On 6/14/2019 5:51 PM, Peter Nyikos wrote:>
On Wednesday, May 22, 2019 at 9:15:03 PM UTC-4, in
> Message-ID: , Ron O wrote:
> In the post documented above, Ron O, you posted the following link:
> This was a long post by you in which you posted a lot of secondhand
> claims about what YOU allege to be a "bait and switch scam", but gives no
> credible evidence of existence of any "bait" except for long-obsolete
> sources like a 1999 essay and the notorious "Wedge" document.
> Nor have YOU ever given credible evidence of existence of any
> other form of "bait" in the 21st century.
> Now you introduce your next link with misdirection to the effect
> that such "bait" was tendered in 2002:
>> This is an archived link to Wells' report on when the ID perps decided
>> to start running the bait and switch on the IDiot rubes back in 2002.
> Diabolically misleading equivocation. Are you claiming that Wells actually
> revealed in your link below that a bait and switch took place?
> If you are, you are commiting libel against Wells, and I will try to
> track him down and inform him of that.
Explain exactly how Ron is libeling Wells. If you can't, you're libeling Ron.
>> No IDiots have ever gotten the promised ID science.
> Again a misleading equivocation. You dare not even spell out who made what
> promise, when or where. Only by being intentionally vague can you continue to
> fool readers about there being a bait and switch scam in the 21st century.
>> Jonathan Wells interview
> This has NOTHING to do with any "bait" but only what you perennially
> and illogically [see above] call "the switch." Wells is giving a beautiful
> explanation of the "teach the controversy" policy and describing a flawless
> use by Stephen Meyer of the first amendment to the US Constitution.
RationalWiki article on "teach the controversy"
> Wells never once supports the 1999 statements about ID science
> where they had still been hoping that it could be taught as
> an ALTERNATIVE to Darwinian evolutionary theory in the public high schools.
Icons of Anti-Evolution
Why should we consider Wells a reliable source when he is demonstrably not?
> Phillip Johnson laid that hope to rest over a decade ago (IIRC), when he
> admitted in a "jaw-dropping" Berkeley interview that ID science
> is nowhere near that stage yet. But there IS some ID science,
> especially in the form of hypothesizing an ID answer to
> some titanic mysteries about the fine-tuning of the basic
> physical constants of our universe.
RationalWiki article on fine tuning
> CAUTION: the identity of the hypothesized designer is not a part
> of science, but I have given a hypothesis about the origins of the
> designer that stays within the methodology of science. I've done
> this many times in talk.origins, especially in replies to John Harshman.
Care to link them, or are you gonna continue to jerk off to the wind?
> Kenneth Miller comes in for a much longer drubbing. Miller is arguably the
> most effective of the anti-ID zealots in producing a highly distorted
> impression scientists, the mainstream media, and the general public
> have of ID. Even some Roman Catholic right-wing writers who would
> ordinarily be allies of the ID movement have been bamboozled
> by Miller, a self-identified Roman Catholic.
The sheer amount of bullshit I just read is off the charts! This could be a new record! Someone get the Guinness Book of World Records over here!
[snip psychological projection]
Copyright Oxyaena 2019. Back to main page.