On Sunday, December 3, 2023 at 3:36:57 AM UTC+11, John Harshman wrote:become-more-skeptical-of-common-descent/
On 12/1/23 9:09 PM, MarkE wrote:
Is ID there an position on common descent? This post is just an FYI, as I've seen the question raised here. Here's one example of "provisional" acceptance: https://evolutionnews.org/2023/12/fossil-friday-the-mess-of-arachnid-phylogeny-and-why-ive-
Bechly used to be a saltationist. I see he's devolved (sic) a bit more.
Pity. But to answer your question: no, there is no ID position on common
descent. Different IDiots take different positions, from Behe and Denton
(universal common descent) to RTB (separate creation of each species).
Selective quotes:Your quote presents no reasons for Bechly's switch other than that he
I even discovered that I have to give up one of my very favorite
arguments for common descent. Since this case is cumulative and
somewhat complicated, please bear with me if this article gets a bit
lengthy. However, I promise you will learn something important from
it, even if you should be an evolutionist and skeptical of my
anti-Darwinian conclusions."
When asked why, in spite of my critique of neo-Darwinism and my
endorsement of intelligent design, I still subscribe to common
descent, I have often answered as follows: the hallmark of a good
theory are very specific predictions that are unique to this theory
and successfully confirmed by later discovery of empirical evidence.
The hypothesis of common descent arguably allows for the prediction
of very precise anatomical details of hypothetical transitional
forms, that would not be predicted by the hypothesis of common design
without the constraint of shared ancestry. Such predictions have been
made in the published technical literature and have indeed been
confirmed by later discovered fossils of such transitional forms with
precisely the predicted anatomy, which was unknown to occur either in
living or fossil representatives at the time of the prediction.
True skeptics should question everything, and not just everything
apart from Darwinism and materialism. I wholeheartedly endorse the
credo to follow the evidence wherever it leads.
For this reason, I currently and provisionally still think that the
total evidence of all lines of data favors common descent as the most
parsimonious and most elegant explanation. However, I definitely
remain open (and now more sympathetic) to alternatives like
progressive creation combined with other explanations for the pattern
of biological similarities such as Winston Ewert’s dependency graph
hypothesis (Ewert 2018, 2023, Miller 2018, 2023, Reeves 2022; also
see this website), which is based on an analogy to objected oriented
programming, or my own suggestion of a maximization of information
content as a design principle based on pattern cladistic arguments
(Bechly & Meyer 2017). Incidentally, my main quibble with Ewert’s
interesting approach was that it does not allow for similarly precise
successful predictions as the common descent hypothesis. Looks like I
have to reconsider my stance. And if even more conflicting evidence
should ultimately lead me away from the paradigm of common descent,
then so be it.
thinks there are alternative explanations for the pattern. But the fact
is that those explanations are lame and would not be expected to produce
the observed pattern in the data.
Not sure if you read the EN article? My excerpts here would not do Bechly's reasoning justice.
On Sunday, December 3, 2023 at 12:16:58 PM UTC-5, RonO wrote:
On 12/3/2023 6:46 AM, MarkE wrote:snip discussion
On Sunday, December 3, 2023 at 3:36:57 AM UTC+11, John Harshman wrote: >>>> On 12/1/23 9:09 PM, MarkE wrote:
Bechly cites this article, and if he had read it and understood it he
would not have written his denial piece. Bechly is an ID perp and
joined the scam
FYI. Something like 95% of those who began reading your post will decide
not to read more after reading "perp" and "scam".
This may not matter to you as to some approximation you seem to be talking
to yourself, which is somewhat self-consistent with the ranting. If, however, there's some remote sense of awareness remaining, and you actually want others to read your posts, you should take note of the effect your fixation on
the words "perp" and "scam" (and "rubes") have upon potential readers.
My prediction is that you will blame the readership, somewhat akin to a would-be
politician blaming the voters for not electing them. Most people are too polite to point this out to you again. I don't suffer from the vice of politeness.
Not much, anyway.
On 12/3/2023 11:57 AM, Lawyer Daggett wrote:
On Sunday, December 3, 2023 at 12:16:58 PM UTC-5, RonO wrote:
On 12/3/2023 6:46 AM, MarkE wrote:snip discussion
On Sunday, December 3, 2023 at 3:36:57 AM UTC+11, John Harshman wrote: >>>>> On 12/1/23 9:09 PM, MarkE wrote:
Bechly cites this article, and if he had read it and understood it he
would not have written his denial piece. Bechly is an ID perp and
joined the scam
FYI. Something like 95% of those who began reading your post will decide
not to read more after reading "perp" and "scam".
This may not matter to you as to some approximation you seem to be
talking
to yourself, which is somewhat self-consistent with the ranting. If,
however,
there's some remote sense of awareness remaining, and you actually want
others to read your posts, you should take note of the effect your
fixation on
the words "perp" and "scam" (and "rubes") have upon potential readers.
My prediction is that you will blame the readership, somewhat akin to
a would-be
politician blaming the voters for not electing them. Most people are too
polite to point this out to you again. I don't suffer from the vice of
politeness.
Not much, anyway.
You are knowingly blaming yourself. The simple facts are that the ID
perps have been worse than perps (they run the scam on their own
creationist support base), and IDiots demonstrated themselves to be
worse than idiots long ago. It likely is the fault of those that have
not been able to acknowledge that reality for their own profound misconceptions.
Mark Isaak wrote:
On 12/3/23 5:38 PM, RonO wrote:
On 12/3/2023 11:57 AM, Lawyer Daggett wrote:
On Sunday, December 3, 2023 at 12:16:58 PM UTC-5, RonO wrote:
On 12/3/2023 6:46 AM, MarkE wrote:snip discussion
On Sunday, December 3, 2023 at 3:36:57 AM UTC+11, John Harshman wrote:
On 12/1/23 9:09 PM, MarkE wrote:
Bechly cites this article, and if he had read it and understood it he >>>> would not have written his denial piece. Bechly is an ID perp and
joined the scam
FYI. Something like 95% of those who began reading your post will decide >>> not to read more after reading "perp" and "scam".
