The best evidence for intelligent design creationism according to the Discovery Institute.

[RonO]

The saddest thing about the current anti-evolution creationist stupidity
is the abject dishonesty inherent in the creationist movement. There is
no honest intent left. If there were where is it? The bait and switch
just went down on the Utah IDiots that needed the ID science last month.
That can't be denied. All the intelligent design creationist scam is
today is a stupid bait and switch scam that the ID perps are running on
their own creationist support base. No one ever gets the promised ID
science. All they ever get is a stupid obfuscation scam that is
supposed to keep the creationists as ignorant as possible.

Why aren't any IDiot/creationists willing to try to support the latest
claims by the Discovery Institute ID scam artists?

It is crazy that creationists like Eddie, Kalk, and Dean are still
willing to go to the ID scam artists for arguments, but if they ever
really thought that there was something of value there, why not defend
what the ID perps claim is the best evidence for creationism today? Kalk
had the chance, but now his is MIA. This demonstrates the abject
dishonesty of the current ID scam. None of the creationist supporters
care about the evidence. It doesn't matter to them that the bait and
switch keeps going down, and now they can't deny why the bait and switch
is required. There is no ID/creationist science worth teaching.

Years ago it was the same situation. The ID perps had been claiming
that there was some ID science to teach in the public schools for years.
I went over to ARN (the marketing arm of the ID perps where they sell
their junk on the web). ARN had a discussion group supporting ID. The
IDiot supporters all claimed that the ID science existed, but no one
seemed to know what it was. Some of the IDiots at ARN were still
arguing about flood geology and the age of the earth. By 2002 IDiocy
had taken over from the failure of scientific creationism, and the first
big test was The Ohio state board of education. There was a Colloquy
discussion on teaching ID in Ohio and some of the ID perps participated
in the Colloquy discussion, but no one let on that the bait and switch
was going to go down. The IDiot supporters were sure that there was
some ID science, but they couldn't say what it was. Senator Santorum
wrote his Newspaper opinion piece claiming that the science of ID was
going to finally have it's day in Ohio. Philip Johnson bloged that the
ID science was going to shine in Ohio and cited Santorum's editorial.
After the bait and switch went down and no ID science was given to the
Ohio rubes Wells wrote up a report on the Ohio fiasco and claimed in the
report that the Discovery Institute ID perps had gotten together before
they went to Ohio, and they decided to run the bait and switch instead
of give the Ohio rubes the promised ID science.

When it was evident that the bait and switch had gone down and no ID
science had made an appearance there was just abject denial at ARN. Just
like here and now on TO. None of the IDiots wanted to face reality.
Mike Gene was the only one who admitted that he had given up on teaching
the junk years before, but Mike Gene had been among the most notable
supporters of the ID creationist scam. Mike Gene has admitted that
there never was any ID science since then, but that hasn't changed his
religious opinions.

So why not face reality?

The Discovery Institute has finally put up their best evidence for
intelligent design creationism. They should have put it up years ago,
but that was never an option when they were claiming to have the ID
science. Now they have removed the claim that they have a scientific
theory of ID to teach in the public schools from their education policy,
and they have decided to come clean. They seem to take pains not to
claim that this is scientific evidence even though they have been
claiming to work on the ID science for over two decades.

The bottom line is that this list means that the ID perps have not made
any progress in the 22 years of the existence of the ID scam unit at the
Discovery Institute. All of this evidence existed before the modern ID
scam was taken up by creationist supporters. Is there any excuse for
the abject denial of the creationist contingent on this newsgroup at
this time? The utter dishonesty should be apparent to even the most
incompetent and ignorant. This is the best and no creationist wants to
own it. Just like no IDiots wanted to admit what the bait and switch
scam meant 15 years ago. Now, there is no excuse.

https://groups.google.com/d/msg/talk.origins/7PsjXfKQvsc/Qw1IMjGJCwAJ

The evidence isn't listed by priority. They admit that it is listed by
order of occurrence. This order spans over 13 billion years of the
history of the universe as we know it. The Big Bang happened over 13
billion years ago. The fine tuning of the universe would have happened
then and when our solar system was forming out of spent star dust around
5 billion years ago. DNA may have been used as the genetic material
probably over 3 billion years ago. Behe's first IC system (the
bacterial flagellum) may have evolved a billion and a half years ago
while his claims about the immune system and blood clotting system would
have evolved around half a billion years ago. Behe doesn't claim any
more recent IC systems and it has been all evolution since around 400
million years ago as far as Behe can tell. The origin of animals that
they are talking about occurred after the evolution of the flagellum,
but over half a billion years ago. ID perps such as Meyer like to talk
about a 20 million year time period over half a billion years ago called
the Cambrian explosion. This is when many major animal phyla got their
start in the fossil record. The Human evolution evidence that they are
talking about is within the last 10 million years of earth's history.
This time table is one of the reasons why most creationists likely don't
like this evidence. This is the best that the Discovery Institute
creationists have come up with in 22 years of effort.

Number 1: The Big Bang. This is the closest thing to a creation event
that science has come up with, but the major creationist support base
for IDiocy do not want to believe that the Big Bang ever happened. It
is one of the science topics that they are always trying to remove from
the public school science standards. It looks like a creation event,
but it isn't the creationist's type of creation event. So what kind of
evidence is this for intelligent design creationism? The IDiots should
be hashing this out among themselves. Why would it be considered to be
in the top 10 when the main IDiot support base do not want to believe
that it ever happened?

Number 2: The fine tuning of the universe. This is a non starter
because we don't really have any evidence for fine tuning. Things are
just the way that they are, and we don't know of any way to change them.
If the multiverse notions are correct we don't observe evidence of any
universes that don't have our laws of nature. In the scientific
community the fine tuning argument hasn't reached the level of being
called scientific, and has led nowhere and has not produced any
productive science. This is a proposal that has led nowhere in science,
so what kind of evidence is it for creationism?

Number 3: The origin of information in DNA and the origin of life. These
are likely two separate events because evidence looking at the
translation system (how DNA is transcribed into RNA and then translated
into protein) indicates that the translation system existed before the
use of DNA as the genetic material. One current alternatives is that
RNA came first and functioned as both enzymatic activity and information
storage. Ribosomes (translation machinery) still contain catalytic RNA
and other ribozymes are known. There could have been messenger RNA, but
something other than proteins may have been involved in charging the
tRNAs with specific amino acids because the proteins that do the
charging today evolved after the genetic code evolved. This all fits
because how would we make the proteins to charge the tRNAs without the
genetic code? We can tell this because the two major types of tRNA
charging enzymes evolved from the same piece of DNA, but were coded from
opposite strands. This is evident because there is a highly conserved
sequence that we can tell existed because the two types of genes have
the complementary sequence conserved in the three base codons of the
current genetic code. The code would have had to exist before the DNA
based protein charging enzymes existed. There is a lot that we
obviously don't know, but creationists know even less in terms of
scientific evidence. Look up the recent threads on abiogenesis if you
don't believe that. What the creationist need to do is put up their
alternative and the evidence for it side by side and compare the two,
but they can't because they do not have any equivalent evidence. That
is just a fact.

Number 4: Irreducible Complexity. This is pretty sad because Behe's
type of IDiot irreducible complexity has never been determined to exist
in nature, so what kind of evidence could it possibly be? The type of
irreducibly complex systems where you take away a part and the system
stops doing its normal function was predicted to be a consequence of
biological evolution and Behe agrees that systems like a tree branch
falling between two rocks (a lever and fulcrum) is not his type of IC
system even though it meets that criteria. In Behe's response to his
critics at the turn of the century Behe made sure that his type of IC
could not be evaluated. He claimed that there was something called "well
matched" that his systems had to have enough of, but Behe never
determined how to measure well matched so he could never tell if any
system had enough of it. He also claimed to his critics that the
number, order and arrangement of mutations required to evolve his
systems was important, but Behe never identified the mutations that were
required nor did he ever determine the order and arrangement of such
mutations. IC was still born and never amounted to anything. It is
just sad that it makes the top 6 and not specified complexity, or
complex specified information or the new IDiot law of thermodynamics
that was supposed to support ID. Dembski agreed that space alien
designers was the most scientific IDiot alternative, but it didn't make
the top 6. Like IC none of this IDiocy ever panned out and it all
amounted to nothing. It should be noted that this is the only piece of
"evidence" produced by an IDiot, and Behe came up with it before the
Discovery Institute ID scam unit existed. He published it in the second
edition of Pandas and People in 1993. So even if you count IC, as
worthless as it is, the ID perps have obviously made zero progress in 22
years of running the creationist ID scam.

Number 5: The origin of animals. The scientific creationists used to
make claims about the Cambrian explosion over 30 years ago. This is
another line of evidence that the creationists do not want to believe.
The major faction of IDiot supporters do not want to believe that the
Cambrian explosion ever happened. There is evidence both fossil and
molecular that animal phyla did not all evolve during the Cambrian
explosion. Cnidarian fossils predate that time and some phyla evolved
after the "explosion" event. The evolution of animals is much more
complex than IDiots are being told. When Meyer talks about the order of
appearance of animal phyla he is talking about a much longer period of
time than just the 20 million year period of what is called the
explosion. He is also talking about 20 million years in terms of the
order within the explosion and that doesn't sit well with the major
creationist support base for the ID scam. For the IDiot argument to
hold water science would have to accurately date the event to within a
20 million year period over half a billion years ago. The dating of the
event has gotten more accurate with time, but that is the issue with the
major creationist support base for IDiocy. They don't want to talk
about evidence for anything that happened over half a billion years ago,
and they definitely don't want t hear about something that took 20
million years to accomplish.

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

Number 6: The origin of humans. This is sadder than putting IC in as
evidence. This is essentially the same "no transitional fossils in the
human lineage" argument that the scientific creationists were using over
30 years ago when we didn't have as many fossils in the human lineage,
and even the fossils that we had then messed up the scientific
creationists who couldn't decide which fossils were human and which were
apes. Some fossils were considered to be apes by some creation
scientists and humans by other. They were obviously transitional even
then. To deny reality like the ID perps have to do today is tragically
dishonest and lame. The level of denial that this "evidence" takes is
so outrageous that it is difficult to believe that the ID perps would
even put it on the list. When creationists can't decide what is human
and what is not how could this argument hold water? The abrupt
transition between humans and apes that is needed for this argument does
not exist.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Differences of creationist classifications:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/a_erectus.html

This is it. The 6 best that the creationists have come up with in the
last 22 years of effort, and they all existed as lame creationist
arguments before the Discovery Institute ID scam unit started in 1995.
Zero progress in the last two decades of effort. That has to be sad in
anyone's book. This was a time of the most rapid advances in the
history of science, and the ID perps managed to accomplish nothing in
terms of ID science. The tragic thing is that there was science that
IDiots could have done pertaining to their alternative, but they refused
to do it because they obviously did not want to know the answers.

This is the best that the creationist have as determined by 22 years of
effort by the "science" minded ID perps at the Discovery Institute.
Isn't it time for the creationists to put up their alternative and
determine where science can be applied to it instead of indulging in
this type of lame stupidity? If you aren't interested in what science
can tell you, why are you arguing about the science? Dishonesty is so
ingrained in the current creationist mentality that all of them can just
let reality slide off and continue to be as dishonest as they are.
Shouldn't that change? Creationists own this evidence. It is all they
have come up with in decades of effort, so what is next?

Ron Okimoto

[JTEM is my hero]

Ron O wrote:

> Why aren't any IDiot/creationists willing to try to support the latest
> claims by the Discovery Institute ID scam artists?

So the claims are bad -- rank dishonesty -- and
they're idiots for not supporting them...

Wow. You're a mess.




-- --

http://jtem.tumblr.com/post/168369916158

[J.LyonLayden]

The word count on this one is 2600.

Nanowrimo is over.

I have no idea who any of those organizations are so I stopped reading after two sentences.

[RonO]

On 12/11/2017 12:05 AM, JTEM is my hero wrote:
> Ron O wrote:
>
>> Why aren't any IDiot/creationists willing to try to support the latest
>> claims by the Discovery Institute ID scam artists?
>
> So the claims are bad -- rank dishonesty -- and
> they're idiots for not supporting them...
>
> Wow. You're a mess.

JTEM you are the mess. Why not defend what the creationists claim is
the best evidence that they have? This is the number one IDiot group
around and this is all they have come up with in the 22 years of their
organization. They should have and could have put up this list from the
beginning, but they obviously could not and still claim to have any
science worth teaching in the public schools. This is why the Discovery
Institute has never put up their lesson plan for teaching IDiocy. There
literally is nothing that they can teach.

Denial is stupid and dishonest. This is the best that creationists have
and they all want to deny reality and go on as if this doesn't matter.
Why not try to do something honest and rational? Why is that not an
option for you and the rest? Why would denial and lying to themselves
be the only way to go?

Ron Okimoto

>
> -- --
>
> http://jtem.tumblr.com/post/168369916158
>

[RonO]

You would know if you took the time to understand what was being
discussed around here. The Discovery Institute started their ID
creationist scam unit in 1995. Intelligent design creationism was
necessary after the court losses of scientific creationism in the 1980's.

https://www.discovery.org/id/

The intelligent design movement eventually took over from the other
failed creationist efforts by the turn of the century. Public school
creationist groups started taking up the ID scam instead of scientific
creationism. Utah last month was the last group of creationist rubes
that the Discovery Institute had to run the bait and switch on. They
wanted to teach the science of ID, but all they are going to get,
according to the Discovery Institute, is the switch scam that doesn't
mention that ID ever existed. You don't hear much about scientific
creationism any more because the ID perps have consistently claimed that
they are not scientific creationists even though some of them were
scientific creationists and participated in that historical episode.
They obviously are still using the scientific creationist arguments.
All 6 of the above "evidence" were used by the scientific creationists.
Even Behe's IC boils down to the old creationist complexity argument
because it turned out that the irreducible part could evolve and Behe
doesn't consider most irreducible systems to be his type of IC.
Minnich's test of removing parts and altering the function of a system
was decades old and none of the bacterial systems studied in that way
are considered to be Behe's type of IC except for the flagellum. Beadle
and Tatum got the Nobel Prize for their research of the 1930's using the
technique Minnich used to study the flagellum. The systems that they
studied by taking away parts and stopping the system from working are
not considered to be Behe's type of IC. So Behe literally has nothing
but the complexity argument left.

ARN is the sales arm of the Discovery Institute ID perps. It is where
they sell their books and videos. Philip Johnson used to have a blog
there and they used to have a pro ID discussion group. There hasn't
been anything to discuss about ID so that discussion group faded away
probably over a decade ago sometime after the court loss of IDiocy.

http://www.arn.org/

So the ID perps are "the" creationist thinkers in the modern era.
These top 6 pieces of "evidence" are what they have come up with in 22
years of effort. They actually call their group a "think Tank" but not
much thinking has been going on for the last 22 years.

There used to be a "scientific" organization of IDiots that was called
the ISCID, but it folded up in 2008 after failure of IDiocy in the courts.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Society_for_Complexity,_Information,_and_Design

There was another IDiot organization made up of "academics" called the
ID Network, but it died in 2009 because it was difficult to sell the
switch scam that doesn't mention that ID ever existed with ID in the
name of your organization. They seem to have changed their name to COPE
so that they could sell the creationist switch scam.

http://www.intelligentdesignnetwork.org/

It is sad that ignorance is one of the driving forces to keep the
stupidity going.

So you are looking at the best that the creationists have to offer and
none of the creationists in this group want to own it. That is how sad
the creationist side of this issue is at this time. Guys like Kalk,
Dean, and Eddie are stalwart IDiots that pretty much worship the ID
perps at the Discovery Institute. Nyikos was one of the first IDiots
(at the turn of the century) early on and still puts in his two cents
about IC every once in a while. Bill used to be an IDiot, but he claims
that he is no longer an IDiot. He just likes the switch scam that
IDiocy evolved into because that is all he can think of to do.

Alpha beta and Maggsey should wonder why their great scientific
creationist junk didn't make the list They should also wonder why they
are even bothering with the failed scientific creationist junk decades
after it came up short and had to be replaced by the ID scam.

Ron Okimoto

[Peter Nyikos]

You're slipping, Ron O. Your Pavlov-dog-type salivation in response
to replies by me to you has dried up in the wake of the following
reply by me to you:

https://groups.google.com/d/msg/talk.origins/8XOP-k1T-90/VlmAQ3TTCAAJ
Subject: Re: A Warning fro Those Who Think John Harshman Has Any Modern Knowledge
Date: Wed, 6 Dec 2017 14:12:09 -0800 (PST)
Message-ID: <99afaa2a-30fc-4dd2...@googlegroups.com>

In fact, you've "run away" from that entire thread since I hit you
with that reply, just one day after you posted a one-liner designed
to denigrate me.

Below, I reply to a lot of points you made the first time around, then
hit your most recent post, a reply to J.LyonLayden, whom you had suggested
was a sock puppet of mine in that one-liner.

On Monday, December 11, 2017 at 7:25:06 AM UTC-5, Ron O wrote:
> On 12/11/2017 2:10 AM, J.LyonLayden wrote:
> > On Sunday, December 10, 2017 at 9:30:02 PM UTC-5, Ron O wrote:
> >> The saddest thing about the current anti-evolution creationist stupidity
> >> is the abject dishonesty inherent in the creationist movement.

I have never seen you provide any that occurred since the beginning
of the 2005 Dover trial.

You are still reliving the glory days where someone who claimed to be
a former DI member claimed that the DI promised in 2002 to bring evidence
of ID READY TO BE PRESENTED IN PUBLIC SCHOOLS AS A RIVAL TO EVOLUTION
to a forum in Ohio.

The all caps are there because you keep weasel wording what the
alleged "bait" was by leaving key details out.

All the documentary evidence of such a promise that you've provided
was a comment by Meyer even earlier in connection with the Wedge
document. IIRC it was a prediction that the evidence would be
strong enough in 5 years, and an agenda for implementing that
evidence as described in the all caps.

A leading creationist, Phillip Johnson, who had had a leading role
in formulating that Wedge document later (but still before 2010
and maybe before 2005) admitted in a "jaw-dropping" Berkeley
interview that the ID movement was not that far along and probably
wouldn't be for a very long time, and so that project had been
shelved.

> >> There is
> >> no honest intent left.

There is plenty of honest intent, but it is now focused on the great
weakness of evolutionary THEORY. This theory is NOT the overwhelming
proof-beyond-a-reasonable-doubt of common descent of metazoans, but
a theory trying to EXPLAIN how and why this spectacular common descent
could reasonably have occurred in the evident time of 600 million years.

Evolutionary theory has had over six (6) times as long to ripen
as what is known as ID theory, yet it is still basically a
theory of microevolution within populations, with disjointed
smatterings here and there of macroevolutionary theory.



> >> If there were where is it?

If there were a well developed MACROevolutionary theory, where is it?

> >>The bait and switch
> >> just went down on the Utah IDiots that needed the ID science last month.

I never tire of telling you: there is no switch if there was no
bait to begin with.

Can you point to ANY bait endorsed by the DI since Johnson issued
that jaw-dropping admission? I have never seen you provide any.

> >> That can't be denied. All the intelligent design creationist scam is
> >> today is a stupid bait and switch scam that the ID perps are running on
> >> their own creationist support base. No one ever gets the promised ID
> >> science.

The ACTUAL promise is obsolete. And I note how you weasel worded the
issue which I laid out in all caps. There is plenty of ID science,
but it is not ripe enough to present in high school or even in college.

But that is the SAME stage at which macroevolutionary theory is, despite
a fivefold head start on ID theory.

> >> All they ever get is a stupid obfuscation scam that is
> >> supposed to keep the creationists as ignorant as possible.

By your hate-driven standards, the same is true of macroevolutionary
theory.

> >> Why aren't any IDiot/creationists willing to try to support the latest
> >> claims by the Discovery Institute ID scam artists?

Because they are not on a level READY TO BE PRESENTED IN PUBLIC SCHOOLS
AS A RIVAL TO EVOLUTION. [The repetition of the all caps is for the
benefit of the scrolling-impaired.]

> >> Years ago it was the same situation. The ID perps had been claiming
> >> that there was some ID science to teach in the public schools for years.

Which ones? The IDiots in Dover whom the DI actively tried to
discourage from making a disclaimer mandatory for all public
school teachers?

> >> I went over to ARN (the marketing arm of the ID perps where they sell
> >> their junk on the web). ARN had a discussion group supporting ID. The
> >> IDiot supporters all claimed that the ID science existed, but no one
> >> seemed to know what it was. Some of the IDiots at ARN were still
> >> arguing about flood geology and the age of the earth. By 2002 IDiocy
> >> had taken over from the failure of scientific creationism, and the first
> >> big test was The Ohio state board of education. There was a Colloquy
> >> discussion on teaching ID in Ohio and some of the ID perps participated
> >> in the Colloquy discussion, but no one let on that the bait and switch
> >> was going to go down.

And the best evidence you provided for it "going down" was that
allegation by a former ID supporter. Not a very stout peg to hang
15 years of crowing "the bait and switch went down" in hundreds
of posts of yours.

In most of the ones I've seen, you either weasel worded the part
I put in all caps, or left it out altogether.

<snip of more blather about Ohio>


> >> The Disovery Institute has finally put up their best evidence for

> >> intelligent design creationism. They should have put it up years ago,
> >> but that was never an option when they were claiming to have the ID
> >> science.

Weasel wording noted.

> >> Now they have removed the claim that they have a scientific
> >> theory of ID to teach in the public schools

Still weasel worded; see all caps for the real issue.

And you NEVER even tried to prove that this statement, which
had primarily to do with the constitutional RIGHT of a public school
teacher to mention argument for ID in class, was the "bait"
which is in all caps.

Even Robert Camp, who hates me almost as much as you do, had
to admit that there was little evidence of such a bait.

But you are as perversely illogical as Ray Martinez, and
so you tried to make it look like this admission was
NEGATED by the fact that Camp also hates the DI.

A sane adult would admit that this fact actually
STRENGTHENED Camp's admission. It was almost as "jaw-dropping"
as Johnson's admission that the all caps project was on
long-term hold.

> >>from their education policy,
> >> and they have decided to come clean.

About something Johnson already came clean on, you obfuscator.


<huge snip to get to what Joe wrote and you wrote in reply>

> >
> > The word count on this one is 2600.

And some of it is guilt by association, pretending that
the ID movement is a branch of creationism.

But Behe, arguably the founder of the modern ID movement,
is not a creationist of the "God poofed species into existence"
sort, not even an OEC. He acknowledges the overwhelming
evidence for common descent but is ALSO very critical of
evolutionary THEORY, and rightly so.

> > Nanowrimo is over.
> >
> > I have no idea who any of those organizations are so I stopped reading after two sentences.

The Discovery Institute is a proving ground and repository of
the ID movement.

Behe is NOT a member, and the DI even got his main claim about IC
(Irreducible Complexity) wrong. He is merely someone to whom the
DI refers inquisitive people, and is given an honorary title to
go with that role.


Concluded in next reply, to be done soon after I have seen
that this one has posted.


Peter Nyikos
Professor, Dept. of Mathematics -- standard disclaimer--
University of South Carolina

[Peter Nyikos]

On Monday, December 11, 2017 at 7:25:06 AM UTC-5, Ron O wrote:

repeated for context from first reply:

> > Nanowrimo is over.
> >
> > I have no idea who any of those organizations are so I stopped reading after two sentences.

> You would know if you took the time to understand what was being
> discussed around here. The Discovery Institute started their ID
> creationist scam unit in 1995. Intelligent design creationism

There you go again with your guilt by association.

You justify it with a sneaky definition of creationism that is
NOT the one generally understood in talk.origins. YOURS is simply
the definition that labels anyone a creationist who believes
in a God that did some creating, say by bringing the universe
into existence at the moment of the Big Bang.


You allege that you are a creationist yourself on those grounds,
but you have NEVER said what the creator in which you believe
did and did not poof into existence.

Worse yet, no one can tell what you believe about this hypothetical
creator. You are a member of some branch of the Methodist Church,
but your maniacal hatred of the DI for its promotion of an embryonic
biological design theory suggests that you are a Trojan Horse instead
of someone who sincerely believes in the God of the Bible.

> was
> necessary after the court losses of scientific creationism in the 1980's.
>
> https://www.discovery.org/id/
>
> The intelligent design movement eventually took over from the other
> failed creationist efforts by the turn of the century. Public school
> creationist groups started taking up the ID scam instead of scientific
> creationism. Utah last month was the last group of creationist rubes

> that the Discovery Institute had to run the bait and switch on.

WHAT bait? You can't even trot out a quote by anyone that
the DI was providing bait to those "rubes", can you?

<snip>

> Even Behe's IC boils down to the old creationist complexity argument
> because it turned out that the irreducible part could evolve

More weasel wording. The irreducible part of WHAT, pray tell?

It is true of the clotting cascade and of the immune system
cascade, but those are radically different from the IC challenge
presented by the bacterial flagellum.

> and Behe
> doesn't consider most irreducible systems to be his type of IC.

Yes, and so it is NOT the old creationist idea of complexity, liar.

> Minnich's test of removing parts and altering the function of a system
> was decades old

Glittering generalities like this do nothing for your maniacal
anti-ID campaign.

> and none of the bacterial systems studied in that way
> are considered to be Behe's type of IC except for the flagellum.

Behe chooses his ground well. All you can do to attack it is to
provide more evidence that his is NOT the old creationist idea.

> Beadle
> and Tatum got the Nobel Prize for their research of the 1930's using the
> technique Minnich used to study the flagellum. The systems that they
> studied by taking away parts and stopping the system from working are
> not considered to be Behe's type of IC. So Behe literally has nothing
> but the complexity argument left.

The Martinez-style illogic here is stupefying.

<snip>

> There was another IDiot organization made up of "academics" called the
> ID Network, but it died in 2009 because it was difficult to sell the
> switch scam

This is one of your favorite weasel wordings. In fact it is a
bait and switch of YOURS. After promising evidence of a bait and
switch scam, you pull the very kind of switch that you allege of
the ID theorists, by talking only of a "swsitch scam".

More importantly, every time I asked you for evidence of bait
that is better than that pathetically irrelevant bit about
constitutional rights, you only ever gave mountains of evidence
of what you call the "switch" half of the alleged scam, as
though that somehow proved that there was a BAIT AND switch SCAM.

> So you are looking at the best that the creationists have to offer

The only "creationist" for whom that is true is yourself. And
it's a truly pathetic best.


<snip>

> Nyikos was one of the first IDiots
> (at the turn of the century) early on

I am an agnostic, and the ONLY biological intelligent design hypothesis
that I take seriously is the Crick-Orgel hypothesis that has to do with
the beginning of life ON EARTH. The designers of 3.5+ billion
years ago that are part of this hypothesis were NOT supernatural.

When I returned to talk.origins in 2010, you saw that I was
supporting (though not claiming) this hypothesis and you
were so anxious to make me a whipping boy for the DI that
it never sank into your hate-ravaged mind that my "designers"
were NOT supernatural and that I believed in common descent.

So don't you dare claim that I am
on the side of "ID creationism".

> and still puts in his two cents
> about IC every once in a while.

It is YOU and rubes parroting all the misrepresentations
of IC that put in their two cents' worth, give or take
a couple of cents. They keep me quite busy correcting
the gargantuan pile of misrepresentations out there.

Peter Nyikos
Professor, Dept. of Mathematics -- standard disclaimer--
University of South Carolina

http://people.math.sc.edu/nyikos/

> Beadle
> and Tatum got the Nobel Prize for their research of the 1930's using the
> technique Minnich used to study the flagellum. The systems that they
> studied by taking away parts and stopping the system from working are
> not considered to be Behe's type of IC. So Behe literally has nothing

[J.LyonLayden]

On Monday, December 11, 2017 at 7:25:06 AM UTC-5, Ron O wrote:

This brings the word count up to 2758 in 24 hours time for Ron's Manifesto Against Christianity." I think Ron will hit 50,000 within two weeks. Then he can publish a book as worthless as any by Richard Dawkins.

He's already written enough for a set of encyclopedias I'm sure, but I only just returned to this forum.

[RonO]

On 12/11/2017 10:19 AM, Peter Nyikos wrote:
> You're slipping, Ron O. Your Pavlov-dog-type salivation in response
> to replies by me to you has dried up in the wake of the following
> reply by me to you:
>
> https://groups.google.com/d/msg/talk.origins/8XOP-k1T-90/VlmAQ3TTCAAJ
> Subject: Re: A Warning fro Those Who Think John Harshman Has Any Modern Knowledge
> Date: Wed, 6 Dec 2017 14:12:09 -0800 (PST)
> Message-ID: <99afaa2a-30fc-4dd2...@googlegroups.com>
>
> In fact, you've "run away" from that entire thread since I hit you
> with that reply, just one day after you posted a one-liner designed
> to denigrate me.
>
> Below, I reply to a lot of points you made the first time around, then
> hit your most recent post, a reply to J.LyonLayden, whom you had suggested
> was a sock puppet of mine in that one-liner.

Sorry I missed this post. This is a good enough time to repost the post
that wards off the evil spirits. It is time For Nyikos to run from
reality. I hope it is a long trip.

