Larry and Wikipedia go at it again

[*Hemidactylus*]

Larry Moran expresses his frustrations trying to correct wikipedia on yet
another article:

https://sandwalk.blogspot.com/2022/07/wikipedia-blocks-any-mention-of-junk.html

Athel is in the comments showing support. Good on him!

[Glenn]

He reminds me of:

'What half a shrimp cocktail can do"

http://geraldschroeder.com/wordpress/free-will/

But there the analogy ends.

[Athel Cornish-Bowden]

Yes. Please add to the discussion!


--
Athel -- French and British, living mainly in England until 1987.

[Glenn]

On Sunday, July 31, 2022 at 12:15:06 AM UTC-7, Athel Cornish-Bowden wrote:
> On 2022-07-30 20:35:51 +0000, *Hemidactylus* said:
>
> > Larry Moran expresses his frustrations trying to correct wikipedia on yet
> > another article:
> >
> > https://sandwalk.blogspot.com/2022/07/wikipedia-blocks-any-mention-of-junk.html
> >
> > Athel is in the comments showing support. Good on him!
> Yes. Please add to the discussion!
>

That editor appears to have more common sense than all of you.

This should cook your noodles more:

"The term occurs mainly in popular science and in a colloquial way in scientific publications, and it has been suggested that its connotations may have delayed interest in the biological functions of non-coding DNA.[51]
The term "junk DNA" may provoke a strong a priori assumption of total non-functionality and some have recommended using more neutral terminology such as "non-coding DNA".[47] However, as documented above, there are substantial fractions of non-coding DNA that have well-defined functions such as regulation, non-coding genes, origins of replication, telomeres, centromeres, and chromatin organizing sites (SARs). Junk DNA, on the other hand, is DNA that has no function (see above) so there seems to be a conflict in equating junk DNA and non-coding DNA. "

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-coding_DNA#Junk_DNA

Hopefully it will add to your constipation.

[Lawyer Daggett]

There is a serious problem with equating junk DNA with non-Coding DNA. That's why only dilletantes would equate them,
or even be confused about how ill-informed anybody would be to do so. People who make such a superficial error need
a metaphorical slap in the face because they are ignoring things known for over 50 years.

[Glenn]

With such a broad brush stroke, you get many fellow evolutionists all yucky.

[Lawyer Daggett]

Broad? Not really. Tell you what, you love to read science so here's a link for you
to read just the beginning. It's from 1971 about suppressor genes.
https://www.jstor.org/stable/43423774

It clearly talks about tRNA genes. These genes are mapped to regions of DNA.
It's even known how they work. It's the type of thing that was in all the undergraduate
text books for biology, biochemistry, and genetics. tRNA genes are non-coding genes
as non-coding means the gene doesn't code for a protein. So the idea that any
qualified biologist would equate non-coding DNA to junk DNA is flatly ludicrous.

There's more of course. There's so much that used to be taught about how we
discovered suppressor genes because, at the time, it was a very elegant series
of genetics experiments involving gene mapping, conditionally lethal mutations,
coupled together with similarly elegant analytical biochemistry. The combinations
of experiments, their design, the interpretation of the data, subsequent experimental
design and inferences from results were part of the curriculum to teach science.
It was to teach both the results of the experiments but also the natural of experimental
design and as critically that key connection between hypothesis construction and
invention of ways to challenge a hypothesis.

This synthesis was a key part of essentially every biologist's education.

By the mid 80, many places were switching emphasis to more recent discoveries
as part of a similar practicum but targeted more towards things like discovering
the players involved in, and the mechanism of DNA replication, repair, or transcription.
This was in order to better emphasize more modern laboratory techniques.
Nevertheless, everyone certainly knew about non-coding genes involved in these
processes, and nobody thought of those genes as junk DNA.

In much more recent times, in many places there is a sad shift away from the
experimentalist focus. This is driven by the tyranny of the focus on the pre-med
student who just needs to memorize lists of facts to pass their various tests.
But even the pre-meds still learn about non-coding genes. So really, there simply
isn't any excuse for a biologist to do anything as bone-headed stupid as assert
that all non-coding DNA is junk DNA.

[Glenn]

On Thursday, August 4, 2022 at 2:10:11 PM UTC-7, Lawyer Daggett wrote:
> On Thursday, August 4, 2022 at 4:15:11 PM UTC-4, Glenn wrote:
> > On Tuesday, August 2, 2022 at 8:50:08 AM UTC-7, Lawyer Daggett wrote:
> > > On Sunday, July 31, 2022 at 4:55:06 AM UTC-4, Glenn wrote:
> > > > On Sunday, July 31, 2022 at 12:15:06 AM UTC-7, Athel Cornish-Bowden wrote:
> > > > > On 2022-07-30 20:35:51 +0000, *Hemidactylus* said:
> > > > >
> > > > > > Larry Moran expresses his frustrations trying to correct wikipedia on yet
> > > > > > another article:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > https://sandwalk.blogspot.com/2022/07/wikipedia-blocks-any-mention-of-junk.html
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Athel is in the comments showing support. Good on him!
> > > > > Yes. Please add to the discussion!
> > > > >
> > > > That editor appears to have more common sense than all of you.
> > > >
> > > > This should cook your noodles more:
> > > >
> > > > "The term occurs mainly in popular science and in a colloquial way in scientific publications, and it has been suggested that its connotations may have delayed interest in the biological functions of non-coding DNA.[51]
> > > > The term "junk DNA" may provoke a strong a priori assumption of total non-functionality and some have recommended using more neutral terminology such as "non-coding DNA".[47] However, as documented above, there are substantial fractions of non-coding DNA that have well-defined functions such as regulation, non-coding genes, origins of replication, telomeres, centromeres, and chromatin organizing sites (SARs). Junk DNA, on the other hand, is DNA that has no function (see above) so there seems to be a conflict in equating junk DNA and non-coding DNA. "
> > > >
> > > > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-coding_DNA#Junk_DNA
> > > >
> > > > Hopefully it will add to your constipation.
> > > There is a serious problem with equating junk DNA with non-Coding DNA. That's why only dilletantes would equate them,
> > > or even be confused about how ill-informed anybody would be to do so. People who make such a superficial error need
> > > a metaphorical slap in the face because they are ignoring things known for over 50 years.
> > With such a broad brush stroke, you get many fellow evolutionists all yucky.
> Broad? Not really. Tell you what, you love to read science so here's a link for you
> to read just the beginning.

Nah. The "they" you speak so highly of that need a slap in the face include evolutionists, likely an uneven share to boot. Your intent was clearly to implicate "creationists", and me.
IDers are mainly claiming that there is no junk dna, and not distinguishing what it includes.
That's what I meant by a broad brush stroke. It's really funny. I especially appreciate the characterization you used, "dilletantes".

[Lawyer Daggett]

No Glenn, that was not my intent. I frankly had no idea you held a belief that there is no junk DNA.
But I don't make a study of your beliefs. And I don't really care much about naked beliefs anyway.
Now if you wanted to attempt to mount a scientific argument for there being no junk DNA, I
might read it, and I might address its virtues and vices, yet experience does not suggest that
you will craft such an argument in a cogent way. Perhaps you will cite a few contextless quotes and
then be evasive about your intent, but not actually put forward a thesis. So let's not bother with that.

My point was not at all to address you, or creationists, or IDers. My point was to address a claim,
usually a rather amorphous claim that some unspecified "they" claimed that all non-coding DNA
was junk DNA. There's usually some implication that it was some group of scientists who were
advocating for the very existence of junk DNA that held this strange notion. I am attacking that
claim about this mysterious "they".

The people who make this claim are an odd bunch. Most of those I've seen tend to come at the
whole thing from somewhere other than biology, often a computational arena. To me, their knowledge
of biology is typically very thin and very incomplete. And/or, they are self-taught and had a
fool for a teacher.

[Glenn]

I said nothing about evolutionists denying the existence of junkDNA. My intent was to show that IDers and creationists don't insist junk dna is simply non-coding dna, they usually deny that there is any or much junk dna.
As to your intent and what you study, study this obvious sarcasm; 'Tell you what, you love to read science so here's a link for you to read just the beginning."

So you've been at this so long that you believe your own bullshit?

[Glenn]

Oops, overlooked a doozy. You didn't say "I frankly had no idea whether you held a belief that there is no junk DNA'. You didn't include "whether". Apparently you saw a confession somewhere in my post. Did you ever consider trying your hand at being a professional magician at some high point in your life?

[Lawyer Daggett]

This is incoherent. You quote my words and then say I didn't include the very words you quote.

Perhaps the solution is that you somehow interpreted my post about a particular quote you
offered up to be me addressing you and your beliefs. It wasn't. It clearly wasn't. I was addressing
the quote.

It's also weird because I wasn't originally addressing a belief that there is no junk DNA. In fact,
I don't recall such a belief being part of the thread until you oddly introduced such beliefs in
response to me addressing the weird claim about 'all non-coding DNA being junk DNA'.

I'm also adding that I don't presume that quotes you offer up represent your beliefs. I seldom
understand why you offer up the quotes you mine. However, I do recall you disavowing yourself
of believing in the things you offer up. I've said before, and I stand by, a belief that you often
don't understand the context and meaning of things you cut and paste. While in some ways
that's a tangent, it's part of why I didn't presume anything about what you believe, and why I
wasn't addressing some presumed belief of yours. I was addressing the generic claim that
some significant group of biologists believed that all non-coding DNA was junk.

I explained, at some length, why that generic claim is nonsense, and it isn't something that
competent biologists ever believed. Note that such a belief or claim is disjoint from people
asserting that there is no such thing as junk DNA (other than such an assertion is also nonsense).
Also note that you simply deleted that exposition. Maybe if you read it(past tense), you
wouldn't have been confused and thought I was addressing you.

Let me repeat in other words. I wasn't addressing you, or your beliefs. I was addressing a
claim you offered up in a quote. I made no assumptions about if you were advocating for
or against that claim. I don't really care, and you seldom commit so why even bother worrying
about if you do or don't. If I didn't already not care much about your opinion, your refusal to
commit would drive me to the same place of not caring. And I'm sure that you don't care
that I don't care. I simply used your quote as a foil to expand on why that idea was nonsense.

[Glenn]

That's incoherent. Polly wanna?

>
> Perhaps the solution is that you somehow interpreted my post about a particular quote you
> offered up to be me addressing you and your beliefs. It wasn't. It clearly wasn't. I was addressing
> the quote.
>
> It's also weird because I wasn't originally addressing a belief that there is no junk DNA. In fact,
> I don't recall such a belief being part of the thread until you oddly introduced such beliefs in
> response to me addressing the weird claim about 'all non-coding DNA being junk DNA'.
>

You must be stupid enough to think you're smart.

"There is a serious problem with equating junk DNA with non-Coding DNA. That's why only dilletantes would equate them."

[Lawyer Daggett]

You actually have a fundamental problem with simple logic. This begins to explain much.
I don't think I could help you with it as you would need someone you trusted. Unfortunate.

[*Hemidactylus*]

Sadly when Glenn gets involved in any thread the results are the equivalent
of a sewage main break. It’s unsightly and creates a stench. That’s the
goal.

[Glenn]

You said it. In your mind it would appear unquestionable that anyone questioning your understanding of the expression "junk DNA" to be a "dilettante". Logically, that is loony tune. It does not require "complex" logic. LOL. So in a sense your response was correct, that I have a fundamental problem with simple logic - your simple logic.

>This begins to explain much.
> I don't think I could help you with it as you would need someone you trusted. Unfortunate.

What is truly unfortunate is your state of mind, when with an intelligent and educated mind you talk yourself into such assertions. I don't even trust myself, so why would I trust someone who agreed with me, or that I "trusted"? Perhaps you might consider explaining or providing a specific example of my having a fundamental problem with simple logic, instead of just making claims that amount to nothing more than insult, no matter how they are dressed up.

[Glenn]

Hey, Hemi. Long time no see.

[Athel Cornish-Bowden]

On 2022-07-30 20:35:51 +0000, *Hemidactylus* said:

UPDATE. Larry has now been blocked indefinitely for failing to submit
to the wishes of someone with no discernable qualifications in
biochemistry or evolution. She has written some chick-lit novels (under
the name Chrissy Anderson) that have apparently had some success, but
I'm not sure that that's really enough. I'm not sure what one can do to
reverse the decision, but it's reported at
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Edit_warring#User:Genome42_reported_by_User:Praxidicae_(Result:_)
I drafted a reply to the decision, but I took the cowardly way out and
didn't post it as I don't want to be blocked myself.

You can find the whole story at
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Non-coding_DNA, but it's getting
quite long.

[jillery]

As some might say, "doo-doo occurs".

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

[*Hemidactylus*]

Well Wikipedia sucks at junk DNA if they canceled Larry. Did not know
amateurs or poseurs could undermine the efforts of professionals like Larry
so hidden behind the scenes. Hope that Larry’s attempt to clean the stables
doesn’t impact his time table to publish his book, which will easily blow a
Wikipedia article out the the water in factuality, if not popularity.

Reading about this debacle on Larry’s blog is so frustrating. Apparently
the turd ENCODE floated will stink and fester for years to come.

[*Hemidactylus*]

If it’s about “sources” Larry *is* a walking, breathing source or font of
knowledge. That’s one reason I read his blog.

Though I have used Wikipedia a bit here and there to brush up on
immunology, originally learning it from a professor and textbook decades
ago was my foundation and I have stuck to good secondary and tertiary
resources. Larry has published a textbook and I am assuming he used to
teach classes and advise grad students.

Maybe Larry should do podcasts and Youtube videos as Vincent Racaniello
does for virology. Good thing Racaniello isn’t encumbered by crappy
Wikipolice.

[Glenn]

On Sunday, August 21, 2022 at 1:10:28 PM UTC-7, *Hemidactylus* wrote:
> jillery <69jp...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Sun, 21 Aug 2022 18:08:18 +0200, Athel Cornish-Bowden
> > <acor...@imm.cnrs.fr> wrote:
> >
> >> On 2022-07-30 20:35:51 +0000, *Hemidactylus* said:
> >>
> >>> Larry Moran expresses his frustrations trying to correct wikipedia on yet
> >>> another article:
> >>>
> >>> https://sandwalk.blogspot.com/2022/07/wikipedia-blocks-any-mention-of-junk.html
> >>>
> >>> Athel is in the comments showing support. Good on him!
> >>
> >> UPDATE. Larry has now been blocked indefinitely for failing to submit
> >> to the wishes of someone with no discernable qualifications in
> >> biochemistry or evolution. She has written some chick-lit novels (under
> >> the name Chrissy Anderson) that have apparently had some success, but
> >> I'm not sure that that's really enough. I'm not sure what one can do to
> >> reverse the decision, but it's reported at
> >> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Edit_warring#User:Genome42_reported_by_User:Praxidicae_(Result:_)
> >>
> >> I drafted a reply to the decision, but I took the cowardly way out and
> >> didn't post it as I don't want to be blocked myself.
> >>
> >> You can find the whole story at
> >> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Non-coding_DNA, but it's getting
> >> quite long.
> >
> >
> > As some might say, "doo-doo occurs".
> >
> If it’s about “sources” Larry *is* a walking, breathing source or font of
> knowledge. That’s one reason I read his blog.
>

Well, you're the expert. "Defund! Defund!" "Collaborate hell, kill em all!"

merciful snip of narcissistic stupidity

"Disruptive editing, including edit-warring, refusal to collaborate with other editors, claiming that scientific articles can only be edited by experts, e.g., the user"

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ALog%2Fblock&page=User%3AGenome42

[Glenn]

On Sunday, August 21, 2022 at 9:10:28 AM UTC-7, Athel Cornish-Bowden wrote:
> On 2022-07-30 20:35:51 +0000, *Hemidactylus* said:
> > Larry Moran expresses his frustrations trying to correct wikipedia on yet
> > another article:
> >
> > https://sandwalk.blogspot.com/2022/07/wikipedia-blocks-any-mention-of-junk.html
> >
> > Athel is in the comments showing support. Good on him!
> UPDATE. Larry has now been blocked indefinitely for failing to submit
> to the wishes of someone with no discernable qualifications in
> biochemistry or evolution. She has written some chick-lit novels (under
> the name Chrissy Anderson) that have apparently had some success, but
> I'm not sure that that's really enough. I'm not sure what one can do to
> reverse the decision, but it's reported at
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Edit_warring#User:Genome42_reported_by_User:Praxidicae_(Result:_)
> I drafted a reply to the decision, but I took the cowardly way out and
> didn't post it as I don't want to be blocked myself.
>

You should be.

[jillery]

You should be aware that I have cited several of Moran's blogs over
the years. You may not be aware that I consider him a good authority
on things biological, and not just because he's a T.O. alumnus.

>Though I have used Wikipedia a bit here and there to brush up on
>immunology, originally learning it from a professor and textbook decades
>ago was my foundation and I have stuck to good secondary and tertiary
>resources. Larry has published a textbook and I am assuming he used to
>teach classes and advise grad students.
>
>Maybe Larry should do podcasts and Youtube videos as Vincent Racaniello
>does for virology. Good thing Racaniello isn’t encumbered by crappy
>Wikipolice.

[Glenn]

Well, shit happens.

[jillery]

On Sun, 21 Aug 2022 15:38:58 -0700 (PDT), Glenn <GlennS...@msn.com>
wrote:

>Well, shit happens.


So you too speak potty-mouth. Quelle surprise.

[*Hemidactylus*]

jillery <69jp...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Sun, 21 Aug 2022 15:38:58 -0700 (PDT), Glenn <GlennS...@msn.com>
> wrote:
>
>> Well, shit happens.
>
>
> So you too speak potty-mouth. Quelle surprise.
>

I fail to see what Peter sees in him except maybe a hang together or hang
separately expedience or Realpolitik which would be hilarious given Pete’s
repeated misunderstanding of Aristotle’s usage of “political animal”.
Pete’s projection of this trait onto others? Machiavelli would counsel
seeking better allies than Glenn.

