ID Perp Sewell's Top Six

[Ron O]

https://evolutionnews.org/2020/10/top-six-evidences-for-intelligent-design/

Sewell makes no mention of the original Top Six that were put up Nov 2017. He seems to rate them as to their importance to IDiocy instead of listing them in their temporal order. It is a different Top Six. He split the original #2 and made them #1 and #2 (fine tuning of our universe and fine tuning of our planet). The origin of life is still #3. IC (Old #4) got dropped from the Top Six as did the Cambrian explosion (Old #5), so those must have been demoted to second rate claptrap considering what he left in. Instead human evolution (Old #6) got split into #4 and #5, and the Big Bang (Old #1) is the worst of the bunch (#6).

The sad thing is that as part of the denial stupidity he treats them as independent entities and makes no attempt to relate them to each other. They are obviously only being used so that Sewell can continue to deny reality instead of build any intelligent design alternative. Sad, but par for the course.

The article is pretty sad.
QUOTE:
The ACLU speaks for much of the media and of academia when it says the theory of intelligent design “simply says that some things that seem very complex could not have happened based on natural causes. So where it sees complexity, it declares that it must have been created by a supernatural entity. This is not science.” Oh really? Is that all there is to it? Not exactly. Below is a modest attempt to provide a summary of the main scientific evidences for design in our world, for those who have been told that such evidence does not exist.
END QUOTE:

This is not scientific evidence for ID. For the last list the ID perps bent over backwards to only claim that it was the best evidence that they had. They were careful not to call it scientific evidence in each and every case. Ask MarkE what the Top Six are. They are just the god-of-the-gaps denial stupidity that the scientific creationists resorted to when they figured out that there was no science that they wanted to do. These are bits of science, but the problem for IDiots is that they only are interested in the gaps, and can't deal with with the science between the gaps. Sewell doesn't deal with what is known between the gaps in this article. He is obviously only interested in the gaps.

Why can't Sewell build the best IDiot alternative from his Top Six? Why didn't he even try to relate them to each other?

Old Top Six that were treated independently and only used for denial purposes. When will any IDiot science ever be attempted? Denial isn't doing any science.

1.
https://evolutionnews.org/2017/11/ids-top-six-the-origin-of-the-universe/

2.
https://evolutionnews.org/2017/11/ids-top-six-the-fine-tuning-of-the-universe/

3.
https://evolutionnews.org/2017/11/ids-top-six-the-origin-of-information-in-dna/

4.
https://evolutionnews.org/2017/11/ids-top-six-the-origin-of-irreducibly-complex-molecular-machines/

5.
https://evolutionnews.org/2017/11/ids-top-six-the-origin-of-animals/

6.
https://evolutionnews.org/2017/11/ids-top-six-the-origin-of-humans/

Pretty sad. The best evidence for IDiocy, and what have the ID perps done with it in the last 3 years? Someone should ask Sewell why IC and the Cambrian explostion don't make the current Top Six. Sewell likely knows about the original Top Six. Why else would he make a Top Six list instead of a Top 5 or 10. He even had to split two of the Top Six in order to remove IC and the Cambrian explosion. This attempt seems to be just something to further chop up the "best evidence" for IDiocy in order to make it easier for the rubes to lie to themselves about the older list and this one.

Why have a Top Six if you aren't going to use them to build anything?

Ron Okimoto

[dale]

On 10/28/2020 9:24 PM, Ron O wrote:
> ... "This is not science.” ...
and abiogenesis "had to happen"?

every day observation of biogenesis...

no observation of abiogenesis ...

what if life came to earth on a meteor?

and universally life always existed?

--
Minister Dale Kelly, Ph.D.
https://www.dalekelly.org/
Board Certified Holistic Health Practitioner
Board Certified Alternative Medical Practitioner

[Glenn]

"Usenet convention defines spamming as "excessive multiple posting", that is, the repeated posting of a message (or substantially similar messages)"

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

Endless repetitive insults and unspecific packaged challenges also identifies this poster as a classic troll displaying persistent abusive behavior.

[Glenn]

On Wednesday, October 28, 2020 at 7:30:22 PM UTC-7, dale wrote:
> On 10/28/2020 9:24 PM, Ron O wrote:
> > ... "This is not science.” ...
> and abiogenesis "had to happen"?
>
> every day observation of biogenesis...
>
> no observation of abiogenesis ...
>
> what if life came to earth on a meteor?
>
> and universally life always existed?
>

We don't know what life is, nor define or identify life, since we can't recreate life or separate life from non-life in order to study it. Evolutionists just assume that life emerges naturally from physical matter by evolutionary principles. It's science fiction.

[jillery]

On Wed, 28 Oct 2020 22:29:17 -0400, dale <da...@dalekelly.org> wrote:

>On 10/28/2020 9:24 PM, Ron O wrote:
>> ... "This is not science.” ...
>and abiogenesis "had to happen"?

Yes.

>every day observation of biogenesis...
>
>no observation of abiogenesis ...

By one definition, first life happened once, and long ago.
By another definition, every single molecule in living cells can in
principle be assembled from abiotic materials and processes.
So what do you mean by "abiogenesis"?

>what if life came to earth on a meteor?

Once again, How did life get on a meteor? How is life on a meteor
more probable than life on Earth?

>and universally life always existed?

Once again, perpetual life necessarily implies a perpetual universe.
What is your basis for a perpetual universe?

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

[Ron O]

Projection is really stupid on your part. Sewell just put up this material on the ID perp's creationists news site. What you do is spamming. The repetitive spamming is what you are claiming that I do, but look at this example. Compare it to what you do with your stupid one liners. Projection is really a stupid defense mechanism. Stop using it. It only demonstrates that you understand that what you are doing on TO is something that you should not be doing.

Why not face Sewell's Top Six instead of post your projection and run? Look at Dale's response. Does it even make sense? You are obviously posting to the wrong person. You should remember this post of yours the next time that you post. When has what you have posted ever mattered and how repetitive is the stupid denial?

Ron Okimoto

[Glenn]

I've denied nothing. But you repeat the same claim that I do, over and over and over. Stop it or else.

[Ron O]

On Wednesday, October 28, 2020 at 9:30:22 PM UTC-5, dale wrote:
> On 10/28/2020 9:24 PM, Ron O wrote:
> > ... "This is not science.” ...
> and abiogenesis "had to happen"?

Reread what I wrote. The Top Six is not science. It is only taking bits of science and using them for the god-of-the-gaps creationist stupidity. Abiogenesis is among the weakest of scientific endeavors, but it is still more scientific than Sewell's use of his Top Six. What is Sewell using the Top Six for to improve his understanding of nature. Denial isn't improving anything. You are not addressing what I wrote. You are just doing something that is likely stupid and will lead nowhere.

Even creationist believe that abiogenesis happened. You are just so fat out of it that you do not understand the difference between science and religion.

>
> every day observation of biogenesis...

Biological evolution is a fact of nature. Think of what cell theory means and what we have observed about the nature of life. The planet was fine tuned around 4.5 billion years ago, and life may have existed on this planet for around 3.8 billion years. What was life doing as it reproduced imperfectly all those billions of years?

>
> no observation of abiogenesis ...

What do you think that this means, and it has nothing to do with how bogus the IDiot's Top Six is for IDiocy. For whatever reason you can't reason on this subject. All the scientific effort is expected to accomplish is to figure out the most likely way that abiogenesis occurred on this planet. If it occurred on another planet or out in deep space, conditions would be different, and we have less chance of figuring out what could have happened. The researchers involved in abiogenesis research understand that they are only going to be able to figure out the most likely scenario. Life will not have had to originate by that means. It only had to happen once, and there will be many more, less likely scenarios that will be possible.

>
> what if life came to earth on a meteor?

See even you know that you aren't accomplishing anything.

>
> and universally life always existed?

How does this jive with the Big Bang, and creation of the existing elements that make up the universe for 8 billion years before our solar system formed? Do you have a good explanation for how life could have existed before atoms existed, and before there was enough carbon to sustain existing lifeforms?

You should not have posted what you posted. You should have evaluated my post for what it is, and commented on the subject that it was covering. Instead you ran from how creationists are using the Top Six IDiot stupidity, and did what you did. Running from reality isn't going to change reality. You might try addressing what the issues are, and not what your faulty perception of them is. What Sewell put up is not scientific evidence for IDiocy. He does not use this evidence to build a better understanding of nature. All science is, is the study of nature. Denial isn't understanding anything.

Ron Okimoto

[Ron O]

So tell us how well the Top Six has been going these past three years. Evaluate each of them for us and demonstrate that you haven't been running all this time. Go for it. Lying about running isn't dealing with the subject.

Ron Okimoto

[Glenn]

The "top six" is not a subject I've decided to engage in, as you are more than well aware of. And your pressure for me to do so is and has been abusive for years. I'm not bound to respond to any "challenge", and that does not in any way constitute "running" or "lying" or "being stupid" or "assholic". Continuing to do so is more evidence of your persistent abusive behavior.

Challenges to your claims, such as the claim of "lying" and "running" is necessary, and have been ignored. That is abusive.

Persistent insults such as "stupid" and "assholic" is unnecessary and abusive.

Stop it, for your own good.

[Ron Dean]

On 10/29/20 6:01 AM, Ron O wrote:
> On Wednesday, October 28, 2020 at 10:30:22 PM UTC-5, Glenn wrote:
>> On Wednesday, October 28, 2020 at 6:25:23 PM UTC-7, Ron O wrote:
>>> https://evolutionnews.org/2020/10/top-six-evidences-for-intelligent-design/
>>>
>>> Sewell makes no mention of the original Top Six that were put up Nov 2017. He seems to rate them as to their importance to IDiocy instead of listing them in their temporal order. It is a different Top Six. He split the original #2 and made them #1 and #2 (fine tuning of our universe and fine tuning of our planet). The origin of life is still #3. IC (Old #4) got dropped from the Top Six as did the Cambrian explosion (Old #5), so those must have been demoted to second rate claptrap considering what he left in. Instead human evolution (Old #6) got split into #4 and #5, and the Big Bang (Old #1) is the worst of the bunch (#6).
>>>
>>> The sad thing is that as part of the denial stupidity he treats them as independent entities and makes no attempt to relate them to each other. They are obviously only being used so that Sewell can continue to deny reality instead of build any intelligent design alternative. Sad, but par for the course.
>>>
>>> The article is pretty sad.
>>> QUOTE:
>>> The ACLU speaks for much of the media and of academia when it says the theory of intelligent design “simply says that some things that seem very complex could not have happened based on natural causes. So where it sees complexity, it declares that it must have been created by a supernatural entity. This is not science.” Oh really? Is that all there is to it? Not exactly. Below is a modest attempt to provide a summary of the main scientific evidences for design in our world, for those who have been told that such evidence does not exist.
>>> END QUOTE:
>>>
>>> This is not scientific evidence for ID. For the last list the ID perps bent over backwards to only claim that it was the best evidence that they had. They were careful not to call it scientific evidence in each and every case. Ask MarkE what the Top Six are. They are just the god-of-the-gaps denial stupidity that the scientific creationists resorted to when they figured out that there was no science that they wanted to do. These are bits of science, but the problem for IDiots is that they only are interested in the gaps, and can't deal with with the science between the gaps. Sewell doesn't deal with what is known between the gaps in this article. He is obviously only interested in the gaps.
>>>
>>> Why can't Sewell build the best IDiot alternative from his Top Six? Why didn't he even try to relate them to each other?
>>>
>>> Old Top Six that were treated independently and only used for denial purposes. When will any IDiot science ever be attempted? Denial isn't doing any science.

I've been away from  TO for a time, but I see you are still obsessing
over these top six arguments for intelligent design. I know you
disagree, but I do not recall you discrediting them! How have you
discredited any of the six?

>>>
>>> 1.
>>> https://evolutionnews.org/2017/11/ids-top-six-the-origin-of-the-universe/
>>>
>>> 2.
>>> https://evolutionnews.org/2017/11/ids-top-six-the-fine-tuning-of-the-universe/
>>>
>>> 3.
>>> https://evolutionnews.org/2017/11/ids-top-six-the-origin-of-information-in-dna/
>>>
>>> 4.
>>> https://evolutionnews.org/2017/11/ids-top-six-the-origin-of-irreducibly-complex-molecular-machines/
>>>
>>> 5.
>>> https://evolutionnews.org/2017/11/ids-top-six-the-origin-of-animals/
>>>
>>> 6.
>>> https://evolutionnews.org/2017/11/ids-top-six-the-origin-of-humans/
>>>
>>> Pretty sad. The best evidence for IDiocy, and what have the ID perps done with it in the last 3 years? Someone should ask Sewell why IC and the Cambrian explostion don't make the current Top Six. Sewell likely knows about the original Top Six. Why else would he make a Top Six list instead of a Top 5 or 10. He even had to split two of the Top Six in order to remove IC and the Cambrian explosion. This attempt seems to be just something to further chop up the "best evidence" for IDiocy in order to make it easier for the rubes to lie to themselves about the older list and this one.
>>>
>>> Why have a Top Six if you aren't going to use them to build anything?
>>>
>> "Usenet convention defines spamming as "excessive multiple posting", that is, the repeated posting of a message (or substantially similar messages)"
>>
>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newsgroup_spam
>>
>> Endless repetitive insults and unspecific packaged challenges also identifies this poster as a classic troll displaying persistent abusive behavior.
> Projection is really stupid on your part. Sewell just put up this material on the ID perp's creationists news site. What you do is spamming. The repetitive spamming is what you are claiming that I do, but look at this example. Compare it to what you do with your stupid one liners. Projection is really a stupid defense mechanism. Stop using it. It only demonstrates that you understand that what you are doing on TO is something that you should not be doing.
>
> Why not face Sewell's Top Six instead of post your projection and run? Look at Dale's response. Does it even make sense? You are obviously posting to the wrong person. You should remember this post of yours the next time that you post. When has what you have posted ever mattered and how repetitive is the stupid denial?
>
> Ron Okimoto
>

--
talk origins

[Lawyer Daggett]

On Thursday, October 29, 2020 at 8:30:23 AM UTC-4, Ron Dean wrote:

> I've been away from TO for a time,

Yes you have, after what I recall was a health scare. Nice of you to survive.

[Ron O]

On Thursday, October 29, 2020 at 7:30:23 AM UTC-5, Ron Dean wrote:
> On 10/29/20 6:01 AM, Ron O wrote:
> > On Wednesday, October 28, 2020 at 10:30:22 PM UTC-5, Glenn wrote:
> >> On Wednesday, October 28, 2020 at 6:25:23 PM UTC-7, Ron O wrote:
> >>> https://evolutionnews.org/2020/10/top-six-evidences-for-intelligent-design/
> >>>
> >>> Sewell makes no mention of the original Top Six that were put up Nov 2017. He seems to rate them as to their importance to IDiocy instead of listing them in their temporal order. It is a different Top Six. He split the original #2 and made them #1 and #2 (fine tuning of our universe and fine tuning of our planet). The origin of life is still #3. IC (Old #4) got dropped from the Top Six as did the Cambrian explosion (Old #5), so those must have been demoted to second rate claptrap considering what he left in. Instead human evolution (Old #6) got split into #4 and #5, and the Big Bang (Old #1) is the worst of the bunch (#6).
> >>>
> >>> The sad thing is that as part of the denial stupidity he treats them as independent entities and makes no attempt to relate them to each other. They are obviously only being used so that Sewell can continue to deny reality instead of build any intelligent design alternative. Sad, but par for the course.
> >>>
> >>> The article is pretty sad.
> >>> QUOTE:
> >>> The ACLU speaks for much of the media and of academia when it says the theory of intelligent design “simply says that some things that seem very complex could not have happened based on natural causes. So where it sees complexity, it declares that it must have been created by a supernatural entity. This is not science.” Oh really? Is that all there is to it? Not exactly. Below is a modest attempt to provide a summary of the main scientific evidences for design in our world, for those who have been told that such evidence does not exist.
> >>> END QUOTE:
> >>>
> >>> This is not scientific evidence for ID. For the last list the ID perps bent over backwards to only claim that it was the best evidence that they had. They were careful not to call it scientific evidence in each and every case. Ask MarkE what the Top Six are. They are just the god-of-the-gaps denial stupidity that the scientific creationists resorted to when they figured out that there was no science that they wanted to do. These are bits of science, but the problem for IDiots is that they only are interested in the gaps, and can't deal with with the science between the gaps. Sewell doesn't deal with what is known between the gaps in this article. He is obviously only interested in the gaps.
> >>>
> >>> Why can't Sewell build the best IDiot alternative from his Top Six? Why didn't he even try to relate them to each other?
> >>>
> >>> Old Top Six that were treated independently and only used for denial purposes. When will any IDiot science ever be attempted? Denial isn't doing any science.
> I've been away from TO for a time, but I see you are still obsessing
> over these top six arguments for intelligent design. I know you
> disagree, but I do not recall you discrediting them! How have you
> discredited any of the six?

Unfortunately for you, your misunderstanding of the situation is likely due to the same type of lack of understanding shown by Nyikos on this topic.

REPOST #2:
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/talk.origins/hmhr1Ppyvi4/Tsw5f7e0AAAJ

The explanation of the current situation is what Nyikos has been running from for months:
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/talk.origins/GxB26Y4_QDk/9gYqAu8lBAAJ

I have never claimed to want to discredit the IDiot's Top Six. Have you never wondered why not a single IDiot posting on TO would help you deal with the Top Six? You asked for assistance, but no one helped you out. You forgot about that, and messed up again, and no one came to your aid. Why do you find it so difficult to understand why no IDiot wants to deal with the Top Six? What should you have learned from your own experience? Look what Glenn is claiming in this thread. He is admitting that he has been running from the Top Six for 3 years, and misdirects the argument to his episodes of lying that can be well documented, and some of the lying does involve the Top Six, but that is not the reason that Glenn has to run from the Top Six. Glenn was running before he lied about it.

You may recall what happened when the Top Six first came out. Bill started claiming that he had never supported the creationist ID scam. The same Bill that had supported IDiocy on TO for years, likely over a decade (although he had been making noises about no longer supporting the ID scam for a couple of years before the Top Six came out). MarkE, Kalk and Glenn just ran and would not deal with them. Pagano was the only IDiot that faced them head on, and he claimed that they were bogus. You started up several threads on one or the Top Six at a time, but gave up on the effort after only putting up two or three. You might not even have understood that they were among the Top Six, and couldn't figure out why no one was interested in those topics. I told you that they were part of the Top Six in those threads.

Over the years since then not a single IDiot on TO nor anywhere that has come to light has dealt with the Top Six. The ID perps never retracted them, but they only deal with them one at a time as part of the ongoing creationist ID scam. That is because they are only meant to be used as denial arguments and the IDiots are not supposed to learn anything from them, so that they can lie to themselves about them until they have to go to the next one, forget the previous one and lie to themselves again. These Top Six are not intended to be understood nor to be anything worth building any IDiot alternative out of. They are just the same god-of-the-gaps denial arguments that the scientific creationists resorted to when they figured out that there was no science that the wanted to do. The largest fraction of IDiot supporters (YEC is the largest IDiot support base) that the ID perps still have do not want the Big Bang to have ever happened. The YEC IDiots have tried to remove the Big Bang from the public school science standards in several states, and they succeeded in Kansas in 1999. #1 of the Top Six is only supposed to be used as denial and then itself denied. That is difficult to do when creationists are confronted by all Six and told that they are in their order of occurrence. Bill, Glenn, MarkE, and Kalk can't deal with the Top Six as the Top Six. Glenn and Kalk could only run from the Top Six, but still go back to the ID perps for second rate denial junk that did not make the Top Six. Kalk quit after a few months of such a senseless pursuit. Glenn has been running from the Top Six, but still going back to the ID perps for second rate junk for 3 years. MarkE will put them up one at a time, but he can't deal with the Top Six either.

Do you understand that I have never challenged the Top Six? They are the best that the IDiots have, but none of the IDiots can deal with them as the Top Six. They are all based on solid bits of science, but that science has to be denied in order to go to the others on the list. The IDiots and you, yourself only use the Top Six for denial purposes. You do not want to understand the science that they are based on, and you don't want to believe what that science tells you about the Top Six. Why do you think that Glenn chooses not to deal with the Top Six, but can still go back to the ID perps for second rate junk? Second rate by the ID perp's own standards. What Glenn continues to put up did not make the Top Six. They have told Glenn what the best of what they have is, and Glenn can't deal with it.

