By Their Fruits June 2012

[Ron O]

It is already time for another edition of By Their Fruits. The Feb
thread is still being posted to, but only because someone on the list
has been in denial for four months. This is just a list to keep track
of the group of posters that find themselves on the short end of the
stick in terms of talk.origins. Nando has changed his account and now
goes by Symasu.

Anti-science and anti-evolution are terms that are thrown around TO,
but basically they are all creationists of one type or another that
have a beef with one or more aspects of reality. Nyikos claims to be
an unconventional Christian who apparently is no type of creationist.
It has taken him over a year to make that denial, so only Nyikos and
likely his intelligent designer knows what it is worth. Last Feb
there was a discussion about creationist. Times have changed and the
old fundy definition of creationist that used to hold for most of the
TO regulars no longer applies. We have a Hindu creationist, what may
be an old earth geocentrist creationist etc. The list below is just a
very diverse group of people. One size does not fit all. The current
scam by the intelligent design creationist at the Discovery Institute
is to claim that they are not creationist even though all except one,
that I know of, has admitted that their intelligent designer is the
Christian God.

The title of the thread refers to the Biblical notion that you can
make a judgement on something by the fruit that it produces. This
list just allows anyone to use Google and look up the persons profile
and get all the posts that they can stand to read written by these
posters and determine for themselves what kind of fruit they are.
What do they claim to be supporting? As a diverse group they range
from the good hearted in denial like Suzanne to the abject lost
causes.

There are creationists that would not make the list and you can look
up their efforts:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clergy_Letter_Project

So the guys on the fruits list are not on it because they are
creationists, but they are on the list because of what they do because
they are creationists. There are mulitple TO regulars who are
Christians that do not make this list.

Last Feb 2012 thread (it has links back to older fruits threads:
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/04a3b574e722a8f4?hl=en%04eb9cb29d2e94f01

Usually I will select posts as I come to them and if I encounter a
really stupid post I will pick another so that I cannot be accused of
bias, but I did not do that for a couple of posts (prawnster and
Nyikos), so take that into consideration.

The big news was the return of Ted Holden for a couple of posts:
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/7802d407f4a40c2c?hl=en

prawnster, the guy really is this badly off:
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/8c0a269f225645b2?hl=en

Biblearcheology:
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/58093bf6a5d09222?hl=en

Glenn is back and seems to be in good health:
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/175df3cd3a7b5612?hl=en

Nando is now Syamsu:
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/71e9332b3081dc44?hl=en

Backspace:
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/04a73a1e61ee5c28?hl=en

Ray:
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/89fba4dd2dfdd664?hl=en

Kalkidas:
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/b7e0c06d3d718448?hl=en

NashTon:
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/9d1f4449ac02283d?hl=en

Nyikos wants this post preserved forever so I will use it. I will
note that the racial bogousity is stretching it for Nyikos. He
usually just goes on about things like his superiority due to his
being a professor of mathematics:
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/27eb24577df98e58?hl=en

Anthony022071:
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/b05b2dbe3f233f21?hl=en

Mr.Dunsapy?:
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/96fa39881c1c06af?hl=en

Alan Kleinman MD PhD:
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/96fa39881c1c06af?hl=en

Pagano our resident geocentrist:
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/0e114ee38f39b80f?hl=en

Herman:
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/1686a1b21322aa60?hl=en

Suzanne:
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/fbabce95ea9a384b?hl=en

If I have missed anyone just add them to the list. I only went back
through around 3 weeks of active threads.

Ron Okimoto

[Nashton]

On 12-06-10 11:35 AM, Ron O wrote:
> It is already time for another edition of By Their Fruits. The Feb
> thread is still being posted to, but only because someone on the list
> has been in denial for four months. This is just a list to keep track
> of the group of posters that find themselves on the short end of the
> stick in terms of talk.origins. Nando has changed his account and now
> goes by Symasu.
>
> Anti-science and anti-evolution are terms that are thrown around TO,
> but basically they are all creationists of one type or another that
> have a beef with one or more aspects of reality. Nyikos claims to be
> an unconventional Christian who apparently is no type of creationist.
> It has taken him over a year to make that denial, so only Nyikos and
> likely his intelligent designer knows what it is worth. Last Feb
> there was a discussion about creationist. Times have changed and the
> old fundy definition of creationist that used to hold for most of the
> TO regulars no longer applies. We have a Hindu creationist, what may
> be an old earth geocentrist creationist etc. The list below is just a
> very diverse group of people. One size does not fit all. The current
> scam by the intelligent design creationist at the Discovery Institute
> is to claim that they are not creationist even though all except one,
> that I know of, has admitted that their intelligent designer is the
> Christian God.
>
> The title of the thread refers to the Biblical notion that you can
> make a judgement on something by the fruit that it produces.

Of course! The same applies to the ToE, of course. Decades of research,
with practically no applications in the real world.

[Ron O]

At least you aren't lying about "no applications" any more. Isn't it
amazing that even NashT can learn something? Why not start claiming
just "not enough" to suit NashT? What is so lame about NashT's
argument is that "God did it" (NashT's alternative) has never amounted
to anything in science. Zip, not a single instance where it has been
found to apply in the entire history of science. 100% failure rate
for the notion. It is the reason why the ID perps are running the
bait and switch on rubes like NashT. Wouldn't the ID perps put
forward the great science if they had it instead of giving the rubes a
stupid obfuscation scam that doesn't even mention that intelligent
design ever existed? This is the reality that guys like NashT have to
live in. What kind of fruit is NashT?

Ron Okimoto

[Nashton]

> Why not start claiming
> just "not enough" to suit NashT?

LOL

What is so lame about NashT's
> argument is that "God did it" (NashT's alternative) has never amounted
> to anything in science.

I don't know. You need to use the same stick to measure everything. The
fruits of the Toe are nowhere to be found in the real world.

> Zip, not a single instance where it has been
> found to apply in the entire history of science.

It's a clash of world views. When will this sink into your head, Ron?

> 100% failure rate
> for the notion. It is the reason why the ID perps are running the
> bait and switch on rubes like NashT.

Time to find some new material to express your bitterness.

> Wouldn't the ID perps put
> forward the great science if they had it instead of giving the rubes a
> stupid obfuscation scam that doesn't even mention that intelligent
> design ever existed? This is the reality that guys like NashT have to
> live in. What kind of fruit is NashT?

And of course, Ron O concludes with ad homs and personal attacks.
The ToE is useless, when measured with your own yardstick. Learn to live
with it. Learn to love it, learn to own it. ;)
>
> Ron Okimoto
>

[jillery]

What would qualify to you as an application of ToE in the real world?

[Nashton]

And "jillery" playing stupid once again, ;)

[Ray Martinez]

On Jun 10, 7:35�am, Ron O <rokim...@cox.net> wrote:
> It is already time for another edition of By Their Fruits. �The Feb
> thread is still being posted to, but only because someone on the list
> has been in denial for four months. �This is just a list to keep track
> of the group of posters that find themselves on the short end of the
> stick in terms of talk.origins. �Nando has changed his account and now
> goes by Symasu.
>
> Anti-science and anti-evolution are terms that are thrown around TO,
> but basically they are all creationists of one type or another that
> have a beef with one or more aspects of reality. �Nyikos claims to be
> an unconventional Christian who apparently is no type of creationist.
> It has taken him over a year to make that denial, so only Nyikos and
> likely his intelligent designer knows what it is worth.

Peter Nyikos is not a Creationist. He is the most interesting and
honest Darwinist here at Talk.Origins. You, on the other hand, are the
most rotten and dishonest person here at Talk.Origins. Someday you're
going to earn yourself a defamation lawsuit.

> Last Feb
> there was a discussion about creationist. �Times have changed and the
> old fundy definition of creationist that used to hold for most of the
> TO regulars no longer applies. �We have a Hindu creationist, what may
> be an old earth geocentrist creationist etc. �The list below is just a
> very diverse group of people. �One size does not fit all. �The current
> scam by the intelligent design creationist at the Discovery Institute
> is to claim that they are not creationist even though all except one,
> that I know of, has admitted that their intelligent designer is the
> Christian God.
>
> The title of the thread refers to the Biblical notion that you can
> make a judgement on something by the fruit that it produces.

Written by Creationists.

Ron O, a typical anti-Bible Darwinist, steals and quote-mines from the
Bible when it suits his agenda. Evolution was not built on the rock of
the Word, but on the sands of falsehood. The storm will come and each
Darwinist will receive ruination. The fruit of evolution empowers the
Atheist agenda against Biblical morality. Deluded pseudo-Christian Ron
O exists to do the bidding of Atheists (his enemies).

Harshman and company don't respect you, Ron. Regardless of what they
say, you're nothing but a buffoon (like all Christian Evolutionists)
in their eyes.

Ray (Protestant Evangelical, Paleyan IDist, anti-evolutionist)

> This list just allows anyone to use Google and look up the persons profile
> and get all the posts that they can stand to read written by these
> posters and determine for themselves what kind of fruit they are.
> What do they claim to be supporting? �As a diverse group they range
> from the good hearted in denial like Suzanne to the abject lost
> causes.
>
> There are creationists that would not make the list and you can look
> up their efforts:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clergy_Letter_Project
>
> So the guys on the fruits list are not on it because they are
> creationists, but they are on the list because of what they do because
> they are creationists. �There are mulitple TO regulars who are
> Christians that do not make this list.
>

> Last Feb 2012 thread (it has links back to older fruits threads:http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/04a3b574e722a8f4?hl=e...

[J.J. O'Shea]

On Mon, 11 Jun 2012 15:00:45 -0400, Ray Martinez wrote
(in article
<84744d5f-9145-4861...@nl1g2000pbc.googlegroups.com>):

In the category of lawsuits at dawn=
> [name of creationist wacko redacted] is not a Creationist. He is the most

interesting and honest
> Darwinist here at Talk.Origins. You, on the other hand, are the most rotten
> and dishonest person here at Talk.Origins. Someday you're going to earn
> yourself a defamation lawsuit.

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

[jillery]

And "Nashton" showing what he thinks qualifies as substantial
discussion.

Perhaps you prefer to discuss chimps and gorillas outcompeting
neanderthals? Still waiting on that, Brave Sir Nasty Robin.

[chris thompson]

Except for a novel and useful way of treating malaria, the second-
worst killer disease on the planet.

Oh, that doesn't count, does it- since all those people dying of
malaria have dark skin. Sorry, my bad.

Chris

>
> > �Zip, not a single instance where it has been

[jillery]

This is your idea of discussion, to repetitively assert your opinion
without basis?

[jillery]

I know you don't listen to anything Ray says, but just keep in mind,
that whatever he says about you, it's from the person who thinks
Pnyikos is the most honest Darwinist on T.O. What a joke that is!

[Ron O]

In NashT text this means that NashT is sobbing and or whining
uncontrollably.

>
> � What is so lame about NashT's

>
> > argument is that "God did it" (NashT's alternative) has never amounted
> > to anything in science.
>
> I don't know. You need to use the same stick to measure everything. The
> fruits of the Toe are nowhere to be found in the real world.

What is so sad about this is that I do not use the same stick. It is
NashT that wants to apply something where it doesn't fit. I guess to
guys like NashT and Ray, Methodists are not real Christians. How sad
is that?

>
> > �Zip, not a single instance where it has been

> > found to apply in the entire history of science.
>
> It's a clash of world views. When will this sink into your head, Ron?

Just remember this part. NashT is claiming to understand what the
issue is, but just look up more of his posts to find out how he
addresses the issue.

>
> > �100% failure rate

> > for the notion. �It is the reason why the ID perps are running the
> > bait and switch on rubes like NashT.
>
> Time to find some new material to express your bitterness.

Time to understand what your admissions above mean. You really never
had an equivalent argument. ID perps, and Scientific creationists
were lying to you even if some of them were too incompetent to
understand that.

>
> > Wouldn't the ID perps put
> > forward the great science if they had it instead of giving the rubes a
> > stupid obfuscation scam that doesn't even mention that intelligent
> > design ever existed? �This is the reality that guys like NashT have to
> > live in. �What kind of fruit is NashT?
>
> And of course, Ron O concludes with ad homs and personal attacks.
> The ToE is useless, when measured with your own yardstick. Learn to live
> with it. Learn to love it, learn to own it. �;)

The truly demented deviants keep claiming ad hom. Why is that? What
is the topic of this thread? The statement has bad connotations only
because you are such a rotten fruit of your side of the issue. If you
were more a person like Suzanne the fruit wouldn't be so rotten would
it?

What does it mean if you understand that you do not have an argument
and you keep putting up posts like the one above? What are you trying
to accomplish by nay saying and negative arguments? Do you even
understand what you are doing?

Ron Okimoto

>
> > Ron Okimoto

[Steven L.]

On the contrary, the ToE has had a major practical application:

The ToE has successfully undercut the Biblical story of creation. To the
point that Christians who accept the ToE have also had to accept that
the Adam and Eve story is parable or myth, not literal historical truth.

And that's the reason you hate the ToE so much.

Science would be entirely noncontroversial to you (you don't go railing
against the theory of neutron stars or solid-state physics), if it
didn't conflict with Scripture.

Conflicting with Scripture has *major* practical implications for
society. Religious conflicts have been a major part of world history.




-- Steven L.

[jillery]

On Tue, 12 Jun 2012 04:20:43 -0700 (PDT), Ron O <roki...@cox.net>
wrote:

ISTM Nasty's schtick is to ape what he perceives to be the
oppositions' replies. So even at their best his replies are no better
than humourless caricatures. But more typically they just reflect his
own ignorance of what he's trying to argue against. The really sad
part is he obviously thinks this makes him sound clever, when in fact
it makes him sound like a wannabe troll.

[jillery]

Pedantic point: ToE conflicts with a *literal* interpretation of
Scripture. There are many parts of science which conflicts similarly.
Unfortunately, you can't toss out ToE without also tossing out almost
all of science.

The problem lies not with science, nor with Scripture, nor even with
faith and belief, but lies with that literal interpretation, which
represents a minor if vocal part of all religious believers.

But I think you knew that.

[Steven L.]

While many theologians long before Darwin had asserted that the Biblical
story of Genesis should not be taken literally, I would wager that one
thing that they all *did* take literally was Adam as a special creation
of God, created from dust just like Genesis says.

I very much doubt that the churchmen who commissioned Michelangelo's
famous fresco of God and Adam thought that this was just a myth.

In the 20th century, the acceptance by the Vatican that human beings did
have non-human ancestors represents a major paradigm shift for
Christianity. And the ToE is responsible for having forced that.



-- Steven L.

[Athel Cornish-Bowden]

On 2012-06-10 16:35:54 +0200, Ron O <roki...@cox.net> said:

> It is already time for another edition of By Their Fruits.[ ... ]

> Mr.Dunsapy?:
> http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/96fa39881c1c06af?hl=en
>
> Alan Kleinman MD PhD:
> http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/96fa39881c1c06af?hl=en

These two links are the same. The second one doesn't lead to Dr Dr Kleinman.



--
athel

[Klaus Hellnick]

You forgot a link to Doctor-Doctor. The one you posted was a repeat of
DunceHappy.

[jillery]

On Tue, 12 Jun 2012 10:20:32 -0400, "Steven L."

ISTM you were discussing current theology. And if current theology
recognizes the truth of ToE and attempts to reconcile their biblical
interpretations to it, I say that's a Good Thing (c) for everybody.

[Ron O]

> >http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/04a3b574e722a8f4?hl=e...

Thanks.

I posted another link in my response to Athel above.

Ron Okimoto

[Ron O]

On Jun 12, 9:22�am, Athel Cornish-Bowden <athel...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:

Oops.

Thanks.

Alan Kleinman MD PhD:
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/de4d2628a7dd94d6?hl=en

Ron Okimoto

[pnyikos]

On Jun 11, 9:38 pm, "J.J. O'Shea" <try.not...@but.see.sig> wrote:
> On Mon, 11 Jun 2012 15:00:45 -0400, Ray Martinez wrote
> (in article

> <84744d5f-9145-4861-8994-90bbb457a...@nl1g2000pbc.googlegroups.com>):

>
> In the category of lawsuits at dawn=> [name of creationist wacko redacted] is not a Creationist. He is the most
>
> interesting and honest

Thanks for the compliment, J.J. Does this mean you've changed your
mind about me being dishonest? Or only that I am the least dishonest
of the non-creationists?

