Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
More IDiotic Cambrian explosion stupidty for IDiots to deny
214 views
Skip to first unread message
RonO
Aug 13, 2023, 9:36:12 AM8/13/23
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
https://evolutionnews.org/2023/08/fossil-friday-did-the-cambrian-explosion-really-happen/
This is up at Glenn's favorite creationist propaganda site, but Glenn
usually runs from the Top Six stupidity and just presents the second
rate denial and switch scam denial. He does post the junk by mistake
from time to time, but hasn't done it in the last few months.
What is so stupid about this IDiotic Cambrian article is that the
majority of IDiots are still YEC, and Bechly makes a big deal about the
event occurring between 540 and 515 million years ago. This is the
revised dating that is about the only difference between what the
scientific creationists used to be in denial of and what the ID perps
have put up as one of their Top Six best evidences for IDiocy.
It is actually the YEC IDiots that do not want the Cambrian explosion to
have ever happened and the Reason to Believe IDiots also can't deal with
the event. The Reason to Believe IDiots are old earth creationists, and
use the Cambrian explosion gap denial the same way that the ID perps use
it, but then they have to deny the denial because their Bible tells them
that their designer made land plants before sea creatures, and land
plants do not show up in the fossil record until the Ordovician. So the
Cambrian explosion data doesn't really mean what it looks like it means
for the IDiots at Reason to Believe. They even have to claim that
whales were among the sea creatures created on the 5th day before the
ancestors of whales were created on day 6. The gaps in the whale fossil
records have to be denied by the Reason to Believe IDiots. Most IDiots
just cannot deal with the Top Six in an honest and straight forward
manner because the designer of the Top Six is not the Biblical designer.
This is really how lame the IDiots are.
To demonstrate that this is the current reality, all anyone has to do is
read this IDiotic stupidity, and then try to get any YEC IDiots to
accept the reality outlined by this article. Most of the IDiotic
creationists supporting the ID scam are still YEC. Nelson has been a
YEC ID perp since the beginning of the current creationist ID scam.
Nelson has pretty much always claimed that the ID science does not
exist, and that they are just working on it. The reason is that Nelson
can't stand the Top Six and what it means. If Meyer and Bechly were
ever able to demonstrate that their designer was responsible for the
Cambrian explosion Nelson would have to deny that science. Even though
the Top Six are the same god-of-the-gaps denial stupidity that the
scientific creationists used to put up it is only meant to allow
creationists to lie to themselves for the moment. It isn't supposed to
be used to build anything positive.
https://groups.google.com/g/talk.origins/c/cY2JbNjBLwE/m/mJelpHjzAwAJ
Creationists that still go back to the ID perps for the ID scam junk
have to deal with their current reality. All they get from the ID perps
is junk that they can lie to themselves about. What is that ever going
to do for them?
The Big Bang (#1 of the Top Six) is already a science topic that the
IDiots want to remove from public school science standards along with
biological evolution. As sad as it may be the IDiots never wanted to
teach the best evidence for the creationist ID scam science. It is a
major reason why the bait and switch has been going down for over 20
years. Every time a group of IDiot creationists want to teach IDiocy in
the public schools the ID perps run the bait and switch and only give
the rubes an obfuscation and denial switch scam, and the reason seems to
be that there isn't anything positive about IDiocy that the ID perps
want the IDiots to teach in the public schools. The majority of IDiots
are YEC and how many of them want to teach their kids about the Big Bang
that occurred over 13 billion years ago, and the fine tuning of our
planet 4.5 billion years ago, the origin of life, possibly, around 3.8
billion years ago, the origin of the flagellum over a billion years ago,
the Cambrian explosion over half a billion years ago, and gaps in the
fossil record during the time that life has existed on this planet even
if you limit the scope to the gaps in the human fossil record for the
last 10 million years? The designer responsible for the Top Six is not
Biblical enough for most of the IDiots in existence, including old earth
creationists like they have at Reason to Believe.
Ron Okimoto
This is up at Glenn's favorite creationist propaganda site, but Glenn
usually runs from the Top Six stupidity and just presents the second
rate denial and switch scam denial. He does post the junk by mistake
from time to time, but hasn't done it in the last few months.
What is so stupid about this IDiotic Cambrian article is that the
majority of IDiots are still YEC, and Bechly makes a big deal about the
event occurring between 540 and 515 million years ago. This is the
revised dating that is about the only difference between what the
scientific creationists used to be in denial of and what the ID perps
have put up as one of their Top Six best evidences for IDiocy.
It is actually the YEC IDiots that do not want the Cambrian explosion to
have ever happened and the Reason to Believe IDiots also can't deal with
the event. The Reason to Believe IDiots are old earth creationists, and
use the Cambrian explosion gap denial the same way that the ID perps use
it, but then they have to deny the denial because their Bible tells them
that their designer made land plants before sea creatures, and land
plants do not show up in the fossil record until the Ordovician. So the
Cambrian explosion data doesn't really mean what it looks like it means
for the IDiots at Reason to Believe. They even have to claim that
whales were among the sea creatures created on the 5th day before the
ancestors of whales were created on day 6. The gaps in the whale fossil
records have to be denied by the Reason to Believe IDiots. Most IDiots
just cannot deal with the Top Six in an honest and straight forward
manner because the designer of the Top Six is not the Biblical designer.
This is really how lame the IDiots are.
To demonstrate that this is the current reality, all anyone has to do is
read this IDiotic stupidity, and then try to get any YEC IDiots to
accept the reality outlined by this article. Most of the IDiotic
creationists supporting the ID scam are still YEC. Nelson has been a
YEC ID perp since the beginning of the current creationist ID scam.
Nelson has pretty much always claimed that the ID science does not
exist, and that they are just working on it. The reason is that Nelson
can't stand the Top Six and what it means. If Meyer and Bechly were
ever able to demonstrate that their designer was responsible for the
Cambrian explosion Nelson would have to deny that science. Even though
the Top Six are the same god-of-the-gaps denial stupidity that the
scientific creationists used to put up it is only meant to allow
creationists to lie to themselves for the moment. It isn't supposed to
be used to build anything positive.
https://groups.google.com/g/talk.origins/c/cY2JbNjBLwE/m/mJelpHjzAwAJ
Creationists that still go back to the ID perps for the ID scam junk
have to deal with their current reality. All they get from the ID perps
is junk that they can lie to themselves about. What is that ever going
to do for them?
The Big Bang (#1 of the Top Six) is already a science topic that the
IDiots want to remove from public school science standards along with
biological evolution. As sad as it may be the IDiots never wanted to
teach the best evidence for the creationist ID scam science. It is a
major reason why the bait and switch has been going down for over 20
years. Every time a group of IDiot creationists want to teach IDiocy in
the public schools the ID perps run the bait and switch and only give
the rubes an obfuscation and denial switch scam, and the reason seems to
be that there isn't anything positive about IDiocy that the ID perps
want the IDiots to teach in the public schools. The majority of IDiots
are YEC and how many of them want to teach their kids about the Big Bang
that occurred over 13 billion years ago, and the fine tuning of our
planet 4.5 billion years ago, the origin of life, possibly, around 3.8
billion years ago, the origin of the flagellum over a billion years ago,
the Cambrian explosion over half a billion years ago, and gaps in the
fossil record during the time that life has existed on this planet even
if you limit the scope to the gaps in the human fossil record for the
last 10 million years? The designer responsible for the Top Six is not
Biblical enough for most of the IDiots in existence, including old earth
creationists like they have at Reason to Believe.