Just drop the god-of-the-gaps denial and try to deal with the Top Six yourself. The science that the IDiots depend on is solid. Over 13 billion years ago the Big Bang (#1) happened and created our expanding universe. After things settled down enough for atoms to form the universe existed as mostly hydrogen and helium. Generations of stars would form and die to create the elements that our solar system is made of. Fine tuning (#2) would have occurred before or during the Big Bang and it left us with a universe that works the way that it does today. Another round of fine tuning occurred after 8 billion years of the life and death of stars to form the elements that our solar system is made of. Some IDiots believe that our earth and solar system needed to be fine tuned at that time. The sun had to be within a certain size. The earth needed to be of a certain size with a magnetic field, and it needed to be within some range of distances from the sun in order to sustain our type of lifeforms. #3 the origin of life happened within a billion years of the formation of our earth around 4.5 billion years ago (maybe as far back as 3.8 billion years ago) and life has been evolving on this planet since then. #4 is Behe's IC IDiocy. Behe has been telling IDiot rubes that biological evolution is a fact of nature for decades, and his IC flagellum evolved around 1.5 billion years ago. His IC blood clotting and adaptive immune system evolved with vertebrates within the last half a billion years of life on earth. #5 is the Cambrian explosion and is the favorite denial argument of Meyer who has been the director of the creationist ID scam at the Discovery Institute since the ID scam unit was founded in 1995. Meyer makes a big deal out of the fact that research since the Scientific Creationists used to use this denial argument has reduced the window of the event to around 25 million years down from around 40 million, but we now know that multicellular animal lineages of Cnidaria and bilateria evolved before the event, and one or a couple of phyla may have evolved after the initial explosion. So the argument depends on the accuracy of our dating improving so that we can narrow the event to a shorter 25 million year period over half a billion years ago. Really, Meyer's argument is that 25 million years is too short of a time for the evolution that happened to have happened. #6 is gaps in the human fossil record within the last 10 million years, and there likely isn't a single YEC IDiot that wants to deal with the science that tells them where these gaps are.

So go for it. The Top Six is claimed to be the Best that the ID perps have come up with in two and a half decades. Try to build something from them that supports IDiocy. Ask MarkE why he runs from the Top Six. He can't even put his god in the origin of life gap. The god that fits in these gaps is not the god that most IDiots want to believe in. Denial isn't going to get IDiots anywhere, and they have trouble with lying to themselves about the Top Six when they have to deal with them as the Top Six. The plain and simple fact is that creationist in denial have trouble dealing with the science between the gaps.

This is why I have not had to challenge the IDiots to demonstrate the validity of the Top Six. They only have to use the Top Six to support their IDiocy, but none of them want to do that. The intelligent designer supported by the Top Six, that have been arranged in their order of occurrence according to the ID perps that put them up, is not the intelligent designer that IDiots want to believe in. That is why Glenn has to keep going back to the ID perps for second rate junk when he can't deal with the best that they have.

This is the best evidence that the IDiots have admitted to, so use the links below and use them all as a whole to support your creationist beliefs. Unless you are a theistic evolutionist like Behe and Denton you won't be able to support your notion of what the intelligent designer is. That should tell you that putting them up one at a time like you have done in the past is senseless.

Sewell (the topic of this thread) is only dropping out a couple of the original Top Six and rearranging the rest to make it easier for IDiots to lie to themselves about them one at a time. He even places the Big Bang at the bottom of the heap even though it is the best evidence for a creation event that science has come up with. It just isn't the creation event that most IDiots want to believe happened.

Ron Okimoto

[Ron O]

Why keep lying about why you have to run from the Top Six? Wouldn't it be great to demonstrate that I am wrong about why you are running? You would no longer have to lie about running.

>
> Challenges to your claims, such as the claim of "lying" and "running" is necessary, and have been ignored. That is abusive.

Go back and demonstrate this lie. Who was demonstrated to be lying, and ran. Who lied again about the same thing , and had to run again? That was only a couple months ago, so you should be able to demonstrate that you did not lie and that you did not run. Go for it. I can find that stupidity again if you want to lie about doing it.

Your running from the Top Six has has nothing to do about my supposed abusive behavior. You can demonstrate that, but what are you going to do?

Does this look familiar? What did you do after you ran? Why did you do it again?
https://groups.google.com/g/talk.origins/c/WRzBOU2M-5w/m/-_OSMVUIAwAJ

>
> Persistent insults such as "stupid" and "assholic" is unnecessary and abusive.

The truth is only insulting to you because what you did was degenerate. Nyikos calls his similar behavior despicable.

>
> Stop it, for your own good.

Projection that you should abide by. You should stop your abusive behavior because you are only doing it to harass someone. Trying to get you to deal with the Top Six is the best constructive criticism that you have ever gotten on TO, and what have you done? How completely senseless is you going back to the ID perps for second rate junk when you can't face the Top Six?

Ron Okimoto

[Glenn]

You do try and you do demonstrate a great desire to. In your world, "IDiot" must indicate something other than wanting to discredit.

ROTFLMAO!

[Glenn]

I need not defend against accusations. You're in the United States.
You provide no support for your continual accusations of me being a liar, and you make no attempt to do so above. Asking or expecting me to support your accusations is abusive. This is persistent abusive behavior.

> >
> > Challenges to your claims, such as the claim of "lying" and "running" is necessary, and have been ignored. That is abusive.
>
> Go back and demonstrate this lie. Who was demonstrated to be lying, and ran. Who lied again about the same thing , and had to run again? That was only a couple months ago, so you should be able to demonstrate that you did not lie and that you did not run. Go for it. I can find that stupidity again if you want to lie about doing it.

See above. I have denied lying about anything. Asking leading questions of me is not a defense of your accusations. That you have pursued me and others in this manner for years is delusional and abusive.

>
> Your running from the Top Six has has nothing to do about my supposed abusive behavior. You can demonstrate that, but what are you going to do?

I am not running from anything, including you. I've tried to help you in my own way for years. Your abusive behavior is not "supposed", it is and has been clearly seen. And again your claim I can demonstrate that I am "running" is not evidence of that. That I choose what, when and with whom to speak is a right we all share, but not evidence of "running". Your continual claims of running are abusive. They are abusive. They are abusive.

>
> Does this look familiar? What did you do after you ran? Why did you do it again?
> https://groups.google.com/g/talk.origins/c/WRzBOU2M-5w/m/-_OSMVUIAwAJ
>

Yes, very familiar in fact. Over the years you have many many times cited posts that you have made that are essentially spam, and do not provide anymore support for your accusations than do the posts in this thread or any other thread that you have done the same.
Leading questions such as the ones above is not evidence of my guilt of anything, but is evidence of your guilt. You assume I lie and run, then ask why I do and what I did after. This is abusive, and you are without doubt persistent in this behavior, and have been for *years*.

> >
> > Persistent insults such as "stupid" and "assholic" is unnecessary and abusive.
>
> The truth is only insulting to you because what you did was degenerate. Nyikos calls his similar behavior despicable.
>

I'm not Nyikos, and you haven't shown what the truth is about your insults and insulting and abusive behavior. Your unwavering behavior over many years does demonstrate degenerate behavior.

> >
> > Stop it, for your own good.
>
> Projection that you should abide by. You should stop your abusive behavior because you are only doing it to harass someone. Trying to get you to deal with the Top Six is the best constructive criticism that you have ever gotten on TO, and what have you done? How completely senseless is you going back to the ID perps for second rate junk when you can't face the Top Six?
>

You are the one here that has been harassing others for years with your spam and insults. What I am doing now is demonstrating that your persistent behavior is abusive, by challenging you to support your claims of lying, running and other accusations, of which you have not, and providing you with the opportunity to do so.

You have not even ever demonstrated that I "support the Top Six". It is your belief not fact. You've never even shown to make an objective attempt to do so.
In fact, you have contradicted yourself in multiple ways over the years, although you certainly do not appear to recognize that.
You are obligated to support your accusations and claims about what I believe and in what I believe, and repeatedly refusing to do while continuing to repeatedly make the same accusations for years, is abusive.

Persistent abusive behavior.

[Ron O]

Why lie about something this stupid? IDiots like you are the ones that discredit their own Top Six, but running in denial from it. The only thing that I have done for years is to try to get IDiots like you to use the best of IDiocy in an honest and straightforward manner. You obviously are unable to do that. I have never discredited the Top Six, I have just accurately presented them as the ID perps presented them as their Top Six evidences for IDiocy.

Ron Okimoto

[Ron O]

Again, this seems to be no valid reason for you to keep running from the Top Six. Unfortunately I provide that information below and who repeated the same nonsense again?

> > >
> > > Challenges to your claims, such as the claim of "lying" and "running" is necessary, and have been ignored. That is abusive.
> >
> > Go back and demonstrate this lie. Who was demonstrated to be lying, and ran. Who lied again about the same thing , and had to run again? That was only a couple months ago, so you should be able to demonstrate that you did not lie and that you did not run. Go for it. I can find that stupidity again if you want to lie about doing it.
> See above. I have denied lying about anything. Asking leading questions of me is not a defense of your accusations. That you have pursued me and others in this manner for years is delusional and abusive.

You can deny it, but what did you do? The post is linked to below.

> >
> > Your running from the Top Six has has nothing to do about my supposed abusive behavior. You can demonstrate that, but what are you going to do?
> I am not running from anything, including you. I've tried to help you in my own way for years. Your abusive behavior is not "supposed", it is and has been clearly seen. And again your claim I can demonstrate that I am "running" is not evidence of that. That I choose what, when and with whom to speak is a right we all share, but not evidence of "running". Your continual claims of running are abusive. They are abusive. They are abusive.

Why keep lying about running? You could face the Top Six as the Top Six at any time, but what do you keep doing?

> >
> > Does this look familiar? What did you do after you ran? Why did you do it again?
> > https://groups.google.com/g/talk.origins/c/WRzBOU2M-5w/m/-_OSMVUIAwAJ
> >
> Yes, very familiar in fact. Over the years you have many many times cited posts that you have made that are essentially spam, and do not provide anymore support for your accusations than do the posts in this thread or any other thread that you have done the same.

Glenn you lied. You got caught lying and you ran only to repeat the process a few days later.

> Leading questions such as the ones above is not evidence of my guilt of anything, but is evidence of your guilt. You assume I lie and run, then ask why I do and what I did after. This is abusive, and you are without doubt persistent in this behavior, and have been for *years*.

Glenn, you lied, and you got caught out only to return a few days later to do it again.

> > >
> > > Persistent insults such as "stupid" and "assholic" is unnecessary and abusive.
> >
> > The truth is only insulting to you because what you did was degenerate. Nyikos calls his similar behavior despicable.
> >
> I'm not Nyikos, and you haven't shown what the truth is about your insults and insulting and abusive behavior. Your unwavering behavior over many years does demonstrate degenerate behavior.

Just a stooge or asshole buddy? Glenn you lied to harass me, when the lie was exposed you ran, and then came back to lie and harass me again. That is Nyikosian behavior.

> > >
> > > Stop it, for your own good.
> >
> > Projection that you should abide by. You should stop your abusive behavior because you are only doing it to harass someone. Trying to get you to deal with the Top Six is the best constructive criticism that you have ever gotten on TO, and what have you done? How completely senseless is you going back to the ID perps for second rate junk when you can't face the Top Six?
> >
> You are the one here that has been harassing others for years with your spam and insults. What I am doing now is demonstrating that your persistent behavior is abusive, by challenging you to support your claims of lying, running and other accusations, of which you have not, and providing you with the opportunity to do so.

Is there a difference between telling the truth that appears to harass someone and telling a lie in order to harass someone? I obviously have an honest reason to tell the truth, but you had no valid reason to tell the lies.

>
> You have not even ever demonstrated that I "support the Top Six". It is your belief not fact. You've never even shown to make an objective attempt to do so.
> In fact, you have contradicted yourself in multiple ways over the years, although you certainly do not appear to recognize that.
> You are obligated to support your accusations and claims about what I believe and in what I believe, and repeatedly refusing to do while continuing to repeatedly make the same accusations for years, is abusive.

You keep going back to the ID perps for their second rate junk that they admit does not make the Top Six list. It doesn't matter if you support the Top Six or not. It is the best IDiotic evidence that you have and you run from it.
>
> Persistent abusive behavior.

Projection is a way of life for you. Just go back to the example linked to above. You came out of the blue to lie in order to harass me after I had made a simple factual claim to another poster. I was not harassing anyone, but you did it, and harassment was your only intent. You can be better, but that was around 2 decades ago, and you have degenerated badly after becoming an IDiot.

Ron Okimoto

[dale]

On 10/29/2020 7:02 PM, Ron O wrote:
> ... you have to run from the Top Six?

have you ever disproved these?

you seem to group all the biogenesis arguments into them

shouldn't the onus be on you?

[Ron O]

On Thursday, October 29, 2020 at 7:45:22 PM UTC-5, dale wrote:
> On 10/29/2020 7:02 PM, Ron O wrote:
> > ... you have to run from the Top Six?
>
> have you ever disproved these?
>
> you seem to group all the biogenesis arguments into them
>
> shouldn't the onus be on you?

You are demonstrating that you did not read my response to Dean, and that you are just as clueless as Dean.

Go to my response to Dean's post and figure it out.
https://groups.google.com/g/talk.origins/c/4PLsqrWGbmo/m/UOe5BUgfCAAJ

Ron Okmoto

[Glenn]

On Thursday, October 29, 2020 at 5:25:22 PM UTC-7, Ron O wrote:
> On Thursday, October 29, 2020 at 6:45:23 PM UTC-5, Glenn wrote:
>

Persistent abusive behavior snipped.

>
> Projection is a way of life for you. Just go back to the example linked to above. You came out of the blue to lie in order to harass me after I had made a simple factual claim to another poster. I was not harassing anyone, but you did it, and harassment was your only intent. You can be better, but that was around 2 decades ago, and you have degenerated badly after becoming an IDiot.
>

This is just more abuse. Anyone that replies to another is "coming out of the blue", and one post requesting verification of a specific claim is not "harassment". You simply can not use that as an example of harassment, unless you suffer from paranoia or some other possibly more serious mental illness. And I didn't accuse you of harassment, nor have I used any single post of yours as an example of harassment. I didn't even reply to your response. You did, though, with another insulting post, which I also ignored.

However, you are right about your cited thread being about 20 years ago. Your persistent abusive behavior has been going on for at least that long, as evidenced in your response to my challenge that you support your claims. Most of the insults you persistently use are there, lying, running from reality, stupidity, denial, willfull ignorance...now you've pickup up on another, harassment. Maybe you've used that before, although I can't recall if you have.

So about your 20 year old claim. You responded to a post by Dale which was in the form of a question to the OP, Alpha Beta, about whether Catholics believed in evolution or just micro:

////////
>>>> Well, according to Behe, who is a Catholic, everyone has an ape like
>>>> ancestor and biological evolution is a fact of life. Not just micro.
>>>> Behe claims that the evolution of whales from terrestrial mammals was
>>>> devolution (no designer required).
////////
You provided references:
https://evolutionnews.org/2019/10/darwin-devolves-evidence-keeps-rolling-in/
https://advances.sciencemag.org/content/5/9/eaaw6671
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Behe


My opinion then, and now, is that there is no reason to respond to your answer to my challenge to support those claims. It would have no effect on anyone who uncritically accepted your claims, and anyone with a modicum of comprehension skill could if interested would quickly come to the conclusion that your claims were at best misleading and at worst, willful deception.

But even without reading your references, it is doubtful that many would miss "no designer required" in your original claim, at least anyone who had the slightest knowledge and understanding of Behe's work.

Some subject headers from your first reference:
"Reeking of ID"
"The paper investigates phenomena that reek of intelligent design, but the
Authors ascribe design either to an extrinsic agent
or to (presumably undirected) evolution."
"A Type of Intelligent Design"
"the a priori elimination of a possible explanation — real design — that is
forcefully suggested by the actual biological data
is terrible scholarship."
"Adaptation by Breaking Things"
"That’s a whole lotta intermediates that somehow didn’t get stuck in
adaptive dead ends, or persist for very long."

And one comment that you didn't exclude:

"but also in the macroevolutionary change that we infer from genome sequences over geological ages — punctuated by bursts of new information. There is no hint of significant, constructive Darwinian molecular changes at any time scale."

Ron, Behe has not claimed that humans devolved from primates or apes.
Nor has he said that whales "evolved" or "devolved" from terrestrial mammals.

Devolution is what Behe determines is Darwinian biological evolution.

If you must, consider Behe as meaning Intelligent Design is involved in the appearance of novelty and new information, as well as in some processes of "devolution".
"That’s a whole lotta intermediates that somehow didn’t get stuck in adaptive dead ends, or persist for very long."

[Glenn]

On Thursday, October 29, 2020 at 6:35:23 PM UTC-7, Ron O wrote:
snip
>
> Ron Okmoto
> > --
You must vote for Biden.

[jillery]

On Thu, 29 Oct 2020 20:44:11 -0400, dale <da...@dalekelly.org> wrote:

>On 10/29/2020 7:02 PM, Ron O wrote:
>> ... you have to run from the Top Six?
>
>have you ever disproved these?

How would you go about disproving the presumption of an unseen,
unknown, undefined supernatural agent?

>you seem to group all the biogenesis arguments into them
>
>shouldn't the onus be on you?

No. Instead, the onus is on cdesign proponentists to provide evidence
*for* their presumptive purposeful agent.

[Ron O]

What does it tell an IDiot like you that someone that tells the simple truth is not someone that would vote for Trump?

What you snipped and ran from:
REPOST:

On Thursday, October 29, 2020 at 7:45:22 PM UTC-5, dale wrote:
> On 10/29/2020 7:02 PM, Ron O wrote:
> > ... you have to run from the Top Six?
>
> have you ever disproved these?
>
> you seem to group all the biogenesis arguments into them
>
> shouldn't the onus be on you?

You are demonstrating that you did not read my response to Dean, and that you are just as clueless as Dean.

Go to my response to Dean's post and figure it out.
https://groups.google.com/g/talk.origins/c/4PLsqrWGbmo/m/UOe5BUgfCAAJ

END REPOST:

Tell us in your own words why this post would in anyway tag someone that would vote for Biden.

Do you understand what a sick and sad person that you must be? Isn't Dale's misconception of the issue the same as Dean's. You know that they are both wrong, so why would you post what you did? Really, you know that I have never asked you to demonstrate that the Top Six are valid. I have only claimed that IDiots can't face the Top Six as the Top Six. You know why you are running from the Top Six, so why not clue Dale in, so he will actually learn something.

Ron Okimoto

[Ron O]

On Thursday, October 29, 2020 at 10:10:22 PM UTC-5, Glenn wrote:
> On Thursday, October 29, 2020 at 5:25:22 PM UTC-7, Ron O wrote:
> > On Thursday, October 29, 2020 at 6:45:23 PM UTC-5, Glenn wrote:
> >
> Persistent abusive behavior snipped.

REPOST:

END REPOST:

You can snip and run but what good does it do you. You lied and then ran. You came back in another thread and lied again. What are you doing below? Who is the king of one liners on TO. What you did below is so rare that most posters may not have observed you doing it.

> >
> > Projection is a way of life for you. Just go back to the example linked to above. You came out of the blue to lie in order to harass me after I had made a simple factual claim to another poster. I was not harassing anyone, but you did it, and harassment was your only intent. You can be better, but that was around 2 decades ago, and you have degenerated badly after becoming an IDiot.
> >
> This is just more abuse. Anyone that replies to another is "coming out of the blue", and one post requesting verification of a specific claim is not "harassment". You simply can not use that as an example of harassment, unless you suffer from paranoia or some other possibly more serious mental illness. And I didn't accuse you of harassment, nor have I used any single post of yours as an example of harassment. I didn't even reply to your response. You did, though, with another insulting post, which I also ignored.

You are the king of one liner stupidity. When do you ever back up what you put up? Who is it that most of the time will not even state why he is putting up the IDiocy that he gets from the ID perps? It isn't abuse it is a statement of fact. It is bad in this case because of what you do.

>
> However, you are right about your cited thread being about 20 years ago. Your persistent abusive behavior has been going on for at least that long, as evidenced in your response to my challenge that you support your claims. Most of the insults you persistently use are there, lying, running from reality, stupidity, denial, willfull ignorance...now you've pickup up on another, harassment. Maybe you've used that before, although I can't recall if you have.

You didn't just ask me to support the claims, you lied about me ever supporting them and that I could not support them, which was a bald faced lie if you are serious about understanding what I have done for your 20 year stint on TO. Why lie about something that stupid? When have I not been able to support such claims?

