test ignorance

[*Hemidactylus*]

I am testing my ignorance. Please ignore. Yeah right. Here goes nothing.

[*Hemidactylus*]

*Hemidactylus* <ecph...@allspamis.invalid> wrote:
>
>
> I am testing my ignorance. Please ignore. Yeah right. Here goes nothing.

Sweet I ain't too stupid that posting on a frickin postage stamp is beyond
my capacity. When the Sumerians were using cuneiform to inform us how the
ancient lizards from Niburu were a hot topic they did not anticipate I
would be tapping this to usenet on my phone. Hey Richard Norman, you might
have temporarily been ahead of the curve here with your Android newsreader
but I have caught up to your tech nerdiness. You have been warned. I wonder
how my access to the never ending 1000+ Dr Dr threads will improve vs
Gurgle Groups. Might break my phone. Can I get comoensation (yeah that word
looks awful) if so?

Now I'm not tethered to home network.

[rsNorman]

*Hemidactylus* <ecph...@allspamis.invalid> Wrote in message:

The real problem is that my new Samsung devices, phone and tablet,
do not have a menu button and the workaround, holding down the
"return" or "back" button only works with specific apps made to
recognize that change. Groundhog does not even let me respond
nor can I view history -- once I read a post it then disappears
forever. This app I am now using also makes it very difficult to
review the history. Furthermore it is almost impossible to cut
and paste between "windows" to give references or quote
passages.

So for any "real" posts where I actually have to think about what
I am doing and research information I have to crank up my old
actual computer. It runs Windows 7 so it isn't that ancient.
But sometimes I think it might be better to get my CP/M system
out of the garage and crank it up, except "modern" machines no
longer even have serial ports and I would have to search for a
monitor emulator program.

--


----Android NewsGroup Reader----
http://usenet.sinaapp.com/

[Glenn]

"rsNorman" <r_s_n...@comcast.net> wrote in message news:nurfnk$730$1...@dont-email.me...

> *Hemidactylus* <ecph...@allspamis.invalid> Wrote in message:
>> *Hemidactylus* <ecph...@allspamis.invalid> wrote:

snip off topic garbage

Recent comments here proclaiming ID as being "dead" inspired the posting of this:

"Does evolutionary theory need a rethink? Yes, urgently"
http://www.discovery.org/f/1453

[Bob Casanova]

On Thu, 27 Oct 2016 07:55:02 -0700, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by "Glenn" <g...@invalid.invalid>:

And since "if it's on the Internet it must be true", be sure
to check out:

http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/home/
--

Bob C.

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

- Isaac Asimov

[Peter Nyikos]

On Thursday, October 27, 2016 at 12:25:03 PM UTC-4, Bob Casanova wrote:
> On Thu, 27 Oct 2016 07:55:02 -0700, the following appeared
> in talk.origins, posted by "Glenn" <g...@invalid.invalid>:
>
> >
> >"rsNorman" <r_s_n...@comcast.net> wrote in message news:nurfnk$730$1...@dont-email.me...
> >> *Hemidactylus* <ecph...@allspamis.invalid> Wrote in message:
> >>> *Hemidactylus* <ecph...@allspamis.invalid> wrote:
> >
> >snip off topic garbage
> >
> >Recent comments here proclaiming ID as being "dead" inspired the posting of this:
> >
> >"Does evolutionary theory need a rethink? Yes, urgently"
> >http://www.discovery.org/f/1453
>
> And since "if it's on the Internet it must be true",

Straw man noted.

> be sure
> to check out:
>
> http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/home/

Is this going to be typical of your "rebuttals" from now on? If
so, it will eliminate an enormous amount of time spent in
dealing with your treatment of on-topic posts. It will be a welcome
contrast to the way you kept ducking
a question posed to you by Glenn in discussion about the ape
*Proconsul* and your two-faced treatment of him that I
recounted to Harshman when he belatedly entered the debate:


Just a few minutes ago, Bob did his own reply to Glenn's post and
tried to be civil to Glenn, thereby creating a new sub-thread.
It's a stunning contrast to Bob's earlier behavior, which had
degenerated into accusing Glenn of one "puke" after another,
for having said essentially the same things Glenn said this time
around.

https://groups.google.com/d/msg/talk.origins/K5ub9WU94Nc/iQjeHzAhCAAJ
Message-ID: <a5e0a8e2-ba99-4363...@googlegroups.com>
Subject: Re: Question about Peter Nyikos
Date: Thu, 29 Oct 2015 10:22:33 -0700 (PDT)

I quoted this to you on the original Subject: line, continuing with:

Harshman was sufficiently concerned over this to come to your rescue
on this thread. So you may safely retire to lick your wounds while
Harshman pinch-hits for you -- by carefully ignoring what I've written
to and about you.

https://groups.google.com/d/msg/talk.origins/rehTL2kf_jU/OToyw7wnCAAJ
Message-ID: <76250fe6-8dd9-4d99...@googlegroups.com>
Subject: Re: Did we come from monkeys?
Date: Thu, 29 Oct 2015 12:24:55 -0700 (PDT)

Later, you gave Harshman a completely distorted account of what had
gone on between you and me and Glenn, on that same thread, and he
went right on being completely uninterested in the truth about that.

What had happened between you and me was me criticizing the artist's
incompetent "reproduction" of *Proconsul* in Wikipedia, and you
sticking to your incompetent guns about it being a good reproduction.

I expect you to confuse the issue by portraying this as being
an exposition on your ignorance of details of human evolution,
rather than your insufferable behavior towards Glenn and sometimes
condescending attitude towards me in on-topic discussion.

Your condescending attitude towards me has skyrocketed during this
past week, but that's irrelevant to the way you treated a strictly
on-topic discussion back then.

Like I said, I hope you stick to knocking down straw me from here
on in when dealing with on-topic issues.

Peter Nyikos
Professor, Dept. of Mathematics -- standard disclaimer--
University of South Carolina
http://people.math.sc.edu/nyikos/

[Peter Nyikos]

On Thursday, October 27, 2016 at 11:00:02 AM UTC-4, Glenn wrote:
> "rsNorman" <r_s_n...@comcast.net> wrote in message news:nurfnk$730$1@dont-email.\

me...
> > *Hemidactylus* <ecph...@allspamis.invalid> Wrote in message:
> >> *Hemidactylus* <ecph...@allspamis.invalid> wrote:
>
> snip off topic garbage

Not just off topic, where Hemidactylus is concerned, but reminiscent of the
mentally unstable babble of Thrinaxodon at its worst.

> Recent comments here proclaiming ID as being "dead" inspired the posting of this:
>
> "Does evolutionary theory need a rethink? Yes, urgently"
> http://www.discovery.org/f/1453

Yes, critics are maintaining their usual head in the sand attitude
towards much of what is in the webpage that you've linked.

However, it is not without faults. It claims, for example,

When ID researchers find irreducible complexity in biology,
they conclude that such structures were desiged.

Michael Behe, the originator of the theory of IC in its modern form
[each and every part indispensable towards a clearly identified function]
never jumped to such a stupid conclusion. If the structure is sufficiently
complex in the usual sense of "complex," then competent ID researchers adopt
design as their working hypothesis, but that's all.

I'm sure others here could find other weaknesses in this document,
but I doubt that they will make the effort. It's much more fun for
most of them to knock down straw men, as Bob Casanova did.

Peter Nyikos
Professor, Dept. of Mathematics -- standard disclaimer--
University of South Carolina
http://people.math.sc.edu/nyikos/

PS I made a cute typo near the end of my reply to Bob, talking
about "knocking down straw me". But what goes on in many of his
replies to me, does consist of knocking down a straw man rather
than trying to knock me down, so there is a grain of truth in the typo.

[jillery]

On Thu, 27 Oct 2016 09:59:01 -0700 (PDT), Peter Nyikos
<nyi...@bellsouth.net> wrote:

>On Thursday, October 27, 2016 at 12:25:03 PM UTC-4, Bob Casanova wrote:
>> On Thu, 27 Oct 2016 07:55:02 -0700, the following appeared
>> in talk.origins, posted by "Glenn" <g...@invalid.invalid>:
>>
>> >
>> >"rsNorman" <r_s_n...@comcast.net> wrote in message news:nurfnk$730$1...@dont-email.me...
>> >> *Hemidactylus* <ecph...@allspamis.invalid> Wrote in message:
>> >>> *Hemidactylus* <ecph...@allspamis.invalid> wrote:
>> >
>> >snip off topic garbage
>> >
>> >Recent comments here proclaiming ID as being "dead" inspired the posting of this:
>> >
>> >"Does evolutionary theory need a rethink? Yes, urgently"
>> >http://www.discovery.org/f/1453
>>
>> And since "if it's on the Internet it must be true",
>
>Straw man noted.

Right here would have been a good place for you to explain how the
above qualifies as a straw man, since neither you nor Glenn bothered
to say which part(s) of Glenn's cite he's referring to and/or agrees
with.

>> be sure
>> to check out:
>>
>> http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/home/
>
>Is this going to be typical of your "rebuttals" from now on?

To quote Glenn, "snip off topic garbage".
You never learn.
--
This space is intentionally not blank.

[jillery]

On Thu, 27 Oct 2016 07:55:02 -0700, "Glenn" <g...@invalid.invalid>
wrote:

It's no surprise that your cited article doesn't even ask your quoted
question, nevermind answer it, nevermind the way you claim it does.

[*Hemidactylus*]

32 page packet for educators with no relevant summary provided by you? Are
you capable of forming more than one coherent sentence in your own words?
Give me some reasons I should read this propaganda you linked.

[*Hemidactylus*]

Peter Nyikos <nyi...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> On Thursday, October 27, 2016 at 11:00:02 AM UTC-4, Glenn wrote:

>> "rsNorman" <r_s_n...@comcast.net> wrote in message news:nurfnk$730$1...@dont-email.me...
>>> *Hemidactylus* <ecph...@allspamis.invalid> Wrote in message:
>>>> *Hemidactylus* <ecph...@allspamis.invalid> wrote:
>>
>> snip off topic garbage
>

> Not just off topic, but reminiscent of the mentally unstable babble

> of Thrinaxodon at its worst.

And here we go again. Glenn posts a link without expounding cogently in his
own words the what and why and you go on to drag your views on others into
the mix. Hasn't this 'crazy Hemi' comparison to Thrinaxodon been overplayed
by you? You continue to beat that drum. One of your never ceasing tropes.

[marked snip]

[Peter Nyikos]

On Thursday, October 27, 2016 at 6:10:02 PM UTC-4, *Hemidactylus* wrote:
> Peter Nyikos <nyi...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> > On Thursday, October 27, 2016 at 11:00:02 AM UTC-4, Glenn wrote:
> >> "rsNorman" <r_s_n...@comcast.net> wrote in message news:nurfnk$730$1...@dont-email.me...
> >>> *Hemidactylus* <ecph...@allspamis.invalid> Wrote in message:
> >>>> *Hemidactylus* <ecph...@allspamis.invalid> wrote:
> >>
> >> snip off topic garbage
> >
> > Not just off topic, but reminiscent of the mentally unstable babble
> > of Thrinaxodon at its worst.
>
> And here we go again. Glenn posts a link without expounding cogently in his
> own words the what and why

You obviously didn't recognize it. It's been THE big central exposition
of the DI (Discovery Institute) for something like a decade by now, with minor
changes over the years.

Ron O could tell you more about its history, because it is the one to which
he posted links year after year, several times in some years, in support of
his maniacal hatred of the DI. It is centered around a bait and switch
scam by Ron O which alleges a bait and switch scam by the DI.

In fact, did you even LOOK at it? Its contents should be familiar to most
people here, but hardly anyone ever tries to really refute its actual
contents. I wouldn't be surprised if my criticism of it, which you snipped,
was the first one in talk.origins all year.

> and you go on to drag your views on others into
> the mix. Hasn't this 'crazy Hemi' comparison to Thrinaxodon been overplayed
> by you? You continue to beat that drum. One of your never ceasing tropes.

And why not? It's one which you never try to rebut.

Wouldn't you be the first to sneer if I were to talk about DISHONEST
claims about me being repeated in never ceasing tropes? especially
if I were to use that talk to create doubts about their veracity?

But you treat it that way, and in this way you reveal that you
haven't lost all of your "dumb as a fox" cunning.

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

http://www.math.sc.edu/~nyikos/

[Peter Nyikos]

On Thursday, October 27, 2016 at 1:50:02 PM UTC-4, jillery wrote:
> On Thu, 27 Oct 2016 09:59:01 -0700 (PDT), Peter Nyikos
> <nyi...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>
> >On Thursday, October 27, 2016 at 12:25:03 PM UTC-4, Bob Casanova wrote:
> >> On Thu, 27 Oct 2016 07:55:02 -0700, the following appeared
> >> in talk.origins, posted by "Glenn" <g...@invalid.invalid>:
> >>
> >> >
> >> >"rsNorman" <r_s_n...@comcast.net> wrote in message news:nurfnk$730$1...@dont-email.me...
> >> >> *Hemidactylus* <ecph...@allspamis.invalid> Wrote in message:
> >> >>> *Hemidactylus* <ecph...@allspamis.invalid> wrote:
> >> >
> >> >snip off topic garbage
> >> >
> >> >Recent comments here proclaiming ID as being "dead" inspired the posting of this:
> >> >
> >> >"Does evolutionary theory need a rethink? Yes, urgently"
> >> >http://www.discovery.org/f/1453
> >>
> >> And since "if it's on the Internet it must be true",
> >
> >Straw man noted.
>
>
> Right here would have been a good place for you to explain how the
> above qualifies as a straw man,

Since nothing even remotely like what Casanova attributed to Glenn
appears either in Glenn's words or in the DI website that Glenn
linked, you are just making a fool of yourself out of blind loyalty
to Casanova.

That blind loyalty is reciprocated by Casanova, as becomes clear from
a post I did analyzing how he compromised his integrity on your
behalf:

https://groups.google.com/d/msg/talk.origins/5x6bIkuMzBw/XIwUv9f0CAAJ
Subject: Re: Quote from Jillery "This NG is not about Evolution in general"
Date: Thu, 27 Oct 2016 10:07:01 -0700 (PDT)
Message-ID: <122fd9b9-a650-44c5...@googlegroups.com>

You and Casanova make quite a tag team: he hasn't replied yet
to that post, and perhaps never will, but you promptly replied to it,
snipping all but a tiny part of it, leaving out all the incriminating
parts, and made surrealistic comments on it.

On the other hand, on the thread where Bob had actually compromised
his integrity for you, it was because you were on the hot seat,
as anyone bothering to look at the above linked post can see.

> since neither you nor Glenn bothered
> to say which part(s) of Glenn's cite he's referring to and/or agrees
> with.

This is downright surreal. Are you trying to create the impression
that Bob wrote something besides what we've kept of his words here,
and his .sig?

It's up to him to bail you out by telling us that he WAS referring
to something specific, but I think that would stretch even his
skills at polemic and propaganda to the breaking point.

Unless he surprises us all by doing that, we've just seen
another demonstration, by you, of the tag team in action.

>
> >> be sure
> >> to check out:
> >>
> >> http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/home/
> >
> >Is this going to be typical of your "rebuttals" from now on?
>
>
> To quote Glenn, "snip off topic garbage".
> You never learn.

You never tell us what I'm supposed to learn. If you did, this
bot of yours would reveal you for the troll that you are whenever
you post it.

On top of which, the following excerpt that you snipped is very
much on topic for talk.origins:

https://groups.google.com/d/msg/talk.origins/rehTL2kf_jU/OToyw7wnCAAJ
Message-ID: <76250fe6-8dd9-4d99...@googlegroups.com>
Subject: Re: Did we come from monkeys?
Date: Thu, 29 Oct 2015 12:24:55 -0700 (PDT)

[...]

What had happened between you and me was me criticizing the artist's
incompetent "reproduction" of *Proconsul* in Wikipedia, and you
sticking to your incompetent guns about it being a good reproduction.

____________end of repost________________________

In case you didn't know, *Proconsul* has sometimes been hypothesized to
be ancestral to *Homo sapiens*, or at least close enough to be very
similar to an actual ancestor of the time. But it wasn't even close
to looking like that amateur artist's "reconstruction." [That's a
more apt word than "reproduction," btw.]

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

[jillery]

On Thu, 27 Oct 2016 16:45:34 -0700 (PDT), Peter Nyikos

<nyi...@bellsouth.net> wrote:

>On Thursday, October 27, 2016 at 1:50:02 PM UTC-4, jillery wrote:
>> On Thu, 27 Oct 2016 09:59:01 -0700 (PDT), Peter Nyikos
>> <nyi...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>>
>> >On Thursday, October 27, 2016 at 12:25:03 PM UTC-4, Bob Casanova wrote:
>> >> On Thu, 27 Oct 2016 07:55:02 -0700, the following appeared
>> >> in talk.origins, posted by "Glenn" <g...@invalid.invalid>:
>> >>
>> >> >
>> >> >"rsNorman" <r_s_n...@comcast.net> wrote in message news:nurfnk$730$1...@dont-email.me...
>> >> >> *Hemidactylus* <ecph...@allspamis.invalid> Wrote in message:
>> >> >>> *Hemidactylus* <ecph...@allspamis.invalid> wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> >snip off topic garbage
>> >> >
>> >> >Recent comments here proclaiming ID as being "dead" inspired the posting of this:
>> >> >
>> >> >"Does evolutionary theory need a rethink? Yes, urgently"
>> >> >http://www.discovery.org/f/1453
>> >>
>> >> And since "if it's on the Internet it must be true",
>> >
>> >Straw man noted.
>>
>>
>> Right here would have been a good place for you to explain how the
>> above qualifies as a straw man,
>
>Since nothing even remotely like what Casanova attributed to Glenn
>appears either in Glenn's words or in the DI website that Glenn
>linked, you are just making a fool of yourself out of blind loyalty
>to Casanova.

Since nothing even remotely like what Glenn posted has anything to do
with what Glenn cited, it's Glenn who smells of straw.

So do you think Glenn's cite isn't on the Internet? Or do you think
Glenn's cite isn't true? Or both? Enquiring minds want know.

>> To quote Glenn, "snip off topic garbage".
>> You never learn.

Still works for this iteration of your puckered sphincter spew.
You never learn.

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

Apparently you're still neglecting your students and your faculty
duties along with your alleged "rough spell". One can only wonder
why.

[*Hemidactylus*]

Peter Nyikos <nyi...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> On Thursday, October 27, 2016 at 6:10:02 PM UTC-4, *Hemidactylus* wrote:
>> Peter Nyikos <nyi...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>>> On Thursday, October 27, 2016 at 11:00:02 AM UTC-4, Glenn wrote:
>>>> "rsNorman" <r_s_n...@comcast.net> wrote in message news:nurfnk$730$1...@dont-email.me...
>>>>> *Hemidactylus* <ecph...@allspamis.invalid> Wrote in message:
>>>>>> *Hemidactylus* <ecph...@allspamis.invalid> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> snip off topic garbage
>>>
>>> Not just off topic, but reminiscent of the mentally unstable babble
>>> of Thrinaxodon at its worst.
>>
>> And here we go again. Glenn posts a link without expounding cogently in his
>> own words the what and why
>
> You obviously didn't recognize it. It's been THE big central exposition
> of the DI (Discovery Institute) for something like a decade by now, with minor
> changes over the years.

But Glenn posted the link in case you missed my point. Must we read 32
pages to divine his intent? And the machinations in that document are
obvious. We aren't creationists. ID implies nothing supernatural at all. It
is scientific because we say so. ID shouldn't be mandated but if a teacher
or school system wants to "teach the controversy" that suits us as we can
surreptitiously god gap our untenable belief system as historically
accepted default position arrived at by superstition and overactive
imagination. But it ain't really about god or our religious belief. We are
merely criticizing evolution as natural selection as neo-Darwinism is
hoodwinking the children into blind obedience to the Borgish "Darwin Lobby"
agenda. Such total bullshit.

> Ron O could tell you more about its history, because it is the one to which
> he posted links year after year, several times in some years, in support of
> his maniacal hatred of the DI. It is centered around a bait and switch
> scam by Ron O which alleges a bait and switch scam by the DI.
>
> In fact, did you even LOOK at it? Its contents should be familiar to most
> people here, but hardly anyone ever tries to really refute its actual
> contents. I wouldn't be surprised if my criticism of it, which you snipped,
> was the first one in talk.origins all year.

My point which whooshed a part through your hair is as he typically does
Glenn posts something lacking creative content on his part.

>> and you go on to drag your views on others into
>> the mix. Hasn't this 'crazy Hemi' comparison to Thrinaxodon been overplayed
>> by you? You continue to beat that drum. One of your never ceasing tropes.
>
> And why not? It's one which you never try to rebut.
>
> Wouldn't you be the first to sneer if I were to talk about DISHONEST
> claims about me being repeated in never ceasing tropes? especially
> if I were to use that talk to create doubts about their veracity?
>
> But you treat it that way, and in this way you reveal that you
> haven't lost all of your "dumb as a fox" cunning.

Whatever. You're not a closet creationist. You really aren't. The dovetail
between your directed panspermy, IC, and ID is mere illusion as is your
defensiveness toward Behe. Don't see that at all.

[Glenn]

"*Hemidactylus*" <ecph...@allspamis.invalid> wrote in message news:_5qdnV5sJOh3B4_F...@giganews.com...

