Tony, where are you?
Joe Cummings
all over the place ( Dec 5th). Indeed, he claimed that the "atheists'
were perturbed.
I've asked him for the last instance of this activity of his, and he
hasn't yet answered.
Do you know, I'm beginning to think that for Tony, the wish is
father to the thought, and in his little dreamworld he's been slaughtering
the atheists left, right and centre.
But on reality, he only presents us with silence.
Have fun,
Joe Cummings
T Pagano
Ask Harshman and Thompson they are the two most recent foldees.
Or a simple google search for "Pagano" and "bluff" for the last 30
days should bring up those posts.
Surely Joe-me-boy can handle that.
Regards,
T Pagano
>
>
>
Robert Carnegie
I've lost count of the super-villains who have been defeated that way,
hypnotic mind control so they believe they've already won. In this
case we should have made him believe the group closed down too, then he
wouldn't be here boasting tn the "survivors".
Or maybe the guy actually is winning online arguments in his dreams,
and he can't remember which are the real ones and which are imaginary.
T Pagano
<rja.ca...@excite.com> wrote:
>Joe Cummings wrote:
>> Tony Pagano claimed that he'd been calling evolutionist bluffs
>> all over the place ( Dec 5th). Indeed, he claimed that the "atheists'
>> were perturbed.
>>
>> I've asked him for the last instance of this activity of his, and he
>> hasn't yet answered.
>>
>> Do you know, I'm beginning to think that for Tony, the wish is
>> father to the thought, and in his little dreamworld he's been slaughtering
>> the atheists left, right and centre.
>>
>> But on reality, he only presents us with silence.
>
>I've lost count of the super-villains who have been defeated that way,
>hypnotic mind control so they believe they've already won.
This is from the "see no evil, hear no evil" school of atheism. If
Carnegie wishes me to rub his nose in it I shall be perfectly happy to
do so. The very recent links to both Harshman and Thompson folding
(going silent, cutting and running) after making their blusterous
claim that my position had been refuted numerous times is easily
found.
And now Carnegie's bluff is called. Shall I produce the links? Yes,
fold, or silence from Carnegie. Like Harshman his arrogance is his
undoing.
It just doesn't get any better than this for atheists.
Regards,
T Pagano
John Harshman
T Pagano wrote:
> On 6 Dec 2006 07:21:27 -0800, "Robert Carnegie"
> <rja.ca...@excite.com> wrote:
>
>
>>Joe Cummings wrote:
>>
>>>Tony Pagano claimed that he'd been calling evolutionist bluffs
>>>all over the place ( Dec 5th). Indeed, he claimed that the "atheists'
>>>were perturbed.
>>>
>>> I've asked him for the last instance of this activity of his, and he
>>>hasn't yet answered.
>>>
>>> Do you know, I'm beginning to think that for Tony, the wish is
>>>father to the thought, and in his little dreamworld he's been slaughtering
>>>the atheists left, right and centre.
>>>
>>> But on reality, he only presents us with silence.
>>>
>>I've lost count of the super-villains who have been defeated that way,
>>hypnotic mind control so they believe they've already won.
>>
>
> This is from the "see no evil, hear no evil" school of atheism. If
> Carnegie wishes me to rub his nose in it I shall be perfectly happy to
> do so. The very recent links to both Harshman and Thompson folding
> (going silent, cutting and running) after making their blusterous
> claim that my position had been refuted numerous times is easily
> found.
Sorry, I missed those links. Could you repost?
Bobby Bryant
T Pagano <not....@address.net> writes:
> On 6 Dec 2006 07:21:27 -0800, "Robert Carnegie"
> <rja.ca...@excite.com> wrote:
>
>>Joe Cummings wrote:
>>> Tony Pagano claimed that he'd been calling evolutionist bluffs
>>> all over the place ( Dec 5th). Indeed, he claimed that the "atheists'
>>> were perturbed.
>>>
>>> I've asked him for the last instance of this activity of his,
>>> and he hasn't yet answered.
>>>
>>> Do you know, I'm beginning to think that for Tony, the wish is
>>> father to the thought, and in his little dreamworld he's been
>>> slaughtering the atheists left, right and centre.
>>>
>>> But on reality, he only presents us with silence.
>>
>>I've lost count of the super-villains who have been defeated that way,
>>hypnotic mind control so they believe they've already won.
>
> This is from the "see no evil, hear no evil" school of atheism. If
> Carnegie wishes me to rub his nose in it I shall be perfectly happy to
> do so. The very recent links to both Harshman and Thompson folding
> (going silent, cutting and running) after making their blusterous
> claim that my position had been refuted numerous times is easily
> found.
Going silent doesn't mean folding. Sometimes we merely get bored with
correcting you on claims that you've already been corrected on hundreds
of times.
--
Bobby Bryant
Reno, Nevada
Remove your hat to reply by e-mail.
