By their fruits April 2018

[RonO]

This is a pretty sad edition of the By their fruits threads. The anti
evolution creationist faction hasn't improved, and seems to be getting
worse if that is possible. This is a period where the IDiots likely
realized that IDiocy was dead, but all they could do was run in denial
of that reality. The ID perps at the Discovery Institute, yes, the same
guys that have been selling the IDiot rubes the creationist ID scam for
over 22 years and running the bait and switch on the IDiots for over 15
years, finally came out with their best "evidence" list for IDiocy. It
is sad that it took them this long to admit to what they had, but the
IDiots all knew that it couldn't be good because no IDiots ever got the
ID science when they have needed it and all they get from the ID perps
is an obfuscation creationist switch scam that the ID perps claim has
nothing to do with IDiocy. The switch scam basically consists of the
old scientific creationist evolution denial arguments that never
amounted to any creation science worth calling science over 30 years ago.

The saddest thing about the ID Perp's "best" list is that 5 of the 6
pieces of junk evidence failed as creation science over 30 years ago.
They are the same arguments that failed the scientific creationists in
their claims to have the creation science to teach in the public
schools. The 6th one is likely 6th by merit too. Behe's IC junk made
the list, but since gaps in the fossil record actually exist to talk
about, but Behe has never demonstrated that his type of IC exists to
talk about, IC likely ranks last on the list and all it is is basically
the scientific creationist complexity junk with IC thrown in on top. So
IDiocy is pretty much dead. That is obvious from how the
IDiot/creationists on TO have reacted to it. Unfortunately for Pags
none of Dembski's wonderful IDiocy made the "best" list. All of
Dembski's junk is worse than the fossil gap and Cambrian explosion junk
that failed the scientific creationists over 30 years ago. Like IC none
of Dembsk's junk was ever determined to exist in nature. You can't go
to any legitimate science source and find that there is a new IDiot law
of thermodynamics to talk about. No IDiot specified complexity or
complex specified information has ever been determined to exist in
nature. All of Dembski's junk has been rated lower than the creationist
fossil gap stupidity that failed as science over 30 years ago.

Here is a link to the last By their fruits and it has a link to older
threads for comparison.
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/talk.origins/qBJNFXhlalc/0-9c2WmrCwAJ

Dean:
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/talk.origins/RmJfq-PdDl0/Ew20CXz9BgAJ

Dean's reaction to the "best" IDiot list is pretty sad. He started a
couple of threads to see why the "best" had already failed the
scientific creationists over 30 years ago. He even claimed that he
didn't know why they had failed as an excuse for discussing the bogus
junk. He ended up running and starting a misdirection thread about
possible plagiarism. When it became obvious that misdirection was
stupid and dishonest he started putting up IDiot junk that didn't make
the list. Why discuss junk that is worse than the "best"?

Dr. Dr. Kleinman:
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/talk.origins/Go6ShGftX6g/RZNYRSSOBwAJ

Even though Kleinman's creationist probability argument (yes the same
stupid tornado through a junk yard type of probability estimate that
failed the scientific creationists over 30 years ago) did not make the
"best" list Kleinman feels obligated to ignore reality and keep making
the stupid claim. He knows that the two mutations are no longer
independent events after the first one occurs, but he can't accept that
reality. His own source has told him that his estimate is for two
mutations that have to occur at the same time in order to work, but he
can't accept that reality. I have given him a link to Stat Trek so that
he can calculate the probability the way that evolution actually works,
but he would rather run in denial and misdirect the argument. He is
bucking for the insanity defense, but the insanity defense isn't a
defense it is an excuse. He will still be wrong for eternity. My guess
is that he hasn't realized that, yet.

jonathan:
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/talk.origins/A_F9OSPavao/VMQjebOsBwAJ

Normally I do not post things that make the poster look really bad, but
This is likely among the last threads that jonathan is going to start on
TO. My guess is that he will soon be joining the ranks of the few to be
banned from TO. Since the ID Perps published their best list he has
gone off on strippers and porn stars, and he has already been warned not
to post the junk to TO by the moderator, but he can't help himself at
this time. Anyone can use the link to get to the Google groups and the
pull down menu to the right will allow you to access "show activity"
that will bring up more links to jonathan posts, so that you can see
what he usually posts.

