ID perp Top Six

[RonO]

I tried to post this Nov. 3rd, but TO was down.

Top Six:
https://groups.google.com/g/talk.origins/c/a2K79skPGXI/m/uDwx0i-_BAAJ

Glenn persists in claiming that noting that he doesn't want to
understand what he posts, calling the claim "insane", but he never seems
to want to understand what he posts, nor discuss much about it. It just
seems to be a way that Glenn lies to himself about the current reality
of the creationist ID scam.

Of note is what Glenn has done for around the past week. Normally I
inform Glenn when he puts up one of the Top Six so that he can quickly
run away from what he posts, but He posted a couple of them before I
could tell him what he was doing so I sat back and observed what he
would do. Glenn has been running from the Top Six since they were first
given to him by the ID perps back in 2017 (Nov. 2017, so it has been
half a decade of consistently running from them). Glenn does post one
of them from time to time, but as I indicated he always runs when
confronted by what he has done. It turned out that the Top Six pretty
much killed IDiocy on TO. None of the IDiots posting at that time could
deal with the Top Six in an honest and straightforward manner. Bill
claimed that he had never supported the creationist ID scam. Pagano
claimed that they were bogus and tried to put up second rate denial
IDiotic stupidity that didn't make the Top Six as some type of
replacement (that is the most honest and straightforward way any IDiot
in existence has dealt with the Top Six). Glenn and Kalk just ran and
started putting up second rate denial junk from the ID perps. Kalk quit
doing that after a couple months because it was an obviously stupid
thing to do.

Recent Glenn threads:

Futile:
https://groups.google.com/g/talk.origins/c/a2K79skPGXI/m/uDwx0i-_BAAJ

Gaps in the human fossil record is #6 of the Top Six.

Clot Watch:
https://groups.google.com/g/talk.origins/c/YD3qo80w6ic/m/_eSZ_ntFBAAJ

Blood clotting is part of #4 of the Top Six (Behe's IC IDiocy)

Narratives:
https://groups.google.com/g/talk.origins/c/ROvXFRCS5ZM/m/BzI3PmESAQAJ

Gaps in the human fossil record is #6 of the Top Six.

Sleep Well:
https://groups.google.com/g/talk.origins/c/-Ta7DnrE1SU/m/GSOOKfMkBQAJ

The origin of life is #3 of the Top Six.

So since Oct 28th Glenn has done a pretty good job of covering the Top
Six even though he didn't want to understand what he was posting enough
to understand that they were IDiotic junk that he has been running from
for half a decade.

Kalk had a chance to tell him that he was doing something stupid, but
never helped Glenn out. You'd think that he could have given Glenn a
hint by doing something like "psst, psst T6 T6" or "opta ixsla". Instead
he let Glenn keep wallowing in senseless denial.

The link starting this thread shows how the ID perps have dealt with the
Top Six. Sewell removed IC (#4) and the Cambrian explostion junk (#5)
from the Top Six and Brian Miller removed the Big Bang (#1) of the Top
Six, so the Top Six were never really popular among the ID perps even
though they are supposed to be the best evidence IDiots have.

Ron Okimoto

[RonO]

I messed up when I had multiple windows open and have the wrong link and
thread.

It should be "Merits": Origin of life #3 and LUCA.
https://groups.google.com/g/talk.origins/c/CY23VOBnga8/m/kUiojORuBQAJ

[peter2...@gmail.com]

On Sunday, November 6, 2022 at 8:40:04 AM UTC-5, Ron O wrote:
> I tried to post this Nov. 3rd, but TO was down.

Too bad you didn't take the opportunity to think about what you had written.
>
> Top Six:
> https://groups.google.com/g/talk.origins/c/a2K79skPGXI/m/uDwx0i-_BAAJ

These are just INTRODUCTIONS to arguments with innumerable
ramifications, but you keep deluding yourself that they are the best that
ID has to offer.

> Glenn persists in claiming that noting that he doesn't want to
> understand what he posts, calling the claim "insane", but he never seems
> to want to understand what he posts,

Correction: Glenn doesn't seem to care about your cocksure know-it-all attitude
about what he posts.

> nor discuss much about it. It just
> seems to be a way that Glenn lies to himself about the current reality
> of the creationist ID scam.

You are the one who is lying to himself about scams.

I wrote about that on another thread today, in reaction to some things
"the Pope's astronomer" Brother Consolmagno had said in a speech.

https://www.thetablet.co.uk/news/16084/god-reveals-himself-through-what-he-has-made-says-pope-s-astronomer
EXCERPT:
Addressing students and academics at St Patrick’s College, the director of the Vatican Observatory said science had impacted his experience of God in the same way that an artist experiences God by doing art and a poet experiences God by writing poetry.

“It is where I find God,” the American Jesuit said. “You don’t base your theology on science, but you let the science challenge your theology,” he said in his discussion of the relationship between faith and science.
[END OF EXCERPT]

My reaction, in part, went as follows:

[QUOTE:]
Theology can also challenge science, by noting that the extreme sensitivity of the
basic physical constants necessary for life as we know it cries out for an explanation.

I've made a strong case that the only tenable hypotheses are that an immensely
powerful being designed our universe, and that there is a vast multiverse of which
our own universe is only one of an unimaginably large number of universes within this multiverse.

Ron Okimoto utterly loathes this kind of argument, because he wants theists to base
their faith in God on subjective statements like the one Brother Consolmagno
made. I have long suspected that this is because he knows that theists will inevitably
lose arguments with atheists with their hands tied behind their backs in this way,
and is delighted with that scenario.
[END OF QUOTE]
--https://groups.google.com/g/talk.origins/c/e31xp8nnUEc/m/E-x-cG9JBAAJ
Re: God reveals himself through what he has made says Pope's astronomer

>
> Of note is what Glenn has done for around the past week. Normally I
> inform Glenn when he puts up one of the Top Six so that he can quickly
> run away from what he posts, but He posted a couple of them before I
> could tell him what he was doing so I sat back and observed what he
> would do. Glenn has been running from the Top Six since they were first
> given to him by the ID perps back in 2017 (Nov. 2017, so it has been
> half a decade of consistently running from them).

Glenn has been "running from" your cocksure claims about how
he doesn't face the reality of the God those arguments reveal.

You are such a transparent bluffer: In all the years you have
parroted the first time you made that claim, you have never
let a word out about what you imagine that reality to be,
or why you think Glenn "can't face" that undescribed "reality."

> Glenn does post one
> of them from time to time, but as I indicated he always runs when
> confronted by what he has done. It turned out that the Top Six pretty
> much killed IDiocy on TO.

To paraphrase Mark Twain: Rumors of that death have been greatly exaggerated.

> None of the IDiots posting at that time could
> deal with the Top Six in an honest and straightforward manner.

You have unwittingly absolved me from being an IDiot. I even
began a thread challenging people to either support or argue against
any of what you call the Top Six. You belatedly told me that I
was missing the point: you didn't want anyone to argue either for
OR AGAINST any of them.

> Bill claimed that he had never supported the creationist ID scam. Pagano
> claimed that they were bogus and tried to put up second rate denial
> IDiotic stupidity that didn't make the Top Six as some type of
> replacement (that is the most honest and straightforward way any IDiot
> in existence has dealt with the Top Six).

Again you let me off the hook of being an IDiot. I have argued in depth
about the way the incredibly life-friendly laws of the physics of OUR universe
have made idiots of those who claim that our little universe is
all there is or was or ever could be. And I've dealt with ramifications
of the other five INTRODUCTIONS from time to time.

Best of all, I have a consistent, coherent picture of what kind of creator/designer
of our universe they reveal, assuming one exists. But you have jumped
to completely unwarranted conclusions from the fact that I am a member
of the Roman Catholic Church, to produce a figment of your imagination
that you will cling to come hell or high water.

> Glenn and Kalk just ran and
> started putting up second rate denial junk from the ID perps. Kalk quit
> doing that after a couple months because it was an obviously stupid
> thing to do.
>
> Recent Glenn threads:
>
> Futile:
> https://groups.google.com/g/talk.origins/c/a2K79skPGXI/m/uDwx0i-_BAAJ
>
> Gaps in the human fossil record is #6 of the Top Six.

No, it is not. The main claim of #6 is that
"Humanity’s unique physical, behavioral, and cognitive abilities collectively show the design of our species."
https://evolutionnews.org/2017/11/ids-top-six-the-origin-of-humans/

You never read this far down, did you? No fossils can shed light on these things.

>
> Clot Watch:
> https://groups.google.com/g/talk.origins/c/YD3qo80w6ic/m/_eSZ_ntFBAAJ
>
> Blood clotting is part of #4 of the Top Six (Behe's IC IDiocy)

The real idiocy is the way you and your allies think that the IC of the system has been refuted,
just because Behe hasn't been able to prove it is due to ID. Your great benefactor jillery
had to use dishonest equivocation to make it seem to t.o. rubes [1]
that no one in t.o. conflates IC with ID.

[1] fans of jillery who read too much into what jillery actually writes.
Not to be confused with guileless people to whom it simply doesn't
occur that anyone could be as openly deceitful as jillery and not have
left t.o. in shame long ago.

> Narratives:
> https://groups.google.com/g/talk.origins/c/ROvXFRCS5ZM/m/BzI3PmESAQAJ
>
> Gaps in the human fossil record is #6 of the Top Six.

There you go again with this clueless comment.

> Sleep Well:
> https://groups.google.com/g/talk.origins/c/-Ta7DnrE1SU/m/GSOOKfMkBQAJ
>
> The origin of life is #3 of the Top Six.

I've talked in dozens of threads over the years about the 100-floor skyscraper metaphor:
our current knowledge of abiogenesis puts us on the stairway
from the ground floor to what Brits call "the first floor."
Needless to say, you have never tried to argue with me about that.

>
> So since Oct 28th Glenn has done a pretty good job of covering the Top
> Six even though he didn't want to understand what he was posting enough
> to understand that they were IDiotic junk that he has been running from
> for half a decade.

You are mindlessly parroting things you have been parroting for the
better part of that half decade.

>
> Kalk had a chance to tell him that he was doing something stupid, but
> never helped Glenn out. You'd think that he could have given Glenn a
> hint by doing something like "psst, psst T6 T6" or "opta ixsla". Instead
> he let Glenn keep wallowing in senseless denial.
>
> The link starting this thread shows how the ID perps have dealt with the
> Top Six. Sewell removed IC (#4) and the Cambrian explostion junk (#5)
> from the Top Six and Brian Miller removed the Big Bang (#1) of the Top
> Six, so the Top Six were never really popular among the ID perps even
> though they are supposed to be the best evidence IDiots have.

"supposed to be" by yourself, not anyone else.

Only someone like you would take the decisions of two people to be a gauge
of their popularity, or whether one or the other of these is "junk."


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

[peter2...@gmail.com]

On Sunday, November 6, 2022 at 8:40:04 AM UTC-5, Ron O wrote:

I took a look at Ron O's links over the weekend, and it seems that he has
garbled the connections between three separate events:

>
> Top Six:
> https://groups.google.com/g/talk.origins/c/a2K79skPGXI/m/uDwx0i-_BAAJ

This is what Ron O has been calling the Top Six even though that was just
part of a title of six separate 2017 articles, the first of which was:

https://evolutionnews.org/2017/11/ids-top-six-the-origin-of-the-universe/

This time around, he is under the naive impression that a video last year by Granville Sewell
was made with the original "Top Six" in mind. In fact, it was loosely based on a "Top Six" article that
was done the year before by Granville Sewell:

https://evolutionnews.org/2020/10/top-six-evidences-for-intelligent-design/

I say "loosely" because the video cut out the sixth item in the 2020 article
and used the title,

"A Summary of the Evidence for Intelligent Design"

The video explicitly gave the list of five (5) as follows:

The Fine-Tuning of Conditions on Earth
The Fine-Tuning of the Physical Laws of our Universe
The Origin of Life
The Origin of Intelligent Humans
The Origin of Human Consciousness


<snip and cut to the chase>

> The link starting this thread shows how the ID perps have dealt with the
> Top Six. Sewell removed IC (#4) and the Cambrian explostion junk (#5)
> from the Top Six

This is referring to the article of 2020 linked above. However, the
article gave no sign of having been based on the 2017 "Top Six" article.
The number was "restored" to 6 by adding The Fine-Tuning of Conditions on Earth
(which wasn't even hinted at in the "Top Six" article that Ron O keeps referring to)
and The Origin of Human Consciousness to the truncated list.

>and Brian Miller removed the Big Bang (#1) of the Top
> Six,

No, that was done already by Granville Sewell as noted above. Brian's role was to do a
commentary on the video and to embed the video in the resulting article:

https://evolutionnews.org/2021/01/sewell-top-five-evidences-for-intelligent-design/


Despite the use of "Intelligent Design" in the titles and in the urls, this link
is explicitly aimed at giving evidence for the existence of God.

In contrast, ID theory and ID science make no mention of who the designer
might be. In the case of some IC molecular machines, like the bacterial flagellum,
there is no need to invoke a supernatural origin; it could have been done
through genetic engineering by a technological civilization whose technology
was only about a century in advance of ours.

> so the Top Six were never really popular among the ID perps even
> though they are supposed to be the best evidence IDiots have.

"supposed to be" by Casey Luskin, the editor of the 2017 series,
and by Ron O; but Casey did not take the number 6 all that seriously,
as becomes already evident in Casey's italicized introduction to the
series at the top of the first article,

https://evolutionnews.org/2017/11/ids-top-six-the-origin-of-the-universe/

More importantly, Casey called the series a "distillation" and did
not think of it as being an adequate exposition of these six deep issues.

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

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

[RonO]

On 11/15/2022 6:34 PM, peter2...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Sunday, November 6, 2022 at 8:40:04 AM UTC-5, Ron O wrote:
> I took a look at Ron O's links over the weekend, and it seems that he has
> garbled the connections between three separate events:
>
>>
>> Top Six:
>> https://groups.google.com/g/talk.origins/c/a2K79skPGXI/m/uDwx0i-_BAAJ
>
> This is what Ron O has been calling the Top Six even though that was just
> part of a title of six separate 2017 articles, the first of which was:
>
> https://evolutionnews.org/2017/11/ids-top-six-the-origin-of-the-universe/
>
> This time around, he is under the naive impression that a video last year by Granville Sewell
> was made with the original "Top Six" in mind. In fact, it was loosely based on a "Top Six" article that
> was done the year before by Granville Sewell:
>
> https://evolutionnews.org/2020/10/top-six-evidences-for-intelligent-design/
>
> I say "loosely" because the video cut out the sixth item in the 2020 article
> and used the title,
>
> "A Summary of the Evidence for Intelligent Design"
>
> The video explicitly gave the list of five (5) as follows:
>
> The Fine-Tuning of Conditions on Earth
> The Fine-Tuning of the Physical Laws of our Universe
> The Origin of Life
> The Origin of Intelligent Humans
> The Origin of Human Consciousness

Unfortunately for you It doesn't matter whether I was talking about the
video or the 2020 article that I gave a link to.

The link is there and it supports how the Top Six changed by Sewell and
Miller. Sewell maintains his same Top Six in that video.

Sewell did have the Big Bang as his #6 when he lied about the Top Six
being scientific evidence for IDiocy.

QUOTE:
Sewell dropped out IC and the Cambrian explosion and cut up two of the
others to make it easier for the rubes to lie to themselves about them
one at a time.

https://groups.google.com/g/talk.origins/c/4PLsqrWGbmo/m/pVO7yijZBwAJ
END QUOTE:

Follow the link to see what article that I was talking about. Sewell
wanted to maintain the Top Six stupid number, but the Big Bang got
dropped out and they made it the Top 5.

>
>
> <snip and cut to the chase>
>
>
>> The link starting this thread shows how the ID perps have dealt with the
>> Top Six. Sewell removed IC (#4) and the Cambrian explostion junk (#5)
>> from the Top Six
>
> This is referring to the article of 2020 linked above. However, the
> article gave no sign of having been based on the 2017 "Top Six" article.
> The number was "restored" to 6 by adding The Fine-Tuning of Conditions on Earth
> (which wasn't even hinted at in the "Top Six" article that Ron O keeps referring to)
> and The Origin of Human Consciousness to the truncated list.

Why do you think Sewell made it the Top Six instead of the more
reasonable top 10 or top 5 that would be the usual number selected?
What did Sewell remove from the original list, and what did he do to
maintain the Top Six as the Top Six. He could have made it the Top 5
and not split fine tuning into two parts or the evolution of humans into
2 parts. He only had to split those two to make it six again. Six is
actually a stupid number. It is usually the Top 10, but the ID perps
couldn't put 10 up and still look half way credible.

If you view the video you will see that Sewell maintains his Top Six and
it was Miller that dropped out the Big Bang to make it the Top 5. The
video contains the Big Bang as Sewell's #6.

>
>
>> and Brian Miller removed the Big Bang (#1) of the Top
>> Six,
>
> No, that was done already by Granville Sewell as noted above. Brian's role was to do a
> commentary on the video and to embed the video in the resulting article:
>
> https://evolutionnews.org/2021/01/sewell-top-five-evidences-for-intelligent-design/

That was done by Miller who wrote the article. Sewell maintained the
Top Six in the video. It was Miller that dropped out the Big Bang.
View the video and see for yourself.

>
>
> Despite the use of "Intelligent Design" in the titles and in the urls, this link
> is explicitly aimed at giving evidence for the existence of God.

Isn't it funny that it was listed as an intelligent design article and
not in one of their religious categories for Evolutionnews?

>
> In contrast, ID theory and ID science make no mention of who the designer
> might be. In the case of some IC molecular machines, like the bacterial flagellum,
> there is no need to invoke a supernatural origin; it could have been done
> through genetic engineering by a technological civilization whose technology
> was only about a century in advance of ours.

Miller's article just claims intelligent designer. Can you point out
where he nentions who the designer is? Where does Sewell claim who the
designer is? Check out his 2020 Top Six article. It is just part of
the usual ID creationist scam.

>
>
>> so the Top Six were never really popular among the ID perps even
>> though they are supposed to be the best evidence IDiots have.
>
> "supposed to be" by Casey Luskin, the editor of the 2017 series,
> and by Ron O; but Casey did not take the number 6 all that seriously,
> as becomes already evident in Casey's italicized introduction to the
> series at the top of the first article,

Doesn't this tell you how stupid your denial about Sewell and the Top
Six is. Why did Sewell maintain the Top Six if he didn't know he was
talking about the Top Six?

>
> https://evolutionnews.org/2017/11/ids-top-six-the-origin-of-the-universe/
>
> More importantly, Casey called the series a "distillation" and did
> not think of it as being an adequate exposition of these six deep issues.

