Another Peter Nyikos topic

[Ray Martinez]

In a different topic (which has reached almost 500 posts) Peter and I
have been going at it for a long time, interrupted by illness and
life's commitments. So I wish to start afresh and continue at the same
time.

I wish this topic to be for anyone who has a beef with Peter. I truly
marvel over the fact that Peter Nyikos, known scholar and diehard
Evolutionist, attracts vehement opposition from other Evolutionists.

But when we remember the simple fact that Peter is a Directed
Panspermist (please refrain from laughing), and when we remember the
fact that he is not afraid to defend anti-evolutionists, much of the
vehement opposition is explained. It seems that both facts cause his
evo brothers to think he is some sort of double agent.

At any rate, my beef against Peter is his insistence that he is
Agnostic. He says there is a less than 1% percent chance that a
Creator exists, which means he is 99% sure that Atheism is true, and
he accepts fully material assumptions to explain reality and
scientific evidence. Moreover, Directed Panspermia is a pro-Atheism
doctrine. It specifically denies that an invisible Creator was
responsible for biological First Cause----that's one reason why Crick
& Orgel wrote the seminal paper defending the idea (the other reason
being the impossibility of abiogenesis). So I have argued three facts
that support his Atheism.

Then there is the issue of the source for his ideas about God. Peter
says he obtained them from other scholars involved in the existence of
God debate that has gone on since time began. Peter: where did these
scholars obtain their ideas about God?

Ray

[Boikat]

On Nov 6, 9:02 pm, Ray Martinez <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> In a different topic (which has reached almost 500 posts) Peter and I
> have been going at it for a long time, interrupted by illness and
> life's commitments. So I wish to start afresh and continue at the same
> time.
>
> I wish this topic to be for anyone who has a beef with Peter. I truly
> marvel over the fact that Peter Nyikos, known scholar and diehard
> Evolutionist, attracts vehement opposition from other Evolutionists.
>
> But when we remember the simple fact that Peter is a Directed
> Panspermist (please refrain from laughing), and when we remember the
> fact that he is not afraid to defend anti-evolutionists, much of the
> vehement opposition is explained. It seems that both facts cause his
> evo brothers to think he is some sort of double agent.
>
> At any rate, my beef against Peter is his insistence that he is
> Agnostic. He says there is a less than 1% percent chance that a
> Creator exists, which means he is 99% sure that Atheism is true, and
> he accepts fully material assumptions to explain reality and
> scientific evidence. Moreover, Directed Panspermia is a pro-Atheism
> doctrine. It specifically denies that an invisible Creator was
> responsible for biological First Cause----that's one reason why Crick
> & Orgel wrote the seminal paper defending the idea (the other reason
> being the impossibility of abiogenesis). So I have argued three facts
> that support his Atheism.

How do you *know* that abiognesis is impossible?

>
> Then there is the issue of the source for his ideas about God. Peter
> says he obtained them from other scholars involved in the existence of
> God debate that has gone on since time began. Peter: where did these
> scholars obtain their ideas about God?

I'd place my bet on the guy with the sharpest pointy stick that also
knew how to make the magical fire thing, probably several tens of
thousands of years ago.

Boikat

[Dana Tweedy]

On 11/6/12 7:58 PM, Ray Martinez wrote:

snipping

all we really need to know:

"I am an ordinary moron with a big mouth who is not to be taken
seriously." ( R. Martinez, in T.O. 2012.)


DJT

[jillery]

On Tue, 6 Nov 2012 18:58:21 -0800 (PST), Ray Martinez
<pyram...@yahoo.com> wrote:

>In a different topic (which has reached almost 500 posts) Peter and I
>have been going at it for a long time, interrupted by illness and
>life's commitments. So I wish to start afresh and continue at the same
>time.
>
>I wish this topic to be for anyone who has a beef with Peter. I truly
>marvel over the fact that Peter Nyikos, known scholar and diehard
>Evolutionist, attracts vehement opposition from other Evolutionists.

Speaking only for myself, the opposition to which you refer has little
to do with any substance, as his posts have very little of it. The
vehemence is due strictly to his posting habits.

[Ray Martinez]

Never seen life arise from non-life.

The same would be miraculous.

Ray

[....]

[Mark Isaak]

On 11/6/12 6:58 PM, Ray Martinez wrote:
> [...]

> At any rate, my beef against Peter is his insistence that he is

> Agnostic. [...]

It doesn't matter.

--
Mark Isaak eciton (at) curioustaxonomy (dot) net
"It is certain, from experience, that the smallest grain of natural
honesty and benevolence has more effect on men's conduct, than the most
pompous views suggested by theological theories and systems." - D. Hume

[Ray Martinez]

Why not?

Ray

[Mark Isaak]

On 11/7/12 7:04 PM, Ray Martinez wrote:
> On Nov 7, 6:52 pm, Mark Isaak <eci...@curioustax.onomy.net> wrote:
>> On 11/6/12 6:58 PM, Ray Martinez wrote:
>>
>>> [...]
>>> At any rate, my beef against Peter is his insistence that he is
>>> Agnostic. [...]
>>
>> It doesn't matter.
>>

> Why not?

Because if it did, you would not need to ask.

[jillery]

So you believe that reality is based solely on your impression of it.
Aren't you the little megalomaniac.

[Roger Shrubber]

Any "beef" I have with Peter will depend on what he says at a
particular
time and have little to do with whatever his preferences are for
peaches
versus plums, even if plums are glorious fruit and peaches are sad
fuzzy
bags of mesocarpal tissue.

[Boikat]

So, if you never see something happen, it's impossible. How short
sighted and dull.

>
> The same would be miraculous.

Why?

Boikat

[pnyikos]

On Nov 6, 10:02 pm, Ray Martinez <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> In a different topic (which has reached almost 500 posts) Peter and I
> have been going at it for a long time, interrupted by illness and
> life's commitments. So I wish to start afresh and continue at the same
> time.
>
> I wish this topic to be for anyone who has a beef with Peter. I truly
> marvel over the fact that Peter Nyikos, known scholar and diehard
> Evolutionist, attracts vehement opposition from other Evolutionists.

I've told you one of the main reasons already: I am not afraid to
document dishonesty and hypocrisy by my fellow evolutionists, and
coming from me it has more weight than it does when coming from a
creationist.

> But when we remember the simple fact that Peter is a Directed
> Panspermist (please refrain from laughing),

Yes, otherwise you will also be laughing at Crick and Orgel, who
originated the hypothesis.

> and when we remember the
> fact that he is not afraid to defend anti-evolutionists, much of the
> vehement opposition is explained.

Yes, that is probably the other main reason,

> It seems that both facts cause his
> evo brothers to think he is some sort of double agent.
>
> At any rate, my beef against Peter is his insistence that he is
> Agnostic. He says there is a less than 1% percent chance that a
> Creator exists,

IMHO. Others' mileage may vary tremendously, largely due to the great
disparities of experience from one individual to the next.

> which means he is 99% sure that Atheism is true,

OTOH I also 90% hope it is false.

The other 10% here is due to uncertainty about what God is like, even
if He exists.

>and
> he accepts fully material assumptions to explain reality and
> scientific evidence. Moreover, Directed Panspermia is a pro-Atheism
> doctrine. It specifically denies that an invisible Creator was
> responsible for biological First Cause

False. That is a separate hypothesis, one I also happen to hold but
independent of whether DP is true or false.

I've explained this to you until I've grown figuratively blue in the
face, using an analogy with Noah.

> ----that's one reason why Crick
> & Orgel wrote the seminal paper defending the idea (the other reason
> being the impossibility of abiogenesis).

The "other reason" shows your ignorance of what they actually wrote.
They simply acknowledged that we don't know what the odds are. It
could be commonplace in our galaxy, or it might have happened only
once in the history of our universe. IIRC [I'm too short on time at
the moment to look it up] they acknowledged both possibilities.

> Then there is the issue of the source for his ideas about God. Peter
> says he obtained them from other scholars involved in the existence of
> God debate that has gone on since time began. Peter: where did these
> scholars obtain their ideas about God?

Reason, sometimes with a big dose of faith, sometimes (as in the case
of Hume) perhaps no faith at all. But even Hume acknowledged the
possibility of a creator, only one who botched and bungled an
indeterminate number of universes before finally eking out our
imperfect one.

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


Peter Nyikos

[Ray Martinez]

These remarks say one's worldview (bias) doesn't matter.

Ray

[Ray Martinez]

On Nov 8, 7:12 am, pnyikos <nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> On Nov 6, 10:02 pm, Ray Martinez <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > In a different topic (which has reached almost 500 posts) Peter and I
> > have been going at it for a long time, interrupted by illness and
> > life's commitments. So I wish to start afresh and continue at the same
> > time.
>
> > I wish this topic to be for anyone who has a beef with Peter. I truly
> > marvel over the fact that Peter Nyikos, known scholar and diehard
> > Evolutionist, attracts vehement opposition from other Evolutionists.
>
> I've told you one of the main reasons already: I am not afraid to
> document dishonesty and hypocrisy by my fellow evolutionists, and
> coming from me it has more weight than it does when coming from a
> creationist.
>

As objectve as it gets.

> > But when we remember the simple fact that Peter is a Directed
> > Panspermist (please refrain from laughing),
>
> Yes, otherwise you will also be laughing at Crick and Orgel, who
> originated the hypothesis.
>

They are laughed at too.

> > and when we remember the
> > fact that he is not afraid to defend anti-evolutionists, much of the
> > vehement opposition is explained.
>
> Yes, that is probably the other main reason,
>

Of course it is.

Since you refuse to participate in their truth suppressions, slander
attacks, and outright lies, there can be no other reason. We could
only wonder why you remain an Evolutionist?

And talking with me will earn you even more rejecttion, Peter. I am
considered the devil in the eyes of your fellow Evolutionists here at
Talk.Origins.

Ray (anti-evolutionist)

> University of South Carolinahttp://www.math.sc.edu/~nyikos/

[jillery]

On Thu, 8 Nov 2012 10:58:53 -0800 (PST), Ray Martinez
<pyram...@yahoo.com> wrote:

>On Nov 8, 7:12 am, pnyikos <nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>> On Nov 6, 10:02 pm, Ray Martinez <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>> > In a different topic (which has reached almost 500 posts) Peter and I
>> > have been going at it for a long time, interrupted by illness and
>> > life's commitments. So I wish to start afresh and continue at the same
>> > time.
>>
>> > I wish this topic to be for anyone who has a beef with Peter. I truly
>> > marvel over the fact that Peter Nyikos, known scholar and diehard
>> > Evolutionist, attracts vehement opposition from other Evolutionists.
>>
>> I've told you one of the main reasons already: I am not afraid to
>> document dishonesty and hypocrisy by my fellow evolutionists, and
>> coming from me it has more weight than it does when coming from a
>> creationist.
>>
>
>As objectve as it gets.
>
>> > But when we remember the simple fact that Peter is a Directed
>> > Panspermist (please refrain from laughing),
>>
>> Yes, otherwise you will also be laughing at Crick and Orgel, who
>> originated the hypothesis.
>>
>
>They are laughed at too.

Not for proposing it, and not since they retracted their support of
it.

>> > and when we remember the
>> > fact that he is not afraid to defend anti-evolutionists, much of the
>> > vehement opposition is explained.
>>
>> Yes, that is probably the other main reason,
>>
>
>Of course it is.

...not.

>Since you refuse to participate in their truth suppressions, slander
>attacks, and outright lies, there can be no other reason. We could
>only wonder why you remain an Evolutionist?

Rockhead regularly and willingly participates in AOTA.

[Dana Tweedy]

Never seen anything being designed or produced by a supernatural being.
Chemistry can be observed, supernatural beings, not so much.

>
> The same would be miraculous.

Or chemistry.


DJT

[Dana Tweedy]

On 11/8/12 11:52 AM, Ray Martinez wrote:
snip

>> Any "beef" I have with Peter will depend on what he says at a
>> particular
>> time and have little to do with whatever his preferences are for
>> peaches
>> versus plums, even if plums are glorious fruit and peaches are sad
>> fuzzy
>> bags of mesocarpal tissue.
>
> These remarks say one's worldview (bias) doesn't matter.

What matters is what the evidence indicates. That's why you always run
from the evidence.

DJT

[Dana Tweedy]

On 11/8/12 11:58 AM, Ray Martinez wrote:
> On Nov 8, 7:12 am, pnyikos <nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>> On Nov 6, 10:02 pm, Ray Martinez <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>>> In a different topic (which has reached almost 500 posts) Peter and I
>>> have been going at it for a long time, interrupted by illness and
>>> life's commitments. So I wish to start afresh and continue at the same
>>> time.
>>
>>> I wish this topic to be for anyone who has a beef with Peter. I truly
>>> marvel over the fact that Peter Nyikos, known scholar and diehard
>>> Evolutionist, attracts vehement opposition from other Evolutionists.
>>
>> I've told you one of the main reasons already: I am not afraid to
>> document dishonesty and hypocrisy by my fellow evolutionists, and
>> coming from me it has more weight than it does when coming from a
>> creationist.
>>
>
> As objectve as it gets.

No, that's not objective, it's just subjective in a different direction.

>
>>> But when we remember the simple fact that Peter is a Directed
>>> Panspermist (please refrain from laughing),
>>
>> Yes, otherwise you will also be laughing at Crick and Orgel, who
>> originated the hypothesis.
>>
>
> They are laughed at too.

By whom, Ray? Note, if anyone laughs at Crick, or Orgel, they are
laughing at Ray much louder.

>
>>> and when we remember the
>>> fact that he is not afraid to defend anti-evolutionists, much of the
>>> vehement opposition is explained.
>>
>> Yes, that is probably the other main reason,
>>
>
> Of course it is.

Do you have any evidence to support this?

>
> Since you refuse to participate in their truth suppressions, slander
> attacks, and outright lies, there can be no other reason. We could
> only wonder why you remain an Evolutionist?

What you are calling "truth suppressions" is just people denying your
fantasies. What you call "slander attacks" are merely people pointing
out the truth to you. The only "outright lies" come from you, Ray.

>
> And talking with me will earn you even more rejecttion, Peter. I am
> considered the devil in the eyes of your fellow Evolutionists here at
> Talk.Origins.

Ray, no one here considers you "the devil". At most, you are considered
a clown, and at least, a object of pity.

DJT

[Ray Martinez]

On Nov 8, 12:37�pm, jillery <69jpi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Thu, 8 Nov 2012 10:58:53 -0800 (PST), Ray Martinez
>
>
>
>
>
> <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >On Nov 8, 7:12�am, pnyikos <nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> >> On Nov 6, 10:02 pm, Ray Martinez <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> >> > In a different topic (which has reached almost 500 posts) Peter and I
> >> > have been going at it for a long time, interrupted by illness and
> >> > life's commitments. So I wish to start afresh and continue at the same
> >> > time.
>
> >> > I wish this topic to be for anyone who has a beef with Peter. I truly
> >> > marvel over the fact that Peter Nyikos, known scholar and diehard
> >> > Evolutionist, attracts vehement opposition from other Evolutionists.
>
> >> I've told you one of the main reasons already: I am not afraid to
> >> document dishonesty and hypocrisy by my fellow evolutionists, and
> >> coming from me it has more weight than it does when coming from a
> >> creationist.
>
> >As objectve as it gets.
>
> >> > But when we remember the simple fact that Peter is a Directed
> >> > Panspermist (please refrain from laughing),
>
> >> Yes, otherwise you will also be laughing at Crick and Orgel, who
> >> originated the hypothesis.
>
> >They are laughed at too.
>
> Not for proposing it, and not since they retracted their support of
> it.
>

What are you waiting for....post the support.

Ray

[jillery]

You lost me. Support for what? That they were *not* laughed at? I'm
assuming you won't accept the word of my Aunt Mabel.

[Ray Martinez]

On Nov 8, 6:47 pm, jillery <69jpi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Thu, 8 Nov 2012 17:47:43 -0800 (PST), Ray Martinez
>
>
>
>
>

Support for the alleged retraction!

Ray

[jillery]

I have posted it several times before. But I'm curious why you
challenge it, and in such a provocative way. How does the veracity of
my statement make any difference to you or your assertions?

[Ray Martinez]

On Nov 8, 8:52�pm, jillery <69jpi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Thu, 8 Nov 2012 19:34:57 -0800 (PST), Ray Martinez
>
>
>
>
>

How is "Support for the alleged retraction!" provocative?

Don't answer, my question is rhetorical. Now would you please post
said retraction? Do you expect persons to take your word regarding a
major retraction claim?

> How does the veracity of
> my statement make any difference to you or your assertions?
>

What assertions?

And more importantly, what does Peter Nyikos think of your retraction
claim?

Can you answer simple questions in a prompt and straightforward
manner?

Ray

[jillery]

Ok, 'cause I bet you wouldn't like my answer.

>Now would you please post
>said retraction? Do you expect persons to take your word regarding a
>major retraction claim?

No, I don't expect anyone to take my word. It's documented history,
and it's been posted before several times. Just because you don't
keep up is no reason to insist I think you should take my word.

>> How does the veracity of
>> my statement make any difference to you or your assertions?
>>
>
>What assertions?

What are discussing here? Same thing.

>And more importantly, what does Peter Nyikos think of your retraction
>claim?

Ask him. Or just wait. Given his history, he will spew it out
spontaneously.

Why do you think his opinion is more important?

>Can you answer simple questions in a prompt and straightforward
>manner?

Normally, I do. This case is an exception. You very rarely reply to
me. So don't be surprised that when you do, I question your motives.
So far, I don't like what I'm reading. You're acting *as if* you're a
shill for rockhead.

If you really want a straightforward reply from me, then please
explain why it's so important to you all of a sudden that I just have
to answer you on this question. Otherwise, I'll just wave that worm
goodbye.

[Ray Martinez]

On Nov 9, 1:32 pm, jillery <69jpi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Fri, 9 Nov 2012 12:03:21 -0800 (PST), Ray Martinez
>
>
>
>
>

I try to keep up.

> >> How does the veracity of
> >> my statement make any difference to you or your assertions?
>
> >What assertions?
>
> What are discussing here?  Same thing.
>

I'm asking a question, the same is not an assertion.

> >And more importantly, what does Peter Nyikos think of your retraction
> >claim?
>
> Ask him.  Or just wait.  Given his history, he will spew it out
> spontaneously.
>
> Why do you think his opinion is more important?
>

I think it is important (not "more important") because he supports
Directed Panspermia.

Since you are not a DPist your opinion of the alleged retraction, like
mine, isn't as important as Peter's.

> >Can you answer simple questions in a prompt and straightforward
> >manner?
>
> Normally, I do.  This case is an exception.  You very rarely reply to
> me.

I reply when something said bothers me. Sometimes I don't respond
because I can't find the post. I try to respond to everyone who says
something relevant in a topic that I start.

> So don't be surprised that when you do, I question your motives.
> So far, I don't like what I'm reading.  You're acting *as if* you're a
> shill for rockhead.
>

No one can help how they feel (including myself).

> If you really want a straightforward reply from me, then please
> explain why it's so important to you all of a sudden that I just have
> to answer you on this question.  Otherwise, I'll just wave that worm
> goodbye.

I asked.

I can't force you.

I've said nothing disrespectful.

Of course we wouldn't know one another if we bumped on the street.

I'm betting that your alleged retraction claim is misunderstanding.
Unless Directed Panspermia is actually mentioned, it was not
retracted.

Ray

[jillery]

You started this thread before you asked your question. So again,
what are you discussing here? Same thing.

>
>> >And more importantly, what does Peter Nyikos think of your retraction
>> >claim?
>>
>> Ask him. �Or just wait. �Given his history, he will spew it out
>> spontaneously.
>>
>> Why do you think his opinion is more important?
>>
>
>I think it is important (not "more important") because he supports
>Directed Panspermia.
>
>Since you are not a DPist your opinion of the alleged retraction, like
>mine, isn't as important as Peter's.

So you do think his opinion is more important. I disagree that his
bias make any difference to his importance. ISTM the important things
are that it's true, that it's documented, and that it's relevant.

>> >Can you answer simple questions in a prompt and straightforward
>> >manner?
>>
>> Normally, I do. �This case is an exception. �You very rarely reply to
>> me.
>
>I reply when something said bothers me. Sometimes I don't respond
>because I can't find the post. I try to respond to everyone who says
>something relevant in a topic that I start.
>
>> So don't be surprised that when you do, I question your motives.
>> So far, I don't like what I'm reading. �You're acting *as if* you're a
>> shill for rockhead.
>>
>
>No one can help how they feel (including myself).
>
>> If you really want a straightforward reply from me, then please
>> explain why it's so important to you all of a sudden that I just have
>> to answer you on this question. �Otherwise, I'll just wave that worm
>> goodbye.
>
>I asked.
>
>I can't force you.
>
>I've said nothing disrespectful.

Of course, nobody accused you of being disrespectful.

