info
Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
5 months since the "best" of IDiocy was bestowed upon all the IDiots
102 views
Skip to first unread message
RonO
Apr 21, 2018, 2:30:03 PM4/21/18
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
It has been nearly half a year after the ID perps at the Discovery
Institute released their top 6 best pieces of evidence for ID. They
could have produced this same list when they started the ID scam unit
back in 1995. Nothing has apparently changed for more than 2 decades,
and there has been no retraction by the Discovery Institute since they
put up the list in November.
The response of the IDiots has been pathetic. Most have run in denial
of the evidence instead of wallowing in the greatness of it. Dean spent
a couple threads trying to figure out why the evidence was so bad. He
even claimed that he didn't know why junk on the list failed as creation
science over 30 years ago as an excuse for discussing the junk. Once he
found out how bad the situation was he tried to misdirect the argument
to plagiarism, but that was so bogus that he then tried to put up other
creationist nonsense as still being viable when the junk didn't make the
list. Why discuss bogus junk that is worse than the "best"? It is all
worse than the abiogenesis creationist denial that failed the scientific
creationists as creation science in the 1980s. Pags tried to claim that
the list was bogus even though the ID perps that have been selling the
ID scam to all the IDiots for decades came up with the list. He didn't
like the Big Bang because it doesn't fit into his geocentric model, so
it obviously can't be evidence for intelligent design. He even claimed
that some of the evidence wasn't even about intelligent design. It is
true that evolution denial junk like the abiogenesis denial, fossil gap
denial and Cambrian explosion denial are the types of arguments that the
ID perps have used for the switch scam, and they have claimed that the
switch scam has nothing to do with IDiocy. They could be lying now, or
they could have been lying all this time about the switch scam junk, but
who cares? This is their best whether they have lied or not.
The obvious fact that no one can deny is that 5 of the 6 best pieces of
junk already failed as creation science when the scientific creationists
used to use the bogus arguments, so what kind of evidence could they
possibly be for intelligent design? These arguments failed as creation
science over 30 years ago in the court cases involving scientific
creationism in the 1980's, not only that, but the ID perps have always
claimed that they weren't scientific creationists because they were
abject failures that they did not want to associate with.
Is this how it is going to be from now on? Denial isn't going to get
anyone anywhere. People might claim that it has always been this bad.
Even with out the ID perp admission that they obviously have no ID
science worth putting forward, all the IDiots have already known that
since the bait and switch started to go down over 16 years ago. No
IDiot has ever gotten the promised ID science from the guys running the
creationist ID political scam. The ID science didn't make an appearance
during the Dover fiasco, and IDiocy was found to be no science worth
calling science back in 2005. The IDiot science organization (ISCID)
quit the ID scam back in 2008 and the ID Network of "academics" quit in
2009. The ID perps at the Discovery Institute removed the claim that
they had the scientific theory of ID to teach in the public schools from
their public education policy back in 2013.
This just means that the "best" list wasn't any big surprise, but
running away in denial instead of dealing with reality has been the
pathetic response here on TO.
So what is going to happen now? Should we discuss junk that didn't make
the list? Why bother? Is there any chance that any ID science will
ever be produced? Pags is upset that none of Dembski's wonderful junk
made the "best" list. The simple fact is that none of Dembski's junk
was ever determined to exist in nature to discuss. No one can go to any
legitimate science source and find that the new IDiot law of
thermodynamics was ever verified to exist. It would be the biggest
science news of this century, but it never happened. SC and CSI were
never verified to exist. Nothing that the ID perps have tried out for
the last 2 decades has amounted to anything.
This reality isn't going to change by running away in denial and
pretending that reality isn't just what it is. So what are the
IDiot/creationists going to do?
Ron Okimoto
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/talk.origins/AwnfCi5j09E/3cqGXeO0BwAJ
link to the April by their fruits thread that has links to the "best"
IDiot list threads.
Institute released their top 6 best pieces of evidence for ID. They
could have produced this same list when they started the ID scam unit
back in 1995. Nothing has apparently changed for more than 2 decades,
and there has been no retraction by the Discovery Institute since they
put up the list in November.
The response of the IDiots has been pathetic. Most have run in denial
of the evidence instead of wallowing in the greatness of it. Dean spent
a couple threads trying to figure out why the evidence was so bad. He
even claimed that he didn't know why junk on the list failed as creation
science over 30 years ago as an excuse for discussing the junk. Once he
found out how bad the situation was he tried to misdirect the argument
to plagiarism, but that was so bogus that he then tried to put up other
creationist nonsense as still being viable when the junk didn't make the
list. Why discuss bogus junk that is worse than the "best"? It is all
worse than the abiogenesis creationist denial that failed the scientific
creationists as creation science in the 1980s. Pags tried to claim that
the list was bogus even though the ID perps that have been selling the
ID scam to all the IDiots for decades came up with the list. He didn't
like the Big Bang because it doesn't fit into his geocentric model, so
it obviously can't be evidence for intelligent design. He even claimed
that some of the evidence wasn't even about intelligent design. It is
true that evolution denial junk like the abiogenesis denial, fossil gap
denial and Cambrian explosion denial are the types of arguments that the
ID perps have used for the switch scam, and they have claimed that the
switch scam has nothing to do with IDiocy. They could be lying now, or
they could have been lying all this time about the switch scam junk, but
who cares? This is their best whether they have lied or not.
The obvious fact that no one can deny is that 5 of the 6 best pieces of
junk already failed as creation science when the scientific creationists
used to use the bogus arguments, so what kind of evidence could they
possibly be for intelligent design? These arguments failed as creation
science over 30 years ago in the court cases involving scientific
creationism in the 1980's, not only that, but the ID perps have always
claimed that they weren't scientific creationists because they were
abject failures that they did not want to associate with.
Is this how it is going to be from now on? Denial isn't going to get
anyone anywhere. People might claim that it has always been this bad.
Even with out the ID perp admission that they obviously have no ID
science worth putting forward, all the IDiots have already known that
since the bait and switch started to go down over 16 years ago. No
IDiot has ever gotten the promised ID science from the guys running the
creationist ID political scam. The ID science didn't make an appearance
during the Dover fiasco, and IDiocy was found to be no science worth
calling science back in 2005. The IDiot science organization (ISCID)
quit the ID scam back in 2008 and the ID Network of "academics" quit in
2009. The ID perps at the Discovery Institute removed the claim that
they had the scientific theory of ID to teach in the public schools from
their public education policy back in 2013.
This just means that the "best" list wasn't any big surprise, but
running away in denial instead of dealing with reality has been the
pathetic response here on TO.