This may not matter to you as to some approximation you seem to be
talking
to yourself, which is somewhat self-consistent with the ranting. If,
however,
there's some remote sense of awareness remaining, and you actually want >>> others to read your posts, you should take note of the effect your
fixation on
the words "perp" and "scam" (and "rubes") have upon potential readers. >>>
My prediction is that you will blame the readership, somewhat akin to >>> a would-be
politician blaming the voters for not electing them. Most people are too >>> polite to point this out to you again. I don't suffer from the vice
of politeness.
Not much, anyway.
You are knowingly blaming yourself. The simple facts are that the ID
perps have been worse than perps (they run the scam on their own
creationist support base), and IDiots demonstrated themselves to be
worse than idiots long ago. It likely is the fault of those that have
not been able to acknowledge that reality for their own profound
misconceptions.
Just as an aside, blaming oneself is a virtue. If you are blaming other people, first, you're not going to change anything, and second, there's
an excellent change you are wrong.
Wouldn't you think it's _not_ his objective to change the minds of
people who accept either intelligent design or the Genesis creation
story. His objective is plainly self-serving - that is, he's simply
trying to reassuring himself and other evolutionist of the validity of evolution.
On 12/3/23 5:38 PM, RonO wrote:
On 12/3/2023 11:57 AM, Lawyer Daggett wrote:
On Sunday, December 3, 2023 at 12:16:58 PM UTC-5, RonO wrote:
On 12/3/2023 6:46 AM, MarkE wrote:snip discussion
On Sunday, December 3, 2023 at 3:36:57 AM UTC+11, John Harshman wrote: >>>>>> On 12/1/23 9:09 PM, MarkE wrote:
Bechly cites this article, and if he had read it and understood it he
would not have written his denial piece. Bechly is an ID perp and
joined the scam
FYI. Something like 95% of those who began reading your post will decide >>> not to read more after reading "perp" and "scam".
This may not matter to you as to some approximation you seem to be
talking
to yourself, which is somewhat self-consistent with the ranting. If,
however,
there's some remote sense of awareness remaining, and you actually want
others to read your posts, you should take note of the effect your
fixation on
the words "perp" and "scam" (and "rubes") have upon potential readers.
My prediction is that you will blame the readership, somewhat akin to
a would-be
politician blaming the voters for not electing them. Most people are too >>> polite to point this out to you again. I don't suffer from the vice
of politeness.
Not much, anyway.
You are knowingly blaming yourself. The simple facts are that the ID
perps have been worse than perps (they run the scam on their own
creationist support base), and IDiots demonstrated themselves to be
worse than idiots long ago. It likely is the fault of those that have
not been able to acknowledge that reality for their own profound
misconceptions.
Just as an aside, blaming oneself is a virtue. If you are blaming other people, first, you're not going to change anything, and second, there's
an excellent change you are wrong.
But my main point is to point out that Lawyer Daggett is entirely
correct. You might want to read what he wrote and take it to heart.
Mark Isaak wrote:
On 12/3/23 5:38 PM, RonO wrote:
On 12/3/2023 11:57 AM, Lawyer Daggett wrote:
On Sunday, December 3, 2023 at 12:16:58 PM UTC-5, RonO wrote:
On 12/3/2023 6:46 AM, MarkE wrote:snip discussion
On Sunday, December 3, 2023 at 3:36:57 AM UTC+11, John Harshman
wrote:
On 12/1/23 9:09 PM, MarkE wrote:
Bechly cites this article, and if he had read it and understood it he >>>>> would not have written his denial piece. Bechly is an ID perp and
joined the scam
FYI. Something like 95% of those who began reading your post will
decide
not to read more after reading "perp" and "scam".
This may not matter to you as to some approximation you seem to be
talking
to yourself, which is somewhat self-consistent with the ranting. If,
however,
there's some remote sense of awareness remaining, and you actually want >>>> others to read your posts, you should take note of the effect your
fixation on
the words "perp" and "scam" (and "rubes") have upon potential readers. >>>>
My prediction is that you will blame the readership, somewhat akin
to a would-be
politician blaming the voters for not electing them. Most people are
too
polite to point this out to you again. I don't suffer from the vice
of politeness.
Not much, anyway.
You are knowingly blaming yourself. The simple facts are that the ID
perps have been worse than perps (they run the scam on their own
creationist support base), and IDiots demonstrated themselves to be
worse than idiots long ago. It likely is the fault of those that
have not been able to acknowledge that reality for their own profound
misconceptions.
Just as an aside, blaming oneself is a virtue. If you are blaming
other people, first, you're not going to change anything, and second,
there's an excellent change you are wrong.
Wouldn't you think it's _not_ his objective to change the minds of
people who accept either intelligent design or the Genesis creation
story. His objective is plainly self-serving - that is, he's simply
trying to reassuring himself and other evolutionist of the validity of evolution.
But my main point is to point out that Lawyer Daggett is entirely
correct. You might want to read what he wrote and take it to heart.
Mark Isaak wrote:
On 12/3/23 5:38 PM, RonO wrote:
On 12/3/2023 11:57 AM, Lawyer Daggett wrote:
On Sunday, December 3, 2023 at 12:16:58 PM UTC-5, RonO wrote:
On 12/3/2023 6:46 AM, MarkE wrote:snip discussion
On Sunday, December 3, 2023 at 3:36:57 AM UTC+11, John Harshman
wrote:
On 12/1/23 9:09 PM, MarkE wrote:
Bechly cites this article, and if he had read it and understood it he >>>>> would not have written his denial piece. Bechly is an ID perp and
joined the scam
FYI. Something like 95% of those who began reading your post will
decide
not to read more after reading "perp" and "scam".
This may not matter to you as to some approximation you seem to be
talking
to yourself, which is somewhat self-consistent with the ranting. If,
however,
there's some remote sense of awareness remaining, and you actually want >>>> others to read your posts, you should take note of the effect your
fixation on
the words "perp" and "scam" (and "rubes") have upon potential readers. >>>>
My prediction is that you will blame the readership, somewhat akin
to a would-be
politician blaming the voters for not electing them. Most people are
too
polite to point this out to you again. I don't suffer from the vice
of politeness.