So what? The Top Six still has the effect that it has on IDiots. Glenn
is still running from them. Kalk still quit being an IDiot due to the
Top Six. For a couple months Kalk tried to wallow in second rate ID
perp denial like Glenn, but it was too stupid and dishonest to keep
doing that when he couldn't deal with the best that the ID perps had to
give him. Bill claimed that he had never supported the creationist ID
scam when faced with the Top Six. Pagano claimed that they were not the
best that the ID perps had produced. He didn't like any of them, and
tried to claim that Dembski's CSI and no free lunch junk was better even
though Dembski had already quit the ID scam as an abject failure and
none of his junk had made the Top Six even by the standards of the other
ID perps.

It just turns out that there haven't been any IDiots that have been
willing to deal with the Top Six in an honest and straight forward
manner, as the best evidence that the ID scam has going for it.
Uncommon descent and the ID perp's themselves haven't done any better.
Just repeating the junk, and dropping out some of them isn't dealing
with the Top Six in an honest and straight forward manner. Not a single
IDiot anywhere including Sewell and Miller are using them to build any
coherent IDiotic hypothesis, let alone construct some type of scientific
theory.

What is the theory of intelligent design as represented by the Top Six?
Look at Glenn and Meyer. All they want to use the Top Six for are
disembodied bits of denial to lie to themselves. The ID perps really
did make a big mistake in claiming that they were in their order of
occurrence. There really haven't been any IDiots willing to take them
as what they represent as a whole. Just like the scientific
creationists before them, all IDiots use the Top Six for is to wallow in
denial just long enough to be able to forget that bit and wallow in the
next bit of denial. They were never meant to be presented as some
coherent explanation for anything. MarkE has claimed that he understood
that there was no such thing as IDiotic science, but he couldn't give up
on the god-of-the-gaps denial as disembodied bits. He quit when I made
him realize that he didn't want to believe in the god that filled the
origin of life gap that he was trying to create. The god that fills the
existing origin of life gap isn't Biblical enough for most anti
evolution creationists. The plain and simple fact is that IDiots and ex
IDiots like Glenn, Kalk, Pagano, and Bill don't want to believe in the
designer that fills the Top Six gaps. That designer isn't Biblical
enough.

The Top Six pretty much killed IDiocy on TO. For the past half a decade
you and Glenn have been the only half way competent, and obviously
dishonest IDiots still supporting the ID scam. What does that tell you?
Insanity is an excuse, it isn't any type of valid defense.

Just think of what you snipped out of this post. Glenn blundered and
repeatedly posted denial stupidity that he has been running from for
over half a decade. Glenn didn't know that he was posting parts of the
Top Six. That is only possible because Glenn doesn't want to understand
what he posts, because even the second rate IDiotic denial stupidity has
to be ultimately denied in order to keep the creationist denial going.
Glenn knows that the second rate denial that he wallows in isn't any
better than the Top Six in terms of being anything that he wants to
understand.

Science is just the study of nature. The clueless creationists
understood that science works, and that nature is the creation, and the
IDiots and scientific creationists wanted to claim that they could do
the same science as everyone else to support their religious beliefs.
It turned out that neither the scientific creationists nor the ID perps
wanted to do any real science because enough has already been done for
them to know that they don't expect to get any answers that they want to
believe. Sewell dropped out IC and the Cambrian explosion because he
doesn't want to believe in the god that fills those gaps. For whatever
reason he still thinks that he can put up the rest of the Top Six if he
chops them up further and takes them out of order to use as disembodied
bits of denial. Even he understands that he doesn't want to know what
science tells him about the Top Six. It is likely the main reason that
no legitimate ID science was ever attempted. Making up junk, and
wallowing in god-of-the-gaps denial isn't doing any science worth
calling science.

Ron Okimoto

[jillery]

To quote someone whom you regard so highly, you're "reduced to highly
questionable nitpicking" above, except for your comments about ID,
which are also PRATTs.

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

[Glenn]

I think the revelant argument concerning IC is that natural selection and random mutation could not have produced such structures. Speculations about how the bacterial flagellum came to be developed, whether by "supernatural" force, aliens or some other explanation, are only that, speculation.

[peter2...@gmail.com]

... out of context, which included jillery jumping to unsupported
intensely derogatory claims based on jillery's nitpicks:
https://groups.google.com/g/sci.bio.paleontology/c/piprYPdW6qg/m/qIoS8M52BgAJ
Re: Beagle down again

> someone whom you regard so highly,

Only as highly as the majority of my acquaintances, in contrast to about 10% whom I regard more highly,
and about 10% less highly. The latter includes "far less highly," all of whom are regulars in talk.origins,
a forum in which an analogue of Gresham's Law has been operating for the last decade at least:
bad posters drive out the good -- except that they haven't succeeded in driving out all the good -- yet.

> you're "reduced to highly
> questionable nitpicking" above, except for your comments about ID,
> which are also PRATTs.

You are lying. I haven't seen a decisive refutation of a single one, and the "thousands" in the first T of PRATT has to refer to
rebuttals made in reply to rubes who don't know how to counter the alleged "refutations" you might have in mind.

Lies like your last clause are quite common among the worst of the "far less highly,"
who include you and Ron O, and (fortunately) no one else who has shown up
on this thread so far.

In fairness to Ron O, he's apparently not (yet?) resorted to actual lies like the one
you have uttered just now. He is spouting contrary opinions that are so ingrained in him
that he no longer thinks actively about them. A few of his actively thought out comments
are IMO decisively refutable, but that will be settled when I address them.
Besides, they don't carry the intensely derogatory consequences that your use of "PRATT" does.


Peter Nyikos

[jillery]

On Wed, 16 Nov 2022 09:25:14 -0800 (PST), Glenn <GlennS...@msn.com>
wrote:

So close. Your thinking is correct about what is the relevant
argument about IC and ID. However, natural selection and random
mutation fall into the "other explanation" category, and are "only
speculation" in the same sense that *any* hypothesis that isn't 100%
verified by direct, empirical evidence, is "only speculation".

>> > so the Top Six were never really popular among the ID perps even
>> > though they are supposed to be the best evidence IDiots have.
>> "supposed to be" by Casey Luskin, the editor of the 2017 series,
>> and by Ron O; but Casey did not take the number 6 all that seriously,
>> as becomes already evident in Casey's italicized introduction to the
>> series at the top of the first article,
>>
>> https://evolutionnews.org/2017/11/ids-top-six-the-origin-of-the-universe/
>>
>> More importantly, Casey called the series a "distillation" and did
>> not think of it as being an adequate exposition of these six deep issues.

[jillery]

On Wed, 16 Nov 2022 14:46:49 -0800 (PST), "peter2...@gmail.com"
<peter2...@gmail.com> wrote:

<snip uncommented spam>

>> To quote someone whom you regard so highly,
>
>... out of context,


Incorrect. My quote is exact, and I use it in the same sense and
meaning as its original context, to note highly questionable
nitpicking, which you continue to do below. What has your knappies in
a twist here is me throwing your words back at you. Poor baby.

> which included jillery jumping to unsupported
>intensely derogatory claims based on jillery's nitpicks:
>https://groups.google.com/g/sci.bio.paleontology/c/piprYPdW6qg/m/qIoS8M52BgAJ
>Re: Beagle down again

Ignoring for argument's sake your derogatory lies, the above doesn't
inform your derogatory nitpick that the quote is "out of context".

>Only as highly as the majority of my acquaintances, in contrast to about 10% whom I regard more highly,
>and about 10% less highly. The latter includes "far less highly," all of whom are regulars in talk.origins,
>a forum in which an analogue of Gresham's Law has been operating for the last decade at least:
>bad posters drive out the good -- except that they haven't succeeded in driving out all the good -- yet.

I suppose you're right, for self-serving definitions of "bad" and
"good", as demonstrated by the many fellow trolls you have supported
over the years.

>> you're "reduced to highly
>> questionable nitpicking" above, except for your comments about ID,
>> which are also PRATTs.
>
>You are lying.

The above is yet another example of you accusing me of doing what you
do even as you do it.

>I haven't seen a decisive refutation of a single one, and the "thousands" in the first T of PRATT has to refer to
>rebuttals made in reply to rubes who don't know how to counter the alleged "refutations" you might have in mind.

I suppose you're right, for self-serving definitions of "haven't
seen". This would be comparable to Behe's testimony in the
Kitzmiller trial, that he hadn't seen any decisive evidence for the
evolution of human immune system, even as the plaintiffs stacked in
front of him 58 peer-reviewed publications, 9 books and several
immunology texts, all showing exactly that.

I suppose you "haven't seen" your own posts among the hundreds of
topics about ID in T.O. over the years. Or your posts supporting
almost every article cited in T.O. that even pretended to support ID.
Or the dozens of articles and citations about ID in the T.O. archives.
Or the dozens of authoritative critiques about ID. Because if you had
seen them, your claim above would be a transparent lie. But even if
your claim was true, it would still be nothing less than a derogatory
testament to your willful stupidity.

>Lies like your last clause are quite common among the worst of the "far less highly,"
>who include you and Ron O, and (fortunately) no one else who has shown up
>on this thread so far.

Sez the T.O. troll who compulsively lies just to get attention.

>In fairness to Ron O, he's apparently not (yet?) resorted to actual lies like the one
>you have uttered just now. He is spouting contrary opinions that are so ingrained in him
>that he no longer thinks actively about them. A few of his actively thought out comments
>are IMO decisively refutable, but that will be settled when I address them.
>Besides, they don't carry the intensely derogatory consequences that your use of "PRATT" does.
>
>
>Peter Nyikos

[RonO]

Projection is just a way of life for Nyikos. Somebody else has to be
doing what he has done. What is sad about this last paragraph is that
Nyikos knows that he is lying. The contrary opinions that he nitpicked
about were just restatements of facts that he likely already checked out
and confirmed or he would have countered my response that he is
currently running from. He would rather post to you instead of face the
lies and stupidity that he put out.

Just look what Nyikos removed from my post. The point of the post was
how ridiculous Glenn's behavior had been in his recent posts. Glenn
posted multiple threads where he put up one of the Top Six even though
Glenn has been running from the Top Six for the last 5 years. Nyikos
understands that Glenn never wanted to understand what he posted. Glenn
only posts the junk to wallow in the denial for the moment. IDiots
can't stand to actually deal with the denial stupidity in an honest and
straight forward manner. Glenn can't deal with the Top Six as the Top
Six, but he can still lie to himself about reality by putting them up as
disembodied bits of denial. That is how the ID perps usually feed the
bogus junk to the creationist rubes, and Glenn lapped it up without
understanding that he was already running from dealing with the junk.
Nyikos didn't even try to counter that behavior, nor did he attempt to
deal with the Top Six in any sensible manner. The ID perps made a big
mistake by putting them up in their order of occurrence and as the best
god-of-the-gaps denial stupidity that they had come up with. Any
informed and competent creationist would know that these were the same
god-of-the-gaps denial junk that the Scientific Creationists resorted to
and failed with decades ago.

After the Top Six came out Kalk quit supporting the ID creationist scam,
and Bill claimed that he had never supported the ID scam. MarkE and
Dean kept putting them up one at a time, and MarkE finally realized how
stupid that was and quit, and Dean just kept claiming that he didn't
remember doing it even though I gave him links to his past posts a
couple of times. Dean eventually admitted that he didn't want to
understand how the gap junk applied to his religious beliefs and he
didn't want to understand what they told him about the creation, and he
quit posting. My guess is that he finally realized that the junk did
not support his religious beliefs and that he didn't want to understand
what his designer did in the gaps that he was putting up.

Not a single IDiot in existence has tried to build their best IDiotic
scenario of what their designer did using the Top Six. Denton and Behe
have hinted at what the intelligent design alternative would be, but
they don't use the best evidence to demonstrate what that alternative
is. Denton has claimed that his designer got the ball rolling with the
Big Bang and everything unfolded as we have it today, so the Top Six are
explained just as what they are in that alternative. Most of the IDiot
creationists are YEC and obviously do not want to deal with that IDiotic
alternative. Behe doesn't sell the rubes any of the Top Six except IC,
and that is bad enough because he tells them that biological evolution
is a fact of nature, and that he is looking for things that his designer
would have done half a billion years ago (for blood clotting) to take
what existed and change it in a way that nature could not have
accomplished in a reasonable amount of time. He claims that his 3
neutral mutations would be a sign of designer work if he could find a
protein sequence that had evolved in that way, but he knows that he has
to look at what existed half a billion years ago and how it evolved. He
throws in the denial only to keep the rubes happy, but if he did find
his 3 neutral mutations there aren't very many IDiots that would want to
buy the book and believe him.

For the last 20 years all ID has been is the bait to run in the
obfuscation and denial switch scam. Pretty much no one (including the
ID perps) has wanted the ID perps to succeed in creating any ID science
because they already know that they wouldn't want to believe it. Just
think of how long Nelson has been claiming that they have only been
working on the ID science, but they never have succeeded in doing any.
Nelson is YEC and never wanted Behe to succeed. He never wanted Meyer
to figure out what the designer did in the Cambrian explosion over half
a billion years ago, and he has been about the only ID perp to
acknowledge that they never had the ID science. If they had produced
any ID science Nelson would have likely quit and denied it all. Nelson
has only supported running the bait and switch as the only way to keep
creationist hopes alive.

Ron Okimoto

[Glenn]

Whatever you want to believe, just don't attribute that to me.

[jillery]

On Thu, 17 Nov 2022 07:30:19 -0800 (PST), Glenn <GlennS...@msn.com>
wrote:

>> >I think the revelant argument concerning IC is that natural selection and random mutation could not have produced such structures. Speculations about how the bacterial flagellum came to be developed, whether by "supernatural" force, aliens or some other explanation, are only that, speculation.
>> So close. Your thinking is correct about what is the relevant
>> argument about IC and ID. However, natural selection and random
>> mutation fall into the "other explanation" category, and are "only
>> speculation" in the same sense that *any* hypothesis that isn't 100%
>> verified by direct, empirical evidence, is "only speculation".
>
>Whatever you want to believe, just don't attribute that to me.

I have no need to do so. Your own words above and elsewhere do it for
me.

[Glenn]

You are free to believe whatever you want without my help. My own words above indicate otherwise, and you can't find support elsewhere to back up your claims. As an aside, you may not have noticed above that I regard any ideas about how the flagellum came to be is speculation, including supernatural force, aliens or any other explanation. .
It may shock you to learn your claims above is no surprise, nor is your failure to supply the tested or testable scientific hypothesis of how a bacterial flagellum specifically evolved. Any hypothesis, of which there are many, that is not tested or testable, is speculation.

[jillery]

On Thu, 17 Nov 2022 14:19:56 -0800 (PST), Glenn <GlennS...@msn.com>

What would shock me would be for you to admit that me supplying a
testable scientific hypothesis would inform neither your comments nor
my response to them.

[Glenn]

What would shock me would be for you to provide a reference to where I have ever claimed or implied that all hypotheses that aren't 100% verified by direct, empirical evidence is only speculation.
Have at it, you twit.

[jillery]

On Thu, 17 Nov 2022 17:46:46 -0800 (PST), Glenn <GlennS...@msn.com>

You first, you troll.

[Glenn]

I already have, but you are so dysfunctional that you can't even admit it to yourself. You are the troll here.

[jillery]

On Thu, 17 Nov 2022 22:36:09 -0800 (PST), Glenn <GlennS...@msn.com>

Do you mean where you wrote:

"Speculations about how the bacterial flagellum came to be developed,
whether by "supernatural" force, aliens or some other explanation, are
only that, speculation. "

Is that your idea of "having at it"? If so, that would be strong
evidence of your trolling.

[Glenn]

You have something under your skin you need to dig out.

[jillery]

On Fri, 18 Nov 2022 00:19:30 -0800 (PST), Glenn <GlennS...@msn.com>

Sez the trolling twit.

[Glenn]

Aw, poor baby.

[peter2...@gmail.com]

The jillery goes off in a hate-ravaged binge below that I am
sure will make Ron O very happy.

On Thursday, November 17, 2022 at 2:25:15 AM UTC-5, jillery wrote:
> On Wed, 16 Nov 2022 14:46:49 -0800 (PST), "peter2...@gmail.com"
> <peter2...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> <snip uncommented spam>
>
> >> To quote someone whom you regard so highly,
> >
> >... out of context,
>
>
> Incorrect. My quote is exact, and I use it in the same sense and
> meaning as its original context, to note highly questionable
> nitpicking, which you continue to do below. What has your knappies in
> a twist here is me throwing your words back at you. Poor baby.

You flatter yourself beyond reason in this fantasy of the effect your words
have on me.

> > which included jillery jumping to unsupported
> >intensely derogatory claims based on jillery's nitpicks:
> >https://groups.google.com/g/sci.bio.paleontology/c/piprYPdW6qg/m/qIoS8M52BgAJ
> >Re: Beagle down again

> Ignoring for argument's sake your derogatory lies,

...which don't exist...

>the above doesn't
> inform your derogatory nitpick that the quote is "out of context".


> >Only as highly as the majority of my acquaintances, in contrast to about 10% whom I regard more highly,
> >and about 10% less highly. The latter includes "far less highly," all of whom are regulars in talk.origins,
> >a forum in which an analogue of Gresham's Law has been operating for the last decade at least:
> >bad posters drive out the good -- except that they haven't succeeded in driving out all the good -- yet.

> I suppose you're right, for self-serving definitions of "bad" and
> "good", as demonstrated by the many fellow trolls you have supported
> over the years.

What you call "self-serving" is me being a "goddamn moralizer"
who uses traditional Judeo-Christian-Islamic ideas of "bad" to include
bearing false witness, and hypocrisy in both senses of the word,
and "good" to include doing the best to avoid these actions and traits.

You may disagree that I have caught you bearing false witness numerous
times but you have no evidence to back up the disagreement.

For instance, I have shown how you repeatedly bore false witness about how you
rearranged text in a notorious reply to Martin Harran.

That Martin has since become mainly adversarial against me is neither here
nor there. I have no regrets about having behaved like a "goddamn moralizer"
in persistently holding your feet to the fire.

> >> you're "reduced to highly
> >> questionable nitpicking" above, except for your comments about ID,
> >> which are also PRATTs.
> >
> >You are lying.

You are reduced to a mindless jillertbot lie in response:

> The above is yet another example of you accusing me of doing what you
> do even as you do it.


