On 4/22/23 5:50 PM, RonO wrote:
https://evolutionnews.org/2023/04/uncommon-descent-a-farewell-and-remembrance/
Started in the summer of 2005 Uncommonly Dense is now archived for all
posterity.
When the ID perps put out their Top Six back in Nov 2017 no one there
wanted to discuss the best evidence that existed for ID, and it seemed
like they were more interested in countering blasphemy than discussing
any science relevant to intelligent design. It was pretty clear then
that they were only interested in defending their religious beliefs.
Luskin put out what ID was and how it should be defended, and the IDiots
at Uncommonly Dense did link to the Luskin effort and put up an article,
but only to side track the issue to what Luskin had claimed at some
religious conference. No one wanted to discuss the science of IDiocy.
So, the site had already died years ago, and they just got around to
burying the corpse.
TO may go the way of the dinosaur, but only because there aren't very
many creationists stupid and dishonest enough to try to defend the ID
scam, and most creationists with a clue had already given up on
Scientific creationism before Dover showed IDiocy to be just as
worthless as Scientific Creationism.
No disagreement from me re Uncommon Descent. But I think the main thing >vitiating talk.origins is the spread of alternative social platforms, >especially ones that facilitate multimedia. The polls I've seen show >creationism dwindling, but not by much.
On 4/22/23 5:50 PM, RonO wrote:
https://evolutionnews.org/2023/04/uncommon-descent-a-farewell-and-remembrance/
Started in the summer of 2005 Uncommonly Dense is now archived for all posterity.
When the ID perps put out their Top Six back in Nov 2017 no one there wanted to discuss the best evidence that existed for ID, and it seemed like they were more interested in countering blasphemy than discussing
any science relevant to intelligent design. It was pretty clear then
that they were only interested in defending their religious beliefs. Luskin put out what ID was and how it should be defended, and the IDiots at Uncommonly Dense did link to the Luskin effort and put up an article, but only to side track the issue to what Luskin had claimed at some religious conference. No one wanted to discuss the science of IDiocy.
So, the site had already died years ago, and they just got around to burying the corpse.
TO may go the way of the dinosaur, but only because there aren't veryNo disagreement from me re Uncommon Descent. But I think the main thing vitiating talk.origins is the spread of alternative social platforms, especially ones that facilitate multimedia. The polls I've seen show creationism dwindling, but not by much.
many creationists stupid and dishonest enough to try to defend the ID scam, and most creationists with a clue had already given up on
Scientific creationism before Dover showed IDiocy to be just as
worthless as Scientific Creationism.
--
Mark Isaak
"Wisdom begins when you discover the difference between 'That
doesn't make sense' and 'I don't understand.'" - Mary Doria Russell
https://evolutionnews.org/2023/04/uncommon-descent-a-farewell-and-remembrance/
Started in the summer of 2005 Uncommonly Dense is now archived for all posterity.
When the ID perps put out their Top Six back in Nov 2017 no one there
wanted to discuss the best evidence that existed for ID, and it seemed
like they were more interested in countering blasphemy than discussing
any science relevant to intelligent design. It was pretty clear then
that they were only interested in defending their religious beliefs.
Luskin put out what ID was and how it should be defended, and the IDiots
at Uncommonly Dense did link to the Luskin effort and put up an article,
but only to side track the issue to what Luskin had claimed at some
religious conference. No one wanted to discuss the science of IDiocy.
So, the site had already died years ago, and they just got around to
burying the corpse.
TO may go the way of the dinosaur, but only because there aren't very
many creationists stupid and dishonest enough to try to defend the ID
scam, and most creationists with a clue had already given up on
Scientific creationism before Dover showed IDiocy to be just as
worthless as Scientific Creationism.
On 4/22/23 5:50 PM, RonO wrote:
https://evolutionnews.org/2023/04/uncommon-descent-a-farewell-and-remembrance/
Started in the summer of 2005 Uncommonly Dense is now archived for all
posterity.
When the ID perps put out their Top Six back in Nov 2017 no one there
wanted to discuss the best evidence that existed for ID, and it seemed
like they were more interested in countering blasphemy than discussing
any science relevant to intelligent design. It was pretty clear then
that they were only interested in defending their religious beliefs.
Luskin put out what ID was and how it should be defended, and the
IDiots at Uncommonly Dense did link to the Luskin effort and put up an
article, but only to side track the issue to what Luskin had claimed
at some religious conference. No one wanted to discuss the science of
IDiocy.
So, the site had already died years ago, and they just got around to
burying the corpse.
TO may go the way of the dinosaur, but only because there aren't very
many creationists stupid and dishonest enough to try to defend the ID
scam, and most creationists with a clue had already given up on
Scientific creationism before Dover showed IDiocy to be just as
worthless as Scientific Creationism.
No disagreement from me re Uncommon Descent. But I think the main thing vitiating talk.origins is the spread of alternative social platforms, especially ones that facilitate multimedia. The polls I've seen show creationism dwindling, but not by much.
On Sunday, April 23, 2023 at 12:15:30 PM UTC-4, Mark Isaak wrote:
On 4/22/23 5:50 PM, RonO wrote:
https://evolutionnews.org/2023/04/uncommon-descent-a-farewell-and-remembrance/No disagreement from me re Uncommon Descent. But I think the main thing
Started in the summer of 2005 Uncommonly Dense is now archived for all
posterity.
When the ID perps put out their Top Six back in Nov 2017 no one there
wanted to discuss the best evidence that existed for ID, and it seemed
like they were more interested in countering blasphemy than discussing
any science relevant to intelligent design. It was pretty clear then
that they were only interested in defending their religious beliefs.
Luskin put out what ID was and how it should be defended, and the IDiots >>> at Uncommonly Dense did link to the Luskin effort and put up an article, >>> but only to side track the issue to what Luskin had claimed at some
religious conference. No one wanted to discuss the science of IDiocy.
So, the site had already died years ago, and they just got around to
burying the corpse.
TO may go the way of the dinosaur, but only because there aren't very
many creationists stupid and dishonest enough to try to defend the ID
scam, and most creationists with a clue had already given up on
Scientific creationism before Dover showed IDiocy to be just as
worthless as Scientific Creationism.
vitiating talk.origins is the spread of alternative social platforms,
especially ones that facilitate multimedia. The polls I've seen show
creationism dwindling, but not by much.
I agree, the decline of TO has to do with the changes in social media, much more than with any great decline in creationism.
--
Mark Isaak
"Wisdom begins when you discover the difference between 'That
doesn't make sense' and 'I don't understand.'" - Mary Doria Russell
RonO wrote:
[...]
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/low-hanging%20fruit#:~:text=low%2Dhang·%E2%80%8Bing%20fruit,making%20progress%20toward%20an%20objective
Synonymous with "Soft Target," it is the strategy of the weak and the cowardly. You attack the weak because you're certain of your own
stupidity and believe you will lose if you attack someone stronger.
RonO wrote:
[...]
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/low-hanging%20fruit#:~:text=low%2Dhang·%E2%80%8Bing%20fruit,making%20progress%20toward%20an%20objective
Synonymous with "Soft Target," it is the strategy of the weak and the cowardly. You attack the weak because you're certain of your own
stupidity and believe you will lose if you attack someone stronger.
-- --
https://jtem.tumblr.com/post/715313108965539840
On 4/23/2023 11:26 PM, JTEM is my hero wrote:
RonO wrote:
[...]
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/low-hanging%20fruit#:~:text=low%2Dhang·%E2%80%8Bing%20fruit,making%20progress%20toward%20an%20objective
Synonymous with "Soft Target," it is the strategy of the weak and the
cowardly. You attack the weak because you're certain of your own
stupidity and believe you will lose if you attack someone stronger.
-- --
https://jtem.tumblr.com/post/715313108965539840
The obvious flaw in your pathetic reasoning is that for the creationist
ID scam it is all, so called, "low hanging fruit" and "Soft Target".
Simply reporting on what the ID scam was and is, isn't doing what you
claim. Uncommon Descent died, and was just as pathetic before the ID
perps put it out of it's misery as I described. It was probably the >premiere IDiotic discussion site, controlled by IDiots. It might be >considered to be a soft target, but that is only because all of IDiocy
falls into that category.
REPOST: >https://evolutionnews.org/2023/04/uncommon-descent-a-farewell-and-remembrance/
Started in the summer of 2005 Uncommonly Dense is now archived for all >posterity.
When the ID perps put out their Top Six back in Nov 2017 no one there
wanted to discuss the best evidence that existed for ID, and it seemed
like they were more interested in countering blasphemy than discussing
any science relevant to intelligent design. It was pretty clear then
that they were only interested in defending their religious beliefs.
Luskin put out what ID was and how it should be defended, and the IDiots
at Uncommonly Dense did link to the Luskin effort and put up an article,
but only to side track the issue to what Luskin had claimed at some >religious conference. No one wanted to discuss the science of IDiocy.
So, the site had already died years ago, and they just got around to
burying the corpse.
TO may go the way of the dinosaur, but only because there aren't very
many creationists stupid and dishonest enough to try to defend the ID
scam, and most creationists with a clue had already given up on
Scientific creationism before Dover showed IDiocy to be just as
worthless as Scientific Creationism.
END REPOST:
Ron Okimoto
On Mon, 24 Apr 2023 05:55:05 -0500, RonO <rokimoto@cox.net> wrote:
On 4/23/2023 11:26 PM, JTEM is my hero wrote:
RonO wrote:
[...]
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/low-hanging%20fruit#:~:text=low%2Dhang·%E2%80%8Bing%20fruit,making%20progress%20toward%20an%20objective
Synonymous with "Soft Target," it is the strategy of the weak and the
cowardly. You attack the weak because you're certain of your own
stupidity and believe you will lose if you attack someone stronger.
-- --
https://jtem.tumblr.com/post/715313108965539840
The obvious flaw in your pathetic reasoning is that for the creationist
ID scam it is all, so called, "low hanging fruit" and "Soft Target".
Simply reporting on what the ID scam was and is, isn't doing what you
claim. Uncommon Descent died, and was just as pathetic before the ID
perps put it out of it's misery as I described. It was probably the
premiere IDiotic discussion site, controlled by IDiots. It might be
considered to be a soft target, but that is only because all of IDiocy
falls into that category.
REPOST:
https://evolutionnews.org/2023/04/uncommon-descent-a-farewell-and-remembrance/
Started in the summer of 2005 Uncommonly Dense is now archived for all
posterity.
When the ID perps put out their Top Six back in Nov 2017 no one there
wanted to discuss the best evidence that existed for ID, and it seemed
like they were more interested in countering blasphemy than discussing
any science relevant to intelligent design. It was pretty clear then
that they were only interested in defending their religious beliefs.
Luskin put out what ID was and how it should be defended, and the IDiots
at Uncommonly Dense did link to the Luskin effort and put up an article,
but only to side track the issue to what Luskin had claimed at some
religious conference. No one wanted to discuss the science of IDiocy.
So, the site had already died years ago, and they just got around to
burying the corpse.
TO may go the way of the dinosaur, but only because there aren't very
many creationists stupid and dishonest enough to try to defend the ID
scam, and most creationists with a clue had already given up on
Scientific creationism before Dover showed IDiocy to be just as
worthless as Scientific Creationism.
END REPOST:
Ron Okimoto
Uncommon Descent may be dead, but its spirit reincarnated into
hundreds of new forms.
On 4/24/2023 11:09 AM, jillery wrote:
On Mon, 24 Apr 2023 05:55:05 -0500, RonO <roki...@cox.net> wrote:
On 4/23/2023 11:26 PM, JTEM is my hero wrote:
RonO wrote:
[...]
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/low-hanging%20fruit#:~:text=low%2Dhang·%E2%80%8Bing%20fruit,making%20progress%20toward%20an%20objective
Synonymous with "Soft Target," it is the strategy of the weak and the >>> cowardly. You attack the weak because you're certain of your own
stupidity and believe you will lose if you attack someone stronger.
-- --
https://jtem.tumblr.com/post/715313108965539840
The obvious flaw in your pathetic reasoning is that for the creationist >> ID scam it is all, so called, "low hanging fruit" and "Soft Target".
Simply reporting on what the ID scam was and is, isn't doing what you
claim. Uncommon Descent died, and was just as pathetic before the ID
perps put it out of it's misery as I described. It was probably the
premiere IDiotic discussion site, controlled by IDiots. It might be
considered to be a soft target, but that is only because all of IDiocy
falls into that category.
REPOST:
https://evolutionnews.org/2023/04/uncommon-descent-a-farewell-and-remembrance/
Started in the summer of 2005 Uncommonly Dense is now archived for all
posterity.
When the ID perps put out their Top Six back in Nov 2017 no one there
wanted to discuss the best evidence that existed for ID, and it seemed
like they were more interested in countering blasphemy than discussing
any science relevant to intelligent design. It was pretty clear then
that they were only interested in defending their religious beliefs.
Luskin put out what ID was and how it should be defended, and the IDiots >> at Uncommonly Dense did link to the Luskin effort and put up an article, >> but only to side track the issue to what Luskin had claimed at some
religious conference. No one wanted to discuss the science of IDiocy.
So, the site had already died years ago, and they just got around to
burying the corpse.
TO may go the way of the dinosaur, but only because there aren't very
many creationists stupid and dishonest enough to try to defend the ID
scam, and most creationists with a clue had already given up on
Scientific creationism before Dover showed IDiocy to be just as
worthless as Scientific Creationism.
END REPOST:
Ron Okimoto
Look on instagram, snapchat, Facebook, and all those others that I'm too old to have heard of.Uncommon Descent may be dead, but its spirit reincarnated into
hundreds of new forms.
The ARN discussion group is dead. The ISCID discussion group was dead
from around 2004, and organization has been dead since 2008. Uncommon descent is dead. What has taken their places? No discussion is allowed
at the Discovery Institute.
Ron Okimoto
On 4/24/2023 11:09 AM, jillery wrote:
On Mon, 24 Apr 2023 05:55:05 -0500, RonO <rokimoto@cox.net> wrote:
On 4/23/2023 11:26 PM, JTEM is my hero wrote:
RonO wrote:
[...]
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/low-hanging%20fruit#:~:text=low%2Dhang·%E2%80%8Bing%20fruit,making%20progress%20toward%20an%20objective
Synonymous with "Soft Target," it is the strategy of the weak and the
cowardly. You attack the weak because you're certain of your own
stupidity and believe you will lose if you attack someone stronger.
-- --
https://jtem.tumblr.com/post/715313108965539840
The obvious flaw in your pathetic reasoning is that for the creationist
ID scam it is all, so called, "low hanging fruit" and "Soft Target".
Simply reporting on what the ID scam was and is, isn't doing what you
claim. Uncommon Descent died, and was just as pathetic before the ID
perps put it out of it's misery as I described. It was probably the
premiere IDiotic discussion site, controlled by IDiots. It might be
considered to be a soft target, but that is only because all of IDiocy
falls into that category.
REPOST:
https://evolutionnews.org/2023/04/uncommon-descent-a-farewell-and-remembrance/
Started in the summer of 2005 Uncommonly Dense is now archived for all
posterity.
When the ID perps put out their Top Six back in Nov 2017 no one there
wanted to discuss the best evidence that existed for ID, and it seemed
like they were more interested in countering blasphemy than discussing
any science relevant to intelligent design. It was pretty clear then
that they were only interested in defending their religious beliefs.
Luskin put out what ID was and how it should be defended, and the IDiots >>> at Uncommonly Dense did link to the Luskin effort and put up an article, >>> but only to side track the issue to what Luskin had claimed at some
religious conference. No one wanted to discuss the science of IDiocy.
So, the site had already died years ago, and they just got around to
burying the corpse.
TO may go the way of the dinosaur, but only because there aren't very
many creationists stupid and dishonest enough to try to defend the ID
scam, and most creationists with a clue had already given up on
Scientific creationism before Dover showed IDiocy to be just as
worthless as Scientific Creationism.
END REPOST:
Ron Okimoto
Uncommon Descent may be dead, but its spirit reincarnated into
hundreds of new forms.
The ARN discussion group is dead. The ISCID discussion group was dead
from around 2004, and organization has been dead since 2008. Uncommon >descent is dead. What has taken their places? No discussion is allowed
at the Discovery Institute.
On Mon, 24 Apr 2023 17:31:45 -0500, RonO <rokimoto@cox.net> wrote:
On 4/24/2023 11:09 AM, jillery wrote:
On Mon, 24 Apr 2023 05:55:05 -0500, RonO <rokimoto@cox.net> wrote:
On 4/23/2023 11:26 PM, JTEM is my hero wrote:
RonO wrote:
[...]
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/low-hanging%20fruit#:~:text=low%2Dhang·%E2%80%8Bing%20fruit,making%20progress%20toward%20an%20objective
Synonymous with "Soft Target," it is the strategy of the weak and the >>>>> cowardly. You attack the weak because you're certain of your own
stupidity and believe you will lose if you attack someone stronger.
-- --
https://jtem.tumblr.com/post/715313108965539840
The obvious flaw in your pathetic reasoning is that for the creationist >>>> ID scam it is all, so called, "low hanging fruit" and "Soft Target".
Simply reporting on what the ID scam was and is, isn't doing what you
claim. Uncommon Descent died, and was just as pathetic before the ID
perps put it out of it's misery as I described. It was probably the
premiere IDiotic discussion site, controlled by IDiots. It might be
considered to be a soft target, but that is only because all of IDiocy >>>> falls into that category.
REPOST:
https://evolutionnews.org/2023/04/uncommon-descent-a-farewell-and-remembrance/
Started in the summer of 2005 Uncommonly Dense is now archived for all >>>> posterity.
When the ID perps put out their Top Six back in Nov 2017 no one there
wanted to discuss the best evidence that existed for ID, and it seemed >>>> like they were more interested in countering blasphemy than discussing >>>> any science relevant to intelligent design. It was pretty clear then
that they were only interested in defending their religious beliefs.
Luskin put out what ID was and how it should be defended, and the IDiots >>>> at Uncommonly Dense did link to the Luskin effort and put up an article, >>>> but only to side track the issue to what Luskin had claimed at some
religious conference. No one wanted to discuss the science of IDiocy. >>>>
So, the site had already died years ago, and they just got around to
burying the corpse.
TO may go the way of the dinosaur, but only because there aren't very
many creationists stupid and dishonest enough to try to defend the ID
scam, and most creationists with a clue had already given up on
Scientific creationism before Dover showed IDiocy to be just as
worthless as Scientific Creationism.
END REPOST:
Ron Okimoto
Uncommon Descent may be dead, but its spirit reincarnated into
hundreds of new forms.
The ARN discussion group is dead. The ISCID discussion group was dead >>from around 2004, and organization has been dead since 2008. Uncommon
descent is dead. What has taken their places? No discussion is allowed
at the Discovery Institute.
Apparently you haven't been reading my replies to your posts. But
then, why should you be any different?
On Monday, April 24, 2023 at 6:35:30 PM UTC-4, RonO wrote:
On 4/24/2023 11:09 AM, jillery wrote:Look on instagram, snapchat, Facebook, and all those others that I'm too old to have heard of.
On Mon, 24 Apr 2023 05:55:05 -0500, RonO <roki...@cox.net> wrote:The ARN discussion group is dead. The ISCID discussion group was dead
On 4/23/2023 11:26 PM, JTEM is my hero wrote:
RonO wrote:
[...]
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/low-hanging%20fruit#:~:text=low%2Dhang·%E2%80%8Bing%20fruit,making%20progress%20toward%20an%20objective
Synonymous with "Soft Target," it is the strategy of the weak and the >>>>> cowardly. You attack the weak because you're certain of your own
stupidity and believe you will lose if you attack someone stronger.
-- --
https://jtem.tumblr.com/post/715313108965539840
The obvious flaw in your pathetic reasoning is that for the creationist >>>> ID scam it is all, so called, "low hanging fruit" and "Soft Target".
Simply reporting on what the ID scam was and is, isn't doing what you
claim. Uncommon Descent died, and was just as pathetic before the ID
perps put it out of it's misery as I described. It was probably the
premiere IDiotic discussion site, controlled by IDiots. It might be
considered to be a soft target, but that is only because all of IDiocy >>>> falls into that category.
REPOST:
https://evolutionnews.org/2023/04/uncommon-descent-a-farewell-and-remembrance/
Started in the summer of 2005 Uncommonly Dense is now archived for all >>>> posterity.
When the ID perps put out their Top Six back in Nov 2017 no one there
wanted to discuss the best evidence that existed for ID, and it seemed >>>> like they were more interested in countering blasphemy than discussing >>>> any science relevant to intelligent design. It was pretty clear then
that they were only interested in defending their religious beliefs.
Luskin put out what ID was and how it should be defended, and the IDiots >>>> at Uncommonly Dense did link to the Luskin effort and put up an article, >>>> but only to side track the issue to what Luskin had claimed at some
religious conference. No one wanted to discuss the science of IDiocy.
So, the site had already died years ago, and they just got around to
burying the corpse.
TO may go the way of the dinosaur, but only because there aren't very
many creationists stupid and dishonest enough to try to defend the ID
scam, and most creationists with a clue had already given up on
Scientific creationism before Dover showed IDiocy to be just as
worthless as Scientific Creationism.
END REPOST:
Ron Okimoto
Uncommon Descent may be dead, but its spirit reincarnated into
hundreds of new forms.
from around 2004, and organization has been dead since 2008. Uncommon
descent is dead. What has taken their places? No discussion is allowed
at the Discovery Institute.
Ron Okimoto
On 4/24/2023 11:15 PM, jillery wrote:
On Mon, 24 Apr 2023 17:31:45 -0500, RonO <roki...@cox.net> wrote:
On 4/24/2023 11:09 AM, jillery wrote:
On Mon, 24 Apr 2023 05:55:05 -0500, RonO <roki...@cox.net> wrote:
On 4/23/2023 11:26 PM, JTEM is my hero wrote:
RonO wrote:
[...]
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/low-hanging%20fruit#:~:text=low%2Dhang·%E2%80%8Bing%20fruit,making%20progress%20toward%20an%20objective
Synonymous with "Soft Target," it is the strategy of the weak and the >>>>> cowardly. You attack the weak because you're certain of your own
stupidity and believe you will lose if you attack someone stronger. >>>>> -- --
https://jtem.tumblr.com/post/715313108965539840
The obvious flaw in your pathetic reasoning is that for the creationist >>>> ID scam it is all, so called, "low hanging fruit" and "Soft Target". >>>> Simply reporting on what the ID scam was and is, isn't doing what you >>>> claim. Uncommon Descent died, and was just as pathetic before the ID >>>> perps put it out of it's misery as I described. It was probably the >>>> premiere IDiotic discussion site, controlled by IDiots. It might be >>>> considered to be a soft target, but that is only because all of IDiocy >>>> falls into that category.
REPOST:
https://evolutionnews.org/2023/04/uncommon-descent-a-farewell-and-remembrance/
Started in the summer of 2005 Uncommonly Dense is now archived for all >>>> posterity.
When the ID perps put out their Top Six back in Nov 2017 no one there >>>> wanted to discuss the best evidence that existed for ID, and it seemed >>>> like they were more interested in countering blasphemy than discussing >>>> any science relevant to intelligent design. It was pretty clear then >>>> that they were only interested in defending their religious beliefs. >>>> Luskin put out what ID was and how it should be defended, and the IDiots
at Uncommonly Dense did link to the Luskin effort and put up an article,
but only to side track the issue to what Luskin had claimed at some >>>> religious conference. No one wanted to discuss the science of IDiocy. >>>>
So, the site had already died years ago, and they just got around to >>>> burying the corpse.
TO may go the way of the dinosaur, but only because there aren't very >>>> many creationists stupid and dishonest enough to try to defend the ID >>>> scam, and most creationists with a clue had already given up on
Scientific creationism before Dover showed IDiocy to be just as
worthless as Scientific Creationism.
END REPOST:
Ron Okimoto
Uncommon Descent may be dead, but its spirit reincarnated into
hundreds of new forms.
The ARN discussion group is dead. The ISCID discussion group was dead >>from around 2004, and organization has been dead since 2008. Uncommon
descent is dead. What has taken their places? No discussion is allowed
at the Discovery Institute.
Apparently you haven't been reading my replies to your posts. But
then, why should you be any different?
One off nut jobs and failed organizations don't add up to much of
anything worth noting, compared to the demise of the organized
creationist efforts. No one is claiming that the stupid and willfully ignorant will be a menace for a long time, but their time is long past.
They just don't want to understand that. Kalk and Bill are still anti evolution creationist, they just understand that they never wanted to be IDiotic creationists all those years.
On 4/24/2023 6:35 PM, broger...@gmail.com wrote:As Hamlet said "Words, words, words.." So many words. It's always been obvious that creation science was not actually going to do any science. The point was always political, and politically, across many states in the US, theocracy is having a moment,
On Monday, April 24, 2023 at 6:35:30 PM UTC-4, RonO wrote:
On 4/24/2023 11:09 AM, jillery wrote:Look on instagram, snapchat, Facebook, and all those others that I'm too old to have heard of.
On Mon, 24 Apr 2023 05:55:05 -0500, RonO <roki...@cox.net> wrote:The ARN discussion group is dead. The ISCID discussion group was dead
On 4/23/2023 11:26 PM, JTEM is my hero wrote:
RonO wrote:
[...]
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/low-hanging%20fruit#:~:text=low%2Dhang·%E2%80%8Bing%20fruit,making%20progress%20toward%20an%20objective
Synonymous with "Soft Target," it is the strategy of the weak and the >>>>> cowardly. You attack the weak because you're certain of your own
stupidity and believe you will lose if you attack someone stronger. >>>>> -- --
https://jtem.tumblr.com/post/715313108965539840
The obvious flaw in your pathetic reasoning is that for the creationist >>>> ID scam it is all, so called, "low hanging fruit" and "Soft Target". >>>> Simply reporting on what the ID scam was and is, isn't doing what you >>>> claim. Uncommon Descent died, and was just as pathetic before the ID >>>> perps put it out of it's misery as I described. It was probably the >>>> premiere IDiotic discussion site, controlled by IDiots. It might be >>>> considered to be a soft target, but that is only because all of IDiocy >>>> falls into that category.
REPOST:
https://evolutionnews.org/2023/04/uncommon-descent-a-farewell-and-remembrance/
Started in the summer of 2005 Uncommonly Dense is now archived for all >>>> posterity.
When the ID perps put out their Top Six back in Nov 2017 no one there >>>> wanted to discuss the best evidence that existed for ID, and it seemed >>>> like they were more interested in countering blasphemy than discussing >>>> any science relevant to intelligent design. It was pretty clear then >>>> that they were only interested in defending their religious beliefs. >>>> Luskin put out what ID was and how it should be defended, and the IDiots
at Uncommonly Dense did link to the Luskin effort and put up an article,
but only to side track the issue to what Luskin had claimed at some >>>> religious conference. No one wanted to discuss the science of IDiocy. >>>>
So, the site had already died years ago, and they just got around to >>>> burying the corpse.
TO may go the way of the dinosaur, but only because there aren't very >>>> many creationists stupid and dishonest enough to try to defend the ID >>>> scam, and most creationists with a clue had already given up on
Scientific creationism before Dover showed IDiocy to be just as
worthless as Scientific Creationism.
END REPOST:
Ron Okimoto
Uncommon Descent may be dead, but its spirit reincarnated into
hundreds of new forms.
from around 2004, and organization has been dead since 2008. Uncommon
descent is dead. What has taken their places? No discussion is allowed
at the Discovery Institute.
Ron Okimoto
Pitman had his own web page, and what did it ever amount to. The last
thing that I recall after Sean quit TO was someone putting up a video of
him lying to the rubes at some church. No one claims that there aren't IDiot/creationist types willing to lie about this junk. The Discovery Institute obviously still exists, but so what? All these types keep demonstrating is that it was never any goal to do any creation science.
All they have is denial to sell. No one is trying to build anything
worth defending. Even the Reason to believe IDiots keep claiming that
they are still working on it.
Flat earthers still exist, and for some stupid reason their numbers may
be increasing, but so what? The goal of the Scientific creationists and
the ID perps was to get equal time in the public schools for their creationist beliefs. Both never wanted to teach much about creationism,
they only wanted to obfuscate the issue in order to keep the next
generation as ignorant as possible. That is all the switch scam is
designed to do, and all the efforts to get evolution and other topics
that they don't like, like the age of the earth and the Big Bang dropped
out of the science standards. Once these types could no longer ban the topics they had to resort to something else.
The Scientific Creationists came to realize that they never wanted to do
any creation science. Flood geology didn't give them the answers that
they wanted. Just look at their "salts in the ocean" stupidity. The
vast majority of minerals and salts told them that it would take
millions of years to produce concentrations as currently existed, and
only a couple were less than a million years. They needed something
less than 20,000 years, and they didn't find it.
The ID perps likely understood this from the beginning of the ID scam.
There isn't anything in their Top Six that they want to accomplish any successful creation science. The last thing that an ID perp like Behe
wants to do would be to actually find his three neutral mutations that
had to occur during the evolution of the flagellum. It isn't the gaps
that they fool the rubes with that they have to worry about, but what is around the gaps.
This all comes out in the end, and the only IDiots creationist left are
the ignorant, incompetent and or dishonest. It has been that way since
the bait and switch started to go down because the ID perps had no ID science to give to the rubes. It has taken over 20 years from the start
of the bait and switch to get to where we are now where enough ID perps
and rubes understand that it just isn't worth the effort. Uncommon
descent died a long time ago. Discussion at the ISCID dropped off after
the bait and switch started to go down, and was pretty much dead by 2003 2004. The ID perps reorganized the site when Dover hit the fan in 2005,
but the ISCID was already dead and no new science papers had been
submitted after 2003 until the ID perps decided to clean up the site.
There seems to be a near infinite ability for con artists to flourish
among the faithful, but the organizied efforts are dead and dying. Just
look what the Top Six did to TO. It made the last willfully ignorant
IDiots quit because they couldn't face the fact that they never wanted
any ID science to be successful. All they had been in the discussion
for was the denial. Pretty much none of them (there is one left) wanted
to continue when success would destroy their religious beliefs.
Who wants to teach the Top Six in the public schools? The Big Bang is
one of the science topics that they want dropped out of the science standards in several states and the creationists succeeded in Kansas
until they were voted out of office. If you aren't going to teach the
best, what would you teach?
The anti science junk will continue for a long time, but the organized efforts have all failed, and they failed for the stupid reason that none
of them actually wanted to accomplish any creation science. Willful ignorance is maintaining the status quo, but anyone else that tries will face the same stupid reality.
Ron Okimoto
On 4/24/2023 11:15 PM, jillery wrote:
On Mon, 24 Apr 2023 17:31:45 -0500, RonO <rokimoto@cox.net> wrote:
On 4/24/2023 11:09 AM, jillery wrote:
On Mon, 24 Apr 2023 05:55:05 -0500, RonO <rokimoto@cox.net> wrote:
On 4/23/2023 11:26 PM, JTEM is my hero wrote:
RonO wrote:
[...]
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/low-hanging%20fruit#:~:text=low%2Dhang·%E2%80%8Bing%20fruit,making%20progress%20toward%20an%20objective
Synonymous with "Soft Target," it is the strategy of the weak and the >>>>>> cowardly. You attack the weak because you're certain of your own
stupidity and believe you will lose if you attack someone stronger. >>>>>> -- --
https://jtem.tumblr.com/post/715313108965539840
The obvious flaw in your pathetic reasoning is that for the creationist >>>>> ID scam it is all, so called, "low hanging fruit" and "Soft Target". >>>>> Simply reporting on what the ID scam was and is, isn't doing what you >>>>> claim. Uncommon Descent died, and was just as pathetic before the ID >>>>> perps put it out of it's misery as I described. It was probably the >>>>> premiere IDiotic discussion site, controlled by IDiots. It might be >>>>> considered to be a soft target, but that is only because all of IDiocy >>>>> falls into that category.
REPOST:
https://evolutionnews.org/2023/04/uncommon-descent-a-farewell-and-remembrance/
Started in the summer of 2005 Uncommonly Dense is now archived for all >>>>> posterity.
When the ID perps put out their Top Six back in Nov 2017 no one there >>>>> wanted to discuss the best evidence that existed for ID, and it seemed >>>>> like they were more interested in countering blasphemy than discussing >>>>> any science relevant to intelligent design. It was pretty clear then >>>>> that they were only interested in defending their religious beliefs. >>>>> Luskin put out what ID was and how it should be defended, and the IDiots >>>>> at Uncommonly Dense did link to the Luskin effort and put up an article, >>>>> but only to side track the issue to what Luskin had claimed at some
religious conference. No one wanted to discuss the science of IDiocy. >>>>>
So, the site had already died years ago, and they just got around to >>>>> burying the corpse.
TO may go the way of the dinosaur, but only because there aren't very >>>>> many creationists stupid and dishonest enough to try to defend the ID >>>>> scam, and most creationists with a clue had already given up on
Scientific creationism before Dover showed IDiocy to be just as
worthless as Scientific Creationism.
END REPOST:
Ron Okimoto
Uncommon Descent may be dead, but its spirit reincarnated into
hundreds of new forms.
The ARN discussion group is dead. The ISCID discussion group was dead >>>from around 2004, and organization has been dead since 2008. Uncommon
descent is dead. What has taken their places? No discussion is allowed >>> at the Discovery Institute.
Apparently you haven't been reading my replies to your posts. But
then, why should you be any different?
One off nut jobs and failed organizations don't add up to much of
anything worth noting, compared to the demise of the organized
creationist efforts. No one is claiming that the stupid and willfully >ignorant will be a menace for a long time, but their time is long past.
They just don't want to understand that. Kalk and Bill are still anti >evolution creationist, they just understand that they never wanted to be >IDiotic creationists all those years.
Ron Okimoto
On 4/24/2023 11:09 AM, jillery wrote:
On Mon, 24 Apr 2023 05:55:05 -0500, RonO <rokimoto@cox.net> wrote:
On 4/23/2023 11:26 PM, JTEM is my hero wrote:
RonO wrote:
          [...]
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/low-hanging%20fruit#:~:text=low%2Dhang·%E2%80%8Bing%20fruit,making%20progress%20toward%20an%20objective
Synonymous with "Soft Target," it is the strategy of the weak and the
cowardly. You attack the weak because you're certain of your own
stupidity and believe you will lose if you attack someone stronger.
-- --
https://jtem.tumblr.com/post/715313108965539840
The obvious flaw in your pathetic reasoning is that for the creationist
ID scam it is all, so called, "low hanging fruit" and "Soft Target".
Simply reporting on what the ID scam was and is, isn't doing what you
claim. Uncommon Descent died, and was just as pathetic before the ID
perps put it out of it's misery as I described. It was probably the
premiere IDiotic discussion site, controlled by IDiots. It might be
considered to be a soft target, but that is only because all of IDiocy
falls into that category.
REPOST:
https://evolutionnews.org/2023/04/uncommon-descent-a-farewell-and-remembrance/
Started in the summer of 2005 Uncommonly Dense is now archived for all
posterity.
When the ID perps put out their Top Six back in Nov 2017 no one there
wanted to discuss the best evidence that existed for ID, and it seemed
like they were more interested in countering blasphemy than discussing
any science relevant to intelligent design. It was pretty clear then
that they were only interested in defending their religious beliefs.
Luskin put out what ID was and how it should be defended, and the IDiots >>> at Uncommonly Dense did link to the Luskin effort and put up an article, >>> but only to side track the issue to what Luskin had claimed at some
religious conference. No one wanted to discuss the science of IDiocy.
So, the site had already died years ago, and they just got around to
burying the corpse.
TO may go the way of the dinosaur, but only because there aren't very
many creationists stupid and dishonest enough to try to defend the ID
scam, and most creationists with a clue had already given up on
Scientific creationism before Dover showed IDiocy to be just as
worthless as Scientific Creationism.
END REPOST:
Ron Okimoto
Uncommon Descent may be dead, but its spirit reincarnated into
hundreds of new forms.
The ARN discussion group is dead. The ISCID discussion group was dead
from around 2004, and organization has been dead since 2008. Uncommon descent is dead. What has taken their places? No discussion is allowed
at the Discovery Institute.
But if you combine feeling stupid and cowardly but wanting to attack
someone with Dunning-Kruger
JTEM is my hero wrote:
RonO wrote:
[...]
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/low-hanging%20fruit#:~:text=low%2Dhang·%E2%80%8Bing%20fruit,making%20progress%20toward%20an%20objective
Synonymous with "Soft Target," it is the strategy of the weak and the cowardly. You attack the weak because you're certain of your own
stupidity and believe you will lose if you attack someone stronger.
The obvious flaw in your pathetic reasoning is that for the creationist
ID scam it is all, so called, "low hanging fruit" and "Soft Target".
Uncommon Descent may be dead, but its spirit reincarnated into
hundreds of new forms.
On 4/24/23 3:31 PM, RonO wrote:
On 4/24/2023 11:09 AM, jillery wrote:
On Mon, 24 Apr 2023 05:55:05 -0500, RonO <rokimoto@cox.net> wrote:
On 4/23/2023 11:26 PM, JTEM is my hero wrote:
RonO wrote:
          [...]
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/low-hanging%20fruit#:~:text=low%2Dhang·%E2%80%8Bing%20fruit,making%20progress%20toward%20an%20objective
Synonymous with "Soft Target," it is the strategy of the weak and the >>>>> cowardly. You attack the weak because you're certain of your own
stupidity and believe you will lose if you attack someone stronger.
-- --
https://jtem.tumblr.com/post/715313108965539840
The obvious flaw in your pathetic reasoning is that for the creationist >>>> ID scam it is all, so called, "low hanging fruit" and "Soft Target".
Simply reporting on what the ID scam was and is, isn't doing what you
claim. Uncommon Descent died, and was just as pathetic before the ID >>>> perps put it out of it's misery as I described. It was probably the
premiere IDiotic discussion site, controlled by IDiots. It might be
considered to be a soft target, but that is only because all of IDiocy >>>> falls into that category.
REPOST:
https://evolutionnews.org/2023/04/uncommon-descent-a-farewell-and-remembrance/
Started in the summer of 2005 Uncommonly Dense is now archived for all >>>> posterity.
When the ID perps put out their Top Six back in Nov 2017 no one there
wanted to discuss the best evidence that existed for ID, and it seemed >>>> like they were more interested in countering blasphemy than discussing >>>> any science relevant to intelligent design. It was pretty clear then >>>> that they were only interested in defending their religious beliefs.
Luskin put out what ID was and how it should be defended, and the
IDiots
at Uncommonly Dense did link to the Luskin effort and put up an
article,
but only to side track the issue to what Luskin had claimed at some
religious conference. No one wanted to discuss the science of IDiocy. >>>>
So, the site had already died years ago, and they just got around to
burying the corpse.
TO may go the way of the dinosaur, but only because there aren't very
many creationists stupid and dishonest enough to try to defend the ID
scam, and most creationists with a clue had already given up on
Scientific creationism before Dover showed IDiocy to be just as
worthless as Scientific Creationism.
END REPOST:
Ron Okimoto
Uncommon Descent may be dead, but its spirit reincarnated into
hundreds of new forms.
The ARN discussion group is dead. The ISCID discussion group was dead
from around 2004, and organization has been dead since 2008. Uncommon
descent is dead. What has taken their places? No discussion is
allowed at the Discovery Institute.
Go on Facebook and type "creationism" in the search window. You will be presented with innumerable groups on creationism. Fifteen of the first
60 or so on the list have more than 1000 members.
Creationism is not dead. Creationists simply prefer venues where they
can get their ideas echoed back to them without challenge.
RonO wrote:
JTEM is my hero wrote:
RonO wrote:
[...]
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/low-hanging%20fruit#:~:text=low%2Dhang·%E2%80%8Bing%20fruit,making%20progress%20toward%20an%20objective
Synonymous with "Soft Target," it is the strategy of the weak and the
cowardly. You attack the weak because you're certain of your own
stupidity and believe you will lose if you attack someone stronger.
The obvious flaw in your pathetic reasoning is that for the creationist
ID scam it is all, so called, "low hanging fruit" and "Soft Target".
That's what I just said. 'A' for effort though... no, just kidding. You flunked.
You're attacking the low hanging fruit, the softest target you can find.
"NO! I didn't mean what I said! I meant something different so that
makes me wicked smart & stuff!"
-- --
https://jtem.tumblr.com/post/715578920636907520
On Tuesday, 25 April 2023 at 14:00:31 UTC+3, RonO wrote:
On 4/24/2023 11:15 PM, jillery wrote:Is answersingenesis (creationists) or evolutionnews (ID proponents) dead?
On Mon, 24 Apr 2023 17:31:45 -0500, RonO <roki...@cox.net> wrote:One off nut jobs and failed organizations don't add up to much of
On 4/24/2023 11:09 AM, jillery wrote:
On Mon, 24 Apr 2023 05:55:05 -0500, RonO <roki...@cox.net> wrote:
On 4/23/2023 11:26 PM, JTEM is my hero wrote:
RonO wrote:
[...]
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/low-hanging%20fruit#:~:text=low%2Dhang·%E2%80%8Bing%20fruit,making%20progress%20toward%20an%20objective
Synonymous with "Soft Target," it is the strategy of the weak and the >>>>>>> cowardly. You attack the weak because you're certain of your own >>>>>>> stupidity and believe you will lose if you attack someone stronger. >>>>>>> -- --
https://jtem.tumblr.com/post/715313108965539840
The obvious flaw in your pathetic reasoning is that for the creationist >>>>>> ID scam it is all, so called, "low hanging fruit" and "Soft Target". >>>>>> Simply reporting on what the ID scam was and is, isn't doing what you >>>>>> claim. Uncommon Descent died, and was just as pathetic before the ID >>>>>> perps put it out of it's misery as I described. It was probably the >>>>>> premiere IDiotic discussion site, controlled by IDiots. It might be >>>>>> considered to be a soft target, but that is only because all of IDiocy >>>>>> falls into that category.
REPOST:
https://evolutionnews.org/2023/04/uncommon-descent-a-farewell-and-remembrance/
Started in the summer of 2005 Uncommonly Dense is now archived for all >>>>>> posterity.
When the ID perps put out their Top Six back in Nov 2017 no one there >>>>>> wanted to discuss the best evidence that existed for ID, and it seemed >>>>>> like they were more interested in countering blasphemy than discussing >>>>>> any science relevant to intelligent design. It was pretty clear then >>>>>> that they were only interested in defending their religious beliefs. >>>>>> Luskin put out what ID was and how it should be defended, and the IDiots >>>>>> at Uncommonly Dense did link to the Luskin effort and put up an article, >>>>>> but only to side track the issue to what Luskin had claimed at some >>>>>> religious conference. No one wanted to discuss the science of IDiocy. >>>>>>
So, the site had already died years ago, and they just got around to >>>>>> burying the corpse.
TO may go the way of the dinosaur, but only because there aren't very >>>>>> many creationists stupid and dishonest enough to try to defend the ID >>>>>> scam, and most creationists with a clue had already given up on
Scientific creationism before Dover showed IDiocy to be just as
worthless as Scientific Creationism.
END REPOST:
Ron Okimoto
Uncommon Descent may be dead, but its spirit reincarnated into
hundreds of new forms.
The ARN discussion group is dead. The ISCID discussion group was dead
from around 2004, and organization has been dead since 2008. Uncommon
descent is dead. What has taken their places? No discussion is allowed >>>> at the Discovery Institute.
Apparently you haven't been reading my replies to your posts. But
then, why should you be any different?
anything worth noting, compared to the demise of the organized
creationist efforts. No one is claiming that the stupid and willfully
ignorant will be a menace for a long time, but their time is long past.
They just don't want to understand that. Kalk and Bill are still anti
evolution creationist, they just understand that they never wanted to be
IDiotic creationists all those years.
It is only that there are not so lot of PRATTs to reiterate on big number of sites. So the uncommondecent was just less popular (neither meat
nor fish) and had to go away.
Otherwise ... the "poll" and "survey" results (seem to be biased and contradicting but) do never say that acceptance of evolution is now
vastly major and so problem is solved. And of course they have their
social networks and so do never read what you think about them.
jillery wrote:
Uncommon Descent may be dead, but its spirit reincarnated into
hundreds of new forms.
This, I remind any lurkers (fat chance there), is the sock puppet that >couldn't even recognize the Multiverse when described to it, because
Einstein never place a huge shiny "Multiverse" label on it.
On 4/25/2023 11:25 AM, Mark Isaak wrote:
On 4/24/23 3:31 PM, RonO wrote:
On 4/24/2023 11:09 AM, jillery wrote:
On Mon, 24 Apr 2023 05:55:05 -0500, RonO <rokimoto@cox.net> wrote:
On 4/23/2023 11:26 PM, JTEM is my hero wrote:
RonO wrote:
          [...]