Pagano:
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/talk.origins/uJOfjTohMEA/WLP2iHw2AAAJ

Pags is the same as ever. Like Dean he is the only IDiot/creationist to
address the "best" list directly, but since he is a geocentrist he
actually attacked the list and claimed that some of the best wasn't ID
science. He doesn't like the big bang and he knows that denial junk
isn't really evidence for IDiocy (the ID perps even claim that the
switch scam junk has nothing to do with IDiocy, so what is it doing on
the list?). To Pags things like the Big Bang never happened because the
evidence indicates that we are not the center of the universe. We are
one star system out of around a hundred billion stars in our galaxy and
we fall on the edge of one spiral arm and there are around a hundred
billion other galaxies. We aren't even at the center of our own galaxy.
The Big Bang is the best evidence creationists have of a creation
event, but the major support base for IDiocy do not want to believe that
the big bang ever happened. For the YEC contingent it is because it
obviously happened a very long time ago, and the Big Bang is one of the
science topics that the creationists are always trying to remove from
public school education along with biological evolution. The fact that
it makes the "best" IDiot list in spite of this denial should tell
anyone how good the "best" evidence for ID is even for the IDiots.

Nyikos is still around and can't seem to stop being an IDiot:
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/talk.origins/RmJfq-PdDl0/wD8jm5gBAwAJ

Glenn:
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/talk.origins/RmJfq-PdDl0/tDjR6fS_AAAJ

Glenn is currently running away in denial of the "best" IDiot evidence.
It tells him that there has never been any ID science. The same junk
could have been put up over 22 years ago, and 5 of the 6 already failed
the scientific creationists over 30 years ago. The 6th one failed the
ID perps in Dover, so they are all creationist failures. None of the
junk was considered to be any type of science worth calling science. I
don't know what running will do for IDiots like Kalk and Glenn, but that
is what they have decided to do. Running will not change the "best' list.

MarkE:
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/talk.origins/Aato33kbt48/ZgObUGhQAAAJ

MarkE is one of the more level headed creationists posting, but he
doesn't want to understand why the abiogenesis denial argument failed as
science for the scientific creationist over 30 years ago. There is no
doubt that it was a creation science failure, and that creation science
was found to not be any type of science worth calling science, so why
try to defend one of the "best" IDiot pieces of junk evidence that is
already a known failure?

Kalkidas:
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/talk.origins/Aato33kbt48/0QfyJpx_AAAJ

Kalk is another IDiot who has decided to run instead of wallow in the
greatness of the "best" evidence for IDiocy. Beats, me what running
will ever do. The evidence hasn't gotten any better for the last 22
years of the ID perps running the creationist ID scam, so running
doesn't seem to be much of an option. It looks like there is no future
for IDiocy, but running away in denial. The sad thing is that Kalk has
gone to the ID perps for years to get the IDiot science that has always
blown up in his face, and now he gets the best that there is and all he
can do is run.

Alpha Beta:
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/talk.origins/t47m0yhApz0/7ayc6TUbAwAJ

AB is one of your standard ignorant and incompetent creationists that
often post to TO. My guess is that the other IDiots wish that these
types did not exist.

JTEM:
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/talk.origins/t47m0yhApz0/B2biocXqAgAJ

JTEM doesn't really know which way is up, and hasn't contributed much
lately. He doesn't seem to have an opinion on the "best" IDiot
evidence, but he likely knew that IDiocy has been a scam for years.

This seems to be the pathetic list. Dale posted within this interval,
but I didn't go that far back. I only look at active threads for the
past couple weeks.

