By their fruits Nov. 2009
Ron O
various accounts for some of the regulars in the July post. I'm not
going to repeat a lot of background, anyone interested can go back to
the July post below. Google also has a feature where you can look up
the profiles of the posters and find a lot of their old posts.
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/a01f009ef41f9647?hl=en
I usually take a random post as an example. In fact if the post is
too far gone I usually pick another so that no one can claim that I am
picking on this group of posters. To get the full effect you probably
don’t have to go to more than 20 posts from any of these guys to find
out how bogus they and their arguments are. As adman found out last
quarter the title of this thread isn’t just mocking how mentally
incompetent these posters are, but this is the entire list of those
that I have found currently posting on the anti-evolution side. “Ye
shall know them by their fruits.”
http://www.bartleby.com/108/40/7.html
These are the fruits of anti-evolution religious bigotry. What should
that tell any thinking human being? One thing that you will be hard
pressed to find is anyone claiming to have an honest and valid anti-
evolution argument. All the regulars except addledman know that they
have none. They know this with enough conviction that they are not
willing to even try to put one forward any longer. They have tried
hundreds and they have all blown up in their faces. Just follow this
thread and see if any of the regulars puts up their version of an
honest and valid argument. All they have to do is tell us what the
argument is and what it means to them, give us a reference to the
argument so we can look it up ourselves and sit back and be educated.
Any lurker can get their feet wet by trying this 2 or 3 times or
however many times it takes to get the same message. You have to have
a thick skin because these arguments were usually bogus when they were
made up, and there isn’t much tolerance for people still ignorant
enough to be fooled by them. Just ask adman about the “moondust”
argument or any of the hundreds of others that he has tried.
For the majority of Christians in developed countries anti-evolution
is not part of their theology. This seems to dumbfound the religious
bigots. Guys like Ray and adman have both claimed that even the other
isn’t a real Christian. It is that sad. They know who the real
ChristiansTM are, they just can't agree among themselves. There is
the Clergy Letter project that has a list of 10,000 clergy that are
not anti-evolution. They have started a Rabbi list too.
http://www.butler.edu/clergyproject/rel_evol_sun.htm
The following is not a random sample but a threefer in the same thread
with Ray crying for help. NashT does about the same thing, and adman
smears people that aren’t even posting. When you read their posts you
should always have the psychiatric term of projection firmly fixed in
your mind.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychological_projection
Ray is still Ray but he may be degenerating even further:
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/d21e4e4053a2d83b?hl=en
NashTon is getting worse too:
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/7a16e765fe615ffe?hl=en
All-Seeing-I is adman, [M]adman, and Uriel etc. can he get any worse?
You can find his other selves in the July post to get the full effect
of utter incompetence.
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/23f3105a3b182e72?hl=en
Others from the previous list:
Great Dayne et al. seems to be degenerating badly. (He is also
Tapestry, Picasso, and Skinny Catman?)
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/438d97e3be143a4b?hl=en
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/21eb7691d3c2b2bc?hl=en
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/6d273cf42553ac94?hl=en
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/767c1db0d320cc16?hl=en
Pagano is still posting.
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/4759984be81ccd4b?hl=en
Spintronic
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/4e193806400cfe9d?hl=en
HighQ may be Spinnies lowerQ half? Sometimes you can’t keep track of
these guys without a scorecard.
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/2e13295e258cd0e9?hl=en
Ed Conrad may be back:
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/c6fef8636ea3e718?hl=en
Nando is still Nando:
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/be69c8b53236140c?hl=en
For some reason Backspace still posts from time to time.
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/477c7b4d65b76cb4?hl=en
Suzanne: One of the saddest things is how the creationist scam
artists prey on people like Suzanne.
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/86eb0653046f328c?hl=en
Glenn? Where has Glenn gone? Pitman is also MIA. Gabriel posted a
couple of weeks ago.
More new guys than usual have shown up recently. This is likely due
to the hype about Darwin’s birthday. As I have mentioned the regulars
are a select group. They are the ignorant, incompetent and/or
dishonest that just can’t give up even though they realize that they
never had an argument. Most of the newbies will just give up when the
realization hits them that they have no valid arguments, some will
become hard and bitter like NashT and Glenn and only poke from the
snide lines, and others will cluelessly natter on like adman. Not a
bright future for any of them.
evolutionguru: Another deluded guy with a misnomer as a tag. One
that is stupid enough to use arguments that have been so thoroughly
refuted that a major creationist organization tells their followers
not to use them anymore.
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/62ad5e241bff4105?hl=en
Starmaker: loki or liar, he claims to not be a creationists. If these
types aren’t trolls they are usually spitting out Bible verses in
their defense within a few weeks.
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/dffcddc11f1ff8d9?hl=en
TheMac37: claims to head an R&D operation, but doesn’t seem to
understand how to do any valid research.
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/0f1fc6a5c8176b1b?hl=en
Too new for me to tell what they are:
Socratus??
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/a33c1aeb11f69f9e?hl=en
Kalkidas??
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/f841c35b027f22af?hl=en
Roaming rider??
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/3ce4de93882c3028?hl=en
Frank J
> There are a few new faces since the July thread, but you can find the
> various accounts for some of the regulars in the July post. I'm not
> going to repeat a lot of background, anyone interested can go back to
> the July post below. Google also has a feature where you can look up
>
> The following is not a random sample but a threefer in the same thread
> with Ray crying for help. NashT does about the same thing, and adman
> smears people that aren’t even posting. When you read their posts you
> should always have the psychiatric term of projection firmly fixed in
>
> Ray is still Ray but he may be degenerating even further:http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/d21e4e4053a2d83b?hl=en
Most evolution-deniers (and evolution-misrepresenters who may or may
not personally doubt evolution) are degenerating from supporting, or
even vaguely defending, their particular alternetive. Tactically
that's godd, because it avoids calling attention to the fatal flaws in
their position and how contradicts other common creationist positions.
But Ray is degenerating the opposite way. While he still evades key
questions about his particular version, he is less evasive than most,
and more willing to criticize other creationists. His defenses may
sound more "out there" (e.g. denying "microevolution" too) IMO they
say far more about creationists/IDers who refuse to challenge him than
they do about him.
>
> NashTon is getting worse too:http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/7a16e765fe615ffe?hl=en
Nashton is the most pathetic. Reduced to being a "cheerleader to the
trolls". BTW I'm not convinced that [M]adman and Spin are not Lokis.
If they are, the cheerleading would be even more pathetic.
>
> All-Seeing-I is adman, [M]adman, and Uriel etc. can he get any worse?
> You can find his other selves in the July post to get the full effect
> of utter incompetence.http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/23f3105a3b182e72?hl=en
>
> Others from the previous list:
>
> Great Dayne et al. seems to be degenerating badly. (He is also
> Tapestry, Picasso, and Skinny Catman?)http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/438d97e3be143a4b?hl=enhttp://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/21eb7691d3c2b2bc?hl=enhttp://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/6d273cf42553ac94?hl=enhttp://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/767c1db0d320cc16?hl=en
>
> Pagano is still posting.http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/4759984be81ccd4b?hl=en
Remind me to change the subject line to "Ron O shows his true
colors". ;-)
>
> Spintronichttp://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/4e193806400cfe9d?hl=en
>
> HighQ may be Spinnies lowerQ half? Sometimes you can’t keep track of
> these guys without a scorecard.http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/2e13295e258cd0e9?hl=en
>
> Ed Conrad may be back:http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/c6fef8636ea3e718?hl=en
>
> Nando is still Nando:http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/be69c8b53236140c?hl=en
>
> For some reason Backspace still posts from time to time.http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/477c7b4d65b76cb4?hl=en
>
> Suzanne: One of the saddest things is how the creationist scam
> artists prey on people like Suzanne.http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/86eb0653046f328c?hl=en
>
> Glenn? Where has Glenn gone? Pitman is also MIA. Gabriel posted a
> couple of weeks ago.
Dale (Kelly) is back.
