Part 4: Harran Doesn't Seem to Have Even a Rudimentary Understanding of ID Theory

[T Pagano]

On Mon, 19 Feb 2018 23:13:09 +0000, Martin Harran wrote:

> On Mon, 19 Feb 2018 09:19:20 -0600, T Pagano <notmya...@dot.com>
> wrote:
>
>>On Wed, 14 Feb 2018 14:01:09 +0000, Martin Harran wrote:
>>
>>> On Thu, 8 Feb 2018 00:52:45 -0500, "R. Dean" <"R. Dean"@gmail.com>
>>> wrote:


snip, previously covered


>
>
>>2. Science is not a philosophy "about" nature, but merely a collection
>>of methods and tools for observing it. These tools and methods are
>>agnostic and silent about any metaphysical claims we might make or
>>exclude about nature.
>
> As opposed to ID which is entirely philosophical and has no tools
> whatsoever which is why it is not science.

Evidence that you've never cracked open any of William Dembski's works.
Dembski's theory broke some new ground in probability theory. His ID
theory was explained and published by the Cambridge University Press as
part of its studies in Probability, Induction and Decision Theory.
Cambridge University Press publishes philosophical works but not likely
in that group of works.

See Dembski's, "The Design Inference: Eliminating Chance Through Small
Probabilities.


snip, more to follow.

[Mark Isaak]

Dembski has contributed nothing to probability theory. As I noted
earlier, what he calls "specified complexity" is nothing different from
evidence of copying. I suppose there are methods in probability to
determine odds of copying (vs. independent origins) based on degree of
similarity, but Dembski never considers that question. He just
considers extreme cases where independent origins is clearly ruled out
and, because he never thought of the obvious explanation, assumes
similarities must be explained by magic.

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

[Burkhard]

The series that describes itself as "Focusing on contemporary
developments of the interplay among philosophy, psychology, economics,
and statistics, the series addresses foundational theoretical issues,
often quite technical ones, and therefore assumes a distinctly
philosophical character."

And which published books like Erik J. Olsson's Knowledge and Inquiry
Essays on the Pragmatism of Isaac Levi that was published i that series?
Or Zabell's "Symmetry and its Discontents Essays on the History of
Inductive Probability"? The Structure of Values and Norms by Sven Ove
Hansson, which is mainly about medical ethics?

There is not a single new idea for probability theory in Demski's book,
just a pretty bad attempt to apply it to fields where it does not
belong. Statisticians, to the extend they are even aware of it, just
can't stop laughing - I should know, I mooted it a long time ago for the
reading session in our forensic statistics research group. That was
before I had heard about creationism (and in fact triggered my interest
which led me to find TO)

[Martin Harran]

On Mon, 19 Feb 2018 20:07:25 -0600, T Pagano <notmya...@dot.com>

wrote:

>On Mon, 19 Feb 2018 23:13:09 +0000, Martin Harran wrote:
>
>> On Mon, 19 Feb 2018 09:19:20 -0600, T Pagano <notmya...@dot.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>On Wed, 14 Feb 2018 14:01:09 +0000, Martin Harran wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Thu, 8 Feb 2018 00:52:45 -0500, "R. Dean" <"R. Dean"@gmail.com>
>>>> wrote:
>
>
>snip, previously covered
>
>
>>
>>
>>>2. Science is not a philosophy "about" nature, but merely a collection
>>>of methods and tools for observing it. These tools and methods are
>>>agnostic and silent about any metaphysical claims we might make or
>>>exclude about nature.
>>
>> As opposed to ID which is entirely philosophical and has no tools
>> whatsoever which is why it is not science.
>
>Evidence that you've never cracked open any of William Dembski's works.

Actually, I have "cracked open" some of his works but I didn't get far
with them because it very quickly became clear that he was spouting
absolute rubbish.

>Dembski's theory broke some new ground in probability theory.

Actually, I have "cracked open" some of his works but I didn't get far
with them because it very quickly became clear that he was spouting
absolute rubbish.

Richard Dawkins also used probability to prove that there is "almost
certainly" no God. His use of probability is on a par with Dembski's -
both utter rubbish.

[T Pagano]

On Tue, 20 Feb 2018 14:08:14 +0000, Martin Harran wrote:

> On Mon, 19 Feb 2018 20:07:25 -0600, T Pagano <notmya...@dot.com>
> wrote:
>
>>On Mon, 19 Feb 2018 23:13:09 +0000, Martin Harran wrote:
>>
>>> On Mon, 19 Feb 2018 09:19:20 -0600, T Pagano <notmya...@dot.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Wed, 14 Feb 2018 14:01:09 +0000, Martin Harran wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On Thu, 8 Feb 2018 00:52:45 -0500, "R. Dean" <"R. Dean"@gmail.com>
>>>>> wrote:






>>>
>>> As opposed to ID which is entirely philosophical and has no tools
>>> whatsoever which is why it is not science.
>>
>>Evidence that you've never cracked open any of William Dembski's works.
>
>
> Actually, I have "cracked open" some of his works but I didn't get far
> with them because it very quickly became clear that he was spouting
> absolute rubbish.

