Reasoning with a Creationist

[jillery]

The following is a link to a Youtube video of T.O. alumnus Aron Ra
hosting a podcast with self-identified former atheist turned
Creationist Ptown:

<https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PV5wU6HtVzk>

It's remarkable how in 1.5 hours the video reprises much the same
PRATTs posted in T.O. over the years. One memorable part is where
Ptown repeatedly claims there are thousands of scientific facts in the
Bible, but when challenged could not identify one.

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

[RonO]

On 3/2/2023 10:16 PM, jillery wrote:
> The following is a link to a Youtube video of T.O. alumnus Aron Ra
> hosting a podcast with self-identified former atheist turned
> Creationist Ptown:
>
> <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PV5wU6HtVzk>
>
> It's remarkable how in 1.5 hours the video reprises much the same
> PRATTs posted in T.O. over the years. One memorable part is where
> Ptown repeatedly claims there are thousands of scientific facts in the
> Bible, but when challenged could not identify one.
>

How long has it been on TO since any creationist attempted to directly
defend something written in the Bible?

The premise of the ID creationist scam is that they are interested in
the science and not their religious beliefs. It has been quite a while
since anyone has wanted to be honest enough to put up what they really
wanted to defend.

Ron Okimoto

[Bob Casanova]

On Fri, 3 Mar 2023 05:10:10 -0600, the following appeared in
talk.origins, posted by RonO <roki...@cox.net>:

>On 3/2/2023 10:16 PM, jillery wrote:
>> The following is a link to a Youtube video of T.O. alumnus Aron Ra
>> hosting a podcast with self-identified former atheist turned
>> Creationist Ptown:
>>
>> <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PV5wU6HtVzk>
>>
>> It's remarkable how in 1.5 hours the video reprises much the same
>> PRATTs posted in T.O. over the years. One memorable part is where
>> Ptown repeatedly claims there are thousands of scientific facts in the
>> Bible, but when challenged could not identify one.
>>
>
>How long has it been on TO since any creationist attempted to directly
>defend something written in the Bible?
>

Does "defend" include the flat statement that it's the Word
of God, and thus true by definition? Or is only a logical
argument based on known facts (i.e., a scientific argument)
acceptable?

Until agreement is reached on the basic meaning of terms no
rational discussion is possible, which is why IMHO each
talks past the other.

>
>The premise of the ID creationist scam is that they are interested in
>the science and not their religious beliefs. It has been quite a while
>since anyone has wanted to be honest enough to put up what they really
>wanted to defend.
>
>Ron Okimoto

--

Bob C.

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

- Isaac Asimov

[jillery]

On Fri, 3 Mar 2023 05:10:10 -0600, RonO <roki...@cox.net> wrote:

>On 3/2/2023 10:16 PM, jillery wrote:
>> The following is a link to a Youtube video of T.O. alumnus Aron Ra
>> hosting a podcast with self-identified former atheist turned
>> Creationist Ptown:
>>
>> <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PV5wU6HtVzk>
>>
>> It's remarkable how in 1.5 hours the video reprises much the same
>> PRATTs posted in T.O. over the years. One memorable part is where
>> Ptown repeatedly claims there are thousands of scientific facts in the
>> Bible, but when challenged could not identify one.
>>
>
>How long has it been on TO since any creationist attempted to directly
>defend something written in the Bible?

If the Youtube description is accurate, Ptown attempted to defend the
Bible just 6 days ago. In fact, Creationists regularly attempt to
defend the Bible, and they claim to do so successfully. Aron Ra is
just one Youtuber who has made quite a career out of refuting such
claims. And there are even more bloggers and science authors who do
so in that medium.

>The premise of the ID creationist scam is that they are interested in
>the science and not their religious beliefs. It has been quite a while
>since anyone has wanted to be honest enough to put up what they really
>wanted to defend.
>
>Ron Okimoto

The confusion here is Creationists have a very different meaning of
"directly defend" than you do. Their meanings are very much like
those of R.Dean et al, which don't even try to connect the dots
between their claims and their evidence for them.