Ron Okimoto
peter2...@gmail.com
Aug 17, 2023, 9:10:06 AM8/17/23
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
On Sunday, August 13, 2023 at 9:36:12 AM UTC-4, RonO wrote:
> https://evolutionnews.org/2023/08/fossil-friday-did-the-cambrian-explosion-really-happen/
The article you link here gives a resounding Yes answer to the question in the url,
while demonstrating how stupid two articles were that give a No answer.
It could have done even better (and I can give one way if anyone reading
this is interested) but what is there is good enough.
> This is up at Glenn's favorite creationist propaganda site, but Glenn
> usually runs from the Top Six stupidity and just presents the second
> rate denial and switch scam denial.
I won't try to decode that last clause, but as to the rest:
EN is not about creationism. In the post you link, "Darwinian evolution"
can be understood as referring to neo-Darwinism, (a.k.a. the Modern Synthesis),
a theory about HOW evolution occurs, rather than the undeniable evidence
of the common descent of tetrapods, the overwhelming evidence of common
descent of metazoans, ... and the very strong evidence of common descent of all eukaryotes.
If "Top Six" refers to the original posts about that sequence, then there
is good reason for Glenn to ignore them: they were mere introductions,
and you are giving us a fine update on number 5, the one on the Cambrian explosion,
consisting of the article by Gunter Bechly you linked.
There is no "stupidity" in it at all, once you interpret "Darwinian" the way it is properly
understood, and I challenge you to try and show otherwise.
If you want real stupidity, take a look at the deluded bombast that YouTuber Dave Farina
indulged in when "describing" his video, which was based on the articles that Bechly
takes apart.
Here is the original, introductory article on #5:
https://evolutionnews.org/2017/11/ids-top-six-the-origin-of-animals/
The whole list of six can be found here:
https://groups.google.com/g/talk.origins/c/a2K79skPGXI/m/uDwx0i-_BAAJ
The list of six is prefaced by a bunch of adjectives by yourself, like the ones above.
> He does post the junk by mistake
> from time to time, but hasn't done it in the last few months.
I dispute the "by mistake" part. As for the preceding word: as will become clear below,
"junk" = stuff leading YECs are forced to talk about in convoluted ways.
> What is so stupid about this IDiotic Cambrian article is that the
> majority of IDiots are still YEC,
Do you have any information about whether the majority of *creationists* are YECs?
That reminds me: do you still use a very broad definition of "creationist" that you
used a dozen years ago to label yourself a "creationist"? In my preceding question,
I used the word the way almost everyone in talk.origins interprets it.
> and Bechly makes a big deal about the
> event occurring between 540 and 515 million years ago.
It doesn't really matter that another estimate was made by Meyer in _Darwin's Doubt_, ten years ago,
because the criteria are different for the different estimates.
The "big deal" is, and always has been, about the extreme shortness of time (25 My in Bechly's case,
6 My in two professional studies--see below) available for a wild proliferation of
whole new body plans, resulting in some 20 separate new phyla during the 25My period.
On page 72, Meyer referred to a much smaller portion of that interval as
"the main pulse of the Cambrian explosion," putting it at ca. 535- 530 mya.
On the following page, he cites an analysis by MIT geochronologist Samuel Bowring
that 16 completely novel phyla appeared in a roughly 6 My time interval. He also cites one by
Douglas Erwin and colleagues "using a slightly different dating scheme" and
finding 13 novel phyla in another roughly 6 My time interval.
>This is the
> revised dating that is about the only difference between what the
> scientific creationists used to be in denial of and what the ID perps
> have put up as one of their Top Six best evidences for IDiocy.
What dating did "the scientific creationists" (whoever they are) use, and where?
But this is of secondary importance, because: you don't want to argue against either variation.
Your main fascination with the Cambrian dates is a personal bunch of
speculation about the motivations of Glenn and a couple of other regulars of talk.origins.
I don't think what you wrote below [deleted] is of any real interest to anyone
else in talk.origins, but I will make a bunch of comments about it (later today, or tomorrow)
just in case I'm wrong.
Peter Nyikos
Professor, Dept. of Mathematics -- standard disclaimer--
University of South Carolina
http://people.math.sc.edu/nyikos
> https://evolutionnews.org/2023/08/fossil-friday-did-the-cambrian-explosion-really-happen/
The article you link here gives a resounding Yes answer to the question in the url,
while demonstrating how stupid two articles were that give a No answer.
It could have done even better (and I can give one way if anyone reading
this is interested) but what is there is good enough.
> This is up at Glenn's favorite creationist propaganda site, but Glenn
> usually runs from the Top Six stupidity and just presents the second
> rate denial and switch scam denial.
EN is not about creationism. In the post you link, "Darwinian evolution"
can be understood as referring to neo-Darwinism, (a.k.a. the Modern Synthesis),
a theory about HOW evolution occurs, rather than the undeniable evidence
of the common descent of tetrapods, the overwhelming evidence of common
descent of metazoans, ... and the very strong evidence of common descent of all eukaryotes.
If "Top Six" refers to the original posts about that sequence, then there
is good reason for Glenn to ignore them: they were mere introductions,
and you are giving us a fine update on number 5, the one on the Cambrian explosion,
consisting of the article by Gunter Bechly you linked.
There is no "stupidity" in it at all, once you interpret "Darwinian" the way it is properly
understood, and I challenge you to try and show otherwise.
If you want real stupidity, take a look at the deluded bombast that YouTuber Dave Farina
indulged in when "describing" his video, which was based on the articles that Bechly
takes apart.
Here is the original, introductory article on #5:
https://evolutionnews.org/2017/11/ids-top-six-the-origin-of-animals/
The whole list of six can be found here:
https://groups.google.com/g/talk.origins/c/a2K79skPGXI/m/uDwx0i-_BAAJ
The list of six is prefaced by a bunch of adjectives by yourself, like the ones above.
> He does post the junk by mistake
> from time to time, but hasn't done it in the last few months.
"junk" = stuff leading YECs are forced to talk about in convoluted ways.
> What is so stupid about this IDiotic Cambrian article is that the
> majority of IDiots are still YEC,
That reminds me: do you still use a very broad definition of "creationist" that you
used a dozen years ago to label yourself a "creationist"? In my preceding question,
I used the word the way almost everyone in talk.origins interprets it.
> and Bechly makes a big deal about the
> event occurring between 540 and 515 million years ago.
because the criteria are different for the different estimates.
The "big deal" is, and always has been, about the extreme shortness of time (25 My in Bechly's case,
6 My in two professional studies--see below) available for a wild proliferation of
whole new body plans, resulting in some 20 separate new phyla during the 25My period.