> Peter Nyikos <nyi...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>> On Thursday, October 27, 2016 at 6:10:02 PM UTC-4, *Hemidactylus* wrote:
>>> Peter Nyikos <nyi...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>>>> On Thursday, October 27, 2016 at 11:00:02 AM UTC-4, Glenn wrote:
>>>>> "rsNorman" <r_s_n...@comcast.net> wrote in message news:nurfnk$730$1...@dont-email.me...
>>>>>> *Hemidactylus* <ecph...@allspamis.invalid> Wrote in message:
>>>>>>> *Hemidactylus* <ecph...@allspamis.invalid> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> snip off topic garbage
>>>>
>>>> Not just off topic, but reminiscent of the mentally unstable babble
>>>> of Thrinaxodon at its worst.
>>>
>>> And here we go again. Glenn posts a link without expounding cogently in his
>>> own words the what and why
>>
>> You obviously didn't recognize it. It's been THE big central exposition
>> of the DI (Discovery Institute) for something like a decade by now, with minor
>> changes over the years.
>
> But Glenn posted the link in case you missed my point. Must we read 32
> pages to divine his intent?

Divine your own intent.

[Glenn]

"jillery" <69jp...@gmail.com> wrote in message news:r1651c9ap61kof1kk...@4ax.com...

What do you know of Peter's duties to make these claims of neglect, "Jillery"?

[jillery]

On Thu, 27 Oct 2016 23:05:48 -0700, "Glenn" <g...@invalid.invalid>
wrote:

>
>"*Hemidactylus*" <ecph...@allspamis.invalid> wrote in message news:_5qdnV5sJOh3B4_F...@giganews.com...
>> Peter Nyikos <nyi...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>>> On Thursday, October 27, 2016 at 6:10:02 PM UTC-4, *Hemidactylus* wrote:
>>>> Peter Nyikos <nyi...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>>>>> On Thursday, October 27, 2016 at 11:00:02 AM UTC-4, Glenn wrote:
>>>>>> "rsNorman" <r_s_n...@comcast.net> wrote in message news:nurfnk$730$1...@dont-email.me...
>>>>>>> *Hemidactylus* <ecph...@allspamis.invalid> Wrote in message:
>>>>>>>> *Hemidactylus* <ecph...@allspamis.invalid> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> snip off topic garbage
>>>>>
>>>>> Not just off topic, but reminiscent of the mentally unstable babble
>>>>> of Thrinaxodon at its worst.
>>>>
>>>> And here we go again. Glenn posts a link without expounding cogently in his
>>>> own words the what and why
>>>
>>> You obviously didn't recognize it. It's been THE big central exposition
>>> of the DI (Discovery Institute) for something like a decade by now, with minor
>>> changes over the years.
>>
>> But Glenn posted the link in case you missed my point. Must we read 32
>> pages to divine his intent?
>
>Divine your own intent.

Since you don't express your intent, your readers are forced to divine
your intent in order to post a responsive and relevant reply.

OTOH since it bothers you that others divine your intent, however
inaccurately, then you should at least make some effort to state your
intent, however incoherently.

OTGH you wilfully refuse to explain yourself, and/or back up your
claims, even when explicitly requested to do so. Apparently,
responsive and relevant replies are not on your list of priorities.

And in an effort to return this thread back to your post with your
link, your cited article says nothing about what you say it says. So
one can only wonder why you even bothered to post it.

Just sayin'.

You're welcome.

[jillery]

On Thu, 27 Oct 2016 23:08:20 -0700, "Glenn" <g...@invalid.invalid>
wrote:

I note your failure to back up your claims about your own link. Your
expressed interest in your strange bedfellow's job failed to cover up
your evasion.

But since you asked so nicely, I provide an answer in kind, which is
more than you do. I use the same weasel-word trick your strange
bedfellow uses to post his Big Lies about me. Your claims to the
contrary, I made no "claims of neglect", but only of the appearance of
neglect. And what I "know" of your strange bedfellow's duties is
based on his references to them, usually for the express purpose of
excusing his occasional long delayed replies, incoherent replies, and
outright failures to reply.

HTH but I seriously doubt it.

[Burkhard]

Bob Casanova wrote:
> On Thu, 27 Oct 2016 07:55:02 -0700, the following appeared
> in talk.origins, posted by "Glenn" <g...@invalid.invalid>:
>
>>
>> "rsNorman" <r_s_n...@comcast.net> wrote in message news:nurfnk$730$1...@dont-email.me...
>>> *Hemidactylus* <ecph...@allspamis.invalid> Wrote in message:
>>>> *Hemidactylus* <ecph...@allspamis.invalid> wrote:
>>
>> snip off topic garbage
>>
>> Recent comments here proclaiming ID as being "dead" inspired the posting of this:
>>
>> "Does evolutionary theory need a rethink? Yes, urgently"
>> http://www.discovery.org/f/1453
>
> And since "if it's on the Internet it must be true",

I thought it is an excellent data point for the contention that ID is
indeed dead as a dodo, don't you think?

I mean, according to the document, Intelligent Design hasn't succeeded
since Dover to identify even for a single biological trait who designed
it in what way, when and for what purpose. And it remains just as stale
on the theoretical side, not having improved its theoretical vocabulary,
methodology etc by just one bit.

By contrast, the picture the document paints for evolutionary biology is
that of a very much alive and highly productive research field where new
ideas, concepts, methods etc are developed to address more and more of
these questions all the time, and then are vigorously tested and
adversarially debated for their respective merits amongst biologists, as
they should be.

[*Hemidactylus*]

Not quite. ID is dead in the water but doesn't stop them from marching out
their hobby horses in Part 9: mutations bad, cellular machinery
unevolvable, no transitional forms, messy tree of life, abiogenesis
unsolved, icons worshipped like Haeckel's embryos...they focus almost
exclusively upon evolution via selection because mutations bad...

If you undercut evolution, cherished traditional beliefs remain to take its
place but of course that's not stated overtly because they're not
creationists and that would violate establishment clause. Just teach the
controversy and the rest falls into place on its own. What sophistry.

[RonO]

Poor Glenn, my guess is that he doesn't even know which way is up at
this time in his life. The only reason that "this" still exists is
because some IDiots like Glenn want to be lied to.

"This" is a stupid and dishonest propaganda piece written by Luskin in
2007 (after Phillip Johnson quit the ID scam in 2006 and admitted that
the ID science did not exist and that teaching the ID scam junk in the
public schools likely was not the way to go). It was modified in 2009
and West seems to have revamped it in 2015 after Luskin quit or was
fired from the ID scam unit (Luskin left to pursue other things and has
anyone heard about him again?). The stupid thing is that it is like the
left hand doesn't know what the right hand is doing in the ID scam at
this time. The bait and switch has been going down for nearly a decade
and a half at this time and no legislator or school board has ever
gotten the promised ID science to teach. All they get is a switch scam
that doesn't mention that ID ever existed.

It is like the ID perps are the keystone cops of IDiocy. In 2013 the ID
scam unit of the Discovery Institute changed their education policy to
better reflect reality and removed the claim that they had a scientific
theory of ID to teach in the public schools from that policy. They ran
the bait and switch on the Texas and Louisiana rubes that same year, and
the poor Texas and Louisiana rubes likely wrote up their IDiot textbook
supplements before the policy change. No other IDiots have been stupid
enough to try to implement the switch scam/ID scam since the double bait
and switch on Texas and Louisiana over 3 years ago.

http://www.discovery.org/a/3164

Now in 2015 the ID perps revamped the propaganda, but they forgot to
change the education policy statement in "this" worthless piece of junk.
They have retained the old policy statement that they had in the 2009
version. The old education policy statement is still on page 15.
Anyone can compare it to the newer policy statement to confirm that they
deleted the paragraph that stated that they had a scientific theory of
ID to teach. None of the current reality is reflected in this old piece
of junk. Who believes that there is anything for a teacher to teach
about ID in the public schools? What has happened in every single case
since the bait and switch started in 2002? Why hasn't the ID science
ever shown up? What do the rubes like Glenn get instead of any ID
science? These facts are not going to change. No matter what is
written in "this" piece of IDiot stupidity the bait and switch will
still go down on the next set of IDiot rubes stupid enough to believe it.

Ron Okimoto

[Burkhard]

Yes, but that's what I said. Not a single result of "ID Theory" to start
with. And then a misunderstanding of open research questions and ongoing
debate (a sign for any research field that it is alive).

Now, they "think" of course that their document bolsters the ID case,
but it does just the opposite.

OK, you could maybe say they are not dead as dodos, more like zombies -
they haven't understood quite yet themselves that they are dead, due to
a lack of brain. Which then causes them to utter long "aaaaarghs" like
the document, which only reinforces their zombie state in the eyes of
informed observers

[Glenn]

"RonO" <roki...@cox.net> wrote in message news:nuvd8s$mu3$1...@dont-email.me...

Apparently they are all dead rubes.

[Glenn]

"Burkhard" <b.sc...@ed.ac.uk> wrote in message news:nuve46$q7b$1...@dont-email.me...

There you are.

[Peter Nyikos]

On Thursday, October 27, 2016 at 8:30:02 PM UTC-4, *Hemidactylus* wrote:
> Peter Nyikos <nyi...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> > On Thursday, October 27, 2016 at 6:10:02 PM UTC-4, *Hemidactylus* wrote:
> >> Peter Nyikos <nyi...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> >>> On Thursday, October 27, 2016 at 11:00:02 AM UTC-4, Glenn wrote:
> >>>> "rsNorman" <r_s_n...@comcast.net> wrote in message news:nurfnk$730$1...@dont-email.me...
> >>>>> *Hemidactylus* <ecph...@allspamis.invalid> Wrote in message:
> >>>>>> *Hemidactylus* <ecph...@allspamis.invalid> wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>> snip off topic garbage
> >>>
> >>> Not just off topic, but reminiscent of the mentally unstable babble
> >>> of Thrinaxodon at its worst.
> >>
> >> And here we go again. Glenn posts a link without expounding cogently in his
> >> own words the what and why
> >
> > You obviously didn't recognize it. It's been THE big central exposition
> > of the DI (Discovery Institute) for something like a decade by now, with minor
> > changes over the years.
>
> But Glenn posted the link in case you missed my point. Must we read 32
> pages to divine his intent?

Since when are you interested about Glenn's intent about ANYTHING?

> And the machinations in that document are
> obvious.

You do not make a credible case for that below.

> We aren't creationists. ID implies nothing supernatural at all.

Crikey, are you this dense? Intelligent design poses a major challenge to
scientific explanations of why our world is the way it is.

If by "ID" you mean what is currently known as the Intelligent Design
movement, or as some people misrepresent it, "ID creationism" then
I agree that the challenge it poses at this point in time is more
educational than scientific.

That is, it poses the challenge to educators not to leave youngsters
with the impression that scientists have solved all major problems
pertaining to evolution and abiogenesis.

> It is scientific because we say so.

Misrepresentation: it is scientific because it uses the methodology
of science and does NOT speculate on the nature of the designers
in most cases.

An "exception that proves the rule" is DP, which Behe himself
mentions in _Darwin's Black Box_ but only as one possible hypothesis
that one might entertain as to the nature of the designers of various
biological phenomena. But that is not part of ID theory itself.

> ID shouldn't be mandated but if a teacher
> or school system wants to "teach the controversy" that suits us as we can
> surreptitiously god gap our untenable belief system as historically
> accepted default position arrived at by superstition and overactive
> imagination.

Your merciless lampoon is duly noted.

If you mean for it to be anything but a lampoon, please quote
passages that you think you (or someone who is a better propagandist
than you) can spin-doctor to support some part or other of your
lampoon.

> But it ain't really about god or our religious belief. We are
> merely criticizing evolution as natural selection as neo-Darwinism is
> hoodwinking the children into blind obedience to the Borgish "Darwin Lobby"
> agenda. Such total bullshit.

I agree, this second half of your lampoon is total bullshit. :-)

> > Ron O could tell you more about its history, because it is the one to which
> > he posted links year after year, several times in some years, in support of
> > his maniacal hatred of the DI. It is centered around a bait and switch
> > scam by Ron O which alleges a bait and switch scam by the DI.
> >
> > In fact, did you even LOOK at it? Its contents should be familiar to most
> > people here, but hardly anyone ever tries to really refute its actual
> > contents. I wouldn't be surprised if my criticism of it, which you snipped,
> > was the first one in talk.origins all year.
>
> My point which whooshed a part through your hair is as he typically does
> Glenn posts something lacking creative content on his part.

Any other trivia you want to regale us with? Glenn's habits are
well known to everyone: Glenn works in little soundbites over 90%
of the time, but sometimes comes through with some serious thinking.

One such occasion was the question of what the ancestral apes to
us humans were like, and that upset Casanova so much, he lost
his temper and accused Glenn of one "puke" after another.

> >> and you go on to drag your views on others into
> >> the mix. Hasn't this 'crazy Hemi' comparison to Thrinaxodon been overplayed
> >> by you? You continue to beat that drum. One of your never ceasing tropes.
> >
> > And why not? It's one which you never try to rebut.
> >
> > Wouldn't you be the first to sneer if I were to talk about DISHONEST
> > claims about me being repeated in never ceasing tropes? especially
> > if I were to use that talk to create doubts about their veracity?
> >
> > But you treat it that way, and in this way you reveal that you
> > haven't lost all of your "dumb as a fox" cunning.
>
> Whatever. You're not a closet creationist. You really aren't. The dovetail
> between your directed panspermy, IC, and ID is mere illusion as is your
> defensiveness toward Behe. Don't see that at all.

I would defend anyone against misrepresentation if I thought it
relevant to talk.origins. That includes Stalin, Hitler, Trump,
Clinton, Glenn...

...and even yourself. ;-)

All ribbing aside, I did it wrt Harshman in your presence and Harshman's
absence, while giving valid criticsm of Harshman himself. And that
set in motion a chain of events which culminated in Harshman
totally ruining his credibility wrt the word "paranoid," to the point
where he needs to think of the boy who cried "Wolf!" before using it.

Peter Nyikos
Professor, Department of Math. -- standard disclaimer --

U. of South Carolina at Columbia
http://www.math.sc.edu/~nyikos/

[RichD]

On October 27, Peter Nyikos wrote:
> If the structure is sufficiently complex in the usual
> sense of "complex," then competent ID researchers adopt
> design as their working hypothesis, but that's all.

This is also Daniel Dennett's approach in
"Darwin's Dangerous Idea". He argues that it's
well justified, scientifically, and provides
numerous examples. The idea is central to the
book's theme, as alluded in the title.

--
Rich

[jillery]

Here's a favorite bit of sophistry:

**********************************
Is Intelligent Design the
Same as Creationism?
No. The theory of intelligent design is an effort to
empirically detect whether the “apparent design” in
nature, acknowledged by virtually all biologists, is
genuine design (the product of an intelligent cause)
**********************************

Of course, to say that nature has an intelligent cause is a religious
claim. It's certainly not scientific, as ID supporters admit the
motives of their undefined Creator are unknown and unknowable.

[jillery]

On Fri, 28 Oct 2016 08:29:15 -0700 (PDT), Peter Nyikos

<nyi...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>On Thursday, October 27, 2016 at 8:30:02 PM UTC-4, *Hemidactylus* wrote:

<snip for focus, as futile as that is>

>> My point which whooshed a part through your hair is as he typically does
>> Glenn posts something lacking creative content on his part.
>
>Any other trivia you want to regale us with?

Apparently you think explaining one's POV is trivia. Is anybody
surprised?

>Glenn's habits are
>well known to everyone: Glenn works in little soundbites over 90%
>of the time, but sometimes comes through with some serious thinking.

However often you think Glenn comes through with serious thinking, it
wasn't this time, and that's the time that matters here.

Uou could prove me wrong by identifying what Glenn posted to this
thread which so impressed you with his "serious thinking". And no,
posting a link which says nothing about his comments doesn't qualify.

[Peter Nyikos]

You allege this, jillery, but haven't lifted a finger to support your
allegation. Do you think Hemidactylus's merciless lampoon supports it?
If so, you are dead wrong.

In contrast, if you deny that Casanova was seriously misrepresenting
Glenn's attitude towards the link in question, you need to take
into account the adage, "extraordinary claims require extraordinary
evidence." And you have provided zero, zip, zilch in the way of
doing that.

> it's Glenn who smells of straw.

Rather, it's you who smell like one blindly loyal to Casanova.

> So do you think Glenn's cite isn't on the Internet? Or do you think
> Glenn's cite isn't true? Or both? Enquiring minds want know.

I fail to see the relevance of these questions to anything I've
mentioned here.

> >> To quote Glenn, "snip off topic garbage".
> >> You never learn.
>
>
> Still works for this iteration of your puckered sphincter spew.
> You never learn.

Let me guess: in this case, what I've "failed to learn" is that you
treat Glenn like an alter ego of mine, and so anything [s]he says serves
as an excuse to allege that you are just following "my" "guidelines".

What I did learn long ago is that any excuse, no matter how divorced
from reality, will serve a totalitarian-mentality jerk like yourself.
As here.

Peter Nyikos

[Bob Casanova]

On Thu, 27 Oct 2016 17:04:29 -0500, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by *Hemidactylus*
<ecph...@allspamis.invalid>:

Careful; Peter is likely to accuse you of something
reprehensible.
--

Bob C.

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

- Isaac Asimov

[Bob Casanova]

On Thu, 27 Oct 2016 09:59:01 -0700 (PDT), the following
appeared in talk.origins, posted by Peter Nyikos
<nyi...@bellsouth.net>:

>On Thursday, October 27, 2016 at 12:25:03 PM UTC-4, Bob Casanova wrote:

>> On Thu, 27 Oct 2016 07:55:02 -0700, the following appeared
>> in talk.origins, posted by "Glenn" <g...@invalid.invalid>:

>>
>> >
>> >"rsNorman" <r_s_n...@comcast.net> wrote in message news:nurfnk$730$1...@dont-email.me...
>> >> *Hemidactylus* <ecph...@allspamis.invalid> Wrote in message:
>> >>> *Hemidactylus* <ecph...@allspamis.invalid> wrote:
>> >
>> >snip off topic garbage
>> >
>> >Recent comments here proclaiming ID as being "dead" inspired the posting of this:
>> >
>> >"Does evolutionary theory need a rethink? Yes, urgently"
>> >http://www.discovery.org/f/1453
>>

>> And since "if it's on the Internet it must be true",
>
>Straw man noted.

Hardly.

>> be sure
>> to check out:
>>
>> http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/home/
>

>Is this going to be typical of your "rebuttals" from now on? If
>so, it will eliminate an enormous amount of time spent in
>dealing with your treatment of on-topic posts. It will be a welcome
>contrast to the way you kept ducking
>a question posed to you by Glenn in discussion about the ape
>*Proconsul* and your two-faced treatment of him that I
>recounted to Harshman when he belatedly entered the debate:
>
>
> Just a few minutes ago, Bob did his own reply to Glenn's post and
> tried to be civil to Glenn, thereby creating a new sub-thread.
> It's a stunning contrast to Bob's earlier behavior, which had
> degenerated into accusing Glenn of one "puke" after another,
> for having said essentially the same things Glenn said this time
> around.

And once more Peter delves into history to support his sense
of persecution:

>https://groups.google.com/d/msg/talk.origins/K5ub9WU94Nc/iQjeHzAhCAAJ
>Message-ID: <a5e0a8e2-ba99-4363...@googlegroups.com>
>Subject: Re: Question about Peter Nyikos
>Date: Thu, 29 Oct 2015 10:22:33 -0700 (PDT)
>
>I quoted this to you on the original Subject: line, continuing with:
>
> Harshman was sufficiently concerned over this to come to your rescue
> on this thread. So you may safely retire to lick your wounds while
> Harshman pinch-hits for you -- by carefully ignoring what I've written
> to and about you.

>
>https://groups.google.com/d/msg/talk.origins/rehTL2kf_jU/OToyw7wnCAAJ
>Message-ID: <76250fe6-8dd9-4d99...@googlegroups.com>
>Subject: Re: Did we come from monkeys?
>Date: Thu, 29 Oct 2015 12:24:55 -0700 (PDT)
>

>Later, you gave Harshman a completely distorted account of what had
>gone on between you and me and Glenn, on that same thread, and he
>went right on being completely uninterested in the truth about that.

>
>What had happened between you and me was me criticizing the artist's
>incompetent "reproduction" of *Proconsul* in Wikipedia, and you
>sticking to your incompetent guns about it being a good reproduction.
>

>I expect you to confuse the issue by portraying this as being
>an exposition on your ignorance of details of human evolution,
>rather than your insufferable behavior towards Glenn and sometimes
>condescending attitude towards me in on-topic discussion.

Usual whine noted.

>Your condescending attitude towards me has skyrocketed during this
>past week

As I noted recently, you reap what you sow. It whooshed over
your head then; I don't expect this will be any different.

>, but that's irrelevant to the way you treated a strictly
>on-topic discussion back then.
>
>Like I said, I hope you stick to knocking down straw me from here
>on in when dealing with on-topic issues.

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

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

[Bob Casanova]

On Thu, 27 Oct 2016 16:45:34 -0700 (PDT), the following
appeared in talk.origins, posted by Peter Nyikos
<nyi...@bellsouth.net>:

>On Thursday, October 27, 2016 at 1:50:02 PM UTC-4, jillery wrote:
>> On Thu, 27 Oct 2016 09:59:01 -0700 (PDT), Peter Nyikos
>> <nyi...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>>
>> >On Thursday, October 27, 2016 at 12:25:03 PM UTC-4, Bob Casanova wrote:
>> >> On Thu, 27 Oct 2016 07:55:02 -0700, the following appeared
>> >> in talk.origins, posted by "Glenn" <g...@invalid.invalid>:
>> >>
>> >> >
>> >> >"rsNorman" <r_s_n...@comcast.net> wrote in message news:nurfnk$730$1...@dont-email.me...
>> >> >> *Hemidactylus* <ecph...@allspamis.invalid> Wrote in message:
>> >> >>> *Hemidactylus* <ecph...@allspamis.invalid> wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> >snip off topic garbage
>> >> >
>> >> >Recent comments here proclaiming ID as being "dead" inspired the posting of this:
>> >> >
>> >> >"Does evolutionary theory need a rethink? Yes, urgently"
>> >> >http://www.discovery.org/f/1453
>> >>
>> >> And since "if it's on the Internet it must be true",
>> >
>> >Straw man noted.
>>
>>
>> Right here would have been a good place for you to explain how the
>> above qualifies as a straw man,
>
>Since nothing even remotely like what Casanova attributed to Glenn
>appears either in Glenn's words or in the DI website that Glenn
>linked, you are just making a fool of yourself out of blind loyalty
>to Casanova.

