Bait and switch scams pertaining to IC/ID/DI
pnyikos
bait and switch scams, the only clear cut, fully documented example of
which I am aware is one by Ron O., who claimed that Behe admitted he
couldn't come up with a functional *definition* of Irreducible
Complexity (IC) and when challenged to show it, switched to verifying
that Behe couldn't *verify* that any biological phenomenon was
*Intelligently Designed* (ID).
Here it is, recounted at some length in response to Ray Martinez, in a
post which Darwin dropped altogether while it was out of commission.
Re: Streaming right now - Hitchens and Dembski
Friday, January 14, 2011 6:07 PM
On Nov 24 2010, 1:55 pm, Ray Martinez <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Nov 22, 3:39 pm, Ron O <rokim...@cox.net> wrote:
>
> > On Nov 22, 3:24 pm, Ray Martinez <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Nov 21, 5:08 pm, Ron O <rokim...@cox.net> wrote:
>
> > > > On Nov 21, 6:24 pm, Ray Martinez <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > On Nov 21, 4:13 pm, Ron O <rokim...@cox.net> wrote:
>
> > > > > > On Nov 21, 5:51 pm, "Kalkidas" <e...@joes.pub> wrote:
> > > > > > > I have to agree that IC does not equal "divinely designed". But it does
> > > > > > > equal "intelligently designed". Except to those who claim "there is no such
> > > > > > > thing as irreducible complexity".-
>
> > > > > > Kalk, you could be the first human being to produce the functional and
> > > > > > verified defintion of IC. Go for it. Behe admits that he isn't there
> > > > > > yet, [....]
Ron O. claimed that you had taken this quote out of context, Ray, but
as I showed on the thread "The futility of Intelligent Design," the
part you snipped only damns him all the more.
And, of course, he didn't follow up to that post, nor to the post
where you agreed with me on this.
> > > > > Challenged.
>
> > > > > Now please produce the reference, quote and/or link.
>
> > > > > Ray-
> > > > Ray, you know why I do not reply to your posts.
Yet he is replying anyway. What an idiot!
He could have used the time to produce the reference, quote, and/or
link, but instead he cravenly responded with the following flimsy
excuse:
> > > > I think that you
> > > > should seek help. Why bother addressing my posts when a sane person
> > > > would know better?
I wonder whether Ron realizes that he literally said a sane person
would know better than to address his posts.
Anyway, it's becoming clear that Ron will seize the flimsiest pretext
for his irresponsible behavior in not responding to challenges. He is
demanding that I expound on what he calls "the bait and switch scam"
in a manner pleasing to him before he will provide the very quote you
are challenging him to provide.
And of course, HE gets to choose what constitutes a reply pleasing to
him, so you can bet your bottom dollar that he will NEVER provide the
quote, unless someone with clout in this newsgroup, like Harshman or
el cid, asks him to provide it.
And even then, he will only provide it if it actually exists. Since
the smart money says it does not exist, he can be expected to find
some new excuse for each person who asks him to provide it.
> > > You are paranoid, Ron. I have no history of replying to your posts
> > > except on a very seldom basis. Search the archive and confirm for
> > > yourself.
>
> > So it shouldn't be so hard for you to stop, right?
Ron O is trying to dictate your posting behavior here. As I told him
yesterday, he seems to have a grossly exaggerated idea of his own
importance.
> > > > Anyone can read the Dover transcripts. Behe admits that he has never
> > > > verified the ID junk.
All this seems to amount to, in the absence of direct quotes, is that
Behe "admitted" that they do not yet have an airtight case for some
biological structure being intelligently designed. But SETI keeps
searching for intelligent life despite zero success, and only kooks
would conclude from this that the existence of intelligent life
outside our solar system is junk.
More importantly perhaps, this performance by Ron O shows him up to be
a shameless hypocrite, the way he bandies about the words "the bait
and switch scam" when the only really verifiable example of a bait and
switch scam pertaining to IC and ID that I have seen is due to him.
He made an allegation about "definition of IC" as the bait, and when
challenged, he pulled the switch to talking about "verified the ID":
see above.
> > > > You know that he even claimed that it wasn't up
> > > > to him to verify the junk.
And it isn't up to us to wade through the utterly irrelevant link he
gave us below.
> > > > He also admitted that no one that he knew
> > > > of had bothered to do any verification. Minnich admitted the same
> > > > thing, but didn't claim that it wasn't up to him to verify the junk,
> > > > just that he hadn't gotten around to doing any verification. If you
> > > > read the transcripts the question pertained directly to Behe's IC
> > > > concept that Minnich was trying to support. He testified that he
> > > > thought that someone might be able to test IC, but he hadn't bothered
> > > > to do it himself. He also admitted that he knew of no one else that
> > > > had done any verification either. This has been public record since
> > > > the end of the court case.
>
> > > >http://ncse.com/creationism/legal/intelligent-design-trial-kitzmiller...
Even for the "switch" allegation he is spouting here, the above link
is useless: one would have to chase down various links within links
within links to find the alleged admissions, and instead of doing
that, he lied/alleged (without support) that all we need to know can
be found in such a search.
I do believe he is parroting claims he's seen others make, without
ever checking them out for himself.
> > > > Facts like these do not go away, just because you do not want to face
> > > > reality.
The fact that Ron is pulling a bait and switch scam will not go away,
just because he does not want to face reality.
[ad hominem tirade against Ray by Ron deleted here]
> > > Classic ad hom anger and slander. (Genera Reader: You should know that
> > > Ron has an advanced degree; he is not uneducated.)
He does? He comes across like someone who barely made it through
college, unless he got his degree in Japan, and is still not
comfortable with the English language.
> > > In other words, Ron is saying that he cannot support his claim about
> > > Behe.
>
> > Your inability to accept reality is the main reason that I think that
> > you are insane.
The reality is that Ron is NOT supporting his claim, while scamming
that he is, and that is morally a lot worse than just making the claim
and then admitting he can't support it.
But I don't think for one minute that Ron has any real moral sense.
Sure, he can parrot formulas like "lying is dishonest" but he acts as
though lying, and dishonesty in general, are perfectly all right as
long as the person indulging in them is Ron Okimoto.
> > > Exactly what I suspected when I saw what he wrote. Everyone knows that
> > > Behe defined IC in "Darwin's Black Box."
Unable to counter this, Ron O indulges in a totally irrelevant *ad
hominem* attack:
> > Unfortunately you are so mentally incompetent that you likely can't
> > suspect anything with any amount of reason backing it up.
>
> > Ray, if Behe and Minnich admitting under oath that the IC claptrap
Here begins another switch, back to IC from ID, but still with "verify
IC"
switched from "verify definition of IC".
> >was
> > never verified by them nor anyone else that they knew of
No documentation provided, again failing to act responsibly.
Below, Ron again tries to dictate Ray's posting behavior.
> > what could
> > possibly convince you of anything. I rest my case. Have a nice life
> > Ray. Remember not to respond to any of my posts again. Thanks.
>
> > Ron Okimoto
>
> > > I thought Ron knew something about Behean IC that I did not know.
>
> > > How IC was defined in "Black Box" still stands.
And Ron ran away from this part of your post, Ray. See his
"signature" above.
Peter Nyikos
Ron O
> For all the talk by Ron O., Frank J., and even the late "el cid" about
> bait and switch scams, the only clear cut, fully documented example of
> which I am aware is one by Ron O., who claimed that Behe admitted he
> couldn't come up with a functional *definition* of Irreducible
> Complexity (IC) and when challenged to show it, switched to verifying
> that Behe couldn't *verify* that any biological phenomenon was
> *Intelligently Designed* (ID).
This is just another goal post shift and misdirection ploy combined
into one. What a loser. Can't you come up with some type of honest
counter to the bait and switch? How low are you willing to go? The
fact is that the ID perps claimed to have the ID science to teach to
school kids, but when it came time to put up or shut up, they ran a
bogus bait and switch scam on their own creationist support base. All
the IDiot rubes ever got to teach was a stupid obfuscation scam that
does not mention IC or ID ever existed. So what good could it
possibly do you to make claims about IC when the guys that sold you
the junk ran away and wouldn't put it up as something that they wanted
to claim was science and could be taught in the public schools?
There is no doubt that the bait and switch went down on rubes like
yourself. Making stupid claims about IC doesn't change that reality
at all. Did the ID perps do it just to see what kind of IDiot would
continue to support the effort after they made their supporters look
like the clueless rubes that they were and some of them still are? My
guess that you will eventually resort to the switch scam once the
utter failure of ID finally sinks in. You are just that dishonest and
willing to lie to yourself to that extent.
This is just another goal post shift and misdirection ploy combined
into one. What a loser. Can't you come up with some type of honest
counter to the bait and switch. How low are you willing to go? The
fact is that the ID perps claimed to have the ID science to teach to
school kids, but when it came time to put up or shut up, they ran a
bogus bait and switch scam on their own creationist support base. What
good could it possibly do you to make claims about IC when the guys
that sold you the junk ran away and wouldn't put it up as something
that they wanted to claim was science and could be taught in the
public schools?
>
> Here it is, recounted at some length in response to Ray Martinez, in a
> post which Darwin dropped altogether while it was out of commission.
>
> Re: Streaming right now - Hitchens and Dembski
> Friday, January 14, 2011 6:07 PM
I really can't believe this. Are you really trying to misdirect the
argument again? What kind of IDiot would retry a stupid ploy that he
as already been called on before? Remember that I told you that if
you stopped running that I would go back to that old post from
November, but you never stopped running, and now all you can think to
do is try a dishonest misdirection ploy again. What an abject loser.
I will go back to that old thread when you stop running. It is very
simple to see if I will do that, so why not do it? Why lie about
someone else to cover your own butt?
This is my original response to your attempted misdirection ploy:
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/46ea6522f3338603?hl=en
>
> On Nov 24 2010, 1:55 pm, Ray Martinez <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Nov 22, 3:39 pm, Ron O <rokim...@cox.net> wrote:
>
> > > On Nov 22, 3:24 pm, Ray Martinez <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > > On Nov 21, 5:08 pm, Ron O <rokim...@cox.net> wrote:
>
> > > > > On Nov 21, 6:24 pm, Ray Martinez <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > On Nov 21, 4:13 pm, Ron O <rokim...@cox.net> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > On Nov 21, 5:51 pm, "Kalkidas" <e...@joes.pub> wrote:
> > > > > > > > I have to agree that IC does not equal "divinely designed". But it does
> > > > > > > > equal "intelligently designed". Except to those who claim "there is no such
> > > > > > > > thing as irreducible complexity".-
>
> > > > > > > Kalk, you could be the first human being to produce the functional and
> > > > > > > verified defintion of IC. Go for it. Behe admits that he isn't there
> > > > > > > yet, [....]
>
> Ron O. claimed that you had taken this quote out of context, Ray, but
> as I showed on the thread "The futility of Intelligent Design," the
> part you snipped only damns him all the more.
This is the lame misdirection ploy that you were called on before.
What kind of loser would try it again?
>
> And, of course, he didn't follow up to that post, nor to the post
> where you agreed with me on this.
And this has what to do with the bait and switch scam? Didn't I say
that if you stopped running and pretending that I would get back to
this? You are still running and pretending and even worse you are
still trying to misdirect the argument even after being called on
it.
I make it a policy to not respond to Ray. Just ask anyone. You
caught a brief period where I tried to talk sense to Ray, but even you
know how useless that is by now. Before those (what? half dozen
posts) I hadn't responded to Ray for several years. Just like I said
before. I doubt that you find any of the regulars that think that I
do not respond to Ray because I can't refute just about nonsense that
he comes up with.
This is just a lame attempt to misdirect the argument and you are an
abject loser for trying it again.
>
> > > > > > Challenged.
>
> > > > > > Now please produce the reference, quote and/or link.
>
> > > > > > Ray-
> > > > > Ray, you know why I do not reply to your posts.
>
> Yet he is replying anyway. What an idiot!
>
> He could have used the time to produce the reference, quote, and/or
> link, but instead he cravenly responded with the following flimsy
> excuse:
The truth seems to not be very apparent to you. When did lying to
yourself become a way of life? Really, try to find anyone that
believes that I don't respond to Ray because I can't deal with the guy
on an intellectual basis. I just don't like the way it makes me feel
to argue with the insane.
You are just a pathetic loser for trying to make anything, but what it
is out of the situation. Remember if you stop running and pretending
we can get back to that issue, if you want. So when is that going to
happen. It isn't happening here is it?
>
> > > > > I think that you
> > > > > should seek help. Why bother addressing my posts when a sane person
> > > > > would know better?
>
> I wonder whether Ron realizes that he literally said a sane person
> would know better than to address his posts.
Well if I told you repeatedly that I would not respond to your posts,
and you continued for years, what would be wrong with saying that?
You are so pathetic that you likely don't even have a clue what you
are doing. None of this changes the reality of the bait and switch.
Using the insane to cover your butt is even lower than when you tried
to blame the victims of the ID scam instead of face reality, You are
even lower than I thought that you were.
>
> Anyway, it's becoming clear that Ron will seize the flimsiest pretext
> for his irresponsible behavior in not responding to challenges. He is
> demanding that I expound on what he calls "the bait and switch scam"
> in a manner pleasing to him before he will provide the very quote you
> are challenging him to provide.
What a loser. Making stupid claims about my running away when that is
all you have done is pretty pathetic. What kind of loser would do
that when he himself is only making the claim to divert the issue from
his own running and pretending?
>
> And of course, HE gets to choose what constitutes a reply pleasing to
> him, so you can bet your bottom dollar that he will NEVER provide the
> quote, unless someone with clout in this newsgroup, like Harshman or
> el cid, asks him to provide it.
You could demonstrate that changing the goalposts, misdirecting the
argument or asking for more evidence is some kind of valid reponse
that is supposed to settle an issue, but since you can't, why
pretend? That is all that you have done. Demonstrate otherwise.
This post has just been one long misdirection ploy, and hasn't even
addressed the bait and switch scam except in naming it.
That doesn't seem to be any rules that I have ever made up. It is
just common sense that evasion is not much of a response.
>
> And even then, he will only provide it if it actually exists. Since
> the smart money says it does not exist, he can be expected to find
> some new excuse for each person who asks him to provide it.
How do you know? You are just making this up because you don't know
what I can do since you refuse to do what you should do in order for
me to do it. Really address the bait and switch and find out. How
hard can that be? Why do you have to midirect the argument? It
really is that simple. I stated that weeks ago, and there is one way
to see if I will do it. This isn't it. Why should I satisfy such a
low life as yourself that has to lie about other people to make it
look like he might not be beneath contempt?
>
> > > > You are paranoid, Ron. I have no history of replying to your posts
> > > > except on a very seldom basis. Search the archive and confirm for
> > > > yourself.
>
> > > So it shouldn't be so hard for you to stop, right?
>
> Ron O is trying to dictate your posting behavior here. As I told him
> yesterday, he seems to have a grossly exaggerated idea of his own
> importance.
>
> > > > > Anyone can read the Dover transcripts. Behe admits that he has never
> > > > > verified the ID junk.
>
> All this seems to amount to, in the absence of direct quotes, is that
> Behe "admitted" that they do not yet have an airtight case for some
> biological structure being intelligently designed. But SETI keeps
> searching for intelligent life despite zero success, and only kooks
> would conclude from this that the existence of intelligent life
> outside our solar system is junk.
>
> More importantly perhaps, this performance by Ron O shows him up to be
> a shameless hypocrite, the way he bandies about the words "the bait
> and switch scam" when the only really verifiable example of a bait and
> switch scam pertaining to IC and ID that I have seen is due to him.
>
> He made an allegation about "definition of IC" as the bait, and when
> challenged, he pulled the switch to talking about "verified the ID":
> see above.
Beats me why this would be a big deal in the face of the fact that the
ID perps have been running the bait and switch for over 8 years. I
probably meant to write IC, but I can't remember why I wrote that back
in November. As far as I recall it looks like a slip because I can't
recall meaning ID instead of IC. Just think if you could claim that
your dishonest and bogus behavior could be claimed to be a slip that
anyone could make?
Making up junk when you are the guy that tried to make a big deal
about involved or implicated is about as stupid as you can get. Does
it matter if the Discovery Institute was involved on implicated when
they are the ones running the bait and switch? Do you think that the
Lousiana rubes that wanted to teach intelligent design a couple months
ago ever got the intelligent design science to teach in their science
textbooks?
>
> > > > > You know that he even claimed that it wasn't up
> > > > > to him to verify the junk.
>
> And it isn't up to us to wade through the utterly irrelevant link he
> gave us below.
Irrelevant? It has links to the Dover transcripts. How are they
irrelevant to any claims about what went on in court?
>
> > > > > He also admitted that no one that he knew
> > > > > of had bothered to do any verification. Minnich admitted the same
> > > > > thing, but didn't claim that it wasn't up to him to verify the junk,
> > > > > just that he hadn't gotten around to doing any verification. If you
> > > > > read the transcripts the question pertained directly to Behe's IC
> > > > > concept that Minnich was trying to support. He testified that he
> > > > > thought that someone might be able to test IC, but he hadn't bothered
> > > > > to do it himself. He also admitted that he knew of no one else that
> > > > > had done any verification either. This has been public record since
> > > > > the end of the court case.
>
> > > > >http://ncse.com/creationism/legal/intelligent-design-trial-kitzmiller...
>
> Even for the "switch" allegation he is spouting here, the above link
> is useless: one would have to chase down various links within links
> within links to find the alleged admissions, and instead of doing
> that, he lied/alleged (without support) that all we need to know can
> be found in such a search.
Poor loser. So what? Ray is lucky that I gave him a link to
anything. I didn't have to, did I?
When is something not enough when I didn't even have to do it?
Instead I gave Ray the ability to educate himself?
Remember that all you are doing is a dishonest misdirection ploy.
Demonstrate otherwise. Address the issue of the bait and switch
instead of running and trying dishonest ploys
>
> I do believe he is parroting claims he's seen others make, without
> ever checking them out for himself.
Nyikos is just projecting. It would be nice if he stopped running and
pretending so that we might get back to this subject, but he'd rather
run and pretend, and lie about other people.
When have I not done something that I said that I would do? Who is
the guy that has to run?
You know what you have to do to get me to go back to this post, so why
not do it and see if I will instead of making junk up? Does it make
you feel better when you lie to yourself like this? How sad is your
existence?
>
> > > > > Facts like these do not go away, just because you do not want to face
> > > > > reality.
>
> The fact that Ron is pulling a bait and switch scam will not go away,
> just because he does not want to face reality.
Misdirection ploys are dishonest so what are you doing right now?
>
> [ad hominem tirade against Ray by Ron deleted here]
>
> > > > Classic ad hom anger and slander. (Genera Reader: You should know that
> > > > Ron has an advanced degree; he is not uneducated.)
>
> He does? He comes across like someone who barely made it through
> college, unless he got his degree in Japan, and is still not
> comfortable with the English language.
This is the extent of Nyikos' ability to face reality. I started
laughing when I read this because Nyikos has been such a loser in the
other thread that berating any one else's posting ability is so funny
that I can't believe that he would even try to do it. When you think
that someone could not go lower, the IDiots come through.
It should be easy enough for him to counter, but this is all he can
do.
I guess that I should put up some of the thread that Nyikos has been
running from so that no one has to wonder what Nyikos is talking
about.
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/e13ea888234d9b67?hl=en
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/0ec761aceeb6f4f1?hl=en
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/be128edf615f1650?hl=en
These are just a few of the open ended responses that Nyikos is
running from, I can look up more if he isn't satisfied.
>
> > > > In other words, Ron is saying that he cannot support his claim about
> > > > Behe.
>
> > > Your inability to accept reality is the main reason that I think that
> > > you are insane.
>
> The reality is that Ron is NOT supporting his claim, while scamming
> that he is, and that is morally a lot worse than just making the claim
> and then admitting he can't support it.
More sad projection on Nyikos' part, Sadder and sadder.
>
> But I don't think for one minute that Ron has any real moral sense.
> Sure, he can parrot formulas like "lying is dishonest" but he acts as
> though lying, and dishonesty in general, are perfectly all right as
> long as the person indulging in them is Ron Okimoto.
Someone that will stoop to using the insane to cover his own butt is
beneath contempt. Do you even have the capacity to understand how
dishonest the misdirection ploy is in this instance? You are claiming
that someone else is lying when all this entire post is, is a
dishonest ploy to misdirect from the posts that you are running from.
What kind of person would stoop to doing that?
>
> > > > Exactly what I suspected when I saw what he wrote. Everyone knows that
> > > > Behe defined IC in "Darwin's Black Box."
>
> Unable to counter this, Ron O indulges in a totally irrelevant *ad
> hominem* attack:
The runner and pretender who seems to be trying to aspire to be the
king of ad hominem can write this sentence with a straight face?
>
> > > Unfortunately you are so mentally incompetent that you likely can't
> > > suspect anything with any amount of reason backing it up.
This is likely the truth, and as such is relevant to any argument with
Ray. Why do you think that I avoid responding to the guy? It wasn't
nice, but it was true and is a very good reason to think twice about
trying to argue anything with Ray.
>
> > > Ray, if Behe and Minnich admitting under oath that the IC claptrap
>
> Here begins another switch, back to IC from ID, but still with "verify
> IC"
> switched from "verify definition of IC".
>
Kind of looks like typing IDinstead of IC was just a slip. Why would
I switch back if I want to switch to ID?
> > >was
> > > never verified by them nor anyone else that they knew of
How bogus can you get. What do you think the IC claptrap is? What am
I switching to?
Isn't this trying to argue both ends of the same argument at the same
time? Either I am trying to change to ID or I am not. Remember your
first argument about my switching a couple of paragraphs up? What a
clown.
>
> No documentation provided, again failing to act responsibly.
>
> Below, Ron again tries to dictate Ray's posting behav
>
> > > what could
> > > possibly convince you of anything. I rest my case. Have a nice life
> > > Ray. Remember not to respond to any of my posts again. Thanks.
Argue with Ray for a while longer.
>
> > > Ron Okimoto
>
> > > > I thought Ron knew something about Behean IC that I did not know.
>
> > > > How IC was defined in "Black Box" still stands.
>
> And Ron ran away from this part of your post, Ray. See his
> "signature" above.
>
> Peter Nyikos-
Running from what?
Remember what the bait and switch means about that definition of IC in
Behe's book since they ran the bait and switch years after they
started selling the IC junk to rubes like you.
What do you think that there is to run from in the face of that
reality? Have you found them talking about IC in the switch scam?
What possible worth could IC have to the ID perps if they are willing
to run a dishonest bait and switch instead of putting IC forward as
something that they can teach in the public schools?
Just think of what you are running from, why you are running and you
have your answer.
I meant it when I wrote that If I had done as poorly as you in the
Intelligent design thread that I would likely quit posting. I'd pack
it in before I would stoop to that level, and if I did stoop that low
it would bug me so much that I'd likely find something else to do
instead of demean myself to that extent again.
Trying to misdirect the argument is bogus. Why is this all that you
can think of to do?
Ron Okimoto
pnyikos
> On Feb 1, 10:33 pm, pnyikos <nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>
> > For all the talk by Ron O., Frank J., and even the late "el cid" about
> > bait and switch scams, the only clear cut, fully documented example of
> > which I am aware is one by Ron O., who claimed that Behe admitted he
> > couldn't come up with a functional *definition* of Irreducible
> > Complexity (IC) and when challenged to show it, switched to verifying
> > that Behe couldn't *verify* that any biological phenomenon was
> > *Intelligently Designed* (ID).
>
> This is just another goal post shift and misdirection ploy combined
> into one. What a loser.
What Ron O is saying here, folks, is that his demands are paramount in
all my discussions with him. If you show him up for a liar, that's
just a "goal post shift and misdirection ploy" until you've done
EVERYTHING he demands that you do.
> [The people at the Discovery Institute] claimed to have the ID
> science to teach to
> school kids,
I don't recall ever seeing documentation of the "to teach to school
kids" part. Please provide it here.
> but when it came time to put up or shut up, they ran a
> bogus bait and switch scam on their own creationist support base.
Please identify the "bait" and the "switch" as unambigously and
clearly as I've identified the two things, separately, up there, in
the description of the bait and switch scam that YOU have perpetrated
in talk.origins.
> All
> the IDiot rubes ever got to teach was a stupid obfuscation scam that
> does not mention IC or ID ever existed.
Were they given permission by the courts to teach about the
controversy between creationism and evolution? If not, what is this
alleged "stupid obfuscation scam" supposed to have been?
> So what good could it
> possibly do you to make claims about IC
Because there are a few things that are IC according to all the
available evidence, such as the clotting cascade.
Do NOT confuse IC with "couldn't have evolved by gradual steps" nor
with "had to be intelligently designed."
Do you even know the distinction between these three concepts, or are
you a purely political animal who has some tremendous grudge against
the Discovery Institute (DI)?
I do my own thinking about ID (Intelligent Design) and don't pay
attention to what the Discovery Institute (DI) has to say about
Intelligent Design (ID) since I have my own theory about ID, and that
goes back to Crick and Orgel, not the DI.
>when the guys that sold you
> the junk
Nobody sold me any junk. Is your undying hatred of DI the effect of
them selling YOU what you believe to be junk?
> There is no doubt that the bait and switch went down on rubes like
> yourself.
Not in your maniacal mind. Normal people give others the benefit of
the doubt, and don't automatically assume that I am lying when I tell
you the true history of how I became interested in ID and IC.
> My
> guess that you will eventually resort to the switch scam once the
> utter failure of ID finally sinks in.
There is no utter failure, except in your hate-ravaged mind. You keep
ignoring what I say about Crick and Orgel. Is it because you are
totally insane?
> You are just that dishonest and
> willing to lie to yourself to that extent.
This is slander, pure and simple. It would be actionable libel were
you not able to show mountains of utter drivel by you to the court, to
prove that you are insane.
[long paragraph repeating verbatim most of an earlier paragraph
deleted here. Ron O. really seems to be building up an insanity
defense, folks. He seems to be in the grip of the manic stage of a
manic-depressive disorder, nowadays called a "bipolar disorder".]
> > Here it is, recounted at some length in response to Ray Martinez, in a
> > post which Darwin dropped altogether while it was out of commission.
>
> > Re: Streaming right now - Hitchens and Dembski
> > Friday, January 14, 2011 6:07 PM
[crap repeating, with additional words, the bogus charge of
"misdirection" above]
> I will go back to that old thread when you stop running. It is very
> simple to see if I will do that, so why not do it?
because, to "stop running" in The World According to Ron Okimoto,
means to do the following:
[...]
> > Anyway, it's becoming clear that Ron will seize the flimsiest pretext
> > for his irresponsible behavior in not responding to challenges. He is
> > demanding that I expound on what he calls "the bait and switch scam"
> > in a manner pleasing to him before he will provide the very quote you
> > are challenging him to provide.
[...]