On page 72, Meyer referred to a much smaller portion of that interval as
"the main pulse of the Cambrian explosion," putting it at ca. 535- 530 mya.
On the following page, he cites an analysis by MIT geochronologist Samuel Bowring
that 16 completely novel phyla appeared in a roughly 6 My time interval. He also cites one by
Douglas Erwin and colleagues "using a slightly different dating scheme" and
finding 13 novel phyla in another roughly 6 My time interval.
>This is the
> revised dating that is about the only difference between what the
> scientific creationists used to be in denial of and what the ID perps
> have put up as one of their Top Six best evidences for IDiocy.
But this is of secondary importance, because: you don't want to argue against either variation.
Your main fascination with the Cambrian dates is a personal bunch of
speculation about the motivations of Glenn and a couple of other regulars of talk.origins.
I don't think what you wrote below [deleted] is of any real interest to anyone
else in talk.origins, but I will make a bunch of comments about it (later today, or tomorrow)
just in case I'm wrong.
Peter Nyikos
Professor, Dept. of Mathematics -- standard disclaimer--
University of South Carolina
http://people.math.sc.edu/nyikos
Glenn
Aug 17, 2023, 5:10:07 PM8/17/23
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
On Sunday, August 13, 2023 at 6:36:12 AM UTC-7, RonO wrote:
> https://evolutionnews.org/2023/08/fossil-friday-did-the-cambrian-explosion-really-happen/
>
> This is up at Glenn's favorite creationist propaganda site, but Glenn
> usually runs from the Top Six stupidity and just presents the second
> rate denial and switch scam denial. He does post the junk by mistake
> from time to time, but hasn't done it in the last few months.
>
https://evolutionnews.org/2023/08/from-bad-to-worse-for-darwinism-as-new-cambrian-explosion-finds-arrive/
> https://evolutionnews.org/2023/08/fossil-friday-did-the-cambrian-explosion-really-happen/
>
> This is up at Glenn's favorite creationist propaganda site, but Glenn
> usually runs from the Top Six stupidity and just presents the second
> rate denial and switch scam denial. He does post the junk by mistake
> from time to time, but hasn't done it in the last few months.
>
Oops.
RonO
Aug 17, 2023, 7:00:27 PM8/17/23
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
responsible for the Cambrian explosion in a Biblical context? Then say
one way or the other whether you want to believe in the false IDiotic
designer of the Cambrian explosion. Really tell us what your take is
about the designer of the Top Six.
Sewell and Miller couldn't deal with the IDiotic designer of the
Cambrian explosion, but I list the original Top Six for you to use in
your analysis.
https://groups.google.com/g/talk.origins/c/a2K79skPGXI/m/uDwx0i-_BAAJ
You put up the junk by mistake from time to time, so tell us what it
means to you.
Ron Okimoto
peter2...@gmail.com
Aug 17, 2023, 8:40:06 PM8/17/23
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
On Thursday, August 17, 2023 at 5:10:07 PM UTC-4, Glenn wrote:
> On Sunday, August 13, 2023 at 6:36:12 AM UTC-7, RonO wrote:
> > https://evolutionnews.org/2023/08/fossil-friday-did-the-cambrian-explosion-really-happen/
Short answer to the question in the url: yes, and it happened even faster
> On Sunday, August 13, 2023 at 6:36:12 AM UTC-7, RonO wrote:
> > https://evolutionnews.org/2023/08/fossil-friday-did-the-cambrian-explosion-really-happen/
than the Bechly article it links said it did. See below.
> > This is up at Glenn's favorite creationist propaganda site, but Glenn
> > usually runs from the Top Six stupidity and just presents the second
> > rate denial and switch scam denial. He does post the junk by mistake
> > from time to time, but hasn't done it in the last few months.
> https://evolutionnews.org/2023/08/from-bad-to-worse-for-darwinism-as-new-cambrian-explosion-finds-arrive/
>
> Oops.
It's an interesting article by David Coppedge, Glenn, but it gives rise to a bunch of questions,
because of some sloppy reporting of the U. of Copenhagen research. It is about anoxia
in what the reporters call the "Avalon explosion."
I'll talk about that in my next reply to your post. In this reply, I want to clear up a minor bit
of ambiguity where it is easy to confuse "the Cambrian Explosion" with "the Cambrian period."
Coppedge writes:
"Their measurements constrain the onset of the explosion to “younger than 533 Mya, at least 6 My later than currently recognized.” Out with 540 Mya; in with 533 Mya as the new official “onset of infaunalization” (the sudden appearance of complex animal body plans)."
The quote from the PNAS article backing this up uses the phrase "the Cambrian,"
by which scientists call the Cambrian *period*. Clicking on the link to the PNAS
article confirms this.
"These data demonstrate the base of the Cambrian Period, as defined by both ichnofossil biostratigraphy and carbon isotope chemostratigraphy, was younger than 533 Mya, at least 6 My later than currently recognized."
https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.2301478120
This is just a minor quibble, because the PNAS article puts the beginning of the Cambrian explosion
right at the beginning of the Cambrian period. And this shortens the length of the explosion from
25 million years (540My -515My), Bechly's figure in the article Ron O linked, to 18 million.
The Avalon explosion is a much more complicated issue, and I'll talk about it in
my next reply to you, tomorrow.
Peter Nyikos
Professor, Dept. of Mathematics -- standard disclaimer--
http://people.math.sc.edu/nyikos
peter2...@gmail.com
Aug 18, 2023, 5:45:05 PM8/18/23
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
On Sunday, August 13, 2023 at 9:36:12 AM UTC-4, RonO wrote:
The url of an article by Bechly:
> https://evolutionnews.org/2023/08/fossil-friday-did-the-cambrian-explosion-really-happen/
This is my second and final reply to Ron O's OP. Anyone who has read the first reply
can see why I say that a much more accurate thread title would be:
"More ID-friendly science on the Cambrian explosion for naive creationists to deny"
The first reply had mostly to do with the first clause, now we come to the second clause:
> It is actually the YEC IDiots that do not want the Cambrian explosion to
> have ever happened and the Reason to Believe IDiots also can't deal with
> the event. The Reason to Believe IDiots are old earth creationists, and
> use the Cambrian explosion gap denial
convoluted ways of thinking that are a world apart from the careful use of science
by the ID-promoting Evolution News.
> the same way that the ID perps use it, but then they have to deny the denial because their Bible tells them
> that their designer made land plants before sea creatures, and land
> plants do not show up in the fossil record until the Ordovician.
None of the leading ID theorists is a biblical literalist.
In fact, it would be laughable to call Behe one, and I believe the same
applies to Stephen Meyer, Denton, Dembski, and most if not all of the writers
of articles for Evolution News.
> So the Cambrian explosion data doesn't really mean what it looks like it means
> for the IDiots at Reason to Believe. They even have to claim that
> whales were among the sea creatures created on the 5th day before the
> ancestors of whales were created on day 6. The gaps in the whale fossil
> records have to be denied by the Reason to Believe IDiots. Most IDiots
> just cannot deal with the Top Six in an honest and straight forward
> manner because the designer of the Top Six is not the Biblical designer.