>
> So about your 20 year old claim. You responded to a post by Dale which was in the form of a question to the OP, Alpha Beta, about whether Catholics believed in evolution or just micro:
>
> ////////
> >>>> Well, according to Behe, who is a Catholic, everyone has an ape like
> >>>> ancestor and biological evolution is a fact of life. Not just micro.
> >>>> Behe claims that the evolution of whales from terrestrial mammals was
> >>>> devolution (no designer required).
> ////////
> You provided references:
> https://evolutionnews.org/2019/10/darwin-devolves-evidence-keeps-rolling-in/
> https://advances.sciencemag.org/content/5/9/eaaw6671
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Behe
>
>
> My opinion then, and now, is that there is no reason to respond to your answer to my challenge to support those claims. It would have no effect on anyone who uncritically accepted your claims, and anyone with a modicum of comprehension skill could if interested would quickly come to the conclusion that your claims were at best misleading and at worst, willful deception.

You lied and ran. When have I not been able to back up such claims? You know that record, so you got caught in an obvious lie and you ran.

>
> But even without reading your references, it is doubtful that many would miss "no designer required" in your original claim, at least anyone who had the slightest knowledge and understanding of Behe's work.

Did you read what Behe was claiming. He wasn't claiming any IC stupidity with the whales. He wasn't claiming any designer had to do it things. He was only denegrating the biological evolution that had obviously occurred. He never claims that his designer was needed for the evolution of whales instead if you read the article he is claiming that it isn't the type of evolution that the designer would do. It was evolution by breaking things, and things break all the time. Admitting that you never read the references and just ran should tell you something, and it isn't something good.

>
> Some subject headers from your first reference:
> "Reeking of ID"
> "The paper investigates phenomena that reek of intelligent design, but the
> Authors ascribe design either to an extrinsic agent
> or to (presumably undirected) evolution."
> "A Type of Intelligent Design"
> "the a priori elimination of a possible explanation — real design — that is
> forcefully suggested by the actual biological data
> is terrible scholarship."
> "Adaptation by Breaking Things"
> "That’s a whole lotta intermediates that somehow didn’t get stuck in
> adaptive dead ends, or persist for very long."

Was Behe claiming any intelligent designer intervention? No. End of story. Your own quoted material contains Behe's denegration of what happened. Do you think that he is claiming that only his designer could be that stupid?

>
> And one comment that you didn't exclude:
>
> "but also in the macroevolutionary change that we infer from genome sequences over geological ages — punctuated by bursts of new information. There is no hint of significant, constructive Darwinian molecular changes at any time scale."

Behe had already claimed that it was devolution. What do you think that this quote means? It means that there also would be no evidence for constructive designer did it evolution. The article is about Behe claiming that whale evolution was not a positive thing, but devolution. What do you not get.

>
> Ron, Behe has not claimed that humans devolved from primates or apes.
> Nor has he said that whales "evolved" or "devolved" from terrestrial mammals.

I never said that he claimed that. I only claimed that he was claiming that whale evolution was devolution. Behe simply acknowledges that we evolved from apes, and that humans have an ape like ancestor. He hasn't claimed anything about the evolution except that it happened as far as I know. No IC systems in the transition from ape to man.

>
> Devolution is what Behe determines is Darwinian biological evolution.

He doesn't claim that. He only claims that the whale example is devolution. If you think that he is claiming that the evolution from ape to man was devolution you could try to demonstrate that.

>
> If you must, consider Behe as meaning Intelligent Design is involved in the appearance of novelty and new information, as well as in some processes of "devolution".
> "That’s a whole lotta intermediates that somehow didn’t get stuck in adaptive dead ends, or persist for very long."

Well it looks like there is a very good reason why you lied and ran. Reread what you wrote in a few days when you might be more on the ball, and try to figure out what you did.

Ron Okimoto

[dale]

On 10/30/2020 4:11 AM, jillery wrote:
> How would you go about disproving ... unseen,
> unknown, undefined supernatural agent?

consider pantheism

everything is part of the divine whole

when you see something you see divinity

[Bill Rogers]

On Friday, October 30, 2020 at 8:10:23 AM UTC-4, dale wrote:
> On 10/30/2020 4:11 AM, jillery wrote:
> > How would you go about disproving ... unseen,
> > unknown, undefined supernatural agent?
>
> consider pantheism
>
> everything is part of the divine whole
>
> when you see something you see divinity

everything is part of the universe

when you see something, you see the universe

the universe is amazing

no need for divinity

[jillery]

On Fri, 30 Oct 2020 08:07:44 -0400, dale <da...@dalekelly.org> wrote:

>On Fri, 30 Oct 2020 04:11:44 -0400, jillery <69jp...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>On Thu, 29 Oct 2020 20:44:11 -0400, dale <da...@dalekelly.org> wrote:
>>
>>>On 10/29/2020 7:02 PM, Ron O wrote:
>>>> ... you have to run from the Top Six?
>>>
>>>have you ever disproved these?
>>
>>

>>How would you go about disproving the presumption of an unseen,
>>unknown, undefined supernatural agent?
>>
>>

>>>you seem to group all the biogenesis arguments into them
>>>
>>>shouldn't the onus be on you?
>>
>>
>>No. Instead, the onus is on cdesign proponentists to provide evidence
>>*for* their presumptive purposeful agent.

>consider pantheism
>
>everything is part of the divine whole
>
>when you see something you see divinity

I have considered pantheism. It doesn't disprove ID's Top Six, so I
assume you meant to say that it's evidence for ID.

My impression is you have merely substituted one presumption with
another, and so provided evidence for neither.

What is your evidence *for* pantheism?

[Ron Dean]

On 10/29/20 6:47 PM, Ron O wrote:
> On Thursday, October 29, 2020 at 7:30:23 AM UTC-5, Ron Dean wrote:
>> On 10/29/20 6:01 AM, Ron O wrote:
>>> On Wednesday, October 28, 2020 at 10:30:22 PM UTC-5, Glenn wrote:
>>>> On Wednesday, October 28, 2020 at 6:25:23 PM UTC-7, Ron O wrote:
>>>>> https://evolutionnews.org/2020/10/top-six-evidences-for-intelligent-design/
>>>>>
>>>>> Sewell makes no mention of the original Top Six that were put up Nov 2017. He seems to rate them as to their importance to IDiocy instead of listing them in their temporal order. It is a different Top Six. He split the original #2 and made them #1 and #2 (fine tuning of our universe and fine tuning of our planet). The origin of life is still #3. IC (Old #4) got dropped from the Top Six as did the Cambrian explosion (Old #5), so those must have been demoted to second rate claptrap considering what he left in. Instead human evolution (Old #6) got split into #4 and #5, and the Big Bang (Old #1) is the worst of the bunch (#6).
>>>>>
>>>>> The sad thing is that as part of the denial stupidity he treats them as independent entities and makes no attempt to relate them to each other. They are obviously only being used so that Sewell can continue to deny reality instead of build any intelligent design alternative. Sad, but par for the course.
>>>>>
>>>>> The article is pretty sad.
>>>>> QUOTE:
>>>>> The ACLU speaks for much of the media and of academia when it says the theory of intelligent design “simply says that some things that seem very complex could not have happened based on natural causes. So where it sees complexity, it declares that it must have been created by a supernatural entity. This is not science.” Oh really? Is that all there is to it? Not exactly. Below is a modest attempt to provide a summary of the main scientific evidences for design in our world, for those who have been told that such evidence does not exist.
>>>>> END QUOTE:
>>>>>
>>>>> This is not scientific evidence for ID. For the last list the ID perps bent over backwards to only claim that it was the best evidence that they had. They were careful not to call it scientific evidence in each and every case. Ask MarkE what the Top Six are. They are just the god-of-the-gaps denial stupidity that the scientific creationists resorted to when they figured out that there was no science that they wanted to do. These are bits of science, but the problem for IDiots is that they only are interested in the gaps, and can't deal with with the science between the gaps. Sewell doesn't deal with what is known between the gaps in this article. He is obviously only interested in the gaps.
>>>>>
>>>>> Why can't Sewell build the best IDiot alternative from his Top Six? Why didn't he even try to relate them to each other?
>>>>>
>>>>> Old Top Six that were treated independently and only used for denial purposes. When will any IDiot science ever be attempted? Denial isn't doing any science.
>> I've been away from TO for a time, but I see you are still obsessing
>> over these top six arguments for intelligent design. I know you
>> disagree, but I do not recall you discrediting them! How have you
>> discredited any of the six?
> Unfortunately for you, your misunderstanding of the situation is likely due to the same type of lack of understanding shown by Nyikos on this topic.
> >
<

Several people have expressed opinions regarding these six(6} arguments in support of Intelligent design, But so far, no one has satisfied you. So, I'm sure this is just a subject you use with the intent of derision and humiliation of IDest. This demonstrates, that no one can ever meet your irrational demand. You just mentioned Nyikos, a mathematician who is so many magnitudes above you in intellect failed to meet your demands: since he failed, this shows that no one can succeed. This confirms that my observation of your obsession with Sewell's top six is exactly right.

--
talk origins

[Athel Cornish-Bowden]

On 2020-10-30 19:41:16 +0000, Ron Dean said:

> On 10/29/20 6:47 PM, Ron O wrote:
>> On Thursday, October 29, 2020 at 7:30:23 AM UTC-5, Ron Dean wrote:
>>> On 10/29/20 6:01 AM, Ron O wrote:

[ … ]

>>>>>>
>>> I've been away from TO for a time, but I see you are still obsessing
>>> over these top six arguments for intelligent design. I know you
>>> disagree, but I do not recall you discrediting them! How have you
>>> discredited any of the six?
>> Unfortunately for you, your misunderstanding of the situation is likely
>> due to the same type of lack of understanding shown by Nyikos on this
>> topic.
>>>
> <
>
> Several people have expressed opinions regarding these six(6}
> arguments in support of Intelligent design, But so far, no one has
> satisfied you. So, I'm sure this is just a subject you use with the
> intent of derision and humiliation of IDest. This demonstrates, that no
> one can ever meet your irrational demand. You just mentioned Nyikos, a
> mathematician who is so many magnitudes above you in intellect

How did you measure that? Peter Nyikos has a Hirsch index of 12, from a
total of 81 publications -- not especially impressive, but probably OK
for a mathematician.

> failed to meet your demands: since he failed, this shows that no one
> can succeed. This confirms that my observation of your obsession with
> Sewell's top six is exactly right.

--
athel

[Glenn]

On Friday, October 30, 2020 at 1:00:23 PM UTC-7, Athel Cornish-Bowden wrote:
> On 2020-10-30 19:41:16 +0000, Ron Dean said:
>
> > On 10/29/20 6:47 PM, Ron O wrote:
> >> On Thursday, October 29, 2020 at 7:30:23 AM UTC-5, Ron Dean wrote:
> >>> On 10/29/20 6:01 AM, Ron O wrote:
>
>
> [ … ]
>
> >>>>>>
> >>> I've been away from TO for a time, but I see you are still obsessing
> >>> over these top six arguments for intelligent design. I know you
> >>> disagree, but I do not recall you discrediting them! How have you
> >>> discredited any of the six?
> >> Unfortunately for you, your misunderstanding of the situation is likely
> >> due to the same type of lack of understanding shown by Nyikos on this
> >> topic.
> >>>
> > <
> >
> > Several people have expressed opinions regarding these six(6}
> > arguments in support of Intelligent design, But so far, no one has
> > satisfied you. So, I'm sure this is just a subject you use with the
> > intent of derision and humiliation of IDest. This demonstrates, that no
> > one can ever meet your irrational demand. You just mentioned Nyikos, a
> > mathematician who is so many magnitudes above you in intellect
>
> How did you measure that? Peter Nyikos has a Hirsch index of 12, from a
> total of 81 publications -- not especially impressive, but probably OK
> for a mathematician.
>

The Hirsch index does not measure nor indicate intellect. The Index itself may indicate a lack of intellect. Your comments above suggest a lack of intellect.

[Lawyer Daggett]

Purely on form, that is an amazingly strange set of arguments.
You begin by noting that (1) some people have pressed opinions
in favor of a set of claims but (2) they have not satisfied someone.
You come to a conclusion based on this. It is a strange conclusion
at that.

Consider: what if we apply that logic to (1a) multiple people putting
forth a claim about the Earth being flat, but (2a) somebody didn't
find any of the defenses of those claims satisfying. Could you
draw similar conclusions? Hopefully this has illustrated to you
why your claim about having demonstrated that someone's
standards are irrational are not supported by the observations
you listed.

Next you make an interesting appeal to authority. That's pretty weak.
In doing so, you quaintly misuse the term magnitude. It should be
noted that "an appeal to authority", while broadly considered a logical
fallacy does have it's place when weighing certain specific claims where
a person is an authority. But you've used it to mean X is smarter than Y
so if X doesn't believe Y nobody will ever satisfy X. That claim is wrong
on multiple fronts. Perhaps the simplest way to show that is to note
that we've also had very smart guy Z claim things that are mutually
incompatible with what Y claims. Do you see it? They can't both be
right. But your argument would seemingly require X to believe both Y
and Z, however that would be believing in mutually incompatible things.
That's a big no no whatever Walt Whitman thinks.

Now this of course isn't a proof that you are wrong about someone
being obsessed, or a proof that they are reasonable, or that they
argue in good faith. However, your line of reasoning to reach the
conclusions you do is utterly flawed and obviously so.

Perhaps you'd like to try again.

[jillery]

On Fri, 30 Oct 2020 15:41:16 -0400, Ron Dean <rdhall...@gmail.com>
wrote:

>On 10/29/20 6:47 PM, Ron O wrote:
>> On Thursday, October 29, 2020 at 7:30:23 AM UTC-5, Ron Dean wrote:
>>> On 10/29/20 6:01 AM, Ron O wrote:
>>>> On Wednesday, October 28, 2020 at 10:30:22 PM UTC-5, Glenn wrote:
>>>>> On Wednesday, October 28, 2020 at 6:25:23 PM UTC-7, Ron O wrote:
>>>>>> https://evolutionnews.org/2020/10/top-six-evidences-for-intelligent-design/
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Sewell makes no mention of the original Top Six that were put up Nov 2017. He seems to rate them as to their importance to IDiocy instead of listing them in their temporal order. It is a different Top Six. He split the original #2 and made them #1 and #2 (fine tuning of our universe and fine tuning of our planet). The origin of life is still #3. IC (Old #4) got dropped from the Top Six as did the Cambrian explosion (Old #5), so those must have been demoted to second rate claptrap considering what he left in. Instead human evolution (Old #6) got split into #4 and #5, and the Big Bang (Old #1) is the worst of the bunch (#6).
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The sad thing is that as part of the denial stupidity he treats them as independent entities and makes no attempt to relate them to each other. They are obviously only being used so that Sewell can continue to deny reality instead of build any intelligent design alternative. Sad, but par for the course.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The article is pretty sad.
>>>>>> QUOTE:
>>>>>> The ACLU speaks for much of the media and of academia when it says the theory of intelligent design “simply says that some things that seem very complex could not have happened based on natural causes. So where it sees complexity, it declares that it must have been created by a supernatural entity. This is not science.” Oh really? Is that all there is to it? Not exactly. Below is a modest attempt to provide a summary of the main scientific evidences for design in our world, for those who have been told that such evidence does not exist.
>>>>>> END QUOTE:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> This is not scientific evidence for ID. For the last list the ID perps bent over backwards to only claim that it was the best evidence that they had. They were careful not to call it scientific evidence in each and every case. Ask MarkE what the Top Six are. They are just the god-of-the-gaps denial stupidity that the scientific creationists resorted to when they figured out that there was no science that they wanted to do. These are bits of science, but the problem for IDiots is that they only are interested in the gaps, and can't deal with with the science between the gaps. Sewell doesn't deal with what is known between the gaps in this article. He is obviously only interested in the gaps.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Why can't Sewell build the best IDiot alternative from his Top Six? Why didn't he even try to relate them to each other?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Old Top Six that were treated independently and only used for denial purposes. When will any IDiot science ever be attempted? Denial isn't doing any science.
>>> I've been away from TO for a time, but I see you are still obsessing
>>> over these top six arguments for intelligent design. I know you
>>> disagree, but I do not recall you discrediting them! How have you
>>> discredited any of the six?
>> Unfortunately for you, your misunderstanding of the situation is likely due to the same type of lack of understanding shown by Nyikos on this topic.
>> >
><
>
> Several people have expressed opinions regarding these six(6} arguments in support of Intelligent design,

You have a unique and personal understanding of what "support of
Intelligent design" means. Simply repeating its premise doesn't
count.

>But so far, no one has satisfied you. So, I'm sure this is just a subject you use with the intent of derision and humiliation of IDest. This demonstrates, that no one can ever meet your irrational demand. You just mentioned Nyikos, a mathematician who is so many magnitudes above you in intellect failed to meet your demands: since he failed, this shows that no one can succeed. This confirms that my observation of your obsession with Sewell's top six is exactly right.

Then go ahead and disprove RonO, and identify your evidence for the
Top Six.

[Ron O]

On Friday, October 30, 2020 at 2:35:23 PM UTC-5, Ron Dean wrote:
> On 10/29/20 6:47 PM, Ron O wrote:
> > On Thursday, October 29, 2020 at 7:30:23 AM UTC-5, Ron Dean wrote:
> >> On 10/29/20 6:01 AM, Ron O wrote:
> >>> On Wednesday, October 28, 2020 at 10:30:22 PM UTC-5, Glenn wrote:
> >>>> On Wednesday, October 28, 2020 at 6:25:23 PM UTC-7, Ron O wrote:
> >>>>> https://evolutionnews.org/2020/10/top-six-evidences-for-intelligent-design/
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Sewell makes no mention of the original Top Six that were put up Nov 2017. He seems to rate them as to their importance to IDiocy instead of listing them in their temporal order. It is a different Top Six. He split the original #2 and made them #1 and #2 (fine tuning of our universe and fine tuning of our planet). The origin of life is still #3. IC (Old #4) got dropped from the Top Six as did the Cambrian explosion (Old #5), so those must have been demoted to second rate claptrap considering what he left in. Instead human evolution (Old #6) got split into #4 and #5, and the Big Bang (Old #1) is the worst of the bunch (#6).
> >>>>>
> >>>>> The sad thing is that as part of the denial stupidity he treats them as independent entities and makes no attempt to relate them to each other. They are obviously only being used so that Sewell can continue to deny reality instead of build any intelligent design alternative. Sad, but par for the course.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> The article is pretty sad.
> >>>>> QUOTE:
> >>>>> The ACLU speaks for much of the media and of academia when it says the theory of intelligent design “simply says that some things that seem very complex could not have happened based on natural causes. So where it sees complexity, it declares that it must have been created by a supernatural entity. This is not science.” Oh really? Is that all there is to it? Not exactly. Below is a modest attempt to provide a summary of the main scientific evidences for design in our world, for those who have been told that such evidence does not exist.
> >>>>> END QUOTE:
> >>>>>
> >>>>> This is not scientific evidence for ID. For the last list the ID perps bent over backwards to only claim that it was the best evidence that they had. They were careful not to call it scientific evidence in each and every case. Ask MarkE what the Top Six are. They are just the god-of-the-gaps denial stupidity that the scientific creationists resorted to when they figured out that there was no science that they wanted to do. These are bits of science, but the problem for IDiots is that they only are interested in the gaps, and can't deal with with the science between the gaps. Sewell doesn't deal with what is known between the gaps in this article. He is obviously only interested in the gaps.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Why can't Sewell build the best IDiot alternative from his Top Six? Why didn't he even try to relate them to each other?
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Old Top Six that were treated independently and only used for denial purposes. When will any IDiot science ever be attempted? Denial isn't doing any science.
> >> I've been away from TO for a time, but I see you are still obsessing
> >> over these top six arguments for intelligent design. I know you
> >> disagree, but I do not recall you discrediting them! How have you
> >> discredited any of the six?
> > Unfortunately for you, your misunderstanding of the situation is likely due to the same type of lack of understanding shown by Nyikos on this topic.
> > >
> <
> Several people have expressed opinions regarding these six(6} arguments in support of Intelligent design, But so far, no one has satisfied you. So, I'm sure this is just a subject you use with the intent of derision and humiliation of IDest. This demonstrates, that no one can ever meet your irrational demand. You just mentioned Nyikos, a mathematician who is so many magnitudes above you in intellect failed to meet your demands: since he failed, this shows that no one can succeed. This confirms that my observation of your obsession with Sewell's top six is exactly right.