Anyone that wants to can see how the IDiot/creationists have reacted to
the "best" evidence that has been bestowed upon them. You would think
that there would be dancing in the streets, but all there basically is,
is running away in denial or Pagano insanity. Really, the IDiots have
been given the best that there is, and they can't accept reality. The
ID perps have had months to retract and claim that they were only
joking, but that hasn't happened. The "best" list is really all they
ever had, and IC may not even exist to be evidence of any kind.

https://groups.google.com/d/msg/talk.origins/xCC5NGB-QHI/xmONCrEbCgAJ

https://groups.google.com/d/msg/talk.origins/kpXQXpsZCmo/zFvov2n2AwAJ

https://groups.google.com/d/msg/talk.origins/nICEEs5meGk/Upnu0MHvBwAJ

https://groups.google.com/d/msg/talk.origins/fUkI9ZsC1qs/nLtXv6iHAwAJ

https://groups.google.com/d/msg/talk.origins/McZBgIp8gqc/SVXu7NQvAgAJ

Ron Okimoto

[T Pagano]

On Sat, 07 Apr 2018 07:44:26 -0500, RonO wrote:

> This is a pretty sad edition of the By their fruits threads. The anti
> evolution creationist faction hasn't improved, and seems to be getting
> worse if that is possible. This is a period where the IDiots likely
> realized that IDiocy was dead, but all they could do was run in denial
> of that reality.

*********SUM TOTAL OF OKIMOTO'S EVIDENCE AGAINST ID THEORY************


1. Claims that the judge's ruling in the Dover Court Case toppled ID
Theory.

*OKIMOTO BUFFOONERY*: The Dover Court Case was solely about
whether the Dover School District Curriculum violated the Second
Amendment. The efficacy and truthlikeness of ID Theory was
irrelevant.




2. Claims that the following evidences for intelligent design offered
by the Discovery Institute don't specifically mention Dembski's/Behe's ID
Theory therefore they are abandoned:
(a) Origin of the Universe
(b) Fine Tuning of the Universe
(c) Origin of Information found in DNA
(d) Origin of Irreducibly Complex Molecular Machines
(e) Sudden Appearance Humans/Animals


*OKIMOTO BUFFOONERY*: Origin of the Information found in the DNA
directly involves Dembski's ID Theory. The Origin of Irreducibly
Complex Molecular Machines is Behe's theory.


3. ID Theory's lack of progress over the last 22 years therefore the
theory is deficient.


*OKIMOTO BUFFOONERY*: Behe's and Dembski's theory accomplished
more in its first 22 years to bring ID Theory and its explanatory
theory to light than Darwin's theory did in its first 70 years.
"Complex Specified Information" and "Irreducible Complexity" are
household words.



4. Ridiculous Claim that the Discovery Institute has abandoned Dembski's
ID Theory because it is flawed.


*OKIMOTO BUFFOONERY*: Dembski and the Discovery Institute parted
company ostensibly due to Dembski's disagreement with creationist
donors of the Discovery Institute. Totally irrelevent to the
Discovery Institute's opinion of Dembski's theory. Dembski's
"complex specified information" is still included in the
Discovery Institute's FAQ.

> The ID perps at the Discovery Institute, yes, the same
> guys that have been selling the IDiot rubes the creationist ID scam for
> over 22 years and running the bait and switch on the IDiots for over 15
> years, finally came out with their best "evidence" list for IDiocy.

In 10 years neither Okimoto nor anyone else has succeeded in connecting
creationism to ID Theory. No one in the forum has been able to make the
connection. The attempts by some creationists to directly link atheism
to Darwinism fail for the same reason.

> It
> is sad that it took them this long to admit to what they had, but the
> IDiots all knew that it couldn't be good because no IDiots ever got the
> ID science when they have needed it and all they get from the ID perps
> is an obfuscation creationist switch scam that the ID perps claim has
> nothing to do with IDiocy. The switch scam basically consists of the
> old scientific creationist evolution denial arguments that never
> amounted to any creation science worth calling science over 30 years
> ago.

Creationists have argued qualitatively that materialistic processes were
incapable of reaching design.

Behe produced at least three bio-molecular machines that met
Darwin's falsifier of his theory. Behe's theory falsifies
Darwin's theory as the universal engine of creation. Behe
demonstrated with a loose probabilistic argument that Irreducibly
Complexity is beyond the reach of materialistic processes.

Dembski generalized Behe's result with a rigorous mathematical
argument applying the accepted Complexity and Probability
Theories.