That's easy to say but less easy to prove after your bluff is called.
Which of Dembski's works did you actually read and what specifically was
rubbish?

>
>>Dembski's theory broke some new ground in probability theory.
>
> Actually, I have "cracked open" some of his works but I didn't get far
> with them because it very quickly became clear that he was spouting
> absolute rubbish.

That's easy to say but less easy to prove after your bluff is called.
Which of Dembski's works did you actually read and what specifically was
rubbish?

>
> Richard Dawkins also used probability to prove that there is "almost
> certainly" no God. His use of probability is on a par with Dembski's -
> both utter rubbish.

1. This is such nonsense that I'm not sure whether you don't understand
what you read or if you make shit up as you go along.

2. Dembski's, "The Design Inference" makes an objective use of the
mathematical theories of probability and complexity theory. He assigns
specific probabilities to events.

3. Dawkins, in his "God Delusion" assigns seven subjective levels of
belief in God and as far as I know never intends to prove that God
doesn't exist. Dawkins self assigned himself at level 6 (level 7 is a
100% belief that God doesn't exist). So even Dawkins is not 100% sure
that God doesn't exist.


To avoid being accused of piling on in any further rebuttals I'm imposing
the Mercy Rule on you for 90 days.

[Bill Rogers]

On Tuesday, February 20, 2018 at 4:15:04 PM UTC-5, T Pagano wrote:
<snip>

> To avoid being accused of piling on in any further rebuttals I'm imposing
> the Mercy Rule on you for 90 days.

Tony, ignoring rebuttals and simply reposting your original arguments is *what you do.* No need to call it the Mercy Rule.

[Martin Harran]

On Tue, 20 Feb 2018 15:10:20 -0600, T Pagano <notmya...@dot.com>

LOL, it looks as if the penny has finally dropped with you, just as it
did with your fellow travellers Dean and Steady Eddie and Alpha Beta,
that is not easy arguing with someone whom you cannot just dismiss as
determined by the atheistic beliefs - so just like them you run away.

Talking of which, you really might find it worthwhile to consider the
company you keep.

[Bob Casanova]

On Tue, 20 Feb 2018 15:10:20 -0600, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by T Pagano <notmya...@dot.com>:

Transference mode again?

>2. Dembski's, "The Design Inference" makes an objective use of the
>mathematical theories of probability and complexity theory. He assigns
>specific probabilities to events.

Good for him. Any way to determine the validity of those
"assignments", or do we just take your (or his) word for it,
the way we're supposed to do with the "made-up shit" (your
term) some assign to the later terms in the Drake Equation
to "prove" intelligent aliens jump-started life here?

>3. Dawkins, in his "God Delusion" assigns seven subjective levels of
>belief in God and as far as I know never intends to prove that God
>doesn't exist. Dawkins self assigned himself at level 6 (level 7 is a
>100% belief that God doesn't exist). So even Dawkins is not 100% sure
>that God doesn't exist.

Of course he isn't. Unlike you, Dawkins can think, and knows
"100% surety" without objective data is logically a chimera.

>To avoid being accused of piling on in any further rebuttals I'm imposing
>the Mercy Rule on you for 90 days.

Translation: "Out of arrows; retreating now *without*
Parthian shot."

Your "Mercy Rule" is a dishonest, pathetic and transparent
ploy.
--

Bob C.

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

- Isaac Asimov

[Peter Nyikos]

When did R.Dean ever try to dismiss someone because of his atheistic
beliefs?

And why don't you mention Ray Martinez, probably the most copious
dismisser of arguments by blandly saying they are false, followed
by the "explanation" that they are coming from an "Atheist".

And someone as savvy in the ways of talk.origins as yourself must
surely know just how free and easy Martinez with the charge of
"Atheism". He libels me with that charge regularly, and has
probably done it to you too.

> Talking of which, you really might find it worthwhile to consider the
> company you keep.

Did Tony and Dean, or Tony and Alpha Beta, or Tony and Steady Eddie
keep company any more than you and Bob Casanova and Hemidactylus do?

FTR, I don't recall Tony keeping company with any of these three, ever.
In fact, Tony was absent for a good number of years,
probably the whole time I've seen Steady Eddie post.

Harshman, who has recently sent several peace feelers your way,
compared me to Tony Pagano at a few times when Tony had been absent
from t.o. for several years [at least according to Tony's
reckoning of when his absence began].

