A pro-ID scientist

[jillery]

<https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fqiXgtDdEwM>

The narrator of the video explicitly pits Evolution against ID. Günter
Bechly is a self-identified paleo-entomologist and recently converted
Catholic. In the video, he explicitly rejects macro-evolution and
supports ID, although he provides no evidence for either, beyond his
bald assertions about them.

This is just another pathetic argument from authority, a part of
Discotut's "Dissent from Darwin", which since it's publication in 2001
accumulated over 900 signatures from scientists throughout the world.
This compares poorly to NCSE's "Project Steve", which in about the
same period accumulated over 1350 signatures of scientists named Steve
who accept Darwinian evolution.

--
I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.

Evelyn Beatrice Hall
Attributed to Voltaire

[Oxyaena]

On 9/16/2018 2:02 PM, jillery wrote:
> <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fqiXgtDdEwM>
>
> The narrator of the video explicitly pits Evolution against ID. Günter
> Bechly is a self-identified paleo-entomologist and recently converted
> Catholic. In the video, he explicitly rejects macro-evolution and
> supports ID, although he provides no evidence for either, beyond his
> bald assertions about them.

That's pathetic, as a paleo-entemologist he should be aware that
evolution is the cornerstone of modern biology (and by extension
paleontology). I bet the papers he's written (if any) don't affirm the
principle of intelligent design, and are probably supportive of
evolution judging by his profession.

It's simply appalling, one would think that a paleontologist would know
better (given that I`m one), but apparently Dunning-Kruger can effect
professionals as well.


\[snip]


--
"He who fights monsters shall see to it that he does not become a
monster, for he who gazes into the abyss often finds that the abyss
gazes back also." - Friedrich Nietzche

[RonO]

On 9/16/2018 1:55 PM, Oxyaena wrote:
> On 9/16/2018 2:02 PM, jillery wrote:
>> <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fqiXgtDdEwM>
>>
>> The narrator of the video explicitly pits Evolution against ID. Günter
>> Bechly is a self-identified paleo-entomologist and recently converted
>> Catholic.  In the video, he explicitly rejects macro-evolution and
>> supports ID, although he provides no evidence for either, beyond his
>> bald assertions about them.
>
> That's pathetic, as a paleo-entemologist he should be aware that
> evolution is the cornerstone of modern biology (and by extension
> paleontology). I bet the papers he's written (if any) don't affirm the
> principle of intelligent design, and are probably supportive of
> evolution judging by his profession.
>
> It's simply appalling, one would think that a paleontologist would know
> better (given that I`m one), but apparently Dunning-Kruger can effect
> professionals as well.
>
>
> \[snip]
>
>

Sternberg was an invertebrate taxonomist before he joined the Discovery
Institute ID scam outfit. He dropped his research instead of
demonstrating any design with it. Several years ago he was supposed to
be working on some video about whales. About as far from invertebrates
as you can get.

My guess is that Bechly is no different. Somehow he became a senior
fellow out of practically nowhere ahead of Minnich et al that have
languished as fellows for decades. There are other new senior fellows.
Who ever heard of Keas, and why would they make Klinghoffer a senior
fellow after his stupid exploits on Evolution News? Paul Nelson finally
made Senior fellow after starting as an associate fellow in 1995, and
what has Sternberg ever done to be a senior fellow besides prostitute
himself and get a paper published? Really, what has the Discovery
Institute been paying Sternberg to do all these years (he as been
employed by the Discovery Institute since 2007)? Who is Wiker and Gordon?
https://www.discovery.org/id/about/fellows/

Something on Bechly:

https://www.discovery.org/multimedia/audio/2018/02/bechly-fossils-1/

I wonder what Behe and Denton have to say about the Discovery
Institute's aversion to theistic evolution when both are theistic
evolutionists.

Ron Okimoto

[RonO]

Bechly doesn't seem to have an issue with evolution in his scientific
papers.

New fossil insect order Permopsocida elucidates major radiation and
evolution of suction feeding in hemimetabolous insects (Hexapoda:
Acercaria).
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26961785

Preservation of three-dimensional anatomy in phosphatized fossil
arthropods enriches evolutionary inference.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26854367

[Oxyaena]

[snip]
>

Which makes it all the more appalling.

[vtand...@gmail.com]

On Sunday, September 16, 2018 at 12:00:03 PM UTC-7, Oxyaena wrote:
> On 9/16/2018 2:02 PM, jillery wrote:
> > <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fqiXgtDdEwM>
> >
> > The narrator of the video explicitly pits Evolution against ID. Günter
> > Bechly is a self-identified paleo-entomologist and recently converted
> > Catholic. In the video, he explicitly rejects macro-evolution and
> > supports ID, although he provides no evidence for either, beyond his
> > bald assertions about them.
>
> That's pathetic, as a paleo-entemologist he should be aware that
> evolution is the cornerstone of modern biology

Really? My college and highschool biology textbooks didn't even mention it. Most medical schools do not teach it. 900 scientists signed a letter saying they don't buy it.

[vtand...@gmail.com]

On Sunday, September 16, 2018 at 11:05:03 AM UTC-7, jillery wrote:
> <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fqiXgtDdEwM>
>
> The narrator of the video explicitly pits Evolution against ID. Günter
> Bechly is a self-identified paleo-entomologist and recently converted
> Catholic. In the video, he explicitly rejects macro-evolution and
> supports ID, although he provides no evidence for either, beyond his
> bald assertions about them.
>
> This is just another pathetic argument from authority,

What "authority?"

a part of
> Discotut's "Dissent from Darwin", which since it's publication in 2001
> accumulated over 900 signatures from scientists throughout the world.
> This compares poorly to NCSE's "Project Steve", which in about the
> same period accumulated over 1350 signatures of scientists named Steve
> who accept Darwinian evolution.
>

So you reject ID? Why don't you tell me what it means?I want to see if you actually know what it is..