No one in the academic community has been able to impeach either theory.
NO ONE. The Buffoon of T.O certainly hasn't impeached. He's certainly
made clear he doesn't like it.


the rest snipped as useless nonsense.

[Alan Kleinman MD PhD]

SlowO's fruits: Multi-drug resistant infections, multi-herbicide resistant weeds, multi-pesticide resistant insects and less than durable cancer treatments, the fruits of a fruitcake.

[John Harshman]

On 4/7/18 8:58 AM, T Pagano wrote:
> On Sat, 07 Apr 2018 07:44:26 -0500, RonO wrote:

> *********SUM TOTAL OF OKIMOTO'S EVIDENCE AGAINST ID THEORY************
>
>
> 1. Claims that the judge's ruling in the Dover Court Case toppled ID
> Theory.
>
> *OKIMOTO BUFFOONERY*: The Dover Court Case was solely about
> whether the Dover School District Curriculum violated the Second
> Amendment. The efficacy and truthlikeness of ID Theory was
> irrelevant.

Two things, really: "Second Amendment" and "truthlikeness". The second
is one of Tony's go-to weasel words, but this is the first time I've
seen him refer to the second amendment. Perhaps it was unintentional?

[RonO]

It doesn't matter. Likely due to a self inflicted gun shot to the head
while he was trying to shoot his ass off. It may be classified as a
miss, but maybe not for Pags considering where his head is at most of
the time.

[*Hemidactylus*]

Creationists could have benefited from a well placed plexigas belly window.

[*Hemidactylus*]

Evolutionists keep shooting down any pretense of truth for ID out of the
sky like a clay pigeon as the good founders intended?

[RonO]

On 4/7/2018 10:58 AM, T Pagano wrote:
> On Sat, 07 Apr 2018 07:44:26 -0500, RonO wrote:
>
>> This is a pretty sad edition of the By their fruits threads. The anti
>> evolution creationist faction hasn't improved, and seems to be getting
>> worse if that is possible. This is a period where the IDiots likely
>> realized that IDiocy was dead, but all they could do was run in denial
>> of that reality.
>
>
>
> *********SUM TOTAL OF OKIMOTO'S EVIDENCE AGAINST ID THEORY************
>
>
> 1. Claims that the judge's ruling in the Dover Court Case toppled ID
> Theory.
>
> *OKIMOTO BUFFOONERY*: The Dover Court Case was solely about
> whether the Dover School District Curriculum violated the Second
> Amendment. The efficacy and truthlikeness of ID Theory was
> irrelevant.

As Harshman notes you don't know what you are talking about. You have
your amendments mixed up or your court cases. It doesn't matter.
IDiocy failed all three prongs of the Lemon test and could not be taught
in the public schools. Both sides (IDiots and the science side)
requested that the judge rule on whether ID was science or not. The
Supreme court ruling against scientific creationism had stated that if
any valid creation science was ever produced that it could be taught in
the public schools. Just because science supports some religious
beliefs doesn't mean that you can ban it from the public schools. We
don't take globes or solar system mobiles out of the classroom just
because there are flat earth or geocentric creationists (like Pags) that
are offended by them.

The judge ruled that IDiocy was no type of science worth calling
science. Pags can look up the court decision, but he would rather run
from reality and lie about it.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kitzmiller_v._Dover_Area_School_District

https://ncse.com/files/pub/legal/kitzmiller/highlights/2005-12-20_Kitzmiller_decision.pdf

>
>
>
>
> 2. Claims that the following evidences for intelligent design offered
> by the Discovery Institute don't specifically mention Dembski's/Behe's ID
> Theory therefore they are abandoned:
> (a) Origin of the Universe
> (b) Fine Tuning of the Universe
> (c) Origin of Information found in DNA
> (d) Origin of Irreducibly Complex Molecular Machines
> (e) Sudden Appearance Humans/Animals
>
>
> *OKIMOTO BUFFOONERY*: Origin of the Information found in the DNA
> directly involves Dembski's ID Theory. The Origin of Irreducibly
> Complex Molecular Machines is Behe's theory.

