Wells on the Ohio Bait and Switch in 2002

[RonO]

Because Nyikos has gone into a new wave of denial I decided to see just
what about the Ohio Bait and Switch in 2002 was still available on the
web after almost 4 years of his denial.

ARN still has the booklet that the Discovery Institute used to give out
on teaching intelligent design in the public schools that was published
in 1999. All the Authors were Discovery Institute fellows and Meyer has
been the director of the ID scam wing of the Discovery Institute since
it was founded.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Audio of some of the Ohio Bait and Switch program is still
available, but they wanted me to sign up for some cloud account to
listen to it (I did not sign up) so I don't know if it still works. The
talks from the four speakers is supposed to be available to listen to
(Meyer, Wells, Miller, and Krauss).

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

I found quite a few other articles, but they all say about the same
things as you can find above. The IDiots expected to get the ID
science, but they only got a switch scam that doesn't even mention that
ID ever existed.

There was one reference that I had never seen before. It was a report
by Wells on the Ohio fiasco. It contains information that I never knew
about. It comes from the same openly creationist web site that you can
get the audio from.

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

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

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

One of the articles linked to above indicated that Chapman (the
president of the Discovery Institute and half a dozen staffers attended
the Ohio bait and switch to support Meyer and Wells. In this report
Wells mentions that DeWolf (head of legal) and Scott Minnich (senior
fellow) were part of that entourage. Minnich testified in Dover that he
was not paid by the Discovery Institute, but he likely had his airfare
and other travel expenses paid by the Discovery Institute, and I don't
know if he counts his fellowship as salary (he is not staff, but a
fellow). Who knows, maybe he was there all on his own at his expense.
Since DeWolf and Minnich attended the fiasco, my guess is that they were
among the ID perps that were involved in deciding to run the bait and
switch before the Discovery Institute group came to Ohio. It is a
possibility that they ran the bait and switch on Minnich and the
president of the Discovery Institute too. Since Both Meyer and Wells
kept their Discovery Institute jobs that isn't a likely scenario.

Wells doesn't drop anymore names that I didn't know about. John Calvert
was there. Calvert ran the Intelligent Design Network, but their web
page hasn't been updated since 2009, and their last press release was in
2007 complaining that the Ohio rubes had dropped the controversy switch
scam after Dover. The ID Network used to be the second most influential
ID scam unit out there.

So Wells claims that the bait and switch was a done deal before they
performed their dog and pony show in front of the Ohio IDiot rubes. The
rubes never had a chance. The Discovery Institute obviously sold the
Ohio rubes the teach ID scam, but when it came time to put up or shut up
they did neither and ran in a bogus switch scam that does not mention
that ID ever existed.

It disturbs me that Wells would think that this was worth reporting as
something positive about Meyer's behavior after the two of them had just
run the bait and switch on the Ohio State Board of Education. It
reminds me of Dembski's farting episode involving Judge Jones.

QUOTE:
Another interesting aspect of the press conference was a statement by
Ken Miller, featured on the evening news, to the effect that ID
advocates are trying to present their views to the public "without the
approval of science." Afterwards, in private, Steve Meyer kept repeating
Miller's pompous declaration with a heavy German accent, sounding for
all the world like Heinrich Himmler, Hitler's propaganda chief.
END QUOTE:

Can you just imagine Meyer carrying on like this in front of the other
Discovery Institute people that attended?

The conclusion is that there is still more than enough information
floating around the web to demonstrate that the bait and switch did go
down on Ohio, just as it has gone down on every single IDiot legislator
or school board that has wanted to teach the science of ID for over 12
years. The significant Discovery Institute participation indicates how
important Ohio was to the ID scam. Ohio was trumpeted by the IDiots as
the first place where ID was going to be exposed to the world so that it
could not be denied. Intelligent design was certainly exposed, but more
like a drive by mooning than the announcement of a valid scientific
discovery. Not a single IDiot rube has ever gotten the ID science from
the ID perps when they needed it. Ohio happened two years before the
Dover fiasco broke into the news. The ID perps sold the IDiot rubes
that they had the science of intelligent design to teach, but all the
rubes were going to get was the obfuscation switch scam that does not
mention that ID ever existed. Wells' report indicates that this was
something that they had planned to do before they went to Ohio.

Ron Okimoto

This is the link to the Thomas More Lawyer's beef with the Discovery
Institute's "strategy."
http://ncse.com/news/2005/10/discovery-institute-thomas-more-law-center-squabble-aei-foru-00704

[Rodjk #613]

On Sunday, September 21, 2014 4:27:49 PM UTC+3, Ron O wrote:
<SNIP>

> QUOTE:
>
> Another interesting aspect of the press conference was a statement by
> Ken Miller, featured on the evening news, to the effect that ID
> advocates are trying to present their views to the public "without the
> approval of science." Afterwards, in private, Steve Meyer kept repeating
> Miller's pompous declaration with a heavy German accent, sounding for
> all the world like Heinrich Himmler, Hitler's propaganda chief.
> END QUOTE:

I looked this up to confirm that it was Well's own words and read the document here:
http://www.creationists.org/archived-obsolete-pages/2002-03-11-OSBE-wells.html

The first thing that struck me is that Well's doesn't know that Himmler was the head of the SS, and that Joseph Goebbels was Hitler's propaganda chief?

The second thing that struck me was how slimy Wells is...
He accuses Miller over and over of lies and distortions while blatently distorting things himself. No wonder real scientists hate dealing with them.

Rodjk #613

[RonO]

On 9/22/2014 2:27 AM, Rodjk #613 wrote:
> On Sunday, September 21, 2014 4:27:49 PM UTC+3, Ron O wrote:
> <SNIP>
>
>
>> QUOTE:
>>
>> Another interesting aspect of the press conference was a statement by
>> Ken Miller, featured on the evening news, to the effect that ID
>> advocates are trying to present their views to the public "without the
>> approval of science." Afterwards, in private, Steve Meyer kept repeating
>> Miller's pompous declaration with a heavy German accent, sounding for
>> all the world like Heinrich Himmler, Hitler's propaganda chief.
>> END QUOTE:
>
>
> I looked this up to confirm that it was Well's own words and read the document here:
> http://www.creationists.org/archived-obsolete-pages/2002-03-11-OSBE-wells.html
>
> The first thing that struck me is that Well's doesn't know that Himmler was the head of the SS, and that Joseph Goebbels was Hitler's propaganda chief?
>
> The second thing that struck me was how slimy Wells is...
> He accuses Miller over and over of lies and distortions while blatently distorting things himself. No wonder real scientists hate dealing with them.
>
> Rodjk #613

You have to wonder why there are still IDiots, and why these
creationists still supported the switch scam when they found out that
they were never going to get the ID science, and that the Discovery
Institute had decided to run the bait and switch on them before coming
to Ohio and making it official. The Discovery Institute put a lot of
effort into Ohio, but they knew before they came that it was all going
to be for show because the ID science was not going to be put forward to
teach. The President of the Discovery Institute came along to preside
over the bait and switch scam. Wells is admitting that they had no
intention of giving the rubes the ID science that the rubes expected to
get, and he writes about it as if it was the natural thing to do.

My guess is that this report was supposed to be for other ID perps at
the Discovery Institute, but someone screwed up and got it to the
creationist rubes. It is so slimy that why would you give it out?
Would Meyer (the director of the ID scam unit) want this report
distrubuted with his stupid antics exposed? Mike Gene used to associate
with the ID perps and he claimed that he gave up on teaching ID in the
public schools back in 1999 (He was one of the most vocal supporters of
ID at ARN and only made that admission after the bait and switch went
down in Ohio.), so my guess is that most of the ID perps understood that
the bait and switch was inevitable by the time Ohio pushed them to do
it. The science of intelligent design was never going to be taught
because there wasn't any worth teaching.

Ron Okimoto

[AlwaysAskingQuestions]

On Mon, 22 Sep 2014 06:49:35 -0500, RonO <roki...@cox.net> wrote:

>On 9/22/2014 2:27 AM, Rodjk #613 wrote:
>> On Sunday, September 21, 2014 4:27:49 PM UTC+3, Ron O wrote:
>> <SNIP>
>>
>>
>>> QUOTE:
>>>
>>> Another interesting aspect of the press conference was a statement by
>>> Ken Miller, featured on the evening news, to the effect that ID
>>> advocates are trying to present their views to the public "without the
>>> approval of science." Afterwards, in private, Steve Meyer kept repeating
>>> Miller's pompous declaration with a heavy German accent, sounding for
>>> all the world like Heinrich Himmler, Hitler's propaganda chief.
>>> END QUOTE:
>>
>>
>> I looked this up to confirm that it was Well's own words and read the document here:
>> http://www.creationists.org/archived-obsolete-pages/2002-03-11-OSBE-wells.html
>>
>> The first thing that struck me is that Well's doesn't know that Himmler was the head of the SS, and that Joseph Goebbels was Hitler's propaganda chief?
>>
>> The second thing that struck me was how slimy Wells is...
>> He accuses Miller over and over of lies and distortions while blatently distorting things himself. No wonder real scientists hate dealing with them.
>>
>> Rodjk #613
>
>You have to wonder why there are still IDiots,

I suspect that the main reason is that very few of them are as
interested as you in intensely scrutinising the detailed ins and outs
of ID.

[...]

[RonO]

That is why the only IDiots left are the ignorant, incompetent and or
dishonest. Eddie was the last example. He claimed to not know what was
going on, and when confronted by reality just ran away and would not
address the issue. My guess is that, that is how most IDiots deal with
the current reality.

Ron Okimoto

[Robert Carnegie]

On Monday, 22 September 2014 08:27:33 UTC+1, Rodjk #613 wrote:
> I looked this up to confirm that it was Well's own words and read
> the document here:
>
> http://www.creationists.org/archived-obsolete-pages/2002-03-11-OSBE-wells.html
>
> The first thing that struck me is that Well's doesn't know
> that Himmler was the head of the SS, and that Joseph Goebbels
> was Hitler's propaganda chief?

I suppose that not everybody has to. In fact, a propaganda role
is mentioned in <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heinrich_Himmler>
but I think you're correct in identifying a mistake by Wells.

Incidentally, I suppose that "archived-obsolete-pages"
in the URL implies that these are pages that the organisation
in question isn't exactly standing up for, or wanting us
to read.

Heinrich Himmler would be proud of them.

[RonO]

It isn't so much that Wells forgot who Hitler's propaganda chief was,
but that Meyer (one of the biggest cheerleaders for teaching intelligent
design in the public schools up to that time) could carry on in such a
childish fashion right after running the bait and switch on the Ohio
creationist rubes. The ID perps went to Ohio with the intent to not
give the rubes any ID science to teach, and their presentations was only
an act to make believe that they were not intending to cut the effort
off at the knees and only give the rubes a stupid switch scam that
doesn't mention that ID ever existed. Meyer could do that and then
think that he was making fun of someone else by sounding like a nazi.

As for the "obsolete" pages, my guess is that once the Ohio school board
dropped the switch scam there wasn't much reason to keep the junk
current. Ohio Dropped the switch scam in 2006-2007 after the Dover
fiasco. One Ohio legislator put up a bill to remove the requirement
that students understand the methods of science and concentrate on what
they call scientific knowledge. They seem to just be trying to keep the
kids as ignorant as they can and make sure that they are unable to deal
with the misinformation that they are given.

Ron Okimoto

[nyi...@bellsouth.net]

On Sunday, September 21, 2014 9:27:49 AM UTC-4, Ron O wrote:

> Because Nyikos has gone into a new wave of denial I decided to see just
> what about the Ohio Bait and Switch in 2002 was still available on the
> web after almost 4 years of his denial.

Document alleged denial. I was in no position to deny anything at the
time. I kept asking for evidence of "the bait" that was still
"going down" back 4 years ago [not 12 years ago] and I still haven't
got it.

