet here:
>
> That's for teachers who want to exercise their free speech rights.
> It says nothing about what they want the teachers to teach. The
> Wedge document was never officially accepted by the Discovery
> Institute.
It is anyones right to exercise free speech, but telling someone that
they can break the law and lying to them about it is something else.
There is no science of intelligent design to teach. The teacher can
challenge the existing laws, but lying to someone in order to get them
to do it is not just dishonest, but reprehensible. Anyone, even a
teacher can stand up on a street corner and say whatever they want to,
but that doesn't give them license to break the law. They may believe
that the law is unjust and purposely break the law as a form of
political expression, but they have to be willing to face the
consequences for their actions and be willing to take the issue into
the courts and test the law. Fooling someone to do that is pretty
slimy, but what do you expect from the scam artists that are running
the bait and switch scam on their own creationist support base. The
ID perps ran the bait and switch on IDiots like Nyikos over 8 years
ago and continue to do it whenever any rube is stupid enough to
believe them.
It doesn't matter whether they signed the document in blood, they
wrote up their 5 year plan and stuck to just about everything except
for the part where they would do the ID science. Making the lame
distinction that they did not officially adopt it is just dishonest.
They did target school boards and legislators. They did use ID as the
wedge. They did make their stupid video to disseminate their bogus
propaganda etc. For not officially adopting the plan they did a good
job of pretending to have adopted it.
>
> > > > > >http://www.discovery.org/a/4299
>
> Quote the RELEVANT things from it, Okimoto. For instance:
>
> "For the record, we do not propose that intelligent design should
> be mandated in public schools, which is why we strongly
> opposed the school district policy at issue in the Kitzmiller v.
> Dover case. However, if you voluntarily choose to raise the issue
> of intelligent design in your classroom, it is vitally important
> that any information you present accurately convey the views
> of the scientists and scholars who support intelligent design,
> not a caricature of their views. Otherwise you will be engaging
> in indoctrination, not education."
Will that help the poor teacher that accepts their lies about having
the science of intelligent design to teach? This disclaimer about
"mandate" is like Nyikos' dishonest ploy about "implicated" or
"involved" and it didn't show up at the Discovery Institute web site
until the bait and switch had been going down for over a year. Why
did "mandate" become such an issue? Nyikos knows how they were
selling ID before the bait and switch went down on the Ohio rubes in
2002, so he knows how bogus pretending that "mandate" means jack.
One dishonest IDiot Nyikos accepts the bogus and dishonest ploy of the
dishonest ID perps. Why am I not surprised?
>
> > > > > >Apparently the ID perps wrote this in 2007 and have their excuse for
> > > > > >Dover in it. They are still claiming to have the science to teach,
>
> Not as is, not to the public schools. Read the above quote until it
> starts to sink in.
This from the briefing packet:
QUOTE:
Has ID Been Banned from Public Schools?
No. Science teachers have the right to teach science. Since ID is a
legitimate scientific theory, it should be constitutional to discuss
in
science classrooms and it should not be banned from schools. If a
science teacher wants to voluntarily discuss ID, she should have
the academic freedom to do so.
END QUOTE:
I guess Nyikos tries to lie again because I put up this quote before.
They are telling the teacher that they can voluntarily break the law.
They just don't tell the poor teacher that they would be breaking the
law.
>
> Then read the rest of the long website, and maybe you'll see all kinds
> of things in there that have not registered on your radar screen.
You should take your own advice or stop snipping and running from what
I write.
What low life scum bags. If you hadn't snipped the quote that I put
back in, and acknowledged it, you wouldn't have had to lie about it
right? What kind of person would make false claims about material
that they had snipped out of the post that you are responding to. Why
not go up to the original post and respond to it instead of responding
to something several posts removed? You are such a basket case that
the insanity defense could be one out for you.
>
> > > > > >but the rubes in Florida didn't get any of it when they wanted to
> > > > > >teach the science of intelligent design in 2008-2009. Around half a
> > > > > >dozen county school board and probably just as many legislators were
> > > > > >claiming that they were going to teach the science of intelligent
> > > > > >design in Florida, but the Discovery Institute ran in the bait and
> > > > > >switch and what happened to those claims?
>
> What was the bait in this case? The above briefing packet? The
> little snippet that I left in below hardly is enough to hang such a
> weighty claim on.
The nonexistent science of intelligent design that the ID perps are
still claiming that a teacher can teach. What do you think the bait
is?
>
> > > > > > The Discovery Institute
> > > > > >flew Casey Luskin to Florida because it was such a gigantic fiasco in
> > > > > >the making. So much for this briefing packet. If they had the ID
> > > > > >science where is it when they need it?
>
> "So much for the briefing packet." It looks like you REALLY think the
> briefing packet was the bait. So what's all this nonsense about
> flying someone down to Florida and then running the BAIT AND switch?
