https://evolutionnews.org/2023/09/in-debate-on-intelligent-design-critic-cites-dragon-legend-to-justify-evolutions-failures/
All the ID perps seem to want to discuss is denial. Is there anything
left about the ID scam that any ex IDiots, who dropped out of the ID
scam when the Top Six were given to them, think is still worth
discussing. There is still the second rate creationist denial that
didn't make it into the Top Six, and creationists like Tour and MarkE
still think that it is worth lying to themselves about individual topics
of the Top Six even though they do not want to believe in the designer >responsible for them. Really, the designer of life around 3.8 billion
years ago under the conditions that existed at that time is never going
to be accepted as the Biblical god by the vast majority of IDiotic type >creationists. Even the old earth creationists at Reason to Beleive
can't deal with that designer because they need the first lifeforms to
be land plants that obviously evolved long after there were sea
creatures that were supposed to have been created after land plants, and >there is nothing in the Bible about billions of years of microbial life >before multicellular plants and animals evolved.
Is there anything positive about the creationist ID scam that is still
worth discussing?
Apparently Michael Ruse is still willing to discuss the subject, but
there doesn't seem to be much to discuss. Behe has been an ID perp from
the start, and all of his junk has failed. How many IDiot type Biblical >creationists want to believe in the designer responsible for evolving
the bacterial flagellum (#4 of the Top Six) over a billion years ago
when all life forms were restricted to being microbial?
An ex IDiot like Kalkidas should put up some things that are still worth >discussing since he now claims that the best that the IDiots ever had
are of little interest to him since he claims to have abandoned the >creationist ID scam in response to the Top Six being presented in the
order in which they must have occurred. He is obviously still a
Biblical creationists, so what is there left to discuss about any
possible IDiotic science that the ID perps might still do something about?
There just isn't any creation science that most if the IDiots in
existence ever wanted the ID perps to accomplish. Science is just the
best way we have for understanding nature, but it turned out that nature >isn't Biblical enough for IDiots to want to understand much about it.
Behe and Denton warned the IDiots, decades ago, that they could not
expect any ID science to change very much about what we understand about >nature (their Biblical creation). Behe has claimed that evolution
happened, but it wasn't totally by "Darwinian" processes. He has always >claimed that there were some bits about nature that his intelligent
designer (his Biblical god) needed to be involved with. The issue has
always been the fact that most IDiots are YEC and anti evolution, so
Behe's designer was never the one that they wanted to demonstrate
exists. If Behe had ever been successful in finding his 3 neutral
mutations that occurred in some part of the flagellum to produce a new >function over a billion years ago, that would have just been more
science for IDiots to deny.
So what is there worth discussing about any IDiotic science at this time?
On Sun, 10 Sep 2023 11:23:40 -0500, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by RonO <rokimoto@cox.net>:
https://evolutionnews.org/2023/09/in-debate-on-intelligent-design-critic-cites-dragon-legend-to-justify-evolutions-failures/Nothing, especially since there is no such thing as ID
All the ID perps seem to want to discuss is denial. Is there anything
left about the ID scam that any ex IDiots, who dropped out of the ID
scam when the Top Six were given to them, think is still worth
discussing. There is still the second rate creationist denial that
didn't make it into the Top Six, and creationists like Tour and MarkE
still think that it is worth lying to themselves about individual topics
of the Top Six even though they do not want to believe in the designer
responsible for them. Really, the designer of life around 3.8 billion
years ago under the conditions that existed at that time is never going
to be accepted as the Biblical god by the vast majority of IDiotic type
creationists. Even the old earth creationists at Reason to Beleive
can't deal with that designer because they need the first lifeforms to
be land plants that obviously evolved long after there were sea
creatures that were supposed to have been created after land plants, and
there is nothing in the Bible about billions of years of microbial life
before multicellular plants and animals evolved.
Is there anything positive about the creationist ID scam that is still
worth discussing?
Apparently Michael Ruse is still willing to discuss the subject, but
there doesn't seem to be much to discuss. Behe has been an ID perp from
the start, and all of his junk has failed. How many IDiot type Biblical
creationists want to believe in the designer responsible for evolving
the bacterial flagellum (#4 of the Top Six) over a billion years ago
when all life forms were restricted to being microbial?
An ex IDiot like Kalkidas should put up some things that are still worth
discussing since he now claims that the best that the IDiots ever had
are of little interest to him since he claims to have abandoned the
creationist ID scam in response to the Top Six being presented in the
order in which they must have occurred. He is obviously still a
Biblical creationists, so what is there left to discuss about any
possible IDiotic science that the ID perps might still do something about? >>
There just isn't any creation science that most if the IDiots in
existence ever wanted the ID perps to accomplish. Science is just the
best way we have for understanding nature, but it turned out that nature
isn't Biblical enough for IDiots to want to understand much about it.
Behe and Denton warned the IDiots, decades ago, that they could not
expect any ID science to change very much about what we understand about
nature (their Biblical creation). Behe has claimed that evolution
happened, but it wasn't totally by "Darwinian" processes. He has always
claimed that there were some bits about nature that his intelligent
designer (his Biblical god) needed to be involved with. The issue has
always been the fact that most IDiots are YEC and anti evolution, so
Behe's designer was never the one that they wanted to demonstrate
exists. If Behe had ever been successful in finding his 3 neutral
mutations that occurred in some part of the flagellum to produce a new
function over a billion years ago, that would have just been more
science for IDiots to deny.
So what is there worth discussing about any IDiotic science at this time?
science. Maybe when it appears...
On 9/10/2023 12:09 PM, Bob Casanova wrote:
On Sun, 10 Sep 2023 11:23:40 -0500, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by RonO <rokimoto@cox.net>:
https://evolutionnews.org/2023/09/in-debate-on-intelligent-design-critic-cites-dragon-legend-to-justify-evolutions-failures/Nothing, especially since there is no such thing as ID
All the ID perps seem to want to discuss is denial. Is there anything
left about the ID scam that any ex IDiots, who dropped out of the ID
scam when the Top Six were given to them, think is still worth
discussing. There is still the second rate creationist denial that
didn't make it into the Top Six, and creationists like Tour and MarkE
still think that it is worth lying to themselves about individual topics >>> of the Top Six even though they do not want to believe in the designer
responsible for them. Really, the designer of life around 3.8 billion
years ago under the conditions that existed at that time is never going
to be accepted as the Biblical god by the vast majority of IDiotic type
creationists. Even the old earth creationists at Reason to Beleive
can't deal with that designer because they need the first lifeforms to
be land plants that obviously evolved long after there were sea
creatures that were supposed to have been created after land plants, and >>> there is nothing in the Bible about billions of years of microbial life
before multicellular plants and animals evolved.
Is there anything positive about the creationist ID scam that is still
worth discussing?
Apparently Michael Ruse is still willing to discuss the subject, but
there doesn't seem to be much to discuss. Behe has been an ID perp from >>> the start, and all of his junk has failed. How many IDiot type Biblical >>> creationists want to believe in the designer responsible for evolving
the bacterial flagellum (#4 of the Top Six) over a billion years ago
when all life forms were restricted to being microbial?
An ex IDiot like Kalkidas should put up some things that are still worth >>> discussing since he now claims that the best that the IDiots ever had
are of little interest to him since he claims to have abandoned the
creationist ID scam in response to the Top Six being presented in the
order in which they must have occurred. He is obviously still a
Biblical creationists, so what is there left to discuss about any
possible IDiotic science that the ID perps might still do something about? >>>
There just isn't any creation science that most if the IDiots in
existence ever wanted the ID perps to accomplish. Science is just the
best way we have for understanding nature, but it turned out that nature >>> isn't Biblical enough for IDiots to want to understand much about it.
Behe and Denton warned the IDiots, decades ago, that they could not
expect any ID science to change very much about what we understand about >>> nature (their Biblical creation). Behe has claimed that evolution
happened, but it wasn't totally by "Darwinian" processes. He has always >>> claimed that there were some bits about nature that his intelligent
designer (his Biblical god) needed to be involved with. The issue has
always been the fact that most IDiots are YEC and anti evolution, so
Behe's designer was never the one that they wanted to demonstrate
exists. If Behe had ever been successful in finding his 3 neutral
mutations that occurred in some part of the flagellum to produce a new
function over a billion years ago, that would have just been more
science for IDiots to deny.
So what is there worth discussing about any IDiotic science at this time? >>>
science. Maybe when it appears...
This has been known for over 2 decades, but for over 15 years most of
the IDiotic creationists that continued to post on TO ignored that fact.
No one has ever gotten the ID science to teach in the public schools
even though the ID scam started out claiming that they had ID science
that could be taught in the public schools. The ID perps never produced
a public school lesson plan even though they have continued to claim to
be able to teach the ID science in the public schools for decades. No
one knows what would be taught if anyone ever teaches what they claim as
ID science. The reason seems to be that no one would want to teach the
Top Six, and if you aren't going to teach the best evidence why would
you teach anything at all? The Big Bang (#1) has already been a science >topic that IDiotic type creationists have wanted to drop from the public >school science standards, and they succeeded in Kansas in 1999. So the
ID perps knew that they didn't want to teach the ID scam in the public >schools years before they started to run the bait and switch in 2002.
The bait and switch scam that the ID scam turned into, and the loss in
Dover hasn't made any IDiots demand to see the ID science. Most of the >IDiots were satisfied to keep lying to themselves with the Gap denial
until the Top Six came out. The ID perps are still claiming creationist >support. They have subsequently put the Top Six out with the gaps out
of order and dropped #4 (IC) and #5 (the Cambrian explosion). The last >article on the Top Six dropped the Big Bang (#1) and made it the Top 5
by splitting #2 (fine tuning) into two parts and Human evolution (#6)
into two parts. Even some of the ID perps couldn't stand the Top Six as
they were presented to the rubes back in Nov. 2017.
Nelson was an ID perp from the start, and he was the only one that kept >claiming that they didn't yet have the ID science, but that they were
working on producing some. The reason turns out that Nelson was YEC and >couldn't stand what the other ID perps were claiming as the ID science.
There is absolutely no room for the existence of any YEC creationists
within the Top Six provided in "their order simply reflecting that in
which they must logically have occurred within our universe." The Big
Tent that they sold the creationist rubes was a Big Lie. Luskin was
probably the editor responsible for the Top Six, and the rubes were
warned when Luskin came back to the ID scam claiming that he had gotten
a PhD working on sedimentary rocks that were nearly 3 billion years old.
What is sad is that the majority of creationist support for the ID
scam are likely still YEC after over 2 decades of the bait and switch
going down on any creationist rubes still stupid enough to want to teach
the junk.
That seems to be the major reason that no ID perps seem to want to use
the Top Six in any constructive or positive way. They are the same >god-of-the-gaps junk that the Scientific creationists resorted to when
they figured out that there wasn't any creation science that they wanted
to accomplish, but they have never been used to build anything that the >creationists are willing to support. Even the Reason to Believe IDiots
have to deny the origin of life and Cambrian explosion gap denial
because they don't fit into the Biblical timeline. They haven't managed
to reinterpret enough of the Bible to make them fit. There isn't any >billions of years of the existence of microbial life before land plants
were created, before sea creatures, and whales need to be created before >their terrestrial ancestors existed because the Reason to Believe >creationists believe that whales were included among the sea creatures
that were created before terrestrial animals. It is denial of the denial.
Bill, Pagano, and Kalk couldn't keep using the Top Six to lie to
themselves. Pagano claimed that the Top Six were bogus (They are not >consistent with his geocentric old earth Biblical universe). Bill
claimed that he had never supported the ID scam, but what he likely
meant was that he had never supported what the ID scam had always been.
Now Kalk is claiming that he just is no longer interested in the Top
Six. ID perps like Sewell had to drop IC and the Cambrian explosion out
of the Top Six and present the rest out of order, and Miller dropped out
the Big Bang.
There doesn't seem to be any ID science under development that anyone
wants to relate to their religious beliefs. Meyer has been selling the >Cambrian explosion Gap denial (#5) years before he ran the Bait and
Switch on the Ohio creationist rubes in 2002. There probably are not
very many Biblical creationists in existence (the Reason to Believe old
earth IDiots included) that want to believe in the designer responsible
for the Cambrian explosion. The Reason to Believe IDiots claim that
they are IDiots in order to confirm their belief that the Bible is
factually true, and they have to deny the Cambrian explosion denial even >though you can see them using it the same way in which the YEC
scientific creationists and ID perps have used the Cambrian explosion
(as gap denial).
There doesn't seem to be any IDiotic type creationists interested in >discussing the IDiotic science because they do not want to understand
what they will end up denying.
On Sun, 10 Sep 2023 19:37:54 -0500, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by RonO <roki...@cox.net>:
On 9/10/2023 12:09 PM, Bob Casanova wrote:
On Sun, 10 Sep 2023 11:23:40 -0500, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by RonO <roki...@cox.net>:
https://evolutionnews.org/2023/09/in-debate-on-intelligent-design-critic-cites-dragon-legend-to-justify-evolutions-failures/Nothing, especially since there is no such thing as ID
All the ID perps seem to want to discuss is denial. Is there anything
left about the ID scam that any ex IDiots, who dropped out of the ID
scam when the Top Six were given to them, think is still worth
discussing. There is still the second rate creationist denial that
didn't make it into the Top Six, and creationists like Tour and MarkE
still think that it is worth lying to themselves about individual topics >>> of the Top Six even though they do not want to believe in the designer >>> responsible for them. Really, the designer of life around 3.8 billion
years ago under the conditions that existed at that time is never going >>> to be accepted as the Biblical god by the vast majority of IDiotic type >>> creationists. Even the old earth creationists at Reason to Beleive
can't deal with that designer because they need the first lifeforms to >>> be land plants that obviously evolved long after there were sea
creatures that were supposed to have been created after land plants, and >>> there is nothing in the Bible about billions of years of microbial life >>> before multicellular plants and animals evolved.
Is there anything positive about the creationist ID scam that is still >>> worth discussing?
Apparently Michael Ruse is still willing to discuss the subject, but
there doesn't seem to be much to discuss. Behe has been an ID perp from >>> the start, and all of his junk has failed. How many IDiot type Biblical >>> creationists want to believe in the designer responsible for evolving
the bacterial flagellum (#4 of the Top Six) over a billion years ago
when all life forms were restricted to being microbial?
An ex IDiot like Kalkidas should put up some things that are still worth >>> discussing since he now claims that the best that the IDiots ever had
are of little interest to him since he claims to have abandoned the
creationist ID scam in response to the Top Six being presented in the
order in which they must have occurred. He is obviously still a
Biblical creationists, so what is there left to discuss about any
possible IDiotic science that the ID perps might still do something about?
There just isn't any creation science that most if the IDiots in
existence ever wanted the ID perps to accomplish. Science is just the
best way we have for understanding nature, but it turned out that nature >>> isn't Biblical enough for IDiots to want to understand much about it.
Behe and Denton warned the IDiots, decades ago, that they could not
expect any ID science to change very much about what we understand about >>> nature (their Biblical creation). Behe has claimed that evolution
happened, but it wasn't totally by "Darwinian" processes. He has always >>> claimed that there were some bits about nature that his intelligent
designer (his Biblical god) needed to be involved with. The issue has
always been the fact that most IDiots are YEC and anti evolution, so
Behe's designer was never the one that they wanted to demonstrate
exists. If Behe had ever been successful in finding his 3 neutral
mutations that occurred in some part of the flagellum to produce a new >>> function over a billion years ago, that would have just been more
science for IDiots to deny.
So what is there worth discussing about any IDiotic science at this time? >>>
science. Maybe when it appears...
This has been known for over 2 decades, but for over 15 years most of
the IDiotic creationists that continued to post on TO ignored that fact.
No one has ever gotten the ID science to teach in the public schools
even though the ID scam started out claiming that they had ID science
that could be taught in the public schools. The ID perps never produced
a public school lesson plan even though they have continued to claim to
be able to teach the ID science in the public schools for decades. No
one knows what would be taught if anyone ever teaches what they claim as
ID science. The reason seems to be that no one would want to teach the
Top Six, and if you aren't going to teach the best evidence why would
you teach anything at all? The Big Bang (#1) has already been a science >topic that IDiotic type creationists have wanted to drop from the public >school science standards, and they succeeded in Kansas in 1999. So the
ID perps knew that they didn't want to teach the ID scam in the public >schools years before they started to run the bait and switch in 2002.
The bait and switch scam that the ID scam turned into, and the loss in >Dover hasn't made any IDiots demand to see the ID science. Most of the >IDiots were satisfied to keep lying to themselves with the Gap denial
until the Top Six came out. The ID perps are still claiming creationist >support. They have subsequently put the Top Six out with the gaps out
of order and dropped #4 (IC) and #5 (the Cambrian explosion). The last >article on the Top Six dropped the Big Bang (#1) and made it the Top 5
by splitting #2 (fine tuning) into two parts and Human evolution (#6)
into two parts. Even some of the ID perps couldn't stand the Top Six as >they were presented to the rubes back in Nov. 2017.
Nelson was an ID perp from the start, and he was the only one that kept >claiming that they didn't yet have the ID science, but that they were >working on producing some. The reason turns out that Nelson was YEC and >couldn't stand what the other ID perps were claiming as the ID science. >There is absolutely no room for the existence of any YEC creationists >within the Top Six provided in "their order simply reflecting that in
which they must logically have occurred within our universe." The Big
Tent that they sold the creationist rubes was a Big Lie. Luskin was >probably the editor responsible for the Top Six, and the rubes were
warned when Luskin came back to the ID scam claiming that he had gotten
a PhD working on sedimentary rocks that were nearly 3 billion years old.
What is sad is that the majority of creationist support for the ID
scam are likely still YEC after over 2 decades of the bait and switch
going down on any creationist rubes still stupid enough to want to teach >the junk.
That seems to be the major reason that no ID perps seem to want to use
the Top Six in any constructive or positive way. They are the same >god-of-the-gaps junk that the Scientific creationists resorted to when
they figured out that there wasn't any creation science that they wanted
to accomplish, but they have never been used to build anything that the >creationists are willing to support. Even the Reason to Believe IDiots
have to deny the origin of life and Cambrian explosion gap denial
because they don't fit into the Biblical timeline. They haven't managed
to reinterpret enough of the Bible to make them fit. There isn't any >billions of years of the existence of microbial life before land plants >were created, before sea creatures, and whales need to be created before >their terrestrial ancestors existed because the Reason to Believe >creationists believe that whales were included among the sea creatures
that were created before terrestrial animals. It is denial of the denial.
Bill, Pagano, and Kalk couldn't keep using the Top Six to lie to >themselves. Pagano claimed that the Top Six were bogus (They are not >consistent with his geocentric old earth Biblical universe). Bill
claimed that he had never supported the ID scam, but what he likely
meant was that he had never supported what the ID scam had always been.
Now Kalk is claiming that he just is no longer interested in the Top
Six. ID perps like Sewell had to drop IC and the Cambrian explosion out
of the Top Six and present the rest out of order, and Miller dropped out >the Big Bang.
There doesn't seem to be any ID science under development that anyone
wants to relate to their religious beliefs. Meyer has been selling the >Cambrian explosion Gap denial (#5) years before he ran the Bait and
Switch on the Ohio creationist rubes in 2002. There probably are not
very many Biblical creationists in existence (the Reason to Believe old >earth IDiots included) that want to believe in the designer responsible
for the Cambrian explosion. The Reason to Believe IDiots claim that
they are IDiots in order to confirm their belief that the Bible is >factually true, and they have to deny the Cambrian explosion denial even >though you can see them using it the same way in which the YEC
scientific creationists and ID perps have used the Cambrian explosion
(as gap denial).
There doesn't seem to be any IDiotic type creationists interested in >discussing the IDiotic science because they do not want to understand
what they will end up denying.
Agreed, which is why I said that there's nothing "worth
discussing about any IDiotic science at this time". In
addition, of course, to the fact that "ID science" is
nonexistent.
On Monday, 11 September 2023 at 07:45:33 UTC+3, Bob Casanova wrote:
On Sun, 10 Sep 2023 19:37:54 -0500, the following appearedThe ID science itself can happen and maybe even does happen ... just that
in talk.origins, posted by RonO <roki...@cox.net>:
On 9/10/2023 12:09 PM, Bob Casanova wrote:Agreed, which is why I said that there's nothing "worth
On Sun, 10 Sep 2023 11:23:40 -0500, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by RonO <roki...@cox.net>:
https://evolutionnews.org/2023/09/in-debate-on-intelligent-design-critic-cites-dragon-legend-to-justify-evolutions-failures/Nothing, especially since there is no such thing as ID
All the ID perps seem to want to discuss is denial. Is there anything >> >>> left about the ID scam that any ex IDiots, who dropped out of the ID
scam when the Top Six were given to them, think is still worth
discussing. There is still the second rate creationist denial that
didn't make it into the Top Six, and creationists like Tour and MarkE >> >>> still think that it is worth lying to themselves about individual topics
of the Top Six even though they do not want to believe in the designer >> >>> responsible for them. Really, the designer of life around 3.8 billion >> >>> years ago under the conditions that existed at that time is never going >> >>> to be accepted as the Biblical god by the vast majority of IDiotic type >> >>> creationists. Even the old earth creationists at Reason to Beleive
can't deal with that designer because they need the first lifeforms to >> >>> be land plants that obviously evolved long after there were sea
creatures that were supposed to have been created after land plants, and
there is nothing in the Bible about billions of years of microbial life >> >>> before multicellular plants and animals evolved.