For some strange reason, nobody ever called Harshman out on
this solecism of his.

Peter Nyikos

PS I don't recall ever coming across a post by Alpha Beta.
Where can I find one?

[Peter Nyikos]

I found this "old" thread quite by accident and found to my surprise that
I was being misrepresented by someone who did not even have
the minimal backbone to identify me by name.

Despite this, I do him the courtesy of addressing him by name below.

On Wednesday, February 21, 2018 at 2:15:04 PM UTC-5, Bob Casanova wrote:
> On Tue, 20 Feb 2018 15:10:20 -0600, the following appeared
> in talk.origins, posted by T Pagano <notmya...@dot.com>:
>
> >On Tue, 20 Feb 2018 14:08:14 +0000, Martin Harran wrote:
> >
> >> On Mon, 19 Feb 2018 20:07:25 -0600, T Pagano <notmya...@dot.com>
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >>>On Mon, 19 Feb 2018 23:13:09 +0000, Martin Harran wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> On Mon, 19 Feb 2018 09:19:20 -0600, T Pagano <notmya...@dot.com>
> >>>> wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>>On Wed, 14 Feb 2018 14:01:09 +0000, Martin Harran wrote:


> >>>>
> >>>> As opposed to ID which is entirely philosophical and has no tools
> >>>> whatsoever which is why it is not science.
> >>>
> >>>Evidence that you've never cracked open any of William Dembski's works.
> >>
> >>
> >> Actually, I have "cracked open" some of his works but I didn't get far
> >> with them because it very quickly became clear that he was spouting
> >> absolute rubbish.
> >
> >
> >
> >That's easy to say but less easy to prove after your bluff is called.
> >Which of Dembski's works did you actually read and what specifically was
> >rubbish?

Why didn't you address this, Bob? Haven't you even cracked open any
of Dembski's works?

Martin Harran folded in response, using Pagano's cowardly exit
[see below] as a handy reason. Evidently he didn't care to inform
disinterested readers about what part of Dembski's works he
actually read.

> >>
> >>>Dembski's theory broke some new ground in probability theory.
> >>
> >> Actually, I have "cracked open" some of his works but I didn't get far
> >> with them because it very quickly became clear that he was spouting
> >> absolute rubbish.
> >
> >
> >That's easy to say but less easy to prove after your bluff is called.
> >Which of Dembski's works did you actually read and what specifically was
> >rubbish?

Martin left the crickets chirping here too, leaving disinterested
readers in the lurch.

> >>
> >> Richard Dawkins also used probability to prove that there is "almost
> >> certainly" no God. His use of probability is on a par with Dembski's -
> >> both utter rubbish.
> >
> >
> >1. This is such nonsense that I'm not sure whether you don't understand
> >what you read or if you make shit up as you go along.
>
> Transference mode again?

Why ask, if you haven't read any of Dembski's works?

Are you simply taking Martin Harran's word for the comparison?

> >2. Dembski's, "The Design Inference" makes an objective use of the
> >mathematical theories of probability and complexity theory. He assigns
> >specific probabilities to events.
>
> Good for him. Any way to determine the validity of those
> "assignments", or do we just take your (or his) word for it,
> the way we're supposed to do with the "made-up shit" (your
> term) some assign to the later terms in the Drake Equation

...like every astronomer whom I've seen writing about the
Drake equation, including Carl Saga, to "prove" that there
have been a great many species of intelligent aliens in the
history of our galaxy.

> to "prove" intelligent aliens jump-started life here?

The word "prove" in this case can mean, "assign a range, which
in the case of two standard astronomy textbooks, is favorable
to THEIR hypothesis and "explains" the Fermi Paradox".

Or it can mean, in the case of Carl Sagan, to simply give
ONE value to arrive at the same conclusion.

But in the case YOU are talking about, it means: "assign
a range, the lower end of which is UNFAVORABLE to the
hypothesis I am supposedly `proving', but to which most
of the range is favorable; and then give my personal guess,
which falls in the latter part of the range."

And "aliens jump-started life here" is your misleading, pejorative
term for "a technologically advanced [by a few centuries over us,
or perhaps more] species that evolved on another planetary system
sent microorganisms adapted to the conditions on early earth [ca. 4-3 gigayears ago],
by means of space probes that took between 100 and 10,000 years
to get here, and so probably did NOT send higher forms of life,
let alone themselves."

>
> >3. Dawkins, in his "God Delusion" assigns seven subjective levels of
> >belief in God and as far as I know never intends to prove that God
> >doesn't exist. Dawkins self assigned himself at level 6 (level 7 is a
> >100% belief that God doesn't exist). So even Dawkins is not 100% sure
> >that God doesn't exist.