> > And of course, HE gets to choose what constitutes a reply pleasing to
> > him, so you can bet your bottom dollar that he will NEVER provide the
> > quote, unless someone with clout in this newsgroup, like Harshman or
> > el cid, asks him to provide it.
And I stand by these words, Ron O's grotesquely twisted "descriptions"
of my replies to date notwithstanding. The descriptions are mere
excuses for why my replies are not pleasing to him.
[...]
I also stand by the words I said next:
> > And even then, he will only provide it if it actually exists. Since
> >the smart money says it does not exist, he can be expected to find
> >some new excuse for each person who asks him to provide it.
> How do you know?
"The smart money" does not equate to my KNOWING. It's an assessment
based on over a decade of experience with Usenet Vandals.. They seize
the flimsiest excuses for neither documenting nor retracting claims
that they have made, and I know hundreds of those claims to be false.
To paraphrase an old formula: you waddle like a Usenet Vandal, you
quack like one of them, and you lay eggs like one of them.
I can provide several juicy examples from talk.abortion, in case
anyone reading this is sincerely interested.
Peter Nyikos
Ray Martinez
>
> - Show quoted text -
Since Peter and I are scientific enemies, his post above epitomizes
objectivity. For the dense: in other words his attack on Ron Okimoto,
using me as a source, cannot be harmed by a claim of bias. Both Ron
and Peter accept micro/macro evolution and common descent. I reject
all three to exist in nature.
Ron Okimoto said or strongly implied that Michael Behe admitted that
he cannot define IC systems. I then asked Ron to support his claim, to
provide the link and quote by Behe. After much resistance, he ended up
saying (IIRC) that Behe said as much in his Dover testimony. When
further pressed to provide the quote or quotes, Ron has failed to
produce.
Since we all know that Behe would never say such a thing, that the
same is tantamount to admitting that "Black Box" is based on an
embarrassing error, why couldn't Ron Okimoto just come clean right
away and say that he made a mistake? Why the intelligence-insulting
excuses?
I think Peter is saying in this topic that because of his epic failure
to admit the obvious, he has lost all credibility. He exists in a
state of perpetually crying wolf.
Ray
Rodjk #613
> On Feb 1, 10:33 pm, pnyikos <nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>
> > For all the talk by Ron O., Frank J., and even the late "el cid" about
> > bait and switch scams, the only clear cut, fully documented example of
> > which I am aware is one by Ron O., who claimed that Behe admitted he
> > couldn't come up with a functional *definition* of Irreducible
> > Complexity (IC) and when challenged to show it, switched to verifying
> > that Behe couldn't *verify* that any biological phenomenon was
> > *Intelligently Designed* (ID).
>
> This is just another goal post shift and misdirection ploy combined
> into one. �What a loser. �Can't you come up with some type of honest
This is Nyikos you are replying to...
You expect honesty or actual understanding from him?
You will have better luck dealing with Ray or Nashton...
Rodjk #613
<SNIP>
pnyikos
he first started attacking me and the Discovery Institute. That
thread has grown to over 500 posts, and I'm saving it for features of
our debate that don't bear on the allegations of Ron O about a
mysterious "bait and switch scam.".
In the post to which I am replying here, Ron is quoting some things
from Philip Johnso that he may be ignorant enough to think are
descriptions of the mysterious "bait and switch scam" that HE has
alleged against the Discovery Institute (DI). Since this is
reasonably on-topic, I've decided to move it to this thread.
On Jan 25, 8:22 am, Ron O <rokim...@cox.net> wrote:
I've deleted some things here, dealt with on the original thread, in:
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/ecfe758bb8e82a1a
and in
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/28a517f37caea235?dmode=source
Message-ID: <af265aec-0831-4437-
bd82-3ba...@v16g2000vbq.googlegroups.com>
> It might be worth pretending that the Discovery Institute was ever
> legit if there were fellows that were doing anything at all honest.
> Where are the guys that are able to say "this is where we came up
> short and this is what we have to do to fix the problem."?
Maybe they testified at Dover. Has Ron O ever quoted directly from
the transcripts? All I've seen him post on Dover is a website that
does not even link immediately to transcripts.
Moreover, when I took the trouble to post urls for ALL the transcripts
of Behe's testimony in Dover, and asked him to identify which one
contains documentation of his allegations about Behe, he ran away,
using the excuse that this was just "misdirection ploy" on my part.
Thus did Okimoto show that the word "irresponsible" means next to
nothing to him.
> Not a
> single ID perp associated with the Discovery Institute ever came out
> against the bait and switch scam. Why?
Perhaps because no one has given an unambiguous explanation of what
the alleged "bait" was and what the alleged "switch" was.
I see precious little hint of either in the post to which I am
replying, although Okimoto may have deluded himself into thinking that
Johnson is describing them in what he quoted from Johnson.
[undocumented claim of something else, not even naming names, deleted]
> This is a truely sad reality for any IDiot stupid or dishonest enough
> to still support the ID perps.
Until the claim is documented, the claim that it is "reality" remains
unproven.
> For anyone that wants to believe that there was ever anything to the
> intelligent design creationist scam the fat lady has already sung.
With the word "creationist" this becomes a scam by Ron Okimoto.
Discovery Insititute (DI) explicitly takes no stand on creationism,
since the evidence that this or that thing is intelligently designed
is not based on any supernatural premises.
> These are quotes from Philip Johnson that has not been retracted as
> far as I know, and he even presented similar feelings on the video of
> the Dover fiasco. This is the guy that the other ID perps called the
> "godfather" of the intelligent design scam
Ron O repeatedly mis-states things the way they actually happened.
It's a safe bet that none of the people he peremptorily calls "ID
perps" ever called Johnson the "godfather" of a SCAM.
He seems to have a deep-seated psychological aversion to objective,
value-neutral language about anything even remotely connected to DI.
> because of his efforts to
> get the scam rolling in the early 1990's. He doesn't accept blame for
> running the bogus scam
Here the Okimoto aversion is taken to such excess, that it undermines
itself by a double negative: it may indeed be the case that calling
what DI does a scam *IS* bogus. But first we need a description of
what the bait was, and what the switch was, to judge that.
You will NOT find it in the words of Philip Johnson that he quotes, as
I will show in my next post.
Peter Nyikos
pnyikos
Rodjk#613 seems to have shackled himself ot Okimoto on this issue. So
I am following up to him instead of Ron O, killing two birds with one
stone.
You obviously don't, yet you give not the slightest smidgin of a
reason why.
> You will have better luck dealing with Ray or Nashton...
>
> Rodjk #613
You are running out of luck, here and now, because I am going to show
you just how pathetically Ron O fails to show his case against the
Discovery Institute (DI) with his quotes from Johnson, and you will be
faced with the dilemma of either defending him or running away from
what I say below.
Pick your poison.
I begin with Ron's words, about Philip Johnson:
> he just points the finger at
> the "science" ID perps for never developing the science that it would
> have taken to make the ID scam legit.
If Ron O. thinks the above is a description of what he quotes from
Johnson below, he is at best woefully ignorant of the scientific
issues, and at worst a mental basket case.
> QUOTE:
> I also don�t think that there is really a theory of intelligent design
> at the present time to propose as a comparable alternative to the
> Darwinian theory, which is, whatever errors it might contain, a fully
> worked out scheme.
Note the qualifiers. "the Darwinian scheme" refers to the neo-
Darwinian synthesis, a far cry from what Darwin presented in _Origin
of Species_. That's because Johnson is talking about ID being a
rival to what is a going concern in the public schools, not to a much
more fragmentary prototype. And so, by saying "at the present time,"
he is making it clear that he is contrasting less than two decades to
over two centuries.
>There is no intelligent design theory that�s
> comparable. Working out a positive theory is the job of the scientific
> people that we have affiliated with the movement. Some of them are
> quite convinced that it�s doable, but that�s for them to prove�No
> product is ready for competition in the educational world.
> END QUOTE:
Darwin would just be a strawman; so what Johnson is obviously talking
about IS the neo-Darwinian synthesis, augmented by insight into
punctuated equilibrium by Gould and others.
Even if someone were to interpret "Darwinian" as referring to Darwin's
original theory, he'd be hit from two directions. One is that Darwin
didn't have a theory ready for competition in the educational world of
his time either. Darwin, for one thing, could not give a coherent
account of why variation occurs, or why offspring are so similar to
their parents, or what allows variations to accumulate to the point
where a bacterium has a human being as one of its remote descendants.
The other direction is that Darwin took decades to publish his
findings after collecting the raw data, and he also stood on the
shoulders of giants llike Lamarck, and all those who collected huge
amounts of fossils, to give some outline to the possible lines of
descent. Small wonder that the DI has not been able to accumulate
comparable evidence for ID in the much shorter time available to it.
> In the same piece he is again quoted:
> QUOTE:
> For his part, Johnson agrees: �I think the fat lady has sung for any
> efforts to change the approach in the public schools�the courts are
> just not going to allow it. They never have. The efforts to change
> things in the public schools generate more powerful opposition than
> accomplish anything�I don�t think that means the end of the issue at
> all.�
Ron O does not realize how damaging this last sentence is from his
point of view.
>�In some respects,� he later goes on, �I�m almost relieved, and
> glad. I think the issue is properly settled. It�s clear to me now that
> the public schools are not going to change their line in my lifetime.
Johnson is no spring chicken. "in my lifetime" is thus a reallistic
assessment, in the light of what is said above.
> That isn�t to me where the action really is and ought to be.�
Of course not. Trying to get public schools to teach Intelligent
Design AT THIS TIME would be premature.
> END QUOTE:
>
> http://sciencereview.berkeley.edu/articles.php?issue=10&article=evolu...
>
> Taking no responsibility for the dishonest scam, just admitting
> defeat.
Your turn, "Rodjk#613": tell us all how Johnson's words are supposed
to either "admit defeat" as to the scientific merits of ID, or to show
that there is a dishonest scam going on.
Good luck trying to get a coherent description of what the alleged
bait, and what the alleged switch are, from Ron O's incredibly long-
winded and repetitious posts on that "The futility of Intelligent
Desgin[*sic*]" thread.
The time would probably be better spent agreeing with me about what
Johnson said, and trying to find evidence for yourself, from the
original sources, of a bait and switch scam by DI.
> That is the furthest any of the ID perps have come to coming
> clean on the issue. That in itself is pretty sad.
What IS sad is the way Ron O keeps dodging my arguments and labeling
them with various pejorative words.
Peter Nyikos
Bill
Well, here's the link to the transcript of the Dover trial. It's in
the Day 12 morning section that Behe seems to struggle with the
meaning of IC, starting around page 63 of the transcript. It's too
long to quote in full here, but you can find it at the link.
http://www.aclupa.org/legal/legaldocket/intelligentdesigncase/dovertrialtranscripts.htm
deadrat
> On Feb 2, 6:07 pm, Ron O<rokim...@cox.net> wrote:
>> On Feb 1, 10:33 pm, pnyikos<nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>>
>>> For all the talk by Ron O., Frank J., and even the late "el cid" about
>>> bait and switch scams, the only clear cut, fully documented example of
>>> which I am aware is one by Ron O., who claimed that Behe admitted he
>>> couldn't come up with a functional *definition* of Irreducible
>>> Complexity (IC) and when challenged to show it, switched to verifying
>>> that Behe couldn't *verify* that any biological phenomenon was
>>> *Intelligently Designed* (ID).
>>
>> This is just another goal post shift and misdirection ploy combined
>> into one. What a loser.
>
> What Ron O is saying here, folks, is that his demands are paramount in
> all my discussions with him. If you show him up for a liar, that's
> just a "goal post shift and misdirection ploy" until you've done
> EVERYTHING he demands that you do.
>
>> [The people at the Discovery Institute] claimed to have the ID
>> science to teach to school kids,
>
> I don't recall ever seeing documentation of the "to teach to school
> kids" part. Please provide it here.
At Dover, it was _Of Pandas and People_.
<snip/>
>> So what good could it possibly do you to make claims about IC
>
> Because there are a few things that are IC according to all the
> available evidence, such as the clotting cascade.
Nope, the IDiots trotted this one out at Dover. It was an epic fail.
<snip/>
>> My
>> guess that you will eventually resort to the switch scam once the
>> utter failure of ID finally sinks in.
>
> There is no utter failure, except in your hate-ravaged mind. You keep
> ignoring what I say about Crick and Orgel. Is it because you are
> totally insane?
>
>> You are just that dishonest and
>> willing to lie to yourself to that extent.
>
> This is slander, pure and simple. It would be actionable libel were
> you not able to show mountains of utter drivel by you to the court, to
> prove that you are insane.
Insanity is not a defense against defamation, although it could go some
way to demonstrating that no reasonable person would believe the
publisher. But just calling you dishonest is most likely just an insult
and not actionable.
<snip/>
> Peter Nyikos
Ron O
> On Feb 2, 6:07 pm, Ron O <rokim...@cox.net> wrote:
>
> > On Feb 1, 10:33 pm, pnyikos <nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>
> > > For all the talk by Ron O., Frank J., and even the late "el cid" about
> > > bait and switch scams, the only clear cut, fully documented example of
> > > which I am aware is one by Ron O., who claimed that Behe admitted he
> > > couldn't come up with a functional *definition* of Irreducible
> > > Complexity (IC) and when challenged to show it, switched to verifying
> > > that Behe couldn't *verify* that any biological phenomenon was
> > > *Intelligently Designed* (ID).
>
> > This is just another goal post shift and misdirection ploy combined
> > into one. What a loser.
>
> What Ron O is saying here, folks, is that his demands are paramount in
> all my discussions with him. If you show him up for a liar, that's
> just a "goal post shift and misdirection ploy" until you've done
> EVERYTHING he demands that you do.
My demands are not paramount. It is only that I will not allow a rat
like you to divert from one issue using a dishonest misdirection
ploy. I have made that clear. Once we deal with what you are already
running from we can deal with something else. You don't have to do
everything, only the right thing. I realize that, that may be too
difficult for you to comprehend.
Is dishonesty all that you have left in your bag of tricks? Isn't
that sad?
>
> > [The people at the Discovery Institute] claimed to have the ID
> > science to teach to
> > school kids,
>
> I don't recall ever seeing documentation of the "to teach to school
> kids" part. Please provide it here.
>
All you ever do is ask for more evidence and then run. You were there
when they were claiming to be able to teach the ID junk to school
kids. Asking for more evidence is just so bogus that I can't believe
that you would do it? What were the ID perps claiming for almost 5
years before you quite posting in 2000? Only a snake would try to
deny how ID was being sold at that time. Don't you remember how they
hyped the "No child left behind" bill where they were mentioned in the
appendix?
Both Meyer and Dembski used to have essays up that were listed as
being written in 1997 at the Discovery Institute web site that were on
teaching ID, but they don't seem to be there anymore.
The Wedge document is still available on the web and the Discovery
Institute has admitted that it was written by them. ID was supposed
to be the Wedge and they targeted school boards and legislators.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wedge_strategy
This has all the links that you would want.
The Discovery Institute is still calling the wedge document a fund
raising document. Isn't it fraud to solicit funds using inaccurate
material? Were they just fooling the rubes to get money by writing
the Wedge document?
More lame dishonesty and running seem to be in Nyikos' future.
> > but when it came time to put up or shut up, they ran a
> > bogus bait and switch scam on their own creationist support base.
>
> Please identify the "bait" and the "switch" as unambigously and
> clearly as I've identified the two things, separately, up there, in
> the description of the bait and switch scam that YOU have perpetrated
> in talk.origins.
The ID perps at the Discovery Institute sold the rubes like yourself
the science of intelligent design, but when it came time to make good
they ran the bait and switch scam and only gave the rubes a switch
scam that doesn't mention that ID ever existed. The classic bait and
switch scam. Offer one thing, but give the rubes something else.
Since I have described this in several posts where you make this same
bogus claim and that you have repeatedly run from, that is all I
expect this time too. More dishonesty and running and pretending in
Nyikos' future. If you weren't running so fast you could go back to
those old posts and acknowledge that I clearly defined the bait and
switch and you just ran.
>
> > All
>
> > the IDiot rubes ever got to teach was a stupid obfuscation scam that
> > does not mention IC or ID ever existed.
>
> Were they given permission by the courts to teach about the
> controversy between creationism and evolution? If not, what is this
> alleged "stupid obfuscation scam" supposed to have been?
You ran from that post too. Look up the posts with the Ohio
references. The lesson plan is the "teach the controversy" switch
scam. Meyers ran that bait and switch personally. The Ohio rubes
claimed that they were going to teach the science of intelligent
design, but what did they get to teach from Meyer? He was and still
is the director of the ID scam wing of the Discovery Institute.
Here is a link that has both the early draft and final for the lesson
plan since you probably can't bring yourself to crawl back to the
posts that you are running from.
http://science2.marion.ohio-state.edu/ohioscience/lesson-plans.html
>
> > So what good could it
> > possibly do you to make claims about IC
>
> Because there are a few things that are IC according to all the
> available evidence, such as the clotting cascade.
The ID perps ran the bait and switch even though they had wonderful IC
science to teach. It could be true if the ID perps are even worse off
than I thought. That would make them pathologic scam artists,
wouldn't it?
Got any scientific publications to back that up? No ID perp has ever
published about confirming that any system is IC in any peer reviewed
journal that I know of. Just publishing is only the first step.
Publications are wrong all the time, the example would have to be
validated at some point or end up with thousands of other scientific
publications that were just wrong.
Do you really think that the ID perps would not put up IC as one of
their controversies if they did scientifically verify some system as
being IC? These are the ID perps, why would they be satisfied in
teaching junk about colored moth controversies if they had IC science
to teach instead?
You are just lying to yourself if you think that they have the science
and they are willing to sit on it and look like degenerate scam
artists instead of supporting their "scientific" work.
>
> Do NOT confuse IC with "couldn't have evolved by gradual steps" nor
> with "had to be intelligently designed."
>
Nothing about IC is supported by the ID perps when they have to put
something up to teach.
It doesn't matter what definition you want to use, none of them made
the grade even by the low standards of the ID perp scam artists.
Remember they ran the bait and switch years before they lost in court
in Dover. There was no reason except their own belief that IC wasn't
worth teaching to keep it out of the switch scam lesson plan.
Why do you think that I put up the bait and switch scam that the ID
perps are running when some rube comes in and claims to have some ID
science. Even the guys that made the junk up never thought enough of
it to chance trying to support it when they had to.
> Do you even know the distinction between these three concepts, or are
> you a purely political animal who has some tremendous grudge against
> the Discovery Institute (DI)?
Doesn't matter does it. By the Discovery Institute's own standards a
stupid obfuscation scam is more scientific than IC or any other ID
concept that they were hawking. By the standards of the ID perps that
sold you the junk, it wasn't worth teaching when they had the chance
to teach it.
>
> I do my own thinking about ID (Intelligent Design) and don't pay
> attention to what the Discovery Institute (DI) has to say about
> Intelligent Design (ID) since I have my own theory about ID, and that
> goes back to Crick and Orgel, not the DI.
I wouldn't admit that the ID claptrap is all your own. It just means
that you don't know what you are talking about and can't blame anyone
else for your stupidity. That isn't the Nyikos that I know. When is
it going to be someone else's fault?
>
> >when the guys that sold you
> > the junk
>
> Nobody sold me any junk. Is your undying hatred of DI the effect of
> them selling YOU what you believe to be junk?
You came up with IC all on your own? Not likely, but you lie about so
many things who knows what you will be claiming next.
I hate to break the bad news, but the IC claptrap that the ID perps
sold you never made the grade even for the ID perps.
>
> > There is no doubt that the bait and switch went down on rubes like
> > yourself.
>
> Not in your maniacal mind. Normal people give others the benefit of
> the doubt, and don't automatically assume that I am lying when I tell
> you the true history of how I became interested in ID and IC.
So all the rubes got the ID science to teach? Do you have a single
example to put forward. I can name half a dozen instances where the
rubes wanted to teach ID, but never got any to teach. Not a single
instance where the bait and switch did not go down.
>
> > My
> > guess that you will eventually resort to the switch scam once the
> > utter failure of ID finally sinks in.
>
> There is no utter failure, except in your hate-ravaged mind. You keep
> ignoring what I say about Crick and Orgel. Is it because you are
> totally insane?
Who cares what you say about Crick and Orgel. Crick and Orgel are not
going to make the ID clap trap any less of the scam than it is. Do
you really think that Crick would have supported the ID scam? I have
never heard what Orgel thought of it.
>
> > You are just that dishonest and
> > willing to lie to yourself to that extent.
>
> This is slander, pure and simple. It would be actionable libel were
> you not able to show mountains of utter drivel by you to the court, to
> prove that you are insane.
The truth hurts sometimes. You should have learned to live with that
by now as bogus as you act, you should have been called on it plenty
of times.
Who has to run and pretend? Who has to try dishonest misdirection
ploys? Who has to lie to himself about the ID scam?
>
> [long paragraph repeating verbatim most of an earlier paragraph
> deleted here. Ron O. really seems to be building up an insanity
> defense, folks. He seems to be in the grip of the manic stage of a
> manic-depressive disorder, nowadays called a "bipolar disorder".]
It was actually a copy and paste error because I had to go to dinner
(actually a pub in the Netherlands) and wasn't finished and saved it
to a word file and pasted it back with some duplication that I didn't
catch.
>
> > > Here it is, recounted at some length in response to Ray Martinez, in a
> > > post which Darwin dropped altogether while it was out of commission.
>
> > > Re: Streaming right now - Hitchens and Dembski
> > > Friday, January 14, 2011 6:07 PM
>
> [crap repeating, with additional words, the bogus charge of
> "misdirection" above]
Run and pretend. It doesn't change reality.
>
> > I will go back to that old thread when you stop running. It is very
> > simple to see if I will do that, so why not do it?
>
> because, to "stop running" in The World According to Ron Okimoto,
> means to do the following:
It means that you have to stop running and pretending. Should be easy
if you actually had an argument. Just think of how long it took for
you to write this post when you could have been dismantling one of my
other posts with your superior intellect. Why run if you don't have
to? Why run a bogus misdirection ploy again after being called on it
before? Why not just go to the posts that you have run from and take
them apart?
>
> [...]
>
> > > Anyway, it's becoming clear that Ron will seize the flimsiest pretext
> > > for his irresponsible behavior in not responding to challenges. He is
> > > demanding that I expound on what he calls "the bait and switch scam"
> > > in a manner pleasing to him before he will provide the very quote you
> > > are challenging him to provide.
> [...]
Then you should be able to deal with my response instead of snipping
it out. Running and pretending. It is such a way of life for you
that you likely don't even know what you are doing.
> > > And of course, HE gets to choose what constitutes a reply pleasing to
> > > him, so you can bet your bottom dollar that he will NEVER provide the
> > > quote, unless someone with clout in this newsgroup, like Harshman or
> > > el cid, asks him to provide it.
>
> And I stand by these words, Ron O's grotesquely twisted "descriptions"
> of my replies to date notwithstanding. The descriptions are mere
> excuses for why my replies are not pleasing to him.
>
> [...]
Run and pretend. Reality will be the same tomorrow.
>
> I also stand by the words I said next:
>
> > > And even then, he will only provide it if it actually exists. Since
> > >the smart money says it does not exist, he can be expected to find
> > >some new excuse for each person who asks him to provide it.
> > How do you know?
>
> "The smart money" does not equate to my KNOWING. It's an assessment
> based on over a decade of experience with Usenet Vandals.. They seize
> the flimsiest excuses for neither documenting nor retracting claims
> that they have made, and I know hundreds of those claims to be false.
>
> To paraphrase an old formula: you waddle like a Usenet Vandal, you
> quack like one of them, and you lay eggs like one of them.
>
> I can provide several juicy examples from talk.abortion, in case
> anyone reading this is sincerely interested.
>
> Peter Nyikos
Big talk and a lot of running and pretending. Does snipping out what
you can't deal with make you feel better. What would you do if you
could delete my post so that anyone could not just go up one post and
see what you ran from?
I have to go to dinner and then I'm going to be traveling back from
Europe, but I'll be back.
Ron Okimoto
Steven L.
"Ron O" <roki...@cox.net> wrote in message
news:afe0f3d8-5f81-4476...@l11g2000yqb.googlegroups.com:
I challenge you to write a post about ID that doesn't have the words
"perp,"
"rube," or "scam" in it. Or their plurals either.
-- Steven L.
RAM
> "Ron O" <rokim...@cox.net> wrote in message
Why?
These are very easy to understand words and they do convey the truth
of the matter as well as the moral turpitude of the DI proponents of
ID.
I view the DI as highly deceptive and deceitful. Perp, rube and scam
may be inelegant but they are highly descriptive and do focus your
understanding on the deception and deceit which are the real issues.
deadrat
I challenge you to write a post about three card monte that doesn't have
the wods "perp," "rube," or "scam" in it.
>
>
> -- Steven L.
>
>
>
Ray Martinez
>
>
I have read the relevant pages of the transcript. I see nothing that
helps Ron. Perhaps you could post an excerpt that does?
Ray
>
>
>
> > Since we all know that Behe would never say such a thing, that the
> > same is
>
> ...
>
> read more »- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
Dana Tweedy
Here's a snippet from the transcript showing Behe painting himself into
a corner. The "Q" is from Mr. Rothchild, the attorney who was cross
examining Behe. Behe's testimony is "A". This starts on Page 95.
Q. Now you have this first flagellum, first bacteria that has a
flagellum. And that has -- those -- that bacteria with flagellums have
had mutations in their flagellums?
A. Sure. Genes undergo mutations, yes.
Q. And did the designer also design every mutation
of the flagellum since its inception?
A. No, you can't -- you certainly can't say that.
There is certainly random processes that go on in our world, or for
processes, that for all we can tell, certainly appear to be random. So
there's no -- nothing that requires us to think that any mutation, any
change that subsequently occurs to this structure either was intended or
-- was intended.
Q. Is that a no or an I don't know?
A. Can you restate the question?
Q. I asked you the question, did the designer design
every mutation of the flagellum since the first one? And I'm asking you
whether the answer is no or, better phrase, we don't know?
A. Well, that's -- that's a very tricky question. But the proper answer
is that, we don't know.
Q. Is the information necessary to answer that question observable?
A. The question of whether the designer designed every single mutation?
Q. Since that first lucky flagellum?
A. Is it observable? Hum. We can certainly observe
mutations, but unless the mutations and changes and so on further go on
to form a purposeful arrangement of parts, then we cannot deduce simply
from their occurrence that they were designed.
Q. There could be multiple designers, correct?
A. Yes, I wrote that in Darwin's Black Box.
Q. Could even be competing designers?
A. That's correct.
Q. Are you aware of any irreducibly complex systems that have just come
into existence in the last five years?
A. Biological systems or mechanical systems or in our everyday world or
other ones?