[Glenn]

On Sunday, August 21, 2022 at 4:05:29 PM UTC-7, jillery wrote:
> On Sun, 21 Aug 2022 15:38:58 -0700 (PDT), Glenn <GlennS...@msn.com>
> wrote:
>
> >Well, shit happens.
>
>
> So you too speak potty-mouth. Quelle surprise.
> --

Shhh, I'm hiding from da wabbit.

[Glenn]

Get a dog, it might help.

[Glenn]

On Sunday, August 21, 2022 at 9:10:28 AM UTC-7, Athel Cornish-Bowden wrote:

"Delete. She may become notable in the future, but she isn't there yet. "local resident does interesting thing" sums it up. Athel cb (talk) 08:25, 20 August 2022 (UTC)"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Emily_Willoughby_(2nd_nomination)

Street cred for future invasion, Athel? What do you care about Emily?

[jillery]

The peter has a history of cultivating other trolls. The peter made
his bed, and he lies in it, in both senses of the word.

[peter2...@gmail.com]

On Sunday, August 21, 2022 at 7:20:28 PM UTC-4, *Hemidactylus* wrote:
> jillery <69jp...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Sun, 21 Aug 2022 15:38:58 -0700 (PDT), Glenn <GlennS...@msn.com>
> > wrote:
> >
> >> Well, shit happens.
> >
> >
> > So you too speak potty-mouth. Quelle surprise.
> >
> I fail to see what Peter sees in him except maybe a hang together or hang
> separately expedience or Realpolitik

Or being vastly more on-topic to sci.bio.paleontology than you have been this year.
And having much more common sense than you do.

And being far more sane in my experience than Ron Okimoto, whom you "defended"
when I gave that evaluation a number of years ago. This caused you to post an
insult of you by Glenn that I had never seen before, and tovdemand my opinion of it.
When I did a Carl Rogers type reply, you denounced me like a Jacobin denouncing
someone on trial for not having denounced an enemy of the French Revolution.
You called me a "monster" for being so unfeeling, and finally libeled me as having endorsed Glenn's insult.

The following year you tried to make light of your despicable behavior,
by claiming that this all was a "misunderstanding" by "both" of us.
The only misunderstanding was yours as to how effective your denunciations
would turn out to be.


In short, I fail to see what you see in yourself.


Peter Nyikos

[Mark Isaak]

My impression is that Peter is a strong believer in the maxim, "The
enemy of my enemy is my friend."

--
Mark Isaak
"Wisdom begins when you discover the difference between 'That
doesn't make sense' and 'I don't understand.'" - Mary Doria Russell

[Bob Casanova]

On Mon, 22 Aug 2022 09:19:42 -0700, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by Mark Isaak
<spec...@curioustaxonomy.net>:

>On 8/21/22 4:19 PM, *Hemidactylus* wrote:
>> jillery <69jp...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> On Sun, 21 Aug 2022 15:38:58 -0700 (PDT), Glenn <GlennS...@msn.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Well, shit happens.
>>>
>>>
>>> So you too speak potty-mouth. Quelle surprise.
>>>
>> I fail to see what Peter sees in him except maybe a hang together or hang
>> separately expedience or Realpolitik which would be hilarious given Pete’s
>> repeated misunderstanding of Aristotle’s usage of “political animal”.
>> Pete’s projection of this trait onto others? Machiavelli would counsel
>> seeking better allies than Glenn.
>
>My impression is that Peter is a strong believer in the maxim, "The
>enemy of my enemy is my friend."
>

Wouldn't surprise me. In reality, the enemy of my enemy is
my enemy's enemy, no more, no less.
>
--

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

[Glenn]

On Monday, August 22, 2022 at 12:45:30 PM UTC-7, Bob Casanova wrote:
> On Mon, 22 Aug 2022 09:19:42 -0700, the following appeared
> in talk.origins, posted by Mark Isaak
> <spec...@curioustaxonomy.net>:
> >On 8/21/22 4:19 PM, *Hemidactylus* wrote:
> >> jillery <69jp...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>> On Sun, 21 Aug 2022 15:38:58 -0700 (PDT), Glenn <GlennS...@msn.com>
> >>> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> Well, shit happens.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> So you too speak potty-mouth. Quelle surprise.
> >>>
> >> I fail to see what Peter sees in him except maybe a hang together or hang
> >> separately expedience or Realpolitik which would be hilarious given Pete’s
> >> repeated misunderstanding of Aristotle’s usage of “political animal”.
> >> Pete’s projection of this trait onto others? Machiavelli would counsel
> >> seeking better allies than Glenn.
> >
> >My impression is that Peter is a strong believer in the maxim, "The
> >enemy of my enemy is my friend."
> >
> Wouldn't surprise me. In reality, the enemy of my enemy is
> my enemy's enemy, no more, no less.
> >

That doesn't surprise me. "No more, no less" is not "reality", but rather a denial of reality. The enemy of your enemy may or may not be your 'friend".
But it is comparable to the original. The enemy of your enemy is not necessarily your "friend", and could be your enemy as well, depending on context.
As well, enemies can be enemies for certain reasons, and not enemies for other reasons.

As usual you take your own emphasis of the meaning of words to an absurd degree.
I don't expect you will ever acknowledge that. Instead, your cheeks will puff up and expel copious amounts of air through your pie hole.

[peter2...@gmail.com]

On Monday, August 22, 2022 at 12:20:30 PM UTC-4, Mark Isaak wrote:
> On 8/21/22 4:19 PM, *Hemidactylus* wrote:
> > jillery <69jp...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> On Sun, 21 Aug 2022 15:38:58 -0700 (PDT), Glenn <GlennS...@msn.com>
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >>> Well, shit happens.
> >>
> >>
> >> So you too speak potty-mouth. Quelle surprise.

There is a difference between being foul-mouthed [including the
spouting of words generally considered to be obscene] and
being dirty-minded. Glenn is the former; jillery is the latter.

> > I fail to see what Peter sees in him except maybe a hang together or hang
> > separately expedience or Realpolitik which would be hilarious given Pete’s
> > repeated misunderstanding of Aristotle’s usage of “political animal”.
> > Pete’s projection of this trait onto others? Machiavelli would counsel
> > seeking better allies than Glenn.

Hemidactylus is showing his true colors here. He knows I want
to redress a serious injustice that John Harshman has committed
against Glenn in sci.bio.paleontology. John made wild and highly damaging
accusations against Glenn there, and has neither supported them
nor ameliorated (much less retracted) them.

In the following post, I reminded Hemidactylus that he has absolutely
no problem with such injustices when Glenn is the target.

https://groups.google.com/g/sci.bio.paleontology/c/lwIJ-7O_ecE/m/pDVJ3t0aBQAJ
Re: How Harshman Derailed a Discussion of Paleontology

> My impression is that Peter is a strong believer in the maxim, "The
> enemy of my enemy is my friend."

You of all people should know better. I could easily have applied
that maxim after you accused Dr. Dr. Kleinman
of distorting something you said so badly that he ought to quit
medical practice lest he do harm to his patients.

Although Kleinman was obnoxious and dishonest,
he was not my enemy in the way you were and are
my enemy. But instead of taking his side, I was concerned
by the way the two of you seemed to be locked in an
interminable back and forth that was going nowhere, with neither of you
producing a quote that would establish who was right.

I started a thread in hopes of breaking this impasse and getting
justice should one of you be in the right and the other in the wrong.

It took several weeks before someone came up with a quote
from you in that thread that put an end to the impasse.
It was roughly midway between what you and Kleinman
claimed, but slightly in his favor.


Your comment suggests that the concept of a disinterested
search for justice is alien to your way of thinking, just as it
is for Harshman and Hemidactylus. But since even before I became
an adult, I've done my best to live up to the words of Jesus
on the Sermon on the Mount:

Blessed are they who hunger and thirst for justice,
for they shall be satisfied.
Matthew 5:6, Douay-Rheims version -- the one with which I grew up.

I can't say I've been satisfied more than 1% of the the time
with the results of my quest for justice, but the incident I described
does belong to that 1%.


Peter Nyikos

[peter2...@gmail.com]

On Monday, August 22, 2022 at 5:55:30 PM UTC-4, Glenn wrote:
> On Monday, August 22, 2022 at 12:45:30 PM UTC-7, Bob Casanova wrote:
> > On Mon, 22 Aug 2022 09:19:42 -0700, the following appeared
> > in talk.origins, posted by Mark Isaak
> > <spec...@curioustaxonomy.net>:
> > >On 8/21/22 4:19 PM, *Hemidactylus* wrote:
> > >> jillery <69jp...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >>> On Sun, 21 Aug 2022 15:38:58 -0700 (PDT), Glenn <GlennS...@msn.com>
> > >>> wrote:
> > >>>
> > >>>> Well, shit happens.
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>> So you too speak potty-mouth. Quelle surprise.
> > >>>
> > >> I fail to see what Peter sees in him except maybe a hang together or hang
> > >> separately expedience or Realpolitik which would be hilarious given Pete’s
> > >> repeated misunderstanding of Aristotle’s usage of “political animal”.
> > >> Pete’s projection of this trait onto others? Machiavelli would counsel
> > >> seeking better allies than Glenn.
> > >
> > >My impression is that Peter is a strong believer in the maxim, "The
> > >enemy of my enemy is my friend."

I've tried to start setting Mark straight in the reply I did to him
a few minutes ago. But I don't expect much in the way of results.
My words were meant for the general readership to ponder.

> > Wouldn't surprise me. In reality, the enemy of my enemy is
> > my enemy's enemy, no more, no less.

> That doesn't surprise me. "No more, no less" is not "reality", but rather a denial of reality. The enemy of your enemy may or may not be your 'friend".
> But it is comparable to the original. The enemy of your enemy is not necessarily your "friend", and could be your enemy as well, depending on context.
> As well, enemies can be enemies for certain reasons, and not enemies for other reasons.
>
> As usual you take your own emphasis of the meaning of words to an absurd degree.

I doubt Bob's sincerity. Bob seems to live by the maxim, "The enemy of my friend is my enemy, even if
he doesn't want to be." By "friend" I mean any of the ten or so t.o. regulars with whom Bob
has bonded to the extent that they are in a mutual "see no evil, hear no evil, speak no evil"
relationship to each other. They include Mark Isaak and the two regulars I named in
reply to Mark. All four are bonded to that extent with each other.

It used to be that jillery was bonded to them, but somewhere
along the line jillery managed to antagonize Bob (or vice versa).
Do you have any idea how that might have happened, Glenn?

> I don't expect you will ever acknowledge that. Instead, your cheeks will puff up and expel copious amounts of air through your pie hole.

Peter Nyikos

[Glenn]

From my perspective, your quest for justice, if I understand the phrase, in the world, you will never gain satisfaction. I may be seeing this all wrong, but when you refer to percentages I get the feeling that you are misinterpreting the scripture.

One of the problems I see is an apparent reliance on the choice of words translated, as well as there being no indication that you have considered or aware of that. That seems unlikely, because of your stature, but it may well be that you don't integrate that on a sufficient level of consciousness to be able to judge yourself.
Do you really think that Jesus was saying that those who seek justice will find it in the world? Many Christians have been persecuted and killed for crimes they did not commit.

[Glenn]

That isn't something I care to try to identify specifically, and no doubt complex, as are most long term relationships.
What is certain though is that they will eat their own, if the opportunity arises.
I consider many to have that potential though, not to exclude Christians or hippies.

[Bob Casanova]

On Mon, 22 Aug 2022 16:56:35 -0700 (PDT), the following
appeared in talk.origins, posted by "peter2...@gmail.com"
<peter2...@gmail.com>:

Doubt whatever you wish; your beliefs have no effect on me.
And your following comments are what I'd expect of you.

>
> Bob seems to live by the maxim, "The enemy of my friend is my enemy, even if
>he doesn't want to be." By "friend" I mean any of the ten or so t.o. regulars with whom Bob
>has bonded to the extent that they are in a mutual "see no evil, hear no evil, speak no evil"
>relationship to each other. They include Mark Isaak and the two regulars I named in
>reply to Mark. All four are bonded to that extent with each other.
>
>It used to be that jillery was bonded to them, but somewhere
>along the line jillery managed to antagonize Bob (or vice versa).
>Do you have any idea how that might have happened, Glenn?
>
>
>> I don't expect you will ever acknowledge that. Instead, your cheeks will puff up and expel copious amounts of air through your pie hole.

[*Hemidactylus*]

Well I see this thread is all about *your thing* now.

[*Hemidactylus*]

So what has any of that TL/DRdr rehash have to do with Wikipedia
powers-that-be canceling Larry Moran?

[Glenn]

On Sunday, August 21, 2022 at 9:10:28 AM UTC-7, Athel Cornish-Bowden wrote:

> On 2022-07-30 20:35:51 +0000, *Hemidactylus* said:
> > Larry Moran expresses his frustrations trying to correct wikipedia on yet
> > another article:
> >
> > https://sandwalk.blogspot.com/2022/07/wikipedia-blocks-any-mention-of-junk.html
> >
> > Athel is in the comments showing support. Good on him!
> UPDATE. Larry has now been blocked indefinitely for failing to submit
> to the wishes of someone with no discernable qualifications in
> biochemistry or evolution. She has written some chick-lit novels (under
> the name Chrissy Anderson) that have apparently had some success, but
> I'm not sure that that's really enough.

I'm fairly sure that would be enough were you to talk like that on Wikipedia.
Enough to kick your ass out as well as Larry's, that is.

Admins are not required to have such "qualifications', you moron.
No one does. You don't seem capable of comprehending simple rules and protocols.
Why anyone would take your word for anything is beyond me, whether you are living France, England or bumfuck Egypt.

[peter2...@gmail.com]

I wasn't misinterpreting it, although it may come across that way. I endorse
the part before the comma wholeheartedly, but I know that I cannot
expect to be satisfied in this world.

>
> One of the problems I see is an apparent reliance on the choice of words translated, as well as there being no indication that you have considered or aware of that. That seems unlikely, because of your stature, but it may well be that you don't integrate that on a sufficient level of consciousness to be able to judge yourself.

Translations vary, and I don't expect to ever get good enough
at Greek to decide which translation is most accurate.

> Do you really think that Jesus was saying that those who seek justice will find it in the world? Many Christians have been persecuted and killed for crimes they did not commit.

I know that all too well. It's going on right now, in Nigeria (Boko Haram), Pakistan (blasphemy a capital crime),
and to a less visible extent, all over the world. And Biden does nothing about it.


Part of the reason I can stomach the injustices being committed daily in talk.origins
is that I learned about injustice on a tremendous scale in Soviet slave labor
camps when I was barely in my teens. The greatest account of all I have
read, surpassing even _The Gulag Archipelago_ in the intimate picture of life in one
of the camps, is Gustav Herling's _A World Apart_, which I first read around the age of 16.

When Herling was freed, he went to England, where his account was published in 1952.
The book so impressed Bertrand Russell that he wrote a preface, parts of which
often remind me of talk.origins and the propaganda that is spewed day in and day out.

"The book ends with letters from eminent Communists saying
that no such camps exist. ... Fellow travelers who refuse to
believe the evidence of books such as Mr. Herling's are necessarily
people devoid of humanity, for if they had any humanity,
they would not merely dismiss the evidence, but would take
some trouble to look into it.
...
"But I do not think that these evils can be cured by blind hatred
of their perpetrators. This will only lead us to become like them.
Although the effort is not easy, one should attempt, in reading such
a book as this one, to understand the circumstances that turn men
into fiends, and to realize that it is not by blind rage that such evils
will be prevented. I do not say that to understand is to pardon;
there are things which for my part I find I cannot pardon.
But I do say that to understand is absolutely necessary
if the spread of evils over the whole world is to be prevented."

Evils are spreading over the world all the time, and they are
happening here in talk.origins in a very different form
on a daily basis, but I for one will continue to fight against them.


Peter Nyikos

[Glenn]

LOL!!!

Actually, an argument could be made about the similarity between why Larry got busted and your behavior, as well as others here.

[*Hemidactylus*]

In the category of thread hijacking with ridiculous hyperbole:

[Glenn]

On Monday, August 22, 2022 at 6:25:30 PM UTC-7, *Hemidactylus* wrote:
> In the category of thread hijacking with ridiculous hyperbole:

Ah, the "thread hijacking" whine. You all really should try stand up comedy.

[Mark Isaak]

On 8/22/22 4:35 PM, peter2...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Monday, August 22, 2022 at 12:20:30 PM UTC-4, Mark Isaak wrote:

> [...]

>> My impression is that Peter is a strong believer in the maxim, "The
>> enemy of my enemy is my friend."
>
> You of all people should know better.

You have reinforced it with certain things you have said speaking
against it. In particular, your reference to others banding together,
which is an illusory perception on your part.

> I could easily have applied
> that maxim after you accused Dr. Dr. Kleinman
> of distorting something you said so badly that he ought to quit
> medical practice lest he do harm to his patients.
>
> Although Kleinman was obnoxious and dishonest,
> he was not my enemy in the way you were and are
> my enemy. But instead of taking his side, I was concerned
> by the way the two of you seemed to be locked in an
> interminable back and forth that was going nowhere, with neither of you
> producing a quote that would establish who was right.
>
> I started a thread in hopes of breaking this impasse and getting
> justice should one of you be in the right and the other in the wrong.
>
> It took several weeks before someone came up with a quote
> from you in that thread that put an end to the impasse.
> It was roughly midway between what you and Kleinman
> claimed, but slightly in his favor.

In other words, you resolved an impasse by slightly favoring the enemy
of your enemy.

> Your comment suggests that the concept of a disinterested
> search for justice is alien to your way of thinking, just as it
> is for Harshman and Hemidactylus. But since even before I became
> an adult, I've done my best to live up to the words of Jesus
> on the Sermon on the Mount:
>
> Blessed are they who hunger and thirst for justice,
> for they shall be satisfied.
> Matthew 5:6, Douay-Rheims version -- the one with which I grew up.
>
> I can't say I've been satisfied more than 1% of the the time
> with the results of my quest for justice, but the incident I described
> does belong to that 1%.

