The current anti-evolutionist crop
Tim DeLaney
the anti-evolution crowd here on T.O has deteriorated in
the past 15 years. Back then there were at least a dozen
or so who would seriously attempt to rebut ToE with
arguments that took genuine thought to answer.
Google's archives don't go back that far, and I can only
name one such poster -- "Julie", but there were others
who attempted to engage in serious debate. Many were
borderline crackpots, and some, like Ed Conrad, far over
the borderline.
The closest the current crop comes to an actual debater
is <gasp> Tony Pagano. <ducks a barrage of rotten eggs
and overripe tomatoes> But even Tony has deteriorated.
He used to be willing to make a rudimentary exchange of
ideas; nowadays he just brushes serious ideas aside and
claims victory. (Shades of Mark Harpt!)
The others are a profound disappointment. ASI, Great Dayne
and his family of nyms, Nashton, Ray, and most lately George
are all not to be taken seriously as critics. At best (or worst,
depending on your point of view), they represent nuisances
that must be dealt with. (It's a dirty job, but somebody has to
do it.)
And where were the really interesting characters like Jabriol,
Peter Nyikos, John P Boatwrong, Ted Holden, and the one
whose name shall never again be mentioned? (There are so
many more; please don't be offended if I failed to mention you!)
There were also many whose contributions I miss: PZ, Andrew
MacRae, Larry Moran, Tracy Hamilton, Richard Harter (Who has
not disappeared entirely, but can no longer be counted as a regular),
Wade Hines (Who reamed my poorer posts more than once), and
Wesley Ellsberry all come readily to mind.
Of course, there are many worthwhile posters whose continuing
contributions I value highly. I hesitate to mention any names for
fear of snubbing somebody. (As though my opinion on the matter
has more value than a bucket of warm spit.)
Alas! As briefly alluded to in one of my replies to Sapient Fridge,
there are some on "our side" whose posts I don't value. Naming
them would serve little purpose, and would only invite a flame war.
Tim
All-seeing-I
> The thread "Long time readers ... " brings to my mind how
> the anti-evolution crowd here on T.O has deteriorated in
> the past 15 years. �Back then there were at least a dozen
> or so who would seriously attempt to rebut ToE with
> arguments that took genuine thought to answer.
>
> Google's archives don't go back that far,
The google group archive for talk.origins goes gack to 9/1986.
After reading through the archive, I can safely say since around 1996
it has been the evolutionist's posts that have denegerated into a sea
of atheistic inaccuracies and innanities.
Fortunatly however, there does seem to be a core element of
evolutionists that still post here and that are quite intelligent.
This core element does not include you or "your side".
Thanks,
ASI.
Eric Root
Yeah, the current crop creationists are just mice, powerless to do
anything except nibble and leave little pellets all over the place.
raven1
<ap...@email.com> wrote:
>The google group archive for talk.origins goes gack to 9/1986.
>
>After reading through the archive,
And learning absolutely nothing in the process.
Ron O
> The thread "Long time readers ... " brings to my mind how
> the anti-evolution crowd here on T.O has deteriorated in
> or so who would seriously attempt to rebut ToE with
> arguments that took genuine thought to answer.
>
> Google's archives don't go back that far, and I can only
> name one such poster -- "Julie", but there were others
> borderline crackpots, and some, like Ed Conrad, far over
> the borderline.
>
> The closest the current crop comes to an actual debater
> and overripe tomatoes> �ｿｽBut even Tony has deteriorated.
> He used to be willing to make a rudimentary exchange of
> ideas; nowadays he just brushes serious ideas aside and
>
> The others are a profound disappointment. �ｿｽASI, Great Dayne
> and his family of nyms, Nashton, Ray, and most lately George
> depending on your point of view), they represent nuisances
> do it.)
>
> And where were the really interesting characters like Jabriol,
> Peter Nyikos, John P Boatwrong, Ted Holden, and the one
> many more; please don't be offended if I failed to mention you!)
>
> There were also many whose contributions I miss: PZ, Andrew
> MacRae, Larry Moran, Tracy Hamilton, Richard Harter (Who has
> not disappeared entirely, but can no longer be counted as a regular),
> Wade Hines (Who reamed my poorer posts more than once), and
> Wesley Ellsberry all come readily to mind.
>
> Of course, there are many worthwhile posters whose continuing
> fear of snubbing somebody. (As though my opinion on the matter
> has more value than a bucket of warm spit.)
>
> there are some on "our side" whose posts I don't value. �ｿｽNaming
> them would serve little purpose, and would only invite a flame war.
>
> Tim
Just ask All-Screeching-Denial about it. The fact is that it is just
harder to support the anti-evolution claptrap. Anyone with a clue
figures that out after putting up only around 3 or 4 of the bogus
arguments. Anyone that follows the news about the stupidity that goes
on around the country can't help but figure out that something is
really wrong. What happened to scientific creationism? What happened
when they just tried to sneak creationism in by just not telling
anyone what they wanted to teach? Why did they need the intelligent
design scam? Why did the ID perps run the bait and switch scam on
their own creationist support base? Poor saps like Pagano are stuck
holding the short end of the stick. They have been abandoned by the
scam artists that lied to them. Pags is one of the most pathetic
examples. Years after the ID perps began running the bait and switch
Pags still claimed to have the ID science to teach to school kids. He
never woudl put any up, but he didn't really have any other argument.
What do you do when the guys that fed you the garbage are running a
new scam that doesn't even mention that ID ever existed?
That is the current reality that the anti-evolution faction is stuck
with. Only the ingnorant and incompetent and/or dishonest would try
to support the junk at this time. Just ask adman if he has found that
honest and valid arugment that he needs.
Ron Okimoto
chris thompson
> On Dec 5, 12:25�am, Tim DeLaney <delaney.timo...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
> > The thread "Long time readers ... " brings to my mind how
> > the anti-evolution crowd here on T.O has deteriorated in
> > the past 15 years. �Back then there were at least a dozen
> > or so who would seriously attempt to rebut ToE with
> > arguments that took genuine thought to answer.
>
> > Google's archives don't go back that far,
>
> The google group archive for talk.origins goes gack to 9/1986.
>
> After reading through the archive, I can safely say since around 1996
> it has been the evolutionist's posts that have denegerated into a sea
> of atheistic inaccuracies and innanities.
>
> Fortunatly however, there does seem to be a core element of
> evolutionists that still post here and that are quite intelligent.
>
> This core element does not include you or "your side".
>
> Thanks,
>
> ASI.
In fact, the problem is not so much with the creationists as with the
science.
Our creationists are really not that much different from the days of
yore. They just have less to work with. The creationists still coming
to t.o. realize, for the most part, that there's not much left to be
said. The science is so overwhelming by now that all they can do is (a)
follow the ASI route and post the same old arguments and ignore the
crushing weight of evidence that falls on them ("Honest...(gasp)..it's
nothing..(gaspgaspgasp)..I don't (gaspgasp) feel a (gasp) thing", or
(b)follow the Nashton route and not even try to post anything that
could be refuted, because you're too much of a coward to try since you
know you'll get your ass handed to you (how's those dental Volkmann's
canals doing, science-boy?)
Chris
Richard Clayton
> The thread "Long time readers ... " brings to my mind how
> the anti-evolution crowd here on T.O has deteriorated in
> or so who would seriously attempt to rebut ToE with
> arguments that took genuine thought to answer.
>
> Google's archives don't go back that far, and I can only
> name one such poster -- "Julie", but there were others
> borderline crackpots, and some, like Ed Conrad, far over
> the borderline.
>
> The closest the current crop comes to an actual debater
> and overripe tomatoes> �ｿｽBut even Tony has deteriorated.
> He used to be willing to make a rudimentary exchange of
> ideas; nowadays he just brushes serious ideas aside and
Pagano always reminds me of Danth's Law: "If you continually insist
that you've won an Internet argument, you probably lost badly."
The sad thing is Pagano probably thinks he really is "pasting" all the
pro-science people here; as I've said before, he's a whiteface clown,
continuing to take himself seriously no matter how many buckets of
paint are dumped on his head.
> The others are a profound disappointment. �ｿｽASI, Great Dayne
> and his family of nyms, Nashton, Ray, and most lately George
> are all not to be taken seriously as critics. �ｿｽAt best (or worst,
> depending on your point of view), they represent nuisances
> that must be dealt with. �ｿｽ(It's a dirty job, but somebody has to
> do it.)
>
> And where were the really interesting characters like Jabriol,
> Peter Nyikos, John P Boatwrong, Ted Holden, and the one
> whose name shall never again be mentioned? �ｿｽ(There are so
> many more; please don't be offended if I failed to mention you!)
And don't forget Bryce Wellington. Any man who can masturbate so
vigorously he loses a testicle in the process has my respect. (The man
must have forearms like tree trunks!)
> There were also many whose contributions I miss: PZ, Andrew
> MacRae, Larry Moran, Tracy Hamilton, Richard Harter (Who has
> not disappeared entirely, but can no longer be counted as a regular),
> Wade Hines (Who reamed my poorer posts more than once), and
> Wesley Ellsberry all come readily to mind.
Several of those folks have science blogs well worth reading, by the
way.
T Pagano
<delaney...@comcast.net> wrote:
>The thread "Long time readers ... " brings to my mind how
>the anti-evolution crowd here on T.O has deteriorated in
>the past 15 years. Back then there were at least a dozen
>or so who would seriously attempt to rebut ToE with
>arguments that took genuine thought to answer.
>
>Google's archives don't go back that far, and I can only
>name one such poster -- "Julie", but there were others
>who attempted to engage in serious debate. Many were
>borderline crackpots, and some, like Ed Conrad, far over
>the borderline.
>
>The closest the current crop comes to an actual debater
>is <gasp> Tony Pagano. <ducks a barrage of rotten eggs
>and overripe tomatoes> But even Tony has deteriorated.
>He used to be willing to make a rudimentary exchange of
>ideas; nowadays he just brushes serious ideas aside and
>claims victory. (Shades of Mark Harpt!)
My aim in the forum since 1996 has been to be a rational skeptic of
the theories of neoDarwinism, Big Bangism, Abiogenesis and the other
historical claims about the origin of the world. Long exchanges
aren't necessary for that objective and I leave my opponent with the
last word. Furthermore it has been my experience since 1996 that
exchanges rapidly denegrate and there is no arbiter of the truth.
The evidence is rarely conclusive and enough discordant facts exist
for rational skepticisml and gives sufficient reason for the falsity
of some of these historical theories.
For example, in my recent challenge seeking evidence of
transformational biological change I answered every direct respondent
(including Delaney) This is the single most contentious claim of
neoDarwinism yet DeLaney, for example, produced nothing. Only
Harshman and Forrest produced anything of substance which was to say
weak, at best. My objective was achieved.
>
>The others are a profound disappointment. ASI, Great Dayne
>and his family of nyms, Nashton, Ray, and most lately George
>are all not to be taken seriously as critics. At best (or worst,
>depending on your point of view), they represent nuisances
>that must be dealt with. (It's a dirty job, but somebody has to
>do it.)
Granted there is both an intellectual challenge and an amusement
factor to the forum. But this cuts both ways. You have your share of
dimwits. Even heavy hitters like Okimoto spends a significant number
of his posts calling creationists liars and other ad hominem nonsense.
Forrest has called me a liar so often I've lost count. I may be
mistaken often, but I hardly have a reason to lie.
Harshman is one of the rare few academians in the forum who sets a
high standard on your side.
>
>And where were the really interesting characters like Jabriol,
>Peter Nyikos, John P Boatwrong, Ted Holden, and the one
>whose name shall never again be mentioned? (There are so
>many more; please don't be offended if I failed to mention you!)
I agree.
>
>There were also many whose contributions I miss: PZ, Andrew
>MacRae, Larry Moran, Tracy Hamilton, Richard Harter (Who has
>not disappeared entirely, but can no longer be counted as a regular),
>Wade Hines (Who reamed my poorer posts more than once), and
>Wesley Ellsberry all come readily to mind.
I agree again and that reminds me... In 2000 it was MacRae who
(without a request from me) snail mailed me the scientific report
Elsberry offered in his long running Transitional Challenge to
creationists. I then used the report to show that Elsberry had
misused it at worst or at best had never read beyond the abstract. The
report offered no evidence of transformational change and sadly
Elsberry virtually vanished from forum. He also set a high standard.
And I greatly miss Steven J who set a very high standard until shortly
before he vanished.
>
>Of course, there are many worthwhile posters whose continuing
>contributions I value highly. I hesitate to mention any names for
>fear of snubbing somebody. (As though my opinion on the matter
>has more value than a bucket of warm spit.)
I agree.
>
>Alas! As briefly alluded to in one of my replies to Sapient Fridge,
>there are some on "our side" whose posts I don't value. Naming
>them would serve little purpose, and would only invite a flame war.
>
>Tim
This is a pleasant and unexpected admission. Up to this point I've
only seen Harshman correct his own.
Regards,
T Pagano
Ron O
Just more evidence for the utter delusional junk that the anti-
evolution side is stuck with. Pags can refute himself in his own
attempted refutation. Hey, Pags, what to try to argue how you aren't
anti-science again?
When all there is left are the ignorant, incompetent and incompetent
blowhards what does the anti-evolution side have to look forward too?
Ron Okimoto
Bob T.
> On Fri, 4 Dec 2009 22:25:35 -0800 (PST), Tim DeLaney
>
>
> >there are some on "our side" whose posts I don't value. �Naming
> >them would serve little purpose, and would only invite a flame war.
>
> >Tim
>
> This is a pleasant and unexpected admission. � Up to this point I've
> only seen Harshman correct his own.
Every Internet discussion group has its share of assholes, on every
side of every debate. I imagine it has something to do with the
nature of the medium. Many of the people who act like pricks on Usenet
are doubtless perfectly nice in real life. I'm sure I'm not the only
person who has blown off steam venting in a newsgroup while being
perfectly nice to the people in my real life who were driving me
crazy.
- Bob T.
>
> Regards,
> T Pagano- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Ron O
Pags would have to admit that he isn't anyone that he would want on
his side. Mr. change-the-thread-title-as-if-that-is-a-form-of-
argument is so transparently bogus that even adman probably doesn't
want him around. The sad fact is that even though both sides are made
up of fallable humans there isn't a single anti-evolution poster that
has posted within the last month that I would want on my side of any
argument. When your best is just the simple ignorance and
incompetence of Suzanne what does that say?
Ron Okimoto
>
> > Regards,
> > T Pagano-
Ernest Major
Pagano <not....@address.net> writes
>On Fri, 4 Dec 2009 22:25:35 -0800 (PST), Tim DeLaney
><delaney...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>>The thread "Long time readers ... " brings to my mind how
>>the anti-evolution crowd here on T.O has deteriorated in
>>the past 15 years. Back then there were at least a dozen
>>or so who would seriously attempt to rebut ToE with
>>arguments that took genuine thought to answer.
>>
>>Google's archives don't go back that far, and I can only
>>name one such poster -- "Julie", but there were others
>>who attempted to engage in serious debate. Many were
>>borderline crackpots, and some, like Ed Conrad, far over
>>the borderline.
>>
>>The closest the current crop comes to an actual debater
>>is <gasp> Tony Pagano. <ducks a barrage of rotten eggs
>>and overripe tomatoes> But even Tony has deteriorated.
>>He used to be willing to make a rudimentary exchange of
>>ideas; nowadays he just brushes serious ideas aside and
>>claims victory. (Shades of Mark Harpt!)
>
>My aim in the forum since 1996 has been to be a rational skeptic of
>the theories of neoDarwinism, Big Bangism, Abiogenesis and the other
>historical claims about the origin of the world.
You failed.
