Article <vqje3r$jpso$3@dont-email.me>

Deutsch English Français Italiano
<vqje3r$jpso$3@dont-email.me>

View for Bookmarking (what is this?)
Look up another Usenet article
Path: ...!weretis.net!feeder8.news.weretis.net!newsfeed.xs3.de!nntp-feed.chiark.greenend.org.uk!ewrotcd!news.eyrie.org!beagle.ediacara.org!.POSTED.beagle.ediacara.org!not-for-mail
From: MarkE <me22over7@gmail.com>
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: =?UTF-8?Q?Re=3A_Observe_the_trend=2E_It=E2=80=99s_happening=2E_Give?=
 =?UTF-8?Q?_it_time=2E?=
Date: Sun, 9 Mar 2025 17:56:59 +1100
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 650
Sender: to%beagle.ediacara.org
Approved: moderator@beagle.ediacara.org
Message-ID: <vqje3r$jpso$3@dont-email.me>
References: <vq8k3n$29ai1$1@dont-email.me> <vq9v8e$2gefd$1@dont-email.me>
 <vqb4h0$2mq6d$1@dont-email.me> <vqca5a$30k7f$1@dont-email.me>
 <vqgcv5$3rlmv$1@dont-email.me> <vqht1s$7skm$1@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Info: beagle.ediacara.org; posting-host="beagle.ediacara.org:3.132.105.89";
	logging-data="74743"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@beagle.ediacara.org"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
To: talk-origins@moderators.isc.org
Cancel-Lock: sha1:nkaiHqISdT+7HhpuF/AQLzfO+iQ=
In-Reply-To: <vqht1s$7skm$1@dont-email.me>
Content-Language: en-US
	DKIM_ADSP_CUSTOM_MED,HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,NML_ADSP_CUSTOM_MED,
	RCVD_IN_DNSWL_BLOCKED,RCVD_IN_VALIDITY_RPBL_BLOCKED,
	RCVD_IN_VALIDITY_SAFE_BLOCKED,RCVD_IN_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS,
	SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS,URIBL_BLOCKED,URIBL_DBL_BLOCKED_OPENDNS,
	URIBL_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS,USER_IN_WELCOMELIST,USER_IN_WHITELIST
	autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.6
	smtp.eternal-september.org
Bytes: 39522