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/low-hanging%20fruit#:~:text=low%2Dhang·%E2%80%8Bing%20fruit,making%20progress%20toward%20an%20objective
Synonymous with "Soft Target," it is the strategy of the weak and the >>>>>> cowardly. You attack the weak because you're certain of your own
stupidity and believe you will lose if you attack someone stronger. >>>>>> -- --
https://jtem.tumblr.com/post/715313108965539840
The obvious flaw in your pathetic reasoning is that for the
creationist
ID scam it is all, so called, "low hanging fruit" and "Soft Target". >>>>> Simply reporting on what the ID scam was and is, isn't doing what you >>>>> claim. Uncommon Descent died, and was just as pathetic before the ID >>>>> perps put it out of it's misery as I described. It was probably the >>>>> premiere IDiotic discussion site, controlled by IDiots. It might be >>>>> considered to be a soft target, but that is only because all of IDiocy >>>>> falls into that category.
REPOST:
https://evolutionnews.org/2023/04/uncommon-descent-a-farewell-and-remembrance/
Started in the summer of 2005 Uncommonly Dense is now archived for all >>>>> posterity.
When the ID perps put out their Top Six back in Nov 2017 no one there >>>>> wanted to discuss the best evidence that existed for ID, and it seemed >>>>> like they were more interested in countering blasphemy than discussing >>>>> any science relevant to intelligent design. It was pretty clear then >>>>> that they were only interested in defending their religious beliefs. >>>>> Luskin put out what ID was and how it should be defended, and the
IDiots
at Uncommonly Dense did link to the Luskin effort and put up an
article,
but only to side track the issue to what Luskin had claimed at some
religious conference. No one wanted to discuss the science of IDiocy. >>>>>
So, the site had already died years ago, and they just got around to >>>>> burying the corpse.
TO may go the way of the dinosaur, but only because there aren't very >>>>> many creationists stupid and dishonest enough to try to defend the ID >>>>> scam, and most creationists with a clue had already given up on
Scientific creationism before Dover showed IDiocy to be just as
worthless as Scientific Creationism.
END REPOST:
Ron Okimoto
Uncommon Descent may be dead, but its spirit reincarnated into
hundreds of new forms.
The ARN discussion group is dead. The ISCID discussion group was
dead from around 2004, and organization has been dead since 2008.
Uncommon descent is dead. What has taken their places? No
discussion is allowed at the Discovery Institute.
Go on Facebook and type "creationism" in the search window. You will
be presented with innumerable groups on creationism. Fifteen of the
first 60 or so on the list have more than 1000 members.
Creationism is not dead. Creationists simply prefer venues where they
can get their ideas echoed back to them without challenge.
I don't do facebook, but we aren't talking about individual influencers.
 How large are the groups and how are they organized? Who cares if the ICR has a facebook page? Anyone that wants to continue the political
scam understands how lost those organizations are. When are any of
these facebook groups going to be called to support teaching creationism
in the public schools by anyone with any sense at all? It took the Discovery Institute 7 years to build up enough influence among the creationist rubes to be called on to support the ID scam in Ohio in
2002. When will any of the facebook groups be able to do that?
On 4/25/23 3:46 PM, RonO wrote:
On 4/25/2023 11:25 AM, Mark Isaak wrote:
On 4/24/23 3:31 PM, RonO wrote:
On 4/24/2023 11:09 AM, jillery wrote:
On Mon, 24 Apr 2023 05:55:05 -0500, RonO <rokimoto@cox.net> wrote:
On 4/23/2023 11:26 PM, JTEM is my hero wrote:
RonO wrote:
          [...]
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/low-hanging%20fruit#:~:text=low%2Dhang·%E2%80%8Bing%20fruit,making%20progress%20toward%20an%20objective
Synonymous with "Soft Target," it is the strategy of the weak and >>>>>>> the
cowardly. You attack the weak because you're certain of your own >>>>>>> stupidity and believe you will lose if you attack someone stronger. >>>>>>> -- --
https://jtem.tumblr.com/post/715313108965539840
The obvious flaw in your pathetic reasoning is that for the
creationist
ID scam it is all, so called, "low hanging fruit" and "Soft Target". >>>>>> Simply reporting on what the ID scam was and is, isn't doing what you >>>>>> claim. Uncommon Descent died, and was just as pathetic before the ID >>>>>> perps put it out of it's misery as I described. It was probably the >>>>>> premiere IDiotic discussion site, controlled by IDiots. It might be >>>>>> considered to be a soft target, but that is only because all of
IDiocy
falls into that category.
REPOST:
https://evolutionnews.org/2023/04/uncommon-descent-a-farewell-and-remembrance/
Started in the summer of 2005 Uncommonly Dense is now archived for >>>>>> all
posterity.
When the ID perps put out their Top Six back in Nov 2017 no one there >>>>>> wanted to discuss the best evidence that existed for ID, and it
seemed
like they were more interested in countering blasphemy than
discussing
any science relevant to intelligent design. It was pretty clear then >>>>>> that they were only interested in defending their religious beliefs. >>>>>> Luskin put out what ID was and how it should be defended, and the
IDiots
at Uncommonly Dense did link to the Luskin effort and put up an
article,
but only to side track the issue to what Luskin had claimed at some >>>>>> religious conference. No one wanted to discuss the science of
IDiocy.
So, the site had already died years ago, and they just got around to >>>>>> burying the corpse.
TO may go the way of the dinosaur, but only because there aren't very >>>>>> many creationists stupid and dishonest enough to try to defend the ID >>>>>> scam, and most creationists with a clue had already given up on
Scientific creationism before Dover showed IDiocy to be just as
worthless as Scientific Creationism.
END REPOST:
Ron Okimoto
Uncommon Descent may be dead, but its spirit reincarnated into
hundreds of new forms.
The ARN discussion group is dead. The ISCID discussion group was
dead from around 2004, and organization has been dead since 2008.
Uncommon descent is dead. What has taken their places? No
discussion is allowed at the Discovery Institute.
Go on Facebook and type "creationism" in the search window. You will
be presented with innumerable groups on creationism. Fifteen of the
first 60 or so on the list have more than 1000 members.
Creationism is not dead. Creationists simply prefer venues where
they can get their ideas echoed back to them without challenge.
I don't do facebook, but we aren't talking about individual
influencers. Â Â How large are the groups and how are they organized?
Who cares if the ICR has a facebook page? Anyone that wants to
continue the political scam understands how lost those organizations
are. When are any of these facebook groups going to be called to
support teaching creationism in the public schools by anyone with any
sense at all? It took the Discovery Institute 7 years to build up
enough influence among the creationist rubes to be called on to
support the ID scam in Ohio in 2002. When will any of the facebook
groups be able to do that?
As you have already been told, Facebook is just one of many platforms
where creationists gather.
Do you care whether ARN or ISCID have Facebook pages? As far as I can
tell, they don't, but Center for Science and Culture does, as do at
least two other intelligent design groups.
You are aware, I hope, that West Virginia's senate recently passed a law allowing "[t]eachers in public schools, including public charter
schools, that include any one or more of grades Kindergarten through 12,
[to] teach intelligent design as a theory of how the universe and/or
humanity came to exist". It passed 27 to 6. Probably because the
people voting for it thought it was what their constituents want.
[...]
Just because there are stupid rubes and the willfully ignorant and
outright dishonest creationists still out there, doesn't mean that junk
like scientific creationism and IDiocy are not dead in terms of any
political influence they can muster. The simple reason is that there
aren't very many biblical creationists that want any creation science to
be accomplished. Anyone with a clue understands that science is just
the study of nature, and it turns out that nature isn't much like the biblical creation depicted in the Bible. Just think about what would
ever happen if any ID perp was successful in demonstrating that some
designer was involved in one of the Top Six. For the majority of YEC
IDiots such a designer would not be the Biblical designer. It would
just be more science to deny.
On 4/27/23 4:04 AM, RonO wrote:
[...]
Just because there are stupid rubes and the willfully ignorant and
outright dishonest creationists still out there, doesn't mean that
junk like scientific creationism and IDiocy are not dead in terms of
any political influence they can muster. The simple reason is that
there aren't very many biblical creationists that want any creation
science to be accomplished. Anyone with a clue understands that
science is just the study of nature, and it turns out that nature
isn't much like the biblical creation depicted in the Bible. Just
think about what would ever happen if any ID perp was successful in
demonstrating that some designer was involved in one of the Top Six.
For the majority of YEC IDiots such a designer would not be the
Biblical designer. It would just be more science to deny.
Problem is, the science denial goes well beyond creationism. The same cultural groups that support creationism also use science denial to
reject climate change and claim there is something wrong with LGBTQ
people. In both cases, they have very strong influence, and that
influence has been literally deadly.
On 4/27/2023 11:02 AM, Mark Isaak wrote:
On 4/27/23 4:04 AM, RonO wrote:
[...]
Just because there are stupid rubes and the willfully ignorant and
outright dishonest creationists still out there, doesn't mean that
junk like scientific creationism and IDiocy are not dead in terms of
any political influence they can muster. The simple reason is that
there aren't very many biblical creationists that want any creation
science to be accomplished. Anyone with a clue understands that
science is just the study of nature, and it turns out that nature
isn't much like the biblical creation depicted in the Bible. Just
think about what would ever happen if any ID perp was successful in
demonstrating that some designer was involved in one of the Top Six.
For the majority of YEC IDiots such a designer would not be the
Biblical designer. It would just be more science to deny.
Problem is, the science denial goes well beyond creationism. The same
cultural groups that support creationism also use science denial to
reject climate change and claim there is something wrong with LGBTQ
people. In both cases, they have very strong influence, and that
influence has been literally deadly.
The ID perps have been so good at shutting down the creationist nonsense
in their self censorship drive that the NCSE had to take on other denial stupidity like global warming just to look like they were doing
something. There will never be s shortage of IDiot type creationists.
What there is a shortage of is any IDiots that actually want to
accomplish any ID science.
On 4/27/23 3:41 PM, RonO wrote:
On 4/27/2023 11:02 AM, Mark Isaak wrote:
On 4/27/23 4:04 AM, RonO wrote:
[...]
Just because there are stupid rubes and the willfully ignorant and
outright dishonest creationists still out there, doesn't mean that
junk like scientific creationism and IDiocy are not dead in terms of
any political influence they can muster. The simple reason is that
there aren't very many biblical creationists that want any creation
science to be accomplished. Anyone with a clue understands that
science is just the study of nature, and it turns out that nature
isn't much like the biblical creation depicted in the Bible. Just
think about what would ever happen if any ID perp was successful in
demonstrating that some designer was involved in one of the Top Six.
For the majority of YEC IDiots such a designer would not be the
Biblical designer. It would just be more science to deny.
Problem is, the science denial goes well beyond creationism. The
same cultural groups that support creationism also use science denial
to reject climate change and claim there is something wrong with
LGBTQ people. In both cases, they have very strong influence, and
that influence has been literally deadly.
The ID perps have been so good at shutting down the creationist
nonsense in their self censorship drive that the NCSE had to take on
other denial stupidity like global warming just to look like they were
doing something. There will never be s shortage of IDiot type
creationists. What there is a shortage of is any IDiots that actually
want to accomplish any ID science.
I get the impression your *only* concern is with intelligent design, and
you don't give a damn about the underlying issues of science denial and religious bigotry.
On 4/28/2023 9:14 AM, Mark Isaak wrote:When the "scam" got started, it was the only way to get creationism into the schools, since you had to pretend it was just a different version of science. In case you haven't noticed, in the past 6 years or so, the courts have been packed with very right
On 4/27/23 3:41 PM, RonO wrote:
On 4/27/2023 11:02 AM, Mark Isaak wrote:
On 4/27/23 4:04 AM, RonO wrote:
[...]
Just because there are stupid rubes and the willfully ignorant and
outright dishonest creationists still out there, doesn't mean that
junk like scientific creationism and IDiocy are not dead in terms of >>>> any political influence they can muster. The simple reason is that >>>> there aren't very many biblical creationists that want any creation >>>> science to be accomplished. Anyone with a clue understands that
science is just the study of nature, and it turns out that nature
isn't much like the biblical creation depicted in the Bible. Just
think about what would ever happen if any ID perp was successful in >>>> demonstrating that some designer was involved in one of the Top Six. >>>> For the majority of YEC IDiots such a designer would not be the
Biblical designer. It would just be more science to deny.
Problem is, the science denial goes well beyond creationism. The
same cultural groups that support creationism also use science denial >>> to reject climate change and claim there is something wrong with
LGBTQ people. In both cases, they have very strong influence, and
that influence has been literally deadly.
The ID perps have been so good at shutting down the creationist
nonsense in their self censorship drive that the NCSE had to take on
other denial stupidity like global warming just to look like they were
doing something. There will never be s shortage of IDiot type
creationists. What there is a shortage of is any IDiots that actually
want to accomplish any ID science.
I get the impression your *only* concern is with intelligent design, and you don't give a damn about the underlying issues of science denial and religious bigotry.
Nope. Wrong again. I acknowledge that there is still an issue, but
currently the ID perps are controlling the creationist rubes so that
nothing they do ever amounts to anything, and the sad reality is that
the majority of IDiots never wanted the ID perps to produce any ID
science. Just try to get Bill or Kalk to put up the Top Six as
something that they ever wanted to use as something to positively
related to the designer that they worship in church. Your misconception about what the Top Six did to TO IDiots is blocking your understanding
of the current situation.
What happens whenever any creationist rube wants to get their public
schools to teach the creationist nonsense? It has happened for over two decades so you should not have missed it. The ID perps never wanted
Dover to happen, and they don't want a repeat of Dover. The ID perps
have been so good at rubbing the rubes faces in the stupidity of what
they are doing that some young earth denominations are trying to go old earth in order to get out from under the worst of what reality has
become for them.
The antiscience creationist rubes will likely be around for centuries,
but currently the ID perps, who took over from the scientific
creationists, are suppressing them, probably, more effectively than the science advocates ever could. The creationist rubes do not like the
switch scam. Teaching enough science to make it possible for them to
tell their kids what to deny isn't really an option for them, and nearly
all the rubes who have had the bait and switch run on them have dropped
the issue instead of go with the obfuscation and denial switch scam.
Only Louisiana and Texas are still bending over for the switch scam, and neither of them have done anything with it since they both had the bait
and switch rerun on them back in 2013. Both states tried to get ID into textbook supplements, but the ID perps had to remind them that the
switch scam had nothing to do with ID and shut both State's creationist rubes down. I do not recall any subsequent attempt by either state to implement the switch scam at the state level since.
The Top Six was just the last straw for most TO IDiots, and now they
seem to have returned to just being plain old creationists that don't
know how to defend their religious beliefs except for abject denial. It probably should have happened when Santorum and Phillip Johnson quit the
ID scam after Dover. Johnson and Santorum didn't give up on
creationism, just the ID scam. Kalk and Bill are still Biblical creationists, they are just no longer IDiot creationists.
Ron Okimoto
On Friday, April 28, 2023 at 6:55:04 PM UTC-4, RonO wrote:right leaning judges far more favorable to introducing religion into public schools than was previously the case. Theocracy is having a moment, and silly efforts to disguise creationism as science are no longer necessary.
On 4/28/2023 9:14 AM, Mark Isaak wrote:When the "scam" got started, it was the only way to get creationism into the schools, since you had to pretend it was just a different version of science. In case you haven't noticed, in the past 6 years or so, the courts have been packed with very
On 4/27/23 3:41 PM, RonO wrote:Nope. Wrong again. I acknowledge that there is still an issue, but
On 4/27/2023 11:02 AM, Mark Isaak wrote:
On 4/27/23 4:04 AM, RonO wrote:
[...]
Just because there are stupid rubes and the willfully ignorant and >>>>>> outright dishonest creationists still out there, doesn't mean that >>>>>> junk like scientific creationism and IDiocy are not dead in terms of >>>>>> any political influence they can muster. The simple reason is that >>>>>> there aren't very many biblical creationists that want any creation >>>>>> science to be accomplished. Anyone with a clue understands that
science is just the study of nature, and it turns out that nature
isn't much like the biblical creation depicted in the Bible. Just >>>>>> think about what would ever happen if any ID perp was successful in >>>>>> demonstrating that some designer was involved in one of the Top Six. >>>>>> For the majority of YEC IDiots such a designer would not be the
Biblical designer. It would just be more science to deny.
Problem is, the science denial goes well beyond creationism. The
same cultural groups that support creationism also use science denial >>>>> to reject climate change and claim there is something wrong with
LGBTQ people. In both cases, they have very strong influence, and
that influence has been literally deadly.
The ID perps have been so good at shutting down the creationist
nonsense in their self censorship drive that the NCSE had to take on
other denial stupidity like global warming just to look like they were >>>> doing something. There will never be s shortage of IDiot type
creationists. What there is a shortage of is any IDiots that actually
want to accomplish any ID science.
I get the impression your *only* concern is with intelligent design, and >>> you don't give a damn about the underlying issues of science denial and
religious bigotry.
currently the ID perps are controlling the creationist rubes so that
nothing they do ever amounts to anything, and the sad reality is that
the majority of IDiots never wanted the ID perps to produce any ID
science. Just try to get Bill or Kalk to put up the Top Six as
something that they ever wanted to use as something to positively
related to the designer that they worship in church. Your misconception
about what the Top Six did to TO IDiots is blocking your understanding
of the current situation.
What happens whenever any creationist rube wants to get their public
schools to teach the creationist nonsense? It has happened for over two
decades so you should not have missed it. The ID perps never wanted
Dover to happen, and they don't want a repeat of Dover. The ID perps
have been so good at rubbing the rubes faces in the stupidity of what
they are doing that some young earth denominations are trying to go old
earth in order to get out from under the worst of what reality has
become for them.
The antiscience creationist rubes will likely be around for centuries,
but currently the ID perps, who took over from the scientific
creationists, are suppressing them, probably, more effectively than the
science advocates ever could. The creationist rubes do not like the
switch scam. Teaching enough science to make it possible for them to
tell their kids what to deny isn't really an option for them, and nearly
all the rubes who have had the bait and switch run on them have dropped
the issue instead of go with the obfuscation and denial switch scam.
Only Louisiana and Texas are still bending over for the switch scam, and
neither of them have done anything with it since they both had the bait
and switch rerun on them back in 2013. Both states tried to get ID into
textbook supplements, but the ID perps had to remind them that the
switch scam had nothing to do with ID and shut both State's creationist
rubes down. I do not recall any subsequent attempt by either state to
implement the switch scam at the state level since.
The Top Six was just the last straw for most TO IDiots, and now they
seem to have returned to just being plain old creationists that don't
know how to defend their religious beliefs except for abject denial. It
probably should have happened when Santorum and Phillip Johnson quit the
ID scam after Dover. Johnson and Santorum didn't give up on
creationism, just the ID scam. Kalk and Bill are still Biblical
creationists, they are just no longer IDiot creationists.
Ron Okimoto
On 4/28/2023 7:16 PM, broger...@gmail.com wrote:......
On Friday, April 28, 2023 at 6:55:04 PM UTC-4, RonO wrote:
On 4/28/2023 9:14 AM, Mark Isaak wrote:
On 4/27/23 3:41 PM, RonO wrote:Nope. Wrong again. I acknowledge that there is still an issue, but
On 4/27/2023 11:02 AM, Mark Isaak wrote:
On 4/27/23 4:04 AM, RonO wrote:
[...]
Just because there are stupid rubes and the willfully ignorant and >>>>>> outright dishonest creationists still out there, doesn't mean that >>>>>> junk like scientific creationism and IDiocy are not dead in terms of >>>>>> any political influence they can muster. The simple reason is that >>>>>> there aren't very many biblical creationists that want any creation >>>>>> science to be accomplished. Anyone with a clue understands that >>>>>> science is just the study of nature, and it turns out that nature >>>>>> isn't much like the biblical creation depicted in the Bible. Just >>>>>> think about what would ever happen if any ID perp was successful in >>>>>> demonstrating that some designer was involved in one of the Top Six. >>>>>> For the majority of YEC IDiots such a designer would not be the >>>>>> Biblical designer. It would just be more science to deny.
Problem is, the science denial goes well beyond creationism. The
same cultural groups that support creationism also use science denial >>>>> to reject climate change and claim there is something wrong with
LGBTQ people. In both cases, they have very strong influence, and >>>>> that influence has been literally deadly.
The ID perps have been so good at shutting down the creationist
nonsense in their self censorship drive that the NCSE had to take on >>>> other denial stupidity like global warming just to look like they were >>>> doing something. There will never be s shortage of IDiot type
creationists. What there is a shortage of is any IDiots that actually >>>> want to accomplish any ID science.
I get the impression your *only* concern is with intelligent design, and >>> you don't give a damn about the underlying issues of science denial and >>> religious bigotry.
currently the ID perps are controlling the creationist rubes so that
nothing they do ever amounts to anything, and the sad reality is that
the majority of IDiots never wanted the ID perps to produce any ID
science. Just try to get Bill or Kalk to put up the Top Six as
something that they ever wanted to use as something to positively
related to the designer that they worship in church. Your misconception >> about what the Top Six did to TO IDiots is blocking your understanding
of the current situation.
What happens whenever any creationist rube wants to get their public
schools to teach the creationist nonsense? It has happened for over two >> decades so you should not have missed it. The ID perps never wanted
Dover to happen, and they don't want a repeat of Dover. The ID perps
have been so good at rubbing the rubes faces in the stupidity of what
they are doing that some young earth denominations are trying to go old >> earth in order to get out from under the worst of what reality has
become for them.
The antiscience creationist rubes will likely be around for centuries,
but currently the ID perps, who took over from the scientific
creationists, are suppressing them, probably, more effectively than the >> science advocates ever could. The creationist rubes do not like the
switch scam. Teaching enough science to make it possible for them to
tell their kids what to deny isn't really an option for them, and nearly >> all the rubes who have had the bait and switch run on them have dropped >> the issue instead of go with the obfuscation and denial switch scam.
Only Louisiana and Texas are still bending over for the switch scam, and >> neither of them have done anything with it since they both had the bait >> and switch rerun on them back in 2013. Both states tried to get ID into >> textbook supplements, but the ID perps had to remind them that the
switch scam had nothing to do with ID and shut both State's creationist >> rubes down. I do not recall any subsequent attempt by either state to
implement the switch scam at the state level since.
The Top Six was just the last straw for most TO IDiots, and now they
seem to have returned to just being plain old creationists that don't
know how to defend their religious beliefs except for abject denial. It >> probably should have happened when Santorum and Phillip Johnson quit the >> ID scam after Dover. Johnson and Santorum didn't give up on
creationism, just the ID scam. Kalk and Bill are still Biblical
creationists, they are just no longer IDiot creationists.
Ron Okimoto
right leaning judges far more favorable to introducing religion into public schools than was previously the case. Theocracy is having a moment, and silly efforts to disguise creationism as science are no longer necessary.When the "scam" got started, it was the only way to get creationism into the schools, since you had to pretend it was just a different version of science. In case you haven't noticed, in the past 6 years or so, the courts have been packed with very
Beats me why you want to be so wrong about this junk.
The ID perps
changed the name of what they were selling so that they could continue
the political efforts of the Scientific Creationists. Of Pandas and
People was supposed to be the textbook that the scientific creationists needed to teach their junk in the public schools. The Arkansas federal
court ruling included the fact that they had no suitable materials for teaching the junk in the public schools. All the scientific creationist literature was laced with Bible verses and biblical mythology. Of
Pandas and People was announced as the creastionist text that wouldn't
have those issues, but it came too late to be used to teach scientific creationism. The sad thing is that the ID perps understood that they
didn't have the creation science to teach in the public schools in that textbook or anywhere else. The Supreme court ruled that if any valid creation science ever was produced that it could be taught in the public schools, and that the current religious creationist material could be
taught in a public school comparative religion class, but it would have
to be a comparison of a range of religious beliefs that could include
the scientific creationist junk.
None of the ID perps wanted to do that, and they knew that there wasn't
any creation science worth calling science in Of Pandas and People, so
they changed the name from creationism to intelligent design. When they
did this they knew that if they actually had valid creation science that they would not have had to make the name change. Kenyon was one of the
two main authors, and he knew the junk didn't measure up because he
wrote the material used to try to claim that the creation science was science for the creationist legal team. The name changed spawned the ID scam. Behe admitted in Dover that he had written parts of the book, but wasn't credited. Meyer wrote the teachers notes for the book. Thaxton
was the editor and Kenyon was was one of the two main authors.
All of these ID perps knew that if Of Pandas and People had contained
any valid creation science that there would have been no reason to
change the name from creationism to intelligent design.
For the right leaning court to make a ruling a case would have to get
past the lower courts, at least, on appeal. Scientific creationism made
it to the supreme court because the case went to a creationist federal
judge that was willing to prostitute himself for the cause. The
Arkansas case like the Dover case was never appealed. The Dover ID scam
case went to a federal judge appointed by Bush, and a church going Scoutmaster. We all know what happened. Phillip Johnson, the person supposedly responsible for getting the ID perps together and getting
them funding, and the person responsible for developing the Wedge
strategy, sat in court every day and watch IDiocy revealed for the scam
that it always had been. Afterword Johnson admitted that the ID science
had never existed, and claimed that he was glad that the scam was over,
and things could go on some other way.
After Dover there is no way that IDiocy would make it to the Supreme
Court even if the ID perps stopped running the bait and switch scam on
the hapless creationist rubes. The ID perps keep selling the rubes the
claim that they have the ID science to teach in the public schools, but
for over 2 decades they have run the bait and switch on any creationist rubes that believed them. Before Dover they had a list up of over 20
school boards and legislatures that they had run the bait and switch on.
The list claimed to be rubes thinking about accepting the switch scam.
At that time only Ohio had bent over for the switch scam. All the
other rubes had deferred, and except for Louisiana and Texas eventually dropped the scam. No group of creationist rubes before Dover got the
chance to teach the junk in the public schools because the ID perps
would not let them do it. When the scam artists that sold you the scam
tell you not to do what they claimed you could do, the rubes usually
listen. Dover was the ID perps only failure, and demonstrated why they needed to keep running the bait and switch after Dover. The ID perps do
not run the bait and switch on the science side, they run the scam on
their own creationist support base.
For some insane reason the ID bait and switch scam continued after
Dover. The ID perps put out their teach ID scam propaganda claiming
that the federal court ruling had been wrong, and they kept claiming
that they had the ID science that could be taught in the public schools. Fewer rubes believed them, but the bait and switch had to keep going
down. Probably the worst example was Florida in 2009. Something like 9 county school boards wanted to teach the ID scam junk in their public schools, and legislation had been written to allow teaching the junk in
the public schools. The ID perps had to send a team down to Florida to
run the bait and switch on the creationist rubes. I remember Luskin interviewed on the capitol steps. Florida wouldn't bend over for the
switch scam and dropped the issue.
All this means is that the bait and switch scam would have to stop in
order for any group of rubes to get the ID creationist scam to the
supreme court, and even if they got it there with the current Right
leaning court, my guess is that enough creationists have been burned by
the bait and switch scam that anyone that decided to support the ID scam would have to be among the stupidest people alive. History alone would
tell them what the future would think of any justice that could be that lame.
It isn't just the lame history of the ID scam. The Top Six demonstrates
that the ID perps have nothing that the majority of IDiotic creationists want to teach in the public schools. If you aren't going to teach the
best, why would you teach anything at all? The Top Six killed ID on TO,
and it would kill any attempt to teach ID in the public schools. #1 of
the Top Six (The Big Bang) is already one of the science topics that
IDiot type creationists have wanted to remove from the science standards
in several states, and they succeeded for a while in Kansas before
enough creationist board members were voted out to reinstate the old standards. Just as most of the remaining IDiots on TO could not deal
with the Top Six in an honest and straightforward manner, the vast
majority of IDiots can't deal with them. There is actually no ID
science that the creationist rubes want to teach their kids. That is probably the main reason why no ID perp ever attempted to do any ID
science. Just imagine if Behe was able to demonstrate that the
flagellum was his type of IC system. He would know what existed before
the flagellum evolved and he would know something about what had to
happen in order to get the parts together. The flagellum evolved over a billion years ago. Behe claims that 3 neutral mutations occurring
within a short time period would be enough to make a system his type of
IC. Behe would need to know the context in which those mutations had to occur. Confirmation of the flagellum as Behe's type of IC would just be
more science to deny by the IDiots. Just imagine what would happen if
Meyer figured out what his designer did within that 25 million year
period of the Cambrian explosion over half a billion years ago. There
was never any ID science worth teaching, and no attempt to produce any
valid ID science was ever made by the ID perps. Did Behe and Minnich
ever attempt the "scientific test" for IC that they claimed was possible under oath?
Ron Okimoto
On Friday, April 28, 2023 at 10:20:05 PM UTC-4, RonO wrote:right leaning judges far more favorable to introducing religion into public schools than was previously the case. Theocracy is having a moment, and silly efforts to disguise creationism as science are no longer necessary.
On 4/28/2023 7:16 PM, broger...@gmail.com wrote:......
On Friday, April 28, 2023 at 6:55:04 PM UTC-4, RonO wrote:
On 4/28/2023 9:14 AM, Mark Isaak wrote:
On 4/27/23 3:41 PM, RonO wrote:Nope. Wrong again. I acknowledge that there is still an issue, but
On 4/27/2023 11:02 AM, Mark Isaak wrote:
On 4/27/23 4:04 AM, RonO wrote:
[...]
Just because there are stupid rubes and the willfully ignorant and >>>>>>>> outright dishonest creationists still out there, doesn't mean that >>>>>>>> junk like scientific creationism and IDiocy are not dead in terms of >>>>>>>> any political influence they can muster. The simple reason is that >>>>>>>> there aren't very many biblical creationists that want any creation >>>>>>>> science to be accomplished. Anyone with a clue understands that >>>>>>>> science is just the study of nature, and it turns out that nature >>>>>>>> isn't much like the biblical creation depicted in the Bible. Just >>>>>>>> think about what would ever happen if any ID perp was successful in >>>>>>>> demonstrating that some designer was involved in one of the Top Six. >>>>>>>> For the majority of YEC IDiots such a designer would not be the >>>>>>>> Biblical designer. It would just be more science to deny.
Problem is, the science denial goes well beyond creationism. The >>>>>>> same cultural groups that support creationism also use science denial >>>>>>> to reject climate change and claim there is something wrong with >>>>>>> LGBTQ people. In both cases, they have very strong influence, and >>>>>>> that influence has been literally deadly.
The ID perps have been so good at shutting down the creationist
nonsense in their self censorship drive that the NCSE had to take on >>>>>> other denial stupidity like global warming just to look like they were >>>>>> doing something. There will never be s shortage of IDiot type
creationists. What there is a shortage of is any IDiots that actually >>>>>> want to accomplish any ID science.
I get the impression your *only* concern is with intelligent design, and >>>>> you don't give a damn about the underlying issues of science denial and >>>>> religious bigotry.
currently the ID perps are controlling the creationist rubes so that
nothing they do ever amounts to anything, and the sad reality is that
the majority of IDiots never wanted the ID perps to produce any ID
science. Just try to get Bill or Kalk to put up the Top Six as
something that they ever wanted to use as something to positively
related to the designer that they worship in church. Your misconception >>>> about what the Top Six did to TO IDiots is blocking your understanding >>>> of the current situation.
What happens whenever any creationist rube wants to get their public
schools to teach the creationist nonsense? It has happened for over two >>>> decades so you should not have missed it. The ID perps never wanted
Dover to happen, and they don't want a repeat of Dover. The ID perps
have been so good at rubbing the rubes faces in the stupidity of what
they are doing that some young earth denominations are trying to go old >>>> earth in order to get out from under the worst of what reality has
become for them.
The antiscience creationist rubes will likely be around for centuries, >>>> but currently the ID perps, who took over from the scientific
creationists, are suppressing them, probably, more effectively than the >>>> science advocates ever could. The creationist rubes do not like the
switch scam. Teaching enough science to make it possible for them to
tell their kids what to deny isn't really an option for them, and nearly >>>> all the rubes who have had the bait and switch run on them have dropped >>>> the issue instead of go with the obfuscation and denial switch scam.
Only Louisiana and Texas are still bending over for the switch scam, and >>>> neither of them have done anything with it since they both had the bait >>>> and switch rerun on them back in 2013. Both states tried to get ID into >>>> textbook supplements, but the ID perps had to remind them that the
switch scam had nothing to do with ID and shut both State's creationist >>>> rubes down. I do not recall any subsequent attempt by either state to
implement the switch scam at the state level since.
The Top Six was just the last straw for most TO IDiots, and now they
seem to have returned to just being plain old creationists that don't
know how to defend their religious beliefs except for abject denial. It >>>> probably should have happened when Santorum and Phillip Johnson quit the >>>> ID scam after Dover. Johnson and Santorum didn't give up on
creationism, just the ID scam. Kalk and Bill are still Biblical
creationists, they are just no longer IDiot creationists.
Ron Okimoto
When the "scam" got started, it was the only way to get creationism into the schools, since you had to pretend it was just a different version of science. In case you haven't noticed, in the past 6 years or so, the courts have been packed with very
........scientific curriculum to offer a school, etc. The lower courts, which you seem to think would keep a creationism case from reaching SCOTUS, have been even more liberally sprinkled with right wing theocrats who are apt to approve almost anything in the
Beats me why you want to be so wrong about this junk.
I'm sure it beats you. You rarely, if ever, understand why people disagree with you. And that's obvious from the fact that most of your response to me was simply a repeat of stuff we agree on, ID isn't real science, it failed in the courts, it has no
The ID perps
changed the name of what they were selling so that they could continue
the political efforts of the Scientific Creationists. Of Pandas and
People was supposed to be the textbook that the scientific creationists
needed to teach their junk in the public schools. The Arkansas federal
court ruling included the fact that they had no suitable materials for
teaching the junk in the public schools. All the scientific creationist
literature was laced with Bible verses and biblical mythology. Of
Pandas and People was announced as the creastionist text that wouldn't
have those issues, but it came too late to be used to teach scientific
creationism. The sad thing is that the ID perps understood that they
didn't have the creation science to teach in the public schools in that
textbook or anywhere else. The Supreme court ruled that if any valid
creation science ever was produced that it could be taught in the public
schools, and that the current religious creationist material could be
taught in a public school comparative religion class, but it would have
to be a comparison of a range of religious beliefs that could include
the scientific creationist junk.
None of the ID perps wanted to do that, and they knew that there wasn't
any creation science worth calling science in Of Pandas and People, so
they changed the name from creationism to intelligent design. When they
did this they knew that if they actually had valid creation science that
they would not have had to make the name change. Kenyon was one of the
two main authors, and he knew the junk didn't measure up because he
wrote the material used to try to claim that the creation science was
science for the creationist legal team. The name changed spawned the ID
scam. Behe admitted in Dover that he had written parts of the book, but
wasn't credited. Meyer wrote the teachers notes for the book. Thaxton
was the editor and Kenyon was was one of the two main authors.
All of these ID perps knew that if Of Pandas and People had contained
any valid creation science that there would have been no reason to
change the name from creationism to intelligent design.
For the right leaning court to make a ruling a case would have to get
past the lower courts, at least, on appeal. Scientific creationism made
it to the supreme court because the case went to a creationist federal
judge that was willing to prostitute himself for the cause. The
Arkansas case like the Dover case was never appealed. The Dover ID scam
case went to a federal judge appointed by Bush, and a church going
Scoutmaster. We all know what happened. Phillip Johnson, the person
supposedly responsible for getting the ID perps together and getting
them funding, and the person responsible for developing the Wedge
strategy, sat in court every day and watch IDiocy revealed for the scam
that it always had been. Afterword Johnson admitted that the ID science
had never existed, and claimed that he was glad that the scam was over,
and things could go on some other way.
After Dover there is no way that IDiocy would make it to the Supreme
Court even if the ID perps stopped running the bait and switch scam on
the hapless creationist rubes. The ID perps keep selling the rubes the
claim that they have the ID science to teach in the public schools, but
for over 2 decades they have run the bait and switch on any creationist
rubes that believed them. Before Dover they had a list up of over 20
school boards and legislatures that they had run the bait and switch on.
The list claimed to be rubes thinking about accepting the switch scam.
At that time only Ohio had bent over for the switch scam. All the
other rubes had deferred, and except for Louisiana and Texas eventually
dropped the scam. No group of creationist rubes before Dover got the
chance to teach the junk in the public schools because the ID perps
would not let them do it. When the scam artists that sold you the scam
tell you not to do what they claimed you could do, the rubes usually
listen. Dover was the ID perps only failure, and demonstrated why they
needed to keep running the bait and switch after Dover. The ID perps do
not run the bait and switch on the science side, they run the scam on
their own creationist support base.
For some insane reason the ID bait and switch scam continued after
Dover. The ID perps put out their teach ID scam propaganda claiming
that the federal court ruling had been wrong, and they kept claiming
that they had the ID science that could be taught in the public schools.
Fewer rubes believed them, but the bait and switch had to keep going
down. Probably the worst example was Florida in 2009. Something like 9
county school boards wanted to teach the ID scam junk in their public
schools, and legislation had been written to allow teaching the junk in
the public schools. The ID perps had to send a team down to Florida to
run the bait and switch on the creationist rubes. I remember Luskin
interviewed on the capitol steps. Florida wouldn't bend over for the
switch scam and dropped the issue.
All this means is that the bait and switch scam would have to stop in
order for any group of rubes to get the ID creationist scam to the
supreme court, and even if they got it there with the current Right
leaning court, my guess is that enough creationists have been burned by
the bait and switch scam that anyone that decided to support the ID scam
would have to be among the stupidest people alive. History alone would
tell them what the future would think of any justice that could be that
lame.
It isn't just the lame history of the ID scam. The Top Six demonstrates
that the ID perps have nothing that the majority of IDiotic creationists
want to teach in the public schools. If you aren't going to teach the
best, why would you teach anything at all? The Top Six killed ID on TO,
and it would kill any attempt to teach ID in the public schools. #1 of
the Top Six (The Big Bang) is already one of the science topics that
IDiot type creationists have wanted to remove from the science standards
in several states, and they succeeded for a while in Kansas before
enough creationist board members were voted out to reinstate the old
standards. Just as most of the remaining IDiots on TO could not deal
with the Top Six in an honest and straightforward manner, the vast
majority of IDiots can't deal with them. There is actually no ID
science that the creationist rubes want to teach their kids. That is
probably the main reason why no ID perp ever attempted to do any ID
science. Just imagine if Behe was able to demonstrate that the
flagellum was his type of IC system. He would know what existed before
the flagellum evolved and he would know something about what had to
happen in order to get the parts together. The flagellum evolved over a
billion years ago. Behe claims that 3 neutral mutations occurring
within a short time period would be enough to make a system his type of
IC. Behe would need to know the context in which those mutations had to
occur. Confirmation of the flagellum as Behe's type of IC would just be
more science to deny by the IDiots. Just imagine what would happen if
Meyer figured out what his designer did within that 25 million year
period of the Cambrian explosion over half a billion years ago. There
was never any ID science worth teaching, and no attempt to produce any
valid ID science was ever made by the ID perps. Did Behe and Minnich
ever attempt the "scientific test" for IC that they claimed was possible
under oath?
Ron Okimoto
On 4/29/2023 6:50 AM, broger...@gmail.com wrote:
On Friday, April 28, 2023 at 10:20:05 PM UTC-4, RonO wrote:
On 4/28/2023 7:16 PM, broger...@gmail.com wrote:
On Friday, April 28, 2023 at 6:55:04 PM UTC-4, RonO wrote:
On 4/28/2023 9:14 AM, Mark Isaak wrote:
On 4/27/23 3:41 PM, RonO wrote:
On 4/27/2023 11:02 AM, Mark Isaak wrote:
On 4/27/23 4:04 AM, RonO wrote:
Do you now realize how wrong you were. I know that the reason that
people disagree with me is because you have remained ignorant of just
On Saturday, April 29, 2023 at 9:15:06 AM UTC-4, RonO wrote:
On 4/29/2023 6:50 AM, broger...@gmail.com wrote:
On Friday, April 28, 2023 at 10:20:05 PM UTC-4, RonO wrote:
On 4/28/2023 7:16 PM, broger...@gmail.com wrote:
On Friday, April 28, 2023 at 6:55:04 PM UTC-4, RonO wrote:
On 4/28/2023 9:14 AM, Mark Isaak wrote:
On 4/27/23 3:41 PM, RonO wrote:
On 4/27/2023 11:02 AM, Mark Isaak wrote:
On 4/27/23 4:04 AM, RonO wrote:
Do you now realize how wrong you were. I know that the reason that
people disagree with me is because you have remained ignorant of just
Seek psychological counseling.
On 4/29/2023 8:22 AM, Lawyer Daggett wrote:
On Saturday, April 29, 2023 at 9:15:06 AM UTC-4, RonO wrote:
On 4/29/2023 6:50 AM, broger...@gmail.com wrote:
On Friday, April 28, 2023 at 10:20:05 PM UTC-4, RonO wrote:
On 4/28/2023 7:16 PM, broger...@gmail.com wrote:
On Friday, April 28, 2023 at 6:55:04 PM UTC-4, RonO wrote:
On 4/28/2023 9:14 AM, Mark Isaak wrote:
On 4/27/23 3:41 PM, RonO wrote:
On 4/27/2023 11:02 AM, Mark Isaak wrote:
On 4/27/23 4:04 AM, RonO wrote:
Do you now realize how wrong you were. I know that the reason that
people disagree with me is because you have remained ignorant of just
Seek psychological counseling.
So you have no counter or ability to reconsider what actually has been
going on for over 20 years. Why not attempt to demonstrate that he
isn't ignorant, of what the situation currently is?
It should be easy to demonstrate that I am wrong, so why not try to do
it. You do understand how profound your misunderstanding of the Top Six situation was, so shouldn't you go further and figure out what else you
are wrong about?
On Saturday, April 29, 2023 at 10:05:05 AM UTC-4, RonO wrote:
On 4/29/2023 8:22 AM, Lawyer Daggett wrote:
On Saturday, April 29, 2023 at 9:15:06 AM UTC-4, RonO wrote:So you have no counter or ability to reconsider what actually has been
On 4/29/2023 6:50 AM, broger...@gmail.com wrote:
On Friday, April 28, 2023 at 10:20:05 PM UTC-4, RonO wrote:
On 4/28/2023 7:16 PM, broger...@gmail.com wrote:
On Friday, April 28, 2023 at 6:55:04 PM UTC-4, RonO wrote:
On 4/28/2023 9:14 AM, Mark Isaak wrote:
On 4/27/23 3:41 PM, RonO wrote:
On 4/27/2023 11:02 AM, Mark Isaak wrote:
On 4/27/23 4:04 AM, RonO wrote:
Do you now realize how wrong you were. I know that the reason that
people disagree with me is because you have remained ignorant of just
Seek psychological counseling.
going on for over 20 years. Why not attempt to demonstrate that he
isn't ignorant, of what the situation currently is?
It should be easy to demonstrate that I am wrong, so why not try to do
it. You do understand how profound your misunderstanding of the Top Six
situation was, so shouldn't you go further and figure out what else you
are wrong about?
That isn't where the problem lies. It's a behavior problem.
On 4/29/2023 9:09 AM, Lawyer Daggett wrote:
On Saturday, April 29, 2023 at 10:05:05 AM UTC-4, RonO wrote:
On 4/29/2023 8:22 AM, Lawyer Daggett wrote:
On Saturday, April 29, 2023 at 9:15:06 AM UTC-4, RonO wrote:So you have no counter or ability to reconsider what actually has been
On 4/29/2023 6:50 AM, broger...@gmail.com wrote:Seek psychological counseling.
On Friday, April 28, 2023 at 10:20:05 PM UTC-4, RonO wrote:
On 4/28/2023 7:16 PM, broger...@gmail.com wrote:
On Friday, April 28, 2023 at 6:55:04 PM UTC-4, RonO wrote: >>>>>>>> On 4/28/2023 9:14 AM, Mark Isaak wrote:
On 4/27/23 3:41 PM, RonO wrote:
On 4/27/2023 11:02 AM, Mark Isaak wrote:
On 4/27/23 4:04 AM, RonO wrote:
Do you now realize how wrong you were. I know that the reason that
people disagree with me is because you have remained ignorant of just >>>
going on for over 20 years. Why not attempt to demonstrate that he
isn't ignorant, of what the situation currently is?
It should be easy to demonstrate that I am wrong, so why not try to do
it. You do understand how profound your misunderstanding of the Top Six >> situation was, so shouldn't you go further and figure out what else you >> are wrong about?
That isn't where the problem lies. It's a behavior problem.
So you are still suffering your profound delusion about the Top Six? Removing what you can't deal with from a post, doesn't change reality. Shouldn't you, at least, try to work some kind of reconciliation with
that delusion before making further claims about someone else? You were obviously wrong, what else are you wrong about?
On 4/29/2023 6:50 AM, broger...@gmail.com wrote:right leaning judges far more favorable to introducing religion into public schools than was previously the case. Theocracy is having a moment, and silly efforts to disguise creationism as science are no longer necessary.
On Friday, April 28, 2023 at 10:20:05 PM UTC-4, RonO wrote:
On 4/28/2023 7:16 PM, broger...@gmail.com wrote:......