> > Darwinist here at Talk.Origins. You, on the other hand, are the most rotten
> > and dishonest person here at Talk.Origins.

Since this was addressed to Ron O, I am in full agreement, and I have
megabytes of posts by Rotten Ron to prove that, if he is not THE most
rotten and dishonest person here at talk.origins, the "champ" must
have totally slipped under my radar screen. And by that I mean, even
the name of anyone even half as copiously dishonest as Ron O is a
mystery to me.

Peter Nyikos

[pnyikos]

On Jun 11, 3:00 pm, Ray Martinez <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Jun 10, 7:35 am, Ron O <rokim...@cox.net> wrote:

[usual crap by Ron O deleted, to get to some slightly unusual crap:

> > Anti-science and anti-evolution are terms that are thrown around TO,

...and which Ron O strangely detaches from what he says next. Craven
libeler that he is, he is content with juxtaposition creating an
impression, so that he won't have to defend the impression he is
trying to convey.

> > but basically they are all creationists of one type or another that
> > have a beef with one or more aspects of reality.

More precisely, the virtual reality that is the brainchild of a
pathlogical liar who goes by the handle "Ron O".

> >Nyikos claims to be
> > an unconventional Christian who apparently is no type of creationist.
> > It has taken him over a year to make that denial,

False. I made the denial within a week or two of my return to
talk.origins in December 2010, and let it stand even after Ron O
revealed his highly expansive use of the word "creationist." Even "el
cid" caught on to what I was, and told Ron O, and got hit by a
"PLONK!" by Ron O.

I tried to find out what nonstandard meaning Ron O attached to that
word, since in a later post he followed up to "el cid." I pointed
out that the standard meaning for the word is that the person involved
has just been put into a killfile by the "plonker".

Ron O never answered that question.

> > so only Nyikos and
> > likely his intelligent designer knows what it is worth.

I don't believe in any intelligent designer of that description, and
Ron O knows that, but that doesn't stop him from posting outrageously
misleading statements like the above.

Also, I'm sure everyone except Ron O and his toadies (like jillery)
knows what my denial is worth, since I stated it very clearly to
jillery in February, and Ron O replied to that very statement, and has
seen nothing about that statement except reiterations and
paraphrasals. Of course, neither Ron O nor jillery will acknowledge
just how uniform my denial has been, as long as Ron O continues to
indulge in misleading comments like that above.

> Peter Nyikos is not a Creationist. He is the most interesting and
> honest Darwinist here at Talk.Origins.

Thank you, Ray.

> You, on the other hand, are the
> most rotten and dishonestperson here at Talk.Origins.

See my reply to J. J. O'Shea about how wholeheartedly I agree with
that.

> Someday you're
> going to earn yourself a defamation lawsuit.

He certainly deserves to be hit by one.

> > Last Feb
> > there was a discussion about creationist. Times have changed and the
> > old fundy definition of creationist that used to hold for most of the
> > TO regulars no longer applies. We have a Hindu creationist, what may
> > be an old earth geocentrist creationist etc.

And we have a pathological liar who calls himself a creationist but
adamantly refuses to tell what sort of creator he believes in -- Ron O
himself.

I think his evasions are a sign that he is an atheist, and only calls
himself a creationist to give wackos on Ron O's side an excuse for
calling non-creationists "creationists.'

[...]

> > The title of the thread refers to the Biblical notion that you can
> > make a judgement on something by the fruit that it produces.
>
> Written by Creationists.
>
> Ron O, a typical anti-Bible Darwinist, steals and quote-mines from the
> Bible when it suits his agenda.

And that's a secondary reason for him calling himself a "creationist":
he can pretend that anyone on whom he wants to hang the label
"creationist" has demonstrated this status by quoting from the Bible.

Of course, this ridiculous pretense of his ignores the fact that the
Bible contains some great literature, with great turns of phrase that
are just as quotable as so much from Shakespeare, Dickens, etc.

[snip]

>Deluded pseudo-Christian Ron
> O exists to do the bidding of Atheists (his enemies).

No, his natural allies. And fellow atheists, I believe.

> Harshman and company don't respect you, Ron. Regardless of what they
> say, you're nothing but a buffoon (like all Christian Evolutionists)
> in their eyes.

He is a "useful idiot" to them, no matter what else he is.

Peter Nyikos

> Ray

[J.J. O'Shea]

On Wed, 4 Jul 2012 11:20:57 -0400, pnyikos wrote
(in article
<4bf55b14-f4c8-4933...@v15g2000yqi.googlegroups.com>):

> On Jun 11, 9:38 pm, "J.J. O'Shea" <try.not...@but.see.sig> wrote:
>> On Mon, 11 Jun 2012 15:00:45 -0400, Ray Martinez wrote
>> (in article
>> <84744d5f-9145-4861-8994-90bbb457a...@nl1g2000pbc.googlegroups.com>):
>>
>> In the category of lawsuits at dawn=> [name of creationist wacko redacted]
>> is not a Creationist. He is the most
>>
>> interesting and honest
>
> Thanks for the compliment, J.J. Does this mean you've changed your
> mind about me being dishonest? Or only that I am the least dishonest
> of the non-creationists?

You are a very silly boy.

[pnyikos]

On Jul 4, 12:05 pm, "J.J. O'Shea" <try.not...@but.see.sig> wrote:
> On Wed, 4 Jul 2012 11:20:57 -0400, pnyikos wrote
> (in article

> <4bf55b14-f4c8-4933-8104-268a41d6f...@v15g2000yqi.googlegroups.com>):

>
> > On Jun 11, 9:38 pm, "J.J. O'Shea" <try.not...@but.see.sig> wrote:
> >> On Mon, 11 Jun 2012 15:00:45 -0400, Ray Martinez wrote
> >> (in article
> >> <84744d5f-9145-4861-8994-90bbb457a...@nl1g2000pbc.googlegroups.com>):

> >> In the category of lawsuits at dawn=
> > > >[name of creationist wacko redacted] is not a Creationist. He is the most

Note, gentle readers, the number of "chevrons" [also called
attribution marks; they are the thingies in the margin that look like
this >] in the margins. The ones above show that the two lines above
were made, respectively, by J. J. and Ray; the one that follows was
due to J. J., as anyone knowing how to read attribution marks can
verify for himself.

> >> interesting and honest

True, J. J. was just moving the above three words of Martinez to a new
line, and he even added a bunch of spaces (not preserved in the
replies, due to the vagaries of Google Groups) to their left.
However, his failure to add an attribution mark created a *prima
facie* case for him adopting the words for himself, and so I replied
as follows:

> > Thanks for the compliment, J.J.  Does this mean you've changed your
> > mind about me being dishonest?  Or only that I am the least dishonest
> > of the non-creationists?

-

> You are a very silly boy.

It's cute to see you talking to yourself, J.J. :-)

But seriously, your words DO apply to yourself, in fact they are
almost self-referential.

I do believe you wanted casual readers to think I misunderstood what
you wrote, but I doubt that any will be fooled.

By the way, your performance here looks like the beginning of an old,
dirty debating trick that I call a DadaisticAttributionFlame. The
continuation consists either of tampering with the attribution marks
in your reply, or, more commonly, to lay a smokescreen of misdirection
to make it look like I am misreading attribution marks.

Since you are such an unpredictable troll, I won't venture to guess
which, if either, of these tactics you will follow.

Peter Nyikos

> >>> Darwinist here at Talk.Origins. You, on the other hand, are the mostrotten

> >>> anddishonestperson here at Talk.Origins.

>
> > Since this was addressed to Ron O, I am in full agreement, and I have

> > megabytes of posts byRottenRon to prove that, if he is not THE most
> >rottenanddishonestperson here at talk.origins, the "champ" must

> > have totally slipped under my radar screen.  And by that I mean, even
> > the name of anyone even half as copiously dishonest as Ron O is a
> > mystery to me.
>
> > Peter Nyikos
>
> >>> Someday you're going to earn
> >>> yourself a defamation lawsuit.
> >> --
> >> email to oshea dot j dot j at gmail dot com.
>
> --

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

Peter Nyikos

[J.J. O'Shea]

On Wed, 4 Jul 2012 15:07:16 -0400, pnyikos wrote
(in article
<ae95b1ba-35e6-43f0...@h10g2000yqn.googlegroups.com>):

You are a silly _little_ boy. Those who have been following can quite easily
see what you did. It's one of the reasons why I say that you're the single
most dishonest creationist currently posting on t.o.

[jillery]

For those using using real newsreaders, it's trivially easy to rewind
a thread and see who is arrogantly ignorant here. To hamstring
oneself with googlegroups is to bring a knife to a gunfight.

[J.J. O'Shea]

On Thu, 5 Jul 2012 08:38:40 -0400, jillery wrote
(in article <tg2bv7t7ds93e9scq...@4ax.com>):

Hogwasher is a threaded newsreader. I usually keep the last 30 days
(currently expanded to 180 days on t.o) of a newsgroup. It is very, very,
VERY easy to see exactly what the dishonest little boy did: he cut and pasted
parts of a previous post.

I have pasted the relevant section at the end of this post. It is quite
trivial to see exactly who I was replying to.

Peter Nyikos is without any doubt whatsoever the single most dishonest
creationist currently posting on t.o. I do thank him for providing
confirmation of this fact.

Start quoted post:
=========

On Wed, 4 Jul 2012 11:20:57 -0400, pnyikos wrote (in article

<4bf55b14-f4c8-4933...@v15g2000yqi.googlegroups.com>):

> On Jun 11, 9:38 pm, "J.J. O'Shea" <try.not...@but.see.sig> wrote:
>> On Mon, 11 Jun 2012 15:00:45 -0400, Ray Martinez wrote
>> (in article
>> <84744d5f-9145-4861-8994-90bbb457a...@nl1g2000pbc.googlegroups.com>):
>>
>> In the category of lawsuits at dawn=> [name of creationist wacko redacted]
>> is not a Creationist. He is the most
>>

>> interesting and honest

>
> Thanks for the compliment, J.J. Does this mean you've changed your
> mind about me being dishonest? Or only that I am the least dishonest
> of the non-creationists?

You are a very silly boy.

=======
end quoted post.

[Ray Martinez]

Yeah, I just don't understand his beef against you?

You accept all Darwinian mechanisms, micro and macro, common descent
and human evolution. It has to be your Directed Panspermia, Peter. He
thinks, if I had to guess, DPism as too "creationistic."

> > Peter Nyikos is not a Creationist. He is the most interesting and
> > honest Darwinist here at Talk.Origins.
>
> Thank you, Ray.
>

Your welcome.

Again, I don't understand why a riot breaks out every time you post?
If its not Ron O calling for your head then its John Harshman, Robert
Camp or John Stockwell, etc.etc. And don't forget Richard Forrest!

> > You, on the other hand, are the
> > most rotten and dishonestperson here at Talk.Origins.
>
> See my reply  to J. J. O'Shea about how wholeheartedly I agree with
> that.
>
> > Someday you're
> > going to earn yourself a defamation lawsuit.
>
> He certainly deserves to be hit by one.
>
> > > Last Feb
> > > there was a discussion about creationist. Times have changed and the
> > > old fundy definition of creationist that used to hold for most of the
> > > TO regulars no longer applies. We have a Hindu creationist, what may
> > > be an old earth geocentrist creationist etc.
>
> And we have a pathological liar who calls himself a creationist but
> adamantly refuses to tell what sort of creator he believes in -- Ron O
> himself.
>

I believe Ron Okimoto believes it is a "deeply personal matter, not
for public discourse." That is the traditional reason given by secular-
minded Christians.

Only problem, is: Jesus said if person denies Him (in front of men) He
will deny you in front of the Father (God).

> I think his evasions are a sign that he is an atheist, and only calls
> himself a creationist to give wackos on Ron O's side an excuse for
> calling non-creationists "creationists.'
>

Regardless of what he says, Ron does not believe or accept the concept
of creation to exist in nature.

> [...]
>
> > > The title of the thread refers to the Biblical notion that you can
> > > make a judgement on something by the fruit that it produces.
>
> > Written by Creationists.
>
> > Ron O, a typical anti-Bible Darwinist, steals and quote-mines from the
> > Bible when it suits his agenda.
>
> And that's a secondary reason for him calling himself a "creationist":
> he can pretend that anyone on whom he wants to hang the label
> "creationist" has demonstrated this status by quoting from the Bible.
>

So he falls into the same pit that he dug, just like the Bible says!

> Of course, this ridiculous pretense of his ignores the fact that the
> Bible contains some great literature, with great turns of phrase that
> are just as quotable as so much from Shakespeare, Dickens, etc.
>
> [snip]
>
> >Deluded pseudo-Christian Ron
> > O exists to do the bidding of Atheists (his enemies).
>
> No, his natural allies.  And fellow atheists, I believe.
>

So he is a "double-agent"?

> > Harshman and company don't respect you, Ron. Regardless of what they
> > say, you're nothing but a buffoon (like all Christian Evolutionists)
> > in their eyes.
>
> He is a "useful idiot" to them, no matter what else he is.
>
> Peter Nyikos

Yes, quite useful.

Ray

[nick_keigh...@hotmail.com]

On Friday, July 6, 2012 2:49:51 AM UTC+1, Ray Martinez wrote:
> On Jul 4, 8:58 am, pnyikos <nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote:

<snip>

> > [...] neither Ron O nor jillery will acknowledge
> > just how uniform my denial [of creationism] has been,

> > as long as Ron O continues to indulge in misleading comments like
> > that above.

and even if you were a little slow (I have no opinion) surely a denial is a denial. I've never seen you post anything that looked like creationism. Your panspermia stuff is weird (particularly when you start naming the planets) but it isn't creationism.

> Yeah, I just don't understand his beef against you?
>
> You accept all Darwinian mechanisms, micro and macro, common descent
> and human evolution. It has to be your Directed Panspermia, Peter. He
> thinks, if I had to guess, DPism as too "creationistic."

<snip>

> > > > Last Feb
> > > > there was a discussion about creationist. Times have changed and the
> > > > old fundy definition of creationist that used to hold for most of the
> > > > TO regulars no longer applies. We have a Hindu creationist, what may
> > > > be an old earth geocentrist creationist etc.

"creationist": someone who diaagrees with Ron Okimoto

> > And we have a pathological liar who calls himself a creationist but
> > adamantly refuses to tell what sort of creator he believes in -- Ron O
> > himself.
>
> I believe Ron Okimoto believes it is a "deeply personal matter, not
> for public discourse." That is the traditional reason given by secular-
> minded Christians.
>
> Only problem, is: Jesus said if person denies Him (in front of men) He
> will deny you in front of the Father (God).

St.Peter did ok (well, if doorman is "doing ok")

> > I think his evasions are a sign that he is an atheist, and only calls
> > himself a creationist to give wackos on Ron O's side an excuse for
> > calling non-creationists "creationists.'
>
> Regardless of what he says, Ron does not believe or accept the concept
> of creation to exist in nature.

seems to be a lot of mind reading going on. On both sides...

> > > > The title of the thread refers to the Biblical notion that you can
> > > > make a judgement on something by the fruit that it produces.
> >
> > > Written by Creationists.
> >
> > > Ron O, a typical anti-Bible Darwinist, steals and quote-mines from the
> > > Bible when it suits his agenda.
> >
> > And that's a secondary reason for him calling himself a "creationist":
> > he can pretend that anyone on whom he wants to hang the label
> > "creationist" has demonstrated this status by quoting from the Bible.

I'll quote anyone if it seems apposite. Do I have to be a Marxist to quote Marx?

<snip>

> > Of course, this ridiculous pretense of his ignores the fact that the
> > Bible contains some great literature, with great turns of phrase that
> > are just as quotable as so much from Shakespeare, Dickens, etc.

quite- though I'm not so sure about Dickens.

<snip>

> > > Harshman and company don't respect you, Ron. Regardless of what they
> > > say, you're nothing but a buffoon (like all Christian Evolutionists)
> > > in their eyes.

I hereby exclude my from the Harshman clique- which i think you made up

<snip>

[Rolf]

But what has that, as well as the whole of the Bible itself, got with
evolution and science to do?

Is ot impossible to keep religions, atheism and whatever out of a debate
about science, the interwesting subject of evolution on this planet?

Why do you all insist on dropping so much crap on to the table?

Rolf, ant-crapist.