>
> More new guys than usual have shown up recently. This is likely due
> to the hype about Darwin’s birthday. As I have mentioned the regulars
> are a select group. They are the ignorant, incompetent and/or
> dishonest that just can’t give up even though they realize that they
> never had an argument. Most of the newbies will just give up when the
> realization hits them that they have no valid arguments, some will
> become hard and bitter like NashT and Glenn and only poke from the
> snide lines, and others will cluelessly natter on like adman. Not a
> bright future for any of them.
>
> evolutionguru: Another deluded guy with a misnomer as a tag. One
> that is stupid enough to use arguments that have been so thoroughly
> refuted that a major creationist organization tells their followers
> not to use them anymore.http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/62ad5e241bff4105?hl=en
>
> Starmaker: loki or liar, he claims to not be a creationists. If these
> types aren’t trolls they are usually spitting out Bible verses in
> their defense within a few weeks.http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/dffcddc11f1ff8d9?hl=en
>
> TheMac37: claims to head an R&D operation, but doesn’t seem to
> understand how to do any valid research.http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/0f1fc6a5c8176b1b?hl=en
Steven L.
> There are a few new faces since the July thread, but you can find the
> various accounts for some of the regulars in the July post. I'm not
> going to repeat a lot of background, anyone interested can go back to
> the July post below. Google also has a feature where you can look up
> the profiles of the posters and find a lot of their old posts.
> http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/a01f009ef41f9647?hl=en
>
> I usually take a random post as an example. In fact if the post is
> too far gone I usually pick another so that no one can claim that I am
> picking on this group of posters. To get the full effect you probably
> don’t have to go to more than 20 posts from any of these guys to find
> out how bogus they and their arguments are. As adman found out last
> quarter the title of this thread isn’t just mocking how mentally
> incompetent these posters are, but this is the entire list of those
> that I have found currently posting on the anti-evolution side. “Ye
> shall know them by their fruits.”
> http://www.bartleby.com/108/40/7.html
>
> These are the fruits of anti-evolution religious bigotry. What should
> that tell any thinking human being? One thing that you will be hard
> pressed to find is anyone claiming to have an honest and valid anti-
> evolution argument.
Please, let's distinguish "honest" from "valid."
There cannot be *any* "valid" anti-evolution arguments--since the
evidence is 100% clear that evolution of species indisputably happened.
That ship has sailed.
But there can at least be *honest* arguments from sincere creationists,
who at least state *their* model of the story of life on Earth, and who
try to logically argue for it.
I regard Ray Martinez and Suzanne and "TheMac37" as sincere. Each in his
own way has told us what they truly believe. They generally eschew
rhetorical tricks and sophistries.
"TheMac37" comes closest to an old-style creationist like Henry Morris,
whom I believe was sincere too (though flat wrong).
I don't put any of these three in the same category as the trolls like
"All-Seeing-I".
And these three don't deserve to be abused like the trolls.
--
Steven L.
Email: sdli...@earthlinkNOSPAM.net
Remove the NOSPAM before replying to me.
TomS
<pa6dnf4j1LMzcGPX...@earthlink.com>, Steven L. stated..."
>
>Ron O wrote:
>> There are a few new faces since the July thread, but you can find the
>> various accounts for some of the regulars in the July post. I'm not
>> going to repeat a lot of background, anyone interested can go back to
>> the July post below. Google also has a feature where you can look up
>> the profiles of the posters and find a lot of their old posts.
>n
>>=20
>> I usually take a random post as an example. In fact if the post is
>> too far gone I usually pick another so that no one can claim that I am
>> picking on this group of posters. To get the full effect you probably
>> out how bogus they and their arguments are. As adman found out last
>> incompetent these posters are, but this is the entire list of those
>> shall know them by their fruits.=94
>> http://www.bartleby.com/108/40/7.html
>>=20
>> These are the fruits of anti-evolution religious bigotry. What should
>> that tell any thinking human being? One thing that you will be hard
>> pressed to find is anyone claiming to have an honest and valid anti-
>
>Please, let's distinguish "honest" from "valid."
>
>evidence is 100% clear that evolution of species indisputably happened.=20
> That ship has sailed.
>
>But there can at least be *honest* arguments from sincere creationists,=20
>who at least state *their* model of the story of life on Earth, and who=20
>try to logically argue for it.
>
>own way has told us what they truly believe. They generally eschew=20
>rhetorical tricks and sophistries.
>
>"TheMac37" comes closest to an old-style creationist like Henry Morris,=20
>whom I believe was sincere too (though flat wrong).
>
>"All-Seeing-I".
>
>And these three don't deserve to be abused like the trolls.
Has anyone stated a model of the story of life on Earth from a YEC
point of view - other than an Omphalos model, with things having the
appearance of age (trees with tree rings, starlight from distant
stars, animals with acquired knowledge)? Or from any other creationist
point of view?
--
---Tom S.
the failure to nail currant jelly to a wall is not due to the nail; it is due to
the currant jelly.
Theodore Roosevelt, Letter to William Thayer, 1915 July 2
Richard Harter
<roki...@cox.net> wrote:
>
>Nando is still Nando:
>http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/be69c8b53236140c?hl=3Den
Most of the rest are simply boring loons. Nando is an
interesting loon. I grant that he has the usual "I am bright and
you guys are stupid" syndrome. Much of his discourse is simply a
litany of insults and dubious claims. However he is coming from
an interesting place.
Consider his proposition that there is freedom when things can
happen one way or another. This actually accords with a common
usage. Thus, when we talk about a physical system we talk about
constraints and degrees of freedom. In this kind of usage,
freedom merely means that action is not completely constrained.
Then there is that business about choice. Consider the motion of
the moon. We can calculate its movement with consider precision
but not perfectly. In other words it can go one way or another.
Nando would say that it exercised a choice. That sounds odd to
us because the moon has no mind and without a mind how can
choosing be done. One can argue contrariwise that choice
happened, ergo choice can be made mindlessly. Then again one can
argue that there is no choice, merely an absence of knowledge on
our part of all of the constraints. That argument, however, is
an enormous act of unverifiable faith.
Underneath all of the bluster and massive failures of reading
comprehension there is an interesting structure of ideas, a whole
world view. It may be ultimately inconsistent but I don't think
that it necessarily is; what is more likely is that the meaning
of his words slither and slide as he slithers and slides from one
sentence to another.
Richard Harter, c...@tiac.net
http://home.tiac.net/~cri, http://www.varinoma.com
Infinity is one of those things that keep philosophers busy when they
could be more profitably spending their time weeding their garden.
VoiceOfReason
> "On Sat, 14 Nov 2009 12:49:35 -0500, in article
I doubt any of them has a complete model. From what I've read here
and elsewhere, each YEC has a slightly different take on what their
model is (that is, when you can actually detect more than just
evolution-bashing).
So even within YECism, it seems that many people reading the SAME book
still can't come up with consistent explanations for their "model,"
which of course makes it useless.
Ron O
> Ron O wrote:
> > There are a few new faces since the July thread, but you can find the
> > various accounts for some of the regulars in the July post. I'm not
> > going to repeat a lot of background, anyone interested can go back to
> > the July post below. Google also has a feature where you can look up
> > the profiles of the posters and find a lot of their old posts.
> >http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/a01f009ef41f9647?hl=en
>
> > I usually take a random post as an example. In fact if the post is
> > too far gone I usually pick another so that no one can claim that I am
> > picking on this group of posters. To get the full effect you probably
> > don’t have to go to more than 20 posts from any of these guys to find
> > out how bogus they and their arguments are. As adman found out last
> > quarter the title of this thread isn’t just mocking how mentally
> > incompetent these posters are, but this is the entire list of those
> > that I have found currently posting on the anti-evolution side. “Ye
> > shall know them by their fruits.”
> >http://www.bartleby.com/108/40/7.html
>
> > These are the fruits of anti-evolution religious bigotry. What should
> > that tell any thinking human being? One thing that you will be hard
> > pressed to find is anyone claiming to have an honest and valid anti-
> > evolution argument.