Try to get this through that blind agenda of yours: Glenn
posted a link to a website which is strongly anti-evolution
and posted a quote (supposedly from that website, but I
skimmed the 32 pages on the site and didn't find it).

I posted a link to a different website (see below) with
equally strong opinions regarding a scientific subject. I
didn't need to post an obscure quote from an unidentified
page; the name of the website is sufficient to express their
beliefs.

And to you, this constitutes a "strawman". Oy...

I just *knew* the irrelevant proconsul discussion would
appear; your predictability is legend here.

[Glenn]

"Bob Casanova" <nos...@buzz.off> wrote in message news:2t271clk9j5atejda...@4ax.com...

> On Thu, 27 Oct 2016 09:59:01 -0700 (PDT), the following
> appeared in talk.origins, posted by Peter Nyikos
> <nyi...@bellsouth.net>:
>
>>On Thursday, October 27, 2016 at 12:25:03 PM UTC-4, Bob Casanova wrote:
>>> On Thu, 27 Oct 2016 07:55:02 -0700, the following appeared
>>> in talk.origins, posted by "Glenn" <g...@invalid.invalid>:
>>>
>>> >
>>> >"rsNorman" <r_s_n...@comcast.net> wrote in message news:nurfnk$730$1...@dont-email.me...
>>> >> *Hemidactylus* <ecph...@allspamis.invalid> Wrote in message:
>>> >>> *Hemidactylus* <ecph...@allspamis.invalid> wrote:
>>> >
>>> >snip off topic garbage
>>> >
>>> >Recent comments here proclaiming ID as being "dead" inspired the posting of this:
>>> >
>>> >"Does evolutionary theory need a rethink? Yes, urgently"
>>> >http://www.discovery.org/f/1453
>>>
>>> And since "if it's on the Internet it must be true",
>>
>>Straw man noted.
>
> Hardly.
>

Oh. What did I say was true?

[Bob Casanova]

On Thu, 27 Oct 2016 23:05:48 -0700, the following appeared

in talk.origins, posted by "Glenn" <g...@invalid.invalid>:

>

>"*Hemidactylus*" <ecph...@allspamis.invalid> wrote in message news:_5qdnV5sJOh3B4_F...@giganews.com...
>> Peter Nyikos <nyi...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>>> On Thursday, October 27, 2016 at 6:10:02 PM UTC-4, *Hemidactylus* wrote:
>>>> Peter Nyikos <nyi...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>>>>> On Thursday, October 27, 2016 at 11:00:02 AM UTC-4, Glenn wrote:
>>>>>> "rsNorman" <r_s_n...@comcast.net> wrote in message news:nurfnk$730$1...@dont-email.me...
>>>>>>> *Hemidactylus* <ecph...@allspamis.invalid> Wrote in message:
>>>>>>>> *Hemidactylus* <ecph...@allspamis.invalid> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> snip off topic garbage
>>>>>
>>>>> Not just off topic, but reminiscent of the mentally unstable babble
>>>>> of Thrinaxodon at its worst.
>>>>
>>>> And here we go again. Glenn posts a link without expounding cogently in his
>>>> own words the what and why
>>>
>>> You obviously didn't recognize it. It's been THE big central exposition
>>> of the DI (Discovery Institute) for something like a decade by now, with minor
>>> changes over the years.
>>
>> But Glenn posted the link in case you missed my point. Must we read 32
>> pages to divine his intent?
>
>Divine your own intent.

Helpful as always, Glenn. Peter will be proud.

[Bob Casanova]

On Fri, 28 Oct 2016 11:56:34 +0100, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by Burkhard <b.sc...@ed.ac.uk>:

>Bob Casanova wrote:
>> On Thu, 27 Oct 2016 07:55:02 -0700, the following appeared
>> in talk.origins, posted by "Glenn" <g...@invalid.invalid>:
>>
>>>
>>> "rsNorman" <r_s_n...@comcast.net> wrote in message news:nurfnk$730$1...@dont-email.me...
>>>> *Hemidactylus* <ecph...@allspamis.invalid> Wrote in message:
>>>>> *Hemidactylus* <ecph...@allspamis.invalid> wrote:
>>>
>>> snip off topic garbage
>>>
>>> Recent comments here proclaiming ID as being "dead" inspired the posting of this:
>>>
>>> "Does evolutionary theory need a rethink? Yes, urgently"
>>> http://www.discovery.org/f/1453
>>
>> And since "if it's on the Internet it must be true",
>
>I thought it is an excellent data point for the contention that ID is
>indeed dead as a dodo, don't you think?

Sure, but since I don't expect any link Glenn posts to
actually support his claims (or what his claims *seem* to
be; he resists clarification like lobsters resist pots of
boiling water) I'm never really surprised.

>I mean, according to the document, Intelligent Design hasn't succeeded
>since Dover to identify even for a single biological trait who designed
>it in what way, when and for what purpose. And it remains just as stale
>on the theoretical side, not having improved its theoretical vocabulary,
>methodology etc by just one bit.

Yep. And somehow that becomes a positive argument to the
IDists.

>By contrast, the picture the document paints for evolutionary biology is
>that of a very much alive and highly productive research field where new
>ideas, concepts, methods etc are developed to address more and more of
>these questions all the time, and then are vigorously tested and
>adversarially debated for their respective merits amongst biologists, as
>they should be.
>
>> be sure
>> to check out:
>>
>> http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/home/

As Peter seemed to have missed, another anti-science group
with no evidence to support their beliefs, the reference to
which he nevertheless declared to be a "strawman". I'm not
sure what he thinks that term means, but he seems fond of it
(cue Inigo Montoya).

[Peter Nyikos]

Really?! This comes as complete news to me. But is this just
by way of building something up just to knock it down with
a bigger crash, [1] in each specific instance?

Bottom line: is there any place in the book where he
concludes that scientists don't have a credible counter-argument
for the hypothesis of intelligent design?

[1] This is not the same thing as knocking down straw men --
*unless* the knockdown was already well known and almost
universally agreed to by specialists in the area and *unless*
the building up was insincere.

Otherwise, it's like the famous line by "Matthew Harrison Brady" in
_Inherit the Wind_ telling his fellow creationists to
welcome "Henry Drummond" [2] as a worthy adversary: "If St. George
had killed a dragonfly instead of a dragon, who would remember him?"

[2] The names in quotes were of well known people not connected with
the Scopes trial. If the actual names had been used, the surviving
relatives of William Jennings Bryan might have sued the movie studio [3]
for defamation of character.

[3] Why not the author? Because of the standard American tort
practice of going after "deep pockets".

Peter Nyikos
Professor, Department of Math. -- standard disclaimer --

U. of S. Carolina at Columbia
http://people.math.sc.edu/nyikos/

[Bob Casanova]

On Fri, 28 Oct 2016 12:49:41 -0400, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by jillery <69jp...@gmail.com>:

To be fair, and applied only to life on Earth, it *could* be
ascribed to DP, if only we had some evidence that the
panspermists exist(ed). Not religious per se, but the result
of actions by unseen aliens with godlike powers.

[*Hemidactylus*]

I had thought you were overlooking the apparent gravity of Part 9. A
tempest in a teapot.

> OK, you could maybe say they are not dead as dodos, more like zombies -
> they haven't understood quite yet themselves that they are dead, due to
> a lack of brain. Which then causes them to utter long "aaaaarghs" like
> the document, which only reinforces their zombie state in the eyes of
> informed observers

Speaking of zombies what's with them quoting Gould on page 13 "writing with
other scientists" in relation to the Dec 2005 Dover decision? Gould died in
2002. Maybe Glenn could help us understand Gould's posthumous opinion on
Dover.

[Peter Nyikos]

On Friday, October 28, 2016 at 3:35:02 AM UTC-4, jillery wrote:
> On Thu, 27 Oct 2016 23:08:20 -0700, "Glenn" <g...@invalid.invalid>
> wrote:
>
> >

> >"jillery" <69jp...@gmail.com> wrote in message news:r1651c9ap61kof1kk...@4ax.com [to me, Peter:]

> >> Apparently you're still neglecting your students and your faculty
> >> duties along with your alleged "rough spell". One can only wonder
> >> why.

Let the record show that the term "rough spell" is not something
I alleged, but something erik simpson, playing "good cop" to jillery's
"bad cop," cooked up on another thread.

> >What do you know of Peter's duties to make these claims of neglect, "Jillery"?
>
>
> I note your failure to back up your claims about your own link.

I note the failure of you to argue against them, or even to ask
Glenn to back them up.

> Your
> expressed interest in your strange bedfellow's job failed to cover up
> your evasion.

> But since you asked so nicely, I provide an answer in kind, which is
> more than you do. I use the same weasel-word trick your strange
> bedfellow uses to post his Big Lies about me.

Big Lies = truthful statements about misbehavior by yourself.

And right here would be a good place for you to document a case
where I excused any use by me of "apparently" the way you
do yours below.

> Your claims to the
> contrary, I made no "claims of neglect", but only of the appearance of
> neglect.

...which you failed to back up. The generalities which you spew
below do nothing of the sort, since my work duties vary radically
from day to day.

> And what I "know" of your strange bedfellow's duties is
> based on his references to them, usually for the express purpose of
> excusing his occasional long delayed replies, incoherent replies, and
> outright failures to reply.

You twice posted this "neglect of duties" crap without trying to
find out what is going on at the University of South Carolina in
Columbia. Even after you got burned by not checking [the university
was CLOSED due to Hurricane Matthew for three days] you plowed
right ahead by doing it again when our university was on Fall Break.

This was a case where "You never learn" was actually justified,
as a figure of speech, unlike the hundred or more times you've
used the term, never hinting at what it is that you are alleging
that I didn't learn.

> HTH but I seriously doubt it.

I suspect that this is supposed to stand for the (insincere, in this case)
"Hope This Helps," but a better disambiguationin your case,
and also in the case of its other frequent user (your loyal ally Casanova),
is "Highway To Hell".

...as well as some others among the 40 disambiguations listed
here:

http://www.acronymfinder.com/HTH.html

[Peter Nyikos]

On Friday, October 28, 2016 at 1:50:02 PM UTC-4, Bob Casanova wrote:
> On Thu, 27 Oct 2016 16:45:34 -0700 (PDT), the following
> appeared in talk.origins, posted by Peter Nyikos
> <nyi...@bellsouth.net>:
>
> >On Thursday, October 27, 2016 at 1:50:02 PM UTC-4, jillery wrote:
> >> On Thu, 27 Oct 2016 09:59:01 -0700 (PDT), Peter Nyikos
> >> <nyi...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> >>
> >> >On Thursday, October 27, 2016 at 12:25:03 PM UTC-4, Bob Casanova wrote:
> >> >> On Thu, 27 Oct 2016 07:55:02 -0700, the following appeared
> >> >> in talk.origins, posted by "Glenn" <g...@invalid.invalid>:
> >> >>
> >> >> >
> >> >> >"rsNorman" <r_s_n...@comcast.net> wrote in message news:nurfnk$730$1...@dont-email.me...
> >> >> >> *Hemidactylus* <ecph...@allspamis.invalid> Wrote in message:
> >> >> >>> *Hemidactylus* <ecph...@allspamis.invalid> wrote:
> >> >> >
> >> >> >snip off topic garbage
> >> >> >
> >> >> >Recent comments here proclaiming ID as being "dead" inspired the posting of this:
> >> >> >
> >> >> >"Does evolutionary theory need a rethink? Yes, urgently"
> >> >> >http://www.discovery.org/f/1453
> >> >>
> >> >> And since "if it's on the Internet it must be true",

I wonder -- did Ray Martinez pick up this jeering taunt from you,
or did you pick it up from him? I suspect the former, because
he is clumsy with it, having slandered me with the explicit,
unequivocal claim that I believe it.

Whatever the case, he is certainly doing a great job of learning
non-Christian behavior from fellow non-Christian zealots like yourself.

> >> >Straw man noted.
> >>
> >>
> >> Right here would have been a good place for you to explain how the
> >> above qualifies as a straw man,
> >
> >Since nothing even remotely like what Casanova attributed to Glenn
> >appears either in Glenn's words or in the DI website that Glenn
> >linked, you are just making a fool of yourself out of blind loyalty
> >to Casanova.
>
> Try to get this through that blind agenda of yours:

Looks like I really hit home here. In "refutation," you post a stupid
comment which shows you are ignoring almost everything I wrote to
Hemidactylus:

>Glenn
> posted a link to a website which is strongly anti-evolution
> and posted a quote (supposedly from that website, but I
> skimmed the 32 pages on the site and didn't find it).

That's your and jillery's supposition.

> I posted a link to a different website (see below) with
> equally strong opinions regarding a scientific subject.

And insinuated that it has something to do with either what
Glenn quoted or what's in the webpage he linked-- or with your
insulting claim about "...must be true" with which you
taunted Glenn. [Third time's the charm, methinks.]

> I didn't need to post an obscure quote from an unidentified
> page; the name of the website is sufficient to express their
> beliefs.
>
> And to you, this constitutes a "strawman". Oy...

Yes, the jeer "...must be true..." was a real
straw man, which you knocked down with the post that you
linked, leaving Glenn completely untouched except in the
eyes of your fellow Glenn-disparagers.

> >That blind loyalty is reciprocated by Casanova, as becomes clear from
> >a post I did analyzing how he compromised his integrity on your
> >behalf:
> >
> >https://groups.google.com/d/msg/talk.origins/5x6bIkuMzBw/XIwUv9f0CAAJ
> >Subject: Re: Quote from Jillery "This NG is not about Evolution in general"
> >Date: Thu, 27 Oct 2016 10:07:01 -0700 (PDT)
> >Message-ID: <122fd9b9-a650-44c5...@googlegroups.com>
> >
> >You and Casanova make quite a tag team: he hasn't replied yet
> >to that post, and perhaps never will, but you promptly replied to it,
> >snipping all but a tiny part of it, leaving out all the incriminating
> >parts, and made surrealistic comments on it.

<Crickets...>

> >On the other hand, on the thread where Bob had actually compromised
> >his integrity for you, it was because you were on the hot seat,
> >as anyone bothering to look at the above linked post can see.

<Crickets...>

> >> since neither you nor Glenn bothered
> >> to say which part(s) of Glenn's cite he's referring to and/or agrees
> >> with.
> >
> >This is downright surreal. Are you trying to create the impression
> >that Bob wrote something besides what we've kept of his words here,
> >and his .sig?
> >
> >It's up to him to bail you out by telling us that he WAS referring
> >to something specific, but I think that would stretch even his
> >skills at polemic and propaganda to the breaking point.
> >
> >Unless he surprises us all by doing that, we've just seen
> >another demonstration, by you, of the tag team in action.

And you haven't even tried to bail jillery out on her stupid
comment, illustrating the old adage, "Discretion is the better
part of valor."

> >>
> >> >> be sure
> >> >> to check out:
> >> >>
> >> >> http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/home/
> >> >
> >> >Is this going to be typical of your "rebuttals" from now on?

> > the following excerpt that you snipped is very
> >much on topic for talk.origins:
> >
> >
> >https://groups.google.com/d/msg/talk.origins/rehTL2kf_jU/OToyw7wnCAAJ
> >Message-ID: <76250fe6-8dd9-4d99...@googlegroups.com>
> >Subject: Re: Did we come from monkeys?
> >Date: Thu, 29 Oct 2015 12:24:55 -0700 (PDT)
> >[...]
> >What had happened between you and me was me criticizing the artist's
> >incompetent "reproduction" of *Proconsul* in Wikipedia, and you
> >sticking to your incompetent guns about it being a good reproduction.
> >
> >____________end of repost________________________
> >
> >In case you didn't know, *Proconsul* has sometimes been hypothesized to
> >be ancestral to *Homo sapiens*, or at least close enough to be very
> >similar to an actual ancestor of the time. But it wasn't even close
> >to looking like that amateur artist's "reconstruction." [That's a
> >more apt word than "reproduction," btw.]
>
> I just *knew* the irrelevant proconsul discussion would
> appear;

Not irrelevant: it illustrates another way you treat Glenn like dirt.
But jillery snipped out my explanation of that, and I didn't bother
to restore it.

But you can scroll up to find it. Not that you'd want to
do that -- it would cramp your style, which is evident here
too:

> your predictability is legend here.

...glass houses...stones. You are far more predictable wrt DP, as
you demonstrated in another post to this thread, playing "good cop"
to jillery's "bad cop."

Peter Nyikos
Professor, Department of Math. -- standard disclaimer --

U. of South Carolina at Columbia
http://www.math.sc.edu/~nyikos/

PS Too bad your "good cop" act landed you in the mud. As I'll demonstrate
when I reply to it directly.

[jillery]

On Fri, 28 Oct 2016 10:59:00 -0700, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off>
wrote:

To be coherent, the article applied ID to nature, not just life on
Earth. To claim DP as a plausible answer to ID's Creator is to beg
the question of how DPs originated, and everything else IDiots claim
is Intelligently Designed.

[jillery]

On Fri, 28 Oct 2016 10:49:39 -0700, "Glenn" <g...@invalid.invalid>
wrote:

What did anybody say you said was true?

Your stupid word games work both ways.

[jillery]

On Fri, 28 Oct 2016 10:27:13 -0700 (PDT), Peter Nyikos
<nyi...@bellsouth.net> continued to ejaculate his repetitive
irrelevant spew from his puckered sphincter:

<snip for focus, as futile as that effort is>

Of course I did:

<m7f41c9bme15ahevv...@4ax.com>
<fgu51c14ntq97a73q...@4ax.com>


So either your post is another one of your Big Lies against me. Or
your post is another example where you don't know what you're talking
about. Or both. My impression is the latter. Prove me wrong by
retracting your accusation or backing it up.

>> So do you think Glenn's cite isn't on the Internet? Or do you think
>> Glenn's cite isn't true? Or both? Enquiring minds want know.
>
>I fail to see the relevance of these questions to anything I've
>mentioned here.

To refresh your oh-so-convenient amnesia, here is Casanova's statement
which you declared a strawman, both still preserved in the quoted text
above:

*******************************

And since "if it's on the Internet it must be true",

*******************************

Since you have a habit of reading thing over-literally, I point out
that Casanova's statement references the observation that some people
cite from the Internet as if everything on the Internet is true, and
further emphasized by Casanova's link to a Flat-Earth website.

Casanova's statement makes two claims of fact:

1: Glenn's cite is on the Internet.
2: Glenn's cite isn't true.

In order for your claim of a strawman to be true, one or both of those
claims must be false.

I have led you to the trough. Now answer my question, or do I have to
give you an enema first?

[Peter Nyikos]

On Friday, October 28, 2016 at 2:00:02 PM UTC-4, Bob Casanova wrote:
> On Fri, 28 Oct 2016 12:49:41 -0400, the following appeared
> in talk.origins, posted by jillery <69jp...@gmail.com>:
>
> >On Fri, 28 Oct 2016 06:19:39 -0500, *Hemidactylus*
> ><ecph...@allspamis.invalid> wrote:
> >
> >>Burkhard <b.sc...@ed.ac.uk> wrote:
> >>> Bob Casanova wrote:
> >>>> On Thu, 27 Oct 2016 07:55:02 -0700, the following appeared
> >>>> in talk.origins, posted by "Glenn" <g...@invalid.invalid>:
> >>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> "rsNorman" <r_s_n...@comcast.net> wrote in message news:nurfnk$730$1...@dont-email.me...
> >>>>>> *Hemidactylus* <ecph...@allspamis.invalid> Wrote in message:
> >>>>>>> *Hemidactylus* <ecph...@allspamis.invalid> wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>> snip off topic garbage
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Recent comments here proclaiming ID as being "dead" inspired the posting of this:
> >>>>>
> >>>>> "Does evolutionary theory need a rethink? Yes, urgently"
> >>>>> http://www.discovery.org/f/1453
> >>>>
> >>>> And since "if it's on the Internet it must be true",
> >>>
> >>> I thought it is an excellent data point for the contention that ID is
> >>> indeed dead as a dodo, don't you think?

Burkhard "scratching your back" -- except that he isn't directly
talking about your insulting jeer at Glenn.

> >>> I mean, according to the document, Intelligent Design hasn't succeeded
> >>> since Dover to identify even for a single biological trait who designed
> >>> it in what way, when and for what purpose.

There are various guesses, but to actually give the details that Burkhard
is fishing for would be to fall for the Mouse Deer Trick.

[Details about this trick available on request.]

> >>> And it remains just as stale
> >>> on the theoretical side, not having improved its theoretical vocabulary,
> >>> methodology etc by just one bit.

The methodology is very much that of contemporary science in the hands of
the experts like Behe [who is almost never consulted by the DI],
so it needs no elaboration.

<snip of things I might address if Hemidactylus has the guts to
reply in detail to my posts>

> >Of course, to say that nature has an intelligent cause is a religious
> >claim. It's certainly not scientific, as ID supporters admit the
> >motives of their undefined Creator are unknown and unknowable.

And it would be unscientific for them to claim they are known,
any more than it would be unscientific to claim that we know
the motives of the people who did the Nazca Plains figures,
at our present state of knowledge.

As for "unknowable", I'd like to see a direct quote and source for it.
The word appears nowhere in the document Glenn linked.

> To be fair, and applied only to life on Earth, it *could* be
> ascribed to DP, if only we had some evidence that the
> panspermists exist(ed). Not religious per se, but the result
> of actions by unseen aliens with godlike powers.