>Long exchanges
>aren't necessary for that objective and I leave my opponent with the
>last word. Furthermore it has been my experience since 1996 that
>exchanges rapidly denegrate and there is no arbiter of the truth.
>
>The evidence is rarely conclusive and enough discordant facts exist
>for rational skepticisml and gives sufficient reason for the falsity
>of some of these historical theories.
You confuse rational skepticism with epistemological nihilism.
Perhaps if you read more of the newgroup you wouldn't make such
statements.
>
>
>Regards,
>T Pagano
>
--
alias Ernest Major
Cory Albrecht
> On Fri, 4 Dec 2009 22:25:35 -0800 (PST), Tim DeLaney
> <delaney...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>> The thread "Long time readers ... " brings to my mind how
>> the anti-evolution crowd here on T.O has deteriorated in
>> the past 15 years. Back then there were at least a dozen
>> or so who would seriously attempt to rebut ToE with
>> arguments that took genuine thought to answer.
>>
>> Google's archives don't go back that far, and I can only
>> name one such poster -- "Julie", but there were others
>> who attempted to engage in serious debate. Many were
>> borderline crackpots, and some, like Ed Conrad, far over
>> the borderline.
>>
>> The closest the current crop comes to an actual debater
>> is<gasp> Tony Pagano.<ducks a barrage of rotten eggs
>> and overripe tomatoes> But even Tony has deteriorated.
>> He used to be willing to make a rudimentary exchange of
>> ideas; nowadays he just brushes serious ideas aside and
>> claims victory. (Shades of Mark Harpt!)
>
> My aim in the forum since 1996 has been to be a rational
I'm sorry, I really mean to give you a serious reply, but I had real
difficulty getting past that line up there...
richardal...@googlemail.com
> On Fri, 4 Dec 2009 22:25:35 -0800 (PST), Tim DeLaney
>
>
>
> <delaney.timo...@comcast.net> wrote:
> >The thread "Long time readers ... " brings to my mind how
> >the anti-evolution crowd here on T.O has deteriorated in
> >the past 15 years. �Back then there were at least a dozen
> >or so who would seriously attempt to rebut ToE with
> >arguments that took genuine thought to answer.
>
> >Google's archives don't go back that far, and I can only
> >name one such poster -- "Julie", but there were others
> >who attempted to engage in serious debate. �Many were
> >borderline crackpots, and some, like Ed Conrad, far over
> >the borderline.
>
> >The closest the current crop comes to an actual debater
> >is <gasp> Tony Pagano. �<ducks a barrage of rotten eggs
> >and overripe tomatoes> �But even Tony has deteriorated.
> >He used to be willing to make a rudimentary exchange of
> >ideas; nowadays he just brushes serious ideas aside and
> >claims victory. �(Shades of Mark Harpt!)
>
> My aim in the forum since 1996 has been to be a rational skeptic of
> the theories of neoDarwinism, Big Bangism, Abiogenesis and the other
> historical claims about the origin of the world.
FALSEHOOD #1
You left rationality behind a long time ago.
>�Long exchanges
> aren't necessary for that objective and I leave my opponent with the
> last word. �
...usually when someone has identified the farago of falsehoods in
your posts.
> Furthermore it has been my experience since 1996 that
> exchanges rapidly denegrate and there is no arbiter of the truth.
Perhaps if you didn't persist in blatant falsehoods they wouldn't
degenerate so quickly.
>
> The evidence is rarely conclusive and enough discordant facts exist
> for rational skepticisml and gives sufficient reason for the falsity
> of some of these historical theories. �
That may be the case, but you have utterly failed to provide any such
evidence.
>
> For example, in my recent challenge seeking evidence of
> transformational biological change I answered every direct respondent
> (including Delaney) � This is the single most contentious claim of
> neoDarwinism yet DeLaney, for example, produced nothing. �Only
> Harshman and Forrest produced anything of substance which was to say
> weak, at best. �
FALSEHOOD #2
I gave you the example of the transitional series linking theropod
dinosaurs and birds. You have not given any reason why these fossils
should *not* be considered a transitional series, or described any
criteria by which a transitional series *could* be recognised.
> My objective was achieved.
>
Your objective seems to be to make yourself look ignorant and
dishonest.
Congratulations on your success.
>
>
> >The others are a profound disappointment. �ASI, Great Dayne
> >and his family of nyms, Nashton, Ray, and most lately George
> >are all not to be taken seriously as critics. �At best (or worst,
> >depending on your point of view), they represent nuisances
> >that must be dealt with. �(It's a dirty job, but somebody has to
> >do it.)
>
> Granted there is both an intellectual challenge and an amusement
> factor to the forum. �But this cuts both ways. �You have your share of
> dimwits. �Even heavy hitters like Okimoto spends a significant number
> of his posts calling creationists liars and other ad hominem nonsense.
> Forrest has called me a liar so often I've lost count.
Hey, Tony: As you think the head of your own church is a liar, do you
think that it's okay to lie?
> �I may be
> mistaken often, but I hardly have a reason to lie.
So why do you persistently lie on this forum?
RF
Roaming Rider
In my humble opinion, there is one main question that anti-
evolutionists could ask over and over again: "Why did evolution
produce such complex and high quality life in such a short time as
only a few billion years?"
But they don't. Which shows their incompetence; to produce valid
arguments you would need a somewhat basic education in math (other
subjects help as well).
Evolutionists would have a hard time answering competent questions
based on solid work regarding this, IMHO.
I believe in evolution, though. I do not know if I could refute
intelligent statements regarding the above concern.
/RR
bpuharic
wrote:
>
>My aim in the forum since 1996 has been to be a rational skeptic of
>the theories of neoDarwinism, Big Bangism, Abiogenesis and the other
>historical claims about the origin of the world.
evolution is not a theory of the origin of the world.
and in your aim, you have failed. you are not rational at all. you are
subject to emotional rants, irrelevant conclusions, and
characterizations of objective evidence that lead one to doubt your
critical thinking skills
>
>The evidence is rarely conclusive and enough discordant facts exist
>for rational skepticisml and gives sufficient reason for the falsity
>of some of these historical theories.
meaningless
>
>For example, in my recent challenge seeking evidence of
>transformational biological change I answered every direct respondent
>(including Delaney)
as an objective observer who is a scientist, but not an evolutionary
biologist, no you haven't.
your definition is eccentric and highly personal. it has no basis in
science and is quite meaningless. much like the rest of your posts.
heekster
<ap...@email.com> wrote:
>On Dec 5, 12:25�am, Tim DeLaney <delaney.timo...@comcast.net> wrote:
>> The thread "Long time readers ... " brings to my mind how
>> the anti-evolution crowd here on T.O has deteriorated in
>> the past 15 years. �Back then there were at least a dozen
>> or so who would seriously attempt to rebut ToE with
>> arguments that took genuine thought to answer.
>>
>> Google's archives don't go back that far,
>
>The google group archive for talk.origins goes gack to 9/1986.
>
>After reading through the archive, I can safely say since around 1996
that you have learned absolutely nothing, and remain as ignorant as
ever.
>it has been the evolutionist's posts that have denegerated into a sea
>of atheistic inaccuracies and innanities.
>
You misspelled "degenerated" and "inanities". Not to mention utterly
annihilating every irony meter and bullshit detector in the northern
hemisphere, and most of those in the southern one.
You failed to identify any of the soi disant "atheistic inaccuracies
and innanities".
>Fortunatly however, there does seem to be a core element of
>evolutionists that still post here and that are quite intelligent.
>
They must be trilobite Cambrian mammals then. You also misspelled
"Fortunately".
>This core element does not include you or "your side".
>
You haven't got a single functioning synaptic junction.
Steven L.
The evidence for evolution was already overwhelming 15 years ago, in 1994.
So I don't think that's what has changed in the last 15 years.
I think it's Usenet that has changed--namely, it's losing out to the
World Wide Web and the moderated blogs. All of it, including this NG.
Blogs have sucked the life out of Usenet. All the NGs are in decline,
not just this one. You could compare the discussions on other NGs
between 15 years ago and today and see the decline with them as well.
There are lively discussions of evolution on Pharyngula, the various
ScienceBlogs, etc.
Usenet may die completely in the next 10 years. At some point, we need
to think about starting a blog on the Talk.origins archive and moving
the discussion off Usenet entirely.
--
Steven L.
Email: sdli...@earthlinkNOSPAM.net
Remove the NOSPAM before replying to me.
el cid
> The thread "Long time readers ... " brings to my mind how
> the anti-evolution crowd here on T.O has deteriorated in
> the past 15 years. �Back then there were at least a dozen
> or so who would seriously attempt to rebut ToE with
> arguments that took genuine thought to answer.
I doubt humans have evolved much in the past 15 years.
If there's a problem with the present crop, perhaps
something in the fertilizer they're getting has changed.
And I think that if pressured, I might be able to
find posts from the mid to early 90s that bemoaned
the decline in quality of the 'current crop of creationists',
or words to that effect.
To the extent this is true, it is true pre/early WWW
era contributions did filter the population some.
I wonder how to think about people who are just finding
t.o now. Somehow the concepts of pioneers versus
anachronists comes to mind. Those who stuck around
a long time are either evangelists of one stripe or
another, or perhaps fascinated by abnormal sociology.
Professor Chris %$^$&||---BREAK
[NO CARRIER}
T Pagano
<ap...@email.com> wrote:
>On Dec 5, 12:25�am, Tim DeLaney <delaney.timo...@comcast.net> wrote:
>> The thread "Long time readers ... " brings to my mind how
>> the anti-evolution crowd here on T.O has deteriorated in
>> the past 15 years. �Back then there were at least a dozen
>> or so who would seriously attempt to rebut ToE with
>> arguments that took genuine thought to answer.
>>
>> Google's archives don't go back that far,
>
>The google group archive for talk.origins goes gack to 9/1986.
>
>After reading through the archive, I can safely say since around 1996
>it has been the evolutionist's posts that have denegerated into a sea
>of atheistic inaccuracies and innanities.
Over the last 24 months the google search feature for google groups
doesn't kick up much of anything unless the search parameters are
fairly broad. I'm obviously doing something wrong. And I haven't
been able to finese the google search back early than January 2000.
What's the trick to get back further?
Thanks in advance.
Regards,
T Pagano
Ray Martinez
Blanket statements that dismiss the opposition via blanket insults
indicate anger caused by an inability to refute. And Tim Delaney has
forgotten that all of the so called "opposition" that he has insulted
are not real anti-evolutionists, they accept the main claim of the
Atheism worldview: species mutability. This makes them evolutionists
or pseudo-Creationists-IDists. I am the only true Creationist-IDist in
the lot. Of course the Bible through and through portrays truth and
rightness to never reside with the majority.
Ray (Creatorist, species immutabilist)
raven1
<pyram...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>Blanket statements that dismiss the opposition via blanket insults
>indicate anger caused by an inability to refute.
Like your constant generalizations about atheists?
> And Tim Delaney has
>forgotten that all of the so called "opposition" that he has insulted
>are not real anti-evolutionists, they accept the main claim of the
>Atheism worldview: species mutability. This makes them evolutionists
>or pseudo-Creationists-IDists. I am the only true Creationist-IDist in
>the lot.
You're the only one in the world, by your criteria. (Pardon me for a
moment, BTW, I'm having a hard time concentrating with the bagpipes
playing so loudly...)
> Of course the Bible through and through portrays truth and
>rightness to never reside with the majority.
Irrelevant to the truth or falsity of your own position.
Ray Martinez
Okimoto a "heavy hitter"?
He is exactly opposite. A Kentucky hillbilly. I think you meant heavy
howler hitter? He is good at flinging shit at anyone who opposes
Atheism ideology/evolution.
> Forrest has called me a liar so often I've lost count. �I may be
> mistaken often, but I hardly have a reason to lie.
>
Forrest calls all IDists liars. He thinks the tactic deflects his own
transparent lies.
> Harshman is one of the rare few academians in the forum who sets a
> high standard on your side.
>
LOL!
Harshman is anything but. He is a regular guy who knew how to pass
classes. He is wholly dishonest; has zero knowledge in the History of
Science or Philosophy of Science; has been exposed by Sean Pitman to
know next to nothing about natural selection (imagine that; a guy with
a doctorate in "evolutionary biology" who knows nothing about natural
selection?); thinks "common descent" is a mechanism; did not know the
main claim of Behe 1996 (IC systems are unevolvable). I had to tell
John that IF IC systems exist then gradualism if falsified, he did not
know that neo-Darwinism denies the existence of IC systems or any
phenomena that claims unevolvability; and he routinely insults your
own knowledge and intelligence (as he does mine). I am RELIEVED to be
rejected by John. He rarely says anything that I didn't already know,
or anything that separates him from the crowd of howlers that are
always present. He is the classic person who happens to have a
doctorate.
You have made a bad mistake.
>
> And I greatly miss Steven J who set a very high standard until shortly
> before he vanished.
>
I miss Steven J too.
Steven L fills his shoes and beyond.
>
>
> >Of course, there are many worthwhile posters whose continuing
> >contributions I value highly. �I hesitate to mention any names for
> >fear of snubbing somebody. (As though my opinion on the matter
> >has more value than a bucket of warm spit.)
>
> I agree.
>
>
>
> >Alas! �As briefly alluded to in one of my replies to Sapient Fridge,
> >there are some on "our side" whose posts I don't value. �Naming
> >them would serve little purpose, and would only invite a flame war.
>
> >Tim
>
> This is a pleasant and unexpected admission. � Up to this point I've
> only seen Harshman correct his own.
>
Very rarely. But he remains silent when howlers are plying their
trade. This makes him a liar too. John is not bright enough to see
that his credibility is lost when this happens.
John will not hesitate to willfully misrepresent. And like all
evolutionists his style is anchored in deliberate obfuscation. Again,
you are looking buffoonish or like a TEist when you compliment
Harshman. He has zero respect, as one would expect, for any Theist.
Ray
Richard Harter
>The thread "Long time readers ... " brings to my mind how
>the anti-evolution crowd here on T.O has deteriorated in
>the past 15 years. Back then there were at least a dozen
>or so who would seriously attempt to rebut ToE with
>arguments that took genuine thought to answer.
As Steven says, web based discussion is sucking the life out of
usenet. There is a good deal to say about that; much of it has
already been said, albeit not as well as it should have been or
would have been had some among us had been the ones to say it.
Once upon a time, in that golden era between the age of the bards
and the age of the internet, there was a media known as print, in
which would be expounders of great thought would be present their
thoughts in the form of essays. The form was difficult; it
demanded a certain familiarity with grammar and some ability to
organize thought and expression in a coherent manner. Then, too,
there was always the difficulty of finding an audience.
Today, however, all is changed. The essay has been replaced by
the electronic effusion. We are engaged in a great experiment to
discover the depths to which the greatest common denominator can
sink. Here in talk.origins we may be proud that we are doing our
part.
That said, (and I did enjoy saying it) I agree in general with
Tim's plaint. Speaking personally, my life has moved in quite
different directions and I no longer have the time or energy for
most of what appears in talk.origins. I ruthlessly prune out the
postings of most of the creationists - there is so little there
on either side besides name calling. Pagano at least is a
pretentious pseudo-intellectual; scattered amidst postings are
some actual issues. But it is more than that; there is no color,
nothing exciting or thought provoking in all this dross. It is
as though the fourth grade dullards in a creationist grade school
have been giving the task of writing in talk.origins.
My, that was refreshing. :-)
Tim DeLaney
Granted, long exchanges are generally fruitless, but,
IMO you are too too quick to claim victory and leave
while there is still much of substance left undecided.
> T Pagano- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
It seems we agree much too often for comfort. :-)
Tim
Ray Martinez
> On Fri, 4 Dec 2009 22:25:35 -0800 (PST), Tim DeLaney
>
Either what you say is generally true OR you cannot compete
intellectually (the same of which then exposes your reasons for non-
participation to be generally untrue).
