On Mon, 6 Apr 2026 22:56:25 -0700, Mark Isaak <specimenNOSPAM@curioustaxon.omy.net> wrote:
On 4/6/26 6:22 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Sun, 5 Apr 2026 19:11:22 -0700, Mark Isaak
<specimenNOSPAM@curioustaxon.omy.net> wrote:
On 4/3/26 10:05 PM, MarkE wrote:
[snip]I-don't-know-of-the-gaps appears to be a durable get-out-of-jail-free >>>>> card. And indeed, if we assume that science and all other categories of >>>>> knowledge cannot _prove_ divine action, then it is technically
unassailable.
The assumption within that position is that the set of unknown
explanations is large and contains roughly equiprobable elements. E.g., >>>>> God is one of a million explanations, each with probability of around >>>>> one in a million.
Of course, we are unable to assign probabilities here - the numbers
provided are for illustration only. However, if, say, over a long period >>>>> of sustained scientific research, the consensus rejects all propsosed >>>>> naturalistic hypotheses (e.g. for OoL), then I suggest a more reasonable >>>>> assumption would be the probability of God is much more than one in a >>>>> million. You might choose a placeholder amount of 50%, 10% or 1%.
My point is, if you are perfectly comfortable with I-don't-know, that >>>>> seems to imply an assumption of a negligible probability of God, which >>>>> may in turn reveal an a priori commitment to naturalism. Which would be >>>>> a metaphysical stance, not a rational, scientific one.
Moreover, if God, then major personal implications potentially come into >>>>> play (insert your preferred variation of Pascal's Wager here).
In many areas, admitting you don't know something when you don't know it >>>> is viewed as a sign of honesty and humility, both of which are generally >>>> viewed as virtues. Your differing view shows diametrically opposed
values, and indicates that your god is one which people would be better >>>> off avoiding.
This is not just rhetoric. It was people with views similar to yours
that drove me away from religion in my youth, and I would be amazed if >>>> you and those who share your views are not chasing people from religion >>>> today.
If people are that easily chased from religion, the attraction cannot
be very strong to start with.
Mostly what chased me from religion were people who used their church's
understanding of religion to determine morality for other people. It
wasn't hard to see that they were hurting people by claiming to do what
religion considered "good". And when you're growing up in a homogeneous
American community, there is only one religion available to reject, and
having rejected it, you have (until you learn a lot more about the wider
world) rejected Religion.
The difference between us is that you discard religious *belief*
because of what you see as shortcomings in other people whereas my
religious belief is based on what that belief teaches me and how *I*
respond to it, not how *some* other people respond to it.
I think I asked you before but you never addressed the question - is evolution bad because some people used it to justify eugenics?
On Sun, 5 Apr 2026 19:11:22 -0700, Mark Isaak <specimenNOSPAM@curioustaxon.omy.net> wrote:
On 4/3/26 10:05 PM, MarkE wrote:
[snip]I-don't-know-of-the-gaps appears to be a durable get-out-of-jail-free
card. And indeed, if we assume that science and all other categories of
knowledge cannot _prove_ divine action, then it is technically
unassailable.
The assumption within that position is that the set of unknown
explanations is large and contains roughly equiprobable elements. E.g.,
God is one of a million explanations, each with probability of around
one in a million.
Of course, we are unable to assign probabilities here - the numbers
provided are for illustration only. However, if, say, over a long period >>> of sustained scientific research, the consensus rejects all propsosed
naturalistic hypotheses (e.g. for OoL), then I suggest a more reasonable >>> assumption would be the probability of God is much more than one in a
million. You might choose a placeholder amount of 50%, 10% or 1%.
My point is, if you are perfectly comfortable with I-don't-know, that
seems to imply an assumption of a negligible probability of God, which
may in turn reveal an a priori commitment to naturalism. Which would be
a metaphysical stance, not a rational, scientific one.
Moreover, if God, then major personal implications potentially come into >>> play (insert your preferred variation of Pascal's Wager here).
In many areas, admitting you don't know something when you don't know it
is viewed as a sign of honesty and humility, both of which are generally
viewed as virtues. Your differing view shows diametrically opposed
values, and indicates that your god is one which people would be better
off avoiding.
This is not just rhetoric. It was people with views similar to yours
that drove me away from religion in my youth, and I would be amazed if
you and those who share your views are not chasing people from religion
today.
If people are that easily chased from religion, the attraction cannot
be very strong to start with.
On 4/6/2026 10:41 AM, ShyDavid wrote:
Foundation Physicists know where the elementary particles that make up more complex elementary particles that make up atoms that make up all that exists in the universe. That which they do not know, they say "We do not know."
Except when they say things like something "appears" to whatever.-a Like you did when you stated an inflation field "appears" to be eternal.
Which is like pretty much all of which you claim is really known.
On 4/7/2026 4:51 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Mon, 6 Apr 2026 22:56:25 -0700, Mark Isaak
<specimenNOSPAM@curioustaxon.omy.net> wrote:
On 4/6/26 6:22 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Sun, 5 Apr 2026 19:11:22 -0700, Mark Isaak
<specimenNOSPAM@curioustaxon.omy.net> wrote:
On 4/3/26 10:05 PM, MarkE wrote:
[snip]I-don't-know-of-the-gaps appears to be a durable get-out-of-jail-free >>>>>> card. And indeed, if we assume that science and all other categories of >>>>>> knowledge cannot _prove_ divine action, then it is technically
unassailable.
The assumption within that position is that the set of unknown
explanations is large and contains roughly equiprobable elements. E.g., >>>>>> God is one of a million explanations, each with probability of around >>>>>> one in a million.
Of course, we are unable to assign probabilities here - the numbers >>>>>> provided are for illustration only. However, if, say, over a long period >>>>>> of sustained scientific research, the consensus rejects all propsosed >>>>>> naturalistic hypotheses (e.g. for OoL), then I suggest a more reasonable >>>>>> assumption would be the probability of God is much more than one in a >>>>>> million. You might choose a placeholder amount of 50%, 10% or 1%.
My point is, if you are perfectly comfortable with I-don't-know, that >>>>>> seems to imply an assumption of a negligible probability of God, which >>>>>> may in turn reveal an a priori commitment to naturalism. Which would be >>>>>> a metaphysical stance, not a rational, scientific one.
Moreover, if God, then major personal implications potentially come into >>>>>> play (insert your preferred variation of Pascal's Wager here).
In many areas, admitting you don't know something when you don't know it >>>>> is viewed as a sign of honesty and humility, both of which are generally >>>>> viewed as virtues. Your differing view shows diametrically opposed
values, and indicates that your god is one which people would be better >>>>> off avoiding.
This is not just rhetoric. It was people with views similar to yours >>>>> that drove me away from religion in my youth, and I would be amazed if >>>>> you and those who share your views are not chasing people from religion >>>>> today.
If people are that easily chased from religion, the attraction cannot
be very strong to start with.
Mostly what chased me from religion were people who used their church's
understanding of religion to determine morality for other people. It
wasn't hard to see that they were hurting people by claiming to do what
religion considered "good". And when you're growing up in a homogeneous
American community, there is only one religion available to reject, and
having rejected it, you have (until you learn a lot more about the wider >>> world) rejected Religion.
The difference between us is that you discard religious *belief*
because of what you see as shortcomings in other people whereas my
religious belief is based on what that belief teaches me and how *I*
respond to it, not how *some* other people respond to it.
I think I asked you before but you never addressed the question - is
evolution bad because some people used it to justify eugenics?
Some of your sources and you do not seem to be doing very well due to
those religious beliefs. It may be time for some reevaluation.
On 2026/04/06 7:22 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Sun, 5 Apr 2026 19:11:22 -0700, Mark Isaak
<specimenNOSPAM@curioustaxon.omy.net> wrote:
On 4/3/26 10:05 PM, MarkE wrote:
[snip]I-don't-know-of-the-gaps appears to be a durable get-out-of-jail-free
card. And indeed, if we assume that science and all other categories of >>>> knowledge cannot _prove_ divine action, then it is technically
unassailable.
The assumption within that position is that the set of unknown
explanations is large and contains roughly equiprobable elements. E.g., >>>> God is one of a million explanations, each with probability of around
one in a million.
Of course, we are unable to assign probabilities here - the numbers
provided are for illustration only. However, if, say, over a long period >>>> of sustained scientific research, the consensus rejects all propsosed
naturalistic hypotheses (e.g. for OoL), then I suggest a more reasonable >>>> assumption would be the probability of God is much more than one in a
million. You might choose a placeholder amount of 50%, 10% or 1%.
My point is, if you are perfectly comfortable with I-don't-know, that
seems to imply an assumption of a negligible probability of God, which >>>> may in turn reveal an a priori commitment to naturalism. Which would be >>>> a metaphysical stance, not a rational, scientific one.
Moreover, if God, then major personal implications potentially come into >>>> play (insert your preferred variation of Pascal's Wager here).
In many areas, admitting you don't know something when you don't know it >>> is viewed as a sign of honesty and humility, both of which are generally >>> viewed as virtues. Your differing view shows diametrically opposed
values, and indicates that your god is one which people would be better
off avoiding.
This is not just rhetoric. It was people with views similar to yours
that drove me away from religion in my youth, and I would be amazed if
you and those who share your views are not chasing people from religion
today.
If people are that easily chased from religion, the attraction cannot
be very strong to start with.
Intelligent, mature adults do not find any attraction for religion.
On 2026/04/07 3:51 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Mon, 6 Apr 2026 22:56:25 -0700, Mark Isaak
<specimenNOSPAM@curioustaxon.omy.net> wrote:
On 4/6/26 6:22 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Sun, 5 Apr 2026 19:11:22 -0700, Mark Isaak
<specimenNOSPAM@curioustaxon.omy.net> wrote:
On 4/3/26 10:05 PM, MarkE wrote:
[snip]I-don't-know-of-the-gaps appears to be a durable get-out-of-jail-free >>>>>> card. And indeed, if we assume that science and all other categories of >>>>>> knowledge cannot _prove_ divine action, then it is technically
unassailable.
The assumption within that position is that the set of unknown
explanations is large and contains roughly equiprobable elements. E.g., >>>>>> God is one of a million explanations, each with probability of around >>>>>> one in a million.
Of course, we are unable to assign probabilities here - the numbers >>>>>> provided are for illustration only. However, if, say, over a long period >>>>>> of sustained scientific research, the consensus rejects all propsosed >>>>>> naturalistic hypotheses (e.g. for OoL), then I suggest a more reasonable >>>>>> assumption would be the probability of God is much more than one in a >>>>>> million. You might choose a placeholder amount of 50%, 10% or 1%.
My point is, if you are perfectly comfortable with I-don't-know, that >>>>>> seems to imply an assumption of a negligible probability of God, which >>>>>> may in turn reveal an a priori commitment to naturalism. Which would be >>>>>> a metaphysical stance, not a rational, scientific one.
Moreover, if God, then major personal implications potentially come into >>>>>> play (insert your preferred variation of Pascal's Wager here).
In many areas, admitting you don't know something when you don't know it >>>>> is viewed as a sign of honesty and humility, both of which are generally >>>>> viewed as virtues. Your differing view shows diametrically opposed
values, and indicates that your god is one which people would be better >>>>> off avoiding.
This is not just rhetoric. It was people with views similar to yours >>>>> that drove me away from religion in my youth, and I would be amazed if >>>>> you and those who share your views are not chasing people from religion >>>>> today.
If people are that easily chased from religion, the attraction cannot
be very strong to start with.
Mostly what chased me from religion were people who used their church's
understanding of religion to determine morality for other people. It
wasn't hard to see that they were hurting people by claiming to do what
religion considered "good". And when you're growing up in a homogeneous
American community, there is only one religion available to reject, and
having rejected it, you have (until you learn a lot more about the wider >>> world) rejected Religion.
The difference between us is that you discard religious *belief*
because of what you see as shortcomings in other people whereas my
religious belief is based on what that belief teaches me and how *I*
respond to it, not how *some* other people respond to it.
I think I asked you before but you never addressed the question - is
evolution bad because some people used it to justify eugenics?
Oh, gosh! Guess which religion those people claimed to believe in.
On Tue, 7 Apr 2026 09:52:27 -0500, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com> wrote:
On 4/7/2026 4:51 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Mon, 6 Apr 2026 22:56:25 -0700, Mark Isaak
<specimenNOSPAM@curioustaxon.omy.net> wrote:
On 4/6/26 6:22 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Sun, 5 Apr 2026 19:11:22 -0700, Mark Isaak
<specimenNOSPAM@curioustaxon.omy.net> wrote:
On 4/3/26 10:05 PM, MarkE wrote:
[snip]I-don't-know-of-the-gaps appears to be a durable get-out-of-jail-free >>>>>>> card. And indeed, if we assume that science and all other categories of >>>>>>> knowledge cannot _prove_ divine action, then it is technically
unassailable.
The assumption within that position is that the set of unknown
explanations is large and contains roughly equiprobable elements. E.g., >>>>>>> God is one of a million explanations, each with probability of around >>>>>>> one in a million.
Of course, we are unable to assign probabilities here - the numbers >>>>>>> provided are for illustration only. However, if, say, over a long period
of sustained scientific research, the consensus rejects all propsosed >>>>>>> naturalistic hypotheses (e.g. for OoL), then I suggest a more reasonable
assumption would be the probability of God is much more than one in a >>>>>>> million. You might choose a placeholder amount of 50%, 10% or 1%. >>>>>>>
My point is, if you are perfectly comfortable with I-don't-know, that >>>>>>> seems to imply an assumption of a negligible probability of God, which >>>>>>> may in turn reveal an a priori commitment to naturalism. Which would be >>>>>>> a metaphysical stance, not a rational, scientific one.
Moreover, if God, then major personal implications potentially come into
play (insert your preferred variation of Pascal's Wager here).
In many areas, admitting you don't know something when you don't know it >>>>>> is viewed as a sign of honesty and humility, both of which are generally >>>>>> viewed as virtues. Your differing view shows diametrically opposed >>>>>> values, and indicates that your god is one which people would be better >>>>>> off avoiding.
This is not just rhetoric. It was people with views similar to yours >>>>>> that drove me away from religion in my youth, and I would be amazed if >>>>>> you and those who share your views are not chasing people from religion >>>>>> today.
If people are that easily chased from religion, the attraction cannot >>>>> be very strong to start with.
Mostly what chased me from religion were people who used their church's >>>> understanding of religion to determine morality for other people. It
wasn't hard to see that they were hurting people by claiming to do what >>>> religion considered "good". And when you're growing up in a homogeneous >>>> American community, there is only one religion available to reject, and >>>> having rejected it, you have (until you learn a lot more about the wider >>>> world) rejected Religion.
The difference between us is that you discard religious *belief*
because of what you see as shortcomings in other people whereas my
religious belief is based on what that belief teaches me and how *I*
respond to it, not how *some* other people respond to it.
I think I asked you before but you never addressed the question - is
evolution bad because some people used it to justify eugenics?
Some of your sources and you do not seem to be doing very well due to
those religious beliefs. It may be time for some reevaluation.
No attempt to answer the question, have your geocentrist mentors
nothing to say about it?
On Tue, 7 Apr 2026 09:52:27 -0500, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com> wrote:
On 4/7/2026 4:51 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Mon, 6 Apr 2026 22:56:25 -0700, Mark Isaak
<specimenNOSPAM@curioustaxon.omy.net> wrote:
On 4/6/26 6:22 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Sun, 5 Apr 2026 19:11:22 -0700, Mark Isaak
<specimenNOSPAM@curioustaxon.omy.net> wrote:
On 4/3/26 10:05 PM, MarkE wrote:
[snip]I-don't-know-of-the-gaps appears to be a durable get-out-of-jail-free >>>>>>> card. And indeed, if we assume that science and all other categories of >>>>>>> knowledge cannot _prove_ divine action, then it is technically
unassailable.
The assumption within that position is that the set of unknown
explanations is large and contains roughly equiprobable elements. E.g., >>>>>>> God is one of a million explanations, each with probability of around >>>>>>> one in a million.
Of course, we are unable to assign probabilities here - the numbers >>>>>>> provided are for illustration only. However, if, say, over a long period
of sustained scientific research, the consensus rejects all propsosed >>>>>>> naturalistic hypotheses (e.g. for OoL), then I suggest a more reasonable
assumption would be the probability of God is much more than one in a >>>>>>> million. You might choose a placeholder amount of 50%, 10% or 1%. >>>>>>>
My point is, if you are perfectly comfortable with I-don't-know, that >>>>>>> seems to imply an assumption of a negligible probability of God, which >>>>>>> may in turn reveal an a priori commitment to naturalism. Which would be >>>>>>> a metaphysical stance, not a rational, scientific one.
Moreover, if God, then major personal implications potentially come into
play (insert your preferred variation of Pascal's Wager here).
In many areas, admitting you don't know something when you don't know it >>>>>> is viewed as a sign of honesty and humility, both of which are generally >>>>>> viewed as virtues. Your differing view shows diametrically opposed >>>>>> values, and indicates that your god is one which people would be better >>>>>> off avoiding.
This is not just rhetoric. It was people with views similar to yours >>>>>> that drove me away from religion in my youth, and I would be amazed if >>>>>> you and those who share your views are not chasing people from religion >>>>>> today.
If people are that easily chased from religion, the attraction cannot >>>>> be very strong to start with.
Mostly what chased me from religion were people who used their church's >>>> understanding of religion to determine morality for other people. It
wasn't hard to see that they were hurting people by claiming to do what >>>> religion considered "good". And when you're growing up in a homogeneous >>>> American community, there is only one religion available to reject, and >>>> having rejected it, you have (until you learn a lot more about the wider >>>> world) rejected Religion.
The difference between us is that you discard religious *belief*
because of what you see as shortcomings in other people whereas my
religious belief is based on what that belief teaches me and how *I*
respond to it, not how *some* other people respond to it.
I think I asked you before but you never addressed the question - is
evolution bad because some people used it to justify eugenics?
Some of your sources and you do not seem to be doing very well due to
those religious beliefs. It may be time for some reevaluation.
No attempt to answer the question, have your geocentrist mentors
nothing to say about it?
On Tue, 7 Apr 2026 09:33:51 -0600, ShyDavid <noreply@murdermingle.com>
wrote:
On 2026/04/07 3:51 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Mon, 6 Apr 2026 22:56:25 -0700, Mark Isaak
<specimenNOSPAM@curioustaxon.omy.net> wrote:
On 4/6/26 6:22 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Sun, 5 Apr 2026 19:11:22 -0700, Mark Isaak
<specimenNOSPAM@curioustaxon.omy.net> wrote:
On 4/3/26 10:05 PM, MarkE wrote:
[snip]I-don't-know-of-the-gaps appears to be a durable get-out-of-jail-free >>>>>>> card. And indeed, if we assume that science and all other categories of >>>>>>> knowledge cannot _prove_ divine action, then it is technically
unassailable.
The assumption within that position is that the set of unknown
explanations is large and contains roughly equiprobable elements. E.g., >>>>>>> God is one of a million explanations, each with probability of around >>>>>>> one in a million.
Of course, we are unable to assign probabilities here - the numbers >>>>>>> provided are for illustration only. However, if, say, over a long period
of sustained scientific research, the consensus rejects all propsosed >>>>>>> naturalistic hypotheses (e.g. for OoL), then I suggest a more reasonable
assumption would be the probability of God is much more than one in a >>>>>>> million. You might choose a placeholder amount of 50%, 10% or 1%. >>>>>>>
My point is, if you are perfectly comfortable with I-don't-know, that >>>>>>> seems to imply an assumption of a negligible probability of God, which >>>>>>> may in turn reveal an a priori commitment to naturalism. Which would be >>>>>>> a metaphysical stance, not a rational, scientific one.
Moreover, if God, then major personal implications potentially come into
play (insert your preferred variation of Pascal's Wager here).
In many areas, admitting you don't know something when you don't know it >>>>>> is viewed as a sign of honesty and humility, both of which are generally >>>>>> viewed as virtues. Your differing view shows diametrically opposed >>>>>> values, and indicates that your god is one which people would be better >>>>>> off avoiding.
This is not just rhetoric. It was people with views similar to yours >>>>>> that drove me away from religion in my youth, and I would be amazed if >>>>>> you and those who share your views are not chasing people from religion >>>>>> today.
If people are that easily chased from religion, the attraction cannot >>>>> be very strong to start with.
Mostly what chased me from religion were people who used their church's >>>> understanding of religion to determine morality for other people. It
wasn't hard to see that they were hurting people by claiming to do what >>>> religion considered "good". And when you're growing up in a homogeneous >>>> American community, there is only one religion available to reject, and >>>> having rejected it, you have (until you learn a lot more about the wider >>>> world) rejected Religion.
The difference between us is that you discard religious *belief*
because of what you see as shortcomings in other people...
religious belief is based on what that belief teaches me and how *I*
respond to it, not how *some* other people respond to it.
I think I asked you before but you never addressed the question - is
evolution bad because some people used it to justify eugenics?
Oh, gosh! Guess which religion those people claimed to believe in.
Poor attempt at a swerve but not unexpected from someone who thinks
childish insults are a substitute for intelligent debate.
On Tue, 7 Apr 2026 09:32:19 -0600, ShyDavid <noreply@murdermingle.com>
wrote:
On 2026/04/06 7:22 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Sun, 5 Apr 2026 19:11:22 -0700, Mark Isaak
<specimenNOSPAM@curioustaxon.omy.net> wrote:
On 4/3/26 10:05 PM, MarkE wrote:
[snip]I-don't-know-of-the-gaps appears to be a durable get-out-of-jail-free >>>>> card. And indeed, if we assume that science and all other categories of >>>>> knowledge cannot _prove_ divine action, then it is technically
unassailable.
The assumption within that position is that the set of unknown
explanations is large and contains roughly equiprobable elements. E.g., >>>>> God is one of a million explanations, each with probability of around >>>>> one in a million.
Of course, we are unable to assign probabilities here - the numbers
provided are for illustration only. However, if, say, over a long period >>>>> of sustained scientific research, the consensus rejects all propsosed >>>>> naturalistic hypotheses (e.g. for OoL), then I suggest a more reasonable >>>>> assumption would be the probability of God is much more than one in a >>>>> million. You might choose a placeholder amount of 50%, 10% or 1%.
My point is, if you are perfectly comfortable with I-don't-know, that >>>>> seems to imply an assumption of a negligible probability of God, which >>>>> may in turn reveal an a priori commitment to naturalism. Which would be >>>>> a metaphysical stance, not a rational, scientific one.
Moreover, if God, then major personal implications potentially come into >>>>> play (insert your preferred variation of Pascal's Wager here).
In many areas, admitting you don't know something when you don't know it >>>> is viewed as a sign of honesty and humility, both of which are generally >>>> viewed as virtues. Your differing view shows diametrically opposed
values, and indicates that your god is one which people would be better >>>> off avoiding.
This is not just rhetoric. It was people with views similar to yours
that drove me away from religion in my youth, and I would be amazed if >>>> you and those who share your views are not chasing people from religion >>>> today.
If people are that easily chased from religion, the attraction cannot
be very strong to start with.
Intelligent, mature adults do not find any attraction for religion.
Thank you for such a clear demonstration of your own lack of
intelligence and maturity.
On Tue, 7 Apr 2026 12:43:48 +1000
MarkE <me22over7@gmail.com> wrote:
On 7/04/2026 8:25 am, MarkE wrote:[]
On 7/04/2026 1:41 am, ShyDavid wrote:
I would love to see theists being just as honest and virtuous as
scientists.
Thank you, that confirms where you're coming from.
I am curious though: you appear to have contempt to the point of moral
repugnance for anyone favouring the God hypothesis (i.e. creationists of
any stripe), and a self-assurance regarding materialism to the point of
arrogance - why then the interest in the topic of origins, and why
bother engaging? Are you not as confident as you make out, are you
seeking applause here, or do you just enjoy being smug and insulting?
Where's your evidence/justification for this 'god hypothesis'?
If it's a scientific thing (clue: the word "hypothesis") then it needs a reasonable explanation and more than ye olde raw "goddidit"
Which god? how? where do gods come from?, what evidence is there? what
might we expect from such a function?
On 7/04/2026 5:50 pm, Kerr-Mudd, John wrote:
On Tue, 7 Apr 2026 12:43:48 +1000
MarkE <me22over7@gmail.com> wrote:
On 7/04/2026 8:25 am, MarkE wrote:[]
On 7/04/2026 1:41 am, ShyDavid wrote:
I would love to see theists being just as honest and virtuous as
scientists.
Thank you, that confirms where you're coming from.
I am curious though: you appear to have contempt to the point of moral
repugnance for anyone favouring the God hypothesis (i.e. creationists of >>> any stripe), and a self-assurance regarding materialism to the point of
arrogance - why then the interest in the topic of origins, and why
bother engaging? Are you not as confident as you make out, are you
seeking applause here, or do you just enjoy being smug and insulting?
Where's your evidence/justification for this 'god hypothesis'?
Start here (but you knew this): https://www.amazon.com.au/Return-God- Hypothesis-Compelling-TheExistence/dp/0062071505
Or read my posts on OoL. Etc etc etc.
But you don't really care, do you.
If it's a scientific thing (clue: the word "hypothesis") then it needs a
reasonable explanation and more than ye olde raw "goddidit"
Which god? how? where do gods come from?, what evidence is there? what
might we expect from such a function?
On 4/7/2026 5:34 PM, MarkE wrote:
On 7/04/2026 5:50 pm, Kerr-Mudd, John wrote:
On Tue, 7 Apr 2026 12:43:48 +1000
MarkE <me22over7@gmail.com> wrote:
On 7/04/2026 8:25 am, MarkE wrote:[]
On 7/04/2026 1:41 am, ShyDavid wrote:
I would love to see theists being just as honest and virtuous as
scientists.
Thank you, that confirms where you're coming from.
I am curious though: you appear to have contempt to the point of moral >>>> repugnance for anyone favouring the God hypothesis (i.e.
creationists of
any stripe), and a self-assurance regarding materialism to the point of >>>> arrogance - why then the interest in the topic of origins, and why
bother engaging? Are you not as confident as you make out, are you
seeking applause here, or do you just enjoy being smug and insulting?
Where's your evidence/justification for this 'god hypothesis'?
Start here (but you knew this): https://www.amazon.com.au/Return-God-
Hypothesis-Compelling-TheExistence/dp/0062071505
Or read my posts on OoL. Etc etc etc.
But you don't really care, do you.
It may be justification, but is not scientific evidence for any god hypothesis.-a It is just junk to fool the rubes with.-a Meyer never tried
to create a coherent god hypothesis.-a He just presented the god-of-the- gaps denial arguments as independent bits of denial, just as the
scientific creationists had done decades before Meyer joined the ID
scam.-a You know why he did not try to develop a coherent god hypothesis
is because nature is not Biblical and the god hypothesized would not be
the Biblical god.-a He didn't do it for the same reason that you ran from the Top Six and can't deal with them in an honest and straightforward manner.-a It is why the other IDiots quit the ID scam.
Ron Okimoto
If it's a scientific thing (clue: the word "hypothesis") then it needs a >>> reasonable explanation and more than ye olde raw "goddidit"
Which god? how? where do gods come from?, what evidence is there? what
might we expect from such a function?
On 8/04/2026 9:10 am, RonO wrote:
On 4/7/2026 5:34 PM, MarkE wrote:
On 7/04/2026 5:50 pm, Kerr-Mudd, John wrote:
On Tue, 7 Apr 2026 12:43:48 +1000
MarkE <me22over7@gmail.com> wrote:
On 7/04/2026 8:25 am, MarkE wrote:[]
On 7/04/2026 1:41 am, ShyDavid wrote:
I would love to see theists being just as honest and virtuous as >>>>>>> scientists.
Thank you, that confirms where you're coming from.
I am curious though: you appear to have contempt to the point of moral >>>>> repugnance for anyone favouring the God hypothesis (i.e.
creationists of
any stripe), and a self-assurance regarding materialism to the
point of
arrogance - why then the interest in the topic of origins, and why
bother engaging? Are you not as confident as you make out, are you
seeking applause here, or do you just enjoy being smug and insulting? >>>>>
Where's your evidence/justification for this 'god hypothesis'?
Start here (but you knew this): https://www.amazon.com.au/Return-God-
Hypothesis-Compelling-TheExistence/dp/0062071505
Or read my posts on OoL. Etc etc etc.
But you don't really care, do you.
It may be justification, but is not scientific evidence for any god
hypothesis.-a It is just junk to fool the rubes with.-a Meyer never
tried to create a coherent god hypothesis.-a He just presented the god-
of-the- gaps denial arguments as independent bits of denial, just as
the scientific creationists had done decades before Meyer joined the
ID scam.-a You know why he did not try to develop a coherent god
hypothesis is because nature is not Biblical and the god hypothesized
would not be the Biblical god.-a He didn't do it for the same reason
that you ran from the Top Six and can't deal with them in an honest
and straightforward manner.-a It is why the other IDiots quit the ID scam. >>
Ron Okimoto
Ron, you are so wrong, and out of line. Meyer is an intelligent and considered scientist, and his writing is recognised as such beyond the
ID community. Present your rebuttals to his arguments, but spare us your unsupported slander.
If it's a scientific thing (clue: the word "hypothesis") then it
needs a
reasonable explanation and more than ye olde raw "goddidit"
Which god? how? where do gods come from?, what evidence is there? what >>>> might we expect from such a function?
On 4/7/2026 7:08 PM, MarkE wrote:
On 8/04/2026 9:10 am, RonO wrote:
On 4/7/2026 5:34 PM, MarkE wrote:
On 7/04/2026 5:50 pm, Kerr-Mudd, John wrote:
On Tue, 7 Apr 2026 12:43:48 +1000
MarkE <me22over7@gmail.com> wrote:
On 7/04/2026 8:25 am, MarkE wrote:[]
On 7/04/2026 1:41 am, ShyDavid wrote:
I would love to see theists being just as honest and virtuous as >>>>>>>> scientists.
Thank you, that confirms where you're coming from.
I am curious though: you appear to have contempt to the point of
moral
repugnance for anyone favouring the God hypothesis (i.e.
creationists of
any stripe), and a self-assurance regarding materialism to the
point of
arrogance - why then the interest in the topic of origins, and why >>>>>> bother engaging? Are you not as confident as you make out, are you >>>>>> seeking applause here, or do you just enjoy being smug and insulting? >>>>>>
Where's your evidence/justification for this 'god hypothesis'?
Start here (but you knew this): https://www.amazon.com.au/Return-
God- Hypothesis-Compelling-TheExistence/dp/0062071505
Or read my posts on OoL. Etc etc etc.
But you don't really care, do you.
It may be justification, but is not scientific evidence for any god
hypothesis.-a It is just junk to fool the rubes with.-a Meyer never
tried to create a coherent god hypothesis.-a He just presented the
god- of-the- gaps denial arguments as independent bits of denial,
just as the scientific creationists had done decades before Meyer
joined the ID scam.-a You know why he did not try to develop a
coherent god hypothesis is because nature is not Biblical and the god
hypothesized would not be the Biblical god.-a He didn't do it for the
same reason that you ran from the Top Six and can't deal with them in
an honest and straightforward manner.-a It is why the other IDiots
quit the ID scam.
Ron Okimoto
Ron, you are so wrong, and out of line. Meyer is an intelligent and
considered scientist, and his writing is recognised as such beyond the
ID community. Present your rebuttals to his arguments, but spare us
your unsupported slander.
First off, Meyer does not consider himself to be a scientist.-a At one
time he worked as a geologist for an oil company, but he claims to be an historian and philosopher (part of the scam artist schtick).
Meyers is a dishonest scam artist.-a He was the head cheer leader for the teach ID scam when other ID perps understood that there was no ID
science worth teaching.-a Understanding that fact he ran the first bait
and switch scam on the Ohio rubes.-a He had made up his mind that he was going to run the bait and switch before he gave his presentation to the
Ohio rubes.-a He lied to them about being able to teach the junk in the public schools and that ID was science.-a The real scientists
demonstrated to the board that ID was not science and should not be
taught as such in the public schools.-a Meyer offered the switch scam to
the rubes in the discussion after Wells made the claim that there was
enough scientific support for the ID scam that it could be forced into
the public schools (Wells also knew that the bait and switch was going
down and that he was just lying to the rubes).-a Meyer and Wells were so unconvincing that the Ohio rubes decided not to teach the ID scam junk,
but the rubes were still dishonest enough to bend over for the switch
scam that Meyer told them had nothing to do with ID.-a The board
understood that Meyer had tried to lie to them about ID being science,
but some of them were so dishonest and corrupt that one of them put up
the proposal to the board that the definition of science, that was a
part of the science standards, be rewritten so that ID could be taught
as science in the Ohio public schools.-a The board was actually convinced that Meyer had tried to lie to them about ID being science when it could
not be considered to be science by their own definition of science.
At the time Meyer had a job teaching at a religious college, but he
dropped out of the public view after running the bait and switch.-a He
quit that job (it had to be hard to walk down the academic halls with
scam artists written on your forehead).-a All his colleagues must have
known what he had been claiming about the teach ID scam.-a Meyer was an author of the Teach ID scam 1999 booklet that the Discovery Institute
used to give out with their ID scam video and also the 2000 Utah law
review article claiming that it was legal to teach ID in the public schools.-a Meyer started working as director of the bait and switch scam full time, and has made sure that ID has continued to be offered up as
bait for decades.-a The teach ID scam claims were never retracted, and
more teach ID scam propaganda was eventually added during Meyer's
leadership of the bait and switch scam.-a Immediately after Ohio West had
to step forward and make sure that the bait and switch kept going down
on any rubes that popped up and still wanted to teach the junk (Meyer
was MIA).-a Do you recall how long Meyer retreated into the background
after running the bait and switch on the Ohio rubes?
You were posting at ARN when the bait and switch went down.-a By Ohio
some of the IDiots at ARN already understood that there wasn't any ID science to teach.-a The majority of IDiotic creationist rubes supported teaching ID just as the Discovery Institute was claiming could be done.
You know that after the bait and switch went down the tone changed at
ARN.-a The majority were no longer openly supporting teaching the junk.
Only a few still claimed that ID would be taught in Ohio.-a Most of the IDiots started pretending that teaching the junk wasn't the goal of the
ID scam even though that is about all ID had ever been.-a ID first came
to TO in the late 1990's as something that could be taught in the public schools (probably, just before you started posting).
A year (2003) after Ohio when the initial draft of the Ohio model lesson plan came out nearly everyone at ARN stopped supporting teaching the
junk.-a Eventually the creationist web links and all mention of
intelligent design and ID perps was removed from the lesson plan. Wells' book had obviously been used to create the lesson plan (the Wellsian lie about no moths on tree trunks had made it into the lesson plan) but the reference to his book was removed from the lesson plan when the lie was rewritten.-a Mike gene came out and claimed that he had given up on
teaching the junk back in 1999, but Gene and nearly all the IDiots kept supporting ID as bait.-a Some may have quit posting, but everyone that
was left was either ignorant, incompetent and or dishonest.-a You were apparently among the dishonest, but you haven't yet demonstrated that
you are clearly out of the incompetent group.
During the Dover fiasco Meyer ran even though the More lawyers had
allowed him to have his own lawyer present during his Kitzmiller testimony.-a He ran after Forrest was deposed with Dembski in attendance, and the name change from creationism to intelligent design in the book
Of Pandas and People was disclosed.-a Meyer had written the teachers
notes for that book, and was one of the authors of the teach ID scam propaganda claiming that Of Pandas and People could be used to teach ID
in the public schools.
Meyer is just a dishonest scam artist.-a His god hypothesis book was only meant to continue to fool the rubes.-a How long has the bait and switch
been going down under the direction of Meyer?-a Why did he never retract
any of his teach ID scam propaganda after starting to run the bait and switch?
You should know by now that the first thing any hypothesis should be evaluated on would be if it can exist within what is already understood.
-aMeyer purposely refused to demonstrate that any of his hypotheses were viable within the context of what is known, and only put up the gap arguments as independent bits of denial in order to fool the rubes. What
the scam artist did should only work on rubes that want to be lied to
like yourself.-a Meyer never put up a coherent god hypothesis.-a He only
put up independent bits of gap denial in order to lie to the rubes about reality.-a If he had made an honest effort you would be running from the book just as you ran from the Top Six that the ID perps put out in the
order in which they must have occurred in this universe.-a The universe
is not Biblical.-a The god that fills Meyer's gaps is not the god
described in the Bible.-a That is what Meyer should have made clear at
the beginning of the Book, but he just wrote the book to scam the rubes,
and maintain ID as bait.
Ron Okimoto
On Mon, 6 Apr 2026 08:13:31 -0700, John Harshman
<john.harshman@gmail.com> wrote:
On 4/6/26 2:35 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Sun, 5 Apr 2026 16:37:54 -0700, John Harshman
<john.harshman@gmail.com> wrote:
On 4/5/26 6:38 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Sat, 4 Apr 2026 22:40:30 +0100, Ernest MajorAre there any such people? >
<{$to$}@meden.demon.co.uk> wrote:
On 04/04/2026 20:47, Martin Harran wrote:
On Thu, 2 Apr 2026 13:04:32 +1100, MarkE <me22over7@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>
On 2/04/2026 12:46 pm, RonO wrote:
[rCa]
the gaps were not Biblical and the god that
fills those gaps is not the god described in the Bible.
[rCa]
Ron, shoosh.
Ron posts some absolute rubbish about religion and religious
believers, but he is right on that specific point. I have repeatedly >>>>>>> asked you and other ID'ers to explain how you get from a God fiddling >>>>>>> about with atoms and molecules (AKA 'fine tuning') to the God that you >>>>>>> and I and most of them believe in, a God with whom we can have a >>>>>>> personal relationship. None of you have been able to offer any
suggestion. Until you deal with that, you are going to have problems >>>>>>> with believers like myself, never mind with scientists.
Mark, by implication, makes a good case for atheism.
I am not a fan of David Frost - he was the Tory minister who led the >>>>> Brexit negotiations that eventually took the UK out of the EU. He had >>>>> a religious oriented article in the Telegraph this week about his
turning to Catholicism which he thinks may be part of a more general >>>>> swing back towards religion, particularly among young people. In the >>>>> article, he writes:
"rCa After all, the important thing about Christianity is not whether it >>>>> makes you feel better or whether it is good for society, but whether >>>>> it is true. If it is, we should all want to know that, and if it
isn't, we are right to reject it. The one thing we should not do is
not properly consider it.
[rCa]
In an essay entitled Man or Rabbit?, CS Lewis gently mocked those who >>>>> didn't reject Christianity but tried to ignore it, not from disbelief, >>>>> but from a suspicion that it might be true after all and that
acknowledging it would be inconvenient - rather like someone who
doesn't open their bank statements for fear of what might be in them." >>>>
I'd be surprised if there weren't - human attitudes are rather wide
ranging.
So you can't actually say that any such person exists.
As Carl Sagan liked to put it "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence".
Lewis gently
mocks a phenomenon so rare that there are no known examples.
So you criticise me for not being able to produce any examples yet,
with no evidence whatsoever, you claim they are *rare*. Typical double standard from you.
:As I said,
a straw man.
Your attacks on Lewis are a rather poor attempt at a combination of
strawman and ad hominem.
C.S. Lewis was quite good at attacking
strawmen.
No better than yourself.
"I know you are, but what am I?" Lame.
How do we know that wasn't another?
That ties in with a trend I have noticed here and in other places
where people who most vehemently dismiss religious belief are often
people who have never given it any serious consideration and have very >>>>> little understanding of what it actually is.
That's quite a different thing, though, isn't it? How many of those
people, if indeed they have very little understanding, have that
suspicion that it might be true but inconvenient?
Original article:
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2026/04/02/britain-quietly-awakening-supernatural-christianity/
Unpaywalled access:
https://archive.is/2xnoi
On 4/7/2026 11:23 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Tue, 7 Apr 2026 09:52:27 -0500, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com> wrote:No attempt was necessary when your own behavior was shown to be
On 4/7/2026 4:51 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Mon, 6 Apr 2026 22:56:25 -0700, Mark Isaak
<specimenNOSPAM@curioustaxon.omy.net> wrote:
On 4/6/26 6:22 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Sun, 5 Apr 2026 19:11:22 -0700, Mark Isaak
<specimenNOSPAM@curioustaxon.omy.net> wrote:
On 4/3/26 10:05 PM, MarkE wrote:
[snip]I-don't-know-of-the-gaps appears to be a durable get-out-of-jail-free >>>>>>>> card. And indeed, if we assume that science and all other categories of
knowledge cannot _prove_ divine action, then it is technically >>>>>>>> unassailable.
The assumption within that position is that the set of unknown >>>>>>>> explanations is large and contains roughly equiprobable elements. E.g.,
God is one of a million explanations, each with probability of around >>>>>>>> one in a million.
Of course, we are unable to assign probabilities here - the numbers >>>>>>>> provided are for illustration only. However, if, say, over a long period
of sustained scientific research, the consensus rejects all propsosed >>>>>>>> naturalistic hypotheses (e.g. for OoL), then I suggest a more reasonable
assumption would be the probability of God is much more than one in a >>>>>>>> million. You might choose a placeholder amount of 50%, 10% or 1%. >>>>>>>>
My point is, if you are perfectly comfortable with I-don't-know, that >>>>>>>> seems to imply an assumption of a negligible probability of God, which >>>>>>>> may in turn reveal an a priori commitment to naturalism. Which would be
a metaphysical stance, not a rational, scientific one.
Moreover, if God, then major personal implications potentially come into
play (insert your preferred variation of Pascal's Wager here).
In many areas, admitting you don't know something when you don't know it
is viewed as a sign of honesty and humility, both of which are generally
viewed as virtues. Your differing view shows diametrically opposed >>>>>>> values, and indicates that your god is one which people would be better >>>>>>> off avoiding.
This is not just rhetoric. It was people with views similar to yours >>>>>>> that drove me away from religion in my youth, and I would be amazed if >>>>>>> you and those who share your views are not chasing people from religion >>>>>>> today.
If people are that easily chased from religion, the attraction cannot >>>>>> be very strong to start with.
Mostly what chased me from religion were people who used their church's >>>>> understanding of religion to determine morality for other people. It >>>>> wasn't hard to see that they were hurting people by claiming to do what >>>>> religion considered "good". And when you're growing up in a homogeneous >>>>> American community, there is only one religion available to reject, and >>>>> having rejected it, you have (until you learn a lot more about the wider >>>>> world) rejected Religion.
The difference between us is that you discard religious *belief*
because of what you see as shortcomings in other people whereas my
religious belief is based on what that belief teaches me and how *I*
respond to it, not how *some* other people respond to it.
I think I asked you before but you never addressed the question - is
evolution bad because some people used it to justify eugenics?
Some of your sources and you do not seem to be doing very well due to
those religious beliefs. It may be time for some reevaluation.
No attempt to answer the question, have your geocentrist mentors
nothing to say about it?
difficient in terms of your religious beliefs.
On 2026/04/07 10:26 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Tue, 7 Apr 2026 09:32:19 -0600, ShyDavid <noreply@murdermingle.com>
wrote:
On 2026/04/06 7:22 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Sun, 5 Apr 2026 19:11:22 -0700, Mark Isaak
<specimenNOSPAM@curioustaxon.omy.net> wrote:
On 4/3/26 10:05 PM, MarkE wrote:
[snip]I-don't-know-of-the-gaps appears to be a durable get-out-of-jail-free >>>>>> card. And indeed, if we assume that science and all other categories of >>>>>> knowledge cannot _prove_ divine action, then it is technically
unassailable.
The assumption within that position is that the set of unknown
explanations is large and contains roughly equiprobable elements. E.g., >>>>>> God is one of a million explanations, each with probability of around >>>>>> one in a million.
Of course, we are unable to assign probabilities here - the numbers >>>>>> provided are for illustration only. However, if, say, over a long period >>>>>> of sustained scientific research, the consensus rejects all propsosed >>>>>> naturalistic hypotheses (e.g. for OoL), then I suggest a more reasonable >>>>>> assumption would be the probability of God is much more than one in a >>>>>> million. You might choose a placeholder amount of 50%, 10% or 1%.
My point is, if you are perfectly comfortable with I-don't-know, that >>>>>> seems to imply an assumption of a negligible probability of God, which >>>>>> may in turn reveal an a priori commitment to naturalism. Which would be >>>>>> a metaphysical stance, not a rational, scientific one.
Moreover, if God, then major personal implications potentially come into >>>>>> play (insert your preferred variation of Pascal's Wager here).
In many areas, admitting you don't know something when you don't know it >>>>> is viewed as a sign of honesty and humility, both of which are generally >>>>> viewed as virtues. Your differing view shows diametrically opposed
values, and indicates that your god is one which people would be better >>>>> off avoiding.
This is not just rhetoric. It was people with views similar to yours >>>>> that drove me away from religion in my youth, and I would be amazed if >>>>> you and those who share your views are not chasing people from religion >>>>> today.
If people are that easily chased from religion, the attraction cannot
be very strong to start with.
Intelligent, mature adults do not find any attraction for religion.
Thank you for such a clear demonstration of your own lack of
intelligence and maturity.
_Op. Cit._
On 2026/04/07 10:27 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Tue, 7 Apr 2026 09:33:51 -0600, ShyDavid <noreply@murdermingle.com>
wrote:
On 2026/04/07 3:51 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Mon, 6 Apr 2026 22:56:25 -0700, Mark Isaak
<specimenNOSPAM@curioustaxon.omy.net> wrote:
Mostly what chased me from religion were people who used their church's >>>>> understanding of religion to determine morality for other people. It >>>>> wasn't hard to see that they were hurting people by claiming to do what >>>>> religion considered "good". And when you're growing up in a homogeneous >>>>> American community, there is only one religion available to reject, and >>>>> having rejected it, you have (until you learn a lot more about the wider >>>>> world) rejected Religion.
The difference between us is that you discard religious *belief*
because of what you see as shortcomings in other people...
No. Please cease telling me what I have and have not done--- I can do that myself.
On 4/7/26 2:19 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Mon, 6 Apr 2026 08:13:31 -0700, John Harshman
<john.harshman@gmail.com> wrote:
On 4/6/26 2:35 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Sun, 5 Apr 2026 16:37:54 -0700, John Harshman
<john.harshman@gmail.com> wrote:
On 4/5/26 6:38 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Sat, 4 Apr 2026 22:40:30 +0100, Ernest MajorAre there any such people? >
<{$to$}@meden.demon.co.uk> wrote:
On 04/04/2026 20:47, Martin Harran wrote:
On Thu, 2 Apr 2026 13:04:32 +1100, MarkE <me22over7@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>
On 2/04/2026 12:46 pm, RonO wrote:
[rCa]
the gaps were not Biblical and the god that
fills those gaps is not the god described in the Bible.
[rCa]
Ron, shoosh.
Ron posts some absolute rubbish about religion and religious
believers, but he is right on that specific point. I have repeatedly >>>>>>>> asked you and other ID'ers to explain how you get from a God fiddling >>>>>>>> about with atoms and molecules (AKA 'fine tuning') to the God that you >>>>>>>> and I and most of them believe in, a God with whom we can have a >>>>>>>> personal relationship. None of you have been able to offer any >>>>>>>> suggestion. Until you deal with that, you are going to have problems >>>>>>>> with believers like myself, never mind with scientists.
Mark, by implication, makes a good case for atheism.
I am not a fan of David Frost - he was the Tory minister who led the >>>>>> Brexit negotiations that eventually took the UK out of the EU. He had >>>>>> a religious oriented article in the Telegraph this week about his
turning to Catholicism which he thinks may be part of a more general >>>>>> swing back towards religion, particularly among young people. In the >>>>>> article, he writes:
"rCa After all, the important thing about Christianity is not whether it >>>>>> makes you feel better or whether it is good for society, but whether >>>>>> it is true. If it is, we should all want to know that, and if it
isn't, we are right to reject it. The one thing we should not do is >>>>>> not properly consider it.
[rCa]
In an essay entitled Man or Rabbit?, CS Lewis gently mocked those who >>>>>> didn't reject Christianity but tried to ignore it, not from disbelief, >>>>>> but from a suspicion that it might be true after all and that
acknowledging it would be inconvenient - rather like someone who
doesn't open their bank statements for fear of what might be in them." >>>>>
I'd be surprised if there weren't - human attitudes are rather wide
ranging.
So you can't actually say that any such person exists.
As Carl Sagan liked to put it "absence of evidence is not evidence of
absence".
Did he?
But of course that's correct only under the particular
circumstance that we would not expect evidence if a claim were true.
Lewis gently
mocks a phenomenon so rare that there are no known examples.
So you criticise me for not being able to produce any examples yet,
with no evidence whatsoever, you claim they are *rare*. Typical double
standard from you.
Continuing the previous thought: if it were not rare we would expect
there to be examples. Absence of evidence is in this case evidence at
least of rarity.
:As I said,
a straw man.
Your attacks on Lewis are a rather poor attempt at a combination of
strawman and ad hominem.
No, ad hominem would be a claim that what he says is wrong because he's
C.S. Lewis.
And while that would be a safe bet based on experience of
his writing, it's not valid logic.
So you think Lewis was correct here? Or anywhere?
C.S. Lewis was quite good at attacking
strawmen.
No better than yourself.
"I know you are, but what am I?" Lame.
How do we know that wasn't another?
That ties in with a trend I have noticed here and in other places
where people who most vehemently dismiss religious belief are often >>>>>> people who have never given it any serious consideration and have very >>>>>> little understanding of what it actually is.
That's quite a different thing, though, isn't it? How many of those
people, if indeed they have very little understanding, have that
suspicion that it might be true but inconvenient?
Original article:
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2026/04/02/britain-quietly-awakening-supernatural-christianity/
Unpaywalled access:
https://archive.is/2xnoi
On 4/7/2026 11:23 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Tue, 7 Apr 2026 09:52:27 -0500, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com> wrote:Your eugenics example was a stupidly poor example.-a Evolution was not the driver for the eugenics movement.-a When the Methodists apologized for their participation in the eugenics movement, I had never known that they had supported the effort.-a I looked into it and found out that early in the 20th century the YEC contingent of the church got it involved supporting eugenics.-a They were antievolution, but they still believed that you could breed better people.-a The Methodists take no stand on evolution and other creationist beliefs like YEC.-a If you look up the eugenics debacle you will find that the major proponents were of various religious affiliations.-a Google lists prominant early proponents as Catholic Fathers John Cooper and John A. Ryan with the goal of aligning Catholicism with eugenics.-a Along with Methodists Google lists Episcopalians and Presbyterians.-a Google also lists Jewish leaders and Quakers.
On 4/7/2026 4:51 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Mon, 6 Apr 2026 22:56:25 -0700, Mark Isaak
<specimenNOSPAM@curioustaxon.omy.net> wrote:
On 4/6/26 6:22 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Sun, 5 Apr 2026 19:11:22 -0700, Mark Isaak
<specimenNOSPAM@curioustaxon.omy.net> wrote:
On 4/3/26 10:05 PM, MarkE wrote:
[snip]I-don't-know-of-the-gaps appears to be a durable get-out-of-jail-free >>>>>>>> card. And indeed, if we assume that science and all other categories of
knowledge cannot _prove_ divine action, then it is technically >>>>>>>> unassailable.
The assumption within that position is that the set of unknown >>>>>>>> explanations is large and contains roughly equiprobable elements. E.g.,
God is one of a million explanations, each with probability of around >>>>>>>> one in a million.
Of course, we are unable to assign probabilities here - the numbers >>>>>>>> provided are for illustration only. However, if, say, over a long period
of sustained scientific research, the consensus rejects all propsosed >>>>>>>> naturalistic hypotheses (e.g. for OoL), then I suggest a more reasonable
assumption would be the probability of God is much more than one in a >>>>>>>> million. You might choose a placeholder amount of 50%, 10% or 1%. >>>>>>>>
My point is, if you are perfectly comfortable with I-don't-know, that >>>>>>>> seems to imply an assumption of a negligible probability of God, which >>>>>>>> may in turn reveal an a priori commitment to naturalism. Which would be
a metaphysical stance, not a rational, scientific one.
Moreover, if God, then major personal implications potentially come into
play (insert your preferred variation of Pascal's Wager here).
In many areas, admitting you don't know something when you don't know it
is viewed as a sign of honesty and humility, both of which are generally
viewed as virtues.-a Your differing view shows diametrically opposed >>>>>>> values, and indicates that your god is one which people would be better >>>>>>> off avoiding.
This is not just rhetoric.-a It was people with views similar to yours >>>>>>> that drove me away from religion in my youth, and I would be amazed if >>>>>>> you and those who share your views are not chasing people from religion >>>>>>> today.
If people are that easily chased from religion, the attraction cannot >>>>>> be very strong to start with.
Mostly what chased me from religion were people who used their church's >>>>> understanding of religion to determine morality for other people. It >>>>> wasn't hard to see that they were hurting people by claiming to do what >>>>> religion considered "good". And when you're growing up in a homogeneous >>>>> American community, there is only one religion available to reject, and >>>>> having rejected it, you have (until you learn a lot more about the wider >>>>> world) rejected Religion.
The difference between us is that you discard religious *belief*
because of what you see as shortcomings in other people whereas my
religious belief is based on what that belief teaches me and how *I*
respond to it, not how *some* other people respond to it.
I think I asked you before but you never addressed the question - is
evolution bad because some people used it to justify eugenics?
Some of your sources and you do not seem to be doing very well due to
those religious beliefs.-a It may be time for some reevaluation.
No attempt to answer the question, have your geocentrist mentors
nothing to say about it?
Evolution was not the issue for the participation of the Methodists and Presbyterians because the eugenic proponents were anti evolution at that time.-a A good number of Methodists are still anti evolution, and Presbyterians are trying to change and accept evolution, but they still have a faction that is anti evolution.-a The Catholic church was still skeptical about biological evolution in the late 19th and early 20th century.-a Some like Gregor Mendel did not have an issue with Biological evolution, but likely the majority did.-a Anti evolution Catholics still exist.
Pick another example.
Ron Okimoto--
On 7/04/2026 5:50 pm, Kerr-Mudd, John wrote:
On Tue, 7 Apr 2026 12:43:48 +1000
MarkE <me22over7@gmail.com> wrote:
Where's your evidence/justification for this 'god hypothesis'?
Start here (but you knew this): https://www.amazon.com.au/Return-God-Hypothesis-Compelling-TheExistence/dp/0062071505
Or read my posts on OoL. Etc etc etc.
But you don't really care, do you.
If it's a scientific thing (clue: the word "hypothesis") then it needs a
reasonable explanation and more than ye olde raw "goddidit"
Which god? how? where do gods come from?, what evidence is there? what
might we expect from such a function?
On 4/7/2026 5:34 PM, MarkE wrote:
On 7/04/2026 5:50 pm, Kerr-Mudd, John wrote:
On Tue, 7 Apr 2026 12:43:48 +1000
MarkE <me22over7@gmail.com> wrote:
On 7/04/2026 8:25 am, MarkE wrote:[]
On 7/04/2026 1:41 am, ShyDavid wrote:
I would love to see theists being just as honest and virtuous as
scientists.
Thank you, that confirms where you're coming from.
I am curious though: you appear to have contempt to the point of moral >>>> repugnance for anyone favouring the God hypothesis (i.e. creationists of >>>> any stripe), and a self-assurance regarding materialism to the point of >>>> arrogance - why then the interest in the topic of origins, and why
bother engaging? Are you not as confident as you make out, are you
seeking applause here, or do you just enjoy being smug and insulting?
Where's your evidence/justification for this 'god hypothesis'?
Start here (but you knew this): https://www.amazon.com.au/Return-God- Hypothesis-Compelling-TheExistence/dp/0062071505
Or read my posts on OoL. Etc etc etc.
But you don't really care, do you.
It may be justification, but is not scientific evidence for any god hypothesis.-a It is just junk to fool the rubes with.-a Meyer never tried to create a coherent god hypothesis.-a He just presented the god-of-the-gaps denial arguments as independent bits of denial, just as the scientific creationists had done decades before Meyer joined the ID scam.-a You know why he did not try to develop a coherent god hypothesis is because nature is not Biblical and the god hypothesized would not be the Biblical god.-a He didn't do it for the same reason that you ran from the Top Six and can't deal with them in an honest and straightforward manner.-a It is why the other IDiots quit the ID scam.
Ron Okimoto
On 8/04/2026 12:16 pm, RonO wrote:
On 4/7/2026 7:08 PM, MarkE wrote:
On 8/04/2026 9:10 am, RonO wrote:
On 4/7/2026 5:34 PM, MarkE wrote:
On 7/04/2026 5:50 pm, Kerr-Mudd, John wrote:
On Tue, 7 Apr 2026 12:43:48 +1000
MarkE <me22over7@gmail.com> wrote:
On 7/04/2026 8:25 am, MarkE wrote:[]
On 7/04/2026 1:41 am, ShyDavid wrote:
I would love to see theists being just as honest and virtuous as >>>>>>>>> scientists.
Thank you, that confirms where you're coming from.
I am curious though: you appear to have contempt to the point of >>>>>>> moral
repugnance for anyone favouring the God hypothesis (i.e.
creationists of
any stripe), and a self-assurance regarding materialism to the
point of
arrogance - why then the interest in the topic of origins, and why >>>>>>> bother engaging? Are you not as confident as you make out, are you >>>>>>> seeking applause here, or do you just enjoy being smug and
insulting?
Where's your evidence/justification for this 'god hypothesis'?
Start here (but you knew this): https://www.amazon.com.au/Return-
God- Hypothesis-Compelling-TheExistence/dp/0062071505
Or read my posts on OoL. Etc etc etc.
But you don't really care, do you.
It may be justification, but is not scientific evidence for any god
hypothesis.-a It is just junk to fool the rubes with.-a Meyer never
tried to create a coherent god hypothesis.-a He just presented the
god- of-the- gaps denial arguments as independent bits of denial,
just as the scientific creationists had done decades before Meyer
joined the ID scam.-a You know why he did not try to develop a
coherent god hypothesis is because nature is not Biblical and the
god hypothesized would not be the Biblical god.-a He didn't do it for >>>> the same reason that you ran from the Top Six and can't deal with
them in an honest and straightforward manner.-a It is why the other
IDiots quit the ID scam.
Ron Okimoto
Ron, you are so wrong, and out of line. Meyer is an intelligent and
considered scientist, and his writing is recognised as such beyond
the ID community. Present your rebuttals to his arguments, but spare
us your unsupported slander.
First off, Meyer does not consider himself to be a scientist.-a At one
time he worked as a geologist for an oil company, but he claims to be
an historian and philosopher (part of the scam artist schtick).
Meyer is not currently a practising scientist, but is a qualified
scientist:
PhD rCo History and Philosophy of Science, University of Cambridge
Focus: philosophy of biology, scientific explanation
MasterrCOs degree rCo Geophysics, University of Cambridge
BachelorrCOs degree rCo Physics and Earth Science, Whitworth University
A former geophysicist and college professor.
Meyers is a dishonest scam artist.-a He was the head cheer leader for
the teach ID scam when other ID perps understood that there was no ID
science worth teaching.-a Understanding that fact he ran the first bait
and switch scam on the Ohio rubes.-a He had made up his mind that he
was going to run the bait and switch before he gave his presentation
to the Ohio rubes.-a He lied to them about being able to teach the junk
in the public schools and that ID was science.-a The real scientists
demonstrated to the board that ID was not science and should not be
taught as such in the public schools.-a Meyer offered the switch scam
to the rubes in the discussion after Wells made the claim that there
was enough scientific support for the ID scam that it could be forced
into the public schools (Wells also knew that the bait and switch was
going down and that he was just lying to the rubes).-a Meyer and Wells
were so unconvincing that the Ohio rubes decided not to teach the ID
scam junk, but the rubes were still dishonest enough to bend over for
the switch scam that Meyer told them had nothing to do with ID.-a The
board understood that Meyer had tried to lie to them about ID being
science, but some of them were so dishonest and corrupt that one of
them put up the proposal to the board that the definition of science,
that was a part of the science standards, be rewritten so that ID
could be taught as science in the Ohio public schools.-a The board was
actually convinced that Meyer had tried to lie to them about ID being
science when it could not be considered to be science by their own
definition of science.
At the time Meyer had a job teaching at a religious college, but he
dropped out of the public view after running the bait and switch.-a He
quit that job (it had to be hard to walk down the academic halls with
scam artists written on your forehead).-a All his colleagues must have
known what he had been claiming about the teach ID scam.-a Meyer was an
author of the Teach ID scam 1999 booklet that the Discovery Institute
used to give out with their ID scam video and also the 2000 Utah law
review article claiming that it was legal to teach ID in the public
schools.-a Meyer started working as director of the bait and switch
scam full time, and has made sure that ID has continued to be offered
up as bait for decades.-a The teach ID scam claims were never
retracted, and more teach ID scam propaganda was eventually added
during Meyer's leadership of the bait and switch scam.-a Immediately
after Ohio West had to step forward and make sure that the bait and
switch kept going down on any rubes that popped up and still wanted to
teach the junk (Meyer was MIA).-a Do you recall how long Meyer
retreated into the background after running the bait and switch on the
Ohio rubes?
You were posting at ARN when the bait and switch went down.-a By Ohio
some of the IDiots at ARN already understood that there wasn't any ID
science to teach.-a The majority of IDiotic creationist rubes supported
teaching ID just as the Discovery Institute was claiming could be
done. You know that after the bait and switch went down the tone
changed at ARN.-a The majority were no longer openly supporting
teaching the junk. Only a few still claimed that ID would be taught in
Ohio.-a Most of the IDiots started pretending that teaching the junk
wasn't the goal of the ID scam even though that is about all ID had
ever been.-a ID first came to TO in the late 1990's as something that
could be taught in the public schools (probably, just before you
started posting).
A year (2003) after Ohio when the initial draft of the Ohio model
lesson plan came out nearly everyone at ARN stopped supporting
teaching the junk.-a Eventually the creationist web links and all
mention of intelligent design and ID perps was removed from the lesson
plan. Wells' book had obviously been used to create the lesson plan
(the Wellsian lie about no moths on tree trunks had made it into the
lesson plan) but the reference to his book was removed from the lesson
plan when the lie was rewritten.-a Mike gene came out and claimed that
he had given up on teaching the junk back in 1999, but Gene and nearly
all the IDiots kept supporting ID as bait.-a Some may have quit
posting, but everyone that was left was either ignorant, incompetent
and or dishonest.-a You were apparently among the dishonest, but you
haven't yet demonstrated that you are clearly out of the incompetent
group.
During the Dover fiasco Meyer ran even though the More lawyers had
allowed him to have his own lawyer present during his Kitzmiller
testimony.-a He ran after Forrest was deposed with Dembski in
attendance, and the name change from creationism to intelligent design
in the book Of Pandas and People was disclosed.-a Meyer had written the
teachers notes for that book, and was one of the authors of the teach
ID scam propaganda claiming that Of Pandas and People could be used to
teach ID in the public schools.
Meyer is just a dishonest scam artist.-a His god hypothesis book was
only meant to continue to fool the rubes.-a How long has the bait and
switch been going down under the direction of Meyer?-a Why did he never
retract any of his teach ID scam propaganda after starting to run the
bait and switch?
You should know by now that the first thing any hypothesis should be
evaluated on would be if it can exist within what is already
understood. -a-aMeyer purposely refused to demonstrate that any of his
hypotheses were viable within the context of what is known, and only
put up the gap arguments as independent bits of denial in order to
fool the rubes. What the scam artist did should only work on rubes
that want to be lied to like yourself.-a Meyer never put up a coherent
god hypothesis.-a He only put up independent bits of gap denial in
order to lie to the rubes about reality.-a If he had made an honest
effort you would be running from the book just as you ran from the Top
Six that the ID perps put out in the order in which they must have
occurred in this universe.-a The universe is not Biblical.-a The god
that fills Meyer's gaps is not the god described in the Bible.-a That
is what Meyer should have made clear at the beginning of the Book, but
he just wrote the book to scam the rubes, and maintain ID as bait.
Ron Okimoto
The ID movement has a complicated history, but I reject your caricaturisation as a bait and switch scam. It's a movement with many
voices over a long period - some possibly misguided at times, or even dishonest - you get that whenever humans are involved, especially with
such a complex, developing and charged issue.
However, current policy is: "DI opposes any effort to require the
teaching of intelligent design by school districts or state boards of education."
"It believes that evolution should be fully and completely presented to students, and they should learn more about evolutionary theory,
including its unresolved issues. In other words, evolution should be
taught as a scientific theory that is open to critical scrutiny, not as
a sacred dogma that canrCOt be questioned."
"Discovery Institute believes that a curriculum that aims to provide students with an understanding of the strengths and weaknesses of neo- Darwinian and chemical evolutionary theories (rather than teaching an alternative theory, such as intelligent design) represents a common
ground approach that all reasonable citizens can agree on."
_____
I refer you to long-form conversations between sceptic Michael Shermer
and Stephen Meyer. It is refreshing to see Shermer's approach to
"steelman" his opponent, the mutually respectful posture of both, and
the scope and depth of their dialogue.
Shermer for one takes Meyer seriously, scientifically and
philosophically, and rightly so. I challenge anyone to listen to these dialogues and then endorse Ron's characterisation of Meyer as "just a dishonest scam artist" whose "god hypothesis book was only meant to
continue to fool the rubes."
https://www.skeptic.com/michael-shermer-show/stephen-meyer-return-of- god-hypothesis-3-scientific-discoveries-reveal-the-mind-behind-the- universe/?utm_source=chatgpt.com
On Tue, 7 Apr 2026 13:23:23 -0500, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com> wrote:
On 4/7/2026 11:23 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Tue, 7 Apr 2026 09:52:27 -0500, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com> wrote:No attempt was necessary when your own behavior was shown to be
On 4/7/2026 4:51 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Mon, 6 Apr 2026 22:56:25 -0700, Mark Isaak
<specimenNOSPAM@curioustaxon.omy.net> wrote:
On 4/6/26 6:22 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Sun, 5 Apr 2026 19:11:22 -0700, Mark Isaak
<specimenNOSPAM@curioustaxon.omy.net> wrote:
On 4/3/26 10:05 PM, MarkE wrote:
In many areas, admitting you don't know something when you don't know it[snip]I-don't-know-of-the-gaps appears to be a durable get-out-of-jail-free >>>>>>>>> card. And indeed, if we assume that science and all other categories of
knowledge cannot _prove_ divine action, then it is technically >>>>>>>>> unassailable.
The assumption within that position is that the set of unknown >>>>>>>>> explanations is large and contains roughly equiprobable elements. E.g.,
God is one of a million explanations, each with probability of around >>>>>>>>> one in a million.
Of course, we are unable to assign probabilities here - the numbers >>>>>>>>> provided are for illustration only. However, if, say, over a long period
of sustained scientific research, the consensus rejects all propsosed >>>>>>>>> naturalistic hypotheses (e.g. for OoL), then I suggest a more reasonable
assumption would be the probability of God is much more than one in a >>>>>>>>> million. You might choose a placeholder amount of 50%, 10% or 1%. >>>>>>>>>
My point is, if you are perfectly comfortable with I-don't-know, that >>>>>>>>> seems to imply an assumption of a negligible probability of God, which
may in turn reveal an a priori commitment to naturalism. Which would be
a metaphysical stance, not a rational, scientific one.
Moreover, if God, then major personal implications potentially come into
play (insert your preferred variation of Pascal's Wager here). >>>>>>>>
is viewed as a sign of honesty and humility, both of which are generally
viewed as virtues. Your differing view shows diametrically opposed >>>>>>>> values, and indicates that your god is one which people would be better
off avoiding.
This is not just rhetoric. It was people with views similar to yours >>>>>>>> that drove me away from religion in my youth, and I would be amazed if >>>>>>>> you and those who share your views are not chasing people from religion
today.
If people are that easily chased from religion, the attraction cannot >>>>>>> be very strong to start with.
Mostly what chased me from religion were people who used their church's >>>>>> understanding of religion to determine morality for other people. It >>>>>> wasn't hard to see that they were hurting people by claiming to do what >>>>>> religion considered "good". And when you're growing up in a homogeneous >>>>>> American community, there is only one religion available to reject, and >>>>>> having rejected it, you have (until you learn a lot more about the wider >>>>>> world) rejected Religion.
The difference between us is that you discard religious *belief*
because of what you see as shortcomings in other people whereas my
religious belief is based on what that belief teaches me and how *I* >>>>> respond to it, not how *some* other people respond to it.
I think I asked you before but you never addressed the question - is >>>>> evolution bad because some people used it to justify eugenics?
Some of your sources and you do not seem to be doing very well due to
those religious beliefs. It may be time for some reevaluation.
No attempt to answer the question, have your geocentrist mentors
nothing to say about it?
difficient in terms of your religious beliefs.
So your geocentrist mentors have nothing to say about it.
On Tue, 7 Apr 2026 21:10:30 -0700, John Harshman
<john.harshman@gmail.com> wrote:
On 4/7/26 2:19 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Mon, 6 Apr 2026 08:13:31 -0700, John Harshman
<john.harshman@gmail.com> wrote:
On 4/6/26 2:35 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Sun, 5 Apr 2026 16:37:54 -0700, John Harshman
<john.harshman@gmail.com> wrote:
On 4/5/26 6:38 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Sat, 4 Apr 2026 22:40:30 +0100, Ernest MajorAre there any such people? >
<{$to$}@meden.demon.co.uk> wrote:
On 04/04/2026 20:47, Martin Harran wrote:
On Thu, 2 Apr 2026 13:04:32 +1100, MarkE <me22over7@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>>
On 2/04/2026 12:46 pm, RonO wrote:
[rCa]
the gaps were not Biblical and the god that
fills those gaps is not the god described in the Bible.
[rCa]
Ron, shoosh.
Ron posts some absolute rubbish about religion and religious >>>>>>>>> believers, but he is right on that specific point. I have repeatedly >>>>>>>>> asked you and other ID'ers to explain how you get from a God fiddling >>>>>>>>> about with atoms and molecules (AKA 'fine tuning') to the God that you
and I and most of them believe in, a God with whom we can have a >>>>>>>>> personal relationship. None of you have been able to offer any >>>>>>>>> suggestion. Until you deal with that, you are going to have problems >>>>>>>>> with believers like myself, never mind with scientists.
Mark, by implication, makes a good case for atheism.
I am not a fan of David Frost - he was the Tory minister who led the >>>>>>> Brexit negotiations that eventually took the UK out of the EU. He had >>>>>>> a religious oriented article in the Telegraph this week about his >>>>>>> turning to Catholicism which he thinks may be part of a more general >>>>>>> swing back towards religion, particularly among young people. In the >>>>>>> article, he writes:
"rCa After all, the important thing about Christianity is not whether it
makes you feel better or whether it is good for society, but whether >>>>>>> it is true. If it is, we should all want to know that, and if it >>>>>>> isn't, we are right to reject it. The one thing we should not do is >>>>>>> not properly consider it.
[rCa]
In an essay entitled Man or Rabbit?, CS Lewis gently mocked those who >>>>>>> didn't reject Christianity but tried to ignore it, not from disbelief, >>>>>>> but from a suspicion that it might be true after all and that
acknowledging it would be inconvenient - rather like someone who >>>>>>> doesn't open their bank statements for fear of what might be in them." >>>>>>
I'd be surprised if there weren't - human attitudes are rather wide
ranging.
So you can't actually say that any such person exists.
As Carl Sagan liked to put it "absence of evidence is not evidence of
absence".
Did he?
Of course he did - unlike you, I do not make up things that people
said.
But of course that's correct only under the particular
circumstance that we would not expect evidence if a claim were true.
Lewis gently
mocks a phenomenon so rare that there are no known examples.
So you criticise me for not being able to produce any examples yet,
with no evidence whatsoever, you claim they are *rare*. Typical double
standard from you.
Continuing the previous thought: if it were not rare we would expect
there to be examples. Absence of evidence is in this case evidence at
least of rarity.
Well, I don't regard my inability to identify specific people who
think a particular way is evidence that they do not exist. That is
probably a reflection of the fact that I do not share your cocksure
belief in your ability to read the minds of other people and figure
out what they are *really* thinking, even people you know nothing
about.
:As I said,
a straw man.
Your attacks on Lewis are a rather poor attempt at a combination of
strawman and ad hominem.
No, ad hominem would be a claim that what he says is wrong because he's
C.S. Lewis.
Which is exactly what you tried to do which means either:
a) You are incapable of understanding it which rules out the
likelihood of having an intelligent discussion with you
or b) you do understand it but want to ignore it which also rules out
the likelihood of having an intelligent discussion with you.
On that basis, I'll decline from nngaging in yet another pointless
100+ posts going over the same ground ad nauseum.
And while that would be a safe bet based on experience of
his writing, it's not valid logic.
So you think Lewis was correct here? Or anywhere?
C.S. Lewis was quite good at attacking
strawmen.
No better than yourself.
"I know you are, but what am I?" Lame.
How do we know that wasn't another?
That ties in with a trend I have noticed here and in other places >>>>>>> where people who most vehemently dismiss religious belief are often >>>>>>> people who have never given it any serious consideration and have very >>>>>>> little understanding of what it actually is.
That's quite a different thing, though, isn't it? How many of those >>>>>> people, if indeed they have very little understanding, have that
suspicion that it might be true but inconvenient?
Original article:
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2026/04/02/britain-quietly-awakening-supernatural-christianity/
Unpaywalled access:
https://archive.is/2xnoi
On 4/8/26 4:46 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
As Carl Sagan liked to put it "absence of evidence is not evidence of
absence".
Did he?
Of course he did - unlike you, I do not make up things that people
said.
Do you notice that lately everything you say to me involves a gratuitous >insult?
On 4/8/2026 6:21 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Tue, 7 Apr 2026 13:23:23 -0500, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com> wrote:
On 4/7/2026 11:23 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Tue, 7 Apr 2026 09:52:27 -0500, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>No attempt was necessary when your own behavior was shown to be
On 4/7/2026 4:51 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Mon, 6 Apr 2026 22:56:25 -0700, Mark Isaak
<specimenNOSPAM@curioustaxon.omy.net> wrote:
On 4/6/26 6:22 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Sun, 5 Apr 2026 19:11:22 -0700, Mark Isaak
<specimenNOSPAM@curioustaxon.omy.net> wrote:
On 4/3/26 10:05 PM, MarkE wrote:
In many areas, admitting you don't know something when you don't know it[snip]I-don't-know-of-the-gaps appears to be a durable get-out-of-jail-free
card. And indeed, if we assume that science and all other categories of
knowledge cannot _prove_ divine action, then it is technically >>>>>>>>>> unassailable.
The assumption within that position is that the set of unknown >>>>>>>>>> explanations is large and contains roughly equiprobable elements. E.g.,
God is one of a million explanations, each with probability of around
one in a million.