Layden could likely benefit from this post because it has the history of
the ID scam bait and switch in it.

Nyikos has been lying about this junk since 2010 and it has nothing much
to do with his spat with Harshman.

REPOST:
It looks like Nyikos has started to run again and there is no doubt that
�tomorrow� has not come in terms of the posts that Nyikos claimed that
he would relentlessly pursue.  The pattern has been the same for years,
and it has been stupid and ridiculous for years.  Nyikos has some weird
insane notion that he has never lied on the internet and that he has
never lost an exchange on the internet.  These stupid lies seem to drive
him to keep going back to his old stupidity where he has lied or just
been plain wrong so that he can continue some weird type of denial of
reality.  Nyikos has a personal definition of running that includes not
answering a post for over two months, so he has to keep pestering me
every couple of months in order for him to continue his insane denial of
reality.  This is the boob who early on (years ago) accused me of
running from a post for two whole weeks when there was no reason that I
should have even known that the post existed because he had posted it to
someone else.  This is the type of projection of his own stupidity that
Nyikos has to indulge in, in order to continue his senseless denial.

I have decided that instead of having to deal with the same old, same
old over and over that I will just take advantage of the latest Nykosian
denial to put together a post that I can just repost when Nyikos starts
posting to me again.  I have had to look up and link to some of the
first material that Nyikos had to run from and deny so instead of
continuing to have to look the junk up just to have Nyikos run again, I
will just start reposting this post.

Nyikos started to harass me again after months of running in this thread:
Why do the ID perps run the bait and switch scam on their own
creationist (9/10/14)
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/talk.origins/38nQm79NC94/VLf_vGDImnIJ

He had to start lying about the past as usual, so I demonstrated that he
was lying and he decided to run, but as is also usually the case he had
to pretend to be addressing the posts so he lied to Glenn that he would
address the material that he is still running from �tomorrow,� but
tomorrow obviously has not come.  It is like his ploy where he claims
that he will "continue" but runs from the material that he has deleted.

One of the posts Nyikos had run from (9/13/14):
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/talk.origins/38nQm79NC94/00GyMLoAhDcJ

It is obvious that Nyikos had to run from this post because when the
same evidence has been put up in other posts he has snipped it out and
run or just run.  He has failed to address this evidence multiple times.

The Nyikosian lie to Glenn about tomorrow (9/16/14):
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/talk.origins/38nQm79NC94/vOPLiVKsp4kJ

QUOTE:
Ron O has really ramped up his campaign of deceit against me on this
thread. I won't have time for it until tomorrow, Glenn, but I will
relentlessly pursue him on this thread. One thing I should explain
now, though. Back at a time when Hemidactylus gave the appearance of
sincerity, I promised him I would only reply to Ron O very sparingly
from that point on.

But Hemidactylus has gone off the deep end, and he now is completely
on Ron O's side despite having tried to look above it all in the past.

So I consider myself released from my promise: it is quite possible
that he only held off revealing what a toady he is of Ron O because
I kept to my promise, but his irrational hatred for me caused him to cast
caution to the winds.

Peter Nyikos
END QUOTE:

Poor Hemi.  Nyikos harassed him for years with his claims that his
knockdowns were still coming, and Nyikos will not even tell me what the
last knockdown was supposed to be and give me a link to the post.  Now
Glenn will have to deal with the tomorrow that never came.

Instead of address the posts that Nyikos claimed that he would
relentlessly pursue Nyikos started to lie about the issues in new posts
even after I noted his claim above, so I took some time and looked up
the old evidence that Nyikos had run from years ago.

Wells on the Ohio Bait and Switch in 2002 (9/21/14)
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/talk.origins/H2Sw6NFIi4s/c7cRQzCvA2YJ

It wasn�t a futile exercise because I learned something that I had not
known before.  I found a report that Wells had written (likely for the
other ID perps at the Discovery Institute) where he admits that Meyer
and he in consultation with others had decided to run the bait and
switch on the Ohio rubes before they went to Ohio.  Their presentation
on the science of intelligent design was just for show, and Wells�
comment to the Ohio board that there was enough scientific support for
ID that it could be required to be taught in the Ohio public schools was
just bogus propaganda because they had no intention of providing the ID
science for the creationist rubes to teach.  The ID perps sold the rubes
the ID scam and then only gave them a stupid obfuscation switch scam
that did not even mention that ID had ever existed.  I will also note
that the addition to the Discovery Institute�s education policy
qualifier, that they did not want ID required to be taught in the public
schools, was not added until after the Ohio bait and switch.  I noticed
that they had added it sometime around the Dover fiasco.  The copy of
their education policy that was in their 2007 Dover propaganda pamphlet
definitely had the �required� qualification.

This is a post where I link to the old posts where Nyikos was running in
denial about being wrong about the Ohio bait and switch and the
Discovery Institute�s involvement from 2011.
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/talk.origins/H2Sw6NFIi4s/IfNy4J5a4pEJ

Dover propaganda pamphlet on why intelligent design science could still
be taught in the public schools:
http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/filesDB-download.php?command=download&id=1453


Trying to find new issues to misdirect the argument to, Nyikos started
making bogus claims about another old thread even after he had snipped
and ran from the obvious explanation twice.

Unnoted change in policy at the Discovery Institute. (9/1/13)
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/talk.origins/_UKCQLy_THM/LS3yPcug9t8J

The issue was what I believed that Glenn was arguing in this thread.  I
at first thought that Glenn was adding to the evidence that the
education policy had changed from what it was.  The pamphlet that he put
up had the old education policy in it and contained the paragraph about
teaching the scientific theory of intelligent design that the Discovery
Institute had removed.  It was the perfect example of how the education
policy had changed.  When he started some weird negative campaign I
thought that he was claiming that the education policy had not changed
and he was using the Dover pamphlet to do it.  I informed him that he
could not use a document that had been updated in 2009 to deny something
that the Discovery Institute had recently done, but he kept up his
nonsensical argument.  Glenn now claims that he was not talking about
the education policy shift, but was only trying to claim that the ID
perps were still selling the ID is science scam.  How could he use a 4
year old document to claim that?  It also makes no sense to me because I
would have agreed with Glenn that the ID scam was going to continue.
There would have been no reason for us to argue if Glenn had been
clearer on what he was doing.  It doesn�t matter for Nyikos because
Nyikos denies that the ID perps claim to have the ID science in that
pamphlet, so he is wrong no matter what Glenn was arguing.

Nyikos Snipping and running from this reality:
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/talk.origins/38nQm79NC94/FawHtAIHPFoJ

Nyikos removing what he cannot deal with again in a post manipulation
that you have to compare to the above post to understand the stupidity
of what Nyikos does.  This post really is a monument to the stupidity
that Nyikos indulges in.
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/talk.origins/38nQm79NC94/TeXllwSwW0MJ

Nyikos has not addressed this post in the original policy change thread:
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/talk.origins/_UKCQLy_THM/NLk50v_IujsJ

Nyikos claims that I did not respond to his post, but I gave him the link:
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/talk.origins/38nQm79NC94/mR2PtcMGS_8J

It has been a vacation of sorts for me, but likely hell for other
posters in the months that Nyikos was running and just lying about his
escapades to other posters.  I will just note the last instance of
harassment that Nyikos should try to deal with instead of running like
he did.

Nyikos� previous harassment thread:
By their Fruits May 2014 (5/22/14)
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/talk.origins/ttHhTTke_zE/3eaOhuIMGm8J

Nyikos started the above thread to harass me, but it backfired on him
because of his own stupid dishonesty, and he had to delete his post that
he started the thread with from my responses in order to keep lying.  He
removed his original post twice from the discussion because he could not
defend his bogus tactics.  Nyikos is that sad.  Nyikos really has the
toddler mentality that if he pulls the blanket over his head no one can
see him.  It is a weird delusional quirk that drives him to remove the
evidence from a post so that he can continue to deny reality.

By their Fruits March 2014
The thread that spawned the harassment thread.
Giving Nyikos some advice that he should have taken:
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/talk.origins/1MGKcHaFVtI/6fiXahJH9fMJ

My response to what Nyikos did:
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/talk.origins/1MGKcHaFVtI/vKg4Lu0kxB0J

Nyikos ran and started the harassment thread.

I realize that Nyikos is likely going to run and just harass other
posters with his stupid denial of reality, but I can�t do anything about
Nyikos except to expose the liar when he posts to me and get him to
leave me alone for a few weeks or months.  Just imagine what a hell it
would be if I followed Nyikos around TO with a pooper scooper and set
him straight whenever he started lying about me to some other posters.
I am going to save this document onto my desktop for the next time
Nyikos can�t keep himself from his stupid sadistic harassment.  I plan
to just repost it and tell the loon that he can address what he has
already run from before starting something else or lying about the past
some other way.

Ron Okimoto
END REPOST:

[RonO]

A cretin would count the word and not understand any of it.

Ron Okimoto

[JTEM is my hero]

Ron O wrote:

> JTEM you are the mess. Why not defend what the creationists claim is
> the best evidence that they have?

You just said it was shit. Then you scratch
your head & wonder why people don't want to
defend it. Yeah, it's me who's the problem...




-- --

http://jtem.tumblr.com/post/168205831138

[RonO]

On 12/11/2017 6:31 PM, JTEM is my hero wrote:
> Ron O wrote:
>
>> JTEM you are the mess. Why not defend what the creationists claim is
>> the best evidence that they have?
>
> You just said it was shit. Then you scratch
> your head & wonder why people don't want to
> defend it. Yeah, it's me who's the problem...

You are JTEM your own hero, so you shouldn't have a problem with shit.

Ron Okimoto

>
> -- --
>
> http://jtem.tumblr.com/post/168205831138
>

[*Hemidactylus*]

Peter Nyikos <nyi...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>
[snip]

>
> And some of it is guilt by association, pretending that
> the ID movement is a branch of creationism.
>
> But Behe, arguably the founder of the modern ID movement,
> is not a creationist of the "God poofed species into existence"
> sort, not even an OEC. He acknowledges the overwhelming
> evidence for common descent but is ALSO very critical of
> evolutionary THEORY, and rightly so.
>

Who can read the above and not think you are a crypto-creationist with a
soft spot for fellow creationists?

[J.LyonLayden]

Why do you think that if someone is critical of one theory, they have to be proponents of another? I'm not sure what Peter means by THEORY, but evolutionary theory is more than one thing as I understand it. I am critical of the importance placed on lack or presence of supraorbital fenestrae, for instance. I am critical of the fact that few take distance between continents into account when deciding between the long-fuse and short-fuse models of placental divergence, for instance.

[jillery]

The individual in question has a long history of exercising his jerky
knees when it comes to associating Creationism with Michael Behe
specifically and ID generally.

It's one thing to be critical of a theory. It's another to dismiss
evidence because it doesn't fit one's preferred worldview.

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

Evelyn Beatrice Hall
Attributed to Voltaire

[J.LyonLayden]

I'd never heard of Behe before this post, but I just read a couple things on him and he seems to be a "god of the gaps" guy.

"Whatever molecular mechanisms may be behind a CCC, empirical data showed that 1020 cells are required in order to produce one. Behe pointed out that if a trait required the molecular equivalent of two CCC’s before providing any advantage, then that would pose major problems for Darwinian evolution."

I'm not sure it poses problems for Darwinian evolution, as I understand the term, but it does point out a "gap" I might not have been alerted to before.

My "go to" is often assimilation or introgression, but I'm digging these "coding proteins" I've been hearing Ron talk about as well.

But my question is...would Ron be as angry at me if I claimed "morphic resonance" for the anomaly instead?

[JTEM is my hero]

Ron O wrote:

> JTEM is my hero wrote:
> > Ron O wrote:
> >
> >> JTEM you are the mess. Why not defend what the creationists claim is
> >> the best evidence that they have?
> >
> > You just said it was shit. Then you scratch
> > your head & wonder why people don't want to
> > defend it. Yeah, it's me who's the problem...

> You are JTEM your own hero, so you shouldn't have a problem with shit.

If you borrowed some reading comprehension and
then gave the above another pass, you'd likely
discover that I wasn't saying that I have a
problem, you are.

...IF you borrowed some reading comprehension.



-- --

http://jtem.tumblr.com/post/111689883913

[RonO]

The shit is obviously your problem.

Ron Okimoto
> -- --
>
> http://jtem.tumblr.com/post/111689883913
>

[Öö Tiib]

How so? He did say he did not read and did also demonstrated that he can't count.

[J.LyonLayden]

Ah but you wrong me ser. I let OpenOffice do the word count, and this is Chapter 2 in Ron's "Manifesto Rant Against I.D."
Or perhaps you are referencing my prediction? Might be quiet now but wait until the next "7 literal days" guy shows up.

[RonO]

But the Cretin that you are didn't realize that the second part would
not have been necessary if you were not as brain dead ignorant of the
current situation. It was to bring you up to speed on reality, but as
the cretin that you are, what did you do?

Really, Read what I wrote in the second part. It was for you, so that
you could understand what you were blabbing about. That is how sad you are.

Ron Okimoto

[Wolffan]

On 2017 Dec 13, Hemidactylus* wrote
(in article<auSdnaxDfqrX06zH...@giganews.com>):

not me...

[J.LyonLayden]

I didn't count it twice. I took the first chapter from a different thread. If I'm going to be your assistant in building your unholy manifesto, I have to do it right.

[Peter Nyikos]

On Monday, December 11, 2017 at 7:15:03 PM UTC-5, Ron O wrote:
> On 12/11/2017 10:19 AM, Peter Nyikos wrote:
> > You're slipping, Ron O. Your Pavlov-dog-type salivation in response
> > to replies by me to you has dried up in the wake of the following
> > reply by me to you:
> >
> > https://groups.google.com/d/msg/talk.origins/8XOP-k1T-90/VlmAQ3TTCAAJ
> > Subject: Re: A Warning fro Those Who Think John Harshman Has Any Modern Knowledge
> > Date: Wed, 6 Dec 2017 14:12:09 -0800 (PST)
> > Message-ID: <99afaa2a-30fc-4dd2...@googlegroups.com>
> >
> > In fact, you've "run away" from that entire thread since I hit you
> > with that reply, just one day after you posted a one-liner designed
> > to denigrate me.
> >
> > Below, I reply to a lot of points you made the first time around, then
> > hit your most recent post, a reply to J.LyonLayden, whom you had suggested
> > was a sock puppet of mine in that one-liner.
>
> Sorry I missed this post. This is a good enough time to repost the post
> that wards off the evil spirits.

You poor deluded fool! The "Pavlov-dog-type salivation in response
to replies by me to you" that I wrote above is exactly the
vomit that you spewed below. You are thus like the proverbial dog
that returns to his vomit in predictable fashion.

> It is time For Nyikos to run from
> reality. I hope it is a long trip.

It is you who are running from reality, but you've deluded yourself
into thinking that if you keep in everything I wrote below your
vomit in your post, you really aren't running away from it.

>
> Layden could likely benefit from this post because it has the history of
> the ID scam bait and switch in it.

The only such history that might have something to do with the bait
is from 2002. The rest is crap that I refuted in the post from which
you are running away, and which is preserved below your idiotic words.

You never even read what I wrote there, did you? Until you face what
I wrote there like a man, I will assume you are burying your head
in the sand about it.

That's a cute way to escape from the smell of your vomit, I must admit. :-)

> Nyikos has been lying about this junk since 2010 and it has nothing much
> to do with his spat with Harshman.

My spat with Harshman has to do with the cowardly way he avoided
commenting on your ignorant claim that *Sinosauropteryx* had feathers.

> REPOST:
> It looks like Nyikos has started to run again and there is no doubt that
> �tomorrow� has not come in terms of the posts that Nyikos claimed that
> he would relentlessly pursue.  The pattern has been the same for years,
> and it has been stupid and ridiculous for years.  Nyikos has some weird
> insane notion that he has never lied on the internet and that he has
> never lost an exchange on the internet.

Au contraire, it is the height of insanity by YOU that you
dare to think I have such an attitude about myself. You have
no evidence for it, none whatsoever. The very closest I've
come to claiming victory in ANY debate was only this past month,
when I talked about putting your staunch ally Hemidactylus
on the horns of a dilemma, and between a rock and a hard place.


> These stupid lies

Not a single one of them is quoted by you.

> seem to drive
> him to keep going back to his old stupidity where he has lied or just
> been plain wrong so that he can continue some weird type of denial of
> reality.  Nyikos has a personal definition of running that includes not
> answering a post for over two months,

I was just calling your attention to the way you keep accusing me
of running away by not replying to a post on YOUR timetable,
and giving you a dose of your own medicine.

Your staunch ally Hemidactylus crowed just yesterday about how I had failed
to answer a post of his after mere week (or at most two) and I put
him in his place this morning.

> so he has to keep pestering me
> every couple of months in order for him to continue his insane denial of
> reality.  This is the boob who early on (years ago) accused me of
> running from a post for two whole weeks when there was no reason that I
> should have even known that the post existed because he had posted it to
> someone else.

Your recollection disagrees with mine. You are really big on posting
urls that don't live up to your claims. Let's see you post one that
actually does so.

>  This is the type of projection of his own stupidity that
> Nyikos has to indulge in, in order to continue his senseless denial.

In all the times you posted this, did it never occur to you that
you aren't giving a single concrete case of me being in denial
about something specific? In case you are sufficiently foolish,
let me say that "reality" isn't something specific.

> I have decided that instead of having to deal with the same old, same
> old over and over that I will just take advantage of the latest Nykosian
> denial to put together a post that I can just repost when Nyikos starts
> posting to me again.  I have had to look up and link to some of the
> first material that Nyikos had to run from

I never had to run away from something that had to do with any
claims of mine. Right in the first week we clashed in 2010, you
made idiotic statements supposedly describing me and I told
you to start backing them up with the words "hop to it."

The context made that abundantly clear, but you either
idiotically thought, or pretended to think, that
I was referring to something you wrote about Ohio.

So you posted one thing after another and bragged about
how you had supposedly refuted something I'd claimed
by saying "Whack! went the first arm" and then going through
the whole Black Knight scene from " Monty Python and the Holy
Grail."

All I could do was shake my head in pity over how
deluded you were. I simply couldn't spare the time to
show you because I was caught up in far more momentous debates
in talk.abortion as well as with far better people in talk.origins
than yourself [You make a very low bar, granted.] especially
the noble "el cid" who died shortly thereafter.

<snip of undocumented claims>

> One of the posts Nyikos had run from (9/13/14):
> https://groups.google.com/d/msg/talk.origins/38nQm79NC94/00GyMLoAhDcJ

It's just a rehash of crap that I refuted in the part at the
bottom that I'm leaving in after my sign-off.

Remainder of your old vomit deleted, to be replied to later.
But I'm leaving in the part from which you are running while
deluding yourself that you aren't really running.

Peter Nyikos

[RonO]

Unfortunately this still means that you are a brain dead cretin. You
are the one that claimed ignorance. If you were lying again, just say so.

Ron Okimoto

[RonO]

On 12/14/2017 1:45 PM, Peter Nyikos wrote:
> On Monday, December 11, 2017 at 7:15:03 PM UTC-5, Ron O wrote:
>> On 12/11/2017 10:19 AM, Peter Nyikos wrote:
>>> You're slipping, Ron O. Your Pavlov-dog-type salivation in response
>>> to replies by me to you has dried up in the wake of the following
>>> reply by me to you:
>>>
>>> https://groups.google.com/d/msg/talk.origins/8XOP-k1T-90/VlmAQ3TTCAAJ
>>> Subject: Re: A Warning fro Those Who Think John Harshman Has Any Modern Knowledge
>>> Date: Wed, 6 Dec 2017 14:12:09 -0800 (PST)
>>> Message-ID: <99afaa2a-30fc-4dd2...@googlegroups.com>
>>>
>>> In fact, you've "run away" from that entire thread since I hit you
>>> with that reply, just one day after you posted a one-liner designed
>>> to denigrate me.
>>>
>>> Below, I reply to a lot of points you made the first time around, then
>>> hit your most recent post, a reply to J.LyonLayden, whom you had suggested
>>> was a sock puppet of mine in that one-liner.
>>
>> Sorry I missed this post. This is a good enough time to repost the post
>> that wards off the evil spirits.
>
> You poor deluded fool! The "Pavlov-dog-type salivation in response
> to replies by me to you" that I wrote above is exactly the
> vomit that you spewed below. You are thus like the proverbial dog
> that returns to his vomit in predictable fashion.

It looks like Nyikos has gone around the bend and decided that lying his
way out is the only way to go. Pretty sad and demented.

Here is the entire post again so Nyikos can lie about it again if he
wants to.

REPOST:

REPOST:
It looks like Nyikos has started to run again and there is no doubt that
�tomorrow� has not come in terms of the posts that Nyikos claimed that
he would relentlessly pursue. The pattern has been the same for years,
and it has been stupid and ridiculous for years. Nyikos has some weird
insane notion that he has never lied on the internet and that he has

never lost an exchange on the internet. These stupid lies seem to drive

him to keep going back to his old stupidity where he has lied or just
been plain wrong so that he can continue some weird type of denial of
reality. Nyikos has a personal definition of running that includes not

answering a post for over two months, so he has to keep pestering me

every couple of months in order for him to continue his insane denial of
reality. This is the boob who early on (years ago) accused me of
running from a post for two whole weeks when there was no reason that I
should have even known that the post existed because he had posted it to

someone else. This is the type of projection of his own stupidity that

Nyikos has to indulge in, in order to continue his senseless denial.

I have decided that instead of having to deal with the same old, same
old over and over that I will just take advantage of the latest Nykosian
denial to put together a post that I can just repost when Nyikos starts
posting to me again. I have had to look up and link to some of the

first material that Nyikos had to run from and deny so instead of
continuing to have to look the junk up just to have Nyikos run again, I
will just start reposting this post.

Nyikos started to harass me again after months of running in this thread:
Why do the ID perps run the bait and switch scam on their own
creationist (9/10/14)
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/talk.origins/38nQm79NC94/VLf_vGDImnIJ

He had to start lying about the past as usual, so I demonstrated that he
was lying and he decided to run, but as is also usually the case he had
to pretend to be addressing the posts so he lied to Glenn that he would
address the material that he is still running from �tomorrow,� but
tomorrow obviously has not come. It is like his ploy where he claims
that he will "continue" but runs from the material that he has deleted.

One of the posts Nyikos had run from (9/13/14):
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/talk.origins/38nQm79NC94/00GyMLoAhDcJ

Wouldn't it be wise to at least try to explain why you ran from this
post for years, and have finally decided that lying is your only way
out. Why not just run like all the other times? You obviously are not
countering anything. You can compare your responses to the intact
repost to determine that. What you need is actual evidence that you
aren't lying because those posts and that evidence exists. So go for it
instead of just lie about it.

Ron Okimoto

[J.LyonLayden]

Is this part of your manifesto as well Ron? I think it would fit nicely in the "Evidence" section of the Index. If so, that brings the wordcount of your Anti-Deist Manifesto to 4750 words in 72 hours.

At this rate you'll have it complete before Christmas!

[RonO]

Start arguing with Nyikos because you don't say what you are talking about.

By the way, you may want to try to determine what Nyikos is lying about
and what his lies are before you make any more comments on what he writes.

Ron Okimoto

[J.LyonLayden]

I wasn't making comments on what he writes, I'm talking about what you write. I started to read the links in your above post and found that you've been ranting about these I.D. people for quite a while. I guess somewhere in there Nyikos disagreed that the organization was being deliberately misleading and the two of you disagreed?

My comment is only that if you are going to spend so much of your life fighting this I.D. institute thing with forum rants then you ought to write a book about it. Maybe you are trying to rid the world of this organization's ideas? A book would do a better job, even if you self-publish it. Or make it available online for free! More people might read it.

Myself, I don't really care what the I.D. institute people do but it gets old hearing about them, especially in posts about unrelated topics.

[RonO]

Nyikos is Nyikos. Try to figure out what he is lying about. It is
something so stupid that you won't believe it.

>
> My comment is only that if you are going to spend so much of your life fighting this I.D. institute thing with forum rants then you ought to write a book about it. Maybe you are trying to rid the world of this organization's ideas? A book would do a better job, even if you self-publish it. Or make it available online for free! More people might read it.

Do you have boogers for brains? What do you think goes on around here?
Have you even tried to figure out what gets discussed?

>
> Myself, I don't really care what the I.D. institute people do but it gets old hearing about them, especially in posts about unrelated topics.

You would likely care because you lie about not arguing with
creationists. What do you think that you are doing besides lying about it?

You likely should take some time to figure out what TO is about.

Ron Okimoto

[J.LyonLayden]

There is a difference between discussing, debating, and arguing. When you address someone as "cretin," then you are arguing and not debating.

I don't think you can find where I have gotten in an actual argument with any creationists about creationism. I have posed questions to Creationists, expressed my views on the subject, but Ray and I haven't argued. I haven't argued with the Alpha Beta guy either. If I've argued with a Creationist here, it wasn't about Creationism.

In fact, when I talk to creationsists on this forum they generally refuse to answer me. This is because my one big question is "Why do you think evolution is not compatible with your religion?"

They either have no answer or won't answer. Ray answered once with something no one understands, so there was no reason for me to continue the debate.

If the discrepancy between 'debate" and "argument" leads you to call me a liar, then I question your definition of the word. Therefore, you are most likely using it incorrectly when talking about Nyikos as well.

[RonO]

You demonstrate the necessity.

>
> I don't think you can find where I have gotten in an actual argument with any creationists about creationism. I have posed questions to Creationists, expressed my views on the subject, but Ray and I haven't argued. I haven't argued with the Alpha Beta guy either. If I've argued with a Creationist here, it wasn't about Creationism.

What a bone head. No one gets into actual arguments with creationists.
Their abject denial excludes that option.

>
> In fact, when I talk to creationsists on this forum they generally refuse to answer me. This is because my one big question is "Why do you think evolution is not compatible with your religion?"

So you have that much on the ball.

>
> They either have no answer or won't answer. Ray answered once with something no one understands, so there was no reason for me to continue the debate.

Get used to it.

>
> If the discrepancy between 'debate" and "argument" leads you to call me a liar, then I question your definition of the word. Therefore, you are most likely using it incorrectly when talking about Nyikos as well.

Reality is just what it is. Learn to live with it. Figure out what you
are commenting on before being stupid. Cretinism shouldn't be your
first option.

Ron Okimoto

[Peter Nyikos]

Projection is a way of life for you, Ron O.

You've demonstrated it big-time with a demented broken record routine, once
again burying your head in the sand, this time with respect to BOTH my
original demolition of your ignorant bilge, and the demolition of
your vomit that you are spewing here for the second time.


> Pretty sad and demented.

You took the words out of my mouth. :-)

>
> Here is the entire post again so Nyikos can lie about it again if he
> wants to.

"again" is pure wishful thinking. You are hoping that I will slip
up and ACTUALLY lie for the first time ever, so that you can finally
get the proof you've been hungering and thirsting for, the proof
that I am a "liar."


> REPOST:
> REPOST:

You actually seem proud of your broken record routine. Since you've
seen fit to bury your head in the sand over what I demolished
last time (still obligingly preserved by you below) I've
deleted most of it to get to some of the stuff I deleted the first
time around.

The exception is this:

> I have had to look up and link to some of the
> first material that Nyikos had to run from and deny

This was dealt with in my second reply, obligingly appearing
intact above my first intact reply.

> so instead of
> continuing to have to look the junk up just to have Nyikos run again, I
> will just start reposting this post.

The trouble is, you didn't bother to look up the junk that your
first substantive-sounding post linked people to.


<snip and cut to the chase>

> Instead of address the posts that Nyikos claimed that he would
> relentlessly pursue Nyikos started to lie about the issues in new posts

I'd love to see those alleged "lies".

> even after I noted his claim above, so I took some time and looked up
> the old evidence that Nyikos had run from years ago.
>
> Wells on the Ohio Bait and Switch in 2002 (9/21/14)
> https://groups.google.com/d/msg/talk.origins/H2Sw6NFIi4s/c7cRQzCvA2YJ

This is the laughable "evidence" you provided for the "bait" here:

I also found the article where Wells is said to have claimed that there

was enough scientific support for ID that it could be required to be

taught in the public schools.

Are you sufficiently demented that you think "is said to have claimed"
is any kind of evidence? Hell, he's been said to have claimed it
innumerable times by YOU, and you have never been able to find a
quote by Wells himself.

Didn't you ever hear the law in countless films about trials? "Hearsay
evidence is inadmissible."


> It wasn�t

In all the times you reposted this vomit, didn't you ever try putting
in an ordinary apostrophe from your keyboard?

> a futile exercise because I learned something that I had not
> known before. I found a report that Wells had written (likely for the
> other ID perps at the Discovery Institute) where he admits that Meyer
> and he in consultation with others had decided to run the bait and
> switch on the Ohio rubes before they went to Ohio.

So why didn't you ever post it? In the pathetic post of yours that
you link above, you only quote the following from the alleged document:

QUOTE:
Steve Meyer and I (in consultation with others) had decided ahead of
time that we would not push for including intelligent design (ID) in the
state science standards, but would propose instead that the standards
include language protecting teachers who choose to teach the controversy.
END QUOTE:

You really must be demented if you think there is the slightest
evidence of bait in this. And yet, in that same miserable post
that you've linked above, you baited your poor readers with:


In this report Wells claims that he and Meyers discussed
the issue with others and decided to run the bait and switch
scam before they went to Ohio.