Okay, I'll grant that your quest for justice (as you see it) is a huge
motivator for you. But I still think the enemy of your enemy factor
influences how you see it.

Incidentally, what do you think of Matthew 7:1-2?

In another post, you spoke of being bothered by the injustice of Russian
prisons. What about injustice in American prisons?

[Glenn]

On Monday, August 22, 2022 at 8:45:30 PM UTC-7, Mark Isaak wrote:
> On 8/22/22 4:35 PM, peter2...@gmail.com wrote:
> > On Monday, August 22, 2022 at 12:20:30 PM UTC-4, Mark Isaak wrote:
> > [...]
> >> My impression is that Peter is a strong believer in the maxim, "The
> >> enemy of my enemy is my friend."
> >
> > You of all people should know better.
> You have reinforced it with certain things you have said speaking
> against it. In particular, your reference to others banding together,
> which is an illusory perception on your part.

I may puke.

[jillery]

On Mon, 22 Aug 2022 18:05:16 -0700 (PDT), Glenn <GlennS...@msn.com>

wrote:

>On Monday, August 22, 2022 at 5:45:30 PM UTC-7, *Hemidactylus* wrote:
>> peter2...@gmail.com <peter2...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > On Monday, August 22, 2022 at 12:20:30 PM UTC-4, Mark Isaak wrote:
>> >> On 8/21/22 4:19 PM, *Hemidactylus* wrote:
>> >>> jillery <69jp...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >>>> On Sun, 21 Aug 2022 15:38:58 -0700 (PDT), Glenn <GlennS...@msn.com>
>> >>>> wrote:
>> >>>>
>> >>>>> Well, shit happens.
>> >>>>
>> >>>>
>> >>>> So you too speak potty-mouth. Quelle surprise.
>> >
>> > There is a difference between being foul-mouthed [including the
>> > spouting of words generally considered to be obscene] and
>> > being dirty-minded. Glenn is the former; jillery is the latter.

.
.

Sez the self-appointed T.O. bluenose. Even stipulating for argument's
sake the peter's alleged "difference", the fact is both the peter and
Glenn say the exact same things they accuse jillery of saying, and far
more often.
.
Worse, they willfully blind themselves to each others' foul mouths in
the very same posts they accuse jillery of it. They compulsively
practice "Do as I say, not as I do" hypocrisy, the hallmark of
wilfully stupid trolls.
.
Add to that their outright lies and spam about other posters' genders,
and it suggests they suffered chronic childhood abuse.
.

Actually, if such an argument could be made, it almost certainly won't
be made by Glenn. Instead, he will more likely baselessly spam more
of his mindless noise and get a gold star from his mommy.

[jillery]

On Mon, 22 Aug 2022 21:54:08 -0700 (PDT), Glenn <GlennS...@msn.com>

wrote:

>On Monday, August 22, 2022 at 8:45:30 PM UTC-7, Mark Isaak wrote:
>> On 8/22/22 4:35 PM, peter2...@gmail.com wrote:
>> > On Monday, August 22, 2022 at 12:20:30 PM UTC-4, Mark Isaak wrote:
>> > [...]
>> >> My impression is that Peter is a strong believer in the maxim, "The
>> >> enemy of my enemy is my friend."
>> >
>> > You of all people should know better.
>> You have reinforced it with certain things you have said speaking
>> against it. In particular, your reference to others banding together,
>> which is an illusory perception on your part.
>
>I may puke.

Don't hold back, nobody will notice the difference.

[Glenn]

On Monday, August 22, 2022 at 10:50:31 PM UTC-7, jillery wrote:
> On Mon, 22 Aug 2022 21:54:08 -0700 (PDT), Glenn <GlennS...@msn.com>
> wrote:
>
> >On Monday, August 22, 2022 at 8:45:30 PM UTC-7, Mark Isaak wrote:
> >> On 8/22/22 4:35 PM, peter2...@gmail.com wrote:
> >> > On Monday, August 22, 2022 at 12:20:30 PM UTC-4, Mark Isaak wrote:
> >> > [...]
> >> >> My impression is that Peter is a strong believer in the maxim, "The
> >> >> enemy of my enemy is my friend."
> >> >
> >> > You of all people should know better.
> >> You have reinforced it with certain things you have said speaking
> >> against it. In particular, your reference to others banding together,
> >> which is an illusory perception on your part.
> >
> >I may puke.
> Don't hold back, nobody will notice the difference.
> --

Good point.

[Glenn]

On Monday, August 22, 2022 at 10:45:31 PM UTC-7, jillery wrote:
> On Mon, 22 Aug 2022 18:05:16 -0700 (PDT), Glenn <GlennS...@msn.com>
> wrote:
>
> >On Monday, August 22, 2022 at 5:45:30 PM UTC-7, *Hemidactylus* wrote:
> >> peter2...@gmail.com <peter2...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> > On Monday, August 22, 2022 at 12:20:30 PM UTC-4, Mark Isaak wrote:
> >> >> On 8/21/22 4:19 PM, *Hemidactylus* wrote:
> >> >>> jillery <69jp...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> >>>> On Sun, 21 Aug 2022 15:38:58 -0700 (PDT), Glenn <GlennS...@msn.com>
> >> >>>> wrote:
> >> >>>>
> >> >>>>> Well, shit happens.
> >> >>>>
> >> >>>>
> >> >>>> So you too speak potty-mouth. Quelle surprise.
> >> >
> >> > There is a difference between being foul-mouthed [including the
> >> > spouting of words generally considered to be obscene] and
> >> > being dirty-minded. Glenn is the former; jillery is the latter.
> .
> .
>
> Sez the self-appointed T.O. bluenose. Even stipulating for argument's
> sake the peter's alleged "difference", the fact is both the peter and
> Glenn say the exact same things they accuse jillery of saying, and far
> more often.

You may suffer from delusion. Sounds like baselessly spamming more of your mindless noise to get a gold star from your mommy.


From you below;

"Actually, if such an argument could be made, it almost certainly won't
be made by Glenn. Instead, he will more likely baselessly spam more
of his mindless noise and get a gold star from his mommy."

"He"? "His"?

Like the three lines above?

[jillery]

On Tue, 23 Aug 2022 02:08:24 -0700 (PDT), Glenn <GlennS...@msn.com>

Do you deny the above is appropriate? If so, you should have objected
long ago with others' similar use. If not, not sure what is your
point other than to post more of your mindless noise for the sake of
it.

You don't say how those three lines above are similar to why Larry got
busted, nevermind show that to be the case. That demonstrates the
veracity of those three lines above.

[peter2...@gmail.com]

I'm not shedding tears for Moran. He's done Wikipedia a huge service in "Sandwalk"
over the years by making it easy for them to misrepresent ID as a "pseudoscience"
and a form of creationism [1] even though the leading theorists [2] and researchers
[like Scott Minnich] scrupulously adhere to the reigning secular scientific methodology.
With Minnich, it is probably second nature, since he's received lots of grant money.

[1] Moran loves to write "ID creationism"

[2] which do NOT include Casey Luskin


More relevantly, Moran has been a close partner of DIG in managing the Robo-moderator
of talk.origins, and didn't lift a finger when DIG put the Dr. Dr. among the ones it bans.
DIG never posted a criterion that matched the complaints of crybaby Ron O,
who somehow got him to do the ban.

And so, Moran may well be hoist with his own petard, unless he was somehow unaware
of the ban of a perennial regular of talk.origins. IMHO, Moran showed the same level of rudeness
to the editor as the Dr. Dr. showed to Ron O, and Ron O doesn't have the kind of status
in talk.origins as the Wiki editor has in Wikipedia.

"For as you judge, so will you be judged, and the measure
with which you measure will be measured out to you." -- Matthew 7:2


If you think Moran has suffered injustice, please address these points.


Peter Nyikos

[*Hemidactylus*]

I think you’ve again made this all about your thing using a shoehorn.

>
> If you think Moran has suffered injustice, please address these points.
>

If you’re so worked up about it why not address it to DIG and not me. I
don’t frickin’ care about your thing.

[jillery]

Not sure what the peter blames for DrDr's demise; RonO's supernatural
mind-control, or DIG's gullibility. Both are about as likely as the
peter blaming the good drdr.

[Mark Isaak]

ID is explicitly creationism. Its founding document says as much; its
early tactic of rebranding a creationism textbook as an ID textbook says
as much. [Note for quibblers: Ideas that actually merit using the terms
"intelligent design", namely human engineering and hypotheses regarding
extraterrestrials, are not creationism. However, what the label "ID" is
typically used for, especially in the context of this newsgroup, is
certainly creationism.]

ID cannot be science because even its proponents cannot say what the
theory is, but only what it isn't. And since it claims the imprimatur
of science, that makes it pseudoscience.

These point are really simple and straightforward. The fact that you
are still in denial of them is why I see you as a sort of creationist
yourself.

[peter2...@gmail.com]

Either you are flagrantly insincere, or you have shown how alien disinterested justice
is to your world-view. Anyone reading the above with even a slightly open mind
can see that it is injustice to the Dr. Dr. that I am talking about there, and
how Moran may be getting his just deserts now.

> > If you think Moran has suffered injustice, please address these points.
> >
> If you’re so worked up about it

And you aren't??? why the hell were you wanting me to get on-topic?
If you weren't fishing for sympathy for Moran, what was the point?

> why not address it to DIG and not me.

DIG hasn't replied to email from me for a decade now. During that time,
I've emailed him umpteen times, when t.o. was down, to recommend
that he keep us updated in sci.bio.paleontology about when it
could be expected to be back up -- or if he hasn't a clue after
several hours had passed, then let us know that that instead of
keeping us in the dark altogether.

However, he DID reply to jillery during the last downtime of which I know.
However, jillery couldn't care less about the Dr. Dr. after crybaby Ron O
got DIG to ban him, so jillery is out as far as emailing DIG.

> I don’t frickin’ care about your thing.

See above about how clueless/insincere you are.


Peter Nyikos

[*Hemidactylus*]

I think I might clip my nails today, but first will eat lunch since
skipping breakfast. Priorities. Given your anemic responses to my
introducing Ted Steele’s views on panspermic infall, which I don’t agree
with but makes for apt comparison to DP, don’t expect me to take your
interpersonal baggage driven posts seriously or as any kind of priority.
Should I grocery shop today or procrastinate until the weekend???

[peter2...@gmail.com]

Given what you wrote this time around, Hemi, I lean towards the latter alternative.

> >
> >>> If you think Moran has suffered injustice, please address these points.
> >>>
> >> If you’re so worked up about it
> >
> > And you aren't??? why the hell were you wanting me to get on-topic?

<crickets>

> > If you weren't fishing for sympathy for Moran, what was the point?

<crickets>

> >
> >
> >> why not address it to DIG and not me.
> >
> > DIG hasn't replied to email from me for a decade now. During that time,
> > I've emailed him umpteen times, when t.o. was down, to recommend
> > that he keep us updated in sci.bio.paleontology about when it
> > could be expected to be back up -- or if he hasn't a clue after
> > several hours had passed, then let us know that that instead of
> > keeping us in the dark altogether.
> >
> > However, he DID reply to jillery during the last downtime of which I know.
> > However, jillery couldn't care less about the Dr. Dr. after crybaby Ron O
> > got DIG to ban him, so jillery is out as far as emailing DIG.
> >
> >
> >
> >> I don’t frickin’ care about your thing.
> >
> > See above about how clueless/insincere you are.

Your responses above and below perfectly exemplify the "superlative"
with which I've assessed you for the last five years or so:

The most flippantly hypocritical regular in talk.origins.

> I think I might clip my nails today, but first will eat lunch since
> skipping breakfast. Priorities. Given your anemic responses to my
> introducing Ted Steele’s views on panspermic infall,

I gave it more attention than it deserved.

And in the light of what I write below, I take this taunt of yours as trolling.

> which I don’t agree
> with but makes for apt comparison to DP,

"apt" underscores your utter ignorance of what DP is based on.

And you are proud of your ignorance, and are determined to cling to it.

> don’t expect me to take your
> interpersonal baggage driven posts seriously or as any kind of priority.
> Should I grocery shop today or procrastinate until the weekend???

I don't expect you to take anything I post seriously.

In fact, I don't expect you to take truth or justice or becoming a responsible adult seriously.


You've given yourself away.

I hope everyone reading this realizes that, even those who would
sooner quit talk.origins than admit to it.


Peter Nyikos

[jillery]

On Wed, 24 Aug 2022 08:40:38 -0700 (PDT), "peter2...@gmail.com"
<peter2...@gmail.com> wrote:

[...]

>However, he DID reply to jillery during the last downtime of which I know.

You're delusional. jillery has *never* received an email from DIG.
However, DIG has replied a couple of times in T.O. to posts from
jillery. This happened a couple of years ago when jillery did
diplomatic duty between DIG and other Usenet sysops. And T.O. has
gone read-only a couple of times since then.

>However, jillery couldn't care less about the Dr. Dr. after crybaby Ron O
>got DIG to ban him, so jillery is out as far as emailing DIG.

Not sure why you give the good drdr a pass for making his own bed.
Honor among trolls?

>> I don’t frickin’ care about your thing.
>
>See above about how clueless/insincere you are.

The above is Ma Kettle complaining about Pa's pot.

[Lawyer Daggett]

Your selective attention is dishonest. In this specific thread exists evidence of
Glenn's typical behavior that you choose to ignore. Instead, you reignite an old
grudge respective to Larry. You expose yourself for all to see.

[erik simpson]

Actually DIG responded to my SOS, but it was on your thread in sbp. As I think
I've remarked in the past, I'm an old FreeBSD player, so I have feelings for beagle.

[Glenn]

Instead? Notice the thread subject. For God's sake, at least put a towel around it.

[jillery]

On Thu, 25 Aug 2022 08:19:47 -0700 (PDT), erik simpson
<eastsi...@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Thursday, August 25, 2022 at 12:25:33 AM UTC-7, jillery wrote:
>> On Wed, 24 Aug 2022 08:40:38 -0700 (PDT), "peter2...@gmail.com"
>> <peter2...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> [...]
>> >However, he DID reply to jillery during the last downtime of which I know.
>> You're delusional. jillery has *never* received an email from DIG.
>> However, DIG has replied a couple of times in T.O. to posts from
>> jillery. This happened a couple of years ago when jillery did
>> diplomatic duty between DIG and other Usenet sysops. And T.O. has
>> gone read-only a couple of times since then.
>> >However, jillery couldn't care less about the Dr. Dr. after crybaby Ron O
>> >got DIG to ban him, so jillery is out as far as emailing DIG.
>> Not sure why you give the good drdr a pass for making his own bed.
>> Honor among trolls?
>> >> I don’t frickin’ care about your thing.
>> >
>> >See above about how clueless/insincere you are.
>> The above is Ma Kettle complaining about Pa's pot.
>

>Actually DIG responded to my SOS, but it was on your thread in sbp. As I think
>I've remarked in the past, I'm an old FreeBSD player, so I have feelings for beagle.

Without challenging your contributions to the above event, my comments
refers to this post:
******************************
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: AIOE busted Path: header test
Message-ID: <slrnrqtgnr...@beagle.ediacara.org>

On Fri, 13 Nov 2020 17:31:39 -0000 (UTC), David Greig
<dgr...@beagle.ediacara.org> wrote:

>On 2020-11-11, Dave Greig <dig...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Does this fix the bizarre issue with Path: headers
>
>Thanks to Jillery poking me to dig into it, for some reason,
>alone of all the news servers sending messages to the 'bot,
>AIOE manages to use a Path: header that *inews* rejects.
******************************

So not from SBP, and not an email, and the peter remains delusional.

[erik simpson]

Ah. I was thinking of the more recent AWS screwup.

[peter2...@gmail.com]

You are hopelessly mired close to half a century in the past.

> Its founding document says as much;

You are like someone saying that Planned Parenthood's founder said that
its aim was eugenics. Over in the thread "Bad form, Peter," I posted ample
documentation that PP had completely distanced itself no later than 2015
from Sanger's support of eugenics. This support had extended to endorsing
the 1927 Buck v. Bell decision, in which the Supreme Court ruled that
states could forcibly sterilize people deemed “unfit”
without their consent and sometimes without their knowledge.

Similarly, what I wrote above is true: the leading theorists and researchers

scrupulously adhere to the reigning secular scientific methodology.

That brings you up to well before the beginning of the 21st century,
Mark van Winkle.

> its early tactic of rebranding a creationism textbook as an ID textbook says
> as much.

The raw data in it did challenge neo-Darwinists for an explanation, and
some of it still does. Several such examples appeared in a film of the late fifties,
and I've posted how one of them is still a mystery. Confronted with the mystery, jillery said
that the film was produced by creationists, as though that had somehow
solved the mystery. Only scientific research can solve it, but it has not yet done so.

I'd tell you the details, but they would only go down your memory hole,
which is where past rebuttals to the same fallacies of yours have gone.

[Note for quibblers: Ideas that actually merit using the terms
> "intelligent design", namely human engineering and hypotheses regarding
> extraterrestrials, are not creationism. However, what the label "ID" is
> typically used for, especially in the context of this newsgroup, is
> certainly creationism.]

I doubt that anyone reading the first sentence above didn't already know what it says long ago.
In contrast, your "typically..." is a huge distortion. One correct statement along those lines is:

typically, the majority of t.o. regulars attach the label "ID" to a claim that it is creationism.

The majority are just as ignorant about ID as you are, thanks mostly to
endless propaganda by you and your kind.

>
> ID cannot be science because even its proponents cannot say what the
> theory is, but only what it isn't.

This depends on what you mean by "the theory." I believe the majority
of t.o. participants have no idea that "the theory of evolution" is
an attempt to explain the scientific fact that evolution has taken place
on a gigantic scale. They think it is this selfsame scientific fact.

ID theory is partly the effort to explain this selfsame fact as being
influenced by intelligent intervention at various points along the line.
And ID science is an exploration of where this intervention is a better
explanation than current attempts at explanation without ID

But ID theory goes back much further, embracing abiogenesis
(which the existing theory of evolution doesn't address),
and cosmology. None of the above assumes anything supernatural.