>
> This is really how lame the IDiots are.
You have never made a case for Glenn fitting the above description.
> To demonstrate that this is the current reality, all anyone has to do is
> read this IDiotic stupidity, and then try to get any YEC IDiots to
> accept the reality outlined by this article.
"demonstration" will have to find another venue.
>Most of the IDiotic
> creationists supporting the ID scam are still YEC.
> Nelson has been a
> YEC ID perp since the beginning of the current creationist ID scam.
> Nelson has pretty much always claimed that the ID science does not
> exist, and that they are just working on it. The reason is that Nelson
> can't stand the Top Six and what it means.
>If Meyer and Bechly were
> ever able to demonstrate that their designer was responsible for the
> Cambrian explosion
it in its present rudimentary form.
>Nelson would have to deny that science.
>Even though
> the Top Six are the same god-of-the-gaps denial stupidity that the
> scientific creationists used to put up
rather than the mountain of science behind them, and numerous newer discoveries.
> it is only meant to allow
> creationists to lie to themselves for the moment. It isn't supposed to
> be used to build anything positive.
>
> https://groups.google.com/g/talk.origins/c/cY2JbNjBLwE/m/mJelpHjzAwAJ
>
> Creationists that still go back to the ID perps for the ID scam junk
> have to deal with their current reality. All they get from the ID perps
> is junk that they can lie to themselves about. What is that ever going
> to do for them?
have to talk about in convoluted ways.
> The Big Bang (#1 of the Top Six) is already a science topic that the
> IDiots want to remove from public school science standards along with
> biological evolution.
> As sad as it may be the IDiots never wanted to
> teach the best evidence for the creationist ID scam science.
never tried to give evidence.
Moreover, you have never tried to show that the Modern Synthesis (a.k.a neo-Darwinism)
can account for the stupendous scope of the biological evolution that has occurred.
> It is a major reason why the bait and switch has been going down for over 20
> years.
is an emphasis on the inadequacy of neo-Darwinism, which,
as a science, is about microevolution.
> Every time a group of IDiot creationists want to teach IDiocy in
> the public schools the ID perps run the bait and switch and only give
> the rubes an obfuscation and denial switch scam,
if you can give them, please.
> and the reason seems to
> be that there isn't anything positive about IDiocy that the ID perps
> want the IDiots to teach in the public schools. The majority of IDiots
> are YEC and how many of them want to teach their kids about the Big Bang
> that occurred over 13 billion years ago, and the fine tuning of our
> planet 4.5 billion years ago, the origin of life, possibly, around 3.8
> billion years ago, the origin of the flagellum over a billion years ago,
> the Cambrian explosion over half a billion years ago, and gaps in the
> fossil record during the time that life has existed on this planet even
> if you limit the scope to the gaps in the human fossil record for the
> last 10 million years? The designer responsible for the Top Six is not
> Biblical enough for most of the IDiots in existence,
> including old earth
> creationists like they have at Reason to Believe.
Peter Nyikos
Professor, Dept. of Mathematics -- standard disclaimer--
http://people.math.sc.edu/nyikos
JTEM is my hero
Aug 30, 2023, 3:20:19 AM8/30/23
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
RonO wrote:
> This is up at Glenn's favorite creationist propaganda site, but Glenn
> usually runs from the Top Six stupidity and just presents the second
> rate denial and switch
You are deeply emotionally invested in this nonsense.
> This is up at Glenn's favorite creationist propaganda site, but Glenn
> usually runs from the Top Six stupidity and just presents the second
> rate denial and switch
This is why you can't admit that Darwin was a fraud who didn't
even believe in evolution. His beliefs, his one and only theory
were aligned with those who later OPPOSED evolution in the
communist world, Darwin was such a hoax.
It's not about facts or science, with your time. It's about winning.
-- --
https://jtem.tumblr.com/post/120673964523
RonO
Aug 30, 2023, 6:55:20 AM8/30/23
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
Scientific creationism. The best that you can hope for is to see a
little honesty and integrity in the anti-evolution creationists. There
really isn't any "winning". Look at what Kalkidas has come up with.
When the Top Six first came out Kalk went into denial just like Glenn,
and started trying to put up the ID Perp's second rate denial stupidity
while running from the best that they had to offer. Kalk couldn't keep
doing that, and quit the ID scam, and even claimed that he had never
claimed to be Hindu in his efforst to support the ID scam on TO. Now
Kalk is dealing with the Top Six by claiming that he has "little
interest" in the Top Six when he knows that it was the best evidence
that he had supporting IDiocy for decades.
https://groups.google.com/g/talk.origins/c/8fuyuKN4VhE/m/pvV6Nwp-AQAJ
I just put up what their reality is, and they deal with it as they do.
All you can expect is to see what they come up with next.
Ron Okimoto
JTEM is my hero
Aug 30, 2023, 2:30:20 PM8/30/23
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
RonO wrote:
> What a nut job.
Speaking of which..
> There is no winning in the case of IDiocy and Scientific creationism.
Yet you persist.
>The best that you can hope for is to see a
> little honesty and integrity in the anti-evolution creationists.
So are you ready to be honest and admit that abiogenesis is
pseudo scientific rubbish, and that Darwin is a hoax?
Are you suddenly going to show some honesty? Are you now
going to start putting facts ahead of your dogma?
-- --
https://jtem.tumblr.com/post/726632328614526976
> What a nut job.
Speaking of which..
> There is no winning in the case of IDiocy and Scientific creationism.
>The best that you can hope for is to see a
> little honesty and integrity in the anti-evolution creationists.
pseudo scientific rubbish, and that Darwin is a hoax?
Are you suddenly going to show some honesty? Are you now
going to start putting facts ahead of your dogma?
-- --
https://jtem.tumblr.com/post/726632328614526976
RonO
Aug 31, 2023, 6:20:21 AM8/31/23
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
actually is?
Ron Okimoto
JTEM is my hero
Sep 11, 2023, 8:40:33 AM9/11/23
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
RonO wrote:
[---nut job---]
Abiogenesis isn't science. It's a belief no different from
any other religious belief. It's true no matter what. It
can't be falsified. It's literally the antithesis of science.
Darwin was a hoax. He didn't even believe in evolution.
Stalin, Mao mirrored Darwins beliefs and they arrested
anyone teaching evolution!
If you can't accept these facts then you live in a fantasy
world. You're a nut case, incapable of dealing with
reality.
-- --
https://jtem.tumblr.com/post/728166607418949632
[---nut job---]
Abiogenesis isn't science. It's a belief no different from
any other religious belief. It's true no matter what. It
can't be falsified. It's literally the antithesis of science.
Darwin was a hoax. He didn't even believe in evolution.
Stalin, Mao mirrored Darwins beliefs and they arrested
anyone teaching evolution!
If you can't accept these facts then you live in a fantasy
world. You're a nut case, incapable of dealing with
reality.
-- --
https://jtem.tumblr.com/post/728166607418949632
RonO
Sep 12, 2023, 6:55:34 PM9/12/23
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
removed everything that he couldn't deal with in this thread to the
point where he didn't even know what he was in denial of. Just go back
up and check. You don't seem to have a clue about what you started to
argue about. Snipping and running is all that you have accomplished in
this thread.