So what is going to happen now? Should we discuss junk that didn't make
the list? Why bother? Is there any chance that any ID science will
ever be produced? Pags is upset that none of Dembski's wonderful junk
made the "best" list. The simple fact is that none of Dembski's junk
was ever determined to exist in nature to discuss. No one can go to any
legitimate science source and find that the new IDiot law of
thermodynamics was ever verified to exist. It would be the biggest
science news of this century, but it never happened. SC and CSI were
never verified to exist. Nothing that the ID perps have tried out for
the last 2 decades has amounted to anything.
This reality isn't going to change by running away in denial and
pretending that reality isn't just what it is. So what are the
IDiot/creationists going to do?
Ron Okimoto
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/talk.origins/AwnfCi5j09E/3cqGXeO0BwAJ
link to the April by their fruits thread that has links to the "best"
IDiot list threads.
dale
Apr 21, 2018, 5:30:02 PM4/21/18
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
On 4/21/2018 2:28 PM, RonO wrote:
> abiogenesis creationist denial
life created by a experimenter in a lab is still life from life
might not be the whole answer
just sayin' ...
--
dale - http://www.dalekelly.org/
Not a professional opinion unless specified.
> abiogenesis creationist denial
life created by a experimenter in a lab is still life from life
might not be the whole answer
just sayin' ...
--
dale - http://www.dalekelly.org/
Not a professional opinion unless specified.
RonO
Apr 21, 2018, 6:40:02 PM4/21/18
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
On 4/21/2018 4:26 PM, dale wrote:
> On 4/21/2018 2:28 PM, RonO wrote:
>> abiogenesis creationist denial
>
> life created by a experimenter in a lab is still life from life
>
> might not be the whole answer
>
> just sayin' ...
>
No science worth calling science hasn't amounted to anything for the
> On 4/21/2018 2:28 PM, RonO wrote:
>> abiogenesis creationist denial
>
> life created by a experimenter in a lab is still life from life
>
> might not be the whole answer
>
> just sayin' ...
>
creationist efforts. Making lame statements like the one above doesn't
change that reality.
Just sayin'
Ron Okimoto
Bob Casanova
Apr 22, 2018, 12:55:02 PM4/22/18
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
On Sat, 21 Apr 2018 17:26:24 -0400, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by dale <da...@dalekelly.org>:
>On 4/21/2018 2:28 PM, RonO wrote:
>> abiogenesis creationist denial
>
>life created by a experimenter in a lab is still life from life
Not if the experiment starts with an isolated sterile
environment and no biologics enter that environment, it
isn't.
>might not be the whole answer
>
>just sayin' ...
--
Bob C.
"The most exciting phrase to hear in science,
the one that heralds new discoveries, is not
'Eureka!' but 'That's funny...'"
- Isaac Asimov
in talk.origins, posted by dale <da...@dalekelly.org>:
>On 4/21/2018 2:28 PM, RonO wrote:
>> abiogenesis creationist denial
>
>life created by a experimenter in a lab is still life from life
environment and no biologics enter that environment, it
isn't.
>might not be the whole answer
>
>just sayin' ...
--
"The most exciting phrase to hear in science,
the one that heralds new discoveries, is not
'Eureka!' but 'That's funny...'"
- Isaac Asimov
dale
Apr 22, 2018, 3:25:02 PM4/22/18
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
On 4/22/2018 12:53 PM, Bob Casanova wrote:
> On Sat, 21 Apr 2018 17:26:24 -0400, the following appeared
> in talk.origins, posted by dale <da...@dalekelly.org>:
>
>> On 4/21/2018 2:28 PM, RonO wrote:
>>> abiogenesis creationist denial
>>
>> life created by a experimenter in a lab is still life from life
>
> Not if the experiment starts with an isolated sterile
> environment and no biologics enter that environment, it
> isn't.
the experimenter is part of the causal chain
> On Sat, 21 Apr 2018 17:26:24 -0400, the following appeared
> in talk.origins, posted by dale <da...@dalekelly.org>:
>
>> On 4/21/2018 2:28 PM, RonO wrote:
>>> abiogenesis creationist denial
>>
>> life created by a experimenter in a lab is still life from life
>
> Not if the experiment starts with an isolated sterile
> environment and no biologics enter that environment, it
> isn't.
>
>> might not be the whole answer
>>
>> just sayin' ...
--
dale
Apr 22, 2018, 6:10:03 PM4/22/18
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
On 4/22/2018 3:20 PM, dale wrote:
>
> the experimenter is part of the causal chain
you would have to randomize the experimenter to remove it statistically
>
> the experimenter is part of the causal chain
from the equation
if I remember right ... assuming the experimenters' mean distribution is
Gaussian ... 40 experimenters gets you one standard deviation confidence
in the assumption
keep in mind there is an assumption of Gaussian distribution ...
RonO
Apr 22, 2018, 8:20:02 PM4/22/18
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
On 4/22/2018 5:06 PM, dale wrote:
> On 4/22/2018 3:20 PM, dale wrote:
>>
>> the experimenter is part of the causal chain
>
> you would have to randomize the experimenter to remove it statistically
> from the equation
>
> if I remember right ... assuming the experimenters' mean distribution is
> Gaussian ... 40 experimenters gets you one standard deviation confidence
> in the assumption
>
> keep in mind there is an assumption of Gaussian distribution ...
>
Dale, what good does denial like this do for you? The creationist
> On 4/22/2018 3:20 PM, dale wrote:
>>
>> the experimenter is part of the causal chain
>
> you would have to randomize the experimenter to remove it statistically
> from the equation
>
> if I remember right ... assuming the experimenters' mean distribution is
> Gaussian ... 40 experimenters gets you one standard deviation confidence
> in the assumption
>
> keep in mind there is an assumption of Gaussian distribution ...
>
alternative will still be not as good as your own not good enough. What
is not as good as not good enough?
A more profitable tactic would be to raise up the scientific alternative
to glory levels so that your alternative wouldn't look so bad. It still
wouldn't be as good as the science, but your alternative would not not
be worse than something that you think is not good enough. Really, what
is worse than your own not good enough? How bad is that option?
Ron Okimoto
dale
Apr 22, 2018, 8:40:02 PM4/22/18
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
RonO
Apr 22, 2018, 9:45:02 PM4/22/18
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
Ron Okimoto
dale
Apr 22, 2018, 10:30:02 PM4/22/18
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
more than one source of recorded literature for biogenesis. Because
something is written before Galileo, Descartes' or Newton, etc. it
doesn't make it fiction, does it? There doesn't have to be a genesis.
Does there? Even if there is cyclical cause and effect, the last effect
is the first cause, right?