On Friday, April 28, 2023 at 6:55:04 PM UTC-4, RonO wrote:
On 4/28/2023 9:14 AM, Mark Isaak wrote:
On 4/27/23 3:41 PM, RonO wrote:Nope. Wrong again. I acknowledge that there is still an issue, but
On 4/27/2023 11:02 AM, Mark Isaak wrote:
On 4/27/23 4:04 AM, RonO wrote:
[...]
Just because there are stupid rubes and the willfully ignorant and >>>>>>>> outright dishonest creationists still out there, doesn't mean that >>>>>>>> junk like scientific creationism and IDiocy are not dead in terms of
any political influence they can muster. The simple reason is that >>>>>>>> there aren't very many biblical creationists that want any creation >>>>>>>> science to be accomplished. Anyone with a clue understands that >>>>>>>> science is just the study of nature, and it turns out that nature >>>>>>>> isn't much like the biblical creation depicted in the Bible. Just >>>>>>>> think about what would ever happen if any ID perp was successful in >>>>>>>> demonstrating that some designer was involved in one of the Top Six.
For the majority of YEC IDiots such a designer would not be the >>>>>>>> Biblical designer. It would just be more science to deny.
Problem is, the science denial goes well beyond creationism. The >>>>>>> same cultural groups that support creationism also use science denial
to reject climate change and claim there is something wrong with >>>>>>> LGBTQ people. In both cases, they have very strong influence, and >>>>>>> that influence has been literally deadly.
The ID perps have been so good at shutting down the creationist >>>>>> nonsense in their self censorship drive that the NCSE had to take on >>>>>> other denial stupidity like global warming just to look like they were
doing something. There will never be s shortage of IDiot type
creationists. What there is a shortage of is any IDiots that actually >>>>>> want to accomplish any ID science.
I get the impression your *only* concern is with intelligent design, and
you don't give a damn about the underlying issues of science denial and
religious bigotry.
currently the ID perps are controlling the creationist rubes so that >>>> nothing they do ever amounts to anything, and the sad reality is that >>>> the majority of IDiots never wanted the ID perps to produce any ID
science. Just try to get Bill or Kalk to put up the Top Six as
something that they ever wanted to use as something to positively
related to the designer that they worship in church. Your misconception >>>> about what the Top Six did to TO IDiots is blocking your understanding >>>> of the current situation.
What happens whenever any creationist rube wants to get their public >>>> schools to teach the creationist nonsense? It has happened for over two >>>> decades so you should not have missed it. The ID perps never wanted >>>> Dover to happen, and they don't want a repeat of Dover. The ID perps >>>> have been so good at rubbing the rubes faces in the stupidity of what >>>> they are doing that some young earth denominations are trying to go old >>>> earth in order to get out from under the worst of what reality has
become for them.
The antiscience creationist rubes will likely be around for centuries, >>>> but currently the ID perps, who took over from the scientific
creationists, are suppressing them, probably, more effectively than the >>>> science advocates ever could. The creationist rubes do not like the >>>> switch scam. Teaching enough science to make it possible for them to >>>> tell their kids what to deny isn't really an option for them, and nearly
all the rubes who have had the bait and switch run on them have dropped >>>> the issue instead of go with the obfuscation and denial switch scam. >>>> Only Louisiana and Texas are still bending over for the switch scam, and
neither of them have done anything with it since they both had the bait >>>> and switch rerun on them back in 2013. Both states tried to get ID into >>>> textbook supplements, but the ID perps had to remind them that the
switch scam had nothing to do with ID and shut both State's creationist >>>> rubes down. I do not recall any subsequent attempt by either state to >>>> implement the switch scam at the state level since.
The Top Six was just the last straw for most TO IDiots, and now they >>>> seem to have returned to just being plain old creationists that don't >>>> know how to defend their religious beliefs except for abject denial. It >>>> probably should have happened when Santorum and Phillip Johnson quit the
ID scam after Dover. Johnson and Santorum didn't give up on
creationism, just the ID scam. Kalk and Bill are still Biblical
creationists, they are just no longer IDiot creationists.
Ron Okimoto
When the "scam" got started, it was the only way to get creationism into the schools, since you had to pretend it was just a different version of science. In case you haven't noticed, in the past 6 years or so, the courts have been packed with very
scientific curriculum to offer a school, etc. The lower courts, which you seem to think would keep a creationism case from reaching SCOTUS, have been even more liberally sprinkled with right wing theocrats who are apt to approve almost anything in the........
Beats me why you want to be so wrong about this junk.
I'm sure it beats you. You rarely, if ever, understand why people disagree with you. And that's obvious from the fact that most of your response to me was simply a repeat of stuff we agree on, ID isn't real science, it failed in the courts, it has no
Do you now realize how wrong you were. I know that the reason that
people disagree with me is because you have remained ignorant of just
what the ID scam has always been. It is just what I claim, and that is
the reason why you want to be so wrong about this junk. Why not counter
my historical account with what you think happened? You have the wrong understanding of what went down. That is why you disagree with me. Demonstrate otherwise.
It is the ID perps who are keeping the junk out of the courts. The bait
and switch has gone down 100% of the time. It has only failed once, and
that failure demonstrated why they needed to run the bait and switch all those years and to this day. For over two decades the ID perps have
been the major player censoring themselves and the creationist rubes
that believe them.
The Top Six does demonstrate that there isn't any ID science that the majority of creationist rubes would want to teach in the public schools. They only support the ID scam because it is the only viable political
scam that they can think of to continue with. Really, once they figure
out what would be taught it would likely be the creationist rubes
appealing any court ruling allowing it to be taught in the public
schools. The Top Six best evidences for IDiocy kiiled ID on TO. Once
the rubes figured out that they didn't want to believe in the designer
that filled those denial gaps they quit supporting the ID scam. You
know this would all be true because #1 of the Top Six is the Big Bang
and it is one of the science topics that the ID creationist rubes have wanted to drop out of their state science standards along with
biological evolution. They succeeded in Kansas for a while. There is
no way that the IDiots would want their kids to understand the Top Six
best evidences for IDiocy, and if you aren't going to teach the best,
why would you teach anything at all.
So in terms of the creationist ID scam you are worried about the wrong thing. Even the ID perps do not want to teach intelligent design in the public schools and they have blocked every attempt to do it for over 2 decades. Obfuscation and denial are the only things that they want to actually teach, and very few IDiot creationist rubes want to teach the switch scam because they don't want their kids to understand enough
about the science to know what to deny.
Ohio adopted the switch scam, but dropped it after Dover made it plain
that the switch scam would not work in getting creationism taught in the public schools. Louisiana and Texas adopted switch scam legislation or school board stupidity, but neither state wants to teach the switch
scam. Louisiana has attempted to implement the switch scam at the state level twice, and both times they included ID in the junk that they
wanted to teach. In the last effort they even included their religious beliefs and actually plainly called what they wanted taught creationism
as well as intelligent design. Texas tried to implement the switch scam
junk by putting ID into textbook supplements. The ID perps shut the
efforts down in every instance and reminded the creationist rubes that
the switch scam had nothing to do with ID nor creationism.
As long as the ID perps are around no creationist legislation nor school board issues are going to get to the supreme court. The rubes never
listen to the science side, but when the creationist scam artists who
sold you the scam tell you not to do it, and hold out the 1 million
dollar court settlement the Dover rubes had to pay out because they
didn't bend over for the switch scam, there just aren't any IDiot rubes stupid and dishonest enough to continue with the effort. There has been
a 100% success rate for the bait and switch in stopping ID from being
taught since Dover. My guess is that, at this late date, all it takes
is a few phone calls from the Seattle offices to get the job done.
What you should be worried about is if another creationist political
scam takes the place of IDiocy and builds up enough of a following to counter the strangle hold that the ID perps currently have over
creationism because ID is currently their only hope of pushing forward
with creationist political efforts.
Ron Okimoto
There is something weird with eternal september. The post that you are responding to shows up in Google groups, but not on eternal september
where I posted it from.
The ID perps
changed the name of what they were selling so that they could continue
the political efforts of the Scientific Creationists. Of Pandas and
People was supposed to be the textbook that the scientific creationists >> needed to teach their junk in the public schools. The Arkansas federal
court ruling included the fact that they had no suitable materials for
teaching the junk in the public schools. All the scientific creationist >> literature was laced with Bible verses and biblical mythology. Of
Pandas and People was announced as the creastionist text that wouldn't
have those issues, but it came too late to be used to teach scientific
creationism. The sad thing is that the ID perps understood that they
didn't have the creation science to teach in the public schools in that >> textbook or anywhere else. The Supreme court ruled that if any valid
creation science ever was produced that it could be taught in the public >> schools, and that the current religious creationist material could be
taught in a public school comparative religion class, but it would have >> to be a comparison of a range of religious beliefs that could include
the scientific creationist junk.
None of the ID perps wanted to do that, and they knew that there wasn't >> any creation science worth calling science in Of Pandas and People, so
they changed the name from creationism to intelligent design. When they >> did this they knew that if they actually had valid creation science that >> they would not have had to make the name change. Kenyon was one of the
two main authors, and he knew the junk didn't measure up because he
wrote the material used to try to claim that the creation science was
science for the creationist legal team. The name changed spawned the ID >> scam. Behe admitted in Dover that he had written parts of the book, but >> wasn't credited. Meyer wrote the teachers notes for the book. Thaxton
was the editor and Kenyon was was one of the two main authors.
All of these ID perps knew that if Of Pandas and People had contained
any valid creation science that there would have been no reason to
change the name from creationism to intelligent design.
For the right leaning court to make a ruling a case would have to get
past the lower courts, at least, on appeal. Scientific creationism made >> it to the supreme court because the case went to a creationist federal
judge that was willing to prostitute himself for the cause. The
Arkansas case like the Dover case was never appealed. The Dover ID scam >> case went to a federal judge appointed by Bush, and a church going
Scoutmaster. We all know what happened. Phillip Johnson, the person
supposedly responsible for getting the ID perps together and getting
them funding, and the person responsible for developing the Wedge
strategy, sat in court every day and watch IDiocy revealed for the scam >> that it always had been. Afterword Johnson admitted that the ID science >> had never existed, and claimed that he was glad that the scam was over, >> and things could go on some other way.
After Dover there is no way that IDiocy would make it to the Supreme
Court even if the ID perps stopped running the bait and switch scam on
the hapless creationist rubes. The ID perps keep selling the rubes the
claim that they have the ID science to teach in the public schools, but >> for over 2 decades they have run the bait and switch on any creationist >> rubes that believed them. Before Dover they had a list up of over 20
school boards and legislatures that they had run the bait and switch on. >> The list claimed to be rubes thinking about accepting the switch scam.
At that time only Ohio had bent over for the switch scam. All the
other rubes had deferred, and except for Louisiana and Texas eventually >> dropped the scam. No group of creationist rubes before Dover got the
chance to teach the junk in the public schools because the ID perps
would not let them do it. When the scam artists that sold you the scam
tell you not to do what they claimed you could do, the rubes usually
listen. Dover was the ID perps only failure, and demonstrated why they
needed to keep running the bait and switch after Dover. The ID perps do >> not run the bait and switch on the science side, they run the scam on
their own creationist support base.
For some insane reason the ID bait and switch scam continued after
Dover. The ID perps put out their teach ID scam propaganda claiming
that the federal court ruling had been wrong, and they kept claiming
that they had the ID science that could be taught in the public schools. >> Fewer rubes believed them, but the bait and switch had to keep going
down. Probably the worst example was Florida in 2009. Something like 9
county school boards wanted to teach the ID scam junk in their public
schools, and legislation had been written to allow teaching the junk in >> the public schools. The ID perps had to send a team down to Florida to
run the bait and switch on the creationist rubes. I remember Luskin
interviewed on the capitol steps. Florida wouldn't bend over for the
switch scam and dropped the issue.
All this means is that the bait and switch scam would have to stop in
order for any group of rubes to get the ID creationist scam to the
supreme court, and even if they got it there with the current Right
leaning court, my guess is that enough creationists have been burned by >> the bait and switch scam that anyone that decided to support the ID scam >> would have to be among the stupidest people alive. History alone would
tell them what the future would think of any justice that could be that >> lame.
It isn't just the lame history of the ID scam. The Top Six demonstrates >> that the ID perps have nothing that the majority of IDiotic creationists >> want to teach in the public schools. If you aren't going to teach the
best, why would you teach anything at all? The Top Six killed ID on TO, >> and it would kill any attempt to teach ID in the public schools. #1 of
the Top Six (The Big Bang) is already one of the science topics that
IDiot type creationists have wanted to remove from the science standards >> in several states, and they succeeded for a while in Kansas before
enough creationist board members were voted out to reinstate the old
standards. Just as most of the remaining IDiots on TO could not deal
with the Top Six in an honest and straightforward manner, the vast
majority of IDiots can't deal with them. There is actually no ID
science that the creationist rubes want to teach their kids. That is
probably the main reason why no ID perp ever attempted to do any ID
science. Just imagine if Behe was able to demonstrate that the
flagellum was his type of IC system. He would know what existed before
the flagellum evolved and he would know something about what had to
happen in order to get the parts together. The flagellum evolved over a >> billion years ago. Behe claims that 3 neutral mutations occurring
within a short time period would be enough to make a system his type of >> IC. Behe would need to know the context in which those mutations had to >> occur. Confirmation of the flagellum as Behe's type of IC would just be >> more science to deny by the IDiots. Just imagine what would happen if
Meyer figured out what his designer did within that 25 million year
period of the Cambrian explosion over half a billion years ago. There
was never any ID science worth teaching, and no attempt to produce any
valid ID science was ever made by the ID perps. Did Behe and Minnich
ever attempt the "scientific test" for IC that they claimed was possible >> under oath?
Ron Okimoto
On Saturday, April 29, 2023 at 10:20:05 AM UTC-4, RonO wrote:
On 4/29/2023 9:09 AM, Lawyer Daggett wrote:
On Saturday, April 29, 2023 at 10:05:05 AM UTC-4, RonO wrote:So you are still suffering your profound delusion about the Top Six?
On 4/29/2023 8:22 AM, Lawyer Daggett wrote:
On Saturday, April 29, 2023 at 9:15:06 AM UTC-4, RonO wrote:So you have no counter or ability to reconsider what actually has been >>>> going on for over 20 years. Why not attempt to demonstrate that he
On 4/29/2023 6:50 AM, broger...@gmail.com wrote:Seek psychological counseling.
On Friday, April 28, 2023 at 10:20:05 PM UTC-4, RonO wrote:
On 4/28/2023 7:16 PM, broger...@gmail.com wrote:
On Friday, April 28, 2023 at 6:55:04 PM UTC-4, RonO wrote: >>>>>>>>>> On 4/28/2023 9:14 AM, Mark Isaak wrote:
On 4/27/23 3:41 PM, RonO wrote:
On 4/27/2023 11:02 AM, Mark Isaak wrote:
On 4/27/23 4:04 AM, RonO wrote:
Do you now realize how wrong you were. I know that the reason that >>>>>> people disagree with me is because you have remained ignorant of just >>>>>
isn't ignorant, of what the situation currently is?
It should be easy to demonstrate that I am wrong, so why not try to do >>>> it. You do understand how profound your misunderstanding of the Top Six >>>> situation was, so shouldn't you go further and figure out what else you >>>> are wrong about?
That isn't where the problem lies. It's a behavior problem.
Removing what you can't deal with from a post, doesn't change reality.
Shouldn't you, at least, try to work some kind of reconciliation with
that delusion before making further claims about someone else? You were
obviously wrong, what else are you wrong about?
Imagine you lived in a neighborhood where there was a problem with
your neighbors not picking up after their dogs when they took them
for a walk. And some guy decided to make it his mission to fix that.
So he wondered the neighborhood screaming and screaching at every
bit of dog crap he saw.
You would see him wandering about and then dash over, jump up and
stomp down on a pile of crap and he would shout out that he found
more dog dirt.
Then people told him he wasn't helping, and his response was to rush
out, bend over and grab hold of a fresh steaming pile in his ungloved
hand, pirouette about ranting of the problem of people not picking up
after their dogs.
The problem isn't that he's wrong about people not picking up after
their dogs.
On 4/28/2023 9:14 AM, Mark Isaak wrote:
On 4/27/23 3:41 PM, RonO wrote:
On 4/27/2023 11:02 AM, Mark Isaak wrote:
On 4/27/23 4:04 AM, RonO wrote:
[...]
Just because there are stupid rubes and the willfully ignorant and
outright dishonest creationists still out there, doesn't mean that
junk like scientific creationism and IDiocy are not dead in terms of >>>> any political influence they can muster. The simple reason is that >>>> there aren't very many biblical creationists that want any creation >>>> science to be accomplished. Anyone with a clue understands that
science is just the study of nature, and it turns out that nature
isn't much like the biblical creation depicted in the Bible. Just
think about what would ever happen if any ID perp was successful in >>>> demonstrating that some designer was involved in one of the Top Six. >>>> For the majority of YEC IDiots such a designer would not be the
Biblical designer. It would just be more science to deny.
Problem is, the science denial goes well beyond creationism. The
same cultural groups that support creationism also use science denial >>> to reject climate change and claim there is something wrong with
LGBTQ people. In both cases, they have very strong influence, and
that influence has been literally deadly.
The ID perps have been so good at shutting down the creationist
nonsense in their self censorship drive that the NCSE had to take on
other denial stupidity like global warming just to look like they were
doing something. There will never be s shortage of IDiot type
creationists. What there is a shortage of is any IDiots that actually
want to accomplish any ID science.
I get the impression your *only* concern is with intelligent design, and you don't give a damn about the underlying issues of science denial and religious bigotry.
Nope. Wrong again. I acknowledge that there is still an issue, but
currently the ID perps are controlling the creationist rubes so that
nothing they do ever amounts to anything, and the sad reality is that
the majority of IDiots never wanted the ID perps to produce any ID
science. Just try to get Bill or Kalk to put up the Top Six as
something that they ever wanted to use as something to positively
related to the designer that they worship in church. Your misconception about what the Top Six did to TO IDiots is blocking your understanding
of the current situation.
What happens whenever any creationist rube wants to get their public
schools to teach the creationist nonsense? It has happened for over two decades so you should not have missed it. The ID perps never wanted
Dover to happen, and they don't want a repeat of Dover. The ID perps
have been so good at rubbing the rubes faces in the stupidity of what
they are doing that some young earth denominations are trying to go old earth in order to get out from under the worst of what reality has
become for them.
The antiscience creationist rubes will likely be around for centuries,
but currently the ID perps, who took over from the scientific
creationists, are suppressing them, probably, more effectively than the science advocates ever could. The creationist rubes do not like the
switch scam. Teaching enough science to make it possible for them to
tell their kids what to deny isn't really an option for them, and nearly
all the rubes who have had the bait and switch run on them have dropped
the issue instead of go with the obfuscation and denial switch scam.
Only Louisiana and Texas are still bending over for the switch scam, and neither of them have done anything with it since they both had the bait
and switch rerun on them back in 2013. Both states tried to get ID into textbook supplements, but the ID perps had to remind them that the
switch scam had nothing to do with ID and shut both State's creationist rubes down. I do not recall any subsequent attempt by either state to implement the switch scam at the state level since.
The Top Six was just the last straw for most TO IDiots, and now they
seem to have returned to just being plain old creationists that don't
know how to defend their religious beliefs except for abject denial. It probably should have happened when Santorum and Phillip Johnson quit the
ID scam after Dover. Johnson and Santorum didn't give up on
creationism, just the ID scam. Kalk and Bill are still Biblical creationists, they are just no longer IDiot creationists.
Ron Okimoto
Throwing out creationism from schools, is resulting in the concept of >subjectivity becoming marginalized. Which leads to bad personal >opinions, weird ideology, and mental illness. Which is already happening
very much more quickly than I had anticipated. That's real harm, and you >helped cause that. You are very guilty. I guess this is the true meaning
of why those who destroy faith, are held to be most guilty. All these >crazed people clueless about how to deal with their emotions, harming >themselves, and others, they are not truly guilty for it. You are the
one who is most guilty for it. Because you are one of those who goes out
of his way to destroy the understanding of subjectivity. Ofcourse, the >creationists are also responsible, in that they did not emphasize that >subjectivity and objectivity are creationists concepts. That is also >significant corruption. But while that is frustrating, it is not as bad
as your systematic destruction of the concept of subjectivity. To teach
kids about values, moral character, that is just going to be impossible
now, because the idea of the inherently subjective spirit choosing >things, is suppressed by scientists. So now what is going to happen, and
what is happening already, is destruction of the West. Because only the
West is the sphere in which the idea of subjectivity is surpressed. It >certainly wasn't a coincedence that the holocaust happened in the West.
Now the West is going crazy again, destroying itself, and maybe some >others. Like with Ukraine, it is very possible that the West, the Biden >administration, will use nuclear weapons to attack Russia. Because the >Democrats in the USA, are just crazy. The democrats have a very high
rate of mental illness, like anxiety and depression, for which they take >medication. And if so many are mentally ill, then the mental illness is
not just a personal thing, then it becomes a cultural thing that is >shared among people. Everyone knows that everything Democrats say, is a
lie. Everyone knows the USA created covid in a lab in china, and they >bombed the nordstream pipeline. But they just lie about it. It is just >continuous lying by despairing people who are fighting for their >emotional survival. They will do crazy things, all the time, destroying >everything.
On Saturday, April 29, 2023 at 9:15:06 AM UTC-4, RonO wrote:right leaning judges far more favorable to introducing religion into public schools than was previously the case. Theocracy is having a moment, and silly efforts to disguise creationism as science are no longer necessary.
On 4/29/2023 6:50 AM, broger...@gmail.com wrote:
On Friday, April 28, 2023 at 10:20:05 PM UTC-4, RonO wrote:
On 4/28/2023 7:16 PM, broger...@gmail.com wrote:......
On Friday, April 28, 2023 at 6:55:04 PM UTC-4, RonO wrote:
On 4/28/2023 9:14 AM, Mark Isaak wrote:
On 4/27/23 3:41 PM, RonO wrote:Nope. Wrong again. I acknowledge that there is still an issue, but >>>>>> currently the ID perps are controlling the creationist rubes so that >>>>>> nothing they do ever amounts to anything, and the sad reality is that >>>>>> the majority of IDiots never wanted the ID perps to produce any ID >>>>>> science. Just try to get Bill or Kalk to put up the Top Six as
On 4/27/2023 11:02 AM, Mark Isaak wrote:
On 4/27/23 4:04 AM, RonO wrote:
[...]
Just because there are stupid rubes and the willfully ignorant and >>>>>>>>>> outright dishonest creationists still out there, doesn't mean that >>>>>>>>>> junk like scientific creationism and IDiocy are not dead in terms of >>>>>>>>>> any political influence they can muster. The simple reason is that >>>>>>>>>> there aren't very many biblical creationists that want any creation >>>>>>>>>> science to be accomplished. Anyone with a clue understands that >>>>>>>>>> science is just the study of nature, and it turns out that nature >>>>>>>>>> isn't much like the biblical creation depicted in the Bible. Just >>>>>>>>>> think about what would ever happen if any ID perp was successful in >>>>>>>>>> demonstrating that some designer was involved in one of the Top Six. >>>>>>>>>> For the majority of YEC IDiots such a designer would not be the >>>>>>>>>> Biblical designer. It would just be more science to deny.
Problem is, the science denial goes well beyond creationism. The >>>>>>>>> same cultural groups that support creationism also use science denial >>>>>>>>> to reject climate change and claim there is something wrong with >>>>>>>>> LGBTQ people. In both cases, they have very strong influence, and >>>>>>>>> that influence has been literally deadly.
The ID perps have been so good at shutting down the creationist >>>>>>>> nonsense in their self censorship drive that the NCSE had to take on >>>>>>>> other denial stupidity like global warming just to look like they were >>>>>>>> doing something. There will never be s shortage of IDiot type
creationists. What there is a shortage of is any IDiots that actually >>>>>>>> want to accomplish any ID science.
I get the impression your *only* concern is with intelligent design, and
you don't give a damn about the underlying issues of science denial and >>>>>>> religious bigotry.
something that they ever wanted to use as something to positively
related to the designer that they worship in church. Your misconception >>>>>> about what the Top Six did to TO IDiots is blocking your understanding >>>>>> of the current situation.
What happens whenever any creationist rube wants to get their public >>>>>> schools to teach the creationist nonsense? It has happened for over two >>>>>> decades so you should not have missed it. The ID perps never wanted >>>>>> Dover to happen, and they don't want a repeat of Dover. The ID perps >>>>>> have been so good at rubbing the rubes faces in the stupidity of what >>>>>> they are doing that some young earth denominations are trying to go old >>>>>> earth in order to get out from under the worst of what reality has >>>>>> become for them.
The antiscience creationist rubes will likely be around for centuries, >>>>>> but currently the ID perps, who took over from the scientific
creationists, are suppressing them, probably, more effectively than the >>>>>> science advocates ever could. The creationist rubes do not like the >>>>>> switch scam. Teaching enough science to make it possible for them to >>>>>> tell their kids what to deny isn't really an option for them, and nearly >>>>>> all the rubes who have had the bait and switch run on them have dropped >>>>>> the issue instead of go with the obfuscation and denial switch scam. >>>>>> Only Louisiana and Texas are still bending over for the switch scam, and >>>>>> neither of them have done anything with it since they both had the bait >>>>>> and switch rerun on them back in 2013. Both states tried to get ID into >>>>>> textbook supplements, but the ID perps had to remind them that the >>>>>> switch scam had nothing to do with ID and shut both State's creationist >>>>>> rubes down. I do not recall any subsequent attempt by either state to >>>>>> implement the switch scam at the state level since.
The Top Six was just the last straw for most TO IDiots, and now they >>>>>> seem to have returned to just being plain old creationists that don't >>>>>> know how to defend their religious beliefs except for abject denial. It >>>>>> probably should have happened when Santorum and Phillip Johnson quit the >>>>>> ID scam after Dover. Johnson and Santorum didn't give up on
creationism, just the ID scam. Kalk and Bill are still Biblical
creationists, they are just no longer IDiot creationists.
Ron Okimoto
When the "scam" got started, it was the only way to get creationism into the schools, since you had to pretend it was just a different version of science. In case you haven't noticed, in the past 6 years or so, the courts have been packed with very
scientific curriculum to offer a school, etc. The lower courts, which you seem to think would keep a creationism case from reaching SCOTUS, have been even more liberally sprinkled with right wing theocrats who are apt to approve almost anything in the........
Beats me why you want to be so wrong about this junk.
I'm sure it beats you. You rarely, if ever, understand why people disagree with you. And that's obvious from the fact that most of your response to me was simply a repeat of stuff we agree on, ID isn't real science, it failed in the courts, it has no
what went down."Do you now realize how wrong you were. I know that the reason that
people disagree with me is because you have remained ignorant of just
what the ID scam has always been. It is just what I claim, and that is
the reason why you want to be so wrong about this junk. Why not counter
my historical account with what you think happened? You have the wrong
understanding of what went down. That is why you disagree with me.
Demonstrate otherwise.
No I don't realize how wrong I was because I wasn't. You seem to pay no attention to what I'm writing. I have no problem (except with the constant use of contemptuous language), with your account of ID and the DI. I have not even been talking about "
It is the ID perps who are keeping the junk out of the courts. The bait
and switch has gone down 100% of the time. It has only failed once, and
that failure demonstrated why they needed to run the bait and switch all
those years and to this day. For over two decades the ID perps have
been the major player censoring themselves and the creationist rubes
that believe them.
I'm not worried about the "ID perps." They lost.
The Top Six does demonstrate that there isn't any ID science that the
majority of creationist rubes would want to teach in the public schools.
They only support the ID scam because it is the only viable political
scam that they can think of to continue with. Really, once they figure
out what would be taught it would likely be the creationist rubes
appealing any court ruling allowing it to be taught in the public
schools. The Top Six best evidences for IDiocy kiiled ID on TO. Once
the rubes figured out that they didn't want to believe in the designer
that filled those denial gaps they quit supporting the ID scam. You
know this would all be true because #1 of the Top Six is the Big Bang
and it is one of the science topics that the ID creationist rubes have
wanted to drop out of their state science standards along with
biological evolution. They succeeded in Kansas for a while. There is
no way that the IDiots would want their kids to understand the Top Six
best evidences for IDiocy, and if you aren't going to teach the best,
why would you teach anything at all.
We already agree that there's no ID science and that the "perps" have no curriculum to offer, as I said in my previous post, which you seem to have ignored.
reappear in public schools. The Texas Senate already passed a bill to require display of the 10 commandments in public schools.
So in terms of the creationist ID scam you are worried about the wrong
thing. Even the ID perps do not want to teach intelligent design in the
public schools and they have blocked every attempt to do it for over 2
decades. Obfuscation and denial are the only things that they want to
actually teach, and very few IDiot creationist rubes want to teach the
switch scam because they don't want their kids to understand enough
about the science to know what to deny.
I'm not worried about the ID scam. I'm worried that creationism and all the associated science denial is politically strong enough, and the courts sufficiently laced with sympathetic judges, that under the guise of religious freedom, creationism will
Ohio adopted the switch scam, but dropped it after Dover made it plain
that the switch scam would not work in getting creationism taught in the
public schools. Louisiana and Texas adopted switch scam legislation or
school board stupidity, but neither state wants to teach the switch
scam. Louisiana has attempted to implement the switch scam at the state
level twice, and both times they included ID in the junk that they
wanted to teach. In the last effort they even included their religious
beliefs and actually plainly called what they wanted taught creationism
as well as intelligent design. Texas tried to implement the switch scam
junk by putting ID into textbook supplements. The ID perps shut the
efforts down in every instance and reminded the creationist rubes that
the switch scam had nothing to do with ID nor creationism.
You keep reciting this, for reasons that elude me, since I do not disagree with you about this, nor have I said anything to suggest I do.
As long as the ID perps are around no creationist legislation nor school
board issues are going to get to the supreme court. The rubes never
listen to the science side, but when the creationist scam artists who
sold you the scam tell you not to do it, and hold out the 1 million
dollar court settlement the Dover rubes had to pay out because they
didn't bend over for the switch scam, there just aren't any IDiot rubes
stupid and dishonest enough to continue with the effort. There has been
a 100% success rate for the bait and switch in stopping ID from being
taught since Dover. My guess is that, at this late date, all it takes
is a few phone calls from the Seattle offices to get the job done.
The ID "perps" are not in the driver's seat here. There's a much bigger anti-science, culture wars movement that makes them even more irrelevant than they've already made themselves.
disguised as science when you arguably have a shot at getting religion in as religion, without apology or disguise.
What you should be worried about is if another creationist political
scam takes the place of IDiocy and builds up enough of a following to
counter the strangle hold that the ID perps currently have over
creationism because ID is currently their only hope of pushing forward
with creationist political efforts.
Here's where we disagree. I think that ID was needed only as a cover for bringing religion back into the public schools. The political climate in many courts and many states is now such that there is no need for such cover. No need to slip in religion
Ron Okimoto
There is something weird with eternal september. The post that you are
responding to shows up in Google groups, but not on eternal september
where I posted it from.
The ID perps
changed the name of what they were selling so that they could continue >>>> the political efforts of the Scientific Creationists. Of Pandas and
People was supposed to be the textbook that the scientific creationists >>>> needed to teach their junk in the public schools. The Arkansas federal >>>> court ruling included the fact that they had no suitable materials for >>>> teaching the junk in the public schools. All the scientific creationist >>>> literature was laced with Bible verses and biblical mythology. Of
Pandas and People was announced as the creastionist text that wouldn't >>>> have those issues, but it came too late to be used to teach scientific >>>> creationism. The sad thing is that the ID perps understood that they
didn't have the creation science to teach in the public schools in that >>>> textbook or anywhere else. The Supreme court ruled that if any valid
creation science ever was produced that it could be taught in the public >>>> schools, and that the current religious creationist material could be
taught in a public school comparative religion class, but it would have >>>> to be a comparison of a range of religious beliefs that could include
the scientific creationist junk.
None of the ID perps wanted to do that, and they knew that there wasn't >>>> any creation science worth calling science in Of Pandas and People, so >>>> they changed the name from creationism to intelligent design. When they >>>> did this they knew that if they actually had valid creation science that >>>> they would not have had to make the name change. Kenyon was one of the >>>> two main authors, and he knew the junk didn't measure up because he
wrote the material used to try to claim that the creation science was
science for the creationist legal team. The name changed spawned the ID >>>> scam. Behe admitted in Dover that he had written parts of the book, but >>>> wasn't credited. Meyer wrote the teachers notes for the book. Thaxton
was the editor and Kenyon was was one of the two main authors.
All of these ID perps knew that if Of Pandas and People had contained
any valid creation science that there would have been no reason to
change the name from creationism to intelligent design.
For the right leaning court to make a ruling a case would have to get
past the lower courts, at least, on appeal. Scientific creationism made >>>> it to the supreme court because the case went to a creationist federal >>>> judge that was willing to prostitute himself for the cause. The
Arkansas case like the Dover case was never appealed. The Dover ID scam >>>> case went to a federal judge appointed by Bush, and a church going
Scoutmaster. We all know what happened. Phillip Johnson, the person
supposedly responsible for getting the ID perps together and getting
them funding, and the person responsible for developing the Wedge
strategy, sat in court every day and watch IDiocy revealed for the scam >>>> that it always had been. Afterword Johnson admitted that the ID science >>>> had never existed, and claimed that he was glad that the scam was over, >>>> and things could go on some other way.
After Dover there is no way that IDiocy would make it to the Supreme
Court even if the ID perps stopped running the bait and switch scam on >>>> the hapless creationist rubes. The ID perps keep selling the rubes the >>>> claim that they have the ID science to teach in the public schools, but >>>> for over 2 decades they have run the bait and switch on any creationist >>>> rubes that believed them. Before Dover they had a list up of over 20
school boards and legislatures that they had run the bait and switch on. >>>> The list claimed to be rubes thinking about accepting the switch scam. >>>> At that time only Ohio had bent over for the switch scam. All the
other rubes had deferred, and except for Louisiana and Texas eventually >>>> dropped the scam. No group of creationist rubes before Dover got the
chance to teach the junk in the public schools because the ID perps
would not let them do it. When the scam artists that sold you the scam >>>> tell you not to do what they claimed you could do, the rubes usually
listen. Dover was the ID perps only failure, and demonstrated why they >>>> needed to keep running the bait and switch after Dover. The ID perps do >>>> not run the bait and switch on the science side, they run the scam on
their own creationist support base.
For some insane reason the ID bait and switch scam continued after
Dover. The ID perps put out their teach ID scam propaganda claiming
that the federal court ruling had been wrong, and they kept claiming
that they had the ID science that could be taught in the public schools. >>>> Fewer rubes believed them, but the bait and switch had to keep going
down. Probably the worst example was Florida in 2009. Something like 9 >>>> county school boards wanted to teach the ID scam junk in their public
schools, and legislation had been written to allow teaching the junk in >>>> the public schools. The ID perps had to send a team down to Florida to >>>> run the bait and switch on the creationist rubes. I remember Luskin
interviewed on the capitol steps. Florida wouldn't bend over for the
switch scam and dropped the issue.
All this means is that the bait and switch scam would have to stop in
order for any group of rubes to get the ID creationist scam to the
supreme court, and even if they got it there with the current Right
leaning court, my guess is that enough creationists have been burned by >>>> the bait and switch scam that anyone that decided to support the ID scam >>>> would have to be among the stupidest people alive. History alone would >>>> tell them what the future would think of any justice that could be that >>>> lame.
It isn't just the lame history of the ID scam. The Top Six demonstrates >>>> that the ID perps have nothing that the majority of IDiotic creationists >>>> want to teach in the public schools. If you aren't going to teach the
best, why would you teach anything at all? The Top Six killed ID on TO, >>>> and it would kill any attempt to teach ID in the public schools. #1 of >>>> the Top Six (The Big Bang) is already one of the science topics that
IDiot type creationists have wanted to remove from the science standards >>>> in several states, and they succeeded for a while in Kansas before
enough creationist board members were voted out to reinstate the old
standards. Just as most of the remaining IDiots on TO could not deal
with the Top Six in an honest and straightforward manner, the vast
majority of IDiots can't deal with them. There is actually no ID
science that the creationist rubes want to teach their kids. That is
probably the main reason why no ID perp ever attempted to do any ID
science. Just imagine if Behe was able to demonstrate that the
flagellum was his type of IC system. He would know what existed before >>>> the flagellum evolved and he would know something about what had to
happen in order to get the parts together. The flagellum evolved over a >>>> billion years ago. Behe claims that 3 neutral mutations occurring
within a short time period would be enough to make a system his type of >>>> IC. Behe would need to know the context in which those mutations had to >>>> occur. Confirmation of the flagellum as Behe's type of IC would just be >>>> more science to deny by the IDiots. Just imagine what would happen if
Meyer figured out what his designer did within that 25 million year
period of the Cambrian explosion over half a billion years ago. There
was never any ID science worth teaching, and no attempt to produce any >>>> valid ID science was ever made by the ID perps. Did Behe and Minnich
ever attempt the "scientific test" for IC that they claimed was possible >>>> under oath?
Ron Okimoto
On 4/29/2023 9:32 AM, Lawyer Daggett wrote:
On Saturday, April 29, 2023 at 10:20:05?AM UTC-4, RonO wrote:Still delusional. Say you tried to figure out what was really going on,
On 4/29/2023 9:09 AM, Lawyer Daggett wrote:
On Saturday, April 29, 2023 at 10:05:05?AM UTC-4, RonO wrote:So you are still suffering your profound delusion about the Top Six?
On 4/29/2023 8:22 AM, Lawyer Daggett wrote:
On Saturday, April 29, 2023 at 9:15:06?AM UTC-4, RonO wrote:So you have no counter or ability to reconsider what actually has been >>>>> going on for over 20 years. Why not attempt to demonstrate that he
On 4/29/2023 6:50 AM, broger...@gmail.com wrote:Seek psychological counseling.
On Friday, April 28, 2023 at 10:20:05?PM UTC-4, RonO wrote:
On 4/28/2023 7:16 PM, broger...@gmail.com wrote:
On Friday, April 28, 2023 at 6:55:04?PM UTC-4, RonO wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> On 4/28/2023 9:14 AM, Mark Isaak wrote:
On 4/27/23 3:41 PM, RonO wrote:
On 4/27/2023 11:02 AM, Mark Isaak wrote:
On 4/27/23 4:04 AM, RonO wrote:
Do you now realize how wrong you were. I know that the reason that >>>>>>> people disagree with me is because you have remained ignorant of just >>>>>>
isn't ignorant, of what the situation currently is?
It should be easy to demonstrate that I am wrong, so why not try to do >>>>> it. You do understand how profound your misunderstanding of the Top Six >>>>> situation was, so shouldn't you go further and figure out what else you >>>>> are wrong about?
That isn't where the problem lies. It's a behavior problem.
Removing what you can't deal with from a post, doesn't change reality.
Shouldn't you, at least, try to work some kind of reconciliation with
that delusion before making further claims about someone else? You were
obviously wrong, what else are you wrong about?
Imagine you lived in a neighborhood where there was a problem with
your neighbors not picking up after their dogs when they took them
for a walk. And some guy decided to make it his mission to fix that.
So he wondered the neighborhood screaming and screaching at every
bit of dog crap he saw.
You would see him wandering about and then dash over, jump up and
stomp down on a pile of crap and he would shout out that he found
more dog dirt.
Then people told him he wasn't helping, and his response was to rush
out, bend over and grab hold of a fresh steaming pile in his ungloved
hand, pirouette about ranting of the problem of people not picking up
after their dogs.
The problem isn't that he's wrong about people not picking up after
their dogs.
what would that be like? Your example above demonstrates that you are >obviously wrong about what was going on. No one was claiming that there
was shit anywhere, what was happening was that I just had to make the
IDiots deal with what IDiocy had always been. I only rubbed their faces
in what they were desperately trying to stay willfully ignorant of.
Glenn lasted the longest, but denial for denial sake can only last so
long. It turned out that there just are not very many IDiots that can
deal with the ID creationist scam in an honest and straightforward
manner and remain IDiots. The ID perps put out the Top Six as the Top
Six in their order of occurrence. It turned out that all the IDiots
that were IDiots in order to support their religious beliefs could not
deal with the Top Six. Pagano was the only IDiot that faced the Top Six
head on, and he claimed that they were bogus and not the best evidence
for the creationist ID scam. He tried to put up the second rate denial
junk that hadn't made it into the Top Six before he quit posting. Kalk
and Glenn ran from them and tried to create a campaign of putting up the >second rate denial junk as something that still supported the ID scam.
Kalk couldn't keep doing that and quit the ID scam and ended up claiming
that he had never claimed to be Hindu and came out as a plain vanilla >biblical creationist. When confronted by the Top Six Bill claimed that
he had never supported the ID scam. This is the same Bill that had made
the claim that he knew some real ID scientists that had the real ID
science. What Bill likely meant was that he had never supported what
the ID scam had always been.
So you do have a profound delusion about what happened within the last 5 >years on TO, and it is likely because you never bothered to try to
figure out what was going on. Why do you think that the IDiots gave up
on the ID scam? It wasn't because I refuted anything, or claimed that
there was anything bogus about the Top Six. All I did was put them up
as the ID perps had. They are the best evidence for ID, but there
aren't very many IDiots that want to believe in the designer that fills
those gaps in the order of their occurrence.
Your example above should be about someone that finds a flower in the >neighborhood. It is the most beautiful flower of it's kind, but there
is a problem with the flower. Some of the neighbors shun the flower and >literally walk across the street in order to not have to deal with the >flower's existence. They do it because it means that the flowers that
they want to be the most beautiful are not. Some of them acknowledge
the existence of the flower, but claim that it was never the type of
flower that they wanted to grow in the neighborhood so they quit trying
to grow such flowers, and return to growing what they wanted to grow in
the first place. Others try to pretend that the flower doesn't exist,
but they eventually keep running into the flower because they keep
buying seeds from the same nursery that sell the flower that they don't
want to exist, and have to eventually acknowledge it's existence, and
decide to quit trying to grow such flowers
That is what happened on TO after the ID perps put out the Top Six best >evidences for IDiocy in Nov. of 2017. There just are not very many
IDiotic biblical creationist rubes that want to believe in the designer >responsible for filling the Top Six god-of-the-gaps denial "evidence".
The IDiotic designer responsible for filling the Top Six gaps is not
biblical enough for the the average IDiotic creationist rube. The Top
Six made that clear for the ones with enough brain power to read and >understand them.
On 4/29/2023 9:21 AM, broger...@gmail.com wrote:very right leaning judges far more favorable to introducing religion into public schools than was previously the case. Theocracy is having a moment, and silly efforts to disguise creationism as science are no longer necessary.
On Saturday, April 29, 2023 at 9:15:06 AM UTC-4, RonO wrote:
On 4/29/2023 6:50 AM, broger...@gmail.com wrote:
On Friday, April 28, 2023 at 10:20:05 PM UTC-4, RonO wrote:
On 4/28/2023 7:16 PM, broger...@gmail.com wrote:......
On Friday, April 28, 2023 at 6:55:04 PM UTC-4, RonO wrote:
On 4/28/2023 9:14 AM, Mark Isaak wrote:
On 4/27/23 3:41 PM, RonO wrote:Nope. Wrong again. I acknowledge that there is still an issue, but >>>>>> currently the ID perps are controlling the creationist rubes so that >>>>>> nothing they do ever amounts to anything, and the sad reality is that >>>>>> the majority of IDiots never wanted the ID perps to produce any ID >>>>>> science. Just try to get Bill or Kalk to put up the Top Six as
On 4/27/2023 11:02 AM, Mark Isaak wrote:
On 4/27/23 4:04 AM, RonO wrote:
[...]Problem is, the science denial goes well beyond creationism. The >>>>>>>>> same cultural groups that support creationism also use science denial
Just because there are stupid rubes and the willfully ignorant and
outright dishonest creationists still out there, doesn't mean that
junk like scientific creationism and IDiocy are not dead in terms of
any political influence they can muster. The simple reason is that
there aren't very many biblical creationists that want any creation
science to be accomplished. Anyone with a clue understands that >>>>>>>>>> science is just the study of nature, and it turns out that nature >>>>>>>>>> isn't much like the biblical creation depicted in the Bible. Just >>>>>>>>>> think about what would ever happen if any ID perp was successful in
demonstrating that some designer was involved in one of the Top Six.
For the majority of YEC IDiots such a designer would not be the >>>>>>>>>> Biblical designer. It would just be more science to deny. >>>>>>>>>
to reject climate change and claim there is something wrong with >>>>>>>>> LGBTQ people. In both cases, they have very strong influence, and >>>>>>>>> that influence has been literally deadly.
The ID perps have been so good at shutting down the creationist >>>>>>>> nonsense in their self censorship drive that the NCSE had to take on
other denial stupidity like global warming just to look like they were
doing something. There will never be s shortage of IDiot type >>>>>>>> creationists. What there is a shortage of is any IDiots that actually
want to accomplish any ID science.
I get the impression your *only* concern is with intelligent design, and
you don't give a damn about the underlying issues of science denial and
religious bigotry.
something that they ever wanted to use as something to positively >>>>>> related to the designer that they worship in church. Your misconception
about what the Top Six did to TO IDiots is blocking your understanding
of the current situation.