> >I haven't seen a decisive refutation of a single one, and the "thousands" in the first T of PRATT has to refer to
> >rebuttals made in reply to rubes who don't know how to counter the alleged "refutations" you might have in mind.
> I suppose you're right, for self-serving definitions of "haven't
> seen".

They are completely standard, you incorrigible jerk.

>This would be comparable to Behe's testimony in the
> Kitzmiller trial, that he hadn't seen any decisive evidence for the
> evolution of human immune system,

Not "for" but "in explanation of how it might have evolved in small, Darwinian steips"

>even as the plaintiffs stacked in
> front of him 58 peer-reviewed publications, 9 books and several
> immunology texts, all

...of which gave evidence "for" -- which Behe did not deny -- but that was
beside the point, as seen above.

> I suppose you "haven't seen" your own posts among the hundreds of
> topics about ID in T.O. over the years.

I suppose you imagine that you have refuted some of them.

>Or your posts supporting
> almost every article cited in T.O. that even pretended to support ID.

Your fantasies are just amazing. I am far too discriminating
to do antything of the sort.

> Or the dozens of articles and citations about ID in the T.O. archives.

They have some good points. I don't deny the good ones.

> Or the dozens of authoritative critiques about ID. Because if you had
> seen them, your claim above would be a transparent lie.

You seem to have forgotten that my claim was that what
*I*, Peter Nyikos, have said about ID are *not* PRATTs.

And you have yet to produce a single example of one that is a PRATT.

> But even if
> your claim was true, it would still be nothing less than a derogatory
> testament to your willful stupidity.

You are incoherently babbling here.

> >Lies like your last clause are quite common among the worst of the "far less highly,"
> >who include you and Ron O, and (fortunately) no one else who has shown up
> >on this thread so far.

The jillerybot strikes again with a mindless libel:

> Sez the T.O. troll who compulsively lies just to get attention.


> >In fairness to Ron O, he's apparently not (yet?) resorted to actual lies like the one
> >you have uttered just now. He is spouting contrary opinions that are so ingrained in him
> >that he no longer thinks actively about them. A few of his actively thought out comments
> >are IMO decisively refutable, but that will be settled when I address them.
> >Besides, they don't carry the intensely derogatory consequences that your use of "PRATT" does.
> >
> >
> >Peter Nyikos
> --
> You're entitled to your own opinions.
> You're not entitled to your own facts.

As usual, the jillerybot's "You" definitely excludes the jillery in this .sig.


Peter Nyikos

[peter2...@gmail.com]

On Thursday, November 17, 2022 at 2:25:15 AM UTC-5, jillery wrote:

In my earlier reply this evening, I did a pretty good paraphrase of
Behe's rebuttal to jillery's regurgitation of one of MANY distortions
by Judge Jones of Behe's testimony. Below, I quote from Behe's rebuttal.

>This would be comparable to Behe's testimony in the
> Kitzmiller trial, that he hadn't seen any decisive evidence for the
> evolution of human immune system, even as the plaintiffs stacked in
> front of him 58 peer-reviewed publications, 9 books and several
> immunology texts, all showing exactly that.

Behe wrote about this distorted use of the expression
"evidence of evolution" by Judge Jones on pages 488 and 489of
Behe's recent book, _A_Mousetrap_for_Darwin_:

_________________________ excerpts____________________________
3. The Court here speaks of “evidence for evolution.” Throughout
the trial I carefully distinguished between the various meanings of the
word “evolution,” and I made it abundantly clear that I was challenging
Darwin’s proposed mechanism of random mutation coupled to natural
selection. Unfortunately, the Court here, as in many other places in its
opinion, ignores the distinction between evolution and Darwinism.

I said in my testimony that the studies may have been fine as far as
they went, but that they certainly did not present detailed, rigorous explanations
for the evolution of the immune system by random mutation
and natural selection—if they had, that knowledge would be reflected in
more recent studies that I had had a chance to read (see below).

4. This is the most blatant example of the Court’s simply accepting
the plaintiffs’ say-so on the state of the science and disregarding the
opinions of the defendants’ experts.
...
In my own direct testimony I went through the papers referenced by
Professor Miller in his testimony and showed they didn’t even contain
the phrase “random mutation”; that is, they assumed Darwinian evolution
by random mutation and natural selection was true—they did not
even try to demonstrate it. I further showed in particular that several very
recent immunology papers cited by Miller were highly speculative—in
other words, that there is no current rigorous Darwinian explanation for
the immune system. The Court does not mention this testimony.
============================ end of excerpts=================

I'd like to see how jillery responds to this account of what Behe did
at the Dover 2005 trial, rather than continuing to knock down
the strawman concocted by Judge Jones.

Knowing jillery's *modus* *operandi,* I expect this to be another case
of jillery following the guideline, "Those who misrepresent and run
away are free to repeat the same misrepresentation another day
as though nobody had responded."

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

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

[peter2...@gmail.com]

Ron O should be glad that I am not responding to him this evening,
but only to jillery. He thus gets a weekend reprieve.

On Friday, November 18, 2022 at 2:10:16 AM UTC-5, jillery wrote:
> On Thu, 17 Nov 2022 22:36:09 -0800 (PST), Glenn <GlennS...@msn.com>
> wrote:
>
> >On Thursday, November 17, 2022 at 9:20:15 PM UTC-7, jillery wrote:
> >> On Thu, 17 Nov 2022 17:46:46 -0800 (PST), Glenn <GlennS...@msn.com>

> >> >What would shock me would be for you to provide a reference to where I have ever claimed or implied that all hypotheses that aren't 100% verified by direct, empirical evidence is only speculation.
> >> >Have at it, you twit.

The jillerybot is even more illogical in arguing with Glenn than with me:

> >> You first, you troll. -

The jillerybot is ducking the challenge to provide a reference by trying to get Glenn to meet
the challenge.

> >I already have, but you are so dysfunctional that you can't even admit it to yourself. You are the troll here.

Looks like Glenn successfully guessed that jillery would make a stupid
attempt that only a complete rube would go along with.

> Do you mean where you wrote:
>
> "Speculations about how the bacterial flagellum came to be developed,
> whether by "supernatural" force, aliens or some other explanation, are
> only that, speculation. "

> Is that your idea of "having at it"? If so, that would be strong
> evidence of your trolling.

I don't know whether the jillery actually missed a FAR more plausible (though still not correct)
example out of carelessness, or whether the jillery thinks 'e is setting a clever trap.

Anyway, here is that far more plausible example that Glenn himself made in
the post that preceded the one I was quoting above:

"Any hypothesis, of which there are many, that is not tested or testable, is speculation."

Still, it doesn't measure up to the exact wording of Glenn's challenge.


Peter Nyikos

[Glenn]

Are you assigning some similarity to "a hypothesis must be tested or testable" and "a hypothesis must be 100% verified by direct, empirical evidence"?

[jillery]

On Fri, 18 Nov 2022 15:48:34 -0800 (PST), "peter2...@gmail.com"
<peter2...@gmail.com> wrote:

>The jillery goes off in a hate-ravaged binge below that I am
>sure will make Ron O very happy.

Once again PeeWee Peter accuses me of doing what he does even as he
does it. This is what puts the "PeeWee" in PeeWee Peter.

[jillery]

Once again PeeWee Peter accuses me of doing what he does even as he
does it. This is what puts the "PeeWee" in PeeWee Peter.

[jillery]

On Fri, 18 Nov 2022 18:56:03 -0800 (PST), "peter2...@gmail.com"
<peter2...@gmail.com> wrote:

>Ron O should be glad that I am not responding to him this evening,
>but only to jillery. He thus gets a weekend reprieve.

The following is not a response to jillery, but instead is an example
of PeeWee Peter jumping into the middle of a thread in order to post,
in the words of someone he admires, "a hate-ravaged binge".

>On Friday, November 18, 2022 at 2:10:16 AM UTC-5, jillery wrote:
>> On Thu, 17 Nov 2022 22:36:09 -0800 (PST), Glenn <GlennS...@msn.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >On Thursday, November 17, 2022 at 9:20:15 PM UTC-7, jillery wrote:
>> >> On Thu, 17 Nov 2022 17:46:46 -0800 (PST), Glenn <GlennS...@msn.com>
>
>
>
>> >> >What would shock me would be for you to provide a reference to where I have ever claimed or implied that all hypotheses that aren't 100% verified by direct, empirical evidence is only speculation.
>> >> >Have at it, you twit.
>
>The jillerybot is even more illogical in arguing with Glenn than with me:

Once again PeeWee Peter accuses jillery of doing what he does even as

he does it. This is what puts the "PeeWee" in PeeWee Peter.

>> >> You first, you troll. -
>
>The jillerybot is ducking the challenge to provide a reference by trying to get Glenn to meet
>the challenge.

Yes, it was futile of jillery to get Glenn to meet the challenge. Bad
jillery. Bad, bad, bad. So very bad.

>> >I already have, but you are so dysfunctional that you can't even admit it to yourself. You are the troll here.
>
>Looks like Glenn successfully guessed that jillery would make a stupid
>attempt that only a complete rube would go along with.
>
>> Do you mean where you wrote:
>>
>> "Speculations about how the bacterial flagellum came to be developed,
>> whether by "supernatural" force, aliens or some other explanation, are
>> only that, speculation. "

Jillery agrees that only a complete rube like Glenn would have written
the above quote, and only a complete perp like PeeWee Peter would
claim that noting it is "stupid".

>> Is that your idea of "having at it"? If so, that would be strong
>> evidence of your trolling.
>
>I don't know whether the jillery actually missed a FAR more plausible (though still not correct)
>example out of carelessness, or whether the jillery thinks 'e is setting a clever trap.
>
>Anyway, here is that far more plausible example that Glenn himself made in
>the post that preceded the one I was quoting above:
>
>"Any hypothesis, of which there are many, that is not tested or testable, is speculation."
>
>Still, it doesn't measure up to the exact wording of Glenn's challenge.

jillery notes PeeWee Peter's transparent nitpickery over which of
Glenn's comments better illustrate complete rube-otisityness.

[broger...@gmail.com]

I find it pretty hard to read your posts. The constant formulaic insults and even more so the consistent tone of contempt are just too depressing. But....underneath it you have a reasonable argument that's important.

The ID folks claim that their scientific claims are agnostic about the characteristics and identity of the designer. But that's nonsense. Each one of the natural phenomena they claim naturalistic science can never account for puts constraints on the characteristics of the designer, and any reasonable ID scientist, if they were really doing science, would try to use all those constraints to make a preliminary model of the characteristics of the designer.

For example, if a designer is responsible for the alleged fine tuning of the constants of nature then that designer must (1) have been active when the values of the physical constants were fixed and (2) must have had the power to fix those constants.

If the designer was responsible for the origin of the first cell on earth, then (1) the designer must have been active around 4 billion years ago and (2) the designer, if it's the same one responsible for fixing the physical constants, was powerful enough to set physical constants that would allow life to survive once it got started, but not powerful enough to choose and set physical constants that would allow life to get started on its own.

If the designer was responsible for the origin of the bacterial flagellum, then it must have been active at least a few 10s of millions of years after it got the first cell started; even longer if the designer was required for the coagulation cascade or the mammalian eye.

If the designer was required for the origin of human consciousness, then it must have been active even within the last few million years.

Every one of the "science cannot ever possibly give a naturalistic explanation for X" arguments for ID puts constraints on the characteristics of the designer. Any scientist actually trying to do ID science would try to use those constraints to develop a model of a hypothetical designer. And yet nobody in the ID science camp ever seems to do more than shrug and say "There's clearly a designer but we cannot possibly know anything more about it." That's how you can tell that their "science" is not science. They do not act like scientists.

[RonO]

Well, Nyikos understands it enough to run. That is all it was meant to
do. My guess is that formulaic insults are just facts that make the
IDiots look bad. The "insults" are true. If you disagree, you could
try to demonstrate otherwise. They are just what the situation is at
this time. If you think that the term IDiot is an insult, it is likely
a badge of honor for the IDiots that are left. They are much worse off
than idiots at this time. The only IDiots left have been the igorant,
incompetent, and or dishonest since the bait and switch started to go
down over 20 years ago, and Nyikos and Glenn are obviously all three of
what is required.

>
> The ID folks claim that their scientific claims are agnostic about the characteristics and identity of the designer. But that's nonsense. Each one of the natural phenomena they claim naturalistic science can never account for puts constraints on the characteristics of the designer, and any reasonable ID scientist, if they were really doing science, would try to use all those constraints to make a preliminary model of the characteristics of the designer.

The ID perps have lied about ID for decades. That is enough said about
that. Just look at Nyikos' response above. He claims that Miller and
Sewell were just supporting their belief in their god and their Top Six
and Top 5 wasn't about ID, but the articles were standard IDiocy in that
they never mentioned who or what designer they were talking about. It
has all been part of the creationist scam.

>
> For example, if a designer is responsible for the alleged fine tuning of the constants of nature then that designer must (1) have been active when the values of the physical constants were fixed and (2) must have had the power to fix those constants.
>
> If the designer was responsible for the origin of the first cell on earth, then (1) the designer must have been active around 4 billion years ago and (2) the designer, if it's the same one responsible for fixing the physical constants, was powerful enough to set physical constants that would allow life to survive once it got started, but not powerful enough to choose and set physical constants that would allow life to get started on its own.
>
> If the designer was responsible for the origin of the bacterial flagellum, then it must have been active at least a few 10s of millions of years after it got the first cell started; even longer if the designer was required for the coagulation cascade or the mammalian eye.
>
> If the designer was required for the origin of human consciousness, then it must have been active even within the last few million years.
>
> Every one of the "science cannot ever possibly give a naturalistic explanation for X" arguments for ID puts constraints on the characteristics of the designer. Any scientist actually trying to do ID science would try to use those constraints to develop a model of a hypothetical designer. And yet nobody in the ID science camp ever seems to do more than shrug and say "There's clearly a designer but we cannot possibly know anything more about it." That's how you can tell that their "science" is not science. They do not act like scientists.
>

This is just what I have been claiming all along since the Top Six came
out. The ID perps only use the Top Six as disembodied bits of denial to
fool the rubes and help IDiots like Glenn lie to themselves for just
that moment in time so that they can forget that bit of denial and lie
to themselves about the next bit. I have claimed all along that the ID
perps made a big mistake in putting all 6 up at the same time and
telling the IDiot rubes that they were in their order of occurrence.
Kalk and Glenn ran from that reality, and both tried to resort to
continuing to put up the disembodied second rate denial junk, but that
was a stupid and dishonest thing to keep doing so Kalk quit and quit
being an IDiot. Kalk even came out and claimed that he had never
claimed to be a hindu. Kalk is still obviously a creationist. The Nym
and the use of the Vedas was all to support his creationist beliefs that
were biblically IDiotic and not Hindu. Bill claimed that he had never
supported the ID scam, but we all know that isn't true. Bill just never
supported the best evidence for the ID creationist scam. Pagano claimed
that the Top Six were bogus and tried to put up second rate denial
stupidity as being better, and then he quit. Nyikos and Glenn were
stuck being the only IDiots left posting on TO that you could claim were
competent enough to understand the bogus and dishonest junk that they
had to keep doing in order to keep supporting the worthless creationist
scam. All intelligent design has been for the last 20 years is the bait
to attract the creationist rubes so that they can bend them over and
force the obfuscation and denial switch scam onto the hapless IDiots.
No IDiotic science was ever attempted because the ID perps didn't want
to develop any answers. Science is just the study of nature, and the
Top Six tells anyone that IDiot creationists do not want to understand
nature. There is no IDiotic science than any IDiots have wanted to
accomplish.

This is obviously the reason that Behe has never attempted to verify
that his IC systems exist in nature. He has made proposals where the
means may exist to test them, but he has never tried to do any testing.
He has pointed out that the technology exists to identify what Behe
claims is on the edge of evolution. He knows that 2 neutral mutations
have been shown to be the means that a protein evolved to have the
different function for systems like the steroid receptors. He calls
this the edge of evolution. He admits that 2 are possible by normal
Darwinian processes (natural processes known to exist in nature) but he
claims that is the limit, and he expects his IC systems to have required
3 neutral mutations. Behe has never looked for the 3. He just makes
the claims. Even if he ever did find those 3, there aren't very many
IDiots that would buy the book, and the vast majority of IDiots in
existence would deny the results. Most IDiot creationists are still YEC
at this time, and none of them want to know what some designer did over
a billion years ago to evolve the flagellum.

Sewell tried to make the Top Six more palatable to the IDiot rubes. He
dropped out IC and the Cambrian explosion, and cut up fine tuning and
human evolution into two parts so he wouldn't have to deal with the
temporal span for each, and he put them out of their order of occurrence
so that they could more easily be viewed as disembodied bits of denial.
Miller dropped out the Big Bang and made it the Top 5. Miller did this
even though he is supposed to be the ID perp's director of research.
Even the ID perps can't stand the Top Six as the Top Six exist in
nature. Miller obviously is not directing any research into how the Top
Six fit together to create any coherent IDiotic theory, and any
scientific theory would be out of the question.

This is why Nyikos had to lie about the situation, and why Glenn never
wanted to post multiple examples of the Top Six as his usual second rate
denial that he gets from the ID perps. Glenn only posted the junk
because he never wanted to understand what he posted enough to
understand what it was that he was posting. If Glenn had known that
they were Top Six events he would have never posted them, and Glenn has
always run from posting them by mistake for the last 5 years. Glenn
understands that even the second rate denial stupidity isn't worth
understanding enough to know what he is posting. That is how sad IDiots
have to be at this time.

Ron Okimoto

[Martin Harran]

On Fri, 18 Nov 2022 15:48:34 -0800 (PST), "peter2...@gmail.com"
<peter2...@gmail.com> wrote:


[...]

>What you call "self-serving" is me being a "goddamn moralizer"
>who uses traditional Judeo-Christian-Islamic ideas of "bad" to include
>bearing false witness, and hypocrisy in both senses of the word,
>and "good" to include doing the best to avoid these actions and traits.

My irony meter has just exploded.

[...]

[Bill]

Any mention of "ID perp" leads to a morbid and obsessive compulsion to
appear intellectually adequate. It fails of course, but it's become standard
fare for some here. If we add the phrase, "ID perp Top Six" then any hope of
being taken seriously disappears.