[Oxyaena]

Argument from popularity not withstanding, your college and high school
biology textbooks probably didn't mention evolution because they were
lackluster schools, my college and high school biology textbooks did.
Perhaps you should visit the talk.origins Archive:

http://talkorigins.org/

[RonO]

Is this McNameless? Who else had such biology texts that he could not
produce?

My high school biology text was pretty pathetic, but it did have around
a three page section on biological evolution.

Ron Okimoto

[vtand...@gmail.com]

Oh, I see. You know the authors of those books personally and have discussed with them the reasons for their omission.
You don't even know the name of the schools I went to and you have already pronounced judgement on them. What a crock of shit.

[vtand...@gmail.com]

The reality is anyone can learn the names of living things, what they look like and how their skeletal, muscular, respiratory, circulatory and nervous systems work without knowing how they
developed from other organisms. That info simply is not necessary. That, I imagine, would at least partially explain why some medical schools don't even teach it.

[jillery]

On Mon, 17 Sep 2018 01:03:20 -0700 (PDT), vtand...@gmail.com wrote:

>On Sunday, September 16, 2018 at 12:00:03 PM UTC-7, Oxyaena wrote:
>> On 9/16/2018 2:02 PM, jillery wrote:
>> > <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fqiXgtDdEwM>
>> >
>> > The narrator of the video explicitly pits Evolution against ID. Günter
>> > Bechly is a self-identified paleo-entomologist and recently converted
>> > Catholic. In the video, he explicitly rejects macro-evolution and
>> > supports ID, although he provides no evidence for either, beyond his
>> > bald assertions about them.
>>
>> That's pathetic, as a paleo-entemologist he should be aware that
>> evolution is the cornerstone of modern biology
>
>
>Really? My college and highschool biology textbooks didn't even mention it.

Perhaps you should get your money back.

>Most medical schools do not teach it.

Medical schools don't teach biology.

>900 scientists signed a letter saying they don't buy it.

1350+ scientists named Steve signed a letter saying they do buy it.

[jillery]

On Mon, 17 Sep 2018 01:08:25 -0700 (PDT), vtand...@gmail.com wrote:

>On Sunday, September 16, 2018 at 11:05:03 AM UTC-7, jillery wrote:
>> <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fqiXgtDdEwM>
>>
>> The narrator of the video explicitly pits Evolution against ID. Günter
>> Bechly is a self-identified paleo-entomologist and recently converted
>> Catholic. In the video, he explicitly rejects macro-evolution and
>> supports ID, although he provides no evidence for either, beyond his
>> bald assertions about them.
>>
>> This is just another pathetic argument from authority,
>
>What "authority?"

Since you asked, Günter Bechly. Apparently you have trouble
comprehending written English. You're welcome.

> a part of
>> Discotut's "Dissent from Darwin", which since it's publication in 2001
>> accumulated over 900 signatures from scientists throughout the world.
>> This compares poorly to NCSE's "Project Steve", which in about the
>> same period accumulated over 1350 signatures of scientists named Steve
>> who accept Darwinian evolution.
>>
>So you reject ID? Why don't you tell me what it means?I want to see if you actually know what it is..

There's this new invention, called the Internet. You may have heard
of it. It lets you learn about all kinds of things all by yourself.
Here's a start:

<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelligent_design>


Now your turn. Since you started a topic rationalizing ID, why don't
you say what you think is ID?

[Bob Casanova]

On Mon, 17 Sep 2018 01:03:20 -0700 (PDT), the following
appeared in talk.origins, posted by vtand...@gmail.com:

>On Sunday, September 16, 2018 at 12:00:03 PM UTC-7, Oxyaena wrote:
>> On 9/16/2018 2:02 PM, jillery wrote:
>> > <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fqiXgtDdEwM>
>> >
>> > The narrator of the video explicitly pits Evolution against ID. Günter
>> > Bechly is a self-identified paleo-entomologist and recently converted
>> > Catholic. In the video, he explicitly rejects macro-evolution and
>> > supports ID, although he provides no evidence for either, beyond his
>> > bald assertions about them.
>>
>> That's pathetic, as a paleo-entemologist he should be aware that
>> evolution is the cornerstone of modern biology
>
>
>Really? My college and highschool biology textbooks didn't even mention it.

Sorry for your deprivation.

> Most medical schools do not teach it.

Medical schools teach the practice of medicine, which
doesn't actually require a knowledge of evolutionary theory;
just a knowledge of such evolutionary issues as increased
resistance to antibiotics when improperly administered.
Practicing doctors are basically bio-mechanics; medical
research, OTOH, *does* require a knowledge of evolutionary
theory.

> 900 scientists signed a letter saying they don't buy it.

And almost twice that number, all named "Steve",signed a
letter saying they do. One can only wonder how many
signatures would have been on the letter if *all* scientists
had been represented, instead of only the "Steves".
--

Bob C.

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

- Isaac Asimov

[Bob Casanova]

On Mon, 17 Sep 2018 01:08:25 -0700 (PDT), the following

appeared in talk.origins, posted by vtand...@gmail.com:

Your (implied) claim, so you first:

Define it in detail, and produce evidence which supports it.

[Ernest Major]

On 17/09/2018 09:03, vtand...@gmail.com wrote:
> 900 scientists signed a letter saying they don't buy it.

You might like to check the wording of the "Dissent from Darwin" statement.

It's a remarkably weak sauce statement - I think of it as the Discovery
Institute's list of ultradarwinists.

--
alias Ernest Major

[vtand...@gmail.com]

I read it years agp.