What happens whenever any creationist rube wants to get their public >>>>>> schools to teach the creationist nonsense? It has happened for over two
decades so you should not have missed it. The ID perps never wanted >>>>>> Dover to happen, and they don't want a repeat of Dover. The ID perps >>>>>> have been so good at rubbing the rubes faces in the stupidity of what >>>>>> they are doing that some young earth denominations are trying to go old
earth in order to get out from under the worst of what reality has >>>>>> become for them.
The antiscience creationist rubes will likely be around for centuries,
but currently the ID perps, who took over from the scientific
creationists, are suppressing them, probably, more effectively than the
science advocates ever could. The creationist rubes do not like the >>>>>> switch scam. Teaching enough science to make it possible for them to >>>>>> tell their kids what to deny isn't really an option for them, and nearly
all the rubes who have had the bait and switch run on them have dropped
the issue instead of go with the obfuscation and denial switch scam. >>>>>> Only Louisiana and Texas are still bending over for the switch scam, and
neither of them have done anything with it since they both had the bait
and switch rerun on them back in 2013. Both states tried to get ID into
textbook supplements, but the ID perps had to remind them that the >>>>>> switch scam had nothing to do with ID and shut both State's creationist
rubes down. I do not recall any subsequent attempt by either state to >>>>>> implement the switch scam at the state level since.
The Top Six was just the last straw for most TO IDiots, and now they >>>>>> seem to have returned to just being plain old creationists that don't >>>>>> know how to defend their religious beliefs except for abject denial. It
probably should have happened when Santorum and Phillip Johnson quit the
ID scam after Dover. Johnson and Santorum didn't give up on
creationism, just the ID scam. Kalk and Bill are still Biblical >>>>>> creationists, they are just no longer IDiot creationists.
Ron Okimoto
When the "scam" got started, it was the only way to get creationism into the schools, since you had to pretend it was just a different version of science. In case you haven't noticed, in the past 6 years or so, the courts have been packed with
no scientific curriculum to offer a school, etc. The lower courts, which you seem to think would keep a creationism case from reaching SCOTUS, have been even more liberally sprinkled with right wing theocrats who are apt to approve almost anything in the........
Beats me why you want to be so wrong about this junk.
I'm sure it beats you. You rarely, if ever, understand why people disagree with you. And that's obvious from the fact that most of your response to me was simply a repeat of stuff we agree on, ID isn't real science, it failed in the courts, it has
what went down."Do you now realize how wrong you were. I know that the reason that
people disagree with me is because you have remained ignorant of just
what the ID scam has always been. It is just what I claim, and that is
the reason why you want to be so wrong about this junk. Why not counter >> my historical account with what you think happened? You have the wrong
understanding of what went down. That is why you disagree with me.
Demonstrate otherwise.
No I don't realize how wrong I was because I wasn't. You seem to pay no attention to what I'm writing. I have no problem (except with the constant use of contemptuous language), with your account of ID and the DI. I have not even been talking about "
So you only tried to counter with the court junk because you agree withreappear in public schools. The Texas Senate already passed a bill to require display of the 10 commandments in public schools.
me, and you agree with what went down, but you don't like me calling a
scam a scam. Unfortunately the bait and switch scam that the ID perps
have been running for over 20 years is a blatant scam. They aren't
running the scam on the science side of the issue. They are running the
bait and switch on their own creationist support base, so what is your
beef? What does it have to do with the nonexistent future court menace?
It is the ID perps who are keeping the junk out of the courts. The bait >> and switch has gone down 100% of the time. It has only failed once, and >> that failure demonstrated why they needed to run the bait and switch all >> those years and to this day. For over two decades the ID perps have
been the major player censoring themselves and the creationist rubes
that believe them.
I'm not worried about the "ID perps." They lost.Well, why worry about the courts?
The Top Six does demonstrate that there isn't any ID science that the
majority of creationist rubes would want to teach in the public schools. >> They only support the ID scam because it is the only viable political
scam that they can think of to continue with. Really, once they figure
out what would be taught it would likely be the creationist rubes
appealing any court ruling allowing it to be taught in the public
schools. The Top Six best evidences for IDiocy kiiled ID on TO. Once
the rubes figured out that they didn't want to believe in the designer
that filled those denial gaps they quit supporting the ID scam. You
know this would all be true because #1 of the Top Six is the Big Bang
and it is one of the science topics that the ID creationist rubes have
wanted to drop out of their state science standards along with
biological evolution. They succeeded in Kansas for a while. There is
no way that the IDiots would want their kids to understand the Top Six
best evidences for IDiocy, and if you aren't going to teach the best,
why would you teach anything at all.
We already agree that there's no ID science and that the "perps" have no curriculum to offer, as I said in my previous post, which you seem to have ignored.So why worry about the courts?
So in terms of the creationist ID scam you are worried about the wrong
thing. Even the ID perps do not want to teach intelligent design in the >> public schools and they have blocked every attempt to do it for over 2
decades. Obfuscation and denial are the only things that they want to
actually teach, and very few IDiot creationist rubes want to teach the
switch scam because they don't want their kids to understand enough
about the science to know what to deny.
I'm not worried about the ID scam. I'm worried that creationism and all the associated science denial is politically strong enough, and the courts sufficiently laced with sympathetic judges, that under the guise of religious freedom, creationism will
religion disguised as science when you arguably have a shot at getting religion in as religion, without apology or disguise.
Ohio adopted the switch scam, but dropped it after Dover made it plain
that the switch scam would not work in getting creationism taught in the >> public schools. Louisiana and Texas adopted switch scam legislation or
school board stupidity, but neither state wants to teach the switch
scam. Louisiana has attempted to implement the switch scam at the state >> level twice, and both times they included ID in the junk that they
wanted to teach. In the last effort they even included their religious
beliefs and actually plainly called what they wanted taught creationism >> as well as intelligent design. Texas tried to implement the switch scam >> junk by putting ID into textbook supplements. The ID perps shut the
efforts down in every instance and reminded the creationist rubes that
the switch scam had nothing to do with ID nor creationism.
You keep reciting this, for reasons that elude me, since I do not disagree with you about this, nor have I said anything to suggest I do.So you are worried about the next ploy the creationists might come up
with. That is what I say that you should be worried about below, but
you did not make that claim in your previous posts. The next thing
seems to be evolutionary creationism, but they claim that they don't
want it taught in the public schools because they know that it isn't a scientific discipline and claim that they do not support the ID scam.
Most IDiotic type creationists don't like it because it isn't anti evolution. It is sad that ID perps like Behe and Denton have been evolutionary creationists since the beginning of the ID scam. They just claim that it is scientific.
As long as the ID perps are around no creationist legislation nor school >> board issues are going to get to the supreme court. The rubes never
listen to the science side, but when the creationist scam artists who
sold you the scam tell you not to do it, and hold out the 1 million
dollar court settlement the Dover rubes had to pay out because they
didn't bend over for the switch scam, there just aren't any IDiot rubes >> stupid and dishonest enough to continue with the effort. There has been >> a 100% success rate for the bait and switch in stopping ID from being
taught since Dover. My guess is that, at this late date, all it takes
is a few phone calls from the Seattle offices to get the job done.
The ID "perps" are not in the driver's seat here. There's a much bigger anti-science, culture wars movement that makes them even more irrelevant than they've already made themselves.The ID perps currently control the anti science creationists. If you
deny that, you have a problem. The ID perps have kept ID and
creationism out of the public schools for the last 2 decades. They have
that power because the anti science creationists know that they are the
only viable game in town with any chance of success, and if the ID perps tell them not to do something, they listen. Those types never listen to
the science side or they would not exist, but they will listen to other creationists that sold them the scam. The ID perps pretty much put the
NCSE out of business, and they have had to broaden their anti science coverage to other topics.
What you should be worried about is if another creationist political
scam takes the place of IDiocy and builds up enough of a following to
counter the strangle hold that the ID perps currently have over
creationism because ID is currently their only hope of pushing forward
with creationist political efforts.
Here's where we disagree. I think that ID was needed only as a cover for bringing religion back into the public schools. The political climate in many courts and many states is now such that there is no need for such cover. No need to slip in
How can you disagree? You previously admitted that you were worried
about the next thing to come up. So you aren't worried about the next
scam, but total overthrow of existing understanding of reality. If you
have read the original mission statement of the ID scam you will recall
that creating such a theocracy was their intended goal. They believed
that they could do it by coming up with their IDiotic science that was supposed to destroy the accepted materialistic view of science and open things up for their theocracy to take it's proper place in the
government of the United States, that had been founded on IDiotic principles, but had lost it's way.
They never met their goals in that regard, and for a more blatant
reversal of reality to occur they need to step aside and let religion
take center stage. It could happen, but the ID perps have shown no
signs that they want to give up their current lifestyles. Dembski even returned to the ID scam after retiring. The anti science creationists
would have to admit that they had been lying all of these years and try
to muster support for admitted con artists and liars in creating the theocracy that they want to have. The sad thing is that if that day
ever happens and such people are allowed to create their desired form of government, the ID perps will be among the first up against the wall for their old earth creationist beliefs, and for running the bait and switch
on the hapless creationists rubes for decades. The worst enemies of
such a theocracy will be other related religious beliefs. The reason
that most sane nations have separated church and state is because the
world knows how bad the alternative can be.
It is something that the ID perps do not want to see happen. The ID
perps fostered the Big Tent because they lied to themselves that they
could ride the tiger that it would produce, but they were always lying
to themselves about it. There is no Big Tent in a theocracy unless
there are state imposed restrictions on what such a theocracy can do to people of different religions and sects. Since the Supreme Court ruling
in 1987 it has been legal to teach anti evolution creationism in the
public schools if it is taught in a comparative religion class. The
IDiotic creationists refuse to do that, and any theocracy that they were able to create would obviously be something that other creationist
beliefs would fear.
Ron Okimoto
Ron Okimoto
There is something weird with eternal september. The post that you are
responding to shows up in Google groups, but not on eternal september
where I posted it from.
The ID perps
changed the name of what they were selling so that they could continue >>>> the political efforts of the Scientific Creationists. Of Pandas and >>>> People was supposed to be the textbook that the scientific creationists >>>> needed to teach their junk in the public schools. The Arkansas federal >>>> court ruling included the fact that they had no suitable materials for >>>> teaching the junk in the public schools. All the scientific creationist >>>> literature was laced with Bible verses and biblical mythology. Of
Pandas and People was announced as the creastionist text that wouldn't >>>> have those issues, but it came too late to be used to teach scientific >>>> creationism. The sad thing is that the ID perps understood that they >>>> didn't have the creation science to teach in the public schools in that >>>> textbook or anywhere else. The Supreme court ruled that if any valid >>>> creation science ever was produced that it could be taught in the public
schools, and that the current religious creationist material could be >>>> taught in a public school comparative religion class, but it would have >>>> to be a comparison of a range of religious beliefs that could include >>>> the scientific creationist junk.
None of the ID perps wanted to do that, and they knew that there wasn't >>>> any creation science worth calling science in Of Pandas and People, so >>>> they changed the name from creationism to intelligent design. When they >>>> did this they knew that if they actually had valid creation science that
they would not have had to make the name change. Kenyon was one of the >>>> two main authors, and he knew the junk didn't measure up because he >>>> wrote the material used to try to claim that the creation science was >>>> science for the creationist legal team. The name changed spawned the ID >>>> scam. Behe admitted in Dover that he had written parts of the book, but >>>> wasn't credited. Meyer wrote the teachers notes for the book. Thaxton >>>> was the editor and Kenyon was was one of the two main authors.
All of these ID perps knew that if Of Pandas and People had contained >>>> any valid creation science that there would have been no reason to
change the name from creationism to intelligent design.
For the right leaning court to make a ruling a case would have to get >>>> past the lower courts, at least, on appeal. Scientific creationism made >>>> it to the supreme court because the case went to a creationist federal >>>> judge that was willing to prostitute himself for the cause. The
Arkansas case like the Dover case was never appealed. The Dover ID scam >>>> case went to a federal judge appointed by Bush, and a church going
Scoutmaster. We all know what happened. Phillip Johnson, the person >>>> supposedly responsible for getting the ID perps together and getting >>>> them funding, and the person responsible for developing the Wedge
strategy, sat in court every day and watch IDiocy revealed for the scam >>>> that it always had been. Afterword Johnson admitted that the ID science >>>> had never existed, and claimed that he was glad that the scam was over, >>>> and things could go on some other way.
After Dover there is no way that IDiocy would make it to the Supreme >>>> Court even if the ID perps stopped running the bait and switch scam on >>>> the hapless creationist rubes. The ID perps keep selling the rubes the >>>> claim that they have the ID science to teach in the public schools, but >>>> for over 2 decades they have run the bait and switch on any creationist >>>> rubes that believed them. Before Dover they had a list up of over 20 >>>> school boards and legislatures that they had run the bait and switch on.
The list claimed to be rubes thinking about accepting the switch scam. >>>> At that time only Ohio had bent over for the switch scam. All the
other rubes had deferred, and except for Louisiana and Texas eventually >>>> dropped the scam. No group of creationist rubes before Dover got the >>>> chance to teach the junk in the public schools because the ID perps >>>> would not let them do it. When the scam artists that sold you the scam >>>> tell you not to do what they claimed you could do, the rubes usually >>>> listen. Dover was the ID perps only failure, and demonstrated why they >>>> needed to keep running the bait and switch after Dover. The ID perps do >>>> not run the bait and switch on the science side, they run the scam on >>>> their own creationist support base.
For some insane reason the ID bait and switch scam continued after
Dover. The ID perps put out their teach ID scam propaganda claiming >>>> that the federal court ruling had been wrong, and they kept claiming >>>> that they had the ID science that could be taught in the public schools.
Fewer rubes believed them, but the bait and switch had to keep going >>>> down. Probably the worst example was Florida in 2009. Something like 9 >>>> county school boards wanted to teach the ID scam junk in their public >>>> schools, and legislation had been written to allow teaching the junk in >>>> the public schools. The ID perps had to send a team down to Florida to >>>> run the bait and switch on the creationist rubes. I remember Luskin >>>> interviewed on the capitol steps. Florida wouldn't bend over for the >>>> switch scam and dropped the issue.
All this means is that the bait and switch scam would have to stop in >>>> order for any group of rubes to get the ID creationist scam to the
supreme court, and even if they got it there with the current Right >>>> leaning court, my guess is that enough creationists have been burned by >>>> the bait and switch scam that anyone that decided to support the ID scam
would have to be among the stupidest people alive. History alone would >>>> tell them what the future would think of any justice that could be that >>>> lame.
It isn't just the lame history of the ID scam. The Top Six demonstrates >>>> that the ID perps have nothing that the majority of IDiotic creationists
want to teach in the public schools. If you aren't going to teach the >>>> best, why would you teach anything at all? The Top Six killed ID on TO, >>>> and it would kill any attempt to teach ID in the public schools. #1 of >>>> the Top Six (The Big Bang) is already one of the science topics that >>>> IDiot type creationists have wanted to remove from the science standards
in several states, and they succeeded for a while in Kansas before
enough creationist board members were voted out to reinstate the old >>>> standards. Just as most of the remaining IDiots on TO could not deal >>>> with the Top Six in an honest and straightforward manner, the vast
majority of IDiots can't deal with them. There is actually no ID
science that the creationist rubes want to teach their kids. That is >>>> probably the main reason why no ID perp ever attempted to do any ID >>>> science. Just imagine if Behe was able to demonstrate that the
flagellum was his type of IC system. He would know what existed before >>>> the flagellum evolved and he would know something about what had to >>>> happen in order to get the parts together. The flagellum evolved over a >>>> billion years ago. Behe claims that 3 neutral mutations occurring
within a short time period would be enough to make a system his type of >>>> IC. Behe would need to know the context in which those mutations had to >>>> occur. Confirmation of the flagellum as Behe's type of IC would just be >>>> more science to deny by the IDiots. Just imagine what would happen if >>>> Meyer figured out what his designer did within that 25 million year >>>> period of the Cambrian explosion over half a billion years ago. There >>>> was never any ID science worth teaching, and no attempt to produce any >>>> valid ID science was ever made by the ID perps. Did Behe and Minnich >>>> ever attempt the "scientific test" for IC that they claimed was possible
under oath?
Ron Okimoto
On Sat, 29 Apr 2023 12:01:56 -0500, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by RonO <rokimoto@cox.net>:
On 4/29/2023 9:32 AM, Lawyer Daggett wrote:A-a-a-a-nd we're off and runing again... :-(
On Saturday, April 29, 2023 at 10:20:05?AM UTC-4, RonO wrote:Still delusional. Say you tried to figure out what was really going on,
On 4/29/2023 9:09 AM, Lawyer Daggett wrote:
On Saturday, April 29, 2023 at 10:05:05?AM UTC-4, RonO wrote:So you are still suffering your profound delusion about the Top Six?
On 4/29/2023 8:22 AM, Lawyer Daggett wrote:
On Saturday, April 29, 2023 at 9:15:06?AM UTC-4, RonO wrote:So you have no counter or ability to reconsider what actually has been >>>>>> going on for over 20 years. Why not attempt to demonstrate that he >>>>>> isn't ignorant, of what the situation currently is?
On 4/29/2023 6:50 AM, broger...@gmail.com wrote:Seek psychological counseling.
On Friday, April 28, 2023 at 10:20:05?PM UTC-4, RonO wrote: >>>>>>>>>> On 4/28/2023 7:16 PM, broger...@gmail.com wrote:
On Friday, April 28, 2023 at 6:55:04?PM UTC-4, RonO wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/28/2023 9:14 AM, Mark Isaak wrote:
On 4/27/23 3:41 PM, RonO wrote:
On 4/27/2023 11:02 AM, Mark Isaak wrote:
On 4/27/23 4:04 AM, RonO wrote:
Do you now realize how wrong you were. I know that the reason that >>>>>>>> people disagree with me is because you have remained ignorant of just >>>>>>>
It should be easy to demonstrate that I am wrong, so why not try to do >>>>>> it. You do understand how profound your misunderstanding of the Top Six >>>>>> situation was, so shouldn't you go further and figure out what else you >>>>>> are wrong about?
That isn't where the problem lies. It's a behavior problem.
Removing what you can't deal with from a post, doesn't change reality. >>>> Shouldn't you, at least, try to work some kind of reconciliation with
that delusion before making further claims about someone else? You were >>>> obviously wrong, what else are you wrong about?
Imagine you lived in a neighborhood where there was a problem with
your neighbors not picking up after their dogs when they took them
for a walk. And some guy decided to make it his mission to fix that.
So he wondered the neighborhood screaming and screaching at every
bit of dog crap he saw.
You would see him wandering about and then dash over, jump up and
stomp down on a pile of crap and he would shout out that he found
more dog dirt.
Then people told him he wasn't helping, and his response was to rush
out, bend over and grab hold of a fresh steaming pile in his ungloved
hand, pirouette about ranting of the problem of people not picking up
after their dogs.
The problem isn't that he's wrong about people not picking up after
their dogs.
what would that be like? Your example above demonstrates that you are
obviously wrong about what was going on. No one was claiming that there
was shit anywhere, what was happening was that I just had to make the
IDiots deal with what IDiocy had always been. I only rubbed their faces
in what they were desperately trying to stay willfully ignorant of.
Glenn lasted the longest, but denial for denial sake can only last so
long. It turned out that there just are not very many IDiots that can
deal with the ID creationist scam in an honest and straightforward
manner and remain IDiots. The ID perps put out the Top Six as the Top
Six in their order of occurrence. It turned out that all the IDiots
that were IDiots in order to support their religious beliefs could not
deal with the Top Six. Pagano was the only IDiot that faced the Top Six
head on, and he claimed that they were bogus and not the best evidence
for the creationist ID scam. He tried to put up the second rate denial
junk that hadn't made it into the Top Six before he quit posting. Kalk
and Glenn ran from them and tried to create a campaign of putting up the
second rate denial junk as something that still supported the ID scam.
Kalk couldn't keep doing that and quit the ID scam and ended up claiming
that he had never claimed to be Hindu and came out as a plain vanilla
biblical creationist. When confronted by the Top Six Bill claimed that
he had never supported the ID scam. This is the same Bill that had made
the claim that he knew some real ID scientists that had the real ID
science. What Bill likely meant was that he had never supported what
the ID scam had always been.
So you do have a profound delusion about what happened within the last 5
years on TO, and it is likely because you never bothered to try to
figure out what was going on. Why do you think that the IDiots gave up
on the ID scam? It wasn't because I refuted anything, or claimed that
there was anything bogus about the Top Six. All I did was put them up
as the ID perps had. They are the best evidence for ID, but there
aren't very many IDiots that want to believe in the designer that fills
those gaps in the order of their occurrence.
Your example above should be about someone that finds a flower in the
neighborhood. It is the most beautiful flower of it's kind, but there
is a problem with the flower. Some of the neighbors shun the flower and
literally walk across the street in order to not have to deal with the
flower's existence. They do it because it means that the flowers that
they want to be the most beautiful are not. Some of them acknowledge
the existence of the flower, but claim that it was never the type of
flower that they wanted to grow in the neighborhood so they quit trying
to grow such flowers, and return to growing what they wanted to grow in
the first place. Others try to pretend that the flower doesn't exist,
but they eventually keep running into the flower because they keep
buying seeds from the same nursery that sell the flower that they don't
want to exist, and have to eventually acknowledge it's existence, and
decide to quit trying to grow such flowers
That is what happened on TO after the ID perps put out the Top Six best
evidences for IDiocy in Nov. of 2017. There just are not very many
IDiotic biblical creationist rubes that want to believe in the designer
responsible for filling the Top Six god-of-the-gaps denial "evidence".
The IDiotic designer responsible for filling the Top Six gaps is not
biblical enough for the the average IDiotic creationist rube. The Top
Six made that clear for the ones with enough brain power to read and
understand them.
On 4/29/2023 1:16 PM, Bob Casanova wrote:
On Sat, 29 Apr 2023 12:01:56 -0500, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by RonO <rokimoto@cox.net>:
On 4/29/2023 9:32 AM, Lawyer Daggett wrote:A-a-a-a-nd we're off and runing again... :-(
On Saturday, April 29, 2023 at 10:20:05?AM UTC-4, RonO wrote:Still delusional. Say you tried to figure out what was really going on, >>> what would that be like? Your example above demonstrates that you are
On 4/29/2023 9:09 AM, Lawyer Daggett wrote:
On Saturday, April 29, 2023 at 10:05:05?AM UTC-4, RonO wrote:So you are still suffering your profound delusion about the Top Six? >>>>> Removing what you can't deal with from a post, doesn't change reality. >>>>> Shouldn't you, at least, try to work some kind of reconciliation with >>>>> that delusion before making further claims about someone else? You were >>>>> obviously wrong, what else are you wrong about?
On 4/29/2023 8:22 AM, Lawyer Daggett wrote:
On Saturday, April 29, 2023 at 9:15:06?AM UTC-4, RonO wrote:So you have no counter or ability to reconsider what actually has been >>>>>>> going on for over 20 years. Why not attempt to demonstrate that he >>>>>>> isn't ignorant, of what the situation currently is?
On 4/29/2023 6:50 AM, broger...@gmail.com wrote:Seek psychological counseling.
On Friday, April 28, 2023 at 10:20:05?PM UTC-4, RonO wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> On 4/28/2023 7:16 PM, broger...@gmail.com wrote:
On Friday, April 28, 2023 at 6:55:04?PM UTC-4, RonO wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/28/2023 9:14 AM, Mark Isaak wrote:
On 4/27/23 3:41 PM, RonO wrote:
On 4/27/2023 11:02 AM, Mark Isaak wrote:
On 4/27/23 4:04 AM, RonO wrote:
Do you now realize how wrong you were. I know that the reason that >>>>>>>>> people disagree with me is because you have remained ignorant of just >>>>>>>>
It should be easy to demonstrate that I am wrong, so why not try to do >>>>>>> it. You do understand how profound your misunderstanding of the Top Six >>>>>>> situation was, so shouldn't you go further and figure out what else you >>>>>>> are wrong about?
That isn't where the problem lies. It's a behavior problem.
Imagine you lived in a neighborhood where there was a problem with
your neighbors not picking up after their dogs when they took them
for a walk. And some guy decided to make it his mission to fix that.
So he wondered the neighborhood screaming and screaching at every
bit of dog crap he saw.
You would see him wandering about and then dash over, jump up and
stomp down on a pile of crap and he would shout out that he found
more dog dirt.
Then people told him he wasn't helping, and his response was to rush
out, bend over and grab hold of a fresh steaming pile in his ungloved
hand, pirouette about ranting of the problem of people not picking up
after their dogs.
The problem isn't that he's wrong about people not picking up after
their dogs.
obviously wrong about what was going on. No one was claiming that there >>> was shit anywhere, what was happening was that I just had to make the
IDiots deal with what IDiocy had always been. I only rubbed their faces >>> in what they were desperately trying to stay willfully ignorant of.
Glenn lasted the longest, but denial for denial sake can only last so
long. It turned out that there just are not very many IDiots that can
deal with the ID creationist scam in an honest and straightforward
manner and remain IDiots. The ID perps put out the Top Six as the Top
Six in their order of occurrence. It turned out that all the IDiots
that were IDiots in order to support their religious beliefs could not
deal with the Top Six. Pagano was the only IDiot that faced the Top Six >>> head on, and he claimed that they were bogus and not the best evidence
for the creationist ID scam. He tried to put up the second rate denial
junk that hadn't made it into the Top Six before he quit posting. Kalk
and Glenn ran from them and tried to create a campaign of putting up the >>> second rate denial junk as something that still supported the ID scam.
Kalk couldn't keep doing that and quit the ID scam and ended up claiming >>> that he had never claimed to be Hindu and came out as a plain vanilla
biblical creationist. When confronted by the Top Six Bill claimed that
he had never supported the ID scam. This is the same Bill that had made >>> the claim that he knew some real ID scientists that had the real ID
science. What Bill likely meant was that he had never supported what
the ID scam had always been.
So you do have a profound delusion about what happened within the last 5 >>> years on TO, and it is likely because you never bothered to try to
figure out what was going on. Why do you think that the IDiots gave up
on the ID scam? It wasn't because I refuted anything, or claimed that
there was anything bogus about the Top Six. All I did was put them up
as the ID perps had. They are the best evidence for ID, but there
aren't very many IDiots that want to believe in the designer that fills
those gaps in the order of their occurrence.
Your example above should be about someone that finds a flower in the
neighborhood. It is the most beautiful flower of it's kind, but there
is a problem with the flower. Some of the neighbors shun the flower and >>> literally walk across the street in order to not have to deal with the
flower's existence. They do it because it means that the flowers that
they want to be the most beautiful are not. Some of them acknowledge
the existence of the flower, but claim that it was never the type of
flower that they wanted to grow in the neighborhood so they quit trying
to grow such flowers, and return to growing what they wanted to grow in
the first place. Others try to pretend that the flower doesn't exist,
but they eventually keep running into the flower because they keep
buying seeds from the same nursery that sell the flower that they don't
want to exist, and have to eventually acknowledge it's existence, and
decide to quit trying to grow such flowers
That is what happened on TO after the ID perps put out the Top Six best
evidences for IDiocy in Nov. of 2017. There just are not very many
IDiotic biblical creationist rubes that want to believe in the designer
responsible for filling the Top Six god-of-the-gaps denial "evidence".
The IDiotic designer responsible for filling the Top Six gaps is not
biblical enough for the the average IDiotic creationist rube. The Top
Six made that clear for the ones with enough brain power to read and
understand them.
And whatever makes you satisfied with being so willfully ignorant about >something this stupid. Is he wrong about what happened? He won't admit
it, but you likely know how wrong he was, so why this comment?
Do you
have any evidence that it was any other way? Can you put up any posts
where I tried to refute the Top Six? Can you put up any posts where the >IDiots do anything but what I claim that they did. What is wrong with
you guys? Can you demonstrate that Daggett wasn't the delusional one? >Something to support his delusion would be worth putting up. I've
linked back to some of those posts, so what happened? Why is it so
difficult to understand how wrong you guys have been? Really, put up
what you think happened and some posts verifying that. Go to the Top
Six thread on this subject to start, and I can supply other links if you
want them. Instead of remaining willfully ignorant, why not try to
figure out how wrong you two have to be? Really, I never had to refute
the Top Six. I only had to keep putting them up as the best that the ID >perps had, and their own antics in destroying them because even some of
the ID perps can't stand the Top Six as the Top Six.
You can start here: >https://groups.google.com/g/talk.origins/c/cY2JbNjBLwE/m/mJelpHjzAwAJ
On Sat, 29 Apr 2023 14:45:06 -0500, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by RonO <rokimoto@cox.net>:
On 4/29/2023 1:16 PM, Bob Casanova wrote:Because nearly every post of yours is a rant about ID, the
On Sat, 29 Apr 2023 12:01:56 -0500, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by RonO <rokimoto@cox.net>:
On 4/29/2023 9:32 AM, Lawyer Daggett wrote:A-a-a-a-nd we're off and runing again... :-(
On Saturday, April 29, 2023 at 10:20:05?AM UTC-4, RonO wrote:Still delusional. Say you tried to figure out what was really going on, >>>> what would that be like? Your example above demonstrates that you are >>>> obviously wrong about what was going on. No one was claiming that there >>>> was shit anywhere, what was happening was that I just had to make the
On 4/29/2023 9:09 AM, Lawyer Daggett wrote:
On Saturday, April 29, 2023 at 10:05:05?AM UTC-4, RonO wrote:So you are still suffering your profound delusion about the Top Six? >>>>>> Removing what you can't deal with from a post, doesn't change reality. >>>>>> Shouldn't you, at least, try to work some kind of reconciliation with >>>>>> that delusion before making further claims about someone else? You were >>>>>> obviously wrong, what else are you wrong about?
On 4/29/2023 8:22 AM, Lawyer Daggett wrote:
On Saturday, April 29, 2023 at 9:15:06?AM UTC-4, RonO wrote: >>>>>>>>>> On 4/29/2023 6:50 AM, broger...@gmail.com wrote:So you have no counter or ability to reconsider what actually has been >>>>>>>> going on for over 20 years. Why not attempt to demonstrate that he >>>>>>>> isn't ignorant, of what the situation currently is?
On Friday, April 28, 2023 at 10:20:05?PM UTC-4, RonO wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/28/2023 7:16 PM, broger...@gmail.com wrote:
On Friday, April 28, 2023 at 6:55:04?PM UTC-4, RonO wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/28/2023 9:14 AM, Mark Isaak wrote:
On 4/27/23 3:41 PM, RonO wrote:
On 4/27/2023 11:02 AM, Mark Isaak wrote:
On 4/27/23 4:04 AM, RonO wrote:
Do you now realize how wrong you were. I know that the reason that >>>>>>>>>> people disagree with me is because you have remained ignorant of just
Seek psychological counseling.
It should be easy to demonstrate that I am wrong, so why not try to do >>>>>>>> it. You do understand how profound your misunderstanding of the Top Six
situation was, so shouldn't you go further and figure out what else you
are wrong about?
That isn't where the problem lies. It's a behavior problem.
Imagine you lived in a neighborhood where there was a problem with
your neighbors not picking up after their dogs when they took them
for a walk. And some guy decided to make it his mission to fix that. >>>>> So he wondered the neighborhood screaming and screaching at every
bit of dog crap he saw.
You would see him wandering about and then dash over, jump up and
stomp down on a pile of crap and he would shout out that he found
more dog dirt.
Then people told him he wasn't helping, and his response was to rush >>>>> out, bend over and grab hold of a fresh steaming pile in his ungloved >>>>> hand, pirouette about ranting of the problem of people not picking up >>>>> after their dogs.
The problem isn't that he's wrong about people not picking up after
their dogs.
IDiots deal with what IDiocy had always been. I only rubbed their faces >>>> in what they were desperately trying to stay willfully ignorant of.
Glenn lasted the longest, but denial for denial sake can only last so
long. It turned out that there just are not very many IDiots that can >>>> deal with the ID creationist scam in an honest and straightforward
manner and remain IDiots. The ID perps put out the Top Six as the Top >>>> Six in their order of occurrence. It turned out that all the IDiots
that were IDiots in order to support their religious beliefs could not >>>> deal with the Top Six. Pagano was the only IDiot that faced the Top Six >>>> head on, and he claimed that they were bogus and not the best evidence >>>> for the creationist ID scam. He tried to put up the second rate denial >>>> junk that hadn't made it into the Top Six before he quit posting. Kalk >>>> and Glenn ran from them and tried to create a campaign of putting up the >>>> second rate denial junk as something that still supported the ID scam. >>>> Kalk couldn't keep doing that and quit the ID scam and ended up claiming >>>> that he had never claimed to be Hindu and came out as a plain vanilla
biblical creationist. When confronted by the Top Six Bill claimed that >>>> he had never supported the ID scam. This is the same Bill that had made >>>> the claim that he knew some real ID scientists that had the real ID
science. What Bill likely meant was that he had never supported what
the ID scam had always been.
So you do have a profound delusion about what happened within the last 5 >>>> years on TO, and it is likely because you never bothered to try to
figure out what was going on. Why do you think that the IDiots gave up >>>> on the ID scam? It wasn't because I refuted anything, or claimed that >>>> there was anything bogus about the Top Six. All I did was put them up >>>> as the ID perps had. They are the best evidence for ID, but there
aren't very many IDiots that want to believe in the designer that fills >>>> those gaps in the order of their occurrence.
Your example above should be about someone that finds a flower in the
neighborhood. It is the most beautiful flower of it's kind, but there >>>> is a problem with the flower. Some of the neighbors shun the flower and >>>> literally walk across the street in order to not have to deal with the >>>> flower's existence. They do it because it means that the flowers that >>>> they want to be the most beautiful are not. Some of them acknowledge
the existence of the flower, but claim that it was never the type of
flower that they wanted to grow in the neighborhood so they quit trying >>>> to grow such flowers, and return to growing what they wanted to grow in >>>> the first place. Others try to pretend that the flower doesn't exist, >>>> but they eventually keep running into the flower because they keep
buying seeds from the same nursery that sell the flower that they don't >>>> want to exist, and have to eventually acknowledge it's existence, and
decide to quit trying to grow such flowers
That is what happened on TO after the ID perps put out the Top Six best >>>> evidences for IDiocy in Nov. of 2017. There just are not very many
IDiotic biblical creationist rubes that want to believe in the designer >>>> responsible for filling the Top Six god-of-the-gaps denial "evidence". >>>> The IDiotic designer responsible for filling the Top Six gaps is not
biblical enough for the the average IDiotic creationist rube. The Top >>>> Six made that clear for the ones with enough brain power to read and
understand them.
And whatever makes you satisfied with being so willfully ignorant about
something this stupid. Is he wrong about what happened? He won't admit
it, but you likely know how wrong he was, so why this comment?
"Top Six", and anything else you can think of related to
this particular idiotic branch of creationism. What did you
*think* I meant by "off and running again"?
I know. We *all* know. How could we not, given the number of
Do you
have any evidence that it was any other way? Can you put up any posts
where I tried to refute the Top Six? Can you put up any posts where the
IDiots do anything but what I claim that they did. What is wrong with
you guys? Can you demonstrate that Daggett wasn't the delusional one?
Something to support his delusion would be worth putting up. I've
linked back to some of those posts, so what happened? Why is it so
difficult to understand how wrong you guys have been? Really, put up
what you think happened and some posts verifying that. Go to the Top
Six thread on this subject to start, and I can supply other links if you
want them. Instead of remaining willfully ignorant, why not try to
figure out how wrong you two have to be? Really, I never had to refute
the Top Six. I only had to keep putting them up as the best that the ID
perps had, and their own antics in destroying them because even some of
the ID perps can't stand the Top Six as the Top Six.
times you've ranted about it?
Pass, thanks. Seen it all too many times already.
You can start here:
https://groups.google.com/g/talk.origins/c/cY2JbNjBLwE/m/mJelpHjzAwAJ
On 4/28/2023 9:14 AM, Mark Isaak wrote:
[...]
I get the impression your *only* concern is with intelligent design,
and you don't give a damn about the underlying issues of science
denial and religious bigotry.
Nope. Wrong again. I acknowledge that there is still an issue, but currently the ID perps are controlling the creationist rubes so that
nothing they do ever amounts to anything, and the sad reality is that
the majority of IDiots never wanted the ID perps to produce any ID
science.
On Sat, 29 Apr 2023 17:00:13 -0500, the following appearedThe willful ignorance is just nuts.
in talk.origins, posted by RonO <rokimoto@cox.net>:
On 4/29/2023 3:20 PM, Bob Casanova wrote:Have a nice life.
On Sat, 29 Apr 2023 14:45:06 -0500, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by RonO <rokimoto@cox.net>:
On 4/29/2023 1:16 PM, Bob Casanova wrote:Because nearly every post of yours is a rant about ID, the
On Sat, 29 Apr 2023 12:01:56 -0500, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by RonO <rokimoto@cox.net>:
On 4/29/2023 9:32 AM, Lawyer Daggett wrote:A-a-a-a-nd we're off and runing again... :-(
On Saturday, April 29, 2023 at 10:20:05?AM UTC-4, RonO wrote:Still delusional. Say you tried to figure out what was really going on, >>>>>> what would that be like? Your example above demonstrates that you are >>>>>> obviously wrong about what was going on. No one was claiming that there >>>>>> was shit anywhere, what was happening was that I just had to make the >>>>>> IDiots deal with what IDiocy had always been. I only rubbed their faces >>>>>> in what they were desperately trying to stay willfully ignorant of. >>>>>> Glenn lasted the longest, but denial for denial sake can only last so >>>>>> long. It turned out that there just are not very many IDiots that can >>>>>> deal with the ID creationist scam in an honest and straightforward >>>>>> manner and remain IDiots. The ID perps put out the Top Six as the Top >>>>>> Six in their order of occurrence. It turned out that all the IDiots >>>>>> that were IDiots in order to support their religious beliefs could not >>>>>> deal with the Top Six. Pagano was the only IDiot that faced the Top Six >>>>>> head on, and he claimed that they were bogus and not the best evidence >>>>>> for the creationist ID scam. He tried to put up the second rate denial >>>>>> junk that hadn't made it into the Top Six before he quit posting. Kalk >>>>>> and Glenn ran from them and tried to create a campaign of putting up the >>>>>> second rate denial junk as something that still supported the ID scam. >>>>>> Kalk couldn't keep doing that and quit the ID scam and ended up claiming >>>>>> that he had never claimed to be Hindu and came out as a plain vanilla >>>>>> biblical creationist. When confronted by the Top Six Bill claimed that >>>>>> he had never supported the ID scam. This is the same Bill that had made >>>>>> the claim that he knew some real ID scientists that had the real ID >>>>>> science. What Bill likely meant was that he had never supported what >>>>>> the ID scam had always been.
On 4/29/2023 9:09 AM, Lawyer Daggett wrote:
On Saturday, April 29, 2023 at 10:05:05?AM UTC-4, RonO wrote: >>>>>>>>>> On 4/29/2023 8:22 AM, Lawyer Daggett wrote:So you are still suffering your profound delusion about the Top Six? >>>>>>>> Removing what you can't deal with from a post, doesn't change reality. >>>>>>>> Shouldn't you, at least, try to work some kind of reconciliation with >>>>>>>> that delusion before making further claims about someone else? You were
On Saturday, April 29, 2023 at 9:15:06?AM UTC-4, RonO wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/29/2023 6:50 AM, broger...@gmail.com wrote:So you have no counter or ability to reconsider what actually has been
On Friday, April 28, 2023 at 10:20:05?PM UTC-4, RonO wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/28/2023 7:16 PM, broger...@gmail.com wrote:
On Friday, April 28, 2023 at 6:55:04?PM UTC-4, RonO wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/28/2023 9:14 AM, Mark Isaak wrote:
On 4/27/23 3:41 PM, RonO wrote:
On 4/27/2023 11:02 AM, Mark Isaak wrote:
On 4/27/23 4:04 AM, RonO wrote:
Do you now realize how wrong you were. I know that the reason that >>>>>>>>>>>> people disagree with me is because you have remained ignorant of just
Seek psychological counseling.
going on for over 20 years. Why not attempt to demonstrate that he >>>>>>>>>> isn't ignorant, of what the situation currently is?
It should be easy to demonstrate that I am wrong, so why not try to do
it. You do understand how profound your misunderstanding of the Top Six
situation was, so shouldn't you go further and figure out what else you
are wrong about?
That isn't where the problem lies. It's a behavior problem.
obviously wrong, what else are you wrong about?
Imagine you lived in a neighborhood where there was a problem with >>>>>>> your neighbors not picking up after their dogs when they took them >>>>>>> for a walk. And some guy decided to make it his mission to fix that. >>>>>>> So he wondered the neighborhood screaming and screaching at every >>>>>>> bit of dog crap he saw.
You would see him wandering about and then dash over, jump up and >>>>>>> stomp down on a pile of crap and he would shout out that he found >>>>>>> more dog dirt.
Then people told him he wasn't helping, and his response was to rush >>>>>>> out, bend over and grab hold of a fresh steaming pile in his ungloved >>>>>>> hand, pirouette about ranting of the problem of people not picking up >>>>>>> after their dogs.
The problem isn't that he's wrong about people not picking up after >>>>>>> their dogs.
So you do have a profound delusion about what happened within the last 5 >>>>>> years on TO, and it is likely because you never bothered to try to >>>>>> figure out what was going on. Why do you think that the IDiots gave up >>>>>> on the ID scam? It wasn't because I refuted anything, or claimed that >>>>>> there was anything bogus about the Top Six. All I did was put them up >>>>>> as the ID perps had. They are the best evidence for ID, but there >>>>>> aren't very many IDiots that want to believe in the designer that fills >>>>>> those gaps in the order of their occurrence.
Your example above should be about someone that finds a flower in the >>>>>> neighborhood. It is the most beautiful flower of it's kind, but there >>>>>> is a problem with the flower. Some of the neighbors shun the flower and >>>>>> literally walk across the street in order to not have to deal with the >>>>>> flower's existence. They do it because it means that the flowers that >>>>>> they want to be the most beautiful are not. Some of them acknowledge >>>>>> the existence of the flower, but claim that it was never the type of >>>>>> flower that they wanted to grow in the neighborhood so they quit trying >>>>>> to grow such flowers, and return to growing what they wanted to grow in >>>>>> the first place. Others try to pretend that the flower doesn't exist, >>>>>> but they eventually keep running into the flower because they keep >>>>>> buying seeds from the same nursery that sell the flower that they don't >>>>>> want to exist, and have to eventually acknowledge it's existence, and >>>>>> decide to quit trying to grow such flowers
That is what happened on TO after the ID perps put out the Top Six best >>>>>> evidences for IDiocy in Nov. of 2017. There just are not very many >>>>>> IDiotic biblical creationist rubes that want to believe in the designer >>>>>> responsible for filling the Top Six god-of-the-gaps denial "evidence". >>>>>> The IDiotic designer responsible for filling the Top Six gaps is not >>>>>> biblical enough for the the average IDiotic creationist rube. The Top >>>>>> Six made that clear for the ones with enough brain power to read and >>>>>> understand them.
And whatever makes you satisfied with being so willfully ignorant about >>>> something this stupid. Is he wrong about what happened? He won't admit >>>> it, but you likely know how wrong he was, so why this comment?
"Top Six", and anything else you can think of related to
this particular idiotic branch of creationism. What did you
*think* I meant by "off and running again"?
I know. We *all* know. How could we not, given the number of
Do you
have any evidence that it was any other way? Can you put up any posts >>>> where I tried to refute the Top Six? Can you put up any posts where the >>>> IDiots do anything but what I claim that they did. What is wrong with >>>> you guys? Can you demonstrate that Daggett wasn't the delusional one? >>>> Something to support his delusion would be worth putting up. I've
linked back to some of those posts, so what happened? Why is it so
difficult to understand how wrong you guys have been? Really, put up
what you think happened and some posts verifying that. Go to the Top
Six thread on this subject to start, and I can supply other links if you >>>> want them. Instead of remaining willfully ignorant, why not try to
figure out how wrong you two have to be? Really, I never had to refute >>>> the Top Six. I only had to keep putting them up as the best that the ID >>>> perps had, and their own antics in destroying them because even some of >>>> the ID perps can't stand the Top Six as the Top Six.
times you've ranted about it?
Pass, thanks. Seen it all too many times already.
You can start here:
https://groups.google.com/g/talk.origins/c/cY2JbNjBLwE/m/mJelpHjzAwAJ
Isn't it sad that you will continue to spout off and expose your
ignorance and stupidity rather then just do something simple in order to
determine for yourself just how wrong you are? Why bother to comment
when you obviously aren't interested in understanding how wrong you two
are? I have a link to a representative post on the Top Six, that I
routinely have linked back to in the thread linked to above. A few
minutes and you won't have to be so ignorant and stupid. I never try to
refute the Top Six. I just put them up as the ID perps put them up and
demonstrate that even the ID perps can't treat them in an honest and
postive manner. The IDiots on TO are not the only creationists that
can't deal with the Top Six as the best evidence that the ID scam has.