RonO
Apr 23, 2018, 7:05:02 AM4/23/18
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
is, your alternative will be worse. That you can't get that, is your
problem, and you have to deal with it.
You have to make your alternative more than fiction. No one has found a
way to do that, so you are stuck with something that is worse than what
you claim is not good enough.
The Big Bang tells us that life did not always exist in this universe.
Abiogenesis can be considered to be a fact, but we do not know how it
happened. It could have happened the way you think, but how are you
going to demonstrate that?
We have found that there are no impossible chemical reactions involved
in lifeforms (you can keep looking if you want to). What have you found
that is equivalent?
We have verified that the elements heavier than lead necessary for life
can form after the Big Bang in the heart of dying stars, so all the
elements can be accounted for the composition of our solar system is
known to be due to spent star dust of generations of stars that died
before ours existed. Our planet is made of spent star dust. What have
you found that is equivalent?
Do you see why you come up short? You can't even get started, and you
are beefing about the fact that we can create simple self replicators,
but you think that, that is a bad thing for some reason when it just
means that they can exist. What do you have by comparison?
What is not as good as your own not good enough? What you obviously
need to do is make your alternative equivalent to your own not good
enough. Get to work. Tearing down the alternative gets you nowhere and
your alternative is always going to be worse.
Ron Okimoto
dale
Apr 23, 2018, 7:55:03 AM4/23/18
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
On 4/23/2018 7:02 AM, RonO wrote:
>
> The Big Bang tells us ...
... nothing about the first cause argument and nothing about genesis
>
> The Big Bang tells us ...
... nothing about the first cause argument and nothing about genesis
dale
Apr 23, 2018, 10:40:03 AM4/23/18
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
On 4/23/2018 7:45 AM, dale wrote:
> On 4/23/2018 7:02 AM, RonO wrote:
>>
>> The Big Bang tells us ...
>
> ... nothing about the first cause argument and nothing about genesis
>
what caused the big bang? what caused what caused the big bang? When did
> On 4/23/2018 7:02 AM, RonO wrote:
>>
>> The Big Bang tells us ...
>
> ... nothing about the first cause argument and nothing about genesis
>
biology enter the causal chain? How do you know it was after the first bang?
What if biology learned how to explode Higg's bosons and set off a chain
of events that caused the big bang?
jillery
Apr 23, 2018, 12:20:03 PM4/23/18
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
On Mon, 23 Apr 2018 10:34:54 -0400, dale <da...@dalekelly.org> wrote:
>On 4/23/2018 7:45 AM, dale wrote:
>> On 4/23/2018 7:02 AM, RonO wrote:
>>>
>>> The Big Bang tells us ...
>>
>> ... nothing about the first cause argument and nothing about genesis
>>
>
>what caused the big bang? what caused what caused the big bang? When did
>biology enter the causal chain? How do you know it was after the first bang?
>
>What if biology learned how to explode Higg's bosons and set off a chain
>of events that caused the big bang?
The issue about an uncaused cause is something which befuddles all
>On 4/23/2018 7:45 AM, dale wrote:
>> On 4/23/2018 7:02 AM, RonO wrote:
>>>
>>> The Big Bang tells us ...
>>
>> ... nothing about the first cause argument and nothing about genesis
>>
>
>what caused the big bang? what caused what caused the big bang? When did
>biology enter the causal chain? How do you know it was after the first bang?
>
>What if biology learned how to explode Higg's bosons and set off a chain
>of events that caused the big bang?
origin narratives. You can't reasonably criticize just one over it.
--
I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.
Evelyn Beatrice Hall
Attributed to Voltaire
dale
Apr 23, 2018, 12:45:02 PM4/23/18
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
On 4/23/2018 12:18 PM, jillery wrote:
> On Mon, 23 Apr 2018 10:34:54 -0400, dale <da...@dalekelly.org> wrote:
>
>> On 4/23/2018 7:45 AM, dale wrote:
>>> On 4/23/2018 7:02 AM, RonO wrote:
>>>>
>>>> The Big Bang tells us ...
>>>
>>> ... nothing about the first cause argument and nothing about genesis
>>>
>>
>> what caused the big bang? what caused what caused the big bang? When did
>> biology enter the causal chain? How do you know it was after the first bang?
>>
>> What if biology learned how to explode Higg's bosons and set off a chain
>> of events that caused the big bang?
>
>
> The issue about an uncaused cause is something which befuddles all
> origin narratives. You can't reasonably criticize just one over it.
>
I said " just sayin' " ...
> On Mon, 23 Apr 2018 10:34:54 -0400, dale <da...@dalekelly.org> wrote:
>
>> On 4/23/2018 7:45 AM, dale wrote:
>>> On 4/23/2018 7:02 AM, RonO wrote:
>>>>
>>>> The Big Bang tells us ...
>>>
>>> ... nothing about the first cause argument and nothing about genesis
>>>
>>
>> what caused the big bang? what caused what caused the big bang? When did
>> biology enter the causal chain? How do you know it was after the first bang?
>>
>> What if biology learned how to explode Higg's bosons and set off a chain
>> of events that caused the big bang?
>
>
> The issue about an uncaused cause is something which befuddles all
> origin narratives. You can't reasonably criticize just one over it.
>
> --
> I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.
>
> Evelyn Beatrice Hall
> Attributed to Voltaire
>
Bob Casanova
Apr 23, 2018, 2:20:03 PM4/23/18
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
On Sun, 22 Apr 2018 15:20:50 -0400, the following appeared
isolated and sterile, and no biologics enter it during the
process.
>>> might not be the whole answer
>>>
>>> just sayin' ...
--
in talk.origins, posted by dale <da...@dalekelly.org>:
>On 4/22/2018 12:53 PM, Bob Casanova wrote:
>> On Sat, 21 Apr 2018 17:26:24 -0400, the following appeared
>> in talk.origins, posted by dale <da...@dalekelly.org>:
>>
>>> On 4/21/2018 2:28 PM, RonO wrote:
>>>> abiogenesis creationist denial
>>>
>>> life created by a experimenter in a lab is still life from life
>>
>> Not if the experiment starts with an isolated sterile
>> environment and no biologics enter that environment, it
>> isn't.
>the experimenter is part of the causal chain
....which is irrelevant, if the environment under test is
>On 4/22/2018 12:53 PM, Bob Casanova wrote:
>> On Sat, 21 Apr 2018 17:26:24 -0400, the following appeared
>> in talk.origins, posted by dale <da...@dalekelly.org>:
>>
>>> On 4/21/2018 2:28 PM, RonO wrote:
>>>> abiogenesis creationist denial
>>>
>>> life created by a experimenter in a lab is still life from life
>>
>> Not if the experiment starts with an isolated sterile
>> environment and no biologics enter that environment, it
>> isn't.