All through the Scottish verdict thread, where even Robert Camp admitted
that the evidence for "the bait" was quite slim, you kept viciously
defaming me and posting oodles of stuff about the policy of
"teaching to the weaknesses of evolutionary theory" which you,
in question-begging manner, perennially call "the switch scam."
But you never provided any evidence that the DI was providing
"the bait" after 2005, besides the miserable statement on RIGHTS
that I posted right at the beginning of the thread.

No one but you ever thought that statement to refer to a promise
that the DI had ID science ready to teach in the public schools
as a rival to evolutionary theory.

And you never posted any argument in that whole thread as to why
this statement on RIGHTS should be viewed as that kind of promise.

But ever since then, you keep asking loaded questions to make it
look like the thread was a failure for me, but it was actually
a huge success: nothing ever posted on that thread went an
inch towards overturning my Scottish verdict on the contemporary
existence of "the bait". You had posted absolutely nothing to
overturn the Scottish verdict:

NOT PROVEN!

You continued:

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

This example sets the tone for the rest of your post; it is a long
booklet, but you never quote from it. The few quotes you present from other
links never really show that "the bait was still going down."

In fact your whole post is a monument to something you inadvertently
confirmed with a reply you did to my last post on the thread,

"Subject: Re: Why do the ID perps run the bait and switch scam on their own"

Namely, you try to force people who persistently disagree with you to
waste their time.

Here it is only reading lengthy articles when a little
quoting in the right place should, if you are telling the truth, do the job.

On that other thread, you had posted a demonstrable falsehood, where you
alleged that Glenn had said something on another thread that he had
not. In reply to my stating that anyone could confirm, by reading
that thread, that Glenn had said nothing of the sort there. And
I have even revived that thread so people could access it more
easily.

You demanded proof that the thread actually did not contain any
such statement, and in my last reply to you, I repeatedly asked
you whether you still maintained that statement to be true.
And I kept reiterating that if the answer was NO, you were
trying to make me waste my time.

Your last reply shows clearly that you either

(1) stick to your LIE that Glenn had said what you originally
claimed he did,

or

(2) want to force me to waste hours on a LIE whose truth you
are no longer claiming to uphold.

Because you completely ignored the issue of whether you still maintain it.

So, you are either a pathological liar or a petty tyrant who demands
that people waste their time on you. You are also someone who is
crazed with hate for me, for you flaunted your refusal to address
the issue with the following defamation:

"I will just leave this post intact as another monument to the Nyikosian
stupidity and utter dishonesty."

Rant away, jerk; you are only demonstrating with hateful comments
like this how true my analysis of alternatives (1) and (2) was just now.

Peter Nyikos

[nyi...@bellsouth.net]

On Thursday, September 25, 2014 9:59:44 PM UTC-4, nyi...@bellsouth.net wrote:

Some words were shifted from their proper place in my post. I've put them
in their proper place below, minus attribution marks:

> On that other thread, you had posted a demonstrable falsehood, where you
> alleged that Glenn had said something on another thread that he had
> not.

And I have even revived that thread so people could access it more
easily.

[I stated] that anyone could confirm, by reading
that thread, that Glenn had said nothing of the sort there,
[and in reply,] you demanded proof that the thread actually
did not contain any such statement [by Glenn],

> and in my last reply to you, I repeatedly asked
> you whether you still maintained that statement to be true.
> And I kept reiterating that if the answer was NO, you were
> trying to make me waste my time.

> Your last reply shows clearly that you either

> (1) stick to your LIE that Glenn had said what you originally
> claimed he did,
>
> or

> (2) want to force me to waste hours on a LIE whose truth you
> are no longer claiming to uphold.

> Because you completely ignored the issue of whether you still maintain it.

> So, you are either a pathological liar or a petty tyrant who demands
> that people waste their time on you.

Peter Nyikos

[RonO]

On 9/25/2014 8:59 PM, nyi...@bellsouth.net wrote:
> On Sunday, September 21, 2014 9:27:49 AM UTC-4, Ron O wrote:
>
>> Because Nyikos has gone into a new wave of denial I decided to see just
>> what about the Ohio Bait and Switch in 2002 was still available on the
>> web after almost 4 years of his denial.

This is just another stupid Nyikosian post so that he can continue to
run and not address the issues where they are issues. I couldn't make
this junk up.

>
> Document alleged denial. I was in no position to deny anything at the
> time. I kept asking for evidence of "the bait" that was still
> "going down" back 4 years ago [not 12 years ago] and I still haven't
> got it.

It was one of the first things that you were wrong about. You were so
wrong that you ran from the post where I put up the Ohio evidence and
you never went back to that post. You have run from it to this day.

You even started the misdirection thread to misdirect the argument. Why
even try to deny what you did? You go back demonstrate that all of that
isn't true. That post is still waiting for a response from you.

>
> All through the Scottish verdict thread, where even Robert Camp admitted
> that the evidence for "the bait" was quite slim, you kept viciously
> defaming me and posting oodles of stuff about the policy of
> "teaching to the weaknesses of evolutionary theory" which you,
> in question-begging manner, perennially call "the switch scam."
> But you never provided any evidence that the DI was providing
> "the bait" after 2005, besides the miserable statement on RIGHTS
> that I posted right at the beginning of the thread.

The Scottish verdict thread that you started as a misdirection ploy
because you lied to Bill about the stupid snipping and running story.
The quote that you based the Scottish verdict thread on was the one that
you snipped out and ran from three times before attempting to address
it. Because of your weird Nyikosian rules about not doing something
stupid and dishonest three times (probably that means that you are that
type of stupid and dishonest person) you put the quote back into another
post and started to lie about it in anyway that you could. Not in the
public schools and not in a form ready to teach. Public schools was
right in the quote and what did they claim about the scientific theory
of intelligent design? After snipping and running from the quote three
times who would ever believe any argument that you could come up with?
You obviously could not address the quote honestly, so you snipped and ran.

QUOTE:
Has ID Been Banned from Public Schools?
No. Science teachers have the right to teach science.
Since ID is a legitimate scientific theory, it should be
constitutional to discuss in science classrooms
and it should not be banned from schools. If a
science teacher wants to voluntarily discuss ID,
she should have the academic freedom to do so.
END QUOTE:
http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/filesDB-download.php?command=download&id=1453

They are obviously talking about public schools. They are obviously
claiming that ID is a legitimate scientific theory and the are
definitely claiming that it should be constitutional to discuss in the
science classroom. What is a teacher doing when they discuss a
scientific topic in a science classrooom? The vast majority of people
call that teaching.

>
> No one but you ever thought that statement to refer to a promise
> that the DI had ID science ready to teach in the public schools
> as a rival to evolutionary theory.

"Science ready to teach?" Who has been the biggest sales force for the
ID scam since the mid 1990's? The guys responsible for this pamphlet.
That you can try to lie about the situation with that lame argument is
just nuts. What are the ID perps most known for doing? Why are they ID
perps? Glenn would not agree with you. Why have you refused to ask
Glenn instead of harass him with your false claims about how you are
going to address my posts in detail. Who is still running from those posts?

>
> And you never posted any argument in that whole thread as to why
> this statement on RIGHTS should be viewed as that kind of promise.

Why does it have to be a promise? These are scam artists. What kind of
promise do you expect from such dishonest people? You read the post
that you are responding to. What do you think of the fact that the ID
perps got together and decided to run the bait and switch on the Ohio
rubes before they even went to Ohio. Ohio was just a dishonest show
because no one was going to get the ID science to teach. Meyer is one
of the ID perps responsible for the 1999 quote that you are currently
running from in the other thread. They obviously sold the rubes the
stupid teach ID scam (Santorum and the newspaper articles), but ran the
bait and switch. The briefing packet is their lies about why ID is
still viable after the Dover decision. What do you not get?

>
> But ever since then, you keep asking loaded questions to make it
> look like the thread was a failure for me, but it was actually
> a huge success: nothing ever posted on that thread went an
> inch towards overturning my Scottish verdict on the contemporary
> existence of "the bait". You had posted absolutely nothing to
> overturn the Scottish verdict:
>
> NOT PROVEN!

Nyikos means that it was already proven when he snipped and ran from the
quote three times. Why does removing the material mean anything to you?

>
> You continued:
>
>> ARN still has the booklet that the Discovery Institute used to give out
>> on teaching intelligent design in the public schools that was published
>> in 1999.
>
> This example sets the tone for the rest of your post; it is a long
> booklet, but you never quote from it. The few quotes you present from other
> links never really show that "the bait was still going down."

What an utter ass. The quote from this booklet is one of the quotes in
one of the posts that you claimed that you would address in detail
"tomorrow" but tomorrow hasn't come. You are running from this quote
and you can make these banal assertions. These are only links to show
you that I can go back and get all the material that you have run from
in the past.

>
> In fact your whole post is a monument to something you inadvertently
> confirmed with a reply you did to my last post on the thread,
>
> "Subject: Re: Why do the ID perps run the bait and switch scam on their own"
>
> Namely, you try to force people who persistently disagree with you to
> waste their time.

So why not address the quoted material in context in the post that you
are currently running from?

>
> Here it is only reading lengthy articles when a little
> quoting in the right place should, if you are telling the truth, do the job.

This just means that you are running out of excuses for running. Go
address the quote in context. You know what post because you bragged to
Glenn what a job you would do on them. Go for it instead of run.

>
> On that other thread, you had posted a demonstrable falsehood, where you
> alleged that Glenn had said something on another thread that he had
> not. In reply to my stating that anyone could confirm, by reading
> that thread, that Glenn had said nothing of the sort there. And
> I have even revived that thread so people could access it more
> easily.
>
> You demanded proof that the thread actually did not contain any
> such statement, and in my last reply to you, I repeatedly asked
> you whether you still maintained that statement to be true.
> And I kept reiterating that if the answer was NO, you were
> trying to make me waste my time.
>
> Your last reply shows clearly that you either
>
> (1) stick to your LIE that Glenn had said what you originally
> claimed he did,
>
> or
>
> (2) want to force me to waste hours on a LIE whose truth you
> are no longer claiming to uphold.
>
> Because you completely ignored the issue of whether you still maintain it.
>
> So, you are either a pathological liar or a petty tyrant who demands
> that people waste their time on you. You are also someone who is
> crazed with hate for me, for you flaunted your refusal to address
> the issue with the following defamation:

Projection is just a way of life for you. You are sometimes kinder to
yourself and call it habitual lying. Whatever it is, you do it all the
time.

>
> "I will just leave this post intact as another monument to the Nyikosian
> stupidity and utter dishonesty."
>
> Rant away, jerk; you are only demonstrating with hateful comments
> like this how true my analysis of alternatives (1) and (2) was just now.
>
> Peter Nyikos
>

Go back and address this issue in context. You will find that you
snipped and ran from the facts twice already. You even admit to reading
the last post, so you know what you snipped out and ran from. I quoted
the parts that you had snipped out that would tell you that you have the
wrong argument. Why do stupid things like this post and then run from
what you are guilty of? Reality isn't going to change just because you
run from it.

Address the issues where they are issues and stop running from your own
stupidity and dishonesty.

https://groups.google.com/d/msg/talk.origins/38nQm79NC94/TeXllwSwW0MJ

This thread also contains the posts that you claimed that you would
address tomorrow. To get you started this is the post with the 1999
quote in it that you are currently running from and it is one of the
posts that you bragged to Glenn that you were going to take apart in
detail. Good luck.

https://groups.google.com/d/msg/talk.origins/38nQm79NC94/00GyMLoAhDcJ

Ron Okimoto

[nyi...@bellsouth.net]

On Friday, September 26, 2014 7:59:49 AM UTC-4, Ron O wrote:

> On 9/25/2014 8:59 PM, nyi...@bellsouth.net wrote:
> > On Sunday, September 21, 2014 9:27:49 AM UTC-4, Ron O wrote:
> >
> >> Because Nyikos has gone into a new wave of denial I decided to see just
> >> what about the Ohio Bait and Switch in 2002 was still available on the
> >> web after almost 4 years of his denial.
>
> This is just another stupid Nyikosian post so that he can continue to
> run and not address the issues where they are issues.