You keep revealing what a pathetic one-trick pony you are wrt
the whole subject of DP. I have kept writing until I am blue
in the face [figure of speech] that I do not ascribe any
"powers" to the technological civilization I hypothesize
beyond our own level of intelligence, nor a technology more
advanced than we can expect to arrive at within a century,
if present trends continue.

As you love to say about utterly trivial things, unlike this
serious demonstration of willful ignorance by you,

Whooooooooooooosh!

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

http://www.math.sc.edu/~nyikos/

PS I see you pathetically licking your wounds, in post after post
on this thread, after the beating you and your loyal ally jillery
got, also on this thread. You "left the crickets chirping" at
the epicenter of this beating, in a reply you did to me, also
on this thread.

[jillery]

On Fri, 28 Oct 2016 12:00:09 -0700 (PDT), Peter Nyikos
<nyi...@bellsouth.net> wrote:

>>Glenn
>> posted a link to a website which is strongly anti-evolution
>> and posted a quote (supposedly from that website, but I
>> skimmed the 32 pages on the site and didn't find it).
>
>That's your and jillery's supposition.

Nope. A trivial text search shows that quote appears nowhere in the
text, and appears in the entire article only as the title to one of 89
references in the bibliography.

Apparently you don't know how to do text searches. It's never too
late to learn.

[jillery]

On Fri, 28 Oct 2016 12:20:33 -0700 (PDT), Peter Nyikos

<nyi...@bellsouth.net> continued to ejaculate his repetitive
irrelevant spew from his puckered sphincter:

<snip to focus, as futile as that is>

>PS I see you pathetically licking your wounds, in post after post
>on this thread, after the beating you and your loyal ally jillery
>got, also on this thread. You "left the crickets chirping" at
>the epicenter of this beating, in a reply you did to me, also
>on this thread.

Dunning–Kruger strikes again.

[jillery]

On Fri, 28 Oct 2016 11:13:24 -0700 (PDT), Peter Nyikos

<nyi...@bellsouth.net> continued to ejaculate his repetitive
irrelevant spew from his puckered sphincter:

>On Friday, October 28, 2016 at 3:35:02 AM UTC-4, jillery wrote:
>> On Thu, 27 Oct 2016 23:08:20 -0700, "Glenn" <g...@invalid.invalid>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >"jillery" <69jp...@gmail.com> wrote in message news:r1651c9ap61kof1kk...@4ax.com [to me, Peter:]
>
>> >> Apparently you're still neglecting your students and your faculty
>> >> duties along with your alleged "rough spell". One can only wonder
>> >> why.
>
>Let the record show that the term "rough spell" is not something
>I alleged, but something erik simpson, playing "good cop" to jillery's
>"bad cop," cooked up on another thread.
>
>> >What do you know of Peter's duties to make these claims of neglect, "Jillery"?
>>
>>
>> I note your failure to back up your claims about your own link.
>
>I note the failure of you to argue against them, or even to ask
>Glenn to back them up.

I already addressed elsethread your stupid lie and/or your
demonstration of not knowing what you're talking about.

>> Your
>> expressed interest in your strange bedfellow's job failed to cover up
>> your evasion.
>
>> But since you asked so nicely, I provide an answer in kind, which is
>> more than you do. I use the same weasel-word trick your strange
>> bedfellow uses to post his Big Lies about me.
>
>Big Lies = truthful statements about misbehavior by yourself.

More correctly Big Lie = your bald assertions (aka TbBAs) which you
have never even specified, much less backed up.

>And right here would be a good place for you to document a case
>where I excused any use by me of "apparently" the way you
>do yours below.

Here's another example where your over-literal misrepresentations just
dig you into a hole. I neither stated nor implied that you use the
word "apparently". It would be as stupid for me to do so as it is for
you to claim that I did.

>> Your claims to the
>> contrary, I made no "claims of neglect", but only of the appearance of
>> neglect.
>
>...which you failed to back up.

Since you don't believe that's how things appear to me, there's
nothing I could possibly say to convince you otherwise. Of course,
you can always pretend to read minds and claim you know what I think
better than I do. That's always good for a laugh.

>The generalities which you spew
>below do nothing of the sort, since my work duties vary radically
>from day to day.

That your job imposes duties which you must do is not the issue, but
instead whether your students and school would be better served by not
spending your time ejaculating your repetitive irrelevant spew from
your puckered sphincter.

>> And what I "know" of your strange bedfellow's duties is
>> based on his references to them, usually for the express purpose of
>> excusing his occasional long delayed replies, incoherent replies, and
>> outright failures to reply.
>
>You twice posted this "neglect of duties" crap without trying to
>find out what is going on at the University of South Carolina in
>Columbia. Even after you got burned by not checking [the university
>was CLOSED due to Hurricane Matthew for three days] you plowed
>right ahead by doing it again when our university was on Fall Break.

Here's another example where you're posting another stupid lie and/or
you're demonstrating you don't know what you're talking about. Your
claim was Hurricane Matthew led to your "inability to retaliate in
kind". As I pointed out at the time, the 39 posts you made during
those three days put the lie to your claim. I also pointed out that
even if your school was shut down for a holiday, that doesn't even
begin to explain the years you have devoted to ejaculating your
repetitive irrelevant spew from your puckered sphincter.

>This was a case where "You never learn" was actually justified,
>as a figure of speech, unlike the hundred or more times you've
>used the term, never hinting at what it is that you are alleging
>that I didn't learn.

I have no obligation to teach you anything, especially when you're so
wilfully stupid.

>> HTH but I seriously doubt it.
>
>I suspect that this is supposed to stand for the (insincere, in this case)
>"Hope This Helps," but a better disambiguationin your case,
>and also in the case of its other frequent user (your loyal ally Casanova),
>is "Highway To Hell".
>
>...as well as some others among the 40 disambiguations listed
>here:

Thank you for proving my point for me.

>http://www.acronymfinder.com/HTH.html
>
>Peter Nyikos
>Professor, Dept. of Mathematics -- standard disclaimer--
>University of South Carolina
>http://people.math.sc.edu/nyikos/

One can only wonder how you think composing the above helped your
students.

[RonO]

You are not dead yet, what is your excuse for putting up this junk again
when the ID perps have changed their education policy on their web site
and dropped the claim that they ever had a scientific theory of ID to
teach in the public schools. The paragraph making the claim is still in
this stupid propaganda piece, but where is it in their last policy
change? What do you think that means? Why did they start religious web
sites and start claiming that ID was good for home schools and private
schools? What happened to their public school claims that are still in
this propaganda piece?

Ron Okimoto

[Peter Nyikos]

The weasel-worded denigration of Glenn's thought processes inherent
in Casanova's quote made it indeed a straw man, as I directly proved:

> >> >Since nothing even remotely like what Casanova attributed to Glenn
> >> >appears either in Glenn's words or in the DI website that Glenn
> >> >linked, you are just making a fool of yourself out of blind loyalty
> >> >to Casanova.

You knew better than to contest the "nothing remotely resembling" bit
directly, knowing that even your professional-level expetise at
propaganda is unequal to the task, so you changed the subject:

> >> Since nothing even remotely like what Glenn posted has anything to do
> >> with what Glenn cited,

> >You allege this, jillery, but haven't lifted a finger to support your
> >allegation.
>
>
> Of course I did:
>
> <m7f41c9bme15ahevv...@4ax.com>

Results for <m7f41c9bme15ahevv...@4ax.com> in talk.origins
Search all groups
Sorted by relevance
Sort by date

Results: about 0 for <m7f41c9bme15ahevv...@4ax.com>
No results found

> <fgu51c14ntq97a73q...@4ax.com>

Results for fgu51c14ntq97a73q...@4ax.com in talk.origins
Search all groups
Sorted by relevance
Sort by date

Results: about 0 for fgu51c14ntq97a73q...@4ax.com
No results found

Note how for the first message-ID, I left the flanking < > in, for
the second I left them out. Same goose egg both times.

Pasting into my web browser instead of the "Search for topics" window
yielded the following result:

We did not find results for: Results for
fgu51c14ntq97a73q...@4ax.com in talk.origins Search all
groupsSorted by relevanceSort by dateResults: about 0 for
fgu51c14ntq97a73q...@4ax.comNo results found.


But now the plot thickens. I made an educated guess as to what
you are dishonestly spin-doctoring into a claim that you actually
supported the allegation. Clicking my very first guess on "Show original"
revealed that the following post did go with the second Message-ID:

https://groups.google.com/forum/#!original/talk.origins/CQW88Fk4yiA/0A0y0B-gCAAJ

And of course, you did NOT support the claim that NOTHING
in the 32-page statement has to do with the trouble evolutionary
theory is in, at this stage of our biological and biochemical knowledge.

Instead, you took the cheap polemical way out, by noting that the
exact quote that Glenn used did not appear in the 32-page statement.

> So either your post is another one of your Big Lies against me. Or
> your post is another example where you don't know what you're talking
> about. Or both. My impression is the latter. Prove me wrong by
> retracting your accusation or backing it up.

Go play in the sandbox with your playmate Casanova.

>
> >> So do you think Glenn's cite isn't on the Internet? Or do you think
> >> Glenn's cite isn't true? Or both? Enquiring minds want know.
> >
> >I fail to see the relevance of these questions to anything I've
> >mentioned here.
>
>
> To refresh your oh-so-convenient amnesia,

No such thing exists. You are bluffing with a Nothing hand:

> here is Casanova's statement
> which you declared a strawman, both still preserved in the quoted text
> above:
>
> *******************************
> And since "if it's on the Internet it must be true",
> *******************************

You sure know how to slap irrelevant crud in reply to skepticism about
relevance.

> Since you have a habit of reading thing over-literally, I point out
> that Casanova's statement references the observation that some people
> cite from the Internet as if everything on the Internet is true,

Which is a libel where Glenn is concerned, nicht wahr?

If it isn't a libel, please quote something from Glenn which
would lead an objective observer to think that Glenn thinks that way.

> and
> further emphasized by Casanova's link to a Flat-Earth website.

Piling insult upon insult. Don't you realize that you are only
hurting Casanova with these clumsy efforts to help him?

> Casanova's statement makes two claims of fact:
>
> 1: Glenn's cite is on the Internet.
> 2: Glenn's cite isn't true.

More of the same clumsy effort, reading all kinds of "claims" into
Casanova's one-liner that remind me of the tailors for the Emperor's New
Clothes.

> In order for your claim of a strawman to be true, one or both of those
> claims must be false.
>
> I have led you to the trough.

You led me to a dry gulch, prevaricator. I defy you to try and prove
otherwise, RATIONALLY.

> Now answer my question, or do I have to
> give you an enema first?

++++++++++++++++++++ Casanova posting style on

You, of all people, don't get to require that.

++++++++++++++++++++ Casanova posting style off, my style on:

If I were to say to you what you just said to me, your buddy Casanova would
be justified in saying something that might make his "How old are you?
Grow up. Or get a life..." look tame in comparison.

And it would be sincere, unlike his words I quoted here, which
were made plausible-looking only because he deleted
incriminating evidence of what a childish person you were.

Peter Nyikos
Professor of Math at
the original USC

[*Hemidactylus*]

Peter Nyikos <nyi...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> On Thursday, October 27, 2016 at 8:30:02 PM UTC-4, *Hemidactylus* wrote:
>> Peter Nyikos <nyi...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>>> On Thursday, October 27, 2016 at 6:10:02 PM UTC-4, *Hemidactylus* wrote:
>>>> Peter Nyikos <nyi...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>>>>> On Thursday, October 27, 2016 at 11:00:02 AM UTC-4, Glenn wrote:
>>>>>> "rsNorman" <r_s_n...@comcast.net> wrote in message
>>>>>> news:nurfnk$730$1...@dont-email.me...
>>>>>>> *Hemidactylus*
>>>>>> <ecph...@allspamis.invalid> Wrote in message:
>>>>>>>> *Hemidactylus* <ecph...@allspamis.invalid> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> snip off topic garbage
>>>>>
>>>>> Not just off topic, but reminiscent of the mentally unstable babble
>>>>> of Thrinaxodon at its worst.
>>>>
>>>> And here we go again. Glenn posts a link without expounding cogently in his
>>>> own words the what and why
>>>
>>> You obviously didn't recognize it. It's been THE big central exposition
>>> of the DI (Discovery Institute) for something like a decade by now, with minor
>>> changes over the years.
>>
>> But Glenn posted the link in case you missed my point. Must we read 32
>> pages to divine his intent?
>
> Since when are you interested about Glenn's intent about ANYTHING?

If he's gonna come stumbling into a thread I started to see if I could
successfully post with a different newsreader he better explain why he
chose to unfurl that particular link in my general direction. Otherwise I
can assume he has resorted to sniffing Elmer's glue again and it has gummed
up his brain.

>> And the machinations in that document are
>> obvious.
>
> You do not make a credible case for that below.

You fail to demonstrate why. My critique was concise but on point.
Jillery's followup to address the subterfuge that ID is not creationism was
a welcome point in my favor and not yours.

>> We aren't creationists. ID implies nothing supernatural at all.
>
> Crikey, are you this dense? Intelligent design poses a major challenge to
> scientific explanations of why our world is the way it is.

No it doesn't. All it does is pretend that there's something called "CSI"
which may be marketed to fans of those TV series who are believers. And
this is likened to irreducible complexity handwaving incredulity
masquerading as scientific support for design that is intelligent but not
the Creator god we all know is awaiting his casting call. This goes back to
Paley's watch in a heath and Cuvier's correlation of parts. Nothing new
there. The sophistry is more sophisticated because of the biochemical
guise. That's the only purported positive contribution of ID. The rest is
taking distortive pot shots at evolution and quote mining folks such as
Gould and Mayr. Gould amazingly made a posthumous opinion known on Dover
and Mayr basically said there are few if any transitionals. Outside that
quote mine, Mayr a page later referenced Darwin on fossil record
incompleteness and for the Gould quote mine we have this:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/quotes/mine/gould_daubert.html

> If by "ID" you mean what is currently known as the Intelligent Design
> movement, or as some people misrepresent it, "ID creationism" then
> I agree that the challenge it poses at this point in time is more
> educational than scientific.

What's the difference between ID and creationism other than semantic
subterfuge to sneak one past the establishment clause? If these folks
believe in a judgmental god they might consider that such sneaky tactics
might win them an eternal cruise upon the lake of fire. Pretense does them
no eternal favors. And why would such god want to be reduced to sciency
stuff by a bunch of propagandists who lack sufficient faith.

> That is, it poses the challenge to educators not to leave youngsters
> with the impression that scientists have solved all major problems
> pertaining to evolution and abiogenesis.

That can be done without covertly introducing the Judeo-Christian god.
Teaching the controversy would include Kimura and Wright contra wanton
selectionism. That nuance isn't included in the document linked by Glenn.

>> It is scientific because we say so.
>
> Misrepresentation: it is scientific because it uses the methodology
> of science and does NOT speculate on the nature of the designers
> in most cases.

Everyone not committed to bullshit knows what is implied by design.
God-did-it. Religiously motivated subterfuge plain and simple. Are you in
on the ruse?

> An "exception that proves the rule" is DP, which Behe himself
> mentions in _Darwin's Black Box_ but only as one possible hypothesis
> that one might entertain as to the nature of the designers of various
> biological phenomena. But that is not part of ID theory itself.

And that idea does not satisfy 99.9% of people who favor ID. They prefer
god to ancient aliens.

>> ID shouldn't be mandated but if a teacher
>> or school system wants to "teach the controversy" that suits us as we can
>> surreptitiously god gap our untenable belief system as historically
>> accepted default position arrived at by superstition and overactive
>> imagination.
>
> Your merciless lampoon is duly noted.

It is a god gap. Period. That's the whole point behind Part 9 of the
document Glenn linked.

> If you mean for it to be anything but a lampoon, please quote
> passages that you think you (or someone who is a better propagandist
> than you) can spin-doctor to support some part or other of your
> lampoon.

Well quoting myself following up to Burk:

"Not quite. ID is dead in the water but doesn't stop them from marching out

their hobby horses in Part 9: mutations bad, cellular machinery
unevolvable, no transitional forms, messy tree of life, abiogenesis
unsolved, icons worshipped like Haeckel's embryos...they focus almost
exclusively upon evolution via selection because mutations bad...

If you undercut evolution, cherished traditional beliefs remain to take its

place but of course that's not stated overtly because they're not
creationists and that would violate establishment clause. Just teach the
controversy and the rest falls into place on its own. What sophistry. "

It will be an exercise in futility to dissect the document page by page
because you have a horrible track record when things don't go in your
favor. Instead of substantive replies I will suffer endless tangents about
Isaac, Casanova, jillery and Harshman. Oh wait you provide me with a
preview below.

But to humor you here's an expansion on the quote Jillery provided:
---------

"Is Intelligent Design the
Same as Creationism?
No. The theory of
intelligent design is an effort to empirically detect whether the “apparent
design” in nature, acknowledged by virtually all biologists, is genuine
design (the product of an intelligent cause)

or merely the product of an
undirected process such
as natural selection acting on random variations.
Creationism typically starts with a religious text and
tries to see how the
findings of science can be reconciled to it. ID starts with the empirical
evidence of nature
and seeks to ascertain what scientific inferences can
be
drawn from that evidence."
---------

I assert that ID starts with a religious text as it is an eventual outcome
of the rise of religious fundamentalism in the 20th century. ID pretends to
start with empirical evidence, but it god gaps areas that scientists
haven't completely explained yet or totally bullshits its audience with
claims that because Haeckel engaged in hyperbole over early vertebrate
embryology such organisms must be totally dissimilar and unrelated. That's
the take home message when you follow that particular rabbit hole.

>> But it ain't really about god or our religious belief. We are
>> merely criticizing evolution as natural selection as neo-Darwinism is
>> hoodwinking the children into blind obedience to the Borgish "Darwin Lobby"
>> agenda. Such total bullshit.
>
> I agree, this second half of your lampoon is total bullshit. :-)

Quoting more as you wish:
-----
"In Origin of Species, Charles Darwin cautioned that “a fair result can be
obtained only by fully stating and balancing the facts and arguments on
both sides of each question.”10 Unfortunately, the vast majority of public
schools
today reject Darwin’s advice, and only teach students about the
pro-evolution view. Controlled, pressured, and intimidated by the Darwin
Lobby—a powerful coalition of politically-oriented scientific
organizations, educators associations, and activist groups—most public
schools effectively censor from students any scientific evidence which
challenges neo-Darwinism. Even many private schools which use mainstream
biology textbooks wittingly or unwittingly teach only the Darwinian view.
The result is not education, but indoctrination."
-----

So how far off the mark was I?

Yet one can learn enough evolution without ID to counter the
"neo-Darwinian" view represented in Glenn's link document as follows:
---
"Mutations cause harm and do not build complexity Darwinian evolution
relies on random mutations
that are selected by a blind, unguided process
of
natural selection that has no goals. Such a random and undirected
process tends to harm organisms and does not improve them or build
functional complexity."
----

What about neutral mutations? Do they cause harm? And sure organisms will
perish during the course of evolution by selection in a population. Some
may remain that will mate and add their less deleterious or beneficial
traits to the next generations.

>>> Ron O could tell you more about its history, because it is the one to which
>>> he posted links year after year, several times in some years, in support of
>>> his maniacal hatred of the DI. It is centered around a bait and switch
>>> scam by Ron O which alleges a bait and switch scam by the DI.
>>>
>>> In fact, did you even LOOK at it? Its contents should be familiar to most
>>> people here, but hardly anyone ever tries to really refute its actual
>>> contents. I wouldn't be surprised if my criticism of it, which you snipped,
>>> was the first one in talk.origins all year.
>>
>> My point which whooshed a part through your hair is as he typically does
>> Glenn posts something lacking creative content on his part.
>
> Any other trivia you want to regale us with? Glenn's habits are
> well known to everyone: Glenn works in little soundbites over 90%
> of the time, but sometimes comes through with some serious thinking.
>
> One such occasion was the question of what the ancestral apes to
> us humans were like, and that upset Casanova so much, he lost
> his temper and accused Glenn of one "puke" after another.

Why do I care about this? Because Casanova has rubbed you the wrong way?
Not my problem. Thanks for adding to the excess of an already tedious post
by you.

>>>> and you go on to drag your views on others into
>>>> the mix. Hasn't this 'crazy Hemi' comparison to Thrinaxodon been overplayed
>>>> by you? You continue to beat that drum. One of your never ceasing tropes.
>>>
>>> And why not? It's one which you never try to rebut.
>>>
>>> Wouldn't you be the first to sneer if I were to talk about DISHONEST
>>> claims about me being repeated in never ceasing tropes? especially
>>> if I were to use that talk to create doubts about their veracity?
>>>
>>> But you treat it that way, and in this way you reveal that you
>>> haven't lost all of your "dumb as a fox" cunning.
>>
>> Whatever. You're not a closet creationist. You really aren't. The dovetail
>> between your directed panspermy, IC, and ID is mere illusion as is your
>> defensiveness toward Behe. Don't see that at all.
>
> I would defend anyone against misrepresentation if I thought it
> relevant to talk.origins. That includes Stalin, Hitler, Trump,
> Clinton, Glenn...
>
> ...and even yourself. ;-)
>
> All ribbing aside, I did it wrt Harshman in your presence and Harshman's
> absence, while giving valid criticsm of Harshman himself. And that
> set in motion a chain of events which culminated in Harshman
> totally ruining his credibility wrt the word "paranoid," to the point
> where he needs to think of the boy who cried "Wolf!" before using it.

You bore me.

[*Hemidactylus*]

Peter Nyikos <nyi...@bellsouth.net> wrote:

[snip to Peter's conjuring trick]

> <snip of things I might address if Hemidactylus has the guts to
> reply in detail to my posts>

It's more a lack of patience with your bickering interpersonal asides and
callous disregard for something many of us call reality. But I did reply
with several quotes from a worthless 32 page document.

[Glenn]

"jillery" <69jp...@gmail.com> wrote in message news:qv871chu8cn6l74ep...@4ax.com...

