Days 3 and 4: Okimoto still unable to prove his hot air claim that creationists are anti science

T Pagano

unread,

Feb 10, 2012, 8:40:00 PM2/10/12

to

Okimoto made a hot air claim that several creationists by name had
made his "anti science" list. He ingloriously listed links to posts
which he (apparently) thought representative of their indiscretions.
And he implied that every other creationist who failed to "sign on" to
the Clergy Letter was also anti science. As of yet this blow hard,
Okimoto, has yet to offer a single fact to prove that anyone is anti
science.

Three more days and Okimoto will be one of several cowardly runners in
the forum who sling bold ephithets out of derision and not reason.
This blow hard is goin' down.

Regards,
T Pagano

Harshman has never demonstrated this kind of behavior. Does he
condone it among other academics?

John Harshman

unread,

Feb 10, 2012, 8:46:42 PM2/10/12

to

Harshman doesn't care what Okimoto does. But Harshman is very annoyed
that Pagano keeps ignoring a raft of substantive challenges to his
claims. But Harshman also supposes he can't expect much from Brave Sir Tony.

jillery

unread,

Feb 11, 2012, 3:58:54 AM2/11/12

to

On Fri, 10 Feb 2012 20:40:00 -0500, T Pagano <not....@address.net>
wrote:

>Okimoto made a hot air claim that several creationists by name had
>made his "anti science" list. He ingloriously listed links to posts
>which he (apparently) thought representative of their indiscretions.
>And he implied that every other creationist who failed to "sign on" to
>the Clergy Letter was also anti science.

No, he didn't. You inferred incorrectly.

>As of yet this blow hard,
>Okimoto, has yet to offer a single fact to prove that anyone is anti
>science.

Look in the mirror lately?

>Three more days and Okimoto will be one of several cowardly runners in
>the forum who sling bold ephithets out of derision and not reason.
>This blow hard is goin' down.
>
>Regards,
>T Pagano
>
>
>Harshman has never demonstrated this kind of behavior. Does he
>condone it among other academics?

Does it matter?

Ron O

unread,

Feb 11, 2012, 10:33:41 AM2/11/12

to

My prediction is that in 7 days Pags will run away from his bogus
challenge and never address why he started the bogus challenge in the
first place. Getting caught lying about something is no reason to
start a bogus challenge just to cover your own dishonest butt.

Here is the stupid lie that Pags is running from just so that he won't
forget.

http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/8f42854340c3e7ec?hl=en

Of course he had to start a whole thread to present the lie in the
first place. Why am I unable to do something when you are the liar?

Ron Okimoto

rossum

unread,

Feb 11, 2012, 12:14:36 PM2/11/12

to

On Fri, 10 Feb 2012 20:40:00 -0500, T Pagano <not....@address.net>
wrote:

>Okimoto made a hot air claim that several creationists by name had
>made his "anti science" list.

Where is you proof of this, Tony? Have you seen the non-existence of
Okimoto's list? What is your evidence that it does not exist? It is
your claim that is hot air. What can you show to support your claim?

rossum

Ringer

unread,

Feb 11, 2012, 1:44:44 PM2/11/12

to

"T Pagano" <not....@address.net> wrote in message
news:apagano-kqgbj71ng66gj...@4ax.com...

Creationists are anti-science. Science is a method and they continually say
that method is unreliable but an ancient book written by priests is the
"truth".

Ernest Major

unread,

Feb 11, 2012, 4:36:55 PM2/11/12

to

In message <MqOdnfQUSqiFKqvS...@neonova.net>, Ringer
<byo...@peoplestel.net> writes

Some creationists are anti-science. But not all of them are. Of those
participating here I would adjudge that Herman and Suzanne are not
anti-science.
--
alias Ernest Major

Mike Lyle

unread,

Feb 12, 2012, 3:28:34 PM2/12/12

to

On Sat, 11 Feb 2012 21:36:55 +0000, Ernest Major
<{$to$}@meden.demon.co.uk> wrote:

>In message <MqOdnfQUSqiFKqvS...@neonova.net>, Ringer
><byo...@peoplestel.net> writes

>[...]

>>
>>Creationists are anti-science. Science is a method and they continually say
>>that method is unreliable but an ancient book written by priests is the
>>"truth".
>>
>Some creationists are anti-science. But not all of them are. Of those
>participating here I would adjudge that Herman and Suzanne are not
>anti-science.

It's a fine point, really. I'm sure Suzanne is willing enough in
theory, but it seems to me that she only _thinks_ she isn't
anti-science: she certainly resists its findings whenever they clash
with the legends she likes. Another mind would also see the implicit
contradictions she's able to ignore.

--
Mike.