>Of course we wouldn't know one another if we bumped on the street.
>
>I'm betting that your alleged retraction claim is misunderstanding.

You would lose that bet.

>Unless Directed Panspermia is actually mentioned, it was not
>retracted.

That would be an overly-simplistic analysis.

[pnyikos]

On Nov 8, 2:02 pm, Ray Martinez <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Nov 8, 7:12 am, pnyikos <nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> > On Nov 6, 10:02 pm, Ray Martinez <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > In a different topic (which has reached almost 500 posts) Peter and I
> > > have been going at it for a long time, interrupted by illness and
> > > life's commitments. So I wish to start afresh and continue at the same
> > > time.
>
> > > I wish this topic to be for anyone who has a beef with Peter.

People seem to be really hanging back on this--the "beef" I've seen on
this thread so far seems infinitesimal compared to what is going on in
the "By Their Fruits" thread and a 500+ post thread that may be
different from the one you had in mind. Even jillery's spineless
insults don't change that estimation.

> > > I truly
> > > marvel over the fact that Peter Nyikos, known scholar and diehard
> > > Evolutionist, attracts vehement opposition from other Evolutionists.
>
> > I've told you one of the main reasons already: I am not afraid to
> > document dishonesty and hypocrisy by my fellow evolutionists, and
> > coming from me it has more weight than it does when coming from a
> > creationist.
>
> As objectve as it gets.
>
> > > But when we remember the simple fact that Peter is a Directed
> > > Panspermist (please refrain from laughing),
>
> > Yes, otherwise you will also be laughing at Crick and Orgel, who
> > originated the hypothesis.
>
> They are laughed at too.

By anyone other than that screwball J.J. O'Shea? Does anyone take
seriously his crap about these two atheists [actually, I'm not sure
Orgel was one] being "creationists"?

Oh...wait..maybe jillery does.

Anyway, O'Shea makes a great "poster boy" for anyone advancing the
theisis, "There is something rotten in the state of talk.origins."

> > > and when we remember the
> > > fact that he is not afraid to defend anti-evolutionists, much of the
> > > vehement opposition is explained.
>
> > Yes, that is probably the other main reason,
>
> Of course it is.
>
> Since you refuse to participate in their truth suppressions, slander
> attacks, and outright lies, there can be no other reason. We could
> only wonder why you remain an Evolutionist?

Because I am convinced by the scientific evidence. The fact that a
great mess of people, many of whom are probably in this thing for
political reasons and aren't even interested in the science behind
evolution, are also shamelessly dishonest and/or hypocritical, should
have no influence on ANYONE'S appraisal of the evidence.

And there are quite a few decent people posting to talk.origins on the
"evolutionist" side: Inez, Richard Norman, Steven L., and maybe Dana
Tweedy, to name the ones I know most about.

Dana Tweedy was very reasonable in all the arguments with you that I
had seen until this thread. You may have brought a dark side of his
out in the open here, and I'll be replying to him after I'm done with
this reply to you.

Bill (Rogers?) is an avowed atheist, but he also seems to be free of
dishonesty and hypocrisy, but I've seen too little of him to be
confident about that. What's your take on him?

By the way, Glenn seems harmless, if somewhat quirky and cryptic, only
I don't know where he stands on evolution. Do you know whether he
accepts common descent of all organisms from a few unicellular ones,
like I do? Or at least all vertebrates from a common ancestor?

> And talking with me will earn you even more rejecttion, Peter. I am
> considered the devil in the eyes of your fellow Evolutionists here at
> Talk.Origins.

It's questionable whether the people who consider me to be something
like a devil (Ron O, O'Shea, jillery) consider you to be more of a
devil than me. The same applies to people allied with one or more of
them, like Paul Gans.

As for the others, I think most of them like to talk to you too,
though not in what I would call friendly way. So I don't think that
talking to you the way I've been doing lately (mostly in a rather
unfriendly way, not like in this post) will earn me any black marks in
their book.

> Ray (anti-evolutionist)

Peter Nyikos

[pnyikos]

On Nov 8, 5:47 pm, Dana Tweedy <reddfrog...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 11/8/12 11:58 AM, Ray Martinez wrote:
> > On Nov 8, 7:12 am, pnyikos <nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> >> On Nov 6, 10:02 pm, Ray Martinez <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> >>> In a different topic (which has reached almost 500 posts) Peter and I
> >>> have been going at it for a long time, interrupted by illness and
> >>> life's commitments. So I wish to start afresh and continue at the same
> >>> time.
>
> >>> I wish this topic to be for anyone who has a beef with Peter. I truly
> >>> marvel over the fact that Peter Nyikos, known scholar and diehard
> >>> Evolutionist, attracts vehement opposition from other Evolutionists.
>
> >> I've told you one of the main reasons already: I am not afraid to
> >> document dishonesty and hypocrisy by my fellow evolutionists, and
> >> coming from me it has more weight than it does when coming from a
> >> creationist.
>
> > As objectve as it gets.
>
> No, that's not objective, it's just subjective in a different direction.

I don't like getting bogged down in semantics, so I'll just let the
two of you fight over this one for the nonce.

> >>> But when we remember the simple fact that Peter is a Directed
> >>> Panspermist (please refrain from laughing),
>
> >> Yes, otherwise you will also be laughing at Crick and Orgel, who
> >> originated the hypothesis.
>
> > They are laughed at too.
>
> By whom, Ray?

By J.J. O'Shea, it would seem. His campaign of defamation against me
has resulted in the collateral damage of him calling them
"creationists."

> Note, if anyone laughs at Crick, or Orgel, they are
> laughing at Ray much louder.

That may even be true of O'Shea, but I'm not sure.

> >>> and when we remember the
> >>> fact that he is not afraid to defend anti-evolutionists, much of the
> >>> vehement opposition is explained.
>
> >> Yes, that is probably the other main reason,
>
> > Of course it is.
>
> Do you have any evidence to support this?

Well, there was the example, back in July, of jillery accusing me of
"man-love" for UC because I happened to opine publicly that he had the
upper hand in what I'd seen so far of him in an argument on the
following theme: that the common everyday usage of "apes" is that it
excludes humans. That was before I found out what an absolutist he
was on the subject.

Anyway, O'Shea backed her up on that, and only a few days ago O'Shea
claimed I had been "in love with" UC on the basis of that laughably
flimsy evidence. And jillery chimed in with the comment that it is
hard to see how I could otherwise have "sided" with UC the way I did
on that one occasion.

Documentation on request.

>
>
> > Since you refuse to participate in their truth suppressions, slander
> > attacks, and outright lies, there can be no other reason. We could
> > only wonder why you remain an Evolutionist?
>
> What you are calling "truth suppressions" is just people denying your
> fantasies.   What you call "slander attacks" are merely people pointing
> out the truth to you.   The only "outright lies" come from you, Ray.

You have a lot to learn about O'Shea, jillery, and Ron O. And even
about Paul Gans, who has been in solidarity with the first two for
some time.

If they don't do all three things against anyone but me, it is only
because the creationists are a sorry bunch who can be discredited
without stooping to massive dishonesty.

By the way, I'm not asking you to help me against them or even look at
the mountains of evidence I have amassed against them, especially
against Ron O and O'Shea.

I only ask that you be a little more careful in how you phrase things
than you did just now.

>
>
> > And talking with me will earn you even more rejecttion, Peter. I am
> > considered the devil in the eyes of your fellow Evolutionists here at
> > Talk.Origins.
>
> Ray, no one here considers you "the devil".  At most, you are considered
> a clown, and at least, a object of pity.

Not by Ron O. He has refused to meet any challenges by Ray on the
alleged grounds that Ray is insane.

In fact, one month before I returned to talk.origins [I returned in
December 2010] after almost a decade of absence, Ray had challenged
Ron O about a FALSE claim Ron O had made about Michael Behe. Ray
alerted me to this thread, and I took up Ray's challenge.

Ron O ducked the issue against me, claiming that he would answer the
challenge if I made satisfactory reply to him about certain issues.

It soon transpired that Ron O has a habit of loading down his posts
with all kinds of crap, and as long as he can portray someone as
"running away" from anything he says, even empty insults, he feels
entitled to NEVER acknowledge the falsity of anything he says.

Peter Nyikos

[pnyikos]

Jillery is lying, Ray. I have seen the alleged "retraction," and the
article nowhere mentions directed panspermia -- jillery seems to have
acknowledged as much in a later round on this thread -- but ALSO, the
thing they retracted is not even *relevant* to directed panspermia.
They had said mad which the advent of the RNA w

It is somewhat relevant to the odds against abiogenesis, but even
there, it doesn't alter what they had said in their DP paper, that it
is impossible to say anything meaningful about how easy or how
difficult it is.

The "retraction" had to do with one objection that they had made,
which the advent of the RNA world hypothesis had made obsolete.

But here's the kicker: at practically the same time, Orgel also said
in an article he co-authored with someone else, that RNA world is
itself incredibly hard to arrive at.

I pointed all this out at the time, and jillery ran away. Not long
thereafter, 'e killfiled me.

And, since I was the only one who noticed jillery's falsehood AFAIK,
jillery feels perfectly entitled to go on lying, figuring that since
[s]he has me killfiled, [s]he can always go on as if I had never said
anything.

So do me this favor, Ray. Reply to this post, and sprinkle some
comments of yours among the ones I've made just now. Not that jillery
will ever acknowledge seeing its contents, but [s]he'll have to ignore
you also, and you can accuse jillery of documentable dishonesty and
cowardice.

And who knows, someone like Dana Tweedy might actually do something
about this.

Peter Nyikos

[pnyikos]

This is something of a "twofer": I delete some text, reposting later
on an earlier round of the same text, because it is more effective
when displaced to the end.

On Nov 9, 4:52�pm, Ray Martinez <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Nov 9, 1:32 pm, jillery <69jpi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Fri, 9 Nov 2012 12:03:21 -0800 (PST), Ray Martinez
>
> > <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > >On Nov 8, 8:52 pm, jillery <69jpi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >> On Thu, 8 Nov 2012 19:34:57 -0800 (PST), Ray Martinez
>
> > >> <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > >> >On Nov 8, 6:47 pm, jillery <69jpi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >> >> On Thu, 8 Nov 2012 17:47:43 -0800 (PST), Ray Martinez
>
> > >> >> <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > >> >> >On Nov 8, 12:37 pm, jillery <69jpi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >> >> >> On Thu, 8 Nov 2012 10:58:53 -0800 (PST), Ray Martinez
>
> > >> >> >> <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > >Now would you please post
> > >said retraction? Do you expect persons to take your word regarding a
> > >major retraction claim?
>
> > No, I don't expect anyone to take my word. It's documented history,
> > and it's been posted before several times. Just because you don't
> > keep up is no reason to insist I think you should take my word.
>
> I try to keep up.
>
> > >> How does the veracity of
> > >> my statement make any difference to you or your assertions?

The statement had NO veracity, as I explained in my preceding post.

> > >What assertions?
>
> > What are discussing here? Same thing.
>
> I'm asking a question, the same is not an assertion.

Of course, jillery knows this, but has already decided to duck your
question, knowing [s]he won't have a leg to stand on if the
documentation is provided.

> > >And more importantly, what does Peter Nyikos think of your retraction
> > >claim?
>
> > Ask him. Or just wait. Given his history, he will spew it out
> > spontaneously.

Showing jillery to have lied is spewing BY DEFINITION, because jillery
is abnormally self-righteous.

This assertion will probably surprise most readers, who think the word
"self-righteous" should be reserved for right-wingers and religious
people.

[small snip]

> > >Can you answer simple questions in a prompt and straightforward
> > >manner?
>
> > Normally, I do. This case is an exception. You very rarely reply to
> > me.

Note the utterly pathetic excuse for not posting the damning-of-
jillery documentation I told you about in the preceding reply to you.

> I reply when something said bothers me. Sometimes I don't respond
> because I can't find the post. I try to respond to everyone who says
> something relevant in a topic that I start.
>
> > So don't be surprised that when you do, I question your motives.
> > So far, I don't like what I'm reading. You're acting *as if* you're a
> > shill for rockhead.

This is standard jillery insincerity. Surely even [s]he knows what a
grotesque exaggeration this is, but you've got her/him cornered, and
so [s]he carefully prepares what [s]he hopes will be a convincing
exit.

> No one can help how they feel (including myself).
>
> > If you really want a straightforward reply from me, then please
> > explain why it's so important to you all of a sudden that I just have
> > to answer you on this question. Otherwise, I'll just wave that worm
> > goodbye.

"Heads jillery wins, tails you lose": if you give a wishy washy reason
like the one you did ("I asked"), it isn't important enough to merit
acceding to your request. If you give a strong reason, you will have
insulted jillery, and jillery will use THAT as an excuse for not
fulfilling your request.

Now for the other half of my twofer: the way jillery carefully laid
the ground for this latest show of deviousness and cowardice:

> > But I'm curious why you
> > challenge it, and in such a provocative way.
>
> How is "Support for the alleged retraction!" provocative?

It isn't. Jillery is up to her/his old tricks, posting flamebait while
pretending to think you beat her/him to it.

> Don't answer, my question is rhetorical. Now would you please post

> said retraction? Do you expect persons to take your word regarding a
> major retraction claim?
>

Of course jillery does. [S]he knows from long experience that every
evolutionist but me can be counted on to play "see no evil, hear no
evil, speak no evil" where jillery's dishonesty and hypocrisy are
concerned

Jillery knows that 'e doesn't have a leg to stand on, so [s]he went on
in reply to you with a broken record routine, "ISTM the important

things are that it's true, that it's documented, and that it's

relevant." And, of course, aggressively demanding to know why this
issue is important to you as a prerequisite for providing it.

Jillery may have seen how the pathological liars of talk.abortion get
away, time and again, with the lie, "It's been documented hundreds of
times, and there is no point in doing it again," and figured 'e could
get away with a mild version of it.

> > How does the veracity of
> > my statement make any difference to you or your assertions?
>
> What assertions?

None, and jillery gave a bogus answer.

[small snip]

> Can you answer simple questions in a prompt and straightforward
> manner?

As you (and Harshman, in a much milder way--jillery can't afford to
cross him in too strong a way) have found out, and will find out more
hereafter...

...the answer is often a resounding NO! !

Peter Nyikos

> I asked.
>
> I can't force you.
>
> I've said nothing disrespectful.
>
> Of course we wouldn't know one another if we bumped on the street.
>
> I'm betting that your alleged retraction claim is misunderstanding.
> Unless Directed Panspermia is actually mentioned, it was not
> retracted.
>

> Ray- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

[Dana Tweedy]

On 11/9/12 6:33 PM, pnyikos wrote:
> On Nov 8, 5:47 pm, Dana Tweedy <reddfrog...@gmail.com> wrote:

snip

>>>> Yes, otherwise you will also be laughing at Crick and Orgel, who
>>>> originated the hypothesis.
>>
>>> They are laughed at too.
>>
>> By whom, Ray?
>
> By J.J. O'Shea, it would seem. His campaign of defamation against me
> has resulted in the collateral damage of him calling them
> "creationists."

Calling someone a creationist is not the same as laughing at that person.

>
>> Note, if anyone laughs at Crick, or Orgel, they are
>> laughing at Ray much louder.
>
> That may even be true of O'Shea, but I'm not sure.

The point being, that even if one were to find the idea of panspermia
laughable, Ray's claims of organisms being fashioned out of clay, and
that no genetic change can happen at all, would be even more outre.

This goes without mentioning the even more risible of Ray's claims
that European Eels mating in the Sargasso Sea is evidence of Atlantis,
or that superintelligent Neanderthals from Atlantis built the Pyramids
to prove the Bible (which hadn't even been written at that time).

For real laughs, get him to tell you some time about how the lost
tribe of Israel founded both Denmark, and London.

>
>>>>> and when we remember the
>>>>> fact that he is not afraid to defend anti-evolutionists, much of the
>>>>> vehement opposition is explained.
>>
>>>> Yes, that is probably the other main reason,
>>
>>> Of course it is.
>>
>> Do you have any evidence to support this?
>
> Well, there was the example, back in July, of jillery accusing me of
> "man-love" for UC because I happened to opine publicly that he had the
> upper hand in what I'd seen so far of him in an argument on the
> following theme: that the common everyday usage of "apes" is that it
> excludes humans. That was before I found out what an absolutist he
> was on the subject.

Whatever your conflicts with other posters here might be, the above is
not evidence that you are being attacked for "defending" anti
evolutionists. UC is not an anti evolutionist, even if he has strange
ideas about language usage.

>
> Anyway, O'Shea backed her up on that, and only a few days ago O'Shea
> claimed I had been "in love with" UC on the basis of that laughably
> flimsy evidence. And jillery chimed in with the comment that it is
> hard to see how I could otherwise have "sided" with UC the way I did
> on that one occasion.
>
> Documentation on request.

Thanks, but it's not really relevant to the accusation that Ray made.

>
>>
>>
>>> Since you refuse to participate in their truth suppressions, slander
>>> attacks, and outright lies, there can be no other reason. We could
>>> only wonder why you remain an Evolutionist?
>>
>> What you are calling "truth suppressions" is just people denying your
>> fantasies. What you call "slander attacks" are merely people pointing
>> out the truth to you. The only "outright lies" come from you, Ray.
>
> You have a lot to learn about O'Shea, jillery, and Ron O. And even
> about Paul Gans, who has been in solidarity with the first two for
> some time.

Again, I'm not really interested in your personal conflicts with others.
What I'm talking about here is Ray's claims. When someone offers
evidence refuting one of Ray's more silly claims, or refuses to accept
one of Ray's paranoid conspiracy fantasies, Ray claims the "truth" is
being suppressed.

When someone says something true about one of Ray's heroes, that he
doesn't want to hear, the refers to it as a "slander attack".

When Ray accuses someone of "outright lies" it's because that person
said something true, that Ray dislikes, or can't refute.

I'm sure you have reasons to feel you've been hard used by those
persons above, but that's not what I meant.

>
> If they don't do all three things against anyone but me, it is only
> because the creationists are a sorry bunch who can be discredited
> without stooping to massive dishonesty.

Whether or not the people you refer to above are guilty of dishonesty
towards you, I'm not going to get into here. My point is that Ray's
accusations above are entirely devoid of merit.

>
> By the way, I'm not asking you to help me against them or even look at
> the mountains of evidence I have amassed against them, especially
> against Ron O and O'Shea.
>
> I only ask that you be a little more careful in how you phrase things
> than you did just now.

Again, I'm not really interested in your own grudges here. I'm calling
Ray to task for his own lies, distortions, and paranoia.

>>
>>
>>> And talking with me will earn you even more rejecttion, Peter. I am
>>> considered the devil in the eyes of your fellow Evolutionists here at
>>> Talk.Origins.
>>
>> Ray, no one here considers you "the devil". At most, you are considered
>> a clown, and at least, a object of pity.
>
> Not by Ron O. He has refused to meet any challenges by Ray on the
> alleged grounds that Ray is insane.

Well, Ron has his reasons for that belief, and I'm not sure he's totally
wrong. That's not the same as considering Ray "the devil".

Ray may not be clinically insane, in the sense that he's a danger to
himself, or others, but he does exhibit a laundry list of abnormal
psychology.

That being said, I suppose that most of the posters here, including
myself, would provide a grad student researching abnormal psychology
with a host of material

>
> In fact, one month before I returned to talk.origins [I returned in
> December 2010] after almost a decade of absence, Ray had challenged
> Ron O about a FALSE claim Ron O had made about Michael Behe. Ray
> alerted me to this thread, and I took up Ray's challenge.
>
> Ron O ducked the issue against me, claiming that he would answer the
> challenge if I made satisfactory reply to him about certain issues.
>
> It soon transpired that Ron O has a habit of loading down his posts
> with all kinds of crap, and as long as he can portray someone as
> "running away" from anything he says, even empty insults, he feels
> entitled to NEVER acknowledge the falsity of anything he says.

Whatever grudges you hold against Ron, the above is not the same as
considering Ray as "the devil". As I said, most posters here consider
Ray a clown, or a object of pity. Ron appears to fall into the later
category.

DJT

[J.J. O'Shea]

On Fri, 9 Nov 2012 23:11:25 -0500, Dana Tweedy wrote
(in article <x_Kdnb0N2t9zTgDN...@giganews.com>):

>>>>> Yes, otherwise you will also be laughing at Crick and Orgel, who
>>>>> originated the hypothesis.
>>>
>>>> They are laughed at too.
>>>
>>> By whom, Ray?
>>
>> By J.J. O'Shea, it would seem. His campaign of defamation against me
>> has resulted in the collateral damage of him calling them
>> "creationists."
>
> Calling someone a creationist is not the same as laughing at that person.

True. However, I _do_ laugh at Peter Der Gross. He knows it. As I told him
directly, I simply don't give a damn about Crick and Orgel, as they don't
post in t.o. If they did, and if they were as twitish as Peter is
(doubtful...) I'd laugh at them, too. They don't, and they are unlikely to be
anywhere the level of Der Gross.