But, as your pathetic quote demonstrates, you pulled a REAL
bait and switch scam on your readers, because all your quote
does is to show what would be a switch if there had been
any bait to switch from.

> Their presentation
> on the science of intelligent design was just for show, and Wells�
> comment to the Ohio board that there was enough scientific support for
> ID that it could be required to be taught in the Ohio public schools

Why did you not quote this comment? Is it because you've been lying
all along about there ever having been such a comment?

> was just bogus propaganda because they had no intention of providing the ID
> science for the creationist rubes to teach. The ID perps sold the rubes
> the ID scam

Is the whole substance of the alleged ID scam the pathetic QUOTE above?
If so, you are one sick puppy.

> and then only gave them a stupid obfuscation switch scam
> that did not even mention that ID had ever existed.

Really? Nowhere in the whole presentation were the words
"Intelligent Design" ever uttered?

Then what is the following all about, in another
post that you accuse me of running away from:

Subject: Re: Why do the ID perps run the bait and switch scam on their own
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/talk.origins/38nQm79NC94%5B26-50%5D

Jonathan Wells and Stephen Meyer of the Disco �Tute
participated in a 2002 panel discussion before the Board that was
originally set up to examine whether Ohio should include intelligent
design creationism (IDC) in the state science standards (Kenneth Miller
and Lawrence Krauss argued the contra side).

http://pandasthumb.org/archives/2012/03/the-disappearin.html#more


The IDC is editorializing by the propagandist at Panda's Thumb.

That is, unless there was discussion as to whether
*both* ID *and* creationism should appear in the state science standards.

I'm certainly not holding my breath to see whether you can demonstrate
this. In fact, I'm laughing at you for the stupid way you
swallowed that propaganda hook, line, and sinker.

I may try to chase down who that propagandist was, when I have more
time. Then I could also add "rod, reel, and fisherman."


What immediately followed could hardly have been done without mentioning
ID, you shameless obfuscator:

In the discussion Meyer
pulled a bait and switch, retreating from arguing that IDC should be
included and suggesting that the so-called �scientific controversy�
about Darwinism be taught instead.
END QUOTE:

> I will also note
> that the addition to the Discovery Institute�s education policy
> qualifier, that they did not want ID required to be taught in the public
> schools, was not added until after the Ohio bait and switch.

Since you never demonstrated any bait, there need not have been
any hurry to add that caution against exercising their
Constitutional rights to present ID. It was a prudential
decision, due to the fact that ID theory is no more advanced
than MACROevolutionary theory, which is ALSO inadvisable to
teach in the public schools. It might awaken doubts:

"Is *this* all there is to evolutionary theory besides the stuff we were
taught about moth coloration?"

> I noticed
> that they had added it sometime around the Dover fiasco. The copy of
> their education policy that was in their 2007 Dover propaganda pamphlet
> definitely had the �required� qualification.
>
> This is a post where I link to the old posts where Nyikos was running in
> denial about being wrong about the Ohio bait and switch and the
> Discovery Institute�s involvement from 2011.
> https://groups.google.com/d/msg/talk.origins/H2Sw6NFIi4s/IfNy4J5a4pEJ

Do you know why I've waited until now to show how deluded you are?

Hint: Glenn turned out to be a fickle witness, so I had no one
to read it besides you, and you could be counted on to drag
me down into your usual black hole of personal accusations followed
by slapped-on crud that the rubes reading it might think is
supporting the accusation, but is hardly connected with it at all.

> Dover propaganda pamphlet on why intelligent design science could still
> be taught in the public schools:
> http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/filesDB-download.php?command=download&id=1453

"Could still be taught" is dishonest equivocation: all it says
is that teachers have a constitutional RIGHT to teach ID theory
(without bringing in religion, of course) but advising against it.
I've given the reasons for the latter advice above.

I thoroughly refuted this many times and gave a synopsis in the
first post whose content you left in without comment below.

KEYWORDS: Robert Camp.

I put that in so that you could be charged with runing away
from reality if you decide against reading what I wrote even now.

Remainder of you vomit deleted, to be dealt with in January if you continue
to run from reality as you are doing here.

[I told you many times, you don't deserve to be replied to
more than once a month]

But, as before, I am leaving in the first post about whose contents
you are in deep denial, and now the second also, immediately after
I sign off here:

Peter Nyikos

[Peter Nyikos]

On Wednesday, December 13, 2017 at 11:00:03 AM UTC-5, *Hemidactylus* wrote:

> Peter Nyikos <nyi...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> >
> [snip]
> >
> > And some of it is guilt by association, pretending that
> > the ID movement is a branch of creationism.
> >
> > But Behe, arguably the founder of the modern ID movement,
> > is not a creationist of the "God poofed species into existence"
> > sort, not even an OEC. He acknowledges the overwhelming
> > evidence for common descent but is ALSO very critical of
> > evolutionary THEORY, and rightly so.

Now comes your second flagrantly fallacious guilt by association [1],
showing your eminent qualification for stepping into the shoes
of the long-gone Ray Shrubber in that department:

> Who can read the above and not think you are a crypto-creationist with a
> soft spot for fellow creationists?

Anyone who reads what I wrote in my reply to RonO's OP and
is not so ignorant of biology as you and Wolffam seem to be:

_______________________________________________________

There is plenty of honest intent, but it is now focused on the great
weakness of evolutionary THEORY. This theory is NOT the overwhelming
proof-beyond-a-reasonable-doubt of common descent of metazoans, but
a theory trying to EXPLAIN how and why this spectacular common descent
could reasonably have occurred in the evident time of 600 million years.

Evolutionary theory has had over six (6) times as long to ripen
as what is known as ID theory, yet it is still basically a
theory of microevolution within populations, with disjointed
smatterings here and there of macroevolutionary theory.

++++++++++++++++++++++ end of excerpt+++++++++++++++++++++++++

That evidence for common descent is based on fossils, on biochemistry,
on comparative anatomy, and on embryology. NONE of it falls under
evolutionary theory as I've carefully defined it.

ID theory is a rival to THAT theory, and NOT to the fact of
common descent. So all this blather about "ID creationism"
is the knocking down of a straw man.

Peter Nyikos
Professor, Dept. of Mathematics -- standard disclaimer--
University of South Carolina

http://people.math.sc.edu/nyikos/

[1] The first flagrant use of guilt by association this week
attempted to smear me as a conspiracy theorist, on a different thread.

[Bob Casanova]

On Thu, 14 Dec 2017 11:45:13 -0800 (PST), the following
appeared in talk.origins, posted by Peter Nyikos
<nyi...@bellsouth.net>:


>You poor deluded fool! The "Pavlov-dog-type salivation in response...

IronyMeter: Passed, but smoking a bit.
--

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

[*Hemidactylus*]

Peter Nyikos <nyi...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> On Wednesday, December 13, 2017 at 11:00:03 AM UTC-5, *Hemidactylus* wrote:
>> Peter Nyikos <nyi...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>>>
>> [snip]
>>>
>>> And some of it is guilt by association, pretending that
>>> the ID movement is a branch of creationism.
>>>
>>> But Behe, arguably the founder of the modern ID movement,
>>> is not a creationist of the "God poofed species into existence"
>>> sort, not even an OEC. He acknowledges the overwhelming
>>> evidence for common descent but is ALSO very critical of
>>> evolutionary THEORY, and rightly so.
>
> Now comes your second flagrantly fallacious guilt by association [1],
> showing your eminent qualification for stepping into the shoes
> of the long-gone Ray Shrubber in that department:
>

No you are flirting dangerously with creationism, but cleverly mask that
sympathetic bias perhaps unbeknownst to yourself with the patina of
agnosticism.

>
>> Who can read the above and not think you are a crypto-creationist with a
>> soft spot for fellow creationists?
>
> Anyone who reads what I wrote in my reply to RonO's OP and
> is not so ignorant of biology as you and Wolffam seem to be:
>
> _______________________________________________________
>
> There is plenty of honest intent,

In ID? It’s a well crafted subterfuge to get creationism past Jefferson’s
wall in the public schools. Are you that naive or a subtle player in the
endeavor?

>but it is now focused on the great
> weakness of evolutionary THEORY. This theory is NOT the overwhelming
> proof-beyond-a-reasonable-doubt of common descent of metazoans, but
> a theory trying to EXPLAIN how and why this spectacular common descent
> could reasonably have occurred in the evident time of 600 million years.
>

Substitute the comfort of religious closure for discomfort of current human
ignorance.

>
> Evolutionary theory has had over six (6) times as long to ripen
> as what is known as ID theory,

Are you ignoring Paley and his timepiece in a heath deliberately?

> yet it is still basically a
> theory of microevolution within populations, with disjointed
> smatterings here and there of macroevolutionary theory.
>

Such as development of external pouches in geomyid rodents.

>
> ++++++++++++++++++++++ end of excerpt+++++++++++++++++++++++++
>
> That evidence for common descent is based on fossils, on biochemistry,
> on comparative anatomy, and on embryology. NONE of it falls under
> evolutionary theory as I've carefully defined it.
>

Then you are obfuscating. Common descent with some confusing anastomoses is
but the outcome of allelic flux in populations over generational time.
There are some hindrances such as historically derived bauplane that
channel such evolution into deep basins, but no gods or green men sending
seed probes from light years away need apply.

>
> ID theory is a rival to THAT theory, and NOT to the fact of
> common descent.

And the local pee wee football team in Boston rivals the New England
Patriots. Your capacity for bullshit still amazes me. You are thoroughly
god-gapped.

> So all this blather about "ID creationism"
> is the knocking down of a straw man.

If it smells like a turd.

> Peter Nyikos
> Professor, Dept. of Mathematics -- standard disclaimer--
> University of South Carolina
> http://people.math.sc.edu/nyikos/
>
> [1] The first flagrant use of guilt by association this week
> attempted to smear me as a conspiracy theorist, on a different thread.
>

Still left wondering why you invoked George Soros. That’s a red flag. Glenn
Beck or Alex Jones? Will you answer?

[Peter Nyikos]

Neither. I assume you name them both because you've found some evidence
of them being conspiracy theorists.

Guilt by association, in other words.


I've just got done telling Erik Simpson he is not worth more than
one reply a month. The same is true for rabble rousers like you.

I've promised to take apart another post by you with tweezers come
January. This one will get the same treatment in February.

HLVB.

I will also disambiguate this four letter string for you in January, but
if you knew as much about me as you would like readers to think you
know, you should have no trouble finding a post where I already did the job.

Peter Nyikos

[J.LyonLayden]

Where the hell did Glenn Beck come from? Isn't he the Mormon Republican who thinks the Welsh had cities in America before Columbus or something like that?

[*Hemidactylus*]

Peter evades the above where I demolish his ID apologetics.

>>
>>> Peter Nyikos
>>> Professor, Dept. of Mathematics -- standard disclaimer--
>>> University of South Carolina
>>> http://people.math.sc.edu/nyikos/
>>>
>>> [1] The first flagrant use of guilt by association this week
>>> attempted to smear me as a conspiracy theorist, on a different thread.
>>>
>> Still left wondering why you invoked George Soros. That’s a red flag. Glenn
>> Beck or Alex Jones? Will you answer?
>
> Neither. I assume you name them both because you've found some evidence
> of them being conspiracy theorists.
>
> Guilt by association, in other words.
>
>
> I've just got done telling Erik Simpson he is not worth more than
> one reply a month. The same is true for rabble rousers like you.
>
> I've promised to take apart another post by you with tweezers come
> January. This one will get the same treatment in February.
>
> HLVB.
>
> I will also disambiguate this four letter string for you in January, but
> if you knew as much about me as you would like readers to think you
> know, you should have no trouble finding a post where I already did the job.
>

So you curiously drag George Soros into the picture yet offer no clear
reason why. One can only wonder.

[J.LyonLayden]

I guess you are suggesting that only the rightist corporate party dislikes George Soros, and that the leftist corporate party likes him a lot? I base this on the fact that the other two you mentioned were rightists. Is that what you are trying to say?

[RonO]

Poor Nyikos can't even figure out when he is talking to himself. If you
weren't the bogus degenerate liar that you are, why not just go back to
the posts that you were going to address "tomorrow" years ago and
address them without snipping out the evidence and lying about it. Just
address what you have been running from for years. Once you do that,
you can deal with the other junk that you are lying about. Go for it.

REPOST:
It looks like Nyikos has started to run again and there is no doubt that
�tomorrow� has not come in terms of the posts that Nyikos claimed that
he would relentlessly pursue. The pattern has been the same for years,
and it has been stupid and ridiculous for years. Nyikos has some weird
insane notion that he has never lied on the internet and that he has

never lost an exchange on the internet. These stupid lies seem to drive

him to keep going back to his old stupidity where he has lied or just
been plain wrong so that he can continue some weird type of denial of
reality. Nyikos has a personal definition of running that includes not

answering a post for over two months, so he has to keep pestering me

every couple of months in order for him to continue his insane denial of
reality. This is the boob who early on (years ago) accused me of
running from a post for two whole weeks when there was no reason that I
should have even known that the post existed because he had posted it to

someone else. This is the type of projection of his own stupidity that

Nyikos has to indulge in, in order to continue his senseless denial.

I have decided that instead of having to deal with the same old, same
old over and over that I will just take advantage of the latest Nykosian
denial to put together a post that I can just repost when Nyikos starts
posting to me again. I have had to look up and link to some of the

first material that Nyikos had to run from and deny so instead of

continuing to have to look the junk up just to have Nyikos run again, I
will just start reposting this post.

Nyikos started to harass me again after months of running in this thread:

Why do the ID perps run the bait and switch scam on their own

creationist (9/10/14)
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/talk.origins/38nQm79NC94/VLf_vGDImnIJ

He had to start lying about the past as usual, so I demonstrated that he
was lying and he decided to run, but as is also usually the case he had
to pretend to be addressing the posts so he lied to Glenn that he would
address the material that he is still running from �tomorrow,� but
tomorrow obviously has not come. It is like his ploy where he claims
that he will "continue" but runs from the material that he has deleted.

One of the posts Nyikos had run from (9/13/14):
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/talk.origins/38nQm79NC94/00GyMLoAhDcJ

It is obvious that Nyikos had to run from this post because when the
same evidence has been put up in other posts he has snipped it out and
run or just run. He has failed to address this evidence multiple times.

The Nyikosian lie to Glenn about tomorrow (9/16/14):
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/talk.origins/38nQm79NC94/vOPLiVKsp4kJ

QUOTE:
Ron O has really ramped up his campaign of deceit against me on this
thread. I won't have time for it until tomorrow, Glenn, but I will
relentlessly pursue him on this thread. One thing I should explain
now, though. Back at a time when Hemidactylus gave the appearance of
sincerity, I promised him I would only reply to Ron O very sparingly
from that point on.

But Hemidactylus has gone off the deep end, and he now is completely
on Ron O's side despite having tried to look above it all in the past.

So I consider myself released from my promise: it is quite possible
that he only held off revealing what a toady he is of Ron O because
I kept to my promise, but his irrational hatred for me caused him to cast
caution to the winds.

Peter Nyikos
END QUOTE:

Poor Hemi. Nyikos harassed him for years with his claims that his
knockdowns were still coming, and Nyikos will not even tell me what the
last knockdown was supposed to be and give me a link to the post. Now
Glenn will have to deal with the tomorrow that never came.

Instead of address the posts that Nyikos claimed that he would
relentlessly pursue Nyikos started to lie about the issues in new posts

even after I noted his claim above, so I took some time and looked up
the old evidence that Nyikos had run from years ago.

Wells on the Ohio Bait and Switch in 2002 (9/21/14)
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/talk.origins/H2Sw6NFIi4s/c7cRQzCvA2YJ

It wasn�t a futile exercise because I learned something that I had not

known before. I found a report that Wells had written (likely for the
other ID perps at the Discovery Institute) where he admits that Meyer
and he in consultation with others had decided to run the bait and

switch on the Ohio rubes before they went to Ohio. Their presentation

on the science of intelligent design was just for show, and Wells�
comment to the Ohio board that there was enough scientific support for

ID that it could be required to be taught in the Ohio public schools was

just bogus propaganda because they had no intention of providing the ID
science for the creationist rubes to teach. The ID perps sold the rubes

the ID scam and then only gave them a stupid obfuscation switch scam
that did not even mention that ID had ever existed. I will also note

that the addition to the Discovery Institute�s education policy
qualifier, that they did not want ID required to be taught in the public

schools, was not added until after the Ohio bait and switch. I noticed

that they had added it sometime around the Dover fiasco. The copy of
their education policy that was in their 2007 Dover propaganda pamphlet
definitely had the �required� qualification.

This is a post where I link to the old posts where Nyikos was running in
denial about being wrong about the Ohio bait and switch and the
Discovery Institute�s involvement from 2011.
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/talk.origins/H2Sw6NFIi4s/IfNy4J5a4pEJ

Dover propaganda pamphlet on why intelligent design science could still
be taught in the public schools:
http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/filesDB-download.php?command=download&id=1453

Ron Okimoto

[RonO]

SNIP:

Since Nyikos is lying about this material and questioning the evidence
it just so happens that I took this day into consideration and put in
quotes that Nyikos would not be able to deny like he is doing in his
posts. Some of the links have broken as I predicted, but You can see
how Nyikos dealt with the material before the first time around.

Wells on the Ohio Bait and switch:
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/talk.origins/H2Sw6NFIi4s/c7cRQzCvA2YJ

I put the relevant quotes from these sources into this post of the same
thread. Nyikos can lie about what he couldn't lie about then.

https://groups.google.com/d/msg/talk.origins/H2Sw6NFIi4s/bu37mUbcBQAJ

REPOST with quotes:
Due to Nyikos' latest antics I reposted an old post, in checking the
links I noticed that I had done something that I knew is not the best
thing to do.  I just posted links without any quoted material.  This
depends on the links staying viable, but they break all the time as
these event fade into history.  So I decided to put some quotes in with
the links so that I could use them even after they break.

On 9/21/2014 8:27 AM, RonO wrote:
> Because Nyikos has gone into a new wave of denial I decided to see just
> what about the Ohio Bait and Switch in 2002 was still available on the
> web after almost 4 years of his denial.
>
> ARN still has the booklet that the Discovery Institute used to give out
> on teaching intelligent design in the public schools that was published
> in 1999.  All the Authors were Discovery Institute fellows and Meyer has
> been the director of the ID scam wing of the Discovery Institute since
> it was founded.
>

http://arn.org/docs/dewolf/guidebook.htm

David K. DeWolf, Stephen C. Meyer, Mark E. DeForrest.  1999.
Intelligent Design in Public School Science Curricula:
  A Legal Guidebook.

QUOTE:
9. Conclusion

Local school boards and state education officials are frequently
pressured to avoid teaching the controversy regarding biological
origins. Indeed, many groups, such as the National Academy of Sciences,
go so far as to deny the existence of any genuine scientific controversy
about the issue. 160 Nevertheless, teachers should be reassured that
they have the right to expose their students to the problems as well as
the appeal of Darwinian theory. Moreover, as the previous discussion
demonstrates, school boards have the authority to permit, and even
encourage, teaching about design theory as an alternative to Darwinian
evolution-and this includes the use of textbooks such as Of Pandas and
People that present evidence for the theory of intelligent design.

The controlling legal authority, the Supreme Court's decision in Edwards
v. Aguillard, explicitly permits the inclusion of alternatives to
Darwinian evolution so long as those alternatives are based on
scientific evidence and not motivated by strictly religious concerns.
Since design theory is based on scientific evidence rather than
religious assumptions, it clearly meets this test. Including discussions
of design in the science curriculum thus serves an important goal of
making education inclusive, rather than exclusionary. In addition, it
provides students with an important demonstration of the best way for
them as future scientists and citizens to resolve scientific
controversies-by a careful and fair-minded examination of the evidence.
END QUOTE:

This was how the ID perps were selling the ID scam before they ran the
bait and switch on Ohio and every other legislator or school board that
has needed the ID science since.

>
> ARN also has the Santorum editorial, written for the Washington Times
> the day before the Bait and Switch went down, where he obviously
> believed that ID would have it's day in the sun and would be taught in
> Ohio.
>

http://www.arn.org/docs/ohio/washtimes_santorum031402.htm

QUOTE:
"I hate your opinions, but I would die to defend your right to express
them." This famous quote by the 18th-century philosopher Voltaire
applies to the debate currently raging in Ohio. The Board of Education
is discussing whether to include alternate theories of evolution in the
classroom. Some board members however, are opposed to Voltaire's defense
of rational inquiry and intellectual tolerance. They are seeking to
prohibit different theories other than Darwinism, from being taught to
students. This threatens freedom of thought and academic excellence.

Today, the Board of Education will discuss a proposal to insert
"intelligent design" alongside evolution in the state's new teaching
standards.
END QUOTE:

QUOTE:
At the beginning of the year, President Bush signed into law the "No
Child Left Behind" bill. The new law includes a science education
provision where Congress states that "where topics are taught that may
generate controversy (such as biological evolution), the curriculum
should help students to understand the full range of scientific views
that exist." If the Education Board of Ohio does not include intelligent
design in the new teaching standards, many students will be denied a
first-rate science education. Many will be left behind.

Rick Santorum is a Republican member of the United States Senate from
Pennsylvania.

© 2002 News World Communications. All rights reserved. International
copyright secured.
File Date: 3.14.02
END QUOTE:

>
> I also found the article where Wells is said to have claimed that there
> was enough scientific support for ID that it could be required to be
> taught in the public schools.
>

http://www.sfgate.com/politics/article/Ohio-debates-evolution-Scientists-accuse-2864344.php



QUOTE:
With equal fervor, Jonathan Wells, senior fellow at the Discovery
Institute, a Seattle organization dedicated to alternative scientific
theories, contended that there was enough valid challenge to Darwinian
evolution to justify intelligent design's being ordered into the
classroom curriculum -- not as a religious doctrine, he maintained, but
as a matter of "a growing scientific controversy."
END QUOTE:

>
>
> The article that stated that the president of the Discovery Institute
> and half a dozen staff members also came to Ohio to support Meyer and
> Wells in their dog and pony show is still available.
>

http://www.cleveland.com/debate/index.ssf?/debate/more/101592906620922124.html


Discovery Institute's involvement and running the bait and switch as a
"compromise", but the compromise turned into no mention of ID at all:
QUOTE:
Wells and Meyer sat onstage at the Veterans Memorial Auditorium to speak
for intelligent design and the Discovery Institute, which flew in its
president and a half-dozen staff members. If you listened closely, you
never heard a "theory" of intelligent design. It added up to criticism
of evolutionary theory leading to an "inference," as Wells put it. It's
an assertion. It's faith.

That much was clarified later by John Calvert, the Kansas City lawyer
who co-founded the Intelligent Design Network and helped lead efforts to
remove evolution from standardized tests in his state. He said his
target was not simply evolution but the definition of science. He sees
"naturalistic" science as agnostic and atheistic, and intelligent design
as "theistic."

Meyer and Wells insisted there is scientific controversy on the subject,
though evidence suggests it is largely because they say there is. And
because there is, Meyer said, he suggested a "compromise." Don't mandate
"mastery of the scientific arguments in favor of intelligent design,"
but tell students about it. "We think that's fun and exciting, not
something people need to feel threatened about."
END QUOTE:

Calvert's ID Network bit the dust in 2009.  It must have been difficult
to sell the switch scam with Intelligent Design in the name of your
creationist scam organization.  Now he is associated with a group called
COPE that is selling the creationist switch scam.

>
>
> The Wired article that Nyikos has been given before is also still
> available.
>

http://archive.wired.com/wired/archive/12.10/evolution.html

QUOTE:
Two scientists, biologist Ken Miller from Brown University and physicist
Lawrence Krauss from Case Western Reserve University two hours north in
Cleveland, defended evolution. On the other side of the dais were two
representatives from the Discovery Institute in Seattle, the main
sponsor and promoter of intelligent design: Stephen Meyer, a professor
at Palm Beach Atlantic University's School of Ministry and director of
the Discovery Institute's Center for Science and Culture, and Jonathan
Wells, a biologist, Discovery fellow, and author of Icons of Evolution,
a 2000 book castigating textbook treatments of evolution
END QUOTE:

I will note that after the Ohio bait and switch Meyer quit his religious
college and went to work full time for the ID scam unit.

The article was written in 2004 when Dover was heating up and this
statement:

QUOTE:
Since the debate, "teach the controversy" has become the rallying cry of
the national intelligent-design movement, and Ohio has become the
leading battleground. Several months after the debate, the Ohio school
board voted to change state science standards, mandating that biology
teachers "critically analyze" evolutionary theory.
END QUOTE:

You can note from the above quote from the IDiot's booklet on teaching
ID that "teach the controversy" had once included intelligent design,
but by this time the bait and switch had gone down many times in the two
years since Dover and ID was being phased out and "critical analysis"
was becoming the buzz phrase of the ID scam.

There are other historical aspects noted in this article for those
interested.

>
> The Audio of some of the Ohio Bait and Switch program is still
> available, but they wanted me to sign up for some cloud account to
> listen to it (I did not sign up) so I don't know if it still works.  The
> talks from the four speakers is supposed to be available to listen to
> (Meyer, Wells, Miller, and Krauss).
>
>
http://www.creationists.org/archived-obsolete-pages/2002-03-11-OSBE-mtg.html

>
>
> I found quite a few other articles, but they all say about the same
> things as you can find above.  The IDiots expected to get the ID
> science, but they only got a switch scam that doesn't even mention that
> ID ever existed.
>
> There was one reference that I had never seen before.  It was a report
> by Wells on the Ohio fiasco.  It contains information that I never knew
> about.  It comes from the same openly creationist web site that you can
> get the audio from.
>

http://www.creationists.org/archived-obsolete-pages/2002-03-11-OSBE-wells.html


I have already quoted out of this report, but I've saved a copy of it
onto my computer.

Anyone that doesn't believe that the bait and switch was run on the Ohio
rubes just has to read this report, and understand how the ID perps had
been selling the ID claptrap until they decided not to give the rubes
the ID science.  Wells was even making his bogus claims to the board
(quoted previously) when he knew that the bait and switch was going down.

Santorum was a rube that believed the ID perps.  He allowed Phillip
Johnson to draft his "amendment" to the No child left behind bill.
Santorums take above is exactly how most IDiot rubes believed ID was
being sold.  My experience at ARN made that clear.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Santorum_Amendment
- hide quoted text -

>
>
> In this report Wells claims that he and Meyers discussed the issue with
> others and decided to run the bait and switch scam before they went to

> Ohio.  They never intended to give the Ohio IDiots any ID science to
> teach.  They should have brought Santorum into the loop so he wouldn't
> have made such a fool of himself in the editorial linked to above.  It
> isn't nice to run the bait and switch scam on a US Senator.  Wells does
> not say who else was involved in deciding that they were only going to
> give the Ohio rubes the obfuscation scam instead of the ID science.  The
> Thomas More lawyer was correct.  It seems to have been the Discovery
> Institute strategy to sell the teach ID scam, but fold and only give the
> rubes the switch scam with no ID science in it at all.