Bill

[RonO]

Ex IDiots like you are stuck with reality as it is. The moment that you
admitted that you had never supported the creationist ID scam you knew
that all the IDiotic denial that you had engaged in for decades was
worthless and a stupid thing to have done. You realized that you had
never wanted to support the ID scam as it had always been. You may have
hoped for something different, but when the bait and switch started to
go down, what did you do? You remained an IDiot supporter of what had
become a stupid bait and switch scam that the ID perps were running on
their own creationist support base. You should not blame anyone else
for what you did. You could have quit the ID scam like most of the
"scientists" at the ISCID. Once the bait and switch started in 2002 the
ISCID became moribund and no IDiotic papers were submitted after 2003.
The IDiots with half a clue quit. Mike Gene admitted that he had given
up on teaching the ID claptrap back in 1999, but what did the rest of
the ARN IDiots do when all they could expect was the bait and switch?

You remained an IDiot after Dover. Phillip Johnson couldn't do that.
He admitted that there had never been any ID science to teach in the
public schools and he quit supporting the Wedge strategy that he had
developed that included getting ID taught in the public schools, but the
other ID perps doubled down and put out their teach ID scam propaganda
that claimed that the Dover decision was wrong, and continued to claim
that ID could be taught in the public schools, but the bait and switch
kept going down. No IDiot creationist rube ever got any ID science from
the ID perps, and you know that you never wanted to get anything that
they could have produced because of how you reacted to the Top Six.
IDiots like Mike Gene finally quit the ID scam (back in 2007) and went
back to being regular creationists after Dover. How long did it take
you to quit supporting the ID scam? By the time the Top Six came out
(2017) you were no longer openly supporting the ID creationist scam.

All of this was not my fault, and stating exactly what things are is not
the reason why IDiots never could do the right thing, and now they have
to deal with stupid junk like bearing false witness. Just think of how
guilty an IDiot like Nyikos is and he has to claim that others are
guilty. The sad state of the ID scam is due to the ID creationist's own
stupidity and dishonesty. Why do you think that you have to keep
claiming that reality doesn't exist? You lived this reality, and you
know better.

Ron Okimoto

[jillery]

"ID perp" is an epithet no different from "atheist evolutionist" and
"jillerybot" and "Darwinist", in terms of establishing expectations
of meaningful dialog. I leave as a pedantic exercise which epithets
are used more frequently.

[jillery]

On Fri, 18 Nov 2022 18:40:37 -0800 (PST), "peter2...@gmail.com"
<peter2...@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Thursday, November 17, 2022 at 2:25:15 AM UTC-5, jillery wrote:
>
>In my earlier reply this evening, I did a pretty good paraphrase of
>Behe's rebuttal to jillery's regurgitation of one of MANY distortions
>by Judge Jones of Behe's testimony.

To be pedantically precise, "jillery's regurgitation" below is not
from Judge Jones but from Ken Miller. jillery acknowledges Ken Miller
might have "regurgitated" it from Judge Jones.

I leave as an exercise whether recycling regurgitations is worse than
spamming PRATTs.

>Below, I quote from Behe's rebuttal.
>
>>This would be comparable to Behe's testimony in the
>> Kitzmiller trial, that he hadn't seen any decisive evidence for the
>> evolution of human immune system, even as the plaintiffs stacked in
>> front of him 58 peer-reviewed publications, 9 books and several
>> immunology texts, all showing exactly that.
>
>Behe wrote about this distorted use of the expression
>"evidence of evolution" by Judge Jones on pages 488 and 489of
>Behe's recent book, _A_Mousetrap_for_Darwin_:
>
>_________________________ excerpts____________________________
>3. The Court here speaks of “evidence for evolution.” Throughout
>the trial I carefully distinguished between the various meanings of the
>word “evolution,” and I made it abundantly clear that I was challenging
>Darwin’s proposed mechanism of random mutation coupled to natural
>selection. Unfortunately, the Court here, as in many other places in its
>opinion, ignores the distinction between evolution and Darwinism.

jillery acknowledges there are multiple meanings of "evolution".
However, jillery's understanding is the Court correctly applied the
relevant meaning to the case under consideration, which wasn't about
"the distinction between evolution and Darwinism", but instead was
about teaching religious speculations based on Biblical dogma vs
teaching a scientific theory based on evidence.

>I said in my testimony that the studies may have been fine as far as
>they went, but that they certainly did not present detailed, rigorous explanations
>for the evolution of the immune system by random mutation
>and natural selection—if they had, that knowledge would be reflected in
>more recent studies that I had had a chance to read (see below).

Behe expresses above his opinions of those studies and what qualifies
as "detailed, rigorous explanations". However, jillery's
understanding is these opinions are not shared by Plaintiff's experts
nor by the vast majority of Behe's professional peers.

>4. This is the most blatant example of the Court’s simply accepting
>the plaintiffs’ say-so on the state of the science and disregarding the
>opinions of the defendants’ experts.

"blatant" in this case means the Court accepted plaintiff's experts'
testimony instead. This is mindless sour grapes, much like
election-deniers who reject any decision their guy loses.

>...
>In my own direct testimony I went through the papers referenced by
>Professor Miller in his testimony and showed they didn’t even contain
>the phrase “random mutation”;

The above is an obvious if pedantic lie. There was no way Behe could
have determined on the stand if that claim was true, nevermind showed
it to be true. More to the point, even if Behe showed it to be true,
that still wouldn't have showed the papers didn't refer to random
mutation. Even more to the point, Behe acknowledges random mutations.
Even more to the point, Behe's criticisms are about natural selection.

>that is, they assumed Darwinian evolution
>by random mutation and natural selection was true—they did not
>even try to demonstrate it. I further showed in particular that several very
>recent immunology papers cited by Miller were highly speculative—in
>other words, that there is no current rigorous Darwinian explanation for
>the immune system. The Court does not mention this testimony.

The above are just more of Behe's opinions not shared by plaintiff's
experts nor the majority of Behe's peers.

As an aside, to the best of jillery's knowledge, the only thing Behe
has offered as to what would qualify as a "rigorous Darwinian
explanation" are tests refuting Behe's IC. jillery's understanding is
those tests have been done and IC failed.

>============================ end of excerpts=================
>
>I'd like to see how jillery responds to this account of what Behe did
>at the Dover 2005 trial, rather than continuing to knock down
>the strawman concocted by Judge Jones.

To be pedantically precise, jillery didn't knock down Jones'
"strawman" or Miller's "strawman"; only the strawmen concocted by
Behe.

>Knowing jillery's *modus* *operandi,* I expect this to be another case
>of jillery following the guideline, "Those who misrepresent and run
>away are free to repeat the same misrepresentation another day
>as though nobody had responded."

Sez the PeeWee troll who regularly ignores/evades his own demonstrated
misreprestations and baseless allusions like the above.

[peter2...@gmail.com]

I see no connection between what you wrote below and anything Ron O wrote above.

>
> The ID folks claim that their scientific claims are agnostic about the characteristics and identity of the designer. But that's nonsense.

Not where characteristics are concerned. Behe has made it clear that the evidence does not rule
out sloppy designers who had to keep making adjustments and scrapping failed designs.

> Each one of the natural phenomena they claim naturalistic science can never account for puts constraints on the characteristics of the designer,

I know of no such claim by leading ID writers, and it would be out of character for Behe
to make such an unequivocal claim. The most he has done AFAIK is to assert that science
has done a miserable job of showing that a number of things could be attributed to neo-Darwinist mechanisms.

> and any reasonable ID scientist, if they were really doing science, would try to use all those constraints to make a preliminary model of the characteristics of the designer.
>
> For example, if a designer is responsible for the alleged fine tuning of the constants of nature then that designer must (1) have been active when the values of the physical constants were fixed and (2) must have had the power to fix those constants.

Why would you want anyone to belabor the obvious like this in a publication?

> If the designer was responsible for the origin of the first cell on earth, then (1) the designer must have been active around 4 billion years ago and (2) the designer, if it's the same one responsible for fixing the physical constants,

BRAVO!!! This is the first time I've seen an ID opponent acknowledge
that ID theory does not necessarily call for a single designer.

This is the opposite of the ranting Ron O does above -- and has done
for several years -- about what he fondly imagines Glenn to be running away from.

>was powerful enough to set physical constants that would allow life to survive once it got started, but not powerful enough to choose and set physical constants that would allow life to get started on its own.

That last clause does not necessarily follow. The designer of the constants
might have delegated the responsibility of abiogenesis to designers of
lesser power, just as the Bible depicts God telling mankind to subdue the earth.

[Of course, mankind has done a poor job of that so far, but the Bible also
has some very unflattering comments about subsequent human behavior.]

However, a close reading of Genesis 1:11-12 shows that it does NOT
attribute the creation of plants [and, *a* *fortiori*, the first cell]
to Elohim, but attributes them to the earth "bringing them forth"
at Elohim's command. It is only where eumetazoans are concerned
that Elohim is depicted as taking a personal hand in the process.

I should add that the ID movement [1] is independent of the Bible. It includes
people of other faiths as well as agnostics.

[1] Not to be confused with the all-but-defunct Wedge movement, which
was a very different thing although there was some overlap at the beginning.

>
> If the designer was responsible for the origin of the bacterial flagellum, then it must have been active at least a few 10s of millions of years after it got the first cell started; even longer if the designer was required for the coagulation cascade or the mammalian eye.

You are carelessly back to the idea of just one designer.


CONCLUDED in next reply to this post after some replies to others.

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

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

[Lawyer Daggett]

False. And you claim to have watched this video.
https://youtu.be/DyyqKpPVg4c?t=742
Starting at time 12:20
"In the 1990s I wrote a book titled Darwin's Black Box.
In the book I argued that the blood clotting cascade could not have developed through
unguided evolution ..."

That is not a statement about science doing a poor job, that is a very direct assertion
of something that you often claim Behe does not assert.

"... because the system is irreducibly complex."

Again, you frequently deny that he asserts that IC means things can't evolve. And yet
he says he argued that Blood Clotting cascade could have not evolved through unguided
evolution because it is IC. It's as if your denials are in conflict with Behe's actual words.

"In other words, all the parts are necessary, even one missing component will results
in a system failure. Instead, the blood clotting system had to be purposefully designed
to be functional."

That's pretty unequivocal language, despite your repeated claims to the contrary.

"And here's an enormously important point, in the book I noted that no science
publication had ever shown how the blood clotting system could have been produced
through random mutation and natural selection."

This is of course also false. To make it true to himself, Behe offers up a false standard
for showing how. And Peter falls for this false standard again and again. That standard
is to account for an almost mutation by mutation scenario with experimental validation
of equivalent functionality all along the way. This standard is simply not standard. There
is little justification for it other than it might be believed by people who really don't
understand how science is actually done.

What had been proposed, by multiple authors, is a somewhat ill defined series of gene
duplications. Doolittle, who gets mentioned at this point in the video had gone further.
Rather than propose a scheme of gene duplication followed by a series of point mutations,
he proposed exon shuffling. He did this by looking at the sequences of the enzymes
involved, their functional and structural domains, and comparing them along with sequence
comparisons of the various exons for the enzymes involved. Much of this work used
speculative modeling of domain structures (alpha hexices, beta sheets, turns, and
significantly kringle domains).

Some might dismiss his work as being so speculative. They don't understand how
he produced his models. They didn't understand protein chemistry and evolution
well enough to see what he saw. At the time he proposed such a model involving
duplication and rearrangements in duplicated genes, we didn't have the molecular
mechanisms of how such rearrangements occur, and the idea of exon shuffling was
very hypothetical.

The thing is, he turned out to be largely correct about how the cascade did evolve.
Doolittle did not predict a critical step which was a whole genome duplication event
but that's fairly forgivable. He did correctly predict the rise of new enzymes via
rearrangements. As far as I can tell, Behe still doesn't understand any of this. Neither
does Nyikos who is hung up on a cartoonish model of how cascades could evolve,
so much so that he ignores the data on how the coagulation cascade did evolve.

Regardless, Behe absolutely does make the unequivocable claims that somebody
denies that he makes.

I'm not going to dissect Behe's errors in discussing Doolittle here as he focused
on something else, but I may come back to that. I'll jump to the end of his video.
time 15:25
"The complex biological systems within each of us were not assembled by
happenstance. They work with dazzling precision because each one has been
purposefully designed."

So let's rewind to Peter Nyikos responding to Bill Rogers:

BR>> Each one of the natural phenomena they claim naturalistic science can never account
BR>> for puts constraints on the characteristics of the designer,

PN> I know of no such claim by leading ID writers, and it would be out of character for Behe
PN> to make such an unequivocal claim. The most he has done AFAIK is to assert that science
PN> has done a miserable job of showing that a number of things could be attributed to
PN> neo-Darwinist mechanisms.

I again note that Nyikos very recently claimed to have watched that video.
Weigh his comments accordingly.


[ deletia]

[peter2...@gmail.com]

On Saturday, November 19, 2022 at 9:35:18 AM UTC-5, Ron O wrote:
> On 11/19/2022 6:50 AM, broger...@gmail.com wrote:
> >On Tuesday, November 15, 2022 at 11:45:14 PM UTC-5, Ron O wrote:

>>> The Top Six still has the effect that it has on IDiots.

Speculation, and false where I am concerned. What is certain is that it still has a completely
obsolete effect on YOU.

> >> Glenn is still running from them. Kalk still quit being an IDiot due to the
> >> Top Six. For a couple months Kalk tried to wallow in second rate ID
> >> perp denial like Glenn,

Denial of WHAT? of your delusions about why their responses to
you do not meet your demands?

I told Bill Rogers just now that your demands are stupid:

"This is the first time I've seen an ID opponent acknowledge
that ID theory does not necessarily call for a single designer.

"This is the opposite of the ranting Ron O does above -- and has done
for several years -- about what he fondly imagines Glenn to be running away from."

https://groups.google.com/g/talk.origins/c/wLSRK67XcYs/m/XCqjIiRPAwAJ

> >>but it was too stupid and dishonest to keep
> >> doing that when he couldn't deal with the best that the ID perps had to
> >> give him.

"couldn't deal with" = didn't deal with it the way I, RonO, wanted him to do it.

Kalk isn't even a Christian AFAIK. In his latest replies to me he seems to be more
in tune with the Vedas than with the Bible:

https://groups.google.com/g/talk.origins/c/e31xp8nnUEc/m/D4PmDr0xAgAJ
Re: God reveals himself through what he has made says Pope's astronomer
Nov 17, 2022, 10:15:16 PM

What makes you think the pantheon of Vedic gods had to assign ONE of them
to do the work to take care of what YOU call the Top Six?
just to conform to YOUR interpretation of what the Bible says?


<snip to where you disregarded this connection about Kalkidas>

> >> The god that fills the
> >> existing origin of life gap isn't Biblical enough for most anti
> >> evolution creationists. The plain and simple fact is that IDiots and ex
> >> IDiots like Glenn, Kalk, Pagano, and Bill don't want to believe in the
> >> designer that fills the Top Six gaps. That designer isn't Biblical
> >> enough.

<snip to get to Bill Rogers's words and your replies to them>

> > I find it pretty hard to read your posts. The constant formulaic insults and even more so the consistent tone of contempt are just too depressing. But....underneath it you have a reasonable argument that's important.

I disputed this in my reply to Rogers, linked above.

> Well, Nyikos understands it enough to run. That is all it was meant to
> do.

In this way, you idiotically count your chickens before they are hatched.
And in a hypocritical way at that: you haven't TOUCHED my first reply
to your OP, done nine (9) days ago.

By the time the nine days since your first reply to me has elapsed,
it'll be Thanksgiving day, and I will have replied to it,
giving you one less thing to be thankful for on that day.

> My guess is that formulaic insults are just facts that make the
> IDiots look bad. The "insults" are true. If you disagree, you could
> try to demonstrate otherwise.

I've already done that to some of them above, and there's
more below. You are wallowing in delusion.

>They are just what the situation is at
> this time. If you think that the term IDiot is an insult, it is likely
> a badge of honor for the IDiots that are left.

You are trying to transfer a scam Paul Gans initiated in 1995
(and which several people including your staunch ally Hemidactylus, have adopted)
to us, who are far too honest to indulge in such scamming.

The scam was to never, *never*, NEVER try to disprove accusations
of dishonesty, cowardice, unfairness, hypocrisy etc. that were made by us,
unless evidence is provided on the spot (and even THEN sometimes)
but to treat it as "a badge of honor." This scam is the longest
run of the despicable tactic of gaslighting that I have ever encountered.

>They are much worse off
> than idiots at this time. The only IDiots left have been the igorant,
> incompetent, and or dishonest since the bait and switch started to go
> down over 20 years ago,

You are still clinging to the idiotic claim that there was one as late as ten years
ago, thanks to your idiotic delusion that you showed "bait" still
active then when all you could put up was tons of what
would have been "switch" if there had been bait to switch from.

> Nyikos and Glenn are obviously all three of
> what is required.

You are bearing false witness against both of us, especially me.
Do you even care about Jesus's words, "Do not bear false witness"
any more? did you ever care about them?

> > The ID folks claim that their scientific claims are agnostic about the characteristics and identity of the designer. But that's nonsense. Each one of the natural phenomena they claim naturalistic science can never account for puts constraints on the characteristics of the designer, and any reasonable ID scientist, if they were really doing science, would try to use all those constraints to make a preliminary model of the characteristics of the designer.

At this point, Rogers was still working under the assumption
that had to be only ONE designer responsible for ID.
At one point (snipped below, to be dealt with in a subsequent reply later today)

> The ID perps have lied about ID for decades. That is enough said about
> that. Just look at Nyikos' response above. He claims that Miller and
> Sewell were just supporting their belief in their god and their Top Six
> and Top 5 wasn't about ID, but the articles were standard IDiocy in that
> they never mentioned who or what designer they were talking about. It
> has all been part of the creationist scam.

I'll have to review that video. My comment may have been a faulty
recollection based on what their arguments were best at supporting.

To wit: The choice of the Sewell's Top Five was much
more effective as an argument for the existence of God than for
the theory of Intelligent design, whereas the two that
Sewell completely ignored (IC and the Cambrian explosion)
work much better for ID theory than as arguments for the existence of God.

And I stand by one comment: although Sewell made brief comments
about the Big Bang (#2 of the original so-called "Top Six"), he did
not put it on the list of 5 that is written in big letters in the video. It is this
written list which Miller transcribed in his text that accompanied
the video.


CONTINUED in next reply to this post after some replies to others.