This, from a person who determines a need to chastize me and let Bob's comments stand.

[Jonathan]

For some reason I just read this entire thread, god
only knows why, not a bit of it makes the least
bit of sense.




"I felt a Cleaving in my Mind
As if my Brain had split
I tried to match it -- Seam by Seam-
But could not make them fit.

The thought behind, I strove to join
Unto the thought before
But Sequence ravelled out of reach
Like Balls -- upon a Floor."







s

[*Hemidactylus*]

Wow. 16 words uttered but none relevant to the Discovery Institute link you
foisted upon us for some unresolved reason. Peter lets you slide on that
but grills me on my self-expressed views on that site as if I didn't nail
it dead to rights. Holy crap I've more than tripled your typical expressive
capacity. Don't feel bad. Peter uses this many words to introduce a google
groups link to show how mean someone has been to him on another thread as
if anyone cares. He then concatenates that multiple times covering the
typical tropes.

[*Hemidactylus*]

Care to express an opinion in your own words on Glenn's Discovery Institute
link?

http://www.discovery.org/f/1453

[Glenn]

"*Hemidactylus*" <ecph...@allspamis.invalid> wrote in message news:rNqdnUhdmoUqlonF...@giganews.com...

Everyone thinks they know the reason. Ask one of them.

[Glenn]

"*Hemidactylus*" <ecph...@allspamis.invalid> wrote in message news:O-ednZpKF-_ukInF...@giganews.com...

Would that test your ignorance?

[*Hemidactylus*]

Is that a koan? What is your reason? You are being so coy.

[*Hemidactylus*]

RonO <roki...@cox.net> wrote:
> On 10/27/2016 9:55 AM, Glenn wrote:
>>

>> "rsNorman" <r_s_n...@comcast.net> wrote in message news:nurfnk$730$1...@dont-email.me...
>>> *Hemidactylus* <ecph...@allspamis.invalid> Wrote in message:
>>>> *Hemidactylus* <ecph...@allspamis.invalid> wrote:
>>
>> snip off topic garbage
>>
>> Recent comments here proclaiming ID as being "dead" inspired the posting of this:
>>
>> "Does evolutionary theory need a rethink? Yes, urgently"
>> http://www.discovery.org/f/1453
>>
>

Well the document Glenn posted opens with: "This briefing packet was
developed in order to provide you with clear and accurate information about
the scientific theory of intelligent design: what it is, how it originated,
and how it differs from neo-Darwinism."

And the document you link has this quote:
"Attempts to mandate teaching about intelligent design only politicize the
theory and will hinder fair and open discussion of the merits of the theory
among scholars and within the scientific community. "

Is that something of a backpedal? That seems the most explicit connection
of ID and science in document.

It goes on about promoting more extensive curricular coverage of evolution
in schools which sounds great on the surface but between the lines this is
just "teach the controversy" propaganda that amounts to taking potshots at
"neo-Darwinism" and relying upon the dog whistle of implicit god gapping.
One doesn't need to be overtly religious to convey the intended message.
Given the 'mutations bad' rhetoric I don't see any objective critical views
of evolutionary ideas being taught.

> Now in 2015 the ID perps revamped the propaganda, but they forgot to
> change the education policy statement in "this" worthless piece of junk.
> They have retained the old policy statement that they had in the 2009
> version. The old education policy statement is still on page 15.
> Anyone can compare it to the newer policy statement to confirm that they
> deleted the paragraph that stated that they had a scientific theory of
> ID to teach. None of the current reality is reflected in this old piece
> of junk. Who believes that there is anything for a teacher to teach
> about ID in the public schools? What has happened in every single case
> since the bait and switch started in 2002? Why hasn't the ID science
> ever shown up? What do the rubes like Glenn get instead of any ID
> science? These facts are not going to change. No matter what is
> written in "this" piece of IDiot stupidity the bait and switch will
> still go down on the next set of IDiot rubes stupid enough to believe it.

Do you have a link to 2015 document?

[*Hemidactylus*]

Still evading? The difference between you and jonathan is he posts links
associated with long tirades about how backward group members are with
added bonus of poetry. You post links with unedifying one or two line
instances of barely intelligible snark. At least Peter is in your corner.
He's got this.

[erik simpson]

For once, I think you've understood the essence of this thread very well.
There don't seem to be emergence of anything that makes sense.

[*Hemidactylus*]

Peter Nyikos <nyi...@bellsouth.net> wrote:

[snip]

> You twice posted this "neglect of duties" crap without trying to
> find out what is going on at the University of South Carolina in
> Columbia. Even after you got burned by not checking [the university
> was CLOSED due to Hurricane Matthew for three days] you plowed
> right ahead by doing it again when our university was on Fall Break.

As I was scared shitless by that storm and posted on it early while it was
still off South American coast and expressed concern for jonathan, you,
Coffey, and Gans I can say I am glad you are OK sincerely. And I don't
judge your usage of time here, but take exception to the manner in which
you do it with the focus on interpersonal dynamics over topics themselves.

[Jonathan]

Well lets just look at their first bullet point which states


Here are some of the major points you will find discussed
in the following pages:

• The theory of intelligent design holds that certain
features of the universe and of living things are
best explained by an intelligent cause, not an

undirected process such as natural selection

I hate to burst your bubble but they are quite correct.

But not that some 'wise old man out there waving a
magic wand' is providing the intelligence, as that's
a view of God taught to six year old children.
Of course the science crowd uses that strawman
definition of God since it's easiest to ridicule.

But the intelligent design comes from the life form
itself, at least once the life reaches a certain
level of complexity simply stated as 'able to act
on it's own behalf'.

For instance at the highest levels, say humanity, our
intelligence most certainly effects our environment
and our reproductive choices etc etc and plays
a dominant role in our future evolutionary paths.

Emergence is a system property that canalizes or
restricts the future behavior of a system towards
the better solution and is a form of intelligence
that provides a coequal role in evolution with
natural selection.


Emergence
from Wiki

Living, biological systems

Emergence and evolution

See also: Abiogenesis

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


/Emergence is the science of how things are created/



These are all facts, not my rantings. The idea
that evolution is strictly an unguided process
following natural selection is just plain wrong
in the sense that is only half the process.

The other half is due to emergent intelligence
guiding evolution towards better solutions
to any given problem.

And I can provide any number of reputable cites
to back that up, only I know you won't read them
as your mind is as made up as the religious nuts
you like to ridicule so as to feel superior to
someone.

But if interested in the truth of nature, intelligence
plays a coequal part with natural selection.

And an honest assessment is that the two sides are
starting to converge on a common view which
complexity science has already established.

But changing the minds of those that made up
their minds fifty years ago doesn't happen
overnight as this ng has so clearly shown.


Jonathan


s

[jillery]

On Fri, 28 Oct 2016 16:49:38 -0700 (PDT), Peter Nyikos

Right here would have been a good place for you to identify what you
think is evidence of Glenn's though processes.

>> >> >Since nothing even remotely like what Casanova attributed to Glenn

Since Casanova attributed nothing to Glenn, since Glenn attributed
nothing but a quote to the article, your complaint below smacks of
knee-jerk inanity.

>> >> >appears either in Glenn's words or in the DI website that Glenn
>> >> >linked, you are just making a fool of yourself out of blind loyalty
>> >> >to Casanova.
>
>You knew better than to contest the "nothing remotely resembling" bit
>directly, knowing that even your professional-level expetise at
>propaganda is unequal to the task, so you changed the subject:

The following is the subject. You're the one who changed it. Tu
quoque back atcha, bozo.

That's what happens when an idiot plays with idiotic GG. Of course,
the entire thread is but a few days old, and it's unlikely that you
actually didn't read my posts. Even jonathan, bless his
attention-deficit heart, claimed to read through the entire thread. So
there's no reason a USC tenured professor, and one with years of
experience on Usenet, should have so much trouble finding my cited
posts.

>But now the plot thickens. I made an educated guess as to what
>you are dishonestly spin-doctoring into a claim that you actually
>supported the allegation. Clicking my very first guess on "Show original"
>revealed that the following post did go with the second Message-ID:
>
>https://groups.google.com/forum/#!original/talk.origins/CQW88Fk4yiA/0A0y0B-gCAAJ
>
>And of course, you did NOT support the claim that NOTHING
>in the 32-page statement has to do with the trouble evolutionary
>theory is in, at this stage of our biological and biochemical knowledge.

Of course, I made no such claim. To refresh your oh-so-convenient
amnesia, the following is what I actually claimed, amazingly still

preserved in the quoted text above:

*********************************************

Since nothing even remotely like what Glenn posted has anything to do
with what Glenn cited,

*********************************************

And since my claim is contingent on what Glenn posted, the following
is the entirety of Glenn's original contribution, also amazingly

still preserved in the quoted text above:

**********************************************

"Does evolutionary theory need a rethink? Yes, urgently"
http://www.discovery.org/f/1453

**********************************************

One can only wonder how you get from the above to "the trouble

evolutionary theory is in, at this stage of our biological and

biochemical knowledge" My impression is it has something to do with
mindreading.

>Instead, you took the cheap polemical way out, by noting that the
>exact quote that Glenn used did not appear in the 32-page statement.

Liar. As I noted before in my post I cited:

**********************************************
your cited article says nothing about what you say it says. So
one can only wonder why you even bothered to post it.
**********************************************

Note that I make no reference to the exact quote, but instead that it
says nothing about what Glenn quoted.

Of course, right here would have been a good place for you to prove me
wrong by citing where you think Glenn's cited article says something
about Glenn's quote. But despite all the gratuitous noise you
ejaculated from your puckered sphincter, you haven't discussed the
article itself. One can only wonder why that is.

>> So either your post is another one of your Big Lies against me. Or
>> your post is another example where you don't know what you're talking
>> about. Or both. My impression is the latter. Prove me wrong by
>> retracting your accusation or backing it up.
>
>Go play in the sandbox with your playmate Casanova.

So you prove once again that you're a liar and a coward. Your mommy's
calling you. Time to change your knappies.

>> >> So do you think Glenn's cite isn't on the Internet? Or do you think
>> >> Glenn's cite isn't true? Or both? Enquiring minds want know.
>> >
>> >I fail to see the relevance of these questions to anything I've
>> >mentioned here.
>>
>>
>> To refresh your oh-so-convenient amnesia,
>
>No such thing exists. You are bluffing with a Nothing hand:

And yet I have to keep reminding you of what was actually posted. One
can only wonder why that is.

>> here is Casanova's statement
>> which you declared a strawman, both still preserved in the quoted text
>> above:
>>
>> *******************************
>> And since "if it's on the Internet it must be true",
>> *******************************
>
>You sure know how to slap irrelevant crud in reply to skepticism about
>relevance.

Since your claim against Casanova is based on what Casanova actually
wrote, one can only wonder why you claim what Casanova actually wrote
is "irrelevant crud".


>> Since you have a habit of reading things over-literally, I point out

>> that Casanova's statement references the observation that some people
>> cite from the Internet as if everything on the Internet is true,
>
>Which is a libel where Glenn is concerned, nicht wahr?
>
>If it isn't a libel, please quote something from Glenn which
>would lead an objective observer to think that Glenn thinks that way.

Whether it's libel or not, Glenn's text, copied by me from the quoted
text above to refresh your oh-so-convenient amnesia, would lead an
objective observer to think that Glenn thinks that way. Prove me
wrong.

>> and
>> further emphasized by Casanova's link to a Flat-Earth website.
>
>Piling insult upon insult. Don't you realize that you are only
>hurting Casanova with these clumsy efforts to help him?

Since what I wrote above agrees with what Casanova wrote, I can't say
that I do. I stipulate your greater use of libel. Too bad for you
this is just more of you continuing to ejaculate your irrelevant spew
from your puckered sphincter.

>> Casanova's statement makes two claims of fact:
>>
>> 1: Glenn's cite is on the Internet.
>> 2: Glenn's cite isn't true.
>
>More of the same clumsy effort, reading all kinds of "claims" into
>Casanova's one-liner that remind me of the tailors for the Emperor's New
>Clothes.
>
>> In order for your claim of a strawman to be true, one or both of those
>> claims must be false.
>>
>> I have led you to the trough.
>
>You led me to a dry gulch, prevaricator. I defy you to try and prove
>otherwise, RATIONALLY.

Apparently you use a unique meaning of RATIONALLY, which you use to
evade answering the question. Run away, brave sir rockhead, run away
away...

>> Now answer my question, or do I have to
>> give you an enema first?
>
>++++++++++++++++++++ Casanova posting style on
>
>You, of all people, don't get to require that.
>
>++++++++++++++++++++ Casanova posting style off, my style on:
>
>If I were to say to you what you just said to me, your buddy Casanova would
>be justified in saying something that might make his "How old are you?
>Grow up. Or get a life..." look tame in comparison.
>
>And it would be sincere, unlike his words I quoted here, which
>were made plausible-looking only because he deleted
>incriminating evidence of what a childish person you were.

Says the asshole as he continues to ejaculate his repetitive
irrelevant spew from his puckered sphincter. Thanks for proving once
again what a lying coward you are.

[jillery]

On Fri, 28 Oct 2016 22:24:52 -0400, Jonathan <wr...@gmail.com> wrote:

>On 10/28/2016 6:07 PM, jillery wrote:
>> On Fri, 28 Oct 2016 12:20:33 -0700 (PDT), Peter Nyikos
>> <nyi...@bellsouth.net> continued to ejaculate his repetitive
>> irrelevant spew from his puckered sphincter:
>>
>> <snip to focus, as futile as that is>
>>
>>> PS I see you pathetically licking your wounds, in post after post
>>> on this thread, after the beating you and your loyal ally jillery
>>> got, also on this thread. You "left the crickets chirping" at
>>> the epicenter of this beating, in a reply you did to me, also
>>> on this thread.
>>
>>
>> Dunning–Kruger strikes again.
>
>
>

>For some reason I just read this entire thread, god
>only knows why, not a bit of it makes the least
>bit of sense.

Thanks for sharing.

[jillery]

On Fri, 28 Oct 2016 20:04:49 -0700, "Glenn" <g...@invalid.invalid>
wrote:

The above is a tacit admission that you don't know what you're talking
about.

[jillery]

On Fri, 28 Oct 2016 19:11:36 -0700, "Glenn" <g...@invalid.invalid>
wrote:

The above is a tacit admission that you play stupid word games.

[jillery]

What do you expect from a thread with both rockhead and Glenn doing
their best to mash all sense into incoherent mush?

[jillery]

IIRC you haven't addressed the question of how life designed the
Universe before intelligent life existed. Even presuming a cyclical
infinite Universe requires intelligent life to survive through the Big
Crunch and the following Big Bang.

[Jonathan]

An attractor is an emergent, canalizing or 'intelligent'
process as it guides the system towards the better
solution. From Steinhardt and Turok below, they claim
attractor mechanisms from the previous universe
shapes the new universe, so emergent information
is passed between cycles helping to shape or
'design' the new universe.



Antigravity and the big crunch/big bang transition

Department of Physics and Astronomy, University of
Southern California, Los Angeles, CA 90089-2535, USA
Perimeter Institute for Theoretical Physics, Waterloo,
Canada
Department of Physics and School of Earth and Space
Exploration, Arizona State University, Tempe, AZ
Department of Physics and Princeton Center for
Theoretical Physics, Princeton University, Princeton, NJ


(excerpts)


abstract

We point out a new phenomenon which seems to be generic
in 4d effective theories of scalar fields coupled to
Einstein gravity, when applied to cosmology. A lift
of such theories to a Weyl-invariant extension allows one
to define classical evolution through cosmological
singularities unambiguously, and hence construct geodesically
complete background spacetimes.

An attractor mechanism ensures that, at the level of the
effective theory, generic solutions undergo a
big crunch/big bang transition by contracting to
zero size, passing through a brief antigravity phase,
shrinking to zero size again, and re-emerging
into an expanding normal gravity phase.

The result may be useful for the construction of
complete bouncing cosmologies like the cyclic model.

Resolving the big bang singularity is one of the central
challenges for fundamental physics and cosmology. At present,
there are diverse views about what form the resolution may take.
A common idea is that the singularity was the beginning of
space and time. In this case, the universe is less than
14 billion years old, and its large-scale structure must
be set in place within the first fraction of a second.

This reasoning points to inflation [1] as the only rapid means
of achieving the observed large-scale conditions; but then
one is also forced to come to grips with the
measure problem, the entropy problem and the fine-tuning problem
that go hand-in-hand with inflation [2]. An alternative idea
is that the big bang was a bounce: a transition from contraction
to expansion.

This idea underlies the cyclic model [3], in which the
large-scale structure of the universe is set during an
ekpyrotic contraction phase [4,5], well before the big bang,
and then evolves through a big crunch/big bang transition.
http://wwwphy.princeton.edu/~steinh/BCST0.pdf

[jillery]

On Sat, 29 Oct 2016 09:18:29 -0400, Jonathan <wr...@gmail.com> wrote:

[...]

Your quoted items below don't use the word "intelligent" or any
derivatives of it. Your coflation of undirected cause with
intelligent intent is your baseless claim here. So you still haven't
address the question of how intelligent life designed the Universe
before intelligent life existed. Is anybody surprised?

[Glenn]

"jillery" <69jp...@gmail.com> wrote in message news:e5v81ct1jds0208t8...@4ax.com...

That shakes me to the bone.

[Glenn]

"jillery" <69jp...@gmail.com> wrote in message news:86v81ctmt4kn76svr...@4ax.com...

I'm so sorry.

[RonO]

What is funny is Nyikos keeps claiming that they ID perps do not claim
to have a scientific theory of intelligent design in this packet. They
do not put a scientific theory forward and tell us what it is, but they
obviously claim that one exists.

This is a wayback link to the old briefing packet from 2010
https://web.archive.org/web/20100406134506/http://www.discovery.org/a/4299

It has a link to download the PDF.
https://web.archive.org/web/20100406143812/http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/filesDB-download.php?command=download&id=1453

Even though the Discovery Institute link claims 2007, the pdf claims
2010. I got the Wayback link from 2010 Discovery.org archive.

Some hedging and backtracking and newer graphics is about all the
difference between this one and the new one. I do not have a copy of
the original 2007 version, but they added some references in 2009.

Ron Okimoto

[Bob Casanova]

On Fri, 28 Oct 2016 10:49:39 -0700, the following appeared

in talk.origins, posted by "Glenn" <g...@invalid.invalid>:

>
>"Bob Casanova" <nos...@buzz.off> wrote in message news:2t271clk9j5atejda...@4ax.com...
>> On Thu, 27 Oct 2016 09:59:01 -0700 (PDT), the following
>> appeared in talk.origins, posted by Peter Nyikos
>> <nyi...@bellsouth.net>:
>>
>>>On Thursday, October 27, 2016 at 12:25:03 PM UTC-4, Bob Casanova wrote:
>>>> On Thu, 27 Oct 2016 07:55:02 -0700, the following appeared
>>>> in talk.origins, posted by "Glenn" <g...@invalid.invalid>:
>>>>
>>>> >

>>>> >"rsNorman" <r_s_n...@comcast.net> wrote in message news:nurfnk$730$1...@dont-email.me...
>>>> >> *Hemidactylus* <ecph...@allspamis.invalid> Wrote in message:
>>>> >>> *Hemidactylus* <ecph...@allspamis.invalid> wrote:
>>>> >
>>>> >snip off topic garbage
>>>> >
>>>> >Recent comments here proclaiming ID as being "dead" inspired the posting of this:
>>>> >
>>>> >"Does evolutionary theory need a rethink? Yes, urgently"
>>>> >http://www.discovery.org/f/1453
>>>>

>>>> And since "if it's on the Internet it must be true",
>>>
>>>Straw man noted.
>>
>> Hardly.
>>
>Oh. What did I say was true?

Oh, you posted a link which you know contains false
assertions? OK.
--

Bob C.

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

- Isaac Asimov

[Bob Casanova]

On Fri, 28 Oct 2016 12:00:09 -0700 (PDT), the following

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

>On Friday, October 28, 2016 at 1:50:02 PM UTC-4, Bob Casanova wrote:
>> On Thu, 27 Oct 2016 16:45:34 -0700 (PDT), the following

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

>> >On Thursday, October 27, 2016 at 1:50:02 PM UTC-4, jillery wrote:

>> >> On Thu, 27 Oct 2016 09:59:01 -0700 (PDT), Peter Nyikos
>> >> <nyi...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >On Thursday, October 27, 2016 at 12:25:03 PM UTC-4, Bob Casanova wrote:
>> >> >> On Thu, 27 Oct 2016 07:55:02 -0700, the following appeared
>> >> >> in talk.origins, posted by "Glenn" <g...@invalid.invalid>:
>> >> >>
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >"rsNorman" <r_s_n...@comcast.net> wrote in message news:nurfnk$730$1...@dont-email.me...
>> >> >> >> *Hemidactylus* <ecph...@allspamis.invalid> Wrote in message:
>> >> >> >>> *Hemidactylus* <ecph...@allspamis.invalid> wrote:
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >snip off topic garbage
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >Recent comments here proclaiming ID as being "dead" inspired the posting of this:
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >"Does evolutionary theory need a rethink? Yes, urgently"
>> >> >> >http://www.discovery.org/f/1453
>> >> >>
>> >> >> And since "if it's on the Internet it must be true",
>

>I wonder -- did Ray Martinez pick up this jeering taunt from you,
>or did you pick it up from him?

Neither (at least from my perspective); it's a common meme,
and invariably meant sarcastically (as is the case here).

> I suspect the former, because
>he is clumsy with it, having slandered me with the explicit,
>unequivocal claim that I believe it.

You suspect many things, a few of which may even have some
tenuous basis in fact.

>Whatever the case, he is certainly doing a great job of learning
>non-Christian behavior from fellow non-Christian zealots like yourself.

And you, like Ray, know I'm not a Christian...how?