Rusty Sites
> On 6 Dec 2006 07:21:27 -0800, "Robert Carnegie"
> <rja.ca...@excite.com> wrote:
>
>> Joe Cummings wrote:
>>> Tony Pagano claimed that he'd been calling evolutionist bluffs
>>> all over the place ( Dec 5th). Indeed, he claimed that the "atheists'
>>> were perturbed.
>>>
>>> I've asked him for the last instance of this activity of his, and he
>>> hasn't yet answered.
>>>
>>> Do you know, I'm beginning to think that for Tony, the wish is
>>> father to the thought, and in his little dreamworld he's been slaughtering
>>> the atheists left, right and centre.
>>>
>>> But on reality, he only presents us with silence.
>> I've lost count of the super-villains who have been defeated that way,
>> hypnotic mind control so they believe they've already won.
>
> This is from the "see no evil, hear no evil" school of atheism. If
> Carnegie wishes me to rub his nose in it I shall be perfectly happy to
> do so. The very recent links to both Harshman and Thompson folding
> (going silent, cutting and running) after making their blusterous
> claim that my position had been refuted numerous times is easily
> found.
>
> And now Carnegie's bluff is called. Shall I produce the links? Yes,
> fold, or silence from Carnegie. Like Harshman his arrogance is his
> undoing.
Why then, does arrogance work so well for you? In fact, it seems to be
all you have going for you. Maybe arrogance has to combined with
delusions of grandeur.
Joe Cummings
"T Pagano" <not....@address.net> wrote in message
news:apagano-cnjdn2lkbfnmg...@4ax.com...
Hum.
Tony is so coy. What do we have to do to get him to be specific?
Wheedle? Flatter? Beg?
One of Tony's great weaknesses is his reluctancee to be specific about
his claims of conquest.
This seems to reinforce my surmise that his "conquests" are wishful
thinking.
I doubt if we'll get anything more concrete out of this thread;
Have wishful fun,
Joe Cummings
Shane
You are right, it doesn't. Another creationists makes his claims with
a big dose of bravado, but when called on them is unable to produce
one shred of evidence. It's fantastic.
Robert Carnegie
> T Pagano wrote:
>
> > On 6 Dec 2006 07:21:27 -0800, "Robert Carnegie"
> > <rja.ca...@excite.com> wrote:
> >
> >
> >>Joe Cummings wrote:
> >>
> >>>Tony Pagano claimed that he'd been calling evolutionist bluffs
> >>>all over the place ( Dec 5th). Indeed, he claimed that the "atheists'
> >>>were perturbed.
> >>>
> >>> I've asked him for the last instance of this activity of his, and he
> >>>hasn't yet answered.
> >>>
> >>> Do you know, I'm beginning to think that for Tony, the wish is
> >>>father to the thought, and in his little dreamworld he's been slaughtering
> >>>the atheists left, right and centre.
> >>>
> >>> But on reality, he only presents us with silence.
> >>>
> >>I've lost count of the super-villains who have been defeated that way,
> >>hypnotic mind control so they believe they've already won.
> >>
> >
> > This is from the "see no evil, hear no evil" school of atheism. If
> > Carnegie wishes me to rub his nose in it I shall be perfectly happy to
> > do so. The very recent links to both Harshman and Thompson folding
> > (going silent, cutting and running) after making their blusterous
> > claim that my position had been refuted numerous times is easily
> > found.
>
>
> Sorry, I missed those links. Could you repost?
I think one of the "links" that he refers to consisted of a verbal
claim that if you read through all the newsgroup articles between
around 2001 and 2004, you'd find one of his triumphs. And crippling
eyestrain.
That supposes that any of us have access to newsgroup articles from
that period, which is not, in general, a reasonable assumption. News
servers usually flush after thirty days or so. There is, however, the
Google archive.
There's also, of course, the issue of possible forgery. t.o does some
policing of impersonation, but I'm not sure if it can be ruled out?
Or indeed - as some are suggesting - that a post to which no one
replied is being counted as a "win".
Ken Shaw
T Pagano wrote:
< a bunch of bs snipped>
So any time anybody ceases/fails to respond to a thread they were
posting in indicates that they are defeated?
Anybody want to count how many times Pagano has fled threads when I've
posted my reminder about his bold promise to refute all of the to
archive dealing with ID?
Ken
Lee Oswald Ving
> This is from the "see no evil, hear no evil" school of atheism. If
> Carnegie wishes me to rub his nose in it I shall be perfectly happy to
> do so. The very recent links to both Harshman and Thompson folding
> (going silent, cutting and running) after making their blusterous
> claim that my position had been refuted numerous times is easily
> found.
Great idea, Pagano. You come up with such a list, and then we'll see how
many we can come up with of the so-far uncountable times you've run away,
most specifically every time you invoke the "Have Mercy On Tony Pagano"
rule.