>the experimenter is part of the causal chain
isolated and sterile, and no biologics enter it during the
process.
>>> might not be the whole answer
>>>
>>> just sayin' ...
--
Bob Casanova
Apr 23, 2018, 2:25:04 PM4/23/18
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
On Sun, 22 Apr 2018 18:06:23 -0400, the following appeared
the experiment.
>if I remember right ... assuming the experimenters' mean distribution is
>Gaussian ... 40 experimenters gets you one standard deviation confidence
>in the assumption
>
>keep in mind there is an assumption of Gaussian distribution ...
You have an absolute *genius* for posting irrelevancies as
if they're relevant to the issue at hand. The issue is
whether an environment which begins sterile, and which no
biologics enter, can produce life, not who may be watching.
Write that on your hand.
>On 4/22/2018 3:20 PM, dale wrote:
>>
>> the experimenter is part of the causal chain
>
>you would have to randomize the experimenter to remove it statistically
>from the equation
Thetr is no "equation", and the experimenter is not part of
>>
>> the experimenter is part of the causal chain
>
>you would have to randomize the experimenter to remove it statistically
>from the equation
the experiment.
>if I remember right ... assuming the experimenters' mean distribution is
>Gaussian ... 40 experimenters gets you one standard deviation confidence
>in the assumption
>
>keep in mind there is an assumption of Gaussian distribution ...
if they're relevant to the issue at hand. The issue is
whether an environment which begins sterile, and which no
biologics enter, can produce life, not who may be watching.
Write that on your hand.
dale
Apr 23, 2018, 2:40:03 PM4/23/18
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
On 4/23/2018 2:21 PM, Bob Casanova wrote:
> On Sun, 22 Apr 2018 18:06:23 -0400, the following appeared
> in talk.origins, posted by dale <da...@dalekelly.org>:
>
>> On 4/22/2018 3:20 PM, dale wrote:
>>>
>>> the experimenter is part of the causal chain
>>
>> you would have to randomize the experimenter to remove it statistically
>>from the equation
>
> Thetr is no "equation", and the experimenter is not part of
> the experiment.
>
>> if I remember right ... assuming the experimenters' mean distribution is
>> Gaussian ... 40 experimenters gets you one standard deviation confidence
>> in the assumption
>>
>> keep in mind there is an assumption of Gaussian distribution ...
>
> You have an absolute *genius* for posting irrelevancies as
> if they're relevant to the issue at hand. The issue is
> whether an environment which begins sterile, and which no
> biologics enter, can produce life, not who may be watching.
>
> Write that on your hand.
>
an experimenter doesn't watch ... he causes an experiment
> On Sun, 22 Apr 2018 18:06:23 -0400, the following appeared
> in talk.origins, posted by dale <da...@dalekelly.org>:
>
>> On 4/22/2018 3:20 PM, dale wrote:
>>>
>>> the experimenter is part of the causal chain
>>
>> you would have to randomize the experimenter to remove it statistically
>>from the equation
>
> Thetr is no "equation", and the experimenter is not part of
> the experiment.
>
>> if I remember right ... assuming the experimenters' mean distribution is
>> Gaussian ... 40 experimenters gets you one standard deviation confidence
>> in the assumption
>>
>> keep in mind there is an assumption of Gaussian distribution ...
>
> You have an absolute *genius* for posting irrelevancies as
> if they're relevant to the issue at hand. The issue is
> whether an environment which begins sterile, and which no
> biologics enter, can produce life, not who may be watching.
>
> Write that on your hand.
>
dale
Apr 23, 2018, 2:45:03 PM4/23/18
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
On 4/23/2018 2:18 PM, Bob Casanova wrote:
> On Sun, 22 Apr 2018 15:20:50 -0400, the following appeared
> in talk.origins, posted by dale <da...@dalekelly.org>:
>
>> On 4/22/2018 12:53 PM, Bob Casanova wrote:
>>> On Sat, 21 Apr 2018 17:26:24 -0400, the following appeared
>>> in talk.origins, posted by dale <da...@dalekelly.org>:
>>>
>>>> On 4/21/2018 2:28 PM, RonO wrote:
>>>>> abiogenesis creationist denial
>>>>
>>>> life created by a experimenter in a lab is still life from life
>>>
>>> Not if the experiment starts with an isolated sterile
>>> environment and no biologics enter that environment, it
>>> isn't.
>
>> the experimenter is part of the causal chain
>
> ....which is irrelevant, if the environment under test is
> isolated and sterile, and no biologics enter it during the
> process.
>
the experimenter "creates" the isolated environment, and has anyone ever
> On Sun, 22 Apr 2018 15:20:50 -0400, the following appeared
> in talk.origins, posted by dale <da...@dalekelly.org>:
>
>> On 4/22/2018 12:53 PM, Bob Casanova wrote:
>>> On Sat, 21 Apr 2018 17:26:24 -0400, the following appeared
>>> in talk.origins, posted by dale <da...@dalekelly.org>:
>>>
>>>> On 4/21/2018 2:28 PM, RonO wrote:
>>>>> abiogenesis creationist denial
>>>>
>>>> life created by a experimenter in a lab is still life from life
>>>
>>> Not if the experiment starts with an isolated sterile
>>> environment and no biologics enter that environment, it
>>> isn't.
>
>> the experimenter is part of the causal chain
>
> ....which is irrelevant, if the environment under test is
> isolated and sterile, and no biologics enter it during the
> process.
>
observed pure isolation? it is like saying someone can create a perfect
vacuum
>>>> might not be the whole answer
>>>>
>>>> just sayin' ...
--
dale
Apr 23, 2018, 2:45:03 PM4/23/18
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
On 4/23/2018 12:18 PM, jillery wrote:
> On Mon, 23 Apr 2018 10:34:54 -0400, dale <da...@dalekelly.org> wrote:
>
>> On 4/23/2018 7:45 AM, dale wrote:
>>> On 4/23/2018 7:02 AM, RonO wrote:
>>>>
>>>> The Big Bang tells us ...
>>>
>>> ... nothing about the first cause argument and nothing about genesis
>>>
>>
>> what caused the big bang? what caused what caused the big bang? When did
>> biology enter the causal chain? How do you know it was after the first bang?
>>
>> What if biology learned how to explode Higg's bosons and set off a chain
>> of events that caused the big bang?
>
>
> The issue about an uncaused cause is something which befuddles all
> origin narratives. You can't reasonably criticize just one over it.