A pure junk statement by you. But I learned already in 2011 to
expect that sort of thing from you.

> I couldn't make this junk up.

Au contraire, you are making junk up below, and piling it higher
and deeper.

> >
> > Document alleged denial. I was in no position to deny anything at the
> > time. I kept asking for evidence of "the bait" that was still
> > "going down" back 4 years ago [not 12 years ago] and I still haven't
> > got it.
>
> It was one of the first things that you were wrong about. You were so
> wrong that you ran from the post where I put up the Ohio evidence and
> you never went back to that post. You have run from it to this day.

What's to run from? What did I do wrong, besides asking for evidence?
You provided some, but not for the "bait" part.

> You even started the misdirection thread to misdirect the argument.

This is your illogical expression [I couldn't make this junk up,
but you are an expert at making up such junk] for my letting people
know that your "evidence" for the "bait" was pathetic.

> Why
> even try to deny what you did? You go back demonstrate that all of that
> isn't true. That post is still waiting for a response from you.

I told, you, I was in no position to deny anything of what you posted
about Ohio, NOR WAS THERE ANY REASON FOR ME TO DENY the only thing
you are interested in proving: that Meyer & co decided only to talk
about the "teach to the weakness" issue.

You have no interest in proving the existence of "the bait" [see
(*) below], but only in setting up huge smokescreens to confuse
people about what the alleged "bait" was and in relentlessly
turning the issue back to "teach to the weakness," something
you seldom have the integrity to spell out. In what you
quote from me next, I describe that lack of integrity:

> > All through the Scottish verdict thread, where even Robert Camp admitted
> > that the evidence for "the bait" was quite slim, you kept viciously
> > defaming me and posting oodles of stuff about the policy of
> > "teaching to the weaknesses of evolutionary theory" which you,
> > in question-begging manner, perennially call "the switch scam."
> > But you never provided any evidence that the DI was providing
> > "the bait" after 2005, besides the miserable statement on RIGHTS
> > that I posted right at the beginning of the thread.
>
> The Scottish verdict thread that you started as a misdirection ploy
> because you lied to Bill about the stupid snipping and running story.

I couldn't make this junk up, but you just did.

I told you, right on the original thread on which we were
arguing for over 500 posts, that I was cutting the Gordian
knot of your tangled web of deceit. The Scottish verdict
thread was my way of calling attention to the fact that
your "evidence" for "the bait" was laughable.

> The quote that you based the Scottish verdict thread on was the one that
> you snipped out and ran from three times before attempting to address
> it.

I told you already, it was so irrelevant to "the bait" that it took
me a long time to realize that you were stupid enough to think that
it proved the existence of "the bait".

Since you love to snip out parts of the description of "the bait" when
the going gets hot and heavy, I'm reminding readers that it is alleged
by you to be:

(*) a claim by the DI that they have the ID science in a form
ready to teach in the public schools as a rival to the theory of
evolution. And you've been alleging that it was in place until last
year.

> Because of your weird Nyikosian rules about not doing something
> stupid and dishonest three times

I never do anything dishonest even once on the Internet. YOU
decided on this nonexistent rule based on what only you and
God, if there is a God, know.

> (probably that means that you are that
> type of stupid and dishonest person) you put the quote back into another
> post and started to lie about it in anyway that you could. Not in the
> public schools and not in a form ready to teach. Public schools was
> right in the quote and what did they claim about the scientific theory
> of intelligent design?

NOT what you call the bait, not in the quote. And by the way, you've
loaded your opening sentence with the kind of deceit that I would
take apart, bit by dishonest bit, if anyone but you said it. But you
would only slap some crud on my rebuttal and accuse me of running
away if I were to snip out your irrelevant crud.

> After snipping and running from the quote three
> times who would ever believe any argument that you could come up with?

Any sane person looking at the quote, and at what I told you before (see
above about why I snipped), would. But you are not sane.

> You obviously could not address the quote honestly, so you snipped and ran.

I addressedd it honestly in my first post to the Scottish verdict thread,
and you ran from the need to argue that it had anything to do with
your alleged bait.

> QUOTE:
> Has ID Been Banned from Public Schools?
> No. Science teachers have the right to teach science.
> Since ID is a legitimate scientific theory, it should be
> constitutional to discuss in science classrooms
> and it should not be banned from schools. If a
> science teacher wants to voluntarily discuss ID,
> she should have the academic freedom to do so.
> END QUOTE:
> http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/filesDB-download.php?command=download&id=1453
>
> They are obviously talking about public schools. They are obviously
> claiming that ID is a legitimate scientific theory and the are
> definitely claiming that it should be constitutional to discuss in the
> science classroom.

Obviously. But that is not what "the bait" is all about. See my
above description (*). You also quoted me describing it below,
and immediately clipped off part of the description in your response.

> What is a teacher doing when they discuss a
> scientific topic in a science classrooom? The vast majority of people
> call that teaching.

Keep piling on the misdirection. You are only digging yourself deeper
into the heap of slime that you have chosen to wallow in.

Nobody but you could make up such junk.

> > No one but you ever thought that statement to refer to a promise
> > that the DI had ID science ready to teach in the public schools
> > as a rival to evolutionary theory.

> "Science ready to teach?"

That is PART of what you allege to be the bait. And it may be
ready to teach on the postdoctoral level. But not as a RIVAL
to evolutionary theory, but only as a SUPPLEMENT using carefully
chosen examples of possible design, such as the bacterial flagellum,
and places on which evolutionary theory is especially weak, such
as the Cambrian explosion and (far more strongly) abiogenesis.

Continued in next reply to this junk-saturated post of yours.

Peter Nyikos

[RonO]

On 9/26/2014 8:47 AM, nyi...@bellsouth.net wrote:
> On Friday, September 26, 2014 7:59:49 AM UTC-4, Ron O wrote:
>
>> On 9/25/2014 8:59 PM, nyi...@bellsouth.net wrote:
>>> On Sunday, September 21, 2014 9:27:49 AM UTC-4, Ron O wrote:
>>>
>>>> Because Nyikos has gone into a new wave of denial I decided to see just
>>>> what about the Ohio Bait and Switch in 2002 was still available on the
>>>> web after almost 4 years of his denial.
>>
>> This is just another stupid Nyikosian post so that he can continue to
>> run and not address the issues where they are issues.
>
> A pure junk statement by you. But I learned already in 2011 to
> expect that sort of thing from you.

Actually you are lying again and my statement is backed up by the fact
that you did not continue this post like you claimed and you did not
address any of the posts that you said that you would address
"tomorrow," and instead you keep making up junk like this and running
from what you obviously cannot deal with. You yourself claimed that
your limit was two posts a day to me, and yet all you produced was just
this lame post and you ran from all the others, just as I claimed that
you were doing. Why not make good on your stupid claims to Glenn? It
is a sure thing that you did not do what you claimed that you would do
(you lied to Glenn), but better late than never.

>
>> I couldn't make this junk up.
>
> Au contraire, you are making junk up below, and piling it higher
> and deeper.

Just another stupid lie. Why didn't you continue like you claimed
below? Why not deal with what I wrote? Could it have anything to do
with the material that is about what you are currently running from in
other posts in other threads?

>
>>>
>>> Document alleged denial. I was in no position to deny anything at the
>>> time. I kept asking for evidence of "the bait" that was still
>>> "going down" back 4 years ago [not 12 years ago] and I still haven't
>>> got it.
>>
>> It was one of the first things that you were wrong about. You were so
>> wrong that you ran from the post where I put up the Ohio evidence and
>> you never went back to that post. You have run from it to this day.
>
> What's to run from? What did I do wrong, besides asking for evidence?
> You provided some, but not for the "bait" part.

You have to tell us why you ran and refused to go back to that post even
when you were claiming that someone else was running from a post from a
thread that you were not participating in. How sad was that pathetic
misdirection ploy? It was one of the saddest attempts that I had seen
on TO considering that you were claiming that I was running from Ray.
Why did you have to run from the thread where that issue was finally
addressed years later even though you never went back to the above post
that you obviously ran from. Just go back to the IC thread and count
the posts that you are running from by your own definition of running.

There is absolutely no doubt that you ran from that Ohio post. Multiple
times you were directed back to it and you ran. No other explanation
has to be considered. You ran by your own definition of running and now
you are just lying about it in anyway that you can. How sad can you get?

>
>> You even started the misdirection thread to misdirect the argument.
>
> This is your illogical expression [I couldn't make this junk up,
> but you are an expert at making up such junk] for my letting people
> know that your "evidence" for the "bait" was pathetic.

It was the most obvious and stupid misdirection ploy anyone could ever
try. You were not even participating in the thread that you claimed I
was running from. Not only that, but you kept it up for months and
still never addressed the post that you were running from and all the
others that you subsequently started to run from since then. It is your
own definition of running that I am using, so you can't complain.

>
>> Why
>> even try to deny what you did? You go back demonstrate that all of that
>> isn't true. That post is still waiting for a response from you.
>
> I told, you, I was in no position to deny anything of what you posted
> about Ohio, NOR WAS THERE ANY REASON FOR ME TO DENY the only thing
> you are interested in proving: that Meyer & co decided only to talk
> about the "teach to the weakness" issue.

So why run from that post and start a stupid and dishonest misdirection
ploy to do it? Why keep up the misdirection poly for months, eventually
lying about running misdirection ploys and then trying the same
misdirection ploy after you claimed that it was an old example.

You know that you are lying. All you had to do was to acknowledge that
you had been wrong and move on, and you never did. Instead all you do
is lie like this.

>
> You have no interest in proving the existence of "the bait" [see
> (*) below], but only in setting up huge smokescreens to confuse
> people about what the alleged "bait" was and in relentlessly
> turning the issue back to "teach to the weakness," something
> you seldom have the integrity to spell out. In what you
> quote from me next, I describe that lack of integrity:

You lied about never getting a description of the bait and switch for
months. You would even snip out the descriptions and claim to have
never gotten any in the post where you were lying about never getting a
description. That is how sad your snipping and running was even then.

In all those months you never addressed any of my descriptions of the
bait and switch to say what you thought was wrong with any of them, you
just ran from them and lied about not getting any descriptions. That is
how sad you are. If you thought that there was something wrong with the
descriptions you could have pointed it out, but you just ran in denial
instead of dealing with reality.

>
>>> All through the Scottish verdict thread, where even Robert Camp admitted
>>> that the evidence for "the bait" was quite slim, you kept viciously
>>> defaming me and posting oodles of stuff about the policy of
>>> "teaching to the weaknesses of evolutionary theory" which you,
>>> in question-begging manner, perennially call "the switch scam."
>>> But you never provided any evidence that the DI was providing
>>> "the bait" after 2005, besides the miserable statement on RIGHTS
>>> that I posted right at the beginning of the thread.
>>
>> The Scottish verdict thread that you started as a misdirection ploy
>> because you lied to Bill about the stupid snipping and running story.
>
> I couldn't make this junk up, but you just did.

You lied to Bill about a stupid episode that you just made up. I did
not realize what you were claiming because you would not put a link to
the post where I was supposedly doing the dirty deed, but instead you
would put up a post were there was a couple of quotes demonstrating that
you do snip and run routinely. We talked past each other for several
posts until I realized what you were claiming. When confronted by what
I had actually written without the manipulations that were in the post
that you kept quoting it was evident that I had never accused you of
snipping and running in that instance. It was only due to your own
manipulation of my post that you made that conclusion. When confronted
by that reality you ran and the next day after I asked you to verify
what you had done you started the Scottish verdict thread as a
misdirection ploy and ran from what you had done and never went back to
address that issue.