In fact, what are you waiting for? You could have done so already, but
instead choose to posture. Why is that?
> And now Carnegie's bluff is called. Shall I produce the links?
You should. But the smart bets are on you buggering off, as usual.
> Yes, fold, or silence from Carnegie.
So get on with it already.
> Like Harshman his arrogance is his undoing.
...says T.O.'s biggest pompous windbag.
> It just doesn't get any better than this for atheists.
You've been reminded numerous times that not all the people verbally
beating you are atheists. You can stop that tired Red Herring and start
posting links any time (and should have done so already, were you sincere).
Ilas
news:1165441788....@n67g2000cwd.googlegroups.com:
> Or indeed - as some are suggesting - that a post to which no one
> replied is being counted as a "win".
I think that's it. I don't often read Pagano's stuff - life is too short,
he's too idiotic - but this piqued my interest, so I went back over the
past week or two. He's a seriously deluded person if he thinks he's
winning, unless, as you say, he counts no reply as a win. That kind of
reminds me of being 11 year old, but there you go.
T Pagano
<rja.ca...@excite.com> wrote:
Carnegie is a tad confused here and is referring to a completely
different thread. My quote above refers to "VERY RECENT" posts. Even
Cummings gets that bit correctly.
But even if "this" thread were referring to the 2001-2004 time frame
what difference would that make; I was going to provide the links.
Carnegie conveniently snipped the challenge but I'll stick it in front
of his nose again.
[BEGIN QUOTE]
And now Carnegie's bluff is called. Shall I produce the links? Yes,
fold, or silence from Carnegie. Like Harshman his arrogance is his
undoing.
[END QUOTE]
Carnegie folded as I suspected.
>
>That supposes that any of us have access to newsgroup articles from
>that period, which is not, in general, a reasonable assumption. News
>servers usually flush after thirty days or so. There is, however, the
>Google archive.
The Google archive is both convenient and fast. But again Carnegie is
so flustered after I called his bluff that he is confusing two
different threads.
>
>There's also, of course, the issue of possible forgery. t.o does some
>policing of impersonation, but I'm not sure if it can be ruled out?
What this has to do with Carnegie's challenge to call or fold is
beyond me.
>
>Or indeed - as some are suggesting - that a post to which no one
>replied is being counted as a "win".
In the case of Harshman and Thompson they answered and folded. Now
that I have flushed Carnegie out as an evolutionist troll he can be
scratched and placed in the list with Ving and Shaw---semi permanent
mercy rule status.
Next victim...
Regards,
T Pagano
Tiny Bulcher
Oooh, me, please sir, let it be me! I long for permanent mercy rule
status! Go on, oh please, ignore me!
Fucking idiot.
--
Tiny
T Pagano
<jharshman....@pacbell.net> wrote:
>
>
>T Pagano wrote:
>
>> On 6 Dec 2006 07:21:27 -0800, "Robert Carnegie"
>> <rja.ca...@excite.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Joe Cummings wrote:
>>>
SNIP
>> This is from the "see no evil, hear no evil" school of atheism. If
>> Carnegie wishes me to rub his nose in it I shall be perfectly happy to
>> do so. The very recent links to both Harshman and Thompson folding
>> (going silent, cutting and running) after making their blusterous
>> claim that my position had been refuted numerous times is easily
>> found.
>
>
>Sorry, I missed those links. Could you repost?
Happy to oblige.
Here's link 1:
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/browse_thread/thread/cccea161ee3f1475/96aeb0fe8125e0b0?lnk=st&q=&rnum=1&hl=en#96aeb0fe8125e0b0
[BEGIN QUOTES]
HARSHMAN'S BLUSTEROUS CLAIM:
>>>Last time you submerged, you left a number of threads in which your
>>>claims had been soundly refuted. In fact, being trounced seems to be the
>>>main reason you lose interest. But after a while, you apparently think
>>>everyone will forget and let you start over with a new slate.
>>
PAGANO CALLS HIS BLUFF
>> Here I'll call Harshman's bluff. Produce a link to what you consider
>> the single best refutation of one of my posts written in the last 6
>> months (any refutation dated prior to 9/25/05 will be ignored). I
>> will reply and concede if I must. This will prove interesting. I've
>> only penned about 16 posts to this forum since late September 2005.
>> This should make Harshman's search fairly easy. Let's see if Harshman
>> will put up.
HARSHMAN FOLDS AND RUNS
>Nah, too lazy. Just look them up yourself. Find one of your posts and
>check out the responses to it. You should realize that you have a
>reputation here for cuting and running.