Note, I am not only not 100% sure that directed panspermia, described
above, is correct. I'm not even 66% sure -- in political terms,
I hypothesize a majority, but not a supermajority.

> Of course he isn't. Unlike you, Dawkins can think, and knows
> "100% surety" without objective data is logically a chimera.

As does Dembski, so the playing field seems to be level here.

So, do you agree with Martin that Dawkins's use of probability
is utter rubbish, or not?

Or will you invoke the rule that "Silence is Golden" as an
excuse for ducking this question?

> >To avoid being accused of piling on in any further rebuttals I'm imposing
> >the Mercy Rule on you for 90 days.
>
> Translation: "Out of arrows; retreating now *without*
> Parthian shot."

Don't you count "piling on any further rebuttals" as a Parthian shot?

> Your "Mercy Rule" is a dishonest, pathetic and transparent
> ploy.

As are numerous ploys you and Martin use against me.


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

[Bob Casanova]

On Mon, 9 Apr 2018 08:28:25 -0700 (PDT), the following
appeared in talk.origins, posted by Peter Nyikos
<nyi...@bellsouth.net>:

>I found this "old" thread quite by accident

That's nice. HAND, knowing that with every post like this
you confirm my characterization of your posts about your
"enemies".

Why on Earth would you expect me to? My response was to

Aha! So *now * we get to the meat of the matter; your
refusal to say where you got those values and your
resentment of anyone who questions you on them.

Sorry, but I'm not going to play your game; if you want to
provide an answer feel free, but I'm not going to ask again.

[Martin Harran]

He ran away from me but continued to debate with atheists, I think it
is perfectly reasonable to assume that reflects the fact that he
found it difficult to argue with someone who openly professes their
religious beliefs.

>And why don't you mention Ray Martinez, probably the most copious
>dismisser of arguments by blandly saying they are false, followed
>by the "explanation" that they are coming from an "Atheist".

Ray did not run away from me, however idiotic a position it was, he
stuck to his guns that I am really an wtheist.

>

>And someone as savvy in the ways of talk.origins as yourself must
>surely know just how free and easy Martinez with the charge of
>"Atheism". He libels me with that charge regularly, and has
> probably done it to you too.
>
>
>
>> Talking of which, you really might find it worthwhile to consider the
>> company you keep.
>
>Did Tony and Dean, or Tony and Alpha Beta, or Tony and Steady Eddie
>keep company any more than you and Bob Casanova and Hemidactylus do?
>
>FTR, I don't recall Tony keeping company with any of these three, ever.
>In fact, Tony was absent for a good number of years,
>probably the whole time I've seen Steady Eddie post.

What part of " just like them you [Pagano] run away" did you not
understand?

>
>Harshman, who has recently sent several peace feelers your way,

Really? I haven't noticed any, I suspect they are just another product
of your fertile imagination.

>compared me to Tony Pagano at a few times when Tony had been absent
>from t.o. for several years [at least according to Tony's
>reckoning of when his absence began].
>
>For some strange reason, nobody ever called Harshman out on
>this solecism of his.
>
>Peter Nyikos
>
>PS I don't recall ever coming across a post by Alpha Beta.
>Where can I find one?

He posted plenty here over a period of time but I haven't seen him
recently, if your newsreader allows you to sort by author or filter by
author, it shouldn't be too hard to find some; otherwise GIYF.

[Martin Harran]

Your obession with me is showing again.

[Peter Nyikos]

On Monday, April 9, 2018 at 1:45:03 PM UTC-4, Martin Harran wrote:
> On Mon, 9 Apr 2018 07:39:45 -0700 (PDT), Peter Nyikos
> <nyi...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>
> >On Tuesday, February 20, 2018 at 5:55:05 PM UTC-5, Martin Harran wrote:
> >> On Tue, 20 Feb 2018 15:10:20 -0600, T Pagano <notmya...@dot.com>
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >> >On Tue, 20 Feb 2018 14:08:14 +0000, Martin Harran wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> On Mon, 19 Feb 2018 20:07:25 -0600, T Pagano <notmya...@dot.com>
> >> >> wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >>>On Mon, 19 Feb 2018 23:13:09 +0000, Martin Harran wrote:

> >> >>>>
> >> >>>> As opposed to ID which is entirely philosophical and has no tools
> >> >>>> whatsoever which is why it is not science.
> >> >>>
> >> >>>Evidence that you've never cracked open any of William Dembski's works.
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >> Actually, I have "cracked open" some of his works but I didn't get far
> >> >> with them because it very quickly became clear that he was spouting
> >> >> absolute rubbish.
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >That's easy to say but less easy to prove after your bluff is called.
> >> >Which of Dembski's works did you actually read and what specifically was
> >> >rubbish?
> >> >

As your new-found ally Casanova might say, were he not so
supportive of you,

<crickets>

[Please don't read "might" as though it were "would". I can't
read Bob's mind any better than I can read yours -- although
you acted below as though I *should* be able to read your mind.]