[RonO]

On 3/3/2023 10:09 AM, Bob Casanova wrote:
> On Fri, 3 Mar 2023 05:10:10 -0600, the following appeared in
> talk.origins, posted by RonO <roki...@cox.net>:
>
>> On 3/2/2023 10:16 PM, jillery wrote:
>>> The following is a link to a Youtube video of T.O. alumnus Aron Ra
>>> hosting a podcast with self-identified former atheist turned
>>> Creationist Ptown:
>>>
>>> <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PV5wU6HtVzk>
>>>
>>> It's remarkable how in 1.5 hours the video reprises much the same
>>> PRATTs posted in T.O. over the years. One memorable part is where
>>> Ptown repeatedly claims there are thousands of scientific facts in the
>>> Bible, but when challenged could not identify one.
>>>
>>
>> How long has it been on TO since any creationist attempted to directly
>> defend something written in the Bible?
>>
> Does "defend" include the flat statement that it's the Word
> of God, and thus true by definition? Or is only a logical
> argument based on known facts (i.e., a scientific argument)
> acceptable?

Most of the ID perps understand that the Bible isn't literally the "word
of God" and thus true by definition. They may think that it isn't
false, but they know that their interpretation of the Bible is suspect
and has been suspect for centuries. Look at Behe's claims that
biological evolution is an essential aspect of the creation, but his
notion of descent with modification isn't mentioned in the Bible.

The creationists who claim to now be IDiots over at Reason to Believe
claim that it has been their interpretation of the Bible that has been
flawed, and that science supports what is actually written in the Bible.
They have been spending decades trying to reconcile the science with
what was written in the Bible.

>
> Until agreement is reached on the basic meaning of terms no
> rational discussion is possible, which is why IMHO each
> talks past the other.

It is obviouisly a variable interpretation issue among creationists, and
each case would be different. The ICR has a much different
interpretation of the Bible than most if the ID perps at the Discovery
Institute.

Ron Okimoto

[RonO]

On 3/4/2023 4:33 AM, jillery wrote:
> On Fri, 3 Mar 2023 05:10:10 -0600, RonO <roki...@cox.net> wrote:
>
>> On 3/2/2023 10:16 PM, jillery wrote:
>>> The following is a link to a Youtube video of T.O. alumnus Aron Ra
>>> hosting a podcast with self-identified former atheist turned
>>> Creationist Ptown:
>>>
>>> <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PV5wU6HtVzk>
>>>
>>> It's remarkable how in 1.5 hours the video reprises much the same
>>> PRATTs posted in T.O. over the years. One memorable part is where
>>> Ptown repeatedly claims there are thousands of scientific facts in the
>>> Bible, but when challenged could not identify one.
>>>
>>
>> How long has it been on TO since any creationist attempted to directly
>> defend something written in the Bible?
>
>
> If the Youtube description is accurate, Ptown attempted to defend the
> Bible just 6 days ago. In fact, Creationists regularly attempt to
> defend the Bible, and they claim to do so successfully. Aron Ra is
> just one Youtuber who has made quite a career out of refuting such
> claims. And there are even more bloggers and science authors who do
> so in that medium.

How long has it been on TO. The last time that I recall was Eddie the
JW that put up the current JW "7 day" creation notions without knowing
that they had changed from what they had when they were defending
Scientific Creationism back in the 1970's and 80's. The ICR likely had
JW members at that time and accomodated them by claiming that the earth
was likely less than 50,000 years old when their original claims were
less than 20,000. The JW switched to old earth and now the ICR is back
to their less than 20,000 years claims. They used to claim that each
day was 7,000 years long, but now each day could be billions of years long.

So Eddie's attempt blew up in his face and he couldn't defend the
change, nor some of the weird claims like the sun and moon were no
longer created the day after plants were created on Earth. The Reason
to Believe IDiots seem to have this same altered scenario.

>
>
>> The premise of the ID creationist scam is that they are interested in
>> the science and not their religious beliefs. It has been quite a while
>> since anyone has wanted to be honest enough to put up what they really
>> wanted to defend.
>>
>> Ron Okimoto
>
>
> The confusion here is Creationists have a very different meaning of
> "directly defend" than you do. Their meanings are very much like
> those of R.Dean et al, which don't even try to connect the dots
> between their claims and their evidence for them.
>

R.Dean has specifically stated that he is not trying to defend his
religious beliefs even though that is obviously what he is doing. He
wants to separate the gap denial from his religious beliefs even though
it is his way of defending his religious beliefs. That is why he can
put up gap denial that doesn't fit in with his biblical interpretations
of how things should be.