>
> Please, let's distinguish "honest" from "valid."
You can't do that with the scam arguments because they may contain
some valid points, but these pieces of information are quite often
misrepresented so as to make the argument dishonest.
Just take the example of the creationists claiming that there are no
transitional fossils.
It is valid to claim that we cannot tell if a fossil is transitional
in the sense that it or its species gave rise to later related
populations, or not, but it doesn't matter to the argument.
>
> There cannot be *any* "valid" anti-evolution arguments--since the
> evidence is 100% clear that evolution of species indisputably happened.
> That ship has sailed.
These guys are the flat earthers of the modern era. If they were not
they could put together an argument that was both honest and valid.
>
> But there can at least be *honest* arguments from sincere creationists,
> who at least state *their* model of the story of life on Earth, and who
> try to logically argue for it.
That is the other side of the coin. Anyone can be "sincerly"
ignorant, but that doesn't make a lie the truth. Hence the valid side
of the argument. Most of these guys find out that they have been
scammed by the arguments and that they were not what they thought they
were.
>
> I regard Ray Martinez and Suzanne and "TheMac37" as sincere. Each in his
> own way has told us what they truly believe. They generally eschew
> rhetorical tricks and sophistries.
That is because sencerity does not require mental competence or
actually knowing what you are talking about. So what? It still
doesn't make an invalid argument valid or a dishonest argument honest.
>
> "TheMac37" comes closest to an old-style creationist like Henry Morris,
> whom I believe was sincere too (though flat wrong).
He just didn't understand that the world had passed his views by
hundreds of years ago, and he didn't know how badly off the anti-
evolution arugments were. That could be a case of simple ignorance,
but in his case it may have been willful ignorance because he claimed
to have looked into this issue for the last 7 years.
>
> I don't put any of these three in the same category as the trolls like
> "All-Seeing-I".
I think that you are wrong about adman. He is likely a legitimate
anti-evolution creationist. He is just mentally incompetent. That
makes him as sincere as Ray, but Ray has deeper problems and needs
help. His family should get him the help that he needs before they
have to go on camera and claim that they never knew how troubled Ray
was.
>
> And these three don't deserve to be abused like the trolls.
I don't call them trolls. They are representative of what we have had
to deal with on the anti-evolution side for over a decade. I started
reading the group around 1993. These guys haven't gotten any better.
Anyone that wants to believe that anti-evolution creationists have an
argument just has to look up the guys that support that side.
That is the purpose of the list. These guys are their own worst
enemies.
Ron Okimoto
>
> --
> Steven L.
> Email: sdlit...@earthlinkNOSPAM.net
> Remove the NOSPAM before replying to me.-
raven1
wrote:
>Spintronic
>http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/4e193806400cfe9d?hl=en
>
>HighQ may be Spinnies lowerQ half? Sometimes you can’t keep track of
>these guys without a scorecard.
>http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/2e13295e258cd0e9?hl=en
Spinny and HighQ appear to be the same person.
>Kalkidas??
>http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/f841c35b027f22af?hl=en
A Hindu Creationist, as far as I can tell.
>Roaming rider??
>http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/3ce4de93882c3028?hl=en
Seems sincere, but confused. Or sincerely confused.
Ron O
> On Sat, 14 Nov 2009 06:22:31 -0800 (PST), Ron O
>
> Infinity is one of those things that keep philosophers busy when they
> could be more profitably spending their time weeding their garden.
Write it up and try to get some psych major to do a thesis on Nando.
Ron Okimoto
Ron O
> On Nov 14, 9:22 am, Ron O <rokim...@cox.net> wrote:
>
>
>
>
> > For the majority of Christians in developed countries anti-evolution
> > is not part of their theology. This seems to dumbfound the religious
> > bigots. Guys like Ray and adman have both claimed that even the other
> > isn’t a real Christian. It is that sad. They know who the real
> > ChristiansTM are, they just can't agree among themselves. There is
> > the Clergy Letter project that has a list of 10,000 clergy that are
> > not anti-evolution. They have started a Rabbi list too.http://www.butler.edu/clergyproject/rel_evol_sun.htm
>
> > The following is not a random sample but a threefer in the same thread
> > with Ray crying for help. NashT does about the same thing, and adman
> > smears people that aren’t even posting. When you read their posts you
> > should always have the psychiatric term of projection firmly fixed in
> > your mind.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychological_projection
>
> > Ray is still Ray but he may be degenerating even further:http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/d21e4e4053a2d83b?hl=en
>
> Most evolution-deniers (and evolution-misrepresenters who may or may
> not personally doubt evolution) are degenerating from supporting, or
> even vaguely defending, their particular alternetive. Tactically
> that's godd, because it avoids calling attention to the fatal flaws in
> their position and how contradicts other common creationist positions.
> But Ray is degenerating the opposite way. While he still evades key
> questions about his particular version, he is less evasive than most,
> and more willing to criticize other creationists. His defenses may
> sound more "out there" (e.g. denying "microevolution" too) IMO they
> say far more about creationists/IDers who refuse to challenge him than
> they do about him.
>
Ray may be the most troubled person posting on TO at this time. He
needs help and he isn't getting any by posting to TO.
>
> > NashTon is getting worse too:http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/7a16e765fe615ffe?hl=en
>
> Nashton is the most pathetic. Reduced to being a "cheerleader to the
> trolls". BTW I'm not convinced that [M]adman and Spin are not Lokis.
> If they are, the cheerleading would be even more pathetic.
>
NashT used to trot out the usual creationist bogousity, but he found
out the hard way that it was all bogus. Instead of trying to dig
deeper and look for some real arguments he just gave up and decided
that he would just snipe from the sidelines contributing nothing
except the sense of defeat that such behavior engenders.
>
> > All-Seeing-I is adman, [M]adman, and Uriel etc. can he get any worse?
> > You can find his other selves in the July post to get the full effect
> > of utter incompetence.http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/23f3105a3b182e72?hl=en
>
> > Others from the previous list:
>
> > Great Dayne et al. seems to be degenerating badly. (He is also
> > Tapestry, Picasso, and Skinny Catman?)http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/438d97e3be143a4b?hl=e...
>
> > Pagano is still posting.http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/4759984be81ccd4b?hl=en
>
> Remind me to change the subject line to "Ron O shows his true
> colors". ;-)
That is about all Pags can do. He could surprise everyone by putting
up an honest and valid anti-evolution argument, but who is going to
hold their breath waiting?
>
SNIP:
>
> > Glenn? Where has Glenn gone? Pitman is also MIA. Gabriel posted a
> > couple of weeks ago.
>
> Dale (Kelly) is back.
>
Dale:
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/464806aab749c146?hl=en
I also missed this newbie, Mike Rogers.
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/f611f1e692a8aa5f?hl=en
The usual post and run?
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/db29360488b34920?hl=en
Ron Okimoto
Ron O
> On Sat, 14 Nov 2009 06:22:31 -0800 (PST), Ron O <rokim...@cox.net>
> wrote:
>
> >Spintronic
> >http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/4e193806400cfe9d?hl=en
>
> >HighQ may be Spinnies lowerQ half? Sometimes you can’t keep track of
> >these guys without a scorecard.
> >http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/2e13295e258cd0e9?hl=en
>
> Spinny and HighQ appear to be the same person.
>
> >Kalkidas??
> >http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/f841c35b027f22af?hl=en
>
> A Hindu Creationist, as far as I can tell.
Maybe he will start discussing the ancient texts with adman.
>
> >Roaming rider??
> >http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/3ce4de93882c3028?hl=en
>
> Seems sincere, but confused. Or sincerely confused.
How sad is it when the best that you can hope for is that Rider turns
into someone as lost as Suzanne?
