By Their Fruits Oct 2012

Ron O

unread,

Oct 7, 2012, 10:53:10 AM10/7/12

to

The only noteworthy aspect of this edition is the absence of Pagano
and the temporary return of Spintronic. One of the reasons Spinny was
one of the few posters ever banned from TO is that he had a habit of
posting under multiple Nyms and when he came back he used at least
three. You can't make this junk up.

Google By Their Fruits to get the Biblical meaning of this thread. It
is only meant as a means of making it easier for anyone to use Google
to get as many posts as they can stand to read from these posters in
order to get an idea of the state of the religious anti-evolution
movement. They are a diverse group that have many views and you can't
pigeon hole all of them so one size does not fit all. We have a Hindu
creationist IDiot in Kalk, Nando/Syamsu follows the Koran, and Nyikos
is a Catholic church going self proclaimed agnostic disciple of Behe
etc. So there are all kinds and one definition isn't going to work.
Just being a creationist was never the problem. It is what these guys
do because of their religious beliefs that is the problem. I have
links to creationist sites in other By Their Fruits where those
creationists would not make the list.

I don't claim that these guys represent the entire range of the anti-
science/anti-evolution creationist movement. They are just the sample
that posts to TO and tries to defend the junk that failed the
Scientific Creationists over 25 years ago and the creationist
intelligent design scam that took the place of Scientific Creationism
around 20 years ago. I don't know how history is going to view the
IDiots that still support a stupid and dishonest creationists scam
that for the last decade has been running the bait and switch on their
own creationist support base. The ID perps never delivered the
intelligent design science that they claimed to have, and all the
creationists have ever gotten out of them is a switch scam that
doesn't even mention that ID ever existed. IDiots like Kalk just keep
going back to them as if they can trust the guys that have lied to
them about the ID scam. Sad but true.

So consider this list under those circumstances. The links are to the
Google posts. I purposely just take random posts from the last couple
of weeks of active threads and if the post is too over the top I pick
another so that I can't be accused of stacking the deck. You can look
up more of their posts by clicking on "view profile" by their name at
the top of the post.

It is likely a good idea for lurkers with similar views to first read
a sampling of the posts from these guys and the responses to get an
idea of what you might be getting into if you try to post.

There are links to past By Their Fruits threads and they contain links
to others.
By Their Fruits June 2012:
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/b2a5a7608cdc6dbf?hl=en

By Their Fruits Feb 2012:
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/04a3b574e722a8f4?hl=en

Spintronic made a return as:
Asteroidse:
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/d5090986b70c8c1a?hl=en
Bill Gatley:
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/111dd0c704a07388?hl=en
John Utah:
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/35105fab4b976bf9?hl=en

Charles Fields, Spinny?
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/e5d7351adf72d36b?hl=en

Some posters think that Smoley is Spinny, but I don't know.
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/70cc4d362a9b6f0d?hl=en

R Dean seems to be your typical evasive IDiot of some type, but his
profile is corrupted and can't be accessed by Google:
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/5451fbcd8848d382?hl=en

Eugene Willow:
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/16cbbe6086d94ffa?hl=en

Prawnster (Could he be Pags having a bad day?):
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/3dd62d3cb8655142?hl=en

Peter Nyikos:
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/a6a8c8032c25abec?hl=en

Ray:
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/42849b882018f98d?hl=en

Glenn:
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/aedb6b65e9b175e1?hl=en

Backspace:
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/faba2118461ab06f?hl=en&

Disciplea the usual post and run:
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/568dfe3692bbfb84?hl=en

Kalkidas:
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/7aadd76b7a990049?hl=en

Nando/Syamsu:
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/67b3d1bd054d3719?hl=en

an010 another post and run:
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/00565b144a364f1b?hl=en

Sebastian Sandstedt (I often wonder how many of these are honest
inquiries. They never seem to want to stick around after finding out
how bogus their information is.)
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/12a854fa30c95b69?hl=en

dav:
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/b5af72ba21c80c51?hl=en

Dale:
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/203ad3a1596f285a?hl=en

biblearch:
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/961a6a5f1d74033f?hl=en

Zoe!!! Zoe didn't really post. For some unknown reason a spammer
posted to a 2005 thread started by Zoe. Were these the good old days?
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/8f3b8997d063edd3?hl=en

Nashton: NashT hasn't posted recently, but someone resurrected an old
thread from July.
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/f5e6bbd5d0b10e3d?hl=en

curtjester1:
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/b6f73f64673c1456?hl=en

This is a pro science creationist site put up by Frank:
http://www.oldearth.org/

Any that I missed add them to the list.

Ron Okimoto

Eugene Willow

unread,

Oct 7, 2012, 2:15:48 PM10/7/12

to

On 7 Oct, 14:54, Ron O <rokim...@cox.net> wrote:
> Eugene Willow:http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/16cbbe6086d94ffa?hl=en
and this is the essence of evolutionism- instead of scientific
arguments, calling people idiots...

prawnster

unread,

Oct 7, 2012, 2:29:14 PM10/7/12

to

On Oct 7, 7:54�am, Ron O <rokim...@cox.net> wrote:
> [...]

> Prawnster (Could he be Pags having a bad day?):http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/3dd62d3cb8655142?hl=en
>

Nope. Just the prawndaddy having an average day, demonstrating that
Darwinism is based on assumptions, wordplay, and story-telling.

Boikat

unread,

Oct 7, 2012, 2:35:22 PM10/7/12

to

If it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck....

Boikat

Boikat

unread,

Oct 7, 2012, 2:36:07 PM10/7/12

to

So far, you have failed. Hadn't you noticed?

Boikat

Ron O

unread,

Oct 7, 2012, 4:19:48 PM10/7/12

to

On Oct 7, 1:19 pm, Eugene Willow <willowe1...@hotmail.com> wrote:

The term was "IDiots" just because there is no apparent difference
isn't my problem. Just consider how you were bogus about it and you
can see why the term exists.

Ron Okimoto

Kalkidas

unread,

Oct 7, 2012, 4:37:33 PM10/7/12

to

Welcome to the tormented conspiratorial world of Ron O.

Ray Martinez

unread,

Oct 7, 2012, 4:44:12 PM10/7/12

to

Eugene: I am relieved to be rejected as an idiot by a person who
actually believes apes morphed into Africans over the course of
millions of years. You should too.

Ray

Glenn

unread,

Oct 7, 2012, 4:45:33 PM10/7/12

to

"Kalkidas" <e...@joes.pub> wrote in message
news:rup37898a0a7gaal7...@4ax.com...

Nah, he's Santa Clause, makin a list and checkin it twice. And he's comin to
town.

Frank J

unread,

Oct 7, 2012, 4:50:42 PM10/7/12

to

You probably noticed, but conveniently ignore, that many like me do
*not* call them (you?) idiots. Even when they use idiotic words like
"evolutionism."

Ray Martinez

unread,

Oct 7, 2012, 4:53:04 PM10/7/12

to

On Oct 7, 7:54�am, Ron O <rokim...@cox.net> wrote:

> Charles Fields, Spinny?http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/e5d7351adf72d36b?hl=en
>
> Some posters think that Smoley is Spinny, but I don't know.http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/70cc4d362a9b6f0d?hl=en

> how bogus their information is.)http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/12a854fa30c95b69?hl=en

>
> dav:http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/b5af72ba21c80c51?hl=en
>
> Dale:http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/203ad3a1596f285a?hl=en
>
> biblearch:http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/961a6a5f1d74033f?hl=en
>
> Zoe!!! �Zoe didn't really post. �For some unknown reason a spammer

> posted to a 2005 thread started by Zoe. �Were these the good old days?http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/8f3b8997d063edd3?hl=en

>
> Nashton: �NashT hasn't posted recently, but someone resurrected an old

> thread from July.http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/f5e6bbd5d0b10e3d?hl=en

>
> curtjester1:http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/b6f73f64673c1456?hl=en
>
> This is a pro science creationist site put up by Frank:http://www.oldearth.org/
>
> Any that I missed add them to the list.
>
> Ron Okimoto

Here is what "Honest" Ron Okimoto conveniently forgot to tell
everyone: All of the so called "Creationists" and "IDists" he mentions
accept conceptual existence of Darwin's main claims in nature: natural
selection, microevolution, macroevolution and common descent. Peter
Nyikos also accepts human evolution and space aliens responsible for
biological First Cause.

All of the "IDiots" (Ron's term) are in his bed.

Ray (Old Earth Paleyan IDist-species immutabilist)

Frank J

unread,

Oct 7, 2012, 4:55:40 PM10/7/12

to

So those apes that "morphed into Africans" were what, Europeans?

An idiot would not know which questions to repeatedly evade, so you
are not one. You do have a self-torturing love-hate relationship with
ID peddlers, though.

Frank J

unread,

Oct 7, 2012, 5:07:41 PM10/7/12

to

> Charles Fields, Spinny?http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/e5d7351adf72d36b?hl=en
>
> Some posters think that Smoley is Spinny, but I don't know.http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/70cc4d362a9b6f0d?hl=en

> how bogus their information is.)http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/12a854fa30c95b69?hl=en

>
> dav:http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/b5af72ba21c80c51?hl=en
>
> Dale:http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/203ad3a1596f285a?hl=en
>
> biblearch:http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/961a6a5f1d74033f?hl=en
>
> Zoe!!! �Zoe didn't really post. �For some unknown reason a spammer

> posted to a 2005 thread started by Zoe. �Were these the good old days?http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/8f3b8997d063edd3?hl=en

>
> Nashton: �NashT hasn't posted recently, but someone resurrected an old

> thread from July.http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/f5e6bbd5d0b10e3d?hl=en

>
> curtjester1:http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/b6f73f64673c1456?hl=en
>
> This is a pro science creationist site put up by Frank:http://www.oldearth.org/
>
> Any that I missed add them to the list.
>
> Ron Okimoto

Did Dr.Dr. Kleinman give up? Except for a rare check I stopped
following the 1000s of posts because almost every reply allowed him to
control the terms of the "debate." I recall only ~10 questions about
his "theory" and ~5 of them were from me.

Same goes for Anthony, though maybe less than 1000 posts. And
voweltroll may have froze to death in the Alps.

Frank J

unread,

Oct 7, 2012, 5:10:43 PM10/7/12

to

It's even worse than that. He says nothing about his "theory" because
he knows that the only thing *he* could think of would be assumptions,
wordplay, and story-telling.

Glenn

unread,

Oct 7, 2012, 5:07:21 PM10/7/12

to

"Frank J" <fc...@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:c2b5c3f6-55f1-4464...@a17g2000yqg.googlegroups.com...

Seems like a lot of people use and have used the word. Are they all idiotic?

http://scholar.google.com/scholar?start=50&q=evolutionism&hl=en&as_sdt=0,3

Dana Tweedy

unread,

Oct 7, 2012, 5:59:30 PM10/7/12

to

Ray, all humans are apes, and remain apes. For that matter, all humans
are ultimately "Africans" as well.

You are "rejected as an idiot" because you keep writing idiotic things,
not because of your position on evolution.

DJT

Hemidactylus

unread,

Oct 7, 2012, 6:09:19 PM10/7/12

to

You are the only one marching perfectly in step. All others falter from
the one true way.

jillery

unread,

Oct 7, 2012, 6:28:27 PM10/7/12

to

On Sun, 7 Oct 2012 11:35:22 -0700 (PDT), Boikat <boi...@bellsouth.net>
wrote:

Apparently some ducks like to quack idiotic arguments are scientific.

Frank J

unread,

Oct 7, 2012, 7:00:27 PM10/7/12

to

On 7 Oct, 17:14, "Glenn" <glennshel...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
> "Frank J" <f...@verizon.net> wrote in message

>
> news:c2b5c3f6-55f1-4464...@a17g2000yqg.googlegroups.com...> On 7 Oct, 14:19, Eugene Willow <willowe1...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > > On 7 Oct, 14:54, Ron O <rokim...@cox.net> wrote:> Eugene
>
> Willow:http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/16cbbe6086d94ffa?hl=en
>
> > > and this is the essence of evolutionism- instead of scientific
> > > arguments, calling people idiots...
>
> > You probably noticed, but conveniently ignore, that many like me do
> > *not* call them (you?) idiots. Even when they use idiotic words like
> > "evolutionism."
>
> Seems like a lot of people use and have used the word. Are they all idiotic?

Most readers can tell what I think from the two sentences above, and
thus don't have to ask. In fact I am *more* critical of those who
accept evolution and use words like "evolutionism," "Darwinism" and
"Darwinist(s)" than I am of those who deny (or pretend to deny)
evolution and use them.

>
> http://scholar.google.com/scholar?start=50&q=evolutionism&hl=en&as_sd...

Stephen

unread,

Oct 7, 2012, 11:49:39 PM10/7/12

to

And some ducks are just quacks.

--

Dale

unread,

Oct 8, 2012, 4:26:08 AM10/8/12

to

On 10/07/2012 10:53 AM, Ron O wrote:
> Dale:
> http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/203ad3a1596f285a?hl=en

are you trying to resurrect the kook cabal? by the way alt.usenet.kooks
looks it seems ov overcome to me

theology is the science of the past, they just had less tools to observe
and test and build with, in the case of philosophy most has grown from it

I don't believe in an all-powerful benefactor since suffering exists and
suffering is not beneficial

but I do believe in a supreme being and other higher powers, much like
there are higher powers on earth

if the supreme being created a utopia where everything was perfect we
would get intellectually bored very quickly, and so would the supreme
being, so the supreme being created a puzzle instead, lesser of two evils

I don't think the supreme being demands worship and I don't think he can
play favourites withe prayer

I do agree that theology can be abused easier than science, similarly
people can play head-games with any philopsophy with but science should
be held to a higher standard, too often hypotheses make their way into
theory and theory make their way into fact, there is no "theory of
everything"

here are some links that I think are relevant

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maya_(illusion)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maya_%28illusion%29
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samsara
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moksha

--
Dale

Ron O

unread,

Oct 8, 2012, 7:50:45 AM10/8/12

to

On Oct 7, 3:39�pm, Kalkidas <e...@joes.pub> wrote:
> On Sun, 7 Oct 2012 11:15:48 -0700 (PDT), Eugene Willow
>

> <willowe1...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >On 7 Oct, 14:54, Ron O <rokim...@cox.net> wrote:
> >> Eugene Willow:http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/16cbbe6086d94ffa?hl=en
> >and this is the essence of evolutionism- instead of scientific
> >arguments, calling people idiots...
>
> Welcome to the tormented conspiratorial world of Ron O.

Conspiracy? Most of the guys on this list don't even want to
associate with themselves. If you mean the ID scam. I don't consider
it much of a conspiracy and call it what it actually is. It is just a
bogus scam. Are you going to contest that the guys that sold you the
teach ID scam are running the bait and switch on their own creationist
support base (that means you). How much ID science is in the switch
scam that they give the rubes instead of the wonderful ID science?
Why isn't ID even mentioned in the switch scam if it is being run by
the same guys that sold you the ID scam? Isn't that sad. I don't
consider it a scam for the bogus science that they pretend exists. It
is a scam for how they treat the creationist rubes that fell for it.
Did they ever have the ID science that they still claim to have? I've
never seen you put up a testable ID hypothesis that has actually been
tested and verified, so where is the ID science that they still lie to
you about?