Dean is no different than the majority of IDiots. Look at the Top Six
god-of-the-gaps "evidence" put up by the ID perps. There aren't very
many IDiots that want to believe in the designer that fits into those
gaps because that god isn't biblical enough for most of them. Even
MarkE had that issue when he figured out that he didn't want to believe
in the god that fit into his origin of life gap. Even though there
aren't very many creationists that want to understand how their designer
fits into those gaps they are the same gap denial arguments that the
scientific creationists resorted to when they figured out that there
wasn't any creation science that they wanted to accomplish. We know
that the IDiots don't like them because #1 (the Big Bang) is one of the
science topics along with biological evolution that the iDiots want to
remove from high school science standards. It may be one of the best
gap denial arguments that they can come up with, but they don't want
their kids understanding anything about it.

The Top Six literally killed creationism here on TO. Basically none of
the IDiots still posting wanted to believe in the designer that fit into
those gaps. It took the ID perps over 20 years to put up their best
evidence in their order of occurrence and there aren't any IDiots
willing to defend them nor do anything positive with them. Not even the
ID perps are trying to use their top six evidences for anything positive.

Ron Okimoto

[Bob Casanova]

On Sat, 4 Mar 2023 07:29:21 -0600, the following appeared in

OK, but your statement was about creationists, not IDiots.
All creationists are not IDiots, just as all IDiots are not
creationists (or so some claim, for example Peter the Grate.
And no, that's not misspelled.). And I *certainly *have*
seen creationists, here and elsewhere, claim that the Bible
is the inerrant Word of God.

>
>The creationists who claim to now be IDiots over at Reason to Believe
>claim that it has been their interpretation of the Bible that has been
>flawed, and that science supports what is actually written in the Bible.
> They have been spending decades trying to reconcile the science with
>what was written in the Bible.
>
>>
>> Until agreement is reached on the basic meaning of terms no
>> rational discussion is possible, which is why IMHO each
>> talks past the other.
>
>It is obviouisly a variable interpretation issue among creationists, and
>each case would be different. The ICR has a much different
>interpretation of the Bible than most if the ID perps at the Discovery
>Institute.
>

As I noted, and not only among creationists, which is why I
stand by my comment.

>>>
>>> The premise of the ID creationist scam is that they are interested in
>>> the science and not their religious beliefs. It has been quite a while
>>> since anyone has wanted to be honest enough to put up what they really
>>> wanted to defend.
>>>
>>> Ron Okimoto

[RonO]

I was referring to the usually anti evolution creationists that we have
always had on TO and Biblical IDiot type creationists that include the
IDiots at the Discovery Institute and Reason to believe as well as
Nyikos no matter how he has to lie about the subject. Nyikos was one of
the first creationists on TO that supported the ID scam before his
vacation at the turn of the century. He has obfuscated about the issue
and lied about it. He just doesn't want to be a creationists even
though he is one by the definition of creationist that existed before we
had scientific creationism and having the young earth creationists take
center stage. A creationist is just anyone that believes in a creator.
It is that definition that matters for the ID current ID scam, and it
just happens that most of the IDiot support base are the same YEC that
supported the scientific creationists. There are biblical creationists
that include all the ID perps at the Discovery Institute. I used to use
Kalk as a Hindu creationist, but he claimed that it was all an act and
he never claimed to be hindu, but that doesn't mean that other hindu are
not creationists. We've had anti evolution hindu post to TO in the
past, and they were anti evolution because they are creationists.

>>
>> The creationists who claim to now be IDiots over at Reason to Believe
>> claim that it has been their interpretation of the Bible that has been
>> flawed, and that science supports what is actually written in the Bible.
>> They have been spending decades trying to reconcile the science with
>> what was written in the Bible.
>>
>>>
>>> Until agreement is reached on the basic meaning of terms no
>>> rational discussion is possible, which is why IMHO each
>>> talks past the other.
>>
>> It is obviouisly a variable interpretation issue among creationists, and
>> each case would be different. The ICR has a much different
>> interpretation of the Bible than most if the ID perps at the Discovery
>> Institute.
>>
> As I noted, and not only among creationists, which is why I
> stand by my comment.