Ron Okimoto
Frank J
Pope John Paul II's phrase for the evidence for
evolution,"convergence, neither sought nor fabricated," says at least
as much about creationism as it says about evolution. When
"scientific" creationism was concocted, the goal was to seek, and
fabricate if necessary, only the "evidences" that supports the
predetermined conclusion. The early "scientific" creationists
attempted to force those "evidences" to "converge" on a compromise
position, heliocentric YEC, which avoided the more absurd (even to the
average nonscientist) flat-earthism and geocentrism, and the
theologically risky OEC positions. But even with that cheating, they
could not force the "evidences" to converge even on an alternate age
of the earth, let alone define a "kind". And that's even within YEC.
OECs were a whole other thorn in their side. So even before their
monumental court losses, the "evolution" of the strategy toward "don't
ask, don't tell what the Creator/designer did, when or how, just
promote doubt of evolution" had begun.
TomS
<ecc3042a-cf42-4051...@g31g2000vbr.googlegroups.com>, Frank J
stated..."
>
>On Nov 14, 2:49=A0pm, VoiceOfReason <papa_...@cybertown.com> wrote:
>> On Nov 14, 1:40=A0pm, TomS <TomS_mem...@newsguy.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> > "On Sat, 14 Nov 2009 12:49:35 -0500, in article
>> > <pa6dnf4j1LMzcGPXnZ2dnUVZ_gedn...@earthlink.com>, Steven L. stated..."
>>
>> > >Ron O wrote:
>e
>> > >> various accounts for some of the regulars in the July post. =A0I'm n=
>ot
>> > >> going to repeat a lot of background, anyone interested can go back t=
>o
>> > >> the July post below. =A0Google also has a feature where you can look=
> up
>> > >> the profiles of the posters and find a lot of their old posts.
>> > >>http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/a01f009ef41f9647?hl=
>> > >n
>> > >>=3D20
>> > >> I usually take a random post as an example. =A0In fact if the post i=
>s
>> > >> too far gone I usually pick another so that no one can claim that I =
>am
>> > >> picking on this group of posters. =A0To get the full effect you prob=
>ably
>> > >> don=3D92t have to go to more than 20 posts from any of these guys to=
> find
>> > >> out how bogus they and their arguments are. =A0As adman found out la=
>st
>> > >> quarter the title of this thread isn=3D92t just mocking how mentally
>> > >> incompetent these posters are, but this is the entire list of those
>=3D93Ye
>> > >> shall know them by their fruits.=3D94
>> > >>http://www.bartleby.com/108/40/7.html
>> > >>=3D20
>> > >> These are the fruits of anti-evolution religious bigotry. =A0What sh=
>ould
>> > >> that tell any thinking human being? =A0One thing that you will be ha=
>rd
>> > >> pressed to find is anyone claiming to have an honest and valid anti-
>>
>> > >Please, let's distinguish "honest" from "valid."
>>
>> > >evidence is 100% clear that evolution of species indisputably happened=
>.=3D20
>> > > =A0That ship has sailed.
>>
>> > >But there can at least be *honest* arguments from sincere creationists=
>,=3D20
>> > >who at least state *their* model of the story of life on Earth, and wh=
>o=3D20
>> > >try to logically argue for it.
>>
>is=3D20
>> > >own way has told us what they truly believe. =A0They generally eschew=
>=3D20
>> > >rhetorical tricks and sophistries.
>>
>> > >"TheMac37" comes closest to an old-style creationist like Henry Morris=
>,=3D20
>> > >whom I believe was sincere too (though flat wrong).
>>
>> > >I don't put any of these three in the same category as the trolls like=
>> > >"All-Seeing-I".
>>
>> > >And these three don't deserve to be abused like the trolls.
>>
>> > Has anyone stated a model of the story of life on Earth from a YEC
>> > point of view - other than an Omphalos model, with things having the
>> > appearance of age (trees with tree rings, starlight from distant
>> > stars, animals with acquired knowledge)? Or from any other creationist
>> > point of view?
>>
>> and elsewhere, each YEC has a slightly different take on what their
>> model is (that is, when you can actually detect more than just
>> evolution-bashing).
>>
>> So even within YECism, it seems that many people reading the SAME book
>> still can't come up with consistent explanations for their "model,"
>> which of course makes it useless.
>
>Pope John Paul II's phrase for the evidence for
>evolution,"convergence, neither sought nor fabricated," says at least
>as much about creationism as it says about evolution. When
>"scientific" creationism was concocted, the goal was to seek, and
>fabricate if necessary, only the "evidences" that supports the
>predetermined conclusion. The early "scientific" creationists
>attempted to force those "evidences" to "converge" on a compromise
>position, heliocentric YEC, which avoided the more absurd (even to the
>average nonscientist) flat-earthism and geocentrism, and the
>theologically risky OEC positions. But even with that cheating, they
>could not force the "evidences" to converge even on an alternate age
>of the earth, let alone define a "kind". And that's even within YEC.
>OECs were a whole other thorn in their side. So even before their
>monumental court losses, the "evolution" of the strategy toward "don't
>ask, don't tell what the Creator/designer did, when or how, just
>promote doubt of evolution" had begun.
>
And, considering that YEC didn't exist for very long before it was
forced into that position - and remember that internal inconsistencies
were not enough motivation -
Ron O
How could I have missed backwards backspace?
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/4f8e1f93a0bb3914?hl=en
Ray Martinez
Could we expect a Darwinst to say anything else about a Creatorist?
Why? Why do Darwinists play slander cards?
Answer: Inability to refute Creationism arguments----that's why. Logic
dictates that Darwinists slander me because they are angry over the
fact that they cannot refute anything that I say.
Ray (Protestant Creatorist)
Ye Old One
The don't. Can you find a single example?
No? Thought not.
>
>Answer: Inability to refute Creationism arguments----that's why. Logic
>dictates that Darwinists slander me because they are angry over the
>fact that they cannot refute anything that I say.
>
>Ray (Protestant Creatorist)
--
Bob.
The truth is like ice water, it shocks you when it hits you, but no
one's ever died from it. Do yourself a favour and try it sometime.
Boikat
Wrong. It's because creationists keep spewing the same old *refuted*
claims, over and over again.
> Logic...
Don't use words you do not understand.
> dictates that Darwinists slander me because they are angry over the
> fact that they cannot refute anything that I say.
Sorry? I must have missed that thread.
>
> Ray (Protestant Creatorist)-
And "Dishonest Charlatan"
You left that part off.
Boikat
Jim Lovejoy
news:be79637f-55e3-4572...@z3g2000prd.googlegroups.com:
In a twisted way that makes sense.
Since people who accept reality (evolution) have no problem refuting
everything you say, that explains why they don't feel a need to slander
you.
Thanks for explaining it.
Ray Martinez
>
> - Show quoted text -
Frustration caused by the inability to refute.
Ray (Creatorist)
Ray Martinez
Many angry comments, like the one seen above, appear in this topic in
several posts written by Ron Okimoto. Logic dictates that whoever is
slandered the most by Darwinists is the most feared, that is, whoever
is slandered the most poses the most danger to the health of their
evolution theory. Ron cannot contain himself. His anger says that I am
the person who poses the most danger to the scientific veracity of
evolution. Of course, Ron is absolutely correct.
Ray (Creatorist)
SNIP....
Bruce Stephens
[...]
> Logic dictates that whoever is slandered the most by Darwinists is the
> most feared, that is, whoever is slandered the most poses the most
> danger to the health of their evolution theory.
That doesn't follow logically. Also it's not slander (since it's
written). And talk.origins has almost no impact to the general health
(or otherwise) of evolutionary theory (this is just usenet, after all).
[...]
Caranx latus
> On Nov 14, 2:23 pm, Ron O <rokim...@cox.net> wrote:
<snip>
>> Ray may be the most troubled person posting on TO at this time. He
>> needs help and he isn't getting any by posting to TO.