Ron Okimoto
peter2...@gmail.com
Sep 18, 2023, 6:00:42 PM9/18/23
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
I was so busy last week that I had time for only one t.o. post
the whole week. Otherwise I would have replied to Ron O's post
of 5 days ago in timely fashion. But I first need to clarify some
things you wrote before that, JTEM.
On Wednesday, August 30, 2023 at 3:20:19 AM UTC-4, JTEM is my hero wrote:
> RonO wrote:
>
> > This is up at Glenn's favorite creationist propaganda site, but Glenn
> > usually runs from the Top Six stupidity and just presents the second
> > rate denial and switch.
> You are deeply emotionally invested in this nonsense.
Truer words were never spoken in contexts like what you
left in above. And it also applies to everything you deleted.
> This is why you can't admit that Darwin was a fraud who didn't
> even believe in evolution.
You lost me here. Darwin wholeheartedly believed in evolution;
it is only his proposed mechanism that had to be revised in
the light of later evidence. And he was honest about the shakiness
of the proposed mechanism to give several possibilities for falsifying it.
> His beliefs, his one and only theory
> were aligned with those who later OPPOSED evolution in the
> communist world, Darwin was such a hoax.
What are you talking about? Lysenkoism didn't oppose evolution,
it just went overboard into epigenetic causes of mutation-- a caricature
of Lamarckism.
> It's not about facts or science, with your time. It's about winning.
Yes, almost everyone catches on to that aspect of Ron O's modus operandi
eventually.
But perhaps you don't frequent talk.origins often enough to know
who some of his pet peeves are directed against: Glenn, Kalkidas, Pagano, ...
And so, some of what Ron O wrote to you later was clueless as to where
you are coming from.
Peter Nyikos
Professor, Dept. of Mathematics
Univ. of South Carolina -- standard disclaimer--
http://people.math.sc.edu/nyikos
the whole week. Otherwise I would have replied to Ron O's post
of 5 days ago in timely fashion. But I first need to clarify some
things you wrote before that, JTEM.
On Wednesday, August 30, 2023 at 3:20:19 AM UTC-4, JTEM is my hero wrote:
> RonO wrote:
>
> > This is up at Glenn's favorite creationist propaganda site, but Glenn
> > usually runs from the Top Six stupidity and just presents the second
> You are deeply emotionally invested in this nonsense.
left in above. And it also applies to everything you deleted.
> This is why you can't admit that Darwin was a fraud who didn't
> even believe in evolution.
it is only his proposed mechanism that had to be revised in
the light of later evidence. And he was honest about the shakiness
of the proposed mechanism to give several possibilities for falsifying it.
> His beliefs, his one and only theory
> were aligned with those who later OPPOSED evolution in the
> communist world, Darwin was such a hoax.
it just went overboard into epigenetic causes of mutation-- a caricature
of Lamarckism.
> It's not about facts or science, with your time. It's about winning.
eventually.
But perhaps you don't frequent talk.origins often enough to know
who some of his pet peeves are directed against: Glenn, Kalkidas, Pagano, ...
And so, some of what Ron O wrote to you later was clueless as to where
you are coming from.
Peter Nyikos
Professor, Dept. of Mathematics
http://people.math.sc.edu/nyikos
peter2...@gmail.com
Sep 18, 2023, 8:40:41 PM9/18/23
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
On Tuesday, September 12, 2023 at 6:55:34 PM UTC-4, RonO wrote:
> On 9/11/2023 7:38 AM, JTEM is my hero wrote:
> > RonO wrote:
> >
> > [---nut job---]
> >
> > Abiogenesis isn't science. It's a belief no different from
> > any other religious belief. It's true no matter what. It
> > can't be falsified. It's literally the antithesis of science.
> >
> > Darwin was a hoax. He didn't even believe in evolution.
> > Stalin, Mao mirrored Darwins beliefs and they arrested
> > anyone teaching evolution!
> >
> > If you can't accept these facts then you live in a fantasy
> > world. You're a nut case, incapable of dealing with
> > reality.
Everyone would know that the nut job is you,
> On 9/11/2023 7:38 AM, JTEM is my hero wrote:
> > RonO wrote:
> >
> > [---nut job---]
> >
> > Abiogenesis isn't science. It's a belief no different from
> > any other religious belief. It's true no matter what. It
> > can't be falsified. It's literally the antithesis of science.
> >
> > Darwin was a hoax. He didn't even believe in evolution.
> > Stalin, Mao mirrored Darwins beliefs and they arrested
> > anyone teaching evolution!
> >
> > If you can't accept these facts then you live in a fantasy
> > world. You're a nut case, incapable of dealing with
> > reality.
were it not for the fact that JTEM was uncommonly
merciful to you by snipping the following nonsense by you:
"What a nut job. When are you going to try to understand what reality
actually is?"
about people [1] with reality, without having produced an iota
of evidence for his opinions.
[1] This includes the author of the Evolution News article, David Coppedge,
and Glenn, and "Kalk" (Kalkidas), and now JTEM.
>It is the one that has assiduously
> removed everything that he couldn't deal with in this thread to the
> point where he didn't even know what he was in denial of.
evidence against you and replaced it with the harmless "[---nut job---]".
And you are showing another sign of psychosis: a belief that you
can enter another's mind to the point of being able to
ascertain that "he didn't even know what he was in denial of."
Where's the description of "what he was in denial of"?
You conveniently neglected to include one.
>Just go back
> up and check. You don't seem to have a clue about what you started to
> argue about.
> Snipping and running is all that you have accomplished in
> this thread.
You zoomed past his wild assertions about Darwin, Stalin,
and Mao as though they never existed.
I did not zoom past them, and I don't even know which
of you will come off worse on this thread in the long run.
It all depends on whether JTEM can coherently defend
his wild assertions in the face of the questions I asked him,
and the facts I related to him.
Peter Nyikos
Martin Harran
Sep 19, 2023, 3:35:41 AM9/19/23
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
In Category "Out of the mouths of babes and delinquents):
>It is a sign of psychosis when someone confuses his private opinions
>about people with reality, without having produced an iota
>It is a sign of psychosis when someone confuses his private opinions
jillery
Sep 19, 2023, 5:45:41 AM9/19/23
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
--
To know less than we don't know is the nature of most knowledge
peter2...@gmail.com
Sep 19, 2023, 10:10:41 AM9/19/23
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
In the category of weaponizing Chez Watt by taking things our of context
and indulging in capricious vilification ["delinquents"]:
The "someone" is Ron O, who has been neatly pegged in the following
post on another thread:
https://groups.google.com/g/talk.origins/c/JKnUO3rwKo4/m/0MdDym8ZAwAJ
Re: Tour's 60 day challenge
Sep 16, 2023, 7:35:39 PM
Excerpt:
For those who may not know, "Ron Okimoto" is the name given to an early beta release of ChatGPT. It's nostalgic to see it still running here with these bot posts.