As I noted most of the IDiot creationists are Biblical creationists.
They are IDiots because they want to believe what is written in the
Bible, but as is the case with most ID Perps at the Discovery Institute,
these Biblical creationists have understood that a lot of the Bible is
not the written word of God, at least, how it has been traditionally
interpreted. We still have geocentric Catholics even though most
Christian denominations (including most Catholics) have given up on that
interpretation of the Bibble for centuries. Most of the Bible was
written by people that borrowed their cosmology from their neighbors who
had been civilized longer. It was a flat earth, geocentric, and young
earth cosmology where some god could open the firmament above and let
the water fall as rain. Most of the ID perps are old earth
creationists, and they consider flat earth creationists and geocentric
creationists as being myth Pagano was a geocentric IDiot, but wasn't a
flat earther and he realized that the firmament hadn't been taken
seriously since Kepler messed with the notion of his crystal spheres.

The IDiots at Reason to Believe want to believe that the Bible is the
written word of God, and they claim that the Bible is inerrant, and that
everything can be reinterpreted so that the written word is compatible
with what we know about nature.

They aren't doing a very good job and don't seem to have a very large
following.

Ron Okimoto

[Bob Casanova]

On Sat, 4 Mar 2023 19:32:05 -0600, the following appeared in

I understand your points, and I don't dispute them, but my
comments remain unchanged. And unrefuted.

[JTEM is my hero]

Bob Casanova wrote:

[...]

Wait. You mean to tell me that you shit stain actually believe
that you can "Reason?"

Lady, you recite the gospels!

You wouldn't know "Reason" if it humped your leg.




-- --

https://jtem.tumblr.com/post/710781751785619456

[jillery]

The point isn't that they fail at defending the Bible. The point is
they think they are successfully defending the Bible. Your denial of
their actions is ironically similar to their denial of science.

[RonO]

What they are failing at is their dishonest means of defending their
religious beliefs. Did you go to the video of the Meyer and Shermer
discussion? Just like Dean, Meyer claimed that the top six gap denial
arguments had nothing to do with his religious beliefs. Meyer didn't
want to understand how the Top Six related to his religious beliefs all
he was using them for was the denial. It should be no secret that Meyer
and all the other IDiots are lying to themselves about it and that they
are IDiots in order to defend their religious beliefs. Just look at how
they started to bring up their religious beliefs after Kitzmiller, and
they started their religious web sites. Just a couple months ago they
had an article on what kind of Christian Bechly was. They started
wrapping themselves in their Christianity as some weird defense of the
bogus bait and switch scam that had been going on for years.

They don't fail at defending the bible so much as they lie about their
attempts to defend the bible. It is sort of secondary that they fail at
defending the bible. What they obviously understand is that lying about
what they are actually doing is the only way that they think that they
can defend their religious beliefs. Guys like Dean and Meyers claim
that they aren't defending their religious beliefs, but that is
obviously a lie.

Ron Okimoto

[jillery]

To the contrary, they are very successful at dishonestly defending
their religious beliefs, in contrast to honestly defending their
religious beliefs. Again, the problem is they think they are being
honest; it's not dishonest to lie in defense of God.

> Did you go to the video of the Meyer and Shermer
>discussion?

You didn't cite any video of "the Meyer and Shermer discussion".
Perhaps you meant to cite this one:

<https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=srqQ8sx0DnE>

>Just like Dean, Meyer claimed that the top six gap denial
>arguments had nothing to do with his religious beliefs. Meyer didn't
>want to understand how the Top Six related to his religious beliefs all
>he was using them for was the denial. It should be no secret that Meyer
>and all the other IDiots are lying to themselves about it and that they
>are IDiots in order to defend their religious beliefs. Just look at how
>they started to bring up their religious beliefs after Kitzmiller, and
>they started their religious web sites. Just a couple months ago they
>had an article on what kind of Christian Bechly was. They started
>wrapping themselves in their Christianity as some weird defense of the
>bogus bait and switch scam that had been going on for years.
>
>They don't fail at defending the bible so much as they lie about their
>attempts to defend the bible. It is sort of secondary that they fail at
>defending the bible. What they obviously understand is that lying about
>what they are actually doing is the only way that they think that they
>can defend their religious beliefs. Guys like Dean and Meyers claim
>that they aren't defending their religious beliefs, but that is
>obviously a lie.
>
>Ron Okimoto

[RonO]

If they had been successful at it things would be very different from
what they are. It is sad that they seem to have taken to heart "the
good lie for God" stupidity that was made up to denigrate Christianity.

>
>
>> Did you go to the video of the Meyer and Shermer
>> discussion?
>
>
> You didn't cite any video of "the Meyer and Shermer discussion".
> Perhaps you meant to cite this one:
>
> <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=srqQ8sx0DnE>

I was referring to this video and the fact that I put it up on TO a
while ago, and you should have had access to it.