>> >> >Straw man noted.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> Right here would have been a good place for you to explain how the
>> >> above qualifies as a straw man,
>> >

>> >Since nothing even remotely like what Casanova attributed to Glenn

>> >appears either in Glenn's words or in the DI website that Glenn
>> >linked, you are just making a fool of yourself out of blind loyalty
>> >to Casanova.
>>

>> Try to get this through that blind agenda of yours:
>
>Looks like I really hit home here. In "refutation," you post a stupid
>comment which shows you are ignoring almost everything I wrote to
>Hemidactylus:

I don't see any posts by Hemi in this subthread. Having
hallucinations again?

>>Glenn
>> posted a link to a website which is strongly anti-evolution
>> and posted a quote (supposedly from that website, but I
>> skimmed the 32 pages on the site and didn't find it).
>
>That's your and jillery's supposition.

No, he actually posted the link, along with an attached
quote. Common practice dictates that the quote is connected
to the link. You really were unaware of that?

>> I posted a link to a different website (see below) with
>> equally strong opinions regarding a scientific subject.
>
>And insinuated that it has something to do with either what
>Glenn quoted or what's in the webpage he linked-- or with your
>insulting claim about "...must be true" with which you
>taunted Glenn. [Third time's the charm, methinks.]

I insinuated nothing; I posted a link to a different website
which also contains anti-science blather. You don't see the
connection? Pity...

>> I didn't need to post an obscure quote from an unidentified
>> page; the name of the website is sufficient to express their
>> beliefs.
>>
>> And to you, this constitutes a "strawman". Oy...
>
>Yes, the jeer "...must be true..." was a real
>straw man, which you knocked down with the post that you
>linked, leaving Glenn completely untouched except in the
>eyes of your fellow Glenn-disparagers.

To quote Wiki:

"A straw man is a common form of argument and is an informal
fallacy based on giving the impression of refuting an
opponent's argument, while actually refuting an argument
that was not advanced by that opponent."

My response, OTOH, was a sarcastic analogy in which I
compared a similar page to the one he referenced *because of
the ignorant content of each*.

>> >That blind loyalty is reciprocated by Casanova, as becomes clear from
>> >a post I did analyzing how he compromised his integrity on your
>> >behalf:
>> >
>> >https://groups.google.com/d/msg/talk.origins/5x6bIkuMzBw/XIwUv9f0CAAJ
>> >Subject: Re: Quote from Jillery "This NG is not about Evolution in general"
>> >Date: Thu, 27 Oct 2016 10:07:01 -0700 (PDT)
>> >Message-ID: <122fd9b9-a650-44c5...@googlegroups.com>
>> >
>> >You and Casanova make quite a tag team: he hasn't replied yet
>> >to that post, and perhaps never will, but you promptly replied to it,
>> >snipping all but a tiny part of it, leaving out all the incriminating
>> >parts, and made surrealistic comments on it.
>
><Crickets...>

Why should I respond to a whine directed at jillery?

>> >On the other hand, on the thread where Bob had actually compromised
>> >his integrity for you, it was because you were on the hot seat,
>> >as anyone bothering to look at the above linked post can see.
>
><Crickets...>

Ditto.

>> >> since neither you nor Glenn bothered
>> >> to say which part(s) of Glenn's cite he's referring to and/or agrees
>> >> with.
>> >
>> >This is downright surreal. Are you trying to create the impression
>> >that Bob wrote something besides what we've kept of his words here,
>> >and his .sig?
>> >
>> >It's up to him to bail you out by telling us that he WAS referring
>> >to something specific, but I think that would stretch even his
>> >skills at polemic and propaganda to the breaking point.
>> >
>> >Unless he surprises us all by doing that, we've just seen
>> >another demonstration, by you, of the tag team in action.
>
>And you haven't even tried to bail jillery out on her stupid
>comment, illustrating the old adage, "Discretion is the better
>part of valor."

You seem to think I need to defend jillery. I don't.

>> >>
>> >> >> be sure
>> >> >> to check out:
>> >> >>
>> >> >> http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/home/
>> >> >
>> >> >Is this going to be typical of your "rebuttals" from now on?
>
>> > the following excerpt that you snipped is very
>> >much on topic for talk.origins:
>> >
>> >
>> >https://groups.google.com/d/msg/talk.origins/rehTL2kf_jU/OToyw7wnCAAJ
>> >Message-ID: <76250fe6-8dd9-4d99...@googlegroups.com>
>> >Subject: Re: Did we come from monkeys?
>> >Date: Thu, 29 Oct 2015 12:24:55 -0700 (PDT)
>> >[...]
>> >What had happened between you and me was me criticizing the artist's
>> >incompetent "reproduction" of *Proconsul* in Wikipedia, and you
>> >sticking to your incompetent guns about it being a good reproduction.
>> >
>> >____________end of repost________________________
>> >
>> >In case you didn't know, *Proconsul* has sometimes been hypothesized to
>> >be ancestral to *Homo sapiens*, or at least close enough to be very
>> >similar to an actual ancestor of the time. But it wasn't even close
>> >to looking like that amateur artist's "reconstruction." [That's a
>> >more apt word than "reproduction," btw.]
>>
>> I just *knew* the irrelevant proconsul discussion would
>> appear;
>
>Not irrelevant: it illustrates another way you treat Glenn like dirt.

Do you feel slighted? Too bad. Apparently you think Glenn,
like jillery, is helpless to defend himself. Do you wear a
cape?

>But jillery snipped out my explanation of that, and I didn't bother
>to restore it.

What part of "that is between you and jillery" are you
missing?

>But you can scroll up to find it. Not that you'd want to
>do that -- it would cramp your style, which is evident here
>too:
>
>> your predictability is legend here.
>
>...glass houses...stones. You are far more predictable wrt DP

More predictable that your refusal, for over 4 years, to
support your imaginary values for the Drake Equation terms?

>, as
>you demonstrated in another post to this thread, playing "good cop"
>to jillery's "bad cop."
>
>PS Too bad your "good cop" act landed you in the mud. As I'll demonstrate
>when I reply to it directly.

Oh, I'm in terror of your chastisement. Not.

[Bob Casanova]

On Fri, 28 Oct 2016 12:20:33 -0700 (PDT), the following

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

>On Friday, October 28, 2016 at 2:00:02 PM UTC-4, Bob Casanova wrote:
>> On Fri, 28 Oct 2016 12:49:41 -0400, the following appeared
>> in talk.origins, posted by jillery <69jp...@gmail.com>:
>>
>> >On Fri, 28 Oct 2016 06:19:39 -0500, *Hemidactylus*
>> ><ecph...@allspamis.invalid> wrote:

>> >
>> >>Burkhard <b.sc...@ed.ac.uk> wrote:
>> >>> Bob Casanova wrote:
>> >>>> On Thu, 27 Oct 2016 07:55:02 -0700, the following appeared
>> >>>> in talk.origins, posted by "Glenn" <g...@invalid.invalid>:
>> >>>>
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> "rsNorman" <r_s_n...@comcast.net> wrote in message news:nurfnk$730$1...@dont-email.me...
>> >>>>>> *Hemidactylus* <ecph...@allspamis.invalid> Wrote in message:
>> >>>>>>> *Hemidactylus* <ecph...@allspamis.invalid> wrote:
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> snip off topic garbage
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> Recent comments here proclaiming ID as being "dead" inspired the posting of this:
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> "Does evolutionary theory need a rethink? Yes, urgently"
>> >>>>> http://www.discovery.org/f/1453
>> >>>>
>> >>>> And since "if it's on the Internet it must be true",
>> >>>

>> >>> I thought it is an excellent data point for the contention that ID is
>> >>> indeed dead as a dodo, don't you think?
>
>Burkhard "scratching your back" -- except that he isn't directly
>talking about your insulting jeer at Glenn.
>
>> >>> I mean, according to the document, Intelligent Design hasn't succeeded
>> >>> since Dover to identify even for a single biological trait who designed
>> >>> it in what way, when and for what purpose.
>
>There are various guesses, but to actually give the details that Burkhard
>is fishing for would be to fall for the Mouse Deer Trick.
>
>[Details about this trick available on request.]
>
>
>> >>> And it remains just as stale
>> >>> on the theoretical side, not having improved its theoretical vocabulary,
>> >>> methodology etc by just one bit.
>
>The methodology is very much that of contemporary science in the hands of
>the experts like Behe [who is almost never consulted by the DI],
>so it needs no elaboration.
>
><snip of things I might address if Hemidactylus has the guts to
>reply in detail to my posts>
>
>> >Of course, to say that nature has an intelligent cause is a religious
>> >claim. It's certainly not scientific, as ID supporters admit the
>> >motives of their undefined Creator are unknown and unknowable.
>
>And it would be unscientific for them to claim they are known,
>any more than it would be unscientific to claim that we know
>the motives of the people who did the Nazca Plains figures,
>at our present state of knowledge.
>
>As for "unknowable", I'd like to see a direct quote and source for it.
>The word appears nowhere in the document Glenn linked.
>
>
>> To be fair, and applied only to life on Earth, it *could* be
>> ascribed to DP, if only we had some evidence that the
>> panspermists exist(ed). Not religious per se, but the result
>> of actions by unseen aliens with godlike powers.
>
>You keep revealing what a pathetic one-trick pony you are wrt
>the whole subject of DP. I have kept writing until I am blue
>in the face [figure of speech] that I do not ascribe any
>"powers" to the technological civilization I hypothesize
>beyond our own level of intelligence, nor a technology more
>advanced than we can expect to arrive at within a century,
>if present trends continue.

You might want to note that not only the origination of life
on Earth is involved, but the entire process of evolution
from that original life to what we see today. As I see it
WRT this subject there are two possibilities:

1) Life was started by DP *or* by a deity, and then evolved
on its own, exactly as described by science. In this
scenario there is no detectable difference between DP and
the actions of a deity, and evolutionary biology need not
concern itself with anything beyond the natural process of
evolution since life began.

2) Life (again) was started by DP or by a deity, but the
actions of either effectively didn't stop there. If by a
deity, creation (and extinction) of each species was by
direct creation, as Ray and other fundamentalists believe.
If by DP, the panspermists had sufficient knowledge and
talent to "program" both the evolution of species, and their
subsequent extinction, into the RNA/DNA of the original
life; note that this would require a massive "if/then/else"
tree to be programmed in, to account for unpredictable
events - bolides, massive vulcanism, global glaciation, etc.
An omnipotent deity could also work that way, but could also
stay around to directly effect creation and extinction of
species.

If you seriously believe we will have such capability in
biology within the next century (or the next millennium)
there's little I can say beyond "I disagree".

>As you love to say about utterly trivial things, unlike this
>serious demonstration of willful ignorance by you,
>
>Whooooooooooooosh!

>
>PS I see you pathetically licking your wounds, in post after post
>on this thread

As noted elsethread, you see much which is nonexistent.

>, after the beating you and your loyal ally jillery
>got, also on this thread. You "left the crickets chirping" at
>the epicenter of this beating, in a reply you did to me, also
>on this thread.

[Bob Casanova]

On Fri, 28 Oct 2016 18:07:01 -0400, the following appeared

in talk.origins, posted by jillery <69jp...@gmail.com>:

>On Fri, 28 Oct 2016 12:00:09 -0700 (PDT), Peter Nyikos
><nyi...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>
>>>Glenn
>>> posted a link to a website which is strongly anti-evolution
>>> and posted a quote (supposedly from that website, but I
>>> skimmed the 32 pages on the site and didn't find it).
>>
>>That's your and jillery's supposition.
>
>

>Nope. A trivial text search shows that quote appears nowhere in the
>text, and appears in the entire article only as the title to one of 89
>references in the bibliography.
>
>Apparently you don't know how to do text searches. It's never too
>late to learn.

I read that particular assumption of his as referring
specifically to the connection between the link and the
quote, but you may be correct.

[Bob Casanova]

On Fri, 28 Oct 2016 21:24:08 -0700 (PDT), the following
appeared in talk.origins, posted by erik simpson
<eastsi...@gmail.com>:

>On Friday, October 28, 2016 at 7:30:02 PM UTC-7, Jonathan wrote:
>> On 10/28/2016 6:07 PM, jillery wrote:
>> > On Fri, 28 Oct 2016 12:20:33 -0700 (PDT), Peter Nyikos
>> > <nyi...@bellsouth.net> continued to ejaculate his repetitive
>> > irrelevant spew from his puckered sphincter:
>> >
>> > <snip to focus, as futile as that is>
>> >
>> >> PS I see you pathetically licking your wounds, in post after post
>> >> on this thread, after the beating you and your loyal ally jillery
>> >> got, also on this thread. You "left the crickets chirping" at
>> >> the epicenter of this beating, in a reply you did to me, also
>> >> on this thread.
>> >
>> >
>> > Dunning–Kruger strikes again.

>> For some reason I just read this entire thread, god
>> only knows why, not a bit of it makes the least
>> bit of sense.
>>
>> "I felt a Cleaving in my Mind
>> As if my Brain had split
>> I tried to match it -- Seam by Seam-
>> But could not make them fit.
>>
>> The thought behind, I strove to join
>> Unto the thought before
>> But Sequence ravelled out of reach
>> Like Balls -- upon a Floor."

>For once, I think you've understood the essence of this thread very well.
>There don't seem to be emergence of anything that makes sense.

This does a better job of capturing the essence of several
posts in this thread:

http://www.jabberwocky.com/carroll/jabber/jabberwocky.html

I'll leave it to you to decide which ones it best fits.

[Bob Casanova]

On Sat, 29 Oct 2016 06:53:59 -0700, the following appeared

>I'm so sorry.

Well, *finally* something on which we're in full agreement!

[Peter Nyikos]

On Saturday, October 29, 2016 at 2:50:02 PM UTC-4, Bob Casanova wrote:
> On Fri, 28 Oct 2016 12:20:33 -0700 (PDT), the following
> appeared in talk.origins, posted by Peter Nyikos
> <nyi...@bellsouth.net>:
>
> >On Friday, October 28, 2016 at 2:00:02 PM UTC-4, Bob Casanova wrote:
> >> On Fri, 28 Oct 2016 12:49:41 -0400, the following appeared
> >> in talk.origins, posted by jillery <69jp...@gmail.com>:

<snip of things to which you did not reply>

> >> >Of course, to say that nature has an intelligent cause is a religious
> >> >claim. It's certainly not scientific, as ID supporters admit the
> >> >motives of their undefined Creator are unknown and unknowable.
> >
> >And it would be unscientific for them to claim they are known,
> >any more than it would be unscientific to claim that we know
> >the motives of the people who did the Nazca Plains figures,
> >at our present state of knowledge.
> >
> >As for "unknowable", I'd like to see a direct quote and source for it.
> >The word appears nowhere in the document Glenn linked.

Don't hold your breath waiting for jillery, who is responsible for
that "unknowable," to explain it. She prefers to turn coherent
discussion into mush.

> >
> >> To be fair, and applied only to life on Earth, it *could* be
> >> ascribed to DP, if only we had some evidence that the
> >> panspermists exist(ed). Not religious per se, but the result
> >> of actions by unseen aliens with godlike powers.
> >
> >You keep revealing what a pathetic one-trick pony you are wrt
> >the whole subject of DP. I have kept writing until I am blue
> >in the face [figure of speech] that I do not ascribe any
> >"powers" to the technological civilization I hypothesize
> >beyond our own level of intelligence, nor a technology more
> >advanced than we can expect to arrive at within a century,
> >if present trends continue.

You indulged in one sophistry after another below in a vain
attempt to cast doubt on this factual statement of mine.

> You might want to note that not only the origination of life
> on Earth is involved, but the entire process of evolution
> from that original life to what we see today.

You've undermined your one trick on DP: you've proceeded
to ignore the new things in my expanded Drake equation which
speak directly to this very theme. And so you are apparently
ignorant of the very parts of that equation that you've been
demanding that I talk about.

> As I see it
> WRT this subject there are two possibilities:
>
> 1) Life was started by DP *or* by a deity,

on earth? or in the universe? If the latter, DP is so far out
of the picture, it isn't funny.

> and then evolved
> on its own, exactly as described by science. In this
> scenario there is no detectable difference between DP and
> the actions of a deity,

There is no role for DP here, so you are comparing nothing to
the actions of a deity, unless you are talking about the
beginning of life ON EARTH, in which case you are committing
the fallacy of begging the question.

> and evolutionary biology need not
> concern itself with anything beyond the natural process of
> evolution since life began.
>
> 2) Life (again) was started by DP or by a deity, but the
> actions of either effectively didn't stop there. If by a
> deity, creation (and extinction) of each species was by
> direct creation, as Ray and other fundamentalists believe.

Glaring false dichotomy fallacy here. You are leaving out
everyone who believes in divinely guided evolution, perhaps
at widely spaced key intervals. That includes
MORE scientists than those who believe in fundamentalism.

And you indulge in an even more glaring false dichotomy below:

> If by DP, the panspermists had sufficient knowledge and
> talent to "program" both the evolution of species, and their
> subsequent extinction, into the RNA/DNA of the original
> life;

This is such a non sequitur, it makes the rest of what you
write below pure unadulterated GIGO.

> note that this would require a massive "if/then/else"
> tree to be programmed in, to account for unpredictable
> events - bolides, massive vulcanism, global glaciation, etc.
> An omnipotent deity could also work that way, but could also
> stay around to directly effect creation and extinction of
> species.
>
> If you seriously believe we will have such capability in
> biology within the next century (or the next millennium)
> there's little I can say beyond "I disagree".
>
> >As you love to say about utterly trivial things, unlike this
> >serious demonstration of willful ignorance by you,
> >
> >Whooooooooooooosh!
> >
> >PS I see you pathetically licking your wounds, in post after post
> >on this thread
>
> As noted elsethread,

Read: alleged by your loyal ally jillery,

> you see much which is nonexistent.

I did see the following, which is all the extra information I needed:

> >, after the beating you and your loyal ally jillery
> >got, also on this thread. You "left the crickets chirping" at
> >the epicenter of this beating, in a reply you did to me, also
> >on this thread.

My words about which you claimed to "note" something, referred to
other posts in which you buried your head in the sand about the epicenter.

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

[Peter Nyikos]

On Friday, October 28, 2016 at 8:30:03 PM UTC-4, *Hemidactylus* wrote:
> Peter Nyikos <nyi...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> > On Thursday, October 27, 2016 at 8:30:02 PM UTC-4, *Hemidactylus* wrote:
> >> Peter Nyikos <nyi...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> >>> On Thursday, October 27, 2016 at 6:10:02 PM UTC-4, *Hemidactylus* wrote:
> >>>> Peter Nyikos <nyi...@bellsouth.net> wrote:

> >>>>> On Thursday, October 27, 2016 at 11:00:02 AM UTC-4, Glenn wrote:
> >>>>>> "rsNorman" <r_s_n...@comcast.net> wrote in message
> >>>>>> news:nurfnk$730$1...@dont-email.me...
> >>>>>>> *Hemidactylus*
> >>>>>> <ecph...@allspamis.invalid> Wrote in message:
> >>>>>>>> *Hemidactylus* <ecph...@allspamis.invalid> wrote:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> snip off topic garbage
> >>>>>

> >>>>> Not just off topic, but reminiscent of the mentally unstable babble
> >>>>> of Thrinaxodon at its worst.
> >>>>
> >>>> And here we go again. Glenn posts a link without expounding cogently in his
> >>>> own words the what and why
> >>>
> >>> You obviously didn't recognize it. It's been THE big central exposition
> >>> of the DI (Discovery Institute) for something like a decade by now, with minor
> >>> changes over the years.
> >>
> >> But Glenn posted the link in case you missed my point. Must we read 32
> >> pages to divine his intent?
> >
> > Since when are you interested about Glenn's intent about ANYTHING?
>
> If he's gonna come stumbling into a thread I started to see if I could
> successfully post with a different newsreader he better explain why he
> chose to unfurl that particular link in my general direction.

Perhaps he knew it would get your goat. As it proceeded to do,
spectacularly.

> Otherwise I
> can assume he has resorted to sniffing Elmer's glue again and it has gummed
> up his brain.

You sure have a high opinion of your attitude towards sundry people.

> >> And the machinations in that document are
> >> obvious.
> >
> > You do not make a credible case for that below.
>
> You fail to demonstrate why.

You sure have a high opinion of your merciless lampoons.

> My critique was concise but on point.

... of knocking down multiple stawamen.

> Jillery's followup to address the subterfuge that ID is not creationism was
> a welcome point in my favor and not yours.

Jillery is about as credible as the Emperor's tailors in the Hans Christian
Anderson fable. But she's got about five people in this newsgroup, including
yourself, to join her in the tailoring.


> >> We aren't creationists. ID implies nothing supernatural at all.
> >
> > Crikey, are you this dense? Intelligent design poses a major challenge to
> > scientific explanations of why our world is the way it is.
>
> No it doesn't.

Then you've missed the main theme of that 32 page document.

<snip red herring by you>

> The rest is
> taking distortive pot shots at evolution and quote mining folks such as
> Gould and Mayr. Gould amazingly made a posthumous opinion known on Dover
> and Mayr basically said there are few if any transitionals. Outside that
> quote mine, Mayr a page later referenced Darwin on fossil record
> incompleteness and for the Gould quote mine we have this:
> http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/quotes/mine/gould_daubert.html

They overplay their hand on the fossil record, but there is
still plenty of paucity: the Cambrian
explosion IS preceded by a pathetic shortage of fossils.

> > If by "ID" you mean what is currently known as the Intelligent Design
> > movement, or as some people misrepresent it, "ID creationism" then
> > I agree that the challenge it poses at this point in time is more
> > educational than scientific.
>
> What's the difference between ID and creationism

You are ignoring what I said in my last sentence.

<red herring snipped>

>
> > That is, it poses the challenge to educators not to leave youngsters
> > with the impression that scientists have solved all major problems
> > pertaining to evolution and abiogenesis.
>
> That can be done without covertly introducing the Judeo-Christian god.