Peter Nyikos
Professor, Dept. of Mathematics

Univ. of South Carolina -- standard disclaimer--
http://people.math.sc.edu/nyikos

[Burkhard]

Then you haven't been paying attention. Bill Rogers and I have made this
argument multiple times before, often in response to either Ron Dean or
Freon Bill. And I have consistently argued that if one were to follow
the design inference, the evidence would indicate that the designer(s)
are either

a) several mutually antagonistic designers (who may work sometimes in
teams)
b) a single, but psychopathic designer
c) a game developer (which can be a team) working for either a) or b)

[Ernest Major]

On 21/11/2022 20:06, Burkhard wrote:
> Then you haven't been paying attention. Bill Rogers and I have made this
> argument multiple times before, often in response to either Ron Dean or
> Freon Bill. And I have consistently argued that if one were to follow
> the design inference, the evidence would indicate that the designer(s)
> are either
>
> a) several mutually antagonistic designers (who may work sometimes in
> teams)
> b) a single, but psychopathic designer
> c) a game developer (which can be a team) working for either a) or b)

If I recall correctly, many years ago Richard Dawkins suggested
antagonistic designers as what ID proponents should be concluding.

--
alias Ernest Major

[Burkhard]

They also may have formed some state-like form of organization with laws
(which should not be too surprising, as Kant argued, even a population
of devils need a system of law). Here in particular they seem to respect
some form of intellectual property law, which prevents them from copying
ideas their antagonists are successfully deploying.

[Lawyer Daggett]

It appears that early in Earth's Natural History, the guilds controlling the design
of various lineages had not developed their intellectual property law to a
significant extent resulting in what modern scientists tend to call "horizontal
transfer". There even seems to have been the occasional merger resulting in
what has been termed "endosymbiosis". As time went on, examples of horizontal
transfer seem to have been greatly reduced but still occurred on rare occasions
via viral vectors that did not respect guild boundaries. It isn't known how the
IP laws changed but it appears that most guilds built up protections within
their own lineages to limit the introduction of foreign genes making it
seem as if more guilds viewed these cases of horizontal transfer as a
threat to their own designs somewhat akin to modern business psychology
which resists external ideas under the NIH scheme (Not Invented Here).

[Burkhard]

Quite possibly, though we see similar patterns with human conceptions of
IP for slightly different reasons: for most of history we did without.
When it was introduced in 1710, enforcement was initially very lax, and
many disciplines continued without embracing it. Fiction writers first,
Scientists later and more reluctantly (neither Paley nor Darwin cite
their sources the way this would be required today) , Divinity the last
- swapping texts for sermons without attribution remains common.

So some of the changes are not necessarily changes in the substantive
law, but the rigour of enforcement, and even with more rigorous regimes,
we'd expect some copying happening. But what we see now too is that some
entities want to be law compliant and enforce this internally - the way
Facebook cooperates with Notice and Takedown requirements, or YouTube
uses its Content ID filtering system to prevent upload of infringing
material. Driver is of course the fear of getting sued - so this could
be an alternative rationale to the "Not invented here" that you offer.

Mind you, we are now of course really in danger to anthropomorphize the
designer too much. Kant argues that "a" legal system will emerge in any
rational species, and Hegel then included property rights as an equally
necessary component, but here we deal with something else, the very
contingent features of our IP system (and we managed great for centuries
without one)

[Bill]

How do you arrive at your three options? Do you suppose that a single
designer is impossible? Why do you believe a single designer must be
psychopathic? Are your beliefs based on actual evidence or is it all just a
cultural bias?

Bill

[Lawyer Daggett]

First, I'm not sure where "rational species" comes into it, especially as
I am somewhat modeling my notions here off of human derived systems.

But Second, my sense of the laws involved and enforced by the "guilds"
who have taken ownership of evolving and bifurcating kinds borrows from
guilds as recorded in the chronicles of Ankh-Morpork. There, and I think to a
large degree in more terrestrial human contexts, I would offer that
enforcement of laws precedes codification and involves clubs, knives,
and battle-axes. Law in such systems is like history, being written by
the victors.

Or did you mean rationalizing species?

[Burkhard]

Bill wrote:
> Ernest Major wrote:
>
>> On 21/11/2022 20:06, Burkhard wrote:
>>> Then you haven't been paying attention. Bill Rogers and I have made this
>>> argument multiple times before, often in response to either Ron Dean or
>>> Freon Bill. And I have consistently argued that if one were to follow
>>> the design inference, the evidence would indicate that the designer(s)
>>> are either
>>>
>>> a) several mutually antagonistic designers (who may work sometimes in
>>> teams)
>>> b) a single, but psychopathic designer
>>> c) a game developer (which can be a team) working for either a) or b)
>>
>> If I recall correctly, many years ago Richard Dawkins suggested
>> antagonistic designers as what ID proponents should be concluding.
>>
>
> How do you arrive at your three options? >Do you suppose that a single
> designer is impossible?

Eh no? That's option 2, and also possibly option 3 (3 can be both a
single designer and a team)

Why do you believe a single designer must be
> psychopathic? Are your beliefs based on actual evidence or is it all just a
> cultural bias?

I'm essentially basing this analysis on what John Ray, the most
sophisticated of the "old" (pre-Darwin) natural theologians had tried to
do- and quickly stopped doing when he realized where that let him.
Reposting from an older post, most of this:

One of the most pervasive patterns we observe in nature is what within
the evolution framework would be called predator - prey dynamics, and
in the design paradigm would be called "design against design"

The legs of the gazelle optimized for running away, the claws and teeth
of the lion optimized for the pounce. The camouflage of the prey, the
eyesight of the predator. Poison vs natural antidotes. The immune system
and the adaptability of the virus etc etc.

Now, if you have only one designer, then s/he/it designed these
contradictory powers for maximum carnage - hence a psychopath that
enjoys the sport. In the old days that's what you would have observed
in the gladiatorial games, where the game designers
evenly matched the parties to have an interesting and protruded fight -
shields for some, nets for others etc, a Nero setting of gladiator
games, where you try to balance offensive capacities against defensive
armor to get maximum cruelty for as long as possible.

The alternative is more than one designer, in competition with
each other. Each is benevolent towards their chosen species, and tries
to protect them as much as possible, each tries to harm the other as
much as possible, neither always get their way.

So IF the design theory is true, then we are dealing probably with
several competing designers, each responsible for some species but not
others. (evolution explains this by predator-prey dynamics)

They are powerful, but not all powerful, knowledgeable, but not
omniscient, so they come up with solutions that work "more or less well"
against the opposition.(evolution explains this by the absence of
planning - no current costs for future gain possible, you are only ever
a little bit ahead of the competition if that)

In particular, their ability to learn from the other team and copy their
ideas is severely limited. That indicates some rules of the game, in
particular some strong intellectual property law: if your team has
invented something, the the team can't simply copy it. That's why lions
don't have wings, and zebras can't spray poisonous gas at lions.
(evolution explains this by reproductive barriers and the
path-dependency of evolution)

Sometimes, we see that species in different lineages do have similar
traits - e.g. bats and birds can fly. But typically, these traits are
realized in very different ways, and with very different DNA as a cause.
That too indicates a patent law regime: protected is not the idea, only
the concrete expression of the idea. (evolution explains this as
"convergent evolution". But sometimes we really get the same trait in
very different lineages. Evolution explains this as the rare horizontal
gene transfer, in the design explanations this would point to industrial
espionage: sometimes member of one team leave their group and join the
other team, taking their know how with them.

What type of deities fit that bill? I'd say the Olympian gods get very
close. Powerful and knowledgeable, but not all powerful and omniscient,
and in particular with different skills each. Responsible for different
parts of the world. In intense competition with each other, often in
alliances. These alliances however are of convenience, with
betrayal/acting against common interest not unusual, and some leave
their alliance altogether.

Having identified the best candidate for a designer, we can then try to
test the idea. What else do we know about the Greek gods, what should
we expect to find if they are indeed behind the origin of species? Well,
the universe was created out of nothing by Nyx, just as the big bang
says (but lots of religions make that claim, so not really a
differentiator) But next to Nyx came Eros, and she really created the
earth and the sky. So love (in the sense of physical desire) is the
first and foremost principle. And of course, evolution took off really
when sexual reproduction came on the scene, so here we have a good fit
between deities that are not only sexually reproducing, but embody sex,
and what we find in natural species.

So if you look for fit with the observed evidence - that's where you
have the best, by far. Which should also answer your last question:
As the religion of classical Greek is hardly cultural mainstream, this
analysis can;t be explained away by claiming "cultural bias"

[Burkhard]

Yes, i got that - what I wanted to test is how far one can go without
building the theory too much on humans. Inevitably these designers will
be rather different from us (much more powerful to start with) and we
really know very little about their motives, thinking style etc etc.

So for me the question becomes if we can nonetheless form hypothesis
about them. Now, if Kant is right with his argument in "Perpetual peace"
than any species that can think will come up with a legal system, with
necessity. So under this theory, assuming that also the designers have
some form of legal system would be legit.

Some philosophers went further and argued that"some" form of property
regime will also emerge in all societies that become complex enough to
enable science. More contested I'd say, I don;t buy it myself, but can
be and has been argued.

But what I would not necessarily expect is that the legal system
replicates our highly contingent IP regime

[Bill]

All of that springs from the mind, a collection of abstractions that can
never become real. What people think is whatever pleases them and that
varies with each person. People congregate into groups that give them
comfort. We call these groups, culture. Every culture requires some suite of
beliefs from its members. Denying the uniqueness of a designer (or simply
denying that such a being exists) is a cultural determination, something
we're supposed to accept as participants in that culture. We have no
freedom, we are what others tell us we are.

Bill

[RonO]

On 11/21/2022 1:47 PM, peter2...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Saturday, November 19, 2022 at 9:35:18 AM UTC-5, Ron O wrote:
>> On 11/19/2022 6:50 AM, broger...@gmail.com wrote:
>>> On Tuesday, November 15, 2022 at 11:45:14 PM UTC-5, Ron O wrote:
>
>>>> The Top Six still has the effect that it has on IDiots.
>
> Speculation, and false where I am concerned. What is certain is that it still has a completely
> obsolete effect on YOU.

This is all just more to lie about. Think about bearing false witness.
When have you ever dealt with the Top Six in an honest and
straightforward manner? You never have. You aren't any better than any
of the other IDiots that were posting at the time that the ID perps put
out their Top Six. You have farted around a lot, missing the point and
still managing to run from them at the same time. Really, what have you
done with the Top Six since they were given to you by the ID perps. You
know that they were just the same god-of-the-gaps denial that the
scientific creationists failed with, and what have you done? Fit them
into your space alien scenario and figure out why all the other IDiots
have to run from them or claim that they never supported the ID scam
like Bill did.

>
>
>>>> Glenn is still running from them. Kalk still quit being an IDiot due to the
>>>> Top Six. For a couple months Kalk tried to wallow in second rate ID
>>>> perp denial like Glenn,
>
> Denial of WHAT? of your delusions about why their responses to
> you do not meet your demands?

What does Glenn still put up from the ID perps? It is never any
positive evidence for IDiocy it is always gap denial stupidity about
claims that we don't know everything, or that science hasn't accounted
for the gap that they are putting forward. What did Glenn put up by
mistake? He didn't know that he was putting up the Top Six stupid gap
denial because he doesn't want to understand the second rate gap denial
that he gets from the ID perps anymore than he wants to understand the
Top Six.

Just try to get him to tell you why he was stupid enough to put up so
many of the Top Six when he has been running from them for the last 5
years. He has put up one of the Top Six from time to time in the last 5
years, but he has always run from doing it when it is pointed out just
what he has done. In the last case I just wanted to know how willfully
ignorant Glenn could be and he kept putting up the Top Six that the ID
perps were feeding him one at a time at his favorite creationist science
denial site.

>
> I told Bill Rogers just now that your demands are stupid:
>
> "This is the first time I've seen an ID opponent acknowledge
> that ID theory does not necessarily call for a single designer.
>
> "This is the opposite of the ranting Ron O does above -- and has done
> for several years -- about what he fondly imagines Glenn to be running away from."
> https://groups.google.com/g/talk.origins/c/wLSRK67XcYs/m/XCqjIiRPAwAJ

You need to deal with your stupid comments to me. Why should I care
what you lie to Bill Rogers about? Do you recall that it was your
response to Bill Rogers in the dirty debating thread that you wanted me
to deal with, and it turned out that you were just lying to him?
Remember you shouldn't start lying about the dirty debating thread or
the second holy water repost will be reposted.

>
>
>
>>>> but it was too stupid and dishonest to keep
>>>> doing that when he couldn't deal with the best that the ID perps had to
>>>> give him.
>
> "couldn't deal with" = didn't deal with it the way I, RonO, wanted him to do it
>

> Kalk isn't even a Christian AFAIK. In his latest replies to me he seems to be more
> in tune with the Vedas than with the Bible:

You have to ask Kalk. Kalk has claimed that he never claimed to be
hindu, and that he is not hindu. His use of the vedas was just his
weird attempt to act like an outside observer of the ID creationist scam.

>
> https://groups.google.com/g/talk.origins/c/e31xp8nnUEc/m/D4PmDr0xAgAJ
> Re: God reveals himself through what he has made says Pope's astronomer
> Nov 17, 2022, 10:15:16 PM
>
> What makes you think the pantheon of Vedic gods had to assign ONE of them
> to do the work to take care of what YOU call the Top Six?
> just to conform to YOUR interpretation of what the Bible says?

You need to take it up with Kalk. He has already confessed to have been
a plain biblical creationist IDiot after he quit supporting the ID scam.

>
>
> <snip to where you disregarded this connection about Kalkidas>
>
>
>>>> The god that fills the
>>>> existing origin of life gap isn't Biblical enough for most anti
>>>> evolution creationists. The plain and simple fact is that IDiots and ex
>>>> IDiots like Glenn, Kalk, Pagano, and Bill don't want to believe in the
>>>> designer that fills the Top Six gaps. That designer isn't Biblical
>>>> enough.
>
> <snip to get to Bill Rogers's words and your replies to them>
>
>
>
>>> I find it pretty hard to read your posts. The constant formulaic insults and even more so the consistent tone of contempt are just too depressing. But....underneath it you have a reasonable argument that's important.
>
> I disputed this in my reply to Rogers, linked above.

Go for it dispute now. There seemed have only been the claim with
nothing to back it up.

>
>> Well, Nyikos understands it enough to run. That is all it was meant to
>> do.
>
> In this way, you idiotically count your chickens before they are hatched.
> And in a hypocritical way at that: you haven't TOUCHED my first reply
> to your OP, done nine (9) days ago.

You are still running from it. Why lie about something as stupid as
that. You have removed it from this post just so that you could lie
about it.

>
> By the time the nine days since your first reply to me has elapsed,
> it'll be Thanksgiving day, and I will have replied to it,
> giving you one less thing to be thankful for on that day.

Glenn will remember the tomorrow that never came. Why would it take you
that long to respond to a post when you are obviously responding to
others in this tread on the topic, and even their responses to my
response that you are running from?

There isn't going to be a response because you already know that you
were wrong about what you wrote. Your nitpicks were about things that
were not true. I was exactly correct about the issues you claimed that
I was wrong about. You were wrong about those things or you were
deliberately lying about them. You likely have already checked out the
video and you know that you were wrong about Sewell and the Top Six, and
it was Miller that removed the Big Bang to make it the Top 5. There is
nothing that you can do except admit that you were wrong.

>
>
>> My guess is that formulaic insults are just facts that make the
>> IDiots look bad. The "insults" are true. If you disagree, you could
>> try to demonstrate otherwise.
>
> I've already done that to some of them above, and there's
> more below. You are wallowing in delusion.

I haven't seen you do any such thing. You've just claimed to do
something to Rogers, and made claims about Kalk that are false. Really,
Kalk has claimed that he never claimed to be hindu. He is just your
usual biblical creationist exIDiot.

>
>
> >They are just what the situation is at
>> this time. If you think that the term IDiot is an insult, it is likely
>> a badge of honor for the IDiots that are left.
>
> You are trying to transfer a scam Paul Gans initiated in 1995
> (and which several people including your staunch ally Hemidactylus, have adopted)
> to us, who are far too honest to indulge in such scamming.
>
> The scam was to never, *never*, NEVER try to disprove accusations
> of dishonesty, cowardice, unfairness, hypocrisy etc. that were made by us,
> unless evidence is provided on the spot (and even THEN sometimes)
> but to treat it as "a badge of honor." This scam is the longest
> run of the despicable tactic of gaslighting that I have ever encountered.

The scam in this case is what the ID perps run on their own creationist
support base. You know for a fact that since 2002 the ID perps have run
the bait and switch scam on every IDiot creationist rube that has needed
the ID science. They have only used ID as the bait to run in their
obfuscation and denial switch scam. It has happened 100% of the time.
There have been no exceptions. You have witnessed multiple examples
since returning to TO at the end of 2010. You know that even after
Dover the ID perps continued to claim that they had the ID science to
teach in the public schools, but what happens every single time a
creationist rube needs the ID science to teach? The ID perps updated
that teach ID scam propaganda in 2021. They haven't quit running the
bait and switch. What will happen to the next group of creationist
rubes that want to teach the science of ID in their public schools if
there are any IDiot creationists left that are stupid, ignorant and
dishonest enough to try?

This lame type if denial of what has been going on for 20 years is lame
and stupid.

>
>
>> They are much worse off
>> than idiots at this time. The only IDiots left have been the igorant,
>> incompetent, and or dishonest since the bait and switch started to go
>> down over 20 years ago,
>
> You are still clinging to the idiotic claim that there was one as late as ten years
> ago, thanks to your idiotic delusion that you showed "bait" still
> active then when all you could put up was tons of what
> would have been "switch" if there had been bait to switch from.

The last bait and switch was on the Utah IDiotic creationists who wanted
to teach the science of ID in their public schools, but what did they
get from the ID perps. It is sad that they were running the bait and
switch on the Utah rubes at the same time that they were posting their
Top Six 5 years ago. That is the last time any group of creationist
rubes have been stupid enough to try to teach the junk. 5 years have
been the longest such stretch between bait and switch efforts. There
just aren't very many rubes stupid and ignorant enough to believe the ID
perps anymore. What is even sadder is that right on evolutionnews, just
a month or two later, the ID perps denigrated the Utah decision to drop
the issue instead of bend over for their switch scam. The ID perps were
really ticked off that the IDiot rubes would not take the switch scam
after failing to get any ID science out of the ID perps.

>
>> Nyikos and Glenn are obviously all three of
>> what is required.
>
> You are bearing false witness against both of us, especially me.
> Do you even care about Jesus's words, "Do not bear false witness"
> any more? did you ever care about them?

You have consistently demonstrated that you are all three. Who was just
ignorant or lying about Sewell, Miller and the Top Six. Who has lied
about the ID scam since your return to TO? You were wrong about the ID
perp's involvement with the Ohio bait and switch, and you have been
wrong about the ID scam ever since because you can't seem to admit that
you were wrong. Bearing false witness is a way of life for you in terms
of the ID scam for the simple reason that there is no rational excuse
for lying about what you have been lying about all this time.