I don't know why Shermer let Meyer get away with putting up the god of
the gaps denial as disembodied bits of denial. Shermer even notes that,
that is all ID seems to have been in the opinion of it's critics, but he
let Meyer continue to do it. Meyer obviously doesn't want to do
anything positive with the Top Six gap denial "evidence" for his God
hypothesis, and he definitely did not use the Top Six to create some
type of coherent god hypothesis. Meyer even claims that he doesn't want
to use the junk in any way to relate to his religious beliefs, and the
stupid book is titled the God Hypothesis.

Ron Okimoto

[jillery]

"What things are now" is that Creationist groups are very successful
at manipulating the media, subverting legal limitations, and creating
a unified political front to impose their dogma on the entire USA.
They form the base of Trump's toadies, and his SCOTUS appointees are
doing a great job of creating legal cover for Creationists.

Here's another example from Aron Ra of Creationists successfully lying
to defend their religious beliefs:

<https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8Z2d538UB08>

Short version: "Child Evangelism Fellowship" organized dozens of
"Good News Clubs", as a means of evangelizing to elementary school
children after school in public school facilities. The "After-School
Satan Club" provided a sectarian alternative to it. The video shows
multiple Creationists lying in order to stop ASSC.

>It is sad that they seem to have taken to heart "the
>good lie for God" stupidity that was made up to denigrate Christianity.
>
>>> Did you go to the video of the Meyer and Shermer
>>> discussion?
>>
>>
>> You didn't cite any video of "the Meyer and Shermer discussion".
>> Perhaps you meant to cite this one:
>>
>> <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=srqQ8sx0DnE>
>
>I was referring to this video and the fact that I put it up on TO a
>while ago, and you should have had access to it.

Perhaps you did some time ago in a different topic, but it's not one
you should expect anybody to recall uncited.

>I don't know why Shermer let Meyer get away with putting up the god of
>the gaps denial as disembodied bits of denial. Shermer even notes that,
>that is all ID seems to have been in the opinion of it's critics, but he
>let Meyer continue to do it. Meyer obviously doesn't want to do
>anything positive with the Top Six gap denial "evidence" for his God
>hypothesis, and he definitely did not use the Top Six to create some
>type of coherent god hypothesis. Meyer even claims that he doesn't want
>to use the junk in any way to relate to his religious beliefs, and the
>stupid book is titled the God Hypothesis.

Your comments above show how Meyer lied about his intentions, and by
so doing, successfully "got away with it". And that proves my point.

>Ron Okimoto
>
>>
>>
>>> Just like Dean, Meyer claimed that the top six gap denial
>>> arguments had nothing to do with his religious beliefs. Meyer didn't
>>> want to understand how the Top Six related to his religious beliefs all
>>> he was using them for was the denial. It should be no secret that Meyer
>>> and all the other IDiots are lying to themselves about it and that they
>>> are IDiots in order to defend their religious beliefs. Just look at how
>>> they started to bring up their religious beliefs after Kitzmiller, and
>>> they started their religious web sites. Just a couple months ago they
>>> had an article on what kind of Christian Bechly was. They started
>>> wrapping themselves in their Christianity as some weird defense of the
>>> bogus bait and switch scam that had been going on for years.
>>>
>>> They don't fail at defending the bible so much as they lie about their
>>> attempts to defend the bible. It is sort of secondary that they fail at
>>> defending the bible. What they obviously understand is that lying about
>>> what they are actually doing is the only way that they think that they
>>> can defend their religious beliefs. Guys like Dean and Meyers claim
>>> that they aren't defending their religious beliefs, but that is
>>> obviously a lie.
>>>
>>> Ron Okimoto
>>

[RonO]

If you hadn't noticed there are only two states with switch scam
legislation or State school board switch scam nonsense. That is all
that they have. All the others never bent over for the switch scam or
have dropped the issue. The last creationist group that wanted to teach
IDiocy in the public schools had the bait and switch run on them back in
2017 at the same time that the ID perps were putting up the Top Six.
Then the ID perps had the nerve to complain that the Utah creationist
rubes hadn't bent over for the switch scam and dropped the issue. There
hasn't been another group if IDiot/creationists since that have wanted
to teach the junk in the public schools.