[vtand...@gmail.com]

On Monday, September 17, 2018 at 10:35:02 AM UTC-7, Bob Casanova wrote:
> On Mon, 17 Sep 2018 01:08:25 -0700 (PDT), the following
> appeared in talk.origins, posted by vtand...@gmail.com:
>
> >On Sunday, September 16, 2018 at 11:05:03 AM UTC-7, jillery wrote:
> >> <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fqiXgtDdEwM>
> >>
> >> The narrator of the video explicitly pits Evolution against ID. Günter
> >> Bechly is a self-identified paleo-entomologist and recently converted
> >> Catholic. In the video, he explicitly rejects macro-evolution and
> >> supports ID, although he provides no evidence for either, beyond his
> >> bald assertions about them.
> >>
> >> This is just another pathetic argument from authority,
> >
> >What "authority?"
> >
> >
> > a part of
> >> Discotut's "Dissent from Darwin", which since it's publication in 2001
> >> accumulated over 900 signatures from scientists throughout the world.
> >> This compares poorly to NCSE's "Project Steve", which in about the
> >> same period accumulated over 1350 signatures of scientists named Steve
> >> who accept Darwinian evolution.
> >>
> >So you reject ID? Why don't you tell me what it means?I want to see if you actually know what it is..
>
> Your (implied) claim, so you first:

What are you talking about?????

[Ernest Major]

Then perhaps you have forgotten the wording. If not, please explain how
the statement that they signed says that they don't buy it. (That they
signed a statement run by a creationist organisation is either evidence
that they don't buy it, or that they were suckered by the ultradarwinist
wording, but the actual words they signed aren't.)

--
alias Ernest Major

[jillery]

Perhaps you should refresh your convenient amnesia.

[jillery]

Since you asked, nothing you know anything about. You're welcome.

[Oxyaena]

You've got at least some of that correct, the other reason is that
physicians aren't biologists, they don't study evolution.

--
"The great thing about science is that it's true whether you believe in
it or not." - Niel Degrasse Tyson

[Burkhard]

vtand...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Sunday, September 16, 2018 at 12:00:03 PM UTC-7, Oxyaena wrote:
>> On 9/16/2018 2:02 PM, jillery wrote:
>>> <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fqiXgtDdEwM>
>>>
>>> The narrator of the video explicitly pits Evolution against ID. Günter
>>> Bechly is a self-identified paleo-entomologist and recently converted
>>> Catholic. In the video, he explicitly rejects macro-evolution and
>>> supports ID, although he provides no evidence for either, beyond his
>>> bald assertions about them.
>>
>> That's pathetic, as a paleo-entemologist he should be aware that
>> evolution is the cornerstone of modern biology
>
>
> Really? My college and highschool biology textbooks didn't even mention it.

ask for your money back.

Most medical schools do not teach it. 900 scientists signed a letter
saying they don't buy it.
>

Not really, no. They signed a letter that said it should be subject to
rigorous scrutiny. Which all science should. I'd have signed that
letter, and also one that replaced "evolution" with physics, chemistry,
linguistics or computer science.

[vtand...@gmail.com]

You should not ask me questions if you are not willing to accept my answer. I will not be interrogated. Goodbye.

[vtand...@gmail.com]

On Tuesday, September 18, 2018 at 1:05:02 AM UTC-7, jillery wrote:
> On Tue, 18 Sep 2018 00:09:24 -0700 (PDT), vtand...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> >On Monday, September 17, 2018 at 10:50:03 AM UTC-7, Ernest Major wrote:
> >> On 17/09/2018 09:03, vtand...@gmail.com wrote:
> >> > 900 scientists signed a letter saying they don't buy it.
> >>
> >> You might like to check the wording of the "Dissent from Darwin" statement.
> >>
> >> It's a remarkably weak sauce statement - I think of it as the Discovery
> >> Institute's list of ultradarwinists.
> >>
> >> --
> >> alias Ernest Major
> >
> >I read it years agp.
>
>
> Perhaps you should refresh your convenient amnesia.
>

KILLFILE

[vtand...@gmail.com]

[vtand...@gmail.com]

On Tuesday, September 18, 2018 at 2:50:02 AM UTC-7, Burkhard wrote:
> vtand...@gmail.com wrote:
> > On Sunday, September 16, 2018 at 12:00:03 PM UTC-7, Oxyaena wrote:
> >> On 9/16/2018 2:02 PM, jillery wrote:
> >>> <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fqiXgtDdEwM>
> >>>
> >>> The narrator of the video explicitly pits Evolution against ID. Günter
> >>> Bechly is a self-identified paleo-entomologist and recently converted
> >>> Catholic. In the video, he explicitly rejects macro-evolution and
> >>> supports ID, although he provides no evidence for either, beyond his
> >>> bald assertions about them.
> >>
> >> That's pathetic, as a paleo-entemologist he should be aware that
> >> evolution is the cornerstone of modern biology
> >
> >
> > Really? My college and highschool biology textbooks didn't even mention it.
>
> ask for your money back.

FUCK YOU.

>
> Most medical schools do not teach it. 900 scientists signed a letter
> saying they don't buy it.
> >
> Not really, no. They signed a letter that said it should be subject to
> rigorous scrutiny. Which all science should. I'd have signed that
> letter

How come they didn't ask you to sign?Perhaps they don't consider you a scientist at all. Neither do I.

[jillery]

IDIOT

[jillery]

Even if Ernest Major asked you any questions above, your one-liner
doesn't qualify as a reasonable response.

[RonO]

So you lied about your biology textbooks. Why lie? Just name the
textbooks and the authors. You could also name the medical schools that
do not teach biological evolution.

Why would medical schools not teach biological evolution? Do you
understand how the evolution of antibiotic resistance works? Don't they
teach about sickle cell anemia or lactose intolerance? Shouldn't
medical doctors understand that life can and does evolve?