Not much, anyway.
You are knowingly blaming yourself. The simple facts are that the ID
perps have been worse than perps (they run the scam on their own
creationist support base), and IDiots demonstrated themselves to be
worse than idiots long ago. It likely is the fault of those that
have not been able to acknowledge that reality for their own profound
misconceptions.
Just as an aside, blaming oneself is a virtue. If you are blaming
other people, first, you're not going to change anything, and second,
there's an excellent change you are wrong.
Wouldn't you think it's _not_ his objective to change the minds of
people who accept either intelligent design or the Genesis creation
story. His objective is plainly self-serving - that is, he's simply
trying to reassuring himself and other evolutionist of the validity of evolution.
On 12/3/2023 8:44 PM, Mark Isaak wrote:
On 12/3/23 5:38 PM, RonO wrote:
On 12/3/2023 11:57 AM, Lawyer Daggett wrote:
On Sunday, December 3, 2023 at 12:16:58 PM UTC-5, RonO wrote:
On 12/3/2023 6:46 AM, MarkE wrote:snip discussion
On Sunday, December 3, 2023 at 3:36:57 AM UTC+11, John Harshman
wrote:
On 12/1/23 9:09 PM, MarkE wrote:
Bechly cites this article, and if he had read it and understood it he >>>>> would not have written his denial piece. Bechly is an ID perp and
joined the scam
FYI. Something like 95% of those who began reading your post will
decide
not to read more after reading "perp" and "scam".
This may not matter to you as to some approximation you seem to be
talking
to yourself, which is somewhat self-consistent with the ranting. If,
however,
there's some remote sense of awareness remaining, and you actually want >>>> others to read your posts, you should take note of the effect your
fixation on
the words "perp" and "scam" (and "rubes") have upon potential readers. >>>>
My prediction is that you will blame the readership, somewhat akin
to a would-be
politician blaming the voters for not electing them. Most people are
too
polite to point this out to you again. I don't suffer from the vice
of politeness.
Not much, anyway.
You are knowingly blaming yourself. The simple facts are that the ID
perps have been worse than perps (they run the scam on their own
creationist support base), and IDiots demonstrated themselves to be
worse than idiots long ago. It likely is the fault of those that
have not been able to acknowledge that reality for their own profound
misconceptions.
Just as an aside, blaming oneself is a virtue. If you are blaming
other people, first, you're not going to change anything, and second,
there's an excellent change you are wrong.
He is blaming me. You should have posted this to his post.
How much of a chance can I have of being wrong?
 Why did the IDiots quit
after the Top Six was put out by the scam artists that they had been supporting for decades? Why has the bait and switch gone down every
single time that any creationist rubes have taken the ID perps up on
their offer to teach the junk in the public schools. It is just a fact
that the ID perps were running the bait and switch on the Utah
creationist rubes at the same time that they were putting out the Top Six.
Demonstrate that I could be wrong. The bait and switch has been going
down for over 2 decades, and it will go down next time there is a group
of rubes stupid enough to believe the ID perps. The ID perps are still telling educators that the Dover decision was wrong and that they have a scientific theory of ID that can be taught in the public schools, but
what is going to happen if any rubes still exist that are stupid and dishonest enough to believe them?
https://www.discovery.org/f/1453/
You just have to go to the ID scam web site, click on their "Education"
tab, and click on their briefing packet for educators. They have only
been using ID as bait since Ohio in 2002.
But my main point is to point out that Lawyer Daggett is entirely
correct. You might want to read what he wrote and take it to heart.
The time for being nice about reality passed a long time ago.
 I didn't
start calling the ID perps "perps" until just before Dover. The bait
and switch had been going down in every single instance for around 3
years by that time. It was obviously never going to stop. Getting ID
into the public schools was part of the Wedge strategy, but no one was
ever going to get any ID science to teach from the ID perps.
You knew it, so why deny what the ID perps have been for over 20 years?
On 12/4/23 4:03 AM, RonO wrote:
On 12/3/2023 8:44 PM, Mark Isaak wrote:
On 12/3/23 5:38 PM, RonO wrote:
On 12/3/2023 11:57 AM, Lawyer Daggett wrote:
On Sunday, December 3, 2023 at 12:16:58 PM UTC-5, RonO wrote:
On 12/3/2023 6:46 AM, MarkE wrote:snip discussion
On Sunday, December 3, 2023 at 3:36:57 AM UTC+11, John Harshman >>>>>>> wrote:
On 12/1/23 9:09 PM, MarkE wrote:
Bechly cites this article, and if he had read it and understood it he >>>>>> would not have written his denial piece. Bechly is an ID perp and
joined the scam
FYI. Something like 95% of those who began reading your post will
decide
not to read more after reading "perp" and "scam".
This may not matter to you as to some approximation you seem to be
talking
to yourself, which is somewhat self-consistent with the ranting.
If, however,
there's some remote sense of awareness remaining, and you actually
want
others to read your posts, you should take note of the effect your
fixation on
the words "perp" and "scam" (and "rubes") have upon potential readers. >>>>>
My prediction is that you will blame the readership, somewhat akin
to a would-be
politician blaming the voters for not electing them. Most people
are too
polite to point this out to you again. I don't suffer from the vice
of politeness.
Not much, anyway.
You are knowingly blaming yourself. The simple facts are that the
ID perps have been worse than perps (they run the scam on their own
creationist support base), and IDiots demonstrated themselves to be
worse than idiots long ago. It likely is the fault of those that
have not been able to acknowledge that reality for their own
profound misconceptions.
Just as an aside, blaming oneself is a virtue. If you are blaming
other people, first, you're not going to change anything, and second,
there's an excellent change you are wrong.
He is blaming me. You should have posted this to his post.
How much of a chance can I have of being wrong?
100%.
 Why did the IDiots quit after the Top Six was put out by the scam
artists that they had been supporting for decades? Why has the bait
and switch gone down every single time that any creationist rubes have
taken the ID perps up on their offer to teach the junk in the public
schools. It is just a fact that the ID perps were running the bait
and switch on the Utah creationist rubes at the same time that they
were putting out the Top Six.