The only two states (Texas and Louisiana) that still have the switch
scam up had the bait and switch run on them again back in 2013. They
both wanted to use the switch scam as an excuse to put IDiocy into
textbook supplements. Louisiana was stupid enough to call it
intelligent design and creationism. The ID perps had to run the bait
and switch on the rubes again, and remind them that the switch scam had
nothing to do with ID nor creationism. It has been 10 years since that
fiasco, and neither Texas nor Louisiana have tried to implement the
switch scam at the state level since.

ID creationism is pretty much an abject failiure. The ID perps at the
Discovery Institute have been the most effective deterrent for getting
the creationist junk taught in the public schools for over 20 years.
Every single time that creationist rubes have wanted to teach the ID
science in the public schools the ID perps have run in the bait and
switch and told the rubes that they really didn't want to do that, but
instead teach the wonderful obfuscation and denial switch scam that the
ID perps tell the rubes has nothing to do with IDiocy nor creationism.

Creationist rubes do not listen to the science side of the issue, but
they do listen to the ID perps, especially, since it cost the Dover
Rubes a million dollars when they tried to teach the creationist junk
anyway in spite of the Discovery Institute's attempts to run the bait
and switch on them. The Dover creationist rubes didn't want the switch
scam, and the rest is history.

I don't know how you can imagine that there has been any level of
success for the ID scam. The Discovery Institute put the NCSE out of
business and they had to take up subjects like global warming just to be
relevant.

>
> Here's another example from Aron Ra of Creationists successfully lying
> to defend their religious beliefs:
>
> <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8Z2d538UB08>
>
> Short version: "Child Evangelism Fellowship" organized dozens of
> "Good News Clubs", as a means of evangelizing to elementary school
> children after school in public school facilities. The "After-School
> Satan Club" provided a sectarian alternative to it. The video shows
> multiple Creationists lying in order to stop ASSC.

You measure success in what way? Isn't it laughable? You have got to
be joking.

Just try to understand what scientific creationism and the ID scam
wanted to accomplish, and then look around to see what was accomplshed.

>
>
>> It is sad that they seem to have taken to heart "the
>> good lie for God" stupidity that was made up to denigrate Christianity.
>>
>>>> Did you go to the video of the Meyer and Shermer
>>>> discussion?
>>>
>>>
>>> You didn't cite any video of "the Meyer and Shermer discussion".
>>> Perhaps you meant to cite this one:
>>>
>>> <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=srqQ8sx0DnE>
>>
>> I was referring to this video and the fact that I put it up on TO a
>> while ago, and you should have had access to it.
>
>
> Perhaps you did some time ago in a different topic, but it's not one
> you should expect anybody to recall uncited.

It was a thread specifically about that video, and you obviously knew
what I was talking about because you put up the right video. I should
have given a proper link, but I didn't think that I had to, and I was
correct.

>
>
>> I don't know why Shermer let Meyer get away with putting up the god of
>> the gaps denial as disembodied bits of denial. Shermer even notes that,
>> that is all ID seems to have been in the opinion of it's critics, but he
>> let Meyer continue to do it. Meyer obviously doesn't want to do
>> anything positive with the Top Six gap denial "evidence" for his God
>> hypothesis, and he definitely did not use the Top Six to create some
>> type of coherent god hypothesis. Meyer even claims that he doesn't want
>> to use the junk in any way to relate to his religious beliefs, and the
>> stupid book is titled the God Hypothesis.
>
>
> Your comments above show how Meyer lied about his intentions, and by
> so doing, successfully "got away with it". And that proves my point.

ID has been pretty much a total failure. What happened to the IDiots
that used to post to TO. What did Bill finally claim? What did Kalk
finally claim? Glenn and Pagano just stopped posting, and so did
Nyikos. It turned out that no one wanted to support the ID scam after
the Top Six came out. Glenn's last big effort was when he posted 4 or 5
threads about one of the Top Six, which was a stupid thing to do since
he had been running from the Top Six for half a decade. He likely
realized that he really didn't care about anything except the denial, at
least, he didn't care about it enough to understand the denial that he
was posting. Some of them were able to lie to themselves for years, but
that couldn't last forever. Dean's excuse has been that he can't
remember, so he keeps repeating the failure.