Ron Okimoto

[RonO]

On 9/17/2018 8:05 AM, jillery wrote:
> On Mon, 17 Sep 2018 01:03:20 -0700 (PDT), vtand...@gmail.com wrote:
>
>> On Sunday, September 16, 2018 at 12:00:03 PM UTC-7, Oxyaena wrote:
>>> On 9/16/2018 2:02 PM, jillery wrote:
>>>> <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fqiXgtDdEwM>
>>>>
>>>> The narrator of the video explicitly pits Evolution against ID. Günter
>>>> Bechly is a self-identified paleo-entomologist and recently converted
>>>> Catholic. In the video, he explicitly rejects macro-evolution and
>>>> supports ID, although he provides no evidence for either, beyond his
>>>> bald assertions about them.
>>>
>>> That's pathetic, as a paleo-entemologist he should be aware that
>>> evolution is the cornerstone of modern biology
>>
>>
>> Really? My college and highschool biology textbooks didn't even mention it.
>
>
> Perhaps you should get your money back.
>
>
>> Most medical schools do not teach it.
>
>
> Medical schools don't teach biology.

Medical schools do teach biology and biochemistry. What do you think
cell physiology and molecular genetics is? What medical school would
leave out molecular genetics in this day and age?

Ron Okimoto

[RonO]

On 9/17/2018 9:30 PM, Dexter wrote:

> ______________________________________________
>
> Oh, I think he's back. Where you been McNameless?
>

It would be pretty strange at this point in time, but there are still
IDiots, so anything is possible. My first guess is a troll McNameless
wannabe.

Ron Okimoto

[jillery]

On Tue, 18 Sep 2018 03:33:47 -0700 (PDT), vtand...@gmail.com wrote:

>On Tuesday, September 18, 2018 at 2:50:02 AM UTC-7, Burkhard wrote:
>> vtand...@gmail.com wrote:
>> > On Sunday, September 16, 2018 at 12:00:03 PM UTC-7, Oxyaena wrote:
>> >> On 9/16/2018 2:02 PM, jillery wrote:
>> >>> <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fqiXgtDdEwM>
>> >>>
>> >>> The narrator of the video explicitly pits Evolution against ID. Günter
>> >>> Bechly is a self-identified paleo-entomologist and recently converted
>> >>> Catholic. In the video, he explicitly rejects macro-evolution and
>> >>> supports ID, although he provides no evidence for either, beyond his
>> >>> bald assertions about them.
>> >>
>> >> That's pathetic, as a paleo-entemologist he should be aware that
>> >> evolution is the cornerstone of modern biology
>> >
>> >
>> > Really? My college and highschool biology textbooks didn't even mention it.
>>
>> ask for your money back.
>
>FUCK YOU.

Perhaps you should KILLFILE Burkhard, as well as anybody else who
points out your willful stupidity. But then, you won't have anybody
to reply to. Perhaps instead you should think about your
over-reactions.

>> Most medical schools do not teach it. 900 scientists signed a letter
>> saying they don't buy it.
>> >
>> Not really, no. They signed a letter that said it should be subject to
>> rigorous scrutiny. Which all science should. I'd have signed that
>> letter
>
>How come they didn't ask you to sign?

You're showing off your willful stupidity again. Nobody was asked.
Each signatory decided to sign it on their own.

>Perhaps they don't consider you a scientist at all. Neither do I.

You're entitled to your own opinions. You're not entitled to your own
facts.

[jillery]

On Tue, 18 Sep 2018 06:02:15 -0500, RonO <roki...@cox.net> wrote:

>On 9/17/2018 8:05 AM, jillery wrote:
>> On Mon, 17 Sep 2018 01:03:20 -0700 (PDT), vtand...@gmail.com wrote:
>>
>>> On Sunday, September 16, 2018 at 12:00:03 PM UTC-7, Oxyaena wrote:
>>>> On 9/16/2018 2:02 PM, jillery wrote:
>>>>> <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fqiXgtDdEwM>
>>>>>
>>>>> The narrator of the video explicitly pits Evolution against ID. Günter
>>>>> Bechly is a self-identified paleo-entomologist and recently converted
>>>>> Catholic. In the video, he explicitly rejects macro-evolution and
>>>>> supports ID, although he provides no evidence for either, beyond his
>>>>> bald assertions about them.
>>>>
>>>> That's pathetic, as a paleo-entemologist he should be aware that
>>>> evolution is the cornerstone of modern biology
>>>
>>>
>>> Really? My college and highschool biology textbooks didn't even mention it.
>>
>>
>> Perhaps you should get your money back.
>>
>>
>>> Most medical schools do not teach it.
>>
>>
>> Medical schools don't teach biology.
>
>Medical schools do teach biology and biochemistry. What do you think
>cell physiology and molecular genetics is? What medical school would
>leave out molecular genetics in this day and age?
>
>Ron Okimoto

Perhaps I overstated. When I think of biology, I don't think of those
specific disciplines you mention above, but instead about the behavior
of living organisms and ecology. Ok?