[Frank J]

On Sunday, June 10, 2012 10:35:54 AM UTC-4, Ron O wrote:
> It is already time for another edition of By Their Fruits. The Feb

> thread is still being posted to, but only because someone on the list
> has been in denial for four months. This is just a list to keep track
> of the group of posters that find themselves on the short end of the
> stick in terms of talk.origins. Nando has changed his account and now
> goes by Symasu.
>

> Anti-science and anti-evolution are terms that are thrown around TO,

> but basically they are all creationists of one type or another that

> have a beef with one or more aspects of reality. Nyikos claims to be

> an unconventional Christian who apparently is no type of creationist.

> It has taken him over a year to make that denial, so only Nyikos and
> likely his intelligent designer knows what it is worth. Last Feb

> there was a discussion about creationist. Times have changed and the
> old fundy definition of creationist that used to hold for most of the
> TO regulars no longer applies. We have a Hindu creationist, what may

> be an old earth geocentrist creationist etc. The list below is just a

> very diverse group of people. One size does not fit all. The current
> scam by the intelligent design creationist at the Discovery Institute
> is to claim that they are not creationist even though all except one,
> that I know of, has admitted that their intelligent designer is the
> Christian God.
>

> The title of the thread refers to the Biblical notion that you can

> make a judgement on something by the fruit that it produces. This

> list just allows anyone to use Google and look up the persons profile
> and get all the posts that they can stand to read written by these
> posters and determine for themselves what kind of fruit they are.
> What do they claim to be supporting? As a diverse group they range
> from the good hearted in denial like Suzanne to the abject lost
> causes.
>
> There are creationists that would not make the list and you can look
> up their efforts:
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clergy_Letter_Project
>
> So the guys on the fruits list are not on it because they are
> creationists, but they are on the list because of what they do because
> they are creationists. There are mulitple TO regulars who are
> Christians that do not make this list.
>
> Last Feb 2012 thread (it has links back to older fruits threads:

> http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/04a3b574e722a8f4?hl=en%04eb9cb29d2e94f01

> Mr.Dunsapy?:
> http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/96fa39881c1c06af?hl=en
>
> Alan Kleinman MD PhD:
> http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/96fa39881c1c06af?hl=en
>

> Pagano our resident geocentrist:
> http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/0e114ee38f39b80f?hl=en
>
> Herman:
> http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/1686a1b21322aa60?hl=en
>
> Suzanne:
> http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/fbabce95ea9a384b?hl=en
>
> If I have missed anyone just add them to the list. I only went back
> through around 3 weeks of active threads.
>
> Ron Okimoto

I'm glad that you make it clear that:

1. The ones we are criticizing are a *subset* of what you call "creationists."
2. Peddlers of heliocentric YEC and OEC are a *subset* of the ones we are criticizing.

So is it too much to ask to give a name to the group that consists of all the ones we are criticising, and includes none of the ones that we're not?

[Ron O]

> >http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/04a3b574e722a8f4?hl=e...

Such a name does not exist. The group is just too diverse. They
nearly all have some type of religious belief in some type of creator
or creators. That does make them creationists, but they are multiple
subsets of creationists.

The ID perps at the Discovery Institute deny being creationists, but
nearly all of them do believe in a creator for religious reasons.

This is a link to the Discovery Institute's mission statement. It was
their claimed mission until 1999. You have to click on the link to
see their logo of God and Adam respresenting the Institute's mission.

WayBack link:

http://web.archive.org/web/19980114111554/http://discovery.org/crsc/aboutcrsc.html

QUOTE:
What is The Center for the Renewal of Science & Culture All About?

The Mission of the Center

THE proposition that human beings are created in the image of God is
one of the bedrock principles on which Western civilization was built.
Its influence can be detected in most, if not all, of the West's
greatest achievements, including representative democracy, human
rights, free enterprise, and progress in the arts and sciences.
Yet a little over a century ago, this cardinal idea came under
wholesale attack by intellectuals drawing on the discoveries of modern
science. Debunking the traditional conceptions of both God and man,
thinkers such as Charles Darwin, Karl Marx, and Sigmund Freud
portrayed human beings not as eternal and accountable beings, but as
animals or machines who inhabited a universe ruled by chance and whose
behavior and very thoughts were dictated by the unbending forces of
biology, chemistry, and environment. This materialistic conception of
reality eventually infected virtually every area of our culture, from
politics and economics to literature and music.

The cultural consequences of this triumph of materialism were
devastating. Materialists denied the existence of objective standards
binding on all cultures, claiming that environment dictates our moral
beliefs. Such moral relativism was uncritically adopted by much of the
social sciences, and it still undergirds much of modern economics,
political science, psychology and sociology.

Materialists also undermined personal responsibility by asserting that
human thoughts and behaviors are dictated by our biology and
environment. The results can be seen in modern approaches to criminal
justice, product liability, and welfare. In the materialist scheme of
things, everyone is a victim and no one can be held accountable for
his or her actions.

Finally, materialism spawned a virulent strain of utopianism. Thinking
they could engineer the perfect society through the application of
scientific knowledge, materialist reformers advocated coercive
government programs that falsely promised to create heaven on earth.

Discovery Institute's Center for the Renewal of Science and Culture
seeks nothing less than the overthrow of materialism and its damning
cultural legacies. Bringing together leading scholars from the natural
sciences and those from the humanities and social sciences, the Center
explores how new developments in biology, physics and cognitive
science raise serious doubts about scientific materialism and have re-
opened the case for the supernatural. The Center awards fellowships
for original research, holds conferences, and briefs policymakers
about the opportunities for life after materialism.

The Center is directed by Discovery Senior Fellow Dr. Stephen Meyer.
An Associate Professor of Philosophy at Whitworth College, Dr. Meyer
holds a Ph.D. in the History and Philosophy of Science from Cambridge
University. He formerly worked as a geophysicist for the Atlantic
Richfield Company.
END QUOTE:

Ron Okimoto

[Frank J]

Then someone needs to come up with one that will stick. In the meantime we're just preaching to the "choir." It takes years of dedicated following of the "debate" to tell from the context exactly what group one is targeting. I remember being quite confused in the beginning, and it's still hard to tell if one is criticizing the snake oil buyers or sellers. And almost everyone ignores the "occasional users" ("fence sitters" for lack of a better word) that make up ~1/2 of the population.

> The group is just too diverse. They
> nearly all have some type of religious belief in some type of creator
> or creators. That does make them creationists, but they are multiple
> subsets of creationists.
>
> The ID perps at the Discovery Institute deny being creationists, but
> nearly all of them do believe in a creator for religious reasons.

The main issue is *not* anyone's "belief in a creator" but their approach to *evolution* and specifically what *OTHERS* must believe about it.

So we have the agnostic David Berlinski claiming that evolution is falsified (or unfalsifiable, and in all probability both at different times) but "unsure" what the better explanation is.

Then there's Behe, who's arguably a less-devout Catholic than his chief critic, Ken Miller. Behe concedes ~4 billion years of common descent, but pretends to be unsure where and when that mysterious other process occurs. And of course refuses to test it, which tells *us scientists at least* that he knows he can't support any alternative.

The "continuum" toward YECs and geocentrists continues, with the only** strategic difference between DI folk and anti-evolution activists who identify themselves as creationists is that the former appear to be very aware that the mutually contradictory popular alternate biological histories cannot be supported with evidence, and that the contradictions alone need to be censored from the "masses".

Thus if we use "creationist" as a synonym for "anti-evolution activist" DI folk are "supercreationists."

** Of course there's the creator vs. "unnamed designer" thing, but that is old news. "Cdesign proponentsists" has been around since 2005.

>
> This is a link to the Discovery Institute's mission statement. It was
> their claimed mission until 1999. You have to click on the link to
> see their logo of God and Adam respresenting the Institute's mission.

I have been aware of that since it was first leaked in 1999. I'm aware of their name change that dropped the "renewal" language. And I agree that the DI is *at least as theocratic* as the YEC and OEC outfits.

To be clear, when I point out how DI folk concede or "play dumb" about common descent, include agnostics, and are more friendly to aliens and "mere Deism" than many of their "Darwinist" critics, I am *NOT* trying to say that they are *NOT* promoting radical fundamentalism. Only that they are promoting it in a different way than their "cousins" at the YEC and OEC outfits. And that understanding those differences (which most people are 100% unaware) is key to appreciating the similarities within the anti-evolution movement.

This article from 1997 describes the DI strategy and motivation better than any I have read since, and all but predicts the "Wedge" statement that appeared 2 years later:

http://reason.com/archives/1997/07/01/origin-of-the-specious/singlepage

[Ron O]

Probably should update this thread since it has become active again
and there seems to be several new candidates.

Dale might be added to the list. He seems to be heading in that
direction, but he could be just a troll if you look at his profile.
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/7b6a561690bc9134?hl=en

Victor Barne hasn't posted much, but has already changed his moniker
to Mockingbird.
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/eabfef19de2b6643?hl=en

Mockingbird:
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/2ad55a99d88013f8?hl=en

I don't know about David, yet, but he likes to ask the usual
questions.
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/eb302bcc4e508ee3?hl=en

Athel noted that I had the wrong link for Alan Kleinman MD PhD:

http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/de4d2628a7dd94d6?hl=en

Ron Okimoto

[Roger Shrubber]

Frank J wrote:
> On Saturday, July 7, 2012 8:12:41 PM UTC-4, Ron O wrote:
>> On Jul 7, 3:08 pm, Frank J<f...@verizon.net> wrote:
>>> On Sunday, June 10, 2012 10:35:54 AM UTC-4, Ron O wrote:


>>> So is it too much to ask to give a name to the group that consists of all the ones we are criticising, and includes none of the ones that we're not?
>>
>> Such a name does not exist.
>
> Then someone needs to come up with one that will stick. In the meantime we're just preaching to the "choir." It takes years of dedicated following of the "debate" to tell from the context exactly what group one is targeting. I remember being quite confused in the beginning, and it's still hard to tell if one is criticizing the snake oil buyers or sellers. And almost everyone ignores the "occasional users" ("fence sitters" for lack of a better word) that make up ~1/2 of the population.

The entire exercise is stupid in the first place.
And "needing" to foster a "them" versus "us" mentality just
puts you in a primitive ape mentality.

It's obviously tribalism. It sheds a poor light on anyone
who falls for it. It says worse for the ones who push it.
Rise above your genetic heritage.

[Ron O]

On Jul 8, 6:48 am, Frank J <f...@verizon.net> wrote:
> On Saturday, July 7, 2012 8:12:41 PM UTC-4, Ron O wrote:
> > On Jul 7, 3:08 pm, Frank J <f...@verizon.net> wrote:
> > > On Sunday, June 10, 2012 10:35:54 AM UTC-4, Ron O wrote:

SNIP:

>
> > > I'm glad that you make it clear that:
>
> > > 1. The ones we are criticizing are a *subset* of what you call "creationists."
> > > 2. Peddlers of heliocentric YEC and OEC are a *subset* of the ones we are criticizing.
>
> > > So is it too much to ask to give a name to the group that consists of all the ones we are criticising, and includes none of the ones that we're not?
>
> > Such a name does not exist.
>
> Then someone needs to come up with one that will stick. In the meantime we're just preaching to the "choir."  It takes years of dedicated following of the "debate" to tell from the context exactly what group one is targeting. I remember being quite confused in the beginning, and it's still hard to tell if one is criticizing the snake oil buyers or sellers. And almost everyone ignores the "occasional users" ("fence sitters" for lack of a better word) that make up ~1/2 of the population.

You can try. I just call them what nearly all of them are and let
their actions and writings sort them out.

>
> > The group is just too diverse.  They
> > nearly all have some type of religious belief in some type of creator
> > or creators.  That does make them creationists, but they are multiple
> > subsets of creationists.
>
> > The ID perps at the Discovery Institute deny being creationists, but
> > nearly all of them do believe in a creator for religious reasons.
>
> The main issue is *not* anyone's "belief in a creator" but their approach to *evolution* and specifically what *OTHERS* must believe about it.

There is no doubt that many of their own views about what others
should believe.

>
> So we have the agnostic David Berlinski claiming that evolution is falsified (or unfalsifiable, and in all probability both at different times) but "unsure" what the better explanation is.

Berlinski claims to be an agnostic. He did sign up with the ID perps
when they had their religious mission statement, and he is
inordinately fond of the common old scientific creationist anti
evolution arguments. He could be as agnostic as Nyikos.

>
> Then there's Behe, who's arguably a less-devout Catholic than his chief critic, Ken Miller. Behe concedes ~4 billion years of common descent, but pretends to be unsure where and when that mysterious other process occurs. And of course refuses to test it, which tells *us scientists at least* that he knows he can't support any alternative.

I don't know about less devout. Behe is supposed to be a member of
other conservative religious groups, not just the Discovery
Institute. Behe is just a theistic evolutionist that is probably a
"tweeker." He has put forward the the notion that everything could
have been preordained from the first lifeform with the necessary info
front loaded, but I don't think that he was serious about that. His
flagellum and immune system are separtated in the time of their
evolution by over a billion years so he is likely a tweeker where his
god messes with life every once in a while. Miller believes in an
interactive god, but I don't know how that works in terms of how
evolution progressed. Behe claimed that his god might be dead. Behe
has claimed that he does not deny common descent. Behe makes a lot of
claims, but you don't know what he believes. For all I know it could
be an act and he is a full blown YEC with the flagellum, immune and
blood clotting system all created at the same time. That would get
around his problem of having hundreds of millions and billions of
years between tweeking events.

>
> The "continuum" toward YECs and geocentrists continues, with the only** strategic difference between DI folk and anti-evolution activists who identify themselves as creationists is that the former appear to be very aware that the mutually contradictory popular alternate biological histories cannot be supported with evidence, and that the contradictions alone need to be censored from the "masses".

Your word wrap seems to be off.

The only difference is that most of the Discovery Institute fellows
lie about being creationists. Some of them are YEC biblical
literalists. Berlinski is the only one that I have seen claim to be
an agnostic.

>
> Thus if we use "creationist" as a synonym for "anti-evolution activist" DI folk are "supercreationists."

They are just anti-evolution creationists. Some of them are anti-
science creationists. All of them seem to have a beef with
materialistic scientific explanations.

>
> ** Of course there's the creator vs. "unnamed designer" thing, but that is old news. "Cdesign proponentsists" has been around since 2005.

They lie a lot, who cares and what does it matter? Everyone knows who
their designer is. What was their original logo? The Christian God
and Adam in the heavens. I believe that fellows like Dembski and
Nelson have even admitted that their intelligent designer is the
Christian God. Does it matter what they admit to? It is what they
are that matters.

>
>
>
> > This is a link to the Discovery Institute's mission statement.  It was
> > their claimed mission until 1999.  You have to click on the link to
> > see their logo of God and Adam respresenting the Institute's mission.
>
> I have been aware of that since it was first leaked in 1999. I'm aware of their name change that dropped the "renewal" language. And I agree that the DI is *at least as theocratic* as the YEC and OEC outfits.
>
> To be clear, when I point out how DI folk concede or "play dumb" about common descent, include agnostics, and are more friendly to aliens and "mere Deism" than many of their "Darwinist" critics, I am *NOT* trying to say that they are *NOT* promoting radical fundamentalism. Only that they are promoting it in a different way than their "cousins" at the YEC and OEC outfits. And that understanding those differences (which most people are 100% unaware) is key to appreciating the similarities within the anti-evolution movement.

It would be nice if we could just call them anti-evolution
creationists, but that doesn't really work because even the guys at
the AIG are hyper evolutionists. All the millions of species evolved
from the few thousand on the Ark, their examples at the creation
museum were that all cats (from tabby to the saber toothed giants that
evolved during the cold period after the flood) came from two cats on
the ark and all dogs (from foxes to fido) came from one pair. We have
DNA from saber toothed cat fossils to compare and their DNA is about 3
times as different from tabby as our DNA is from chimps. Probably 15
to 20 million years of evolution crammed into a few thousand years
since the flood, and the hyper evolution would have had to stop before
anyone with the ability to record it was around. They call it micro
evolution. Guys like Behe just claim to have a beef with
materialistic explanations that science is stuck with.

>
> This article from 1997 describes the DI strategy and motivation better than any I have read since, and all but predicts the "Wedge" statement that appeared 2 years later:
>
> http://reason.com/archives/1997/07/01/origin-of-the-specious/singlepage

In my history of the bait and switch scam I cite another take on the
origin of the ID movement.