> And since it claims the imprimatur
> of science, that makes it pseudoscience.

> These point are really simple and straightforward.

And highly fallacious.

> The fact that you
> are still in denial of them is why I see you as a sort of creationist
> yourself.

"in denial" is an intellectually dishonest term. And the way you
are stuck decades in the past probably explains the worthlessness
of what you claim to "see" about me.

But you are too ignorant of the relevant science to be morally
culpable for your worthless claim. The blame for that rests
mainly with others who know better, but who have insincerely claimed
to suspect that I am a creationist.

> --
> Mark Isaak
> "Wisdom begins when you discover the difference between 'That
> doesn't make sense' and 'I don't understand.'" - Mary Doria Russell

Unless you quit being mired in the 20th century, you will never
discover that difference.


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

PS Before you reply to this post, you might do well to ponder my reply
to your mean-spirited lampoon of what Behe stands for:

https://groups.google.com/g/talk.origins/c/0GJ7i2VKEbg/m/jv4hvR4QCAAJ
Re: More evolution by breaking things?

[peter2...@gmail.com]

On Monday, August 22, 2022 at 10:50:30 PM UTC-4, Glenn wrote:
> On Monday, August 22, 2022 at 6:25:30 PM UTC-7, *Hemidactylus* wrote:
> > In the category of thread hijacking with ridiculous hyperbole:

The claim of hyperbole is highly fallacious. Hemidactylus needs to explain what
part of "Part of the reason I can stomach" [see the quote below] he doesn't understand.

> Ah, the "thread hijacking" whine. You all really should try stand up comedy.

That's all Hemidactylus is good for on this thread.

> > > Part of the reason I can stomach the injustices being committed daily in talk.origins
> > > is that I learned about injustice on a tremendous scale in Soviet slave labor
> > > camps when I was barely in my teens. The greatest account of all I have
> > > read, surpassing even _The Gulag Archipelago_ in the intimate picture of life in one
> > > of the camps, is Gustav Herling's _A World Apart_, which I first read around the age of 16.
> > >

As is usual with "Chez Watts" directed at me, Hemi's "category" is phony. Contrast that
with my Chez Watt around Halloween, in which the ghost of Hitler takes full advantage
of an abysmally stupid comment by a well-known t.o. regular:

"Trump is not Hitler, of course. Hitler, unlike Trump, served with honor
in the military and had some appreciation of the arts. But they have
enough in common to be scary."
https://groups.google.com/g/talk.origins/c/V2uRVXbAJzI/m/ewMJMfxzAAAJ
Re: Anti-Science Streak in Vaccine Mandates by Biden and Others

The OP of the thread where the stupidity of this well-known poster was laid bare was:

https://groups.google.com/g/talk.origins/c/DjepbDmn00A/m/1deNFyYNAAAJ
CHEZ WATT: Hitler Is Compared Favorably with Trump
Oct 25, 2021, 11:40:15 AM

Collateral damage to Obama's and Psaki's reputation was the result of a "complaint" by
the ghost of Hitler about something Trump did, as shown here:

https://groups.google.com/g/talk.origins/c/DjepbDmn00A/m/aziYSh9BAwAJ
Re: CHEZ WATT: Hitler Is Compared Favorably with Trump
Oct 29, 2021, 10:40:15 PM

I also did a reply to the OP a few days after Halloween, returning to the topic
in the thread title:
https://groups.google.com/g/talk.origins/c/DjepbDmn00A/m/6ag0N2JRAgAJ


Peter Nyikos

P.S. Spoiler: You can learn the identity of the "well-known t.o. regular"
by clicking on the url for the abysmally stupid comment.

No such spoiler was included in the original Chez Watt thread, of course.

[jillery]

Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District was in 2005, not even close
to half a century ago.

>> Its founding document says as much;
>
>You are like someone saying that Planned Parenthood's founder said that
>its aim was eugenics.

<cough> quotemine <cough>

>Over in the thread "Bad form, Peter," I posted ample
>documentation that PP had completely distanced itself no later than 2015
>from Sanger's support of eugenics. This support had extended to endorsing
>the 1927 Buck v. Bell decision, in which the Supreme Court ruled that
>states could forcibly sterilize people deemed “unfit”
>without their consent and sometimes without their knowledge.
>
>Similarly, what I wrote above is true: the leading theorists and researchers
>scrupulously adhere to the reigning secular scientific methodology.
>That brings you up to well before the beginning of the 21st century,
>Mark van Winkle.

Here's another named challenge for you: Cite an example of what you
think illustrates how ID "theorists and researchers scrupulously

adhere to the reigning secular scientific methodology".

>> its early tactic of rebranding a creationism textbook as an ID textbook says
>> as much.
>>The raw data in it did challenge neo-Darwinists for an explanation, and
>some of it still does. Several such examples appeared in a film of the late fifties,
>and I've posted how one of them is still a mystery. Confronted with the mystery, jillery said
>that the film was produced by creationists, as though that had somehow
>solved the mystery. Only scientific research can solve it, but it has not yet done so.

Here's another named challenge for you: Cite an example of that "raw
data" you think challenges neo-Darwinists for an explanation. Fair
warning; "it seems impossible" and "I don't understand" don't qualify.

>I'd tell you the details, but they would only go down your memory hole,
>which is where past rebuttals to the same fallacies of yours have gone.

The above is yet another transparent obfuscating evasion.

>> [Note for quibblers: Ideas that actually merit using the terms
>> "intelligent design", namely human engineering and hypotheses regarding
>> extraterrestrials, are not creationism. However, what the label "ID" is
>> typically used for, especially in the context of this newsgroup, is
>> certainly creationism.]
>
>I doubt that anyone reading the first sentence above didn't already know what it says long ago.
>In contrast, your "typically..." is a huge distortion.

The above is yet another transparent obfuscating evasion.

>One correct statement along those lines is:
>
>typically, the majority of t.o. regulars attach the label "ID" to a claim that it is creationism.
>
>The majority are just as ignorant about ID as you are, thanks mostly to
>endless propaganda by you and your kind.

T.O. regulars aren't the only ones who recognize ID is based on
Creationism:

<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelligent_design>
*************************
ID is a form of creationism that lacks empirical support and offers no
testable or tenable hypotheses, and is therefore not science.[7][8][9]
*************************

>> ID cannot be science because even its proponents cannot say what the
>> theory is, but only what it isn't.
>
>This depends on what you mean by "the theory." I believe the majority
>of t.o. participants have no idea that "the theory of evolution" is
>an attempt to explain the scientific fact that evolution has taken place
>on a gigantic scale. They think it is this selfsame scientific fact.
>
>ID theory is partly the effort to explain this selfsame fact as being
>influenced by intelligent intervention at various points along the line.
>And ID science is an exploration of where this intervention is a better
>explanation than current attempts at explanation without ID

Here's another named challenge for you: Cite an example of what you
think illustrates an ID explanation that's better than a scientific
explanation, and explain how you think it's better.

>But ID theory goes back much further, embracing abiogenesis
>(which the existing theory of evolution doesn't address),
>and cosmology. None of the above assumes anything supernatural.

Here's another named challenge for you: Explain how a
non-supernatural entity could have intervened in *all* the things you
say above.

Good luck answering any one of these named challenges.

>> And since it claims the imprimatur
>> of science, that makes it pseudoscience.
>
>> These point are really simple and straightforward.
>
>And highly fallacious.

...in your baseless opinion.

>> The fact that you
>> are still in denial of them is why I see you as a sort of creationist
>> yourself.
>
>"in denial" is an intellectually dishonest term. And the way you
>are stuck decades in the past probably explains the worthlessness
>of what you claim to "see" about me.

Your entire post above reeks of denial, as do all your posts that
mention ID. That makes Isaak's use completely honest.

>But you are too ignorant of the relevant science to be morally
>culpable for your worthless claim. The blame for that rests
>mainly with others who know better, but who have insincerely claimed
>to suspect that I am a creationist.
>
>> --
>> Mark Isaak
>> "Wisdom begins when you discover the difference between 'That
>> doesn't make sense' and 'I don't understand.'" - Mary Doria Russell
>
>Unless you quit being mired in the 20th century, you will never
>discover that difference.

It's odd that a self-identified mathematician doesn't know what
century 2005 is part of, and that it's much less than half a century
ago.

[*Hemidactylus*]

peter2...@gmail.com <peter2...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Monday, August 22, 2022 at 10:50:30 PM UTC-4, Glenn wrote:
>> On Monday, August 22, 2022 at 6:25:30 PM UTC-7, *Hemidactylus* wrote:
>>> In the category of thread hijacking with ridiculous hyperbole:
>
> The claim of hyperbole is highly fallacious. Hemidactylus needs to explain what
> part of "Part of the reason I can stomach" [see the quote below] he doesn't understand.
>

Anyone invoking “Soviet slave labor camps” as a comparison to usenet
discussion where you are free to just not log in and…I just can’t continue
to explain the obvious…

A serious case of shoehorning by you above. Points for fitting Obama and
Psaki in for whatever reason. Yawn.

Next you’ll be telling me about how I’m lured into mischief by a book by
Saul Alinksie.

[Glenn]

On Friday, August 26, 2022 at 2:15:34 AM UTC-7, *Hemidactylus* wrote:
> peter2...@gmail.com <peter2...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Monday, August 22, 2022 at 10:50:30 PM UTC-4, Glenn wrote:
> >> On Monday, August 22, 2022 at 6:25:30 PM UTC-7, *Hemidactylus* wrote:
> >>> In the category of thread hijacking with ridiculous hyperbole:
> >
> > The claim of hyperbole is highly fallacious. Hemidactylus needs to explain what
> > part of "Part of the reason I can stomach" [see the quote below] he doesn't understand.
> >
> Anyone invoking “Soviet slave labor camps” as a comparison to usenet
> discussion where you are free to just not log in and…I just can’t continue
> to explain the obvious…
> >

Truer words were never spoken.

[Mark Isaak]

Half a minute, maybe. As jillery noted, ID used as creationism has
happened quite recently (and, though I don't track it assiduously, is
probably still happening).

>> Its founding document says as much;

[snip irrelevant digression]

I'll take that as your acquiescence on the point.

>> its early tactic of rebranding a creationism textbook as an ID textbook says
>> as much.
>
> The raw data in it did challenge neo-Darwinists for an explanation, and
> some of it still does. Several such examples appeared in a film of the late fifties,
> and I've posted how one of them is still a mystery. Confronted with the mystery, jillery said
> that the film was produced by creationists, as though that had somehow
> solved the mystery. Only scientific research can solve it, but it has not yet done so.

I have read _Of Pandas and People_. It is a creationism text, pure and
simple. As for the challenges, "I don't know how this could have
evolved", left to stand on its own, is a venerable creationist
rhetorical stratagem. You don't get points arguing that a textbook is
not creationist by pointing to its most blatant creationist features.

> [Note for quibblers: Ideas that actually merit using the terms
>> "intelligent design", namely human engineering and hypotheses regarding
>> extraterrestrials, are not creationism. However, what the label "ID" is
>> typically used for, especially in the context of this newsgroup, is
>> certainly creationism.]
>
> I doubt that anyone reading the first sentence above didn't already know what it says long ago.
> In contrast, your "typically..." is a huge distortion. One correct statement along those lines is:
>
> typically, the majority of t.o. regulars attach the label "ID" to a claim that it is creationism.
>
> The majority are just as ignorant about ID as you are, thanks mostly to
> endless propaganda by you and your kind.

On the subject of origin of forms of life, ID is clearly creationism,
excepting perhaps only the ID of Raelians (which I would still call
creationism, but not divine creationism). On abiogenesis, I have never
seen any ID ideas which are not creationism. What did you have in mind?
On cosmology, again, I have never seen any involvement by IDists which
was not either creationism or nothing.

>> ID cannot be science because even its proponents cannot say what the
>> theory is, but only what it isn't.
>
> This depends on what you mean by "the theory." I believe the majority
> of t.o. participants have no idea that "the theory of evolution" is
> an attempt to explain the scientific fact that evolution has taken place
> on a gigantic scale. They think it is this selfsame scientific fact.
>
> ID theory is partly the effort to explain this selfsame fact as being
> influenced by intelligent intervention at various points along the line.
> And ID science is an exploration of where this intervention is a better
> explanation than current attempts at explanation without ID

Bullshit. ID makes no effort whatsoever to say what "intelligent
intervention" looks like. In fact, they seem to actively avoid the
subject. And without that detail, they cannot possibly explain as you say.

> But ID theory goes back much further, embracing abiogenesis
> (which the existing theory of evolution doesn't address),
> and cosmology. None of the above assumes anything supernatural.

But never, ever talking about design or intelligence, except to blithely
assert that it's there.

>> And since it claims the imprimatur
>> of science, that makes it pseudoscience.
>
>> These point are really simple and straightforward.
>
> And highly fallacious.

No; all true.

[peter2...@gmail.com]

On Friday, August 26, 2022 at 5:30:34 AM UTC-4, Glenn wrote:
> On Friday, August 26, 2022 at 2:15:34 AM UTC-7, *Hemidactylus* wrote:
> > peter2...@gmail.com <peter2...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > On Monday, August 22, 2022 at 10:50:30 PM UTC-4, Glenn wrote:
> > >> On Monday, August 22, 2022 at 6:25:30 PM UTC-7, *Hemidactylus* wrote:
> > >>> In the category of thread hijacking with ridiculous hyperbole:
> > >
> > > The claim of hyperbole is highly fallacious. Hemidactylus needs to explain what
> > > part of "Part of the reason I can stomach" [see the quote below] he doesn't understand.
> > >
> > Anyone invoking “Soviet slave labor camps” as a comparison to usenet
> > discussion

...would be doing something I did not do. Hemidactylus is identifying a straw man
which had been invented by his reason-challenged mind, and knocking it down.

> > where you are free to just not log in and…I just can’t continue
> > to explain the obvious…
> > >
> Truer words were never spoken.

Indeed, Hemidactylus's straw man deserves to have one stake after
another driven through its heart.


Peter Nyikos

[peter2...@gmail.com]

My bad. I should have said "almost exactly three decades ago",
when what came to later be called the Wedge strategy was made public,
a year after Phillip Johnson's book _Darwin on Trial_ came out.

> Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District was in 2005, not even close
> to half a century ago.

Judge Jones's long abysmal prelude to his very sound ruling at
the end of has nothing to do with whether ID is creationism or not.

> >> Its founding document says as much;
> >
> >You are like someone saying that Planned Parenthood's founder said that
> >its aim was eugenics.
> <cough> quotemine <cough>

You conflate analogies with quotemines. There is no quote up there.

> >Over in the thread "Bad form, Peter," I posted ample
> >documentation that PP had completely distanced itself no later than 2015
> >from Sanger's support of eugenics. This support had extended to endorsing
> >the 1927 Buck v. Bell decision, in which the Supreme Court ruled that
> >states could forcibly sterilize people deemed “unfit”
> >without their consent and sometimes without their knowledge.
> >
> >Similarly, what I wrote above is true: the leading theorists and researchers
> >scrupulously adhere to the reigning secular scientific methodology.

> >That brings you up to well before the beginning of the 21st century,
> >Mark van Winkle.

> Here's another named challenge for you: Cite an example of what you
> think illustrates how ID "theorists and researchers scrupulously
> adhere to the reigning secular scientific methodology".

Pick either of Behe's last two books, and try to find a violation.

> >> its early tactic of rebranding a creationism textbook as an ID textbook says
> >> as much.

> >>The raw data in it did challenge neo-Darwinists for an explanation, and
> >some of it still does. Several such examples appeared in a film of the late fifties,
> >and I've posted how one of them is still a mystery. Confronted with the mystery, jillery said
> >that the film was produced by creationists, as though that had somehow
> >solved the mystery. Only scientific research can solve it, but it has not yet done so.

> Here's another named challenge for you: Cite an example of that "raw
> data" you think challenges neo-Darwinists for an explanation. Fair
> warning; "it seems impossible" and "I don't understand" don't qualify.

An example is the one that I referred to just now, which you ought to remember
since you were involved. If you can't recall it, I'll refresh your memory.
Fair warning: when I wrote the above, I had forgotten about a stupefying
piece of illogic that you had indulged in; this is in addition to the
cavalier dismissal described above.

> >I'd tell you the details, but they would only go down your memory hole,
> >which is where past rebuttals to the same fallacies of yours have gone.

> The above is yet another transparent obfuscating evasion.

I do not waste this kind of time on Mark, who kept sweeping
a despicable libel against me down his memory hole.

> >> [Note for quibblers: Ideas that actually merit using the terms
> >> "intelligent design", namely human engineering and hypotheses regarding
> >> extraterrestrials, are not creationism. However, what the label "ID" is
> >> typically used for, especially in the context of this newsgroup, is
> >> certainly creationism.]
> >
> >I doubt that anyone reading the first sentence above didn't already know what it says long ago.
> >In contrast, your "typically..." is a huge distortion.

> The above is yet another transparent obfuscating evasion.

Misuse of "obfuscating" noted. Later on, I will show you indulging in a REAL
example of obfuscation.

> >One correct statement along those lines is:
> >
> >typically, the majority of t.o. regulars attach the label "ID" to a claim that it is creationism.
> >
> >The majority are just as ignorant about ID as you are, thanks mostly to
> >endless propaganda by you and your kind.

And next, we see that this also applies to Wikipedia:

> T.O. regulars aren't the only ones who recognize ID is based on
> Creationism:

Unsupported claim of "recognized" noted.

> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelligent_design>
> *************************
> ID is a form of creationism that lacks empirical support and offers no
> testable or tenable hypotheses, and is therefore not science.[7][8][9]
> *************************

Wikipedia is a highly unreliable source, and its claim of "creationism"
is inconsistent with the use of the word in its separate entry on creationism.
Moreover, its use of the word "tenable" makes this claim worthless propaganda.