[vtand...@gmail.com]

On Tuesday, September 18, 2018 at 4:05:02 AM UTC-7, Ron O wrote:
> On 9/17/2018 6:51 AM, vtand...@gmail.com wrote:
> > On Monday, September 17, 2018 at 4:30:03 AM UTC-7, Ron O wrote:
> >> On 9/17/2018 3:03 AM, vtand...@gmail.com wrote:
> >>> On Sunday, September 16, 2018 at 12:00:03 PM UTC-7, Oxyaena wrote:
> >>>> On 9/16/2018 2:02 PM, jillery wrote:
> >>>>> <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fqiXgtDdEwM>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> The narrator of the video explicitly pits Evolution against ID. Günter
> >>>>> Bechly is a self-identified paleo-entomologist and recently converted
> >>>>> Catholic. In the video, he explicitly rejects macro-evolution and
> >>>>> supports ID, although he provides no evidence for either, beyond his
> >>>>> bald assertions about them.
> >>>>
> >>>> That's pathetic, as a paleo-entemologist he should be aware that
> >>>> evolution is the cornerstone of modern biology
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> Really? My college and highschool biology textbooks didn't even mention it. Most medical schools do not teach it. 900 scientists signed a letter saying they don't buy it.
> >>>
> >>
> >> Is this McNameless? Who else had such biology texts that he could not
> >> produce?
> >>
> >> My high school biology text was pretty pathetic, but it did have around
> >> a three page section on biological evolution.
> >>
> >> Ron Okimoto
> >
> > The reality is anyone can learn the names of living things, what they look like and how their skeletal, muscular, respiratory, circulatory and nervous systems work without knowing how they
> > developed from other organisms. That info simply is not necessary. That, I imagine, would at least partially explain why some medical schools don't even teach it.
> >
>
> So you lied about your biology textbooks.

EVIDENCE???????????????????????????????????

You could also name the medical schools that
> do not teach biological evolution.

Look that up for yourself.

>
> Why would medical schools not teach biological evolution?

I just gave you one reason. Ask them if you want more.

[Burkhard]

Och, now you hurt my feeling!

[Bob Casanova]

On Tue, 18 Sep 2018 00:12:10 -0700 (PDT), the following

Your *implied* claim is that ID is a valid subject for
science, else why challenge anyone on its meaning and why
they reject it? Since apparently you think it has value,
it's up to you to define it accurately so we know we're all
on the same page.

[Bob Casanova]

On Tue, 18 Sep 2018 03:22:03 -0700 (PDT), the following

appeared in talk.origins, posted by vtand...@gmail.com:

>On Tuesday, September 18, 2018 at 12:25:02 AM UTC-7, Ernest Major wrote:

>> On 18/09/2018 08:09, vtand...@gmail.com wrote:

>> > On Monday, September 17, 2018 at 10:50:03 AM UTC-7, Ernest Major wrote:

>> >> On 17/09/2018 09:03, vtand...@gmail.com wrote:

>> >>> 900 scientists signed a letter saying they don't buy it.

>> >> You might like to check the wording of the "Dissent from Darwin" statement.
>> >>
>> >> It's a remarkably weak sauce statement - I think of it as the Discovery
>> >> Institute's list of ultradarwinists.

>> > I read it years agp.

>> Then perhaps you have forgotten the wording. If not, please explain how
>> the statement that they signed says that they don't buy it. (That they
>> signed a statement run by a creationist organisation is either evidence
>> that they don't buy it, or that they were suckered by the ultradarwinist
>> wording, but the actual words they signed aren't.)

>You should not ask me questions if you are not willing to accept my answer. I will not be interrogated. Goodbye.

He asked no questions per se; he merely commented on your
initial and most recent statements and asked you to explain
the initial one. If you're not willing to communicate, don't
let the door whack your ass on the way out.

[Bob Casanova]

On Tue, 18 Sep 2018 16:02:27 +0100, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by Burkhard <b.sc...@ed.ac.uk>:

IMHO the disdain of morons is an accolade. Be proud! ;-)

[Edna Freon]

ID implies the existence of a God(s). That is the primary
objection to ID. Since Religion and science can't agree, we
are forced to choose between them. Evidence is that which
supports our choice.

Bill

[vtand...@gmail.com]

Don't put words in my mouth.
I made no judgement on the value of ID. I do not support ID.
I said what I said because many supporters of evolution mistakenly claim ID
is the same as Creationism. It is not.That false claim is used to attack anyone who supports ID.
The damn evolutionists are so emotionally attached to E and so insecure and defensive about it that they make wild accusations against anybody who questions it.

It's true evolution is the majority view. However, that should not create an atmosphere in which any dissent from it is viewed as a threat, stupidity or mental illness.

Some of the assholes who post here have already subjected me to that. They are wasting their time.. I will not be intimidated into accepting anything..

I have been looking at various facets of evolution since 1998.
At this point, I cannot support it and my objection has nothing to do with religion. I also do not support Creationism or ID. I am undecided at this point on the issue of the development of life.

[vtand...@gmail.com]

Show us where the literature on ID mentions God.
What is it with you evolution-obsessed people?
Any time you cannot quote someone like me as saying what you want me to say, you claim I "implied" it.

When you say someone implies something, you are claiming you can read his mind unless what he said clearly says what you claim. GET THIS: I am the only one who knows what I meant. If my meaning is not clear from what I said, just ask me to clarify it. Do not tell me I said something I did not mean.. That is a form of LYING and anyone who does it is a liar.

[Edna Freon]

What a clever lad. You are now excused from further
participation in this thread.

Bill

[jillery]

On Tue, 18 Sep 2018 13:43:35 -0500, Edna Freon <fre...@gmail.com>
wrote:

>ID implies the existence of a God(s). That is the primary
>objection to ID.

Incorrect. My impression is it's not even among the top 10
objections. You're just making up stuff because you have no idea what
you're talking about.

[jillery]

On Tue, 18 Sep 2018 11:48:33 -0700 (PDT), vtand...@gmail.com wrote:

>I made no judgement on the value of ID. I do not support ID.
>I said what I said because many supporters of evolution mistakenly claim ID
>is the same as Creationism. It is not.That false claim is used to attack anyone who supports ID.
>The damn evolutionists are so emotionally attached to E and so insecure and defensive about it that they make wild accusations against anybody who questions it.