If you hadn't snipped out the quote that I put back in you would
know. Snipping and lying about what you have snipped out is just
stupid. Go back up to the original post and see for yourself what you
snipped out. What a boneheaded IDiot. It is plain as day that the ID
perps are still claiming that teachers can teach the science of
intelligent design. It is just too bad that they are lying about the
existence of any ID science worth teaching.
Again from the packet:
QUOTE:
Has ID Been Banned from Public Schools?
No. Science teachers have the right to teach science. Since ID is a
legitimate scientific theory, it should be constitutional to discuss
in
science classrooms and it should not be banned from schools. If a
science teacher wants to voluntarily discuss ID, she should have
the academic freedom to do so.
END QUOTE:
Don't snip and run this time.
>
> [...]
>
> > > > > > When ID researchers
> > > > > >find irreducible complexity in biology, they conclude that such
> > > > > >structures were designed.
> > > > > >END QUOTE:
>
> Now, this is something that did not register on MY radar screen until
> you posted it. I will notify Behe about it; I think he will agree
> that it needs to be carefully qualified or taken out. It clashes with
> his own careful statements in _Darwin's Black Box_.
>
> Continued in my next post.
>
> Peter Nyikos
Behe won't do anything. Has he stood up and argued against running
the bait and switch scam? Has he stood up like Johnson and admitted
that ID had just been a bogus scam for over a decade and they never
had the science to teach to school kids, or to use as the wedge? Did
he resign from the Discovery Institute when the bait and switch
started to go down? Did he resign when the bait and switch kept going
down for over 8 years? Behe won't do a thing. What do you want to
bet?
Ron Okimoto
Ron O
> On Feb 16, 7:55 pm, Ron O <rokim...@cox.net> wrote:
>
> > On Feb 16, 9:35 am, pnyikos <nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>
> > > On Feb 14, 7:28 am, Ron O <rokim...@cox.net> wrote:
> > > > Someone can add the Behe Dover admission that intelligent design
> > > > science was equivalent to astrology.
>
> > > RonO is lying. The "admission" which he is distorting beyond
> > > recognition was in the deposition prior to the Dover trial, and here
> > > it is being quoted during Behe's testimony by the cross-examiner:
>
> [snip comment by Ron O, addressed in my first follow-up to his post.
> This is the third.]
Then you admit that I wasn't lying? Or are you just dishonestly
snipping out what you can't deal with and lying about it again?
>
> > > ----------- begin relevant excerpt
> > > Q: And I asked you, "Is astrology a theory under that
> > > definition?" And you answered, "Is astrology? It could be,
> > > yes." Right?
> > > A That s correct.
> > > ==================== end of excerpt from pp. 41-42 of
> > >http://www.aclupa.org/downloads/Day11PMSession.pdf
>
> > > "That definition" was clarified earlier in the testimony, on pp.
> > > 38-39. Excerpt follows RonO's "testimony":
>
> > > > After his testimony Behe tried
> > > > to set the record straight, but ended up clarifying why ID wasn't
> > > > science.
>
> What utter rot!
You better check out the posts that you are running from because you
already lied about this once and I put up the evidence (and it came
from the Discovery Institute) that he did try to set the record
straight after his testimony.
>
> > He did.
>
> [irrelevant additional comments, not supporting "He did," deleted]
Run and pretend. Reality will be the same tomorrow.
>
> > > What RonO is lying about here took place during the testimony, not
> > > after it.
>
> That is, Behe clarified everything in testimony far beyond what was
> needed, and far beyond the little cherry-picked item Ron O. took out
> of context; what came out afterwards was superfluous, and only done
> because the questioners hadn't really absorbed what Behe had said
> during his testimony.
>
> [...]
Snipping out reality doesn't make it go away and doesn't change the
facts. You should have checked out the posts that you are running
from or at least stop snipping out the details that would tell you how
wrong you are.
>
>
>
> > > > He claimed that he meant the astrology as it was practiced
> > > > in the dark ages.
>
> > > RonO is cherry-picking and distorting something that Behe said AFTER
> > > he carefully explained what he meant by a "scientific theory":
> [...]
Snipping and running doesn't do much. Why even try?
> > > ----------------------- begin excerpt from pp. 38-39,
> > > ------------------------ with line numbers in the margins.
> [...]
> > > 15 Q And using your definition, intelligent design is a
> > > 16 scientific theory, correct?
>
> > > 17 A Yes.
>
> > > 18 Q Under that same definition astrology is a
> > > 19 scientific theory under your definition, correct?
>
> And here came that definition:
This has nothing to do about whether I lied about Behe trying to set
the record straight after his testiimony. what an IDiot. You should
go to the post that you are running from and see for yourself.