>
a panpsyche fabric of cause is an alternative to uncaused cause ...
>
>> On 4/23/2018 7:45 AM, dale wrote:
>>> On 4/23/2018 7:02 AM, RonO wrote:
>>>>
>>>> The Big Bang tells us ...
>>>
>>> ... nothing about the first cause argument and nothing about genesis
>>>
>>
>> what caused the big bang? what caused what caused the big bang? When did
>> biology enter the causal chain? How do you know it was after the first bang?
>>
>> What if biology learned how to explode Higg's bosons and set off a chain
>> of events that caused the big bang?
>
>
> The issue about an uncaused cause is something which befuddles all
> origin narratives. You can't reasonably criticize just one over it.
>
> --
> I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.
>
> Evelyn Beatrice Hall
> Attributed to Voltaire
>
dale
Apr 23, 2018, 6:10:02 PM4/23/18
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
On 4/23/2018 2:40 PM, dale wrote:
> On 4/23/2018 12:18 PM, jillery wrote:
>> On Mon, 23 Apr 2018 10:34:54 -0400, dale <da...@dalekelly.org> wrote:
>>
>>> On 4/23/2018 7:45 AM, dale wrote:
>>>> On 4/23/2018 7:02 AM, RonO wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> The Big Bang tells us ...
>>>>
>>>> ... nothing about the first cause argument and nothing about genesis
>>>>
>>>
>>> what caused the big bang? what caused what caused the big bang? When did
>>> biology enter the causal chain? How do you know it was after the
>>> first bang?
>>>
>>> What if biology learned how to explode Higg's bosons and set off a chain
>>> of events that caused the big bang?
>>
>>
>> The issue about an uncaused cause is something which befuddles all
>> origin narratives. You can't reasonably criticize just one over it.
>>
>
> a panpsyche fabric of cause is an alternative to uncaused cause ...
>
a causal cycle might be another alternative, the last effect is also the
> On 4/23/2018 12:18 PM, jillery wrote:
>> On Mon, 23 Apr 2018 10:34:54 -0400, dale <da...@dalekelly.org> wrote:
>>
>>> On 4/23/2018 7:45 AM, dale wrote:
>>>> On 4/23/2018 7:02 AM, RonO wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> The Big Bang tells us ...
>>>>
>>>> ... nothing about the first cause argument and nothing about genesis
>>>>
>>>
>>> what caused the big bang? what caused what caused the big bang? When did
>>> biology enter the causal chain? How do you know it was after the
>>> first bang?
>>>
>>> What if biology learned how to explode Higg's bosons and set off a chain
>>> of events that caused the big bang?
>>
>>
>> The issue about an uncaused cause is something which befuddles all
>> origin narratives. You can't reasonably criticize just one over it.
>>
>
> a panpsyche fabric of cause is an alternative to uncaused cause ...
>
first cause, all causes are effects, all effects are causes ... this
assumes there is nothing random ... whereas a panpsychic fabric could
"allow" randomness
RonO
Apr 23, 2018, 6:45:03 PM4/23/18
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
On 4/23/2018 6:45 AM, dale wrote:
> On 4/23/2018 7:02 AM, RonO wrote:
>>
>> The Big Bang tells us ...
>
> ... nothing about the first cause argument and nothing about genesis
>
The Big bang is simply the best scientific evidence that we have for a
> On 4/23/2018 7:02 AM, RonO wrote:
>>
>> The Big Bang tells us ...
>
> ... nothing about the first cause argument and nothing about genesis
>
creation event, but most IDiots don't want to believe that it ever
happened. Your denial is typical and why IDiocy/creationism is not as
good as what you claim is not good enough.
Ron Okimoto
RonO
Apr 23, 2018, 6:50:03 PM4/23/18
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
On 4/23/2018 9:34 AM, dale wrote:
> On 4/23/2018 7:45 AM, dale wrote:
>> On 4/23/2018 7:02 AM, RonO wrote:
>>>
>>> The Big Bang tells us ...
>>
>> ... nothing about the first cause argument and nothing about genesis
>>
>
> what caused the big bang? what caused what caused the big bang? When did
> biology enter the causal chain? How do you know it was after the first
> bang?
>
> What if biology learned how to explode Higg's bosons and set off a chain
> of events that caused the big bang?
>
It is what we know that you should worry about. There currently is a
> On 4/23/2018 7:45 AM, dale wrote:
>> On 4/23/2018 7:02 AM, RonO wrote:
>>>
>>> The Big Bang tells us ...
>>
>> ... nothing about the first cause argument and nothing about genesis
>>
>
> what caused the big bang? what caused what caused the big bang? When did
> biology enter the causal chain? How do you know it was after the first
> bang?
>
> What if biology learned how to explode Higg's bosons and set off a chain
> of events that caused the big bang?
>
scientific sigularity where our known laws of nature don't seem to pass
through to get to what happened before the Big bang. That doesn't mean
that we can't study what did happen after. That is where your
alternative is a failure. Why harp on what we don't know when you can't
deal with what we do know?
Ron Okimoto
jillery
Apr 24, 2018, 3:35:03 AM4/24/18
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
On Mon, 23 Apr 2018 18:07:31 -0400, dale <da...@dalekelly.org> wrote:
>On 4/23/2018 2:40 PM, dale wrote:
>> On 4/23/2018 12:18 PM, jillery wrote:
>>> On Mon, 23 Apr 2018 10:34:54 -0400, dale <da...@dalekelly.org> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 4/23/2018 7:45 AM, dale wrote:
>>>>> On 4/23/2018 7:02 AM, RonO wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The Big Bang tells us ...
>>>>>
>>>>> ... nothing about the first cause argument and nothing about genesis
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> what caused the big bang? what caused what caused the big bang? When did
>>>> biology enter the causal chain? How do you know it was after the
>>>> first bang?
>>>>
>>>> What if biology learned how to explode Higg's bosons and set off a chain
>>>> of events that caused the big bang?
>>>
>>>
>>> The issue about an uncaused cause is something which befuddles all
>>> origin narratives. You can't reasonably criticize just one over it.
>>>
>>
>> a panpsyche fabric of cause is an alternative to uncaused cause ...
>>
>
>a causal cycle might be another alternative, the last effect is also the
>first cause, all causes are effects, all effects are causes ... this
>assumes there is nothing random ... whereas a panpsychic fabric could
>"allow" randomness
Both of the above assume existence without a beginning, which can also
>On 4/23/2018 2:40 PM, dale wrote:
>> On 4/23/2018 12:18 PM, jillery wrote:
>>> On Mon, 23 Apr 2018 10:34:54 -0400, dale <da...@dalekelly.org> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 4/23/2018 7:45 AM, dale wrote:
>>>>> On 4/23/2018 7:02 AM, RonO wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The Big Bang tells us ...