Is there anything positive about the creationist ID scam that is still >> >>> worth discussing?
Apparently Michael Ruse is still willing to discuss the subject, but
there doesn't seem to be much to discuss. Behe has been an ID perp from >> >>> the start, and all of his junk has failed. How many IDiot type Biblical >> >>> creationists want to believe in the designer responsible for evolving >> >>> the bacterial flagellum (#4 of the Top Six) over a billion years ago
when all life forms were restricted to being microbial?
An ex IDiot like Kalkidas should put up some things that are still worth
discussing since he now claims that the best that the IDiots ever had >> >>> are of little interest to him since he claims to have abandoned the
creationist ID scam in response to the Top Six being presented in the >> >>> order in which they must have occurred. He is obviously still a
Biblical creationists, so what is there left to discuss about any
possible IDiotic science that the ID perps might still do something about?
There just isn't any creation science that most if the IDiots in
existence ever wanted the ID perps to accomplish. Science is just the >> >>> best way we have for understanding nature, but it turned out that nature
isn't Biblical enough for IDiots to want to understand much about it. >> >>> Behe and Denton warned the IDiots, decades ago, that they could not
expect any ID science to change very much about what we understand about
nature (their Biblical creation). Behe has claimed that evolution
happened, but it wasn't totally by "Darwinian" processes. He has always >> >>> claimed that there were some bits about nature that his intelligent
designer (his Biblical god) needed to be involved with. The issue has >> >>> always been the fact that most IDiots are YEC and anti evolution, so
Behe's designer was never the one that they wanted to demonstrate
exists. If Behe had ever been successful in finding his 3 neutral
mutations that occurred in some part of the flagellum to produce a new >> >>> function over a billion years ago, that would have just been more
science for IDiots to deny.
So what is there worth discussing about any IDiotic science at this time?
science. Maybe when it appears...
This has been known for over 2 decades, but for over 15 years most of
the IDiotic creationists that continued to post on TO ignored that fact. >> > No one has ever gotten the ID science to teach in the public schools
even though the ID scam started out claiming that they had ID science
that could be taught in the public schools. The ID perps never produced
a public school lesson plan even though they have continued to claim to
be able to teach the ID science in the public schools for decades. No
one knows what would be taught if anyone ever teaches what they claim as >> >ID science. The reason seems to be that no one would want to teach the
Top Six, and if you aren't going to teach the best evidence why would
you teach anything at all? The Big Bang (#1) has already been a science
topic that IDiotic type creationists have wanted to drop from the public >> >school science standards, and they succeeded in Kansas in 1999. So the
ID perps knew that they didn't want to teach the ID scam in the public
schools years before they started to run the bait and switch in 2002.
The bait and switch scam that the ID scam turned into, and the loss in
Dover hasn't made any IDiots demand to see the ID science. Most of the
IDiots were satisfied to keep lying to themselves with the Gap denial
until the Top Six came out. The ID perps are still claiming creationist
support. They have subsequently put the Top Six out with the gaps out
of order and dropped #4 (IC) and #5 (the Cambrian explosion). The last
article on the Top Six dropped the Big Bang (#1) and made it the Top 5
by splitting #2 (fine tuning) into two parts and Human evolution (#6)
into two parts. Even some of the ID perps couldn't stand the Top Six as
they were presented to the rubes back in Nov. 2017.
Nelson was an ID perp from the start, and he was the only one that kept
claiming that they didn't yet have the ID science, but that they were
working on producing some. The reason turns out that Nelson was YEC and
couldn't stand what the other ID perps were claiming as the ID science.
There is absolutely no room for the existence of any YEC creationists
within the Top Six provided in "their order simply reflecting that in
which they must logically have occurred within our universe." The Big
Tent that they sold the creationist rubes was a Big Lie. Luskin was
probably the editor responsible for the Top Six, and the rubes were
warned when Luskin came back to the ID scam claiming that he had gotten
a PhD working on sedimentary rocks that were nearly 3 billion years old. >> > What is sad is that the majority of creationist support for the ID
scam are likely still YEC after over 2 decades of the bait and switch
going down on any creationist rubes still stupid enough to want to teach >> >the junk.
That seems to be the major reason that no ID perps seem to want to use
the Top Six in any constructive or positive way. They are the same
god-of-the-gaps junk that the Scientific creationists resorted to when
they figured out that there wasn't any creation science that they wanted >> >to accomplish, but they have never been used to build anything that the
creationists are willing to support. Even the Reason to Believe IDiots
have to deny the origin of life and Cambrian explosion gap denial
because they don't fit into the Biblical timeline. They haven't managed
to reinterpret enough of the Bible to make them fit. There isn't any
billions of years of the existence of microbial life before land plants
were created, before sea creatures, and whales need to be created before >> >their terrestrial ancestors existed because the Reason to Believe
creationists believe that whales were included among the sea creatures
that were created before terrestrial animals. It is denial of the denial. >> >
Bill, Pagano, and Kalk couldn't keep using the Top Six to lie to
themselves. Pagano claimed that the Top Six were bogus (They are not
consistent with his geocentric old earth Biblical universe). Bill
claimed that he had never supported the ID scam, but what he likely
meant was that he had never supported what the ID scam had always been.
Now Kalk is claiming that he just is no longer interested in the Top
Six. ID perps like Sewell had to drop IC and the Cambrian explosion out
of the Top Six and present the rest out of order, and Miller dropped out >> >the Big Bang.
There doesn't seem to be any ID science under development that anyone
wants to relate to their religious beliefs. Meyer has been selling the
Cambrian explosion Gap denial (#5) years before he ran the Bait and
Switch on the Ohio creationist rubes in 2002. There probably are not
very many Biblical creationists in existence (the Reason to Believe old
earth IDiots included) that want to believe in the designer responsible
for the Cambrian explosion. The Reason to Believe IDiots claim that
they are IDiots in order to confirm their belief that the Bible is
factually true, and they have to deny the Cambrian explosion denial even >> >though you can see them using it the same way in which the YEC
scientific creationists and ID perps have used the Cambrian explosion
(as gap denial).
There doesn't seem to be any IDiotic type creationists interested in
discussing the IDiotic science because they do not want to understand
what they will end up denying.
discussing about any IDiotic science at this time". In
addition, of course, to the fact that "ID science" is
nonexistent.
it does not have results and evidences. Religious art and gaps in our >knowledge are not proper evidences.
Without results and evidences they have still to say something. Only Phillip >Johnson had enough backbone to be fair and say that they have nothing
to teach (yet). Rest of them tend to fill the silence with political noise, >doubt and denial of science.
That does not follow as science is nowhere defined as results and evidences. >Science is typically defined as rigorous and systematic attempt to achieve >knowledge in the form of testable explanations and predictions.The ID science itself can happen and maybe even does happen ... just that >> >it does not have results and evidences. Religious art and gaps in our
knowledge are not proper evidences.
Without results and evidences they have still to say something. Only Phillip
Johnson had enough backbone to be fair and say that they have nothing
to teach (yet). Rest of them tend to fill the silence with political noise,
doubt and denial of science.
"no results and evidences" means ID science does not happen.
They have made some positive science-like claims about ID before and those >have been refuted. Therefore attempt did happen and did fail without good >results, (no knowledge) and it may well be that it still does happen.
On Monday, 11 September 2023 at 07:45:33 UTC+3, Bob Casanova wrote:
On Sun, 10 Sep 2023 19:37:54 -0500, the following appearedThe ID science itself can happen and maybe even does happen ... just that
in talk.origins, posted by RonO <roki...@cox.net>:
On 9/10/2023 12:09 PM, Bob Casanova wrote:Agreed, which is why I said that there's nothing "worth
On Sun, 10 Sep 2023 11:23:40 -0500, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by RonO <roki...@cox.net>:
https://evolutionnews.org/2023/09/in-debate-on-intelligent-design-critic-cites-dragon-legend-to-justify-evolutions-failures/Nothing, especially since there is no such thing as ID
All the ID perps seem to want to discuss is denial. Is there anything >>>>> left about the ID scam that any ex IDiots, who dropped out of the ID >>>>> scam when the Top Six were given to them, think is still worth
discussing. There is still the second rate creationist denial that
didn't make it into the Top Six, and creationists like Tour and MarkE >>>>> still think that it is worth lying to themselves about individual topics >>>>> of the Top Six even though they do not want to believe in the designer >>>>> responsible for them. Really, the designer of life around 3.8 billion >>>>> years ago under the conditions that existed at that time is never going >>>>> to be accepted as the Biblical god by the vast majority of IDiotic type >>>>> creationists. Even the old earth creationists at Reason to Beleive
can't deal with that designer because they need the first lifeforms to >>>>> be land plants that obviously evolved long after there were sea
creatures that were supposed to have been created after land plants, and >>>>> there is nothing in the Bible about billions of years of microbial life >>>>> before multicellular plants and animals evolved.
Is there anything positive about the creationist ID scam that is still >>>>> worth discussing?
Apparently Michael Ruse is still willing to discuss the subject, but >>>>> there doesn't seem to be much to discuss. Behe has been an ID perp from >>>>> the start, and all of his junk has failed. How many IDiot type Biblical >>>>> creationists want to believe in the designer responsible for evolving >>>>> the bacterial flagellum (#4 of the Top Six) over a billion years ago >>>>> when all life forms were restricted to being microbial?
An ex IDiot like Kalkidas should put up some things that are still worth >>>>> discussing since he now claims that the best that the IDiots ever had >>>>> are of little interest to him since he claims to have abandoned the
creationist ID scam in response to the Top Six being presented in the >>>>> order in which they must have occurred. He is obviously still a
Biblical creationists, so what is there left to discuss about any
possible IDiotic science that the ID perps might still do something about?
There just isn't any creation science that most if the IDiots in
existence ever wanted the ID perps to accomplish. Science is just the >>>>> best way we have for understanding nature, but it turned out that nature >>>>> isn't Biblical enough for IDiots to want to understand much about it. >>>>> Behe and Denton warned the IDiots, decades ago, that they could not
expect any ID science to change very much about what we understand about >>>>> nature (their Biblical creation). Behe has claimed that evolution
happened, but it wasn't totally by "Darwinian" processes. He has always >>>>> claimed that there were some bits about nature that his intelligent
designer (his Biblical god) needed to be involved with. The issue has >>>>> always been the fact that most IDiots are YEC and anti evolution, so >>>>> Behe's designer was never the one that they wanted to demonstrate
exists. If Behe had ever been successful in finding his 3 neutral
mutations that occurred in some part of the flagellum to produce a new >>>>> function over a billion years ago, that would have just been more
science for IDiots to deny.
So what is there worth discussing about any IDiotic science at this time? >>>>>
science. Maybe when it appears...
This has been known for over 2 decades, but for over 15 years most of
the IDiotic creationists that continued to post on TO ignored that fact. >>> No one has ever gotten the ID science to teach in the public schools
even though the ID scam started out claiming that they had ID science
that could be taught in the public schools. The ID perps never produced
a public school lesson plan even though they have continued to claim to
be able to teach the ID science in the public schools for decades. No
one knows what would be taught if anyone ever teaches what they claim as >>> ID science. The reason seems to be that no one would want to teach the
Top Six, and if you aren't going to teach the best evidence why would
you teach anything at all? The Big Bang (#1) has already been a science
topic that IDiotic type creationists have wanted to drop from the public >>> school science standards, and they succeeded in Kansas in 1999. So the
ID perps knew that they didn't want to teach the ID scam in the public
schools years before they started to run the bait and switch in 2002.
The bait and switch scam that the ID scam turned into, and the loss in
Dover hasn't made any IDiots demand to see the ID science. Most of the
IDiots were satisfied to keep lying to themselves with the Gap denial
until the Top Six came out. The ID perps are still claiming creationist
support. They have subsequently put the Top Six out with the gaps out
of order and dropped #4 (IC) and #5 (the Cambrian explosion). The last
article on the Top Six dropped the Big Bang (#1) and made it the Top 5
by splitting #2 (fine tuning) into two parts and Human evolution (#6)
into two parts. Even some of the ID perps couldn't stand the Top Six as
they were presented to the rubes back in Nov. 2017.
Nelson was an ID perp from the start, and he was the only one that kept
claiming that they didn't yet have the ID science, but that they were
working on producing some. The reason turns out that Nelson was YEC and
couldn't stand what the other ID perps were claiming as the ID science.
There is absolutely no room for the existence of any YEC creationists
within the Top Six provided in "their order simply reflecting that in
which they must logically have occurred within our universe." The Big
Tent that they sold the creationist rubes was a Big Lie. Luskin was
probably the editor responsible for the Top Six, and the rubes were
warned when Luskin came back to the ID scam claiming that he had gotten
a PhD working on sedimentary rocks that were nearly 3 billion years old. >>> What is sad is that the majority of creationist support for the ID
scam are likely still YEC after over 2 decades of the bait and switch
going down on any creationist rubes still stupid enough to want to teach >>> the junk.
That seems to be the major reason that no ID perps seem to want to use
the Top Six in any constructive or positive way. They are the same
god-of-the-gaps junk that the Scientific creationists resorted to when
they figured out that there wasn't any creation science that they wanted >>> to accomplish, but they have never been used to build anything that the
creationists are willing to support. Even the Reason to Believe IDiots
have to deny the origin of life and Cambrian explosion gap denial
because they don't fit into the Biblical timeline. They haven't managed
to reinterpret enough of the Bible to make them fit. There isn't any
billions of years of the existence of microbial life before land plants
were created, before sea creatures, and whales need to be created before >>> their terrestrial ancestors existed because the Reason to Believe
creationists believe that whales were included among the sea creatures
that were created before terrestrial animals. It is denial of the denial. >>>
Bill, Pagano, and Kalk couldn't keep using the Top Six to lie to
themselves. Pagano claimed that the Top Six were bogus (They are not
consistent with his geocentric old earth Biblical universe). Bill
claimed that he had never supported the ID scam, but what he likely
meant was that he had never supported what the ID scam had always been.
Now Kalk is claiming that he just is no longer interested in the Top
Six. ID perps like Sewell had to drop IC and the Cambrian explosion out
of the Top Six and present the rest out of order, and Miller dropped out >>> the Big Bang.
There doesn't seem to be any ID science under development that anyone
wants to relate to their religious beliefs. Meyer has been selling the
Cambrian explosion Gap denial (#5) years before he ran the Bait and
Switch on the Ohio creationist rubes in 2002. There probably are not
very many Biblical creationists in existence (the Reason to Believe old
earth IDiots included) that want to believe in the designer responsible
for the Cambrian explosion. The Reason to Believe IDiots claim that
they are IDiots in order to confirm their belief that the Bible is
factually true, and they have to deny the Cambrian explosion denial even >>> though you can see them using it the same way in which the YEC
scientific creationists and ID perps have used the Cambrian explosion
(as gap denial).
There doesn't seem to be any IDiotic type creationists interested in
discussing the IDiotic science because they do not want to understand
what they will end up denying.
discussing about any IDiotic science at this time". In
addition, of course, to the fact that "ID science" is
nonexistent.
it does not have results and evidences. Religious art and gaps in our knowledge are not proper evidences.
Without results and evidences they have still to say something. Only Phillip Johnson had enough backbone to be fair and say that they have nothing
to teach (yet). Rest of them tend to fill the silence with political noise, doubt and denial of science.
On Mon, 11 Sep 2023 00:19:44 -0700 (PDT), Öö Tiib <oot...@hot.ee>
wrote:
On Monday, 11 September 2023 at 07:45:33 UTC+3, Bob Casanova wrote:
On Sun, 10 Sep 2023 19:37:54 -0500, the following appearedThe ID science itself can happen and maybe even does happen ... just that >it does not have results and evidences. Religious art and gaps in our >knowledge are not proper evidences.
in talk.origins, posted by RonO <roki...@cox.net>:
On 9/10/2023 12:09 PM, Bob Casanova wrote:Agreed, which is why I said that there's nothing "worth
On Sun, 10 Sep 2023 11:23:40 -0500, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by RonO <roki...@cox.net>:
https://evolutionnews.org/2023/09/in-debate-on-intelligent-design-critic-cites-dragon-legend-to-justify-evolutions-failures/Nothing, especially since there is no such thing as ID
All the ID perps seem to want to discuss is denial. Is there anything >> >>> left about the ID scam that any ex IDiots, who dropped out of the ID >> >>> scam when the Top Six were given to them, think is still worth
discussing. There is still the second rate creationist denial that
didn't make it into the Top Six, and creationists like Tour and MarkE >> >>> still think that it is worth lying to themselves about individual topics
of the Top Six even though they do not want to believe in the designer
responsible for them. Really, the designer of life around 3.8 billion >> >>> years ago under the conditions that existed at that time is never going
to be accepted as the Biblical god by the vast majority of IDiotic type
creationists. Even the old earth creationists at Reason to Beleive
can't deal with that designer because they need the first lifeforms to
be land plants that obviously evolved long after there were sea
creatures that were supposed to have been created after land plants, and
there is nothing in the Bible about billions of years of microbial life
before multicellular plants and animals evolved.
Is there anything positive about the creationist ID scam that is still
worth discussing?
Apparently Michael Ruse is still willing to discuss the subject, but >> >>> there doesn't seem to be much to discuss. Behe has been an ID perp from
the start, and all of his junk has failed. How many IDiot type Biblical
creationists want to believe in the designer responsible for evolving >> >>> the bacterial flagellum (#4 of the Top Six) over a billion years ago >> >>> when all life forms were restricted to being microbial?
An ex IDiot like Kalkidas should put up some things that are still worth
discussing since he now claims that the best that the IDiots ever had >> >>> are of little interest to him since he claims to have abandoned the >> >>> creationist ID scam in response to the Top Six being presented in the >> >>> order in which they must have occurred. He is obviously still a
Biblical creationists, so what is there left to discuss about any
possible IDiotic science that the ID perps might still do something about?
There just isn't any creation science that most if the IDiots in
existence ever wanted the ID perps to accomplish. Science is just the >> >>> best way we have for understanding nature, but it turned out that nature
isn't Biblical enough for IDiots to want to understand much about it. >> >>> Behe and Denton warned the IDiots, decades ago, that they could not >> >>> expect any ID science to change very much about what we understand about
nature (their Biblical creation). Behe has claimed that evolution
happened, but it wasn't totally by "Darwinian" processes. He has always
claimed that there were some bits about nature that his intelligent >> >>> designer (his Biblical god) needed to be involved with. The issue has >> >>> always been the fact that most IDiots are YEC and anti evolution, so >> >>> Behe's designer was never the one that they wanted to demonstrate
exists. If Behe had ever been successful in finding his 3 neutral
mutations that occurred in some part of the flagellum to produce a new
function over a billion years ago, that would have just been more
science for IDiots to deny.
So what is there worth discussing about any IDiotic science at this time?
science. Maybe when it appears...
This has been known for over 2 decades, but for over 15 years most of
the IDiotic creationists that continued to post on TO ignored that fact. >> > No one has ever gotten the ID science to teach in the public schools
even though the ID scam started out claiming that they had ID science
that could be taught in the public schools. The ID perps never produced >> >a public school lesson plan even though they have continued to claim to >> >be able to teach the ID science in the public schools for decades. No
one knows what would be taught if anyone ever teaches what they claim as >> >ID science. The reason seems to be that no one would want to teach the >> >Top Six, and if you aren't going to teach the best evidence why would
you teach anything at all? The Big Bang (#1) has already been a science >> >topic that IDiotic type creationists have wanted to drop from the public >> >school science standards, and they succeeded in Kansas in 1999. So the >> >ID perps knew that they didn't want to teach the ID scam in the public >> >schools years before they started to run the bait and switch in 2002.
The bait and switch scam that the ID scam turned into, and the loss in >> >Dover hasn't made any IDiots demand to see the ID science. Most of the >> >IDiots were satisfied to keep lying to themselves with the Gap denial
until the Top Six came out. The ID perps are still claiming creationist >> >support. They have subsequently put the Top Six out with the gaps out
of order and dropped #4 (IC) and #5 (the Cambrian explosion). The last >> >article on the Top Six dropped the Big Bang (#1) and made it the Top 5 >> >by splitting #2 (fine tuning) into two parts and Human evolution (#6)
into two parts. Even some of the ID perps couldn't stand the Top Six as >> >they were presented to the rubes back in Nov. 2017.