Q. No, Professor Behe, biological systems?
A. The last five years? You mean, brand new irreducibly complex systems?
Q. Yes.
A. I'm sorry. Brand new ones, not ones that are just --
Q. That are still around, that's right?
A. -- reproduced? Not that I'm aware of, no.
Q. Last 10 years?
A. No.
Q. 50 years?
A. Not that I know of, no.
Q. A hundred years?
A. All of the structures that I wrote about in Darwin's Black Box and
have considered are much older than that.
Q. So scientifically, we can't even make -- we can't even state right
now that an intelligent designer still exists, correct?
A. That's correct, yes.
Q. Is that what you want taught to high school students?
end quoted material.
DJT
Ray Martinez
Where is Behe's admission that he cannot define IC systems?
That is Ron's claim. I don't see it.
Ray
Frank J
> "Ron O" <rokim...@cox.net> wrote in message
All he needs to do is replace them, respectively with:
1. "anti-evolution activist" (or "ID promoter" if he needs to
distinguish them from traditional YEC or OEC promoters)
2. "misled followers"
3. "strategy"
These (especially 3) may dilute the meaning, but Ron knows that it is
necessary to vary the terms to avoid the impression of "protesting too
much." As with any science-pseudoscience debate, it's a luxury that
the science side can't afford, but the pseudoscience can. Try to get
an anti-evolution activist to write more than a few sentences about
evolution without "Darwinism" or "Darwinist(s)."
You forgot the 4th "Ronism," the subject of this thread, and the one
that may be hardest to rephrase: "bait-and-switch." Ron uses it almost
exclusively for the replacement of "Teach ID" with "Teach 'weaknesses'
of evolution." But in fact anti-evolution activists bait-and-switch
all sorts of things: evoluton with abiogenesis, the "fact vs theory"
of both, science's definitions (e.g. of "theory") with colloquial
ones. I try to use "conflate" or "confuse" instead, but sometimes I
just can't resist calling it what it is.
>
> -- Steven L.- Hide quoted text -
Ron O
> "Ron O" <rokim...@cox.net> wrote in message
I challenge you to make any sensible case besides "it isn't nice" that
I should do something like that in the face of the current reality.
Do you deny that the ID perps ran the bait and switch on their own
creationist support base? Doesn't that make them scam artists. They
did perpetrate the bait and switch scam so they are perps. It isn't
even a question of whether they are guilty or not because they
obviously are guilty. I can't even honestly say alleleged
perpetrators. So put up your reason why I should not tell it like it
is. Why run from reality. Is calling it a ploy instead of a scam any
better? Is calling them perpetrators instead of perps any better?
Reality won't change by changing a few words. Not only that, but the
ID perps deserve no better. My guess is that their own support base
would tar and feather them if they were not backed up against a wall
and had to pretend to support the scam artists. Just think what
Nyikos thinks of the bogus liars that hae made him look like a total
IDiot?
Ron Okimoto
Ron O
> This is actually a reply to a post by Ron Okimoto on the thread where
> he first started attacking me and the Discovery Institute. That
> thread has grown to over 500 posts, and I'm saving it for features of
> our debate that don't bear on the allegations of Ron O about a
> mysterious "bait and switch scam.".
Poor Nyikos, such a rube for the Discovery Institute's bogus ID scam
that he has to make up a lot of junk just to pretend that he wasn't
scammed. The bait and switch scam is only a mystery to those too
ignorant, incompetent and or dishonest to evaluate the situation. He
knows that, but he calls it "mysterious" and runs away.
Do you want me to pull out all the posts that you ran from for you.
It will be a bit of work, but I will do it if you want. Geez, maybe I
should count them. What a bogus blow hard. Making such lame excuses
for running away doesn't fool me, and I bet that it doesn't fool
anyone much at all.
>
> In the post to which I am replying here, Ron is quoting some things
> from Philip Johnso that he may be ignorant enough to think are
> descriptions of the mysterious "bait and switch scam" that HE has
> alleged against the Discovery Institute (DI). Since this is
> reasonably on-topic, I've decided to move it to this thread.
>
> On Jan 25, 8:22 am, Ron O <rokim...@cox.net> wrote:
>
> I've deleted some things here, dealt with on the original thread, in:
My guess is that you dealt with them like you have dealt with most
everything else. Running, misdirection, changing the gaol posts,
blaming the victims, asking for more evidence. Why not just address
the issue head on? Why call the bait and switch mysterious when you
know what it is and have been told repeatedly? The ID perps at the
Discovery Institute sold the rubes like yourself the science of
intelligent design, but when it came tome to put up or shut up and
their loyal followers started claiming to be able to teach the junk in
the public schools the ID perps ran the bait and switch. Instead of
any ID science all the rubes got was a bogus obfuscation scam that
doesn't mention that ID ever existed. That is the classic bait and
switch scam. Offer one thing and the rubes only get some bogus booby
prize.
>
> http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/ecfe758bb8e82a1a
> and inhttp://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/28a517f37caea235?dmod...
> Message-ID: <af265aec-0831-4437-
> bd82-3ba8d34d9...@v16g2000vbq.googlegroups.com>
>
> > It might be worth pretending that the Discovery Institute was ever
> > legit if there were fellows that were doing anything at all honest.
> > Where are the guys that are able to say "this is where we came up
> > short and this is what we have to do to fix the problem."?
>
> Maybe they testified at Dover. Has Ron O ever quoted directly from
> the transcripts? All I've seen him post on Dover is a website that
> does not even link immediately to transcripts.
Actually if you read the transcripts it was like pulling teeth to get
anything out of Behe and Minnich. If you know of an ID perp that has
identified where the ID scam came up short and what they need to do in
order to make it a legitimate exercise please present the reference.
Misdirection ploys are dishonest, but that is what Nyikos has been
reduced to. Sad, but true.
>
> Moreover, when I took the trouble to post urls for ALL the transcripts
> of Behe's testimony in Dover, and asked him to identify which one
> contains documentation of his allegations about Behe, he ran away,
> using the excuse that this was just "misdirection ploy" on my part.
Misdirection ploys are dishonest, but that is all Nyikos can seem to
come up with. He was called on it the first time he tried it and this
tread was just resumption of the pathetic ploy. You can't get much
lower than continuing to do something dishonest that you have already
been called on. We could deal with this, but Nyikos would have to
stop running and pretending. Not likely to happen, but that is
Nyikos' fault.
>
> Thus did Okimoto show that the word "irresponsible" means next to
> nothing to him.
Dishonesty is just a way of life for Nyikos. I'll stand by what I
have written on this subject any day. Nyikos can't say that unless he
is in the company of other bogus pretenders. Misdirection ploys
aren't anything to be proud of.
>
> > Not a
> > single ID perp associated with the Discovery Institute ever came out
> > against the bait and switch scam. Why?
>
> Perhaps because no one has given an unambiguous explanation of what
> the alleged "bait" was and what the alleged "switch" was.
See above. Don't run, acknowledge that you now know what it is and
that it has been happening for over 8 years. Did any rube that wanted
to teach the science of intelligent design ever get any ID science to
teach?
>
> I see precious little hint of either in the post to which I am
> replying, although Okimoto may have deluded himself into thinking that
> Johnson is describing them in what he quoted from Johnson.
If this is the Johnson quote that I am thinking of. Johnson is just
admitting that the ID science was never there to teach. At least,
nothing that he would consider to be worth teaching since he said that
it wasn't as good as what real science already had.
>
> [undocumented claim of something else, not even naming names, deleted]
Run, run reality will be the same tomorrow. Deleting what you can't
deal with and running away is just a way of life for you. Do you
really think that if you delete something that it neer existed?
>
> > This is a truely sad reality for any IDiot stupid or dishonest enough
> > to still support the ID perps.
>
> Until the claim is documented, the claim that it is "reality" remains
> unproven.
It is a sad reality. The only IDiots left that still support the
bogus intelligent design scam are the ignorant, incompetent and or
dishonest. You haven't put up a single reason why that isn't true.
Not a single example of someone that doesn't fit that description.
You, yourself has been shown to be all three, so what are you claiming
is unproven? Your definition of unproven seems to be worth about as
much as the nonexistent science of ID. Really, noone including
yourself has put up an example of an IDiot follower of the ID scam
that did not have one or more of those three attributes in order to
remain an IDiot. Would an informed, competent and honest person still
be an IDiot follower of the ID perps? Where are the guys that have
dumped the lame pretenders and have started to generate some honest
science?
>
> > For anyone that wants to believe that there was ever anything to the
> > intelligent design creationist scam the fat lady has already sung.
>
> With the word "creationist" this becomes a scam by Ron Okimoto.
> Discovery Insititute (DI) explicitly takes no stand on creationism,
> since the evidence that this or that thing is intelligently designed
> is not based on any supernatural premises.
The denial that religion is important to the scam is part of the
dishonest scam and Nyikos knows it.
QUOTE:
Phillip E. Johnson stated that the goal of intelligent design is to
cast creationism as a scientific concept.
END QUOTE:
QUOTE:
Both Johnson and Dembski cite the Bible's Gospel of John as the
foundation of intelligent design.
END QUOTE:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelligent_design
The first quote is foiund in the "Movement" section, and the second
quote is from the "Religion and leading proponents" section. Both
sections should be read by those that don't know how far off base and
deluded Nyikos' view of reality is. References are given in the Wiki
text.
>
> > These are quotes from Philip Johnson that has not been retracted as
> > far as I know, and he even presented similar feelings on the video of
> > the Dover fiasco. This is the guy that the other ID perps called the
> > "godfather" of the intelligent design scam
>
> Ron O repeatedly mis-states things the way they actually happened.
> It's a safe bet that none of the people he peremptorily calls "ID
> perps" ever called Johnson the "godfather" of a SCAM.
If you read what I actually write. It was the ID perps themselves
that called Johnson the "godfather" of the intelligent design scam for
his efforts in getting the scam rolling in the early 1990s. They
don't call it the ID scam, but that is what it is. They call it the
intelligent design movement, probably equal portions of politics and
bowel movements even for them.
>
> He seems to have a deep-seated psychological aversion to objective,
> value-neutral language about anything even remotely connected to DI.
Why should you use value neutral language when you are talking about a
dishonest scam?
Demonstrate that the bait and switch was not perpetrated by the ID
scam artists and I will stop calling it a scam. That will be hard to
do because Meyer ran the Ohio bait and switch personally. The Ohio
rubes claimed that they were going to teach the science of intelligent
design, but when they brought Meyer (remember I gave the reference but
you ran away) and Wells in along with some real scientists to get
informed about intelligent design, what went down? All they got from
the Discovery Institute was a switch scam that doesn't mention that ID
ever existed. that is the classic bait and switch. Sell one thing
and only give the rubes something that they didn't want to buy in the
first place. Most of the rubes that have had the bait and switch run
on them have dropped the issue. Only a few like Ohio bent over and
took the switch scam from the same guys that they know lied to them
about intelligent design.
>
> > because of his efforts to
> > get the scam rolling in the early 1990's. He doesn't accept blame for
> > running the bogus scam
>
> Here the Okimoto aversion is taken to such excess, that it undermines
> itself by a double negative: it may indeed be the case that calling
> what DI does a scam *IS* bogus. But first we need a description of
> what the bait was, and what the switch was, to judge that.
I will put back what you did not include and people can see if it is
excessive or not. Philip Johnson does not take responsibility for
running the ID scam for a decade, he does just point the finger at the
science ID perps as never coming up with the science that would have
obviously made the scam legit.
QUOTE:
I also don’t think that there is really a theory of intelligent design
at the present time to propose as a comparable alternative to the
Darwinian theory, which is, whatever errors it might contain, a fully
worked out scheme. There is no intelligent design theory that’s
comparable. Working out a positive theory is the job of the scientific
people that we have affiliated with the movement. Some of them are
quite convinced that it’s doable, but that’s for them to prove…No
product is ready for competition in the educational world.
END QUOTE:
http://sciencereview.berkeley.edu/articles.php?issue=10&article=evolution
Nyikos should learn that just deleting the relevant material doesn't
make it go away, but running and pretending are just a way of life for
him.
>
> You will NOT find it in the words of Philip Johnson that he quotes, as
> I will show in my next post.
>
> Peter Nyikos
Where is the next post? It hasn't shown up on Google, yet. If
someone has seen it could you please repost it in this thread? Some
of my posts never show up on Google, but others must see them because
responses appear.
Ron Okimoto
Bill
Well, I'm just a single data point, but here goes. I agree with you
about the facts of Dover. I agree that ID is utter nonsense and a
thinly veiled attempt to get religion back into the public schools.
Nonetheless, because of the very distinctive pattern of word use
frequencies in your posts, all I see is...
Blah blah blah rubes blah blah bait-and-switch blah blah
perps....scam.....rubes......perps....bait and switch.....clueless
rubes....obfuscation.....perps.
As I said, I'm just a single data point, but I think that your tone
interferes with your message.
Ron O
This could be the best reason to quit. I realize that this is partly
my fault that you don't seem to know what is going on in this thread.
Dover is decoy. Nyikos is running a misdirection ploy to shift the
argument away from the intelligent design scam. If my writing style
was a closer fit to what you would accept, you probably wouldn't have
missed that. Steven L doesn't care. For some reason reality doesn't
matter to him either.
What Nyikos is running from is the fact that the ID perps at the
Discovery Institute have been running a bogus bait and switch scam on
rubes like himself years before Dover ever happened. ID has just been
a bogus scam since the ID perps started running the bait and switch.
No more, no less. I don't call ID a scam and the perpetrators perps
and scam artists because of the incompetent and dishonest political
ploy, but because of the bogus con game that ID turned into. The bait
and switch didn't happen by accident. In the thread that Nyikos is
running from I put up the references indicating that the ID perps
started to develop the switch scam while they were still claiming that
ID was their business back in 1999. Nyikos konws the facts because he
was still posting at that time in TO. What he probably didn't know is
that they were already working up the switch scam. I admit that I
didn't know until I checked up on it after the bait and switch started
to go down. It was sort of a secret hiding in plain sight because the
ID perps didn't make a big deal about it for obvious reasons. When ID
got up enough steam for the creationist rubes to actually try to teach
the junk, Meyer ran the first public bait and switch scam on his own
creationist supporters on the Ohio State board himself in 2002.
Instead of any ID science to teach all the Ohio rubes got was the
obfuscation switch scam that doesn't mention that ID ever existed.
This is the classic bait and switch scam and it occurred years before
the ID perps lost in court in Dover in 2005. Every single creationist
rube that bought into the ID scam and claimed to be able to teach the
science of ID has had the bait and switch run on them by the ID
perps. A few like Ohio have bent over and taken the switch scam from
the guys that they know lied to them about the science of ID and are
dishonest enough to still want to teach something that doesn't even
mention what they claimed to want to teach, but most of the victims
just dropped the issue.
The bait and switch has become less common the last major fiasco
involving only intelligent design was in Florida at the end of 2008.
Over half a dozen county school boards and probably just as many State
legislators claimed that they were going to get the science of
intelligent design taught in Florida Public schools. The Discovery
Institute ran the bait and switch on them. I think that they flew
Casey Luskin to Florida from Seatle to run the bait and switch. Since
we haven't heard anything out of Florida since it seems like all those
rubes dropped the issue instead of taking the switch scam, but my
guess is that some of them are just waiting a while before they try
the switch scam so that they don't look like the rubes or dishonest
guys that they are.
That is the current state of the intelligent design scam. Even the
guys that perpetrated the ID scam knew that it didn't make the grade
years before Dover. There were just a bunch of IDiot rubes in
Louisiana last Nov. that claimed that their switch scam law allowed
them to teach the science of ID and they wanted to force textbook
publishers to put intelligent design in the textbooks. Beats me how
the ID perps sold the switch scam in Louisiana, but it is obvious that
they need a 2X4 to knock enough sense into their creationist support
base in order to get across what the current scam is at this time. No
one got any ID science to put in the textbooks and if the ID perps
hadn't been able to throttle enough people on the board the switch
scam would have had it's disasterous day in court too. One vote (6 to
5) is all that kept the ID perps from being found out again. My guess
is that the vote was so close, not because the ID perps hadn't phoned
or talked to every single person on that board, but that some of the
IDiot rubes are like Nyikos and just can't accept reality.
>
> As I said, I'm just a single data point, but I think that your tone
> interferes with your message.
I accept your misconception as being partially my fault for the
reasons that you give, but you might want to check out what you are
talking about.
Ron Okimoto
>
>
>
> > Do you deny that the ID perps ran the bait and switch on their own
> > creationist support base? �Doesn't that make them scam artists. �They
> > did perpetrate the bait and switch scam so they are perps. �It isn't
> > even a question of whether they are guilty or not because they
> > obviously are guilty. �I can't even honestly say alleleged
> > perpetrators. �So put up your reason why I should not tell it like it
> > is. �Why run from reality. �Is calling it a ploy instead of a scam any
> > better? �Is calling them perpetrators instead of perps any better?
> > Reality won't change by changing a few words. �Not only that, but the
> > ID perps deserve no better. �My guess is that their own support base
> > would tar and feather them if they were not backed up against a wall
> > and had to pretend to support the scam artists. �Just think what
> > Nyikos thinks of the bogus liars that hae made him look like a total
> > IDiot?
>
> > Ron Okimoto-
pnyikos
> On 2/3/11 1:37 PM, pnyikos wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Feb 2, 6:07 pm, Ron O<rokim...@cox.net> wrote:
> >> This is just another goal post shift and misdirection ploy combined
> >> into one. What a loser.
>
> > What Ron O is saying here, folks, is that his demands are paramount in
> > all my discussions with him. If you show him up for a liar, that's
> > just a "goal post shift and misdirection ploy" until you've done
> > EVERYTHING he demands that you do.
>
> >> [The people at the Discovery Institute] claimed to have the ID
> >> science to teach to school kids,
>
> > I don't recall ever seeing documentation of the "to teach to school
> > kids" part. Please provide it here.
>
> At Dover, it was _Of Pandas and People_.
Are you saying that the DI people (as opposed to the school board)
explicitly said that this book is suitable for teaching in the public
schools as an example of ID science--or just as an illustration of how
there is controversy out there?
This distinction seems absolutely crucial to the claim of there being
a bait and switch scam *pace* Ron Okimoto (as opposed to Frank J or
"el cid", who used different descriptions of the alleged bait, and the
alleged switch). The reason is that "as an example of ID science"
seems to be what Ron thinks of as the bait, and "teach the
controversy" seems to be what he thinks of as the SWITCH.
> <snip/>
>
> >> So what good could it possibly do you to make claims about IC
>
> > Because there are a few things that are IC according to all the
> > available evidence, such as the clotting cascade.
>
> Nope, the IDiots trotted this one out at Dover. It was an epic fail.
If you take the trouble to CAREFULLY read the relevant transcript, you
will see how the epic fail was on the part of Behe's critics rather
than on the part of Behe:
http://www.aclupa.org/downloads/Day11AM.pdf
It is important to see that Behe is quoting Doolittle on pp. 11-13.
The transcript does not show this clearly, because Behe neglected to
put in "unquote" in the right place[s]. What's crucial is that he
then shows how Doolittle completely misread the article that he used
to "refute" Behe (p.14 thru p. 16). Michael Ruse blindly followed
Doolittle (pp. 20-21) and so did Greenspan (pp. 22-23).
Behe has been getting tremendous mileage out of Doolittle's blunder in
lecture after lecture. I saw it happen when he gave a talk right here
at the U. of S. Carolina in the late 90's.
In the question and answer session, a "questioner" made an
unmistakable reference to Doolittle's ignorant claim that the mice
with two genes knocked out were normal for all practical purposes. As
he rambled on, Behe carefully prepared the slides he had on the
article that Doolittle had so hilariously misread, and then he
displayed the slides, which gave the correct information about those
unfortunate mice.
I saw the questioner afterwards, talking to a sympathetic colleague,
and I could see that being refuted like this made him angrier at ever
about Behe. He, a biology professor, simply had a closed mind on the
subject, like so many talk.origins participants.
Behe, as far as I know, never actually mentions Doollittle's epic fail
in the body of his talk, but he says he wished he could have five
dollars for every time something similar has happened in question and
answer sessions.
> <snip/>
>
> >> My
> >> guess that you will eventually resort to the switch scam once the
> >> utter failure of ID finally sinks in.
>
> > There is no utter failure, except in your hate-ravaged mind. You keep
> > ignoring what I say about Crick and Orgel. Is it because you are
> > totally insane?
>
> >> You are just that dishonest and
> >> willing to lie to yourself to that extent.
>
> > This is slander, pure and simple. It would be actionable libel were
> > you not able to show mountains of utter drivel by you to the court, to
> > prove that you are insane.
>
> Insanity is not a defense against defamation, although it could go some
> way to demonstrating that no reasonable person would believe the
> publisher.
It would also make it next to impossible to claim any monetary award.
> But just calling you dishonest is most likely just an insult
> and not actionable.
He's said it so many times in so many different ways, it's hard to
think of as it being a mere insult--unless Ron O. is an ethical
nihilist who sees nothing wrong with dishonesty but knows that it is a
convenient stick to beat people over the head with.
> <snip/>
>
> > Peter Nyikos
pnyikos
> On Feb 4, 5:50 pm, "Steven L." <sdlit...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
>
>
> > "Ron O" <rokim...@cox.net> wrote in message
>
> >news:afe0f3d8-5f81-4476...@l11g2000yqb.googlegroups.com:
>
> > > On Feb 1, 10:33 pm, pnyikos <nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> > > > For all the talk by Ron O., Frank J., and even the late "el cid" about
> > > > bait and switch scams, the only clear cut, fully documented example of
> > > > which I am aware is one by Ron O., who claimed that Behe admitted he
> > > > couldn't come up with a functional *definition* of Irreducible
> > > > Complexity (IC) and when challenged to show it, switched to verifying
> > > > that Behe couldn't *verify* that any biological phenomenon was
> > > > *Intelligently Designed* (ID).
I was being overly generous to Ron O. here. He never actually
*verified* his "switch" claim about ID, he linked a website which
presumably would take us to Behe admitting to the latter thing if we
kept hitting on the right links within links within links...
[...]
> > > The
> > > fact is that the ID perps claimed to have the ID science to teach to
> > > school kids, but when it came time to put up or shut up, they ran a
> > > bogus bait and switch scam on their own creationist support base.
[...]
> > > There is no doubt that the bait and switch went down on rubes like
> > > yourself.
This is a tall tale concocted by Ron O. My involvement with ID and IC
has nothing to do with any alleged bait and switch that anyone has
even hinted at around here. I've been telling people here, including
him, how my involvement with ID began, many times, but Ron O. insists
on clinging to this tall tale like a monomaniac.
[...]
> > I challenge you to write a post about ID that doesn't have the words
> > "perp,"
> > "rube," or "scam" in it. Or their plurals either.
>
> > -- Steven L.
>
> Why?
Because they are a clear case of "sentence first, verdict afterwards"--
or, more precisely, "verdict first, evidence afterwards--or not at
all."
> These are very easy to understand words and they do convey the truth
> of the matter
Do they now? are you relying on the word of others (Ron O., Frank J.,
"el cid,"...) or have you made an independent study of the situation
yourself?
And what is YOUR understanding of what the bait was, and what the
switch was?
>as well as the moral turpitude of the DI proponents of
> ID.
My, my.
> I view the DI as highly deceptive and deceitful.
On what grounds? Might you be another victim of the blind leading the
blind, as was the case with Doolittle leading Ruse and Greenspan and
apparently "deadrat"? [See my reply to deadrat a little while ago.]
> Perp, rube and scam
> may be inelegant but they are highly descriptive and do focus your
> understanding on the deception and deceit which are the real issues.
I can't focus on something about which I've only been given hints so
far. The words, in and of themselves, identify nothing specific.
Peter Nyikos
pnyikos
Ron O.
On Feb 2, 6:07 pm, Ron O <rokim...@cox.net> wrote:
> On Feb 1, 10:33 pm, pnyikos <nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>
> > For all the talk by Ron O., Frank J., and even the late "el cid" about
> > bait and switch scams, the only clear cut, fully documented example of
> > which I am aware is one by Ron O., who claimed that Behe admitted he
> > couldn't come up with a functional *definition* of Irreducible
> > Complexity (IC) and when challenged to show it, switched to verifying
> > that Behe couldn't *verify* that any biological phenomenon was
> > *Intelligently Designed* (ID).
On the other hand, Ron has been taking his sweet old time in dropping
one hint after another about what the bait was, and what the switch
was, that the DI (Discovery Institute) is allegedly guilty of.
[...]
> This is my original response to your attempted misdirection ploy:
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/46ea6522f3338603?hl=en
Misdirection from what? from a hilariously half-assed description of
the alleged scam? Here I go, replying to that post:
On Dec 15 2010, 10:49 pm, Ron O <rokim...@cox.net> wrote:
> On Dec 15, 5:33 pm, pnyikos <nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote:> On Dec 13, 7:24 pm, Ron O <rokim...@cox.net> wrote:
>
[...]
> You know that the bait and switch went down years before the ID perps
> ever lost in court and Behe had to give his testimony when Dembski and
> Meyer ran away.
>
> > If you can document a place where the DI people are doing BOTH, I'll
> > gladly take a look ...
>
> You keep putting up these challeges, but never defend what you have
> been given. Explain what happened in Ohio. Meyer first told the Ohio
> board that ID was science,
That looks like a description of the bait...
> but what did they end up with?
>
> Why doesn't that count as an instance where the ID perps did both?
If you think "what did they end up with?" counts as a *description* of
a SWITCH, you are a mental basket case.
You came at me again with the same half-assed description of "both," a
little further down:
[...]
> What do you think that they are doing now? They are still selling
> intelligent design as science, but what do the rubes get?
>
> http://www.intelligentdesign.org/whatisid.php
>
> This is what they are still selling, but what do the rubes get?
>
That describes the alleged bait. No hint about the answer to "what do
the rubes get?".
To be fair, you did give what looks sort of like a hint in the part I
snipped:
> The ID perps didn't put up the small print about not supporting
> teaching intelligent design
Note the word "teaching": saying that something is science is NOT the
same thing as endorsing the actual teaching of it in the public
schools AT THIS TIME. I've made this point in follow-up to
"Rodjk#613" in connection with some idiotic comments you made about
something Phillip Johnson once said.
Three days have passed, and you are still runing away from that
post.
And yet, the stuff from Johnson is EXACTLY what you then posted in
this December post to which my reply is the second half of this
"twofer". You also gave a citation to Nelson saying some of the same
things Johnson is saying, but no hint of there being an actual
"switch" from any "bait".