>>>>>
>>>>> ... nothing about the first cause argument and nothing about genesis
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> what caused the big bang? what caused what caused the big bang? When did
>>>> biology enter the causal chain? How do you know it was after the
>>>> first bang?
>>>>
>>>> What if biology learned how to explode Higg's bosons and set off a chain
>>>> of events that caused the big bang?
>>>
>>>
>>> The issue about an uncaused cause is something which befuddles all
>>> origin narratives. You can't reasonably criticize just one over it.
>>>
>>
>> a panpsyche fabric of cause is an alternative to uncaused cause ...
>>
>
>a causal cycle might be another alternative, the last effect is also the
>first cause, all causes are effects, all effects are causes ... this
>assumes there is nothing random ... whereas a panpsychic fabric could
>"allow" randomness
apply to multiverse, where the false vacuum of spacetime eternally
inflates separate and independent universes like ours. So the
equivalence remains, and so too your one-sided criticism.
Bob Casanova
Apr 24, 2018, 1:20:03 PM4/24/18
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
On Mon, 23 Apr 2018 14:42:48 -0400, the following appeared
initially sterile, and cannot acquire life without
developing it from scratch.
>, and has anyone ever
>observed pure isolation? it is like saying someone can create a perfect
>vacuum
No, it's not. And you're changing the subject.
>>>>> might not be the whole answer
>>>>>
>>>>> just sayin' ...
--
in talk.origins, posted by dale <da...@dalekelly.org>:
>On 4/23/2018 2:18 PM, Bob Casanova wrote:
>> On Sun, 22 Apr 2018 15:20:50 -0400, the following appeared
>> in talk.origins, posted by dale <da...@dalekelly.org>:
>>
>>> On 4/22/2018 12:53 PM, Bob Casanova wrote:
>>>> On Sat, 21 Apr 2018 17:26:24 -0400, the following appeared
>>>> in talk.origins, posted by dale <da...@dalekelly.org>:
>>>>
>>>>> On 4/21/2018 2:28 PM, RonO wrote:
>>>>>> abiogenesis creationist denial
>>>>>
>>>>> life created by a experimenter in a lab is still life from life
>>>>
>>>> Not if the experiment starts with an isolated sterile
>>>> environment and no biologics enter that environment, it
>>>> isn't.
>>
>>> the experimenter is part of the causal chain
>>
>> ....which is irrelevant, if the environment under test is
>> isolated and sterile, and no biologics enter it during the
>> process.
>>
>
>the experimenter "creates" the isolated environment
....which is irrelevant, since it's still isolated and
>On 4/23/2018 2:18 PM, Bob Casanova wrote:
>> On Sun, 22 Apr 2018 15:20:50 -0400, the following appeared
>> in talk.origins, posted by dale <da...@dalekelly.org>:
>>
>>> On 4/22/2018 12:53 PM, Bob Casanova wrote:
>>>> On Sat, 21 Apr 2018 17:26:24 -0400, the following appeared
>>>> in talk.origins, posted by dale <da...@dalekelly.org>:
>>>>
>>>>> On 4/21/2018 2:28 PM, RonO wrote:
>>>>>> abiogenesis creationist denial
>>>>>
>>>>> life created by a experimenter in a lab is still life from life
>>>>
>>>> Not if the experiment starts with an isolated sterile
>>>> environment and no biologics enter that environment, it
>>>> isn't.
>>
>>> the experimenter is part of the causal chain
>>
>> ....which is irrelevant, if the environment under test is
>> isolated and sterile, and no biologics enter it during the
>> process.
>>
>
>the experimenter "creates" the isolated environment
initially sterile, and cannot acquire life without
developing it from scratch.
>, and has anyone ever
>observed pure isolation? it is like saying someone can create a perfect
>vacuum
>>>>> might not be the whole answer
>>>>>
>>>>> just sayin' ...
--
Bob Casanova
Apr 24, 2018, 1:20:03 PM4/24/18
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
On Mon, 23 Apr 2018 14:37:44 -0400, the following appeared
to an unguided experiment, set up to mimic a natural state,
and the second is false, or at most half true (experimenters
set up *and* watch; it would be rather pointless to not
watch).
Do yourself a favor and look up both "sterile" and
"isolated" before you make any further blunders.
in talk.origins, posted by dale <da...@dalekelly.org>:
>On 4/23/2018 2:21 PM, Bob Casanova wrote:
>> On Sun, 22 Apr 2018 18:06:23 -0400, the following appeared
>> in talk.origins, posted by dale <da...@dalekelly.org>:
>>
>>> On 4/22/2018 3:20 PM, dale wrote:
>>>>
>>>> the experimenter is part of the causal chain
>>>
>>> you would have to randomize the experimenter to remove it statistically
>>>from the equation
>>
>> Thetr is no "equation", and the experimenter is not part of
>> the experiment.
>>
>>> if I remember right ... assuming the experimenters' mean distribution is
>>> Gaussian ... 40 experimenters gets you one standard deviation confidence
>>> in the assumption
>>>
>>> keep in mind there is an assumption of Gaussian distribution ...
>>
>> You have an absolute *genius* for posting irrelevancies as
>> if they're relevant to the issue at hand. The issue is
>> whether an environment which begins sterile, and which no
>> biologics enter, can produce life, not who may be watching.
>>
>> Write that on your hand.
>>
>
>an experimenter doesn't watch ... he causes an experiment
Neither of those is relevant except in a philosophical sense
>On 4/23/2018 2:21 PM, Bob Casanova wrote:
>> On Sun, 22 Apr 2018 18:06:23 -0400, the following appeared
>> in talk.origins, posted by dale <da...@dalekelly.org>:
>>
>>> On 4/22/2018 3:20 PM, dale wrote:
>>>>
>>>> the experimenter is part of the causal chain
>>>
>>> you would have to randomize the experimenter to remove it statistically
>>>from the equation
>>
>> Thetr is no "equation", and the experimenter is not part of
>> the experiment.
>>
>>> if I remember right ... assuming the experimenters' mean distribution is
>>> Gaussian ... 40 experimenters gets you one standard deviation confidence
>>> in the assumption
>>>
>>> keep in mind there is an assumption of Gaussian distribution ...
>>
>> You have an absolute *genius* for posting irrelevancies as
>> if they're relevant to the issue at hand. The issue is
>> whether an environment which begins sterile, and which no
>> biologics enter, can produce life, not who may be watching.