It is even sadder than that. You started the dirty debating thread
likely because you were getting your butt kicked in the original thread.
You claimed that several posters were playing dirty debating tricks on
you. I took no notice of that thread because it just looked like the
usual Pagano stupidity. You came to me in the other thread and said
that I should address your stupidity in the dirty debating thread. I
addressed the first two posts that you started that thread with and you
ran and did not address my responses. You then came back to me in the
other thread and claimed that I should address your second post to Bill
in the dirty debating thread. You never explained why I should have to
address your second post to some other poster. I did and you admitted
that you had lied to Bill about never running misdirection ploys (you
called my example old when your claim to Bill was that you never did
such things) and I couldn't figure out what you were talking about in
the other part of the post. You started claiming that it was about my
falsely accusing you of snipping and running, but you would only link to
a post where there was actual quotes put up demonstrating that you did
snip and run. When I finally figured out what you were claiming, it
turned out that you were basing your lie on your manipulation of what I
had written in a previous post. When I went up to that post and
requoted what I had actually written you ran for good.

Demonstrate that all of this is not true. Go back and finally address
what you ran from, and started the Scottish verdict thread in order to
avoid that stupidity and dishonesty.

>
> I told you, right on the original thread on which we were
> arguing for over 500 posts, that I was cutting the Gordian
> knot of your tangled web of deceit. The Scottish verdict
> thread was my way of calling attention to the fact that
> your "evidence" for "the bait" was laughable.

You lie a lot, why would anyone believe what you say without real evidence?

Not only that, but you make claims like that when you have no arguments
left and have to run from what you have been caught doing.

Face the facts, why would any moron try to take a quote that he had
snipped out and run from three times and try to lie about why he was
running from it? The only reason that you tried the stupid ploy was
because you could not deal with the lies you told to Bill. That is a
fact. I gave you that quote and told you to address it three times and
three times you snipped it out and ran. There is absolutely no doubt
that you did that. Those posts still exist.

>
>> The quote that you based the Scottish verdict thread on was the one that
>> you snipped out and ran from three times before attempting to address
>> it.
>
> I told you already, it was so irrelevant to "the bait" that it took
> me a long time to realize that you were stupid enough to think that
> it proved the existence of "the bait".

You obviously lie. It was the bait. How many times did I tell you that
the ID perps sell the ID scam and then only give the rubes a stupid
switch scam that does not mention that ID ever existed? That quote
clearly has the ID perps selling the ID scam. You knew it then or you
would not have run. The quote is below. There is no doubt that the ID
perps were talking about the public schools. There is no doubt that
they are lying about intelligent design being a scientific theory.
There is no doubt that they are claiming that a teacher can discuss ID
in the science classroom. You knew all of this so you snipped it out in
order to run in denial like you always do in cases like that.

>
> Since you love to snip out parts of the description of "the bait" when
> the going gets hot and heavy, I'm reminding readers that it is alleged
> by you to be:

Projection is stupid. You are the one that keeps complaining that I do
not snip out the material. I leave your posts intact so that I can more
easily determine what you have removed from my post. I need landmarks
because you often do not mark where you have removed the material.

How can you lie like this and live with yourself? What good does this
type of lying do when you know that you the one that snips and runs.

Like I said this post (linked to below) is monument to your stupidity.
You do not even mark your snips when you manipulated this post. This is
just one of the most extreme recent examples of what you do:
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/talk.origins/38nQm79NC94/TeXllwSwW0MJ
This is the post that you manipulated:
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/talk.origins/38nQm79NC94/FawHtAIHPFoJ

>
> (*) a claim by the DI that they have the ID science in a form
> ready to teach in the public schools as a rival to the theory of
> evolution. And you've been alleging that it was in place until last
> year.

They claim that ID is a scientific theory. What do you not get? What
does that mean? It doesn't mean that some other ID perps have the
scientific theory because they are the main ID perps that are the major
force behind the ID scam. The second largest group was ID Network and
it was run by a lawyer and probably no longer exists. Their web page
hasn't been updated since 2009 and their last news release was from
2007. Who else would have the scientific theory of ID if the ID perps
at the Discovery Institute do not have what they claim exists?

>
>
>> Because of your weird Nyikosian rules about not doing something
>> stupid and dishonest three times
>
> I never do anything dishonest even once on the Internet. YOU
> decided on this nonexistent rule based on what only you and
> God, if there is a God, know.

This post is stupid and dishonest, so you lie a lot. In terms of this
Ohio fiasco there was an extreme case where I quoted out of one of the
Ohio references that you had been given, but ran from (part of the
evidence that made you start the misdirection thread). You decided to
address the quote, but to do it you snipped out the middle portion of
the quote and made claims as if that middle portion did not exist. I
called you on it and put the intact quote back into my response and you
again snipped out the middle portion of the quote. In both cases you
snipped out a specific portion from the middle of the quote. I called
you on it again, but you ran and would not do the dirty deed three
times. Twice should be good enough for anyone because it was obvious
that you did it intentionally.

You keep lying about never lying on the internet and never losing an
exchange on the internet blah blah blah, but what is the reality? You
have some stupid one post lying rule, but when it can be established
that you have lied based on what you snipped out of the post you know
that you lied. Just because you remove the evidence from the post that
you are lying in doesn't mean squat in a forum like this because all
anyone has to do is go up one post and see what you are lying about.

Just think what you were doing when you would snip out the descriptions
of the bait and switch and then claim that you had never gotten a
description? Your one post lying rule is bogus.

You are just pathetic.

>
>> (probably that means that you are that
>> type of stupid and dishonest person) you put the quote back into another
>> post and started to lie about it in anyway that you could. Not in the
>> public schools and not in a form ready to teach. Public schools was
>> right in the quote and what did they claim about the scientific theory
>> of intelligent design?
>
> NOT what you call the bait, not in the quote. And by the way, you've
> loaded your opening sentence with the kind of deceit that I would
> take apart, bit by dishonest bit, if anyone but you said it. But you
> would only slap some crud on my rebuttal and accuse me of running
> away if I were to snip out your irrelevant crud.

You know what the bait is, and it is in that quote. There is no doubt
about that. Just look below and read the quote again.

>
>> After snipping and running from the quote three
>> times who would ever believe any argument that you could come up with?
>
> Any sane person looking at the quote, and at what I told you before (see
> above about why I snipped), would. But you are not sane.

Your self definition of sane does not reflect reality.

>
>> You obviously could not address the quote honestly, so you snipped and ran.
>
> I addressedd it honestly in my first post to the Scottish verdict thread,
> and you ran from the need to argue that it had anything to do with
> your alleged bait.

After snipping and running from the quote three times. You even lied at
least once after you snipped claiming not in the public schools and not
in a form ready to teach. Anyone that can read can tell that they are
talking about public schools, so you know what you were doing.

>
>> QUOTE:
>> Has ID Been Banned from Public Schools?
>> No. Science teachers have the right to teach science.
>> Since ID is a legitimate scientific theory, it should be
>> constitutional to discuss in science classrooms
>> and it should not be banned from schools. If a
>> science teacher wants to voluntarily discuss ID,
>> she should have the academic freedom to do so.
>> END QUOTE:
>> http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/filesDB-download.php?command=download&id=1453
>>
>> They are obviously talking about public schools. They are obviously
>> claiming that ID is a legitimate scientific theory and the are
>> definitely claiming that it should be constitutional to discuss in the
>> science classroom.
>
> Obviously. But that is not what "the bait" is all about. See my
> above description (*). You also quoted me describing it below,
> and immediately clipped off part of the description in your response.

Why lie at this late date? What has the bait always been? The ID perps
sell the rubes the teach ID scam, but all the rubes ever get is a stupid

switch scam that doesn't even mention that ID ever existed.

>

>> What is a teacher doing when they discuss a
>> scientific topic in a science classrooom? The vast majority of people
>> call that teaching.
>
> Keep piling on the misdirection. You are only digging yourself deeper
> into the heap of slime that you have chosen to wallow in.

It isn't misdirection it is fact.

>
> Nobody but you could make up such junk.

That is what I keep claiming about you, but you keep demonstrating how
wrong I can be.

>
>>> No one but you ever thought that statement to refer to a promise
>>> that the DI had ID science ready to teach in the public schools
>>> as a rival to evolutionary theory.
>
>> "Science ready to teach?"
>
> That is PART of what you allege to be the bait. And it may be
> ready to teach on the postdoctoral level. But not as a RIVAL
> to evolutionary theory, but only as a SUPPLEMENT using carefully
> chosen examples of possible design, such as the bacterial flagellum,
> and places on which evolutionary theory is especially weak, such
> as the Cambrian explosion and (far more strongly) abiogenesis.

"Science ready to teach" was your stupid claim. In that quote the ID
perps are clearly claiming that ID is a scientific theory that can be
discussed in the science classroom. There is no doubt about that. Your
bogus claims about "science ready to teach" doesn't make any difference.
That is my point.

>
> Continued in next reply to this junk-saturated post of yours.
>
> Peter Nyikos
>

Since a part of what you snipped out and did not address is about what
you are currently running from in another thread, my guess is that you
decided not to continue and ran as usual.

Ron Okimoto

[nyi...@bellsouth.net]

On Saturday, September 27, 2014 9:44:13 AM UTC-4, Ron O wrote:
> On 9/26/2014 8:47 AM, nyi...@bellsouth.net wrote:
> > On Friday, September 26, 2014 7:59:49 AM UTC-4, Ron O wrote:
> >
> >> On 9/25/2014 8:59 PM, nyi...@bellsouth.net wrote:
> >>> On Sunday, September 21, 2014 9:27:49 AM UTC-4, Ron O wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> Because Nyikos has gone into a new wave of denial I decided to see just
> >>>> what about the Ohio Bait and Switch in 2002 was still available on the
> >>>> web after almost 4 years of his denial.
> >>
> >> This is just another stupid Nyikosian post so that he can continue to
> >> run and not address the issues where they are issues.
> >
> > A pure junk statement by you. But I learned already in 2011 to
> > expect that sort of thing from you.
>
> Actually you are lying again and my statement is backed up by the fact
> that you did not continue this post like you claimed

I didn't give a time for my continuation, you control freak.

Do you think this world revolves around you? Do you imagine that I
don't have anything better to do than to spend all my waking time
posting replies to you?

> and you did not
> address any of the posts that you said that you would address
> "tomorrow,"

A lie. You posted this after I corrected you on your "Why do the..."
thread to tell you that I had written "STARTING tomorrow" and wasn't
specific about any posts to which I was referring.

The post where I told you that is dated:
Date: Tue, 23 Sep 2014 12:47:04 -0700 (PDT)

and your reply, where you left this correction intact, is dated:
Date: Wed, 24 Sep 2014 06:17:03 -0500

and this 398 line post of yours, to which I am now replying, is dated:
Date: Sat, 27 Sep 2014 08:44:13 -0500

> and instead you keep making up junk like this and running
> from what you obviously cannot deal with. You yourself claimed that
> your limit was two posts a day to me,

That is an UPPER limit, although I might post thrice on a rare day
just to make up for the times I post none (like yesterday).
You are obviously an egomaniac who thinks everyone
has to drop everything at your beck and call to answer
to your incessant demands.

> and yet all you produced was just
> this lame post and you ran from all the others, just as I claimed that
> you were doing. Why not make good on your stupid claims to Glenn? It
> is a sure thing that you did not do what you claimed that you would do
> (you lied to Glenn), but better late than never.

I told Glenn the truth, liar. Go back and read what I wrote about that
above, dates and all, until it sinks in.

+++++++++++++ sarcasm on

OOps, I forgot: you imagine that the only orders, requests, and suggestions
that need to be obeyed are YOURS. So I guess you will go on lying
about this as long as the two of us argue with each other.
+++++++++++++ sarcasm off

> >> I couldn't make this junk up.

As you can see, it is YOU who made up the junk just now.

> > Au contraire, you are making junk up below, and piling it higher
> > and deeper.
>
> Just another stupid lie.

By you.

> Why didn't you continue like you claimed
> below? Why not deal with what I wrote? Could it have anything to do
> with the material that is about what you are currently running from in
> other posts in other threads?

I am in LIFO mode with you most of the time. You keep coming up
with fresh lies long before I can get through the old ones, and
the fresh ones shed light on the earlier ones, so it makes sense
to deal with them first.

> >>> Document alleged denial.

You never documented it. You keep demanding that I go back and
look at a post from 2010 (or is it 2011?) whose link you keep
refraining from providing.