>>
>
> Many angry comments, like the one seen above, appear in this topic in
> several posts written by Ron Okimoto. Logic dictates that whoever is
> slandered the most by Darwinists is the most feared, that is, whoever
> is slandered the most poses the most danger to the health of their
> evolution theory. Ron cannot contain himself. His anger says that I am
> the person who poses the most danger to the scientific veracity of
> evolution. Of course, Ron is absolutely correct.
As always, Ray, you demonstrate that you can't tell the difference
between a valid argument and one that uses logical fallacies. Logic does
*not* dictate that the most defamed person is the most feared.
Ron thinks you're troubled. What term would you use for someone like
yourself, Mr. Most-Danger-To-The-Scientific-Veracity-Of-Evolution, who
is clearly a legend in their own mind?
Frank J
I don't see any anger, only a sadness that another of God's children
is so disturbed, and a frustration that we are unable to help you.
> Logic dictates that whoever is
> slandered the most by Darwinists is the most feared, that is, whoever
> is slandered the most poses the most danger to the health of their
> evolution theory.
No one is slandered. If anything too many of the perps are dismissed
as mere rubes, and allowed to get away with their bait-and-switch
scams. (I figured you'd enjoy the 4 "Ronisms" :-) )
> Ron cannot contain himself. His anger says that I am
> the person who poses the most danger to the scientific veracity of
> evolution. Of course, Ron is absolutely correct.
Me three. Every night I pray, "Please God, grant me another day
without having to face Ray's devastating paper." ;-)
>
> Ray (Creatorist)
>
> SNIP....- Hide quoted text -
Boikat
And it still appears to be missing.
>
> > > Ray (Protestant Creatorist)-
>
> > And "Dishonest Charlatan"
>
> > You left that part off.
>
> > Boikat- Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -
>
> Frustration caused by the inability to refute.
No frustration, just a simple observation.
>
> Ray (Creatorist)-
It's spelled "C r e a t o T A R D"
Boikat
Dana Tweedy
snip
> Frustration caused by the inability to refute.
Ray, can you provide a single example of any argument, *any argument at all*
that you've made that wasn't easily and rapidly refuted?
DJT
Dana Tweedy
>> I think that you are wrong about adman. He is likely a legitimate
>> anti-evolution creationist. He is just mentally incompetent. That
>> makes him as sincere as Ray, but Ray has deeper problems and needs
>> help. His family should get him the help that he needs before they
>> have to go on camera and claim that they never knew how troubled Ray
>> was.
>>
>
> Could we expect a Darwinst to say anything else about a Creatorist?
Yes, one could.
>
> Why? Why do Darwinists play slander cards?
They don't. "Slander" means what is said is oral, and that it's untrue.
>
> Answer: Inability to refute Creationism arguments----that's why.
Creationist arguments are quite easy to refute, and are refuted quite often.
> Logic
> dictates that Darwinists slander me because they are angry over the
> fact that they cannot refute anything that I say.
Again, Ray shows why he fails baisc logic. You aren't "slandered" Ray,
and everything you've claimed is easily refuted. Playing the poor victim
is just another conceit on your part.
DJT
Dana Tweedy
snip
>>
>> Ray may be the most troubled person posting on TO at this time. He
>> needs help and he isn't getting any by posting to TO.
>>
>
> Many angry comments, like the one seen above, appear in this topic in
> several posts written by Ron Okimoto.
How is Ron's statment above "angry"? He expresses concern for your well
being.
> Logic dictates that whoever is
> slandered the most by Darwinists is the most feared, that is, whoever
> is slandered the most poses the most danger to the health of their
> evolution theory.
Again, Ray, you don't understand the most baisc logic. You also imagine
yourself to be "slandered", when no one has done any such thing. No one
fears you, and you pose absolutely no danger to evolutionary theory.
> Ron cannot contain himself. His anger says that I am
> the person who poses the most danger to the scientific veracity of
> evolution. Of course, Ron is absolutely correct.
Of course, Ray, you are no threat to anyone. Your delusions of grandeur
and becoming more ridiculous.
DJT
Ray Martinez
> There are a few new faces since the July thread, but you can find the
> various accounts for some of the regulars in the July post. I'm not
> going to repeat a lot of background, anyone interested can go back to
> the July post below. Google also has a feature where you can look up
>
> I usually take a random post as an example. In fact if the post is
> too far gone I usually pick another so that no one can claim that I am
> picking on this group of posters. To get the full effect you probably
> don’t have to go to more than 20 posts from any of these guys to find
> out how bogus they and their arguments are. As adman found out last
> quarter the title of this thread isn’t just mocking how mentally
> incompetent these posters are, but this is the entire list of those
> that I have found currently posting on the anti-evolution side. “Ye
> shall know them by their fruits.”http://www.bartleby.com/108/40/7.html
>
> These are the fruits of anti-evolution religious bigotry. What should
> that tell any thinking human being? One thing that you will be hard
> pressed to find is anyone claiming to have an honest and valid anti-
> have none. They know this with enough conviction that they are not
> willing to even try to put one forward any longer. They have tried
> hundreds and they have all blown up in their faces. Just follow this
> thread and see if any of the regulars puts up their version of an
> honest and valid argument. All they have to do is tell us what the
> argument is and what it means to them, give us a reference to the
> argument so we can look it up ourselves and sit back and be educated.
> Any lurker can get their feet wet by trying this 2 or 3 times or
> however many times it takes to get the same message. You have to have
> a thick skin because these arguments were usually bogus when they were
> made up, and there isn’t much tolerance for people still ignorant
> enough to be fooled by them. Just ask adman about the “moondust”
> argument or any of the hundreds of others that he has tried.
>
> For the majority of Christians in developed countries anti-evolution
> is not part of their theology. This seems to dumbfound the religious
> bigots. Guys like Ray and adman have both claimed that even the other
> isn’t a real Christian. It is that sad. They know who the real
> ChristiansTM are, they just can't agree among themselves. There is
> the Clergy Letter project that has a list of 10,000 clergy that are
> not anti-evolution. They have started a Rabbi list too.http://www.butler.edu/clergyproject/rel_evol_sun.htm
>
> The following is not a random sample but a threefer in the same thread
> with Ray crying for help. NashT does about the same thing, and adman
> smears people that aren’t even posting. When you read their posts you
> should always have the psychiatric term of projection firmly fixed in
> your mind.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychological_projection
>
> Ray is still Ray but he may be degenerating even further:http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/d21e4e4053a2d83b?hl=en
>
>
> You can find his other selves in the July post to get the full effect
> of utter incompetence.http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/23f3105a3b182e72?hl=en
>
> Others from the previous list:
>
> Great Dayne et al. seems to be degenerating badly. (He is also
>
> HighQ may be Spinnies lowerQ half? Sometimes you can’t keep track of
> these guys without a scorecard.http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/2e13295e258cd0e9?hl=en
>
>
> Nando is still Nando:http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/be69c8b53236140c?hl=en
>
> For some reason Backspace still posts from time to time.http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/477c7b4d65b76cb4?hl=en
>
> Suzanne: One of the saddest things is how the creationist scam
> artists prey on people like Suzanne.http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/86eb0653046f328c?hl=en
>
> Glenn? Where has Glenn gone? Pitman is also MIA. Gabriel posted a
> couple of weeks ago.
>
> to the hype about Darwin’s birthday. As I have mentioned the regulars
> are a select group. They are the ignorant, incompetent and/or
> dishonest that just can’t give up even though they realize that they
> never had an argument. Most of the newbies will just give up when the
> realization hits them that they have no valid arguments, some will
> become hard and bitter like NashT and Glenn and only poke from the
> snide lines, and others will cluelessly natter on like adman. Not a
> bright future for any of them.