Nelson was an ID perp from the start, and he was the only one that kept >> >claiming that they didn't yet have the ID science, but that they were
working on producing some. The reason turns out that Nelson was YEC and >> >couldn't stand what the other ID perps were claiming as the ID science. >> >There is absolutely no room for the existence of any YEC creationists
within the Top Six provided in "their order simply reflecting that in
which they must logically have occurred within our universe." The Big
Tent that they sold the creationist rubes was a Big Lie. Luskin was
probably the editor responsible for the Top Six, and the rubes were
warned when Luskin came back to the ID scam claiming that he had gotten >> >a PhD working on sedimentary rocks that were nearly 3 billion years old. >> > What is sad is that the majority of creationist support for the ID
scam are likely still YEC after over 2 decades of the bait and switch
going down on any creationist rubes still stupid enough to want to teach >> >the junk.
That seems to be the major reason that no ID perps seem to want to use >> >the Top Six in any constructive or positive way. They are the same
god-of-the-gaps junk that the Scientific creationists resorted to when >> >they figured out that there wasn't any creation science that they wanted >> >to accomplish, but they have never been used to build anything that the >> >creationists are willing to support. Even the Reason to Believe IDiots >> >have to deny the origin of life and Cambrian explosion gap denial
because they don't fit into the Biblical timeline. They haven't managed >> >to reinterpret enough of the Bible to make them fit. There isn't any
billions of years of the existence of microbial life before land plants >> >were created, before sea creatures, and whales need to be created before >> >their terrestrial ancestors existed because the Reason to Believe
creationists believe that whales were included among the sea creatures >> >that were created before terrestrial animals. It is denial of the denial.
Bill, Pagano, and Kalk couldn't keep using the Top Six to lie to
themselves. Pagano claimed that the Top Six were bogus (They are not
consistent with his geocentric old earth Biblical universe). Bill
claimed that he had never supported the ID scam, but what he likely
meant was that he had never supported what the ID scam had always been. >> >Now Kalk is claiming that he just is no longer interested in the Top
Six. ID perps like Sewell had to drop IC and the Cambrian explosion out >> >of the Top Six and present the rest out of order, and Miller dropped out >> >the Big Bang.
There doesn't seem to be any ID science under development that anyone
wants to relate to their religious beliefs. Meyer has been selling the >> >Cambrian explosion Gap denial (#5) years before he ran the Bait and
Switch on the Ohio creationist rubes in 2002. There probably are not
very many Biblical creationists in existence (the Reason to Believe old >> >earth IDiots included) that want to believe in the designer responsible >> >for the Cambrian explosion. The Reason to Believe IDiots claim that
they are IDiots in order to confirm their belief that the Bible is
factually true, and they have to deny the Cambrian explosion denial even >> >though you can see them using it the same way in which the YEC
scientific creationists and ID perps have used the Cambrian explosion
(as gap denial).
There doesn't seem to be any IDiotic type creationists interested in
discussing the IDiotic science because they do not want to understand
what they will end up denying.
discussing about any IDiotic science at this time". In
addition, of course, to the fact that "ID science" is
nonexistent.
Without results and evidences they have still to say something. Only Phillip
Johnson had enough backbone to be fair and say that they have nothing
to teach (yet). Rest of them tend to fill the silence with political noise, >doubt and denial of science.
"no results and evidences" means ID science does not happen.
This reality never affected IDiots that kept posting to TO.
As I noted Nelson had consistently made claims that the ID perps did not
yet have the ID science. The first that I recall was around the time
that the first Bait and Switch went down in 2002, but he is always
quoted for his 2005 statement that he made when the Dover situation was hitting the fan.
On Monday, 11 September 2023 at 07:45:33 UTC+3, Bob Casanova wrote:
On Sun, 10 Sep 2023 19:37:54 -0500, the following appearedThe ID science itself can happen and maybe even does happen ... just that
in talk.origins, posted by RonO <roki...@cox.net>:
On 9/10/2023 12:09 PM, Bob Casanova wrote:Agreed, which is why I said that there's nothing "worth
On Sun, 10 Sep 2023 11:23:40 -0500, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by RonO <roki...@cox.net>:
https://evolutionnews.org/2023/09/in-debate-on-intelligent-design-critic-cites-dragon-legend-to-justify-evolutions-failures/Nothing, especially since there is no such thing as ID
All the ID perps seem to want to discuss is denial. Is there anything
left about the ID scam that any ex IDiots, who dropped out of the ID
scam when the Top Six were given to them, think is still worth
discussing. There is still the second rate creationist denial that
didn't make it into the Top Six, and creationists like Tour and MarkE
still think that it is worth lying to themselves about individual topics >> >>> of the Top Six even though they do not want to believe in the designer >> >>> responsible for them. Really, the designer of life around 3.8 billion
years ago under the conditions that existed at that time is never going >> >>> to be accepted as the Biblical god by the vast majority of IDiotic type >> >>> creationists. Even the old earth creationists at Reason to Beleive
can't deal with that designer because they need the first lifeforms to >> >>> be land plants that obviously evolved long after there were sea
creatures that were supposed to have been created after land plants, and >> >>> there is nothing in the Bible about billions of years of microbial life >> >>> before multicellular plants and animals evolved.
Is there anything positive about the creationist ID scam that is still >> >>> worth discussing?
Apparently Michael Ruse is still willing to discuss the subject, but
there doesn't seem to be much to discuss. Behe has been an ID perp from >> >>> the start, and all of his junk has failed. How many IDiot type Biblical >> >>> creationists want to believe in the designer responsible for evolving
the bacterial flagellum (#4 of the Top Six) over a billion years ago
when all life forms were restricted to being microbial?
An ex IDiot like Kalkidas should put up some things that are still worth >> >>> discussing since he now claims that the best that the IDiots ever had
are of little interest to him since he claims to have abandoned the
creationist ID scam in response to the Top Six being presented in the
order in which they must have occurred. He is obviously still a
Biblical creationists, so what is there left to discuss about any
possible IDiotic science that the ID perps might still do something about?
There just isn't any creation science that most if the IDiots in
existence ever wanted the ID perps to accomplish. Science is just the
best way we have for understanding nature, but it turned out that nature >> >>> isn't Biblical enough for IDiots to want to understand much about it.
Behe and Denton warned the IDiots, decades ago, that they could not
expect any ID science to change very much about what we understand about >> >>> nature (their Biblical creation). Behe has claimed that evolution
happened, but it wasn't totally by "Darwinian" processes. He has always >> >>> claimed that there were some bits about nature that his intelligent
designer (his Biblical god) needed to be involved with. The issue has
always been the fact that most IDiots are YEC and anti evolution, so
Behe's designer was never the one that they wanted to demonstrate
exists. If Behe had ever been successful in finding his 3 neutral
mutations that occurred in some part of the flagellum to produce a new >> >>> function over a billion years ago, that would have just been more
science for IDiots to deny.
So what is there worth discussing about any IDiotic science at this time?
science. Maybe when it appears...
This has been known for over 2 decades, but for over 15 years most of
the IDiotic creationists that continued to post on TO ignored that fact.
No one has ever gotten the ID science to teach in the public schools
even though the ID scam started out claiming that they had ID science
that could be taught in the public schools. The ID perps never produced
a public school lesson plan even though they have continued to claim to
be able to teach the ID science in the public schools for decades. No
one knows what would be taught if anyone ever teaches what they claim as
ID science. The reason seems to be that no one would want to teach the
Top Six, and if you aren't going to teach the best evidence why would
you teach anything at all? The Big Bang (#1) has already been a science
topic that IDiotic type creationists have wanted to drop from the public
school science standards, and they succeeded in Kansas in 1999. So the
ID perps knew that they didn't want to teach the ID scam in the public
schools years before they started to run the bait and switch in 2002.
The bait and switch scam that the ID scam turned into, and the loss in
Dover hasn't made any IDiots demand to see the ID science. Most of the
IDiots were satisfied to keep lying to themselves with the Gap denial
until the Top Six came out. The ID perps are still claiming creationist
support. They have subsequently put the Top Six out with the gaps out
of order and dropped #4 (IC) and #5 (the Cambrian explosion). The last
article on the Top Six dropped the Big Bang (#1) and made it the Top 5
by splitting #2 (fine tuning) into two parts and Human evolution (#6)
into two parts. Even some of the ID perps couldn't stand the Top Six as
they were presented to the rubes back in Nov. 2017.
Nelson was an ID perp from the start, and he was the only one that kept
claiming that they didn't yet have the ID science, but that they were
working on producing some. The reason turns out that Nelson was YEC and
couldn't stand what the other ID perps were claiming as the ID science.
There is absolutely no room for the existence of any YEC creationists
within the Top Six provided in "their order simply reflecting that in
which they must logically have occurred within our universe." The Big
Tent that they sold the creationist rubes was a Big Lie. Luskin was
probably the editor responsible for the Top Six, and the rubes were
warned when Luskin came back to the ID scam claiming that he had gotten
a PhD working on sedimentary rocks that were nearly 3 billion years old.
What is sad is that the majority of creationist support for the ID
scam are likely still YEC after over 2 decades of the bait and switch
going down on any creationist rubes still stupid enough to want to teach
the junk.
That seems to be the major reason that no ID perps seem to want to use
the Top Six in any constructive or positive way. They are the same
god-of-the-gaps junk that the Scientific creationists resorted to when
they figured out that there wasn't any creation science that they wanted
to accomplish, but they have never been used to build anything that the
creationists are willing to support. Even the Reason to Believe IDiots
have to deny the origin of life and Cambrian explosion gap denial
because they don't fit into the Biblical timeline. They haven't managed
to reinterpret enough of the Bible to make them fit. There isn't any
billions of years of the existence of microbial life before land plants
were created, before sea creatures, and whales need to be created before
their terrestrial ancestors existed because the Reason to Believe
creationists believe that whales were included among the sea creatures
that were created before terrestrial animals. It is denial of the denial. >> >
Bill, Pagano, and Kalk couldn't keep using the Top Six to lie to
themselves. Pagano claimed that the Top Six were bogus (They are not
consistent with his geocentric old earth Biblical universe). Bill
claimed that he had never supported the ID scam, but what he likely
meant was that he had never supported what the ID scam had always been.
Now Kalk is claiming that he just is no longer interested in the Top
Six. ID perps like Sewell had to drop IC and the Cambrian explosion out
of the Top Six and present the rest out of order, and Miller dropped out
the Big Bang.
There doesn't seem to be any ID science under development that anyone
wants to relate to their religious beliefs. Meyer has been selling the
Cambrian explosion Gap denial (#5) years before he ran the Bait and
Switch on the Ohio creationist rubes in 2002. There probably are not
very many Biblical creationists in existence (the Reason to Believe old
earth IDiots included) that want to believe in the designer responsible
for the Cambrian explosion. The Reason to Believe IDiots claim that
they are IDiots in order to confirm their belief that the Bible is
factually true, and they have to deny the Cambrian explosion denial even
though you can see them using it the same way in which the YEC
scientific creationists and ID perps have used the Cambrian explosion
(as gap denial).
There doesn't seem to be any IDiotic type creationists interested in
discussing the IDiotic science because they do not want to understand
what they will end up denying.
discussing about any IDiotic science at this time". In
addition, of course, to the fact that "ID science" is
nonexistent.
it does not have results and evidences. Religious art and gaps in our >knowledge are not proper evidences.
Without results and evidences they have still to say something. Only Phillip >Johnson had enough backbone to be fair and say that they have nothing
to teach (yet). Rest of them tend to fill the silence with political noise, >doubt and denial of science.
On Mon, 11 Sep 2023 00:19:44 -0700 (PDT), the following
appeared in talk.origins, posted by Öö Tiib <oot...@hot.ee>:
On Monday, 11 September 2023 at 07:45:33 UTC+3, Bob Casanova wrote:
On Sun, 10 Sep 2023 19:37:54 -0500, the following appearedThe ID science itself can happen and maybe even does happen ... just that >it does not have results and evidences. Religious art and gaps in our >knowledge are not proper evidences.
in talk.origins, posted by RonO <roki...@cox.net>:
Agreed, which is why I said that there's nothing "worth
There doesn't seem to be any IDiotic type creationists interested in
discussing the IDiotic science because they do not want to understand
what they will end up denying.
discussing about any IDiotic science at this time". In
addition, of course, to the fact that "ID science" is
nonexistent.
If by "science" one means using the accepted methods of
science: Investigate observed phenomena by formulating tests
and hypotheses, analyzing the test results and using those
results to attempt to falsify the hypothesis, lather, rinse,
repeat, then I question whether ID (the religious version,
which is the one nearly all IDists are invested in) can
*ever* be scientific, since their conjectures are untestable
and any evidence contradicting their beliefs is
automatically rejected.
Using science to attempt to validate faith is a bad bargain.
Without results and evidences they have still to say something. Only Phillip
Johnson had enough backbone to be fair and say that they have nothing
to teach (yet). Rest of them tend to fill the silence with political noise, >doubt and denial of science.
--
Bob C.
"The most exciting phrase to hear in science,
the one that heralds new discoveries, is not
'Eureka!' but 'That's funny...'"
- Isaac Asimov
https://evolutionnews.org/2023/09/in-debate-on-intelligent-design-critic-cites-dragon-legend-to-justify-evolutions-failures/Nothing.
All the ID perps seem to want to discuss is denial. Is there anything
left about the ID scam that any ex IDiots, who dropped out of the ID
scam when the Top Six were given to them, think is still worth
discussing. There is still the second rate creationist denial that
didn't make it into the Top Six, and creationists like Tour and MarkE
still think that it is worth lying to themselves about individual topics
of the Top Six even though they do not want to believe in the designer responsible for them. Really, the designer of life around 3.8 billion
years ago under the conditions that existed at that time is never going
to be accepted as the Biblical god by the vast majority of IDiotic type creationists. Even the old earth creationists at Reason to Beleive
can't deal with that designer because they need the first lifeforms to
be land plants that obviously evolved long after there were sea
creatures that were supposed to have been created after land plants, and there is nothing in the Bible about billions of years of microbial life before multicellular plants and animals evolved.
Is there anything positive about the creationist ID scam that is still
worth discussing?
Apparently Michael Ruse is still willing to discuss the subject, but
there doesn't seem to be much to discuss. Behe has been an ID perp from
the start, and all of his junk has failed. How many IDiot type Biblical creationists want to believe in the designer responsible for evolving
the bacterial flagellum (#4 of the Top Six) over a billion years ago
when all life forms were restricted to being microbial?
An ex IDiot like Kalkidas should put up some things that are still worth discussing since he now claims that the best that the IDiots ever had
are of little interest to him since he claims to have abandoned the creationist ID scam in response to the Top Six being presented in the
order in which they must have occurred. He is obviously still a
Biblical creationists, so what is there left to discuss about any
possible IDiotic science that the ID perps might still do something about?
There just isn't any creation science that most if the IDiots in
existence ever wanted the ID perps to accomplish. Science is just the
best way we have for understanding nature, but it turned out that nature isn't Biblical enough for IDiots to want to understand much about it.
Behe and Denton warned the IDiots, decades ago, that they could not
expect any ID science to change very much about what we understand about nature (their Biblical creation). Behe has claimed that evolution
happened, but it wasn't totally by "Darwinian" processes. He has always claimed that there were some bits about nature that his intelligent
designer (his Biblical god) needed to be involved with. The issue has
always been the fact that most IDiots are YEC and anti evolution, so
Behe's designer was never the one that they wanted to demonstrate
exists. If Behe had ever been successful in finding his 3 neutral
mutations that occurred in some part of the flagellum to produce a new function over a billion years ago, that would have just been more
science for IDiots to deny.
So what is there worth discussing about any IDiotic science at this time?
Ron Okimoto
On Monday, 11 September 2023 at 18:20:33 UTC+3, Bob Casanova wrote:
On Mon, 11 Sep 2023 00:19:44 -0700 (PDT), the followingYes, science is endeavor, attempt to achieve knowledge with certain
appeared in talk.origins, posted by Tiib <oot...@hot.ee>:
On Monday, 11 September 2023 at 07:45:33 UTC+3, Bob Casanova wrote:If by "science" one means using the accepted methods of
On Sun, 10 Sep 2023 19:37:54 -0500, the following appearedThe ID science itself can happen and maybe even does happen ... just that >> >it does not have results and evidences. Religious art and gaps in our
in talk.origins, posted by RonO <roki...@cox.net>:
Agreed, which is why I said that there's nothing "worth
There doesn't seem to be any IDiotic type creationists interested in
discussing the IDiotic science because they do not want to understand
what they will end up denying.
discussing about any IDiotic science at this time". In
addition, of course, to the fact that "ID science" is
nonexistent.
knowledge are not proper evidences.
science: Investigate observed phenomena by formulating tests
and hypotheses, analyzing the test results and using those
results to attempt to falsify the hypothesis, lather, rinse,
repeat, then I question whether ID (the religious version,
which is the one nearly all IDists are invested in) can
*ever* be scientific, since their conjectures are untestable
and any evidence contradicting their beliefs is
automatically rejected.
methods.
For example: Michael Behe produced his first version of "irreducible >complexity". Something that stops working if to erase any protein.
That is testable and its existence in nature can be shown but that can
be result of evolution. Close, but no cigar.
Then he produced his second version of "irreducible complexity".
Change that takes long row of individually non-beneficial mutations (or
one step macro-mutation) to reach. That is also testable in theory if
to have genome of ancestor and evolved version. But existence of
any such cases haven't been found in nature. Close again, but no cigar.
They have had several other similar science-like claims that have
been either refuted, discredited or not shown to be exiting or needed.
So ... I do not know with what someone of them comes out for next.
Currently they say nothing interesting ... just denial. So I agree,
nothing worth discussing. All I disagree is that science can't happen
there.
Using science to attempt to validate faith is a bad bargain.Lot of successful science is done and new knowledge produced
because scientists had noticed some oddity, had some idea about it
and faith in that idea. People with faith in supernatural beings also
say they notice and sense something. It can be result of superstition, >self-hypnosis, confirmation bias, or it can be that they are right. I do
not know it. All I know is that I do not observe things like that. But
it can be that I'm like ... for example color blind in that sense.
Without results and evidences they have still to say something. Only Phillip
Johnson had enough backbone to be fair and say that they have nothing
to teach (yet). Rest of them tend to fill the silence with political noise, >> >doubt and denial of science.
On Mon, 11 Sep 2023 05:44:18 -0500
RonO <rokimoto@cox.net> wrote:
[]
This reality never affected IDiots that kept posting to TO.
As I noted Nelson had consistently made claims that the ID perps did not
yet have the ID science. The first that I recall was around the time
that the first Bait and Switch went down in 2002, but he is always
quoted for his 2005 statement that he made when the Dover situation was
hitting the fan.
But they don't seem to bother posting here (any more). There's a few befuddled folk who think evolution is far too complicated, so it easier
for them to conjure up a magician to do all of it, or at least the tricky bits that science hasn't managed to figure out yet.
I think you're waging a battle that's over, or at least moved to some
other theatre.
On 9/10/2023 12:09 PM, Bob Casanova wrote:.
On Sun, 10 Sep 2023 11:23:40 -0500, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by RonO <roki...@cox.net>:
https://evolutionnews.org/2023/09/in-debate-on-intelligent-design-critic-cites-dragon-legend-to-justify-evolutions-failures/
Nelson was an ID perp from the start, and he was the only one that kept claiming that they didn't yet have the ID science, but that they were working on producing some. The reason turns out that Nelson was YEC and couldn't stand what the other ID perps were claiming as the ID science. There is absolutely no room for the existence of any YEC creationists.
within the Top Six provided in "their order simply reflecting that in
which they must logically have occurred within our universe."
Ron Okimoto
On Sunday, September 10, 2023 at 5:40:32 PM UTC-7, RonO wrote:
On 9/10/2023 12:09 PM, Bob Casanova wrote:.
On Sun, 10 Sep 2023 11:23:40 -0500, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by RonO <roki...@cox.net>:
https://evolutionnews.org/2023/09/in-debate-on-intelligent-design-critic-cites-dragon-legend-to-justify-evolutions-failures/
.
.
Nelson was an ID perp from the start, and he was the only one that kept.
claiming that they didn't yet have the ID science, but that they were
working on producing some. The reason turns out that Nelson was YEC and
couldn't stand what the other ID perps were claiming as the ID science.
There is absolutely no room for the existence of any YEC creationists
within the Top Six provided in "their order simply reflecting that in
which they must logically have occurred within our universe."
.
.
Ron Okimoto
Paul Nelson is indeed a 3rd generation YEC. I have a copy of his grandfather's book;
Nelson, Byron C.