[end of excerpt; the rest of the post continues the pegging at a reduced rate of intensity]
With the name redacted, this might make a real Chez Watt, except that there aren't enough
repetitious dingbats posting to talk.origins, and none so obvious as you-know-who.
Peter Nyikos
and indulging in capricious vilification ["delinquents"]:
post on another thread:
https://groups.google.com/g/talk.origins/c/JKnUO3rwKo4/m/0MdDym8ZAwAJ
Re: Tour's 60 day challenge
Sep 16, 2023, 7:35:39 PM
Excerpt:
For those who may not know, "Ron Okimoto" is the name given to an early beta release of ChatGPT. It's nostalgic to see it still running here with these bot posts.
[end of excerpt; the rest of the post continues the pegging at a reduced rate of intensity]
With the name redacted, this might make a real Chez Watt, except that there aren't enough
repetitious dingbats posting to talk.origins, and none so obvious as you-know-who.
Peter Nyikos
Martin Harran
Sep 19, 2023, 1:20:41 PM9/19/23
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
On Tue, 19 Sep 2023 07:09:08 -0700 (PDT), "peter2...@gmail.com"
<peter2...@gmail.com> wrote:
>In the category of weaponizing Chez Watt by taking things our of context
>and indulging in capricious vilification ["delinquents"]:
>
<peter2...@gmail.com> wrote:
>In the category of weaponizing Chez Watt by taking things our of context
>and indulging in capricious vilification ["delinquents"]:
>
>On Tuesday, September 19, 2023 at 3:35:41?AM UTC-4, Martin Harran wrote:
>> In Category "Out of the mouths of babes and delinquents):
>> >It is a sign of psychosis when someone confuses his private opinions
>> >about people with reality, without having produced an iota
>> >of evidence for his opinions.
>
>The "someone" is Ron O, who has been neatly pegged in the following
>post on another thread:
Nah, I was thinking more of "someone" who accused me of being an
>> In Category "Out of the mouths of babes and delinquents):
>> >It is a sign of psychosis when someone confuses his private opinions
>> >about people with reality, without having produced an iota
>> >of evidence for his opinions.
>
>The "someone" is Ron O, who has been neatly pegged in the following
>post on another thread:
apostate and said 6 months ago that he would give a detailed account
*next week* supporting his claim but still hasn't done so. The same
"someone" who falsely fabricated me saying stuff about abortion and
didn't bother to correct it when the source of his error was
identified.
Sound familiar, Peter?
>
>https://groups.google.com/g/talk.origins/c/JKnUO3rwKo4/m/0MdDym8ZAwAJ
>Re: Tour's 60 day challenge
peter2...@gmail.com
Sep 19, 2023, 2:50:41 PM9/19/23
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
On Tuesday, September 19, 2023 at 1:20:41 PM UTC-4, Martin Harran wrote:
> On Tue, 19 Sep 2023 07:09:08 -0700 (PDT), "peter2...@gmail.com"
> <peter2...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >In the category of weaponizing Chez Watt by taking things our of context
> >and indulging in capricious vilification ["delinquents"]:
> >
> >On Tuesday, September 19, 2023 at 3:35:41?AM UTC-4, Martin Harran wrote:
> >> In Category "Out of the mouths of babes and delinquents):
> >> >It is a sign of psychosis when someone confuses his private opinions
> >> >about people with reality, without having produced an iota
> >> >of evidence for his opinions.
> >
> >The "someone" is Ron O, who has been neatly pegged in the following
> >post on another thread:
> Nah, I was thinking more of "someone" who accused me of being an
> apostate
Gross misrepresentation noted.
> On Tue, 19 Sep 2023 07:09:08 -0700 (PDT), "peter2...@gmail.com"
> <peter2...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >In the category of weaponizing Chez Watt by taking things our of context
> >and indulging in capricious vilification ["delinquents"]:
> >
> >On Tuesday, September 19, 2023 at 3:35:41?AM UTC-4, Martin Harran wrote:
> >> In Category "Out of the mouths of babes and delinquents):
> >> >It is a sign of psychosis when someone confuses his private opinions
> >> >about people with reality, without having produced an iota
> >> >of evidence for his opinions.
> >
> >The "someone" is Ron O, who has been neatly pegged in the following
> >post on another thread:
> Nah, I was thinking more of "someone" who accused me of being an
> apostate
> and said 6 months ago that he would give a detailed account
> *next week* supporting his claim but still hasn't done so.
bearing false witness, and you proved that many times over, since about
midway between then and now:
https://groups.google.com/g/talk.origins/c/xqiemRxP0mI/m/zJ8rzQ7uAAAJ
Re: A thread about banning, paradoxically about stopping discussion of banning
Jun 9, 2023, 7:05:49 PM
In your only reply to that post, you snipped the damning evidence that you had committed libel against
me in reply to both Öö Tiib and Bill Rogers. In the linked post, I showed how you falsely accused me of
behavior more hateful than anything I'd ever seen anyone in t.o. being accused of before, including myself.
With that snip, you continued to leave Bill Rogers in the dark about what a damnable lie you
had told him about me, since he has not shown any sign of having read a post by me
in something like five years.
If you try to whitewash what you did there, I can repost the linked post right here. Since it did not take
place on this thread, Google Groups will not hide any of it behind ellipses.
> The same
> "someone" who falsely fabricated me saying stuff about abortion
about a referendum on same-sex marriage in Ireland, [1] with having written it about a later (2018)
referendum on abortion [2].
And you didn't vote against it, according to that undocumented claim, you were merely *contemplating*
a vote against it.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Same-sex_marriage_in_the_Republic_of_Ireland
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abortion_in_the_Republic_of_Ireland
Such lapses of memory by me are supposed to be worse than deliberate libel by you, eh?
>and
> didn't bother to correct it when the source of his error was
> identified.
>
> Sound familiar, Peter?
opposition to at least one of {same-sex marriage, abortion} is lukewarm at best.
But that doesn't make you an apostate: it merely makes you a "liberal Catholic"
along the lines of the "National Catholic Reporter." [3] Your refusal to criticize Mark Isaak's
attack on the Church's ban on women priests reinforces that status.
[3] Not to be confused with the conservative "National Catholic Register," now published
under the aegis of EWTN, and therefore low in your esteem.
> >https://groups.google.com/g/talk.origins/c/JKnUO3rwKo4/m/0MdDym8ZAwAJ
> >Re: Tour's 60 day challenge
> >Sep 16, 2023, 7:35:39?PM
> >
> >Excerpt:
> >For those who may not know, "Ron Okimoto" is the name given to an early beta release of ChatGPT. It's nostalgic to see it still running here with these bot posts.
> >[end of excerpt; the rest of the post continues the pegging at a reduced rate of intensity]
> >
> >With the name redacted, this might make a real Chez Watt, except that there aren't enough
> >repetitious dingbats posting to talk.origins, and none so obvious as you-know-who.