What is sad is that since the last By Their Fruits you put up at least
three articles published on the web by the ID perps at the Discovery
Institute and were burned by all three instances. The last one was
stupid because all you had to do was to watch the video and know that
you were being lied to by the title that you put up. What is your
excuse for continuing to go back to the guys that you know lied to you
about intelligent design in order to continue to be lied to? I guess
a scam could be called a conspiracy, but you can only call a rube that
won't admit to the scam and continues to support the scam artists and
IDiot. I don't have much choice do I? Were you not the victim in
this scam, or did you know that there was never any ID science worth
teaching and go with it anyway? How long has the bait and switch been
going down? What happened to the rubes in Texas and Louisiana that
took the switch scam from the same guys that lied to them about the ID
scam and tried to implement it? Did the Discovery Institute support
their efforts? No in both cases. Really, guys as lost as you are
don't listen to the science side, but for some reason they will listen
to the scam artists when they tell the rubes that what they are doing
isn't such a good idea even if the scam artists sold them the bogus
idea in the first place.

Who has been the major factor in keeping intelligent design
creationism out of the public schools for the last decade? Who sent
representatives to kill the idea in Florida when around 9 county
school boards and multiple state legislators were claiming to want to
teach the science of intelligent design in the public schools. What
did the Discovery Institute representatives do in Florida? Did any ID
science get presented that could be taught? Didn't the bait and
switch go down again? Wasn't that around 7 or 8 years after the bait
and switch run on the Ohio State board of education? What has
happened in every such case where the rubes have bought into the ID
scam and wanted to teach it in the public schools? You are the IDiot
rube explain history. If you want to make it out to be a conspiracy
go for it.

Ron Okimoto

Ron O

unread,

Oct 8, 2012, 7:52:56 AM10/8/12

to

On Oct 7, 1:29�pm, prawnster <zweibro...@ymail.com> wrote:

I was trying to put the bright side onto it, but I guess I was wrong.

Ron Okimoto

Ron O

unread,

Oct 8, 2012, 7:58:31 AM10/8/12

to

Kleinman last posted in August according to his profile and Anthony
hasn't posted since July. I had the wrong post for Kleinman in the
June By Their Fruits, but the Feb Fruits has a correct listing so that
you can get to his profile.

Ron Okimoto

Ron O

unread,

Oct 8, 2012, 8:04:57 AM10/8/12

to

On Oct 8, 3:29�am, Dale <inva...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
> On 10/07/2012 10:53 AM, Ron O wrote:
>
> > Dale:
> >http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/203ad3a1596f285a?hl=en
>
> are you trying to resurrect the kook cabal? by the way alt.usenet.kooks
> looks it seems ov overcome to me

The list is what it is. It is a list of all the posters currently
posting that support the anti-science side of the issue, the good, bad
and the ugly. Essentially, supporters of either the old scientific
creationist type claptrap or the intelligent design scam junk. I have
nothing to do with the fact that the good is mostly lacking. The
state of things is just what it is.

Ron Okimoto

eridanus

unread,

Oct 8, 2012, 9:08:18 AM10/8/12

to

El lunes, 8 de octubre de 2012 12:54:26 UTC+1, Ron O escribi�:

Forgive me, dear Rony. I will present here another interpretation about
the presence of creationists in this site.

They all know perfectly that their position in regard to science and
evolution is worthless. But they are playing to act like they were
intelligent. It is a little like the boy that moves his
arms and body simulating his is an orchestra conductor.

They love to rub elbows with us, for they admire our independent mind,
ans how much we know of science. I exclude me of the example. Then,
their passport to rub elbows with us is to present religious arguments
against the ToE.
When I was thirty something, I used to frequent American tourists in bars
that had hidden in the Island to avoid be sent to the Viet Nam war.
They soon expended the check their parents sent to them each month.
Then passed most of their time in bars without a buck. Then, I
approached to them with the pretest to asking a grammatical question
about English, and then invited them to drink a few beers, and have
some sandwiches of ham and cheese. This way I made friends of them,
and could be beside them hearing their conversations. And sometimes
I could also chat a little with them.

I am sure these guys of the creationism love being in our company and
play at teasing our intelligence. I have the hypothesis that they
love our arguments.

They know perfectly well they cannot convince any of us of their
creationism. But they like to hear our replies. In a way, they
are like sharpening a little bit their own intelligence by coming
here to dispute with us.
They love to be around us. That is the reason why they are here.

So, I think we should play at being nicer hosts to them. If you
think deeper, they are flattering our intellect by coming here to
argue with us. But, at the same time, we are also flattering them
with our replies. We are showing them, to care of what they are
saying to the point of writing careful intelligent replies.

To me, all these bogus arguments about creationism, help me to
exercise my intelligence and to train the analytical part of my
brain. They serve me as well to avoid my brain to get trapped
by Alzheimer for lack of intellectual exercise .

Many of the creationist guys has so low IQ that to have them near
us can enhance our self-esteem. Or at least this is my case.

Then, even if sometimes we get a little irked reading their posts,
I think they are mostly a blessing, or we would not be here for
so long.

I hope you would not be irked you with my modest consideration
about this group.

Eridanus

Frank J

unread,

Oct 8, 2012, 9:30:33 AM10/8/12

to

On 8 Oct, 07:54, Ron O <rokim...@cox.net> wrote:
> On Oct 7, 3:39�pm, Kalkidas <e...@joes.pub> wrote:
>
> > On Sun, 7 Oct 2012 11:15:48 -0700 (PDT), Eugene Willow
>
> > <willowe1...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > >On 7 Oct, 14:54, Ron O <rokim...@cox.net> wrote:
> > >> Eugene Willow:http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/16cbbe6086d94ffa?hl=en
> > >and this is the essence of evolutionism- instead of scientific
> > >arguments, calling people idiots...
>
> > Welcome to the tormented conspiratorial world of Ron O.
>
> Conspiracy? �Most of the guys on this list don't even want to
> associate with themselves. �If you mean the ID scam. �I don't consider
> it much of a conspiracy and call it what it actually is. �It is just a
> bogus scam.

In fact the ID perps and the Biblicals (mostly YEC peddlers) wish each
other would shut up and let them do all the talking. If anything, we
make an effective conspiracy for them, when we lump them all together
as "creationists." Sure, they have even more in common than most
people are aware of. Namely, a laundry list of long-refuted arguments
against evolution that use every trick of pseudoscience imaginable,
all wrapped in a radical, paranoid authoritarian worldview.
Ironically, the only way to truly appreciate those similarities is to
take a detailed look at their *differences* in apparent beliefs, and
their methods to peddle science-denial and paranoid worldviews.

>�Are you going to contest that the guys that sold you the

Frank J

unread,

Oct 8, 2012, 9:41:09 AM10/8/12

to

> Ron Okimoto- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

Thanks. I was scarce much of that time because the new Google Groups
made reading and posting difficult. Somehow I was able to reload the
Old GG, so I'm back. In the meantime I have found other passtimes, so
my posting frequency will probably be intermediate. Ray will likely be
disappointed, and will be forced to finish his book. ;-)

Ernest Major

unread,

Oct 8, 2012, 11:31:55 AM10/8/12

to

In message
<2cfcccd2-5601-448c...@o8g2000yqm.googlegroups.com>, Ron
O <roki...@cox.net> writes

>Prawnster (Could he be Pags having a bad day?):
>http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/3dd62d3cb8655142?hl=en

Prawnster comes across as a parody of Nashton (with notes of others of
the resident creationists).

There's reason to think he's been around for a long time (under a
different nym? as a lurker?) or has made an extensive study of the group
archives.
--
alias Ernest Major

Message has been deleted

Ray Martinez

unread,

Oct 8, 2012, 2:25:14 PM10/8/12

to

On Oct 7, 7:54�ｿｽam, Ron O <rokim...@cox.net> wrote:
> The only noteworthy aspect of this edition is the absence of Pagano

> and the temporary return of Spintronic. �ｿｽOne of the reasons Spinny was

> one of the few posters ever banned from TO is that he had a habit of
> posting under multiple Nyms and when he came back he used at least

> three. �ｿｽYou can't make this junk up.
>
> Google By Their Fruits to get the Biblical meaning of this thread. �ｿｽIt

> is only meant as a means of making it easier for anyone to use Google
> to get as many posts as they can stand to read from these posters in
> order to get an idea of the state of the religious anti-evolution

> movement. �ｿｽThey are a diverse group that have many views and you can't
> pigeon hole all of them so one size does not fit all. �ｿｽWe have a Hindu

> creationist IDiot in Kalk, Nando/Syamsu follows the Koran, and Nyikos
> is a Catholic church going self proclaimed agnostic disciple of Behe

> etc. �ｿｽSo there are all kinds and one definition isn't going to work.
> Just being a creationist was never the problem. �ｿｽIt is what these guys
> do because of their religious beliefs that is the problem. �ｿｽI have

> links to creationist sites in other By Their Fruits where those
> creationists would not make the list.
>
> I don't claim that these guys represent the entire range of the anti-

> science/anti-evolution creationist movement. �ｿｽThey are just the sample

> that posts to TO and tries to defend the junk that failed the
> Scientific Creationists over 25 years ago and the creationist
> intelligent design scam that took the place of Scientific Creationism

> around 20 years ago. �ｿｽI don't know how history is going to view the

> IDiots that still support a stupid and dishonest creationists scam
> that for the last decade has been running the bait and switch on their

> own creationist support base. �ｿｽThe ID perps never delivered the

> intelligent design science that they claimed to have, and all the
> creationists have ever gotten out of them is a switch scam that

> doesn't even mention that ID ever existed. �ｿｽIDiots like Kalk just keep

> going back to them as if they can trust the guys that have lied to

> them about the ID scam. �ｿｽSad but true.
>
> So consider this list under those circumstances. �ｿｽThe links are to the
> Google posts. �ｿｽI purposely just take random posts from the last couple

> of weeks of active threads and if the post is too over the top I pick

> another so that I can't be accused of stacking the deck. �ｿｽYou can look

> up more of their posts by clicking on "view profile" by their name at
> the top of the post.
>
> It is likely a good idea for lurkers with similar views to first read
> a sampling of the posts from these guys and the responses to get an
> idea of what you might be getting into if you try to post.
>
> There are links to past By Their Fruits threads and they contain links
> to others.
> By Their Fruits June 2012:http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/b2a5a7608cdc6dbf?hl=en
>
> By Their Fruits Feb 2012:http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/04a3b574e722a8f4?hl=en
>
> Spintronic made a return as:
> Asteroidse:http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/d5090986b70c8c1a?hl=en
> Bill Gatley:http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/111dd0c704a07388?hl=en
> John Utah:http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/35105fab4b976bf9?hl=en
>
> Charles Fields, Spinny?http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/e5d7351adf72d36b?hl=en
>
> Some posters think that Smoley is Spinny, but I don't know.http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/70cc4d362a9b6f0d?hl=en
>
> R Dean seems to be your typical evasive IDiot of some type, but his
> profile is corrupted and can't be accessed by Google:http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/5451fbcd8848d382?hl=en
>
> Eugene Willow:http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/16cbbe6086d94ffa?hl=en
>

> Prawnster (Could he be Pags having a bad day?):http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/3dd62d3cb8655142?hl=en
>

> Peter Nyikos:http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/a6a8c8032c25abec?hl=en
>

Challenged.

Show us where you obtain the idea that Peter Nyikos is a Creationist?

Peter argues tooth-and-nail in behalf of the ToE, including human
evolution. Since you cannot support your claim you are engaged in
classic "axe-grinding." Peter is under skin. You are angry and beaten.

Now that Ron has made this ridiculous claim he must defend it to the
death because retraction is not an option that his ego can endure.

Ray

[....]

Ray Martinez

unread,

Oct 8, 2012, 2:28:57 PM10/8/12

to

Again, I am quite relieved to be held as an idiot by a person who
thinks apes morphed into Africans over the course of millions of
years.

We don't want the approval of your kind.

Ray (anti-evolutionist)

Frank J

unread,

Oct 8, 2012, 3:19:30 PM10/8/12

to

On 8 Oct, 14:29, Ray Martinez <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote:

> On Oct 7, 7:54�am, Ron O <rokim...@cox.net> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > The only noteworthy aspect of this edition is the absence of Pagano

> > and the temporary return of Spintronic. �One of the reasons Spinny was

> > one of the few posters ever banned from TO is that he had a habit of
> > posting under multiple Nyms and when he came back he used at least

> > three. �You can't make this junk up.
>
> > Google By Their Fruits to get the Biblical meaning of this thread. �It

> > is only meant as a means of making it easier for anyone to use Google
> > to get as many posts as they can stand to read from these posters in
> > order to get an idea of the state of the religious anti-evolution

> > movement. �They are a diverse group that have many views and you can't
> > pigeon hole all of them so one size does not fit all. �We have a Hindu

> > creationist IDiot in Kalk, Nando/Syamsu follows the Koran, and Nyikos
> > is a Catholic church going self proclaimed agnostic disciple of Behe

> > etc. �So there are all kinds and one definition isn't going to work.
> > Just being a creationist was never the problem. �It is what these guys
> > do because of their religious beliefs that is the problem. �I have

> > links to creationist sites in other By Their Fruits where those
> > creationists would not make the list.
>
> > I don't claim that these guys represent the entire range of the anti-

> > science/anti-evolution creationist movement. �They are just the sample

> > that posts to TO and tries to defend the junk that failed the
> > Scientific Creationists over 25 years ago and the creationist
> > intelligent design scam that took the place of Scientific Creationism

> > around 20 years ago. �I don't know how history is going to view the

> > IDiots that still support a stupid and dishonest creationists scam
> > that for the last decade has been running the bait and switch on their

> > own creationist support base. �The ID perps never delivered the

> > intelligent design science that they claimed to have, and all the
> > creationists have ever gotten out of them is a switch scam that

> > doesn't even mention that ID ever existed. �IDiots like Kalk just keep

> > going back to them as if they can trust the guys that have lied to

> > them about the ID scam. �Sad but true.
>
> > So consider this list under those circumstances. �The links are to the
> > Google posts. �I purposely just take random posts from the last couple

> > of weeks of active threads and if the post is too over the top I pick

> > another so that I can't be accused of stacking the deck. �You can look

> > up more of their posts by clicking on "view profile" by their name at
> > the top of the post.
>
> > It is likely a good idea for lurkers with similar views to first read
> > a sampling of the posts from these guys and the responses to get an
> > idea of what you might be getting into if you try to post.
>
> > There are links to past By Their Fruits threads and they contain links
> > to others.
> > By Their Fruits June 2012:http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/b2a5a7608cdc6dbf?hl=en
>
> > By Their Fruits Feb 2012:http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/04a3b574e722a8f4?hl=en
>
> > Spintronic made a return as:
> > Asteroidse:http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/d5090986b70c8c1a?hl=en
> > Bill Gatley:http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/111dd0c704a07388?hl=en
> > John Utah:http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/35105fab4b976bf9?hl=en
>
> > Charles Fields, Spinny?http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/e5d7351adf72d36b?hl=en
>
> > Some posters think that Smoley is Spinny, but I don't know.http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/70cc4d362a9b6f0d?hl=en
>
> > R Dean seems to be your typical evasive IDiot of some type, but his
> > profile is corrupted and can't be accessed by Google:http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/5451fbcd8848d382?hl=en
>
> > Eugene Willow:http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/16cbbe6086d94ffa?hl=en
>
> > Prawnster (Could he be Pags having a bad day?):http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/3dd62d3cb8655142?hl=en
>
> > Peter Nyikos:http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/a6a8c8032c25abec?hl=en
>
> Challenged.
>
> Show us where you obtain the idea that Peter Nyikos is a Creationist?