Nor do they recommend such covert behavior.

> Teaching the controversy would include Kimura and Wright contra wanton
> selectionism. That nuance isn't included in the document linked by Glenn.

32 page document : all that can be found in various DP webpages : :
US Constitution : all federal and state laws.

> >> It is scientific because we say so.
> >
> > Misrepresentation: it is scientific because it uses the methodology
> > of science and does NOT speculate on the nature of the designers
> > in most cases.
>
> Everyone not committed to bullshit knows what is implied by design.
> God-did-it. Religiously motivated subterfuge plain and simple. Are you in
> on the ruse?

This tirade of yours ignores what I wrote next:

> > An "exception that proves the rule" is DP, which Behe himself
> > mentions in _Darwin's Black Box_ but only as one possible hypothesis
> > that one might entertain as to the nature of the designers of various
> > biological phenomena. But that is not part of ID theory itself.

Nor is God-did-it, much as you wish that were true.

> And that idea does not satisfy 99.9% of people who favor ID. They prefer
> god to ancient aliens.

I'd guess that 99.9% of the adherents of the Democratic and Republican
parties don't adhere to the official Party platforms either. Do
you think the parties should purge everyone who doesn't follow the platforms
to the letter.

> >> ID shouldn't be mandated but if a teacher
> >> or school system wants to "teach the controversy" that suits us as we can
> >> surreptitiously god gap our untenable belief system as historically
> >> accepted default position arrived at by superstition and overactive
> >> imagination.
> >
> > Your merciless lampoon is duly noted.
>
> It is a god gap. Period. That's the whole point behind Part 9 of the
> document Glenn linked.

More wishful thinking by you.


> > If you mean for it to be anything but a lampoon, please quote
> > passages that you think you (or someone who is a better propagandist
> > than you) can spin-doctor to support some part or other of your
> > lampoon.
>
> Well quoting myself following up to Burk:
>
> "Not quite. ID is dead in the water but doesn't stop them from marching out
>
> their hobby horses in Part 9: mutations bad, cellular machinery
> unevolvable, no transitional forms,

A paucity, not complete absence. Yes, the titles of the sub-sections
are as misleading as many titles in _New Scientist_ and innumerable
other popularizations of science.

> messy tree of life, abiogenesis
> unsolved,

If you think it's been solved, I'm sure jillery or Casanova could
interest you in a purchase of the Brooklyn Bridge.


> icons worshipped like Haeckel's embryos

Just like your kind worships the icon, "cdesignproponentis" [sp?]

>...they focus almost
> exclusively upon evolution via selection because mutations bad...
>
> If you undercut evolution, cherished traditional beliefs remain to take its
>
> place but of course that's not stated overtly because they're not
> creationists and that would violate establishment clause. Just teach the
> controversy and the rest falls into place on its own.

Wrong. They are more realistic than to think something like that. Of course,
the 99.9% of their fans might persuade their children to think that,
but that's a very small fraction of the parents of public school children.


> It will be an exercise in futility to dissect the document page by page
> because you have a horrible track record when things don't go in your
> favor.

You are confusing me with jillery, who has had to resort to massive
deletia "for focus" in order to try to win her innumerable little
debates, while burying her head in the sand about all that she
deleted. And I've got innumerable examples to shove in your face
if you doubt that.

OTOH you couldn't find a single credible example by me, could you?


> Instead of substantive replies I will suffer endless tangents about
> Isaac, Casanova, jillery and Harshman. Oh wait you provide me with a
> preview below.

I do that when there is nothing substantive to reply to. You've come
awfully close to presenting me with such a post here, but I've
decided to humor you.


> But to humor you here's an expansion on the quote Jillery provided:
> ---------
> "Is Intelligent Design the
> Same as Creationism?
> No. The theory of
> intelligent design is an effort to empirically detect whether the “apparent
> design” in nature, acknowledged by virtually all biologists, is genuine
> design (the product of an intelligent cause)
> or merely the product of an undirected process such
> as natural selection acting on random variations.
> Creationism typically starts with a religious text and tries to see how the
> findings of science can be reconciled to it. ID starts with the empirical
> evidence of nature
> and seeks to ascertain what scientific inferences can
> be
> drawn from that evidence."
> ---------
>
> I assert that ID starts with a religious text as it is an eventual outcome
> of the rise of religious fundamentalism in the 20th century.

An assertion for which you produce no evidence. And Behe, for one,
is far from being a religious fundamentalist.



> ID pretends to
> start with empirical evidence, but it god gaps areas that scientists
> haven't completely explained yet

Or are so far from having explained (e.g., abiogenesis) that only
a fanatic like yourself would dare use such a monumental understatement.


But I "totally bore" you with comments like these, don't I?
Perhaps, then, I'd better stop here.

Peter Nyikos
Professor, Dept. of Mathematics -- standard disclaimer--
University of South Carolina
http://people.math.sc.edu/nyikos/
nyikos "at" math.sc.edu



> or totally bullshits its audience with
> claims that because Haeckel engaged in hyperbole over early vertebrate
> embryology such organisms must be totally dissimilar and unrelated. That's
> the take home message when you follow that particular rabbit hole.
>
>
> >> But it ain't really about god or our religious belief. We are
> >> merely criticizing evolution as natural selection as neo-Darwinism is
> >> hoodwinking the children into blind obedience to the Borgish "Darwin Lobby"
> >> agenda. Such total bullshit.
> >
> > I agree, this second half of your lampoon is total bullshit. :-)
>
> Quoting more as you wish:
> -----
> "In Origin of Species, Charles Darwin cautioned that “a fair result can be
> obtained only by fully stating and balancing the facts and arguments on
> both sides of each question.”10 Unfortunately, the vast majority of public
> schools
> today reject Darwin’s advice, and only teach students about the
> pro-evolution view. Controlled, pressured, and intimidated by the Darwin
> Lobby—a powerful coalition of politically-oriented scientific
> organizations, educators associations, and activist groups—most public
> schools effectively censor from students any scientific evidence which
> challenges neo-Darwinism. Even many private schools which use mainstream
> biology textbooks wittingly or unwittingly teach only the Darwinian view.
> The result is not education, but indoctrination."
> -----
>
> So how far off the mark was I?
>
> Yet one can learn enough evolution without ID to counter the
> "neo-Darwinian" view represented in Glenn's link document as follows:
> ---
> "Mutations cause harm and do not build complexity Darwinian evolution
> relies on random mutations
> that are selected by a blind, unguided process
> of
> natural selection that has no goals. Such a random and undirected
> process tends to harm organisms and does not improve them or build
> functional complexity."
> ----
>
> What about neutral mutations? Do they cause harm? And sure organisms will
> perish during the course of evolution by selection in a population. Some
> may remain that will mate and add their less deleterious or beneficial
> traits to the next generations.
>
> >>> Ron O could tell you more about its history, because it is the one to which
> >>> he posted links year after year, several times in some years, in support of
> >>> his maniacal hatred of the DI. It is centered around a bait and switch
> >>> scam by Ron O which alleges a bait and switch scam by the DI.
> >>>
> >>> In fact, did you even LOOK at it? Its contents should be familiar to most
> >>> people here, but hardly anyone ever tries to really refute its actual
> >>> contents. I wouldn't be surprised if my criticism of it, which you snipped,
> >>> was the first one in talk.origins all year.
> >>
> >> My point which whooshed a part through your hair is as he typically does
> >> Glenn posts something lacking creative content on his part.
> >
> > Any other trivia you want to regale us with? Glenn's habits are
> > well known to everyone: Glenn works in little soundbites over 90%
> > of the time, but sometimes comes through with some serious thinking.
> >
> > One such occasion was the question of what the ancestral apes to
> > us humans were like, and that upset Casanova so much, he lost
> > his temper and accused Glenn of one "puke" after another.
>
> Why do I care about this? Because Casanova has rubbed you the wrong way?
> Not my problem. Thanks for adding to the excess of an already tedious post
> by you.
>
> >>>> and you go on to drag your views on others into
> >>>> the mix. Hasn't this 'crazy Hemi' comparison to Thrinaxodon been overplayed
> >>>> by you? You continue to beat that drum. One of your never ceasing tropes.
> >>>
> >>> And why not? It's one which you never try to rebut.
> >>>
> >>> Wouldn't you be the first to sneer if I were to talk about DISHONEST
> >>> claims about me being repeated in never ceasing tropes? especially
> >>> if I were to use that talk to create doubts about their veracity?
> >>>
> >>> But you treat it that way, and in this way you reveal that you
> >>> haven't lost all of your "dumb as a fox" cunning.
> >>
> >> Whatever. You're not a closet creationist. You really aren't. The dovetail
> >> between your directed panspermy, IC, and ID is mere illusion as is your
> >> defensiveness toward Behe. Don't see that at all.
> >
> > I would defend anyone against misrepresentation if I thought it
> > relevant to talk.origins. That includes Stalin, Hitler, Trump,
> > Clinton, Glenn...
> >
> > ...and even yourself. ;-)
> >
> > All ribbing aside, I did it wrt Harshman in your presence and Harshman's
> > absence, while giving valid criticsm of Harshman himself. And that
> > set in motion a chain of events which culminated in Harshman
> > totally ruining his credibility wrt the word "paranoid," to the point
> > where he needs to think of the boy who cried "Wolf!" before using it.
>
> You bore me.

[jillery]

On Mon, 31 Oct 2016 15:29:16 -0700 (PDT), Peter Nyikos

<nyi...@bellsouth.net> continued to ejaculate his repetitive
irrelevant spew from his puckered sphincter:

<snip to focus, as futile as that is>

>Don't hold your breath waiting for jillery, who is responsible for
>that "unknowable," to explain it. She prefers to turn coherent
>discussion into mush.

I have no need to do so. That's your job. And you do it so well. Tu
quoque back atcha, bozo.

[jillery]

On Mon, 31 Oct 2016 16:10:47 -0700 (PDT), Peter Nyikos

<nyi...@bellsouth.net> continued to ejaculate his repetitive
irrelevant spew from his puckered sphincter:


<snip to focus, as futile as that is>

>Jillery is about as credible as the Emperor's tailors in the Hans Christian
>Anderson fable. But she's got about five people in this newsgroup, including
>yourself, to join her in the tailoring.

Right here would have been a good place for you to say what you think
I posted isn't credible and why. Failing that, you're still
continuing to ejaculate your repetitive irrelevant spew from your
puckered sphincter.

[*Hemidactylus*]

Peter Nyikos <nyi...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> On Friday, October 28, 2016 at 8:30:03 PM UTC-4, *Hemidactylus* wrote:

[snip to a palpable point I would like to make]

>> Teaching the controversy would include Kimura and Wright contra wanton
>> selectionism. That nuance isn't included in the document linked by Glenn.
>
> 32 page document : all that can be found in various DP webpages : :
> US Constitution : all federal and state laws.

Founding fathers were fond of Wright and Kimura were they? This is classic
Chez Watt material. Did you bother to parse what you replied to? There is
plenty of controversy or at least substantive disagreement to teach about
in evolution without IDistic god-bothering (or ancient aliens).

Don't the Annunaki bridge gods and aliens? When will that pesky Planet X
get near enough for "them" to tweak our DNA again. Should we teach those
controversial ancient alien ideas in public school too alongside Christian
Genesis? Equal time.

Moon hoaxing and hollow moon theories deserve equal time in astronomy.

[jillery]

On Thu, 27 Oct 2016 07:55:02 -0700, "Glenn" <g...@invalid.invalid>

wrote:

>
>"rsNorman" <r_s_n...@comcast.net> wrote in message news:nurfnk$730$1...@dont-email.me...
>> *Hemidactylus* <ecph...@allspamis.invalid> Wrote in message:
>>> *Hemidactylus* <ecph...@allspamis.invalid> wrote:
>
>snip off topic garbage
>

>Recent comments here proclaiming ID as being "dead" inspired the posting of this:
>
>"Does evolutionary theory need a rethink? Yes, urgently"
>http://www.discovery.org/f/1453

From the cited article above:

*********************************************
DO explain that the case for objectivity in evolution
education comes from science—and isn't an argument
based upon religion. There is credible scientific dissent
from Darwinian evolution: over 900 Ph.D. scientists
have signed a statement that they "are skeptical of
claims for the ability of random mutation and natural
selection to account for the complexity of life," and
therefore "[c]areful examination of the evidence for
Darwinian theory should be encouraged."
************************************

As counterpoint:

<https://sensuouscurmudgeon.wordpress.com/2016/11/01/project-steve-now-has-1400-steves/>

<http://tinyurl.com/hj6a44v>

[Glenn]

"jillery" <69jp...@gmail.com> wrote in message news:c1gh1c5coh3jq8ko3...@4ax.com...

> On Thu, 27 Oct 2016 07:55:02 -0700, "Glenn" <g...@invalid.invalid>
> wrote:
>
>>
>>"rsNorman" <r_s_n...@comcast.net> wrote in message news:nurfnk$730$1...@dont-email.me...
>>> *Hemidactylus* <ecph...@allspamis.invalid> Wrote in message:
>>>> *Hemidactylus* <ecph...@allspamis.invalid> wrote:
>>
>>snip off topic garbage
>>
>>Recent comments here proclaiming ID as being "dead" inspired the posting of this:
>>
>>"Does evolutionary theory need a rethink? Yes, urgently"
>>http://www.discovery.org/f/1453
>
>
> From the cited article above:

So your comments are directed to what you actually cite. OK

>
> *********************************************
> DO explain that the case for objectivity in evolution

> education comes from science-and isn't an argument

> based upon religion. There is credible scientific dissent
> from Darwinian evolution: over 900 Ph.D. scientists
> have signed a statement that they "are skeptical of
> claims for the ability of random mutation and natural
> selection to account for the complexity of life," and
> therefore "[c]areful examination of the evidence for
> Darwinian theory should be encouraged."
> ************************************
>
> As counterpoint:
>
> <https://sensuouscurmudgeon.wordpress.com/2016/11/01/project-steve-now-has-1400-steves/>
>
> <http://tinyurl.com/hj6a44v>
>

The counterpoint being that there is no need for careful examination of the evidence for Darwinian theory, and should be discouraged?
If not, your counterpoint seems like a strawman.
There are many experts in various fields who are skeptical of RM/NS. That some or even more experts disagree and are not skeptical that happen to be named "Steve", is of no value, especially if they discourage careful examination of scientific evidence.

[Bob Casanova]

On Mon, 31 Oct 2016 15:29:16 -0700 (PDT), the following

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

>On Saturday, October 29, 2016 at 2:50:02 PM UTC-4, Bob Casanova wrote:
>> On Fri, 28 Oct 2016 12:20:33 -0700 (PDT), the following
>> appeared in talk.origins, posted by Peter Nyikos
>> <nyi...@bellsouth.net>:
>>
>> >On Friday, October 28, 2016 at 2:00:02 PM UTC-4, Bob Casanova wrote:
>> >> On Fri, 28 Oct 2016 12:49:41 -0400, the following appeared
>> >> in talk.origins, posted by jillery <69jp...@gmail.com>:
>
><snip of things to which you did not reply>

<snip of issues directed at posts other than mine>

>> >> To be fair, and applied only to life on Earth, it *could* be
>> >> ascribed to DP, if only we had some evidence that the
>> >> panspermists exist(ed). Not religious per se, but the result
>> >> of actions by unseen aliens with godlike powers.
>> >
>> >You keep revealing what a pathetic one-trick pony you are wrt
>> >the whole subject of DP. I have kept writing until I am blue
>> >in the face [figure of speech] that I do not ascribe any
>> >"powers" to the technological civilization I hypothesize
>> >beyond our own level of intelligence, nor a technology more
>> >advanced than we can expect to arrive at within a century,
>> >if present trends continue.
>
>You indulged in one sophistry after another below in a vain
>attempt to cast doubt on this factual statement of mine.

Nope; I specifically addressed that.

>> You might want to note that not only the origination of life
>> on Earth is involved, but the entire process of evolution
>> from that original life to what we see today.
>
>You've undermined your one trick on DP: you've proceeded
>to ignore the new things in my expanded Drake equation which
>speak directly to this very theme. And so you are apparently
>ignorant of the very parts of that equation that you've been
>demanding that I talk about.

I've seen no such "expansion". Perhaps if you posted it
here...?

>> As I see it
>> WRT this subject there are two possibilities:
>>
>> 1) Life was started by DP *or* by a deity,
>
>on earth? or in the universe? If the latter, DP is so far out
>of the picture, it isn't funny.

Any idiot would know that the inclusion of DP implies that
I'm talking about life on Earth. But just for you, I'll
confirm that now.

>> and then evolved
>> on its own, exactly as described by science. In this
>> scenario there is no detectable difference between DP and
>> the actions of a deity,
>
>There is no role for DP here, so you are comparing nothing to
>the actions of a deity, unless you are talking about the
>beginning of life ON EARTH, in which case you are committing
>the fallacy of begging the question.

How so? And what question am I begging? My statement is
explanatory, and regards the lack of difference between the
actions of a deity and the actions of purported panspermists
in that particular scenario. Oh, and once more, this is WRT
the subject of life on Earth.

>> and evolutionary biology need not
>> concern itself with anything beyond the natural process of
>> evolution since life began.

Do you disagree with that statement?

>> 2) Life (again) was started by DP or by a deity, but the
>> actions of either effectively didn't stop there. If by a
>> deity, creation (and extinction) of each species was by
>> direct creation, as Ray and other fundamentalists believe.
>
>Glaring false dichotomy fallacy here. You are leaving out
>everyone who believes in divinely guided evolution, perhaps
>at widely spaced key intervals. That includes
>MORE scientists than those who believe in fundamentalism.

And *you* are desperately ignoring what I posted. I posted a
dichotomy, but "divinely guided evolution" is merely a
subset of independent creation of species; in fact, it is
nearly indistinguishable from independent creation, else
such "divine guidance" cannot include speciation.

>And you indulge in an even more glaring false dichotomy below:
>
>> If by DP, the panspermists had sufficient knowledge and
>> talent to "program" both the evolution of species, and their
>> subsequent extinction, into the RNA/DNA of the original
>> life;
>
>This is such a non sequitur

A non sequitur to *what*? It's another explanation of how
what we see could be accomplished by an omnipotent deity or
by panspermists with abilities so far beyond ours that the
claim that we should be able to do the same within a century
is so ridiculous as to be risible.

>, it makes the rest of what you
>write below pure unadulterated GIGO.

I'm sure you like to think so, and yet you seem to have
failed to note exactly what about it constitutes "garbage".

>> note that this would require a massive "if/then/else"
>> tree to be programmed in, to account for unpredictable
>> events - bolides, massive vulcanism, global glaciation, etc.
>> An omnipotent deity could also work that way, but could also
>> stay around to directly effect creation and extinction of
>> species.

Please describe exactly how this is an untenable description
of how panspermists would have to work to influence the
future development of life on Earth. An omnipotent deity
would have no problem doing so.

>> If you seriously believe we will have such capability in
>> biology within the next century (or the next millennium)
>> there's little I can say beyond "I disagree".

No comment?

>> >As you love to say about utterly trivial things, unlike this
>> >serious demonstration of willful ignorance by you,
>> >
>> >Whooooooooooooosh!
>> >
>> >PS I see you pathetically licking your wounds, in post after post
>> >on this thread
>>
>> As noted elsethread,
>
>Read: alleged by your loyal ally jillery,

Nope. Read: as I noted in a response directly to you in
another post, one in which you also claimed to see that
which didn't actually exist. You seem to do that quite
frequently.

>> you see much which is nonexistent.
>
>I did see the following, which is all the extra information I needed:
>
>> >, after the beating you and your loyal ally jillery
>> >got, also on this thread. You "left the crickets chirping" at
>> >the epicenter of this beating, in a reply you did to me, also
>> >on this thread.

Yes, I'm sure you think that previous posts of yours are all
the information you need for any decision you might make.
"Self-confirmation bias"?

>My words about which you claimed to "note" something, referred to
>other posts in which you buried your head in the sand about the epicenter.

They related to your incessant claims that I failed to
respond to some posts of yours. Get over it; I feel no need
to address every ridiculous assertion you make about me.

[jillery]

On Tue, 1 Nov 2016 09:37:22 -0700, "Glenn" <g...@invalid.invalid> wrote:

>
>"jillery" <69jp...@gmail.com> wrote in message news:c1gh1c5coh3jq8ko3...@4ax.com...
>> On Thu, 27 Oct 2016 07:55:02 -0700, "Glenn" <g...@invalid.invalid>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>"rsNorman" <r_s_n...@comcast.net> wrote in message news:nurfnk$730$1...@dont-email.me...
>>>> *Hemidactylus* <ecph...@allspamis.invalid> Wrote in message:
>>>>> *Hemidactylus* <ecph...@allspamis.invalid> wrote:
>>>
>>>snip off topic garbage
>>>
>>>Recent comments here proclaiming ID as being "dead" inspired the posting of this:
>>>
>>>"Does evolutionary theory need a rethink? Yes, urgently"
>>>http://www.discovery.org/f/1453
>>
>>
>> From the cited article above:
>
>So your comments are directed to what you actually cite. OK

Actually, my comments are directed to what you actually cited.

>> *********************************************
>> DO explain that the case for objectivity in evolution
>> education comes from science-and isn't an argument
>> based upon religion. There is credible scientific dissent
>> from Darwinian evolution: over 900 Ph.D. scientists
>> have signed a statement that they "are skeptical of
>> claims for the ability of random mutation and natural
>> selection to account for the complexity of life," and
>> therefore "[c]areful examination of the evidence for
>> Darwinian theory should be encouraged."
>> ************************************
>>
>> As counterpoint:
>>
>> <https://sensuouscurmudgeon.wordpress.com/2016/11/01/project-steve-now-has-1400-steves/>
>>
>> <http://tinyurl.com/hj6a44v>
>>
>The counterpoint being that there is no need for careful examination of the evidence for Darwinian theory, and should be discouraged?