Of course, we are unable to assign probabilities here - the numbers >>>>>>>>>> provided are for illustration only. However, if, say, over a long period
of sustained scientific research, the consensus rejects all propsosed
naturalistic hypotheses (e.g. for OoL), then I suggest a more reasonable
assumption would be the probability of God is much more than one in a
million. You might choose a placeholder amount of 50%, 10% or 1%. >>>>>>>>>>
My point is, if you are perfectly comfortable with I-don't-know, that
seems to imply an assumption of a negligible probability of God, which
may in turn reveal an a priori commitment to naturalism. Which would be
a metaphysical stance, not a rational, scientific one.
Moreover, if God, then major personal implications potentially come into
play (insert your preferred variation of Pascal's Wager here). >>>>>>>>>
is viewed as a sign of honesty and humility, both of which are generally
viewed as virtues. Your differing view shows diametrically opposed >>>>>>>>> values, and indicates that your god is one which people would be better
off avoiding.
This is not just rhetoric. It was people with views similar to yours >>>>>>>>> that drove me away from religion in my youth, and I would be amazed if
you and those who share your views are not chasing people from religion
today.
If people are that easily chased from religion, the attraction cannot >>>>>>>> be very strong to start with.
Mostly what chased me from religion were people who used their church's >>>>>>> understanding of religion to determine morality for other people. It >>>>>>> wasn't hard to see that they were hurting people by claiming to do what >>>>>>> religion considered "good". And when you're growing up in a homogeneous >>>>>>> American community, there is only one religion available to reject, and >>>>>>> having rejected it, you have (until you learn a lot more about the wider
world) rejected Religion.
The difference between us is that you discard religious *belief*
because of what you see as shortcomings in other people whereas my >>>>>> religious belief is based on what that belief teaches me and how *I* >>>>>> respond to it, not how *some* other people respond to it.
I think I asked you before but you never addressed the question - is >>>>>> evolution bad because some people used it to justify eugenics?
Some of your sources and you do not seem to be doing very well due to >>>>> those religious beliefs. It may be time for some reevaluation.
No attempt to answer the question, have your geocentrist mentors
nothing to say about it?
difficient in terms of your religious beliefs.
So your geocentrist mentors have nothing to say about it.
Why keep lying about the past? Your sources have always been the ones
that have come up short, and you know it.
No attempt is necessary when
your own behavior has been shown to be deficient. That is all that
should matter. You are just as human and just as wrong as what you want
to compare.
As I have already noted your eugenics example was just a stupid mistake
on your part.
On Wed, 8 Apr 2026 12:36:43 -0700, John Harshman
<john.harshman@gmail.com> wrote:
On 4/8/26 4:46 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
[...]
As Carl Sagan liked to put it "absence of evidence is not evidence of >>>>> absence".
Did he?
Of course he did - unlike you, I do not make up things that people
said.
Do you notice that lately everything you say to me involves a gratuitous
insult?
Well you were the one who put a question mark on my reference to Carl
Sagan as if there were some doubt about what i was attributing to him.
Meyer is an intelligent and
considered scientist, and his writing is recognised as such beyond the
ID community. Present your rebuttals to his arguments, but spare us your >unsupported slander.
On Wed, 8 Apr 2026 11:29:43 -0500, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com> wrote:
On 4/8/2026 6:21 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Tue, 7 Apr 2026 13:23:23 -0500, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com> wrote:
On 4/7/2026 11:23 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Tue, 7 Apr 2026 09:52:27 -0500, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>No attempt was necessary when your own behavior was shown to be
On 4/7/2026 4:51 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Mon, 6 Apr 2026 22:56:25 -0700, Mark Isaak
<specimenNOSPAM@curioustaxon.omy.net> wrote:
On 4/6/26 6:22 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Sun, 5 Apr 2026 19:11:22 -0700, Mark Isaak
<specimenNOSPAM@curioustaxon.omy.net> wrote:
On 4/3/26 10:05 PM, MarkE wrote:
In many areas, admitting you don't know something when you don't know it[snip]I-don't-know-of-the-gaps appears to be a durable get-out-of-jail-free
card. And indeed, if we assume that science and all other categories of
knowledge cannot _prove_ divine action, then it is technically >>>>>>>>>>> unassailable.
The assumption within that position is that the set of unknown >>>>>>>>>>> explanations is large and contains roughly equiprobable elements. E.g.,
God is one of a million explanations, each with probability of around
one in a million.
Of course, we are unable to assign probabilities here - the numbers >>>>>>>>>>> provided are for illustration only. However, if, say, over a long period
of sustained scientific research, the consensus rejects all propsosed
naturalistic hypotheses (e.g. for OoL), then I suggest a more reasonable
assumption would be the probability of God is much more than one in a
million. You might choose a placeholder amount of 50%, 10% or 1%. >>>>>>>>>>>
My point is, if you are perfectly comfortable with I-don't-know, that
seems to imply an assumption of a negligible probability of God, which
may in turn reveal an a priori commitment to naturalism. Which would be
a metaphysical stance, not a rational, scientific one.
Moreover, if God, then major personal implications potentially come into
play (insert your preferred variation of Pascal's Wager here). >>>>>>>>>>
is viewed as a sign of honesty and humility, both of which are generally
viewed as virtues. Your differing view shows diametrically opposed >>>>>>>>>> values, and indicates that your god is one which people would be better
off avoiding.
This is not just rhetoric. It was people with views similar to yours
that drove me away from religion in my youth, and I would be amazed if
you and those who share your views are not chasing people from religion
today.
If people are that easily chased from religion, the attraction cannot >>>>>>>>> be very strong to start with.
Mostly what chased me from religion were people who used their church's
understanding of religion to determine morality for other people. It >>>>>>>> wasn't hard to see that they were hurting people by claiming to do what
religion considered "good". And when you're growing up in a homogeneous
American community, there is only one religion available to reject, and
having rejected it, you have (until you learn a lot more about the wider
world) rejected Religion.
The difference between us is that you discard religious *belief* >>>>>>> because of what you see as shortcomings in other people whereas my >>>>>>> religious belief is based on what that belief teaches me and how *I* >>>>>>> respond to it, not how *some* other people respond to it.
I think I asked you before but you never addressed the question - is >>>>>>> evolution bad because some people used it to justify eugenics?
Some of your sources and you do not seem to be doing very well due to >>>>>> those religious beliefs. It may be time for some reevaluation.
No attempt to answer the question, have your geocentrist mentors
nothing to say about it?
difficient in terms of your religious beliefs.
So your geocentrist mentors have nothing to say about it.
Why keep lying about the past? Your sources have always been the ones
that have come up short, and you know it.
You mean the reputable sources like Professor Augustus De Morgan and
Galileo expert Karl von Gebler whom you dismissed as mistaken or lying because an anonymous geocentrist convinced you otherwise in his
anonymous blog.
No attempt is necessary when
your own behavior has been shown to be deficient. That is all that
should matter. You are just as human and just as wrong as what you want
to compare.
As I have already noted your eugenics example was just a stupid mistake
on your part.
I must admit that I find it somewhat amusing to be hectored by a
scientist who takes seriously stuff argued by geocentrists.
On 4/9/26 1:43 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Wed, 8 Apr 2026 12:36:43 -0700, John HarshmanAnd that deserves a gratuitous insult? There was in fact some doubt. I
<john.harshman@gmail.com> wrote:
On 4/8/26 4:46 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
[...]
As Carl Sagan liked to put it "absence of evidence is not evidence of >>>>>> absence".
Did he?
Of course he did - unlike you, I do not make up things that people
said.
Do you notice that lately everything you say to me involves a gratuitous >>> insult?
Well you were the one who put a question mark on my reference to Carl
Sagan as if there were some doubt about what i was attributing to him.
don't recognize the statement, so was wondering where you got it. More importantly, I pointed out that he was wrong in the general case. For example, absence of evidence that pigs can fly is indeed evidence that
pigs can't fly. The question is "Would we expect to see evidence if a
claim were true?"
And you respond, sort of, as I predicted, though you carefully avoid addressing any real issues.
On Wed, 8 Apr 2026 10:08:24 +1000, MarkE <me22over7@gmail.com> wrote:
[...]
Meyer is an intelligent and
considered scientist, and his writing is recognised as such beyond the
ID community. Present your rebuttals to his arguments, but spare us your
unsupported slander.
Here is my rebuttal of his arguments with no slander whatsoever. Would
you care to rebut my rebuttals?
https://groups.google.com/g/talk.origins/c/z8Yq7lvkAfU/m/um8mt8MDAgAJ
On 4/9/26 1:43 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Wed, 8 Apr 2026 12:36:43 -0700, John Harshman
<john.harshman@gmail.com> wrote:
On 4/8/26 4:46 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
[...]
As Carl Sagan liked to put it "absence of evidence is not evidence of >>>>>> absence".
Did he?
Of course he did - unlike you, I do not make up things that people
said.
Do you notice that lately everything you say to me involves a gratuitous >>> insult?
Well you were the one who put a question mark on my reference to Carl
Sagan as if there were some doubt about what i was attributing to him.
And that deserves a gratuitous insult? There was in fact some doubt. I don't recognize the statement, so was wondering where you got it. More importantly, I pointed out that he was wrong in the general case. For example, absence of evidence that pigs can fly is indeed evidence that pigs can't fly. The question is "Would we expect to see evidence if a claim were true?"
And you respond, sort of, as I predicted, though you carefully avoid addressing any real issues.
On 4/7/2026 10:29 PM, MarkE wrote:
On 8/04/2026 12:16 pm, RonO wrote:
On 4/7/2026 7:08 PM, MarkE wrote:
On 8/04/2026 9:10 am, RonO wrote:
On 4/7/2026 5:34 PM, MarkE wrote:
On 7/04/2026 5:50 pm, Kerr-Mudd, John wrote:
On Tue, 7 Apr 2026 12:43:48 +1000
MarkE <me22over7@gmail.com> wrote:
On 7/04/2026 8:25 am, MarkE wrote:[]
On 7/04/2026 1:41 am, ShyDavid wrote:
I would love to see theists being just as honest and virtuous as >>>>>>>>>> scientists.
Thank you, that confirms where you're coming from.
I am curious though: you appear to have contempt to the point of >>>>>>>> moral
repugnance for anyone favouring the God hypothesis (i.e.
creationists of
any stripe), and a self-assurance regarding materialism to the >>>>>>>> point of
arrogance - why then the interest in the topic of origins, and why >>>>>>>> bother engaging? Are you not as confident as you make out, are you >>>>>>>> seeking applause here, or do you just enjoy being smug and
insulting?
Where's your evidence/justification for this 'god hypothesis'?
Start here (but you knew this): https://www.amazon.com.au/Return- >>>>>> God- Hypothesis-Compelling-TheExistence/dp/0062071505
Or read my posts on OoL. Etc etc etc.
But you don't really care, do you.
It may be justification, but is not scientific evidence for any god >>>>> hypothesis.-a It is just junk to fool the rubes with.-a Meyer never >>>>> tried to create a coherent god hypothesis.-a He just presented the
god- of-the- gaps denial arguments as independent bits of denial,
just as the scientific creationists had done decades before Meyer
joined the ID scam.-a You know why he did not try to develop a
coherent god hypothesis is because nature is not Biblical and the
god hypothesized would not be the Biblical god.-a He didn't do it
for the same reason that you ran from the Top Six and can't deal
with them in an honest and straightforward manner.-a It is why the
other IDiots quit the ID scam.
Ron Okimoto
Ron, you are so wrong, and out of line. Meyer is an intelligent and
considered scientist, and his writing is recognised as such beyond
the ID community. Present your rebuttals to his arguments, but spare
us your unsupported slander.
First off, Meyer does not consider himself to be a scientist.-a At one
time he worked as a geologist for an oil company, but he claims to be
an historian and philosopher (part of the scam artist schtick).
Meyer is not currently a practising scientist, but is a qualified
scientist:
PhD rCo History and Philosophy of Science, University of Cambridge
Focus: philosophy of biology, scientific explanation
MasterrCOs degree rCo Geophysics, University of Cambridge
BachelorrCOs degree rCo Physics and Earth Science, Whitworth University
A former geophysicist and college professor.
You have to accept what the scam artist claims.-a He claims to be an historian and philosopher scam artist, not a scientist scam artist. Philosophers are allowed to fool the rubes with obfuscation and denial,
but scam artist scientists are not really scientists, at best they would
be considered to be pseudo scientists.
Meyers is a dishonest scam artist.-a He was the head cheer leader for
the teach ID scam when other ID perps understood that there was no ID
science worth teaching.-a Understanding that fact he ran the first
bait and switch scam on the Ohio rubes.-a He had made up his mind that
he was going to run the bait and switch before he gave his
presentation to the Ohio rubes.-a He lied to them about being able to
teach the junk in the public schools and that ID was science.-a The
real scientists demonstrated to the board that ID was not science and
should not be taught as such in the public schools.-a Meyer offered
the switch scam to the rubes in the discussion after Wells made the
claim that there was enough scientific support for the ID scam that
it could be forced into the public schools (Wells also knew that the
bait and switch was going down and that he was just lying to the
rubes).-a Meyer and Wells were so unconvincing that the Ohio rubes
decided not to teach the ID scam junk, but the rubes were still
dishonest enough to bend over for the switch scam that Meyer told
them had nothing to do with ID.-a The board understood that Meyer had
tried to lie to them about ID being science, but some of them were so
dishonest and corrupt that one of them put up the proposal to the
board that the definition of science, that was a part of the science
standards, be rewritten so that ID could be taught as science in the
Ohio public schools.-a The board was actually convinced that Meyer had
tried to lie to them about ID being science when it could not be
considered to be science by their own definition of science.
At the time Meyer had a job teaching at a religious college, but he
dropped out of the public view after running the bait and switch.-a He
quit that job (it had to be hard to walk down the academic halls with
scam artists written on your forehead).-a All his colleagues must have
known what he had been claiming about the teach ID scam.-a Meyer was
an author of the Teach ID scam 1999 booklet that the Discovery
Institute used to give out with their ID scam video and also the 2000
Utah law review article claiming that it was legal to teach ID in the
public schools.-a Meyer started working as director of the bait and
switch scam full time, and has made sure that ID has continued to be
offered up as bait for decades.-a The teach ID scam claims were never
retracted, and more teach ID scam propaganda was eventually added
during Meyer's leadership of the bait and switch scam.-a Immediately
after Ohio West had to step forward and make sure that the bait and
switch kept going down on any rubes that popped up and still wanted
to teach the junk (Meyer was MIA).-a Do you recall how long Meyer
retreated into the background after running the bait and switch on
the Ohio rubes?
You were posting at ARN when the bait and switch went down.-a By Ohio
some of the IDiots at ARN already understood that there wasn't any ID
science to teach.-a The majority of IDiotic creationist rubes
supported teaching ID just as the Discovery Institute was claiming
could be done. You know that after the bait and switch went down the
tone changed at ARN.-a The majority were no longer openly supporting
teaching the junk. Only a few still claimed that ID would be taught
in Ohio.-a Most of the IDiots started pretending that teaching the
junk wasn't the goal of the ID scam even though that is about all ID
had ever been.-a ID first came to TO in the late 1990's as something
that could be taught in the public schools (probably, just before you
started posting).
A year (2003) after Ohio when the initial draft of the Ohio model
lesson plan came out nearly everyone at ARN stopped supporting
teaching the junk.-a Eventually the creationist web links and all
mention of intelligent design and ID perps was removed from the
lesson plan. Wells' book had obviously been used to create the lesson
plan (the Wellsian lie about no moths on tree trunks had made it into
the lesson plan) but the reference to his book was removed from the
lesson plan when the lie was rewritten.-a Mike gene came out and
claimed that he had given up on teaching the junk back in 1999, but
Gene and nearly all the IDiots kept supporting ID as bait.-a Some may
have quit posting, but everyone that was left was either ignorant,
incompetent and or dishonest.-a You were apparently among the
dishonest, but you haven't yet demonstrated that you are clearly out
of the incompetent group.
During the Dover fiasco Meyer ran even though the More lawyers had
allowed him to have his own lawyer present during his Kitzmiller
testimony.-a He ran after Forrest was deposed with Dembski in
attendance, and the name change from creationism to intelligent
design in the book Of Pandas and People was disclosed.-a Meyer had
written the teachers notes for that book, and was one of the authors
of the teach ID scam propaganda claiming that Of Pandas and People
could be used to teach ID in the public schools.
Meyer is just a dishonest scam artist.-a His god hypothesis book was
only meant to continue to fool the rubes.-a How long has the bait and
switch been going down under the direction of Meyer?-a Why did he
never retract any of his teach ID scam propaganda after starting to
run the bait and switch?
You should know by now that the first thing any hypothesis should be
evaluated on would be if it can exist within what is already
understood. -a-aMeyer purposely refused to demonstrate that any of his
hypotheses were viable within the context of what is known, and only
put up the gap arguments as independent bits of denial in order to
fool the rubes. What the scam artist did should only work on rubes
that want to be lied to like yourself.-a Meyer never put up a coherent
god hypothesis.-a He only put up independent bits of gap denial in
order to lie to the rubes about reality.-a If he had made an honest
effort you would be running from the book just as you ran from the
Top Six that the ID perps put out in the order in which they must
have occurred in this universe.-a The universe is not Biblical.-a The
god that fills Meyer's gaps is not the god described in the Bible.
That is what Meyer should have made clear at the beginning of the
Book, but he just wrote the book to scam the rubes, and maintain ID
as bait.
Ron Okimoto
The ID movement has a complicated history, but I reject your
caricaturisation as a bait and switch scam. It's a movement with many
voices over a long period - some possibly misguided at times, or even
dishonest - you get that whenever humans are involved, especially with
such a complex, developing and charged issue.
Meyer has been the director of the ID scam unit at the Discovery
Institute from it's founding.-a Meyer's voice was claiming that ID could
be taught in the public schools and that Of Pandas and People could be
used to teach the junk.-a He ran the first bait and switch scam on the
Ohio rubes personally.-a He never retracted any of his teach ID scam
junk, and only allowed the Discovery Institute to create more teach ID
scam propaganda during his directorship of the ID bait and switch scam. Under Meyer's directorship the bait and switch has gone down 100% of the time any creationist rubes have believed the scam junk and claimed to
want to teach ID in the public schools.-a 100% of the time is your reality.-a They blundered in Dover.-a By that time they were paying
someone to make sure that the bait and switch went down, but it had
likely become routine (it had likely gone down around 30 times since
Ohio), and the ID perp did not follow up after running the bait and
switch and telling the rubes not to teach ID, but to teach the switch
scam instead.-a The Dover rubes did not like the switch scam and decided
to teach ID anyway, instead of dropping the issue as nearly all of the
other creationist rubes had done.-a The Dover rubes were so ignorant and incompetent that they did not know that the Discovery Institute was the
scam outfit running the teach ID scam.-a Meyer ran from testifying and
would not defend his own propaganda about being able to teach the junk
in the public schools.
This is the reality that you are lying to yourself about.
https://arn.org/docs/dewolf/guidebook.htm
This is the teach ID scam propaganda that Meyer authored in 1999 to sell
the teach ID scam.-a The conclusion contains the claim that Of Pandas and People can be used to teach ID in the public schools.-a Meyer sold the
teach ID scam, and ran the first bait and switch on the Ohio rubes in 2002.
However, current policy is: "DI opposes any effort to require the
teaching of intelligent design by school districts or state boards of
education."
Yes, they started making the "required" claim after their failure in
Dover, but they still claimed that the Dover decision was wrong, and
that even though ID had been determined to be no science worth teaching
in the public schools that ID could still be legally taught outside of
the middle court district of PA.-a "Required" is only their scam language
to keep running the bait and switch.
You should know because I put it up on TO when it happened.-a When both Louisiana and Texas tried to use their switch scam stupidity to teach ID
in their public schools in 2013 both states claimed that they were not requiring ID to be taught, and were just allowing teachers to teach the
scam junk if they wanted to.-a The ID perps ran the bait and switch on
the rubes anyway.-a It was such a dishonest bait and switch that the ID perps removed the "requiring" statement from their Education policy.
They just deleted that paragraph and left the rest intact for several
years until they rewrote the scam education policy and put back the "requiring" scam stupidity, and have kept running the bait and switch
100% of the time.-a The truth is that the ID perps do not want ID taught
in the public schools whether it is required or not.-a They are only
using ID as bait.-a They know that they do not have any ID science that
the rubes would want to teach.
You can still find the original education policy on page 15 of the
current teach ID scam propaganda where they continue to claim that it is legal to teach the junk outside of Dover.
https://www.discovery.org/f/1453/
QUOTE:
Although Discovery Institute does not advocate requiring
the teaching of intelligent design in public schools, it
does believe there is nothing unconstitutional about
voluntarily discussing the scientific theory of design in
the classroom. In addition, the Institute opposes efforts
to persecute individual teachers who may wish to discuss
the scientific debate over design in an objective and
pedagogically appropriate manner.
END QUOTE:
This is the paragraph that the ID perps deleted from the education
policy after they ran the bait and switch on Louisiana and Texas when
they were not requiring ID to be taught.
They eventually put back the "requiring" scam language and have
continued to run the bait and switch to this day.
They have updated the teach ID scam propaganda that they created after
Dover around every 3 years since first publishing it in 2007.-a I have
noted that they last updated the junk in 2021, but have since reformated
the site and seem to have reverted to the 2018 version.-a It is likely to
be updated again in 2027.-a Luskin is one of the authors of this
propaganda, and he is the current ID perp tasked with making sure that
the bait and switch keeps going down on states like West Virginia and
the Dakotas.-a The guy currently telling the rubes that the Discovery Institute does not support teaching ID in the public schools is one of
the ID perps that is responsible for writing the current teach ID scam propaganda.-a Meyer is just directing the bait and switch.-a Luskin has
been tasked to keep doing it.
"It believes that evolution should be fully and completely presented
to students, and they should learn more about evolutionary theory,
including its unresolved issues. In other words, evolution should be
taught as a scientific theory that is open to critical scrutiny, not
as a sacred dogma that canrCOt be questioned."
This is why nearly all the creationist rubes that have had the bait and switch run on them have dropped the issue instead of bending over for
the switch scam.-a Dishonest Biblical creationist rubes do not want to
teach their kids enough science for them to understand what they need to deny if they can't tell them the religious reason for why they are lying
to the students.-a The ID perps push the obfuscation and denial switch
scam as the only means to keep the kids as ignorant as possible so that
they can continue to support their Wedge goals.
You know that the ID science does not support Biblical creationism. Most
of the ID perps are old earth Biblical creationists, but probably all
the rubes that have had the bait and switch run on them have been YEC.
YEC would never want their kids taught the best evidence for the ID
scam.-a The YEC have already succeeded in removing the Big Bang (#1 of
the Top Six) along with biological evolution from the science standards
of Kansas in 1999, and multiple other states have considered the same thing.-a The YEC would never accept teaching the best evidence for ID in
an honest and straight forward manner.-a That is why the ID perps have
never told the rubes what they want to teach and how they think that it should be taught.-a They have only sold ID as bait so that they can force the obfuscation and denial switch scam onto the rubes.
"Discovery Institute believes that a curriculum that aims to provide
students with an understanding of the strengths and weaknesses of neo-
Darwinian and chemical evolutionary theories (rather than teaching an
alternative theory, such as intelligent design) represents a common
ground approach that all reasonable citizens can agree on."
This is the obfuscation and denial switch scam that the ID perps tell
the rubes has nothing to do with ID.-a The ID perps obviously lie a lot. Just go up and read the paragraph that they deleted from their education policy when both Louisiana and Texas did not require ID to be taught,
but the scam artists still ran the bait and switch on them.-a The ID
perps do not want ID taught whether it is required or not because they
do not want a repeat of Dover.
_____
I refer you to long-form conversations between sceptic Michael Shermer
and Stephen Meyer. It is refreshing to see Shermer's approach to
"steelman" his opponent, the mutually respectful posture of both, and
the scope and depth of their dialogue.
Shermer for one takes Meyer seriously, scientifically and
philosophically, and rightly so. I challenge anyone to listen to these
dialogues and then endorse Ron's characterisation of Meyer as "just a
dishonest scam artist" whose "god hypothesis book was only meant to
continue to fool the rubes."
Shermer was an idiot.-a For whatever reason he let Meyer get away with putting up the Top Six as independent bits of denial in the God Hypothesis.-a He let Meyer not defend a single God Hypothesis, but let
him lie about what his god hypothesis was.-a You know that Meyer's god hypothesis is some version of the Biblical god hypothesis.-a Meyer is
just a dishonest scam artists.-a He has been selling the rubes on "the
Big Tent" of the ID scam, when anyone that understands science should
know that there can be no big tent.-a There is only one nature for
science to study, and nature is not Biblical.-a Demonstrate that Meyer
did not sell the rubes on the teach ID scam for years before starting to
run the bait and switch.-a Demonstrate that he ever retracted any of the scam stupidity.-a Demonstrate that the Bait and switch has not continued
to go down 100% of the time that Meyer has been directing the scam unit.
-aI have put up the link from the wayback archive that demonstrates that the ID perps were still hawking their teach ID scam booklet as part of
their Teach the Controversy scam when Dover hit the fan.-a That booklet
is the one in which Meyer claims that Of Pandas and People can be used
to teach ID in the public schools and is the reason why the Dover rubes purchased Of Pandas and People to teach ID in their public schools.-a The More lawyers had Meyer's teach ID scam booklet, and wanted a test case.
https://www.skeptic.com/michael-shermer-show/stephen-meyer-return-of-
god-hypothesis-3-scientific-discoveries-reveal-the-mind-behind-the-
universe/?utm_source=chatgpt.com
Shermer is just an ignorant and incompetent rube.-a He obviously is
ignorant of what Meyer has been doing for decades, and let him continue
to do it.
Why do you want to attempt to defend a scam artist as dishonest as
Meyer?-a Meyer has been director of the ID scam unit from the beginning.
He was involved with the Of Pandas and People book (he wrote the
teachers notes for the book).-a He was the main cheerleader for the teach
ID scam and one of the authors of the teach ID scam propaganda first produced by the ID perps.-a He ran the first bait and switch personally
on the Ohio rubes, quit his legitimate teaching job and started
directing the bait and switch full time.-a When the name change in Of
Pandas and People from creationism to intelligent design was disclosed, during the Kitzmiller depositions, Meyer ran instead of testify even
though the More lawyers had already agreed that he could have his own
lawyer present in court.-a Meyer had been telling the rubes for years
that Of Pandas and People could be use to teach ID in the public
schools, but he was not willing to defend that claim in court.-a Really, Meyer wrote the public school teachers notes for the book.
The ID scam unit has been running the bait and switch on 100% of the creationist rubes that believe them about being able to teach the junk
in the public schools for the last 24 years under the directorship of Meyer.-a They continue to claim that it is legal to teach ID in the
public schools outside of Dover, but the bait and switch goes down 100%
of the time.
You are just a rube that wants to be lied to.-a Just think of all the
IDiots at ARN that rolled over and continued to support the use of the
ID scam as bait.-a After the bait and switch started to go down the only IDiots in existence were the ignorant, incompetent, and or dishonest. No honest, competent, and informed creationist could have possibly kept supporting a stupid bait and switch scam, especially after they got
Wells' report that the ID perps dog and pony show in front of the Ohio
rubes was just a scam because the ID perps had decided to start running
the bait and switch before they gave those presentations.-a The ID perps even failed to convince the Ohio rubes that ID was science, and one of
the rubes demonstrated that by proposing that the definition of science
be changed so that ID could be taught as science.-a That is how
incompetent and dishonest IDiotic creationist rubes have to be.-a You can look in the mirror and see the type of rube that can lie to themselves
about any possible ID science when it was apparent back in 2002 (years before Dover) and ID was already known not to be scientific.-a Ignorant
and incompetent YEC IDiots could understand that, so why not you? Nelson started admitting that the ID science had never existed, but that the ID perps were working on creating some.-a Nelson kept supporting using ID as bait.-a None of the ID perps resigned in disgust, and all of them kept supporting the use of ID as bait.-a You can't point to any concerted
efforts by any ID perp member of the Discovery Institute scam unit that tried to stop the bait and switch scam.-a All that you will be able to
find is a continued effort to put ID up as bait.
Ron Okimoto
On 2026/04/09 7:14 AM, John Harshman wrote:
On 4/9/26 1:43 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Wed, 8 Apr 2026 12:36:43 -0700, John Harshman
<john.harshman@gmail.com> wrote:
On 4/8/26 4:46 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
[...]
As Carl Sagan liked to put it "absence of evidence is not
evidence of
absence".
Did he?
Of course he did - unlike you, I do not make up things that people
said.
Do you notice that lately everything you say to me involves a
gratuitous
insult?
Well you were the one who put a question mark on my reference to Carl
Sagan as if there were some doubt about what i was attributing to him.
1995,The Demon-Haunted World: Science as a Candle in the Dark.
Exception: an absence of evidence is evidence of absence only if the evidence, if it existed, would have been detected.
And that deserves a gratuitous insult? There was in fact some doubt. I
don't recognize the statement, so was wondering where you got it. More
importantly, I pointed out that he was wrong in the general case. For
example, absence of evidence that pigs can fly is indeed evidence that
pigs can't fly. The question is "Would we expect to see evidence if a
claim were true?"
And you respond, sort of, as I predicted, though you carefully avoid
addressing any real issues.
On 4/9/2026 6:51 PM, MarkE wrote:
On 9/04/2026 2:10 am, RonO wrote:
On 4/7/2026 10:29 PM, MarkE wrote:
On 8/04/2026 12:16 pm, RonO wrote:
On 4/7/2026 7:08 PM, MarkE wrote:Meyer is not currently a practising scientist, but is a qualified
On 8/04/2026 9:10 am, RonO wrote:
On 4/7/2026 5:34 PM, MarkE wrote:
On 7/04/2026 5:50 pm, Kerr-Mudd, John wrote:
On Tue, 7 Apr 2026 12:43:48 +1000Start here (but you knew this): https://www.amazon.com.au/
MarkE <me22over7@gmail.com> wrote:
On 7/04/2026 8:25 am, MarkE wrote:[]
On 7/04/2026 1:41 am, ShyDavid wrote:
I would love to see theists being just as honest and
virtuous as
scientists.
Thank you, that confirms where you're coming from.
I am curious though: you appear to have contempt to the point >>>>>>>>>> of moral
repugnance for anyone favouring the God hypothesis (i.e.
creationists of
any stripe), and a self-assurance regarding materialism to the >>>>>>>>>> point of
arrogance - why then the interest in the topic of origins, and >>>>>>>>>> why
bother engaging? Are you not as confident as you make out, are >>>>>>>>>> you
seeking applause here, or do you just enjoy being smug and >>>>>>>>>> insulting?
Where's your evidence/justification for this 'god hypothesis'? >>>>>>>>
Return- God- Hypothesis-Compelling-TheExistence/dp/0062071505
Or read my posts on OoL. Etc etc etc.
But you don't really care, do you.
It may be justification, but is not scientific evidence for any >>>>>>> god hypothesis.-a It is just junk to fool the rubes with.-a Meyer >>>>>>> never tried to create a coherent god hypothesis.-a He just
presented the god- of-the- gaps denial arguments as independent >>>>>>> bits of denial, just as the scientific creationists had done
decades before Meyer joined the ID scam.-a You know why he did not >>>>>>> try to develop a coherent god hypothesis is because nature is not >>>>>>> Biblical and the god hypothesized would not be the Biblical god. >>>>>>> He didn't do it for the same reason that you ran from the Top Six >>>>>>> and can't deal with them in an honest and straightforward manner. >>>>>>> It is why the other IDiots quit the ID scam.
Ron Okimoto
Ron, you are so wrong, and out of line. Meyer is an intelligent
and considered scientist, and his writing is recognised as such
beyond the ID community. Present your rebuttals to his arguments, >>>>>> but spare us your unsupported slander.
First off, Meyer does not consider himself to be a scientist.-a At
one time he worked as a geologist for an oil company, but he claims >>>>> to be an historian and philosopher (part of the scam artist schtick). >>>>
scientist:
PhD rCo History and Philosophy of Science, University of Cambridge
Focus: philosophy of biology, scientific explanation
MasterrCOs degree rCo Geophysics, University of Cambridge
BachelorrCOs degree rCo Physics and Earth Science, Whitworth University >>>> A former geophysicist and college professor.
You have to accept what the scam artist claims.-a He claims to be an
historian and philosopher scam artist, not a scientist scam artist.
Philosophers are allowed to fool the rubes with obfuscation and
denial, but scam artist scientists are not really scientists, at best
they would be considered to be pseudo scientists.
Meyers is a dishonest scam artist.-a He was the head cheer leader
for the teach ID scam when other ID perps understood that there was >>>>> no ID science worth teaching.-a Understanding that fact he ran the
first bait and switch scam on the Ohio rubes.-a He had made up his
mind that he was going to run the bait and switch before he gave
his presentation to the Ohio rubes.-a He lied to them about being
able to teach the junk in the public schools and that ID was
science.-a The real scientists demonstrated to the board that ID was >>>>> not science and should not be taught as such in the public
schools.-a Meyer offered the switch scam to the rubes in the
discussion after Wells made the claim that there was enough
scientific support for the ID scam that it could be forced into the >>>>> public schools (Wells also knew that the bait and switch was going
down and that he was just lying to the rubes).-a Meyer and Wells
were so unconvincing that the Ohio rubes decided not to teach the
ID scam junk, but the rubes were still dishonest enough to bend
over for the switch scam that Meyer told them had nothing to do
with ID.-a The board understood that Meyer had tried to lie to them >>>>> about ID being science, but some of them were so dishonest and
corrupt that one of them put up the proposal to the board that the
definition of science, that was a part of the science standards, be >>>>> rewritten so that ID could be taught as science in the Ohio public
schools.-a The board was actually convinced that Meyer had tried to >>>>> lie to them about ID being science when it could not be considered
to be science by their own definition of science.
At the time Meyer had a job teaching at a religious college, but he >>>>> dropped out of the public view after running the bait and switch.
He quit that job (it had to be hard to walk down the academic halls >>>>> with scam artists written on your forehead).-a All his colleagues
must have known what he had been claiming about the teach ID scam.
Meyer was an author of the Teach ID scam 1999 booklet that the
Discovery Institute used to give out with their ID scam video and
also the 2000 Utah law review article claiming that it was legal to >>>>> teach ID in the public schools.-a Meyer started working as director >>>>> of the bait and switch scam full time, and has made sure that ID
has continued to be offered up as bait for decades.-a The teach ID
scam claims were never retracted, and more teach ID scam propaganda >>>>> was eventually added during Meyer's leadership of the bait and
switch scam.-a Immediately after Ohio West had to step forward and
make sure that the bait and switch kept going down on any rubes
that popped up and still wanted to teach the junk (Meyer was MIA). >>>>> Do you recall how long Meyer retreated into the background after
running the bait and switch on the Ohio rubes?
You were posting at ARN when the bait and switch went down.-a By
Ohio some of the IDiots at ARN already understood that there wasn't >>>>> any ID science to teach.-a The majority of IDiotic creationist rubes >>>>> supported teaching ID just as the Discovery Institute was claiming
could be done. You know that after the bait and switch went down
the tone changed at ARN.-a The majority were no longer openly
supporting teaching the junk. Only a few still claimed that ID
would be taught in Ohio.-a Most of the IDiots started pretending
that teaching the junk wasn't the goal of the ID scam even though
that is about all ID had ever been.-a ID first came to TO in the
late 1990's as something that could be taught in the public schools >>>>> (probably, just before you started posting).
A year (2003) after Ohio when the initial draft of the Ohio model
lesson plan came out nearly everyone at ARN stopped supporting
teaching the junk.-a Eventually the creationist web links and all
mention of intelligent design and ID perps was removed from the
lesson plan. Wells' book had obviously been used to create the
lesson plan (the Wellsian lie about no moths on tree trunks had
made it into the lesson plan) but the reference to his book was
removed from the lesson plan when the lie was rewritten.-a Mike gene >>>>> came out and claimed that he had given up on teaching the junk back >>>>> in 1999, but Gene and nearly all the IDiots kept supporting ID as
bait.-a Some may have quit posting, but everyone that was left was
either ignorant, incompetent and or dishonest.-a You were apparently >>>>> among the dishonest, but you haven't yet demonstrated that you are
clearly out of the incompetent group.
During the Dover fiasco Meyer ran even though the More lawyers had
allowed him to have his own lawyer present during his Kitzmiller
testimony.-a He ran after Forrest was deposed with Dembski in
attendance, and the name change from creationism to intelligent
design in the book Of Pandas and People was disclosed.-a Meyer had
written the teachers notes for that book, and was one of the
authors of the teach ID scam propaganda claiming that Of Pandas and >>>>> People could be used to teach ID in the public schools.
Meyer is just a dishonest scam artist.-a His god hypothesis book was >>>>> only meant to continue to fool the rubes.-a How long has the bait
and switch been going down under the direction of Meyer?-a Why did
he never retract any of his teach ID scam propaganda after starting >>>>> to run the bait and switch?
You should know by now that the first thing any hypothesis should
be evaluated on would be if it can exist within what is already
understood. -a-aMeyer purposely refused to demonstrate that any of
his hypotheses were viable within the context of what is known, and >>>>> only put up the gap arguments as independent bits of denial in
order to fool the rubes. What the scam artist did should only work
on rubes that want to be lied to like yourself.-a Meyer never put up >>>>> a coherent god hypothesis.-a He only put up independent bits of gap >>>>> denial in order to lie to the rubes about reality.-a If he had made >>>>> an honest effort you would be running from the book just as you ran >>>>> from the Top Six that the ID perps put out in the order in which
they must have occurred in this universe.-a The universe is not
Biblical.-a The god that fills Meyer's gaps is not the god described >>>>> in the Bible. That is what Meyer should have made clear at the
beginning of the Book, but he just wrote the book to scam the
rubes, and maintain ID as bait.
Ron Okimoto
The ID movement has a complicated history, but I reject your
caricaturisation as a bait and switch scam. It's a movement with
many voices over a long period - some possibly misguided at times,
or even dishonest - you get that whenever humans are involved,
especially with such a complex, developing and charged issue.
Meyer has been the director of the ID scam unit at the Discovery
Institute from it's founding.-a Meyer's voice was claiming that ID
could be taught in the public schools and that Of Pandas and People
could be used to teach the junk.-a He ran the first bait and switch
scam on the Ohio rubes personally.-a He never retracted any of his
teach ID scam junk, and only allowed the Discovery Institute to
create more teach ID scam propaganda during his directorship of the
ID bait and switch scam. Under Meyer's directorship the bait and
switch has gone down 100% of the time any creationist rubes have
believed the scam junk and claimed to want to teach ID in the public
schools.-a 100% of the time is your reality.-a They blundered in
Dover.-a By that time they were paying someone to make sure that the
bait and switch went down, but it had likely become routine (it had
likely gone down around 30 times since Ohio), and the ID perp did not
follow up after running the bait and switch and telling the rubes not
to teach ID, but to teach the switch scam instead.-a The Dover rubes
did not like the switch scam and decided to teach ID anyway, instead
of dropping the issue as nearly all of the other creationist rubes
had done.-a The Dover rubes were so ignorant and incompetent that they
did not know that the Discovery Institute was the scam outfit running
the teach ID scam.-a Meyer ran from testifying and would not defend
his own propaganda about being able to teach the junk in the public
schools.
This is the reality that you are lying to yourself about.
https://arn.org/docs/dewolf/guidebook.htm
This is the teach ID scam propaganda that Meyer authored in 1999 to
sell the teach ID scam.-a The conclusion contains the claim that Of
Pandas and People can be used to teach ID in the public schools.
Meyer sold the teach ID scam, and ran the first bait and switch on
the Ohio rubes in 2002.
However, current policy is: "DI opposes any effort to require the
teaching of intelligent design by school districts or state boards
of education."
Yes, they started making the "required" claim after their failure in
Dover, but they still claimed that the Dover decision was wrong, and
that even though ID had been determined to be no science worth
teaching in the public schools that ID could still be legally taught
outside of the middle court district of PA.-a "Required" is only their
scam language to keep running the bait and switch.
You should know because I put it up on TO when it happened.-a When
both Louisiana and Texas tried to use their switch scam stupidity to
teach ID in their public schools in 2013 both states claimed that
they were not requiring ID to be taught, and were just allowing
teachers to teach the scam junk if they wanted to.-a The ID perps ran
the bait and switch on the rubes anyway.-a It was such a dishonest
bait and switch that the ID perps removed the "requiring" statement
from their Education policy. They just deleted that paragraph and
left the rest intact for several years until they rewrote the scam
education policy and put back the "requiring" scam stupidity, and
have kept running the bait and switch 100% of the time.-a The truth is
that the ID perps do not want ID taught in the public schools whether
it is required or not.-a They are only using ID as bait.-a They know
that they do not have any ID science that the rubes would want to teach. >>>
You can still find the original education policy on page 15 of the
current teach ID scam propaganda where they continue to claim that it
is legal to teach the junk outside of Dover.
https://www.discovery.org/f/1453/
QUOTE:
Although Discovery Institute does not advocate requiring
the teaching of intelligent design in public schools, it
does believe there is nothing unconstitutional about
voluntarily discussing the scientific theory of design in
the classroom. In addition, the Institute opposes efforts
to persecute individual teachers who may wish to discuss
the scientific debate over design in an objective and
pedagogically appropriate manner.
END QUOTE:
This is the paragraph that the ID perps deleted from the education
policy after they ran the bait and switch on Louisiana and Texas when
they were not requiring ID to be taught.
They eventually put back the "requiring" scam language and have
continued to run the bait and switch to this day.
They have updated the teach ID scam propaganda that they created
after Dover around every 3 years since first publishing it in 2007.
I have noted that they last updated the junk in 2021, but have since
reformated the site and seem to have reverted to the 2018 version.
It is likely to be updated again in 2027.-a Luskin is one of the
authors of this propaganda, and he is the current ID perp tasked with
making sure that the bait and switch keeps going down on states like
West Virginia and the Dakotas.-a The guy currently telling the rubes
that the Discovery Institute does not support teaching ID in the
public schools is one of the ID perps that is responsible for writing
the current teach ID scam propaganda.-a Meyer is just directing the
bait and switch.-a Luskin has been tasked to keep doing it.
"It believes that evolution should be fully and completely presented
to students, and they should learn more about evolutionary theory,
including its unresolved issues. In other words, evolution should be
taught as a scientific theory that is open to critical scrutiny, not
as a sacred dogma that canrCOt be questioned."
This is why nearly all the creationist rubes that have had the bait
and switch run on them have dropped the issue instead of bending over
for the switch scam.-a Dishonest Biblical creationist rubes do not
want to teach their kids enough science for them to understand what
they need to deny if they can't tell them the religious reason for
why they are lying to the students.-a The ID perps push the
obfuscation and denial switch scam as the only means to keep the kids
as ignorant as possible so that they can continue to support their
Wedge goals.
You know that the ID science does not support Biblical creationism.
Most of the ID perps are old earth Biblical creationists, but
probably all the rubes that have had the bait and switch run on them
have been YEC. YEC would never want their kids taught the best
evidence for the ID scam.-a The YEC have already succeeded in removing
the Big Bang (#1 of the Top Six) along with biological evolution from
the science standards of Kansas in 1999, and multiple other states
have considered the same thing.-a The YEC would never accept teaching
the best evidence for ID in an honest and straight forward manner.
That is why the ID perps have never told the rubes what they want to
teach and how they think that it should be taught.-a They have only
sold ID as bait so that they can force the obfuscation and denial
switch scam onto the rubes.
"Discovery Institute believes that a curriculum that aims to provide
students with an understanding of the strengths and weaknesses of
neo- Darwinian and chemical evolutionary theories (rather than
teaching an alternative theory, such as intelligent design)
represents a common ground approach that all reasonable citizens can
agree on."
This is the obfuscation and denial switch scam that the ID perps tell
the rubes has nothing to do with ID.-a The ID perps obviously lie a
lot. Just go up and read the paragraph that they deleted from their
education policy when both Louisiana and Texas did not require ID to
be taught, but the scam artists still ran the bait and switch on
them.-a The ID perps do not want ID taught whether it is required or
not because they do not want a repeat of Dover.
_____
I refer you to long-form conversations between sceptic Michael
Shermer and Stephen Meyer. It is refreshing to see Shermer's
approach to "steelman" his opponent, the mutually respectful posture
of both, and the scope and depth of their dialogue.
Shermer for one takes Meyer seriously, scientifically and
philosophically, and rightly so. I challenge anyone to listen to
these dialogues and then endorse Ron's characterisation of Meyer as
"just a dishonest scam artist" whose "god hypothesis book was only
meant to continue to fool the rubes."
Shermer was an idiot.-a For whatever reason he let Meyer get away with
putting up the Top Six as independent bits of denial in the God
Hypothesis.-a He let Meyer not defend a single God Hypothesis, but let
him lie about what his god hypothesis was.-a You know that Meyer's god
hypothesis is some version of the Biblical god hypothesis.-a Meyer is
just a dishonest scam artists.-a He has been selling the rubes on "the
Big Tent" of the ID scam, when anyone that understands science should
know that there can be no big tent.-a There is only one nature for
science to study, and nature is not Biblical.-a Demonstrate that Meyer
did not sell the rubes on the teach ID scam for years before starting
to run the bait and switch.-a Demonstrate that he ever retracted any
of the scam stupidity.-a Demonstrate that the Bait and switch has not
continued to go down 100% of the time that Meyer has been directing
the scam unit. -a-aI have put up the link from the wayback archive that >>> demonstrates that the ID perps were still hawking their teach ID scam
booklet as part of their Teach the Controversy scam when Dover hit
the fan.-a That booklet is the one in which Meyer claims that Of
Pandas and People can be used to teach ID in the public schools and
is the reason why the Dover rubes purchased Of Pandas and People to
teach ID in their public schools.-a The More lawyers had Meyer's teach
ID scam booklet, and wanted a test case.
https://www.skeptic.com/michael-shermer-show/stephen-meyer-return-
of- god-hypothesis-3-scientific-discoveries-reveal-the-mind-behind-
the- universe/?utm_source=chatgpt.com
Shermer is just an ignorant and incompetent rube.-a He obviously is
ignorant of what Meyer has been doing for decades, and let him
continue to do it.
Why do you want to attempt to defend a scam artist as dishonest as
Meyer?-a Meyer has been director of the ID scam unit from the
beginning. He was involved with the Of Pandas and People book (he
wrote the teachers notes for the book).-a He was the main cheerleader
for the teach ID scam and one of the authors of the teach ID scam
propaganda first produced by the ID perps.-a He ran the first bait and
switch personally on the Ohio rubes, quit his legitimate teaching job
and started directing the bait and switch full time.-a When the name
change in Of Pandas and People from creationism to intelligent design
was disclosed, during the Kitzmiller depositions, Meyer ran instead
of testify even though the More lawyers had already agreed that he
could have his own lawyer present in court.-a Meyer had been telling
the rubes for years that Of Pandas and People could be use to teach
ID in the public schools, but he was not willing to defend that claim
in court.-a Really, Meyer wrote the public school teachers notes for
the book.
The ID scam unit has been running the bait and switch on 100% of the
creationist rubes that believe them about being able to teach the
junk in the public schools for the last 24 years under the
directorship of Meyer.-a They continue to claim that it is legal to
teach ID in the public schools outside of Dover, but the bait and
switch goes down 100% of the time.
You are just a rube that wants to be lied to.-a Just think of all the
IDiots at ARN that rolled over and continued to support the use of
the ID scam as bait.-a After the bait and switch started to go down
the only IDiots in existence were the ignorant, incompetent, and or
dishonest. No honest, competent, and informed creationist could have
possibly kept supporting a stupid bait and switch scam, especially
after they got Wells' report that the ID perps dog and pony show in
front of the Ohio rubes was just a scam because the ID perps had
decided to start running the bait and switch before they gave those
presentations.-a The ID perps even failed to convince the Ohio rubes
that ID was science, and one of the rubes demonstrated that by
proposing that the definition of science be changed so that ID could
be taught as science.-a That is how incompetent and dishonest IDiotic
creationist rubes have to be.-a You can look in the mirror and see the
type of rube that can lie to themselves about any possible ID science
when it was apparent back in 2002 (years before Dover) and ID was
already known not to be scientific.-a Ignorant and incompetent YEC
IDiots could understand that, so why not you? Nelson started
admitting that the ID science had never existed, but that the ID
perps were working on creating some.-a Nelson kept supporting using ID
as bait. None of the ID perps resigned in disgust, and all of them
kept supporting the use of ID as bait.-a You can't point to any
concerted efforts by any ID perp member of the Discovery Institute
scam unit that tried to stop the bait and switch scam.-a All that you
will be able to find is a continued effort to put ID up as bait.
Ron Okimoto
Ron, I'm interested to understand where your energy against ID comes
from.
You need to deal with how wrong you have been about Meyer.
You should be more interested in why you have such a strong desire to be lied to by the scam artists.-a They prey on your religious beliefs in
order to further their Wedge political goals.-a They might have some sort
of lame excuse for making a living doing it to you as being for your own good.
Didn't you ever read the original mission statement of the ID perps?
Didn't you ever read the Wedge document?-a The ID perps told everyone
what they were using the ID scam to accomplish.-a The ID perps wanted to destroy your fictional materialistic reality.-a They believed that they could recreate a theocracy that likely had never existed.-a You seem to
have the same belief in their fictional materialistic reality.-a They
seem to have convinced Philip Johnson that they could do this by
teaching their warmed over creationist denial as intelligent design.
The Top Six best evidences, gap denial, for the ID scam were all used by
the Scientific creationists well over a decade before the ID scam unit
at the Discovery Institute was born.
Do you agree with their mission?-a Is that the reason that you allow yourself to be lied to by the ID perps?-a The ID perps have run the bait
and switch for the last 24 years because they came to the conclusion
that using ID as bait was the best means to support their Wedge mission.
-aThey abandoned teaching the junk because they had nothing that their creationist supporters would have wanted to teach.-a The TO IDiots quit
the ID scam when they had their faces rubbed in the fact that they had
never wanted the ID perps to produce any valid ID science when the ID
perps were stupid enough to present their Top Six gap denial arguments
in the order in which they must have occurred in this universe.-a That
order is not Biblical.-a The Reason to Believe IDiots tried to fit the ID scam into their Biblical creation model and failed, and they no longer support the ID scam.-a All ID is good for is as bait to force the obfuscation and denial switch scam onto the rubes.
ID is a dishonest scam and they are scamming their fellow Christians.
They just want to get the rubes to help push their mission forward by bending over for the switch scam, but the dishonest creationists that
fall for the ID scam do not want to teach their kids enough science for
them to understand what they need to deny.-a The ID perps are not running the bait and switch on the science side.-a They are running the scam on their creationist rube supporters.
As a Christian what the ID perps are doing is reprehensible to me.-a The
ID perps are still asking for donations to keep doing it.-a Meyer has
made his living for the past 24 years directing the stupid bait and
switch scam.-a Under his full time directorship the ID perps have
continued to claim that it is legal to teach ID in the public schools,
but they have run the bait and switch on any rube that has believed them 100% of the time.-a They even tried to run the bait and switch on the
Dover rubes, but the Dover rubes were too stupid and ignorant to know
that the Discovery Institute was the outfit selling the teach ID scam,
so they did not take the switch scam and tried to teach ID anyway.
It's one thing to disagree strongly, e.g. I disagree strongly with
climate change deniers, believing that they are often ignoring or
misusing science for idealogical reasons. Moreover, unlike say flat-
earthers, with concern that their influence and proposed course of
action (mostly inaction) poses a risk to the planet.
The anti-science scam is damaging the people that fall for the scam.
Nearly all the rubes that have fallen for the bait have dropped the
issue instead of bend over for the switch scam.-a They exposed themselves
to be dishonest and/or incompetent and got nothing for their stupid and dishonest efforts.-a Rubes like you never want to understand what reality actually is, but that isn't good for society.-a We live in a society dependent on the science that the ID perps want to subvert.-a The ID
perps were initially claiming that they could do the same science that everyone else was doing and support their theory of intelligent design,
but they were obviously lying.-a They were lying to the rubes for the
same reason that the scientific creationists called their YEC beliefs scientific.-a They understood that science works, and creationism never
had worked to build a better understanding of nature to the benefit of mankind.-a The ID perps never wanted to do any real science.-a What they wanted was to destroy sciences ability to function, and bring it down to their level.-a Like you they have some weird notion that materialism is
evil simply because it works and Biblical mythology has never worked.
You don't have any positive examples where the Biblical creation was
found to be the creation that we live in because there has been 100%
failure for the god-did-it claims throughout history.-a Why have you
never dealt with the fact that god-did-it claims have never been
verified, but have only failed once we have been able to figure out what actually happened.-a Doesn't it matter to you that you do not have a
single positive example to support your case?-a The ID perps do not like
the fact that science has all the successes, and the Bible has none. Biological evolution is a fact of nature and you still want to deny that
it could have happened.-a The success of science is something that you consider to be undermining your religious beliefs.-a The ID perps believe that is the case too.-a They blame science for moral decay and people becoming less religious.-a What do you think their lies are doing?-a They think that they need to recreate a theocracy to whip the people into
line.-a You should understand what that would result in.-a Nothing good.
They should blame themselves for the moral decay.-a Look at the kind of dishonest creationists that they require to support their effort.
Instead of getting people to reconcile their Biblical beliefs with
reality, they would rather lie to them about reality and force their
lies onto others.-a The only good thing about the ID scam is that the demonstration of how bogus and dishonest the effort has been seems to
have gotten some YEC denominations to try to get their congregations to accept that the earth is much older than the Bible seems to claim.-a This
is actually a step in the right direction, but the ID perps want to lie
to the rubes about a Big Tent that does not exist.-a Most of their
support still comes from YEC even though most of the ID perps are OEC
and understand that the Big Tent of ID science does not exist.
Science is just the study of nature, and there is only one nature for
the ID perps and their fellow creationists to deal with.-a Nature is
known not to be Biblical.-a Science is never going to support Biblical creationist beliefs.-a Just try to get the Reason to Believe ex IDiots to tell you why they no longer support the ID scam.-a The Top Six in the
order in which they must have occurred in this universe is not
consistent with their Biblical creation model even if you claim that
days are indeterminate periods of time.
Is your objection to the ID movement itself, or do reject
consideration of supernatural causes generally? And do you regard ID
as a threat to science and the wellbeing of people?
Once it became clear that ID was nothing more than a stupid bait and
switch scam I objected to the scam.-a I did not start calling them ID
perps and ID a scam until they had run the bait and switch 100% of the
time for over 2 years.-a At that time there was absolutely no doubt about what they were doing because they were still yammering about the
Santorum "amendment" being support for their teach ID scam, and they had
not retracted their Utah review article, nor their ID propaganda
booklet.-a You and the other IDiots that did not quit just kept
supporting the ID perp's efforts to use ID as bait.-a The only IDiots in existence are ignorant, incompetent, and or dishonest.-a Try to
demonstrate that honest competent and informed IDiots can exist.-a You
know that you can't do this.-a I object to the ID scam because it preys
on the ignorant and incompetent, and just feeds the dishonesty of the
rest that want to keep supporting the effort.
ID failed as science due to the Dover fiasco where their bait and switch scam went terribly wrong for the ID perps and they were forced to try to defend the scam.-a All ID has ever been used for is as bait 100% of the time.-a No rubes have ever gotten the promised ID science.-a The use of ID as bait has been the only way forward for the ID perps to continue their Wedge mission.-a What else have the ID perps done with their ID science claims?-a No ID science has ever been produced.-a Only the bait claims
have continued.-a The ISCID pretty much died when the bait and switch started to go down.-a They likely lost all their non ID scam creationist supporters.-a Who would want to support a bait and switch scam if you
were not being paid to do it, or you really believed in the Wedge
mission?-a Once ID had been revealed to be bait, no serious and honest academics would have kept supporting the effort.-a Tour doesn't support
the ID scam.-a He even claims that he doesn't know how to do any ID science.-a Tour just can't give up on the gap denial because he needs to wallow in denial just like you.
My evaluation of you, is that you are dishonest enough to keep
supporting ID as bait because you want to be lied to.-a Likely, because
you do not want reality to be what it is.-a Just like you don't want biological evolution to be a fact of nature, you do not want the
existing origin of life gap filled by any explanantion.-a Even if some
god could be found to fill that gap it would not be the god described in
the Bible.-a Wallowing in denial is your only means that you can think of
to keep from dealing with that reality.-a The YEC rubes are IDiots
because they can't deal with things like the Big Bang and the origin of
life on earth.-a They are all too ignorant, incompetent and or dishonest
to understand that they do not want to teach the best evidence for the
ID scam.-a You know that you do not want the Top Six taught honestly
because you ran from it, and you can't even deal honestly with your
origin of life gap (#3 of the Top Six).-a Just imagine how quickly all
the YEC support would drain away from the ID scam if they put out a
lesson plan that taught the Top Six in an honest and straightforward
manner.
Reality isn't going to change.-a It isn't your materialistic boogie man
that is the issue.-a Reality does not support your Biblical beliefs.-a You are the one that needs to deal with that fact.-a Continuing to support a bogus bait and switch scam is never going to result in what you need to do.
Ron Okimoto
On 9/04/2026 2:10 am, RonO wrote:[]
Ron, I'm interested to understand where your energy against ID comes from.
It's one thing to disagree strongly, e.g. I disagree strongly with
climate change deniers, believing that they are often ignoring or
misusing science for idealogical reasons. Moreover, unlike say flat-earthers, with concern that their influence and proposed course of action (mostly inaction) poses a risk to the planet.
Is your objection to the ID movement itself, or do reject consideration
of supernatural causes generally? And do you regard ID as a threat to science and the wellbeing of people?
On Sat, 4 Apr 2026 22:40:30 +0100, Ernest Major
<{$to$}@meden.demon.co.uk> wrote:
On 04/04/2026 20:47, Martin Harran wrote:
On Thu, 2 Apr 2026 13:04:32 +1100, MarkE<me22over7@gmail.com> wrote:
On 2/04/2026 12:46 pm, RonO wrote:
[rCa]
the gaps were not Biblical and the god that
fills those gaps is not the god described in the Bible.
[rCa]
Ron, shoosh.
Ron posts some absolute rubbish about religion and religious
believers, but he is right on that specific point. I have repeatedly asked you and other ID'ers to explain how you get from a God fiddling about with atoms and molecules (AKA 'fine tuning') to the God that you and I and most of them believe in, a God with whom we can have a
personal relationship. None of you have been able to offer any suggestion. Until you deal with that, you are going to have problems
with believers like myself, never mind with scientists.
Mark, by implication, makes a good case for atheism.
I am not a fan of David Frost - he was the Tory minister who led the
Brexit negotiations that eventually took the UK out of the EU. He had
a religious oriented article in the Telegraph this week about his
turning to Catholicism which he thinks may be part of a more general
swing back towards religion, particularly among young people. In the
article, he writes:
"rCa After all, the important thing about Christianity is not whether it makes you feel better or whether it is good for society, but whether
it is true. If it is, we should all want to know that, and if it
isn't, we are right to reject it. The one thing we should not do is
not properly consider it.
[rCa]
In an essay entitled Man or Rabbit?, CS Lewis gently mocked those who
didn't reject Christianity but tried to ignore it, not from disbelief,
but from a suspicion that it might be true after all and that
acknowledging it would be inconvenient - rather like someone who
doesn't open their bank statements for fear of what might be in them."
That ties in with a trend I have noticed here and in other places
where people who most vehemently dismiss religious belief are often
people who have never given it any serious consideration and have very
little understanding of what it actually is.
Original article:
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2026/04/02/britain-quietly-awakening-supernat
ural-christianity/
Unpaywalled access:
https://archive.is/2xnoi
On 9/04/2026 2:10 am, RonO wrote:
Ron, I'm interested to understand where your energy against ID comes from.
On 4/9/2026 6:51 PM, MarkE wrote:
Ron, I'm interested to understand where your energy against ID comes from.
You need to deal with how wrong you have been about Meyer.
You should be more interested in why you have such a strong desire to be lied to by the scam artists.-a They prey on your religious beliefs in order to further their Wedge political goals.-a They might have some sort of lame excuse for making a living doing it to you as being for your own good.
Didn't you ever read the original mission statement of the ID perps? Didn't you ever read the Wedge document?-a The ID perps told everyone what they were using the ID scam to accomplish.-a The ID perps wanted to destroy your fictional materialistic reality.-a They believed that they could recreate a theocracy that likely had never existed.-a You seem to have the same belief in their fictional materialistic reality.-a They seem to have convinced Philip Johnson that they could do this by teaching their warmed over creationist denial as intelligent design.
The Top Six best evidences, gap denial, for the ID scam were all used by the Scientific creationists well over a decade before the ID scam unit at the Discovery Institute was born.
Do you agree with their mission?-a Is that the reason that you allow yourself to be lied to by the ID perps?-a The ID perps have run the bait and switch for the last 24 years because they came to the conclusion that using ID as bait was the best means to support their Wedge mission. -aThey abandoned teaching the junk because they had nothing that their creationist supporters would have wanted to teach.-a The TO IDiots quit the ID scam when they had their faces rubbed in the fact that they had never wanted the ID perps to produce any valid ID science when the ID perps were stupid enough to present their Top Six gap denial arguments in the order in which they must have occurred in this universe.-a That order is not Biblical.-a The Reason to Believe IDiots tried to fit the ID scam into their Biblical creation model and failed, and they no longer support the ID scam.-a All ID is good for is as bait to force the obfuscation and denial switch scam onto the rubes.
ID is a dishonest scam and they are scamming their fellow Christians. They just want to get the rubes to help push their mission forward by bending over for the switch scam, but the dishonest creationists that fall for the ID scam do not want to teach their kids enough science for them to understand what they need to deny.-a The ID perps are not running the bait and switch on the science side.-a They are running the scam on their creationist rube supporters.
As a Christian what the ID perps are doing is reprehensible to me.-a The ID perps are still asking for donations to keep doing it.-a Meyer has made his living for the past 24 years directing the stupid bait and switch scam.-a Under his full time directorship the ID perps have continued to claim that it is legal to teach ID in the public schools, but they have run the bait and switch on any rube that has believed them 100% of the time.-a They even tried to run the bait and switch on the Dover rubes, but the Dover rubes were too stupid and ignorant to know that the Discovery Institute was the outfit selling the teach ID scam, so they did not take the switch scam and tried to teach ID anyway.
It's one thing to disagree strongly, e.g. I disagree strongly with climate change deniers, believing that they are often ignoring or misusing science for idealogical reasons. Moreover, unlike say flat- earthers, with concern that their influence and proposed course of action (mostly inaction) poses a risk to the planet.
The anti-science scam is damaging the people that fall for the scam. Nearly all the rubes that have fallen for the bait have dropped the issue instead of bend over for the switch scam.-a They exposed themselves to be dishonest and/or incompetent and got nothing for their stupid and dishonest efforts.-a Rubes like you never want to understand what reality actually is, but that isn't good for society.-a We live in a society dependent on the science that the ID perps want to subvert.-a The ID perps were initially claiming that they could do the same science that everyone else was doing and support their theory of intelligent design, but they were obviously lying.-a They were lying to the rubes for the same reason that the scientific creationists called their YEC beliefs scientific.-a They understood that science works, and creationism never had worked to build a better understanding of nature to the benefit of mankind.-a The ID perps never wanted to do any real science.-a What they
wanted was to destroy sciences ability to function, and bring it down to their level.-a Like you they have some weird notion that materialism is evil simply because it works and Biblical mythology has never worked. You don't have any positive examples where the Biblical creation was found to be the creation that we live in because there has been 100% failure for the god-did-it claims throughout history.-a Why have you never dealt with the fact that god-did-it claims have never been verified, but have only failed once we have been able to figure out what actually happened.-a Doesn't it matter to you that you do not have a single positive example to support your case?-a The ID perps do not like the fact that science has all the successes, and the Bible has none. Biological evolution is a fact of nature and you still want to deny that it could have happened.-a The success of science is something that you consider to be undermining your religious beliefs.-a The ID perps believe that is
the case too.-a They blame science for moral decay and people becoming less religious.-a What do you think their lies are doing?-a They think that they need to recreate a theocracy to whip the people into line.-a You should understand what that would result in.-a Nothing good.
They should blame themselves for the moral decay.-a Look at the kind of dishonest creationists that they require to support their effort. Instead of getting people to reconcile their Biblical beliefs with reality, they would rather lie to them about reality and force their lies onto others.-a The only good thing about the ID scam is that the demonstration of how bogus and dishonest the effort has been seems to have gotten some YEC denominations to try to get their congregations to accept that the earth is much older than the Bible seems to claim.-a This is actually a step in the right direction, but the ID perps want to lie to the rubes about a Big Tent that does not exist.-a Most of their support still comes from YEC even though most of the ID perps are OEC and understand that the Big Tent of ID science does not exist.
Science is just the study of nature, and there is only one nature for the ID perps and their fellow creationists to deal with.-a Nature is known not to be Biblical.-a Science is never going to support Biblical creationist beliefs.-a Just try to get the Reason to Believe ex IDiots to tell you why they no longer support the ID scam.-a The Top Six in the order in which they must have occurred in this universe is not consistent with their Biblical creation model even if you claim that days are indeterminate periods of time.
Is your objection to the ID movement itself, or do reject consideration of supernatural causes generally? And do you regard ID as a threat to science and the wellbeing of people?
Once it became clear that ID was nothing more than a stupid bait and switch scam I objected to the scam.-a I did not start calling them ID perps and ID a scam until they had run the bait and switch 100% of the time for over 2 years.-a At that time there was absolutely no doubt about what they were doing because they were still yammering about the Santorum "amendment" being support for their teach ID scam, and they had not retracted their Utah review article, nor their ID propaganda booklet.-a You and the other IDiots that did not quit just kept supporting the ID perp's efforts to use ID as bait.-a The only IDiots in existence are ignorant, incompetent, and or dishonest.-a Try to demonstrate that honest competent and informed IDiots can exist.-a You know that you can't do this.-a I object to the ID scam because it preys on the ignorant and incompetent, and just feeds the dishonesty of the rest that want to keep supporting the effort.
ID failed as science due to the Dover fiasco where their bait and switch scam went terribly wrong for the ID perps and they were forced to try to defend the scam.-a All ID has ever been used for is as bait 100% of the time.-a No rubes have ever gotten the promised ID science.-a The use of ID as bait has been the only way forward for the ID perps to continue their Wedge mission.-a What else have the ID perps done with their ID science claims?-a No ID science has ever been produced.-a Only the bait claims have continued.-a The ISCID pretty much died when the bait and switch started to go down.-a They likely lost all their non ID scam creationist supporters.-a Who would want to support a bait and switch scam if you were not being paid to do it, or you really believed in the Wedge mission?-a Once ID had been revealed to be bait, no serious and honest academics would have kept supporting the effort.-a Tour doesn't support the ID scam.-a He even claims that he doesn't know how to do any ID
science.-a Tour just can't give up on the gap denial because he needs to wallow in denial just like you.
My evaluation of you, is that you are dishonest enough to keep supporting ID as bait because you want to be lied to.-a Likely, because you do not want reality to be what it is.-a Just like you don't want biological evolution to be a fact of nature, you do not want the existing origin of life gap filled by any explanantion.-a Even if some god could be found to fill that gap it would not be the god described in the Bible.-a Wallowing in denial is your only means that you can think of to keep from dealing with that reality.-a The YEC rubes are IDiots because they can't deal with things like the Big Bang and the origin of life on earth.-a They are all too ignorant, incompetent and or dishonest to understand that they do not want to teach the best evidence for the ID scam.-a You know that you do not want the Top Six taught honestly because you ran from it, and you can't even deal honestly with your origin of life gap (#3 of the Top Six).-a Just imagine how quickly all the YEC support
would drain away from the ID scam if they put out a lesson plan that taught the Top Six in an honest and straightforward manner.
Reality isn't going to change.-a It isn't your materialistic boogie man that is the issue.-a Reality does not support your Biblical beliefs.-a You are the one that needs to deal with that fact.-a Continuing to support a bogus bait and switch scam is never going to result in what you need to do.
Ron Okimoto
On Fri, 10 Apr 2026 09:51:04 +1000
MarkE <me22over7@gmail.com> wrote:
On 9/04/2026 2:10 am, RonO wrote:[]
Ron, I'm interested to understand where your energy against ID comes from. >>
It's one thing to disagree strongly, e.g. I disagree strongly with
climate change deniers, believing that they are often ignoring or
misusing science for idealogical reasons. Moreover, unlike say
flat-earthers, with concern that their influence and proposed course of
action (mostly inaction) poses a risk to the planet.
Is your objection to the ID movement itself, or do reject consideration
of supernatural causes generally? And do you regard ID as a threat to
science and the wellbeing of people?
Have you not read anything RonO has said? ID is a scam to fool rubes.
He's warning readers: Don't be scammed.
PS you never have an answer to the statement that the god you are
looking for in the gaps of science cannot be biblical.
On 4/9/26 4:43 PM, ShyDavid wrote:
On 2026/04/09 7:14 AM, John Harshman wrote:
On 4/9/26 1:43 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Wed, 8 Apr 2026 12:36:43 -0700, John Harshman
<john.harshman@gmail.com> wrote:
On 4/8/26 4:46 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
[...]
As Carl Sagan liked to put it "absence of evidence is not evidence of >>>>>>>> absence".
Did he?
Of course he did - unlike you, I do not make up things that people >>>>>> said.
Do you notice that lately everything you say to me involves a gratuitous >>>>> insult?
Well you were the one who put a question mark on my reference to Carl
Sagan as if there were some doubt about what i was attributing to him.
1995,The Demon-Haunted World: Science as a Candle in the Dark.
Exception: an absence of evidence is evidence of absence only if the evidence, if it existed, would have been detected.
Yes, that's the elephant in the room. I have no evidence that there's an elephant in the room. Is that evidence that there's not an elephant?
some of us literally went to church-run schools from primary school all the way up to undergraduate level university. We tend to have an excellent idea of what religious belief is, and many (most?) tend to want nothing to do with it as a direct result of all that time in close proximity.
I took Religious Knowledge to GCE O Level, as it was then. (GSCE now.) The university I went to required that all undergrads take theolgy classes if they wanted to graduate.
I have set foot in churches since I graduated only for weddings and funerals.
Those ignorant Yankees who would force religious education into American public schools might want to take note.
On 2026/04/10 7:15 AM, WolfFan wrote:
*SNIP!*
some of us literally went to church-run schools from primary school all the way up to undergraduate level university. We tend to have an excellent idea of what religious belief is, and many (most?) tend to want nothing to do with
it as a direct result of all that time in close proximity.
I took Religious Knowledge to GCE O Level, as it was then. (GSCE now.) The university I went to required that all undergrads take theolgy classes if they wanted to graduate.
I have set foot in churches since I graduated only for weddings and funerals.
Those ignorant Yankees who would force religious education into American public schools might want to take note.
Within the past four weeks, it has become legal for public funds to go to churches if the churches are also "schools." This is excellent news for The Satanic Temple.
My Wiccan school will offer Drawing Down the Moon classes, and to perform this public duty we will get some of that money.
On 10/04/2026 2:24 pm, RonO wrote:
On 4/9/2026 6:51 PM, MarkE wrote:
On 9/04/2026 2:10 am, RonO wrote:
On 4/7/2026 10:29 PM, MarkE wrote:
On 8/04/2026 12:16 pm, RonO wrote:
On 4/7/2026 7:08 PM, MarkE wrote:
On 8/04/2026 9:10 am, RonO wrote:
On 4/7/2026 5:34 PM, MarkE wrote:
On 7/04/2026 5:50 pm, Kerr-Mudd, John wrote:
On Tue, 7 Apr 2026 12:43:48 +1000Start here (but you knew this): https://www.amazon.com.au/
MarkE <me22over7@gmail.com> wrote:
On 7/04/2026 8:25 am, MarkE wrote:[]
On 7/04/2026 1:41 am, ShyDavid wrote:
I would love to see theists being just as honest and >>>>>>>>>>>>> virtuous as
scientists.
Thank you, that confirms where you're coming from.
I am curious though: you appear to have contempt to the point >>>>>>>>>>> of moral
repugnance for anyone favouring the God hypothesis (i.e. >>>>>>>>>>> creationists of
any stripe), and a self-assurance regarding materialism to >>>>>>>>>>> the point of
arrogance - why then the interest in the topic of origins, >>>>>>>>>>> and why
bother engaging? Are you not as confident as you make out, >>>>>>>>>>> are you
seeking applause here, or do you just enjoy being smug and >>>>>>>>>>> insulting?
Where's your evidence/justification for this 'god hypothesis'? >>>>>>>>>
Return- God- Hypothesis-Compelling-TheExistence/dp/0062071505 >>>>>>>>>
Or read my posts on OoL. Etc etc etc.
But you don't really care, do you.
It may be justification, but is not scientific evidence for any >>>>>>>> god hypothesis.-a It is just junk to fool the rubes with.-a Meyer >>>>>>>> never tried to create a coherent god hypothesis.-a He just
presented the god- of-the- gaps denial arguments as independent >>>>>>>> bits of denial, just as the scientific creationists had done
decades before Meyer joined the ID scam.-a You know why he did >>>>>>>> not try to develop a coherent god hypothesis is because nature >>>>>>>> is not Biblical and the god hypothesized would not be the
Biblical god. He didn't do it for the same reason that you ran >>>>>>>> from the Top Six and can't deal with them in an honest and
straightforward manner. It is why the other IDiots quit the ID >>>>>>>> scam.
Ron Okimoto
Ron, you are so wrong, and out of line. Meyer is an intelligent >>>>>>> and considered scientist, and his writing is recognised as such >>>>>>> beyond the ID community. Present your rebuttals to his arguments, >>>>>>> but spare us your unsupported slander.
First off, Meyer does not consider himself to be a scientist.-a At >>>>>> one time he worked as a geologist for an oil company, but he
claims to be an historian and philosopher (part of the scam artist >>>>>> schtick).
Meyer is not currently a practising scientist, but is a qualified
scientist:
PhD rCo History and Philosophy of Science, University of Cambridge
Focus: philosophy of biology, scientific explanation
MasterrCOs degree rCo Geophysics, University of Cambridge
BachelorrCOs degree rCo Physics and Earth Science, Whitworth University >>>>> A former geophysicist and college professor.
You have to accept what the scam artist claims.-a He claims to be an
historian and philosopher scam artist, not a scientist scam artist.
Philosophers are allowed to fool the rubes with obfuscation and
denial, but scam artist scientists are not really scientists, at
best they would be considered to be pseudo scientists.