On 4/29/2023 3:20 PM, Bob Casanova wrote:
On Sat, 29 Apr 2023 14:45:06 -0500, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by RonO <rokimoto@cox.net>:
On 4/29/2023 1:16 PM, Bob Casanova wrote:Because nearly every post of yours is a rant about ID, the
On Sat, 29 Apr 2023 12:01:56 -0500, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by RonO <rokimoto@cox.net>:
On 4/29/2023 9:32 AM, Lawyer Daggett wrote:A-a-a-a-nd we're off and runing again... :-(
On Saturday, April 29, 2023 at 10:20:05?AM UTC-4, RonO wrote:Still delusional. Say you tried to figure out what was really going on, >>>>> what would that be like? Your example above demonstrates that you are >>>>> obviously wrong about what was going on. No one was claiming that there >>>>> was shit anywhere, what was happening was that I just had to make the >>>>> IDiots deal with what IDiocy had always been. I only rubbed their faces >>>>> in what they were desperately trying to stay willfully ignorant of.
On 4/29/2023 9:09 AM, Lawyer Daggett wrote:
On Saturday, April 29, 2023 at 10:05:05?AM UTC-4, RonO wrote: >>>>>>>>> On 4/29/2023 8:22 AM, Lawyer Daggett wrote:So you are still suffering your profound delusion about the Top Six? >>>>>>> Removing what you can't deal with from a post, doesn't change reality. >>>>>>> Shouldn't you, at least, try to work some kind of reconciliation with >>>>>>> that delusion before making further claims about someone else? You were >>>>>>> obviously wrong, what else are you wrong about?
On Saturday, April 29, 2023 at 9:15:06?AM UTC-4, RonO wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> On 4/29/2023 6:50 AM, broger...@gmail.com wrote:So you have no counter or ability to reconsider what actually has been
On Friday, April 28, 2023 at 10:20:05?PM UTC-4, RonO wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/28/2023 7:16 PM, broger...@gmail.com wrote:
On Friday, April 28, 2023 at 6:55:04?PM UTC-4, RonO wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/28/2023 9:14 AM, Mark Isaak wrote:
On 4/27/23 3:41 PM, RonO wrote:
On 4/27/2023 11:02 AM, Mark Isaak wrote:
On 4/27/23 4:04 AM, RonO wrote:
Do you now realize how wrong you were. I know that the reason that >>>>>>>>>>> people disagree with me is because you have remained ignorant of just
Seek psychological counseling.
going on for over 20 years. Why not attempt to demonstrate that he >>>>>>>>> isn't ignorant, of what the situation currently is?
It should be easy to demonstrate that I am wrong, so why not try to do
it. You do understand how profound your misunderstanding of the Top Six
situation was, so shouldn't you go further and figure out what else you
are wrong about?
That isn't where the problem lies. It's a behavior problem.
Imagine you lived in a neighborhood where there was a problem with >>>>>> your neighbors not picking up after their dogs when they took them >>>>>> for a walk. And some guy decided to make it his mission to fix that. >>>>>> So he wondered the neighborhood screaming and screaching at every
bit of dog crap he saw.
You would see him wandering about and then dash over, jump up and
stomp down on a pile of crap and he would shout out that he found
more dog dirt.
Then people told him he wasn't helping, and his response was to rush >>>>>> out, bend over and grab hold of a fresh steaming pile in his ungloved >>>>>> hand, pirouette about ranting of the problem of people not picking up >>>>>> after their dogs.
The problem isn't that he's wrong about people not picking up after >>>>>> their dogs.
Glenn lasted the longest, but denial for denial sake can only last so >>>>> long. It turned out that there just are not very many IDiots that can >>>>> deal with the ID creationist scam in an honest and straightforward
manner and remain IDiots. The ID perps put out the Top Six as the Top >>>>> Six in their order of occurrence. It turned out that all the IDiots >>>>> that were IDiots in order to support their religious beliefs could not >>>>> deal with the Top Six. Pagano was the only IDiot that faced the Top Six >>>>> head on, and he claimed that they were bogus and not the best evidence >>>>> for the creationist ID scam. He tried to put up the second rate denial >>>>> junk that hadn't made it into the Top Six before he quit posting. Kalk >>>>> and Glenn ran from them and tried to create a campaign of putting up the >>>>> second rate denial junk as something that still supported the ID scam. >>>>> Kalk couldn't keep doing that and quit the ID scam and ended up claiming >>>>> that he had never claimed to be Hindu and came out as a plain vanilla >>>>> biblical creationist. When confronted by the Top Six Bill claimed that >>>>> he had never supported the ID scam. This is the same Bill that had made >>>>> the claim that he knew some real ID scientists that had the real ID
science. What Bill likely meant was that he had never supported what >>>>> the ID scam had always been.
So you do have a profound delusion about what happened within the last 5 >>>>> years on TO, and it is likely because you never bothered to try to
figure out what was going on. Why do you think that the IDiots gave up >>>>> on the ID scam? It wasn't because I refuted anything, or claimed that >>>>> there was anything bogus about the Top Six. All I did was put them up >>>>> as the ID perps had. They are the best evidence for ID, but there
aren't very many IDiots that want to believe in the designer that fills >>>>> those gaps in the order of their occurrence.
Your example above should be about someone that finds a flower in the >>>>> neighborhood. It is the most beautiful flower of it's kind, but there >>>>> is a problem with the flower. Some of the neighbors shun the flower and >>>>> literally walk across the street in order to not have to deal with the >>>>> flower's existence. They do it because it means that the flowers that >>>>> they want to be the most beautiful are not. Some of them acknowledge >>>>> the existence of the flower, but claim that it was never the type of >>>>> flower that they wanted to grow in the neighborhood so they quit trying >>>>> to grow such flowers, and return to growing what they wanted to grow in >>>>> the first place. Others try to pretend that the flower doesn't exist, >>>>> but they eventually keep running into the flower because they keep
buying seeds from the same nursery that sell the flower that they don't >>>>> want to exist, and have to eventually acknowledge it's existence, and >>>>> decide to quit trying to grow such flowers
That is what happened on TO after the ID perps put out the Top Six best >>>>> evidences for IDiocy in Nov. of 2017. There just are not very many
IDiotic biblical creationist rubes that want to believe in the designer >>>>> responsible for filling the Top Six god-of-the-gaps denial "evidence". >>>>> The IDiotic designer responsible for filling the Top Six gaps is not >>>>> biblical enough for the the average IDiotic creationist rube. The Top >>>>> Six made that clear for the ones with enough brain power to read and >>>>> understand them.
And whatever makes you satisfied with being so willfully ignorant about
something this stupid. Is he wrong about what happened? He won't admit >>> it, but you likely know how wrong he was, so why this comment?
"Top Six", and anything else you can think of related to
this particular idiotic branch of creationism. What did you
*think* I meant by "off and running again"?
I know. We *all* know. How could we not, given the number of
Do you
have any evidence that it was any other way? Can you put up any posts
where I tried to refute the Top Six? Can you put up any posts where the >>> IDiots do anything but what I claim that they did. What is wrong with
you guys? Can you demonstrate that Daggett wasn't the delusional one?
Something to support his delusion would be worth putting up. I've
linked back to some of those posts, so what happened? Why is it so
difficult to understand how wrong you guys have been? Really, put up
what you think happened and some posts verifying that. Go to the Top
Six thread on this subject to start, and I can supply other links if you >>> want them. Instead of remaining willfully ignorant, why not try to
figure out how wrong you two have to be? Really, I never had to refute
the Top Six. I only had to keep putting them up as the best that the ID >>> perps had, and their own antics in destroying them because even some of
the ID perps can't stand the Top Six as the Top Six.
times you've ranted about it?
Pass, thanks. Seen it all too many times already.
You can start here:
https://groups.google.com/g/talk.origins/c/cY2JbNjBLwE/m/mJelpHjzAwAJ
Isn't it sad that you will continue to spout off and expose your
ignorance and stupidity rather then just do something simple in order to >determine for yourself just how wrong you are? Why bother to comment
when you obviously aren't interested in understanding how wrong you two
are? I have a link to a representative post on the Top Six, that I
routinely have linked back to in the thread linked to above. A few
minutes and you won't have to be so ignorant and stupid. I never try to >refute the Top Six. I just put them up as the ID perps put them up and >demonstrate that even the ID perps can't treat them in an honest and
postive manner. The IDiots on TO are not the only creationists that
can't deal with the Top Six as the best evidence that the ID scam has.
On 4/28/23 3:54 PM, RonO wrote:
On 4/28/2023 9:14 AM, Mark Isaak wrote:
[...]
I get the impression your *only* concern is with intelligent design,
and you don't give a damn about the underlying issues of science
denial and religious bigotry.
Nope. Wrong again. I acknowledge that there is still an issue, but
currently the ID perps are controlling the creationist rubes so that
nothing they do ever amounts to anything, and the sad reality is that
the majority of IDiots never wanted the ID perps to produce any ID
science.
Do you have any evidence for this? From my view of creationism, the
case on the ground is pretty much just the opposite. ID is mostly dead,
but creationism is as alive as it has been for the last 20,000 years. Creationists still cite things like "irreducible complexity" every once
in a while, but only in passing. The latest idea from the ICR that
might qualify as a design theory is that all animals are created, as individuals, with an ability to rapidly adapt to environmental changes,
and this is where appearances of evolution come from. I have never seen
any of the ID folks involved, even peripherally, with this.
On 4/29/2023 7:35 PM, Bob Casanova wrote:
On Sat, 29 Apr 2023 17:00:13 -0500, the following appearedThe willful ignorance is just nuts.
in talk.origins, posted by RonO <rokimoto@cox.net>:
On 4/29/2023 3:20 PM, Bob Casanova wrote:Have a nice life.
On Sat, 29 Apr 2023 14:45:06 -0500, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by RonO <rokimoto@cox.net>:
On 4/29/2023 1:16 PM, Bob Casanova wrote:Because nearly every post of yours is a rant about ID, the
On Sat, 29 Apr 2023 12:01:56 -0500, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by RonO <rokimoto@cox.net>:
On 4/29/2023 9:32 AM, Lawyer Daggett wrote:A-a-a-a-nd we're off and runing again... :-(
On Saturday, April 29, 2023 at 10:20:05?AM UTC-4, RonO wrote: >>>>>>>>> On 4/29/2023 9:09 AM, Lawyer Daggett wrote:Still delusional. Say you tried to figure out what was really going on,
On Saturday, April 29, 2023 at 10:05:05?AM UTC-4, RonO wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> On 4/29/2023 8:22 AM, Lawyer Daggett wrote:So you are still suffering your profound delusion about the Top Six? >>>>>>>>> Removing what you can't deal with from a post, doesn't change reality.
On Saturday, April 29, 2023 at 9:15:06?AM UTC-4, RonO wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/29/2023 6:50 AM, broger...@gmail.com wrote:So you have no counter or ability to reconsider what actually has been
On Friday, April 28, 2023 at 10:20:05?PM UTC-4, RonO wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/28/2023 7:16 PM, broger...@gmail.com wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Friday, April 28, 2023 at 6:55:04?PM UTC-4, RonO wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/28/2023 9:14 AM, Mark Isaak wrote:
On 4/27/23 3:41 PM, RonO wrote:
On 4/27/2023 11:02 AM, Mark Isaak wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/27/23 4:04 AM, RonO wrote:
Do you now realize how wrong you were. I know that the reason that
people disagree with me is because you have remained ignorant of just
Seek psychological counseling.
going on for over 20 years. Why not attempt to demonstrate that he >>>>>>>>>>> isn't ignorant, of what the situation currently is?
It should be easy to demonstrate that I am wrong, so why not try to do
it. You do understand how profound your misunderstanding of the Top Six
situation was, so shouldn't you go further and figure out what else you
are wrong about?
That isn't where the problem lies. It's a behavior problem. >>>>>>>>>>
Shouldn't you, at least, try to work some kind of reconciliation with >>>>>>>>> that delusion before making further claims about someone else? You were
obviously wrong, what else are you wrong about?
Imagine you lived in a neighborhood where there was a problem with >>>>>>>> your neighbors not picking up after their dogs when they took them >>>>>>>> for a walk. And some guy decided to make it his mission to fix that. >>>>>>>> So he wondered the neighborhood screaming and screaching at every >>>>>>>> bit of dog crap he saw.
You would see him wandering about and then dash over, jump up and >>>>>>>> stomp down on a pile of crap and he would shout out that he found >>>>>>>> more dog dirt.
Then people told him he wasn't helping, and his response was to rush >>>>>>>> out, bend over and grab hold of a fresh steaming pile in his ungloved >>>>>>>> hand, pirouette about ranting of the problem of people not picking up >>>>>>>> after their dogs.
The problem isn't that he's wrong about people not picking up after >>>>>>>> their dogs.
what would that be like? Your example above demonstrates that you are >>>>>>> obviously wrong about what was going on. No one was claiming that there
was shit anywhere, what was happening was that I just had to make the >>>>>>> IDiots deal with what IDiocy had always been. I only rubbed their faces
in what they were desperately trying to stay willfully ignorant of. >>>>>>> Glenn lasted the longest, but denial for denial sake can only last so >>>>>>> long. It turned out that there just are not very many IDiots that can >>>>>>> deal with the ID creationist scam in an honest and straightforward >>>>>>> manner and remain IDiots. The ID perps put out the Top Six as the Top >>>>>>> Six in their order of occurrence. It turned out that all the IDiots >>>>>>> that were IDiots in order to support their religious beliefs could not >>>>>>> deal with the Top Six. Pagano was the only IDiot that faced the Top Six
head on, and he claimed that they were bogus and not the best evidence >>>>>>> for the creationist ID scam. He tried to put up the second rate denial >>>>>>> junk that hadn't made it into the Top Six before he quit posting. Kalk >>>>>>> and Glenn ran from them and tried to create a campaign of putting up the
second rate denial junk as something that still supported the ID scam. >>>>>>> Kalk couldn't keep doing that and quit the ID scam and ended up claiming
that he had never claimed to be Hindu and came out as a plain vanilla >>>>>>> biblical creationist. When confronted by the Top Six Bill claimed that >>>>>>> he had never supported the ID scam. This is the same Bill that had made
the claim that he knew some real ID scientists that had the real ID >>>>>>> science. What Bill likely meant was that he had never supported what >>>>>>> the ID scam had always been.
So you do have a profound delusion about what happened within the last 5
years on TO, and it is likely because you never bothered to try to >>>>>>> figure out what was going on. Why do you think that the IDiots gave up >>>>>>> on the ID scam? It wasn't because I refuted anything, or claimed that >>>>>>> there was anything bogus about the Top Six. All I did was put them up >>>>>>> as the ID perps had. They are the best evidence for ID, but there >>>>>>> aren't very many IDiots that want to believe in the designer that fills >>>>>>> those gaps in the order of their occurrence.
Your example above should be about someone that finds a flower in the >>>>>>> neighborhood. It is the most beautiful flower of it's kind, but there >>>>>>> is a problem with the flower. Some of the neighbors shun the flower and
literally walk across the street in order to not have to deal with the >>>>>>> flower's existence. They do it because it means that the flowers that >>>>>>> they want to be the most beautiful are not. Some of them acknowledge >>>>>>> the existence of the flower, but claim that it was never the type of >>>>>>> flower that they wanted to grow in the neighborhood so they quit trying >>>>>>> to grow such flowers, and return to growing what they wanted to grow in >>>>>>> the first place. Others try to pretend that the flower doesn't exist, >>>>>>> but they eventually keep running into the flower because they keep >>>>>>> buying seeds from the same nursery that sell the flower that they don't >>>>>>> want to exist, and have to eventually acknowledge it's existence, and >>>>>>> decide to quit trying to grow such flowers
That is what happened on TO after the ID perps put out the Top Six best >>>>>>> evidences for IDiocy in Nov. of 2017. There just are not very many >>>>>>> IDiotic biblical creationist rubes that want to believe in the designer >>>>>>> responsible for filling the Top Six god-of-the-gaps denial "evidence". >>>>>>> The IDiotic designer responsible for filling the Top Six gaps is not >>>>>>> biblical enough for the the average IDiotic creationist rube. The Top >>>>>>> Six made that clear for the ones with enough brain power to read and >>>>>>> understand them.
And whatever makes you satisfied with being so willfully ignorant about >>>>> something this stupid. Is he wrong about what happened? He won't admit >>>>> it, but you likely know how wrong he was, so why this comment?
"Top Six", and anything else you can think of related to
this particular idiotic branch of creationism. What did you
*think* I meant by "off and running again"?
I know. We *all* know. How could we not, given the number of
Do you
have any evidence that it was any other way? Can you put up any posts >>>>> where I tried to refute the Top Six? Can you put up any posts where the >>>>> IDiots do anything but what I claim that they did. What is wrong with >>>>> you guys? Can you demonstrate that Daggett wasn't the delusional one? >>>>> Something to support his delusion would be worth putting up. I've
linked back to some of those posts, so what happened? Why is it so
difficult to understand how wrong you guys have been? Really, put up >>>>> what you think happened and some posts verifying that. Go to the Top >>>>> Six thread on this subject to start, and I can supply other links if you >>>>> want them. Instead of remaining willfully ignorant, why not try to
figure out how wrong you two have to be? Really, I never had to refute >>>>> the Top Six. I only had to keep putting them up as the best that the ID >>>>> perps had, and their own antics in destroying them because even some of >>>>> the ID perps can't stand the Top Six as the Top Six.
times you've ranted about it?
Pass, thanks. Seen it all too many times already.
You can start here:
https://groups.google.com/g/talk.origins/c/cY2JbNjBLwE/m/mJelpHjzAwAJ >>>>>
Isn't it sad that you will continue to spout off and expose your
ignorance and stupidity rather then just do something simple in order to >>> determine for yourself just how wrong you are? Why bother to comment
when you obviously aren't interested in understanding how wrong you two
are? I have a link to a representative post on the Top Six, that I
routinely have linked back to in the thread linked to above. A few
minutes and you won't have to be so ignorant and stupid. I never try to >>> refute the Top Six. I just put them up as the ID perps put them up and
demonstrate that even the ID perps can't treat them in an honest and
postive manner. The IDiots on TO are not the only creationists that
can't deal with the Top Six as the best evidence that the ID scam has.
On 4/29/2023 1:16 PM, Bob Casanova wrote:
On Sat, 29 Apr 2023 12:01:56 -0500, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by RonO <rokimoto@cox.net>:
On 4/29/2023 9:32 AM, Lawyer Daggett wrote:A-a-a-a-nd we're off and runing again... :-(
On Saturday, April 29, 2023 at 10:20:05?AM UTC-4, RonO wrote:Still delusional. Say you tried to figure out what was really going on, >>> what would that be like? Your example above demonstrates that you are
On 4/29/2023 9:09 AM, Lawyer Daggett wrote:
On Saturday, April 29, 2023 at 10:05:05?AM UTC-4, RonO wrote:So you are still suffering your profound delusion about the Top Six? >>>>> Removing what you can't deal with from a post, doesn't change reality. >>>>> Shouldn't you, at least, try to work some kind of reconciliation with >>>>> that delusion before making further claims about someone else? You were >>>>> obviously wrong, what else are you wrong about?
On 4/29/2023 8:22 AM, Lawyer Daggett wrote:
On Saturday, April 29, 2023 at 9:15:06?AM UTC-4, RonO wrote:So you have no counter or ability to reconsider what actually has been >>>>>>> going on for over 20 years. Why not attempt to demonstrate that he >>>>>>> isn't ignorant, of what the situation currently is?
On 4/29/2023 6:50 AM, broger...@gmail.com wrote:Seek psychological counseling.
On Friday, April 28, 2023 at 10:20:05?PM UTC-4, RonO wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> On 4/28/2023 7:16 PM, broger...@gmail.com wrote:
On Friday, April 28, 2023 at 6:55:04?PM UTC-4, RonO wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/28/2023 9:14 AM, Mark Isaak wrote:
On 4/27/23 3:41 PM, RonO wrote:
On 4/27/2023 11:02 AM, Mark Isaak wrote:
On 4/27/23 4:04 AM, RonO wrote:
Do you now realize how wrong you were. I know that the reason that >>>>>>>>> people disagree with me is because you have remained ignorant of just >>>>>>>>
It should be easy to demonstrate that I am wrong, so why not try to do >>>>>>> it. You do understand how profound your misunderstanding of the Top Six >>>>>>> situation was, so shouldn't you go further and figure out what else you >>>>>>> are wrong about?
That isn't where the problem lies. It's a behavior problem.
Imagine you lived in a neighborhood where there was a problem with
your neighbors not picking up after their dogs when they took them
for a walk. And some guy decided to make it his mission to fix that.
So he wondered the neighborhood screaming and screaching at every
bit of dog crap he saw.
You would see him wandering about and then dash over, jump up and
stomp down on a pile of crap and he would shout out that he found
more dog dirt.
Then people told him he wasn't helping, and his response was to rush
out, bend over and grab hold of a fresh steaming pile in his ungloved
hand, pirouette about ranting of the problem of people not picking up
after their dogs.
The problem isn't that he's wrong about people not picking up after
their dogs.
obviously wrong about what was going on. No one was claiming that there >>> was shit anywhere, what was happening was that I just had to make the
IDiots deal with what IDiocy had always been. I only rubbed their faces >>> in what they were desperately trying to stay willfully ignorant of.
Glenn lasted the longest, but denial for denial sake can only last so
long. It turned out that there just are not very many IDiots that can
deal with the ID creationist scam in an honest and straightforward
manner and remain IDiots. The ID perps put out the Top Six as the Top
Six in their order of occurrence. It turned out that all the IDiots
that were IDiots in order to support their religious beliefs could not
deal with the Top Six. Pagano was the only IDiot that faced the Top Six >>> head on, and he claimed that they were bogus and not the best evidence
for the creationist ID scam. He tried to put up the second rate denial
junk that hadn't made it into the Top Six before he quit posting. Kalk
and Glenn ran from them and tried to create a campaign of putting up the >>> second rate denial junk as something that still supported the ID scam.
Kalk couldn't keep doing that and quit the ID scam and ended up claiming >>> that he had never claimed to be Hindu and came out as a plain vanilla
biblical creationist. When confronted by the Top Six Bill claimed that
he had never supported the ID scam. This is the same Bill that had made >>> the claim that he knew some real ID scientists that had the real ID
science. What Bill likely meant was that he had never supported what
the ID scam had always been.
So you do have a profound delusion about what happened within the last 5 >>> years on TO, and it is likely because you never bothered to try to
figure out what was going on. Why do you think that the IDiots gave up
on the ID scam? It wasn't because I refuted anything, or claimed that
there was anything bogus about the Top Six. All I did was put them up
as the ID perps had. They are the best evidence for ID, but there
aren't very many IDiots that want to believe in the designer that fills
those gaps in the order of their occurrence.
Your example above should be about someone that finds a flower in the
neighborhood. It is the most beautiful flower of it's kind, but there
is a problem with the flower. Some of the neighbors shun the flower and >>> literally walk across the street in order to not have to deal with the
flower's existence. They do it because it means that the flowers that
they want to be the most beautiful are not. Some of them acknowledge
the existence of the flower, but claim that it was never the type of
flower that they wanted to grow in the neighborhood so they quit trying
to grow such flowers, and return to growing what they wanted to grow in
the first place. Others try to pretend that the flower doesn't exist,
but they eventually keep running into the flower because they keep
buying seeds from the same nursery that sell the flower that they don't
want to exist, and have to eventually acknowledge it's existence, and
decide to quit trying to grow such flowers
That is what happened on TO after the ID perps put out the Top Six best
evidences for IDiocy in Nov. of 2017. There just are not very many
IDiotic biblical creationist rubes that want to believe in the designer
responsible for filling the Top Six god-of-the-gaps denial "evidence".
The IDiotic designer responsible for filling the Top Six gaps is not
biblical enough for the the average IDiotic creationist rube. The Top
Six made that clear for the ones with enough brain power to read and
understand them.
And whatever makes you satisfied with being so willfully ignorant about >something this stupid. Is he wrong about what happened? He won't admit
it, but you likely know how wrong he was, so why this comment? Do you
have any evidence that it was any other way? Can you put up any posts
where I tried to refute the Top Six? Can you put up any posts where the >IDiots do anything but what I claim that they did. What is wrong with
you guys? Can you demonstrate that Daggett wasn't the delusional one? >Something to support his delusion would be worth putting up. I've
linked back to some of those posts, so what happened? Why is it so >difficult to understand how wrong you guys have been? Really, put up
what you think happened and some posts verifying that. Go to the Top
Six thread on this subject to start, and I can supply other links if you >want them. Instead of remaining willfully ignorant, why not try to
figure out how wrong you two have to be? Really, I never had to refute
the Top Six. I only had to keep putting them up as the best that the ID >perps had, and their own antics in destroying them because even some of
the ID perps can't stand the Top Six as the Top Six.
You can start here: >https://groups.google.com/g/talk.origins/c/cY2JbNjBLwE/m/mJelpHjzAwAJ
Ron Okimoto
On Saturday, April 29, 2023 at 10:20:05?AM UTC-4, RonO wrote:
On 4/29/2023 9:09 AM, Lawyer Daggett wrote:
On Saturday, April 29, 2023 at 10:05:05?AM UTC-4, RonO wrote:So you are still suffering your profound delusion about the Top Six?
On 4/29/2023 8:22 AM, Lawyer Daggett wrote:
On Saturday, April 29, 2023 at 9:15:06?AM UTC-4, RonO wrote:So you have no counter or ability to reconsider what actually has been >> >> going on for over 20 years. Why not attempt to demonstrate that he
On 4/29/2023 6:50 AM, broger...@gmail.com wrote:Seek psychological counseling.
On Friday, April 28, 2023 at 10:20:05?PM UTC-4, RonO wrote:
On 4/28/2023 7:16 PM, broger...@gmail.com wrote:
On Friday, April 28, 2023 at 6:55:04?PM UTC-4, RonO wrote:
On 4/28/2023 9:14 AM, Mark Isaak wrote:
On 4/27/23 3:41 PM, RonO wrote:
On 4/27/2023 11:02 AM, Mark Isaak wrote:
On 4/27/23 4:04 AM, RonO wrote:
Do you now realize how wrong you were. I know that the reason that
people disagree with me is because you have remained ignorant of just >> >>>
isn't ignorant, of what the situation currently is?
It should be easy to demonstrate that I am wrong, so why not try to do >> >> it. You do understand how profound your misunderstanding of the Top Six >> >> situation was, so shouldn't you go further and figure out what else you >> >> are wrong about?
That isn't where the problem lies. It's a behavior problem.
Removing what you can't deal with from a post, doesn't change reality.
Shouldn't you, at least, try to work some kind of reconciliation with
that delusion before making further claims about someone else? You were
obviously wrong, what else are you wrong about?
Imagine you lived in a neighborhood where there was a problem with
your neighbors not picking up after their dogs when they took them
for a walk. And some guy decided to make it his mission to fix that.
So he wondered the neighborhood screaming and screaching at every
bit of dog crap he saw.
You would see him wandering about and then dash over, jump up and
stomp down on a pile of crap and he would shout out that he found
more dog dirt.
Then people told him he wasn't helping, and his response was to rush
out, bend over and grab hold of a fresh steaming pile in his ungloved
hand, pirouette about ranting of the problem of people not picking up
after their dogs.
The problem isn't that he's wrong about people not picking up after
their dogs.
On Sat, 29 Apr 2023 19:51:27 -0500, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by RonO <rokimoto@cox.net>:
On 4/29/2023 7:35 PM, Bob Casanova wrote:The inability to distinguish between "willful ignorance" and
On Sat, 29 Apr 2023 17:00:13 -0500, the following appearedThe willful ignorance is just nuts.
in talk.origins, posted by RonO <rokimoto@cox.net>:
On 4/29/2023 3:20 PM, Bob Casanova wrote:Have a nice life.
On Sat, 29 Apr 2023 14:45:06 -0500, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by RonO <rokimoto@cox.net>:
On 4/29/2023 1:16 PM, Bob Casanova wrote:Because nearly every post of yours is a rant about ID, the
On Sat, 29 Apr 2023 12:01:56 -0500, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by RonO <rokimoto@cox.net>:
On 4/29/2023 9:32 AM, Lawyer Daggett wrote:A-a-a-a-nd we're off and runing again... :-(
On Saturday, April 29, 2023 at 10:20:05?AM UTC-4, RonO wrote: >>>>>>>>>> On 4/29/2023 9:09 AM, Lawyer Daggett wrote:Still delusional. Say you tried to figure out what was really going on,
On Saturday, April 29, 2023 at 10:05:05?AM UTC-4, RonO wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/29/2023 8:22 AM, Lawyer Daggett wrote:So you are still suffering your profound delusion about the Top Six? >>>>>>>>>> Removing what you can't deal with from a post, doesn't change reality.
On Saturday, April 29, 2023 at 9:15:06?AM UTC-4, RonO wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/29/2023 6:50 AM, broger...@gmail.com wrote:So you have no counter or ability to reconsider what actually has been
On Friday, April 28, 2023 at 10:20:05?PM UTC-4, RonO wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/28/2023 7:16 PM, broger...@gmail.com wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Friday, April 28, 2023 at 6:55:04?PM UTC-4, RonO wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/28/2023 9:14 AM, Mark Isaak wrote:
On 4/27/23 3:41 PM, RonO wrote:
On 4/27/2023 11:02 AM, Mark Isaak wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/27/23 4:04 AM, RonO wrote:
Do you now realize how wrong you were. I know that the reason that
people disagree with me is because you have remained ignorant of just
Seek psychological counseling.
going on for over 20 years. Why not attempt to demonstrate that he >>>>>>>>>>>> isn't ignorant, of what the situation currently is?
It should be easy to demonstrate that I am wrong, so why not try to do
it. You do understand how profound your misunderstanding of the Top Six
situation was, so shouldn't you go further and figure out what else you
are wrong about?
That isn't where the problem lies. It's a behavior problem. >>>>>>>>>>>
Shouldn't you, at least, try to work some kind of reconciliation with
that delusion before making further claims about someone else? You were
obviously wrong, what else are you wrong about?
Imagine you lived in a neighborhood where there was a problem with >>>>>>>>> your neighbors not picking up after their dogs when they took them >>>>>>>>> for a walk. And some guy decided to make it his mission to fix that. >>>>>>>>> So he wondered the neighborhood screaming and screaching at every >>>>>>>>> bit of dog crap he saw.
You would see him wandering about and then dash over, jump up and >>>>>>>>> stomp down on a pile of crap and he would shout out that he found >>>>>>>>> more dog dirt.
Then people told him he wasn't helping, and his response was to rush >>>>>>>>> out, bend over and grab hold of a fresh steaming pile in his ungloved >>>>>>>>> hand, pirouette about ranting of the problem of people not picking up >>>>>>>>> after their dogs.
The problem isn't that he's wrong about people not picking up after >>>>>>>>> their dogs.
what would that be like? Your example above demonstrates that you are >>>>>>>> obviously wrong about what was going on. No one was claiming that there
was shit anywhere, what was happening was that I just had to make the >>>>>>>> IDiots deal with what IDiocy had always been. I only rubbed their faces
in what they were desperately trying to stay willfully ignorant of. >>>>>>>> Glenn lasted the longest, but denial for denial sake can only last so >>>>>>>> long. It turned out that there just are not very many IDiots that can >>>>>>>> deal with the ID creationist scam in an honest and straightforward >>>>>>>> manner and remain IDiots. The ID perps put out the Top Six as the Top >>>>>>>> Six in their order of occurrence. It turned out that all the IDiots >>>>>>>> that were IDiots in order to support their religious beliefs could not >>>>>>>> deal with the Top Six. Pagano was the only IDiot that faced the Top Six
head on, and he claimed that they were bogus and not the best evidence >>>>>>>> for the creationist ID scam. He tried to put up the second rate denial >>>>>>>> junk that hadn't made it into the Top Six before he quit posting. Kalk
and Glenn ran from them and tried to create a campaign of putting up the
second rate denial junk as something that still supported the ID scam. >>>>>>>> Kalk couldn't keep doing that and quit the ID scam and ended up claiming
that he had never claimed to be Hindu and came out as a plain vanilla >>>>>>>> biblical creationist. When confronted by the Top Six Bill claimed that
he had never supported the ID scam. This is the same Bill that had made
the claim that he knew some real ID scientists that had the real ID >>>>>>>> science. What Bill likely meant was that he had never supported what >>>>>>>> the ID scam had always been.
So you do have a profound delusion about what happened within the last 5
years on TO, and it is likely because you never bothered to try to >>>>>>>> figure out what was going on. Why do you think that the IDiots gave up
on the ID scam? It wasn't because I refuted anything, or claimed that >>>>>>>> there was anything bogus about the Top Six. All I did was put them up >>>>>>>> as the ID perps had. They are the best evidence for ID, but there >>>>>>>> aren't very many IDiots that want to believe in the designer that fills
those gaps in the order of their occurrence.
Your example above should be about someone that finds a flower in the >>>>>>>> neighborhood. It is the most beautiful flower of it's kind, but there >>>>>>>> is a problem with the flower. Some of the neighbors shun the flower and
literally walk across the street in order to not have to deal with the >>>>>>>> flower's existence. They do it because it means that the flowers that >>>>>>>> they want to be the most beautiful are not. Some of them acknowledge >>>>>>>> the existence of the flower, but claim that it was never the type of >>>>>>>> flower that they wanted to grow in the neighborhood so they quit trying
to grow such flowers, and return to growing what they wanted to grow in
the first place. Others try to pretend that the flower doesn't exist, >>>>>>>> but they eventually keep running into the flower because they keep >>>>>>>> buying seeds from the same nursery that sell the flower that they don't
want to exist, and have to eventually acknowledge it's existence, and >>>>>>>> decide to quit trying to grow such flowers
That is what happened on TO after the ID perps put out the Top Six best
evidences for IDiocy in Nov. of 2017. There just are not very many >>>>>>>> IDiotic biblical creationist rubes that want to believe in the designer
responsible for filling the Top Six god-of-the-gaps denial "evidence". >>>>>>>> The IDiotic designer responsible for filling the Top Six gaps is not >>>>>>>> biblical enough for the the average IDiotic creationist rube. The Top >>>>>>>> Six made that clear for the ones with enough brain power to read and >>>>>>>> understand them.
And whatever makes you satisfied with being so willfully ignorant about >>>>>> something this stupid. Is he wrong about what happened? He won't admit >>>>>> it, but you likely know how wrong he was, so why this comment?
"Top Six", and anything else you can think of related to
this particular idiotic branch of creationism. What did you
*think* I meant by "off and running again"?
I know. We *all* know. How could we not, given the number of
Do you
have any evidence that it was any other way? Can you put up any posts >>>>>> where I tried to refute the Top Six? Can you put up any posts where the >>>>>> IDiots do anything but what I claim that they did. What is wrong with >>>>>> you guys? Can you demonstrate that Daggett wasn't the delusional one? >>>>>> Something to support his delusion would be worth putting up. I've >>>>>> linked back to some of those posts, so what happened? Why is it so >>>>>> difficult to understand how wrong you guys have been? Really, put up >>>>>> what you think happened and some posts verifying that. Go to the Top >>>>>> Six thread on this subject to start, and I can supply other links if you >>>>>> want them. Instead of remaining willfully ignorant, why not try to >>>>>> figure out how wrong you two have to be? Really, I never had to refute >>>>>> the Top Six. I only had to keep putting them up as the best that the ID >>>>>> perps had, and their own antics in destroying them because even some of >>>>>> the ID perps can't stand the Top Six as the Top Six.
times you've ranted about it?
Pass, thanks. Seen it all too many times already.
You can start here:
https://groups.google.com/g/talk.origins/c/cY2JbNjBLwE/m/mJelpHjzAwAJ >>>>>>
Isn't it sad that you will continue to spout off and expose your
ignorance and stupidity rather then just do something simple in order to >>>> determine for yourself just how wrong you are? Why bother to comment
when you obviously aren't interested in understanding how wrong you two >>>> are? I have a link to a representative post on the Top Six, that I
routinely have linked back to in the thread linked to above. A few
minutes and you won't have to be so ignorant and stupid. I never try to >>>> refute the Top Six. I just put them up as the ID perps put them up and >>>> demonstrate that even the ID perps can't treat them in an honest and
postive manner. The IDiots on TO are not the only creationists that
can't deal with the Top Six as the best evidence that the ID scam has. >>>>
"don't particularly give a flying fuck about your personal
obsessions" is worse.
On 4/28/23 3:54 PM, RonO wrote:
On 4/28/2023 9:14 AM, Mark Isaak wrote:
[...]
I get the impression your *only* concern is with intelligent design,
and you don't give a damn about the underlying issues of science
denial and religious bigotry.
Nope. Wrong again. I acknowledge that there is still an issue, but
currently the ID perps are controlling the creationist rubes so that
nothing they do ever amounts to anything, and the sad reality is that
the majority of IDiots never wanted the ID perps to produce any ID
science.
Do you have any evidence for this? From my view of creationism, the
case on the ground is pretty much just the opposite. ID is mostly dead,
but creationism is as alive as it has been for the last 20,000 years. Creationists still cite things like "irreducible complexity" every once
in a while, but only in passing. The latest idea from the ICR that
might qualify as a design theory is that all animals are created, as individuals, with an ability to rapidly adapt to environmental changes,
and this is where appearances of evolution come from. I have never seen
any of the ID folks involved, even peripherally, with this.
On 4/28/23 3:54 PM, RonO wrote:
On 4/28/2023 9:14 AM, Mark Isaak wrote:
[...]
I get the impression your *only* concern is with intelligent design,
and you don't give a damn about the underlying issues of science
denial and religious bigotry.
Nope. Wrong again. I acknowledge that there is still an issue, but
currently the ID perps are controlling the creationist rubes so that
nothing they do ever amounts to anything, and the sad reality is that
the majority of IDiots never wanted the ID perps to produce any ID
science.
Do you have any evidence for this? From my view of creationism, the
case on the ground is pretty much just the opposite. ID is mostly dead,
but creationism is as alive as it has been for the last 20,000 years. Creationists still cite things like "irreducible complexity" every once
in a while, but only in passing. The latest idea from the ICR that
might qualify as a design theory is that all animals are created, as individuals, with an ability to rapidly adapt to environmental changes,
and this is where appearances of evolution come from. I have never seen
any of the ID folks involved, even peripherally, with this.
On 4/29/2023 11:46 PM, Bob Casanova wrote:
On Sat, 29 Apr 2023 19:51:27 -0500, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by RonO <rokimoto@cox.net>:
On 4/29/2023 7:35 PM, Bob Casanova wrote:The inability to distinguish between "willful ignorance" and
On Sat, 29 Apr 2023 17:00:13 -0500, the following appearedThe willful ignorance is just nuts.
in talk.origins, posted by RonO <rokimoto@cox.net>:
On 4/29/2023 3:20 PM, Bob Casanova wrote:Have a nice life.
On Sat, 29 Apr 2023 14:45:06 -0500, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by RonO <rokimoto@cox.net>:
On 4/29/2023 1:16 PM, Bob Casanova wrote:Because nearly every post of yours is a rant about ID, the
On Sat, 29 Apr 2023 12:01:56 -0500, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by RonO <rokimoto@cox.net>:
On 4/29/2023 9:32 AM, Lawyer Daggett wrote:A-a-a-a-nd we're off and runing again... :-(
On Saturday, April 29, 2023 at 10:20:05?AM UTC-4, RonO wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> On 4/29/2023 9:09 AM, Lawyer Daggett wrote:Still delusional. Say you tried to figure out what was really going on,
On Saturday, April 29, 2023 at 10:05:05?AM UTC-4, RonO wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/29/2023 8:22 AM, Lawyer Daggett wrote:So you are still suffering your profound delusion about the Top Six?
On Saturday, April 29, 2023 at 9:15:06?AM UTC-4, RonO wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/29/2023 6:50 AM, broger...@gmail.com wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Friday, April 28, 2023 at 10:20:05?PM UTC-4, RonO wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/28/2023 7:16 PM, broger...@gmail.com wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Friday, April 28, 2023 at 6:55:04?PM UTC-4, RonO wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/28/2023 9:14 AM, Mark Isaak wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/27/23 3:41 PM, RonO wrote:So you have no counter or ability to reconsider what actually has been
On 4/27/2023 11:02 AM, Mark Isaak wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/27/23 4:04 AM, RonO wrote:
Do you now realize how wrong you were. I know that the reason that
people disagree with me is because you have remained ignorant of just
Seek psychological counseling.
going on for over 20 years. Why not attempt to demonstrate that he
isn't ignorant, of what the situation currently is?
It should be easy to demonstrate that I am wrong, so why not try to do
it. You do understand how profound your misunderstanding of the Top Six
situation was, so shouldn't you go further and figure out what else you
are wrong about?
That isn't where the problem lies. It's a behavior problem. >>>>>>>>>>>>
Removing what you can't deal with from a post, doesn't change reality.
Shouldn't you, at least, try to work some kind of reconciliation with
that delusion before making further claims about someone else? You were
obviously wrong, what else are you wrong about?
Imagine you lived in a neighborhood where there was a problem with >>>>>>>>>> your neighbors not picking up after their dogs when they took them >>>>>>>>>> for a walk. And some guy decided to make it his mission to fix that. >>>>>>>>>> So he wondered the neighborhood screaming and screaching at every >>>>>>>>>> bit of dog crap he saw.
You would see him wandering about and then dash over, jump up and >>>>>>>>>> stomp down on a pile of crap and he would shout out that he found >>>>>>>>>> more dog dirt.
Then people told him he wasn't helping, and his response was to rush >>>>>>>>>> out, bend over and grab hold of a fresh steaming pile in his ungloved
hand, pirouette about ranting of the problem of people not picking up
after their dogs.
The problem isn't that he's wrong about people not picking up after >>>>>>>>>> their dogs.
what would that be like? Your example above demonstrates that you are
obviously wrong about what was going on. No one was claiming that there
was shit anywhere, what was happening was that I just had to make the >>>>>>>>> IDiots deal with what IDiocy had always been. I only rubbed their faces
in what they were desperately trying to stay willfully ignorant of. >>>>>>>>> Glenn lasted the longest, but denial for denial sake can only last so >>>>>>>>> long. It turned out that there just are not very many IDiots that can
deal with the ID creationist scam in an honest and straightforward >>>>>>>>> manner and remain IDiots. The ID perps put out the Top Six as the Top
Six in their order of occurrence. It turned out that all the IDiots >>>>>>>>> that were IDiots in order to support their religious beliefs could not
deal with the Top Six. Pagano was the only IDiot that faced the Top Six
head on, and he claimed that they were bogus and not the best evidence
for the creationist ID scam. He tried to put up the second rate denial
junk that hadn't made it into the Top Six before he quit posting. Kalk
and Glenn ran from them and tried to create a campaign of putting up the
second rate denial junk as something that still supported the ID scam.
Kalk couldn't keep doing that and quit the ID scam and ended up claiming
that he had never claimed to be Hindu and came out as a plain vanilla >>>>>>>>> biblical creationist. When confronted by the Top Six Bill claimed that
he had never supported the ID scam. This is the same Bill that had made
the claim that he knew some real ID scientists that had the real ID >>>>>>>>> science. What Bill likely meant was that he had never supported what >>>>>>>>> the ID scam had always been.
So you do have a profound delusion about what happened within the last 5
years on TO, and it is likely because you never bothered to try to >>>>>>>>> figure out what was going on. Why do you think that the IDiots gave up
on the ID scam? It wasn't because I refuted anything, or claimed that
there was anything bogus about the Top Six. All I did was put them up
as the ID perps had. They are the best evidence for ID, but there >>>>>>>>> aren't very many IDiots that want to believe in the designer that fills
those gaps in the order of their occurrence.
Your example above should be about someone that finds a flower in the >>>>>>>>> neighborhood. It is the most beautiful flower of it's kind, but there
is a problem with the flower. Some of the neighbors shun the flower and
literally walk across the street in order to not have to deal with the
flower's existence. They do it because it means that the flowers that
they want to be the most beautiful are not. Some of them acknowledge >>>>>>>>> the existence of the flower, but claim that it was never the type of >>>>>>>>> flower that they wanted to grow in the neighborhood so they quit trying
to grow such flowers, and return to growing what they wanted to grow in
the first place. Others try to pretend that the flower doesn't exist,
but they eventually keep running into the flower because they keep >>>>>>>>> buying seeds from the same nursery that sell the flower that they don't
want to exist, and have to eventually acknowledge it's existence, and >>>>>>>>> decide to quit trying to grow such flowers
That is what happened on TO after the ID perps put out the Top Six best
evidences for IDiocy in Nov. of 2017. There just are not very many >>>>>>>>> IDiotic biblical creationist rubes that want to believe in the designer
responsible for filling the Top Six god-of-the-gaps denial "evidence".