Peter Nyikos
jillery
So you don't like vague comments and cites that have nothing about the
claimed subject? Imagine that. Is there any T.O. poster that
actually does does these things as a matter of practice? Hint: it
isn't Ron O.
pnyikos
> On Feb 6, 10:33 pm, Ron O <rokim...@cox.net> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Feb 4, 5:50 pm, "Steven L." <sdlit...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
> > > "Ron O" <rokim...@cox.net> wrote in message
>
> > >news:afe0f3d8-5f81-4476...@l11g2000yqb.googlegroups.com:
>
> > > > On Feb 1, 10:33 pm, pnyikos <nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> > > > > For all the talk by Ron O., Frank J., and even the late "el cid" about
> > > > > bait and switch scams, the only clear cut, fully documented example of
> > > > > which I am aware is one by Ron O., who claimed that Behe admitted he
> > > > > couldn't come up with a functional *definition* of Irreducible
> > > > > Complexity (IC) and when challenged to show it, switched to verifying
> > > > > that Behe couldn't *verify* that any biological phenomenon was
> > > > > *Intelligently Designed* (ID).
> > > I challenge you to write a post about ID that doesn't have the words
> > > "perp,"
> > > "rube," or "scam" in it. Or their plurals either.
>
> > > -- Steven L.-
>
> > I challenge you to make any sensible case besides "it isn't nice" that
> > I should do something like that in the face of the current reality.
The words are pejorative, and commit the fallacy of begging the
question, as does "reality," in the absence of documentation.
> Well, I'm just a single data point, but here goes. I agree with you
> about the facts of Dover.
Including the "epic fail" by Doolittle and two other Behe critics
blindly following Doolittle's blind reading of an article on mice?
> I agree that ID is utter nonsense and a
> thinly veiled attempt to get religion back into the public schools.
You may think that about the Discovery Institute's idea of ID, but my
idea is utterly different from anything any of the people over there
have endorsed, AFAIK.
Anyway, why do you think it?
> Nonetheless, because of the very distinctive pattern of word use
> frequencies in your posts, all I see is...
>
> Blah blah blah rubes blah blah bait-and-switch blah blah
> perps....scam.....rubes......perps....bait and switch.....clueless
> rubes....obfuscation.....perps.
>
> As I said, I'm just a single data point, but I think that your tone
> interferes with your message.
It sure does. See my "twofer" reply to Ron O. a few minutes ago.
> > Do you deny that the ID perps ran the bait and switch on their own
> > creationist support base? Doesn't that make them scam artists. They
> > did perpetrate the bait and switch scam so they are perps. It isn't
> > even a question of whether they are guilty or not because they
> > obviously are guilty. I can't even honestly say alleleged
> > perpetrators.
He can, and should, until he documents an undeniably unambiguous,
specific bait and switch.
His blather reminds me of a comic strip character named "General
Bullmoose" who ran for President of the USA with slogans like, "Are
you idiot enough NOT to vote for Bullmoose for President? Then send
him a letter, telling him why."
Steven L.
"pnyikos" <nyi...@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:2fef9e5a-ab12-4f5b...@y35g2000prc.googlegroups.com:
They're also a clear case of using loaded buzzwords as an emotional
appeal to the reader, rather than appealing to the reader's reason as I
thought all the rationalist evolutionists were supposed to do. The use
of the word "scam" also implies deliberate fraud on the part of ID
proponents, an ad hominem attack if there ever was one.
I do not believe that ID has real scientific merit. But I don't need to
accuse ID proponents of anything nefarious to make my own case.
-- Steven L.
pnyikos
> On Feb 5, 2:16 pm, Dana Tweedy <reddfr...@bresnan.net> wrote:
>
> > On 2/5/11 11:11 AM, Ray Martinez wrote:
>
> > > On Feb 3, 5:28 pm, Bill<brogers31...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >> On Feb 4, 3:03 am, Ray Martinez<pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > >>> Ron Okimoto said or strongly implied that Michael Behe admitted that
> > >>> he cannot define IC systems. I then asked Ron to support his claim, to
> > >>> provide the link and quote by Behe. After much resistance, he ended up
> > >>> saying (IIRC) that Behe said as much in his Dover testimony. When
> > >>> further pressed to provide the quote or quotes, Ron has failed to
> > >>> produce.
>
> > >> Well, here's the link to the transcript of the Dover trial. It's in
> > >> the Day 12 morning section that Behe seems to struggle with the
> > >> meaning of IC, starting around page 63 of the transcript. It's too
> > >> long to quote in full here, but you can find it at the link.
I cut to the chase; here is the url for that section:
http://www.aclupa.org/downloads/Day12AM.pdf
> > > I have read the relevant pages of the transcript. I see nothing that
> > > helps Ron. Perhaps you could post an excerpt that does?
I read from 63 all the way to page 81, and what it seemed to consist
of was the questioner coming forward with one misconception after
another about IC, and Behe patiently trying to set him straight.
Looks like Bill was having trouble getting focused, the way Dana
Tweedy comes to his rescue with an exchange from page 95.
> > Here's a snippet from the transcript showing Behe painting himself into
> > a corner.
Dana is shackling himself to Bill and to Ron O. folks. Let's see what
he can do for the threesome.
Nowhere, obviously. Were I as hate-ravaged as Ron Okimoto, I'd accuse
Tweedy of running a bait and switch scam. As it is, he is just
another one of a long line of people who seems to have no clue as to
what IC is all about.
I've even hypothesized that there WERE mutations to the original
bacterial flagellum, hypothesized to be attached to a gram-negative
prokaryote. The mutations SIMPLIFIED it for gram-positive flagellae,
by omitting two rings that were no longer relevant since that
protective layer was gone.
Howard Hershey got what I wrote about this backwards, with hilarious
results.
> That is Ron's claim. I don't see it.
>
> Ray
And with good reason.
Peter Nyikos
RAM
That is only because you refuse to investigate Ron's allegations.
Instead you engage in your typical endless parsing of issues and
distractions to avoid as Ron correctly notes dishonest.
And yes DI is dishonest; the "Wedge" document, and the bait and switch
scam are ample evidence.
The "my my" above only reveals your willful ignorance of the DI
history or you wish "lawyer" their dishonesty.
Andre Lieven
> "pnyikos" <nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
Well... On that one, Ron has more merit than none. The fund raising
part of the creationist/ID movement IS essentially a scam, because
the courts have made it as clear as can be that the goal of the
movement is simply illegal, period, full stop. No matter what costume
the scam is hidden in.
But, the sweeping use of 'scam' here is also not appropriate, as
not all of the activities of said movement's leaders are about $$$.
Lets consider the possibility that they DO actually believe at least
some of what they're claiming. It may be many bad things to
espouse factless nonsense, but if you DO believe it, that's
imbecility,
willful ignorance, but not a scam.
> I do not believe that ID has real scientific merit. �But I don't need to
> accuse ID proponents of anything nefarious to make my own case.
Yeah, I especially don't like the (mis) use of the word 'perps' as
that
word does have a specific meaning: Those who are arrested and/or
indicted, none of which is the case with his (mis) use of it.
Andre
RAM
Ray who is pathologically anti-evolution is a perfect companion for
you.
You, the gloating pusillanimous parser and Ray, the only true
Christian make a Mutt and Jeff routine that could make TO history if
it lasts longer than a week.
Ron O
> This is another "twofer," this time replying to two different posts by
> Ron O.
>
> On Feb 2, 6:07 pm, Ron O <rokim...@cox.net> wrote:
>
> > On Feb 1, 10:33 pm, pnyikos <nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>
> > > For all the talk by Ron O., Frank J., and even the late "el cid" about
> > > bait and switch scams, the only clear cut, fully documented example of
> > > which I am aware is one by Ron O., who claimed that Behe admitted he
> > > couldn't come up with a functional *definition* of Irreducible
> > > Complexity (IC) and when challenged to show it, switched to verifying
> > > that Behe couldn't *verify* that any biological phenomenon was
> > > *Intelligently Designed* (ID).
>
> On the other hand, Ron has been taking his sweet old time in dropping
> one hint after another about what the bait was, and what the switch
> was, that the DI (Discovery Institute) is allegedly guilty of.
>
> [...]
For some reason Nyikos has to lie about what I have claimed that the
bait and switch is. I have clearly described what the bait and switch
scam is, but he just runs and pretends. Anyone can just go up to the
material that Nyikos has had to snip out in order to look like he
isn't lying to know this. Not only that, but I have described the
bait and switch multiple times and the only response that Nyikos has
manageds is to lie about it and run away.
This is part of what Nyikos just snipped in order to make himself feel
better about lying. Beats me why he does it, but it seems to keep him
going.
QUOTE:
Can't you come up with some type of honest
counter to the bait and switch? How low are you willing to go? The
fact is that the ID perps claimed to have the ID science to teach to
school kids, but when it came time to put up or shut up, they ran a
bogus bait and switch scam on their own creationist support base.
All
the IDiot rubes ever got to teach was a stupid obfuscation scam that
does not mention IC or ID ever existed.
END QUOTE:
This is the classic bait and switch scam. Offer the rubes one thing,
but scam them by only giving them something else. It is considered to
be fraud in every state that I know of for retail, but the ID perps
get away with it because it is just dishonest politics. The fact is
that the ID perps claimed that they had the ID science to teach to
school kids, but when the rubes that bought into the scam needed the
ID science to teach all the ID perps came up with was a stupid
obfuscation scam that doesn't even mention that ID ever existed. The
reason that Nyikos has to keep lying to himself is because he knows
that only the ignorant, incompetent and or dishonest would still
support the ID scam in the face of that reality, and for some reason
he wants to keep supporting the ID scam junk that wasn't even good
enough for the guys that sold it to him in the first place. The ID
perps did not run the bait and switch on the science side. They ran
the bait and switch on their own IDiot supporters like Nyikos. Nyikos
can't deal with that reality so he has to lie to himself about it.
Snipping what you can't deal with doesn't change reality, but that is
what Nyikos has been reduced to. Misdirection ploys, shifting the
goal posts, demanding more evidence, blaiming the victims of the ID
scam, outright lying, like above, are not honest ways to deal with a
problem, but that is all Nyikos has been able to come up with.
>
> > This is my original response to your attempted misdirection ploy:
>
> http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/46ea6522f3338603?hl=en
>
> Misdirection from what? from a hilariously half-assed description of
> the alleged scam? Here I go, replying to that post:
Well, you could stop running from the description of the bait and
switch and deal with reality. You could acknowledge that it is the
Discovery Institute ID scam artists that are running the bait and
switch. You could try to explain how any competent, informed and
honest person could continue to support the ID scam in the face of
that reality, but you choose to run misdirrection ploys and lie
instead.
>
> On Dec 15 2010, 10:49 pm, Ron O <rokim...@cox.net> wrote:
>
> > On Dec 15, 5:33 pm, pnyikos <nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote:> On Dec 13, 7:24 pm, Ron O <rokim...@cox.net> wrote:
>
> [...]
> > You know that the bait and switch went down years before the ID perps
> > ever lost in court and Behe had to give his testimony when Dembski and
> > Meyer ran away.
>
> > > If you can document a place where the DI people are doing BOTH, I'll
> > > gladly take a look ...
>
> > You keep putting up these challeges, but never defend what you have
> > been given. Explain what happened in Ohio. Meyer first told the Ohio
> > board that ID was science,
>
> That looks like a description of the bait...
ID was the bait, but Ohio was just the first instance of the ID perps
running the bait and switch in public. The bait in this case is years
of Discovery Institute propaganda that they had the science of
intelligent design. Nyikos knows this because he knows how the ID
perps were selling ID when he was still posting in 1999 and 2000. The
claim was that there was some ID science to teach to school kids, but
when it came time to put up or shut up what did Meyer do? Meyer was
the director and still is the director of the ID scam wing of the
Discovery Institute. The Discovery Institute was claiming that ID was
their business before the bait and switch was run. Nyikos lived
through those claims, so he would just be lying if he denies those
facts.
This is no different than claiming to have HD TVs for sale, but when
the rubes come in to buy the HD TVs all they get is instructions for
building cardboard cut out diaramas. All the Ohio rubes got was the
claim that there was a teach the controversy switch scam that they
could teach in the public schools. The ID perps hadn't bothered to
work up a lesson plan to show that they actually had anything to
teach. It was up to the Ohio rubes to cut out the cardboard pieces
and try to put their diarama together. They had the stupid misfortune
of still trusting the ID perps at the Discovery Institute and used
Wells' book Icons of Evolution as the basis for their first draft, but
when it was found to be too bogus to use they had to delete all
mention of the Discovery Institute and Wells' book from the final
draft.
This is a link where anyone can read what the swtch scam is and
determine for themselves that it doesn't mention that ID ever
existed. That is the classic bait and switch. The Ohio rubes wanted
to teach the ID science, but all they got was an obfuscation scam that
doesn't mention that ID ever existed.
http://science2.marion.ohio-state.edu/ohioscience/lesson-plans.html
It should be noted that in all the years that the ID perps claimed to
be able to teach the science of intelligent design that none of the
PhDs could bring themselves to make up an ID science lesson plan. In
fact the ID perps at the Discovery Institute have never made up their
own switch scam lesson plan even though they have been running the
bait and switch for over 8 years they still have no switch scam lesson
plan of their own development to demonstrate that they have anything
worth teaching.
>
> > but what did they end up with?
>
> > Why doesn't that count as an instance where the ID perps did both?
>
> If you think "what did they end up with?" counts as a *description* of
> a SWITCH, you are a mental basket case.
>
I have put up the links to the Ohio lesson plans several times and you
have just run.
Claiming that you do not know what the switch scam is is just another
stupid ploy on your part.
> You came at me again with the same half-assed description of "both," a
> little further down:
>
> [...]> What do you think that they are doing now? They are still selling
> > intelligent design as science, but what do the rubes get?
>
> >http://www.intelligentdesign.org/whatisid.php
>
> > This is what they are still selling, but what do the rubes get?
>
> That describes the alleged bait. No hint about the answer to "what do
> the rubes get?".
>
> To be fair, you did give what looks sort of like a hint in the part I
> snipped:
Does Nyikos have some kind of conscience? Run and pretend. Reality
will be the same tomorrow.
>
> > The ID perps didn't put up the small print about not supporting
> > teaching intelligent design
>
> Note the word "teaching": saying that something is science is NOT the
> same thing as endorsing the actual teaching of it in the public
> schools AT THIS TIME. I've made this point in follow-up to
> "Rodjk#613" in connection with some idiotic comments you made about
> something Phillip Johnson once said.
>
> Three days have passed, and you are still runing away from that
> post.
What post? There was some lame claim you made about Johnson in one of
the posts in this thread. I responded to it.
You are such a bogus loser. You have been running from posts form
December and you think that you can accuse some of running for only
three days.
Provide a link to what I am supposed to be running from. It looks
like I have responded to all your posts to me in this thread.
>
> And yet, the stuff from Johnson is EXACTLY what you then posted in
> this December post to which my reply is the second half of this
> "twofer". You also gave a citation to Nelson saying some of the same
> things Johnson is saying, but no hint of there being an actual
> "switch" from any "bait".
>
> Peter Nyikos
The Johnson quote is just verification that the ID science was never
there to teach, and an explanation for why the bait and switch had to
go down. It is evidence that the top ID perps understood that what
they had didn't make the grade. I did deal with some of your bogus
claims about the Johnson quote in my Feb 6th post in this thread.
Deal with it and stop running and pretending.
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/45504023a7e8b421?hl=en
Ron Okimoto
pnyikos
The only one besides Ron that I can think of is you, "jillery". You
did it repeatedly on the "The futility..." thread from which Ron O. is
falsely accusing me of running. The only reason I haven't exposed
your numerous dirty debating tactics on that thread yet is that you
did the prudent thing last week on another thread, where I documented
you making one false accusation after another about me, and made it
clear that the accusations WERE false.
You did the prudent thing, and apologized. Had you, instead, pulled a
Ron Okimoto and accused me of a "misdirection ploy" and "moving the
goalposts," I would have been exposing your dirty tactics this past
week, and left Ron O. on the back burner. As it is, I am tackling him
last week and this week, and putting you on the back burner.
But you'll get your turn, never fear. The mills of justice grind
slowly, but they grind exceeding fine.
[The original version puts "God" in place of "justice," but in a
newsgroup like this one, I only use the original wording with people
whom I know to be God-fearing.]
Peter Nyikos
pnyikos
It's not my job to figure out exactly what those allegations refer to,
nor to chase down links that may or may not support those
allegations. Just look at the epic fail of Doolittle and the way what
Behe said about it being somehow twisted into an epic fail by Behe in
the minds of God only knows how many people.
See the reply I did to "deadrat" yesterday.
> Instead you engage in your typical endless parsing of issues and
> distractions
What you arbitrarily refer to as "parsings" is my numerous attempts to
clarify the issues.
>to avoid as Ron correctly notes dishonest.
I see you shackling yourself to Ron Okimoto with these words. Would
YOU care to take a stab at explaining what the bait is supposed to be,
and what the switch is supposed to be? And could you even <gasp>
provide documentation of why your explanation is correct?
> And yes DI is dishonest; the "Wedge" document, and the bait and switch
> scam are ample evidence.
What's dishonest about *planning* to eventually introduce ID into the
public schools, saying that ID is a fledgling science, and then
admitting that it is not ready to be taught in the public schools AT
THIS TIME?
> The "my my" above only reveals your willful ignorance of the DI
> history or you wish "lawyer" their dishonesty.
...glass houses...stones.
If your house is NOT glass, demonstrate that by dealing with my
challenges up there.
Peter Nyikos
RAM
I'm not responsible for your ignorance.
Ron is correct about the history, structure and intent of the bait and
switch.
Your willful ignorance and and parsing is all you have.
jillery
Apparently you avoid mirrors.
>You
> did it repeatedly on the "The futility..." thread
That was you. You're just projecting again.
> from which Ron O. is
> falsely accusing me of running. The only reason I haven't exposed
> your numerous dirty debating tactics on that thread yet is that you
> did the prudent thing last week on another thread, where I documented
> you making one false accusation after another about me,
I apologized for not recognizing one of your earlier comments.
Apparently you now think I was insincere.
> and made it
> clear that the accusations WERE false.
You made it clear that you think my "accusations" are false.
> You did the prudent thing, and apologized. Had you, instead, pulled a
> Ron Okimoto and accused me of a "misdirection ploy" and "moving the
> goalposts," I would have been exposing your dirty tactics this past
> week, and left Ron O. on the back burner. As it is, I am tackling him
> last week and this week, and putting you on the back burner.
>
> But you'll get your turn, never fear. The mills of justice grind
> slowly, but they grind exceeding fine.
>
> [The original version puts "God" in place of "justice," but in a
> newsgroup like this one, I only use the original wording with people
> whom I know to be God-fearing.]
You dwell on motes in your brother's eye.
Robert Camp
> On Feb 7, 5:57 pm, RAM <ramather...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Feb 7, 4:17 pm, pnyikos <nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>
> > > On Feb 4, 10:17 pm, RAM <ramather...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > On Feb 4, 5:50 pm, "Steven L." <sdlit...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
> > > > > "Ron O" <rokim...@cox.net> wrote in message
>
> > > > >news:afe0f3d8-5f81-4476...@l11g2000yqb.googlegroups.com:
>
> > > > > > On Feb 1, 10:33 pm, pnyikos <nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
<snip>
> > And yes DI is dishonest; the "Wedge" document, and the bait and switch
> > scam are ample evidence.
>
> What's dishonest about *planning* to eventually introduce ID into the
> public schools, saying that ID is a fledgling science, and then
> admitting that it is not ready to be taught in the public schools AT
> THIS TIME?
It's not hard to find the Wedge Strategy document.
http://www.antievolution.org/features/wedge.html
Perhaps you should read it. Here's the introduction:
-----------------
"The proposition that human beings are created in the image of God is
one of the bedrock principles on which Western civilization was built.
Its influence can be detected in most, if not all, of the West's
greatest achievements, including representative democracy, human
rights, free enterprise, and progress in the arts and sciences.
Yet a little over a century ago, this cardinal idea came under
wholesale attack by intellectuals drawing on the discoveries of modern
science. Debunking the traditional conceptions of both God and man,
thinkers such as Charles Darwin, Karl Marx, and Sigmund Freud
portrayed humans not as moral and spiritual beings, but as animals or
machines who inhabited a universe ruled by purely impersonal forces
and whose behavior and very thoughts were dictated by the unbending
forces of biology, chemistry, and environment. This materialistic
conception of reality eventually infected virtually every area of our
culture, from politics and economics to literature and art
The cultural consequences of this triumph of materialism were
devastating. Materialists denied the existence of objective moral
standards, claiming that environment dictates our behavior and
beliefs. Such moral relativism was uncritically adopted by much of the
social sciences, and it still undergirds much of modern economics,
political science, psychology and sociology.
Materialists also undermined personal responsibility by asserting that
human thoughts and behaviors are dictated by our biology and
environment. The results can be seen in modern approaches to criminal
justice, product liability, and welfare. In the materialist scheme of
things, everyone is a victim and no one can be held accountable for
his or her actions.
Finally, materialism spawned a virulent strain of utopianism. Thinking
they could engineer the perfect society through the application of
scientific knowledge, materialist reformers advocated coercive
government programs that falsely promised to create heaven on earth.
Discovery Institute's Center for the Renewal of Science and Culture
seeks nothing less than the overthrow of materialism and its cultural
legacies. Bringing together leading scholars from the natural sciences
and those from the humanities and social sciences, the Center explores
how new developments in biology, physics and cognitive science raise
serious doubts about scientific materialism and have re-opened the
case for a broadly theistic understanding of nature. The Center awards
fellowships for original research, holds conferences, and briefs
policymakers about the opportunities for life after materialism."
-----------------
"What's dishonest," if you've followed the history of this issue at
all, is the continued backpedalling by the DI from their own founding
ideas. This document directly and unambiguously reveals their intent
to recreate science in an ideological (theistic) image. Their
embarrassment over this has resulted in many and varied demurrals,
disclaimers, and attempts to dismiss any Wedge reference as misguided
and superannuated.
There is no doubt that a strain of organizational duplicity runs
through the DI. But I agree with Steven L. that it is unproductive,
and more importantly improper, to try and identify any individual as
unethical. I have not trouble believing that some few, including some
of the big names, are duplicitous. But I don't see any use in throwing
around that accusation when delusion and incompetence are usually
quite satisfactory explanations.
I also agree with Steven L.'s perspective on pejorative buzzwords. But
I can't get particularly worked up about that. Frankly, I'm more tired
of their overuse than anything else.
RLC
pnyikos
> > Behe said about it [is] being somehow twisted into an epic fail by
> > *Behe* in the minds of God only knows how many people.
>
> > See the reply I did to "deadrat" yesterday.
>
> > > Instead you engage in your typical endless parsing of issues and
> > > distractions
>
> > What you arbitrarily refer to as "parsings" is my numerous attempts to
> > clarify the issues.
>
> > >to avoid as Ron correctly notes dishonest.
>
> > I see you shackling yourself to Ron Okimoto with these words. �Would
> > YOU care to take a stab at explaining what the bait is supposed to be,
> > and what the switch is supposed to be? �And could you even <gasp>
> > provide documentation of why your explanation is correct?
>
> > > And yes DI is dishonest; the "Wedge" document, and the bait and switch
> > > scam are ample evidence.
>
> > What's dishonest about *planning* to eventually introduce ID into the
> > public schools, saying that ID is a fledgling science, and then
> > admitting that it is not ready to be taught in the public schools AT
> > THIS TIME?
>
> > > The "my my" above only reveals your willful ignorance of the DI
> > > history or you wish "lawyer" their dishonesty.
>
> > ...glass houses...stones.
>
> > If your house is NOT glass, demonstrate that by dealing with my
> > challenges up there.
> > Peter Nyikos
Looks like your house IS glass:
> I'm not responsible for your ignorance.
Nor for either retracting or supporting your claims, I see. And that
includes your completely unsupported defamatory accusations about me.
Do you attach any pejorative connotations to the word "irresponsible"?
> Ron is correct about the history, structure and intent of the bait and
> switch.
I don't think you could render a coherent account of it if your life
depended on it -- not in a way that would meet my challenges that I
did in the post to which you are replying here, and which you
defiantly left in.
> Your willful ignorance and and parsing is all you have.
One hundred repetitions three nights a week
for four years, thought Bernard Marx, who was
an expert on hypnopaedia. Sixty-two thousand
repetitions make one truth. Idiots!
--Aldous Huxley, in _Brave New World_
Peter Nyikos
Steven L.
"RAM" <ramat...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:4e517c31-debb-4783...@4g2000yqo.googlegroups.com:
It doesn't matter.
It makes NO DIFFERENCE whether an ID proponent is sincere in his beliefs
(and I believe that at least some of them, like our very own Sean
Pitman, are sincere)--or if they're the biggest con artists who ever
lived.
All that matters is whether the *arguments* and *evidence* they put
forward are valid or not.
Mainstream scientists can have non-scientific agendas too, some of them
blatantly political. For example, see all the debates about nuclear
deterrence and ballistic missile defense during the Cold War. Edward
Teller and Theodore Postol weren't disinterested scientists pursuing
their intellectual curiosity. They had definite political agendas--on
opposite sides of the political fence. But the arguments they put
forward could be examined on their merits. To just dismiss Teller as a
warmonger and to just dismiss Postol as a peacenik would be to dodge
some very real technical issues.
Why can't we stick to the *arguments* of the ID proponents--there's more
than enough wrong with those--and stop attacking the ID proponents
personally? Since when are ad hominem attacks, loaded buzzwords, and
emotional appeals the way to resolve scientific questions? You're doing
exactly what you accuse creationists of doing--substituting non-science
for science.
-- Steven L.
pnyikos
> On Feb 8, 9:19 am, pnyikos <nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Feb 7, 5:56 pm, jillery <69jpi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > So you don't like vague comments and cites that have nothing about the
> > > claimed subject? Imagine that. Is there any T.O. poster that
> > > actually does does these things as a matter of practice?
>
> > The only one besides Ron that I can think of is you, "jillery".
>
> Apparently you avoid mirrors.
Unsupported defamatory claim.
> >You
> > did it repeatedly on the "The futility..." thread
>
> That was you. You're just projecting again.
PEE WEE HERMANISM: (1) An unsupported retort to
a taunt; the retort denies the validity of the taunt
while making the claim that the taunter is the one
the taunt should have been directed at.
("I know you are, but what am I?" is the line
immortalized by Pee Wee Herman.)
(2) [unique to certain cesspools of Usenet
in my experience] A reflecting of an unsupported taunt
back on the taunter or a loyal ally,
accompanied by evidence that the reflection
is deserved by the taunter or ally.
NOTES.
a) In definition (1) it is irrelevant whether
the original taunt was supported or not;
it is only necessary that the retort be
unsupported.
You definitely fall under (1), "jillery". You have yet to produce a
single example of me behaving the way you described up there.
> > from which Ron O. is
> > falsely accusing me of running. The only reason I haven't exposed
> > your numerous dirty debating tactics on that thread yet is that you
> > did the prudent thing last week on another thread, where I documented
> > you making one false accusation after another about me,
>
> I apologized for not recognizing one of your earlier comments.