>
> QUOTE:
> Steve Meyer and I (in consultation with others) had decided ahead of
> time that we would not push for including intelligent design (ID) in the
> state science standards, but would propose instead that the standards
> include language protecting teachers who choose to teach the
controversy.
> END QUOTE:
>

> One of the articles linked to above indicated that Chapman (the
> president of the Discovery Institute and half a dozen staffers attended
> the Ohio bait and switch to support Meyer and Wells.  In this report
> Wells mentions that DeWolf (head of legal) and Scott Minnich (senior
> fellow) were part of that entourage.  Minnich testified in Dover that he
> was not paid by the Discovery Institute, but he likely had his airfare
> and other travel expenses paid by the Discovery Institute, and I don't
> know if he counts his fellowship as salary (he is not staff, but a
> fellow).  Who knows, maybe he was there all on his own at his expense.
> Since DeWolf and Minnich attended the fiasco, my guess is that they were
> among the ID perps that were involved in deciding to run the bait and
> switch before the Discovery Institute group came to Ohio.  It is a
> possibility that they ran the bait and switch on Minnich and the
> president of the Discovery Institute too.  Since Both Meyer and Wells
> kept their Discovery Institute jobs that isn't a likely scenario.
>
> Wells doesn't drop anymore names that I didn't know about.  John Calvert
> was there.  Calvert ran the Intelligent Design Network, but their web
> page hasn't been updated since 2009, and their last press release was in
> 2007 complaining that the Ohio rubes had dropped the controversy switch
> scam after Dover.  The ID Network used to be the second most influential
> ID scam unit out there.
>
> So Wells claims that the bait and switch was a done deal before they
> performed their dog and pony show in front of the Ohio IDiot rubes.  The
> rubes never had a chance.  The Discovery Institute obviously sold the
> Ohio rubes the teach ID scam, but when it came time to put up or shut up
> they did neither and ran in a bogus switch scam that does not mention
> that ID ever existed.
>
> It disturbs me that Wells would think that this was worth reporting as
> something positive about Meyer's behavior after the two of them had just
> run the bait and switch on the Ohio State Board of Education.  It
> reminds me of Dembski's farting episode involving Judge Jones.
>
> QUOTE:
> Another interesting aspect of the press conference was a statement by
> Ken Miller, featured on the evening news, to the effect that ID
> advocates are trying to present their views to the public "without the
> approval of science." Afterwards, in private, Steve Meyer kept repeating
> Miller's pompous declaration with a heavy German accent, sounding for
> all the world like Heinrich Himmler, Hitler's propaganda chief.
> END QUOTE:
>
> Can you just imagine Meyer carrying on like this in front of the other
> Discovery Institute people that attended?
>
> The conclusion is that there is still more than enough information
> floating around the web to demonstrate that the bait and switch did go
> down on Ohio, just as it has gone down on every single IDiot legislator
> or school board that has wanted to teach the science of ID for over 12
> years.  The significant Discovery Institute participation indicates how
> important Ohio was to the ID scam.  Ohio was trumpeted by the IDiots as
> the first place where ID was going to be exposed to the world so that it
> could not be denied.  Intelligent design was certainly exposed, but more
> like a drive by mooning than the announcement of a valid scientific
> discovery.  Not a single IDiot rube has ever gotten the ID science from
> the ID perps when they needed it.  Ohio happened two years before the
> Dover fiasco broke into the news.  The ID perps sold the IDiot rubes
> that they had the science of intelligent design to teach, but all the
> rubes were going to get was the obfuscation switch scam that does not
> mention that ID ever existed.  Wells' report indicates that this was
> something that they had planned to do before they went to Ohio.
>
> Ron Okimoto
>
> This is the link to the Thomas More Lawyer's beef with the Discovery
> Institute's "strategy."

http://ncse.com/news/2005/10/discovery-institute-thomas-more-law-center-squabble-aei-foru-00704


QUOTE:
RICHARD THOMPSON (TMLC): I, I think I should respond...

  Mod: You can respond, and then I wanted -- that's fine.

  RICHARD THOMPSON (TMLC): ...just because [something] the Thomas More
Law Center. First of all, Stephen Meyer, who is he, he is you're, is he
the president?

  MARK RYLAND (DI): He is the Director of the Center for Science and
Culture.

  RICHARD THOMPSON (TMLC): Okay, and David DeWolf is a Fellow of the
Discovery Institute.

  MARK RYLAND (DI): Right.

  RICHARD THOMPSON (TMLC): They wrote a book, titled "Intelligent Design
in Public School Science Curricula." The conclusion of that book was
that, um:

  "Moreover, as the previous discussion demonstrates, school boards have
the authority to permit, and even encourage, teaching about design
theory as an alternative to Darwinian evolution -- and this includes the
use of textbooks such as Of Pandas and People that present evidence for
the theory of intelligent design." ...and I could go further. But, you
had Discovery Institute people actually encouraging the teaching of
intelligent design in public school systems. Now, whether they wanted
the school boards to teach intelligent design or mention it, certainly
when you start putting it in writing, that writing does have consequences.

  In fact, several of the members, including Steve Meyer, agreed to be
expert witnesses, also prepared expert witness reports, then all at once
decided that they weren't going to become expert witnesses, at a time
after the closure of the time we could add new expert witnesses. So it
did have a strategic impact on the way we could present the case, cause
they backed out, when the court no longer allowed us to add new expert
witnesses, which we could have done.

  Now, Stephen Meyer, you know, wanted his attorney there, we said
because he was an officer of the Discovery Institute, he certainly could
have his attorney there. But the other experts wanted to have attorneys,
that they were going to consult with, as objections were made, and not
with us. And no other expert that was in the Dover case, and I'm talking
about the plaintiffs, had any attorney representing them.

  So that caused us some concern about exactly where was the heart of
the Discovery Institute. Was it really something of a tactical decision,
was it this strategy that they've been using, in I guess Ohio and other
places, where they've pushed school boards to go in with intelligent
design, and as soon as there's a controversy, they back off with a
compromise. And I think what was victimized by this strategy was the
Dover school board, because we could not present the expert testimony we
thought we could present

  MODERATOR: Can I just say one thing, now I want to let Ken have his
shot, and then, I think, we'll come back.

  KEN MILLER: Do we have to? I'm really enjoying this. (Laughter; MR
says "sure, yeah!") That is the most fascinating discussion I've heard
all day. (Laughter.) This is, wow.

  Um, I would also point out that the witnesses for the plaintiffs, all
of whom were serving without compensation looked in great envy at the
witnesses for the, the expert witnesses for the other side, who were
making them a couple hundred, a hundred bucks an hour or something like
that. I found it absolutely astonishing that people would file expert
statements, formally, big ones, supporting one side, and they would file
rebuttal reports, and they would participate actively in the case, and
at a point when one side could no longer replace them they would
suddenly withdraw. My feeling is, a promise is a promise, and I promised
I'd be there, and therefore I was there.

  Um, the sort of disinformation regarding the reasons behind the
withdraw of the Dover case, that you just heard from the representative
of the Discovery Institute, saying we have never advocated -- I think
its exactly what he said -- never advocated the teaching of intelligent
design in the school, and then I noticed as Mr. Thomas [Thompson] then
held up the booklet in which they explain how to teach intelligent
design in the school -- is very indicative of the rhetoric that comes
out of this institution.
END QUOTE:

The Thomas More Lawyer called the bait and switch a strategy, but it is
really just a scam that has been run on creationist rubes.  The ID perps
sold the rubes that they had the science of intelligent design to teach
in the public schools, but when it came time to put up or shut up they
ran the bait and switch.  The bait and switch was not run on the science
side, the ID perps ran the scam on their own creationist support base.
The Lawyer was not happy about it.

Ron Okimoto
END REPOST:

So this is why Nyikos has run from this evidence for years. There is no
doubt that the ID perps ran the teach ID scam for years. It is what
they were most known for until they started to run the bait and switch
on their own creationist supporters. If you go to the 1999 Discovery
Institute material:
http://arn.org/docs/dewolf/guidebook.htm

You can read the entire propaganda document on teaching ID in the public
schools and what you should note that the "required" statement as in
they never wanted ID required to be taught in the public schools was
added after they started to run the bait and switch and it was not in
the propaganda material that they were producing in the 1990's.

This is the guide book that the Discovery Institute used to give out
with their IDiot video. It is also the guide book that the Thomas More
Lawyer quoted out of to demonstrate that the Discovery Institute
representative was lying when he claimed that the Discovery Institute
had not claimed to be able to teach the ID science in the public schools.

This is the material that Nyikos has had to lie about for years.

Ron Okimoto

[J.LyonLayden]

That's about the most boring shit I've ever tried to read. Could you just describe what their "bait and switch" was in a paragraph and what the "lie" was in one sentence?

[RonO]

If you weren't such a cretin you would know that this post is for
Nyikos. You can try to understand it, but we are talking years of
Nyikosian denial and stupidity. Nyikos is the only one that has to know
what he is lying about. There is no doubt that he does know by what he
keeps snipping out and lying about.

How old are you? I am not belittling you due to your age. I just want
to know how young you have to be to not know about the current
creationists intelligent design political ploy. I have maintained for a
long time that intelligent design should be taught in the High School
civics class as the bogus creationist political scam that it is.
Students should be aware of Ohio in 2002 and Dover in 2005.

Do you know about the failure of the scientific creationist political
ploy? After Sputnik there was a push to improve science education in
the United States. The science textbooks were updated and the anti
evolution laws were finally stricken from the books by the Supreme
court. From around the 1960's up until today there has been a group of
creationists that claimed that they could apply science to their
theology. Their goal was to get the creation science taught in the
public schools as an alternative to the existing science. The problem
was they had a young earth theology that included a literal
interpretation of the Bible. No science panned out for them. No
credible creation science was ever produced and Scientific creationism
failed in the courts, and had to be abandoned as a political ploy.

After the loss of scientific creationism in the Supreme Court the
creationists had to come up with another political ploy. Intelligent
design was born right after the Supreme court ruling.

Pandas and People fiasco:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Of_Pandas_and_People

After the court ruling in 1987 creationism got changed to intelligent
design throughout the text of the book.

Kenyon was the main author, Thaxton was the editor. Meyer wrote the
teachers notes (Meyer has been director of the ID scam unit of the
Discovery Institute since it was founded in 1995) and Behe of
irreducible complexity fame admitted to writing a portion of the book,
but was not credited. All of these IDiots are fellows at the Discovery
Institute, and they have been pretty much involved from the beginning in
the modern intelligent design creationist political ploy.

When the ID scam started the ID perps at the Discovery Institute claimed
that they had the intelligent design science to teach in the public
schools and that they could use Of Pandas and People to teach it. It
took a few years for creationists to realize that scientific creationism
was dead and that they needed to go with something new. After around 7
years ID had built up enough steam so that creationist controlled school
boards and legislators were mouthing off about it. Ohio in 2002 was the
first big test for ID, but there was a problem that the current 6 best
evidences for ID illustrate. There was no ID science worth teaching.
The ID perps realized this, so they started running the bait and switch.
They had sold the creationist rubes on the ID science, but all any
creationist rube has ever gotten has been a switch scam that doesn't
mention that ID ever existed. Ohio was the first bait and switch, but
there were multiple others within the next couple of months. The
Discovery Institute used to keep a list of the creationist rubes that
had bent over for the switch scam. They didn't list the rubes that
dropped the issue. The last time I saw that list there were around 30
bait and switch episodes accounted for. I can't find the list on their
current web site, probably because a lot of the creationist rubes
dropped the switch scam after the failure of ID in federal court in 2005.

So that is the bait and switch. You can look at the evidence of how the
Discovery Institute was selling ID in the 1990's, and Utah last month
was the latest example of creationist rubes that needed the ID science,
but didn't get it. I call it a scam not because of the bogus science,
but because of what the ID perps do to their own creationist supporters.

Ron Okimoto

[J.LyonLayden]

I'm over 35 we can leave it at that. It doesn't take a young age to not know about the Creationist politics; it takes not giving a shit. I hear something about Creationists every once in a while, but I doubt they've made the 5 o'clock news in at least a decade.

Every couple of years I hear a redneck say "We aint evolved from no monkeys," and that's about it. About 7 years ago I visited a church with my girlfriend and the preacher said something negative about the theory of evolution. His congregation was absolutely shocked. He said I know that's an unpopular view, and then recommended some I.D. book in the church bookshop. He didn't dwell on it though, barely mentioned it. I didn't see anyone buying the book.

What I'm saying is that the war is won, if there was a war. But you're still fighting.

> long time that intelligent design should be taught in the High School
> civics class as the bogus creationist political scam that it is.
> Students should be aware of Ohio in 2002 and Dover in 2005.

Why? I can think of lots more things they should be made aware of that aren't taught in school.

OK hold on. They tried to teach Creationism. That didn't work so they tried to teach I.D., which was a view only some of them held previously to the court decision. I'm almost positive I heard a crude version of I.D. before it was even called I.D., therefore this must be the case.


Meanwhile, more and more evidence for evolution was being discovered. Some of the things they thought might support their theory became obsolete.
Is that proof of intentional "bait and switch?" Or is it simply evidence of failure?

> Discovery Institute was selling ID in the 1990's, and Utah last month

OK I first heard a theory similar to I.D. in the early 80s in middle school. I don't think they called it I.D. though.

> was the latest example of creationist rubes that needed the ID science,
> but didn't get it. I call it a scam not because of the bogus science,
> but because of what the ID perps do to their own creationist supporters.

Ahh ok so you're taking up for the 7 day young-Earthers inside their ranks. I dunno, dawg, I dunno know. They have to put up some kind of unified theory. Wasn't 7 day creationism off the table because of the court order? What were they supposed to do? Just give up?


I think some of these people actually believe their theories. I just think their theories are incorrect.


>
> Ron Okimoto

[RonO]

That is why you are here lying about not arguing with creationists.

>
>> was the latest example of creationist rubes that needed the ID science,
>> but didn't get it. I call it a scam not because of the bogus science,
>> but because of what the ID perps do to their own creationist supporters.
>
>
> Ahh ok so you're taking up for the 7 day young-Earthers inside their ranks. I dunno, dawg, I dunno know. They have to put up some kind of unified theory. Wasn't 7 day creationism off the table because of the court order? What were they supposed to do? Just give up?

No, The ID perps are a range of creationists. Some of them are literal
Biblical creationists. All of them are either Christians or Jewish
(Kalk never wonders why there aren't any Hindu ID perps at the Discovery
Institute). Denton and Behe are old earth creationist theistic
evolutionists.

Scientific creationism was about the Young earth creationism, but they
let the JWs participate and support the fiasco. So the earth was less
than 50,000 years old and a day could be a thousand years long. Some ID
perps like Kenyon were scientific creationists and likely still are, so
there are young earth creationists like Kenyon and Nelson among the ID
perps, but they keep claiming that they aren't scientific creationists.
Their list of their 6 best evidences were all put forward and used by
the scientific creationists over 30 years ago, so you can make of that
what you will. IDiots tend to lie a lot since the whole movement has
been pretty much a dishonest scam from the start after the failure of
scientific creationism.

Part of the ID scam is that they claim to have an alternative, but they
never put that alternative forward except when they are discussing
issues on the side. You don't see the alternatives in the IDiot
political propaganda, and it is lacking in the books that they sell to
the rubes. There was no effort to support their alternative like the
scientific creationists tried to do with their flood geology or fiddle
with the age of the earth. The ID perps never attempted to do the
science that they could have done, and come up with the best IDiot
scientific alternative. The reason is that they would have come up with
something like Behe and Denton advocate and the Discovery Institute is
currently engaged in a theological dispute against theistic evolution.
They claim that theistic evolution is the worst enemy of ID
(creationism) even though some of the ID perps are theisitic evolutionists.

https://www.discovery.org/store/product/theistic-evolution/

Behe argues against theistic evolution even though he is a thesitic
evolutionist. He just isn't the kind of theistic evolutionist that he
doesn't like. He seems to be against the type of theistic evolutionist
that Denton is (a deist). Strange, but true. He likely just does it to
keep selling books. The other guys are obviously against Behe's
theistic evolutionary views. Most ID perps don't want to believe that
we share a common ancestor with apes like Behe does.

Some recent creationist news on the topic. You can keep going back and
get more.

https://evolutionnews.org/2017/12/james-tour-and-the-challenge-to-theistic-evolution-from-synthetic-chemistry/

https://evolutionnews.org/2017/12/introducing-theistic-evolution/

>
>
> I think some of these people actually believe their theories. I just think their theories are incorrect.

Most of them don't want to deal with what they believe. Just try to get
any of the IDiots to put forward their alternative for evaluation. They
can put their alternative forward and determine where science can be
applied to it, but they don't want to know the answers that science can
provide. Application of science to their alternative was never the goal
of the ID scam. The ID perps only claimed that they could do it. They
obviously never did it.

Ron Okimoto

>
>>
>> Ron Okimoto
>
>

[J.LyonLayden]

I just wonder if the evidence they were going to present had something to do with the evolution of the eye (or something like that). They may have thought they could "prove" somnething, but in the meantime, we discovered a much better natural explantion for the evolution of the eye. So they were left with nothing.
I do not doubt that there are dishonest people in the organization, but that is true of every organization.

And I don't see what the big deal is, because few take Creationist seriously anymore anyway.

[jillery]

On Sat, 16 Dec 2017 08:54:20 -0800 (PST), "J.LyonLayden"
<joseph...@gmail.com> wrote:

>And I don't see what the big deal is, because few take Creationist seriously anymore anyway.

To the contrary, there are a number of Creationists in the Trump
administration, perhaps including Trump himself. They are making
decisions on foreign and domestic policy based on a Creationist
worldview.

In addition, there are large regions of the United States whose
citizens judge their elected representatives on the degree they adhere
to a Creationist worldview, and direct the schools in their districts
to teach a Creationist worldview, or at least refuse to teach facts
they regard to be in opposition to a Creationist worldview.

Your comment above is just whistling in the dark. Or did you post it
only for effect?

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

Evelyn Beatrice Hall
Attributed to Voltaire

[J.LyonLayden]

On Saturday, December 16, 2017 at 4:30:03 PM UTC-5, jillery wrote:
> On Sat, 16 Dec 2017 08:54:20 -0800 (PST), "J.LyonLayden"
> <joseph...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >And I don't see what the big deal is, because few take Creationist seriously anymore anyway.
>
>
> To the contrary, there are a number of Creationists in the Trump
> administration, perhaps including Trump himself. They are making
> decisions on foreign and domestic policy based on a Creationist
> worldview.

'

A religious world-view or a Creationist world-view? Can you elaborate?

>
> In addition, there are large regions of the United States whose
> citizens judge their elected representatives on the degree they adhere
> to a Creationist worldview,

What regions are these? Here in the Bible Belt, the reasons I hear for Trump voters have little to do with religion. For most it was about Hillary Clinton more than it was about Trump.

I could not in good conscience vote for either of them. I might have voted for Bernie, even though I disagree with most of his ideas. I had to vote for a loser again because of the choices I was given.

>and direct the schools in their districts
> to teach a Creationist worldview, or at least refuse to teach facts
> they regard to be in opposition to a Creationist worldview.

OK now this is an issue. I do agree that evolutionary theory should be taught in schools. I don't mind having someone at the school to explain to the kids how it doesn't necessarily conflict with their religion, should the lessons seem to conflict with their Sunday school lesson and cause stress in the child. Maybe a Theosophy counselor? I think some people need a god and it's dangerous to take theirs away. Or maybe just wait until high school when the mind is less impressionable?

Joseph Campbell is a great resource for the idea that people need myth.

In Christian private schools you can see the problem. They should definitely have to teach evolution so they don't graduate an ignorant person. But they should also be allowed to explain why it doesn't conflict with religion.

[RonO]

In the beginning the IDiots were putting the old eye argument forward,
but it had already failed the scientific creationists and didn't last
very long. It obviously doesn't make the top 6.

If there were any honest ID perps they would have resigned when the bait
and switch started to go down.

This is the the mission that the ID perps signed up for. They obviously
all decided to go with the bait and switch scam instead of call off the
religious/political mission.

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

Ron Okimoto

Ron Okimoto

[Mark Isaak]

On 12/16/17 8:54 AM, J.LyonLayden wrote:
>
> And I don't see what the big deal is, because few take Creationist seriously anymore anyway.

Roughly 40% of the US takes creationism very seriously. So do sizeable
minorities of other countries, and the ruling powers of Turkey (where
you can be jailed for teaching evolution). Many school teachers in the
US teach creationism (about 10-15% of them, IIRC), and most school
teachers water down lessons on evolution or omit them entirely due to
outside pressures. So students are getting shortchanged in their
education, making them less qualified for several lucrative careers.

Furthermore, opposition to the teaching of evolution is now being
coupled with teaching of global climate change. Those who object to the
former want to deny the latter, too. That threatens the whole planet.

--
Mark Isaak eciton (at) curioustaxonomy (dot) net
"Ignorance, allied with power, is the most ferocious enemy justice can
have." - James Baldwin

[J.LyonLayden]

So if we change their minds about evolution, they'll automatically start recycling?

[J.LyonLayden]

What about the 49% of the country who take alien visitations seriously? Are they also a threat? Some of them seem to think we are all going to be delivered by the flying saucer in the sky.

Are the 10-15% private schools? Are we going to make the Ahmish adhere to our laws too? Maybe we should make them use hybrid-vehicles since their horses are polluting the atmosphere with their farts and causing traffic accidents.

I am just not sure teaching evolution is going to help with being responsible stewards to our planet. I do think evolution should be taught in high school. But I haven't seen anyone succeed or fail because of evolutionary knowledge. Elon Musk thinks we're a computer program and he's doing pretty well.

[Mark Isaak]

On 12/17/17 7:37 PM, J.LyonLayden wrote:
> On Sunday, December 17, 2017 at 10:05:02 PM UTC-5, Mark Isaak wrote:
>> On 12/16/17 8:54 AM, J.LyonLayden wrote:
>>>
>>> And I don't see what the big deal is, because few take Creationist seriously anymore anyway.
>>
>> Roughly 40% of the US takes creationism very seriously. So do sizeable
>> minorities of other countries, and the ruling powers of Turkey (where
>> you can be jailed for teaching evolution). Many school teachers in the
>> US teach creationism (about 10-15% of them, IIRC), and most school
>> teachers water down lessons on evolution or omit them entirely due to
>> outside pressures. So students are getting shortchanged in their
>> education, making them less qualified for several lucrative careers.
>>
>> Furthermore, opposition to the teaching of evolution is now being
>> coupled with teaching of global climate change. Those who object to the
>> former want to deny the latter, too. That threatens the whole planet.
>

> What about the 49% of the country who take alien visitations seriously? Are they also a threat? Some of them seem to think we are all going to be delivered by the flying saucer in the sky.

They are not insisting that their beliefs be taught to the exclusion of
real science.

> Are the 10-15% private schools?

No. A disturbing number of public schools teach creationism.

> Are we going to make the Ahmish adhere to our laws too?

Nobody is forced to become a public school teacher. And yes, we are
going to force (if you can use that word for normal education) any Amish
in public schools to understand certain things. We do not, however,
force anyone to believe anything.

When I was in 3rd grade, my teacher taught the class a little about
Japan, including the Shinto religion. Nobody was forced to convert to
Shintoism.

(And before you ask, yes I do like the idea of fairly teaching *about*
creationism in public schools. It won't happen, though, because it will
quickly become clear that it means teaching that the Bible, taken
literally, is wrong. It's probably not a good idea, either, because
many teacher will take it as a green light to evangelize their own views.)

> Maybe we should make them use hybrid-vehicles since their horses are polluting the atmosphere with their farts and causing traffic accidents.
>
> I am just not sure teaching evolution is going to help
> with being responsible stewards to our planet.

First, the laws against teaching climate change are the same laws that
oppose teaching evolution. They refer to "evolution and climate change"
in the same sentences.

Second, opposition to climate change and evolution both very often take
the form of opposition to the very concept of science being at all
useful. If you allow the argument against one, you allow it against the
other, not to mention discrediting any and all scientific research and
any and all science-based findings throughout history.

[jillery]

On Sun, 17 Dec 2017 19:01:53 -0800, Mark Isaak
<eciton@curiousta/xyz/xonomy.net> wrote:

>On 12/16/17 8:54 AM, J.LyonLayden wrote:
>>
>> And I don't see what the big deal is, because few take Creationist seriously anymore anyway.
>
>Roughly 40% of the US takes creationism very seriously. So do sizeable
>minorities of other countries, and the ruling powers of Turkey (where
>you can be jailed for teaching evolution). Many school teachers in the
>US teach creationism (about 10-15% of them, IIRC), and most school
>teachers water down lessons on evolution or omit them entirely due to
>outside pressures. So students are getting shortchanged in their
>education, making them less qualified for several lucrative careers.
>
>Furthermore, opposition to the teaching of evolution is now being
>coupled with teaching of global climate change. Those who object to the
>former want to deny the latter, too. That threatens the whole planet.

Great minds think alike.

[J.LyonLayden]

On Monday, December 18, 2017 at 12:05:02 AM UTC-5, Mark Isaak wrote:
> On 12/17/17 7:37 PM, J.LyonLayden wrote:
> > On Sunday, December 17, 2017 at 10:05:02 PM UTC-5, Mark Isaak wrote:
> >> On 12/16/17 8:54 AM, J.LyonLayden wrote:
> >>>
> >>> And I don't see what the big deal is, because few take Creationist seriously anymore anyway.
> >>
> >> Roughly 40% of the US takes creationism very seriously. So do sizeable
> >> minorities of other countries, and the ruling powers of Turkey (where
> >> you can be jailed for teaching evolution). Many school teachers in the
> >> US teach creationism (about 10-15% of them, IIRC), and most school
> >> teachers water down lessons on evolution or omit them entirely due to
> >> outside pressures. So students are getting shortchanged in their
> >> education, making them less qualified for several lucrative careers.
> >>
> >> Furthermore, opposition to the teaching of evolution is now being
> >> coupled with teaching of global climate change. Those who object to the
> >> former want to deny the latter, too. That threatens the whole planet.
> >
> > What about the 49% of the country who take alien visitations seriously? Are they also a threat? Some of them seem to think we are all going to be delivered by the flying saucer in the sky.
>
> They are not insisting that their beliefs be taught to the exclusion of
> real science.

But only 10-15%. It sounds like science is winning.

Who is insisting? Where are these schools? In what states?

Are we worried about the operation of education or the actual effects of learning. I think we should spend a little time on probability and the distances involved in space travel so that 49% of the country will understand how incredibly unlikely it would be for an alien to notice this insignificant rock in our historic past. I think we should spend some time on the so-called mysteries of history, providing a few alternatives to the ones the kids will be exposed to at home at night.

>
> > Are the 10-15% private schools?
>
> No. A disturbing number of public schools teach creationism.

What's the percentage for strictly public schools, and what states are they in? How many are secular community schools?


Does a strictly Ahmish school really need to prepare students for a career in paleontology?

How about the Gullah schools across the river here in Savannah? What are the descendants of escaped slaves and native Americans, with their mix of missionary Christian and Hoodoo, going to think about it?

>
> > Are we going to make the Ahmish adhere to our laws too?
>
> Nobody is forced to become a public school teacher. And yes, we are
> going to force (if you can use that word for normal education) any Amish
> in public schools to understand certain things. We do not, however,
> force anyone to believe anything.

Amish IN public schools? How about public schools that are attended only by Amish?

>
> When I was in 3rd grade, my teacher taught the class a little about
> Japan, including the Shinto religion. Nobody was forced to convert to
> Shintoism.

Well that's great!

>
> (And before you ask, yes I do like the idea of fairly teaching *about*
> creationism in public schools. It won't happen, though, because it will
> quickly become clear that it means teaching that the Bible, taken
> literally, is wrong. It's probably not a good idea, either, because

You shouldn't teach Creationism. Creationism isn't akin to Shinto, since there are Hindu and Muslim Creationists.

If you have a day on Shinto you could have one on Christian though. Just don't mention Genesis. You could start with the New Testament. On Jewish day you could do a summary on Abraham. Mohammed, Buddha, etc.

> many teacher will take it as a green light to evangelize their own views.)

Unless she was Shinto. Then she could do it on another day.

>
> > Maybe we should make them use hybrid-vehicles since their horses are polluting the atmosphere with their farts and causing traffic accidents.
> >
> > I am just not sure teaching evolution is going to help
> > with being responsible stewards to our planet.
>
> First, the laws against teaching climate change are the same laws that
> oppose teaching evolution. They refer to "evolution and climate change"
> in the same sentences.

Now that's weird. What is this law and where can I find it? If there's a law, why are only 10-15% following it?

[Mark Isaak]

I have been talking *only* about public schools. I don't know what
private schools are teaching. I suspect an even greater percentage of
them teach creationism, but that's a guess. I do know that some
"private" schools use taxpayer money to teach creationism, but I don't
know how many.

Public schools teaching creationism occur wherever there is a
creationist science teacher and a principal who either is also
creationist or is too gutless to complain.

> Does a strictly Ahmish school really need to prepare students for a career in paleontology?
>
> How about the Gullah schools across the river here in Savannah? What are the descendants of escaped slaves and native Americans, with their mix of missionary Christian and Hoodoo, going to think about it?

I suspect they, like anyone else, would like to have accurate information.

>>> Are we going to make the Ahmish adhere to our laws too?
>>
>> Nobody is forced to become a public school teacher. And yes, we are
>> going to force (if you can use that word for normal education) any Amish
>> in public schools to understand certain things. We do not, however,
>> force anyone to believe anything.
>
>
> Amish IN public schools? How about public schools that are attended only by Amish?

Amish was only an example, probably not the best, which I used only
because you brought them up.

>> When I was in 3rd grade, my teacher taught the class a little about
>> Japan, including the Shinto religion. Nobody was forced to convert to
>> Shintoism.
>
> Well that's great!
>
>>
>> (And before you ask, yes I do like the idea of fairly teaching *about*
>> creationism in public schools. It won't happen, though, because it will
>> quickly become clear that it means teaching that the Bible, taken
>> literally, is wrong. It's probably not a good idea, either, because
>
> You shouldn't teach Creationism. Creationism isn't akin to Shinto, since there are Hindu and Muslim Creationists.
>
> If you have a day on Shinto you could have one on Christian though. Just don't mention Genesis. You could start with the New Testament. On Jewish day you could do a summary on Abraham. Mohammed, Buddha, etc.
>
>
>> many teacher will take it as a green light to evangelize their own views.)
>
> Unless she was Shinto. Then she could do it on another day.
>
>>
>>> Maybe we should make them use hybrid-vehicles since their horses are polluting the atmosphere with their farts and causing traffic accidents.
>>>
>>> I am just not sure teaching evolution is going to help
>>> with being responsible stewards to our planet.
>>
>> First, the laws against teaching climate change are the same laws that
>> oppose teaching evolution. They refer to "evolution and climate change"
>> in the same sentences.
>
> Now that's weird. What is this law and where can I find it? If there's a law, why are only 10-15% following it?