For the benefit of new readers, "creationist" is a catch-all word that
people use to describe evolution-deniers, be they people on the street
who innocently parrot misleading sound bites, career anti-evolution
activists or anything in between. I do not use that word for anyone,
but if I did, it would not be for Nyikos.

>
> Peter argues tooth-and-nail in behalf of the ToE, including human
> evolution. Since you cannot support your claim you are engaged in
> classic "axe-grinding." Peter is under skin. You are angry and beaten.

For the benefit of new readers, Ray is the only evolution-denier who
accused most (all?) other evolution-deniers of accepting evolution.
Peter is not under Ron's skin, nor is Ray. I might be though. Because
Ron has called *himself* a "creationist" - rendering the word worse
than worthless - and I like to bug him about it.

>
> Now that Ron has made this ridiculous claim he must defend it to the
> death because retraction is not an option that his ego can endure.
>
> Ray
>

> [....]- Hide quoted text -

Frank J

unread,

Oct 8, 2012, 3:22:10 PM10/8/12

to

But he doesn't think "apes morphed into Africans over the course of
millions of years" whatever you mean by that. And the more you put
those words in the mouths of others, the more readers, Christian ones
included, will think you're an idiot.

>
> We don't want the approval of your kind.
>

> Ray (anti-evolutionist)- Hide quoted text -

jillery

unread,

Oct 8, 2012, 5:55:58 PM10/8/12

to

On Mon, 8 Oct 2012 12:19:30 -0700 (PDT), Frank J <fc...@verizon.net>
wrote:

>For the benefit of new readers, Ray is the only evolution-denier who
>accused most (all?) other evolution-deniers of accepting evolution.
>Peter is not under Ron's skin, nor is Ray. I might be though. Because
>Ron has called *himself* a "creationist" - rendering the word worse
>than worthless - and I like to bug him about it.

You should at least give Ron O. credit for specifying at the time what
he meant by it.

Also, it might be useful to use (lower-case) creationist and
(upper-case) Creationist.

FWIW

Glenn

unread,

Oct 8, 2012, 6:03:37 PM10/8/12

to

"jillery" <69jp...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:pqi678pc1qad3l8bf...@4ax.com...

FWIW, Ron has spent way too much time hyperventilating in enclosed chicken pens.

Hemidactylus

unread,

Oct 8, 2012, 7:39:07 PM10/8/12

to

On 10/08/2012 02:16 PM, Ray Martinez wrote:
> On Oct 7, 3:04 pm, Dana Tweedy <reddfrog...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Again, I am quite relieved to be held as an idiot by a person who
> thinks apes morphed in Africans over the course of millions of years.
>
> We don't want your the approval of your kind.

We? Your use of personal pronouns is vexing.

Dana Tweedy

unread,

Oct 8, 2012, 10:24:43 PM10/8/12

to

The evidence clearly shows that all human populations are a species of
ape, and that humans evolved over millions of years from a common
ancestor with our nearest ape relative. There is nothing odd or
controversial about thatnpfpinding.

Also Ray, all humans are "Africans", so why make a big deal about the
humans who are presently living there? The current populations
living in Africa are no more or less distant from the above mentioned
relatives. Why do you keep suggesting that its only the populations
currently living in Africa who have evolved?

>
> We don't want the approval of your kind.
>

Who is the "we" here, and its painfully clear that you are looking for
approval from others. The fact that you keep sabotaging yourself with
silly, unsupported, and badly thought out arguments is why you are
unable to convince anyone you are the genius you claim to be.

That you fail to win approval which you so obviously crave, is that
your position is wrongheaded from the get go.

Playing the sour grapes game over and over only makes you look like a
petulant fool.

DJT

> Ray (anti-evolutionist)

Rolf

unread,

Oct 9, 2012, 12:56:42 PM10/9/12

to

"Ray Martinez" <pyram...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:c422e217-eca9-4cff...@r10g2000pbd.googlegroups.com...

Our problem is that you do not address the facts; you just persist in
denial. It is not a question of apes morphing ..., it is the question of
tghe history of life during several billio years on this planet, using all,
and I mean ALL the evidence avilable.

The evidence is there; all you've got is handwaving. That won't get you
anywhere. You already are lost and you know it but dare not admit even to
yourself.

>
> Ray (anti-evolutionist)
>

Rolf

unread,

Oct 9, 2012, 12:57:58 PM10/9/12

to

"Ray Martinez" <pyram...@yahoo.com> wrote in message

news:ed0867c8-236f-45b5...@ro10g2000pbc.googlegroups.com...

> On Oct 7, 7:54 am, Ron O <rokim...@cox.net> wrote:
>> The only noteworthy aspect of this edition is the absence of Pagano

>> and the temporary return of Spintronic. One of the reasons Spinny was

>> one of the few posters ever banned from TO is that he had a habit of
>> posting under multiple Nyms and when he came back he used at least

>> three. You can't make this junk up.
>>
>> Google By Their Fruits to get the Biblical meaning of this thread. It

>> is only meant as a means of making it easier for anyone to use Google
>> to get as many posts as they can stand to read from these posters in
>> order to get an idea of the state of the religious anti-evolution

>> movement. They are a diverse group that have many views and you can't
>> pigeon hole all of them so one size does not fit all. We have a Hindu

>> creationist IDiot in Kalk, Nando/Syamsu follows the Koran, and Nyikos
>> is a Catholic church going self proclaimed agnostic disciple of Behe

>> etc. So there are all kinds and one definition isn't going to work.
>> Just being a creationist was never the problem. It is what these guys
>> do because of their religious beliefs that is the problem. I have

>> links to creationist sites in other By Their Fruits where those
>> creationists would not make the list.
>>
>> I don't claim that these guys represent the entire range of the anti-

>> science/anti-evolution creationist movement. They are just the sample

>> that posts to TO and tries to defend the junk that failed the
>> Scientific Creationists over 25 years ago and the creationist
>> intelligent design scam that took the place of Scientific Creationism

>> around 20 years ago. I don't know how history is going to view the

>> IDiots that still support a stupid and dishonest creationists scam
>> that for the last decade has been running the bait and switch on their

>> own creationist support base. The ID perps never delivered the

>> intelligent design science that they claimed to have, and all the
>> creationists have ever gotten out of them is a switch scam that

>> doesn't even mention that ID ever existed. IDiots like Kalk just keep

>> going back to them as if they can trust the guys that have lied to

>> them about the ID scam. Sad but true.
>>
>> So consider this list under those circumstances. The links are to the
>> Google posts. I purposely just take random posts from the last couple

>> of weeks of active threads and if the post is too over the top I pick

>> another so that I can't be accused of stacking the deck. You can look

Can your ego take what is waiting in the wings for you?

> Ray
>
> [....]
>

Rolf

unread,

Oct 9, 2012, 12:58:50 PM10/9/12

to

"Ray Martinez" <pyram...@yahoo.com> wrote in message

news:9ddd11b7-01de-483b...@vy11g2000pbb.googlegroups.com...

> On Oct 7, 3:04 pm, Dana Tweedy <reddfrog...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Again, I am quite relieved to be held as an idiot by a person who
> thinks apes morphed in Africans over the course of millions of years.
>

> We don't want your the approval of your kind.
>
Ah, all that relief of yours. How silly.

> Ray (anti-evolutionist)
>

Rolf

unread,

Oct 9, 2012, 1:03:50 PM10/9/12

to

"Ray Martinez" <pyram...@yahoo.com> wrote in message

news:5d77a1e7-b4f1-4890...@ph9g2000pbb.googlegroups.com...

> Here is what "Honest" Ron Okimoto conveniently forgot to tell
> everyone: All of the so called "Creationists" and "IDists" he mentions
> accept conceptual existence of Darwin's main claims in nature: natural
> selection, microevolution, macroevolution and common descent. Peter
> Nyikos also accepts human evolution and space aliens responsible for
> biological First Cause.
>

Unles you propose the space aliens are robots instead of living things, they
are not responsible for more than bringing life to this planet from
somewhere else. That is however very unlikely to have happened but if PN is
having fun wasting time & effort on such a far-fetched idea he is welcome to
it.

> All of the "IDiots" (Ron's term) are in his bed.
>

> Ray (Old Earth Paleyan IDist-species immutabilist)
>

Rolf

unread,

Oct 9, 2012, 1:08:24 PM10/9/12

to

"Ray Martinez" <pyram...@yahoo.com> wrote in message

news:acbe0208-67ea-442d...@lb2g2000pbc.googlegroups.com...

> On Oct 7, 11:19 am, Eugene Willow <willowe1...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> On 7 Oct, 14:54, Ron O <rokim...@cox.net> wrote:> Eugene
>> Willow:http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/16cbbe6086d94ffa?hl=en
>>
>> and this is the essence of evolutionism- instead of scientific
>> arguments, calling people idiots...
>
> Eugene: I am relieved to be rejected as an idiot by a person who
> actually believes apes morphed into Africans over the course of
> millions of years. You should too.
>

"apes morphing ..." is your ridiculous way of referroing the the most
complex and thorughly studied scientific theory of this world. And you know
nothing about it. You are doing your best to stay ignorant. You have
something in common with all the boys blowing themselves up in the hope of
72 blushing virgins waiting for them.

I recommend taking some harp lessons instead of wasting your time here. Say
hello to St. Peter when you get there.

> Ray
>

J.J. O'Shea

unread,

Oct 9, 2012, 1:08:51 PM10/9/12

to

On Mon, 8 Oct 2012 14:16:09 -0400, Ray Martinez wrote
(in article
<9ddd11b7-01de-483b...@vy11g2000pbb.googlegroups.com>):

>
> Again, I am quite relieved to be held as an idiot by a person who thinks apes

> morphed in Africans over the course of millions of years.

Actually, humans are apes, so the phrase 'apes morphed in (I assume you meant
'into') Africans' is incorrect; Africans, and all other humans, are still
apes. Please note that last bit: _AFRICANS, AND ALL OTHER HUMANS, ARE STILL
APES_. Yes, I saw your attempt to make a racist statement. And, yes, you
missed. Because, well, the fact is that humans are apes.

Now, if you're insulted by the truth, and if you try to use the truth to say
something that it doesn't say, well, you have to be a bit better than this.

What's wrong with you, Ray-ray? Have you been associating too closely with
Peter N and some of his dishonesty is rubbing off on you?

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

J.J. O'Shea

unread,

Oct 9, 2012, 1:10:30 PM10/9/12

to

On Mon, 8 Oct 2012 22:24:43 -0400, Dana Tweedy wrote
(in article
<5c70959d-4c8d-4aa2...@z8g2000yql.googlegroups.com>):

> Also Ray, all humans are "Africans", so why make a big deal about the humans
> who are presently living there? The current populations living in Africa
> are no more or less distant from the above mentioned relatives. Why do you

> keep suggesting that its only the populations currently living in Africa who
> have evolved?

I can think of a reason. I suspect that Ray-ray wouldn't like it.

Ray Martinez

unread,

Oct 9, 2012, 1:29:19 PM10/9/12

to

On Oct 9, 10:14 am, "J.J. O'Shea" <try.not...@but.see.sig> wrote:
> On Mon, 8 Oct 2012 22:24:43 -0400, Dana Tweedy wrote
> (in article

> <5c70959d-4c8d-4aa2-a7a1-8550640cc...@z8g2000yql.googlegroups.com>):

>
> > Also Ray, all humans are "Africans", so why make a big deal about the humans
> > who are presently living there? The current populations living in Africa
> > are no more or less distant from the above mentioned relatives. Why do you
> > keep suggesting that its only the populations currently living in Africa who
> > have evolved?
>
> I can think of a reason. I suspect that Ray-ray wouldn't like it.
>
> --
> email to oshea dot j dot j at gmail dot com.

Your bluff is called.

Waiting....

Ray

jillery

unread,

Oct 9, 2012, 1:37:28 PM10/9/12

to

Based on their posts, your assertion is obviously is incorrect. Didn't
you notice your name in there?

Ray Martinez

unread,

Oct 9, 2012, 1:40:22 PM10/9/12

to

On Oct 9, 10:09 am, "J.J. O'Shea" <try.not...@but.see.sig> wrote:
> On Mon, 8 Oct 2012 14:16:09 -0400, Ray Martinez wrote
> (in article

> <9ddd11b7-01de-483b-9448-d06ed60cf...@vy11g2000pbb.googlegroups.com>):

>
>
>
> > Again, I am quite relieved to be held as an idiot by a person who thinks apes
> > morphed in Africans over the course of millions of years.
>
> Actually, humans are apes, so the phrase 'apes morphed in (I assume you meant
> 'into') Africans' is incorrect; Africans, and all other humans, are still
> apes. Please note that last bit: _AFRICANS, AND ALL OTHER HUMANS, ARE STILL
> APES_. Yes, I saw your attempt to make a racist statement.

Yes, the belief that apes evolved into Africans over the course of
millions of years is gutter racism masquerading as science. The idea
was put forth by a very rich white Englishman (Charles Darwin) who
thought he was superior and special.

> And, yes, you
> missed. Because, well, the fact is that humans are apes.
>

I feel relief when a person who believes humans are apes thinks I'm an
idiot.

> Now, if you're insulted by the truth, and if you try to use the truth to say
> something that it doesn't say, well, you have to be a bit better than this.
>
> What's wrong with you, Ray-ray? Have you been associating too closely with
> Peter N and some of his dishonesty is rubbing off on you?
>
> --
> email to oshea dot j dot j at gmail dot com.

Peter Nyikos is a vehement defender of racist human evolution, like
yourself.

Glad to be viewed as dishonest by your kind.

Ray (species immutabilist)

J.J. O'Shea

unread,

Oct 9, 2012, 1:42:22 PM10/9/12

to

On Tue, 9 Oct 2012 13:29:19 -0400, Ray Martinez wrote
(in article
<8fdf793a-dd94-46e4...@vy11g2000pbb.googlegroups.com>):

Not bluffing.

>
> Waiting....

The reason why _I_ think that you keep on, and on, and on specifically saying
that 'Africans' morphed from 'apes' is 'cause you're a racist.

Happy now?

>
> Ray

Eugene Willow

unread,

Oct 9, 2012, 1:47:03 PM10/9/12

to

On 9 Oct, 17:44, "J.J. O'Shea" <try.not...@but.see.sig> wrote:
> On Tue, 9 Oct 2012 13:29:19 -0400, Ray Martinez wrote
> (in article

> <8fdf793a-dd94-46e4-84b2-86112abde...@vy11g2000pbb.googlegroups.com>):

But evolution _is_ racis, because it promotes survival of the fittest
races.