Peter Nyikos
Martin Harran
Sep 19, 2023, 6:30:42 PM9/19/23
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
On Tue, 19 Sep 2023 11:49:42 -0700 (PDT), "peter2...@gmail.com"
<peter2...@gmail.com> wrote:
>On Tuesday, September 19, 2023 at 1:20:41?PM UTC-4, Martin Harran wrote:
>> On Tue, 19 Sep 2023 07:09:08 -0700 (PDT), "peter2...@gmail.com"
>> <peter2...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> >In the category of weaponizing Chez Watt by taking things our of context
>> >and indulging in capricious vilification ["delinquents"]:
>> >
>> >On Tuesday, September 19, 2023 at 3:35:41?AM UTC-4, Martin Harran wrote:
>> >> In Category "Out of the mouths of babes and delinquents):
>> >> >It is a sign of psychosis when someone confuses his private opinions
>> >> >about people with reality, without having produced an iota
>> >> >of evidence for his opinions.
>> >
>> >The "someone" is Ron O, who has been neatly pegged in the following
>> >post on another thread:
>
>> Nah, I was thinking more of "someone" who accused me of being an
>> apostate
>
>Gross misrepresentation noted.
Glenn claimed: "Everything you [Martin Harran] say just adds supports
to the fact that you are an atheist. It is why your lame crap is
tolerated here."
You replied: "Nah, being an apostate Catholic is adequate for that.".
Feel free to identify my gross misrepresentation.
>
>> and said 6 months ago that he would give a detailed account
>> *next week* supporting his claim but still hasn't done so.
>
>The real claim was that you often disregard Jesus's commandment against
>bearing false witness, and you proved that many times over, since about
>midway between then and now:
>
>https://groups.google.com/g/talk.origins/c/xqiemRxP0mI/m/zJ8rzQ7uAAAJ
>Re: A thread about banning, paradoxically about stopping discussion of banning
>Jun 9, 2023, 7:05:49?PM
"And there is plenty of reason to think that you have no use for
Jesus's commandment against bearing false witness. And *next week* [my
emphasis added], I will go through a lot of what you've posted to
demonstrate your cavalier attitude towards that commandment."
Now you try to use an unrelated post by me over two months later to
try to excuse your inability to do what you said you would do. There
clearly is no limit to the mental contortions you will put yourself
through to maintain your inflated sense of self-righteousness.
>
>
>> The same
>> "someone" who falsely fabricated me saying stuff about abortion
>
>Going by an undocumented claim by you, I had confused something you had written back in 2015,
>about a referendum on same-sex marriage in Ireland, [1] with having written it about a later (2018)
>referendum on abortion [2].
>
>And you didn't vote against it, according to that undocumented claim
Undocumented claim? I documented the exact nature of vyour
misrepresentation back in July in this post:
https://groups.google.com/g/talk.origins/c/0XgjzJpuiMA/m/dfaZ3uXzBAAJ
Taking at face value your self-proclaimed expertise in Google Groups,
I assumed you would be able to find the original post. Clearly, as in
other areas, you have over-stated that expertise so here is the
original post:
https://groups.google.com/g/talk.origins/c/XBtzf2VIhMs/m/0ONUkDHX2IMJ
The irony is that that post was a direct reply to you.
>, you were merely *contemplating*
>a vote against it.
>
>[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Same-sex_marriage_in_the_Republic_of_Ireland
>[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abortion_in_the_Republic_of_Ireland
>
>Such lapses of memory by me are supposed to be worse than deliberate libel by you, eh?
As I told you several times since, anyone can make a mistakes, it
becomes a lie when you let it stand after your error is pointed out to
you. Even now, you try to wriggle out of it by using weasel words like
"undocumented claim".
You also have a rather weird concept of what constitutes *libel* but
that is only one of many weird concepts that you have.
>
>
> >and
>> didn't bother to correct it when the source of his error was
>> identified.
>>
>> Sound familiar, Peter?
>
>Yes, you reinforced my main point in any case: your commitment to the Catholic Church's unchanging
>opposition to at least one of {same-sex marriage, abortion} is lukewarm at best.
The fact that you still continue to make unfounded insinuations about
my attitude to abortion when I have never expressed any opinions on
abortion reinforces justification for my Chez Watt nomination.
<peter2...@gmail.com> wrote:
>On Tuesday, September 19, 2023 at 1:20:41?PM UTC-4, Martin Harran wrote:
>> On Tue, 19 Sep 2023 07:09:08 -0700 (PDT), "peter2...@gmail.com"
>> <peter2...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> >In the category of weaponizing Chez Watt by taking things our of context
>> >and indulging in capricious vilification ["delinquents"]:
>> >
>> >On Tuesday, September 19, 2023 at 3:35:41?AM UTC-4, Martin Harran wrote:
>> >> In Category "Out of the mouths of babes and delinquents):
>> >> >It is a sign of psychosis when someone confuses his private opinions
>> >> >about people with reality, without having produced an iota
>> >> >of evidence for his opinions.
>> >
>> >The "someone" is Ron O, who has been neatly pegged in the following
>> >post on another thread:
>
>> Nah, I was thinking more of "someone" who accused me of being an
>> apostate
>
>Gross misrepresentation noted.
to the fact that you are an atheist. It is why your lame crap is
tolerated here."
You replied: "Nah, being an apostate Catholic is adequate for that.".
Feel free to identify my gross misrepresentation.
>
>> and said 6 months ago that he would give a detailed account
>> *next week* supporting his claim but still hasn't done so.
>
>The real claim was that you often disregard Jesus's commandment against
>bearing false witness, and you proved that many times over, since about
>midway between then and now:
>
>https://groups.google.com/g/talk.origins/c/xqiemRxP0mI/m/zJ8rzQ7uAAAJ
>Re: A thread about banning, paradoxically about stopping discussion of banning
>
>In your only reply to that post, you snipped the damning evidence that you had committed libel against
>me in reply to both 嘱 Tiib and Bill Rogers. In the linked post, I showed how you falsely accused me of
>In your only reply to that post, you snipped the damning evidence that you had committed libel against
>behavior more hateful than anything I'd ever seen anyone in t.o. being accused of before, including myself.
>
>With that snip, you continued to leave Bill Rogers in the dark about what a damnable lie you
>had told him about me, since he has not shown any sign of having read a post by me
>in something like five years.
>
>If you try to whitewash what you did there, I can repost the linked post right here. Since it did not take
>place on this thread, Google Groups will not hide any of it behind ellipses.
You said on 25th March:
>
>With that snip, you continued to leave Bill Rogers in the dark about what a damnable lie you
>had told him about me, since he has not shown any sign of having read a post by me
>in something like five years.
>
>If you try to whitewash what you did there, I can repost the linked post right here. Since it did not take
>place on this thread, Google Groups will not hide any of it behind ellipses.
"And there is plenty of reason to think that you have no use for
Jesus's commandment against bearing false witness. And *next week* [my
emphasis added], I will go through a lot of what you've posted to
demonstrate your cavalier attitude towards that commandment."
Now you try to use an unrelated post by me over two months later to
try to excuse your inability to do what you said you would do. There
clearly is no limit to the mental contortions you will put yourself
through to maintain your inflated sense of self-righteousness.