1927 (last edition 1952) “After Its Kind: The first and last word on evolution” Minneapolis: Augsburg Books
On Mon, 11 Sep 2023 11:09:46 -0700 (PDT), the following
appeared in talk.origins, posted by Öö Tiib <oot...@hot.ee>:
On Monday, 11 September 2023 at 18:20:33 UTC+3, Bob Casanova wrote:
On Mon, 11 Sep 2023 00:19:44 -0700 (PDT), the followingYes, science is endeavor, attempt to achieve knowledge with certain >methods.
appeared in talk.origins, posted by Öö Tiib <oot...@hot.ee>:
On Monday, 11 September 2023 at 07:45:33 UTC+3, Bob Casanova wrote:If by "science" one means using the accepted methods of
On Sun, 10 Sep 2023 19:37:54 -0500, the following appearedThe ID science itself can happen and maybe even does happen ... just that
in talk.origins, posted by RonO <roki...@cox.net>:
Agreed, which is why I said that there's nothing "worth
There doesn't seem to be any IDiotic type creationists interested in >> >> >discussing the IDiotic science because they do not want to understand >> >> >what they will end up denying.
discussing about any IDiotic science at this time". In
addition, of course, to the fact that "ID science" is
nonexistent.
it does not have results and evidences. Religious art and gaps in our
knowledge are not proper evidences.
science: Investigate observed phenomena by formulating tests
and hypotheses, analyzing the test results and using those
results to attempt to falsify the hypothesis, lather, rinse,
repeat, then I question whether ID (the religious version,
which is the one nearly all IDists are invested in) can
*ever* be scientific, since their conjectures are untestable
and any evidence contradicting their beliefs is
automatically rejected.
For example: Michael Behe produced his first version of "irreducible >complexity". Something that stops working if to erase any protein.
That is testable and its existence in nature can be shown but that can
be result of evolution. Close, but no cigar.
Then he produced his second version of "irreducible complexity".
Change that takes long row of individually non-beneficial mutations (or >one step macro-mutation) to reach. That is also testable in theory if
to have genome of ancestor and evolved version. But existence of
any such cases haven't been found in nature. Close again, but no cigar.
They have had several other similar science-like claims that have
been either refuted, discredited or not shown to be exiting or needed.
So ... I do not know with what someone of them comes out for next. >Currently they say nothing interesting ... just denial. So I agree, >nothing worth discussing. All I disagree is that science can't happen >there.
Using science to attempt to validate faith is a bad bargain.Lot of successful science is done and new knowledge produced
because scientists had noticed some oddity, had some idea about it
and faith in that idea. People with faith in supernatural beings also
say they notice and sense something. It can be result of superstition, >self-hypnosis, confirmation bias, or it can be that they are right. I do >not know it. All I know is that I do not observe things like that. But
it can be that I'm like ... for example color blind in that sense.
Your point about noticing oddities is correct; I even use it
as my sig. But that doesn't make every conjecture rooted in
ignorance, such as Behe's about "irreducible complexity",
science. At most, they're interesting ideas which might lead
to new knowledge, but only if they can be tested. IC was
testable; it failed because there were pathways not
considered by Behe; I recall something about
subsequently-removed spandrels.
Without results and evidences they have still to say something. Only Phillip
Johnson had enough backbone to be fair and say that they have nothing
to teach (yet). Rest of them tend to fill the silence with political noise,
doubt and denial of science.
--
Bob C.
"The most exciting phrase to hear in science,
the one that heralds new discoveries, is not
'Eureka!' but 'That's funny...'"
- Isaac Asimov
On Tuesday, 12 September 2023 at 01:50:33 UTC+3, Bob Casanova wrote:
On Mon, 11 Sep 2023 11:09:46 -0700 (PDT), the followingBehe's attempts are what is science (just unsuccessful), and it
appeared in talk.origins, posted by Tiib <oot...@hot.ee>:
On Monday, 11 September 2023 at 18:20:33 UTC+3, Bob Casanova wrote:Your point about noticing oddities is correct; I even use it
On Mon, 11 Sep 2023 00:19:44 -0700 (PDT), the followingYes, science is endeavor, attempt to achieve knowledge with certain
appeared in talk.origins, posted by Tiib <oot...@hot.ee>:
On Monday, 11 September 2023 at 07:45:33 UTC+3, Bob Casanova wrote:If by "science" one means using the accepted methods of
On Sun, 10 Sep 2023 19:37:54 -0500, the following appearedThe ID science itself can happen and maybe even does happen ... just that
in talk.origins, posted by RonO <roki...@cox.net>:
Agreed, which is why I said that there's nothing "worth
There doesn't seem to be any IDiotic type creationists interested in >> >> >> >discussing the IDiotic science because they do not want to understand >> >> >> >what they will end up denying.
discussing about any IDiotic science at this time". In
addition, of course, to the fact that "ID science" is
nonexistent.
it does not have results and evidences. Religious art and gaps in our
knowledge are not proper evidences.
science: Investigate observed phenomena by formulating tests
and hypotheses, analyzing the test results and using those
results to attempt to falsify the hypothesis, lather, rinse,
repeat, then I question whether ID (the religious version,
which is the one nearly all IDists are invested in) can
*ever* be scientific, since their conjectures are untestable
and any evidence contradicting their beliefs is
automatically rejected.
methods.
For example: Michael Behe produced his first version of "irreducible
complexity". Something that stops working if to erase any protein.
That is testable and its existence in nature can be shown but that can
be result of evolution. Close, but no cigar.
Then he produced his second version of "irreducible complexity".
Change that takes long row of individually non-beneficial mutations (or
one step macro-mutation) to reach. That is also testable in theory if
to have genome of ancestor and evolved version. But existence of
any such cases haven't been found in nature. Close again, but no cigar.
They have had several other similar science-like claims that have
been either refuted, discredited or not shown to be exiting or needed.
So ... I do not know with what someone of them comes out for next.
Currently they say nothing interesting ... just denial. So I agree,
nothing worth discussing. All I disagree is that science can't happen
there.
Using science to attempt to validate faith is a bad bargain.Lot of successful science is done and new knowledge produced
because scientists had noticed some oddity, had some idea about it
and faith in that idea. People with faith in supernatural beings also
say they notice and sense something. It can be result of superstition,
self-hypnosis, confirmation bias, or it can be that they are right. I do
not know it. All I know is that I do not observe things like that. But
it can be that I'm like ... for example color blind in that sense.
as my sig. But that doesn't make every conjecture rooted in
ignorance, such as Behe's about "irreducible complexity",
science. At most, they're interesting ideas which might lead
to new knowledge, but only if they can be tested. IC was
testable; it failed because there were pathways not
considered by Behe; I recall something about
subsequently-removed spandrels.
caused knowledge to emerge by scientists countering his claims.
That is science, not scam.
Similar unsuccessful science example: Some Korean researchers
published in July a discovery of "room temperature superconductor"
that caused several of institutes to study it and find that it isn't >superconductor. ><https://arstechnica.com/science/2023/09/the-room-temperature-superconductor-that-wasnt/>
Bad, failed science. But by every definition science.
Lot of science actually goes like that and lot of (expensive)
equipment and work hours are put into things that are figured not
to work as result.
Knowledge was produced in form of testable predictions that
succeeded something but failed in general.
Scam example: What "pnn calmagorod" posts here is clear scam. He
claims having invention and patents but does publish nothing that
others can verify. Why? Because he is scammer, not worth attention.
So that is (at least my opinion about) what is science. As of supernatural
it depends what we say is natural and what is supernatural. For example
if to say that what we know something about is "natural" (baryonic matter
and energy) ... then at least 95% of our universes mass and energy is >supernatural by indirect evidence. If anything of that is also "intelligent" >and even "benevolent" we do not know. We know nothing about it in big
part. That can be probably researched.
I agree with Ron Okimoto that if whatever we find out about how things
really are will not satisfy most believers. Discovery Institute, Reason
to Believe, Answers in Genesis etc. They want to argue with dogma
against dogma, not to research and to study.
----
Without results and evidences they have still to say something. Only Phillip
Johnson had enough backbone to be fair and say that they have nothing
to teach (yet). Rest of them tend to fill the silence with political noise,
doubt and denial of science.
Bob C.
"The most exciting phrase to hear in science,
the one that heralds new discoveries, is not
'Eureka!' but 'That's funny...'"
- Isaac Asimov
On 9/11/2023 5:48 PM, Gary Hurd wrote:
On Sunday, September 10, 2023 at 5:40:32 PM UTC-7, RonO wrote:
On 9/10/2023 12:09 PM, Bob Casanova wrote:.
On Sun, 10 Sep 2023 11:23:40 -0500, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by RonO <roki...@cox.net>:
https://evolutionnews.org/2023/09/in-debate-on-intelligent-design-critic-cites-dragon-legend-to-justify-evolutions-failures/
.
.
Nelson was an ID perp from the start, and he was the only one that kept.
claiming that they didn't yet have the ID science, but that they were
working on producing some. The reason turns out that Nelson was YEC and
couldn't stand what the other ID perps were claiming as the ID science.
There is absolutely no room for the existence of any YEC creationists
within the Top Six provided in "their order simply reflecting that in
which they must logically have occurred within our universe."
.
.
Ron Okimoto
Paul Nelson is indeed a 3rd generation YEC. I have a copy of his
grandfather's book;
Nelson, Byron C.
1927 (last edition 1952) “After Its Kind: The first and last word on
evolution” Minneapolis: Augsburg Books
Nelson was one of the original ID perps that started the ID scam at the Discovery Institute, but it took him a very long time to make Senior Fellow. He was the one that kept claiming that they didn't have the ID science yet, but that they were working on producing it. When the ID
scam started Nelson claimed that he was going to publish a book that
would refute Darwinism, but as far as I know that book was never
published. PZ would ask him for years about when that book was going to
be published.
Nelson never wanted to support the Top Six best evidence for the ID
scam. As a YEC IDiot there never was any science that the ID perps
could accomplish that would make Nelson happy. Any successful ID
science would just be more science to deny. So Nelson participated in
the ID creationist scam knowing that they never had the ID science that
the other ID perps claimed to have.
Ron Okimoto
RonO wrote:
On 9/11/2023 5:48 PM, Gary Hurd wrote:
On Sunday, September 10, 2023 at 5:40:32?PM UTC-7, RonO wrote:
On 9/10/2023 12:09 PM, Bob Casanova wrote:
--I read virtually all of the post on this particular thread. About the.On Sun, 10 Sep 2023 11:23:40 -0500, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by RonO <roki...@cox.net>:
https://evolutionnews.org/2023/09/in-debate-on-intelligent-design-critic-cites-dragon-legend-to-justify-evolutions-failures/
.
.
Nelson was an ID perp from the start, and he was the only one that kept >>>> claiming that they didn't yet have the ID science, but that they were.
working on producing some. The reason turns out that Nelson was YEC and >>>> couldn't stand what the other ID perps were claiming as the ID science. >>>> There is absolutely no room for the existence of any YEC creationists
within the Top Six provided in "their order simply reflecting that in
which they must logically have occurred within our universe."
.
.
Ron Okimoto
Paul Nelson is indeed a 3rd generation YEC. I have a copy of his
grandfather's book;
Nelson, Byron C.
1927 (last edition 1952) After Its Kind: The first and last word on
evolution Minneapolis: Augsburg Books
Nelson was one of the original ID perps that started the ID scam at the
Discovery Institute, but it took him a very long time to make Senior
Fellow. He was the one that kept claiming that they didn't have the ID
science yet, but that they were working on producing it. When the ID
scam started Nelson claimed that he was going to publish a book that
would refute Darwinism, but as far as I know that book was never
published. PZ would ask him for years about when that book was going to
be published.
Nelson never wanted to support the Top Six best evidence for the ID
scam. As a YEC IDiot there never was any science that the ID perps
could accomplish that would make Nelson happy. Any successful ID
science would just be more science to deny. So Nelson participated in
the ID creationist scam knowing that they never had the ID science that
the other ID perps claimed to have.
Ron Okimoto
only thing notable in these post is the reassurance that infidels offer
each other that their infidelity is justifiable and the right pathway to >self-righteousness.
RonO wrote:
On 9/11/2023 5:48 PM, Gary Hurd wrote:
On Sunday, September 10, 2023 at 5:40:32 PM UTC-7, RonO wrote:
On 9/10/2023 12:09 PM, Bob Casanova wrote:.
On Sun, 10 Sep 2023 11:23:40 -0500, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by RonO <roki...@cox.net>:
https://evolutionnews.org/2023/09/in-debate-on-intelligent-design-critic-cites-dragon-legend-to-justify-evolutions-failures/
.
.
Nelson was an ID perp from the start, and he was the only one that kept >>> claiming that they didn't yet have the ID science, but that they were >>> working on producing some. The reason turns out that Nelson was YEC and >>> couldn't stand what the other ID perps were claiming as the ID science. >>> There is absolutely no room for the existence of any YEC creationists >>> within the Top Six provided in "their order simply reflecting that in >>> which they must logically have occurred within our universe.".
.
.
Ron Okimoto
Paul Nelson is indeed a 3rd generation YEC. I have a copy of his
grandfather's book;
Nelson, Byron C.
1927 (last edition 1952) “After Its Kind: The first and last word on
evolution” Minneapolis: Augsburg Books
Nelson was one of the original ID perps that started the ID scam at the Discovery Institute, but it took him a very long time to make Senior Fellow. He was the one that kept claiming that they didn't have the ID science yet, but that they were working on producing it. When the ID
scam started Nelson claimed that he was going to publish a book that
would refute Darwinism, but as far as I know that book was never published. PZ would ask him for years about when that book was going to be published.
Nelson never wanted to support the Top Six best evidence for the ID
scam. As a YEC IDiot there never was any science that the ID perps
could accomplish that would make Nelson happy. Any successful ID
science would just be more science to deny. So Nelson participated in
the ID creationist scam knowing that they never had the ID science that the other ID perps claimed to have.
Ron Okimoto
I read virtually all of the post on this particular thread. About the
only thing notable in these post is the reassurance that infidels offer
each other that their infidelity is justifiable and the right pathway to self-righteousness.
RonO wrote:
On 9/11/2023 5:48 PM, Gary Hurd wrote:
On Sunday, September 10, 2023 at 5:40:32 PM UTC-7, RonO wrote:
On 9/10/2023 12:09 PM, Bob Casanova wrote:.
On Sun, 10 Sep 2023 11:23:40 -0500, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by RonO <roki...@cox.net>:
https://evolutionnews.org/2023/09/in-debate-on-intelligent-design-critic-cites-dragon-legend-to-justify-evolutions-failures/
.
.
Nelson was an ID perp from the start, and he was the only one that kept >>> claiming that they didn't yet have the ID science, but that they were >>> working on producing some. The reason turns out that Nelson was YEC and >>> couldn't stand what the other ID perps were claiming as the ID science. >>> There is absolutely no room for the existence of any YEC creationists >>> within the Top Six provided in "their order simply reflecting that in >>> which they must logically have occurred within our universe.".
.
.
Ron Okimoto
Paul Nelson is indeed a 3rd generation YEC. I have a copy of his
grandfather's book;
Nelson, Byron C.
1927 (last edition 1952) “After Its Kind: The first and last word on
evolution” Minneapolis: Augsburg Books
Nelson was one of the original ID perps that started the ID scam at the Discovery Institute, but it took him a very long time to make Senior Fellow. He was the one that kept claiming that they didn't have the ID science yet, but that they were working on producing it. When the ID
scam started Nelson claimed that he was going to publish a book that
would refute Darwinism, but as far as I know that book was never published. PZ would ask him for years about when that book was going to be published.
Nelson never wanted to support the Top Six best evidence for the ID
scam. As a YEC IDiot there never was any science that the ID perps
could accomplish that would make Nelson happy. Any successful ID
science would just be more science to deny. So Nelson participated in
the ID creationist scam knowing that they never had the ID science that the other ID perps claimed to have.
Ron Okimoto
I read virtually all of the post on this particular thread. About the
only thing notable in these post is the reassurance that infidels offer
each other that their infidelity is justifiable and the right pathway to self-righteousness.
RonO wrote:
On 9/11/2023 5:48 PM, Gary Hurd wrote:I read virtually all of the post on this particular thread. About the
On Sunday, September 10, 2023 at 5:40:32 PM UTC-7, RonO wrote:
On 9/10/2023 12:09 PM, Bob Casanova wrote:.
On Sun, 10 Sep 2023 11:23:40 -0500, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by RonO <roki...@cox.net>:
https://evolutionnews.org/2023/09/in-debate-on-intelligent-design-critic-cites-dragon-legend-to-justify-evolutions-failures/
.
.
Nelson was an ID perp from the start, and he was the only one that kept >>>> claiming that they didn't yet have the ID science, but that they were.
working on producing some. The reason turns out that Nelson was YEC and >>>> couldn't stand what the other ID perps were claiming as the ID science. >>>> There is absolutely no room for the existence of any YEC creationists
within the Top Six provided in "their order simply reflecting that in
which they must logically have occurred within our universe."
.
.
Ron Okimoto
Paul Nelson is indeed a 3rd generation YEC. I have a copy of his
grandfather's book;
Nelson, Byron C.
1927 (last edition 1952) “After Its Kind: The first and last word on
evolution” Minneapolis: Augsburg Books
Nelson was one of the original ID perps that started the ID scam at
the Discovery Institute, but it took him a very long time to make
Senior Fellow. He was the one that kept claiming that they didn't
have the ID science yet, but that they were working on producing it.
When the ID scam started Nelson claimed that he was going to publish a
book that would refute Darwinism, but as far as I know that book was
never published. PZ would ask him for years about when that book was
going to be published.
Nelson never wanted to support the Top Six best evidence for the ID
scam. As a YEC IDiot there never was any science that the ID perps
could accomplish that would make Nelson happy. Any successful ID
science would just be more science to deny. So Nelson participated in
the ID creationist scam knowing that they never had the ID science
that the other ID perps claimed to have.
Ron Okimoto
only thing notable in these post is the reassurance that infidels offer
each other that their infidelity is justifiable and the right pathway to self-righteousness.
On Wednesday, 29 November 2023 at 04:11:53 UTC+2, Ron Dean wrote:
RonO wrote:Scepticism is righteous? It is like saying that hygiene is honourable.
On 9/11/2023 5:48 PM, Gary Hurd wrote:I read virtually all of the post on this particular thread. About the
On Sunday, September 10, 2023 at 5:40:32 PM UTC-7, RonO wrote:
On 9/10/2023 12:09 PM, Bob Casanova wrote:.
On Sun, 10 Sep 2023 11:23:40 -0500, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by RonO <roki...@cox.net>:
https://evolutionnews.org/2023/09/in-debate-on-intelligent-design-critic-cites-dragon-legend-to-justify-evolutions-failures/
.
.
Nelson was an ID perp from the start, and he was the only one that kept >>>>> claiming that they didn't yet have the ID science, but that they were >>>>> working on producing some. The reason turns out that Nelson was YEC and >>>>> couldn't stand what the other ID perps were claiming as the ID science. >>>>> There is absolutely no room for the existence of any YEC creationists >>>>> within the Top Six provided in "their order simply reflecting that in >>>>> which they must logically have occurred within our universe.".
.
.
Ron Okimoto
Paul Nelson is indeed a 3rd generation YEC. I have a copy of his
grandfather's book;
Nelson, Byron C.
1927 (last edition 1952) “After Its Kind: The first and last word on >>>> evolution” Minneapolis: Augsburg Books
Nelson was one of the original ID perps that started the ID scam at the
Discovery Institute, but it took him a very long time to make Senior
Fellow. He was the one that kept claiming that they didn't have the ID
science yet, but that they were working on producing it. When the ID
scam started Nelson claimed that he was going to publish a book that
would refute Darwinism, but as far as I know that book was never
published. PZ would ask him for years about when that book was going to >>> be published.
Nelson never wanted to support the Top Six best evidence for the ID
scam. As a YEC IDiot there never was any science that the ID perps
could accomplish that would make Nelson happy. Any successful ID
science would just be more science to deny. So Nelson participated in
the ID creationist scam knowing that they never had the ID science that
the other ID perps claimed to have.
Ron Okimoto
only thing notable in these post is the reassurance that infidels offer
each other that their infidelity is justifiable and the right pathway to
self-righteousness.
That is unrelated. Scepticism is needed for mental health in this society just like hygiene is needed for staying physically healthy in this society.
Every one of us will be frequently feed skewed or fabricated facts, that
are further misinterpreted and also other people misrepresented.
That is precisely what your post does above.
Öö Tiib wrote:
On Wednesday, 29 November 2023 at 04:11:53 UTC+2, Ron Dean wrote:
RonO wrote:Scepticism is righteous? It is like saying that hygiene is honourable. That is unrelated. Scepticism is needed for mental health in this society just like hygiene is needed for staying physically healthy in this society.
On 9/11/2023 5:48 PM, Gary Hurd wrote:I read virtually all of the post on this particular thread. About the
On Sunday, September 10, 2023 at 5:40:32 PM UTC-7, RonO wrote:
On 9/10/2023 12:09 PM, Bob Casanova wrote:.
On Sun, 10 Sep 2023 11:23:40 -0500, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by RonO <roki...@cox.net>:
https://evolutionnews.org/2023/09/in-debate-on-intelligent-design-critic-cites-dragon-legend-to-justify-evolutions-failures/
.
.
Nelson was an ID perp from the start, and he was the only one that kept.
claiming that they didn't yet have the ID science, but that they were >>>>> working on producing some. The reason turns out that Nelson was YEC and
couldn't stand what the other ID perps were claiming as the ID science.
There is absolutely no room for the existence of any YEC creationists >>>>> within the Top Six provided in "their order simply reflecting that in >>>>> which they must logically have occurred within our universe."
.
.