[END QUOTES]
***************************************************************************************
Link 2,3,4:
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/browse_thread/thread/865e992766cd9669/b64a90d0cda827a8?lnk=st&q=&rnum=1&hl=en#b64a90d0cda827a8
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/browse_thread/thread/865e992766cd9669/0cffb4fce9a10165?lnk=st&q=&rnum=1&hl=en#0cffb4fce9a10165
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/browse_thread/thread/865e992766cd9669/4d129b4f7c17168d?lnk=st&q=&rnum=1&hl=en#4d129b4f7c17168d
[BEGIN QUOTES]
HARSHMAN'S BLUSTER
>So, Tony's back, after a couple of weeks off. It seems to me that he
>hasn't responded to any of the posts he left hanging when he ran aw---
>er, left last time. Is that right?
PAGANO CALLS HIS BLUFF
>> Point me to one of your recent rebuttals that you believe particularly
>> strong and I shall endeavor to respond or concede where necessary.
HARSHMAN FOLDS AND RUNS
>I would be unable to do so without considerable effort, and one I don't
>care enough to try. I don't remember thread titles or particular posts,
>so would have to search the entire tree for posts of mine that follow
>posts of yours. You could of course do the same thing, and you may
>consider that every time I reply to one of your posts I consider it to
>be particularly strong. So pick any of them.
HARSHMAN BLUSTERS YET AGAIN IN SAME THREAD
>But I find your excuses for failing to reply quite lame, as I suspect do
>most people.
PAGANO CALLS HIS BLUFF A SECOND TIME IN SAME THREAD
>> I'll ask one last time, which recent post of yours deserves a reply? I
>> will make an effort to reply and concede any good arguments.
HARSHMAN FOLDS AND RUNS A SECOND TIME
>They all do. You should have the elementary courtesy to reply to me when
>I reply to you. Your habit of skipping out when things get hot, only to
>emerge later making the same claims in new threads, annoys everybody.
>Why not decide to reply to old posts before starting new arguments?
>
[END QUOTES]
At least Elsberry had the sense not to step back into his own mess.
In any event Harshman doesn't get it. I have repeatedly admitted that
my arguments are neither conclusive (in the strong sense) nor
particularly strong. I simply argue that they are strong enough to
show that the theories underpinned by Naturalism (Big Bangism,
Abiogenesis, neoDarwinism) aren't nearly as unassailable or
indubitable as painted by atheists and their proxies.
And since it is the Christmas season I invoke mercy rule protection
for Harshman for 30 days to prevent him from drubbing himself (again)
during that period.
Regards,
T Pagano
John Harshman
For some reason I can't see the post I'm responding to. I've copied from
Google and appended to the wrong place.
chris.li...@gmail.com
Tony's "thumping" of Thompson amounted to a scorched-earth retreat in
which Pagano bravely burned every bridge between himself and rational
thought.
That was the time he spent a half-dozen paragraphs trying to get
someone- anyone- to think that a molar tooth was not a "cheek tooth",
despite residing firmly in the animal's cheek.
Tony also could not come to grips with the observation that, in the 3
species of bats known as Vampire Bats, there is a continuum of
sanguivory. The species that drinks blood only occasionally, but feeds
mainly on insects, has molars and premolars that are almost the same
size as insectivorous bats. A second species is intermediate in its
diet and has less-developed cheek teeth. Finally, Desmodus rotundus
lives exclusively on liquids (milk as an infant and blood as an adult)
and has the least-developed molars and premolars- but they're there.
Tony expended what seemed like an inordinate amount of verbiage (and
for Tony, that's a scary amount of bandwidth indeed) trying to convince
anyone (I think himself, included) that (a) just because a sanguivorous
animal has cheek teeth for grinding solid food doesn't mean they're
vestigial, and (b) they aren't cheek teeth because molars and premolars
are cheek teeth and these aren't because they aren't vestigial and they
can't be vestigial because they aren't cheek teeth. So there.
At least, that seemed the gist of Tony's argument.
As I said at the time, there's cheeks and there's cheeks, and to
someone with his head up his butt, the thought of cheek teeth must be
pretty scary indeed.
Chris
Bob Casanova
talk.origins, posted by "Ken Shaw" <ksha...@gmail.com>:
They don't count; he was showing "mercy".
--
Bob C.
"Evidence confirming an observation is
evidence that the observation is wrong."
- McNameless
T Pagano
<jharshman....@pacbell.net> wrote:
>John Harshman wrote:
>
>For some reason I can't see the post I'm responding to. I've copied from
>Google and appended to the wrong place.
>
Oh, brother; this is pathetic.
Regards,
T Pagano
T Pagano
wrote:
>On 6 Dec 2006 15:09:43 -0800, the following appeared in
>talk.origins, posted by "Ken Shaw" <ksha...@gmail.com>:
>
>>
>>T Pagano wrote:
>>< a bunch of bs snipped>
>>So any time anybody ceases/fails to respond to a thread they were
>>posting in indicates that they are defeated?
>>
>>Anybody want to count how many times Pagano has fled threads when I've
>>posted my reminder about his bold promise to refute all of the to
>>archive dealing with ID?
>
>They don't count; he was showing "mercy".