> >> ID cannot be science because even its proponents cannot say what the
> >> theory is, but only what it isn't.
> >
> >This depends on what you mean by "the theory." I believe the majority
> >of t.o. participants have no idea that "the theory of evolution" is
> >an attempt to explain the scientific fact that evolution has taken place
> >on a gigantic scale. They think it is this selfsame scientific fact.
> >
> >ID theory is partly the effort to explain this selfsame fact as being
> >influenced by intelligent intervention at various points along the line.
> >And ID science is an exploration of where this intervention is a better

> >explanation than current attempts at explanation without ID.

> Here's another named challenge for you: Cite an example of what you
> think illustrates an ID explanation that's better than a scientific
> explanation, and explain how you think it's better.

You are indulging in blatant obfuscation. I was talking about the *aims* of ID theory,
not its accomplishments.

No wonder you keep falsely accusing me of obfuscation.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Ron Okimoto posting style on

Projection is a way of life for you.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Ron Okimoto posting style off


<snip of things to be dealt with some time this evening>

> >> Mark Isaak
> >> "Wisdom begins when you discover the difference between 'That
> >> doesn't make sense' and 'I don't understand.'" - Mary Doria Russell
> >
> >Unless you quit being mired in the 20th century, you will never
> >discover that difference.

> It's odd that a self-identified mathematician doesn't know what
> century 2005 is part of,

Johnson's book came out in 1991. I leave it up to you to do the math
of adding 1 to that number. See above about the Wedge strategy.
[keywords: My bad.]

And I am not a "self-identified mathematician". I am a Professor of
mathematics, identified as such by my university in 1979 as
Associate Professor, and in 1987 as (full) Professor.


Peter Nyikos

[jillery]

On Tue, 30 Aug 2022 13:10:00 -0700 (PDT), "peter2...@gmail.com"

<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kitzmiller_v._Dover_Area_School_District#Decision>
******************************
A significant aspect of the IDM [intelligent design movement] is that
despite Defendants' protestations to the contrary, it describes ID as
a religious argument. In that vein, the writings of leading ID
proponents reveal that the designer postulated by their argument is
the God of Christianity.

The evidence at trial demonstrates that ID is nothing less than the
progeny of creationism.

The overwhelming evidence at trial established that ID is a religious
view, a mere re-labeling of creationism, and not a scientific theory.
*******************************

>> >> Its founding document says as much;
>> >
>> >You are like someone saying that Planned Parenthood's founder said that
>> >its aim was eugenics.
>> <cough> quotemine <cough>
>
>You conflate analogies with quotemines. There is no quote up there.

There's nothing about Planned Parenthood or its founder up there,
either. Those and the quotemined quote are from the topic you noted
below.

>> >Over in the thread "Bad form, Peter," I posted ample
>> >documentation that PP had completely distanced itself no later than 2015
>> >from Sanger's support of eugenics. This support had extended to endorsing
>> >the 1927 Buck v. Bell decision, in which the Supreme Court ruled that
>> >states could forcibly sterilize people deemed “unfit”
>> >without their consent and sometimes without their knowledge.
>> >
>> >Similarly, what I wrote above is true: the leading theorists and researchers
>> >scrupulously adhere to the reigning secular scientific methodology.
>
>> >That brings you up to well before the beginning of the 21st century,
>> >Mark van Winkle.
>
>> Here's another named challenge for you: Cite an example of what you
>> think illustrates how ID "theorists and researchers scrupulously
>> adhere to the reigning secular scientific methodology".
>
>Pick either of Behe's last two books, and try to find a violation.

Yet more of your transparent obfuscating noise. YOU made the claim.
Back it up, or admit you lied when you said you answered all named
challenges.

>> >> its early tactic of rebranding a creationism textbook as an ID textbook says
>> >> as much.
>
>> >>The raw data in it did challenge neo-Darwinists for an explanation, and
>> >some of it still does. Several such examples appeared in a film of the late fifties,
>> >and I've posted how one of them is still a mystery. Confronted with the mystery, jillery said
>> >that the film was produced by creationists, as though that had somehow
>> >solved the mystery. Only scientific research can solve it, but it has not yet done so.
>
>> Here's another named challenge for you: Cite an example of that "raw
>> data" you think challenges neo-Darwinists for an explanation. Fair
>> warning; "it seems impossible" and "I don't understand" don't qualify.
>
>An example is the one that I referred to just now, which you ought to remember
>since you were involved. If you can't recall it, I'll refresh your memory.
>Fair warning: when I wrote the above, I had forgotten about a stupefying
>piece of illogic that you had indulged in; this is in addition to the
>cavalier dismissal described above.

Yet more of your transparent obfuscating noise. YOU made the claim.
Back it up, or admit you lied when you said you answered all named
challenges.

>> >I'd tell you the details, but they would only go down your memory hole,
>> >which is where past rebuttals to the same fallacies of yours have gone.
>
>> The above is yet another transparent obfuscating evasion.
>
>I do not waste this kind of time on Mark, who kept sweeping
>a despicable libel against me down his memory hole.

Yet more of your transparent obfuscating noise. YOU made the claim.
Back it up, or admit you lied when you said you answered all named
challenges.

>> >> [Note for quibblers: Ideas that actually merit using the terms
>> >> "intelligent design", namely human engineering and hypotheses regarding
>> >> extraterrestrials, are not creationism. However, what the label "ID" is
>> >> typically used for, especially in the context of this newsgroup, is
>> >> certainly creationism.]
>> >
>> >I doubt that anyone reading the first sentence above didn't already know what it says long ago.
>> >In contrast, your "typically..." is a huge distortion.
>
>> The above is yet another transparent obfuscating evasion.
>
>Misuse of "obfuscating" noted. Later on, I will show you indulging in a REAL
>example of obfuscation.

I would give you yet another named challenge, but you already evaded
three in just this one post.

>> >One correct statement along those lines is:
>> >
>> >typically, the majority of t.o. regulars attach the label "ID" to a claim that it is creationism.
>> >
>> >The majority are just as ignorant about ID as you are, thanks mostly to
>> >endless propaganda by you and your kind.
>
>And next, we see that this also applies to Wikipedia:
>
>> T.O. regulars aren't the only ones who recognize ID is based on
>> Creationism:
>
>Unsupported claim of "recognized" noted.

Like I said, Glenn's inability to comprehend written English must be
some kind of social disease.

>> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelligent_design>
>> *************************
>> ID is a form of creationism that lacks empirical support and offers no
>> testable or tenable hypotheses, and is therefore not science.[7][8][9]
>> *************************
>
>Wikipedia is a highly unreliable source, and its claim of "creationism"
>is inconsistent with the use of the word in its separate entry on creationism.
>Moreover, its use of the word "tenable" makes this claim worthless propaganda.

Yet more of your transparent obfuscating noise. Judge Jones also
agrees with Wikipedia.

>> >> ID cannot be science because even its proponents cannot say what the
>> >> theory is, but only what it isn't.
>> >
>> >This depends on what you mean by "the theory." I believe the majority
>> >of t.o. participants have no idea that "the theory of evolution" is
>> >an attempt to explain the scientific fact that evolution has taken place
>> >on a gigantic scale. They think it is this selfsame scientific fact.
>> >
>> >ID theory is partly the effort to explain this selfsame fact as being
>> >influenced by intelligent intervention at various points along the line.
>> >And ID science is an exploration of where this intervention is a better
>> >explanation than current attempts at explanation without ID.
>
>> Here's another named challenge for you: Cite an example of what you
>> think illustrates an ID explanation that's better than a scientific
>> explanation, and explain how you think it's better.
>
>You are indulging in blatant obfuscation. I was talking about the *aims* of ID theory,
>not its accomplishments.

Yet more of your transparent obfuscating noise. You explicitly wrote
"explain" and "explanation". YOU made the claim. Back it up, or admit
you lied when you said you answered all named challenges.

>No wonder you keep falsely accusing me of obfuscation.

No wonder you keep posting transparent obfuscating noise and lies.

<snip remaining transparent obfuscating noise>

[Glenn]

Nope. If you are referring to the new book Return of the God Hypothesis, it is separate from the argument of ID. That most ID proponents personally think the designer is their God does not make it a part of the ID argument.

But leading evolution proponents *do* *reveal* that the designer postulated by their argument is unguided natural forces.

Good to know.

"Dawkins shares the view generally held by scientists that natural selection is sufficient to explain the apparent functionality and non-random complexity of the biological world, and can be said to play the role of watchmaker in nature, albeit as an automatic, unguided by any designer, nonintelligent, blind watchmaker"

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

[peter2...@gmail.com]

On Thursday, August 25, 2022 at 10:00:34 PM UTC-4, jillery wrote:

> On Thu, 25 Aug 2022 13:55:44 -0700 (PDT), "peter2...@gmail.com"
> <peter2...@gmail.com> wrote:

Picking up where I left off in my first reply:

> >But ID theory goes back much further, embracing abiogenesis
> >(which the existing theory of evolution doesn't address),
> >and cosmology. None of the above assumes anything supernatural.

> Here's another named challenge for you: Explain how a
> non-supernatural entity could have intervened in *all* the things you
> say above.

I've given a hint earlier today on another thread in a reply to Mark Isaak:

https://groups.google.com/g/talk.origins/c/exNELbZoE1k/m/4aA_8nayCAAJ
Re: Hole In One

Here's another hint: look at Alternative 2 in the post I've linked. Then ponder what a
spectacular lottery our universe won, and think of another, far more spectacular, lottery
that might have been won by some other universe.

If these hints went over your head, just say so and I will spell out
something I've spelled out MANY times before. Are you sure you
missed them all?

> Good luck answering any one of these named challenges.

Good luck in showing that my response to your second challenge
did not violate Jesus's caution against casting pearls before swine.

Your performance below suggests that I did do that.

> >> And since it claims the imprimatur
> >> of science, that makes it pseudoscience.
> >
> >> These point are really simple and straightforward.
> >
> >And highly fallacious.

> ...in your baseless opinion.

Mindless and baseless taunt noted. I know how to back up my
claims, and have done so in reply to your second challenge.

> >> The fact that you
> >> are still in denial of them is why I see you as a sort of creationist
> >> yourself.
> >
> >"in denial" is an intellectually dishonest term. And the way you
> >are stuck decades in the past probably explains the worthlessness
> >of what you claim to "see" about me.

Unable to handle what I wrote here, you indulge in a variation of
a formula made famous by Pee Wee Herman:

"I know you are, but what is Mark?" [the original ended, "but what am I"?]

> Your entire post above reeks of denial, as do all your posts that
> mention ID.

Mindless and baseless taunt noted.

> That makes Isaak's use completely honest.

Stupefying illogic noted. You are licking Mark's boots here.


I stand by what I wrote in the next paragraph,
which you did not challenge.

> >But you are too ignorant of the relevant science to be morally
> >culpable for your worthless claim. The blame for that rests
> >mainly with others who know better, but who have insincerely claimed
> >to suspect that I am a creationist.

Might you be one of them, by the way? After all, I caught you
lying about me in sci.bio.paleontology last week behind my back,
in a thread that I had not even seen when you did your lie.

Documentation provided on request.


Peter Nyikos

[jillery]

On Tue, 30 Aug 2022 15:39:28 -0700 (PDT), Glenn <GlennS...@msn.com>
wrote:

>On Tuesday, August 30, 2022 at 2:55:39 PM UTC-7, jillery wrote:
>> On Tue, 30 Aug 2022 13:10:00 -0700 (PDT), "peter2...@gmail.com"
>> <peter2...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> >On Thursday, August 25, 2022 at 10:00:34 PM UTC-4, jillery wrote:
>> >> On Thu, 25 Aug 2022 13:55:44 -0700 (PDT), "peter2...@gmail.com"
>> >> <peter2...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >On Wednesday, August 24, 2022 at 10:25:32 AM UTC-4, Mark Isaak wrote:
>> >> >> ID is explicitly creationism.
>> >> >
>> >> >You are hopelessly mired close to half a century in the past.

>> >> Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District was in 2005, not even close
>> >> to half a century ago.
>> >
>> >Judge Jones's long abysmal prelude to his very sound ruling at
>> >the end of has nothing to do with whether ID is creationism or not.
>> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kitzmiller_v._Dover_Area_School_District#Decision>
>>******************************
>>A significant aspect of the IDM [intelligent design movement] is that
>>despite Defendants' protestations to the contrary, it describes ID as
>>a religious argument. In that vein, the writings of leading ID
>>proponents reveal that the designer postulated by their argument is
>>the God of Christianity.
>>

>>The evidence at trial demonstrates that ID is nothing less than the
>>progeny of creationism.
>>
>>The overwhelming evidence at trial established that ID is a religious
>>view, a mere re-labeling of creationism, and not a scientific theory.
>>*******************************
>

>Nope. If you are referring to the new book Return of the God Hypothesis, it is separate from the argument of ID. That most ID proponents personally think the designer is their God does not make it a part of the ID argument.

Read for comprehension. The above cite explicitly refers to Judge
Jones' decision, which was made long before Return of the God
Hypothesis was born. So your "if" is more of your mindless noise.

>But leading evolution proponents *do* *reveal* that the designer postulated by their argument is unguided natural forces.

False equivalence. ID's designer is presumed to be a purposeful,
intelligent agent, rationalized by ID's false claim that complex
designs come only from such agents. Unguided natural forces are
neither purposeful nor intelligent, yet regularly create complex
designs anyway.

>> >> T.O. regulars aren't the only ones who recognize ID is based on
>> >> Creationism:
>> >
>> >Unsupported claim of "recognized" noted.
>> Like I said, Glenn's inability to comprehend written English must be
>> some kind of social disease.
>> >> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelligent_design>
>> >> *************************
>> >> ID is a form of creationism that lacks empirical support and offers no
>> >> testable or tenable hypotheses, and is therefore not science.[7][8][9]
>> >> *************************
>> >
>> >Wikipedia is a highly unreliable source, and its claim of "creationism"
>> >is inconsistent with the use of the word in its separate entry on creationism.
>> >Moreover, its use of the word "tenable" makes this claim worthless propaganda.
>> Yet more of your transparent obfuscating noise. Judge Jones also
>> agrees with Wikipedia.
>
>Good to know.

So that's two additional agents who also are not "hopelessly mired
close to half a century in the past." How many do you need before you
and the peter stop digging that hole you're in?

[jillery]

On Tue, 30 Aug 2022 18:51:25 -0700 (PDT), "peter2...@gmail.com"

<peter2...@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Thursday, August 25, 2022 at 10:00:34 PM UTC-4, jillery wrote:
>> On Thu, 25 Aug 2022 13:55:44 -0700 (PDT), "peter2...@gmail.com"
>> <peter2...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>Picking up where I left off in my first reply:

And the trilogies cubed keep coming all the way down...

>> >But ID theory goes back much further, embracing abiogenesis
>> >(which the existing theory of evolution doesn't address),
>> >and cosmology. None of the above assumes anything supernatural.
>
>> Here's another named challenge for you: Explain how a
>> non-supernatural entity could have intervened in *all* the things you
>> say above.
>
>I've given a hint earlier today on another thread in a reply to Mark Isaak:
>
>https://groups.google.com/g/talk.origins/c/exNELbZoE1k/m/4aA_8nayCAAJ
>Re: Hole In One
>
>Here's another hint: look at Alternative 2 in the post I've linked. Then ponder what a
> spectacular lottery our universe won, and think of another, far more spectacular, lottery
>that might have been won by some other universe.
>
>If these hints went over your head, just say so and I will spell out
>something I've spelled out MANY times before. Are you sure you
>missed them all?
>
>
>> Good luck answering any one of these named challenges.
>
>Good luck in showing that my response to your second challenge
>did not violate Jesus's caution against casting pearls before swine.

You use Jesus' name in vain. Your allusions to alleged answers to
other posters in other threads don't even qualify as a response to me.
Instead your allusions are just more of your transparent obfuscating
noise. And you *still* ignored all the other named objections.

>Your performance below suggests that I did do that.

Only in your wet dreams.

>> >> And since it claims the imprimatur
>> >> of science, that makes it pseudoscience.
>> >
>> >> These point are really simple and straightforward.
>> >
>> >And highly fallacious.
>
>> ...in your baseless opinion.
>
>Mindless and baseless taunt noted. I know how to back up my
>claims, and have done so in reply to your second challenge.

Transparent obfuscating lies noted.

>> >> The fact that you
>> >> are still in denial of them is why I see you as a sort of creationist
>> >> yourself.
>> >
>> >"in denial" is an intellectually dishonest term. And the way you
>> >are stuck decades in the past probably explains the worthlessness
>> >of what you claim to "see" about me.
>
>Unable to handle what I wrote here, you indulge in a variation of
>a formula made famous by Pee Wee Herman:
>
>"I know you are, but what is Mark?" [the original ended, "but what am I"?]

In your haste to spam more of your transparent obfuscating evasions,
you conveniently forgot the above was *not* posted by jillery.

>> Your entire post above reeks of denial, as do all your posts that
>> mention ID.
>
>Mindless and baseless taunt noted.

Transparent obfuscating noise noted.

>> That makes Isaak's use completely honest.
>
>Stupefying illogic noted. You are licking Mark's boots here.

Transparent obfuscating noise noted.

>I stand by what I wrote in the next paragraph,
>which you did not challenge.

Only willfully stupid trolls expect others to respond to every jot and
tittle of what they claim to be pearls, but are instead just more of
their transparent obfuscating noise,

>> >But you are too ignorant of the relevant science to be morally
>> >culpable for your worthless claim. The blame for that rests
>> >mainly with others who know better, but who have insincerely claimed
>> >to suspect that I am a creationist.
>
>Might you be one of them, by the way? After all, I caught you
>lying about me in sci.bio.paleontology last week behind my back,
>in a thread that I had not even seen when you did your lie.
>
>Documentation provided on request.

You mean like all of the documentation I requested and you
conveniently ignored? Perhaps I should stop calling you "the peter"
and start calling you "PeeWee".