Meyers is a dishonest scam artist.-a He was the head cheer leader >>>>>> for the teach ID scam when other ID perps understood that there
was no ID science worth teaching.-a Understanding that fact he ran >>>>>> the first bait and switch scam on the Ohio rubes.-a He had made up >>>>>> his mind that he was going to run the bait and switch before he
gave his presentation to the Ohio rubes.-a He lied to them about
being able to teach the junk in the public schools and that ID was >>>>>> science.-a The real scientists demonstrated to the board that ID
was not science and should not be taught as such in the public
schools.-a Meyer offered the switch scam to the rubes in the
discussion after Wells made the claim that there was enough
scientific support for the ID scam that it could be forced into
the public schools (Wells also knew that the bait and switch was
going down and that he was just lying to the rubes).-a Meyer and
Wells were so unconvincing that the Ohio rubes decided not to
teach the ID scam junk, but the rubes were still dishonest enough >>>>>> to bend over for the switch scam that Meyer told them had nothing >>>>>> to do with ID.-a The board understood that Meyer had tried to lie >>>>>> to them about ID being science, but some of them were so dishonest >>>>>> and corrupt that one of them put up the proposal to the board that >>>>>> the definition of science, that was a part of the science
standards, be rewritten so that ID could be taught as science in
the Ohio public schools.-a The board was actually convinced that
Meyer had tried to lie to them about ID being science when it
could not be considered to be science by their own definition of
science.
At the time Meyer had a job teaching at a religious college, but
he dropped out of the public view after running the bait and
switch. He quit that job (it had to be hard to walk down the
academic halls with scam artists written on your forehead).-a All >>>>>> his colleagues must have known what he had been claiming about the >>>>>> teach ID scam. Meyer was an author of the Teach ID scam 1999
booklet that the Discovery Institute used to give out with their
ID scam video and also the 2000 Utah law review article claiming
that it was legal to teach ID in the public schools.-a Meyer
started working as director of the bait and switch scam full time, >>>>>> and has made sure that ID has continued to be offered up as bait
for decades.-a The teach ID scam claims were never retracted, and >>>>>> more teach ID scam propaganda was eventually added during Meyer's >>>>>> leadership of the bait and switch scam.-a Immediately after Ohio
West had to step forward and make sure that the bait and switch
kept going down on any rubes that popped up and still wanted to
teach the junk (Meyer was MIA). Do you recall how long Meyer
retreated into the background after running the bait and switch on >>>>>> the Ohio rubes?
You were posting at ARN when the bait and switch went down.-a By
Ohio some of the IDiots at ARN already understood that there
wasn't any ID science to teach.-a The majority of IDiotic
creationist rubes supported teaching ID just as the Discovery
Institute was claiming could be done. You know that after the bait >>>>>> and switch went down the tone changed at ARN.-a The majority were >>>>>> no longer openly supporting teaching the junk. Only a few still
claimed that ID would be taught in Ohio.-a Most of the IDiots
started pretending that teaching the junk wasn't the goal of the
ID scam even though that is about all ID had ever been.-a ID first >>>>>> came to TO in the late 1990's as something that could be taught in >>>>>> the public schools (probably, just before you started posting).
A year (2003) after Ohio when the initial draft of the Ohio model >>>>>> lesson plan came out nearly everyone at ARN stopped supporting
teaching the junk.-a Eventually the creationist web links and all >>>>>> mention of intelligent design and ID perps was removed from the
lesson plan. Wells' book had obviously been used to create the
lesson plan (the Wellsian lie about no moths on tree trunks had
made it into the lesson plan) but the reference to his book was
removed from the lesson plan when the lie was rewritten.-a Mike
gene came out and claimed that he had given up on teaching the
junk back in 1999, but Gene and nearly all the IDiots kept
supporting ID as bait.-a Some may have quit posting, but everyone >>>>>> that was left was either ignorant, incompetent and or dishonest. >>>>>> You were apparently among the dishonest, but you haven't yet
demonstrated that you are clearly out of the incompetent group.
During the Dover fiasco Meyer ran even though the More lawyers had >>>>>> allowed him to have his own lawyer present during his Kitzmiller
testimony.-a He ran after Forrest was deposed with Dembski in
attendance, and the name change from creationism to intelligent
design in the book Of Pandas and People was disclosed.-a Meyer had >>>>>> written the teachers notes for that book, and was one of the
authors of the teach ID scam propaganda claiming that Of Pandas
and People could be used to teach ID in the public schools.
Meyer is just a dishonest scam artist.-a His god hypothesis book
was only meant to continue to fool the rubes.-a How long has the
bait and switch been going down under the direction of Meyer?-a Why >>>>>> did he never retract any of his teach ID scam propaganda after
starting to run the bait and switch?
You should know by now that the first thing any hypothesis should >>>>>> be evaluated on would be if it can exist within what is already
understood. -a-aMeyer purposely refused to demonstrate that any of >>>>>> his hypotheses were viable within the context of what is known,
and only put up the gap arguments as independent bits of denial in >>>>>> order to fool the rubes. What the scam artist did should only work >>>>>> on rubes that want to be lied to like yourself.-a Meyer never put >>>>>> up a coherent god hypothesis.-a He only put up independent bits of >>>>>> gap denial in order to lie to the rubes about reality.-a If he had >>>>>> made an honest effort you would be running from the book just as
you ran from the Top Six that the ID perps put out in the order in >>>>>> which they must have occurred in this universe.-a The universe is >>>>>> not Biblical.-a The god that fills Meyer's gaps is not the god
described in the Bible. That is what Meyer should have made clear >>>>>> at the beginning of the Book, but he just wrote the book to scam
the rubes, and maintain ID as bait.
Ron Okimoto
The ID movement has a complicated history, but I reject your
caricaturisation as a bait and switch scam. It's a movement with
many voices over a long period - some possibly misguided at times,
or even dishonest - you get that whenever humans are involved,
especially with such a complex, developing and charged issue.
Meyer has been the director of the ID scam unit at the Discovery
Institute from it's founding.-a Meyer's voice was claiming that ID
could be taught in the public schools and that Of Pandas and People
could be used to teach the junk.-a He ran the first bait and switch
scam on the Ohio rubes personally.-a He never retracted any of his
teach ID scam junk, and only allowed the Discovery Institute to
create more teach ID scam propaganda during his directorship of the
ID bait and switch scam. Under Meyer's directorship the bait and
switch has gone down 100% of the time any creationist rubes have
believed the scam junk and claimed to want to teach ID in the public
schools.-a 100% of the time is your reality.-a They blundered in
Dover.-a By that time they were paying someone to make sure that the
bait and switch went down, but it had likely become routine (it had
likely gone down around 30 times since Ohio), and the ID perp did
not follow up after running the bait and switch and telling the
rubes not to teach ID, but to teach the switch scam instead.-a The
Dover rubes did not like the switch scam and decided to teach ID
anyway, instead of dropping the issue as nearly all of the other
creationist rubes had done.-a The Dover rubes were so ignorant and
incompetent that they did not know that the Discovery Institute was
the scam outfit running the teach ID scam.-a Meyer ran from
testifying and would not defend his own propaganda about being able
to teach the junk in the public schools.
This is the reality that you are lying to yourself about.
https://arn.org/docs/dewolf/guidebook.htm
This is the teach ID scam propaganda that Meyer authored in 1999 to
sell the teach ID scam.-a The conclusion contains the claim that Of
Pandas and People can be used to teach ID in the public schools.
Meyer sold the teach ID scam, and ran the first bait and switch on
the Ohio rubes in 2002.
However, current policy is: "DI opposes any effort to require the
teaching of intelligent design by school districts or state boards
of education."
Yes, they started making the "required" claim after their failure in
Dover, but they still claimed that the Dover decision was wrong, and
that even though ID had been determined to be no science worth
teaching in the public schools that ID could still be legally taught
outside of the middle court district of PA.-a "Required" is only
their scam language to keep running the bait and switch.
You should know because I put it up on TO when it happened.-a When
both Louisiana and Texas tried to use their switch scam stupidity to
teach ID in their public schools in 2013 both states claimed that
they were not requiring ID to be taught, and were just allowing
teachers to teach the scam junk if they wanted to.-a The ID perps ran >>>> the bait and switch on the rubes anyway.-a It was such a dishonest
bait and switch that the ID perps removed the "requiring" statement
from their Education policy. They just deleted that paragraph and
left the rest intact for several years until they rewrote the scam
education policy and put back the "requiring" scam stupidity, and
have kept running the bait and switch 100% of the time.-a The truth
is that the ID perps do not want ID taught in the public schools
whether it is required or not.-a They are only using ID as bait.
They know that they do not have any ID science that the rubes would
want to teach.
You can still find the original education policy on page 15 of the
current teach ID scam propaganda where they continue to claim that
it is legal to teach the junk outside of Dover.
https://www.discovery.org/f/1453/
QUOTE:
Although Discovery Institute does not advocate requiring
the teaching of intelligent design in public schools, it
does believe there is nothing unconstitutional about
voluntarily discussing the scientific theory of design in
the classroom. In addition, the Institute opposes efforts
to persecute individual teachers who may wish to discuss
the scientific debate over design in an objective and
pedagogically appropriate manner.
END QUOTE:
This is the paragraph that the ID perps deleted from the education
policy after they ran the bait and switch on Louisiana and Texas
when they were not requiring ID to be taught.
They eventually put back the "requiring" scam language and have
continued to run the bait and switch to this day.
They have updated the teach ID scam propaganda that they created
after Dover around every 3 years since first publishing it in 2007.
I have noted that they last updated the junk in 2021, but have since
reformated the site and seem to have reverted to the 2018 version.
It is likely to be updated again in 2027.-a Luskin is one of the
authors of this propaganda, and he is the current ID perp tasked
with making sure that the bait and switch keeps going down on states
like West Virginia and the Dakotas.-a The guy currently telling the
rubes that the Discovery Institute does not support teaching ID in
the public schools is one of the ID perps that is responsible for
writing the current teach ID scam propaganda.-a Meyer is just
directing the bait and switch.-a Luskin has been tasked to keep doing >>>> it.
"It believes that evolution should be fully and completely
presented to students, and they should learn more about
evolutionary theory, including its unresolved issues. In other
words, evolution should be taught as a scientific theory that is
open to critical scrutiny, not as a sacred dogma that canrCOt be
questioned."
This is why nearly all the creationist rubes that have had the bait
and switch run on them have dropped the issue instead of bending
over for the switch scam.-a Dishonest Biblical creationist rubes do
not want to teach their kids enough science for them to understand
what they need to deny if they can't tell them the religious reason
for why they are lying to the students.-a The ID perps push the
obfuscation and denial switch scam as the only means to keep the
kids as ignorant as possible so that they can continue to support
their Wedge goals.
You know that the ID science does not support Biblical creationism.
Most of the ID perps are old earth Biblical creationists, but
probably all the rubes that have had the bait and switch run on them
have been YEC. YEC would never want their kids taught the best
evidence for the ID scam.-a The YEC have already succeeded in
removing the Big Bang (#1 of the Top Six) along with biological
evolution from the science standards of Kansas in 1999, and multiple
other states have considered the same thing.-a The YEC would never
accept teaching the best evidence for ID in an honest and straight
forward manner. That is why the ID perps have never told the rubes
what they want to teach and how they think that it should be
taught.-a They have only sold ID as bait so that they can force the
obfuscation and denial switch scam onto the rubes.
"Discovery Institute believes that a curriculum that aims to
provide students with an understanding of the strengths and
weaknesses of neo- Darwinian and chemical evolutionary theories
(rather than teaching an alternative theory, such as intelligent
design) represents a common ground approach that all reasonable
citizens can agree on."
This is the obfuscation and denial switch scam that the ID perps
tell the rubes has nothing to do with ID.-a The ID perps obviously
lie a lot. Just go up and read the paragraph that they deleted from
their education policy when both Louisiana and Texas did not require
ID to be taught, but the scam artists still ran the bait and switch
on them.-a The ID perps do not want ID taught whether it is required
or not because they do not want a repeat of Dover.
_____
I refer you to long-form conversations between sceptic Michael
Shermer and Stephen Meyer. It is refreshing to see Shermer's
approach to "steelman" his opponent, the mutually respectful
posture of both, and the scope and depth of their dialogue.
Shermer for one takes Meyer seriously, scientifically and
philosophically, and rightly so. I challenge anyone to listen to
these dialogues and then endorse Ron's characterisation of Meyer as >>>>> "just a dishonest scam artist" whose "god hypothesis book was only
meant to continue to fool the rubes."
Shermer was an idiot.-a For whatever reason he let Meyer get away
with putting up the Top Six as independent bits of denial in the God
Hypothesis.-a He let Meyer not defend a single God Hypothesis, but
let him lie about what his god hypothesis was.-a You know that
Meyer's god hypothesis is some version of the Biblical god
hypothesis.-a Meyer is just a dishonest scam artists.-a He has been
selling the rubes on "the Big Tent" of the ID scam, when anyone that
understands science should know that there can be no big tent.
There is only one nature for science to study, and nature is not
Biblical.-a Demonstrate that Meyer did not sell the rubes on the
teach ID scam for years before starting to run the bait and switch.
Demonstrate that he ever retracted any of the scam stupidity.
Demonstrate that the Bait and switch has not continued to go down
100% of the time that Meyer has been directing the scam unit. -a-aI
have put up the link from the wayback archive that demonstrates that
the ID perps were still hawking their teach ID scam booklet as part
of their Teach the Controversy scam when Dover hit the fan.-a That
booklet is the one in which Meyer claims that Of Pandas and People
can be used to teach ID in the public schools and is the reason why
the Dover rubes purchased Of Pandas and People to teach ID in their
public schools.-a The More lawyers had Meyer's teach ID scam booklet, >>>> and wanted a test case.
https://www.skeptic.com/michael-shermer-show/stephen-meyer-return-
of- god-hypothesis-3-scientific-discoveries-reveal-the-mind-behind- >>>>> the- universe/?utm_source=chatgpt.com
Shermer is just an ignorant and incompetent rube.-a He obviously is
ignorant of what Meyer has been doing for decades, and let him
continue to do it.
Why do you want to attempt to defend a scam artist as dishonest as
Meyer?-a Meyer has been director of the ID scam unit from the
beginning. He was involved with the Of Pandas and People book (he
wrote the teachers notes for the book).-a He was the main cheerleader >>>> for the teach ID scam and one of the authors of the teach ID scam
propaganda first produced by the ID perps.-a He ran the first bait
and switch personally on the Ohio rubes, quit his legitimate
teaching job and started directing the bait and switch full time.
When the name change in Of Pandas and People from creationism to
intelligent design was disclosed, during the Kitzmiller depositions,
Meyer ran instead of testify even though the More lawyers had
already agreed that he could have his own lawyer present in court.
Meyer had been telling the rubes for years that Of Pandas and People
could be use to teach ID in the public schools, but he was not
willing to defend that claim in court.-a Really, Meyer wrote the
public school teachers notes for the book.
The ID scam unit has been running the bait and switch on 100% of the
creationist rubes that believe them about being able to teach the
junk in the public schools for the last 24 years under the
directorship of Meyer.-a They continue to claim that it is legal to
teach ID in the public schools outside of Dover, but the bait and
switch goes down 100% of the time.
You are just a rube that wants to be lied to.-a Just think of all the >>>> IDiots at ARN that rolled over and continued to support the use of
the ID scam as bait.-a After the bait and switch started to go down
the only IDiots in existence were the ignorant, incompetent, and or
dishonest. No honest, competent, and informed creationist could have
possibly kept supporting a stupid bait and switch scam, especially
after they got Wells' report that the ID perps dog and pony show in
front of the Ohio rubes was just a scam because the ID perps had
decided to start running the bait and switch before they gave those
presentations.-a The ID perps even failed to convince the Ohio rubes
that ID was science, and one of the rubes demonstrated that by
proposing that the definition of science be changed so that ID could
be taught as science.-a That is how incompetent and dishonest IDiotic >>>> creationist rubes have to be.-a You can look in the mirror and see
the type of rube that can lie to themselves about any possible ID
science when it was apparent back in 2002 (years before Dover) and
ID was already known not to be scientific.-a Ignorant and incompetent >>>> YEC IDiots could understand that, so why not you? Nelson started
admitting that the ID science had never existed, but that the ID
perps were working on creating some.-a Nelson kept supporting using
ID as bait. None of the ID perps resigned in disgust, and all of
them kept supporting the use of ID as bait.-a You can't point to any
concerted efforts by any ID perp member of the Discovery Institute
scam unit that tried to stop the bait and switch scam.-a All that you >>>> will be able to find is a continued effort to put ID up as bait.
Ron Okimoto
Ron, I'm interested to understand where your energy against ID comes
from.
You need to deal with how wrong you have been about Meyer.
You should be more interested in why you have such a strong desire to
be lied to by the scam artists.-a They prey on your religious beliefs
in order to further their Wedge political goals.-a They might have some
sort of lame excuse for making a living doing it to you as being for
your own good.
Didn't you ever read the original mission statement of the ID perps?
Didn't you ever read the Wedge document?-a The ID perps told everyone
what they were using the ID scam to accomplish.-a The ID perps wanted
to destroy your fictional materialistic reality.-a They believed that
they could recreate a theocracy that likely had never existed.-a You
seem to have the same belief in their fictional materialistic
reality.-a They seem to have convinced Philip Johnson that they could
do this by teaching their warmed over creationist denial as
intelligent design.
The Top Six best evidences, gap denial, for the ID scam were all used
by the Scientific creationists well over a decade before the ID scam
unit at the Discovery Institute was born.
Do you agree with their mission?-a Is that the reason that you allow
yourself to be lied to by the ID perps?-a The ID perps have run the
bait and switch for the last 24 years because they came to the
conclusion that using ID as bait was the best means to support their
Wedge mission. -a-aThey abandoned teaching the junk because they had
nothing that their creationist supporters would have wanted to teach.
The TO IDiots quit the ID scam when they had their faces rubbed in the
fact that they had never wanted the ID perps to produce any valid ID
science when the ID perps were stupid enough to present their Top Six
gap denial arguments in the order in which they must have occurred in
this universe.-a That order is not Biblical.-a The Reason to Believe
IDiots tried to fit the ID scam into their Biblical creation model and
failed, and they no longer support the ID scam.-a All ID is good for is
as bait to force the obfuscation and denial switch scam onto the rubes.
ID is a dishonest scam and they are scamming their fellow Christians.
They just want to get the rubes to help push their mission forward by
bending over for the switch scam, but the dishonest creationists that
fall for the ID scam do not want to teach their kids enough science
for them to understand what they need to deny.-a The ID perps are not
running the bait and switch on the science side.-a They are running the
scam on their creationist rube supporters.
As a Christian what the ID perps are doing is reprehensible to me.
The ID perps are still asking for donations to keep doing it.-a Meyer
has made his living for the past 24 years directing the stupid bait
and switch scam.-a Under his full time directorship the ID perps have
continued to claim that it is legal to teach ID in the public schools,
but they have run the bait and switch on any rube that has believed
them 100% of the time.-a They even tried to run the bait and switch on
the Dover rubes, but the Dover rubes were too stupid and ignorant to
know that the Discovery Institute was the outfit selling the teach ID
scam, so they did not take the switch scam and tried to teach ID anyway.
It's one thing to disagree strongly, e.g. I disagree strongly with
climate change deniers, believing that they are often ignoring or
misusing science for idealogical reasons. Moreover, unlike say flat-
earthers, with concern that their influence and proposed course of
action (mostly inaction) poses a risk to the planet.
The anti-science scam is damaging the people that fall for the scam.
Nearly all the rubes that have fallen for the bait have dropped the
issue instead of bend over for the switch scam.-a They exposed
themselves to be dishonest and/or incompetent and got nothing for
their stupid and dishonest efforts.-a Rubes like you never want to
understand what reality actually is, but that isn't good for society.
We live in a society dependent on the science that the ID perps want
to subvert.-a The ID perps were initially claiming that they could do
the same science that everyone else was doing and support their theory
of intelligent design, but they were obviously lying.-a They were lying
to the rubes for the same reason that the scientific creationists
called their YEC beliefs scientific.-a They understood that science
works, and creationism never had worked to build a better
understanding of nature to the benefit of mankind.-a The ID perps never
wanted to do any real science.-a What they wanted was to destroy
sciences ability to function, and bring it down to their level.-a Like
you they have some weird notion that materialism is evil simply
because it works and Biblical mythology has never worked. You don't
have any positive examples where the Biblical creation was found to be
the creation that we live in because there has been 100% failure for
the god-did-it claims throughout history.-a Why have you never dealt
with the fact that god-did-it claims have never been verified, but
have only failed once we have been able to figure out what actually
happened.-a Doesn't it matter to you that you do not have a single
positive example to support your case?-a The ID perps do not like the
fact that science has all the successes, and the Bible has none.
Biological evolution is a fact of nature and you still want to deny
that it could have happened.-a The success of science is something that
you consider to be undermining your religious beliefs.-a The ID perps
believe that is the case too.-a They blame science for moral decay and
people becoming less religious.-a What do you think their lies are
doing?-a They think that they need to recreate a theocracy to whip the
people into line.-a You should understand what that would result in.
Nothing good.
They should blame themselves for the moral decay.-a Look at the kind of
dishonest creationists that they require to support their effort.
Instead of getting people to reconcile their Biblical beliefs with
reality, they would rather lie to them about reality and force their
lies onto others.-a The only good thing about the ID scam is that the
demonstration of how bogus and dishonest the effort has been seems to
have gotten some YEC denominations to try to get their congregations
to accept that the earth is much older than the Bible seems to claim.
This is actually a step in the right direction, but the ID perps want
to lie to the rubes about a Big Tent that does not exist.-a Most of
their support still comes from YEC even though most of the ID perps
are OEC and understand that the Big Tent of ID science does not exist.
Science is just the study of nature, and there is only one nature for
the ID perps and their fellow creationists to deal with.-a Nature is
known not to be Biblical.-a Science is never going to support Biblical
creationist beliefs.-a Just try to get the Reason to Believe ex IDiots
to tell you why they no longer support the ID scam.-a The Top Six in
the order in which they must have occurred in this universe is not
consistent with their Biblical creation model even if you claim that
days are indeterminate periods of time.
Is your objection to the ID movement itself, or do reject
consideration of supernatural causes generally? And do you regard ID
as a threat to science and the wellbeing of people?
Once it became clear that ID was nothing more than a stupid bait and
switch scam I objected to the scam.-a I did not start calling them ID
perps and ID a scam until they had run the bait and switch 100% of the
time for over 2 years.-a At that time there was absolutely no doubt
about what they were doing because they were still yammering about the
Santorum "amendment" being support for their teach ID scam, and they
had not retracted their Utah review article, nor their ID propaganda
booklet.-a You and the other IDiots that did not quit just kept
supporting the ID perp's efforts to use ID as bait.-a The only IDiots
in existence are ignorant, incompetent, and or dishonest.-a Try to
demonstrate that honest competent and informed IDiots can exist.-a You
know that you can't do this.-a I object to the ID scam because it preys
on the ignorant and incompetent, and just feeds the dishonesty of the
rest that want to keep supporting the effort.
ID failed as science due to the Dover fiasco where their bait and
switch scam went terribly wrong for the ID perps and they were forced
to try to defend the scam.-a All ID has ever been used for is as bait
100% of the time.-a No rubes have ever gotten the promised ID science.
The use of ID as bait has been the only way forward for the ID perps
to continue their Wedge mission.-a What else have the ID perps done
with their ID science claims?-a No ID science has ever been produced.
Only the bait claims have continued.-a The ISCID pretty much died when
the bait and switch started to go down.-a They likely lost all their
non ID scam creationist supporters.-a Who would want to support a bait
and switch scam if you were not being paid to do it, or you really
believed in the Wedge mission?-a Once ID had been revealed to be bait,
no serious and honest academics would have kept supporting the
effort.-a Tour doesn't support the ID scam.-a He even claims that he
doesn't know how to do any ID science.-a Tour just can't give up on the
gap denial because he needs to wallow in denial just like you.
My evaluation of you, is that you are dishonest enough to keep
supporting ID as bait because you want to be lied to.-a Likely, because
you do not want reality to be what it is.-a Just like you don't want
biological evolution to be a fact of nature, you do not want the
existing origin of life gap filled by any explanantion.-a Even if some
god could be found to fill that gap it would not be the god described
in the Bible.-a Wallowing in denial is your only means that you can
think of to keep from dealing with that reality.-a The YEC rubes are
IDiots because they can't deal with things like the Big Bang and the
origin of life on earth.-a They are all too ignorant, incompetent and
or dishonest to understand that they do not want to teach the best
evidence for the ID scam.-a You know that you do not want the Top Six
taught honestly because you ran from it, and you can't even deal
honestly with your origin of life gap (#3 of the Top Six).-a Just
imagine how quickly all the YEC support would drain away from the ID
scam if they put out a lesson plan that taught the Top Six in an
honest and straightforward manner.
Reality isn't going to change.-a It isn't your materialistic boogie man
that is the issue.-a Reality does not support your Biblical beliefs.
You are the one that needs to deal with that fact.-a Continuing to
support a bogus bait and switch scam is never going to result in what
you need to do.
Ron Okimoto
Independently of ID, my own investigation of OoL leads me to conclude
that progress is overstated and foundational problems are understated,
which I've argued here at length (as you know) with reference to source papers and my own thinking and ideas, as well as material from ID. Sure,
my engagement is at the level of somewhat-informed layperson, and you
may disagree with my interpretations of the science. However, are you suggesting that all I've contributed on this topic has no scientific
merit or validity at all, and worse, it is only the product of my
dishonesty driven by an ideological agenda?
Reiterating my previously stated position, I have only partial support
for ID. I've criticised what I've seen as incorrect claims (e.g. in
relation to junk DNA), and I've spoken about my concern with ID's
religious right political stance at times.
On 2026/04/09 6:11 PM, John Harshman wrote:
On 4/9/26 4:43 PM, ShyDavid wrote:
On 2026/04/09 7:14 AM, John Harshman wrote:
On 4/9/26 1:43 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Wed, 8 Apr 2026 12:36:43 -0700, John Harshman
<john.harshman@gmail.com> wrote:
On 4/8/26 4:46 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
[...]
As Carl Sagan liked to put it "absence of evidence is not
evidence of
absence".
Did he?
Of course he did - unlike you, I do not make up things that people >>>>>>> said.
Do you notice that lately everything you say to me involves a
gratuitous
insult?
Well you were the one who put a question mark on my reference to Carl >>>>> Sagan as if there were some doubt about what i was attributing to him.
1995,The Demon-Haunted World: Science as a Candle in the Dark.
Exception: an absence of evidence is evidence of absence only if the
evidence, if it existed, would have been detected.
Yes, that's the elephant in the room. I have no evidence that there's
an elephant in the room. Is that evidence that there's not an elephant?
Exactly. But you might want to look inside your refrigerator, if any,
for elephants.
On Fri, 10 Apr 2026 09:51:04 +1000
MarkE <me22over7@gmail.com> wrote:
On 9/04/2026 2:10 am, RonO wrote:[]
Have you not read anything RonO has said? ID is a scam to fool rubes.
Ron, I'm interested to understand where your energy against ID comes from. >>
It's one thing to disagree strongly, e.g. I disagree strongly with
climate change deniers, believing that they are often ignoring or
misusing science for idealogical reasons. Moreover, unlike say
flat-earthers, with concern that their influence and proposed course of
action (mostly inaction) poses a risk to the planet.
Is your objection to the ID movement itself, or do reject consideration
of supernatural causes generally? And do you regard ID as a threat to
science and the wellbeing of people?
He's warning readers: Don't be scammed.
PS you never have an answer to the statement that the god you are
looking for in the gaps of science cannot be biblical.
On 2026/04/09 5:51 PM, MarkE wrote:
On 9/04/2026 2:10 am, RonO wrote:
Ron, I'm interested to understand where your energy against ID comes
from.
He told you why / where many score times: ID is a scam--- it harms
people and it is deceptive, demonstrably false, and evil shits use it to
rob the dim of wit.
Perhaps you just do not understand such things as altruism.
On 4/10/2026 1:45 AM, MarkE wrote:
On 10/04/2026 2:24 pm, RonO wrote:
On 4/9/2026 6:51 PM, MarkE wrote:
On 9/04/2026 2:10 am, RonO wrote:
On 4/7/2026 10:29 PM, MarkE wrote:
On 8/04/2026 12:16 pm, RonO wrote:
On 4/7/2026 7:08 PM, MarkE wrote:
On 8/04/2026 9:10 am, RonO wrote:
On 4/7/2026 5:34 PM, MarkE wrote:
On 7/04/2026 5:50 pm, Kerr-Mudd, John wrote:
On Tue, 7 Apr 2026 12:43:48 +1000Start here (but you knew this): https://www.amazon.com.au/ >>>>>>>>>> Return- God- Hypothesis-Compelling-TheExistence/dp/0062071505 >>>>>>>>>>
MarkE <me22over7@gmail.com> wrote:
On 7/04/2026 8:25 am, MarkE wrote:[]
On 7/04/2026 1:41 am, ShyDavid wrote:
I would love to see theists being just as honest and >>>>>>>>>>>>>> virtuous as
scientists.
Thank you, that confirms where you're coming from.
I am curious though: you appear to have contempt to the >>>>>>>>>>>> point of moral
repugnance for anyone favouring the God hypothesis (i.e. >>>>>>>>>>>> creationists of
any stripe), and a self-assurance regarding materialism to >>>>>>>>>>>> the point of
arrogance - why then the interest in the topic of origins, >>>>>>>>>>>> and why
bother engaging? Are you not as confident as you make out, >>>>>>>>>>>> are you
seeking applause here, or do you just enjoy being smug and >>>>>>>>>>>> insulting?
Where's your evidence/justification for this 'god hypothesis'? >>>>>>>>>>
Or read my posts on OoL. Etc etc etc.
But you don't really care, do you.
It may be justification, but is not scientific evidence for any >>>>>>>>> god hypothesis.-a It is just junk to fool the rubes with.-a Meyer >>>>>>>>> never tried to create a coherent god hypothesis.-a He just
presented the god- of-the- gaps denial arguments as independent >>>>>>>>> bits of denial, just as the scientific creationists had done >>>>>>>>> decades before Meyer joined the ID scam.-a You know why he did >>>>>>>>> not try to develop a coherent god hypothesis is because nature >>>>>>>>> is not Biblical and the god hypothesized would not be the
Biblical god. He didn't do it for the same reason that you ran >>>>>>>>> from the Top Six and can't deal with them in an honest and
straightforward manner. It is why the other IDiots quit the ID >>>>>>>>> scam.
Ron Okimoto
Ron, you are so wrong, and out of line. Meyer is an intelligent >>>>>>>> and considered scientist, and his writing is recognised as such >>>>>>>> beyond the ID community. Present your rebuttals to his
arguments, but spare us your unsupported slander.
First off, Meyer does not consider himself to be a scientist.-a At >>>>>>> one time he worked as a geologist for an oil company, but he
claims to be an historian and philosopher (part of the scam
artist schtick).
Meyer is not currently a practising scientist, but is a qualified >>>>>> scientist:
PhD rCo History and Philosophy of Science, University of Cambridge >>>>>> Focus: philosophy of biology, scientific explanation
MasterrCOs degree rCo Geophysics, University of Cambridge
BachelorrCOs degree rCo Physics and Earth Science, Whitworth University >>>>>> A former geophysicist and college professor.
You have to accept what the scam artist claims.-a He claims to be an >>>>> historian and philosopher scam artist, not a scientist scam artist. >>>>> Philosophers are allowed to fool the rubes with obfuscation and
denial, but scam artist scientists are not really scientists, at
best they would be considered to be pseudo scientists.
Meyers is a dishonest scam artist.-a He was the head cheer leader >>>>>>> for the teach ID scam when other ID perps understood that there >>>>>>> was no ID science worth teaching.-a Understanding that fact he ran >>>>>>> the first bait and switch scam on the Ohio rubes.-a He had made up >>>>>>> his mind that he was going to run the bait and switch before he >>>>>>> gave his presentation to the Ohio rubes.-a He lied to them about >>>>>>> being able to teach the junk in the public schools and that ID
was science.-a The real scientists demonstrated to the board that >>>>>>> ID was not science and should not be taught as such in the public >>>>>>> schools.-a Meyer offered the switch scam to the rubes in the
discussion after Wells made the claim that there was enough
scientific support for the ID scam that it could be forced into >>>>>>> the public schools (Wells also knew that the bait and switch was >>>>>>> going down and that he was just lying to the rubes).-a Meyer and >>>>>>> Wells were so unconvincing that the Ohio rubes decided not to
teach the ID scam junk, but the rubes were still dishonest enough >>>>>>> to bend over for the switch scam that Meyer told them had nothing >>>>>>> to do with ID.-a The board understood that Meyer had tried to lie >>>>>>> to them about ID being science, but some of them were so
dishonest and corrupt that one of them put up the proposal to the >>>>>>> board that the definition of science, that was a part of the
science standards, be rewritten so that ID could be taught as
science in the Ohio public schools.-a The board was actually
convinced that Meyer had tried to lie to them about ID being
science when it could not be considered to be science by their
own definition of science.
At the time Meyer had a job teaching at a religious college, but >>>>>>> he dropped out of the public view after running the bait and
switch. He quit that job (it had to be hard to walk down the
academic halls with scam artists written on your forehead).-a All >>>>>>> his colleagues must have known what he had been claiming about
the teach ID scam. Meyer was an author of the Teach ID scam 1999 >>>>>>> booklet that the Discovery Institute used to give out with their >>>>>>> ID scam video and also the 2000 Utah law review article claiming >>>>>>> that it was legal to teach ID in the public schools.-a Meyer
started working as director of the bait and switch scam full
time, and has made sure that ID has continued to be offered up as >>>>>>> bait for decades.-a The teach ID scam claims were never retracted, >>>>>>> and more teach ID scam propaganda was eventually added during
Meyer's leadership of the bait and switch scam.-a Immediately
after Ohio West had to step forward and make sure that the bait >>>>>>> and switch kept going down on any rubes that popped up and still >>>>>>> wanted to teach the junk (Meyer was MIA). Do you recall how long >>>>>>> Meyer retreated into the background after running the bait and
switch on the Ohio rubes?
You were posting at ARN when the bait and switch went down.-a By >>>>>>> Ohio some of the IDiots at ARN already understood that there
wasn't any ID science to teach.-a The majority of IDiotic
creationist rubes supported teaching ID just as the Discovery
Institute was claiming could be done. You know that after the
bait and switch went down the tone changed at ARN.-a The majority >>>>>>> were no longer openly supporting teaching the junk. Only a few
still claimed that ID would be taught in Ohio.-a Most of the
IDiots started pretending that teaching the junk wasn't the goal >>>>>>> of the ID scam even though that is about all ID had ever been. >>>>>>> ID first came to TO in the late 1990's as something that could be >>>>>>> taught in the public schools (probably, just before you started >>>>>>> posting).
A year (2003) after Ohio when the initial draft of the Ohio model >>>>>>> lesson plan came out nearly everyone at ARN stopped supporting
teaching the junk.-a Eventually the creationist web links and all >>>>>>> mention of intelligent design and ID perps was removed from the >>>>>>> lesson plan. Wells' book had obviously been used to create the
lesson plan (the Wellsian lie about no moths on tree trunks had >>>>>>> made it into the lesson plan) but the reference to his book was >>>>>>> removed from the lesson plan when the lie was rewritten.-a Mike >>>>>>> gene came out and claimed that he had given up on teaching the
junk back in 1999, but Gene and nearly all the IDiots kept
supporting ID as bait.-a Some may have quit posting, but everyone >>>>>>> that was left was either ignorant, incompetent and or dishonest. >>>>>>> You were apparently among the dishonest, but you haven't yet
demonstrated that you are clearly out of the incompetent group.
During the Dover fiasco Meyer ran even though the More lawyers
had allowed him to have his own lawyer present during his
Kitzmiller testimony.-a He ran after Forrest was deposed with
Dembski in attendance, and the name change from creationism to
intelligent design in the book Of Pandas and People was
disclosed.-a Meyer had written the teachers notes for that book, >>>>>>> and was one of the authors of the teach ID scam propaganda
claiming that Of Pandas and People could be used to teach ID in >>>>>>> the public schools.
Meyer is just a dishonest scam artist.-a His god hypothesis book >>>>>>> was only meant to continue to fool the rubes.-a How long has the >>>>>>> bait and switch been going down under the direction of Meyer?
Why did he never retract any of his teach ID scam propaganda
after starting to run the bait and switch?
You should know by now that the first thing any hypothesis should >>>>>>> be evaluated on would be if it can exist within what is already >>>>>>> understood. -a-aMeyer purposely refused to demonstrate that any of >>>>>>> his hypotheses were viable within the context of what is known, >>>>>>> and only put up the gap arguments as independent bits of denial >>>>>>> in order to fool the rubes. What the scam artist did should only >>>>>>> work on rubes that want to be lied to like yourself.-a Meyer never >>>>>>> put up a coherent god hypothesis.-a He only put up independent
bits of gap denial in order to lie to the rubes about reality. >>>>>>> If he had made an honest effort you would be running from the
book just as you ran from the Top Six that the ID perps put out >>>>>>> in the order in which they must have occurred in this universe. >>>>>>> The universe is not Biblical.-a The god that fills Meyer's gaps is >>>>>>> not the god described in the Bible. That is what Meyer should
have made clear at the beginning of the Book, but he just wrote >>>>>>> the book to scam the rubes, and maintain ID as bait.
Ron Okimoto
The ID movement has a complicated history, but I reject your
caricaturisation as a bait and switch scam. It's a movement with
many voices over a long period - some possibly misguided at times, >>>>>> or even dishonest - you get that whenever humans are involved,
especially with such a complex, developing and charged issue.
Meyer has been the director of the ID scam unit at the Discovery
Institute from it's founding.-a Meyer's voice was claiming that ID
could be taught in the public schools and that Of Pandas and People >>>>> could be used to teach the junk.-a He ran the first bait and switch >>>>> scam on the Ohio rubes personally.-a He never retracted any of his
teach ID scam junk, and only allowed the Discovery Institute to
create more teach ID scam propaganda during his directorship of the >>>>> ID bait and switch scam. Under Meyer's directorship the bait and
switch has gone down 100% of the time any creationist rubes have
believed the scam junk and claimed to want to teach ID in the
public schools.-a 100% of the time is your reality.-a They blundered >>>>> in Dover.-a By that time they were paying someone to make sure that >>>>> the bait and switch went down, but it had likely become routine (it >>>>> had likely gone down around 30 times since Ohio), and the ID perp
did not follow up after running the bait and switch and telling the >>>>> rubes not to teach ID, but to teach the switch scam instead.-a The
Dover rubes did not like the switch scam and decided to teach ID
anyway, instead of dropping the issue as nearly all of the other
creationist rubes had done.-a The Dover rubes were so ignorant and
incompetent that they did not know that the Discovery Institute was >>>>> the scam outfit running the teach ID scam.-a Meyer ran from
testifying and would not defend his own propaganda about being able >>>>> to teach the junk in the public schools.
This is the reality that you are lying to yourself about.
https://arn.org/docs/dewolf/guidebook.htm
This is the teach ID scam propaganda that Meyer authored in 1999 to >>>>> sell the teach ID scam.-a The conclusion contains the claim that Of >>>>> Pandas and People can be used to teach ID in the public schools.
Meyer sold the teach ID scam, and ran the first bait and switch on
the Ohio rubes in 2002.
However, current policy is: "DI opposes any effort to require the >>>>>> teaching of intelligent design by school districts or state boards >>>>>> of education."
Yes, they started making the "required" claim after their failure
in Dover, but they still claimed that the Dover decision was wrong, >>>>> and that even though ID had been determined to be no science worth
teaching in the public schools that ID could still be legally
taught outside of the middle court district of PA.-a "Required" is
only their scam language to keep running the bait and switch.
You should know because I put it up on TO when it happened.-a When
both Louisiana and Texas tried to use their switch scam stupidity
to teach ID in their public schools in 2013 both states claimed
that they were not requiring ID to be taught, and were just
allowing teachers to teach the scam junk if they wanted to.-a The ID >>>>> perps ran the bait and switch on the rubes anyway.-a It was such a
dishonest bait and switch that the ID perps removed the "requiring" >>>>> statement from their Education policy. They just deleted that
paragraph and left the rest intact for several years until they
rewrote the scam education policy and put back the "requiring" scam >>>>> stupidity, and have kept running the bait and switch 100% of the
time.-a The truth is that the ID perps do not want ID taught in the >>>>> public schools whether it is required or not.-a They are only using >>>>> ID as bait. They know that they do not have any ID science that the >>>>> rubes would want to teach.
You can still find the original education policy on page 15 of the
current teach ID scam propaganda where they continue to claim that
it is legal to teach the junk outside of Dover.
https://www.discovery.org/f/1453/
QUOTE:
Although Discovery Institute does not advocate requiring
the teaching of intelligent design in public schools, it
does believe there is nothing unconstitutional about
voluntarily discussing the scientific theory of design in
the classroom. In addition, the Institute opposes efforts
to persecute individual teachers who may wish to discuss
the scientific debate over design in an objective and
pedagogically appropriate manner.
END QUOTE:
This is the paragraph that the ID perps deleted from the education
policy after they ran the bait and switch on Louisiana and Texas
when they were not requiring ID to be taught.
They eventually put back the "requiring" scam language and have
continued to run the bait and switch to this day.
They have updated the teach ID scam propaganda that they created
after Dover around every 3 years since first publishing it in 2007. >>>>> I have noted that they last updated the junk in 2021, but have
since reformated the site and seem to have reverted to the 2018
version. It is likely to be updated again in 2027.-a Luskin is one
of the authors of this propaganda, and he is the current ID perp
tasked with making sure that the bait and switch keeps going down
on states like West Virginia and the Dakotas.-a The guy currently
telling the rubes that the Discovery Institute does not support
teaching ID in the public schools is one of the ID perps that is
responsible for writing the current teach ID scam propaganda.
Meyer is just directing the bait and switch.-a Luskin has been
tasked to keep doing it.
"It believes that evolution should be fully and completely
presented to students, and they should learn more about
evolutionary theory, including its unresolved issues. In other
words, evolution should be taught as a scientific theory that is
open to critical scrutiny, not as a sacred dogma that canrCOt be
questioned."
This is why nearly all the creationist rubes that have had the bait >>>>> and switch run on them have dropped the issue instead of bending
over for the switch scam.-a Dishonest Biblical creationist rubes do >>>>> not want to teach their kids enough science for them to understand
what they need to deny if they can't tell them the religious reason >>>>> for why they are lying to the students.-a The ID perps push the
obfuscation and denial switch scam as the only means to keep the
kids as ignorant as possible so that they can continue to support
their Wedge goals.
You know that the ID science does not support Biblical creationism. >>>>> Most of the ID perps are old earth Biblical creationists, but
probably all the rubes that have had the bait and switch run on
them have been YEC. YEC would never want their kids taught the best >>>>> evidence for the ID scam.-a The YEC have already succeeded in
removing the Big Bang (#1 of the Top Six) along with biological
evolution from the science standards of Kansas in 1999, and
multiple other states have considered the same thing.-a The YEC
would never accept teaching the best evidence for ID in an honest
and straight forward manner. That is why the ID perps have never
told the rubes what they want to teach and how they think that it
should be taught.-a They have only sold ID as bait so that they can >>>>> force the obfuscation and denial switch scam onto the rubes.
"Discovery Institute believes that a curriculum that aims to
provide students with an understanding of the strengths and
weaknesses of neo- Darwinian and chemical evolutionary theories
(rather than teaching an alternative theory, such as intelligent
design) represents a common ground approach that all reasonable
citizens can agree on."
This is the obfuscation and denial switch scam that the ID perps
tell the rubes has nothing to do with ID.-a The ID perps obviously
lie a lot. Just go up and read the paragraph that they deleted from >>>>> their education policy when both Louisiana and Texas did not
require ID to be taught, but the scam artists still ran the bait
and switch on them.-a The ID perps do not want ID taught whether it >>>>> is required or not because they do not want a repeat of Dover.
_____
I refer you to long-form conversations between sceptic Michael
Shermer and Stephen Meyer. It is refreshing to see Shermer's
approach to "steelman" his opponent, the mutually respectful
posture of both, and the scope and depth of their dialogue.
Shermer for one takes Meyer seriously, scientifically and
philosophically, and rightly so. I challenge anyone to listen to
these dialogues and then endorse Ron's characterisation of Meyer
as "just a dishonest scam artist" whose "god hypothesis book was
only meant to continue to fool the rubes."
Shermer was an idiot.-a For whatever reason he let Meyer get away
with putting up the Top Six as independent bits of denial in the
God Hypothesis.-a He let Meyer not defend a single God Hypothesis,
but let him lie about what his god hypothesis was.-a You know that
Meyer's god hypothesis is some version of the Biblical god
hypothesis.-a Meyer is just a dishonest scam artists.-a He has been >>>>> selling the rubes on "the Big Tent" of the ID scam, when anyone
that understands science should know that there can be no big tent. >>>>> There is only one nature for science to study, and nature is not
Biblical.-a Demonstrate that Meyer did not sell the rubes on the
teach ID scam for years before starting to run the bait and switch. >>>>> Demonstrate that he ever retracted any of the scam stupidity.
Demonstrate that the Bait and switch has not continued to go down
100% of the time that Meyer has been directing the scam unit. -a-aI >>>>> have put up the link from the wayback archive that demonstrates
that the ID perps were still hawking their teach ID scam booklet as >>>>> part of their Teach the Controversy scam when Dover hit the fan.
That booklet is the one in which Meyer claims that Of Pandas and
People can be used to teach ID in the public schools and is the
reason why the Dover rubes purchased Of Pandas and People to teach
ID in their public schools.-a The More lawyers had Meyer's teach ID >>>>> scam booklet, and wanted a test case.
https://www.skeptic.com/michael-shermer-show/stephen-meyer-return- >>>>>> of- god-hypothesis-3-scientific-discoveries-reveal-the-mind-
behind- the- universe/?utm_source=chatgpt.com
Shermer is just an ignorant and incompetent rube.-a He obviously is >>>>> ignorant of what Meyer has been doing for decades, and let him
continue to do it.
Why do you want to attempt to defend a scam artist as dishonest as
Meyer?-a Meyer has been director of the ID scam unit from the
beginning. He was involved with the Of Pandas and People book (he
wrote the teachers notes for the book).-a He was the main
cheerleader for the teach ID scam and one of the authors of the
teach ID scam propaganda first produced by the ID perps.-a He ran
the first bait and switch personally on the Ohio rubes, quit his
legitimate teaching job and started directing the bait and switch
full time. When the name change in Of Pandas and People from
creationism to intelligent design was disclosed, during the
Kitzmiller depositions, Meyer ran instead of testify even though
the More lawyers had already agreed that he could have his own
lawyer present in court. Meyer had been telling the rubes for years >>>>> that Of Pandas and People could be use to teach ID in the public
schools, but he was not willing to defend that claim in court.
Really, Meyer wrote the public school teachers notes for the book.
The ID scam unit has been running the bait and switch on 100% of
the creationist rubes that believe them about being able to teach
the junk in the public schools for the last 24 years under the
directorship of Meyer.-a They continue to claim that it is legal to >>>>> teach ID in the public schools outside of Dover, but the bait and
switch goes down 100% of the time.
You are just a rube that wants to be lied to.-a Just think of all
the IDiots at ARN that rolled over and continued to support the use >>>>> of the ID scam as bait.-a After the bait and switch started to go
down the only IDiots in existence were the ignorant, incompetent,
and or dishonest. No honest, competent, and informed creationist
could have possibly kept supporting a stupid bait and switch scam,
especially after they got Wells' report that the ID perps dog and
pony show in front of the Ohio rubes was just a scam because the ID >>>>> perps had decided to start running the bait and switch before they
gave those presentations.-a The ID perps even failed to convince the >>>>> Ohio rubes that ID was science, and one of the rubes demonstrated
that by proposing that the definition of science be changed so that >>>>> ID could be taught as science.-a That is how incompetent and
dishonest IDiotic creationist rubes have to be.-a You can look in
the mirror and see the type of rube that can lie to themselves
about any possible ID science when it was apparent back in 2002
(years before Dover) and ID was already known not to be
scientific.-a Ignorant and incompetent YEC IDiots could understand
that, so why not you? Nelson started admitting that the ID science
had never existed, but that the ID perps were working on creating
some.-a Nelson kept supporting using ID as bait. None of the ID
perps resigned in disgust, and all of them kept supporting the use
of ID as bait.-a You can't point to any concerted efforts by any ID >>>>> perp member of the Discovery Institute scam unit that tried to stop >>>>> the bait and switch scam.-a All that you will be able to find is a
continued effort to put ID up as bait.
Ron Okimoto
Ron, I'm interested to understand where your energy against ID comes
from.
You need to deal with how wrong you have been about Meyer.
You should be more interested in why you have such a strong desire to
be lied to by the scam artists.-a They prey on your religious beliefs
in order to further their Wedge political goals.-a They might have
some sort of lame excuse for making a living doing it to you as being
for your own good.
Didn't you ever read the original mission statement of the ID perps?
Didn't you ever read the Wedge document?-a The ID perps told everyone
what they were using the ID scam to accomplish.-a The ID perps wanted
to destroy your fictional materialistic reality.-a They believed that
they could recreate a theocracy that likely had never existed.-a You
seem to have the same belief in their fictional materialistic
reality.-a They seem to have convinced Philip Johnson that they could
do this by teaching their warmed over creationist denial as
intelligent design.
The Top Six best evidences, gap denial, for the ID scam were all used
by the Scientific creationists well over a decade before the ID scam
unit at the Discovery Institute was born.
Do you agree with their mission?-a Is that the reason that you allow
yourself to be lied to by the ID perps?-a The ID perps have run the
bait and switch for the last 24 years because they came to the
conclusion that using ID as bait was the best means to support their
Wedge mission. -a-aThey abandoned teaching the junk because they had
nothing that their creationist supporters would have wanted to teach.
The TO IDiots quit the ID scam when they had their faces rubbed in
the fact that they had never wanted the ID perps to produce any valid
ID science when the ID perps were stupid enough to present their Top
Six gap denial arguments in the order in which they must have
occurred in this universe.-a That order is not Biblical.-a The Reason
to Believe IDiots tried to fit the ID scam into their Biblical
creation model and failed, and they no longer support the ID scam.
All ID is good for is as bait to force the obfuscation and denial
switch scam onto the rubes.
ID is a dishonest scam and they are scamming their fellow Christians.
They just want to get the rubes to help push their mission forward by
bending over for the switch scam, but the dishonest creationists that
fall for the ID scam do not want to teach their kids enough science
for them to understand what they need to deny.-a The ID perps are not
running the bait and switch on the science side.-a They are running
the scam on their creationist rube supporters.
As a Christian what the ID perps are doing is reprehensible to me.
The ID perps are still asking for donations to keep doing it.-a Meyer
has made his living for the past 24 years directing the stupid bait
and switch scam.-a Under his full time directorship the ID perps have
continued to claim that it is legal to teach ID in the public
schools, but they have run the bait and switch on any rube that has
believed them 100% of the time.-a They even tried to run the bait and
switch on the Dover rubes, but the Dover rubes were too stupid and
ignorant to know that the Discovery Institute was the outfit selling
the teach ID scam, so they did not take the switch scam and tried to
teach ID anyway.
It's one thing to disagree strongly, e.g. I disagree strongly with
climate change deniers, believing that they are often ignoring or
misusing science for idealogical reasons. Moreover, unlike say flat-
earthers, with concern that their influence and proposed course of
action (mostly inaction) poses a risk to the planet.
The anti-science scam is damaging the people that fall for the scam.
Nearly all the rubes that have fallen for the bait have dropped the
issue instead of bend over for the switch scam.-a They exposed
themselves to be dishonest and/or incompetent and got nothing for
their stupid and dishonest efforts.-a Rubes like you never want to
understand what reality actually is, but that isn't good for society.
We live in a society dependent on the science that the ID perps want
to subvert.-a The ID perps were initially claiming that they could do
the same science that everyone else was doing and support their
theory of intelligent design, but they were obviously lying.-a They
were lying to the rubes for the same reason that the scientific
creationists called their YEC beliefs scientific.-a They understood
that science works, and creationism never had worked to build a
better understanding of nature to the benefit of mankind.-a The ID
perps never wanted to do any real science.-a What they wanted was to
destroy sciences ability to function, and bring it down to their
level.-a Like you they have some weird notion that materialism is evil
simply because it works and Biblical mythology has never worked. You
don't have any positive examples where the Biblical creation was
found to be the creation that we live in because there has been 100%
failure for the god-did-it claims throughout history.-a Why have you
never dealt with the fact that god-did-it claims have never been
verified, but have only failed once we have been able to figure out
what actually happened.-a Doesn't it matter to you that you do not
have a single positive example to support your case?-a The ID perps do
not like the fact that science has all the successes, and the Bible
has none. Biological evolution is a fact of nature and you still want
to deny that it could have happened.-a The success of science is
something that you consider to be undermining your religious
beliefs.-a The ID perps believe that is the case too.-a They blame
science for moral decay and people becoming less religious.-a What do
you think their lies are doing?-a They think that they need to
recreate a theocracy to whip the people into line.-a You should
understand what that would result in. Nothing good.
They should blame themselves for the moral decay.-a Look at the kind
of dishonest creationists that they require to support their effort.
Instead of getting people to reconcile their Biblical beliefs with
reality, they would rather lie to them about reality and force their
lies onto others.-a The only good thing about the ID scam is that the
demonstration of how bogus and dishonest the effort has been seems to
have gotten some YEC denominations to try to get their congregations
to accept that the earth is much older than the Bible seems to claim.
This is actually a step in the right direction, but the ID perps want
to lie to the rubes about a Big Tent that does not exist.-a Most of
their support still comes from YEC even though most of the ID perps
are OEC and understand that the Big Tent of ID science does not exist.
Science is just the study of nature, and there is only one nature for
the ID perps and their fellow creationists to deal with.-a Nature is
known not to be Biblical.-a Science is never going to support Biblical
creationist beliefs.-a Just try to get the Reason to Believe ex IDiots
to tell you why they no longer support the ID scam.-a The Top Six in
the order in which they must have occurred in this universe is not
consistent with their Biblical creation model even if you claim that
days are indeterminate periods of time.
Is your objection to the ID movement itself, or do reject
consideration of supernatural causes generally? And do you regard ID
as a threat to science and the wellbeing of people?
Once it became clear that ID was nothing more than a stupid bait and
switch scam I objected to the scam.-a I did not start calling them ID
perps and ID a scam until they had run the bait and switch 100% of
the time for over 2 years.-a At that time there was absolutely no
doubt about what they were doing because they were still yammering
about the Santorum "amendment" being support for their teach ID scam,
and they had not retracted their Utah review article, nor their ID
propaganda booklet.-a You and the other IDiots that did not quit just
kept supporting the ID perp's efforts to use ID as bait.-a The only
IDiots in existence are ignorant, incompetent, and or dishonest.-a Try
to demonstrate that honest competent and informed IDiots can exist.
You know that you can't do this.-a I object to the ID scam because it
preys on the ignorant and incompetent, and just feeds the dishonesty
of the rest that want to keep supporting the effort.
ID failed as science due to the Dover fiasco where their bait and
switch scam went terribly wrong for the ID perps and they were forced
to try to defend the scam.-a All ID has ever been used for is as bait
100% of the time.-a No rubes have ever gotten the promised ID science.
The use of ID as bait has been the only way forward for the ID perps
to continue their Wedge mission.-a What else have the ID perps done
with their ID science claims?-a No ID science has ever been produced.
Only the bait claims have continued.-a The ISCID pretty much died when
the bait and switch started to go down.-a They likely lost all their
non ID scam creationist supporters.-a Who would want to support a bait
and switch scam if you were not being paid to do it, or you really
believed in the Wedge mission?-a Once ID had been revealed to be bait,
no serious and honest academics would have kept supporting the
effort.-a Tour doesn't support the ID scam.-a He even claims that he
doesn't know how to do any ID science.-a Tour just can't give up on
the gap denial because he needs to wallow in denial just like you.
My evaluation of you, is that you are dishonest enough to keep
supporting ID as bait because you want to be lied to.-a Likely,
because you do not want reality to be what it is.-a Just like you
don't want biological evolution to be a fact of nature, you do not
want the existing origin of life gap filled by any explanantion.
Even if some god could be found to fill that gap it would not be the
god described in the Bible.-a Wallowing in denial is your only means
that you can think of to keep from dealing with that reality.-a The
YEC rubes are IDiots because they can't deal with things like the Big
Bang and the origin of life on earth.-a They are all too ignorant,
incompetent and or dishonest to understand that they do not want to
teach the best evidence for the ID scam.-a You know that you do not
want the Top Six taught honestly because you ran from it, and you
can't even deal honestly with your origin of life gap (#3 of the Top
Six).-a Just imagine how quickly all the YEC support would drain away
from the ID scam if they put out a lesson plan that taught the Top
Six in an honest and straightforward manner.
Reality isn't going to change.-a It isn't your materialistic boogie
man that is the issue.-a Reality does not support your Biblical
beliefs. You are the one that needs to deal with that fact.
Continuing to support a bogus bait and switch scam is never going to
result in what you need to do.
Ron Okimoto
Independently of ID, my own investigation of OoL leads me to conclude
that progress is overstated and foundational problems are understated,
which I've argued here at length (as you know) with reference to
source papers and my own thinking and ideas, as well as material from
ID. Sure, my engagement is at the level of somewhat-informed
layperson, and you may disagree with my interpretations of the
science. However, are you suggesting that all I've contributed on this
topic has no scientific merit or validity at all, and worse, it is
only the product of my dishonesty driven by an ideological agenda?
You need to try to be honest with yourself.-a You have allowed the ID
scam to rule your innate dishonesty.-a The ID scam has created a loser willfully incompetent human being in what they have done to you.-a You
have literally spent decades of your life lying to yourself about
reality.-a All that you have used the ID scam for is justification for
your dishonesty.-a You have only wanted to be lied to by the scam
artists, and have somehow lied to yourself about what a bogus scam ID
has been for the last two decades.-a You can't even deal with how you let
a scam artist like Meyer fool you for decades.
You spent a lot of time defining the origin of life gap because you
wanted to deny that it would ever be filled by by scientific efforts.
You did such a good job that you demonstrated without any doubt that the origin of life gap was not Biblical.-a Even if the ID perps were ever
able to fill the gap with some god, it would not be the Biblical
designer.-a You were competent enough to run from that reality, but you eventually went back to lying to yourself about the issue.-a You admitted that all you wanted to do was wallow in the denial.-a You claimed that
you did not have to deal with the fact that the gap was not Biblical
until the gap was filled.-a That is so sad that it should by something
that atheists would have to lie about because what type of creationist
would admit to being so dishonestly willfully ignorant and incompetent.
I have pointed out in the past that your origin of life denial is senseless.-a It has never mattered how far the scientific effort is from figuring out your type of answer for the origin of life.-a Really, it has always been understood by the scientists involved that the best that
they can expect to do is to determine the most likely way that life originated on this planet.-a The most likely way does not have to be the
way in which it happened.-a Origin of life research has always been acknowledged to be among the weakest of scientific endeavors.-a It is why most scientists do not bother with it.-a It is why I have never applied
any concerted effort to follow it except with respect to the creationist denial.
Reiterating my previously stated position, I have only partial support
for ID. I've criticised what I've seen as incorrect claims (e.g. in
relation to junk DNA), and I've spoken about my concern with ID's
religious right political stance at times.
Until you ran from the Top Six and tried to keep the ID scam alive by posting them as independent bits of denial your above statement could
have been considered to likely be the case, but it now seems to be a
lie.-a Whether you want to be honest with yourself or not, you have been heavily dependent on the lies that you get from the ID perps.-a You have needed to be lied to for decades.-a You could not give it up when you
should have realized that it was just a scam with the rest of the IDiots
at ARN.-a All the IDiots that did not quit the ID scam after the bait and switch started to go down were ignorant, incompetent, and or dishonest,
and you remained among them for decades of the bait and switch going
down 100% of the time.-a What could you possibly have thought about what
the ID perps were doing when all they were using ID for was as bait to
force the rubes to take their obfuscation and denial switch scam?
You need to face your reliance on the lies of the ID scam, and your inability to deal honestly with your origin of life gap.-a You can't just quit the ID scam like Kalk and Bill, and and continue to wallow in the denial.-a You have to deal honestly with the denial.
Harran just put up a quote by Pope Francis demonstrating that he had
given up on the Bibilical literal interpretation about the creation in
six magical periods of time.-a He claimed that the Big Bang and what happened since is a creation that he can believe in.-a It has been that
way since all the Church Fathers were not flat earth Biblical creationists.-a There remain Jewish and Christian Biblical flat earth creationists to this day, but the intellectuals that were instrumental
in forming early Christian beliefs did not require a literal
interpretation of the Bible. Eratosthenes had estimated the
circumference of the earth by physical measurements a couple centuries before Christ was born.
You can't name a single instance where the literal interpretation won
out when a conflict arose with science.-a 100% failure.-a If you had such
an example we would already be teaching it in the public schools.-a The earth is not flat, the Biblical firmament does not exist, the universe
is not geocentric, the earth is much older than a few thousand years
(the ICR is back to claiming less than 20,000 years, and likely less
than 10,000).-a The ID perps understand that the Big Bang happened over
13 billion years ago (#1 of the Top Six).-a Some fine tuning occurred
before or during the Big bang and it took 8 billion years to create the elements that make up our solar system from dying stars so that the
earth could be fine tuned for life (#2 of the Top Six).-a The origin of
life occurred over 3 billion years ago, and some evidence exists that it started about as soon as the earth cooled enough to have liquid water
(#3 of the Top Six).-a The flagellum evolved among eubacteria and archaea independently over a billion years ago, and Behe should be looking for
his three neutral mutations that are needed to have evolved within a
certain period of time within a single cell lineage, but he refuses to
try to verify if the flagellum could be IC.-a He claims that as long as
we do not know how the flagellum evolved that his IC claims are still viable, but it means that his claims have not been verified, and he
refuses to test his hypothesis (#4 of the Top Six).-a If Behe ever found
his 3 neutral mutations that occurred over a billion years ago every
single YEC would likely quit supporting the ID scam.-a The kicker is that Behe claims that his 3 neutral mutation claim is testable, but it is
only testable if biological evolution is true.-a Behe requires descent
with modification and enough existing branching lineages, that trace
back to that time period, to determine when the mutations occurred).
Before the bait and switch started to go down Meyer was hawking the
Cambrian explosion (#5 of the Top Six) as evidence for the ID scam.-a His claim was that 25 million years was not a long enough period of time to evolve all the taxa that evolved during this period of time over half a billion years go.-a Meyer continued to fool the YEC rubes.-a Gish had used the same argument a couple decades before Meyer, but at that time the
gap was 45 million years and more taxa were thought to have evolved
within that time period.-a Gish was successful in fooling the rubes with
the Cambrian explosion gap denial, a gap that was never Biblical, and so
was Meyer.-a The Cambrian explosion means that there were sea creatures evolving long before land plants existed.-a Gish also was fond of gaps in the human fossil record (#6 of the Top Six).-a The reason that this gap argument should kill YEC is that the gaps are known to be gaps within
the last 10 million years of human evolution because of what we have
already found and the fossils are missing from well defined time period.
-aEnough is already known about the gaps to demonstrate that the earth
has to be older than 20,000 years old.-a There would not be so many gaps
if we did not have the intermediate forms that tell us what we are
likely missing.-a Each time we have filled a gap with a transitional form
we create two gaps.-a This is why the Top Six killed ID on TO and all the IDiots quit the ID scam or ran from dealing honestly with the best
evidence that the ID perp scam artists have.
Nature has been known not to be Biblical for centuries.-a Wallowing in denial will never change that fact.
Ron Okimoto
On 10/04/2026 6:19 pm, Kerr-Mudd, John wrote:
On Fri, 10 Apr 2026 09:51:04 +1000
MarkE <me22over7@gmail.com> wrote:
On 9/04/2026 2:10 am, RonO wrote:[]
Have you not read anything RonO has said? ID is a scam to fool rubes.
Ron, I'm interested to understand where your energy against ID comes from. >>>
It's one thing to disagree strongly, e.g. I disagree strongly with
climate change deniers, believing that they are often ignoring or
misusing science for idealogical reasons. Moreover, unlike say
flat-earthers, with concern that their influence and proposed course of
action (mostly inaction) poses a risk to the planet.
Is your objection to the ID movement itself, or do reject consideration
of supernatural causes generally? And do you regard ID as a threat to
science and the wellbeing of people?
He's warning readers: Don't be scammed.
PS you never have an answer to the statement that the god you are
looking for in the gaps of science cannot be biblical.
It appears to me you have little interest in open-minded and effortful engagement, at least in response to my posts. That's okay, we all have different reasons for being here. But that being the case, I choose to invest my efforts elsewhere.
On 11/04/2026 12:18 am, ShyDavid wrote:
On 2026/04/09 5:51 PM, MarkE wrote:
On 9/04/2026 2:10 am, RonO wrote:He told you why / where many score times: ID is a scam--- it harms people and it is deceptive, demonstrably false, and evil shits use it to rob the dim of wit.
Ron, I'm interested to understand where your energy against ID comes from. >>
Perhaps you just do not understand such things as altruism.
You've previously agreed with Dawkins' assessment that "there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil, no good, nothing but pitiless indifference." And yet here you are expressing great concern for moral behaviour, declaring some people as "evil", and even appealing to the virtue of "altruism".
I acknowledge that in a materialistic framework we may explain why we feel these things, and justify them (for social cohesion etc), but in reality, morality is an illusion, an epiphenomenon or emergent property of the fleeting ensemble of matter and energy that comprise you.
If this is true, we are left knowingly pretending that it all somehow matters. This is a well-explored philosophical territory. E.g.
Sartre rejects nihilism in practice, but only by asserting that humans must create meaning themselves (existentialism); Foucault rejects a universal moral framework, pushing toward moral anti-realism; and Neitzsche declaring rCLGod is deadrCY concludes nothing has real value (nihilism).
Put simply: atheism (no God) raA risk of nihilism raA existentialist response (create meaning) raA humanism (institutionalise and moralise that meaning).
And you?
On 11/04/2026 2:21 am, RonO wrote:
On 4/10/2026 1:45 AM, MarkE wrote:
On 10/04/2026 2:24 pm, RonO wrote:
On 4/9/2026 6:51 PM, MarkE wrote:
On 9/04/2026 2:10 am, RonO wrote:
On 4/7/2026 10:29 PM, MarkE wrote:
On 8/04/2026 12:16 pm, RonO wrote:
On 4/7/2026 7:08 PM, MarkE wrote:
On 8/04/2026 9:10 am, RonO wrote:
On 4/7/2026 5:34 PM, MarkE wrote:
On 7/04/2026 5:50 pm, Kerr-Mudd, John wrote:
On Tue, 7 Apr 2026 12:43:48 +1000Start here (but you knew this): https://www.amazon.com.au/ >>>>>>>>>>> Return- God- Hypothesis-Compelling-TheExistence/dp/0062071505 >>>>>>>>>>>
MarkE <me22over7@gmail.com> wrote:
On 7/04/2026 8:25 am, MarkE wrote:[]
On 7/04/2026 1:41 am, ShyDavid wrote:
I would love to see theists being just as honest and >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> virtuous as
scientists.
Thank you, that confirms where you're coming from. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
I am curious though: you appear to have contempt to the >>>>>>>>>>>>> point of moral
repugnance for anyone favouring the God hypothesis (i.e. >>>>>>>>>>>>> creationists of
any stripe), and a self-assurance regarding materialism to >>>>>>>>>>>>> the point of
arrogance - why then the interest in the topic of origins, >>>>>>>>>>>>> and why
bother engaging? Are you not as confident as you make out, >>>>>>>>>>>>> are you
seeking applause here, or do you just enjoy being smug and >>>>>>>>>>>>> insulting?
Where's your evidence/justification for this 'god hypothesis'? >>>>>>>>>>>
Or read my posts on OoL. Etc etc etc.
But you don't really care, do you.
It may be justification, but is not scientific evidence for >>>>>>>>>> any god hypothesis.-a It is just junk to fool the rubes with. >>>>>>>>>> Meyer never tried to create a coherent god hypothesis.-a He >>>>>>>>>> just presented the god- of-the- gaps denial arguments as
independent bits of denial, just as the scientific
creationists had done decades before Meyer joined the ID
scam.-a You know why he did not try to develop a coherent god >>>>>>>>>> hypothesis is because nature is not Biblical and the god
hypothesized would not be the Biblical god. He didn't do it >>>>>>>>>> for the same reason that you ran from the Top Six and can't >>>>>>>>>> deal with them in an honest and straightforward manner. It is >>>>>>>>>> why the other IDiots quit the ID scam.
Ron Okimoto
Ron, you are so wrong, and out of line. Meyer is an intelligent >>>>>>>>> and considered scientist, and his writing is recognised as such >>>>>>>>> beyond the ID community. Present your rebuttals to his
arguments, but spare us your unsupported slander.
First off, Meyer does not consider himself to be a scientist. >>>>>>>> At one time he worked as a geologist for an oil company, but he >>>>>>>> claims to be an historian and philosopher (part of the scam
artist schtick).
Meyer is not currently a practising scientist, but is a qualified >>>>>>> scientist:
PhD rCo History and Philosophy of Science, University of Cambridge >>>>>>> Focus: philosophy of biology, scientific explanation
MasterrCOs degree rCo Geophysics, University of Cambridge
BachelorrCOs degree rCo Physics and Earth Science, Whitworth University >>>>>>> A former geophysicist and college professor.
You have to accept what the scam artist claims.-a He claims to be >>>>>> an historian and philosopher scam artist, not a scientist scam
artist. Philosophers are allowed to fool the rubes with
obfuscation and denial, but scam artist scientists are not really >>>>>> scientists, at best they would be considered to be pseudo scientists. >>>>>>
Meyers is a dishonest scam artist.-a He was the head cheer leader >>>>>>>> for the teach ID scam when other ID perps understood that there >>>>>>>> was no ID science worth teaching.-a Understanding that fact he >>>>>>>> ran the first bait and switch scam on the Ohio rubes.-a He had >>>>>>>> made up his mind that he was going to run the bait and switch >>>>>>>> before he gave his presentation to the Ohio rubes.-a He lied to >>>>>>>> them about being able to teach the junk in the public schools >>>>>>>> and that ID was science.-a The real scientists demonstrated to >>>>>>>> the board that ID was not science and should not be taught as >>>>>>>> such in the public schools.-a Meyer offered the switch scam to >>>>>>>> the rubes in the discussion after Wells made the claim that
there was enough scientific support for the ID scam that it
could be forced into the public schools (Wells also knew that >>>>>>>> the bait and switch was going down and that he was just lying to >>>>>>>> the rubes).-a Meyer and Wells were so unconvincing that the Ohio >>>>>>>> rubes decided not to teach the ID scam junk, but the rubes were >>>>>>>> still dishonest enough to bend over for the switch scam that
Meyer told them had nothing to do with ID.-a The board understood >>>>>>>> that Meyer had tried to lie to them about ID being science, but >>>>>>>> some of them were so dishonest and corrupt that one of them put >>>>>>>> up the proposal to the board that the definition of science,
that was a part of the science standards, be rewritten so that >>>>>>>> ID could be taught as science in the Ohio public schools.-a The >>>>>>>> board was actually convinced that Meyer had tried to lie to them >>>>>>>> about ID being science when it could not be considered to be
science by their own definition of science.
At the time Meyer had a job teaching at a religious college, but >>>>>>>> he dropped out of the public view after running the bait and
switch. He quit that job (it had to be hard to walk down the
academic halls with scam artists written on your forehead).-a All >>>>>>>> his colleagues must have known what he had been claiming about >>>>>>>> the teach ID scam. Meyer was an author of the Teach ID scam 1999 >>>>>>>> booklet that the Discovery Institute used to give out with their >>>>>>>> ID scam video and also the 2000 Utah law review article claiming >>>>>>>> that it was legal to teach ID in the public schools.-a Meyer
started working as director of the bait and switch scam full
time, and has made sure that ID has continued to be offered up >>>>>>>> as bait for decades.-a The teach ID scam claims were never
retracted, and more teach ID scam propaganda was eventually
added during Meyer's leadership of the bait and switch scam. >>>>>>>> Immediately after Ohio West had to step forward and make sure >>>>>>>> that the bait and switch kept going down on any rubes that
popped up and still wanted to teach the junk (Meyer was MIA). Do >>>>>>>> you recall how long Meyer retreated into the background after >>>>>>>> running the bait and switch on the Ohio rubes?
You were posting at ARN when the bait and switch went down.-a By >>>>>>>> Ohio some of the IDiots at ARN already understood that there
wasn't any ID science to teach.-a The majority of IDiotic
creationist rubes supported teaching ID just as the Discovery >>>>>>>> Institute was claiming could be done. You know that after the >>>>>>>> bait and switch went down the tone changed at ARN.-a The majority >>>>>>>> were no longer openly supporting teaching the junk. Only a few >>>>>>>> still claimed that ID would be taught in Ohio.-a Most of the
IDiots started pretending that teaching the junk wasn't the goal >>>>>>>> of the ID scam even though that is about all ID had ever been. >>>>>>>> ID first came to TO in the late 1990's as something that could >>>>>>>> be taught in the public schools (probably, just before you
started posting).
A year (2003) after Ohio when the initial draft of the Ohio
model lesson plan came out nearly everyone at ARN stopped
supporting teaching the junk.-a Eventually the creationist web >>>>>>>> links and all mention of intelligent design and ID perps was
removed from the lesson plan. Wells' book had obviously been
used to create the lesson plan (the Wellsian lie about no moths >>>>>>>> on tree trunks had made it into the lesson plan) but the
reference to his book was removed from the lesson plan when the >>>>>>>> lie was rewritten.-a Mike gene came out and claimed that he had >>>>>>>> given up on teaching the junk back in 1999, but Gene and nearly >>>>>>>> all the IDiots kept supporting ID as bait.-a Some may have quit >>>>>>>> posting, but everyone that was left was either ignorant,
incompetent and or dishonest. You were apparently among the
dishonest, but you haven't yet demonstrated that you are clearly >>>>>>>> out of the incompetent group.
During the Dover fiasco Meyer ran even though the More lawyers >>>>>>>> had allowed him to have his own lawyer present during his
Kitzmiller testimony.-a He ran after Forrest was deposed with >>>>>>>> Dembski in attendance, and the name change from creationism to >>>>>>>> intelligent design in the book Of Pandas and People was
disclosed.-a Meyer had written the teachers notes for that book, >>>>>>>> and was one of the authors of the teach ID scam propaganda
claiming that Of Pandas and People could be used to teach ID in >>>>>>>> the public schools.
Meyer is just a dishonest scam artist.-a His god hypothesis book >>>>>>>> was only meant to continue to fool the rubes.-a How long has the >>>>>>>> bait and switch been going down under the direction of Meyer? >>>>>>>> Why did he never retract any of his teach ID scam propaganda
after starting to run the bait and switch?