And since you are a Darwinist your opinions about anti-evolutionists
are entirely predictable.
Ray
el cid
> On Sat, 5 Dec 2009 01:56:32 -0800 (PST), All-seeing-I
>
> <ap...@email.com> wrote:
> >On Dec 5, 12:25�am, Tim DeLaney <delaney.timo...@comcast.net> wrote:
> >> The thread "Long time readers ... " brings to my mind how
> >> the anti-evolution crowd here on T.O has deteriorated in
> >> the past 15 years. �Back then there were at least a dozen
> >> or so who would seriously attempt to rebut ToE with
> >> arguments that took genuine thought to answer.
>
> >> Google's archives don't go back that far,
>
> >The google group archive for talk.origins goes gack to 9/1986.
>
> >After reading through the archive, I can safely say since around 1996
> >it has been the evolutionist's posts that have denegerated into a sea
> >of atheistic inaccuracies and innanities.
>
> Over the last 24 months the google search feature for google groups
> doesn't kick up much of anything unless the search parameters are
> fairly broad. � I'm obviously doing something wrong. �And I haven't
> been able to finese the google search back early than January 2000.
> What's the trick to get back further?
>
> Thanks in advance.
I've found the searching with the groups reading environment
to be very poor as well, especially for older posts.
If you do a regular google search and then go to advanced
options there, you can specify the domain in the
"Search within a site or domain:" to be "groups.google.com"
The shortcut for this is to add "site:groups.google.com"
behind that which you are searching.
Or add site:group/talk.origins/group/talk.origins
You might try the search for
"Scientific Biases and Mistaken theories of Objectivity"
site:groups.google.com/group/talk.origins
which reveals one of your 1998 posts in one of the results.
The standard gui options don't seem to operate as I don't think the
groups
database is being maintained for talk.origins posts before 2000
el cid
Indeed they are entirely predictable. I'm uncertain about how
accurate your predictions might be but I grant you that you
can, and probably already have, predicted his opinions.
Tim DeLaney
>
> - Show quoted text -
Richard Harter is, without the slightest question, your
intellectual superior by a wider margin that you can
possibly imagine. This is not meant as an insult -- it
is a simple statement of the truth.
Tim
Ray Martinez
>
> - Show quoted text -
Since both you and Harter are evolutionists your opinion is entirely
predictable, predetermined.
Ray (Christian-Creatorist)
Tim DeLaney
>
> - Show quoted text -
Let me guess: Raven1's comment about bagpipes sailed
right over your head, right?
Tim
Ray Martinez
>
> - Show quoted text -
Raven is also a evolutionist, Tim.
Since all evolutionists think all creationists are intellectually
inferior (the reverse is also true), I do not feel slighted in the
least. For your opinion about Harter being smarter than I to have any
objective merit you need to refute the first sentence in this
paragraph.
Ray (Creatorist)
Reddfrogg
snip
>
> > Granted there is both an intellectual challenge and an amusement
> > factor to the forum. �But this cuts both ways. �You have your share of
> > dimwits. �Even heavy hitters like Okimoto spends a significant number
> > of his posts calling creationists liars and other ad hominem nonsense.
>
> Okimoto a "heavy hitter"?
As opposed to lightweights like you, Ray, sure.
>
> He is exactly opposite. A Kentucky hillbilly. I think you meant heavy
> howler hitter? He is good at flinging shit at anyone who opposes
> Atheism ideology/evolution.
Why, just like you are doing here..... By the way, Ray, evolution
is not atheism ideology, it's science.
>
> > Forrest has called me a liar so often I've lost count. �I may be
> > mistaken often, but I hardly have a reason to lie.
>
> Forrest calls all IDists liars. He thinks the tactic deflects his own
> transparent lies.
No, he just calls liars, liars. Forrest can't help it if most IDists
lie.
>
> > Harshman is one of the rare few academians in the forum who sets a
> > high standard on your side.
>
> LOL!
>
> Harshman is anything but. He is a regular guy who knew how to pass
> classes.
Unlike Ray, who can't even pass a eye test......
> He is wholly dishonest; has zero knowledge in the History of
> Science or Philosophy of Science;
\
i.e. knows a great deal more about it than Ray does... although that's
not hard.
> has been exposed by Sean Pitman to
> know next to nothing about natural selection (imagine that; a guy with
> a doctorate in "evolutionary biology" who knows nothing about natural
> selection?);
Again, here we have Ray, who mistakes natural selection for
"naturalism" claiming that someone else knows nothing about natural
selection.
> thinks "common descent" is a mechanism;
Ray, common descent is a mechanism that produces genetic similarity.
You've been stomped on this enough to have learned this by now.
> did not know the
> main claim of Behe 1996 (IC systems are unevolvable).
Since Behe didn't make that claim, and it's wrong anyway, why would
you expect John to know that?
> I had to tell
> John that IF IC systems exist then gradualism if falsified,
Which is utterly wrong, as has been pointed out to you many times.
> he did not
> know that neo-Darwinism denies the existence of IC systems or any
> phenomena that claims unevolvability;
Another utterly false assertion. Trying for the record here,
Ray?
> and he routinely insults your
> own knowledge and intelligence (as he does mine).
Ray, you don't have any intelligence to insult.
> I am RELIEVED to be
> rejected by John.
Then why do you keep wriggling for his approval like a puppy?
> He rarely says anything that I didn't already know,
> or anything that separates him from the crowd of howlers that are
> always present
In other words, John regularly shows Ray to be wrong, and
irrational.
> He is the classic person who happens to have a
> doctorate.
Which Ray doesn't have, nor will ever have the ability to get.
That's why Ray is so bitter at John, and anyone else more intelligent
than Ray.
>
> You have made a bad mistake.
Nope, just another of your own, Ray.
>
>
>
> > And I greatly miss Steven J who set a very high standard until shortly
> > before he vanished.
>
> I miss Steven J too.
>
> Steven L fills his shoes and beyond.
>
>
>
>
>
> > >Of course, there are many worthwhile posters whose continuing
> > >contributions I value highly. �I hesitate to mention any names for
> > >fear of snubbing somebody. (As though my opinion on the matter
> > >has more value than a bucket of warm spit.)
>
> > I agree.
>
> > >Alas! �As briefly alluded to in one of my replies to Sapient Fridge,
> > >there are some on "our side" whose posts I don't value. �Naming
> > >them would serve little purpose, and would only invite a flame war.
>
> > >Tim
>
> > This is a pleasant and unexpected admission. � Up to this point I've
> > only seen Harshman correct his own.
>
> Very rarely. But he remains silent when howlers are plying their
> trade. This makes him a liar too. John is not bright enough to see
> that his credibility is lost when this happens.
Which means that when Ray is wrong, he gets told. When no one
supports Ray, he gets all hurt and whiny.
>
> John will not hesitate to willfully misrepresent. And like all
> evolutionists his style is anchored in deliberate obfuscation. Again,
> you are looking buffoonish or like a TEist when you compliment
> Harshman. He has zero respect, as one would expect, for any Theist.
Again, we see Ray is just hurt because he can't get John's approval,
and so he calls names.
DJT
Reddfrogg
That may be why you use "blanket insults". Do you dispute anything
that he said?
>And Tim Delaney has
> forgotten that all of the so called "opposition" that he has insulted
> are not real anti-evolutionists, they accept the main claim of the
> Atheism worldview: species mutability.
"Species mutablity" is a basic observation about the way species
work. It's not any kind of "main claim" of atheism, or an "atheist
worldview". Your attempt to claim anyone who accepts the very basic
fact of species change is a "evolutionist" just means you set yourself
to be very lonely.
> This makes them evolutionists
> or pseudo-Creationists-IDists. I am the only true Creationist-IDist in
> the lot.
Or, apparently in the entire world. Doesn't that tend to indicate
something to you, Ray? When you are standing out all by yourself,
don't you think that maybe, just maybe you are the one who is
wrong?
> Of course the Bible through and through portrays truth and
> rightness to never reside with the majority.
And for that matter, truth and rightness never resides with Ray.
>
> Ray (Creatorist, species immutabilist)
And always wrong.
DJT
Reddfrogg
No, just the ones who are.
> (the reverse is also true),
The reverse is also completely wrong.
> I do not feel slighted in the
> least. For your opinion about Harter being smarter than I to have any
> objective merit you need to refute the first sentence in this
> paragraph.
Which means the whole idea of you employing the "No True Scotsman"
fallacy did sail over your head.
DJT
Reddfrogg
and of course entirely correct.
DJT
Reddfrogg
Ray, you should know that competing with you intellectually is like a
race car competing with a school bus in time trials.
In short, you are no sort of competition at all. You are just here
for the amusement of all.
>
> And since you are a Darwinist your opinions about anti-evolutionists
> are entirely predictable.
Even if they are "predictable" that doesn't mean they are incorrect.
DJT
>
> Ray
T Pagano
wrote:
Thanks much I'll try that.
Regards,
T Pagano
>
Eric Root
Actually, anyone's opinions about anti-evolutionists are entirely
predictble.
Eric Root
Eric Root
Heck, _Gene Scott_ is Ray's intellectual superior, and that's really
sad.
Eric Root
T Pagano
>On Fri, 4 Dec 2009 22:25:35 -0800 (PST), Tim DeLaney
><delaney...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>>The thread "Long time readers ... " brings to my mind how
>>the anti-evolution crowd here on T.O has deteriorated in
>>the past 15 years. Back then there were at least a dozen
>>or so who would seriously attempt to rebut ToE with
>>arguments that took genuine thought to answer.
>
>As Steven says, web based discussion is sucking the life out of
>usenet. There is a good deal to say about that; much of it has
>already been said, albeit not as well as it should have been or
>would have been had some among us had been the ones to say it.
>
>Once upon a time, in that golden era between the age of the bards
>and the age of the internet, there was a media known as print, in
>which would be expounders of great thought would be present their
>thoughts in the form of essays. The form was difficult; it
>demanded a certain familiarity with grammar and some ability to
>organize thought and expression in a coherent manner. Then, too,
>there was always the difficulty of finding an audience.
>
>Today, however, all is changed. The essay has been replaced by
>the electronic effusion. We are engaged in a great experiment to
>discover the depths to which the greatest common denominator can
>sink. Here in talk.origins we may be proud that we are doing our
>part.
On the other hand these written published outlets Harter pines for
filtered out a vast array of substantive ideas both good and bad from
professionals and amateurs alike. Such editiorial filtering usually
guarrantees that only orthodoxy gets through; usually well-written
orthodoxy, but often stagnant and false orthodoxy.
Why does Internet publishingly (which Harter apparently disdains) make
things potentially better for discovery? It is not evidence which
drives scientific discovery but the generation of new ideas and
hypotheses telling us where to look. Ideas which are routinely
filtered out by the means Harter prefers.
>
>That said, (and I did enjoy saying it) I agree in general with
>Tim's plaint. Speaking personally, my life has moved in quite
>different directions and I no longer have the time or energy for
>most of what appears in talk.origins. I ruthlessly prune out the
>postings of most of the creationists - there is so little there
>on either side besides name calling.
I certainly agree.
>Pagano at least is a
>pretentious pseudo-intellectual;
Harter mistakes confident defiance of the secular orthodoxy for
pretentiousness. A defiance which in the days before Usenet (and
other like outlets) would never have seen the light of day. My
suspicion is that Harter is annoyed that the orthodoxy is offered no
special protection here.
I find the accusation that I am a "psuedo-intellectual" fairly
amusing. I have never (since joining this group in 1996) made any
claim of authority---about anything. I have made it a point to
describe myself as an amateur. I don't feign "superior" intellect
nor do I use arcane vocabulary. I am simply confident.
I do have a healthy respect for the philosophy of logic and philosophy
of science both of which have aided me in pointing out the often
fallacious, questionable, and non scientific claims made by his
secular compatriates here. Again I suspect that Harter is annoyed
that I don't pay deference to what he considers indubitable.
My only goal since 1996 has been to show that the secular positions he
might hold dogmatically are not nearly as strong as he believes or as
secularists collectively portray to the great unwashed masses.
Regards,
T Pagano
RAM
Pags, I thought Harter was being overly generous in calling you a
pseudo-intellectual.
Pseudo would suffice. What is true is you are enamored with
philosophy and manage to mangle it to make it seem that you have a
point. Your lack of insight into what it means and how it is to be
applied is your paramount philosophical weakness. Thus intellectual
is unwarranted. Even amateur is unwarranted. Pompous poseur is most
accurate. This correctly establishes your mordant verbosity and
silly self serving claims of victory over some who are experts in
their fields of science. At minimum it reveals you confuse prolixity
with profundity. A signal feature of a college sophomore.
While Tim is correct in saying Harter is exceptionally bright; in your
case his generosity has lead to a misjudgment.
Tim DeLaney
Where do you get the idea that Richard disdains internet
publishingly (sic)? He publishes one of the most entertaining
and thoughtful e-magazines on the web. And contrary to your
rather cavalier dismissal of his ideas, Richard frequently
challenges the mainstream of science when he sees chinks in
its armor. Really, if you had taken the time to explore his website
you would realize that he is more a critic of "orthodoxy" as he
he is a proponent of it.
>
>
>
> >That said, (and I did enjoy saying it) I agree in general with
> >Tim's plaint. �Speaking personally, my life has moved in quite
> >different directions and I no longer have the time or energy for
> >most of what appears in talk.origins. �I ruthlessly prune out the
> >postings of most of the creationists - there is so little there
> >on either side besides name calling.
>
> I certainly agree.
>
> >Pagano at least is a
> >pretentious pseudo-intellectual;
>
> Harter mistakes confident defiance of the secular orthodoxy for
> pretentiousness. �A defiance which in the days before Usenet (and
> other like outlets) would never have seen the light of day. �My
> suspicion is that Harter is annoyed that the orthodoxy is offered no
> special protection here.
>
> I find the accusation that I am a "psuedo-intellectual" fairly
> amusing. �I have never (since joining this group in 1996) made any
> claim of authority---about anything. �I have made it a point to
> describe myself as an amateur. � I don't feign "superior" intellect
> nor do I use arcane vocabulary. �I am simply confident.
>
> I do have a healthy respect for the philosophy of logic and philosophy
> of science both of which have aided me in pointing out the often
> fallacious, questionable, and non scientific claims made by his
> secular compatriates here. �Again I suspect that Harter is annoyed
> that I don't pay deference to what he considers indubitable.
I am confident that you have not acquainted yourself with
the way Richard thinks. I heartily recommend you visit his
web site and spend a few hours sampling his writing on the
topics you hold so dear.
http://home.tiac.net/~cri/
>
> My only goal since 1996 has been to show that the secular positions he
> might hold dogmatically are not nearly as strong as he believes or as
> secularists collectively portray to the great unwashed masses. �
>
Tony, your phrase "he might hold dogmatically" speaks for
itself. You are profoundly ignorant of Richard Harter's position
on any issue, and yet you presume to publicly criticize it.
"Dogmatically" is the antithesis of his thinking. (Parenthetically,
I would suggest that this adverb describes your thinking perfectly.)
Tim
el cid
> On the other hand these written published outlets Harter pines for
> filtered out a vast array of substantive ideas both good and bad from
> professionals and amateurs alike. � Such editiorial filtering usually
> guarrantees that only orthodoxy gets through; usually well-written
> orthodoxy, but often stagnant and false orthodoxy. �
>
> Why does Internet publishingly (which Harter apparently disdains) ...
Perspicacious as ever.