But it is now clear that you did NOT apologize for falsely accusing me
of various things, such as ignoring a post where you had said:
"As I said in my first post,
which you ignored,
I recognize either interpretation as valid."
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/08d3ce6f4ec9b45a
Not only did I not igmore it, but I replied DIRECTLY to that post,
FIVE days before your false accusation:
Message-ID: <3fedc1a3-27cf-4d08-
b891-700...@u6g2000yqk.googlegroups.com>
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/8b232e06237e13af
And I documented not only that direct reply but also how YOU replied
directly to that reply the following day, leaving those "earlier
comments" in and ignoring them:
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/e94a87a445cedef2
All this happened before you made your false accusation, and below,
you even put the word "accusation" into quotes, as though you had
never made false accusations like the following:
"You just sat back and enjoyed the show,
as is the nature of trolls."
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/08d3ce6f4ec9b45a
In other words, you were apologizing for a simple non-recognition of
words, but none of the false accusations that I've quoted. Non-
recognition is not something that even requires an apology.
> Apparently you now think I was insincere.
When I made the statement to which you are replying, that was not my
belief. However, it is my belief now that you have either retracted
your apology or weasel-worded it to the point where it is meaningless.
> > and made it
> > clear that the accusations WERE false.
>
> You made it clear that you think my "accusations" are false.
Note the weaseling "you think" and the weaseling use of quotes in
"accusations".
Do you deny that you falsely accused me when you said the things I've
quoted above?
> > You did the prudent thing, and apologized. Had you, instead, pulled a
> > Ron Okimoto and accused me of a "misdirection ploy" and "moving the
> > goalposts," I would have been exposing your dirty tactics this past
> > week, and left Ron O. on the back burner. As it is, I am tackling him
> > last week and this week, and putting you on the back burner.
>
> > But you'll get your turn, never fear. The mills of justice grind
> > slowly, but they grind exceeding fine.
>
> > [The original version puts "God" in place of "justice," but in a
> > newsgroup like this one, I only use the original wording with people
> > whom I know to be God-fearing.]
And that definitely leaves you and Ron O out: you may in fact be God-
fearing, but nothing I've seen from either of you suggests that.
> You dwell on motes in your brother's eye.
You'd love it if that were true. But what you have been doing both
there, here, and on the thread where you made the accusations I've
documented above, hardly qualifies as "motes."
Nor have you identified a single log, beam, or plank [translations
vary] in my eye. Not even a specific, unambiguous mote.
Peter Nyikos
pnyikos
> On Feb 8, 6:28 am, pnyikos <nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Feb 7, 5:57 pm, RAM <ramather...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Feb 7, 4:17 pm, pnyikos <nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>
> > > > On Feb 4, 10:17 pm, RAM <ramather...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > On Feb 4, 5:50 pm, "Steven L." <sdlit...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
> > > > > > "Ron O" <rokim...@cox.net> wrote in message
>
> > > > > >news:afe0f3d8-5f81-4476...@l11g2000yqb.googlegroups.com:
>
> > > > > > > On Feb 1, 10:33 pm, pnyikos <nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
> > > And yes DI is dishonest; the "Wedge" document, and the bait and switch
> > > scam are ample evidence.
>
> > What's dishonest about *planning* to eventually introduce ID into the
> > public schools,
That is part of the Wedge document, not appearing in the preamble that
you quote, Robert. They hoped to have somehting within five years,
but that was wildly overoptimistic.
> >saying that ID is a fledgling science, and then
> > admitting that it is not ready to be taught in the public schools AT
> > THIS TIME?
>
> It's not hard to find the Wedge Strategy document.
>
> http://www.antievolution.org/features/wedge.html
>
> Perhaps you should read it. Here's the introduction:
While it obviously states some religious aims the DI had when the
document was written, it is not germane to any bait or switch that has
been coherently and unambiguously described to me.
The only real "bait" that has been clearly identified to me is that
there is a science of ID. It is a science in its infancy, but it is a
science nonetheless. And the fact that it is not ready for
introduction in the public schools does NOT constitute a switch from
anything I've seen documented of DI.
What's more, I politely requested that Ron Okimoto document anyone in
DI saying they had the science ready to teach in the public schools,
and his nasty response leads me to believe that it was never part of
the bait he ever had in mind. All the documentation he could give was
the selfsame Wedge document.
So where is the bait, and where is the switch, that would constitute a
SCAM by the Discovery Institute?
Peter Nyikos
[...]
Not really. The physical science would be the basis of some
philosophy-of-science conclusions. I've done a good bit of philosophy
of science, and have always kept the actual science behind it free of
any methodological taint.
If you are curious, I could provide some examples germane to Hawking
and Mlodinow's pretentious coffee-table book, _The Grand Design_.
They are not above mixing science with philosophy of science
themselves, falsely mis-identifying instance after instance of the
latter as part of the former.
>Their
> embarrassment over this has resulted in many and varied demurrals,
> disclaimers, and attempts to dismiss any Wedge reference as misguided
> and superannuated.
And the people now in DI are by no means the same crowd that drew up
the Wedge, right?
Funny thing--the website you gave for the Wedge document nowhere
identifies its authorship. Do you happen to know who wrote it?
> There is no doubt that a strain of organizational duplicity runs
> through the DI. But I agree with Steven L. that it is unproductive,
> and more importantly improper, to try and identify any individual as
> unethical.
Especially not me. I have had no connection with the DI, and I like
to be my own independent self, not hampered by any image the DI is
failing to repudiate.
>I have not trouble believing that some few, including some
> of the big names, are duplicitous. But I don't see any use in throwing
> around that accusation when delusion and incompetence are usually
> quite satisfactory explanations.
>
> I also agree with Steven L.'s perspective on pejorative buzzwords. But
> I can't get particularly worked up about that. Frankly, I'm more tired
> of their overuse than anything else.
>
> RLC
You are wise to take that stance.
Peter Nyikos
pnyikos
...something that included an inaccurate description. Correction
follows.
> But it is now clear that you did NOT apologize for falsely accusing me
> of various things, such as ignoring a post where you had said:
CORRECTION: ...ignoring a post which you described as follows:
> � � "As I said in my first post,
> � � which you ignored,
> � � I recognize either interpretation as valid."
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/08d3ce6f4ec9b45a
> � Not only did I not ignore it, but I replied DIRECTLY to that post,
> FIVE days before your false accusation:
> Message-ID: <3fedc1a3-27cf-4d08-
> b891-7005c9284...@u6g2000yqk.googlegroups.com>
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/8b232e06237e13af
>
> � And I documented not only that direct reply but also how YOU replied
> directly to that reply the following day, leaving those "earlier
> comments" in and ignoring them:
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/e94a87a445cedef2
>
> All this happened before you made your false accusation, and below,
> you even put the word "accusation" into quotes, as though you had
> never made false accusations like the following:
> � "You just sat back and enjoyed the show,
> � � �as is the nature of trolls."
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/08d3ce6f4ec9b45a
Peter Nyikos
Robert Camp
> On Feb 8, 12:31 pm, Robert Camp <robertlc...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Feb 8, 6:28 am, pnyikos <nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>
> > > On Feb 7, 5:57 pm, RAM <ramather...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > On Feb 7, 4:17 pm, pnyikos <nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>
> > > > > On Feb 4, 10:17 pm, RAM <ramather...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > On Feb 4, 5:50 pm, "Steven L." <sdlit...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > "Ron O" <rokim...@cox.net> wrote in message
>
> > > > > > >news:afe0f3d8-5f81-4476...@l11g2000yqb.googlegroups.com:
>
> > > > > > > > On Feb 1, 10:33 pm, pnyikos <nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>
> > <snip>
>
> > > > And yes DI is dishonest; the "Wedge" document, and the bait and switch
> > > > scam are ample evidence.
>
> > > What's dishonest about *planning* to eventually introduce ID into the
> > > public schools,
>
> That is part of the Wedge document, not appearing in the preamble that
> you quote, Robert. They hoped to have somehting within five years,
> but that was wildly overoptimistic.
I'm not sure if you pasted something in the wrong place. The above, at
least in Google, doesn't appear to be responding to anything I've
written.
> > >saying that ID is a fledgling science, and then
> > > admitting that it is not ready to be taught in the public schools AT
> > > THIS TIME?
>
> > It's not hard to find the Wedge Strategy document.
>
> >http://www.antievolution.org/features/wedge.html
>
> > Perhaps you should read it. Here's the introduction:
>
> While it obviously states some religious aims the DI had when the
> document was written, it is not germane to any bait or switch that has
> been coherently and unambiguously described to me.
>
> The only real "bait" that has been clearly identified to me is that
> there is a science of ID. It is a science in its infancy, but it is a
> science nonetheless. And the fact that it is not ready for
> introduction in the public schools does NOT constitute a switch from
> anything I've seen documented of DI.
>
> What's more, I politely requested that Ron Okimoto document anyone in
> DI saying they had the science ready to teach in the public schools,
> and his nasty response leads me to believe that it was never part of
> the bait he ever had in mind. All the documentation he could give was
> the selfsame Wedge document.
>
> So where is the bait, and where is the switch, that would constitute a
> SCAM by the Discovery Institute?
>
> Peter Nyikos
> [...]
You appear to be laboring under the impression that I have offered up
a defense of "bait and switch" or "scam." I have not. I don't use
those phrases and I don't think they're appropriate. I stated as much
in a later part of my earlier post.
That, again, is not to say that there is no deception going on. The DI
is responsible for a lot of specious rhetoric.
I'm not sure what you mean by "methodological taint." Regardless, it
should be obvious from the above intro. that the Wedge Strategy is
explicitly about formally reconfiguring science so that it is founded
upon, and permeated with, philosophical (theistic) taint.
> If you are curious, I could provide some examples germane to Hawking
> and Mlodinow's pretentious coffee-table book, _The Grand Design_.
> They are not above mixing science with philosophy of science
> themselves, falsely mis-identifying instance after instance of the
> latter as part of the former.
I'm not curious, as it comes as no surprise to me that there are
individual scientists who draw philosophical implications from their
field of expertise. This is entirely irrelevant to whether the DI is
dishonest about its mission.
> >Their
> > embarrassment over this has resulted in many and varied demurrals,
> > disclaimers, and attempts to dismiss any Wedge reference as misguided
> > and superannuated.
>
> And the people now in DI are by no means the same crowd that drew up
> the Wedge, right?
Wrong.
> Funny thing--the website you gave for the Wedge document nowhere
> identifies its authorship. Do you happen to know who wrote it?
I don't know if anyone has owned up to it. It is widely accepted that
Phillip Johnson authored much of it. Meyer is presumed to have
participated and has admitted that it came from the DI. Behe and
Kenyon were also there, I believe.
> > There is no doubt that a strain of organizational duplicity runs
> > through the DI. But I agree with Steven L. that it is unproductive,
> > and more importantly improper, to try and identify any individual as
> > unethical.
>
> Especially not me. I have had no connection with the DI, and I like
> to be my own independent self, not hampered by any image the DI is
> failing to repudiate.
A prudent strategy. But I don't believe anyone implied anything about
you.
RLC
pnyikos
> On Feb 3, 1:37 pm, pnyikos <nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Feb 2, 6:07 pm, Ron O <rokim...@cox.net> wrote:
>
> > > > bait and switch scams, the only clear cut, fully documented example of
> > > > which I am aware is one by Ron O., who claimed that Behe admitted he
> > > > couldn't come up with a functional *definition* of Irreducible
> > > > Complexity (IC) and when challenged to show it, switched to verifying
> > > > that Behe couldn't *verify* that any biological phenomenon was
> > > > *Intelligently Designed* (ID).
And that is still true. I still haven't seen a specific, unambiguous
example of an alleged "switch" by the DI, and y'all will see below
just how far I still am from getting one that actually describes a
SCAM.
> > > This is just another goal post shift and misdirection ploy combined
> > > into one. �What a loser.
>
> > What Ron O is saying here, folks, is that his demands are paramount in
> > all my discussions with him. �If you show him up for a liar, that's
> > just a "goal post shift and misdirection ploy" until you've done
> > EVERYTHING he demands that you do.
>
> My demands are not paramount.
The very next thing you say confirms that they are SO paramount that
you will call me a rat and accuse me of dishonesty if I do NOT meet
these demands:
>�It is only that I will not allow a rat
> like you to divert from one issue using a dishonest misdirection
> ploy.
I take it the "one issue" is an alleged bait and switch ploy which you
described in a half-assed way back in December. But you've issued a
number of demands as to HOW I should handle it.
Let's see whether you do any better at describing it now:
[...]
> > > [The people at the Discovery Institute] claimed to have the ID
> > > science to teach to school kids,
>
> > I don't recall ever seeing documentation of the "to teach to school
> > kids" part. �Please provide it here.
>
> All you ever do is ask for more evidence and then run.
False. But thanks for implying below that "to teach to school kids"
was never part of the intended bait. And so, your half-assed
description "what did they end up with?" is all the switch you
"identified" in that post you gave the url for:
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/46ea6522f3338603
Excerpt:
"Meyer first told the Ohio
board that ID was science, but what did they end up with?
Why doesn't that count as an instance where the ID perps did both?"
>�You were there
> when they were claiming to be able to teach the ID junk to school
> kids.
You keep making this assertion, and up until now I took "there" to
mean "posting to talk.origins at the time." The relevant time is 1996-
mid 2001, because before that Behe's book had not hit the market, and
afterwards I didn't even LOOK at talk.origins until this past
December.
But I don't recall seeing any such claim by DI back then.
If, on the other hand, by "there" you mean Dover or Ohio, then you
have really gone off the deep end. I was never close to either of
those places when the relevant events occurred.
>�Asking for more evidence is just so bogus that I can't believe
> that you would do it?
Thanks for implying that "to teach to the school kids" was never part
of the bait you had in mind. So how could explicitly denying it
constitute any sort of switch?
>�What were the ID perps claiming for almost 5
> years before you quite posting in 2000? �
I dunno. You tell me.
>Only a snake would try to
> deny how ID was being sold at that time. �Don't you remember how they
> hyped the "No child left behind" bill where they were mentioned in the
> appendix?
No. I never saw the bill, just very brief summaries in news reports.
> Both Meyer and Dembski used to have essays up that were listed as
> being written in 1997 at the Discovery Institute web site that were on
> teaching ID, but they don't seem to be there anymore.
>
> The Wedge document is still available on the web and the Discovery
> Institute has admitted that it was written by them. �ID was supposed
> to be the Wedge and they targeted school boards and legislators.
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wedge_strategy
The Wedge document doesn't do it--it only describes a PLAN with a
wildly overoptimistic timetable for doing it.
> This has all the links that you would want.
So you allege. But you are too lazy to provide the links that really
support the "to teach to school kids" bit.
So is every single one of the people who have shackled themselves to
you on this thread.
[...]
> > > but when it came time to put up or shut up, they ran a
> > > bogus bait and switch scam on their own creationist support base.
>
> > Please identify the "bait" and the "switch" as unambigously and
> > clearly as I've identified the two things, separately, up there, in
> > the description of the bait and switch scam that YOU have perpetrated
> > in talk.origins.
>
> The ID perps at the Discovery Institute sold the rubes like yourself
> the science of intelligent design,
Since I have repeatedly corrected this false claim about the DI having
anything to do with my theory of intelligent design, this is an out an
out lie by you.
But I'll take "sold the science of intelligent design" as your latest
description of the bait.
> but when it came time to make good
> they ran the bait and switch scam and only gave the rubes a switch
> scam that doesn't mention that ID ever existed.
What does this "mention that ID ever existed" mean?
Does it mean "mention that they have a confirmed example of something
designed by a non-human intelligence"?
Or does it mean "mention that they are doing research which they hope
will lead, like SETI is hoping *their* research will lead, to an
example of something designed by a non-human intelligence"?
Or does it merely mean "mention the very words 'Intelligent Design'"?
Or does it mean something else, which you are keeping a closely
guarded secret, so you can lie through your teeth as long as you want
that I am pretending and running away?
TEST OF RON OKIMOTO- SIMULATING SOFTWARE :-)
PLEASE IGNORE :-) :-)
> Or does it mean something else,
> which you are keeping a closely guarded secret,
> so you can lie through your teeth
> as long as you want that I am pretending
> and running away?
This is just more of your misdirection ploy and goalpost shifting.
What a loser.
END OF TEST :-) :-) :-)
Peter Nyikos
RAM
Your posts have shown willful ignorance of the DI's practices with
respect to the Wedge document and the lack of an ID science curriculum
for schools.
>
> > I'm not responsible for your ignorance.
>
> Nor for either retracting or supporting your claims, I see. �And that
> includes your completely unsupported defamatory accusations about me.
See above.
>
> Do you attach any pejorative connotations to the word "irresponsible"?
Where did I use that term. I see you as the pompous parser.
>
> > Ron is correct about the history, structure and intent of the bait and
> > switch.
>
> I don't think you could render a coherent account of it if your life
> depended on it -- not in a way that would meet my challenges that I
> did in the post to which you are replying here, and which you
> defiantly left in.
Again I'm not responsible for your willful ignorance.
>
> > Your willful ignorance and and parsing is all you have.
>
> � � One hundred repetitions three nights a week
> � � for four years, thought Bernard Marx, who was
> � � an expert on hypnopaedia. �Sixty-two thousand
> � � repetitions make one truth. �Idiots!
> � � � �--Aldous Huxley, in _Brave New World_
>
> Peter Nyikos
One can presume Huxley's quote equally applies to transpermia ID.
pnyikos
> On Feb 8, 2:33�pm, pnyikos <nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Feb 8, 12:31�pm, Robert Camp <robertlc...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Feb 8, 6:28�am, pnyikos <nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>
> > > > On Feb 7, 5:57�pm, RAM <ramather...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > On Feb 7, 4:17�pm, pnyikos <nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>
> > > > > > On Feb 4, 10:17�pm, RAM <ramather...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > On Feb 4, 5:50�pm, "Steven L." <sdlit...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > "Ron O" <rokim...@cox.net> wrote in message
>
> > > > > > > >news:afe0f3d8-5f81-4476...@l11g2000yqb.googlegroups.com:
>
> > > > > > > > > On Feb 1, 10:33 pm, pnyikos <nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>
> > > <snip>
>
> > > > > And yes DI is dishonest; the "Wedge" document, and the bait and switch
> > > > > scam are ample evidence.
>
> > > > What's dishonest about *planning* to eventually introduce ID into the
> > > > public schools,
>
> > That is part of the Wedge document, not appearing in the preamble that
> > you quote, Robert. �They hoped to have somehting within five years,
> > but that was wildly overoptimistic.
>
> I'm not sure if you pasted something in the wrong place. The above, at
> least in Google, doesn't appear to be responding to anything I've
> written.
Of course not. It is an amplification of what I wrote two posts back,
appearing immediately above it.
I assure you I am not. And thanks for confirming that you have no
such intentions.
> I have not. I don't use
> those phrases and I don't think they're appropriate. I stated as much
> in a later part of my earlier post.
I take it you also don't know what Ron O. had in mind for the alleged
bait, and the alleged switch.
If so, it's good to find someone besides me who is ready to admit it.
What part of the Wedge strategy did you have in mind here?
> > If you are curious, I could provide some examples germane to Hawking
> > and Mlodinow's pretentious coffee-table book, _The Grand Design_.
> > They are not above mixing science with philosophy of science
> > themselves, falsely mis-identifying instance after instance of the
> > latter as part of the former.
>
> I'm not curious, as it comes as no surprise to me that there are
> individual scientists who draw philosophical implications from their
> field of expertise.
And do you think this is a legitimate form of behavior, as long as
they don't mix up the two things? [FTR, I think it is legitimate.]
If so, that's all I see the DI people trying to do. Can you document
otherwise?
> This is entirely irrelevant to whether the DI is
> dishonest about its mission.
>
> > >Their
> > > embarrassment over this has resulted in many and varied demurrals,
> > > disclaimers, and attempts to dismiss any Wedge reference as misguided
> > > and superannuated.
>
> > And the people now in DI are by no means the same crowd that drew up
> > the Wedge, right?
>
> Wrong.
Are you seriously maintaining that nobody has joined since the Wedge
document was drawn up??
> > Funny thing--the website you gave for the Wedge document nowhere
> > identifies its authorship. �Do you happen to know who wrote it?
>
> I don't know if anyone has owned up to it. It is widely accepted that
> Phillip Johnson authored much of it. Meyer is presumed to have
> participated and has admitted that it came from the DI. Behe and
> Kenyon were also there, I believe.
>
> > > There is no doubt that a strain of organizational duplicity runs
> > > through the DI. But I agree with Steven L. that it is unproductive,
> > > and more importantly improper, to try and identify any individual as
> > > unethical.
>
> > Especially not me. �I have had no connection with the DI, and I like
> > to be my own independent self, not hampered by any image the DI is
> > failing to repudiate.
>
> A prudent strategy. But I don't believe anyone implied anything about
> you.
Ron Okimoto has repeatedly claimed I am a "rube" who was "sold"
something by them. Moreover, his insistence that I "defend the bait
and switch scam" suggests that he harbors dark suspicions about me
being entangled with the DI.
Peter Nyikos
Robert Camp
Then it would seem to be a rather inefficient attempt at communication
to post it in a reply to me.
I don't know Ron's intent, but it's not hard to figure. I assume he's
commenting upon the duplicity shown by the DI in continually insisting
their aims are entirely scientific and have nothing to do with
promoting their religious beliefs. If so, I agree with the intent,
though perhaps not his way of expressing it. To each his own.
Note the phrase "scientific materialism." There is no defense to be
found, as is possible elsewhere in the introduction, in suggesting
they are speaking of philosophical materialism. Their words, and their
intent, is specific and clear.
> > > If you are curious, I could provide some examples germane to Hawking and Mlodinow's pretentious coffee-table book, _The Grand Design_.
> > > They are not above mixing science with philosophy of science
> > > themselves, falsely mis-identifying instance after instance of the
> > > latter as part of the former.
>
> > I'm not curious, as it comes as no surprise to me that there are
> > individual scientists who draw philosophical implications from their
> > field of expertise.
>
> And do you think this is a legitimate form of behavior, as long as
> they don't mix up the two things? [FTR, I think it is legitimate.]
I do.
> If so, that's all I see the DI people trying to do. Can you document
> otherwise?
The former are not campaigning to force accommodation of their beliefs
into scientific methodology. They respect the operational materialism
of the process as well as the understanding it produces. Going on from
there to draw philosophical implications is very different from
determining the truth a priori, then deciding scientific methodology
must be changed to come into accord with those "truths" (which is what
the DI, and creationism, does).
> > This is entirely irrelevant to whether the DI is
> > dishonest about its mission.
>
> > > >Their
> > > > embarrassment over this has resulted in many and varied demurrals,
> > > > disclaimers, and attempts to dismiss any Wedge reference as misguided
> > > > and superannuated.
>
> > > And the people now in DI are by no means the same crowd that drew up
> > > the Wedge, right?
>
> > Wrong.
>
> Are you seriously maintaining that nobody has joined since the Wedge
> document was drawn up??
No. Are you seriously suggesting that your previous comment was
strictly about raw numbers, and not organizational continuity?
> > > Funny thing--the website you gave for the Wedge document nowhere
> > > identifies its authorship. Do you happen to know who wrote it?
>
> > I don't know if anyone has owned up to it. It is widely accepted that
> > Phillip Johnson authored much of it. Meyer is presumed to have
> > participated and has admitted that it came from the DI. Behe and
> > Kenyon were also there, I believe.
>
> > > > There is no doubt that a strain of organizational duplicity runs
> > > > through the DI. But I agree with Steven L. that it is unproductive,
> > > > and more importantly improper, to try and identify any individual as
> > > > unethical.
>
> > > Especially not me. I have had no connection with the DI, and I like
> > > to be my own independent self, not hampered by any image the DI is
> > > failing to repudiate.
>
> > A prudent strategy. But I don't believe anyone implied anything about
> > you.
>
> Ron Okimoto has repeatedly claimed I am a "rube" who was "sold"
> something by them. Moreover, his insistence that I "defend the bait
> and switch scam" suggests that he harbors dark suspicions about me
> being entangled with the DI.
>
> Peter Nyikos
I probably should have written "...don't believe I implied anything
about you." In any case, that issue is better taken up with Ron, not
in a reply to my comments which were entirely unconcerned with that
subject.
RLC
Ray Martinez
> On Feb 5, 7:55 pm, Ray Martinez <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Feb 5, 2:16 pm, Dana Tweedy <reddfr...@bresnan.net> wrote:
>
> > > On 2/5/11 11:11 AM, Ray Martinez wrote:
>
> > > > On Feb 3, 5:28 pm, Bill<brogers31...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > >> On Feb 4, 3:03 am, Ray Martinez<pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > >>> Ron Okimoto said or strongly implied that Michael Behe admitted that
> > > >>> he cannot define IC systems. I then asked Ron to support his claim, to
> > > >>> provide the link and quote by Behe. After much resistance, he ended up
> > > >>> saying (IIRC) that Behe said as much in his Dover testimony. When
> > > >>> further pressed to provide the quote or quotes, Ron has failed to
> > > >>> produce.
>
> > > >> Well, here's the link to the transcript of the Dover trial. It's in
> > > >> the Day 12 morning section that Behe seems to struggle with the
> > > >> meaning of IC, starting around page 63 of the transcript. It's too
> > > >> long to quote in full here, but you can find it at the link.
>
> I cut to the chase; here is the url for that section:http://www.aclupa.org/downloads/Day12AM.pdf
>
> > > > I have read the relevant pages of the transcript. I see nothing that
> > > > helps Ron. Perhaps you could post an excerpt that does?
>
> I read from 63 all the way to page 81, and what it seemed to consist
> of was the questioner coming forward with one misconception after
> another about IC, and Behe patiently trying to set him straight.
> Looks like Bill was having trouble getting focused, the way Dana
> Tweedy comes to his rescue with an exchange from page 95.
>
But there was no real rescue.
Again, why won't Honest Ron Okimoto admit that he made an error or
tells us where he obtained the idea that Behe admits that he cannot
define IC systems?
Ron will cry wolf all day long, warning us that a beast is at the
door; ready, willing and able to ruin science, but he can't or won't
back up his claim about the big bad wolf Michael Behe.
Yet, I know for a fact that Behe is a wolf. He accepts evolution
caused by Intelligent agency. If Intelligent agency is operating in
nature then the History of Science has always called the same Natural
Theology, or what we call Creationism or Intelligent design. Evolution
was accepted as being caused by natural or unintelligent agencies.
Behe is willfully conflating mutually exclusive claims and concepts
(but he never claimed that he could not define IC systems).
Ray
> Peter Nyikos- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
jillery
> On Feb 8, 5:05 pm, pnyikos <nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
<snip rant>
Even when you argue with yourself, you still lose the argument.
Ray Martinez
I completely agree.
Since Dembski accepts natural selection (unguided material agency) to
explain certain phenomena, this or the Wedge preamble declaring war on
Materialism is a lie.