--
email to oshea dot j dot j at gmail dot com.

[Ray Martinez]

> article nowhere mentions directed panspermia....

Exactly what I said upthread. Jill thinks the "frozen accident" paper
is a DP retraction paper. Based on the fact that DP isn't even
mentioned, and based on the fact that it clearly says the authors are
simply re-entertaining possibilities that were dismissed hastily.

I wanted to see what Jill had thinking she had some other paper in
mind that I was not aware. Instead she acted like a spoiled brat, in
need of attention.

> -- jillery seems to have
> acknowledged as much in a later round on this thread -- but ALSO, the
> thing they retracted is not even *relevant* to directed panspermia.
> They had said mad �which the advent of the RNA w
>
> It is somewhat relevant to the odds against abiogenesis, but even
> there, it doesn't alter what they had said in their DP paper, that it
> is impossible to say anything meaningful about how easy or how
> difficult it is.
>
> The "retraction" had to do with one objection that they had made,
> which the advent of the RNA world hypothesis had made obsolete.
>

Yes.

> But here's the kicker: at practically the same time, Orgel also said
> in an article he co-authored with someone else, that RNA world is
> itself incredibly hard to arrive at.
>

Yes, but again, DPism not mentioned.

> I pointed all this out at the time, and jillery ran away. �Not long
> thereafter, 'e killfiled me.
>

Yet she is sniveling to me about being ignored?

> And, since I was the only one who noticed jillery's falsehood AFAIK,
> jillery feels perfectly entitled to go on lying, figuring that since
> [s]he has me killfiled, [s]he can always go on as if I had never said
> anything.
>
> So do me this favor, Ray. �Reply to this post, and sprinkle some
> comments of yours among the ones I've made just now. �Not that jillery
> will ever acknowledge seeing its contents, but [s]he'll have to ignore
> you also, and you can accuse jillery �of documentable dishonesty and
> cowardice.
>
> And who knows, someone like Dana Tweedy might actually do something
> about this.
>
> Peter Nyikos

Dana sticks up for Evolutionists no matter what. He is incapable of
objective thought or actions.

Ray

[Ray Martinez]

> By J.J. O'Shea, it would seem. �ｿｽHis campaign of defamation against me

> has resulted in the collateral damage of him calling them
> "creationists."
>
> > Note, if anyone laughs at Crick, or Orgel, they are
> > laughing at Ray much louder.
>
> That may even be true of O'Shea, but I'm not sure.
>
> > >>> and when we remember the
> > >>> fact that he is not afraid to defend anti-evolutionists, much of the
> > >>> vehement opposition is explained.
>
> > >> Yes, that is probably the other main reason,
>
> > > Of course it is.
>
> > Do you have any evidence to support this?
>
> Well, there was the example, back in July, of jillery accusing me of
> "man-love" for UC because I happened to opine publicly that he had the
> upper hand in what I'd seen so far of him in an argument on the
> following theme: that the common everyday usage of "apes" is that it

> excludes humans. �ｿｽThat was before I found out what an absolutist he

> was on the subject.
>
> Anyway, O'Shea backed her up on that, and only a few days ago O'Shea
> claimed I had been "in love with" UC on the basis of that laughably

> flimsy evidence. �ｿｽAnd jillery chimed in with the comment that it is

> hard to see how I could otherwise have "sided" with UC the way I did
> on that one occasion.
>
> Documentation on request.
>
>
>
> > > Since you refuse to participate in their truth suppressions, slander
> > > attacks, and outright lies, there can be no other reason. We could
> > > only wonder why you remain an Evolutionist?
>
> > What you are calling "truth suppressions" is just people denying your
> > fantasies. What you call "slander attacks" are merely people pointing
> > out the truth to you. The only "outright lies" come from you, Ray.
>

> You have a lot to learn about O'Shea, jillery, and Ron O. �ｿｽAnd even

> about Paul Gans, who has been in solidarity with the first two for
> some time.
>
> If they don't do all three things against anyone but me, it is only
> because the creationists are a sorry bunch who can be discredited
> without stooping to massive dishonesty.
>
> By the way, I'm not asking you to help me against them or even look at
> the mountains of evidence I have amassed against them, especially
> against Ron O and O'Shea.
>
> I only ask that you be a little more careful in how you phrase things
> than you did just now.
>
>
>
> > > And talking with me will earn you even more rejecttion, Peter. I am
> > > considered the devil in the eyes of your fellow Evolutionists here at
> > > Talk.Origins.
>
> > Ray, no one here considers you "the devil". At most, you are considered
> > a clown, and at least, a object of pity.
>

> Not by Ron O. �ｿｽHe has refused to meet any challenges by Ray on the

> alleged grounds that Ray is insane.
>

Yes, that is Ron's position concerning me. In response I have always
said I am relieved to be considered insane by a "Christian" who stands
with Richard Dawkins and not the Bible.

To my knowledge, Ron has never offered a rebuttal.

Ray (Protestant Evangelical)

[jillery]

Rockhead is blatantly and self-righteously lying when he says that I
am lying, Ray.

>Exactly what I said upthread.

Where did you say I was lying?

>Jill thinks the "frozen accident" paper
>is a DP retraction paper.

You didn't mention anything about a "frozen accident" paper before, so
have no idea what you're talking about. Care to give a verifiable
citation?

>Based on the fact that DP isn't even
>mentioned, and based on the fact that it clearly says the authors are
>simply re-entertaining possibilities that were dismissed hastily.
>
>I wanted to see what Jill had thinking she had some other paper in
>mind that I was not aware. Instead she acted like a spoiled brat, in
>need of attention.

If you had really wanted to know, you would have explained your
interest in this when I asked. That you didn't proves what I
suspected about your intentions.

>> -- jillery seems to have
>> acknowledged as much in a later round on this thread -- but ALSO, the
>> thing they retracted is not even *relevant* to directed panspermia.
>> They had said mad �which the advent of the RNA w
>>
>> It is somewhat relevant to the odds against abiogenesis, but even
>> there, it doesn't alter what they had said in their DP paper, that it
>> is impossible to say anything meaningful about how easy or how
>> difficult it is.
>>
>> The "retraction" had to do with one objection that they had made,
>> which the advent of the RNA world hypothesis had made obsolete.
>>
>
>Yes.

It sure would be nice if you would actually identify which paper
you're talking about.

>> But here's the kicker: at practically the same time, Orgel also said
>> in an article he co-authored with someone else, that RNA world is
>> itself incredibly hard to arrive at.
>>
>
>Yes, but again, DPism not mentioned.
>
>> I pointed all this out at the time, and jillery ran away. �Not long
>> thereafter, 'e killfiled me.
>>
>
>Yet she is sniveling to me about being ignored?

So when you asked for an explanation, and I gave it, you equate that
to sniveling. No surprise there. And when I asked for an
explanation, and you don't give it, what adjective do you apply to
that? I can think of several.

>> And, since I was the only one who noticed jillery's falsehood AFAIK,
>> jillery feels perfectly entitled to go on lying, figuring that since
>> [s]he has me killfiled, [s]he can always go on as if I had never said
>> anything.
>>
>> So do me this favor, Ray. �Reply to this post, and sprinkle some
>> comments of yours among the ones I've made just now. �Not that jillery
>> will ever acknowledge seeing its contents, but [s]he'll have to ignore
>> you also, and you can accuse jillery �of documentable dishonesty and
>> cowardice.
>>
>> And who knows, someone like Dana Tweedy might actually do something
>> about this.
>>
>> Peter Nyikos
>
>Dana sticks up for Evolutionists no matter what. He is incapable of
>objective thought or actions.
>
>Ray

Two peons in a pod. If you really disagreed with DP you would support
me here, not rockhead. The fact remains that directed panspermia was
of only passing interest to Crick. The only reason people like
rockhead mentions him is to give their pet nonsense its only
scientific credibility.

[Ray Martinez]

My comment referred to the fact that DPism isn't mentioned in the
alleged retraction paper, Jill. You need to read a person's comments
in context.

> >Jill thinks the "frozen accident" paper
> >is a DP retraction paper.
>
> You didn't mention anything about a "frozen accident" paper before, so
> have no idea what you're talking about. � Care to give a verifiable
> citation?
>

You think the "frozen accident" paper is the DP retraction paper, do
you not?

> >Based on the fact that DP isn't even
> >mentioned, and based on the fact that it clearly says the authors are
> >simply re-entertaining possibilities that were dismissed hastily.
>
> >I wanted to see what Jill had thinking she had some other paper in
> >mind that I was not aware. Instead she acted like a spoiled brat, in
> >need of attention.
>
> If you had really wanted to know, you would have explained your
> interest in this when I asked. �That you didn't proves what I
> suspected about your intentions.
>

I did, Jill. I asked you two times for the support, and explained why
I wanted it. In response you raised a different issue. Based on your
unhappiness in this other issue, you have not posted the support that
I requested.

> >> -- jillery seems to have
> >> acknowledged as much in a later round on this thread -- but ALSO, the
> >> thing they retracted is not even *relevant* to directed panspermia.
> >> They had said mad �which the advent of the RNA w
>
> >> It is somewhat relevant to the odds against abiogenesis, but even
> >> there, it doesn't alter what they had said in their DP paper, that it
> >> is impossible to say anything meaningful about how easy or how
> >> difficult it is.
>
> >> The "retraction" had to do with one objection that they had made,
> >> which the advent of the RNA world hypothesis had made obsolete.
>
> >Yes.
>
> It sure would be nice if you would actually identify which paper
> you're talking about.
>

We are talking about the paper that you think offers a retraction of
DPism.

> >> But here's the kicker: at practically the same time, Orgel also said
> >> in an article he co-authored with someone else, that RNA world is
> >> itself incredibly hard to arrive at.
>
> >Yes, but again, DPism not mentioned.
>
> >> I pointed all this out at the time, and jillery ran away. �Not long
> >> thereafter, 'e killfiled me.
>
> >Yet she is sniveling to me about being ignored?
>
> So when you asked for an explanation, and I gave it, you equate that
> to sniveling. �No surprise there.

Completely false.

You straight out told me that you would not post the support because
of your other issue.

> And when I asked for an
> explanation, and you don't give it, what adjective do you apply to
> that? �I can think of several.
>
>
>
>
>
> >> And, since I was the only one who noticed jillery's falsehood AFAIK,
> >> jillery feels perfectly entitled to go on lying, figuring that since
> >> [s]he has me killfiled, [s]he can always go on as if I had never said
> >> anything.
>
> >> So do me this favor, Ray. �Reply to this post, and sprinkle some
> >> comments of yours among the ones I've made just now. �Not that jillery
> >> will ever acknowledge seeing its contents, but [s]he'll have to ignore
> >> you also, and you can accuse jillery �of documentable dishonesty and
> >> cowardice.
>
> >> And who knows, someone like Dana Tweedy might actually do something
> >> about this.
>
> >> Peter Nyikos
>
> >Dana sticks up for Evolutionists no matter what. He is incapable of
> >objective thought or actions.
>
> >Ray
>
> Two peons in a pod. �If you really disagreed with DP you would support
> me here, not rockhead.

I am on record as BLASTING DPism and Peter's support.

The issue here is your claim about a retraction paper written by Crick
& Orgel.

> The fact remains that directed panspermia was
> of only passing interest to Crick. �The only reason people like
> rockhead mentions him is to give their pet nonsense its only
> scientific credibility.

Crick also wrote a book on the subject.

And he never retracted.

If you believe otherwise then post the link containing the paper.

Ray

[jillery]

And the context starts with rockhead's claim that I am lying. So when
you wrote "exactly what I said", you actually meant "nothing like what
I said". Got it.

>> >Jill thinks the "frozen accident" paper
>> >is a DP retraction paper.
>>
>> You didn't mention anything about a "frozen accident" paper before, so
>> have no idea what you're talking about. � Care to give a verifiable
>> citation?
>>
>
>You think the "frozen accident" paper is the DP retraction paper, do
>you not?

How would I know? I'm still waiting for you to identify what paper
you're talking about.

>> >Based on the fact that DP isn't even
>> >mentioned, and based on the fact that it clearly says the authors are
>> >simply re-entertaining possibilities that were dismissed hastily.
>>
>> >I wanted to see what Jill had thinking she had some other paper in
>> >mind that I was not aware. Instead she acted like a spoiled brat, in
>> >need of attention.
>>
>> If you had really wanted to know, you would have explained your
>> interest in this when I asked. �That you didn't proves what I
>> suspected about your intentions.
>>
>
>I did, Jill.

No, you did not.

>I asked you two times for the support, and explained why
>I wanted it.

It must have been in a different thread. I still have no idea why you
think rockhead's point is important to you.

>In response you raised a different issue.

Different issue? Do you mean the issue of why you would be so
obsessed about a point rockhead raised? Yes, I admit to asking you
that question. And you still haven't answered it.

>Based on your
>unhappiness in this other issue, you have not posted the support that
>I requested.

I expressed no unhappiness. Just stating the facts as I understand
them. Of course and as always YMMV.

>> >> -- jillery seems to have
>> >> acknowledged as much in a later round on this thread -- but ALSO, the
>> >> thing they retracted is not even *relevant* to directed panspermia.
>> >> They had said mad �which the advent of the RNA w
>>
>> >> It is somewhat relevant to the odds against abiogenesis, but even
>> >> there, it doesn't alter what they had said in their DP paper, that it
>> >> is impossible to say anything meaningful about how easy or how
>> >> difficult it is.
>>
>> >> The "retraction" had to do with one objection that they had made,
>> >> which the advent of the RNA world hypothesis had made obsolete.
>>
>> >Yes.
>>
>> It sure would be nice if you would actually identify which paper
>> you're talking about.
>>
>
>We are talking about the paper that you think offers a retraction of
>DPism.

Then you have no idea what you're talking about, because you have yet
to identify what that paper is.

>> >> But here's the kicker: at practically the same time, Orgel also said
>> >> in an article he co-authored with someone else, that RNA world is
>> >> itself incredibly hard to arrive at.
>>
>> >Yes, but again, DPism not mentioned.
>>
>> >> I pointed all this out at the time, and jillery ran away. �Not long
>> >> thereafter, 'e killfiled me.
>>
>> >Yet she is sniveling to me about being ignored?
>>
>> So when you asked for an explanation, and I gave it, you equate that
>> to sniveling. �No surprise there.
>
>Completely false.

So you retract that you think I was sniveling. That was quick.

>You straight out told me that you would not post the support because
>of your other issue.

Wrong explanation. You asked why I wouldn't just tell you, after you
provocative demand that I do so. And I explained why. You seem to be
unhappy with my explanation.

>> And when I asked for an
>> explanation, and you don't give it, what adjective do you apply to
>> that? �I can think of several.
>>
>> >> And, since I was the only one who noticed jillery's falsehood AFAIK,
>> >> jillery feels perfectly entitled to go on lying, figuring that since
>> >> [s]he has me killfiled, [s]he can always go on as if I had never said
>> >> anything.
>>
>> >> So do me this favor, Ray. �Reply to this post, and sprinkle some
>> >> comments of yours among the ones I've made just now. �Not that jillery
>> >> will ever acknowledge seeing its contents, but [s]he'll have to ignore
>> >> you also, and you can accuse jillery �of documentable dishonesty and
>> >> cowardice.
>>
>> >> And who knows, someone like Dana Tweedy might actually do something
>> >> about this.
>>
>> >> Peter Nyikos
>>
>> >Dana sticks up for Evolutionists no matter what. He is incapable of
>> >objective thought or actions.
>>
>> >Ray
>>
>> Two peons in a pod. �If you really disagreed with DP you would support
>> me here, not rockhead.
>
>I am on record as BLASTING DPism and Peter's support.

Good for you and your record. Then pretty please explain why you're
being so contrary to your record here and now.

>The issue here is your claim about a retraction paper written by Crick
>& Orgel.

Wrong again. The issue here is the importance that Crick and Orgel
applied to DP.

>> The fact remains that directed panspermia was
>> of only passing interest to Crick. �The only reason people like
>> rockhead mentions him is to give their pet nonsense its only
>> scientific credibility.
>
>Crick also wrote a book on the subject.

Before or after he wrote that magical mysterious "frozen accident"
paper?

>And he never retracted.
>
>If you believe otherwise then post the link containing the paper.

Since you are so sure you know what it is, why should I bother? Your
mind is made up, so I can't confuse you with facts.

[jillery]

On Sat, 10 Nov 2012 16:07:55 -0800 (PST), Ray Martinez
<pyram...@yahoo.com> wrote:

[...]


>Well, Peter, I'm after their theory and they're after mine. I'm
>actively working on a book refuting Darwinism (in my 7th year of
>research and writing). One day I will publish it online (no paywall).
>When this occurs the real battle will begin.
>
>Ray

Ray, are you channeling Colonel Custer?

[Dana Tweedy]

On 11/10/12 5:13 PM, Ray Martinez wrote:
> On Nov 9, 5:37 pm, pnyikos <nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
snip

>>> Ray, no one here considers you "the devil". At most, you are considered
>>> a clown, and at least, a object of pity.
>>

>> Not by Ron O. He has refused to meet any challenges by Ray on the

>> alleged grounds that Ray is insane.
>>
>
> Yes, that is Ron's position concerning me.

and Ron has some good reasons for thinking that.

> In response I have always
> said I am relieved to be considered insane by a "Christian" who stands
> with Richard Dawkins and not the Bible.

Ron's position, regarding the existence of God is not Richard Dawkins'
position. Ron agrees with Dawkins on matters of science, not matters
of religion.

Moreover, Ron's opinion is based on your behavior, Ray, not on Ron's or
Richard Dawkins' positions regarding evolution.

>
> To my knowledge, Ron has never offered a rebuttal.

How does one "rebut" such a logical fallacy? All one can do is, what
I've done and point out the fallacy.


DJT

[Ray Martinez]

Based on the straw man erected by Ron's supporter, no wonder he has
never attempted rebuttal.

My point stands: I am relieved to be considered insane by a
"Christian" who stands with Dawkins, and not the Bible, concerning the
origin of living things, past and present.

Ray (Protestant Evangelical)

[Ernest Major]

In message
<1524d1e7-1e11-47c1...@v6g2000pbb.googlegroups.com>, Ray
Martinez <pyram...@yahoo.com> writes

Do you think that Tony Pagano would be relieved to be considered insane
by a "Christian" (i.e. Ray Martinez) who stands with Dawkins, and not
the Bible, concerning the motions of the solar system?
>
>Ray (Protestant Evangelical)
>

--
alias Ernest Major

[Ray Martinez]

On Nov 13, 2:12 pm, Ernest Major <{$t...@meden.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> In message
> <1524d1e7-1e11-47c1-9acd-082e961c6...@v6g2000pbb.googlegroups.com>, Ray
> Martinez <pyramid...@yahoo.com> writes

Since the accepted heliocentric model was initiated and crafted by
Christian-Creationists, it doesn't matter. Dawkins stands with
Christian-Creationists (as do all Atheists) including yourself.

Ray

[Burkhard]

Aristarchus of Samos was not a Christian, having lived a couple of
centuries before Christ. he was arguably the first to moot the idea
and to develop a heliocentric model. and in India, Hindu scientists
such as Aryabhata developed at least partially heliocentruic models
long before we did in the West.

[pnyikos]

On Nov 10, 7:12�pm, Ray Martinez <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote:

> His smear campaign to label you "the most dishonest Creationist
> posting at Talk.Origins" most likely originates from Ron Okimoto via
> private emails. I see him as doing the bidding of Ron, his
> intellectual superior.

That's one idea that's crossed my mind. Another is that he sees how
Ron O "gets away with murder" and decided that I am fair game for a
defamation campaign.

And, judging from the response to my new thread, "PLotM for October
2012" so far, he may be right.

> > > > > and when we remember the
> > > > > fact that he is not afraid to defend anti-evolutionists, much of the
> > > > > vehement opposition is explained.
>
> > > > Yes, that is probably the other main reason,
>
> > > Of course it is.
>
> > > Since you refuse to participate in their truth suppressions, slander
> > > attacks, and outright lies, there can be no other reason. We could
> > > only wonder why you remain an Evolutionist?
>
> > Because I am convinced by the scientific evidence.
>

> I hate to admit, which makes your support for evolution even more
> objective.

>
> > The fact that a
> > great mess of people, many of whom are probably in this thing for
> > political reasons and aren't even interested in the science behind
> > evolution, are also shamelessly dishonest and/or hypocritical, should
> > have no influence on ANYONE'S appraisal of the evidence.
>

> Again, more objective thought pouring out of Peter's keyboard.

>
> > And there are quite a few decent people posting to talk.origins on the
> > "evolutionist" side: Inez, Richard Norman, Steven L., and maybe Dana
> > Tweedy, to name the ones I know most about.
>

> Dana is by far THE most rotten and dishonest Evolutionist posting at
> Talk.Origins. We go way back.