They are not laws to teach creationism or climate denial per se. They
are laws explicitly making it acceptable to teach that evolution and
climate change are wrong, allowing the teaching of "alternative" views,
and allowing greater public harassment of teaching. Florida has such a
law; I'm pretty sure at least one other state does too, but I forget where.

The National Center for Science Education can give detailed information.
ncse.com

[J.LyonLayden]

Oh these are state laws. Here's where we get into trouble. As a Libertarian I can't give more power to the Feds than to a state for anything except national roads, the military, and foreign diplomacy. As much as I would like to make Floridiots become educated, I think it is their choice and their responsibility.

Maybe you could include an evolution pamphlet with every pair of jorts?

[J.LyonLayden]

And in case you misinterpret the term I just used, please know that I despise "tea parties."

[Peter Nyikos]

On Friday, December 15, 2017 at 12:45:03 PM UTC-5, Bob Casanova wrote:
> On Thu, 14 Dec 2017 11:45:13 -0800 (PST), the following
> appeared in talk.origins, posted by Peter Nyikos
> <nyi...@bellsouth.net>:
>
>
> >You poor deluded fool! The "Pavlov-dog-type salivation in response...
>
> IronyMeter: Passed, but smoking a bit.
> --

Sez you, with another Pavlov-dog-type salivation in response.

You salivated a Pee Wee Hermanism-by-proxy:

"I know you are, but what is Ron Okimoto?"

You don't seem to know what a TRUE Pee Wee Hermanism is like.
It is when NO effort is made to justify the "I know you are"
part. Not satisfied with even that, you deleted an extraordinarily
painstaking demonstration that Ron O is a poor deluded fool.

I have added two other painstaking demonstrations, but
you have made no attempt to counter ANY part of ANY of the
three.

You also posted some Pee Wee Hermanisms-by-proxy on the thread,
"John Harshman Shows His True Colors," first on behalf of
Harshman himself and then on behalf of Robert Camp. Each
was accompanied by two huge snips to which the sharp closing
clause of the preceding paragraph applies.


You are just a silly troll when you attack me. Don't think
readers will forever be conned into thinking that your
HIGHLY JUSTIFIABLE relentless rebuttals against that
punching bag, Ray Martinez, somehow give your completely
unsupported digs at me some sort of credibility.


HLVB.


Peter Nyikos

[Bob Casanova]

On Tue, 19 Dec 2017 09:03:04 -0800 (PST), the following

appeared in talk.origins, posted by Peter Nyikos
<nyi...@bellsouth.net>:

>On Friday, December 15, 2017 at 12:45:03 PM UTC-5, Bob Casanova wrote:
>> On Thu, 14 Dec 2017 11:45:13 -0800 (PST), the following
>> appeared in talk.origins, posted by Peter Nyikos
>> <nyi...@bellsouth.net>:
>>
>>
>> >You poor deluded fool! The "Pavlov-dog-type salivation in response...
>>
>> IronyMeter: Passed, but smoking a bit.
>> --
>
>Sez you

Yep. Who better?
--

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

[Peter Nyikos]

Oh, I know exactly when I am talking about you and when I am talking
about myself, you hate-crazed pathological liar.

And you prove my point by once again burying your head in the sand
about what I wrote and reposting your vomit yet again, with no
sign of having read anything I posted by rebuttal.

You have accomplished one thing. though: Bob Casanova has shackled
himself to your hate-driven vomit. And so he is in the process
of discrediting himself on your behalf. I hope you are suitably
grateful to him.

> If you
> weren't the bogus degenerate liar that you are, why not just go back to
> the posts that you were going to address "tomorrow" years ago

START to address, liar.

I started to address them, but I told you why I changed my mind about
addressing the rest. Look up the word "Glenn" in the post to which you
are replying, but are afraid to touch the contents of with a ten foot pole.

You will also see how completely deceitful your "If you weren't
the bogus degenerate liar" is IF you read my explanation that
follows the sentence about Glenn.

You are like the man-on-the-make saying to a woman, "If you love me...."
and then making some outrageous demand, such as "you would make
love to me, and then get an abortion if you get pregnant."

You have DECEIVED people big-time for something like a decade about
a "bait and switch scam" that exists only in your sick mind, if you
have really shown us the best evidence you can.

Rather than take a responsible attitude towards that, you bury your
head in the sand about my rebuttals of it. You are afraid of the
truth about all those wasted years of yours.

In fact, you are afraid to face the truth about yourself--and that
is just about the worst form of cowardice there is.

> address them without snipping out the evidence and lying about it. Just
> address what you have been running from for years. Once you do that,
> you can deal with the other junk that you are lying about. Go for it.
>
> REPOST:

I don't take orders from hate-crazed pathological liars, who
libel me with "the other junk that you are lying about,"
without daring to try to show that I am lying about YOUR junk.

I've taken a good bit of your repost apart already. The fact
that you haven't altered the parts I've rebutted is a measure
of just how afraid you are to face reality.

I've snipped the repost and all the lines that followed, since
your sick mind tells you that the repost is something I
am supposedly afraid of, and you just can't let go of that
delusion.

I'm going on my usual month long posting break for the Christmas
season. If you dare to list me with IDiots on your next wildly misnamed
"By Their Fruits" thread, you will be hearing plenty from me about it.

For Christmas, will you be worshipping the creator you've never
dared to describe to anyone all these years?

You have been in violation of Christ's admonition not to hide
your light under a bushel -- perhaps because, as he suggested,
the light of your alleged belief is darkness.

Peter Nyikos

[Peter Nyikos]

Here is another post from which Ron O has run away, by his OWN
standards. He has never replied to it.

If he DOES reply to it or to this Casanova-style reposting of it,
I expect him to salve his infantile, warped conscience by ignoring
everything in it, BUT KEEPING IT ALL IN his reply.

And then I expect him to challenge me to reply to posts
many years back that I haven't replied to,
thereby producing an infinite regreas that absolves
his infantile conscience of EVER dealing with the many telling
comments I made below.

On Monday, December 11, 2017 at 12:00:06 PM UTC-5, Peter Nyikos wrote:
> On Monday, December 11, 2017 at 7:25:06 AM UTC-5, Ron O wrote:
>
> repeated for context from first reply:

>
> > > Nanowrimo is over.
> > >
> > > I have no idea who any of those organizations are so I stopped reading after two sentences.
>

> > You would know if you took the time to understand what was being
> > discussed around here. The Discovery Institute started their ID
> > creationist scam unit in 1995. Intelligent design creationism
>
> There you go again with your guilt by association.
>
> You justify it with a sneaky definition of creationism that is
> NOT the one generally understood in talk.origins. YOURS is simply
> the definition that labels anyone a creationist who believes
> in a God that did some creating, say by bringing the universe
> into existence at the moment of the Big Bang.
>
>
> You allege that you are a creationist yourself on those grounds,
> but you have NEVER said what the creator in which you believe
> did and did not poof into existence.
>
> Worse yet, no one can tell what you believe about this hypothetical
> creator. You are a member of some branch of the Methodist Church,
> but your maniacal hatred of the DI for its promotion of an embryonic
> biological design theory suggests that you are a Trojan Horse instead
> of someone who sincerely believes in the God of the Bible.
>
>
> > was
> > necessary after the court losses of scientific creationism in the 1980's.
> >
> > https://www.discovery.org/id/
> >
> > The intelligent design movement eventually took over from the other
> > failed creationist efforts by the turn of the century. Public school
> > creationist groups started taking up the ID scam instead of scientific
> > creationism. Utah last month was the last group of creationist rubes
>
> > that the Discovery Institute had to run the bait and switch on.
>
> WHAT bait?


<crickets>


> You can't even trot out a quote by anyone that
> the DI was providing bait to those "rubes", can you?

<crickets>

>
> <snip>
>
> > Even Behe's IC boils down to the old creationist complexity argument
> > because it turned out that the irreducible part could evolve
>
> More weasel wording. The irreducible part of WHAT, pray tell?

<crickets>


> It is true of the clotting cascade and of the immune system
> cascade, but those are radically different from the IC challenge
> presented by the bacterial flagellum.
>
>
> > and Behe
> > doesn't consider most irreducible systems to be his type of IC.
>
> Yes, and so it is NOT the old creationist idea of complexity, liar.
>
>
> > Minnich's test of removing parts and altering the function of a system
> > was decades old
>
> Glittering generalities like this do nothing for your maniacal
> anti-ID campaign.
>
> > and none of the bacterial systems studied in that way
> > are considered to be Behe's type of IC except for the flagellum.
>
> Behe chooses his ground well. All you can do to attack it is to
> provide more evidence that his is NOT the old creationist idea.
>
>
> > Beadle
> > and Tatum got the Nobel Prize for their research of the 1930's using the
> > technique Minnich used to study the flagellum. The systems that they
> > studied by taking away parts and stopping the system from working are
> > not considered to be Behe's type of IC. So Behe literally has nothing
> > but the complexity argument left.
>
> The Martinez-style illogic here is stupefying.
>
> <snip>
>
>
> > There was another IDiot organization made up of "academics" called the
> > ID Network, but it died in 2009 because it was difficult to sell the
> > switch scam
>
> This is one of your favorite weasel wordings. In fact it is a
> bait and switch of YOURS. After promising evidence of a bait and
> switch scam, you pull the very kind of switch that you allege of
> the ID theorists, by talking only of a "swsitch scam".
>
> More importantly, every time I asked you for evidence of bait
> that is better than that pathetically irrelevant bit about
> constitutional rights, you only ever gave mountains of evidence
> of what you call the "switch" half of the alleged scam, as
> though that somehow proved that there was a BAIT AND switch SCAM.
>
> > So you are looking at the best that the creationists have to offer
>
> The only "creationist" for whom that is true is yourself. And
> it's a truly pathetic best.
>
>
> <snip>
>
>
> > Nyikos was one of the first IDiots
> > (at the turn of the century) early on
>
> I am an agnostic, and the ONLY biological intelligent design hypothesis
> that I take seriously is the Crick-Orgel hypothesis that has to do with
> the beginning of life ON EARTH. The designers of 3.5+ billion
> years ago that are part of this hypothesis were NOT supernatural.
>
> When I returned to talk.origins in 2010, you saw that I was
> supporting (though not claiming) this hypothesis and you
> were so anxious to make me a whipping boy for the DI that
> it never sank into your hate-ravaged mind that my "designers"
> were NOT supernatural and that I believed in common descent.
>
> So don't you dare claim that I am
> on the side of "ID creationism".
>
>
> > and still puts in his two cents
> > about IC every once in a while.
>
> It is YOU and rubes parroting all the misrepresentations
> of IC that put in their two cents' worth, give or take
> a couple of cents. They keep me quite busy correcting
> the gargantuan pile of misrepresentations out there.

>
> Peter Nyikos
> Professor, Dept. of Mathematics -- standard disclaimer--
> University of South Carolina

> http://people.math.sc.edu/nyikos/

I'm very sparing with the "<crickets>" convention. I only use it to
denote Ron O's failure to answer highly legitimate and telling questions.

And I don't think he is ABLE to answer them truthfully without
giving away his REAL scam.

Peter Nyikos

>
>
> > Beadle
> > and Tatum got the Nobel Prize for their research of the 1930's using the
> > technique Minnich used to study the flagellum. The systems that they
> > studied by taking away parts and stopping the system from working are
> > not considered to be Behe's type of IC. So Behe literally has nothing
>
>
> > It is sad that ignorance is one of the driving forces to keep the
> > stupidity going.
> >
> > So you are looking at the best that the creationists have to offer and
> > none of the creationists in this group want to own it. That is how sad
> > the creationist side of this issue is at this time. Guys like Kalk,
> > Dean, and Eddie are stalwart IDiots that pretty much worship the ID
> > perps at the Discovery Institute. Nyikos was one of the first IDiots
> > (at the turn of the century) early on and still puts in his two cents
> > about IC every once in a while. Bill used to be an IDiot, but he claims
> > that he is no longer an IDiot. He just likes the switch scam that
> > IDiocy evolved into because that is all he can think of to do.
> >
> > Alpha beta and Maggsey should wonder why their great scientific
> > creationist junk didn't make the list They should also wonder why they
> > are even bothering with the failed scientific creationist junk decades
> > after it came up short and had to be replaced by the ID scam.
> >
> > Ron Okimoto

[Peter Nyikos]

On Tuesday, December 19, 2017 at 12:25:02 PM UTC-5, Bob Casanova wrote:
> On Tue, 19 Dec 2017 09:03:04 -0800 (PST), the following
> appeared in talk.origins, posted by Peter Nyikos
> <nyi...@bellsouth.net>:
>
> >On Friday, December 15, 2017 at 12:45:03 PM UTC-5, Bob Casanova wrote:
> >> On Thu, 14 Dec 2017 11:45:13 -0800 (PST), the following
> >> appeared in talk.origins, posted by Peter Nyikos
> >> <nyi...@bellsouth.net>:
> >>
> >>
> >> >You poor deluded fool! The "Pavlov-dog-type salivation in response...
> >>
> >> IronyMeter: Passed, but smoking a bit.
> >> --
> >
> >Sez you
>
> Yep. Who better?

Almost anyone in this newsgroup is better than you at justifying
what [s]he says. And that should be clear from what you cravenly
snipped:

Sez you, with another Pavlov-dog-type salivation in response.

You salivated a Pee Wee Hermanism-by-proxy:

"I know you are, but what is Ron Okimoto?"

You don't seem to know what a TRUE Pee Wee Hermanism is like.
It is when NO effort is made to justify the "I know you are"
part. Not satisfied with even that, you deleted an extraordinarily
painstaking demonstration that Ron O is a poor deluded fool.

I have added two other painstaking demonstrations, but
you have made no attempt to counter ANY part of ANY of the
three.

You also posted some Pee Wee Hermanisms-by-proxy on the thread,
"John Harshman Shows His True Colors," first on behalf of
Harshman himself and then on behalf of Robert Camp. Each
was accompanied by two huge snips to which the sharp closing
clause of the preceding paragraph applies.


You are just a silly troll when you attack me. Don't think
readers will forever be conned into thinking that your
HIGHLY JUSTIFIABLE relentless rebuttals against that
punching bag, Ray Martinez, somehow give your completely
unsupported digs at me some sort of credibility.


HLVB.


Peter Nyikos

======================end of repost

If any reader wonders what "HLVB" stands for, I'll give a huge clue.

It stands for a famous line by Arnold Schwarzenegger.

[RonO]

Just address the post below this one without snipping out and lying
about anything. You are running from reality and you know it. It is
stupid and dishonest and you are just being an asshole for no good reason.

Here is the repost so you can't lie to yourself that you can't find the
post that you likely have already seen.

REPOST:

> I also found the article where Wells is said to have claimed that there
> was enough scientific support for ID that it could be required to be
> taught in the public schools.
>

> In this report Wells claims that he and Meyers discussed the issue with
> others and decided to run the bait and switch scam before they went to

> Ohio. They never intended to give the Ohio IDiots any ID science to
> teach. They should have brought Santorum into the loop so he wouldn't
> have made such a fool of himself in the editorial linked to above. It
> isn't nice to run the bait and switch scam on a US Senator. Wells does
> not say who else was involved in deciding that they were only going to
> give the Ohio rubes the obfuscation scam instead of the ID science. The
> Thomas More lawyer was correct. It seems to have been the Discovery
> Institute strategy to sell the teach ID scam, but fold and only give the
> rubes the switch scam with no ID science in it at all.
>

> QUOTE:
> Steve Meyer and I (in consultation with others) had decided ahead of
> time that we would not push for including intelligent design (ID) in the
> state science standards, but would propose instead that the standards
> include language protecting teachers who choose to teach the controversy.
> END QUOTE:
>

END REPOST:

[Bob Casanova]

On Tue, 19 Dec 2017 10:03:01 -0800 (PST), the following

appeared in talk.origins, posted by Peter Nyikos
<nyi...@bellsouth.net>:

>...Ron O has run away...
>...Casanova-style reposting of it...

Just can't help yourself, can you?

And I thought you were on a "posting break"...?

[Bob Casanova]

On Tue, 19 Dec 2017 10:08:36 -0800 (PST), the following

appeared in talk.origins, posted by Peter Nyikos
<nyi...@bellsouth.net>:

>On Tuesday, December 19, 2017 at 12:25:02 PM UTC-5, Bob Casanova wrote:
>> On Tue, 19 Dec 2017 09:03:04 -0800 (PST), the following
>> appeared in talk.origins, posted by Peter Nyikos
>> <nyi...@bellsouth.net>:
>>
>> >On Friday, December 15, 2017 at 12:45:03 PM UTC-5, Bob Casanova wrote:
>> >> On Thu, 14 Dec 2017 11:45:13 -0800 (PST), the following
>> >> appeared in talk.origins, posted by Peter Nyikos
>> >> <nyi...@bellsouth.net>:
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> >You poor deluded fool! The "Pavlov-dog-type salivation in response...
>> >>
>> >> IronyMeter: Passed, but smoking a bit.
>> >> --
>> >
>> >Sez you
>>
>> Yep. Who better?
>
>Almost anyone in this newsgroup is better than you

Your opinion is noted. And rejected.

HAND.

[Rolf]

"RonO" <roki...@cox.net> wrote in message
news:p0kqh5$g2q$1...@dont-email.me...
> The saddest thing about the current anti-evolution creationist stupidity
> is the abject dishonesty inherent in the creationist movement. There is
> no honest intent left. If there were where is it? The bait and switch
> just went down on the Utah IDiots that needed the ID science last month.
> That can't be denied. All the intelligent design creationist scam is
> today is a stupid bait and switch scam that the ID perps are running on
> their own creationist support base. No one ever gets the promised ID
> science. All they ever get is a stupid obfuscation scam that is supposed
> to keep the creationists as ignorant as possible.
>
> Why aren't any IDiot/creationists willing to try to support the latest
> claims by the Discovery Institute ID scam artists?
>
> It is crazy that creationists like Eddie, Kalk, and Dean are still willing
> to go to the ID scam artists for arguments, but if they ever really
> thought that there was something of value there, why not defend what the
> ID perps claim is the best evidence for creationism today? Kalk had the
> chance, but now his is MIA. This demonstrates the abject dishonesty of
> the current ID scam. None of the creationist supporters care about the
> evidence. It doesn't matter to them that the bait and switch keeps going
> down, and now they can't deny why the bait and switch is required. There
> is no ID/creationist science worth teaching.
>
> Years ago it was the same situation. The ID perps had been claiming that
> there was some ID science to teach in the public schools for years. I went
> over to ARN (the marketing arm of the ID perps where they sell their junk
> on the web). ARN had a discussion group supporting ID. The IDiot
> supporters all claimed that the ID science existed, but no one seemed to
> know what it was. Some of the IDiots at ARN were still arguing about
> flood geology and the age of the earth. By 2002 IDiocy had taken over
> from the failure of scientific creationism, and the first big test was The
> Ohio state board of education. There was a Colloquy discussion on
> teaching ID in Ohio and some of the ID perps participated in the Colloquy
> discussion, but no one let on that the bait and switch was going to go
> down. The IDiot supporters were sure that there was some ID science, but
> they couldn't say what it was. Senator Santorum wrote his Newspaper
> opinion piece claiming that the science of ID was going to finally have
> it's day in Ohio. Philip Johnson bloged that the ID science was going to
> shine in Ohio and cited Santorum's editorial. After the bait and switch
> went down and no ID science was given to the Ohio rubes Wells wrote up a
> report on the Ohio fiasco and claimed in the report that the Discovery
> Institute ID perps had gotten together before they went to Ohio, and they
> decided to run the bait and switch instead of give the Ohio rubes the
> promised ID science.
>
> When it was evident that the bait and switch had gone down and no ID
> science had made an appearance there was just abject denial at ARN. Just
> like here and now on TO. None of the IDiots wanted to face reality. Mike
> Gene was the only one who admitted that he had given up on teaching the
> junk years before, but Mike Gene had been among the most notable
> supporters of the ID creationist scam. Mike Gene has admitted that there
> never was any ID science since then, but that hasn't changed his religious
> opinions.
>
> So why not face reality?
>
> The Discovery Institute has finally put up their best evidence for
> intelligent design creationism. They should have put it up years ago, but
> that was never an option when they were claiming to have the ID science.
> Now they have removed the claim that they have a scientific theory of ID
> to teach in the public schools from their education policy, and they have
> decided to come clean. They seem to take pains not to claim that this is
> scientific evidence even though they have been claiming to work on the ID
> science for over two decades.
>
> The bottom line is that this list means that the ID perps have not made
> any progress in the 22 years of the existence of the ID scam unit at the
> Discovery Institute. All of this evidence existed before the modern ID
> scam was taken up by creationist supporters. Is there any excuse for the
> abject denial of the creationist contingent on this newsgroup at this
> time? The utter dishonesty should be apparent to even the most
> incompetent and ignorant. This is the best and no creationist wants to
> own it. Just like no IDiots wanted to admit what the bait and switch scam
> meant 15 years ago. Now, there is no excuse.
>
> https://groups.google.com/d/msg/talk.origins/7PsjXfKQvsc/Qw1IMjGJCwAJ
>
> The evidence isn't listed by priority. They admit that it is listed by
> order of occurrence. This order spans over 13 billion years of the
> history of the universe as we know it. The Big Bang happened over 13
> billion years ago. The fine tuning of the universe would have happened
> then and when our solar system was forming out of spent star dust around 5
> billion years ago. DNA may have been used as the genetic material
> probably over 3 billion years ago. Behe's first IC system (the bacterial
> flagellum) may have evolved a billion and a half years ago while his
> claims about the immune system and blood clotting system would have
> evolved around half a billion years ago. Behe doesn't claim any more
> recent IC systems and it has been all evolution since around 400 million
> years ago as far as Behe can tell. The origin of animals that they are
> talking about occurred after the evolution of the flagellum, but over half
> a billion years ago. ID perps such as Meyer like to talk about a 20
> million year time period over half a billion years ago called the Cambrian
> explosion. This is when many major animal phyla got their start in the
> fossil record. The Human evolution evidence that they are talking about
> is within the last 10 million years of earth's history. This time table is
> one of the reasons why most creationists likely don't like this evidence.
> This is the best that the Discovery Institute creationists have come up
> with in 22 years of effort.
>
> Number 1: The Big Bang. This is the closest thing to a creation event
> that science has come up with, but the major creationist support base for
> IDiocy do not want to believe that the Big Bang ever happened. It is one
> of the science topics that they are always trying to remove from the
> public school science standards. It looks like a creation event, but it
> isn't the creationist's type of creation event. So what kind of evidence
> is this for intelligent design creationism? The IDiots should be hashing
> this out among themselves. Why would it be considered to be in the top 10
> when the main IDiot support base do not want to believe that it ever
> happened?
>
> Number 2: The fine tuning of the universe. This is a non starter because
> we don't really have any evidence for fine tuning. Things are just the
> way that they are, and we don't know of any way to change them.

Just what always has been my take on that subject. if the universe was not
fit for our kind of life, we wouldn't be here. The fact that we are here is
evidence that the universe is fit for our kind of life. It's as simple as
that. Creationism? The only reason we have to suffer the widespread
superstition that life had to be created by a hypothetical, unobservable
deity because natural processes would be inadequate is just a desperate
attempt at creating 'evidence' for the existence of the Christian God.

It is about time for the Literalist Christians to show some evidence for all
their insane claims.

Rolf.



> If the multiverse notions are correct we don't observe evidence of any
> universes that don't have our laws of nature. In the scientific community
> the fine tuning argument hasn't reached the level of being called
> scientific, and has led nowhere and has not produced any productive
> science. This is a proposal that has led nowhere in science, so what kind
> of evidence is it for creationism?
>
> Number 3: The origin of information in DNA and the origin of life. These
> are likely two separate events because evidence looking at the translation
> system (how DNA is transcribed into RNA and then translated into protein)
> indicates that the translation system existed before the use of DNA as the
> genetic material. One current alternatives is that RNA came first and
> functioned as both enzymatic activity and information storage. Ribosomes
> (translation machinery) still contain catalytic RNA and other ribozymes
> are known. There could have been messenger RNA, but something other than
> proteins may have been involved in charging the tRNAs with specific amino
> acids because the proteins that do the charging today evolved after the
> genetic code evolved. This all fits because how would we make the
> proteins to charge the tRNAs without the genetic code? We can tell this
> because the two major types of tRNA charging enzymes evolved from the same
> piece of DNA, but were coded from opposite strands. This is evident
> because there is a highly conserved sequence that we can tell existed
> because the two types of genes have the complementary sequence conserved
> in the three base codons of the current genetic code. The code would have
> had to exist before the DNA based protein charging enzymes existed. There
> is a lot that we obviously don't know, but creationists know even less in
> terms of scientific evidence. Look up the recent threads on abiogenesis
> if you don't believe that. What the creationist need to do is put up
> their alternative and the evidence for it side by side and compare the
> two, but they can't because they do not have any equivalent evidence.
> That is just a fact.
>
> Number 4: Irreducible Complexity. This is pretty sad because Behe's type
> of IDiot irreducible complexity has never been determined to exist in
> nature, so what kind of evidence could it possibly be? The type of
> irreducibly complex systems where you take away a part and the system
> stops doing its normal function was predicted to be a consequence of
> biological evolution and Behe agrees that systems like a tree branch
> falling between two rocks (a lever and fulcrum) is not his type of IC
> system even though it meets that criteria. In Behe's response to his
> critics at the turn of the century Behe made sure that his type of IC
> could not be evaluated. He claimed that there was something called "well
> matched" that his systems had to have enough of, but Behe never determined
> how to measure well matched so he could never tell if any system had
> enough of it. He also claimed to his critics that the number, order and
> arrangement of mutations required to evolve his systems was important, but
> Behe never identified the mutations that were required nor did he ever
> determine the order and arrangement of such mutations. IC was still born
> and never amounted to anything. It is just sad that it makes the top 6
> and not specified complexity, or complex specified information or the new
> IDiot law of thermodynamics that was supposed to support ID. Dembski
> agreed that space alien designers was the most scientific IDiot
> alternative, but it didn't make the top 6. Like IC none of this IDiocy
> ever panned out and it all amounted to nothing. It should be noted that
> this is the only piece of "evidence" produced by an IDiot, and Behe came
> up with it before the Discovery Institute ID scam unit existed. He
> published it in the second edition of Pandas and People in 1993. So even
> if you count IC, as worthless as it is, the ID perps have obviously made
> zero progress in 22 years of running the creationist ID scam.
>
> Number 5: The origin of animals. The scientific creationists used to make
> claims about the Cambrian explosion over 30 years ago. This is another
> line of evidence that the creationists do not want to believe. The major
> faction of IDiot supporters do not want to believe that the Cambrian
> explosion ever happened. There is evidence both fossil and molecular that
> animal phyla did not all evolve during the Cambrian explosion. Cnidarian
> fossils predate that time and some phyla evolved after the "explosion"
> event. The evolution of animals is much more complex than IDiots are
> being told. When Meyer talks about the order of appearance of animal phyla
> he is talking about a much longer period of time than just the 20 million
> year period of what is called the explosion. He is also talking about 20
> million years in terms of the order within the explosion and that doesn't
> sit well with the major creationist support base for the ID scam. For the
> IDiot argument to hold water science would have to accurately date the
> event to within a 20 million year period over half a billion years ago.
> The dating of the event has gotten more accurate with time, but that is
> the issue with the major creationist support base for IDiocy. They don't
> want to talk about evidence for anything that happened over half a billion
> years ago, and they definitely don't want t hear about something that took
> 20 million years to accomplish.
>
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cambrian_explosion
>
> Number 6: The origin of humans. This is sadder than putting IC in as
> evidence. This is essentially the same "no transitional fossils in the
> human lineage" argument that the scientific creationists were using over
> 30 years ago when we didn't have as many fossils in the human lineage, and
> even the fossils that we had then messed up the scientific creationists
> who couldn't decide which fossils were human and which were apes. Some
> fossils were considered to be apes by some creation scientists and humans
> by other. They were obviously transitional even then. To deny reality like
> the ID perps have to do today is tragically dishonest and lame. The level
> of denial that this "evidence" takes is so outrageous that it is difficult
> to believe that the ID perps would even put it on the list. When
> creationists can't decide what is human and what is not how could this
> argument hold water? The abrupt transition between humans and apes that
> is needed for this argument does not exist.
>
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ardipithecus_ramidus
>
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australopithecus
>
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homo_habilis
>
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homo_erectus
>
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Archaic_humans
>
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anatomically_modern_human
>
> Differences of creationist classifications:
> http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/a_erectus.html
>
> This is it. The 6 best that the creationists have come up with in the
> last 22 years of effort, and they all existed as lame creationist
> arguments before the Discovery Institute ID scam unit started in 1995.
> Zero progress in the last two decades of effort. That has to be sad in
> anyone's book. This was a time of the most rapid advances in the history
> of science, and the ID perps managed to accomplish nothing in terms of ID
> science. The tragic thing is that there was science that IDiots could
> have done pertaining to their alternative, but they refused to do it
> because they obviously did not want to know the answers.
>
> This is the best that the creationist have as determined by 22 years of
> effort by the "science" minded ID perps at the Discovery Institute. Isn't
> it time for the creationists to put up their alternative and determine
> where science can be applied to it instead of indulging in this type of
> lame stupidity? If you aren't interested in what science can tell you,
> why are you arguing about the science? Dishonesty is so ingrained in the
> current creationist mentality that all of them can just let reality slide
> off and continue to be as dishonest as they are. Shouldn't that change?
> Creationists own this evidence. It is all they have come up with in
> decades of effort, so what is next?
>
> Ron Okimoto
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

[jillery]

On Thu, 4 Jan 2018 00:08:31 +0100, "Rolf" <rolf.a...@gmail.com>
wrote:

Just to be pedantic, considering that almost all of the universe would
kill us instantly if exposed to it, and that even much of the Earth
itself would keep us from reproducing, then it's hard to justify a
claim that the universe is fit for our kind of life, nevermind that
it's finely tuned for us.