Demonstrate that I could be wrong. The bait and switch has been going
down for over 2 decades, and it will go down next time there is a
group of rubes stupid enough to believe the ID perps. The ID perps
are still telling educators that the Dover decision was wrong and that
they have a scientific theory of ID that can be taught in the public
schools, but what is going to happen if any rubes still exist that are
stupid and dishonest enough to believe them?
https://www.discovery.org/f/1453/
You just have to go to the ID scam web site, click on their
"Education" tab, and click on their briefing packet for educators.
They have only been using ID as bait since Ohio in 2002.
None of that is under dispute. What is under dispute is what you just
spent three worthless paragraphs avoiding.
But my main point is to point out that Lawyer Daggett is entirely
correct. You might want to read what he wrote and take it to heart.
The time for being nice about reality passed a long time ago.
That's one thing you are 100% wrong about. When you choose not being
nice as a matter of policy, then there are at least two results that I
don't think you are after. First, you lose any persuasive influence,
even with people who are undecided. Second, even the people who agree
with you won't want you on their team, so you lose support.
 I didn't start calling the ID perps "perps" until just before Dover.
The bait and switch had been going down in every single instance for
around 3 years by that time. It was obviously never going to stop.
Getting ID into the public schools was part of the Wedge strategy, but
no one was ever going to get any ID science to teach from the ID perps.
You knew it, so why deny what the ID perps have been for over 20 years?
You are in denial about what is being denied.
Mark Isaak wrote:
On 12/3/23 10:23 PM, Ron Dean wrote:You are right, during my college years I became a dedicated,
Mark Isaak wrote:
On 12/3/23 5:38 PM, RonO wrote:Wouldn't you think it's _not_ his objective to change the minds of
On 12/3/2023 11:57 AM, Lawyer Daggett wrote:
On Sunday, December 3, 2023 at 12:16:58 PM UTC-5, RonO wrote:
On 12/3/2023 6:46 AM, MarkE wrote:snip discussion
On Sunday, December 3, 2023 at 3:36:57 AM UTC+11, John Harshman >>>>>>>> wrote:
On 12/1/23 9:09 PM, MarkE wrote:
Bechly cites this article, and if he had read it and understood
it he
would not have written his denial piece. Bechly is an ID perp and >>>>>>> joined the scam
FYI. Something like 95% of those who began reading your post will
decide
not to read more after reading "perp" and "scam".
This may not matter to you as to some approximation you seem to be >>>>>> talking
to yourself, which is somewhat self-consistent with the ranting.
If, however,
there's some remote sense of awareness remaining, and you actually >>>>>> want
others to read your posts, you should take note of the effect your >>>>>> fixation on
the words "perp" and "scam" (and "rubes") have upon potential
readers.
My prediction is that you will blame the readership, somewhat akin >>>>>> to a would-be
politician blaming the voters for not electing them. Most people
are too
polite to point this out to you again. I don't suffer from the
vice of politeness.
Not much, anyway.
You are knowingly blaming yourself. The simple facts are that the
ID perps have been worse than perps (they run the scam on their own
creationist support base), and IDiots demonstrated themselves to be
worse than idiots long ago. It likely is the fault of those that
have not been able to acknowledge that reality for their own
profound misconceptions.
Just as an aside, blaming oneself is a virtue. If you are blaming
other people, first, you're not going to change anything, and
second, there's an excellent change you are wrong.
;
people who accept either intelligent design or the Genesis creation
story. His objective is plainly self-serving - that is, he's simply
trying to reassuring himself and other evolutionist of the validity
of evolution.
No, that would be naive. A little knowledge of human nature suggests
that one of Ron's main motives is the same as yours: to avoid any
discomfort associated with changing one's mind.
unquestioning evolutionist and this became the foundation of my
existence. But on a challenge I reluctantly read a book by a scientist,
Dr Denton then other books by other scientist including books by Dr
Gould and Dr Eldridge. To my utter dismay I learned that evolution was a fraud, and this caused me considerable distress. It's not that I'm so committed to ID, but rather I became angry at the deception and so I
became dedicated as an anti - evolution!
On 12/4/2023 10:12 AM, Mark Isaak wrote:
On 12/4/23 4:03 AM, RonO wrote:
On 12/3/2023 8:44 PM, Mark Isaak wrote:
On 12/3/23 5:38 PM, RonO wrote:
On 12/3/2023 11:57 AM, Lawyer Daggett wrote:
On Sunday, December 3, 2023 at 12:16:58 PM UTC-5, RonO wrote:
On 12/3/2023 6:46 AM, MarkE wrote:snip discussion
On Sunday, December 3, 2023 at 3:36:57 AM UTC+11, John Harshman >>>>>>>> wrote:
On 12/1/23 9:09 PM, MarkE wrote:
Bechly cites this article, and if he had read it and understood
it he
would not have written his denial piece. Bechly is an ID perp and >>>>>>> joined the scam
FYI. Something like 95% of those who began reading your post will
decide
not to read more after reading "perp" and "scam".
This may not matter to you as to some approximation you seem to be >>>>>> talking
to yourself, which is somewhat self-consistent with the ranting.
If, however,
there's some remote sense of awareness remaining, and you actually >>>>>> want
others to read your posts, you should take note of the effect your >>>>>> fixation on
the words "perp" and "scam" (and "rubes") have upon potential
readers.
My prediction is that you will blame the readership, somewhat akin >>>>>> to a would-be
politician blaming the voters for not electing them. Most people
are too
polite to point this out to you again. I don't suffer from the
vice of politeness.
Not much, anyway.
You are knowingly blaming yourself. The simple facts are that the
ID perps have been worse than perps (they run the scam on their own
creationist support base), and IDiots demonstrated themselves to be
worse than idiots long ago. It likely is the fault of those that
have not been able to acknowledge that reality for their own
profound misconceptions.
Just as an aside, blaming oneself is a virtue. If you are blaming
other people, first, you're not going to change anything, and
second, there's an excellent change you are wrong.
He is blaming me. You should have posted this to his post.
How much of a chance can I have of being wrong?
100%.
100% likely that you are wrong.