The IDiotic designer responsible for filling the Top Six gaps is not >>>>>>>>> biblical enough for the the average IDiotic creationist rube. The Top
Six made that clear for the ones with enough brain power to read and >>>>>>>>> understand them.
And whatever makes you satisfied with being so willfully ignorant about >>>>>>> something this stupid. Is he wrong about what happened? He won't admit
it, but you likely know how wrong he was, so why this comment?
"Top Six", and anything else you can think of related to
this particular idiotic branch of creationism. What did you
*think* I meant by "off and running again"?
I know. We *all* know. How could we not, given the number of
Do you
have any evidence that it was any other way? Can you put up any posts >>>>>>> where I tried to refute the Top Six? Can you put up any posts where the
IDiots do anything but what I claim that they did. What is wrong with >>>>>>> you guys? Can you demonstrate that Daggett wasn't the delusional one? >>>>>>> Something to support his delusion would be worth putting up. I've >>>>>>> linked back to some of those posts, so what happened? Why is it so >>>>>>> difficult to understand how wrong you guys have been? Really, put up >>>>>>> what you think happened and some posts verifying that. Go to the Top >>>>>>> Six thread on this subject to start, and I can supply other links if you
want them. Instead of remaining willfully ignorant, why not try to >>>>>>> figure out how wrong you two have to be? Really, I never had to refute >>>>>>> the Top Six. I only had to keep putting them up as the best that the ID
perps had, and their own antics in destroying them because even some of >>>>>>> the ID perps can't stand the Top Six as the Top Six.
times you've ranted about it?
Pass, thanks. Seen it all too many times already.
You can start here:
https://groups.google.com/g/talk.origins/c/cY2JbNjBLwE/m/mJelpHjzAwAJ >>>>>>>
Isn't it sad that you will continue to spout off and expose your
ignorance and stupidity rather then just do something simple in order to >>>>> determine for yourself just how wrong you are? Why bother to comment >>>>> when you obviously aren't interested in understanding how wrong you two >>>>> are? I have a link to a representative post on the Top Six, that I
routinely have linked back to in the thread linked to above. A few
minutes and you won't have to be so ignorant and stupid. I never try to >>>>> refute the Top Six. I just put them up as the ID perps put them up and >>>>> demonstrate that even the ID perps can't treat them in an honest and >>>>> postive manner. The IDiots on TO are not the only creationists that >>>>> can't deal with the Top Six as the best evidence that the ID scam has. >>>>>
"don't particularly give a flying fuck about your personal
obsessions" is worse.
But you cared enough to make your ignorant comment. It was due to
ignrance because you obviously didn't know what you were talking about.
On 4/29/2023 5:37 PM, Mark Isaak wrote:
On 4/28/23 3:54 PM, RonO wrote:
On 4/28/2023 9:14 AM, Mark Isaak wrote:
[...]
I get the impression your *only* concern is with intelligent design,
and you don't give a damn about the underlying issues of science
denial and religious bigotry.
Nope. Wrong again. I acknowledge that there is still an issue, but
currently the ID perps are controlling the creationist rubes so that
nothing they do ever amounts to anything, and the sad reality is that
the majority of IDiots never wanted the ID perps to produce any ID
science.
Do you have any evidence for this? From my view of creationism, the
case on the ground is pretty much just the opposite. ID is mostly
dead, but creationism is as alive as it has been for the last 20,000
years. Creationists still cite things like "irreducible complexity"
every once in a while, but only in passing. The latest idea from the
ICR that might qualify as a design theory is that all animals are
created, as individuals, with an ability to rapidly adapt to
environmental changes, and this is where appearances of evolution come
from. I have never seen any of the ID folks involved, even
peripherally, with this.
The current reality is that none of the politically motivated
creationists take organizations like the ICR or AIG seriously.
Even the
most recent attempt to sneak creationism in by the one sentence addition
to an existing act in West Virginia, called what they wanted taught intelligent design and not biblical creationism. The ID perps have been pretty successful in getting the rubes to understand that young earth scientific creationism is a dead end, politically. They have convinced
the rubes that they have something better, and still acceptable to the creationist rubes.
On 4/29/23 7:48 PM, RonO wrote:
On 4/29/2023 5:37 PM, Mark Isaak wrote:
On 4/28/23 3:54 PM, RonO wrote:
On 4/28/2023 9:14 AM, Mark Isaak wrote:
[...]
I get the impression your *only* concern is with intelligent
design, and you don't give a damn about the underlying issues of
science denial and religious bigotry.
Nope. Wrong again. I acknowledge that there is still an issue, but >>>> currently the ID perps are controlling the creationist rubes so that
nothing they do ever amounts to anything, and the sad reality is
that the majority of IDiots never wanted the ID perps to produce any
ID science.
Do you have any evidence for this? From my view of creationism, the
case on the ground is pretty much just the opposite. ID is mostly
dead, but creationism is as alive as it has been for the last 20,000
years. Creationists still cite things like "irreducible complexity"
every once in a while, but only in passing. The latest idea from the
ICR that might qualify as a design theory is that all animals are
created, as individuals, with an ability to rapidly adapt to
environmental changes, and this is where appearances of evolution
come from. I have never seen any of the ID folks involved, even
peripherally, with this.
The current reality is that none of the politically motivated
creationists take organizations like the ICR or AIG seriously.
Um, the ICR and AIG are also composed of politically motivated
creationists.
Even the most recent attempt to sneak creationism in by the one
sentence addition to an existing act in West Virginia, called what
they wanted taught intelligent design and not biblical creationism.
The ID perps have been pretty successful in getting the rubes to
understand that young earth scientific creationism is a dead end,
politically. They have convinced the rubes that they have something
better, and still acceptable to the creationist rubes.
Like I said, the young earth creationists will still allude to ID when
it suits them, and they are smart enough to know that calling a senate
bill "creationism" would be a non-starter. Note that the West Virginia
bill was introduced by a creationist, not an Intelligent Design advocate.
On Sun, 30 Apr 2023 08:10:09 -0500, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by RonO <rokimoto@cox.net>:
On 4/29/2023 11:46 PM, Bob Casanova wrote:Since the subsequent exchanges demonstrate the accuracy of
On Sat, 29 Apr 2023 19:51:27 -0500, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by RonO <rokimoto@cox.net>:
On 4/29/2023 7:35 PM, Bob Casanova wrote:The inability to distinguish between "willful ignorance" and
On Sat, 29 Apr 2023 17:00:13 -0500, the following appearedThe willful ignorance is just nuts.
in talk.origins, posted by RonO <rokimoto@cox.net>:
On 4/29/2023 3:20 PM, Bob Casanova wrote:Have a nice life.
On Sat, 29 Apr 2023 14:45:06 -0500, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by RonO <rokimoto@cox.net>:
On 4/29/2023 1:16 PM, Bob Casanova wrote:Because nearly every post of yours is a rant about ID, the
On Sat, 29 Apr 2023 12:01:56 -0500, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by RonO <rokimoto@cox.net>:
On 4/29/2023 9:32 AM, Lawyer Daggett wrote:A-a-a-a-nd we're off and runing again... :-(
On Saturday, April 29, 2023 at 10:20:05?AM UTC-4, RonO wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/29/2023 9:09 AM, Lawyer Daggett wrote:Still delusional. Say you tried to figure out what was really going on,
On Saturday, April 29, 2023 at 10:05:05?AM UTC-4, RonO wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/29/2023 8:22 AM, Lawyer Daggett wrote:So you are still suffering your profound delusion about the Top Six?
On Saturday, April 29, 2023 at 9:15:06?AM UTC-4, RonO wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/29/2023 6:50 AM, broger...@gmail.com wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Friday, April 28, 2023 at 10:20:05?PM UTC-4, RonO wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/28/2023 7:16 PM, broger...@gmail.com wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Friday, April 28, 2023 at 6:55:04?PM UTC-4, RonO wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/28/2023 9:14 AM, Mark Isaak wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/27/23 3:41 PM, RonO wrote:So you have no counter or ability to reconsider what actually has been
On 4/27/2023 11:02 AM, Mark Isaak wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/27/23 4:04 AM, RonO wrote:
Do you now realize how wrong you were. I know that the reason that
people disagree with me is because you have remained ignorant of just
Seek psychological counseling.
going on for over 20 years. Why not attempt to demonstrate that he
isn't ignorant, of what the situation currently is? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
It should be easy to demonstrate that I am wrong, so why not try to do
it. You do understand how profound your misunderstanding of the Top Six
situation was, so shouldn't you go further and figure out what else you
are wrong about?
That isn't where the problem lies. It's a behavior problem. >>>>>>>>>>>>>
Removing what you can't deal with from a post, doesn't change reality.
Shouldn't you, at least, try to work some kind of reconciliation with
that delusion before making further claims about someone else? You were
obviously wrong, what else are you wrong about?
Imagine you lived in a neighborhood where there was a problem with >>>>>>>>>>> your neighbors not picking up after their dogs when they took them >>>>>>>>>>> for a walk. And some guy decided to make it his mission to fix that.
So he wondered the neighborhood screaming and screaching at every >>>>>>>>>>> bit of dog crap he saw.
You would see him wandering about and then dash over, jump up and >>>>>>>>>>> stomp down on a pile of crap and he would shout out that he found >>>>>>>>>>> more dog dirt.
Then people told him he wasn't helping, and his response was to rush
out, bend over and grab hold of a fresh steaming pile in his ungloved
hand, pirouette about ranting of the problem of people not picking up
after their dogs.
The problem isn't that he's wrong about people not picking up after >>>>>>>>>>> their dogs.
what would that be like? Your example above demonstrates that you are
obviously wrong about what was going on. No one was claiming that there
was shit anywhere, what was happening was that I just had to make the
IDiots deal with what IDiocy had always been. I only rubbed their faces
in what they were desperately trying to stay willfully ignorant of. >>>>>>>>>> Glenn lasted the longest, but denial for denial sake can only last so
long. It turned out that there just are not very many IDiots that can
deal with the ID creationist scam in an honest and straightforward >>>>>>>>>> manner and remain IDiots. The ID perps put out the Top Six as the Top
Six in their order of occurrence. It turned out that all the IDiots >>>>>>>>>> that were IDiots in order to support their religious beliefs could not
deal with the Top Six. Pagano was the only IDiot that faced the Top Six
head on, and he claimed that they were bogus and not the best evidence
for the creationist ID scam. He tried to put up the second rate denial
junk that hadn't made it into the Top Six before he quit posting. Kalk
and Glenn ran from them and tried to create a campaign of putting up the
second rate denial junk as something that still supported the ID scam.
Kalk couldn't keep doing that and quit the ID scam and ended up claiming
that he had never claimed to be Hindu and came out as a plain vanilla
biblical creationist. When confronted by the Top Six Bill claimed that
he had never supported the ID scam. This is the same Bill that had made
the claim that he knew some real ID scientists that had the real ID >>>>>>>>>> science. What Bill likely meant was that he had never supported what
the ID scam had always been.
So you do have a profound delusion about what happened within the last 5
years on TO, and it is likely because you never bothered to try to >>>>>>>>>> figure out what was going on. Why do you think that the IDiots gave up
on the ID scam? It wasn't because I refuted anything, or claimed that
there was anything bogus about the Top Six. All I did was put them up
as the ID perps had. They are the best evidence for ID, but there >>>>>>>>>> aren't very many IDiots that want to believe in the designer that fills
those gaps in the order of their occurrence.
Your example above should be about someone that finds a flower in the
neighborhood. It is the most beautiful flower of it's kind, but there
is a problem with the flower. Some of the neighbors shun the flower and
literally walk across the street in order to not have to deal with the
flower's existence. They do it because it means that the flowers that
they want to be the most beautiful are not. Some of them acknowledge
the existence of the flower, but claim that it was never the type of >>>>>>>>>> flower that they wanted to grow in the neighborhood so they quit trying
to grow such flowers, and return to growing what they wanted to grow in
the first place. Others try to pretend that the flower doesn't exist,
but they eventually keep running into the flower because they keep >>>>>>>>>> buying seeds from the same nursery that sell the flower that they don't
want to exist, and have to eventually acknowledge it's existence, and
decide to quit trying to grow such flowers
That is what happened on TO after the ID perps put out the Top Six best
evidences for IDiocy in Nov. of 2017. There just are not very many >>>>>>>>>> IDiotic biblical creationist rubes that want to believe in the designer
responsible for filling the Top Six god-of-the-gaps denial "evidence".
The IDiotic designer responsible for filling the Top Six gaps is not >>>>>>>>>> biblical enough for the the average IDiotic creationist rube. The Top
Six made that clear for the ones with enough brain power to read and >>>>>>>>>> understand them.
And whatever makes you satisfied with being so willfully ignorant about
something this stupid. Is he wrong about what happened? He won't admit
it, but you likely know how wrong he was, so why this comment? >>>>>>>>
"Top Six", and anything else you can think of related to
this particular idiotic branch of creationism. What did you
*think* I meant by "off and running again"?
I know. We *all* know. How could we not, given the number of
Do you
have any evidence that it was any other way? Can you put up any posts >>>>>>>> where I tried to refute the Top Six? Can you put up any posts where the
IDiots do anything but what I claim that they did. What is wrong with >>>>>>>> you guys? Can you demonstrate that Daggett wasn't the delusional one? >>>>>>>> Something to support his delusion would be worth putting up. I've >>>>>>>> linked back to some of those posts, so what happened? Why is it so >>>>>>>> difficult to understand how wrong you guys have been? Really, put up >>>>>>>> what you think happened and some posts verifying that. Go to the Top >>>>>>>> Six thread on this subject to start, and I can supply other links if you
want them. Instead of remaining willfully ignorant, why not try to >>>>>>>> figure out how wrong you two have to be? Really, I never had to refute
the Top Six. I only had to keep putting them up as the best that the ID
perps had, and their own antics in destroying them because even some of
the ID perps can't stand the Top Six as the Top Six.
times you've ranted about it?
Pass, thanks. Seen it all too many times already.
You can start here:
https://groups.google.com/g/talk.origins/c/cY2JbNjBLwE/m/mJelpHjzAwAJ >>>>>>>>
Isn't it sad that you will continue to spout off and expose your
ignorance and stupidity rather then just do something simple in order to >>>>>> determine for yourself just how wrong you are? Why bother to comment >>>>>> when you obviously aren't interested in understanding how wrong you two >>>>>> are? I have a link to a representative post on the Top Six, that I >>>>>> routinely have linked back to in the thread linked to above. A few >>>>>> minutes and you won't have to be so ignorant and stupid. I never try to >>>>>> refute the Top Six. I just put them up as the ID perps put them up and >>>>>> demonstrate that even the ID perps can't treat them in an honest and >>>>>> postive manner. The IDiots on TO are not the only creationists that >>>>>> can't deal with the Top Six as the best evidence that the ID scam has. >>>>>>
"don't particularly give a flying fuck about your personal
obsessions" is worse.
But you cared enough to make your ignorant comment. It was due to
ignrance because you obviously didn't know what you were talking about.
my initial comment...
"A-a-a-a-nd we're off and run(n)ing again... :-("
...I rest my case.
On 4/30/2023 11:24 AM, Mark Isaak wrote:
On 4/29/23 7:48 PM, RonO wrote:
On 4/29/2023 5:37 PM, Mark Isaak wrote:
On 4/28/23 3:54 PM, RonO wrote:
On 4/28/2023 9:14 AM, Mark Isaak wrote:
[...]
I get the impression your *only* concern is with intelligent
design, and you don't give a damn about the underlying issues of
science denial and religious bigotry.
Nope. Wrong again. I acknowledge that there is still an issue, but >>>> currently the ID perps are controlling the creationist rubes so that >>>> nothing they do ever amounts to anything, and the sad reality is
that the majority of IDiots never wanted the ID perps to produce any >>>> ID science.
Do you have any evidence for this? From my view of creationism, the
case on the ground is pretty much just the opposite. ID is mostly
dead, but creationism is as alive as it has been for the last 20,000
years. Creationists still cite things like "irreducible complexity"
every once in a while, but only in passing. The latest idea from the >>> ICR that might qualify as a design theory is that all animals are
created, as individuals, with an ability to rapidly adapt to
environmental changes, and this is where appearances of evolution
come from. I have never seen any of the ID folks involved, even
peripherally, with this.
The current reality is that none of the politically motivated
creationists take organizations like the ICR or AIG seriously.
Um, the ICR and AIG are also composed of politically motivated creationists.But they failed and the ID perps took their place decades ago. They are still failures, as noted, scientific creationism just isn't what the
current creationists in political positions claim to want to support.
The last feeble attempt to sneak in ID with a one sentence addition to
an existing act that enabled teachers to promote a student without
changing their grade was to teach ID and not scientific creationism. My recollection is that the last time the scientific creationists were used
to push the creationist stupidity was Kansas in 1999 when Hovind was
their science advisor. It has been the ID scam since then even for
Kansas, some of the same creationists board members responsible for the
1999 Kansas fiasco were involved in the 2005 Kansas IDiocy kangaroo
court. The guys that founded the ID network were involved in the first
1999 Kansas creationist fiasco, but by 2005 they had created the ID Network.
The politically informed creationists gave up on the scientific
creationist ploy, and adopted the ID scam after the turn of the century. There is a new generation of creationist rubes coming up, and they
grew up under the IDiotic bait and switch scam, and likely have no love
for the ID perps, so things can change, but they need something to
change to. No one seems to have any good idea of how to push the
political scam forward. Reason to Believe and the new evolutionary creationists claim to be not interested in teaching creationism in the public schools, nor attacking existing science. Both groups seem to be trying to reconcile existing scientific knowledge with their religious beliefs.
Ron Okimoto
Even the most recent attempt to sneak creationism in by the one
sentence addition to an existing act in West Virginia, called what
they wanted taught intelligent design and not biblical creationism.
The ID perps have been pretty successful in getting the rubes to
understand that young earth scientific creationism is a dead end,
politically. They have convinced the rubes that they have something
better, and still acceptable to the creationist rubes.
Like I said, the young earth creationists will still allude to ID when
it suits them, and they are smart enough to know that calling a senate bill "creationism" would be a non-starter. Note that the West Virginia bill was introduced by a creationist, not an Intelligent Design advocate.
On Sunday, April 30, 2023 at 1:15:07 PM UTC-4, RonO wrote:underestimate them. The people you call rubes were never that happy about the "bait and switch scam," in the first place. One reason it kept getting shot down in court was that the "rubes" on various school boards were quite open about wanting to get
On 4/30/2023 11:24 AM, Mark Isaak wrote:
On 4/29/23 7:48 PM, RonO wrote:But they failed and the ID perps took their place decades ago. They are
On 4/29/2023 5:37 PM, Mark Isaak wrote:
On 4/28/23 3:54 PM, RonO wrote:
On 4/28/2023 9:14 AM, Mark Isaak wrote:
[...]
I get the impression your *only* concern is with intelligent
design, and you don't give a damn about the underlying issues of >>>>>>> science denial and religious bigotry.
Nope. Wrong again. I acknowledge that there is still an issue, but >>>>>> currently the ID perps are controlling the creationist rubes so that >>>>>> nothing they do ever amounts to anything, and the sad reality is
that the majority of IDiots never wanted the ID perps to produce any >>>>>> ID science.
Do you have any evidence for this? From my view of creationism, the >>>>> case on the ground is pretty much just the opposite. ID is mostly
dead, but creationism is as alive as it has been for the last 20,000 >>>>> years. Creationists still cite things like "irreducible complexity"
every once in a while, but only in passing. The latest idea from the >>>>> ICR that might qualify as a design theory is that all animals are
created, as individuals, with an ability to rapidly adapt to
environmental changes, and this is where appearances of evolution
come from. I have never seen any of the ID folks involved, even
peripherally, with this.
The current reality is that none of the politically motivated
creationists take organizations like the ICR or AIG seriously.
Um, the ICR and AIG are also composed of politically motivated
creationists.
still failures, as noted, scientific creationism just isn't what the
current creationists in political positions claim to want to support.
The last feeble attempt to sneak in ID with a one sentence addition to
an existing act that enabled teachers to promote a student without
changing their grade was to teach ID and not scientific creationism. My
recollection is that the last time the scientific creationists were used
to push the creationist stupidity was Kansas in 1999 when Hovind was
their science advisor. It has been the ID scam since then even for
Kansas, some of the same creationists board members responsible for the
1999 Kansas fiasco were involved in the 2005 Kansas IDiocy kangaroo
court. The guys that founded the ID network were involved in the first
1999 Kansas creationist fiasco, but by 2005 they had created the ID Network. >>
The politically informed creationists gave up on the scientific
creationist ploy, and adopted the ID scam after the turn of the century.
There is a new generation of creationist rubes coming up, and they
grew up under the IDiotic bait and switch scam, and likely have no love
for the ID perps, so things can change, but they need something to
change to. No one seems to have any good idea of how to push the
political scam forward. Reason to Believe and the new evolutionary
creationists claim to be not interested in teaching creationism in the
public schools, nor attacking existing science. Both groups seem to be
trying to reconcile existing scientific knowledge with their religious
beliefs.
Ron Okimoto
I don't like your constant use of "rubes" "perps" and "scam," and it's not just because I object to the language. You've convinced yourself that creationists are "rubes" without two neurons to rub together, and that's just not the case. Your
You say, "no one seems to have any good idea of how to push the political scam forward," and you say that only because your contempt for the "rubes" keeps you in denial. For decades they've been focused on changing the courts, through the FederalistSociety, and through making the appointment of conservative judges and Supreme Court justices a very high political priority. And they've succeeded. The current majority on the Supreme Court is, to put it mildly, not a strong supporter of the separation
Here's a little article on the current state of thinking on separation of Church and State at SCOTUS. It's bad enough there, but there are even more radical judges at the state level.have no science curriculum to offer. All that stuff is pretty obvious (does not become appreciably more obvious when it's repeated daily for decades). The problem is that while you've been calling them "rubes" they've been out making sh_t happen.
https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2022/08/10/supreme-court-separation-of-church-and-state-00050571
Somebody may be in denial and willful ignorance and running away from reality, but it's not me or Isaak or Daggett. You're right about all the problems with the Top Six, you're right that there's no real science in creation science or ID, and that they
Even the most recent attempt to sneak creationism in by the one
sentence addition to an existing act in West Virginia, called what
they wanted taught intelligent design and not biblical creationism.
The ID perps have been pretty successful in getting the rubes to
understand that young earth scientific creationism is a dead end,
politically. They have convinced the rubes that they have something
better, and still acceptable to the creationist rubes.
Like I said, the young earth creationists will still allude to ID when
it suits them, and they are smart enough to know that calling a senate
bill "creationism" would be a non-starter. Note that the West Virginia
bill was introduced by a creationist, not an Intelligent Design advocate. >>>
On 4/30/2023 11:38 AM, Bob Casanova wrote:
On Sun, 30 Apr 2023 08:10:09 -0500, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by RonO <rokimoto@cox.net>:
On 4/29/2023 11:46 PM, Bob Casanova wrote:Since the subsequent exchanges demonstrate the accuracy of
On Sat, 29 Apr 2023 19:51:27 -0500, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by RonO <rokimoto@cox.net>:
On 4/29/2023 7:35 PM, Bob Casanova wrote:The inability to distinguish between "willful ignorance" and
On Sat, 29 Apr 2023 17:00:13 -0500, the following appearedThe willful ignorance is just nuts.
in talk.origins, posted by RonO <rokimoto@cox.net>:
On 4/29/2023 3:20 PM, Bob Casanova wrote:Have a nice life.
On Sat, 29 Apr 2023 14:45:06 -0500, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by RonO <rokimoto@cox.net>:
On 4/29/2023 1:16 PM, Bob Casanova wrote:Because nearly every post of yours is a rant about ID, the
On Sat, 29 Apr 2023 12:01:56 -0500, the following appeared >>>>>>>>>> in talk.origins, posted by RonO <rokimoto@cox.net>:
On 4/29/2023 9:32 AM, Lawyer Daggett wrote:A-a-a-a-nd we're off and runing again... :-(
On Saturday, April 29, 2023 at 10:20:05?AM UTC-4, RonO wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/29/2023 9:09 AM, Lawyer Daggett wrote:Still delusional. Say you tried to figure out what was really going on,
On Saturday, April 29, 2023 at 10:05:05?AM UTC-4, RonO wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/29/2023 8:22 AM, Lawyer Daggett wrote:So you are still suffering your profound delusion about the Top Six?
On Saturday, April 29, 2023 at 9:15:06?AM UTC-4, RonO wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/29/2023 6:50 AM, broger...@gmail.com wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Friday, April 28, 2023 at 10:20:05?PM UTC-4, RonO wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/28/2023 7:16 PM, broger...@gmail.com wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Friday, April 28, 2023 at 6:55:04?PM UTC-4, RonO wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/28/2023 9:14 AM, Mark Isaak wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/27/23 3:41 PM, RonO wrote:So you have no counter or ability to reconsider what actually has been
On 4/27/2023 11:02 AM, Mark Isaak wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/27/23 4:04 AM, RonO wrote:
Do you now realize how wrong you were. I know that the reason that
people disagree with me is because you have remained ignorant of just
Seek psychological counseling.
going on for over 20 years. Why not attempt to demonstrate that he
isn't ignorant, of what the situation currently is? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
It should be easy to demonstrate that I am wrong, so why not try to do
it. You do understand how profound your misunderstanding of the Top Six
situation was, so shouldn't you go further and figure out what else you
are wrong about?
That isn't where the problem lies. It's a behavior problem. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Removing what you can't deal with from a post, doesn't change reality.
Shouldn't you, at least, try to work some kind of reconciliation with
that delusion before making further claims about someone else? You were
obviously wrong, what else are you wrong about?
Imagine you lived in a neighborhood where there was a problem with >>>>>>>>>>>> your neighbors not picking up after their dogs when they took them >>>>>>>>>>>> for a walk. And some guy decided to make it his mission to fix that.
So he wondered the neighborhood screaming and screaching at every >>>>>>>>>>>> bit of dog crap he saw.
You would see him wandering about and then dash over, jump up and >>>>>>>>>>>> stomp down on a pile of crap and he would shout out that he found >>>>>>>>>>>> more dog dirt.
Then people told him he wasn't helping, and his response was to rush
out, bend over and grab hold of a fresh steaming pile in his ungloved
hand, pirouette about ranting of the problem of people not picking up
after their dogs.
The problem isn't that he's wrong about people not picking up after
their dogs.
what would that be like? Your example above demonstrates that you are
obviously wrong about what was going on. No one was claiming that there
was shit anywhere, what was happening was that I just had to make the
IDiots deal with what IDiocy had always been. I only rubbed their faces
in what they were desperately trying to stay willfully ignorant of. >>>>>>>>>>> Glenn lasted the longest, but denial for denial sake can only last so
long. It turned out that there just are not very many IDiots that can
deal with the ID creationist scam in an honest and straightforward >>>>>>>>>>> manner and remain IDiots. The ID perps put out the Top Six as the Top
Six in their order of occurrence. It turned out that all the IDiots
that were IDiots in order to support their religious beliefs could not
deal with the Top Six. Pagano was the only IDiot that faced the Top Six
head on, and he claimed that they were bogus and not the best evidence
for the creationist ID scam. He tried to put up the second rate denial
junk that hadn't made it into the Top Six before he quit posting. Kalk
and Glenn ran from them and tried to create a campaign of putting up the
second rate denial junk as something that still supported the ID scam.
Kalk couldn't keep doing that and quit the ID scam and ended up claiming
that he had never claimed to be Hindu and came out as a plain vanilla
biblical creationist. When confronted by the Top Six Bill claimed that
he had never supported the ID scam. This is the same Bill that had made
the claim that he knew some real ID scientists that had the real ID >>>>>>>>>>> science. What Bill likely meant was that he had never supported what
the ID scam had always been.
So you do have a profound delusion about what happened within the last 5
years on TO, and it is likely because you never bothered to try to >>>>>>>>>>> figure out what was going on. Why do you think that the IDiots gave up
on the ID scam? It wasn't because I refuted anything, or claimed that
there was anything bogus about the Top Six. All I did was put them up
as the ID perps had. They are the best evidence for ID, but there >>>>>>>>>>> aren't very many IDiots that want to believe in the designer that fills
those gaps in the order of their occurrence.
Your example above should be about someone that finds a flower in the
neighborhood. It is the most beautiful flower of it's kind, but there
is a problem with the flower. Some of the neighbors shun the flower and
literally walk across the street in order to not have to deal with the
flower's existence. They do it because it means that the flowers that
they want to be the most beautiful are not. Some of them acknowledge
the existence of the flower, but claim that it was never the type of
flower that they wanted to grow in the neighborhood so they quit trying
to grow such flowers, and return to growing what they wanted to grow in
the first place. Others try to pretend that the flower doesn't exist,
but they eventually keep running into the flower because they keep >>>>>>>>>>> buying seeds from the same nursery that sell the flower that they don't
want to exist, and have to eventually acknowledge it's existence, and
decide to quit trying to grow such flowers
That is what happened on TO after the ID perps put out the Top Six best
evidences for IDiocy in Nov. of 2017. There just are not very many >>>>>>>>>>> IDiotic biblical creationist rubes that want to believe in the designer
responsible for filling the Top Six god-of-the-gaps denial "evidence".
The IDiotic designer responsible for filling the Top Six gaps is not
biblical enough for the the average IDiotic creationist rube. The Top
Six made that clear for the ones with enough brain power to read and
understand them.
And whatever makes you satisfied with being so willfully ignorant about
something this stupid. Is he wrong about what happened? He won't admit
it, but you likely know how wrong he was, so why this comment? >>>>>>>>>
"Top Six", and anything else you can think of related to
this particular idiotic branch of creationism. What did you
*think* I meant by "off and running again"?
I know. We *all* know. How could we not, given the number of
Do you
have any evidence that it was any other way? Can you put up any posts
where I tried to refute the Top Six? Can you put up any posts where the
IDiots do anything but what I claim that they did. What is wrong with
you guys? Can you demonstrate that Daggett wasn't the delusional one?
Something to support his delusion would be worth putting up. I've >>>>>>>>> linked back to some of those posts, so what happened? Why is it so >>>>>>>>> difficult to understand how wrong you guys have been? Really, put up >>>>>>>>> what you think happened and some posts verifying that. Go to the Top >>>>>>>>> Six thread on this subject to start, and I can supply other links if you
want them. Instead of remaining willfully ignorant, why not try to >>>>>>>>> figure out how wrong you two have to be? Really, I never had to refute
the Top Six. I only had to keep putting them up as the best that the ID
perps had, and their own antics in destroying them because even some of
the ID perps can't stand the Top Six as the Top Six.
times you've ranted about it?
Pass, thanks. Seen it all too many times already.
You can start here:
https://groups.google.com/g/talk.origins/c/cY2JbNjBLwE/m/mJelpHjzAwAJ >>>>>>>>>
Isn't it sad that you will continue to spout off and expose your >>>>>>> ignorance and stupidity rather then just do something simple in order to
determine for yourself just how wrong you are? Why bother to comment >>>>>>> when you obviously aren't interested in understanding how wrong you two >>>>>>> are? I have a link to a representative post on the Top Six, that I >>>>>>> routinely have linked back to in the thread linked to above. A few >>>>>>> minutes and you won't have to be so ignorant and stupid. I never try to
refute the Top Six. I just put them up as the ID perps put them up and >>>>>>> demonstrate that even the ID perps can't treat them in an honest and >>>>>>> postive manner. The IDiots on TO are not the only creationists that >>>>>>> can't deal with the Top Six as the best evidence that the ID scam has. >>>>>>>
"don't particularly give a flying fuck about your personal
obsessions" is worse.
But you cared enough to make your ignorant comment. It was due to
ignrance because you obviously didn't know what you were talking about.
my initial comment...
"A-a-a-a-nd we're off and run(n)ing again... :-("
...I rest my case.
And look who is continuing it while keeping themselves willfully
ignorant. Isn't that sad? Your case seems to be arrested by you.
On Sun, 30 Apr 2023 12:38:53 -0500, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by RonO <rokimoto@cox.net>:
On 4/30/2023 11:38 AM, Bob Casanova wrote:Tell yourself whatever makes you happy; your fantasies about
On Sun, 30 Apr 2023 08:10:09 -0500, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by RonO <rokimoto@cox.net>:
On 4/29/2023 11:46 PM, Bob Casanova wrote:Since the subsequent exchanges demonstrate the accuracy of
On Sat, 29 Apr 2023 19:51:27 -0500, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by RonO <rokimoto@cox.net>:
On 4/29/2023 7:35 PM, Bob Casanova wrote:The inability to distinguish between "willful ignorance" and
On Sat, 29 Apr 2023 17:00:13 -0500, the following appearedThe willful ignorance is just nuts.
in talk.origins, posted by RonO <rokimoto@cox.net>:
On 4/29/2023 3:20 PM, Bob Casanova wrote:Have a nice life.
On Sat, 29 Apr 2023 14:45:06 -0500, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by RonO <rokimoto@cox.net>:
On 4/29/2023 1:16 PM, Bob Casanova wrote:Because nearly every post of yours is a rant about ID, the
On Sat, 29 Apr 2023 12:01:56 -0500, the following appeared >>>>>>>>>>> in talk.origins, posted by RonO <rokimoto@cox.net>:
On 4/29/2023 9:32 AM, Lawyer Daggett wrote:A-a-a-a-nd we're off and runing again... :-(
On Saturday, April 29, 2023 at 10:20:05?AM UTC-4, RonO wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/29/2023 9:09 AM, Lawyer Daggett wrote:Still delusional. Say you tried to figure out what was really going on,
On Saturday, April 29, 2023 at 10:05:05?AM UTC-4, RonO wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/29/2023 8:22 AM, Lawyer Daggett wrote:So you are still suffering your profound delusion about the Top Six?
On Saturday, April 29, 2023 at 9:15:06?AM UTC-4, RonO wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/29/2023 6:50 AM, broger...@gmail.com wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Friday, April 28, 2023 at 10:20:05?PM UTC-4, RonO wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/28/2023 7:16 PM, broger...@gmail.com wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Friday, April 28, 2023 at 6:55:04?PM UTC-4, RonO wrote:So you have no counter or ability to reconsider what actually has been
On 4/28/2023 9:14 AM, Mark Isaak wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/27/23 3:41 PM, RonO wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/27/2023 11:02 AM, Mark Isaak wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/27/23 4:04 AM, RonO wrote:
Do you now realize how wrong you were. I know that the reason that
people disagree with me is because you have remained ignorant of just
Seek psychological counseling.
going on for over 20 years. Why not attempt to demonstrate that he
isn't ignorant, of what the situation currently is? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
It should be easy to demonstrate that I am wrong, so why not try to do
it. You do understand how profound your misunderstanding of the Top Six
situation was, so shouldn't you go further and figure out what else you
are wrong about?
That isn't where the problem lies. It's a behavior problem. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Removing what you can't deal with from a post, doesn't change reality.
Shouldn't you, at least, try to work some kind of reconciliation with
that delusion before making further claims about someone else? You were
obviously wrong, what else are you wrong about?
Imagine you lived in a neighborhood where there was a problem with
your neighbors not picking up after their dogs when they took them
for a walk. And some guy decided to make it his mission to fix that.
So he wondered the neighborhood screaming and screaching at every >>>>>>>>>>>>> bit of dog crap he saw.
You would see him wandering about and then dash over, jump up and >>>>>>>>>>>>> stomp down on a pile of crap and he would shout out that he found >>>>>>>>>>>>> more dog dirt.
Then people told him he wasn't helping, and his response was to rush
out, bend over and grab hold of a fresh steaming pile in his ungloved
hand, pirouette about ranting of the problem of people not picking up
after their dogs.
The problem isn't that he's wrong about people not picking up after
their dogs.
what would that be like? Your example above demonstrates that you are
obviously wrong about what was going on. No one was claiming that there
was shit anywhere, what was happening was that I just had to make the
IDiots deal with what IDiocy had always been. I only rubbed their faces
in what they were desperately trying to stay willfully ignorant of.
Glenn lasted the longest, but denial for denial sake can only last so
long. It turned out that there just are not very many IDiots that can
deal with the ID creationist scam in an honest and straightforward >>>>>>>>>>>> manner and remain IDiots. The ID perps put out the Top Six as the Top
Six in their order of occurrence. It turned out that all the IDiots
that were IDiots in order to support their religious beliefs could not
deal with the Top Six. Pagano was the only IDiot that faced the Top Six
head on, and he claimed that they were bogus and not the best evidence
for the creationist ID scam. He tried to put up the second rate denial
junk that hadn't made it into the Top Six before he quit posting. Kalk
and Glenn ran from them and tried to create a campaign of putting up the
second rate denial junk as something that still supported the ID scam.
Kalk couldn't keep doing that and quit the ID scam and ended up claiming
that he had never claimed to be Hindu and came out as a plain vanilla
biblical creationist. When confronted by the Top Six Bill claimed that
he had never supported the ID scam. This is the same Bill that had made
the claim that he knew some real ID scientists that had the real ID
science. What Bill likely meant was that he had never supported what
the ID scam had always been.
So you do have a profound delusion about what happened within the last 5
years on TO, and it is likely because you never bothered to try to >>>>>>>>>>>> figure out what was going on. Why do you think that the IDiots gave up
on the ID scam? It wasn't because I refuted anything, or claimed that
there was anything bogus about the Top Six. All I did was put them up
as the ID perps had. They are the best evidence for ID, but there >>>>>>>>>>>> aren't very many IDiots that want to believe in the designer that fills
those gaps in the order of their occurrence.
Your example above should be about someone that finds a flower in the
neighborhood. It is the most beautiful flower of it's kind, but there
is a problem with the flower. Some of the neighbors shun the flower and
literally walk across the street in order to not have to deal with the
flower's existence. They do it because it means that the flowers that
they want to be the most beautiful are not. Some of them acknowledge
the existence of the flower, but claim that it was never the type of
flower that they wanted to grow in the neighborhood so they quit trying
to grow such flowers, and return to growing what they wanted to grow in
the first place. Others try to pretend that the flower doesn't exist,
but they eventually keep running into the flower because they keep >>>>>>>>>>>> buying seeds from the same nursery that sell the flower that they don't
want to exist, and have to eventually acknowledge it's existence, and
decide to quit trying to grow such flowers
That is what happened on TO after the ID perps put out the Top Six best
evidences for IDiocy in Nov. of 2017. There just are not very many
IDiotic biblical creationist rubes that want to believe in the designer
responsible for filling the Top Six god-of-the-gaps denial "evidence".
The IDiotic designer responsible for filling the Top Six gaps is not
biblical enough for the the average IDiotic creationist rube. The Top
Six made that clear for the ones with enough brain power to read and
understand them.
And whatever makes you satisfied with being so willfully ignorant about
something this stupid. Is he wrong about what happened? He won't admit
it, but you likely know how wrong he was, so why this comment? >>>>>>>>>>
"Top Six", and anything else you can think of related to
this particular idiotic branch of creationism. What did you
*think* I meant by "off and running again"?
I know. We *all* know. How could we not, given the number of >>>>>>>>> times you've ranted about it?
Do you
have any evidence that it was any other way? Can you put up any posts
where I tried to refute the Top Six? Can you put up any posts where the
IDiots do anything but what I claim that they did. What is wrong with
you guys? Can you demonstrate that Daggett wasn't the delusional one?
Something to support his delusion would be worth putting up. I've >>>>>>>>>> linked back to some of those posts, so what happened? Why is it so >>>>>>>>>> difficult to understand how wrong you guys have been? Really, put up
what you think happened and some posts verifying that. Go to the Top
Six thread on this subject to start, and I can supply other links if you
want them. Instead of remaining willfully ignorant, why not try to >>>>>>>>>> figure out how wrong you two have to be? Really, I never had to refute
the Top Six. I only had to keep putting them up as the best that the ID
perps had, and their own antics in destroying them because even some of
the ID perps can't stand the Top Six as the Top Six.
Pass, thanks. Seen it all too many times already.
You can start here:
https://groups.google.com/g/talk.origins/c/cY2JbNjBLwE/m/mJelpHjzAwAJ
Isn't it sad that you will continue to spout off and expose your >>>>>>>> ignorance and stupidity rather then just do something simple in order to
determine for yourself just how wrong you are? Why bother to comment >>>>>>>> when you obviously aren't interested in understanding how wrong you two
are? I have a link to a representative post on the Top Six, that I >>>>>>>> routinely have linked back to in the thread linked to above. A few >>>>>>>> minutes and you won't have to be so ignorant and stupid. I never try to
refute the Top Six. I just put them up as the ID perps put them up and
demonstrate that even the ID perps can't treat them in an honest and >>>>>>>> postive manner. The IDiots on TO are not the only creationists that >>>>>>>> can't deal with the Top Six as the best evidence that the ID scam has. >>>>>>>>
"don't particularly give a flying fuck about your personal
obsessions" is worse.
But you cared enough to make your ignorant comment. It was due to
ignrance because you obviously didn't know what you were talking about. >>>>
my initial comment...
"A-a-a-a-nd we're off and run(n)ing again... :-("
...I rest my case.
And look who is continuing it while keeping themselves willfully
ignorant. Isn't that sad? Your case seems to be arrested by you.
me apparently give you warm fuzzies.
I'm done with this.
On Sun, 30 Apr 2023 12:38:53 -0500, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by RonO <rokimoto@cox.net>:
On 4/30/2023 11:38 AM, Bob Casanova wrote:Tell yourself whatever makes you happy; your fantasies about
On Sun, 30 Apr 2023 08:10:09 -0500, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by RonO <rokimoto@cox.net>:
On 4/29/2023 11:46 PM, Bob Casanova wrote:Since the subsequent exchanges demonstrate the accuracy of
On Sat, 29 Apr 2023 19:51:27 -0500, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by RonO <rokimoto@cox.net>:
On 4/29/2023 7:35 PM, Bob Casanova wrote:The inability to distinguish between "willful ignorance" and
On Sat, 29 Apr 2023 17:00:13 -0500, the following appearedThe willful ignorance is just nuts.
in talk.origins, posted by RonO <rokimoto@cox.net>:
On 4/29/2023 3:20 PM, Bob Casanova wrote:Have a nice life.
On Sat, 29 Apr 2023 14:45:06 -0500, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by RonO <rokimoto@cox.net>:
On 4/29/2023 1:16 PM, Bob Casanova wrote:Because nearly every post of yours is a rant about ID, the
On Sat, 29 Apr 2023 12:01:56 -0500, the following appeared >>>>>>>>>>> in talk.origins, posted by RonO <rokimoto@cox.net>:
On 4/29/2023 9:32 AM, Lawyer Daggett wrote:A-a-a-a-nd we're off and runing again... :-(
On Saturday, April 29, 2023 at 10:20:05?AM UTC-4, RonO wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/29/2023 9:09 AM, Lawyer Daggett wrote:Still delusional. Say you tried to figure out what was really going on,
On Saturday, April 29, 2023 at 10:05:05?AM UTC-4, RonO wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/29/2023 8:22 AM, Lawyer Daggett wrote:So you are still suffering your profound delusion about the Top Six?
On Saturday, April 29, 2023 at 9:15:06?AM UTC-4, RonO wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/29/2023 6:50 AM, broger...@gmail.com wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Friday, April 28, 2023 at 10:20:05?PM UTC-4, RonO wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/28/2023 7:16 PM, broger...@gmail.com wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Friday, April 28, 2023 at 6:55:04?PM UTC-4, RonO wrote:So you have no counter or ability to reconsider what actually has been
On 4/28/2023 9:14 AM, Mark Isaak wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/27/23 3:41 PM, RonO wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/27/2023 11:02 AM, Mark Isaak wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/27/23 4:04 AM, RonO wrote:
Do you now realize how wrong you were. I know that the reason that
people disagree with me is because you have remained ignorant of just
Seek psychological counseling.
going on for over 20 years. Why not attempt to demonstrate that he
isn't ignorant, of what the situation currently is? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
It should be easy to demonstrate that I am wrong, so why not try to do
it. You do understand how profound your misunderstanding of the Top Six
situation was, so shouldn't you go further and figure out what else you
are wrong about?
That isn't where the problem lies. It's a behavior problem. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Removing what you can't deal with from a post, doesn't change reality.
Shouldn't you, at least, try to work some kind of reconciliation with
that delusion before making further claims about someone else? You were
obviously wrong, what else are you wrong about?
Imagine you lived in a neighborhood where there was a problem with
your neighbors not picking up after their dogs when they took them
for a walk. And some guy decided to make it his mission to fix that.
So he wondered the neighborhood screaming and screaching at every >>>>>>>>>>>>> bit of dog crap he saw.
You would see him wandering about and then dash over, jump up and >>>>>>>>>>>>> stomp down on a pile of crap and he would shout out that he found >>>>>>>>>>>>> more dog dirt.
Then people told him he wasn't helping, and his response was to rush
out, bend over and grab hold of a fresh steaming pile in his ungloved
hand, pirouette about ranting of the problem of people not picking up
after their dogs.
The problem isn't that he's wrong about people not picking up after
their dogs.
what would that be like? Your example above demonstrates that you are
obviously wrong about what was going on. No one was claiming that there
was shit anywhere, what was happening was that I just had to make the
IDiots deal with what IDiocy had always been. I only rubbed their faces
in what they were desperately trying to stay willfully ignorant of.