It's more accurate to say we are *consistent with* a small part of an
even smaller part of the universe.

[Peter Nyikos]

On Friday, December 15, 2017 at 9:30:02 PM UTC-5, Ron O wrote:
> SNIP:

>
> Since Nyikos is lying about this material

I never did that. What you did this time around
was post more material in a vain effort to
to back up what you wrote, and what you have posted below does
NOT demonstrate any past falsehoods by me, let alone lies.

> and questioning the evidence
> it just so happens that I took this day into consideration and put in
> quotes that Nyikos would not be able to deny like he is doing in his
> posts. Some of the links have broken as I predicted, but You can see
> how Nyikos dealt with the material before the first time around.

I dealt with it honestly, and you are pulling a bait and switch scam here.
Every bit of documentation that you put below is pure switch from
the bait you are spewing here.

> Wells on the Ohio Bait and switch:
> https://groups.google.com/d/msg/talk.origins/H2Sw6NFIi4s/c7cRQzCvA2YJ
>
> I put the relevant quotes from these sources into this post of the same
> thread.

More bait spewed by you:

> Nyikos can lie about what he couldn't lie about then.


> https://groups.google.com/d/msg/talk.origins/H2Sw6NFIi4s/bu37mUbcBQAJ
>
> REPOST with quotes:
> Due to Nyikos' latest antics I reposted an old post, in checking the
> links I noticed that I had done something that I knew is not the best
> thing to do.  I just posted links without any quoted material.  This
> depends on the links staying viable, but they break all the time as
> these event fade into history.  So I decided to put some quotes in with
> the links so that I could use them even after they break.
>
> On 9/21/2014 8:27 AM, RonO wrote:
> > Because Nyikos has gone into a new wave of denial I decided to see just
> > what about the Ohio Bait and Switch in 2002

Note that year, 2002, readers. It's part of Ron O's bait.

> > was still available on the
> > web after almost 4 years of his denial.

Note, readers, that Ron O does NOT quote any denial by me here, nor
does he tell when that alleged denial might have taken place.

> > ARN still has the booklet that the Discovery Institute used to give out
> > on teaching intelligent design in the public schools that was published
> > in 1999.

Here your switch begins, Ron O. We are transported back to 1999, three
years before the alleged 2002 BAIT AND switch took place.

> >  All the Authors were Discovery Institute fellows and Meyer has
> > been the director of the ID scam wing of the Discovery Institute since
> > it was founded.
> >
>
> http://arn.org/docs/dewolf/guidebook.htm
>
> David K. DeWolf, Stephen C. Meyer, Mark E. DeForrest.  1999.

Note the date again. I'm deleting the quote, and I expect
you to claim that I am lying without daring to spell out
what the alleged lie is.

<snip>

> END QUOTE:
>
> This was how the ID perps were selling the ID scam before they ran the
> bait and switch on Ohio

...in 2002. But note the words "bait and", readers. Dedicated perpetrator
of bait and switch scams that he is, Ron O does NOT quote any bait
dated later than 1999.

> and every other legislator or school board that
> has needed the ID science since.

No "bait" quoted in any of this. The alleged "need" was
the responsibility of the legislators and school boards,
and Ron O does not dare to tell you readers that
the Discovery Institute actively discouraged the Dover
School Board in 2005 for making a statement about ID mandatory.

Ron O has never been able to quote any online allegation
by the Discovery Institute after 1999 that qualifies as "bait".

>
> >
> > ARN also has the Santorum editorial, written for the Washington Times
> > the day before the Bait and Switch went down,

Note again the undocumented "Bait and" where the
Discovery Institute is concerned.

Santorum bears responsibility for the contents of the editorial;
Ron O has never documented DI input into it.

> > where he obviously
> > believed that ID would have it's day in the sun and would be taught in
> > Ohio.
> >
>
> http://www.arn.org/docs/ohio/washtimes_santorum031402.htm

Santorum bears responsibility for the contents of the editorial;
Ron O has never documented DI input into it.

> QUOTE:

<snip>

> © 2002 News World Communications. All rights reserved. International
> copyright secured.
> File Date: 3.14.02
> END QUOTE:
>
> >
> > I also found the article where Wells is said to have claimed

Ron O, you are repeating something I rebutted. I'm leaving in
the words that make it plain that you are repeating pure hearsay.

You ran away from the rebuttal, comforting your beaten-into-docility
conscience with the fact that you left my rebuttal in at the end
of your hate-driven post.

<snip rebutted material>

> > The article that stated that the president of the Discovery Institute
> > and half a dozen staff members also came to Ohio to support Meyer and
> > Wells in their dog and pony show is still available.

What readers see in the following webpage is pure "switch". NO
documentation of "bait and".

>
> http://www.cleveland.com/debate/index.ssf?/debate/more/101592906620922124.html
>
>
> Discovery Institute's involvement and running the bait and switch as a
> "compromise", but the compromise turned into no mention of ID at all

Yes, and so you documented NO BAIT. Your OWN bait and switch scam
is thus here for all to see.

Yes, it's all the alleged "switch" from the never-since-1999-documented
"bait."

As is everything else you quoted later. I am snipping it all
except urls AND ONE EXCEPTION so that some readers whose inordinate
stamina has taken them this far can decide whether to believe me or you.


>
> http://archive.wired.com/wired/archive/12.10/evolution.html

<snip>

> http://www.creationists.org/archived-obsolete-pages/2002-03-11-OSBE-mtg.html

<snip>


> http://www.creationists.org/archived-obsolete-pages/2002-03-11-OSBE-wells.html

<snip>

> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Santorum_Amendment

And here is the one exception, which strongly suggests that
there was a decision to NOT include the bait about which
Ron O seems to have been LYING all along:

> > QUOTE:
> > Steve Meyer and I (in consultation with others) had decided ahead of
> > time that we would not push for including intelligent design (ID) in the
> > state science standards, but would propose instead that the standards
> > include language protecting teachers who choose to teach the
> controversy.
> > END QUOTE:

<snip>

> http://ncse.com/news/2005/10/discovery-institute-thomas-more-law-center-squabble-aei-foru-00704

<snip>



Ron O closed his seemingly endless spiel with another trip down
memory lane to 1999, ending with:

> This is the material that Nyikos has had to lie about for years.

Utterly false.

Peter Nyikos

[Peter Nyikos]

On Monday, December 18, 2017 at 12:40:02 AM UTC-5, jillery wrote:
> On Sun, 17 Dec 2017 19:01:53 -0800, Mark Isaak
> <eciton@curiousta/xyz/xonomy.net> wrote:
>
> >On 12/16/17 8:54 AM, J.LyonLayden wrote:
> >>
> >> And I don't see what the big deal is, because few take Creationist seriously anymore anyway.
> >
> >Roughly 40% of the US takes creationism very seriously. So do sizeable
> >minorities of other countries, and the ruling powers of Turkey (where
> >you can be jailed for teaching evolution). Many school teachers in the
> >US teach creationism (about 10-15% of them, IIRC), and most school
> >teachers water down lessons on evolution or omit them entirely due to
> >outside pressures. So students are getting shortchanged in their
> >education, making them less qualified for several lucrative careers.

"lucrative" includes university presidents, (and, depending on what
high standards one has for "lucrative," vice presidents, provosts, and deans)

Universities are increasingly run like businesses, with the Administration
playing the role of management, Faculty the role of skilled labor, and
Students the role of customers. Most faculties haven't unionized because
they haven't seen the handwriting on the wall, and it shows.

> >Furthermore, opposition to the teaching of evolution is now being
> >coupled with teaching of global climate change. Those who object to the
> >former want to deny the latter, too. That threatens the whole planet.
>
>
> Great minds think alike.

Your mind and Mark's, that is. Both of you are quite happy with a
stereotype that is completely undocumented.

True, a lot of creationists also subscribe to various sites
that put out anti-global-warming and/or anti-human-caused-global-warming
and/or anti-imminent-tipping-point missives.

Al Gore and many others put out propaganda to make people
think the tipping point is virtually upon us. Some of it (a while
back, of course) predicted a date which already puts us past the
tipping point.

But during the heat of last summer, a climate scientist, William T. Hyde,
told us here at talk.origins that neither he nor anyone else has any idea
of where the tipping point might be.

Here you can see my first reply to Prof. Hyde:


https://groups.google.com/d/msg/talk.origins/_4xS2iZfWxU/HCvuTSgsAQAJ
Subject: Re: Will Global Warming Prevent a Disastrous Ice Age?
Date: Thu, 27 Jul 2017 09:30:05 -0700 (PDT)
Message-ID: <3456aea7-f166-4769...@googlegroups.com>

You can navigate from there to the rest of the thread, including
replies he made to me, one on the tipping point.

Also you will see a reply I made to you on that thread, with
a trivial little correction in a separate post.

Peter Nyikos
Professor, Department of Math. -- standard disclaimer --
U. of S. Carolina

[Peter Nyikos]

On Wednesday, January 3, 2018 at 7:50:04 PM UTC-5, jillery wrote:
> On Thu, 4 Jan 2018 00:08:31 +0100, "Rolf" <rolf.a...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> >
> >"RonO" <roki...@cox.net> wrote in message
> >news:p0kqh5$g2q$1...@dont-email.me...
> >> The saddest thing about the current anti-evolution creationist stupidity
> >> is the abject dishonesty inherent in the creationist movement. There is
> >> no honest intent left.

No evidence was provided for this bombastic claim.

> >> If there were where is it? The bait and switch
> >> just went down on the Utah IDiots that needed the ID science last month.
> >> That can't be denied.

In fact, I denied it, because no documentation exists for the
"bait and" part. What's more, today I've not only demolished claims of
earlier cases of "bait and" going back to Ohio 2002, but I have
repeatedly demonstrated that Ron O is indulging in a bait and
switch scam of his own, using his own quoted material as evidence.


<snip to get to Rolf, with a little Ron O context preceding his words>

> >> Number 2: The fine tuning of the universe. This is a non starter because
> >> we don't really have any evidence for fine tuning.
Things are just the
> >> way that they are, and we don't know of any way to change them.
> >
> >Just what always has been my take on that subject. if the universe was not
> >fit for our kind of life, we wouldn't be here.

And if it weren't fit for life at all,
and if this is the only universe there is, there would be no
life in the whole of reality. Yet both Rolf and jillery
are quite blase about that close call with near-Nothingness.

Atheists usually are, in my experience. Have I seen a biased
sample, or is this the New Atheism?

> The fact that we are here is
> >evidence that the universe is fit for our kind of life. It's as simple as
> >that. Creationism? The only reason we have to suffer the widespread
> >superstition that life had to be created by a hypothetical, unobservable
> >deity because natural processes would be inadequate

That's a separate issue, but if natural processes are inadequate
to produce intelligent life in a universe as fine tuned for it
as this one with a probability of less than 1%, then we are either
damned lucky or there are an unimaginably great number of other
universes besides this one.

> > is just a desperate
> >attempt at creating 'evidence' for the existence of the Christian God.
> >
> >It is about time for the Literalist Christians to show some evidence for all
> >their insane claims.
> >
> >Rolf.
>
>
> Just to be pedantic, considering that almost all of the universe would
> kill us instantly if exposed to it, and that even much of the Earth
> itself would keep us from reproducing, then it's hard to justify a
> claim that the universe is fit for our kind of life, nevermind that
> it's finely tuned for us.

It's a relative thing. If universes are based on the sorts of
equations that Stephen Carlip loves to talk about, then we
would be hard put to hypothesize a universe that is more favorable
for the evolution of life, ONCE IT GETS STARTED, than our own.

> It's more accurate to say we are *consistent with* a small part of an
> even smaller part of the universe.

Let's see you describe a universe which gets Carlip's seal of
approval and where life is consistent with a much bigger part.


<ranting and raving by Okimoto on "Number 2" deleted>

<Okimoto talk about Number 3 thru Number 6 deleted because neither
Rolf nor you had anything to say about it here>


Peter Nyikos
Professor of Mathematics
Univ. of South Carolina --standard disclaimer--

[jillery]

Wow, nothing gets past you, except for the actual point.

>Both of you are quite happy with a
>stereotype that is completely undocumented.

And your mindreading still sucks. Too bad for you pseudoskeptics
don't address that "completely undocumented stereotype", instead of
posting their nonsense PRATTs.

>True, a lot of creationists also subscribe to various sites
>that put out anti-global-warming and/or anti-human-caused-global-warming
>and/or anti-imminent-tipping-point missives.
>
>Al Gore and many others put out propaganda to make people
>think the tipping point is virtually upon us. Some of it (a while
>back, of course) predicted a date which already puts us past the
>tipping point.
>
>But during the heat of last summer, a climate scientist, William T. Hyde,
>told us here at talk.origins that neither he nor anyone else has any idea
>of where the tipping point might be.
>
>Here you can see my first reply to Prof. Hyde:
>
>
>https://groups.google.com/d/msg/talk.origins/_4xS2iZfWxU/HCvuTSgsAQAJ
>Subject: Re: Will Global Warming Prevent a Disastrous Ice Age?
>Date: Thu, 27 Jul 2017 09:30:05 -0700 (PDT)
>Message-ID: <3456aea7-f166-4769...@googlegroups.com>
>
>You can navigate from there to the rest of the thread, including
>replies he made to me, one on the tipping point.
>
>Also you will see a reply I made to you on that thread, with
>a trivial little correction in a separate post.

I saw nothing from you to me that wasn't more of your repetitive
irrelevant spew.

>Peter Nyikos
>Professor, Department of Math. -- standard disclaimer --
>U. of S. Carolina
>

[jillery]

On Fri, 19 Jan 2018 20:05:42 -0800 (PST), Peter Nyikos
<nyi...@bellsouth.net> wrote:

>On Wednesday, January 3, 2018 at 7:50:04 PM UTC-5, jillery wrote:
>> On Thu, 4 Jan 2018 00:08:31 +0100, "Rolf" <rolf.a...@gmail.com>
>> wrote:

[...]

>> >Just what always has been my take on that subject. if the universe was not
>> >fit for our kind of life, we wouldn't be here.
>
>And if it weren't fit for life at all,
>and if this is the only universe there is, there would be no
>life in the whole of reality. Yet both Rolf and jillery
>are quite blase about that close call with near-Nothingness.

Too many meaningless "ifs" to justify what you think I think.

>Atheists usually are, in my experience. Have I seen a biased
>sample, or is this the New Atheism?
>
>
>> The fact that we are here is
>> >evidence that the universe is fit for our kind of life. It's as simple as
>> >that. Creationism? The only reason we have to suffer the widespread
>> >superstition that life had to be created by a hypothetical, unobservable
>> >deity because natural processes would be inadequate
>
>That's a separate issue, but if natural processes are inadequate
>to produce intelligent life in a universe as fine tuned for it
>as this one with a probability of less than 1%, then we are either
>damned lucky or there are an unimaginably great number of other
>universes besides this one.

Nope. Once again, the universe is very big and very old, in human
scales. So even though over 99% of the universe is utterly unsuited
for life as we know it, that remaining less than 1% still represents
lots of opportunities and lots of real estate for life in it.

>> > is just a desperate
>> >attempt at creating 'evidence' for the existence of the Christian God.
>> >
>> >It is about time for the Literalist Christians to show some evidence for all
>> >their insane claims.
>> >
>> >Rolf.
>>
>>
>> Just to be pedantic, considering that almost all of the universe would
>> kill us instantly if exposed to it, and that even much of the Earth
>> itself would keep us from reproducing, then it's hard to justify a
>> claim that the universe is fit for our kind of life, nevermind that
>> it's finely tuned for us.
>
>It's a relative thing. If universes are based on the sorts of
>equations that Stephen Carlip loves to talk about, then we
>would be hard put to hypothesize a universe that is more favorable
>for the evolution of life, ONCE IT GETS STARTED, than our own.

Perhaps you would be hard put. Others, not so much.

>> It's more accurate to say we are *consistent with* a small part of an
>> even smaller part of the universe.
>
>Let's see you describe a universe which gets Carlip's seal of
>approval and where life is consistent with a much bigger part.

Why should anybody bother with your nonsense challenge? Carlip
doesn't pretend to be the final authority on this subject.

[RonO]

On 1/19/2018 10:55 AM, Peter Nyikos wrote:
> On Friday, December 15, 2017 at 9:30:02 PM UTC-5, Ron O wrote:
>> SNIP:
>>
>> Since Nyikos is lying about this material
>
> I never did that. What you did this time around
> was post more material in a vain effort to
> to back up what you wrote, and what you have posted below does
> NOT demonstrate any past falsehoods by me, let alone lies.

Nyikos should never lie about "never" because he knows that it is a lie
just about every time he claims that he never did the bogus and
dishonest things that he has done.

This should have ended when Nyikos decided to run from the repost years
ago. The fact that he has decided to lie about the junk at this time
should tell anyone how lame Nyikos can be. He is just getting worse if
that is possible at this time. He could have continued to run and lie
about his misdeeds to other posters, but for whatever reason he has to
start lying about the junk now when he couldn't bring himself to lie
about it years ago. My guess is that he decided to do it since a lot of
the links in the repost are now broken, but as Nyikos found out I had
already quoted out of the links and this is what we get from the sad sap.

I noted a couple of years ago that using the links and depending on them
was not a smart thing to do (because Nyikos is so far into denial that I
expected this bogus behavior to go on for years), so I created a post
with quotes that Nyikos now has to deny in anyway that he can. He has
consistently lied about this material. There is no doubt about that by
the way that he addresses the material in this post. He simply removes
the quoted material.

I guess that lying to Glenn about addressing the evidence tomorrow is
not a lie according to Nyikos. Those posts have never been addressed.
When confronted by that claim Nyikos ran and he has been running to this
day. I guess that lying about the Scottish verdict quote after he
snipped it out was not a lie. "Not in the public schools and not in a
form ready to teach" is what Nyikos claimed and it was an obvious lie
because public schools was right in the quote that he had just snipped
out and the ID perps were claiming to have a scientific theory of ID
that a teacher could teach. Sad, but true. Nyikos ran from that lie,
kept denying that he ever did it and eventually used the stupid quote in
his Scottish Verdict misdirection thread when he was caught lying about
what I had written in his posts in his Dirty Debating threads. Those
are just a few of the Nyikosian lies that he has denied or run from over
the years. The Dirty Debating lie doesn't even get a denial out of
Nyikos, he just runs and never addresses the issue. He knows that I can
just bring up the post that demonstrates that he was lying and he has no
counter. He has just run from that post and never addressed it.

It looks like it is time to lay this whole stupid mess to rest so Nyikos
has more to run from for the rest of his life.

Nyikos returned to TO after years of not having to deal with him in Dec
of 2010. One of his first posts after his return was his denial of the
Discovery Institute's involvement in running the bait and switch on the
Ohio IDiot rubes in 2002. Nyikos had been one of the first IDiots on
TO, before the turn of the century, that defended the bogus junk, and he
was picking up where he had left off.

Thanks to Google you can still access those old posts.

This was my first post to Nyikos where I tried to bring him up to date
on the ID creationist scam:
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/talk.origins/lJuA2zaMvfY/EuQ4dGA104cJ

Nyikos responded with his usual denial and requested evidence for
Discovery Institute involvement:
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/talk.origins/lJuA2zaMvfY/_OZQzqS0FCEJ

QUOTE:
Any Discovery Institute bigwigs implicated? Who, and in what way?
END QUOTE:

Nyikos denied what I told him and posted that I should post some
evidence that they were involved instead of just telling him what
everyone else knows, and he told me to "hop to it".

I provided the evidence and Nyikos ran and has refused to address that
post to this day.

https://groups.google.com/d/msg/talk.origins/lJuA2zaMvfY/Y5nIY2sQLQkJ

Nyikos has been directed back to that post for years and he just kept
running. He started his usual misdirection ploys and did whatever he
could to deny reality. It just got him into more trouble as he was
found to be wrong about one thing after another and his assoholic
behavior just ended in more running and lying about the issues.

Nyikos should consider how well his three knockdowns went. His first
one was so bogus that he didn't put up the second one until a year or
two after the first, and the second one was where Nyikos got caught
lying about me doing something stupid when Google doesn't work that way,
so I could not have done what he claimed. They were supposed to be
delivered in a couple weeks, but it took years, and Nyikos won't even
give me a link to the last one that he claims to have delivered. That
is how sad Nyikos is.

For whatever stupid reason Nyikos just can't admit when he is wrong. It
likely has something to do with his claims that he has never lost an
exchange on the internet and that he has never lied on the internet. He
has obviously done both over the years on this topic, and the denial
just results in more assoholic behavior out of the loser.

Nyikos was wrong about the Discovery Institute running the bait and
switch on Ohio, so he has had to deny reality for years. All his
subsequent denial is due to being wrong about what the Discovery
Institute did in Ohio when they started to run the bait and switch.
Before Ohio in 2002 the ID perps were best know for their teach ID in
the public schools nonsense. Where do IDiots like Nyikos think that the
Ohio rubes got the idea of teaching ID in the public schools from?

You can see this continued denial in how Nyikos responded to the post
below. He just removes the material that he can't deal with and
pretends that it doesn't matter. He also tries to misdirect the
argument into areas that it is hard to figure out what he is trying to
do at times. He just can't deal with reality.

Remember that the repost below is what Nyikos had run from for years,
and I have reposted it multiple times since to ward off the Nyikosian
menace. I first posted it in 2014 and Nyikos finally decided to
obfuscate about it now. He likely decided to do it after he found out
that some of the links are broken. The main broken link was to Wells'
report on running the bait and switch on Ohio. The link no longer
works, but I have a copy of the report on my computer and I did quote
out of the report.

So no matter how Nyikos obfuscates about these issues it is just a fact
that he has run from reality for years and that he has obviously been
lying about and been wrong about multiple things over the years. What
is he doing in this post to deny that reality?

>
>> and questioning the evidence
>> it just so happens that I took this day into consideration and put in
>> quotes that Nyikos would not be able to deny like he is doing in his
>> posts. Some of the links have broken as I predicted, but You can see
>> how Nyikos dealt with the material before the first time around.
>
> I dealt with it honestly, and you are pulling a bait and switch scam here.
> Every bit of documentation that you put below is pure switch from
> the bait you are spewing here.

That is why it all got snipped out and Nyikos has no evidence of honest
behavior. What were we arguing? What is in the repost? What links was
Nyikos obfuscating about? All I did was put up the same post with added
quotes from the links. Nyikos had the chance to address those quotes
years ago, but he did not.

>
>
>> Wells on the Ohio Bait and switch:
>> https://groups.google.com/d/msg/talk.origins/H2Sw6NFIi4s/c7cRQzCvA2YJ
>>
>> I put the relevant quotes from these sources into this post of the same
>> thread.
>
> More bait spewed by you:

It was the same post that you were responding to, but had the quotes
that you can't deny, so you have to lie about me changing the subject
when nothing changed except what I said about those references were
confirmed by the quoted material.

>
>> Nyikos can lie about what he couldn't lie about then.
>
>
>> https://groups.google.com/d/msg/talk.origins/H2Sw6NFIi4s/bu37mUbcBQAJ
>>
>> REPOST with quotes:
>> Due to Nyikos' latest antics I reposted an old post, in checking the
>> links I noticed that I had done something that I knew is not the best
>> thing to do.  I just posted links without any quoted material.  This
>> depends on the links staying viable, but they break all the time as
>> these event fade into history.  So I decided to put some quotes in with
>> the links so that I could use them even after they break.
>>
>> On 9/21/2014 8:27 AM, RonO wrote:
>> > Because Nyikos has gone into a new wave of denial I decided to see just
>> > what about the Ohio Bait and Switch in 2002
>
> Note that year, 2002, readers. It's part of Ron O's bait.

It was a new wave of denial in multiple threads and many posts. I don't
know why Nyikos would deny it. Note that the information about the bait
and switch in 2002 is what Nyikos has been running from since 2010.

>
>
>> > was still available on the
>> > web after almost 4 years of his denial.
>
> Note, readers, that Ron O does NOT quote any denial by me here, nor
> does he tell when that alleged denial might have taken place.

What is Nyikos doing in this post (a not so big of a hint would be
denying his past stupidity on this subject)? What is Nyikos obviously
in denial about (Does it have something to do with the bait and switch
that the Discovery Institute is still running? Remember Utah last
month, did they get any ID science to teach? What did they get from the
Discovery Institute instead of any ID science?)? What was in my post
that Nyikos is addressing? This is the type of stupid lie that Nyikos
has to indulge in in order to deny reality.

>
>
>> > ARN still has the booklet that the Discovery Institute used to give out
>> > on teaching intelligent design in the public schools that was published
>> > in 1999.
>
> Here your switch begins, Ron O. We are transported back to 1999, three
> years before the alleged 2002 BAIT AND switch took place.

You can't run the bait and switch if you first do not offer the bait.
The ID perps were selling the teach ID scam for years before they
started running the bait and switch. 1999 predates 2002 by years.
Should a mathematician have difficulty with such a simple fact.

>
>
>> >  All the Authors were Discovery Institute fellows and Meyer has
>> > been the director of the ID scam wing of the Discovery Institute since
>> > it was founded.
>> >
>>
>> http://arn.org/docs/dewolf/guidebook.htm
>>
>> David K. DeWolf, Stephen C. Meyer, Mark E. DeForrest.  1999.
>
> Note the date again. I'm deleting the quote, and I expect
> you to claim that I am lying without daring to spell out
> what the alleged lie is.

The misdirection is stupid and dishonest. 1999 means that the ID perps
were selling the teach ID scam years before they ran the first bait and
switch on Ohio in 2002. You can still get the booklet from ARN.

>
> <snip>

Removal of what he can't deal with. I will put it back in so he can run
from it again. This is the quote that was among the evidence that
Nyikos said that he would address tomorrow, but tomorrow still has not
come for those posts. For some reason Nyikos believes that snipping out
the evidence and running is something worth doing.

REQUOTE:

9. Conclusion

Local school boards and state education officials are frequently
pressured to avoid teaching the controversy regarding biological
origins. Indeed, many groups, such as the National Academy of Sciences,
go so far as to deny the existence of any genuine scientific controversy
about the issue. 160 Nevertheless, teachers should be reassured that
they have the right to expose their students to the problems as well as
the appeal of Darwinian theory. Moreover, as the previous discussion
demonstrates, school boards have the authority to permit, and even
encourage, teaching about design theory as an alternative to Darwinian
evolution-and this includes the use of textbooks such as Of Pandas and
People that present evidence for the theory of intelligent design.

The controlling legal authority, the Supreme Court's decision in Edwards
v. Aguillard, explicitly permits the inclusion of alternatives to
Darwinian evolution so long as those alternatives are based on
scientific evidence and not motivated by strictly religious concerns.
Since design theory is based on scientific evidence rather than
religious assumptions, it clearly meets this test. Including discussions
of design in the science curriculum thus serves an important goal of
making education inclusive, rather than exclusionary. In addition, it
provides students with an important demonstration of the best way for
them as future scientists and citizens to resolve scientific
controversies-by a careful and fair-minded examination of the evidence.

END REQUOTE:

The ID perps were obviously selling the teach ID scam by 1999. It was
what they were most known for before they started running the bait and
switch.

>
>

>> END QUOTE:
>>
>> This was how the ID perps were selling the ID scam before they ran the
>> bait and switch on Ohio
>
> ...in 2002. But note the words "bait and", readers. Dedicated perpetrator
> of bait and switch scams that he is, Ron O does NOT quote any bait
> dated later than 1999.

Misdirection, but for what purpose? Nyikos has just gone round the
bend. 2002 means that they ran the bait and switch on Ohio after years
of claiming that they could teach ID in the public schools. Who do you
think that the Ohio rubes got the idea to teach IDiocy from? Who did
the Ohio rubes bring in to tell them about the wonderful ID science that
could be taught?

>
>
>> and every other legislator or school board that
>> has needed the ID science since.
>
> No "bait" quoted in any of this. The alleged "need" was
> the responsibility of the legislators and school boards,
> and Ron O does not dare to tell you readers that
> the Discovery Institute actively discouraged the Dover
> School Board in 2005 for making a statement about ID mandatory.

What is sad is that Nyikos can lie about no "bait" just because he has
removed the bait from this post. The requote that I reposted above will
tell anyone what the bait was. For some reason Nyikos believes that he
can lie about something if he has removed it from a post. I don't know
what his rational is that it isn't lying if the evidence that he is
lying about is not in the post, but this is just another instance of the
stupid dishonest behavior. Nyikos has obviously just removed the
evidence for the "bait" and he is just as obviously lying about not
getting it.