>
>
>> The same
>> "someone" who falsely fabricated me saying stuff about abortion
>
>Going by an undocumented claim by you, I had confused something you had written back in 2015,
>about a referendum on same-sex marriage in Ireland, [1] with having written it about a later (2018)
>referendum on abortion [2].
>
>And you didn't vote against it, according to that undocumented claim
misrepresentation back in July in this post:
https://groups.google.com/g/talk.origins/c/0XgjzJpuiMA/m/dfaZ3uXzBAAJ
Taking at face value your self-proclaimed expertise in Google Groups,
I assumed you would be able to find the original post. Clearly, as in
other areas, you have over-stated that expertise so here is the
original post:
https://groups.google.com/g/talk.origins/c/XBtzf2VIhMs/m/0ONUkDHX2IMJ
The irony is that that post was a direct reply to you.
>, you were merely *contemplating*
>a vote against it.
>
>[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Same-sex_marriage_in_the_Republic_of_Ireland
>[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abortion_in_the_Republic_of_Ireland
>
>Such lapses of memory by me are supposed to be worse than deliberate libel by you, eh?
becomes a lie when you let it stand after your error is pointed out to
you. Even now, you try to wriggle out of it by using weasel words like
"undocumented claim".
You also have a rather weird concept of what constitutes *libel* but
that is only one of many weird concepts that you have.
>
>
> >and
>> didn't bother to correct it when the source of his error was
>> identified.
>>
>> Sound familiar, Peter?
>
>Yes, you reinforced my main point in any case: your commitment to the Catholic Church's unchanging
>opposition to at least one of {same-sex marriage, abortion} is lukewarm at best.
my attitude to abortion when I have never expressed any opinions on
abortion reinforces justification for my Chez Watt nomination.
jillery
Sep 20, 2023, 8:05:43 AM9/20/23
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
On Tue, 19 Sep 2023 23:27:49 +0100, Martin Harran
<martin...@gmail.com> wrote:
>On Tue, 19 Sep 2023 11:49:42 -0700 (PDT), "peter2...@gmail.com"
><peter2...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>On Tuesday, September 19, 2023 at 1:20:41?PM UTC-4, Martin Harran wrote:
>>> On Tue, 19 Sep 2023 07:09:08 -0700 (PDT), "peter2...@gmail.com"
>>> <peter2...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> >In the category of weaponizing Chez Watt by taking things our of context
>>> >and indulging in capricious vilification ["delinquents"]:
>>> >
>>> >On Tuesday, September 19, 2023 at 3:35:41?AM UTC-4, Martin Harran wrote:
>>> >> In Category "Out of the mouths of babes and delinquents):
>>> >> >It is a sign of psychosis when someone confuses his private opinions
>>> >> >about people with reality, without having produced an iota
>>> >> >of evidence for his opinions.
>>> >
>>> >The "someone" is Ron O, who has been neatly pegged in the following
>>> >post on another thread:
>>
>>> Nah, I was thinking more of "someone" who accused me of being an
>>> apostate
>>
>>Gross misrepresentation noted.
>
>Glenn claimed: "Everything you [Martin Harran] say just adds supports
>to the fact that you are an atheist. It is why your lame crap is
>tolerated here."
>
>You replied: "Nah, being an apostate Catholic is adequate for that.".
>
>Feel free to identify my gross misrepresentation.
If this is this what you think qualifies as "a rational discussion",
<martin...@gmail.com> wrote:
>On Tue, 19 Sep 2023 11:49:42 -0700 (PDT), "peter2...@gmail.com"
><peter2...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>On Tuesday, September 19, 2023 at 1:20:41?PM UTC-4, Martin Harran wrote:
>>> On Tue, 19 Sep 2023 07:09:08 -0700 (PDT), "peter2...@gmail.com"
>>> <peter2...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> >In the category of weaponizing Chez Watt by taking things our of context
>>> >and indulging in capricious vilification ["delinquents"]:
>>> >
>>> >On Tuesday, September 19, 2023 at 3:35:41?AM UTC-4, Martin Harran wrote:
>>> >> In Category "Out of the mouths of babes and delinquents):
>>> >> >It is a sign of psychosis when someone confuses his private opinions
>>> >> >about people with reality, without having produced an iota
>>> >> >of evidence for his opinions.
>>> >
>>> >The "someone" is Ron O, who has been neatly pegged in the following
>>> >post on another thread:
>>
>>> Nah, I was thinking more of "someone" who accused me of being an
>>> apostate
>>
>>Gross misrepresentation noted.
>
>Glenn claimed: "Everything you [Martin Harran] say just adds supports
>to the fact that you are an atheist. It is why your lame crap is
>tolerated here."
>
>You replied: "Nah, being an apostate Catholic is adequate for that.".
>
>Feel free to identify my gross misrepresentation.
spare us yet another self-parody. Follow your own advice and killfile
him already.
JTEM is my hero
Oct 4, 2023, 3:15:58 PM10/4/23
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
Nut job, RonO wrote:
> We both know who the nut job is.
Yes you are!
> We both know who the nut job is.
Cowering behind sock puppets... pretending to have an
education... not even reading much less grasping any of
your cites...
> It is the one that has assiduously
> removed everything
you won't deal with this fact. And Darwin didn't believe in
evolution. He was a waste product. He was an overly
privileged "Fortune Son" who believed all the nonsense
that Stalin & Mao believed -- while they were arresting
anyone who taught evolution!
How did you incorporate these facts into your world
view? What did they change for you?
Only kidding. You're a freak who isn't mentally healthy
enough to deal with challenges to their dogma...
-- --
https://jtem.tumblr.com/post/727701377221083136
RonO
Oct 4, 2023, 6:40:58 PM10/4/23
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
the stupidity up.
Ron Okimoto
JTEM is my hero
Oct 5, 2023, 1:05:59 AM10/5/23
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
Sad nut job, RonO wrote:
> The saddest
Darwin was a raging jackass. No surprise that you relate...
Darwin discovered nothing. He thought of "Common Descent"
as family property. His grandfather was a big proponent and
in Darwin's tiny, useless mind that made him the inventor or
something...
Evolution, the concept, is extremely old -- THOUSANDS of
years old by many sources -- and not anything that Darwin
came up with. "Common Descent" means that any two
species had to evolve a great deal since that common
ancestor, else we wouldn't have both mice & men.
Seriously. This shouldn't be news to you.
If dogs and horses share a common ancestor, and this is
something proposed well into antiquity, then CLEARLY one
or both evolved...
Darwin's one and only "Theory" <sic> was called pangenesis,
and it was utter rubbish. Darwin thought if you worked out,
grew big muscles then you would pass those big muscles
onto your ancestors. The man was an idiot.
Darwin's beliefs were actually in line with those who
REJECTED evolution. The communist world under both
Stalin and Mao banned evolution -- the study/teaching of
same -- and instead adopted something so similar to
what Darwin believed that you could not possibly tell them
apart. You might identify different words but, it's not like
you'd know what they meant and could identify any
difference in intent/concept.
Abiogenesis isn't science. If something can't be tested,
if it can't be falsified then it isn't science. It's religion.
And, oh; you are a moron.
-- --
https://jtem.tumblr.com/post/728608394425073664
0 new messages