> >>>I was in no position to deny anything at the
> >>> time. I kept asking for evidence of "the bait" that was still
> >>> "going down" back 4 years ago [not 12 years ago] and I still haven't
> >>> got it.
> >>
> >> It was one of the first things that you were wrong about.

I had asked you for evidence and you provided some. Only a
hate-driven person like you would interpret that as my being
"wrong" about that.

In your hate, you had decided that I was either a rube or a perp,
and assumed that the only reason I would ask for evidence is
that I believe you are wrong. CORRECT?

> >> You were so
> >> wrong that you ran from the post where I put up the Ohio evidence and
> >> you never went back to that post. You have run from it to this day.
> >
> > What's to run from? What did I do wrong, besides asking for evidence?
> > You provided some, but not for the "bait" part.
>
> You have to tell us why you ran and refused to go back to that post

There you go again, barking out orders instead of answering my question.

Let me make it more clear for you. THERE WAS NOTHING IN THAT POST THAT
I HAD ANY ISSUES WITH, except for the absence of quoted evidence of
"the bait". Are you such a control freak that you demand that I
reply to every single post that you have ever done in reply to me?

<gargantuan snip for focus>

> >> The quote that you based the Scottish verdict thread on was the one that
> >> you snipped out and ran from three times before attempting to address
> >> it.
> >
> > I told you already, it was so irrelevant to "the bait" that it took
> > me a long time to realize that you were stupid enough to think that
> > it proved the existence of "the bait".
>
> You obviously lie. It was the bait.

If I "obviously lie" then Robert Camp "obviously lied" also when,
seeing my "Scottish verdict" OP where I quoted this thing you
here call "the bait" and he replied that there is little evidence of
any bait by the DI.

But you wouldn't dream of accusing Robert Camp of "lying" about
that, let alone "obviously lying," because Camp hates me and the DI
[but for very different reasons] almost as much as you hate me and the DI
[but for very similar reasons], and so by your twisted moral
code, he cannot have been guilty of any wrongdoing, so the word "lie"
doesn't apply to him.

Satan, if there is such an entity, would love the way your twisted
sense of morality works, and might even recommend that some less
experienced demons study it carefully.

> How many times did I tell you that
> the ID perps sell the ID scam and then only give the rubes a stupid
> switch scam that does not mention that ID ever existed?

Hundreds of times. But, AS YOU HAVE DONE JUST NOW, you make no
mention of what the alleged "bait" is.

<snip to get to some more lies about the bait>

> That quote
> clearly has the ID perps selling the ID scam. You knew it then or you
> would not have run.

Here, you are apparently saying, "unless you reply to each and every post
I make in reply to you, you are obviously running from something you
are afraid to face, and that makes the thing you are running from true
automatically."

Of course, that would only apply to people like me and Glenn.
You get to ignore anything WE say because you are self-centered,
self-righteous and self-satisfied. See example, with dates,
above.

Continued in next reply.

Peter Nyikos

[nyi...@bellsouth.net]

On Saturday, September 27, 2014 9:44:13 AM UTC-4, Ron O wrote:

Towards the end of my first reply I made a notation which was
displaced from where it belonged: there was no snip where I
had written:

<snip to get to some more lies about the bait>

However, there is a "snip" between where I ended the first post
where I am picking up here, and Ron O may try to make a federal
case of it, but I don't care--and neither should anyone else.

Ron O wrote:

> You have to tell us why you ran and refused to go back to that post even
> when you were claiming that someone else was running from a post from a
> thread that you were not participating in.

What a weasel-worded comment!

You had run away from a challenge by Ray Martinez to support
a ridiculous allegation about Michael Behe. You had run from it,
and you ran from my challenge to support that ridiculous
allegation.

> How sad was that pathetic misdirection ploy?

Here again, your twisted, completely self-righteous morality
comes into play. You find it perfectly OK to badger me about
something you don't describe in a way that any other person
reading this could possibly guess.

As I recall, you were congenial about the challenge for a change, agreeing
to address the challenge just as soon as I first....

...addressed something to YOUR satisfaction. It happened almost four years
ago, and I cannot recall it any more, but surely you can. After all,
you told me above, in control freak fashion, that I "have to tell us"
why I (allegedly) ran.

> It was one of the saddest attempts that I had seen
> on TO considering that you were claiming that I was running from Ray.

That IS what you were doing, and if you deny it, you will be lying.

But that would be perfectly all right according to your warped, twisted
sense of morality, wouldn't it?

> Why did you have to run from the thread where that issue was finally
> addressed years later

WHAT??? I never saw you either retract your claim about Behe nor
support it. Can you find the post where you finally addressed it?

Peter Nyikos

[RonO]

On 10/2/2014 5:02 PM, nyi...@bellsouth.net wrote:
> On Saturday, September 27, 2014 9:44:13 AM UTC-4, Ron O wrote:
>> On 9/26/2014 8:47 AM, nyi...@bellsouth.net wrote:
>>> On Friday, September 26, 2014 7:59:49 AM UTC-4, Ron O wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 9/25/2014 8:59 PM, nyi...@bellsouth.net wrote:
>>>>> On Sunday, September 21, 2014 9:27:49 AM UTC-4, Ron O wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Because Nyikos has gone into a new wave of denial I decided to see just
>>>>>> what about the Ohio Bait and Switch in 2002 was still available on the
>>>>>> web after almost 4 years of his denial.
>>>>
>>>> This is just another stupid Nyikosian post so that he can continue to
>>>> run and not address the issues where they are issues.
>>>
>>> A pure junk statement by you. But I learned already in 2011 to
>>> expect that sort of thing from you.
>>
>> Actually you are lying again and my statement is backed up by the fact
>> that you did not continue this post like you claimed
>
> I didn't give a time for my continuation, you control freak.

I will just note that you still haven't addressed the posts that you
claimed that you would address "tomorrow." Instead all you do is this
type of asinine behavior and run. I don't care when or if you ever
answer any of the posts that you are running from. I just remind you
that you are running and doing stupid and dishonest things to do it.

>
> Do you think this world revolves around you? Do you imagine that I
> don't have anything better to do than to spend all my waking time
> posting replies to you?

Projection is so stupid. Who demands evidence and when they get it they
just runs?

I do not expect a cowardly asshole like you to live up to any
expectation worth thinking about. I just state the facts and let you
stew in them.

>
>> and you did not
>> address any of the posts that you said that you would address
>> "tomorrow,"
>
> A lie. You posted this after I corrected you on your "Why do the..."
> thread to tell you that I had written "STARTING tomorrow" and wasn't
> specific about any posts to which I was referring.

Just keep lying to yourself.

>
> The post where I told you that is dated:
> Date: Tue, 23 Sep 2014 12:47:04 -0700 (PDT)
>
> and your reply, where you left this correction intact, is dated:
> Date: Wed, 24 Sep 2014 06:17:03 -0500
>
> and this 398 line post of yours, to which I am now replying, is dated:
> Date: Sat, 27 Sep 2014 08:44:13 -0500

No one cares because tomorrow still hasn't come and those posts still
have not been addressed relentlessly like you lied to Glenn about. You
made the tomorrow claim to Glenn Sept 17th, so who cares about these posts?

>
>> and instead you keep making up junk like this and running
>> from what you obviously cannot deal with. You yourself claimed that
>> your limit was two posts a day to me,
>
> That is an UPPER limit, although I might post thrice on a rare day
> just to make up for the times I post none (like yesterday).
> You are obviously an egomaniac who thinks everyone
> has to drop everything at your beck and call to answer
> to your incessant demands.

Why keep lying. You post as many times as your assoholic self will
stand. You just use this excuse to run from all the posts that you are
running from by your own definition of running. That is a plain and
simple fact based on years of your stupid behavior. If you do not want
to defend stupid posts like this one, just don't write them. Just think
how much better it would have been if you had addressed the posts that
you said that you would address or continued where you claimed that you
would continue instead of run like this?

>
>> and yet all you produced was just
>> this lame post and you ran from all the others, just as I claimed that
>> you were doing. Why not make good on your stupid claims to Glenn? It
>> is a sure thing that you did not do what you claimed that you would do
>> (you lied to Glenn), but better late than never.
>
> I told Glenn the truth, liar. Go back and read what I wrote about that
> above, dates and all, until it sinks in.

You just lie a lot. You know what you claimed, so why lie about it.
Isn't it sad that tomorrow still has not come?

>
> +++++++++++++ sarcasm on
>
> OOps, I forgot: you imagine that the only orders, requests, and suggestions
> that need to be obeyed are YOURS. So I guess you will go on lying
> about this as long as the two of us argue with each other.
> +++++++++++++ sarcasm off

Why act like a fruity boob when all I am doing is stating some simple
facts. Tomorrow hasn't come and likely never will. You have had plenty
of time to go back to those posts that you are running from and what
have you done instead? Reality is just what it is.

>
>>>> I couldn't make this junk up.
>
> As you can see, it is YOU who made up the junk just now.

You write these stupid and inane posts.

Why not just do what you said that you would do? Wouldn't that be much
better than what you are doing?

>
>>> Au contraire, you are making junk up below, and piling it higher
>>> and deeper.
>>
>> Just another stupid lie.
>
> By you.

Why keep lying to yourself? Why have you not continued like you had
claimed below?

>
>> Why didn't you continue like you claimed
>> below? Why not deal with what I wrote? Could it have anything to do
>> with the material that is about what you are currently running from in
>> other posts in other threads?
>
> I am in LIFO mode with you most of the time. You keep coming up
> with fresh lies long before I can get through the old ones, and
> the fresh ones shed light on the earlier ones, so it makes sense
> to deal with them first.

Why have you still not continued like you claimed below?

That is no lie, so what are you lying about? Why run if you can
demonstrate that I am lying? Who is running?

>
>>>>> Document alleged denial.
>
> You never documented it. You keep demanding that I go back and
> look at a post from 2010 (or is it 2011?) whose link you keep
> refraining from providing.
>
>>>>> I was in no position to deny anything at the
>>>>> time. I kept asking for evidence of "the bait" that was still
>>>>> "going down" back 4 years ago [not 12 years ago] and I still haven't
>>>>> got it.

Well since you want to relive your stupidity. I can still access the
posts through eternal september.

This is the post where I respond to Nyikos' demand for evidence and told
me to hop to it, but ran when he got the evidence. He has been running
ever since. I tweeked him several times that he wanted the evidence and
he finally started the misdirection ploy involving Ray to claim that I
was the one that was running. It was a tragically stupid and obvious
misdirection ploy because he used a post from a thread that he wasn't
participating in that was a couple weeks old at the time, and he was

claiming that I was running from Ray.

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

Here is Nyikos running the midirection ploy in the thread a week later:
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/talk.origins/lJuA2zaMvfY/WkPhqkaKyCoJ
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/talk.origins/lJuA2zaMvfY/A4Yz8yJl6kYJ

Nyikos misdirection thread Started 2/1/11:
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/talk.origins/xgyxNEUmzpY/flJAY7nuo5MJ
My response:
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/talk.origins/xgyxNEUmzpY/RX1vNm3xA5EJ

Remember Nyikos lied to Bill about never running misdirection ploys, and
he couldn't keep himself from running this one. What happened when this
IC topic was finally discussed? There was this guy named Nyikos that
ran from a lot of those posts too.

All the evidence that you could want.

The reason why you ran is probably because of your stupid claims that
you had never lied on the internet and that you had never lost an
exchange on the internet. Well you were obviously wrong and had to run
for your own stupid Nikosian reasons. Why try to lie about it at this
late date? If the incident was so inconsequential why be such a
dishonest ass and try to run the stupid misdirection ploy?

>>>>
>>>> It was one of the first things that you were wrong about.
>
> I had asked you for evidence and you provided some. Only a
> hate-driven person like you would interpret that as my being
> "wrong" about that.
>
> In your hate, you had decided that I was either a rube or a perp,
> and assumed that the only reason I would ask for evidence is
> that I believe you are wrong. CORRECT?