The misdirection is also obvious. By Dover the bait and switch had been
going down on every school board and legislator that wanted to teach the
science of ID in the public schools for 3 years. Why wouldn't they run
the bait and switch on the Dover rubes? The notable thing about Dover
is that the bait and switch failed and instead of the Dover IDiot rubes
dropping the issue or bending over for the switch scam the Dover rubes
went ahead and tried to teach the bogus IDiot junk anyway.

>
> Ron O has never been able to quote any online allegation
> by the Discovery Institute after 1999 that qualifies as "bait".
>
>
>>
>> >
>> > ARN also has the Santorum editorial, written for the Washington Times
>> > the day before the Bait and Switch went down,
>
> Note again the undocumented "Bait and" where the
> Discovery Institute is concerned.

Again, Nyikos can continue lying about undocumented because he has
removed the documentation from the post.

>
> Santorum bears responsibility for the contents of the editorial;
> Ron O has never documented DI input into it.

Where did Santorum get the idea? Phillip Johnson is known to have
drafted the Santorum "amendment" to the no child left behind bill.
Santorum just submitted it. Santorum was one of the highest political
figures supporting the teach ID scam that the ID perps were selling.
People might not remember who Phillip Johnson is. He is the guy that
the other ID perps have called the "godfather" of the ID movement. He
supposedly got the funding and people together to get the Discovery
Institute ID scam unit going. You don't hear about him any more because
he quit the ID scam and admitted that there was no ID science and that
he did not expect ID to be taught in the public schools in his lifetime.
He is still alive and hasn't been shown to be wrong. He did this
after the court loss of ID in Dover over 11 years ago.

>
>> > where he obviously
>> > believed that ID would have it's day in the sun and would be taught in
>> > Ohio.
>> >
>>
>> http://www.arn.org/docs/ohio/washtimes_santorum031402.htm
>
>
> Santorum bears responsibility for the contents of the editorial;
> Ron O has never documented DI input into it.
>
>> QUOTE:
>
> <snip>

Of course Nyikos had to remove the evidence again.

>
>> © 2002 News World Communications. All rights reserved. International
>> copyright secured.
>> File Date: 3.14.02
>> END QUOTE:
>>
>> >
>> > I also found the article where Wells is said to have claimed
>
> Ron O, you are repeating something I rebutted. I'm leaving in
> the words that make it plain that you are repeating pure hearsay.

It is not hearsay. Santorum actually wrote what Nyikos SNIPED out.

Here it is again so Nyikos can run from it again.

REQUOTE:

"I hate your opinions, but I would die to defend your right to express
them." This famous quote by the 18th-century philosopher Voltaire
applies to the debate currently raging in Ohio. The Board of Education
is discussing whether to include alternate theories of evolution in the
classroom. Some board members however, are opposed to Voltaire's defense
of rational inquiry and intellectual tolerance. They are seeking to
prohibit different theories other than Darwinism, from being taught to
students. This threatens freedom of thought and academic excellence.

Today, the Board of Education will discuss a proposal to insert
"intelligent design" alongside evolution in the state's new teaching
standards.
END QUOTE:

QUOTE:
At the beginning of the year, President Bush signed into law the "No
Child Left Behind" bill. The new law includes a science education
provision where Congress states that "where topics are taught that may
generate controversy (such as biological evolution), the curriculum
should help students to understand the full range of scientific views
that exist." If the Education Board of Ohio does not include intelligent
design in the new teaching standards, many students will be denied a
first-rate science education. Many will be left behind.

Rick Santorum is a Republican member of the United States Senate from
Pennsylvania.

© 2002 News World Communications. All rights reserved. International
copyright secured.
File Date: 3.14.02

END REQUOTE:

>
> You ran away from the rebuttal, comforting your beaten-into-docility
> conscience with the fact that you left my rebuttal in at the end
> of your hate-driven post.

What rebutted material? The rebuttal seems to be missing.

If anyone wants to try to understand what Nyikos is trying to do they
have to have multiple windows open. You have to have my original post
that Nyikos is addressing here, and another window with Nyikos' other
stupidity in it and then another window with the current post in it.

What you would find out is that Nyikos is again lying. He rebutted what
I said about the link without the quote. He did not rebut the quote
taken from the link. He just claimed that I had no evidence that Wells
said that in Ohio.

This is what Nyikos removed, and Wells is obviously quoted as having
said it.

REPOST:

http://www.sfgate.com/politics/article/Ohio-debates-evolution-Scientists-accuse-2864344.php


QUOTE:
With equal fervor, Jonathan Wells, senior fellow at the Discovery
Institute, a Seattle organization dedicated to alternative scientific
theories, contended that there was enough valid challenge to Darwinian
evolution to justify intelligent design's being ordered into the
classroom curriculum -- not as a religious doctrine, he maintained, but
as a matter of "a growing scientific controversy."
END QUOTE:

END REPOST:

Wells said that all the while knowing that the bait and switch was going
to go down, and the Ohio IDiots were never going to get the ID science.

>
> <snip rebutted material>
>
>> > The article that stated that the president of the Discovery Institute
>> > and half a dozen staff members also came to Ohio to support Meyer and
>> > Wells in their dog and pony show is still available.
>
> What readers see in the following webpage is pure "switch". NO
> documentation of "bait and".

Nyikos has already removed the "bait" from this post so he can continue
to lie about it. This evidence is about what Nyikos first ran from back
in 2010 and is still running from that post to this day. He was wrong
about the Discovery Institute being involved in Ohio and I am just
rubbing his face in the fact that he was wrong and he has lost that
exchange on the internet. He told me to hop to getting him the evidence
and then ran when he got it.

I have put in the links at the beginning of this post when explaining
how this fiasco started.

Remember this is the holy water repost to ward off the evil Nyikosian
spirits, and it worked for years.

>
>>
>> http://www.cleveland.com/debate/index.ssf?/debate/more/101592906620922124.html
>>
>>
>> Discovery Institute's involvement and running the bait and switch as a
>> "compromise", but the compromise turned into no mention of ID at all
>
> Yes, and so you documented NO BAIT. Your OWN bait and switch scam
> is thus here for all to see.

The delusional mindset that needs to exist for Nyikos to keep making
this claim just because he removed the evidence from his post is crazy
as well as stupid and dishonest, but that is Nyikos. The ID perps were
obviously selling the teach ID scam years before they started running
the bait and switch. I first used this post in 2014 and Nyikos is just
getting around to trying to lie about it. He can't deny that he has
been confronted by the repost multiple times since then.

What kind of delusional ass would write something like this? They had
to run the teach ID scam before running the bait and switch. Anyone
should understand that, and that is what they obviously were doing.
They published another paper on teaching ID in the public schools in the
Utah law review in 2000. Nyikos has also gotten the Utah law review
material before, but seems to have forgotten. The Utah law review
article was by the same authors.

Teaching the Origins Controversy: Science or Religion or Speech? 2000
Utah Law Review 39 (2000) Third listed author after David K. DeWolf and
Stephen C. Meyer.

http://dewolflaw.net/utah.pdf

>
> As is everything else you quoted later. I am snipping it all
> except urls AND ONE EXCEPTION so that some readers whose inordinate
> stamina has taken them this far can decide whether to believe me or you.
>
>
>>
>> http://archive.wired.com/wired/archive/12.10/evolution.html
>
> <snip>

Run. It doesn't matter.

>
>> http://www.creationists.org/archived-obsolete-pages/2002-03-11-OSBE-mtg.html
>
> <snip>

Run. It doesn't matter.
>
>
>> http://www.creationists.org/archived-obsolete-pages/2002-03-11-OSBE-wells.html
>
> <snip>

Run. It doesn't matter.

>
>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Santorum_Amendment
>
> And here is the one exception, which strongly suggests that
> there was a decision to NOT include the bait about which
> Ron O seems to have been LYING all along:
>
>> > QUOTE:
>> > Steve Meyer and I (in consultation with others) had decided ahead of
>> > time that we would not push for including intelligent design (ID) in the
>> > state science standards, but would propose instead that the standards
>> > include language protecting teachers who choose to teach the
>> controversy.
>> > END QUOTE:

This was the same Meyer who was one of the authors of the "bait"
evidence that Nyikos snipped out. Meyer obviously changed his mind and
it sounds like he didn't do it until other ID perps told them not to do
it. Meyer has also been the director of the ID scam unit of the
Discovery Institute since it began in 2005.

This is the same Wells who even though he knew that the bait and switch
was going down couldn't keep himself from claiming that ID could be
forced into the education system.

>
> <snip>

Run. What good does it do?

>
>> http://ncse.com/news/2005/10/discovery-institute-thomas-more-law-center-squabble-aei-foru-00704
>
> <snip>

Run. What good does it do.

>
>
>
> Ron O closed his seemingly endless spiel with another trip down
> memory lane to 1999, ending with:
>
>> This is the material that Nyikos has had to lie about for years.
>
> Utterly false.

Considering that Nyikos has to snip it out and lie about it even today
doesn't seem to register with Nyikos.

I will repost the last bit that Nykios snipped out and ran from.

This is the Thomas More lawyer that led the legal team in defense of
teaching ID in the public schools in Dover. The Discovery Institute
representative had just lied about the Discovery Institute never
advocating the teaching of intelligent design in the public schools and
the More Lawyer had to protest, and he presented the guide book that the
ID perps used to give out with their video. The More lawyer calls it a
"strategy" instead of the bait and switch scam, but he does describe it
as the bait and switch. Offer one thing and then back off and only give
the rubes something that they never wanted.

If you don't understand legaleze, the More lawyer is calling the
Discovery Institute rep a liar. Miller found the exchange amusing.

REQUOTE:

END REQUOTE:

So Nyikos can just snip and run and lie about what he has snipped out.
He was obviously given evidence of the "bait", but what did he do with
it? It was removed from his post before he began lying about not
getting it. This is how it has been since 2010.

Ron Okimoto

>
> Peter Nyikos
>

[RonO]

Correction: I don't know why I wrote 2005 when I meant 1995.

Ron Okimoto

[Peter Nyikos]

On Saturday, January 20, 2018 at 1:35:03 AM UTC-5, jillery wrote:
> On Fri, 19 Jan 2018 20:05:42 -0800 (PST), Peter Nyikos
> <nyi...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>
> >On Wednesday, January 3, 2018 at 7:50:04 PM UTC-5, jillery wrote:
> >> On Thu, 4 Jan 2018 00:08:31 +0100, "Rolf" <rolf.a...@gmail.com>
> >> wrote:
>
> [...]
>
>
> >> >Just what always has been my take on that subject. if the universe was not
> >> >fit for our kind of life, we wouldn't be here.
> >
> >And if it weren't fit for life at all,
> >and if this is the only universe there is, there would be no
> >life in the whole of reality. Yet both Rolf and jillery
> >are quite blase about that close call with near-Nothingness.
>
>
> Too many meaningless "ifs" to justify what you think I think.

The "ifs" are far from meaningless, and they can be boiled
down to: If this universe is the only one there is, then we
are damned lucky that it is fit for life at all, and even more
damned lucky that we are here.

As to what I think you think, all that I am saying is that
you are blase about all this, and you go on being blase
about it.

>
> >Atheists usually are, in my experience. Have I seen a biased
> >sample, or is this the New Atheism?
> >
> >
> >> The fact that we are here is
> >> >evidence that the universe is fit for our kind of life. It's as simple as
> >> >that. Creationism? The only reason we have to suffer the widespread
> >> >superstition that life had to be created by a hypothetical, unobservable
> >> >deity because natural processes would be inadequate
> >
> >That's a separate issue, but if natural processes are inadequate
> >to produce intelligent life in a universe as fine tuned for it
> >as this one with a probability of less than 1%, then we are either
> >damned lucky or there are an unimaginably great number of other
> >universes besides this one.
>
>
> Nope. Once again, the universe is very big and very old, in human
> scales.

Do you really think you are telling me something I haven't known
since the age of 8? I knew already back then that there had been
at least 2 billion years (now more than 3 billion years) of
evolution on earth, and that the earth [never mind us humans]
is tiny in comparison to our cosmos.

> So even though over 99% of the universe is utterly unsuited
> for life as we know it, that remaining less than 1% still represents
> lots of opportunities and lots of real estate for life in it.

You realize, don't you, that your 1% has nothing to do with the
1% of which I spoke?

You say "the universe" but I prefer to call it "our universe" because:

(1) Our universe is less than a mere 14 gigayears old, and you
don't seem to have a clue as to whether there is or was or will be
anything older than that in the whole of realitty.

(2) Our universe displays the same fundamental constants and the
same elements, etc all the way through, and they are so exquisitely
"low tolerance" that even slight changes would make life and
its evolution to intelligent life impossible. You can read about
it in an introduction to Martin Rees's _Just_Six_Numbers:

http://www.ichthus.info/BigBang/Docs/Just6num.pdf

Excerpts:

The cosmos is so vast because there is one crucially important huge
number N in nature, [roughly] equal to
1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000.
This number measures the strength of the electrical forces
that hold atoms together, divided by the force of gravity between them.
If N had a few less zeros, only a short-lived miniature universe
could exist: no creatures could grow larger than insects, and there
would be no time for biological evolution.

[...]

Moreover, the outcome is sensitive to their values: if any one of them
were to be 'untuned',ethere would be no stars and no life.
Is this tuning just a brute fact, a coincidence? Or is it the providence
of a benign Creator? I take the view that it is neither.
An infinity of other universes may well exist where the numbers
are different. Most would be stillborrn or sterile.
We could only have emerged (and threfore we naturally now find ourselves)
in a universe with the 'right' combination.

>
> >> > is just a desperate
> >> >attempt at creating 'evidence' for the existence of the Christian God.
> >> >
> >> >It is about time for the Literalist Christians to show some evidence for all
> >> >their insane claims.
> >> >
> >> >Rolf.
> >>
> >>
> >> Just to be pedantic, considering that almost all of the universe would
> >> kill us instantly if exposed to it, and that even much of the Earth
> >> itself would keep us from reproducing, then it's hard to justify a
> >> claim that the universe is fit for our kind of life, nevermind that
> >> it's finely tuned for us.
> >
> >It's a relative thing. If universes are based on the sorts of
> >equations that Stephen Carlip loves to talk about, then we
> >would be hard put to hypothesize a universe that is more favorable
> >for the evolution of life, ONCE IT GETS STARTED, than our own.
>
>
> Perhaps you would be hard put. Others, not so much.

Who might those mysterious "Others" be? From your evasive
reply at the end (see below) it would seem that you aren't one of them,
nor is Carlip.

Peter Nyikos
Professor, Department of Math. -- standard disclaimer --

U. of South Carolina at Columbia
http://www.math.sc.edu/~nyikos/

[jillery]

On Mon, 22 Jan 2018 08:06:55 -0800 (PST), Peter Nyikos

<nyi...@bellsouth.net> wrote:

>On Saturday, January 20, 2018 at 1:35:03 AM UTC-5, jillery wrote:
>> On Fri, 19 Jan 2018 20:05:42 -0800 (PST), Peter Nyikos
>> <nyi...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>>
>> >On Wednesday, January 3, 2018 at 7:50:04 PM UTC-5, jillery wrote:
>> >> On Thu, 4 Jan 2018 00:08:31 +0100, "Rolf" <rolf.a...@gmail.com>
>> >> wrote:
>>
>> [...]
>>
>>
>> >> >Just what always has been my take on that subject. if the universe was not
>> >> >fit for our kind of life, we wouldn't be here.
>> >
>> >And if it weren't fit for life at all,
>> >and if this is the only universe there is, there would be no
>> >life in the whole of reality. Yet both Rolf and jillery
>> >are quite blase about that close call with near-Nothingness.
>>
>>
>> Too many meaningless "ifs" to justify what you think I think.
>
>The "ifs" are far from meaningless, and they can be boiled
>down to: If this universe is the only one there is, then we
>are damned lucky that it is fit for life at all, and even more
>damned lucky that we are here.

More of your bald assertions based on facts not in evidence. You're
entitled to your own opinions. You're not entitled to your own facts.

>As to what I think you think, all that I am saying is that
>you are blase about all this, and you go on being blase
>about it.

Once again, you read minds as poorly as you read written English.

>> >Atheists usually are, in my experience. Have I seen a biased
>> >sample, or is this the New Atheism?
>> >
>> >
>> >> The fact that we are here is
>> >> >evidence that the universe is fit for our kind of life. It's as simple as
>> >> >that. Creationism? The only reason we have to suffer the widespread
>> >> >superstition that life had to be created by a hypothetical, unobservable
>> >> >deity because natural processes would be inadequate
>> >
>> >That's a separate issue, but if natural processes are inadequate
>> >to produce intelligent life in a universe as fine tuned for it
>> >as this one with a probability of less than 1%, then we are either
>> >damned lucky or there are an unimaginably great number of other
>> >universes besides this one.
>>
>>
>> Nope. Once again, the universe is very big and very old, in human
>> scales.
>
>Do you really think you are telling me something I haven't known
>since the age of 8? I knew already back then that there had been
>at least 2 billion years (now more than 3 billion years) of
>evolution on earth, and that the earth [never mind us humans]
>is tiny in comparison to our cosmos.

Of course, your comment to which I replied ignores the facts you claim
to know. Is anybody surprised.

>> So even though over 99% of the universe is utterly unsuited
>> for life as we know it, that remaining less than 1% still represents
>> lots of opportunities and lots of real estate for life in it.
>
>You realize, don't you, that your 1% has nothing to do with the
>1% of which I spoke?

Since you asked, of course I realize it. I refuse to follow you down
your rabbit hole. You're welcome.

>You say "the universe" but I prefer to call it "our universe" because:
>
>(1) Our universe is less than a mere 14 gigayears old, and you
>don't seem to have a clue as to whether there is or was or will be
>anything older than that in the whole of realitty.

Your cluelessness disqualifies you from complaining about my alleged
cluelessness. Tu quoque back atcha.

>(2) Our universe displays the same fundamental constants and the
>same elements, etc all the way through, and they are so exquisitely
>"low tolerance" that even slight changes would make life and
>its evolution to intelligent life impossible. You can read about
>it in an introduction to Martin Rees's _Just_Six_Numbers:

Fine-tuning is a PRATT addressed multiple times in multiple topics by
multiple posters:

<http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CI/CI301.html>

<http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CI/CI302.html>

<http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/postmonth/jun98.html>

Of course, you didn't answer my question at the end. Your evasions
disqualify you from complaining about my alleged evasions. Tu quoque
back atcha.

>Peter Nyikos
>Professor, Department of Math. -- standard disclaimer --
>U. of South Carolina at Columbia
>http://www.math.sc.edu/~nyikos/

Do you really think any of your comments above are something your
employers would be pleased to be associate?

>> >> It's more accurate to say we are *consistent with* a small part of an
>> >> even smaller part of the universe.
>> >
>> >Let's see you describe a universe which gets Carlip's seal of
>> >approval and where life is consistent with a much bigger part.
>>
>>
>> Why should anybody bother with your nonsense challenge? Carlip
>> doesn't pretend to be the final authority on this subject.

No reply. This shows you're fully engaged in troll mode. You didn't
take long at all.

[RonO]

On 12/19/2017 12:03 PM, Peter Nyikos wrote:

I think we know who the runner is.

There is no reason for me to respond to these Nyikosian posts except in
the way that I have for years.

https://groups.google.com/d/msg/talk.origins/b4eNYHIncSY/Zw0DAKbDvGEJ

Go to the link and start over if you want to.

Ron Okimoto

[jillery]

On Tue, 23 Jan 2018 04:18:03 -0600, RonO <roki...@cox.net> wrote:

>On 12/19/2017 12:03 PM, Peter Nyikos wrote:
>
>I think we know who the runner is.
>
>There is no reason for me to respond to these Nyikosian posts except in
>the way that I have for years.
>
>https://groups.google.com/d/msg/talk.origins/b4eNYHIncSY/Zw0DAKbDvGEJ
>
>Go to the link and start over if you want to.
>
>Ron Okimoto

You in trouble now, you is. You done gone and did everything he said
you would do:

1) You KEPT IT ALL IN your reply. Not sure how that's a Bad Thing (c)
but NyikosSaidIt.

Also not sure about the "Casanova-style" part, or how that's a Bad
Thing (c), but again, NyikosSaidIt.

2) You challenged him to reply to posts he hasn't replied to. Odd
that's exactly what he accused you of doing.

You is such an evil bastard, Hitler and Stalin and Pol Pot got nothing
on you.

>> Here is another post from which Ron O has run away, by his OWN
>> standards. He has never replied to it.
>>
>> If he DOES reply to it or to this Casanova-style reposting of it,
>> I expect him to salve his infantile, warped conscience by ignoring
>> everything in it, BUT KEEPING IT ALL IN his reply.
>>
>> And then I expect him to challenge me to reply to posts
>> many years back that I haven't replied to,
>> thereby producing an infinite regreas that absolves
>> his infantile conscience of EVER dealing with the many telling
>> comments I made below.

And you got an infantile conscience! The power of the tu quoque is
strong in this one. NyikosSaidIt.

<mercy snip>

[Bob Casanova]

>On 12/19/2017 12:03 PM, Peter Nyikos wrote:

>> ...this Casanova-style reposting...

....and Peter's (lack of) character comes shining through yet
again...

Just couldn't resist dragging my name into a discussion in
which I'm not participating and to which nothing I've posted
is relevant, could you?

[Peter Nyikos]

On Sunday, January 21, 2018 at 2:20:04 PM UTC-5, Ron O wrote:
> On 1/19/2018 10:55 AM, Peter Nyikos wrote:
> > On Friday, December 15, 2017 at 9:30:02 PM UTC-5, Ron O wrote:
> >> SNIP:
> >>
> >> Since Nyikos is lying about this material
> >
> > I never did that. What you did this time around
> > was post more material in a vain effort to
> > to back up what you wrote, and what you have posted below does
> > NOT demonstrate any past falsehoods by me, let alone lies.
>
> Nyikos should never lie about "never" because he knows that it is a lie
> just about every time he claims that he never did the bogus and
> dishonest things that he has done.

You are just piling slanders on slanders, Okimoto. And as usual,
what follows this comment by you is a bunch of slapped-on crud
that does nothing to support your opening paragraph.

> This should have ended when Nyikos decided to run from the repost years
> ago.

You should be glad your perennial hoax wasn't exposed at the
"run from the repost" time, way back about 7 years ago. You've
had seven "fat years" [an allusion to Genesis] in which to keep
perpetrating your hoax about how

The bait and switch went down in Ohio in 2002

...

The bait and switch went down in Utah in 2017

and on several occasions in between, when the only thing you
were able to document as "bait" was from 1999. Accordingly,
the second and third words "bait and" were completely
unsubstantiated.

And the more you bluff and bluster about that, the stronger
the suspicion becomes that you were deliberately pulling
a bait and switch scam on talk.origins all these years
by sticking in that "bait and", but only documenting what
would have been a switch if there had been any bait to switch from.

> The fact that he has decided to lie about the junk at this time
> should tell anyone how lame Nyikos can be.

The fact is that I told the truth, the WHOLE truth this time,
and you are lying your head off here without showing how any
of it is NOT the truth.

> He is just getting worse if
> that is possible at this time. He could have continued to run and lie
> about his misdeeds to other posters, but for whatever reason he has to
> start lying about the junk now when he couldn't bring himself to lie
> about it years ago. My guess is that he decided to do it since a lot of
> the links in the repost are now broken, but as Nyikos found out I had
> already quoted out of the links and this is what we get from the sad sap.

This is just of your unsupported slapped-on crud, piling lies upon
baseless speculation on more lies. As is the rest of this paragraph
of yours:

> I noted a couple of years ago that using the links and depending on them
> was not a smart thing to do (because Nyikos is so far into denial that I
> expected this bogus behavior to go on for years), so I created a post
> with quotes that Nyikos now has to deny in anyway that he can. He has
> consistently lied about this material. There is no doubt about that by
> the way that he addresses the material in this post. He simply removes
> the quoted material.
>
> I guess that lying to Glenn about addressing the evidence tomorrow is
> not a lie according to Nyikos.

It was a case of changing my mind, as I explained in an earlier post,
but you ignored that because you were hell bent on making me look
at your "evidence."

Well, now that I have looked, you should recall the old adage,
"be careful what you wish for."

Those posts have never been addressed.
> When confronted by that claim Nyikos ran and he has been running to this
> day. I guess that lying about the Scottish verdict quote after he
> snipped it out was not a lie.

> "Not in the public schools and not in a
> form ready to teach"

AS A RIVAL TO EVOLUTIONARY THEORY. If I didn't include that, it was
only because I was tired of typing out those words every time you
truncated the CORRECT description of the alleged "bait".

>is what Nyikos claimed and it was an obvious lie
> because public schools was right in the quote
> that he had just snipped
> out and the ID perps were claiming to have a scientific theory of ID
> that a teacher could teach.

In 1999. The Scottish Verdict thread was about a statement
about Constitutional rights that only someone as crazed with
hate as yourself would claim to be the "bait" that is correctly
described above.


> Sad, but true.

What is really sad but true is that Robert Camp admitted, right
on that Scottish verdict thread that there was very little evidence
of the alleged "bait," and you didn't even have the guts to tell
him he was wrong.

But you did indulge in the insane logic that since Robert Camp
had a negative attitude towards the DI, that somehow negated
his statement instead of making it MORE credible, the way any
human being with half a brain should interpret it.

> Nyikos ran from that lie,
> kept denying that he ever did it

Denying that it was a lie, liar. And you have never been able
to show otherwise.

> and eventually used the stupid quote in
> his Scottish Verdict misdirection thread when he was caught lying about
> what I had written in his posts in his Dirty Debating threads.

Of course, you don't even try to describe the lie at which I was
allegedly caught.

> Those
> are just a few of the Nyikosian lies that he has denied or run from over
> the years. The Dirty Debating lie doesn't even get a denial out of
> Nyikos, he just runs and never addresses the issue. He knows that I can
> just bring up the post that demonstrates that he was lying and he has no
> counter. He has just run from that post and never addressed it.

I'm calling your bluff: post the Dirty Debating Lie, whatever that is,
on which the rest of your hate-driven comments rest.

> It looks like it is time to lay this whole stupid mess to rest so Nyikos
> has more to run from for the rest of his life.
>
> Nyikos returned to TO after years of not having to deal with him in Dec
> of 2010. One of his first posts after his return was his denial of the
> Discovery Institute's involvement in running the bait and switch on the
> Ohio IDiot rubes in 2002.

There was no such denial and your first linked post below does NOT show any.

Your perennial habit of posting urls that don't do what is claimed
for them may be what is behind the fact that hardly anyone ever
clicks on my urls. You have cried "Wolf" so often that people ignore
it even when your OPPONENTS cry "Wolf."

> Nyikos had been one of the first IDiots on
> TO, before the turn of the century, that defended the bogus junk, and he
> was picking up where he had left off.
>
> Thanks to Google you can still access those old posts.
>
> This was my first post to Nyikos where I tried to bring him up to date
> on the ID creationist scam:
> https://groups.google.com/d/msg/talk.origins/lJuA2zaMvfY/EuQ4dGA104c

> Nyikos responded with his usual denial and requested evidence for
> Discovery Institute involvement:
> https://groups.google.com/d/msg/talk.origins/lJuA2zaMvfY/_OZQzqS0FCEJ
>
> QUOTE:
> Any Discovery Institute bigwigs implicated? Who, and in what way?
> END QUOTE:

Only a pathologically dishonest person or a mental basket
case would call that a denial.

> Nyikos denied what I told him and posted that I should post some
> evidence that they were involved instead of just telling him what
> everyone else knows, and he told me to "hop to it".

This is another perennial scsam of yours. That "hop to it" was
about something TOTALLY DIFFERENT. See repost below.

> I provided the evidence and Nyikos ran and has refused to address that
> post to this day.
>
> https://groups.google.com/d/msg/talk.origins/lJuA2zaMvfY/Y5nIY2sQLQkJ

"hop to it" comes at the end of a long passage you left in after your
words ended. You were already indulging in your habit of running away
from a huge chunk of what I write, but leaving it in at the end.

My "hop to it" was at the very and, and had to do with supporting your
claims about ME, as is clear from the use of the word "others".

Here is PART of that long passage that you never addressed:

__________________________________________________

> > > It was only well after reading these two books [the first of which had
> > > the exact opposite of its intended effect on me] that I heard of
> > > Michael Behe, Irreducible Complexity, and the Discovery Institute. I
> > > think Behe is missing out on a good thing by not focusing on the
> > > protein translation mechanism as something which perhaps WAS
> > > irreducibly complex (with a one-to-one correspondence between codons
> > > and synthetases) at some early point in time, but evolved to the
> > > somewhat sloppy condition we see now.
>
> > > Note, I do not claim it was that way; it may have already been sloppy
> > > (by our perhaps ignorant standards) when the panspermists seeded our
> > > planet.P
>
> > > > If you are a Christian (as I suspect) or some other
> > > > religion like Kalk's hinduism, so are you.
>
> > > Does your mysterious personal definition of "creationist" stretch to
> > > cover that?
>
> > > > If not I will retract.
>
> > > I await your reply.
>
> > > I've deleted the rest of your post, which only piles on the things you
> > > need to retract before I start to take seriously the things you say
> > > about others.
>
> Hop to it, Ron O.
>
> Peter Nyikos-

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ end of excerpt, url given by Ron O above.