>>
>> Write that on your hand.
>>
>
>an experimenter doesn't watch ... he causes an experiment
to an unguided experiment, set up to mimic a natural state,
and the second is false, or at most half true (experimenters
set up *and* watch; it would be rather pointless to not
watch).
Do yourself a favor and look up both "sterile" and
"isolated" before you make any further blunders.
RonO
Apr 25, 2018, 7:30:03 AM4/25/18
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
RonO
Apr 26, 2018, 7:10:03 AM4/26/18
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
On 4/21/2018 1:28 PM, RonO wrote:
> It has been nearly half a year after the ID perps at the Discovery
> Institute released their top 6 best pieces of evidence for ID. They
> could have produced this same list when they started the ID scam unit
> back in 1995. Nothing has apparently changed for more than 2 decades,
> and there has been no retraction by the Discovery Institute since they
> put up the list in November.
>
> The response of the IDiots has been pathetic. Most have run in denial
> of the evidence instead of wallowing in the greatness of it. Dean spent
> a couple threads trying to figure out why the evidence was so bad. He
> even claimed that he didn't know why junk on the list failed as creation
> science over 30 years ago as an excuse for discussing the junk. Once he
> found out how bad the situation was he tried to misdirect the argument
> to plagiarism, but that was so bogus that he then tried to put up other
> creationist nonsense as still being viable when the junk didn't make the
> list. Why discuss bogus junk that is worse than the "best"? It is all
> worse than the abiogenesis creationist denial that failed the scientific
> creationists as creation science in the 1980s. Pags tried to claim that
> the list was bogus even though the ID perps that have been selling the
> ID scam to all the IDiots for decades came up with the list. He didn't
> like the Big Bang because it doesn't fit into his geocentric model, so
> it obviously can't be evidence for intelligent design. He even claimed
> that some of the evidence wasn't even about intelligent design. It is
> true that evolution denial junk like the abiogenesis denial, fossil gap
> denial and Cambrian explosion denial are the types of arguments that the
> ID perps have used for the switch scam, and they have claimed that the
> switch scam has nothing to do with IDiocy. They could be lying now, or
> they could have been lying all this time about the switch scam junk, but
> who cares? This is their best whether they have lied or not.
>
> The obvious fact that no one can deny is that 5 of the 6 best pieces of
> junk already failed as creation science when the scientific creationists
> used to use the bogus arguments, so what kind of evidence could they
> possibly be for intelligent design? These arguments failed as creation
> science over 30 years ago in the court cases involving scientific
> creationism in the 1980's, not only that, but the ID perps have always
> claimed that they weren't scientific creationists because they were
> abject failures that they did not want to associate with.
>
> Is this how it is going to be from now on? Denial isn't going to get
> anyone anywhere. People might claim that it has always been this bad.
> Even with out the ID perp admission that they obviously have no ID
> science worth putting forward, all the IDiots have already known that
> since the bait and switch started to go down over 16 years ago. No
> IDiot has ever gotten the promised ID science from the guys running the
> creationist ID political scam. The ID science didn't make an appearance
> during the Dover fiasco, and IDiocy was found to be no science worth
> calling science back in 2005. The IDiot science organization (ISCID)
> quit the ID scam back in 2008 and the ID Network of "academics" quit in
> 2009. The ID perps at the Discovery Institute removed the claim that
> they had the scientific theory of ID to teach in the public schools from
> their public education policy back in 2013.
>
> This just means that the "best" list wasn't any big surprise, but
> running away in denial instead of dealing with reality has been the
> pathetic response here on TO.
>
> So what is going to happen now? Should we discuss junk that didn't make
> the list? Why bother? Is there any chance that any ID science will
> ever be produced? Pags is upset that none of Dembski's wonderful junk
> made the "best" list. The simple fact is that none of Dembski's junk
> was ever determined to exist in nature to discuss. No one can go to any
> legitimate science source and find that the new IDiot law of
> thermodynamics was ever verified to exist. It would be the biggest
> science news of this century, but it never happened. SC and CSI were
> never verified to exist. Nothing that the ID perps have tried out for
> the last 2 decades has amounted to anything.
>
> This reality isn't going to change by running away in denial and
> pretending that reality isn't just what it is. So what are the
> IDiot/creationists going to do?
>
> Ron Okimoto
>
> https://groups.google.com/d/msg/talk.origins/AwnfCi5j09E/3cqGXeO0BwAJ
> link to the April by their fruits thread that has links to the "best"
> IDiot list threads.
>
Kalk and Glenn obviously can't face reality and can only run away in
denial, but Bill, Dale, Dean, Pags, and Jonathan put in their 2 cents
worth and it is obvious that none of them believe that the best of
IDiocy means anything.
Bill just claims that nothing really exists, so it doesn't matter how
stupid and dishonest the creationist ID scam has been for years. Dale
can't even contemplate his navel. Dean claimed to not know why the junk
failed the scientific creationists over 30 years ago. Pags claims that
it isn't evidence for intelligent design, and keeps harping on even more
bogus junk that didn't make the list. Jonathan has his weird complexity
argument that doesn't fit anywhere in the mess.
So when did all the IDiots figure out that the ID scam was just a bogus
creationist scam? Are you just admitting to it now or did you know from
the beginning? Was it when the bait and switch started or after the
IDiot loss in Dover? IDiots like Santorum quit the ID scam and went
back to calling the junk creationism over a decade ago after the loss in
Dover in 2005. Phillip Johnson (the "godfather" of the ID movement)
quit the ID scam after Dover and admitted that there was no IDiot
science equivalent to the real science. The ISCID quit the ID scam back
in 2008 (a decade ago) and the ID Network followed the next year. This
just means that IDiots have known for a very long time that IDiocy was
bunk. Now, they know why it is bunk. The bait and switch scam has been
going down on any IDiot rube that has needed the ID science since 2002.
No IDiot has ever gotten the ID science when they needed it and everyone
doesn't have to guess anymore why that fact is a fact. The IDiot "best"
was all they had back in 2002 when they decided to start running the
bait and switch scam. The ID perps obviously could have put up this
same list when the ID scam unit started at the Discovery Institute back
in 1995.
This isn't just some trick like "When did you stop beating your wife?"
All the IDiots on TO understand how bogus the "best" IDiot evidence is,
so when did you come to that realization? Pags has the insanity defense
and is off in lala land claiming that the "best" isn't the best, but
what about the rest of you?
This is all IDiocy ever was, and how are you facing that reality?
Running away in denial is never going to change reality.