Nope, and nope.

>If not, your counterpoint seems like a strawman.
>There are many experts in various fields who are skeptical of RM/NS. That some or even more experts disagree and are not skeptical that happen to be named "Steve", is of no value, especially if they discourage careful examination of scientific evidence.

Since you have trouble comprehending written English, I write the
following with small words:

The part I quoted from your cited article is an argument from
authority, that many scientists are skeptical of Darwinian Evolution
(not RM/NS).

The counterpoint is another argument from authority, that even more
scientists agree that Darwinian Evolution is a vital, well-supported,
unifying principle of the biological sciences.

The "Steves" don't disagree with the Dissent From Darwin because they
discourage careful examination of the evidence, which would be as
absurd for them to do as it is for you to imply that's their reason.
Instead they recognize that careful examination of the evidence isn't
something to be done with Darwinian Evolution uniquely, or even
distinctively, as the Dissent From Darwinism implies, but is something
to be done with all hypotheses. One can only wonder why IDists don't
apply skepticism to their preferred hypotheses.

So whatever reasons you claim the Steve Project to be a strawman,
those same reasons make the Dissent From Darwin a strawman. And
whatever reasons you claim the Dissent From Darwin to be valid, those
same reasons make the Steve Project equally valid. You're special
pleading again, hypocrite.

[Bob Casanova]

On Mon, 31 Oct 2016 16:10:47 -0700 (PDT), the following

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

At the risk of being accused of failing to address the meat
of the post (which is irrelevant to my point, but which
seems to bother you inordinately), I offer the following
ironical comment:

>You sure have a high opinion of your attitude towards sundry people.

Note that the truth of that comment WRT your target is
irrelevant; I only note that it applies strongly to you and
is thus a perfect example of irony.

<snip irrelevantia>

[Glenn]

"jillery" <69jp...@gmail.com> wrote in message news:29kh1c9cc3uc0o75e...@4ax.com...

snip

Actually, you explicitly say *From the cited article above" and then cite the passage your "counterpoint" comments refer to. Why would you have posted that passage had you not intended to address it specifically?

Jillery, you shoot yourself in the foot on a regular basis without anyone's help, trying to discredit or smear others. You haven't learned anything since participating in talk.origins. It appears you are as blind to this now as you were then.

[jillery]

Aping your strange bedfellow only makes you look even more stupid.
Snip restored.


>>>> <https://sensuouscurmudgeon.wordpress.com/2016/11/01/project-steve-now-has-1400-steves/>
>>>>
>>>> <http://tinyurl.com/hj6a44v>

>Actually, you explicitly say *From the cited article above" and then cite the passage your "counterpoint" comments refer to.

I had no idea words like "from" and "to" confuse you. Too many
syllables?

>Why would you have posted that passage had you not intended to address it specifically?

I did address it specifically, restored below:

>>Since you have trouble comprehending written English, I write the
>>following with small words:
>>
>>The part I quoted from your cited article is an argument from
>>authority, that many scientists are skeptical of Darwinian Evolution
>>(not RM/NS).
>>
>>The counterpoint is another argument from authority, that even more
>>scientists agree that Darwinian Evolution is a vital, well-supported,
>>unifying principle of the biological sciences.
>>
>>The "Steves" don't disagree with the Dissent From Darwin because they
>>discourage careful examination of the evidence, which would be as
>>absurd for them to do as it is for you to imply that's their reason.
>>Instead they recognize that careful examination of the evidence isn't
>>something to be done with Darwinian Evolution uniquely, or even
>>distinctively, as the Dissent From Darwinism implies, but is something
>>to be done with all hypotheses. One can only wonder why IDists don't
>>apply skepticism to their preferred hypotheses.
>>
>>So whatever reasons you claim the Steve Project to be a strawman,
>>those same reasons make the Dissent From Darwin a strawman. And
>>whatever reasons you claim the Dissent From Darwin to be valid, those
>>same reasons make the Steve Project equally valid. You're special
>>pleading again, hypocrite.

>Jillery, you shoot yourself in the foot on a regular basis without anyone's help, trying to discredit or smear others. You haven't learned anything since participating in talk.origins. It appears you are as blind to this now as you were then.

How clever of you to respond by deleting my comments and replacing
them with gratuitous personal insults. Apparently you think aping
your strange bedfellow makes you look clever.

[Peter Nyikos]

On Monday, October 31, 2016 at 9:55:02 PM UTC-4, *Hemidactylus* wrote:
> Peter Nyikos <nyi...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> > On Friday, October 28, 2016 at 8:30:03 PM UTC-4, *Hemidactylus* wrote:
>
> [snip to a palpable point I would like to make]
>
> >> Teaching the controversy would include Kimura and Wright contra wanton
> >> selectionism. That nuance isn't included in the document linked by Glenn.
> >
> > 32 page document : all that can be found in various DP webpages : :
> > US Constitution : all federal and state laws.

Typo: I should have written DI (for Discovery Institute) instead of DP.
The DP stuff relevant to Intelligent Design has fit on one page in the
drafts for the directed panspermia FAQ that have appeared up to now,
and I don't anticipate adding much more when the latest draft is ready,
some time around the middle of this month.

> Founding fathers were fond of Wright and Kimura were they?

You don't seem to understand what the analogy is all about.

Did you flunk the analogies part of the Verbal SAT test while they
still had that as part of the test.

> This is classic
> Chez Watt material. Did you bother to parse what you replied to? There is
> plenty of controversy or at least substantive disagreement to teach about
> in evolution without IDistic god-bothering (or ancient aliens).

You keep searching for ulterior motives behind that 32 page document.
Sure, the people who composed it could have done a lot better if they
weren't steeped in the jargon of BB (Before Behe) days. But then,
the majority of talk.origins participants are steeped in propaganda
and polemics when dealing with ID, IC and the DI.

I can see you are better than all but one or two participants here
when it comes to biochemistry, but it's obvious that you throw all
that knowledge out the window when talking about how "science hasn't
completely solved" the problem of abiogenesis. That's like saying
that an early human embryo hasn't completely attained to adulthoood.

[I advise you NOT to try that last line on anyone you don't know
to be ardently pro-life. Even I don't qualify.]

[And please try not to miss the point of the analogy completely
by talking about how it is Chez Watt material to expect abiogenesis
to produce an early human embryo as one of its first products.]

> Don't the Annunaki bridge gods and aliens? When will that pesky Planet X
> get near enough for "them" to tweak our DNA again.

As I say in my FAQ, I do not expect the planet of the panspermists to
be habitable now, nor do I expect the species of panspermists to
endure for four billion years. Four million is about all I contemplate,
and one fourth of that should be enough to complete the panspermist
project I envision.

But why am I telling you this? You seem to be in a terminal stage of
MMIMUDCMWTF ("My Mind Is Made Up, Don't Confuse Me With The Facts.")

Oh, well, someone else who isn't in such a terminal state might
learn something about my DP hypothesis from what I've said.

> Should we teach those
> controversial ancient alien ideas in public school too alongside Christian
> Genesis? Equal time.

No, and no, but don't let that get in the way of your MMIMUDCMWTF
hobby horse.

For the benefit of people not riding such a hobby horse, I add:

The DI does not endorse the teaching of Genesis "science"
in the public schools and even tried to dissuade the Dover
school board from making teachers give a statement about ID
in their biology classes.

And I don't favor teaching anything about DP in the dumbed-down
high school curriculum. Perhaps an honors course at the
university level could broach the subject.

>
> Moon hoaxing and hollow moon theories deserve equal time in astronomy.

With that attitude, I don't expect you to be able keep up with that kind
of honors course.

Peter Nyikos
Professor, Department of Math.
-- standard disclaimer--

Univ. of S. Carolina ( Columbia, SC )

[Peter Nyikos]

On Wednesday, October 26, 2016 at 6:25:02 PM UTC-4, *Hemidactylus* wrote:
> *Hemidactylus* <ecph...@allspamis.invalid> wrote:
> >
> >
> > I am testing my ignorance. Please ignore. Yeah right. Here goes nothing.
>
> Sweet I ain't too stupid that posting on a frickin postage stamp is beyond
> my capacity. When the Sumerians were using cuneiform to inform us how the
> ancient lizards from Niburu were a hot topic they did not anticipate I
> would be tapping this to usenet on my phone. Hey Richard Norman, you might
> have temporarily been ahead of the curve here with your Android newsreader
> but I have caught up to your tech nerdiness. You have been warned. I wonder
> how my access to the never ending 1000+ Dr Dr threads will improve vs
> Gurgle Groups. Might break my phone. Can I get comoensation (yeah that word
> looks awful) if so?
>
> Now I'm not tethered to home network.

You need to stay on the good side of John Harshman. One of his favorite
put-downs of people who are out of favor with him is that nobody gives
a hoot about personal information that they post. He'd really have a
field day with this post of yours, which is a kissing cousin to navel
gazing.

By the way, I had no idea that you are such a fanatic when it comes
to opposing the theme of intelligent design. Glenn may not be contributing
much to this thread, but he certainly brought your fanaticism out
into the open.

No wonder you wanted me to stop my 2011 flamewar with Ron O: if Ron O
were ever discredited in the eyes of most participants here, you would
be painfully isolated.

As it is, your fanaticism looks like it is merely bordering on the pathological, what with an even more rabid fanatic like Ron O
for people to compare you to.

Peter Nyikos

[Peter Nyikos]

On Saturday, October 29, 2016 at 12:30:02 AM UTC-4, *Hemidactylus* wrote:
> Peter Nyikos <nyi...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>

> [snip]

[relevant context reposted:]
[jillery:]
> Your claims to the
> contrary, I made no "claims of neglect", but only of the appearance of
> neglect.

...which you failed to back up. The generalities which you spew
below do nothing of the sort, since my work duties vary radically
from day to day.

> And what I "know" of your strange bedfellow's duties is
> based on his references to them, usually for the express purpose of
> excusing his occasional long delayed replies, incoherent replies, and
> outright failures to reply.
[end of repost]

> > You twice posted this "neglect of duties" crap without trying to
> > find out what is going on at the University of South Carolina in
> > Columbia. Even after you got burned by not checking [the university
> > was CLOSED due to Hurricane Matthew for three days] you plowed
> > right ahead by doing it again when our university was on Fall Break.
>
> As I was scared shitless by that storm and posted on it early while it was
> still off South American coast and expressed concern for jonathan, you,
> Coffey, and Gans I can say I am glad you are OK sincerely.

Thanks, I do appreciate these "good ambassador" comments, without
which tensions in this newsgroup would be even worse than they are.

I too will take time out to assure people that I hope no harm comes
to them, no matter how bad their behavior is. And I broke an almost
complete Sunday silence to express my condolences when "el cid" died.


> And I don't
> judge your usage of time here, but take exception to the manner in which
> you do it with the focus on interpersonal dynamics over topics themselves.

But you don't take exception to the manner in which jillery does it,
do you? You didn't even take strong exception to her never ending use
of the following in attribution lines:

continued to ejaculate his repetitive
irrelevant spew from his puckered sphincter:

You just sort of wished it wouldn't take up residence in your own
conscious.

Can you explain this seeming double standard of yours?

Peter Nyikos

[jillery]

On Tue, 1 Nov 2016 16:02:48 -0700 (PDT), Peter Nyikos
<nyi...@bellsouth.net> continued to ejaculate his repetitive

irrelevant spew from his puckered sphincter:

>On Saturday, October 29, 2016 at 12:30:02 AM UTC-4, *Hemidactylus* wrote:
>> Peter Nyikos <nyi...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>>
>> [snip]
>
>[relevant context reposted:]
>[jillery:]
>> Your claims to the
>> contrary, I made no "claims of neglect", but only of the appearance of
>> neglect.
>
>...which you failed to back up. The generalities which you spew
>below do nothing of the sort, since my work duties vary radically
>from day to day.

As I replied to you in a previous post, which you oh-so-conveniently
ignored, since you don't believe that's how things appear to me,
there's nothing I could possibly say to convince you otherwise. Of
course, you can always pretend to read minds and claim you know what I
think better than I do. That's always good for a laugh.

And no, the above has nothing to do with Hemidactylus, or your
comments about him. This is just another post where you continue to

ejaculate your repetitive irrelevant spew from your puckered
sphincter.

[*Hemidactylus*]

Peter Nyikos <nyi...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> On Monday, October 31, 2016 at 9:55:02 PM UTC-4, *Hemidactylus* wrote:
>> Peter Nyikos <nyi...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>>> On Friday, October 28, 2016 at 8:30:03 PM UTC-4, *Hemidactylus* wrote:
>>
>> [snip to a palpable point I would like to make]
>>
>>>> Teaching the controversy would include Kimura and Wright contra wanton
>>>> selectionism. That nuance isn't included in the document linked by Glenn.
>>>
>>> 32 page document : all that can be found in various DP webpages : :
>>> US Constitution : all federal and state laws.
>
> Typo: I should have written DI (for Discovery Institute) instead of DP.
> The DP stuff relevant to Intelligent Design has fit on one page in the
> drafts for the directed panspermia FAQ that have appeared up to now,
> and I don't anticipate adding much more when the latest draft is ready,
> some time around the middle of this month.
>
>> Founding fathers were fond of Wright and Kimura were they?
>
> You don't seem to understand what the analogy is all about.

My point was that legit differences in POV can be addressed in ev bio
(neutralism, punq eq, evo devo, and perhaps more controversial stuff like
epigenetics and structuralism) without messing with dead in the water
non-starters such as "ID" creationism.

I don't give a flip about your stupid analogy.

> Did you flunk the analogies part of the Verbal SAT test while they
> still had that as part of the test.

So the whole point was to lob an insult at me then.

>> This is classic
>> Chez Watt material. Did you bother to parse what you replied to? There is
>> plenty of controversy or at least substantive disagreement to teach about
>> in evolution without IDistic god-bothering (or ancient aliens).
>
> You keep searching for ulterior motives behind that 32 page document.

They are so easy to find if you're not blue-pilled by the sort of wishful
delusional thinking that makes people susceptible to the dangerous siren
song of DI propaganda.

> Sure, the people who composed it could have done a lot better if they
> weren't steeped in the jargon of BB (Before Behe) days. But then,
> the majority of talk.origins participants are steeped in propaganda
> and polemics when dealing with ID, IC and the DI.

And what about the "shock and awe" post Behe techno jargon that your old
pal Julie used to post here? Or the mathematical rmns sophistry of Dr Dr,
which years ago you had stood up against as a competent mathematician even
if outside your given specialty?

> I can see you are better than all but one or two participants here
> when it comes to biochemistry,

I have no competency in biochem. I've had a few molecular bio oriented
courses as undergrad but that was almost two decades ago. But I recall
there being modularity in proteins and that certain themes can be reused
and tweaked a bit. Kinda dovetails duplication and divergence with Gould's
concepts of co-optation and exaptation. Molecules used for one cellular
function can be shifted over time to something else.

> but it's obvious that you throw all
> that knowledge out the window when talking about how "science hasn't
> completely solved" the problem of abiogenesis. That's like saying
> that an early human embryo hasn't completely attained to adulthoood.

As far as I know abiogenesis is a hard problem much as people say for
consciousness. Neither implies the traditional default that god-did-it
which like it or not is embedded cryptically between the lines in the DI
document Glenn posted. ID is an echo of Scopes and the rise of
fundamentalism. As much as I like him for other reasons such as the Cross
of Gold speech William Jennings Bryan's spirit haunts the ID movement just
as much as Paley. Paley haunts the technics but Bryan gives the movement
its purported social justice angle.

> [I advise you NOT to try that last line on anyone you don't know
> to be ardently pro-life. Even I don't qualify.]

Why bring that topic up? Are we going to hear again about people who posted
to an abortion newsgroup years ago who are analogues to people who you deal
with currently? Is that why you are so hung up on SAT analogies?

> [And please try not to miss the point of the analogy completely
> by talking about how it is Chez Watt material to expect abiogenesis
> to produce an early human embryo as one of its first products.]
>
>
>> Don't the Annunaki bridge gods and aliens? When will that pesky Planet X
>> get near enough for "them" to tweak our DNA again.
>
> As I say in my FAQ, I do not expect the planet of the panspermists to
> be habitable now, nor do I expect the species of panspermists to
> endure for four billion years. Four million is about all I contemplate,
> and one fourth of that should be enough to complete the panspermist
> project I envision.

But to be feasible the panspermists, if not passive intention-less comets,
would need to be local, no? I laugh at the theories that aliens from Niburu
engineered us to work as slaves in gold mines, but there is at least a
reasonable amount of motive that makes that sort of ancient alien notion
sound better than remote altruistic spendthrifts light years away wasting
valuable revenue on us.

> But why am I telling you this? You seem to be in a terminal stage of
> MMIMUDCMWTF ("My Mind Is Made Up, Don't Confuse Me With The Facts.")

That the ancient alien theories bandied about by very eccentric people have
more merit than yours based on Dennett's phrase cui bono? Kinda sad for you
ain't it? You are eclipsed by the likes of David Icke and Jim Marr.

> Oh, well, someone else who isn't in such a terminal state might
> learn something about my DP hypothesis from what I've said.
>
>> Should we teach those
>> controversial ancient alien ideas in public school too alongside Christian
>> Genesis? Equal time.
>
> No, and no, but don't let that get in the way of your MMIMUDCMWTF
> hobby horse.
>
> For the benefit of people not riding such a hobby horse, I add:
>
> The DI does not endorse the teaching of Genesis "science"
> in the public schools and even tried to dissuade the Dover
> school board from making teachers give a statement about ID
> in their biology classes.

They opposed it as mandated policy (to their credit) but were ok with it
being brought up by a teacher as a matter of discussion.

http://www.discovery.org/f/1453

"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."

But I think they prefer "the controversy" be taught instead as that's
sufficient for whatever garble de garble nonsense the students hear from
their pastors and parents about cats begetting dogs or Darwinists having
sex with monkeys to fill the rhetorical lacunae opened by the "skeptical"
teacher.

And that brings me to the guano silly bullshit of the God's Not Dead movie
series. The atheist philosophy teacher portrayed in the first movie was an
asshole portrayed by Kevin Sorbo who is an unforgivable asshole for egging
on such a malignant stereotype. And the comparison the teacher in the
second movie between Gandhi, MLK, and Christ was something I didn't find
all that objectionable from an establishment cause standpoint so the movie
makers kinda lost the plot in the portrayal of evil secular humanists and
devious ACLU lawyers.

> And I don't favor teaching anything about DP in the dumbed-down
> high school curriculum. Perhaps an honors course at the
> university level could broach the subject.

Admittedly DP itself could be mentioned in an astronomy class as a quirky
aside much as Goldschmidt's systemic mutation idea is addressed in an
evolution course. The astronomy class at that point could address SETI too
and Drake equation and all other speculation about life in other solar
systems.

>>
>> Moon hoaxing and hollow moon theories deserve equal time in astronomy.
>
> With that attitude, I don't expect you to be able keep up with that kind
> of honors course.

[Penny mode]
Ok Sheldon Cooper. Again read the book we gave you. Sarcasm.
[end Penny mode]

[Peter Nyikos]

What you said next is completely consistent with what I wrote preceding it;
so your "Nope" is illogical.

> I specifically addressed that.


> >> You might want to note that not only the origination of life
> >> on Earth is involved, but the entire process of evolution
> >> from that original life to what we see today.
> >
> >You've undermined your one trick on DP: you've proceeded
> >to ignore the new things in my expanded Drake equation which
> >speak directly to this very theme. And so you are apparently
> >ignorant of the very parts of that equation that you've been
> >demanding that I talk about.
>
> I've seen no such "expansion". Perhaps if you posted it
> here...?

Sorry, bub, you'll just have to wait until it appears again in
the latter half of this month as part of the FAQ.

That is, unless Mark Isaak, whom Harshman lavishly praised for
his analysis of said expansion, helps you out. Or jillery helps
you out by walking the walk behind her taunt on another thread,

Jonathan doesn't need to make copies of anything, that's what
GG is for.

> >> As I see it
> >> WRT this subject there are two possibilities:
> >>
> >> 1) Life was started by DP *or* by a deity,
> >
> >on earth? or in the universe? If the latter, DP is so far out
> >of the picture, it isn't funny.
>
> Any idiot would know that the inclusion of DP implies that
> I'm talking about life on Earth.

In this godforsaken newsgroup, all bets are off. Somebody reading
your bilge about "godlike powers" up there might guess that I believe
in panspermists in a parallel universe seeding a planet in
our universe to start life going in it.

And the bilge you and jillery spewed about DP in that thread about Starshot
before I came on the scene there certainly would have done nothing
to allay that guess.

> But just for you, I'll
> confirm that now.

Thanx.

> >> and then evolved
> >> on its own, exactly as described by science. In this
> >> scenario there is no detectable difference between DP and
> >> the actions of a deity,
> >
> >There is no role for DP here, so you are comparing nothing to
> >the actions of a deity, unless you are talking about the
> >beginning of life ON EARTH, in which case you are committing
> >the fallacy of begging the question.
>
> How so? And what question am I begging?

You wording was inspired by the well known saying, "A sufficiently
advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic," wasn't it?

Well, that begs the question because if you had read that part
of the FAQ, you would know that the main reason I said "century"
up there rather than "several decades" is lack of money, not
lack of new scientific breakthroughs. Our technology would have
to be improved, of course, but the improvement needed is probably no
greater than three or four times the difference bewteen Apollo 11
and Explorer I.

> My statement is
> explanatory, and regards the lack of difference between the
> actions of a deity and the actions of purported panspermists
> in that particular scenario.

You seem to be imagining a scenario utterly different from the
one I've described in great detail in the various sections of the FAQ.


I think I'd better leave the rest of your post on the back burner
until we get this fundamental miscommunication straightened out.

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