ID assumes a supernatural Designer, which makes it a form of religious
Creationism by definition. From a scientific POV, that's the least of
it's problems. ID's biggest problem is that it doesn't explain
anything.

[Mark Isaak]

On 9/18/18 11:57 AM, vtand...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Tuesday, September 18, 2018 at 11:45:02 AM UTC-7, Bill wrote:

>> [...]

>> ID implies the existence of a God(s).
>
> Show us where the literature on ID mentions God.

Among other places, in early drafts of _Of Pandas and People_. You can
find the details in the evidence presented in the Kitzmiller v. Dover
decision.

--
Mark Isaak eciton (at) curioustaxonomy (dot) net
"Omnia disce. Videbis postea nihil esse superfluum."
- Hugh of St. Victor

[RonO]

Your lack of evidence and what you wrote above having nothing to do with
your obvious lie about the textbooks. The Supreme court decision
against banning biological evolution from the science class was made in
the 1960's. Unless you got one of the textbooks written in that era you
are just lying. After the ban was lifted there was no reason to keep
evolution out of the biology texts no matter what state you wanted to
sell your textbooks in.

You could just give the authors and the title of the textbook. Go for it.

Ron Okimoto

[RonO]

On 9/18/2018 11:03 AM, Dexter wrote:

> ______________________________________________
>
> Oh cheezus khreist on a fuckin' cracker, not another one of
> *those*. Do you really think you're the first dotard to
> try this? You should know that this tactic has been tried
> numerous times here and it hasn't worked yet. We recognize
> it for what it is and you for what you are. You make a
> stupidly absurd religious claim based on nothing but your
> abject and willful ignorance and insist others disprove it.
> Ron's right, you're an idiot.
>
> Into the bozo bin for you.
>

What do these dolts get out of lying about this junk. My first guess is
troll, but you can't tell because a lot of creationists are just this
dishonest and stupid.

Ron Okimoto

[vtand...@gmail.com]

On Tuesday, September 18, 2018 at 3:10:02 PM UTC-7, Mark Isaak wrote:
> On 9/18/18 11:57 AM, vtand...@gmail.com wrote:
> > On Tuesday, September 18, 2018 at 11:45:02 AM UTC-7, Bill wrote:
> >> [...]
> >> ID implies the existence of a God(s).
> >
> > Show us where the literature on ID mentions God.
>
> Among other places, in early drafts of _Of Pandas and People_. You can
> find the details in the evidence presented in the Kitzmiller v. Dover
> decision.
>
> --

Why didn't you quote the passages instead of sending me on a wild goose chase?

[vtand...@gmail.com]

You still have not proven any lies.

The Supreme court decision
> against banning biological evolution from the science class was made in
> the 1960's.

Cite it.

Unless you got one of the textbooks written in that era you
> are just lying.

A SC decision about banning evolution from class has nothing to do with what is written in a textbook.

After the ban was lifted there was no reason to keep
> evolution out of the biology texts no matter what state you wanted to
> sell your textbooks in.

Neither the SC nor Congress can dictate to anyone what is written in any book.
Have you read the 1st amendment to the US Constitution?
How ignorant are you?

[RonO]

You still have not demonstrated that you are not lying.

Just put up the author and the title of the textbook. If it exists we
can check it out.

Just think for a moment why you had to lie about something that stupid.
Downgrading biological evolution isn't going to change the fact of
biological evolution. It also is not going to change the fact that your
creationist alternative is worse than what you claim is not good enough.
There is no reason to tear down evolution when your option will always
be worse. You are just beating yourself up. What you need to do is
improve your option so that it is at least equal to what you think is
not good enough. Until that happens you are stuck with something that
just is not good enough by your own standards.

>
>
> The Supreme court decision
>> against banning biological evolution from the science class was made in
>> the 1960's.
>
> Cite it.

https://ncse.com/library-resource/ten-major-court-cases-evolution-creationism

Epperson v. Arkansas 1968. After this decision the other anti evolution
laws were invalid too. I don't know how many states were actually
trying to enforce their anti evolution laws by this time.

>
>
> Unless you got one of the textbooks written in that era you
>> are just lying.
>
>
> A SC decision about banning evolution from class has nothing to do with what is written in a textbook.

Yes it did. Textbook publishers have to sell their books to everyone.
Think about it. It became an issue because after sputnik the US tried
to upgrade science education and there was a major push to improve
textbooks.

>
> After the ban was lifted there was no reason to keep
>> evolution out of the biology texts no matter what state you wanted to
>> sell your textbooks in.
>
>
> Neither the SC nor Congress can dictate to anyone what is written in any book.
> Have you read the 1st amendment to the US Constitution?
> How ignorant are you?

What an idiot. Some states had banned the teaching of biological
evolution. Some of the laws had been on the books since the 1920's.
What affect do you think that had on writing textbooks of biology?
Textbook publishers have to sell the books. If they can't sell their
book in a state what do you think that they did?

Ron Okimoto
>

[RonO]

Medical school has requirements and they have to have taken biology.
They don't teach basic math or calculus in med school, but if you got a
biology degree from a decent university you had to take calculus.

Ron Okimoto

[zencycle]

On Tuesday, September 18, 2018 at 3:00:04 PM UTC-4, vtand...@gmail.com wrote:

>
> Show us where the literature on ID mentions God.

let me guess, your mother used to do your homework for you, right?