All of Dembski's IDiot junk did not make the ID perp's list of the best
evidence for IDiocy. Pags can't accept this reality and would rather
lie to himself about it. Behe was a one trick pony and pretty much only
came up with IC, but it made the list even though Behe has never
demosntrated that his type of IC exists in nature to talk about.

Nothing that Pags can say about that list will change the IDiot reality.
The ID perps have made zero progress in 22 years of running the ID
creationist scam. 5 of the 6 had already failed the scientific
creationists as creation science over 30 years ago, and Behe came up
with IC over 25 years ago.

Pags can try to make any type of ID theory that he wants out of the best
evidence, but it just can't be done. There never was a scientific
theory of IDiocy, no matter what the ID perps have claimed over the
years. Pags even denies that the ID perps finally removed the claim
that they had a scientific theory of ID to teach in the public schools
from their education policy back in 2013. They just removed that entire
paragraph and didn't even try to rewrite the nonsense. This was 8 years
after their loss in Dover.

>
>
> 3. ID Theory's lack of progress over the last 22 years therefore the
> theory is deficient.
>
>
> *OKIMOTO BUFFOONERY*: Behe's and Dembski's theory accomplished
> more in its first 22 years to bring ID Theory and its explanatory
> theory to light than Darwin's theory did in its first 70 years.
> "Complex Specified Information" and "Irreducible Complexity" are
> household words.

The simple fact is that all the best evidence for IDiocy existed before
the ID perp "think tank" existed (started in 1995). The ID perps have
added nothing to the creationist argument for over 25 years (when Behe
published the IC claptrap in Of Pandas and People in 1993). If they had
made any progress that evidence would be listed above the junk that
already failed the scientific creationists over 30 years ago. Pags
can't do anything about that fact except run in denial.

IDiot IC and CSI have never been determined to exist in nature to
discuss. Pags can demonstrate otherwise, but my guess is that he hopes
hell will freeze over before he does for obvious reasons. CSI didn't
even make it onto the best IDiot evidence list. That is the type of
household words that they are. Rat, skunk, scam, incompetent, liars,
etc are also words associated with IDiocy that are household words, but
that doesn't mean that IDiocy is any type science worth talking about.

>
> 4. Ridiculous Claim that the Discovery Institute has abandoned Dembski's
> ID Theory because it is flawed.
>
>
> *OKIMOTO BUFFOONERY*: Dembski and the Discovery Institute parted
> company ostensibly due to Dembski's disagreement with creationist
> donors of the Discovery Institute. Totally irrelevent to the
> Discovery Institute's opinion of Dembski's theory. Dembski's
> "complex specified information" is still included in the
> Discovery Institute's FAQ.

I don't know why Pags has to lie about this junk. When have I ever
claimed that the ID perps have given up on the bogus junk that Dembski
produced? The ID perps just rate the junk as being worse than the other
junk that have been known to be creationist failures for much longer.
Dembski's junk is worse than obvious creationist failures of the past.
that is all the list tells you. If any of Dembski's junk was considered
to be better by the ID Perp's own standards that bogus Dembski junk
would have made the list like IC did. My guess is that they put up 6
instead of 5 just so the whole list would not be all scientific
creationist failures. The gaps in the fossil record and the evidence of
the Cambrian explosion actually exist, but IC has never been
demonstrated to exist. It is likely 6th on the list by merit, and
Dembski's junk rates lower for some reason. Like IC none of Dembski's
junk was ever verified to exist, but there must be some other reason for
rating Behe's stupidity over Dembski's.

>
>> The ID perps at the Discovery Institute, yes, the same
>> guys that have been selling the IDiot rubes the creationist ID scam for
>> over 22 years and running the bait and switch on the IDiots for over 15
>> years, finally came out with their best "evidence" list for IDiocy.
>
>
> In 10 years neither Okimoto nor anyone else has succeeded in connecting
> creationism to ID Theory. No one in the forum has been able to make the
> connection. The attempts by some creationists to directly link atheism
> to Darwinism fail for the same reason.