Not really. The fact of the matter is that some of the responses (or
many of them) are both ad hominem and non substantive, or they divert
from the issue raised.
I have shown recently (with DJT, Harshman and Thompson) that the claim
that "numerous" refutations of my few held positions exist in this
forum is a vacuous one. Virtually every time I ask for links to the
supposed refutations the accusers fold (like Harshman and Thompson) or
they offer links that have nothing to do with issue (like Horn) or in
the case of DJT links that actually support my position.
It is not necessary that I defend every position since it is admitted
that most of them are not terribly strong. Nonetheless they are
simply strong enough to show that the positions held by atheists and
their proxies are not nearly as unassailable and indubitable as they
bluster.
Perhaps Casanova has "refuted" me and I overlooked his counter
argument. If so, produce a link to a counter argument "you" have made
which is no older than one year and I will endeavor to respond or
concede if I must. I'll be away for a couple of days so that should
give you time.
Regards,
T Pagano
John Harshman
Hey! You violated the mercy rule. Tony, if nobody obeys the rules,
society will descend into chaos. Still, you did snip all the content
without responding, so I suppose it's all right.
Robert Carnegie
Now I can't see how Tony won and I lost here, but that seems to be the
conclusion. Anyone? Was I supposed to read 4 years of t.o to confirm
my suspicion that it would not include a significant previous win for
Tony, and did I default by not doing so? Did I default by referring to
Tony's recent post in a different thread, but on the same topic?
Woulld I have defaulted by reading 4 years of t.o and not finding the
triumphs that Tony knows must be there? Did Tony appoint himself
referee and award himself the contest just because in his own head he
can do that?
Mark Nutter
Robert Carnegie wrote:
> Now I can't see how Tony won and I lost here, but that seems to be the
> conclusion. Anyone? Was I supposed to read 4 years of t.o to confirm
> my suspicion that it would not include a significant previous win for
> Tony, and did I default by not doing so? Did I default by referring to
> Tony's recent post in a different thread, but on the same topic?
> Woulld I have defaulted by reading 4 years of t.o and not finding the
> triumphs that Tony knows must be there? Did Tony appoint himself
> referee and award himself the contest just because in his own head he
> can do that?
Tony seems to think that he presented you with some kind of challenge
that you failed to meet, but I've been reading back over this thread,
and I can't see where he ever actually challenged you to do anything
specific. Were you supposed to go back and find some place where one of
Tony's posts went un-replied-to? If so, it sounds like "heads I win
tails you lose"--either you do Tony's work for him by documenting his
claims (thus proving him right) or else you fail the challenge (thus
proving yourself "wrong," in some convoluted, introspective sense).
m
chris.li...@gmail.com
T Pagano wrote:
> On Thu, 07 Dec 2006 18:29:48 -0500, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off>
> wrote:
>
> >On 6 Dec 2006 15:09:43 -0800, the following appeared in
> >talk.origins, posted by "Ken Shaw" <ksha...@gmail.com>:
> >
> >>
> >>T Pagano wrote:
> >>< a bunch of bs snipped>
> >>So any time anybody ceases/fails to respond to a thread they were
> >>posting in indicates that they are defeated?
> >>
> >>Anybody want to count how many times Pagano has fled threads when I've
> >>posted my reminder about his bold promise to refute all of the to
> >>archive dealing with ID?
> >
> >They don't count; he was showing "mercy".
>
> Not really. The fact of the matter is that some of the responses (or
> many of them) are both ad hominem and non substantive, or they divert
> from the issue raised.
>
> I have shown recently (with DJT, Harshman and Thompson) that the claim
> that "numerous" refutations of my few held positions exist in this
> forum is a vacuous one. Virtually every time I ask for links to the
> supposed refutations the accusers fold (like Harshman and Thompson) or
> they offer links that have nothing to do with issue (like Horn) or in
> the case of DJT links that actually support my position.
Here is where Tony puts the "antic" in "semantic":
or
Note also that Tony declined to continue a discussion of transitional
species. When I showed his criteria on how to identify such a species
to be flat-out wrong, he left. He never did explain why Species B in
this evolutionary pathway:
A --> B --> C
is not a transitional species. He wanted to claim gradualism was
important, and fossils, and (hehe) nascent structures- none of which
really matter at all, at all.
Chris
Dana Tweedy
snip
> I have shown recently (with DJT, Harshman and Thompson) that the claim
> that "numerous" refutations of my few held positions exist in this
> forum is a vacuous one. Virtually every time I ask for links to the
> supposed refutations the accusers fold (like Harshman and Thompson) or
> they offer links that have nothing to do with issue (like Horn) or in
> the case of DJT links that actually support my position.
Actually, Tony, the link I provided, Steven J. refuted, not supported your
position. You are again claiming victory where none was apparent.
snip more posturing.