You might want to consider why you would have to lie as you did above. Just put forward any IDiot who has dealt with the Top Six on TO. When you find out that the number is zero what are you going to do? When you are unable to do that, you should apologize and try to deal with what the situation currently is. If you read my links to Nyikos' misunderstanding of the issue (REPOST #2) you would know that Nyikos never faced the Top Six he was only wrong about the situation and ran, and has not dealt with how wrong he has been. He has been running for months because he was dead wrong. Try to determine where he has ever addressed how wrong that he was. Did he ever try to apply the Top Six to his directed panspermia IDiocy? I can give you the link to where I did it for him so that you would see what the result would be. He has run from my original explanation and has run from the REPOST every time. It is almost laughable to talk about the intellect of an IDiot. Nyikos is among the worst examples that you could have picked. The fact is that even before Nyikos rejoined TO back in 2010 the only IDiots left in existence were the ignorant, the incompetent, and or dishonest. There still are no other types left. Just try to find a competent, informed and honest IDiot. Why do you think that the ID Network of "academics" folded up shop and died after the Dover fiasco. The ID network should have died after the bait and switch started because it was hard to run in the switch scam with ID in the name of their organization. The ID Network IDiots started out supporting the teach ID scam, but when the bait and switch started to go down they had to change. They used to have their support for the switch scam up on their web page, and had to claim that the switch scam had nothing to do with IDiocy even though intelligent design was in the name of their organization. The ISCID (IDiot science organization) closed their doors in 2008 and their web page stopped being supported in 2010. Where did these IDiot "scientists" go? The ones that quit the ID scam would have been the informed, competent, and halfway honest ones. Nyikos has demonstrated that he is all three (ignorant, incompetent and dishonest). Just look up the first REPOST, fiasco. It is still going on because Nyikos can't do anything, but keep lying about that situation for a decade. Nyikos may be a pretty smart guy, but his incompetence and dishonesty out weigh any such advantage that he might have, and my guess is that it isn't much of an advantage.

This thread should tell you all that you need to know about the first REPOST fiasco:
https://groups.google.com/g/talk.origins/c/h3KqDeXnzhc/m/7IuFLg74BAAJ

The link to REPOST #2 is below. So you should have already evaluated it before running.

Why do something as bogus as try to play this "intellect" card when what you should be dealing with is what is actually going on? You are in the company of low life scum like Klienman and Nyikos, and what are you going to do when you find out about my academic career. Klienman went nuts and became more abusive. Nyikos just runs from that reality, and was always a lying IDiot anyway. What are you going to do?

https://scholar.google.com/citations?hl=en&user=QP5FNzgAAAAJ

You should have addressed the situation as it is. Instead what did you do? I would advise you to go through the part of the post below that will demonstrate how wrong you are, and face that reality. It should keep you from making the same mistake again. Running away in denial is just what all the IDiots are doing and you have claimed that you do not want to be grouped with them.

You are wrong about what you think the situation is with the Top Six, and you were pathetically wrong in your response to being wrong.

What you will find out about people that think that academic credentials mean anything in terms of IDiocy is that my posts on TO have never depended on my academic credentials. The evidence and arguments stand for what they are, but blowhards like Klienman and Nyikos who make such things an issue have little else to back up their junk. Look up the two REPOSTS. That should be all that you need to know about how much your estimation of intellect means to what you can't deal with.

Ron Okimoto

[Glenn]

Obsessed and fixated doesn't even come close to describing this poster.

[Ron O]

Hey Glenn, how does projection work? Why would you even respond in this way to this post if you weren't the one with the problem described? Are you going to state if you are talking about Dean? As most of your senseless one liners, you aren't very clear about anything. I wonder if Dean is taking notes about the superior intellects that support IDiocy.

Ron Okimoto

[Ron Dean]

You missed my point. There has be a reason no one satisfied this man.
The writer. Sewell presented his listed his six ID positions and
presented his arguments. That should have ended it. as supportive
arguments go. IOW there was no further need to enhance Sewell's
arguments. However this man demanded something beyond. No one was under
any obligation to

enhance Sewell's arguments, Yet several people tried and failed to
satisfy his demand.

>
> Consider: what if we apply that logic to (1a) multiple people putting
> forth a claim about the Earth being flat, but (2a) somebody didn't
> find any of the defenses of those claims satisfying. Could you
> draw similar conclusions? Hopefully this has illustrated to you
> why your claim about having demonstrated that someone's
> standards are irrational are not supported by the observations
> you listed.

>

I would want to know why the defenses were not satisfying and upon what
contrary evidence or falsifying empirical evidence he used as his
justification for his rejection.

>
> Next you make an interesting appeal to authority. That's pretty weak.
> In doing so, you quaintly misuse the term magnitude. It should be
> noted that "an appeal to authority", while broadly considered a logical
> fallacy does have it's place when weighing certain specific claims where
> a person is an authority.

I've heard this before IE that the appeal to authority is a logical
fallacy. But if one is not an authority on nutrition, for example, then
it's acceptable to appeal to known and recognized authorities on the
subject.

> But you've used it to mean X is smarter than Y
> so if X doesn't believe Y nobody will ever satisfy X. That claim is wrong
> on multiple fronts. Perhaps the simplest way to show that is to note
> that we've also had very smart guy Z claim things that are mutually
> incompatible with what Y claims. Do you see it? They can't both be
> right. But your argument would seemingly require X to believe both Y
> and Z, however that would be believing in mutually incompatible things.
> That's a big no no whatever Walt Whitman thinks.
>

I don't think I was wrong here. If there is a disagreement on a subject,
I would accept the word of an professionally educated expert on the
subject over the word a high school dropout.

>
> Now this of course isn't a proof that you are wrong about someone
> being obsessed, or a proof that they are reasonable, or that they
> argue in good faith. However, your line of reasoning to reach the
> conclusions you do is utterly flawed and obviously so.

Maybe.

>
> Perhaps you'd like to try again.

I made my point!

>

--
talk origins

[Ron Dean]

> Who repeated Sewell's six arguments?

>
>> But so far, no one has satisfied you. So, I'm sure this is just a subject you use with the intent of derision and humiliation of IDest. This demonstrates, that no one can ever meet your irrational demand. You just mentioned Nyikos, a mathematician who is so many magnitudes above you in intellect failed to meet your demands: since he failed, this shows that no one can succeed. This confirms that my observation of your obsession with Sewell's top six is exactly right.
>
> Then go ahead and disprove RonO, and identify your evidence for the
> Top Six.

I read Sewell's six(6) defenses. His supporting arguments, generally are
right I believe.

I have no obligation to disprove RonO. If he disagrees with Sewell, it's
his responsibility to offer empirical, authoritative evidence falsifying
Sewel's supportive evidence: RonO authority is insufficent!

>
>
>

--
talk origins

[Lawyer Daggett]

I don't think you've successfully made any point yet.

You've misconstrued Ron's challenge. As Sewell's claims exist, they
have been disputed by many, and disputed well and by people who
are in fact authorities in their own right. The disputes aren't all in the
nature of showing that he's wrong. Some are in the form of showing
that he hasn't established that his interpretation is necessary or even
compelling. If that's not clear, I mean many dispute that Sewell's
interpretations are more likely than others.

But initial claims are not enough. The challenge is, can someone defend
them within a dialog, where there are clarifications of the claims, challenges
and counter-arguments to specific points. Ron's assertion is that there
doesn't seem to be anyone willing and able to defend Sewell's assertions
in a convincing manner.

Some have tried but have not succeeded, at least in Ron's opinion. You
have tried to claim that as evidence that Ron can't be satisfied NO MATTER WHAT.
Your claim fails and fails utterly. My example of someone who failed to be
satisfied by the parallel situation of people trying to defend a flat Earth
should have made your error clear to you. I'm assuming you recognize
that the Earth is not flat and thus it is perfectly reasonable that someone
would find all arguments defending a flat Earth to fail.

To be clear, you claim that Ron is necessarily being irrational because he
has not found various arguments made in support of Sewell to be compelling.
One abstract possibility is that he is irrational, that's true. Two other
possibilities immediately come to mind though. Sewell is right but the people
trying to support him aren't very good at it and have used flawed reasoning,
or Sewell is wrong and those trying to support him are by necessity
unable to craft convincing support.

You seem to be defining those last two possibilities out of existence when you
assert that not accepting the attempted support means he is being irrational.
I recognize that you believe he's irrational, but your attempt to support that
belief isn't logically robust.

And your appeal to authority is so obviously logically wrong that I'm surprised
you persist in essentially the same claim. We can agree that if one asks a
physics question to a Professor of Physics and some random person in a
Walmart parking lot, it's smarter money to go with the Professor of Physics,
assuming that you have no independent knowledge of the subject.

If you were to ask them each a question about biology, the odds shift but
you might still give the Professor of Physics the edge. However, that doesn't
make the Professor of Physics right and anyone who doubts him irrational.

Using a similar example to before, you can get two Professors of Physics to give
different and mutually exclusive answers to a question of physics so quite
obviously they aren't always right. You can't assert that you have to believe
X because they are by some measure smart. The ultimate rightness or wrongness
of a proposition has to stand on it's own merits. It's wrong to elevate it to the
status of right because of who said it. It just doesn't work that way.

[jillery]

On Fri, 30 Oct 2020 21:03:40 -0400, Ron Dean <rdhall...@gmail.com>

Since you accept no obligation to disprove RonO, then RonO has no
obligation to disprove you, and your posts amount to nothing more than
swapping equally authoritative opinions.

However, you make the claim immediately above that Sewell's six(6)
supporting arguments are "generally right I believe". Do you accept
no obligation to support *your* claim, ie to identify those arguments
*you* think right and to detail how *you* think them right?

[Ron O]

On Friday, October 30, 2020 at 8:40:23 PM UTC-5, Lawyer Daggett wrote:
> On Friday, October 30, 2020 at 8:20:23 PM UTC-4, Ron Dean wrote:
> > On 10/30/20 6:15 PM, Lawyer Daggett wrote:
> > > On Friday, October 30, 2020 at 3:35:23 PM UTC-4, Ron Dean wrote:
> > >> On 10/29/20 6:47 PM, Ron O wrote:
> > >>> On Thursday, October 29, 2020 at 7:30:23 AM UTC-5, Ron Dean wrote:
> > >>>> On 10/29/20 6:01 AM, Ron O wrote:
> > >>>>> On Wednesday, October 28, 2020 at 10:30:22 PM UTC-5, Glenn wrote:
> > >>>>>> On Wednesday, October 28, 2020 at 6:25:23 PM UTC-7, Ron O wrote:
> > >>>>>>> https://evolutionnews.org/2020/10/top-six-evidences-for-intelligent-design/
> > >>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>> Sewell makes no mention of the original Top Six that were put up Nov 2017. He seems to rate them as to their importance to IDiocy instead of listing them in their temporal order. It is a different Top Six. He split the original #2 and made them #1 and #2 (fine tuning of our universe and fine tuning of our planet). The origin of life is still #3. IC (Old #4) got dropped from the Top Six as did the Cambrian explosion (Old #5), so those must have been demoted to second rate claptrap considering what he left in. Instead human evolution (Old #6) got split into #4 and #5, and the Big Bang (Old #1) is the worst of the bunch (#6).
> > >>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>> The sad thing is that as part of the denial stupidity he treats them as independent entities and makes no attempt to relate them to each other. They are obviously only being used so that Sewell can continue to deny reality instead of build any intelligent design alternative. Sad, but par for the course.
> > >>>>>>>

There is misperception of what the issue is, and you are likely confusing Dean more than he already is confused.

The Top Six god-of-the-gaps creationist denial arguments are just what they have been since the scientific creationists used to use them. The IDiot/creationists understand their shortcomings , but continue to use them. The fact that these Top Six have never amounted to anything since they failed the scientific creationists over 30 years ago does not matter to the current crop of IDiot/creationists. The Top Six are just what they are, nothing has to be supported or changed about them in terms of IDiot/creationist misuse of them. You can tell that the IDiot/creationists do not care about trying to defend them because Dean and MarkE are happy to keep putting them up one at a time. They have no problem with lying to themselves about one at a time.

What the IDiot/creationists can not deal with is the existence of these denial arguments as the best "evidence" that they have for their religious beliefs. Not a single IDiot/creationists posting on TO can deal with the Top Six as the Top Six. Having them all grouped in what the ID perps claim is their chronological order is just something that none of them can deal with. It forces them to understand what the Top Six tells them about their designer/creator. None of the IDiot/creationists posting to TO nor the rest of the IDiot world seems to be able to deal with the Top Six as the Top Six. In this thread Sewell is only modifying the Top Six to make it easier for the IDiots to treat them independently in order to continue to lie to themselves about the issue. Nyikos might be the only IDiot on TO that could face the Top Six, but he understands that the Top Six is not consistent with his beloved space alien designers. These may be the Top Six denial arguments for IDiocy/creationism, but they are not the Top Six for directed panspermia. If they are valid and the designer really was needed for all Six it is pretty much game over for directed panspermia. Really, the only types of IDiots that can deal with the Top Six as the Top Six are IDiots like Denton and Behe who accept an old earth and universe and also accept that life has been evolving on this planet for billions of years. You do not see Denton and Behe building anything out of the Top Six because reality doesn't sell books to the rubes.

The IDiot/creationists have no intention of using the Top Six to better understand their religious beliefs. In fact a lot of them have to deny that the gaps actually exist in order to maintain their religious beliefs. Just take the Big Bang #1 as an example: the YEC scientific creationists may have used it to sound sciency and for creationist denial over 30 years ago, but they don't believe that it ever happened, and have tried to drop it out of the science standards along with biological evolution. Having them as the Top Six makes it so they have trouble doing that and still use the claptrap. No IDiot/creationist is using the Top Six to build a better understanding of nature, nor a better understanding of their religious beliefs. Their only purpose is denial, and they do not want to face that reality. The other IDiot/creationists on TO will not clue Dean and Dale in on this fact because they do not want to face reality themselves.

Really, Glenn keeps going back to the ID perps for second rate denial junk and MarkE continues to put the Top Six up one at a time, so there is no issue with their bogus defense of the Top Six that has been going on for decades. They just can't face what the Top Six tells them about what they are doing, and what the Top Six actually tell them about nature.

1.
https://evolutionnews.org/2017/11/ids-top-six-the-origin-of-the-universe/

2.
https://evolutionnews.org/2017/11/ids-top-six-the-fine-tuning-of-the-universe/

3.
https://evolutionnews.org/2017/11/ids-top-six-the-origin-of-information-in-dna/

4.
https://evolutionnews.org/2017/11/ids-top-six-the-origin-of-irreducibly-complex-molecular-machines/

5.
https://evolutionnews.org/2017/11/ids-top-six-the-origin-of-animals/

6.
https://evolutionnews.org/2017/11/ids-top-six-the-origin-of-humans/

Ron Okimoto

[Ron O]

How many times have you already messed up concerning the Top Six? When has any other IDiot helped you out when you asked for assistance with them?

Why do you persist in remaining ignorant of why the other IDiots cannot face the Top Six? You could have read what I have explained to you and others, but what have you done?

All you have to do is just think about the possibility that these are valid and supportable god-of-the-gaps denial arguments. What would it mean if the Big Bang denial was legitimate and supportable? Your designer would have had to have done something over 13 billion years ago to get the ball rolling. The argument is that we do not understand what came before the Big Bang and what caused it. If you put your designer in as the cause what do you get? Now add fine tuning. This fine tuning occurred before or during the Big Bang if it occurred at all. There is no evidence that it needed to occur, and that it isn't just the way things are. For the sake of your claims of the rightness of the arguments lets just say that IDiots could demonstrate that their designer was responsible for the fine tuning. It would have happened over 13 billion years ago and the universe would have unfolded as it has. Generations of stars would live and die to produce the elements heavier than helium in the amounts that our solar system was made of. It would take around 8 billion years to build up enough heavy elements to produce the composition of our solar system. Another round of fine tuning would have been needed to make sure that the sun was the right size and that the earth was the right size with a magnetic field etc. The designer would have been proven to have done that around 4.5 billion years ago. It took a while for the earth to cool down enough to have liquid water, but around 3.8 billion years ago your designer would have created the first lifeforms, and life evolved on this planet for billions of years before your designer evolved humans from existing lifeforms. Sewell has taken out the two of the Top Six in between to make it easier for IDiots to lie to themselves about everything. I have given you the original Top Six so that you can demonstrate for yourself that they are even worse in this regard.

Really, just imagine that the Top Six are valid and that the designer was responsible for each of them. The other IDiots do not want to believe in that designer and have run from the Top Six. Guys like MarkE can use one at a time to lie to themselves, but they can't face the Top Six as the best that they have.

This is why no one has been willing to help you out this time and the previous two times. They could tell you this, but they can't because they are running from that reality themselves.

Really, make the assumption that your designer was responsible for each of the Top Six described. What does that tell you about the designer. If you don't get the same answer that Behe and Denton have already gotten, you have done it wrong and should start over. Denton just thinks that his intelligent designer just got the ball rolling over 13 billion years ago and it all unfolded as it is today. He doesn't need the other Top Six, but they are not inconsistent with what he thinks happened. Behe believes the same thing except his designer tweeked things every once in a while. He doesn't need the fine tuning claptrap. He just claims that the designer had a hand in evolving things like the flagellum around 1.5 billion years ago and the adaptive immune system about a billion years later.

The Top Six should tell you why ID perps like Behe and Denton have those beliefs. It isn't the gaps in our knowledge that should be important to IDiocy, but what we already understand. The Top Six tells any IDiot that is half way competent that if it wasn't for what we know between the gaps, there would be no gaps to argue about.

This is why all the IDiot/creationists have been running from the Top Six since they were put out 3 years ago, and why none of them have ever helped you understand what the issue is.

You can keep running from reality, but what good will that ever do for you?

Just pretend that you could demonstrate that your designer was responsible for the Big Bang over 13 billion years ago. Think of the fine tuning that such a designer might do before and during the Big Bang to produce the expanding universe that we have today. Think about having evidence that 4.5 billion years ago there was another round of fine tuning with the creation of our solar system out of dead star stuff. Your designer would have been responsible for the origin of life on earth around 3.8 billion years ago. Life would have been evolving on this planet for billions of years before the designer created humans from existing lifeforms. Just imagine if all of the Top Six were proven to have been actual designer did it phenomena. That should be all you need to understand in order to figure out why all the IDiot/creationists on TO can't face the Top Six as the best Six that they have.

Ron Okimoto

[Ron Dean]

Jf I do not attempt to justify my views with quotes from a recognized
authority- then I agree!

>
> However, you make the claim immediately above that Sewell's six(6)
> supporting arguments are "generally right I believe". Do you accept
> no obligation to support *your* claim, ie to identify those arguments
> *you* think right and to detail how *you* think them right?

>

I believe Sewell presented sufficent arguments in support of his
positions. There's no reason

for me to try improving on his arguments. On the other hand, if you
offer contrary

arguments or you try to falsify his arguments, and if I disagree, then
it's my right (if I chose) to

take issue with your ideas. It might be that you can convince me!

>

--
talk origins

[Ron O]

You should actually read and understand what I have posted. It doesn't matter what you think of the god-of-the-gaps creationist arguments that have failed creationists for decades. What matters is the Top Six themselves. No IDiot can face them because of what is known between the gaps, and putting them all together, makes it very difficult to ignore the stupidity that lies behind them. Really, assume that they are all valid, and support your creationists beliefs. What does that tell you about your beliefs. What is the creationist alternative supported by the Top Six. They are the best that the IDiot/creationists have left, so what does it tell you about reality? No IDiot/creationist on TO can face that reality, so they all have to run from the Top Six. You are apparently too clueless to understand what their issue is with the Top Six. Why do you think that no IDiot/creationist on TO will help you out?

There is no doubt that IDiot/creationists are still willing to put these up, but it is only for denial purposes. Nothing is supposed to be learned from them, nor built out of them. No science is supposed to be accomplished in terms of the use of these Top Six. The IDiot/creationists do not what to know what the Top Six can tell them. They only want to lie to themselves long enough to get to the next one in order to forget the previous one in order to continue to lie to themselves. You could demonstrate that this is not true by simply dealing with the Top Six as the Top Six. Really, assume that they are all valid arguments and build your best alternative out of them and see what you get. That is why the IDiot/creationists on TO are running from them.