First, there's this:

http://www.pnas.org/content/104/suppl_1/8567.full

"[William Paley's] Natural Theology is a sustained argument for the existence of God based on the obvious design of humans and their organs, as well as the design of all sorts of organisms, considered by themselves, as well as in their relations to one another and to their environment. The argument has two parts: first, that organisms give evidence of being designed; second, that only an omnipotent God could account for the perfection, multitude, and diversity of the designs."

then this:

From an LA times article:
Enlisting Science to Find the Fingerprints of a Creator
March 25, 2001|TERESA WATANABE | TIMES RELIGION WRITER

http://articles.latimes.com/2001/mar/25/news/mn-42548

"Our work will alert people to the possibility that God is real rather than a projection of the mind," declared Phillip Johnson, a UC Berkeley professor emeritus of law whose 1991 book, "Darwin on Trial," laid the foundation for the emerging movement [of intelligent design]......
"We are taking an intuition most people have and making it a scientific and academic enterprise," Johnson said. In challenging Darwinism with a God-friendly alternative theory, the professor, who is a Presbyterian, added, "We are removing the most important cultural roadblock to accepting the role of God as creator."

And before you start down the path of 'creationism and intelligent design are divergent theories'

In Robert B. Stewart's book 'Intelligent design', stewart writes "Most observers, both within and without the ID community, recognize University of California Berkeley law professor Phillip E, Johnson as the father of ID, and his 1991 book, Darwin on Trial [...] as a landmark moment in the history of the movement."

and this:

From a Focus on the Family interview in 2007:

https://web.archive.org/web/20071217212817/http://www.citizenlink.org/content/A000006139.cfm


"4. Does your research conclude that God is the Intelligent Designer?

I believe God created the world for a purpose. The Designer of intelligent design is, ultimately, the Christian God."

then, In "Reply to My Critics: A Response to Reviews of Darwin's Black Box: The Biochemical Challenge to Evolution", Michael Behe writes:

" Perhaps intelligent design in biochemistry is some sort of an explanation,
but is it a “scientific” explanation if the designer is likely to be God? I
contend that it is."

(Find your own link, little boy, We've done enough of your homework for you. Google search is your friend.)

Then of course there's the ID movement's anti-hero, William Dembski. Dembski not only reduces the field of information theory to an idiom, he clearly states his intent of publishing his theory was to invoke the christian gospel.

"Christ is indispensable to any scientific theory, even if its practitioners do not have a clue about him."
- William A. Dembski, Intelligent Design: The Bridge Between Science & Theology, p. 210

"Intelligent design is just the Logos theology of John's Gospel restated in the idiom of information theory."
- William A. Dembski, Touchstone Magazine. Volume 12, Issue4: July/August, 1999

I think it's time for you to go back to your xbox

[Bob Casanova]

On Tue, 18 Sep 2018 13:43:35 -0500, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by Edna Freon <fre...@gmail.com>:

Perhaps you should run that one past Peter Nyikos.

> That is the primary
>objection to ID. Since Religion and science can't agree, we
>are forced to choose between them.

Actually, we're not, at least in general, only regarding
specific testable claims; science is mute on the existence
of unobserved deities. But that point has been made and
supported so many times it would be fruitless to argue it
again when your mind is apparently made up.

> Evidence is that which
>supports our choice.

No, *objective* evidence supports reality, and only
"supports our belief" if that belief reflects reality. But
then, you've stated several times that no objective reality
exists, so you undoubtedly reject that point.

[Bob Casanova]

On Tue, 18 Sep 2018 11:48:33 -0700 (PDT), the following

I wouldn't dream of doing so; I only comment on what you
wrote, with explanations for my interpretation.

>I made no judgement on the value of ID. I do not support ID.
>I said what I said because many supporters of evolution mistakenly claim ID
>is the same as Creationism. It is not.That false claim is used to attack anyone who supports ID.
>The damn evolutionists are so emotionally attached to E and so insecure and defensive about it that they make wild accusations against anybody who questions it.

Nope, they only say that there is no actual objective
evidence in support of ID, and the ID proponents view that
observation as an attack.

>It's true evolution is the majority view. However, that should not create an atmosphere in which any dissent from it is viewed as a threat, stupidity or mental illness.

See above.

>Some of the assholes who post here have already subjected me to that. They are wasting their time.. I will not be intimidated into accepting anything..

Good for you. In order to be taken seriously you need more
that personal belief to refute the literally mountains of
evidence which support the ToE; the *fact* of evolution,
having been observed both in the lab and in nature, needs no
other evidence.

> I have been looking at various facets of evolution since 1998.
>At this point, I cannot support it and my objection has nothing to do with religion. I also do not support Creationism or ID. I am undecided at this point on the issue of the development of life.

Your privilege; anyone is allowed to believe anything,
whether supported by evidence or not, and to reject any
evidence which contradicts their beliefs. They are *not*,
however, free to declare unsupported And untested beliefs
equal to tested theories supported by massive amounts of
objective evidence, which is what the ID proponents do.

[Bob Casanova]

On Tue, 18 Sep 2018 11:57:28 -0700 (PDT), the following

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

>What is it with you evolution-obsessed people?
>Any time you cannot quote someone like me as saying what you want me to say, you claim I "implied" it.
>
>When you say someone implies something, you are claiming you can read his mind unless what he said clearly says what you claim. GET THIS: I am the only one who knows what I meant. If my meaning is not clear from what I said, just ask me to clarify it. Do not tell me I said something I did not mean.. That is a form of LYING and anyone who does it is a liar.

[Bob Casanova]

On Wed, 19 Sep 2018 03:08:48 -0700 (PDT), the following

appeared in talk.origins, posted by vtand...@gmail.com:

>On Tuesday, September 18, 2018 at 3:10:02 PM UTC-7, Mark Isaak wrote:
>> On 9/18/18 11:57 AM, vtand...@gmail.com wrote:
>> > On Tuesday, September 18, 2018 at 11:45:02 AM UTC-7, Bill wrote:
>> >> [...]
>> >> ID implies the existence of a God(s).
>> >
>> > Show us where the literature on ID mentions God.
>>
>> Among other places, in early drafts of _Of Pandas and People_. You can
>> find the details in the evidence presented in the Kitzmiller v. Dover
>> decision.