That's a mighty tall accusation, considering the competition. What's
your evidence of that?

And by the way, how far back do you and he go, and how far back do you
go in talk.origins?

I became a regular in 1995, having seen a coordinated invasion of a
Christian homeschooling newsgroup by low-lifes from talk.abortion and
what were obviously low-lifes from talk.origins. I pursued the latter
here, and stayed until 2001, after which I went on a posting break of
over 7 years, first returning to talk.abortion in November 2008 and to
talk.origins in December 2010.

> > Dana Tweedy was very reasonable in all the arguments with you that I
> > had seen until this thread.
>

> Re-read last comment.

I await evidence.

> > You may have brought a dark side of his
> > out in the open here, and I'll be replying to him after I'm done with
> > this reply to you.
>
> > Bill (Rogers?) is an avowed atheist, but he also seems to be free of
> > dishonesty and hypocrisy, but I've seen too little of him to be
> > confident about that. What's your take on him?
>

> Just recently, in a topic I authored ("Observation v. Inference") he
> was checkmated but refused to acknowledged. I used his own words and
> arguments. He flew the coup in humiliation.

That's "coop". Looks like you can count coup in that thread.

But, I'm from Missouri where claims of you checkmating an evolutionist
are concerned. I agree it happens: you checkmated Ron O a month
before I returned here, after all.

That was because the topic was not evolution, but what Behe has said
or not said. It's usually a piece of cake, checkmating an anti-Behe
zealot about that sort of thing.

> > By the way, Glenn seems harmless, if somewhat quirky and cryptic, only
> > I don't know where he stands on evolution.
>

> Glenn is a very knowledgeable Theistic Evolutionist. Like yourself, he
> can produce real objective
> thoughts. He has defended arguments that I made. He is not afraid to
> side with Creationists. And at other times he has accused me of lying.
> When I asked him to produce the quotes he ignored the request.

Perhaps he was just trying to be merciful. ("Blessed are the merciful,
for they shall obtain mercy.")

> > Do you know whether he
> > accepts common descent of all organisms from a few unicellular ones,
> > like I do? Or at least all vertebrates from a common ancestor?
>

> Glenn accepts Darwinian Tree of Life CD. He believes in a front
> loading Creator, and he claims to follow Christ.

Thanks for the info.

> > > And talking with me will earn you even more rejection, Peter. I am

> > > considered the devil in the eyes of your fellow Evolutionists here at
> > > Talk.Origins.
>
> > It's questionable whether the people who consider me to be something
> > like a devil (Ron O, O'Shea, jillery) consider you to be more of a
> > devil than me. The same applies to people allied with one or more of
> > them, like Paul Gans.
>

> Talk.Origins contains cliques headed by certain persons. But John
> Harshman and John Wilkins appear to be the bosses.

These two go at least 16 years back, as do Coffey, Gans, Hemidactylus,
Hershey, Isaak, Siemon and Stockman. It's inevitable that there
should be a warm comaraderie between these. Where do you get the idea
that the two Johns are likely to be the bosses?

> Under them are
> capos, like Ron and Bob Casanova.

I'm pretty sure I never encountered Ron O in my first stay in
talk.origins. Not sure about Casanova.


> Both Bob and Ron have a number of
> soldiers that follow them. Jillery, for example, is beholden to Bob.

In what way? this surprises me, because the two of them had a tiff a
while back. And I don't mean just a disagreement about facts. The
old-timers I named above do argue from time to time, but I've never
seen any tiffs between them.

> Recently, John Wilkins mentioned that he has me killfiled. He is
> actually hoping anyone and everyone follows suit. But he won't give
> the order. In response I observed "what Creationist isn't in his
> killfile"?
>
> But from time to time John Wilkins has said some objective things
> about certain claims and arguments that I have made. He deserves
> credit. �A while back I posted some criticism (concerning Atheism)
> over at his blog. His response was unkind. So I got the picture and
> haven't posted since. But don't get me wrong, John Wilkins is very
> informative.

Yes, he is knowledgeable about a lot of things. He's the only t.o.
regular who seems to know more philosophy than I do.

> > As for the others, I think most of them like to talk to you too,
> > though not in what I would call friendly way. So I don't think that
> > talking to you the way I've been doing lately (mostly in a rather
> > unfriendly way, not like in this post) will earn me any black marks in
> > their book.
>
> > > Ray (anti-evolutionist)
>
> > Peter Nyikos
>

> Well, Peter, I'm after their theory and they're after mine. I'm
> actively working on a book refuting Darwinism (in my 7th year of
> research and writing). One day I will publish it online (no paywall).
> When this occurs the real battle will begin.
>
> Ray

Or the real slaughter. Like one Confederate general said about the
incredibly bloody battle of Cold Harbor: "This wasn't war. This was
murder."

And the Confederates really outscored the Union in that battle.

Peter Nyikos

[pnyikos]

Ernest Major has a point here: if Ray is going to go to the Bible for
his species immutabilism, why doesn't he go there for his ideas about
the solar system?

> > Since the accepted heliocentric model was initiated and crafted by
> > Christian-Creationists, it doesn't matter. Dawkins stands with
> > Christian-Creationists (as do all Atheists) including yourself.
>
>  Aristarchus of Samos was not a Christian, having lived a couple of
> centuries before Christ. he was arguably the first to moot the idea
> and to develop a heliocentric model. and in India, Hindu scientists
> such as Aryabhata developed at least partially heliocentruic models
> long before we did in the West.

That's irrelevant: just as we credit 19th century scientists rather
than Democritus for developing the modern atomic theory, so we credit
Copernicus, Kepler and Galileo Newton for developing the modern
heliocentric theory. In fact it was only with Newton that the theory
was put on its modern ground.

And Newton was a religious Christian.

Peter Nyikos

[Dana Tweedy]

On 11/13/12 2:18 PM, Ray Martinez wrote:
> On Nov 10, 7:02 pm, Dana Tweedy <reddfrog...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On 11/10/12 5:13 PM, Ray Martinez wrote:> On Nov 9, 5:37 pm, pnyikos <nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>>
>> snip
>>
>>>>> Ray, no one here considers you "the devil". At most, you are considered
>>>>> a clown, and at least, a object of pity.
>>
>>>> Not by Ron O. He has refused to meet any challenges by Ray on the
>>>> alleged grounds that Ray is insane.
>>
>>> Yes, that is Ron's position concerning me.
>>
>> and Ron has some good reasons for thinking that.
>>
>>> In response I have always
>>> said I am relieved to be considered insane by a "Christian" who stands
>>> with Richard Dawkins and not the Bible.
>>
>> Ron's position, regarding the existence of God is not Richard Dawkins'
>> position. Ron agrees with Dawkins on matters of science, not matters
>> of religion.
>>
>> Moreover, Ron's opinion is based on your behavior, Ray, not on Ron's or
>> Richard Dawkins' positions regarding evolution.
>>
>>
>>
>>> To my knowledge, Ron has never offered a rebuttal.
>>
>> How does one "rebut" such a logical fallacy? All one can do is, what
>> I've done and point out the fallacy.
>>
>> DJT
>
> Based on the straw man erected by Ron's supporter, no wonder he has
> never attempted rebuttal.

What is the "straw man" you are claiming?

>
> My point stands: I am relieved to be considered insane by a
> "Christian" who stands with Dawkins, and not the Bible, concerning the
> origin of living things, past and present.

Except that Ron does not stand with Dawkins on matters relating to the
Bible. You, Ray agree with Dawkins that if evidence for God isn't
found, God does not exist. The Bible does not say that the origin of
living things cannot have been by natural processes. That's your own
conceit.

DJT

[Dana Tweedy]

The accepted non existence of a global flood was initiated and crafted
by Christians who believed in special creation as well. Why do you not
accept that Noah's flood was a myth?

> Dawkins stands with
> Christian-Creationists (as do all Atheists) including yourself.

Dawkins stands with the belief that God's existence is a matter of
evidence, like yourself. Christians who accept evolution disagree with
Dawkins on that point.

You, Ray, stand with Dawkins more than anyone else. You ignore the
scientific evidence, and accept his theological assumptions.

DJT

[pnyikos]

On Nov 10, 7:42�pm, Ray Martinez <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Nov 10, 4:17 pm, jillery <69jpi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Sat, 10 Nov 2012 15:23:54 -0800 (PST), Ray Martinez
>
> > <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > >On Nov 9, 6:22 pm, pnyikos <nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote:

...about jillery's claim that Crick and Orgel retracted Directed
Panspermia (DP):

> > >> Jillery is lying, Ray. I have seen the alleged "retraction," and the
> > >> article nowhere mentions directed panspermia....
>
> > Rockhead is blatantly and self-righteously lying when he says that I
> > am lying, Ray.

What shameless dishonesty! You can bet your bottom dollar that if
ANYTHING I say about the paper below were untrue, Jillery would post
the cite in a heartbeat.

But, cowardly liar that Jillery is, 'e doesn't even dare deny any
factual statements I made below about the paper.

> > >Exactly what I said upthread.
>
> > Where did you say I was lying?
>
> My comment referred to the fact that DPism isn't mentioned in the
> alleged retraction paper, Jill. You need to read a person's comments
> in context.
>
> > >Jill thinks the "frozen accident" paper
> > >is a DP retraction paper.
>
> > You didn't mention anything about a "frozen accident" paper before, so
> > have no idea what you're talking about. Care to give a verifiable
> > citation?

This is rich! after twice refusing to give a verifiable citation for
that huge claim about Crick and Orgel, Jillery asks YOU for a
verifiable resource.

I suppose if you say you asked first, the retort might be "Sounds like
`Mommie, he hit me first!' Are you sure you're an adult?"

> You think the "frozen accident" paper is the DP retraction paper, do
> you not?
>
> > >Based on the fact that DP isn't even
> > >mentioned, and based on the fact that it clearly says the authors are
> > >simply re-entertaining possibilities that were dismissed hastily.
>
> > >I wanted to see what Jill had thinking she had some other paper in
> > >mind that I was not aware. Instead she acted like a spoiled brat, in
> > >need of attention.
>
> > If you had really wanted to know, you would have explained your
> > interest in this when I asked. That you didn't proves what I
> > suspected about your intentions.
>
> I did, Jill. I asked you two times for the support, and explained why
> I wanted it. In response you raised a different issue. Based on your
> unhappiness in this other issue, you have not posted the support that
> I requested.

It occurs to me that one HUGE reason you might be interested is that
you have called DP an atheist theory because it was due to atheists.
If the atheists who started it retracted it, then you no longer have
grounds for calling it one.

> > >> -- jillery seems to have
> > >> acknowledged as much in a later round on this thread -- but ALSO, the
> > >> thing they retracted is not even *relevant* to directed panspermia.

[small snip]

> > >> It is somewhat relevant to the odds against abiogenesis, but even
> > >> there, it doesn't alter what they had said in their DP paper, that it
> > >> is impossible to say anything meaningful about how easy or how
> > >> difficult it is.
>
> > >> The "retraction" had to do with one objection that they had made,
> > >> which the advent of the RNA world hypothesis had made obsolete.
>
> > >Yes.
>
> > It sure would be nice if you would actually identify which paper
> > you're talking about.

Note the failure of jillery to either confirm or deny that the paper
'e is talking about contains what I say it does.

> We are talking about the paper that you think offers a retraction of
> DPism.
>
> > >> But here's the kicker: at practically the same time, Orgel also said
> > >> in an article he co-authored with someone else, that RNA world is
> > >> itself incredibly hard to arrive at.
>
> > >Yes, but again, DPism not mentioned.
>
> > >> I pointed all this out at the time, and jillery ran away. Not long
> > >> thereafter, 'e killfiled me.
>
> > >Yet she is sniveling to me about being ignored?

Tut, tut. You gave jillery a perfect excuse ("sniveling") to ignore
what I wrote.

But one thing is undeniable: jillery ignored it, [s]he did not deny
any of it.

> > So when you asked for an explanation, and I gave it, you equate that
> > to sniveling. No surprise there.
>
> Completely false.
>
> You straight out told me that you would not post the support because
> of your other issue.
>
> > And when I asked for an
> > explanation, and you don't give it, what adjective do you apply to
> > that? I can think of several.
>
> > >> And, since I was the only one who noticed jillery's falsehood AFAIK,
> > >> jillery feels perfectly entitled to go on lying, figuring that since
> > >> [s]he has me killfiled, [s]he can always go on as if I had never said
> > >> anything.
>
> > >> So do me this favor, Ray. Reply to this post, and sprinkle some
> > >> comments of yours among the ones I've made just now. Not that jillery
> > >> will ever acknowledge seeing its contents, but [s]he'll have to ignore
> > >> you also, and you can accuse jillery of documentable dishonesty and
> > >> cowardice.

Well, jillery isn't exactly ignoring you yet, but [s]he is talking
past you most of the time.

Concluded in next reply.

Peter Nyikos

[pnyikos]

On Nov 10, 7:42 pm, Ray Martinez <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Nov 10, 4:17 pm, jillery <69jpi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Sat, 10 Nov 2012 15:23:54 -0800 (PST), Ray Martinez
>
> > <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > >On Nov 9, 6:22 pm, pnyikos <nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote:

Repeating a bit from my first reply for continuity:

> > >> So do me this favor, Ray. Reply to this post, and sprinkle some
> > >> comments of yours among the ones I've made just now. Not that jillery
> > >> will ever acknowledge seeing its contents, but [s]he'll have to ignore
> > >> you also, and you can accuse jillery of documentable dishonesty and
> > >> cowardice.
>
> > >> And who knows, someone like Dana Tweedy might actually do something
> > >> about this.
>
> > >> Peter Nyikos
>
> > >Dana sticks up for Evolutionists no matter what. He is incapable of
> > >objective thought or actions.

That's quite the opposite of what I've thought of Dana until this
thread, but that doesn't stop jillery from acting like someone
jillery, Gans and O'Shea would call a "paranoid conspiracy theorist"
if that person were an adversary making a statement even half as
strong as what jillery wrote next:

> > Two peons in a pod. If you really disagreed with DP you would support
> > me here, not rockhead.

Nor did the following undeniable fact stop jillery from acting like a
"paranoid conspiracy theorist":

> I am on record as BLASTING DPism and Peter's support.

And even blasting me for supporting it. But jillery is so self-
righteous, it probably doesn't even occur to her/him that [s]he is
completely hypocritical when calling people "paranoid" and "conspiracy
theorists" on far flimsier grounds.

> The issue here is your claim about a retraction paper written by Crick
> & Orgel.
>
> > The fact remains that directed panspermia was
> > of only passing interest to Crick.

Jillery has no grounds for thinking this, none whatsoever. I was
converted from a "Mother Earth did it [abiogenesis] easily" supporter
to my present state largely on the basis of Crick's _Life Itself_.

But then, jillery is determined to revenge all the times I showed her/
him to be lying or just wrong [like, about Doolittle, and about Crick
and Orgel]. And the revenge has reached the proportions of Cain if not
yet that of Lamech:

Lamech said to his wives,
"Adah and Zillah, hear my voice,
Lamech's wives, listen to what I have to say:
I killed a man for wounding me,
a boy for striking me.
Sevenfold revenge is taken for Cain,
but seventy-sevenfold for Lamech.
--Genesis 4: 23-24.

> > The only reason people like
> > rockhead mentions him is to give their pet nonsense its only
> > scientific credibility.

Jillery is indulging in blatant Argument from Authority. Unable to
refute DP, 'e pretends, in effect, that ONLY certified world-class
scientists can make ANY theory credible.

I say "in effect" because jillery, being a non-Christian, does not see
anything wrong with being a shameless hypocrite who would never dream
of talking about the theories of friends in that way, even if the
authority for THEM is far from being a Nobel Laureate.

> Crick also wrote a book on the subject.
>
> And he never retracted.
>
> If you believe otherwise then post the link containing the paper.

Needless to say, jillery refused.

Perhaps it is time to call jillery's bluff and actually post the cite
for that paper, then demand that jillery either acknowledge that this
is the paper 'e was talking about, or post a cite for some other
paper.

But you'll have to do it, because jillery has me killfiled.

Peter Nyikos

[Dana Tweedy]

On 11/13/12 5:41 PM, pnyikos wrote:
snip

>>
>> Well, Peter, I'm after their theory and they're after mine. I'm
>> actively working on a book refuting Darwinism (in my 7th year of
>> research and writing). One day I will publish it online (no paywall).
>> When this occurs the real battle will begin.
>>
>> Ray
>
> Or the real slaughter. Like one Confederate general said about the
> incredibly bloody battle of Cold Harbor: "This wasn't war. This was
> murder."
>
> And the Confederates really outscored the Union in that battle.

It's not likely that Ray's "book" will produce a slaughter. His oft
touted "book" will be just as deadly as Gen John Magruder's Quaker Guns
at Yorktown were against McClellan's army.


The difference is that "Prince" John's wooden artillery were mistaken
for a credible threat. No one is making that mistake with Ray's alleged
"book'. Only Ray could spend seven years of "research" and be even
LESS informed about the topic than when he began.

DJT

[jillery]

On Tue, 13 Nov 2012 19:57:17 -0700, Dana Tweedy
<reddf...@gmail.com> wrote:

>On 11/13/12 5:41 PM, pnyikos wrote:
>snip
>
>
>>>
>>> Well, Peter, I'm after their theory and they're after mine. I'm
>>> actively working on a book refuting Darwinism (in my 7th year of
>>> research and writing). One day I will publish it online (no paywall).
>>> When this occurs the real battle will begin.
>>>
>>> Ray
>>
>> Or the real slaughter. Like one Confederate general said about the
>> incredibly bloody battle of Cold Harbor: "This wasn't war. This was
>> murder."
>>
>> And the Confederates really outscored the Union in that battle.

Typical rockhead tripe, to obsess about a battle won while ignore
winning the war.

>It's not likely that Ray's "book" will produce a slaughter. His oft
>touted "book" will be just as deadly as Gen John Magruder's Quaker Guns
>at Yorktown were against McClellan's army.
>
>
> The difference is that "Prince" John's wooden artillery were mistaken
>for a credible threat. No one is making that mistake with Ray's alleged
>"book'. Only Ray could spend seven years of "research" and be even
>LESS informed about the topic than when he began.

Ray and rockhead deserve each other.

[Walter Bushell]

In article
<3227a50c-7dd2-43e3...@g8g2000yqp.googlegroups.com>,

Heretical though.

--
This space unintentionally left blank.

[alextangent]

He was an non-trinitrarian. That is, according to the religious
Christian of his day, a heretic. His interest in the occult is well
documented. At best you might describe him as "a peculiar Christian".

>
> Peter Nyikos

[pnyikos]

On Nov 9, 11:12 pm, Dana Tweedy <reddfrog...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 11/9/12 6:33 PM, pnyikos wrote:> On Nov 8, 5:47 pm, Dana Tweedy <reddfrog...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> snip
>
> >>>> Yes, otherwise you will also be laughing at Crick and Orgel, who
> >>>> originated the hypothesis.
>
> >>> They are laughed at too.
>
> >> By whom, Ray?
>
> > By J.J. O'Shea, it would seem.  His campaign of defamation against me
> > has resulted in the collateral damage of him calling them
> > "creationists."
>
> Calling someone a creationist is not the same as laughing at that person.

If you are a highly politicized anti-creationist, there isn't a dime's
worth of difference there.

[laughable opinions of Martinez snipped here, to get to the last one]

>   For real laughs, get him to tell you some time about how the lost
> tribe of Israel founded both Denmark, and London.

Only one lost tribe? I thought ten was the standard number.

Anyway, does he also think some Amerinds have their origin there, as
some Mormons do?

> >>>>> and when we remember the
> >>>>> fact that he is not afraid to defend anti-evolutionists, much of the
> >>>>> vehement opposition is explained.
>
> >>>> Yes, that is probably the other main reason,
>
> >>> Of course it is.
>
> >> Do you have any evidence to support this?
>
> > Well, there was the example, back in July, of jillery accusing me of
> > "man-love" for UC because I happened to opine publicly that he had the
> > upper hand in what I'd seen so far of him in an argument on the
> > following theme: that the common everyday usage of "apes" is that it
> > excludes humans.  That was before I found out what an absolutist he
> > was on the subject.
>
> Whatever your conflicts with other posters here might be, the above is
> not evidence that you are being attacked for "defending" anti
> evolutionists.   UC is not an anti evolutionist, even if he has strange
> ideas about language usage.

OK, I stand corrected; but I was defending something that didn't sit
well with most of my fellow evolutionists in that particular
argument. They insist that we are apes, even if they fall short of
saying we are fishes.

> > Anyway, O'Shea backed her up on that, and only a few days ago O'Shea
> > claimed I had been "in love with" UC on the basis of that laughably
> > flimsy evidence.  And jillery chimed in with the comment that it is
> > hard to see how I could otherwise have "sided" with UC the way I did
> > on that one occasion.
>
> > Documentation on request.
>
> Thanks, but it's not really relevant to the accusation that Ray made.

