On 6/14/2019 5:51 PM, Peter Nyikos wrote:>

On Wednesday, May 22, 2019 at 9:15:03 PM UTC-4, in > https://groups.google.com/forum/#!original/talk.origins/n2LQEf5NDkM/9xSu8e6mAAAJ > Message-ID: , Ron O wrote: >

> > In the post documented above, Ron O, you posted the following link: >

>> https://groups.google.com/d/msg/talk.origins/H2Sw6NFIi4s/bu37mUbcBQAJ > > 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.

"cdesign proponensists."



>> 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?

[snip idiocy]

> 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.