Your idea of success is tragically deficient. Really, what has the NCSE
had to do for the last 20 years. Their last major effort was likely
Florida in 2009 when they sent a team to the state when 9 county school
board wanted to teach ID, and there was a teach ID bill in the
legislature, but they didn't have to go there. The Discovery Institute
sent their own team down there to run the bait and switch, and the issue
died. It wasn't because of the NCSE it was because the ID perps who
sold them the teach ID scam told them not to do it, and held Kitzmiller
over their heads, and the IDiot rubes refused to take the switch scam
from the lying losers. That is why the issue died in Florida.

Ron Okimoto

[jillery]

So you finally admit they haven't stopped. Was that so hard?

[RonO]

I never said that they hadn't stopped trying. They have obviously been
an abject failure. I am the one that keeps putting up the teach ID scam
propaganda that they put out after Dover and have updated about every 3
years since. They may still claim to have the ID science to teach in
the public schools, but the bait and switch has always gone down on any
hapless creationist rubes that have believed them. What has the NCSE
had to do for the last decade? Pretty much nothing, and that is because
the ID perps are their own most effective control. They don't want to
suffer another embarrassing showing like Dover, so they have made sure
to crush any attempt of the rubes to actually implement what they are
selling.

The creationist rubes do not like the switch scam. If they can't tell
the kids why they are trying to lie to them about reality, there isn't
much point in lying to them. The creationist rubes have found out that
they don't want to teach the kids enough science so that they will know
what needs to be denied and obfuscated.

Look at the Big Bang (#1 of the Top Six best evidences for IDiocy
creationism). The Big Bang is one of the science topics that states
like Kansas and Texas considered dropping out of the science standards
along with biological evolution. The Kansas creationists actually
succeeded in dropping topics like the Big Bang, biological evolution,
isotopes in chemistry, and age of the earth. The Texas IDiots only
proposed doing it, but rational and competent people kept them from
implementing. The last thing that the creationist want is for the kids
to understand enough about the topics to know what should be denied and
have smoke blown over it.

The switch scam is described by Meyer as "teaching more about biological
evolution". What he means is that the kids can be taught what they
should know about it so that they can add the denial and obfuscation,
but ultimately the kids would be taught about what they wanted to
obfuscate and deny. IDiot type creationists don't want their kids to
learn anything about biological evolution.

Ron Okimoto

[jillery]

On Wed, 8 Mar 2023 05:34:52 -0600, RonO <roki...@cox.net> wrote:

<snip for focus>

>>> Just try to understand what scientific creationism and the ID scam
>>> wanted to accomplish, and then look around to see what was accomplshed.
>>
>>
>>
>> So you finally admit they haven't stopped. Was that so hard?
>
>I never said that they hadn't stopped trying.

To refresh your convenient amnesia:
********************************

How long has it been on TO since any creationist attempted to directly
defend something written in the Bible?

*********************************

[RonO]

On 3/8/2023 6:12 AM, jillery wrote:
> On Wed, 8 Mar 2023 05:34:52 -0600, RonO <roki...@cox.net> wrote:
>
> <snip for focus>
>
>>>> Just try to understand what scientific creationism and the ID scam
>>>> wanted to accomplish, and then look around to see what was accomplshed.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> So you finally admit they haven't stopped. Was that so hard?
>>
>> I never said that they hadn't stopped trying.
>
>
> To refresh your convenient amnesia:
> ********************************
> How long has it been on TO since any creationist attempted to directly
> defend something written in the Bible?
> *********************************
>

The whole point of the ID scam was to try to defend their religious
beliefs by pretending that they weren't defending their religious
beliefs. The scientific creationist supporters used to always put up
parts of the Bible and try to defend it. IDiots only did it when they
screwed up and forgot what the ID scam was about. The creationist in
the video likely isn't an IDiot. He is likely just a plain old biblical
creationist, but hasn't bothered to understand much about the Bible.

The ID perps are obviously still running the ID creationist scam, but
how long has it been since any TO creationist tried to defend what was
written in the Bible? Kalk, Bill and Glenn have probably been
pretending that they weren't defending the Bible for the last 20 years.
Kalk would quote the Vedas instead, but it turned out that he was just a
plain biblical creationist. Glenn started on TO defending the usual
scientific creationist nonsense, but gave up on that after a couple of
years and turned into the post and run, one liner denial type
creationist that he has been for quite a while. Bill used to claim that
the ID science existed somewhere, but I don't think that he ever tried
to defend his biblical beliefs. Mostly, IDiots are just into denial and
never try to make any positive arguments.

Ron Okimoto