Well, then, I will "defend" Ray by saying that the evidence available
to me indicates that he is considerably less insane than Ron O.

This is something you seem to disagree with, judging from the last
reply you made to Ray on the 10th.

> >>> Since you refuse to participate in their truth suppressions, slander
> >>> attacks, and outright lies, there can be no other reason. We could
> >>> only wonder why you remain an Evolutionist?
>
> >> What you are calling "truth suppressions" is just people denying your
> >> fantasies.   What you call "slander attacks" are merely people pointing
> >> out the truth to you.   The only "outright lies" come from you, Ray.
>
> > You have a lot to learn about O'Shea, jillery, and Ron O.  And even
> > about Paul Gans, who has been in solidarity with the first two for
> > some time.
>
> Again, I'm not really interested in your personal conflicts with others.

And as a corollary, it would seem that you are not really interested
in whether O'Shea, jillery, and Ron O. are pathological liars.

So, why are you really interested in whether Martinez is one? [I'm
interested in all such cases, btw.]

Anyway, you really need to rephrase what you said, because I see no
reason to think that Ray ONLY meant himself as the target.

>   What I'm talking about here is Ray's claims.   When someone offers
> evidence refuting one of Ray's more silly claims, or refuses to accept
> one of Ray's paranoid conspiracy fantasies, Ray claims the "truth" is
> being suppressed.

>    When someone says something true about one of Ray's heroes, that he
> doesn't want to hear, the refers to it as a "slander attack".

Now, we come to the crux of the matter: has Ray ever accused anyone of
suppressing the truth, slander attacks, etc. when some t.o. regular
other than myself was concerned? [I don't count because I can't very
well be expected to join in on slander attacks, etc. directed at
myself.]

>    When Ray accuses someone of "outright lies" it's because that person
> said something true, that Ray dislikes, or can't refute.

Are you sure this is invariably the case? I'd like to hear Ray's side
on this.

[snip]

> >>> And talking with me will earn you even more rejecttion, Peter. I am
> >>> considered the devil in the eyes of your fellow Evolutionists here at
> >>> Talk.Origins.
>
> >> Ray, no one here considers you "the devil".  At most, you are considered
> >> a clown, and at least, a object of pity.
>
> > Not by Ron O.  He has refused to meet any challenges by Ray on the
> > alleged grounds that Ray is insane.
>
> Well, Ron has his reasons for that belief, and I'm not sure he's totally
> wrong.   That's not the same as considering Ray "the devil".

Perhaps not, but Ron O certainly seems to consider me to be the
nearest thing to a devil in this newsgroup. Are you sure he has a
better opinion of Ray?

>    Ray may not be clinically insane, in the sense that he's a danger to
> himself, or others,  but he does exhibit a laundry list of abnormal
> psychology.

Ditto Ron O: psychopath, pseudologue, narcissistic, abnormally self-
righteous and possibly even self-worshipping.

Ah, but you are only interested in Ray's abnormal traits, aren't you?
[Well, maybe not: your parting shot below leaves room for thinking
otherwise.]

>    That being said, I suppose that most of the posters here, including
> myself, would provide a grad student researching abnormal psychology
> with a host of material

Really? I think that most of them are as I described in a thread
about Behe's upcoming Toronto lecture series:

"There are any number of people,
including old-timers from that era and even before, who continually
remind me of the spin-doctoring that spokespersons for the Democratic
and Republican parties indulge in immediately after every
Presidential debate, with no attempt from the media interviewers to
seriously cross-examine either of them.

"Of course, if they knew a cross-examination was coming, these spin
doctors probably wouldn't consent to give commentaries in the first
place."

>
>
> > In fact, one month before I returned to talk.origins [I returned in
> > December 2010] after almost a decade of absence, Ray had challenged
> > Ron O about a FALSE claim Ron O had made about Michael Behe.  Ray
> > alerted me to this thread, and I took up Ray's challenge.
>
> > Ron O ducked the issue against me, claiming that he would answer the
> > challenge if I made satisfactory reply to him about certain issues.
>
> > It soon transpired that Ron O has a habit of loading down his posts
> > with all kinds of crap, and as long as he can portray someone as
> > "running away" from anything he says, even empty insults, he feels
> > entitled to NEVER acknowledge the falsity of anything he says.
>
> Whatever grudges you hold against Ron, the above is not the same as
> considering Ray as "the devil".   As I said, most posters here consider
> Ray a clown, or a object of pity.   Ron appears to fall into the later
> category.

I've seen Roger Shrubber treat Ron in a way that could be construed as
pity, but no one else. Got any more examples?

Peter Nyikos

[pnyikos]

On Nov 13, 9:27 pm, Dana Tweedy <reddfrog...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 11/13/12 2:18 PM, Ray Martinez wrote:
> >On Nov 10, 7:02 pm, Dana Tweedy <reddfrog...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> On 11/10/12 5:13 PM, Ray Martinez wrote:> On Nov 9, 5:37 pm, pnyikos <nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote:

About Ron Okimoto:

> >>> I have always
> >>> said I am relieved to be considered insane by a "Christian" who stands
> >>> with Richard Dawkins and not the Bible.
>
> >> Ron's position, regarding the existence of God is not Richard Dawkins'
> >> position.   Ron agrees with Dawkins on matters of science, not matters
> >> of religion.

That remains to be seen. More below.

> >> Moreover, Ron's opinion is based on your behavior, Ray, not on Ron's or
> >> Richard Dawkins' positions regarding evolution.

Debatable. Some of Ron's opinion of *me* is based on the fact that I
support the idea of the panspermists being the source of ID in the
first prokaryotes, with which they seeded earth. That the immediate
origin of earth life is due to panspermists, not homegrown
abiogenesis, is what Ray has been referring to as my "DI"
hypothesis.

This "ID" hypothesis is a separate, though related, issue, one which
has marked me in Ron O's mind as being an "ID promoter".

[snip]

>
> > My point stands: I am relieved to be considered insane by a
> > "Christian" who stands with Dawkins, and not the Bible, concerning the
> > origin of living things, past and present.
>
> Except that Ron does not stand with Dawkins on matters relating to the
> Bible.

I am highly skeptical about Ron being a Christian, or believing in the
Bible, in any meaningful sense of the word.

Oh, sure, he's a member of the Methodist Church, but the most
effective fanatic in talk.abortion was for many years a member of
ELCA. Then in 2009 he admitted that he was an atheist, and behaved
like the "best" of them.

Even while he was a member of ELCA, I opined publicly that he had no
more business being a member than the jotun Loki had for being a blood
brother of Odin.

>You, Ray agree with Dawkins that if evidence for God isn't
> found, God does not exist.     The Bible does not say that the origin of
> living things cannot have been by natural processes.  That's your own
> conceit.

True enough where plants are concerned: Genesis depicts God as
commanding the earth to "bring forth" vegetation. "And so it was."

Peter Nyikos

[pnyikos]

On Nov 13, 9:57�pm, Dana Tweedy <reddfrog...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 11/13/12 5:41 PM, pnyikos wrote:
> snip
>
>
>
> >> Well, Peter, I'm after their theory and they're after mine. I'm
> >> actively working on a book refuting Darwinism (in my 7th year of
> >> research and writing). One day I will publish it online (no paywall).
> >> When this occurs the real battle will begin.
>
> >> Ray
>
> > Or the real slaughter. �Like one Confederate general said about the
> > incredibly bloody battle of Cold Harbor: "This wasn't war. �This was
> > murder."

In less than 15 minutes, there were at least 3,500 Union casualties.

> > And the Confederates really outscored the Union in that battle.
>
> It's not likely that Ray's "book" will produce a slaughter.

I was referring to the possiblity of *his* ideas in the book being
slaughtered. Unless he is very cagey about what he calls
"Darwinism" [by which I mean, at least as cagey as Behe], that is
exactly what is going to happen.

> His oft
> touted "book" will be just as deadly as Gen John Magruder's Quaker Guns
> at Yorktown were against McClellan's army.

On this, we are agreed. And if you've followed my replies to Martinez
in earlier threads, you can see why.

> � The difference is that "Prince" John's wooden artillery were mistaken

> for a credible threat. �No one is making that mistake with Ray's alleged
> "book'. � Only Ray could spend seven years of "research" and be even
> LESS informed about the topic than when he began.

That sounds like Ray, all right.

Peter Nyikos

[pnyikos]

On Nov 13, 10:52�pm, jillery <69jpi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Tue, 13 Nov 2012 19:57:17 -0700, Dana Tweedy
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> <reddfrog...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >On 11/13/12 5:41 PM, pnyikos wrote:
> >snip
>
> >>> Well, Peter, I'm after their theory and they're after mine. I'm
> >>> actively working on a book refuting Darwinism (in my 7th year of
> >>> research and writing). One day I will publish it online (no paywall).
> >>> When this occurs the real battle will begin.
>
> >>> Ray
>
> >> Or the real slaughter. �Like one Confederate general said about the
> >> incredibly bloody battle of Cold Harbor: "This wasn't war. �This was
> >> murder."
>
> >> And the Confederates really outscored the Union in that battle.
>
> Typical rockhead tripe, to obsess about a battle won while ignore
> winning the war.

I wonder whether Jillery knows that I am a transplanted "Yankee" down
here, or cares. I'm glad the Union won the war, but that doesn't mean
I can't admire the gallantry of people on *both* sides dying for a
cause they believed in.

I wonder whether jillery has the same low opinion of Robert E. Lee as
the hired gun in the movie "Shane" displayed.

> >It's not likely that Ray's "book" will produce a slaughter. �His oft
> >touted "book" will be just as deadly as Gen John Magruder's Quaker Guns
> >at Yorktown were against McClellan's army.
>
> > �The difference is that "Prince" John's wooden artillery were mistaken
> >for a credible threat. �No one is making that mistake with Ray's alleged
> >"book'. � Only Ray could spend seven years of "research" and be even
> >LESS informed about the topic than when he began.
>
> Ray and rockhead deserve each other.

Heh heh. Jillery is even more clueless about what I meant than Dana
was.

But then, that's to be expected: all Ray's fulminations against me,
and all my rebuttals of Ray's idiotic arguments against evolution,
mean nothing to jillery, who is a political animal through and
through.

Peter Nyikos

[pnyikos]

On Nov 13, 11:52 pm, Walter Bushell <pr...@panix.com> wrote:
> In article
> <3227a50c-7dd2-43e3-9f53-d094acf85...@g8g2000yqp.googlegroups.com>,

By whose standards?

Peter Nyikos

[Walter Bushell]

In article
<39651c20-600d-41a8...@c16g2000yqe.googlegroups.com>,

Certainly by the Church of England, and since he was an Arian by all
the Roman Church descended Christian religion, with the possible
exception of the Unitarians. He rejected Trinitarianism.

[pnyikos]

On Nov 14, 10:07 am, Walter Bushell <pr...@panix.com> wrote:
> In article

> <39651c20-600d-41a8-acbf-f99a24937...@c16g2000yqe.googlegroups.com>,

Arianism is a relatively mild form of trinity-denial. Arius held
Jesus to be far more than just a man, higher even than the angels,
just short of the fullness of divinity.

Peter Nyikos

[Dana Tweedy]

On 11/14/12 6:42 AM, pnyikos wrote:
> On Nov 9, 11:12 pm, Dana Tweedy <reddfrog...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On 11/9/12 6:33 PM, pnyikos wrote:> On Nov 8, 5:47 pm, Dana Tweedy <reddfrog...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> snip
>>
>>>>>> Yes, otherwise you will also be laughing at Crick and Orgel, who
>>>>>> originated the hypothesis.
>>
>>>>> They are laughed at too.
>>
>>>> By whom, Ray?
>>
>>> By J.J. O'Shea, it would seem. His campaign of defamation against me
>>> has resulted in the collateral damage of him calling them
>>> "creationists."
>>
>> Calling someone a creationist is not the same as laughing at that person.
>
> If you are a highly politicized anti-creationist, there isn't a dime's
> worth of difference there.
>
> [laughable opinions of Martinez snipped here, to get to the last one]
>
>> For real laughs, get him to tell you some time about how the lost
>> tribe of Israel founded both Denmark, and London.
>
> Only one lost tribe? I thought ten was the standard number.
>
> Anyway, does he also think some Amerinds have their origin there, as
> some Mormons do?

I don't know. Ray hasn't really expressed much opinion on the Mormons.
He does seem to think that the town of in Mexico, Mazatlan holds a
reference to the lost city of Atlantis.

>
>>>>>>> and when we remember the
>>>>>>> fact that he is not afraid to defend anti-evolutionists, much of the
>>>>>>> vehement opposition is explained.
>>
>>>>>> Yes, that is probably the other main reason,
>>
>>>>> Of course it is.
>>
>>>> Do you have any evidence to support this?
>>
>>> Well, there was the example, back in July, of jillery accusing me of
>>> "man-love" for UC because I happened to opine publicly that he had the
>>> upper hand in what I'd seen so far of him in an argument on the
>>> following theme: that the common everyday usage of "apes" is that it
>>> excludes humans. That was before I found out what an absolutist he
>>> was on the subject.
>>
>> Whatever your conflicts with other posters here might be, the above is
>> not evidence that you are being attacked for "defending" anti
>> evolutionists. UC is not an anti evolutionist, even if he has strange
>> ideas about language usage.
>
> OK, I stand corrected; but I was defending something that didn't sit
> well with most of my fellow evolutionists in that particular
> argument. They insist that we are apes, even if they fall short of
> saying we are fishes.

As far as I'm concerned, we are apes, and fish, and vertebrates, and
eukaryotes. I don't see any problem with cladistics.

>
>
>>> Anyway, O'Shea backed her up on that, and only a few days ago O'Shea
>>> claimed I had been "in love with" UC on the basis of that laughably
>>> flimsy evidence. And jillery chimed in with the comment that it is
>>> hard to see how I could otherwise have "sided" with UC the way I did
>>> on that one occasion.
>>
>>> Documentation on request.
>>
>> Thanks, but it's not really relevant to the accusation that Ray made.
>
> Well, then, I will "defend" Ray by saying that the evidence available
> to me indicates that he is considerably less insane than Ron O.
>
> This is something you seem to disagree with, judging from the last
> reply you made to Ray on the 10th.

I haven't really seen any actions on Ron's part that indicate insanity,
but then again, I don't read many of Ron's posts.

>
>>>>> Since you refuse to participate in their truth suppressions, slander
>>>>> attacks, and outright lies, there can be no other reason. We could
>>>>> only wonder why you remain an Evolutionist?
>>
>>>> What you are calling "truth suppressions" is just people denying your
>>>> fantasies. What you call "slander attacks" are merely people pointing
>>>> out the truth to you. The only "outright lies" come from you, Ray.
>>
>>> You have a lot to learn about O'Shea, jillery, and Ron O. And even
>>> about Paul Gans, who has been in solidarity with the first two for
>>> some time.
>>
>> Again, I'm not really interested in your personal conflicts with others.
>
> And as a corollary, it would seem that you are not really interested
> in whether O'Shea, jillery, and Ron O. are pathological liars.

I haven't seen any posts where O'Shea, Jillery, or Ron O. have exhibited
that kind of behavior. As above, I don't really read their posts unless
they replying on a thread I'm participating in.

>
> So, why are you really interested in whether Martinez is one? [I'm
> interested in all such cases, btw.]

Mostly because Ray's lying has often been directed at me personally.
Ray hates me with a passion because I'm living proof that not everyone
who accepts evolution is an atheist.

>
> Anyway, you really need to rephrase what you said, because I see no
> reason to think that Ray ONLY meant himself as the target.

I did not mean to suggest that Ray meant only himself, although Ray is
rather self centered, and seems to take thing personally that aren't
directed at him specifically.

>
>> What I'm talking about here is Ray's claims. When someone offers
>> evidence refuting one of Ray's more silly claims, or refuses to accept
>> one of Ray's paranoid conspiracy fantasies, Ray claims the "truth" is
>> being suppressed.
>
>> When someone says something true about one of Ray's heroes, that he
>> doesn't want to hear, the refers to it as a "slander attack".
>
> Now, we come to the crux of the matter: has Ray ever accused anyone of
> suppressing the truth, slander attacks, etc. when some t.o. regular
> other than myself was concerned?

Of course. Quite often, in fact. Ray claims "slander" whenever anyone
points out something true about Gene Scott, (such as him not being the
world's greatest scholar) or if anyone mentions Gene's widow's previous
career as a soft core porn star.

Here's a good example of Ray ranting about "slander" from 2007

https://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/1b09886637368a0d?dmode=source&output=gplain&noredirect&pli=1

And here's evidence supporting Mrs. Scott's porn career.

http://www.marieclaire.com/world-reports/news/melissa-scott-porn-pastor
http://www.anorak.co.uk/209326/news/us-evengelist-melissa-scott-was-porn-star-barbie-bridges.html/
http://www.buzzfeed.com/peggy/melissa-scott

Here's Ray claiming "truth suppression"

https://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/2dba7732139a9e06?dmode=source&output=gplain&noredirect

> [I don't count because I can't very
> well be expected to join in on slander attacks, etc. directed at
> myself.]
>
>> When Ray accuses someone of "outright lies" it's because that person
>> said something true, that Ray dislikes, or can't refute.
>
> Are you sure this is invariably the case? I'd like to hear Ray's side
> on this.

The above is some good examples, but here's one more.

https://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/a8b77139fb8af0e6?dmode=source&output=gplain&noredirect

In the above post, Ray is commenting on Richard Clayton having send an
email to the Stanford University Registrar's office, to determine if
Gene Scott had the kind of degree Ray claimed Gene had. Note how Ray
deals with the news.

>
> [snip]
>>>>> And talking with me will earn you even more rejecttion, Peter. I am
>>>>> considered the devil in the eyes of your fellow Evolutionists here at
>>>>> Talk.Origins.
>>
>>>> Ray, no one here considers you "the devil". At most, you are considered
>>>> a clown, and at least, a object of pity.
>>
>>> Not by Ron O. He has refused to meet any challenges by Ray on the
>>> alleged grounds that Ray is insane.
>>
>> Well, Ron has his reasons for that belief, and I'm not sure he's totally
>> wrong. That's not the same as considering Ray "the devil".
>
> Perhaps not, but Ron O certainly seems to consider me to be the
> nearest thing to a devil in this newsgroup. Are you sure he has a
> better opinion of Ray?

I have not seen anywhere suggesting that Ron considers Ray to be the
devil. Ray has a tendency to claim martyrdom points he has not earned.

>
>> Ray may not be clinically insane, in the sense that he's a danger to
>> himself, or others, but he does exhibit a laundry list of abnormal
>> psychology.
>
> Ditto Ron O: psychopath, pseudologue, narcissistic, abnormally self-
> righteous and possibly even self-worshipping.

Well, that's your opinion. I don't have enough evidence to make such a
determination.

>
> Ah, but you are only interested in Ray's abnormal traits, aren't you?
> [Well, maybe not: your parting shot below leaves room for thinking
> otherwise.]

Whatever conflict you have with Ron O. is not really my business. I
believe you are exaggerating above, but either way, it's not my concern.

>
>> That being said, I suppose that most of the posters here, including
>> myself, would provide a grad student researching abnormal psychology
>> with a host of material
>
> Really? I think that most of them are as I described in a thread
> about Behe's upcoming Toronto lecture series:
>
> "There are any number of people,
> including old-timers from that era and even before, who continually
> remind me of the spin-doctoring that spokespersons for the Democratic
> and Republican parties indulge in immediately after every
> Presidential debate, with no attempt from the media interviewers to
> seriously cross-examine either of them.
>
> "Of course, if they knew a cross-examination was coming, these spin
> doctors probably wouldn't consent to give commentaries in the first
> place."

We is all crazies here, some in different ways than others.

>
>>
>>
>>> In fact, one month before I returned to talk.origins [I returned in
>>> December 2010] after almost a decade of absence, Ray had challenged
>>> Ron O about a FALSE claim Ron O had made about Michael Behe. Ray
>>> alerted me to this thread, and I took up Ray's challenge.
>>
>>> Ron O ducked the issue against me, claiming that he would answer the
>>> challenge if I made satisfactory reply to him about certain issues.
>>
>>> It soon transpired that Ron O has a habit of loading down his posts
>>> with all kinds of crap, and as long as he can portray someone as
>>> "running away" from anything he says, even empty insults, he feels
>>> entitled to NEVER acknowledge the falsity of anything he says.
>>
>> Whatever grudges you hold against Ron, the above is not the same as
>> considering Ray as "the devil". As I said, most posters here consider
>> Ray a clown, or a object of pity. Ron appears to fall into the later
>> category.
>
> I've seen Roger Shrubber treat Ron in a way that could be construed as
> pity, but no one else. Got any more examples?

The fact that most people don't bother to reply to Ray is one.