Do you have any evidence that you might be right? Has any group of creationist rubes that fell for the teach ID scam ever gotten any ID
science from the ID perps to teach? All you need is one case, but the
bait and switch has gone down in every instance, and it only totally
failed once in Dover because the ID perps ran into a bunch of
creationist rubes that were too dishonest and stupid to understand what
it meant when the guys who sold them the scam wanted them to bend over
for a switch scam that they had no interest in.
It turned out that the ID had only been used as the bait for over 3
years because there was no ID science worth teaching. Even though the
Dover creationists rubes tried to teach the ID scam junk, they never got
any ID science to teach.
After Dover the ID perps would not give up on the bait and switch scam,
and they continued to use ID as the bait, and even doubled down and
updated their teach ID propaganda claiming that the Dover Federal court decision was wrong and that ID could still be taught in the public
schools. As sad as it may be the bait and switch continued to go down.
Even when both Lousiana and Texas claimed that they were not "requiring"
ID to be taught, the ID perps still ran the bait and switch on them.
Do you have a single example where the ID perps delivered the ID science
for the rubes to teach in the public schools?
 Why did the IDiots quit after the Top Six was put out by the scam
artists that they had been supporting for decades? Why has the bait
and switch gone down every single time that any creationist rubes
have taken the ID perps up on their offer to teach the junk in the
public schools. It is just a fact that the ID perps were running the
bait and switch on the Utah creationist rubes at the same time that
they were putting out the Top Six.
Demonstrate that I could be wrong. The bait and switch has been
going down for over 2 decades, and it will go down next time there is
a group of rubes stupid enough to believe the ID perps. The ID perps
are still telling educators that the Dover decision was wrong and
that they have a scientific theory of ID that can be taught in the
public schools, but what is going to happen if any rubes still exist
that are stupid and dishonest enough to believe them?
https://www.discovery.org/f/1453/
You just have to go to the ID scam web site, click on their
"Education" tab, and click on their briefing packet for educators.
They have only been using ID as bait since Ohio in 2002.
None of that is under dispute. What is under dispute is what you just
spent three worthless paragraphs avoiding.
What is under dispute is that you were 100% wrong, and you still are.
Why not simply state what you think that I have avoided?
But my main point is to point out that Lawyer Daggett is entirely
correct. You might want to read what he wrote and take it to heart.
The time for being nice about reality passed a long time ago.
That's one thing you are 100% wrong about. When you choose not being
nice as a matter of policy, then there are at least two results that I
don't think you are after. First, you lose any persuasive influence,
even with people who are undecided. Second, even the people who agree
with you won't want you on their team, so you lose support.
You can pretend to be nice about the scam, but who cares when it is a
scam? Pretending to be nice just allowed you to be wrong about the ID
scam for decades.
What results do you think that I was after? Simply stating reality was
just that. The IDiots were already lying to themselves about the ID
scam, and I never thought that, that would change, but they would have
to willfully disregard reality everytime they could not counter. Look
at what Kalk used to do. He would snip out everything from a post
except the parts that he objected to because they were a true depiction
of what he was. He had to take the time to do something that lame and stupid. Kalk knew that he was worse than an IDiot. After he quit the
ID scam he came out and claimed that he and never claimed to be Hindu. Quoting the Vedas and using the Nym Kalkidas was apparently not making
that claim even though he never denied being a Hindu. The Hindu act was just to lend credibility to his dishonest support for the ID scam. These
are the type of IDiots that have supported the ID scam. Ever since the
bait and switch started to go down the only IDiots left have been the ignorant, incompetent and or dishonest. Do you acknowledge that IDiots
like Kalk and Nyikos have demonstrated themselves to be all three?
IDiot was actually a badge of honor for IDiots like Kalk. There was no desire to be a persuasive influencer. It was all just to put the
reality of the situation in plain view. I was just calling it like it is.
 I didn't start calling the ID perps "perps" until just before Dover.
The bait and switch had been going down in every single instance for
around 3 years by that time. It was obviously never going to stop.
Getting ID into the public schools was part of the Wedge strategy,
but no one was ever going to get any ID science to teach from the ID
perps.
You knew it, so why deny what the ID perps have been for over 20 years?
You are in denial about what is being denied.
Why not put up what you think is being denied? The one in denial seems
to be you. It is just a plain and simple fact that the iD perps
continue to put ID out as the bait, but if there are any creationist
rubes stupid and dishonest enough to try to teach the junk, the ID perps
will run the bait and switch scam on them and all they will get is the obfuscation and denial switch scam, and the ID perp's claim that the
switch scam has nothing to do with ID nor creationism. It has happened
in every instance, and will continue to happen. The bait and switch
scam has been going down for over 20 years and has a really dismal rate
of success in having the rubes bend over for the switch scam. Nearly
all the rubes drop the issue instead. Louisiana and Texas still have
the switch scam junk up, but they haven't tried to implement the
stupidity since both of them had the bait and switch run on them again
back in 2013. None of the creationist rubes want to teach their kids
enough science so that they know what they should deny.
The sad thing is that ID died on TO because it turned out that the
IDiots never wanted the ID perps to succeed in developing any valid ID science. It all would have just been more science to deny.
On 12/1/2023 10:09 PM, MarkE wrote:become-more-skeptical-of-common-descent/
Is ID there an position on common descent? This post is just an FYI, as I've seen the question raised here. Here's one example of "provisional" acceptance: https://evolutionnews.org/2023/12/fossil-friday-the-mess-of-arachnid-phylogeny-and-why-ive-
important from it, even if you should be an evolutionist and skeptical of my anti-Darwinian conclusions."
Selective quotes:
I even discovered that I have to give up one of my very favorite arguments for common descent. Since this case is cumulative and somewhat complicated, please bear with me if this article gets a bit lengthy. However, I promise you will learn something
this theory and successfully confirmed by later discovery of empirical evidence. The hypothesis of common descent arguably allows for the prediction of very precise anatomical details of hypothetical transitional forms, that would not be predicted by the
When asked why, in spite of my critique of neo-Darwinism and my endorsement of intelligent design, I still subscribe to common descent, I have often answered as follows: the hallmark of a good theory are very specific predictions that are unique to
alternatives like progressive creation combined with other explanations for the pattern of biological similarities such as Winston Ewert’s dependency graph hypothesis (Ewert 2018, 2023, Miller 2018, 2023, Reeves 2022; also see this website), which is
True skeptics should question everything, and not just everything apart from Darwinism and materialism. I wholeheartedly endorse the credo to follow the evidence wherever it leads.