Ray Martinez

unread,

Oct 9, 2012, 1:54:40 PM10/9/12

to

On Oct 9, 10:04�am, "Rolf" <rolf.aalb...@gmail.com> wrote:
> "Ray Martinez" <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote in message

Peter is in YOUR camp, Rolf. The same camp as Ron Okimoto. It is you
guys who believe the material created the immaterial. This is what
happens when a person rejects God as Creator: they end up believing in
the ridiculous and the impossible as a replacement. There is no
difference between Ron and Peter and yourself. All three of you are
whacked out Atheists, totally disconnected from reality, and unable to
see it.

Ray (species immutabilist)

Ray Martinez

unread,

Oct 9, 2012, 1:58:27 PM10/9/12

to

I'm glad (and relieved) to be thought of as a fool by a
"Christian" (Dana Tweedy) who accepts, defends, and promotes the
Atheist view of life (evolution).

Ray (Christian)

J.J. O'Shea

unread,

Oct 9, 2012, 2:05:02 PM10/9/12

to

On Tue, 9 Oct 2012 13:47:03 -0400, Eugene Willow wrote
(in article
<a3d55769-9001-4e62...@n2g2000yqn.googlegroups.com>):

Except that it doesn't. Hint: look up what 'races' meant when a certain book
was written and compare it to what it means now.

But you know this, as you're just a Loki and a silly one at that.

pnyikos

unread,

Oct 9, 2012, 2:52:54 PM10/9/12

to nyi...@bellsouth.net

On Oct 7, 2:39 pm, Boikat <boi...@bellsouth.net> wrote:

> On Oct 7, 1:19 pm, Eugene Willow <willowe1...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On 7 Oct, 14:54, Ron O <rokim...@cox.net> wrote:> Eugene Willow:http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/16cbbe6086d94ffa?hl=en
>
> > and this is the essence of evolutionism- instead of scientific
> > arguments, calling people idiots...

No, it's part of the essence of the arguments of Ron O. The essence
also includes deciding that someone is a creationist, by definining
"creationist" to mean "anyone who believes in the existence of a
supernatural creator of something (perhaps the universe, perhaps just
the postulated souls of the elect)".

Where the essence really gets nasty is when Ron O decides, for reasons
he never divulges, that someone like me fits that description, and
then takes every denial that I fit it -- and I've made many denials of
that -- as "proof" that I am a habitual liar.

The essence gets even nastier when he spouts the Pee Wee Hermanism
"Projection is a way of life for ____" and then takes accusations of
wrongdoing by him, Ron O, as an ADMISSION by ____________, the person
making that accusation, that the person himself is guilty of that very
wrongdoing.

Sound farfetched? Here is the url for the post where Ron O did just
that:
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/60419d9c6317c0b3

and here is the post where I showed, by multiple *reductio ad
absurdum* , that Ron O was either lying or insane when he said what he
did along the above lines:

http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/6610a5d551064f20
Message-ID: <3b216bfd-0c29-4129-
bb9e-5a0...@h9g2000yqi.googlegroups.com>
for people viewing this in Google: the last three symbols before the
@ are a4e

> If it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck....

Then it is probably saner than Ron O. :-)

Peter Nyikos

pnyikos

unread,

Oct 9, 2012, 2:54:13 PM10/9/12

to nyi...@bellsouth.net

On Oct 7, 2:39 pm, Boikat <boi...@bellsouth.net> wrote:

> On Oct 7, 1:29 pm, prawnster <zweibro...@ymail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Oct 7, 7:54 am, Ron O <rokim...@cox.net> wrote:
>

> > > [...]

> > > Prawnster (Could he be Pags having a bad day?):http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/3dd62d3cb8655142?hl=en
>

> > Nope. Just the prawndaddy having an average day, demonstrating that
> > Darwinism is based on assumptions, wordplay, and story-telling.
>
> So far, you have failed. Hadn't you noticed?

Substitute "Ron O's posting habits are" for "Darwinism is" and it's a
whole new ball game.

Peter Nyikos

Burkhard

unread,

Oct 9, 2012, 2:58:22 PM10/9/12

to

On 9 Oct, 18:44, Ray Martinez <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Oct 9, 10:09 am, "J.J. O'Shea" <try.not...@but.see.sig> wrote:
>
> > On Mon, 8 Oct 2012 14:16:09 -0400, Ray Martinez wrote
> > (in article
> > <9ddd11b7-01de-483b-9448-d06ed60cf...@vy11g2000pbb.googlegroups.com>):
>
> > > Again, I am quite relieved to be held as an idiot by a person who thinks apes
> > > morphed in Africans over the course of millions of years.
>
> > Actually, humans are apes, so the phrase 'apes morphed in (I assume you meant
> > 'into') Africans' is incorrect; Africans, and all other humans, are still
> > apes. Please note that last bit: _AFRICANS, AND ALL OTHER HUMANS, ARE STILL
> > APES_. Yes, I saw your attempt to make a racist statement.
>
> Yes, the belief that apes evolved into Africans over the course of
> millions of years is gutter racism masquerading as science. The idea
> was put forth by a very rich white Englishman (Charles Darwin) who
> thought he was superior and special.

And other white rich British forged, or kept believing in long after
it was debunked, Piltdown man because the English woudl have much much
preferred to prove that _we_ are the cradle of mankind, not the
Africans.
"Being the first at something" is generally something people tend to
be proud of, just as modern Greeks are immensely proud of being the
first to have evolved democratic systems of government, or the Chinese
for being the first to invent writing. Often, countries fight over the
claim who was the first to do something. Only in your confused mind is
there a slight attached to the idea that the human mind and human
intelligence kick started in Africa.

In fact, promoting the Biblical claim that human life started in the
middle east, even after the ToE proved otherwise, is seen by many
Africans as a lie intended to undermine their identity and their pride
by white Americans:

From an black activist website :

"Not only is the black race cursed but we are given a fictitious
account of history; because of science and archeology we know that
black people were the first ones on earth, so this biblical story puts
the white man in the
first place while introducing the black man under some despicable
circumstances." {...} "That story give an alibi (or justification)
for the invasion of
Canaan. It is the first step to curse black people and to falsify
their
history, the second is no other than the myth of Hebrews enslaved in
Egypt."

http://www.afrostyly.com/uk-us/afro/diverse/curse_of_ham.htm

Here another two typical quotes for "afrocentrism" and how the "Out of
Africa" theory is used to sustain black pride:

"It should go without saying, but I'll say it anyway: all of the
significant evolution in our species occurred in populations with
brown and black skins living in Africa. When language, music, and art
evolved, they evolved in Africans. Lighter skins evolved in some
European and Asian populations long after the human mind evolved its
present capacities. "

"The skin color of our ancestors does not have much scientific
importance. But it does have a political importance given the
persistence of anti-black racism. I think that a powerful antidote to
such racism is the realization that the human mind is a product of
black African females favoring intelligence, kindness, creativity, and
articulate language in black African males, and vice versa.
Afrocentrism is an appropriate attitude to take when we are thinking
about human evolution. We all come from Africa: our ancestors were
black. Whiteness is of little biological
importance, but according to Miller, kindness was"

(John O'Manique: The Origins of Justice: The Evolution of Morality,
Human Rights, and Law. p110)

>
> > And, yes, you
> > missed. Because, well, the fact is that humans are apes.
>
> I feel relief when a person who believes humans are apes thinks I'm an
> idiot.

The other non-human apes feel the same about you, no doubt

pnyikos

unread,

Oct 9, 2012, 3:04:22 PM10/9/12

to nyi...@bellsouth.net

On Oct 7, 4:39 pm, Kalkidas <e...@joes.pub> wrote:
> On Sun, 7 Oct 2012 11:15:48 -0700 (PDT), Eugene Willow

>
> <willowe1...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >On 7 Oct, 14:54, Ron O <rokim...@cox.net> wrote:
> >> Eugene Willow:http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/16cbbe6086d94ffa?hl=en
> >and this is the essence of evolutionism- instead of scientific
> >arguments, calling people idiots...
>

> Welcome to the tormented conspiratorial world of Ron O.

You may not know the half of it. See my reply to Boikat a few minutes
ago.

By the way, there are several regulars who tease me about the fact
that I made a few lists of people back in 1995-2001, but conveniently
omit any hint that I haven't posted any since then, and make it sound
like it was a deep flaw in my character that I posted them.

I'm not sure how many of them are posting to this thread, but at least
one of them is. And, of course, that person is perfectly OK with Ron
O posting lists every few months, as is every other participant on
this thread who is not on Ron O's lists.

Peter Nyikos

pnyikos

unread,

Oct 9, 2012, 3:31:25 PM10/9/12

to nyi...@bellsouth.net

On Oct 7, 10:54 am, Ron O <rokim...@cox.net> wrote:

> Google By Their Fruits to get the Biblical meaning of this thread. It
> is only meant as a means of making it easier for anyone to use Google
> to get as many posts as they can stand to read from these posters in
> order to get an idea of the state of the religious anti-evolution
> movement.

Since I am not anti-evolution, you can cross my name off that list.

But you are too dishonest and consumed with hate for me to do that,
aren't you?

[snip]

> Nyikos is a Catholic church

member, due to a hope that there is a life after death and a
benevolent God in charge of it, and a belief that the Catholic Church
is the best hope for keeping that hope from being completely
extinguished in the human race.

But that's NOT the same as saying that I believe that there is a life
after death and a benevolent God in charge of it, much as you love to
pretend that this is true.

> going self proclaimed agnostic

You are 42 years too late. That is when I first said I was one, and
ever since about two years after that, I've been one.

> disciple of Behe

I regularly correct people's false claims about him. If that makes
me a "disciple" then you have a bizarre definition of "disciple".

I'd even correct people who make false claims about YOU. But then,
the reality of you is far uglier than any false claim a person of
average creativity could even consider about you. See my reply to
Boikat on this thread less than an hour ago.

> I don't claim that these guys represent the entire range of the anti-
> science/anti-evolution creationist movement. They are just the sample
> that posts to TO and tries to defend the junk that failed the
> Scientific Creationists over 25 years ago

I only defend my own theory of intelligent design by panspermists that
are no more "creators" than you or me. I've yet to see a so-called
"Scientific Creationist" endorse that theory.

> So consider this list under those circumstances. The links are to the
> Google posts. I purposely just take random posts from the last couple
> of weeks of active threads and if the post is too over the top I pick
> another so that I can't be accused of stacking the deck.

And so, you provided ZERO, ZILCH evidence that I am anything like what
you claim that I am.

> It is likely a good idea for lurkers with similar views to first read
> a sampling of the posts from these guys and the responses to get an
> idea of what you might be getting into if you try to post.

Yes, lurkers, if you dare to ask for genuine evidence of the "bait"
part of what Ron O calls the "bait and switch scam" that is still
"going down," the post I documented in reply to Boikat is a sample of
what you might be getting into.

> Peter Nyikos:

> http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/a6a8c8032c25abec?hl=en

That's a real beauty you picked out, one that lays bare on highly
revealing facet of Paul Gans's many-faceted character.

Gans hasn't posted to this thread of yours so far, Ron O. For one
possible reason why that may be true, a hint can be found in my reply
to Kalkidas earlier today to this thread.

And, real old-timers like Hemidactylus just might get the following
joke:

[big snip]

> Any that I missed add them to the list.
>
> Ron Okimoto

Add Paul Gans. :-) :-) :-)

Peter Nyikos

pnyikos

unread,

Oct 9, 2012, 3:55:31 PM10/9/12

to nyi...@bellsouth.net

On Oct 8, 2:29�pm, Ray Martinez <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote:

> On Oct 7, 7:54�am, Ron O <rokim...@cox.net> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > The only noteworthy aspect of this edition is the absence of Pagano
> > and the temporary return of Spintronic. �One of the reasons Spinny was
> > one of the few posters ever banned from TO is that he had a habit of
> > posting under multiple Nyms and when he came back he used at least
> > three. �You can't make this junk up.
>

> > Google By Their Fruits to get the Biblical meaning of this thread. �It
> > is only meant as a means of making it easier for anyone to use Google
> > to get as many posts as they can stand to read from these posters in
> > order to get an idea of the state of the religious anti-evolution

> > movement. �They are a diverse group that have many views and you can't

> > pigeon hole all of them so one size does not fit all. �We have a Hindu
> > creationist IDiot in Kalk, Nando/Syamsu follows the Koran, and Nyikos
> > is a Catholic church going self proclaimed agnostic disciple of Behe
> > etc. �So there are all kinds and one definition isn't going to work.
> > Just being a creationist was never the problem. �It is what these guys
> > do because of their religious beliefs that is the problem. �I have
> > links to creationist sites in other By Their Fruits where those
> > creationists would not make the list.
>

> > I don't claim that these guys represent the entire range of the anti-
> > science/anti-evolution creationist movement. �They are just the sample
> > that posts to TO and tries to defend the junk that failed the

> > Scientific Creationists over 25 years ago and the creationist
> > intelligent design scam that took the place of Scientific Creationism
> > around 20 years ago. �I don't know how history is going to view the
> > IDiots that still support a stupid and dishonest creationists scam
> > that for the last decade has been running the bait and switch on their
> > own creationist support base. �The ID perps never delivered the
> > intelligent design science that they claimed to have, and all the
> > creationists have ever gotten out of them is a switch scam that
> > doesn't even mention that ID ever existed. �IDiots like Kalk just keep
> > going back to them as if they can trust the guys that have lied to
> > them about the ID scam. �Sad but true.
>

> > So consider this list under those circumstances. �The links are to the
> > Google posts. �I purposely just take random posts from the last couple
> > of weeks of active threads and if the post is too over the top I pick

> > another so that I can't be accused of stacking the deck. �You can look

> > up more of their posts by clicking on "view profile" by their name at
> > the top of the post.
>

> > It is likely a good idea for lurkers with similar views to first read
> > a sampling of the posts from these guys and the responses to get an
> > idea of what you might be getting into if you try to post.
>

> > Prawnster (Could he be Pags having a bad day?):http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/3dd62d3cb8655142?hl=en
>

> > Peter Nyikos:http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/a6a8c8032c25abec?hl=en
>
> Challenged.
>
> Show us where you obtain the idea that Peter Nyikos is a Creationist?
>
> Peter argues tooth-and-nail in behalf of the ToE, including human
> evolution. Since you cannot support your claim you are engaged in
> classic "axe-grinding." Peter is under skin. You are angry and beaten.
>
> Now that Ron has made this ridiculous claim he must defend it to the
> death because retraction is not an option that his ego can endure.
>

> Ray

Only because I am making your challenge mine, and I thus challenge Ron
O to say where he obtained the idea the I am a creationist EVEN
ACCORDING TO HIS BROAD DEFINITION OF "CREATIONIST".

As you know, Ron O, in a classic case of the pot calling the kettle
black, has pronounced you insane, and has used this allegation as his
basis for ignoring you whenever he wants to ignore you.