DJT

[jillery]

On Sat, 10 Nov 2012 21:32:37 -0500, jillery <69jp...@gmail.com>

wrote:

>On Sat, 10 Nov 2012 16:39:40 -0800 (PST), Ray Martinez
><pyram...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>>On Nov 10, 4:17 pm, jillery <69jpi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> On Sat, 10 Nov 2012 15:23:54 -0800 (PST), Ray Martinez
>>> <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote:

[...]

>>> >Jill thinks the "frozen accident" paper
>>> >is a DP retraction paper.
>>>
>>> You didn't mention anything about a "frozen accident" paper before, so
>>> have no idea what you're talking about.   Care to give a verifiable
>>> citation?
>>>
>>
>>You think the "frozen accident" paper is the DP retraction paper, do
>>you not?
>
>
>How would I know? I'm still waiting for you to identify what paper
>you're talking about.

Say Ray, do you intend to ever identify the paper you say I'm talking
about?

[...]

[pnyikos]

On Nov 14, 5:32 pm, Dana Tweedy <reddfrog...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 11/14/12 6:42 AM, pnyikos wrote:
>
> > On Nov 9, 11:12 pm, Dana Tweedy <reddfrog...@gmail.com> wrote:

> >>    What I'm talking about here is Ray's claims.   When someone offers
> >> evidence refuting one of Ray's more silly claims, or refuses to accept
> >> one of Ray's paranoid conspiracy fantasies, Ray claims the "truth" is
> >> being suppressed.
>
> >>     When someone says something true about one of Ray's heroes, that he
> >> doesn't want to hear, the refers to it as a "slander attack".
>
> > Now, we come to the crux of the matter: has Ray ever accused anyone of
> > suppressing the truth, slander attacks, etc. when some t.o. regular
> > other than myself was concerned?

I should have phrased the above more carefully. Substitute "under
attack" for "was concerned."

> Of course.  Quite often, in fact.   Ray claims "slander" whenever anyone
> points out something true about Gene Scott, (such as him not being the
> world's greatest scholar) or if anyone mentions Gene's widow's previous
> career as a soft core porn star.

Looks like he badly overuses the word "slander," from your
description.

> Here's a good example of Ray ranting about "slander" from 2007
>

> https://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/1b09886637368a0d?dmo...

>
> And here's evidence supporting Mrs. Scott's porn career.
>
> http://www.marieclaire.com/world-reports/news/melissa-scott-porn-pastor

> http://www.anorak.co.uk/209326/news/us-evengelist-melissa-scott-was-p...

> http://www.buzzfeed.com/peggy/melissa-scott
>
> Here's Ray claiming "truth suppression"
>

> https://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/2dba7732139a9e06?dmo...

>
> > [I don't count because I can't very
> > well be expected to join in on slander attacks, etc. directed at
> > myself.]
>
> >>     When Ray accuses someone of "outright lies" it's because that person
> >> said something true, that Ray dislikes, or can't refute.
>
> > Are you sure this is invariably the case?  I'd like to hear Ray's side
> > on this.
>
> The above is some good examples, but here's one more.
>

> https://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/a8b77139fb8af0e6?dmo...

>
> In the above post, Ray is commenting on Richard Clayton having send an
> email to the Stanford University Registrar's office, to determine if
> Gene Scott had the kind of degree Ray claimed Gene had.  Note how Ray
> deals with the news.

I'm short on time now, but I'll take a look and comment some time next
week. I very seldom post on weekends, btw.

>
>
> > [snip]
> >>>>> And talking with me will earn you even more rejecttion, Peter. I am
> >>>>> considered the devil in the eyes of your fellow Evolutionists here at
> >>>>> Talk.Origins.
>
> >>>> Ray, no one here considers you "the devil".  At most, you are considered
> >>>> a clown, and at least, a object of pity.
>
> >>> Not by Ron O.  He has refused to meet any challenges by Ray on the
> >>> alleged grounds that Ray is insane.
>
> >> Well, Ron has his reasons for that belief, and I'm not sure he's totally
> >> wrong.   That's not the same as considering Ray "the devil".
>
> > Perhaps not, but Ron O certainly seems to consider me to be the
> > nearest thing to a devil in this newsgroup.  Are you sure he has a
> > better opinion of Ray?
>
> I have not seen anywhere suggesting that Ron considers Ray to be the
> devil.  Ray has a tendency to claim martyrdom points he has not earned.

I'll keep your comments in mind.

>
>
> >>     Ray may not be clinically insane, in the sense that he's a danger to
> >> himself, or others,  but he does exhibit a laundry list of abnormal
> >> psychology.
>
> > Ditto Ron O: psychopath, pseudologue, narcissistic, abnormally self-
> > righteous and possibly even self-worshipping.
>
> Well, that's your opinion.  I don't have enough evidence to make such a
> determination.

A mature and responsible response. I should add, though, that I have
several megabytes of evidence by now, some of it very strong.
[small snip]

>
> >>     That being said, I suppose that most of the posters here, including
> >> myself, would provide a grad student researching abnormal psychology
> >> with a host of material
>
> > Really?  I think that most of them are as I described in a thread
> > about Behe's upcoming Toronto lecture series:
>
> > "There are any number of people,
> > including old-timers from that era and even before, who continually
> > remind me of the spin-doctoring that spokespersons for the Democratic
> > and Republican parties  indulge in immediately after every
> > Presidential debate, with no attempt from the media interviewers to
> > seriously cross-examine either of them.
>
> > "Of course, if they knew a cross-examination was coming, these spin
> > doctors probably wouldn't consent to give commentaries in the first
> > place."
>
> We is all crazies here, some in different ways than others.

I hear you, Cheshire Puss. :-)

>
>
> >>> In fact, one month before I returned to talk.origins [I returned in
> >>> December 2010] after almost a decade of absence, Ray had challenged
> >>> Ron O about a FALSE claim Ron O had made about Michael Behe.  Ray
> >>> alerted me to this thread, and I took up Ray's challenge.
>
> >>> Ron O ducked the issue against me, claiming that he would answer the
> >>> challenge if I made satisfactory reply to him about certain issues.
>
> >>> It soon transpired that Ron O has a habit of loading down his posts
> >>> with all kinds of crap, and as long as he can portray someone as
> >>> "running away" from anything he says, even empty insults, he feels
> >>> entitled to NEVER acknowledge the falsity of anything he says.
>
> >> Whatever grudges you hold against Ron, the above is not the same as
> >> considering Ray as "the devil".   As I said, most posters here consider
> >> Ray a clown, or a object of pity.   Ron appears to fall into the later
> >> category.
>
> > I've seen Roger Shrubber treat Ron in a way that could be construed as
> > pity, but no one else.  Got any more examples?
>
> The fact that most people don't bother to reply to Ray is one.

I said Ron, not Ray.

Peter Nyikos

[pnyikos]

On Nov 10, 7:12 pm, Ray Martinez <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Nov 9, 5:07 pm, pnyikos <nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote:

> > On Nov 8, 2:02 pm, Ray Martinez <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Nov 8, 7:12 am, pnyikos <nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote:

> > Anyway, O'Shea makes a great "poster boy" for anyone advancing the
> > theisis, "There is something rotten in the state of talk.origins."

While I've been waiting for replies to my last few posts from you,
Ray, there have been some new developments concerning this "poster
boy".

More about this below.

> His smear campaign to label you "the most dishonest Creationist
> posting at Talk.Origins" most likely originates from Ron Okimoto via
> private emails. I see him as doing the bidding of Ron, his
> intellectual superior.

[snip]

> > The fact that a
> > great mess of people, many of whom are probably in this thing for
> > political reasons and aren't even interested in the science behind
> > evolution, are also shamelessly dishonest and/or hypocritical, should
> > have no influence on ANYONE'S appraisal of the evidence.
>
> Again, more objective thought pouring out of Peter's keyboard.
>
> > And there are quite a few decent people posting to talk.origins on the
> > "evolutionist" side: Inez, Richard Norman, Steven L., and maybe Dana
> > Tweedy, to name the ones I know most about.
>
> Dana is by far THE most rotten and dishonest Evolutionist posting at
> Talk.Origins. We go way back.

Are you gathering evidence for this last remark? Is that why you
didn't participate these last two days?

> > Dana Tweedy was very reasonable in all the arguments with you that I
> > had seen until this thread.
>
> Re-read last comment.

No evidence yet.
[snip]

>
> > > And talking with me will earn you even more rejection, Peter. I am

> > > considered the devil in the eyes of your fellow Evolutionists here at
> > > Talk.Origins.
>

> > It's questionable whether the people who consider me to be something
> > like a devil (Ron O, O'Shea, jillery) consider you to be more of a
> > devil than me. The same applies to people allied with one or more of
> > them, like Paul Gans.
>
> Talk.Origins contains cliques headed by certain persons. But John

> Harshman and John Wilkins appear to be the bosses. Under them are
> capos, like Ron and Bob Casanova. Both Bob and Ron have a number of

> soldiers that follow them. Jillery, for example, is beholden to Bob.

I was surprised by this, but no longer. I had a good opinion of Bob
Casanova until he shackled himself to a libel by Jillery's staunch
ally O'Shea this week. It happened on the PLotM thread I set up on
Monday.

He is now so firmly shackled that it would take an act of courage such
as I have never seen on Usenet, for him to break the chain that binds
him to O'Shea.

But what evidence do you have that either Harshman or Wilkins is
behind anything like this? Paul Gans does seem to be, and he might be
the Capo di tutti Capi here. He is allied with (though not yet
shackled to) O'Shea and Jillery, who seem to look up to him.

These two, and Ron and Bob, are so openly dishonest, they don't seem
to care who knows it. Not so Gans. He is the most cunningly
dishonest regular in t.o. by far, from what I've seen of him. He
could be nicknamed the Teflon Don of talk.origins.

Have a nice weekend. I've got a lot on my plate this weekend, myself,
but some of it will be enjoyable.

Peter Nyikos

[Earle Jones]

In article
<4e44a7a2-9ba2-4bfc...@i2g2000pbi.googlegroups.com>,

Ray Martinez <pyram...@yahoo.com> wrote:

> On Nov 9, 5:07�pm, pnyikos <nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> > On Nov 8, 2:02�pm, Ray Martinez <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >
> > > On Nov 8, 7:12�am, pnyikos <nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote:

> > > > On Nov 6, 10:02 pm, Ray Martinez <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote:

[...]


*
What amazes me is that a trained and educated mathematician (Peter
Nyikos) spends time arguing with an uneducated creationist like Ray
Martinez. What is to be gained?

Martinez has no idea of the workings of science. I think that Nyikos
has at least some inkling of the subject.

Neither talks about evidence and observations and the explanations of
the observed.

I should really killfile both, except that I am somehow drawn to the
conflict, just as the situation when driving past a wrecked car, it is
very difficult to look away from the bleeding.

earle
*

[pnyikos]

On Nov 17, 1:52 am, Earle Jones <earle.jo...@comcast.net> wrote:
> In article
> <4e44a7a2-9ba2-4bfc-8f3b-be81c5d47...@i2g2000pbi.googlegroups.com>,

>  Ray Martinez <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > On Nov 9, 5:07 pm, pnyikos <nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> > > On Nov 8, 2:02 pm, Ray Martinez <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > > On Nov 8, 7:12 am, pnyikos <nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> > > > > On Nov 6, 10:02 pm, Ray Martinez <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> [...]
>
> *
> What amazes me is that a trained and educated mathematician (Peter
> Nyikos) spends time arguing with an uneducated creationist like Ray
> Martinez.  What is to be gained?

Exchanges of information about other posters, for one thing. I was
here 1995-2001, he was here several years before I returned in 2010,
and I suspect that it is only by volunteering information about those
early years that I am going to get any information from here about the
near-decade I missed.

> Martinez has no idea of the workings of science.  I think that Nyikos
> has at least some inkling of the subject.

Thanks for damning me with faint praise. :-)

> Neither talks about evidence and observations and the explanations of
> the observed.

You are in the wrong thread for that. Try the one where the following
post was made, where there is a real, on-and-off donnybrook between
us.

http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/68285ddbd2e91aab

The one by me immediately preceding that is where the real
bloodletting occurred; this one is more of a mopping-up operation.

Since then, there have been a number of other bloodlettings on that
thread, but this is the post whose url I found easily.

> I should really killfile both, except that I am somehow drawn to the
> conflict, just as the situation when driving past a wrecked car, it is
> very difficult to look away from the bleeding.
>
> earle

Perhaps that explains why you are posting on this thread, rather than
the one I talk about above. :-)

But seriously, you'll have a hard time looking away from Ray's efforts
to stop his bleeding, and from my opening fresh wounds.

Peter Nyikos

[jillery]

On Thu, 15 Nov 2012 14:08:16 -0500, jillery <69jp...@gmail.com>

Typically, Ray runs away. Based only on the above, I can only assume
Ray assumes I was thinking of this article:

<http://profiles.nlm.nih.gov/ps/access/SCBCCB.pdf>

I note this was written in 1968, before Crick and Orgel's original
article mentioning DP in 1972, and before their book published in
1981. I do not assert that Crick and Orgel retracted DP before they
proposed it. Ray and rockhead lied. QED.

[pnyikos]

On Nov 20, 10:47 pm, jillery <69jpi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Thu, 15 Nov 2012 14:08:16 -0500, jillery <69jpi...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> >On Sat, 10 Nov 2012 21:32:37 -0500, jillery <69jpi...@gmail.com>
> >wrote:

>
> >>On Sat, 10 Nov 2012 16:39:40 -0800 (PST), Ray Martinez
> >><pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> >>>On Nov 10, 4:17 pm, jillery <69jpi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>> On Sat, 10 Nov 2012 15:23:54 -0800 (PST), Ray Martinez
> >>>> <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> >[...]
>
> >>>> >Jill thinks the "frozen accident" paper
> >>>> >is a DP retraction paper.
>
> >>>> You didn't mention anything about a "frozen accident" paper before, so
> >>>> have no idea what you're talking about.   Care to give a verifiable
> >>>> citation?
>
> >>>You think the "frozen accident" paper is the DP retraction paper, do
> >>>you not?
>
> >>How would I know?  I'm still waiting for you to identify what paper
> >>you're talking about.
>
> >Say Ray, do you intend to ever identify the paper you say I'm talking
> >about?
>
> Typically, Ray runs away.  Based only on the above, I can only assume
> Ray assumes I was thinking of this article:
>
> <http://profiles.nlm.nih.gov/ps/access/SCBCCB.pdf>
>
> I note this was written in 1968, before Crick and Orgel's original
> article mentioning DP in 1972, and before their book published in
> 1981.  I do not assert that Crick and Orgel retracted DP before they
> proposed it.  Ray and rockhead lied.  QED

No wonder jillery has me killfiled. She has decided to post crap
about me with reckless abandon, never giving a damn about being caught
lying by me.

[Feminine pronoun adopted for reasons I have explained elsewhere.
Will repeat them if anyone requests.]

Fact is, if jillery weren't such a dishonest conspiracy theorist, she
would stop and look at something I wrote to Ray, which was preserved
in a reply to Ray by jillery, and which utterly demolishes her QED.

It makes it pretty clear that I was referring to a 1993 article which
jillery had referenced, NOT a 1968 article. As I pointed out, that
article was published in the SAME MONTH in which the following
statement by Orgel and a co-author appeared:

Scientists interested in the origins of life seem to
divide neatly into two classes. The first, usually
but not always molecular biologists, believe that
RNA must have been the first replicating molecule
and that chemists are exaggerating the difficulty
of nucleotide synthesis. ... The second group
of scientists is much more pessimistic. They believe
that the de novo appearance of oligonucleotides on
the primitive earth would have been a near miracle.
(The authors subscribe to this latter view). Time
will tell which is correct.
--G. F. Joyce and Leslie E. Orgel, "Prospects
for understanding the origin of the RNA
world," in: _The RNA World_, ed. R. F.
Gesteland and J. F. Atkins, Cold Spring
Harbor Press, 1993, p. 19.

This statement shredded jillery's speculation about Crick and Orgel
recanting directed panspermia, and I explained why in the reply to Ray
to which I refer above.

Jillery still hasn't reposted the reference she cited in support of
her baseless speculation. She has told too many lies about it, and
her QED above is just the latest attempt to divert attention from this
unsavory fact.

Peter Nyikos

[jillery]

On Tue, 20 Nov 2012 22:48:13 -0500, jillery <69jp...@gmail.com>

And still no reply. No surprise. It is what Ray does when he doesn't
want to admit he's wrong.

[Nick Keighley]

On Nov 7, 3:02�am, Ray Martinez <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> In a different topic (which has reached almost 500 posts) Peter and I
> have been going at it for a long time, interrupted by illness and
> life's commitments. So I wish to start afresh and continue at the same
> time.
>
> I wish this topic to be for anyone who has a beef with Peter. I truly
> marvel over the fact that Peter Nyikos, known scholar and diehard
> Evolutionist, attracts vehement opposition from other Evolutionists.
>
> But when we remember the simple fact that Peter is a Directed
> Panspermist (please refrain from laughing), and when we remember the

> fact that he is not afraid to defend anti-evolutionists, much of the

> vehement opposition is explained. It seems that both facts cause his
> evo brothers to think he is some sort of double agent.
>
> At any rate, my beef against Peter is his insistence that he is
> Agnostic. He says there is a less than 1% percent chance that a
> Creator exists, which means he is 99% sure that Atheism is true, and
> he accepts fully material assumptions to explain reality and
> scientific evidence. Moreover, Directed Panspermia is a pro-Atheism
> doctrine. It specifically denies that an invisible Creator was
> responsible for biological First Cause----that's one reason why Crick
> & Orgel wrote the seminal paper defending the idea (the other reason
> being the impossibility of abiogenesis). So I have argued three facts
> that support his Atheism.
>
> Then there is the issue of the source for his ideas about God. Peter
> says he obtained them from other scholars involved in the existence of
> God debate that has gone on since time began. Peter: where did these
> scholars obtain their ideas about God?

made them up

[Nick Keighley]

On Nov 8, 2:52 am, Ray Martinez <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Nov 6, 7:27 pm, Boikat <boi...@bellsouth.net> wrote:

>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Nov 6, 9:02 pm, Ray Martinez <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > In a different topic (which has reached almost 500 posts) Peter and I
> > > have been going at it for a long time, interrupted by illness and
> > > life's commitments. So I wish to start afresh and continue at the same
> > > time.
>
> > > I wish this topic to be for anyone who has a beef with Peter. I truly
> > > marvel over the fact that Peter Nyikos, known scholar and diehard
> > > Evolutionist, attracts vehement opposition from other Evolutionists.
>
> > > But when we remember the simple fact that Peter is a Directed
> > > Panspermist (please refrain from laughing), and when we remember the
> > > fact that he is not afraid to defend anti-evolutionists, much of the
> > > vehement opposition is explained. It seems that both facts cause his
> > > evo brothers to think he is some sort of double agent.
>
> > > At any rate, my beef against Peter is his insistence that he is
> > > Agnostic. He says there is a less than 1% percent chance that a
> > > Creator exists, which means he is 99% sure that Atheism is true, and
> > > he accepts fully material assumptions to explain reality and
> > > scientific evidence. Moreover, Directed Panspermia is a pro-Atheism
> > > doctrine. It specifically denies that an invisible Creator was
> > > responsible for biological First Cause----that's one reason why Crick
> > > & Orgel wrote the seminal paper defending the idea (the other reason
> > > being the impossibility of abiogenesis). So I have argued three facts
> > > that support his Atheism.
>

> > How do you *know* that abiognesis is impossible?
>
> Never seen life arise from non-life.
>
> The same would be miraculous.

never seen a star form, never seen Pluto complete an orbit, never seen
the battle of Hastings or a living dinosaur (sparrows don't count)

[Nick Keighley]

On Nov 8, 7:02 pm, Ray Martinez <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Nov 8, 7:12 am, pnyikos <nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote:

> > On Nov 6, 10:02 pm, Ray Martinez <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote:

<snip>

> Since you refuse to participate in <"evolutionists"> truth suppressions,

what truth supression? That the world was made in 6 days?

> slander attacks, and outright lies, there can be no other reason. We could
> only wonder why you remain an Evolutionist?

because of the evidence?

> And talking with me will earn you even more rejecttion, Peter. I am

> considered the devil in the eyes of your fellow Evolutionists here at
> Talk.Origins.