Willful ignorance will not change reality. Really, none of the IDiot/creationists on TO want these to be valid arguments that will tell them something about IDiocy/creationism. They only want them for denial purposes.

[Bill Rogers]

The point is not simply that any one of the "big six" is faulty; the point is that those six arguments do not lead up to a particularly consistent idea about the designer, they are just attempts to say "science hasn't explained it, so God must have done it".

For example; you can take a fine tuning argument that says that God tweaked the physical constants of the universe He created in just the right way to support stars, heavy elements, planets, and, ultimately, life. Then you've got a God with enough omniscience and omnipotence to set the laws and constants of physics up to extreme precision to allow life to survive. That's great. But then another argument comes along and says that "wait, there's no way life could have evolved," God must have intervened to create the first cell. OK. If that's true, it seems a bit odd that the same God who set all those physical laws and parameters so precisely to allow for galaxies and planets and all the elements required for life couldn't quite set them in such a way that life could arise simply in accordance with those laws and parameters. Instead He needed to come back some many billions of years later and kickstart life before it could evolve and diversify.

Then, that's all great. But you've got another argument that wants to say that the human brain or the coagulation cascade or whatever you like cannot possibly have evolved by random mutation and selection. So God's got to come back some hundreds of millions or billions of years after engineering the first cell and tweak things again to make it all come out right.

And on it goes. The Big Six do not make a strong case for a particularly capable designer; they're just a string of things science has not nailed down the details for. Of course, God is mysterious, so just by chance it could be that the set of things science hasn't figured out in 2020 just happens to be the set of things God had to intervene to take care of. But it's not massively convincing.

[Ron O]

My take is the main factor is that the designer supported by these Top Six is not the designer that IDiot/creationists want to believe in. Even Pagano got that immediately, and claimed that the Top Six were bogus and were not the Top Six evidences for IDiocy. Pags needed the designer responsible for his geocentric universe that was wildly spinning around the earth.

Ron Okimoto

[Glenn]

Intelligent Design does not support a specific designer, and Tony had told you that, and more. TMK he never said anything about ID being "bogus".

Just quote Tony and provide the reference to where he claimed the Top Six were bogus because of his argument about a geocentric universe.

[jillery]

On Sun, 1 Nov 2020 10:56:01 -0500, Ron Dean <rdhall...@gmail.com>

The above merely repeats your unauthoritative opinion, no added value
here.

>There's no reason for me to try improving on his arguments.

I didn't ask you to improve on his arguments. I asked you to support
*your opinion* of his arguments. There's a difference.

>On the other hand, if you offer contrary arguments or you try
>to falsify his arguments, and if I disagree, then it's my right
>(if I chose) to take issue with your ideas.

You do here to me what you did before to RonO. Once again, since you
don't support your own opinion, then I have no obligation to offer
contrary argument against your opinion. It's your opinion, to which
you're entitled. But as presented, it's a baseless opinion, and so
remains undistinguished in a cesspit of baseless opinions.

>It might be that you can convince me!

Since you provide no basis for your opinion, on what basis could I
possibly convince you against it?

[jillery]

On Sun, 1 Nov 2020 18:24:11 -0800 (PST), Glenn <GlennS...@msn.com>

Incorrect. The more accurate phrase is ID doesn't specify any
Designer. Instead, they just assume its existence and effects.
There's a difference.

>TMK he never said anything about ID being "bogus".
>
>Just quote Tony and provide the reference to where he claimed the Top Six were bogus because of his argument about a geocentric universe.

Pagano was not an authority about ID, or for that matter, about
anything.

[Glenn]

That's irrelevant. And illogical. And unsupported. Is anyone surprised?

[Glenn]

Yes, the difference is that you demand others support their claims, even if they have, but not you.

[jillery]

On Sun, 1 Nov 2020 23:17:18 -0800 (PST), Glenn <GlennS...@msn.com>

It's no surprise you baselessly claim it's irrelevant and illogical
and unsupported.

[jillery]

On Sun, 1 Nov 2020 23:15:36 -0800 (PST), Glenn <GlennS...@msn.com>
wrote:

You don't identify where Dean supports his opinion.

You don't identify where I refused to support my opinion.

That's because you know you have nothing intelligent to say and are
proud of it.

[Glenn]

I'm not Dean.
>

[jillery]

On Mon, 2 Nov 2020 00:26:41 -0800 (PST), Glenn <GlennS...@msn.com>
wrote:

>I'm not Dean.


Give yourself a gold star. Let me know when you have any idea what
you're talking about.

[Athel Cornish-Bowden]

On 2020-11-02 09:31:37 +0000, jillery said:

> On Mon, 2 Nov 2020 00:26:41 -0800 (PST), Glenn <GlennS...@msn.com>
> wrote:
>
>> I'm not Dean.
>
>
> Give yourself a gold star. Let me know when you have any idea what
> you're talking about.

You're going to have a long wait. I hope that your expectation of life
is longer than mine (15 years if I'm lucky).


--
athel

[Glenn]

On Monday, November 2, 2020 at 2:35:23 AM UTC-7, jillery wrote:
> On Mon, 2 Nov 2020 00:26:41 -0800 (PST), Glenn <GlennS...@msn.com>
> wrote:

"You don't identify where Dean supports his opinion. "
>

> >I'm not Dean.
>
>
> Give yourself a gold star. Let me know when you have any idea what
> you're talking about.
>

Pure insult. That's about all you have.

I'm not Dean. That's what I'm talking about, and what you were talking about.

[Glenn]

You'll probably be immature for that long.

[jillery]

On Mon, 2 Nov 2020 03:54:08 -0800 (PST), Glenn <GlennS...@msn.com>

wrote:

>On Monday, November 2, 2020 at 2:35:23 AM UTC-7, jillery wrote:
>> On Mon, 2 Nov 2020 00:26:41 -0800 (PST), Glenn <GlennS...@msn.com>
>> wrote:
>
>"You don't identify where Dean supports his opinion. "
>>
>> >I'm not Dean.
>>
>>
>> Give yourself a gold star. Let me know when you have any idea what
>> you're talking about.
>>
>Pure insult. That's about all you have.
>
>I'm not Dean. That's what I'm talking about, and what you were talking about.

Nobody was talking about who you are. You jumped into a thread
between Dean and I, to spew one of your usual mindless one-liners:

"Yes, the difference is that you demand others support their claims,
even if they have, but not you."

I challenged you to show where you think Dean supported his opinion,
and where I refused to support mine.

You dishonestly deleted the second part, and posted yet another
mindless one-liner:

"I'm not Dean"

The above utterly fails to respond to my challenge or to any other
part of the thread. It's meaningless noise. That's about all you
have. My reply to it is the least it deserves.

[Ron O]

Do you even understand what you write? Part of the ID scam is that intelligent design does not support a specific designer, but that doesn't mean that Pagano and you do not want to support a specific designer. Why lie to yourself about something so obvious. Why did you become an IDiot after the failure of scientific creationism? The Top Six makes you face the type of designer that is supported by the Top Six, and you obviously can't deal with that designer any more than Pagano could.

>
> Just quote Tony and provide the reference to where he claimed the Top Six were bogus because of his argument about a geocentric universe.

Pagano didn't have to say why the Top Six were bogus. He only had to claim that they were bogus and were not the Top Six. They were bogus because he didn't want to believe that they were the Top Six. The Top Six do not support Pags geocentric universe. Try to make the geocentric universe work if the Big Bang happened. Try to use those fine tuned constants to account for galaxies billions of light years away orbiting the earth every 24 hours. Try to get the fine tuning for the creation of our solar system so that the sun was just the right size and the earth was the right size, composition and orbit around the sun to have life forms. Pags did not believe in the designer of the Top Six.

You give your explanation for why Pags claimed that the Top Six were bogus, and why he tried to claim that other second rate IDiot junk was better? You could also give an explanation for why you have been running from them for 3 years, and set Dean straight. You could also explain why MarkE can put them up one at a time, but can't face the Top Six as the Top Six. Instead, what did you do?

Ron Okimoto

[Glenn]

On Monday, November 2, 2020 at 5:20:23 AM UTC-7, jillery wrote:
> On Mon, 2 Nov 2020 03:54:08 -0800 (PST), Glenn <GlennS...@msn.com>
> wrote:
>
> >On Monday, November 2, 2020 at 2:35:23 AM UTC-7, jillery wrote:
> >> On Mon, 2 Nov 2020 00:26:41 -0800 (PST), Glenn <GlennS...@msn.com>
> >> wrote:
> >
> >"You don't identify where Dean supports his opinion. "
> >>
> >> >I'm not Dean.
> >>
> >>
> >> Give yourself a gold star. Let me know when you have any idea what
> >> you're talking about.
> >>
> >Pure insult. That's about all you have.
> >
> >I'm not Dean. That's what I'm talking about, and what you were talking about.
>
>
> Nobody was talking about who you are. You jumped into a thread
> between Dean and I, to spew one of your usual mindless one-liners:
>
> "Yes, the difference is that you demand others support their claims,
> even if they have, but not you."

Calling a comment about your behavior 'mindless' is unsupported by the facts,
And it is not up to me to 'identify" where Dean "supports" his opinion.
It's easy for you to make such claims, and you think that forces others to meet your challenge. But it is not. The claimant is responsible for supporting the claim, not the other way around. And I am not Dean.

>
> I challenged you to show where you think Dean supported his opinion,
> and where I refused to support mine.
>
> You dishonestly deleted the second part, and posted yet another
> mindless one-liner:
>
> "I'm not Dean"
>
> The above utterly fails to respond to my challenge or to any other
> part of the thread. It's meaningless noise. That's about all you
> have. My reply to it is the least it deserves.
>

Acting as if others must respond to your challenges, when you fail to respond to theirs, is about all you have. And I would certainly not do your job for you.
I doubt Dean cares to engage you either. He'd probably rather follow a rat around all day than to get involved with such a dishonest person as yourself.

[Glenn]

Yep.

[jillery]

On Mon, 2 Nov 2020 05:15:37 -0800 (PST), Glenn <GlennS...@msn.com>
wrote:

>He'd probably rather follow a rat around all day than to get involved with such a dishonest person as yourself.

To paraphrase someone you regard so highly, you're not Dean.

[Glenn]

On Monday, November 2, 2020 at 8:10:23 AM UTC-7, jillery wrote:
> On Mon, 2 Nov 2020 05:15:37 -0800 (PST), Glenn <GlennS...@msn.com>
> wrote:
>
>
> >He'd probably rather follow a rat around all day than to get involved with such a dishonest person as yourself.
>
>
> To paraphrase someone you regard so highly, you're not Dean.
>

And I don't and am not speaking for Dean. Hope that helps.

[Ron O]

The sad thing about this response is that it might not be a lie.

Ron Okimoto

[Öö Tiib]

They always get even that wrong. Universe is observably rotating
around the axis of the Earth (very long line) not around Earth
(tiny dot on that line). So obvious conclusion from that is that
Earth itself is rotating around that axis as for universe that
line is irrelevant line and there are no reason to rotate around
it.

[Athel Cornish-Bowden]

You forgot God, Who would certainly want to take Earth's axis as zxis
of rotation.


--
athel

[jillery]

On Thu, 5 Nov 2020 14:14:32 +0100, Athel Cornish-Bowden
<acor...@imm.cnrs.fr> wrote:

>On 2020-11-05 11:48:13 +0000, Öö Tiib said:
>
>> On Sunday, 1 November 2020 20:45:23 UTC+2, Ron O wrote:
>>> On Sunday, November 1, 2020 at 11:50:23 AM UTC-6, broger...@gmail.com wrote:

[...]

>>> My take is the main factor is that the designer supported by these Top
>>> Six is not the designer that IDiot/creationists want to believe in.
>>> Even Pagano got that immediately, and claimed that the Top Six were
>>> bogus and were not the Top Six evidences for IDiocy. Pags needed the
>>> designer responsible for his geocentric universe that was wildly
>>> spinning around the earth.
>>
>> They always get even that wrong. Universe is observably rotating
>> around the axis of the Earth (very long line) not around Earth
>> (tiny dot on that line). So obvious conclusion from that is that
>> Earth itself is rotating around that axis as for universe that
>> line is irrelevant line and there are no reason to rotate around
>> it.
>
>You forgot God, Who would certainly want to take Earth's axis as zxis
>of rotation.

Leave it to God to use a zxis.

[peter2...@gmail.com]

Sewell's article linked below was commented on by RonO in his
latest near-clone of a dozen or more OP's of his over the years.

https://groups.google.com/g/talk.origins/c/wLSRK67XcYs/m/zW6JgRaQAgAJ
ID perp Top Six
Nov 6, 2022, 8:40:04 AM

I am reviving this 2020 thread so that we can better compare the things
he said earlier this month and the things he was saying below a bit
over two years ago. Also there are some inconsistencies already
on the thread,
https://groups.google.com/g/talk.origins/c/a2K79skPGXI/m/uDwx0i-_BAAJ
The degeneration of the ID perp's Top Six continues.
Jan 30, 2021, 11:50:39 AM
a mere three months after the post below.

On Wednesday, October 28, 2020 at 9:25:23 PM UTC-4, Ron O wrote:
> https://evolutionnews.org/2020/10/top-six-evidences-for-intelligent-design/
>
> Sewell makes no mention of the original Top Six that were put up Nov 2017.

Very true. But RonO's rigid mind cannot fathom the idea that there need not
BE any cut and dried connection between Sewell's "top six" and Luskin's
"top six". Luskin was nonchalant about the number:

"Many different pieces of evidence pointing to design in nature could be adduced, but we decided to distill it all down to six major lines of evidence. Sure, five or ten would have been more conventional, but when did ID advocates start playing to expectations?"
https://evolutionnews.org/2017/11/ids-top-six-the-origin-of-the-universe/


Sewell, for his part, does not claim that they were THE top six, but only says,

" Below is a modest attempt to provide a summary of the main scientific evidences for design in our world, for those who have been told that such evidence does not exist."

Note the word "attempt." Unlike RonO, who is cocksure about hundreds of things for
which evidence is sorely deficient, Sewell thinks like a scientist.

> He seems to rate them as to their importance to IDiocy instead of listing them in their temporal order.

This is pure speculation on RonO's part, not backed up with a smidgen of reasoning,
and, as will be seen below, spectacularly wrongheaded.

But already three months later, he was treating it as gospel truth:

"Sewell put them in their order of significance to IDiocy,"
https://groups.google.com/g/talk.origins/c/a2K79skPGXI/m/uDwx0i-_BAAJ

>It is a different Top Six. He split the original #2 and made them #1 and #2 (fine tuning of our universe and fine tuning of our planet).

RonO got them backwards. But that's nothing compared to his profound ignorance about Luskin's "top six".
There is NOTHING in Luskin's list that says ANYTHING about Sewell's
theme in Sewell's #1, which is about a topic that had a long history before Sewell
latched on to it. You can read about it here:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rare_Earth_hypothesis

The use of the word "fine tuning" by Sewell trivializes the concept.
Moving the earth over anywhere within the Goldilock's Zone,
a ring around the sun whose width is over one half the distance from the earth
to the sun, would still have been congenial to life. The fine tuning in #2
is astronomically more sensitive to whether life can endure.

And Sewell certainly doesn't put #1 first because he thinks it is the
most significant. He even admits that atheists have a good comeback:
there are so many planetary systems in the known universe that there
is nothing unusual about there being at least one planet as favorable
to a 5 billion period of burgeoning evolution as the earth is.

For such a comeback to #2, one has to assume the existence of
a multiverse with so many individual universes, that the number
of stars in our universe is AT LEAST to the number of universes as 1 is
to the number of electrons in our universe. And I suspect even
that is a huge underestimate.


I'll have much more to say about RonO's benighted OP here, but this will do for a first shot.


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

PS I'm leaving in the rest of what Ron O wrote, because he has a Pavlov Dog
style mindless reflex whenever I delete anything from a reply to him:

"Snip and run. That's all you are good for."

>The origin of life is still #3. IC (Old #4) got dropped from the Top Six as did the Cambrian explosion (Old #5), so those must have been demoted to second rate claptrap considering what he left in. Instead human evolution (Old #6) got split into #4 and #5, and the Big Bang (Old #1) is the worst of the bunch (#6).
>
> The sad thing is that as part of the denial stupidity he treats them as independent entities and makes no attempt to relate them to each other. They are obviously only being used so that Sewell can continue to deny reality instead of build any intelligent design alternative. Sad, but par for the course.
>
> The article is pretty sad.
> QUOTE:
> The ACLU speaks for much of the media and of academia when it says the theory of intelligent design “simply says that some things that seem very complex could not have happened based on natural causes. So where it sees complexity, it declares that it must have been created by a supernatural entity. This is not science.” Oh really? Is that all there is to it? Not exactly. Below is a modest attempt to provide a summary of the main scientific evidences for design in our world, for those who have been told that such evidence does not exist.
> END QUOTE:
>
> This is not scientific evidence for ID. For the last list the ID perps bent over backwards to only claim that it was the best evidence that they had. They were careful not to call it scientific evidence in each and every case. Ask MarkE what the Top Six are. They are just the god-of-the-gaps denial stupidity that the scientific creationists resorted to when they figured out that there was no science that they wanted to do. These are bits of science, but the problem for IDiots is that they only are interested in the gaps, and can't deal with with the science between the gaps. Sewell doesn't deal with what is known between the gaps in this article. He is obviously only interested in the gaps.
>
> Why can't Sewell build the best IDiot alternative from his Top Six? Why didn't he even try to relate them to each other?
>
> Old Top Six that were treated independently and only used for denial purposes. When will any IDiot science ever be attempted? Denial isn't doing any science.
>

> 1.
> https://evolutionnews.org/2017/11/ids-top-six-the-origin-of-the-universe/
>
> 2.
> https://evolutionnews.org/2017/11/ids-top-six-the-fine-tuning-of-the-universe/
>
> 3.
> https://evolutionnews.org/2017/11/ids-top-six-the-origin-of-information-in-dna/
>
> 4.
> https://evolutionnews.org/2017/11/ids-top-six-the-origin-of-irreducibly-complex-molecular-machines/
>
> 5.
> https://evolutionnews.org/2017/11/ids-top-six-the-origin-of-animals/
>
> 6.
> https://evolutionnews.org/2017/11/ids-top-six-the-origin-of-humans/
>
> Pretty sad. The best evidence for IDiocy, and what have the ID perps done with it in the last 3 years? Someone should ask Sewell why IC and the Cambrian explostion don't make the current Top Six. Sewell likely knows about the original Top Six. Why else would he make a Top Six list instead of a Top 5 or 10. He even had to split two of the Top Six in order to remove IC and the Cambrian explosion. This attempt seems to be just something to further chop up the "best evidence" for IDiocy in order to make it easier for the rubes to lie to themselves about the older list and this one.
>
> Why have a Top Six if you aren't going to use them to build anything?
>
> Ron Okimoto

[RonO]

On 11/22/2022 8:04 PM, peter2...@gmail.com wrote:
> Sewell's article linked below was commented on by RonO in his
> latest near-clone of a dozen or more OP's of his over the years.

What is weird is how Nyikos has to lie about reality in this way. He
has never faced the Top Six in an honest and straight forward manner in
any of his responses to my posts on the subject. He has missed the
point, always, and has never dealt with why all the other IDiots have
not been able to deal with the Top Six for the past 5 years. He can't
explain why Bill claimed that he never supported the ID creationist scam
in response to the Top Six. He can't explain why Kalk ran from them,
and tried to do what Glenn has done for the last 5 years (wallow in the
second rate denial stupidity he gets from the ID perps), and Kalk found
that he couldn't keep doing that, so he decided to stop being an IDiot.
Kalk has even come clean and stated that he never claimed to be hindu
and decided to return to just being a plain vanilla biblical
creationist. Pagano claimed that the Top Six were bogus and he tried to
put up the second rate denial stuppidity as being better. He tried to
claim that Dembski's CSI and no free lunch junk was really the best that
the ID perps had, but Dembski had already retired from the ID scam as an
abject failure, and his junk hadn't been considered to be among the Top
Six by the other ID perps.

Nyikos could use the Top Six in some positive fashion to see how it all
works with his space alien IDiotic notions, but he has never done that.
If he had he would know why Sewell and Miller can't deal with the Top
Six any better than the IDiots on TO have dealt with them.