[Glenn]

On Tuesday, August 30, 2022 at 10:25:39 PM UTC-7, jillery wrote:
> On Tue, 30 Aug 2022 18:51:25 -0700 (PDT), "peter2...@gmail.com"
> <peter2...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >On Thursday, August 25, 2022 at 10:00:34 PM UTC-4, jillery wrote:
> >> On Thu, 25 Aug 2022 13:55:44 -0700 (PDT), "peter2...@gmail.com"
> >> <peter2...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >Picking up where I left off in my first reply:
> And the trilogies cubed keep coming all the way down...

Transparent obfuscating noise noted.

> >> >But ID theory goes back much further, embracing abiogenesis
> >> >(which the existing theory of evolution doesn't address),
> >> >and cosmology. None of the above assumes anything supernatural.
> >
> >> Here's another named challenge for you: Explain how a
> >> non-supernatural entity could have intervened in *all* the things you
> >> say above.
> >
> >I've given a hint earlier today on another thread in a reply to Mark Isaak:
> >
> >https://groups.google.com/g/talk.origins/c/exNELbZoE1k/m/4aA_8nayCAAJ
> >Re: Hole In One
> >
> >Here's another hint: look at Alternative 2 in the post I've linked. Then ponder what a
> > spectacular lottery our universe won, and think of another, far more spectacular, lottery
> >that might have been won by some other universe.
> >
> >If these hints went over your head, just say so and I will spell out
> >something I've spelled out MANY times before. Are you sure you
> >missed them all?
> >
> >
> >> Good luck answering any one of these named challenges.
> >
> >Good luck in showing that my response to your second challenge
> >did not violate Jesus's caution against casting pearls before swine.
> You use Jesus' name in vain. Your allusions to alleged answers to
> other posters in other threads don't even qualify as a response to me.
> Instead your allusions are just more of your transparent obfuscating
> noise. And you *still* ignored all the other named objections.

Transparent obfuscating noise noted.

> >Your performance below suggests that I did do that.
> Only in your wet dreams.

Transparent obfuscating noise noted.

> >> >> And since it claims the imprimatur
> >> >> of science, that makes it pseudoscience.
> >> >
> >> >> These point are really simple and straightforward.
> >> >
> >> >And highly fallacious.
> >
> >> ...in your baseless opinion.
> >
> >Mindless and baseless taunt noted. I know how to back up my
> >claims, and have done so in reply to your second challenge.
> Transparent obfuscating lies noted.

Transparent obfuscating noise noted.

> >> >> The fact that you
> >> >> are still in denial of them is why I see you as a sort of creationist
> >> >> yourself.
> >> >
> >> >"in denial" is an intellectually dishonest term. And the way you
> >> >are stuck decades in the past probably explains the worthlessness
> >> >of what you claim to "see" about me.
> >
> >Unable to handle what I wrote here, you indulge in a variation of
> >a formula made famous by Pee Wee Herman:
> >
> >"I know you are, but what is Mark?" [the original ended, "but what am I"?]
> In your haste to spam more of your transparent obfuscating evasions,
> you conveniently forgot the above was *not* posted by jillery.

Transparent obfuscating noise noted.

> >> Your entire post above reeks of denial, as do all your posts that
> >> mention ID.
> >
> >Mindless and baseless taunt noted.
> Transparent obfuscating noise noted.
> >> That makes Isaak's use completely honest.
> >
> >Stupefying illogic noted. You are licking Mark's boots here.
> Transparent obfuscating noise noted.
> >I stand by what I wrote in the next paragraph,
> >which you did not challenge.
> Only willfully stupid trolls expect others to respond to every jot and
> tittle of what they claim to be pearls, but are instead just more of
> their transparent obfuscating noise,

Transparent obfuscating noise noted.

> >> >But you are too ignorant of the relevant science to be morally
> >> >culpable for your worthless claim. The blame for that rests
> >> >mainly with others who know better, but who have insincerely claimed
> >> >to suspect that I am a creationist.
> >
> >Might you be one of them, by the way? After all, I caught you
> >lying about me in sci.bio.paleontology last week behind my back,
> >in a thread that I had not even seen when you did your lie.
> >
> >Documentation provided on request.
> You mean like all of the documentation I requested and you
> conveniently ignored? Perhaps I should stop calling you "the peter"
> and start calling you "PeeWee".

Transparent obfuscating noise noted.

Cliffhanging...

[peter2...@gmail.com]

On Wednesday, August 31, 2022 at 1:25:39 AM UTC-4, jillery wrote:
> On Tue, 30 Aug 2022 18:51:25 -0700 (PDT), "peter2...@gmail.com"
> <peter2...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >On Thursday, August 25, 2022 at 10:00:34 PM UTC-4, jillery wrote:
> >> On Thu, 25 Aug 2022 13:55:44 -0700 (PDT), "peter2...@gmail.com"
> >> <peter2...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >Picking up where I left off in my first reply:

> And the trilogies cubed keep coming all the way down...

"trilogy" is incorrect: I only split my reply to your one LONG post into
two parts, not three.

> >> >But ID theory goes back much further, embracing abiogenesis
> >> >(which the existing theory of evolution doesn't address),
> >> >and cosmology. None of the above assumes anything supernatural.
> >
> >> Here's another named challenge for you: Explain how a
> >> non-supernatural entity could have intervened in *all* the things you
> >> say above.
> >
> >I've given a hint earlier today on another thread in a reply to Mark Isaak:
> >
> >https://groups.google.com/g/talk.origins/c/exNELbZoE1k/m/4aA_8nayCAAJ
> >Re: Hole In One
> >
> >Here's another hint: look at Alternative 2 in the post I've linked. Then ponder what a
> > spectacular lottery our universe won, and think of another, far more spectacular, lottery
> >that might have been won by some other universe.
> >
> >If these hints went over your head, just say so and I will spell out
> >something I've spelled out MANY times before. Are you sure you
> >missed them all?
> >
> >
> >> Good luck answering any one of these named challenges.
> >

> >Good luck in showing that my response to your second [pair of challenges]

> >did not violate Jesus's caution against casting pearls before swine.

> You use Jesus' name in vain.

You are woefully ignorant of what is meant in the Bible by "taking someone's name in vain."

Would you like a lesson on what it means?

> Your allusions to alleged answers to
> other posters in other threads don't even qualify as a response to me.

"alleged answers" = answers in a linked post which the jillery arrogantly
refuses to look at despite my having given and extraordinarily
precise hint as to where in the linked post to look for them.

This is in stunning contrast to the way your buddy Ron Okimoto
accuses people of "running away" if they don't look at his linked posts,
which almost never contain what he claims for them.

> Instead your allusions are just more of your transparent obfuscating
> noise. And you *still* ignored all the other named objections.

Wrong, twit. I addressed them in the first reply to your very long post;
you are responding here to the second, concluding reply.

And thanks for admitting that they had nothing to do with my reply to
this pair (abiogenesis AND cosmology). So much for your asinine
claim, embraced by Zen Cycle to the hilt, that breaking up VERY LONG
responses into two or three separate replies to ALREADY very long posts
is a form of obfuscation. It's just the opposite when the two halves
do not depend on one another, as here.

> >Your performance below suggests that I did do that.
> Only in your wet dreams.

Mindless noise by you noted. Below, you clinch the case for my having
violated Jesus's precept, already begun before this line and
continuing with it.

> >> >> And since it claims the imprimatur
> >> >> of science, that makes it pseudoscience.
> >> >
> >> >> These point are really simple and straightforward.
> >> >
> >> >And highly fallacious.
> >
> >> ...in your baseless opinion.
> >
> >Mindless and baseless taunt noted. I know how to back up my
> >claims, and have done so in reply to your second challenge.

> Transparent obfuscating lies noted.

Defamation noted. The only reason your nefarious mind might think
it is telling the truth is that you arrogantly refused to look at the
evidence I linked for you. I even told you exactly what to look for there,
remarkably unlike Ron O, whose greatest benefactor besides DIG
has been yourself.

Harshman has labeled far less arrogant behavior than yours "megalomania"
right on this thread (or, bypassing your nonstandard definition of "thread,"
right on this Subject line).

> >> >> The fact that you
> >> >> are still in denial of them is why I see you as a sort of creationist
> >> >> yourself.
> >> >
> >> >"in denial" is an intellectually dishonest term. And the way you
> >> >are stuck decades in the past probably explains the worthlessness
> >> >of what you claim to "see" about me.
> >
> >Unable to handle what I wrote here, you indulge in a variation of
> >a formula made famous by Pee Wee Herman:
> >
> >"I know you are, but what is Mark?" [the original ended, "but what am I"?]

> In your haste to spam more of your transparent obfuscating evasions,
> you conveniently forgot the above was *not* posted by jillery.

I forgot nothing. You and Mark are in a mutual "see no evil, hear no evil,
speak no evil" relationship to each other, and since you lengthened
your post by not snipping what he said, the default assumption
is that you agree with it.


That assumption is supported by the way you echoed Mark
with the following Pee Wee Hermanism:

> >> Your entire post above reeks of denial, as do all your posts that
> >> mention ID.
> >
> >Mindless and baseless taunt noted.

> Transparent obfuscating noise noted.

You have confirmed that I did violate Jesus's admonition.
What follows is overkill confirmation by you.
I'm leaving it in after my electronic signature
as evidence of that, but will not waste any more time with it.


Peter Nyikos

[jillery]

On Wed, 31 Aug 2022 12:35:57 -0700 (PDT), "peter2...@gmail.com"
<peter2...@gmail.com> wrote:

>> And the trilogies cubed keep coming all the way down...
>
>"trilogy" is incorrect: I only split my reply to your one LONG post into
>two parts, not three.

Time will tell.

[Glenn]

On Wednesday, August 31, 2022 at 1:55:40 PM UTC-7, jillery wrote:
> On Wed, 31 Aug 2022 12:35:57 -0700 (PDT), "peter2...@gmail.com"
> <peter2...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >> And the trilogies cubed keep coming all the way down...
> >
> >"trilogy" is incorrect: I only split my reply to your one LONG post into
> >two parts, not three.
> Time will tell.
> --

It already has. Define "trilogy" any way you want. It only backfires.

[peter2...@gmail.com]

Judge Jones is blatantly conflating a "movement" with a single
document that was the embryo of the movement.
And he is further conflating that embryo with the ID science that,
as practiced by the most knowledgeable WITNESSES FOR THE DEFENSE,
Behe and Minnich, scrupulously adheres to the methodology
of science that the National Academy of Sciences [NAS]
considers to be definitive.

In short, Judge Jones doesn't see science when it is right in front of
his nose, as in the case of Minnich's testimony.
Too bad the school district wasn't under the juristriction
of a court that had another judge more competent at science than Jones.

> In that vein, the writings of leading ID
> proponents reveal that the designer postulated by their argument is
> the God of Christianity.

Now Judge Jones is conflating the personal beliefs of Behe and Minnich
with their scientific hypotheses.

As I suggested above, it's a shame Judge Jones was unable to
recuse himself from the case.

>
> The evidence at trial demonstrates that ID is nothing less than the
> progeny of creationism.

The most charitable thing one can say about this without
spin-doctoring the bejesus out of the word "progeny,"
is that it is completely false.

Fortunately, this is all part of what is called "The Opinion of the Court" when the
court consists of more than one judge. It has NO legal status,
otherwise Roe v. Wade would have been invalidated by the numerous
historical and biological howlers it contains.

And the opinion of Judge Jones is essentially worthless in his
preceding sentence, and completely worthless in the following one.

>
> The overwhelming evidence at trial established that ID is a religious
> view, a mere re-labeling of creationism, and not a scientific theory.
> *******************************
> >> >> Its founding document says as much;
> >> >
> >> >You are like someone saying that Planned Parenthood's founder said that
> >> >its aim was eugenics.
> >> <cough> quotemine <cough>
> >
> >You conflate analogies with quotemines. There is no quote up there.


> There's nothing about Planned Parenthood or its founder up there, either.

What part of "analogies" didn't you understand?

> >> >Over in the thread "Bad form, Peter," I posted ample
> >> >documentation that PP had completely distanced itself no later than 2015
> >> >from Sanger's support of eugenics. This support had extended to endorsing
> >> >the 1927 Buck v. Bell decision, in which the Supreme Court ruled that
> >> >states could forcibly sterilize people deemed “unfit”
> >> >without their consent and sometimes without their knowledge.
> >> >
> >> >Similarly, what I wrote above is true: the leading theorists and researchers
> >> >scrupulously adhere to the reigning secular scientific methodology.
> >
> >> >That brings you up to well before the beginning of the 21st century,
> >> >Mark van Winkle.
> >
> >> Here's another named challenge for you: Cite an example of what you
> >> think illustrates how ID "theorists and researchers scrupulously
> >> adhere to the reigning secular scientific methodology".
> >
> >Pick either of Behe's last two books, and try to find a violation.

> Yet more of your transparent obfuscating noise.

I see you are inept at discerning obvious implications. Very well, then:

I guarantee that you will not find a single violation in either _The Edge of Evolution_
or _Darwin Devolves_ [I had momentarily forgotten that Behe has published
a more recent book, which I haven't seen yet.]


> YOU made the claim.

NOW I've made a claim. Not before. Hence your loaded, arrogant
next sentence misuses the word "lied."

> Back it up, or admit you lied when you said you answered all named
> challenges.

I can't prove that kind of negative. It's up to you to show that
at least one of these two books does not meet your challenge.


Continued in next reply, to be done soon after I see that this one has posted.

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

Univ. of South Carolina in Columbia
http://people.math.sc.edu/nyikos

[peter2...@gmail.com]

On Tuesday, August 30, 2022 at 5:55:39 PM UTC-4, jillery wrote:
> On Tue, 30 Aug 2022 13:10:00 -0700 (PDT), "peter2...@gmail.com"
> <peter2...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >On Thursday, August 25, 2022 at 10:00:34 PM UTC-4, jillery wrote:
> >> On Thu, 25 Aug 2022 13:55:44 -0700 (PDT), "peter2...@gmail.com"
> >> <peter2...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> >On Wednesday, August 24, 2022 at 10:25:32 AM UTC-4, Mark Isaak wrote:

I'm quoting one line of text from what Mark wrote before picking up
where I left off in my first reply to this post.

> >> >> ID is explicitly creationism.

> >> >> its early tactic of rebranding a creationism textbook as an ID textbook says
> >> >> as much.
> >
> >> >>The raw data in it did challenge neo-Darwinists for an explanation, and
> >> >some of it still does. Several such examples appeared in a film of the late fifties,
> >> >and I've posted how one of them is still a mystery. Confronted with the mystery, jillery said
> >> >that the film was produced by creationists, as though that had somehow
> >> >solved the mystery. Only scientific research can solve it, but it has not yet done so.
> >
> >> Here's another named challenge for you: Cite an example of that "raw
> >> data" you think challenges neo-Darwinists for an explanation. Fair
> >> warning; "it seems impossible" and "I don't understand" don't qualify.

The "Fair warning" is insulting the intelligence of everyone reading it:
the examples listed are not raw data.

> >An example is the one that I referred to just now, which you ought to remember
> >since you were involved. If you can't recall it, I'll refresh your memory.
> >Fair warning: when I wrote the above, I had forgotten about a stupefying
> >piece of illogic that you had indulged in; this is in addition to the
> >cavalier dismissal described above.

If anyone would like to know about that piece of illogic, I'll recall it for them.

> Yet more of your transparent obfuscating noise. YOU made the claim.
> Back it up, or admit you lied when you said you answered all named
> challenges.

You are trampling on the olive branch I held out with "If you can't recall it, I'll refresh your memory."
You haven't admitted to not recalling it.

Nevertheless, I will now recall it for the benefit of open-minded readers.

The film talked about how one population of Pacific golden plovers makes a nonstop migratory
flight from Alaska to the Big Island of Hawaii with unerring accuracy. It invited readers
to decide: did this come about due to blind evolution, or did supernatural design play a part?

I have not been able to find a scientific study for that particular population,
but here is one for another population whose destination is Oahu:

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/253328994_Tracking_the_migrations_of_Pacific_Golden-Plovers_Pluvialis_fulva_between_Hawaii_and_Alaska_New_insight_on_flight_performance_breeding_ground_destinations_and_nesting_from_birds_carrying_light_level_g
Excerpt:
For migrants moving southward in the mid-Pacifc, the Hawaiian Archipelago presents a wide target stretching approximately 2,500 km from northwest to southeast. It seemed possible that this lengthy chain of islands might function as a navigational pathway, especially during fall migration when plovers are returning to a wintering location like Oahu near the southeastern end of the archipelago. However, we found almost no evidence for this other than possible infrequent short-distance linkage between Oahu and Kauai. Instead, our results indicate that migratory flights between Oahu and Alaska are typically direct averaging about 4,800–4,900 km (the great circle distance from Oahu to the mid-region of the Alaska Peninsula is approximately 3,900 km).

Some birds were fitted out with tracking devices that revealed that the paths included
big zigzags which deviated far from the correct direction to the destination.
So the words "typically direct" have to refer to the way the flight paths all
converged on each other, somehow correcting for these deviations.
See figures 4 and 5.

Here is the mystery: just how is this unerring accuracy the result of evolution that
conforms to the reigning theory of (micro)evolution known as The Modern Synthesis
(a.k.a. neo-Darwinism)? What sequence of individual mutations could produce it?


And here, for people with open minds, is an account of many other details
that make the journey remarkable.

https://fountainmagazine.com/2020/issue-133-jan-feb-2020/nonstop-from-alaska-to-hawaii-pacific-golden-plovers-and-their-miraculous-journey-across-the-ocean

Those who dismiss this as a "creationist" article despite its impressive data,
and without looking at it, do so at their peril: this is not a Christian fundie
magazine, but one published by Sufis. I didn't realize that until I saw the quotation
at the very end:

“Have they never considered the birds above them, flying in lines with wings they spread out and fold in? Nothing holds them up except the All-Merciful. He indeed sees everything very well.” Mulk 67:19

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

PS I am leaving in the rest, so that people can see what closed-mindedness
I am dealing with here. But my main objectives have always been to
educate people about scientific facts and theories, and to learn
more about them through feedback, and to expose tactics
that sabotage this kind of communication by hook or crook.