They have always been connected. What planet do you live on? Nearly
all the initial main ID perps are Christian creationists of one type or
another. Kenyon wrote some of the legal briefs for the scientific
creationist Supreme court case. Kenyon was the main author of Of Pandas
and People. Thaxton was the editor of the book, Meyer (the director of
the ID scam unit) wrote the teachers notes, and Behe wrote part of the
book, but was not credited. After the scientific creationist loss in
the Supreme court all the references to creationism were changed to
design or intelligent design. That is a fact that came out in Dover.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Of_Pandas_and_People

Guys like Dembski, Meyer, Kenyon and Behe etc. admit that they are
Christians that believe in their IDiot creator. The Biologic institute
started an Adam and Eve project a couple years ago to demonstrate that
all the genetic variation in the human population could have come from
two people. These guys aren't just creationists, they are Biblical
creationists.

Beats me what Pags thinks about the fact that 5 of the 6 best evidences
for IDiocy were also used by the scientific creationists, and Behe's IC
is nothing but the scientific creationist complexity argument with IC
thrown in. There is no doubt that the scientific creationists had the
flagellum is a designed machine argument long before Behe entered the
picture. It was a part of the Gish gallop in the 1980s. What is
different about the ID creationist scam when they use the same arguments
that the scientific creationists used to use?

>
>
>
>
>> It
>> is sad that it took them this long to admit to what they had, but the
>> IDiots all knew that it couldn't be good because no IDiots ever got the
>> ID science when they have needed it and all they get from the ID perps
>> is an obfuscation creationist switch scam that the ID perps claim has
>> nothing to do with IDiocy. The switch scam basically consists of the
>> old scientific creationist evolution denial arguments that never
>> amounted to any creation science worth calling science over 30 years
>> ago.
>
> Creationists have argued qualitatively that materialistic processes were
> incapable of reaching design.
>
> Behe produced at least three bio-molecular machines that met
> Darwin's falsifier of his theory. Behe's theory falsifies
> Darwin's theory as the universal engine of creation. Behe
> demonstrated with a loose probabilistic argument that Irreducibly
> Complexity is beyond the reach of materialistic processes.
>
> Dembski generalized Behe's result with a rigorous mathematical
> argument applying the accepted Complexity and Probability
> Theories.
>
> No one in the academic community has been able to impeach either theory.
> NO ONE. The Buffoon of T.O certainly hasn't impeached. He's certainly
> made clear he doesn't like it.
>
>
> the rest snipped as useless nonsense.

It doesn't matter what the ID perps have lied about for decades. What
matters is what they actually have, and it turned out to be bogus.
There is nothing that any IDiot can do about it. Do you see Kalk or
Glenn wallowing in the greatness of the "best" evidence for IDiocy? Why
aren't all the IDiots jumping for joy after finally having the best of
IDiocy bestowed upon them? Why are they running away in denial? Why is
an IDiot loser like Pags the only one trying to lie about this junk?
Not just lie, but lie so badly that it is just pathetically sad.

Ron Okimoto

[RonO]

A snorkle should be standard IDiot equipment.

[RonO]

Reality is just what it is. You can't do much about the fact that
evolution happens. It is a fact of nature. I have no control over how
nature works. The mad Dr. can't accept reality. That is obviously his
problem and not mine. Just look at the nut job ramblings above. These
things happen because biological evolution is a fact of nature. We
can't keep evolution from happening short of killing off all life on
earth. the mad Dr. knows that this is a fact and puts up his examples,
but he can't deal with that reality.

It is just a fact that the mad Dr's creationist probability argument
that failed the scientific creationists over 30 years ago did not make
the ID Perp's list of their best that also contained junk that failed
the scientific creationists over 30 years ago. The mad Dr's probability
junk didn't make the grade even by IDiot standards. I can't do anything
about that either. the mad Dr. won't do the calculation that would
demonstrate that he is wrong and he would know why the stupid
creationist probability argument failed over 30 years ago. These
creationist boobs are just that far gone.