Kleuskes & Moos
> On Sat, 05 Dec 2009 22:56:01 GMT, c...@tiac.net (Richard Harter) wrote:
> >On Fri, 4 Dec 2009 22:25:35 -0800 (PST), Tim DeLaney
> ><delaney.timo...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
> >>The thread "Long time readers ... " brings to my mind how
> >>the anti-evolution crowd here on T.O has deteriorated in
> >>the past 15 years. Back then there were at least a dozen
> >>or so who would seriously attempt to rebut ToE with
> >>arguments that took genuine thought to answer.
Ah... Those were the days...
<snip>
> >We are engaged in a great experiment to
> >discover the depths to which the greatest common denominator can
> >sink. Here in talk.origins we may be proud that we are doing our
> >part.
>
> On the other hand these written published outlets Harter pines for
> filtered out a vast array of substantive ideas both good and bad from
> professionals and amateurs alike. Such editiorial filtering usually
> guarrantees that only orthodoxy gets through; usually well-written
> orthodoxy, but often stagnant and false orthodoxy.
Such filtering usually lets good ideas pass and stops the seriously
zany ones, the slightly misinformed ones, the blatantlky brainless
ones, etc. Being a rank amateur myself in many fields, i find i rely
on that filter to stop a flood of "just so" stories, presented without
backup, without research, without thought or insight.
> Why does Internet publishingly (which Harter apparently disdains) make
> things potentially better for discovery?
Since they can now publish what they want without wasting paper on
retractions. Moreover, once proven wrong (and they are with astounding
regularity), theyu do not have any embarassing books floating around,
but can simply yank the offending page off their site. Thus making it
impossible for critics to refer to all their past blunders.
And of course it's cheap, too.
> It is not evidence which
> drives scientific discovery but the generation of new ideas and
> hypotheses telling us where to look. Ideas which are routinely
> filtered out by the means Harter prefers.
Nope, new ideas are a dime a dozen. I can come up with as many as you
like and, given the nature and history of this newsgroup, i'm not the
only one.
The method Mr. Hartman (doubtlessly) prefers serve to filter out the
good ideas (which actually explain the data available on the subject
at hand) from the large majority of bunk dressed up as "science".
> >That said, (and I did enjoy saying it) I agree in general with
> >Tim's plaint. Speaking personally, my life has moved in quite
> >different directions and I no longer have the time or energy for
> >most of what appears in talk.origins. I ruthlessly prune out the
> >postings of most of the creationists - there is so little there
> >on either side besides name calling.
>
> I certainly agree.
>
> >Pagano at least is a
> >pretentious pseudo-intellectual;
>
> Harter mistakes confident defiance of the secular orthodoxy for
> pretentiousness. A defiance which in the days before Usenet (and
> other like outlets) would never have seen the light of day. My
> suspicion is that Harter is annoyed that the orthodoxy is offered no
> special protection here.
I don't think so. "Confident defiance of secular orthodoxy" would at
least make a valid point every now and then and refrain from Pagano's
antics, which we've come to know and love.
> I find the accusation that I am a "psuedo-intellectual" fairly
> amusing. I have never (since joining this group in 1996) made any
> claim of authority---about anything.
Nope. But you've been (idly) posing as an intellectual since 1996.
Even now.
> I have made it a point to
> describe myself as an amateur. I don't feign "superior" intellect
> nor do I use arcane vocabulary. I am simply confident.
That's the point. Had you been a *real* intellectual, you would not
have complained about "editorial filtering" or claim that "It is not
evidence which drives scientific discovery", since you would have
known these to be nonsensical statements. If you were a true amateur
(which derives from the latin for "to love"), you would not be
"confidently defiant", since that is not the hallmark of an amateur
but of a dilettant.
> I do have a healthy respect for the philosophy of logic and
> philosophy of science
If you were, you would not have brushed actual evidence aside in favor
of "generation of new ideas". You would have know that the "generation
of new ideas" is the easiest part of philosophy AND science.
> both of which have aided me in pointing out the often
> fallacious, questionable, and non scientific claims made by his
> secular compatriates here.
Yeah... Sure....
> Again I suspect that Harter is annoyed
> that I don't pay deference to what he considers indubitable.
Personally i think mr. Harter does not give a damn. Your deference
isn't a threath to science, the ToE or modern cosmology. Frankly, your
"confident defiance" is amusing. That's all.
Amusing.
> My only goal since 1996 has been to show that the secular positions he
> might hold dogmatically are not nearly as strong as he believes or as
> secularists collectively portray to the great unwashed masses.
And so far, you've failed miserably.
richardal...@googlemail.com
FALSEHOOD #1
No, Ray. I don't. I only call people liars if I am confident that they
are making statements they know to be false with the intent to
deceive. That's why I call you delusional rather than a liar.
> He thinks the tactic deflects his own
> transparent lies.
FALSEHOOD #2
So where have I lied, Ray - i.e. made a statement I know to be false
with the intent to deceive?
>
> > Harshman is one of the rare few academians in the forum who sets a
> > high standard on your side.
>
> LOL!
>
> Harshman is anything but. He is a regular guy who knew how to pass
> classes. He is wholly dishonest;
FALSEHOOD #3
All-seeing-I
wrote:
> On Dec 5, 4:56�am, All-seeing-I <ap...@email.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Dec 5, 12:25�am, Tim DeLaney <delaney.timo...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
> > > The thread "Long time readers ... " brings to my mind how
> > > the anti-evolution crowd here on T.O has deteriorated in
> > > the past 15 years. �Back then there were at least a dozen
> > > or so who would seriously attempt to rebut ToE with
> > > arguments that took genuine thought to answer.
>
> > > Google's archives don't go back that far,
>
>
> > After reading through the archive, I can safely say since around 1996
> > it has been the evolutionist's posts that have denegerated into a sea
> > of atheistic inaccuracies and innanities.
>
> > evolutionists that still post here and that are quite intelligent.
>
> > This core element does not include you or "your side".
>
> > Thanks,
>
> > ASI.
>
> In fact, the problem is not so much with the creationists as with the
> science.
>
> Our creationists are really not that much different from the days of
> yore. They just have less to work with. The creationists still coming
> to t.o. realize, for the most part, that there's not much left to be
> said. The science is so overwhelming by now that all they can do is (a)
> follow the ASI route and post the same old arguments and ignore the
> crushing weight of evidence that falls on them ("Honest...(gasp)..it's
> nothing..(gaspgaspgasp)..I don't (gaspgasp) feel a (gasp) thing", or
> (b)follow the Nashton route and not even try to post anything that
> could be refuted, because you're too much of a coward to try since you
> know you'll get your ass handed to you (how's those dental Volkmann's
> canals doing, science-boy?)
>
> Chris
Amusing. But Chris. Please. Wake up.
Wake up and smell the crap on your shoes before you track it through
the house. OK? The smell is awful.
Evolutionists do not have this mountain of evidence that you claim.
What you have is a story that has been inflated, conflated,
exaggerated and rationalized for so long that no one can establish
clearly what is right and what is wrong with it.
Evolution has become the classic example of the popular phrase: "If
you cannot dazzle them with brilliance, then baffle them with
bullshit".
1) you do not know if you have all of the evidence
2) even if you had all of the evidence, you cannot be positive the
evidence you do have is interpretated correctly anyway.
Period.
It is literally easier to believe "God Did It" and takes far less
effort.
sheesh.
bpuharic
wrote:
>
>Why does Internet publishingly (which Harter apparently disdains) make
>things potentially better for discovery? It is not evidence which
>drives scientific discovery but the generation of new ideas and
>hypotheses telling us where to look. Ideas which are routinely
>filtered out by the means Harter prefers.
sometimes. sometimes not. pagano's a creationist so is largely
ignorant of the history of science
and example of an evidence driven discovery is dark energy. this was
not even hinted at in theory, but was a serendipitous discovery by
astronomers like wendy freedman and saul perlmutter. this happens
fairly often in science. a fact pagano would know if he knew anything
about science at all.
>
>I find the accusation that I am a "psuedo-intellectual" fairly
>amusing. I have never (since joining this group in 1996) made any
>claim of authority---about anything.
your whole argument is based on authority. that's what creationism is.
it's an argument based on the authority of an eccentric view of the
bible.
bpuharic
<ap...@email.com> wrote:
>
>Evolutionists do not have this mountain of evidence that you claim.
and pigs have wings and can fly. if he can make wild assertions then
anyone can
>
>What you have is a story that has been inflated, conflated,
>exaggerated and rationalized for so long that no one can establish
>clearly what is right and what is wrong with it.
reatlly? then tell us why creationism was once used to explain:
-weather
-earthquakes
-disease
-planetary motion
and was wrong on ALL of these. yet creationists say they understand
the universe. how can this be true if they don't even understand how
disease happens?
>
>Evolution has become the classic example of the popular phrase: "If
>you cannot dazzle them with brilliance, then baffle them with
>bullshit".
>
>1) you do not know if you have all of the evidence
>
>2) even if you had all of the evidence, you cannot be positive the
>evidence you do have is interpretated correctly anyway.
>
>Period.
>
>It is literally easier to believe "God Did It" and takes far less
>effort.
>
well that's true. it's always easier to believe childhood fantasies
like 'god did it' than it is to understand nature.
and god did it explains nothing. it explains a flat tire. it explains
spilled milk. it's useless
Kleuskes & Moos
I think he's wide-awake...
> Wake up and smell the crap on your shoes before you track it through
> the house. OK? The smell is awful.
Reminds me of that feller leaving a bar and asking "what's that funny
smell?"
"Fresh air, sir", replies the doorman.
I.e. it's not Chris whi drags the male bovine excrement into this
newsgroup.
> Evolutionists do not have this mountain of evidence that you claim.
Go visit the musuem for Natural History. Any museum for Natural
History...
I've got some nice examples (two ammonites and a trilobite, you know
that cambrian mammal) on my shelf, myself. Science does not need it,
so i got to keep them.
> What you have is a story that has been inflated, conflated,
> exaggerated and rationalized for so long that no one can establish
> clearly what is right and what is wrong with it.
You seem to be the only one having that difficulty in this thread. The
more sane participants rely on good, old-fashioned empirical data.
> Evolution has become the classic example of the popular phrase: "If
> you cannot dazzle them with brilliance, then baffle them with
> bullshit".
> 1) you do not know if you have all of the evidence
Nope. We know for a fact we don't. Looking at a rock-seam containing
fossils just makes you realize how much is (still) hidden inside. To
obtain _all_ evidence would require some serious mining.
> 2) even if you had all of the evidence, you cannot be positive the
> evidence you do have is interpretated correctly anyway.
That's "interpreted". Ain't itsad how someone who has english as a
third language (german was my second) has a better command of the
english language than you do?
> It is literally easier to believe "God Did It" and takes far less
> effort.
Science is not about taking the easy route. The problem with "God did
it" is that it can explain everything, and hence explains nothing. Why
are my socks red? God did it. Why do seasons come and go? Because God
did it...
I can understand why the route requiring less effort appeals to you,
but the scientific community is driven by a lust for actual knowledge,
not intellectual lazyness.
hersheyh
Admits not being an authority about anything. Check. Describes
himself as an amateur. Check. Doesn't claim superior intellect nor
ability to use specialist vocabulary correctly. Check. Yet is still
supremely confident about his being right and all the experts who *do*
know something about the things he is talking about being wrong.
Check. Dunning-Krueger example personified.
> I do have a healthy respect for the philosophy of logic and philosophy
> of science both of which have aided me in pointing out the often
> fallacious, questionable, and non scientific claims made by his
> secular compatriates here. �
That 'healthy respect', however, not being sufficient for Tony to
actually learn enough about the fields to get a real understanding of
science. How anyone could understand even the basics of what the sun
*actually* is and where it is and really think that it could move
wildly around the sky in Portugal while remaining relatively steadily
moving in its path across the sky in London at the same time while
simultaneously claim to have a "healthy respect for the philosophy of
logic and philosophy of science" is confirmation that cognitive
dissonance is real.
> Again I suspect that Harter is annoyed
> that I don't pay deference to what he considers indubitable.
It is not just Harter who considers evolution rather firmly grounded
in science. It is essentially all the "non-amateurs" who think that.
You know, all those people who actually do *know* things and actually
understand the "arcane vocabulary" of science and related philosophy.
> My only goal since 1996 has been to show that the secular positions he
> might hold dogmatically are not nearly as strong as he believes or as
> secularists collectively portray to the great unwashed masses.
And you have failed to demonstrate that the scientific position that
evolution (descent with modification) happened in the past and
explains our current biota is either "dogmatic" or "weak" since 1996.�
Almost a decade and a half of utter failure. Must be shitty being
you. Unless, of course, as a classic Dunning-Krugerand, you are
arrogant in your ignorance and actually think you are being brilliant
here.
>
> Regards,
> T Pagano
[snip]
heekster
<ap...@email.com> wrote:
All of your silliness has been posted before, and it was unequivocally
debunked before, as well.
Look it up.
And, get some new material, preferably something that hasn't been
utterly crushed in previous discussion.
Desertphile
<pyram...@yahoo.com> wrote:
CURS
> Raven is also a evolutionist (sic), Tim.
>
> Since all evolutionists (sic) think all creationists are intellectually
> inferior....
Adults who believe in imaginary friends and fairy tales *ARE*
intellectually inferior.
--
http://desertphile.org
Desertphile's Desert Soliloquy. WARNING: view with plenty of water
"Why aren't resurrections from the dead noteworthy?" -- Jim Rutz
All-seeing-I
> On Sat, 5 Dec 2009 01:56:32 -0800 (PST), All-seeing-I
>
> <ap...@email.com> wrote:
> >On Dec 5, 12:25�am, Tim DeLaney <delaney.timo...@comcast.net> wrote:
> >> The thread "Long time readers ... " brings to my mind how
> >> the anti-evolution crowd here on T.O has deteriorated in
> >> the past 15 years. �Back then there were at least a dozen
> >> or so who would seriously attempt to rebut ToE with
> >> arguments that took genuine thought to answer.
>
> >> Google's archives don't go back that far,
>
> >The google group archive for talk.origins goes gack to 9/1986.
>
> >After reading through the archive, I can safely say since around 1996
> >it has been the evolutionist's posts that have denegerated into a sea
> >of atheistic inaccuracies and innanities.
>
> doesn't kick up much of anything unless the search parameters are
> fairly broad. � I'm obviously doing something wrong. �And I haven't
> been able to finese the google search back early than January 2000.
> What's the trick to get back further?
>
> Thanks in advance.
>
> T Pagano
>
>
>
>
>
> >Fortunatly however, there does seem to be a core element of
> >evolutionists that still post here and that are quite intelligent.
>
> >This core element does not include you or "your side".
>
> >Thanks,
>
> >ASI.
>
> >> name one such poster -- "Julie", but there were others
> >> who attempted to engage in serious debate. �Many were
> >> borderline crackpots, and some, like Ed Conrad, far over
> >> the borderline.
>
> >> The closest the current crop comes to an actual debater
> >> is <gasp> Tony Pagano. �<ducks a barrage of rotten eggs
> >> and overripe tomatoes> �But even Tony has deteriorated.
> >> He used to be willing to make a rudimentary exchange of
> >> ideas; nowadays he just brushes serious ideas aside and
> >> claims victory. �(Shades of Mark Harpt!)
>
> >> and his family of nyms, Nashton, Ray, and most lately George
> >> are all not to be taken seriously as critics. �At best (or worst,
> >> depending on your point of view), they represent nuisances
> >> that must be dealt with. �(It's a dirty job, but somebody has to
> >> do it.)
>
> >> Peter Nyikos, John P Boatwrong, Ted Holden, and the one
> >> whose name shall never again be mentioned? �(There are so
> >> many more; please don't be offended if I failed to mention you!)