>
> > > 20 A Under my definition, a scientific theory is a
> > > 21 proposed explanation which focuses or points to physical,
> > > 22 observable data and logical inferences. There are many
> > > 23 things throughout the history of science which we now think
> > > 24 to be incorrect which nonetheless would fit that -- which
> > > 25 would fit that definition. Yes, astrology is in fact one,
> > > 1 and so is the ether theory of the propagation of light, and
> > > 2 many other -- many other theories as well.
>
> Note, he is not JUST talking about astrology here, but something that
> was accepted by physicists until the famous Michelson-Morley
> experiment.
Scientists are wrong about their hypotheses all the time. That
doesn't make their hypothesis any less wrong and it certainly doesn't
make the hypothesis a scientific theory. Untestable hypotheses are
not the type of science that gets into the textbooks.
If ID is science astrology would be science. You can't get any more
direct than that.
>
> > He was read back his testimony and
> > he acknowledged it. What does "That is correct" mean to even an IDiot
> > as lost as you are? Isn't that his testimony?
>
> It is a miniscule part of his testimony. Read the above, for perhaps
> the first time in your life, and learn something.
It demonstrates that you are wrong. What a bonehead. No matter how
miniscule it means that you are wrong. Deal with reality instead of
lying to yourself about it.
>
> Maybe NOW you will go the whole hog, eh? :-)
Only an IDiot would put a smiley after a post where he made himself
out to be a degenerate lying fool.
>
> [pack of lies by Ron O. about me deleted here]
Run and pretend. How low are you willing to go? Reality will be the
same tomorrow and you will still be the one that is lying.
"Miniscule?" What a laugh. Do you realize how incompetent that makes
you look? I am sure that the ID perps are glad to have an IDiot rube
like you as a loyal supporter. They likely don't need much more than
a defective jock strap anyway.
Ron Okimoto
>
> Peter Nyikos
pnyikos
> On Feb 18, 9:17 am, pnyikos <nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Feb 16, 8:25 pm, Ron O <rokim...@cox.net> wrote:
>
> > > On Feb 16, 11:06 am, pnyikos <nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> > > > On Feb 14, 7:28 am, Ron O <rokim...@cox.net> wrote:
>
> > [about the middle ages:]
>
> > > > > at that time intelligent design was the
> > > > > default explanation for anything that we didn't understand about
> > > > > nature. The designer did it. Who made the seasons change? Who
> > > > > pulled the sun and moon across the sky? Who made thunder and
> > > > > lightning? Who caused disease? Who made those complex babies? Who
> > > > > made the complex flagellum? It isn't a scientific theory, it is only
> > > > > a place holder for when we don't have all the answers.
>
> > > > The above left in because RonO plays games with the word "dishonest"
> > > > and calls me dishonest for not leaving in everything from the post to
> > > > which I am replying [...]
> > > No, only when you snip and run. You have left this in, but have run
> > > from it at the same time.
>
> > So now, anyone you've targeted for defamation, who follows up to
> > anything you post, without discussing everything in it, gets charged
> > with running away?
>
> No,
You did it just now. Why do you deny it?
>but when you lie about what you snip out
You are indulging in a blatant and OBVIOUS misdirection ploy. You
accused me of running WITHOUT snipping just now. Deal with that, if
you can.
> it does make it an issue,
> and you have done that repeatedly.
I have never done it, never lied on Usenet at all.
Let's see you try to document an actual lie, with information about
WHY you allege it to be a lie.
And try to make sense when you provide the alleged information. You
have a habit of drowning your points in gigantic masses of verbiage.
> > When I did NOT follow up to some posts of yours at all, you accused
> > me of "running away from the thread"! even though I was very active
> > on the thread, replying to posts by others.
>
> You ran because you usually evaded by asking for more evidence
I asked for evidence that the DI was (1) IMPLICATED in a (2) bait and
(3) switch bad enough to be called a (4) scam. You posted little
driblets and falsely claimed, time and again, that I was moving the
goalposts when I kept asking for evidence of one after another of
these things when you had failed to provide evidence of it all.
And your evidence was a joke. Your Ohio website didn't even mention
DI at all. Yet you pretended it was evidence for one or the other of
the above features.
>or
> lying and when confronted with the additional evidence or exposed as a
> liar you ran.
You never exposed me.
Did you imagine that, just because I didn't deal with all your slander
on the spot, that I acquiesced in it?
> > You give new meaning to the term, "captive audience".
>
> You are about the saddest lying evader that I have encountered in a
> long time.
Look in the mirror, then: you slandered Behe when you said that he
"confirmed" that the DI was trying to take us back to the dark ages.
Your bogus "evidence" was the shamelessly propagandistic claim that he
had "equated" IC and astrology, and had mentioned that in the middle
ages, when people did not know enough about astronomy to know better,
it fit under his definition of a scientific theory.