For this reason, I currently and provisionally still think that the total evidence of all lines of data favors common descent as the most parsimonious and most elegant explanation. However, I definitely remain open (and now more sympathetic) to
common descent, then so be it.
There's no problem with common descent as long as you realize that it is >DESCENT, not ASCENT.
On Tuesday, December 5, 2023 at 11:07:00 AM UTC-5, Mark Isaak wrote:
Since you are so monomaniacal that you cannot even read for.
comprehension, there is no point trying to converse with you further
(about anything) or read anything you say (about anything). Goodbye.
It is unfortunate, as it is a waste of an education.
An otherwise well educated person has become lost owing to a lack of
self awareness. It is a lesson to all of us.
On 12/4/23 5:07 PM, RonO wrote:
On 12/4/2023 10:12 AM, Mark Isaak wrote:
On 12/4/23 4:03 AM, RonO wrote:
On 12/3/2023 8:44 PM, Mark Isaak wrote:
On 12/3/23 5:38 PM, RonO wrote:
On 12/3/2023 11:57 AM, Lawyer Daggett wrote:
On Sunday, December 3, 2023 at 12:16:58 PM UTC-5, RonO wrote: >>>>>>>> On 12/3/2023 6:46 AM, MarkE wrote:
snip discussionOn Sunday, December 3, 2023 at 3:36:57 AM UTC+11, John Harshman >>>>>>>>> wrote:
On 12/1/23 9:09 PM, MarkE wrote:
Bechly cites this article, and if he had read it and understood >>>>>>>> it he
would not have written his denial piece. Bechly is an ID perp and >>>>>>>> joined the scam
FYI. Something like 95% of those who began reading your post will >>>>>>> decide
not to read more after reading "perp" and "scam".
This may not matter to you as to some approximation you seem to
be talking
to yourself, which is somewhat self-consistent with the ranting. >>>>>>> If, however,
there's some remote sense of awareness remaining, and you
actually want
others to read your posts, you should take note of the effect
your fixation on
the words "perp" and "scam" (and "rubes") have upon potential
readers.
My prediction is that you will blame the readership, somewhat
akin to a would-be
politician blaming the voters for not electing them. Most people >>>>>>> are too
polite to point this out to you again. I don't suffer from the
vice of politeness.
Not much, anyway.
You are knowingly blaming yourself. The simple facts are that the >>>>>> ID perps have been worse than perps (they run the scam on their
own creationist support base), and IDiots demonstrated themselves
to be worse than idiots long ago. It likely is the fault of those >>>>>> that have not been able to acknowledge that reality for their own
profound misconceptions.
Just as an aside, blaming oneself is a virtue. If you are blaming
other people, first, you're not going to change anything, and
second, there's an excellent change you are wrong.
He is blaming me. You should have posted this to his post.
How much of a chance can I have of being wrong?
100%.
100% likely that you are wrong.
Do you have any evidence that you might be right? Has any group of
creationist rubes that fell for the teach ID scam ever gotten any ID
science from the ID perps to teach? All you need is one case, but the
bait and switch has gone down in every instance, and it only totally
failed once in Dover because the ID perps ran into a bunch of
creationist rubes that were too dishonest and stupid to understand
what it meant when the guys who sold them the scam wanted them to bend
over for a switch scam that they had no interest in.
It turned out that the ID had only been used as the bait for over 3
years because there was no ID science worth teaching. Even though the
Dover creationists rubes tried to teach the ID scam junk, they never
got any ID science to teach.
After Dover the ID perps would not give up on the bait and switch
scam, and they continued to use ID as the bait, and even doubled down
and updated their teach ID propaganda claiming that the Dover Federal
court decision was wrong and that ID could still be taught in the
public schools. As sad as it may be the bait and switch continued to
go down. Even when both Lousiana and Texas claimed that they were not
"requiring" ID to be taught, the ID perps still ran the bait and
switch on them.
Do you have a single example where the ID perps delivered the ID
science for the rubes to teach in the public schools?
 Why did the IDiots quit after the Top Six was put out by the scam
artists that they had been supporting for decades? Why has the bait
and switch gone down every single time that any creationist rubes
have taken the ID perps up on their offer to teach the junk in the
public schools. It is just a fact that the ID perps were running
the bait and switch on the Utah creationist rubes at the same time
that they were putting out the Top Six.
Demonstrate that I could be wrong. The bait and switch has been
going down for over 2 decades, and it will go down next time there
is a group of rubes stupid enough to believe the ID perps. The ID
perps are still telling educators that the Dover decision was wrong
and that they have a scientific theory of ID that can be taught in
the public schools, but what is going to happen if any rubes still
exist that are stupid and dishonest enough to believe them?
https://www.discovery.org/f/1453/
You just have to go to the ID scam web site, click on their
"Education" tab, and click on their briefing packet for educators.
They have only been using ID as bait since Ohio in 2002.
None of that is under dispute. What is under dispute is what you
just spent three worthless paragraphs avoiding.
What is under dispute is that you were 100% wrong, and you still are.
Why not simply state what you think that I have avoided?
But my main point is to point out that Lawyer Daggett is entirely
correct. You might want to read what he wrote and take it to heart.
The time for being nice about reality passed a long time ago.
That's one thing you are 100% wrong about. When you choose not being
nice as a matter of policy, then there are at least two results that
I don't think you are after. First, you lose any persuasive
influence, even with people who are undecided. Second, even the
people who agree with you won't want you on their team, so you lose
support.
You can pretend to be nice about the scam, but who cares when it is a
scam? Pretending to be nice just allowed you to be wrong about the ID
scam for decades.
What results do you think that I was after? Simply stating reality
was just that. The IDiots were already lying to themselves about the
ID scam, and I never thought that, that would change, but they would
have to willfully disregard reality everytime they could not counter.
