From Newsgroup: talk.origins

https://scienceandculture.com/2025/12/ten-myths-about-dover-no-3-intelligent-design-has-no-peer-reviewed-publications/

QUOTE:
rCLID is not science and cannot be adjudged a valid, accepted scientific theory as it has failed to publish in peer-reviewed journalsrCarCY

rCLA final indicator of how ID has failed to demonstrate scientific
warrant is the complete absence of peer-reviewed publications supporting
the theory.rCY
END QUOTE:

The ID perps are still lying about peer reviewed publications that
support their bogus ID theory junk.

Both Minnich and Behe demonstrated under oath that they knew of no peer reviewed scientific publications supporting intelligent design. That is
how the Judge came to his conclusions. There still are no peer reviewed scientific publication supporting intelligent design science. They
might mention intelligent design, but they don't present any valid
science supporting the notion.

The ID perps had published scientific papers, but none of them warranted
being called scientific support for ID by Behe and Minnich. The judge
got his opinion about no peer reviewed scientific support from Behe and Minnich being unable to put forward any such papers.

In this article they put up several papers like Meyer's retracted paper
which likely wasn't any type of valid support for ID, and it ended up
being retracted by the journal (The ID perps are still paying off
Sternberg for getting that paper published, just think how much they
have paid Sternberg since 2007, and for what? Sternberg has never
produced any ID science worth calling science or the bait and switch
would not continue to go down.).

It seems laughable, but they put up a Behe and Snokes paper on gene duplication not being able to evolve complex protein-protein
interactions. So their simulation failed, so what? Minnich was
involved in a paper that demonstrated that gene duplication resulted in
an IC tail structure where the tail was made of multiple parts, but if
you removed one of tail parts the tail would not be made. Minnich had
likely identified the tail protein genes in his gene knockout
experiments demonstrating that the flagellum was irreducibly complex in
that if you removed a part the function would be lost (Minnich never demonstrated that the flagellum was Behe's type of IC that required
"well matched" parts and other things). It turned out that the original flagellum likely had only one tail protein that attached to the hook and extended the tail, but a more complex tail evolved by gene duplication.
The initial duplication produced two copies of the tail protein gene.
One copy specialized in binding to the hook and the other specialized in extending the tail. The gene that extended the tail duplicated again
and one of the duplicates evolved to be smaller in structure so that if
it was added after the first extender protein the tail would get
narrower. This smaller extender protein duplicated and one copy reduced
in size again, and allowed a greater tapper. If you remove the tail
protein that binds to the hook you won't get a tail because the other duplicated copies now only extend the tail. This just means that
Minnich had already demonstrated that Behe and Snoke's simulation paper
was likely GIGO, and that they had to redo the simulation parameters,
and try to figure out how the flagellar tail evolved by gene
duplication. All the additional parts had to do was keep doing their
original job and produce a smaller building block.

Ron Okimoto

--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: talk.origins

RonO wrote:

QUOTE:
rCLID is not science and cannot be adjudged a valid, accepted scientific theory as it has failed to publish in peer-reviewed journalsrCarCY

Abiogenesis isn't science. It's religion. It's a belief that can't
be falsified.

SETI is too.
--
https://jtem.tumblr.com/

--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: talk.origins

On 12/19/2025 12:11 AM, JTEM wrote:

-aRonO wrote:

QUOTE:
rCLID is not science and cannot be adjudged a valid, accepted scientific
theory as it has failed to publish in peer-reviewed journalsrCarCY

Abiogenesis isn't science. It's religion. It's a belief that can't
be falsified.

As you know Abiogenesis is one of the weakest of scientific endeavors,
but it is still science which is more than you can say about a stupid religious bait and switch scam. The ID perps are running the bait and
switch on their own creationist support base. Abiogenesis research is
just trying to figure out the most likely means that life may have
originated on this planet. They do not expect to figure out how it
actually happened. As you have noted life could have originated
somewhere else under different conditions. No matter what they come up
with it is always possible that life came into existence by some less
probable means.

SETI is too.

Your stupid fixation on SETI should worry you. It is likely due to the
fact that SETI has more science going for it than your basket case notions.

Who claims that SETI is good science? It is just a fishing expedition.
They state that in the name of what they are doing (Search for extraterrestrial intelligence). Fishing expeditions commonly occur in science. The real science occurs in the analysis of what they find
during the fishing expedition. If they find nothing no real science
ever gets done.

The theological naturalists that went out into nature and looked for
evidence to support their Biblical beliefs were fishing. They never
found what they were looking for, but they were responsible for
discovering some of how nature was actually working, and they
contributed to the scientific endeavor. Science will benefit from
anything that SETI finds that may have some interest. SETI has an
hypothesis, and they are making observations that would test that
hypothesis. The ID perps make the claims and like Behe claim that they
do not have to do the testing. Behe knows what he needs to do in order
to look for his 3 neutral mutations that he claims must exist in his IC systems, but he refuses to do the testing, and won't even get the ID
scam unit to fund the research that would accomplish the testing.

Ron Okimoto





--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: talk.origins

On 12/19/25 10:59 AM, RonO wrote:

As you know Abiogenesis is one of the weakest of scientific endeavors

It's not scientific at all. It is religion. It is faith based.

There are alternatives!