>
> https://groups.google.com/g/talk.origins/c/wLSRK67XcYs/m/zW6JgRaQAgAJ
> ID perp Top Six
> Nov 6, 2022, 8:40:04 AM
>
> I am reviving this 2020 thread so that we can better compare the things
> he said earlier this month and the things he was saying below a bit
> over two years ago. Also there are some inconsistencies already
> on the thread,
> https://groups.google.com/g/talk.origins/c/a2K79skPGXI/m/uDwx0i-_BAAJ
> The degeneration of the ID perp's Top Six continues.
> Jan 30, 2021, 11:50:39 AM
> a mere three months after the post below.

Actually, I gave Nyikos the link to this thread because it demonstrated
that he was wrong about Sewell and his having a Top Six that included
the Big Bang. So Nyikos understand that he was wrong about that, and
now he wants to prevaricate about something else. The plain and simple
facts are that Nyikos was wrong and he is currently running from being
wrong, and his efforts to prevaricate about how wrong he was
demonstrated to be with posts to other posters is just stupid.

>
>
> On Wednesday, October 28, 2020 at 9:25:23 PM UTC-4, Ron O wrote:
>> https://evolutionnews.org/2020/10/top-six-evidences-for-intelligent-design/
>>
>> Sewell makes no mention of the original Top Six that were put up Nov 2017.
>
> Very true. But RonO's rigid mind cannot fathom the idea that there need not
> BE any cut and dried connection between Sewell's "top six" and Luskin's
> "top six". Luskin was nonchalant about the number:

What an IDiot. The reason why Luskin came up with the Top Six was
explained as him not caring about the usual Top 10. He couldn't put up
any others and be viewed as at all credible.

That should tell any IDiots that there was no reason for Sewell to
maintain the Top Six title unless he was talking about the same Top Six.
It is just that Sewell didn't like IC and the Cambrian explosion
(Behe's and Meyer's contributions) and he went with the other junk that
they had inherited from the scientific creationists. He could have made
it the Top 4 because as Luskin claimed there is no reason to make it
six, but Sewell made it six again by dividing fine tuning and human
evolution into two sections. This obviously diluted their value as
single bits evidence, but he did make them six.

>
> "Many different pieces of evidence pointing to design in nature could be adduced, but we decided to distill it all down to six major lines of evidence. Sure, five or ten would have been more conventional, but when did ID advocates start playing to expectations?"
> https://evolutionnews.org/2017/11/ids-top-six-the-origin-of-the-universe/

See, no reason for Sewell to maintain the Top Six. What is sad is that
Nyikos has already prevaricated about the Title of "Top Six". It is
just a plain and simple fact that the original Top Six was titled the
Top Six and Sewell's attempt was also titled the Top Six. Where would
Sewell have gotten that title, when he used 4 of the previous Top Six?

>
>
> Sewell, for his part, does not claim that they were THE top six, but only says,
> " Below is a modest attempt to provide a summary of the main scientific evidences for design in our world, for those who have been told that such evidence does not exist."

Sewell lied about the Top Six being scientific evidence. The ID perps
bent over backwards to not call them that. You can go through their Top
Six and see that they only called them the best evidence. It is just a
fact that the Top Six is not scientific evidence for IDiocy. It is just
evidence that we don't know everything about nature at this time. Once
Sewell had been corrected he stopped calling them scientific evidence.
Where does Nyikos think that Sewell got the "main" evidence for
intelligent design and the Top Six title?

>
> Note the word "attempt." Unlike RonO, who is cocksure about hundreds of things for
> which evidence is sorely deficient, Sewell thinks like a scientist.

He did it. It may have been an attempt, but it is what he did.

>
>
>> He seems to rate them as to their importance to IDiocy instead of listing them in their temporal order.
>
> This is pure speculation on RonO's part, not backed up with a smidgen of reasoning,
> and, as will be seen below, spectacularly wrongheaded.

It was just speculation of why he would take them out of their order of
occurrence that might have been half way legitimate. The alternative is
that he did it so that he could deal with them out of context as
disembodied bits of denial to better lie to himself and others about
them. He took it to the extreme. Just look how he disordered them. He
put fine tuning of the earth before fine tuning of the universe at the
start of the Big Bang, and he puts the Big Bang last among the Top Six.

>
> But already three months later, he was treating it as gospel truth:
>
> "Sewell put them in their order of significance to IDiocy,"
> https://groups.google.com/g/talk.origins/c/a2K79skPGXI/m/uDwx0i-_BAAJ

That seems to be what Sewell did. Look what got dropped out. #6. The
Big Bang. It was obviously the worst of the bunch. His human evolution
junk #4 abd #5 is laughable. Try to defend it. There doesn't seem to
be much of a reason to leave those in and drop out the Big Bang. The
Big Bang is the best evidence for a creation event that science has come
up with, but it doesn't make the grade for Miller, and the Big Bang just
happens to be one of the science topics that the IDiots want to drop out
of public school science standards along with biological evolution.
Even though the scientific creatinoists used it as god-of-the-gaps
denial and the AIG is still using it that way in their creation museum
planetarium, most IDiots do not want their kids to understand that there
ever was a Big Bang because it isn't what we don't know about it that
they want to deny, it is what we know about the aftermath of the Big
Bang that they don't want their kids to understand.

>
>
>> It is a different Top Six. He split the original #2 and made them #1 and #2 (fine tuning of our universe and fine tuning of our planet).
>
> RonO got them backwards. But that's nothing compared to his profound ignorance about Luskin's "top six".
> There is NOTHING in Luskin's list that says ANYTHING about Sewell's
> theme in Sewell's #1, which is about a topic that had a long history before Sewell
> latched on to it. You can read about it here:
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rare_Earth_hypothesis

You were wrong about the order of the original Top Six where the Big
Bang was first, and now you are trying to make something out of me
describing how he split fine tuning into two parts when I kept them in
their temporal order. I did not say "respectively" because Sewell took
the parts out of order. I already knew that. You didn't.

>
> The use of the word "fine tuning" by Sewell trivializes the concept.
> Moving the earth over anywhere within the Goldilock's Zone,
> a ring around the sun whose width is over one half the distance from the earth
> to the sun, would still have been congenial to life. The fine tuning in #2
> is astronomically more sensitive to whether life can endure.

Sewell split the fine tuning slock in two to maintain the Top Six. It
just diluted whatever it meant to the ID scam by breaking it up and
presenting it as two worthless bits of evidence instead of one.

>
> And Sewell certainly doesn't put #1 first because he thinks it is the
> most significant. He even admits that atheists have a good comeback:
> there are so many planetary systems in the known universe that there
> is nothing unusual about there being at least one planet as favorable
> to a 5 billion period of burgeoning evolution as the earth is.

It seems to have been the best that he had. It was all down hill after
that in terms of the junk he talked about. He could have done it in
that order so that he could more easily lie to himself. Look at Glenn.
He can obviously lie to himself about one of the Top Six at a time, but
he can't stand them when they have been placed in their order of occurrence.

>
> For such a comeback to #2, one has to assume the existence of
> a multiverse with so many individual universes, that the number
> of stars in our universe is AT LEAST to the number of universes as 1 is
> to the number of electrons in our universe. And I suspect even
> that is a huge underestimate.

This has nothing to do with what you were wrong about.

>
>
> I'll have much more to say about RonO's benighted OP here, but this will do for a first shot.

Why not admit that you were wrong in response to the post that you are
running from before making up more junk to lie about? It is just a
plain and simple fact that you were just wrong, and all you were doing
was side tracking the issue of what Glenn had done when he posted 4
threads on the Top Six that he has been running from for the last 5
years. What Glenn did is still utterly stupid, and just shows that he
doesn't even want to understand the second rate junk that he gets from
the ID perps enough to know what he is posting.

Ron Okimoto

[peter2...@gmail.com]

On Wednesday, November 23, 2022 at 6:55:21 PM UTC-5, Ron O shamelessly
indulged in Moving the Goalposts below.

> On 11/22/2022 8:04 PM, peter2...@gmail.com wrote:
> > Sewell's article linked below was commented on by RonO in his
> > latest near-clone of a dozen or more OP's of his over the years.

> What is weird is how Nyikos has to lie about reality in this way.

There is no lie in what I wrote above. Only someone with
your tenuous hold on reality would use the words "in this way"
to describe that sentence.


On the other hand, YOU are being deceitful below,
shamelessly distorting what has transpired in those near-clones
of each other.

> He has never faced the Top Six in an honest and straight forward manner in
> any of his responses to my posts on the subject.

I kept challenging YOU to explain what the hell your
accusations against Glenn and others you name below
were all about, and now you are mindlessly making
the same accusation against ME.

You never challenged ME to do it before, and you know it.
You kept harping on how Glenn, etc. failed to deal with "the Top Six" as a whole,
because, as you fondly imagine, he can't face the reality
of the designer that they promote.

Are you so out of touch with what's going on in talk.origins that
you don't know anything about the designer[s] that I have
hypothesized about in the past? I gave Burkhard a summary of
that here:
https://groups.google.com/g/talk.origins/c/wLSRK67XcYs/m/-fGSq-NXAgAJ
Re: ID perp Top Six
Nov 23, 2022, 12:20:21 PM

This was more than six (6) hours before you made the benighted post to which
I am replying, on the thread whose OP YOU made.

> He has missed the
> point, always, and has never dealt with why all the other IDiots have
> not been able to deal with the Top Six for the past 5 years.

That's because you are a spineless coward who never dared
to spell out why you imagine they CAN'T deal with them.

I've said this repeatedly, but you are so oblivious to the printed word when it suits
you, that you think **I** should be able to deal with what looks to me
like a figment of your imagination.

> He can't explain why Bill claimed that he never supported the ID creationist scam
> in response to the Top Six. He can't explain why Kalk ran from them,

Why do you expect me to explain these things which you keep claiming
but never explain?

Are you such a deranged conspiracy theorist that you think I know the intimate
workings of Bill's and Kalk's and Glenn's minds?

>
> and tried to do what Glenn has done for the last 5 years (wallow in the
> second rate denial stupidity he gets from the ID perps),

I never tried to do that, liar. I formulate my own arguments that go
well beyond what I've seen from "the ID perps" [read: the Discovery Institute (DI)],
and I criticize their shortcomings when I see them.

But you are so wrapped up in your own little world that you almost
never talk about those shortcomings, but are pandering to every
anti-ID rube who thinks [s]he knows what they are by simply
avoiding talking about *specific* shortcomings.

> and Kalk found that he couldn't keep doing that, so he decided to stop being an IDiot.
> Kalk has even come clean and stated that he never claimed to be hindu
> and decided to return to just being a plain vanilla biblical
> creationist.

When did he do that? When we discussed things these last two weeks,
he seemed at least as impressed by the Vedas and the Bhagavad-gita
as he is of the Bible.

>Pagano claimed that the Top Six were bogus and he tried to
> put up the second rate denial stuppidity as being better. He tried to
> claim that Dembski's CSI and no free lunch junk was really the best that
> the ID perps had, but Dembski had already retired from the ID scam as an
> abject failure, and his junk hadn't been considered to be among the Top
> Six by the other ID perps.
>
> Nyikos could use the Top Six in some positive fashion to see how it all
> works with his space alien IDiotic notions,

Been there, done that, in reply to Ray Martinez long ago in one way,
and to Burkhard in the linked post another way, but I eschew the
pejorative words "space alien" and us the words, "intelligent creatures arising in our universe".

It's got nothing to do with "the ID perps". I am partly updating the Directed Panspermia (DP)
hypothesis by the ATHEIST Francis Crick, that talks about designers that
are plain old naturally evolved beings like ourselves. The "ID perps" don't
seriously hypothesize such naturalistic explanations, and I'm sure you know why.

> but he has never done that.

Now that you, FOR THE FIRST TIME EVER, have challenged me to do
this, I will do it before the end of this year. But you are such a pathetic,
clueless jerk that I'm giving other t.o. regulars priority until shortly
before my usual winter posting break.

> If he had he would know why Sewell and Miller can't deal with the Top
> Six any better than the IDiots on TO have dealt with them.

You are under some delusion that I have the same world-view they do.
It's the only thing that accounts for why you are such a hate-driven adversary of mine.

> > https://groups.google.com/g/talk.origins/c/wLSRK67XcYs/m/zW6JgRaQAgAJ
> > ID perp Top Six
> > Nov 6, 2022, 8:40:04 AM
> >
> > I am reviving this 2020 thread so that we can better compare the things
> > he said earlier this month and the things he was saying below a bit
> > over two years ago. Also there are some inconsistencies already
> > on the thread,
> > https://groups.google.com/g/talk.origins/c/a2K79skPGXI/m/uDwx0i-_BAAJ
> > The degeneration of the ID perp's Top Six continues.
> > Jan 30, 2021, 11:50:39 AM
> > a mere three months after the post below.

> Actually, I gave Nyikos the link to this thread because it demonstrated
> that he was wrong about Sewell and his having a Top Six that included
> the Big Bang.

It did nothing of the sort, but that's something I'll explain on the most recent
thread that I linked above.

> So Nyikos understand that he was wrong about that,

You have this deplorable tendency to count your chickens before
they are hatched. But that's understandable from the way
you've been spoiled rotten by over 90% of the regulars in talk.origins,
who have never had the experience I have through being in a
very small minority.

I learned within a month of posting to a similarly polemic-saturated Usenet "newsgroup"
in 1992 that counter-arguments, counter-counter arguments, and counter-counter-counter arguments
seldom establish much. It is in the counter-counter-counter-counter arguments and
counter-counter-counter-counter-counter-...arguments that a clear picture begins to emerge.

You, on the other hand, simply assume that you are right and hardly
ever bother to think about the counter-arguments that come your way,
so you almost never bother with counter-counter arguments.

> and now he wants to prevaricate about something else. The plain and simple
> facts are that Nyikos was wrong and he is currently running from being
> wrong, and his efforts to prevaricate about how wrong he was
> demonstrated to be with posts to other posters is just stupid.

Keep wallowing in that delusion if it makes you happy. I won't
spoil your Thanksgiving Day by doing what I plan on doing tomorrow.


What came next was an abrupt shift to scientific issues,
and so I'll stop here and resume in my next reply to this post of yours,
later today. Don't worry, there'll be no spoiling your Thanksgiving in the ABOVE way.

Peter Nyikos
Professor, Dept. of Mathematics -- standard disclaimer--

University of So. Carolina at Columbia
http://people.math.sc.edu/nyikos

PS don't think I'm "running away" because I snipped everything that
follows: I'll resume exactly where I left off, later this evening.

[peter2...@gmail.com]

On Wednesday, November 23, 2022 at 6:55:21 PM UTC-5, Ron O wrote:
> On 11/22/2022 8:04 PM, peter2...@gmail.com wrote:

Picking up exactly where I left off in my preceding reply:

> > On Wednesday, October 28, 2020 at 9:25:23 PM UTC-4, Ron O wrote:
> >> https://evolutionnews.org/2020/10/top-six-evidences-for-intelligent-design
> >>

> >> Sewell makes no mention of the original Top Six that were put up Nov 2017.
> >
> > Very true. But RonO's rigid mind cannot fathom the idea that there need not
> > BE any cut and dried connection between Sewell's "top six" and Luskin's
> > "top six". Luskin was nonchalant about the number:

You hurl an insult and then fall flat on your face:

> What an IDiot. The reason why Luskin came up with the Top Six was
> explained as him not caring about the usual Top 10.

There WAS no "Top Ten arguments" for ID. The "usual Top 10" was for something
different, AND was accompanied by a Top 5:

"Editor’s note: In the past we’ve offered the top 10 problems with Darwinian evolution (see here for a fuller elaboration), and the top five problems with origin-of-life theories. But somehow we neglected to offer a parallel listing of the top lines of evidence supporting intelligent design."

The above was the VERY BEGINNING of something you've linked in your OP
and in numerous other posts of yours:
https://evolutionnews.org/2017/11/ids-top-six-the-origin-of-the-universe/

You are operating on the English comprehension level of a five year old with the
last comment of yours. And you just plain lied when you said Luskin didn't
care about the top ten whatever.

>He couldn't put up
> any others and be viewed as at all credible.

Only a simpleton like you would be so prone to building castles in the air like this.
Here you are thinking on the level of an 8-year old, and that's being generous.

Luskin could have put up the mystery of how meiosis arose from mitosis,
and several other mysteries, but he wanted to keep things simple for laymen.

I, on the other hand, set up a thread where Harshman and I did our best for meiosis,
but could only go as far as trying to see where in the eukaryote tree it began,
and couldn't even show that it wasn't mitosis that evolved from meiosis instead
of the other way around.

> That should tell any IDiots that there was no reason for Sewell to
> maintain the Top Six title unless he was talking about the same Top Six.

Your Garbage In should not tell anyone this Garbage Out,
except the REAL idiots who blindly give a pass to every
piece of garbage you hurl against what you call "IDiots".
Foremost among them are jillery and Hemidactylus,
but there's about half a dozen others.

> It is just that Sewell didn't like IC and the Cambrian explosion
> (Behe's and Meyer's contributions) and he went with the other junk that
> they had inherited from the scientific creationists.

Keep building these castles in the air while ignoring scientific issues
that they also didn't mention in their top this and top that, the "protein takeover",
which was near a long list of problems mentioned by Luskin here:

http://www.ideacenter.org/contentmgr/showdetails.php/id/838

> He could have made
> it the Top 4 because as Luskin claimed there is no reason to make it
> six, but Sewell made it six again by dividing fine tuning and human
> evolution into two sections. This obviously diluted their value as
> single bits evidence, but he did make them six.
> >
> > "Many different pieces of evidence pointing to design in nature could be adduced, but we decided to distill it all down to six major lines of evidence. Sure, five or ten would have been more conventional, but when did ID advocates start playing to expectations?"
> > https://evolutionnews.org/2017/11/ids-top-six-the-origin-of-the-universe/
> See, no reason for Sewell to maintain the Top Six.


> What is sad is that

...you are running repeatedly away from the scientific issues involved
and are getting stuck into minutiae that leave totally untouched the
strengths and weaknesses of the arguments.

You NEVER tried to make good your claim that they are "junk,"
and instead turned every posting into a personal vendetta against
Glenn and Kalk and Bill and Pagano that had nothing to do
with the content of the Top Six. s

> Nyikos has already prevaricated about the Title of "Top Six". It is
> just a plain and simple fact that the original Top Six was titled the
> Top Six and Sewell's attempt was also titled the Top Six. Where would
> Sewell have gotten that title, when he used 4 of the previous Top Six?

Irrelevant minutiae even if you guessed correctly.

Admit it: you loathe the Top Six or top anything whatever form they take,
because you loathe the idea of rational arguments
for a designer and you loathe the very idea of a superintelligent
designer. You love blind faith without rational basis. That is
why outspoken atheists either love you like jillery, or prefer
you to me like Harshman did on a memorable occasion: you play into their hands.

> > Sewell, for his part, does not claim that they were THE top six, but only says,
> > " Below is a modest attempt to provide a summary of the main scientific evidences for design in our world, for those who have been told that such evidence does not exist."

> Sewell lied about the Top Six being scientific evidence.

You are bearing false witness against Sewell with this charge of outright lying.

You never cared about Jesus's words, "Do not bear false witness." You toss
never-supported accusations of lying around as though you think Jesus was
wrong to say those words.

> The ID perps
> bent over backwards to not call them that.

Stop lying. They only bent over backwards to not claim that the
designer HAD TO BE supernatural.

> You can go through their Top
> Six and see that they only called them the best evidence.

> It is just a
> fact that the Top Six is not scientific evidence for IDiocy. It is just
> evidence that we don't know everything about nature at this time.

This is pure polemic on your part. You put unknowns,
even ordinary things like how much water there is
locked up in the permafrost of Mars, together with facts that
pose a seemingly insurmountable challenge to atheism.
You love atheists like jillery, and I suspect you love atheism as well.

> Once Sewell had been corrected he stopped calling them scientific evidence.

Where's your evidence that anything like this happened?

> Where does Nyikos think that Sewell got the "main" evidence for
> intelligent design and the Top Six title?

Where do YOU think he got it? You don't dare tell.

> >
> > Note the word "attempt." Unlike RonO, who is cocksure about hundreds of things for
> > which evidence is sorely deficient, Sewell thinks like a scientist.

I should have added, as far as how cautious he is most of the time, as here.

> He did it. It may have been an attempt, but it is what he did.
> >
> >
> >> He seems to rate them as to their importance to IDiocy instead of listing them in their temporal order.

a> >

> > This is pure speculation on RonO's part, not backed up with a smidgen of reasoning,
> > and, as will be seen below, spectacularly wrongheaded.

> It was just speculation of why he would take them out of their order of
> occurrence that might have been half way legitimate.