> >> >>>Dembski's theory broke some new ground in probability theory.
> >> >>
> >> >> Actually, I have "cracked open" some of his works but I didn't get far
> >> >> with them because it very quickly became clear that he was spouting
> >> >> absolute rubbish.
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >That's easy to say but less easy to prove after your bluff is called.
> >> >Which of Dembski's works did you actually read and what specifically was
> >> >rubbish?
> >> >

<crickets>

> >> >>
> >> >> Richard Dawkins also used probability to prove that there is "almost
> >> >> certainly" no God. His use of probability is on a par with Dembski's -
> >> >> both utter rubbish.
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >1. This is such nonsense that I'm not sure whether you don't understand
> >> >what you read or if you make shit up as you go along.
> >> >
> >> >2. Dembski's, "The Design Inference" makes an objective use of the
> >> >mathematical theories of probability and complexity theory. He assigns
> >> >specific probabilities to events.
> >> >
> >> >3. Dawkins, in his "God Delusion" assigns seven subjective levels of
> >> >belief in God and as far as I know never intends to prove that God
> >> >doesn't exist. Dawkins self assigned himself at level 6 (level 7 is a
> >> >100% belief that God doesn't exist). So even Dawkins is not 100% sure
> >> >that God doesn't exist.
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >To avoid being accused of piling on in any further rebuttals I'm imposing
> >> >the Mercy Rule on you for 90 days.
> >>
> >> LOL, it looks as if the penny has finally dropped with you, just as it
> >> did with your fellow travellers Dean and Steady Eddie and Alpha Beta,
> >> that is not easy arguing with someone whom you cannot just dismiss as
> >> determined by the atheistic beliefs - so just like them you run away.
> >
> >When did R.Dean ever try to dismiss someone because of his atheistic
> >beliefs?
>
> He ran away from me

In what way? Did he snip a bunch of pointed statements you made
at him? Did he stop answering you altogether while conversing
with others on the same thread?

What you say next certainly does not seem to support your
claim that R.Dean runs away "just like" Pagano is doing
on this thread, abandoning it altogether.

> but continued to debate with atheists, I think it
> is perfectly reasonable to assume that reflects the fact that he
> found it difficult to argue with someone who openly professes their
> religious beliefs.

How openly? You've ducked every question I asked you about
your beliefs.

For instance, do you believe that God created the universe
and then had a hands-off policy until historic times?

After all, aren't you hostile to the idea of God intervening
in earth evolution, via subtly timed mutations, at times during
the last three gigayears?

Isn't that why you are so strongly opposed to the current ID movement?

>
> >And why don't you mention Ray Martinez, probably the most copious
> >dismisser of arguments by blandly saying they are false, followed
> >by the "explanation" that they are coming from an "Atheist".
>
> Ray did not run away from me, however idiotic a position it was, he

> stuck to his guns that I am really an atheist.

Ray has run away from me after temporarily sticking to his guns, piling
lie upon lie to justify his earlier lies. He even ran away
Pagano-style, alleging that the back-and-forth had become
too complicated for anyone to follow, and then started a new
thread on which he alleged all kinds of false things having
happened on the thread he had abandoned.

Hasn't he ever done that to you?

<snip unaddressed comment of mine>

> >
> >> Talking of which, you really might find it worthwhile to consider the
> >> company you keep.
> >
> >Did Tony and Dean, or Tony and Alpha Beta, or Tony and Steady Eddie
> >keep company any more than you and Bob Casanova and Hemidactylus do?
> >
> >FTR, I don't recall Tony keeping company with any of these three, ever.
> >In fact, Tony was absent for a good number of years,
> >probably the whole time I've seen Steady Eddie post.
>
> What part of " just like them you [Pagano] run away" did you not
> understand?

I understood that part perfectly well -- although I'd like to know
more about how it applies to R.Dean. It was the more
recent "keep company" bits that I was naive enough to take
literally.

And I apologize for not being able to read your mind well enough
to realize that you attach a highly specialized,
idiosyncratic meaning to "keeping company" and [earlier]
"fellow travellers". Is it modeled after jillery's similarly
highly specialized, idiosyncratic use of "strange bedfellows"?


Remainder deleted, to be replied to later (today, I hope).