I have seen Dembski stand on a debate stage and concede the existence
of natural selection. He does so in a context that says NS cannot
produce highly complex phenomena. The implication is that both
material and immaterial agencies are operating in nature. Based on the
goals of the Wedge, Dembski does not accept the existence of any
materialistic agency. He is behaving like you behave Robert. Both of
you will say any subjective or false thing in order to obtain the
support of the unsuspecting masses. Those to whom Dembski converts
ends up believing that Intelligent agency causes evolution. Those to
whom you convert end up believing that Intelligence set unintelligent
agency and evolution in motion and are thus ultimately designed. We
have the exact same obfuscation business on both sides of the street.
The objective truth is: If Intelligent agency is at work phenomena
cannot be described or explained as having evolved because evolution
was accepted as being caused by unintelligent material agency;
phenomena must be described as designed and created. If unintelligent
agency is at work then phenomena cannot be described or explained as
reflecting design or originating from Intelligence because design was
always accepted as being caused by Intelligent or immaterial agency.
Ray
[....]
Rodjk #613
> Here is my "next post". �I couldn't resist doing a "twofer" since
> Rodjk#613 seems to have shackled himself ot Okimoto on this issue. �So
> I am following up to him instead of Ron O, killing two birds with one
> stone.
>
> On Feb 3, 3:15 pm, "Rodjk #613" <rjka...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Feb 2, 5:07 pm, Ron O <rokim...@cox.net> wrote:
>
> > > On Feb 1, 10:33 pm, pnyikos <nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>
> > > > bait and switch scams, the only clear cut, fully documented example of
> > > > which I am aware is one by Ron O., who claimed that Behe admitted he
> > > > couldn't come up with a functional *definition* of Irreducible
> > > > Complexity (IC) and when challenged to show it, switched to verifying
> > > > that Behe couldn't *verify* that any biological phenomenon was
> > > > *Intelligently Designed* (ID).
>
> > > counter to the bait and switch? How low are you willing to go?
>
> > You expect honesty or actual understanding from him?
>
> You obviously don't, yet you give not the slightest smidgin of a
> reason why.
>
> > You will have better luck dealing with Ray or Nashton...
>
> > Rodjk #613
>
> You are running out of luck, here and now, because I am going to show
> you just how pathetically Ron O fails to show his case against the
> Discovery Institute (DI) with his quotes from Johnson, and you will be
> faced with the dilemma of either defending him or running away from
> what I say below.
>
> Pick your poison.
>
> I begin with Ron's words, about Philip Johnson:
>
> > �he just points the finger at
> > the "science" ID perps for never developing the science that it would
> > have taken to make the ID scam legit.
>
> If Ron O. thinks the above is a description of what he quotes from
> Johnson below, he is at best woefully ignorant of the scientific
> issues, �and at worst a mental basket case.
>
> > QUOTE:
> > I also don t think that there is really a theory of intelligent design
> > at the present time to propose as a comparable alternative to the
> > Darwinian theory, which is, whatever errors it might contain, a fully
> > worked out scheme.
>
> Note the qualifiers. �"the Darwinian scheme" refers to the neo-
> Darwinian synthesis, a far cry from what Darwin presented in _Origin
> of Species_. �That's because �Johnson is talking about ID being a
> rival to what is a going concern in the public schools, not to a much
> more fragmentary prototype. �And so, by saying "at the present time,"
> he is making it clear that he is �contrasting less than two decades to
> over two centuries.
Wrong. As usual from you...
Do you really expect anyone to believe that ID has only had two
decades?
>
> >There is no intelligent design theory that s
> > comparable. Working out a positive theory is the job of the scientific
> > people that we have affiliated with the movement. Some of them are
> > quite convinced that it s doable, but that s for them to prove No
> > product is ready for competition in the educational world.
> > END QUOTE:
>
> Darwin would just be a strawman; so what Johnson is obviously talking
> about IS the neo-Darwinian synthesis, augmented by insight into
> punctuated equilibrium by Gould and others.
No, he is saying there is no science to ID.
> Even if someone were to interpret "Darwinian" as referring to Darwin's
> original theory, he'd be hit from two directions. �One is that Darwin
> didn't have a theory ready for competition in the educational world of
> his time either. �Darwin, for one thing, could not give a coherent
> account of why variation occurs, or why offspring are so similar to
> their parents, or what allows variations to accumulate to the point
> where a bacterium has a human being as one of its remote descendants.
Which, of course, in no way takes away from Darwin's quite excellent
explanation.
>
> The other direction is that Darwin took decades to publish his
> findings after collecting the raw data, and he also stood on the
> shoulders of giants llike Lamarck, and all those who collected huge
> amounts of fossils, to give some outline to the possible lines of
> descent. �Small wonder that the DI has not been able to accumulate
> comparable evidence for ID in the much shorter time available to it.
No, as I already pointed out.
> > In the same piece he is again quoted:
> > QUOTE:
> > For his part, Johnson agrees: I think the fat lady has sung for any
> > efforts to change the approach in the public schools the courts are
> > just not going to allow it. They never have. The efforts to change
> > things in the public schools generate more powerful opposition than
> > accomplish anything I don t think that means the end of the issue at
> > all.
>
> Ron O does not realize how damaging this last sentence is from his
> point of view.
Johnston knew that ID was not going away because of its religious
foundation.
> > In some respects, he later goes on, I m almost relieved, and
> > glad. I think the issue is properly settled. It s clear to me now that
> > the public schools are not going to change their line in my lifetime.
>
> Johnson is no spring chicken. �"in my lifetime" is thus a reallistic
> assessment, in the light of what is said above.
>
> > That isn t to me where the action really is and ought to be.
>
> Of course not. �Trying to get public schools to teach Intelligent
> Design AT THIS TIME would be premature.
After hundreds of years of ID, what have they produced?
> > END QUOTE:
>
> >http://sciencereview.berkeley.edu/articles.php?issue=10&article=evolu...
>
> > Taking no responsibility for the dishonest scam, just admitting
> > defeat.
>
> Your turn, "Rodjk#613": tell us all how Johnson's words are supposed
> to either "admit defeat" as to the scientific merits of ID, or to show
> that there is a dishonest scam going on.
I think I did that pretty well. You are, as usual, pretty incompetent.
>
> Good luck trying to get a coherent description of what the alleged
> bait, and what the alleged switch are, from Ron O's incredibly long-
> winded and repetitious posts on that "The futility of Intelligent
> Desgin[*sic*]" thread.
It isn't hard at all. I don't need to re-read it, I have read Ron O's
excellent comments many times.
>
> The time would probably be better spent agreeing with me about what
> Johnson said, and trying to find evidence for yourself, from the
> original sources, of a bait and switch scam by DI.
Why? Its all spelled out for us.
> > That is the furthest any of the ID perps have come to coming
> > clean on the issue. �That in itself is pretty sad.
>
> What IS sad is the way Ron O keeps dodging my arguments and labeling
> them with various pejorative words.
>
> Peter Nyikos
Nah...you are still "Petey the Grate"...incompetent, babbling,
confused and ultimately just annoying.
Rodjk #613
Burkhard
From Behe himself. This was cited here several times:
"[T]here is an asymmetry between my current definition of irreducible
complexity and the task facing natural selection. I hope to repair
this DEFECT in future work."Behe MJ (November 2001). "Reply to My
Critics: A Response to Reviews of Darwin's Black Box: The Biochemical
Challenge to Evolution". Biology and Philosophy 16 (5): 685�709
The extended quote from the trial transcript below shows that at least
up to Dover, he did not get around to address the _defect_, hence does
not have definition that he himself woudl describe s not defective.
Ernest Major
<b.sc...@ed.ac.uk> writes
>
It could be argued that the above is a concession not that he cannot
define IC systems, but that he cannot define IC systems in a fashion
which allows him to use them as a legitimate argument against the
factuality of common descent with modification through the agency of
natural selection and other processes.
However, I am unaware that Behe has successfully addressed the problem
of defining objective criteria for identification of systems, parts and
functions.
You might also recall that Ray claims that irreducibly complex systems
are defined as being unevolvable, rather than by other characteristic,
reducing Behe's work to the worthless claim that unevolvable systems are
unevolvable.
>
>The extended quote from the trial transcript below shows that at least
>up to Dover, he did not get around to address the _defect_, hence does
>not have definition that he himself woudl describe s not defective.
>
--
alias Ernest Major
Ron O
> On Feb 4, 2:30 pm, Ron O <rokim...@cox.net> wrote:
>
> > On Feb 3, 1:37 pm, pnyikos <nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>
> > > On Feb 2, 6:07 pm, Ron O <rokim...@cox.net> wrote:
>
> > > > On Feb 1, 10:33 pm, pnyikos <nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>
> > > > > For all the talk by Ron O., Frank J., and even the late "el cid" about
> > > > > bait and switch scams, the only clear cut, fully documented example of
> > > > > which I am aware is one by Ron O., who claimed that Behe admitted he
> > > > > couldn't come up with a functional *definition* of Irreducible
> > > > > Complexity (IC) and when challenged to show it, switched to verifying
> > > > > that Behe couldn't *verify* that any biological phenomenon was
> > > > > *Intelligently Designed* (ID).
>
> And that is still true. I still haven't seen a specific, unambiguous
> example of an alleged "switch" by the DI, and y'all will see below
> just how far I still am from getting one that actually describes a
> SCAM.
This is simply a lie on Nyikos' part. He has snipped out the material
and hasn't responded to it, but that doesn't mean that it was never
presented to him. I again put up the Ohio example in my Feb 8th post
because Nyikos keeps running from it. Not only that, but Nyikos can't
come up with a single instance where the bait and switch did not go
down. Of all the rubes that claimed to want to teach the science of
intelligent design not a single one ever got any ID science to teach
from the ID perps. Every single one had the bait and switch run on
them. Ohio was just the first example, and Nyikos can't deal with it.
>
> > > > This is just another goal post shift and misdirection ploy combined
> > > > into one. What a loser.
>
> > > What Ron O is saying here, folks, is that his demands are paramount in
> > > all my discussions with him. If you show him up for a liar, that's
> > > just a "goal post shift and misdirection ploy" until you've done
> > > EVERYTHING he demands that you do.
>
> > My demands are not paramount.
>
> The very next thing you say confirms that they are SO paramount that
> you will call me a rat and accuse me of dishonesty if I do NOT meet
> these demands:
No, you only have to do the right thing instead of being a dishonest
rat. Misdirection ploys are bogus and I would be stupid to let you
get away with such a bogus and dishonest ploy. The facts are just
that simple. Stop running and pretending. Stop lying about the bait
and switch. Why is that so hard?
>
> > It is only that I will not allow a rat
> > like you to divert from one issue using a dishonest misdirection
> > ploy.
>
> I take it the "one issue" is an alleged bait and switch ploy which you
> described in a half-assed way back in December. But you've issued a
> number of demands as to HOW I should handle it.
>
> Let's see whether you do any better at describing it now:
It isn't just now it has been over and over. You know it. You are
just trying to pretend that you haven't been such a bogus liar for
weeks.
>
> [...]
>
> > > > [The people at the Discovery Institute] claimed to have the ID
> > > > science to teach to school kids,
>
> > > I don't recall ever seeing documentation of the "to teach to school
> > > kids" part. Please provide it here.
Poor guy, again, you were there. It doesn't matter if they never said
"school kids." You know that they wanted to teach ID in the public
schools and that they concentrated on legislators and school boards to
do it. What was Johnson giving up on when he claimed that the ID
science never had existed and that there was nothing comparable to
teach to what science already had? You lived through the ID scam when
the ID perps were claiming that ID was their business. Waffling about
it now and worrying about "school kids" when it is the same as public
schools is not just dishonest, but lame. Just explain the Johnson
quote if the ID perps did not want to teach their bogus ID science to
school kids.
It isn't just the Johnson quote but the Wedge document and the other
references that I have put up but you have just run from.
Here is the Johnson quote, again, so you don't have to look for it:
QUOTE:
I also don’t think that there is really a theory of intelligent design
at the present time to propose as a comparable alternative to the
Darwinian theory, which is, whatever errors it might contain, a fully
worked out scheme. There is no intelligent design theory that’s
comparable. Working out a positive theory is the job of the scientific
people that we have affiliated with the movement. Some of them are
quite convinced that it’s doable, but that’s for them to prove…No
product is ready for competition in the educational world.
END QUOTE:
Johnson is talking about the ID scam and teaching intelligent design
in the public schools because he was talking about the Dover school
board case that the ID perps had just lost. Nyikos can deny it all he
wants, but he lived through the scam. For someone to try and deny
what the ID perps did is not just stupid, but insane.
>
> > All you ever do is ask for more evidence and then run.
>
> False. But thanks for implying below that "to teach to school kids"
> was never part of the intended bait. And so, your half-assed
> description "what did they end up with?" is all the switch you
> "identified" in that post you gave the url for:
> http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/46ea6522f3338603
> Excerpt:
> "Meyer first told the Ohio
> board that ID was science, but what did they end up with?
> Why doesn't that count as an instance where the ID perps did both?"
What do you think the request for School kids is? You know what I
meant, but you are just grasping at straws as if it matters.
As for what they ended up with, you know that it isn't what they
thought that they were getting. The rubes claimed that they wanted to
teach the ID science, but what did they get from the ID perps. There
isn't any better evidence of the bait and switch then demonstrating
that all they got from the ID perps was a stupid obfuscation scam that
doesn't mention that ID ever existed. That is the classic bait and
switch. The only thing that would not make it the bait and switch is
if the Ohio rubes and any other rubes that wanted to teach ID actually
got any ID science to teach. None of them ever got the ID science.
I can't imagine what it is like to be reduced to pathetic lying and
grasping at straws like this. How can you possibly think that such
behavior is legitimate?
>
> > You were there
> > when they were claiming to be able to teach the ID junk to school
> > kids.
>
> You keep making this assertion, and up until now I took "there" to
> mean "posting to talk.origins at the time." The relevant time is 1996-
> mid 2001, because before that Behe's book had not hit the market, and
> afterwards I didn't even LOOK at talk.origins until this past
> December.
>
> But I don't recall seeing any such claim by DI back then.
Doesn't this sound like the Watergate testimony? I don't recall. I
presented the Wedge document and links to Wiki on the subject. You
don't even have to recall, just read the history. Between 1996 and
2001 the Discovery Institute ID perps were still claiming that ID was
their buisness. They have removed that claim, but you know how they
were selling ID at the time. How bogus and lame can you possibly be.
>
> If, on the other hand, by "there" you mean Dover or Ohio, then you
> have really gone off the deep end. I was never close to either of
> those places when the relevant events occurred.
I have repeatedly said "when you were still posting." You know this.
You know how the ID perps were selling ID in the 1990 and before Ohio
in 2002 because you claim exposure until 2001. I have given you
references to Ohio, so there is no excuse for you not knowing what
went on there. The bait and switch occured after you stopped posting,
but you know how the ID perps were selling the scam before Ohio. You
know that the bait and switch went down, because you know what the
Ohio rubes got to teach from the ID perps instead of any of the ID
science that snowed you.
>
> > Asking for more evidence is just so bogus that I can't believe
> > that you would do it?
>
> Thanks for implying that "to teach to the school kids" was never part
> of the bait you had in mind. So how could explicitly denying it
> constitute any sort of switch?
This is just a bogus attempt because the Johnson quote, and everything
you know about the scam before 2001 would tell you what a dishonest
ploy "school kids" is when you know we are talking about the public
schools. I even referenced the no child left behind legislation that
the ID perps made a big deal about getting into the appendix back in
2001. What was that legislation about? It was about educating those
school kids. You already had all this information from me and how did
you try to run from it? A bogus ploy about school kids. What a low
life scum. I mean that. Why do you have to stoop so low? Why is
that about all that you can think of to do?
>
> > What were the ID perps claiming for almost 5
> > years before you quite posting in 2000?
>
> I dunno. You tell me.
Lying is so bogus that I can't believe that you would even try denial
at this point. Even if you were ignorant, if you hadn't run from what
I wrote you would know. Willful ignorance is incompetence.
Remember the only IDiots left that support the ID scam are the
ignorant, incompetent and or dishonest. You have demonstrated
yourself to be all three.
>
> >Only a snake would try to
> > deny how ID was being sold at that time. Don't you remember how they
> > hyped the "No child left behind" bill where they were mentioned in the
> > appendix?
>
> No. I never saw the bill, just very brief summaries in news reports.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Santorum_Amendment
Now you don't have ignorance as an excuse.
>
> > Both Meyer and Dembski used to have essays up that were listed as
> > being written in 1997 at the Discovery Institute web site that were on
> > teaching ID, but they don't seem to be there anymore.
>
> > The Wedge document is still available on the web and the Discovery
> > Institute has admitted that it was written by them. ID was supposed
> > to be the Wedge and they targeted school boards and legislators.
>
> >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wedge_strategy
>
> The Wedge document doesn't do it--it only describes a PLAN with a
> wildly overoptimistic timetable for doing it.
What was the PLAN? What an IDiot.
>
> > This has all the links that you would want.
>
> So you allege. But you are too lazy to provide the links that really
> support the "to teach to school kids" bit.
>
> So is every single one of the people who have shackled themselves to
> you on this thread.
What difference does school kids make when they were talking about
public schools? What do they have in public schools? Would they have
school kids in public schools? Only a degenerate lying scum would try
something this stupid and think that he could get away with it.
>
> [...]
Run and pretend. Does snipping make you feel better?
>
> > > > but when it came time to put up or shut up, they ran a
> > > > bogus bait and switch scam on their own creationist support base.
>
> > > Please identify the "bait" and the "switch" as unambigously and
> > > clearly as I've identified the two things, separately, up there, in
> > > the description of the bait and switch scam that YOU have perpetrated
> > > in talk.origins.
>
> > The ID perps at the Discovery Institute sold the rubes like yourself
> > the science of intelligent design,
>
> Since I have repeatedly corrected this false claim about the DI having
> anything to do with my theory of intelligent design, this is an out an
> out lie by you.
You only claim that IC is great stuff because you came up with it all
on your own even though you credit Behe? There is no reason to take
the ID perps seriously since they started running the bait and
switch. None of their ID junk made the grade even by their low
standards.
>
> But I'll take "sold the science of intelligent design" as your latest
> description of the bait.
You know what they did. Denying it is just stupid.
>
> > but when it came time to make good
> > they ran the bait and switch scam and only gave the rubes a switch
> > scam that doesn't mention that ID ever existed.
>
> What does this "mention that ID ever existed" mean?
It means that when you look at what the rubes have been given, that
there is no mention of ID or any of the ID science like IC or
specified information etc. The switch scam takes pains to not mention
that ID ever existed and it is being sold by the same guys that sold
the rubes the ID scam. Really take the Ohio lesson plan or anything
else on public record where the rubes got any ID science to teach from
the ID perps.
The rubes were sold the science of intelligent design, but all they
got was a stupid obfuscation scam where you can't even find ID
mentioned.
>
> Does it mean "mention that they have a confirmed example of something
> designed by a non-human intelligence"?
No they just have to talk about intelligent design, or claim that they
can teach something about intelligent design. What about not mention
do you not get? They don't list intelligent design as anything that
they want to teach in the teach the controversy switch scam. It is
really that simple. ID isn't part of the controversies that they want
to teach. Just take their switch scam book Explore Evolution. This
is a book that claims to be about biological evolution and it is
written by a group of Discovery Institute fellows that are intelligent
design advocates (Meyer, Nelson etc) and you can't find intelligent
design in the appendix, and I haven't heard of anyone finding
intelligent design in the text. I haven't read the book. I've just
read accounts about it, so you could get the book and demonstrate that
I am wrong about this, but a bunch of guys that used to claim that ID
was their business could produce a book on a subject that they claimed
to be a part of and not bother to mention that intelligent design ever
existed. Why couldn't any of these IDiots put up any "controversy"
where they could talk about intelligent design? This is a switch scam
book written by a group of IDiots and ID perps. Why would an IDiot or
ID perp write such a book?
http://www.discovery.org/a/4096
>
> Or does it mean "mention that they are doing research which they hope
> will lead, like SETI is hoping *their* research will lead, to an
> example of something designed by a non-human intelligence"?
They are careful to not talk about intelligent design. It is like
Pandas and People where creationism became taboo and they had to
substitute intelligent design for creationism. They haven't figured
out a new code name for intelligent design, so they just refuse to use
the term. They are even careful to not mention things like
irreducible complexity. They do not want the switch scam associated
with the ID scam failure.
>
> Or does it merely mean "mention the very words 'Intelligent Design'"?
You got it, but it is even worse than that because things like IC are
also off limits and are not mentioned.
Would they need to do that if the ID scam had been legitimate?
>
> Or does it mean something else, which you are keeping a closely
> guarded secret, so you can lie through your teeth as long as you want
> that I am pretending and running away?
You must have looked in the mirror when you made this up. Lying scum
is what you are. Learn to deal with that fact because you aren't
changing that reality with this post.
>
> TEST OF RON OKIMOTO- SIMULATING SOFTWARE :-)
> PLEASE IGNORE :-) :-)
>
> > Or does it mean something else,
> > which you are keeping a closely guarded secret,
> > so you can lie through your teeth
> > as long as you want that I am pretending
> > and running away?
Lying scum like yourself would repeat a lie. I repeat the facts that
you can't deny except by claiming that someone else is lying. What a
low life scum. This is as bad as blaming the IDiot rube victims of
the ID scam. What would make you stoop so low? Is the intelligent
design scam that important to you that you would be willing to debase
yourself for a bogus scam?
Does lying like this make you feel better, or does it eat away at you
that you have to lower yourself to such a level just because you fell
for a bogus scam and can't admit it.
>
> This is just more of your misdirection ploy and goalpost shifting.
> What a loser.
>
> END OF TEST :-) :-) :-)
>
> Peter Nyikos
I would be ashamed of what you have written. Did you have any honest
intent when you wrote this post? How can anyone lie to themselves
like this?
Ron Okimoto
Ron O
> On Feb 4, 10:17�pm, RAM <ramather...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Feb 4, 5:50�pm, "Steven L." <sdlit...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
> > > "Ron O" <rokim...@cox.net> wrote in message
>
> > >news:afe0f3d8-5f81-4476...@l11g2000yqb.googlegroups.com:
>
> > > > > For all the talk by Ron O., Frank J., and even the late "el cid" about
> > > > > bait and switch scams, the only clear cut, fully documented example of
> > > > > which I am aware is one by Ron O., who claimed that Behe admitted he
> > > > > couldn't come up with a functional *definition* of Irreducible
> > > > > Complexity (IC) and when challenged to show it, switched to verifying
> > > > > that Behe couldn't *verify* that any biological phenomenon was
> > > > > *Intelligently Designed* (ID).
>
> *verified* his �"switch" claim about ID, he linked a website which
> presumably would take us to Behe admitting to the latter thing if we
> kept hitting on the right links within links within links...
Do I have to check your bogus posts in order to defend myself from
your bogousity? Just get back and face the posts that you are running
from . I'm not going to follow you all over just to counter your
bogus claims to other people. You should at least attempt to tell the
truth when you are writing about someone behind their back.
If you think that I have not verified the claim, demonstrate it.
Don't just lie about it, but take me to task for it and demonstrate
it. You know that I have verified it, that is why all you can do is
lie and run. Just show that the bait and switch did not go down.
That should be easy. All you would have to do is to show that the
rubes like yourself that fell for the ID claptrap actually got any ID
science worth teaching from the ID perps. What did the rubes get
instead of the ID science? You know what the scam was because you
were still posting back in 2001 before the bait and switch started to
go down. The ID perps have been running the bait and switch on any
rube stupid enough to have believed them for over 8 years. Your "I
don't recall" ploy is pretty pathetic isn't it. I even put up the
evidence so that you would not have to recall, just understand the
history, so what is your excuse? Every lame and dishonest ploy that
you have attempted, I have counterd. Demonstrate otherwise. You
should be able to go to any of your lame responses to me and pull out
the relevant material where you were able to defend your lies and
bogousity, so do it. Don't just lie about things where I am not
likely to check.
Lying about reality is stupid. Why do you lower yourself to even try
to lie? What kind of degenerate person would do something like that?
Ron Okimoto
>
> [...]> > >�The
> > > > fact is that the ID perps claimed to have the ID science to teach to
> > > > school kids, but when it came time to put up or shut up, they ran a
> > > > bogus bait and switch scam on their own creationist support base.
>
pnyikos
> > another one of a long line of people who seems to have no clue as to
> > what IC is all about.
>
> > I've even hypothesized that there WERE mutations to the original
> > bacterial flagellum, hypothesized to be attached to a gram-negative
> > prokaryote. �The mutations SIMPLIFIED it for gram-positive flagellae,
> > by omitting two rings that were no longer relevant since that
> > protective layer was gone.
>
> > Howard Hershey got what I wrote about this backwards, with hilarious
> > results.
>
> > > That is Ron's claim. I don't see it.
>
> > > Ray
>
> > And with good reason.
>
> > Peter Nyikos
>
> Ray who is pathologically anti-evolution is a perfect companion for
> you.
Because I am strongly pro-evolution?
And because I take directed panspermy very seriously, and hence elicit
charges from him that I am an atheist?
> You, the gloating
...glass houses...stones. Just look at you gloating over such
fantasies as "perfect companion" and your witticisms comparing us to
Mutt and Jeff below.
> pusillanimous parser
There is nothing pusillanimous about me. YOU, on the other hand, are
hiding behind a pseudonym. I make no secret of what my name is,
where I work and what I do for a living. Are you sufficiently non-
pusillanimous to stop hiding even one of these pieces of information
from the newsgroup?
Fess up now: you wouldn't be taking pot shots at both of us if the
tables were reversed and you were as outnumbered as we are, would
you? Even though you are hiding as mentioned above, I don't think you
can take the intensity of heat I take without leaving the kitchen.
>and Ray, the only true
> Christian make a Mutt and Jeff routine that could make TO history if
> it lasts longer than a week.
Not only pusillanimous but also supercilious.
Peter Nyikos
Professor, Dept. of Mathematics -- standard disclaimer--
University of South Carolina
http://www.math.sc.edu/~nyikos/
The standard disclaimer is that I am writing purely on my own and not
representing the organization whose name appears in my work address.
pnyikos
> On Feb 8, 5:19 pm, pnyikos <nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>
> > On Feb 4, 2:30 pm, Ron O <rokim...@cox.net> wrote:
>
> > > On Feb 3, 1:37 pm, pnyikos <nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>
> > > > On Feb 2, 6:07 pm, Ron O <rokim...@cox.net> wrote:
>
> > > > > On Feb 1, 10:33 pm, pnyikos <nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>
> > > > > > For all the talk by Ron O., Frank J., and even the late "el cid" about
> > > > > > which I am aware is one by Ron O., who claimed that Behe admitted he
> > > > > > couldn't come up with a functional *definition* of Irreducible
> > > > > > Complexity (IC) and when challenged to show it, switched to verifying
> > > > > > that Behe couldn't *verify* that any biological phenomenon was
> > > > > > *Intelligently Designed* (ID).