You should know by now that the first thing any hypothesis
should be evaluated on would be if it can exist within what is >>>>>>>> already understood. -a-aMeyer purposely refused to demonstrate >>>>>>>> that any of his hypotheses were viable within the context of
what is known, and only put up the gap arguments as independent >>>>>>>> bits of denial in order to fool the rubes. What the scam artist >>>>>>>> did should only work on rubes that want to be lied to like
yourself.-a Meyer never put up a coherent god hypothesis.-a He >>>>>>>> only put up independent bits of gap denial in order to lie to >>>>>>>> the rubes about reality. If he had made an honest effort you
would be running from the book just as you ran from the Top Six >>>>>>>> that the ID perps put out in the order in which they must have >>>>>>>> occurred in this universe. The universe is not Biblical.-a The >>>>>>>> god that fills Meyer's gaps is not the god described in the
Bible. That is what Meyer should have made clear at the
beginning of the Book, but he just wrote the book to scam the >>>>>>>> rubes, and maintain ID as bait.
Ron Okimoto
The ID movement has a complicated history, but I reject your
caricaturisation as a bait and switch scam. It's a movement with >>>>>>> many voices over a long period - some possibly misguided at
times, or even dishonest - you get that whenever humans are
involved, especially with such a complex, developing and charged >>>>>>> issue.
Meyer has been the director of the ID scam unit at the Discovery
Institute from it's founding.-a Meyer's voice was claiming that ID >>>>>> could be taught in the public schools and that Of Pandas and
People could be used to teach the junk.-a He ran the first bait and >>>>>> switch scam on the Ohio rubes personally.-a He never retracted any >>>>>> of his teach ID scam junk, and only allowed the Discovery
Institute to create more teach ID scam propaganda during his
directorship of the ID bait and switch scam. Under Meyer's
directorship the bait and switch has gone down 100% of the time
any creationist rubes have believed the scam junk and claimed to
want to teach ID in the public schools.-a 100% of the time is your >>>>>> reality.-a They blundered in Dover.-a By that time they were paying >>>>>> someone to make sure that the bait and switch went down, but it
had likely become routine (it had likely gone down around 30 times >>>>>> since Ohio), and the ID perp did not follow up after running the
bait and switch and telling the rubes not to teach ID, but to
teach the switch scam instead.-a The Dover rubes did not like the >>>>>> switch scam and decided to teach ID anyway, instead of dropping
the issue as nearly all of the other creationist rubes had done. >>>>>> The Dover rubes were so ignorant and incompetent that they did not >>>>>> know that the Discovery Institute was the scam outfit running the >>>>>> teach ID scam.-a Meyer ran from testifying and would not defend his >>>>>> own propaganda about being able to teach the junk in the public
schools.
This is the reality that you are lying to yourself about.
https://arn.org/docs/dewolf/guidebook.htm
This is the teach ID scam propaganda that Meyer authored in 1999
to sell the teach ID scam.-a The conclusion contains the claim that >>>>>> Of Pandas and People can be used to teach ID in the public
schools. Meyer sold the teach ID scam, and ran the first bait and >>>>>> switch on the Ohio rubes in 2002.
However, current policy is: "DI opposes any effort to require the >>>>>>> teaching of intelligent design by school districts or state
boards of education."
Yes, they started making the "required" claim after their failure >>>>>> in Dover, but they still claimed that the Dover decision was
wrong, and that even though ID had been determined to be no
science worth teaching in the public schools that ID could still
be legally taught outside of the middle court district of PA.
"Required" is only their scam language to keep running the bait
and switch.
You should know because I put it up on TO when it happened.-a When >>>>>> both Louisiana and Texas tried to use their switch scam stupidity >>>>>> to teach ID in their public schools in 2013 both states claimed
that they were not requiring ID to be taught, and were just
allowing teachers to teach the scam junk if they wanted to.-a The >>>>>> ID perps ran the bait and switch on the rubes anyway.-a It was such >>>>>> a dishonest bait and switch that the ID perps removed the
"requiring" statement from their Education policy. They just
deleted that paragraph and left the rest intact for several years >>>>>> until they rewrote the scam education policy and put back the
"requiring" scam stupidity, and have kept running the bait and
switch 100% of the time.-a The truth is that the ID perps do not
want ID taught in the public schools whether it is required or
not.-a They are only using ID as bait. They know that they do not >>>>>> have any ID science that the rubes would want to teach.
You can still find the original education policy on page 15 of the >>>>>> current teach ID scam propaganda where they continue to claim that >>>>>> it is legal to teach the junk outside of Dover.
https://www.discovery.org/f/1453/
QUOTE:
Although Discovery Institute does not advocate requiring
the teaching of intelligent design in public schools, it
does believe there is nothing unconstitutional about
voluntarily discussing the scientific theory of design in
the classroom. In addition, the Institute opposes efforts
to persecute individual teachers who may wish to discuss
the scientific debate over design in an objective and
pedagogically appropriate manner.
END QUOTE:
This is the paragraph that the ID perps deleted from the education >>>>>> policy after they ran the bait and switch on Louisiana and Texas
when they were not requiring ID to be taught.
They eventually put back the "requiring" scam language and have
continued to run the bait and switch to this day.
They have updated the teach ID scam propaganda that they created
after Dover around every 3 years since first publishing it in
2007. I have noted that they last updated the junk in 2021, but
have since reformated the site and seem to have reverted to the
2018 version. It is likely to be updated again in 2027.-a Luskin is >>>>>> one of the authors of this propaganda, and he is the current ID
perp tasked with making sure that the bait and switch keeps going >>>>>> down on states like West Virginia and the Dakotas.-a The guy
currently telling the rubes that the Discovery Institute does not >>>>>> support teaching ID in the public schools is one of the ID perps
that is responsible for writing the current teach ID scam
propaganda. Meyer is just directing the bait and switch.-a Luskin >>>>>> has been tasked to keep doing it.
"It believes that evolution should be fully and completely
presented to students, and they should learn more about
evolutionary theory, including its unresolved issues. In other
words, evolution should be taught as a scientific theory that is >>>>>>> open to critical scrutiny, not as a sacred dogma that canrCOt be >>>>>>> questioned."
This is why nearly all the creationist rubes that have had the
bait and switch run on them have dropped the issue instead of
bending over for the switch scam.-a Dishonest Biblical creationist >>>>>> rubes do not want to teach their kids enough science for them to
understand what they need to deny if they can't tell them the
religious reason for why they are lying to the students.-a The ID >>>>>> perps push the obfuscation and denial switch scam as the only
means to keep the kids as ignorant as possible so that they can
continue to support their Wedge goals.
You know that the ID science does not support Biblical
creationism. Most of the ID perps are old earth Biblical
creationists, but probably all the rubes that have had the bait
and switch run on them have been YEC. YEC would never want their
kids taught the best evidence for the ID scam.-a The YEC have
already succeeded in removing the Big Bang (#1 of the Top Six)
along with biological evolution from the science standards of
Kansas in 1999, and multiple other states have considered the same >>>>>> thing.-a The YEC would never accept teaching the best evidence for >>>>>> ID in an honest and straight forward manner. That is why the ID
perps have never told the rubes what they want to teach and how
they think that it should be taught.-a They have only sold ID as
bait so that they can force the obfuscation and denial switch scam >>>>>> onto the rubes.
"Discovery Institute believes that a curriculum that aims to
provide students with an understanding of the strengths and
weaknesses of neo- Darwinian and chemical evolutionary theories >>>>>>> (rather than teaching an alternative theory, such as intelligent >>>>>>> design) represents a common ground approach that all reasonable >>>>>>> citizens can agree on."
This is the obfuscation and denial switch scam that the ID perps
tell the rubes has nothing to do with ID.-a The ID perps obviously >>>>>> lie a lot. Just go up and read the paragraph that they deleted
from their education policy when both Louisiana and Texas did not >>>>>> require ID to be taught, but the scam artists still ran the bait
and switch on them.-a The ID perps do not want ID taught whether it >>>>>> is required or not because they do not want a repeat of Dover.
_____
I refer you to long-form conversations between sceptic Michael
Shermer and Stephen Meyer. It is refreshing to see Shermer's
approach to "steelman" his opponent, the mutually respectful
posture of both, and the scope and depth of their dialogue.
Shermer for one takes Meyer seriously, scientifically and
philosophically, and rightly so. I challenge anyone to listen to >>>>>>> these dialogues and then endorse Ron's characterisation of Meyer >>>>>>> as "just a dishonest scam artist" whose "god hypothesis book was >>>>>>> only meant to continue to fool the rubes."
Shermer was an idiot.-a For whatever reason he let Meyer get away >>>>>> with putting up the Top Six as independent bits of denial in the
God Hypothesis.-a He let Meyer not defend a single God Hypothesis, >>>>>> but let him lie about what his god hypothesis was.-a You know that >>>>>> Meyer's god hypothesis is some version of the Biblical god
hypothesis.-a Meyer is just a dishonest scam artists.-a He has been >>>>>> selling the rubes on "the Big Tent" of the ID scam, when anyone
that understands science should know that there can be no big
tent. There is only one nature for science to study, and nature is >>>>>> not Biblical.-a Demonstrate that Meyer did not sell the rubes on
the teach ID scam for years before starting to run the bait and
switch. Demonstrate that he ever retracted any of the scam
stupidity. Demonstrate that the Bait and switch has not continued >>>>>> to go down 100% of the time that Meyer has been directing the scam >>>>>> unit. -a-aI have put up the link from the wayback archive that
demonstrates that the ID perps were still hawking their teach ID
scam booklet as part of their Teach the Controversy scam when
Dover hit the fan. That booklet is the one in which Meyer claims
that Of Pandas and People can be used to teach ID in the public
schools and is the reason why the Dover rubes purchased Of Pandas >>>>>> and People to teach ID in their public schools.-a The More lawyers >>>>>> had Meyer's teach ID scam booklet, and wanted a test case.
https://www.skeptic.com/michael-shermer-show/stephen-meyer-
return- of- god-hypothesis-3-scientific-discoveries-reveal-the- >>>>>>> mind- behind- the- universe/?utm_source=chatgpt.com
Shermer is just an ignorant and incompetent rube.-a He obviously is >>>>>> ignorant of what Meyer has been doing for decades, and let him
continue to do it.
Why do you want to attempt to defend a scam artist as dishonest as >>>>>> Meyer?-a Meyer has been director of the ID scam unit from the
beginning. He was involved with the Of Pandas and People book (he >>>>>> wrote the teachers notes for the book).-a He was the main
cheerleader for the teach ID scam and one of the authors of the
teach ID scam propaganda first produced by the ID perps.-a He ran >>>>>> the first bait and switch personally on the Ohio rubes, quit his
legitimate teaching job and started directing the bait and switch >>>>>> full time. When the name change in Of Pandas and People from
creationism to intelligent design was disclosed, during the
Kitzmiller depositions, Meyer ran instead of testify even though
the More lawyers had already agreed that he could have his own
lawyer present in court. Meyer had been telling the rubes for
years that Of Pandas and People could be use to teach ID in the
public schools, but he was not willing to defend that claim in
court. Really, Meyer wrote the public school teachers notes for
the book.
The ID scam unit has been running the bait and switch on 100% of
the creationist rubes that believe them about being able to teach >>>>>> the junk in the public schools for the last 24 years under the
directorship of Meyer.-a They continue to claim that it is legal to >>>>>> teach ID in the public schools outside of Dover, but the bait and >>>>>> switch goes down 100% of the time.
You are just a rube that wants to be lied to.-a Just think of all >>>>>> the IDiots at ARN that rolled over and continued to support the
use of the ID scam as bait.-a After the bait and switch started to >>>>>> go down the only IDiots in existence were the ignorant,
incompetent, and or dishonest. No honest, competent, and informed >>>>>> creationist could have possibly kept supporting a stupid bait and >>>>>> switch scam, especially after they got Wells' report that the ID
perps dog and pony show in front of the Ohio rubes was just a scam >>>>>> because the ID perps had decided to start running the bait and
switch before they gave those presentations.-a The ID perps even
failed to convince the Ohio rubes that ID was science, and one of >>>>>> the rubes demonstrated that by proposing that the definition of
science be changed so that ID could be taught as science.-a That is >>>>>> how incompetent and dishonest IDiotic creationist rubes have to
be.-a You can look in the mirror and see the type of rube that can >>>>>> lie to themselves about any possible ID science when it was
apparent back in 2002 (years before Dover) and ID was already
known not to be scientific.-a Ignorant and incompetent YEC IDiots >>>>>> could understand that, so why not you? Nelson started admitting
that the ID science had never existed, but that the ID perps were >>>>>> working on creating some.-a Nelson kept supporting using ID as
bait. None of the ID perps resigned in disgust, and all of them
kept supporting the use of ID as bait.-a You can't point to any
concerted efforts by any ID perp member of the Discovery Institute >>>>>> scam unit that tried to stop the bait and switch scam.-a All that >>>>>> you will be able to find is a continued effort to put ID up as bait. >>>>>>
Ron Okimoto
Ron, I'm interested to understand where your energy against ID
comes from.
You need to deal with how wrong you have been about Meyer.
You should be more interested in why you have such a strong desire
to be lied to by the scam artists.-a They prey on your religious
beliefs in order to further their Wedge political goals.-a They might >>>> have some sort of lame excuse for making a living doing it to you as
being for your own good.
Didn't you ever read the original mission statement of the ID perps?
Didn't you ever read the Wedge document?-a The ID perps told everyone >>>> what they were using the ID scam to accomplish.-a The ID perps wanted >>>> to destroy your fictional materialistic reality.-a They believed that >>>> they could recreate a theocracy that likely had never existed.-a You
seem to have the same belief in their fictional materialistic
reality.-a They seem to have convinced Philip Johnson that they could >>>> do this by teaching their warmed over creationist denial as
intelligent design.
The Top Six best evidences, gap denial, for the ID scam were all
used by the Scientific creationists well over a decade before the ID
scam unit at the Discovery Institute was born.
Do you agree with their mission?-a Is that the reason that you allow
yourself to be lied to by the ID perps?-a The ID perps have run the
bait and switch for the last 24 years because they came to the
conclusion that using ID as bait was the best means to support their
Wedge mission. -a-aThey abandoned teaching the junk because they had
nothing that their creationist supporters would have wanted to
teach. The TO IDiots quit the ID scam when they had their faces
rubbed in the fact that they had never wanted the ID perps to
produce any valid ID science when the ID perps were stupid enough to
present their Top Six gap denial arguments in the order in which
they must have occurred in this universe.-a That order is not
Biblical.-a The Reason to Believe IDiots tried to fit the ID scam
into their Biblical creation model and failed, and they no longer
support the ID scam. All ID is good for is as bait to force the
obfuscation and denial switch scam onto the rubes.
ID is a dishonest scam and they are scamming their fellow
Christians. They just want to get the rubes to help push their
mission forward by bending over for the switch scam, but the
dishonest creationists that fall for the ID scam do not want to
teach their kids enough science for them to understand what they
need to deny.-a The ID perps are not running the bait and switch on
the science side.-a They are running the scam on their creationist
rube supporters.
As a Christian what the ID perps are doing is reprehensible to me.
The ID perps are still asking for donations to keep doing it.-a Meyer >>>> has made his living for the past 24 years directing the stupid bait
and switch scam.-a Under his full time directorship the ID perps have >>>> continued to claim that it is legal to teach ID in the public
schools, but they have run the bait and switch on any rube that has
believed them 100% of the time.-a They even tried to run the bait and >>>> switch on the Dover rubes, but the Dover rubes were too stupid and
ignorant to know that the Discovery Institute was the outfit selling
the teach ID scam, so they did not take the switch scam and tried to
teach ID anyway.
It's one thing to disagree strongly, e.g. I disagree strongly with
climate change deniers, believing that they are often ignoring or
misusing science for idealogical reasons. Moreover, unlike say
flat- earthers, with concern that their influence and proposed
course of action (mostly inaction) poses a risk to the planet.
The anti-science scam is damaging the people that fall for the scam.
Nearly all the rubes that have fallen for the bait have dropped the
issue instead of bend over for the switch scam.-a They exposed
themselves to be dishonest and/or incompetent and got nothing for
their stupid and dishonest efforts.-a Rubes like you never want to
understand what reality actually is, but that isn't good for
society. We live in a society dependent on the science that the ID
perps want to subvert.-a The ID perps were initially claiming that
they could do the same science that everyone else was doing and
support their theory of intelligent design, but they were obviously
lying.-a They were lying to the rubes for the same reason that the
scientific creationists called their YEC beliefs scientific.-a They
understood that science works, and creationism never had worked to
build a better understanding of nature to the benefit of mankind.
The ID perps never wanted to do any real science.-a What they wanted
was to destroy sciences ability to function, and bring it down to
their level.-a Like you they have some weird notion that materialism
is evil simply because it works and Biblical mythology has never
worked. You don't have any positive examples where the Biblical
creation was found to be the creation that we live in because there
has been 100% failure for the god-did-it claims throughout history.
Why have you never dealt with the fact that god-did-it claims have
never been verified, but have only failed once we have been able to
figure out what actually happened.-a Doesn't it matter to you that
you do not have a single positive example to support your case?-a The >>>> ID perps do not like the fact that science has all the successes,
and the Bible has none. Biological evolution is a fact of nature and
you still want to deny that it could have happened.-a The success of
science is something that you consider to be undermining your
religious beliefs.-a The ID perps believe that is the case too.-a They >>>> blame science for moral decay and people becoming less religious.
What do you think their lies are doing?-a They think that they need
to recreate a theocracy to whip the people into line.-a You should
understand what that would result in. Nothing good.
They should blame themselves for the moral decay.-a Look at the kind
of dishonest creationists that they require to support their effort.
Instead of getting people to reconcile their Biblical beliefs with
reality, they would rather lie to them about reality and force their
lies onto others.-a The only good thing about the ID scam is that the >>>> demonstration of how bogus and dishonest the effort has been seems
to have gotten some YEC denominations to try to get their
congregations to accept that the earth is much older than the Bible
seems to claim. This is actually a step in the right direction, but
the ID perps want to lie to the rubes about a Big Tent that does not
exist.-a Most of their support still comes from YEC even though most
of the ID perps are OEC and understand that the Big Tent of ID
science does not exist.
Science is just the study of nature, and there is only one nature
for the ID perps and their fellow creationists to deal with.-a Nature >>>> is known not to be Biblical.-a Science is never going to support
Biblical creationist beliefs.-a Just try to get the Reason to Believe >>>> ex IDiots to tell you why they no longer support the ID scam.-a The
Top Six in the order in which they must have occurred in this
universe is not consistent with their Biblical creation model even
if you claim that days are indeterminate periods of time.
Is your objection to the ID movement itself, or do reject
consideration of supernatural causes generally? And do you regard
ID as a threat to science and the wellbeing of people?
Once it became clear that ID was nothing more than a stupid bait and
switch scam I objected to the scam.-a I did not start calling them ID >>>> perps and ID a scam until they had run the bait and switch 100% of
the time for over 2 years.-a At that time there was absolutely no
doubt about what they were doing because they were still yammering
about the Santorum "amendment" being support for their teach ID
scam, and they had not retracted their Utah review article, nor
their ID propaganda booklet.-a You and the other IDiots that did not
quit just kept supporting the ID perp's efforts to use ID as bait.
The only IDiots in existence are ignorant, incompetent, and or
dishonest.-a Try to demonstrate that honest competent and informed
IDiots can exist. You know that you can't do this.-a I object to the
ID scam because it preys on the ignorant and incompetent, and just
feeds the dishonesty of the rest that want to keep supporting the
effort.
ID failed as science due to the Dover fiasco where their bait and
switch scam went terribly wrong for the ID perps and they were
forced to try to defend the scam.-a All ID has ever been used for is
as bait 100% of the time.-a No rubes have ever gotten the promised ID >>>> science. The use of ID as bait has been the only way forward for the
ID perps to continue their Wedge mission.-a What else have the ID
perps done with their ID science claims?-a No ID science has ever
been produced. Only the bait claims have continued.-a The ISCID
pretty much died when the bait and switch started to go down.-a They
likely lost all their non ID scam creationist supporters.-a Who would >>>> want to support a bait and switch scam if you were not being paid to
do it, or you really believed in the Wedge mission?-a Once ID had
been revealed to be bait, no serious and honest academics would have
kept supporting the effort.-a Tour doesn't support the ID scam.-a He
even claims that he doesn't know how to do any ID science.-a Tour
just can't give up on the gap denial because he needs to wallow in
denial just like you.
My evaluation of you, is that you are dishonest enough to keep
supporting ID as bait because you want to be lied to.-a Likely,
because you do not want reality to be what it is.-a Just like you
don't want biological evolution to be a fact of nature, you do not
want the existing origin of life gap filled by any explanantion.
Even if some god could be found to fill that gap it would not be the
god described in the Bible.-a Wallowing in denial is your only means
that you can think of to keep from dealing with that reality.-a The
YEC rubes are IDiots because they can't deal with things like the
Big Bang and the origin of life on earth.-a They are all too
ignorant, incompetent and or dishonest to understand that they do
not want to teach the best evidence for the ID scam.-a You know that
you do not want the Top Six taught honestly because you ran from it,
and you can't even deal honestly with your origin of life gap (#3 of
the Top Six).-a Just imagine how quickly all the YEC support would
drain away from the ID scam if they put out a lesson plan that
taught the Top Six in an honest and straightforward manner.
Reality isn't going to change.-a It isn't your materialistic boogie
man that is the issue.-a Reality does not support your Biblical
beliefs. You are the one that needs to deal with that fact.
Continuing to support a bogus bait and switch scam is never going to
result in what you need to do.
Ron Okimoto
Independently of ID, my own investigation of OoL leads me to conclude
that progress is overstated and foundational problems are
understated, which I've argued here at length (as you know) with
reference to source papers and my own thinking and ideas, as well as
material from ID. Sure, my engagement is at the level of somewhat-
informed layperson, and you may disagree with my interpretations of
the science. However, are you suggesting that all I've contributed on
this topic has no scientific merit or validity at all, and worse, it
is only the product of my dishonesty driven by an ideological agenda?
You need to try to be honest with yourself.-a You have allowed the ID
scam to rule your innate dishonesty.-a The ID scam has created a loser
willfully incompetent human being in what they have done to you.-a You
have literally spent decades of your life lying to yourself about
reality.-a All that you have used the ID scam for is justification for
your dishonesty.-a You have only wanted to be lied to by the scam
artists, and have somehow lied to yourself about what a bogus scam ID
has been for the last two decades.-a You can't even deal with how you
let a scam artist like Meyer fool you for decades.
You spent a lot of time defining the origin of life gap because you
wanted to deny that it would ever be filled by by scientific efforts.
You did such a good job that you demonstrated without any doubt that
the origin of life gap was not Biblical.-a Even if the ID perps were
ever able to fill the gap with some god, it would not be the Biblical
designer.-a You were competent enough to run from that reality, but you
eventually went back to lying to yourself about the issue.-a You
admitted that all you wanted to do was wallow in the denial.-a You
claimed that you did not have to deal with the fact that the gap was
not Biblical until the gap was filled.-a That is so sad that it should
by something that atheists would have to lie about because what type
of creationist would admit to being so dishonestly willfully ignorant
and incompetent.
I have pointed out in the past that your origin of life denial is
senseless.-a It has never mattered how far the scientific effort is
from figuring out your type of answer for the origin of life.-a Really,
it has always been understood by the scientists involved that the best
that they can expect to do is to determine the most likely way that
life originated on this planet.-a The most likely way does not have to
be the way in which it happened.-a Origin of life research has always
been acknowledged to be among the weakest of scientific endeavors.-a It
is why most scientists do not bother with it.-a It is why I have never
applied any concerted effort to follow it except with respect to the
creationist denial.
Reiterating my previously stated position, I have only partial
support for ID. I've criticised what I've seen as incorrect claims
(e.g. in relation to junk DNA), and I've spoken about my concern with
ID's religious right political stance at times.
Until you ran from the Top Six and tried to keep the ID scam alive by
posting them as independent bits of denial your above statement could
have been considered to likely be the case, but it now seems to be a
lie.-a Whether you want to be honest with yourself or not, you have
been heavily dependent on the lies that you get from the ID perps.
You have needed to be lied to for decades.-a You could not give it up
when you should have realized that it was just a scam with the rest of
the IDiots at ARN.-a All the IDiots that did not quit the ID scam after
the bait and switch started to go down were ignorant, incompetent, and
or dishonest, and you remained among them for decades of the bait and
switch going down 100% of the time.-a What could you possibly have
thought about what the ID perps were doing when all they were using ID
for was as bait to force the rubes to take their obfuscation and
denial switch scam?
You need to face your reliance on the lies of the ID scam, and your
inability to deal honestly with your origin of life gap.-a You can't
just quit the ID scam like Kalk and Bill, and and continue to wallow
in the denial.-a You have to deal honestly with the denial.
Harran just put up a quote by Pope Francis demonstrating that he had
given up on the Bibilical literal interpretation about the creation in
six magical periods of time.-a He claimed that the Big Bang and what
happened since is a creation that he can believe in.-a It has been that
way since all the Church Fathers were not flat earth Biblical
creationists.-a There remain Jewish and Christian Biblical flat earth
creationists to this day, but the intellectuals that were instrumental
in forming early Christian beliefs did not require a literal
interpretation of the Bible. Eratosthenes had estimated the
circumference of the earth by physical measurements a couple centuries
before Christ was born.
You can't name a single instance where the literal interpretation won
out when a conflict arose with science.-a 100% failure.-a If you had
such an example we would already be teaching it in the public
schools.-a The earth is not flat, the Biblical firmament does not
exist, the universe is not geocentric, the earth is much older than a
few thousand years (the ICR is back to claiming less than 20,000
years, and likely less than 10,000).-a The ID perps understand that the
Big Bang happened over 13 billion years ago (#1 of the Top Six).-a Some
fine tuning occurred before or during the Big bang and it took 8
billion years to create the elements that make up our solar system
from dying stars so that the earth could be fine tuned for life (#2 of
the Top Six).-a The origin of life occurred over 3 billion years ago,
and some evidence exists that it started about as soon as the earth
cooled enough to have liquid water (#3 of the Top Six).-a The flagellum
evolved among eubacteria and archaea independently over a billion
years ago, and Behe should be looking for his three neutral mutations
that are needed to have evolved within a certain period of time within
a single cell lineage, but he refuses to try to verify if the
flagellum could be IC.-a He claims that as long as we do not know how
the flagellum evolved that his IC claims are still viable, but it
means that his claims have not been verified, and he refuses to test
his hypothesis (#4 of the Top Six).-a If Behe ever found his 3 neutral
mutations that occurred over a billion years ago every single YEC
would likely quit supporting the ID scam.-a The kicker is that Behe
claims that his 3 neutral mutation claim is testable, but it is only
testable if biological evolution is true.-a Behe requires descent with
modification and enough existing branching lineages, that trace back
to that time period, to determine when the mutations occurred). Before
the bait and switch started to go down Meyer was hawking the Cambrian
explosion (#5 of the Top Six) as evidence for the ID scam.-a His claim
was that 25 million years was not a long enough period of time to
evolve all the taxa that evolved during this period of time over half
a billion years go.-a Meyer continued to fool the YEC rubes.-a Gish had
used the same argument a couple decades before Meyer, but at that time
the gap was 45 million years and more taxa were thought to have
evolved within that time period.-a Gish was successful in fooling the
rubes with the Cambrian explosion gap denial, a gap that was never
Biblical, and so was Meyer.-a The Cambrian explosion means that there
were sea creatures evolving long before land plants existed.-a Gish
also was fond of gaps in the human fossil record (#6 of the Top Six).
The reason that this gap argument should kill YEC is that the gaps are
known to be gaps within the last 10 million years of human evolution
because of what we have already found and the fossils are missing from
well defined time period. -a-aEnough is already known about the gaps to
demonstrate that the earth has to be older than 20,000 years old.
There would not be so many gaps if we did not have the intermediate
forms that tell us what we are likely missing.-a Each time we have
filled a gap with a transitional form we create two gaps.-a This is why
the Top Six killed ID on TO and all the IDiots quit the ID scam or ran
from dealing honestly with the best evidence that the ID perp scam
artists have.
Nature has been known not to be Biblical for centuries.-a Wallowing in
denial will never change that fact.
Ron Okimoto
As I've discussed several times here before, from my own reading of
science and scripture I don't have a fully reconciled picture, and I acknowledge that this is not unimportant: on one hand, Christianity does
not regard the Bible as a science textbook, on the other, it does claim
to be grounded in historical reality. I've discussed and explored these questions at length in other contexts, but as I've previously stated, I choose to generally not discuss them here.
And whatever faults and failings ID may have (again, I recognise many of them), it continues press into areas that I have independently concluded justify scrutiny and challenge.
Regardless, you do not not seem able to accept even the possibility that
I may genuinely interpret the evidence for (say) OoL differently to you.
Let me ask you this question: when non-religious scientists expresses scepticism or doubt about OoL, how do you regard this?
On 10/04/2026 6:19 pm, Kerr-Mudd, John wrote:
On Fri, 10 Apr 2026 09:51:04 +1000
MarkE <me22over7@gmail.com> wrote:
On 9/04/2026 2:10 am, RonO wrote:[]
Have you not read anything RonO has said? ID is a scam to fool rubes.
Ron, I'm interested to understand where your energy against ID comes
from.
It's one thing to disagree strongly, e.g. I disagree strongly with
climate change deniers, believing that they are often ignoring or
misusing science for idealogical reasons. Moreover, unlike say
flat-earthers, with concern that their influence and proposed course of
action (mostly inaction) poses a risk to the planet.
Is your objection to the ID movement itself, or do reject consideration
of supernatural causes generally? And do you regard ID as a threat to
science and the wellbeing of people?
He's warning readers: Don't be scammed.
PS you never have an answer to the statement that the god you are
looking for in the gaps of science cannot be biblical.
It appears to me you have little interest in open-minded and effortful engagement, at least in response to my posts. That's okay, we all have different reasons for being here. But that being the case, I choose to invest my efforts elsewhere.
On 2026/04/11 6:35 AM, MarkE wrote:
On 10/04/2026 6:19 pm, Kerr-Mudd, John wrote:
On Fri, 10 Apr 2026 09:51:04 +1000
MarkE <me22over7@gmail.com> wrote:
On 9/04/2026 2:10 am, RonO wrote:[]
Have you not read anything RonO has said? ID is a scam to fool rubes.
Ron, I'm interested to understand where your energy against ID comes
from.
It's one thing to disagree strongly, e.g. I disagree strongly with
climate change deniers, believing that they are often ignoring or
misusing science for idealogical reasons. Moreover, unlike say
flat-earthers, with concern that their influence and proposed course of >>>> action (mostly inaction) poses a risk to the planet.
Is your objection to the ID movement itself, or do reject consideration >>>> of supernatural causes generally? And do you regard ID as a threat to
science and the wellbeing of people?
He's warning readers: Don't be scammed.
PS you never have an answer to the statement that the god you are
looking for in the gaps of science cannot be biblical.
It appears to me you have little interest in open-minded and effortful
engagement, at least in response to my posts. That's okay, we all have
different reasons for being here. But that being the case, I choose to
invest my efforts elsewhere.
You are a Creationist: You are therefore incapable of "open-minded and effortful engagement," nor worthy.
On 4/11/2026 8:29 AM, Mark98 wrote:
On 11/04/2026 2:21 am, RonO wrote:
On 4/10/2026 1:45 AM, MarkE wrote:
On 10/04/2026 2:24 pm, RonO wrote:
On 4/9/2026 6:51 PM, MarkE wrote:
On 9/04/2026 2:10 am, RonO wrote:
On 4/7/2026 10:29 PM, MarkE wrote:
On 8/04/2026 12:16 pm, RonO wrote:
On 4/7/2026 7:08 PM, MarkE wrote:
On 8/04/2026 9:10 am, RonO wrote:
On 4/7/2026 5:34 PM, MarkE wrote:
On 7/04/2026 5:50 pm, Kerr-Mudd, John wrote:
On Tue, 7 Apr 2026 12:43:48 +1000Start here (but you knew this): https://www.amazon.com.au/ >>>>>>>>>>>> Return- God- Hypothesis-Compelling-TheExistence/dp/0062071505 >>>>>>>>>>>>
MarkE <me22over7@gmail.com> wrote:
On 7/04/2026 8:25 am, MarkE wrote:[]
On 7/04/2026 1:41 am, ShyDavid wrote:
I would love to see theists being just as honest and >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> virtuous as
scientists.
Thank you, that confirms where you're coming from. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
I am curious though: you appear to have contempt to the >>>>>>>>>>>>>> point of moral
repugnance for anyone favouring the God hypothesis (i.e. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> creationists of
any stripe), and a self-assurance regarding materialism to >>>>>>>>>>>>>> the point of
arrogance - why then the interest in the topic of origins, >>>>>>>>>>>>>> and why
bother engaging? Are you not as confident as you make out, >>>>>>>>>>>>>> are you
seeking applause here, or do you just enjoy being smug and >>>>>>>>>>>>>> insulting?
Where's your evidence/justification for this 'god hypothesis'? >>>>>>>>>>>>
Or read my posts on OoL. Etc etc etc.
But you don't really care, do you.
It may be justification, but is not scientific evidence for >>>>>>>>>>> any god hypothesis.-a It is just junk to fool the rubes with. >>>>>>>>>>> Meyer never tried to create a coherent god hypothesis.-a He >>>>>>>>>>> just presented the god- of-the- gaps denial arguments as >>>>>>>>>>> independent bits of denial, just as the scientific
creationists had done decades before Meyer joined the ID >>>>>>>>>>> scam.-a You know why he did not try to develop a coherent god >>>>>>>>>>> hypothesis is because nature is not Biblical and the god >>>>>>>>>>> hypothesized would not be the Biblical god. He didn't do it >>>>>>>>>>> for the same reason that you ran from the Top Six and can't >>>>>>>>>>> deal with them in an honest and straightforward manner. It is >>>>>>>>>>> why the other IDiots quit the ID scam.
Ron Okimoto
Ron, you are so wrong, and out of line. Meyer is an
intelligent and considered scientist, and his writing is
recognised as such beyond the ID community. Present your
rebuttals to his arguments, but spare us your unsupported >>>>>>>>>> slander.
First off, Meyer does not consider himself to be a scientist. >>>>>>>>> At one time he worked as a geologist for an oil company, but he >>>>>>>>> claims to be an historian and philosopher (part of the scam >>>>>>>>> artist schtick).
Meyer is not currently a practising scientist, but is a
qualified scientist:
PhD rCo History and Philosophy of Science, University of Cambridge >>>>>>>> Focus: philosophy of biology, scientific explanation
MasterrCOs degree rCo Geophysics, University of Cambridge
BachelorrCOs degree rCo Physics and Earth Science, Whitworth University
A former geophysicist and college professor.
You have to accept what the scam artist claims.-a He claims to be >>>>>>> an historian and philosopher scam artist, not a scientist scam
artist. Philosophers are allowed to fool the rubes with
obfuscation and denial, but scam artist scientists are not really >>>>>>> scientists, at best they would be considered to be pseudo
scientists.
Meyers is a dishonest scam artist.-a He was the head cheer
leader for the teach ID scam when other ID perps understood >>>>>>>>> that there was no ID science worth teaching.-a Understanding >>>>>>>>> that fact he ran the first bait and switch scam on the Ohio >>>>>>>>> rubes.-a He had made up his mind that he was going to run the >>>>>>>>> bait and switch before he gave his presentation to the Ohio >>>>>>>>> rubes.-a He lied to them about being able to teach the junk in >>>>>>>>> the public schools and that ID was science.-a The real
scientists demonstrated to the board that ID was not science >>>>>>>>> and should not be taught as such in the public schools.-a Meyer >>>>>>>>> offered the switch scam to the rubes in the discussion after >>>>>>>>> Wells made the claim that there was enough scientific support >>>>>>>>> for the ID scam that it could be forced into the public schools >>>>>>>>> (Wells also knew that the bait and switch was going down and >>>>>>>>> that he was just lying to the rubes).-a Meyer and Wells were so >>>>>>>>> unconvincing that the Ohio rubes decided not to teach the ID >>>>>>>>> scam junk, but the rubes were still dishonest enough to bend >>>>>>>>> over for the switch scam that Meyer told them had nothing to do >>>>>>>>> with ID.-a The board understood that Meyer had tried to lie to >>>>>>>>> them about ID being science, but some of them were so dishonest >>>>>>>>> and corrupt that one of them put up the proposal to the board >>>>>>>>> that the definition of science, that was a part of the science >>>>>>>>> standards, be rewritten so that ID could be taught as science >>>>>>>>> in the Ohio public schools.-a The board was actually convinced >>>>>>>>> that Meyer had tried to lie to them about ID being science when >>>>>>>>> it could not be considered to be science by their own
definition of science.
At the time Meyer had a job teaching at a religious college, >>>>>>>>> but he dropped out of the public view after running the bait >>>>>>>>> and switch. He quit that job (it had to be hard to walk down >>>>>>>>> the academic halls with scam artists written on your
forehead).-a All his colleagues must have known what he had been >>>>>>>>> claiming about the teach ID scam. Meyer was an author of the >>>>>>>>> Teach ID scam 1999 booklet that the Discovery Institute used to >>>>>>>>> give out with their ID scam video and also the 2000 Utah law >>>>>>>>> review article claiming that it was legal to teach ID in the >>>>>>>>> public schools.-a Meyer started working as director of the bait >>>>>>>>> and switch scam full time, and has made sure that ID has
continued to be offered up as bait for decades.-a The teach ID >>>>>>>>> scam claims were never retracted, and more teach ID scam
propaganda was eventually added during Meyer's leadership of >>>>>>>>> the bait and switch scam. Immediately after Ohio West had to >>>>>>>>> step forward and make sure that the bait and switch kept going >>>>>>>>> down on any rubes that popped up and still wanted to teach the >>>>>>>>> junk (Meyer was MIA). Do you recall how long Meyer retreated >>>>>>>>> into the background after running the bait and switch on the >>>>>>>>> Ohio rubes?
You were posting at ARN when the bait and switch went down.-a By >>>>>>>>> Ohio some of the IDiots at ARN already understood that there >>>>>>>>> wasn't any ID science to teach.-a The majority of IDiotic
creationist rubes supported teaching ID just as the Discovery >>>>>>>>> Institute was claiming could be done. You know that after the >>>>>>>>> bait and switch went down the tone changed at ARN.-a The
majority were no longer openly supporting teaching the junk. >>>>>>>>> Only a few still claimed that ID would be taught in Ohio.-a Most >>>>>>>>> of the IDiots started pretending that teaching the junk wasn't >>>>>>>>> the goal of the ID scam even though that is about all ID had >>>>>>>>> ever been. ID first came to TO in the late 1990's as something >>>>>>>>> that could be taught in the public schools (probably, just
before you started posting).
A year (2003) after Ohio when the initial draft of the Ohio >>>>>>>>> model lesson plan came out nearly everyone at ARN stopped
supporting teaching the junk.-a Eventually the creationist web >>>>>>>>> links and all mention of intelligent design and ID perps was >>>>>>>>> removed from the lesson plan. Wells' book had obviously been >>>>>>>>> used to create the lesson plan (the Wellsian lie about no moths >>>>>>>>> on tree trunks had made it into the lesson plan) but the
reference to his book was removed from the lesson plan when the >>>>>>>>> lie was rewritten.-a Mike gene came out and claimed that he had >>>>>>>>> given up on teaching the junk back in 1999, but Gene and nearly >>>>>>>>> all the IDiots kept supporting ID as bait.-a Some may have quit >>>>>>>>> posting, but everyone that was left was either ignorant,
incompetent and or dishonest. You were apparently among the >>>>>>>>> dishonest, but you haven't yet demonstrated that you are
clearly out of the incompetent group.
During the Dover fiasco Meyer ran even though the More lawyers >>>>>>>>> had allowed him to have his own lawyer present during his
Kitzmiller testimony.-a He ran after Forrest was deposed with >>>>>>>>> Dembski in attendance, and the name change from creationism to >>>>>>>>> intelligent design in the book Of Pandas and People was
disclosed.-a Meyer had written the teachers notes for that book, >>>>>>>>> and was one of the authors of the teach ID scam propaganda
claiming that Of Pandas and People could be used to teach ID in >>>>>>>>> the public schools.
Meyer is just a dishonest scam artist.-a His god hypothesis book >>>>>>>>> was only meant to continue to fool the rubes.-a How long has the >>>>>>>>> bait and switch been going down under the direction of Meyer? >>>>>>>>> Why did he never retract any of his teach ID scam propaganda >>>>>>>>> after starting to run the bait and switch?
You should know by now that the first thing any hypothesis
should be evaluated on would be if it can exist within what is >>>>>>>>> already understood. -a-aMeyer purposely refused to demonstrate >>>>>>>>> that any of his hypotheses were viable within the context of >>>>>>>>> what is known, and only put up the gap arguments as independent >>>>>>>>> bits of denial in order to fool the rubes. What the scam artist >>>>>>>>> did should only work on rubes that want to be lied to like
yourself.-a Meyer never put up a coherent god hypothesis.-a He >>>>>>>>> only put up independent bits of gap denial in order to lie to >>>>>>>>> the rubes about reality. If he had made an honest effort you >>>>>>>>> would be running from the book just as you ran from the Top Six >>>>>>>>> that the ID perps put out in the order in which they must have >>>>>>>>> occurred in this universe. The universe is not Biblical.-a The >>>>>>>>> god that fills Meyer's gaps is not the god described in the >>>>>>>>> Bible. That is what Meyer should have made clear at the
beginning of the Book, but he just wrote the book to scam the >>>>>>>>> rubes, and maintain ID as bait.
Ron Okimoto
The ID movement has a complicated history, but I reject your
caricaturisation as a bait and switch scam. It's a movement with >>>>>>>> many voices over a long period - some possibly misguided at
times, or even dishonest - you get that whenever humans are
involved, especially with such a complex, developing and charged >>>>>>>> issue.
Meyer has been the director of the ID scam unit at the Discovery >>>>>>> Institute from it's founding.-a Meyer's voice was claiming that ID >>>>>>> could be taught in the public schools and that Of Pandas and
People could be used to teach the junk.-a He ran the first bait >>>>>>> and switch scam on the Ohio rubes personally.-a He never retracted >>>>>>> any of his teach ID scam junk, and only allowed the Discovery
Institute to create more teach ID scam propaganda during his
directorship of the ID bait and switch scam. Under Meyer's
directorship the bait and switch has gone down 100% of the time >>>>>>> any creationist rubes have believed the scam junk and claimed to >>>>>>> want to teach ID in the public schools.-a 100% of the time is your >>>>>>> reality.-a They blundered in Dover.-a By that time they were paying >>>>>>> someone to make sure that the bait and switch went down, but it >>>>>>> had likely become routine (it had likely gone down around 30
times since Ohio), and the ID perp did not follow up after
running the bait and switch and telling the rubes not to teach
ID, but to teach the switch scam instead.-a The Dover rubes did >>>>>>> not like the switch scam and decided to teach ID anyway, instead >>>>>>> of dropping the issue as nearly all of the other creationist
rubes had done. The Dover rubes were so ignorant and incompetent >>>>>>> that they did not know that the Discovery Institute was the scam >>>>>>> outfit running the teach ID scam.-a Meyer ran from testifying and >>>>>>> would not defend his own propaganda about being able to teach the >>>>>>> junk in the public schools.
This is the reality that you are lying to yourself about.
https://arn.org/docs/dewolf/guidebook.htm
This is the teach ID scam propaganda that Meyer authored in 1999 >>>>>>> to sell the teach ID scam.-a The conclusion contains the claim
that Of Pandas and People can be used to teach ID in the public >>>>>>> schools. Meyer sold the teach ID scam, and ran the first bait and >>>>>>> switch on the Ohio rubes in 2002.
However, current policy is: "DI opposes any effort to require >>>>>>>> the teaching of intelligent design by school districts or state >>>>>>>> boards of education."
Yes, they started making the "required" claim after their failure >>>>>>> in Dover, but they still claimed that the Dover decision was
wrong, and that even though ID had been determined to be no
science worth teaching in the public schools that ID could still >>>>>>> be legally taught outside of the middle court district of PA.
"Required" is only their scam language to keep running the bait >>>>>>> and switch.
You should know because I put it up on TO when it happened.-a When >>>>>>> both Louisiana and Texas tried to use their switch scam stupidity >>>>>>> to teach ID in their public schools in 2013 both states claimed >>>>>>> that they were not requiring ID to be taught, and were just
allowing teachers to teach the scam junk if they wanted to.-a The >>>>>>> ID perps ran the bait and switch on the rubes anyway.-a It was
such a dishonest bait and switch that the ID perps removed the
"requiring" statement from their Education policy. They just
deleted that paragraph and left the rest intact for several years >>>>>>> until they rewrote the scam education policy and put back the
"requiring" scam stupidity, and have kept running the bait and
switch 100% of the time.-a The truth is that the ID perps do not >>>>>>> want ID taught in the public schools whether it is required or
not.-a They are only using ID as bait. They know that they do not >>>>>>> have any ID science that the rubes would want to teach.
You can still find the original education policy on page 15 of
the current teach ID scam propaganda where they continue to claim >>>>>>> that it is legal to teach the junk outside of Dover.
https://www.discovery.org/f/1453/
QUOTE:
Although Discovery Institute does not advocate requiring
the teaching of intelligent design in public schools, it
does believe there is nothing unconstitutional about
voluntarily discussing the scientific theory of design in
the classroom. In addition, the Institute opposes efforts
to persecute individual teachers who may wish to discuss
the scientific debate over design in an objective and
pedagogically appropriate manner.
END QUOTE:
This is the paragraph that the ID perps deleted from the
education policy after they ran the bait and switch on Louisiana >>>>>>> and Texas when they were not requiring ID to be taught.
They eventually put back the "requiring" scam language and have >>>>>>> continued to run the bait and switch to this day.
They have updated the teach ID scam propaganda that they created >>>>>>> after Dover around every 3 years since first publishing it in
2007. I have noted that they last updated the junk in 2021, but >>>>>>> have since reformated the site and seem to have reverted to the >>>>>>> 2018 version. It is likely to be updated again in 2027.-a Luskin >>>>>>> is one of the authors of this propaganda, and he is the current >>>>>>> ID perp tasked with making sure that the bait and switch keeps
going down on states like West Virginia and the Dakotas.-a The guy >>>>>>> currently telling the rubes that the Discovery Institute does not >>>>>>> support teaching ID in the public schools is one of the ID perps >>>>>>> that is responsible for writing the current teach ID scam
propaganda. Meyer is just directing the bait and switch.-a Luskin >>>>>>> has been tasked to keep doing it.
"It believes that evolution should be fully and completely
presented to students, and they should learn more about
evolutionary theory, including its unresolved issues. In other >>>>>>>> words, evolution should be taught as a scientific theory that is >>>>>>>> open to critical scrutiny, not as a sacred dogma that canrCOt be >>>>>>>> questioned."
This is why nearly all the creationist rubes that have had the
bait and switch run on them have dropped the issue instead of
bending over for the switch scam.-a Dishonest Biblical creationist >>>>>>> rubes do not want to teach their kids enough science for them to >>>>>>> understand what they need to deny if they can't tell them the
religious reason for why they are lying to the students.-a The ID >>>>>>> perps push the obfuscation and denial switch scam as the only
means to keep the kids as ignorant as possible so that they can >>>>>>> continue to support their Wedge goals.
You know that the ID science does not support Biblical
creationism. Most of the ID perps are old earth Biblical
creationists, but probably all the rubes that have had the bait >>>>>>> and switch run on them have been YEC. YEC would never want their >>>>>>> kids taught the best evidence for the ID scam.-a The YEC have
already succeeded in removing the Big Bang (#1 of the Top Six)
along with biological evolution from the science standards of
Kansas in 1999, and multiple other states have considered the
same thing.-a The YEC would never accept teaching the best
evidence for ID in an honest and straight forward manner. That is >>>>>>> why the ID perps have never told the rubes what they want to
teach and how they think that it should be taught.-a They have
only sold ID as bait so that they can force the obfuscation and >>>>>>> denial switch scam onto the rubes.
"Discovery Institute believes that a curriculum that aims to
provide students with an understanding of the strengths and
weaknesses of neo- Darwinian and chemical evolutionary theories >>>>>>>> (rather than teaching an alternative theory, such as intelligent >>>>>>>> design) represents a common ground approach that all reasonable >>>>>>>> citizens can agree on."
This is the obfuscation and denial switch scam that the ID perps >>>>>>> tell the rubes has nothing to do with ID.-a The ID perps obviously >>>>>>> lie a lot. Just go up and read the paragraph that they deleted
from their education policy when both Louisiana and Texas did not >>>>>>> require ID to be taught, but the scam artists still ran the bait >>>>>>> and switch on them.-a The ID perps do not want ID taught whether >>>>>>> it is required or not because they do not want a repeat of Dover. >>>>>>>
_____
I refer you to long-form conversations between sceptic Michael >>>>>>>> Shermer and Stephen Meyer. It is refreshing to see Shermer's
approach to "steelman" his opponent, the mutually respectful
posture of both, and the scope and depth of their dialogue.
Shermer for one takes Meyer seriously, scientifically and
philosophically, and rightly so. I challenge anyone to listen to >>>>>>>> these dialogues and then endorse Ron's characterisation of Meyer >>>>>>>> as "just a dishonest scam artist" whose "god hypothesis book was >>>>>>>> only meant to continue to fool the rubes."
Shermer was an idiot.-a For whatever reason he let Meyer get away >>>>>>> with putting up the Top Six as independent bits of denial in the >>>>>>> God Hypothesis.-a He let Meyer not defend a single God Hypothesis, >>>>>>> but let him lie about what his god hypothesis was.-a You know that >>>>>>> Meyer's god hypothesis is some version of the Biblical god
hypothesis.-a Meyer is just a dishonest scam artists.-a He has been >>>>>>> selling the rubes on "the Big Tent" of the ID scam, when anyone >>>>>>> that understands science should know that there can be no big
tent. There is only one nature for science to study, and nature >>>>>>> is not Biblical.-a Demonstrate that Meyer did not sell the rubes >>>>>>> on the teach ID scam for years before starting to run the bait
and switch. Demonstrate that he ever retracted any of the scam
stupidity. Demonstrate that the Bait and switch has not continued >>>>>>> to go down 100% of the time that Meyer has been directing the
scam unit. -a-aI have put up the link from the wayback archive that >>>>>>> demonstrates that the ID perps were still hawking their teach ID >>>>>>> scam booklet as part of their Teach the Controversy scam when
Dover hit the fan. That booklet is the one in which Meyer claims >>>>>>> that Of Pandas and People can be used to teach ID in the public >>>>>>> schools and is the reason why the Dover rubes purchased Of Pandas >>>>>>> and People to teach ID in their public schools.-a The More lawyers >>>>>>> had Meyer's teach ID scam booklet, and wanted a test case.
https://www.skeptic.com/michael-shermer-show/stephen-meyer-
return- of- god-hypothesis-3-scientific-discoveries-reveal-the- >>>>>>>> mind- behind- the- universe/?utm_source=chatgpt.com
Shermer is just an ignorant and incompetent rube.-a He obviously >>>>>>> is ignorant of what Meyer has been doing for decades, and let him >>>>>>> continue to do it.
Why do you want to attempt to defend a scam artist as dishonest >>>>>>> as Meyer?-a Meyer has been director of the ID scam unit from the >>>>>>> beginning. He was involved with the Of Pandas and People book (he >>>>>>> wrote the teachers notes for the book).-a He was the main
cheerleader for the teach ID scam and one of the authors of the >>>>>>> teach ID scam propaganda first produced by the ID perps.-a He ran >>>>>>> the first bait and switch personally on the Ohio rubes, quit his >>>>>>> legitimate teaching job and started directing the bait and switch >>>>>>> full time. When the name change in Of Pandas and People from
creationism to intelligent design was disclosed, during the
Kitzmiller depositions, Meyer ran instead of testify even though >>>>>>> the More lawyers had already agreed that he could have his own
lawyer present in court. Meyer had been telling the rubes for
years that Of Pandas and People could be use to teach ID in the >>>>>>> public schools, but he was not willing to defend that claim in
court. Really, Meyer wrote the public school teachers notes for >>>>>>> the book.
The ID scam unit has been running the bait and switch on 100% of >>>>>>> the creationist rubes that believe them about being able to teach >>>>>>> the junk in the public schools for the last 24 years under the
directorship of Meyer.-a They continue to claim that it is legal >>>>>>> to teach ID in the public schools outside of Dover, but the bait >>>>>>> and switch goes down 100% of the time.
You are just a rube that wants to be lied to.-a Just think of all >>>>>>> the IDiots at ARN that rolled over and continued to support the >>>>>>> use of the ID scam as bait.-a After the bait and switch started to >>>>>>> go down the only IDiots in existence were the ignorant,
incompetent, and or dishonest. No honest, competent, and informed >>>>>>> creationist could have possibly kept supporting a stupid bait and >>>>>>> switch scam, especially after they got Wells' report that the ID >>>>>>> perps dog and pony show in front of the Ohio rubes was just a
scam because the ID perps had decided to start running the bait >>>>>>> and switch before they gave those presentations.-a The ID perps >>>>>>> even failed to convince the Ohio rubes that ID was science, and >>>>>>> one of the rubes demonstrated that by proposing that the
definition of science be changed so that ID could be taught as
science.-a That is how incompetent and dishonest IDiotic
creationist rubes have to be.-a You can look in the mirror and see >>>>>>> the type of rube that can lie to themselves about any possible ID >>>>>>> science when it was apparent back in 2002 (years before Dover)
and ID was already known not to be scientific.-a Ignorant and
incompetent YEC IDiots could understand that, so why not you?
Nelson started admitting that the ID science had never existed, >>>>>>> but that the ID perps were working on creating some.-a Nelson kept >>>>>>> supporting using ID as bait. None of the ID perps resigned in
disgust, and all of them kept supporting the use of ID as bait. >>>>>>> You can't point to any concerted efforts by any ID perp member of >>>>>>> the Discovery Institute scam unit that tried to stop the bait and >>>>>>> switch scam.-a All that you will be able to find is a continued >>>>>>> effort to put ID up as bait.
Ron Okimoto
Ron, I'm interested to understand where your energy against ID
comes from.
You need to deal with how wrong you have been about Meyer.
You should be more interested in why you have such a strong desire
to be lied to by the scam artists.-a They prey on your religious
beliefs in order to further their Wedge political goals.-a They
might have some sort of lame excuse for making a living doing it to >>>>> you as being for your own good.
Didn't you ever read the original mission statement of the ID
perps? Didn't you ever read the Wedge document?-a The ID perps told >>>>> everyone what they were using the ID scam to accomplish.-a The ID
perps wanted to destroy your fictional materialistic reality.-a They >>>>> believed that they could recreate a theocracy that likely had never >>>>> existed.-a You seem to have the same belief in their fictional
materialistic reality.-a They seem to have convinced Philip Johnson >>>>> that they could do this by teaching their warmed over creationist
denial as intelligent design.
The Top Six best evidences, gap denial, for the ID scam were all
used by the Scientific creationists well over a decade before the
ID scam unit at the Discovery Institute was born.
Do you agree with their mission?-a Is that the reason that you allow >>>>> yourself to be lied to by the ID perps?-a The ID perps have run the >>>>> bait and switch for the last 24 years because they came to the
conclusion that using ID as bait was the best means to support
their Wedge mission. -a-aThey abandoned teaching the junk because
they had nothing that their creationist supporters would have
wanted to teach. The TO IDiots quit the ID scam when they had their >>>>> faces rubbed in the fact that they had never wanted the ID perps to >>>>> produce any valid ID science when the ID perps were stupid enough
to present their Top Six gap denial arguments in the order in which >>>>> they must have occurred in this universe.-a That order is not
Biblical.-a The Reason to Believe IDiots tried to fit the ID scam
into their Biblical creation model and failed, and they no longer
support the ID scam. All ID is good for is as bait to force the
obfuscation and denial switch scam onto the rubes.
ID is a dishonest scam and they are scamming their fellow
Christians. They just want to get the rubes to help push their
mission forward by bending over for the switch scam, but the
dishonest creationists that fall for the ID scam do not want to
teach their kids enough science for them to understand what they
need to deny.-a The ID perps are not running the bait and switch on >>>>> the science side.-a They are running the scam on their creationist
rube supporters.
As a Christian what the ID perps are doing is reprehensible to me.
The ID perps are still asking for donations to keep doing it.
Meyer has made his living for the past 24 years directing the
stupid bait and switch scam.-a Under his full time directorship the >>>>> ID perps have continued to claim that it is legal to teach ID in
the public schools, but they have run the bait and switch on any
rube that has believed them 100% of the time.-a They even tried to
run the bait and switch on the Dover rubes, but the Dover rubes
were too stupid and ignorant to know that the Discovery Institute
was the outfit selling the teach ID scam, so they did not take the
switch scam and tried to teach ID anyway.
It's one thing to disagree strongly, e.g. I disagree strongly with >>>>>> climate change deniers, believing that they are often ignoring or >>>>>> misusing science for idealogical reasons. Moreover, unlike say
flat- earthers, with concern that their influence and proposed
course of action (mostly inaction) poses a risk to the planet.
The anti-science scam is damaging the people that fall for the
scam. Nearly all the rubes that have fallen for the bait have
dropped the issue instead of bend over for the switch scam.-a They
exposed themselves to be dishonest and/or incompetent and got
nothing for their stupid and dishonest efforts.-a Rubes like you
never want to understand what reality actually is, but that isn't
good for society. We live in a society dependent on the science
that the ID perps want to subvert.-a The ID perps were initially
claiming that they could do the same science that everyone else was >>>>> doing and support their theory of intelligent design, but they were >>>>> obviously lying.-a They were lying to the rubes for the same reason >>>>> that the scientific creationists called their YEC beliefs
scientific.-a They understood that science works, and creationism
never had worked to build a better understanding of nature to the
benefit of mankind. The ID perps never wanted to do any real
science.-a What they wanted was to destroy sciences ability to
function, and bring it down to their level.-a Like you they have
some weird notion that materialism is evil simply because it works
and Biblical mythology has never worked. You don't have any
positive examples where the Biblical creation was found to be the
creation that we live in because there has been 100% failure for
the god-did-it claims throughout history. Why have you never dealt
with the fact that god-did-it claims have never been verified, but
have only failed once we have been able to figure out what actually >>>>> happened.-a Doesn't it matter to you that you do not have a single
positive example to support your case?-a The ID perps do not like
the fact that science has all the successes, and the Bible has
none. Biological evolution is a fact of nature and you still want
to deny that it could have happened.-a The success of science is
something that you consider to be undermining your religious
beliefs.-a The ID perps believe that is the case too.-a They blame
science for moral decay and people becoming less religious. What do >>>>> you think their lies are doing?-a They think that they need to
recreate a theocracy to whip the people into line.-a You should
understand what that would result in. Nothing good.
They should blame themselves for the moral decay.-a Look at the kind >>>>> of dishonest creationists that they require to support their
effort. Instead of getting people to reconcile their Biblical
beliefs with reality, they would rather lie to them about reality
and force their lies onto others.-a The only good thing about the ID >>>>> scam is that the demonstration of how bogus and dishonest the
effort has been seems to have gotten some YEC denominations to try
to get their congregations to accept that the earth is much older
than the Bible seems to claim. This is actually a step in the right >>>>> direction, but the ID perps want to lie to the rubes about a Big
Tent that does not exist.-a Most of their support still comes from
YEC even though most of the ID perps are OEC and understand that
the Big Tent of ID science does not exist.
Science is just the study of nature, and there is only one nature
for the ID perps and their fellow creationists to deal with.
Nature is known not to be Biblical.-a Science is never going to
support Biblical creationist beliefs.-a Just try to get the Reason
to Believe ex IDiots to tell you why they no longer support the ID
scam.-a The Top Six in the order in which they must have occurred in >>>>> this universe is not consistent with their Biblical creation model
even if you claim that days are indeterminate periods of time.
Is your objection to the ID movement itself, or do reject
consideration of supernatural causes generally? And do you regard >>>>>> ID as a threat to science and the wellbeing of people?
Once it became clear that ID was nothing more than a stupid bait
and switch scam I objected to the scam.-a I did not start calling
them ID perps and ID a scam until they had run the bait and switch
100% of the time for over 2 years.-a At that time there was
absolutely no doubt about what they were doing because they were
still yammering about the Santorum "amendment" being support for
their teach ID scam, and they had not retracted their Utah review
article, nor their ID propaganda booklet.-a You and the other IDiots >>>>> that did not quit just kept supporting the ID perp's efforts to use >>>>> ID as bait. The only IDiots in existence are ignorant, incompetent, >>>>> and or dishonest.-a Try to demonstrate that honest competent and
informed IDiots can exist. You know that you can't do this.-a I
object to the ID scam because it preys on the ignorant and
incompetent, and just feeds the dishonesty of the rest that want to >>>>> keep supporting the effort.
ID failed as science due to the Dover fiasco where their bait and
switch scam went terribly wrong for the ID perps and they were
forced to try to defend the scam.-a All ID has ever been used for is >>>>> as bait 100% of the time.-a No rubes have ever gotten the promised
ID science. The use of ID as bait has been the only way forward for >>>>> the ID perps to continue their Wedge mission.-a What else have the
ID perps done with their ID science claims?-a No ID science has ever >>>>> been produced. Only the bait claims have continued.-a The ISCID
pretty much died when the bait and switch started to go down.-a They >>>>> likely lost all their non ID scam creationist supporters.-a Who
would want to support a bait and switch scam if you were not being
paid to do it, or you really believed in the Wedge mission?-a Once
ID had been revealed to be bait, no serious and honest academics
would have kept supporting the effort.-a Tour doesn't support the ID >>>>> scam.-a He even claims that he doesn't know how to do any ID
science.-a Tour just can't give up on the gap denial because he
needs to wallow in denial just like you.
My evaluation of you, is that you are dishonest enough to keep
supporting ID as bait because you want to be lied to.-a Likely,
because you do not want reality to be what it is.-a Just like you
don't want biological evolution to be a fact of nature, you do not
want the existing origin of life gap filled by any explanantion.
Even if some god could be found to fill that gap it would not be
the god described in the Bible.-a Wallowing in denial is your only
means that you can think of to keep from dealing with that
reality.-a The YEC rubes are IDiots because they can't deal with
things like the Big Bang and the origin of life on earth.-a They are >>>>> all too ignorant, incompetent and or dishonest to understand that
they do not want to teach the best evidence for the ID scam.-a You
know that you do not want the Top Six taught honestly because you
ran from it, and you can't even deal honestly with your origin of
life gap (#3 of the Top Six).-a Just imagine how quickly all the YEC >>>>> support would drain away from the ID scam if they put out a lesson
plan that taught the Top Six in an honest and straightforward manner. >>>>>
Reality isn't going to change.-a It isn't your materialistic boogie >>>>> man that is the issue.-a Reality does not support your Biblical
beliefs. You are the one that needs to deal with that fact.
Continuing to support a bogus bait and switch scam is never going
to result in what you need to do.
Ron Okimoto
Independently of ID, my own investigation of OoL leads me to
conclude that progress is overstated and foundational problems are
understated, which I've argued here at length (as you know) with
reference to source papers and my own thinking and ideas, as well as
material from ID. Sure, my engagement is at the level of somewhat-
informed layperson, and you may disagree with my interpretations of
the science. However, are you suggesting that all I've contributed
on this topic has no scientific merit or validity at all, and worse,
it is only the product of my dishonesty driven by an ideological
agenda?
You need to try to be honest with yourself.-a You have allowed the ID
scam to rule your innate dishonesty.-a The ID scam has created a loser
willfully incompetent human being in what they have done to you.-a You
have literally spent decades of your life lying to yourself about
reality.-a All that you have used the ID scam for is justification for
your dishonesty.-a You have only wanted to be lied to by the scam
artists, and have somehow lied to yourself about what a bogus scam ID
has been for the last two decades.-a You can't even deal with how you
let a scam artist like Meyer fool you for decades.
You spent a lot of time defining the origin of life gap because you
wanted to deny that it would ever be filled by by scientific efforts.
You did such a good job that you demonstrated without any doubt that
the origin of life gap was not Biblical.-a Even if the ID perps were
ever able to fill the gap with some god, it would not be the Biblical
designer.-a You were competent enough to run from that reality, but
you eventually went back to lying to yourself about the issue.-a You
admitted that all you wanted to do was wallow in the denial.-a You
claimed that you did not have to deal with the fact that the gap was
not Biblical until the gap was filled.-a That is so sad that it should
by something that atheists would have to lie about because what type
of creationist would admit to being so dishonestly willfully ignorant
and incompetent.
I have pointed out in the past that your origin of life denial is
senseless.-a It has never mattered how far the scientific effort is
from figuring out your type of answer for the origin of life.
Really, it has always been understood by the scientists involved that
the best that they can expect to do is to determine the most likely
way that life originated on this planet.-a The most likely way does
not have to be the way in which it happened.-a Origin of life research
has always been acknowledged to be among the weakest of scientific
endeavors.-a It is why most scientists do not bother with it.-a It is
why I have never applied any concerted effort to follow it except
with respect to the creationist denial.
Reiterating my previously stated position, I have only partial
support for ID. I've criticised what I've seen as incorrect claims
(e.g. in relation to junk DNA), and I've spoken about my concern
with ID's religious right political stance at times.
Until you ran from the Top Six and tried to keep the ID scam alive by
posting them as independent bits of denial your above statement could
have been considered to likely be the case, but it now seems to be a
lie.-a Whether you want to be honest with yourself or not, you have
been heavily dependent on the lies that you get from the ID perps.
You have needed to be lied to for decades.-a You could not give it up
when you should have realized that it was just a scam with the rest
of the IDiots at ARN.-a All the IDiots that did not quit the ID scam
after the bait and switch started to go down were ignorant,
incompetent, and or dishonest, and you remained among them for
decades of the bait and switch going down 100% of the time.-a What
could you possibly have thought about what the ID perps were doing
when all they were using ID for was as bait to force the rubes to
take their obfuscation and denial switch scam?
You need to face your reliance on the lies of the ID scam, and your
inability to deal honestly with your origin of life gap.-a You can't
just quit the ID scam like Kalk and Bill, and and continue to wallow
in the denial.-a You have to deal honestly with the denial.
Harran just put up a quote by Pope Francis demonstrating that he had
given up on the Bibilical literal interpretation about the creation
in six magical periods of time.-a He claimed that the Big Bang and
what happened since is a creation that he can believe in.-a It has
been that way since all the Church Fathers were not flat earth
Biblical creationists.-a There remain Jewish and Christian Biblical
flat earth creationists to this day, but the intellectuals that were
instrumental in forming early Christian beliefs did not require a
literal interpretation of the Bible. Eratosthenes had estimated the
circumference of the earth by physical measurements a couple
centuries before Christ was born.
You can't name a single instance where the literal interpretation won
out when a conflict arose with science.-a 100% failure.-a If you had
such an example we would already be teaching it in the public
schools.-a The earth is not flat, the Biblical firmament does not
exist, the universe is not geocentric, the earth is much older than a
few thousand years (the ICR is back to claiming less than 20,000
years, and likely less than 10,000).-a The ID perps understand that
the Big Bang happened over 13 billion years ago (#1 of the Top Six).
Some fine tuning occurred before or during the Big bang and it took 8
billion years to create the elements that make up our solar system
from dying stars so that the earth could be fine tuned for life (#2
of the Top Six).-a The origin of life occurred over 3 billion years
ago, and some evidence exists that it started about as soon as the
earth cooled enough to have liquid water (#3 of the Top Six).-a The
flagellum evolved among eubacteria and archaea independently over a
billion years ago, and Behe should be looking for his three neutral
mutations that are needed to have evolved within a certain period of
time within a single cell lineage, but he refuses to try to verify if
the flagellum could be IC.-a He claims that as long as we do not know
how the flagellum evolved that his IC claims are still viable, but it
means that his claims have not been verified, and he refuses to test
his hypothesis (#4 of the Top Six).-a If Behe ever found his 3 neutral
mutations that occurred over a billion years ago every single YEC
would likely quit supporting the ID scam.-a The kicker is that Behe
claims that his 3 neutral mutation claim is testable, but it is only
testable if biological evolution is true.-a Behe requires descent with
modification and enough existing branching lineages, that trace back
to that time period, to determine when the mutations occurred).
Before the bait and switch started to go down Meyer was hawking the
Cambrian explosion (#5 of the Top Six) as evidence for the ID scam.
His claim was that 25 million years was not a long enough period of
time to evolve all the taxa that evolved during this period of time
over half a billion years go.-a Meyer continued to fool the YEC
rubes.-a Gish had used the same argument a couple decades before
Meyer, but at that time the gap was 45 million years and more taxa
were thought to have evolved within that time period.-a Gish was
successful in fooling the rubes with the Cambrian explosion gap
denial, a gap that was never Biblical, and so was Meyer.-a The
Cambrian explosion means that there were sea creatures evolving long
before land plants existed.-a Gish also was fond of gaps in the human
fossil record (#6 of the Top Six). The reason that this gap argument
should kill YEC is that the gaps are known to be gaps within the last
10 million years of human evolution because of what we have already
found and the fossils are missing from well defined time period.
-a-aEnough is already known about the gaps to demonstrate that the
earth has to be older than 20,000 years old. There would not be so
many gaps if we did not have the intermediate forms that tell us what
we are likely missing.-a Each time we have filled a gap with a
transitional form we create two gaps.-a This is why the Top Six killed
ID on TO and all the IDiots quit the ID scam or ran from dealing
honestly with the best evidence that the ID perp scam artists have.
Nature has been known not to be Biblical for centuries.-a Wallowing in
denial will never change that fact.
Ron Okimoto
As I've discussed several times here before, from my own reading of
science and scripture I don't have a fully reconciled picture, and I
acknowledge that this is not unimportant: on one hand, Christianity
does not regard the Bible as a science textbook, on the other, it does
claim to be grounded in historical reality. I've discussed and
explored these questions at length in other contexts, but as I've
previously stated, I choose to generally not discuss them here.
In terms of what you are lying to yourself about your above excuse is inadequate and lame.-a It just allows you to want to be lied to by the ID preps, and accept the lies.-a It obviously does not matter to you that
you only want to wallow in denial because you can't face reality.
Just look at yourself.-a How have you had to lie to yourself and be dishonestly willfully ignorant of reality in order to continue to be an Idiotic9 creationist?-a You fully understand that you do not want to fill the Top Six gaps with any explanation because the god that fills those
gaps is not the one described in the Bible.-a Ray would have called that
god a false god.-a There is absolutely no reason to lie to yourself and wallow in the ID scam gap denial when you do not want those gaps fill by anything.
You know that this is true because you initially ran from the Top Six
and would not deal with them in an honest and straight forward manner,
and when you blundered and demonstrated that your origin of life gap was
not Biblical you ran.-a You eventually came back to that argument, but it took you months of lying to yourself to get you to do it.
You want to be a creationist rube.-a The old adage that you can't con an honest man is true in this case.-a Ignorant but honest creationists quit
the ID scam decades ago when they understood what was going on.-a Honest competent and informed creationists were never Idiots and never had to
be Idiots8=-0;.,jhygtfrfed.
And whatever faults and failings ID may have (again, I recognise many
of them), it continues press into areas that I have independently
concluded justify scrutiny and challenge.
Wallowing in the denial is stupid and dishonest when you do not want to
know the answer.-a You know that the answer already excludes what you
want to support.-a There is no reason to support a bogus and dishonest
bait and switch scam like ID.-a They are running the scam on creationists rubes like yourself.-a The scam doesn't go down on the science side. They have been running the scam on their own creationist support base.
Regardless, you do not not seem able to accept even the possibility
that I may genuinely interpret the evidence for (say) OoL differently
to you. Let me ask you this question: when non-religious scientists
expresses scepticism or doubt about OoL, how do you regard this?
What a nut job.-a I have already told you that the origin of life topic
is among the weakest of scientific endeavors.-a Real scientists should be skeptical of anything that the researchers come up with that still want
to look into the issue.-a They understand that they will likely never determine how life arose on this planet.-a All that they can ever hope to
do is figure out the most likely way life arose on this planet.-a That
does not have to be the way that it actually happened.
Running from the reality that you have to understand exists is just
stupid and dishonest.-a You likely still want to bend over and take
whatever a scam artist like Meyer wants to give to you.-a You have to realize that Meyer has just been bending you over for decades.-a You want
to pick yourself up as if you haven't learned anything and bend over
again so that you can keep lying to yourself about reality.
There is no genuine interpretation of the evidence when you already know that you just want to lie to yourself about the issue.-a You are still
lying to yourself about Meyer and the ID scam.-a You can't deal honestly with your own inability to deal with the fact that the origin of life
gap cannot be filled by your Biblical god.-a You have been unable to deal honestly with your inability to genuinely deal with your evolution
denial based on your Biblical beliefs and not the evidence.-a The Reason
to Believe creationists understand that biological evolution is not mentioned in the Bible.-a They are anti-evolution because the
evolutionary order of creation that we observe in the fossil record and among extant lifeforms is not Biblical.-a They do not want to deal with
the fact that life has been evolving on this planet for billions of
years in an order that is not Biblical.-a That is likely your own stupid denial reason for being anti-evolution.-a The origin of life gap is no different.-a It is not Biblical.-a It doesn't matter how the origin of
life gap is filled it will not support Biblical creationism.-a Why should you be anti-evolution when you know that the order in which life has
evolved on this planet is not the Biblical order, no matter if each new lifeform was being specially created or had evolved by descent with modification.-a You have to give up on the Biblical claims like Pope
Francis in order to deal with the Top Six IDotic gaps.-a That means that there is no reason to wallow in the denial.-a The gaps can be filled in anyway possible and that is the way God did it.
Wanting to be lied to about reality is no reason to keep supporting a
stupid bait and switch scam.
Science is never going to rule out the existence of any god or gods, but Biblical creationism has never been supported by our understanding of
the creation that actually exists from the start of Christianity.
Science whether you want to lie to yourself about intelligent design or creation science is never going to support your Biblical beliefs because
the nature that exists is not Biblical, and science is just the study of nature.
Ron Okimoto
On 12/04/2026 1:28 am, RonO wrote:
On 4/11/2026 8:29 AM, Mark98 wrote:
On 11/04/2026 2:21 am, RonO wrote:
On 4/10/2026 1:45 AM, MarkE wrote:
On 10/04/2026 2:24 pm, RonO wrote:
On 4/9/2026 6:51 PM, MarkE wrote:
On 9/04/2026 2:10 am, RonO wrote:
On 4/7/2026 10:29 PM, MarkE wrote:
On 8/04/2026 12:16 pm, RonO wrote:
On 4/7/2026 7:08 PM, MarkE wrote:
On 8/04/2026 9:10 am, RonO wrote:
On 4/7/2026 5:34 PM, MarkE wrote:
On 7/04/2026 5:50 pm, Kerr-Mudd, John wrote:
On Tue, 7 Apr 2026 12:43:48 +1000
MarkE <me22over7@gmail.com> wrote:
On 7/04/2026 8:25 am, MarkE wrote:[]
On 7/04/2026 1:41 am, ShyDavid wrote:
I would love to see theists being just as honest and >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> virtuous as
scientists.