>
>
>>> The ID folks claim that their scientific claims are agnostic about the characteristics and identity of the designer. But that's nonsense. Each one of the natural phenomena they claim naturalistic science can never account for puts constraints on the characteristics of the designer, and any reasonable ID scientist, if they were really doing science, would try to use all those constraints to make a preliminary model of the characteristics of the designer.
>
> At this point, Rogers was still working under the assumption
> that had to be only ONE designer responsible for ID.
> At one point (snipped below, to be dealt with in a subsequent reply later today)

Unfortunately even you knew that Sewell and Miller were talking about
the one biblical god. That was part of your incorrect argument, so why
blame Rogers for understand the same thing?

>
>
>> The ID perps have lied about ID for decades. That is enough said about
>> that. Just look at Nyikos' response above. He claims that Miller and
>> Sewell were just supporting their belief in their god and their Top Six
>> and Top 5 wasn't about ID, but the articles were standard IDiocy in that
>> they never mentioned who or what designer they were talking about. It
>> has all been part of the creationist scam.
>
> I'll have to review that video. My comment may have been a faulty
> recollection based on what their arguments were best at supporting.

What a lame loser. You made your false nitpicking claims and you hadn't
bothered to know what was actually in the video? I just assumed that
you were lying as usual, but it looks like you were just willfully
ignorant, and that is just another form of dishonesty.

>
> To wit: The choice of the Sewell's Top Five was much
> more effective as an argument for the existence of God than for
> the theory of Intelligent design, whereas the two that
> Sewell completely ignored (IC and the Cambrian explosion)
> work much better for ID theory than as arguments for the existence of God.

Sewell may well have been using his Top Six to lie to himself about
support for his god, but he was just using them as disembodied god of
the gaps denial as the usual intelligent design propaganda. Sewell and
Miller put up their written articles as intelligent design articles, and
the video is titled "Evidence for intelligent design." They were not
put up in one of the ID perp's religious topics or on one of the
religious web sites that they started up after their loss in Dover.

>
> And I stand by one comment: although Sewell made brief comments
> about the Big Bang (#2 of the original so-called "Top Six"), he did
> not put it on the list of 5 that is written in big letters in the video. It is this
> written list which Miller transcribed in his text that accompanied
> the video.
>
>
> CONTINUED in next reply to this post after some replies to others.

The Big Bang was #1 of the ID perp's Top Six. Fine tuning was #2
because the first part likely occurred during the Big Bang and the
second part occurred billions of years later when the solar system
formed out of dead star stuff. Sewell is the one that dropped out IC
and the Cambrian explosion, chopped up fine tuning and human evolution
into two parts to maintain the Top Six and put them all out of temporal
order so that he could better lie to himself about the evidence as
disembodied bits of denial.

You are wrong again. Go to around 9 min and 35 seconds into the video
and you will see #6 get listed and it is the Big Bang, the beginning of
time. It is even give the #6 designation.

Why continue when you have done so poorly already. Shouldn't you spend
your time actually responding to the post that you are running from?

You would have to start by admitting how wrong you were, and still are.

Ron Okimoto

[Mark Isaak]

The Gnostics beat Dawkins by several centuries, albeit for different
reasons. They, as I recall, claimed that it was an evil god who
imprisoned the soul inside flesh, but a good god who created the souls.
The Gnostics, of course were denounced as heretics, and I have little
doubt that Nyikos or Behe or another ID advocate would meet the same
fate if they went to the Pope and proposed multiple designers.

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

[Bill]

All of this means that people disapprove of the way the world works; they
would have done better. The evidence is that things are exactly the way they
are; there is no ambiguity. To base one's preferences above the clear
evidence of nature is not only a waste of time, it's a ridiculous waste of
time. Granted, entertaining conversations follow but nothing resembling
useful knowledge.

Bill

[Lawyer Daggett]

Just don't say that I didn't give you a chance to offer your Slant on the
origins and practice of law in Discworld, or something clever about the
implications of vampires in the legal profession.

[Burkhard]

Vy Vould I Vant to do Sis?

[Burkhard]

I gave you the observations that support the inference (after you asked
for the evidence) that is the systematic pattern of design-against
design. As always, you do not address the evidence if yo dislike the
implications, and instead focus on the person(s) who made the claim
resorting again to facile epistemological nihilism where no evidence
ever matters.

What people think is whatever pleases them and that
> varies with each person.

This very obviously holds true for you, but you are an outlier in this,
at least when taken to the extreme you habitually do.

People congregate into groups that give them
> comfort. We call these groups, culture. Every culture requires some suite of
> beliefs from its members. Denying the uniqueness of a designer (or simply
> denying that such a being exists) is a cultural determination, something
> we're supposed to accept as participants in that culture. We have no
> freedom, we are what others tell us we are.

again, this may apply to you, I have no reasons to think it of the
normal person, or for that matter myself
>
> Bill
>

[Bill]

Odd that people here deny that their culture influences their thinking. From
whence comes the language we speak and the way we speak it and the words and
phrases we use when speaking? Where do the ideas we accept come from? How do
we acquire our taste in clothes and furniture and cars and food? How do we
know which politics are right (or wrong) or which social and economic
policies are just and fair?

Does all of that just spring into being for each person? Do we freely and
deliberately create and shape our personal reality. Does each person begin a
tabula rasa to be populated by wholly original ideas without reference to
any cultural influences? Apparently many here believe just that. They build
themselves into a unique and entirely original person by their own efforts,
bootstrapping themselves into something entirely new.

This kind of self delusion is laughable but seems to be popular among those
chasing after cultural acceptance.

Bill

[Burkhard]

So you are posting from North Korea or China? These are the only
countries where the majority culture disincentives belief in a designer

And I did not deny the possible uniqueness of the designer, despite your
claim to the contrary, it is listed explicitly as an option.

As always, you fail to address any of the evidence that contradicts your
beliefs.

The observation is that prevalence of design against design - I gave
numerous examples above, do you disagree that this observation is true?

Now, assuming that they are the result of design, we have exactly two
options:

a) the designer is a single entity
b) there are multiple designers

That is a simple claim of logic, do you see any alternative?

If a) holds, then one and the same entity is responsible for both
defensive and offensive traits that antagonistic species have - examples
were given in my post: s/he/it designed both the immune system and the
viruses attacking it, the speed of the gazelle and the fangs of the lion.

Any objection here? This seems a logical conclusion from the assumption
of a single designer.

So what type of designer would do such a thing and for what purpose? As
I indicated, we can observe this type of design quite often. The people
who designed gladiatorial games designed weapons and armor like this.
If one participant had been too strong, the fight would be over too
soon, and the outcome too predictable. That would have bored the
audience. Similarly, giving them no weapons but feather dusters, and
reward them for solving a puzzle together instead of killing each other
would have bored the audience.

Causing less real world harm, but based on the same principle is pretty
much every video game, especially multi-player games. Here too the
designers will give both sides roughly matching offensive and defensive
capabilities, to keep the outcome open and create a challenge that takes
time and skills to overcome. Similarly, action books and films are based
on the same principle - Superman must have his kryptonite weakness,
Batman must have enough vulnerabilities so that the joker could at least
in theory win etc

On the basis of these observations, we can now deduce that IF there is
but a single designer, s/he/it treats sentient beings like Nero did his
gladiators - so that there is for the observer fun and excitement in
their fighting, they get equipped with matching skills. But of course
this observer is a serious sick puppy, just as Nero was.

Do you disagree that someone who pitches sentient beings against each
other in this way, making sure that they are evenly matched to increase
the excitement, is a psychopath?


Alternatively, there could be several antagonistic designers. In this
case they would support "their" species as much as they can, protecting
them and giving them the best aid they can. This too is something we
observe in weapons development where nations are pitched against each
other. This also results in matching defensive and offensive
capabilities - new armor for tank is developed by nation A in response
to the better guns of Nation B etc

Both follow quite logically from the choices and observations described
above. Which one is better supported is difficult to say (though I would
prefer multiple designers) but IF one accepts the design hypothesis,
one of the two must be true, or so I'm arguing,

The only reason you seem to object to the analysis is that you
personally dislike the outcome, so you refuse to look at the evidence,
observations and the logical steps that link them. What you have
singularly failed to do though is to find any flaw in the analysis

[peter2...@gmail.com]

On Monday, November 21, 2022 at 2:40:20 PM UTC-5, Lawyer Daggett wrote:
> On Monday, November 21, 2022 at 1:25:19 PM UTC-5, peter2...@gmail.com wrote:
> > On Saturday, November 19, 2022 at 7:55:18 AM UTC-5, broger...@gmail.com wrote:

> > > I find it pretty hard to read your posts. The constant formulaic insults and even more so the consistent tone of contempt are just too depressing.
> > > But....underneath it you have a reasonable argument that's important.

> > I see no connection between what you wrote below and anything Ron O wrote above.

> > > The ID folks claim that their scientific claims are agnostic about the characteristics and identity of the designer. But that's nonsense.

> > Not where characteristics are concerned. Behe has made it clear that the evidence does not rule
> > out sloppy designers who had to keep making adjustments and scrapping failed designs.

Now comes Rogers's statement whose words "naturalistic science"
you sweep under the rug below, "Lawyer Daggett."

> > > Each one of the natural phenomena they claim naturalistic science can never account for puts constraints on the characteristics of the designer,

> > I know of no such claim by leading ID writers, and it would be out of character for Behe
> > to make such an unequivocal claim. The most he has done AFAIK is to assert that science
> > has done a miserable job of showing that a number of things could be attributed to neo-Darwinist mechanisms.

> False.

What I said was true, and your aggressive tone in your next sentence
is designed to fool people into overlooking the
serious fallacy that you are committing further below, isn't it?

> And you claim to have watched this video.

I did, several times.

> https://youtu.be/DyyqKpPVg4c?t=742
> Starting at time 12:20

> "In the 1990s I wrote a book titled Darwin's Black Box.
> In the book I argued that the blood clotting cascade could not have developed through
> unguided evolution ..."

You are guilty of the fallacy of Begging the Question. You are assuming that
the guided evolution HAD to be supernatural, and I think you are doing it
with full knowledge of your guilt:

> That is not a statement about science doing a poor job, that is a very direct assertion
> of something that you often claim Behe does not assert.

Never.


I have better things to do with my time than to put up with stunts like the one
you've pulled here.

I have snipped the rest of your post. If you want me to
address its contents, get someone else to take responsibility for them.
With your current level of popularity, it shouldn't be difficult to do that.

Peter Nyikos
Professor, Dept. of Mathematics

[peter2...@gmail.com]

On Monday, November 21, 2022 at 10:15:19 PM UTC-5, Mark Isaak wrote:
> On 11/21/22 1:08 PM, Ernest Major wrote:

> > If I recall correctly, many years ago Richard Dawkins suggested
> > antagonistic designers as what ID proponents should be concluding.

The word "antagonistic" is hardly appropriate if one assumes
less than perfect designers.

> The Gnostics beat Dawkins by several centuries, albeit for different
> reasons. They, as I recall, claimed that it was an evil god who
> imprisoned the soul inside flesh, but a good god who created the souls.

Actually, you are describing Manicheanism, which enjoyed a revival
under the Albigensians, a.k.a. the Catharii. You could call it a
branch of Gnosticism, which usually featured several Archons
trapping the soul in layers of barriers in the heavens.

Hans Jonas's _The_Gnostic_Religion_ is a good, albeit dated,
introduction to the various Gnostic sects. One of them, the Mandaean,
still exists today in the Middle East. One of their distinctive features is that
they give John the Baptist primacy over Jesus.

> The Gnostics, of course were denounced as heretics, and I have little
> doubt that Nyikos or Behe or another ID advocate would meet the same
> fate if they went to the Pope and proposed multiple designers.

Nonsense. You are guilty of the same fallacy that "Lawyer Daggett"
used in the post to which I replied about half an hour ago, except that
you look like you are sincere about it.


By the way, you have a common misconception about the pragmatic
dimension of the word "heretic". People who advance heterodox hypotheses
are not legally denounced as heretics unless they insist that the
Catholic Church is wrong and that their hypotheses are the truth.

Note the word "legally": abuses could easily have crept in, but
the Vatican was scrupulous about the distinction in every official
document [e.g., papal encyclical] that I have read.
Hundreds of "anathemas" were framed by the Popes with the distinction
in mind: "He who says that _______________ is true,
and the Catholic Church teaching wrong, let him be anathema"
is the gist of these pronouncements.


Peter Nyikos

[Mark Isaak]

Where do you think those ideas in the mind come from? They come from
the outside world, and reality is a big part of that. And many people
take pains that their "abstractions" do not stray from what is real.

As for what springs from the mind never becoming real, try telling that
to an architect watching the building they designed being built.

> What people think is whatever pleases them and that
> varies with each person.

Reality disagrees with you.

> People congregate into groups that give them
> comfort. We call these groups, culture. Every culture requires some suite of
> beliefs from its members. Denying the uniqueness of a designer (or simply
> denying that such a being exists) is a cultural determination, something
> we're supposed to accept as participants in that culture. We have no
> freedom, we are what others tell us we are.

You know very well that culture does *not* determine a great deal a
great deal of what you think and do. A "culture" includes multiple
subcultures which you may chose from, and each of those includes many
other areas where you are free. In particular, there are many different
beliefs about designers which people are free to accept or reject.

It looks like you are just trying to hide from the fact that reality is
not exactly as you want it. But I repeat: Reality is a big part of the
world. You are not going to be able to get away from it.

[Lawyer Daggett]

I hope nobody asks. It would just support your paranoia that there is some
colluding body of conspirators working against you. I sometimes joke about
with some of the folks here, but if anything, I avoid teaming up with them in
many cases where my instincts would otherwise be to echo or expand up on
their points.

You take it up because it directly addresses claims you repeatedly make excusing
the ID movement. You have, repeatedly, claimed that Behe does not claim that IC
means "cannot evolve" but he does so, repeatedly. He directly asserts in that
video, that because the clotting cascade is IC, it was designed.

Rather than deal with it, you make this all about your wild claims that I'm
playing some game. Nope. I'm tossing Behe's words out there to disprove
your claims that he is some very circumspect theorists who only says
that IC makes design more likely. Your testimony there is false.

Again, he words which you've deleted.

"In the 1990s I wrote a book titled Darwin's Black Box.
In the book I argued that the blood clotting cascade could not have developed through

unguided evolution because the system is irreducibly complex."

"In other words, all the parts are necessary, even one missing component will results
in a system failure. Instead, the blood clotting system had to be purposefully designed
to be functional."

"And here's an enormously important point, in the book I noted that no science
publication had ever shown how the blood clotting system could have been produced
through random mutation and natural selection."

"The complex biological systems within each of us were not assembled by
happenstance. They work with dazzling precision because each one has been
purposefully designed."

You'll ignore this because it directly puts the lie to your many claims that
Behe does not assert that IC proves "intelligent design". But he does.
Eppur si muove. By the way, have the decency to respond to the original
instead of playing this sorry game of deflection.

[Ernest Major]

On 22/11/2022 15:17, Burkhard wrote:
>
> So what type of designer would do such a thing and for what purpose? As
> I indicated, we can observe this type of design quite often. The people
> who designed gladiatorial games  designed weapons and armor like this.
> If one participant had been too strong, the fight would be over too
> soon, and the outcome too predictable.  That would have bored the
> audience. Similarly, giving them no weapons but feather dusters, and
> reward them for solving a puzzle together instead of killing each other
> would have bored the audience.
>
> Causing less real world harm, but based on the same principle is pretty
> much every video game, especially multi-player games. Here too the
> designers will give both sides roughly matching offensive and defensive
> capabilities, to keep the outcome open and create a challenge that takes
> time and skills to overcome. Similarly, action books and films are based
> on the same principle - Superman must have his kryptonite weakness,
> Batman must have enough vulnerabilities so that the joker could at least
> in theory win etc
>
> On the basis of these observations, we can now deduce that IF there is
> but a single designer, s/he/it treats sentient beings like Nero did his
> gladiators - so that there is for the observer fun and excitement in
> their fighting, they get equipped with matching skills. But of course
> this observer is a serious sick puppy, just as Nero was.

An alternative would be a designer lacking the ability to produce a
stable ecosystem by other means. (Postulating such does smell somewhat
of the panglossianism often found in theodictic apologetics, but in this
case I think there is a grain of truth - negative feedback loops often
do enhance stability.)

>
> Do you disagree that someone who pitches sentient beings against each
> other in this way, making sure that they are evenly matched to increase
> the excitement, is a psychopath?

--
alias Ernest Major

[jillery]

On Mon, 21 Nov 2022 11:40:10 -0800 (PST), Lawyer Daggett
<j.nobel...@gmail.com> wrote:

>False. And you claim to have watched this video.
>https://youtu.be/DyyqKpPVg4c?t=742

Pedantic point of order: When and where did anybody cite this video?
A search finds no reference to it before you cited it above.

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

[Lawyer Daggett]

See concurrent thread, "Clot Watch" wherein somebody writes:
"that argument" is ambiguous. You never spelled it out. If it is simply that IC implies ID,
that may have been carelessly claimed by Casey Luskin or others, but Behe never went that route.
Take a look at p. 40 in DBB to see what his position is like on that issue.

Please note "but Behe never went that route", that route being IC implies ID.

This rather contrasts with Behe's words in the video.

"In other words, all the parts are necessary, even one missing component will results
in a system failure. Instead, the blood clotting system had to be purposefully designed
to be functional."

As for you search for the video link, the video was a youtube video embedded
in the OP of the clot watch thread. I linked out to the actual youtube video
rather than the link to the site that embedded it.

[Bill]

A third alternative is that there is no designer which must mean there is no
design. This is the only alternative that logically follows from your
argument. Concocting specious scenarios that ignore reality only has value
to those doing it.

Bill

[Mark Isaak]

On 11/22/22 7:54 AM, peter2...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Monday, November 21, 2022 at 10:15:19 PM UTC-5, Mark Isaak wrote:
>> On 11/21/22 1:08 PM, Ernest Major wrote:
>
>>> If I recall correctly, many years ago Richard Dawkins suggested
>>> antagonistic designers as what ID proponents should be concluding.
>
> The word "antagonistic" is hardly appropriate if one assumes
> less than perfect designers.
>
>
>> The Gnostics beat Dawkins by several centuries, albeit for different
>> reasons. They, as I recall, claimed that it was an evil god who
>> imprisoned the soul inside flesh, but a good god who created the souls.
>
> Actually, you are describing Manicheanism, which enjoyed a revival
> under the Albigensians, a.k.a. the Catharii. You could call it a
> branch of Gnosticism, which usually featured several Archons
> trapping the soul in layers of barriers in the heavens.
>
> Hans Jonas's _The_Gnostic_Religion_ is a good, albeit dated,
> introduction to the various Gnostic sects. One of them, the Mandaean,
> still exists today in the Middle East. One of their distinctive features is that
> they give John the Baptist primacy over Jesus.
>
>
>> The Gnostics, of course were denounced as heretics, and I have little
>> doubt that Nyikos or Behe or another ID advocate would meet the same
>> fate if they went to the Pope and proposed multiple designers.
>

> Nonsense. You are guilty of the same fallacy . . .