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

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

[Bob Casanova]

On Wed, 11 Apr 2018 07:06:40 -0700 (PDT), the following
appeared in talk.origins, posted by Peter Nyikos
<nyi...@bellsouth.net>:

>>...I can't

>read Bob's mind any better than I can read yours

That is absolutely correct, but given the number of times
you've claimed to read my mind and the minds of others
(every claim by you regarding "hidden motives" and imaginary
"conspiracies" is such a claim) I'm amazed you were able to
post that without being hit by lightning. Ah, well; God
works in mysterious ways...

<snip the usual whining>

[Peter Nyikos]

On Wednesday, April 11, 2018 at 1:15:03 PM UTC-4, Bob Casanova wrote:
> On Wed, 11 Apr 2018 07:06:40 -0700 (PDT), the following
> appeared in talk.origins, posted by Peter Nyikos
> <nyi...@bellsouth.net>:
>
> >>...I can't
> >read Bob's mind any better than I can read yours

> That is absolutely correct, but given the number of times
> you've claimed to read my mind

The number is zero (0). Care to try and document otherwise?

> and the minds of others
> (every claim by you regarding "hidden motives"

Let's see you give an example where the motive wasn't
clear from the context to any but a "rube" [as Ron O would put it]
who would be too naive to last in talk.origins without lots
of support from others.

> and imaginary
> "conspiracies" is such a claim)

The number is zero (0). Care to try and document otherwise?

Do NOT confuse "imaginary conspiracies" with clear-cut
cases of someone shackling himself to some idiotic,
irrational, ignorant allegation by another person with whom
he has no reason in the world to conspire with.

Did you *really* think I was accusing you of conspiring
with Martin Harran when I described you as shackling
yourself to one of his demonstrably false accusations?


Here is where I refuted that demonstrably false accusation:

https://groups.google.com/d/msg/talk.origins/RmJfq-PdDl0/VH1IsU9DAAAJ
Subject: Re: Judge Jones and Plagiarism at the Dover Trial.?
Date: Wed, 28 Mar 2018 12:18:48 -0700 (PDT)
Message-ID: <9bdeb5ca-6ac7-47e8...@googlegroups.com>

> I'm amazed you were able to
> post that without being hit by lightning.

You sure know how to sound like a fundie. Or maybe a believer
in Thor or Zeus.

> Ah, well; God
> works in mysterious ways...

You work in very un-mysterious ways, including the use of highly
suspicious snips that destroy the context of the words like
the ones you quoted at the beginning.

Here are those words again, in context, with names added in brackets:

______________________ repost _________________________

[Tony:]

> >> >That's easy to say but less easy to prove after your bluff is called.
> >> >Which of Dembski's works did you actually read and what specifically was
> >> >rubbish?
> >> >

[Peter, addressing Martin Harran:]

As your new-found ally Casanova might say, were he not so
supportive of you,

<crickets>

[Please don't read "might" as though it were "would". I can't
read Bob's mind any better than I can read yours -- although
you acted below as though I *should* be able to read your mind.]

========================== end of excerpt ==================

That snip was perfectly in character with your having shackled
yourself to that demonstrable falsehood by Martin: one
might say the snip was both self-serving and Martin-serving.

In particular, that last bit after the dash (which you
replaced by an ellipsis) reveals what double standards
you have wrt mind-reading: Martin's snarky comment made it
seem like I SHOULD have been able to tell that "keeping company"
referred to something that came well before what it SEEMED
to be referring to. And that something was so strained,
I think even YOU might have "read his mind wrong."

> <snip the usual whining>

Bullshit. That last clause was an accusation, not whining.
As are my two paragraphs immediately preceding this one.

Or are you referring to something that came later? If it's
my closing paragraph before the "Remainder deleted..."
then your irony meter is busted. That was sarcasm you snipped
at the end, not whining.

And your snip of that was both Martin-serving and jillery-serving,
except that it may have been inadvertent, the result of
you snipping everything after the last words you typed
and blindly labeling it "whining."

Peter Nyikos

[Peter Nyikos]

On Monday, April 9, 2018 at 12:55:03 PM UTC-4, Bob Casanova wrote:
> On Mon, 9 Apr 2018 08:28:25 -0700 (PDT), the following
> appeared in talk.origins, posted by Peter Nyikos
> <nyi...@bellsouth.net>:
>
> >I found this "old" thread quite by accident
>
> That's nice. HAND, knowing that with every post like this
> you confirm my characterization of your posts about your
> "enemies".

...which "characterization" you are too cowardly to name.

Had you had the minimal backbone to name it, it would have
been impossible to call what I wrote below a "confirmation."

Your last sentence ended in midair.

As for the preceding one, I would have expected most people
who have read some of Dembski's works to contribute something
to the topic, especially since Martin failed to do so.

On the other hand, you are not one of those "most people",
so I didn't expect either a Yes or No answer to my question.

I also didn't expect any kind of answer, and I see
you didn't give one. Why not?