<snip>

[Nick Keighley]

On Nov 9, 8:07 pm, Ray Martinez <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Nov 8, 8:52 pm, jillery <69jpi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Thu, 8 Nov 2012 19:34:57 -0800 (PST), Ray Martinez
> > <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > >On Nov 8, 6:47 pm, jillery <69jpi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >> On Thu, 8 Nov 2012 17:47:43 -0800 (PST), Ray Martinez
> > >> <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > >> >On Nov 8, 12:37 pm, jillery <69jpi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >> >> On Thu, 8 Nov 2012 10:58:53 -0800 (PST), Ray Martine

> > >> >> <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > >> >> >On Nov 8, 7:12 am, pnyikos <nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> > >> >> >> On Nov 6, 10:02 pm, Ray Martinez <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote:

> > >> >> >> Yes, otherwise you will also be laughing at Crick and Orgel, who
> > >> >> >> originated the hypothesis.
>
> > >> >> >They are laughed at too.
>

> > >> >> Not for proposing it, and not since they retracted their support of
> > >> >> it.
>
> > >> >What are you waiting for....post the support.
>
> > >> You lost me. Support for what? That they were *not* laughed at? I'm
> > >> assuming you won't accept the word of my Aunt Mabel.
>
> > >Support for the alleged retraction!
>
> > I have posted it several times before. But I'm curious why you
> > challenge it, and in such a provocative way.
>
> How is "Support for the alleged retraction!" provocative?

"what are you waiting for...post the support"
"Support for the alleged retraction!"

you could have just asked, politely

> Don't answer, my question is rhetorical. Now would you please post
> said retraction? Do you expect persons to take your word regarding a
> major retraction claim?

from Circk's wikipedia page

"In the early 1970s, Crick and Orgel further speculated about the
possibility that the production of living systems from molecules may
have been a very rare event in the universe, but once it had developed
it could be spread by intelligent life forms using space travel
technology, a process they called "directed panspermia".[62] In a
retrospective article,[63] Crick and Orgel noted that they had been
overly pessimistic about the chances of abiogenesis on Earth when they
had assumed that some kind of self-replicating protein system was the
molecular origin of life."

though they don't specifically mention panspermia in that reference.

> > How does the veracity of
> > my statement make any difference to you or your assertions?
>
> What assertions?
>
> And more importantly, what does Peter Nyikos think of your retraction
> claim?

you could ask him

> Can you answer simple questions in a prompt and straightforward
> manner?

could you ask prompt and straightforward questions?

<snip>

[Nick Keighley]

On Nov 11, 12:17 am, jillery <69jpi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Sat, 10 Nov 2012 15:23:54 -0800 (PST), Ray Martinez
> <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote:

> >On Nov 9, 6:22 pm, pnyikos <nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote:

<snip>

[Crick and Orgel retracted an earlier hypothesis about directed
panspermia]

> >> Jillery is lying, Ray. I have seen the alleged "retraction," and the
> >> article nowhere mentions directed panspermia....
>
> Rockhead is blatantly and self-righteously lying when he says that I
> am lying, Ray.

name calling is pretty unnecessary.

> >Exactly what I said upthread.
>
> Where did you say I was lying?

>
> >Jill thinks the "frozen accident" paper
> >is a DP retraction paper.
>
> You didn't mention anything about a "frozen accident" paper before, so
> have no idea what you're talking about.   Care to give a verifiable
> citation?

http://www.fasebj.org/content/7/1/238.long

if it wasn't that paper which paper was it? Everyone is being pretty
snarky but I've some sympathy with Ray and Peter! If Crick clearly
withdrew his support for Panspermia it should be really easy for you
to find a suitable cite.

> >Based on the fact that DP isn't even
> >mentioned, and based on the fact that it clearly says the authors are
> >simply re-entertaining possibilities that were dismissed hastily.
>
> >I wanted to see what Jill had thinking she had some other paper in
> >mind that I was not aware. Instead she acted like a spoiled brat, in
> >need of attention.
>
> If you had really wanted to know, you would have explained your
> interest in this when I asked.  That you didn't proves what I
> suspected about your intentions.

what?!

> >> -- jillery seems to have
> >> acknowledged as much in a later round on this thread -- but ALSO, the
> >> thing they retracted is not even *relevant* to directed panspermia.
> >> They had said mad which the advent of the RNA w
>
> >> It is somewhat relevant to the odds against abiogenesis, but even
> >> there, it doesn't alter what they had said in their DP paper, that it
> >> is impossible to say anything meaningful about how easy or how
> >> difficult it is.
>
> >> The "retraction" had to do with one objection that they had made,
> >> which the advent of the RNA world hypothesis had made obsolete.
>
> >Yes.
>
> It sure would be nice if you would actually identify which paper
> you're talking about.

you too!

> >> But here's the kicker: at practically the same time, Orgel also said
> >> in an article he co-authored with someone else, that RNA world is
> >> itself incredibly hard to arrive at.
>
> >Yes, but again, DPism not mentioned.
>
> >> I pointed all this out at the time, and jillery ran away. Not long
> >> thereafter, 'e killfiled me.
>
> >Yet she is sniveling to me about being ignored?
>
> So when you asked for an explanation, and I gave it, you equate that
> to sniveling.  No surprise there.  And when I asked for an
> explanation, and you don't give it, what adjective do you apply to
> that?  I can think of several.

<snip>

> Two peons in a pod.  If you really disagreed with DP you would support

> me here, not rockhead.  The fact remains that directed panspermia was
> of only passing interest to Crick.  The only reason people like

[Nick Keighley]

On Nov 15, 7:07 pm, jillery <69jpi...@gmail.com> wrote:

he asked first why don't you give the cite you are talking about?

[jillery]

On Sun, 25 Nov 2012 03:24:48 -0800 (PST), Nick Keighley
<nick_keigh...@hotmail.com> wrote:

>On Nov 11, 12:17 am, jillery <69jpi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Sat, 10 Nov 2012 15:23:54 -0800 (PST), Ray Martinez
>> <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> >On Nov 9, 6:22 pm, pnyikos <nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>
><snip>
>
>[Crick and Orgel retracted an earlier hypothesis about directed
>panspermia]
>
>> >> Jillery is lying, Ray. I have seen the alleged "retraction," and the
>> >> article nowhere mentions directed panspermia....
>>
>> Rockhead is blatantly and self-righteously lying when he says that I
>> am lying, Ray.
>
>name calling is pretty unnecessary.

And when Ray and Rockhead call me a liar, that pretty much establishes
their standards here, but you choose to ignore their indiscretion and
focus on mine. ISTM 'Rockhead is mild in comparison. YMMV.

>> >Exactly what I said upthread.
>>
>> Where did you say I was lying?
>>
>> >Jill thinks the "frozen accident" paper
>> >is a DP retraction paper.
>>
>> You didn't mention anything about a "frozen accident" paper before, so
>> have no idea what you're talking about.   Care to give a verifiable
>> citation?
>
>http://www.fasebj.org/content/7/1/238.long
>
>if it wasn't that paper which paper was it? Everyone is being pretty
>snarky but I've some sympathy with Ray and Peter! If Crick clearly
>withdrew his support for Panspermia it should be really easy for you
>to find a suitable cite.

I'm glad you explicitly confirm your apparent sympathy for Ray and
Rockhead, and dismiss any pretense of being fair and impartial. But
it's dangerous to jump into the middle of a thread without
familiarizing yourself with its history. Ray incorrectly assumed I
meant a particular article, and based on that, agreed with Rockhead
that I was lying. ISTM that isn't sympathetic behavior. Again YMMV.

>> >Based on the fact that DP isn't even
>> >mentioned, and based on the fact that it clearly says the authors are
>> >simply re-entertaining possibilities that were dismissed hastily.
>>
>> >I wanted to see what Jill had thinking she had some other paper in
>> >mind that I was not aware. Instead she acted like a spoiled brat, in
>> >need of attention.
>>
>> If you had really wanted to know, you would have explained your
>> interest in this when I asked.  That you didn't proves what I
>> suspected about your intentions.
>
>what?!

What what?!

>> >> -- jillery seems to have
>> >> acknowledged as much in a later round on this thread -- but ALSO, the
>> >> thing they retracted is not even *relevant* to directed panspermia.
>> >> They had said mad which the advent of the RNA w
>>
>> >> It is somewhat relevant to the odds against abiogenesis, but even
>> >> there, it doesn't alter what they had said in their DP paper, that it
>> >> is impossible to say anything meaningful about how easy or how
>> >> difficult it is.
>>
>> >> The "retraction" had to do with one objection that they had made,
>> >> which the advent of the RNA world hypothesis had made obsolete.
>>
>> >Yes.
>>
>> It sure would be nice if you would actually identify which paper
>> you're talking about.
>
>you too!

I am still unclear what dog Ray has in this fight. Which is a
question I also ask of you. Let's see if you're more willing to
answer that than is Ray.

[jillery]

First, Ray didn't ask. He demanded, and in a provocative way. Second,
if you bothered to familiarize yourself with the thread before you
jumped into the middle of it, you should have noticed that I didn't
talk about any particular cite until Ray and Rockhead asserted that I
did. HTH

[Nick Keighley]

gosh how ill mannered of him.

Second,
> if you bothered to familiarize yourself with the thread before you
> jumped into the middle of it, you should have noticed that I didn't
> talk about any particular cite until Ray and Rockhead asserted that I
> did.   HTH

you said crick recanted on his panspermia. You were repeatedly asked
for a cite. They guessed which paper you were talking about (the same
one as I found) and pointed out it didn't mention panspermia. So why
don't you just give the cite?

Personnally I have no axe to grind. I think panspermia (directed or
otherwise) is complete bollox. And I know crick made some odd claims
(like you I think he was being a bit hypothetical- I also think he
liked yanking the establishment's chain) but I was interested in when/
if he specifically withdrew this claim. So pretty please, with sugar
on, give us the cite.

Oh and giving people silly names is childish and leaves you looking
rather silly.

[Nick Keighley]

On Nov 25, 3:16 pm, jillery <69jpi...@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Sun, 25 Nov 2012 03:24:48 -0800 (PST), Nick Keighley
> <nick_keighley_nos...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >On Nov 11, 12:17 am, jillery <69jpi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> On Sat, 10 Nov 2012 15:23:54 -0800 (PST), Ray Martinez
> >> <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >> >On Nov 9, 6:22 pm, pnyikos <nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote:

> >[Crick and Orgel retracted an earlier hypothesis about directed
> >panspermia]
>
> >> >> Jillery is lying, Ray. I have seen the alleged "retraction," and the
> >> >> article nowhere mentions directed panspermia....
>
> >> Rockhead is blatantly and self-righteously lying when he says that I
> >> am lying, Ray.
>
> >name calling is pretty unnecessary.
>
> And when Ray and Rockhead call me a liar, that pretty much establishes
> their standards here, but you choose to ignore their indiscretion and
> focus on mine.

the term "liar" seems to be pretty freely bandied and I was ignoring
it from everyone (you as well!). Perhaps if everyone was calmer and
less free with insults and actually answered questions this "debate"
would run a lot smoother?

> ISTM 'Rockhead is mild in comparison.  YMMV.

as I noted elsewhere it leaves you looking rather immature.

> >> >Exactly what I said upthread.
>
> >> Where did you say I was lying?
>
> >> >Jill thinks the "frozen accident" paper
> >> >is a DP retraction paper.
>
> >> You didn't mention anything about a "frozen accident" paper before, so
> >> have no idea what you're talking about. Care to give a verifiable
> >> citation?
>
> >http://www.fasebj.org/content/7/1/238.long
>
> >if it wasn't that paper which paper was it? Everyone is being pretty
> >snarky but I've some sympathy with Ray and Peter! If Crick clearly
> >withdrew his support for Panspermia it should be really easy for you
> >to find a suitable cite.
>
> I'm glad you explicitly confirm your apparent sympathy for Ray and
> Rockhead, and dismiss any pretense of being fair and impartial.

now you are just being paranoid. If I'm not for you I must be against
you?

 But
> it's dangerous to jump into the middle of a thread without
> familiarizing yourself with its history.

I've read enough to know the history is long and deep. Perhaps you
should consider the here and now instead of a 10 year old feud?

I'd still like to know when Crick withdrew his panspermia argument...

>  Ray incorrectly assumed I
> meant a particular article, and based on that, agreed with Rockhead
> that I was lying.  ISTM that isn't sympathetic behavior.  Again YMMV.

so cite the actually fucking paper!

<snip>

> >> >> -- jillery seems to have
> >> >> acknowledged as much in a later round on this thread -- but ALSO, the
> >> >> thing they retracted is not even *relevant* to directed panspermia.
> >> >> They had said mad which the advent of the RNA w
>
> >> >> It is somewhat relevant to the odds against abiogenesis, but even
> >> >> there, it doesn't alter what they had said in their DP paper, that it
> >> >> is impossible to say anything meaningful about how easy or how
> >> >> difficult it is.
>
> >> >> The "retraction" had to do with one objection that they had made,
> >> >> which the advent of the RNA world hypothesis had made obsolete.
>
> >> >Yes.
>
> >> It sure would be nice if you would actually identify which paper
> >> you're talking about.
>
> >you too!
>
> I am still unclear what dog Ray has in this fight.  Which is a
> question I also ask of you.  Let's see if you're more willing to
> answer that than is Ray.

dog? fight? I'm genuinely interested in if/when Crick withdrew his
panspermia claims! I'm not a panspermist (I think it's a ridiculous
theory) nor a creationist. I consider evolutionary biology to be the
best explanation for the observed diversity of life and to be so
confirmed by multiple observations that anyone except a scientist
would call it a "fact". In other words I'm an "evolutionist".

TO is also a place I come to for intelligent (well I hope) and
stimulating debate. I consider "Jillery called me a liar!" and
"rockhead pulled my hair!" to be a wide of the mark.

[jillery]

Again you dismiss their behavior. How is their behavior any less
ill-mannered than theirs? Aren't you even a little bit embarrassed to
be so one-sided here?

>> Second,
>> if you bothered to familiarize yourself with the thread before you
>> jumped into the middle of it, you should have noticed that I didn't
>> talk about any particular cite until Ray and Rockhead asserted that I
>> did.   HTH
>
>you said crick recanted on his panspermia. You were repeatedly asked
>for a cite.

You misrepresent the facts. Ray demanded that I provide a cite. I
repeatedly asked Ray to explain his interest. He repeatedly refused
to do so.

>They guessed which paper you were talking about (the same
>one as I found) and pointed out it didn't mention panspermia.

Again you misrepresent the facts. I *never* referred to a cite in
this thread. Ray and Rockhead *never* identified any specific cite.
The closest they came, and only *after* accusing me of lying about it,
was a reference to a vague phrase 'frozen accident'. You can only
infer that the article you cited is the same one Ray and Rockhead had
in mind. The article that I inferred is *not* the same article you
inferred.

>So why
>don't you just give the cite?

Why don't you explain what business it is of yours?

>Personnally I have no axe to grind.

You previously admitted your sympathy for Ray and Rockhead. And you
continue to dismiss their culpability here. That sounds like a big
axe IMO. Again YMMV.

>I think panspermia (directed or
>otherwise) is complete bollox. And I know crick made some odd claims
>(like you I think he was being a bit hypothetical- I also think he
>liked yanking the establishment's chain) but I was interested in when/
>if he specifically withdrew this claim. So pretty please, with sugar
>on, give us the cite.

What cite? You inferred a cite. Ray and Rockhead claim a cite they
won't specify. OTOH I referred to no cite. I asserted an opinion. As
do you. Everybody has one.

>Oh and giving people silly names is childish and leaves you looking
>rather silly.

Perhaps, but less silly than those who misrepresent the facts IMO.
Again YMMV. It seems you are content to act as Ray and Rockhead's
proxy. Let me know how that works out for you. HAND.

[jillery]

On Sun, 25 Nov 2012 07:51:37 -0800 (PST), Nick Keighley
<nick_keigh...@hotmail.com> wrote:

>On Nov 25, 3:16�pm, jillery <69jpi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Sun, 25 Nov 2012 03:24:48 -0800 (PST), Nick Keighley
>> <nick_keighley_nos...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> >On Nov 11, 12:17 am, jillery <69jpi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >> On Sat, 10 Nov 2012 15:23:54 -0800 (PST), Ray Martinez
>> >> <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> >> >On Nov 9, 6:22 pm, pnyikos <nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>
>> >[Crick and Orgel retracted an earlier hypothesis about directed
>> >panspermia]
>>
>> >> >> Jillery is lying, Ray. I have seen the alleged "retraction," and the
>> >> >> article nowhere mentions directed panspermia....
>>
>> >> Rockhead is blatantly and self-righteously lying when he says that I
>> >> am lying, Ray.
>>
>> >name calling is pretty unnecessary.
>>
>> And when Ray and Rockhead call me a liar, that pretty much establishes
>> their standards here, but you choose to ignore their indiscretion and
>> focus on mine.
>
>
>the term "liar" seems to be pretty freely bandied and I was ignoring
>it from everyone (you as well!).

So when I follow their lead, how does that make me the bad guy and let
them off the hook? Not my idea of fair and impartial. YMMV.

>Perhaps if everyone was calmer and
>less free with insults and actually answered questions this "debate"
>would run a lot smoother?

There is no real debate here. As for running smoother, your one-sided
misrepresentations are doing nothing to help that. Please excuse me
as I remain skeptical that is your goal here.


>>�ISTM 'Rockhead is mild in comparison. �YMMV.

>
>as I noted elsewhere it leaves you looking rather immature.

I pointed this out in another topic, but its worth repeating here.
Whatever is your opinion of the situation here, you jumping in the mud
doesn't help.

>> >> >Exactly what I said upthread.
>>
>> >> Where did you say I was lying?
>>
>> >> >Jill thinks the "frozen accident" paper
>> >> >is a DP retraction paper.
>>
>> >> You didn't mention anything about a "frozen accident" paper before, so
>> >> have no idea what you're talking about. Care to give a verifiable
>> >> citation?
>>
>> >http://www.fasebj.org/content/7/1/238.long
>>
>> >if it wasn't that paper which paper was it? Everyone is being pretty
>> >snarky but I've some sympathy with Ray and Peter! If Crick clearly
>> >withdrew his support for Panspermia it should be really easy for you
>> >to find a suitable cite.
>>
>> I'm glad you explicitly confirm your apparent sympathy for Ray and
>> Rockhead, and dismiss any pretense of being fair and impartial.
>
>now you are just being paranoid. If I'm not for you I must be against
>you?

So when you dismiss their behavior and focus on mine, that's your idea
of fair and impartial? It seems you use very unusual definitions for
these words. Do you work for Rupert Murdoch?


>�But

>> it's dangerous to jump into the middle of a thread without
>> familiarizing yourself with its history.
>
>I've read enough to know the history is long and deep. Perhaps you
>should consider the here and now instead of a 10 year old feud?

I refer to the posts within this thread, which you continue to
misrepresent. ISTM that qualifies as "here and now". Again YMMV.

>I'd still like to know when Crick withdrew his panspermia argument...

Look it up.


>> �Ray incorrectly assumed I

>> meant a particular article, and based on that, agreed with Rockhead
>> that I was lying. �ISTM that isn't sympathetic behavior. �Again YMMV.
>
>so cite the actually fucking paper!

Taking lessons from Mr. Language Person are you now?

Even if I accept for argument's sake AOTA, how does your joining in
help in any way? It seems you're quite comfortable rolling in the
mud along with the rest of us children. You seriously need to take a
good long look in the mirror.

[backspace]

On Nov 14, 4:57�am, Dana Tweedy <reddfrog...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 11/13/12 5:41 PM, pnyikos wrote:
> snip
>
>
>
> >> Well, Peter, I'm after their theory and they're after mine. I'm
> >> actively working on a book refuting Darwinism (in my 7th year of
> >> research and writing). One day I will publish it online (no paywall).
> >> When this occurs the real battle will begin.
>
> >> Ray
>
> > Or the real slaughter. �Like one Confederate general said about the
> > incredibly bloody battle of Cold Harbor: "This wasn't war. �This was
> > murder."
>
> > And the Confederates really outscored the Union in that battle.
>

> It's not likely that Ray's "book" will produce a slaughter. �His oft
> touted "book" will be just as deadly as Gen John Magruder's Quaker Guns
> at Yorktown were against McClellan's army.
>
> � The difference is that "Prince" John's wooden artillery were mistaken
> for a credible threat. �No one is making that mistake with Ray's alleged
> "book'. � Only Ray could spend seven years of "research" and be even
> LESS informed about the topic than when he began.
>

> DJT

Personally I wish Ray would stop responding to your posts, you only
add noise.

[Bob Casanova]

On Mon, 26 Nov 2012 11:01:21 -0800 (PST), the following
appeared in talk.origins, posted by backspace
<steph...@gmail.com>:

>... you only
>add noise.

My IronyMeter hates you.
--

Bob C.

"Evidence confirming an observation is
evidence that the observation is wrong."

- McNameless

[J.J. O'Shea]

On Mon, 26 Nov 2012 14:01:21 -0500, backspace wrote
(in article
<76cf83e7-bd27-4779...@r4g2000vbi.googlegroups.com>):

_Dana_ adds noise to _Ray-ray's_ posts? Tell me more.

--
email to oshea dot j dot j at gmail dot com.

[jillery]

On Sun, 25 Nov 2012 13:53:02 -0500, jillery <69jp...@gmail.com>
wrote:

>On Sun, 25 Nov 2012 07:51:37 -0800 (PST), Nick Keighley
><nick_keigh...@hotmail.com> wrote:

[...]