But then, so did the theory of the luminiferous ether, and you can
read more about that in my reply to your copycat Forrest, about how it
took the great revolutions in 20th century physics to move that away
from respectable scientific theory. A somewhat less despicable
person than you might have claimed that Behe had admitted that DI was
trying to take us back to the 19th century.
> Claiming that someone else is running when you know what
> you are running from.
I am "running from" a bunch of half-assed claims of the existence of a
bait and switch scam which DI is allegedly running, but your
documentation for it is no better than the documentation you've
provided for your slander of Behe. That Ohio website is one example
(see above). The most voluminous quotes about the alleged scam are
from Johnson, and I've argued in detail why they don't advance your
cause one iota. If you call that running, you are just plain lying.
Continued in next post.
Peter Nyikos
pnyikos
> On Feb 18, 9:17 am, pnyikos <nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> > On Feb 16, 8:25 pm, Ron O <rokim...@cox.net> wrote:
> Claiming that someone else is lying to cover
> your own dishonest butt. You are just sad.
Look in the mirror, liar. I've documented how you've lied about Behe.
You keep accusing me of lying in this post (to which this is the
second reply, with more to follow next week) but you aren't providing
a smidgin of evidence.
The following is about a statement of how all kinds of things were
ascribed to design when people did not have the huge knowledge of
science we enjoy:
> > > You are misdirecting the argument because
> > > you have no counter to the statement.
>
> > The statement is a grotesque oversimplification of the position of
> > Discovery Institute.
>
> You are misdirecting the argument in order to run from what you can't
> deal with.
You accused me of running from the statement originally. Now you are
indulging in misdirection, to avoid ackowledging that I did NOT run.
[broken record routine about the alleged implication of DI in a bait
and switch scam, accompanied by the usual defamations of me,
unaccompanied by the tiniest smidgin of documentation, deleted]
> > It also looks like an attempt to rely on a "plausible deniability"
> > defense if you ever got sued for libel by Behe. You could say, "when
> > I said he confirmed that the Discovery Institute wants to take us back
> > to the dark ages, I only meant the following..."
>
> No. I said that I have seen it stated that the ID perps just want to
> take science back to the dark ages.
And I never took issue with THAT.
> It is just a fact that Behe's
> testimony can be used to verify that statement.
Argue deceitfully for that statement, you mean. You do know how to
argue deceitfully for it, I'll give you that.
> Behe wants science as
> it was practiced in the dark ages to be allowed as viable science in
> modern classrooms.
No more than he wants the ether theory of the 19th century to be
allowed, liar. See my first reply to your post a short while ago.
>
> > But while a jury manipulated by a cunning defense attorney might buy
> > that, I don't think anyone HERE in talk.origins who knows the
> > connotations of "wants to take us back to the dark ages" and has read
> > your words in the context of massive spewings of hate for the
> > Discovery Institute will buy the claim.
>
> No manipulation needed, just take the Behe quote and let it speak for
> itself.
Ripped out of context is the only way it would do that. You'll never
get away with that under cross-examination.
>The jury might have to be told the difference between a wild
> assed guess and a modern scientific theory, but any competent person
> would see the difference.
> > [keywords: Galileo, Inquisition, witch]
>
> Wasn't it the IDiots of the day that did that?
Wow, a skillful prosecuting attorney could make mincemet of you for
that.
>Wasn't that at around
> the end of the dark ages? Wasn't that one of the reasons why it was
> considered to be the dark ages? Talk about shooting yourself in the
> foot. What a bumbling IDiot. Not only that, but I would likely be
> the Galileo character that they were trying to roast, not the other
> way around. What is the difference between a modern scientific theory
> and what Behe was describing?
The prosecution rests. :-)
Till next week, that is.
TO BE CONTINUED
Peter Nyikos
John Harshman
You could at least google him.
>>>> William Dembski
>>>> Michael Behe
>>> Do you really think these two are creationists???? What cockamamy
>>> definition of "creationist" ARE you using???
>> I'll give you Behe. But what makes you think Dembski isn't a
>> creationist? He believes in a literal, worldwide flood, appears to deny
>> that humans and chimps are related at all, and professes to have no clue
>> about how old the earth is.
>
> I'll take your word for this for the nonce, but I'd like to see some
> documentation eventually. I've associated Dembski with some fairly
> level-headed articles; for instance, his long treatise on his version
> of Irreducible Complexity, where he talks about the "Irreducible Core"
> of a system; also about how low a probability one should assign
> something before hypothesizing that it is the result of ID. He also
> did some neat comparisons of DI with SETI.
Good for him. Google "Dembski flood" and you will learn something. I bet
you could find the other stuff too.
Ron O
What a bonehead. I just have to go to the posts where you know that
you did it and put them up as examples.