> >Martin Harran folded in response, using Pagano's cowardly exit
> >[see below] as a handy reason. Evidently he didn't care to inform
> >disinterested readers about what part of Dembski's works he
> >actually read.

Hence my question. Was the aggressive wording of your
question meant to distract people from its contents?

> >> >>
> >> >>>Dembski's theory broke some new ground in probability theory.
> >> >>
> >> >> Actually, I have "cracked open" some of his works but I didn't get far
> >> >> with them because it very quickly became clear that he was spouting
> >> >> absolute rubbish.
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >That's easy to say but less easy to prove after your bluff is called.
> >> >Which of Dembski's works did you actually read and what specifically was
> >> >rubbish?
> >
> >Martin left the crickets chirping here too, leaving disinterested
> >readers in the lurch.

...and you are playing with the cards held close to your chest,
leaving people in the dark as to whether you ever read anything
by Dembski.

Had you answered my question with a NO, you would have
been instantly exonerated of leaving YOUR readers in the lurch.
As it is, your propensity for being tight-lipped is working
against you.

> >> >>
> >> >> Richard Dawkins also used probability to prove that there is "almost
> >> >> certainly" no God. His use of probability is on a par with Dembski's -
> >> >> both utter rubbish.
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >1. This is such nonsense that I'm not sure whether you don't understand
> >> >what you read or if you make shit up as you go along.
> >>
> >> Transference mode again?
> >
> >Why ask, if you haven't read any of Dembski's works?

<crickets>

> >Are you simply taking Martin Harran's word for the comparison?

<crickets>

> >
> >> >2. Dembski's, "The Design Inference" makes an objective use of the
> >> >mathematical theories of probability and complexity theory. He assigns
> >> >specific probabilities to events.
> >>
> >> Good for him. Any way to determine the validity of those
> >> "assignments", or do we just take your (or his) word for it,
> >> the way we're supposed to do with the "made-up shit" (your
> >> term) some assign to the later terms in the Drake Equation
>
> Aha! So *now * we get to the meat of the matter; your
> refusal to say where you got those values

Document an actual refusal, or retract.

> and your
> resentment of anyone who questions you on them.

"anyone" = Bob Casanova

"questions" = insults my carefully thought-out RANGE of figures
by calling them "wild-assed guesses".

As Mark Isaak and John Harshman would say, had you and they
not built up a cozy camaraderie over the years,

Get over yourself.

> Sorry, but I'm not going to play your game;

"your game" = my setting the record straight on what
good company I've risen above: distinguished astronomers
who really DID make wild-assed guesses about how many
technological civilizations arose in the history of our galaxy.

And your failure to note this gives the lie to your calling
what I wrote below a "game". I'll say this much for you though:
this time you left it in rather than snipping it and labeling
it "whining."

> if you want to
> provide an answer feel free, but I'm not going to ask again.

Good riddance.

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

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

PS I left in everything that came next, even though you
were too cowardly to address any of it.

[Martin Harran]

On Wed, 11 Apr 2018 07:06:40 -0700 (PDT), Peter Nyikos

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

>On Monday, April 9, 2018 at 1:45:03 PM UTC-4, Martin Harran wrote:
>> On Mon, 9 Apr 2018 07:39:45 -0700 (PDT), Peter Nyikos

[...]

>> I think it
>> is perfectly reasonable to assume that reflects the fact that he
>> found it difficult to argue with someone who openly professes their
>> religious beliefs.
>
>How openly? You've ducked every question I asked you about
>your beliefs.

Is it beyond your mental capacity to grasp that I have no interest
whatsoever in discussing my religious beliefs or any other matter with
you?

Or is perhaps beyond your hubris simply doesn't allow you to even
contemplate that anyone could possibly have so little regard for your
opinions that they might not want to engage with you?


[...]

[Bob Casanova]

On Wed, 11 Apr 2018 12:35:07 -0700 (PDT), the following

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

>On Wednesday, April 11, 2018 at 1:15:03 PM UTC-4, Bob Casanova wrote:
>> On Wed, 11 Apr 2018 07:06:40 -0700 (PDT), the following
>> appeared in talk.origins, posted by Peter Nyikos
>> <nyi...@bellsouth.net>:
>>
>> >>...I can't
>> >read Bob's mind any better than I can read yours
>
>> That is absolutely correct, but given the number of times
>> you've claimed to read my mind
>
>The number is zero (0). Care to try and document otherwise?

Check how many posts you've made. Multiply the result by 0.9
(to be generous).

>> and the minds of others
>> (every claim by you regarding "hidden motives"
>
>Let's see you give an example where the motive wasn't
>clear from the context

Clear to *you*, which is the point. You see conspiracies and
enemies everywhere.