And this is one issue on which he can be counted on to ignore you, and
thus salvage his ego without even looking foolish for doing so.

Peter Nyikos

J.J. O'Shea

unread,

Oct 9, 2012, 4:07:26 PM10/9/12

to

On Tue, 9 Oct 2012 14:05:02 -0400, J.J. O'Shea wrote
(in article <k51p0...@news6.newsguy.com>):

Memo to the Loki: do NOT ever email me again. This time I didn't delete the
email, troll-boy. Would you like for me to post it where all can see?

pnyikos

unread,

Oct 9, 2012, 4:11:21 PM10/9/12

to nyi...@bellsouth.net

On Oct 8, 3:24 pm, Frank J <f...@verizon.net> wrote:

> For the benefit of new readers, "creationist" is a catch-all word that
> people use to describe evolution-deniers, be they people on the street
> who innocently parrot misleading sound bites, career anti-evolution
> activists or anything in between. I do not use that word for anyone,
> but if I did, it would not be for Nyikos.

Thanks, Frank.

> > Peter argues tooth-and-nail in behalf of the ToE, including human
> > evolution. Since you cannot support your claim you are engaged in
> > classic "axe-grinding." Peter is under skin. You are angry and beaten.
>

> For the benefit of new readers, Ray is the only evolution-denier who
> accused most (all?) other evolution-deniers of accepting evolution.
> Peter is not under Ron's skin, nor is Ray. I might be though.

I am far, far deeper under Ron O's skin than it is healthy for anyone
to be under his skin.

And why on earth do you think YOU are under Ron O's skin? Has he
slapped crud on unanswerable accusations of yours, and accused you of
"running away" because you thought his crud too ridiculous to be worth
addressing? Has he accused you hundreds of times of lying and when
you deny you lied, accused you of lying about lying? Has he repeated
assertions that you had already refuted, and then claimed that if you
could refute them, you would do so in a heartbeat?

He has done all that and much more to me.

> Because
> Ron has called *himself* a "creationist" - rendering the word worse
> than worthless - and I like to bug him about it.

And it all goes like water off a duck's back, I would guess. [Have
you ever gotten a reply from him that suggests otherwise?]

The reason for my guess is that I believe that Ron O is running a
scam.

I believe he calls himself a creationist to lure people into admitting
that they fit under HIS very expansive definition, and then they are
saddled forever with explaining to people who dislike/despise
creationists *sensu* the talk.origins FAQ that they aren't THOSE kinds
of creationists.

Fortunately, I don't even fit under his definition, so there was never
any danger of me falling for that kind of scam.

Peter Nyikos

pnyikos

unread,

Oct 9, 2012, 4:16:43 PM10/9/12

to nyi...@bellsouth.net

On Oct 8, 6:09 pm, "Glenn" <glennshel...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
> "jillery" <69jpi...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:pqi678pc1qad3l8bf...@4ax.com...

>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Mon, 8 Oct 2012 12:19:30 -0700 (PDT), Frank J <f...@verizon.net>
> > wrote:
>
> > >For the benefit of new readers, Ray is the only evolution-denier who
> > >accused most (all?) other evolution-deniers of accepting evolution.

> > >Peter is not under Ron's skin, nor is Ray. I might be though. Because

> > >Ron has called *himself* a "creationist" - rendering the word worse
> > >than worthless - and I like to bug him about it.
>

> > You should at least give Ron O. credit for specifying at the time what
> > he meant by it.

I've seen several such times, but they are outnumbered by the number
of times Ron O has falsely accused me of being a creationist on the
false grounds that I did not know what HE meant by creationist. Fact
is, I knew it way back in the first month (December 2010) in which I
encountered him, and still I can state that I do not fit his
definition.

> > Also, it might be useful to use (lower-case) creationist and
> > (upper-case) Creationist.
>
> > FWIW
>
> FWIW, Ron has spent way too much time hyperventilating in enclosed chicken pens.

FWIW, I believe you are treating Ron O with exactly the level of
respect he deserves.

Peter Nyikos

Harry K

unread,

Oct 9, 2012, 4:25:39 PM10/9/12

to

You _are_ a fool and that is known by everyone in this forum.

Harry K

pnyikos

unread,

Oct 9, 2012, 4:25:57 PM10/9/12

to nyi...@bellsouth.net

On Oct 9, 1:04 pm, "Rolf" <rolf.aalb...@gmail.com> wrote:
> "Ray Martinez" <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote in message

Ray is a wordplay-lover who uses "biological First Cause" to mean the
first cause of life ON EARTH. And so you are not really disagreeing
with him.

> That is however very unlikely to have happened but if PN is
> having fun wasting time & effort on such a far-fetched idea he is welcome to
> it.

Robots designing life to be sent to earth? Not impossible, but then I
would say that those robots were designed by "flesh and blood"
panspermists to take care of the design of earth life.

By "flesh and blood" I simply mean intelligent species evolved
biologically from prebiotic soup on their planet, by my hypothesis. I
don't think it likely that the panspermists who are responsible for
seeding earth were themselves the result of evolution via panspermia,
because our universe doesn't seem old enough to make that likely.

Peter Nyikos

pnyikos

unread,

Oct 9, 2012, 4:29:46 PM10/9/12

to nyi...@bellsouth.net

In some cases, only some of them, right, Ray?

> > > natural
> > > selection, microevolution, macroevolution and common descent. Peter
> > > Nyikos also accepts human evolution

That's PART of common descent, Ray. Do you have a private definition
of common descent that excludes that?

> > > and space aliens responsible for
> > > biological First Cause.

I've explained your strange definition of "biological First Cause" to
Rolf, just a few minutes ago.

> > Unles you propose the space aliens are robots instead of living things, they
> > are not responsible for more than bringing life to this planet from
> > somewhere else.

[snip]

> Peter is in YOUR camp, Rolf. The same camp as Ron Okimoto. It is you
> guys who believe the material created the immaterial.

I never said I believed that.

Peter Nyikos

Dana Tweedy

unread,

Oct 9, 2012, 4:39:21 PM10/9/12

to

Again, Ray, your being perceived as a fool has nothing to do with what I
believe. Even though evolution is not the "atheist view of life".
Even if it was, that's hardly the issue. It's your behavior, Ray, not
my personal religious or scientific opinions that makes you appear
foolish.

For someone who keeps trying to invoke logic, you certainly are enamored
of the logical fallacy of ad hominem (among other logical fallacies)

DJT

Dana Tweedy

unread,

Oct 9, 2012, 4:48:48 PM10/9/12

to

On 10/9/12 11:54 AM, Ray Martinez wrote:
snip

>>
>> Unles you propose the space aliens are robots instead of living things, they
>> are not responsible for more than bringing life to this planet from
>> somewhere else. That is however very unlikely to have happened but if PN is
>> having fun wasting time & effort on such a far-fetched idea he is welcome to
>> it.
>>
>
> Peter is in YOUR camp, Rolf. The same camp as Ron Okimoto. It is you
> guys who believe the material created the immaterial.

What makes you assume that either Peter, Rolf, or Ron believe the
"material created the immaterial"? Why can't the immaterial exist
beyond the material. If it can, why does the material have to exist
first?

> This is what
> happens when a person rejects God as Creator: they end up believing in
> the ridiculous and the impossible as a replacement.

But Ray, you are the one who keeps promoting impossible, and ridiculous
beliefs. When has anyone seen a clay sculpture come to life? How
possible is it for a global flood to happen, and leave no evidence?

You are the one who proposes that "superintelligent" Neanderthals
from Atlantis (where the eels still like to gather), built the Pyramids,
and the town of London, England was named after the Biblical patriarch
Dan. How more ridiculous can one get?

> There is no
> difference between Ron and Peter and yourself. All three of you are
> whacked out Atheists, totally disconnected from reality, and unable to
> see it.

I don't recall if Rolf has claimed to be an atheist, but neither Ron, or
Peter are atheists. They simply disagree with you. You are not God,
Ray. Your will not be done.

DJT

Hemidactylus

unread,

Oct 9, 2012, 4:59:11 PM10/9/12

to

But we are all wrong and God punishes us for this by hiding himself from
us, so Ray is vindicated (or is it vindictive?).

Dana Tweedy

unread,

Oct 9, 2012, 5:01:42 PM10/9/12

to

On 10/9/12 11:40 AM, Ray Martinez wrote:
> On Oct 9, 10:09 am, "J.J. O'Shea" <try.not...@but.see.sig> wrote:
>> On Mon, 8 Oct 2012 14:16:09 -0400, Ray Martinez wrote
>> (in article
>> <9ddd11b7-01de-483b-9448-d06ed60cf...@vy11g2000pbb.googlegroups.com>):
>>
>>
>>
>>> Again, I am quite relieved to be held as an idiot by a person who thinks apes
>>> morphed in Africans over the course of millions of years.
>>
>> Actually, humans are apes, so the phrase 'apes morphed in (I assume you meant
>> 'into') Africans' is incorrect; Africans, and all other humans, are still
>> apes. Please note that last bit: _AFRICANS, AND ALL OTHER HUMANS, ARE STILL
>> APES_. Yes, I saw your attempt to make a racist statement.
>
> Yes, the belief that apes evolved into Africans over the course of
> millions of years is gutter racism masquerading as science.

You've never explained how this is "gutter racism" when it's not just
the "Africans" who have evolved from apes, but all humans. We are all
ultimately Africans by descent.

> The idea
> was put forth by a very rich white Englishman (Charles Darwin) who
> thought he was superior and special.

This idea also applied to that very rich white Englishman. It makes him
an ape as well as everyone else. Why does including himself in the
same group make him a racist.

>
>> And, yes, you
>> missed. Because, well, the fact is that humans are apes.
>>
>
> I feel relief when a person who believes humans are apes thinks I'm an
> idiot.

Since humans are apes, in any meaningful definition of the word, why
would you feel relief, other than you being in denial?

>
>> Now, if you're insulted by the truth, and if you try to use the truth to say
>> something that it doesn't say, well, you have to be a bit better than this.
>>
>> What's wrong with you, Ray-ray? Have you been associating too closely with
>> Peter N and some of his dishonesty is rubbing off on you?
>>
>> --
>> email to oshea dot j dot j at gmail dot com.
>
> Peter Nyikos is a vehement defender of racist human evolution, like
> yourself.
>
> Glad to be viewed as dishonest by your kind.

Human evolution is not racist, and your dishonesty is determined by your
dishonest behavior, not what other people think.

All you have to do to not be viewed as dishonest is stop the dishonesty.
DJT

Hemidactylus

unread,

Oct 9, 2012, 5:19:19 PM10/9/12

to

On 10/09/2012 04:48 PM, Dana Tweedy wrote:

[snip]

> You are the one who proposes that "superintelligent" Neanderthals
> from Atlantis (where the eels still like to gather), built the Pyramids,
> and the town of London, England was named after the Biblical patriarch
> Dan. How more ridiculous can one get?

I recall the eels thing, but wasn't aware of the Neanderthal involvement
in building the pyramids (or if I was I forgot it). Does Ray still
believe this stuff?

Frank J

unread,

Oct 9, 2012, 5:21:56 PM10/9/12

to

On 8 Oct, 17:54, jillery <69jpi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Mon, 8 Oct 2012 12:19:30 -0700 (PDT), Frank J <f...@verizon.net>
> wrote:
>
> >For the benefit of new readers, Ray is the only evolution-denier who
> >accused most (all?) other evolution-deniers of accepting evolution.
> >Peter is not under Ron's skin, nor is Ray. I might be though. Because
> >Ron has called *himself* a "creationist" - rendering the word worse
> >than worthless - and I like to bug him about it.
>
> You should at least give Ron O. credit for specifying at the time what
> he meant by it.

He's more thoughtful than most. But don't tell him. It's more fun to
get on his case. ;-)

>
> Also, it might be useful to use (lower-case) creationist and
> (upper-case) Creationist.

With lower case for "rubes" and upper case for "perps," I guess I can
live with that.

>
> FWIW

Ray Martinez

unread,

Oct 9, 2012, 5:22:48 PM10/9/12

to

This is an extermely rare situation where a genuine Creationist (Ray
Martinez) and a genuine Darwinist (Peter Nyikos) are rightfully
blasting another genuine Darwinist (Ron Okimoto) for lying. Ron
Okimoto will never show his face and answer the challenge to his
claim. He is angry that you dare say one objective word that helps the
Creationist cause----that's where he obtains the "idea" (= slander).
He and his kind (like J.J. O'Shea and Dana Tweedy) are so used to
lying as a way of life. Ron feels lying is justified based on the need
to erase Creationism off the face of the Earth. Ron Okimoto is like
most other Darwinists: a brazen liar. He deliberately misrepresents
ALL anti-evolution literature for the reason given, just like his
lying hero, pseudo-Christian Judge Jones.

Like Atheist-Evolutionist Immanuel Velikovsky, you will pay the price
for speaking the truth until the day you die, Peter.

Leave it to the ultimate lying hyprocrite (Ron Okimoto) to create a
monthly topic based on a Biblical quote-mine (By Their Fruits).

> As you know, Ron O, in a classic case of the pot calling the kettle

> black, has pronounced you insane,....

Yes, "Christian" Ron Okimoto has pronounced me insane. I am not the
least bit insulted to be held insane by a "Christian" who stands with
Richard Dawkins, instead of the Bible, in regard to the origin of
species and life.

< ....and has used this allegation as his

> basis for ignoring you whenever he wants to ignore you.
>

The real reason Ron ignores me is because he can't get any
satisfaction in debate . I am smarter than him and he knows it----
that's the real reason which he cannot admit.

> And this is one issue on which he can be counted on to ignore you, and
> thus salvage his ego without even looking foolish for doing so.
>
> Peter Nyikos

Like ID traitor Kalkidas, Ron is a coward.

Both are afraid of me.

But let's not lose track of the fact that Ron Okimoto symbolizes 99
percent of all other Darwinists (liars for Charlie).

Ray

jillery

unread,

Oct 9, 2012, 5:35:28 PM10/9/12

to

On Tue, 9 Oct 2012 10:47:03 -0700 (PDT), Eugene Willow
<willo...@hotmail.com> wrote:

[...]

>But evolution _is_ racis[t], because it promotes survival of the fittest
>races.

Apparently you don't know what "survival of the fittest" actually
means. Think 'environment'. Or just think.

Ray Martinez

unread,

Oct 9, 2012, 5:34:58 PM10/9/12

to

You don't know that Dana is my sworn enemy, and that sworn enemies
exist to misrepresent the views of the people they hate (that is,
people they can't refute)?

Ray

Frank J

unread,

Oct 9, 2012, 5:39:23 PM10/9/12

to

On 9 Oct, 15:34, pnyikos <nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> On Oct 7, 10:54 am, Ron O <rokim...@cox.net> wrote:
>
> > Google By Their Fruits to get the Biblical meaning of this thread. It
> > is only meant as a means of making it easier for anyone to use Google
> > to get as many posts as they can stand to read from these posters in
> > order to get an idea of the state of the religious anti-evolution
> > movement.
>
> Since I am not anti-evolution, you can cross my name off that list.