This is one of the most recent unless Nyikos does it again in this
post. He snipped the quote from the packet and stupidly claimed that
I was lying about the packet. I put the quote back in to show him who
the liar is:
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/d928a5f2a8dd1e20?hl=en
He claims to put up the relevant material, but just happened to leave
out the quoted material that would demonstrate that he was just lying
again.
QUOTE:
[insert: this is an obvious lie that Nyikos could only tell and try to
get away with by snipping out the relevant quote.]
This from the briefing packet:
QUOTE:
Has ID Been Banned from Public Schools?
No. Science teachers have the right to teach science. Since ID is a
legitimate scientific theory, it should be constitutional to discuss
in
science classrooms and it should not be banned from schools. If a
science teacher wants to voluntarily discuss ID, she should have
the academic freedom to do so.
END QUOTE:
I guess Nyikos tries to lie again because I put up this quote before.
They are telling the teacher that they can voluntarily break the law.
They just don't tell the poor teacher that they would be breaking the
law.
END QUOTE:
Sad, but true Nyikos can't even remember the bogus and dishonest
things he did earlier today.
Should I go back to the thread that you are running from and pull out
a few more examples?
Further down in this same thread you are caught doing the same thing
except you selectively quote what I wrote to make it look like you are
not lying about me.
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/7736b170b3bb79a8?hl=en
Two examples in just this thread. Do you want me to continue? I
will, but it is just a waste of my time and would only make you look
even worse than you already do.
>
> > it does make it an issue,
> > and you have done that repeatedly.
>
> I have never done it, never lied on Usenet at all.
Two examples of misrepresentation and dishonesty just in this thread,
so I doubt that you know the definition of "lied" or you are lying
again.
>
> Let's see you try to document an actual lie, with information about
> WHY you allege it to be a lie.
I just did. Deal with reality for a change. What about accusing me
of running from a post for three whole days when it was your fault for
posting some response to someone else and expecting me to see it.
Where is the apology for that lie about me?
>
> And try to make sense when you provide the alleged information. You
> have a habit of drowning your points in gigantic masses of verbiage.
I put in the link and the relevant material to the first example. If
that isn't enough for you I will spell it out in more detail of you
try the bogus ploy of requesting more clarification. Who is guilty of
that multiple times after snipping out or running from the
clarification?
>
> > > When I did NOT follow up to some posts of yours at all, you accused
> > > me of "running away from the thread"! even though I was very active
> > > on the thread, replying to posts by others.
>
> > You ran because you usually evaded by asking for more evidence
>
> I asked for evidence that the DI was (1) IMPLICATED in a (2) bait and
> (3) switch bad enough to be called a (4) scam. You posted little
> driblets and falsely claimed, time and again, that I was moving the
> goalposts when I kept asking for evidence of one after another of
> these things when you had failed to provide evidence of it all.
They are both implicated and involved because they are the ones
running the bait and switch, so your lame hair splitting is just a
bogus attempt to dodge reality. Deal with the facts instead of
running and pretending.
What did you do after you got the additional evidence? Do you want me
to put up the posts that you ran from where the requested evidence had
been presented? Do you want me to link to the posts where you denied
that I had presented the requested evidence and I had to put in the
links to what you had already run from?
I will do all this if you want to look like an even bigger IDiot.
Remember the requested evidence for the Discovery Institute being
involved and then running when I put it up, but then later in another
post claiming that I hadn't put up the evidence? What a bonehead.
>
> And your evidence was a joke. Your Ohio website didn't even mention
> DI at all. Yet you pretended it was evidence for one or the other of
> the above features.
I put up two web links demonstrating that Meyer ran the bait and
switch on the Ohio rubes. You ran from the evidence, and later lied
about it just as you are doing now. I guess I will have to put up the
link to demonstrate that you are lying again.
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/092d106b63c89963?hl=en
Remember when you told me to hop to it? I did and you ran.
>
> >or
> > lying and when confronted with the additional evidence or exposed as a
> > liar you ran.
>
> You never exposed me.
I have repeatedly, but you run from reallity. Exposure is what you
have just gotten plenty of in this post.
Your pathetic actions in these three thread (one created to misdirect
from the first thread that you were running from) is so sad that I
can't imagine what it must be like to be you.
>
> Did you imagine that, just because I didn't deal with all your slander
> on the spot, that I acquiesced in it?
Running, lying and pretending is such a way of life for you that you
may be too incompetent to understand what you have done. Carefully
evaluate what you have done in just the examples that I have given.
Remember that I can go to the first thread and pull out many more
examples. It isn't pretty, but it is what you are. Deal with it.
>
> > > You give new meaning to the term, "captive audience".
>
> > You are about the saddest lying evader that I have encountered in a
> > long time.