Big backpedal noted.

> The alternative is
> that he did it so that he could deal with them out of context as
> disembodied bits of denial to better lie to himself and others about
> them.

There are other alternatives, but you are too consumed with
loathing to see them.

> He took it to the extreme. Just look how he disordered them. He
> put fine tuning of the earth before fine tuning of the universe at the
> start of the Big Bang, and he puts the Big Bang last among the Top Six.
> >
> > But already three months later, he was treating it as gospel truth:
> >
> > "Sewell put them in their order of significance to IDiocy,"
> > https://groups.google.com/g/talk.origins/c/a2K79skPGXI/m/uDwx0i-_BAAJ

> That seems to be what Sewell did.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Ron O posting mode on

You now admit that you lied when you said
"Sewell put them in their order of significance to IDiocy."

How sad is that?
++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Ron O posting mode off

> Look what got dropped out. #6. The
> Big Bang. It was obviously the worst of the bunch.

You have no argument for this "obviously" except your pathetic say-so.

That pretty well sums up 95% of your cocksure comments on the
threads you begin. I'm leaving the rest of your comments below
for future reference, just so you can't accuse me of "running away"
from your pathetic "arguments".

You have enough on your hands to bail yourself out of the idiocies
you spewed here and which I called you out on. Deal with them if you can.

Peter Nyikos
Professor, Dept. of Mathematics -- standard disclaimer--

University of So. Carolina in Columbia
http://people.math.sc.edu/nyikos

[RonO]

On 11/24/2022 3:21 PM, peter2...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Wednesday, November 23, 2022 at 6:55:21 PM UTC-5, Ron O shamelessly
> indulged in Moving the Goalposts below.
>
>> On 11/22/2022 8:04 PM, peter2...@gmail.com wrote:
>>> Sewell's article linked below was commented on by RonO in his
>>> latest near-clone of a dozen or more OP's of his over the years.
>
>> What is weird is how Nyikos has to lie about reality in this way.

Reality doesn't change, and neither does what you have done all these
years. You still don't seem to understand what the situation is, and
that is because of willful ignorance. Just in this thread you can go up
to Dean's comments and my responses and you can get links to you running
from dealing with the situation, with a blind adherence to maintain your
ignorance. You kept running from the explanation that you claim that
you never got (just check what you claim below), and you never addressed
the post that would have explained it to you. You refused and just kept
running.

https://groups.google.com/g/talk.origins/c/4PLsqrWGbmo/m/UOe5BUgfCAAJ

Use the REPOST link to get refreshed on how you ran from the explanation.

>
> There is no lie in what I wrote above. Only someone with
> your tenuous hold on reality would use the words "in this way"
> to describe that sentence.
>
>
> On the other hand, YOU are being deceitful below,
> shamelessly distorting what has transpired in those near-clones
> of each other.
>
>> He has never faced the Top Six in an honest and straight forward manner in
>> any of his responses to my posts on the subject.
>
> I kept challenging YOU to explain what the hell your
> accusations against Glenn and others you name below
> were all about, and now you are mindlessly making
> the same accusation against ME.

Use the link above to see how you kept running from understanding what
you didn't want to understand.

>
> You never challenged ME to do it before, and you know it.
> You kept harping on how Glenn, etc. failed to deal with "the Top Six" as a whole,
> because, as you fondly imagine, he can't face the reality
> of the designer that they promote.

I recall a couple times where I suggested that you should use the Top
Six to support your space alien IDiocy, but let's say that I never
challenged you to do it. Why have you never done it anyway? They are
the best evidence that IDiots have. Why haven't you nor any other IDiot
tried to use them for something positive and build the best IDiotic
explanation out of them that is possible?

If you had done the sensible thing, you would be like Kalk and Bill and
be an exIDiot by now, or you could be willfully ignorant, and keep
wallowing in the denial like Glenn.

>
> Are you so out of touch with what's going on in talk.origins that
> you don't know anything about the designer[s] that I have
> hypothesized about in the past? I gave Burkhard a summary of
> that here:
> https://groups.google.com/g/talk.origins/c/wLSRK67XcYs/m/-fGSq-NXAgAJ
> Re: ID perp Top Six
> Nov 23, 2022, 12:20:21 PM
>
> This was more than six (6) hours before you made the benighted post to which
> I am replying, on the thread whose OP YOU made.

So why have you remained willfully ignorant of why all the other IDiots
can't stand the Top Six? They obviously do not agree with your multiple
explanations. So there seems to be no reason for your objections and
stupid lies about the Top Six. You obviously did not have to change the
subject of the thread where you are currently lying about what is in the
video. You could have just accepted what Glenn had done as something
very stupid. You know it demonstrates that Glenn doesn't even want to
understand the second rate junk that he gets from the ID perps because
he posted 4 threads with Top Six topics in a week without realizing what
he was posting. How little understanding of what Glenn had posted would
have been required in order for him to do that? Glenn didn't even
understand what the subject of denial was.

>
>> He has missed the
>> point, always, and has never dealt with why all the other IDiots have
>> not been able to deal with the Top Six for the past 5 years.
>
> That's because you are a spineless coward who never dared
> to spell out why you imagine they CAN'T deal with them.

Use link above and demonstrate for yourself that you are the one that
ran in order to be willfully ignorant. There wasn't even an attempt on
your part to understand what was going on. It was you that kept running
from the explanation.

>
> I've said this repeatedly, but you are so oblivious to the printed word when it suits
> you, that you think **I** should be able to deal with what looks to me
> like a figment of your imagination.

Only because you kept running from reality. You just kept running and
wouldn't even claim that you didn't understand what was posted. You
wouldn't make any comments about it. You just kept running.

>
>
>> He can't explain why Bill claimed that he never supported the ID creationist scam
>> in response to the Top Six. He can't explain why Kalk ran from them,
>
> Why do you expect me to explain these things which you keep claiming
> but never explain?

I just state what happened. When faced with the Top Six Bill claimed
that he had never supported the ID scam. How long was Bill an IDiot
creationist on TO? He was posting before you came back at the end of
2010. Bill had already stopped openly supporting the ID scam for
several years and had resorted to his "reality doesn't exist" claims,
but the Top Six made him come out and claim that he had never supported
the ID scam. Kalk and Glenn did start running from them, and both tried
to post second rate junk from the ID perps that had not made the Top
Six. Glenn still does that, but Kalk quit doing that and claimed that he
no longer supported the ID scam.

These things happened, and in Glenn's case they are still happening. you
and Glenn are the only two half way competent IDiots left that might be
competent enough to claim to be legitimate IDiots.

>
> Are you such a deranged conspiracy theorist that you think I know the intimate
> workings of Bill's and Kalk's and Glenn's minds?

No, but you shouldn't deny what they did, and you should be able to
figure out why they did what they did.

>
>
>>
>> and tried to do what Glenn has done for the last 5 years (wallow in the
>> second rate denial stupidity he gets from the ID perps),
>
> I never tried to do that, liar. I formulate my own arguments that go
> well beyond what I've seen from "the ID perps" [read: the Discovery Institute (DI)],
> and I criticize their shortcomings when I see them.

What have you been doing with the Top Six? You are stil an IDiot, but
you never used the Top Six in an honest and straight forward manner. You
just claimed that you didn't know what the issue was even though you
never dealt with the Top Six yourself.

>
> But you are so wrapped up in your own little world that you almost
> never talk about those shortcomings, but are pandering to every
> anti-ID rube who thinks [s]he knows what they are by simply
> avoiding talking about *specific* shortcomings.

Demonstrate that what has been happening for the last 5 years has not
happened. Bill and Kalk have had years to claim that they did not do
what they did, and Glenn is still doing it. Pagano would have to come
back and start posting again, but you likely could go back to what
happened after the Top Six came out Nov 2017. You were MIA at that
time, and when you came back you have just been willfully ignorant. Just
use the link above to see how willfully ignorant you were when this
thread was active.

>
>
>
>> and Kalk found that he couldn't keep doing that, so he decided to stop being an IDiot.
>> Kalk has even come clean and stated that he never claimed to be hindu
>> and decided to return to just being a plain vanilla biblical
>> creationist.
>
> When did he do that? When we discussed things these last two weeks,
> he seemed at least as impressed by the Vedas and the Bhagavad-gita
> as he is of the Bible.

https://groups.google.com/g/talk.origins/c/unHCBSUkJ6U/m/kxiQ5fSXAgAJ

I had suspected that Kalk's nym was being used by multiple users or
personalities, so it might be that some of them do not know that the
game is up for pretending to be Hindu.

>
>
>> Pagano claimed that the Top Six were bogus and he tried to
>> put up the second rate denial stuppidity as being better. He tried to
>> claim that Dembski's CSI and no free lunch junk was really the best that
>> the ID perps had, but Dembski had already retired from the ID scam as an
>> abject failure, and his junk hadn't been considered to be among the Top
>> Six by the other ID perps.
>>
>> Nyikos could use the Top Six in some positive fashion to see how it all
>> works with his space alien IDiotic notions,
>
> Been there, done that, in reply to Ray Martinez long ago in one way,
> and to Burkhard in the linked post another way, but I eschew the
> pejorative words "space alien" and us the words, "intelligent creatures arising in our universe".
>
> It's got nothing to do with "the ID perps". I am partly updating the Directed Panspermia (DP)
> hypothesis by the ATHEIST Francis Crick, that talks about designers that
> are plain old naturally evolved beings like ourselves. The "ID perps" don't
> seriously hypothesize such naturalistic explanations, and I'm sure you know why.

So you already know that the Top Six require non biblical designers, and
you still claim to not understand why all the other IDiots can stand
them? How does that work?

Dean has come back, and he might remember that he claimed that he didn't
want to use the denial to understand his religious beliefs before he
quit posting last time. It turned out that all Dean, and Glenn are
insterested in is the denial. They do not want to build anything out of
any understanding that would come out of the Top Six. Do you remember
the Shermer/Meyer thread where they discussed "The God Hypothesis" book
Meyer had written. Meyer was emphatic in his claim that the last thing
that he wanted to do was use the Top Six to better understand his
religious beliefs. He didn't even want to build a coherant single God
Hypothesis. He only wanted to use the Top Six as disembodied bits of
denial in order to claim that some god could fill those gaps. He just
didn't want to believe in the gods that filled those gaps.

This is likely the main reason that no ID science was ever attempted.
None of the ID perps want to know the answers that they would get.

Why do you think that the bait and switch has been going down for over
20 years? There aren't very many IDiots that would want to teach the
best evidence for intelligent design to their kids, and if you can't
teach the best, why teach anything else?

Most of the IDiot support base is still YEC. What would they do if Behe
made a scientific breakthrough and discovered the 3 neutral mutations
that needed to occur during the evolution of the flagellum over a
billion years ago? Behe would know what existed before, and what had to
happen during a certain time period. He would likely survive the
denial, but book sales would go down and most IDiots would not want to
believe him.

>
>
>> but he has never done that.
>
> Now that you, FOR THE FIRST TIME EVER, have challenged me to do
> this, I will do it before the end of this year. But you are such a pathetic,
> clueless jerk that I'm giving other t.o. regulars priority until shortly
> before my usual winter posting break.

You can call it a challenge, but it would just demonstrate why the Top
Six killed IDiocy on TO. Go for it. You should find that the god or
gods of the Top Six are not biblical enough for most IDiots.

Your space aliens might account for the flagellum, but who was
responsible for blood clotting and the adaptive immune system that
evolved a billion years later. The space aliens wouldn't have been the
ones that were responsible for fine tuning and the Big Bang, and would
they have been able to manipulate things like our solar system in order
to create the earth after over 8 billion years of star deaths had
produced enough carbon and heavy elements to make earth suitable for
life. Would the space aliens responsible for the origin of life on this
planet be the same space aliens responsible for the flagellum a couple
billion years later?

Go for it, and determine for yourself why the Top Six killed IDiocy on
TO when the ID perps gave IDiots the Top Six in their order of occurrence.

>
>
>> If he had he would know why Sewell and Miller can't deal with the Top
>> Six any better than the IDiots on TO have dealt with them.
>
> You are under some delusion that I have the same world-view they do.
> It's the only thing that accounts for why you are such a hate-driven adversary of mine.

You are the one that has remained willfully ignorant of the reality of
the ID scam. How long has the bait and switch scam been going down on
any creationist rubes stupid and dishonest enough to believe that the ID
perps have any ID science worth teaching?

>
>
>>> https://groups.google.com/g/talk.origins/c/wLSRK67XcYs/m/zW6JgRaQAgAJ
>>> ID perp Top Six
>>> Nov 6, 2022, 8:40:04 AM
>>>
>>> I am reviving this 2020 thread so that we can better compare the things
>>> he said earlier this month and the things he was saying below a bit
>>> over two years ago. Also there are some inconsistencies already
>>> on the thread,
>>> https://groups.google.com/g/talk.origins/c/a2K79skPGXI/m/uDwx0i-_BAAJ
>>> The degeneration of the ID perp's Top Six continues.
>>> Jan 30, 2021, 11:50:39 AM
>>> a mere three months after the post below.
>
>> Actually, I gave Nyikos the link to this thread because it demonstrated
>> that he was wrong about Sewell and his having a Top Six that included
>> the Big Bang.
>
> It did nothing of the sort, but that's something I'll explain on the most recent
> thread that I linked above.

You have started lying about what was in the video, and you had claimed
that the #6 the Big Bang was not in the video in order to claim that I
was wrong about that.

>
>
> > So Nyikos understand that he was wrong about that,
>
> You have this deplorable tendency to count your chickens before
> they are hatched. But that's understandable from the way
> you've been spoiled rotten by over 90% of the regulars in talk.origins,
> who have never had the experience I have through being in a
> very small minority.

You understand that you were wrong, you just have to lie about it. That
is just what you do.

>
> I learned within a month of posting to a similarly polemic-saturated Usenet "newsgroup"
> in 1992 that counter-arguments, counter-counter arguments, and counter-counter-counter arguments
> seldom establish much. It is in the counter-counter-counter-counter arguments and
> counter-counter-counter-counter-counter-...arguments that a clear picture begins to emerge.

You just lie a lot.

>
> You, on the other hand, simply assume that you are right and hardly
> ever bother to think about the counter-arguments that come your way,
> so you almost never bother with counter-counter arguments.

Just take the Top Six and deal with them as the best evidence for
IDiocy, and figure out what they tell you about the intelligent
designer. Take them in order and put the designer into each gap even if
you don't know what the designer did, just pretend that the designer did
it in order to create what we know about what is around the gaps.

You will no longer have to guess why the Top Six had the effect it had
on IDiots like Glenn, and why Sewell had to chop them up and take them
out of order. The gaps may allow them to lie to themselves about
reality, but it is actually what we already understand that links the
gaps together that kills their usefulness to IDiots. It really isn't
what we don't know that matters.

>
>> and now he wants to prevaricate about something else. The plain and simple
>> facts are that Nyikos was wrong and he is currently running from being
>> wrong, and his efforts to prevaricate about how wrong he was
>> demonstrated to be with posts to other posters is just stupid.
>
> Keep wallowing in that delusion if it makes you happy. I won't
> spoil your Thanksgiving Day by doing what I plan on doing tomorrow.

What are you lying about in the other thread? What was in the video?

>
>
> What came next was an abrupt shift to scientific issues,
> and so I'll stop here and resume in my next reply to this post of yours,
> later today. Don't worry, there'll be no spoiling your Thanksgiving in the ABOVE way.

Why bother? Deal with the Top Six in an honest and straight forward
manner as the best evidence that the IDiots have and you will understand
why you don't have to remain willfully ignorant and lie about this junk
anymore.

Ron Okimoto

[peter2...@gmail.com]

In your latest reply on this thread, Ron O, you launched into one
of your lengthy "filibusters" in the beginning, to soften the blow of
comments of mine which you didn't want to deal with directly.

I was motivated to look at Ron Dean's first reply to you by
something you wrote near the beginning of your filibuster:

"Just in this thread you can go up to Dean's comments and my responses and you can get links to you running from dealing with the situation,"

That was a hypocritical misrepresentation, as will be shown below.

On Thursday, October 29, 2020 at 6:50:22 PM UTC-4, Ron O wrote:
> On Thursday, October 29, 2020 at 7:30:23 AM UTC-5, Ron Dean wrote:

> > I've been away from TO for a time, but I see you are still obsessing
> > over these top six arguments for intelligent design. I know you
> > disagree, but I do not recall you discrediting them! How have you
> > discredited any of the six?

Instead of giving a straightforward answer right away, you launch into
one of your shorter filibusters:

> Unfortunately for you, your misunderstanding of the situation is likely due to the same type of lack of understanding shown by Nyikos on this topic.

Or perhaps it is because you keep referring to the arguments as "junk."

>
> REPOST #2:
> https://groups.google.com/d/msg/talk.origins/hmhr1Ppyvi4/Tsw5f7e0AAAJ

You were too much of a coward to say what was going on here,
but I will explain it below.

> The explanation of the current situation is what Nyikos has been running from for months:

EVERYBODY, even you, "ran from" what you linked here, because the link takes
people to an OP by you to which nobody replied.
> https://groups.google.com/d/msg/talk.origins/GxB26Y4_QDk/9gYqAu8lBAAJ

This June 6 OP by you predated the July post to which
your first link went.

Thanks for that first link, by the way. Unfortunately for you, I scrolled up
to the first two posts you made to that thread, and saw a piece of garbage
you posted back then: in a reply by you to me,
you also insulted the Top Six as being "IDiot claptrap."

> I have never claimed to want to discredit the IDiot's Top Six.

Then why do you keep referring to them as "junk" and "IDiot claptrap"?
Is it because your incredibly repetitious posts are filled with you no longer
paying full attention to what your fingers type?

Or is it because you are a thoroughly illogical person who cannot
"put two and two together" and see that your claim not to want to
discredit any of the arguments and your claim that the arguments
are "junk" and "IDiot claptrap" are incompatible with each other?


>Have you never wondered why not a single IDiot posting on TO would help you deal with the Top Six?

Could it be that they were familiar with how you keep contradicting yourself?
Here is how I, not quite familiar yet with how deep this contradiction
goes in your addled brain, said some insightful things about it:

______________________________ excerpt ____________________________
I don't understand why you call them "claptrap" and yet you don't want
anyone to attack them. Is it because expressions like "The Top Six
are claptrap" are like music to the ears of almost every t.o. regular,
especially atheists like jillery and Oxyaena, and so they give you
support and attention and affection that you would be starved for otherwise?

> It has to do with the fact that no IDiot can face what
> the Top Six actually are,

Near as I can make out, what this use of the word "face" refers to
is for what you call "IDiots" to admit that the Top Six
are just disguised "god of the gaps arguments."
That expression has been music to the ears of atheists for
over a century, and sure to get more support and affection for
you from jillery and Oxyaena.
======================= end of excerpts
from
https://groups.google.com/g/talk.origins/c/hmhr1Ppyvi4/m/Q_wb3DaBAwAJ
Re: Challenge Pertaining to the Top Six ID Theory Arguments
Jun 12, 2020, 9:55:01 AM

My whole post was very instructive about how you get into all kinds of
misunderstandings because of your ingrained habit of being so vague,
nobody without lots of prior experience can figure out what you are talking about.

Are you so out of touch with the realities of talk.origins that
you imagine everyone can figure out what you mean
without any effort by you to explain it?


There is also some nifty stuff in it about Bill Rogers and
MarkE that shows how out of touch you were about
what was really going on between them -- or else were
shamelessly lying about it.


> You asked for assistance, but no one helped you out. You forgot about that, and messed up again, and no one came to your aid. Why do you find it so difficult to understand why no IDiot wants to deal with the Top Six? What should you have learned from your own experience?

One thing he might have learned from YOUR experience is that
YOU RAN AWAY FROM THE POST THAT I'VE DOCUMENTED UP THERE.


A bit over a month later, I did a post in which I told your ally Harshman just how
you went on contradicting yourself in more creative ways, referring
inter alia to the post from which you had run away:

https://groups.google.com/g/talk.origins/c/hmhr1Ppyvi4/m/whlVsJYzAAAJ
Jul 17, 2020, 12:04:59 PM

Your reply to that was unusually short: after falsely accusing me of lying,
and hypocritically demanding that I make comments about you to yourself,
you left in loads of damning information about you, that you
couldn't cope with, so you signed off before it. As usual, you must have
comforted your hideously warped conscience with the thought that you
hadn't "run away" from it because you hadn't snipped it.