My summary:
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/e69993742059cfb3?hl=en

Web history timeline:
http://www.nationmaster.com/encyclopedia/Timeline-of-intelligent-design

I like the Berlinski quote from your article.

QUOTE:
"An act of intelligence is required to bring even a thimble into
being," wrote Berlinski,
END QUOTE:

Berlinski is supposed to be the only agnostic at the Discovery
Institute, but has only put up the old creation science arguments
against evolution. He does that in the paper that your article cites
from 2000 (written as a fellow of the DI). It is kind of strange that
an agnostic would join the Discovery Institute with their religious
mission statement and spout off the lame scientific creationist
arguments (lack of transistional fossils, the instant Cambrian
explosion etc). Arguments that obviously failed the scientific
creationists so badly that they had to change into intelligent design
proponents in order to claim that they were legitimate.
http://www.arn.org/docs/berlinski/db_deniabledarwin0696.htm

Ron Okimoto

SNIP:

[J.J. O'Shea]

On Sun, 8 Jul 2012 10:28:28 -0400, Roger Shrubber wrote
(in article <T4idnaxDyfDYC2TS...@giganews.com>):

> The entire exercise is stupid in the first place. And "needing" to foster a
> "them" versus "us" mentality just puts you in a primitive ape mentality.

By definition Irishmen _are_ primitive apes. Ask any Englishman.

[*Hemidactylus*]

On 07/08/2012 10:49 AM, J.J. O'Shea wrote:
> On Sun, 8 Jul 2012 10:28:28 -0400, Roger Shrubber wrote
> (in article <T4idnaxDyfDYC2TS...@giganews.com>):
>
>> The entire exercise is stupid in the first place. And "needing" to foster a
>> "them" versus "us" mentality just puts you in a primitive ape mentality.
>
> By definition Irishmen _are_ primitive apes. Ask any Englishman.

They probably think the same of Merkins and Aussies too. Savages all.
But we primitives can adapt and flourish in any environment, such as
those devoid of tea, crumpets, royals, Big Ben, and the BBCs.

[Nashton]

On 12-06-12 10:52 AM, jillery wrote:
> On Tue, 12 Jun 2012 04:20:43 -0700 (PDT), Ron O<roki...@cox.net>
> wrote:
>
>> On Jun 11, 7:11 am, Nashton<n...@na.ca> wrote:
>>> On 12-06-11 8:19 AM, Ron O wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> On Jun 11, 5:58 am, Nashton<n...@na.ca> wrote:

>>>>> On 12-06-10 11:35 AM, Ron O wrote:
>>>
>>>>>> It is already time for another edition of By Their Fruits. The Feb
>>>>>> thread is still being posted to, but only because someone on the list
>>>>>> has been in denial for four months. This is just a list to keep track
>>>>>> of the group of posters that find themselves on the short end of the
>>>>>> stick in terms of talk.origins. Nando has changed his account and now
>>>>>> goes by Symasu.
>>>
>>>>>> Anti-science and anti-evolution are terms that are thrown around TO,
>>>>>> but basically they are all creationists of one type or another that
>>>>>> have a beef with one or more aspects of reality. Nyikos claims to be
>>>>>> an unconventional Christian who apparently is no type of creationist.
>>>>>> It has taken him over a year to make that denial, so only Nyikos and
>>>>>> likely his intelligent designer knows what it is worth. Last Feb
>>>>>> there was a discussion about creationist. Times have changed and the
>>>>>> old fundy definition of creationist that used to hold for most of the
>>>>>> TO regulars no longer applies. We have a Hindu creationist, what may
>>>>>> be an old earth geocentrist creationist etc. The list below is just a
>>>>>> very diverse group of people. One size does not fit all. The current
>>>>>> scam by the intelligent design creationist at the Discovery Institute
>>>>>> is to claim that they are not creationist even though all except one,

>>>>>> that I know of, has admitted that their intelligent designer is the
>>>>>> Christian God.
>>>

>>>>>> The title of the thread refers to the Biblical notion that you can
>>>>>> make a judgement on something by the fruit that it produces.
>>>

>>>>> Of course! The same applies to the ToE, of course. Decades of research,
>>>>> with practically no applications in the real world.
>>>

>>>> At least you aren't lying about "no applications" any more. Isn't it
>>>> amazing that even NashT can learn something
>>>> Why not start claiming
>>>> just "not enough" to suit NashT?
>>>
>>> LOL
>>
>> In NashT text this means that NashT is sobbing and or whining
>> uncontrollably.
>>
>>>
>>> What is so lame about NashT's
>>>
>>>> argument is that "God did it" (NashT's alternative) has never amounted
>>>> to anything in science.
>>>
>>> I don't know. You need to use the same stick to measure everything. The
>>> fruits of the Toe are nowhere to be found in the real world.
>>
>> What is so sad about this is that I do not use the same stick. It is
>> NashT that wants to apply something where it doesn't fit. I guess to
>> guys like NashT and Ray, Methodists are not real Christians. How sad
>> is that?
>>
>>>
>>>> Zip, not a single instance where it has been
>>>> found to apply in the entire history of science.
>>>
>>> It's a clash of world views. When will this sink into your head, Ron?
>>
>> Just remember this part. NashT is claiming to understand what the
>> issue is, but just look up more of his posts to find out how he
>> addresses the issue.
>>
>>>
>>>> 100% failure rate
>>>> for the notion. It is the reason why the ID perps are running the
>>>> bait and switch on rubes like NashT.
>>>
>>> Time to find some new material to express your bitterness.
>>
>> Time to understand what your admissions above mean. You really never
>> had an equivalent argument. ID perps, and Scientific creationists
>> were lying to you even if some of them were too incompetent to
>> understand that.
>>
>>>
>>>> Wouldn't the ID perps put
>>>> forward the great science if they had it instead of giving the rubes a
>>>> stupid obfuscation scam that doesn't even mention that intelligent
>>>> design ever existed? This is the reality that guys like NashT have to
>>>> live in. What kind of fruit is NashT?
>>>
>>> And of course, Ron O concludes with ad homs and personal attacks.
>>> The ToE is useless, when measured with your own yardstick. Learn to live
>>> with it. Learn to love it, learn to own it. ;)
>>
>> The truly demented deviants keep claiming ad hom. Why is that? What
>> is the topic of this thread? The statement has bad connotations only
>> because you are such a rotten fruit of your side of the issue. If you
>> were more a person like Suzanne the fruit wouldn't be so rotten would
>> it?
>>
>> What does it mean if you understand that you do not have an argument
>> and you keep putting up posts like the one above? What are you trying
>> to accomplish by nay saying and negative arguments? Do you even
>> understand what you are doing?
>
>
> ISTM Nasty's schtick is to ape what he perceives to be the
> oppositions' replies.

Of course I do, jillery ;)

> So even at their best his replies are no better
> than humourless caricatures.

Of course they're not, jillery ;)

> But more typically they just reflect his
> own ignorance of what he's trying to argue against.

Really, jillery? Where?

> The really sad
> part

Does this make you sad, jillery?

> is he obviously thinks this makes him sound clever, when in fact
> it makes him sound like a wannabe troll.

And you would know all about trolling.
>

[Ron O]

Don't sink below your own perceived level would be better advice that
you might take. "Primitive ape mentality" "Rise above your genetic
heritage." Good advice? Poorly worded? Just have no idea of how to
solve the problem yourself? Pretending that the problem doesn't exist
and it will all go away? Why is your solution better? Not just
pretending to be better, but how does it get any better results?

Look at this By their fruits list. I don't claim that it does any
good, but my guess is that it does keep some lurkers from making the
same stupid mistakes, and though it has had no effect on guys like
Pagano, Nyikos and NashTon it seems to have had a dramatic effect on
Ray. When Adman had his realization and manic response to what the
thread title really meant Ray seems to have taken it to heart and has
vastly improved what few posts that I encounter from him. That
surprised me. Enough so I tried to reason with Ray (nearly 2 years
ago), and guess what? Ray mostly leaves me alone, now. Just go back
to Ray's posts from 4 years ago and compare. Has anything that you
have done had that kind of effect here on TO?

This list just lets anyone that wants to evaluate the posts of this
group of posters to have access to their Google profiles and to as
many other posts as they can stand to read. It isn't us vs them. It
is them against themselves. If they aren't proud of what they are
writing they don't have to write it, or can try to do something more
sensible. Anyone can access my Google profile and do the same thing
with me (I do make the first post in the thread). I don't claim to be
the good guy, I just tell it like I see it. You can disagree, but
what else can you do?

Ron Okimoto

[Ron O]

On Jul 8, 9:49 am, "J.J. O'Shea" <try.not...@but.see.sig> wrote:
> On Sun, 8 Jul 2012 10:28:28 -0400, Roger Shrubber wrote

> (in article <T4idnaxDyfDYC2TSnZ2dnUVZ_judn...@giganews.com>):

>
> > The entire exercise is stupid in the first place. And "needing" to foster a
> > "them" versus "us" mentality just puts you in a primitive ape mentality.
>
> By definition Irishmen _are_ primitive apes. Ask any Englishman.
>
> --
> email to oshea dot j dot j at gmail dot com.

Humans are all apes, just ask any evolutionist. Specifically we nest
within the great apes.

Ron Okimoto

[jillery]

I'm glad you admit your problem. That's the first step to healing.
The second step is to stop trolling with month-old posts.

>> So even at their best his replies are no better
>> than humourless caricatures.
>
>Of course they're not, jillery ;)
>
>> But more typically they just reflect his
>> own ignorance of what he's trying to argue against.
>
>Really, jillery? Where?

Just about any of your posts are good examples. The ones above where
you replied to Ron O are as good examples as any.

>> The really sad
>> part
>
>Does this make you sad, jillery?

Do you care?

>> is he obviously thinks this makes him sound clever, when in fact
>> it makes him sound like a wannabe troll.
>
>And you would know all about trolling.

Only because you're such a fine example of a wannabe troll. Prove me
wrong and explain how chimpanzees and gorillas made Neanderthals
extinct.

[*Hemidactylus*]

Aha! An Aussie just won the *British* Grand Prix.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/motorsport/formulaone/9384858/British-Grand-Prix-2012-Red-Bulls-Mark-Webber-claims-victory-ahead-of-Fernando-Alonso-at-Silverstone.html

[Frank J]

On Sunday, July 8, 2012 10:27:45 AM UTC-4, Ron O wrote:
> On Jul 8, 6:48 am, Frank J <f...@verizon.net> wrote:
> > On Saturday, July 7, 2012 8:12:41 PM UTC-4, Ron O wrote:
> > > On Jul 7, 3:08 pm, Frank J <f...@verizon.net> wrote:
> > > > On Sunday, June 10, 2012 10:35:54 AM UTC-4, Ron O wrote:
>
> SNIP:
>
> >
> > > > I'm glad that you make it clear that:
> >
> > > > 1. The ones we are criticizing are a *subset* of what you call "creationists."
> > > > 2. Peddlers of heliocentric YEC and OEC are a *subset* of the ones we are criticizing.
> >
> > > > So is it too much to ask to give a name to the group that consists of all the ones we are criticising, and includes none of the ones that we're not?
> >
> > > Such a name does not exist.
> >
> > Then someone needs to come up with one that will stick. In the meantime we're just preaching to the "choir."  It takes years of dedicated following of the "debate" to tell from the context exactly what group one is targeting. I remember being quite confused in the beginning, and it's still hard to tell if one is criticizing the snake oil buyers or sellers. And almost everyone ignores the "occasional users" ("fence sitters" for lack of a better word) that make up ~1/2 of the population.
>
> You can try. I just call them what nearly all of them are

You mean "perps" and "rubes"? I can live with that. But if you mean "creationists" most people-on-the-street define it differently, and that helps the "creationists" (your definition).

Actually he said that the *designer that he found* may be dead. When speaking of his private belief, like Miller, he says that he takes it on faith that it's God. Reading between the lines it sounds like he claims to have caught some hapless lackey.

> Behe
> has claimed that he does not deny common descent. Behe makes a lot of
> claims, but you don't know what he believes. For all I know it could
> be an act and he is a full blown YEC with the flagellum, immune and
> blood clotting system all created at the same time.

He has plainly said that he does not believe that. But since he can't be trusted on anything he says, he could be a closet YEC. Or geocentrist. But technically those would be variations on Omphalos, not of "scientific" creationism, which claims independent evidence.

> That would get
> around his problem of having hundreds of millions and billions of
> years between tweeking events.
>
> >
> > The "continuum" toward YECs and geocentrists continues, with the only** strategic difference between DI folk and anti-evolution activists who identify themselves as creationists is that the former appear to be very aware that the mutually contradictory popular alternate biological histories cannot be supported with evidence, and that the contradictions alone need to be censored from the "masses".
>
> Your word wrap seems to be off.

How do I turn it back on? And yes I admit using that "creationist" newsreader (or is it newsfeed?). That Gurgle thing that gets more obnoxious with each new version/

[Frank J]

On Tuesday, June 12, 2012 8:01:41 AM UTC-4, Steven L. wrote:

> On 6/11/2012 6:58 AM, Nashton wrote:
> > On 12-06-10 11:35 AM, Ron O wrote:
> >> It is already time for another edition of By Their Fruits. The Feb
> >> thread is still being posted to, but only because someone on the list
> >> has been in denial for four months. This is just a list to keep track
> >> of the group of posters that find themselves on the short end of the
> >> stick in terms of talk.origins. Nando has changed his account and now
> >> goes by Symasu.
> >>
> >> Anti-science and anti-evolution are terms that are thrown around TO,
> >> but basically they are all creationists of one type or another that
> >> have a beef with one or more aspects of reality. Nyikos claims to be
> >> an unconventional Christian who apparently is no type of creationist.
> >> It has taken him over a year to make that denial, so only Nyikos and
> >> likely his intelligent designer knows what it is worth. Last Feb
> >> there was a discussion about creationist. Times have changed and the
> >> old fundy definition of creationist that used to hold for most of the
> >> TO regulars no longer applies. We have a Hindu creationist, what may
> >> be an old earth geocentrist creationist etc. The list below is just a
> >> very diverse group of people. One size does not fit all. The current
> >> scam by the intelligent design creationist at the Discovery Institute
> >> is to claim that they are not creationist even though all except one,

> >> that I know of, has admitted that their intelligent designer is the
> >> Christian God.
> >>

> >> The title of the thread refers to the Biblical notion that you can
> >> make a judgement on something by the fruit that it produces.
> >
> >
> > Of course! The same applies to the ToE, of course. Decades of research,
> > with practically no applications in the real world.
>

> On the contrary, the ToE has had a major practical application:
>
> The ToE has successfully undercut the Biblical story of creation.

Actually the Gen I / Gen II thing damaged it pretty badly. Then came the even more embarrassing Flat Earth, Geocentist, YEC, Gap OEC, Day-Age OEC, Progressive OEC interpretations.

Not much for ToE to do that hadn't been done already.


> To the
> point that Christians who accept the ToE have also had to accept that
> the Adam and Eve story is parable or myth, not literal historical truth.

Christians who give it some thought, and are not hopelessly paranoid authoritarians, seem to say "If it's all about souls what does it matter where the molecules were before?"

Even this non-Christian can't rule out that some "first couple" had an unusually clear knowledge of good and evil, compared to their contemporaries and predecessors.



>
> And that's the reason you hate the ToE so much.
>
> Science would be entirely noncontroversial to you (you don't go railing
> against the theory of neutron stars or solid-state physics), if it
> didn't conflict with Scripture.
>
> Conflicting with Scripture has *major* practical implications for
> society. Religious conflicts have been a major part of world history.
>
>
I get that, and don't disagree. But why are they so obsessed with atheists, when it's the religious leaders who "sold out" to "Darwinism" that are the biggest thorn in their side?


>
>
> -- Steven L.