So what is next? Is becoming like Dale and Bill the entire future of
creationism? Denton is about as far out as a creationist can get. As a
deist he just thinks that his god got the ball rolling with the Big Bang
and it all unfolded into what we are. He incorporates all the known
science and pretty much any new science to be discovered. Denton's
alternative obviously isn't worth jack for most creationists, so what
does that mean?
Ron Okimoto
> It has been nearly half a year after the ID perps at the Discovery
> Institute released their top 6 best pieces of evidence for ID. They
> could have produced this same list when they started the ID scam unit
> back in 1995. Nothing has apparently changed for more than 2 decades,
> and there has been no retraction by the Discovery Institute since they
> put up the list in November.
>
> The response of the IDiots has been pathetic. Most have run in denial
> of the evidence instead of wallowing in the greatness of it. Dean spent
> a couple threads trying to figure out why the evidence was so bad. He
> even claimed that he didn't know why junk on the list failed as creation
> science over 30 years ago as an excuse for discussing the junk. Once he
> found out how bad the situation was he tried to misdirect the argument
> to plagiarism, but that was so bogus that he then tried to put up other
> creationist nonsense as still being viable when the junk didn't make the
> list. Why discuss bogus junk that is worse than the "best"? It is all
> worse than the abiogenesis creationist denial that failed the scientific
> creationists as creation science in the 1980s. Pags tried to claim that
> the list was bogus even though the ID perps that have been selling the
> ID scam to all the IDiots for decades came up with the list. He didn't
> like the Big Bang because it doesn't fit into his geocentric model, so
> it obviously can't be evidence for intelligent design. He even claimed
> that some of the evidence wasn't even about intelligent design. It is
> true that evolution denial junk like the abiogenesis denial, fossil gap
> denial and Cambrian explosion denial are the types of arguments that the
> ID perps have used for the switch scam, and they have claimed that the
> switch scam has nothing to do with IDiocy. They could be lying now, or
> they could have been lying all this time about the switch scam junk, but
> who cares? This is their best whether they have lied or not.
>
> The obvious fact that no one can deny is that 5 of the 6 best pieces of
> junk already failed as creation science when the scientific creationists
> used to use the bogus arguments, so what kind of evidence could they
> possibly be for intelligent design? These arguments failed as creation
> science over 30 years ago in the court cases involving scientific
> creationism in the 1980's, not only that, but the ID perps have always
> claimed that they weren't scientific creationists because they were
> abject failures that they did not want to associate with.
>
> Is this how it is going to be from now on? Denial isn't going to get
> anyone anywhere. People might claim that it has always been this bad.
> Even with out the ID perp admission that they obviously have no ID
> science worth putting forward, all the IDiots have already known that
> since the bait and switch started to go down over 16 years ago. No
> IDiot has ever gotten the promised ID science from the guys running the
> creationist ID political scam. The ID science didn't make an appearance
> during the Dover fiasco, and IDiocy was found to be no science worth
> calling science back in 2005. The IDiot science organization (ISCID)
> quit the ID scam back in 2008 and the ID Network of "academics" quit in
> 2009. The ID perps at the Discovery Institute removed the claim that
> they had the scientific theory of ID to teach in the public schools from
> their public education policy back in 2013.
>
> This just means that the "best" list wasn't any big surprise, but
> running away in denial instead of dealing with reality has been the
> pathetic response here on TO.
>
> So what is going to happen now? Should we discuss junk that didn't make
> the list? Why bother? Is there any chance that any ID science will
> ever be produced? Pags is upset that none of Dembski's wonderful junk
> made the "best" list. The simple fact is that none of Dembski's junk
> was ever determined to exist in nature to discuss. No one can go to any
> legitimate science source and find that the new IDiot law of
> thermodynamics was ever verified to exist. It would be the biggest
> science news of this century, but it never happened. SC and CSI were
> never verified to exist. Nothing that the ID perps have tried out for
> the last 2 decades has amounted to anything.
>
> This reality isn't going to change by running away in denial and
> pretending that reality isn't just what it is. So what are the
> IDiot/creationists going to do?
>
> Ron Okimoto
>
> https://groups.google.com/d/msg/talk.origins/AwnfCi5j09E/3cqGXeO0BwAJ
> link to the April by their fruits thread that has links to the "best"
> IDiot list threads.
>
Kalk and Glenn obviously can't face reality and can only run away in
denial, but Bill, Dale, Dean, Pags, and Jonathan put in their 2 cents
worth and it is obvious that none of them believe that the best of
IDiocy means anything.
Bill just claims that nothing really exists, so it doesn't matter how
stupid and dishonest the creationist ID scam has been for years. Dale
can't even contemplate his navel. Dean claimed to not know why the junk
failed the scientific creationists over 30 years ago. Pags claims that
it isn't evidence for intelligent design, and keeps harping on even more
bogus junk that didn't make the list. Jonathan has his weird complexity
argument that doesn't fit anywhere in the mess.
So when did all the IDiots figure out that the ID scam was just a bogus
creationist scam? Are you just admitting to it now or did you know from
the beginning? Was it when the bait and switch started or after the
IDiot loss in Dover? IDiots like Santorum quit the ID scam and went
back to calling the junk creationism over a decade ago after the loss in
Dover in 2005. Phillip Johnson (the "godfather" of the ID movement)
quit the ID scam after Dover and admitted that there was no IDiot
science equivalent to the real science. The ISCID quit the ID scam back
in 2008 (a decade ago) and the ID Network followed the next year. This
just means that IDiots have known for a very long time that IDiocy was
bunk. Now, they know why it is bunk. The bait and switch scam has been
going down on any IDiot rube that has needed the ID science since 2002.
No IDiot has ever gotten the ID science when they needed it and everyone
doesn't have to guess anymore why that fact is a fact. The IDiot "best"
was all they had back in 2002 when they decided to start running the
bait and switch scam. The ID perps obviously could have put up this
same list when the ID scam unit started at the Discovery Institute back
in 1995.
This isn't just some trick like "When did you stop beating your wife?"
All the IDiots on TO understand how bogus the "best" IDiot evidence is,
so when did you come to that realization? Pags has the insanity defense
and is off in lala land claiming that the "best" isn't the best, but
what about the rest of you?
This is all IDiocy ever was, and how are you facing that reality?
Running away in denial is never going to change reality.
So what is next? Is becoming like Dale and Bill the entire future of
creationism? Denton is about as far out as a creationist can get. As a
deist he just thinks that his god got the ball rolling with the Big Bang
and it all unfolded into what we are. He incorporates all the known
science and pretty much any new science to be discovered. Denton's
alternative obviously isn't worth jack for most creationists, so what
does that mean?
Ron Okimoto
0 new messages