Look at what Kalk used to do. He would snip out everything from a
post except the parts that he objected to because they were a true
depiction of what he was. He had to take the time to do something
that lame and stupid. Kalk knew that he was worse than an IDiot.
After he quit the ID scam he came out and claimed that he and never
claimed to be Hindu. Quoting the Vedas and using the Nym Kalkidas was
apparently not making that claim even though he never denied being a
Hindu. The Hindu act was just to lend credibility to his dishonest
support for the ID scam. These are the type of IDiots that have
supported the ID scam. Ever since the bait and switch started to go
down the only IDiots left have been the ignorant, incompetent and or
dishonest. Do you acknowledge that IDiots like Kalk and Nyikos have
demonstrated themselves to be all three?
IDiot was actually a badge of honor for IDiots like Kalk. There was
no desire to be a persuasive influencer. It was all just to put the
reality of the situation in plain view. I was just calling it like it
is.
 I didn't start calling the ID perps "perps" until just beforeYou are in denial about what is being denied.
Dover. The bait and switch had been going down in every single
instance for around 3 years by that time. It was obviously never
going to stop. Getting ID into the public schools was part of the
Wedge strategy, but no one was ever going to get any ID science to
teach from the ID perps.
You knew it, so why deny what the ID perps have been for over 20 years? >>>
Why not put up what you think is being denied? The one in denial
seems to be you. It is just a plain and simple fact that the iD perps
continue to put ID out as the bait, but if there are any creationist
rubes stupid and dishonest enough to try to teach the junk, the ID
perps will run the bait and switch scam on them and all they will get
is the obfuscation and denial switch scam, and the ID perp's claim
that the switch scam has nothing to do with ID nor creationism. It
has happened in every instance, and will continue to happen. The bait
and switch scam has been going down for over 20 years and has a really
dismal rate of success in having the rubes bend over for the switch
scam. Nearly all the rubes drop the issue instead. Louisiana and
Texas still have the switch scam junk up, but they haven't tried to
implement the stupidity since both of them had the bait and switch run
on them again back in 2013. None of the creationist rubes want to
teach their kids enough science so that they know what they should deny.
The sad thing is that ID died on TO because it turned out that the
IDiots never wanted the ID perps to succeed in developing any valid ID
science. It all would have just been more science to deny.
Since you are so monomaniacal that you cannot even read for
comprehension, there is no point trying to converse with you further
(about anything) or read anything you say (about anything). Goodbye.
On Mon, 4 Dec 2023 19:07:58 -0600, the following appeared in
talk.origins, posted by RonO <rokimoto@cox.net>:
<snip all>
Ron, just a suggestion, since I generally like your factual
posts, the ones without repeated invective.
Try posting about ID, if you must, without using the words
scam, rubes and perps. As soon as I see them I shut down,
and probably miss some good info. By now everyone probably
knows your opinion about ID, and there's no need to keep
beating a dead horse.
On Tue, 5 Dec 2023 08:22:31 -0700, the following appeared inbecome-more-skeptical-of-common-descent/
talk.origins, posted by Kalkidas <eat@joes.pub>:
On 12/1/2023 10:09 PM, MarkE wrote:
Is ID there an position on common descent? This post is just an FYI, as I've seen the question raised here. Here's one example of "provisional" acceptance: https://evolutionnews.org/2023/12/fossil-friday-the-mess-of-arachnid-phylogeny-and-why-ive-
important from it, even if you should be an evolutionist and skeptical of my anti-Darwinian conclusions."
Selective quotes:
I even discovered that I have to give up one of my very favorite arguments for common descent. Since this case is cumulative and somewhat complicated, please bear with me if this article gets a bit lengthy. However, I promise you will learn something
this theory and successfully confirmed by later discovery of empirical evidence. The hypothesis of common descent arguably allows for the prediction of very precise anatomical details of hypothetical transitional forms, that would not be predicted by the
When asked why, in spite of my critique of neo-Darwinism and my endorsement of intelligent design, I still subscribe to common descent, I have often answered as follows: the hallmark of a good theory are very specific predictions that are unique to
alternatives like progressive creation combined with other explanations for the pattern of biological similarities such as Winston Ewert’s dependency graph hypothesis (Ewert 2018, 2023, Miller 2018, 2023, Reeves 2022; also see this website), which is
True skeptics should question everything, and not just everything apart from Darwinism and materialism. I wholeheartedly endorse the credo to follow the evidence wherever it leads.
For this reason, I currently and provisionally still think that the total evidence of all lines of data favors common descent as the most parsimonious and most elegant explanation. However, I definitely remain open (and now more sympathetic) to
ofNo, I didn't think you would.
common descent, then so be it.Word games?
There's no problem with common descent as long as you realize that it is >>DESCENT, not ASCENT.
Care to clarify what you meant by that comment, since the
connotations are ambiguous at beat?
On 12/6/2023 9:15 AM, Bob Casanova wrote:become-more-skeptical-of-common-descent/
On Tue, 05 Dec 2023 09:39:52 -0700, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by Bob Casanova <nospam@buzz.off>:
On Tue, 5 Dec 2023 08:22:31 -0700, the following appeared in
talk.origins, posted by Kalkidas <eat@joes.pub>:
On 12/1/2023 10:09 PM, MarkE wrote:
Is ID there an position on common descent? This post is just an FYI, as I've seen the question raised here. Here's one example of "provisional" acceptance: https://evolutionnews.org/2023/12/fossil-friday-the-mess-of-arachnid-phylogeny-and-why-ive-
something important from it, even if you should be an evolutionist and skeptical of my anti-Darwinian conclusions."
Selective quotes:
I even discovered that I have to give up one of my very favorite arguments for common descent. Since this case is cumulative and somewhat complicated, please bear with me if this article gets a bit lengthy. However, I promise you will learn
this theory and successfully confirmed by later discovery of empirical evidence. The hypothesis of common descent arguably allows for the prediction of very precise anatomical details of hypothetical transitional forms, that would not be predicted by the
When asked why, in spite of my critique of neo-Darwinism and my endorsement of intelligent design, I still subscribe to common descent, I have often answered as follows: the hallmark of a good theory are very specific predictions that are unique to
alternatives like progressive creation combined with other explanations for the pattern of biological similarities such as Winston Ewert’s dependency graph hypothesis (Ewert 2018, 2023, Miller 2018, 2023, Reeves 2022; also see this website), which is
True skeptics should question everything, and not just everything apart from Darwinism and materialism. I wholeheartedly endorse the credo to follow the evidence wherever it leads.