>
> evolutionguru: Another deluded guy with a misnomer as a tag. One
> that is stupid enough to use arguments that have been so thoroughly
> refuted that a major creationist organization tells their followers
> not to use them anymore.http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/62ad5e241bff4105?hl=en
>
> Starmaker: loki or liar, he claims to not be a creationists. If these
> types aren’t trolls they are usually spitting out Bible verses in
> their defense within a few weeks.http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/dffcddc11f1ff8d9?hl=en
>
> TheMac37: claims to head an R&D operation, but doesn’t seem to
> understand how to do any valid research.http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/0f1fc6a5c8176b1b?hl=en
>
> Too new for me to tell what they are:
>
> Socratus??http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/a33c1aeb11f69f9e?hl=en
>
> Kalkidas??http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/f841c35b027f22af?hl=en
>
> Roaming rider??http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/3ce4de93882c3028?hl=en
Creationists are elated to be considered dishonest by persons who
think apes evolved into men over the course of millions of years.
Ray (Creatorist)
Ron O
Origin of Species seems to have stirred up more than the usual. They
have a pretty pathetic future to look forward to on this group. Most
of the ones that are half way competent will give up after just a few
posts, but there could be some more destined to become the next NashTs
and Rays.
Viktor Huliganov, a creationist that claims that he doesn’t need to
read the creationist claptrap to know his position is correct.
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/a86b4be36ea5b348?hl=en
Tim Sutter:
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/1dc5c2e74ef7006e?hl=en
Himself: New creationist poster?
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/08ecee00ba26585b?hl=en
Mo? Can we expect Shemp and Curly next?
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/328c25ea23826cbf?hl=en
Ernest Major
<13bd058d-5a4a-4828...@m16g2000yqc.googlegroups.com>, Ron
O <roki...@cox.net> writes
>Some more Newbies. Darwin's birthday and the publication of The
>Origin of Species seems to have stirred up more than the usual. They
>have a pretty pathetic future to look forward to on this group. Most
>of the ones that are half way competent will give up after just a few
>posts, but there could be some more destined to become the next NashTs
>and Rays.
>
>
>Viktor Huliganov, a creationist that claims that he doesn’t need to
>read the creationist claptrap to know his position is correct.
>
>http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/a86b4be36ea5b348?hl=en
Not a newbie.
>
>Tim Sutter:
>http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/1dc5c2e74ef7006e?hl=en
>
>Himself: New creationist poster?
>http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/08ecee00ba26585b?hl=en
>
>
>Mo? Can we expect Shemp and Curly next?
>http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/328c25ea23826cbf?hl=en
>
>
--
alias Ernest Major
raven1
wrote:
>Some more Newbies. Darwin's birthday and the publication of The
>Origin of Species seems to have stirred up more than the usual. They
>have a pretty pathetic future to look forward to on this group. Most
>of the ones that are half way competent will give up after just a few
>posts, but there could be some more destined to become the next NashTs
>and Rays.
>
>
>Viktor Huliganov, a creationist that claims that he doesn’t need to
>read the creationist claptrap to know his position is correct.
>
>http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/a86b4be36ea5b348?hl=en
>
>Tim Sutter:
>http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/1dc5c2e74ef7006e?hl=en
I'm guessing that this is the same Tim Sutter who was a complete kook
on alt.atheism a decade ago. Very fond of sock puppets: has been known
to argue against his own position to keep the thread going if not
enough people are playing along.
Sapient Fridge
<quotht...@nevermore.com> writes
He was active a year ago in this group but bailed in recently when I
mentioned his name in a post. I've no idea whether he's been lurking
for that time or whether someone tipped him off that his name was
mentioned.
Looks, err, a bit odd if you look at some of his recent posting history:
http://tinyurl.com/ycemfsw
http://tinyurl.com/yh4wj6d
http://tinyurl.com/yzlpmbq
http://tinyurl.com/y9sst5o
(look at the newsgroup for that last one)
--
sapient_...@spamsights.org ICQ #17887309 * Save the net *
Grok: http://spam.abuse.net http://www.cauce.org * nuke a spammer *
Find: http://www.samspade.org http://www.netdemon.net * today *
Kill: http://mail-abuse.com http://au.sorbs.net http://spamhaus.org
Friar Broccoli
> Some more Newbies. Darwin's birthday and the publication of The
> Origin of Species seems to have stirred up more than the usual. They
> have a pretty pathetic future to look forward to on this group. Most
> of the ones that are half way competent will give up after just a few
> posts, but there could be some more destined to become the next NashTs
> and Rays.
>
> Viktor Huliganov, a creationist that claims that he doesn’t need to
> read the creationist claptrap to know his position is correct.
>
> http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/a86b4be36ea5b348?hl=en
>
> Tim Sutter:http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/1dc5c2e74ef7006e?hl=en
>
> Himself: New creationist poster?http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/08ecee00ba26585b?hl=en
Mo looks nothing like a creationist to me.
Garamond Lethe
Thanks for the tip.
Ron O
wrote:
> In message <11m5h5d5eil7bt8mu7ls0iu5d8cahv2...@4ax.com>, raven1
> <quoththera...@nevermore.com> writes
>
>
>
>
>
> >On Sun, 29 Nov 2009 11:10:10 -0800 (PST), Ron O <rokim...@cox.net>
> >wrote:
>
> >>Some more Newbies. �Darwin's birthday and the publication of The
> >>Origin of Species seems to have stirred up more than the usual. �They
> >>have a pretty pathetic future to look forward to on this group. �Most
> >>of the ones that are half way competent will give up after just a few
> >>posts, but there could be some more destined to become the next NashTs
> >>and Rays.
>
> >>read the creationist claptrap to know his position is correct.
>
> >>http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/a86b4be36ea5b348?hl=en
>
> >>Tim Sutter:
> >>http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/1dc5c2e74ef7006e?hl=en
>
> >I'm guessing that this is the same Tim Sutter who was a complete kook
> >on alt.atheism a decade ago. Very fond of sock puppets: has been known
> >to argue against his own position to keep the thread going if not
> >enough people are playing along.
>
> He was active a year ago in this group but bailed in recently when I
> for that time or whether someone tipped him off that his name was
> mentioned.
>
> Looks, err, a bit odd if you look at some of his recent posting history:
>
>
> (look at the newsgroup for that last one)
> --
> Grok:http://spam.abuse.net�http://www.cauce.org* nuke a spammer �*
> Find:http://www.samspade.orghttp://www.netdemon.net�* � �today � �*
> Kill:http://mail-abuse.com�http://au.sorbs.net�http://spamhaus.org-
Already someone to be proud of on the anti-evolution side.
Spinny should take note of what kind of person keeps responding to
their own posts.
Ron Okimoto
Eric Root
> Some more Newbies. �Darwin's birthday and the publication of The
> Origin of Species seems to have stirred up more than the usual. �They
> have a pretty pathetic future to look forward to on this group. �Most
> of the ones that are half way competent will give up after just a few
> posts, but there could be some more destined to become the next NashTs
> and Rays.
>
> read the creationist claptrap to know his position is correct.
>
Victor "of the Houligans" is Uncle Davey, he said so.
Ron O
> "On Sat, 14 Nov 2009 12:49:35 -0500, in article
> <pa6dnf4j1LMzcGPXnZ2dnUVZ_gedn...@earthlink.com>, Steven L. stated..."
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >> There are a few new faces since the July thread, but you can find the
> >> various accounts for some of the regulars in the July post. �I'm not
> >> going to repeat a lot of background, anyone interested can go back to
> >> the July post below. �Google also has a feature where you can look up
> >>http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/a01f009ef41f9647?hl=3De=
> >n
> >>=20
> >> too far gone I usually pick another so that no one can claim that I am
> >> picking on this group of posters. �To get the full effect you probably
> >> out how bogus they and their arguments are. �As adman found out last
> >> incompetent these posters are, but this is the entire list of those
> >> shall know them by their fruits.=94
> >>http://www.bartleby.com/108/40/7.html
> >>=20
> >> These are the fruits of anti-evolution religious bigotry. �What should
> >> that tell any thinking human being? �One thing that you will be hard
> >> pressed to find is anyone claiming to have an honest and valid anti-
>
> >Please, let's distinguish "honest" from "valid."
>
> >evidence is 100% clear that evolution of species indisputably happened.=20
> > �That ship has sailed.