Ron Okimoto
Paul Nelson is indeed a 3rd generation YEC. I have a copy of his
grandfather's book;
Nelson, Byron C.
1927 (last edition 1952) “After Its Kind: The first and last word on >>>> evolution” Minneapolis: Augsburg Books
Nelson was one of the original ID perps that started the ID scam at the >>> Discovery Institute, but it took him a very long time to make Senior
Fellow. He was the one that kept claiming that they didn't have the ID >>> science yet, but that they were working on producing it. When the ID
scam started Nelson claimed that he was going to publish a book that
would refute Darwinism, but as far as I know that book was never
published. PZ would ask him for years about when that book was going to >>> be published.
Nelson never wanted to support the Top Six best evidence for the ID
scam. As a YEC IDiot there never was any science that the ID perps
could accomplish that would make Nelson happy. Any successful ID
science would just be more science to deny. So Nelson participated in >>> the ID creationist scam knowing that they never had the ID science that >>> the other ID perps claimed to have.
Ron Okimoto
only thing notable in these post is the reassurance that infidels offer >> each other that their infidelity is justifiable and the right pathway to >> self-righteousness.
Every one of us will be frequently feed skewed or fabricated facts, that are further misinterpreted and also other people misrepresented.
That is precisely what your post does above.
Really! Based upon the more than just skepticism on TO there is an
abundance of denunciation even name calling, shooting the messenger not
to mention character assassination as related to spokesmen such as Behe, Denton and Intelligent Design as well as fundamentalist concept of 7
day, and 10 K years since creation.
Okay, but were it _not_ for ID and creationism, TO would serve no purpose!
RonO wrote:
On 11/28/2023 8:10 PM, Ron Dean wrote:
RonO wrote:
On 9/11/2023 5:48 PM, Gary Hurd wrote:I read virtually all of the post on this particular thread. About the
On Sunday, September 10, 2023 at 5:40:32 PM UTC-7, RonO wrote:
On 9/10/2023 12:09 PM, Bob Casanova wrote:.
On Sun, 10 Sep 2023 11:23:40 -0500, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by RonO <roki...@cox.net>:
https://evolutionnews.org/2023/09/in-debate-on-intelligent-design-critic-cites-dragon-legend-to-justify-evolutions-failures/
.
.
Nelson was an ID perp from the start, and he was the only one that kept >>>>>> claiming that they didn't yet have the ID science, but that they were >>>>>> working on producing some. The reason turns out that Nelson was YEC and >>>>>> couldn't stand what the other ID perps were claiming as the ID science. >>>>>> There is absolutely no room for the existence of any YEC creationists >>>>>> within the Top Six provided in "their order simply reflecting that in >>>>>> which they must logically have occurred within our universe.".
.
.
Ron Okimoto
Paul Nelson is indeed a 3rd generation YEC. I have a copy of his
grandfather's book;
Nelson, Byron C.
1927 (last edition 1952) “After Its Kind: The first and last word on >>>>> evolution” Minneapolis: Augsburg Books
Nelson was one of the original ID perps that started the ID scam at the >>>> Discovery Institute, but it took him a very long time to make Senior
Fellow. He was the one that kept claiming that they didn't have the
ID science yet, but that they were working on producing it. When the ID >>>> scam started Nelson claimed that he was going to publish a book that
would refute Darwinism, but as far as I know that book was never
published. PZ would ask him for years about when that book was going >>>> to be published.
Nelson never wanted to support the Top Six best evidence for the ID
scam. As a YEC IDiot there never was any science that the ID perps
could accomplish that would make Nelson happy. Any successful ID
science would just be more science to deny. So Nelson participated in >>>> the ID creationist scam knowing that they never had the ID science that >>>> the other ID perps claimed to have.
Ron Okimoto
only thing notable in these post is the reassurance that infidels offer
each other that their infidelity is justifiable and the right pathway
to self-righteousness.
What do you think you are doing by putting up the god-of-the-gaps
denial in order to support your religious beliefs against the "infidels"
You are a damn liar! You know nothing about my "religion". I totally
and completely 100% reject the Genesis creation story. My rejection of evolution has nothing to do with religion! It's because I discovered
that evolution is a fraud. For a more than a half century, evolution
was based on a deliberate, purposeful fraud, known as the Piltdown
Man. But the Piltdown man, from the beginning was recognized as
fraudulent by some professionals and so it was contraversal. But this
fraud was a "godsend" to people who desperately wanted some proof of evolution. And this fraud was spread throughout society for a half
century. How many school books had this apelike human fraud placed
before children.
This fraud affected human societies for more than a century: actually
until the 1950s. By then the damage was done. However, to the dismay
of many believers, physicist proved it was a deliberate fraud, the
fraud consist of an early fossilized human skull with a chimp chin and
filed teeth.
There are certainly numerous PhDs who earned their Doctorates by their dissertations on Piltdown man.
Such PhD should be worthless, since the dissertations were based on
the fraudulent Piltdown Man which they accepted as real. So, since so
many people were fooled by this fraud, how many others people were
deceived by this fraud. Secondly, how many other frauds have been
perpetuated
by people who advocate evolutionist.
and
have to lie to yourself about what you are doing and why you are doing
it? Do you understand why the other IDiots quit the ID scam when they
could not deal with the ID perp's Top Six best evidences for IDiocy?
They obviouisly did quit, and now Kalkidas is claiming that the Top Six
are just things that are not worth discussing any longer. They just
do not have the value in self deception that they used to have.
Paul Nelson is YEC and never wanted the ID perps to accomplish any ID
science. It just would have been more science to deny. He was only
involved in the ID scam because he understood that the other ID perps
did not have the science that they claimed to have. The ID perps like
Nelson have always been lying to the YEC rubes in order to gain support
for their Wedge strategy. Nelson has understood this from the very
beginning.
QUOTE:
Nelson is frequently cited by opponents of intelligent design as an
example of ID's "big tent" strategy in action. He has written about
"Life in the Big Tent" in the Christian Research Journal.[4] In an
interview for Touchstone Magazine Nelson said that the main challenge
facing the ID community was to "develop a full-fledged theory of
biological design", and that the lack of such a theory was a "real
problem".[5]
END QUOTE:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Nelson_(creationist)
All you have to do is imagine what Nelson would do if Meyer was ever
able to do the science to demonstrate that some god was responsible for
his Cambrian explosion gap denial. He would know what happened within
that 25 million year period over half a billion years ago. Nelson is
YEC he would have likely quit the ID scam if any ID science had
actually been accomplished.
Ron Okimoto
RonO wrote:
On 11/28/2023 8:10 PM, Ron Dean wrote:
RonO wrote:
On 9/11/2023 5:48 PM, Gary Hurd wrote:I read virtually all of the post on this particular thread. About the
On Sunday, September 10, 2023 at 5:40:32 PM UTC-7, RonO wrote:
On 9/10/2023 12:09 PM, Bob Casanova wrote:.
On Sun, 10 Sep 2023 11:23:40 -0500, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by RonO <roki...@cox.net>:
https://evolutionnews.org/2023/09/in-debate-on-intelligent-design-critic-cites-dragon-legend-to-justify-evolutions-failures/
.
.
Nelson was an ID perp from the start, and he was the only one that >>>>>> kept.
claiming that they didn't yet have the ID science, but that they were >>>>>> working on producing some. The reason turns out that Nelson was
YEC and
couldn't stand what the other ID perps were claiming as the ID
science.
There is absolutely no room for the existence of any YEC creationists >>>>>> within the Top Six provided in "their order simply reflecting that in >>>>>> which they must logically have occurred within our universe."
.
.
Ron Okimoto
Paul Nelson is indeed a 3rd generation YEC. I have a copy of his
grandfather's book;
Nelson, Byron C.
1927 (last edition 1952) “After Its Kind: The first and last word
on evolution” Minneapolis: Augsburg Books
Nelson was one of the original ID perps that started the ID scam at
the Discovery Institute, but it took him a very long time to make
Senior Fellow. He was the one that kept claiming that they didn't
have the ID science yet, but that they were working on producing it.
When the ID scam started Nelson claimed that he was going to publish
a book that would refute Darwinism, but as far as I know that book
was never published. PZ would ask him for years about when that
book was going to be published.
Nelson never wanted to support the Top Six best evidence for the ID
scam. As a YEC IDiot there never was any science that the ID perps
could accomplish that would make Nelson happy. Any successful ID
science would just be more science to deny. So Nelson participated
in the ID creationist scam knowing that they never had the ID
science that the other ID perps claimed to have.
Ron Okimoto
only thing notable in these post is the reassurance that infidels
offer each other that their infidelity is justifiable and the right
pathway to self-righteousness.
What do you think you are doing by putting up the god-of-the-gaps
denial in order to support your religious beliefs against the "infidels"
You are a damn liar! You know nothing about my "religion". I totally and completely 100% reject the Genesis creation story. My rejection of
evolution has nothing to do with religion! It's because I discovered
that evolution is a fraud. For a more than a half century, evolution was based on a deliberate, purposeful fraud, known as the Piltdown Man. But
the Piltdown man, from the beginning was recognized as fraudulent by
some professionals and so it was contraversal. But this fraud was a
"godsend" to people who desperately wanted some proof of evolution. And
this fraud was spread throughout society for a half century. How many
school books had this apelike human fraud placed before children.
This fraud affected human societies for more than a century: actually
until the 1950s. By then the damage was done. However, to the dismay of many believers, physicist proved it was a deliberate fraud, the fraud consist of an early fossilized human skull with a chimp chin and filed
teeth.
There are certainly numerous PhDs who earned their Doctorates by their dissertations on Piltdown man. Such PhD should be worthless, since the dissertations were based on the fraudulent Piltdown Man which they
accepted as real. So, since so many people were fooled by this fraud,
how many others people were deceived by this fraud. Secondly, how many
other frauds have been perpetuated
by people who advocate evolutionist.
and
have to lie to yourself about what you are doing and why you are doing
it? Do you understand why the other IDiots quit the ID scam when they
could not deal with the ID perp's Top Six best evidences for IDiocy?
They obviouisly did quit, and now Kalkidas is claiming that the Top
Six are just things that are not worth discussing any longer. They
just do not have the value in self deception that they used to have.
Paul Nelson is YEC and never wanted the ID perps to accomplish any ID
science. It just would have been more science to deny. He was only
involved in the ID scam because he understood that the other ID perps
did not have the science that they claimed to have. The ID perps like
Nelson have always been lying to the YEC rubes in order to gain
support for their Wedge strategy. Nelson has understood this from the
very beginning.
QUOTE:
Nelson is frequently cited by opponents of intelligent design as an
example of ID's "big tent" strategy in action. He has written about
"Life in the Big Tent" in the Christian Research Journal.[4] In an
interview for Touchstone Magazine Nelson said that the main challenge
facing the ID community was to "develop a full-fledged theory of
biological design", and that the lack of such a theory was a "real
problem".[5]
END QUOTE:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Nelson_(creationist)
All you have to do is imagine what Nelson would do if Meyer was ever
able to do the science to demonstrate that some god was responsible
for his Cambrian explosion gap denial. He would know what happened
within that 25 million year period over half a billion years ago.
Nelson is YEC he would have likely quit the ID scam if any ID science
had actually been accomplished.
Ron Okimoto
RonO wrote:
On 11/28/2023 8:10 PM, Ron Dean wrote:
RonO wrote:
On 9/11/2023 5:48 PM, Gary Hurd wrote:I read virtually all of the post on this particular thread. About the
On Sunday, September 10, 2023 at 5:40:32 PM UTC-7, RonO wrote:
On 9/10/2023 12:09 PM, Bob Casanova wrote:.
On Sun, 10 Sep 2023 11:23:40 -0500, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by RonO <roki...@cox.net>:
https://evolutionnews.org/2023/09/in-debate-on-intelligent-design-critic-cites-dragon-legend-to-justify-evolutions-failures/
.
.
Nelson was an ID perp from the start, and he was the only one that >>>>>> kept.
claiming that they didn't yet have the ID science, but that they were >>>>>> working on producing some. The reason turns out that Nelson was
YEC and
couldn't stand what the other ID perps were claiming as the ID
science.
There is absolutely no room for the existence of any YEC creationists >>>>>> within the Top Six provided in "their order simply reflecting that in >>>>>> which they must logically have occurred within our universe."
.
.
Ron Okimoto
Paul Nelson is indeed a 3rd generation YEC. I have a copy of his
grandfather's book;
Nelson, Byron C.
1927 (last edition 1952) “After Its Kind: The first and last word
on evolution” Minneapolis: Augsburg Books
Nelson was one of the original ID perps that started the ID scam at
the Discovery Institute, but it took him a very long time to make
Senior Fellow. He was the one that kept claiming that they didn't
have the ID science yet, but that they were working on producing it.
When the ID scam started Nelson claimed that he was going to publish
a book that would refute Darwinism, but as far as I know that book
was never published. PZ would ask him for years about when that
book was going to be published.
Nelson never wanted to support the Top Six best evidence for the ID
scam. As a YEC IDiot there never was any science that the ID perps
could accomplish that would make Nelson happy. Any successful ID
science would just be more science to deny. So Nelson participated
in the ID creationist scam knowing that they never had the ID
science that the other ID perps claimed to have.
Ron Okimoto
only thing notable in these post is the reassurance that infidels
offer each other that their infidelity is justifiable and the right
pathway to self-righteousness.
What do you think you are doing by putting up the god-of-the-gaps
denial in order to support your religious beliefs against the "infidels"
You are a damn liar! You know nothing about my "religion". I totally and completely 100% reject the Genesis creation story. My rejection of
evolution has nothing to do with religion! It's because I discovered
that evolution is a fraud. For a more than a half century, evolution was based on a deliberate, purposeful fraud, known as the Piltdown Man. But
the Piltdown man, from the beginning was recognized as fraudulent by
some professionals and so it was contraversal. But this fraud was a
"godsend" to people who desperately wanted some proof of evolution. And
this fraud was spread throughout society for a half century. How many
school books had this apelike human fraud placed before children.
This fraud affected human societies for more than a century: actually
until the 1950s. By then the damage was done. However, to the dismay of many believers, physicist proved it was a deliberate fraud, the fraud consist of an early fossilized human skull with a chimp chin and filed
teeth.
There are certainly numerous PhDs who earned their Doctorates by their dissertations on Piltdown man. Such PhD should be worthless, since the dissertations were based on the fraudulent Piltdown Man which they
accepted as real. So, since so many people were fooled by this fraud,
how many others people were deceived by this fraud. Secondly, how many
other frauds have been perpetuated
by people who advocate evolutionist.
On 12/4/23 12:24 AM, Ron Dean wrote:
RonO wrote:
On 11/28/2023 8:10 PM, Ron Dean wrote:You are a damn liar! You know nothing about my "religion". I totally
RonO wrote:
On 9/11/2023 5:48 PM, Gary Hurd wrote:I read virtually all of the post on this particular thread. About
On Sunday, September 10, 2023 at 5:40:32 PM UTC-7, RonO wrote:
On 9/10/2023 12:09 PM, Bob Casanova wrote:.
On Sun, 10 Sep 2023 11:23:40 -0500, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by RonO <roki...@cox.net>:
https://evolutionnews.org/2023/09/in-debate-on-intelligent-design-critic-cites-dragon-legend-to-justify-evolutions-failures/
.
.
Nelson was an ID perp from the start, and he was the only one.
that kept
claiming that they didn't yet have the ID science, but that they >>>>>>> were
working on producing some. The reason turns out that Nelson was
YEC and
couldn't stand what the other ID perps were claiming as the ID
science.
There is absolutely no room for the existence of any YEC
creationists
within the Top Six provided in "their order simply reflecting
that in
which they must logically have occurred within our universe."
.
.
Ron Okimoto
Paul Nelson is indeed a 3rd generation YEC. I have a copy of his
grandfather's book;
Nelson, Byron C.
1927 (last edition 1952) “After Its Kind: The first and last word >>>>>> on evolution” Minneapolis: Augsburg Books
Nelson was one of the original ID perps that started the ID scam at
the Discovery Institute, but it took him a very long time to make
Senior Fellow. He was the one that kept claiming that they didn't
have the ID science yet, but that they were working on producing
it. When the ID scam started Nelson claimed that he was going to
publish a book that would refute Darwinism, but as far as I know
that book was never published. PZ would ask him for years about
when that book was going to be published.
Nelson never wanted to support the Top Six best evidence for the ID
scam. As a YEC IDiot there never was any science that the ID perps >>>>> could accomplish that would make Nelson happy. Any successful ID
science would just be more science to deny. So Nelson participated >>>>> in the ID creationist scam knowing that they never had the ID
science that the other ID perps claimed to have.
Ron Okimoto
the only thing notable in these post is the reassurance that
infidels offer each other that their infidelity is justifiable and
the right pathway to self-righteousness.
What do you think you are doing by putting up the god-of-the-gaps
denial in order to support your religious beliefs against the "infidels"
;
and completely 100% reject the Genesis creation story. My rejection of
evolution has nothing to do with religion! It's because I discovered
that evolution is a fraud. For a more than a half century, evolution
was based on a deliberate, purposeful fraud, known as the Piltdown
Man. But the Piltdown man, from the beginning was recognized as
fraudulent by some professionals and so it was contraversal. But this
fraud was a "godsend" to people who desperately wanted some proof of
evolution. And this fraud was spread throughout society for a half
century. How many school books had this apelike human fraud placed
before children.
This fraud affected human societies for more than a century: actually
until the 1950s. By then the damage was done. However, to the dismay
of many believers, physicist proved it was a deliberate fraud, the
fraud consist of an early fossilized human skull with a chimp chin and
filed teeth.
I find it interesting that you object to fraud, and yet the alternative
you favor over evolution is a known fraud, and has a court case
establishing as much.
There are certainly numerous PhDs who earned their Doctorates by their
dissertations on Piltdown man. Such PhD should be worthless, since the
dissertations were based on the fraudulent Piltdown Man which they
accepted as real. So, since so many people were fooled by this fraud,
how many others people were deceived by this fraud. Secondly, how many
other frauds have been perpetuated
by people who advocate evolutionist.
That claim is another fraud. In all likelihood, there are zero PhDs
based on Piltdown man (excepting, perhaps, one or two fairly recent ones about its history). Can you name one? I would attribute your mistake
to simply gullibility, but your adding the word "certainly" makes you accessory to the fraud.
RonO wrote:
On 12/4/2023 2:24 AM, Ron Dean wrote:
RonO wrote:
On 11/28/2023 8:10 PM, Ron Dean wrote:You are a damn liar! You know nothing about my "religion". I totally
RonO wrote:
On 9/11/2023 5:48 PM, Gary Hurd wrote:I read virtually all of the post on this particular thread. About
On Sunday, September 10, 2023 at 5:40:32 PM UTC-7, RonO wrote: >>>>>>>> On 9/10/2023 12:09 PM, Bob Casanova wrote:
.On Sun, 10 Sep 2023 11:23:40 -0500, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by RonO <roki...@cox.net>:
https://evolutionnews.org/2023/09/in-debate-on-intelligent-design-critic-cites-dragon-legend-to-justify-evolutions-failures/
.
.
Nelson was an ID perp from the start, and he was the only one.
that kept
claiming that they didn't yet have the ID science, but that they >>>>>>>> were
working on producing some. The reason turns out that Nelson was >>>>>>>> YEC and
couldn't stand what the other ID perps were claiming as the ID >>>>>>>> science.
There is absolutely no room for the existence of any YEC
creationists
within the Top Six provided in "their order simply reflecting
that in
which they must logically have occurred within our universe."
.
.
Ron Okimoto
Paul Nelson is indeed a 3rd generation YEC. I have a copy of his >>>>>>> grandfather's book;
Nelson, Byron C.
1927 (last edition 1952) “After Its Kind: The first and last word >>>>>>> on evolution” Minneapolis: Augsburg Books
Nelson was one of the original ID perps that started the ID scam
at the Discovery Institute, but it took him a very long time to
make Senior Fellow. He was the one that kept claiming that they
didn't have the ID science yet, but that they were working on
producing it. When the ID scam started Nelson claimed that he was
going to publish a book that would refute Darwinism, but as far as >>>>>> I know that book was never published. PZ would ask him for years >>>>>> about when that book was going to be published.
Nelson never wanted to support the Top Six best evidence for the
ID scam. As a YEC IDiot there never was any science that the ID
perps could accomplish that would make Nelson happy. Any
successful ID science would just be more science to deny. So
Nelson participated in the ID creationist scam knowing that they
never had the ID science that the other ID perps claimed to have.
Ron Okimoto
the only thing notable in these post is the reassurance that
infidels offer each other that their infidelity is justifiable and
the right pathway to self-righteousness.
What do you think you are doing by putting up the god-of-the-gaps
denial in order to support your religious beliefs against the
"infidels"
;
and completely 100% reject the Genesis creation story. My rejection
of evolution has nothing to do with religion! It's because I
discovered that evolution is a fraud. For a more than a half century,
evolution was based on a deliberate, purposeful fraud, known as the
Piltdown Man. But the Piltdown man, from the beginning was recognized
as fraudulent by some professionals and so it was contraversal. But
this fraud was a "godsend" to people who desperately wanted some
proof of evolution. And this fraud was spread throughout society for
a half century. How many school books had this apelike human fraud
placed before children.