>>TO is also a place I come to for intelligent (well I hope) and
>>stimulating debate. I consider "Jillery called me a liar!" and
>>"rockhead pulled my hair!" to be a wide of the mark.
>
>
>Even if I accept for argument's sake AOTA, how does your joining in
>help in any way? It seems you're quite comfortable rolling in the
>mud along with the rest of us children. You seriously need to take a
>good long look in the mirror.

Nick, you have posted on T.O. at least as long as I have. So you
should be familiar with my posts, as I am with yours. Up to now, I
considered your arguments reasonable and fact-based. But your earlier
personal attack on J.J. O'Shea, and your similar personal attack on me
makes me wonder what has changed.

Of course, you can post your personal opinions about anybody as many
times as you like. And you can post misrepresentations and outright
fabrications, as you have done in this thread. IMO these are not the
hallmarks of intelligent and stimulating debate. Again YMMV.

It appears you disagree, and disagree strongly. If so, are you
willing to back up your personal opinions with facts? If not, are you
willing to retract your unsupported assertions?

[Nick Keighley]

On Nov 29, 12:42 pm, jillery <69jpi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Sun, 25 Nov 2012 13:53:02 -0500, jillery <69jpi...@gmail.com>

> wrote:
>
> >On Sun, 25 Nov 2012 07:51:37 -0800 (PST), Nick Keighley
> ><nick_keighley_nos...@hotmail.com> wrote:


> >>TO is also a place I come to for intelligent (well I hope) and
> >>stimulating debate. I consider "Jillery called me a liar!" and
> >>"rockhead pulled my hair!" to be a wide of the mark.
>
> >Even if I accept for argument's sake AOTA, how does your joining in
> >help in any way?   It seems you're quite comfortable rolling in the
> >mud along with the rest of us children.  You seriously need to take a
> >good long look in the mirror.
>
> Nick, you have posted on T.O. at least as long as I have.  So you
> should be familiar with my posts, as I am with yours.  Up to now, I
> considered your arguments reasonable and fact-based.  But your earlier
> personal attack on J.J. O'Shea, and your similar personal attack on me
> makes me wonder what has changed.
>
> Of course, you can post your personal opinions about anybody as many
> times as you like.  And you can post misrepresentations and outright
> fabrications, as you have done in this thread.

where?

 IMO these are not the
> hallmarks of intelligent and stimulating debate.  Again YMMV.
>
> It appears you disagree, and disagree strongly.  If so, are you
> willing to back up your personal opinions with facts?  If not, are you
> willing to retract your unsupported assertions?

which are?

[jillery]

On Sat, 1 Dec 2012 06:48:26 -0800 (PST), Nick Keighley
<nick_keigh...@hotmail.com> wrote:

>On Nov 29, 12:42 pm, jillery <69jpi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Sun, 25 Nov 2012 13:53:02 -0500, jillery <69jpi...@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >On Sun, 25 Nov 2012 07:51:37 -0800 (PST), Nick Keighley
>> ><nick_keighley_nos...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>> >>TO is also a place I come to for intelligent (well I hope) and
>> >>stimulating debate. I consider "Jillery called me a liar!" and
>> >>"rockhead pulled my hair!" to be a wide of the mark.
>>
>> >Even if I accept for argument's sake AOTA, how does your joining in
>> >help in any way?   It seems you're quite comfortable rolling in the
>> >mud along with the rest of us children.  You seriously need to take a
>> >good long look in the mirror.
>>
>> Nick, you have posted on T.O. at least as long as I have.  So you
>> should be familiar with my posts, as I am with yours.  Up to now, I
>> considered your arguments reasonable and fact-based.  But your earlier
>> personal attack on J.J. O'Shea, and your similar personal attack on me
>> makes me wonder what has changed.
>>
>> Of course, you can post your personal opinions about anybody as many
>> times as you like.  And you can post misrepresentations and outright
>> fabrications, as you have done in this thread.
>
>where?

Here, in this thread. Can't you read?

>> IMO these are not the
>> hallmarks of intelligent and stimulating debate.  Again YMMV.
>>
>> It appears you disagree, and disagree strongly.  If so, are you
>> willing to back up your personal opinions with facts?  If not, are you
>> willing to retract your unsupported assertions?
>
>which are?

Which which? Your personal opinions? Or your unsupported assertions?
And if you can be more clear, so I have a clear question to answer,
will you then either support or retract?

[Earle Jones]

In article
<76cf83e7-bd27-4779...@r4g2000vbi.googlegroups.com>,

*
Which brings up Macovski's Law:

"You cannot improve the signal-to-noise ratio by adding noise."

earle
*

[pnyikos]

On Dec 1, 9:48 am, Nick Keighley <nick_keighley_nos...@hotmail.com>
wrote:

> On Nov 29, 12:42 pm, jillery <69jpi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Sun, 25 Nov 2012 13:53:02 -0500, jillery <69jpi...@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
>
> > >On Sun, 25 Nov 2012 07:51:37 -0800 (PST), Nick Keighley
> > ><nick_keighley_nos...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > >>TO is also a place I come to for intelligent (well I hope) and
> > >>stimulating debate. I consider "Jillery called me a liar!" and
> > >>"rockhead pulled my hair!" to be a wide of the mark.
>
> > >Even if I accept for argument's sake AOTA, how does your joining in
> > >help in any way? It seems you're quite comfortable rolling in the
> > >mud along with the rest of us children. You seriously need to take a
> > >good long look in the mirror.
>
> > Nick, you have posted on T.O. at least as long as I have. So you
> > should be familiar with my posts, as I am with yours. Up to now, I
> > considered your arguments reasonable and fact-based. But your earlier
> > personal attack on J.J. O'Shea,

Jillery revels in O'Shea's personal attacks against me and frequently
joins in them herself. Anyone who does not think these two are allies
after reading this sign of blatant favoritism is really out of it.

These two try to intimidate anyone from saying they are allies by
salivating the words "paranoid" and "conspiracy theory" like Pavlov's
dog on hearing the bell. But I know just how hypocritical they are
about these terms. O'Shea, for instance, simulates paranoia by lying
that I have threatened to sue him, have him banned from t.o., etc.

> > and your similar personal attack on me
> > makes me wonder what has changed.

And Jillery has also been simulating paranoia, feigning extreme
suspicions about your motivations for learning where the hell Crick
and Watson are supposed to have withdrawn their claim.

> > Of course, you can post your personal opinions about anybody as many
> > times as you like. And you can post misrepresentations and outright
> > fabrications, as you have done in this thread.
>
> where?

Jillery answered "right on this thread". Anyone who still thinks she
is a normal, mature adult after reading her contributions to this
thread can hardly be one him/herself.

> >IMO these are not the
> > hallmarks of intelligent and stimulating debate. Again YMMV.

Would anyone but a basically amoral person accuse you of posting
fabrications and then post such a wishy-washy statement as "YMMV"?

> > It appears you disagree, and disagree strongly. If so, are you
> > willing to back up your personal opinions with facts? If not, are you
> > willing to retract your unsupported assertions?
>
> which are?

Jillery played dumb in reply. I see you haven't replied yet. Probably
a wise decision. Jillery knows she doesn't have a leg to stand on
where her allegations about Crick and Watson are concerned, and will
prolong this fruitless back-and-forth indefinitely.

Peter Nyikos

[pnyikos]

On Nov 25, 6:11 am, Nick Keighley <nick_keighley_nos...@hotmail.com>
wrote:

> On Nov 9, 8:07 pm, Ray Martinez <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > On Nov 8, 8:52 pm, jillery <69jpi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > On Thu, 8 Nov 2012 19:34:57 -0800 (PST), Ray Martinez
> > > <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > >On Nov 8, 6:47 pm, jillery <69jpi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > >> On Thu, 8 Nov 2012 17:47:43 -0800 (PST), Ray Martinez
> > > >> <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > >> >On Nov 8, 12:37 pm, jillery <69jpi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > >> >> On Thu, 8 Nov 2012 10:58:53 -0800 (PST), Ray Martine
> > > >> >> <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > >> >> >On Nov 8, 7:12 am, pnyikos <nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> > > >> >> >> On Nov 6, 10:02 pm, Ray Martinez <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > >> >> >> Yes, otherwise you will also be laughing at Crick and Orgel, who
> > > >> >> >> originated the hypothesis.
>
> > > >> >> >They are laughed at too.
>
> > > >> >> Not for proposing it, and not since they retracted their support of
> > > >> >> it.
>
> > > >> >What are you waiting for....post the support.
>
> > > >> You lost me. Support for what? That they were *not* laughed at? I'm
> > > >> assuming you won't accept the word of my Aunt Mabel.
>
> > > >Support for the alleged retraction!
>
> > > I have posted it several times before.

And each time was completely bogus. See below.

> > > But I'm curious why you
> > > challenge it, and in such a provocative way.
>
> > How is "Support for the alleged retraction!" provocative?
>
> "what are you waiting for...post the support"
> "Support for the alleged retraction!"
>
> you could have just asked, politely
>
> > Don't answer, my question is rhetorical. Now would you please post
> > said retraction? Do you expect persons to take your word regarding a
> > major retraction claim?
>
> from Circk's wikipedia page

I think you may have found the ultimate source of Jillery's asinine
claim, which she first voiced many months ago, when she still hadn't
killifled me.

> "In the early 1970s, Crick and Orgel further speculated about the
> possibility that the production of living systems from molecules may
> have been a very rare event in the universe, but once it had developed
> it could be spread by intelligent life forms using space travel
> technology, a process they called "directed panspermia".[62] In a
> retrospective article,[63] Crick and Orgel noted that they had been
> overly pessimistic about the chances of abiogenesis on Earth when they
> had assumed that some kind of self-replicating protein system was the
> molecular origin of life."

Reference [63] can be read here:

http://www.fasebj.org/content/7/1/238.long

> though they don't specifically mention panspermia in that reference.

Exactly! The juxtaposition of the [62] and [63] is highly
misleading. In the latter, they acknowledged that RNA World
hypothesis had shown that this assumption about protein systems was
obsolete. But they did NOT claim that this made abiogenesis
commonplace in our galaxy. In fact, the article was published at
about the same time when Orgel wrote another joint article in which
pessimism about RNA world was voiced:

Scientists interested in the origins of life seem to
divide neatly into two classes. The first, usually
but not always molecular biologists, believe that
RNA must have been the first replicating molecule
and that chemists are exaggerating the difficulty
of nucleotide synthesis. ... The second group
of scientists is much more pessimistic. They believe
that the de novo appearance of oligonucleotides on
the primitive earth would have been a near miracle.
(The authors subscribe to this latter view). Time
will tell which is correct.
--G. F. Joyce and Leslie E. Orgel, "Prospects
for understanding the origin of the RNA
world," in: _The RNA World_, ed. R. F.
Gesteland and J. F. Atkins, Cold Spring
Harbor Press, 1993, p. 19.

> > > How does the veracity of
> > > my statement make any difference to you or your assertions?
>
> > What assertions?
>
> > And more importantly, what does Peter Nyikos think of your retraction
> > claim?
>
> you could ask him
>
> > Can you answer simple questions in a prompt and straightforward
> > manner?
>
> could you ask prompt and straightforward questions?

Not when hiding the fact that she doesn't have a leg to stand on, as
here.

Peter Nyikos

[J.J. O'Shea]

On Wed, 5 Dec 2012 21:47:59 -0500, pnyikos wrote
(in article
<84bf6354-40df-46b6...@o6g2000yql.googlegroups.com>):

> These two try to intimidate anyone from saying they are allies by salivating
> the words "paranoid" and "conspiracy theory" like Pavlov's dog on hearing the

> bell. But I know just how hypocritical they are about these terms. O'Shea,
> for instance, simulates paranoia by lying that I have threatened to sue him,
> have him banned from t.o., etc.

You can't go a day without a lie, can you? You _did_ threaten to sue me. And
you _did_ threaten to try to have me banned.

[jillery]

I am witness.

[pnyikos]

On Dec 6, 9:45 am, "J.J. O'Shea" <try.not...@but.see.sig> wrote:
> On Wed, 5 Dec 2012 21:47:59 -0500, pnyikos wrote
> (in article

> <84bf6354-40df-46b6-94ab-f805ea5e7...@o6g2000yql.googlegroups.com>):

>
> > These two try to intimidate anyone from saying they are allies by salivating
> > the words "paranoid" and "conspiracy theory" like Pavlov's dog on hearing the
> > bell.  But I know just how hypocritical they are about these terms.  O'Shea,
> > for instance, simulates paranoia by lying that I have threatened to sue him,
> > have him banned from t.o., etc.
>
> You can't go a day without a lie, can you?

Been posting on Usenet for over a decade (not counting breaks,
including one lasting over seven years) without ever lying on it.

>You _did_ threaten to sue me. And
> you _did_ threaten to try to have me banned.

Thanks for continuing to display your paranoia.

Care to actually quote the words you are characterizing in the above
way?

Or are you afraid that everyone will then see just how paranoid you
are?

Peter Nyikos

[pnyikos]

On Dec 6, 2:24 pm, jillery <69jpi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Thu, 6 Dec 2012 09:45:38 -0500, "J.J. O'Shea"
>

> <try.not...@but.see.sig> wrote:
> >On Wed, 5 Dec 2012 21:47:59 -0500, pnyikos wrote
> >(in article

> ><84bf6354-40df-46b6-94ab-f805ea5e7...@o6g2000yql.googlegroups.com>):

>
> >> These two try to intimidate anyone from saying they are allies by salivating
> >> the words "paranoid" and "conspiracy theory" like Pavlov's dog on hearing the
>
> >> bell.  But I know just how hypocritical they are about these terms.  O'Shea,
> >> for instance, simulates paranoia by lying that I have threatened to sue him,
> >> have him banned from t.o., etc.
>
> >You can't go a day without a lie, can you? You _did_ threaten to sue me. And
> >you _did_ threaten to try to have me banned.
>
> I am witness.

"Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbor."

Peter Nyikos

[J.J. O'Shea]

On Thu, 6 Dec 2012 23:07:11 -0500, pnyikos wrote
(in article
<afb88f1f-d742-4263...@4g2000yqv.googlegroups.com>):

> On Dec 6, 2:24ï¿œpm, jillery <69jpi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Thu, 6 Dec 2012 09:45:38 -0500, "J.J. O'Shea"
>>
>> <try.not...@but.see.sig> wrote:
>>> On Wed, 5 Dec 2012 21:47:59 -0500, pnyikos wrote
>>> (in article
>>> <84bf6354-40df-46b6-94ab-f805ea5e7...@o6g2000yql.googlegroups.com>):
>>
>>>> These two try to intimidate anyone from saying they are allies by
>>>> salivating
>>>> the words "paranoid" and "conspiracy theory" like Pavlov's dog on hearing
>>>> the
>>

>>>> bell. ï¿œBut I know just how hypocritical they are about these terms.
>>>> ï¿œO'Shea,

>>>> for instance, simulates paranoia by lying that I have threatened to sue
>>>> him,
>>>> have him banned from t.o., etc.
>>
>>> You can't go a day without a lie, can you? You _did_ threaten to sue me.
>>> And
>>> you _did_ threaten to try to have me banned.
>>
>> I am witness.
>
> "Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbor."

good advice, Peter. You might try it sometime.

>
> Peter Nyikos

[J.J. O'Shea]

On Thu, 6 Dec 2012 23:05:48 -0500, pnyikos wrote
(in article
<c002ae03-5a41-43c1...@c16g2000yqi.googlegroups.com>):

> On Dec 6, 9:45ï¿œam, "J.J. O'Shea" <try.not...@but.see.sig> wrote:
>> On Wed, 5 Dec 2012 21:47:59 -0500, pnyikos wrote
>> (in article
>> <84bf6354-40df-46b6-94ab-f805ea5e7...@o6g2000yql.googlegroups.com>):
>>
>>> These two try to intimidate anyone from saying they are allies by
>>> salivating
>>> the words "paranoid" and "conspiracy theory" like Pavlov's dog on hearing
>>> the

>>> bell. ï¿œBut I know just how hypocritical they are about these terms.
>>> ï¿œO'Shea,

>>> for instance, simulates paranoia by lying that I have threatened to sue
>>> him,
>>> have him banned from t.o., etc.
>>
>> You can't go a day without a lie, can you?
>
> Been posting on Usenet for over a decade (not counting breaks,
> including one lasting over seven years) without ever lying on it.

that's a lie right there.

>
>> You _did_ threaten to sue me. And
>> you _did_ threaten to try to have me banned.
>
> Thanks for continuing to display your paranoia.
>
> Care to actually quote the words you are characterizing in the above
> way?

Peter, I really don't feel like digging it up right now. Fishing through
archives looking for crap is _your_ deal, not mone. You know what you did.
Those who read it know what you did.

>
> Or are you afraid that everyone will then see just how paranoid you
> are?

You really _are_ trying to sink as low as you possibly can, aren't you?

>
> Peter Nyikos

[Don Cates]

On 07/12/2012 9:27 AM, J.J. O'Shea wrote:
> On Thu, 6 Dec 2012 23:05:48 -0500, pnyikos wrote
> (in article
> <c002ae03-5a41-43c1...@c16g2000yqi.googlegroups.com>):
>

>> On Dec 6, 9:45 am, "J.J. O'Shea" <try.not...@but.see.sig> wrote:
>>> On Wed, 5 Dec 2012 21:47:59 -0500, pnyikos wrote
>>> (in article
>>> <84bf6354-40df-46b6-94ab-f805ea5e7...@o6g2000yql.googlegroups.com>):
>>>
>>>> These two try to intimidate anyone from saying they are allies by
>>>> salivating
>>>> the words "paranoid" and "conspiracy theory" like Pavlov's dog on hearing
>>>> the

>>>> bell. But I know just how hypocritical they are about these terms.

>>>> O'Shea,
>>>> for instance, simulates paranoia by lying that I have threatened to sue
>>>> him,
>>>> have him banned from t.o., etc.
>>>
>>> You can't go a day without a lie, can you?
>>
>> Been posting on Usenet for over a decade (not counting breaks,
>> including one lasting over seven years) without ever lying on it.
>
> that's a lie right there.
>
>>
>>> You _did_ threaten to sue me. And
>>> you _did_ threaten to try to have me banned.
>>
>> Thanks for continuing to display your paranoia.
>>
>> Care to actually quote the words you are characterizing in the above
>> way?
>
> Peter, I really don't feel like digging it up right now. Fishing through
> archives looking for crap is _your_ deal, not mone. You know what you did.
> Those who read it know what you did.
>

I suspect if you look it up you will find that he never actually
threatens to do these things. He will likely have worded it such that he
*could* successfully do so without claiming he *will* do so.

>>
>> Or are you afraid that everyone will then see just how paranoid you
>> are?
>
> You really _are_ trying to sink as low as you possibly can, aren't you?
>
>>
>> Peter Nyikos
>>
>
>
>


--

--
Don Cates ("he's a cunning rascal" PN)

[jillery]

On Fri, 7 Dec 2012 10:21:53 -0500, "J.J. O'Shea"
<try.n...@but.see.sig> wrote:

>On Thu, 6 Dec 2012 23:07:11 -0500, pnyikos wrote
>(in article
><afb88f1f-d742-4263...@4g2000yqv.googlegroups.com>):
>

>> On Dec 6, 2:24 pm, jillery <69jpi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> On Thu, 6 Dec 2012 09:45:38 -0500, "J.J. O'Shea"
>>>
>>> <try.not...@but.see.sig> wrote:
>>>> On Wed, 5 Dec 2012 21:47:59 -0500, pnyikos wrote
>>>> (in article
>>>> <84bf6354-40df-46b6-94ab-f805ea5e7...@o6g2000yql.googlegroups.com>):
>>>
>>>>> These two try to intimidate anyone from saying they are allies by
>>>>> salivating
>>>>> the words "paranoid" and "conspiracy theory" like Pavlov's dog on hearing
>>>>> the
>>>

>>>>> bell.  But I know just how hypocritical they are about these terms.

>>>>>  O'Shea,
>>>>> for instance, simulates paranoia by lying that I have threatened to sue
>>>>> him,
>>>>> have him banned from t.o., etc.
>>>
>>>> You can't go a day without a lie, can you? You _did_ threaten to sue me.
>>>> And
>>>> you _did_ threaten to try to have me banned.
>>>
>>> I am witness.
>>
>> "Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbor."
>
>good advice, Peter. You might try it sometime.

My impression is that rockhead believe that if he says it, it must be
true, even when it's a matter of opinion, even when he doesn't know
what he's talking about.

[Paul J Gans]

[snip]

As I recall, he did just that. However, in the real world, a
statement such as: I could, if I wished, sue you on the basis
of what you've written -- is in fact a threat even if it does
(I'm no lawyer) skirt actual legal requirements for a threat.

--
--- Paul J. Gans