Ron Okimoto

[Bob Casanova]

On Sat, 07 Apr 2018 10:58:36 -0500, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by T Pagano <notmya...@dot.com>:

>On Sat, 07 Apr 2018 07:44:26 -0500, RonO wrote:
>
>> This is a pretty sad edition of the By their fruits threads. The anti
>> evolution creationist faction hasn't improved, and seems to be getting
>> worse if that is possible. This is a period where the IDiots likely
>> realized that IDiocy was dead, but all they could do was run in denial
>> of that reality.
>
>
>
>*********SUM TOTAL OF OKIMOTO'S EVIDENCE AGAINST ID THEORY************

There is no "ID Theory". If you disagree, post a synopsis.
No "go read the book by X" allowed.

Since that's all that's required to refute your post, I'll
leave most of the rest alone.

>1. Claims that the judge's ruling in the Dover Court Case toppled ID
>Theory.

Nope; it was solely about the Constitutionality of teaching
a particular religion in public school. And it *was* about
religion; the originators of ID even said so.

> *OKIMOTO BUFFOONERY*: The Dover Court Case was solely about
> whether the Dover School District Curriculum violated the Second
> Amendment. The efficacy and truthlikeness of ID Theory was
> irrelevant.

Wrong; the case had nothing to do with the 2nd Amendment.

>2. Claims that the following evidences for intelligent design offered
>by the Discovery Institute don't specifically mention Dembski's/Behe's ID
>Theory therefore they are abandoned:
> (a) Origin of the Universe
> (b) Fine Tuning of the Universe
> (c) Origin of Information found in DNA
> (d) Origin of Irreducibly Complex Molecular Machines
> (e) Sudden Appearance Humans/Animals

There is no evidence for Intelligent Design, since there is
no objective way to distinguish design from the appearance
of design *except* in things designed by humans.

The balance left in to demonstrate the vacuity of Tony's
beliefs, including the still-undefined "complex specified
information".

--

Bob C.

"The most exciting phrase to hear in science,
the one that heralds new discoveries, is not
'Eureka!' but 'That's funny...'"

- Isaac Asimov

[Rolf]

"RonO" <roki...@cox.net> skrev i melding news:paav6s$409$1...@dont-email.me...

LOL!
Amusing, indeed!

[jonathan]

A typo flame, how jr high.

Yet another one of your memorable 'contributions' to the ng.




--

[jillery]

On Sat, 7 Apr 2018 19:23:39 -0400, jonathan <WriteI...@gmail.com>
wrote:

Your "memorable contributions" disqualify you from complaining about
others' alleged "memorable contributions".

--
I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.

Evelyn Beatrice Hall
Attributed to Voltaire

[T Pagano]

**********************************************************************
[NOTE: Atheist and Secular Science's treatment of the "objective truth"
is important to understanding why secular theories often stagnate. As
such this posting (minus the Okimoto buffoonery) is being broken out as a
new thread.]
**********************************************************************





***HARSHMAN IS GETTING MIGHTY DESPERATE---HIS USUAL STATE OF AFFAIRS****

1. Actually I meant the *First Amendment*, but since all of the atheists
here are under the delusion that the Dover Court judge was adjudicating
between evolutionism and ID Theory most wouldn't even notice the
difference. Harshman apparently under the same delusion noticed the
"Second Amendment" but had no clue what was going on either. Probably
why he crashed&burned in the Theory of Tides debacle.

2. At least when Harshman crashes&burns on Rogers' coattails, Rogers has
offered some false-but-bold, newish idea. Okimoto's rant-ery and rave-
ery against ID Theory is right up there with the Unabomber's manifesto.



*************IS HARSHMAN SUFFERING FROM TRANSFERENCE?*************

On the other hand Harshman appears to be engaging in transference when he
characterizes my use of "truthlikeness" as a "weasel word?" I've always
used "truth" (and its derivatives) objectively-----an attribute
independent of any individual belief. Harshman, atheists and his brand
of secular science abhor the objective truth----the objective truth "is"
the hated weasel.




************ATHEISM, SECULAR SCIENCE AND THE "TRUTH"***************

1. For secular science community (which trained Harshman) the mob rules;
whatever the mob says is "best available" is held as the "consensus"
view. The little guys that buck the consensus are crushed. The objective
truth never enters the scientific discussion. Contradictions (which can
be falsifiers) are ignored, explained away or handled by ad hoc
additions. The Standard Model of Modern Cosmology and Darwinian Theory
are both a patch work of ad hoc additions-----both are franken-theories.