This fraud affected human societies for more than a century: actually
until the 1950s. By then the damage was done. However, to the dismay
of many believers, physicist proved it was a deliberate fraud, the
fraud consist of an early fossilized human skull with a chimp chin
and filed teeth.
There are certainly numerous PhDs who earned their Doctorates by
their dissertations on Piltdown man. Such PhD should be worthless,
since the dissertations were based on the fraudulent Piltdown Man
which they accepted as real. So, since so many people were fooled by
this fraud, how many others people were deceived by this fraud.
Secondly, how many other frauds have been perpetuated
by people who advocate evolutionist.
Denton claims that people that reject biological evolution due to his
first book misinterpreted what he was doing.
I just read what he wrote. I didn't interpret anything.
He has claimed that
biological evolution is a fact of nature. You lying about defending
your religious beliefs against the infidels is due to your
misinterpretation of Denton's first book (theory in Crisis).
You've deliberately and purposefully deceived yourself into thinking
that everyone who is anti-evolution is is due to a religious motivation.
This is self-serving; it obviously comforts you. But
I not playing your goddamn game any more, because I don't chose to
comfort you any more. I don't
know you and I do not care about you.
Did you read Denton's second book where he claimed to understand that
biological evolution was a fact of nature, and wrote about how some
designer could have been responsible for it? That book did not get a
good review from the other ID perps. This was mainly due to Denton's
Deistic views on the designer (the other ID perps wanted to believe in
an interactive designer). Denton quit the ID scam for a while after
that poor acceptance of his second book. He did not return to be an
ID perp until after their loss in Dover. You obviously never read it
or you would know that you had misinterpreted Denton's first book.
There is no reason to keep lying about reality in order to keep the
infidels at bay.
The Christians at BioLogos also reject the Genesis account. You
should look them up.
https://biologos.org/
Ron Okimoto
and
have to lie to yourself about what you are doing and why you are
doing it? Do you understand why the other IDiots quit the ID scam
when they could not deal with the ID perp's Top Six best evidences
for IDiocy? They obviouisly did quit, and now Kalkidas is claiming
that the Top Six are just things that are not worth discussing any
longer. They just do not have the value in self deception that they
used to have.
Paul Nelson is YEC and never wanted the ID perps to accomplish any
ID science. It just would have been more science to deny. He was
only involved in the ID scam because he understood that the other ID
perps did not have the science that they claimed to have. The ID
perps like Nelson have always been lying to the YEC rubes in order
to gain support for their Wedge strategy. Nelson has understood
this from the very beginning.
QUOTE:
Nelson is frequently cited by opponents of intelligent design as an
example of ID's "big tent" strategy in action. He has written about
"Life in the Big Tent" in the Christian Research Journal.[4] In an
interview for Touchstone Magazine Nelson said that the main
challenge facing the ID community was to "develop a full-fledged
theory of biological design", and that the lack of such a theory was
a "real problem".[5]
END QUOTE:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Nelson_(creationist)
All you have to do is imagine what Nelson would do if Meyer was ever
able to do the science to demonstrate that some god was responsible
for his Cambrian explosion gap denial. He would know what happened
within that 25 million year period over half a billion years ago.
Nelson is YEC he would have likely quit the ID scam if any ID
science had actually been accomplished.
Ron Okimoto
Mark Isaak wrote:
On 12/4/23 12:24 AM, Ron Dean wrote:
RonO wrote:
On 11/28/2023 8:10 PM, Ron Dean wrote:You are a damn liar! You know nothing about my "religion". I totally
RonO wrote:
On 9/11/2023 5:48 PM, Gary Hurd wrote:I read virtually all of the post on this particular thread. About
On Sunday, September 10, 2023 at 5:40:32 PM UTC-7, RonO wrote: >>>>>>>> On 9/10/2023 12:09 PM, Bob Casanova wrote:
.On Sun, 10 Sep 2023 11:23:40 -0500, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by RonO <roki...@cox.net>:
https://evolutionnews.org/2023/09/in-debate-on-intelligent-design-critic-cites-dragon-legend-to-justify-evolutions-failures/
.
.
Nelson was an ID perp from the start, and he was the only one.
that kept
claiming that they didn't yet have the ID science, but that they >>>>>>>> were
working on producing some. The reason turns out that Nelson was >>>>>>>> YEC and
couldn't stand what the other ID perps were claiming as the ID >>>>>>>> science.
There is absolutely no room for the existence of any YEC
creationists
within the Top Six provided in "their order simply reflecting
that in
which they must logically have occurred within our universe."
.
.
Ron Okimoto
Paul Nelson is indeed a 3rd generation YEC. I have a copy of his >>>>>>> grandfather's book;
Nelson, Byron C.
1927 (last edition 1952) “After Its Kind: The first and last word >>>>>>> on evolution” Minneapolis: Augsburg Books
Nelson was one of the original ID perps that started the ID scam
at the Discovery Institute, but it took him a very long time to
make Senior Fellow. He was the one that kept claiming that they
didn't have the ID science yet, but that they were working on
producing it. When the ID scam started Nelson claimed that he was
going to publish a book that would refute Darwinism, but as far as >>>>>> I know that book was never published. PZ would ask him for years >>>>>> about when that book was going to be published.
Nelson never wanted to support the Top Six best evidence for the
ID scam. As a YEC IDiot there never was any science that the ID
perps could accomplish that would make Nelson happy. Any
successful ID science would just be more science to deny. So
Nelson participated in the ID creationist scam knowing that they
never had the ID science that the other ID perps claimed to have.
Ron Okimoto
the only thing notable in these post is the reassurance that
infidels offer each other that their infidelity is justifiable and
the right pathway to self-righteousness.
What do you think you are doing by putting up the god-of-the-gaps
denial in order to support your religious beliefs against the
"infidels"
;
and completely 100% reject the Genesis creation story. My rejection
of evolution has nothing to do with religion! It's because I
discovered that evolution is a fraud. For a more than a half century,
evolution was based on a deliberate, purposeful fraud, known as the
Piltdown Man. But the Piltdown man, from the beginning was recognized
as fraudulent by some professionals and so it was contraversal. But
this fraud was a "godsend" to people who desperately wanted some
proof of evolution. And this fraud was spread throughout society for
a half century. How many school books had this apelike human fraud
placed before children.
This fraud affected human societies for more than a century: actually
until the 1950s. By then the damage was done. However, to the dismay
of many believers, physicist proved it was a deliberate fraud, the
fraud consist of an early fossilized human skull with a chimp chin
and filed teeth.
I find it interesting that you object to fraud, and yet the
alternative you favor over evolution is a known fraud, and has a court
case establishing as much.
Federal or civil laws do _not_ determine the its validity, _only_ its legality.
IE teaching ID is illegal, which does not mean it's wrong.
There are certainly numerous PhDs who earned their Doctorates by
their dissertations on Piltdown man. Such PhD should be worthless,
since the dissertations were based on the fraudulent Piltdown Man
which they accepted as real. So, since so many people were fooled by
this fraud, how many others people were deceived by this fraud.
Secondly, how many other frauds have been perpetuated
by people who advocate evolutionist.
That claim is another fraud. In all likelihood, there are zero PhDs
based on Piltdown man (excepting, perhaps, one or two fairly recent
ones about its history). Can you name one? I would attribute your
mistake to simply gullibility, but your adding the word "certainly"
makes you accessory to the fraud.
Mark Isaak wrote:
On 12/4/23 12:24 AM, Ron Dean wrote:
RonO wrote:
On 11/28/2023 8:10 PM, Ron Dean wrote:You are a damn liar! You know nothing about my "religion". I totally
RonO wrote:
On 9/11/2023 5:48 PM, Gary Hurd wrote:I read virtually all of the post on this particular thread. About
On Sunday, September 10, 2023 at 5:40:32 PM UTC-7, RonO wrote: >>>>>>>> On 9/10/2023 12:09 PM, Bob Casanova wrote:
.On Sun, 10 Sep 2023 11:23:40 -0500, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by RonO <roki...@cox.net>:
https://evolutionnews.org/2023/09/in-debate-on-intelligent-design-critic-cites-dragon-legend-to-justify-evolutions-failures/
.
.
Nelson was an ID perp from the start, and he was the only one.
that kept
claiming that they didn't yet have the ID science, but that they >>>>>>>> were
working on producing some. The reason turns out that Nelson was >>>>>>>> YEC and
couldn't stand what the other ID perps were claiming as the ID >>>>>>>> science.
There is absolutely no room for the existence of any YEC
creationists
within the Top Six provided in "their order simply reflecting
that in
which they must logically have occurred within our universe."
.
.
Ron Okimoto
Paul Nelson is indeed a 3rd generation YEC. I have a copy of his >>>>>>> grandfather's book;
Nelson, Byron C.
1927 (last edition 1952) “After Its Kind: The first and last word >>>>>>> on evolution” Minneapolis: Augsburg Books
Nelson was one of the original ID perps that started the ID scam
at the Discovery Institute, but it took him a very long time to
make Senior Fellow. He was the one that kept claiming that they
didn't have the ID science yet, but that they were working on
producing it. When the ID scam started Nelson claimed that he was
going to publish a book that would refute Darwinism, but as far as >>>>>> I know that book was never published. PZ would ask him for years >>>>>> about when that book was going to be published.
Nelson never wanted to support the Top Six best evidence for the
ID scam. As a YEC IDiot there never was any science that the ID
perps could accomplish that would make Nelson happy. Any
successful ID science would just be more science to deny. So
Nelson participated in the ID creationist scam knowing that they
never had the ID science that the other ID perps claimed to have.
Ron Okimoto
the only thing notable in these post is the reassurance that
infidels offer each other that their infidelity is justifiable and
the right pathway to self-righteousness.
What do you think you are doing by putting up the god-of-the-gaps
denial in order to support your religious beliefs against the
"infidels"
;
and completely 100% reject the Genesis creation story. My rejection
of evolution has nothing to do with religion! It's because I
discovered that evolution is a fraud. For a more than a half century,
evolution was based on a deliberate, purposeful fraud, known as the
Piltdown Man. But the Piltdown man, from the beginning was recognized
as fraudulent by some professionals and so it was contraversal. But
this fraud was a "godsend" to people who desperately wanted some
proof of evolution. And this fraud was spread throughout society for
a half century. How many school books had this apelike human fraud
placed before children.
This fraud affected human societies for more than a century: actually
until the 1950s. By then the damage was done. However, to the dismay
of many believers, physicist proved it was a deliberate fraud, the
fraud consist of an early fossilized human skull with a chimp chin
and filed teeth.
I find it interesting that you object to fraud, and yet the
alternative you favor over evolution is a known fraud, and has a court
case establishing as much.
Federal or civil laws do _not_ determine the its validity, _only_ its legality.
IE teaching ID is illegal, which does not mean it's wrong.
There are certainly numerous PhDs who earned their Doctorates by
their dissertations on Piltdown man. Such PhD should be worthless,
since the dissertations were based on the fraudulent Piltdown Man
which they accepted as real. So, since so many people were fooled by
this fraud, how many others people were deceived by this fraud.
Secondly, how many other frauds have been perpetuated
by people who advocate evolutionist.
That claim is another fraud. In all likelihood, there are zero PhDs
based on Piltdown man (excepting, perhaps, one or two fairly recent
ones about its history). Can you name one? I would attribute your
mistake to simply gullibility, but your adding the word "certainly"
makes you accessory to the fraud.
Mark Isaak wrote:
On 12/4/23 9:31 AM, Ron Dean wrote:From the time of its "discovery" the Piltdown man was considered an important link between modern man and his earlier ancestors. So, there
Mark Isaak wrote:
On 12/4/23 12:24 AM, Ron Dean wrote:Federal or civil laws do _not_ determine the its validity, _only_ its
RonO wrote:
On 11/28/2023 8:10 PM, Ron Dean wrote:You are a damn liar! You know nothing about my "religion". I
RonO wrote:
On 9/11/2023 5:48 PM, Gary Hurd wrote:I read virtually all of the post on this particular thread. About >>>>>>> the only thing notable in these post is the reassurance that
On Sunday, September 10, 2023 at 5:40:32 PM UTC-7, RonO wrote: >>>>>>>>>> On 9/10/2023 12:09 PM, Bob Casanova wrote:
.On Sun, 10 Sep 2023 11:23:40 -0500, the following appeared >>>>>>>>>>> in talk.origins, posted by RonO <roki...@cox.net>:
https://evolutionnews.org/2023/09/in-debate-on-intelligent-design-critic-cites-dragon-legend-to-justify-evolutions-failures/
.
.
Nelson was an ID perp from the start, and he was the only one >>>>>>>>>> that kept.
claiming that they didn't yet have the ID science, but that >>>>>>>>>> they were
working on producing some. The reason turns out that Nelson >>>>>>>>>> was YEC and
couldn't stand what the other ID perps were claiming as the ID >>>>>>>>>> science.
There is absolutely no room for the existence of any YEC
creationists
within the Top Six provided in "their order simply reflecting >>>>>>>>>> that in
which they must logically have occurred within our universe." >>>>>>>>> .
.
Ron Okimoto
Paul Nelson is indeed a 3rd generation YEC. I have a copy of >>>>>>>>> his grandfather's book;
Nelson, Byron C.
1927 (last edition 1952) “After Its Kind: The first and last >>>>>>>>> word on evolution” Minneapolis: Augsburg Books
Nelson was one of the original ID perps that started the ID scam >>>>>>>> at the Discovery Institute, but it took him a very long time to >>>>>>>> make Senior Fellow. He was the one that kept claiming that they >>>>>>>> didn't have the ID science yet, but that they were working on
producing it. When the ID scam started Nelson claimed that he
was going to publish a book that would refute Darwinism, but as >>>>>>>> far as I know that book was never published. PZ would ask him >>>>>>>> for years about when that book was going to be published.
Nelson never wanted to support the Top Six best evidence for the >>>>>>>> ID scam. As a YEC IDiot there never was any science that the ID >>>>>>>> perps could accomplish that would make Nelson happy. Any
successful ID science would just be more science to deny. So >>>>>>>> Nelson participated in the ID creationist scam knowing that they >>>>>>>> never had the ID science that the other ID perps claimed to have. >>>>>>>>
Ron Okimoto
infidels offer each other that their infidelity is justifiable
and the right pathway to self-righteousness.
What do you think you are doing by putting up the god-of-the-gaps
denial in order to support your religious beliefs against the
"infidels"
;
totally and completely 100% reject the Genesis creation story. My
rejection of evolution has nothing to do with religion! It's
because I discovered that evolution is a fraud. For a more than a
half century, evolution was based on a deliberate, purposeful
fraud, known as the Piltdown Man. But the Piltdown man, from the
beginning was recognized as fraudulent by some professionals and so
it was contraversal. But this fraud was a "godsend" to people who
desperately wanted some proof of evolution. And this fraud was
spread throughout society for a half century. How many school books
had this apelike human fraud placed before children.
This fraud affected human societies for more than a century:
actually until the 1950s. By then the damage was done. However, to >>>>> the dismay of many believers, physicist proved it was a deliberate
fraud, the fraud consist of an early fossilized human skull with a
chimp chin and filed teeth.
I find it interesting that you object to fraud, and yet the
alternative you favor over evolution is a known fraud, and has a
court case establishing as much.
;
legality.
IE teaching ID is illegal, which does not mean it's wrong.
Read the court transcripts of Kitzmiller v. Dover. The reason WHY
teaching ID is illegal is because ID is a fraud.
There are certainly numerous PhDs who earned their Doctorates by
their dissertations on Piltdown man. Such PhD should be worthless,
since the dissertations were based on the fraudulent Piltdown Man
which they accepted as real. So, since so many people were fooled
by this fraud, how many others people were deceived by this fraud.
Secondly, how many other frauds have been perpetuated
by people who advocate evolutionist.
That claim is another fraud. In all likelihood, there are zero PhDs
based on Piltdown man (excepting, perhaps, one or two fairly recent
ones about its history). Can you name one? I would attribute your
mistake to simply gullibility, but your adding the word "certainly"
makes you accessory to the fraud.
No comment? Aren't you angry about frauds being committed?
is every reason to assume that there were some PhD dissertations on what
was thought to be an important find. Under this circumstance why do you
not agree? I did read on TO that there was 500 such papers, this however
was controversial.
Mark Isaak wrote:
On 12/4/23 9:31 AM, Ron Dean wrote:No, it does not. It was a reasonable conclusion, based upon the
Mark Isaak wrote:
On 12/4/23 12:24 AM, Ron Dean wrote:Federal or civil laws do _not_ determine the its validity, _only_ its
RonO wrote:
On 11/28/2023 8:10 PM, Ron Dean wrote:You are a damn liar! You know nothing about my "religion". I
RonO wrote:
On 9/11/2023 5:48 PM, Gary Hurd wrote:I read virtually all of the post on this particular thread. About >>>>>>> the only thing notable in these post is the reassurance that
On Sunday, September 10, 2023 at 5:40:32 PM UTC-7, RonO wrote: >>>>>>>>>> On 9/10/2023 12:09 PM, Bob Casanova wrote:
.On Sun, 10 Sep 2023 11:23:40 -0500, the following appeared >>>>>>>>>>> in talk.origins, posted by RonO <roki...@cox.net>:
https://evolutionnews.org/2023/09/in-debate-on-intelligent-design-critic-cites-dragon-legend-to-justify-evolutions-failures/
.
.
Nelson was an ID perp from the start, and he was the only one >>>>>>>>>> that kept.
claiming that they didn't yet have the ID science, but that >>>>>>>>>> they were
working on producing some. The reason turns out that Nelson >>>>>>>>>> was YEC and
couldn't stand what the other ID perps were claiming as the ID >>>>>>>>>> science.
There is absolutely no room for the existence of any YEC
creationists
within the Top Six provided in "their order simply reflecting >>>>>>>>>> that in
which they must logically have occurred within our universe." >>>>>>>>> .
.
Ron Okimoto
Paul Nelson is indeed a 3rd generation YEC. I have a copy of >>>>>>>>> his grandfather's book;
Nelson, Byron C.
1927 (last edition 1952) “After Its Kind: The first and last >>>>>>>>> word on evolution” Minneapolis: Augsburg Books
Nelson was one of the original ID perps that started the ID scam >>>>>>>> at the Discovery Institute, but it took him a very long time to >>>>>>>> make Senior Fellow. He was the one that kept claiming that they >>>>>>>> didn't have the ID science yet, but that they were working on
producing it. When the ID scam started Nelson claimed that he
was going to publish a book that would refute Darwinism, but as >>>>>>>> far as I know that book was never published. PZ would ask him >>>>>>>> for years about when that book was going to be published.
Nelson never wanted to support the Top Six best evidence for the >>>>>>>> ID scam. As a YEC IDiot there never was any science that the ID >>>>>>>> perps could accomplish that would make Nelson happy. Any
successful ID science would just be more science to deny. So >>>>>>>> Nelson participated in the ID creationist scam knowing that they >>>>>>>> never had the ID science that the other ID perps claimed to have. >>>>>>>>
Ron Okimoto
infidels offer each other that their infidelity is justifiable
and the right pathway to self-righteousness.
What do you think you are doing by putting up the god-of-the-gaps
denial in order to support your religious beliefs against the
"infidels"
;
totally and completely 100% reject the Genesis creation story. My
rejection of evolution has nothing to do with religion! It's
because I discovered that evolution is a fraud. For a more than a
half century, evolution was based on a deliberate, purposeful
fraud, known as the Piltdown Man. But the Piltdown man, from the
beginning was recognized as fraudulent by some professionals and so
it was contraversal. But this fraud was a "godsend" to people who
desperately wanted some proof of evolution. And this fraud was
spread throughout society for a half century. How many school books
had this apelike human fraud placed before children.
This fraud affected human societies for more than a century:
actually until the 1950s. By then the damage was done. However, to >>>>> the dismay of many believers, physicist proved it was a deliberate
fraud, the fraud consist of an early fossilized human skull with a
chimp chin and filed teeth.
I find it interesting that you object to fraud, and yet the
alternative you favor over evolution is a known fraud, and has a
court case establishing as much.
;
legality.
IE teaching ID is illegal, which does not mean it's wrong.
Read the court transcripts of Kitzmiller v. Dover. The reason WHY
teaching ID is illegal is because ID is a fraud.
There are certainly numerous PhDs who earned their Doctorates by
their dissertations on Piltdown man. Such PhD should be worthless,
since the dissertations were based on the fraudulent Piltdown Man
which they accepted as real. So, since so many people were fooled
by this fraud, how many others people were deceived by this fraud.
Secondly, how many other frauds have been perpetuated
by people who advocate evolutionist.
That claim is another fraud. In all likelihood, there are zero PhDs
based on Piltdown man (excepting, perhaps, one or two fairly recent
ones about its history). Can you name one? I would attribute your
mistake to simply gullibility, but your adding the word "certainly"
makes you accessory to the fraud.