Thank you, that confirms where you're coming from. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
I am curious though: you appear to have contempt to the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> point of moral
repugnance for anyone favouring the God hypothesis (i.e. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> creationists of
any stripe), and a self-assurance regarding materialism >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to the point of
arrogance - why then the interest in the topic of >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> origins, and why
bother engaging? Are you not as confident as you make >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> out, are you
seeking applause here, or do you just enjoy being smug >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and insulting?
Where's your evidence/justification for this 'god >>>>>>>>>>>>>> hypothesis'?
Start here (but you knew this): https://www.amazon.com.au/ >>>>>>>>>>>>> Return- God- Hypothesis-Compelling-TheExistence/dp/0062071505 >>>>>>>>>>>>>
Or read my posts on OoL. Etc etc etc.
But you don't really care, do you.
It may be justification, but is not scientific evidence for >>>>>>>>>>>> any god hypothesis.-a It is just junk to fool the rubes with. >>>>>>>>>>>> Meyer never tried to create a coherent god hypothesis.-a He >>>>>>>>>>>> just presented the god- of-the- gaps denial arguments as >>>>>>>>>>>> independent bits of denial, just as the scientific
creationists had done decades before Meyer joined the ID >>>>>>>>>>>> scam.-a You know why he did not try to develop a coherent god >>>>>>>>>>>> hypothesis is because nature is not Biblical and the god >>>>>>>>>>>> hypothesized would not be the Biblical god. He didn't do it >>>>>>>>>>>> for the same reason that you ran from the Top Six and can't >>>>>>>>>>>> deal with them in an honest and straightforward manner. It >>>>>>>>>>>> is why the other IDiots quit the ID scam.
Ron Okimoto
Ron, you are so wrong, and out of line. Meyer is an
intelligent and considered scientist, and his writing is >>>>>>>>>>> recognised as such beyond the ID community. Present your >>>>>>>>>>> rebuttals to his arguments, but spare us your unsupported >>>>>>>>>>> slander.
First off, Meyer does not consider himself to be a scientist. >>>>>>>>>> At one time he worked as a geologist for an oil company, but >>>>>>>>>> he claims to be an historian and philosopher (part of the scam >>>>>>>>>> artist schtick).
Meyer is not currently a practising scientist, but is a
qualified scientist:
PhD rCo History and Philosophy of Science, University of Cambridge >>>>>>>>> Focus: philosophy of biology, scientific explanation
MasterrCOs degree rCo Geophysics, University of Cambridge
BachelorrCOs degree rCo Physics and Earth Science, Whitworth >>>>>>>>> University
A former geophysicist and college professor.
You have to accept what the scam artist claims.-a He claims to be >>>>>>>> an historian and philosopher scam artist, not a scientist scam >>>>>>>> artist. Philosophers are allowed to fool the rubes with
obfuscation and denial, but scam artist scientists are not
really scientists, at best they would be considered to be pseudo >>>>>>>> scientists.
Meyers is a dishonest scam artist.-a He was the head cheer >>>>>>>>>> leader for the teach ID scam when other ID perps understood >>>>>>>>>> that there was no ID science worth teaching.-a Understanding >>>>>>>>>> that fact he ran the first bait and switch scam on the Ohio >>>>>>>>>> rubes.-a He had made up his mind that he was going to run the >>>>>>>>>> bait and switch before he gave his presentation to the Ohio >>>>>>>>>> rubes.-a He lied to them about being able to teach the junk in >>>>>>>>>> the public schools and that ID was science.-a The real
scientists demonstrated to the board that ID was not science >>>>>>>>>> and should not be taught as such in the public schools.-a Meyer >>>>>>>>>> offered the switch scam to the rubes in the discussion after >>>>>>>>>> Wells made the claim that there was enough scientific support >>>>>>>>>> for the ID scam that it could be forced into the public
schools (Wells also knew that the bait and switch was going >>>>>>>>>> down and that he was just lying to the rubes).-a Meyer and >>>>>>>>>> Wells were so unconvincing that the Ohio rubes decided not to >>>>>>>>>> teach the ID scam junk, but the rubes were still dishonest >>>>>>>>>> enough to bend over for the switch scam that Meyer told them >>>>>>>>>> had nothing to do with ID.-a The board understood that Meyer >>>>>>>>>> had tried to lie to them about ID being science, but some of >>>>>>>>>> them were so dishonest and corrupt that one of them put up the >>>>>>>>>> proposal to the board that the definition of science, that was >>>>>>>>>> a part of the science standards, be rewritten so that ID could >>>>>>>>>> be taught as science in the Ohio public schools.-a The board >>>>>>>>>> was actually convinced that Meyer had tried to lie to them >>>>>>>>>> about ID being science when it could not be considered to be >>>>>>>>>> science by their own definition of science.
At the time Meyer had a job teaching at a religious college, >>>>>>>>>> but he dropped out of the public view after running the bait >>>>>>>>>> and switch. He quit that job (it had to be hard to walk down >>>>>>>>>> the academic halls with scam artists written on your
forehead).-a All his colleagues must have known what he had >>>>>>>>>> been claiming about the teach ID scam. Meyer was an author of >>>>>>>>>> the Teach ID scam 1999 booklet that the Discovery Institute >>>>>>>>>> used to give out with their ID scam video and also the 2000 >>>>>>>>>> Utah law review article claiming that it was legal to teach ID >>>>>>>>>> in the public schools.-a Meyer started working as director of >>>>>>>>>> the bait and switch scam full time, and has made sure that ID >>>>>>>>>> has continued to be offered up as bait for decades.-a The teach >>>>>>>>>> ID scam claims were never retracted, and more teach ID scam >>>>>>>>>> propaganda was eventually added during Meyer's leadership of >>>>>>>>>> the bait and switch scam. Immediately after Ohio West had to >>>>>>>>>> step forward and make sure that the bait and switch kept going >>>>>>>>>> down on any rubes that popped up and still wanted to teach the >>>>>>>>>> junk (Meyer was MIA). Do you recall how long Meyer retreated >>>>>>>>>> into the background after running the bait and switch on the >>>>>>>>>> Ohio rubes?
You were posting at ARN when the bait and switch went down. >>>>>>>>>> By Ohio some of the IDiots at ARN already understood that >>>>>>>>>> there wasn't any ID science to teach.-a The majority of IDiotic >>>>>>>>>> creationist rubes supported teaching ID just as the Discovery >>>>>>>>>> Institute was claiming could be done. You know that after the >>>>>>>>>> bait and switch went down the tone changed at ARN.-a The
majority were no longer openly supporting teaching the junk. >>>>>>>>>> Only a few still claimed that ID would be taught in Ohio. >>>>>>>>>> Most of the IDiots started pretending that teaching the junk >>>>>>>>>> wasn't the goal of the ID scam even though that is about all >>>>>>>>>> ID had ever been. ID first came to TO in the late 1990's as >>>>>>>>>> something that could be taught in the public schools
(probably, just before you started posting).
A year (2003) after Ohio when the initial draft of the Ohio >>>>>>>>>> model lesson plan came out nearly everyone at ARN stopped >>>>>>>>>> supporting teaching the junk.-a Eventually the creationist web >>>>>>>>>> links and all mention of intelligent design and ID perps was >>>>>>>>>> removed from the lesson plan. Wells' book had obviously been >>>>>>>>>> used to create the lesson plan (the Wellsian lie about no >>>>>>>>>> moths on tree trunks had made it into the lesson plan) but the >>>>>>>>>> reference to his book was removed from the lesson plan when >>>>>>>>>> the lie was rewritten.-a Mike gene came out and claimed that he >>>>>>>>>> had given up on teaching the junk back in 1999, but Gene and >>>>>>>>>> nearly all the IDiots kept supporting ID as bait.-a Some may >>>>>>>>>> have quit posting, but everyone that was left was either
ignorant, incompetent and or dishonest. You were apparently >>>>>>>>>> among the dishonest, but you haven't yet demonstrated that you >>>>>>>>>> are clearly out of the incompetent group.
During the Dover fiasco Meyer ran even though the More lawyers >>>>>>>>>> had allowed him to have his own lawyer present during his >>>>>>>>>> Kitzmiller testimony.-a He ran after Forrest was deposed with >>>>>>>>>> Dembski in attendance, and the name change from creationism to >>>>>>>>>> intelligent design in the book Of Pandas and People was
disclosed.-a Meyer had written the teachers notes for that >>>>>>>>>> book, and was one of the authors of the teach ID scam
propaganda claiming that Of Pandas and People could be used to >>>>>>>>>> teach ID in the public schools.
Meyer is just a dishonest scam artist.-a His god hypothesis >>>>>>>>>> book was only meant to continue to fool the rubes.-a How long >>>>>>>>>> has the bait and switch been going down under the direction of >>>>>>>>>> Meyer? Why did he never retract any of his teach ID scam
propaganda after starting to run the bait and switch?
You should know by now that the first thing any hypothesis >>>>>>>>>> should be evaluated on would be if it can exist within what is >>>>>>>>>> already understood. -a-aMeyer purposely refused to demonstrate >>>>>>>>>> that any of his hypotheses were viable within the context of >>>>>>>>>> what is known, and only put up the gap arguments as
independent bits of denial in order to fool the rubes. What >>>>>>>>>> the scam artist did should only work on rubes that want to be >>>>>>>>>> lied to like yourself.-a Meyer never put up a coherent god >>>>>>>>>> hypothesis.-a He only put up independent bits of gap denial in >>>>>>>>>> order to lie to the rubes about reality. If he had made an >>>>>>>>>> honest effort you would be running from the book just as you >>>>>>>>>> ran from the Top Six that the ID perps put out in the order in >>>>>>>>>> which they must have occurred in this universe. The universe >>>>>>>>>> is not Biblical.-a The god that fills Meyer's gaps is not the >>>>>>>>>> god described in the Bible. That is what Meyer should have >>>>>>>>>> made clear at the beginning of the Book, but he just wrote the >>>>>>>>>> book to scam the rubes, and maintain ID as bait.
Ron Okimoto
The ID movement has a complicated history, but I reject your >>>>>>>>> caricaturisation as a bait and switch scam. It's a movement >>>>>>>>> with many voices over a long period - some possibly misguided >>>>>>>>> at times, or even dishonest - you get that whenever humans are >>>>>>>>> involved, especially with such a complex, developing and
charged issue.
Meyer has been the director of the ID scam unit at the Discovery >>>>>>>> Institute from it's founding.-a Meyer's voice was claiming that >>>>>>>> ID could be taught in the public schools and that Of Pandas and >>>>>>>> People could be used to teach the junk.-a He ran the first bait >>>>>>>> and switch scam on the Ohio rubes personally.-a He never
retracted any of his teach ID scam junk, and only allowed the >>>>>>>> Discovery Institute to create more teach ID scam propaganda
during his directorship of the ID bait and switch scam. Under >>>>>>>> Meyer's directorship the bait and switch has gone down 100% of >>>>>>>> the time any creationist rubes have believed the scam junk and >>>>>>>> claimed to want to teach ID in the public schools.-a 100% of the >>>>>>>> time is your reality.-a They blundered in Dover.-a By that time >>>>>>>> they were paying someone to make sure that the bait and switch >>>>>>>> went down, but it had likely become routine (it had likely gone >>>>>>>> down around 30 times since Ohio), and the ID perp did not follow >>>>>>>> up after running the bait and switch and telling the rubes not >>>>>>>> to teach ID, but to teach the switch scam instead.-a The Dover >>>>>>>> rubes did not like the switch scam and decided to teach ID
anyway, instead of dropping the issue as nearly all of the other >>>>>>>> creationist rubes had done. The Dover rubes were so ignorant and >>>>>>>> incompetent that they did not know that the Discovery Institute >>>>>>>> was the scam outfit running the teach ID scam.-a Meyer ran from >>>>>>>> testifying and would not defend his own propaganda about being >>>>>>>> able to teach the junk in the public schools.
This is the reality that you are lying to yourself about.
https://arn.org/docs/dewolf/guidebook.htm
This is the teach ID scam propaganda that Meyer authored in 1999 >>>>>>>> to sell the teach ID scam.-a The conclusion contains the claim >>>>>>>> that Of Pandas and People can be used to teach ID in the public >>>>>>>> schools. Meyer sold the teach ID scam, and ran the first bait >>>>>>>> and switch on the Ohio rubes in 2002.
However, current policy is: "DI opposes any effort to require >>>>>>>>> the teaching of intelligent design by school districts or state >>>>>>>>> boards of education."
Yes, they started making the "required" claim after their
failure in Dover, but they still claimed that the Dover decision >>>>>>>> was wrong, and that even though ID had been determined to be no >>>>>>>> science worth teaching in the public schools that ID could still >>>>>>>> be legally taught outside of the middle court district of PA. >>>>>>>> "Required" is only their scam language to keep running the bait >>>>>>>> and switch.
You should know because I put it up on TO when it happened.
When both Louisiana and Texas tried to use their switch scam
stupidity to teach ID in their public schools in 2013 both
states claimed that they were not requiring ID to be taught, and >>>>>>>> were just allowing teachers to teach the scam junk if they
wanted to.-a The ID perps ran the bait and switch on the rubes >>>>>>>> anyway.-a It was such a dishonest bait and switch that the ID >>>>>>>> perps removed the "requiring" statement from their Education
policy. They just deleted that paragraph and left the rest
intact for several years until they rewrote the scam education >>>>>>>> policy and put back the "requiring" scam stupidity, and have
kept running the bait and switch 100% of the time.-a The truth is >>>>>>>> that the ID perps do not want ID taught in the public schools >>>>>>>> whether it is required or not.-a They are only using ID as bait. >>>>>>>> They know that they do not have any ID science that the rubes >>>>>>>> would want to teach.
You can still find the original education policy on page 15 of >>>>>>>> the current teach ID scam propaganda where they continue to
claim that it is legal to teach the junk outside of Dover.
https://www.discovery.org/f/1453/
QUOTE:
Although Discovery Institute does not advocate requiring
the teaching of intelligent design in public schools, it
does believe there is nothing unconstitutional about
voluntarily discussing the scientific theory of design in
the classroom. In addition, the Institute opposes efforts
to persecute individual teachers who may wish to discuss
the scientific debate over design in an objective and
pedagogically appropriate manner.
END QUOTE:
This is the paragraph that the ID perps deleted from the
education policy after they ran the bait and switch on Louisiana >>>>>>>> and Texas when they were not requiring ID to be taught.
They eventually put back the "requiring" scam language and have >>>>>>>> continued to run the bait and switch to this day.
They have updated the teach ID scam propaganda that they created >>>>>>>> after Dover around every 3 years since first publishing it in >>>>>>>> 2007. I have noted that they last updated the junk in 2021, but >>>>>>>> have since reformated the site and seem to have reverted to the >>>>>>>> 2018 version. It is likely to be updated again in 2027.-a Luskin >>>>>>>> is one of the authors of this propaganda, and he is the current >>>>>>>> ID perp tasked with making sure that the bait and switch keeps >>>>>>>> going down on states like West Virginia and the Dakotas.-a The >>>>>>>> guy currently telling the rubes that the Discovery Institute
does not support teaching ID in the public schools is one of the >>>>>>>> ID perps that is responsible for writing the current teach ID >>>>>>>> scam propaganda. Meyer is just directing the bait and switch. >>>>>>>> Luskin has been tasked to keep doing it.
"It believes that evolution should be fully and completely
presented to students, and they should learn more about
evolutionary theory, including its unresolved issues. In other >>>>>>>>> words, evolution should be taught as a scientific theory that >>>>>>>>> is open to critical scrutiny, not as a sacred dogma that canrCOt >>>>>>>>> be questioned."
This is why nearly all the creationist rubes that have had the >>>>>>>> bait and switch run on them have dropped the issue instead of >>>>>>>> bending over for the switch scam.-a Dishonest Biblical
creationist rubes do not want to teach their kids enough science >>>>>>>> for them to understand what they need to deny if they can't tell >>>>>>>> them the religious reason for why they are lying to the
students.-a The ID perps push the obfuscation and denial switch >>>>>>>> scam as the only means to keep the kids as ignorant as possible >>>>>>>> so that they can continue to support their Wedge goals.
You know that the ID science does not support Biblical
creationism. Most of the ID perps are old earth Biblical
creationists, but probably all the rubes that have had the bait >>>>>>>> and switch run on them have been YEC. YEC would never want their >>>>>>>> kids taught the best evidence for the ID scam.-a The YEC have >>>>>>>> already succeeded in removing the Big Bang (#1 of the Top Six) >>>>>>>> along with biological evolution from the science standards of >>>>>>>> Kansas in 1999, and multiple other states have considered the >>>>>>>> same thing.-a The YEC would never accept teaching the best
evidence for ID in an honest and straight forward manner. That >>>>>>>> is why the ID perps have never told the rubes what they want to >>>>>>>> teach and how they think that it should be taught.-a They have >>>>>>>> only sold ID as bait so that they can force the obfuscation and >>>>>>>> denial switch scam onto the rubes.
"Discovery Institute believes that a curriculum that aims to >>>>>>>>> provide students with an understanding of the strengths and >>>>>>>>> weaknesses of neo- Darwinian and chemical evolutionary theories >>>>>>>>> (rather than teaching an alternative theory, such as
intelligent design) represents a common ground approach that >>>>>>>>> all reasonable citizens can agree on."
This is the obfuscation and denial switch scam that the ID perps >>>>>>>> tell the rubes has nothing to do with ID.-a The ID perps
obviously lie a lot. Just go up and read the paragraph that they >>>>>>>> deleted from their education policy when both Louisiana and
Texas did not require ID to be taught, but the scam artists
still ran the bait and switch on them.-a The ID perps do not want >>>>>>>> ID taught whether it is required or not because they do not want >>>>>>>> a repeat of Dover.
_____
I refer you to long-form conversations between sceptic Michael >>>>>>>>> Shermer and Stephen Meyer. It is refreshing to see Shermer's >>>>>>>>> approach to "steelman" his opponent, the mutually respectful >>>>>>>>> posture of both, and the scope and depth of their dialogue.
Shermer for one takes Meyer seriously, scientifically and
philosophically, and rightly so. I challenge anyone to listen >>>>>>>>> to these dialogues and then endorse Ron's characterisation of >>>>>>>>> Meyer as "just a dishonest scam artist" whose "god hypothesis >>>>>>>>> book was only meant to continue to fool the rubes."
Shermer was an idiot.-a For whatever reason he let Meyer get away >>>>>>>> with putting up the Top Six as independent bits of denial in the >>>>>>>> God Hypothesis.-a He let Meyer not defend a single God
Hypothesis, but let him lie about what his god hypothesis was. >>>>>>>> You know that Meyer's god hypothesis is some version of the
Biblical god hypothesis.-a Meyer is just a dishonest scam
artists.-a He has been selling the rubes on "the Big Tent" of the >>>>>>>> ID scam, when anyone that understands science should know that >>>>>>>> there can be no big tent. There is only one nature for science >>>>>>>> to study, and nature is not Biblical.-a Demonstrate that Meyer >>>>>>>> did not sell the rubes on the teach ID scam for years before
starting to run the bait and switch. Demonstrate that he ever >>>>>>>> retracted any of the scam stupidity. Demonstrate that the Bait >>>>>>>> and switch has not continued to go down 100% of the time that >>>>>>>> Meyer has been directing the scam unit. -a-aI have put up the link >>>>>>>> from the wayback archive that demonstrates that the ID perps
were still hawking their teach ID scam booklet as part of their >>>>>>>> Teach the Controversy scam when Dover hit the fan. That booklet >>>>>>>> is the one in which Meyer claims that Of Pandas and People can >>>>>>>> be used to teach ID in the public schools and is the reason why >>>>>>>> the Dover rubes purchased Of Pandas and People to teach ID in >>>>>>>> their public schools.-a The More lawyers had Meyer's teach ID >>>>>>>> scam booklet, and wanted a test case.
https://www.skeptic.com/michael-shermer-show/stephen-meyer- >>>>>>>>> return- of- god-hypothesis-3-scientific-discoveries-reveal-the- >>>>>>>>> mind- behind- the- universe/?utm_source=chatgpt.com
Shermer is just an ignorant and incompetent rube.-a He obviously >>>>>>>> is ignorant of what Meyer has been doing for decades, and let >>>>>>>> him continue to do it.
Why do you want to attempt to defend a scam artist as dishonest >>>>>>>> as Meyer?-a Meyer has been director of the ID scam unit from the >>>>>>>> beginning. He was involved with the Of Pandas and People book >>>>>>>> (he wrote the teachers notes for the book).-a He was the main >>>>>>>> cheerleader for the teach ID scam and one of the authors of the >>>>>>>> teach ID scam propaganda first produced by the ID perps.-a He ran >>>>>>>> the first bait and switch personally on the Ohio rubes, quit his >>>>>>>> legitimate teaching job and started directing the bait and
switch full time. When the name change in Of Pandas and People >>>>>>>> from creationism to intelligent design was disclosed, during the >>>>>>>> Kitzmiller depositions, Meyer ran instead of testify even though >>>>>>>> the More lawyers had already agreed that he could have his own >>>>>>>> lawyer present in court. Meyer had been telling the rubes for >>>>>>>> years that Of Pandas and People could be use to teach ID in the >>>>>>>> public schools, but he was not willing to defend that claim in >>>>>>>> court. Really, Meyer wrote the public school teachers notes for >>>>>>>> the book.
The ID scam unit has been running the bait and switch on 100% of >>>>>>>> the creationist rubes that believe them about being able to
teach the junk in the public schools for the last 24 years under >>>>>>>> the directorship of Meyer.-a They continue to claim that it is >>>>>>>> legal to teach ID in the public schools outside of Dover, but >>>>>>>> the bait and switch goes down 100% of the time.
You are just a rube that wants to be lied to.-a Just think of all >>>>>>>> the IDiots at ARN that rolled over and continued to support the >>>>>>>> use of the ID scam as bait.-a After the bait and switch started >>>>>>>> to go down the only IDiots in existence were the ignorant,
incompetent, and or dishonest. No honest, competent, and
informed creationist could have possibly kept supporting a
stupid bait and switch scam, especially after they got Wells' >>>>>>>> report that the ID perps dog and pony show in front of the Ohio >>>>>>>> rubes was just a scam because the ID perps had decided to start >>>>>>>> running the bait and switch before they gave those
presentations.-a The ID perps even failed to convince the Ohio >>>>>>>> rubes that ID was science, and one of the rubes demonstrated
that by proposing that the definition of science be changed so >>>>>>>> that ID could be taught as science.-a That is how incompetent and >>>>>>>> dishonest IDiotic creationist rubes have to be.-a You can look in >>>>>>>> the mirror and see the type of rube that can lie to themselves >>>>>>>> about any possible ID science when it was apparent back in 2002 >>>>>>>> (years before Dover) and ID was already known not to be
scientific.-a Ignorant and incompetent YEC IDiots could
understand that, so why not you? Nelson started admitting that >>>>>>>> the ID science had never existed, but that the ID perps were
working on creating some.-a Nelson kept supporting using ID as >>>>>>>> bait. None of the ID perps resigned in disgust, and all of them >>>>>>>> kept supporting the use of ID as bait. You can't point to any >>>>>>>> concerted efforts by any ID perp member of the Discovery
Institute scam unit that tried to stop the bait and switch
scam.-a All that you will be able to find is a continued effort >>>>>>>> to put ID up as bait.
Ron Okimoto
Ron, I'm interested to understand where your energy against ID
comes from.
You need to deal with how wrong you have been about Meyer.
You should be more interested in why you have such a strong desire >>>>>> to be lied to by the scam artists.-a They prey on your religious
beliefs in order to further their Wedge political goals.-a They
might have some sort of lame excuse for making a living doing it
to you as being for your own good.
Didn't you ever read the original mission statement of the ID
perps? Didn't you ever read the Wedge document?-a The ID perps told >>>>>> everyone what they were using the ID scam to accomplish.-a The ID >>>>>> perps wanted to destroy your fictional materialistic reality.
They believed that they could recreate a theocracy that likely had >>>>>> never existed.-a You seem to have the same belief in their
fictional materialistic reality.-a They seem to have convinced
Philip Johnson that they could do this by teaching their warmed
over creationist denial as intelligent design.
The Top Six best evidences, gap denial, for the ID scam were all
used by the Scientific creationists well over a decade before the >>>>>> ID scam unit at the Discovery Institute was born.
Do you agree with their mission?-a Is that the reason that you
allow yourself to be lied to by the ID perps?-a The ID perps have >>>>>> run the bait and switch for the last 24 years because they came to >>>>>> the conclusion that using ID as bait was the best means to support >>>>>> their Wedge mission. -a-aThey abandoned teaching the junk because >>>>>> they had nothing that their creationist supporters would have
wanted to teach. The TO IDiots quit the ID scam when they had
their faces rubbed in the fact that they had never wanted the ID
perps to produce any valid ID science when the ID perps were
stupid enough to present their Top Six gap denial arguments in the >>>>>> order in which they must have occurred in this universe.-a That
order is not Biblical.-a The Reason to Believe IDiots tried to fit >>>>>> the ID scam into their Biblical creation model and failed, and
they no longer support the ID scam. All ID is good for is as bait >>>>>> to force the obfuscation and denial switch scam onto the rubes.
ID is a dishonest scam and they are scamming their fellow
Christians. They just want to get the rubes to help push their
mission forward by bending over for the switch scam, but the
dishonest creationists that fall for the ID scam do not want to
teach their kids enough science for them to understand what they
need to deny.-a The ID perps are not running the bait and switch on >>>>>> the science side.-a They are running the scam on their creationist >>>>>> rube supporters.
As a Christian what the ID perps are doing is reprehensible to me. >>>>>> The ID perps are still asking for donations to keep doing it.
Meyer has made his living for the past 24 years directing the
stupid bait and switch scam.-a Under his full time directorship the >>>>>> ID perps have continued to claim that it is legal to teach ID in
the public schools, but they have run the bait and switch on any
rube that has believed them 100% of the time.-a They even tried to >>>>>> run the bait and switch on the Dover rubes, but the Dover rubes
were too stupid and ignorant to know that the Discovery Institute >>>>>> was the outfit selling the teach ID scam, so they did not take the >>>>>> switch scam and tried to teach ID anyway.
It's one thing to disagree strongly, e.g. I disagree strongly
with climate change deniers, believing that they are often
ignoring or misusing science for idealogical reasons. Moreover, >>>>>>> unlike say flat- earthers, with concern that their influence and >>>>>>> proposed course of action (mostly inaction) poses a risk to the >>>>>>> planet.
The anti-science scam is damaging the people that fall for the
scam. Nearly all the rubes that have fallen for the bait have
dropped the issue instead of bend over for the switch scam.-a They >>>>>> exposed themselves to be dishonest and/or incompetent and got
nothing for their stupid and dishonest efforts.-a Rubes like you
never want to understand what reality actually is, but that isn't >>>>>> good for society. We live in a society dependent on the science
that the ID perps want to subvert.-a The ID perps were initially
claiming that they could do the same science that everyone else
was doing and support their theory of intelligent design, but they >>>>>> were obviously lying.-a They were lying to the rubes for the same >>>>>> reason that the scientific creationists called their YEC beliefs
scientific.-a They understood that science works, and creationism >>>>>> never had worked to build a better understanding of nature to the >>>>>> benefit of mankind. The ID perps never wanted to do any real
science.-a What they wanted was to destroy sciences ability to
function, and bring it down to their level.-a Like you they have
some weird notion that materialism is evil simply because it works >>>>>> and Biblical mythology has never worked. You don't have any
positive examples where the Biblical creation was found to be the >>>>>> creation that we live in because there has been 100% failure for
the god-did-it claims throughout history. Why have you never dealt >>>>>> with the fact that god-did-it claims have never been verified, but >>>>>> have only failed once we have been able to figure out what
actually happened.-a Doesn't it matter to you that you do not have >>>>>> a single positive example to support your case?-a The ID perps do >>>>>> not like the fact that science has all the successes, and the
Bible has none. Biological evolution is a fact of nature and you
still want to deny that it could have happened.-a The success of
science is something that you consider to be undermining your
religious beliefs.-a The ID perps believe that is the case too.
They blame science for moral decay and people becoming less
religious. What do you think their lies are doing?-a They think
that they need to recreate a theocracy to whip the people into
line.-a You should understand what that would result in. Nothing good. >>>>>>
They should blame themselves for the moral decay.-a Look at the
kind of dishonest creationists that they require to support their >>>>>> effort. Instead of getting people to reconcile their Biblical
beliefs with reality, they would rather lie to them about reality >>>>>> and force their lies onto others.-a The only good thing about the >>>>>> ID scam is that the demonstration of how bogus and dishonest the
effort has been seems to have gotten some YEC denominations to try >>>>>> to get their congregations to accept that the earth is much older >>>>>> than the Bible seems to claim. This is actually a step in the
right direction, but the ID perps want to lie to the rubes about a >>>>>> Big Tent that does not exist.-a Most of their support still comes >>>>>> from YEC even though most of the ID perps are OEC and understand
that the Big Tent of ID science does not exist.
Science is just the study of nature, and there is only one nature >>>>>> for the ID perps and their fellow creationists to deal with.
Nature is known not to be Biblical.-a Science is never going to
support Biblical creationist beliefs.-a Just try to get the Reason >>>>>> to Believe ex IDiots to tell you why they no longer support the ID >>>>>> scam.-a The Top Six in the order in which they must have occurred >>>>>> in this universe is not consistent with their Biblical creation
model even if you claim that days are indeterminate periods of time. >>>>>>
Is your objection to the ID movement itself, or do reject
consideration of supernatural causes generally? And do you regard >>>>>>> ID as a threat to science and the wellbeing of people?
Once it became clear that ID was nothing more than a stupid bait
and switch scam I objected to the scam.-a I did not start calling >>>>>> them ID perps and ID a scam until they had run the bait and switch >>>>>> 100% of the time for over 2 years.-a At that time there was
absolutely no doubt about what they were doing because they were
still yammering about the Santorum "amendment" being support for
their teach ID scam, and they had not retracted their Utah review >>>>>> article, nor their ID propaganda booklet.-a You and the other
IDiots that did not quit just kept supporting the ID perp's
efforts to use ID as bait. The only IDiots in existence are
ignorant, incompetent, and or dishonest.-a Try to demonstrate that >>>>>> honest competent and informed IDiots can exist. You know that you >>>>>> can't do this.-a I object to the ID scam because it preys on the
ignorant and incompetent, and just feeds the dishonesty of the
rest that want to keep supporting the effort.
ID failed as science due to the Dover fiasco where their bait and >>>>>> switch scam went terribly wrong for the ID perps and they were
forced to try to defend the scam.-a All ID has ever been used for >>>>>> is as bait 100% of the time.-a No rubes have ever gotten the
promised ID science. The use of ID as bait has been the only way
forward for the ID perps to continue their Wedge mission.-a What
else have the ID perps done with their ID science claims?-a No ID >>>>>> science has ever been produced. Only the bait claims have
continued.-a The ISCID pretty much died when the bait and switch
started to go down.-a They likely lost all their non ID scam
creationist supporters.-a Who would want to support a bait and
switch scam if you were not being paid to do it, or you really
believed in the Wedge mission?-a Once ID had been revealed to be
bait, no serious and honest academics would have kept supporting
the effort.-a Tour doesn't support the ID scam.-a He even claims
that he doesn't know how to do any ID science.-a Tour just can't
give up on the gap denial because he needs to wallow in denial
just like you.
My evaluation of you, is that you are dishonest enough to keep
supporting ID as bait because you want to be lied to.-a Likely,
because you do not want reality to be what it is.-a Just like you >>>>>> don't want biological evolution to be a fact of nature, you do not >>>>>> want the existing origin of life gap filled by any explanantion.
Even if some god could be found to fill that gap it would not be
the god described in the Bible.-a Wallowing in denial is your only >>>>>> means that you can think of to keep from dealing with that
reality.-a The YEC rubes are IDiots because they can't deal with
things like the Big Bang and the origin of life on earth.-a They
are all too ignorant, incompetent and or dishonest to understand
that they do not want to teach the best evidence for the ID scam. >>>>>> You know that you do not want the Top Six taught honestly because >>>>>> you ran from it, and you can't even deal honestly with your origin >>>>>> of life gap (#3 of the Top Six).-a Just imagine how quickly all the >>>>>> YEC support would drain away from the ID scam if they put out a
lesson plan that taught the Top Six in an honest and
straightforward manner.
Reality isn't going to change.-a It isn't your materialistic boogie >>>>>> man that is the issue.-a Reality does not support your Biblical
beliefs. You are the one that needs to deal with that fact.
Continuing to support a bogus bait and switch scam is never going >>>>>> to result in what you need to do.
Ron Okimoto
Independently of ID, my own investigation of OoL leads me to
conclude that progress is overstated and foundational problems are
understated, which I've argued here at length (as you know) with
reference to source papers and my own thinking and ideas, as well
as material from ID. Sure, my engagement is at the level of
somewhat- informed layperson, and you may disagree with my
interpretations of the science. However, are you suggesting that
all I've contributed on this topic has no scientific merit or
validity at all, and worse, it is only the product of my dishonesty >>>>> driven by an ideological agenda?
You need to try to be honest with yourself.-a You have allowed the ID >>>> scam to rule your innate dishonesty.-a The ID scam has created a
loser willfully incompetent human being in what they have done to
you.-a You have literally spent decades of your life lying to
yourself about reality.-a All that you have used the ID scam for is
justification for your dishonesty.-a You have only wanted to be lied
to by the scam artists, and have somehow lied to yourself about what
a bogus scam ID has been for the last two decades.-a You can't even
deal with how you let a scam artist like Meyer fool you for decades.
You spent a lot of time defining the origin of life gap because you
wanted to deny that it would ever be filled by by scientific
efforts. You did such a good job that you demonstrated without any
doubt that the origin of life gap was not Biblical.-a Even if the ID
perps were ever able to fill the gap with some god, it would not be
the Biblical designer.-a You were competent enough to run from that
reality, but you eventually went back to lying to yourself about the
issue.-a You admitted that all you wanted to do was wallow in the
denial.-a You claimed that you did not have to deal with the fact
that the gap was not Biblical until the gap was filled.-a That is so
sad that it should by something that atheists would have to lie
about because what type of creationist would admit to being so
dishonestly willfully ignorant and incompetent.
I have pointed out in the past that your origin of life denial is
senseless.-a It has never mattered how far the scientific effort is
from figuring out your type of answer for the origin of life.
Really, it has always been understood by the scientists involved
that the best that they can expect to do is to determine the most
likely way that life originated on this planet.-a The most likely way >>>> does not have to be the way in which it happened.-a Origin of life
research has always been acknowledged to be among the weakest of
scientific endeavors.-a It is why most scientists do not bother with
it.-a It is why I have never applied any concerted effort to follow
it except with respect to the creationist denial.
Reiterating my previously stated position, I have only partial
support for ID. I've criticised what I've seen as incorrect claims
(e.g. in relation to junk DNA), and I've spoken about my concern
with ID's religious right political stance at times.
Until you ran from the Top Six and tried to keep the ID scam alive
by posting them as independent bits of denial your above statement
could have been considered to likely be the case, but it now seems
to be a lie.-a Whether you want to be honest with yourself or not,
you have been heavily dependent on the lies that you get from the ID
perps. You have needed to be lied to for decades.-a You could not
give it up when you should have realized that it was just a scam
with the rest of the IDiots at ARN.-a All the IDiots that did not
quit the ID scam after the bait and switch started to go down were
ignorant, incompetent, and or dishonest, and you remained among them
for decades of the bait and switch going down 100% of the time.
What could you possibly have thought about what the ID perps were
doing when all they were using ID for was as bait to force the rubes
to take their obfuscation and denial switch scam?
You need to face your reliance on the lies of the ID scam, and your
inability to deal honestly with your origin of life gap.-a You can't
just quit the ID scam like Kalk and Bill, and and continue to wallow
in the denial.-a You have to deal honestly with the denial.
Harran just put up a quote by Pope Francis demonstrating that he had
given up on the Bibilical literal interpretation about the creation
in six magical periods of time.-a He claimed that the Big Bang and
what happened since is a creation that he can believe in.-a It has
been that way since all the Church Fathers were not flat earth
Biblical creationists.-a There remain Jewish and Christian Biblical
flat earth creationists to this day, but the intellectuals that were
instrumental in forming early Christian beliefs did not require a
literal interpretation of the Bible. Eratosthenes had estimated the
circumference of the earth by physical measurements a couple
centuries before Christ was born.
You can't name a single instance where the literal interpretation
won out when a conflict arose with science.-a 100% failure.-a If you
had such an example we would already be teaching it in the public
schools.-a The earth is not flat, the Biblical firmament does not
exist, the universe is not geocentric, the earth is much older than
a few thousand years (the ICR is back to claiming less than 20,000
years, and likely less than 10,000).-a The ID perps understand that
the Big Bang happened over 13 billion years ago (#1 of the Top Six).
Some fine tuning occurred before or during the Big bang and it took
8 billion years to create the elements that make up our solar system
from dying stars so that the earth could be fine tuned for life (#2
of the Top Six).-a The origin of life occurred over 3 billion years
ago, and some evidence exists that it started about as soon as the
earth cooled enough to have liquid water (#3 of the Top Six).-a The
flagellum evolved among eubacteria and archaea independently over a
billion years ago, and Behe should be looking for his three neutral
mutations that are needed to have evolved within a certain period of
time within a single cell lineage, but he refuses to try to verify
if the flagellum could be IC.-a He claims that as long as we do not
know how the flagellum evolved that his IC claims are still viable,
but it means that his claims have not been verified, and he refuses
to test his hypothesis (#4 of the Top Six).-a If Behe ever found his
3 neutral mutations that occurred over a billion years ago every
single YEC would likely quit supporting the ID scam.-a The kicker is
that Behe claims that his 3 neutral mutation claim is testable, but
it is only testable if biological evolution is true.-a Behe requires
descent with modification and enough existing branching lineages,
that trace back to that time period, to determine when the mutations
occurred). Before the bait and switch started to go down Meyer was
hawking the Cambrian explosion (#5 of the Top Six) as evidence for
the ID scam. His claim was that 25 million years was not a long
enough period of time to evolve all the taxa that evolved during
this period of time over half a billion years go.-a Meyer continued
to fool the YEC rubes.-a Gish had used the same argument a couple
decades before Meyer, but at that time the gap was 45 million years
and more taxa were thought to have evolved within that time period.
Gish was successful in fooling the rubes with the Cambrian explosion
gap denial, a gap that was never Biblical, and so was Meyer.-a The
Cambrian explosion means that there were sea creatures evolving long
before land plants existed.-a Gish also was fond of gaps in the human >>>> fossil record (#6 of the Top Six). The reason that this gap argument
should kill YEC is that the gaps are known to be gaps within the
last 10 million years of human evolution because of what we have
already found and the fossils are missing from well defined time
period. -a-aEnough is already known about the gaps to demonstrate that >>>> the earth has to be older than 20,000 years old. There would not be
so many gaps if we did not have the intermediate forms that tell us
what we are likely missing.-a Each time we have filled a gap with a
transitional form we create two gaps.-a This is why the Top Six
killed ID on TO and all the IDiots quit the ID scam or ran from
dealing honestly with the best evidence that the ID perp scam
artists have.
Nature has been known not to be Biblical for centuries.-a Wallowing
in denial will never change that fact.
Ron Okimoto
As I've discussed several times here before, from my own reading of
science and scripture I don't have a fully reconciled picture, and I
acknowledge that this is not unimportant: on one hand, Christianity
does not regard the Bible as a science textbook, on the other, it
does claim to be grounded in historical reality. I've discussed and
explored these questions at length in other contexts, but as I've
previously stated, I choose to generally not discuss them here.
In terms of what you are lying to yourself about your above excuse is
inadequate and lame.-a It just allows you to want to be lied to by the
ID preps, and accept the lies.-a It obviously does not matter to you
that you only want to wallow in denial because you can't face reality.
Just look at yourself.-a How have you had to lie to yourself and be
dishonestly willfully ignorant of reality in order to continue to be
an Idiotic9 creationist?-a You fully understand that you do not want to
fill the Top Six gaps with any explanation because the god that fills
those gaps is not the one described in the Bible.-a Ray would have
called that god a false god.-a There is absolutely no reason to lie to
yourself and wallow in the ID scam gap denial when you do not want
those gaps fill by anything.
You know that this is true because you initially ran from the Top Six
and would not deal with them in an honest and straight forward manner,
and when you blundered and demonstrated that your origin of life gap
was not Biblical you ran.-a You eventually came back to that argument,
but it took you months of lying to yourself to get you to do it.
You want to be a creationist rube.-a The old adage that you can't con
an honest man is true in this case.-a Ignorant but honest creationists
quit the ID scam decades ago when they understood what was going on.
Honest competent and informed creationists were never Idiots and never
had to be Idiots8=-0;.,jhygtfrfed.
And whatever faults and failings ID may have (again, I recognise many
of them), it continues press into areas that I have independently
concluded justify scrutiny and challenge.
Wallowing in the denial is stupid and dishonest when you do not want
to know the answer.-a You know that the answer already excludes what
you want to support.-a There is no reason to support a bogus and
dishonest bait and switch scam like ID.-a They are running the scam on
creationists rubes like yourself.-a The scam doesn't go down on the
science side. They have been running the scam on their own creationist
support base.
Regardless, you do not not seem able to accept even the possibility
that I may genuinely interpret the evidence for (say) OoL differently
to you. Let me ask you this question: when non-religious scientists
expresses scepticism or doubt about OoL, how do you regard this?
What a nut job.-a I have already told you that the origin of life topic
is among the weakest of scientific endeavors.-a Real scientists should
be skeptical of anything that the researchers come up with that still
want to look into the issue.-a They understand that they will likely
never determine how life arose on this planet.-a All that they can ever
hope to do is figure out the most likely way life arose on this
planet.-a That does not have to be the way that it actually happened.
Running from the reality that you have to understand exists is just
stupid and dishonest.-a You likely still want to bend over and take
whatever a scam artist like Meyer wants to give to you.-a You have to
realize that Meyer has just been bending you over for decades.-a You
want to pick yourself up as if you haven't learned anything and bend
over again so that you can keep lying to yourself about reality.
There is no genuine interpretation of the evidence when you already
know that you just want to lie to yourself about the issue.-a You are
still lying to yourself about Meyer and the ID scam.-a You can't deal
honestly with your own inability to deal with the fact that the origin
of life gap cannot be filled by your Biblical god.-a You have been
unable to deal honestly with your inability to genuinely deal with
your evolution denial based on your Biblical beliefs and not the
evidence.-a The Reason to Believe creationists understand that
biological evolution is not mentioned in the Bible.-a They are anti-
evolution because the evolutionary order of creation that we observe
in the fossil record and among extant lifeforms is not Biblical.-a They
do not want to deal with the fact that life has been evolving on this
planet for billions of years in an order that is not Biblical.-a That
is likely your own stupid denial reason for being anti-evolution.-a The
origin of life gap is no different.-a It is not Biblical.-a It doesn't
matter how the origin of life gap is filled it will not support
Biblical creationism.-a Why should you be anti-evolution when you know
that the order in which life has evolved on this planet is not the
Biblical order, no matter if each new lifeform was being specially
created or had evolved by descent with modification.-a You have to give
up on the Biblical claims like Pope Francis in order to deal with the
Top Six IDotic gaps.-a That means that there is no reason to wallow in
the denial.-a The gaps can be filled in anyway possible and that is the
way God did it.
Wanting to be lied to about reality is no reason to keep supporting a
stupid bait and switch scam.
Science is never going to rule out the existence of any god or gods,
but Biblical creationism has never been supported by our understanding
of the creation that actually exists from the start of Christianity.
Science whether you want to lie to yourself about intelligent design
or creation science is never going to support your Biblical beliefs
because the nature that exists is not Biblical, and science is just
the study of nature.
Ron Okimoto
Ron, and I say this not to belittle but out of real concern: get the
help you need.
On 4/11/2026 4:26 PM, MarkE wrote:
On 12/04/2026 1:28 am, RonO wrote:Projection is common among IDiots.-a You should know that from long experience.-a You seem to be the one that needs religious counceling. You need to sit down with someone and try to explain to them why you need to
On 4/11/2026 8:29 AM, Mark98 wrote:
On 11/04/2026 2:21 am, RonO wrote:
On 4/10/2026 1:45 AM, MarkE wrote:
On 10/04/2026 2:24 pm, RonO wrote:
On 4/9/2026 6:51 PM, MarkE wrote:
On 9/04/2026 2:10 am, RonO wrote:
On 4/7/2026 10:29 PM, MarkE wrote:
On 8/04/2026 12:16 pm, RonO wrote:
On 4/7/2026 7:08 PM, MarkE wrote:
On 8/04/2026 9:10 am, RonO wrote:
On 4/7/2026 5:34 PM, MarkE wrote:
On 7/04/2026 5:50 pm, Kerr-Mudd, John wrote:
On Tue, 7 Apr 2026 12:43:48 +1000
MarkE <me22over7@gmail.com> wrote:
On 7/04/2026 8:25 am, MarkE wrote:[]
On 7/04/2026 1:41 am, ShyDavid wrote:
I would love to see theists being just as honest and >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> virtuous as
scientists.
Thank you, that confirms where you're coming from. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
I am curious though: you appear to have contempt to the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> point of moral
repugnance for anyone favouring the God hypothesis (i.e. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> creationists of
any stripe), and a self-assurance regarding materialism >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to the point of
arrogance - why then the interest in the topic of >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> origins, and why
bother engaging? Are you not as confident as you make >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> out, are you
seeking applause here, or do you just enjoy being smug >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and insulting?
Where's your evidence/justification for this 'god >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> hypothesis'?
Start here (but you knew this): https://www.amazon.com.au/ >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Return- God- Hypothesis-Compelling-TheExistence/dp/0062071505 >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Or read my posts on OoL. Etc etc etc.
But you don't really care, do you.
It may be justification, but is not scientific evidence for >>>>>>>>>>>>> any god hypothesis.-a It is just junk to fool the rubes >>>>>>>>>>>>> with. Meyer never tried to create a coherent god
hypothesis.-a He just presented the god- of-the- gaps denial >>>>>>>>>>>>> arguments as independent bits of denial, just as the >>>>>>>>>>>>> scientific creationists had done decades before Meyer >>>>>>>>>>>>> joined the ID scam.-a You know why he did not try to develop >>>>>>>>>>>>> a coherent god hypothesis is because nature is not Biblical >>>>>>>>>>>>> and the god hypothesized would not be the Biblical god. He >>>>>>>>>>>>> didn't do it for the same reason that you ran from the Top >>>>>>>>>>>>> Six and can't deal with them in an honest and
straightforward manner. It is why the other IDiots quit the >>>>>>>>>>>>> ID scam.
Ron Okimoto
Ron, you are so wrong, and out of line. Meyer is an
intelligent and considered scientist, and his writing is >>>>>>>>>>>> recognised as such beyond the ID community. Present your >>>>>>>>>>>> rebuttals to his arguments, but spare us your unsupported >>>>>>>>>>>> slander.
First off, Meyer does not consider himself to be a scientist. >>>>>>>>>>> At one time he worked as a geologist for an oil company, but >>>>>>>>>>> he claims to be an historian and philosopher (part of the >>>>>>>>>>> scam artist schtick).
Meyer is not currently a practising scientist, but is a
qualified scientist:
PhD rCo History and Philosophy of Science, University of Cambridge >>>>>>>>>> Focus: philosophy of biology, scientific explanation
MasterrCOs degree rCo Geophysics, University of Cambridge
BachelorrCOs degree rCo Physics and Earth Science, Whitworth >>>>>>>>>> University
A former geophysicist and college professor.
You have to accept what the scam artist claims.-a He claims to >>>>>>>>> be an historian and philosopher scam artist, not a scientist >>>>>>>>> scam artist. Philosophers are allowed to fool the rubes with >>>>>>>>> obfuscation and denial, but scam artist scientists are not
really scientists, at best they would be considered to be
pseudo scientists.
Meyers is a dishonest scam artist.-a He was the head cheer >>>>>>>>>>> leader for the teach ID scam when other ID perps understood >>>>>>>>>>> that there was no ID science worth teaching.-a Understanding >>>>>>>>>>> that fact he ran the first bait and switch scam on the Ohio >>>>>>>>>>> rubes.-a He had made up his mind that he was going to run the >>>>>>>>>>> bait and switch before he gave his presentation to the Ohio >>>>>>>>>>> rubes.-a He lied to them about being able to teach the junk in >>>>>>>>>>> the public schools and that ID was science.-a The real
scientists demonstrated to the board that ID was not science >>>>>>>>>>> and should not be taught as such in the public schools. >>>>>>>>>>> Meyer offered the switch scam to the rubes in the discussion >>>>>>>>>>> after Wells made the claim that there was enough scientific >>>>>>>>>>> support for the ID scam that it could be forced into the >>>>>>>>>>> public schools (Wells also knew that the bait and switch was >>>>>>>>>>> going down and that he was just lying to the rubes).-a Meyer >>>>>>>>>>> and Wells were so unconvincing that the Ohio rubes decided >>>>>>>>>>> not to teach the ID scam junk, but the rubes were still >>>>>>>>>>> dishonest enough to bend over for the switch scam that Meyer >>>>>>>>>>> told them had nothing to do with ID.-a The board understood >>>>>>>>>>> that Meyer had tried to lie to them about ID being science, >>>>>>>>>>> but some of them were so dishonest and corrupt that one of >>>>>>>>>>> them put up the proposal to the board that the definition of >>>>>>>>>>> science, that was a part of the science standards, be
rewritten so that ID could be taught as science in the Ohio >>>>>>>>>>> public schools.-a The board was actually convinced that Meyer >>>>>>>>>>> had tried to lie to them about ID being science when it could >>>>>>>>>>> not be considered to be science by their own definition of >>>>>>>>>>> science.
At the time Meyer had a job teaching at a religious college, >>>>>>>>>>> but he dropped out of the public view after running the bait >>>>>>>>>>> and switch. He quit that job (it had to be hard to walk down >>>>>>>>>>> the academic halls with scam artists written on your
forehead).-a All his colleagues must have known what he had >>>>>>>>>>> been claiming about the teach ID scam. Meyer was an author of >>>>>>>>>>> the Teach ID scam 1999 booklet that the Discovery Institute >>>>>>>>>>> used to give out with their ID scam video and also the 2000 >>>>>>>>>>> Utah law review article claiming that it was legal to teach >>>>>>>>>>> ID in the public schools.-a Meyer started working as director >>>>>>>>>>> of the bait and switch scam full time, and has made sure that >>>>>>>>>>> ID has continued to be offered up as bait for decades.-a The >>>>>>>>>>> teach ID scam claims were never retracted, and more teach ID >>>>>>>>>>> scam propaganda was eventually added during Meyer's
leadership of the bait and switch scam. Immediately after >>>>>>>>>>> Ohio West had to step forward and make sure that the bait and >>>>>>>>>>> switch kept going down on any rubes that popped up and still >>>>>>>>>>> wanted to teach the junk (Meyer was MIA). Do you recall how >>>>>>>>>>> long Meyer retreated into the background after running the >>>>>>>>>>> bait and switch on the Ohio rubes?
You were posting at ARN when the bait and switch went down. >>>>>>>>>>> By Ohio some of the IDiots at ARN already understood that >>>>>>>>>>> there wasn't any ID science to teach.-a The majority of >>>>>>>>>>> IDiotic creationist rubes supported teaching ID just as the >>>>>>>>>>> Discovery Institute was claiming could be done. You know that >>>>>>>>>>> after the bait and switch went down the tone changed at ARN. >>>>>>>>>>> The majority were no longer openly supporting teaching the >>>>>>>>>>> junk. Only a few still claimed that ID would be taught in >>>>>>>>>>> Ohio. Most of the IDiots started pretending that teaching the >>>>>>>>>>> junk wasn't the goal of the ID scam even though that is about >>>>>>>>>>> all ID had ever been. ID first came to TO in the late 1990's >>>>>>>>>>> as something that could be taught in the public schools >>>>>>>>>>> (probably, just before you started posting).
A year (2003) after Ohio when the initial draft of the Ohio >>>>>>>>>>> model lesson plan came out nearly everyone at ARN stopped >>>>>>>>>>> supporting teaching the junk.-a Eventually the creationist web >>>>>>>>>>> links and all mention of intelligent design and ID perps was >>>>>>>>>>> removed from the lesson plan. Wells' book had obviously been >>>>>>>>>>> used to create the lesson plan (the Wellsian lie about no >>>>>>>>>>> moths on tree trunks had made it into the lesson plan) but >>>>>>>>>>> the reference to his book was removed from the lesson plan >>>>>>>>>>> when the lie was rewritten.-a Mike gene came out and claimed >>>>>>>>>>> that he had given up on teaching the junk back in 1999, but >>>>>>>>>>> Gene and nearly all the IDiots kept supporting ID as bait. >>>>>>>>>>> Some may have quit posting, but everyone that was left was >>>>>>>>>>> either ignorant, incompetent and or dishonest. You were >>>>>>>>>>> apparently among the dishonest, but you haven't yet
demonstrated that you are clearly out of the incompetent group. >>>>>>>>>>>
During the Dover fiasco Meyer ran even though the More
lawyers had allowed him to have his own lawyer present during >>>>>>>>>>> his Kitzmiller testimony.-a He ran after Forrest was deposed >>>>>>>>>>> with Dembski in attendance, and the name change from
creationism to intelligent design in the book Of Pandas and >>>>>>>>>>> People was disclosed.-a Meyer had written the teachers notes >>>>>>>>>>> for that book, and was one of the authors of the teach ID >>>>>>>>>>> scam propaganda claiming that Of Pandas and People could be >>>>>>>>>>> used to teach ID in the public schools.
Meyer is just a dishonest scam artist.-a His god hypothesis >>>>>>>>>>> book was only meant to continue to fool the rubes.-a How long >>>>>>>>>>> has the bait and switch been going down under the direction >>>>>>>>>>> of Meyer? Why did he never retract any of his teach ID scam >>>>>>>>>>> propaganda after starting to run the bait and switch?
You should know by now that the first thing any hypothesis >>>>>>>>>>> should be evaluated on would be if it can exist within what >>>>>>>>>>> is already understood. -a-aMeyer purposely refused to
demonstrate that any of his hypotheses were viable within the >>>>>>>>>>> context of what is known, and only put up the gap arguments >>>>>>>>>>> as independent bits of denial in order to fool the rubes. >>>>>>>>>>> What the scam artist did should only work on rubes that want >>>>>>>>>>> to be lied to like yourself.-a Meyer never put up a coherent >>>>>>>>>>> god hypothesis.-a He only put up independent bits of gap >>>>>>>>>>> denial in order to lie to the rubes about reality. If he had >>>>>>>>>>> made an honest effort you would be running from the book just >>>>>>>>>>> as you ran from the Top Six that the ID perps put out in the >>>>>>>>>>> order in which they must have occurred in this universe. The >>>>>>>>>>> universe is not Biblical.-a The god that fills Meyer's gaps is >>>>>>>>>>> not the god described in the Bible. That is what Meyer should >>>>>>>>>>> have made clear at the beginning of the Book, but he just >>>>>>>>>>> wrote the book to scam the rubes, and maintain ID as bait. >>>>>>>>>>>
Ron Okimoto
The ID movement has a complicated history, but I reject your >>>>>>>>>> caricaturisation as a bait and switch scam. It's a movement >>>>>>>>>> with many voices over a long period - some possibly misguided >>>>>>>>>> at times, or even dishonest - you get that whenever humans are >>>>>>>>>> involved, especially with such a complex, developing and
charged issue.
Meyer has been the director of the ID scam unit at the
Discovery Institute from it's founding.-a Meyer's voice was >>>>>>>>> claiming that ID could be taught in the public schools and that >>>>>>>>> Of Pandas and People could be used to teach the junk.-a He ran >>>>>>>>> the first bait and switch scam on the Ohio rubes personally. >>>>>>>>> He never retracted any of his teach ID scam junk, and only
allowed the Discovery Institute to create more teach ID scam >>>>>>>>> propaganda during his directorship of the ID bait and switch >>>>>>>>> scam. Under Meyer's directorship the bait and switch has gone >>>>>>>>> down 100% of the time any creationist rubes have believed the >>>>>>>>> scam junk and claimed to want to teach ID in the public
schools.-a 100% of the time is your reality.-a They blundered in >>>>>>>>> Dover.-a By that time they were paying someone to make sure that >>>>>>>>> the bait and switch went down, but it had likely become routine >>>>>>>>> (it had likely gone down around 30 times since Ohio), and the >>>>>>>>> ID perp did not follow up after running the bait and switch and >>>>>>>>> telling the rubes not to teach ID, but to teach the switch scam >>>>>>>>> instead.-a The Dover rubes did not like the switch scam and >>>>>>>>> decided to teach ID anyway, instead of dropping the issue as >>>>>>>>> nearly all of the other creationist rubes had done. The Dover >>>>>>>>> rubes were so ignorant and incompetent that they did not know >>>>>>>>> that the Discovery Institute was the scam outfit running the >>>>>>>>> teach ID scam.-a Meyer ran from testifying and would not defend >>>>>>>>> his own propaganda about being able to teach the junk in the >>>>>>>>> public schools.
This is the reality that you are lying to yourself about.
https://arn.org/docs/dewolf/guidebook.htm
This is the teach ID scam propaganda that Meyer authored in >>>>>>>>> 1999 to sell the teach ID scam.-a The conclusion contains the >>>>>>>>> claim that Of Pandas and People can be used to teach ID in the >>>>>>>>> public schools. Meyer sold the teach ID scam, and ran the first >>>>>>>>> bait and switch on the Ohio rubes in 2002.
However, current policy is: "DI opposes any effort to require >>>>>>>>>> the teaching of intelligent design by school districts or >>>>>>>>>> state boards of education."
Yes, they started making the "required" claim after their
failure in Dover, but they still claimed that the Dover
decision was wrong, and that even though ID had been determined >>>>>>>>> to be no science worth teaching in the public schools that ID >>>>>>>>> could still be legally taught outside of the middle court
district of PA. "Required" is only their scam language to keep >>>>>>>>> running the bait and switch.
You should know because I put it up on TO when it happened. >>>>>>>>> When both Louisiana and Texas tried to use their switch scam >>>>>>>>> stupidity to teach ID in their public schools in 2013 both
states claimed that they were not requiring ID to be taught, >>>>>>>>> and were just allowing teachers to teach the scam junk if they >>>>>>>>> wanted to.-a The ID perps ran the bait and switch on the rubes >>>>>>>>> anyway.-a It was such a dishonest bait and switch that the ID >>>>>>>>> perps removed the "requiring" statement from their Education >>>>>>>>> policy. They just deleted that paragraph and left the rest
intact for several years until they rewrote the scam education >>>>>>>>> policy and put back the "requiring" scam stupidity, and have >>>>>>>>> kept running the bait and switch 100% of the time.-a The truth >>>>>>>>> is that the ID perps do not want ID taught in the public
schools whether it is required or not.-a They are only using ID >>>>>>>>> as bait. They know that they do not have any ID science that >>>>>>>>> the rubes would want to teach.
You can still find the original education policy on page 15 of >>>>>>>>> the current teach ID scam propaganda where they continue to >>>>>>>>> claim that it is legal to teach the junk outside of Dover.
https://www.discovery.org/f/1453/
QUOTE:
Although Discovery Institute does not advocate requiring
the teaching of intelligent design in public schools, it
does believe there is nothing unconstitutional about
voluntarily discussing the scientific theory of design in
the classroom. In addition, the Institute opposes efforts
to persecute individual teachers who may wish to discuss
the scientific debate over design in an objective and
pedagogically appropriate manner.
END QUOTE:
This is the paragraph that the ID perps deleted from the
education policy after they ran the bait and switch on
Louisiana and Texas when they were not requiring ID to be taught. >>>>>>>>>
They eventually put back the "requiring" scam language and have >>>>>>>>> continued to run the bait and switch to this day.
They have updated the teach ID scam propaganda that they
created after Dover around every 3 years since first publishing >>>>>>>>> it in 2007. I have noted that they last updated the junk in >>>>>>>>> 2021, but have since reformated the site and seem to have
reverted to the 2018 version. It is likely to be updated again >>>>>>>>> in 2027.-a Luskin is one of the authors of this propaganda, and >>>>>>>>> he is the current ID perp tasked with making sure that the bait >>>>>>>>> and switch keeps going down on states like West Virginia and >>>>>>>>> the Dakotas.-a The guy currently telling the rubes that the >>>>>>>>> Discovery Institute does not support teaching ID in the public >>>>>>>>> schools is one of the ID perps that is responsible for writing >>>>>>>>> the current teach ID scam propaganda. Meyer is just directing >>>>>>>>> the bait and switch. Luskin has been tasked to keep doing it. >>>>>>>>>
"It believes that evolution should be fully and completely >>>>>>>>>> presented to students, and they should learn more about
evolutionary theory, including its unresolved issues. In other >>>>>>>>>> words, evolution should be taught as a scientific theory that >>>>>>>>>> is open to critical scrutiny, not as a sacred dogma that canrCOt >>>>>>>>>> be questioned."
This is why nearly all the creationist rubes that have had the >>>>>>>>> bait and switch run on them have dropped the issue instead of >>>>>>>>> bending over for the switch scam.-a Dishonest Biblical
creationist rubes do not want to teach their kids enough
science for them to understand what they need to deny if they >>>>>>>>> can't tell them the religious reason for why they are lying to >>>>>>>>> the students.-a The ID perps push the obfuscation and denial >>>>>>>>> switch scam as the only means to keep the kids as ignorant as >>>>>>>>> possible so that they can continue to support their Wedge goals. >>>>>>>>>
You know that the ID science does not support Biblical
creationism. Most of the ID perps are old earth Biblical
creationists, but probably all the rubes that have had the bait >>>>>>>>> and switch run on them have been YEC. YEC would never want
their kids taught the best evidence for the ID scam.-a The YEC >>>>>>>>> have already succeeded in removing the Big Bang (#1 of the Top >>>>>>>>> Six) along with biological evolution from the science standards >>>>>>>>> of Kansas in 1999, and multiple other states have considered >>>>>>>>> the same thing.-a The YEC would never accept teaching the best >>>>>>>>> evidence for ID in an honest and straight forward manner. That >>>>>>>>> is why the ID perps have never told the rubes what they want to >>>>>>>>> teach and how they think that it should be taught.-a They have >>>>>>>>> only sold ID as bait so that they can force the obfuscation and >>>>>>>>> denial switch scam onto the rubes.
"Discovery Institute believes that a curriculum that aims to >>>>>>>>>> provide students with an understanding of the strengths and >>>>>>>>>> weaknesses of neo- Darwinian and chemical evolutionary
theories (rather than teaching an alternative theory, such as >>>>>>>>>> intelligent design) represents a common ground approach that >>>>>>>>>> all reasonable citizens can agree on."
This is the obfuscation and denial switch scam that the ID
perps tell the rubes has nothing to do with ID.-a The ID perps >>>>>>>>> obviously lie a lot. Just go up and read the paragraph that >>>>>>>>> they deleted from their education policy when both Louisiana >>>>>>>>> and Texas did not require ID to be taught, but the scam artists >>>>>>>>> still ran the bait and switch on them.-a The ID perps do not >>>>>>>>> want ID taught whether it is required or not because they do >>>>>>>>> not want a repeat of Dover.
_____
I refer you to long-form conversations between sceptic Michael >>>>>>>>>> Shermer and Stephen Meyer. It is refreshing to see Shermer's >>>>>>>>>> approach to "steelman" his opponent, the mutually respectful >>>>>>>>>> posture of both, and the scope and depth of their dialogue. >>>>>>>>>>
Shermer for one takes Meyer seriously, scientifically and >>>>>>>>>> philosophically, and rightly so. I challenge anyone to listen >>>>>>>>>> to these dialogues and then endorse Ron's characterisation of >>>>>>>>>> Meyer as "just a dishonest scam artist" whose "god hypothesis >>>>>>>>>> book was only meant to continue to fool the rubes."
Shermer was an idiot.-a For whatever reason he let Meyer get >>>>>>>>> away with putting up the Top Six as independent bits of denial >>>>>>>>> in the God Hypothesis.-a He let Meyer not defend a single God >>>>>>>>> Hypothesis, but let him lie about what his god hypothesis was. >>>>>>>>> You know that Meyer's god hypothesis is some version of the >>>>>>>>> Biblical god hypothesis.-a Meyer is just a dishonest scam
artists.-a He has been selling the rubes on "the Big Tent" of >>>>>>>>> the ID scam, when anyone that understands science should know >>>>>>>>> that there can be no big tent. There is only one nature for >>>>>>>>> science to study, and nature is not Biblical.-a Demonstrate that >>>>>>>>> Meyer did not sell the rubes on the teach ID scam for years >>>>>>>>> before starting to run the bait and switch. Demonstrate that he >>>>>>>>> ever retracted any of the scam stupidity. Demonstrate that the >>>>>>>>> Bait and switch has not continued to go down 100% of the time >>>>>>>>> that Meyer has been directing the scam unit. -a-aI have put up >>>>>>>>> the link from the wayback archive that demonstrates that the ID >>>>>>>>> perps were still hawking their teach ID scam booklet as part of >>>>>>>>> their Teach the Controversy scam when Dover hit the fan. That >>>>>>>>> booklet is the one in which Meyer claims that Of Pandas and >>>>>>>>> People can be used to teach ID in the public schools and is the >>>>>>>>> reason why the Dover rubes purchased Of Pandas and People to >>>>>>>>> teach ID in their public schools.-a The More lawyers had Meyer's >>>>>>>>> teach ID scam booklet, and wanted a test case.
https://www.skeptic.com/michael-shermer-show/stephen-meyer- >>>>>>>>>> return- of- god-hypothesis-3-scientific-discoveries-reveal- >>>>>>>>>> the- mind- behind- the- universe/?utm_source=chatgpt.com
Shermer is just an ignorant and incompetent rube.-a He obviously >>>>>>>>> is ignorant of what Meyer has been doing for decades, and let >>>>>>>>> him continue to do it.
Why do you want to attempt to defend a scam artist as dishonest >>>>>>>>> as Meyer?-a Meyer has been director of the ID scam unit from the >>>>>>>>> beginning. He was involved with the Of Pandas and People book >>>>>>>>> (he wrote the teachers notes for the book).-a He was the main >>>>>>>>> cheerleader for the teach ID scam and one of the authors of the >>>>>>>>> teach ID scam propaganda first produced by the ID perps.-a He >>>>>>>>> ran the first bait and switch personally on the Ohio rubes, >>>>>>>>> quit his legitimate teaching job and started directing the bait >>>>>>>>> and switch full time. When the name change in Of Pandas and >>>>>>>>> People from creationism to intelligent design was disclosed, >>>>>>>>> during the Kitzmiller depositions, Meyer ran instead of testify >>>>>>>>> even though the More lawyers had already agreed that he could >>>>>>>>> have his own lawyer present in court. Meyer had been telling >>>>>>>>> the rubes for years that Of Pandas and People could be use to >>>>>>>>> teach ID in the public schools, but he was not willing to
defend that claim in court. Really, Meyer wrote the public
school teachers notes for the book.
The ID scam unit has been running the bait and switch on 100% >>>>>>>>> of the creationist rubes that believe them about being able to >>>>>>>>> teach the junk in the public schools for the last 24 years
under the directorship of Meyer.-a They continue to claim that >>>>>>>>> it is legal to teach ID in the public schools outside of Dover, >>>>>>>>> but the bait and switch goes down 100% of the time.
You are just a rube that wants to be lied to.-a Just think of >>>>>>>>> all the IDiots at ARN that rolled over and continued to support >>>>>>>>> the use of the ID scam as bait.-a After the bait and switch >>>>>>>>> started to go down the only IDiots in existence were the
ignorant, incompetent, and or dishonest. No honest, competent, >>>>>>>>> and informed creationist could have possibly kept supporting a >>>>>>>>> stupid bait and switch scam, especially after they got Wells' >>>>>>>>> report that the ID perps dog and pony show in front of the Ohio >>>>>>>>> rubes was just a scam because the ID perps had decided to start >>>>>>>>> running the bait and switch before they gave those
presentations.-a The ID perps even failed to convince the Ohio >>>>>>>>> rubes that ID was science, and one of the rubes demonstrated >>>>>>>>> that by proposing that the definition of science be changed so >>>>>>>>> that ID could be taught as science.-a That is how incompetent >>>>>>>>> and dishonest IDiotic creationist rubes have to be.-a You can >>>>>>>>> look in the mirror and see the type of rube that can lie to >>>>>>>>> themselves about any possible ID science when it was apparent >>>>>>>>> back in 2002 (years before Dover) and ID was already known not >>>>>>>>> to be scientific.-a Ignorant and incompetent YEC IDiots could >>>>>>>>> understand that, so why not you? Nelson started admitting that >>>>>>>>> the ID science had never existed, but that the ID perps were >>>>>>>>> working on creating some.-a Nelson kept supporting using ID as >>>>>>>>> bait. None of the ID perps resigned in disgust, and all of them >>>>>>>>> kept supporting the use of ID as bait. You can't point to any >>>>>>>>> concerted efforts by any ID perp member of the Discovery
Institute scam unit that tried to stop the bait and switch
scam.-a All that you will be able to find is a continued effort >>>>>>>>> to put ID up as bait.
Ron Okimoto
Ron, I'm interested to understand where your energy against ID >>>>>>>> comes from.
You need to deal with how wrong you have been about Meyer.
You should be more interested in why you have such a strong
desire to be lied to by the scam artists.-a They prey on your
religious beliefs in order to further their Wedge political
goals.-a They might have some sort of lame excuse for making a
living doing it to you as being for your own good.
Didn't you ever read the original mission statement of the ID
perps? Didn't you ever read the Wedge document?-a The ID perps
told everyone what they were using the ID scam to accomplish.
The ID perps wanted to destroy your fictional materialistic
reality. They believed that they could recreate a theocracy that >>>>>>> likely had never existed.-a You seem to have the same belief in >>>>>>> their fictional materialistic reality.-a They seem to have
convinced Philip Johnson that they could do this by teaching
their warmed over creationist denial as intelligent design.
The Top Six best evidences, gap denial, for the ID scam were all >>>>>>> used by the Scientific creationists well over a decade before the >>>>>>> ID scam unit at the Discovery Institute was born.
Do you agree with their mission?-a Is that the reason that you
allow yourself to be lied to by the ID perps?-a The ID perps have >>>>>>> run the bait and switch for the last 24 years because they came >>>>>>> to the conclusion that using ID as bait was the best means to
support their Wedge mission. -a-aThey abandoned teaching the junk >>>>>>> because they had nothing that their creationist supporters would >>>>>>> have wanted to teach. The TO IDiots quit the ID scam when they
had their faces rubbed in the fact that they had never wanted the >>>>>>> ID perps to produce any valid ID science when the ID perps were >>>>>>> stupid enough to present their Top Six gap denial arguments in
the order in which they must have occurred in this universe.
That order is not Biblical.-a The Reason to Believe IDiots tried >>>>>>> to fit the ID scam into their Biblical creation model and failed, >>>>>>> and they no longer support the ID scam. All ID is good for is as >>>>>>> bait to force the obfuscation and denial switch scam onto the rubes. >>>>>>>
ID is a dishonest scam and they are scamming their fellow
Christians. They just want to get the rubes to help push their
mission forward by bending over for the switch scam, but the
dishonest creationists that fall for the ID scam do not want to >>>>>>> teach their kids enough science for them to understand what they >>>>>>> need to deny.-a The ID perps are not running the bait and switch >>>>>>> on the science side.-a They are running the scam on their
creationist rube supporters.
As a Christian what the ID perps are doing is reprehensible to
me. The ID perps are still asking for donations to keep doing it. >>>>>>> Meyer has made his living for the past 24 years directing the
stupid bait and switch scam.-a Under his full time directorship >>>>>>> the ID perps have continued to claim that it is legal to teach ID >>>>>>> in the public schools, but they have run the bait and switch on >>>>>>> any rube that has believed them 100% of the time.-a They even
tried to run the bait and switch on the Dover rubes, but the
Dover rubes were too stupid and ignorant to know that the
Discovery Institute was the outfit selling the teach ID scam, so >>>>>>> they did not take the switch scam and tried to teach ID anyway.
It's one thing to disagree strongly, e.g. I disagree strongly >>>>>>>> with climate change deniers, believing that they are often
ignoring or misusing science for idealogical reasons. Moreover, >>>>>>>> unlike say flat- earthers, with concern that their influence and >>>>>>>> proposed course of action (mostly inaction) poses a risk to the >>>>>>>> planet.
The anti-science scam is damaging the people that fall for the
scam. Nearly all the rubes that have fallen for the bait have
dropped the issue instead of bend over for the switch scam.-a They >>>>>>> exposed themselves to be dishonest and/or incompetent and got
nothing for their stupid and dishonest efforts.-a Rubes like you >>>>>>> never want to understand what reality actually is, but that isn't >>>>>>> good for society. We live in a society dependent on the science >>>>>>> that the ID perps want to subvert.-a The ID perps were initially >>>>>>> claiming that they could do the same science that everyone else >>>>>>> was doing and support their theory of intelligent design, but
they were obviously lying.-a They were lying to the rubes for the >>>>>>> same reason that the scientific creationists called their YEC
beliefs scientific.-a They understood that science works, and
creationism never had worked to build a better understanding of >>>>>>> nature to the benefit of mankind. The ID perps never wanted to do >>>>>>> any real science.-a What they wanted was to destroy sciences
ability to function, and bring it down to their level.-a Like you >>>>>>> they have some weird notion that materialism is evil simply
because it works and Biblical mythology has never worked. You
don't have any positive examples where the Biblical creation was >>>>>>> found to be the creation that we live in because there has been >>>>>>> 100% failure for the god-did-it claims throughout history. Why
have you never dealt with the fact that god-did-it claims have
never been verified, but have only failed once we have been able >>>>>>> to figure out what actually happened.-a Doesn't it matter to you >>>>>>> that you do not have a single positive example to support your
case?-a The ID perps do not like the fact that science has all the >>>>>>> successes, and the Bible has none. Biological evolution is a fact >>>>>>> of nature and you still want to deny that it could have
happened.-a The success of science is something that you consider >>>>>>> to be undermining your religious beliefs.-a The ID perps believe >>>>>>> that is the case too. They blame science for moral decay and
people becoming less religious. What do you think their lies are >>>>>>> doing?-a They think that they need to recreate a theocracy to whip >>>>>>> the people into line.-a You should understand what that would
result in. Nothing good.