On Tuesday, June 12, 2012 8:01:41 AM UTC-4, Steven L. wrote:

> On 6/11/2012 6:58 AM, Nashton wrote:
> > On 12-06-10 11:35 AM, Ron O wrote:
> >> It is already time for another edition of By Their Fruits. The Feb
> >> thread is still being posted to, but only because someone on the list
> >> has been in denial for four months. This is just a list to keep track
> >> of the group of posters that find themselves on the short end of the
> >> stick in terms of talk.origins. Nando has changed his account and now
> >> goes by Symasu.
> >>
> >> Anti-science and anti-evolution are terms that are thrown around TO,
> >> but basically they are all creationists of one type or another that
> >> have a beef with one or more aspects of reality. Nyikos claims to be
> >> an unconventional Christian who apparently is no type of creationist.
> >> It has taken him over a year to make that denial, so only Nyikos and
> >> likely his intelligent designer knows what it is worth. Last Feb
> >> there was a discussion about creationist. Times have changed and the
> >> old fundy definition of creationist that used to hold for most of the
> >> TO regulars no longer applies. We have a Hindu creationist, what may
> >> be an old earth geocentrist creationist etc. The list below is just a
> >> very diverse group of people. One size does not fit all. The current
> >> scam by the intelligent design creationist at the Discovery Institute
> >> is to claim that they are not creationist even though all except one,

> >> that I know of, has admitted that their intelligent designer is the
> >> Christian God.
> >>

> >> The title of the thread refers to the Biblical notion that you can
> >> make a judgement on something by the fruit that it produces.
> >
> >
> > Of course! The same applies to the ToE, of course. Decades of research,
> > with practically no applications in the real world.
>

> On the contrary, the ToE has had a major practical application:
>
> The ToE has successfully undercut the Biblical story of creation. To the
> point that Christians who accept the ToE have also had to accept that
> the Adam and Eve story is parable or myth, not literal historical truth.
>
> And that's the reason you hate the ToE so much.
>
> Science would be entirely noncontroversial to you (you don't go railing
> against the theory of neutron stars or solid-state physics), if it
> didn't conflict with Scripture.
>
> Conflicting with Scripture has *major* practical implications for
> society. Religious conflicts have been a major part of world history.
>
>
>
>
> -- Steven L.



On Tuesday, June 12, 2012 8:01:41 AM UTC-4, Steven L. wrote:

> On 6/11/2012 6:58 AM, Nashton wrote:
> > On 12-06-10 11:35 AM, Ron O wrote:
> >> It is already time for another edition of By Their Fruits. The Feb
> >> thread is still being posted to, but only because someone on the list
> >> has been in denial for four months. This is just a list to keep track
> >> of the group of posters that find themselves on the short end of the
> >> stick in terms of talk.origins. Nando has changed his account and now
> >> goes by Symasu.
> >>
> >> Anti-science and anti-evolution are terms that are thrown around TO,
> >> but basically they are all creationists of one type or another that
> >> have a beef with one or more aspects of reality. Nyikos claims to be
> >> an unconventional Christian who apparently is no type of creationist.
> >> It has taken him over a year to make that denial, so only Nyikos and
> >> likely his intelligent designer knows what it is worth. Last Feb
> >> there was a discussion about creationist. Times have changed and the
> >> old fundy definition of creationist that used to hold for most of the
> >> TO regulars no longer applies. We have a Hindu creationist, what may
> >> be an old earth geocentrist creationist etc. The list below is just a
> >> very diverse group of people. One size does not fit all. The current
> >> scam by the intelligent design creationist at the Discovery Institute
> >> is to claim that they are not creationist even though all except one,

> >> that I know of, has admitted that their intelligent designer is the
> >> Christian God.
> >>

> >> The title of the thread refers to the Biblical notion that you can
> >> make a judgement on something by the fruit that it produces.
> >
> >
> > Of course! The same applies to the ToE, of course. Decades of research,
> > with practically no applications in the real world.
>

> On the contrary, the ToE has had a major practical application:
>
> The ToE has successfully undercut the Biblical story of creation. To the
> point that Christians who accept the ToE have also had to accept that
> the Adam and Eve story is parable or myth, not literal historical truth.
>
> And that's the reason you hate the ToE so much.
>
> Science would be entirely noncontroversial to you (you don't go railing
> against the theory of neutron stars or solid-state physics), if it
> didn't conflict with Scripture.
>
> Conflicting with Scripture has *major* practical implications for
> society. Religious conflicts have been a major part of world history.
>
>
>
>
> -- Steven L.

[Ron O]

I don't know how to work new Google, I am just trying to get by with
it. You must have hit the wrong button somewhere.

Maybe signing out and deleting your cookies or whatever before signing
back in will reset it.

Ron Okimoto

SNIP:

[Nashton]

On 12-07-08 12:33 PM, Ron O wrote:
> On Jul 8, 9:16 am, Roger Shrubber<rog.shrubb...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Frank J wrote:
>>> On Saturday, July 7, 2012 8:12:41 PM UTC-4, Ron O wrote:
>>>> On Jul 7, 3:08 pm, Frank J<f...@verizon.net> wrote:

>> The entire exercise is stupid in the first place.
>> And "needing" to foster a "them" versus "us" mentality just
>> puts you in a primitive ape mentality.
>>
>> It's obviously tribalism. It sheds a poor light on anyone
>> who falls for it. It says worse for the ones who push it.
>> Rise above your genetic heritage.
>
> Don't sink below your own perceived level would be better advice that
> you might take.

Whatever that means.

"Primitive ape mentality" "Rise above your genetic
> heritage." Good advice?

Definitely. Better than anything you have ever offered.

> Poorly worded? Just have no idea of how to
> solve the problem yourself? Pretending that the problem doesn't exist
> and it will all go away? Why is your solution better? Not just
> pretending to be better, but how does it get any better results?

You are an activist, pure and simple. You are so far distanced from any
capacity to think critically, let alone in a scientific manner, is
obvious to the most casual of observer.
Theories that stand on their tenets need no advocates or anal and bitter
polemicists such as yourself and the rest of the goons and shills that
are in the same category as yourself.

>
> Look at this By their fruits list. I don't claim that it does any
> good, but my guess is that it does keep some lurkers from making the
> same stupid mistakes, and though it has had no effect on guys like
> Pagano, Nyikos and NashTon it seems to have had a dramatic effect on
> Ray.

Nobody can mistake the fact that you probably need some psychotherapy.

> When Adman had his realization and manic response to what the
> thread title really meant Ray seems to have taken it to heart and has
> vastly improved what few posts that I encounter from him. That
> surprised me. Enough so I tried to reason with Ray (nearly 2 years
> ago), and guess what? Ray mostly leaves me alone, now. Just go back
> to Ray's posts from 4 years ago and compare. Has anything that you
> have done had that kind of effect here on TO?

You're joking, right? If anything, he treats you like the insipient
snake that you are.

>
> This list just lets anyone that wants to evaluate the posts of this
> group of posters to have access to their Google profiles and to as
> many other posts as they can stand to read. It isn't us vs them. It
> is them against themselves.

LOL, what hot air.

> If they aren't proud of what they are
> writing they don't have to write it, or can try to do something more
> sensible.

That's pretty rich coming from you.

> Anyone can access my Google profile and do the same thing
> with me (I do make the first post in the thread). I don't claim to be
> the good guy, I just tell it like I see it. You can disagree, but
> what else can you do?

There is no good or bad in this debate. There are fanatics, goons and
phychos that feel the need to defend something that is so tenuous that
it requires a bunch of losers to defend it.

>
> Ron Okimoto
>

[Ray Martinez]

What on earth are you talking about?

Ray

[Robert Carnegie: Fnord: cc talk-origins@moderators.isc.org]

On Sunday, July 8, 2012 8:12:23 PM UTC+1, Frank J wrote:
> On Sunday, July 8, 2012 10:27:45 AM UTC-4, Ron O wrote:
> > Your word wrap seems to be off.
>
> How do I turn it back on? And yes I admit using that "creationist" newsreader (or is it newsfeed?). That Gurgle thing that gets more obnoxious with each new version/

You may be able to select "old Google Groups",
for as long as it's there. Otherwise, put in
line-breaks by hand, like this - "hard returns".

[jillery]

Oh look, here's Nashton posting his venom, which is his idea of
substance. Too bad he writes nothing worth replying to, except maybe
to acknowledge its existence, or to mock it. No doubt this is how
Nashton justifies to himself that other posters run away, when it's
more like reacting to a particularly foul skunk.

[Ron O]

Does anyone think that NashT should be proud of this post?

Ron Okimoto

>
>
>
> > Ron Okimoto

[Roger Shrubber]

Ron O wrote:
> On Jul 8, 9:16 am, Roger Shrubber<rog.shrubb...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Frank J wrote:
>>> On Saturday, July 7, 2012 8:12:41 PM UTC-4, Ron O wrote:
>>>> On Jul 7, 3:08 pm, Frank J<f...@verizon.net> wrote:
>>>>> On Sunday, June 10, 2012 10:35:54 AM UTC-4, Ron O wrote:
>>>>> So is it too much to ask to give a name to the group that consists of all the ones we are criticising, and includes none of the ones that we're not?
>>
>>>> Such a name does not exist.
>>
>>> Then someone needs to come up with one that will stick. In the meantime we're just preaching to the "choir." It takes years of dedicated following of the "debate" to tell from the context exactly what group one is targeting. I remember being quite confused in the beginning, and it's still hard to tell if one is criticizing the snake oil buyers or sellers. And almost everyone ignores the "occasional users" ("fence sitters" for lack of a better word) that make up ~1/2 of the population.
>>
>> The entire exercise is stupid in the first place.
>> And "needing" to foster a "them" versus "us" mentality just
>> puts you in a primitive ape mentality.
>>
>> It's obviously tribalism. It sheds a poor light on anyone
>> who falls for it. It says worse for the ones who push it.
>> Rise above your genetic heritage.


> Don't sink below your own perceived level would be better advice that
> you might take. "Primitive ape mentality" "Rise above your genetic
> heritage." Good advice? Poorly worded? Just have no idea of how to
> solve the problem yourself? Pretending that the problem doesn't exist
> and it will all go away? Why is your solution better? Not just
> pretending to be better, but how does it get any better results?

Is there supposed to be a coherent thread in that barrage
of questions?

The problem in question is indulging in tribalistic behavior,
casting the world into a them versus us frame. This is what
you systematically do with your little exercise here.
You place more focus on authors than content by labeling
authors. The alternative is to deal with individual posts
as they are.

> Look at this By their fruits list. I don't claim that it does any
> good,

And then you go on to claim it does some good.
Which is it? Did you change your mind and forget how to go
back and edit? Or are you not bothered by making two
opposite claims in juxtaposition?

> but my guess is that it does keep some lurkers from making the
> same stupid mistakes, and though it has had no effect on guys like
> Pagano, Nyikos and NashTon it seems to have had a dramatic effect on
> Ray. When Adman had his realization and manic response to what the
> thread title really meant Ray seems to have taken it to heart and has
> vastly improved what few posts that I encounter from him. That
> surprised me. Enough so I tried to reason with Ray (nearly 2 years
> ago), and guess what? Ray mostly leaves me alone, now. Just go back
> to Ray's posts from 4 years ago and compare. Has anything that you
> have done had that kind of effect here on TO?

I personally like to avoid keeping a score of "victories". I'd
be worried that doing so might lead to delusions of grandeur.

> This list just lets anyone that wants to evaluate the posts of this
> group of posters to have access to their Google profiles and to as

Indeed, it is a grouping exercise, and unmistakable a "them" group.

> many other posts as they can stand to read. It isn't us vs them. It
> is them against themselves. If they aren't proud of what they are
> writing they don't have to write it, or can try to do something more
> sensible. Anyone can access my Google profile and do the same thing
> with me (I do make the first post in the thread). I don't claim to be
> the good guy, I just tell it like I see it. You can disagree, but
> what else can you do?

You claim above to have altered Ray's behavior but don't claim
to be the good guy?! Your claim to offer a service that you note
isn't required because it's easy for anyone to do.

Let me be very clear. The effect of your posting this list is
to identify a group of posters that you claim are a problem
set, and while you may deny it in one sentence, you'll claim
in another, in your own special way, that it's a consensus
of the right group. You are fostering a them versus us mentality.
If you don't realize it, please please please open your eyes.
It existed before you started this or ever joined talk.origins.
It will exist if you stop. But you don't have to contribute to
it. And individuals who avoid tribalism make a difference.

[jillery]

On Sun, 8 Jul 2012 15:35:06 -0700 (PDT), Ron O <roki...@cox.net>
wrote:

Apparently it's the best he can do. I suppose if you can't do
anything to be proud of, be proud of what you can do.

[Roger Shrubber]

> >Does anyone think that XXX should be proud of this post?

> Apparently it's the best he can do.  I suppose if you can't do
> anything to be proud of, be proud of what you can do.

O wad some Pow'r the giftie gie us
To see oursels as ithers see us!
Robert Burns

I guess I should warn you,
if I turn out to be particularly clear,
you've probably misunderstood what I've said.
Alan Greenspan

I have suffered from being misunderstood,
but I would have suffered a hell of a lot more
if I had been understood.
Clarence Darrow

No one really listens to anyone else,
and if you try it for a while you'll see why.
Mignon McLaughlin

[Ron O]

On Jul 8, 6:07 pm, Roger Shrubber <rog.shrubb...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Ron O wrote:
> > On Jul 8, 9:16 am, Roger Shrubber<rog.shrubb...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> Frank J wrote:
> >>> On Saturday, July 7, 2012 8:12:41 PM UTC-4, Ron O wrote:
> >>>> On Jul 7, 3:08 pm, Frank J<f...@verizon.net> wrote:
> >>>>> On Sunday, June 10, 2012 10:35:54 AM UTC-4, Ron O wrote:
> >>>>> So is it too much to ask to give a name to the group that consists of all the ones we are criticising, and includes none of the ones that we're not?
>
> >>>> Such a name does not exist.
>
> >>> Then someone needs to come up with one that will stick. In the meantime we're just preaching to the "choir." It takes years of dedicated following of the "debate" to tell from the context exactly what group one is targeting. I remember being quite confused in the beginning, and it's still hard to tell if one is criticizing the snake oil buyers or sellers. And almost everyone ignores the "occasional users" ("fence sitters" for lack of a better word) that make up ~1/2 of the population.
>
> >> The entire exercise is stupid in the first place.
> >> And "needing" to foster a "them" versus "us" mentality just
> >> puts you in a primitive ape mentality.
>
> >> It's obviously tribalism. It sheds a poor light on anyone
> >> who falls for it. It says worse for the ones who push it.
> >> Rise above your genetic heritage.
> > Don't sink below your own perceived level would be better advice that
> > you might take. "Primitive ape mentality" "Rise above your genetic
> > heritage." Good advice? Poorly worded? Just have no idea of how to
> > solve the problem yourself? Pretending that the problem doesn't exist
> > and it will all go away? Why is your solution better? Not just
> > pretending to be better, but how does it get any better results?
>
> Is there supposed to be a coherent thread in that barrage
> of questions?

Can you take your own advice?

>
> The problem in question is indulging in tribalistic behavior,
> casting the world into a them versus us frame. This is what
> you systematically do with your little exercise here.
> You place more focus on authors than content by labeling
> authors. The alternative is to deal with individual posts
> as they are.

You call it tribalistic behavior I just call it dealing with reality.
I even claim that there are all kinds of people on the list. Anyone
just has to make up their own minds. I give them that opportunity.
How can anyone deal with individual posts if they can't find them? I
give them the means to find as many as they need to make up their
minds.

>
> > Look at this By their fruits list. I don't claim that it does any
> > good,
>
> And then you go on to claim it does some good.
> Which is it? Did you change your mind and forget how to go
> back and edit? Or are you not bothered by making two
> opposite claims in juxtaposition?

Have you ever before seen me make a claim that the thread does any
good?

Why can't I then make the observation that I do make? Do you have a
reason why I can't?

>
> > but my guess is that it does keep some lurkers from making the
>
> > same stupid mistakes, and though it has had no effect on guys like
> > Pagano, Nyikos and NashTon it seems to have had a dramatic effect on
> > Ray. When Adman had his realization and manic response to what the
> > thread title really meant Ray seems to have taken it to heart and has
> > vastly improved what few posts that I encounter from him. That
> > surprised me. Enough so I tried to reason with Ray (nearly 2 years
> > ago), and guess what? Ray mostly leaves me alone, now. Just go back
> > to Ray's posts from 4 years ago and compare. Has anything that you
> > have done had that kind of effect here on TO?
>
> I personally like to avoid keeping a score of "victories". I'd
> be worried that doing so might lead to delusions of grandeur.

It is just an observation that you have probably made yourself and
never put the two together.

You can check out Rays posts from 4 years ago before adman's manic
response to reality. Maybe it was just coincidence. I only make the
observation. It isn't even a victory. What kind of victory is it?
It is just simply an observation. Ray did become less rabid to the
extent that I thought that I could reason with the guy.