On 9/03/2025 3:59 am, RonO wrote:
> On 3/7/2025 9:18 PM, MarkE wrote:
>> On 7/03/2025 1:06 am, RonO wrote:
>>> On 3/5/2025 9:24 PM, MarkE wrote:
>>>> On 6/03/2025 3:48 am, RonO wrote:
>>>>> You need to better cite your sources so that it is easier to look 
>>>>> them up.
>>>>
>>>> Appreciate your engagement and detailed detailed content. Don't 
>>>> appreciate your rudeness and oversimplified black-and-white stance, 
>>>> but we live with these.
>>>
>>> Dishonesty is not the best policy.  The good lie for god was made up 
>>> to attack religious belief.  It was never meant to be used to support 
>>> your religious beliefs.  The ID perps may live by the good lie for 
>>> god adage, but it is not anything that you want to be involved with 
>>> in the gray areas of reality that you want to believe exist.  Your 
>>> gray areas no longer exist.  They haven't existed since the bait and 
>>> switch started to go down, and the ID perps gave up and decided to 
>>> just go with the obfuscation and denial for denial purposes.  It is 
>>> just a fact that the ID creationist scam has just been used as bait 
>>> for the last 23 years. What you keep trying to support is the use of 
>>> this junk as bait.  You may believe that these types of arguments are 
>>> leading somewhere that you want to go, but you already understand 
>>> that they never will.  You do realize that your origin of life denial 
>>> is not Biblical, but you still persist in going with the gap denial.  
>>> Gap denial is all the ID scam ever was, and the switch scam is just 
>>> obfuscation and denial where they do not mention that ID nor 
>>> creationism ever existed.  It is just obfuscation and denial meant to 
>>> keep the kids as ignorant as possible because they can't tell them 
>>> why they are being lied to.  That is their current means to continue 
>>> their original Wedge political mission.
>>>
>>> There is no existing ID "science" that, if they ever do validate any 
>>> of it, will support their Wedge mission.  If Behe ever finds his 
>>> three neutral mutations that were needed to evolve the flagellum over 
>>> a billion years ago the ID perps would lose most of their financial 
>>> and political support.  The vast majority of creationists that 
>>> compose their "Big Tent" are YEC.  Any valid ID science would just be 
>>> more science for them to deny.  This is why Nelson has always told 
>>> the rubes that they do not have any ID science at this time, but that 
>>> they are just working on producing some.  About the last thing that 
>>> Nelson wants to happen would be if Meyer ever was able to demonstrate 
>>> design during the Cambrian explosion over half a billion years ago.  
>>> Nelson is YEC and he would have never joined up for the ID perp's 
>>> Wedge political mission if the other ID perps had, had any valid ID 
>>> science.
>>
>> All human activity has political dimensions. None of us can claim 
>> unbiased objectivity. As I've conceded previously, ID has had 
>> political intent, such as the Wedge strategy (I'm not a fan). This is 
>> not automatically wrong though - Darwinists do the same thing, e.g. 
>> Dawkins and friends promoting atheism.
> 
> The Atheists aren't allowed to teach their atheistic claims in the 
> public schools either.  The ID scam has always been a religious 
> political scam.  They may have been able to fool a few scientists in the 
> beginning, but that ended with the start of the bait and switch scam. 
> After that everyone left at the Discovery institute was just a perp 
> perpetrating the bait and switch, and anyone that still supported the 
> scam was just an IDiotic creationist rube.
> 
>>
>> Is all ID only "bait and switch", "no science", "gap denial", "IDiots 
>> and perps" and "scam, obfuscation and denial"? (Did I miss any?) From 
>> my assessment over decades and careful consideration of its leading 
>> proponents' writing and speaking, I think definitely not, despite its 
>> shortcomings. So I suggest we agree to disagree on this.
> 
> Nelson understood that, that was all IDiocy ever was or he would not 
> have signed up for the Wedge mission.  If the other ID perps really did 
> have any valid science supporting the ID scam Nelson would never have 
> joined because it would just have been more science for Nelson to deny.
> 
> Do you deny that the switch scam is just obfuscation and denial without 
> mentioning creationism nor the ID scam?  The ID perps just had an 
> article up on Wells being fondly remembered.  Wells' book (Icons of 
> Evolution) was not ID science, but obfuscation and denial of existing 
> science.  The book was used by the Ohio IDiots to create the first 
> switch scam model lesson plan, and the creationists screwed up by 
> including the Wellsian lie of "no moths on tree trunks" and including 
> creationist web links in the lesson plan.  That was the extent of their 
> switch scam scholarship.
> 
> The leading proponents of the ID scam decided 23 years ago to only use 
> ID as bait.  They all understood that they never had the ID science to 
> teach in the public schools, and decided that using ID as bait was the 
> only way forward for their Wedge religious political goals.  All of them 
> agreed to do this because not one of them objected, nor resigned from 
> the Discovery Institute when they decided to start running the bait and 
> switch.  Phillip Johnson was the only ID perp to "retire" a month after 
> the bait and switch started to go down.  The previous month Johnson had 
> supported teaching ID in Ohio.  The claim is that Phillip Johnson never 
> understood what science actually is.  He was likely fooled by the other 
> ID perps.  Johnson came back and supported teaching ID in Dover along 
> with then Senator Santorum.  The ID perp bait and switch attempt had 
> failed and the Dover creationist rubes tried to teach ID anyway.  The ID 
> perps were able to run the bait and switch on Santorum and he flip 
> flopped on the issue during his reelection campaign and came out against 
> teaching ID in the Dover public schools.  His Republican opponents in 
> the primary questioned Santorum's religious convictions.  Santorum was 
> not reelected.  Phillip Johnson would not flip flop and claimed that ID 
> would prevail on the court room steps.  Johnson sat in court every day 
> of testimony, and decided that the ID science had never existed.
> 
> http://web.archive.org/web/20070609131601/http:// 
> sciencereview.berkeley.edu/articles.php?issue=10&article=evolution
> 
> QUOTE:
> I also don’t think that there is really a theory of intelligent design
> at the present time to propose as a comparable alternative to the
> Darwinian theory, which is, whatever errors it might contain, a fully
> worked out scheme. There is no intelligent design theory that’s
> comparable. Working out a positive theory is the job of the scientific
> people that we have affiliated with the movement. Some of them are quite
> convinced that it’s doable, but that’s for them to prove…No product is
> ready for competition in the educational world.
> END QUOTE:
> 
> QUOTE:
> For his part, Johnson agrees: “I think the fat lady has sung for any
> efforts to change the approach in the public schools…the courts are just
> not going to allow it. They never have. The efforts to change things in
> the public schools generate more powerful opposition than accomplish
> anything…I don’t think that means the end of the issue at all.” “In some
> respects,” he later goes on, “I’m almost relieved, and glad. I think the
> issue is properly settled. It’s clear to me now that the public schools
> are not going to change their line in my lifetime.
> END QUOTE:
> 
> Johnson was only fooled until he had his face rubbed in the fact that ID 
> had just been a creationist bait and switch scam for the previous 3 
> years because there wasn't any ID science worth teaching.
> 
> The last IDiots on TO could no longer live with the lies and stopped 
> supporting the ID scam when they had their faces rubbed in the fact that 
> there wasn't any ID science that they wanted the ID perps to accomplish. 
>   The Top Six should have killed your support for the ID scam, but for 
> some reason you want to live in denial of what the ID scam has been all 
> of these years.
> 
>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>> Would you agree that there are limits to NS as described, which lead 
>>>> to an upper limit to functional complexity in living things? How 
>>>> these limits might be determined is a separate issue, but the first 
>>>> step is establishing this premise.
>>>
========== REMAINDER OF ARTICLE TRUNCATED ==========