>
> >> There were also many whose contributions I miss: PZ, Andrew
> >> MacRae, Larry Moran, Tracy Hamilton, Richard Harter (Who has
> >> not disappeared entirely, but can no longer be counted as a regular),
> >> Wade Hines (Who reamed my poorer posts more than once), and
> >> Wesley Ellsberry all come readily to mind.
>
> >> contributions I value highly. �I hesitate to mention any names for
> >> fear of snubbing somebody. (As though my opinion on the matter
> >> has more value than a bucket of warm spit.)
>
> >> there are some on "our side" whose posts I don't value. �Naming
> >> them would serve little purpose, and would only invite a flame war.
>
>
> - Show quoted text -
They are having trouble with them lately.
All-seeing-I
> On Dec 5, 4:51 pm, T Pagano <not.va...@address.net> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Sat, 5 Dec 2009 01:56:32 -0800 (PST), All-seeing-I
>
> > <ap...@email.com> wrote:
> > >On Dec 5, 12:25 am, Tim DeLaney <delaney.timo...@comcast.net> wrote:
> > >> The thread "Long time readers ... " brings to my mind how
> > >> the anti-evolution crowd here on T.O has deteriorated in
> > >> the past 15 years. Back then there were at least a dozen
> > >> or so who would seriously attempt to rebut ToE with
> > >> arguments that took genuine thought to answer.
>
> > >> Google's archives don't go back that far,
>
> > >The google group archive for talk.origins goes gack to 9/1986.
>
> > >After reading through the archive, I can safely say since around 1996
> > >it has been the evolutionist's posts that have denegerated into a sea
> > >of atheistic inaccuracies and innanities.
>
> > Over the last 24 months the google search feature for google groups
> > doesn't kick up much of anything unless the search parameters are
> > fairly broad. I'm obviously doing something wrong. And I haven't
> > been able to finese the google search back early than January 2000.
> > What's the trick to get back further?
>
> > Thanks in advance.
>
> to be very poor as well, especially for older posts.
>
> If you do a regular google search and then go to advanced
> options there, you can specify the domain in the
> "Search within a site or domain:" to be "groups.google.com"
>
> The shortcut for this is to add "site:groups.google.com"
> behind that which you are searching.
> Or add site:group/talk.origins/group/talk.origins
>
> You might try the search for
> "Scientific Biases and Mistaken theories of Objectivity"
> site:groups.google.com/group/talk.origins
>
> which reveals one of your 1998 posts in one of the results.
> The standard gui options don't seem to operate as I don't think the
> groups
>
> - Show quoted text -
If one opens the google web reader and looks on the right side there
is a link to "About This Group". At that link the entire archive is
displayed by year and month.
However, the last few days the archive has been gone, but, is still
there for other NG's like alt.talk.creationism. So there must be a
problem with the TO archive on google's side.
T Pagano
<ap...@email.com> wrote:
Thanks that was very helpful. Once I subscribed I was able to see the
entire archive by year. Though I must still be doing something
incorrectly with regard to the advanced google groups search feature.
I manually searched for a post of mine made in 1998 so I know it
exists. Yet when I use the advanced google group search for any
posts in the 1 Jan 98 to 31 Dec 98 date range with my last name as the
author search paramenter it returns no results.
I also tried el cid's suggestion of searching for the exact words in a
title of one of my posts and it returned no results.
Any idea what I'm doing wrong?
Thanks in advance,
T Pagano
Friar Broccoli
You're not doing anything wrong.
GoogleGroups is completely screwed up.
This is what REALLY happens when information
is only lost!
John Harshman
I don't believe your last name is enough. You have to reproduce the
exact email address, in full. Or such has been my experience. But it
should find "Pagano" in the body of a post easily enough, and if anyone
is quoting attributions properly, you should find responses, which
should make it easy to find the post itself.
> I also tried el cid's suggestion of searching for the exact words in a
> title of one of my posts and it returned no results.
>
> Any idea what I'm doing wrong?
There, no. I search for exact words all the time and find them.
raven1
>On Dec 5, 4:26�pm, Tim DeLaney <delaney.timo...@comcast.net> wrote:
>> On Dec 5, 4:56�pm, Ray Martinez <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> > On Dec 4, 10:25�pm, Tim DeLaney <delaney.timo...@comcast.net> wrote:
>>
>> > > The thread "Long time readers ... " brings to my mind how
>> > > the anti-evolution crowd here on T.O has deteriorated in
>> > > the past 15 years. �Back then there were at least a dozen
>> > > or so who would seriously attempt to rebut ToE with
>> > > arguments that took genuine thought to answer.
>>
>> > > Google's archives don't go back that far, and I can only
>> > > Tim
>>
>> > Blanket statements that dismiss the opposition via blanket insults
>> > indicate anger caused by an inability to refute. And Tim Delaney has
>> > forgotten that all of the so called "opposition" that he has insulted
>> > are not real anti-evolutionists, they accept the main claim of the
>> > Atheism worldview: species mutability. This makes them evolutionists
>> > or pseudo-Creationists-IDists. I am the only true Creationist-IDist in
>> > the lot. Of course the Bible through and through portrays truth and
>> > rightness to never reside with the majority.
>>
>> > Ray (Creatorist, species immutabilist)- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> > - Show quoted text -
>>
>> Let me guess: �Raven1's comment about bagpipes sailed
>> right over your head, right?
>>
>> Tim- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> - Show quoted text -
>
>Raven is also a evolutionist, Tim.
>
>Since all evolutionists think all creationists are intellectually
>inferior
I don't think you're "intellectually inferior", Ray, I think you're
nuts.
Bob T.
>
> It is literally easier to believe "God Did It" and takes far less effort.
For once, I absolutely agree with Adman. It does indeed take far less
effort to believe that God did it than to try and understand reality.
- Bob T.
TomS
<cf8b6239-bd52-4058...@a39g2000pre.googlegroups.com>, Bob T.
stated..."
My problem is that I don't understand what that means.
What is the "It" that God did?
Is "It" the tree of life? (Including the changes over time.)
Is "It" each individual living thing?
Is "It" organ-types and functions? (The vertebrate eye structure, the
bacterial flagellum, the adaptive immune system.)
Is "It" each baramin (or "kind") of living thing?
--
---Tom S.
the failure to nail currant jelly to a wall is not due to the nail; it is due to
the currant jelly.
Theodore Roosevelt, Letter to William Thayer, 1915 July 2
Boikat
Wrong.
>
> What you have is a story that has been inflated, conflated,
> exaggerated and rationalized for so long that no one can establish
> clearly what is right and what is wrong with it.
That would be your "ancient texts".
>
> Evolution has become the classic example of the popular phrase: "If
> you cannot dazzle them with brilliance, then baffle them with
> bullshit".
No, it's only baffeling to those who are too stupid or intellectually
lazy to understand it.
>
> 1) you do not know if you have all of the evidence
There is sufficient evidence to support the ToE, whether you like it
or not.
>
> 2) even if you had all of the evidence, you cannot be positive the
> evidence you do have is interpretated correctly anyway.
Any time you think you're inteligent enough to provide a reasonable,
logical or testable alternate, I'm sure a lot of people would like to
see it.
>
> Period.
Comma.
>
> It is literally easier to believe "God Did It" and takes far less
> effort.
So is every intellectual dead end. Thanks for admitting that you are
willfully ignorant, however
Boikat
Ray Martinez
You and Dawkins are right that someone is delusional.
Again, we anti-evolutionists feel relieved to be considered delusional
by Atheists and Darwinists, that is, persons who think apes morphed
into men over the course of millions of years and that nature produced
itself without any intervention from an IDer.
Since Jesus was slandered as being crazy ("delusional") by His
enemies, and since He said that His true disciples would suffer the
same treatment, Richard Forrest and Richard Dawkins are fulfilling
Christ's prediction.
> > He thinks the tactic deflects his own
> > transparent lies.
>
> FALSEHOOD #2
> So where have I lied, Ray - i.e. made a statement I know to be false
> with the intent to deceive?
>
A deluded person is also a liar since the condition of delusion
prevents telling the truth.
Your schtick is common among Darwinists: presuppose yourself to be "a
neutral arbiter of honesty," then place anyone who opposes evolution
on the defensive. It's all a schtick or tactic attempting to cover and
legitimize the transparent lies and slander that proceed from your
self-appointed seat when defending evolution.
The object of your schtick, like I said, is anti-evolutionists,
Creationists, IDists and never evolutionists. This fact corroborates
the fact that you are practicing a schtick down a one-way street for
the sole purpose of attempting to poison the anti-evolutionism well.
Ray (Christian-Creatorist)
Mike Lyle
[...]
>
> The object of your schtick, like I said, is anti-evolutionists,
> Creationists, IDists and never evolutionists. This fact corroborates
> the fact that you are practicing a schtick down a one-way street for
> the sole purpose of attempting to poison the anti-evolutionism well.
>
kettle of fish out of the frying-pan into a horse of a different colour
while Rome burned? Literally.
--
Mike.
Rolf
> On Dec 5, 2:56 pm, c...@tiac.net (Richard Harter) wrote:
>> On Fri, 4 Dec 2009 22:25:35 -0800 (PST), Tim DeLaney
>>
>> <delaney.timo...@comcast.net> wrote:
>>> The thread "Long time readers ... " brings to my mind how
>>> the anti-evolution crowd here on T.O has deteriorated in
>>> the past 15 years. Back then there were at least a dozen
>>> or so who would seriously attempt to rebut ToE with
>>> arguments that took genuine thought to answer.
>>
>> usenet. There is a good deal to say about that; much of it has
>> already been said, albeit not as well as it should have been or
>> would have been had some among us had been the ones to say it.
>>
>> Once upon a time, in that golden era between the age of the bards
>> and the age of the internet, there was a media known as print, in
>> which would be expounders of great thought would be present their
>> thoughts in the form of essays. The form was difficult; it
>> demanded a certain familiarity with grammar and some ability to
>> organize thought and expression in a coherent manner. Then, too,
>> there was always the difficulty of finding an audience.
>>
>> Today, however, all is changed. The essay has been replaced by
>> the electronic effusion. We are engaged in a great experiment to
>> discover the depths to which the greatest common denominator can
>> sink. Here in talk.origins we may be proud that we are doing our
>> part.
>>
>> Tim's plaint. Speaking personally, my life has moved in quite
>> different directions and I no longer have the time or energy for
>> most of what appears in talk.origins. I ruthlessly prune out the
>> postings of most of the creationists - there is so little there
>> pretentious pseudo-intellectual; scattered amidst postings are
>> some actual issues. But it is more than that; there is no color,
>> nothing exciting or thought provoking in all this dross. It is
>> as though the fourth grade dullards in a creationist grade school
>> have been giving the task of writing in talk.origins.
>>
>> My, that was refreshing. :-)
>
> intellectually (the same of which then exposes your reasons for non-
> participation to be generally untrue).
>
> And since you are a Darwinist your opinions about anti-evolutionists
> are entirely predictable.
>
We all know all you have to say, you have said it all a thousand times. You
got only one song in your head? I am fed up with you. No use arguing with
you. You have no argument. You know nothing of value. What a pathetic
character.
> Ray
Rolf
> On Dec 5, 3:42 pm, Tim DeLaney <delaney.timo...@comcast.net> wrote:
>>
>>> - Show quoted text -
>>
>> intellectual superior by a wider margin that you can
>> possibly imagine. This is not meant as an insult -- it
>> is a simple statement of the truth.
>>
>> Tim- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> - Show quoted text -
>
> predictable, predetermined.
>
How many times have you used that argument? What is the value of that
argument? What is the purpose? It only shows what a moron you are.
Don't you tthnk we already know all you hav to say? You won't ever have
anuything of value to say. Otherwise we would have heard it by now. Fact is,
you are empty.
> Ray (Christian-Creatorist)
Rolf
> Ray (Christian-Creatorist)
Rolf
> On Dec 5, 4:26 pm, Tim DeLaney <delaney.timo...@comcast.net> wrote:
>> On Dec 5, 4:56 pm, Ray Martinez <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> On Dec 4, 10:25 pm, Tim DeLaney <delaney.timo...@comcast.net> wrote:
>>
>>>> The thread "Long time readers ... " brings to my mind how
>>>> the anti-evolution crowd here on T.O has deteriorated in
>>>> the past 15 years. Back then there were at least a dozen
>>>> or so who would seriously attempt to rebut ToE with
>>>> arguments that took genuine thought to answer.
>>
>>>> Google's archives don't go back that far, and I can only
>>>> name one such poster -- "Julie", but there were others
>>>> who attempted to engage in serious debate. Many were
>>>> borderline crackpots, and some, like Ed Conrad, far over
>>>> the borderline.
>>
>>>> The closest the current crop comes to an actual debater
>>>> is <gasp> Tony Pagano. <ducks a barrage of rotten eggs
>>>> and overripe tomatoes> But even Tony has deteriorated.
>>>> He used to be willing to make a rudimentary exchange of
>>>> ideas; nowadays he just brushes serious ideas aside and
>>>> claims victory. (Shades of Mark Harpt!)
>>
>>>> and his family of nyms, Nashton, Ray, and most lately George
>>>> are all not to be taken seriously as critics. At best (or worst,
>>>> depending on your point of view), they represent nuisances
>>>> that must be dealt with. (It's a dirty job, but somebody has to
>>>> do it.)
>>
>>
>>> - Show quoted text -
>>
>> right over your head, right?
>>
>>
>> - Show quoted text -
>
>
> Since all evolutionists think all creationists are intellectually
> least. For your opinion about Harter being smarter than I to have any
> objective merit you need to refute the first sentence in this
> paragraph.
No refutation needed, your inferiroity is a fact.
>
> Ray (Creatorist)
Mike Lyle
> Ray Martinez wrote:
[...]>> the sole purpose of attempting to poison the anti-evolutionism
>>
> How can a poison well be poisoned?
>
--
Mike.
Frank J
> anything except nibble and leave little pellets all over the place.
As pathetic as they are, they at least are brave (or crazy) enough to
keep trying. The truly pathetic ones have escaped to their own
websites where they can delete inconvenient posts and ban posters who
expose their games.
Earle Jones
<0037e61c-0bf0-4bba...@n13g2000vbe.googlegroups.com>,
hersheyh <hers...@yahoo.com> wrote:
*
Pagano: I can save you a little time:
"The Dunning�Kruger effect is a cognitive bias in which "people reach
erroneous conclusions and make unfortunate choices but their
incompetence robs them of the metacognitive ability to realize it". The
unskilled therefore suffer from illusory superiority, rating their own
ability as above average, much higher than actuality; by contrast the
highly skilled underrate their abilities, suffering from illusory
inferiority. This leads to a perverse result where less competent people
will rate their own ability higher than more competent people. It also
explains why actual competence may weaken self-confidence because
competent individuals falsely assume that others have an equivalent
understanding. "Thus, the miscalibration of the incompetent stems from
an error about the self, whereas the miscalibration of the highly
competent stems from an error about others."
(Wikipedia: Dunning-Kruger)
chris thompson
Orthodoxy becomes such for a reason. Granted, it can slip into dogma,
but the most cursory examination of history shows us that science is
the discipline least likely to do that. Religion, on the other hand,
is built upon dogma, and while examples of religious dogma (or at
least, precedent) giving way (the Catholic Church's position on
indulgences, heliocentrism, and evolution being notable) are
available, history is also rife with counterexamples.
But let's look at some examples of scientific orthodoxy. As a
biologist, I will stick to subjects with which I am familiar.