>
> > This list just lets anyone that wants to evaluate the posts of this
> > group of posters to have access to their Google profiles and to as
>
> Indeed, it is a grouping exercise, and unmistakable a "them" group.

Who have you got me grouped with? Your advice must not apply to
yourself. You could use this thread to read as many of their posts as
you want, but it isn't worth it if you have been posting to this group
for any length of time. This list isn't for the regulars. They
already know the score. There are some newbies on the list from time
to time, but most of them don't last long enough to really evaluate.

>
> > many other posts as they can stand to read. It isn't us vs them. It
> > is them against themselves. If they aren't proud of what they are
> > writing they don't have to write it, or can try to do something more
> > sensible. Anyone can access my Google profile and do the same thing
> > with me (I do make the first post in the thread). I don't claim to be
> > the good guy, I just tell it like I see it. You can disagree, but
> > what else can you do?
>
> You claim above to have altered Ray's behavior but don't claim
> to be the good guy?! Your claim to offer a service that you note
> isn't required because it's easy for anyone to do.

I just made the observation of a behavioral change. A change so
striking that I did try to reason with Ray and what happened?

>
> Let me be very clear. The effect of your posting this list is
> to identify a group of posters that you claim are a problem
> set, and while you may deny it in one sentence, you'll claim
> in another, in your own special way, that it's a consensus
> of the right group. You are fostering a them versus us mentality.
> If you don't realize it, please please please open your eyes.
> It existed before you started this or ever joined talk.origins.
> It will exist if you stop. But you don't have to contribute to
> it. And individuals who avoid tribalism make a difference.

I do not claim them as a problem set. I put people like Suzanne and
newbies to watch on this list and do not claim them as "problems" just
a possible product of the current anti-evolution/anti-science
phenomenon. I do not claim that they are fundy creationists, in fact,
I claim that they are a very diverse group.

You can make any claims that you want, but I obviously do not have the
consensus of any large group here. Just look at how many versions of
creationists definitions there are. Please, please open your eyes and
understand that no one should make snap judgements of the people on
this list. Not you, not anyone. Anyone has the opportunity to read
as many posts as they can stand to read and make up their own mind. I
have a prediction of what any reasonable person would find out by
going through this list (and it won't be a blanket call over all of
them), but that isn't my problem. These posters are the fruit of a
multifaceted movement that sweeps up a lot of different types of
people, and this is the result. Good, bad and ugly. Really, just
because there is more bad and ugly is just reality. I certainly do
not post the posts that the guys on the list are responsible for, and
I have no control over what they post. I also have little control
over what posts anyone will chose to read about these posters, and if
I do put up a selected post I say up front that it was selected, and
that only happens on rare occasions. There have been many more times
where the first post that I find is unacceptable and I skip it just so
that I can't be accused of stacking the deck.

If you want to make more of it than it is, you can do that, but you
should not put me in some made up group of your own and make claims
about what I am doing if you want to do it. I don't doubt that most
of us would like to see more honest and well thought out discussions,
but that isn't the reality of this newsgroup, and pretending that if
you ignore reality that it will go away is just sad. Really, will
stopping the by their fruits threads make the posts of these people
any better? Better to give someone the chance to evaluate the
situation before making a fool of themselves, but that is only my
opinion. This list is obviously not for the regulars except as
reference to more easily get access to someone's posts. The regulars
know most of what these guys usually write. Someone like Victor Barne
should use this list before he makes the same mistakes.

Ron Okimoto

[HaShem Rules]

On Monday, June 11, 2012 7:19:47 AM UTC-4, Ron O wrote:

> At least you aren't lying about "no applications" any more. Isn't it

> amazing that even NashT can learn something? Why not start claiming
> just "not enough" to suit NashT? What is so lame about NashT's

> argument is that "God did it" (NashT's alternative) has never amounted

> to anything in science. Zip, not a single instance where it has been
> found to apply in the entire history of science. 100% failure rate

> for the notion. It is the reason why the ID perps are running the

> bait and switch on rubes like NashT. Wouldn't the ID perps put

> forward the great science if they had it instead of giving the rubes a
> stupid obfuscation scam that doesn't even mention that intelligent
> design ever existed? This is the reality that guys like NashT have to
> live in. What kind of fruit is NashT?

I like green apples.....
>
> Ron Okimoto

Ever think of this; "Intelligence doesn't evolve." It's
inherited. It's embedded in the womb. And will learn to
it's capacity. Doesn't that put Darwin down the toilet?

"the Almighty God did it." Only one of those. No worship
need apply. He negates ALL Gods and religions on the
planet. Not one, Almighty......

The Almighty is all about science. The science of
genetics, psychology, and technology....

Genetics
Adam was made from the dust/minerals of the Earth. In
a petri dish. His wife, made with genes from him.

Psychology....
"Don't eat the fruit from the tree in the middle of
the garden. Or you will die the death."

An Archangel of HaShem deceived Eve into experiencing
auto erotic orgasm.....

HaShem said to Eve....
"Now you will bear children in great pain."
<8,9 pound monsters, rather that a healthy 3,4
pound child>.

He said to Adam....
"Now you will work from the sweat of your brow."
And I have, on many jobs...

Technology....
He has a 1500 cubic mile kingdom/house in creation.
Measured in the Apocalypse....

Must be a technological marvel, Dilates time.....

<jewishvirtuallibrary,org>
The only place one can meet the Almighty God.
Not a public generic God. Which can be anything.

With the Almighty, one knows what they get. The
science of genetics, psychology, and technology.
>
> Ron Okimoto

[Roger Shrubber]

You don't seem to understand my advice.
I'm not trying to publish a list of individuals who indulge
in overtly tribalistic behavior. I'm not suggesting a group
be treated differently. I'm objecting to specific behaviors
and asking for some considered introspection.

In so doing, I'm guilty of playing net.cop, a role I don't
particularly want to play very often, nor do I intend to
pursue it much further.

> > The problem in question is indulging in tribalistic behavior,
> > casting the world into a them versus us frame. This is what
> > you systematically do with your little exercise here.
> > You place more focus on authors than content by labeling
> > authors. The alternative is to deal with individual posts
> > as they are.

> You call it tribalistic behavior I just call it dealing with reality.
> I even claim that there are all kinds of people on the list.  Anyone
> just has to make up their own minds.  I give them that opportunity.
> How can anyone deal with individual posts if they can't find them?  I
> give them the means to find as many as they need to make up their
> minds.

This "valuable service" you offer: it comes with very special
editorialization and isn't anything a person with primitive
skills in web searching couldn't do on their own. The net
effect is that you enable little but label much.

> > > Look at this By their fruits list.  I don't claim that it does any
> > > good,

> > And then you go on to claim it does some good.
> > Which is it? Did you change your mind and forget how to go
> > back and edit? Or are you not bothered by making two
> > opposite claims in juxtaposition?

> Have you ever before seen me make a claim that the thread does any
> good?
>
> Why can't I then make the observation that I do make?  Do you have a
> reason why I can't?

Are you honestly missing the point? Your claim below is that
your thread is doing some good. Your claim above is that you
don't claim your thread does any good. Can the contradiction
be much clearer? Cognitive dissonance is supposed to cause
pain but you appear immune.

> >  > but my guess is that it does keep some lurkers from making the
>
> > > same stupid mistakes, and though it has had no effect on guys like
> > > Pagano, Nyikos and NashTon it seems to have had a dramatic effect on
> > > Ray.  When Adman had his realization and manic response to what the
> > > thread title really meant Ray seems to have taken it to heart and has
> > > vastly improved what few posts that I encounter from him.  That
> > > surprised me.  Enough so I tried to reason with Ray (nearly 2 years
> > > ago), and guess what?  Ray mostly leaves me alone, now.  Just go back
> > > to Ray's posts from 4 years ago and compare.  Has anything that you
> > > have done had that kind of effect here on TO?

> > I personally like to avoid keeping a score of "victories". I'd
> > be worried that doing so might lead to delusions of grandeur.

> It is just an observation that you have probably made yourself and
> never put the two together.
>
> You can check out Rays posts from 4 years ago before adman's manic
> response to reality.  Maybe it was just coincidence.  I only make the
> observation.  It isn't even a victory.  What kind of victory is it?
> It is just simply an observation.  Ray did become less rabid to the
> extent that I thought that I could reason with the guy.

It pains me to ridicule irrational optimism. It can be a motivation
for good.

> > > This list just lets anyone that wants to evaluate the posts of this
> > > group of posters to have access to their Google profiles and to as

> > Indeed, it is a grouping exercise, and unmistakable a "them" group.

> Who have you got me grouped with?  Your advice must not apply to
> yourself.  You could use this thread to read as many of their posts as
> you want, but it isn't worth it if you have been posting to this group
> for any length of time.  This list isn't for the regulars.  They
> already know the score.  There are some newbies on the list from time
> to time, but most of them don't last long enough to really evaluate.

I'm not trying to group you with a them group. I'm noting that
your post promotes and encourages such divisions.

This sanctimonious sense of doing a favor for newbies is
hard to take. The arrogance of thinking that individuals
can't figure things out for themselves astounds me. You
presume people need your help in identifying your select
group of "thems" and you seem willing to deny the larger
consequence, and consequently the history of pack
behavior on talk.origins. I didn't think it would be necessary
to be so explicit but you have effectively requested it.

I should know better than to engage a Paladin upon a
white charger. For what little it's worth, I'm laughing at
my own folly. You perceive yourself to be part of fulfilling
a noble quest, as in my own way am I. It looks like you don't
see my point. You either don't see the damage you do or
think you are serving a greater good. Continuing this on
my part would be pointless. Apparently, beginning it was
as well.

[nick_keigh...@hotmail.com]

On Monday, July 9, 2012 3:53:45 AM UTC+1, HaShem Rules wrote:

<snip stuff you didn't seem to be responding to>

> Ever think of this; "Intelligence doesn't evolve."

no. Or rather I thought about what you said and speedily dismissed it.

> It's inherited.

note individuals don't evolve, populations do. So your intelligence didn't evolve (in the evolutionary biology sense) but humanities did.

There is likely a developmental component to intelligence. A malnourished or under stimulated or educated child may end less smart that it was capable of.

> It's embedded in the womb. And will learn to
> it's capacity. Doesn't that put Darwin down the toilet?

no. because you don't understand the basics of biology.

> "the Almighty God did it." Only one of those. No worship
> need apply. He negates ALL Gods and religions on the
> planet. Not one, Almighty......

unable to parse that

> The Almighty is all about science. The science of
> genetics, psychology, and technology....

no.

> Genetics
> Adam was made from the dust/minerals of the Earth. In
> a petri dish. His wife, made with genes from him.

neither adam not eve existed they are a fairy tale. And you version isn't even poetical.

> Psychology....
> "Don't eat the fruit from the tree in the middle of
> the garden. Or you will die the death."

seems like poor psychology

<snip drug induced ranting>

[Nashton]

Your dishonesty shines through.
You can't even defend your position, if not with attacks and innuendo.

Activists are known to employ these tactics.
The ToE certainly needs you and your ilk to defend it. It is literally
useless and so are most of the blowhards in here that defend it tooth
and nail.

[Nashton]

Another useless goon makes his mark.

As I've stated in the past, it seems that the ToE needs goons and
bullies to defend it.

[Nashton]

On 12-07-04 1:05 PM, J.J. O'Shea wrote:
> On Wed, 4 Jul 2012 11:20:57 -0400, pnyikos wrote
> (in article
> <4bf55b14-f4c8-4933...@v15g2000yqi.googlegroups.com>):
>
>> On Jun 11, 9:38 pm, "J.J. O'Shea"<try.not...@but.see.sig> wrote:
>>> On Mon, 11 Jun 2012 15:00:45 -0400, Ray Martinez wrote
>>> (in article
>>> <84744d5f-9145-4861-8994-90bbb457a...@nl1g2000pbc.googlegroups.com>):
>>>
>>> In the category of lawsuits at dawn=> [name of creationist wacko redacted]
>>> is not a Creationist. He is the most
>>>
>>> interesting and honest
>>
>> Thanks for the compliment, J.J. Does this mean you've changed your
>> mind about me being dishonest? Or only that I am the least dishonest
>> of the non-creationists?
>
> You are a very silly boy.

In a ng chalk full of scientists and posters who's intellect you
couldn't match if you tried for 5 lifetimes, this is the best that you
can do?


ROF

>
>>
>>>> Darwinist here at Talk.Origins. You, on the other hand, are the most rotten
>>>> and dishonest person here at Talk.Origins.
>>
>> Since this was addressed to Ron O, I am in full agreement, and I have
>> megabytes of posts by Rotten Ron to prove that, if he is not THE most
>> rotten and dishonest person here at talk.origins, the "champ" must
>> have totally slipped under my radar screen. And by that I mean, even
>> the name of anyone even half as copiously dishonest as Ron O is a
>> mystery to me.
>>
>> Peter Nyikos
>>
>>
>>>> Someday you're going to earn
>>>> yourself a defamation lawsuit.

[Ron O]

What did you do, and what are you doing now? I rest my case.

Ron Okimoto

[Ron O]

You don't seem to know how to give advice without doing what you claim
others are doing. What is the business of Apes and Us vs Them and
dividing people into groups of your own choosing? Who is exhibiting
the tribalistic behavior? What group do you belong to? If you claim
that you represent yourself, why can't I represent myself?

Start over again and see if you can do better.

>
> In so doing, I'm guilty of playing net.cop, a role I don't
> particularly want to play very often, nor do I intend to
> pursue it much further.

It isn't just net cop, it is the way that you did it.

>
> > > The problem in question is indulging in tribalistic behavior,
> > > casting the world into a them versus us frame. This is what
> > > you systematically do with your little exercise here.
> > > You place more focus on authors than content by labeling
> > > authors. The alternative is to deal with individual posts
> > > as they are.
> > You call it tribalistic behavior I just call it dealing with reality.
> > I even claim that there are all kinds of people on the list.  Anyone
> > just has to make up their own minds.  I give them that opportunity.
> > How can anyone deal with individual posts if they can't find them?  I
> > give them the means to find as many as they need to make up their
> > minds.
>
> This "valuable service" you offer: it comes with very special
> editorialization and isn't anything a person with primitive
> skills in web searching couldn't do on their own. The net
> effect is that you enable little but label much.

I have been forced to add explanation because guys like you continue
to not get it. There is always something else to explain. The guys
on the list didn't even know what I meant, and adman didn't take it
very well when he finally figured it out.

>
> > > > Look at this By their fruits list.  I don't claim that it does any
> > > > good,
> > > And then you go on to claim it does some good.
> > > Which is it? Did you change your mind and forget how to go
> > > back and edit? Or are you not bothered by making two
> > > opposite claims in juxtaposition?
> > Have you ever before seen me make a claim that the thread does any
> > good?
>
> > Why can't I then make the observation that I do make?  Do you have a
> > reason why I can't?
>
> Are you honestly missing the point? Your claim below is that
> your thread is doing some good. Your claim above is that you
> don't claim your thread does any good. Can the contradiction
> be much clearer? Cognitive dissonance is supposed to cause
> pain but you appear immune.

Why can't I make that point after never making it before? What is to
stop me? You are just making an issue out of a nonissue. The
statement stands and if you have a counter to it make it instead of
doing what you are doing. Shouldn't you claim that I am wrong and
that these things never happened instead of what you are doing? You
could go back 4 years and look at how Ray was then.

>
> > >  > but my guess is that it does keep some lurkers from making the
>
> > > > same stupid mistakes, and though it has had no effect on guys like
> > > > Pagano, Nyikos and NashTon it seems to have had a dramatic effect on
> > > > Ray.  When Adman had his realization and manic response to what the
> > > > thread title really meant Ray seems to have taken it to heart and has
> > > > vastly improved what few posts that I encounter from him.  That
> > > > surprised me.  Enough so I tried to reason with Ray (nearly 2 years
> > > > ago), and guess what?  Ray mostly leaves me alone, now.  Just go back
> > > > to Ray's posts from 4 years ago and compare.  Has anything that you
> > > > have done had that kind of effect here on TO?
> > > I personally like to avoid keeping a score of "victories". I'd
> > > be worried that doing so might lead to delusions of grandeur.
> > It is just an observation that you have probably made yourself and
> > never put the two together.
>
> > You can check out Rays posts from 4 years ago before adman's manic
> > response to reality.  Maybe it was just coincidence.  I only make the
> > observation.  It isn't even a victory.  What kind of victory is it?
> > It is just simply an observation.  Ray did become less rabid to the
> > extent that I thought that I could reason with the guy.
>
> It pains me to ridicule irrational optimism. It can be a motivation
> for good.