>Why didn't you quote the passages instead of sending me on a wild goose chase?

Don't know how to construct an Internet search? Too bad; the
referenced material is sufficient for you to easily find it.

[Edna Freon]

Science argues for the existence of quite a few entities
that have no objective existence, "things" that cannot be
observed or tested or verified. There are quarks and
fermions there is an inflating universe and black holes and
habitable planets, "things" that exist because theory
requires them, things that are mathematical entities, things
that "should" exist even without evidence. Science has no
problem with non-existent entities only in how they might
ramify.

Bill

[Mark Isaak]

On 9/19/18 3:08 AM, vtand...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Tuesday, September 18, 2018 at 3:10:02 PM UTC-7, Mark Isaak wrote:
>> On 9/18/18 11:57 AM, vtand...@gmail.com wrote:
>>> On Tuesday, September 18, 2018 at 11:45:02 AM UTC-7, Bill wrote:
>>>> [...]
>>>> ID implies the existence of a God(s).
>>>
>>> Show us where the literature on ID mentions God.
>>
>> Among other places, in early drafts of _Of Pandas and People_. You can
>> find the details in the evidence presented in the Kitzmiller v. Dover
>> decision.
>>

> Why didn't you quote the passages instead of sending me on a wild goose chase?

You need to see it for yourself.

[jillery]

Bravo! This deserves a POTM nom.

[jillery]

On Wed, 19 Sep 2018 13:43:47 -0500, Edna Freon <fre...@gmail.com>
wrote:

>Science argues for the existence of quite a few entities
>that have no objective existence, "things" that cannot be
>observed or tested or verified. There are quarks and
>fermions there is an inflating universe and black holes and
>habitable planets, "things" that exist because theory
>requires them, things that are mathematical entities, things
>that "should" exist even without evidence. Science has no
>problem with non-existent entities only in how they might
>ramify.
>
>Bill

Since you claim these things are non-existent, you should either:

1) provide a better explanations for the observed evidence of their
existence, or

2) claim the observed evidence also doesn't exist.

Pick your poison.

[vtand...@gmail.com]

That's a LIE. They can say the moon is made of Green Cheese if they want and there is nothing you can do to stop them. If you want to be a dictator and control what people say, you'll need an army and a police force..
\
They might not persuade anyone and they might be ridiculed for what they say, but they can say it as many times as they want. YOU ARE STUPID.

[jillery]

On Wed, 19 Sep 2018 21:24:11 -0700 (PDT), vtand...@gmail.com wrote:

>YOU ARE STUPID.


How old ae you?

[vtand...@gmail.com]

On Thursday, September 20, 2018 at 12:00:02 AM UTC-7, jillery wrote:
> On Wed, 19 Sep 2018 21:24:11 -0700 (PDT), vtand...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> >YOU ARE STUPID.
>
>
> How old ae you?
>
> --

You tell people the same thing, hypocrite..

[Oxyaena]

How old are you?

--
"The great thing about science is that it's true whether you believe in
it or not." - Neal Degrasse Tyson

[Bob Casanova]

On Wed, 19 Sep 2018 13:43:47 -0500, the following appeared

[Crickets...]

So, you finally accept that? Good.

>>> Evidence is that which
>>>supports our choice.
>>
>> No, *objective* evidence supports reality, and only
>> "supports our belief" if that belief reflects reality. But
>> then, you've stated several times that no objective
>> reality exists, so you undoubtedly reject that point.
>
>Science argues for the existence of quite a few entities
>that have no objective existence, "things" that cannot be
>observed or tested or verified. There are quarks and
>fermions there is an inflating universe and black holes and
>habitable planets, "things" that exist because theory
>requires them, things that are mathematical entities, things
>that "should" exist even without evidence. Science has no
>problem with non-existent entities only in how they might
>ramify.

Wrong again. Science *postulates* such things as quarks and
black holes when there is a reason to do so, based on
observation or current confirmed theory, then (and this is
the critical point, which you repeatedly ignore) devises
tests whereby their existence can be confirmed or refuted.
This has been done with every one of your examples, and the
existence of each has been confirmed, with the exception of
habitable planets; the evidence there is not yet in. Other
conjectures "things" (cold fusion comes to mind) have been
refuted, or at best not confirmed. That's how science works;
nothing is final, and everything is subject to revision with
the advent of new data.

You simply refuse to accept that, and that others may know
more than you do, and think your conjectures are equal to
the confirmed knowledge of those who have spent years
learning about the universe by actual work. Too bad for you.

[Bob Casanova]

On Wed, 19 Sep 2018 21:24:11 -0700 (PDT), the following

>> however, free to declare unsupported and untested beliefs

>> equal to tested theories supported by massive amounts of
>> objective evidence, which is what the ID proponents do.
>
>
>That's a LIE. They can say the moon is made of Green Cheese if they want and there is nothing you can do to stop them. If you want to be a dictator and control what people say, you'll need an army and a police force..

So, you interpret "are not free to" as "will be prevented
from"?

Did you fail even Bonehead English?

>They might not persuade anyone and they might be ridiculed for what they say, but they can say it as many times as they want.

Of course they can; I never claimed otherwise, your
misinterpretation notwithstanding.

> YOU ARE STUPID.

I'm happy you think so; it confirms my intelligence.

[jillery]

You assert a false equivalence. I don't tell people they're stupid
because they disagree with me. Instead, I tell people they're stupid
because they act against reason and argue against logic and facts.
That you're proud of your behavior is one reason to rightfully call
you stupid. That you can't tell the difference between our behaviors
is another.