Glenn lasted the longest, but denial for denial sake can only last so
long. It turned out that there just are not very many IDiots that can
deal with the ID creationist scam in an honest and straightforward >>>>>>>>>>>> manner and remain IDiots. The ID perps put out the Top Six as the Top
Six in their order of occurrence. It turned out that all the IDiots
that were IDiots in order to support their religious beliefs could not
deal with the Top Six. Pagano was the only IDiot that faced the Top Six
head on, and he claimed that they were bogus and not the best evidence
for the creationist ID scam. He tried to put up the second rate denial
junk that hadn't made it into the Top Six before he quit posting. Kalk
and Glenn ran from them and tried to create a campaign of putting up the
second rate denial junk as something that still supported the ID scam.
Kalk couldn't keep doing that and quit the ID scam and ended up claiming
that he had never claimed to be Hindu and came out as a plain vanilla
biblical creationist. When confronted by the Top Six Bill claimed that
he had never supported the ID scam. This is the same Bill that had made
the claim that he knew some real ID scientists that had the real ID
science. What Bill likely meant was that he had never supported what
the ID scam had always been.
So you do have a profound delusion about what happened within the last 5
years on TO, and it is likely because you never bothered to try to >>>>>>>>>>>> figure out what was going on. Why do you think that the IDiots gave up
on the ID scam? It wasn't because I refuted anything, or claimed that
there was anything bogus about the Top Six. All I did was put them up
as the ID perps had. They are the best evidence for ID, but there >>>>>>>>>>>> aren't very many IDiots that want to believe in the designer that fills
those gaps in the order of their occurrence.
Your example above should be about someone that finds a flower in the
neighborhood. It is the most beautiful flower of it's kind, but there
is a problem with the flower. Some of the neighbors shun the flower and
literally walk across the street in order to not have to deal with the
flower's existence. They do it because it means that the flowers that
they want to be the most beautiful are not. Some of them acknowledge
the existence of the flower, but claim that it was never the type of
flower that they wanted to grow in the neighborhood so they quit trying
to grow such flowers, and return to growing what they wanted to grow in
the first place. Others try to pretend that the flower doesn't exist,
but they eventually keep running into the flower because they keep >>>>>>>>>>>> buying seeds from the same nursery that sell the flower that they don't
want to exist, and have to eventually acknowledge it's existence, and
decide to quit trying to grow such flowers
That is what happened on TO after the ID perps put out the Top Six best
evidences for IDiocy in Nov. of 2017. There just are not very many
IDiotic biblical creationist rubes that want to believe in the designer
responsible for filling the Top Six god-of-the-gaps denial "evidence".
The IDiotic designer responsible for filling the Top Six gaps is not
biblical enough for the the average IDiotic creationist rube. The Top
Six made that clear for the ones with enough brain power to read and
understand them.
And whatever makes you satisfied with being so willfully ignorant about
something this stupid. Is he wrong about what happened? He won't admit
it, but you likely know how wrong he was, so why this comment? >>>>>>>>>>
"Top Six", and anything else you can think of related to
this particular idiotic branch of creationism. What did you
*think* I meant by "off and running again"?
I know. We *all* know. How could we not, given the number of >>>>>>>>> times you've ranted about it?
Do you
have any evidence that it was any other way? Can you put up any posts
where I tried to refute the Top Six? Can you put up any posts where the
IDiots do anything but what I claim that they did. What is wrong with
you guys? Can you demonstrate that Daggett wasn't the delusional one?
Something to support his delusion would be worth putting up. I've >>>>>>>>>> linked back to some of those posts, so what happened? Why is it so >>>>>>>>>> difficult to understand how wrong you guys have been? Really, put up
what you think happened and some posts verifying that. Go to the Top
Six thread on this subject to start, and I can supply other links if you
want them. Instead of remaining willfully ignorant, why not try to >>>>>>>>>> figure out how wrong you two have to be? Really, I never had to refute
the Top Six. I only had to keep putting them up as the best that the ID
perps had, and their own antics in destroying them because even some of
the ID perps can't stand the Top Six as the Top Six.
Pass, thanks. Seen it all too many times already.
You can start here:
https://groups.google.com/g/talk.origins/c/cY2JbNjBLwE/m/mJelpHjzAwAJ
Isn't it sad that you will continue to spout off and expose your >>>>>>>> ignorance and stupidity rather then just do something simple in order to
determine for yourself just how wrong you are? Why bother to comment >>>>>>>> when you obviously aren't interested in understanding how wrong you two
are? I have a link to a representative post on the Top Six, that I >>>>>>>> routinely have linked back to in the thread linked to above. A few >>>>>>>> minutes and you won't have to be so ignorant and stupid. I never try to
refute the Top Six. I just put them up as the ID perps put them up and
demonstrate that even the ID perps can't treat them in an honest and >>>>>>>> postive manner. The IDiots on TO are not the only creationists that >>>>>>>> can't deal with the Top Six as the best evidence that the ID scam has. >>>>>>>>
"don't particularly give a flying fuck about your personal
obsessions" is worse.
But you cared enough to make your ignorant comment. It was due to
ignrance because you obviously didn't know what you were talking about. >>>>
my initial comment...
"A-a-a-a-nd we're off and run(n)ing again... :-("
...I rest my case.
And look who is continuing it while keeping themselves willfully
ignorant. Isn't that sad? Your case seems to be arrested by you.
me apparently give you warm fuzzies. I'm done with this.
Gisulat ni Bob Casanova:
On Sun, 30 Apr 2023 12:38:53 -0500, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by RonO <rokimoto@cox.net>:
On 4/30/2023 11:38 AM, Bob Casanova wrote:Tell yourself whatever makes you happy; your fantasies about
On Sun, 30 Apr 2023 08:10:09 -0500, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by RonO <rokimoto@cox.net>:
On 4/29/2023 11:46 PM, Bob Casanova wrote:Since the subsequent exchanges demonstrate the accuracy of
On Sat, 29 Apr 2023 19:51:27 -0500, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by RonO <rokimoto@cox.net>:
On 4/29/2023 7:35 PM, Bob Casanova wrote:The inability to distinguish between "willful ignorance" and
On Sat, 29 Apr 2023 17:00:13 -0500, the following appearedThe willful ignorance is just nuts.
in talk.origins, posted by RonO <rokimoto@cox.net>:
On 4/29/2023 3:20 PM, Bob Casanova wrote:Have a nice life.
On Sat, 29 Apr 2023 14:45:06 -0500, the following appeared >>>>>>>>>> in talk.origins, posted by RonO <rokimoto@cox.net>:
On 4/29/2023 1:16 PM, Bob Casanova wrote:Because nearly every post of yours is a rant about ID, the >>>>>>>>>> "Top Six", and anything else you can think of related to
On Sat, 29 Apr 2023 12:01:56 -0500, the following appeared >>>>>>>>>>>> in talk.origins, posted by RonO <rokimoto@cox.net>:
On 4/29/2023 9:32 AM, Lawyer Daggett wrote:A-a-a-a-nd we're off and runing again... :-(
On Saturday, April 29, 2023 at 10:20:05?AM UTC-4, RonO wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/29/2023 9:09 AM, Lawyer Daggett wrote:Still delusional. Say you tried to figure out what was really going on,
On Saturday, April 29, 2023 at 10:05:05?AM UTC-4, RonO wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/29/2023 8:22 AM, Lawyer Daggett wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Saturday, April 29, 2023 at 9:15:06?AM UTC-4, RonO wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/29/2023 6:50 AM, broger...@gmail.com wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Friday, April 28, 2023 at 10:20:05?PM UTC-4, RonO wrote:So you are still suffering your profound delusion about the Top Six?
So you have no counter or ability to reconsider what actually has beenOn 4/28/2023 7:16 PM, broger...@gmail.com wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Friday, April 28, 2023 at 6:55:04?PM UTC-4, RonO wrote:
On 4/28/2023 9:14 AM, Mark Isaak wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/27/23 3:41 PM, RonO wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/27/2023 11:02 AM, Mark Isaak wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/27/23 4:04 AM, RonO wrote:
Do you now realize how wrong you were. I know that the reason that
people disagree with me is because you have remained ignorant of just
Seek psychological counseling.
going on for over 20 years. Why not attempt to demonstrate that he
isn't ignorant, of what the situation currently is? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
It should be easy to demonstrate that I am wrong, so why not try to do
it. You do understand how profound your misunderstanding of the Top Six
situation was, so shouldn't you go further and figure out what else you
are wrong about?
That isn't where the problem lies. It's a behavior problem. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Removing what you can't deal with from a post, doesn't change reality.
Shouldn't you, at least, try to work some kind of reconciliation with
that delusion before making further claims about someone else? You were
obviously wrong, what else are you wrong about?
Imagine you lived in a neighborhood where there was a problem with
your neighbors not picking up after their dogs when they took them
for a walk. And some guy decided to make it his mission to fix that.
So he wondered the neighborhood screaming and screaching at every
bit of dog crap he saw.
You would see him wandering about and then dash over, jump up and
stomp down on a pile of crap and he would shout out that he found
more dog dirt.
Then people told him he wasn't helping, and his response was to rush
out, bend over and grab hold of a fresh steaming pile in his ungloved
hand, pirouette about ranting of the problem of people not picking up
after their dogs.
The problem isn't that he's wrong about people not picking up after
their dogs.
what would that be like? Your example above demonstrates that you are
obviously wrong about what was going on. No one was claiming that there
was shit anywhere, what was happening was that I just had to make the
IDiots deal with what IDiocy had always been. I only rubbed their faces
in what they were desperately trying to stay willfully ignorant of.
Glenn lasted the longest, but denial for denial sake can only last so
long. It turned out that there just are not very many IDiots that can
deal with the ID creationist scam in an honest and straightforward
manner and remain IDiots. The ID perps put out the Top Six as the Top
Six in their order of occurrence. It turned out that all the IDiots
that were IDiots in order to support their religious beliefs could not
deal with the Top Six. Pagano was the only IDiot that faced the Top Six
head on, and he claimed that they were bogus and not the best evidence
for the creationist ID scam. He tried to put up the second rate denial
junk that hadn't made it into the Top Six before he quit posting. Kalk
and Glenn ran from them and tried to create a campaign of putting up the
second rate denial junk as something that still supported the ID scam.
Kalk couldn't keep doing that and quit the ID scam and ended up claiming
that he had never claimed to be Hindu and came out as a plain vanilla
biblical creationist. When confronted by the Top Six Bill claimed that
he had never supported the ID scam. This is the same Bill that had made
the claim that he knew some real ID scientists that had the real ID
science. What Bill likely meant was that he had never supported what
the ID scam had always been.
So you do have a profound delusion about what happened within the last 5
years on TO, and it is likely because you never bothered to try to
figure out what was going on. Why do you think that the IDiots gave up
on the ID scam? It wasn't because I refuted anything, or claimed that
there was anything bogus about the Top Six. All I did was put them up
as the ID perps had. They are the best evidence for ID, but there
aren't very many IDiots that want to believe in the designer that fills
those gaps in the order of their occurrence.
Your example above should be about someone that finds a flower in the
neighborhood. It is the most beautiful flower of it's kind, but there
is a problem with the flower. Some of the neighbors shun the flower and
literally walk across the street in order to not have to deal with the
flower's existence. They do it because it means that the flowers that
they want to be the most beautiful are not. Some of them acknowledge
the existence of the flower, but claim that it was never the type of
flower that they wanted to grow in the neighborhood so they quit trying
to grow such flowers, and return to growing what they wanted to grow in
the first place. Others try to pretend that the flower doesn't exist,
but they eventually keep running into the flower because they keep
buying seeds from the same nursery that sell the flower that they don't
want to exist, and have to eventually acknowledge it's existence, and
decide to quit trying to grow such flowers
That is what happened on TO after the ID perps put out the Top Six best
evidences for IDiocy in Nov. of 2017. There just are not very many
IDiotic biblical creationist rubes that want to believe in the designer
responsible for filling the Top Six god-of-the-gaps denial "evidence".
The IDiotic designer responsible for filling the Top Six gaps is not
biblical enough for the the average IDiotic creationist rube. The Top
Six made that clear for the ones with enough brain power to read and
understand them.
And whatever makes you satisfied with being so willfully ignorant about
something this stupid. Is he wrong about what happened? He won't admit
it, but you likely know how wrong he was, so why this comment? >>>>>>>>>>>
this particular idiotic branch of creationism. What did you >>>>>>>>>> *think* I meant by "off and running again"?
I know. We *all* know. How could we not, given the number of >>>>>>>>>> times you've ranted about it?
Do you
have any evidence that it was any other way? Can you put up any posts
where I tried to refute the Top Six? Can you put up any posts where the
IDiots do anything but what I claim that they did. What is wrong with
you guys? Can you demonstrate that Daggett wasn't the delusional one?
Something to support his delusion would be worth putting up. I've >>>>>>>>>>> linked back to some of those posts, so what happened? Why is it so >>>>>>>>>>> difficult to understand how wrong you guys have been? Really, put up
what you think happened and some posts verifying that. Go to the Top
Six thread on this subject to start, and I can supply other links if you
want them. Instead of remaining willfully ignorant, why not try to >>>>>>>>>>> figure out how wrong you two have to be? Really, I never had to refute
the Top Six. I only had to keep putting them up as the best that the ID
perps had, and their own antics in destroying them because even some of
the ID perps can't stand the Top Six as the Top Six.
Pass, thanks. Seen it all too many times already.
You can start here:
https://groups.google.com/g/talk.origins/c/cY2JbNjBLwE/m/mJelpHjzAwAJ
Isn't it sad that you will continue to spout off and expose your >>>>>>>>> ignorance and stupidity rather then just do something simple in order to
determine for yourself just how wrong you are? Why bother to comment >>>>>>>>> when you obviously aren't interested in understanding how wrong you two
are? I have a link to a representative post on the Top Six, that I >>>>>>>>> routinely have linked back to in the thread linked to above. A few >>>>>>>>> minutes and you won't have to be so ignorant and stupid. I never try to
refute the Top Six. I just put them up as the ID perps put them up and
demonstrate that even the ID perps can't treat them in an honest and >>>>>>>>> postive manner. The IDiots on TO are not the only creationists that >>>>>>>>> can't deal with the Top Six as the best evidence that the ID scam has.
"don't particularly give a flying fuck about your personal
obsessions" is worse.
But you cared enough to make your ignorant comment. It was due to
ignrance because you obviously didn't know what you were talking about. >>>>>
my initial comment...
"A-a-a-a-nd we're off and run(n)ing again... :-("
...I rest my case.
And look who is continuing it while keeping themselves willfully
ignorant. Isn't that sad? Your case seems to be arrested by you.
me apparently give you warm fuzzies.
That's a lot of context! Do you expect me to read all this all over
again, from top to bottom, just because I'm just too stupid or forgetful
to remember the gist of what was said before?
I'm done with this.
I agree. Two hundred lines of mainly quoted text is more than enough.
Next time say goodbye when your post has reached 100 lines in length.
Do you expect me to read all this all over
again,
What is nuts is that he started harassing me about something that he was >wrong about
Do you expect me to read all this all over again,
Frankly, you can go off in a corner and make passionate love
to your fist;
what you get off on is not my problem, and your inability to
follow the attribution levels is of no real interest to me.
Happy with the trimming, Sparky?
On Mon, 01 May 2023 00:12:59 +0200, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by Frank Zippo <fzippof@gmail.com>:
Do you expect me to read all this all overFrankly, you can go off in a corner and make passionate love
again,
to your fist; what you get off on is not my problem, and
your inability to follow the attribution levels is of no
real interest to me.
Happy with the trimming, Sparky?
Bob Casanova:
Happy with the trimming, Sparky?
If we still had POTM your reply to Zippy would qualify. He or She or It or >Shit can go fist themselves.
Gisulat ni *Asexual Gecko*:
Bob Casanova:
Happy with the trimming, Sparky?
If we still had POTM your reply to Zippy would qualify. He or She or It or >> Shit can go fist themselves.
Your name is Casanova and of all people your best friend in talk.origins
is an asexual gecko.
What bad luck!
On Sun, 30 Apr 2023 18:18:59 -0500, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by RonO <rokimoto@cox.net>:
What is nuts is that he started harassing me about something that he wasOK, one more try...
wrong about
Exactly *what* did I write, and what, in what I wrote, was I
wrong about? Be specific, with quotes.
On 4/29/2023 5:37 PM, Mark Isaak wrote:
On 4/28/23 3:54 PM, RonO wrote:
On 4/28/2023 9:14 AM, Mark Isaak wrote:
[...]
I get the impression your *only* concern is with intelligent design,
and you don't give a damn about the underlying issues of science
denial and religious bigotry.
Nope. Wrong again. I acknowledge that there is still an issue, but
currently the ID perps are controlling the creationist rubes so that
nothing they do ever amounts to anything, and the sad reality is that
the majority of IDiots never wanted the ID perps to produce any ID
science.
Do you have any evidence for this? From my view of creationism, the
case on the ground is pretty much just the opposite. ID is mostly dead, >> but creationism is as alive as it has been for the last 20,000 years.
Creationists still cite things like "irreducible complexity" every once
in a while, but only in passing. The latest idea from the ICR that
might qualify as a design theory is that all animals are created, as
individuals, with an ability to rapidly adapt to environmental changes,
and this is where appearances of evolution come from. I have never seen >> any of the ID folks involved, even peripherally, with this.
For some reason this post didn't show up on eternal september, so I am >reposting it as a test. It did show up on google groups.
On 4/29/2023 5:37 PM, Mark Isaak wrote:
On 4/28/23 3:54 PM, RonO wrote:
On 4/28/2023 9:14 AM, Mark Isaak wrote:
[...]
I get the impression your *only* concern is with intelligent design,
and you don't give a damn about the underlying issues of science
denial and religious bigotry.
Nope. Wrong again. I acknowledge that there is still an issue, but
currently the ID perps are controlling the creationist rubes so that
nothing they do ever amounts to anything, and the sad reality is that
the majority of IDiots never wanted the ID perps to produce any ID
science.
Do you have any evidence for this? From my view of creationism, the
case on the ground is pretty much just the opposite. ID is mostly dead, but creationism is as alive as it has been for the last 20,000 years. Creationists still cite things like "irreducible complexity" every once
in a while, but only in passing. The latest idea from the ICR that
might qualify as a design theory is that all animals are created, as individuals, with an ability to rapidly adapt to environmental changes,
and this is where appearances of evolution come from. I have never seen any of the ID folks involved, even peripherally, with this.
The current reality is that none of the politically motivated
creationists take organizations like the ICR or AIG seriously. Even the
most recent attempt to sneak creationism in by the one sentence addition
to an existing act in West Virginia, called what they wanted taught >intelligent design and not biblical creationism. The ID perps have been >pretty successful in getting the rubes to understand that young earth >scientific creationism is a dead end, politically. They have convinced
the rubes that they have something better, and still acceptable to the >creationist rubes.
The evidence is the history of the creationist ID scam. You lived it
with the rest of us.
Did you read the Top Six thread after your misinterpretation of what
went down for the last 5 years was exposed?
REPOST from that thread:
https://evolutionnews.org/2017/11/ids-top-six-the-origin-of-the-universe/
QUOTE:
Editor’s note: In the past we’ve offered the top 10 problems with >Darwinian evolution (see here for a fuller elaboration), and the top
five problems with origin-of-life theories. But somehow we neglected to
offer a parallel listing of the top lines of evidence supporting
intelligent design. Many different pieces of evidence pointing to design
in nature could be adduced, but we decided to distill it all down to six >major lines of evidence. Sure, five or ten would have been more
conventional, but when did ID advocates start playing to expectations?
So here they are, their order simply reflecting that in which they must >logically have occurred within our universe. Material is adapted from
the textbook Discovering Intelligent Design, which is an excellent
resource for introducing the evidence for ID, along with Stephen Meyer’s >books Signature in the Cell and Darwin’s Doubt.
END QUOTE:
END REPOST:
The ID perps made the mistake of putting the gap denial stupidity
together as a Top Six, and made the blunder of telling the rubes that
they were connected in their order of occurrence. Traditionally the >scientific creationists and ID perps have used them as disembodied bits
of denial that were supposed to have been used to allow the rubes to lie
to themselves just long enough to forget them and be lied to about
something else. The Top Six were never supposed to be used to form any
type of coherent god hypothesis. The IDiots posting to TO could not
deal with them as the best evidence that they had for ID in their order
of occurrence because that just isn't biblical enough for them. I never
tried to refute the Top Six. All that I had to do was present them as
the ID perps had presented them. How I used them depended on them being
the best evidence that the ID scam had going for it. There was no
reason to refute them.
What happened in the last 5 years on TO after the Top Six was put out by
the ID perps? Something that had been dying for decades was just given
up on by the remaining IDiots. It wasn't because I refuted the Top Six.
It was because the IDiots could not deal with them as the best
evidence that the creationists had. They didn't want their designer to
fill those gaps. No science that the ID perps could have ever
accomplished would have been anything that the biblical creationists
rubes would want to believe. What would have happened if Behe had >demonstrated that some designer was responsible for his 3 neutral
mutations to create some functional part of the flagellum? It would
have happened over a billion years ago in a context where progenitors
existed that did not have the 3 neutral mutations, but they came to
exist in the lineage within Behe's specified amount of time. IC is #4
of the Top Six. You already know that the IDiot type creationists can't
stand the designer responsible for the Big Bang (#1 of the Top Six). It
is one of the science topics that they want dropped out of the science >standards. The majority of IDiots are still YEC, and even though the
AIG still uses the Big Bang gap denial at their creation museum most YEC >IDiots with a clue understand that it is something that they never want
their kids to be exposed to. Meyer made his IDiotic reputation with the >Cambrian explosion gap denial. It made #5 of the Top Six because it
occurred after the flagellum had evolved in bacteria. Meyer's denial
depends on reducing the span of the Cambrian explosion to it's current >estimate of 25 million years over half a billion years ago. How many
IDiots would have been happy about Meyer succeeding in demonstrating
that his designer was responsible for the Cambrian explosion? Any
creationist scientific success with the Top Six would have just been
more to deny by the majority of IDiot rubes. Sewell dropped out IC and
the Cambrian explosion from his version of the Top Six and Miller
removed the Big Bang. That is how much even other ID perps appreciate
the initial effort.
The Top Six taken in "their order simply reflecting that in which they
must logically have occurred within our universe" meant that nothing
that any ID perp came up with would be accepted by the majority of
IDiots. That is likely the main reason why no ID science was ever
attempted. Just the claims were made, and that is all IDiocy ever was.
The mistake of finally putting out the Top Six killed IDiocy on TO. I
only had to make the IDiots face the Top Six as the best evidence that
they had in the order of occurrence that the ID perps had told them that
they had occurred in.
Pagano claimed that they were bogus and quit posting. Kalk ran from
them and started a campaign with Glenn to post the second rate junk that >didn't make the Top Six as evidence that IDiocy was still viable, but
Kalk couldn't keep doing that to himself when I kept forcing the issue
of the Top Six that were supposed to be better than the junk he was
posting. Kalk quit the ID scam, and claimed that he had never claimed
to be Hindu and came out as a plain vanilla biblical creationists. Bill >really did claim that he had never supported the ID scam in response to
the Top Six. MarkE had never really bought into the ID scam and
understood that there wasn't any ID science, but he couldn't give up on
the Top Six gap denial arguments. He tried to keep putting them up one
at a time. He started spending a lot of effort on #3 (the origin of
life on earth). He settled on trying to define the gap in as much
detail as he could in order to claim that the gap would never be filled
by scientific efforts. He had to understand a lot about what we
understood of what was around the gap, so I just asked him to put his
god in the gap that he was creating. He claimed that he didn't have to
do that, but since he was creating the gap in order to support his
religious beliefs it would be stupid not to do it. It turned out that
he didn't want to believe in the god that filled the gap that he had
created, and he quit posting. If he hadn't tried to use them as
independent bits of denial and had, had to deal with them in an honest
and straight forward manner as the Top Six he would have never continued
with the gap denial.
All of this really happened in relation to the Top Six. I never tried
to refute them. I just kept presenting them as the best evidence for ID
in the order of occurrence that the ID perps had placed them in. You
should know that IDiots do not want their kids to understand the Big
Bang, you should know that most of the stalwart IDiots left on TO
couldn't stand to deal with them in an honest and straightforward
manner. You should know that Pagano claimed that they were bogus and
were not the Top Six best evidences for IDiocy before he quit posting.
Even MarkE couldn't accept the Top Six when forced to deal with them as
they are related to the rest of reality. There just are not very many >Biblical creationists that can deal with a designer responsible for the
Top Six. That designer just is not Biblical enough for them. It turned
out that there wasn't any science that IDiots wanted to accomplish that
would support the existence of some intelligent designer. The Top Six
forced the TO IDiots to understand that fact.
The ID perps have never created a public school lesson plan that
demonstrated what they wanted to teach and how they would want to teach
it. The Top Six would obviously be a scam killer for most IDiotic >creationists still in existence, and if you aren't going to teach the
best why would you teach anything at all. They may still be selling the
teach ID scam to the rubes, but there likely was never any viable plan
to teach the best evidence for ID in the public schools.
The bait and switch has gone down on every creationist rube that has
wanted to teach ID in the public schools. The ID Perps have been
protecting the rubes from suffering any success because most of them
would not be happy if the best evidence for IDiocy was taught to their
kids in the "order simply reflecting that in which they must logically
have occurred within our universe."
Ron Okimoto
On 4/30/2023 11:24 AM, Mark Isaak wrote:
On 4/29/23 7:48 PM, RonO wrote:
On 4/29/2023 5:37 PM, Mark Isaak wrote:
On 4/28/23 3:54 PM, RonO wrote:
On 4/28/2023 9:14 AM, Mark Isaak wrote:
[...]
I get the impression your *only* concern is with intelligent
design, and you don't give a damn about the underlying issues of
science denial and religious bigotry.
Nope. Wrong again. I acknowledge that there is still an issue,
but currently the ID perps are controlling the creationist rubes so
that nothing they do ever amounts to anything, and the sad reality
is that the majority of IDiots never wanted the ID perps to produce
any ID science.
Do you have any evidence for this? From my view of creationism, the
case on the ground is pretty much just the opposite. ID is mostly
dead, but creationism is as alive as it has been for the last 20,000
years. Creationists still cite things like "irreducible complexity"
every once in a while, but only in passing. The latest idea from
the ICR that might qualify as a design theory is that all animals
are created, as individuals, with an ability to rapidly adapt to
environmental changes, and this is where appearances of evolution
come from. I have never seen any of the ID folks involved, even
peripherally, with this.
The current reality is that none of the politically motivated
creationists take organizations like the ICR or AIG seriously.
Um, the ICR and AIG are also composed of politically motivated
creationists.
But they failed and the ID perps took their place decades ago.
So your whole beef with me is the alleged anomaly of asexuality in a
species of gecko I happen to have found interesting. You are a fucking
bigot. We know that now without a doubt. And that’s why you chose to parade >the assumed insult *Asexual Gecko*. You can keep doing that as it only
serves to remind me of how oddly cool parthenogenesis in lizards is. Oh…and >go fuck yourself you obnoxious douchebag.
Frank Zippo <fzippof@gmail.com> wrote:
Gisulat ni *Asexual Gecko*:So your whole beef with me is the alleged anomaly of asexuality in a
Bob Casanova:
Happy with the trimming, Sparky?
If we still had POTM your reply to Zippy would qualify. He or She or It or >>> Shit can go fist themselves.
Your name is Casanova and of all people your best friend in talk.origins
is an asexual gecko.
What bad luck!
species of gecko I happen to have found interesting. You are a fucking
bigot. We know that now without a doubt. And that’s why you chose to parade the assumed insult *Asexual Gecko*. You can keep doing that as it only
serves to remind me of how oddly cool parthenogenesis in lizards is. Oh…and go fuck yourself you obnoxious douchebag.
On 4/30/2023 6:48 PM, Bob Casanova wrote:.....
On Sun, 30 Apr 2023 18:18:59 -0500, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by RonO <roki...@cox.net>:
What is nuts is that he started harassing me about something that he was >> wrong aboutOK, one more try...
Exactly *what* did I write, and what, in what I wrote, was IQUOTE:
wrong about? Be specific, with quotes.
Because nearly every post of yours is a rant about ID, the
"Top Six", and anything else you can think of related to
this particular idiotic branch of creationism. What did you
*think* I meant by "off and running again"?
END QUOTE:
This is exactly what they were all wrong about. My posts on the Top Six
were not rants, and I never tried to refute the Top Six. If you read
the posts, I just put up the Top Six as the ID perps put them up. That
is all that I needed to do, and show how the ID perps didn't even want
to deal with the best evidence that they had in any honest and straightforward manner. Just the existence of the Top Six given to the
rubes in their order of occurrence was enough to kill IDiocy on TO. I
never had to refute anything, and never had to browbeat any IDiot with
any refutation of the Top Six. I relied on them being the best evidence
that the ID perps had to offer to the rubes. It was the IDiot rubes
that could not deal with them. The designer that fills the gaps of the
Top Six god-of-the-gaps IDiotic denial is not biblical enough for the majority of IDiots in existence. None of the TO IDiots could face the
Top Six as the best that they had when presented as a whole in their
order of occurrence.
Mark and likely Broger understand that, now, but you, obviously, do not.
You had the chance to alleviate your ignorant misinterpretation of
reality, but you refused to do that.
Ron Okimoto
So your whole beef with me is the alleged anomaly of asexuality in a >>species of gecko I happen to have found interesting. You are a fucking >>bigot. We know that now without a doubt. And that’s why you chose to parade >>the assumed insult *Asexual Gecko*. You can keep doing that as it only >>serves to remind me of how oddly cool parthenogenesis in lizards is. Oh…and >>go fuck yourself you obnoxious douchebag.
I mentioned Salmonella typhimurium earlier, which everyone calls
Salmonella if they're not writing a biochemistry or microbiology paper
or textbook.
Another example with a personal interest for me is the plant Nerine
bowdenii, which is not the only Nerine species, but is one of the most
widely grown. People often just call it Nerine. A personal interest
because "bowdenii" refers to my great uncle, who discovered it growing
wild near Cala, in South Africa. He sent some bulbs to my great
grandmother, who passed them on to a nurseryman in Exeter.
On Sunday, April 30, 2023 at 9:30:06 PM UTC-4, RonO wrote:that I agree with it. Nor does it mean that I disagree with it.
On 4/30/2023 6:48 PM, Bob Casanova wrote:.....
On Sun, 30 Apr 2023 18:18:59 -0500, the following appearedQUOTE:
in talk.origins, posted by RonO <roki...@cox.net>:
What is nuts is that he started harassing me about something that he was >>>> wrong aboutOK, one more try...
Exactly *what* did I write, and what, in what I wrote, was I
wrong about? Be specific, with quotes.
Because nearly every post of yours is a rant about ID, the
"Top Six", and anything else you can think of related to
this particular idiotic branch of creationism. What did you
*think* I meant by "off and running again"?
END QUOTE:
This is exactly what they were all wrong about. My posts on the Top Six
were not rants, and I never tried to refute the Top Six. If you read
the posts, I just put up the Top Six as the ID perps put them up. That
is all that I needed to do, and show how the ID perps didn't even want
to deal with the best evidence that they had in any honest and
straightforward manner. Just the existence of the Top Six given to the
rubes in their order of occurrence was enough to kill IDiocy on TO. I
never had to refute anything, and never had to browbeat any IDiot with
any refutation of the Top Six. I relied on them being the best evidence
that the ID perps had to offer to the rubes. It was the IDiot rubes
that could not deal with them. The designer that fills the gaps of the
Top Six god-of-the-gaps IDiotic denial is not biblical enough for the
majority of IDiots in existence. None of the TO IDiots could face the
Top Six as the best that they had when presented as a whole in their
order of occurrence.
Mark and likely Broger understand that, now, but you, obviously, do not.
You had the chance to alleviate your ignorant misinterpretation of
reality, but you refused to do that.
Just to be clear, when I stop responding to your posts about any given topic, that does not mean that I have come to agree with you or to "understand how wrong I was." Likewise, if you make a new post, and I do not respond at all, that does not mean
Ron Okimoto
I mentioned Salmonella typhimurium earlier, which everyone calls
Salmonella if they're not writing a biochemistry or microbiology paper
or textbook.
Gisulat ni Athel Cornish-Bowden:
*Asexual Gecko*:
So your whole beef with me is the alleged anomaly of asexuality in a
species of gecko I happen to have found interesting. You are a fucking
bigot. We know that now without a doubt. And that’s why you chose to parade
the assumed insult *Asexual Gecko*. You can keep doing that as it only
serves to remind me of how oddly cool parthenogenesis in lizards is. Oh…and
go fuck yourself you obnoxious douchebag.
I mentioned Salmonella typhimurium earlier, which everyone calls
Salmonella if they're not writing a biochemistry or microbiology paper
or textbook.
Don't you agree with me that Asexual Gecko's language is awfully inappropriate in a decent newsgroup like talk.origins?
Gisulat ni Bob Casanova:
Do you expect me to read all this all over again,
Frankly, you can go off in a corner and make passionate love
to your fist;
Yes, very nice, but that's not an answer to my question.
what you get off on is not my problem, and your inability to
follow the attribution levels is of no real interest to me.
Yet you feel the need to mention it. Probably because I made
you angry. And you had to resort to rather tasteless insinuations
about some of my habits. A discussion trick I've said goodbye to
when I left primary school.
Happy with the trimming, Sparky?
Not quite. I think you overdid it a bit. But you will learn.
On 4/30/2023 6:48 PM, Bob Casanova wrote:
On Sun, 30 Apr 2023 18:18:59 -0500, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by RonO <rokimoto@cox.net>:
What is nuts is that he started harassing me about something that he was >>> wrong aboutOK, one more try...
Exactly *what* did I write, and what, in what I wrote, was I
wrong about? Be specific, with quotes.
QUOTE:
Because nearly every post of yours is a rant about ID, the
"Top Six", and anything else you can think of related to
this particular idiotic branch of creationism. What did you
*think* I meant by "off and running again"?
END QUOTE:
This is exactly what they were all wrong about. My posts on the Top Six
were not rants, and I never tried to refute the Top Six.
If you read
the posts, I just put up the Top Six as the ID perps put them up. That
is all that I needed to do, and show how the ID perps didn't even want
to deal with the best evidence that they had in any honest and >straightforward manner. Just the existence of the Top Six given to the
rubes in their order of occurrence was enough to kill IDiocy on TO. I
never had to refute anything, and never had to browbeat any IDiot with
any refutation of the Top Six. I relied on them being the best evidence
that the ID perps had to offer to the rubes. It was the IDiot rubes
that could not deal with them. The designer that fills the gaps of the
Top Six god-of-the-gaps IDiotic denial is not biblical enough for the >majority of IDiots in existence. None of the TO IDiots could face the
Top Six as the best that they had when presented as a whole in their
order of occurrence.
Mark and likely Broger understand that, now, but you, obviously, do not.
You had the chance to alleviate your ignorant misinterpretation of
reality, but you refused to do that.
On 2023-05-01 01:12:50 +0000, *Hemidactylus* said:
Frank Zippo <fzippof@gmail.com> wrote:
Gisulat ni *Asexual Gecko*:So your whole beef with me is the alleged anomaly of asexuality in a
Bob Casanova:
Happy with the trimming, Sparky?
If we still had POTM your reply to Zippy would qualify. He or She or It or >>>> Shit can go fist themselves.
Your name is Casanova and of all people your best friend in talk.origins >>> is an asexual gecko.
What bad luck!
species of gecko I happen to have found interesting. You are a fucking
bigot. We know that now without a doubt. And that’s why you chose to parade >> the assumed insult *Asexual Gecko*. You can keep doing that as it only
serves to remind me of how oddly cool parthenogenesis in lizards is. Oh…and >> go fuck yourself you obnoxious douchebag.
I mentioned Salmonella typhimurium earlier, which everyone calls
Salmonella if they're not writing a biochemistry or microbiology paper
or textbook.
Another example with a personal interest for me is the plant Nerine
bowdenii, which is not the only Nerine species, but is one of the most
widely grown. People often just call it Nerine. A personal interest
because "bowdenii" refers to my great uncle, who discovered it growing
wild near Cala, in South Africa. He sent some bulbs to my great
grandmother, who passed them on to a nurseryman in Exeter.
On 5/1/23 4:51 AM, Frank Zippo wrote:
Gisulat ni Athel Cornish-Bowden:
*Asexual Gecko*:
So your whole beef with me is the alleged anomaly of asexuality in a
species of gecko I happen to have found interesting. You are a fucking >>>> bigot. We know that now without a doubt. And that’s why you chose to parade
the assumed insult *Asexual Gecko*. You can keep doing that as it only >>>> serves to remind me of how oddly cool parthenogenesis in lizards is. Oh…and
go fuck yourself you obnoxious douchebag.
I mentioned Salmonella typhimurium earlier, which everyone calls
Salmonella if they're not writing a biochemistry or microbiology paper
or textbook.
Don't you agree with me that Asexual Gecko's language is awfully
inappropriate in a decent newsgroup like talk.origins?
Quite sincerely, I have not seen any language from you, Frank, which
*is* appropriate for talk.origins.
Quite sincerely, I have not seen any language from you, Frank, which
*is* appropriate for talk.origins.
But he doesn't use Bad Words, unlike that meanie Hemi.
Quite sincerely, I have not seen any language from you,
Frank, which *is* appropriate for talk.origins.
Gisulat ni Bob Casanova:
Mark I. contributes his 2 cents:
Quite sincerely, I have not seen any language from you, Frank, which >>>*is* appropriate for talk.origins.
But he doesn't use Bad Words, unlike that meanie Hemi.
You misspelled "sissy Hemi".
On Mon, 01 May 2023 20:59:54 +0200, Frank Zippo <fzippof@gmail.com>
wrote:
Gisulat ni Bob Casanova:
Mark I. contributes his 2 cents:
Quite sincerely, I have not seen any language from you, Frank, which >>>>*is* appropriate for talk.origins.
But he doesn't use Bad Words, unlike that meanie Hemi.
You misspelled "sissy Hemi".
"sissy" is a pointless epithet for an asexual gecko.
On 4/30/23 10:12 AM, RonO wrote:
On 4/30/2023 11:24 AM, Mark Isaak wrote:
On 4/29/23 7:48 PM, RonO wrote:
On 4/29/2023 5:37 PM, Mark Isaak wrote:
On 4/28/23 3:54 PM, RonO wrote:
On 4/28/2023 9:14 AM, Mark Isaak wrote:
[...]
I get the impression your *only* concern is with intelligent
design, and you don't give a damn about the underlying issues of >>>>>>> science denial and religious bigotry.
Nope. Wrong again. I acknowledge that there is still an issue, >>>>>> but currently the ID perps are controlling the creationist rubes
so that nothing they do ever amounts to anything, and the sad
reality is that the majority of IDiots never wanted the ID perps
to produce any ID science.
Do you have any evidence for this? From my view of creationism,
the case on the ground is pretty much just the opposite. ID is
mostly dead, but creationism is as alive as it has been for the
last 20,000 years. Creationists still cite things like "irreducible
complexity" every once in a while, but only in passing. The latest >>>>> idea from the ICR that might qualify as a design theory is that all
animals are created, as individuals, with an ability to rapidly
adapt to environmental changes, and this is where appearances of
evolution come from. I have never seen any of the ID folks
involved, even peripherally, with this.
The current reality is that none of the politically motivated
creationists take organizations like the ICR or AIG seriously.
Um, the ICR and AIG are also composed of politically motivated
creationists.
But they failed and the ID perps took their place decades ago.
And then they succeeded and took over the place of the "ID perps." There
are still teachers teaching creationism in public schools--not legally,
but it's popular enough that they get away with it. More troubling is
the latest creationist strategy: get the State to fund private schools,
where they can then legally teach as much creationism as they want.
It sure looks to me that the creationists are more successful than you
are, by any measure.
On Sun, 30 Apr 2023 20:27:33 -0500, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by RonO <rokimoto@cox.net>:
On 4/30/2023 6:48 PM, Bob Casanova wrote:[sigh...]
On Sun, 30 Apr 2023 18:18:59 -0500, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by RonO <rokimoto@cox.net>:
What is nuts is that he started harassing me about something that he was >>>> wrong aboutOK, one more try...
Exactly *what* did I write, and what, in what I wrote, was I
wrong about? Be specific, with quotes.
QUOTE:
Because nearly every post of yours is a rant about ID, the
"Top Six", and anything else you can think of related to
this particular idiotic branch of creationism. What did you
*think* I meant by "off and running again"?
END QUOTE:
This is exactly what they were all wrong about. My posts on the Top Six
were not rants, and I never tried to refute the Top Six.
Whether a post qualifies as a "rant" depends on many things,
one of which is repetition. Based on the number of times
you've posted essentially the same material, sometimes in
almost the same words, to me the seemingly-endless
repetition qualifies as "ranting". Obviously you disagree,
but that doesn't mean you're right and that my statement was
factually "wrong"; it's a matter of opinion. And I didn't
harass you; I made *one* comment, "A-a-a-and we're off and
running again" when that started. You called that "wrong"
and "willfully ignorant". The first is a matter of opinion;
the second was meaningless since I made no claims other than
the observation that you were starting another round of the
same thing. Which you were.
And I never claimed you tried to refute your "Top Six"; I
said you repeatedly wrote about it.
If you readAnd there you go again. Once more, noting that you seem to
the posts, I just put up the Top Six as the ID perps put them up. That
is all that I needed to do, and show how the ID perps didn't even want
to deal with the best evidence that they had in any honest and
straightforward manner. Just the existence of the Top Six given to the
rubes in their order of occurrence was enough to kill IDiocy on TO. I
never had to refute anything, and never had to browbeat any IDiot with
any refutation of the Top Six. I relied on them being the best evidence
that the ID perps had to offer to the rubes. It was the IDiot rubes
that could not deal with them. The designer that fills the gaps of the
Top Six god-of-the-gaps IDiotic denial is not biblical enough for the
majority of IDiots in existence. None of the TO IDiots could face the
Top Six as the best that they had when presented as a whole in their
order of occurrence.
Mark and likely Broger understand that, now, but you, obviously, do not.
You had the chance to alleviate your ignorant misinterpretation of
reality, but you refused to do that.
be obsessed with both ID and the "Top Six", and post about
them repeatedly, doesn't indicate ignorance of them; it
merely notes your obsession. Yeah, they're a bunch of bozos,
but I knew that years ago, and it's not as if they're any
real threat, at least not now. And probably not ever, any
more than the Flat Earth Society is a threat to rational
science.
Now, based on your previous replies (not "responses"; that
would indicate that you understood what I wrote and
addressed it) I'm fairly confident that you'll again fall
back on claims of "wrongness" and "willful ignorance" rather
than reading *and understanding* what I wrote; sobeit. It's
rather a shame, since when you're not obsessing about your
favorite boogeymen you post some quite interesting material,
as you have today.
On 5/1/2023 12:20 PM, Bob Casanova wrote:
On Sun, 30 Apr 2023 20:27:33 -0500, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by RonO <rokimoto@cox.net>:
On 4/30/2023 6:48 PM, Bob Casanova wrote:[sigh...]
On Sun, 30 Apr 2023 18:18:59 -0500, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by RonO <rokimoto@cox.net>:
What is nuts is that he started harassing me about something that he was >>>>> wrong aboutOK, one more try...
Exactly *what* did I write, and what, in what I wrote, was I
wrong about? Be specific, with quotes.
QUOTE:
Because nearly every post of yours is a rant about ID, the
"Top Six", and anything else you can think of related to
this particular idiotic branch of creationism. What did you
*think* I meant by "off and running again"?
END QUOTE:
This is exactly what they were all wrong about. My posts on the Top Six >>> were not rants, and I never tried to refute the Top Six.
Whether a post qualifies as a "rant" depends on many things,
one of which is repetition. Based on the number of times
you've posted essentially the same material, sometimes in
almost the same words, to me the seemingly-endless
repetition qualifies as "ranting". Obviously you disagree,
but that doesn't mean you're right and that my statement was
factually "wrong"; it's a matter of opinion. And I didn't
harass you; I made *one* comment, "A-a-a-and we're off and
running again" when that started. You called that "wrong"
and "willfully ignorant". The first is a matter of opinion;
the second was meaningless since I made no claims other than
the observation that you were starting another round of the
same thing. Which you were.
And I never claimed you tried to refute your "Top Six"; I
said you repeatedly wrote about it.
Define it how you will, but the "rant" was never bashing the IDiot rubes
with some type of refutation of the Top Six. It was only putting up the
Top Six again so that they had trouble remaining as willfully ignorant
as they wanted to be. You chimed in when Mark and Daggett had made that >false accusation in support of them.