>
> > And that is still true. I still haven't seen a specific, unambiguous
> > example of an alleged "switch" by the DI, and y'all will see below
> > just how far I still am from getting one that actually describes a
> > SCAM.
>
> This is simply a lie on Nyikos' part.
It is Ron O who is lying. But even this lie is nothing compared to
the lies he concentrated in a few lines when misrepresenting Behe:
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/c0ecce8ca915d265
In the post you see the url for above, I quote some things Behe said
at Dover about which Ron O lied, repeatedly and shamelessly.
> He has snipped out the material
> and hasn't responded to it, but that doesn't mean that it was never
> presented to him. I again put up the Ohio example in my Feb 8th post
What Ron O put up was a webpage which was put up by Ohioans and makes
absolutely no mention of Discovery Institute having anything to do
with it:
http://science2.marion.ohio-state.edu/ohioscience/lesson-plans.html
Ron O didn't put up the url this time, and it doesn't take a rocket
scientist to figure out why.
> because Nyikos keeps running from it. Not only that, but Nyikos can't
> come up with a single instance where thebaitand switch did not go
> down.
And Ron O has yet to document an example of the alleged bait and
switch that clearly shows that there was a scam being perpetrated.
>Of all the rubes that claimed to want to teach the science of
> intelligent design not a single one ever got any ID science to teach
> from the ID perps. Every single one had the bait and switch run on
> them. Ohio was just the first example, and Nyikos can't deal with it.
I dealt with it before, just as I did above. Only difference is, this
time I actually provided the url to show that the website doesn't do
what Ron O claimed for it.
But I expect Ron O to continue lying that I am running away from it,
and lying that I am indulging in misdirection ploys by focusing on him
instead of reading his mind as to what I am supposed to know about
Ohio.
> > > > > This is just another goal post shift and misdirection ploy
combined
> > > > > into one. What a loser.
>
> > > > What Ron O is saying here, folks, is that his demands are paramount in
> > > > all my discussions with him. If you show him up for a liar, that's
> > > > just a "goal post shift and misdirection ploy" until you've done
> > > > EVERYTHING he demands that you do.
>
> > > My demands are not paramount.
>
> > The very next thing you say confirms that they are SO paramount that
> > you will call me a rat and accuse me of dishonesty if I do NOT meet
> > these demands:
>
> No, you only have to do the right thing instead of being a dishonest
> rat.
The right thing being to cave in to your demands. You never even
suggested otherwise, you just piled one irrelevant accusation after
another in what you said next [deleted].
> > > It is only that I will not allow a rat
> > > like you to divert from one issue using a dishonest misdirection
> > > ploy.
>
> > I take it the "one issue" is an alleged bait and switch ploy which you
> > described in a half-assed way back in December. But you've issued a
> > number of demands as to HOW I should handle it.
Ron O didn't deny this.
> > Let's see whether you do any better at describing it now:
>
> It isn't just now it has been over and over.
And even more vaguely and un-specifically than what you said next.
Here at least we get a glimmering of what the bait might be, and what
the switch might be, but we are still very far from seeing why it
deserves to be called a scam.
[...]
> > [...]
>
> > > > > [The people at the Discovery Institute] claimed to have the ID
> > > > > science to teach to school kids,
>
> > > > I don't recall ever seeing documentation of the "to teach to school
> > > > kids" part. Please provide it here.
Ron made a halfhearted attempt to provide something that may have
looked like documentation to the uninitiated. I pointed out how it
fell short, and now, three posts later, Ron starts playing silly
games as though he hadn't suffered an epic fail.
> Poor guy, again, you were there.
Scumbag again, you don't say what 'there' means.
>It doesn't matter if they never said
> "school kids."
It matters if they meant the same thing in different words. Did
they? Where is the documentation if they did?
> You know that they wanted to teach ID in the public
> schools
Right away? or just when they were ready?
I don't know it, and I bet neither do you. The Wedge document was
never officially adopted by the Discovery Institute. Behe told me so
in e-mail, and he also said it was NOT written by Phillip Johnson.
> and that they concentrated on legislators and school boards to
> do it. What was Johnson giving up on when he claimed that the ID
> science never had existed
That's not what you quoted him as saying, you bait and switch scam
artist.
Look at what you ACTUALLY quote from him below.
And, since Johnson did NOT write the Wedge document, where is the
evidence that he was giving up a position he held previously?
> and that there was nothing comparable to
> teach to what science already had?
Comparing two centuries of research to less than two decades, it's no
surprise he would say that.
You lived through the ID scam when
> the ID perps were claiming that ID was their business.
And so it is, and you haven't proven otherwise.
>Waffling about
> it now and worrying about "school kids" when it is the same as public
> schools is not just dishonest, but lame.
What is lame is you baiting with "had the science to teach in the
public schools" and now switching to saying they INTENDED to teach
something--maybe just the controversy, eh?
> Just explain the Johnson
> quote if the ID perps did not want to teach their bogus ID science to
> school kids.
Note the absence of any specific time frame. Are you claiming they
wanted to teach it BACK THEN ALREADY?
> It isn't just the Johnson quote but the Wedge document and the other
> references that I have put up but you have just run from.
Are you going to claim Behe lied to me in e-mail? If so, you'd better
have some proof.
> Here is the Johnson quote, again, so you don't have to look for it:
>
> QUOTE:
> I also don’t think that there is really a theory of intelligent design
> at the present time to propose as a comparable alternative to the
> Darwinian theory, which is, whatever errors it might contain, a fully
> worked out scheme. There is no intelligent design theory that’s
> comparable. Working out a positive theory is the job of the scientific
> people that we have affiliated with the movement. Some of them are
> quite convinced that it’s doable, but that’s for them to prove…No
> product is ready for competition in the educational world.
> END QUOTE:
I've already dealt with this in another post, RIGHT ON THIS THREAD,
killing two birds with one stone by shoving it in the face of Ron O's
kindred spirit, Rodjk#613:
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/64b188664dc64eb0
> Johnson is talking about the ID scam and teaching intelligent design
> in the public schools because he was talking about the Dover school
> board case that the ID perps had just lost.
Johnson is not describing anything that could be called perps, or a
bait, or a switch, or a scam. He is talking about the current state
of affairs in a factual, down to earth manner. See the above url for
the ACTUAL significance of what he is saying.
TO BE CONTINUED
Peter Nyikos
Ron O
> On Feb 9, 8:29 am, Ron O <rokim...@cox.net> wrote:
>
> > On Feb 8, 5:19 pm, pnyikos <nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>
> > > On Feb 4, 2:30 pm, Ron O <rokim...@cox.net> wrote:
>
> > > > On Feb 3, 1:37 pm, pnyikos <nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>
> > > > > On Feb 2, 6:07 pm, Ron O <rokim...@cox.net> wrote:
>
> > > > > > On Feb 1, 10:33 pm, pnyikos <nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > For all the talk by Ron O., Frank J., and even the late "el cid" about
> > > > > > >baitand switch scams, the only clear cut, fully documented example of
> > > > > > > which I am aware is one by Ron O., who claimed that Behe admitted he
> > > > > > > couldn't come up with a functional *definition* of Irreducible
> > > > > > > Complexity (IC) and when challenged to show it, switched to verifying
> > > > > > > that Behe couldn't *verify* that any biological phenomenon was
> > > > > > > *Intelligently Designed* (ID).
>
> > > And that is still true. I still haven't seen a specific, unambiguous
> > > example of an alleged "switch" by the DI, and y'all will see below
> > > just how far I still am from getting one that actually describes a
> > > SCAM.
>
> > This is simply a lie on Nyikos' part.
>
> It is Ron O who is lying. But even this lie is nothing compared to
> the lies he concentrated in a few lines when misrepresenting Behe:http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/c0ecce8ca915d265
This is getting ridiculous. Nyikos has likely lost all sense of
reality. Lying about someone else lying is just a way of life.
Nyikos gets caught lying multiple times and someone else is the liar.
Nyikos runs away and it is the other guy that is running. Anyone just
has to look at the open ended posts to know who is running and lying.
Anyone that wants to bother can check out how I dealt with Nyikos'
accusations about lying.
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/7fd6b876d5f7c5bd
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/7d741da1bcd545fe
>
> In the post you see the url for above, I quote some things Behe said
> at Dover about which Ron O lied, repeatedly and shamelessly.
>
> > He has snipped out the material
> > and hasn't responded to it, but that doesn't mean that it was never
> > presented to him. I again put up the Ohio example in my Feb 8th post
>
> What Ron O put up was a webpage which was put up by Ohioans and makes
> absolutely no mention of Discovery Institute having anything to do
> with it:http://science2.marion.ohio-state.edu/ohioscience/lesson-plans.html
And what about the other links where anyone could look up that Meyer
ran the bait and switch? I only had to google something like "Meyer
and Ohio and intelligent design" to get the two links I put up that
demonstrated the Discovery Institute involvement. There isn't even
any reason to deny it now because it is history that anyone can look
up.
>
> Ron O didn't put up the url this time, and it doesn't take a rocket
> scientist to figure out why.
What a liar.
Why not go back to the post that you are running from where the links
were put up. Here it is again.
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/092d106b63c89963
This is where Nyikos told me to hop to it. I did and Nyikos ran.
This posted weeks ago.
QUOTE:
> No, I do not. You provided no documentation for that.
What a IDiot. Deny it all you want. Claim that I am making it up.
It
won't change reality. What evidence do you have that the Discovery
Institute wasn't involved.
I found this in a few seconds using Google and "Meyer and Ohio State
school board"
http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/12.10/evolution.html
This guy is talking about when Meyer performed the bait and switch on
the Ohio State Board of education. If you look at the lesson plans
that I gave you links too you will see what Meyer gave to the board
instead of any ID science to teach.
this is the wiki quote that came up right under the first reference.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stephen_C._Meyer
QUOTE:
In March, 2002, Meyer announced a "teach the controversy" strategy,
aimed at promoting the false idea that the theory of evolution is
controversial within scientific circles, following a presentation to
the Ohio State Board of Education.[23] The presentation included
submission of an annotated bibliography of 44 peer-reviewed
scientific
articles that were said to raise significant challenges to key tenets
of what was referred to as "Darwinian evolution".[24] In response to
this claim the National Center for Science Education, an organisation
that works in collaboration with National Academy of Sciences, the
National Association of Biology Teachers, and the National Science
Teachers Association that support the teaching of evolution in public
schools,[25] contacted the authors of the papers listed and twenty-
six
scientists, representing thirty-four of the papers, responded. None
of
the authors considered that their research provided evidence against
evolution.[26]
END QUOTE:
Meyer gave his speel, lied about ID being science and then ran the
bait and switch on the board when he couldn't counter what the real
scientists had to say about the nonexistent ID science, and he gave
the Ohio rubes the teach the controversy switch scam. Meyer was and
still is the director of the ID scam wing of the Discovery Institute.
He was promoted to vice president, but then was demoted back to just
director of the scam outfit.
It turns out that Meyer had been working up the switch scam since
around 1999.
http://www.discovery.org/a/58
http://www.discovery.org/a/589
So they were planning to run the bait and switch on rubes like
yourself while you were still an active poster on TO. How does that
make you feel?
Is that enough evidence that the Discovery Institute has been running
the bait and switch since 2003?
END QUOTE:
More running and lying in Nyikos' future. What kind of loser would
even try to lie about this kind of junk?
>
> > because Nyikos keeps running from it. Not only that, but Nyikos can't
> > come up with a single instance where thebaitand switch did not go
> > down.
>
> And Ron O has yet to document an example of the alleged bait and
> switch that clearly shows that there was a scam being perpetrated.
What an abject loser. Nyikos knows what happened in Ohio and to every
rube legislator and school board that ever claimed to want to teach
the science of intelligent design. The ID perps sold them the science
of intelligent design, but all anyone has ever gotten is a switch scam
that doesn't even mention that ID ever existed. That is the classic
bait and switch and all Nyikos can do is lie about it.
>
> >Of all the rubes that claimed to want to teach the science of
>
> > intelligent design not a single one ever got any ID science to teach
> > from the ID perps. Every single one had the bait and switch run on
> > them. Ohio was just the first example, and Nyikos can't deal with it.
>
> I dealt with it before, just as I did above. Only difference is, this
> time I actually provided the url to show that the website doesn't do
> what Ron O claimed for it.
Abject denial of reality isn't doing a very good job of dealing with
the situation. lying about never getting the evidence is probably
worse. The level of incompetence that is required to think that you
could get away with something as bogus as this is mind boggling.
>
> But I expect Ron O to continue lying that I am running away from it,
> and lying that I am indulging in misdirection ploys by focusing on him
> instead of reading his mind as to what I am supposed to know about
> Ohio.
Claiming that someone else is lying to cover your own dishonest butt
is so low that how could anyone with any integrity live with how low
he has to stoop. You just have to go back to the posts that you ran
from to know how pathetic your attempt at lying is.
>
> > > > > > This is just another goal post shift and misdirection ploy
> combined
>
> > > > > > into one. What a loser.
>
> > > > > What Ron O is saying here, folks, is that his demands are paramount in
> > > > > all my discussions with him. If you show him up for a liar, that's
> > > > > just a "goal post shift and misdirection ploy" until you've done
> > > > > EVERYTHING he demands that you do.
>
> > > > My demands are not paramount.
>
> > > The very next thing you say confirms that they are SO paramount that
> > > you will call me a rat and accuse me of dishonesty if I do NOT meet
> > > these demands:
>
> > No, you only have to do the right thing instead of being a dishonest
> > rat.
>
> The right thing being to cave in to your demands. You never even
> suggested otherwise, you just piled one irrelevant accusation after
> another in what you said next [deleted].
I have to put back what Nyikos deleted in order for him to lie to
himself again.
QUOTE:
No, you only have to do the right thing instead of being a dishonest
rat. [Misdirection ploys are bogus and I would be stupid to let you
get away with such a bogus and dishonest ploy. The facts are just
that simple. Stop running and pretending. Stop lying about the bait
and switch. Why is that so hard?]
END QUOTE:
I put what Nyikos Snipped in brackets. No surprise but Nyikos just
tried to lie about the bait and switch again. I wonder if he really
thinks that if he snips something out that it never existed?
>
> > > > It is only that I will not allow a rat
> > > > like you to divert from one issue using a dishonest misdirection
> > > > ploy.
>
> > > I take it the "one issue" is an alleged bait and switch ploy which you
> > > described in a half-assed way back in December. But you've issued a
> > > number of demands as to HOW I should handle it.
>
> Ron O didn't deny this.
I covered it below, beats me why you missed it. Maybe you shouldn't
snip so much?
>
> > > Let's see whether you do any better at describing it now:
>
> > It isn't just now it has been over and over.
What Nyikos Snipped out:
QUOTE:
It isn't just now it has been over and over. [You know it. You are
just trying to pretend that you haven't been such a bogus liar for
weeks].
END QUOTE:
Again, what Nyikos snipped is in brackets and he is still pretending
that I never described the bait and switch well enough for him when it
was described multiple times weeks before.
>
> And even more vaguely and un-specifically than what you said next.
> Here at least we get a glimmering of what the bait might be, and what
> the switch might be, but we are still very far from seeing why it
> deserves to be called a scam.
Lying won't get you anywhere. You know that you have been running and
lying about the description of the bait and switch for weeks. What
kind of moron would try to lie about this. It was described to you in
December. Do you realize that it is February?
>
> [...]
>
> > > [...]
>
> > > > > > [The people at the Discovery Institute] claimed to have the ID
> > > > > > science to teach to school kids,
>
> > > > > I don't recall ever seeing documentation of the "to teach to school
> > > > > kids" part. Please provide it here.
>
> Ron made a halfhearted attempt to provide something that may have
> looked like documentation to the uninitiated. I pointed out how it
> fell short, and now, three posts later, Ron starts playing silly
> games as though he hadn't suffered an epic fail.
It doesn't just look like documentation it should have been enough or
anyone that has run from what has already been presented multiple
times.
The following is so cut up that I will quote what I wrote and then
deal with the bits.
QUOTE:
Poor guy, again, you were there. It doesn't matter if they never
said
"school kids." You know that they wanted to teach ID in the public
schools and that they concentrated on legislators and school boards
to
do it. What was Johnson giving up on when he claimed that the ID
science never had existed and that there was nothing comparable to
teach to what science already had? You lived through the ID scam
when
the ID perps were claiming that ID was their business. Waffling
about
it now and worrying about "school kids" when it is the same as public
schools is not just dishonest, but lame. Just explain the Johnson
quote if the ID perps did not want to teach their bogus ID science to
school kids.
END QUOTE:
>
> > Poor guy, again, you were there.
>
> Scumbag again, you don't say what 'there' means.
You were posting when the ID perps were claiming that they could teach
the science of intelligent design. Trying to deny it is insane. What
were the ID perps claiming between 1995 and 2001 when you were
posting?
>
> >It doesn't matter if they never said
> > "school kids."
>
> It matters if they meant the same thing in different words. Did
> they? Where is the documentation if they did?
Public schools is the same as school kids. What do they have in
public schools? What was the plan? The plan was to use intelligent
design as the wedge in the public school system. Why deny history?
You lived through it and you know what the ID perps were claiming.
Who gave the Ohio rubes and all the other rubes the idea that they
could teach intelligent design science in the public schools? I even
put up the ID packet where they were still claiming that teachers
could teach the science of intelligent design.
>
> > You know that they wanted to teach ID in the public
> > schools
>
> Right away? or just when they were ready?
They were never ready, but that didn't stop them from lying to
everyone about it, and it hasn't stopped them from continuing to lie
about it.
Anyone that wants to can go to this post in this thread and read what
was quoted in the packet:
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/7736b170b3bb79a8?hl=en
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:
The ID perps are still using ID as the bait to run in the switch scam
because no one has gotting the ID science to teach when they wanted to
teach it and this packet was prepared in 2007 according to the web
page. The ID perps had been running the bait and switch for 5 years
and they could still claim to have the ID science to teach.
>
> I don't know it, and I bet neither do you. The Wedge document was
> never officially adopted by the Discovery Institute. Behe told me so
> in e-mail, and he also said it was NOT written by Phillip Johnson.
What is official? If you read the Wedge document the ID perps did
just about everything that they claimed that they were going to do
except for what? They never had the science of intelligent design to
deliver to the rubes and had to run the bait and switch scam. All any
rube has ever gotten is a switch scam that doesn't mention that ID
ever existed. They made their video, they targeted school boards and
legislators, they wrote their bogus books, they tried to effect
legislation (no child left behind) they ran conferences and spread the
ID propaganda, but they never had the ID science to deliver. They
fell short on the scientific papers that they were supposed to have
written, and the bait and switch scam wasn't part of the plan. They
had to resort to the bait and switch when they had to put up or shut
up. Really, for not adopting the Wedge plan the list of what they
didn't do is a heck of a lot shorter than the list of how they
followed the plan.
>
> > and that they concentrated on legislators and school boards to
> > do it. What was Johnson giving up on when he claimed that the ID
> > science never had existed
>
> That's not what you quoted him as saying, you bait and switch scam
> artist.
Projection is likely a sign of insanity. What is it that I was
supposed to have claimed about the Johnson quote? I even put the
quote up again because you keep running from it or lying about it.
>
> Look at what you ACTUALLY quote from him below.
>
> And, since Johnson did NOT write the Wedge document, where is the
> evidence that he was giving up a position he held previously?
When did I say that Johnson wrote the Wedge document? I only claimed
that the Wedge document was evidence that the ID perps wanted to teach
ID in the public schools. Johnson is known for calling ID the "Wedge"
that he wanted to use, but I never claimed that He wrote the wedge
document. Beats me where you even got that idea.
>
> > and that there was nothing comparable to
> > teach to what science already had?
Nothing about the Wedge document here.
>
> Comparing two centuries of research to less than two decades, it's no
> surprise he would say that.
I wasn't the one that claimed and is still claiming to be able to
teach the science of intelligent design in the public schools. All
you have to do is admit that the ID perps were lying about having the
science instead of starting this "premature" bull pucky to try to
excuse the bogus scam is pretty stupid. You are just admitting that
you have been lying and pretending for the last couple months. Why
didn't you just admit that the bait and switch had been going down for
8 years and then give your lame excuse for why it had to go down.
There has to be some lie you tell yourself to keep supporting the ID
scam so what is it? What kind of IDiot would support a group of guys
that have been running the bait and switch on guys like himself for
over 8 years?
>
> You lived through the ID scam when
>
> > the ID perps were claiming that ID was their business.
>
> And so it is, and you haven't proven otherwise.
What scam do they actually give to the rubes instead of the ID
science? It is just a stupid obfuscation scam that doesn't mention
that ID ever existed. What kind of business would do that? Advertise
one thing but scam the rubes by giving them something that they never
wanted?
>
> >Waffling about
>
> > it now and worrying about "school kids" when it is the same as public
> > schools is not just dishonest, but lame.
>
> What is lame is you baiting with "had the science to teach in the
> public schools" and now switching to saying they INTENDED to teach
> something--maybe just the controversy, eh?
You are such an IDiot. How can you lie to yourself like this. Why
make a big deal about "intended?" It is just a different word for the
same thing. They claimed that they had the science to teach in the
public schools. Their current packet still claims that they have the
science to teach in the public schools. So what good is concentrating
on "intended?" Even though they make the claims that they have the ID
science to teach, what do the rubes get from the ID perps?
There is no question that the bait and switch went down and is still
going down. That makes them ID perps and intelligent design just a
bogus scam.
>
> > Just explain the Johnson
> > quote if the ID perps did not want to teach their bogus ID science to
> > school kids.
>
> Note the absence of any specific time frame. Are you claiming they
> wanted to teach it BACK THEN ALREADY?
You know the timeframe. Dover had just happened. Johnson said this
in the Spring of 2006 right after the IDiot loss in Dover. I have
repeatedly reminded you about how they have been selling intelligent
design until they began to run the bait and switch in 2002. You know
how they sold the ID scam from 1995 to 2001 because you were still
posting on TO then. What timeframe do you need when the current
packet still claims that the ID perps have the ID science to teach in
the publci schools? The bait and switch is still going down. Just
last Oct-Nov. the Louisiana IDiots wanted to put the ID science into
their textbooks. Did they get any ID science?
>
> > It isn't just the Johnson quote but the Wedge document and the other
> > references that I have put up but you have just run from.
>
> Are you going to claim Behe lied to me in e-mail? If so, you'd better
> have some proof.
Since I don't know what Behe said to you I can't say if he lied or
not. You would know that better than I by now. You know how the ID
perps lied and are still lying about having the ID science to teach,
so was Behe lying or not? You tell me.
>
> > Here is the Johnson quote, again, so you don't have to look for it:
>
> > QUOTE:
> > I also don’t think that there is really a theory of intelligent design
> > at the present time to propose as a comparable alternative to the
> > Darwinian theory, which is, whatever errors it might contain, a fully
> > worked out scheme. There is no intelligent design theory that’s
> > comparable. Working out a positive theory is the job of the scientific
> > people that we have affiliated with the movement. Some of them are
> > quite convinced that it’s doable, but that’s for them to prove…No
> > product is ready for competition in the educational world.
> > END QUOTE:
>
> I've already dealt with this in another post, RIGHT ON THIS THREAD,
> killing two birds with one stone by shoving it in the face of Ron O's
> kindred spirit, Rodjk#613:http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/64b188664dc64eb0
Lying about it isn't a very good way to deal with something. Why not
deal with my posts that you are running from? Am I supposed to check
out every post that you write to see how you are lying behind by
back? Is this the post that you claimed that I was running from for
three days? Heck, it isn't even a response to one of my posts.
Deal with the Johnson quote in this post or one of my others. Go for
it.
I think that this is one post where I dealt with your Johnson babble,
but you ran away. Bringing it up again now is just lame.
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/45504023a7e8b421?hl=en
>
> > Johnson is talking about the ID scam and teaching intelligent design
> > in the public schools because he was talking about the Dover school
> > board case that the ID perps had just lost.
>
> Johnson is not describing anything that could be called perps, or a
> bait, or a switch, or a scam. He is talking about the current state
> of affairs in a factual, down to earth manner. See the above url for
> the ACTUAL significance of what he is saying.
It is just too bad that Johnson and the other ID perps lied about
having the science of intelligent design to teach in the public
schools. Heck they are still lying about it. I use the Johnson quote
to demonstrate that even the top level ID perps understood that ID was
just a bogus scam. He is admitting that they never had any ID science
to teach in the public schools. Their wedge turned out to be a limp
noodle.
Nyikos obviously wouldn't recognize the truth if it bit him in the
face and wouldn't let go. How sad is that?
>
> TO BE CONTINUED
>
> Peter Nyikos
More lies and running and pretending in Nyikos' future. What kind of
person would lower themselves to this level? The only IDiots left
that support the ID scam are the ignorant, incompetent and dishonest.
Nyikos is a sad example of all three in one.
Ron Okimoto
Rodjk #613
> On Feb 16, 6:43 pm, pnyikos <nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Feb 9, 8:29 am, Ron O <rokim...@cox.net> wrote:
>
> > > On Feb 8, 5:19 pm, pnyikos <nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>
> > > > On Feb 4, 2:30 pm, Ron O <rokim...@cox.net> wrote:
>
> > > > > On Feb 3, 1:37 pm, pnyikos <nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>
> > > > > > On Feb 2, 6:07 pm, Ron O <rokim...@cox.net> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > On Feb 1, 10:33 pm, pnyikos <nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > For all the talk by Ron O., Frank J., and even the late "el cid" about
> > > > > > > >baitand switch scams, the only clear cut, fully documented example of
> > > > > > > > which I am aware is one by Ron O., who claimed that Behe admitted he
> > > > > > > > couldn't come up with a functional *definition* of Irreducible
> > > > > > > > Complexity (IC) and when challenged to show it, switched to verifying
> > > > > > > > that Behe couldn't *verify* that any biological phenomenon was
> > > > > > > > *Intelligently Designed* (ID).
>
> > > > And that is still true. I still haven't seen a specific, unambiguous
> > > > example of an alleged "switch" by the DI, and y'all will see below
> > > > just how far I still am from getting one that actually describes a
> > > > SCAM.
>
> > > This is simply a lie on Nyikos' part.
>
> > It is Ron O who is lying. But even this lie is nothing compared to
> > the lies he concentrated in a few lines when misrepresenting Behe:http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/c0ecce8ca915d265
>
> This is getting ridiculous. Nyikos has likely lost all sense of
> reality.
When did little petey ever have any sense, much less of reality?