They should blame themselves for the moral decay.-a Look at the >>>>>>> kind of dishonest creationists that they require to support their >>>>>>> effort. Instead of getting people to reconcile their Biblical
beliefs with reality, they would rather lie to them about reality >>>>>>> and force their lies onto others.-a The only good thing about the >>>>>>> ID scam is that the demonstration of how bogus and dishonest the >>>>>>> effort has been seems to have gotten some YEC denominations to
try to get their congregations to accept that the earth is much >>>>>>> older than the Bible seems to claim. This is actually a step in >>>>>>> the right direction, but the ID perps want to lie to the rubes
about a Big Tent that does not exist.-a Most of their support
still comes from YEC even though most of the ID perps are OEC and >>>>>>> understand that the Big Tent of ID science does not exist.
Science is just the study of nature, and there is only one nature >>>>>>> for the ID perps and their fellow creationists to deal with.
Nature is known not to be Biblical.-a Science is never going to >>>>>>> support Biblical creationist beliefs.-a Just try to get the Reason >>>>>>> to Believe ex IDiots to tell you why they no longer support the >>>>>>> ID scam.-a The Top Six in the order in which they must have
occurred in this universe is not consistent with their Biblical >>>>>>> creation model even if you claim that days are indeterminate
periods of time.
Is your objection to the ID movement itself, or do reject
consideration of supernatural causes generally? And do you
regard ID as a threat to science and the wellbeing of people?
Once it became clear that ID was nothing more than a stupid bait >>>>>>> and switch scam I objected to the scam.-a I did not start calling >>>>>>> them ID perps and ID a scam until they had run the bait and
switch 100% of the time for over 2 years.-a At that time there was >>>>>>> absolutely no doubt about what they were doing because they were >>>>>>> still yammering about the Santorum "amendment" being support for >>>>>>> their teach ID scam, and they had not retracted their Utah review >>>>>>> article, nor their ID propaganda booklet.-a You and the other
IDiots that did not quit just kept supporting the ID perp's
efforts to use ID as bait. The only IDiots in existence are
ignorant, incompetent, and or dishonest.-a Try to demonstrate that >>>>>>> honest competent and informed IDiots can exist. You know that you >>>>>>> can't do this.-a I object to the ID scam because it preys on the >>>>>>> ignorant and incompetent, and just feeds the dishonesty of the
rest that want to keep supporting the effort.
ID failed as science due to the Dover fiasco where their bait and >>>>>>> switch scam went terribly wrong for the ID perps and they were
forced to try to defend the scam.-a All ID has ever been used for >>>>>>> is as bait 100% of the time.-a No rubes have ever gotten the
promised ID science. The use of ID as bait has been the only way >>>>>>> forward for the ID perps to continue their Wedge mission.-a What >>>>>>> else have the ID perps done with their ID science claims?-a No ID >>>>>>> science has ever been produced. Only the bait claims have
continued.-a The ISCID pretty much died when the bait and switch >>>>>>> started to go down.-a They likely lost all their non ID scam
creationist supporters.-a Who would want to support a bait and
switch scam if you were not being paid to do it, or you really
believed in the Wedge mission?-a Once ID had been revealed to be >>>>>>> bait, no serious and honest academics would have kept supporting >>>>>>> the effort.-a Tour doesn't support the ID scam.-a He even claims >>>>>>> that he doesn't know how to do any ID science.-a Tour just can't >>>>>>> give up on the gap denial because he needs to wallow in denial
just like you.
My evaluation of you, is that you are dishonest enough to keep
supporting ID as bait because you want to be lied to.-a Likely, >>>>>>> because you do not want reality to be what it is.-a Just like you >>>>>>> don't want biological evolution to be a fact of nature, you do
not want the existing origin of life gap filled by any
explanantion. Even if some god could be found to fill that gap it >>>>>>> would not be the god described in the Bible.-a Wallowing in denial >>>>>>> is your only means that you can think of to keep from dealing
with that reality.-a The YEC rubes are IDiots because they can't >>>>>>> deal with things like the Big Bang and the origin of life on
earth.-a They are all too ignorant, incompetent and or dishonest >>>>>>> to understand that they do not want to teach the best evidence
for the ID scam. You know that you do not want the Top Six taught >>>>>>> honestly because you ran from it, and you can't even deal
honestly with your origin of life gap (#3 of the Top Six).-a Just >>>>>>> imagine how quickly all the YEC support would drain away from the >>>>>>> ID scam if they put out a lesson plan that taught the Top Six in >>>>>>> an honest and straightforward manner.
Reality isn't going to change.-a It isn't your materialistic
boogie man that is the issue.-a Reality does not support your
Biblical beliefs. You are the one that needs to deal with that
fact. Continuing to support a bogus bait and switch scam is never >>>>>>> going to result in what you need to do.
Ron Okimoto
Independently of ID, my own investigation of OoL leads me to
conclude that progress is overstated and foundational problems are >>>>>> understated, which I've argued here at length (as you know) with
reference to source papers and my own thinking and ideas, as well >>>>>> as material from ID. Sure, my engagement is at the level of
somewhat- informed layperson, and you may disagree with my
interpretations of the science. However, are you suggesting that
all I've contributed on this topic has no scientific merit or
validity at all, and worse, it is only the product of my
dishonesty driven by an ideological agenda?
You need to try to be honest with yourself.-a You have allowed the
ID scam to rule your innate dishonesty.-a The ID scam has created a >>>>> loser willfully incompetent human being in what they have done to
you.-a You have literally spent decades of your life lying to
yourself about reality.-a All that you have used the ID scam for is >>>>> justification for your dishonesty.-a You have only wanted to be lied >>>>> to by the scam artists, and have somehow lied to yourself about
what a bogus scam ID has been for the last two decades.-a You can't >>>>> even deal with how you let a scam artist like Meyer fool you for
decades.
You spent a lot of time defining the origin of life gap because you >>>>> wanted to deny that it would ever be filled by by scientific
efforts. You did such a good job that you demonstrated without any
doubt that the origin of life gap was not Biblical.-a Even if the ID >>>>> perps were ever able to fill the gap with some god, it would not be >>>>> the Biblical designer.-a You were competent enough to run from that >>>>> reality, but you eventually went back to lying to yourself about
the issue.-a You admitted that all you wanted to do was wallow in
the denial.-a You claimed that you did not have to deal with the
fact that the gap was not Biblical until the gap was filled.-a That >>>>> is so sad that it should by something that atheists would have to
lie about because what type of creationist would admit to being so
dishonestly willfully ignorant and incompetent.
I have pointed out in the past that your origin of life denial is
senseless.-a It has never mattered how far the scientific effort is >>>>> from figuring out your type of answer for the origin of life.
Really, it has always been understood by the scientists involved
that the best that they can expect to do is to determine the most
likely way that life originated on this planet.-a The most likely
way does not have to be the way in which it happened.-a Origin of
life research has always been acknowledged to be among the weakest
of scientific endeavors.-a It is why most scientists do not bother
with it.-a It is why I have never applied any concerted effort to
follow it except with respect to the creationist denial.
Reiterating my previously stated position, I have only partial
support for ID. I've criticised what I've seen as incorrect claims >>>>>> (e.g. in relation to junk DNA), and I've spoken about my concern
with ID's religious right political stance at times.
Until you ran from the Top Six and tried to keep the ID scam alive
by posting them as independent bits of denial your above statement
could have been considered to likely be the case, but it now seems
to be a lie.-a Whether you want to be honest with yourself or not,
you have been heavily dependent on the lies that you get from the
ID perps. You have needed to be lied to for decades.-a You could not >>>>> give it up when you should have realized that it was just a scam
with the rest of the IDiots at ARN.-a All the IDiots that did not
quit the ID scam after the bait and switch started to go down were
ignorant, incompetent, and or dishonest, and you remained among
them for decades of the bait and switch going down 100% of the
time. What could you possibly have thought about what the ID perps
were doing when all they were using ID for was as bait to force the >>>>> rubes to take their obfuscation and denial switch scam?
You need to face your reliance on the lies of the ID scam, and your >>>>> inability to deal honestly with your origin of life gap.-a You can't >>>>> just quit the ID scam like Kalk and Bill, and and continue to
wallow in the denial.-a You have to deal honestly with the denial.
Harran just put up a quote by Pope Francis demonstrating that he
had given up on the Bibilical literal interpretation about the
creation in six magical periods of time.-a He claimed that the Big
Bang and what happened since is a creation that he can believe in. >>>>> It has been that way since all the Church Fathers were not flat
earth Biblical creationists.-a There remain Jewish and Christian
Biblical flat earth creationists to this day, but the intellectuals >>>>> that were instrumental in forming early Christian beliefs did not
require a literal interpretation of the Bible. Eratosthenes had
estimated the circumference of the earth by physical measurements a >>>>> couple centuries before Christ was born.
You can't name a single instance where the literal interpretation
won out when a conflict arose with science.-a 100% failure.-a If you >>>>> had such an example we would already be teaching it in the public
schools.-a The earth is not flat, the Biblical firmament does not
exist, the universe is not geocentric, the earth is much older than >>>>> a few thousand years (the ICR is back to claiming less than 20,000
years, and likely less than 10,000).-a The ID perps understand that >>>>> the Big Bang happened over 13 billion years ago (#1 of the Top
Six). Some fine tuning occurred before or during the Big bang and
it took 8 billion years to create the elements that make up our
solar system from dying stars so that the earth could be fine tuned >>>>> for life (#2 of the Top Six).-a The origin of life occurred over 3
billion years ago, and some evidence exists that it started about
as soon as the earth cooled enough to have liquid water (#3 of the
Top Six).-a The flagellum evolved among eubacteria and archaea
independently over a billion years ago, and Behe should be looking
for his three neutral mutations that are needed to have evolved
within a certain period of time within a single cell lineage, but
he refuses to try to verify if the flagellum could be IC.-a He
claims that as long as we do not know how the flagellum evolved
that his IC claims are still viable, but it means that his claims
have not been verified, and he refuses to test his hypothesis (#4
of the Top Six).-a If Behe ever found his 3 neutral mutations that
occurred over a billion years ago every single YEC would likely
quit supporting the ID scam.-a The kicker is that Behe claims that
his 3 neutral mutation claim is testable, but it is only testable
if biological evolution is true.-a Behe requires descent with
modification and enough existing branching lineages, that trace
back to that time period, to determine when the mutations
occurred). Before the bait and switch started to go down Meyer was
hawking the Cambrian explosion (#5 of the Top Six) as evidence for
the ID scam. His claim was that 25 million years was not a long
enough period of time to evolve all the taxa that evolved during
this period of time over half a billion years go.-a Meyer continued >>>>> to fool the YEC rubes.-a Gish had used the same argument a couple
decades before Meyer, but at that time the gap was 45 million years >>>>> and more taxa were thought to have evolved within that time period. >>>>> Gish was successful in fooling the rubes with the Cambrian
explosion gap denial, a gap that was never Biblical, and so was
Meyer.-a The Cambrian explosion means that there were sea creatures >>>>> evolving long before land plants existed.-a Gish also was fond of
gaps in the human fossil record (#6 of the Top Six). The reason
that this gap argument should kill YEC is that the gaps are known
to be gaps within the last 10 million years of human evolution
because of what we have already found and the fossils are missing
from well defined time period. -a-aEnough is already known about the >>>>> gaps to demonstrate that the earth has to be older than 20,000
years old. There would not be so many gaps if we did not have the
intermediate forms that tell us what we are likely missing.-a Each
time we have filled a gap with a transitional form we create two
gaps.-a This is why the Top Six killed ID on TO and all the IDiots
quit the ID scam or ran from dealing honestly with the best
evidence that the ID perp scam artists have.
Nature has been known not to be Biblical for centuries.-a Wallowing >>>>> in denial will never change that fact.
Ron Okimoto
As I've discussed several times here before, from my own reading of
science and scripture I don't have a fully reconciled picture, and I
acknowledge that this is not unimportant: on one hand, Christianity
does not regard the Bible as a science textbook, on the other, it
does claim to be grounded in historical reality. I've discussed and
explored these questions at length in other contexts, but as I've
previously stated, I choose to generally not discuss them here.
In terms of what you are lying to yourself about your above excuse is
inadequate and lame.-a It just allows you to want to be lied to by the
ID preps, and accept the lies.-a It obviously does not matter to you
that you only want to wallow in denial because you can't face reality.
Just look at yourself.-a How have you had to lie to yourself and be
dishonestly willfully ignorant of reality in order to continue to be
an Idiotic9 creationist?-a You fully understand that you do not want
to fill the Top Six gaps with any explanation because the god that
fills those gaps is not the one described in the Bible.-a Ray would
have called that god a false god.-a There is absolutely no reason to
lie to yourself and wallow in the ID scam gap denial when you do not
want those gaps fill by anything.
You know that this is true because you initially ran from the Top Six
and would not deal with them in an honest and straight forward
manner, and when you blundered and demonstrated that your origin of
life gap was not Biblical you ran.-a You eventually came back to that
argument, but it took you months of lying to yourself to get you to
do it.
You want to be a creationist rube.-a The old adage that you can't con
an honest man is true in this case.-a Ignorant but honest creationists
quit the ID scam decades ago when they understood what was going on.
Honest competent and informed creationists were never Idiots and
never had to be Idiots8=-0;.,jhygtfrfed.
And whatever faults and failings ID may have (again, I recognise
many of them), it continues press into areas that I have
independently concluded justify scrutiny and challenge.
Wallowing in the denial is stupid and dishonest when you do not want
to know the answer.-a You know that the answer already excludes what
you want to support.-a There is no reason to support a bogus and
dishonest bait and switch scam like ID.-a They are running the scam on
creationists rubes like yourself.-a The scam doesn't go down on the
science side. They have been running the scam on their own
creationist support base.
Regardless, you do not not seem able to accept even the possibility
that I may genuinely interpret the evidence for (say) OoL
differently to you. Let me ask you this question: when non-religious
scientists expresses scepticism or doubt about OoL, how do you
regard this?
What a nut job.-a I have already told you that the origin of life
topic is among the weakest of scientific endeavors.-a Real scientists
should be skeptical of anything that the researchers come up with
that still want to look into the issue.-a They understand that they
will likely never determine how life arose on this planet.-a All that
they can ever hope to do is figure out the most likely way life arose
on this planet.-a That does not have to be the way that it actually
happened.
Running from the reality that you have to understand exists is just
stupid and dishonest.-a You likely still want to bend over and take
whatever a scam artist like Meyer wants to give to you.-a You have to
realize that Meyer has just been bending you over for decades.-a You
want to pick yourself up as if you haven't learned anything and bend
over again so that you can keep lying to yourself about reality.
There is no genuine interpretation of the evidence when you already
know that you just want to lie to yourself about the issue.-a You are
still lying to yourself about Meyer and the ID scam.-a You can't deal
honestly with your own inability to deal with the fact that the
origin of life gap cannot be filled by your Biblical god.-a You have
been unable to deal honestly with your inability to genuinely deal
with your evolution denial based on your Biblical beliefs and not the
evidence.-a The Reason to Believe creationists understand that
biological evolution is not mentioned in the Bible.-a They are anti-
evolution because the evolutionary order of creation that we observe
in the fossil record and among extant lifeforms is not Biblical.
They do not want to deal with the fact that life has been evolving on
this planet for billions of years in an order that is not Biblical.
That is likely your own stupid denial reason for being anti-
evolution.-a The origin of life gap is no different.-a It is not
Biblical.-a It doesn't matter how the origin of life gap is filled it
will not support Biblical creationism.-a Why should you be anti-
evolution when you know that the order in which life has evolved on
this planet is not the Biblical order, no matter if each new lifeform
was being specially created or had evolved by descent with
modification.-a You have to give up on the Biblical claims like Pope
Francis in order to deal with the Top Six IDotic gaps.-a That means
that there is no reason to wallow in the denial.-a The gaps can be
filled in anyway possible and that is the way God did it.
Wanting to be lied to about reality is no reason to keep supporting a
stupid bait and switch scam.
Science is never going to rule out the existence of any god or gods,
but Biblical creationism has never been supported by our
understanding of the creation that actually exists from the start of
Christianity. Science whether you want to lie to yourself about
intelligent design or creation science is never going to support your
Biblical beliefs because the nature that exists is not Biblical, and
science is just the study of nature.
Ron Okimoto
Ron, and I say this not to belittle but out of real concern: get the
help you need.
lie to yourself about the ID scam.-a You know that you need to understand why you want to be lied to by the ID perps because you have been doing
it for decades, and once you finally realized that the lies were
worthless you initially ran from that reality, but somehow convinced yourself that the lies were good enough to keep you going.
Just go through this series of posts and determine just how much that
you have not been able to deal honestly with.-a Stupid support for a scam artists that has been lying to you for decades is insane.-a Your
inability to deal with reality when you determined what reality actually
is with respect to the origin of life may be a normal reaction for a lot
of people, but it isn't a reaction that will lead to a viable resolution
of your issue.-a Nature is not Biblical.-a The early church fathers
already understood that.-a Wanting to be lied to by the scam artists is stupid and dishonest.-a You admit that the origin of life gap is not Biblical, but you lie to yourself that you do not have to face that fact until the gap is filled, but that is just lame and stupid when no matter
how the gap is filled you lose.-a Wallowing in the denial is just a
stupid way to lie to yourself.-a You need to deal with the fact that your gaps are not Biblical.-a You have to come to some reconciliation of
reality and your religious beliefs.-a You will not be the first human to
do this.-a Even the way Harran deals with it is better than what you are doing.-a Harran knows that the Biblical interpretations are wrong, he
just wants it to be due to faulty human interpretation instead of faulty authorship.-a Augustine wanted to claim that the authors were being allegorical, and that what they wrote was not what actually happened
(the six day creation), so the authors were not wrong about what they
wrote, in terms of the basic message that the Biblical god was
responsible for the creation, but that they were not depicting how the creation actually happened.-a It should be noted that Augustine's view of creation would also be considered to be in error today.-a Augustine
wanted everything in the Universe to be created instantly in one act. We
are pretty sure that it did not happen that way today, but that is
actually the current fall back of most of the young earth creationists.
They think that everything was just created to look very old as if it
had a very long history.-a The universe has not really been expanding for over 13 billion years.
The plain and simple fact is that the authors of the parts of the Bible
that you want to take literally, just did not have much of a clue about
the creation that they thought that they were describing.-a If the Bible
was written today we would likely still get some things wrong because,
as you point out, we still have unresolved gaps in our knowledge of nature.-a It was pretty much all one big gap for the authors of the Bible thousands of years ago.-a They did not seem to get anything right.-a The earth is not flat.-a It is not fixed in place in a geocentric universe. There is no firmament above the earth that needs to be opened up by any
god to let the rain fall through.-a Creation did not happen in 6 literal periods of time or days just a few thousand years ago.-a They understood nothing about the origin of life on this planet.-a They didn't even understand that microorganisms exist, and that life evolved for billions
of years on this planet as single celled microorganisms before
multicellular life got started.-a They did not seem to get anything right about the basic nature of the creation.-a We know that today, and yet
there are still creationist like yourself that have to deny reality due
to what is written in the Bible.-a You know how stupid and senseless what you are doing is because you just have to deal with the fact that there
are still young earth, geocentric and flat earth creationists that are willing to deny reality due to what is written in the Bible.
Ron Okimoto
On 12/04/2026 12:53 am, ShyDavid wrote:
On 2026/04/11 6:35 AM, MarkE wrote:
On 10/04/2026 6:19 pm, Kerr-Mudd, John wrote:
On Fri, 10 Apr 2026 09:51:04 +1000
MarkE <me22over7@gmail.com> wrote:
On 9/04/2026 2:10 am, RonO wrote:[]
Have you not read anything RonO has said? ID is a scam to fool rubes.
Ron, I'm interested to understand where your energy against ID comes from.
It's one thing to disagree strongly, e.g. I disagree strongly with
climate change deniers, believing that they are often ignoring or
misusing science for idealogical reasons. Moreover, unlike say
flat-earthers, with concern that their influence and proposed course of >>>>> action (mostly inaction) poses a risk to the planet.
Is your objection to the ID movement itself, or do reject consideration >>>>> of supernatural causes generally? And do you regard ID as a threat to >>>>> science and the wellbeing of people?
He's warning readers: Don't be scammed.
PS you never have an answer to the statement that the god you are
looking for in the gaps of science cannot be biblical.
It appears to me you have little interest in open-minded and effortful engagement, at least in response to my posts. That's okay, we all have different reasons for being here. But that being the case, I choose to invest my efforts elsewhere.
You are a Creationist: You are therefore incapable of "open-minded and effortful engagement," nor worthy.
My contributions here demonstrate consistent effortful engagement. How open-minded they are is for the reader to decide.
For example, I engaged with your response to my post "What really matters", briefly noting that you failed to grasp and address my main point, and opted instead for emotion and dogmatism.
An AI elaboration accurately summarised your response as "heavy rhetorical aggression; frequent category and definitional errors; failure to engage the core probabilistic/risk argument."
I note that you have not responded to this.
What are you hoping to achieve with nastiness and unsupported assertions?
On 12/04/2026 9:49 am, RonO wrote:
On 4/11/2026 4:26 PM, MarkE wrote:
On 12/04/2026 1:28 am, RonO wrote:Projection is common among IDiots.-a You should know that from long
On 4/11/2026 8:29 AM, Mark98 wrote:
On 11/04/2026 2:21 am, RonO wrote:
On 4/10/2026 1:45 AM, MarkE wrote:
On 10/04/2026 2:24 pm, RonO wrote:
On 4/9/2026 6:51 PM, MarkE wrote:
On 9/04/2026 2:10 am, RonO wrote:
On 4/7/2026 10:29 PM, MarkE wrote:
On 8/04/2026 12:16 pm, RonO wrote:
On 4/7/2026 7:08 PM, MarkE wrote:
On 8/04/2026 9:10 am, RonO wrote:
On 4/7/2026 5:34 PM, MarkE wrote:
On 7/04/2026 5:50 pm, Kerr-Mudd, John wrote:
On Tue, 7 Apr 2026 12:43:48 +1000
MarkE <me22over7@gmail.com> wrote:
On 7/04/2026 8:25 am, MarkE wrote:[]
On 7/04/2026 1:41 am, ShyDavid wrote:
I would love to see theists being just as honest and >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> virtuous as
scientists.
Thank you, that confirms where you're coming from. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
I am curious though: you appear to have contempt to the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> point of moral
repugnance for anyone favouring the God hypothesis >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (i.e. creationists of
any stripe), and a self-assurance regarding materialism >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to the point of
arrogance - why then the interest in the topic of >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> origins, and why
bother engaging? Are you not as confident as you make >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> out, are you
seeking applause here, or do you just enjoy being smug >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and insulting?
Where's your evidence/justification for this 'god >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> hypothesis'?
Start here (but you knew this): https://
www.amazon.com.au/ Return- God- Hypothesis-Compelling- >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> TheExistence/dp/0062071505
Or read my posts on OoL. Etc etc etc.
But you don't really care, do you.
It may be justification, but is not scientific evidence >>>>>>>>>>>>>> for any god hypothesis.-a It is just junk to fool the rubes >>>>>>>>>>>>>> with. Meyer never tried to create a coherent god
hypothesis.-a He just presented the god- of-the- gaps >>>>>>>>>>>>>> denial arguments as independent bits of denial, just as >>>>>>>>>>>>>> the scientific creationists had done decades before Meyer >>>>>>>>>>>>>> joined the ID scam.-a You know why he did not try to >>>>>>>>>>>>>> develop a coherent god hypothesis is because nature is not >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Biblical and the god hypothesized would not be the >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Biblical god. He didn't do it for the same reason that you >>>>>>>>>>>>>> ran from the Top Six and can't deal with them in an honest >>>>>>>>>>>>>> and straightforward manner. It is why the other IDiots >>>>>>>>>>>>>> quit the ID scam.
Ron Okimoto
Ron, you are so wrong, and out of line. Meyer is an >>>>>>>>>>>>> intelligent and considered scientist, and his writing is >>>>>>>>>>>>> recognised as such beyond the ID community. Present your >>>>>>>>>>>>> rebuttals to his arguments, but spare us your unsupported >>>>>>>>>>>>> slander.
First off, Meyer does not consider himself to be a
scientist. At one time he worked as a geologist for an oil >>>>>>>>>>>> company, but he claims to be an historian and philosopher >>>>>>>>>>>> (part of the scam artist schtick).
Meyer is not currently a practising scientist, but is a >>>>>>>>>>> qualified scientist:
PhD rCo History and Philosophy of Science, University of Cambridge >>>>>>>>>>> Focus: philosophy of biology, scientific explanation
MasterrCOs degree rCo Geophysics, University of Cambridge >>>>>>>>>>>
BachelorrCOs degree rCo Physics and Earth Science, Whitworth >>>>>>>>>>> University
A former geophysicist and college professor.
You have to accept what the scam artist claims.-a He claims to >>>>>>>>>> be an historian and philosopher scam artist, not a scientist >>>>>>>>>> scam artist. Philosophers are allowed to fool the rubes with >>>>>>>>>> obfuscation and denial, but scam artist scientists are not >>>>>>>>>> really scientists, at best they would be considered to be >>>>>>>>>> pseudo scientists.
Meyers is a dishonest scam artist.-a He was the head cheer >>>>>>>>>>>> leader for the teach ID scam when other ID perps understood >>>>>>>>>>>> that there was no ID science worth teaching.-a Understanding >>>>>>>>>>>> that fact he ran the first bait and switch scam on the Ohio >>>>>>>>>>>> rubes.-a He had made up his mind that he was going to run the >>>>>>>>>>>> bait and switch before he gave his presentation to the Ohio >>>>>>>>>>>> rubes.-a He lied to them about being able to teach the junk >>>>>>>>>>>> in the public schools and that ID was science.-a The real >>>>>>>>>>>> scientists demonstrated to the board that ID was not science >>>>>>>>>>>> and should not be taught as such in the public schools. >>>>>>>>>>>> Meyer offered the switch scam to the rubes in the discussion >>>>>>>>>>>> after Wells made the claim that there was enough scientific >>>>>>>>>>>> support for the ID scam that it could be forced into the >>>>>>>>>>>> public schools (Wells also knew that the bait and switch was >>>>>>>>>>>> going down and that he was just lying to the rubes).-a Meyer >>>>>>>>>>>> and Wells were so unconvincing that the Ohio rubes decided >>>>>>>>>>>> not to teach the ID scam junk, but the rubes were still >>>>>>>>>>>> dishonest enough to bend over for the switch scam that Meyer >>>>>>>>>>>> told them had nothing to do with ID.-a The board understood >>>>>>>>>>>> that Meyer had tried to lie to them about ID being science, >>>>>>>>>>>> but some of them were so dishonest and corrupt that one of >>>>>>>>>>>> them put up the proposal to the board that the definition of >>>>>>>>>>>> science, that was a part of the science standards, be >>>>>>>>>>>> rewritten so that ID could be taught as science in the Ohio >>>>>>>>>>>> public schools.-a The board was actually convinced that Meyer >>>>>>>>>>>> had tried to lie to them about ID being science when it >>>>>>>>>>>> could not be considered to be science by their own
definition of science.
At the time Meyer had a job teaching at a religious college, >>>>>>>>>>>> but he dropped out of the public view after running the bait >>>>>>>>>>>> and switch. He quit that job (it had to be hard to walk down >>>>>>>>>>>> the academic halls with scam artists written on your
forehead).-a All his colleagues must have known what he had >>>>>>>>>>>> been claiming about the teach ID scam. Meyer was an author >>>>>>>>>>>> of the Teach ID scam 1999 booklet that the Discovery
Institute used to give out with their ID scam video and also >>>>>>>>>>>> the 2000 Utah law review article claiming that it was legal >>>>>>>>>>>> to teach ID in the public schools.-a Meyer started working as >>>>>>>>>>>> director of the bait and switch scam full time, and has made >>>>>>>>>>>> sure that ID has continued to be offered up as bait for >>>>>>>>>>>> decades.-a The teach ID scam claims were never retracted, and >>>>>>>>>>>> more teach ID scam propaganda was eventually added during >>>>>>>>>>>> Meyer's leadership of the bait and switch scam. Immediately >>>>>>>>>>>> after Ohio West had to step forward and make sure that the >>>>>>>>>>>> bait and switch kept going down on any rubes that popped up >>>>>>>>>>>> and still wanted to teach the junk (Meyer was MIA). Do you >>>>>>>>>>>> recall how long Meyer retreated into the background after >>>>>>>>>>>> running the bait and switch on the Ohio rubes?
You were posting at ARN when the bait and switch went down. >>>>>>>>>>>> By Ohio some of the IDiots at ARN already understood that >>>>>>>>>>>> there wasn't any ID science to teach.-a The majority of >>>>>>>>>>>> IDiotic creationist rubes supported teaching ID just as the >>>>>>>>>>>> Discovery Institute was claiming could be done. You know >>>>>>>>>>>> that after the bait and switch went down the tone changed at >>>>>>>>>>>> ARN. The majority were no longer openly supporting teaching >>>>>>>>>>>> the junk. Only a few still claimed that ID would be taught >>>>>>>>>>>> in Ohio. Most of the IDiots started pretending that teaching >>>>>>>>>>>> the junk wasn't the goal of the ID scam even though that is >>>>>>>>>>>> about all ID had ever been. ID first came to TO in the late >>>>>>>>>>>> 1990's as something that could be taught in the public >>>>>>>>>>>> schools (probably, just before you started posting).
A year (2003) after Ohio when the initial draft of the Ohio >>>>>>>>>>>> model lesson plan came out nearly everyone at ARN stopped >>>>>>>>>>>> supporting teaching the junk.-a Eventually the creationist >>>>>>>>>>>> web links and all mention of intelligent design and ID perps >>>>>>>>>>>> was removed from the lesson plan. Wells' book had obviously >>>>>>>>>>>> been used to create the lesson plan (the Wellsian lie about >>>>>>>>>>>> no moths on tree trunks had made it into the lesson plan) >>>>>>>>>>>> but the reference to his book was removed from the lesson >>>>>>>>>>>> plan when the lie was rewritten.-a Mike gene came out and >>>>>>>>>>>> claimed that he had given up on teaching the junk back in >>>>>>>>>>>> 1999, but Gene and nearly all the IDiots kept supporting ID >>>>>>>>>>>> as bait. Some may have quit posting, but everyone that was >>>>>>>>>>>> left was either ignorant, incompetent and or dishonest. You >>>>>>>>>>>> were apparently among the dishonest, but you haven't yet >>>>>>>>>>>> demonstrated that you are clearly out of the incompetent group. >>>>>>>>>>>>
During the Dover fiasco Meyer ran even though the More >>>>>>>>>>>> lawyers had allowed him to have his own lawyer present >>>>>>>>>>>> during his Kitzmiller testimony.-a He ran after Forrest was >>>>>>>>>>>> deposed with Dembski in attendance, and the name change from >>>>>>>>>>>> creationism to intelligent design in the book Of Pandas and >>>>>>>>>>>> People was disclosed.-a Meyer had written the teachers notes >>>>>>>>>>>> for that book, and was one of the authors of the teach ID >>>>>>>>>>>> scam propaganda claiming that Of Pandas and People could be >>>>>>>>>>>> used to teach ID in the public schools.
Meyer is just a dishonest scam artist.-a His god hypothesis >>>>>>>>>>>> book was only meant to continue to fool the rubes.-a How long >>>>>>>>>>>> has the bait and switch been going down under the direction >>>>>>>>>>>> of Meyer? Why did he never retract any of his teach ID scam >>>>>>>>>>>> propaganda after starting to run the bait and switch?
You should know by now that the first thing any hypothesis >>>>>>>>>>>> should be evaluated on would be if it can exist within what >>>>>>>>>>>> is already understood. -a-aMeyer purposely refused to >>>>>>>>>>>> demonstrate that any of his hypotheses were viable within >>>>>>>>>>>> the context of what is known, and only put up the gap >>>>>>>>>>>> arguments as independent bits of denial in order to fool the >>>>>>>>>>>> rubes. What the scam artist did should only work on rubes >>>>>>>>>>>> that want to be lied to like yourself.-a Meyer never put up a >>>>>>>>>>>> coherent god hypothesis.-a He only put up independent bits of >>>>>>>>>>>> gap denial in order to lie to the rubes about reality. If he >>>>>>>>>>>> had made an honest effort you would be running from the book >>>>>>>>>>>> just as you ran from the Top Six that the ID perps put out >>>>>>>>>>>> in the order in which they must have occurred in this >>>>>>>>>>>> universe. The universe is not Biblical.-a The god that fills >>>>>>>>>>>> Meyer's gaps is not the god described in the Bible. That is >>>>>>>>>>>> what Meyer should have made clear at the beginning of the >>>>>>>>>>>> Book, but he just wrote the book to scam the rubes, and >>>>>>>>>>>> maintain ID as bait.
Ron Okimoto
The ID movement has a complicated history, but I reject your >>>>>>>>>>> caricaturisation as a bait and switch scam. It's a movement >>>>>>>>>>> with many voices over a long period - some possibly misguided >>>>>>>>>>> at times, or even dishonest - you get that whenever humans >>>>>>>>>>> are involved, especially with such a complex, developing and >>>>>>>>>>> charged issue.
Meyer has been the director of the ID scam unit at the
Discovery Institute from it's founding.-a Meyer's voice was >>>>>>>>>> claiming that ID could be taught in the public schools and >>>>>>>>>> that Of Pandas and People could be used to teach the junk.-a He >>>>>>>>>> ran the first bait and switch scam on the Ohio rubes
personally. He never retracted any of his teach ID scam junk, >>>>>>>>>> and only allowed the Discovery Institute to create more teach >>>>>>>>>> ID scam propaganda during his directorship of the ID bait and >>>>>>>>>> switch scam. Under Meyer's directorship the bait and switch >>>>>>>>>> has gone down 100% of the time any creationist rubes have >>>>>>>>>> believed the scam junk and claimed to want to teach ID in the >>>>>>>>>> public schools.-a 100% of the time is your reality.-a They >>>>>>>>>> blundered in Dover.-a By that time they were paying someone to >>>>>>>>>> make sure that the bait and switch went down, but it had
likely become routine (it had likely gone down around 30 times >>>>>>>>>> since Ohio), and the ID perp did not follow up after running >>>>>>>>>> the bait and switch and telling the rubes not to teach ID, but >>>>>>>>>> to teach the switch scam instead.-a The Dover rubes did not >>>>>>>>>> like the switch scam and decided to teach ID anyway, instead >>>>>>>>>> of dropping the issue as nearly all of the other creationist >>>>>>>>>> rubes had done. The Dover rubes were so ignorant and
incompetent that they did not know that the Discovery
Institute was the scam outfit running the teach ID scam. >>>>>>>>>> Meyer ran from testifying and would not defend his own
propaganda about being able to teach the junk in the public >>>>>>>>>> schools.
This is the reality that you are lying to yourself about.
https://arn.org/docs/dewolf/guidebook.htm
This is the teach ID scam propaganda that Meyer authored in >>>>>>>>>> 1999 to sell the teach ID scam.-a The conclusion contains the >>>>>>>>>> claim that Of Pandas and People can be used to teach ID in the >>>>>>>>>> public schools. Meyer sold the teach ID scam, and ran the >>>>>>>>>> first bait and switch on the Ohio rubes in 2002.
However, current policy is: "DI opposes any effort to require >>>>>>>>>>> the teaching of intelligent design by school districts or >>>>>>>>>>> state boards of education."
Yes, they started making the "required" claim after their >>>>>>>>>> failure in Dover, but they still claimed that the Dover
decision was wrong, and that even though ID had been
determined to be no science worth teaching in the public
schools that ID could still be legally taught outside of the >>>>>>>>>> middle court district of PA. "Required" is only their scam >>>>>>>>>> language to keep running the bait and switch.
You should know because I put it up on TO when it happened. >>>>>>>>>> When both Louisiana and Texas tried to use their switch scam >>>>>>>>>> stupidity to teach ID in their public schools in 2013 both >>>>>>>>>> states claimed that they were not requiring ID to be taught, >>>>>>>>>> and were just allowing teachers to teach the scam junk if they >>>>>>>>>> wanted to.-a The ID perps ran the bait and switch on the rubes >>>>>>>>>> anyway.-a It was such a dishonest bait and switch that the ID >>>>>>>>>> perps removed the "requiring" statement from their Education >>>>>>>>>> policy. They just deleted that paragraph and left the rest >>>>>>>>>> intact for several years until they rewrote the scam education >>>>>>>>>> policy and put back the "requiring" scam stupidity, and have >>>>>>>>>> kept running the bait and switch 100% of the time.-a The truth >>>>>>>>>> is that the ID perps do not want ID taught in the public
schools whether it is required or not.-a They are only using ID >>>>>>>>>> as bait. They know that they do not have any ID science that >>>>>>>>>> the rubes would want to teach.
You can still find the original education policy on page 15 of >>>>>>>>>> the current teach ID scam propaganda where they continue to >>>>>>>>>> claim that it is legal to teach the junk outside of Dover. >>>>>>>>>>
https://www.discovery.org/f/1453/
QUOTE:
Although Discovery Institute does not advocate requiring
the teaching of intelligent design in public schools, it
does believe there is nothing unconstitutional about
voluntarily discussing the scientific theory of design in
the classroom. In addition, the Institute opposes efforts
to persecute individual teachers who may wish to discuss
the scientific debate over design in an objective and
pedagogically appropriate manner.
END QUOTE:
This is the paragraph that the ID perps deleted from the
education policy after they ran the bait and switch on
Louisiana and Texas when they were not requiring ID to be taught. >>>>>>>>>>
They eventually put back the "requiring" scam language and >>>>>>>>>> have continued to run the bait and switch to this day.
They have updated the teach ID scam propaganda that they
created after Dover around every 3 years since first
publishing it in 2007. I have noted that they last updated the >>>>>>>>>> junk in 2021, but have since reformated the site and seem to >>>>>>>>>> have reverted to the 2018 version. It is likely to be updated >>>>>>>>>> again in 2027.-a Luskin is one of the authors of this
propaganda, and he is the current ID perp tasked with making >>>>>>>>>> sure that the bait and switch keeps going down on states like >>>>>>>>>> West Virginia and the Dakotas.-a The guy currently telling the >>>>>>>>>> rubes that the Discovery Institute does not support teaching >>>>>>>>>> ID in the public schools is one of the ID perps that is
responsible for writing the current teach ID scam propaganda. >>>>>>>>>> Meyer is just directing the bait and switch. Luskin has been >>>>>>>>>> tasked to keep doing it.
"It believes that evolution should be fully and completely >>>>>>>>>>> presented to students, and they should learn more about >>>>>>>>>>> evolutionary theory, including its unresolved issues. In >>>>>>>>>>> other words, evolution should be taught as a scientific >>>>>>>>>>> theory that is open to critical scrutiny, not as a sacred >>>>>>>>>>> dogma that canrCOt be questioned."
This is why nearly all the creationist rubes that have had the >>>>>>>>>> bait and switch run on them have dropped the issue instead of >>>>>>>>>> bending over for the switch scam.-a Dishonest Biblical
creationist rubes do not want to teach their kids enough
science for them to understand what they need to deny if they >>>>>>>>>> can't tell them the religious reason for why they are lying to >>>>>>>>>> the students.-a The ID perps push the obfuscation and denial >>>>>>>>>> switch scam as the only means to keep the kids as ignorant as >>>>>>>>>> possible so that they can continue to support their Wedge goals. >>>>>>>>>>
You know that the ID science does not support Biblical
creationism. Most of the ID perps are old earth Biblical
creationists, but probably all the rubes that have had the >>>>>>>>>> bait and switch run on them have been YEC. YEC would never >>>>>>>>>> want their kids taught the best evidence for the ID scam.-a The >>>>>>>>>> YEC have already succeeded in removing the Big Bang (#1 of the >>>>>>>>>> Top Six) along with biological evolution from the science >>>>>>>>>> standards of Kansas in 1999, and multiple other states have >>>>>>>>>> considered the same thing.-a The YEC would never accept
teaching the best evidence for ID in an honest and straight >>>>>>>>>> forward manner. That is why the ID perps have never told the >>>>>>>>>> rubes what they want to teach and how they think that it
should be taught.-a They have only sold ID as bait so that they >>>>>>>>>> can force the obfuscation and denial switch scam onto the rubes. >>>>>>>>>>
"Discovery Institute believes that a curriculum that aims to >>>>>>>>>>> provide students with an understanding of the strengths and >>>>>>>>>>> weaknesses of neo- Darwinian and chemical evolutionary
theories (rather than teaching an alternative theory, such as >>>>>>>>>>> intelligent design) represents a common ground approach that >>>>>>>>>>> all reasonable citizens can agree on."
This is the obfuscation and denial switch scam that the ID >>>>>>>>>> perps tell the rubes has nothing to do with ID.-a The ID perps >>>>>>>>>> obviously lie a lot. Just go up and read the paragraph that >>>>>>>>>> they deleted from their education policy when both Louisiana >>>>>>>>>> and Texas did not require ID to be taught, but the scam
artists still ran the bait and switch on them.-a The ID perps >>>>>>>>>> do not want ID taught whether it is required or not because >>>>>>>>>> they do not want a repeat of Dover.
_____
I refer you to long-form conversations between sceptic
Michael Shermer and Stephen Meyer. It is refreshing to see >>>>>>>>>>> Shermer's approach to "steelman" his opponent, the mutually >>>>>>>>>>> respectful posture of both, and the scope and depth of their >>>>>>>>>>> dialogue.
Shermer for one takes Meyer seriously, scientifically and >>>>>>>>>>> philosophically, and rightly so. I challenge anyone to listen >>>>>>>>>>> to these dialogues and then endorse Ron's characterisation of >>>>>>>>>>> Meyer as "just a dishonest scam artist" whose "god hypothesis >>>>>>>>>>> book was only meant to continue to fool the rubes."
Shermer was an idiot.-a For whatever reason he let Meyer get >>>>>>>>>> away with putting up the Top Six as independent bits of denial >>>>>>>>>> in the God Hypothesis.-a He let Meyer not defend a single God >>>>>>>>>> Hypothesis, but let him lie about what his god hypothesis was. >>>>>>>>>> You know that Meyer's god hypothesis is some version of the >>>>>>>>>> Biblical god hypothesis.-a Meyer is just a dishonest scam >>>>>>>>>> artists.-a He has been selling the rubes on "the Big Tent" of >>>>>>>>>> the ID scam, when anyone that understands science should know >>>>>>>>>> that there can be no big tent. There is only one nature for >>>>>>>>>> science to study, and nature is not Biblical.-a Demonstrate >>>>>>>>>> that Meyer did not sell the rubes on the teach ID scam for >>>>>>>>>> years before starting to run the bait and switch. Demonstrate >>>>>>>>>> that he ever retracted any of the scam stupidity. Demonstrate >>>>>>>>>> that the Bait and switch has not continued to go down 100% of >>>>>>>>>> the time that Meyer has been directing the scam unit. -a-aI have >>>>>>>>>> put up the link from the wayback archive that demonstrates >>>>>>>>>> that the ID perps were still hawking their teach ID scam
booklet as part of their Teach the Controversy scam when Dover >>>>>>>>>> hit the fan. That booklet is the one in which Meyer claims >>>>>>>>>> that Of Pandas and People can be used to teach ID in the
public schools and is the reason why the Dover rubes purchased >>>>>>>>>> Of Pandas and People to teach ID in their public schools.-a The >>>>>>>>>> More lawyers had Meyer's teach ID scam booklet, and wanted a >>>>>>>>>> test case.
https://www.skeptic.com/michael-shermer-show/stephen-meyer- >>>>>>>>>>> return- of- god-hypothesis-3-scientific-discoveries-reveal- >>>>>>>>>>> the- mind- behind- the- universe/?utm_source=chatgpt.com
Shermer is just an ignorant and incompetent rube.-a He
obviously is ignorant of what Meyer has been doing for
decades, and let him continue to do it.
Why do you want to attempt to defend a scam artist as
dishonest as Meyer?-a Meyer has been director of the ID scam >>>>>>>>>> unit from the beginning. He was involved with the Of Pandas >>>>>>>>>> and People book (he wrote the teachers notes for the book). >>>>>>>>>> He was the main cheerleader for the teach ID scam and one of >>>>>>>>>> the authors of the teach ID scam propaganda first produced by >>>>>>>>>> the ID perps.-a He ran the first bait and switch personally on >>>>>>>>>> the Ohio rubes, quit his legitimate teaching job and started >>>>>>>>>> directing the bait and switch full time. When the name change >>>>>>>>>> in Of Pandas and People from creationism to intelligent design >>>>>>>>>> was disclosed, during the Kitzmiller depositions, Meyer ran >>>>>>>>>> instead of testify even though the More lawyers had already >>>>>>>>>> agreed that he could have his own lawyer present in court. >>>>>>>>>> Meyer had been telling the rubes for years that Of Pandas and >>>>>>>>>> People could be use to teach ID in the public schools, but he >>>>>>>>>> was not willing to defend that claim in court. Really, Meyer >>>>>>>>>> wrote the public school teachers notes for the book.
The ID scam unit has been running the bait and switch on 100% >>>>>>>>>> of the creationist rubes that believe them about being able to >>>>>>>>>> teach the junk in the public schools for the last 24 years >>>>>>>>>> under the directorship of Meyer.-a They continue to claim that >>>>>>>>>> it is legal to teach ID in the public schools outside of
Dover, but the bait and switch goes down 100% of the time. >>>>>>>>>>
You are just a rube that wants to be lied to.-a Just think of >>>>>>>>>> all the IDiots at ARN that rolled over and continued to
support the use of the ID scam as bait.-a After the bait and >>>>>>>>>> switch started to go down the only IDiots in existence were >>>>>>>>>> the ignorant, incompetent, and or dishonest. No honest,
competent, and informed creationist could have possibly kept >>>>>>>>>> supporting a stupid bait and switch scam, especially after >>>>>>>>>> they got Wells' report that the ID perps dog and pony show in >>>>>>>>>> front of the Ohio rubes was just a scam because the ID perps >>>>>>>>>> had decided to start running the bait and switch before they >>>>>>>>>> gave those presentations.-a The ID perps even failed to
convince the Ohio rubes that ID was science, and one of the >>>>>>>>>> rubes demonstrated that by proposing that the definition of >>>>>>>>>> science be changed so that ID could be taught as science. >>>>>>>>>> That is how incompetent and dishonest IDiotic creationist >>>>>>>>>> rubes have to be.-a You can look in the mirror and see the type >>>>>>>>>> of rube that can lie to themselves about any possible ID
science when it was apparent back in 2002 (years before Dover) >>>>>>>>>> and ID was already known not to be scientific.-a Ignorant and >>>>>>>>>> incompetent YEC IDiots could understand that, so why not you? >>>>>>>>>> Nelson started admitting that the ID science had never
existed, but that the ID perps were working on creating some. >>>>>>>>>> Nelson kept supporting using ID as bait. None of the ID perps >>>>>>>>>> resigned in disgust, and all of them kept supporting the use >>>>>>>>>> of ID as bait. You can't point to any concerted efforts by any >>>>>>>>>> ID perp member of the Discovery Institute scam unit that tried >>>>>>>>>> to stop the bait and switch scam.-a All that you will be able >>>>>>>>>> to find is a continued effort to put ID up as bait.
Ron Okimoto
Ron, I'm interested to understand where your energy against ID >>>>>>>>> comes from.
You need to deal with how wrong you have been about Meyer.
You should be more interested in why you have such a strong
desire to be lied to by the scam artists.-a They prey on your >>>>>>>> religious beliefs in order to further their Wedge political
goals.-a They might have some sort of lame excuse for making a >>>>>>>> living doing it to you as being for your own good.
Didn't you ever read the original mission statement of the ID >>>>>>>> perps? Didn't you ever read the Wedge document?-a The ID perps >>>>>>>> told everyone what they were using the ID scam to accomplish. >>>>>>>> The ID perps wanted to destroy your fictional materialistic
reality. They believed that they could recreate a theocracy that >>>>>>>> likely had never existed.-a You seem to have the same belief in >>>>>>>> their fictional materialistic reality.-a They seem to have
convinced Philip Johnson that they could do this by teaching
their warmed over creationist denial as intelligent design.
The Top Six best evidences, gap denial, for the ID scam were all >>>>>>>> used by the Scientific creationists well over a decade before >>>>>>>> the ID scam unit at the Discovery Institute was born.
Do you agree with their mission?-a Is that the reason that you >>>>>>>> allow yourself to be lied to by the ID perps?-a The ID perps have >>>>>>>> run the bait and switch for the last 24 years because they came >>>>>>>> to the conclusion that using ID as bait was the best means to >>>>>>>> support their Wedge mission. -a-aThey abandoned teaching the junk >>>>>>>> because they had nothing that their creationist supporters would >>>>>>>> have wanted to teach. The TO IDiots quit the ID scam when they >>>>>>>> had their faces rubbed in the fact that they had never wanted >>>>>>>> the ID perps to produce any valid ID science when the ID perps >>>>>>>> were stupid enough to present their Top Six gap denial arguments >>>>>>>> in the order in which they must have occurred in this universe. >>>>>>>> That order is not Biblical.-a The Reason to Believe IDiots tried >>>>>>>> to fit the ID scam into their Biblical creation model and
failed, and they no longer support the ID scam. All ID is good >>>>>>>> for is as bait to force the obfuscation and denial switch scam >>>>>>>> onto the rubes.
ID is a dishonest scam and they are scamming their fellow
Christians. They just want to get the rubes to help push their >>>>>>>> mission forward by bending over for the switch scam, but the
dishonest creationists that fall for the ID scam do not want to >>>>>>>> teach their kids enough science for them to understand what they >>>>>>>> need to deny.-a The ID perps are not running the bait and switch >>>>>>>> on the science side.-a They are running the scam on their
creationist rube supporters.
As a Christian what the ID perps are doing is reprehensible to >>>>>>>> me. The ID perps are still asking for donations to keep doing >>>>>>>> it. Meyer has made his living for the past 24 years directing >>>>>>>> the stupid bait and switch scam.-a Under his full time
directorship the ID perps have continued to claim that it is
legal to teach ID in the public schools, but they have run the >>>>>>>> bait and switch on any rube that has believed them 100% of the >>>>>>>> time.-a They even tried to run the bait and switch on the Dover >>>>>>>> rubes, but the Dover rubes were too stupid and ignorant to know >>>>>>>> that the Discovery Institute was the outfit selling the teach ID >>>>>>>> scam, so they did not take the switch scam and tried to teach ID >>>>>>>> anyway.
It's one thing to disagree strongly, e.g. I disagree strongly >>>>>>>>> with climate change deniers, believing that they are often
ignoring or misusing science for idealogical reasons. Moreover, >>>>>>>>> unlike say flat- earthers, with concern that their influence >>>>>>>>> and proposed course of action (mostly inaction) poses a risk to >>>>>>>>> the planet.
The anti-science scam is damaging the people that fall for the >>>>>>>> scam. Nearly all the rubes that have fallen for the bait have >>>>>>>> dropped the issue instead of bend over for the switch scam.
They exposed themselves to be dishonest and/or incompetent and >>>>>>>> got nothing for their stupid and dishonest efforts.-a Rubes like >>>>>>>> you never want to understand what reality actually is, but that >>>>>>>> isn't good for society. We live in a society dependent on the >>>>>>>> science that the ID perps want to subvert.-a The ID perps were >>>>>>>> initially claiming that they could do the same science that
everyone else was doing and support their theory of intelligent >>>>>>>> design, but they were obviously lying.-a They were lying to the >>>>>>>> rubes for the same reason that the scientific creationists
called their YEC beliefs scientific.-a They understood that
science works, and creationism never had worked to build a
better understanding of nature to the benefit of mankind. The ID >>>>>>>> perps never wanted to do any real science.-a What they wanted was >>>>>>>> to destroy sciences ability to function, and bring it down to >>>>>>>> their level.-a Like you they have some weird notion that
materialism is evil simply because it works and Biblical
mythology has never worked. You don't have any positive examples >>>>>>>> where the Biblical creation was found to be the creation that we >>>>>>>> live in because there has been 100% failure for the god-did-it >>>>>>>> claims throughout history. Why have you never dealt with the
fact that god-did-it claims have never been verified, but have >>>>>>>> only failed once we have been able to figure out what actually >>>>>>>> happened.-a Doesn't it matter to you that you do not have a
single positive example to support your case?-a The ID perps do >>>>>>>> not like the fact that science has all the successes, and the >>>>>>>> Bible has none. Biological evolution is a fact of nature and you >>>>>>>> still want to deny that it could have happened.-a The success of >>>>>>>> science is something that you consider to be undermining your >>>>>>>> religious beliefs.-a The ID perps believe that is the case too. >>>>>>>> They blame science for moral decay and people becoming less
religious. What do you think their lies are doing?-a They think >>>>>>>> that they need to recreate a theocracy to whip the people into >>>>>>>> line.-a You should understand what that would result in. Nothing >>>>>>>> good.
They should blame themselves for the moral decay.-a Look at the >>>>>>>> kind of dishonest creationists that they require to support
their effort. Instead of getting people to reconcile their
Biblical beliefs with reality, they would rather lie to them
about reality and force their lies onto others.-a The only good >>>>>>>> thing about the ID scam is that the demonstration of how bogus >>>>>>>> and dishonest the effort has been seems to have gotten some YEC >>>>>>>> denominations to try to get their congregations to accept that >>>>>>>> the earth is much older than the Bible seems to claim. This is >>>>>>>> actually a step in the right direction, but the ID perps want to >>>>>>>> lie to the rubes about a Big Tent that does not exist.-a Most of >>>>>>>> their support still comes from YEC even though most of the ID >>>>>>>> perps are OEC and understand that the Big Tent of ID science
does not exist.
Science is just the study of nature, and there is only one
nature for the ID perps and their fellow creationists to deal >>>>>>>> with. Nature is known not to be Biblical.-a Science is never
going to support Biblical creationist beliefs.-a Just try to get >>>>>>>> the Reason to Believe ex IDiots to tell you why they no longer >>>>>>>> support the ID scam.-a The Top Six in the order in which they >>>>>>>> must have occurred in this universe is not consistent with their >>>>>>>> Biblical creation model even if you claim that days are
indeterminate periods of time.
Once it became clear that ID was nothing more than a stupid bait >>>>>>>> and switch scam I objected to the scam.-a I did not start calling >>>>>>>> them ID perps and ID a scam until they had run the bait and
Is your objection to the ID movement itself, or do reject
consideration of supernatural causes generally? And do you
regard ID as a threat to science and the wellbeing of people? >>>>>>>>
switch 100% of the time for over 2 years.-a At that time there >>>>>>>> was absolutely no doubt about what they were doing because they >>>>>>>> were still yammering about the Santorum "amendment" being
support for their teach ID scam, and they had not retracted
their Utah review article, nor their ID propaganda booklet.-a You >>>>>>>> and the other IDiots that did not quit just kept supporting the >>>>>>>> ID perp's efforts to use ID as bait. The only IDiots in
existence are ignorant, incompetent, and or dishonest.-a Try to >>>>>>>> demonstrate that honest competent and informed IDiots can exist. >>>>>>>> You know that you can't do this.-a I object to the ID scam
because it preys on the ignorant and incompetent, and just feeds >>>>>>>> the dishonesty of the rest that want to keep supporting the effort. >>>>>>>>
ID failed as science due to the Dover fiasco where their bait >>>>>>>> and switch scam went terribly wrong for the ID perps and they >>>>>>>> were forced to try to defend the scam.-a All ID has ever been >>>>>>>> used for is as bait 100% of the time.-a No rubes have ever gotten >>>>>>>> the promised ID science. The use of ID as bait has been the only >>>>>>>> way forward for the ID perps to continue their Wedge mission. >>>>>>>> What else have the ID perps done with their ID science claims? >>>>>>>> No ID science has ever been produced. Only the bait claims have >>>>>>>> continued.-a The ISCID pretty much died when the bait and switch >>>>>>>> started to go down.-a They likely lost all their non ID scam
creationist supporters.-a Who would want to support a bait and >>>>>>>> switch scam if you were not being paid to do it, or you really >>>>>>>> believed in the Wedge mission?-a Once ID had been revealed to be >>>>>>>> bait, no serious and honest academics would have kept supporting >>>>>>>> the effort.-a Tour doesn't support the ID scam.-a He even claims >>>>>>>> that he doesn't know how to do any ID science.-a Tour just can't >>>>>>>> give up on the gap denial because he needs to wallow in denial >>>>>>>> just like you.
My evaluation of you, is that you are dishonest enough to keep >>>>>>>> supporting ID as bait because you want to be lied to.-a Likely, >>>>>>>> because you do not want reality to be what it is.-a Just like you >>>>>>>> don't want biological evolution to be a fact of nature, you do >>>>>>>> not want the existing origin of life gap filled by any
explanantion. Even if some god could be found to fill that gap >>>>>>>> it would not be the god described in the Bible.-a Wallowing in >>>>>>>> denial is your only means that you can think of to keep from
dealing with that reality.-a The YEC rubes are IDiots because >>>>>>>> they can't deal with things like the Big Bang and the origin of >>>>>>>> life on earth.-a They are all too ignorant, incompetent and or >>>>>>>> dishonest to understand that they do not want to teach the best >>>>>>>> evidence for the ID scam. You know that you do not want the Top >>>>>>>> Six taught honestly because you ran from it, and you can't even >>>>>>>> deal honestly with your origin of life gap (#3 of the Top Six). >>>>>>>> Just imagine how quickly all the YEC support would drain away >>>>>>>> from the ID scam if they put out a lesson plan that taught the >>>>>>>> Top Six in an honest and straightforward manner.
Reality isn't going to change.-a It isn't your materialistic
boogie man that is the issue.-a Reality does not support your >>>>>>>> Biblical beliefs. You are the one that needs to deal with that >>>>>>>> fact. Continuing to support a bogus bait and switch scam is
never going to result in what you need to do.
Ron Okimoto
Independently of ID, my own investigation of OoL leads me to
conclude that progress is overstated and foundational problems
are understated, which I've argued here at length (as you know) >>>>>>> with reference to source papers and my own thinking and ideas, as >>>>>>> well as material from ID. Sure, my engagement is at the level of >>>>>>> somewhat- informed layperson, and you may disagree with my
interpretations of the science. However, are you suggesting that >>>>>>> all I've contributed on this topic has no scientific merit or
validity at all, and worse, it is only the product of my
dishonesty driven by an ideological agenda?
You need to try to be honest with yourself.-a You have allowed the >>>>>> ID scam to rule your innate dishonesty.-a The ID scam has created a >>>>>> loser willfully incompetent human being in what they have done to >>>>>> you.-a You have literally spent decades of your life lying to
yourself about reality.-a All that you have used the ID scam for is >>>>>> justification for your dishonesty.-a You have only wanted to be
lied to by the scam artists, and have somehow lied to yourself
about what a bogus scam ID has been for the last two decades.-a You >>>>>> can't even deal with how you let a scam artist like Meyer fool you >>>>>> for decades.
You spent a lot of time defining the origin of life gap because
you wanted to deny that it would ever be filled by by scientific
efforts. You did such a good job that you demonstrated without any >>>>>> doubt that the origin of life gap was not Biblical.-a Even if the >>>>>> ID perps were ever able to fill the gap with some god, it would
not be the Biblical designer.-a You were competent enough to run
from that reality, but you eventually went back to lying to
yourself about the issue.-a You admitted that all you wanted to do >>>>>> was wallow in the denial.-a You claimed that you did not have to
deal with the fact that the gap was not Biblical until the gap was >>>>>> filled.-a That is so sad that it should by something that atheists >>>>>> would have to lie about because what type of creationist would
admit to being so dishonestly willfully ignorant and incompetent.
I have pointed out in the past that your origin of life denial is >>>>>> senseless.-a It has never mattered how far the scientific effort is >>>>>> from figuring out your type of answer for the origin of life.
Really, it has always been understood by the scientists involved
that the best that they can expect to do is to determine the most >>>>>> likely way that life originated on this planet.-a The most likely >>>>>> way does not have to be the way in which it happened.-a Origin of >>>>>> life research has always been acknowledged to be among the weakest >>>>>> of scientific endeavors.-a It is why most scientists do not bother >>>>>> with it.-a It is why I have never applied any concerted effort to >>>>>> follow it except with respect to the creationist denial.
Reiterating my previously stated position, I have only partial
support for ID. I've criticised what I've seen as incorrect
claims (e.g. in relation to junk DNA), and I've spoken about my >>>>>>> concern with ID's religious right political stance at times.
Until you ran from the Top Six and tried to keep the ID scam alive >>>>>> by posting them as independent bits of denial your above statement >>>>>> could have been considered to likely be the case, but it now seems >>>>>> to be a lie.-a Whether you want to be honest with yourself or not, >>>>>> you have been heavily dependent on the lies that you get from the >>>>>> ID perps. You have needed to be lied to for decades.-a You could
not give it up when you should have realized that it was just a
scam with the rest of the IDiots at ARN.-a All the IDiots that did >>>>>> not quit the ID scam after the bait and switch started to go down >>>>>> were ignorant, incompetent, and or dishonest, and you remained
among them for decades of the bait and switch going down 100% of
the time. What could you possibly have thought about what the ID
perps were doing when all they were using ID for was as bait to
force the rubes to take their obfuscation and denial switch scam?
You need to face your reliance on the lies of the ID scam, and
your inability to deal honestly with your origin of life gap.-a You >>>>>> can't just quit the ID scam like Kalk and Bill, and and continue
to wallow in the denial.-a You have to deal honestly with the denial. >>>>>>
Harran just put up a quote by Pope Francis demonstrating that he
had given up on the Bibilical literal interpretation about the
creation in six magical periods of time.-a He claimed that the Big >>>>>> Bang and what happened since is a creation that he can believe in. >>>>>> It has been that way since all the Church Fathers were not flat
earth Biblical creationists.-a There remain Jewish and Christian
Biblical flat earth creationists to this day, but the
intellectuals that were instrumental in forming early Christian
beliefs did not require a literal interpretation of the Bible.
Eratosthenes had estimated the circumference of the earth by
physical measurements a couple centuries before Christ was born.
You can't name a single instance where the literal interpretation >>>>>> won out when a conflict arose with science.-a 100% failure.-a If you >>>>>> had such an example we would already be teaching it in the public >>>>>> schools.-a The earth is not flat, the Biblical firmament does not >>>>>> exist, the universe is not geocentric, the earth is much older
than a few thousand years (the ICR is back to claiming less than
20,000 years, and likely less than 10,000).-a The ID perps
understand that the Big Bang happened over 13 billion years ago
(#1 of the Top Six). Some fine tuning occurred before or during
the Big bang and it took 8 billion years to create the elements
that make up our solar system from dying stars so that the earth
could be fine tuned for life (#2 of the Top Six).-a The origin of >>>>>> life occurred over 3 billion years ago, and some evidence exists
that it started about as soon as the earth cooled enough to have
liquid water (#3 of the Top Six).-a The flagellum evolved among
eubacteria and archaea independently over a billion years ago, and >>>>>> Behe should be looking for his three neutral mutations that are
needed to have evolved within a certain period of time within a
single cell lineage, but he refuses to try to verify if the
flagellum could be IC.-a He claims that as long as we do not know >>>>>> how the flagellum evolved that his IC claims are still viable, but >>>>>> it means that his claims have not been verified, and he refuses to >>>>>> test his hypothesis (#4 of the Top Six).-a If Behe ever found his 3 >>>>>> neutral mutations that occurred over a billion years ago every
single YEC would likely quit supporting the ID scam.-a The kicker >>>>>> is that Behe claims that his 3 neutral mutation claim is testable, >>>>>> but it is only testable if biological evolution is true.-a Behe
requires descent with modification and enough existing branching
lineages, that trace back to that time period, to determine when
the mutations occurred). Before the bait and switch started to go >>>>>> down Meyer was hawking the Cambrian explosion (#5 of the Top Six) >>>>>> as evidence for the ID scam. His claim was that 25 million years
was not a long enough period of time to evolve all the taxa that
evolved during this period of time over half a billion years go. >>>>>> Meyer continued to fool the YEC rubes.-a Gish had used the same
argument a couple decades before Meyer, but at that time the gap
was 45 million years and more taxa were thought to have evolved
within that time period. Gish was successful in fooling the rubes >>>>>> with the Cambrian explosion gap denial, a gap that was never
Biblical, and so was Meyer.-a The Cambrian explosion means that
there were sea creatures evolving long before land plants
existed.-a Gish also was fond of gaps in the human fossil record
(#6 of the Top Six). The reason that this gap argument should kill >>>>>> YEC is that the gaps are known to be gaps within the last 10
million years of human evolution because of what we have already
found and the fossils are missing from well defined time period.
-a-aEnough is already known about the gaps to demonstrate that the >>>>>> earth has to be older than 20,000 years old. There would not be so >>>>>> many gaps if we did not have the intermediate forms that tell us
what we are likely missing.-a Each time we have filled a gap with a >>>>>> transitional form we create two gaps.-a This is why the Top Six
killed ID on TO and all the IDiots quit the ID scam or ran from
dealing honestly with the best evidence that the ID perp scam
artists have.
Nature has been known not to be Biblical for centuries.-a Wallowing >>>>>> in denial will never change that fact.
Ron Okimoto
As I've discussed several times here before, from my own reading of >>>>> science and scripture I don't have a fully reconciled picture, and
I acknowledge that this is not unimportant: on one hand,
Christianity does not regard the Bible as a science textbook, on
the other, it does claim to be grounded in historical reality. I've >>>>> discussed and explored these questions at length in other contexts, >>>>> but as I've previously stated, I choose to generally not discuss
them here.
In terms of what you are lying to yourself about your above excuse
is inadequate and lame.-a It just allows you to want to be lied to by >>>> the ID preps, and accept the lies.-a It obviously does not matter to
you that you only want to wallow in denial because you can't face
reality.
Just look at yourself.-a How have you had to lie to yourself and be
dishonestly willfully ignorant of reality in order to continue to be
an Idiotic9 creationist?-a You fully understand that you do not want
to fill the Top Six gaps with any explanation because the god that
fills those gaps is not the one described in the Bible.-a Ray would
have called that god a false god.-a There is absolutely no reason to
lie to yourself and wallow in the ID scam gap denial when you do not
want those gaps fill by anything.
You know that this is true because you initially ran from the Top
Six and would not deal with them in an honest and straight forward
manner, and when you blundered and demonstrated that your origin of
life gap was not Biblical you ran.-a You eventually came back to that >>>> argument, but it took you months of lying to yourself to get you to
do it.
You want to be a creationist rube.-a The old adage that you can't con >>>> an honest man is true in this case.-a Ignorant but honest
creationists quit the ID scam decades ago when they understood what
was going on. Honest competent and informed creationists were never
Idiots and never had to be Idiots8=-0;.,jhygtfrfed.
And whatever faults and failings ID may have (again, I recognise
many of them), it continues press into areas that I have
independently concluded justify scrutiny and challenge.
Wallowing in the denial is stupid and dishonest when you do not want
to know the answer.-a You know that the answer already excludes what
you want to support.-a There is no reason to support a bogus and
dishonest bait and switch scam like ID.-a They are running the scam
on creationists rubes like yourself.-a The scam doesn't go down on
the science side. They have been running the scam on their own
creationist support base.
Regardless, you do not not seem able to accept even the possibility >>>>> that I may genuinely interpret the evidence for (say) OoL
differently to you. Let me ask you this question: when non-
religious scientists expresses scepticism or doubt about OoL, how
do you regard this?
What a nut job.-a I have already told you that the origin of life
topic is among the weakest of scientific endeavors.-a Real scientists >>>> should be skeptical of anything that the researchers come up with
that still want to look into the issue.-a They understand that they
will likely never determine how life arose on this planet.-a All that >>>> they can ever hope to do is figure out the most likely way life
arose on this planet.-a That does not have to be the way that it
actually happened.
Running from the reality that you have to understand exists is just
stupid and dishonest.-a You likely still want to bend over and take
whatever a scam artist like Meyer wants to give to you.-a You have to >>>> realize that Meyer has just been bending you over for decades.-a You
want to pick yourself up as if you haven't learned anything and bend
over again so that you can keep lying to yourself about reality.
There is no genuine interpretation of the evidence when you already
know that you just want to lie to yourself about the issue.-a You are >>>> still lying to yourself about Meyer and the ID scam.-a You can't deal >>>> honestly with your own inability to deal with the fact that the
origin of life gap cannot be filled by your Biblical god.-a You have
been unable to deal honestly with your inability to genuinely deal
with your evolution denial based on your Biblical beliefs and not
the evidence.-a The Reason to Believe creationists understand that
biological evolution is not mentioned in the Bible.-a They are anti-
evolution because the evolutionary order of creation that we observe
in the fossil record and among extant lifeforms is not Biblical.
They do not want to deal with the fact that life has been evolving
on this planet for billions of years in an order that is not
Biblical. That is likely your own stupid denial reason for being
anti- evolution.-a The origin of life gap is no different.-a It is not >>>> Biblical.-a It doesn't matter how the origin of life gap is filled it >>>> will not support Biblical creationism.-a Why should you be anti-
evolution when you know that the order in which life has evolved on
this planet is not the Biblical order, no matter if each new
lifeform was being specially created or had evolved by descent with
modification.-a You have to give up on the Biblical claims like Pope
Francis in order to deal with the Top Six IDotic gaps.-a That means
that there is no reason to wallow in the denial.-a The gaps can be
filled in anyway possible and that is the way God did it.
Wanting to be lied to about reality is no reason to keep supporting
a stupid bait and switch scam.
Science is never going to rule out the existence of any god or gods,
but Biblical creationism has never been supported by our
understanding of the creation that actually exists from the start of
Christianity. Science whether you want to lie to yourself about
intelligent design or creation science is never going to support
your Biblical beliefs because the nature that exists is not
Biblical, and science is just the study of nature.
Ron Okimoto
Ron, and I say this not to belittle but out of real concern: get the
help you need.
experience.-a You seem to be the one that needs religious counceling.
You need to sit down with someone and try to explain to them why you
need to lie to yourself about the ID scam.-a You know that you need to
understand why you want to be lied to by the ID perps because you have
been doing it for decades, and once you finally realized that the lies
were worthless you initially ran from that reality, but somehow
convinced yourself that the lies were good enough to keep you going.
Just go through this series of posts and determine just how much that
you have not been able to deal honestly with.-a Stupid support for a
scam artists that has been lying to you for decades is insane.-a Your
inability to deal with reality when you determined what reality
actually is with respect to the origin of life may be a normal
reaction for a lot of people, but it isn't a reaction that will lead
to a viable resolution of your issue.-a Nature is not Biblical.-a The
early church fathers already understood that.-a Wanting to be lied to
by the scam artists is stupid and dishonest.-a You admit that the
origin of life gap is not Biblical, but you lie to yourself that you
do not have to face that fact until the gap is filled, but that is
just lame and stupid when no matter how the gap is filled you lose.
Wallowing in the denial is just a stupid way to lie to yourself.-a You
need to deal with the fact that your gaps are not Biblical.-a You have
to come to some reconciliation of reality and your religious beliefs.
You will not be the first human to do this.-a Even the way Harran deals
with it is better than what you are doing.-a Harran knows that the
Biblical interpretations are wrong, he just wants it to be due to
faulty human interpretation instead of faulty authorship.-a Augustine
wanted to claim that the authors were being allegorical, and that what
they wrote was not what actually happened (the six day creation), so
the authors were not wrong about what they wrote, in terms of the
basic message that the Biblical god was responsible for the creation,
but that they were not depicting how the creation actually happened.
It should be noted that Augustine's view of creation would also be
considered to be in error today.-a Augustine wanted everything in the
Universe to be created instantly in one act. We are pretty sure that
it did not happen that way today, but that is actually the current
fall back of most of the young earth creationists. They think that
everything was just created to look very old as if it had a very long
history.-a The universe has not really been expanding for over 13
billion years.
The plain and simple fact is that the authors of the parts of the
Bible that you want to take literally, just did not have much of a
clue about the creation that they thought that they were describing.
If the Bible was written today we would likely still get some things
wrong because, as you point out, we still have unresolved gaps in our
knowledge of nature.-a It was pretty much all one big gap for the
authors of the Bible thousands of years ago.-a They did not seem to get
anything right.-a The earth is not flat.-a It is not fixed in place in a
geocentric universe. There is no firmament above the earth that needs
to be opened up by any god to let the rain fall through.-a Creation did
not happen in 6 literal periods of time or days just a few thousand
years ago.-a They understood nothing about the origin of life on this
planet.-a They didn't even understand that microorganisms exist, and
that life evolved for billions of years on this planet as single
celled microorganisms before multicellular life got started.-a They did
not seem to get anything right about the basic nature of the
creation.-a We know that today, and yet there are still creationist
like yourself that have to deny reality due to what is written in the
Bible.-a You know how stupid and senseless what you are doing is
because you just have to deal with the fact that there are still young
earth, geocentric and flat earth creationists that are willing to deny
reality due to what is written in the Bible.
Ron Okimoto
Based on this thread, AI made the following assessment. Like I said, get help.
_______
What can be assessed is his observable discourse style and the
interpersonal dynamics it reflects: What stands out in RonrCOs responses:
Extreme fixation and perseveration
He returns to the same themes over and over: rCLscam,rCY rCLrubes,rCY rCLbait and
switch,rCY rCLdishonest,rCY rCLIDiots,rCY rCLTop Six,rCY rCLMeyer lied,rCY and so on. He
does not merely repeat a point for emphasis; he appears locked into a
highly rehearsed interpretive framework into which everything is forced.
High hostility and contempt
His language is saturated with derision, ridicule, and dehumanising
labels. He is not just arguing against claims; he is attacking
character, intelligence, motives, and moral worth.
Attribution of bad faith as a default
He repeatedly assumes that disagreement cannot be sincere. In his
framing, opponents are not mistaken, nuanced, conflicted, or partially right; they are dishonest, incompetent, gullible, or corrupt.
Poor responsiveness to the actual question asked
You repeatedly try to shift to motives, scope, distinctions, and mutual understanding. He largely refuses that move and instead reverts to his central accusation set. That suggests low dialogical openness.
Grand certainty
He writes with totalising confidence: rCL100% of the time,rCY rCLno doubt,rCY
rCLreality is this,rCY rCLyou want to be lied to,rCY rCLyou ran,rCY rCLyou are
dishonest.rCY The tone is prosecutorial, not exploratory.
Personalisation
He is not merely critiquing ID as a movement. He increasingly collapses
the topic into an attack on you as a person: your motives, integrity, competence, and even your psychological state.