We know that this is all a lie and that you did run, because anyone can
go back to that thread including yourself and see that you ran. You did
everything that you could to run. You even tried to misdirect the
argument by claiming that I was the one that was running. Projection is
just a way of life for you, so you know that you are guilty and only
lying about the past in any way that you can. If it had been a nothing
incident why would you have to run a stupid and dishonest misdirection
ploy? Why did you manipulate a post where I put some of the Ohio
evidence in. You deleted the middle portion of the quoted material in
order to lie about the Discovery Institute's involvement. You knew you
were wrong, but you could not admit that fact to yourself. When I put
the same intact evidence in again, you snipped out the middle portion of
the quote a second time and ran away. That is nothing like what you are
describing here. If you had agreed with the evidence how do you explain
such bogus and dishonest behavior to deny reality? All you had to do
was to admit that you were wrong about the Discovery Institute's
involvement and that would have been the end of it, but what did you do
instead? Months of assoholic behavior and utter dishonesty.

>
>>>> You were so
>>>> wrong that you ran from the post where I put up the Ohio evidence and
>>>> you never went back to that post. You have run from it to this day.
>>>
>>> What's to run from? What did I do wrong, besides asking for evidence?
>>> You provided some, but not for the "bait" part.
>>
>> You have to tell us why you ran and refused to go back to that post
>
> There you go again, barking out orders instead of answering my question.
>
> Let me make it more clear for you. THERE WAS NOTHING IN THAT POST THAT
> I HAD ANY ISSUES WITH, except for the absence of quoted evidence of
> "the bait". Are you such a control freak that you demand that I
> reply to every single post that you have ever done in reply to me?

Projection is stupid. We know who the control freak is. I am just
telling you the facts. If you want anyone to believe you, you have to
explain your absurd behavior.

>
> <gargantuan snip for focus>

Run it doesn't matter. No one expects more out of you than that. There
is no doubt that you are running, just look at what you snipped out.

>
>>>> The quote that you based the Scottish verdict thread on was the one that
>>>> you snipped out and ran from three times before attempting to address
>>>> it.
>>>
>>> I told you already, it was so irrelevant to "the bait" that it took
>>> me a long time to realize that you were stupid enough to think that
>>> it proved the existence of "the bait".
>>
>> You obviously lie. It was the bait.
>
> If I "obviously lie" then Robert Camp "obviously lied" also when,
> seeing my "Scottish verdict" OP where I quoted this thing you
> here call "the bait" and he replied that there is little evidence of
> any bait by the DI.

Why bring Camp into this? Was this part of your quote mine? I can't
remember. Does it matter? The Scottish verdict thread was bogus from
the beginning because you had snipped and run from that quote three
times. Breaking your bogus stupid two times rule so that you had to put
the quote back in and lie about it in anyway that you could.

That is the reality of the Scottish verdict quote. If it did not say
what I claimed you would not have snipped it out and run from it three
times.

>
> But you wouldn't dream of accusing Robert Camp of "lying" about
> that, let alone "obviously lying," because Camp hates me and the DI
> [but for very different reasons] almost as much as you hate me and the DI
> [but for very similar reasons], and so by your twisted moral
> code, he cannot have been guilty of any wrongdoing, so the word "lie"
> doesn't apply to him.

I don't even recall what Camp wrote. Why would I call him a liar. You
are the one that I call a liar. Pathological or habitual it doesn't
matter, you are just a liar.

>
> Satan, if there is such an entity, would love the way your twisted
> sense of morality works, and might even recommend that some less
> experienced demons study it carefully.

You are the one that has to go back through this entire mess and look
what you have done just because you had to run from a few posts that you
lied to Glenn that you would address.

>
>> How many times did I tell you that
>> the ID perps sell the ID scam and then only give the rubes a stupid
>> switch scam that does not mention that ID ever existed?
>
> Hundreds of times. But, AS YOU HAVE DONE JUST NOW, you make no
> mention of what the alleged "bait" is.

Lie all that you want to, but you'd have to be a moron to not
understand. Not only that, but you spent months running and denying
that I gave you a description of the bait and switch and never once took
any of my descriptions and claimed that anything was wrong with any of
them. You literally just snipped out the descriptions and then lied
about not getting a description several times. So why should you
believe yourself about this stupidity?

>
> <snip to get to some more lies about the bait>
>
>> That quote
>> clearly has the ID perps selling the ID scam. You knew it then or you
>> would not have run.
>
> Here, you are apparently saying, "unless you reply to each and every post
> I make in reply to you, you are obviously running from something you
> are afraid to face, and that makes the thing you are running from true
> automatically."

So why snip out the second half of the paragraph and run? Why make such
a lame comment and run?

The intact paragraph:
QUOTE:
You obviously lie. It was the bait. How many times did I tell you that

the ID perps sell the ID scam and then only give the rubes a stupid

switch scam that does not mention that ID ever existed? That quote

clearly has the ID perps selling the ID scam. You knew it then or you

would not have run. The quote is below. There is no doubt that the ID
perps were talking about the public schools. There is no doubt that
they are lying about intelligent design being a scientific theory.
There is no doubt that they are claiming that a teacher can discuss ID
in the science classroom. You knew all of this so you snipped it out in
order to run in denial like you always do in cases like that.

END QUOTE:

>
> Of course, that would only apply to people like me and Glenn.
> You get to ignore anything WE say because you are self-centered,
> self-righteous and self-satisfied. See example, with dates,
> above.
>
> Continued in next reply.
>
> Peter Nyikos
>

Why continue? Haven't you lied enough? Why not cut your losses and
tell the truth a couple of times and get the whole thing over with.
Just go to the posts that you told Glenn that you would address and
address them in an intellectually honest manner, accept that you were
wrong and move on.

Instead what have you done for years? Years of running in abject
cowardice. Being a dishonest asshole just because you could not face
reality. Pulling all the dirty tricks that backfired on you because
they were stupid and dishonest. How tragic was your stupid second
knockdown side thread when your funny Google story could not have
happened because Google didn't work that way. Who started calling their
victim sadistic when they were the one that tried the stupid and
dishonest dirty trick to make fun of someone else?

You do this all to yourself.

Ron Okimoto

[RonO]

On 10/2/2014 7:18 PM, nyi...@bellsouth.net wrote:
> On Saturday, September 27, 2014 9:44:13 AM UTC-4, Ron O wrote:
>
> Towards the end of my first reply I made a notation which was
> displaced from where it belonged: there was no snip where I
> had written:
>
> <snip to get to some more lies about the bait>
>
> However, there is a "snip" between where I ended the first post
> where I am picking up here, and Ron O may try to make a federal
> case of it, but I don't care--and neither should anyone else.
>
>
> Ron O wrote:
>
>> You have to tell us why you ran and refused to go back to that post even
>> when you were claiming that someone else was running from a post from a
>> thread that you were not participating in.
>
> What a weasel-worded comment!

Why relive this junk?

>
> You had run away from a challenge by Ray Martinez to support
> a ridiculous allegation about Michael Behe. You had run from it,
> and you ran from my challenge to support that ridiculous
> allegation.

How did the last IC thread go for you? Someone named Nyikos ran from a
lot of posts in that thread, and could not support their bogus arguments.

>
>> How sad was that pathetic misdirection ploy?
>
> Here again, your twisted, completely self-righteous morality
> comes into play. You find it perfectly OK to badger me about
> something you don't describe in a way that any other person
> reading this could possibly guess.

As I wrote in the previous post it was about the most pathetic
misdirection ploy that ever was attempted on TO. You took a post that
was a couple weeks old from a thread that you were not even
participating in to claim that I was running from Ray. The post that I
was supposed to be running from had nothing to do with the Ohio claims
that Nyikos was running from. It was just so absurd and obvious that I
had to laugh when Nyikos tried it. What kind of moron would be so
obviously dishonest?

>
> As I recall, you were congenial about the challenge for a change, agreeing
> to address the challenge just as soon as I first....

No one could mistake the fact that it was a misdirection ploy. I told
you that I would address that post if you stopped running and addressed
the Ohio post, but instead you ran and tried the misdirection ploy
several more times and a lot of other stupid things eventually the dirty
debating thread and your lies to Bill about it etc. You are just a
dishonest clown to think that there is any other interpretation to what
you did.

Were you participating in that thread? Were you running from anything
bogus about IC and Behe? Did you ever go back to the post that you were
obviously running from? What does "no" mean? The only link is that
Behe is an ID perp, but he did not participate in Ohio. Why do you
think that Behe and Minnich did not resign when the bait and switch went
down. You likely now know that Wells claims that the ID perps had
decided to run the bait and switch before they came to lie to the Ohio
rube. The Ohio creationist rubes were never going to get the ID science
to teach in their public schools. Why would an innocent bystander with
any integrity stay with a bogus outfit like that? I wonder if it has
anything to do with their religious beliefs and the mission statement of
the Discovery Institute's ID scam wing that they signed up to support.

>
> ...addressed something to YOUR satisfaction. It happened almost four years
> ago, and I cannot recall it any more, but surely you can. After all,
> you told me above, in control freak fashion, that I "have to tell us"
> why I (allegedly) ran.

I put up the links in my response to your first half, so you can relive
the stupidity again.

>
>> It was one of the saddest attempts that I had seen
>> on TO considering that you were claiming that I was running from Ray.
>
> That IS what you were doing, and if you deny it, you will be lying.

I do not respond to Ray's posts. There was that brief period where Ray
had started to act more reasonable, so for several posts I asked him to
leave me alone. It worked. I had not posted to Ray for several years,
but he kept bugging me. He stopped after I asked him to, and you came
along and tried to use Ray for your own dishonest and sadistic
stupidity. I warned you not to use Ray in that way, but you kept
ignoring me.

>
> But that would be perfectly all right according to your warped, twisted
> sense of morality, wouldn't it?

Projection is stupid and dishonest and frankly just insane at this time.

>
>> Why did you have to run from the thread where that issue was finally
>> addressed years later
>
> WHAT??? I never saw you either retract your claim about Behe nor
> support it. Can you find the post where you finally addressed it?
>
> Peter Nyikos
>

Is this it? You snipped out so much more that it is just pathetic that
you would even come back just to do whatever you think that you are doing.

You never saw a retraction because you ran from all those posts, and you
would have been the one to admit that you were wrong. You can't do that
and keep lying about having never lost an exchange on the internet so
you ran. If you could demonstrate that I was the one that was wrong,
why did you run? Where was your evidence? What was the falsification
test that both Behe and Minnich put forward, but both claimed that they
had not tried it? You can't test anything if you do not do the testing.
Had IC been scientifically tested? They were the ones that put that
falsification test forward in order to sound sciency, but it was just a
stupid ploy. Where was the verification for Behe's type of IC? Did
Minnich ever publish the verification? All he published was a paper
that used a decades old technique that has been used routinely to
genetically dissect complex biochemical systems in micro organisms. He
demonstrated that the flagellum had interacting parts. The same
technique had been used for decades to look into ribosomal function, and
things like biosynthetic pathways, such as amino acid synthesis
pathways. Knock out an enzyme with a mutation and you don't get the
amino acid produced. Make many mutations and pretty soon you have
mutations in all the enzymes of the pathway where if you knock out one
you don't get the amino acid produced. You just demonstrate that if you
take away one part the system fails. Behe would not call them IC. How
well matched are the parts? How many unselected steps went into making
the system? What was Behe's response to his critics and did Minnich's
research address them? No. Those are the plain and simple facts that
you ran from. Behe's type of IC has never been verified to exist in
nature. Behe made sure that, that could not happen when he responded to
his critics at the turn of the century. Behe has never defined his
requirements for IC in a way that they can be verified or falsified.
Where is his definition of "well matched?" How would you measure it and
determine if enough of it existed to make the flagellum IC? Where has
he counted the unselected steps that would make the flagellum his type
of IC? Where has he determined how many of these unselected steps have
to exist let alone identify any? Did Minnich verify any of that? IC is
just as bogus as the day Behe thought it up. What did Judge Jones say
about junk like "well matched" and the number of unselected steps? He
called them falsified, but what he meant was that they were irrelevant
to IC until they could be quantified. That made IC untestable and not
anything to use for much of anything except fooling the rubes.