Remainder of your frequently dishonest ranting deleted.

Anyone who sees what a long post this is, even
WITH the deletion, can be excused for not reading anything but the
first few lines and concluding that "This is just another boring old
he-said-she-said" where the truth never comes out.

And that is your ulterior motive for doing long dishonest rants
and then laying stress on what you call "running away," isn't it?
You never want people to learn the TRUTH about what a pathologically
dishonest person you are.

Peter Nyikos
Professor, Department of Math. -- standard disclaimer --

U. of S. Carolina

[jillery]

On Tue, 23 Jan 2018 12:37:49 -0700, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off>
wrote:

>>On 12/19/2017 12:03 PM, Peter Nyikos wrote:
>
>>> ...this Casanova-style reposting...
>
>....and Peter's (lack of) character comes shining through yet
>again...
>
>Just couldn't resist dragging my name into a discussion in
>which I'm not participating and to which nothing I've posted
>is relevant, could you?

Join the club.

[RonO]

On 1/23/2018 6:26 AM, jillery wrote:
> On Tue, 23 Jan 2018 04:18:03 -0600, RonO <roki...@cox.net> wrote:
>
>> On 12/19/2017 12:03 PM, Peter Nyikos wrote:
>>
>> I think we know who the runner is.
>>
>> There is no reason for me to respond to these Nyikosian posts except in
>> the way that I have for years.
>>
>> https://groups.google.com/d/msg/talk.origins/b4eNYHIncSY/Zw0DAKbDvGEJ
>>
>> Go to the link and start over if you want to.
>>
>> Ron Okimoto
>
>
> You in trouble now, you is. You done gone and did everything he said
> you would do:
>
> 1) You KEPT IT ALL IN your reply. Not sure how that's a Bad Thing (c)
> but NyikosSaidIt.
>
> Also not sure about the "Casanova-style" part, or how that's a Bad
> Thing (c), but again, NyikosSaidIt.
>
> 2) You challenged him to reply to posts he hasn't replied to. Odd
> that's exactly what he accused you of doing.
>
> You is such an evil bastard, Hitler and Stalin and Pol Pot got nothing
> on you.

It may indicate progress that Nyikos can learn something, because this
is just what I told him that I would do years ago, and I have been doing
it for years. For some reason he decided to start lying about the
material that he as run from for years. The Nyikosian dishonesty and
stupidity hasn't changed.

Ron Okimoto

[RonO]

On 1/23/2018 2:13 PM, Peter Nyikos wrote:
> On Sunday, January 21, 2018 at 2:20:04 PM UTC-5, Ron O wrote:
>> On 1/19/2018 10:55 AM, Peter Nyikos wrote:
>>> On Friday, December 15, 2017 at 9:30:02 PM UTC-5, Ron O wrote:
>>>> SNIP:
>>>>
>>>> Since Nyikos is lying about this material
>>>
>>> I never did that. What you did this time around
>>> was post more material in a vain effort to
>>> to back up what you wrote, and what you have posted below does
>>> NOT demonstrate any past falsehoods by me, let alone lies.
>>
>> Nyikos should never lie about "never" because he knows that it is a lie
>> just about every time he claims that he never did the bogus and
>> dishonest things that he has done.
>
> You are just piling slanders on slanders, Okimoto. And as usual,
> what follows this comment by you is a bunch of slapped-on crud
> that does nothing to support your opening paragraph.

Projection about slander when you don't live in a state where the truth
is slander is not just stupid on your part, but is as ridiculous as it
has always been. Who tells the lies about other people? You even
claimed that you believed that the truth could be slander. What should
that tell anyone?

>
>
>> This should have ended when Nyikos decided to run from the repost years
>> ago.
>
> You should be glad your perennial hoax wasn't exposed at the
> "run from the repost" time, way back about 7 years ago. You've
> had seven "fat years" [an allusion to Genesis] in which to keep
> perpetrating your hoax about how

You ran for years, so you should know. Running never did you any good,
so why did you keep coming back to have to run from the same material
over and over? I think we both know that the repost is not a hoax
because you could never bring yourself to deny reality like you are now.
What changed? Really, why would a lying degenerate like you decide to
obfuscate and lie about material that you have run from for years?

>
> The bait and switch went down in Ohio in 2002
>
> ...
>
> The bait and switch went down in Utah in 2017
>
> and on several occasions in between, when the only thing you
> were able to document as "bait" was from 1999. Accordingly,
> the second and third words "bait and" were completely
> unsubstantiated.

Isn't that all that I need? What was the ID perps most known for before
they started running the bait and switch? Since they keep running the
scam instead of providing the ID science they are still running the
stupid bait and switch. The Utah IDiots don't have much of an excuse
since the ID perps removed the claim that they had a scientific theory
of ID to teach in the public schools from their education policy, but
the ID perps did republish their stupid propaganda piece on teaching ID
in the public schools around 2013 with new pictures, but they still had
the Scottish verdict quote in it and the old education policy with the
same claim of having a scientific theory of ID to teach in the public
schools in it. You know that for a fact because that propaganda
stupidity was discussed in 2013, and the old education policy was still
in the stupid propaganda claiming that it was still legal to teach ID in
the public schools even after the federal court loss in Dover. This is
the propaganda piece that Glenn used to claim that the ID perps were
still claiming to have the ID science. Remember that fiasco? You ran
from that too.

>
> And the more you bluff and bluster about that, the stronger
> the suspicion becomes that you were deliberately pulling
> a bait and switch scam on talk.origins all these years
> by sticking in that "bait and", but only documenting what
> would have been a switch if there had been any bait to switch from.

The fact that the post worked for years, should tell someone even as
badly off as you are that it was not bluff and bluster.

>
>
>> The fact that he has decided to lie about the junk at this time
>> should tell anyone how lame Nyikos can be.
>
> The fact is that I told the truth, the WHOLE truth this time,
> and you are lying your head off here without showing how any
> of it is NOT the truth.

Lie all you want. It doesn't matter. I see that you have removed the
material that you can't deal with and still lie about what you did. Why
does removing the material allow you to lie about it? You obviously did
not tell the truth or you would not have had to delete the material that
you obviously lied about. I put it back in, but you again deleted it
from this post.

Here is the quote again so that you can delete it and lie about it
again. The ID perps are obviously selling the teach ID scam using that
pamphlet.

You also deleted the More lawyer's response to the Discovery Institute
denial. He was not amused and what behavior did he describe as
pertaining to the Discovery Institute?

>
>
>> He is just getting worse if
>> that is possible at this time. He could have continued to run and lie
>> about his misdeeds to other posters, but for whatever reason he has to
>> start lying about the junk now when he couldn't bring himself to lie
>> about it years ago. My guess is that he decided to do it since a lot of
>> the links in the repost are now broken, but as Nyikos found out I had
>> already quoted out of the links and this is what we get from the sad sap.
>
> This is just of your unsupported slapped-on crud, piling lies upon
> baseless speculation on more lies. As is the rest of this paragraph
> of yours:

Why lie about the situation? You are the one that has to explain why
you have run from the repost for years. Why did you never address the
posts tomorrow as you told Glenn that you would do? Why have you
consistently snipped out that same evidence even from this very post?
Running in denial is obviously what you have been doing for years, and
you are still doing it.

>
>
>> I noted a couple of years ago that using the links and depending on them
>> was not a smart thing to do (because Nyikos is so far into denial that I
>> expected this bogus behavior to go on for years), so I created a post
>> with quotes that Nyikos now has to deny in anyway that he can. He has
>> consistently lied about this material. There is no doubt about that by
>> the way that he addresses the material in this post. He simply removes
>> the quoted material.
>>
>> I guess that lying to Glenn about addressing the evidence tomorrow is
>> not a lie according to Nyikos.
>
> It was a case of changing my mind, as I explained in an earlier post,
> but you ignored that because you were hell bent on making me look
> at your "evidence."

Lies are lies even if you did change your mind you lied to Glenn. What
a bonehead. Why did you change your mind? Why have you never addressed
those posts? It was just one of your usual way of lying about the
situation so that you could run. What did I predict and what happened?
It wasn't the first time was it?

>
> Well, now that I have looked, you should recall the old adage,
> "be careful what you wish for."

Go for it. You are such a loser because you know how many times you
were reminded that those posts were there and of what you had claimed
and what did you ever do but run? Just don't delete the evidence that
you deleted from this post and run again. Why do you think that you
have to keep deleting the same material over and over and running? Why
isn't going back to those posts and dealing with them an option?

>
>
>
> Those posts have never been addressed.
>> When confronted by that claim Nyikos ran and he has been running to this
>> day. I guess that lying about the Scottish verdict quote after he
>> snipped it out was not a lie.
>
>> "Not in the public schools and not in a
>> form ready to teach"
>
> AS A RIVAL TO EVOLUTIONARY THEORY. If I didn't include that, it was
> only because I was tired of typing out those words every time you
> truncated the CORRECT description of the alleged "bait".

You just lied face that fact. Why try to weasel out of it? Here is the
quote again to demonstrate what an obvious lie it was.

QUOTE:
Has ID Been Banned from Public Schools?

No. Science teachers have the right to teach science.
Since ID is a legitimate scientific theory, it should be
constitutional to discuss in science classrooms
and it should not be banned from schools. If a
science teacher wants to voluntarily discuss ID,
she should have the academic freedom to do so.
END QUOTE:

http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/filesDB-download.php?command=download&id=1453

Not much doubt that they are talking about public school teachers
teaching the junk "ID is a legitimate scientific theory". How could
anyone get "not ready to teach" from that quote?

Your lie was not in the public schools and not in a form ready to teach.
You snipped out the quote and lied. You should have just snipped it
out and run like you usually do, but for some reason the material had to
be openly lied about.

This was the quote that you snipped out and ran from three times in a
consecutive series of posts because I kept putting it back in so that
you could run in denial over and over. Three times was over your stupid
limit of only doing something stupid and dishonest twice, so you came
back and put the quote back into one of your posts and tried to
prevaricate about it in anyway that you could. This pamphlet was
written after the IDiot loss in Dover. The version that you first ran
from was edited in 2009 and the original came out in 2007. The ID perps
at the Discovery Institute were obviously still selling the teach ID
scam to the rubes. The link above is the same link that I have used
before, but it takes you to their newest version because they do not
change the web address when they republish this junk. This new version
seems to have deleted the old education policy, but for some reason they
keep this quote on page 6. They have some wording that they do not want
ID mandated, but it is obvious from this quote that they believe that it
can still be taught in the public schools. If you go back to their 1999
booklet you won't find any mention of mandate or required. They just
want it taught. It didn't matter if it was mandated or not because they
targeted legislators and school boards and they expected it to be
required to be taught by those bodies. That is the only way such bogus
junk would get into the public schools.

They just ran the bait and switch on the Utah IDiots, likely after this
rendition of the teach ID scam bull pucky was published. Why would they
remove the claim that they have a scientific theory of ID to teach in
the public schools from their education policy and keep publishing this
junk?

>
>> is what Nyikos claimed and it was an obvious lie
>> because public schools was right in the quote
>> that he had just snipped
>> out and the ID perps were claiming to have a scientific theory of ID
>> that a teacher could teach.
>
> In 1999. The Scottish Verdict thread was about a statement
> about Constitutional rights that only someone as crazed with
> hate as yourself would claim to be the "bait" that is correctly
> described above.

The quote is above to demonstrate how you are wrong. Why keep lying
about this junk at this time?

>
>
>> Sad, but true.
>
> What is really sad but true is that Robert Camp admitted, right
> on that Scottish verdict thread that there was very little evidence
> of the alleged "bait," and you didn't even have the guts to tell
> him he was wrong.

Beats me what you are talking about. You should go back to that thread
and determine for yourself why so many posts are left unaddressed by
you. That is called running.

The sad thing is that you started that thread as a misdirection ploy to
distract from the fact that you had manipulated my post and lied about
what I had written in your Dirty Debating thread. Who was the dirty
debater in that thread? His name was Nyikos.

>
> But you did indulge in the insane logic that since Robert Camp
> had a negative attitude towards the DI, that somehow negated
> his statement instead of making it MORE credible, the way any
> human being with half a brain should interpret it.

I doubt that Robert Camp would agree with you. The quote is above for
you to lie about again.

>
>
>
>> Nyikos ran from that lie,
>> kept denying that he ever did it
>
> Denying that it was a lie, liar. And you have never been able
> to show otherwise.

You lied. It wasn't the truth was it? It wasn't even close to the truth.

>
>> and eventually used the stupid quote in
>> his Scottish Verdict misdirection thread when he was caught lying about
>> what I had written in his posts in his Dirty Debating threads.
>
> Of course, you don't even try to describe the lie at which I was
> allegedly caught.

Do you really want me to produce the post that you have run from to this
day. You have been directed back to it and what have you done?

I have an idea. You go back and deal with that post and demonstrate
that you did not lie. You made up the story that you told to Bill. I
never wrote what you claimed, did I? Go for it. I even tried to give
you an out, just to see if you could admit that you were wrong about
something and you just ran and started the Scottish verdict thread the
next day.

>
>
>
>> Those
>> are just a few of the Nyikosian lies that he has denied or run from over
>> the years. The Dirty Debating lie doesn't even get a denial out of
>> Nyikos, he just runs and never addresses the issue. He knows that I can
>> just bring up the post that demonstrates that he was lying and he has no
>> counter. He has just run from that post and never addressed it.
>
> I'm calling your bluff: post the Dirty Debating Lie, whatever that is,
> on which the rest of your hate-driven comments rest.

I am calling your bluff. You go back and demonstrate that you did not
lie. It was your thread, but here is the link. It wasn't your only
stupid dishonest trick in that thread. The out of context quote that
you would not give me the link to, and that you stupidly tried to use as
your first knock down, but I found the post that the quote came from and
you had to run from your own knockdown post. How stupid and dishonest
was that?

https://groups.google.com/d/msg/talk.origins/H6k58771nkQ/dLLAwAbmQa0J

The story behind this thread is that Nyikos was getting his butt kicked
in the original thread. He had tried misdirecting the argument, and his
stupid snipping and running tricks along with other assorted stupid
Nykosian tricks that he has become known for. I took no notice of this
thread because it looked like a Pagano stupidity thread where Pags
claims that everyone else is doing what he does, and I had stopped
reading most of Pags junk and basically just responded to Pags posts to
me. Nyikos came to me in the original thread and told me that I had to
address his dirty debating thread. I went there found it to be a Pagano
type thread and responded to Nyikos' first two posts that he had started
the thread with. Nyikos ran. Anyone can use the link to go back to
that thread and determine that my first two posts in that thread were
never addressed by Nyikos because Nyikos was the dirty debater.

Nyikos came back to me in the original thread and told me that I had to
address a post in the dirty debating thread that he had posted to Bill.
Beats me to this day why anyone would expect anyone else to respond to a
post that they had made to someone else. Nyikos had obviously lied to
Bill and I pointed that out. Nyikos could not deny the first lie, but
kept going on about something else that he had told Bill that I could
not determine what he was talking about because I had never made the
false claim that Nyikos was saying that I did.

We went round and round about the issue and Nyikos kept bring up a post
where there was multiple instances of him snipping and running, and he
kept claiming that I had falsely accused him of snipping and running. I
kept pointing out that I could not have falsely accused him of doing
something that he was obviouisly doing in that post. It turned out that
Nyikos was claiming that I had falsely accused him of snipping and
running in a previous post, but he had kept using the post where he was
demonstrated to snip and run because it contained the Nyikosian
manipulation of that previous post. Nyikos had removed parts of what I
had written and was making a big deal about what was left. All that I
had to do was put back together what I had actually written and it
demonstrated that Nyikos was totally wrong. In the original I had even
claimed that Nyikos had not snipped and run. Really, the stupidity was
that plain once the Nyikosian manipulation had been undone.

So Nyikos made false claims in that thread and it turned out that Nyikos
was the dirty debater.

Nyikos can go back and sort through the mess. It shouldn't take him
that long because all he has to do is go to my posts that he ran from to
get the clues he needs.

>
>
>> It looks like it is time to lay this whole stupid mess to rest so Nyikos
>> has more to run from for the rest of his life.
>>
>> Nyikos returned to TO after years of not having to deal with him in Dec
>> of 2010. One of his first posts after his return was his denial of the
>> Discovery Institute's involvement in running the bait and switch on the
>> Ohio IDiot rubes in 2002.
>
>
> There was no such denial and your first linked post below does NOT show any.

It isn't the first linked post that you ran from. What a dolt. The
stupid thing is that I state that it was the third link that he ran from.

>
> Your perennial habit of posting urls that don't do what is claimed
> for them may be what is behind the fact that hardly anyone ever
> clicks on my urls. You have cried "Wolf" so often that people ignore
> it even when your OPPONENTS cry "Wolf."

What an ass. You are still running from the third link. Why is that?

>
>
>> Nyikos had been one of the first IDiots on
>> TO, before the turn of the century, that defended the bogus junk, and he
>> was picking up where he had left off.
>>
>> Thanks to Google you can still access those old posts.
>>
>> This was my first post to Nyikos where I tried to bring him up to date
>> on the ID creationist scam:
>> https://groups.google.com/d/msg/talk.origins/lJuA2zaMvfY/EuQ4dGA104c
>
>> Nyikos responded with his usual denial and requested evidence for
>> Discovery Institute involvement:
>> https://groups.google.com/d/msg/talk.origins/lJuA2zaMvfY/_OZQzqS0FCEJ
>>
>> QUOTE:
>> Any Discovery Institute bigwigs implicated? Who, and in what way?
>> END QUOTE:
>
> Only a pathologically dishonest person or a mental basket
> case would call that a denial.

If you go back to the post that you are running from it is obvious that
your denial is rabid. This also wasn't the last post that you ran from
your denial of the Discovery Institute involvement in the first bait and
switch. If you recall you were provided other evidence and you snipped
out the middle portion of the quote to lie about what was left. You did
this twice, but you could not bring yourself to do it three times. Why
is that? That is obviously the type of denial that I am talking about.
The type of denial where you would run from the third link since 2010 to
this day.

Just address the post that you have run from since 2010.

It doesn't matter what you claim because I also answered your
creationist claims in that post, but you still ran. This means that
your denial is bogus. You ran and kept running even when confronted
about what you were running from multiple times. Anyone that goes back
to that post would see that I responded to everything that you responded
to. The hop to it was just the cherry on top of your stupid running.
You are still running that is just a fact.

>
> Anyone who sees what a long post this is, even
> WITH the deletion, can be excused for not reading anything but the
> first few lines and concluding that "This is just another boring old
> he-said-she-said" where the truth never comes out.

I gave you the link. You could go back and address the post, but what
did you do. You just obfuscated about it.

You have the chance to demonstrate how wrong I am about the Dirty
debating thread, but you know that will never happen. You have the link
above, so go for it.

>
> And that is your ulterior motive for doing long dishonest rants
> and then laying stress on what you call "running away," isn't it?
> You never want people to learn the TRUTH about what a pathologically
> dishonest person you are.

You just lie a lot. Projecting your own dishonesty onto others is your
pathology. It likely doesn't stress you out that much because you
obviously keep doing it.

Why did you have to remove the quoted material before lying about it?
You did it in this post. The material that demonstrates that you are
lying was put back, and what did you do? If you delete it why even
discuss it. Why lie about it? Why claim that it was never provided?

Ron Okimoto

[Bob Casanova]

On Tue, 23 Jan 2018 12:13:45 -0800 (PST), the following

appeared in talk.origins, posted by Peter Nyikos
<nyi...@bellsouth.net>:

>You are just piling slanders on slanders, Okimoto.

Just a minor nit: One cannot "slander" in a print medium:

https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/slander

HTH.

[Bob Casanova]

On Tue, 23 Jan 2018 15:23:31 -0500, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by jillery <69jp...@gmail.com>:

>On Tue, 23 Jan 2018 12:37:49 -0700, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off>
>wrote:
>
>>>On 12/19/2017 12:03 PM, Peter Nyikos wrote:
>>
>>>> ...this Casanova-style reposting...
>>
>>....and Peter's (lack of) character comes shining through yet
>>again...
>>
>>Just couldn't resist dragging my name into a discussion in
>>which I'm not participating and to which nothing I've posted
>>is relevant, could you?
>
>
>Join the club.

I believe I've actually been a member for a while, but
thanks.

[jillery]

On Wed, 24 Jan 2018 10:55:21 -0700, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off>

wrote:

>On Tue, 23 Jan 2018 15:23:31 -0500, the following appeared
>in talk.origins, posted by jillery <69jp...@gmail.com>:
>
>>On Tue, 23 Jan 2018 12:37:49 -0700, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off>
>>wrote:
>>
>>>>On 12/19/2017 12:03 PM, Peter Nyikos wrote:
>>>
>>>>> ...this Casanova-style reposting...
>>>
>>>....and Peter's (lack of) character comes shining through yet
>>>again...
>>>
>>>Just couldn't resist dragging my name into a discussion in
>>>which I'm not participating and to which nothing I've posted
>>>is relevant, could you?
>>
>>
>>Join the club.
>
>I believe I've actually been a member for a while, but
>thanks.

Depends on what club you mean. My impression is you don't comment
about such things very often.

But your welcome.

[Bob Casanova]

On Wed, 24 Jan 2018 22:17:09 -0500, the following appeared

in talk.origins, posted by jillery <69jp...@gmail.com>:

>On Wed, 24 Jan 2018 10:55:21 -0700, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off>
>wrote:
>
>>On Tue, 23 Jan 2018 15:23:31 -0500, the following appeared
>>in talk.origins, posted by jillery <69jp...@gmail.com>:
>>
>>>On Tue, 23 Jan 2018 12:37:49 -0700, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off>
>>>wrote:
>>>
>>>>>On 12/19/2017 12:03 PM, Peter Nyikos wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>> ...this Casanova-style reposting...
>>>>
>>>>....and Peter's (lack of) character comes shining through yet
>>>>again...
>>>>
>>>>Just couldn't resist dragging my name into a discussion in
>>>>which I'm not participating and to which nothing I've posted
>>>>is relevant, could you?
>>>
>>>
>>>Join the club.
>>
>>I believe I've actually been a member for a while, but
>>thanks.
>
>
>Depends on what club you mean.

The People Whose Names Have Been Dragged Into Discussions
Irrelevantly Club, of course, as I thought you meant. ;-)

> My impression is you don't comment
>about such things very often.

Nope, with some reason. I've been guilty of the same
occasionally, usually with Ray's name and/or posting habits
as the reference, so I try to limit the number of times I
serve as a potential target . But I do so occasionally.
Strangely, it's usually Peter's posts which prompt such
comments from me.

>But your welcome.

[jillery]

On Thu, 25 Jan 2018 10:19:58 -0700, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off>

wrote:

>On Wed, 24 Jan 2018 22:17:09 -0500, the following appeared
>in talk.origins, posted by jillery <69jp...@gmail.com>:
>
>>On Wed, 24 Jan 2018 10:55:21 -0700, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off>
>>wrote:
>>
>>>On Tue, 23 Jan 2018 15:23:31 -0500, the following appeared
>>>in talk.origins, posted by jillery <69jp...@gmail.com>:
>>>
>>>>On Tue, 23 Jan 2018 12:37:49 -0700, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off>
>>>>wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>>On 12/19/2017 12:03 PM, Peter Nyikos wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>> ...this Casanova-style reposting...
>>>>>
>>>>>....and Peter's (lack of) character comes shining through yet
>>>>>again...
>>>>>
>>>>>Just couldn't resist dragging my name into a discussion in
>>>>>which I'm not participating and to which nothing I've posted
>>>>>is relevant, could you?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Join the club.
>>>
>>>I believe I've actually been a member for a while, but
>>>thanks.
>>
>>
>>Depends on what club you mean.
>
>The People Whose Names Have Been Dragged Into Discussions
>Irrelevantly Club, of course, as I thought you meant. ;-)

You thought incorrectly.

>> My impression is you don't comment
>>about such things very often.
>
>Nope, with some reason. I've been guilty of the same
>occasionally, usually with Ray's name and/or posting habits
>as the reference, so I try to limit the number of times I
>serve as a potential target . But I do so occasionally.
>Strangely, it's usually Peter's posts which prompt such
>comments from me.
>
>>But your welcome.

--

[Bob Casanova]

On Thu, 25 Jan 2018 13:10:36 -0500, the following appeared

OK.

>>> My impression is you don't comment
>>>about such things very often.
>>
>>Nope, with some reason. I've been guilty of the same
>>occasionally, usually with Ray's name and/or posting habits
>>as the reference, so I try to limit the number of times I
>>serve as a potential target . But I do so occasionally.
>>Strangely, it's usually Peter's posts which prompt such
>>comments from me.
>>
>>>But your welcome.
--

[*Hemidactylus*]

Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off> wrote:
> On Tue, 23 Jan 2018 15:23:31 -0500, the following appeared
> in talk.origins, posted by jillery <69jp...@gmail.com>:
>
>> On Tue, 23 Jan 2018 12:37:49 -0700, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>> On 12/19/2017 12:03 PM, Peter Nyikos wrote:
>>>
>>>>> ...this Casanova-style reposting...
>>>
>>> ....and Peter's (lack of) character comes shining through yet
>>> again...
>>>
>>> Just couldn't resist dragging my name into a discussion in
>>> which I'm not participating and to which nothing I've posted
>>> is relevant, could you?
>>
>>
>> Join the club.
>
> I believe I've actually been a member for a while, but
> thanks.

Should we organize and elect officers or has he done that for us already?

[*Hemidactylus*]

That’s it. You’re out of “the club” pending Casanova’s second and a vote.

[jillery]

It's not a club that one joins. It's more like getting drafted.

[jillery]

On Fri, 26 Jan 2018 10:21:50 -0700, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off>

For completeness, I mention here that what you do, and I suspect most
T.O. posters do on occasion, is only remotely similar to what rockhead
does compulsively.

Some posters, like Ray Martinez, have recognized and distinctive
characteristics, and so references to said characteristic and poster
act as meaningful metaphors. In this particular case, Nyikos referred
to your recognized and distinctive style of reposting with <crickets>,
to highlight those comments which were inappropriately ignored. Even
though other posters, such as myself, also use that method on
occasion, it's fair to give you credit for it. So his metaphor was
both informative and appropriate.

That's very different from what he usually does, where he refers to
other posters not as metaphor, but as irrelevant insult, as neither
poster nor characteristic have anything to do with anything anybody
mentioned in the thread, or with the thread itself. And any
correlation of characteristic to poster is almost always an
unsupportable invention of his fevered imagination.

An irony here is that he does the above at least as often and
distinctively as you do your Casanova-style reposting, and so
"rockhead-style insult" would be a meaningful metaphor as well.

And I'm hoping to soon encounter another example of Burkhard's "worg".

[Bob Casanova]

On Fri, 26 Jan 2018 11:27:42 -0600, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by *Hemidactylus*
<ecph...@allspamis.invalid>:

I think Peter has that covered...

[Bob Casanova]

On Fri, 26 Jan 2018 13:35:05 -0500, the following appeared

Ok, that clarifies it. I can't argue against your
explanation, but I don't fully accept it either, given that
he's invoked *both* our names (and others) as always being
meanies and contradicting him; I considered this just more
of the same, and didn't analyze it in depth.

>And I'm hoping to soon encounter another example of Burkhard's "worg".

??? Relatives of the Borg?

[jillery]

On Sat, 27 Jan 2018 10:07:28 -0700, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off>

That's his "irrelevant insult" I mention above.

But as they say, even a stopped clock is right twice a day. It's the
exceptions that are most interesting.

>>And I'm hoping to soon encounter another example of Burkhard's "worg".
>
>??? Relatives of the Borg?

<g1216dhohh1isf2a8...@4ax.com>

**************************************
>>Yes, you said it countless times, and you were provably worg every
>>single time.
>
>
>I propose the adoption of a new word, "worg", to mean an expressed
>objection or line of reasoning which is not only factually incorrect,
>and not only incoherent, and not only completely irrelevant to any comment
>which preceded it, but is so to such a degree that one is left with a
>sense of cognitive chaos.
**************************************

[*Hemidactylus*]

You do realize Burk is a notoriously sloppy typer. Probably meant “wrong”,
but errors are the lifeblood of evolution. Does worg conform to the
stringencies of rmns and the multiplicative rule and pass muster in eyes of
DrDr.

[jillery]

Of course. You do understand I give him credit, not blame.


>Probably meant “wrong”,


Almost certainly, thus the apt nature of my proposed neologism. Think
of "worg" as wrong on steroids, beyond "not even wrong".

>but errors are the lifeblood of evolution. Does worg conform to the
>stringencies of rmns and the multiplicative rule and pass muster in eyes of
>DrDr.

Based on the good DrDr's past posts, nothing anybody but himself says
about the multiplicative rule passes his muster.