You can't seem to deny reality, though.

>
> > > > This list just lets anyone that wants to evaluate the posts of this
> > > > group of posters to have access to their Google profiles and to as
> > > Indeed, it is a grouping exercise, and unmistakable a "them" group.
> > Who have you got me grouped with?  Your advice must not apply to
> > yourself.  You could use this thread to read as many of their posts as
> > you want, but it isn't worth it if you have been posting to this group
> > for any length of time.  This list isn't for the regulars.  They
> > already know the score.  There are some newbies on the list from time
> > to time, but most of them don't last long enough to really evaluate.
>
> I'm not trying to group you with a them group. I'm noting that
> your post promotes and encourages such divisions.

Geeze, I must have totally misunderstood what you were doing with this
comment.

QUOTE:

The entire exercise is stupid in the first place.
And "needing" to foster a "them" versus "us" mentality just
puts you in a primitive ape mentality.

It's obviously tribalism. It sheds a poor light on anyone
who falls for it. It says worse for the ones who push it.
Rise above your genetic heritage.

END QUOTE:

>
> This sanctimonious sense of doing a favor for newbies is
> hard to take. The arrogance of thinking that individuals
> can't figure things out for themselves astounds me. You
> presume people need your help in identifying your select
> group of "thems" and you seem willing to deny the larger
> consequence, and consequently the history of pack
> behavior on talk.origins. I didn't think it would be necessary
> to be so explicit but you have effectively requested it.

Who admits to playing net cop? It isn't sanctimonious it is a favor
if they would choose to use the information to inform themselves
before they make the same mistakes. This list obviously isn't for the
regulars. I do list some newbies, but I only go back through a couple
weeks worth of active threads to find who is currently posting. Why
wouldn't the potential newbies and lurkers need the assistance? Were
you born knowing everything? Would you know who to look for in the
mess that is TO? Why not make it easier for them to be informed?
They are the ones that there is still hope for.

Ron Okimoto

SNIP:

[J.J. O'Shea]

On Mon, 9 Jul 2012 06:40:08 -0400, Nashton wrote
(in article <jtece6$efo$4...@speranza.aioe.org>):

> On 12-07-04 1:05 PM, J.J. O'Shea wrote:
>> On Wed, 4 Jul 2012 11:20:57 -0400, pnyikos wrote
>> (in article
>> <4bf55b14-f4c8-4933...@v15g2000yqi.googlegroups.com>):
>>
>>> On Jun 11, 9:38 pm, "J.J. O'Shea"<try.not...@but.see.sig> wrote:
>>>> On Mon, 11 Jun 2012 15:00:45 -0400, Ray Martinez wrote
>>>> (in article
>>>> <84744d5f-9145-4861-8994-90bbb457a...@nl1g2000pbc.googlegroups.com>):
>>>>
>>>> In the category of lawsuits at dawn=> [name of creationist wacko
>>>> redacted]
>>>> is not a Creationist. He is the most
>>>>
>>>> interesting and honest
>>>
>>> Thanks for the compliment, J.J. Does this mean you've changed your
>>> mind about me being dishonest? Or only that I am the least dishonest
>>> of the non-creationists?
>>
>> You are a very silly boy.
>
> In a ng chalk full of scientists and posters who's intellect you
> couldn't match if you tried for 5 lifetimes, this is the best that you
> can do?

Nope. It's just all that he deserves.

[HaShem Rules]

On Monday, July 9, 2012 5:24:15 AM UTC-4, nick_keigh...@hotmail.com wrote:
> On Monday, July 9, 2012 3:53:45 AM UTC+1, HaShem Rules wrote:
>
> <snip stuff you didn't seem to be responding to>

Sorry. But nobody ever rep(lies)...

>
> > Ever think of this; "Intelligence doesn't evolve."
>
> no. Or rather I thought about what you said and speedily dismissed it.
>
> > It's inherited.
>
> note individuals don't evolve, populations do. So your intelligence didn't evolve (in the evolutionary biology sense) but humanities did.

The intelligence, and longevity gene, of humanity, didn't evolve into existence...

>
> There is likely a developmental component to intelligence. A malnourished or under stimulated or educated child may end less smart that it was capable of.

There's always a genetic reason....

>
> > It's embedded in the womb. And will learn to
> > it's capacity. Doesn't that put Darwin down the toilet?
>
> no. because you don't understand the basics of biology.

Like interbreeding of Cain, and inbreeding of Seth....?

I understand it perfectly......

>
> > "the Almighty God did it." Only one of those. No worship
> > need apply. He negates ALL Gods and religions on the
> > planet. Not one, Almighty......
>
> unable to parse that

That's because you don't believe a hierarchy is in play
upon the Earth.

>
> > The Almighty is all about science. The science of
> > genetics, psychology, and technology....
>
> no.

Okay smart ass. From where does the ancestral seed of
Islam and Judaism come.....?

>
> > Genetics
> > Adam was made from the dust/minerals of the Earth. In
> > a petri dish. His wife, made with genes from him.
>
> neither adam not eve existed they are a fairy tale. And you version isn't
> even poetical.

I pity people like you. Are you an evolutionist? If
so, tell me from what, you evolved? Is it still a
theory? It's a fact we are 99.8% Neanderthal genome.
How the hell did that happen....?

Only one way. "Cain knew his Neanderthal wife".....
And borne the first "modern humans." The Cro-Magnon.

Do you have another thought, for the origin, of modern
humans?

>

> > Psychology....
> > "Don't eat the fruit from the tree in the middle of
> > the garden. Or you will die the death."
>
> seems like poor psychology

A psychological test, with variables.....
>
> <snip drug induced ranting>

It's a learned induction, of the written WORD,
of HaShem.....

Like the wild ass Muslim induction, of the
written WORD, of Allah....

--
Islam and Judaism exist. And they have an origin...
Genesis 16, Islam....
Genesis 17, Judaism...

Call me crazy, but I think, that means there is
the Almighty God in the mix....

[jillery]

Good question. The following is the entire contents of his last two
posts lumped together. Let's see if there's any substance there:

******************************************
"Whatever that means."

"Definitely. Better than anything you have ever offered."

"You are an activist, pure and simple. You are so far distanced from
any capacity to think critically, let alone in a scientific manner, is
obvious to the most casual of observer.
Theories that stand on their tenets need no advocates or anal and
bitter polemicists such as yourself and the rest of the goons and
shills that are in the same category as yourself."

"Nobody can mistake the fact that you probably need some
psychotherapy."

"You're joking, right? If anything, he treats you like the insipient

[sic] snake that you are."

"LOL, what hot air."

"That's pretty rich coming from you."

"There is no good or bad in this debate. There are fanatics, goons and

phychos [sic] that feel the need to defend something that is so

tenuous that it requires a bunch of losers to defend it."

"Your dishonesty shines through.
You can't even defend your position, if not with attacks and
innuendo."

"Activists are known to employ these tactics.
The ToE certainly needs you and your ilk to defend it. It is literally
useless and so are most of the blowhards in here that defend it tooth
and nail."

***************************************

It's clear very quickly that Nashton shows nothing but contempt for
ToE and the people who argue for it. But he provides nothing beyond
that one repetitive opinion, not even any support for it. This is no
better than a grade-school potty mouth. There's no way to reply
intelligently to that, except to scrape it off one's shoe and move on.

[Nick Keighley]

On Monday, July 9, 2012 11:35:44 AM UTC+1, Nashton wrote:
> On 12-07-09 6:24 AM, nick_keigh...@hotmail.com wrote:

> &gt; On Monday, July 9, 2012 3:53:45 AM UTC+1, HaShem Rules wrote:
> &gt;
> &gt; &lt;snip stuff you didn&#39;t seem to be responding to&gt;
> &gt;
> &gt;&gt; Ever think of this; &quot;Intelligence doesn&#39;t evolve.&quot;
> &gt;
> &gt; no. Or rather I thought about what you said and speedily dismissed it.
> &gt;
> &gt;&gt; It&#39;s inherited.
> &gt;
> &gt; note individuals don&#39;t evolve, populations do. So your intelligence didn&#39;t evolve (in the evolutionary biology sense) but humanities did.
> &gt;
> &gt; There is likely a developmental component to intelligence. A malnourished or under stimulated or educated child may end less smart that it was capable of.
> &gt;
> &gt;&gt; It&#39;s embedded in the womb. And will learn to
> &gt;&gt; it&#39;s capacity. Doesn&#39;t that put Darwin down the toilet?
> &gt;
> &gt; no. because you don&#39;t understand the basics of biology.
> &gt;
> &gt;&gt; &quot;the Almighty God did it.&quot; Only one of those. No worship
> &gt;&gt; need apply. He negates ALL Gods and religions on the
> &gt;&gt; planet. Not one, Almighty......
> &gt;
> &gt; unable to parse that
> &gt;
> &gt;&gt; The Almighty is all about science. The science of
> &gt;&gt; genetics, psychology, and technology....
> &gt;
> &gt; no.
> &gt;
> &gt;&gt; Genetics
> &gt;&gt; Adam was made from the dust/minerals of the Earth. In
> &gt;&gt; a petri dish. His wife, made with genes from him.
> &gt;
> &gt; neither adam not eve existed they are a fairy tale. And you version isn&#39;t even poetical.
> &gt;
> &gt;&gt; Psychology....
> &gt;&gt; &quot;Don&#39;t eat the fruit from the tree in the middle of
> &gt;&gt; the garden. Or you will die the death.&quot;
> &gt;
> &gt; seems like poor psychology
> &gt;
> &gt; &lt;snip drug induced ranting&gt;
> &gt;

>
> Another useless goon makes his mark.
>

> As I&#39;ve stated in the past, it seems that the ToE needs goons and
> bullies to defend it.

did you read what I snipped? Did it make sense to you?

Here's a sample:-

[Nick Keighley]

On Monday, July 9, 2012 11:35:44 AM UTC+1, Nashton wrote:

> On 12-07-09 6:24 AM, nick_keigh...@hotmail.com wrote:

<snip>

> &gt;&gt; Psychology....
> &gt;&gt; &quot;Don&#39;t eat the fruit from the tree in the middle of
> &gt;&gt; the garden. Or you will die the death.&quot;
> &gt;
> &gt; seems like poor psychology
> &gt;
> &gt; &lt;snip drug induced ranting&gt;
> &gt;
>

> Another useless goon makes his mark.
>

> As I&#39;ve stated in the past, it seems that the ToE needs goons and
> bullies to defend it.

in fact what was *factually* wrong with what I wrote, assuming I'm an "evolutionist". You've been around here long enough that I suspect you know most of the basic arguments (unless someone really knowledgeable is getting down to the biochemistry). You wouldn't have made the mistakes Ham Shem Rules made. So was it my tone you didn't like?

[Nick Keighley]

On Monday, July 9, 2012 8:56:09 PM UTC+1, HaShem Rules wrote:
> On Monday, July 9, 2012 5:24:15 AM UTC-4, nick_keigh...@hotmail.com wrote:

> &gt; On Monday, July 9, 2012 3:53:45 AM UTC+1, HaShem Rules wrote:

> &gt; &lt;snip stuff you didn&#39;t seem to be responding to&gt;

>
> Sorry. But nobody ever rep(lies)...

what you posted seemed to be at a bit of a tangent to the stuff I
snipped. So I removed it. And I'm replying...

> &gt; &gt; Ever think of this; &quot;Intelligence doesn&#39;t evolve.&quot;
> &gt;
> &gt; no. Or rather I thought about what you said and speedily dismissed it.
> &gt;
> &gt; &gt; It&#39;s inherited.
> &gt;

> &gt; note individuals don&#39;t evolve, populations do. So your intelligence didn&#39;t evolve (in the evolutionary biology sense) but humanities did.
>
> The intelligence, and longevity gene, of humanity, didn&#39;t evolve into existence...

this is simply a statement without evidence or argument.
Human intelligence did evolve. I don't know what a "longevity gene"
is.

> &gt; There is likely a developmental component to intelligence. A malnourished or under stimulated or educated child may end less smart that it was capable of.
>
> There&#39;s always a genetic reason....

no. Diet and early stimulation plainly have an affect on child
development. look it up. Yes genetics play their part but it's not
the entire story. I usually end up on the other end of this arguement
with "blank slaters"...

[blank slaters: an inbred family from rural northern england]


> &gt; &gt; It&#39;s embedded in the womb. And will learn to
> &gt; &gt; it&#39;s capacity. Doesn&#39;t that put Darwin down the toilet?
> &gt;
> &gt; no. because you don&#39;t understand the basics of biology.

because if you did you wouldn't confuse development with evolution

> Like interbreeding of Cain, and inbreeding of Seth....?

no idea what these mythological characters have to do with
modern science.

> I understand it perfectly......
> &gt;
> &gt; &gt; &quot;the Almighty God did it.&quot; Only one of those. No worship
> &gt; &gt; need apply. He negates ALL Gods and religions on the

> &gt; &gt; planet. Not one, Almighty......
> &gt;
> &gt; unable to parse that
>

> That&#39;s because you don&#39;t believe a hierarchy is in play
> upon the Earth.

unable to parse that either


> &gt; &gt; The Almighty is all about science. The science of

> &gt; &gt; genetics, psychology, and technology....
> &gt;

> &gt; no.

>
> Okay smart ass. From where does the ancestral seed of
> Islam and Judaism come.....?

they are two religions that share some common roots. Islam is
in a sense an off-shoot of Judaism (which they acknowldge). What's
an "ancestral seed" and what does it have to do with your confusion
of religion and science?


> &gt; &gt; Genetics
> &gt; &gt; Adam was made from the dust/minerals of the Earth. In
> &gt; &gt; a petri dish. His wife, made with genes from him.
> &gt;
> &gt; neither adam not eve existed they are a fairy tale. And [your] version
> &gt; isn't even poetical.

>
> I pity people like you. Are you an evolutionist?

I consider evolutionary biology to be the best available
explanation for the observed diversity of life. It is backed
by a mountain of evidence.

Are you serious, Adam was made in a *petri dish*? Who by? God?
Why did he need a dish?

> If so, tell me from what, you evolved?

humanity evolved from pre-humans such as astralopithacine
(there are a lot of others) out nearest living relative is the
chimpanzee, so we are in sense, apes.

> Is it still a theory?

not in the sense of "something I dreamed up in the shower this morning". In normal every-day english evolution is a scientific fact. Like Relativity and Quantum Mechanics and the fact that the earth goes around the sun.

> It&#39;s a fact we are 99.8% Neanderthal genome.

> How the hell did that happen....?

apparently out-of-africa humans inter-bred with them. In what sense
does this contradict evolution?

> Only one way. &quot;Cain knew his Neanderthal wife&quot;.....
> And borne the first &quot;modern humans.&quot; The Cro-Magnon.

Cain never existed. people with only African genes don't have any neanderthal in 'em. Are they not fully human?

Again you confuse myth with science.

> Do you have another thought, for the origin, of modern
> humans?

such as? The people inter-breeding with neanderthals were modern humans.

One of the Leakey's wrote a book on human evolution. It's quite a good read.