If anyone thinks jillery made any valid points below,
and explains why they think the points are worth addressing, I will address them.

[jillery]

On Wed, 31 Aug 2022 14:05:15 -0700 (PDT), Glenn <GlennS...@msn.com>
wrote:

>On Wednesday, August 31, 2022 at 1:55:40 PM UTC-7, jillery wrote:
>> On Wed, 31 Aug 2022 12:35:57 -0700 (PDT), "peter2...@gmail.com"
>> <peter2...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> >> And the trilogies cubed keep coming all the way down...
>> >
>> >"trilogy" is incorrect: I only split my reply to your one LONG post into
>> >two parts, not three.
>> Time will tell.
>> --
>It already has.

Unless time has stopped for you, no it has not.

[Glenn]

On Wednesday, August 31, 2022 at 6:30:41 PM UTC-7, jillery wrote:
> On Wed, 31 Aug 2022 14:05:15 -0700 (PDT), Glenn <GlennS...@msn.com>
> wrote:
> >On Wednesday, August 31, 2022 at 1:55:40 PM UTC-7, jillery wrote:
> >> On Wed, 31 Aug 2022 12:35:57 -0700 (PDT), "peter2...@gmail.com"
> >> <peter2...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> >> And the trilogies cubed keep coming all the way down...
> >> >
> >> >"trilogy" is incorrect: I only split my reply to your one LONG post into
> >> >two parts, not three.
> >> Time will tell.
> >> --
> >It already has.
> Unless time has stopped for you, no it has not.
> --

Using that logic, it never will.

[jillery]

On Wed, 31 Aug 2022 14:39:31 -0700 (PDT), "peter2...@gmail.com"

<peter2...@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Tuesday, August 30, 2022 at 5:55:39 PM UTC-4, jillery wrote:
>> On Tue, 30 Aug 2022 13:10:00 -0700 (PDT), "peter2...@gmail.com"
>> <peter2...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> >On Thursday, August 25, 2022 at 10:00:34 PM UTC-4, jillery wrote:
>> >> On Thu, 25 Aug 2022 13:55:44 -0700 (PDT), "peter2...@gmail.com"
>> >> <peter2...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >On Wednesday, August 24, 2022 at 10:25:32 AM UTC-4, Mark Isaak wrote:
>
>I'm quoting one line of text from what Mark wrote before picking up
>where I left off in my first reply to this post.
>
>> >> >> ID is explicitly creationism.
>> >> >> its early tactic of rebranding a creationism textbook as an ID textbook says
>> >> >> as much.
>> >
>> >> >>The raw data in it did challenge neo-Darwinists for an explanation, and
>> >> >some of it still does. Several such examples appeared in a film of the late fifties,
>> >> >and I've posted how one of them is still a mystery. Confronted with the mystery, jillery said
>> >> >that the film was produced by creationists, as though that had somehow
>> >> >solved the mystery. Only scientific research can solve it, but it has not yet done so.

That you don't cite the thread to which you baselessly allude above
suggests your comments are charitably described as a self-serving
misrepresentation of the facts.

>> >> Here's another named challenge for you: Cite an example of that "raw
>> >> data" you think challenges neo-Darwinists for an explanation. Fair
>> >> warning; "it seems impossible" and "I don't understand" don't qualify.
>
>The "Fair warning" is insulting the intelligence of everyone reading it:
>the examples listed are not raw data.

Yet more of your transparent obfuscating evasions. "raw data" is YOUR
phrase, still preserved in the quoted text above. And you cited no
examples.

>> >An example is the one that I referred to just now, which you ought to remember
>> >since you were involved. If you can't recall it, I'll refresh your memory.
>> >Fair warning: when I wrote the above, I had forgotten about a stupefying
>> >piece of illogic that you had indulged in; this is in addition to the
>> >cavalier dismissal described above.
>
>If anyone would like to know about that piece of illogic, I'll recall it for them.

Yet more of your transparent obfuscating evasions. Your baseless
allusions don't qualify as a response.

>> Yet more of your transparent obfuscating noise. YOU made the claim.
>> Back it up, or admit you lied when you said you answered all named
>> challenges.
>
>You are trampling on the olive branch I held out with "If you can't recall it, I'll refresh your memory."
>You haven't admitted to not recalling it.

Yet more of your transparent obfuscating evasions. Your olive
branches have thorns and rotten fruit.

>Nevertheless, I will now recall it for the benefit of open-minded readers.

Yet more of your transparent obfuscating evasions. You can't recall
what you never posted.

>The film talked about how one population of Pacific golden plovers makes a nonstop migratory
>flight from Alaska to the Big Island of Hawaii with unerring accuracy. It invited readers
>to decide: did this come about due to blind evolution, or did supernatural design play a part?
>
>I have not been able to find a scientific study for that particular population,
>but here is one for another population whose destination is Oahu:
>
>https://www.researchgate.net/publication/253328994_Tracking_the_migrations_of_Pacific_Golden-Plovers_Pluvialis_fulva_between_Hawaii_and_Alaska_New_insight_on_flight_performance_breeding_ground_destinations_and_nesting_from_birds_carrying_light_level_g
> Excerpt:
>For migrants moving southward in the mid-Pacifc, the Hawaiian Archipelago presents a wide target stretching approximately 2,500 km from northwest to southeast. It seemed possible that this lengthy chain of islands might function as a navigational pathway, especially during fall migration when plovers are returning to a wintering location like Oahu near the southeastern end of the archipelago. However, we found almost no evidence for this other than possible infrequent short-distance linkage between Oahu and Kauai. Instead, our results indicate that migratory flights between Oahu and Alaska are typically direct averaging about 4,800–4,900 km (the great circle distance from Oahu to the mid-region of the Alaska Peninsula is approximately 3,900 km).
>
>Some birds were fitted out with tracking devices that revealed that the paths included
>big zigzags which deviated far from the correct direction to the destination.
>So the words "typically direct" have to refer to the way the flight paths all
>converged on each other, somehow correcting for these deviations.
>See figures 4 and 5.
>
>Here is the mystery: just how is this unerring accuracy the result of evolution that
>conforms to the reigning theory of (micro)evolution known as The Modern Synthesis
>(a.k.a. neo-Darwinism)? What sequence of individual mutations could produce it?

The above question is of the "it seems impossible" and "I don't
understand" type of question you insisted you don't provide. You and
the article claim there is a mystery, and assume science has no
answer. But neither you nor the article show said lack.

There are lots of unanswered questions. There are lots of phenomena
which lack exact, detailed empiric proof. These things are not what
qualifies a challenge to evolution.

For your cited phenomena to support your expressed claim, you would
have to show that evolution was required for it, and/or could not
explain it even in principle.

In fact, lots of birds migrate large distances over open ocean, some
even farther than these plovers. So that skill is well-developed and
distributed. I suppose you think it's implausible some already
migratory population was blown off course and landed on the Hawaiian
chain. But their skills would be honed over millions of years. Those
that miss the mark, drown. Those that find their way, survive and
reproduce. There's no challenge here of the type you claim.

>And here, for people with open minds, is an account of many other details
>that make the journey remarkable.
>
>https://fountainmagazine.com/2020/issue-133-jan-feb-2020/nonstop-from-alaska-to-hawaii-pacific-golden-plovers-and-their-miraculous-journey-across-the-ocean
>
>Those who dismiss this as a "creationist" article despite its impressive data,
>and without looking at it, do so at their peril: this is not a Christian fundie
>magazine, but one published by Sufis. I didn't realize that until I saw the quotation
>at the very end:
>
>“Have they never considered the birds above them, flying in lines with wings they spread out and fold in? Nothing holds them up except the All-Merciful. He indeed sees everything very well.” Mulk 67:19

Yet more of your transparent obfuscating evasions. Fundamentalist
Muslims are at least as Creationist as Fundamentalist Christians. The
specific religion does not inform this thread.

>Peter Nyikos
>Professor, Dept. of Mathematics -- standard disclaimer--
>University of South Carolina
>http://people.math.sc.edu/nyikos
>
>PS I am leaving in the rest, so that people can see what closed-mindedness
>I am dealing with here. But my main objectives have always been to
>educate people about scientific facts and theories, and to learn
>more about them through feedback, and to expose tactics
>that sabotage this kind of communication by hook or crook.

Yet more of your transparent obfuscating evasions. That you spammed
multiple posts before you finally provided one example to one named
challenge shows that it is YOU who nurtures a closed mind and poisons
the well.

[jillery]

On Wed, 31 Aug 2022 14:10:03 -0700 (PDT), "peter2...@gmail.com"

The above is an example of YOU doing:

A: an unmarked snip
B: of substantive text

>Judge Jones is blatantly conflating a "movement" with a single
>document that was the embryo of the movement.

The above is an example of your transparent obfuscating evasions. Your
claim is that Isaak's claim is "hopelessly" outdated. The quoted text
clearly shows Isaak's claim is echoed in Judge Jones' decision from
2005. But instead of admitting your expressed claim is incorrect, you
derail your own point to argue against Judge Jones' decision, which
had zero to do with your expressed claim.

So you were NOT alluding to the thread "Bad form, Peter" as you claim
below. This shows your comments are just more of your obfuscating
noise.

>> >> >Over in the thread "Bad form, Peter," I posted ample
>> >> >documentation that PP had completely distanced itself no later than 2015
>> >> >from Sanger's support of eugenics. This support had extended to endorsing
>> >> >the 1927 Buck v. Bell decision, in which the Supreme Court ruled that
>> >> >states could forcibly sterilize people deemed “unfit”
>> >> >without their consent and sometimes without their knowledge.
>> >> >
>> >> >Similarly, what I wrote above is true: the leading theorists and researchers
>> >> >scrupulously adhere to the reigning secular scientific methodology.
>> >
>> >> >That brings you up to well before the beginning of the 21st century,
>> >> >Mark van Winkle.
>> >
>> >> Here's another named challenge for you: Cite an example of what you
>> >> think illustrates how ID "theorists and researchers scrupulously
>> >> adhere to the reigning secular scientific methodology".
>> >
>> >Pick either of Behe's last two books, and try to find a violation.
>
>> Yet more of your transparent obfuscating noise.
>
>I see you are inept at discerning obvious implications. Very well, then:
>
>I guarantee that you will not find a single violation in either _The Edge of Evolution_
>or _Darwin Devolves_ [I had momentarily forgotten that Behe has published
>a more recent book, which I haven't seen yet.]

The above is just more of your transparent obfuscating evasions. I
know you know how to cite. Alluding to a book doesn't qualify. Even
if there are no inconsistencies in the book, you still need to cite
some affirmative example from it of how ID "theorists and researchers

scrupulously adhere to the reigning secular scientific methodology".

>> YOU made the claim.
>
>NOW I've made a claim. Not before.

The above is just more of your transparent obfuscating evasions. Your
claim remains in the quoted text above. And you have made that claim
many times in the past.

>Hence your loaded, arrogant next sentence misuses the word "lied."

And your comment above is yet another of your stupid lies.

>> Back it up, or admit you lied when you said you answered all named
>> challenges.
>
>I can't prove that kind of negative. It's up to you to show that
>at least one of these two books does not meet your challenge.

Nobody asked you to prove a negative. YOU claimed you answered all
named challenges. YOU made a specific positive claim. I challenged
your positive claim. And you're *still* haven't answered it.

>Continued in next reply, to be done soon after I see that this one has posted.

And the trilogies cubed keep coming all the way down... >

[jillery]

On Wed, 31 Aug 2022 18:32:27 -0700 (PDT), Glenn <GlennS...@msn.com>

wrote:

>On Wednesday, August 31, 2022 at 6:30:41 PM UTC-7, jillery wrote:
>> On Wed, 31 Aug 2022 14:05:15 -0700 (PDT), Glenn <GlennS...@msn.com>
>> wrote:
>> >On Wednesday, August 31, 2022 at 1:55:40 PM UTC-7, jillery wrote:
>> >> On Wed, 31 Aug 2022 12:35:57 -0700 (PDT), "peter2...@gmail.com"
>> >> <peter2...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >> And the trilogies cubed keep coming all the way down...
>> >> >
>> >> >"trilogy" is incorrect: I only split my reply to your one LONG post into
>> >> >two parts, not three.
>> >> Time will tell.
>> >> --
>> >It already has.
>> Unless time has stopped for you, no it has not.
>> --
>Using that logic, it never will.

Very good. Tell your mommy to give you a gold star.

[Glenn]

You are nothing if not predictable and dull.

[Burkhard]

Judge Jones, as is his duty, adjudicates the facts of the specific case,
as plead by the parties. The issue then is if a specific book, Of Pandas
and People. The book was printed by the Foundation for Thought and
Ethics, who had given it the remit of ""sensitively written to present
both evolution and creation". It's original working title was "Creation
Biology Textbook Supplements", and only in later versions was the word
"creation" clumsily replaced by "ID", while internal papers made it
clear that this was always intended as a way to circumvent the law. That
is the movement the decision talks about, and the only one that matters
given the facts under litigation.

> And he is further conflating that embryo with the ID science that,
> as practiced by the most knowledgeable WITNESSES FOR THE DEFENSE,
> Behe and Minnich, scrupulously adheres to the methodology
> of science that the National Academy of Sciences [NAS]
> considers to be definitive.

Yet neither shows in their testimony an actual science of ID. They do
not show an active research program, even in embryonic form, taht could
answer the most obvious questions for a design theory, i.e. "who
designed, when and how and for what purpose"

The problem that Behe and Minnich create for their client is not that
they don;t use naturalistic methods, the problem is that

>
> In short, Judge Jones doesn't see science when it is right in front of
> his nose, as in the case of Minnich's testimony.
> Too bad the school district wasn't under the juristriction
> of a court that had another judge more competent at science than Jones.

Jones was if anything unreasonably kind to them. There was no way that
case was winnable, given how the law was (interpreted) then, and given
the constraints the defendants probably imposed on their defense team.
Now, they "could" have nailed their flag to the mast of an explicitly
secular ID theory - if they had found e.g. an expert witness who had
had shown an active research program on aliens that in the expert's
opinion seeded life on earth. But a) that would have been the last thing
they want, and b) even this may not have been enough, as the obvious
question would have been: so if you really want to teach directed
panspermia as an alternative account, why is it not mentioned once in
P&P and you bring it up only now?

I've rarely seen a case where the experts of the losing side are cited
so extensively in the decision, which shows just how much damage they
inflicted on their side - and also why the plaintiff's lawyer did not
challenge the admissibility of their testimony on relevancy grounds as
they could easily have done - they must have fely like Christmas and
Birthday happening on the same day

>
>
>> In that vein, the writings of leading ID
>> proponents reveal that the designer postulated by their argument is
>> the God of Christianity.
>
> Now Judge Jones is conflating the personal beliefs of Behe and Minnich
> with their scientific hypotheses.

This is a court case, not a science symposium or an academic philosophy
conference. In the former, discussing the motives of an author is indeed
unwarranted. In a judicial review case, they are not. "Pretextual
explanations" are a well established legal category, especially in 1.
Amendment Jurisprudence. A leading case is in particular Church of
Lukumi Babalu Aye v. City of Hialeah where SCOTUS ruled that even a
facially secular purpose can be deemed to create unjustifiable burdens
if these secular purposes are pretextual. To determine if they are,
"from circumstantial evidence, for example the historical background
leading to the enactments." ( see also the analysis of Doheny, Free
Exercise Does Not Protect Animal Sacrifice, 2 Journal of Animal Law 121
(2006))

So the fact that the authors of P&P are YECs, that the hard copies of
the book were all donated by the local church, that earlier versions had
been clearly committed to creationist accounts etc are all legitimate
and indeed necessary considerations the court can and has to take into
account.

The decision refers to the background of the authors of P&P btw, not
Behe or Minnich, so I have no idea where you get the idea from that
Jones took these into account.

>
> As I suggested above, it's a shame Judge Jones was unable to
> recuse himself from the case.

The mere fact that his analysis (which you never really understood
properly) doesn't please you is hardly a reason for excusal.

>
>>
>> The evidence at trial demonstrates that ID is nothing less than the
>> progeny of creationism.
>
> The most charitable thing one can say about this without
> spin-doctoring the bejesus out of the word "progeny,"
> is that it is completely false.

A book that takes an older book and replaces some words in it is rather
clearly a case of progeny I'd say.

[jillery]

On Thu, 1 Sep 2022 13:00:53 +0100, Burkhard <b.sc...@ed.ac.uk>
wrote:

Thank you for adding your expert analysis about the Kitzmiller trial.
Judge Jones was also angry with the defendants for their deceptive
efforts to hide their intent, and for changing their testimonies. IIRC
he had considered charging them with perjury.

[jillery]

On Wed, 31 Aug 2022 19:07:36 -0700 (PDT), Glenn <GlennS...@msn.com>

Don't like predictability? Then stop posting your predictable
mindless noise. Not sure how even you *still* can't figure that out.

[peter2...@gmail.com]

> >>> the end of [the official document] has nothing to do with whether ID is creationism or not.

> >> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kitzmiller_v._Dover_Area_School_District#Decision>
> >
> >> ******************************
> >> A significant aspect of the IDM [intelligent design movement] is that
> >> despite Defendants' protestations to the contrary, it describes ID as
> >> a religious argument.
> >
> > Judge Jones is blatantly conflating a "movement" with a single
> > document that was the embryo of the movement.

> Judge Jones, as is his duty, adjudicates the facts of the specific case,
> as plead by the parties.

Which party cited what I call the "embryo," and to what cross-examination
did that give rise?

If there was no citation, then Judge Jones was out of order by your criteria.

> The issue then is if a specific book, Of Pandas and People.

Then the word "it" was used irregularly in "it describes ID as a religious argument."
There is no such description involved in what you say next.

> The book was printed by the Foundation for Thought and
> Ethics, who had given it the remit of ""sensitively written to present
> both evolution and creation". It's original working title was "Creation
> Biology Textbook Supplements", and only in later versions was the word
> "creation" clumsily replaced by "ID",

There was nothing clumsy about it. As I told Mark Isaak, the book
had a lot of raw material in the form of scientific data.
I don't know whether the book mentioned the case of the
Pacific golden plover that I described in the reply to jillery that I posted
soon after the one to which you are replying. If it did not,
it was a most incompetent oversight.