>
> Look in the mirror, then: you slandered Behe when you said that he
> "confirmed" that the DI was trying to take us back to the dark ages.
> Your bogus "evidence" was the shamelessly propagandistic claim that he
> had "equated" IC and astrology, and had mentioned that in the middle
> ages, when people did not know enough about astronomy to know better,
> it fit under his definition of a scientific theory.
It is clear who the lying sack of shit is and it is you. You can't
deny it any longer. You can keep running and pretending, but it
doesn't change what you are.
>
> But then, so did the theory of the luminiferous ether, and you can
> read more about that in my reply to your copycat Forrest, about how it
> took the great revolutions in 20th century physics to move that away
> from respectable scientific theory. A somewhat less despicable
> person than you might have claimed that Behe had admitted that DI was
> trying to take us back to the 19th century.
I read as little from you as possible. It isn't worth the time. Stop
running and pretending and deal with reality.
Actually in the after testimony clarification that I quoted (to
demonstrate that I wasn't lying) Behe claimed astrology of around the
15th century.
>
> > Claiming that someone else is running when you know what
> > you are running from.
>
> I am "running from" a bunch of half-assed claims of the existence of a
> bait and switch scam which DI is allegedly running, but your
> documentation for it is no better than the documentation you've
> provided for your slander of Behe. That Ohio website is one example
> (see above). The most voluminous quotes about the alleged scam are
> from Johnson, and I've argued in detail why they don't advance your
> cause one iota. If you call that running, you are just plain lying.
Well, at least, you have admitted that you are running. That is a
first step.
Continuing to lie about the evidence that I have presented is just too
sad to believe.
Ron Okimoto
Ron O
> On Feb 18, 7:59 pm, Ron O <rokim...@cox.net> wrote:
>
> > On Feb 18, 9:17 am, pnyikos <nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> > > On Feb 16, 8:25 pm, Ron O <rokim...@cox.net> wrote:
> > Claiming that someone else is lying to cover
> > your own dishonest butt. You are just sad.
>
> Look in the mirror, liar. I've documented how you've lied about Behe.
> You keep accusing me of lying in this post (to which this is the
> second reply, with more to follow next week) but you aren't providing
> a smidgin of evidence.
You have only documented how you have consistently misreprresented
reality and lied about me. Your last post clearly demonstrated that.
What an IDiot. You should have waited, now you look like even a
bigger IDiot low life scum bag.
You can't make this junk up. If this were fiction it would be
unbelievable fiction.
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/6703b9aa27d7c037?hl=en
>
> The following is about a statement of how all kinds of things were
> ascribed to design when people did not have the huge knowledge of
> science we enjoy:
>
> > > > You are misdirecting the argument because
> > > > you have no counter to the statement.
>
> > > The statement is a grotesque oversimplification of the position of
> > > Discovery Institute.
>
> > You are misdirecting the argument in order to run from what you can't
> > deal with.
>
> You accused me of running from the statement originally. Now you are
> indulging in misdirection, to avoid ackowledging that I did NOT run.
It is running. Demonstrate that you dealt with the issue in an honest
and direct manner.
>
> [broken record routine about the alleged implication of DI in a bait
> and switch scam, accompanied by the usual defamations of me,
> unaccompanied by the tiniest smidgin of documentation, deleted]
Run and pretend.
>
> > > It also looks like an attempt to rely on a "plausible deniability"
> > > defense if you ever got sued for libel by Behe. You could say, "when
> > > I said he confirmed that the Discovery Institute wants to take us back
> > > to the dark ages, I only meant the following..."
>
> > No. I said that I have seen it stated that the ID perps just want to
> > take science back to the dark ages.
>
> And I never took issue with THAT.
So what is your point? I didn't libel anyone, and never made any
excuses for what I did say. You were just lying about me again. What
a bonehead. Why not stick to reality instead of making up junk?
>
> > It is just a fact that Behe's
> > testimony can be used to verify that statement.
>
> Argue deceitfully for that statement, you mean. You do know how to
> argue deceitfully for it, I'll give you that.
No, just straight forward analysis of what he said. The middle ages
were considered to be the dark ages. You tried to claim that the
historians now consider only the early middle ages to be the dark
ages, but why should I be limited to historians rather than how most
people think of it? My guess is that you had to look it up to
determine the difference between dark ages and middle ages. I did,
but I don't claim to be an historian.
>
> > Behe wants science as
> > it was practiced in the dark ages to be allowed as viable science in
> > modern classrooms.
>
> No more than he wants the ether theory of the 19th century to be
> allowed, liar. See my first reply to your post a short while ago.
The testimony that you quoted said middle ages. They ended by the
16th century. Aren't you the one that tried to make a big deal about
early and late middle ages?