Cell theory is orthodox. There's good reason for this. We've never
found a life form that was not cellular (caveat: more to follow,
below). More importantly, we've never seen a cell arise from anything
other than another cell, and nothing has ever given us reason to think
it's happening out there, anywhere on the planet, today. That's not to
say that it never happened. It is an article of faith (and yes, I know
what I just said) among biologists that it happened at least once, in
the distant past, when conditions on the planet were significantly
different. Now, this is not _entirely_ a matter of faith among
biologists. We're really close to making self-replicating cells, you
know. Will it be exactly the same way that it happened a couple
billion years ago? Almost assuredly not. We are doing things our own
way, for our own purposes, rather than for the benefit of the self-
replicating entity we're devising. Finally, when it happened a couple
billion years ago, as I wrote, conditions were very, very different.
Expecting it to happen today, anywhere on the planet, is just not
reasonable, given what we know of organic chemistry (and we know a
fair amount).
As to that caveat: there are people who claim that viruses are living.
Viruses are, of course, not cellular entities. These biologists point
to organisms like _Rickettsia_ that everyone concedes ARE alive.
_Rickettsia_ are, of course, obligate intracellular parasites- they
cannot survive long outside of a cellular host, just like viruses.
There's certainly a gray zone there between life and non-life. The
cell-only people like to point out that viruses don't have any
metabolism at all if they're outside a host, but a few years ago, some
virologists in Germany (IIRC) succeeded in growing poliovirus on
masticated monkey kidney cells. The gray zone expands all the time, to
encompass more and more entities. Oh, and by the way, the argument
between the virus-alive biologists and the virus-not-alive biologists
says what, exactly, about your claim that only orthodoxy is published?
Which, pray tell, is the orthodox opinion?
The fluid-mosaic model of plasma membranes rapidly entered the
category of orthodoxy. Why should that be so? Of course, because it
explained so many things. It explained some of the behavior of plasma
membranes with regard to water (later work on aquaporins was needed to
explain it more fully). It explained how cells were able to interact
with particular features of the extracellular environment. It explains
why some substances that are relatively large (like steroid hormones)
are able to diffuse into the cell while smaller, polar molecules
cannot. Humorous aside: while poking about in the cabinets filled with
unused materials at my college, I found a set of transparencies that
touted plasma membranes as being a double layer of protein with
interspersed lipids. I wish I had saved that! But those transparencies
stated the orthodox consensus of the 1960's. How quickly that
orthodoxy was discarded in favor of a new idea, once new data became
available.
For the last examples I am going to step out on a limb, and I probably
will make some mistakes. I hope that John Harshman, Ron Okimoto,
Howard Hershey, Mike Dworetsky, or the other experts (whom I can not
name off the top of my head) will correct me.
Vicariance biogeography was proposed long, long ago by a fellow named
Croizat. He thought that disjunct populations of similar species could
be explained by geological mobility or lesser significant events, like
the appearance of forest separating animals native to savanna. Of
course, since he proposed this before plate tectonics, he was laughed
at. But, um, the unorthodox opinion was embraced, in modified form,
when another unorthodox notion (continental drift) was accepted. What
does that say about your idea that only orthodox notions are printed?
Finally, for a long time, it was orthodoxy that the genome stayed put.
Genes were genes, chromosomes were chromosomes, and barring mutation
and crossing-over, they didn't change much. Someone by the name of
Barbara McClintock, though, found otherwise. McClintock discovered
that there were elements of the genome that could move around. She
discovered that these were responsible for some of the color patterns
in maize. And astonishingly (at least to you, Tony) she got her work
published, despite it being quite unorthodox- and in major (today we
would say, "high-impact") journals. How did that happen? Her methods
were sound, her data irrefutable. Granted, she was met with disbelief
and even hostility, but um, no one proposed putting her on the rack.
And she continued to receive funding for her research even after she
went against the orthodox consensus- for her entire career, as a
matter of fact. And then this unorthodox biologist won the Nobel Prize
for Medicine or Physiology in 1983. Um, is that suppression of the
unorthodox?
Actually, it shows that what was once unorthodox in science can
rapidly replace the previous orthodox. That, in fact, calls into
question the entire notion of orthodoxy in science. The history of
science is replete with such examples. Some of these might include the
presence/absence of the aether, the fixity/motion of continents, the
"central dogma" of DNA->RNA->protein vs. the action of retroviruses.
So Tony, you are going to have to provide some examples of ideas that
were suppressed by the establishment. Please note that I have avoided
any discussion of evolution in my post- I would ask that you do the
same. What valid unorthodox ideas do you think have not received a
fair hearing? What ideas have been published on the web that have not
received due treatment in the established science community? And
please, post some evidence of this discrimination.
Looking forward to your response,
Chris
snip
Richard Harter
<pyram...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>On Dec 5, 2:56�pm, c...@tiac.net (Richard Harter) wrote:
>> On Fri, 4 Dec 2009 22:25:35 -0800 (PST), Tim DeLaney
>
>Either what you say is generally true OR you cannot compete
>intellectually (the same of which then exposes your reasons for non-
>participation to be generally untrue).
>
>And since you are a Darwinist your opinions about anti-evolutionists
>are entirely predictable.
Thank you for commenting. The intellectual depth and penetrating
insight of your thought is all that I have come to expect from
you.
Richard Harter, c...@tiac.net
http://home.tiac.net/~cri, http://www.varinoma.com
Infinity is one of those things that keep philosophers busy when they
could be more profitably spending their time weeding their garden.
Ray Martinez
>
> - Show quoted text -
Since you are a Darwinist and Tony an IDist your opinion of him is
entirely predictable and of course predetermined.
Ray
Ray Martinez
> On Sat, 5 Dec 2009 15:14:42 -0800 (PST), Ray Martinez
>
> >On Dec 5, 2:56�pm, c...@tiac.net (Richard Harter) wrote:
> >> On Fri, 4 Dec 2009 22:25:35 -0800 (PST), Tim DeLaney
>
> >Either what you say is generally true OR you cannot compete
> >intellectually (the same of which then exposes your reasons for non-
> >participation to be generally untrue).
>
> >And since you are a Darwinist your opinions about anti-evolutionists
> >are entirely predictable.
>
> Thank you for commenting. �The intellectual depth and penetrating
> insight of your thought is all that I have come to expect from
> you.
>
> Richard Harter
The depth of my reply matched the depth of initial comments.
Instead of saying that you simply lost interest in posting at Talk
Origins you used the occasion to take a predictable shot at
antievolutionists. Again, either what you say is true (no intellectual
competition) or just the opposite is true (cannot compete
intellectually).
As far as antievolutionists are concerned you, of course, cannot
compete intellectually. Now, of course, there is no way for you to
save face. You will----undoubtedly----dig in your heels and either
ignore this second rebuttal or repeat your parting shot (for a third
time).
Ray (species immutabilist)
Ray Martinez
Exactly the reply that I have been waiting for.
The irritation seen in your reply is actually CAUSED by your own
fellow evolutionists. They seek to hide bias. I simply point out what
they seek to conceal. So your irritation is really triggered (whether
you know it or not or realize it or not) by the dishonest tactic of
attempting to hide bias by your own fellow evolutionists. You are
REALLY angry (whether you realize it or not) over the fact that I have
exposed bias and completely undermined evolutionist slander of their
opponents.
> No use arguing with
> you. You have no argument. You know nothing of value. What a pathetic
> character.
>
That's exactly my point when exposing the evolutionist tactic of
attempting to conceal bias while slandering their opponents: they have
no argument or ability to refute antievolutionists----that's why they
deploy slander.
Ray (species immutabilist)
VoiceOfReason
>
>
>
> > The thread "Long time readers ... " brings to my mind how
> > the anti-evolution crowd here on T.O has deteriorated in
> > the past 15 years. �Back then there were at least a dozen
> > or so who would seriously attempt to rebut ToE with
> > arguments that took genuine thought to answer.
>
I think the ones we have now are mostly just deluded sociopaths and
common trolls. I guess with people leaving evangelical churches at
current rates, we're gonna be stuck with the bottom of the barrel
until they finally go extinct.
Cubist
gregwrld
Answer his question Ray-ray. And be
specific.
When did Richard Forrest ever make a
statement he knew to be false with the
intent to deceive?
Or will the answer be in your non-existent
paper?
gregwrld
gregwrld
I've met and debated a lot of creos
in my time but I've never met one who
was as proud of his delusions as you
are.
And that seems to be your only
significant accomplishment.
gregwrld
heekster
<pyram...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>On Dec 7, 8:51�pm, c...@tiac.net (Richard Harter) wrote:
>> On Sat, 5 Dec 2009 15:14:42 -0800 (PST), Ray Martinez
>>
>> <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> >On Dec 5, 2:56�pm, c...@tiac.net (Richard Harter) wrote:
>> >> On Fri, 4 Dec 2009 22:25:35 -0800 (PST), Tim DeLaney
>>
>> >Either what you say is generally true OR you cannot compete
>> >intellectually (the same of which then exposes your reasons for non-
>> >participation to be generally untrue).
>>
>> >And since you are a Darwinist your opinions about anti-evolutionists
>> >are entirely predictable.
>>
>> Thank you for commenting. �The intellectual depth and penetrating
>> insight of your thought is all that I have come to expect from
>> you.
>>
>> Richard Harter
>
>The depth of my reply matched the depth of initial comments.
>
>Instead of saying that you simply lost interest in posting at Talk
>Origins you used the occasion to take a predictable shot at
>antievolutionists.
Wow, Ray, you sure are good at predicting things.
How about predicting when your book will be available?
Dana Tweedy
> On Dec 7, 8:51 pm, c...@tiac.net (Richard Harter) wrote:
>> On Sat, 5 Dec 2009 15:14:42 -0800 (PST), Ray Martinez
>>
>> <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>> On Dec 5, 2:56 pm, c...@tiac.net (Richard Harter) wrote:
>>>> On Fri, 4 Dec 2009 22:25:35 -0800 (PST), Tim DeLaney
>>
>>> Either what you say is generally true OR you cannot compete
>>> intellectually (the same of which then exposes your reasons for non-
>>> participation to be generally untrue).
>>
>>> And since you are a Darwinist your opinions about anti-evolutionists
>>> are entirely predictable.
>>
>> Thank you for commenting. The intellectual depth and penetrating
>> insight of your thought is all that I have come to expect from
>> you.
>>
>> Richard Harter
>
> The depth of my reply matched the depth of initial comments.
>
> Instead of saying that you simply lost interest in posting at Talk
> Origins you used the occasion to take a predictable shot at
> antievolutionists. Again, either what you say is true (no intellectual
> competition) or just the opposite is true (cannot compete
> intellectually).
Well, Ray, when it comes to intellectual competition, you are like a oxcart
competing in a supercar rally.
>
> As far as antievolutionists are concerned you, of course, cannot
> compete intellectually.
It would hardly be fair. The "antievolutionists" are so far below the
standard.
> Now, of course, there is no way for you to
> save face. You will----undoubtedly----dig in your heels and either
> ignore this second rebuttal or repeat your parting shot (for a third
> time).
What 'rebuttal', Ray? Namecalling is not a rebuttal to anything.
DJT
Dana Tweedy
>
> Since you are a Darwinist and Tony an IDist your opinion of him is
> entirely predictable and of course predetermined.
Even if his opinion were "predictable and predetermined", do you disptute
that it's accurate?
DJT
Dana Tweedy
>> That the best you can do? Repeating yourself ad nauseam.
>>
>> We all know all you have to say, you have said it all a thousand
>> times. You got only one song in your head? I am fed up with you.
>
> Exactly the reply that I have been waiting for.
In other words, Rolf hit Ray dead center.....
>
> The irritation seen in your reply is actually CAUSED by your own
> fellow evolutionists. They seek to hide bias.
When? By the way, Ray, aren't you always talking about what "objective
persons" believe, implying that you are one?
> I simply point out what
> they seek to conceal. So your irritation is really triggered (whether
> you know it or not or realize it or not) by the dishonest tactic of
> attempting to hide bias by your own fellow evolutionists.
Where is anyone, besides you, attempting to hide bias? Scientists, and
scientifically minded persons are biased toward reality. You are biased
toward your own bizarre fantasy.
> You are
> REALLY angry (whether you realize it or not) over the fact that I have
> exposed bias and completely undermined evolutionist slander of their
> opponents.
What "slander" Ray? Speaking truthfully is not slander.
>
>> No use arguing with
>> you. You have no argument. You know nothing of value. What a pathetic
>> character.
>>
>
> That's exactly my point when exposing the evolutionist tactic of
> attempting to conceal bias while slandering their opponents: they have
> no argument or ability to refute antievolutionists----that's why they
> deploy slander.
What "slander"? You often claim this, but have never shown anyone
employing slander, except for yourself.
DJT
Himself
If his responses are predetermined, he lacks free will.
>Ray
>
T Pagano
<pyram...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>On Dec 5, 9:49�am, T Pagano <not.va...@address.net> wrote:
>> On Fri, 4 Dec 2009 22:25:35 -0800 (PST), Tim DeLaney
>>
>>
>> <delaney.timo...@comcast.net> wrote:
<snip>
>> Granted there is both an intellectual challenge and an amusement
>> factor to the forum. �But this cuts both ways. �You have your share of
>> dimwits. �Even heavy hitters like Okimoto spends a significant number
>> of his posts calling creationists liars and other ad hominem nonsense.
>
>Okimoto a "heavy hitter"?
I refer to the academic elitists as "heavy hitters" only because they
believe themselves to be endowed with some form of authority. My
suspicion is that they mistake their own arrogance for authority. Have
no fear though I believe them to be (in most cases) the least able to
distinguish the forest for the trees.
>
>He is exactly opposite. A Kentucky hillbilly. I think you meant heavy
>howler hitter? He is good at flinging shit at anyone who opposes
>Atheism ideology/evolution.
That certainly brought a chuckle, but even the Kentucky hillbilly is
likely to be smart enough (and humble enough) to know his or her
limitations. And likely to know the difference between what can be
proved and what is taken on faith.
Okimoto and his ilk are blinded by atheism and its author.
>
>> Forrest has called me a liar so often I've lost count. �I may be
>> mistaken often, but I hardly have a reason to lie.
>>
>
>Forrest calls all IDists liars. He thinks the tactic deflects his own
>transparent lies.
I have a different take on this very common behavior. I think Forrest
believes every word of the very weak arguments he puts forward. And
the arguments that we advance to show their weakness cut at the very
heart of his world view----naturalism and atheism. None of our
opponents have much of a rebuttal and as such they lash out with an
emotional one to save face.
If they accuse of us lying often enough they can convince themselves
that our arguments don't really cut them deep. Self deception. I
find it more sad than anything else.
>
>> Harshman is one of the rare few academians in the forum who sets a
>> high standard on your side.
>>
>
>LOL!
You might be able admit with me that among our opponents Harshman
spends the least amount of time slinging mud at us. However I only
read a few of his many posts so you may be right.
>
>Harshman is anything but. He is a regular guy who knew how to pass
>classes. He is wholly dishonest;
I think Harshman is expert enough in his chosen field; however, this
confers not the slightest authority over the unique, unobserved, non
recurring events of prehistory. Like Forrest I think he actually
believes in his own bull shit. I don't think he lies and in most
cases he does try more than most of our opponents to get our position
correctly.
To be sure he believes our position to be nonsense but that doesn't
make him a liar.
Let's try to leave them to their mud puddle.
> has zero knowledge in the History of
>Science or Philosophy of Science; has been exposed by Sean Pitman to
>know next to nothing about natural selection (imagine that; a guy with
>a doctorate in "evolutionary biology" who knows nothing about natural
>selection?); thinks "common descent" is a mechanism;
I agree.
> did not know the
>main claim of Behe 1996 (IC systems are unevolvable). I had to tell
>John that IF IC systems exist then gradualism if falsified, he did not
>know that neo-Darwinism denies the existence of IC systems or any
>phenomena that claims unevolvability;
I agree that none of our opponents have ever cracked open any of
Behe's works----Harshman included. This makes them fools and
ignoramuses not liars.