<snip>

[Slow Vehicle]

On Jun 11, 1:00 pm, Ray Martinez <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote:

> On Jun 10, 7:35 am, Ron O <rokim...@cox.net> wrote:
>
> > It is already time for another edition of By Their Fruits. The Feb
> > thread is still being posted to, but only because someone on the list
> > has been in denial for four months. This is just a list to keep track
> > of the group of posters that find themselves on the short end of the
> > stick in terms of talk.origins. Nando has changed his account and now
> > goes by Symasu.
>
> > Anti-science and anti-evolution are terms that are thrown around TO,
> > but basically they are all creationists of one type or another that
> > have a beef with one or more aspects of reality. Nyikos claims to be
> > an unconventional Christian who apparently is no type of creationist.
> > It has taken him over a year to make that denial, so only Nyikos and
> > likely his intelligent designer knows what it is worth.
>

> Peter Nyikos is not a Creationist. He is the most interesting and
> honest Darwinist here at Talk.Origins. You, on the other hand, are the
> most rotten and dishonest person here at Talk.Origins. Someday you're

> going to earn yourself a defamation lawsuit.
>

> > Last Feb
> > there was a discussion about creationist. Times have changed and the
> > old fundy definition of creationist that used to hold for most of the
> > TO regulars no longer applies. We have a Hindu creationist, what may
> > be an old earth geocentrist creationist etc. The list below is just a
> > very diverse group of people. One size does not fit all. The current
> > scam by the intelligent design creationist at the Discovery Institute
> > is to claim that they are not creationist even though all except one,
> > that I know of, has admitted that their intelligent designer is the
> > Christian God.
>
> > The title of the thread refers to the Biblical notion that you can
> > make a judgement on something by the fruit that it produces.
>

> Written by Creationists.
>
> Ron O, a typical anti-Bible Darwinist, steals and quote-mines from the
> Bible when it suits his agenda. Evolution was not built on the rock of
> the Word, but on the sands of falsehood. The storm will come and each
> Darwinist will receive ruination. The fruit of evolution empowers the
> Atheist agenda against Biblical morality. Deluded pseudo-Christian Ron
> O exists to do the bidding of Atheists (his enemies).
>
> Harshman and company don't respect you, Ron. Regardless of what they
> say, you're nothing but a buffoon (like all Christian Evolutionists)
> in their eyes.
>
> Ray (Protestant Evangelical, Paleyan IDist, anti-evolutionist)
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > This list just allows anyone to use Google and look up the persons profile
> > and get all the posts that they can stand to read written by these
> > posters and determine for themselves what kind of fruit they are.
> > What do they claim to be supporting? As a diverse group they range
> > from the good hearted in denial like Suzanne to the abject lost
> > causes.
>
> > There are creationists that would not make the list and you can look
> > up their efforts:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clergy_Letter_Project
>
> > So the guys on the fruits list are not on it because they are
> > creationists, but they are on the list because of what they do because
> > they are creationists. There are mulitple TO regulars who are
> > Christians that do not make this list.
>
> > Last Feb 2012 thread (it has links back to older fruits threads:http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/04a3b574e722a8f4?hl=e...
>
> > Usually I will select posts as I come to them and if I encounter a
> > really stupid post I will pick another so that I cannot be accused of
> > bias, but I did not do that for a couple of posts (prawnster and
> > Nyikos), so take that into consideration.
>
> > The big news was the return of Ted Holden for a couple of posts:http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/7802d407f4a40c2c?hl=en
>
> > prawnster, the guy really is this badly off:http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/8c0a269f225645b2?hl=en
>
> > Biblearcheology:http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/58093bf6a5d09222?hl=en
>
> > Glenn is back and seems to be in good health:http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/175df3cd3a7b5612?hl=en
>
> > Nando is now Syamsu:http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/71e9332b3081dc44?hl=en
>
> > Backspace:http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/04a73a1e61ee5c28?hl=en
>
> > Ray:http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/89fba4dd2dfdd664?hl=en
>
> > Kalkidas:http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/b7e0c06d3d718448?hl=en
>
> > NashTon:http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/9d1f4449ac02283d?hl=en
>
> > Nyikos wants this post preserved forever so I will use it. I will
> > note that the racial bogousity is stretching it for Nyikos. He
> > usually just goes on about things like his superiority due to his
> > being a professor of mathematics:http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/27eb24577df98e58?hl=en
>
> > Anthony022071:http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/b05b2dbe3f233f21?hl=en
>
> > Mr.Dunsapy?:http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/96fa39881c1c06af?hl=en
>
> > Alan Kleinman MD PhD:http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/96fa39881c1c06af?hl=en
>
> > Pagano our resident geocentrist:http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/0e114ee38f39b80f?hl=en
>
> > Herman:http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/1686a1b21322aa60?hl=en
>
> > Suzanne:http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/fbabce95ea9a384b?hl=en
>
> > If I have missed anyone just add them to the list. I only went back
> > through around 3 weeks of active threads.
>
> > Ron Okimoto

Ray, I am still hoping you will tell me what would qualify as
"evidence", or a "demonstration" of natural selection, by your
standards.

[Slow Vehicle]

On Jun 11, 11:49 am, Nashton <n...@na.ca> wrote:
> On 06-11-12 11:41 AM, jillery wrote:

>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Mon, 11 Jun 2012 07:58:56 -0300, Nashton<n...@na.ca>  wrote:
> >>> Anti-science and anti-evolution are terms that are thrown around TO,
> >>> but basically they are all creationists of one type or another that
> >>> have a beef with one or more aspects of reality.  Nyikos claims to be
> >>> an unconventional Christian who apparently is no type of creationist.
> >>> It has taken him over a year to make that denial, so only Nyikos and

> >>> likely his intelligent designer knows what it is worth.  Last Feb

> >>> there was a discussion about creationist.  Times have changed and the
> >>> old fundy definition of creationist that used to hold for most of the
> >>> TO regulars no longer applies.  We have a Hindu creationist, what may
> >>> be an old earth geocentrist creationist etc.  The list below is just a
> >>> very diverse group of people.  One size does not fit all.  The current
> >>> scam by the intelligent design creationist at the Discovery Institute
> >>> is to claim that they are not creationist even though all except one,
> >>> that I know of, has admitted that their intelligent designer is the
> >>> Christian God.
>
> >>> The title of the thread refers to the Biblical notion that you can
> >>> make a judgement on something by the fruit that it produces.
>

> >> Of course! The same applies to the ToE, of course. Decades of research,
> >> with practically no applications in the real world.
>

> > What would qualify to you as an application of ToE in the real world?
>
> And "jillery" playing stupid once again,  ;)

So, what _would_ qualify, for you, as an "application in the real
world"?

[Slow Vehicle]

On Jul 9, 4:35 am, Nashton <n...@na.ca> wrote:

Nando? Is that you?

[Slow Vehicle]

When did "activist" become a presumed insult?
Are you, yourself, not an "activist" for your own cause?
If not, why is your cause not worth your active involvement and
support?

[jillery]

On Mon, 11 Jun 2012 14:49:25 -0300, Nashton <na...@na.ca> wrote:

>On 06-11-12 11:41 AM, jillery wrote:

>> On Mon, 11 Jun 2012 07:58:56 -0300, Nashton<na...@na.ca> wrote:
>
>>>> Anti-science and anti-evolution are terms that are thrown around TO,
>>>> but basically they are all creationists of one type or another that
>>>> have a beef with one or more aspects of reality. Nyikos claims to be
>>>> an unconventional Christian who apparently is no type of creationist.
>>>> It has taken him over a year to make that denial, so only Nyikos and
>>>> likely his intelligent designer knows what it is worth. Last Feb
>>>> there was a discussion about creationist. Times have changed and the
>>>> old fundy definition of creationist that used to hold for most of the
>>>> TO regulars no longer applies. We have a Hindu creationist, what may
>>>> be an old earth geocentrist creationist etc. The list below is just a
>>>> very diverse group of people. One size does not fit all. The current
>>>> scam by the intelligent design creationist at the Discovery Institute
>>>> is to claim that they are not creationist even though all except one,
>>>> that I know of, has admitted that their intelligent designer is the
>>>> Christian God.
>>>>
>>>> The title of the thread refers to the Biblical notion that you can
>>>> make a judgement on something by the fruit that it produces.
>>>
>>>
>>> Of course! The same applies to the ToE, of course. Decades of research,
>>> with practically no applications in the real world.
>>
>>
>> What would qualify to you as an application of ToE in the real world?
>>
>
>And "jillery" playing stupid once again, ;)

Am I stupid for asking you to support your assertions? In the short
time that I have read T.O., I can't recall a single post where you
have done so. I am still waiting for you to explain how gorillas and
chimpanzees caused the extinction of Neanderthals. Of course I could
have missed your explanations, and I would acknowledge my mistake if
you were to cite where you gave one. Alternately, you could actually
answer my question above, and I would gladly respond to your rational
argument if only you gave one.

Perhaps you say I'm playing stupid because you think you have no need
to support your assertions. Or because I keep asking in vain. Or
because you think I should accept that your shtick is to be abusive
and insulting. In any case, I know of no one besides you who regards
your reply above as one of substance.

So, are you going to support your assertions? Are you going to answer
my question? Or are you going to run away while claiming victory over
your shoulder?

[Bob Casanova]

On Mon, 9 Jul 2012 12:56:09 -0700 (PDT), the following
appeared in talk.origins, posted by HaShem Rules
<01910i...@gmail.com>:

>Call me crazy...

Done; your wish is my command.
--

Bob C.

"Evidence confirming an observation is
evidence that the observation is wrong."
- McNameless

[HaShem Rules]

On Tuesday, July 10, 2012 8:41:19 AM UTC-4, Nick Keighley wrote:
> On Monday, July 9, 2012 8:56:09 PM UTC+1, HaShem Rules wrote:

> &gt; On Monday, July 9, 2012 5:24:15 AM UTC-4, nick_keigh...@hotmail.com wrote:
> &gt; &amp;gt; On Monday, July 9, 2012 3:53:45 AM UTC+1, HaShem Rules wrote:
>
> &gt; &amp;gt; &amp;lt;snip stuff you didn&amp;#39;t seem to be responding to&amp;gt;
> &gt;

> &gt; Sorry. But nobody ever rep(lies)...
>
> what you posted seemed to be at a bit of a tangent to the stuff I

> snipped. So I removed it. And I&#39;m replying...
>
> &gt; &amp;gt; &amp;gt; Ever think of this; &amp;quot;Intelligence doesn&amp;#39;t evolve.&amp;quot;
> &gt; &amp;gt;
> &gt; &amp;gt; no. Or rather I thought about what you said and speedily dismissed it.
> &gt; &amp;gt;
> &gt; &amp;gt; &amp;gt; It&amp;#39;s inherited.
> &gt; &amp;gt;
> &gt; &amp;gt; note individuals don&amp;#39;t evolve, populations do. So your intelligence didn&amp;#39;t evolve (in the evolutionary biology sense) but humanities did.
> &gt;
> &gt; The intelligence, and longevity gene, of humanity, didn&amp;#39;t evolve into existence...

>
> this is simply a statement without evidence or argument.
> Human intelligence did evolve.

http://www.bing.com/search?q=Inelligence+gene&qs=n&form=QBLH&pq=inelligence+gene&sc=8-16&sp=-1&sk=

http://www.bing.com/search?q=longevity+gene&qs=AS&form=QBLH&pq=longevity+gene&sc=8-14&sp=1&sk=

> I don&#39;t know what a &quot;longevity gene&quot;
> is.


See above links,

>
> &gt; &amp;gt; There is likely a developmental component to intelligence. A malnourished or under stimulated or educated child may end less smart that it was capable of.

Intelligence is inherited. The gene is embedded in the womb. And will learn to it's capacity....

> &gt;
> &gt; There&amp;#39;s always a genetic reason....

>
> no. Diet and early stimulation plainly have an affect on child

> development. look it up. Yes genetics play their part but it&#39;s not
> the entire story. I usually end up on the other end of this argument
> with &quot;blank slaters&quot;...

>
> [blank slaters: an inbred family from rural northern england]

So the offspring are affected...

>
>
> &gt; &amp;gt; &amp;gt; It&amp;#39;s embedded in the womb. And will learn to
> &gt; &amp;gt; &amp;gt; it&amp;#39;s capacity. Doesn&amp;#39;t that put Darwin down the toilet?
> &gt; &amp;gt;
> &gt; &amp;gt; no. because you don&amp;#39;t understand the basics of biology.
>
> because if you did you wouldn&#39;t confuse development with evolution
>
> &gt; Like interbreeding of Cain, and inbreeding of Seth....?

>
> no idea what these mythological characters have to do with
> modern science.

The Almighty God. Only one of those. You're all blind to reality
with your man made Gods. Not one Almighty, but for Israel.
The Jews dissed Him. He said to the Jews, :"I didn't your worship
nor sacrifices. It is you who desired those things. I wanted to
stay with you and be your friend."

He stayed with us. No worship need apply.....
He's all about electricity, genetics, psychology, and technology.

He has a 1500 cubic mile kingdom/house in creation. Measured in

the Apocalypse. Must be a technological marvel....

Houses His Legions. And dilates time. 30.000 years between Cain
and Seth. Where were the parents all that time...?
>
> &gt; I understand it perfectly......
> &gt; &amp;gt;
> &gt; &amp;gt; &amp;gt; &amp;quot;the Almighty God did it.&amp;quot; Only one of those. No worship
> &gt; &amp;gt; &amp;gt; need apply. He negates ALL Gods and religions on the
> &gt; &amp;gt; &amp;gt; planet. Not one, Almighty......
> &gt; &amp;gt;
> &gt; &amp;gt; unable to parse that
> &gt;
> &gt; That&amp;#39;s because you don&amp;#39;t believe a hierarchy is in play
> &gt; upon the Earth.

>
> unable to parse that either

Too ignorant of our origin. Evolution is still a theory. Not fact, as you claim...
>
>
> &gt; &amp;gt; &amp;gt; The Almighty is all about science. The science of
> &gt; &amp;gt; &amp;gt; genetics, psychology, and technology....
> &gt; &amp;gt;
> &gt; &amp;gt; no.
> &gt;
> &gt; Okay smart ass. From where does the ancestral seed of
> &gt; Islam and Judaism come.....?

>
> they are two religions that share some common roots. Islam is

> in a sense an off-shoot of Judaism (which they acknowldge). What&#39;s
> an &quot;ancestral seed&quot; and what does it have to do with your confusion
> of religion and science?

Their origin dummy...
Genesis 16. The seed of of Islam....
Genesis 17. The seed of Judaism...
>
>
> &gt; &amp;gt; &amp;gt; Genetics
> &gt; &amp;gt; &amp;gt; Adam was made from the dust/minerals of the Earth. In
> &gt; &amp;gt; &amp;gt; a petri dish. His wife, made with genes from him.
> &gt; &amp;gt;
> &gt; &amp;gt; neither adam not eve existed they are a fairy tale. And [your] version
> &gt; &amp;gt; isn&#39;t even poetical.
> &gt;
> &gt; I pity people like you. Are you an evolutionist?

>
> I consider evolutionary biology to be the best available
> explanation for the observed diversity of life. It is backed
> by a mountain of evidence.

Like hell! It's still a theory...

>
> Are you serious, Adam was made in a *petri dish*? Who by? God?

No. By Almighty God using His legions...

>
> Why did he need a dish?

To make a man with dust/minerals of the Earth.
>
> &gt; If so, tell me from what, you evolved?

>
> humanity evolved from pre-humans such as astralopithacine
> (there are a lot of others) out nearest living relative is the
> chimpanzee, so we are in sense, apes.
>

> &gt; Is it still a theory?
>
> not in the sense of &quot;something I dreamed up in the shower this morning&quot;. In normal every-day english evolution is a scientific fact.

It is not a fact!

We are 99.8% Neanderthal genome. How the hell did that happen? Any idea.....?

> Like Relativity and Quantum Mechanics and the fact that the earth goes around the sun.

On which is, the planet the Almighty seeded through His legions. To have son born in flesh, to a virgin He would make.
>
> &gt; It&amp;#39;s a fact we are 99.8% Neanderthal genome.
> &gt; How the hell did that happen....?

>
> apparently out-of-africa humans inter-bred with them. In what sense
> does this contradict evolution?

Apparently?

Sorry. Cain interbred with the people in the wilderness. And borne the first modern humans.
The Cro-Magnon.......
>
> &gt; Only one way. &amp;quot;Cain knew his Neanderthal wife&amp;quot;.....
> &gt; And borne the first &amp;quot;modern humans.&amp;quot; The Cro-Magnon.
>
> Cain never existed.

You're here aren't you. Being 99.8% Neanderthal genome. 99% chimp. Because the Neanderthal had them.
We kept all of our swill genes in the interbreeding...


> people with only African genes don&#39;t have any neanderthal in &#39;em. Are they not fully human?

Bet they do. Do they have 99% chimp genome? Or 100%.......

>
> Again you confuse myth with science.
>

> &gt; Do you have another thought, for the origin, of modern
> &gt; humans?

>
> such as? The people inter-breeding with neanderthals were modern humans.

Cain was a modern human. Again, he borne the very very very first, modern humans...
>
> One of the Leakey&#39;s wrote a book on human evolution. It&#39;s quite a good read.

Because it proves you are evolved? Show me the ape....?
>
> &lt;snip&gt

--
Islam and Judaism exist. And they have an origin...
Genesis 16, Islam....
Genesis 17, Judaism...

Call me crazy, but I think that means there is the