DJT
Bob Casanova
talk.origins, posted by T Pagano <not....@address.net>:
>On Thu, 07 Dec 2006 18:29:48 -0500, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off>
>wrote:
>
>>On 6 Dec 2006 15:09:43 -0800, the following appeared in
>>talk.origins, posted by "Ken Shaw" <ksha...@gmail.com>:
>>
>>>
>>>T Pagano wrote:
>>>< a bunch of bs snipped>
>>>So any time anybody ceases/fails to respond to a thread they were
>>>posting in indicates that they are defeated?
>>>
>>>Anybody want to count how many times Pagano has fled threads when I've
>>>posted my reminder about his bold promise to refute all of the to
>>>archive dealing with ID?
>>
>>They don't count; he was showing "mercy".
>
>Not really. The fact of the matter is that some of the responses (or
>many of them) are both ad hominem and non substantive, or they divert
>from the issue raised.
>
>I have shown recently (with DJT, Harshman and Thompson) that the claim
>that "numerous" refutations of my few held positions exist in this
>forum is a vacuous one. Virtually every time I ask for links to the
>supposed refutations the accusers fold (like Harshman and Thompson) or
>they offer links that have nothing to do with issue (like Horn) or in
>the case of DJT links that actually support my position.
Your ability to claim that cogent arguments "have nothing to
do with the issue" or "actually support" you, is
well-evidenced in your posts. The fact that your claim
contradicts what anyone can actually read in those posts
doesn't seem to faze you at all.
>It is not necessary that I defend every position since it is admitted
>that most of them are not terribly strong. Nonetheless they are
>simply strong enough to show that the positions held by atheists and
>their proxies are not nearly as unassailable and indubitable as they
>bluster.
How about those held by *non*-atheists which disagree with
your pontifications, one of the most repulsive of which is
to claim that anyone who disagrees with you, or who supports
the ToE, is an atheist (or an "atheist proxy", whatever that
might be other than "someone who professes belief in a deity
but who doesn't agree with Tony")?
>Perhaps Casanova has "refuted" me and I overlooked his counter
>argument. If so, produce a link to a counter argument "you" have made
>which is no older than one year and I will endeavor to respond or
>concede if I must. I'll be away for a couple of days so that should
>give you time.
Sorry, Tony, but as can be shown above I made no claim to
have refuted any of your unsupported ideas, only that you
invoked your pathetic "mercy" claim when you'd already been
refuted by others. Since your position is so weak I see no
need to further refute it (sound familiar?)
Ken Shaw
T Pagano wrote:
<yet more blather>
I notice you crowing about supposed victories over people in the last
few weeks. Why not spend that time more usefully fulfilling your
promise to refute the TO archives articles on ID. It's been a long time
now and nothing. Should I interpret your silence as your defeat? I have
promised repeatedly to drop this matter if you simply admit you can't
complete the task. However with your new policy of silence equals
defeat I'm afraid I will have to start pointing out your utter and
complete defeat every time you post until you put or admit you can't.
HAND
Ken
T Pagano
Harshman runs and runs hard.
Regards,
T Pagano
T Pagano
wrote:
>On Fri, 08 Dec 2006 05:34:09 GMT, the following appeared in
>talk.origins, posted by T Pagano <not....@address.net>:
>
>>On Thu, 07 Dec 2006 18:29:48 -0500, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off>
>>wrote:
>>
>>>On 6 Dec 2006 15:09:43 -0800, the following appeared in
>>>talk.origins, posted by "Ken Shaw" <ksha...@gmail.com>:
snip
>>I have shown recently (with DJT, Harshman and Thompson) that the claim
>>that "numerous" refutations of my few held positions exist in this
>>forum is a vacuous one. Virtually every time I ask for links to the
>>supposed refutations the accusers fold (like Harshman and Thompson) or
>>they offer links that have nothing to do with issue (like Horn) or in
>>the case of DJT links that actually support my position.
>
>Your ability to claim that cogent arguments "have nothing to
>do with the issue" or "actually support" you, is
>well-evidenced in your posts. The fact that your claim
>contradicts what anyone can actually read in those posts
>doesn't seem to faze you at all.
Unless Casanova can produce links we'll never know.
This is the problem. Everyone claims that cogent arguments to counter
me have been made yet no one can produce any.
>
>>It is not necessary that I defend every position since it is admitted
>>that most of them are not terribly strong. Nonetheless they are
>>simply strong enough to show that the positions held by atheists and
>>their proxies are not nearly as unassailable and indubitable as they
>>bluster.
>
>How about those held by *non*-atheists which disagree with
>your pontifications, one of the most repulsive of which is
>to claim that anyone who disagrees with you, or who supports
>the ToE, is an atheist (or an "atheist proxy", whatever that
>might be other than "someone who professes belief in a deity
>but who doesn't agree with Tony")?
neoDarwinism, abiogenesis and Big Bangism are underpinned by the
doctrine of Naturalism. Naturalism is inconsistent with Christian
Theology and consistent with Atheism. I'll let Casanova complete the
syllogism as an exercise.