No comment? Aren't you angry about frauds being committed?
"discovery" and the interest it generated. It seemed logical. Can you
say with any degree of certainty that there were no Phd dissertations
based upon this discovery? I realize that you have not expressed any
contrary information. Perhaps, you cannot say there were none. If not,
then my reasons stands.
Mark Isaak wrote:
On 12/4/23 9:31 AM, Ron Dean wrote:From the time of its "discovery" the Piltdown man was considered an important link between modern man and his earlier ancestors. So, there
Mark Isaak wrote:
On 12/4/23 12:24 AM, Ron Dean wrote:Federal or civil laws do _not_ determine the its validity, _only_ its legality.
RonO wrote:
On 11/28/2023 8:10 PM, Ron Dean wrote:You are a damn liar! You know nothing about my "religion". I totally >>>>> and completely 100% reject the Genesis creation story. My rejection of >>>>> evolution has nothing to do with religion! It's because I discovered >>>>> that evolution is a fraud. For a more than a half century, evolution >>>>> was based on a deliberate, purposeful fraud, known as the Piltdown >>>>> Man. But the Piltdown man, from the beginning was recognized as
RonO wrote:
On 9/11/2023 5:48 PM, Gary Hurd wrote:I read virtually all of the post on this particular thread. About the >>>>>>> only thing notable in these post is the reassurance that infidels offer >>>>>>> each other that their infidelity is justifiable and the right pathway >>>>>>> to self-righteousness.
On Sunday, September 10, 2023 at 5:40:32 PM UTC-7, RonO wrote: >>>>>>>>>> On 9/10/2023 12:09 PM, Bob Casanova wrote:
.On Sun, 10 Sep 2023 11:23:40 -0500, the following appeared >>>>>>>>>>> in talk.origins, posted by RonO <roki...@cox.net>:
https://evolutionnews.org/2023/09/in-debate-on-intelligent-design-critic-cites-dragon-legend-to-justify-evolutions-failures/
.
.
Nelson was an ID perp from the start, and he was the only one that kept.
claiming that they didn't yet have the ID science, but that they were
working on producing some. The reason turns out that Nelson was YEC and
couldn't stand what the other ID perps were claiming as the ID science.
There is absolutely no room for the existence of any YEC creationists
within the Top Six provided in "their order simply reflecting that in
which they must logically have occurred within our universe." >>>>>>>>> .
.
Ron Okimoto
Paul Nelson is indeed a 3rd generation YEC. I have a copy of his >>>>>>>>> grandfather's book;
Nelson, Byron C.
1927 (last edition 1952) “After Its Kind: The first and last word on
evolution” Minneapolis: Augsburg Books
Nelson was one of the original ID perps that started the ID scam at the
Discovery Institute, but it took him a very long time to make Senior >>>>>>>> Fellow. He was the one that kept claiming that they didn't have the ID
science yet, but that they were working on producing it. When the ID >>>>>>>> scam started Nelson claimed that he was going to publish a book that >>>>>>>> would refute Darwinism, but as far as I know that book was never >>>>>>>> published. PZ would ask him for years about when that book was going >>>>>>>> to be published.
Nelson never wanted to support the Top Six best evidence for the ID >>>>>>>> scam. As a YEC IDiot there never was any science that the ID perps >>>>>>>> could accomplish that would make Nelson happy. Any successful ID >>>>>>>> science would just be more science to deny. So Nelson participated in
the ID creationist scam knowing that they never had the ID science that
the other ID perps claimed to have.
Ron Okimoto
What do you think you are doing by putting up the god-of-the-gaps
denial in order to support your religious beliefs against the "infidels" >>>>> >
fraudulent by some professionals and so it was contraversal. But this >>>>> fraud was a "godsend" to people who desperately wanted some proof of >>>>> evolution. And this fraud was spread throughout society for a half
century. How many school books had this apelike human fraud placed
before children.
This fraud affected human societies for more than a century: actually >>>>> until the 1950s. By then the damage was done. However, to the dismay >>>>> of many believers, physicist proved it was a deliberate fraud, the
fraud consist of an early fossilized human skull with a chimp chin and >>>>> filed teeth.
I find it interesting that you object to fraud, and yet the alternative >>>> you favor over evolution is a known fraud, and has a court case
establishing as much.
;
IE teaching ID is illegal, which does not mean it's wrong.
Read the court transcripts of Kitzmiller v. Dover. The reason WHY
teaching ID is illegal is because ID is a fraud.
There are certainly numerous PhDs who earned their Doctorates by their >>>>> dissertations on Piltdown man. Such PhD should be worthless, since the >>>>> dissertations were based on the fraudulent Piltdown Man which they
accepted as real. So, since so many people were fooled by this fraud, >>>>> how many others people were deceived by this fraud. Secondly, how many >>>>> other frauds have been perpetuated
by people who advocate evolutionist.
That claim is another fraud. In all likelihood, there are zero PhDs
based on Piltdown man (excepting, perhaps, one or two fairly recent
ones about its history). Can you name one? I would attribute your
mistake to simply gullibility, but your adding the word "certainly"
makes you accessory to the fraud.
No comment? Aren't you angry about frauds being committed?
is every reason to assume that there were some PhD dissertations on
what was thought to be an important find. Under this circumstance why
do you not agree?
I did read on TO that there was 500 such papers, this however was controversial.
S
Mark Isaak wrote:
On 12/4/23 9:31 AM, Ron Dean wrote:No, it does not. It was a reasonable conclusion, based upon the
Mark Isaak wrote:
On 12/4/23 12:24 AM, Ron Dean wrote:Federal or civil laws do _not_ determine the its validity, _only_ its legality.
RonO wrote:
On 11/28/2023 8:10 PM, Ron Dean wrote:You are a damn liar! You know nothing about my "religion". I totally >>>>> and completely 100% reject the Genesis creation story. My rejection of >>>>> evolution has nothing to do with religion! It's because I discovered >>>>> that evolution is a fraud. For a more than a half century, evolution >>>>> was based on a deliberate, purposeful fraud, known as the Piltdown >>>>> Man. But the Piltdown man, from the beginning was recognized as
RonO wrote:
On 9/11/2023 5:48 PM, Gary Hurd wrote:I read virtually all of the post on this particular thread. About the >>>>>>> only thing notable in these post is the reassurance that infidels offer >>>>>>> each other that their infidelity is justifiable and the right pathway >>>>>>> to self-righteousness.
On Sunday, September 10, 2023 at 5:40:32 PM UTC-7, RonO wrote: >>>>>>>>>> On 9/10/2023 12:09 PM, Bob Casanova wrote:
.On Sun, 10 Sep 2023 11:23:40 -0500, the following appeared >>>>>>>>>>> in talk.origins, posted by RonO <roki...@cox.net>:
https://evolutionnews.org/2023/09/in-debate-on-intelligent-design-critic-cites-dragon-legend-to-justify-evolutions-failures/
.
.
Nelson was an ID perp from the start, and he was the only one that kept.
claiming that they didn't yet have the ID science, but that they were
working on producing some. The reason turns out that Nelson was YEC and
couldn't stand what the other ID perps were claiming as the ID science.
There is absolutely no room for the existence of any YEC creationists
within the Top Six provided in "their order simply reflecting that in
which they must logically have occurred within our universe." >>>>>>>>> .
.
Ron Okimoto
Paul Nelson is indeed a 3rd generation YEC. I have a copy of his >>>>>>>>> grandfather's book;
Nelson, Byron C.
1927 (last edition 1952) “After Its Kind: The first and last word on
evolution” Minneapolis: Augsburg Books
Nelson was one of the original ID perps that started the ID scam at the
Discovery Institute, but it took him a very long time to make Senior >>>>>>>> Fellow. He was the one that kept claiming that they didn't have the ID
science yet, but that they were working on producing it. When the ID >>>>>>>> scam started Nelson claimed that he was going to publish a book that >>>>>>>> would refute Darwinism, but as far as I know that book was never >>>>>>>> published. PZ would ask him for years about when that book was going >>>>>>>> to be published.
Nelson never wanted to support the Top Six best evidence for the ID >>>>>>>> scam. As a YEC IDiot there never was any science that the ID perps >>>>>>>> could accomplish that would make Nelson happy. Any successful ID >>>>>>>> science would just be more science to deny. So Nelson participated in
the ID creationist scam knowing that they never had the ID science that
the other ID perps claimed to have.
Ron Okimoto
What do you think you are doing by putting up the god-of-the-gaps
denial in order to support your religious beliefs against the "infidels" >>>>> >
fraudulent by some professionals and so it was contraversal. But this >>>>> fraud was a "godsend" to people who desperately wanted some proof of >>>>> evolution. And this fraud was spread throughout society for a half
century. How many school books had this apelike human fraud placed
before children.
This fraud affected human societies for more than a century: actually >>>>> until the 1950s. By then the damage was done. However, to the dismay >>>>> of many believers, physicist proved it was a deliberate fraud, the
fraud consist of an early fossilized human skull with a chimp chin and >>>>> filed teeth.
I find it interesting that you object to fraud, and yet the alternative >>>> you favor over evolution is a known fraud, and has a court case
establishing as much.
;
IE teaching ID is illegal, which does not mean it's wrong.
Read the court transcripts of Kitzmiller v. Dover. The reason WHY
teaching ID is illegal is because ID is a fraud.
There are certainly numerous PhDs who earned their Doctorates by their >>>>> dissertations on Piltdown man. Such PhD should be worthless, since the >>>>> dissertations were based on the fraudulent Piltdown Man which they
accepted as real. So, since so many people were fooled by this fraud, >>>>> how many others people were deceived by this fraud. Secondly, how many >>>>> other frauds have been perpetuated
by people who advocate evolutionist.
That claim is another fraud. In all likelihood, there are zero PhDs
based on Piltdown man (excepting, perhaps, one or two fairly recent
ones about its history). Can you name one? I would attribute your
mistake to simply gullibility, but your adding the word "certainly"
makes you accessory to the fraud.
No comment? Aren't you angry about frauds being committed?
"discovery" and the interest it generated. It seemed logical. Can you
say with any degree of certainty that there were no Phd dissertations
based upon this discovery?
I realize that you have not expressed any contrary information.
Perhaps, you cannot say there were none. If not, then my reasons stands.
Athel Cornish-Bowden wrote:
On 2023-12-05 18:33:11 +0000, Ron Dean said:
Mark Isaak wrote:
On 12/4/23 9:31 AM, Ron Dean wrote:From the time of its "discovery" the Piltdown man was considered an
Mark Isaak wrote:
On 12/4/23 12:24 AM, Ron Dean wrote:Federal or civil laws do _not_ determine the its validity, _only_ its legality.
RonO wrote:
On 11/28/2023 8:10 PM, Ron Dean wrote:You are a damn liar! You know nothing about my "religion". I totally >>>>>>> and completely 100% reject the Genesis creation story. My rejection of >>>>>>> evolution has nothing to do with religion! It's because I discovered >>>>>>> that evolution is a fraud. For a more than a half century, evolution >>>>>>> was based on a deliberate, purposeful fraud, known as the Piltdown >>>>>>> Man. But the Piltdown man, from the beginning was recognized as
RonO wrote:
On 9/11/2023 5:48 PM, Gary Hurd wrote:I read virtually all of the post on this particular thread. About the >>>>>>>>> only thing notable in these post is the reassurance that infidels offer
On Sunday, September 10, 2023 at 5:40:32 PM UTC-7, RonO wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> On 9/10/2023 12:09 PM, Bob Casanova wrote:
.On Sun, 10 Sep 2023 11:23:40 -0500, the following appeared >>>>>>>>>>>>> in talk.origins, posted by RonO <roki...@cox.net>:
https://evolutionnews.org/2023/09/in-debate-on-intelligent-design-critic-cites-dragon-legend-to-justify-evolutions-failures/
.
.
Nelson was an ID perp from the start, and he was the only one that kept.
claiming that they didn't yet have the ID science, but that they were
working on producing some. The reason turns out that Nelson was YEC and
couldn't stand what the other ID perps were claiming as the ID science.
There is absolutely no room for the existence of any YEC creationists
within the Top Six provided in "their order simply reflecting that in
which they must logically have occurred within our universe." >>>>>>>>>>> .
.
Ron Okimoto
Paul Nelson is indeed a 3rd generation YEC. I have a copy of his >>>>>>>>>>> grandfather's book;
Nelson, Byron C.
1927 (last edition 1952) “After Its Kind: The first and last word on
evolution” Minneapolis: Augsburg Books
Nelson was one of the original ID perps that started the ID scam at the
Discovery Institute, but it took him a very long time to make Senior >>>>>>>>>> Fellow. He was the one that kept claiming that they didn't have the ID
science yet, but that they were working on producing it. When the ID >>>>>>>>>> scam started Nelson claimed that he was going to publish a book that >>>>>>>>>> would refute Darwinism, but as far as I know that book was never >>>>>>>>>> published. PZ would ask him for years about when that book was going
to be published.
Nelson never wanted to support the Top Six best evidence for the ID >>>>>>>>>> scam. As a YEC IDiot there never was any science that the ID perps >>>>>>>>>> could accomplish that would make Nelson happy. Any successful ID >>>>>>>>>> science would just be more science to deny. So Nelson participated in
the ID creationist scam knowing that they never had the ID science that
the other ID perps claimed to have.
Ron Okimoto
each other that their infidelity is justifiable and the right pathway >>>>>>>>> to self-righteousness.
What do you think you are doing by putting up the god-of-the-gaps >>>>>>>> denial in order to support your religious beliefs against the "infidels"
;
fraudulent by some professionals and so it was contraversal. But this >>>>>>> fraud was a "godsend" to people who desperately wanted some proof of >>>>>>> evolution. And this fraud was spread throughout society for a half >>>>>>> century. How many school books had this apelike human fraud placed >>>>>>> before children.
This fraud affected human societies for more than a century: actually >>>>>>> until the 1950s. By then the damage was done. However, to the dismay >>>>>>> of many believers, physicist proved it was a deliberate fraud, the >>>>>>> fraud consist of an early fossilized human skull with a chimp chin and >>>>>>> filed teeth.
I find it interesting that you object to fraud, and yet the alternative >>>>>> you favor over evolution is a known fraud, and has a court case
establishing as much.
;
IE teaching ID is illegal, which does not mean it's wrong.
Read the court transcripts of Kitzmiller v. Dover. The reason WHY
teaching ID is illegal is because ID is a fraud.
There are certainly numerous PhDs who earned their Doctorates by their >>>>>>> dissertations on Piltdown man. Such PhD should be worthless, since the >>>>>>> dissertations were based on the fraudulent Piltdown Man which they >>>>>>> accepted as real. So, since so many people were fooled by this fraud, >>>>>>> how many others people were deceived by this fraud. Secondly, how many >>>>>>> other frauds have been perpetuated
by people who advocate evolutionist.
That claim is another fraud. In all likelihood, there are zero PhDs >>>>>> based on Piltdown man (excepting, perhaps, one or two fairly recent >>>>>> ones about its history). Can you name one? I would attribute your >>>>>> mistake to simply gullibility, but your adding the word "certainly" >>>>>> makes you accessory to the fraud.
No comment? Aren't you angry about frauds being committed?
important link between modern man and his earlier ancestors. So, there
is every reason to assume that there were some PhD dissertations on
what was thought to be an important find. Under this circumstance why
do you not agree?
Because it's a lie, and you've provided no evidence whatsever to
support it. Just name _one_ PhD thesis that says what you claim.
I can acknowledge the non-available evidence of any PhD papers
regarding the Piltdown man. But this very crude fraud no doubt was an embarrassment to the profession. Consequently, there's little chance
that any papers, had they ever existed would have been made or kept
available or downloaded onto the internet.
I did read on TO that there was 500 such papers,
this however was controversial.
On Wednesday, December 6, 2023 at 4:52:01 PM UTC-5, Ron Dean wrote:
Athel Cornish-Bowden wrote:
On 2023-12-05 18:33:11 +0000, Ron Dean said:
Mark Isaak wrote:
On 12/4/23 9:31 AM, Ron Dean wrote:From the time of its "discovery" the Piltdown man was considered an
Mark Isaak wrote:
On 12/4/23 12:24 AM, Ron Dean wrote:Federal or civil laws do _not_ determine the its validity, _only_ >>>> its legality.
RonO wrote:
On 11/28/2023 8:10 PM, Ron Dean wrote:You are a damn liar! You know nothing about my "religion". I
RonO wrote:
On 9/11/2023 5:48 PM, Gary Hurd wrote:I read virtually all of the post on this particular thread. >>>>>>>> About the only thing notable in these post is the reassurance >>>>>>>> that infidels offer each other that their infidelity is
On Sunday, September 10, 2023 at 5:40:32 PM UTC-7, RonO wrote:
On 9/10/2023 12:09 PM, Bob Casanova wrote:.
On Sun, 10 Sep 2023 11:23:40 -0500, the following appeared >>>>>>>>>>>> in talk.origins, posted by RonO <roki...@cox.net>: >>>>>>>>>>>>
https://evolutionnews.org/2023/09/in-debate-on-intelligent-design-critic-cites-dragon-legend-to-justify-evolutions-failures/
.
.
Nelson was an ID perp from the start, and he was the only one >>>>>>>>>>> that kept.
claiming that they didn't yet have the ID science, but that >>>>>>>>>>> they were
working on producing some. The reason turns out that Nelson >>>>>>>>>>> was YEC and
couldn't stand what the other ID perps were claiming as the >>>>>>>>>>> ID science.
There is absolutely no room for the existence of any YEC >>>>>>>>>>> creationists
within the Top Six provided in "their order simply reflecting >>>>>>>>>>> that in
which they must logically have occurred within our universe." >>>>>>>>>> .
.
Ron Okimoto
Paul Nelson is indeed a 3rd generation YEC. I have a copy of >>>>>>>>>> his grandfather's book;
Nelson, Byron C.
1927 (last edition 1952) “After Its Kind: The first and last >>>>>>>>>> word on evolution” Minneapolis: Augsburg Books
Nelson was one of the original ID perps that started the ID >>>>>>>>> scam at the Discovery Institute, but it took him a very long >>>>>>>>> time to make Senior Fellow. He was the one that kept claiming >>>>>>>>> that they didn't have the ID science yet, but that they were >>>>>>>>> working on producing it. When the ID scam started Nelson >>>>>>>>> claimed that he was going to publish a book that would refute >>>>>>>>> Darwinism, but as far as I know that book was never published. >>>>>>>>> PZ would ask him for years about when that book was going to be >>>>>>>>> published.
Nelson never wanted to support the Top Six best evidence for >>>>>>>>> the ID scam. As a YEC IDiot there never was any science that >>>>>>>>> the ID perps could accomplish that would make Nelson happy. >>>>>>>>> Any successful ID science would just be more science to deny. >>>>>>>>> So Nelson participated in the ID creationist scam knowing that >>>>>>>>> they never had the ID science that the other ID perps claimed >>>>>>>>> to have.
Ron Okimoto
justifiable and the right pathway to self-righteousness.
What do you think you are doing by putting up the god-of-the-gaps >>>>>>> denial in order to support your religious beliefs against the >>>>>>> "infidels"
totally and completely 100% reject the Genesis creation story. My >>>>>> rejection of evolution has nothing to do with religion! It's
because I discovered that evolution is a fraud. For a more than a >>>>>> half century, evolution was based on a deliberate, purposeful >>>>>> fraud, known as the Piltdown Man. But the Piltdown man, from the >>>>>> beginning was recognized as fraudulent by some professionals and >>>>>> so it was contraversal. But this fraud was a "godsend" to people >>>>>> who desperately wanted some proof of evolution. And this fraud was >>>>>> spread throughout society for a half century. How many school >>>>>> books had this apelike human fraud placed before children.
This fraud affected human societies for more than a century:
actually until the 1950s. By then the damage was done. However, >>>>>> to the dismay of many believers, physicist proved it was a
deliberate fraud, the fraud consist of an early fossilized human >>>>>> skull with a chimp chin and filed teeth.
I find it interesting that you object to fraud, and yet the
alternative you favor over evolution is a known fraud, and has a >>>>> court case establishing as much.
IE teaching ID is illegal, which does not mean it's wrong.
Read the court transcripts of Kitzmiller v. Dover. The reason WHY
teaching ID is illegal is because ID is a fraud.
There are certainly numerous PhDs who earned their Doctorates by >>>>>> their dissertations on Piltdown man. Such PhD should be worthless, >>>>>> since the dissertations were based on the fraudulent Piltdown Man >>>>>> which they accepted as real. So, since so many people were fooled >>>>>> by this fraud, how many others people were deceived by this fraud. >>>>>> Secondly, how many other frauds have been perpetuated
by people who advocate evolutionist.
That claim is another fraud. In all likelihood, there are zero
PhDs based on Piltdown man (excepting, perhaps, one or two fairly >>>>> recent ones about its history). Can you name one? I would
attribute your mistake to simply gullibility, but your adding the >>>>> word "certainly" makes you accessory to the fraud.
No comment? Aren't you angry about frauds being committed?
important link between modern man and his earlier ancestors. So, there >> is every reason to assume that there were some PhD dissertations on
what was thought to be an important find. Under this circumstance why >> do you not agree?