While secularists and atheists have never embraced falsificationism in
practice they know only too well the implication of IC systems. This
is why they have introduced a host of ad hoc, unobserved, and non
testable pathways to stave off falsification.
> and he routinely insults your
>own knowledge and intelligence (as he does mine). I am RELIEVED to be
>rejected by John. He rarely says anything that I didn't already know,
>or anything that separates him from the crowd of howlers that are
>always present. He is the classic person who happens to have a
>doctorate.
>
>You have made a bad mistake.
Perhaps I should have written that Harshman sets a "relatively" high
standard. Compared to the likes of wf3h, boikat, Okimoto, etc. he is
a "relative" saint.
>
>>
>> And I greatly miss Steven J who set a very high standard until shortly
>> before he vanished.
>>
>
>I miss Steven J too.
>
>Steven L fills his shoes and beyond.
>
>>
>>
>> >Of course, there are many worthwhile posters whose continuing
>> >contributions I value highly. �I hesitate to mention any names for
>> >fear of snubbing somebody. (As though my opinion on the matter
>> >has more value than a bucket of warm spit.)
>>
>> I agree.
>>
>>
>>
>> >Alas! �As briefly alluded to in one of my replies to Sapient Fridge,
>> >there are some on "our side" whose posts I don't value. �Naming
>> >them would serve little purpose, and would only invite a flame war.
>>
>> >Tim
>>
>> This is a pleasant and unexpected admission. � Up to this point I've
>> only seen Harshman correct his own.
>>
>
>Very rarely. But he remains silent when howlers are plying their
>trade. This makes him a liar too. John is not bright enough to see
>that his credibility is lost when this happens.
You may have a point here. Standing up for a liar and their lie by
extension makes them complicit in the lie.
So far the only person I've actually caught in a bold faced, outright
lie since 1996 was liar-liar-pants-on-fire Lenny Flank. As you may
recall he repeatedly claimed he was not an atheist both before and
after Snex produced an explicit quote to the contrary. Flank
persisted even after his nose was rubbed in his own quotes.
As I recall both Harshman and Forrest came to Flank's defense over
this. Nonetheless it is really unnecessary to stoop to their level.
Exposing their mistaken positions to the light of day is really
enough.
>
>John will not hesitate to willfully misrepresent.
I don't read many of his posts, but of the few I have read I haven't
noticed this.
However, I do agree that he is rather ignorant of ID, IC, the
philosophy of science, philosophy of logic, and the history of
science.
>And like all
>evolutionists his style is anchored in deliberate obfuscation. Again,
>you are looking buffoonish or like a TEist when you compliment
>Harshman. He has zero respect, as one would expect, for any Theist.
I don't attribute necessarily evil intentions to this. Their world
view is crumbling with every new advance. They are like the drowning
man who will reach for any straw floating in the water to save them
however useless.
Regards and Merry Christmas,
T Pagano
>
>Ray
>
bpuharic
wrote:
>On Sat, 5 Dec 2009 14:51:15 -0800 (PST), Ray Martinez
><pyram...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>>On Dec 5, 9:49�am, T Pagano <not.va...@address.net> wrote:
>>> On Fri, 4 Dec 2009 22:25:35 -0800 (PST), Tim DeLaney
>
>>>
>>>
>>> <delaney.timo...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>
>
><snip>
>
>
>
>>> Granted there is both an intellectual challenge and an amusement
>>> factor to the forum. �But this cuts both ways. �You have your share of
>>> dimwits. �Even heavy hitters like Okimoto spends a significant number
>>> of his posts calling creationists liars and other ad hominem nonsense.
>>
>>Okimoto a "heavy hitter"?
>
>I refer to the academic elitists as "heavy hitters" only because they
>believe themselves to be endowed with some form of authority. My
>suspicion is that they mistake their own arrogance for authority
says the creationist who believes that preachers are the highest
authority on nature
>
>>
>>He is exactly opposite. A Kentucky hillbilly. I think you meant heavy
>>howler hitter? He is good at flinging shit at anyone who opposes
>>Atheism ideology/evolution.
>
>That certainly brought a chuckle, but even the Kentucky hillbilly is
>likely to be smart enough (and humble enough) to know his or her
>limitations. And likely to know the difference between what can be
>proved and what is taken on faith.
says the creationist who takes it on faith that his believe in
creationism is right, though it's been wrong for 2000 years
>>
>>Forrest calls all IDists liars. He thinks the tactic deflects his own
>>transparent lies.
>
>I have a different take on this very common behavior. I think Forrest
>believes every word of the very weak arguments he puts forward. And
>the arguments that we advance to show their weakness cut at the very
>heart of his world view----naturalism and atheism. None of our
>opponents have much of a rebuttal and as such they lash out with an
>emotional one to save face.
and we know that no rebuttal is possible because pagano says none is
possible. therefore none is possible
>
>> did not know the
>>main claim of Behe 1996 (IC systems are unevolvable). I had to tell
>>John that IF IC systems exist then gradualism if falsified, he did not
>>know that neo-Darwinism denies the existence of IC systems or any
>>phenomena that claims unevolvability;
>
>I agree that none of our opponents have ever cracked open any of
>Behe's works----Harshman included. This makes them fools and
>ignoramuses not liars.
interesting in that i've met behe, talked with him and graduated from
lehigh's chemistry dept. behe teaches in lehigh's bio dept
so we see right away pagano is full of shit.
>
>While secularists and atheists have never embraced falsificationism in
>practice they know only too well the implication of IC systems. This
>is why they have introduced a host of ad hoc, unobserved, and non
>testable pathways to stave off falsification.
since behe admitted under oath he never read the literature on IC
systems, it seems pagano's hero is a bit mis informed
>>
>>You have made a bad mistake.
>
>Perhaps I should have written that Harshman sets a "relatively" high
>standard. Compared to the likes of wf3h, boikat, Okimoto, etc. he is
>a "relative" saint.
wf3h is now bpuharic. get up to date, please
>
>
>>And like all
>>evolutionists his style is anchored in deliberate obfuscation. Again,
>>you are looking buffoonish or like a TEist when you compliment
>>Harshman. He has zero respect, as one would expect, for any Theist.
>
>I don't attribute necessarily evil intentions to this. Their world
>view is crumbling with every new advance.
so you guys have been saying for 150 years. and your creationist
views?
no scientist agrees with them.
They are like the drowning
>man who will reach for any straw floating in the water to save them
>however useless.
>
well i've just proven pagano's a liar. i've met behe and talked with
him.
pagano says none of us have. so he's lying
Ray Martinez
> On Sat, 5 Dec 2009 14:51:15 -0800 (PST), Ray Martinez
>
> >On Dec 5, 9:49 am, T Pagano <not.va...@address.net> wrote:
> >> On Fri, 4 Dec 2009 22:25:35 -0800 (PST), Tim DeLaney
>
> >> <delaney.timo...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
> >> Granted there is both an intellectual challenge and an amusement
> >> factor to the forum. But this cuts both ways. You have your share of
> >> dimwits. Even heavy hitters like Okimoto spends a significant number
> >> of his posts calling creationists liars and other ad hominem nonsense.
>
> >Okimoto a "heavy hitter"?
>
> I refer to the academic elitists as "heavy hitters" only because they
> believe themselves to be endowed with some form of authority. �My
> suspicion is that they mistake their own arrogance for authority. Have
> no fear though I believe them to be (in most cases) the least able to
> distinguish the forest for the trees.
>
Yeah, my view of a "heavy hitter" is quite different----like a Gould
or Ruse or Lewontin.
Here at Talk Origins I would grant "heavy hitter" status to John
Wilkins and Robert Camp. There are probably more but I am in a hurry.
Too bad Wilkins chooses to waste his time twittering here. Like you
have pointed out several times: he posts nothing of substance.
>
>
> >He is exactly opposite. A Kentucky hillbilly. I think you meant heavy
> >howler hitter? He is good at flinging shit at anyone who opposes
> >Atheism ideology/evolution.
>
> That certainly brought a chuckle, but even the Kentucky hillbilly is
> likely to be smart enough (and humble enough) to know his or her
> limitations. �And likely to know the difference between what can be
> proved and what is taken on faith.
>
> Okimoto and his ilk are blinded by atheism and its author.
>
So true.
(General audience: Ron Okimoto considers himself a Christian, even
though he agrees with Atheists on just about everything, including
"the Bible is false.")
Ron is actually genuinely deluded-deceived because real Christians do
not agree with Atheists against the Bible.
>
>
> >> Forrest has called me a liar so often I've lost count. I may be
> >> mistaken often, but I hardly have a reason to lie.
>
> >Forrest calls all IDists liars. He thinks the tactic deflects his own
> >transparent lies.
>
> I have a different take on this very common behavior. �I think Forrest
> believes every word of the very weak arguments he puts forward. �And
> the arguments that we advance to show their weakness cut at the very
> heart of his world view----naturalism and atheism. �None of our
> opponents have much of a rebuttal and as such they lash out with an
> emotional one to save face.
>
Agreed.
> If they accuse of us lying often enough they can convince themselves
> that our arguments don't really cut them deep. �Self deception. �I
> find it more sad than anything else.
>
I stand corrected.
It is wholly unbelievable that Harshman does not know why Behe 1996
created and creates furor: IC systems claim unevolvability. John
cannot admit that he has made such an embarrassing error (IC systems
can evolve). The only issue is existence. When Harshman assumes and
presumes existence while attempting to explain how they evolve, his
position exists in an irreconcilable state. If such phenomena can
evolve then they aint IC.
> While secularists and atheists have never embraced falsificationism in
> practice they know only too well the implication of IC systems. �This
> is why they have introduced a host of ad hoc, unobserved, and non
> testable pathways �to stave off falsification. �
>
It also proves that once the concept of evolution is accepted to
explain life it cannot be falsified----only modified, revised,
reformed, etc.etc.
> > and he routinely insults your
> >own knowledge and intelligence (as he does mine). I am RELIEVED to be
> >rejected by John. He rarely says anything that I didn't already know,
> >or anything that separates him from the crowd of howlers that are
> >always present. He is the classic person who happens to have a
> >doctorate.
>
> >You have made a bad mistake.
>
> Perhaps I should have written that Harshman sets a "relatively" high
> standard. � Compared to the likes of wf3h, boikat, Okimoto, etc. he is
> a "relative" saint.
>
Yes, I see your point now.
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >> And I greatly miss Steven J who set a very high standard until shortly
> >> before he vanished.
>
> >I miss Steven J too.
>
> >Steven L fills his shoes and beyond.
>
> >> >Of course, there are many worthwhile posters whose continuing
> >> >contributions I value highly. I hesitate to mention any names for
> >> >fear of snubbing somebody. (As though my opinion on the matter
> >> >has more value than a bucket of warm spit.)
>
> >> I agree.
>
> >> >Alas! As briefly alluded to in one of my replies to Sapient Fridge,
> >> >there are some on "our side" whose posts I don't value. Naming
> >> >them would serve little purpose, and would only invite a flame war.
>
> >> >Tim
>
> >> This is a pleasant and unexpected admission. Up to this point I've
> >> only seen Harshman correct his own.
>
> >Very rarely. But he remains silent when howlers are plying their
> >trade. This makes him a liar too. John is not bright enough to see
> >that his credibility is lost when this happens.
>
> You may have a point here. �Standing up for a liar and their lie by
> extension makes them complicit in the lie.
>
Very many times Harshman remains silent while holwers shout down an
opponent via slander. What John does not realize is that he looks
cowardly (and that he will receive the same treatment by anti-
evolutionists).
> So far the only person I've actually caught in a bold faced, outright
> lie since 1996 was liar-liar-pants-on-fire Lenny Flank. �As you may
> recall he repeatedly claimed he was not an atheist both before and
> after Snex produced an explicit quote to the contrary. �Flank
> persisted even after his nose was rubbed in his own quotes.
>
> As I recall both Harshman and Forrest came to Flank's defense over
> this. �Nonetheless it is really unnecessary to stoop to their level.
> Exposing their mistaken positions to the light of day is really
> enough.
>
>
>
> >John will not hesitate to willfully misrepresent.
>
> I don't read many of his posts, but of the few I have read I haven't
> noticed this. �
>
He has deliberately done it to me more times than I can count.
> However, I do agree that he is rather ignorant of ID, IC, the
> philosophy of science, philosophy of logic, and the history of
> science.
>
> >And like all
> >evolutionists his style is anchored in deliberate obfuscation. Again,
> >you are looking buffoonish or like a TEist when you compliment
> >Harshman. He has zero respect, as one would expect, for any Theist.
>
> I don't attribute necessarily evil intentions to this. �Their world
> view is crumbling with every new advance. �They are like the drowning
> man who will reach for any straw floating in the water to save them
> however useless.
>
> Regards and Merry Christmas,
> T Pagano
>
I see.
Your view might be the most correct afterall. They are deluded by
Atheism/Naturalism/Darwinism. Of course Dr. Gene Scott (Ph.D. Stanford
University) has identified the real cause of the "success" of
Darwinism: it is a delusion sent by God as a punishment for denying ID
to exist in nature. This explains why a theory with no evidence in
support is accepted.
And a Merry Christmas to you & your family.
Ray
Richard Harter
<not....@address.net> wrote:
>On Sat, 05 Dec 2009 22:56:01 GMT, c...@tiac.net (Richard Harter) wrote:
>
>>On Fri, 4 Dec 2009 22:25:35 -0800 (PST), Tim DeLaney
In a words, codswallop. There has always been a wide variety of
outlets for publishing all sorts of things. There are venues
that publish scientific tomes, venues that publish popular
science expositions, venues that publish crank and crackpot
science, and venues that publish all manner of things that have
nothing to do with science. There are a variety of formats, from
the self-published pamphlet to the popular magazines to paperback
and hardcover books. There has never been any great difficulty
for publishing unorthodox ideas.
I suspect though that Tony is more concerned with "editorial
filtering" in text books and scientific journals. I also suspect
that he is more than a bit confused about the difference between
standards and orthodoxy. There is indeed orthodoxy in the
academic press - in fact there is quite a bit of variation of
what constitutes orthodoxy. Different institutions and groups
within institutions can and often do have strikingly different
views on the orthodox. On the other hand they tend to have
fairly high standards of accuracy and logic, which may be the
sticking point for Tony.
>
>Why does Internet publishingly (which Harter apparently disdains) make
>things potentially better for discovery? It is not evidence which
>drives scientific discovery but the generation of new ideas and
>hypotheses telling us where to look. Ideas which are routinely
>filtered out by the means Harter prefers.
Again, codswallop. I admit that I did snicker more than a bit at
"which Harter apparently disdains". Tony does put his foot in it
now and then.
Internet publishling has both its up side and its down side for
scientific discovery. Tony has it all wrong though. There is no
shortage of new ideas and hypotheses nor of places to publish
them. The hard part is putting meat on the bones. The up side
of the internet is immediacy and availability. The down side is
the lack of reliability.
>
>>
>>That said, (and I did enjoy saying it) I agree in general with
>>Tim's plaint. Speaking personally, my life has moved in quite
>>different directions and I no longer have the time or energy for
>>most of what appears in talk.origins. I ruthlessly prune out the
>>postings of most of the creationists - there is so little there
>>on either side besides name calling.
>
>I certainly agree.
>
>>Pagano at least is a
>>pretentious pseudo-intellectual;
>
>Harter mistakes confident defiance of the secular orthodoxy for
>pretentiousness. A defiance which in the days before Usenet (and
>other like outlets) would never have seen the light of day. My
>suspicion is that Harter is annoyed that the orthodoxy is offered no
>special protection here.