>
> > > But while a jury manipulated by a cunning defense attorney might buy
> > > that, I don't think anyone HERE in talk.origins who knows the
> > > connotations of "wants to take us back to the dark ages" and has read
> > > your words in the context of massive spewings of hate for the
> > > Discovery Institute will buy the claim.
>
> > No manipulation needed, just take the Behe quote and let it speak for
> > itself.
>
> Ripped out of context is the only way it would do that. You'll never
> get away with that under cross-examination.
In context, it doesn't matter and you know it. ID isn't a scientific
theory. To make it a scientific theory you would have to claim that
junk like astrology of the middle ages was a scientific theory. You
know that it doesn't qualify by the standards of modern science, so
what is your problem?
>
> >The jury might have to be told the difference between a wild
> > assed guess and a modern scientific theory, but any competent person
> > would see the difference.
> > > [keywords: Galileo, Inquisition, witch]
>
> > Wasn't it the IDiots of the day that did that?
>
> Wow, a skillful prosecuting attorney could make mincemet of you for
> that.
I guess you are not a skillful prosecuting attorney. Don't worry, I
never thought that you were very skillful at anything. Even your
dishonesty is blatantly incompetent.
>
> >Wasn't that at around
> > the end of the dark ages? Wasn't that one of the reasons why it was
> > considered to be the dark ages? Talk about shooting yourself in the
> > foot. What a bumbling IDiot. Not only that, but I would likely be
> > the Galileo character that they were trying to roast, not the other
> > way around. What is the difference between a modern scientific theory
> > and what Behe was describing?
>
> The prosecution rests. :-)
Total incompetence may seem like bliss, but a competent person with
any integrity at all would be crying.
>
> Till next week, that is.
I'm off to the Gordon conference next week, but I may have time to
check to see what you come up with. Can I expect any type of apology
for lying about my running away for three whole days when you have
been running from some posts for weeks? How can I run from a post
that isn't even posted as a response to one of my posts?
Ron Okimoto
RAM
> You can also read aboutof Michael Ruse's uncritical reading of
> Doolittle (pp. 20-21) and Neil Greenspan's (pp. 22-23). These
> scientists,and many others, simply took Doolittle's word for what
> those mice were like and never bothered to read the original research
> article.
>
> > but an expression of incredulity (unless, of
> > course, the proponents think they themselves are omniscient,
> > which they may)
>
> Well, Bob, I'm afraid that you belong on the list that Tony Pagano
> suggested I compile in the post that began this thread.
>
> >it's a moot point. By its nature, IC implies
> > total knowledge of nature and reality.
>
> In fact, I've never seen a more remarkable misconception than this
> one.
>
> Peter Nyikos
I have. It is found in your "remarkable misconception" comment
above.
Bob from a scientific perspective is absolutely correct. And
conversely you are dead wrong.
Indeed earlier today when I read this comment I thought about posting
how much I like it. But that I would amend it by slightly by
inserting "scientific" between total and knowledge.
IC advocates "assume" that IC is presently the best empirical basis
for making claims about ID (Dembski's CSI is a conceptual and
empirical mess). Even if IC is the best it is also limited to a few
biological examples and some of them have proven to be less than
adequate as examples of IC (like the blood clotting mechanism). So
what you have is a very, very, very limited (and scientifically
problematic) number of empirical observations and a leap to "it must
be designed" version of ID; because as the IDiots assert there is no
known biological explanation for their emergence. This clearly
assumes that scientific evidence will "never" emerge that demonstrates
IC phenomena are a product of evolution and that we have "total
(scientific) knowledge of nature and reality." Thus Bob's sensible
and correct observation. And given the recent history of enormous
growth in biological knowledge (and the paucity of intellectual,
empirical and scientific efforts of the IDiots) the probabilities are
overwhelmingly on the evolution theory side for eventually explaining
IC.
The "remarkable misconception" (in case you have yet to figure it out)
is your failure to understand that science treats all phenomena as
problematic and thus it's theories are always provisional and enormous
amounts of empirical evidence needs to be generated to call ID a
scientific theory. And the real scientific nut buster problem is to
get that empirical data, the IDiots need to develop an empirically
specified theory. That is no where in sight and the poor quality of
what has been done to date stands out as a devastating comment on
their scientific skills. So your most "remarkable misconception" is
that there is something to be treated as an ID science.
As an aside the IDiots at DI don't like to talk about panspermia
unless it is to tout that they are not about pushing religion onto
science. Panspermia as ID, as you propose it, is anathema to them.
However panspermia is even more empirically deficient than IC and is
also not worthy of being touted as you do as a scientific theory for
ID. Which again shows your ignorance of what constitutes a scientific
theory.