Well. Panspermia, or some variation thereof.

but it is still science which is more than you can say about a stupid religious bait and switch scam.

It's not science at all.

You can design & conduct "Scientific" experiments to "Prove" Noah's
flood but it's still religion, ESPECIALLY when no amount of failure
is capable of falsifying your Noah's-Flood-Is-Real "Hypothesis."

ZERO difference in the case of Abiogenesis.

The claim is that it's explored scientifically but, it's pure
religion.

SETI is too.

Your stupid fixation on SETI should worry you.

Wow, what a characteristically emotional reaction to a stated
fact!

Clearly you have an open wound on the SETI religion...

You worship radio signals? Radio telescopes? People in lab coats?

WHAT oh WHAT are you so emotionally attached to?

Who claims that SETI is good science?

You can stop throwing a hissy fit in reaction to my stating that
it's not science, if you want to pretend you don't view it as
science.

Just saying.
--
https://jtem.tumblr.com/

--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: talk.origins

On 12/21/2025 3:17 PM, JTEM wrote:

On 12/19/25 10:59 AM, RonO wrote:

As you know Abiogenesis is one of the weakest of scientific endeavors

It's not scientific at all. It is religion. It is faith based.

There are alternatives!

Well. Panspermia, or some variation thereof.

but it is still science which is more than you can say about a stupid
religious bait and switch scam.

It's not science at all.

You can design & conduct "Scientific" experiments to "Prove" Noah's
flood but it's still religion, ESPECIALLY when no amount of failure
is capable of falsifying your Noah's-Flood-Is-Real "Hypothesis."

ZERO difference in the case of Abiogenesis.

The claim is that it's explored scientifically but, it's pure
religion.

What a nut job. Your problem is that you do not know what you are
talking about. You obviously do not understand what hypothesis testing is.

SETI is too.

Your stupid fixation on SETI should worry you.

Wow, what a characteristically emotional reaction to a stated
fact!

Clearly you have an open wound on the SETI religion...

You worship radio signals? Radio telescopes? People in lab coats?

WHAT oh WHAT are you so emotionally attached to?

It is your fixation. Who else cares about SETI on TO? You are the one
that keeps putting it forward as some type of anti science stupidity.

Who claims that SETI is good science?

You can stop throwing a hissy fit in reaction to my stating that
it's not science, if you want to pretend you don't view it as
science.

Just saying.

You have the issue, and you never seem to understand why you are wrong
about it. What have you just snipped out and run from in this thread?

You need to start learning by experience.

Ron Okimoto





--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: talk.origins


Farts in the tub, bites the bubbles, RonO wrote:

You can design & conduct "Scientific" experiments to "Prove" Noah's
flood but it's still religion, ESPECIALLY when no amount of failure
is capable of falsifying your Noah's-Flood-Is-Real "Hypothesis."

ZERO difference in the case of Abiogenesis.

The claim is that it's explored scientifically but, it's pure
religion.

What a nut job.

So you're saying that Noah's flood & arc are science?

Your problem is that you do not know what you are
talking about.

So you ARE claiming that Noah's flood & arc are science!

It is your fixation.

Your mental illness is causing you to avoid the issues here, again.

Doesn't matter if someone calls themselves a "Scientist" and
uses what they swear are scientific methods to investigate Noah's
flood, it's still religion. And in the case of abiogenesis and
SETI, it's religion where no number of FAILED results can falsify
their beliefs. Nope. They are always true regardless of how many
scientific examinations debunk them.

SETI insists that they've been failing for 41 years, and they're
still not wrong! Abiogenesis has more than 70 years of failed
results while swearing to be fact!

You have lots of other religious beliefs as well... the Darwin
myth, for example.
--
https://jtem.tumblr.com/

--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: talk.origins

On 12/21/2025 10:37 PM, JTEM wrote:

Farts in the tub, bites the bubbles, RonO wrote:

You can design & conduct "Scientific" experiments to "Prove" Noah's
flood but it's still religion, ESPECIALLY when no amount of failure
is capable of falsifying your Noah's-Flood-Is-Real "Hypothesis."

ZERO difference in the case of Abiogenesis.

The claim is that it's explored scientifically but, it's pure
religion.

What a nut job.

So you're saying that Noah's flood & arc are science?

So you never understand what you should have read, and snip out what you
can't deal with. Are you demonstrating an understanding of hypothesis testing? No.

Your problem is that you do not know what you are talking about.

So you ARE claiming that Noah's flood & arc are science!

I claimed that you did not understand what hypothesis testing is. Think
about it and try again.

It is your fixation.

Your mental illness is causing you to avoid the issues here, again.

Doesn't matter if someone calls themselves a "Scientist" and
uses what they swear are scientific methods to investigate Noah's
flood, it's still religion. And in the case of abiogenesis and
SETI, it's religion where no number of FAILED results can falsify
their beliefs. Nope. They are always true regardless of how many
scientific examinations debunk them.

SETI insists that they've been failing for 41 years, and they're
still not wrong! Abiogenesis has more than 70 years of failed
results while swearing to be fact!

You have lots of other religious beliefs as well... the Darwin
myth, for example.

There is that fixation on SETI again. You know the part that you
snipped out and can't deal with.

Ron Okimoto

--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2