What a useful word, codswallop. Your pretentiousness is a matter
of style, e.g., using two dollar words for ten cent ideas. You
routinely refer to yourself in the third person. Your little
games - these are all pretentious. Your suspicion is wildly
incorrect.
>
>I find the accusation that I am a "psuedo-intellectual" fairly
>amusing. I have never (since joining this group in 1996) made any
>claim of authority---about anything. I have made it a point to
>describe myself as an amateur. I don't feign "superior" intellect
>nor do I use arcane vocabulary. I am simply confident.
Well no, you merit the label pseudo-intellectual because you
imitate the style of intellectuals without the substance.
>
>I do have a healthy respect for the philosophy of logic and philosophy
>of science both of which have aided me in pointing out the often
>fallacious, questionable, and non scientific claims made by his
>secular compatriates here. Again I suspect that Harter is annoyed
>that I don't pay deference to what he considers indubitable.
You might very well have "a healthy respect for the philosophy of
logic and philosophy of science" but it is quite clear that your
actual knowledge of either is quite modest.
>
>My only goal since 1996 has been to show that the secular positions he
>might hold dogmatically are not nearly as strong as he believes or as
>secularists collectively portray to the great unwashed masses.
Now this is one of the characteristic maneuvers of the internet
troll. Note that at no point does Tony engage my positions,
whatever they might happen to be. Rather he attempts to engage
positions I might hold dogmatically - either me or some unnamed
other individual.
>
>Regards,
>T Pagano
I do thank you for commenting on my poor efforts. My apologies
for not replying sooner, but I have been busy buffing my toe
nails.
Devils Advocaat
Just one question Ray, when are you going to explain how hydrated
aluminium silicate can be transformed into a living organism made
mostly of carbon, hydrogen, oxygen and nitrogen, as would be the case
in your claim that new species emerge by "creation ex materia (from a
clay-like ground)".
Because if you think about it that sort of direct transformation of
non-living matter into a fully formed living, breathing organism is
more unlikely than anything proposed in any hypothesis of abiogenesis.
Bob Casanova
in talk.origins, posted by T Pagano <not....@address.net>:
No. Next question, please.
But first, perhaps you could address the question you seem
determined to avoid:
If a literal reading of the Bible is contradicted by
scientific evidence, which is to be accepted? As a specific
example, was there ever a global flood as described in the
Noah story?
<snip irrelevantia>
--
Bob C.
"Evidence confirming an observation is
evidence that the observation is wrong."
- McNameless
gregwrld
Still waiting, Ra-ray...
gregwrld
Mike Lyle
>> Your view might be the most correct afterall. They are deluded by
>> Atheism/Naturalism/Darwinism. Of course Dr. Gene Scott (Ph.D.
>> Stanford University) has identified the real cause of the "success"
>> of Darwinism: it is a delusion sent by God as a punishment for
>> denying ID to exist in nature. This explains why a theory with no
>> evidence in support is accepted.
You must have seen my previous request for an explanation of this point,
which I find difficult. Do you mean that God makes people believe in
evolution by natural selection as a punishment for believing in
evolution by natural selection? That can't be what you mean, so could
you clarify, please?
>>
[...]
>
> Just one question Ray, when are you going to explain how hydrated
> aluminium silicate can be transformed into a living organism made
> mostly of carbon, hydrogen, oxygen and nitrogen, as would be the case
> in your claim that new species emerge by "creation ex materia (from a
> clay-like ground)".
>
> Because if you think about it that sort of direct transformation of
> non-living matter into a fully formed living, breathing organism is
> more unlikely than anything proposed in any hypothesis of abiogenesis.
Well, to be fair, a miracle is a miracle: inexplicable by definition.
--
Mike.
macaddicted
> On Sat, 12 Dec 2009 12:39:38 -0500, the following appeared
> in talk.origins, posted by T Pagano <not....@address.net>:
>
> No. Next question, please.
>
> But first, perhaps you could address the question you seem
> determined to avoid:
>
> If a literal reading of the Bible is contradicted by
> scientific evidence, which is to be accepted? As a specific
> example, was there ever a global flood as described in the
> Noah story?
>
> <snip irrelevantia>
I know the answer, especially from the RC perspective. Pags keeps
scurrying crab like away from it.
How about it? Care to define what a literal interpretation is? Or how
the Church is to approach questions where science has given answers in
contradiction to Church teaching? (Note please that I didn't say dogma,
or even doctrine.)
--
macaddicted
Wisdom is radiant and unfading and she is easily discerned
by those who love her and is found by those who seek her.
Wisdom 6:12 (NRSV)
macaddicted
> On Sat, 5 Dec 2009 14:51:15 -0800 (PST), Ray Martinez
> <pyram...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> >On Dec 5, 9:49 am, T Pagano <not.va...@address.net> wrote:
> >> On Fri, 4 Dec 2009 22:25:35 -0800 (PST), Tim DeLaney
>
> >>
> >>
> >> <delaney.timo...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>
>
> <snip>
>
>
>
> >> Granted there is both an intellectual challenge and an amusement
> >> factor to the forum. But this cuts both ways. You have your share of
> >> dimwits. Even heavy hitters like Okimoto spends a significant number
> >> of his posts calling creationists liars and other ad hominem nonsense.
> >
> >Okimoto a "heavy hitter"?
>
> I refer to the academic elitists as "heavy hitters" only because they
> believe themselves to be endowed with some form of authority. My
> suspicion is that they mistake their own arrogance for authority. Have
> no fear though I believe them to be (in most cases) the least able to
> distinguish the forest for the trees.
>
Ow and damn. Not only was my irony meter off it was in another room!
>
> >
> >He is exactly opposite. A Kentucky hillbilly. I think you meant heavy
> >howler hitter? He is good at flinging shit at anyone who opposes
> >Atheism ideology/evolution.
>
> That certainly brought a chuckle, but even the Kentucky hillbilly is
> likely to be smart enough (and humble enough) to know his or her
> limitations.
....having discovered that an apparently already destroyed irony meter
can once again explode...
I mean seriously, what are the chances the PIECES would explode?
raven1
<pyram...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>It is wholly unbelievable that Harshman does not know why Behe 1996
>created and creates furor: IC systems claim unevolvability.
As has been pointed out repeatedly here, Ray, the whole notion of
"Irreducible complexity" is simply the old logical fallacy of argument
from personal incredulity dressed up in a lab coat. Why do you
continue to pursue this dead end?
bpuharic
(macaddicted) wrote:
>Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off> wrote:
>
>> On Sat, 12 Dec 2009 12:39:38 -0500, the following appeared
>> in talk.origins, posted by T Pagano <not....@address.net>:
>>
>> No. Next question, please.
>>
>> But first, perhaps you could address the question you seem
>> determined to avoid:
>>
>> If a literal reading of the Bible is contradicted by
>> scientific evidence, which is to be accepted? As a specific
>> example, was there ever a global flood as described in the
>> Noah story?
>>
>> <snip irrelevantia>
>
>I know the answer, especially from the RC perspective. Pags keeps
>scurrying crab like away from it.
>
>How about it? Care to define what a literal interpretation is? Or how
>the Church is to approach questions where science has given answers in
>contradiction to Church teaching? (Note please that I didn't say dogma,
>or even doctrine.)
quite frankly, in the years i've been here, i've never seen a
creationist answer a question
their attitude seems to be that scientists have to answer ALL
questions before creationists answer ONE....
bpuharic
(macaddicted) wrote:
>Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off> wrote:
>
>> On Sat, 12 Dec 2009 12:39:38 -0500, the following appeared
>> in talk.origins, posted by T Pagano <not....@address.net>:
>>
>> No. Next question, please.
>>
>> But first, perhaps you could address the question you seem
>> determined to avoid:
>>
>> If a literal reading of the Bible is contradicted by
>> scientific evidence, which is to be accepted? As a specific
>> example, was there ever a global flood as described in the
>> Noah story?
>>
>> <snip irrelevantia>
>
>I know the answer, especially from the RC perspective. Pags keeps
>scurrying crab like away from it.
pagano said, when i pointed out that a synod of catholic bishops
condemned literalism, that all (sic) catholic bishops were heretics.
seems pagano thinks he's the only catholic left
Dana Tweedy
>> I refer to the academic elitists as "heavy hitters" only because they
>> believe themselves to be endowed with some form of authority. My
>> suspicion is that they mistake their own arrogance for authority.
>> Have no fear though I believe them to be (in most cases) the least
>> able to distinguish the forest for the trees.
>>
>
> Yeah, my view of a "heavy hitter" is quite different----like a Gould
> or Ruse or Lewontin.
The above are respected scientists, but are no more "heavy hitters" than any
other scientist.
>
> Here at Talk Origins I would grant "heavy hitter" status to John
> Wilkins and Robert Camp. There are probably more but I am in a hurry.
> Too bad Wilkins chooses to waste his time twittering here. Like you
> have pointed out several times: he posts nothing of substance.
Of course, Ray runs away from any acutal converstation. Apparenlty he feels
he is being impressive when those with academic credentials answer him.
Ray doesn't seem to grasp that he's perceived as a fool by anyone.
>
>
>>
>>
>>> He is exactly opposite. A Kentucky hillbilly. I think you meant
>>> heavy howler hitter? He is good at flinging shit at anyone who
>>> opposes Atheism ideology/evolution.
>>
>> That certainly brought a chuckle, but even the Kentucky hillbilly is
>> likely to be smart enough (and humble enough) to know his or her
>> limitations. And likely to know the difference between what can be
>> proved and what is taken on faith.
>>
>> Okimoto and his ilk are blinded by atheism and its author.
>>
>
> So true.
Ron's not an atheist, Ray. You know that.
>
> (General audience: Ron Okimoto considers himself a Christian, even
> though he agrees with Atheists on just about everything, including
> "the Bible is false.")
Ron has never claimed the Bible is false. He's said it's not science, and
that's not the same thing.
>
> Ron is actually genuinely deluded-deceived because real Christians do
> not agree with Atheists against the Bible.
Christians who are educated realize the Bible isn't a science text. To
judge is as "false" based on it's being unscientific is to totally
misunderstand the purpose of the text.
>
>>
>>
>>>> Forrest has called me a liar so often I've lost count. I may be
>>>> mistaken often, but I hardly have a reason to lie.
>>
>>> Forrest calls all IDists liars. He thinks the tactic deflects his
>>> own transparent lies.
>>
>> I have a different take on this very common behavior. I think Forrest
>> believes every word of the very weak arguments he puts forward. And
>> the arguments that we advance to show their weakness cut at the very
>> heart of his world view----naturalism and atheism. None of our
>> opponents have much of a rebuttal and as such they lash out with an
>> emotional one to save face.
>>
>
> Agreed.
That's largely false, as you already know.
>
>> If they accuse of us lying often enough they can convince themselves
>> that our arguments don't really cut them deep. Self deception. I
>> find it more sad than anything else.
>>
>
> I stand corrected.
Yet you remain wrong on so many issues, that it's a drop in the bucket.
Creationists only get accused of lying, when they lie. Unfortunately,
that's fairly often.
snipping
>>
>> I agree that none of our opponents have ever cracked open any of
>> Behe's works----Harshman included. This makes them fools and
>> ignoramuses not liars.
>>
>
> It is wholly unbelievable that Harshman does not know why Behe 1996
> created and creates furor: IC systems claim unevolvability.
Even if Behe had made that claim, he was shown to be wrong. IC systems can
evolve, and do evolve.
> John
> cannot admit that he has made such an embarrassing error (IC systems
> can evolve).
That wasn't John's error. It was Behe's and yours. IC systems can
evovle, and Behe was wrong to claim they can't, if indeed he ever did.
> The only issue is existence. When Harshman assumes and
> presumes existence while attempting to explain how they evolve, his
> position exists in an irreconcilable state. If such phenomena can
> evolve then they aint IC.
That's false, and it's been shown to you many times why it's false. IC
systems can evolve because evolution can change functions not just add
functions. Your refusal to accept your error here is particularly ironic,
as you accuse others more educated that you, of being wrong.
>
>> While secularists and atheists have never embraced falsificationism
>> in practice they know only too well the implication of IC systems.
>> This is why they have introduced a host of ad hoc, unobserved, and
>> non testable pathways to stave off falsification.
>>
>
> It also proves that once the concept of evolution is accepted to
> explain life it cannot be falsified----only modified, revised,
> reformed, etc.etc.
False again. You are confusing evolution, with the scientific method. The
concept of evolution can be falsified, but only by presenting scientific
evidence that contradicts it. You can't defeat evolution by opposing it by
a religious belief.
>
>>> and he routinely insults your
>>> own knowledge and intelligence (as he does mine). I am RELIEVED to
>>> be rejected by John. He rarely says anything that I didn't already
>>> know, or anything that separates him from the crowd of howlers that
>>> are always present. He is the classic person who happens to have a
>>> doctorate.
>>
>>> You have made a bad mistake.
>>
>> Perhaps I should have written that Harshman sets a "relatively" high
>> standard. Compared to the likes of wf3h, boikat, Okimoto, etc. he is
>> a "relative" saint.
>>
>
> Yes, I see your point now.
Again, you are just engaging in name calling. John is well spoken, but he
doesn't become right just because he posesses a Ph.D. The others are just
as right to point out your, and Tony's mistakes.
snipping
>> You may have a point here. Standing up for a liar and their lie by
>> extension makes them complicit in the lie.
>>
>
> Very many times Harshman remains silent while holwers shout down an
> opponent via slander. What John does not realize is that he looks
> cowardly (and that he will receive the same treatment by anti-
> evolutionists).
Ray, no one is "slandering" you. Telling the truth about you is not
slander, and John isn't going to step and and "correct" persons who are
already correct. If you are wrong, don't expect that someone will come in
and save you.
>snip
>>
>>
>>
>>> John will not hesitate to willfully misrepresent.
>>
>> I don't read many of his posts, but of the few I have read I haven't
>> noticed this.
>>
>
> He has deliberately done it to me more times than I can count.
I doubt you could provide a single example of this. Where has John ever
willfully misrepresented you?
>
>> However, I do agree that he is rather ignorant of ID, IC, the
>> philosophy of science, philosophy of logic, and the history of
>> science.
>>
>>> And like all
>>> evolutionists his style is anchored in deliberate obfuscation.
>>> Again, you are looking buffoonish or like a TEist when you
>>> compliment Harshman. He has zero respect, as one would expect, for
>>> any Theist.
>>
>> I don't attribute necessarily evil intentions to this. Their world
>> view is crumbling with every new advance. They are like the drowning
>> man who will reach for any straw floating in the water to save them
>> however useless.
>>
>> Regards and Merry Christmas,
>> T Pagano
>>
>
> I see.
>
> Your view might be the most correct afterall. They are deluded by
> Atheism/Naturalism/Darwinism. Of course Dr. Gene Scott (Ph.D. Stanford
> University) has identified the real cause of the "success" of
> Darwinism: it is a delusion sent by God as a punishment for denying ID
> to exist in nature. This explains why a theory with no evidence in
> support is accepted.
Note that Gene Scott has apparently changed his statement, even after his
own death. Earlier Ray had claimed that Gene had said "Darwinism" was a
punishment for not giving God "creator credit". Now supposedly Gene is
saying that God is punishing persons for "denying ID to exist in nature".
Either way, it's complete hogwash. God doesn't punish persons for using
their intellect. There's no evidence that "Intelligent Design" is required
to explain the diversity of life. Appealing to a supernatural being to
explain a natural event is unwarranted, and completely unscientific.
Evolution is well supported by evidence, so Ray's assertion doesn't even
make sense.
DJT
John Vreeland
--
My years on the mudpit that is Usnenet have taught me one important thing: three Creation Scientists can have a serious conversation, if two of them are sock puppets.