>
> >who at least state *their* model of the story of life on Earth, and who=20
> >try to logically argue for it.
>
> >own way has told us what they truly believe. �They generally eschew=20
> >rhetorical tricks and sophistries.
>
> >"TheMac37" comes closest to an old-style creationist like Henry Morris,=20
> >whom I believe was sincere too (though flat wrong).
>
> >"All-Seeing-I".
>
> >And these three don't deserve to be abused like the trolls.
>
> Has anyone stated a model of the story of life on Earth from a YEC
> point of view - other than an Omphalos model, with things having the
> appearance of age (trees with tree rings, starlight from distant
> stars, animals with acquired knowledge)? Or from any other creationist
> point of view?
>
> ---Tom S.
> the failure to nail currant jelly to a wall is not due to the nail; it is due to
> the currant jelly.
When I first read this post, I didn't consider that the YEC model was
much more than Omphalos, but in thinking about it some more, the YEC
guys over at the AIG are trying to make it more than that. Their
attempts are laughable, but they are actually trying to expand on
their "The flood changed the face of the earth" model. They are
accepting continental drift, but they are claiming that the plates
moved to their current position, basically, in one year. They don't
have much of an explanation for why the crust didn't melt in this car
wreck. Just imagine the Atlantic basin being formed out of molten
rock in just one year. They had some fruity explanation for how all
the animals got back to the continents that held the fossils of their
ancestors (floating circulating log jams), but how the animals knew
where to get off is a problem and the poor dinos and marsupials that
tried to make it back to Antarctica pretty much had no hope of
survival. The Carboniferous happened during the year of the flood.
The coal deposits were laid down when floating forests produced
massive amounts of biomass and sank. Why we can't find animals like
dinos and fido under the coal bearing layers was not explained. They
claimed that the ice ages happened after the flood. They claimed that
there were massive amounts of evolution before the flood (accounting
for a lot of the fossil record) and that there was massive amounts of
evolution after the flood to account for more of the fossil record and
all the extant species. Dinos were on the ark along with all the
other extinct kinds that didn't make it after the flood. Their main
problem is how to fit this all within 6,000 years. Just imagine how
hellish the living conditions were on the earth with all the geologic
activity going on? Over 4 billion years of earth history crammed into
a couple thousand years before the flood, and everything after the
Carboniferous occurring after the flood. The flood survivors had to
survive the Permian mass extinction and the K-T mass extinction events
and multiple ice ages. It is mind boggling that only the flood got
passed down through the generations.
So they are adding to their claims, trying to make it less like
Omphalos, but they are kind of short on details.
Ron Okimoto
Ray Martinez
> There are a few new faces since the July thread, but you can find the
> going to repeat a lot of background, anyone interested can go back to
> the profiles of the posters and find a lot of their old posts.http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/a01f009ef41f9647?hl=en
>
> I usually take a random post as an example. �In fact if the post is
> too far gone I usually pick another so that no one can claim that I am
> don�t have to go to more than 20 posts from any of these guys to find
> out how bogus they and their arguments are. �As adman found out last
> quarter the title of this thread isn�t just mocking how mentally
> incompetent these posters are, but this is the entire list of those
> shall know them by their fruits.�http://www.bartleby.com/108/40/7.html
>
> These are the fruits of anti-evolution religious bigotry. �What should
> that tell any thinking human being? �One thing that you will be hard
> pressed to find is anyone claiming to have an honest and valid anti-
Blanket statements that say no valid arguments against evolution exist
only testify to the dishonesty and/or brainwashed state of the
writer.
> All the regulars except addledman know that they
> have none. �They know this with enough conviction that they are not
> willing to even try to put one forward any longer. �They have tried
> hundreds and they have all blown up in their faces. �Just follow this
> thread and see if any of the regulars puts up their version of an
> honest and valid argument. �All they have to do is tell us what the
> argument is and what it means to them, give us a reference to the
> argument so we can look it up ourselves and sit back and be educated.
Blanket statements that say no valid arguments against evolution exist
only testify to the dishonesty and closed mindedness of the writer.
Since the Atheist MUST abide in evolution (having no choice), the same
explains the ridiculous claim that no valid arguments exist refuting
evolution.
> Any lurker can get their feet wet by trying this 2 or 3 times or
> however many times it takes to get the same message. �You have to have
> a thick skin because these arguments were usually bogus when they were
> made up, and there isn�t much tolerance for people still ignorant
> enough to be fooled by them. �Just ask Adman about the �moondust�
> argument or any of the hundreds of others that he has tried.
>
Dear Lurker: Adman is an evolutionist----he accepts species
mutability. Ron "Albert Einstein" Okimoto has insulted one of his
own.
> For the majority of Christians in developed countries anti-evolution
> is not part of their theology. �This seems to dumbfound the religious
> bigots. �Guys like Ray and adman have both claimed that even the other
> isn�t a real Christian. �It is that sad. �They know who the real
> ChristiansTM are, they just can't agree among themselves. �There is
> the Clergy Letter project that has a list of 10,000 clergy that are
> not anti-evolution. �
I am glad to be rejected as a real Christian by any "Christian" who
accepts the same theory that Richard Dawkins rabidly accepts. Imagine
that; "Christian" clergy kissing the ass of Darwin & Dawkins? Reminds
me of Judas the Apostle kissing Jesus while betraying Him to His
enemies.
> They have started a Rabbi list too.http://www.butler.edu/clergyproject/rel_evol_sun.htm
>
> The following is not a random sample but a threefer in the same thread
> with Ray crying for help. �NashT does about the same thing, and adman
> smears people that aren�t even posting. �When you read their posts you
> should always have the psychiatric term of projection firmly fixed in
> your mind.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychological_projection
>
> Ray is still Ray but he may be degenerating even further:http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/d21e4e4053a2d83b?hl=en
>
> NashTon is getting worse too:http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/7a16e765fe615ffe?hl=en
>
> All-Seeing-I is adman, [M]adman, and Uriel etc. can he get any worse?
> You can find his other selves in the July post to get the full effect
> of utter incompetence.http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/23f3105a3b182e72?hl=en
>
> Others from the previous list:
>
> Great Dayne et al. seems to be degenerating badly. (He is also
> Tapestry, Picasso, and Skinny Catman?)http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/438d97e3be143a4b?hl=enhttp://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/21eb7691d3c2b2bc?hl=enhttp://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/6d273cf42553ac94?hl=enhttp://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/767c1db0d320cc16?hl=en
>
> Pagano is still posting.http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/4759984be81ccd4b?hl=en
>
> Spintronichttp://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/4e193806400cfe9d?hl=en
>
> HighQ may be Spinnies lowerQ half? �Sometimes you can�t keep track of
> these guys without a scorecard.http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/2e13295e258cd0e9?hl=en
>
> Ed Conrad may be back:http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/c6fef8636ea3e718?hl=en
>
> Nando is still Nando:http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/be69c8b53236140c?hl=en
>
> For some reason Backspace still posts from time to time.http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/477c7b4d65b76cb4?hl=en
>
> Suzanne: �One of the saddest things is how the creationist scam
> artists prey on people like Suzanne.http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/86eb0653046f328c?hl=en
>
> Glenn? �Where has Glenn gone? �Pitman is also MIA. �Gabriel posted a
> couple of weeks ago.
>
> More new guys than usual have shown up recently. �This is likely due
> to the hype about Darwin�s birthday. �As I have mentioned the regulars
> are a select group. �They are the ignorant, incompetent and/or
> dishonest that just can�t give up even though they realize that they
> never had an argument. �Most of the newbies will just give up when the
> realization hits them that they have no valid arguments, some will
> become hard and bitter like NashT and Glenn and only poke from the
> snide lines, and others will cluelessly natter on like adman. �Not a
> bright future for any of them.