For this reason, I currently and provisionally still think that the total evidence of all lines of data favors common descent as the most parsimonious and most elegant explanation. However, I definitely remain open (and now more sympathetic) to
ofNo, I didn't think you would.
common descent, then so be it.Word games?
There's no problem with common descent as long as you realize that it is >>>> DESCENT, not ASCENT.
Care to clarify what you meant by that comment, since the
connotations are ambiguous at beat?
Behe claims that devolution is how whales evolved from terrestrial
mammals. He claims that the devolution is macro evolution, and is all >consistent with known Darwinian mechanisms, but he throws creationists a
bone by claiming that it is a bad type of evolution, and his designer
could have done a much better job, but must have been working on
something else at the time whales were evolving. It seems to be amazing
what descent can do.
https://evolutionnews.org/2019/10/darwin-devolves-evidence-keeps-rolling-in/
On Thu, 7 Dec 2023 08:18:51 -0800 (PST), erik simpson <eastside.erik@gmail.com> wrote:
On Thursday, December 7, 2023 at 7:22:02?AM UTC-8, jillery wrote:
On Tue, 5 Dec 2023 19:09:45 -0600, RonO <roki...@cox.net> wrote:
On 12/5/2023 10:48 AM, Bob Casanova wrote:Who are "everybody"? How is it possible so many missed this for so
On Mon, 4 Dec 2023 19:07:58 -0600, the following appeared in
talk.origins, posted by RonO <roki...@cox.net>:
<snip all>
Ron, just a suggestion, since I generally like your factual
posts, the ones without repeated invective.
Try posting about ID, if you must, without using the words
scam, rubes and perps. As soon as I see them I shut down,
and probably miss some good info. By now everyone probably
knows your opinion about ID, and there's no need to keep
beating a dead horse.
It doesn't matter anymore. Doing that would change nothing. What
happened, happened 5 years ago, and everyone missed it for the past 5
years.
long?
This is a manifestation of the RonO paradox. Lots of us are tired of rubes, >> perps, bait-and-switch, etc.
My impression is some are tired of the pointless repetition, while
others are tired of the mindless statements, some of which I identify
above.
--
To know less than we don't know is the nature of most knowledge
On 12/7/2023 1:03 AM, Bob Casanova wrote:become-more-skeptical-of-common-descent/
On Wed, 6 Dec 2023 19:57:50 -0600, the following appeared in
talk.origins, posted by RonO <rokimoto@cox.net>:
On 12/6/2023 9:15 AM, Bob Casanova wrote:
On Tue, 05 Dec 2023 09:39:52 -0700, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by Bob Casanova <nospam@buzz.off>:
On Tue, 5 Dec 2023 08:22:31 -0700, the following appeared in
talk.origins, posted by Kalkidas <eat@joes.pub>:
On 12/1/2023 10:09 PM, MarkE wrote:
Is ID there an position on common descent? This post is just an FYI, as I've seen the question raised here. Here's one example of "provisional" acceptance: https://evolutionnews.org/2023/12/fossil-friday-the-mess-of-arachnid-phylogeny-and-why-ive-
something important from it, even if you should be an evolutionist and skeptical of my anti-Darwinian conclusions."
Selective quotes:
I even discovered that I have to give up one of my very favorite arguments for common descent. Since this case is cumulative and somewhat complicated, please bear with me if this article gets a bit lengthy. However, I promise you will learn
to this theory and successfully confirmed by later discovery of empirical evidence. The hypothesis of common descent arguably allows for the prediction of very precise anatomical details of hypothetical transitional forms, that would not be predicted by
When asked why, in spite of my critique of neo-Darwinism and my endorsement of intelligent design, I still subscribe to common descent, I have often answered as follows: the hallmark of a good theory are very specific predictions that are unique
alternatives like progressive creation combined with other explanations for the pattern of biological similarities such as Winston Ewert’s dependency graph hypothesis (Ewert 2018, 2023, Miller 2018, 2023, Reeves 2022; also see this website), which is
True skeptics should question everything, and not just everything apart from Darwinism and materialism. I wholeheartedly endorse the credo to follow the evidence wherever it leads.
For this reason, I currently and provisionally still think that the total evidence of all lines of data favors common descent as the most parsimonious and most elegant explanation. However, I definitely remain open (and now more sympathetic) to
paradigm
OK, so if that's what Kalki meant it's once again confirmedofNo, I didn't think you would.
common descent, then so be it.Word games?
There's no problem with common descent as long as you realize that it is >>>>>> DESCENT, not ASCENT.
Care to clarify what you meant by that comment, since the
connotations are ambiguous at beat?
Behe claims that devolution is how whales evolved from terrestrial
mammals. He claims that the devolution is macro evolution, and is all
consistent with known Darwinian mechanisms, but he throws creationists a >>> bone by claiming that it is a bad type of evolution, and his designer
could have done a much better job, but must have been working on
something else at the time whales were evolving. It seems to be amazing
what descent can do.
https://evolutionnews.org/2019/10/darwin-devolves-evidence-keeps-rolling-in/
that Kalki is an idiot. No surprise; anyone who seriously
uses the term "devolution" is confirmed as ignorant of the
subject.
Kalk quit the ID scam, but like MarkE he can't give up on the science
denial. Since claiming that the Top Six evidences for IDiocy were no
longer things worth considering he has to continue with something. He
may no longer support the ID scam, but he is still a Biblical creationist.
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 304 |
| Nodes: | 16 (0 / 16) |
| Uptime: | 02:33:00 |
| Calls: | 6,826 |
| Calls today: | 6 |
| Files: | 12,340 |
| D/L today: |
1 files (2,541K bytes) |
| Messages: | 5,407,562 |