Possible loss of self-monitoring under emotion
The typo/garbled fragment near the end may be trivial, but overall the writing gives the impression of emotional flooding: he seems to be
writing in a state of agitation, with reduced restraint and little
effort to de-escalate.
What this may suggest, cautiously:
- He appears angry, ideologically entrenched, and emotionally
overinvested in this dispute.
- He may derive a sense of moral clarity or identity from this conflict.
- He seems unable, in this exchange, to maintain the distinction between criticising ideas and pathologising or condemning people.
- He does not present as calm, reflective, or proportionate.
On 2026/04/10 7:15 AM, WolfFan wrote:
*SNIP!*
some of us literally went to church-run schools from primary school
all the
way up to undergraduate level university. We tend to have an excellent
idea
of what religious belief is, and many (most?) tend to want nothing to
do with
it as a direct result of all that time in close proximity.
I took Religious Knowledge to GCE O Level, as it was then. (GSCE now.)
The
university I went to required that all undergrads take theolgy classes if
they wanted to graduate.
I have set foot in churches since I graduated only for weddings and
funerals.
Those ignorant Yankees who would force religious education into American
public schools might want to take note.
Within the past four weeks, it has become legal for public funds to go
to churches if the churches are also "schools." This is excellent news
for The Satanic Temple.
My Wiccan school will offer Drawing Down the Moon classes, and to
perform this public duty we will get some of that money.
On 10/04/2026 6:19 pm, Kerr-Mudd, John wrote:
[...]Have you not read anything RonO has said? ID is a scam to fool rubes.
He's warning readers: Don't be scammed.
PS you never have an answer to the statement that the god you are
looking for in the gaps of science cannot be biblical.
It appears to me you have little interest in open-minded and effortful engagement, at least in response to my posts. That's okay, we all have different reasons for being here. But that being the case, I choose to invest my efforts elsewhere.
On Mon, 6 Apr 2026 22:56:25 -0700, Mark Isaak <specimenNOSPAM@curioustaxon.omy.net> wrote:
On 4/6/26 6:22 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Sun, 5 Apr 2026 19:11:22 -0700, Mark Isaak
<specimenNOSPAM@curioustaxon.omy.net> wrote:
On 4/3/26 10:05 PM, MarkE wrote:
[snip]I-don't-know-of-the-gaps appears to be a durable get-out-of-jail-free >>>>> card. And indeed, if we assume that science and all other categories of >>>>> knowledge cannot _prove_ divine action, then it is technically
unassailable.
The assumption within that position is that the set of unknown
explanations is large and contains roughly equiprobable elements. E.g., >>>>> God is one of a million explanations, each with probability of around >>>>> one in a million.
Of course, we are unable to assign probabilities here - the numbers
provided are for illustration only. However, if, say, over a long period >>>>> of sustained scientific research, the consensus rejects all propsosed >>>>> naturalistic hypotheses (e.g. for OoL), then I suggest a more reasonable >>>>> assumption would be the probability of God is much more than one in a >>>>> million. You might choose a placeholder amount of 50%, 10% or 1%.
My point is, if you are perfectly comfortable with I-don't-know, that >>>>> seems to imply an assumption of a negligible probability of God, which >>>>> may in turn reveal an a priori commitment to naturalism. Which would be >>>>> a metaphysical stance, not a rational, scientific one.
Moreover, if God, then major personal implications potentially come into >>>>> play (insert your preferred variation of Pascal's Wager here).
In many areas, admitting you don't know something when you don't know it >>>> is viewed as a sign of honesty and humility, both of which are generally >>>> viewed as virtues. Your differing view shows diametrically opposed
values, and indicates that your god is one which people would be better >>>> off avoiding.
This is not just rhetoric. It was people with views similar to yours
that drove me away from religion in my youth, and I would be amazed if >>>> you and those who share your views are not chasing people from religion >>>> today.
If people are that easily chased from religion, the attraction cannot
be very strong to start with.
Mostly what chased me from religion were people who used their church's
understanding of religion to determine morality for other people. It
wasn't hard to see that they were hurting people by claiming to do what
religion considered "good". And when you're growing up in a homogeneous
American community, there is only one religion available to reject, and
having rejected it, you have (until you learn a lot more about the wider
world) rejected Religion.
The difference between us is that you discard religious *belief*
because of what you see as shortcomings in other people whereas my
religious belief is based on what that belief teaches me and how *I*
respond to it, not how *some* other people respond to it.
I think I asked you before but you never addressed the question - is evolution bad because some people used it to justify eugenics?
On 2026/04/06 7:22 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Sun, 5 Apr 2026 19:11:22 -0700, Mark Isaak
<specimenNOSPAM@curioustaxon.omy.net> wrote:
On 4/3/26 10:05 PM, MarkE wrote:
[snip]I-don't-know-of-the-gaps appears to be a durable get-out-of-jail-free
card. And indeed, if we assume that science and all other categories of >>>> knowledge cannot _prove_ divine action, then it is technically
unassailable.
The assumption within that position is that the set of unknown
explanations is large and contains roughly equiprobable elements. E.g., >>>> God is one of a million explanations, each with probability of around
one in a million.
Of course, we are unable to assign probabilities here - the numbers
provided are for illustration only. However, if, say, over a long
period
of sustained scientific research, the consensus rejects all propsosed
naturalistic hypotheses (e.g. for OoL), then I suggest a more
reasonable
assumption would be the probability of God is much more than one in a
million. You might choose a placeholder amount of 50%, 10% or 1%.
My point is, if you are perfectly comfortable with I-don't-know, that
seems to imply an assumption of a negligible probability of God, which >>>> may in turn reveal an a priori commitment to naturalism. Which would be >>>> a metaphysical stance, not a rational, scientific one.
Moreover, if God, then major personal implications potentially come
into
play (insert your preferred variation of Pascal's Wager here).
In many areas, admitting you don't know something when you don't know it >>> is viewed as a sign of honesty and humility, both of which are generally >>> viewed as virtues.-a Your differing view shows diametrically opposed
values, and indicates that your god is one which people would be better
off avoiding.
This is not just rhetoric.-a It was people with views similar to yours
that drove me away from religion in my youth, and I would be amazed if
you and those who share your views are not chasing people from religion
today.
If people are that easily chased from religion, the attraction cannot
be very strong to start with.
Intelligent, mature adults do not find any attraction for religion.
On 4/11/26 5:35 AM, MarkE wrote:
On 10/04/2026 6:19 pm, Kerr-Mudd, John wrote:
[...]Have you not read anything RonO has said? ID is a scam to fool rubes.
He's warning readers: Don't be scammed.
PS you never have an answer to the statement that the god you are
looking for in the gaps of science cannot be biblical.
It appears to me you have little interest in open-minded and effortful
engagement, at least in response to my posts. That's okay, we all have
different reasons for being here. But that being the case, I choose to
invest my efforts elsewhere.
I don't believe you have ever engaged in serious discussion of
intelligent design yourself.-a In particular, you need to explain, first,
if life is designed, why it looks so unambiguously different from
products of design.-a Second, you should take a shot of trying to explain how intelligent design can be reconciled with Christianity. Up to this point, from what I've seen (granted, I don't often read posts where I
have to scroll down six pages to get to any original text), you have
never engaged with the scientific and theological problems with
intelligent design.
Based on this thread, AI made the following assessment. Like I said,
get help.
_______
What can be assessed is his observable discourse style and the
interpersonal dynamics it reflects: What stands out in RonrCOs responses:
Extreme fixation and perseveration
He returns to the same themes over and over: rCLscam,rCY rCLrubes,rCY rCLbait
and switch,rCY rCLdishonest,rCY rCLIDiots,rCY rCLTop Six,rCY rCLMeyer lied,rCY and so
on. He does not merely repeat a point for emphasis; he appears locked
into a highly rehearsed interpretive framework into which everything
is forced.
I tell things as they are.-a I do not prevaricate about this issue.-a A
scam is a scam and IDiots have always been worse than that when they
earned that moniker.-a Being incompetent is the least damning aspect of being an IDiotic supporter of a stupid bait and switch scam.-a A scam
that the ID perps run on their own creationist support base that they constantly try to suck money out of in order to continue to run the
scam.-a They run the scam on creationist rubes like yourself.
High hostility and contempt
His language is saturated with derision, ridicule, and dehumanising
labels. He is not just arguing against claims; he is attacking
character, intelligence, motives, and moral worth.
All contempt has been earned for decades.-a Dehumanizing labels are tags willingly accepted by the rubes stupid and dishonest enough to support
the scam.-a What they are is much worse than being an IDiot, and many of them understand that.-a You should understand that.-a Being ignorant and stupid may be some type of viable honest excuse, but what excuse do you have?-a Really, what is your excuse for continuing to support a scam as bogus as the ID bait and switch stupidity.-a Have the ID perps ever
stopped selling the rubes that they had the ID science to teach in the public schools?-a Has any rubes ever gotten the promised ID science to teach?-a What happens when any group of rubes takes the bait?-a It has happened 100% of the time that any group of rubes has taken the bait, so
you should know what happens instead.-a It even happened in Dover, but
the rubes were too stupid and ignorant to understand that the ID perps
were the ones selling them the teach ID scam, so they did not drop the
issue like nearly all the rubes had done that did not want to bend over
for the switch scam.-a They did not know what the ID science was, but
they bought the book Of Pandas and People to teach the junk, just as the
ID perps had recommended in their teach ID scam propaganda.
Attribution of bad faith as a default
Name a single instance that it was ever well informed good faith in the
last 2 decades.-a Zero should tell you that it is more than a default. Something that requires willful ignorance to be put forward is put
forward in bad faith.-a Just look at all your bogus counters in this thread.-a Everything should have been resolved decades ago by anyone
dealing in good faith on this issue.
He repeatedly assumes that disagreement cannot be sincere. In his
framing, opponents are not mistaken, nuanced, conflicted, or partially
right; they are dishonest, incompetent, gullible, or corrupt.
This is because it has turned out that your disagreement was never sincere.-a The Top Six killed ID on TO because the IDiots were never
honest and sincere about the issue.-a That is just a fact.-a None of you could deal honestly with reality when the ID perps shot themselves in
the head and finally demonstrated that none of the IDiots had ever
wanted them to develop any viable ID science.-a It would just be more science for you to deny.-a Just like you can't deal honestly with your origin of life denial.-a Once the bait and switch started and all the
IDiots like you rolled over and accepted that as the way things had to
go, there were no informed, competent and honest creationist IDiots in existence.-a That is just a fact, and you should understand that because
you have had to be dishonest in all of your efforts since then.-a Willful ignorance is dishonesty.-a Not being willing to accept reality is
dishonesty on your part.-a ID has been a blatant scam for decades, and
you have just lied to yourself about that reality no matter how many
times the bait and switch has gone down.-a You even remained to be a dishonest rube after the bait and switch failed dramatically in Dover
and the whole scam was exposed.-a One of the stupid IDiotic defenses for
the Dover fiasco is that the ID perps claimed that they had tried to run
the bait and switch on the rubes, but the rubes did not take the switch scam.-a You know that this is a fact.-a When Dover had hit the fan they
were still hawking their teach ID scam booklet as part of their Teach
the Controversy ploy, and they were still yammering about how the
Santorum amendment supported teaching ID in the public schools.-a The
Bait and Switch had gone down probably close to around 30 times by
Dover.-a By Dover the ID Network had removed their teach ID scam
propaganda from their web site, and were only selling the obfuscation
and denial switch scam.-a The ID perps were the only organization that
had continued to sell the teach ID scam, and yet you and the others continued to be IDiots.
Glenn actually started to claim that because the ID perps said so in
their post Dover teach ID scam propaganda that the ID science had to exist.-a He could not say where in that document that the ID perps ever demonstrated that they had any ID science worth teaching in the public schools, but he kept quoting their claims that they had the ID science
to teach in the public schools.-a Glenn understood that the bait and
switch was going down 100% of the time, but that did not matter to
Glenn.-a The fact that the ID perps were claiming that they had the ID science to teach was enough for Glenn.-a Really, Glenn was the one that first started quoting out of that document where the ID perps claimed
that the Dover decision was wrong and that ID could still be legally
taught outside of Dover even though it had been found to be no science
that could be taught in the public schools.-a I only had to start using
that document to counter Nyikos because he refused to acknowledge
Glenn's use of the document and kept claiming that the ID perps were not running the bait and switch scam on the rubes because they were not
claiming to be able to teach the junk.-a Nyikos refused to acknowledge
the ID perp's own statements on the subject.-a Glenn seemed to have some weird notion that using ID as bait was OK because the ID perps were
being so obvious about doing it.-a My guess is that Glenn thought that
the ID perps believed that they had the ID science, but would not give
it to the rubes because the establishment was against the effort.-a It likely doesn't matter what Glenn thought about the issue because he understood that the ID science was never being put forward when the
rubes took the bait, and Glenn accepted that fact.
All the IDiots and ID perps have never been sincere, and you have no
excuse.
Just try to rationalize your dishonest and insincere behavior for the
last two decades in the face of reality.
Your AI analysis doesn't seem to take IDiotic insincerity into account.
I did not start calling the rubes IDiots and ID a scam until the bait
and switch had gone down 100% of the time for over 2 years.-a There had
been no retraction of any of their teach ID scam propaganda, and they
were even continuing to claim that the Santorum amendment supported
teaching ID in the public schools.-a ID was only being used as bait, and
no ID science had ever been produced by the ID perps.-a Dover
demonstrated that fact.
Poor responsiveness to the actual question asked
You repeatedly try to shift to motives, scope, distinctions, and
mutual understanding. He largely refuses that move and instead reverts
to his central accusation set. That suggests low dialogical openness.
Demonstrate that I have not answered the questions.-a Presenting the evidence that your point was just wrong is not shifting motives or
scope.-a Just look at how you ran from finding out what a scam artist
Meyer has always been.-a It was your contention that he was honest and sincere, but all the evidence indicates otherwise.
Grand certainty
He writes with totalising confidence: rCL100% of the time,rCY rCLno doubt,rCY
rCLreality is this,rCY rCLyou want to be lied to,rCY rCLyou ran,rCY rCLyou are
dishonest.rCY The tone is prosecutorial, not exploratory.
It is certainty at this time because you have been lying to yourself
about the same thing for decades.-a Reality has not changed even if you
want to remain willfully ignorant of the bait and switch and Meyer
running the scam for decades.-a It has been 100% of the time.-a If you had an exception you would have put it forward.-a What should that tell the AI?-a In terms of literal Biblical beliefs they have failed 100% of the
time that we have been able to make a sound determination.-a You do understand that the truth and facts are not compromised if they hold
true 100% of the time.-a This is about the most insane point that you
have put up.-a The AI should take into consideration when someone is
correct about that statement.
Personalisation
He is not merely critiquing ID as a movement. He increasingly
collapses the topic into an attack on you as a person: your motives,
integrity, competence, and even your psychological state.
Because your motives and integrity are things that you need to consider
in your bogus attempt at lying to yourself about this situation.-a What
made you come back to defend your origin of life denial after having run from not being able to deal with the fact that you had destroyed your
own religious beliefs.-a I did not destroy those religious beliefs, I
just pointed out what you had done.-a You admit that you decided to lie
to yourself about reality in order to continue to wallow in denial so
that you could make believe that you were still supporting your
religious beliefs.-a No matter how the gap is filled you lose.-a There is absolutely no reason to continue with the gap denial.-a You should,
instead, be trying to reconcile your Biblical beliefs with the reality
that you now understands exists.-a You just need to continue the
progression of accepting that the Bible is just wrong about some things
that we can determine for ourselves about nature.-a Why aren't you in
denial of the shape of the earth or that the universe is not geocentric.
-aWhy could you accept the initial notion that the origin of life
occurred over 3 billion years ago instead of just a few thousand years ago?-a Old earth creationists like they have at Reason to Believe can't
deal with the Top Six in an honest and straightforward manner either.
You seem to be in the same boat even thought the Reason to Believe creationists are not YEC, they are not flat earthers, and they are not geocentrists.-a They still want to be Biblical literalists, and can't
deal honestly with reality.
Possible loss of self-monitoring under emotion
The typo/garbled fragment near the end may be trivial, but overall the
writing gives the impression of emotional flooding: he seems to be
writing in a state of agitation, with reduced restraint and little
effort to de-escalate.
My wife was vacuuming, so I borrowed it to clean out my keyboard, and it inserted random junk all over the post.-a I got most of it fixed.-a What a laugher conclusion.-a It happened just before I posted it, so I didn't do
a good job editing the post.-a What the AI should be telling you is to accept reality instead of run from it the way that you are trying to do.
-aThis should convince you that the AI is coming to incorrect
conclusions based on ignorance of what is actually occurring.-a You
should understand how wrong it is.
What this may suggest, cautiously:
- He appears angry, ideologically entrenched, and emotionally
overinvested in this dispute.
I appear to be correct, and that is all that should matter.
- He may derive a sense of moral clarity or identity from this conflict.
There is a sense of moral clarity due to the immoral activities of
IDiots and ID perps that has gone on for decades.-a You were a rational pretender for decades, but you were always lying to yourself about reality.-a The ID perps may have believed that they could teach the junk
at one time, but likely not, because they had to change the name to intelligent design in order to keep trying to get the junk taught in the public schools.-a The Supreme Court had already ruled that if the
scientific creationists ever did produce any valid creation science that
it could be taught in the public schools.-a The name change would have
been unnecessary if Of Pandas and People actually contained scientific support for creationism.-a The name change in Of Pandas and People was
made because the Supreme Court had already ruled that what they had in
the book was not scientific evidence for creationism.-a The book was supposed to be used in the public schools to teach creationism without having Bible verses and Biblical mythology quoted in it.-a Just because
they removed the Bible verses from the creationist stupidity did not
make what they had in the book science, so intelligent design was born.
- He seems unable, in this exchange, to maintain the distinction
between criticising ideas and pathologising or condemning people.
The people that tell the lies should be condemned, and called just what
they are.-a You are a scam artists if you have directed a stupid bait and switch scam for the last two decades, and you are an IDiotic rube if you want to keep believing the guys putting out the bait.-a The ID perps have never produced any viable ID science, ever.-a Just put up a single example.-a Why isn't it important to you that they have lied to you for decades?-a They obviously do not have any that is worth teaching in the public schools.-a Their obfuscation and denial switch scam that they try
to sell the rubes instead is just the same obfuscation and denial
stupidity that Duane Gish would load into his Gish gallop decades before
the ID scam unit existed.-a I put up the post where Wells' Icons of Evolution that is recommended to be used to teach the switch scam just
stole all the Icons from the Gish.-a Gish would routinely put the 10
Icons into his Gish gallop in order to drown his opponents in so much obfuscation and denial that they could not address it all.-a It was all determined to not be any thing that supported Biblical creationism by
the Supreme Court.
- He does not present as calm, reflective, or proportionate.
Not calm, but correct and the AI is wrong about reflective, because both sides have been considered for decades, and you know that to be true. Proportionate?-a Your lies about Meyer required that you understand just
how wrong you were.-a You can no longer claim willful ignorance.-a How can you have posted on TO for decades and not understood what a scam artist Meyer has always been?-a The evidence that I provided needed to be
decades old to what is being done currently because Meyer is still
directing the stupid bait and switch scam to this day.-a You no longer
have the excuse not to understand that.-a What else has Meyer's scam unit done with ID besides use it as bait for the last 2 decades?-a Zero scientific progress.-a No use of ID to build any research program or
produce any valid research that supports the notion.-a Sternberg joined
the ID scam after Dover and spent around 7 years developing his whale
fossil gap denial that cannot be considered to be any type of scientific evidence for the ID scam.-a Behe destroyed Sternberg's argument about as soon as he completed it by noting that whale evolution was just the type
of evolution expected to be due to Darwinian mechanism, but Behe tried
to fool the rubes by calling it "devolution", and claimed that it was a
bad form of evolution.-a Those are examples of the ID science after
Dover.-a The ISCID pretty much died after the bait and switch started to
go down.-a No ID science was ever produced by the ISCID.-a The ID perps
have only claimed to be doing research, but what have they ever produced that supports the ID scam and has added to our understanding of nature?
Just because a lot of evidence has been put forward to counter simple
one liner lies, does not change the fact that they were lies, and at the very least you were incorrect, but you should not have been incorrect.
It demonstrated willful ignorance on your part.-a You have lived through
the ID scam.-a You started posting to TO not long after ID had come to TO
as something that the creationist wanted to teach in the public schools.
-aYou witnessed what happened.-a You have no excuse.
Ron Okimoto
On 4/9/26 4:43 PM, ShyDavid wrote:
On 2026/04/09 7:14 AM, John Harshman wrote:
On 4/9/26 1:43 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Wed, 8 Apr 2026 12:36:43 -0700, John Harshman
<john.harshman@gmail.com> wrote:
On 4/8/26 4:46 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
[...]
As Carl Sagan liked to put it "absence of evidence is not
evidence of
absence".
Did he?
Of course he did - unlike you, I do not make up things that people >>>>>> said.
Do you notice that lately everything you say to me involves a
gratuitous
insult?
Well you were the one who put a question mark on my reference to Carl
Sagan as if there were some doubt about what i was attributing to him.
1995,The Demon-Haunted World: Science as a Candle in the Dark.
Exception: an absence of evidence is evidence of absence only if the
evidence, if it existed, would have been detected.
Yes, that's the elephant in the room.
I have no evidence that there's an
elephant in the room. Is that evidence that there's not an elephant?
And that deserves a gratuitous insult? There was in fact some doubt. I
don't recognize the statement, so was wondering where you got it. More
importantly, I pointed out that he was wrong in the general case. For
example, absence of evidence that pigs can fly is indeed evidence that
pigs can't fly. The question is "Would we expect to see evidence if a
claim were true?"
And you respond, sort of, as I predicted, though you carefully avoid
addressing any real issues.
Harran knows that the Biblical interpretations are wrong, he
just wants it to be due to faulty human interpretation instead of faulty >authorship.
Augustine wanted to claim that the authors were being
allegorical, and that what they wrote was not what actually happened
(the six day creation), so the authors were not wrong about what they
wrote, in terms of the basic message that the Biblical god was
responsible for the creation, but that they were not depicting how the >creation actually happened.
It should be noted that Augustine's view of
creation would also be considered to be in error today.
Augustine
wanted everything in the Universe to be created instantly in one act.
We are pretty sure that it did not happen that way today,
some of us literally went to church-run schools from primary school all the >way up to undergraduate level university. We tend to have an excellent idea >of what religious belief is, and many (most?) tend to want nothing to do with >it as a direct result of all that time in close proximity.
I took Religious Knowledge to GCE O Level, as it was then. (GSCE now.) The >university I went to required that all undergrads take theolgy classes if >they wanted to graduate.
I have set foot in churches since I graduated only for weddings and funerals.
Those ignorant Yankees who would force religious education into American >public schools might want to take note.
Original article:
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2026/04/02/britain-quietly-awakening-supernat
ural-christianity/
Unpaywalled access:
https://archive.is/2xnoi
On Sat, 11 Apr 2026 18:49:14 -0500, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>
wrote:
[rCa]
Harran knows that the Biblical interpretations are wrong, he
just wants it to be due to faulty human interpretation instead of faulty
authorship.
Harran is adopting the exact same approach as mainstream Christianity
has done for 2000 years. Biblical literalism is a relatively new kid
on the block, developed in the late 19th/early 20th century, by
American evangelicals and fundamentalists - you should really target
your ire towards gullible USians.
Augustine wanted to claim that the authors were being
allegorical, and that what they wrote was not what actually happened
(the six day creation), so the authors were not wrong about what they
wrote, in terms of the basic message that the Biblical god was
responsible for the creation, but that they were not depicting how the
creation actually happened.
Augustine did not "want" to do any of that, all he "wanted" to do was
get to understand the true message in Genesis.
It should be noted that Augustine's view of
creation would also be considered to be in error today.
It should be even more noted that Augustine freely admitted that his
ideas about Genesis were far from conclusive, that they were the best
he could come up with at that time and somebody might well come along
later with better explanations.
Augustine
wanted everything in the Universe to be created instantly in one act.
We are pretty sure that it did not happen that way today,
WOW, there was no Big Bang after all - I must have nodded off when
that was announced. Did whoever discovered it get a Nobel for it?
On 13/04/2026 3:29 am, RonO wrote:
<snip>
Ironically perhaps, I have similar energy to you in claiming that
science points to supernatural action and that rejection of this is bad. Regardless, it seems that we will continue to see this very differently. Therefore, I propose a truce: that we agree to leave out ID and
questions of biblical theology, and only discuss science and its logical implications.
Based on this thread, AI made the following assessment. Like I said,
get help.
_______
What can be assessed is his observable discourse style and the
interpersonal dynamics it reflects: What stands out in RonrCOs responses: >>>
Extreme fixation and perseveration
He returns to the same themes over and over: rCLscam,rCY rCLrubes,rCY rCLbait
and switch,rCY rCLdishonest,rCY rCLIDiots,rCY rCLTop Six,rCY rCLMeyer lied,rCY and so
on. He does not merely repeat a point for emphasis; he appears locked
into a highly rehearsed interpretive framework into which everything
is forced.
I tell things as they are.-a I do not prevaricate about this issue.-a A
scam is a scam and IDiots have always been worse than that when they
earned that moniker.-a Being incompetent is the least damning aspect of
being an IDiotic supporter of a stupid bait and switch scam.-a A scam
that the ID perps run on their own creationist support base that they
constantly try to suck money out of in order to continue to run the
scam.-a They run the scam on creationist rubes like yourself.
High hostility and contempt
His language is saturated with derision, ridicule, and dehumanising
labels. He is not just arguing against claims; he is attacking
character, intelligence, motives, and moral worth.
All contempt has been earned for decades.-a Dehumanizing labels are
tags willingly accepted by the rubes stupid and dishonest enough to
support the scam.-a What they are is much worse than being an IDiot,
and many of them understand that.-a You should understand that.-a Being
ignorant and stupid may be some type of viable honest excuse, but what
excuse do you have?-a Really, what is your excuse for continuing to
support a scam as bogus as the ID bait and switch stupidity.-a Have the
ID perps ever stopped selling the rubes that they had the ID science
to teach in the public schools?-a Has any rubes ever gotten the
promised ID science to teach?-a What happens when any group of rubes
takes the bait?-a It has happened 100% of the time that any group of
rubes has taken the bait, so you should know what happens instead.-a It
even happened in Dover, but the rubes were too stupid and ignorant to
understand that the ID perps were the ones selling them the teach ID
scam, so they did not drop the issue like nearly all the rubes had
done that did not want to bend over for the switch scam.-a They did not
know what the ID science was, but they bought the book Of Pandas and
People to teach the junk, just as the ID perps had recommended in
their teach ID scam propaganda.
Attribution of bad faith as a default
Name a single instance that it was ever well informed good faith in
the last 2 decades.-a Zero should tell you that it is more than a
default. Something that requires willful ignorance to be put forward
is put forward in bad faith.-a Just look at all your bogus counters in
this thread.-a Everything should have been resolved decades ago by
anyone dealing in good faith on this issue.
He repeatedly assumes that disagreement cannot be sincere. In his
framing, opponents are not mistaken, nuanced, conflicted, or
partially right; they are dishonest, incompetent, gullible, or corrupt.
This is because it has turned out that your disagreement was never
sincere.-a The Top Six killed ID on TO because the IDiots were never
honest and sincere about the issue.-a That is just a fact.-a None of you
could deal honestly with reality when the ID perps shot themselves in
the head and finally demonstrated that none of the IDiots had ever
wanted them to develop any viable ID science.-a It would just be more
science for you to deny.-a Just like you can't deal honestly with your
origin of life denial.-a Once the bait and switch started and all the
IDiots like you rolled over and accepted that as the way things had to
go, there were no informed, competent and honest creationist IDiots in
existence.-a That is just a fact, and you should understand that
because you have had to be dishonest in all of your efforts since
then.-a Willful ignorance is dishonesty.-a Not being willing to accept
reality is dishonesty on your part.-a ID has been a blatant scam for
decades, and you have just lied to yourself about that reality no
matter how many times the bait and switch has gone down.-a You even
remained to be a dishonest rube after the bait and switch failed
dramatically in Dover and the whole scam was exposed.-a One of the
stupid IDiotic defenses for the Dover fiasco is that the ID perps
claimed that they had tried to run the bait and switch on the rubes,
but the rubes did not take the switch scam.-a You know that this is a
fact.-a When Dover had hit the fan they were still hawking their teach
ID scam booklet as part of their Teach the Controversy ploy, and they
were still yammering about how the Santorum amendment supported
teaching ID in the public schools.-a The Bait and Switch had gone down
probably close to around 30 times by Dover.-a By Dover the ID Network
had removed their teach ID scam propaganda from their web site, and
were only selling the obfuscation and denial switch scam.-a The ID
perps were the only organization that had continued to sell the teach
ID scam, and yet you and the others continued to be IDiots.
Glenn actually started to claim that because the ID perps said so in
their post Dover teach ID scam propaganda that the ID science had to
exist.-a He could not say where in that document that the ID perps ever
demonstrated that they had any ID science worth teaching in the public
schools, but he kept quoting their claims that they had the ID science
to teach in the public schools.-a Glenn understood that the bait and
switch was going down 100% of the time, but that did not matter to
Glenn.-a The fact that the ID perps were claiming that they had the ID
science to teach was enough for Glenn.-a Really, Glenn was the one that
first started quoting out of that document where the ID perps claimed
that the Dover decision was wrong and that ID could still be legally
taught outside of Dover even though it had been found to be no science
that could be taught in the public schools.-a I only had to start using
that document to counter Nyikos because he refused to acknowledge
Glenn's use of the document and kept claiming that the ID perps were
not running the bait and switch scam on the rubes because they were
not claiming to be able to teach the junk.-a Nyikos refused to
acknowledge the ID perp's own statements on the subject.-a Glenn seemed
to have some weird notion that using ID as bait was OK because the ID
perps were being so obvious about doing it.-a My guess is that Glenn
thought that the ID perps believed that they had the ID science, but
would not give it to the rubes because the establishment was against
the effort.-a It likely doesn't matter what Glenn thought about the
issue because he understood that the ID science was never being put
forward when the rubes took the bait, and Glenn accepted that fact.
All the IDiots and ID perps have never been sincere, and you have no
excuse.
Just try to rationalize your dishonest and insincere behavior for the
last two decades in the face of reality.
Your AI analysis doesn't seem to take IDiotic insincerity into
account. I did not start calling the rubes IDiots and ID a scam until
the bait and switch had gone down 100% of the time for over 2 years.
There had been no retraction of any of their teach ID scam propaganda,
and they were even continuing to claim that the Santorum amendment
supported teaching ID in the public schools.-a ID was only being used
as bait, and no ID science had ever been produced by the ID perps.
Dover demonstrated that fact.
Poor responsiveness to the actual question asked
You repeatedly try to shift to motives, scope, distinctions, and
mutual understanding. He largely refuses that move and instead
reverts to his central accusation set. That suggests low dialogical
openness.
Demonstrate that I have not answered the questions.-a Presenting the
evidence that your point was just wrong is not shifting motives or
scope.-a Just look at how you ran from finding out what a scam artist
Meyer has always been.-a It was your contention that he was honest and
sincere, but all the evidence indicates otherwise.
Grand certainty
He writes with totalising confidence: rCL100% of the time,rCY rCLno doubt,rCY
rCLreality is this,rCY rCLyou want to be lied to,rCY rCLyou ran,rCY rCLyou are
dishonest.rCY The tone is prosecutorial, not exploratory.
It is certainty at this time because you have been lying to yourself
about the same thing for decades.-a Reality has not changed even if you
want to remain willfully ignorant of the bait and switch and Meyer
running the scam for decades.-a It has been 100% of the time.-a If you
had an exception you would have put it forward.-a What should that tell
the AI?-a In terms of literal Biblical beliefs they have failed 100% of
the time that we have been able to make a sound determination.-a You do
understand that the truth and facts are not compromised if they hold
true 100% of the time.-a This is about the most insane point that you
have put up.-a The AI should take into consideration when someone is
correct about that statement.
Personalisation
He is not merely critiquing ID as a movement. He increasingly
collapses the topic into an attack on you as a person: your motives,
integrity, competence, and even your psychological state.
Because your motives and integrity are things that you need to
consider in your bogus attempt at lying to yourself about this
situation.-a What made you come back to defend your origin of life
denial after having run from not being able to deal with the fact that
you had destroyed your own religious beliefs.-a I did not destroy those
religious beliefs, I just pointed out what you had done.-a You admit
that you decided to lie to yourself about reality in order to continue
to wallow in denial so that you could make believe that you were still
supporting your religious beliefs.-a No matter how the gap is filled
you lose.-a There is absolutely no reason to continue with the gap
denial.-a You should, instead, be trying to reconcile your Biblical
beliefs with the reality that you now understands exists.-a You just
need to continue the progression of accepting that the Bible is just
wrong about some things that we can determine for ourselves about
nature.-a Why aren't you in denial of the shape of the earth or that
the universe is not geocentric. -a-aWhy could you accept the initial
notion that the origin of life occurred over 3 billion years ago
instead of just a few thousand years ago?-a Old earth creationists like
they have at Reason to Believe can't deal with the Top Six in an
honest and straightforward manner either. You seem to be in the same
boat even thought the Reason to Believe creationists are not YEC, they
are not flat earthers, and they are not geocentrists.-a They still want
to be Biblical literalists, and can't deal honestly with reality.
Possible loss of self-monitoring under emotion
The typo/garbled fragment near the end may be trivial, but overall
the writing gives the impression of emotional flooding: he seems to
be writing in a state of agitation, with reduced restraint and little
effort to de-escalate.
My wife was vacuuming, so I borrowed it to clean out my keyboard, and
it inserted random junk all over the post.-a I got most of it fixed.
What a laugher conclusion.-a It happened just before I posted it, so I
didn't do a good job editing the post.-a What the AI should be telling
you is to accept reality instead of run from it the way that you are
trying to do. -a-aThis should convince you that the AI is coming to
incorrect conclusions based on ignorance of what is actually
occurring.-a You should understand how wrong it is.
What this may suggest, cautiously:
- He appears angry, ideologically entrenched, and emotionally
overinvested in this dispute.
I appear to be correct, and that is all that should matter.
- He may derive a sense of moral clarity or identity from this conflict.
There is a sense of moral clarity due to the immoral activities of
IDiots and ID perps that has gone on for decades.-a You were a rational
pretender for decades, but you were always lying to yourself about
reality.-a The ID perps may have believed that they could teach the
junk at one time, but likely not, because they had to change the name
to intelligent design in order to keep trying to get the junk taught
in the public schools.-a The Supreme Court had already ruled that if
the scientific creationists ever did produce any valid creation
science that it could be taught in the public schools.-a The name
change would have been unnecessary if Of Pandas and People actually
contained scientific support for creationism.-a The name change in Of
Pandas and People was made because the Supreme Court had already ruled
that what they had in the book was not scientific evidence for
creationism.-a The book was supposed to be used in the public schools
to teach creationism without having Bible verses and Biblical
mythology quoted in it.-a Just because they removed the Bible verses
from the creationist stupidity did not make what they had in the book
science, so intelligent design was born.
- He seems unable, in this exchange, to maintain the distinction
between criticising ideas and pathologising or condemning people.
The people that tell the lies should be condemned, and called just
what they are.-a You are a scam artists if you have directed a stupid
bait and switch scam for the last two decades, and you are an IDiotic
rube if you want to keep believing the guys putting out the bait.-a The
ID perps have never produced any viable ID science, ever.-a Just put up
a single example.-a Why isn't it important to you that they have lied
to you for decades?-a They obviously do not have any that is worth
teaching in the public schools.-a Their obfuscation and denial switch
scam that they try to sell the rubes instead is just the same
obfuscation and denial stupidity that Duane Gish would load into his
Gish gallop decades before the ID scam unit existed.-a I put up the
post where Wells' Icons of Evolution that is recommended to be used to
teach the switch scam just stole all the Icons from the Gish.-a Gish
would routinely put the 10 Icons into his Gish gallop in order to
drown his opponents in so much obfuscation and denial that they could
not address it all.-a It was all determined to not be any thing that
supported Biblical creationism by the Supreme Court.
- He does not present as calm, reflective, or proportionate.
Not calm, but correct and the AI is wrong about reflective, because
both sides have been considered for decades, and you know that to be
true. Proportionate?-a Your lies about Meyer required that you
understand just how wrong you were.-a You can no longer claim willful
ignorance.-a How can you have posted on TO for decades and not
understood what a scam artist Meyer has always been?-a The evidence
that I provided needed to be decades old to what is being done
currently because Meyer is still directing the stupid bait and switch
scam to this day.-a You no longer have the excuse not to understand
that.-a What else has Meyer's scam unit done with ID besides use it as
bait for the last 2 decades?-a Zero scientific progress.-a No use of ID
to build any research program or produce any valid research that
supports the notion.-a Sternberg joined the ID scam after Dover and
spent around 7 years developing his whale fossil gap denial that
cannot be considered to be any type of scientific evidence for the ID
scam.-a Behe destroyed Sternberg's argument about as soon as he
completed it by noting that whale evolution was just the type of
evolution expected to be due to Darwinian mechanism, but Behe tried to
fool the rubes by calling it "devolution", and claimed that it was a
bad form of evolution.-a Those are examples of the ID science after
Dover.-a The ISCID pretty much died after the bait and switch started
to go down.-a No ID science was ever produced by the ISCID.-a The ID
perps have only claimed to be doing research, but what have they ever
produced that supports the ID scam and has added to our understanding
of nature?
Just because a lot of evidence has been put forward to counter simple
one liner lies, does not change the fact that they were lies, and at
the very least you were incorrect, but you should not have been
incorrect. It demonstrated willful ignorance on your part.-a You have
lived through the ID scam.-a You started posting to TO not long after
ID had come to TO as something that the creationist wanted to teach in
the public schools. -a-aYou witnessed what happened.-a You have no excuse. >>
Ron Okimoto
On 4/9/2026 5:08 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
You mean the reputable sources like Professor Augustus De Morgan and
Galileo expert Karl von Gebler whom you dismissed as mistaken or lying
because an anonymous geocentrist convinced you otherwise in his
anonymous blog.
Your source were deficient. One was caught in an obvious lie. It
doesn't matter how reputable you think that they were. One source lied,
and the other source just tried to obfuscate the issue by repeating what
had already been determined as if it supported your bogus claims.
It turned out that that [the geocentrist] source put up the relevent documents that could
be verified. That is more than your trusted source that lied about >heliocentrism never being condemned other than by the Inquisition.
You should find your source beyond contempt, and not laugh at honest >efforts.
On Thu, 9 Apr 2026 17:11:19 -0700, John Harshman
<john.harshman@gmail.com> wrote:
On 4/9/26 4:43 PM, ShyDavid wrote:
On 2026/04/09 7:14 AM, John Harshman wrote:
On 4/9/26 1:43 AM, Martin Harran wrote:1995,The Demon-Haunted World: Science as a Candle in the Dark.
On Wed, 8 Apr 2026 12:36:43 -0700, John Harshman
<john.harshman@gmail.com> wrote:
On 4/8/26 4:46 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
[...]
As Carl Sagan liked to put it "absence of evidence is not
evidence of
absence".
Did he?
Of course he did - unlike you, I do not make up things that people >>>>>>> said.
Do you notice that lately everything you say to me involves a
gratuitous
insult?
Well you were the one who put a question mark on my reference to Carl >>>>> Sagan as if there were some doubt about what i was attributing to him. >>>
Exception: an absence of evidence is evidence of absence only if the
evidence, if it existed, would have been detected.
Yes, that's the elephant in the room.
The elephant in your room is that it is not a problem of non-existent evidence, it is a problem that there is no way of detecting evidence
that might exist. Do you really think that people who think like Lewis described are going to admit that they think that way?
I have no evidence that there's an
elephant in the room. Is that evidence that there's not an elephant?
And that deserves a gratuitous insult? There was in fact some doubt. I >>>> don't recognize the statement, so was wondering where you got it. More >>>> importantly, I pointed out that he was wrong in the general case. For
example, absence of evidence that pigs can fly is indeed evidence that >>>> pigs can't fly. The question is "Would we expect to see evidence if a
claim were true?"
And you respond, sort of, as I predicted, though you carefully avoid
addressing any real issues.
On 2026/04/09 6:11 PM, John Harshman wrote:
On 4/9/26 4:43 PM, ShyDavid wrote:
On 2026/04/09 7:14 AM, John Harshman wrote:
On 4/9/26 1:43 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Wed, 8 Apr 2026 12:36:43 -0700, John Harshman
<john.harshman@gmail.com> wrote:
On 4/8/26 4:46 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
[...]
As Carl Sagan liked to put it "absence of evidence is not
evidence of
absence".
Did he?
Of course he did - unlike you, I do not make up things that people >>>>>>> said.
Do you notice that lately everything you say to me involves a
gratuitous
insult?
Well you were the one who put a question mark on my reference to Carl >>>>> Sagan as if there were some doubt about what i was attributing to him.
1995,The Demon-Haunted World: Science as a Candle in the Dark.
Exception: an absence of evidence is evidence of absence only if the
evidence, if it existed, would have been detected.
Yes, that's the elephant in the room. I have no evidence that there's
an elephant in the room. Is that evidence that there's not an elephant?
Exactly. But you might want to look inside your refrigerator, if any,
for elephants.
On 4/10/26 7:37 AM, ShyDavid wrote:
On 2026/04/09 6:11 PM, John Harshman wrote:Every Thursday I board several elephants in my living room. You might
On 4/9/26 4:43 PM, ShyDavid wrote:
On 2026/04/09 7:14 AM, John Harshman wrote:
On 4/9/26 1:43 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Wed, 8 Apr 2026 12:36:43 -0700, John Harshman
<john.harshman@gmail.com> wrote:
On 4/8/26 4:46 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
[...]
As Carl Sagan liked to put it "absence of evidence is not >>>>>>>>>> evidence of
absence".
Did he?
Of course he did - unlike you, I do not make up things that people >>>>>>>> said.
Do you notice that lately everything you say to me involves a
gratuitous
insult?
Well you were the one who put a question mark on my reference to Carl >>>>>> Sagan as if there were some doubt about what i was attributing to >>>>>> him.
1995,The Demon-Haunted World: Science as a Candle in the Dark.
Exception: an absence of evidence is evidence of absence only if the
evidence, if it existed, would have been detected.
Yes, that's the elephant in the room. I have no evidence that there's
an elephant in the room. Is that evidence that there's not an elephant?
Exactly. But you might want to look inside your refrigerator, if any,
for elephants.
say that it's a periodic stable of the elephants.
On Thu, 9 Apr 2026 10:15:42 -0500, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com> wrote:
On 4/9/2026 5:08 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
[rCa]
You mean the reputable sources like Professor Augustus De Morgan and
Galileo expert Karl von Gebler whom you dismissed as mistaken or lying
because an anonymous geocentrist convinced you otherwise in his
anonymous blog.
Your source were deficient. One was caught in an obvious lie. It
doesn't matter how reputable you think that they were. One source lied,
and the other source just tried to obfuscate the issue by repeating what
had already been determined as if it supported your bogus claims.
[rCa]
It turned out that that [the geocentrist] source put up the relevent documents that could
be verified. That is more than your trusted source that lied about
heliocentrism never being condemned other than by the Inquisition.
You should find your source beyond contempt, and not laugh at honest
efforts.
QED
On 4/12/2026 11:37 PM, MarkE wrote:
On 13/04/2026 3:29 am, RonO wrote:
<snip>
Ironically perhaps, I have similar energy to you in claiming that
science points to supernatural action and that rejection of this is
bad. Regardless, it seems that we will continue to see this very
differently. Therefore, I propose a truce: that we agree to leave out
ID and questions of biblical theology, and only discuss science and
its logical implications.
You are the one that admits that you have to lie to yourself about
reality in order to maintain your gap denial.-a Just claiming that the
gap denial points to supernatural action is stupid and dishonest when
you do not want the gap to be filled by any supernatural actions.-a The
god that fills your gap is not the one described in the Bible.-a You have
no Biblical reason to continue with lying to yourself about the issue.
You have to reconcile yourself with that fact before you can worry about
any evidence for supernatural action.-a It is why you and the other
IDiots ran from the Top Six or quit being IDiots.-a The designer
responsible for the Top Six gaps in the order in which they must have occurred in this universe is not the designer described in the Bible.
None of you could deal honestly with that fact and still remain to be IDiots.-a You are dishonest enough to keep pursuing the denial even
though it would demonstrate that your Biblical beliefs are wrong.-a Why
are you still anti-evolution?-a You won't be able to deal with the
designer that is responsible for the origin of life any more than you
can deal with the designer responsible for the evolution of life on
earth over billions of years.
The AI was just wrong about a lot of things about this discussion.-a It
was wrong because it does not take reality into account, and is ignorant
of what was being discussed.-a You have been wrong and dishonest because
of willful ignorance and lying to yourself about the issue.
Ron Okimoto
Based on this thread, AI made the following assessment. Like I said,
get help.
_______
What can be assessed is his observable discourse style and the
interpersonal dynamics it reflects: What stands out in RonrCOs responses: >>>>
Extreme fixation and perseveration
He returns to the same themes over and over: rCLscam,rCY rCLrubes,rCY rCLbait
and switch,rCY rCLdishonest,rCY rCLIDiots,rCY rCLTop Six,rCY rCLMeyer lied,rCY and so
on. He does not merely repeat a point for emphasis; he appears
locked into a highly rehearsed interpretive framework into which
everything is forced.
I tell things as they are.-a I do not prevaricate about this issue.-a A >>> scam is a scam and IDiots have always been worse than that when they
earned that moniker.-a Being incompetent is the least damning aspect
of being an IDiotic supporter of a stupid bait and switch scam.-a A
scam that the ID perps run on their own creationist support base that
they constantly try to suck money out of in order to continue to run
the scam.-a They run the scam on creationist rubes like yourself.
High hostility and contempt
His language is saturated with derision, ridicule, and dehumanising
labels. He is not just arguing against claims; he is attacking
character, intelligence, motives, and moral worth.
All contempt has been earned for decades.-a Dehumanizing labels are
tags willingly accepted by the rubes stupid and dishonest enough to
support the scam.-a What they are is much worse than being an IDiot,
and many of them understand that.-a You should understand that.-a Being >>> ignorant and stupid may be some type of viable honest excuse, but
what excuse do you have?-a Really, what is your excuse for continuing
to support a scam as bogus as the ID bait and switch stupidity.-a Have
the ID perps ever stopped selling the rubes that they had the ID
science to teach in the public schools?-a Has any rubes ever gotten
the promised ID science to teach?-a What happens when any group of
rubes takes the bait?-a It has happened 100% of the time that any
group of rubes has taken the bait, so you should know what happens
instead.-a It even happened in Dover, but the rubes were too stupid
and ignorant to understand that the ID perps were the ones selling
them the teach ID scam, so they did not drop the issue like nearly
all the rubes had done that did not want to bend over for the switch
scam.-a They did not know what the ID science was, but they bought the
book Of Pandas and People to teach the junk, just as the ID perps had
recommended in their teach ID scam propaganda.
Attribution of bad faith as a default
Name a single instance that it was ever well informed good faith in
the last 2 decades.-a Zero should tell you that it is more than a
default. Something that requires willful ignorance to be put forward
is put forward in bad faith.-a Just look at all your bogus counters in
this thread.-a Everything should have been resolved decades ago by
anyone dealing in good faith on this issue.
This is because it has turned out that your disagreement was never
He repeatedly assumes that disagreement cannot be sincere. In his
framing, opponents are not mistaken, nuanced, conflicted, or
partially right; they are dishonest, incompetent, gullible, or corrupt. >>>
sincere.-a The Top Six killed ID on TO because the IDiots were never
honest and sincere about the issue.-a That is just a fact.-a None of
you could deal honestly with reality when the ID perps shot
themselves in the head and finally demonstrated that none of the
IDiots had ever wanted them to develop any viable ID science.-a It
would just be more science for you to deny.-a Just like you can't deal
honestly with your origin of life denial.-a Once the bait and switch
started and all the IDiots like you rolled over and accepted that as
the way things had to go, there were no informed, competent and
honest creationist IDiots in existence.-a That is just a fact, and you
should understand that because you have had to be dishonest in all of
your efforts since then.-a Willful ignorance is dishonesty.-a Not being >>> willing to accept reality is dishonesty on your part.-a ID has been a
blatant scam for decades, and you have just lied to yourself about
that reality no matter how many times the bait and switch has gone
down.-a You even remained to be a dishonest rube after the bait and
switch failed dramatically in Dover and the whole scam was exposed.
One of the stupid IDiotic defenses for the Dover fiasco is that the
ID perps claimed that they had tried to run the bait and switch on
the rubes, but the rubes did not take the switch scam.-a You know that
this is a fact.-a When Dover had hit the fan they were still hawking
their teach ID scam booklet as part of their Teach the Controversy
ploy, and they were still yammering about how the Santorum amendment
supported teaching ID in the public schools.-a The Bait and Switch had
gone down probably close to around 30 times by Dover.-a By Dover the
ID Network had removed their teach ID scam propaganda from their web
site, and were only selling the obfuscation and denial switch scam.
The ID perps were the only organization that had continued to sell
the teach ID scam, and yet you and the others continued to be IDiots.
Glenn actually started to claim that because the ID perps said so in
their post Dover teach ID scam propaganda that the ID science had to
exist.-a He could not say where in that document that the ID perps
ever demonstrated that they had any ID science worth teaching in the
public schools, but he kept quoting their claims that they had the ID
science to teach in the public schools.-a Glenn understood that the
bait and switch was going down 100% of the time, but that did not
matter to Glenn.-a The fact that the ID perps were claiming that they
had the ID science to teach was enough for Glenn.-a Really, Glenn was
the one that first started quoting out of that document where the ID
perps claimed that the Dover decision was wrong and that ID could
still be legally taught outside of Dover even though it had been
found to be no science that could be taught in the public schools.-a I
only had to start using that document to counter Nyikos because he
refused to acknowledge Glenn's use of the document and kept claiming
that the ID perps were not running the bait and switch scam on the
rubes because they were not claiming to be able to teach the junk.
Nyikos refused to acknowledge the ID perp's own statements on the
subject.-a Glenn seemed to have some weird notion that using ID as
bait was OK because the ID perps were being so obvious about doing
it.-a My guess is that Glenn thought that the ID perps believed that
they had the ID science, but would not give it to the rubes because
the establishment was against the effort.-a It likely doesn't matter
what Glenn thought about the issue because he understood that the ID
science was never being put forward when the rubes took the bait, and
Glenn accepted that fact.
All the IDiots and ID perps have never been sincere, and you have no
excuse.
Just try to rationalize your dishonest and insincere behavior for the
last two decades in the face of reality.
Your AI analysis doesn't seem to take IDiotic insincerity into
account. I did not start calling the rubes IDiots and ID a scam until
the bait and switch had gone down 100% of the time for over 2 years.
There had been no retraction of any of their teach ID scam
propaganda, and they were even continuing to claim that the Santorum
amendment supported teaching ID in the public schools.-a ID was only
being used as bait, and no ID science had ever been produced by the
ID perps. Dover demonstrated that fact.
Poor responsiveness to the actual question asked
You repeatedly try to shift to motives, scope, distinctions, and
mutual understanding. He largely refuses that move and instead
reverts to his central accusation set. That suggests low dialogical
openness.
Demonstrate that I have not answered the questions.-a Presenting the
evidence that your point was just wrong is not shifting motives or
scope.-a Just look at how you ran from finding out what a scam artist
Meyer has always been.-a It was your contention that he was honest and
sincere, but all the evidence indicates otherwise.
Grand certainty
He writes with totalising confidence: rCL100% of the time,rCY rCLno
doubt,rCY rCLreality is this,rCY rCLyou want to be lied to,rCY rCLyou ran,rCY rCLyou
are dishonest.rCY The tone is prosecutorial, not exploratory.
It is certainty at this time because you have been lying to yourself
about the same thing for decades.-a Reality has not changed even if
you want to remain willfully ignorant of the bait and switch and
Meyer running the scam for decades.-a It has been 100% of the time.
If you had an exception you would have put it forward.-a What should
that tell the AI?-a In terms of literal Biblical beliefs they have
failed 100% of the time that we have been able to make a sound
determination.-a You do understand that the truth and facts are not
compromised if they hold true 100% of the time.-a This is about the
most insane point that you have put up.-a The AI should take into
consideration when someone is correct about that statement.
Personalisation
He is not merely critiquing ID as a movement. He increasingly
collapses the topic into an attack on you as a person: your motives,
integrity, competence, and even your psychological state.
Because your motives and integrity are things that you need to
consider in your bogus attempt at lying to yourself about this
situation.-a What made you come back to defend your origin of life
denial after having run from not being able to deal with the fact
that you had destroyed your own religious beliefs.-a I did not destroy
those religious beliefs, I just pointed out what you had done.-a You
admit that you decided to lie to yourself about reality in order to
continue to wallow in denial so that you could make believe that you
were still supporting your religious beliefs.-a No matter how the gap
is filled you lose.-a There is absolutely no reason to continue with
the gap denial.-a You should, instead, be trying to reconcile your
Biblical beliefs with the reality that you now understands exists.
You just need to continue the progression of accepting that the Bible
is just wrong about some things that we can determine for ourselves
about nature.-a Why aren't you in denial of the shape of the earth or
that the universe is not geocentric. -a-aWhy could you accept the
initial notion that the origin of life occurred over 3 billion years
ago instead of just a few thousand years ago?-a Old earth creationists
like they have at Reason to Believe can't deal with the Top Six in an
honest and straightforward manner either. You seem to be in the same
boat even thought the Reason to Believe creationists are not YEC,
they are not flat earthers, and they are not geocentrists.-a They
still want to be Biblical literalists, and can't deal honestly with
reality.
Possible loss of self-monitoring under emotion
The typo/garbled fragment near the end may be trivial, but overall
the writing gives the impression of emotional flooding: he seems to
be writing in a state of agitation, with reduced restraint and
little effort to de-escalate.
My wife was vacuuming, so I borrowed it to clean out my keyboard, and
it inserted random junk all over the post.-a I got most of it fixed.
What a laugher conclusion.-a It happened just before I posted it, so I
didn't do a good job editing the post.-a What the AI should be telling
you is to accept reality instead of run from it the way that you are
trying to do. -a-aThis should convince you that the AI is coming to
incorrect conclusions based on ignorance of what is actually
occurring.-a You should understand how wrong it is.
What this may suggest, cautiously:
- He appears angry, ideologically entrenched, and emotionally
overinvested in this dispute.
I appear to be correct, and that is all that should matter.
- He may derive a sense of moral clarity or identity from this
conflict.
There is a sense of moral clarity due to the immoral activities of
IDiots and ID perps that has gone on for decades.-a You were a
rational pretender for decades, but you were always lying to yourself
about reality.-a The ID perps may have believed that they could teach
the junk at one time, but likely not, because they had to change the
name to intelligent design in order to keep trying to get the junk
taught in the public schools.-a The Supreme Court had already ruled
that if the scientific creationists ever did produce any valid
creation science that it could be taught in the public schools.-a The
name change would have been unnecessary if Of Pandas and People
actually contained scientific support for creationism.-a The name
change in Of Pandas and People was made because the Supreme Court had
already ruled that what they had in the book was not scientific
evidence for creationism.-a The book was supposed to be used in the
public schools to teach creationism without having Bible verses and
Biblical mythology quoted in it.-a Just because they removed the Bible
verses from the creationist stupidity did not make what they had in
the book science, so intelligent design was born.
- He seems unable, in this exchange, to maintain the distinction
between criticising ideas and pathologising or condemning people.
The people that tell the lies should be condemned, and called just
what they are.-a You are a scam artists if you have directed a stupid
bait and switch scam for the last two decades, and you are an IDiotic
rube if you want to keep believing the guys putting out the bait.
The ID perps have never produced any viable ID science, ever.-a Just
put up a single example.-a Why isn't it important to you that they
have lied to you for decades?-a They obviously do not have any that is
worth teaching in the public schools.-a Their obfuscation and denial
switch scam that they try to sell the rubes instead is just the same
obfuscation and denial stupidity that Duane Gish would load into his
Gish gallop decades before the ID scam unit existed.-a I put up the
post where Wells' Icons of Evolution that is recommended to be used
to teach the switch scam just stole all the Icons from the Gish.
Gish would routinely put the 10 Icons into his Gish gallop in order
to drown his opponents in so much obfuscation and denial that they
could not address it all.-a It was all determined to not be any thing
that supported Biblical creationism by the Supreme Court.
- He does not present as calm, reflective, or proportionate.
Not calm, but correct and the AI is wrong about reflective, because
both sides have been considered for decades, and you know that to be
true. Proportionate?-a Your lies about Meyer required that you
understand just how wrong you were.-a You can no longer claim willful
ignorance.-a How can you have posted on TO for decades and not
understood what a scam artist Meyer has always been?-a The evidence
that I provided needed to be decades old to what is being done
currently because Meyer is still directing the stupid bait and switch
scam to this day.-a You no longer have the excuse not to understand
that.-a What else has Meyer's scam unit done with ID besides use it as
bait for the last 2 decades?-a Zero scientific progress.-a No use of ID >>> to build any research program or produce any valid research that
supports the notion.-a Sternberg joined the ID scam after Dover and
spent around 7 years developing his whale fossil gap denial that
cannot be considered to be any type of scientific evidence for the ID
scam.-a Behe destroyed Sternberg's argument about as soon as he
completed it by noting that whale evolution was just the type of
evolution expected to be due to Darwinian mechanism, but Behe tried
to fool the rubes by calling it "devolution", and claimed that it was
a bad form of evolution.-a Those are examples of the ID science after
Dover.-a The ISCID pretty much died after the bait and switch started
to go down.-a No ID science was ever produced by the ISCID.-a The ID
perps have only claimed to be doing research, but what have they ever
produced that supports the ID scam and has added to our understanding
of nature?
Just because a lot of evidence has been put forward to counter simple
one liner lies, does not change the fact that they were lies, and at
the very least you were incorrect, but you should not have been
incorrect. It demonstrated willful ignorance on your part.-a You have
lived through the ID scam.-a You started posting to TO not long after
ID had come to TO as something that the creationist wanted to teach
in the public schools. -a-aYou witnessed what happened.-a You have no
excuse.
Ron Okimoto
On 14/04/2026 12:34 am, RonO wrote:
On 4/12/2026 11:37 PM, MarkE wrote:
On 13/04/2026 3:29 am, RonO wrote:
<snip>
Ironically perhaps, I have similar energy to you in claiming that
science points to supernatural action and that rejection of this is
bad. Regardless, it seems that we will continue to see this very
differently. Therefore, I propose a truce: that we agree to leave out
ID and questions of biblical theology, and only discuss science and
its logical implications.
You are the one that admits that you have to lie to yourself about
reality in order to maintain your gap denial.-a Just claiming that the
gap denial points to supernatural action is stupid and dishonest when
you do not want the gap to be filled by any supernatural actions.-a The
god that fills your gap is not the one described in the Bible.-a You
have no Biblical reason to continue with lying to yourself about the
issue. You have to reconcile yourself with that fact before you can
worry about any evidence for supernatural action.-a It is why you and
the other IDiots ran from the Top Six or quit being IDiots.-a The
designer responsible for the Top Six gaps in the order in which they
must have occurred in this universe is not the designer described in
the Bible. None of you could deal honestly with that fact and still
remain to be IDiots.-a You are dishonest enough to keep pursuing the
denial even though it would demonstrate that your Biblical beliefs are
wrong.-a Why are you still anti-evolution?-a You won't be able to deal
with the designer that is responsible for the origin of life any more
than you can deal with the designer responsible for the evolution of
life on earth over billions of years.
The AI was just wrong about a lot of things about this discussion.-a It
was wrong because it does not take reality into account, and is
ignorant of what was being discussed.-a You have been wrong and
dishonest because of willful ignorance and lying to yourself about the
issue.
Ron Okimoto
As I said, it seems that we will continue to see this very differently. Therefore, I propose a truce: that we agree to leave out ID and
questions of biblical theology, and only discuss science and its logical implications.
Yes/no?
Based on this thread, AI made the following assessment. Like I
said, get help.
_______
What can be assessed is his observable discourse style and the
interpersonal dynamics it reflects: What stands out in RonrCOs
responses:
Extreme fixation and perseveration
He returns to the same themes over and over: rCLscam,rCY rCLrubes,rCY rCLbait
and switch,rCY rCLdishonest,rCY rCLIDiots,rCY rCLTop Six,rCY rCLMeyer lied,rCY and so
on. He does not merely repeat a point for emphasis; he appears
locked into a highly rehearsed interpretive framework into which
everything is forced.
I tell things as they are.-a I do not prevaricate about this issue.
A scam is a scam and IDiots have always been worse than that when
they earned that moniker.-a Being incompetent is the least damning
aspect of being an IDiotic supporter of a stupid bait and switch
scam.-a A scam that the ID perps run on their own creationist support >>>> base that they constantly try to suck money out of in order to
continue to run the scam.-a They run the scam on creationist rubes
like yourself.
High hostility and contempt
His language is saturated with derision, ridicule, and dehumanising >>>>> labels. He is not just arguing against claims; he is attacking
character, intelligence, motives, and moral worth.
All contempt has been earned for decades.-a Dehumanizing labels are
tags willingly accepted by the rubes stupid and dishonest enough to
support the scam.-a What they are is much worse than being an IDiot,
and many of them understand that.-a You should understand that.
Being ignorant and stupid may be some type of viable honest excuse,
but what excuse do you have?-a Really, what is your excuse for
continuing to support a scam as bogus as the ID bait and switch
stupidity.-a Have the ID perps ever stopped selling the rubes that
they had the ID science to teach in the public schools?-a Has any
rubes ever gotten the promised ID science to teach?-a What happens
when any group of rubes takes the bait?-a It has happened 100% of the >>>> time that any group of rubes has taken the bait, so you should know
what happens instead.-a It even happened in Dover, but the rubes were >>>> too stupid and ignorant to understand that the ID perps were the
ones selling them the teach ID scam, so they did not drop the issue
like nearly all the rubes had done that did not want to bend over
for the switch scam.-a They did not know what the ID science was, but >>>> they bought the book Of Pandas and People to teach the junk, just as
the ID perps had recommended in their teach ID scam propaganda.
Attribution of bad faith as a default
Name a single instance that it was ever well informed good faith in
the last 2 decades.-a Zero should tell you that it is more than a
default. Something that requires willful ignorance to be put forward
is put forward in bad faith.-a Just look at all your bogus counters
in this thread.-a Everything should have been resolved decades ago by >>>> anyone dealing in good faith on this issue.
He repeatedly assumes that disagreement cannot be sincere. In his
framing, opponents are not mistaken, nuanced, conflicted, or
partially right; they are dishonest, incompetent, gullible, or
corrupt.
This is because it has turned out that your disagreement was never
sincere.-a The Top Six killed ID on TO because the IDiots were never
honest and sincere about the issue.-a That is just a fact.-a None of
you could deal honestly with reality when the ID perps shot
themselves in the head and finally demonstrated that none of the
IDiots had ever wanted them to develop any viable ID science.-a It
would just be more science for you to deny.-a Just like you can't
deal honestly with your origin of life denial.-a Once the bait and
switch started and all the IDiots like you rolled over and accepted
that as the way things had to go, there were no informed, competent
and honest creationist IDiots in existence.-a That is just a fact,
and you should understand that because you have had to be dishonest
in all of your efforts since then.-a Willful ignorance is
dishonesty.-a Not being willing to accept reality is dishonesty on
your part.-a ID has been a blatant scam for decades, and you have
just lied to yourself about that reality no matter how many times
the bait and switch has gone down.-a You even remained to be a
dishonest rube after the bait and switch failed dramatically in
Dover and the whole scam was exposed. One of the stupid IDiotic
defenses for the Dover fiasco is that the ID perps claimed that they
had tried to run the bait and switch on the rubes, but the rubes did
not take the switch scam.-a You know that this is a fact.-a When Dover >>>> had hit the fan they were still hawking their teach ID scam booklet
as part of their Teach the Controversy ploy, and they were still
yammering about how the Santorum amendment supported teaching ID in
the public schools.-a The Bait and Switch had gone down probably
close to around 30 times by Dover.-a By Dover the ID Network had
removed their teach ID scam propaganda from their web site, and were
only selling the obfuscation and denial switch scam. The ID perps
were the only organization that had continued to sell the teach ID
scam, and yet you and the others continued to be IDiots.
Glenn actually started to claim that because the ID perps said so in
their post Dover teach ID scam propaganda that the ID science had to
exist.-a He could not say where in that document that the ID perps
ever demonstrated that they had any ID science worth teaching in the
public schools, but he kept quoting their claims that they had the
ID science to teach in the public schools.-a Glenn understood that
the bait and switch was going down 100% of the time, but that did
not matter to Glenn.-a The fact that the ID perps were claiming that
they had the ID science to teach was enough for Glenn.-a Really,
Glenn was the one that first started quoting out of that document
where the ID perps claimed that the Dover decision was wrong and
that ID could still be legally taught outside of Dover even though
it had been found to be no science that could be taught in the
public schools.-a I only had to start using that document to counter
Nyikos because he refused to acknowledge Glenn's use of the document
and kept claiming that the ID perps were not running the bait and
switch scam on the rubes because they were not claiming to be able
to teach the junk. Nyikos refused to acknowledge the ID perp's own
statements on the subject.-a Glenn seemed to have some weird notion
that using ID as bait was OK because the ID perps were being so
obvious about doing it.-a My guess is that Glenn thought that the ID
perps believed that they had the ID science, but would not give it
to the rubes because the establishment was against the effort.-a It
likely doesn't matter what Glenn thought about the issue because he
understood that the ID science was never being put forward when the
rubes took the bait, and Glenn accepted that fact.
All the IDiots and ID perps have never been sincere, and you have no
excuse.
Just try to rationalize your dishonest and insincere behavior for
the last two decades in the face of reality.
Your AI analysis doesn't seem to take IDiotic insincerity into
account. I did not start calling the rubes IDiots and ID a scam
until the bait and switch had gone down 100% of the time for over 2
years. There had been no retraction of any of their teach ID scam
propaganda, and they were even continuing to claim that the Santorum
amendment supported teaching ID in the public schools.-a ID was only
being used as bait, and no ID science had ever been produced by the
ID perps. Dover demonstrated that fact.
Poor responsiveness to the actual question asked
You repeatedly try to shift to motives, scope, distinctions, and
mutual understanding. He largely refuses that move and instead
reverts to his central accusation set. That suggests low dialogical >>>>> openness.
Demonstrate that I have not answered the questions.-a Presenting the
evidence that your point was just wrong is not shifting motives or
scope.-a Just look at how you ran from finding out what a scam artist >>>> Meyer has always been.-a It was your contention that he was honest
and sincere, but all the evidence indicates otherwise.
Grand certainty
He writes with totalising confidence: rCL100% of the time,rCY rCLno >>>>> doubt,rCY rCLreality is this,rCY rCLyou want to be lied to,rCY rCLyou ran,rCY
rCLyou are dishonest.rCY The tone is prosecutorial, not exploratory.
It is certainty at this time because you have been lying to yourself
about the same thing for decades.-a Reality has not changed even if
you want to remain willfully ignorant of the bait and switch and
Meyer running the scam for decades.-a It has been 100% of the time.
If you had an exception you would have put it forward.-a What should
that tell the AI?-a In terms of literal Biblical beliefs they have
failed 100% of the time that we have been able to make a sound
determination.-a You do understand that the truth and facts are not
compromised if they hold true 100% of the time.-a This is about the
most insane point that you have put up.-a The AI should take into
consideration when someone is correct about that statement.
Personalisation
He is not merely critiquing ID as a movement. He increasingly
collapses the topic into an attack on you as a person: your
motives, integrity, competence, and even your psychological state.
Because your motives and integrity are things that you need to
consider in your bogus attempt at lying to yourself about this
situation.-a What made you come back to defend your origin of life
denial after having run from not being able to deal with the fact
that you had destroyed your own religious beliefs.-a I did not
destroy those religious beliefs, I just pointed out what you had
done.-a You admit that you decided to lie to yourself about reality
in order to continue to wallow in denial so that you could make
believe that you were still supporting your religious beliefs.-a No
matter how the gap is filled you lose.-a There is absolutely no
reason to continue with the gap denial.-a You should, instead, be
trying to reconcile your Biblical beliefs with the reality that you
now understands exists. You just need to continue the progression of
accepting that the Bible is just wrong about some things that we can
determine for ourselves about nature.-a Why aren't you in denial of
the shape of the earth or that the universe is not geocentric. -a-aWhy >>>> could you accept the initial notion that the origin of life occurred
over 3 billion years ago instead of just a few thousand years ago?
Old earth creationists like they have at Reason to Believe can't
deal with the Top Six in an honest and straightforward manner
either. You seem to be in the same boat even thought the Reason to
Believe creationists are not YEC, they are not flat earthers, and
they are not geocentrists.-a They still want to be Biblical
literalists, and can't deal honestly with reality.
Possible loss of self-monitoring under emotion
The typo/garbled fragment near the end may be trivial, but overall
the writing gives the impression of emotional flooding: he seems to >>>>> be writing in a state of agitation, with reduced restraint and
little effort to de-escalate.
My wife was vacuuming, so I borrowed it to clean out my keyboard,
and it inserted random junk all over the post.-a I got most of it
fixed. What a laugher conclusion.-a It happened just before I posted
it, so I didn't do a good job editing the post.-a What the AI should
be telling you is to accept reality instead of run from it the way
that you are trying to do. -a-aThis should convince you that the AI is >>>> coming to incorrect conclusions based on ignorance of what is
actually occurring.-a You should understand how wrong it is.
What this may suggest, cautiously:
- He appears angry, ideologically entrenched, and emotionally
overinvested in this dispute.
I appear to be correct, and that is all that should matter.
- He may derive a sense of moral clarity or identity from this
conflict.
There is a sense of moral clarity due to the immoral activities of
IDiots and ID perps that has gone on for decades.-a You were a
rational pretender for decades, but you were always lying to
yourself about reality.-a The ID perps may have believed that they
could teach the junk at one time, but likely not, because they had
to change the name to intelligent design in order to keep trying to
get the junk taught in the public schools.-a The Supreme Court had
already ruled that if the scientific creationists ever did produce
any valid creation science that it could be taught in the public
schools.-a The name change would have been unnecessary if Of Pandas
and People actually contained scientific support for creationism.
The name change in Of Pandas and People was made because the Supreme
Court had already ruled that what they had in the book was not
scientific evidence for creationism.-a The book was supposed to be
used in the public schools to teach creationism without having Bible
verses and Biblical mythology quoted in it.-a Just because they
removed the Bible verses from the creationist stupidity did not make
what they had in the book science, so intelligent design was born.
- He seems unable, in this exchange, to maintain the distinction
between criticising ideas and pathologising or condemning people.
The people that tell the lies should be condemned, and called just
what they are.-a You are a scam artists if you have directed a stupid >>>> bait and switch scam for the last two decades, and you are an
IDiotic rube if you want to keep believing the guys putting out the
bait. The ID perps have never produced any viable ID science, ever.
Just put up a single example.-a Why isn't it important to you that
they have lied to you for decades?-a They obviously do not have any
that is worth teaching in the public schools.-a Their obfuscation and >>>> denial switch scam that they try to sell the rubes instead is just
the same obfuscation and denial stupidity that Duane Gish would load
into his Gish gallop decades before the ID scam unit existed.-a I put >>>> up the post where Wells' Icons of Evolution that is recommended to
be used to teach the switch scam just stole all the Icons from the
Gish. Gish would routinely put the 10 Icons into his Gish gallop in
order to drown his opponents in so much obfuscation and denial that
they could not address it all.-a It was all determined to not be any
thing that supported Biblical creationism by the Supreme Court.
- He does not present as calm, reflective, or proportionate.
Not calm, but correct and the AI is wrong about reflective, because
both sides have been considered for decades, and you know that to be
true. Proportionate?-a Your lies about Meyer required that you
understand just how wrong you were.-a You can no longer claim willful >>>> ignorance.-a How can you have posted on TO for decades and not
understood what a scam artist Meyer has always been?-a The evidence
that I provided needed to be decades old to what is being done
currently because Meyer is still directing the stupid bait and
switch scam to this day.-a You no longer have the excuse not to
understand that.-a What else has Meyer's scam unit done with ID
besides use it as bait for the last 2 decades?-a Zero scientific
progress.-a No use of ID to build any research program or produce any >>>> valid research that supports the notion.-a Sternberg joined the ID
scam after Dover and spent around 7 years developing his whale
fossil gap denial that cannot be considered to be any type of
scientific evidence for the ID scam.-a Behe destroyed Sternberg's
argument about as soon as he completed it by noting that whale
evolution was just the type of evolution expected to be due to
Darwinian mechanism, but Behe tried to fool the rubes by calling it
"devolution", and claimed that it was a bad form of evolution.
Those are examples of the ID science after Dover.-a The ISCID pretty
much died after the bait and switch started to go down.-a No ID
science was ever produced by the ISCID.-a The ID perps have only
claimed to be doing research, but what have they ever produced that
supports the ID scam and has added to our understanding of nature?
Just because a lot of evidence has been put forward to counter
simple one liner lies, does not change the fact that they were lies,
and at the very least you were incorrect, but you should not have
been incorrect. It demonstrated willful ignorance on your part.-a You >>>> have lived through the ID scam.-a You started posting to TO not long
after ID had come to TO as something that the creationist wanted to
teach in the public schools. -a-aYou witnessed what happened.-a You
have no excuse.
Ron Okimoto
On Sat, 11 Apr 2026 18:49:14 -0500, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>
wrote:
[rCa]
Harran knows that the Biblical interpretations are wrong, he
just wants it to be due to faulty human interpretation instead of faulty
authorship.
Harran is adopting the exact same approach as mainstream Christianity
has done for 2000 years. Biblical literalism is a relatively new kid
on the block, developed in the late 19th/early 20th century, by
American evangelicals and fundamentalists - you should really target
your ire towards gullible USians.
On 13/04/2026 12:18 pm, Mark Isaak wrote:
On 4/11/26 5:35 AM, MarkE wrote:
On 10/04/2026 6:19 pm, Kerr-Mudd, John wrote:
[...]Have you not read anything RonO has said? ID is a scam to fool rubes.
He's warning readers: Don't be scammed.
PS you never have an answer to the statement that the god you are
looking for in the gaps of science cannot be biblical.
It appears to me you have little interest in open-minded and
effortful engagement, at least in response to my posts. That's okay,
we all have different reasons for being here. But that being the
case, I choose to invest my efforts elsewhere.