>
> evolutionguru: �Another deluded guy with a misnomer as a tag. �One
> that is stupid enough to use arguments that have been so thoroughly
> refuted that a major creationist organization tells their followers
> not to use them anymore.http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/62ad5e241bff4105?hl=en
>
> Starmaker: loki or liar, he claims to not be a creationists. �If these
> types aren�t trolls they are usually spitting out Bible verses in
> their defense within a few weeks.http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/dffcddc11f1ff8d9?hl=en
>
> TheMac37: claims to head an R&D operation, but doesn�t seem to
> understand how to do any valid research.http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/0f1fc6a5c8176b1b?hl=en
>
> Too new for me to tell what they are:
>
> Socratus??http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/a33c1aeb11f69f9e?hl=en
>
> Kalkidas??http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/f841c35b027f22af?hl=en
>
> Roaming rider??http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/3ce4de93882c3028?hl=en
I see no insult in being slandered by the likes of a Ron Okimoto, that
is, a person who says nature produced itself without any intervention
from Intelligence (= Atheism). The lack of any substance in Ron's
piece is a reflection of his mind and evolutionary theory.
Ray (Creatorist, species immutabilist)
Reddfrogg
snip
>
> Blanket statements that say no valid arguments against evolution exist
> only testify to the dishonesty and/or brainwashed state of the
> writer.
Ray, if there are valid arguments against evolution, why have you, or
anyone else never produced any?
>
> > All the regulars except addledman know that they
> > have none. They know this with enough conviction that they are not
> > willing to even try to put one forward any longer. They have tried
> > hundreds and they have all blown up in their faces. Just follow this
> > thread and see if any of the regulars puts up their version of an
> > honest and valid argument. All they have to do is tell us what the
> > argument is and what it means to them, give us a reference to the
> > argument so we can look it up ourselves and sit back and be educated.
>
> Blanket statements that say no valid arguments against evolution exist
> only testify to the dishonesty and closed mindedness of the writer.
So, where are these arguments? No one seems to be able to put any
valid arguments against evolution on the table.
> Since the Atheist MUST abide in evolution (having no choice), the same
> explains the ridiculous claim that no valid arguments exist refuting
> evolution.
First of all, Ron isnt' an atheist. Second, atheists can believe many
different ideas, rather than evolution. Again, Ray, if you think
there are valid arguments against evolution, why haven't you, or
anyone else presented them?
Can you produce just one valid argument against evolution?
>
> > Any lurker can get their feet wet by trying this 2 or 3 times or
> > however many times it takes to get the same message. You have to have
> > a thick skin because these arguments were usually bogus when they were
> > made up, and there isn t much tolerance for people still ignorant
> > enough to be fooled by them. Just ask Adman about the moondust
> > argument or any of the hundreds of others that he has tried.
>
> Dear Lurker: Adman is an evolutionist
No, as any lurker can see.
> he accepts species
> mutability.
As do nearly all creationists, or for that matter, anyone with a
working brain. The fact that species do change is far too well
established for anyone but a total lunatic to deny.
> Ron "Albert Einstein" Okimoto has insulted one of his
> own.
Actually, Ray, you are just scoring a goal for the other side. Addy
is one of yours. I understand that you don't want him, but that's no
reason he's not on your side.
>
> > For the majority of Christians in developed countries anti-evolution
> > is not part of their theology. This seems to dumbfound the religious
> > bigots. Guys like Ray and adman have both claimed that even the other
> > isn t a real Christian. It is that sad. They know who the real
> > ChristiansTM are, they just can't agree among themselves. There is
> > the Clergy Letter project that has a list of 10,000 clergy that are
> > not anti-evolution.
>
> I am glad to be rejected as a real Christian by any "Christian" who
> accepts the same theory that Richard Dawkins rabidly accepts.
You make this claim, Ray, but it's quite obvious you are lying about
it. Richard Dawkins is a scientist, and he holds a lot of respect
for his scientific work. He's not the leader of all atheists, and
his acceptance of a scientific theory doesn't "taint" that theory.
Evolution is not more atheist than gravity. All of science must make
do with methodological naturalism, but trying to conflate science with
strong philosophical naturalism is wrong. You know it's wrong, Ray,
but you keep repeating what you know to be false.
> Imagine
> that; "Christian" clergy kissing the ass of Darwin & Dawkins?
Agreeing on a matter of science with well respected scientists is
hardly "kissing the ass". Christian clergy are open to the truth as
well as anyone else. Why should they reject a well establsihed
scientific theory, one that's been shown to produce actual results,
just because some one who doesn't believe in God also accepts the
theory?
> Reminds
> me of Judas the Apostle kissing Jesus while betraying Him to His
> enemies.
Ray, your own actions betray Christ much more than any Christian
accepting science would ever do.
snip
>
> I see no insult in being slandered by the likes of a Ron Okimoto,
No one has slandered you, Ray. You are just sniveling because you
can't address Ron's points.
> that
> is, a person who says nature produced itself without any intervention
> from Intelligence (= Atheism).
Actually, atheism is saying that God doesn't exist, or that if God is
to exist, he must be visible to science. Saying that nature
"produced itself" without intervention from a supernatural being is
not atheism. Ray curtails God, and decides what role God can have
and not have. Ron, on the other hand seems to understand that God is
not defined by human terms.
> The lack of any substance in Ron's
> piece is a reflection of his mind and evolutionary theory.
You avoided addressing the substance of Ron's post, and just sniveled
about being "slandered". Grow up, Ray.
DJT
raven1
<pyram...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>On Nov 14, 6:22�am, Ron O <rokim...@cox.net> wrote:
>> There are a few new faces since the July thread, but you can find the
>> various accounts for some of the regulars in the July post. �I'm not
>> going to repeat a lot of background, anyone interested can go back to
>> the July post below. �Google also has a feature where you can look up
>> the profiles of the posters and find a lot of their old posts.http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/a01f009ef41f9647?hl=en
>>
>> I usually take a random post as an example. �In fact if the post is
>> too far gone I usually pick another so that no one can claim that I am
>> picking on this group of posters. �To get the full effect you probably
>> don�t have to go to more than 20 posts from any of these guys to find
>> out how bogus they and their arguments are. �As adman found out last
>> quarter the title of this thread isn�t just mocking how mentally
>> incompetent these posters are, but this is the entire list of those
>> that I have found currently posting on the anti-evolution side. ��Ye
>> shall know them by their fruits.�http://www.bartleby.com/108/40/7.html
>>
>> These are the fruits of anti-evolution religious bigotry. �What should
>> that tell any thinking human being? �One thing that you will be hard
>> pressed to find is anyone claiming to have an honest and valid anti-
>> evolution argument. �
>
>Blanket statements that say no valid arguments against evolution exist
>only testify to the dishonesty and/or brainwashed state of the
>writer.
Present one.
>> All the regulars except addledman know that they
>> have none. �They know this with enough conviction that they are not
>> willing to even try to put one forward any longer. �They have tried
>> hundreds and they have all blown up in their faces. �Just follow this
>> thread and see if any of the regulars puts up their version of an
>> honest and valid argument. �All they have to do is tell us what the
>> argument is and what it means to them, give us a reference to the
>> argument so we can look it up ourselves and sit back and be educated.
>
>Blanket statements that say no valid arguments against evolution exist
>only testify to the dishonesty and closed mindedness of the writer.
Present one.
>Since the Atheist MUST abide in evolution (having no choice), the same
>explains the ridiculous claim that no valid arguments exist refuting
>evolution.
Present one.
>> Any lurker can get their feet wet by trying this 2 or 3 times or
>> however many times it takes to get the same message. �You have to have
>> a thick skin because these arguments were usually bogus when they were
>> made up, and there isn�t much tolerance for people still ignorant
>> enough to be fooled by them. �Just ask Adman about the �moondust�
>> argument or any of the hundreds of others that he has tried.
>>
>
>Dear Lurker: Adman is an evolutionist----he accepts species
>mutability.
By that criteria, Ray, you're the only Creationist on the planet.
>Ron "Albert Einstein" Okimoto has insulted one of his
>own.
Except that literally no one but you rejects species mutability.