However, if Casanova can produce a substantive argument to the
contrary I would be happy to entertain it. Casanova's bluff called.
>
>>Perhaps Casanova has "refuted" me and I overlooked his counter
>>argument. If so, produce a link to a counter argument "you" have made
>>which is no older than one year and I will endeavor to respond or
>>concede if I must. I'll be away for a couple of days so that should
>>give you time.
>
>Sorry, Tony, but as can be shown above I made no claim to
>have refuted any of your unsupported ideas,
Everyone claims there exists numerous refutations yet no one can
produce any. Show me a single link to a refutation in thread to which
I was a party that is less than one year old.
> only that you
>invoked your pathetic "mercy" claim when you'd already been
>refuted by others.
Since no one has yet produced a link faintly resembling a refutation
this is so much hot air.
In the 10 years I've posted in the forum I've only invoked the mercy
rule about 6 times (Harshman-2, Ving-1, Shaw-1, Sienkiewcz-1, Horn-1)
>Since your position is so weak I see no
>need to further refute it (sound familiar?)
My few positions are indeed relatively weak. Nonetheless they have
been strong enough to stave off any serious challenge. The vacuous
claim that there exists numerous refutations has yet to be supported
by a single challenging link.
Casanova is just another cheerleader for atheism who couldn't produce
if his life depended on it.
This is too easy.
Regards,
T Pagano
wf3h
T Pagano wrote:
> >
> This is the problem. Everyone claims that cogent arguments to counter
> me have been made yet no one can produce any.
wrong. you used to babble that the events at lourdes and fatima had to
be accepted as fact because they were observed. when i pointed out that
creationists of the american protestant persuasion didn't accept those
events...you never mentioned them again.
> >
> neoDarwinism, abiogenesis and Big Bangism are underpinned by the
> doctrine of Naturalism.
big bangism?? is that a new XBOX game?
all science is naturalistic. all of it. without exception.
Naturalism is inconsistent with Christian
> Theology
wrong. in fact, naturalism is NECESSARY in christian theology.
christian theology presupposes that the creation is separate from the
creator. that's why christianity is a monotheistic religion rather than
a pantheistic one.
> >
John Harshman
>
> Harshman runs and runs hard.
Aren't you the guy who just responded to me in this thread by snipping
all my arguments without addressing them? Brave, brave, brave, brave Sir
Tony.
Hey, don't forget the Mercy Rule. You're not supposed to be talking to me.
chris.li...@gmail.com
snip
>
> Everyone claims there exists numerous refutations yet no one can
> produce any. Show me a single link to a refutation in thread to which
> I was a party that is less than one year old.
Ingenious!
Tony is just brilliant. He's finally twigged to the fact that if he
ducks and hides for 13 months, he can then reappear and claim no one
has refuted him in the last year!
But note that Tony started out that no one had refuted him at all.
What does Tony do in all that time? The papparazzi caught him at his
favorite past-time:
http://www.ravenscroft.org/images/library/admin/goal%20posts%20on%20the%20move.jpg
or
Chris
>
> Regards,
> T Pagano
bullpup
<chris.li...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1165713973.1...@l12g2000cwl.googlegroups.com...
Okay, who let him have the keys to the tractor?
Boikat
bullpup
"bullpup" <bul...@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:FvMeh.2302$BL4....@bignews2.bellsouth.net...
I also noticed it looks like the driver is asleep at the wheel. Are you
sure that isn't nando?
Boikat
Bob Casanova
talk.origins, posted by T Pagano <not....@address.net>:
>On Fri, 08 Dec 2006 15:46:33 -0500, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off>
>wrote:
>
>>On Fri, 08 Dec 2006 05:34:09 GMT, the following appeared in
>>talk.origins, posted by T Pagano <not....@address.net>:
>>
>>>On Thu, 07 Dec 2006 18:29:48 -0500, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off>
>>>wrote:
>>>
>>>>On 6 Dec 2006 15:09:43 -0800, the following appeared in
>>>>talk.origins, posted by "Ken Shaw" <ksha...@gmail.com>:
>
>snip
>
>
>>>I have shown recently (with DJT, Harshman and Thompson) that the claim
>>>that "numerous" refutations of my few held positions exist in this
>>>forum is a vacuous one. Virtually every time I ask for links to the
>>>supposed refutations the accusers fold (like Harshman and Thompson) or
>>>they offer links that have nothing to do with issue (like Horn) or in
>>>the case of DJT links that actually support my position.
>>
>>Your ability to claim that cogent arguments "have nothing to
>>do with the issue" or "actually support" you, is
>>well-evidenced in your posts. The fact that your claim
>>contradicts what anyone can actually read in those posts
>>doesn't seem to faze you at all.
>
>Unless Casanova can produce links we'll never know.