Because it's a lie, and you've provided no evidence whatsever to support it. Just name _one_ PhD thesis that says what you claim.
I can acknowledge the non-available evidence of any PhD papers regarding the Piltdown man. But this very crude fraud no doubt was an
embarrassment to the profession. Consequently, there's little chance
that any papers, had they ever existed would have been made or kept available or downloaded onto the internet.
Don't see how that follows. There are plenty of people who would like to remind everyone of how embarrassing it is that paleontologists fell for the fraud, and those people are certainly capable of uploading old papers onto the internet.
Athel Cornish-Bowden wrote:
On 2023-12-06 21:48:27 +0000, Ron Dean said:I was wrong, but before it was proven fraud, I had no evidence, but at
Athel Cornish-Bowden wrote:
On 2023-12-05 18:33:11 +0000, Ron Dean said:I can acknowledge the non-available evidence of any PhD papers
Mark Isaak wrote:
On 12/4/23 9:31 AM, Ron Dean wrote:From the time of its "discovery" the Piltdown man was considered an >>>>> important link between modern man and his earlier ancestors. So, there >>>>> is every reason to assume that there were some PhD dissertations on
Mark Isaak wrote:
On 12/4/23 12:24 AM, Ron Dean wrote:Federal or civil laws do _not_ determine the its validity, _only_ its legality.
RonO wrote:
On 11/28/2023 8:10 PM, Ron Dean wrote:You are a damn liar! You know nothing about my "religion". I totally >>>>>>>>> and completely 100% reject the Genesis creation story. My rejection of
RonO wrote:
On 9/11/2023 5:48 PM, Gary Hurd wrote:I read virtually all of the post on this particular thread. About the
On Sunday, September 10, 2023 at 5:40:32 PM UTC-7, RonO wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 9/10/2023 12:09 PM, Bob Casanova wrote:
.On Sun, 10 Sep 2023 11:23:40 -0500, the following appeared >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in talk.origins, posted by RonO <roki...@cox.net>: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
https://evolutionnews.org/2023/09/in-debate-on-intelligent-design-critic-cites-dragon-legend-to-justify-evolutions-failures/
.
.
Nelson was an ID perp from the start, and he was the only one that kept.
claiming that they didn't yet have the ID science, but that they were
working on producing some. The reason turns out that Nelson was YEC and
couldn't stand what the other ID perps were claiming as the ID science.
There is absolutely no room for the existence of any YEC creationists
within the Top Six provided in "their order simply reflecting that in
which they must logically have occurred within our universe." >>>>>>>>>>>>> .
.
Ron Okimoto
Paul Nelson is indeed a 3rd generation YEC. I have a copy of his >>>>>>>>>>>>> grandfather's book;
Nelson, Byron C.
1927 (last edition 1952) “After Its Kind: The first and last word on
evolution” Minneapolis: Augsburg Books
Nelson was one of the original ID perps that started the ID scam at the
Discovery Institute, but it took him a very long time to make Senior
Fellow. He was the one that kept claiming that they didn't have the
ID science yet, but that they were working on producing it. When the ID
scam started Nelson claimed that he was going to publish a book that
would refute Darwinism, but as far as I know that book was never >>>>>>>>>>>> published. PZ would ask him for years about when that book was going
to be published.
Nelson never wanted to support the Top Six best evidence for the ID
scam. As a YEC IDiot there never was any science that the ID perps
could accomplish that would make Nelson happy. Any successful ID >>>>>>>>>>>> science would just be more science to deny. So Nelson participated in
the ID creationist scam knowing that they never had the ID science that
the other ID perps claimed to have.
Ron Okimoto
only thing notable in these post is the reassurance that infidels offer
each other that their infidelity is justifiable and the right pathway
to self-righteousness.
What do you think you are doing by putting up the god-of-the-gaps >>>>>>>>>> denial in order to support your religious beliefs against the "infidels"
;
evolution has nothing to do with religion! It's because I discovered >>>>>>>>> that evolution is a fraud. For a more than a half century, evolution >>>>>>>>> was based on a deliberate, purposeful fraud, known as the Piltdown >>>>>>>>> Man. But the Piltdown man, from the beginning was recognized as >>>>>>>>> fraudulent by some professionals and so it was contraversal. But this >>>>>>>>> fraud was a "godsend" to people who desperately wanted some proof of >>>>>>>>> evolution. And this fraud was spread throughout society for a half >>>>>>>>> century. How many school books had this apelike human fraud placed >>>>>>>>> before children.
This fraud affected human societies for more than a century: actually >>>>>>>>> until the 1950s. By then the damage was done. However, to the dismay
of many believers, physicist proved it was a deliberate fraud, the >>>>>>>>> fraud consist of an early fossilized human skull with a chimp chin and
filed teeth.
I find it interesting that you object to fraud, and yet the alternative
you favor over evolution is a known fraud, and has a court case >>>>>>>> establishing as much.
;
IE teaching ID is illegal, which does not mean it's wrong.
Read the court transcripts of Kitzmiller v. Dover. The reason WHY >>>>>> teaching ID is illegal is because ID is a fraud.
There are certainly numerous PhDs who earned their Doctorates by their
dissertations on Piltdown man. Such PhD should be worthless, since the
dissertations were based on the fraudulent Piltdown Man which they >>>>>>>>> accepted as real. So, since so many people were fooled by this fraud, >>>>>>>>> how many others people were deceived by this fraud. Secondly, how many
other frauds have been perpetuated
by people who advocate evolutionist.
That claim is another fraud. In all likelihood, there are zero PhDs >>>>>>>> based on Piltdown man (excepting, perhaps, one or two fairly recent >>>>>>>> ones about its history). Can you name one? I would attribute your >>>>>>>> mistake to simply gullibility, but your adding the word "certainly" >>>>>>>> makes you accessory to the fraud.
No comment? Aren't you angry about frauds being committed?
what was thought to be an important find. Under this circumstance why >>>>> do you not agree?
Because it's a lie, and you've provided no evidence whatsever to
support it. Just name _one_ PhD thesis that says what you claim.
;
regarding the Piltdown man. But this very crude fraud no doubt was an
embarrassment to the profession. Consequently, there's little chance
that any papers, had they ever existed would have been made or kept
available or downloaded onto the internet.
With this comment you show your total ignorance of how scientific
publishing is done. Do you know about Google? Do you know how to use
it? If the papers exist you can find them. It doesn't matter whether
they've been uploaded to the Internet. If you have a reference your
local university library can let you see a copy in a bound volume. That
system was in general use long before anyone thought of the Internet.
I did read on TO that there was 500 such papers,
When? Who wrote it? Reference?
this however was controversial.
Wouldn't it be simpler just to acknowledge that your original statement
about Piltdown Man was a lie, based on no evidence?
the time it seemed reasonable. I would have expected it to be the
subject of PhD papers.
Athel Cornish-Bowden wrote:
On 2023-12-07 16:11:56 +0000, Ron Dean said:I did not deliberately lie. I came to a rational conclusion, even though
Athel Cornish-Bowden wrote:
On 2023-12-06 21:48:27 +0000, Ron Dean said:I was wrong, but before it was proven fraud, I had no evidence, but
Athel Cornish-Bowden wrote:
On 2023-12-05 18:33:11 +0000, Ron Dean said:Â >
Mark Isaak wrote:
On 12/4/23 9:31 AM, Ron Dean wrote:Â From the time of its "discovery" the Piltdown man was
Mark Isaak wrote:Read the court transcripts of Kitzmiller v. Dover. The reason >>>>>>>> WHY teaching ID is illegal is because ID is a fraud.
On 12/4/23 12:24 AM, Ron Dean wrote:Â >
RonO wrote:I find it interesting that you object to fraud, and yet the >>>>>>>>>> alternative you favor over evolution is a known fraud, and has >>>>>>>>>> a court case establishing as much.
On 11/28/2023 8:10 PM, Ron Dean wrote:Â >
RonO wrote:
On 9/11/2023 5:48 PM, Gary Hurd wrote:I read virtually all of the post on this particular thread. >>>>>>>>>>>>> About the only thing notable in these post is the
On Sunday, September 10, 2023 at 5:40:32 PM UTC-7, RonO >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
On 9/10/2023 12:09 PM, Bob Casanova wrote:.
On Sun, 10 Sep 2023 11:23:40 -0500, the following appeared >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in talk.origins, posted by RonO <roki...@cox.net>: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
https://evolutionnews.org/2023/09/in-debate-on-intelligent-design-critic-cites-dragon-legend-to-justify-evolutions-failures/
.
.
Nelson was an ID perp from the start, and he was the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> only one that kept.
claiming that they didn't yet have the ID science, but >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that they were
working on producing some. The reason turns out that >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Nelson was YEC and
couldn't stand what the other ID perps were claiming as >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the ID science.
There is absolutely no room for the existence of any YEC >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> creationists
within the Top Six provided in "their order simply >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> reflecting that in
which they must logically have occurred within our >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> universe."
.
.
Ron Okimoto
Paul Nelson is indeed a 3rd generation YEC. I have a copy >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of his grandfather's book;
 Nelson, Byron C.
1927 (last edition 1952) “After Its Kind: The first and >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> last word on evolution†Minneapolis: Augsburg Books >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Nelson was one of the original ID perps that started the >>>>>>>>>>>>>> ID scam at the Discovery Institute, but it took him a very >>>>>>>>>>>>>> long time to make Senior Fellow. He was the one that >>>>>>>>>>>>>> kept claiming that they didn't have the ID science yet, >>>>>>>>>>>>>> but that they were working on producing it. When the ID >>>>>>>>>>>>>> scam started Nelson claimed that he was going to publish a >>>>>>>>>>>>>> book that would refute Darwinism, but as far as I know >>>>>>>>>>>>>> that book was never published. PZ would ask him for >>>>>>>>>>>>>> years about when that book was going to be published. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Nelson never wanted to support the Top Six best evidence >>>>>>>>>>>>>> for the ID scam. As a YEC IDiot there never was any >>>>>>>>>>>>>> science that the ID perps could accomplish that would make >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Nelson happy. Any successful ID science would just be >>>>>>>>>>>>>> more science to deny. So Nelson participated in the ID >>>>>>>>>>>>>> creationist scam knowing that they never had the ID >>>>>>>>>>>>>> science that the other ID perps claimed to have.
Ron Okimoto
reassurance that infidels offer each other that their >>>>>>>>>>>>> infidelity is justifiable and the right pathway to
self-righteousness.
What do you think you are doing by putting up the
god-of-the-gaps denial in order to support your religious >>>>>>>>>>>> beliefs against the "infidels"
You are a damn liar! You know nothing about my "religion". I >>>>>>>>>>> totally and completely 100% reject the Genesis creation
story. My rejection of evolution has nothing to do with
religion! It's because I discovered that evolution is a
fraud. For a more than a half century, evolution was based on >>>>>>>>>>> a deliberate, purposeful fraud, known as the Piltdown Man. >>>>>>>>>>> But the Piltdown man, from the beginning was recognized as >>>>>>>>>>> fraudulent by some professionals and so it was contraversal. >>>>>>>>>>> But this fraud was a "godsend" to people who desperately >>>>>>>>>>> wanted some proof of evolution. And this fraud was spread >>>>>>>>>>> throughout society for a half century. How many school books >>>>>>>>>>> had this apelike human fraud placed before children.
This fraud affected human societies for more than a century: >>>>>>>>>>> actually until the 1950s. By then the damage was done. >>>>>>>>>>> However, to the dismay of many believers, physicist proved it >>>>>>>>>>> was a deliberate fraud, the fraud consist of an early >>>>>>>>>>> fossilized human skull with a chimp chin and filed teeth. >>>>>>>>>>
Federal or civil laws do _not_ determine the its validity,
_only_ its legality.
IE teaching ID is illegal, which does not mean it's wrong. >>>>>>>>
There are certainly numerous PhDs who earned their Doctorates >>>>>>>>>>> by their dissertations on Piltdown man. Such PhD should be >>>>>>>>>>> worthless, since the dissertations were based on the
fraudulent Piltdown Man which they accepted as real. So, >>>>>>>>>>> since so many people were fooled by this fraud, how many >>>>>>>>>>> others people were deceived by this fraud. Secondly, how many >>>>>>>>>>> other frauds have been perpetuated
by people who advocate evolutionist.
That claim is another fraud. In all likelihood, there are >>>>>>>>>> zero PhDs based on Piltdown man (excepting, perhaps, one or >>>>>>>>>> two fairly recent ones about its history). Can you name >>>>>>>>>> one? I would attribute your mistake to simply gullibility, >>>>>>>>>> but your adding the word "certainly" makes you accessory to >>>>>>>>>> the fraud.
No comment? Aren't you angry about frauds being committed? >>>>>>>>
considered an important link between modern man and his earlier
ancestors. So, there is every reason to assume that there were
some PhD dissertations on what was thought to be an important
find. Under this circumstance why do you not agree?
Because it's a lie, and you've provided no evidence whatsever to
support it. Just name _one_ PhD thesis that says what you claim.
I can acknowledge the non-available evidence of any PhD papers
regarding the Piltdown man. But this very crude fraud no doubt was
an embarrassment to the profession. Consequently, there's little
chance that any papers, had they ever existed would have been made
or kept available or downloaded onto the internet.
With this comment you show your total ignorance of how scientific
publishing is done. Do you know about Google? Do you know how to use
it? If the papers exist you can find them. It doesn't matter whether
they've been uploaded to the Internet. If you have a reference your
local university library can let you see a copy in a bound volume.
That system was in general use long before anyone thought of the
Internet.
 I did read on TO that there was 500 such papers,
When? Who wrote it? Reference?
 this however was controversial.
Wouldn't it be simpler just to acknowledge that your original
statement about Piltdown Man was a lie, based on no evidence?
at the time it seemed reasonable. I would have expected it to be the
subject of PhD papers.
That's not what you said. You lied about it.
it was wrong.
But I find it strange that this, "fossil" was a deliberate and a crude
fraud. And considering the fact that an orangutan jaw bone, filed apes
teeth to mimic human teeth, dye to falsely infer age and an early mans
skull, went undetected by experts for about 40 years. Why did the
experts not determine that the fossil was fraudulent? Any opinion?
Athel Cornish-Bowden wrote:
On 2023-12-07 16:11:56 +0000, Ron Dean said:I did not deliberately lie. I came to a rational conclusion, even
Athel Cornish-Bowden wrote:
On 2023-12-06 21:48:27 +0000, Ron Dean said:I was wrong, but before it was proven fraud, I had no evidence, but at
Athel Cornish-Bowden wrote:
On 2023-12-05 18:33:11 +0000, Ron Dean said:Â >
Mark Isaak wrote:
On 12/4/23 9:31 AM, Ron Dean wrote:Â From the time of its "discovery" the Piltdown man was considered an >>>>>>> important link between modern man and his earlier ancestors. So, there >>>>>>> is every reason to assume that there were some PhD dissertations on >>>>>>> what was thought to be an important find. Under this circumstance why >>>>>>> do you not agree?
Mark Isaak wrote:Read the court transcripts of Kitzmiller v. Dover. The reason WHY >>>>>>>> teaching ID is illegal is because ID is a fraud.
On 12/4/23 12:24 AM, Ron Dean wrote:Â >
RonO wrote:
On 11/28/2023 8:10 PM, Ron Dean wrote:Â >
RonO wrote:
On 9/11/2023 5:48 PM, Gary Hurd wrote:I read virtually all of the post on this particular thread. About the
On Sunday, September 10, 2023 at 5:40:32 PM UTC-7, RonO wrote:
On 9/10/2023 12:09 PM, Bob Casanova wrote:.
On Sun, 10 Sep 2023 11:23:40 -0500, the following appeared >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in talk.origins, posted by RonO <roki...@cox.net>: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
https://evolutionnews.org/2023/09/in-debate-on-intelligent-design-critic-cites-dragon-legend-to-justify-evolutions-failures/
.
.
Nelson was an ID perp from the start, and he was the only one that kept.
claiming that they didn't yet have the ID science, but that they were
working on producing some. The reason turns out that Nelson was YEC and
couldn't stand what the other ID perps were claiming as the ID science.
There is absolutely no room for the existence of any YEC creationists
within the Top Six provided in "their order simply reflecting that in
which they must logically have occurred within our universe." >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> .
.
Ron Okimoto
Paul Nelson is indeed a 3rd generation YEC. I have a copy of his
grandfather's book;
 Nelson, Byron C.
1927 (last edition 1952) “After Its Kind: The first and last word
on evolution†Minneapolis: Augsburg Books
Nelson was one of the original ID perps that started the ID scam at the
Discovery Institute, but it took him a very long time to make Senior
Fellow. He was the one that kept claiming that they didn't have the
ID science yet, but that they were working on producing it. When the ID
scam started Nelson claimed that he was going to publish a book that
would refute Darwinism, but as far as I know that book was never >>>>>>>>>>>>>> published. PZ would ask him for years about when that book was
going to be published.
Nelson never wanted to support the Top Six best evidence for the ID
scam. As a YEC IDiot there never was any science that the ID perps
could accomplish that would make Nelson happy. Any successful ID
science would just be more science to deny. So Nelson participated
in the ID creationist scam knowing that they never had the ID science
that the other ID perps claimed to have.
Ron Okimoto
only thing notable in these post is the reassurance that infidels offer
each other that their infidelity is justifiable and the right pathway
to self-righteousness.
What do you think you are doing by putting up the god-of-the-gaps >>>>>>>>>>>> denial in order to support your religious beliefs against the "infidels"
You are a damn liar! You know nothing about my "religion". I totally
and completely 100% reject the Genesis creation story. My rejection of
evolution has nothing to do with religion! It's because I discovered
that evolution is a fraud. For a more than a half century, evolution
was based on a deliberate, purposeful fraud, known as the Piltdown
Man. But the Piltdown man, from the beginning was recognized as >>>>>>>>>>> fraudulent by some professionals and so it was contraversal. But this
fraud was a "godsend" to people who desperately wanted some proof of
evolution. And this fraud was spread throughout society for a half >>>>>>>>>>> century. How many school books had this apelike human fraud placed >>>>>>>>>>> before children.
This fraud affected human societies for more than a century: actually
until the 1950s. By then the damage was done. However, to the dismay
of many believers, physicist proved it was a deliberate fraud, the
fraud consist of an early fossilized human skull with a chimp chin and
filed teeth.
I find it interesting that you object to fraud, and yet the alternative
you favor over evolution is a known fraud, and has a court case >>>>>>>>>> establishing as much.
Federal or civil laws do _not_ determine the its validity, _only_ its legality.
IE teaching ID is illegal, which does not mean it's wrong. >>>>>>>>
There are certainly numerous PhDs who earned their Doctorates by their
dissertations on Piltdown man. Such PhD should be worthless, since the
dissertations were based on the fraudulent Piltdown Man which they >>>>>>>>>>> accepted as real. So, since so many people were fooled by this fraud,
how many others people were deceived by this fraud. Secondly, how many
other frauds have been perpetuated
by people who advocate evolutionist.
That claim is another fraud. In all likelihood, there are zero PhDs
based on Piltdown man (excepting, perhaps, one or two fairly recent >>>>>>>>>> ones about its history). Can you name one? I would attribute >>>>>>>>>> your mistake to simply gullibility, but your adding the word >>>>>>>>>> "certainly" makes you accessory to the fraud.
No comment? Aren't you angry about frauds being committed? >>>>>>>>
Because it's a lie, and you've provided no evidence whatsever to
support it. Just name _one_ PhD thesis that says what you claim.
I can acknowledge the non-available evidence of any PhD papers
regarding the Piltdown man. But this very crude fraud no doubt was an >>>>> embarrassment to the profession. Consequently, there's little chance >>>>> that any papers, had they ever existed would have been made or kept
available or downloaded onto the internet.
With this comment you show your total ignorance of how scientific
publishing is done. Do you know about Google? Do you know how to use
it? If the papers exist you can find them. It doesn't matter whether
they've been uploaded to the Internet. If you have a reference your
local university library can let you see a copy in a bound volume. That >>>> system was in general use long before anyone thought of the Internet. >>>>>>
 I did read on TO that there was 500 such papers,
When? Who wrote it? Reference?
 this however was controversial.
Wouldn't it be simpler just to acknowledge that your original statement >>>> about Piltdown Man was a lie, based on no evidence?
the time it seemed reasonable. I would have expected it to be the
subject of PhD papers.
That's not what you said. You lied about it.
though it was wrong.
But I find it strange that this, "fossil" was a deliberate and a crude
fraud. And considering the fact that an orangutan jaw bone, filed apes
teeth to mimic human teeth, dye to falsely infer age and an early mans
skull, went undetected by experts for about 40 years. Why did the
experts not determine that the fossil was fraudulent? Any opinion?
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 498 |
| Nodes: | 16 (2 / 14) |
| Uptime: | 20:29:45 |
| Calls: | 9,827 |
| Calls today: | 6 |
| Files: | 13,761 |
| Messages: | 6,191,557 |