Ron Okimoto

[RonO]

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

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

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

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

QUOTE:
9. Conclusion

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

>
> The Audio of some of the Ohio Bait and Switch program is still
> available, but they wanted me to sign up for some cloud account to
> listen to it (I did not sign up) so I don't know if it still works. The
> talks from the four speakers is supposed to be available to listen to
> (Meyer, Wells, Miller, and Krauss).
>
> http://www.creationists.org/archived-obsolete-pages/2002-03-11-OSBE-mtg.html
>
>
> I found quite a few other articles, but they all say about the same
> things as you can find above. The IDiots expected to get the ID
> science, but they only got a switch scam that doesn't even mention that
> ID ever existed.
>
> There was one reference that I had never seen before. It was a report
> by Wells on the Ohio fiasco. It contains information that I never knew
> about. It comes from the same openly creationist web site that you can
> get the audio from.
>

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

MARK RYLAND (DI): Right.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Ron Okimoto

[Steady Eddie]

So is this finally your substantiation of your accusation that the DI is running a "scam" of some sort?

[RonO]

Eddie, you can lie to yourself all you want, but it doesn't change
reality. There was never a scientific theory of Intelligent design.
Junk like IC and CSI never made it past the proposal stage. Just like
there is no new law of thermodynamics to support ID the ID scam never
got past being a scam that the ID perps ran on creationist rubes like you.

This is just evidence that the ID perps sold the rubes that they had the
science to teach, but no one ever got the ID science when they needed
it. That is called the bait and switch, and it has been going down for
over a decade. You can't deny it or demonstrate that anyone ever did
get the promised ID science because no one ever did.

Apologize for your stupid and dishonest lie and get over trying to
weasel out of lying. You will likely even feel better about yourself,
in that you can at least be that honest.

Ron Okimoto

[Steady Eddie]

What is this "promised ID science" you keep talking about?
The science was out at least by 1996 with Darwin's Black Box.
All the teachers had to do was read from it, if they wanted to share such science with their pupils.
Since then there's been a steady stream of towering works discussing ID science:

Signature In the Cell
https://www.goodreads.com/ebooks/download/6576965-signature-in-the-cell

The Edge of Evolution
https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/433354.The_Edge_of_Evolution?from_search=true&search_version=service

Darwin's Doubt
https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/15818327-darwin-s-doubt?from_search=true&search_version=service

Debating Darwin's Doubt
https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/25910289-debating-darwin-s-doubt?from_search=true&search_version=service

All the above books are accessible to the school-age audience and masterfully represent the current
state of ID science.

[Burkhard]

None of them is ID science, they are all parasitic upon the ToE. Just as
the theory of evolution explains the mechanism of evolution and
determines what evolved when and why, an ID science worth the name
should have scientifically testable claims about who designed what, when
and how. None of this is even attempted in your sources.

[RonO]

Newsflash for Eddie:

The Intelligent design science never existed. There never was a
scientific theory of intelligent design. You have no evidence that
there ever was one, just junk you get from the guys that ran the bait
and switch and never gave anyone the science that they claimed existed.

Why did the IDiot international science organization die if there ever
was any ID science? When did the ID perps ever give any of this science
to any creationist rube that ever needed it?

Making junk up does not make a scientific theory. The science was never
done. You would become world famous if you could produce any ID science.

Why couldn't the Texas and Lousiana creationist rubes use your ID
science in their textbook supplements? Why did the ID perps tell them
not to do it? Why didn't the ID perps give them the real ID science to
put in the textbook supplements?

Lying to yourself at this late date is stupid idiocy, not just IDiocy.

Ron Okimoto

[Steady Eddie]

The UD science has nothing to do with the identity or any specific actions of the designer.
The evidence is in the PRODUCTS of this designer.
And that is just what the above referenced books discuss.

[Burkhard]

Then it isn't an ID theory, simples.

[Steady Eddie]

You just keep that cozy little idea in your head if you want to, cuddles.

[RonO]

Eddie, stop farting around and just present the ID science in your own
words. You can even quote out of your sources. Try to not laugh when
you do it because no one ever produced any intelligent design science.
The bait and switch went down over a decade ago. If there were any ID
science worth putting forward we all would have seen it by now.

So put up or shut up. Demonstrate that there is any ID science in those
references. Why would the ID perps whine about how the definition of
science should be changed if they could actually meet the definition?
Making junk up like a new law of thermodynamics that is never verified
to exist isn't doing any science.

Ron Okimoto

[Steady Eddie]

You HAVE all presumably seen the science.
Don't pretend you don't know what's in the books I cited. The science is all there.

You know, just because a Darwinist performed research, that doesn't make it evidence of Darwinism.
The researcher may offer his opinions as to how to interpret the results, but so may anyone else.
The researcher's interpretations may not be correct; in fact, a Darwinian researcher could get results
that infer ID, yet still interpret it as evidence of Darwinism.

It's the scientific RESULTS that matter, not the interpretation given by the researcher.

[Burkhard]

If you put an Id-ler in charge of teaching football (soccer for you),
he'd spend 99.9% of the time arguing that it is impossible to hit a ball
with a bat, and no time at all on how to kick one into the net

[RonO]

What scientific results are you talking about. There has to be some
science done in order to get results.

The point is that no one has seen this ID science, no matter how the ID
perps have lied about it existing. You have to demonstrate that it
exists, because nothing that we see is any ID science worth the name.
So go for it. Put up your quotes or put it up in your own words, but
tell us what you think the ID science is, and then sit back and learn
something instead of going into your stupid denial of reality.

Don't even try to put up the lame new law of thermodynamic IDiot science
that they were supposed to have because you can look it up and you will
find no new law of thermodynamics on the books.

Put up the IC or CSI science, go for it. You will find that their
"science" is just as lame as the new law of thermodynamics that they
claimed existed.

Ron Okimoto

[Steady Eddie]

Here's Behe's presentation on IC at Princeton after writing DBB:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yudmK5jZy9A

[Steady Eddie]

Start at 12:04:
https://youtu.be/yudmK5jZy9A?t=12m4s

[RonO]

I won't listen to the crap until you tell me what the science is. Then
I will check it out and see what you think is science. So go for it.
What do you think is scientific about Behe lying to a bunch of rubes
that never get the promised ID science when they need it. You've read
Behe's response to his critics, why didn't Behe do any science then?
What is scientific about this junk?

Ron Okimoto

[Steady Eddie]

I told you already. It's Behe's explanation of Irreducible Complexity.
He's speaking directly to an audience at Princeton. I don't know where on the campus
this is held, it might be in a chapel or some such place; and it might be an evening event,
not directed to a scientific audience per se, but at least it is directed to a fairly academic
audience.

Now, so much for the full disclosure.
Go ahead, watch it from 12:04 and you'll skip all the boring prelude stuff and get his DIRECT STATEMENTS
IN HIS OWN WORDS on the science.
It's exactly what you've been asking for, so go for it.
Let me know what you object to.

[RonO]

What a crock Eddie, you know for a fact that IC is bogus. Just point
out where Behe defines well matched so that I or any other scientist can
use it to demonstrate that IC exists in nature. He also has to put up
multiple unselected steps and their arrangement during the evolution of
the flagellum to demonstrate that the flagellum is IC so what system is
supposed to be IC and where does he identify the unselected steps and
that the parts are well matched enough to make the system IC? Remember
that a branch falling between two rocks has parts well matched enough to
make that simple IC type of machine, but that isn't well matched enough
for Behe, so how does he measure it? A lever and fulcrum is about the
simplest system with multiple interacting parts where if you take away
one part the system doesn't work. Behe understood that such systems
could evolve by chance, so in response to his critics he needed
something else, but that just makes IC totally unverifiable and worthless.

Go through the talk and use Behe's response to his critics to determine
for yourself that IC is just bogus nonsense. Put up the quotes if you
think that Behe ever meets his own criteria of what he claims is
science. Why do you think that the guys sponsoring the talk held it in
a chapel? Does it look like their primary interest was the science?

Put up the quotes where Behe does what he claims that he needed to do.
He responded to his critics around 14 years ago, and by Dover in 2005 he
still hadn't done what he needed to do. It didn't show up in his
testimony did it? After Dover Behe hasn't even tried the bogus "test"
that he claimed that he could do for IC, or if he tried it he hasn't
admitted it.

Eddie, just think for just a few seconds, why would all the "scientists"
associated with the ISCID quit if Behe had ever done any ID science?
The ISCID stopped publishing their bogus journal after the IDiot loss in
Dover and then the last of them finally quit in 2008. No ID science was
ever done by any IDiot. Why is it so difficult to accept what any IDiot
with any brains had to accept years ago?

So put up the quotes and tell me where it is in the talk. You know for
a fact that all Behe is doing is lying to the rubes. If he actually
could do the science what has kept him from demonstrating that to the
world in the same way that he published his other scientific works?

Really, Eddie you are too late to the party. ID has just been a
creationist scam that the creationists are running on themselves since
2002. Why did the bait and switch go down if Behe's response to his
critics meant anything good for ID? Would you ever get the ID science
if you needed it? What would you get instead from the ID perps? Why
isn't IC even mentioned in the switch scam?

Ron Okimoto

[Steady Eddie]

I already gave you the starting point - 12:05.
You have to listen to his own explanation if you want to criticize it, idiot.
And, besides, there are a lot of questions after his talk, some might interest you.

[RonO]

Eddie it is simple. I asked you to tell me what the ID science is that
I am supposed to be looking for in that crappy video. Just tell me what
the ID science is, and then I will watch it and tell you how wrong you
are. Eddie, you know for a fact that there is no ID science, so why
keep pretending? Put up or shut up. Tell me what you think the ID
science is and then let me check it out.

Ron Okimoto

[Steady Eddie]

Watch the video, idiot.

[RonO]

Eddie, stop lying to yourself. If the science was in that video you
could tell me what to look for, but the IDiot science never existed.

There is nothing in that video that demonstrates any ID science. Prove
me wrong. I have over 13 years of the bait and switch going down all
the while Behe has been the bonehead poster child of the lying IDiot ID
perps. What about Behe's science ever gets put forward when the IDiots
need the ID science? Doesn't that give you some type of clue about how
stupid you have been? Why did the ISCID die if Behe was really onto
something? Behe was a member, but what good did that do the organization?

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

Behe is listed as an ISCID fellow, but the ISCID stopped publishing
their stupid "science" journal after Dover (2005) and died in 2008.

Stop lying to yourself and face reality. You could prove that there
actually is the promised ID science in that video, but wouldn't that be
a cold day in hell for you? Go for it. At least tell me what you think
the ID science is. What does it tell you when you can't do something as
simple as that?

Apologize for lying about me to another poster and get it over with.
You lied and you know it.

Ron Okimoto

[Steady Eddie]

I already gave you the time-stamp to start watching from.
The more you piddle around, the more you admit defeat.

[RAM]

Your history of boneheaded religious troupes posing as a science gives no reason to watch an almost two decades old video of another religious fanatic declare IC is evidence of ID. This is particularly true since the Dover trail was a test of the scientific adequacy of ID. The science side won resoundingly and yet you the idiot king think you know science better than scientists - how convenient!

The real issues are as Ron has constantly written: what is the scientific ID theory and where is the science to support it. I have watched your old video and it offers nothing of value as the Dover trial scientists have clearly refuted Behe's claims as nothing other than muddled thinking and religious posturings while misusing and/or redefining science.

Try being intellectually honest and answer Ron's legitimate questions.

[RonO]

Eddie, why be such a dishonest moron? If you can't tell me what the ID
science is what do you expect me to look for in the video? I already
know that there is no ID science. What you have to do is demonstrate
that I am wrong. So what is the ID science that I am supposed to be
looking for? If I watch the video and I claim that there is no ID
science in it, how are you going to refute my claim if I keep referring
to the time stamp that you gave me and say just watch it.