Space left below for more assertions based on your ignorance of the
practice of science and how your in depth knowledge of science shows
your assertion about Bob's assertion is the correct assertion and my
assertions a pure distortions of science and a total failure to
address Bob's assertion and your parsings are always logical sound and
you couldn't possibly be wrong. (Even though they obviously are.)
(You are right there with Tony; he is equally ignorant of the practice
of science. I can see why you admire him so.)
TomS
<1587695b-dbfe-42e9...@t13g2000prc.googlegroups.com>, Inez
stated..."
What fraction of the people think that it is laughable that the earth
is flat, and what fraction of the people can give a reason for
believing that the earth is not flat?
I seem to recall that a poll taken *after* an election shows that a
lot more people report voting for the winning candidate.
Frank J
Not sure which part you apply a "fair number" to, but I think that the
great majority of politicians go to church, but that at least half of
those who do would not if they were not in politics. As for "rising to
the level of thinking about evidence" I doubt that 1% of them do.
Frank J
> "On Fri, 18 Feb 2011 13:04:36 -0800 (PST), in article
~90%, <1%.
>
> I seem to recall that a poll taken *after* an election shows that a
> lot more people report voting for the winning candidate.
I am often told that I'm too honest, so here goes: In almost 40 years
of voting - pres, congress, state, local, primaries, etc., I have
voted for the winner ~25% of the time. A big reason is that I tend to
vote against incumbents, and for a fair number of independents.
>
> --
> ---Tom S.
> "... the heavy people know some magic that can make things move and even fly,
> but they're not very bright, because they can't survive without their magic
> contrivances"
Frank J
By "evolution-denier" I mean that you reject mainstream science's
conclusions on evolution, especially "macroevolution." If you don't, I
stand corrected. In the meantime, I see no need to call you a
"creationist."
>
> > I'll just throw out a few of the biggest names. You can tell me
> > whether you think they belong on your list or not:
>
> > Ken Ham
>
> I don't recall coming across his name before. Where's the evidence
> that he is a creationist?
O...M..G...I guess you want me to define AiG and YEC too.
>
> > William Dembski
> > Michael Behe
>
> Do you really think these two are creationists???? What cockamamy
> definition of "creationist" ARE you using???
Noting that you have not answered my question, I will clarify for the
readers:
I very rarely use the words "creationism" or "creationist(s)" without
making it clear from the context what I mean, or using quotes. I
prefer *not* to use those terms for WD and MB, but unfortunately most
critics of ID do. Like it or not, and I don't, "creationism" has
become the default term for any brand of anti-evolution activism that
claims some design-based alternative. I realize that the public
defines it much more narrowly (usually some literal Genesis), and more
in terms of *belief* than *strategy*. Which makes it very easy for ID
activists (like WD and MB) to get away with "ID is not creationism,"
and bait their critics into "ID is too creationism."
>
> Peter Nyikos- Hide quoted text -
Frank J
You can google "Dembski" and "flood" but I'll add my 2c:
With the big caveat that I can't read minds, I don't think for a
minute that Dembski believes that a global flood occurred. From what I
recall of his "flood" remarks, he admitted that there's no evidence
(yet?) for it, anf that it should be taken "on faith" in the meantime.
Note the audience he was speaking to, though. What else could he say?
IMO Dembski is the master politician. In a 2001 article directed more
at scientists he said that ID can accommodate all the results of
"Darwinism." Later, when asked where/when the design was implemented,
he offered the possibility that it was at or before the Big Bang. On
the ages of universe, Earth and life he often admits agreeing with
mainstream science, but his political symparthy to young-Earthers
often has critics mistakingly assuming that he's a YEC. I forget if it
was this thread (and pardon me if I'm repeating) but Dembski's
official position on common descent is "I don't know."
If DI folk were like real scientists, they would be so busy beating
*each other* up over their apparent disagreements that they'd have no
time or interest for "Darwinists." Paul Nelson is either a
"scientific" YEC (like Ken Ham) or an Omphalos creationist - he
ignored my request a few years ago to clarify, Behe accepts common
descent and thinks that reading the Bible as a science text is
"silly," most others seem to ve old-lifers who deny or are unsure
about common descent.
I actually have much more respect for the traditional YECs (e.g. Ham)
and OECs (e.g. Hugh Ross) than I do for IDers because they do
occasionally challenge each other, and IDers. Whereas IDers want to
keep peace in the big tent and channel all their enegies against
"Darwinists." In that respect IDers are the ultimate "creationists."
> I've associated Dembski with some fairly
> level-headed articles; for instance, his long treatise on his version
> of Irreducible Complexity, where he talks about the "Irreducible Core"
> of a system; also about how low a probability one should assign
> something before hypothesizing that it is the result of ID. He also
> did some neat comparisons of DI with SETI.
>
> Do the <sarcasm on> SETI perps think they have the e.t. science to
> teach to the school kids? <sarcasm off>
>