But you never dealt with any of it.

Peter Nyikos

PS In contrast, what I leave in below is one of your mindless "filibusters" which
starts off with what looks like a shameless lie about an incredible "admission" by Glenn.
At the end, you leave in an earlier reply to Glenn where you behave in thoroughly hypoccritical way.

> Look what Glenn is claiming in this thread. He is admitting that he has been running from the Top Six for 3 years, and misdirects the argument to his episodes of lying that can be well documented, and some of the lying does involve the Top Six, but that is not the reason that Glenn has to run from the Top Six. Glenn was running before he lied about it.
>
> You may recall what happened when the Top Six first came out. Bill started claiming that he had never supported the creationist ID scam. The same Bill that had supported IDiocy on TO for years, likely over a decade (although he had been making noises about no longer supporting the ID scam for a couple of years before the Top Six came out). MarkE, Kalk and Glenn just ran and would not deal with them. Pagano was the only IDiot that faced them head on, and he claimed that they were bogus. You started up several threads on one or the Top Six at a time, but gave up on the effort after only putting up two or three. You might not even have understood that they were among the Top Six, and couldn't figure out why no one was interested in those topics. I told you that they were part of the Top Six in those threads.
>
> Over the years since then not a single IDiot on TO nor anywhere that has come to light has dealt with the Top Six. The ID perps never retracted them, but they only deal with them one at a time as part of the ongoing creationist ID scam. That is because they are only meant to be used as denial arguments and the IDiots are not supposed to learn anything from them, so that they can lie to themselves about them until they have to go to the next one, forget the previous one and lie to themselves again. These Top Six are not intended to be understood nor to be anything worth building any IDiot alternative out of. They are just the same god-of-the-gaps denial arguments that the scientific creationists resorted to when they figured out that there was no science that the wanted to do. The largest fraction of IDiot supporters (YEC is the largest IDiot support base) that the ID perps still have do not want the Big Bang to have ever happened. The YEC IDiots have tried to remove the Big Bang from the public school science standards in several states, and they succeeded in Kansas in 1999. #1 of the Top Six is only supposed to be used as denial and then itself denied. That is difficult to do when creationists are confronted by all Six and told that they are in their order of occurrence. Bill, Glenn, MarkE, and Kalk can't deal with the Top Six as the Top Six. Glenn and Kalk could only run from the Top Six, but still go back to the ID perps for second rate denial junk that did not make the Top Six. Kalk quit after a few months of such a senseless pursuit. Glenn has been running from the Top Six, but still going back to the ID perps for second rate junk for 3 years. MarkE will put them up one at a time, but he can't deal with the Top Six either.
>
> Do you understand that I have never challenged the Top Six? They are the best that the IDiots have, but none of the IDiots can deal with them as the Top Six. They are all based on solid bits of science, but that science has to be denied in order to go to the others on the list. The IDiots and you, yourself only use the Top Six for denial purposes. You do not want to understand the science that they are based on, and you don't want to believe what that science tells you about the Top Six. Why do you think that Glenn chooses not to deal with the Top Six, but can still go back to the ID perps for second rate junk? Second rate by the ID perp's own standards. What Glenn continues to put up did not make the Top Six. They have told Glenn what the best of what they have is, and Glenn can't deal with it.
>
> Just drop the god-of-the-gaps denial and try to deal with the Top Six yourself. The science that the IDiots depend on is solid. Over 13 billion years ago the Big Bang (#1) happened and created our expanding universe. After things settled down enough for atoms to form the universe existed as mostly hydrogen and helium. Generations of stars would form and die to create the elements that our solar system is made of. Fine tuning (#2) would have occurred before or during the Big Bang and it left us with a universe that works the way that it does today. Another round of fine tuning occurred after 8 billion years of the life and death of stars to form the elements that our solar system is made of. Some IDiots believe that our earth and solar system needed to be fine tuned at that time. The sun had to be within a certain size. The earth needed to be of a certain size with a magnetic field, and it needed to be within some range of distances from the sun in order to sustain our type of lifeforms. #3 the origin of life happened within a billion years of the formation of our earth around 4.5 billion years ago (maybe as far back as 3.8 billion years ago) and life has been evolving on this planet since then. #4 is Behe's IC IDiocy. Behe has been telling IDiot rubes that biological evolution is a fact of nature for decades, and his IC flagellum evolved around 1.5 billion years ago. His IC blood clotting and adaptive immune system evolved with vertebrates within the last half a billion years of life on earth. #5 is the Cambrian explosion and is the favorite denial argument of Meyer who has been the director of the creationist ID scam at the Discovery Institute since the ID scam unit was founded in 1995. Meyer makes a big deal out of the fact that research since the Scientific Creationists used to use this denial argument has reduced the window of the event to around 25 million years down from around 40 million, but we now know that multicellular animal lineages of Cnidaria and bilateria evolved before the event, and one or a couple of phyla may have evolved after the initial explosion. So the argument depends on the accuracy of our dating improving so that we can narrow the event to a shorter 25 million year period over half a billion years ago. Really, Meyer's argument is that 25 million years is too short of a time for the evolution that happened to have happened. #6 is gaps in the human fossil record within the last 10 million years, and there likely isn't a single YEC IDiot that wants to deal with the science that tells them where these gaps are.
>
> So go for it. The Top Six is claimed to be the Best that the ID perps have come up with in two and a half decades. Try to build something from them that supports IDiocy. Ask MarkE why he runs from the Top Six. He can't even put his god in the origin of life gap. The god that fits in these gaps is not the god that most IDiots want to believe in. Denial isn't going to get IDiots anywhere, and they have trouble with lying to themselves about the Top Six when they have to deal with them as the Top Six. The plain and simple fact is that creationist in denial have trouble dealing with the science between the gaps.
>
> This is why I have not had to challenge the IDiots to demonstrate the validity of the Top Six. They only have to use the Top Six to support their IDiocy, but none of them want to do that. The intelligent designer supported by the Top Six, that have been arranged in their order of occurrence according to the ID perps that put them up, is not the intelligent designer that IDiots want to believe in. That is why Glenn has to keep going back to the ID perps for second rate junk when he can't deal with the best that they have.
>
> This is the best evidence that the IDiots have admitted to, so use the links below and use them all as a whole to support your creationist beliefs. Unless you are a theistic evolutionist like Behe and Denton you won't be able to support your notion of what the intelligent designer is. That should tell you that putting them up one at a time like you have done in the past is senseless.
>
> Sewell (the topic of this thread) is only dropping out a couple of the original Top Six and rearranging the rest to make it easier for IDiots to lie to themselves about them one at a time. He even places the Big Bang at the bottom of the heap even though it is the best evidence for a creation event that science has come up with. It just isn't the creation event that most IDiots want to believe happened.
>
> Ron Okimoto

> > >>>
> > >>> 1.
> > >>> https://evolutionnews.org/2017/11/ids-top-six-the-origin-of-the-universe/
> > >>>
> > >>> 2.
> > >>> https://evolutionnews.org/2017/11/ids-top-six-the-fine-tuning-of-the-universe/
> > >>>
> > >>> 3.
> > >>> https://evolutionnews.org/2017/11/ids-top-six-the-origin-of-information-in-dna/
> > >>>
> > >>> 4.
> > >>> https://evolutionnews.org/2017/11/ids-top-six-the-origin-of-irreducibly-complex-molecular-machines/
> > >>>
> > >>> 5.
> > >>> https://evolutionnews.org/2017/11/ids-top-six-the-origin-of-animals/
> > >>>
> > >>> 6.
> > >>> https://evolutionnews.org/2017/11/ids-top-six-the-origin-of-humans/
> > >>>
> > >>> Pretty sad. The best evidence for IDiocy, and what have the ID perps done with it in the last 3 years? Someone should ask Sewell why IC and the Cambrian explostion don't make the current Top Six. Sewell likely knows about the original Top Six. Why else would he make a Top Six list instead of a Top 5 or 10. He even had to split two of the Top Six in order to remove IC and the Cambrian explosion. This attempt seems to be just something to further chop up the "best evidence" for IDiocy in order to make it easier for the rubes to lie to themselves about the older list and this one.
> > >>>
> > >>> Why have a Top Six if you aren't going to use them to build anything?
> > >>>

> > >> "Usenet convention defines spamming as "excessive multiple posting", that is, the repeated posting of a message (or substantially similar messages)"
> > >>
> > >> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newsgroup_spam
> > >>
> > >> Endless repetitive insults and unspecific packaged challenges also identifies this poster as a classic troll displaying persistent abusive behavior.
> > > Projection is really stupid on your part. Sewell just put up this material on the ID perp's creationists news site. What you do is spamming. The repetitive spamming is what you are claiming that I do, but look at this example. Compare it to what you do with your stupid one liners. Projection is really a stupid defense mechanism. Stop using it. It only demonstrates that you understand that what you are doing on TO is something that you should not be doing.
> > >
> > > Why not face Sewell's Top Six instead of post your projection and run? Look at Dale's response. Does it even make sense? You are obviously posting to the wrong person. You should remember this post of yours the next time that you post. When has what you have posted ever mattered and how repetitive is the stupid denial?
> > >
> > > Ron Okimoto
> > >
> > --
> > talk origins

[RonO]

On 11/25/2022 4:58 PM, peter2...@gmail.com wrote:
> In your latest reply on this thread, Ron O, you launched into one
> of your lengthy "filibusters" in the beginning, to soften the blow of
> comments of mine which you didn't want to deal with directly.

This just means that you are going to run and lie about something else
because I dealt with your stupidity in a way that you can't deal with.

>
> I was motivated to look at Ron Dean's first reply to you by
> something you wrote near the beginning of your filibuster:
>
> "Just in this thread you can go up to Dean's comments and my responses and you can get links to you running from dealing with the situation,"

Yes, you were stupid to bring this thread back to life because it just
shows how you have remained willfully ignorant of what this thread was
about and all the previous Top Six threads that you never could deal with.

>
> That was a hypocritical misrepresentation, as will be shown below.

Go for it.

>
> On Thursday, October 29, 2020 at 6:50:22 PM UTC-4, Ron O wrote:
>> On Thursday, October 29, 2020 at 7:30:23 AM UTC-5, Ron Dean wrote:
>
>>> I've been away from TO for a time, but I see you are still obsessing
>>> over these top six arguments for intelligent design. I know you
>>> disagree, but I do not recall you discrediting them! How have you
>>> discredited any of the six?
>
> Instead of giving a straightforward answer right away, you launch into
> one of your shorter filibusters:
>
>> Unfortunately for you, your misunderstanding of the situation is likely due to the same type of lack of understanding shown by Nyikos on this topic.
>
> Or perhaps it is because you keep referring to the arguments as "junk."

Dean had remained clueless about the Top Six for years, just like you.
Deans excuse was always that he couldn't remember doing what he had done
previously. The first couple of times he claimed that he couldn't
remember I put up his posts and he just admitted that he had forgotten
and quit doing what he was doing.

>
>>
>> REPOST #2:
>> https://groups.google.com/d/msg/talk.origins/hmhr1Ppyvi4/Tsw5f7e0AAAJ
>
> You were too much of a coward to say what was going on here,
> but I will explain it below.

Projection is such a stupid thing to do. You were the one that was
complaining that I never explained the situation to you, but everytime
that I gave you the link to it you ran. That link above has multiple
examples of you doing just that.

I didn't call you a coward, but your projection indicates that, is what
you thought of your behavior at that time.

>
>> The explanation of the current situation is what Nyikos has been running from for months:
>
> EVERYBODY, even you, "ran from" what you linked here, because the link takes
> people to an OP by you to which nobody replied.
>> https://groups.google.com/d/msg/talk.origins/GxB26Y4_QDk/9gYqAu8lBAAJ

Nobody cared but you. All the other IDiots knew what was going on.
Dean wanted to know because he had forgotten again.

>
> This June 6 OP by you predated the July post to which
> your first link went.

What did you claim in the July posts and what did you keep running from?

>
> Thanks for that first link, by the way. Unfortunately for you, I scrolled up
> to the first two posts you made to that thread, and saw a piece of garbage
> you posted back then: in a reply by you to me,
> you also insulted the Top Six as being "IDiot claptrap."

It is obviously IDiot claptrap. They are dealing with real bits of
science, but the IDiots don't want to deal with the science. They only
use them for god-of-the-gaps denial stupidity. You know that now, so
why keep screwing up and being wrong about the situation?

>
>> I have never claimed to want to discredit the IDiot's Top Six.
>
> Then why do you keep referring to them as "junk" and "IDiot claptrap"?
> Is it because your incredibly repetitious posts are filled with you no longer
> paying full attention to what your fingers type?

Because that is all the IDiots want out of it. What a nut job. What
have the IDiots done with the Top Six in the last 5 years? You now know
that very few IDiots can deal with the Top Six in an honest and
straightforward manner, and all they want to do with them is wallow in
the denial for a bit, forget it, and wallow in the next bit of denial.
That is a claptrap, junk, and stupid way of using any evidence.

>
> Or is it because you are a thoroughly illogical person who cannot
> "put two and two together" and see that your claim not to want to
> discredit any of the arguments and your claim that the arguments
> are "junk" and "IDiot claptrap" are incompatible with each other?

The person with issues with logic is the one that couldn't figure out
why all the other IDiots had run from the Top Six for the last 5 years.
Such a person obviously has issues with dealing with reality, and the
link above demonstrates that it was willful ignorance that let you be
that stupid for so long. You were running from any type of
understanding of the issue 2 years ago.

>
>
> >Have you never wondered why not a single IDiot posting on TO would help you deal with the Top Six?
>
> Could it be that they were familiar with how you keep contradicting yourself?
> Here is how I, not quite familiar yet with how deep this contradiction
> goes in your addled brain, said some insightful things about it:

What an idiot, IDiot. The contradictions is in your own understanding.
Just because you wanted to remain willfully ignorant, you shouldn't
blame me. Why do you think that no IDiot ever tried to help you out?
Did Glenn ever tell you why he was running from the Top Six? Did Kalk
ever tell you why they made him quit the ID scam? Did Bill ever tell
you why they made him claim that he had never supported the ID scam?

Did you ever ask them why none of them could deal with the Top Six?
Isn't that willful ignorance? Granted, that Glenn likely wouldn't have
told you anything, but Kalk might have, and even Bill might have tried
to explain why he made his claim. It likely would deal with the ID scam
not being what he wanted to support.

>
> ______________________________ excerpt ____________________________
> I don't understand why you call them "claptrap" and yet you don't want
> anyone to attack them. Is it because expressions like "The Top Six
> are claptrap" are like music to the ears of almost every t.o. regular,
> especially atheists like jillery and Oxyaena, and so they give you
> support and attention and affection that you would be starved for otherwise?

I never wanted anyone to attack the Top Six. I have always wanted the
IDiots to deal with them in an honest and straightforward manner. They
all deal with valid bits of science, but they are obviously misused by
the ID perps and IDiots. I have always just asked the IDiots to use
them as the best evidence that they are claimed to be, but none of the
IDiots ever wanted to do that. Kalk and Bill quit supporting the ID
scam. Glenn just ran and has kept running. Pagano couldn't deal with
them and claimed that they were all bogus and not the best that the ID
scam had to offer. You just remained willfully ignorant of what all the
other IDiots were doing.

>
>> It has to do with the fact that no IDiot can face what
>> the Top Six actually are,
>
> Near as I can make out, what this use of the word "face" refers to
> is for what you call "IDiots" to admit that the Top Six
> are just disguised "god of the gaps arguments."
> That expression has been music to the ears of atheists for
> over a century, and sure to get more support and affection for
> you from jillery and Oxyaena.

This is exactly what I have said above. No IDiots can face the Top Six
as the best evidence that the ID perps have. No IDiots, including the
every single ID perp, have ever done anything positive with the Top Six
since they were given to the IDiot rubes. Sewell just dropped out two
of them and mixed them up taking them out of temporal order so that he
could more easily use them the way Glenn uses them as disembodied bits
of denial that you should not understand or you would find out that the
god that fits in that gap isn't biblical enough for your average IDiot.

You now know that as fact because even you can determine that the god of
the Top Six isn't the god of the bible as interpreted by the vast
majority of IDiot creationists including most of the ID perps who are
old earth creationists. Meyer doesn't want to believe in the designer
that fills the Top Six gaps. He admitted to Shermer that he did not
want to relate the gap denial to his religious beliefs. Meyer can lie
to the rubes about the Cambrian explosion even though he knows that some
designer doing something to create the major phyla of animals within a
25 million year period over half a billion years ago, is not something
that most IDiot creationists can deal with since he knows that most of
the support for the ID scam is still YEC.

> ======================= end of excerpts
> from
> https://groups.google.com/g/talk.origins/c/hmhr1Ppyvi4/m/Q_wb3DaBAwAJ
> Re: Challenge Pertaining to the Top Six ID Theory Arguments
> Jun 12, 2020, 9:55:01 AM
>
> My whole post was very instructive about how you get into all kinds of
> misunderstandings because of your ingrained habit of being so vague,
> nobody without lots of prior experience can figure out what you are talking about.

None of your posts on this subject have been worth squat because you
never understood what the issue was, and the link above indicates that
you willfully kept yourself ignorant, so how could anything you wrote
back then be worth bringing back up when you know how wrong you were in
the past?

What have you learned by running from the post that you were running
from until yesterday? The running that made you bring up this old
thread that had the evidence that you willfully avoided understanding
the issue for years.

>
> Are you so out of touch with the realities of talk.origins that
> you imagine everyone can figure out what you mean
> without any effort by you to explain it?

The other IDiots didn't have to figure it out. They already knew why
they had to run or quit the ID scam. You and Dean were the only ones
that I had to explain it to, and Dean just kept claiming that he forgot
what happened previously. Dean just came back, and he might have
forgotten again, but the last time he admitted that he didn't want to
understand how the Top Six gap denial related to his religious beliefs
before quit wondering why no one would support him with the Top Six
IDiot junk.

>
>
> There is also some nifty stuff in it about Bill Rogers and
> MarkE that shows how out of touch you were about
> what was really going on between them -- or else were
> shamelessly lying about it.

Rogers never was an IDiot creationist. MarkE claimed that he understood
that ID didn't have any science going for it, but he couldn't give up on
the gap denial. Before he quit posting to TO he spent a lot of time
determining just what the gap was for the origin of life. He quit
posting because I made the simple suggestion that he put his god in the
gap and determine how it fit. He at first claimed that he didn't have
to do that, but it was obvious that he was using the gap denial to
support his religious beliefs, so the only honest thing to do would be
to determine if you wanted to believe in the god that fit in that gap.
It turned out that he didn't want to believe in that god, so it looks
like he quit posting. Pagano quit posting. Kalk stopped supporting the
ID scam. Glenn just keeps on running. You remained willfully ignorant
of the situation so that you didn't have to deal with reality.

The ID scam pretty much died on TO when the ID perps put up the Top Six
in their order of occurrence 5 years ago. You and Glenn really are the
only IDiots left that might be competent enough to be claimed to be
IDiots. Glenn keeps the ID scam alive by posting the second rate denial
stupidity that didn't make the Top Six. Every once in a while Glenn
will put up one of the Top Six by accident because he really doesn't
want to understand what he is posting, but you got messed up and had to
lie about the situation because Glenn started 4 thread dealing with Top
Six events, without knowing what he had done, in one week.

Because of that you know how stupid and dishonest you have had to be for
the last 5 years to remain willfully ignorant of what happened on TO 5
years ago.

>
>
>> You asked for assistance, but no one helped you out. You forgot about that, and messed up again, and no one came to your aid. Why do you find it so difficult to understand why no IDiot wants to deal with the Top Six? What should you have learned from your own experience?
>
> One thing he might have learned from YOUR experience is that
> YOU RAN AWAY FROM THE POST THAT I'VE DOCUMENTED UP THERE.

More projection. The links I gave are you running. You haven't given
any links to something that I have run from.

Why don't you just take a break. Lying about more junk is not going to
change the fact that you were willfully ignorant of what was going on
for years, but now you know better. You should have never started lying
to distract from the stupid thing that Glenn did with respect to the Top
Six. You should definitely not keep lying about this stupid junk for
the next decade.

You know better at this time. Put that knowledge to some good use and
keep yourself from digging yourself a deeper hole. Finding more junk to
lie about is just stupid. You should know better at this time.

You brought this thread back to life, and it turned out to not be a very
good idea on your part. Doing what you are currently doing isn't going
to make it any better, when you know what you are already running from
doing in this thread.

Ron Okimoto