Running from reality in this fashion is stupid. If you don't know what
the ID science is supposed to be, why would I have to watch the stupid
video?

Just stop lying to yourself, if you don't know what the ID science could
be just admit it and move on.

Newsflash: Eddie, no one knows what the ID science is because it never
existed. Why would all those "scientists" abandon the ISCID if there
were any ID science to support?

Ron Okimoto

[Steady Eddie]

Thank you for setting me straight.

[Steady Eddie]

Just watch the video, idiot.

[RonO]

Give it up Eddie, I claim that there is no ID science in that video to
watch, so prove me wrong. Tell me what the science is that I am
supposed to find. It is simple. I can pull an Eddie and what are you
going to do? You are the idiot IDiot that can't even tell anyone what
the ID science is supposed to be.

Really, there is no ID science in that video. I don't even have to
watch it to know that, so you prove me wrong. Go for it.

Ron Okimoto

[Steady Eddie]

You can't make any claims about what Behe says until you've listened to his talk.

[RonO]

What new does he say? Anything that isn't in his response to his
critics from the turn of the century? You know, when he made IC totally
unverifiable and gave himself no chance to validate that IC even exists
in nature.

Just tell me what the science is supposed to be because you and I both
know that it doesn't exist.

Really, Eddie I can pull an Eddie and simply claim that the science does
not exist. Not only that, but unlike your usual worthless Eddieisms my
claim is backed up by years of Behe's failure to accomplish any ID
science worth calling science. So go for it. Prove me wrong.

Is there anything more in the video than what was already judged to be
inadequate 10 years ago in Dover? Shouldn't you be able to demonstrate
some improvement in order to claim that the ID science exists when it
never did exist in the first place?

Why is Dembsk giving up on the ID scam? We won't see the validation of
CSI or specified complexity or the new law of thermodynamics that
Dembski claimed existed, so when are we going to see the validation of
IC? Why couldn't Dembski validate IC?

It is simple, if you think that Behe has any ID science in that video,
just tell me what it is.

Ron Okimoto

[Steady Eddie]

YOU tell me what it is, then tell my why it isn't accurate/valid. I've already provided the citation.

[RonO]

You know that you are just lying to yourself. If there was any science
in that video you should be able to tell me what it is, and look what
you have spent multiple posts doing. You are just a stupid lying jerk,
and you should apologize for lying about me to another poster and just
get it over with.

If you can't tell me what the science is just admit it and move on.
That is no disgrace since the ID science never existed.

Why not track down the past members of the ID Network, or the ISCID and
ask them why they quit if there was any ID science worth supporting.

Behe was a member of the ISCID, so why couldn't he convince any of his
peers that he had the ID science?

Ron Okimoto

[Steady Eddie]

Yep, you've convinced me (I know I'm a slow study) that you're a blithering idiot.
You will be ignored from now on, assholel

[jillery]

On Wed, 2 Dec 2015 20:44:44 -0800 (PST), Steady Eddie
<1914o...@gmail.com> wrote:


>Yep, you've convinced me (I know I'm a slow study) that you're a blithering idiot.
>You will be ignored from now on, assholel

Good. Now Ron O can say what he wants without your spew polluting
T.O.

--
This space is intentionally not blank.

[RonO]

Poor Eddie. We both know who the dishonest asshole is. It is the guy
that is running away because he can't face reality. Facts are facts
Eddie, why can't you deal with them? What lies do you have to tell
yourself about why the international IDiot science society quit and
disbanded? What made them stop publishing their wonderful ID science
years before they finally gave up? Why wasn't a single issue of the
ISCID society "science" journal ever published after the Dover fiasco
and the IDiot loss in Kitzmiller in 2005?

What kind of blithering IDiot would be able to ignore that type of
reality? What type of blithering IDiot would not be able to state what
ID science was in the stupid video? If the ID science had really
existed why did the ID network and ISCID die? Why is Dembski going into
education and leaving the wonderful ID science behind?

What do you not understand about how you came into this game late and
may have just been ignorant and incompetent, but now you are all three
of the IDiot trademarks. The only IDiots left are the ignorant,
incompetent and or dishonest. When did you become all three?

You lied about me to another poster. It was a derogatory lie that you
could never back up, so now you are going to run and pretend that, that
solves your dishonesty issues. What kind of asshole would do something
like that?

Just face reality. You were a creationist rube that was taken in by the
ID scam. It is embarassing that you likely became an IDiot after the
bait and switch had started to go down and no one ever got the promised
ID science when they needed it. Even today you can't find a single
creationist rube legislator or school board that ever got the promised
ID science to teach in the public schools. That is just a fact. It
will not change with any amount of denial. What you need to change that
fact is for the ID perps to finally put the science forward when they
need to, but you likely understand that, that will never happen.

So run and be a dishonest asshole. I never expected you do do the right
thing anyway. That is just the sad reality about what type of IDiots
are still left supporting ID after the bait and switch has been going
down since 2002.

Ron Okimoto

[eridanus]

Oh, Ron. Don't call him rube. He is only a gullible person. It happens
he had been brainwashed at home by his mummy to believe in a god creator.
He was flattered my his mum for being a nice gullible son, and each time
he replied correctly to any religious question, he gave him a butter Danish
biscuit that are very tasty. Then, this sort of brain washing is very
difficult to disentangle from our brains. Their dream is that science would
not be so successful as it looks toady, but more like in the 16th century.
Nobody had balls them to declare any theory that would crash against the
biblical truths.
Have you gave Eddie any sweets for participating in these debates? No. You
are calling him rube. I had to look for in the Oxford to see what it means
rube, it means country bumpkin. I think this word is not very flattering.
You should call him infidel, for he does not believe in science.
Eri

[eridanus]

El domingo, 22 de noviembre de 2015, 19:48:58 (UTC), Steady Eddie escribió:
> On Sunday, 22 November 2015 11:48:58 UTC-7, Ron O wrote:

> What is this "promised ID science" you keep talking about?
> The science was out at least by 1996 with Darwin's Black Box.
> All the teachers had to do was read from it, if they wanted to share such science with their pupils.
> Since then there's been a steady stream of towering works discussing ID science:
>
> Signature In the Cell
> https://www.goodreads.com/ebooks/download/6576965-signature-in-the-cell
>
> The Edge of Evolution
> https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/433354.The_Edge_of_Evolution?from_search=true&search_version=service
>
> Darwin's Doubt
> https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/15818327-darwin-s-doubt?from_search=true&search_version=service
>
> Debating Darwin's Doubt
> https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/25910289-debating-darwin-s-doubt?from_search=true&search_version=service
>
> All the above books are accessible to the school-age audience and masterfully represent the current
> state of ID science.

Oh, Eddie. Science is what scientists think is correct. It can be correct or
not, and something even can be wrong. But it is what "science" says. Not
what theologians of a religion or other would say. Science is a set
of people, that can be compared to other set of people like the Mormons,
by example; or the Jehovah Witnesses. But Mormons know their dogma more or
less well; and the JW about the same. But these matter they know are not
science. Science is like a religion but based in some brand of logical
reasoning. It is also sort of materialistic, and do not consider immaterial
entities, like gods or angels.
If someone want to teach a new form of Intelligence Science, like it were
a true science, he should send missionaries to the scientists to brain
wash them. Once the scientists would be duly brain washed he had won the
match.
The problem I see with the project is that these damn scientists were very
hard nuts to crack. They are mostly a gang of unbelievers and damn way
skeptic cowboys. You better try to convince of your religion as the true
one to some Islamic fundamentalists of Al Qaeda or ISIS.
Eri

[eridanus]

El domingo, 22 de noviembre de 2015, 20:18:58 (UTC), Ron O escribió:

> Newsflash for Eddie:
>
> The Intelligent design science never existed. There never was a
> scientific theory of intelligent design. You have no evidence that
> there ever was one, just junk you get from the guys that ran the bait
> and switch and never gave anyone the science that they claimed existed.

You must admit that they were able to convince some religious people they
had discovered a wedge to open up the truck of science in two with
the purpose of inserting there a destructive virus to kill this malefic
artifact that that is the Theory of Evolution. Religious people can live
in peace with jet planes, with atomic bombs, with the destruction of the
whole humanity by a murderous plague, even with the crash of a giant
asteroid killing 99% of humanity. This would be a well deserved punishment
for all our sins. But this shit of the theory of Evolution... it is too
much to swallow. Perhaps, the theory of evolution was sent by god as
a punishment to the ministers of all religions for their sins and the
great pile of lies and wars they had propagated.

Eri




> Why did the IDiot international science organization die if there ever
> was any ID science? When did the ID perps ever give any of this science
> to any creationist rube that ever needed it?
>
> Making junk up does not make a scientific theory. The science was never
> done. You would become world famous if you could produce any ID science.
>
> Why couldn't the Texas and Lousiana creationist rubes use your ID
> science in their textbook supplements? Why did the ID perps tell them
> not to do it? Why didn't the ID perps give them the real ID science to
> put in the textbook supplements?
>
> Lying to yourself at this late date is stupid idiocy, not just IDiocy.
>
> Ron Okimoto

[eridanus]

El domingo, 22 de noviembre de 2015, 20:28:57 (UTC), Steady Eddie escribió:
> On Sunday, 22 November 2015 13:13:56 UTC-7, Burkhard wrote:

> > None of them is ID science, they are all parasitic upon the ToE. Just as
> > the theory of evolution explains the mechanism of evolution and
> > determines what evolved when and why, an ID science worth the name
> > should have scientifically testable claims about who designed what, when
> > and how. None of this is even attempted in your sources.
>
> The UD science has nothing to do with the identity or any specific actions of the designer.

> The evidence is in the PRODUCTS of this designer.
> And that is just what the above referenced books discuss.

you have to prove those products are the work of a designer. It is easy to
prove this to an ignorant. You must prove this the very scientists.
For what is really to prove? To prove is to say something, even a lie, that
is congruent what some people was previously believing. Some guys had proved
this you.

Do you really understand the meaning of prove? I had problems to understand
well the meaning of this verb. So, I consulted the Oxford dictionary.
It says:
to prove: 5 make certain, demonstrate by evidence or argument.
This definition would demand the meaning of demonstrate, and the meaning of
evidence and argument. You need to go and read three more definitions.

But if you do not want to be so punctilious, it is enough the idea that
"to prove is" to make you believe something is true using words, threats
or factual punishments.
It is "by proving" that people in the existence of the gods, not only in
the past, but in the present. To prove, in sum, is to change the mind
of people making them to believe something is true, or real.

If you believe in this question of the "intelligent design" it means someone
had proved this you. It was rather easy, for it was coherent with your
previous believe in the existence of a god creator.
But to me that I am rather skeptical there is not any way you can prove any
of these arguments. You cannot change my mind... unless you are a north Korean. Why north Korean? You perhaps are too young to recall some American
soldiers that were held prisoners in North Korea. They came back to the US
and they were totally convinced of the virtues of communism, and the ills
of the capitalist system. You see? They North Korean officers were able to
chance the mind of some American soldiers. Not to all of them, for they had
not the time to entertain in this unnecessary complication. But most of the
American soldiers that were prisoners in North Korea came back with a more
cynical understanding of the capitalist system.

You had learned to speak in English, but it seems to me that you do not
understand well the language. Once you understand the language, and
a subset of language that is called logic, you would not believe seriously
in any question that would not be rather trivial.

I now remember a well known mathematician (I do not recall his name now)
that wrote a book of 800 pages to prove that 2+2=4
Then, you see, people can prove anything you want.
The only problem is you need to speak a lot about, till the person is hearing
gets tired and accepts you are right; you have proved your point.
I am not sure if anyone read this book proving 2+2=4 One usually learns this
a lot earlier before one learns to read.

Why do you believe in Hari Kishna? or in Jesus? They had proved it to you.
That's all. You do not need to read a book of 800 pages. You are a kid of 5
or 6 years and you already believe in Hari Krishna. You see? They had proved
this difficult question to you. Not any need of complex maths. Do you need
more arguments?

Eri




is true.




still exist.