As you know, many self-described creationists - as in Biblical
literalists, not TEs like Ron - also say they're not anti-evolution,
then pull the "micro/macro" thing. Without telling where "micro"
leaves off or what the alternative to "macro" is, of couse.

Refresh my memory, do you accept common descent at least in the sense
of "something other than 'RM+NS' occurring in-vivo"?

J.J. O'Shea

unread,

Oct 9, 2012, 5:42:29 PM10/9/12

to

On Tue, 9 Oct 2012 13:40:22 -0400, Ray Martinez wrote
(in article
<bf8326c5-9d6a-4e6a...@r10g2000pbd.googlegroups.com>):

> On Oct 9, 10:09 am, "J.J. O'Shea" <try.not...@but.see.sig> wrote:
>> On Mon, 8 Oct 2012 14:16:09 -0400, Ray Martinez wrote
>> (in article
>> <9ddd11b7-01de-483b-9448-d06ed60cf...@vy11g2000pbb.googlegroups.com>):
>>
>>
>>
>>> Again, I am quite relieved to be held as an idiot by a person who thinks
>>> apes
>>> morphed in Africans over the course of millions of years.
>>
>> Actually, humans are apes, so the phrase 'apes morphed in (I assume you
>> meant
>> 'into') Africans' is incorrect; Africans, and all other humans, are still
>> apes. Please note that last bit: _AFRICANS, AND ALL OTHER HUMANS, ARE STILL
>> APES_. Yes, I saw your attempt to make a racist statement.
>
> Yes, the belief that apes evolved into Africans over the course of
> millions of years is gutter racism masquerading as science.

Ah... no.

> The idea
> was put forth by a very rich white Englishman (Charles Darwin) who
> thought he was superior and special.

Ah... no. CD included himself in the 'descended from apes' category.

>
>> And, yes, you
>> missed. Because, well, the fact is that humans are apes.
>>
>
> I feel relief when a person who believes humans are apes thinks I'm an
> idiot.

Excellent. You are.

>
>> Now, if you're insulted by the truth, and if you try to use the truth to say
>> something that it doesn't say, well, you have to be a bit better than this.
>>
>> What's wrong with you, Ray-ray? Have you been associating too closely with
>> Peter N and some of his dishonesty is rubbing off on you?
>>
>> --
>> email to oshea dot j dot j at gmail dot com.
>
> Peter Nyikos is a vehement defender of racist human evolution, like
> yourself.
>
> Glad to be viewed as dishonest by your kind.
>

> Ray (species immutabilist)

Ray Martinez

unread,

Oct 9, 2012, 5:45:20 PM10/9/12

to

There is no insult to be held a fool by persons who really believe

apes morphed into Africans over the course of millions of years.

Everyone would be very happy and relieved to be rejected by persons
like these.

Ray (species immutabilist)

John Harshman

unread,

Oct 9, 2012, 6:13:37 PM10/9/12

to

I'm curious. Do you or do you not understand that Eugene Willow is a
particularly boring, persistent Loki? If the former, why respond
seriously (or at all)? If the latter, how could you not?

Ray Martinez

unread,

Oct 9, 2012, 6:24:25 PM10/9/12

to

On Oct 9, 2:04�pm, Dana Tweedy <reddfrog...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 10/9/12 11:40 AM, Ray Martinez wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Oct 9, 10:09 am, "J.J. O'Shea" <try.not...@but.see.sig> wrote:
> >> On Mon, 8 Oct 2012 14:16:09 -0400, Ray Martinez wrote
> >> (in article
> >> <9ddd11b7-01de-483b-9448-d06ed60cf...@vy11g2000pbb.googlegroups.com>):
>
> >>> Again, I am quite relieved to be held as an idiot by a person who thinks apes
> >>> morphed in Africans over the course of millions of years.
>
> >> Actually, humans are apes, so the phrase 'apes morphed in (I assume you meant
> >> 'into') Africans' is incorrect; Africans, and all other humans, are still
> >> apes. Please note that last bit: _AFRICANS, AND ALL OTHER HUMANS, ARE STILL
> >> APES_. Yes, I saw your attempt to make a racist statement.
>
> > Yes, the belief that apes evolved into Africans over the course of
> > millions of years is gutter racism masquerading as science.
>
> You've never explained how this is "gutter racism" when it's not just
> the "Africans" who have evolved from apes, but all humans. �We are all
> ultimately Africans by descent.
>

An attempt to obscure the fact that Darwin and the ToE say it is a
fact that apes first became humans in Africa.

Our Darwinist does see the obvious gutter racism.

> > The idea
> > was put forth by a very rich white Englishman (Charles Darwin) who
> > thought he was superior and special.
>
> This idea also applied to that very rich white Englishman. �It makes him
> an ape as well as everyone else. � Why does including himself in the
> same group make him a racist.
>
>
>
> >> And, yes, you
> >> missed. Because, well, the fact is that humans are apes.
>
> > I feel relief when a person who believes humans are apes thinks I'm an
> > idiot.
>
> Since humans are apes, in any meaningful definition of the word, why
> would you feel relief, other than you being in denial?
>

General Audience:

Why would anyone feel any insult in being called an idiot by persons
who think humans are apes?

This is what happens when one comes to accept the theory of evolution:
you end deluded, thinking humans are apes.

>
>
> >> Now, if you're insulted by the truth, and if you try to use the truth to say
> >> something that it doesn't say, well, you have to be a bit better than this.
>
> >> What's wrong with you, Ray-ray? Have you been associating too closely with
> >> Peter N and some of his dishonesty is rubbing off on you?
>
> >> --
> >> email to oshea dot j dot j at gmail dot com.
>
> > Peter Nyikos is a vehement defender of racist human evolution, like
> > yourself.
>
> > Glad to be viewed as dishonest by your kind.
>
> Human evolution is not racist,

Monkeys morphing into Africans not racist?

No one expects an admission.

> and your dishonesty is determined by your
> dishonest behavior, not what other people think.
>
> All you have to do to not be viewed as dishonest is stop the dishonesty.
> DJT

It is the position of mainstream Creationism that human evolution is a
self-evident racist doctrine made necessary by the rejection of God as
Creator of Adam and Eve.

General Audience:

This is where you end up after accepting the theory of "evilution"----
in the gutter advancing apes to have evolved into Africans while
convincing yourself that the same is science. Atheists have no
choice....unlike yourself.

Ray

Hemidactylus

unread,

Oct 9, 2012, 7:04:23 PM10/9/12

to

General Audience:

Read up on the "Curse of Ham" and ask Ray to explain it:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Curse_of_Ham

There's plenty in the bible that can be used to justify racism. The New
Testament has helped justify antisemitism.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christianity_and_antisemitism#New_Testament_rejection_of_Judaism

If anything the bible gives its readers recipes for outgrouping, as Ray
has done above, painting ugly pictures of the Other, the ones not like
us in their beliefs. It is not a source of peaceful or truly
universalizing thoughts.

Human evolution gives us an account of how different human groups came
to be in their respective geographic locations. It also helps us
understand why humans have tendencies toward cliquey ingroup
orientation. It does not tell us how we should act towards Others though.

Dana Tweedy

unread,

Oct 9, 2012, 7:07:16 PM10/9/12

to

I don't hate Ray, or consider Ray an enemy, and I have never
misrepresented anything he's said. Simply representing him honestly
is more than enough to show how silly Ray's claims may be. Also, I've
refuted everything Ray claims.

Here's where Ray makes the claim that the pyramids were built by
superintelligent neanderthals from Atlantis:

http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/b298c6ff0c9403a8

>> What is your position on the
>> Neanderthals? Were they human? Were they descendants of Adam?
>
> I have speculated that they are Atlanteans and that the Garden of Eden
> was on Atlantis. This speculation is also based on the fact that radio
> dating is completely unreliable.
>
> Their cranial size is congruent with intelligence that exceeds ours.
> Monuments exist through-out the world exhibiting wonders that cannot
> be explained except through the lens of Genesis and the Torah.

It is interesting, though, to see Ray admit here that *he* does
misrepresent people he hates, and considers an enemy. It's also notable
that Ray is indirectly admitting he can't refute what I have said.

DJT

Hemidactylus

unread,

Oct 9, 2012, 7:12:35 PM10/9/12

to

I am an ape who wasn't born in Africa, unlike the Moroccans and
Egyptians. Or were you thinking of another African group? If I were born
in Africa, wouldn't I be an African? But there are lots of ethnicities
there which might have a problem accepting me as one of their own. My
grasp of Bantu is zilch.

Hemidactylus

unread,

Oct 9, 2012, 7:13:48 PM10/9/12

to

So he is Roadrunner to your Wile E.?

Dana Tweedy

unread,

Oct 9, 2012, 7:17:13 PM10/9/12

to

On 10/9/12 3:45 PM, Ray Martinez wrote:
snip

>>
>> You _are_ a fool and that is known by everyone in this forum.
>>
>> Harry K
>
> There is no insult to be held a fool by persons who really believe
> apes morphed into Africans over the course of millions of years.

Ray, all humans are apes, and all humans are ultimately Africans. Why
do you keep suggesting that people who presently live in Africa are
separate, or different from other humans?

You also have never addressed what significant differences you see
between humans and other ape species. You have implied you find "light
skinned" humans to be more attractive than other humans, but that's not
a significant difference, or indicates that "light skinned" humans are
any less apish. One might find hummingbirds to be more attractive than
ostriches, but they are both still birds

>
> Everyone would be very happy and relieved to be rejected by persons
> like these.

Rather than "happy and relieved" you seem to be peeved, and resentful.
Your continual playing the "sour grapes" lie just keeps making you
look more foolish.

DJT

Dana Tweedy

unread,

Oct 9, 2012, 7:29:26 PM10/9/12

to

I'd say he's more like Boris Badenov to my Bullwinkle. He hates me,
but I hold him no ill will. He also so incompetent that keeps getting
blown up by his own bombs...

DJT

jillery

unread,

Oct 9, 2012, 8:45:33 PM10/9/12

to

On Tue, 9 Oct 2012 14:21:56 -0700 (PDT), Frank J <fc...@verizon.net>
wrote:

I don't see the distinction that you do. Whether rube or perp, ISTM
they both dismiss the technical validity of evolution as essentially
irrelevant to the larger problem that they perceive, that is their
concern for evolution's implications for human morality and behavior.
IIRC Ken Miller made the same point in his book "In Search of Darwin's
God".

jillery

unread,

Oct 9, 2012, 8:45:46 PM10/9/12

to

On Tue, 9 Oct 2012 14:22:48 -0700 (PDT), Ray Martinez
<pyram...@yahoo.com> wrote:

[...]

>The real reason Ron ignores me is because he can't get any
>satisfaction in debate . I am smarter than him and he knows it----
>that's the real reason which he cannot admit.

Whether you are or not, it doesn't take much brains to declare
yourself the winner and then run away with the ball.

jillery

unread,

Oct 9, 2012, 8:46:04 PM10/9/12

to

On Tue, 9 Oct 2012 14:39:23 -0700 (PDT), Frank J <fc...@verizon.net>
wrote:

>On 9 Oct, 15:34, pnyikos <nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>> On Oct 7, 10:54 am, Ron O <rokim...@cox.net> wrote:
>>
>> > Google By Their Fruits to get the Biblical meaning of this thread. It
>> > is only meant as a means of making it easier for anyone to use Google
>> > to get as many posts as they can stand to read from these posters in
>> > order to get an idea of the state of the religious anti-evolution
>> > movement.
>>
>> Since I am not anti-evolution, you can cross my name off that list.
>
>As you know, many self-described creationists - as in Biblical
>literalists, not TEs like Ron - also say they're not anti-evolution,
>then pull the "micro/macro" thing. Without telling where "micro"
>leaves off or what the alternative to "macro" is, of couse.
>
>Refresh my memory, do you accept common descent at least in the sense
>of "something other than 'RM+NS' occurring in-vivo"?

FWIW Ron O. isn't the only one who calls him a creationist. IIUC so
does Mark Isaak.

jillery

unread,

Oct 9, 2012, 8:51:12 PM10/9/12

to

Apparently you seem to think it your place to question my reply, even
though neither his post nor mine was addressed to you specifically.
And not on its technical merits, but simply on its style.

Other poster reply to him far more often than I do. So why don't you
ask them as well? Why single me out so publicly this way?

It has been stated in this newsgroup that a method to discourage Lokis
is to reply seriously. IIRC that is a tactic even you use on
occasion. So why don't you look into yourself to answer to your own
question?

Or are you just trying to start Yet Another Stupid Manufactured
Argument?

Hemidactylus

unread,

Oct 9, 2012, 8:56:29 PM10/9/12

to

On 10/09/2012 08:46 PM, jillery wrote:
> On Tue, 9 Oct 2012 14:39:23 -0700 (PDT), Frank J <fc...@verizon.net>
> wrote:
>
>> On 9 Oct, 15:34, pnyikos <nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>>> On Oct 7, 10:54 am, Ron O <rokim...@cox.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Google By Their Fruits to get the Biblical meaning of this thread. It
>>>> is only meant as a means of making it easier for anyone to use Google
>>>> to get as many posts as they can stand to read from these posters in
>>>> order to get an idea of the state of the religious anti-evolution
>>>> movement.
>>>
>>> Since I am not anti-evolution, you can cross my name off that list.
>>
>> As you know, many self-described creationists - as in Biblical
>> literalists, not TEs like Ron - also say they're not anti-evolution,
>> then pull the "micro/macro" thing. Without telling where "micro"
>> leaves off or what the alternative to "macro" is, of couse.
>>
>> Refresh my memory, do you accept common descent at least in the sense
>> of "something other than 'RM+NS' occurring in-vivo"?
>
>
> FWIW Ron O. isn't the only one who calls him a creationist. IIUC so
> does Mark Isaak.

Noooo!! The pods got to Mark too? Say it ain't so.

Ron O

unread,

Oct 9, 2012, 8:54:21 PM10/9/12

to

On Oct 9, 2:34 pm, pnyikos <nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> On Oct 7, 10:54 am, Ron O <rokim...@cox.net> wrote:
>
> > Google By Their Fruits to get the Biblical meaning of this thread. It
> > is only meant as a means of making it easier for anyone to use Google
> > to get as many posts as they can stand to read from these posters in
> > order to get an idea of the state of the religious anti-evolution
> > movement.
>
> Since I am not anti-evolution, you can cross my name off that list.
>

> But you are too dishonest and consumed with hate for me to do that,
> aren't you?

Instead of snipping out what you don't want to deal with why not read
it for effect? One size does not fit all, but one thing that a lot of
the guys on the list do is lie to themselves just like you are doing.

>
> [snip]
>
> > Nyikos is a Catholic church
>
> member, due to a hope that there is a life after death and a
> benevolent God in charge of it, and a belief that the Catholic Church
> is the best hope for keeping that hope from being completely
> extinguished in the human race.

This is the guy that prevaricated for months and finally lied about
believing in a creator for his immortal soul that he wants to go on
after his death.

>
> But that's NOT the same as saying that I believe that there is a life
> after death and a benevolent God in charge of it, much as you love to
> pretend that this is true.