Rodjk #613
<snip>
pnyikos
which I am replying nicely illustrates a dirty debating tactic:
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/browse_thread/thread/1fa939f3bef59e44#
On Feb 9, 12:41 am, "Rodjk #613" <rjka...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Feb 3, 5:34 pm, pnyikos <nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>
>
>
> > Here is my "next post". I couldn't resist doing a "twofer" since
> > Rodjk#613 seems to have shackled himself ot Okimoto on this issue. So
> > I am following up to him instead of Ron O, killing two birds with one
> > stone.
>
> > On Feb 3, 3:15 pm, "Rodjk #613" <rjka...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Feb 2, 5:07 pm, Ron O <rokim...@cox.net> wrote:
[snip lots, dealt with on the new thread]
> > Good luck trying to get a coherent description of what the alleged
> >bait, and what the alleged switch are, from Ron O's incredibly long-
> > winded and repetitious posts on that "The futility of Intelligent
> > Desgin[*sic*]" thread.
>
> It isn't hard at all. I don't need to re-read it, I have read Ron O's
> excellent comments many times.
And, as befits a true fan of Ron Okimoto, you give no hint of what
these things are, nor why they would constitute a dishonest scam.
> > The time would probably be better spent agreeing with me about what
> > Johnson said, and trying to find evidence for yourself, from the
> > original sources, of abaitand switch scam by DI.
>
> Why? Its all spelled out for us.
Again spoken like a true fan, in both respects.
> > > That is the furthest any of the ID perps have come to coming
> > > clean on the issue. That in itself is pretty sad.
>
> > What IS sad is the way Ron O keeps dodging my arguments and labeling
> > them with various pejorative words.
>
> > Peter Nyikos
>
> Nah...you are still "Petey the Grate"...incompetent, babbling,
> confused and ultimately just annoying.
>
> Rodjk #613
You are an anonymous coward, so you can post such bilge without being
concerned about what it does to your reputation.
Is your e-mail address even authentic, or is it just something you
forged, the way some other people routinely forge their e-mail
addresses?
Peter Nyikos
pnyikos
...for Ron O, and the above is no exception.
[undocumented claims about me allegedly getting caught lying multiple
times deleted here]
> Anyone that wants to bother can check out how I dealt with Nyikos'
> accusations about lying.
...and how I am dealing with the dishonesty behind the "dealt", as
fast as is practicable.
Ron O keeps using the McCarthyite tactic of posting new false
accusations while only going through the motions of supporting
accusations on which he has been challenged.
> >http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/7fd6b876d5f7c5bd
> >http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/7d741da1bcd545fe
I've replied to both posts, and Ron O only digs himself deeper into
the hell he has made for himself in reply, hoping to drag me down with
him to the point where all my free time would be spent countering his
lies.
And Ron O is probably gleeful over the way even my comparatively few
replies and a few mentionings of Ron O in the same threads is labeled
an "obsession" by John Harshman.
I've never seen the same John Harshman use the term "obsession" with
Ron O. I once told him how Ron O is as obsessed with DI as Captain
Ahab was with Moby Dick, and he never voiced agreement with that.
> > In the post you see the url for above, I quote some things Behe said
> > at Dover about which Ron O lied, repeatedly and shamelessly.
And continues to lie, on the same thread, pretending my refutation of
his "one grand lie to rule them all" never existed.
> > > He has snipped out the material
> > > and hasn't responded to it, but that doesn't mean that it was never
> > > presented to him. I again put up the Ohio example in my Feb 8th post
>
> > What Ron O put up was a webpage which was put up by Ohioans and makes
> > absolutely no mention of Discovery Institute having anything to do
> > with it:
> > http://science2.marion.ohio-state.edu/ohioscience/lesson-plans.html
>
> And what about the other links where anyone could look up that Meyer
> ran the bait and switch?
I saw something about "teach the controversy" there, but no hint of a
bait to one thing and a switch to another.
And that continues to be true. See quote below.
> I only had to google something like "Meyer
> and Ohio and intelligent design" to get the two links I put up that
> demonstrated the Discovery Institute involvement.
Note the weasel word "involvement'. I've told Ron O that I want
documentation that the DI was actually (1) *implicated* in a (2) bait
and (3) switch that could be seen to be (4) a dishonest scam. He
keeps posting little teasers and driblets, and pretends he has gone
the whole nine yards.
> Why not go back to the post that you are running from
"Running from" is not the right word to use for ignoring what I call a
Broken.Usenet.Promise. This is my term for a dirty debating tactic,
about which I have posted, displaying some examples from an ardent fan
of yours.
And I hope to find the time to post some examples by you tomorrow, to
the same thread:
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/browse_thread/thread/1fa939f3bef59e44#
> where the links
> were put up. Here it is again.
>
> http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/092d106b63c89963
>
> This is where Nyikos told me to hop to it. I did and Nyikos ran.
I told Ron O to hop to something utterly different, but Ron O has
always completely ignored that fact.
> This posted weeks ago.
>
> QUOTE:
>
> > No, I do not. You provided no documentation for that.
>
> What a IDiot. Deny it all you want. Claim that I am making it up.
> It
> won't change reality. What evidence do you have that the Discovery
> Institute wasn't involved.
Note that weasel word "involved" again.
> I found this in a few seconds using Google and "Meyer and Ohio State
> school board"http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/12.10/evolution.html
>
> This guy is talking about when Meyer performed thebaitand switch on
> the Ohio State Board of education. If you look at the lesson plans
> that I gave you links too you will see what Meyer gave to the board
> instead of any ID science to teach.
>
> this is the wiki quote that came up right under the first reference.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stephen_C._Meyer
>
> QUOTE:
> In March, 2002, Meyer announced a "teach the controversy" strategy,
> aimed at promoting the false idea that the theory of evolution is
> controversial within scientific circles, following a presentation to
> the Ohio State Board of Education.[23] The presentation included
> submission of an annotated bibliography of 44 peer-reviewed
> scientific
> articles that were said to raise significant challenges to key tenets
> of what was referred to as "Darwinian evolution".[24] In response to
> this claim the National Center for Science Education, an organisation
> that works in collaboration with National Academy of Sciences, the
> National Association of Biology Teachers, and the National Science
> Teachers Association that support the teaching of evolution in public
> schools,[25] contacted the authors of the papers listed and twenty-
> six
> scientists, representing thirty-four of the papers, responded. None
> of
> the authors considered that their research provided evidence against
> evolution.[26]
> END QUOTE:
>
> Meyer gave his speel, lied about ID being science and then ran the bait and switch on the board
No description of this alleged bait and switch. No surprise.
> It turns out that Meyer had been working up the switch scam since
> around 1999.
> http://www.discovery.org/a/58http://www.discovery.org/a/589
So this was the alleged switch, "teach the controversy"? and the bait
was that ID is a scientific theory? There's no scam in this much, and
I've explained why in response to your ardent fan.
> So they were planning to run the bait and switch on rubes like
> yourself while you were still an active poster on TO. How does that
> make you feel?
This stupid use of "rubes like yourself" makes me feel like you want
me to have no respect for you.
> Is that enough evidence that the Discovery Institute has been running
> the bait and switch since 2003?
> END QUOTE:
See below for the missing ingredient:
> > And Ron O has yet to document an example of the alleged bait and
> > switch that clearly shows that there was a scam being perpetrated.
>
> What an abject loser. Nyikos knows what happened in Ohio
No I do not. The url you gave was utterly useless. See above.
TO BE CONTINUED
Space provided for Ron O to accuse me of running for not answering the
whole gargantuan post on the spot.
.
.
.
.
Peter Nyikos
RAM
Don't be so hard on yourself.
Life is tough.
You have no scientific theory of ID and panspermia is not perforce
evidence for even a nonscientific theory of ID
Richard A. Mathers
>
> Peter Nyikos
> Professor, Dept. of Mathematics -- standard disclaimer--
> University of South Carolinahttp://www.math.sc.edu/~nyikos/
pnyikos
Pee Wee Hermanism by "RAM" noted.
> You have no scientific theory of ID and panspermia
> is not perforce
> evidence for even a nonscientific theory of ID
Not the Arrhenius variety, but the Crick variety makes ID on at least
a modest scale highly plausible.
> Richard A. Mathers
Thanks for telling us your name. Do you also have the guts to tell us
what your line of work is, and where you work?
RAM
And I so enjoyed him.
>
> > You have no scientific theory of ID and panspermia
> > is not perforce
> > evidence for even a nonscientific theory of ID
>
> Not the Arrhenius variety, but the Crick variety makes ID on at least
> a modest scale highly plausible.
Only for the highly gullible who can't see bait and switches.
>
> > Richard A. Mathers
>
> Thanks for telling us your name. Do you also have the guts to tell us
> what your line of work is, and where you work?
Of course, a retired sociologists from Western Illinois University.
Ron O
Nyikos could be the most dishonest person that I have encountered on
TO. At least in the category of someone that is stupid enough to keep
lying about the same things over and over.
Even Pags is likely not that incompetently dishonest.
>
> [undocumented claims about me allegedly getting caught lying multiple
> times deleted here]
I'll just put it back in because it is true and Nyikos is lying about
it because I have repeated documented the facts. In fact I document
it again right after I make the statement.
QUOTE:
Lying about someone else lying is just a way of life.
Nyikos gets caught lying multiple times and someone else is the liar.
Nyikos runs away and it is the other guy that is running. Anyone
just
has to look at the open ended posts to know who is running and lying.
END QUOTE:
>
> > Anyone that wants to bother can check out how I dealt with Nyikos'
> > accusations about lying.
>
> ...and how I am dealing with the dishonesty behind the "dealt", as
> fast as is practicable.
>
> Ron O keeps using the McCarthyite tactic of posting new false
> accusations while only going through the motions of supporting
> accusations on which he has been challenged.
The truth hurts the bogus and dishonest like Nyikos.
>
> > >http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/7fd6b876d5f7c5bd
> > >http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/7d741da1bcd545fe
>
> I've replied to both posts, and Ron O only digs himself deeper into
> the hell he has made for himself in reply, hoping to drag me down with
> him to the point where all my free time would be spent countering his
> lies.
They are examples of how you have been caught repeatedly lying. Just
because you can continue to lie about the same thing doesnt' mean that
you haven't been caught lying. What a bonehead. Not only that, but
anyone can just go to the posts and see just how bogusly you have
responded to the posts.
>
> And Ron O is probably gleeful over the way even my comparatively few
> replies and a few mentionings of Ron O in the same threads is labeled
> an "obsession" by John Harshman.
Running and pretending is sad. Why not demolish my posts instead of
running? What a bonehead. I am only responding to your posts so the
only reason that I have posted more in these threads than you is
because you run away so often. Snipping and pretending when you do
respond isn't responding honestly or adequately in anyones book.
Misdirecting the argument isn't responding honestly. Lying about what
has been presented to you is not responding honestly. I don't know
what category blaming the victims of the ID scam comes under but only
a low life would do it. Blaming the victims for being exactly what is
required of them to be IDiots supporting the ID scam is just sad. The
only IDiots left that support the ID scam are the ignorant,
incompetent, and or dishonest. Nyikos has demonstrated himself to be
all three.
>
> I've never seen the same John Harshman use the term "obsession" with
> Ron O. I once told him how Ron O is as obsessed with DI as Captain
> Ahab was with Moby Dick, and he never voiced agreement with that.
Nyikos has to make these stupid claims because he has no counter to
the bait and switch scam. Denial and lying about it about all he can
do. Beats me why he didn't think the Discovery Institute wasn't
involved to begin with, but that is Nyikos' fault and no one elses.
>
> > > In the post you see the url for above, I quote some things Behe said
> > > at Dover about which Ron O lied, repeatedly and shamelessly.
>
> And continues to lie, on the same thread, pretending my refutation of
> his "one grand lie to rule them all" never existed.
Go back to those posts and demonstrate that you refuted anything.
What a boneheaded IDiot. Running, and lying isn't rufutation of any
kind worth talking about.
These are the post Nyikos is currently running from on this topic.
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/6703b9aa27d7c037?hl=en
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/40b72b8176cceaba?hl=en
Beats me why, but if anyone wants to see how Nyikos debases himself
they can read the other posts in this thread.
>
> > > > He has snipped out the material
> > > > and hasn't responded to it, but that doesn't mean that it was never
> > > > presented to him. I again put up the Ohio example in my Feb 8th post
>
> > > What Ron O put up was a webpage which was put up by Ohioans and makes
> > > absolutely no mention of Discovery Institute having anything to do
> > > with it:
> > >http://science2.marion.ohio-state.edu/ohioscience/lesson-plans.html
>
> > And what about the other links where anyone could look up that Meyer
> > ran the bait and switch?
>
> I saw something about "teach the controversy" there, but no hint of a
> bait to one thing and a switch to another.
>
> And that continues to be true. See quote below.
Progress. So take the quotes and demonstrate that they are not
adequate instead of running away and lying about the information being
presented. How many times did you deny that I had presented the
evidence? You ran from that post since Dec and still have not
addressed the evidence, only lied about it.
You also have to remember that I put up how you could get even more
evidence because I told you how to do the Google search and I only
took the first two hits as examples. There were many more if you
don't think the first two were good enough.
What a bonehead. "Teach the controversy" is the bogus switch scam.
Have you looked up and determined how much ID science is in the switch
scam? Who is perpetrating the bait and switch instead of giving the
rubes any ID science to teach? Remember your lame excuse about
"mentioned?" Well the ID science isn't even mentioned in the switch
scam. No ID, no IC, no specified information etc.
>
> > I only had to google something like "Meyer
> > and Ohio and intelligent design" to get the two links I put up that
> > demonstrated the Discovery Institute involvement.
>
> Note the weasel word "involvement'. I've told Ron O that I want
> documentation that the DI was actually (1) *implicated* in a (2) bait
> and (3) switch that could be seen to be (4) a dishonest scam. He
> keeps posting little teasers and driblets, and pretends he has gone
> the whole nine yards.
What a bonehead. Implicated or involved it doesn't matter because the
ID perps at the Discovery Institute are the guys running the bait and
switch. Involvment isn't a weasel word. It is fact. Just get your
local school board to teach the science of intelligent design or get
some poor rube teacher to try and get some ID science to teach in
their class from the ID perps and watch how fast the bait and switch
goes down.
Nyikos knows that the bait and switch scam has gone down on 100% of
the time because there isn't a single legislator or school board or
even teacher that ever got the ID science to teach. If there were he
could put up the example, but no such example exists.
>
> > Why not go back to the post that you are running from
>
> "Running from" is not the right word to use for ignoring what I call a
> Broken.Usenet.Promise. This is my term for a dirty debating tactic,
> about which I have posted, displaying some examples from an ardent fan
> of yours.
Not responding to the post and repeatedly lying about the evidence
presented in the post when I have repeatedly posted links back to the
post in posts that you have repeatedly run from. What an IDiot when
you are just facing one such post now.
>
> And I hope to find the time to post some examples by you tomorrow, to
> the same thread:http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/browse_thread/thread/1fa9...
Why start another thread when you are running from so many posts in
your other threads?
>
> > where the links
> > were put up. Here it is again.
>
> >http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/092d106b63c89963
>
> > This is where Nyikos told me to hop to it. I did and Nyikos ran.
>
> I told Ron O to hop to something utterly different, but Ron O has
> always completely ignored that fact.
You asked for the evidence and told me to hop to it, but what did you
do? What else was worth responding to?
>
> > This posted weeks ago.
>
> > QUOTE:
>
> > > No, I do not. You provided no documentation for that.
>
> > What a IDiot. Deny it all you want. Claim that I am making it up.
> > It
> > won't change reality. What evidence do you have that the Discovery
> > Institute wasn't involved.
>
> Note that weasel word "involved" again.
Note the lame stupidity. What is the significance of "involved?" Who
is running the bait and switch? Doesn't that make them involved? I
can't understand what this type of bogus hair splitting does when
Nyikos knows who is perpetrating the bait and switch.
This is a lie. Meyer was in Ohio like I claimed. The second quote
demonstrates that he didn't give the Ohio rubes the science of I'D
only the switch scam. The links to the Ohio lesson plan tells
everyone what the switch scam is.
What more do you need? A confession by the ID perps? Why doesn't
their actions demonstrate what they have done? Have you found a
single example of anyone that wanted to teach the science of
intelligent design that got any ID science to teach. Denial doesn't
change reality. What do you think the baiit and switch is? Claim to
have the science of intelligent design to teach, but all the rubes
ever get is a stupid obfuscation "teach the controversy" scam that
doesn't even mention tht ID ever existed. Ohio was just the first
public instance of the Discovery Institute running the bait and
switch.
>
> > It turns out that Meyer had been working up the switch scam since
> > around 1999.
> >http://www.discovery.org/a/58http://www.discovery.org/a/589
>
> So this was the alleged switch, "teach the controversy"? and the bait
> was that ID is a scientific theory? There's no scam in this much, and
> I've explained why in response to your ardent fan.
Explain it to me. The Discovery Institute ran the classic bait and
switch scam. Offer the rubes one thing and only give them something
that they didn't want. The rubes wanted the science of intelligent
design, but what did they get:?
>
> > So they were planning to run the bait and switch on rubes like
> > yourself while you were still an active poster on TO. How does that
> > make you feel?
>
> This stupid use of "rubes like yourself" makes me feel like you want
> me to have no respect for you.
Who was claiming that IC was so great? Rube is just what you are.
What about the Johnson quote that admits that the ID perps never had
the science to teach? The only IDiots supporters that the ID perps
have left are the ignorant, the incompetent and or dishonest.
>
> > Is that enough evidence that the Discovery Institute has been running
> > the bait and switch since 2003?
> > END QUOTE:
>
> See below for the missing ingredient:
>
> > > And Ron O has yet to document an example of the alleged bait and
> > > switch that clearly shows that there was a scam being perpetrated.
>
> > What an abject loser. Nyikos knows what happened in Ohio
>
> No I do not. The url you gave was utterly useless. See above.
Baseless denial is the secret ingredient?
Was Meyer at Ohio talking to the state board? Yes. Did Meyer claim
to be able to teach ID in the public schools? Yes (You know how they
sold ID when you were still posting). Did he give the rubes the teach
the controversy switch scam instead of the ID science that the Ohio
rubes wanted to teach? Yes. That is the classic bait and switch
scam.
>
> TO BE CONTINUED
>
> Space provided for Ron O to accuse me of running for not answering the
> whole gargantuan post on the spot.
So your secret ingrediant is lying about running away again?
Baseless denial and lying about running doesn't seem to be much of a
secret ingredient.
Ron Okimoto
> .
> Peter Nyikos-
Ron O
> On Feb 3, 5:08 pm, pnyikos <nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>
Running and pretending.
Is the bait and switch scam less "mysterious" to Nyikos by now? The
ID perps sold the rubes the science of intelligent design, but all the
IDiot rubes ever got to teach was a bogus obfuscation scam that
doesn't even mention that ID ever existed. This is the classic bait
and switch scam. Sell the rubes one thing and only give them the
booby prize.
If the intelligent design science is "premature" why are the ID perps
still claiming that some poor teacher can teach the junk legally in
the science class? What will happen to the next school board,
legislator, or teacher that claims to be able to teach the nonexistent
science of intelligent design?
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/a/4299
By Nyikos' own reckoning ID is just a young science and the ID perps
have only had around "15 years" to establish their "premature"
science. It is just too bad that for 9 of those years the ID perps
have been running the bait and switch scam on every single IDiot rube
that has believed that they had the ID science to teach.
"In March, 2002, Meyer announced a "teach the controversy" strategy,
aimed at promoting the false idea that the theory of evolution is
controversial within scientific circles, following a presentation to
the Ohio State Board of Education."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stephen_C._Meyer
Meyer was and still is the director of the ID scam wing of the
Discovery Institute. The Ohio rubes had declared that they wanted to
teach the science of intelligent design, but Meyer ran the bait and
switch.
http://www.intelligentdesignnetwork.org/PressRelease121102.htm
The ID network is the other ID perp organization that was claiming
that there was intelligent design science to teach to school kids.
Ohio never got any ID science to teach. Anyone can check out what
they got to teach by looking up the lesson plan submitted.
http://science2.marion.ohio-state.edu/ohioscience/lesson-plans.html
Both ID perp organizations participated in perpetrating the bait and
switch on Ohio.
This has nothing to do with "mandate." You have to have the science
to teach for that to matter and even Nyikos admitted (after weeks of
running) that the ID science is "premature." So he knows that the
bait and switch has been going down on every single IDiot rube that
believed the ID claptrap and tried to teach the junk for the last 9
years. By Nyikos' reckoning this is over half the 15 year time that
the ID perps have been seriously working on the ID scam. The majority
of their efforts has been in running the bait and switch.
It is sad that there can be any IDiots left to support the bogus ID
perps, but Nyikos wants to debase himself as a rube for life.
Nyikos knows that even the top leaders of the ID scam knew that the ID
science was never there to teach. Nyikos is somehow deluding himself
into believing that he can support the "premature" science and the
bait and switch without dealing with any of the obvious consequences.
No one can claim any type of relevance of junk like IC or specified
information when the guys that sold them the lame junk won't support
it when they have to. It is just a fact that the bait and switch has
gone down 100% of the time. The ID perps even tried to run the bait
and switch on the Dover rubes, but they already were bent on testing
ID in the courts and had their own layers, and the rest is history.
This is Philip Johnson. The other ID perps called him the godfather
of the ID scam for his efforts in getting the ID scam rolling in the
early 1990s. After the ID defeat in Dover Johnson came out and
admitted that the intelligent design science wasn't there to teach.
He didn't take any blame for running the bogus scam for over a decade
or apologize for running the bait and switch scam for over three years
at the time he made this statement. He just points the finger at guys
like Meyer, Dembski and Behe for never coming up with the ID science
worth teaching. Sad but true.
QUOTE:
I also don’t think that there is really a theory of intelligent design
at the present time to propose as a comparable alternative to the
Darwinian theory, which is, whatever errors it might contain, a fully
worked out scheme. There is no intelligent design theory that’s
comparable. Working out a positive theory is the job of the scientific
people that we have affiliated with the movement. Some of them are
quite convinced that it’s doable, but that’s for them to prove…No
product is ready for competition in the educational world.
END QUOTE:
http://sciencereview.berkeley.edu/articles.php?issue=10&article=evolution
This means that even the top level ID perps understood that they were
running a bogus scam. You can't claim to be able to teach the science
of intelligent design if you don't have the science to teach. The
only IDiots left that still support the bogus intelligent design scam
are the ignorant, incompetent and or dishonest. Nyikos has
demonstrated that he is all three rolled into one in the three threads
that he debased himself in, in order to try to defend the ID scam.
Beats me why anyone would be stupid enough to do that when the ID
perps are likely laughing behind their backs.
You can't make this junk up. Just check out these three threads if
you don't believe that it could happen.
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/browse_frm/thread/949b80db368cbdf6?hl=en#
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/browse_frm/thread/159a1fb9abc58d9e?hl=en#
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/browse_frm/thread/c60cb1344526ce96?hl=en#
Ron Okimoto
pnyikos
> On Feb 24, 7:58 pm, pnyikos <nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Feb 24, 8:32 pm, RAM <ramather...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Feb 16, 5:42 pm, pnyikos <nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>
> > > > On Feb 7, 10:11 pm, RAM <ramather...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > On Feb 7, 5:13 pm, pnyikos <nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> > > > > > Dana is shackling himself to Bill and to Ron O. folks. Let's see what
> > > > > > he can do for the threesome.
And RAM has shackled himself to Ron O. too.
> > > > > > Tweedy of running a baitand switch scam. As it is, he is just
> > > > > > another one of a long line of people who seems to have no clue as to
> > > > > > what IC is all about.
The jury is still out on RAM, unlike Dana, who knew how to cut his
losses and run.
RAM stopped hiding behind an alias, but he still gloats below because
he knows how outnumbered I am.
> > > > >and Ray, the only true
> > > > > Christian make a Mutt and Jeff routine that could make TO history if
> > > > > it lasts longer than a week.
>
> > > > Not only pusillanimous but also supercilious.
>
> > > Don't be so hard on yourself.
>
> > Pee Wee Hermanism by "RAM" noted.
>
> And I so enjoyed him.
I found him a bore. Droopy and Foghorn Leghorn are my two favorite
comedic characters, for essentially opposite reasons. Ron O, for whom
you are a shill, reminds me of the latter, except that he isn't
funny. He's sounding more and more like a madman on the 530+ post
thread that he insists on prolonging, probably because Google does
inconvenient things with threads that are even half that long.
If you would like to shill for him on that thread, here is a link to a
recent post there.
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/a54a346e686b1d41
> > > You have no scientific theory of ID and panspermia
> > > is not perforce
> > > evidence for even a nonscientific theory of ID
>
> > Not the Arrhenius variety, but the Crick variety makes ID on at least
> > a modest scale highly plausible.
>
> Only for the highly gullible who can't see bait and switches.
It is the highly gullible like you who can't document them. Perhaps
because they do not exist.
> > > Richard A. Mathers
>
> > Thanks for telling us your name. Do you also have the guts to tell us
> > what your line of work is, and where you work?
>
> Of course, a retired sociologists from Western Illinois University.
How singular.
And how plural.
That's your level of repartee, isn't it?
RAM
> On Feb 24, 9:19 pm, RAM <ramather...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Feb 24, 7:58 pm, pnyikos <nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>
> > > On Feb 24, 8:32 pm, RAM <ramather...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > On Feb 16, 5:42 pm, pnyikos <nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>
> > > > > On Feb 7, 10:11 pm, RAM <ramather...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > On Feb 7, 5:13 pm, pnyikos <nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> > > > > > > Dana is shackling himself to Bill and to Ron O. folks. Let's see what
> > > > > > > he can do for the threesome.
>
> And RAM has shackled himself to Ron O. too.
Trolling and attempted poke noted. I am shackled to the obvious truth
about DI's ID scam.
> recent post there.http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/a54a346e686b1d41
>
> > > > You have no scientific theory of ID and panspermia
> > > > is not perforce
> > > > evidence for even a nonscientific theory of ID
>
> > > Not the Arrhenius variety, but the Crick variety makes ID on at least
> > > a modest scale highly plausible.
>
> > Only for the highly gullible who can't see bait and switches.
>
> It is the highly gullible like you who can't document them. Perhaps
> because they do not exist.
>
> > > > Richard A. Mathers
>
> > > Thanks for telling us your name. Do you also have the guts to tell us
> > > what your line of work is, and where you work?
>
> > Of course, a retired sociologists from Western Illinois University.
>
> How singular.
>
> And how plural.
>
> That's your level of repartee, isn't it?
I make many spelling mistakes. This is the best poke you can offer.
Indeed the whole post is designed to reveal how put upon you are.
Just think it may be true and well deserved.
If I wanted to promote ID as reasonable for scientists to consider I
would come with train loads of evidence. Instead from you we get a
ship loads of conjecture and no solid ground to build it upon. Your
pitiful attempts don't even have sand to build the ID castle.
Poke. Poke.
Again this post is filled with obnoxious trolling. Your feelings must
be hurt by being poke with the truth?