> to any but a "rube" [as Ron O would put it]
>who would be too naive to last in talk.origins without lots
>of support from others.
>
>
>> and imaginary
>> "conspiracies" is such a claim)
>
>The number is zero (0). Care to try and document otherwise?

Every post in which you list multiple posters, especially
when most of those posters aren't contributors to the thread
of interest, as conspiring against you, obviously. This one,
for instance.

>Do NOT confuse "imaginary conspiracies" with clear-cut

Again, clear-cut to *you*; the opinions of others seem to
differ significantly. Of course, that fact alone confirms
the "conspiracy*, doesn't it?

>cases of someone shackling himself to some idiotic,
>irrational, ignorant allegation by another person with whom
>he has no reason in the world to conspire with.
>
>Did you *really* think I was accusing you of conspiring
>with Martin Harran when I described you as shackling
>yourself to one of his demonstrably false accusations?

With that particular post? No, that was just "Peter being
Peter"; performance as usual.

>Here is where I refuted that demonstrably false accusation:
>
>https://groups.google.com/d/msg/talk.origins/RmJfq-PdDl0/VH1IsU9DAAAJ
>Subject: Re: Judge Jones and Plagiarism at the Dover Trial.?
>Date: Wed, 28 Mar 2018 12:18:48 -0700 (PDT)
>Message-ID: <9bdeb5ca-6ac7-47e8...@googlegroups.com>
>
>
>> I'm amazed you were able to
>> post that without being hit by lightning.
>
>You sure know how to sound like a fundie. Or maybe a believer
>in Thor or Zeus.
>
>
>> Ah, well; God
>> works in mysterious ways...
>
>You work in very un-mysterious ways, including the use of highly
>suspicious snips that destroy the context of the words like
>the ones you quoted at the beginning.
>
>Here are those words again, in context, with names added in brackets:
>
>______________________ repost _________________________
>
>[Tony:]
>> >> >That's easy to say but less easy to prove after your bluff is called.
>> >> >Which of Dembski's works did you actually read and what specifically was
>> >> >rubbish?
>> >> >
>
>[Peter, addressing Martin Harran:]
>As your new-found ally Casanova might say, were he not so
>supportive of you,

Contention of conspiracy (or should that be "sycophancy"?)
noted. You just can't help yourself, can you?

><crickets>
>
>[Please don't read "might" as though it were "would". I can't
>read Bob's mind any better than I can read yours -- although
>you acted below as though I *should* be able to read your mind.]
>
>========================== end of excerpt ==================
>
>That snip was perfectly in character with your having shackled
>yourself to that demonstrable falsehood by Martin: one
>might say the snip was both self-serving and Martin-serving.
>
>In particular, that last bit after the dash (which you
>replaced by an ellipsis) reveals what double standards
>you have wrt mind-reading: Martin's snarky comment made it
>seem like I SHOULD have been able to tell that "keeping company"
>referred to something that came well before what it SEEMED
>to be referring to. And that something was so strained,
>I think even YOU might have "read his mind wrong."
>
>> <snip the usual whining>
>
>Bullshit. That last clause was an accusation, not whining.

Like you, I post what I see. Think only you have that
privilege? Think again.

>As are my two paragraphs immediately preceding this one.
>
>Or are you referring to something that came later? If it's
>my closing paragraph before the "Remainder deleted..."
>then your irony meter is busted. That was sarcasm you snipped
>at the end, not whining.

With the usual tone of your posts it's difficult to tell the
difference.

>And your snip of that was both Martin-serving and jillery-serving,
>except that it may have been inadvertent, the result of
>you snipping everything after the last words you typed
>and blindly labeling it "whining."

That's because it is, and the fact that you use terms such
as the above to describe my posts confirms my contentions
regarding your apparent ability to see enemies and
conspiracies everywhere; as someone wrote recently, it's all
"clear-cut".

[Bob Casanova]

On Wed, 11 Apr 2018 13:59:50 -0700 (PDT), the following

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

You might want to count the number of others you mention by
name in this post alone, and the context in which you
mention them, ant use the result to ponder why I might
accuse you of fabricating "conspiracies". Or not; up to you.

Aside from that, I see no reason to respond substantively to
this crap; continue to wallow in your self-pity.

Yeah, I got distracted and mistakenly hit "Send".

Have A Nice Day.

[Bob Casanova]

On Wed, 11 Apr 2018 22:22:26 +0100, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by Martin Harran
<martin...@gmail.com>:

He's effectively rejected that reason when I noted it; why
should he treat you any different? It is, after all, "all
about Peter".

And he will undoubtedly claim that this post confirms his
allegations about this particular "conspiracy" between/among
his "enemies".

Hi, fellow conspirator! ;-)