>while internal papers made it
> clear that this was always intended as a way to circumvent the law.

The law against teaching creationism in the public schools, that is.
ID is a completely different issue, when it adheres to standard
scientific methodology.

> That is the movement the decision talks about, and the only one that matters
> given the facts under litigation.

The movement is a big tent, and to call it "religious" is a half-truth:
it is both religious and scientific. Hence my next comment:

> > And he is further conflating that embryo with the ID science that,
> > as practiced by the most knowledgeable WITNESSES FOR THE DEFENSE,
> > Behe and Minnich, scrupulously adheres to the methodology
> > of science that the National Academy of Sciences [NAS]
> > considers to be definitive.

> Yet neither shows in their testimony an actual science of ID.

Minnich and his graduate students performed sixty or more laboratory
experiments that showed that each and every part of the flagellum
that they studied was irreducibly complex (IC) with respect to the
function of swimming.

Minnich's long, detailed description of those experiments is in the
official transcript of the proceedings. Judge Jones evidently
didn't read that part, and was unable to recall it from the testimony
that went on right under his nose.

IC is an integral part of the science of ID: the more parts an
example has, the bigger the challenge to anti-ID scientists
to show how it could have evolved by individual mutations
and natural selection.

Jillery, for whom you have an inordinate amount of respect,
characterized a paragraph of the same sort as the above thus:

"The above question is of the "it seems impossible" and "I don't
understand" type of question you insisted you don't provide."

> They do not show an active research program, even in embryonic form, taht could
> answer the most obvious questions for a design theory, i.e. "who
> designed, when and how and for what purpose"

This is a criterion invented by anti-ID propagandists. They give no credible argument
for why it is a necessary component of ID science. Compare:

Who designed The Voinich manuscript, when and how and for what purpose?
Nobody knows the answer to these questions.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voynich_manuscript

More importantly, these questions are totally irrelevant to the obvious fact that it was
intelligently designed. So is the fact that it was written on paper.
If geologists had found a pile of rocks with scratches from which its contents
(minus irrelevant details like coloring) could have been reconstructed by suitable arrangement,
it would still be obvious that it was intelligently designed.

>
> The problem that Behe and Minnich create for their client is not that
> they don;t use naturalistic methods, the problem is that

Yes? how did you intend to finish that sentence?


Remainder deleted, pending an answer to this question. The topic
shifts noticeably, so this is as good a place to split my replies
to your long post.

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

University of South Carolina
http://people.math.sc.edu/nyikos

PS I didn't want to interrupt the flow of ideas too long, but I do want to
say this about jillery's words that I quoted: they are standard
anti-ID boilerplate misrepresentations of the actual things
ID theorists, ID experimenters, and knowledgeable people like
myself actually say about the evidence for ID. It isn't supposed to be
conclusive. Its purpose is to show that the ID hypothesis is very
much on the table, and needs to be countered in a scientific way.
Mainstream scientists show very little interest in trying to counter it scientifically.
Instead, they put most of their efforts into polemic and propaganda,
much of it distortion or outright misrepresentation.

[jillery]

On Thu, 1 Sep 2022 07:14:27 -0700 (PDT), "peter2...@gmail.com"

The quote above which you willfully mangled is itself a summary of
Judge Jones' judgment. I doubt it will make a difference, but you
could read an expanded version here:

<https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Kitzmiller_v._Dover_Area_School_District>

>> The book was printed by the Foundation for Thought and
>> Ethics, who had given it the remit of ""sensitively written to present
>> both evolution and creation". It's original working title was "Creation
>> Biology Textbook Supplements", and only in later versions was the word
>> "creation" clumsily replaced by "ID",
>
>There was nothing clumsy about it.

<cough> cdesign proponentsists <cough>

>As I told Mark Isaak, the book
>had a lot of raw material in the form of scientific data.

You keep saying that, even as you continue to evade citing even one
example of any of that "lots of raw material".

>I don't know whether the book mentioned the case of the
>Pacific golden plover that I described in the reply to jillery that I posted
>soon after the one to which you are replying. If it did not,
>it was a most incompetent oversight.

Your "case" didn't even try to make the case you claim it does.

>>while internal papers made it
>> clear that this was always intended as a way to circumvent the law.
>
>The law against teaching creationism in the public schools, that is.
>ID is a completely different issue, when it adheres to standard
>scientific methodology.

Once again, you keep saying that, even as you continue to evade citing
even one instance where ID adheres to standard scientific methodology.
Not sure you even know what that phrase means.

>> That is the movement the decision talks about, and the only one that matters
>> given the facts under litigation.
>
>The movement is a big tent, and to call it "religious" is a half-truth:
>it is both religious and scientific. Hence my next comment:
>
>> > And he is further conflating that embryo with the ID science that,
>> > as practiced by the most knowledgeable WITNESSES FOR THE DEFENSE,
>> > Behe and Minnich, scrupulously adheres to the methodology
>> > of science that the National Academy of Sciences [NAS]
>> > considers to be definitive.

Neither Behe nor Minnich nor any of the WITNESSES FOR THE DEFENSE
provided any testimony that showed the ID moment adhering to standard
scientific methodology. Instead, they testified wrt specific claims
against evolution, which were soundly refuted by expert witnesses for
the plaintiff.

>> Yet neither shows in their testimony an actual science of ID.
>
>Minnich and his graduate students performed sixty or more laboratory
>experiments that showed that each and every part of the flagellum
>that they studied was irreducibly complex (IC) with respect to the
>function of swimming.

Too bad those experiments did NOT show evolution could not evolve IC
systems, nor show ID was required to create IC systems. That is what
would be required to adhere to standard scientific methodology.

As you should know, standard scientific methodology does not accept
proving X by disproving Y. Scientific support require affirming
evidence for any hypotheses.

>Minnich's long, detailed description of those experiments is in the
>official transcript of the proceedings. Judge Jones evidently
>didn't read that part, and was unable to recall it from the testimony
>that went on right under his nose.

Evidently "evidently" is another word you have no idea what it means.
Judge Jones cited both Behe's and Minnich's testimony many times in
his decision.

Evidently, you have no problem libeling others, even as you squeal
like a poopy puppy whenever you imagine someone libeling you.

>IC is an integral part of the science of ID: the more parts an
>example has, the bigger the challenge to anti-ID scientists
>to show how it could have evolved by individual mutations
>and natural selection.

Your comment above is a standard Creationist PRATT based on false
logic.

>Jillery, for whom you have an inordinate amount of respect,
>characterized a paragraph of the same sort as the above thus:
>
>"The above question is of the "it seems impossible" and "I don't
>understand" type of question you insisted you don't provide."

Liar. My quote above refers to nothing like "the sort as the above".

>> They do not show an active research program, even in embryonic form, taht could
>> answer the most obvious questions for a design theory, i.e. "who
>> designed, when and how and for what purpose"
>
>This is a criterion invented by anti-ID propagandists. They give no credible argument
>for why it is a necessary component of ID science. Compare:

Of course "they" do, while you and your fellow cdesign proponenetsists
give no credible argument for why it's unnecessary to have at least a
credible expressed presumption of their designer's attributes. Without
it, there are no constraints on any claims, as shown by what ID's
intelligent agent is suppose to have designed. That's why you
continue to evade yet another named challenge, to explain how a
*natural* intelligent agent could have done all those things
attributed to it.

>Who designed The Voinich manuscript, when and how and for what purpose?
>Nobody knows the answer to these questions.
>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voynich_manuscript

Do you presume that manuscript was written by non-humans? If not,
there's no good reason for you to mention it here.

>More importantly, these questions are totally irrelevant to the obvious fact that it was
>intelligently designed. So is the fact that it was written on paper.
>If geologists had found a pile of rocks with scratches from which its contents
>(minus irrelevant details like coloring) could have been reconstructed by suitable arrangement,
>it would still be obvious that it was intelligently designed.

You raise yet another Creationist PRATT. I know you know there's a
difference between intelligent design and ID.

>> The problem that Behe and Minnich create for their client is not that
>> they don;t use naturalistic methods, the problem is that
>
>Yes? how did you intend to finish that sentence?
>
>
>Remainder deleted, pending an answer to this question. The topic
>shifts noticeably, so this is as good a place to split my replies
>to your long post.

And the trilogies cubed keep coming all the way down...

>PS I didn't want to interrupt the flow of ideas too long, but I do want to
>say this about jillery's words that I quoted: they are standard
>anti-ID boilerplate misrepresentations of the actual things
>ID theorists, ID experimenters, and knowledgeable people like
>myself actually say about the evidence for ID.

Here's yet another named challenge for you to evade: Instead of
merely spamming your baseless claims about "jillery's words", try
showing evidence of any misrepresentation, and the actual words of ID
theorists and experimenters you allege jillery misrepresents.

> It isn't supposed to be
>conclusive. Its purpose is to show that the ID hypothesis is very
>much on the table, and needs to be countered in a scientific way.

Here's yet another named challenge for you to evade: Specify what you
think is the ID hypothesis, and what evidence you would accept as a
scientific counter to it.

>Mainstream scientists show very little interest in trying to counter it scientifically.
>Instead, they put most of their efforts into polemic and propaganda,
>much of it distortion or outright misrepresentation.

And so you libel mainstream scientists as casually as you libel Judge
Jones and jillery. At least you put jillery is in good company.

And of course, none of your transparent obfuscating evasions above
even mention your original claim, that Isaak's opinion of ID is
"hopelessly" mired in the past, still preserved in the quoted text for
you to ignore. Derailing your own issues is yet another one of your
transparent obfuscating evasions.

[Burkhard]

Not sure what you mean with that. Do you mean "which party introduced
the wedge strategy"? That features prominently inter alia in the expert
testimony of Barbara Forrest - the author of "Creationism's Trojan
Horse: The Wedge of Intelligent Design" and also in the testimony by
John F. Haught

>
>
>> The issue then is if a specific book, Of Pandas and People.
>
> Then the word "it" was used irregularly in "it describes ID as a religious argument."
> There is no such description involved in what you say next.

Don't understand what you mean with this.

>
>> The book was printed by the Foundation for Thought and
>> Ethics, who had given it the remit of ""sensitively written to present
>> both evolution and creation". It's original working title was "Creation
>> Biology Textbook Supplements", and only in later versions was the word
>> "creation" clumsily replaced by "ID",
>
> There was nothing clumsy about it.

Using the "replace" function in word processor but then not doing a
proper proofreading and in this way creating the new term "Cdesign
Proponentsists" is as clumsy as it gets I'd say. And absolutely nothing
in these later versions of the book added any test that would have
distinguished the earlier "creationism" version from the "ID" version

As I told Mark Isaak, the book
> had a lot of raw material in the form of scientific data.
> I don't know whether the book mentioned the case of the
> Pacific golden plover that I described in the reply to jillery that I posted
> soon after the one to which you are replying. If it did not,
> it was a most incompetent oversight.

>
>
>> while internal papers made it
>> clear that this was always intended as a way to circumvent the law.
>
> The law against teaching creationism in the public schools, that is.

Yes, and your point?

> ID is a completely different issue, when it adheres to standard
> scientific methodology.
>
>
>> That is the movement the decision talks about, and the only one that matters
>> given the facts under litigation.
>
> The movement is a big tent,

Not as far as the case is concerned, where the term as used by the
defendant is the one that matters,

> and to call it "religious" is a half-truth:
> it is both religious and scientific. Hence my next comment:
>
>>> And he is further conflating that embryo with the ID science that,
>>> as practiced by the most knowledgeable WITNESSES FOR THE DEFENSE,
>>> Behe and Minnich, scrupulously adheres to the methodology
>>> of science that the National Academy of Sciences [NAS]
>>> considers to be definitive.
>
>> Yet neither shows in their testimony an actual science of ID.
>
> Minnich and his graduate students performed sixty or more laboratory
> experiments that showed that each and every part of the flagellum
> that they studied was irreducibly complex (IC) with respect to the
> function of swimming.
>
> Minnich's long, detailed description of those experiments is in the
> official transcript of the proceedings. Judge Jones evidently
> didn't read that part, and was unable to recall it from the testimony
> that went on right under his nose.

No, he largely ignores it because none of it has bearing on the case.
Which is exactly the problem. All this is parasitic on the ToE, it does
not establish anything like a theory of ID. At best, if given the
greatest possible leverage and taken at face value, it shows: there are
some interesting challenges for the ToE. There is no logical connection
whatsoever from there to "and therefore design", let alone one that
meets the standards of a naturalistic inference.

>
> IC is an integral part of the science of ID: the more parts an
> example has, the bigger the challenge to anti-ID scientists
> to show how it could have evolved by individual mutations
> and natural selection.
>
> Jillery, for whom you have an inordinate amount of respect,
> characterized a paragraph of the same sort as the above thus:
>
> "The above question is of the "it seems impossible" and "I don't
> understand" type of question you insisted you don't provide."

>
>
>> They do not show an active research program, even in embryonic form, taht could
>> answer the most obvious questions for a design theory, i.e. "who
>> designed, when and how and for what purpose"
>
> This is a criterion invented by anti-ID propagandists. They give no credible argument
> for why it is a necessary component of ID science.

Well, lots of reasons. Firstly a number of the high profile proponents
of the movement draw explicitly comparisons to history, archeology,
forensic science. Dembski is a prime example of course, and given his
involvement with P&P a much more on point representative to boot. And of
course all these disciplines answer these questions all the time. Or do
you think in a murder investigation, the investigators at one point say:
Yup, way too unlikely that he just fell into the knife, must have been
done by an intelligent agent (which may have been himself, or some other
human, or a supernatural demon, who knows, or cares) case closed, let's
hit the pub?

Secondly simple word meaning. an Intelligent design theory should have
theory about intelligent design.

And building on form that, this is how theories are evaluated against
each other and eventually replaced. The new theory must explain all the
data of the old theory at the same level of detail and content, AND then
add some value. That's how historians of science describe scientific
theories and their change, and more importantly, for legal purposes that
is required to overcome any "entanglement risk". In order to be a
teachable alternative or supplement despite the danger that it is seen
as an endorsement of a monotheistic deity, having some naturalistic
features is a necessary, but not sufficient requirement. It needs to be
a viable alternative that s as productive as the theory it is in
competition with.

Compare:
>
> Who designed The Voinich manuscript, when and how and for what purpose?
> Nobody knows the answer to these questions.
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voynich_manuscript
>
> More importantly, these questions are totally irrelevant to the obvious fact that it was
> intelligently designed. So is the fact that it was written on paper.

And how does this help your case? On the same wiki page, you find at
least nine proposed authors. Each of these hypothesis leads to testable
predictions, other things we should find, or must not find, if the
theory is true. This leads to ongoing discussion, research and progress.

Nobody says: well, it was probably a human, that's all there is to is.
Absolutely nobody says: We tried to figure out who the author is since
1644 (much longer than the ToE) and no conclusive proof, this means
natural science has failed and we should assume it was a demon from
another dimension.

So the moment ID folks start to behave like the Voinichean research
community, we are talking. But of course they are not even trying.
Nobody requires that they give strong evidence of a specific designer
right now, but what they have to do is to show what methods, tests etc
they propose to eventually answer these questions, as a bare minimum.

Possible interesting side issue: At least if you look at the text only,
the "ID interpretation" may well be false. Both the hoax theory and the
glossolalia theory argue the text is meaningless gibberish resulting
from random processes, not intelligent planning

> If geologists had found a pile of rocks with scratches from which its contents
> (minus irrelevant details like coloring) could have been reconstructed by suitable arrangement,
> it would still be obvious that it was intelligently designed.

An you think they stop there? Of course that is the start for them - and
even this bare minimum makes some claims about the designer: human, tool
user (which gives you a lower time limit) etc etc

>
>
>>
>> The problem that Behe and Minnich create for their client is not that
>> they don;t use naturalistic methods, the problem is that
>
> Yes? how did you intend to finish that sentence?

I had moved this further up and forgotten I left something out. The
problem is that nothing of what they do with the naturalistic part of
their analysis has no bearing on the issue of design or a theory of
design. it is this inference, from "here is a problem" to "therefore
design" that has to be naturalistic - and that means it has to lead to
testable hypothesis about the designer, their methods and intentions.

So the overall effect of their testimony is "and that's the best you
got?" Oh dear...

[Mark Isaak]

On 8/31/22 2:10 PM, peter2...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Tuesday, August 30, 2022 at 5:55:39 PM UTC-4, jillery wrote:
>> On Tue, 30 Aug 2022 13:10:00 -0700 (PDT), "peter2...@gmail.com"
>> <peter2...@gmail.com> wrote:

[snip the part where Peter reveals that he knows more about law than
most professional judges]

>>>> Here's another named challenge for you: Cite an example of what you
>>>> think illustrates how ID "theorists and researchers scrupulously
>>>> adhere to the reigning secular scientific methodology".
>>>
>>> Pick either of Behe's last two books, and try to find a violation.

It is worth noting that that challenge works as well with a roll of
toilet paper as it does with Behe's books.

>> Yet more of your transparent obfuscating noise.
>
> I see you are inept at discerning obvious implications. Very well, then:
>
> I guarantee that you will not find a single violation in either _The Edge of Evolution_
> or _Darwin Devolves_ [I had momentarily forgotten that Behe has published
> a more recent book, which I haven't seen yet.]

I will not be reading those books, because my current to-read stack is
already about eleven feet tall (or would be, if it were in one stack),
all of higher priority.

Just cut to the bottom line, already. Please, Peter, tell us what is
the scientific theory of ID that Behe (or, what the hell, anyone else)
makes, and specifically, what tests Behe proposes by which to check it.

--

[Glenn]

Naturalistic doesn't mean "what has to lead to testable hypotheses'.
One formulation assumes the "supernatural" can not be tested.
This reminds me of a "nature of the gaps" argument.

Who gets to decide what can lead to being genuinely "testable"?
>