It only had to be repeated for so long because it took Glenn and Kalk so
long to realize the stupidity of what they were doing by running from
the Top Six and pretending that they didn't exist. The Top Six came up >multiple times in the past year because Nyikos didn't have a clue as to
why the other IDiots folded up and quit, and was harrassing me about my
Top Six posts claiming that I wasn't refuting anything. I had to to
tell him that I had never tried to refute the Top Six. Nyikos even
pulled up an old thread where Dean had forgotten his previous bouts with
the Top Six, and it turned out that all that I had tried to do with Dean
was to get him to understand what the Top Six actually were. It took
years before Dean figured out why the other creationists couldn't stand
the Top Six, and if he ever comes back, he may have forgotten what
happened the last time when he finally admitted that he did not want to >understand how the Top Six related to his religious beliefs. It is a
stupid claim to make when we all know that the creationists are using
them to support their religious beliefs. The Top Six just tell most
IDiot type creationists that they don't want to believe in the designer
that fills those gaps.
If you readAnd there you go again. Once more, noting that you seem to
the posts, I just put up the Top Six as the ID perps put them up. That
is all that I needed to do, and show how the ID perps didn't even want
to deal with the best evidence that they had in any honest and
straightforward manner. Just the existence of the Top Six given to the
rubes in their order of occurrence was enough to kill IDiocy on TO. I
never had to refute anything, and never had to browbeat any IDiot with
any refutation of the Top Six. I relied on them being the best evidence >>> that the ID perps had to offer to the rubes. It was the IDiot rubes
that could not deal with them. The designer that fills the gaps of the
Top Six god-of-the-gaps IDiotic denial is not biblical enough for the
majority of IDiots in existence. None of the TO IDiots could face the
Top Six as the best that they had when presented as a whole in their
order of occurrence.
Mark and likely Broger understand that, now, but you, obviously, do not. >>> You had the chance to alleviate your ignorant misinterpretation of
reality, but you refused to do that.
be obsessed with both ID and the "Top Six", and post about
them repeatedly, doesn't indicate ignorance of them; it
merely notes your obsession. Yeah, they're a bunch of bozos,
but I knew that years ago, and it's not as if they're any
real threat, at least not now. And probably not ever, any
more than the Flat Earth Society is a threat to rational
science.
And so you just don't get it. The ID perps gave the rubes the Top Six
and claimed that they were in their expected order of occurrence. Bill
and Pagano folded fairly quickly. Bill still posts, but he isn't an
IDiot any longer. He did make the claim that he had never supported the
ID scam when the Top Six came out. Pagano claimed that they were bogus
and that they were not the best evidence for IDiocy before he quit
posting. The rest tried to run and remain willfully ignorant, so I just
kept reminding them that the Top Six existed, and kept giving it to them
as the ID perps had presented them. Kalk eventually could not remain
that willfully ignorant and eventually quit the ID scam and claimed that
he had never claimed to be Hindu and became a plain biblical
creationist. Glenn only recently quit posting the junk after a bout
where he posted 4 of the Top Six topics in a week and it was obvious
that he didn't know that he was posting junk that he had been running
from for half a decade. It had to be crushing to demonstrate to
yourself that you didn't care enough about what you used to support the
ID scam to understand that they were topics that you knew that you
couldn't deal with. Nyikos was the last because he had likely stayed >willfully ignorant of the Top Six. He was MIA when they were first put
up and was on some type of posting break, and when he came back he
ignored the Top Six until he needed some new subject to harass me about.
He really did try to harass me with the claim that I was not refuting
the Top Six in my Top Six posts, and I had to tell him that I never
tried to refute the Top Six. He went on for months anyway and somewhere
in there I told him to just try to use them to support directed
panspermia. He has recently made the attempt and pretty much destroyed
any chance directed panspermia was at all a valid alternative to the
usual IDiocy. He had to invoke god-like aliens created in another
universe to save directed panspermia in the face of the best evidence
that ID had going for it. Nyikos was the major reason the Top Six came
up so often in the last year, and now you guys are the reason. It looks
like most of the TO regulars didn't have a clue as to what was
happening, just like Nyikos.
Now, based on your previous replies (not "responses"; that
would indicate that you understood what I wrote and
addressed it) I'm fairly confident that you'll again fall
back on claims of "wrongness" and "willful ignorance" rather
than reading *and understanding* what I wrote; sobeit. It's
rather a shame, since when you're not obsessing about your
favorite boogeymen you post some quite interesting material,
as you have today.
Do you understand what happened with respect to the Top Six? If you
still do not, your above statement is lacking. Was your perception of
what happened the correct one? Are you no longer ignorant of what you
were complaining about? What did you think was happening for the last 5 >years? What actually happened?
On Sun, 30 Apr 2023 08:55:29 -0500, RonO <rokimoto@cox.net> wrote:
On 4/29/2023 5:37 PM, Mark Isaak wrote:
On 4/28/23 3:54 PM, RonO wrote:
On 4/28/2023 9:14 AM, Mark Isaak wrote:
[...]
I get the impression your *only* concern is with intelligent design, >>>>> and you don't give a damn about the underlying issues of science
denial and religious bigotry.
Nope. Wrong again. I acknowledge that there is still an issue, but >>>> currently the ID perps are controlling the creationist rubes so that
nothing they do ever amounts to anything, and the sad reality is that
the majority of IDiots never wanted the ID perps to produce any ID
science.
Do you have any evidence for this? From my view of creationism, the
case on the ground is pretty much just the opposite. ID is mostly dead, >>> but creationism is as alive as it has been for the last 20,000 years.
Creationists still cite things like "irreducible complexity" every once
in a while, but only in passing. The latest idea from the ICR that
might qualify as a design theory is that all animals are created, as
individuals, with an ability to rapidly adapt to environmental changes,
and this is where appearances of evolution come from. I have never seen >>> any of the ID folks involved, even peripherally, with this.
For some reason this post didn't show up on eternal september, so I am
reposting it as a test. It did show up on google groups.
It's not clear to which post your "this post" refers, but I received
from E-S all of the posts to which it might refer, including the
original one you copied below. Here is part of the header from the
original:
***************************************
From: RonO <rokimoto@cox.net>
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: Uncommon Descent dead
Date: Sat, 29 Apr 2023 21:48:04 -0500
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 179
Sender: news@beagle.ediacara.org
Approved: moderator@beagle.ediacara.org
Message-ID: <u2kkt5$36015$2@dont-email.me> ***************************************
E-S has a habit of delaying delivery of some posts to T.O., but that's
is diagnosed by looking at the different time stamps in the headers.
The above post doesn't have that problem. This suggests a problem
with your news reader or even with the operator.
On 4/29/2023 5:37 PM, Mark Isaak wrote:
On 4/28/23 3:54 PM, RonO wrote:
On 4/28/2023 9:14 AM, Mark Isaak wrote:
[...]
I get the impression your *only* concern is with intelligent design, >>>>> and you don't give a damn about the underlying issues of science
denial and religious bigotry.
Nope. Wrong again. I acknowledge that there is still an issue, but
currently the ID perps are controlling the creationist rubes so that
nothing they do ever amounts to anything, and the sad reality is that
the majority of IDiots never wanted the ID perps to produce any ID
science.
Do you have any evidence for this? From my view of creationism, the
case on the ground is pretty much just the opposite. ID is mostly dead, >>> but creationism is as alive as it has been for the last 20,000 years.
Creationists still cite things like "irreducible complexity" every once
in a while, but only in passing. The latest idea from the ICR that
might qualify as a design theory is that all animals are created, as
individuals, with an ability to rapidly adapt to environmental changes,
and this is where appearances of evolution come from. I have never seen >>> any of the ID folks involved, even peripherally, with this.
The current reality is that none of the politically motivated
creationists take organizations like the ICR or AIG seriously. Even the
most recent attempt to sneak creationism in by the one sentence addition
to an existing act in West Virginia, called what they wanted taught
intelligent design and not biblical creationism. The ID perps have been
pretty successful in getting the rubes to understand that young earth
scientific creationism is a dead end, politically. They have convinced
the rubes that they have something better, and still acceptable to the
creationist rubes.
The evidence is the history of the creationist ID scam. You lived it
with the rest of us.
Did you read the Top Six thread after your misinterpretation of what
went down for the last 5 years was exposed?
REPOST from that thread:
https://evolutionnews.org/2017/11/ids-top-six-the-origin-of-the-universe/
QUOTE:
Editor’s note: In the past we’ve offered the top 10 problems with
Darwinian evolution (see here for a fuller elaboration), and the top
five problems with origin-of-life theories. But somehow we neglected to
offer a parallel listing of the top lines of evidence supporting
intelligent design. Many different pieces of evidence pointing to design
in nature could be adduced, but we decided to distill it all down to six
major lines of evidence. Sure, five or ten would have been more
conventional, but when did ID advocates start playing to expectations?
So here they are, their order simply reflecting that in which they must
logically have occurred within our universe. Material is adapted from
the textbook Discovering Intelligent Design, which is an excellent
resource for introducing the evidence for ID, along with Stephen Meyer’s >> books Signature in the Cell and Darwin’s Doubt.
END QUOTE:
END REPOST:
The ID perps made the mistake of putting the gap denial stupidity
together as a Top Six, and made the blunder of telling the rubes that
they were connected in their order of occurrence. Traditionally the
scientific creationists and ID perps have used them as disembodied bits
of denial that were supposed to have been used to allow the rubes to lie
to themselves just long enough to forget them and be lied to about
something else. The Top Six were never supposed to be used to form any
type of coherent god hypothesis. The IDiots posting to TO could not
deal with them as the best evidence that they had for ID in their order
of occurrence because that just isn't biblical enough for them. I never
tried to refute the Top Six. All that I had to do was present them as
the ID perps had presented them. How I used them depended on them being
the best evidence that the ID scam had going for it. There was no
reason to refute them.
What happened in the last 5 years on TO after the Top Six was put out by
the ID perps? Something that had been dying for decades was just given
up on by the remaining IDiots. It wasn't because I refuted the Top Six.
It was because the IDiots could not deal with them as the best
evidence that the creationists had. They didn't want their designer to
fill those gaps. No science that the ID perps could have ever
accomplished would have been anything that the biblical creationists
rubes would want to believe. What would have happened if Behe had
demonstrated that some designer was responsible for his 3 neutral
mutations to create some functional part of the flagellum? It would
have happened over a billion years ago in a context where progenitors
existed that did not have the 3 neutral mutations, but they came to
exist in the lineage within Behe's specified amount of time. IC is #4
of the Top Six. You already know that the IDiot type creationists can't
stand the designer responsible for the Big Bang (#1 of the Top Six). It
is one of the science topics that they want dropped out of the science
standards. The majority of IDiots are still YEC, and even though the
AIG still uses the Big Bang gap denial at their creation museum most YEC
IDiots with a clue understand that it is something that they never want
their kids to be exposed to. Meyer made his IDiotic reputation with the
Cambrian explosion gap denial. It made #5 of the Top Six because it
occurred after the flagellum had evolved in bacteria. Meyer's denial
depends on reducing the span of the Cambrian explosion to it's current
estimate of 25 million years over half a billion years ago. How many
IDiots would have been happy about Meyer succeeding in demonstrating
that his designer was responsible for the Cambrian explosion? Any
creationist scientific success with the Top Six would have just been
more to deny by the majority of IDiot rubes. Sewell dropped out IC and
the Cambrian explosion from his version of the Top Six and Miller
removed the Big Bang. That is how much even other ID perps appreciate
the initial effort.
The Top Six taken in "their order simply reflecting that in which they
must logically have occurred within our universe" meant that nothing
that any ID perp came up with would be accepted by the majority of
IDiots. That is likely the main reason why no ID science was ever
attempted. Just the claims were made, and that is all IDiocy ever was.
The mistake of finally putting out the Top Six killed IDiocy on TO. I
only had to make the IDiots face the Top Six as the best evidence that
they had in the order of occurrence that the ID perps had told them that
they had occurred in.
Pagano claimed that they were bogus and quit posting. Kalk ran from
them and started a campaign with Glenn to post the second rate junk that
didn't make the Top Six as evidence that IDiocy was still viable, but
Kalk couldn't keep doing that to himself when I kept forcing the issue
of the Top Six that were supposed to be better than the junk he was
posting. Kalk quit the ID scam, and claimed that he had never claimed
to be Hindu and came out as a plain vanilla biblical creationists. Bill
really did claim that he had never supported the ID scam in response to
the Top Six. MarkE had never really bought into the ID scam and
understood that there wasn't any ID science, but he couldn't give up on
the Top Six gap denial arguments. He tried to keep putting them up one
at a time. He started spending a lot of effort on #3 (the origin of
life on earth). He settled on trying to define the gap in as much
detail as he could in order to claim that the gap would never be filled
by scientific efforts. He had to understand a lot about what we
understood of what was around the gap, so I just asked him to put his
god in the gap that he was creating. He claimed that he didn't have to
do that, but since he was creating the gap in order to support his
religious beliefs it would be stupid not to do it. It turned out that
he didn't want to believe in the god that filled the gap that he had
created, and he quit posting. If he hadn't tried to use them as
independent bits of denial and had, had to deal with them in an honest
and straight forward manner as the Top Six he would have never continued
with the gap denial.
All of this really happened in relation to the Top Six. I never tried
to refute them. I just kept presenting them as the best evidence for ID
in the order of occurrence that the ID perps had placed them in. You
should know that IDiots do not want their kids to understand the Big
Bang, you should know that most of the stalwart IDiots left on TO
couldn't stand to deal with them in an honest and straightforward
manner. You should know that Pagano claimed that they were bogus and
were not the Top Six best evidences for IDiocy before he quit posting.
Even MarkE couldn't accept the Top Six when forced to deal with them as
they are related to the rest of reality. There just are not very many
Biblical creationists that can deal with a designer responsible for the
Top Six. That designer just is not Biblical enough for them. It turned
out that there wasn't any science that IDiots wanted to accomplish that
would support the existence of some intelligent designer. The Top Six
forced the TO IDiots to understand that fact.
The ID perps have never created a public school lesson plan that
demonstrated what they wanted to teach and how they would want to teach
it. The Top Six would obviously be a scam killer for most IDiotic
creationists still in existence, and if you aren't going to teach the
best why would you teach anything at all. They may still be selling the
teach ID scam to the rubes, but there likely was never any viable plan
to teach the best evidence for ID in the public schools.
The bait and switch has gone down on every creationist rube that has
wanted to teach ID in the public schools. The ID Perps have been
protecting the rubes from suffering any success because most of them
would not be happy if the best evidence for IDiocy was taught to their
kids in the "order simply reflecting that in which they must logically
have occurred within our universe."
Ron Okimoto
On Tue, 2 May 2023 06:16:33 -0500, the following appeared in
talk.origins, posted by RonO <rokimoto@cox.net>:
On 5/1/2023 12:20 PM, Bob Casanova wrote:Asserting, even implicitly, that my comment about your
On Sun, 30 Apr 2023 20:27:33 -0500, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by RonO <rokimoto@cox.net>:
On 4/30/2023 6:48 PM, Bob Casanova wrote:[sigh...]
On Sun, 30 Apr 2023 18:18:59 -0500, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by RonO <rokimoto@cox.net>:
What is nuts is that he started harassing me about something that he was >>>>>> wrong aboutOK, one more try...
Exactly *what* did I write, and what, in what I wrote, was I
wrong about? Be specific, with quotes.
QUOTE:
Because nearly every post of yours is a rant about ID, the
"Top Six", and anything else you can think of related to
this particular idiotic branch of creationism. What did you
*think* I meant by "off and running again"?
END QUOTE:
This is exactly what they were all wrong about. My posts on the Top Six >>>> were not rants, and I never tried to refute the Top Six.
Whether a post qualifies as a "rant" depends on many things,
one of which is repetition. Based on the number of times
you've posted essentially the same material, sometimes in
almost the same words, to me the seemingly-endless
repetition qualifies as "ranting". Obviously you disagree,
but that doesn't mean you're right and that my statement was
factually "wrong"; it's a matter of opinion. And I didn't
harass you; I made *one* comment, "A-a-a-and we're off and
running again" when that started. You called that "wrong"
and "willfully ignorant". The first is a matter of opinion;
the second was meaningless since I made no claims other than
the observation that you were starting another round of the
same thing. Which you were.
And I never claimed you tried to refute your "Top Six"; I
said you repeatedly wrote about it.
Define it how you will, but the "rant" was never bashing the IDiot rubes
with some type of refutation of the Top Six. It was only putting up the
Top Six again so that they had trouble remaining as willfully ignorant
as they wanted to be. You chimed in when Mark and Daggett had made that
false accusation in support of them.
behavior showed "support" for the perennial subjects of your
obsession shows a remarkable lack of acumen.
Yes, we know all that. We also know that you post it
It only had to be repeated for so long because it took Glenn and Kalk so
long to realize the stupidity of what they were doing by running from
the Top Six and pretending that they didn't exist. The Top Six came up
multiple times in the past year because Nyikos didn't have a clue as to
why the other IDiots folded up and quit, and was harrassing me about my
Top Six posts claiming that I wasn't refuting anything. I had to to
tell him that I had never tried to refute the Top Six. Nyikos even
pulled up an old thread where Dean had forgotten his previous bouts with
the Top Six, and it turned out that all that I had tried to do with Dean
was to get him to understand what the Top Six actually were. It took
years before Dean figured out why the other creationists couldn't stand
the Top Six, and if he ever comes back, he may have forgotten what
happened the last time when he finally admitted that he did not want to
understand how the Top Six related to his religious beliefs. It is a
stupid claim to make when we all know that the creationists are using
them to support their religious beliefs. The Top Six just tell most
IDiot type creationists that they don't want to believe in the designer
that fills those gaps.
repeatedly, as if everyone in t.o needs the constant
repetition so we don't "backslide" into idiocy. I certainly
don't, no matter how many times you falsely accuse me of
"willful ignorance". I made a simple comment about your
posting habits, and you blew it up into a major argument,
complete with repetitive insults. Sobeit; I won;t be
responding again.
Or maybe, didn't think it was all important enough to waste
If you readAnd there you go again. Once more, noting that you seem to
the posts, I just put up the Top Six as the ID perps put them up. That >>>> is all that I needed to do, and show how the ID perps didn't even want >>>> to deal with the best evidence that they had in any honest and
straightforward manner. Just the existence of the Top Six given to the >>>> rubes in their order of occurrence was enough to kill IDiocy on TO. I >>>> never had to refute anything, and never had to browbeat any IDiot with >>>> any refutation of the Top Six. I relied on them being the best evidence >>>> that the ID perps had to offer to the rubes. It was the IDiot rubes
that could not deal with them. The designer that fills the gaps of the >>>> Top Six god-of-the-gaps IDiotic denial is not biblical enough for the
majority of IDiots in existence. None of the TO IDiots could face the >>>> Top Six as the best that they had when presented as a whole in their
order of occurrence.
Mark and likely Broger understand that, now, but you, obviously, do not. >>>> You had the chance to alleviate your ignorant misinterpretation of
reality, but you refused to do that.
be obsessed with both ID and the "Top Six", and post about
them repeatedly, doesn't indicate ignorance of them; it
merely notes your obsession. Yeah, they're a bunch of bozos,
but I knew that years ago, and it's not as if they're any
real threat, at least not now. And probably not ever, any
more than the Flat Earth Society is a threat to rational
science.
And so you just don't get it. The ID perps gave the rubes the Top Six
and claimed that they were in their expected order of occurrence. Bill
and Pagano folded fairly quickly. Bill still posts, but he isn't an
IDiot any longer. He did make the claim that he had never supported the
ID scam when the Top Six came out. Pagano claimed that they were bogus
and that they were not the best evidence for IDiocy before he quit
posting. The rest tried to run and remain willfully ignorant, so I just
kept reminding them that the Top Six existed, and kept giving it to them
as the ID perps had presented them. Kalk eventually could not remain
that willfully ignorant and eventually quit the ID scam and claimed that
he had never claimed to be Hindu and became a plain biblical
creationist. Glenn only recently quit posting the junk after a bout
where he posted 4 of the Top Six topics in a week and it was obvious
that he didn't know that he was posting junk that he had been running
from for half a decade. It had to be crushing to demonstrate to
yourself that you didn't care enough about what you used to support the
ID scam to understand that they were topics that you knew that you
couldn't deal with. Nyikos was the last because he had likely stayed
willfully ignorant of the Top Six. He was MIA when they were first put
up and was on some type of posting break, and when he came back he
ignored the Top Six until he needed some new subject to harass me about.
He really did try to harass me with the claim that I was not refuting
the Top Six in my Top Six posts, and I had to tell him that I never
tried to refute the Top Six. He went on for months anyway and somewhere
in there I told him to just try to use them to support directed
panspermia. He has recently made the attempt and pretty much destroyed
any chance directed panspermia was at all a valid alternative to the
usual IDiocy. He had to invoke god-like aliens created in another
universe to save directed panspermia in the face of the best evidence
that ID had going for it. Nyikos was the major reason the Top Six came
up so often in the last year, and now you guys are the reason. It looks
like most of the TO regulars didn't have a clue as to what was
happening, just like Nyikos.
hours on it? Ever think of that possibility? Everything you
wrote above is well-known and well-rehashed here. "Not a
clue" doesn't apply; "tired of seeing it over and over"
does.This is basically an argument between you and the
IDists; you certainly have a right to reiterate it in
perpetuity, and I have a right to occasionally comment on
that reiteration. Just stop with the "willful ignorance"
crap when I do so; it's not ignorance, but eyerolling due to
being lectured once again regarding a well-known subject.
HAND
Now, based on your previous replies (not "responses"; that
would indicate that you understood what I wrote and
addressed it) I'm fairly confident that you'll again fall
back on claims of "wrongness" and "willful ignorance" rather
than reading *and understanding* what I wrote; sobeit. It's
rather a shame, since when you're not obsessing about your
favorite boogeymen you post some quite interesting material,
as you have today.
Do you understand what happened with respect to the Top Six? If you
still do not, your above statement is lacking. Was your perception of
what happened the correct one? Are you no longer ignorant of what you
were complaining about? What did you think was happening for the last 5
years? What actually happened?
On 4/30/2023 9:38 PM, jillery wrote:
On Sun, 30 Apr 2023 08:55:29 -0500, RonO <rokimoto@cox.net> wrote:
On 4/29/2023 5:37 PM, Mark Isaak wrote:
On 4/28/23 3:54 PM, RonO wrote:
On 4/28/2023 9:14 AM, Mark Isaak wrote:
[...]
I get the impression your *only* concern is with intelligent design, >>>>>> and you don't give a damn about the underlying issues of science
denial and religious bigotry.
Nope. Wrong again. I acknowledge that there is still an issue, but >>>>> currently the ID perps are controlling the creationist rubes so that >>>>> nothing they do ever amounts to anything, and the sad reality is that >>>>> the majority of IDiots never wanted the ID perps to produce any ID
science.
Do you have any evidence for this? From my view of creationism, the
case on the ground is pretty much just the opposite. ID is mostly dead, >>>> but creationism is as alive as it has been for the last 20,000 years.
Creationists still cite things like "irreducible complexity" every once >>>> in a while, but only in passing. The latest idea from the ICR that
might qualify as a design theory is that all animals are created, as
individuals, with an ability to rapidly adapt to environmental changes, >>>> and this is where appearances of evolution come from. I have never seen >>>> any of the ID folks involved, even peripherally, with this.
For some reason this post didn't show up on eternal september, so I am
reposting it as a test. It did show up on google groups.
It's not clear to which post your "this post" refers, but I received
from E-S all of the posts to which it might refer, including the
original one you copied below. Here is part of the header from the
original:
***************************************
From: RonO <rokimoto@cox.net>
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: Uncommon Descent dead
Date: Sat, 29 Apr 2023 21:48:04 -0500
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 179
Sender: news@beagle.ediacara.org
Approved: moderator@beagle.ediacara.org
Message-ID: <u2kkt5$36015$2@dont-email.me>
***************************************
E-S has a habit of delaying delivery of some posts to T.O., but that's
is diagnosed by looking at the different time stamps in the headers.
The above post doesn't have that problem. This suggests a problem
with your news reader or even with the operator.
The post that I reposted did not show up, and still hasn't shown up on
my eternal september account.
Ron Okimoto
On 4/29/2023 5:37 PM, Mark Isaak wrote:
On 4/28/23 3:54 PM, RonO wrote:
On 4/28/2023 9:14 AM, Mark Isaak wrote:
[...]
I get the impression your *only* concern is with intelligent design, >>>>>> and you don't give a damn about the underlying issues of science
denial and religious bigotry.
Nope. Wrong again. I acknowledge that there is still an issue, but >>>>> currently the ID perps are controlling the creationist rubes so that >>>>> nothing they do ever amounts to anything, and the sad reality is that >>>>> the majority of IDiots never wanted the ID perps to produce any ID
science.
Do you have any evidence for this? From my view of creationism, the
case on the ground is pretty much just the opposite. ID is mostly dead, >>>> but creationism is as alive as it has been for the last 20,000 years.
Creationists still cite things like "irreducible complexity" every once >>>> in a while, but only in passing. The latest idea from the ICR that
might qualify as a design theory is that all animals are created, as
individuals, with an ability to rapidly adapt to environmental changes, >>>> and this is where appearances of evolution come from. I have never seen >>>> any of the ID folks involved, even peripherally, with this.
The current reality is that none of the politically motivated
creationists take organizations like the ICR or AIG seriously. Even the
most recent attempt to sneak creationism in by the one sentence addition >>> to an existing act in West Virginia, called what they wanted taught
intelligent design and not biblical creationism. The ID perps have been
pretty successful in getting the rubes to understand that young earth
scientific creationism is a dead end, politically. They have convinced
the rubes that they have something better, and still acceptable to the
creationist rubes.
The evidence is the history of the creationist ID scam. You lived it
with the rest of us.
Did you read the Top Six thread after your misinterpretation of what
went down for the last 5 years was exposed?
REPOST from that thread:
https://evolutionnews.org/2017/11/ids-top-six-the-origin-of-the-universe/ >>>
QUOTE:
Editor’s note: In the past we’ve offered the top 10 problems with
Darwinian evolution (see here for a fuller elaboration), and the top
five problems with origin-of-life theories. But somehow we neglected to
offer a parallel listing of the top lines of evidence supporting
intelligent design. Many different pieces of evidence pointing to design >>> in nature could be adduced, but we decided to distill it all down to six >>> major lines of evidence. Sure, five or ten would have been more
conventional, but when did ID advocates start playing to expectations?
So here they are, their order simply reflecting that in which they must
logically have occurred within our universe. Material is adapted from
the textbook Discovering Intelligent Design, which is an excellent
resource for introducing the evidence for ID, along with Stephen Meyer’s >>> books Signature in the Cell and Darwin’s Doubt.
END QUOTE:
END REPOST:
The ID perps made the mistake of putting the gap denial stupidity
together as a Top Six, and made the blunder of telling the rubes that
they were connected in their order of occurrence. Traditionally the
scientific creationists and ID perps have used them as disembodied bits
of denial that were supposed to have been used to allow the rubes to lie >>> to themselves just long enough to forget them and be lied to about
something else. The Top Six were never supposed to be used to form any
type of coherent god hypothesis. The IDiots posting to TO could not
deal with them as the best evidence that they had for ID in their order
of occurrence because that just isn't biblical enough for them. I never
tried to refute the Top Six. All that I had to do was present them as
the ID perps had presented them. How I used them depended on them being
the best evidence that the ID scam had going for it. There was no
reason to refute them.
What happened in the last 5 years on TO after the Top Six was put out by >>> the ID perps? Something that had been dying for decades was just given
up on by the remaining IDiots. It wasn't because I refuted the Top Six.
It was because the IDiots could not deal with them as the best
evidence that the creationists had. They didn't want their designer to
fill those gaps. No science that the ID perps could have ever
accomplished would have been anything that the biblical creationists
rubes would want to believe. What would have happened if Behe had
demonstrated that some designer was responsible for his 3 neutral
mutations to create some functional part of the flagellum? It would
have happened over a billion years ago in a context where progenitors
existed that did not have the 3 neutral mutations, but they came to
exist in the lineage within Behe's specified amount of time. IC is #4
of the Top Six. You already know that the IDiot type creationists can't
stand the designer responsible for the Big Bang (#1 of the Top Six). It
is one of the science topics that they want dropped out of the science
standards. The majority of IDiots are still YEC, and even though the
AIG still uses the Big Bang gap denial at their creation museum most YEC >>> IDiots with a clue understand that it is something that they never want
their kids to be exposed to. Meyer made his IDiotic reputation with the
Cambrian explosion gap denial. It made #5 of the Top Six because it
occurred after the flagellum had evolved in bacteria. Meyer's denial
depends on reducing the span of the Cambrian explosion to it's current
estimate of 25 million years over half a billion years ago. How many
IDiots would have been happy about Meyer succeeding in demonstrating
that his designer was responsible for the Cambrian explosion? Any
creationist scientific success with the Top Six would have just been
more to deny by the majority of IDiot rubes. Sewell dropped out IC and
the Cambrian explosion from his version of the Top Six and Miller
removed the Big Bang. That is how much even other ID perps appreciate
the initial effort.
The Top Six taken in "their order simply reflecting that in which they
must logically have occurred within our universe" meant that nothing
that any ID perp came up with would be accepted by the majority of
IDiots. That is likely the main reason why no ID science was ever
attempted. Just the claims were made, and that is all IDiocy ever was.
The mistake of finally putting out the Top Six killed IDiocy on TO. I
only had to make the IDiots face the Top Six as the best evidence that
they had in the order of occurrence that the ID perps had told them that >>> they had occurred in.
Pagano claimed that they were bogus and quit posting. Kalk ran from
them and started a campaign with Glenn to post the second rate junk that >>> didn't make the Top Six as evidence that IDiocy was still viable, but
Kalk couldn't keep doing that to himself when I kept forcing the issue
of the Top Six that were supposed to be better than the junk he was
posting. Kalk quit the ID scam, and claimed that he had never claimed
to be Hindu and came out as a plain vanilla biblical creationists. Bill
really did claim that he had never supported the ID scam in response to
the Top Six. MarkE had never really bought into the ID scam and
understood that there wasn't any ID science, but he couldn't give up on
the Top Six gap denial arguments. He tried to keep putting them up one
at a time. He started spending a lot of effort on #3 (the origin of
life on earth). He settled on trying to define the gap in as much
detail as he could in order to claim that the gap would never be filled
by scientific efforts. He had to understand a lot about what we
understood of what was around the gap, so I just asked him to put his
god in the gap that he was creating. He claimed that he didn't have to
do that, but since he was creating the gap in order to support his
religious beliefs it would be stupid not to do it. It turned out that
he didn't want to believe in the god that filled the gap that he had
created, and he quit posting. If he hadn't tried to use them as
independent bits of denial and had, had to deal with them in an honest
and straight forward manner as the Top Six he would have never continued >>> with the gap denial.
All of this really happened in relation to the Top Six. I never tried
to refute them. I just kept presenting them as the best evidence for ID
in the order of occurrence that the ID perps had placed them in. You
should know that IDiots do not want their kids to understand the Big
Bang, you should know that most of the stalwart IDiots left on TO
couldn't stand to deal with them in an honest and straightforward
manner. You should know that Pagano claimed that they were bogus and
were not the Top Six best evidences for IDiocy before he quit posting.
Even MarkE couldn't accept the Top Six when forced to deal with them as
they are related to the rest of reality. There just are not very many
Biblical creationists that can deal with a designer responsible for the
Top Six. That designer just is not Biblical enough for them. It turned
out that there wasn't any science that IDiots wanted to accomplish that
would support the existence of some intelligent designer. The Top Six
forced the TO IDiots to understand that fact.
The ID perps have never created a public school lesson plan that
demonstrated what they wanted to teach and how they would want to teach
it. The Top Six would obviously be a scam killer for most IDiotic
creationists still in existence, and if you aren't going to teach the
best why would you teach anything at all. They may still be selling the
teach ID scam to the rubes, but there likely was never any viable plan
to teach the best evidence for ID in the public schools.
The bait and switch has gone down on every creationist rube that has
wanted to teach ID in the public schools. The ID Perps have been
protecting the rubes from suffering any success because most of them
would not be happy if the best evidence for IDiocy was taught to their
kids in the "order simply reflecting that in which they must logically
have occurred within our universe."
Ron Okimoto
On Tue, 2 May 2023 18:01:33 -0500, RonO <rokimoto@cox.net> wrote:
On 4/30/2023 9:38 PM, jillery wrote:
On Sun, 30 Apr 2023 08:55:29 -0500, RonO <rokimoto@cox.net> wrote:
On 4/29/2023 5:37 PM, Mark Isaak wrote:
On 4/28/23 3:54 PM, RonO wrote:
On 4/28/2023 9:14 AM, Mark Isaak wrote:
[...]
I get the impression your *only* concern is with intelligent design, >>>>>>> and you don't give a damn about the underlying issues of science >>>>>>> denial and religious bigotry.
Nope. Wrong again. I acknowledge that there is still an issue, but >>>>>> currently the ID perps are controlling the creationist rubes so that >>>>>> nothing they do ever amounts to anything, and the sad reality is that >>>>>> the majority of IDiots never wanted the ID perps to produce any ID >>>>>> science.
Do you have any evidence for this? From my view of creationism, the >>>>> case on the ground is pretty much just the opposite. ID is mostly dead, >>>>> but creationism is as alive as it has been for the last 20,000 years. >>>>> Creationists still cite things like "irreducible complexity" every once >>>>> in a while, but only in passing. The latest idea from the ICR that >>>>> might qualify as a design theory is that all animals are created, as >>>>> individuals, with an ability to rapidly adapt to environmental changes, >>>>> and this is where appearances of evolution come from. I have never seen >>>>> any of the ID folks involved, even peripherally, with this.
For some reason this post didn't show up on eternal september, so I am >>>> reposting it as a test. It did show up on google groups.
It's not clear to which post your "this post" refers, but I received
from E-S all of the posts to which it might refer, including the
original one you copied below. Here is part of the header from the
original:
***************************************
From: RonO <rokimoto@cox.net>
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: Uncommon Descent dead
Date: Sat, 29 Apr 2023 21:48:04 -0500
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 179
Sender: news@beagle.ediacara.org
Approved: moderator@beagle.ediacara.org
Message-ID: <u2kkt5$36015$2@dont-email.me>
***************************************
E-S has a habit of delaying delivery of some posts to T.O., but that's
is diagnosed by looking at the different time stamps in the headers.
The above post doesn't have that problem. This suggests a problem
with your news reader or even with the operator.
The post that I reposted did not show up, and still hasn't shown up on
my eternal september account.
Ron Okimoto
Your news reader doesn't request posts past the date of the last post
you received, unless you explicitly tell it to. The fact that I
received from E-S the original posts you reposted proves they have it.
Once again, E-S from time-to-time delays delivery of specific posts to
T.O., sometimes for days. When you refresh your newsreader before E-S finally distributes that post, your news reader won't get it, even
though they have it.
That you missed one post suggests you have missed/will miss others. It happens to me too. It's in your self-interest to identify the actual
cause and/or figure out a workaround.
On 4/29/2023 5:37 PM, Mark Isaak wrote:
On 4/28/23 3:54 PM, RonO wrote:
On 4/28/2023 9:14 AM, Mark Isaak wrote:
[...]
I get the impression your *only* concern is with intelligent design, >>>>>>> and you don't give a damn about the underlying issues of science >>>>>>> denial and religious bigotry.
Nope. Wrong again. I acknowledge that there is still an issue, but >>>>>> currently the ID perps are controlling the creationist rubes so that >>>>>> nothing they do ever amounts to anything, and the sad reality is that >>>>>> the majority of IDiots never wanted the ID perps to produce any ID >>>>>> science.
Do you have any evidence for this? From my view of creationism, the >>>>> case on the ground is pretty much just the opposite. ID is mostly dead, >>>>> but creationism is as alive as it has been for the last 20,000 years. >>>>> Creationists still cite things like "irreducible complexity" every once >>>>> in a while, but only in passing. The latest idea from the ICR that
might qualify as a design theory is that all animals are created, as >>>>> individuals, with an ability to rapidly adapt to environmental changes, >>>>> and this is where appearances of evolution come from. I have never seen >>>>> any of the ID folks involved, even peripherally, with this.
The current reality is that none of the politically motivated
creationists take organizations like the ICR or AIG seriously. Even the >>>> most recent attempt to sneak creationism in by the one sentence addition >>>> to an existing act in West Virginia, called what they wanted taught
intelligent design and not biblical creationism. The ID perps have been >>>> pretty successful in getting the rubes to understand that young earth
scientific creationism is a dead end, politically. They have convinced >>>> the rubes that they have something better, and still acceptable to the >>>> creationist rubes.
The evidence is the history of the creationist ID scam. You lived it
with the rest of us.
Did you read the Top Six thread after your misinterpretation of what
went down for the last 5 years was exposed?
REPOST from that thread:
https://evolutionnews.org/2017/11/ids-top-six-the-origin-of-the-universe/ >>>>
QUOTE:
Editor’s note: In the past we’ve offered the top 10 problems with
Darwinian evolution (see here for a fuller elaboration), and the top
five problems with origin-of-life theories. But somehow we neglected to >>>> offer a parallel listing of the top lines of evidence supporting
intelligent design. Many different pieces of evidence pointing to design >>>> in nature could be adduced, but we decided to distill it all down to six >>>> major lines of evidence. Sure, five or ten would have been more
conventional, but when did ID advocates start playing to expectations? >>>>
So here they are, their order simply reflecting that in which they must >>>> logically have occurred within our universe. Material is adapted from
the textbook Discovering Intelligent Design, which is an excellent
resource for introducing the evidence for ID, along with Stephen Meyer’s >>>> books Signature in the Cell and Darwin’s Doubt.
END QUOTE:
END REPOST:
The ID perps made the mistake of putting the gap denial stupidity
together as a Top Six, and made the blunder of telling the rubes that
they were connected in their order of occurrence. Traditionally the
scientific creationists and ID perps have used them as disembodied bits >>>> of denial that were supposed to have been used to allow the rubes to lie >>>> to themselves just long enough to forget them and be lied to about
something else. The Top Six were never supposed to be used to form any >>>> type of coherent god hypothesis. The IDiots posting to TO could not
deal with them as the best evidence that they had for ID in their order >>>> of occurrence because that just isn't biblical enough for them. I never >>>> tried to refute the Top Six. All that I had to do was present them as
the ID perps had presented them. How I used them depended on them being >>>> the best evidence that the ID scam had going for it. There was no
reason to refute them.
What happened in the last 5 years on TO after the Top Six was put out by >>>> the ID perps? Something that had been dying for decades was just given >>>> up on by the remaining IDiots. It wasn't because I refuted the Top Six. >>>> It was because the IDiots could not deal with them as the best
evidence that the creationists had. They didn't want their designer to >>>> fill those gaps. No science that the ID perps could have ever
accomplished would have been anything that the biblical creationists
rubes would want to believe. What would have happened if Behe had
demonstrated that some designer was responsible for his 3 neutral
mutations to create some functional part of the flagellum? It would
have happened over a billion years ago in a context where progenitors
existed that did not have the 3 neutral mutations, but they came to
exist in the lineage within Behe's specified amount of time. IC is #4
of the Top Six. You already know that the IDiot type creationists can't >>>> stand the designer responsible for the Big Bang (#1 of the Top Six). It >>>> is one of the science topics that they want dropped out of the science >>>> standards. The majority of IDiots are still YEC, and even though the
AIG still uses the Big Bang gap denial at their creation museum most YEC >>>> IDiots with a clue understand that it is something that they never want >>>> their kids to be exposed to. Meyer made his IDiotic reputation with the >>>> Cambrian explosion gap denial. It made #5 of the Top Six because it
occurred after the flagellum had evolved in bacteria. Meyer's denial
depends on reducing the span of the Cambrian explosion to it's current >>>> estimate of 25 million years over half a billion years ago. How many
IDiots would have been happy about Meyer succeeding in demonstrating
that his designer was responsible for the Cambrian explosion? Any
creationist scientific success with the Top Six would have just been
more to deny by the majority of IDiot rubes. Sewell dropped out IC and >>>> the Cambrian explosion from his version of the Top Six and Miller
removed the Big Bang. That is how much even other ID perps appreciate
the initial effort.
The Top Six taken in "their order simply reflecting that in which they >>>> must logically have occurred within our universe" meant that nothing
that any ID perp came up with would be accepted by the majority of
IDiots. That is likely the main reason why no ID science was ever
attempted. Just the claims were made, and that is all IDiocy ever was. >>>>
The mistake of finally putting out the Top Six killed IDiocy on TO. I
only had to make the IDiots face the Top Six as the best evidence that >>>> they had in the order of occurrence that the ID perps had told them that >>>> they had occurred in.
Pagano claimed that they were bogus and quit posting. Kalk ran from
them and started a campaign with Glenn to post the second rate junk that >>>> didn't make the Top Six as evidence that IDiocy was still viable, but
Kalk couldn't keep doing that to himself when I kept forcing the issue >>>> of the Top Six that were supposed to be better than the junk he was
posting. Kalk quit the ID scam, and claimed that he had never claimed
to be Hindu and came out as a plain vanilla biblical creationists. Bill >>>> really did claim that he had never supported the ID scam in response to >>>> the Top Six. MarkE had never really bought into the ID scam and
understood that there wasn't any ID science, but he couldn't give up on >>>> the Top Six gap denial arguments. He tried to keep putting them up one >>>> at a time. He started spending a lot of effort on #3 (the origin of
life on earth). He settled on trying to define the gap in as much
detail as he could in order to claim that the gap would never be filled >>>> by scientific efforts. He had to understand a lot about what we
understood of what was around the gap, so I just asked him to put his
god in the gap that he was creating. He claimed that he didn't have to >>>> do that, but since he was creating the gap in order to support his
religious beliefs it would be stupid not to do it. It turned out that
he didn't want to believe in the god that filled the gap that he had
created, and he quit posting. If he hadn't tried to use them as
independent bits of denial and had, had to deal with them in an honest >>>> and straight forward manner as the Top Six he would have never continued >>>> with the gap denial.
All of this really happened in relation to the Top Six. I never tried
to refute them. I just kept presenting them as the best evidence for ID >>>> in the order of occurrence that the ID perps had placed them in. You
should know that IDiots do not want their kids to understand the Big
Bang, you should know that most of the stalwart IDiots left on TO
couldn't stand to deal with them in an honest and straightforward
manner. You should know that Pagano claimed that they were bogus and
were not the Top Six best evidences for IDiocy before he quit posting. >>>> Even MarkE couldn't accept the Top Six when forced to deal with them as >>>> they are related to the rest of reality. There just are not very many
Biblical creationists that can deal with a designer responsible for the >>>> Top Six. That designer just is not Biblical enough for them. It turned >>>> out that there wasn't any science that IDiots wanted to accomplish that >>>> would support the existence of some intelligent designer. The Top Six
forced the TO IDiots to understand that fact.
The ID perps have never created a public school lesson plan that
demonstrated what they wanted to teach and how they would want to teach >>>> it. The Top Six would obviously be a scam killer for most IDiotic
creationists still in existence, and if you aren't going to teach the
best why would you teach anything at all. They may still be selling the >>>> teach ID scam to the rubes, but there likely was never any viable plan >>>> to teach the best evidence for ID in the public schools.
The bait and switch has gone down on every creationist rube that has
wanted to teach ID in the public schools. The ID Perps have been
protecting the rubes from suffering any success because most of them
would not be happy if the best evidence for IDiocy was taught to their >>>> kids in the "order simply reflecting that in which they must logically >>>> have occurred within our universe."
Ron Okimoto
For some reason this post didn't show up on eternal september, so I am >>>>> reposting it as a test. It did show up on google groups.
It's not clear to which post your "this post" refers, but I received
from E-S all of the posts to which it might refer, including the
original one you copied below. Here is part of the header from the
original:
***************************************
From: RonO <rokimoto@cox.net>
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: Uncommon Descent dead
Date: Sat, 29 Apr 2023 21:48:04 -0500
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 179
Sender: news@beagle.ediacara.org
Approved: moderator@beagle.ediacara.org
Message-ID: <u2kkt5$36015$2@dont-email.me>
***************************************
E-S has a habit of delaying delivery of some posts to T.O., but that's >>>> is diagnosed by looking at the different time stamps in the headers.
The above post doesn't have that problem. This suggests a problem
with your news reader or even with the operator.
The post that I reposted did not show up, and still hasn't shown up on
my eternal september account.
Ron Okimoto
Your news reader doesn't request posts past the date of the last post
you received, unless you explicitly tell it to. The fact that I
received from E-S the original posts you reposted proves they have it.
Once again, E-S from time-to-time delays delivery of specific posts to
T.O., sometimes for days. When you refresh your newsreader before E-S
finally distributes that post, your news reader won't get it, even
though they have it.
That you missed one post suggests you have missed/will miss others. It
happens to me too. It's in your self-interest to identify the actual
cause and/or figure out a workaround.
It happened twice in a week.
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 307 |
| Nodes: | 16 (2 / 14) |
| Uptime: | 68:18:35 |
| Calls: | 6,915 |
| Files: | 12,379 |
| Messages: | 5,431,882 |