What fallacy? It is, of course, ridiculous to imagine that you or Behe
would go to the Pope on any matter, much less on the matter of an
implication of intelligent design that you don't agree with. But IF you
did, I don't think it is a fallacy to think that denunciation would follow.

> By the way, you have a common misconception about the pragmatic
> dimension of the word "heretic". People who advance heterodox hypotheses
> are not legally denounced as heretics unless they insist that the
> Catholic Church is wrong and that their hypotheses are the truth.

You mean, for example, insisting on something like, life was created by
two or more different gods, not one?

[peter2...@gmail.com]

On Tuesday, November 22, 2022 at 2:20:20 PM UTC-5, Lawyer Daggett wrote:
> On Tuesday, November 22, 2022 at 1:55:20 PM UTC-5, jillery wrote:
> > On Mon, 21 Nov 2022 11:40:10 -0800 (PST), Lawyer Daggett
> > <j.nobel...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > >And you claim to have watched this video.
> > >https://youtu.be/DyyqKpPVg4c?t=742

I did watch it several times. The computer animation was
impressive and made the time go by pleasantly.

> > Pedantic point of order: When and where did anybody cite this video?
> > A search finds no reference to it before you cited it above.
> >
> > --
> > You're entitled to your own opinions.
> > You're not entitled to your own facts.

> See concurrent thread, "Clot Watch" wherein somebody writes:

That "somebody" was myself, of course, and I stand by that statement and always will.

> "that argument" is ambiguous. You never spelled it out. If it is simply that IC implies ID,
> that may have been carelessly claimed by Casey Luskin or others, but Behe never went that route.
> Take a look at p. 40 in DBB to see what his position is like on that issue.
>
> Please note "but Behe never went that route", that route being IC implies ID.

Full stop. No exceptions, making it false by the discussion on p. 40.

> This rather contrasts with Behe's words in the video.

The contrast is in your fallacy-saturated mind.

> "In other words, all the parts are necessary, even one missing component will results
> in a system failure. Instead, the blood clotting system had to be purposefully designed
> to be functional."

This is NOT a statement about IC necessarily entailing ID, it is a specific statement
about the blood clotting system, which Behe believes to apply to
a specific statement on p. 40, of which you seem to be blissfully ignorant.

And it's too late in the evening for me to spoil your "Ignorance is bliss" frame
of mind. Enjoy it while you can.

> As for you search for the video link, the video was a youtube video embedded
> in the OP of the clot watch thread. I linked out to the actual youtube video
> rather than the link to the site that embedded it.

Thanks for clueing the jillery pedant in, by the way. It makes it all the
more easy to give you a period of bliss.


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

PS Full disclosure: I happen to disagree with Behe's claim,
but he is entitled to his own opinion.

[jillery]

On Tue, 22 Nov 2022 11:16:29 -0800 (PST), Lawyer Daggett

<j.nobel...@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Tuesday, November 22, 2022 at 1:55:20 PM UTC-5, jillery wrote:
>> On Mon, 21 Nov 2022 11:40:10 -0800 (PST), Lawyer Daggett
>> <j.nobel...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> >False. And you claim to have watched this video.
>> >https://youtu.be/DyyqKpPVg4c?t=742
>> Pedantic point of order: When and where did anybody cite this video?
>> A search finds no reference to it before you cited it above.
>>
>

>See concurrent thread, "Clot Watch" wherein somebody writes:
>"that argument" is ambiguous. You never spelled it out. If it is simply that IC implies ID,
>that may have been carelessly claimed by Casey Luskin or others, but Behe never went that route.
>Take a look at p. 40 in DBB to see what his position is like on that issue.
>
>Please note "but Behe never went that route", that route being IC implies ID.
>
>This rather contrasts with Behe's words in the video.
>"In other words, all the parts are necessary, even one missing component will results
>in a system failure. Instead, the blood clotting system had to be purposefully designed
>to be functional."
>
>As for you search for the video link, the video was a youtube video embedded
>in the OP of the clot watch thread. I linked out to the actual youtube video
>rather than the link to the site that embedded it.

Thanks to you, I found the video link embedded in an Evolution News
article, which was cited in the OP to that topic, posted almost a
month ago, as you describe above.

WRT your quote to note, you make similar points about it I posted in
that topic. The misrepresentations of Behe's comments in that video
are similar to the misrepresentations of Behe's claims in DBB. Not
sure how anybody would *still* publicly misrepresent what Behe has
said, especially since Behe has said the same thing many ways in many
places at many times over the last 25 years.

[jillery]

You conveniently ignore a fourth alternative, that design appears via
unguided natural processes. The above are just the latest examples
which show how specious scenarios are your forte.

[jillery]

On Tue, 22 Nov 2022 18:44:35 -0800 (PST), "peter2...@gmail.com"
<peter2...@gmail.com> wrote:

>Thanks for clueing the jillery pedant in, by the way. It makes it all the
>more easy to give you a period of bliss.

PeeWee Peter pedantically posts yet more pointless opinions.

[Lawyer Daggett]

On Tuesday, November 22, 2022 at 9:45:20 PM UTC-5, peter2...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Tuesday, November 22, 2022 at 2:20:20 PM UTC-5, Lawyer Daggett wrote:
> > On Tuesday, November 22, 2022 at 1:55:20 PM UTC-5, jillery wrote:
> > > On Mon, 21 Nov 2022 11:40:10 -0800 (PST), Lawyer Daggett
> > > <j.nobel...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > >And you claim to have watched this video.
> > > >https://youtu.be/DyyqKpPVg4c?t=742
> I did watch it several times. The computer animation was
> impressive and made the time go by pleasantly.
> > > Pedantic point of order: When and where did anybody cite this video?
> > > A search finds no reference to it before you cited it above.
> > >
> > > --
> > > You're entitled to your own opinions.
> > > You're not entitled to your own facts.
>
> > See concurrent thread, "Clot Watch" wherein somebody writes:
> That "somebody" was myself, of course, and I stand by that statement and always will.
> > "that argument" is ambiguous. You never spelled it out. If it is simply that IC implies ID,
> > that may have been carelessly claimed by Casey Luskin or others, but Behe never went that route.
> > Take a look at p. 40 in DBB to see what his position is like on that issue.
> >
> > Please note "but Behe never went that route", that route being IC implies ID.

> Full stop. No exceptions, making it false by the discussion on p. 40.

Your take here is pathologically insane.
Somehow you imagine that what Behe wrote in his book is a get out of jail free card
for statements he makes in a video years later.

His words in the video:

"In the 1990s I wrote a book titled Darwin's Black Box.
In the book I argued that the blood clotting cascade could not have developed through
unguided evolution because the system is irreducibly complex."

"In other words, all the parts are necessary, even one missing component will results
in a system failure. Instead, the blood clotting system had to be purposefully designed
to be functional."

"And here's an enormously important point, in the book I noted that no science
publication had ever shown how the blood clotting system could have been produced
through random mutation and natural selection."

"The complex biological systems within each of us were not assembled by
happenstance. They work with dazzling precision because each one has been
purposefully designed."

Those words exist in a stand alone manner. No get out of jail card for having qualified
the statements elsewhere. That's not how it works, that's not how any of this works.

> > This rather contrasts with Behe's words in the video.
> The contrast is in your fallacy-saturated mind.
> > "In other words, all the parts are necessary, even one missing component will results
> > in a system failure. Instead, the blood clotting system had to be purposefully designed
> > to be functional."
> This is NOT a statement about IC necessarily entailing ID, it is a specific statement
> about the blood clotting system, which Behe believes to apply to
> a specific statement on p. 40, of which you seem to be blissfully ignorant.

That's not how things work. His words, quoted above (you'll either delete them, again,
or insert lots of deflection to avoid them, are clear enough. He is asserting IC means
intelligently designed. He isn't qualifying it. He may have been more circumspect in
front of some audiences, but he wasn't in that video. The words are his, he owns them.

> And it's too late in the evening for me to spoil your "Ignorance is bliss" frame
> of mind. Enjoy it while you can.

Your delusional arrogance there is comical. Your deflections are pathetic.
You do realize that people can see you?

[Burkhard]

Well, yes and no. The argument asked specifically what we can deduce of
the designer(s) IF the design hypothesis is true.

This is the only alternative that logically follows from your
> argument.

No it doesn't. Quite on the contrary, I have give real life examples of
designers, both individual and collective ones, that produce the same
patterns of design, so rather obviously this is is not an argument that
refutes the existence of designers

Concocting specious scenarios that ignore reality only has value
> to those doing it.

and once again you fail to engage with any of the observations or
inferences. You just don;t like the outcome, hence you ignore everything
that is said.

>
> Bill
>

[Burkhard]

No-one denies an impact of cultural influence on thinking, what people
reject are the implications you and only yo draw from this, which lead
to nihilism of the most pernicious kind. treating acceptance of
scientific theories as equivalent to a taste in fashion in just one of
these.

Yes, we are influenced by culture, society, others etc - so what? As we
are all influenced by it, we can simply put that in the background and
then ask "taking all that for granted, what are nonetheless the best
supported theories/claims put forward"? That's how sane people deal with
the limitations of the [a-human sensory and cognitive limitations.

You by contrast render any evidence, or search of r evidence, pointless
by definition. When you ask for evidence, as you did above, you can as
well stop the charade: there is no possible evidence, no possible
observation, at all, that by your own criteria could possibly convince
you to accept something you dislike. (and I mean the "you" as in "Bill"
here, not the impersonal "you") You simply dismiss everything
you dislike as "just the cultural conditioning" of the person who puts
forward the claim

[Burkhard]

peter2...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Monday, November 21, 2022 at 10:15:19 PM UTC-5, Mark Isaak wrote:
>> On 11/21/22 1:08 PM, Ernest Major wrote:
>
>>> If I recall correctly, many years ago Richard Dawkins suggested
>>> antagonistic designers as what ID proponents should be concluding.
>
> The word "antagonistic" is hardly appropriate if one assumes
> less than perfect designers.

Why would that follow? agents can and frequently are antagonistic
without being anywhere near perfect. Two teams of toddlers playing
football against each other, or in the design field Betamax vs VHS come
to mind

>
>
>> The Gnostics beat Dawkins by several centuries, albeit for different
>> reasons. They, as I recall, claimed that it was an evil god who
>> imprisoned the soul inside flesh, but a good god who created the souls.
>
> Actually, you are describing Manicheanism, which enjoyed a revival
> under the Albigensians, a.k.a. the Catharii. You could call it a
> branch of Gnosticism, which usually featured several Archons
> trapping the soul in layers of barriers in the heavens.

I'd say all branches of gnosticism have a degree of dualism, though the
Manicheans have a particularly strong form. But the Sethians too
embraced a strong form of dualism - one of their key texts is the
Apocryphon of John, which has Aeon Sophia cause though an act of
unauthorised creation the emergence of Yaldabaoth - the craftstam who
woudl eventually become Plato's demiurge in the Timaeus. Yaldabaoth in
turn creates the Archons who have delegated creation power, but as
"petty rulers" of their respective domains can be at odds with each other.

So I'd say Mark is broadly right

[Bill]

Burkhard wrote:

...

>
> No-one denies an impact of cultural influence on thinking, what people
> reject are the implications you and only yo draw from this, which lead
> to nihilism of the most pernicious kind. treating acceptance of
> scientific theories as equivalent to a taste in fashion in just one of
> these.

Is it really nihilism when there is no knowledge? The only thing we know
about a designer is that one has been proposed and people have haggled over
that proposal for thousands of years. Either a designer exists or not,
that's all we can say.

The attempt to judge the nature and character of a designer is pointless
since the only data we have is the beliefs of those taking a side. The
evidence is that people will think about anything and then take their
thoughts seriously. We know that people will brutalize and kill and
persecute those who disagree. The evidence is that people should think about
things for which thinking has some value.

Bill

[peter2...@gmail.com]

On Tuesday, November 22, 2022 at 9:25:20 PM UTC-5, Mark Isaak wrote:
> On 11/22/22 7:54 AM, peter2...@gmail.com wrote:
> > On Monday, November 21, 2022 at 10:15:19 PM UTC-5, Mark Isaak wrote:
> >> On 11/21/22 1:08 PM, Ernest Major wrote:
> >
> >>> If I recall correctly, many years ago Richard Dawkins suggested
> >>> antagonistic designers as what ID proponents should be concluding.
> >
> > The word "antagonistic" is hardly appropriate if one assumes
> > less than perfect designers.

> >
> >> The Gnostics beat Dawkins by several centuries, albeit for different
> >> reasons. They, as I recall, claimed that it was an evil god who
> >> imprisoned the soul inside flesh, but a good god who created the souls.
> >
> > Actually, you are describing Manicheanism, which enjoyed a revival
> > under the Albigensians, a.k.a. the Catharii. You could call it a
> > branch of Gnosticism, which usually featured several Archons
> > trapping the soul in layers of barriers in the heavens.
> >
> > Hans Jonas's _The_Gnostic_Religion_ is a good, albeit dated,
> > introduction to the various Gnostic sects. One of them, the Mandaean,
> > still exists today in the Middle East. One of their distinctive features is that
> > they give John the Baptist primacy over Jesus.
> >
> >
> >> The Gnostics, of course were denounced as heretics, and I have little
> >> doubt that Nyikos or Behe or another ID advocate would meet the same
> >> fate if they went to the Pope and proposed multiple designers.
> >
> > Nonsense. You are guilty of the same fallacy . . .
>
> What fallacy?

Restore my words which you snipped, and then we can have a reasonable conversation.

As it is, I'm left wondering whether your opinion of the Vatican is at least
as low as your opinion of Trump. And we both know how low THAT opinion is.

Also, whatever the level, I'm wondering what distorted information
you have on the Vatican, and on the Roman Catholic Church in general.

For instance, do you know what an auto-da-fe was?


Peter Nyikos

[peter2...@gmail.com]

On Tuesday, November 22, 2022 at 11:40:20 PM UTC-5, jillery wrote:

> WRT your quote to note, you make similar points about it I posted in
> that topic. The misrepresentations of Behe's comments in that video
> are similar to the misrepresentations of Behe's claims in DBB. Not
> sure how anybody would *still* publicly misrepresent what Behe has
> said, especially since Behe has said the same thing many ways in many
> places at many times over the last 25 years.

You should be sure: you do it all the time. And this time,
"Lawyer Daggett" is also guilty: see my reply to the same
post of his to which you are replying here.


Peter Nyikos

[Mark Isaak]

We can't have a reasonable conversation if all you do is refer to other
posts. First, I'm not so interested in your ideas that I will go
hunting for them. Second, you don't say what part of the post to look
at, so even if I did hunt and find, your intention would not be clear.

So are you going to answer my question, or do you want your ideas to
remain hidden? I wouldn't blame you if you chose the second option.

[Lawyer Daggett]

You should have taken him up on the auto-da-fé

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LnF1OtP2Svk

[First chained Jewish Man]
I was sitting in a temple
I was minding my own business
I was listening to a lovely Hebrew mass
Then these papus persons plunge in,
and they throw me in a Dungeon,
and they shove a red hot poker up my ass
Is that considerate?
Is that polite?
And not a tube of Preparation H in sight


[Second chained Jewish Man]
I'm sittin', flickin' chickens
and I'm looking through the pickins'
and suddenly these guys break down my walls
I didn't even know them
and they grabbed me by the scrotum
and they started playing ping pong with my balls
Oy, the agony
Ooh, the shame
To make my privates public for a game

[peter2...@gmail.com]

On Monday, November 21, 2022 at 3:10:20 PM UTC-5, Burkhard wrote:
> peter2...@gmail.com wrote:
> > On Saturday, November 19, 2022 at 7:55:18 AM UTC-5, broger...@gmail.com wrote:

> >> I find it pretty hard to read your posts. The constant formulaic insults and even more so the consistent tone of contempt are just too depressing. But....underneath it you have a reasonable argument that's important.
> >
> > I see no connection between what you wrote below and anything Ron O wrote above.
> >
> >>
> >> The ID folks claim that their scientific claims are agnostic about the characteristics and identity of the designer. But that's nonsense.
> >
> > Not where characteristics are concerned. Behe has made it clear that the evidence does not rule
> > out sloppy designers who had to keep making adjustments and scrapping failed designs.
> >
> >

> > > Each one of the natural phenomena they claim naturalistic science can never account for puts constraints on the characteristics of the designer,
> >
> > I know of no such claim by leading ID writers, and it would be out of character for Behe
> > to make such an unequivocal claim. The most he has done AFAIK is to assert that science
> > has done a miserable job of showing that a number of things could be attributed to neo-Darwinist mechanisms.
> >
> >

> >> and any reasonable ID scientist, if they were really doing science, would try to use all those constraints to make a preliminary model of the characteristics of the designer.
> >>
> >> For example, if a designer is responsible for the alleged fine tuning of the constants of nature then that designer must (1) have been active when the values of the physical constants were fixed and (2) must have had the power to fix those constants.
> >
> > Why would you want anyone to belabor the obvious like this in a publication?
> >
> >
> >> If the designer was responsible for the origin of the first cell on earth, then (1) the designer must have been active around 4 billion years ago and (2) the designer, if it's the same one responsible for fixing the physical constants,
> >
> > BRAVO!!! This is the first time I've seen an ID opponent acknowledge
> > that ID theory does not necessarily call for a single designer.

> Then you haven't been paying attention. Bill Rogers and I have made this
> argument multiple times before, often in response to either Ron Dean or
> Freon Bill.

Neither of whom was talking about ID theory, right?

> And I have consistently argued that if one were to follow
> the design inference, the evidence would indicate that the designer(s)
> are either
>
> a) several mutually antagonistic designers (who may work sometimes in
> teams)
> b) a single, but psychopathic designer
> c) a game developer (which can be a team) working for either a) or b)

I do vaguely recall this kind of talk, but it is so pejorative
that I didn't see any point in wading in.