You're an adult (???); look them up yourself. No one else
seems to have a problem, and after being nauseated
repeatedly by your fatuous posts I don't really care about
your denial problems.
>This is the problem. Everyone claims that cogent arguments to counter
>me have been made yet no one can produce any.
They've been produced. You reject their cogency. Quelle
surprise!
>>>It is not necessary that I defend every position since it is admitted
>>>that most of them are not terribly strong. Nonetheless they are
>>>simply strong enough to show that the positions held by atheists and
>>>their proxies are not nearly as unassailable and indubitable as they
>>>bluster.
>>
>>How about those held by *non*-atheists which disagree with
>>your pontifications, one of the most repulsive of which is
>>to claim that anyone who disagrees with you, or who supports
>>the ToE, is an atheist (or an "atheist proxy", whatever that
>>might be other than "someone who professes belief in a deity
>>but who doesn't agree with Tony")?
>
>neoDarwinism, abiogenesis and Big Bangism are underpinned by the
>doctrine of Naturalism. Naturalism is inconsistent with Christian
>Theology and consistent with Atheism. I'll let Casanova complete the
>syllogism as an exercise.
How could I possibly complete a false syllogism? Since there
are numerous non-atheists who accept evolution, your
assertion is refuted as you post it.
>However, if Casanova can produce a substantive argument to the
>contrary I would be happy to entertain it. Casanova's bluff called.
What bluff is that, Tony?
>>>Perhaps Casanova has "refuted" me and I overlooked his counter
>>>argument. If so, produce a link to a counter argument "you" have made
>>>which is no older than one year and I will endeavor to respond or
>>>concede if I must. I'll be away for a couple of days so that should
>>>give you time.
>>
>>Sorry, Tony, but as can be shown above I made no claim to
>>have refuted any of your unsupported ideas,
>
>Everyone claims there exists numerous refutations yet no one can
>produce any. Show me a single link to a refutation in thread to which
>I was a party that is less than one year old.
Numerous posters have done so. You reject the refutations
since they don't agree with your worldview, like a
4-year-old with his hands over his ears screaming "IS
NOT!!!".
>> only that you
>>invoked your pathetic "mercy" claim when you'd already been
>>refuted by others.
>
>Since no one has yet produced a link faintly resembling a refutation
>this is so much hot air.
>
>In the 10 years I've posted in the forum I've only invoked the mercy
>rule about 6 times (Harshman-2, Ving-1, Shaw-1, Sienkiewcz-1, Horn-1)
Once would have been more than sufficient to demonstrate the
self-serving nature of this "rule".
>>Since your position is so weak I see no
>>need to further refute it (sound familiar?)
>
>My few positions are indeed relatively weak. Nonetheless they have
>been strong enough to stave off any serious challenge. The vacuous
>claim that there exists numerous refutations has yet to be supported
>by a single challenging link.
>
>Casanova is just another cheerleader for atheism who couldn't produce
>if his life depended on it.
What a shame for your assertion that I'm not an atheist,
then. You've demonstrated once more that you equate an
acceptance of science with atheism, like any other fundie.
>This is too easy.
Yes, it is.
chris.li...@gmail.com
T Pagano wrote:
snip
>
> In the 10 years I've posted in the forum I've only invoked the mercy
> rule about 6 times (Harshman-2, Ving-1, Shaw-1, Sienkiewcz-1, Horn-1)
That being the case, it's plain that Pagano has been ignoring me out of
fear, not mercy.
Tony's claimed recently that no one has refuted any of his claims. He's
since moved the goalposts to say no one has refuted any claim of his in
the last year. I choose to accept the initial challenge, since Tony's
been hiding out for almost a year.
I have posted three times, directly addressing Tony about vestigial
organs (grinding teeth in vampire bats) and a hypothetical case in
which Species A gives rise to Species B, which in turn gives rise to
Species C. Tony has yet to provide a coherent argument as to why
Species B is not transitional, since in fact most normal people would
say it is the epitome of a transitional species.
Three opportunities to shut me down, three times avoided.
Strike 3. Tony's out.
HAND.
Chris
Ken Shaw
T Pagano wrote:
>
> In the 10 years I've posted in the forum I've only invoked the mercy
> rule about 6 times (Harshman-2, Ving-1, Shaw-1, Sienkiewcz-1, Horn-1)
>
So you've invoked the mercy rule on me why? I haven't had a discussion
with you in better than two years and back then you simply stopped
after hardly beginning to complete the task you set for yourself.
To any and all who might possibly find this person believeable, google
my name and his together. Find where he decided to invoke mercy on me.
You're a liar and a hypocrite Tony. You made grandiose claims you
couldn't hope to complete and when I called you on it you ran away. I'm
never going to let this issue drop until you post the complete detailed
refutation of the talkorigins.org articles on ID or you simply post,
here on t.o. by naturalistic means, that you can't.
Ken