Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
Day 2 and 3: Okimoto has failed to prove that any individual creationist or the whole class is anti science
5 views
Skip to first unread message
T Pagano
Feb 8, 2012, 5:27:06 PM2/8/12
to
As the blow hard often does occasionally Okimoto made the largely
indefensible claim that several individual creationists in the forum
were anti-science. They made his "list."
Then the blow hard asserted that any creationist who failed to follow
the lead of those who signed the "Clergy Letter" would make his "List"
of anti-science creationists. Since the "Clergy Letter" is
inconsistent with creationism and no creationist would likely sign it
the blow hard essentially proclaimed that all creationist had made his
anti science list.
The challenge here is to show that the blow hard lacks both the balls
and the brains to prove that either any individual creationist in the
forum is anti science or more generally that the class of creationists
is anti science.
Watch the atheist squirm and run. He talks big but never produces. A
fact which is repeated over and over again in his discussions with
Nyikos.
Regards,
T Pagano
indefensible claim that several individual creationists in the forum
were anti-science. They made his "list."
Then the blow hard asserted that any creationist who failed to follow
the lead of those who signed the "Clergy Letter" would make his "List"
of anti-science creationists. Since the "Clergy Letter" is
inconsistent with creationism and no creationist would likely sign it
the blow hard essentially proclaimed that all creationist had made his
anti science list.
The challenge here is to show that the blow hard lacks both the balls
and the brains to prove that either any individual creationist in the
forum is anti science or more generally that the class of creationists
is anti science.
Watch the atheist squirm and run. He talks big but never produces. A
fact which is repeated over and over again in his discussions with
Nyikos.
Regards,
T Pagano
Ron O
Feb 8, 2012, 6:38:56 PM2/8/12
to
predict that he will run from his stupidity forever.
What kind of lowlife would make up some bogus challenge just to run
from his own mistakes?
This is the boondoggle that Pags is making up stupid challenges in
order to do his Pagano thing instead of the right thing.
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/8f42854340c3e7ec?hl=en
Two wrongs don't make a right. Three or four don't either.
Ron Okimoto
wiki trix
Feb 8, 2012, 6:56:13 PM2/8/12
to
On Feb 8, 2:27 pm, T Pagano <not.va...@address.net> wrote:
> As the blow hard often does occasionally Okimoto made the largely
> indefensible claim that several individual creationists in the forum
> were anti-science. They made his "list."
>
> Then the blow hard asserted that any creationist who failed to follow
> the lead of those who signed the "Clergy Letter" would make his "List"
> of anti-science creationists. Since the "Clergy Letter" is
> inconsistent with creationism and no creationist would likely sign it
> the blow hard essentially proclaimed that all creationist had made his
> anti science list.
I am not sure what is meant by "anti science list"... but I would have
> As the blow hard often does occasionally Okimoto made the largely
> indefensible claim that several individual creationists in the forum
> were anti-science. They made his "list."
>
> Then the blow hard asserted that any creationist who failed to follow
> the lead of those who signed the "Clergy Letter" would make his "List"
> of anti-science creationists. Since the "Clergy Letter" is
> inconsistent with creationism and no creationist would likely sign it
> the blow hard essentially proclaimed that all creationist had made his
> anti science list.
to say at a minimum that all creationists are indeed stupid fucks.
Would that get one on the sort of list you are going on about?
Bob Berger
Feb 8, 2012, 7:52:13 PM2/8/12
to
In article <96b18903-f54c-4f0d...@gi10g2000vbb.googlegroups.com>,
Ron O says...
True. But three lefts do.
Ron O says...
John Harshman
Feb 8, 2012, 8:12:34 PM2/8/12
to
He bravely ran away, away, he bravely ran away.
jillery
Feb 9, 2012, 2:04:42 AM2/9/12
to
On Wed, 08 Feb 2012 17:27:06 -0500, T Pagano <not....@address.net>
wrote:
>As the blow hard often does occasionally Okimoto made the largely
>indefensible claim that several individual creationists in the forum
>were anti-science. They made his "list."
>
>Then the blow hard asserted that any creationist who failed to follow
>the lead of those who signed the "Clergy Letter" would make his "List"
>of anti-science creationists. Since the "Clergy Letter" is
>inconsistent with creationism and no creationist would likely sign it
>the blow hard essentially proclaimed that all creationist had made his
>anti science list.
Since Ron identified himself as a creationist, that would make your
logic above rather absurd. Obviously, you and he have different
definitions, and that is the extent of your claim.
>The challenge here is to show that the blow hard lacks both the balls
>and the brains to prove that either any individual creationist in the
>forum is anti science or more generally that the class of creationists
>is anti science.
>
>Watch the atheist squirm and run. He talks big but never produces. A
>fact which is repeated over and over again in his discussions with
>Nyikos.
So you got a man-crush on Pnyikos. Let me know how that works out.
wrote:
>As the blow hard often does occasionally Okimoto made the largely
>indefensible claim that several individual creationists in the forum
>were anti-science. They made his "list."
>
>Then the blow hard asserted that any creationist who failed to follow
>the lead of those who signed the "Clergy Letter" would make his "List"
>of anti-science creationists. Since the "Clergy Letter" is
>inconsistent with creationism and no creationist would likely sign it
>the blow hard essentially proclaimed that all creationist had made his
>anti science list.
logic above rather absurd. Obviously, you and he have different
definitions, and that is the extent of your claim.
>The challenge here is to show that the blow hard lacks both the balls
>and the brains to prove that either any individual creationist in the
>forum is anti science or more generally that the class of creationists
>is anti science.
>
>Watch the atheist squirm and run. He talks big but never produces. A
>fact which is repeated over and over again in his discussions with
>Nyikos.
Ron O
Feb 9, 2012, 7:17:16 AM2/9/12
to
On Feb 8, 6:52 pm, Bob Berger <Bob_mem...@newsguy.com> wrote:
> In article <96b18903-f54c-4f0d-8a90-d0771ff41...@gi10g2000vbb.googlegroups.com>,
Actually it takes 5 left turns to get you to a place where one right
turn would have done the job. You literally have to go around the
block. If we were just talking about wrong left turns Pags would be
ruler of the world by now in getting things right, eventually, but a
wrong turn isn't a left turn. Unfortunately for Pags there isn't a
single option in the set.
Ron Okimoto
> In article <96b18903-f54c-4f0d-8a90-d0771ff41...@gi10g2000vbb.googlegroups.com>,
turn would have done the job. You literally have to go around the
block. If we were just talking about wrong left turns Pags would be
ruler of the world by now in getting things right, eventually, but a
wrong turn isn't a left turn. Unfortunately for Pags there isn't a
single option in the set.
Ron Okimoto
0 new messages