My hypotheses on this are three fold:

(1) very sparse, conservative ideas about what might have been due
to design by intelligent creatures arising in our universe:
bacterial flagellum, eukaryotic cilium, protein transport mechanism,
meiosis, Cambrian explosion, in descending order of probability,
none higher than 50%.

(2) No design needed, only a fantastically titanic multiverse
with so many individual universes, that all the history of
our earth was a trifle, even though the probabilities are
beyond our understanding at the present state of understanding.

(3) Within that same multiverse, there is a universe far more
grand and old than ours, in which an intelligent race arose through
an enormously long evolutionary process (millions of times
longer than our 4 billion years) to where they were able
to manipulate the "stuff" of their world to pinch off our
universe, and make its contents conform to an amazingly
simple design through cleverly formulated fundamental
physical constants and laws. (I give all this a 10% probability).

Of course, one would not expect such a world to be anywhere
near perfect, and they or their descendants could be expected to tweak
the evolution of planetary systems, and then, organisms along.
The agnostic Loren Eiseley described one such possibility:

``Perhaps there also, among rotting fish heads and blue,
night-burning bog lights, moved the eternal mystery,
the careful finger of God. The increase was not much.
It was two bubbles, two thin-walled little balloons at the
end of the Snout's small brain. The cerebral hemispheres
had appeared.''
--Loren Eiseley, _The_Immense_Journey_

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

PS It would be nice if you could comment on some of what you
left in below. Bill Rogers, to whom I was responding,
has had me in a what I call a *de* *facto* killfile
for three years at least, and doesn't show any sign of ending that.

> > This is the opposite of the ranting Ron O does above -- and has done
> > for several years -- about what he fondly imagines Glenn to be running away from.
> >
> >
> >> was powerful enough to set physical constants that would allow life to survive once it got started, but not powerful enough to choose and set physical constants that would allow life to get started on its own.
> >
> > That last clause does not necessarily follow. The designer of the constants
> > might have delegated the responsibility of abiogenesis to designers of
> > lesser power, just as the Bible depicts God telling mankind to subdue the earth.
> >
> > [Of course, mankind has done a poor job of that so far, but the Bible also
> > has some very unflattering comments about subsequent human behavior.]
> >
> > However, a close reading of Genesis 1:11-12 shows that it does NOT
> > attribute the creation of plants [and, *a* *fortiori*, the first cell]
> > to Elohim, but attributes them to the earth "bringing them forth"
> > at Elohim's command. It is only where eumetazoans are concerned
> > that Elohim is depicted as taking a personal hand in the process.
> >
> > I should add that the ID movement [1] is independent of the Bible. It includes
> > people of other faiths as well as agnostics.
> >
> > [1] Not to be confused with the all-but-defunct Wedge movement, which
> > was a very different thing although there was some overlap at the beginning.
> >
> >
> >>
> >> If the designer was responsible for the origin of the bacterial flagellum, then it must have been active at least a few 10s of millions of years after it got the first cell started; even longer if the designer was required for the coagulation cascade or the mammalian eye.
> >
> > You are carelessly back to the idea of just one designer.
> >
> >
> > CONCLUDED in next reply to this post after some replies to others.

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

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

[peter2...@gmail.com]

All I was asking that you restore what you snipped.
Then I would walk you through what you
complain about with "First" and "Second".

But I'll meet you halfway: I will do all of the above,
if you will give me some idea of what your opinion of
the Vatican is like based on what you snipped this time
around. [Keywords: Trump, auto-da-fe]


Peter Nyikos

[erik simpson]

On Wednesday, November 23, 2022 at 9:55:21 AM UTC-8, peter2...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Wednesday, November 23, 2022 at 12:05:20 PM UTC-5, Mark Isaak wrote:

...

> > We can't have a reasonable conversation if all you do is refer to other
> > posts. First, I'm not so interested in your ideas that I will go
> > hunting for them. Second, you don't say what part of the post to look
> > at, so even if I did hunt and find, your intention would not be clear.
> All I was asking that you restore what you snipped.
> Then I would walk you through what you
> complain about with "First" and "Second".
>
> But I'll meet you halfway: I will do all of the above,
> if you will give me some idea of what your opinion of
> the Vatican is like based on what you snipped this time
> around. [Keywords: Trump, auto-da-fe]
>

But first... we want... a shrubbery!

> Peter Nyikos

[peter2...@gmail.com]

On Wednesday, November 23, 2022 at 12:20:21 PM UTC-5, Lawyer Daggett wrote:
> On Wednesday, November 23, 2022 at 12:05:20 PM UTC-5, Mark Isaak wrote:

> > So are you going to answer my question, or do you want your ideas to
> > remain hidden? I wouldn't blame you if you chose the second option.

I chose a third route about an hour ago, an offer
to meet him halfway.
https://groups.google.com/g/talk.origins/c/wLSRK67XcYs/m/8Dvfh8xZAgAJ

> > Mark Isaak

> You should have taken him up on the auto-da-fé

Not if he had the same misconception about it that you,
and innumerable other people have.

> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LnF1OtP2Svk
>
> [First chained Jewish Man]

Or was it a man claiming to be Christian but suspected
of clinging secretly to Islam or Judaism?

IOW, of one of the *conversos*, people who had professed to be
converts from Islam or Judaism to Christianity, or were descended from people like that?

According to Warren Carroll, in Volume III of
_A_History_of_Christendom_, pp 607-609, at 608,
"The Inquisition had no jurisdiction over practicing Jews or Muslims, only over professed Christians who were in fact still Jews or Muslims, though concealing it."

> I was sitting in a temple
> I was minding my own business
> I was listening to a lovely Hebrew mass

"Hebrew mass"??? The Jewish priesthood became extinct after the destruction of Jerusalem ca. 70 AD.

> Then these papus persons plunge in,
> and they throw me in a Dungeon,
> and they shove a red hot poker up my ass

Exactly the kind of misconception so many people have
about auto-da-fé (or auto-de-fé).

`Some 15,000 were found guilty of false profession of Christianity, but were reconciled with the Church in the public ceremony known as *auto-de-fé,* meaning "act of faith" -- that is, public confession of their error and reconciliation with the faith they had rejected.' [*ibid*]

> Is that considerate?
> Is that polite?
> And not a tube of Preparation H in sight
>
>
> [Second chained Jewish Man]
> I'm sittin', flickin' chickens
> and I'm looking through the pickins'
> and suddenly these guys break down my walls
> I didn't even know them
> and they grabbed me by the scrotum
> and they started playing ping pong with my balls
> Oy, the agony
> Ooh, the shame
> To make my privates public for a game

"And a large majority of all those questioned by the Inquisition were completely cleared -- including St. Ignatius Loyola and St. Teresa of Avila and all so-called witches whose cases were brought before the Inquisition in the next century. For them, the Inquisition was a shield against calumny. [62]" [*ibid*]

[62] Pulgar, _Cronica de los reyes católicos,_ I, 335-337; Carroll, _Isabel of Spain_, p.140. Those reconciled by the Inquisition after making the *auto-de-fé* did suffer substantial penalties in addition to their often lengthy period of public penance -- almost always large fines, and often a period of imprisonment. [*ibid*]


Peter Nyikos

[Bill]

The real point is that the RC church arrogated to itself, the authority to
judge people. That authority belongs to God, the church knew it and preached
and, by their own doctrines, the church itself became apostate. The fact
that people we persecuted by the church is foul hypocrisy and one of the
many reasons it was abandoned by so many. This proves that the RC church
(probably any church) made the church the object of worship instead of God.

Bill

[Mark Isaak]

I don't know that much about the Vatican. The fact that it has not been
in the news I take as a good sign. From what I've heard over the years,
it is improving, even entering the 19th century in terms of cultural norms.

And I will continue to snip text that is not relevant to points I am
making. I see that as a good thing. Deal with it.

[peter2...@gmail.com]

In this case, this "arrogation" may have been for the better, on the whole.

"After its initial abuses were eliminated...in 1493, the inquisitorial tribunals were generally very fair; many preferred to have their cases heard by them rather than in other courts. Those questioned by the Inquisition were not allowed to face their accusers because of the danger of blood feuds and revenge-seeking if their identities were known. But no one could be confined even briefly without the prior testimony of three witnesses against him, and anyone brought before the Inquisition as a suspect was asked first to make a list of all his enemies, whose testimony against him, if made, was immediately thrown out. No anonymous testimony was permitted. The accused had a defense attorney, often two, although they were assigned by the Inquisition. [63] [*ibid*]

[63] Llorca, _Inquisición_ pp. 106-107, 171-176, 196-199, 203-205; Lea, _Inquisition_, I, 45; Walsh, _Characters of the Inquisition_, pp.162-169; Menéndez Pidal, _Historia de Espana_, XVII (2) 232-235; Carroll, _Isabel of Spain_, pp.140-141. [*ibid*]

> That authority belongs to God,

My, my! these words seem mighty incongruous coming from you,
whose posts are couched in secular generalities and often
border on epistemological nihilism.

> the church knew it and preached
> and, by their own doctrines, the church itself became apostate.

More of the same, except that now you are using an anti-Christian
meaning of the word "judge" which ignores the distinction between
judging whole persons [wrong] and judging actions. The latter is not only
allowed if done properly, but sometimes mandatory:
see I Corinthians 5:1-5. By YOUR criteria, St. Paul became an apostate
through his words here.

Glenn has an unreasonable anti-Catholic streak, but you seem to
go beyond him with an anti-Christian streak. Maybe even an anti-organized-religion
streak, when you say "(probably any church)" below.

> The fact
> that people we persecuted by the church is foul hypocrisy and one of the
> many reasons it was abandoned by so many.

"persecuted" is the wrong word in this context:

"Many of these conversions were genuine, or had become so by the passage of time and generations. But many others had been motivated by ambition and greed -- only Christians were allowed to hold high public office, and obviously only they could hold positions in the Church, which were very influential -- ... And once an individual was baptized, he was not permitted to return to Judaism or Islam. [59] "

[59] Edward Peters, _Inquisition_ (New York, 1988) pp. 77-83.

In other words, Jews and Muslims were in Spain of the 15th and16th centuries
what "People of the Book" (Jews and Christians) are in modern day Islamic countries:
in a state of *dhimmitude*. And in some Islamic countries, apostasy from Islam
[including conversion to Judaism] is punishable by death.

Are you consistent enough to condemn these Islamic policies which are still going on?
Keep in mind that these policies are prescribed by the Koran.

> This proves that the RC church
> (probably any church) made the church the object of worship instead of God.

Again, out of character for you and off the mark: "object of worship" is not warranted
by the evidence before us.


Peter Nyikos

[peter2...@gmail.com]

Let's see how you react to this:

Is the voting for the October Chez Watt closed now? Did I miss an announcement
of the winner?


Peter Nyikos

[Mark Isaak]

On 11/23/22 2:01 PM, peter2...@gmail.com wrote:
> [...]

> Is the voting for the October Chez Watt closed now? Did I miss an announcement
> of the winner?

Yes and yes.

[Bill]

Every human endeavor is centered on human sensibilities. Every human society
depends of some form of coercion, pressures that ensure conformity within
that society. Without the threat of force there can be no human society.
From that the whole idea of authority is based. The nature of that authority
depends on the nature and character of those who wield it.

Bill

[*Hemidactylus*]

Kinda sounds like Hobbes…

[jillery]

On Wed, 23 Nov 2022 08:28:43 -0800 (PST), "peter2...@gmail.com"
<peter2...@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Tuesday, November 22, 2022 at 11:40:20 PM UTC-5, jillery wrote:
>
>> WRT your quote to note, you make similar points about it I posted in
>> that topic. The misrepresentations of Behe's comments in that video
>> are similar to the misrepresentations of Behe's claims in DBB. Not
>> sure how anybody would *still* publicly misrepresent what Behe has
>> said, especially since Behe has said the same thing many ways in many
>> places at many times over the last 25 years.
>
>You should be sure: you do it all the time.

Once again you accuse me of doing what you do.

>And this time,
>"Lawyer Daggett" is also guilty: see my reply to the same
>post of his to which you are replying here.

Your interpretations of Behe's words, from DBB to the cited video, are
the rhetorical equivalent of saying 2+2=7. Not sure how you can walk
and chew gum at the same time and still fail to comprehend what Behe
actually says and writes. You sound like an election-denier.

[jillery]

On Wed, 23 Nov 2022 14:01:54 -0800 (PST), "peter2...@gmail.com"
<peter2...@gmail.com> wrote:

>Let's see how you react to this:
>
>Is the voting for the October Chez Watt closed now? Did I miss an announcement
>of the winner?

Arizona Republicans contested the election, and demanded a recount.
Also, they claim Trump won.

[Glenn]

"Pope Francis has warned priests and nuns about the dangers of watching pornography online, saying it "weakens the priestly heart"

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-63405119

Ya think?

"Catholic Official Criticizes Pope, Calls for Allowing Clergy to Watch Porn"

https://www.newsweek.com/catholic-official-karin-iten-criticizes-pope-francis-over-clergys-rules-porn-1756076

Ya think?

[Martin Harran]

Errr …

"If you forgive the sins of any, they are forgiven them; if you
withhold forgiveness from any, it is withheld."
John 20:23

"Truly, I say to you, whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in
heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven."
Matthew 18:18

[Martin Harran]

On Wed, 23 Nov 2022 21:02:14 -0800 (PST), Glenn <GlennS...@msn.com>

Just for once, why don't you tell us what *you* think - do you agree
or disagree with what the Pope said?

>
>"Catholic Official Criticizes Pope, Calls for Allowing Clergy to Watch Porn"

Karin Iten is a lay employee of the Diocese of Chur in Switzerland;
elevating her to "Catholic Official" is something of a stretch and,
despite the lurid headline, the article itself says nothing about her
calling for priests to be allowed to watch porn which is prudent of
them as she made no such call. Disappointed in Newsweek, TBH, this is
the sort of journalistic hackery I'd expect from one of the red tops
rather than a reputable journal like Newsweek.

>
>https://www.newsweek.com/catholic-official-karin-iten-criticizes-pope-francis-over-clergys-rules-porn-1756076
>
>Ya think?

[Burkhard]

peter2...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Wednesday, November 23, 2022 at 12:20:21 PM UTC-5, Lawyer Daggett wrote:
>> On Wednesday, November 23, 2022 at 12:05:20 PM UTC-5, Mark Isaak wrote:
>
>>> So are you going to answer my question, or do you want your ideas to
>>> remain hidden? I wouldn't blame you if you chose the second option.
>
> I chose a third route about an hour ago, an offer
> to meet him halfway.
> https://groups.google.com/g/talk.origins/c/wLSRK67XcYs/m/8Dvfh8xZAgAJ
>
>>> Mark Isaak
>
>> You should have taken him up on the auto-da-fé
>
> Not if he had the same misconception about it that you,
> and innumerable other people have.
>
>
>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LnF1OtP2Svk
>>
>> [First chained Jewish Man]
>
> Or was it a man claiming to be Christian but suspected
> of clinging secretly to Islam or Judaism?

Erm, you are treating a Mel Brooks dance number as a contribution to
historical debate?

>
> IOW, of one of the *conversos*, people who had professed to be
> converts from Islam or Judaism to Christianity, or were descended from people like that?
>
> According to Warren Carroll, in Volume III of
> _A_History_of_Christendom_, pp 607-609, at 608,
> "The Inquisition had no jurisdiction over practicing Jews or Muslims, only over professed Christians who were in fact still Jews or Muslims, though concealing it."

That would be the former Communist propaganda analyst of the CIA
anti-communism division? A job he followed by a stretch as writer for
"Triumph", the magazine that tried to form a rallying point in the US
against the reforms of Vatican II, and when it folded he found
Christendom College, where he served as president but also make himself
head of the history department?

I haven't read his books, so withhold judgement, but also from the
titles they seem more in the tradition of apologetic literature than
historical analysis, and I'd take it with a degree of caution.

As for the extension of the jurisdiction of the inquisition on Jews and
Jewish communities see e.g. Aron-Beller, Katherine. Jews on Trial: The
Papal Inquisition in Modena, 1598–1638. Manchester University Press,
2020: while the original remit of the inquisition was indeed limited to
Christians, they branched out in several places to assume jurisdiction
over Jews too

and of course while the Spanish Inquisition did persecute in particular
"conversos", (with increasingly racist overtones), this then seamlessly
became the ethnic cleansing of all Jews from Spain in 1492.

[Burkhard]

Yes, it is remarkable how many people misunderstand what the auto-da-fe
is - here another example of someone being a wee bit confused (towards
the bottom of post)

https://groups.google.com/g/talk.origins/c/XE40fMQF4p8/m/62lpZ2xkBgAJ

[Martin Harran]

On Thu, 24 Nov 2022 09:52:55 +0000, Burkhard <b.sc...@ed.ac.uk>
wrote:

>peter2...@gmail.com wrote:
>> On Wednesday, November 23, 2022 at 12:20:21 PM UTC-5, Lawyer Daggett wrote:
>>> On Wednesday, November 23, 2022 at 12:05:20 PM UTC-5, Mark Isaak wrote:
>>
>>>> So are you going to answer my question, or do you want your ideas to
>>>> remain hidden? I wouldn't blame you if you chose the second option.
>>
>> I chose a third route about an hour ago, an offer
>> to meet him halfway.
>> https://groups.google.com/g/talk.origins/c/wLSRK67XcYs/m/8Dvfh8xZAgAJ
>>
>>>> Mark Isaak
>>
>>> You should have taken him up on the auto-da-fé
>>
>> Not if he had the same misconception about it that you,
>> and innumerable other people have.
>>
>>
>>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LnF1OtP2Svk
>>>
>>> [First chained Jewish Man]
>>
>> Or was it a man claiming to be Christian but suspected
>> of clinging secretly to Islam or Judaism?
>
>Erm, you are treating a Mel Brooks dance number as a contribution to
>historical debate?

I know Peter has never been the most rational of posters but some of
the stuff he has been saying recently makes me wonder about his mental
capacity.

[...]

[Ernest Major]

On 24/11/2022 07:10, Martin Harran wrote:
> rather than a reputable journal like Newsweek

I've been seeing comments that Newsweek is no longer what it was. On the
one hand ...

https://dianeravitch.net/2020/10/25/the-new-republic-newsweek-has-turned-into-a-zombie-magazine/

On the other hand the other search results are less damning; there are
even some sites still evaluating Newsweek as left-leaning. And fide
WikiPedia it had been criticised for objectifying Sarah Palin.

--
alias Ernest Major

[jillery]

Really? I hadn't noticed any difference since his return to T.O. way
back in 2010.