Does anyone else get the feeling that someone isn't being honest with
themselves? I wonder if we are going to have a repeat of his antics
in the Feb By Their Fruits thread?

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

Nyikos should go back to this post and then click on the thread title
at the top of the post and review his bogus deeds.

How many months went by before you finally lied about being an
agnostic? What was the difference between "believe in" and believe
that" that would not make you a creationist?

>
> > going self proclaimed agnostic
>
> You are 42 years too late. That is when I first said I was one, and
> ever since about two years after that, I've been one.

Geeze that must be why you prevaricated about being a creationist for
over a year before stumble bumbling in the Feb By Their Fruits Thread.

What is the difference between "believe in" and believe that" that
would not make you a creationist? You just ran and lied instead of
giving your explanation.

>
> > disciple of Behe
>
> I regularly correct people's false claims about him. If that makes
> me a "disciple" then you have a bizarre definition of "disciple".

You even run away from claiming that the claims are false when they
are not? Remember Astrology? Who claimed that the evidence didn't
exist and who ran? Who came back and still tried to defend the IC
claptrap?

>
> I'd even correct people who make false claims about YOU. But then,
> the reality of you is far uglier than any false claim a person of
> average creativity could even consider about you. See my reply to
> Boikat on this thread less than an hour ago.

You lie a lot. That is a given. What your "corrections" are tells a
lot about the jerk that you are. Just go back to the Feb By Their
Fruits thread and defend your actions. You did so many things wrong
that you really are pathetic. Who even deleted a post instead of face
what a dishonest liar he was?

Do you want me to give an historical outline of what you did?

>
> > I don't claim that these guys represent the entire range of the anti-
> > science/anti-evolution creationist movement. They are just the sample
> > that posts to TO and tries to defend the junk that failed the
> > Scientific Creationists over 25 years ago
>
> I only defend my own theory of intelligent design by panspermists that
> are no more "creators" than you or me. I've yet to see a so-called
> "Scientific Creationist" endorse that theory.

What did you snip out in order to prevaricate about what I wrote? You
didn't even mark your snip. Doesn't most of the rest of the paragraph
apply to you?

QUOTE:

I don't claim that these guys represent the entire range of the anti-
science/anti-evolution creationist movement. They are just the sample
that posts to TO and tries to defend the junk that failed the

Scientific Creationists over 25 years ago and the creationist
intelligent design scam that took the place of Scientific Creationism
around 20 years ago. I don't know how history is going to view the
IDiots that still support a stupid and dishonest creationists scam
that for the last decade has been running the bait and switch on their
own creationist support base. The ID perps never delivered the
intelligent design science that they claimed to have, and all the
creationists have ever gotten out of them is a switch scam that
doesn't even mention that ID ever existed. IDiots like Kalk just keep
going back to them as if they can trust the guys that have lied to
them about the ID scam. Sad but true.

END QUOTE:

You can't even be honest with yourself. And you wonder why you make
the list.

>
> > So consider this list under those circumstances. The links are to the
> > Google posts. I purposely just take random posts from the last couple
> > of weeks of active threads and if the post is too over the top I pick
> > another so that I can't be accused of stacking the deck.
>
> And so, you provided ZERO, ZILCH evidence that I am anything like what
> you claim that I am.

Was I trying to present evidence for anything? Do you want me to do
an historical evaluation of the Feb By Their Fruits thread? What
about a general summary of how you have debased yourself to defend the
intelligent design bait and switch scam? Do you realize what it means
when you are the only one to ever deny that it is going down? What
will happen to the next group of rubes that want to teach the science
of intelligent design in the public schools? What has happened in
every such case? Who sold them the Teach ID scam? Remember the Legal
Journal article? Remember the book? You were posting on TO when the
ID perps were running the teach ID scam full tilt in the late 1990's.
Where did Santorum get the idea that ID could be taught in the public
schools? You were still posting then. Remember the No Child Left
Behind fiasco? Look up the date of that.

>
> > It is likely a good idea for lurkers with similar views to first read
> > a sampling of the posts from these guys and the responses to get an
> > idea of what you might be getting into if you try to post.
>
> Yes, lurkers, if you dare to ask for genuine evidence of the "bait"
> part of what Ron O calls the "bait and switch scam" that is still
> "going down," the post I documented in reply to Boikat is a sample of
> what you might be getting into.

Poor Nyikos has to lie to himself about the stupidest things. Even
the ID perps do not deny that they sold the rubes the teach ID scam.
Nyikos never put up a single piece of evidence to support his
contentions. Not one. What should that tell him? Denial is stupid
and crazy at this time.

Why should I have to read your post to Boikat? Do you understand what
a jerk you are. Nothing left but a twitching sphincter, and all that
is coming out is crap. If you have some beef post it to me and not
behind my back to other posters.

>
> > Peter Nyikos:
> >http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/a6a8c8032c25abec?hl=en
>
> That's a real beauty you picked out, one that lays bare on highly
> revealing facet of Paul Gans's many-faceted character.
>
> Gans hasn't posted to this thread of yours so far, Ron O. For one
> possible reason why that may be true, a hint can be found in my reply
> to Kalkidas earlier today to this thread.
>
> And, real old-timers like Hemidactylus just might get the following
> joke:

I pick the posts at random. I Didn't even read this one. Do you want
me to look for some of your better ones? You can go to the Feb By
Their Fruits thread to pick some up if you want to expose yourself.
Why don't you repost the post that you deleted. That would be a good
one to start with.

>
> [big snip]
>
> > Any that I missed add them to the list.
>
> > Ron Okimoto
>
> Add Paul Gans. :-) :-) :-)
>
> Peter Nyikos

Just think of the sicko that would laugh when he should be crying, and
he wonders why he is on the list while prevaricating about being a
disciple of Behe and defending the ID scam. What gets me is that
there is no doubt in my mind that Nyikos belongs on this list because
he was one of the first IDiot rubes (before the term IDiot existed)
over a decade ago before he stopped posting to TO for a while. This
was when the ID perps at the Discovery Institute were still claiming
that ID was "their business" before the bait and switch started to go
down in 2002.

Ron Okimoto

J.J. O'Shea

unread,

Oct 9, 2012, 9:15:16 PM10/9/12

to

On Tue, 9 Oct 2012 20:56:29 -0400, Hemidactylus* wrote
(in article <D62dnbtF9dkgWunN...@giganews.com>):

We are everywhere.

Dana Tweedy

unread,

Oct 9, 2012, 9:37:53 PM10/9/12

to

On 10/9/12 4:24 PM, Ray Martinez wrote:
> On Oct 9, 2:04 pm, Dana Tweedy <reddfrog...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On 10/9/12 11:40 AM, Ray Martinez wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> On Oct 9, 10:09 am, "J.J. O'Shea" <try.not...@but.see.sig> wrote:
>>>> On Mon, 8 Oct 2012 14:16:09 -0400, Ray Martinez wrote
>>>> (in article
>>>> <9ddd11b7-01de-483b-9448-d06ed60cf...@vy11g2000pbb.googlegroups.com>):
>>
>>>>> Again, I am quite relieved to be held as an idiot by a person who thinks apes
>>>>> morphed in Africans over the course of millions of years.
>>
>>>> Actually, humans are apes, so the phrase 'apes morphed in (I assume you meant
>>>> 'into') Africans' is incorrect; Africans, and all other humans, are still
>>>> apes. Please note that last bit: _AFRICANS, AND ALL OTHER HUMANS, ARE STILL
>>>> APES_. Yes, I saw your attempt to make a racist statement.
>>
>>> Yes, the belief that apes evolved into Africans over the course of
>>> millions of years is gutter racism masquerading as science.
>>
>> You've never explained how this is "gutter racism" when it's not just
>> the "Africans" who have evolved from apes, but all humans. We are all
>> ultimately Africans by descent.
>>
>
> An attempt to obscure the fact that Darwin and the ToE say it is a
> fact that apes first became humans in Africa.

Ray, how does stating clearly that all humans are African "obscure" the
fact that all humans come from Africa? Darwin predicted that the
earliest evidence of humans would be found in Africa because that's
where humans' closest relatives live. Darwin was found to be correct.
The theory of evolution itself does not specify where human ancestors
came from, but the evidence indicates that humans originated in Africa.

>
> Our Darwinist does see the obvious gutter racism.

No, I don't see any "gutter racism" at all here. You still have not
explained why African origin of humans is "gutter racism".

>
>>> The idea
>>> was put forth by a very rich white Englishman (Charles Darwin) who
>>> thought he was superior and special.
>>
>> This idea also applied to that very rich white Englishman. It makes him
>> an ape as well as everyone else. Why does including himself in the
>> same group make him a racist.

Why no response here, Ray?

>>
>>
>>
>>>> And, yes, you
>>>> missed. Because, well, the fact is that humans are apes.
>>
>>> I feel relief when a person who believes humans are apes thinks I'm an
>>> idiot.
>>
>> Since humans are apes, in any meaningful definition of the word, why
>> would you feel relief, other than you being in denial?
>>
>
> General Audience:

Ray's talking to himself again.....

>
> Why would anyone feel any insult in being called an idiot by persons
> who think humans are apes?

Because humans are apes. Also, your idiocy is a consequence of your
actions, not what I think about the fact that humans are apes.

>
> This is what happens when one comes to accept the theory of evolution:
> you end deluded, thinking humans are apes.

Since humans are apes, what is "deluded" about thinking they are?
What, exactly do you imagine keeps humans from being apes?

>
>>
>>
>>>> Now, if you're insulted by the truth, and if you try to use the truth to say
>>>> something that it doesn't say, well, you have to be a bit better than this.
>>
>>>> What's wrong with you, Ray-ray? Have you been associating too closely with
>>>> Peter N and some of his dishonesty is rubbing off on you?
>>
>>>> --
>>>> email to oshea dot j dot j at gmail dot com.
>>
>>> Peter Nyikos is a vehement defender of racist human evolution, like
>>> yourself.
>>
>>> Glad to be viewed as dishonest by your kind.
>>
>> Human evolution is not racist,
>
> Monkeys morphing into Africans not racist?

All humans are ultimately Africans, Ray. No one, except creationists,
claim that Africans are a separate group from the rest of humanity. So,
considering that I myself am an African,(several tens of thousand years
removed) why is it racist to believe my own ancestors were apes, and
monkeys?

>
> No one expects an admission.

Because an "admission" would be silly.

>
>> and your dishonesty is determined by your
>> dishonest behavior, not what other people think.
>>
>> All you have to do to not be viewed as dishonest is stop the dishonesty.
>> DJT
>
> It is the position of mainstream Creationism that human evolution is a
> self-evident racist doctrine made necessary by the rejection of God as
> Creator of Adam and Eve.

This is a good example of your dishonesty. This is what you need to
stop if you are to expect people to stop considering you dishonest.

Note too that Ray uses the terms 'self evident' to signal he can't
defend his claim.

>
> General Audience:
>
> This is where you end up after accepting the theory of "evilution"----
> in the gutter advancing apes to have evolved into Africans while
> convincing yourself that the same is science. Atheists have no
> choice....unlike yourself.

All humans are apes, and all humans are Africans. How does it become
"gutter racism" to acknowledge the truth, that all populations are
equally related to our ape cousins?

Besides, I'm not an atheist. Atheists have many choices, but it doesn't
matter to me. I accept evolution because it's the best scientific
explanation for the evidence.

DJT

Ron O

unread,

Oct 9, 2012, 9:49:39 PM10/9/12

to

On Oct 9, 1:54�ｿｽpm, pnyikos <nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> On Oct 7, 2:39 pm, Boikat <boi...@bellsouth.net> wrote:

>
> > On Oct 7, 1:19 pm, Eugene Willow <willowe1...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On 7 Oct, 14:54, Ron O <rokim...@cox.net> wrote:> Eugene Willow:http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/16cbbe6086d94ffa?hl=en
>
> > > and this is the essence of evolutionism- instead of scientific
> > > arguments, calling people idiots...
>

> No, it's �ｿｽpart of the essence of the arguments of Ron O. �ｿｽThe essence
> also includes deciding that someone is a creationist, by definining
> "creationist" to mean "anyone who believes in the existence of a
> supernatural creator of something (perhaps the universe, perhaps just
> the postulated souls of the elect)".

Nyikos indicated that he had done some bogus junk in a post to Boikat
so I came up to look and found this.

Nyikos knows that I got my definition from the Random House
dictionary. A creationist is simply someone that believes in a
creator, usually for religious reasons. The example given was one
that believes in a creator for their immortal soul, and Nyikos just
admitted to that below.

QUOTE:

> Nyikos is a Catholic church

member, due to a hope that there is a life after death and a
benevolent God in charge of it, and a belief that the Catholic Church
is the best hope for keeping that hope from being completely
extinguished in the human race.

END QUOTE:

He claims hope instead of belief, but for a nutcase like Nyikos that
has to lie to himself about the stupidest things that obviously does
not matter.

I have even claimed that being a creationist isn't the important
criteria for getting on this list. It is the bogus junk that gets
done because these guys are creationists that get them on the list.
There are a lot of creationists on TO that do not make the list. Who
is in denial about the ID scam? Who is a Behe disciple? I even admit
to being a creationist. Nyikos has known all of this for over a year
and he still has to lie.

>
> Where the essence really gets nasty is when Ron O decides, for reasons
> he never divulges, that someone like me fits that description, and
> then takes every denial that I fit it -- and I've made many denials of
> that -- as "proof" that I am a habitual liar.

Are you referring to how you prevaricated about being a creationist
for over a year before claiming to be an agnostic? How agnostic are
you when you admit to going to church and hope for a life after death
depending on your immortal soul created by your intelligent designer?

>
> The essence gets even nastier when he spouts the Pee Wee Hermanism
> "Projection is a way of life for ____" and then takes accusations of
> wrongdoing by him, Ron O, as an ADMISSION by ____________, �ｿｽthe person
> making that accusation, that the person himself is guilty of that very
> wrongdoing.

Projection is just a way of life for Nyikos. I do not get why he does
it, but it is supposed to be some kind of defense mechanism. It just
seems like self flagellation to to me because he has to confront all
the bogus things that he does when he lies about other people doing
what he is guilty of.

>
> Sound farfetched? �ｿｽHere is the url for the post where Ron O did just
> that:http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/60419d9c6317c0b3
>
> and here is the post where I showed, by multiple *reductio ad
> absurdum* , that Ron O was either lying or insane when he said what he
> did along the above lines:
>
> http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/6610a5d551064f20
> Message-ID: <3b216bfd-0c29-4129-
> bb9e-5a03ebef3...@h9g2000yqi.googlegroups.com>
> �ｿｽ for people viewing this in Google: the last three symbols before the
> @ are a4e

This is Nyikos' documentation? Nyikos has to self evaluate the Feb By
Their Fruits thread that he links to. As sad as it may seem Nyikos
links to a side thread he created with his bogus title changes to be
"saddistic" and he can't even tell what he is doing. He only started
the side thread because he couldn't face what he was running from in
other parts of the thread, and had to be nasty about it. Not only
that, but he obviously created the side thread to make fun of someone
else. Not only that, but to do it he made up a story about Google and
made claims that did not apply to what he was talking about. All in
order to claim that someone else was doing something wrong. You can't
make this junk up.