3. Secular scientists (like Harshman) justify mob "consensus" by
(a) by arguing that *level of corroboration* about what can be
seen justifies the claims of universal theories about what cannot be seen
and
(b) by replacing truth with probability.

4. How is this possible when one of their own atheist elite, David Hume,
demonstrated over 250 years ago that 3(a) and 3(b) canNOT justify
anything but shared belief (or delusion). After over 250 years no one
has found where Hume went wrong. Yet secular science has trained Harshman
to employ a form of reasoning Hume showed to be gravely mistaken. Truth
is not the aim of atheism or secular science.

5. Rogers was also at the forefront of trying to rescue atheism and
secular science from this sad state of affairs. In 2010 Rogers asserted
that he had read everything Hume had written on the subject and denied
Hume said any such thing----even though Hume's problem had been known and
referred to as the "Problem of Induction" for at least a century. When
faced with Hume's direct quotes in 2010 and replayed for him this year he
squirmed like a weasel. These are the coattails Harshman rides on.

6. Harshman, as usual, backs the wrong horse. He always did better
sniping from the side lines and never committing himself to anything.
He's never going to weasel out of the stranglehold of the NFL Theorems.
The stranglehold Rogers implied doesn't really exist. Harshman has no
greater hope here than he did with Rogers' untenable Theory of Tides.




"Give me evolution or give me death."
-cried the secular mob

[Bob Casanova]

On Sat, 7 Apr 2018 19:23:39 -0400, the following appeared in
talk.origins, posted by jonathan <WriteI...@gmail.com>:

....says the smugly self-satisfied monomaniac whose posts
consist predominantly of copy/pastes of material he doesn't
understand and insults of nearly everyone in t.o because
they don't acknowledge his "genius".

A real charmer.

And BTW, that wasn't a flame.

>Yet another one of your memorable 'contributions' to the ng.

And yours.

[Andre G. Isaak]

In article <esGdnf1kEbR3YVXH...@giganews.com>,

Well, evilutionists do argue that we descend from quadrapedal ancestors
who arguably didn't have arms. The theory is thus attempting to
retroactively deprive our ancestors of their god-given rights. And from
there it's a slippery slope...

Andre

--
To email remove 'invalid' & replace 'gm' with well known Google mail service.

[*Hemidactylus*]

We were meant to have the right to bear arms. They are wonderful barbecued
and the well regulated militia were a hungry bunch. But a crazy faction has
formed a lobby promoting empty calories:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bear_claw_(pastry)

[RonO]

Some of our earliest (most ancient) single celled ancestors had arms.
They were called pseudopods, but they should make the NRA happy.

Ron Okimoto

[jillery]

God gave our ancestors the right to bear arms, which led many
fundamentalists to insist that bears walked on their arms.

[jillery]

IMO buffalo wings are much tastier than bear claws or bear arms.

[Bob Casanova]

On Sat, 07 Apr 2018 11:53:45 -0700, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off>:

[zencycle]

On Saturday, April 7, 2018 at 1:20:03 PM UTC-4, John Harshman wrote:
> >
> > *OKIMOTO BUFFOONERY*: The Dover Court Case was solely about
> > whether the Dover School District Curriculum violated the Second
> > Amendment. The efficacy and truthlikeness of ID Theory was
> > irrelevant.
>
> Two things, really: "Second Amendment" and "truthlikeness". The second
> is one of Tony's go-to weasel words, but this is the first time I've
> seen him refer to the second amendment. Perhaps it was unintentional?

RE: Second Amendment - He'll likely claim it's about his god-given right to arm bears.

RE: truthlikeness - Much like his refusal to acknowledge that creationism and geocentrism are defunct, he has yet to understand 'truthlikeness' has been supplanted by 'truthiness'.

[zencycle]

On Saturday, April 7, 2018 at 7:25:02 PM UTC-4, jonathan wrote:
>
> A typo flame, how jr high.
>
> Yet another one of your memorable 'contributions' to the ng.
> --

Said the deviant who posts porn to the group....eat shit and die, you little pervert.