Nyikos what was not saddistic about your starting that side thread?
What was not saddistic about making up the google story and pretending
to laugh at someone else that had done nothing worth laughing at?
Face it, you made up the Google story. Where did I encounter the
"read more" statement? That is so sad that I don't even know why you
would even go back to your bogus deeds as if they had some legitimacy.

You should have just faced what you were running from instead of start
that side thread. How many months did it take you to finally lie
about being an agnostic after starting the bogus side thread? The sad
thing is that if you had just come clean you wouldn't have had to
start the side thread or get caught in all the dishonest prevarication
and stupidity like you deleting a bogus post instead of face what you
had done. All that just in that one thread.

>
> > If it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck....
>
> Then it is probably saner than Ron O. �ｿｽ :-)
>
> Peter Nyikos

Projection is just a way of life for Nyikos. How sane is that? What
was the basis for the "saddistic" claim? Who projected his sad
behavior onto someone else? Who has a problem with projection? Why
didn't you put up the post where you started a whole thread to claim
that I was running from one post when who was running from dozens by
his own definition of running? You can't deny that projection is a
way of life for you. Your dishonest projection is what gets you into
most of your troubles. Who was the dirty debater? Who had the insane
logic? What was the Scottish verdict on Nyikos? All projection.
Instead of lie to yourself self-evaluate what you have done.

Ron Okimoto

Hemidactylus

unread,

Oct 9, 2012, 10:35:16 PM10/9/12

to

Apparently so:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GEStsLJZhzo

John Harshman

unread,

Oct 10, 2012, 1:20:14 AM10/10/12

to

On 10/9/12 5:51 PM, jillery wrote:
> On Tue, 09 Oct 2012 15:13:37 -0700, John Harshman
> <jhar...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>
>> On 10/9/12 2:35 PM, jillery wrote:
>>> On Tue, 9 Oct 2012 10:47:03 -0700 (PDT), Eugene Willow
>>> <willo...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> [...]
>>>
>>>
>>>> But evolution _is_ racis[t], because it promotes survival of the fittest
>>>> races.
>>>
>>>
>>> Apparently you don't know what "survival of the fittest" actually
>>> means. Think 'environment'. Or just think.
>>>
>> I'm curious. Do you or do you not understand that Eugene Willow is a
>> particularly boring, persistent Loki? If the former, why respond
>> seriously (or at all)? If the latter, how could you not?
>
>
> Apparently you seem to think it your place to question my reply, even
> though neither his post nor mine was addressed to you specifically.
> And not on its technical merits, but simply on its style.

No, I'm merely curious. It wasn't intended as a rebuke.

> Other poster reply to him far more often than I do. So why don't you
> ask them as well? Why single me out so publicly this way?

I read your posts more often than I read many others. Take that as a
compliment.

> It has been stated in this newsgroup that a method to discourage Lokis
> is to reply seriously. IIRC that is a tactic even you use on
> occasion. So why don't you look into yourself to answer to your own
> question?

That seems like a silly way to discourage lokis, as it would seem to
give them exactly what they want. Who has stated such a thing? I reply
to lokis seriously only if I'm not sure they're really lokis, and that
isn't a tactic. The way to discourage them is to ignore them. Humorous
replies may encourage also, but at least you're in on the joke.

> Or are you just trying to start Yet Another Stupid Manufactured
> Argument?

Again, not an argument. I asked a question because I was interested in
knowing the answer. Would you mind answering?

Nick Keighley

unread,

Oct 10, 2012, 5:27:37 AM10/10/12

to

On Oct 9, 6:59 pm, Ray Martinez <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Oct 9, 10:04 am, "Rolf" <rolf.aalb...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > "Ray Martinez" <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>
> >news:5d77a1e7-b4f1-4890...@ph9g2000pbb.googlegroups.com...

>
> > > On Oct 7, 7:54 am, Ron O <rokim...@cox.net> wrote:
> > >> The only noteworthy aspect of this edition is the absence of Pagano
> > >> and the temporary return of Spintronic. One of the reasons Spinny was
> > >> one of the few posters ever banned from TO is that he had a habit of
> > >> posting under multiple Nyms and when he came back he used at least

> > >> three. You can't make this junk up.

>
> > >> Google By Their Fruits to get the Biblical meaning of this thread. It
> > >> is only meant as a means of making it easier for anyone to use Google
> > >> to get as many posts as they can stand to read from these posters in
> > >> order to get an idea of the state of the religious anti-evolution

> > >> movement. They are a diverse group that have many views and you can't
> > >> pigeon hole all of them so one size does not fit all. We have a Hindu
> > >> creationist IDiot in Kalk, Nando/Syamsu follows the Koran, and Nyikos
> > >> is a Catholic church going self proclaimed agnostic disciple of Behe
> > >> etc. So there are all kinds and one definition isn't going to work.
> > >> Just being a creationist was never the problem. It is what these guys
> > >> do because of their religious beliefs that is the problem. I have
> > >> links to creationist sites in other By Their Fruits where those
> > >> creationists would not make the list.
>

> > >> I don't claim that these guys represent the entire range of the anti-
> > >> science/anti-evolution creationist movement. They are just the sample
> > >> that posts to TO and tries to defend the junk that failed the
> > >> Scientific Creationists over 25 years ago and the creationist
> > >> intelligent design scam that took the place of Scientific Creationism
> > >> around 20 years ago. I don't know how history is going to view the
> > >> IDiots that still support a stupid and dishonest creationists scam
> > >> that for the last decade has been running the bait and switch on their
> > >> own creationist support base. The ID perps never delivered the
> > >> intelligent design science that they claimed to have, and all the
> > >> creationists have ever gotten out of them is a switch scam that
> > >> doesn't even mention that ID ever existed. IDiots like Kalk just keep
> > >> going back to them as if they can trust the guys that have lied to
> > >> them about the ID scam. Sad but true.
>

> > >> So consider this list under those circumstances. The links are to the
> > >> Google posts. I purposely just take random posts from the last couple
> > >> of weeks of active threads and if the post is too over the top I pick

> > >> another so that I can't be accused of stacking the deck. You can look

> > >> up more of their posts by clicking on "view profile" by their name at
> > >> the top of the post.

>
> > >> It is likely a good idea for lurkers with similar views to first read
> > >> a sampling of the posts from these guys and the responses to get an
> > >> idea of what you might be getting into if you try to post.
>

>
> > >> Any that I missed add them to the list.
>
> > >> Ron Okimoto
>

> > > Here is what "Honest" Ron Okimoto conveniently forgot to tell
> > > everyone: All of the so called "Creationists" and "IDists" he mentions
> > > accept conceptual existence of Darwin's main claims in nature: natural
> > > selection, microevolution, macroevolution and common descent. Peter
> > > Nyikos also accepts human evolution and space aliens responsible for
> > > biological First Cause.
>
> > Unles you propose the space aliens are robots instead of living things, they
> > are not responsible for more than bringing life to this planet from
> > somewhere else. That is however very unlikely to have happened but if PN is
> > having fun wasting time & effort on such a far-fetched idea he is welcome to
> > it.
>
> Peter is in YOUR camp, Rolf. The same camp as Ron Okimoto. It is you
> guys who believe the material created the immaterial.

what's "the immaterial"? Can I see it?

This is what
> happens when a person rejects God as Creator: they end up believing in
> the ridiculous and the impossible as a replacement. There is no
> difference between Ron and Peter and yourself. All three of you are
> whacked out Atheists, totally disconnected from reality, and unable to
> see it.
>
> Ray (species immutabilist)

Ernest Major

unread,

Oct 10, 2012, 6:46:52 AM10/10/12

to

In message
<013028cc-6393-4baf...@m5g2000pbv.googlegroups.com>, Ray
Martinez <pyram...@yahoo.com> writes
>On Oct 8, 7:29�pm, Dana Tweedy <reddfrog...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Oct 8, 12:34 pm, Ray Martinez <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> > On Oct 7, 3:04 pm, Dana Tweedy <reddfrog...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> > > On 10/7/12 2:44 PM, Ray Martinez wrote:

>>
>> > > > On Oct 7, 11:19 am, Eugene Willow <willowe1...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> > > >> On 7 Oct, 14:54, Ron O <rokim...@cox.net> wrote:> Eugene
>> > >
>> > > >>>>Willow:http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/16cbbe6086d94ffa?hl=en
>>
>> > > >> and this is the essence of evolutionism- instead of scientific
>> > > >> arguments, calling people idiots...
>>

>> > > > Eugene: I am relieved to be rejected as an idiot by a person who
>> > > > actually believes apes morphed into Africans over the course of
>> > > > millions of years. You should too.
>>
>> > > Ray, all humans are apes, and remain apes. For that matter, all humans
>> > > are ultimately "Africans" as well.
>>
>> > > You are "rejected as an idiot" because you keep writing idiotic things,
>> > > not because of your position on evolution.
>>
>> > > DJT
>>

>> > Again, I am quite relieved to be held as an idiot by a person who

>> > thinks apes morphed into Africans over the course of millions of
>> > years.
>>
>> The evidence clearly shows that all human populations are a species of
>> ape, and that humans evolved over millions of years from a common
>> ancestor with our nearest ape relative. � �There is nothing odd or
>> controversial about thatnpfpinding.
>>
>> Also Ray, all humans are "Africans", so why make a big deal about the
>> humans who are presently living there? � � The current populations
>> living in Africa are no more or less distant from the above mentioned

>> relatives. � �Why do you keep suggesting that its only the populations

>> currently living in Africa who have evolved?
>>
>>
>>
>> > We don't want the approval of your kind.
>>
>> Who is the "we" here, and its painfully clear that you are looking for
>> approval from others. �The fact that you keep sabotaging yourself with
>> silly, unsupported, and badly thought out arguments is why you are
>> unable to convince anyone you are the genius you claim to be.
>>
>> That you fail to win approval which you so obviously crave, is that
>> your position is wrongheaded from the get go.
>>
>> Playing the sour grapes game over and over only makes you look like a
>> petulant fool.
>>
>
>I'm glad (and relieved) to be thought of as a fool by a
>"Christian" (Dana Tweedy) who accepts, defends, and promotes the
>Atheist view of life (evolution).

What about your acceptance, defence and promotion of an Islamic view of
nature (occasionalism)? Or does guilt by association only apply to other
people?
>
>Ray (Christian)
>

--
alias Ernest Major

jillery

unread,

Oct 10, 2012, 7:35:11 AM10/10/12

to

I should have given you credit as well, as you make the point most
often among those who do.

jillery

unread,

Oct 10, 2012, 7:46:50 AM10/10/12

to

On Tue, 09 Oct 2012 22:20:14 -0700, John Harshman

<jhar...@pacbell.net> wrote:

>On 10/9/12 5:51 PM, jillery wrote:
>> On Tue, 09 Oct 2012 15:13:37 -0700, John Harshman
>> <jhar...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>>
>>> On 10/9/12 2:35 PM, jillery wrote:
>>>> On Tue, 9 Oct 2012 10:47:03 -0700 (PDT), Eugene Willow
>>>> <willo...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> [...]
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> But evolution _is_ racis[t], because it promotes survival of the fittest
>>>>> races.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Apparently you don't know what "survival of the fittest" actually
>>>> means. Think 'environment'. Or just think.
>>>>
>>> I'm curious. Do you or do you not understand that Eugene Willow is a
>>> particularly boring, persistent Loki? If the former, why respond
>>> seriously (or at all)? If the latter, how could you not?
>>
>>
>> Apparently you seem to think it your place to question my reply, even
>> though neither his post nor mine was addressed to you specifically.
>> And not on its technical merits, but simply on its style.
>
>No, I'm merely curious. It wasn't intended as a rebuke.

Really? Is that why you phrased your question to emphasize naive or
thoughtless intent?

>> Other poster reply to him far more often than I do. So why don't you
>> ask them as well? Why single me out so publicly this way?
>
>I read your posts more often than I read many others. Take that as a
>compliment.

Sorry, I don't wear well the collar of a god's chosen people.

>> It has been stated in this newsgroup that a method to discourage Lokis
>> is to reply seriously. IIRC that is a tactic even you use on
>> occasion. So why don't you look into yourself to answer to your own
>> question?
>
>That seems like a silly way to discourage lokis, as it would seem to
>give them exactly what they want.

Then it depends on what you infer to be the intent of Lokis.
Hopefully, you allow other people to have opinions different than
yours.

>Who has stated such a thing?

I don't care to look it up at the moment. Nor do I care if you don't
believe it.

>I reply
>to lokis seriously only if I'm not sure they're really lokis, and that
>isn't a tactic.

Then you and I have different meanings of 'tactic'.

>The way to discourage them is to ignore them.

That is another way. Hopefully, you recognize it isn't the *only*
way. More to the point, I don't really care if it discourages them or
not. It is my choice to reply or not, as I choose or not, without
regard to what you might think of my choice or my reply.

>Humorous
>replies may encourage also, but at least you're in on the joke.

Which is fine if your intent is to make it obvious you are in on the
joke. But if the joke is so obvious, I see no point in boasting about
that.

>> Or are you just trying to start Yet Another Stupid Manufactured
>> Argument?
>
>Again, not an argument. I asked a question because I was interested in
>knowing the answer.

It is my experience that people who ask that kind of question in that
way aren't interested in any answer I can provide. Your post helps to
confirm my experience.

>Would you mind answering?

Your implication notwithstanding, I already did. If you don't like my
answer, or even if you don't understand it, then please seek an answer
that suits you elsewhere, as I suggested before.

I see no legitimate purpose to your question as you phrased it, or to
continuing this thread as you have.

By Their Fruits Oct 2012

Ron O

Eugene Willow

prawnster

Boikat

Boikat

Ron O

Kalkidas

Ray Martinez

Glenn

Frank J

Ray Martinez

Frank J

Frank J

Frank J

Glenn

Dana Tweedy

*Hemidactylus*

jillery

Frank J

Stephen

Dale

Ron O

Ron O

Ron O

Ron O

eridanus

Frank J

Frank J

Ernest Major

Ray Martinez

Ray Martinez

Frank J

Frank J

jillery

Glenn

*Hemidactylus*

Dana Tweedy

Rolf

Rolf

Rolf

Rolf

Rolf

J.J. O'Shea

J.J. O'Shea

Ray Martinez

jillery

Ray Martinez

J.J. O'Shea

Eugene Willow

Ray Martinez

Ray Martinez

J.J. O'Shea

pnyikos

pnyikos

Burkhard

pnyikos

pnyikos

pnyikos

J.J. O'Shea

pnyikos

pnyikos

Harry K

pnyikos

pnyikos

Dana Tweedy

Dana Tweedy

*Hemidactylus*

Dana Tweedy

*Hemidactylus*

Frank J

Ray Martinez

jillery

Ray Martinez

Frank J

J.J. O'Shea

Ray Martinez

John Harshman

Ray Martinez

*Hemidactylus*

Hemidactylus

Hemidactylus

Hemidactylus

Hemidactylus

Hemidactylus

Hemidactylus

Hemidactylus

Hemidactylus

Hemidactylus