I don't believe you have ever engaged in serious discussion of
intelligent design yourself.-a In particular, you need to explain,
first, if life is designed, why it looks so unambiguously different
from products of design.-a Second, you should take a shot of trying to
explain how intelligent design can be reconciled with Christianity. Up
to this point, from what I've seen (granted, I don't often read posts
where I have to scroll down six pages to get to any original text),
you have never engaged with the scientific and theological problems
with intelligent design.
1. I'm not a defender of ID as a movement, and at times here I've specifically criticised it. However, I do argue for an intelligent
designer whose actions are detectable through science, and therefore critically draw on the work of ID to that end.
On 4/13/2026 3:41 PM, MarkE wrote:
On 14/04/2026 12:34 am, RonO wrote:
On 4/12/2026 11:37 PM, MarkE wrote:
On 13/04/2026 3:29 am, RonO wrote:
<snip>
Ironically perhaps, I have similar energy to you in claiming that
science points to supernatural action and that rejection of this is
bad. Regardless, it seems that we will continue to see this very
differently. Therefore, I propose a truce: that we agree to leave
out ID and questions of biblical theology, and only discuss science
and its logical implications.
You are the one that admits that you have to lie to yourself about
reality in order to maintain your gap denial.-a Just claiming that the
gap denial points to supernatural action is stupid and dishonest when
you do not want the gap to be filled by any supernatural actions.
The god that fills your gap is not the one described in the Bible.
You have no Biblical reason to continue with lying to yourself about
the issue. You have to reconcile yourself with that fact before you
can worry about any evidence for supernatural action.-a It is why you
and the other IDiots ran from the Top Six or quit being IDiots.-a The
designer responsible for the Top Six gaps in the order in which they
must have occurred in this universe is not the designer described in
the Bible. None of you could deal honestly with that fact and still
remain to be IDiots.-a You are dishonest enough to keep pursuing the
denial even though it would demonstrate that your Biblical beliefs
are wrong.-a Why are you still anti-evolution?-a You won't be able to
deal with the designer that is responsible for the origin of life any
more than you can deal with the designer responsible for the
evolution of life on earth over billions of years.
The AI was just wrong about a lot of things about this discussion.
It was wrong because it does not take reality into account, and is
ignorant of what was being discussed.-a You have been wrong and
dishonest because of willful ignorance and lying to yourself about
the issue.
Ron Okimoto
As I said, it seems that we will continue to see this very
differently. Therefore, I propose a truce: that we agree to leave out
ID and questions of biblical theology, and only discuss science and
its logical implications.
Yes/no?
Nyikos would try this gambit once he had lied himself out.-a Nyikos had a limit for lying, and you seem to have some type of similar limit.-a Once Nyikos reached his limit he would have to run for a month or two to
recharge his lying meter, and then he would be back to lying about the
same things until the limit was again reached.
Reality is never going to change.-a You need to deal with the reality
that you, yourself demonstrated exists.-a Just because you can't deal honestly with reality is no reason to keep doing what you are doing. Why don't you see Kalk or Bill trying to continue to support the bogus ID
scam gap denial?
As long as you want to keep lying to yourself about reality, I do not
see any reason to not remind you of what you are doing.
You need to reconcile your religious beliefs with reality.-a There is absolutely no reason for you to continue to lie to yourself about the ID scam just to support religious beliefs that you know are not consistent
with reality.-a Your interpretation of the Bible is just wrong, and you
need to deal with that fact before continuing to want to be lied to by
the ID perps.-a Just take an ID perp like Denton as an example.-a Denton
has completely given up on any literal interpretation of the Bible.-a He
has a deistic view that some designer created everything with the Big
Bang and it all unfolded into what we have today.-a He claims that all
the creationists that thought that his first book was anti-evolution misinterpreted the book.-a Denton believes that his designer created everything in the Big Bang so that life would evolve on a planet like earth.-a That is what he has come to believe.-a In his second book he claimed that evolution was a fact of nature in the forward to the book.
None of the other ID perps liked Denton's deistic notions expressed in
that book, and Denton quit the ID scam, and didn't return until after
the failure of the ID scam in Dover.-a Denton continued to express his deistic notions about his designer in the books that he has published
since his return, but the other ID perps just ignore the junk.-a Pretty
much all you ever hear from the other ID perps is support for his first book, a book that Denton no longer supports.-a Behe and Phillip Johnson
have claimed that Denton's first book heavily influenced their thinking
on the subject.-a That should be a laugher for anyone that knows what
Denton claims about that book.
Ron Okimoto
On 4/12/26 7:51 PM, MarkE wrote:
On 13/04/2026 12:18 pm, Mark Isaak wrote:
On 4/11/26 5:35 AM, MarkE wrote:
On 10/04/2026 6:19 pm, Kerr-Mudd, John wrote:
[...]Have you not read anything RonO has said? ID is a scam to fool rubes. >>>>> He's warning readers: Don't be scammed.
PS you never have an answer to the statement that the god you are
looking for in the gaps of science cannot be biblical.
It appears to me you have little interest in open-minded and
effortful engagement, at least in response to my posts. That's okay,
we all have different reasons for being here. But that being the
case, I choose to invest my efforts elsewhere.
I don't believe you have ever engaged in serious discussion of
intelligent design yourself.-a In particular, you need to explain,
first, if life is designed, why it looks so unambiguously different
from products of design.-a Second, you should take a shot of trying to
explain how intelligent design can be reconciled with Christianity.
Up to this point, from what I've seen (granted, I don't often read
posts where I have to scroll down six pages to get to any original
text), you have never engaged with the scientific and theological
problems with intelligent design.
1. I'm not a defender of ID as a movement, and at times here I've
specifically criticised it. However, I do argue for an intelligent
designer whose actions are detectable through science, and therefore
critically draw on the work of ID to that end.
Except the science of design says that, if life is intelligently
designed, then there were multiple designers, and some of them were decidedly inimical to humans. I think you don't like that conclusion, so
you reject serious engagement with intelligent design, limiting yourself
to the lip-service creationists give it.
On 14/04/2026 10:00 am, RonO wrote:
On 4/13/2026 3:41 PM, MarkE wrote:
On 14/04/2026 12:34 am, RonO wrote:
On 4/12/2026 11:37 PM, MarkE wrote:
On 13/04/2026 3:29 am, RonO wrote:
<snip>
Ironically perhaps, I have similar energy to you in claiming that
science points to supernatural action and that rejection of this is >>>>> bad. Regardless, it seems that we will continue to see this very
differently. Therefore, I propose a truce: that we agree to leave
out ID and questions of biblical theology, and only discuss science >>>>> and its logical implications.
You are the one that admits that you have to lie to yourself about
reality in order to maintain your gap denial.-a Just claiming that
the gap denial points to supernatural action is stupid and dishonest
when you do not want the gap to be filled by any supernatural
actions. The god that fills your gap is not the one described in the
Bible. You have no Biblical reason to continue with lying to
yourself about the issue. You have to reconcile yourself with that
fact before you can worry about any evidence for supernatural
action.-a It is why you and the other IDiots ran from the Top Six or
quit being IDiots.-a The designer responsible for the Top Six gaps in >>>> the order in which they must have occurred in this universe is not
the designer described in the Bible. None of you could deal honestly
with that fact and still remain to be IDiots.-a You are dishonest
enough to keep pursuing the denial even though it would demonstrate
that your Biblical beliefs are wrong.-a Why are you still anti-
evolution?-a You won't be able to deal with the designer that is
responsible for the origin of life any more than you can deal with
the designer responsible for the evolution of life on earth over
billions of years.
The AI was just wrong about a lot of things about this discussion.
It was wrong because it does not take reality into account, and is
ignorant of what was being discussed.-a You have been wrong and
dishonest because of willful ignorance and lying to yourself about
the issue.
Ron Okimoto
As I said, it seems that we will continue to see this very
differently. Therefore, I propose a truce: that we agree to leave out
ID and questions of biblical theology, and only discuss science and
its logical implications.
Yes/no?
Nyikos would try this gambit once he had lied himself out.-a Nyikos had
a limit for lying, and you seem to have some type of similar limit.
Once Nyikos reached his limit he would have to run for a month or two
to recharge his lying meter, and then he would be back to lying about
the same things until the limit was again reached.
Reality is never going to change.-a You need to deal with the reality
that you, yourself demonstrated exists.-a Just because you can't deal
honestly with reality is no reason to keep doing what you are doing.
Why don't you see Kalk or Bill trying to continue to support the bogus
ID scam gap denial?
As long as you want to keep lying to yourself about reality, I do not
see any reason to not remind you of what you are doing.
You need to reconcile your religious beliefs with reality.-a There is
absolutely no reason for you to continue to lie to yourself about the
ID scam just to support religious beliefs that you know are not
consistent with reality.-a Your interpretation of the Bible is just
wrong, and you need to deal with that fact before continuing to want
to be lied to by the ID perps.-a Just take an ID perp like Denton as an
example.-a Denton has completely given up on any literal interpretation
of the Bible.-a He has a deistic view that some designer created
everything with the Big Bang and it all unfolded into what we have
today.-a He claims that all the creationists that thought that his
first book was anti-evolution misinterpreted the book.-a Denton
believes that his designer created everything in the Big Bang so that
life would evolve on a planet like earth.-a That is what he has come to
believe.-a In his second book he claimed that evolution was a fact of
nature in the forward to the book. None of the other ID perps liked
Denton's deistic notions expressed in that book, and Denton quit the
ID scam, and didn't return until after the failure of the ID scam in
Dover.-a Denton continued to express his deistic notions about his
designer in the books that he has published since his return, but the
other ID perps just ignore the junk.-a Pretty much all you ever hear
from the other ID perps is support for his first book, a book that
Denton no longer supports.-a Behe and Phillip Johnson have claimed that
Denton's first book heavily influenced their thinking on the subject.
That should be a laugher for anyone that knows what Denton claims
about that book.
Ron Okimoto
So that's a no from you.
On 4/13/26 4:14 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Sat, 11 Apr 2026 18:49:14 -0500, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>
wrote:
[rCa]
Harran knows that the Biblical interpretations are wrong, he
just wants it to be due to faulty human interpretation instead of faulty >>> authorship.
Harran is adopting the exact same approach as mainstream Christianity
has done for 2000 years. Biblical literalism is a relatively new kid
on the block, developed in the late 19th/early 20th century, by
American evangelicals and fundamentalists - you should really target
your ire towards gullible USians.
That's an overstatement. Geologists in the 18th century were trying to interpret their observations in terms of a global flood. Maybe the flood they envisioned wasn't a word-for-word match with Genesis, but it was a
far cry from gradualism.
On 4/13/26 4:14 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Sat, 11 Apr 2026 18:49:14 -0500, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>
wrote:
[rCa]
Harran knows that the Biblical interpretations are wrong, he
just wants it to be due to faulty human interpretation instead of faulty >>> authorship.
Harran is adopting the exact same approach as mainstream Christianity
has done for 2000 years. Biblical literalism is a relatively new kid
on the block, developed in the late 19th/early 20th century, by
American evangelicals and fundamentalists - you should really target
your ire towards gullible USians.
That's an overstatement. Geologists in the 18th century were trying to interpret their observations in terms of a global flood. Maybe the flood they envisioned wasn't a word-for-word match with Genesis, but it was a
far cry from gradualism.
On 4/13/26 4:14 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Sat, 11 Apr 2026 18:49:14 -0500, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>
wrote:
[rCa]
Harran knows that the Biblical interpretations are wrong, he
just wants it to be due to faulty human interpretation instead of faulty >>> authorship.
Harran is adopting the exact same approach as mainstream Christianity
has done for 2000 years. Biblical literalism is a relatively new kid
on the block, developed in the late 19th/early 20th century, by
American evangelicals and fundamentalists - you should really target
your ire towards gullible USians.
That's an overstatement. Geologists in the 18th century were trying to >interpret their observations in terms of a global flood. Maybe the flood >they envisioned wasn't a word-for-word match with Genesis, but it was a
far cry from gradualism.
Nyikos would try this gambit once he had lied himself out. Nyikos had a >limit for lying, and you seem to have some type of similar limit. Once >Nyikos reached his limit he would have to run for a month or two to
recharge his lying meter, and then he would be back to lying about the
same things until the limit was again reached.
Reality is never going to change. You need to deal with the reality
that you, yourself demonstrated exists. Just because you can't deal >honestly with reality is no reason to keep doing what you are doing.
Why don't you see Kalk or Bill trying to continue to support the bogus
ID scam gap denial?
As long as you want to keep lying to yourself about reality, I do not
see any reason to not remind you of what you are doing.
On Mon, 13 Apr 2026 18:32:13 -0700, Mark Isaak <specimenNOSPAM@curioustaxon.omy.net> wrote:
On 4/13/26 4:14 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Sat, 11 Apr 2026 18:49:14 -0500, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>
wrote:
[rCa]
Harran knows that the Biblical interpretations are wrong, he
just wants it to be due to faulty human interpretation instead of faulty >>>> authorship.
Harran is adopting the exact same approach as mainstream Christianity
has done for 2000 years. Biblical literalism is a relatively new kid
on the block, developed in the late 19th/early 20th century, by
American evangelicals and fundamentalists - you should really target
your ire towards gullible USians.
That's an overstatement. Geologists in the 18th century were trying to
interpret their observations in terms of a global flood. Maybe the flood
they envisioned wasn't a word-for-word match with Genesis, but it was a
far cry from gradualism.
Maybe I've got this wrong, but I don't think there were any
significant religious issues involved at that stage, it was just
scientists doing what scientists do - trying to figure things out. The religious opposition in the form of fundamentalism came about later as
a reaction against the geologists' findings along with other
scientific developments like Darwin's theory and contemporaneous
processes like higher criticism being applied to the Bible.
On Mon, 13 Apr 2026 19:00:03 -0500, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>
wrote:
[...]
Nyikos would try this gambit once he had lied himself out. Nyikos had a >limit for lying, and you seem to have some type of similar limit. Once >Nyikos reached his limit he would have to run for a month or two to >recharge his lying meter, and then he would be back to lying about the >same things until the limit was again reached.
Reality is never going to change. You need to deal with the reality
that you, yourself demonstrated exists. Just because you can't deal >honestly with reality is no reason to keep doing what you are doing.
Why don't you see Kalk or Bill trying to continue to support the bogus
ID scam gap denial?
As long as you want to keep lying to yourself about reality, I do not
see any reason to not remind you of what you are doing.
Mark - you really should pay attention to this. You are getting a free
lesson in how to keep repeating lies and denying reality from TO's
current top expert at it.
[big snip]
On Wed, 15 Apr 2026 16:33:13 +0100
Martin Harran <martinharran@gmail.com> wrote:
On Mon, 13 Apr 2026 19:00:03 -0500, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>No one is going to convince an opponent by stating that "they are lying". >and probably not by constant repetition of the same arguments (no matter
wrote:
[...]
Nyikos would try this gambit once he had lied himself out. Nyikos had a >> >limit for lying, and you seem to have some type of similar limit. Once
Nyikos reached his limit he would have to run for a month or two to
recharge his lying meter, and then he would be back to lying about the
same things until the limit was again reached.
Reality is never going to change. You need to deal with the reality
that you, yourself demonstrated exists. Just because you can't deal
honestly with reality is no reason to keep doing what you are doing.
Why don't you see Kalk or Bill trying to continue to support the bogus
ID scam gap denial?
As long as you want to keep lying to yourself about reality, I do not
see any reason to not remind you of what you are doing.
Mark - you really should pay attention to this. You are getting a free
lesson in how to keep repeating lies and denying reality from TO's
current top expert at it.
[big snip]
how valid) that failed to get through the first 50 times.
Anyway, my god can make life happen in half the time of your god - yah boo >sucks.
On 4/15/26 12:36 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Mon, 13 Apr 2026 18:32:13 -0700, Mark IsaakLet us recall Buffon again, who was censured by the faculty of the
<specimenNOSPAM@curioustaxon.omy.net> wrote:
On 4/13/26 4:14 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Sat, 11 Apr 2026 18:49:14 -0500, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>
wrote:
[rCa]
Harran knows that the Biblical interpretations are wrong, he
just wants it to be due to faulty human interpretation instead of faulty >>>>> authorship.
Harran is adopting the exact same approach as mainstream Christianity
has done for 2000 years. Biblical literalism is a relatively new kid
on the block, developed in the late 19th/early 20th century, by
American evangelicals and fundamentalists - you should really target
your ire towards gullible USians.
That's an overstatement. Geologists in the 18th century were trying to
interpret their observations in terms of a global flood. Maybe the flood >>> they envisioned wasn't a word-for-word match with Genesis, but it was a
far cry from gradualism.
Maybe I've got this wrong, but I don't think there were any
significant religious issues involved at that stage, it was just
scientists doing what scientists do - trying to figure things out. The
religious opposition in the form of fundamentalism came about later as
a reaction against the geologists' findings along with other
scientific developments like Darwin's theory and contemporaneous
processes like higher criticism being applied to the Bible.
Sorbonne for claiming, among other things, that the earth might be as
much as 100,000 years old. YEC is as old as or older than the science of >geology.
On Wed, 15 Apr 2026 16:59:56 +0100, "Kerr-Mudd, John"
<admin@127.0.0.1> wrote:
On Wed, 15 Apr 2026 16:33:13 +0100
Martin Harran <martinharran@gmail.com> wrote:
On Mon, 13 Apr 2026 19:00:03 -0500, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>No one is going to convince an opponent by stating that "they are lying". >and probably not by constant repetition of the same arguments (no matter >how valid) that failed to get through the first 50 times.
wrote:
[...]
Nyikos would try this gambit once he had lied himself out. Nyikos had a >> >limit for lying, and you seem to have some type of similar limit. Once >> >Nyikos reached his limit he would have to run for a month or two to
recharge his lying meter, and then he would be back to lying about the >> >same things until the limit was again reached.
Reality is never going to change. You need to deal with the reality
that you, yourself demonstrated exists. Just because you can't deal
honestly with reality is no reason to keep doing what you are doing.
Why don't you see Kalk or Bill trying to continue to support the bogus >> >ID scam gap denial?
As long as you want to keep lying to yourself about reality, I do not
see any reason to not remind you of what you are doing.
Mark - you really should pay attention to this. You are getting a free
lesson in how to keep repeating lies and denying reality from TO's
current top expert at it.
[big snip]
Tell that to RonO, he's the one who keeps calling everyone who
disagrees with him a liar.
Anyway, my god can make life happen in half the time of your god - yah boo >sucks.
On Wed, 15 Apr 2026 08:39:07 -0700, John Harshman
<john.harshman@gmail.com> wrote:
On 4/15/26 12:36 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Mon, 13 Apr 2026 18:32:13 -0700, Mark IsaakLet us recall Buffon again, who was censured by the faculty of the
<specimenNOSPAM@curioustaxon.omy.net> wrote:
On 4/13/26 4:14 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Sat, 11 Apr 2026 18:49:14 -0500, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>
wrote:
[rCa]
Harran knows that the Biblical interpretations are wrong, he
just wants it to be due to faulty human interpretation instead of faulty >>>>>> authorship.
Harran is adopting the exact same approach as mainstream Christianity >>>>> has done for 2000 years. Biblical literalism is a relatively new kid >>>>> on the block, developed in the late 19th/early 20th century, by
American evangelicals and fundamentalists - you should really target >>>>> your ire towards gullible USians.
That's an overstatement. Geologists in the 18th century were trying to >>>> interpret their observations in terms of a global flood. Maybe the flood >>>> they envisioned wasn't a word-for-word match with Genesis, but it was a >>>> far cry from gradualism.
Maybe I've got this wrong, but I don't think there were any
significant religious issues involved at that stage, it was just
scientists doing what scientists do - trying to figure things out. The
religious opposition in the form of fundamentalism came about later as
a reaction against the geologists' findings along with other
scientific developments like Darwin's theory and contemporaneous
processes like higher criticism being applied to the Bible.
Sorbonne for claiming, among other things, that the earth might be as
much as 100,000 years old. YEC is as old as or older than the science of
geology.
John, you really need to learn to do a wee bit of research before
taking a comment in Wikipedia at face value.
https://bedejournal.blogspot.com/2009/01/comte-de-buffon-and-sorbonne.html
<quote>
Later on, in the late 19th century, the story of Buffon and the
Sorbonne was used by Dickinson White in his 'History of the Conflict
between Religion and Science' ( and as a favourite anecdote in the introductions of biology textbooks) ; although as we have seen, the
Buffon retraction of 1751 was prompted by the rabble rousing
Jansensists. The Sorbonne was far from hostile and actually worked to
protect Buffon from criticism. Eventually in 1779 the Sorbonne and
Buffon became involved in a petty squabble but there was no formal condemnation and the faculty's low-key protest fell on deaf ears.
Rather than some sinister suppression of science by religion, the
activities of Buffon and the religious groups in 18th century France
merely displayed the factionalism, squabbling and double dealing we
are all familiar with. When history is co-opted for other agendas,
these subtleties tend to be lost.
</quote>
I suggest you read the full article before mouthing off any further
about Buffon and the Church.
On Wed, 15 Apr 2026 16:59:56 +0100, "Kerr-Mudd, John"
<admin@127.0.0.1> wrote:
On Wed, 15 Apr 2026 16:33:13 +0100
Martin Harran <martinharran@gmail.com> wrote:
On Mon, 13 Apr 2026 19:00:03 -0500, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>No one is going to convince an opponent by stating that "they are lying".
wrote:
[...]
Nyikos would try this gambit once he had lied himself out. Nyikos had a >>>> limit for lying, and you seem to have some type of similar limit. Once >>>> Nyikos reached his limit he would have to run for a month or two to
recharge his lying meter, and then he would be back to lying about the >>>> same things until the limit was again reached.
Reality is never going to change. You need to deal with the reality
that you, yourself demonstrated exists. Just because you can't deal
honestly with reality is no reason to keep doing what you are doing.
Why don't you see Kalk or Bill trying to continue to support the bogus >>>> ID scam gap denial?
As long as you want to keep lying to yourself about reality, I do not
see any reason to not remind you of what you are doing.
Mark - you really should pay attention to this. You are getting a free
lesson in how to keep repeating lies and denying reality from TO's
current top expert at it.
[big snip]
and probably not by constant repetition of the same arguments (no matter
how valid) that failed to get through the first 50 times.
Tell that to RonO, he's the one who keeps calling everyone who
disagrees with him a liar.
Anyway, my god can make life happen in half the time of your god - yah boo >> sucks.
Ron Okimoto
As I've discussed several times here before, from my own reading of
science and scripture I don't have a fully reconciled picture, and I acknowledge that this is not unimportant: on one hand, Christianity does
not regard the Bible as a science textbook, on the other, it does claim
to be grounded in historical reality. I've discussed and explored these questions at length in other contexts, but as I've previously stated, I choose to generally not discuss them here.
And whatever faults and failings ID may have (again, I recognise many of them), it continues press into areas that I have independently concluded justify scrutiny and challenge.
Regardless, you do not not seem able to accept even the possibility that
I may genuinely interpret the evidence for (say) OoL differently to you.
Let me ask you this question: when non-religious scientists expresses scepticism or doubt about OoL, how do you regard this?
On Mon, 13 Apr 2026 19:00:03 -0500, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>
wrote:
[...]
Nyikos would try this gambit once he had lied himself out. Nyikos had a
limit for lying, and you seem to have some type of similar limit. Once
Nyikos reached his limit he would have to run for a month or two to
recharge his lying meter, and then he would be back to lying about the
same things until the limit was again reached.
Reality is never going to change. You need to deal with the reality
that you, yourself demonstrated exists. Just because you can't deal
honestly with reality is no reason to keep doing what you are doing.
Why don't you see Kalk or Bill trying to continue to support the bogus
ID scam gap denial?
As long as you want to keep lying to yourself about reality, I do not
see any reason to not remind you of what you are doing.
Mark - you really should pay attention to this. You are getting a free
lesson in how to keep repeating lies and denying reality from TO's
current top expert at it.
[big snip]
On 16/04/2026 1:33 am, Martin Harran wrote:
On Mon, 13 Apr 2026 19:00:03 -0500, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>
wrote:
[...]
Nyikos would try this gambit once he had lied himself out.-a Nyikos had a >>> limit for lying, and you seem to have some type of similar limit.-a Once >>> Nyikos reached his limit he would have to run for a month or two to
recharge his lying meter, and then he would be back to lying about the
same things until the limit was again reached.
Reality is never going to change.-a You need to deal with the reality
that you, yourself demonstrated exists.-a Just because you can't deal
honestly with reality is no reason to keep doing what you are doing.
Why don't you see Kalk or Bill trying to continue to support the bogus
ID scam gap denial?
As long as you want to keep lying to yourself about reality, I do not
see any reason to not remind you of what you are doing.
Mark - you really should pay attention to this. You are getting a free
lesson in how to keep repeating lies and denying reality from TO's
current top expert at it.
[big snip]
Yes, noted.
On 4/11/2026 8:29 AM, MarkE wrote:
Ron Okimoto
I don't see any point in reading the Emperor anymore.-a He doesn't listen
to what you really say, and he falls back to his same old attacks.-a He interprets several things differently than it seems you and I do.-a He
can see nothing else.-a I see no further point in engaging with him whatsoever.
As I've discussed several times here before, from my own reading of
science and scripture I don't have a fully reconciled picture, and I
acknowledge that this is not unimportant: on one hand, Christianity
does not regard the Bible as a science textbook, on the other, it does
claim to be grounded in historical reality. I've discussed and
explored these questions at length in other contexts, but as I've
previously stated, I choose to generally not discuss them here.
And whatever faults and failings ID may have (again, I recognise many
of them), it continues press into areas that I have independently
concluded justify scrutiny and challenge.
Regardless, you do not not seem able to accept even the possibility
that I may genuinely interpret the evidence for (say) OoL differently
to you. Let me ask you this question: when non-religious scientists
expresses scepticism or doubt about OoL, how do you regard this?
If you haven't read it, I would suggest "Did God Use Evolution...Observations from a Scientist of Faith" by Dr. Werner Gitt.
It is a fairly quick read, and he does write a chapter on 'The
Consequences of Theistic Evolution' that explain the error in the ways
of people exactly like the Emperor.-a It might also help you in your understanding of things.-a It's a solid book.
On 4/11/2026 8:29 AM, MarkE wrote:
Ron Okimoto
I don't see any point in reading the Emperor anymore.-a He doesn't listen
to what you really say, and he falls back to his same old attacks.-a He interprets several things differently than it seems you and I do.-a He
can see nothing else.-a I see no further point in engaging with him whatsoever.
As I've discussed several times here before, from my own reading of
science and scripture I don't have a fully reconciled picture, and I
acknowledge that this is not unimportant: on one hand, Christianity
does not regard the Bible as a science textbook, on the other, it does
claim to be grounded in historical reality. I've discussed and
explored these questions at length in other contexts, but as I've
previously stated, I choose to generally not discuss them here.
And whatever faults and failings ID may have (again, I recognise many
of them), it continues press into areas that I have independently
concluded justify scrutiny and challenge.
Regardless, you do not not seem able to accept even the possibility
that I may genuinely interpret the evidence for (say) OoL differently
to you. Let me ask you this question: when non-religious scientists
expresses scepticism or doubt about OoL, how do you regard this?
If you haven't read it, I would suggest "Did God Use Evolution...Observations from a Scientist of Faith" by Dr. Werner Gitt.
It is a fairly quick read, and he does write a chapter on 'The
Consequences of Theistic Evolution' that explain the error in the ways
of people exactly like the Emperor.-a It might also help you in your understanding of things.-a It's a solid book.
On Wed, 15 Apr 2026 08:39:07 -0700, John Harshman
<john.harshman@gmail.com> wrote:
On 4/15/26 12:36 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Mon, 13 Apr 2026 18:32:13 -0700, Mark IsaakLet us recall Buffon again, who was censured by the faculty of the
<specimenNOSPAM@curioustaxon.omy.net> wrote:
On 4/13/26 4:14 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Sat, 11 Apr 2026 18:49:14 -0500, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>
wrote:
[rCa]
Harran knows that the Biblical interpretations are wrong, he
just wants it to be due to faulty human interpretation instead of faulty >>>>>> authorship.
Harran is adopting the exact same approach as mainstream Christianity >>>>> has done for 2000 years. Biblical literalism is a relatively new kid >>>>> on the block, developed in the late 19th/early 20th century, by
American evangelicals and fundamentalists - you should really target >>>>> your ire towards gullible USians.
That's an overstatement. Geologists in the 18th century were trying to >>>> interpret their observations in terms of a global flood. Maybe the flood >>>> they envisioned wasn't a word-for-word match with Genesis, but it was a >>>> far cry from gradualism.
Maybe I've got this wrong, but I don't think there were any
significant religious issues involved at that stage, it was just
scientists doing what scientists do - trying to figure things out. The
religious opposition in the form of fundamentalism came about later as
a reaction against the geologists' findings along with other
scientific developments like Darwin's theory and contemporaneous
processes like higher criticism being applied to the Bible.
Sorbonne for claiming, among other things, that the earth might be as
much as 100,000 years old. YEC is as old as or older than the science of
geology.
John, you really need to learn to do a wee bit of research before
taking a comment in Wikipedia at face value.
https://bedejournal.blogspot.com/2009/01/comte-de-buffon-and-sorbonne.html
<quote>
Later on, in the late 19th century, the story of Buffon and the
Sorbonne was used by Dickinson White in his 'History of the Conflict
between Religion and Science' ( and as a favourite anecdote in the introductions of biology textbooks) ; although as we have seen, the
Buffon retraction of 1751 was prompted by the rabble rousing
Jansensists. The Sorbonne was far from hostile and actually worked to
protect Buffon from criticism. Eventually in 1779 the Sorbonne and
Buffon became involved in a petty squabble but there was no formal condemnation and the faculty's low-key protest fell on deaf ears.
Rather than some sinister suppression of science by religion, the
activities of Buffon and the religious groups in 18th century France
merely displayed the factionalism, squabbling and double dealing we
are all familiar with. When history is co-opted for other agendas,
these subtleties tend to be lost.
</quote>
I suggest you read the full article before mouthing off any further
about Buffon and the Church.
On 4/15/26 10:02 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Wed, 15 Apr 2026 08:39:07 -0700, John Harshman
<john.harshman@gmail.com> wrote:
On 4/15/26 12:36 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Mon, 13 Apr 2026 18:32:13 -0700, Mark IsaakLet us recall Buffon again, who was censured by the faculty of the
<specimenNOSPAM@curioustaxon.omy.net> wrote:
On 4/13/26 4:14 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Sat, 11 Apr 2026 18:49:14 -0500, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>
wrote:
[rCa]
Harran knows that the Biblical interpretations are wrong, he
just wants it to be due to faulty human interpretation instead of faulty
authorship.
Harran is adopting the exact same approach as mainstream Christianity >>>>>> has done for 2000 years. Biblical literalism is a relatively new kid >>>>>> on the block, developed in the late 19th/early 20th century, by
American evangelicals and fundamentalists - you should really target >>>>>> your ire towards gullible USians.
That's an overstatement. Geologists in the 18th century were trying to >>>>> interpret their observations in terms of a global flood. Maybe the flood >>>>> they envisioned wasn't a word-for-word match with Genesis, but it was a >>>>> far cry from gradualism.
Maybe I've got this wrong, but I don't think there were any
significant religious issues involved at that stage, it was just
scientists doing what scientists do - trying to figure things out. The >>>> religious opposition in the form of fundamentalism came about later as >>>> a reaction against the geologists' findings along with other
scientific developments like Darwin's theory and contemporaneous
processes like higher criticism being applied to the Bible.
Sorbonne for claiming, among other things, that the earth might be as
much as 100,000 years old. YEC is as old as or older than the science of >>> geology.
John, you really need to learn to do a wee bit of research before
taking a comment in Wikipedia at face value.
A comment? It was the Wikipedia article on the subject. Usually, the >articles are accurate. If it wasn't in this case, OK.
But a question or two: Were the Jansenists in question on the Sorbonne >faculty? What exactly was the petty squabble of 1759 about?
And does it
matter for our purposes where the criticism came from as long as it
shows young-earth creationism to exist long before you claimed?
https://bedejournal.blogspot.com/2009/01/comte-de-buffon-and-sorbonne.html >>
<quote>
Later on, in the late 19th century, the story of Buffon and the
Sorbonne was used by Dickinson White in his 'History of the Conflict
between Religion and Science' ( and as a favourite anecdote in the
introductions of biology textbooks) ; although as we have seen, the
Buffon retraction of 1751 was prompted by the rabble rousing
Jansensists. The Sorbonne was far from hostile and actually worked to
protect Buffon from criticism. Eventually in 1779 the Sorbonne and
Buffon became involved in a petty squabble but there was no formal
condemnation and the faculty's low-key protest fell on deaf ears.
Rather than some sinister suppression of science by religion, the
activities of Buffon and the religious groups in 18th century France
merely displayed the factionalism, squabbling and double dealing we
are all familiar with. When history is co-opted for other agendas,
these subtleties tend to be lost.
</quote>
I suggest you read the full article before mouthing off any further
about Buffon and the Church.
"Mouthing off"?
On 15/04/2026 18:02, Martin Harran wrote:
On Wed, 15 Apr 2026 08:39:07 -0700, John Harshman
<john.harshman@gmail.com> wrote:
On 4/15/26 12:36 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Mon, 13 Apr 2026 18:32:13 -0700, Mark IsaakLet us recall Buffon again, who was censured by the faculty of the
<specimenNOSPAM@curioustaxon.omy.net> wrote:
On 4/13/26 4:14 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Sat, 11 Apr 2026 18:49:14 -0500, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>
wrote:
[rCa]
Harran knows that the Biblical interpretations are wrong, he
just wants it to be due to faulty human interpretation instead of faulty
authorship.
Harran is adopting the exact same approach as mainstream Christianity >>>>>> has done for 2000 years. Biblical literalism is a relatively new kid >>>>>> on the block, developed in the late 19th/early 20th century, by
American evangelicals and fundamentalists - you should really target >>>>>> your ire towards gullible USians.
That's an overstatement. Geologists in the 18th century were trying to >>>>> interpret their observations in terms of a global flood. Maybe the flood >>>>> they envisioned wasn't a word-for-word match with Genesis, but it was a >>>>> far cry from gradualism.
Maybe I've got this wrong, but I don't think there were any
significant religious issues involved at that stage, it was just
scientists doing what scientists do - trying to figure things out. The >>>> religious opposition in the form of fundamentalism came about later as >>>> a reaction against the geologists' findings along with other
scientific developments like Darwin's theory and contemporaneous
processes like higher criticism being applied to the Bible.
Sorbonne for claiming, among other things, that the earth might be as
much as 100,000 years old. YEC is as old as or older than the science of >>> geology.
John, you really need to learn to do a wee bit of research before
taking a comment in Wikipedia at face value.
https://bedejournal.blogspot.com/2009/01/comte-de-buffon-and-sorbonne.html >>
<quote>
Later on, in the late 19th century, the story of Buffon and the
Sorbonne was used by Dickinson White in his 'History of the Conflict
between Religion and Science' ( and as a favourite anecdote in the
introductions of biology textbooks) ; although as we have seen, the
Buffon retraction of 1751 was prompted by the rabble rousing
Jansensists. The Sorbonne was far from hostile and actually worked to
protect Buffon from criticism. Eventually in 1779 the Sorbonne and
Buffon became involved in a petty squabble but there was no formal
condemnation and the faculty's low-key protest fell on deaf ears.
Rather than some sinister suppression of science by religion, the
activities of Buffon and the religious groups in 18th century France
merely displayed the factionalism, squabbling and double dealing we
are all familiar with. When history is co-opted for other agendas,
these subtleties tend to be lost.
</quote>
I suggest you read the full article before mouthing off any further
about Buffon and the Church.
The issue at this point is not religious persecution, but a presumption
of Biblical literalism. For other examples
1) Bishop Usher's calculation of the age of the Earth.
2) James Hutton being accused of atheism - >https://rse.org.uk/resource/the-genius-of-time/
3) "While (Sedgwick) became increasingly Evangelical with age, he
strongly supported advances in geology against conservative churchmen.
At the September 1844 British Association for the Advancement of Science >meeting at York he achieved national celebrity for his reply defending >modern geology against an attack by the Dean of York, the Reverend
William Cockburn, who described it as unscriptural. The entire chapter
house of the cathedral refused to sit down with Sedgwick, and he was
opposed by conservative papers including The Times, but his courage was >hailed by the full spectrum of the liberal press, and the confrontation
was a key moment in the battle over relations between Scripture and >science." (WikiPedia)
On Thu, 2 Apr 2026 13:04:32 +1100, MarkE <me22over7@gmail.com> wrote:
On 2/04/2026 12:46 pm, RonO wrote:
[rCa]
the gaps were not Biblical and the god that
fills those gaps is not the god described in the Bible.
[rCa]
Ron, shoosh.
Ron posts some absolute rubbish about religion and religious
believers, but he is right on that specific point. I have repeatedly
asked you and other ID'ers to explain how you get from a God fiddling
about with atoms and molecules (AKA 'fine tuning') to the God that you
and I and most of them believe in, a God with whom we can have a
personal relationship. None of you have been able to offer any
suggestion. Until you deal with that, you are going to have problems
with believers like myself, never mind with scientists.
I imagine MarkE is uncomfortable with this
Ron posts some absolute rubbish about religion and religious
believers, but he is right on that specific point. I have repeatedly
asked you and other ID'ers to explain how you get from a God fiddling
about with atoms and molecules (AKA 'fine tuning') to the God that you
and I and most of them believe in, a God with whom we can have a
personal relationship. None of you have been able to offer any
suggestion. Until you deal with that, you are going to have problems
with believers like myself, never mind with scientists.
On 4/16/2026 6:29 AM, Kerr-Mudd, John wrote:
Ron posts some absolute rubbish about religion and religious
believers, but he is right on that specific point. I have repeatedly
asked you and other ID'ers to explain how you get from a God fiddling
about with atoms and molecules (AKA 'fine tuning') to the God that you
and I and most of them believe in, a God with whom we can have a
personal relationship. None of you have been able to offer any
suggestion. Until you deal with that, you are going to have problems
with believers like myself, never mind with scientists.
I imagine MarkE is uncomfortable with this
Speaking for myself, not at all.-a I fail to see the difficulty to be honest.-a For one thing, I don't think God was "fiddling" at the time of creation.-a Next, the two are completely unrelated.-a If one wants to understand how an individual feels he can have a personal relationship with God, that's one thing, though I don't see how it is relevant to origins.-a But in suggesting that an all-powerful creator would be difficult to have a personal relationship with does not make much sense to me.-a The opposite would be more appropriate, especially if that creator was the Christian God.
So, why don't you insert something interesting of your own for once, John.-a Give us your reasoning for responding to this instead of your usual modus operandi of just showing up to throw bombs.-a It's tiresome.
On 4/16/2026 6:29 AM, Kerr-Mudd, John wrote:
I imagine MarkE is uncomfortable with this
Ron posts some absolute rubbish about religion and religious
believers, but he is right on that specific point. I have repeatedly
asked you and other ID'ers to explain how you get from a God fiddling
about with atoms and molecules (AKA 'fine tuning') to the God that you
and I and most of them believe in, a God with whom we can have a
personal relationship. None of you have been able to offer any
suggestion. Until you deal with that, you are going to have problems
with believers like myself, never mind with scientists.
Speaking for myself, not at all. I fail to see the difficulty to be
honest. For one thing, I don't think God was "fiddling" at the time of >creation.
Next, the two are completely unrelated. If one wants to
understand how an individual feels he can have a personal relationship
with God, that's one thing, though I don't see how it is relevant to >origins.
But in suggesting that an all-powerful creator would be
difficult to have a personal relationship with does not make much sense
to me.
The opposite would be more appropriate, especially if that
creator was the Christian God.
So, why don't you insert something interesting of your own for once,
John. Give us your reasoning for responding to this instead of your
usual modus operandi of just showing up to throw bombs. It's tiresome.
On Wed, 15 Apr 2026 20:38:51 -0700, John Harshman
<john.harshman@gmail.com> wrote:
On 4/15/26 10:02 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Wed, 15 Apr 2026 08:39:07 -0700, John Harshman
<john.harshman@gmail.com> wrote:
On 4/15/26 12:36 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Mon, 13 Apr 2026 18:32:13 -0700, Mark IsaakLet us recall Buffon again, who was censured by the faculty of the
<specimenNOSPAM@curioustaxon.omy.net> wrote:
On 4/13/26 4:14 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Sat, 11 Apr 2026 18:49:14 -0500, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com> >>>>>>> wrote:
[rCa]
Harran knows that the Biblical interpretations are wrong, he
just wants it to be due to faulty human interpretation instead of faulty
authorship.
Harran is adopting the exact same approach as mainstream Christianity >>>>>>> has done for 2000 years. Biblical literalism is a relatively new kid >>>>>>> on the block, developed in the late 19th/early 20th century, by
American evangelicals and fundamentalists - you should really target >>>>>>> your ire towards gullible USians.
That's an overstatement. Geologists in the 18th century were trying to >>>>>> interpret their observations in terms of a global flood. Maybe the flood >>>>>> they envisioned wasn't a word-for-word match with Genesis, but it was a >>>>>> far cry from gradualism.
Maybe I've got this wrong, but I don't think there were any
significant religious issues involved at that stage, it was just
scientists doing what scientists do - trying to figure things out. The >>>>> religious opposition in the form of fundamentalism came about later as >>>>> a reaction against the geologists' findings along with other
scientific developments like Darwin's theory and contemporaneous
processes like higher criticism being applied to the Bible.
Sorbonne for claiming, among other things, that the earth might be as
much as 100,000 years old. YEC is as old as or older than the science of >>>> geology.
John, you really need to learn to do a wee bit of research before
taking a comment in Wikipedia at face value.
A comment? It was the Wikipedia article on the subject. Usually, the
articles are accurate. If it wasn't in this case, OK.
But a question or two: Were the Jansenists in question on the Sorbonne
faculty? What exactly was the petty squabble of 1759 about?
Sorry, not a subject of interest to me, you need to do your own
research.
And does it
matter for our purposes where the criticism came from as long as it
shows young-earth creationism to exist long before you claimed?
Except I made no claim whatsoever about how long young-earth
creationism has existed. Yet another example of you trying to change
what I said which is still preserved above.
https://bedejournal.blogspot.com/2009/01/comte-de-buffon-and-sorbonne.html >>>
<quote>
Later on, in the late 19th century, the story of Buffon and the
Sorbonne was used by Dickinson White in his 'History of the Conflict
between Religion and Science' ( and as a favourite anecdote in the
introductions of biology textbooks) ; although as we have seen, the
Buffon retraction of 1751 was prompted by the rabble rousing
Jansensists. The Sorbonne was far from hostile and actually worked to
protect Buffon from criticism. Eventually in 1779 the Sorbonne and
Buffon became involved in a petty squabble but there was no formal
condemnation and the faculty's low-key protest fell on deaf ears.
Rather than some sinister suppression of science by religion, the
activities of Buffon and the religious groups in 18th century France
merely displayed the factionalism, squabbling and double dealing we
are all familiar with. When history is co-opted for other agendas,
these subtleties tend to be lost.
</quote>
I suggest you read the full article before mouthing off any further
about Buffon and the Church.
"Mouthing off"?
You earlier tried to make Buffon and the Sorbonne out to be yet
another example of the Catholic Church trying to supress science.
On 16/04/2026 6:56 am, sticks wrote:
If you haven't read it, I would suggest "Did God Use
Evolution...Observations from a Scientist of Faith" by Dr. Werner Gitt.
It is a fairly quick read, and he does write a chapter on 'The
Consequences of Theistic Evolution' that explain the error in the ways
of people exactly like the Emperor. It might also help you in your
understanding of things. It's a solid book.
Thanks - got Kindle version for $10.
On Thu, 16 Apr 2026 12:59:28 +1000, MarkE <me22over7@gmail.com> wrote:
On 16/04/2026 6:56 am, sticks wrote:
[...]
If you haven't read it, I would suggest "Did God Use
Evolution...Observations from a Scientist of Faith" by Dr. Werner Gitt.
It is a fairly quick read, and he does write a chapter on 'The
Consequences of Theistic Evolution' that explain the error in the ways
of people exactly like the Emperor. It might also help you in your
understanding of things. It's a solid book.
Thanks - got Kindle version for $10.
Both of you - instead of just reading someone who agrees with your
existing opinions, why not read someone who challenges those opinions?
Not because those challenges will necessarily change your existing
opinions but because they may encourage you to think about your
existing opinions in a different, possibly deeper, way.
This book is also about the ideas of a "Scientist of Faith" who is not
just an accomplished scientist but also a highly regarded theologian.
A bit more expensive at $20 but worth every cent - I cannot recommend
it highly enough.
https://www.amazon.com/Teilhard-Chardins-Phenomenon-Man-Explained-ebook/dp/B09GS6499G/ref=sr_1_1
On 4/16/2026 6:29 AM, Kerr-Mudd, John wrote:
Ron posts some absolute rubbish about religion and religiousI imagine MarkE is uncomfortable with this
believers, but he is right on that specific point. I have repeatedly
asked you and other ID'ers to explain how you get from a God fiddling
about with atoms and molecules (AKA 'fine tuning') to the God that you
and I and most of them believe in, a God with whom we can have a
personal relationship. None of you have been able to offer any
suggestion. Until you deal with that, you are going to have problems
with believers like myself, never mind with scientists.
Speaking for myself, not at all. I fail to see the difficulty to be
honest. For one thing, I don't think God was "fiddling" at the time of creation. Next, the two are completely unrelated. If one wants to understand how an individual feels he can have a personal relationship
with God, that's one thing, though I don't see how it is relevant to origins. But in suggesting that an all-powerful creator would be
difficult to have a personal relationship with does not make much sense
to me. The opposite would be more appropriate, especially if that
creator was the Christian God.
So, why don't you insert something interesting of your own for once,
John. Give us your reasoning for responding to this instead of your
usual modus operandi of just showing up to throw bombs. It's tiresome.
If you haven't read it, I would suggest "Did God Use Evolution...Observations from a Scientist of Faith" by Dr. Werner Gitt.
It is a fairly quick read, and he does write a chapter on 'The
Consequences of Theistic Evolution' that explain the error in the ways
of people exactly like the Emperor.-a It might also help you in your understanding of things.-a It's a solid book.
On 4/16/26 2:12 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Wed, 15 Apr 2026 20:38:51 -0700, John Harshman
<john.harshman@gmail.com> wrote:
On 4/15/26 10:02 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Wed, 15 Apr 2026 08:39:07 -0700, John Harshman
<john.harshman@gmail.com> wrote:
On 4/15/26 12:36 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Mon, 13 Apr 2026 18:32:13 -0700, Mark IsaakLet us recall Buffon again, who was censured by the faculty of the
<specimenNOSPAM@curioustaxon.omy.net> wrote:
On 4/13/26 4:14 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Sat, 11 Apr 2026 18:49:14 -0500, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com> >>>>>>>> wrote:
[rCa]
Harran knows that the Biblical interpretations are wrong, he >>>>>>>>> just wants it to be due to faulty human interpretation instead of faulty
authorship.
Harran is adopting the exact same approach as mainstream Christianity >>>>>>>> has done for 2000 years. Biblical literalism is a relatively new kid >>>>>>>> on the block, developed in the late 19th/early 20th century, by >>>>>>>> American evangelicals and fundamentalists - you should really target >>>>>>>> your ire towards gullible USians.
That's an overstatement. Geologists in the 18th century were trying to >>>>>>> interpret their observations in terms of a global flood. Maybe the flood
they envisioned wasn't a word-for-word match with Genesis, but it was a >>>>>>> far cry from gradualism.
Maybe I've got this wrong, but I don't think there were any
significant religious issues involved at that stage, it was just
scientists doing what scientists do - trying to figure things out. The >>>>>> religious opposition in the form of fundamentalism came about later as >>>>>> a reaction against the geologists' findings along with other
scientific developments like Darwin's theory and contemporaneous
processes like higher criticism being applied to the Bible.
Sorbonne for claiming, among other things, that the earth might be as >>>>> much as 100,000 years old. YEC is as old as or older than the science of >>>>> geology.
John, you really need to learn to do a wee bit of research before
taking a comment in Wikipedia at face value.
A comment? It was the Wikipedia article on the subject. Usually, the
articles are accurate. If it wasn't in this case, OK.
But a question or two: Were the Jansenists in question on the Sorbonne
faculty? What exactly was the petty squabble of 1759 about?
Sorry, not a subject of interest to me, you need to do your own
research.
So you don't actually know whether your point was valid or not. Fine.
And does it
matter for our purposes where the criticism came from as long as it
shows young-earth creationism to exist long before you claimed?
Except I made no claim whatsoever about how long young-earth
creationism has existed. Yet another example of you trying to change
what I said which is still preserved above.
You claimed that young earth creationism (you used the term "biblical >literalism", but I don't see a significant difference) is a recent and >American phenomenon. If you meant something else by the term, it's odd, >since it was in response to a claim about young earth creationism.
https://bedejournal.blogspot.com/2009/01/comte-de-buffon-and-sorbonne.html >>>>
<quote>
Later on, in the late 19th century, the story of Buffon and the
Sorbonne was used by Dickinson White in his 'History of the Conflict
between Religion and Science' ( and as a favourite anecdote in the
introductions of biology textbooks) ; although as we have seen, the
Buffon retraction of 1751 was prompted by the rabble rousing
Jansensists. The Sorbonne was far from hostile and actually worked to
protect Buffon from criticism. Eventually in 1779 the Sorbonne and
Buffon became involved in a petty squabble but there was no formal
condemnation and the faculty's low-key protest fell on deaf ears.
Rather than some sinister suppression of science by religion, the
activities of Buffon and the religious groups in 18th century France
merely displayed the factionalism, squabbling and double dealing we
are all familiar with. When history is co-opted for other agendas,
these subtleties tend to be lost.
</quote>
I suggest you read the full article before mouthing off any further
about Buffon and the Church.
"Mouthing off"?
You earlier tried to make Buffon and the Sorbonne out to be yet
another example of the Catholic Church trying to supress science.
True. But that's not the current use. Anyway, it's "mouthing off" just a >gratuitously insulting way of describing my actions? Why go there?
On 4/15/2026 11:36 AM, Martin Harran wrote:[rCa]
On Wed, 15 Apr 2026 16:59:56 +0100, "Kerr-Mudd, John"
No one is going to convince an opponent by stating that "they are lying". >>> and probably not by constant repetition of the same arguments (no matter >>> how valid) that failed to get through the first 50 times.
Tell that to RonO, he's the one who keeps calling everyone who
disagrees with him a liar.
Who got caught lying and quote mining? You need to deal with reality,
and quit lying about it. Lying about me is just so stupid that it is
pretty much insane. You have always lied about the sources that you
could not deal honestly with. Who's sources have always come up short?
Look at what you are doing now. Is there any excuse for you not dealing >with your own stupid dishonest behavior?
On 4/16/2026 6:29 AM, Kerr-Mudd, John wrote:
I imagine MarkE is uncomfortable with this
Ron posts some absolute rubbish about religion and religious
believers, but he is right on that specific point. I have repeatedly
asked you and other ID'ers to explain how you get from a God fiddling
about with atoms and molecules (AKA 'fine tuning') to the God that you
and I and most of them believe in, a God with whom we can have a
personal relationship. None of you have been able to offer any
suggestion. Until you deal with that, you are going to have problems
with believers like myself, never mind with scientists.
Speaking for myself, not at all. I fail to see the difficulty to be
honest. For one thing, I don't think God was "fiddling" at the time of >creation.
Next, the two are completely unrelated.
If one wants to
understand how an individual feels he can have a personal relationship
with God, that's one thing, though I don't see how it is relevant to >origins. But in suggesting that an all-powerful creator would be
difficult to have a personal relationship with does not make much sense
to me. The opposite would be more appropriate, especially if that
creator was the Christian God.
So, why don't you insert something interesting of your own for once,
John. Give us your reasoning for responding to this instead of your
usual modus operandi of just showing up to throw bombs. It's tiresome.
On 4/17/2026 2:33 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Thu, 16 Apr 2026 12:59:28 +1000, MarkE <me22over7@gmail.com> wrote:
On 16/04/2026 6:56 am, sticks wrote:
[...]
If you haven't read it, I would suggest "Did God Use
Evolution...Observations from a Scientist of Faith" by Dr. Werner Gitt. >>>> It is a fairly quick read, and he does write a chapter on 'The
Consequences of Theistic Evolution' that explain the error in the ways >>>> of people exactly like the Emperor. It might also help you in your
understanding of things. It's a solid book.
Thanks - got Kindle version for $10.
Both of you - instead of just reading someone who agrees with your
existing opinions, why not read someone who challenges those opinions?
I don't "just" read agreeing books, Martin. Odd way to start a
suggestion, IMO. If you've been following Mark's recent posts you would >realize they are of research work done not by people of faith, but >evolutionists.
When I read things I know ahead of time I won't agree
with, it is written by more contemporary scientific authors so I can >understand what they believe and what their theories appear to give
evidence for. Sometimes it is a struggle to get through, and I can't
finish them in entirety. Point is, I am not against differing opinions
as you seem to suggest.
Not because those challenges will necessarily change your existing
opinions but because they may encourage you to think about your
existing opinions in a different, possibly deeper, way.
Deeper? Unlike the Emperor, I realize people interpret and accept
things differently than I do. What I don't do is demand they think the
way I do.
I don't care, to be honest.
You have a completely different
view of things than I do, but I have no intention of trying to change
your mind or attacking you for it.
This book is also about the ideas of a "Scientist of Faith" who is not
just an accomplished scientist but also a highly regarded theologian.
A bit more expensive at $20 but worth every cent - I cannot recommend
it highly enough.
https://www.amazon.com/Teilhard-Chardins-Phenomenon-Man-Explained-ebook/dp/B09GS6499G/ref=sr_1_1
As you know, I think little of Darwinian evolutionary theory. I realize >your faith says it's OK to embrace it. No problem. However, I have no >intention of wasting my time reading a book that embraces evolution into >faith and also has what I view a radical view of consciousness. Neither >will I spend time here discussing this book any further. If you wish
to, have at it.
I will be adding some thoughts to Mark shortly, but I gotta get to the
gym and mow the lawn before it rains.
On 4/15/2026 3:56 PM, sticks wrote:
If you haven't read it, I would suggest "Did God Use
Evolution...Observations from a Scientist of Faith" by Dr. Werner
Gitt. It is a fairly quick read, and he does write a chapter on 'The
Consequences of Theistic Evolution' that explain the error in the ways
of people exactly like the Emperor.-a It might also help you in your
understanding of things.-a It's a solid book.
This is getting too long for the other thing about Dr. Gitt's book I
wanted to comment on.-a I'll do that for you in another post
On Wed, 15 Apr 2026 14:31:27 -0500, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>
wrote:
On 4/15/2026 11:36 AM, Martin Harran wrote:[rCa]
On Wed, 15 Apr 2026 16:59:56 +0100, "Kerr-Mudd, John"
No one is going to convince an opponent by stating that "they are lying". >>>> and probably not by constant repetition of the same arguments (no matter >>>> how valid) that failed to get through the first 50 times.
Tell that to RonO, he's the one who keeps calling everyone who
disagrees with him a liar.
Who got caught lying and quote mining? You need to deal with reality,
and quit lying about it. Lying about me is just so stupid that it is
pretty much insane. You have always lied about the sources that you
could not deal honestly with. Who's sources have always come up short?
Look at what you are doing now. Is there any excuse for you not dealing
with your own stupid dishonest behavior?
The tiresomeness of you continually claiming that my sources were
caught lying and that I have been lying and quote mining is matched by
the tiresomeness of your inability to ever identify what lie my
sources were caught in, what lies I have told or where I have quote
mined.
[... more big snip ...]
On Thu, 16 Apr 2026 11:53:29 -0500, sticks <wolverine01@charter.net>
wrote:
On 4/16/2026 6:29 AM, Kerr-Mudd, John wrote:
I imagine MarkE is uncomfortable with this
Ron posts some absolute rubbish about religion and religious
believers, but he is right on that specific point. I have repeatedly
asked you and other ID'ers to explain how you get from a God fiddling
about with atoms and molecules (AKA 'fine tuning') to the God that you >>>> and I and most of them believe in, a God with whom we can have a
personal relationship. None of you have been able to offer any
suggestion. Until you deal with that, you are going to have problems
with believers like myself, never mind with scientists.
Speaking for myself, not at all. I fail to see the difficulty to be
honest. For one thing, I don't think God was "fiddling" at the time of
creation.
You have stated elsewhere how fine tuning is important to the
conclusions you have drawn about scientific claims on the origin of
life. Perhaps you don't like my word "fiddling" but you seem to be essentially saying that God directly created all those constants that
enable life to exist on this earth.
Next, the two are completely unrelated.
To me, the fact that there is only one God means that*every* aspect of
that God is interrelated. As part of my Christian faith, I have to
combine God in the Old Testament with Christ in the New Testament.
Similarly, if God created life by directly creating the constants in
fine tuning, then I have to somehow combine those two with the God I understand from the Bible.
Perhaps I am misunderstanding you here. Do you believe that God
directly created humans with no evolution from previous lifeforms?
On 4/18/2026 6:53 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Thu, 16 Apr 2026 11:53:29 -0500, sticks <wolverine01@charter.net>
wrote:
On 4/16/2026 6:29 AM, Kerr-Mudd, John wrote:
I imagine MarkE is uncomfortable with this
Ron posts some absolute rubbish about religion and religious
believers, but he is right on that specific point. I have repeatedly >>>>> asked you and other ID'ers to explain how you get from a God fiddling >>>>> about with atoms and molecules (AKA 'fine tuning') to the God that you >>>>> and I and most of them believe in, a God with whom we can have a
personal relationship. None of you have been able to offer any
suggestion. Until you deal with that, you are going to have problems >>>>> with believers like myself, never mind with scientists.
Speaking for myself, not at all.-a I fail to see the difficulty to be
honest.-a For one thing, I don't think God was "fiddling" at the time of >>> creation.
You have stated elsewhere how fine tuning is important to the
conclusions you have drawn about scientific claims on the origin of
life. Perhaps you don't like my word "fiddling" but you seem to be
essentially saying that God directly created all those constants that
enable life to exist on this earth.
Yep, being all powerful surely gave him the ability to do this
Next, the two are completely unrelated.
To me, the fact that there is only one God means that*every* aspect of
that God is interrelated. As part of my Christian faith, I have to
combine God in the Old Testament with Christ in the New Testament.
Similarly, if God created life by directly creating the constants in
fine tuning, then I have to somehow combine those two with the God I
understand from the Bible.
Perhaps I am misunderstanding you here. Do you believe that God
directly created humans with no evolution from previous lifeforms?
Abraham, Jacob, Moses and Jesus himself affirm this.-a I take their word for it.
On 4/16/2026 6:29 AM, Kerr-Mudd, John wrote:
I imagine MarkE is uncomfortable with this
Ron posts some absolute rubbish about religion and religious
believers, but he is right on that specific point. I have repeatedly
asked you and other ID'ers to explain how you get from a God fiddling
about with atoms and molecules (AKA 'fine tuning') to the God that you
and I and most of them believe in, a God with whom we can have a
personal relationship. None of you have been able to offer any
suggestion. Until you deal with that, you are going to have problems
with believers like myself, never mind with scientists.
Speaking for myself, not at all.-a I fail to see the difficulty to be honest.-a For one thing, I don't think God was "fiddling" at the time of creation.-a Next, the two are completely unrelated.-a If one wants to understand how an individual feels he can have a personal relationship
with God, that's one thing, though I don't see how it is relevant to origins.-a But in suggesting that an all-powerful creator would be
difficult to have a personal relationship with does not make much sense
to me.-a The opposite would be more appropriate, especially if that
creator was the Christian God.
On Mon, 13 Apr 2026 18:32:13 -0700, Mark Isaak <specimenNOSPAM@curioustaxon.omy.net> wrote:
On 4/13/26 4:14 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Sat, 11 Apr 2026 18:49:14 -0500, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>
wrote:
[rCa]
Harran knows that the Biblical interpretations are wrong, he
just wants it to be due to faulty human interpretation instead of faulty >>>> authorship.
Harran is adopting the exact same approach as mainstream Christianity
has done for 2000 years. Biblical literalism is a relatively new kid
on the block, developed in the late 19th/early 20th century, by
American evangelicals and fundamentalists - you should really target
your ire towards gullible USians.
That's an overstatement. Geologists in the 18th century were trying to
interpret their observations in terms of a global flood. Maybe the flood
they envisioned wasn't a word-for-word match with Genesis, but it was a
far cry from gradualism.
Maybe I've got this wrong, but I don't think there were any
significant religious issues involved at that stage, it was just
scientists doing what scientists do - trying to figure things out. The religious opposition in the form of fundamentalism came about later as
a reaction against the geologists' findings along with other
scientific developments like Darwin's theory and contemporaneous
processes like higher criticism being applied to the Bible.
On Wed, 15 Apr 2026 18:41:59 +0100, Ernest Major
<{$to$}@meden.demon.co.uk> wrote:
On 15/04/2026 18:02, Martin Harran wrote:
On Wed, 15 Apr 2026 08:39:07 -0700, John Harshman
<john.harshman@gmail.com> wrote:
On 4/15/26 12:36 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Mon, 13 Apr 2026 18:32:13 -0700, Mark IsaakLet us recall Buffon again, who was censured by the faculty of the
<specimenNOSPAM@curioustaxon.omy.net> wrote:
On 4/13/26 4:14 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Sat, 11 Apr 2026 18:49:14 -0500, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com> >>>>>>> wrote:
[rCa]
Harran knows that the Biblical interpretations are wrong, he
just wants it to be due to faulty human interpretation instead of faulty
authorship.
Harran is adopting the exact same approach as mainstream Christianity >>>>>>> has done for 2000 years. Biblical literalism is a relatively new kid >>>>>>> on the block, developed in the late 19th/early 20th century, by
American evangelicals and fundamentalists - you should really target >>>>>>> your ire towards gullible USians.
That's an overstatement. Geologists in the 18th century were trying to >>>>>> interpret their observations in terms of a global flood. Maybe the flood >>>>>> they envisioned wasn't a word-for-word match with Genesis, but it was a >>>>>> far cry from gradualism.
Maybe I've got this wrong, but I don't think there were any
significant religious issues involved at that stage, it was just
scientists doing what scientists do - trying to figure things out. The >>>>> religious opposition in the form of fundamentalism came about later as >>>>> a reaction against the geologists' findings along with other
scientific developments like Darwin's theory and contemporaneous
processes like higher criticism being applied to the Bible.
Sorbonne for claiming, among other things, that the earth might be as
much as 100,000 years old. YEC is as old as or older than the science of >>>> geology.
John, you really need to learn to do a wee bit of research before
taking a comment in Wikipedia at face value.
https://bedejournal.blogspot.com/2009/01/comte-de-buffon-and-sorbonne.html >>>
<quote>
Later on, in the late 19th century, the story of Buffon and the
Sorbonne was used by Dickinson White in his 'History of the Conflict
between Religion and Science' ( and as a favourite anecdote in the
introductions of biology textbooks) ; although as we have seen, the
Buffon retraction of 1751 was prompted by the rabble rousing
Jansensists. The Sorbonne was far from hostile and actually worked to
protect Buffon from criticism. Eventually in 1779 the Sorbonne and
Buffon became involved in a petty squabble but there was no formal
condemnation and the faculty's low-key protest fell on deaf ears.
Rather than some sinister suppression of science by religion, the
activities of Buffon and the religious groups in 18th century France
merely displayed the factionalism, squabbling and double dealing we
are all familiar with. When history is co-opted for other agendas,
these subtleties tend to be lost.
</quote>
I suggest you read the full article before mouthing off any further
about Buffon and the Church.
The issue at this point is not religious persecution, but a presumption
of Biblical literalism. For other examples
No, it was about Biblical Literalism not having been part of
mainstream Christianity for the last 2000 years. [...]
On 4/18/2026 7:04 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Fri, 17 Apr 2026 09:30:28 -0500, sticks <wolverine01@charter.net>
wrote:
On 4/17/2026 2:33 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Thu, 16 Apr 2026 12:59:28 +1000, MarkE <me22over7@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>
On 16/04/2026 6:56 am, sticks wrote:
[...]
If you haven't read it, I would suggest "Did God Use
Evolution...Observations from a Scientist of Faith" by Dr. Werner >>>>>> Gitt.
It is a fairly quick read, and he does write a chapter on 'The
Consequences of Theistic Evolution' that explain the error in the >>>>>> ways
of people exactly like the Emperor.-a It might also help you in your >>>>>> understanding of things.-a It's a solid book.
Thanks - got Kindle version for $10.
Both of you - instead of just reading someone who agrees with your
existing opinions, why not read someone who challenges those opinions?
I don't "just" read agreeing books, Martin.-a Odd way to start a
suggestion, IMO.-a If you've been following Mark's recent posts you would >>> realize they are of research work done not by people of faith, but
evolutionists.
But it is work by people of faith that I am talking about, not those
who reject religious belief out of hand. Can you identify any book you
have ever read by a theistic evolutionist?
Back when I actually read the Emperor's posts here, time after time he
would inform us of the ID people who had abandoned something or another
and believed like he did.
like I have stated before, the issue is not all that important to me,
other than being told I have to accept it by people like said Emperor.
The important difference between myself and the materialist is having a creator in the equation.-a Once you have a creator everything is viewed differently.-a Squabbling how the details are worked out is noise to me,
and I don't care if people have different interpretations than I do.
That's their problem to come to grips with.
That said, the last book along the lines of what you are probably
looking for was "A Catholic Case for Intelligent Design" by FR. Martin Hilbert.
<https://www.amazon.com/Catholic-Case-Intelligent-Design/dp/1637120710#>
I wanted to get a better understanding of the differences in beliefs
with him Catholic and me not.-a I have to admit Hilbert really surprised
me with this book.-a Though I was anticipating ID remarks, his tying it
into theistic evolution was not at all what I was expecting.-a He ends up criticizing theistic evolution in truth.-a He quotes a lot of the people talked about here, Behe in particular, and the book is well done. Though
I don't agree with everything he says, most of the disagreement is philosophical and not scientific.
When I read things I know ahead of time I won't agree
with, it is written by more contemporary scientific authors so I can
understand what they believe and what their theories appear to give
evidence for.-a Sometimes it is a struggle to get through, and I can't
finish them in entirety.-a Point is, I am not against differing opinions >>> as you seem to suggest.
Not because those-a challenges will necessarily change your existing
opinions but because they may encourage you to think about your
existing opinions in a different, possibly deeper, way.
Deeper?-a Unlike the Emperor, I realize people interpret and accept
things differently than I do.-a What I don't do is demand they think the >>> way I do.
Nor do I.
I don't care, to be honest.
I think that is the key difference between us - I do care. When people
disagree with me about my religious beliefs, I take that as a failure
on my part because as a Christian, I have the duty of trying to spread
the Good News and I may have failed to do so. If I can understand why
people disagree with me and try to deal with those disagreements, I
have a better chance of at least showing that my religious belief is
not quite as foolish as they might think on first appearance.
We all have our skills.-a I wish you luck in using yours.
---snip---
I will be adding some thoughts to Mark shortly, but I gotta get to the
gym and mow the lawn before it rains.
BTW, I did manage to beat the storms.-a The weather has been wild here
this week.-a We've been very lucky to not get hit, and the only damage
was about 4 hours of electricity loss last night.-a A few miles from my house a couple spots had some bad tornado damage, and a buddy got nailed with this huge hail.-a This would have put my RV back in the repair shop
if it hit here.
<https://i.postimg.cc/rpSxckJp/Hail.jpg>
On Thu, 16 Apr 2026 19:40:11 -0700, John Harshman
<john.harshman@gmail.com> wrote:
On 4/16/26 2:12 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Wed, 15 Apr 2026 20:38:51 -0700, John Harshman
<john.harshman@gmail.com> wrote:
On 4/15/26 10:02 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Wed, 15 Apr 2026 08:39:07 -0700, John Harshman
<john.harshman@gmail.com> wrote:
On 4/15/26 12:36 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Mon, 13 Apr 2026 18:32:13 -0700, Mark IsaakLet us recall Buffon again, who was censured by the faculty of the >>>>>> Sorbonne for claiming, among other things, that the earth might be as >>>>>> much as 100,000 years old. YEC is as old as or older than the science of >>>>>> geology.
<specimenNOSPAM@curioustaxon.omy.net> wrote:
On 4/13/26 4:14 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Sat, 11 Apr 2026 18:49:14 -0500, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com> >>>>>>>>> wrote:
[rCa]
Harran knows that the Biblical interpretations are wrong, he >>>>>>>>>> just wants it to be due to faulty human interpretation instead of faulty
authorship.
Harran is adopting the exact same approach as mainstream Christianity >>>>>>>>> has done for 2000 years. Biblical literalism is a relatively new kid >>>>>>>>> on the block, developed in the late 19th/early 20th century, by >>>>>>>>> American evangelicals and fundamentalists - you should really target >>>>>>>>> your ire towards gullible USians.
That's an overstatement. Geologists in the 18th century were trying to >>>>>>>> interpret their observations in terms of a global flood. Maybe the flood
they envisioned wasn't a word-for-word match with Genesis, but it was a
far cry from gradualism.
Maybe I've got this wrong, but I don't think there were any
significant religious issues involved at that stage, it was just >>>>>>> scientists doing what scientists do - trying to figure things out. The >>>>>>> religious opposition in the form of fundamentalism came about later as >>>>>>> a reaction against the geologists' findings along with other
scientific developments like Darwin's theory and contemporaneous >>>>>>> processes like higher criticism being applied to the Bible.
John, you really need to learn to do a wee bit of research before
taking a comment in Wikipedia at face value.
A comment? It was the Wikipedia article on the subject. Usually, the
articles are accurate. If it wasn't in this case, OK.
But a question or two: Were the Jansenists in question on the Sorbonne >>>> faculty? What exactly was the petty squabble of 1759 about?
Sorry, not a subject of interest to me, you need to do your own
research.
So you don't actually know whether your point was valid or not. Fine.
My point was that Buffon and the Sorbonne was not the Church rejecting science as you tried to make out. I achieved that point. You got
something wrong, live with it instead of embarrassing yourself by
trying to wriggle out of it by trying to make something out of
nothing.
And does it
matter for our purposes where the criticism came from as long as it
shows young-earth creationism to exist long before you claimed?
Except I made no claim whatsoever about how long young-earth
creationism has existed. Yet another example of you trying to change
what I said which is still preserved above.
You claimed that young earth creationism (you used the term "biblical
literalism", but I don't see a significant difference) is a recent and
American phenomenon. If you meant something else by the term, it's odd,
since it was in response to a claim about young earth creationism.
I explained that I was talking about "religious opposition in the form
of fundamentalism". As that as what you replied to by bringing in
Buffon, I'm not sure whether you are wriggling or whether it's just
another of the memory lapses you seem prone to.
https://bedejournal.blogspot.com/2009/01/comte-de-buffon-and-sorbonne.html
<quote>
Later on, in the late 19th century, the story of Buffon and the
Sorbonne was used by Dickinson White in his 'History of the Conflict >>>>> between Religion and Science' ( and as a favourite anecdote in the
introductions of biology textbooks) ; although as we have seen, the
Buffon retraction of 1751 was prompted by the rabble rousing
Jansensists. The Sorbonne was far from hostile and actually worked to >>>>> protect Buffon from criticism. Eventually in 1779 the Sorbonne and
Buffon became involved in a petty squabble but there was no formal
condemnation and the faculty's low-key protest fell on deaf ears.
Rather than some sinister suppression of science by religion, the
activities of Buffon and the religious groups in 18th century France >>>>> merely displayed the factionalism, squabbling and double dealing we
are all familiar with. When history is co-opted for other agendas,
these subtleties tend to be lost.
</quote>
I suggest you read the full article before mouthing off any further
about Buffon and the Church.
"Mouthing off"?
You earlier tried to make Buffon and the Sorbonne out to be yet
another example of the Catholic Church trying to supress science.
True. But that's not the current use. Anyway, it's "mouthing off" just a
gratuitously insulting way of describing my actions? Why go there?
"Gratuitous" implies unwarranted. The things I have pointed out about
your behaviour are well warranted.
On Thu, 16 Apr 2026 12:59:28 +1000, MarkE <me22over7@gmail.com> wrote:
On 16/04/2026 6:56 am, sticks wrote:
[...]
If you haven't read it, I would suggest "Did God Use
Evolution...Observations from a Scientist of Faith" by Dr. Werner Gitt.
It is a fairly quick read, and he does write a chapter on 'The
Consequences of Theistic Evolution' that explain the error in the ways
of people exactly like the Emperor. It might also help you in your
understanding of things. It's a solid book.
Thanks - got Kindle version for $10.
Both of you - instead of just reading someone who agrees with your
existing opinions, why not read someone who challenges those opinions?
Not because those challenges will necessarily change your existing
opinions but because they may encourage you to think about your
existing opinions in a different, possibly deeper, way.
This book is also about the ideas of a "Scientist of Faith" who is not
just an accomplished scientist but also a highly regarded theologian.
A bit more expensive at $20 but worth every cent - I cannot recommend
it highly enough.
https://www.amazon.com/Teilhard-Chardins-Phenomenon-Man-Explained-ebook/dp/B09GS6499G/ref=sr_1_1
On 4/15/2026 3:56 PM, sticks wrote:
If you haven't read it, I would suggest "Did God Use
Evolution...Observations from a Scientist of Faith" by Dr. Werner
Gitt. It is a fairly quick read, and he does write a chapter on 'The
Consequences of Theistic Evolution' that explain the error in the ways
of people exactly like the Emperor.-a It might also help you in your
understanding of things.-a It's a solid book.
I wanted to add a couple things for you, Mark.-a Saying he writes a
chapter on Theistic evolution is probably a mischaracterization of
sorts.-a For me, the whole book lays out his beliefs in the problems
arising for the Christian in Theistic evolution.-a But his process of
doing so, is similar to what I went through, which I'd like to explain
for you.
I've said before, three things are the most important for me in deciding
how to move forward in my daily life.-a Dr. Gitt touches on all three.
The first is the origins of the universe.-a I know the materialists have rightly recognized they have to explain where the stuff that went bang
came from, and have moved into the quantum realm.-a It's great science
and I love the thought of understanding how things might work.-a Yet, for
me they've still not given a workable theory how it could have started
from truly nothing.-a They've just made the parts smaller.-a At least
we've gotten to what is believed to be the smallest particles there is.
It is a step the naturalist would deem absurd, but I am in the camp that
has decided it couldn't have happened on it's own.-a To believe otherwise one would have to give the property of being eternal to something,
something material in one way or another.-a I could start the next step
here in moving forward it is so conclusive for me, but I use two others.
Second is the initial conditions and fine tuning of the universe, along
with our specific place in it and the properties of our planet.-a The Anthropic principle is what I would say if I was a naturalist, and I
would run from the Multiverse hypothesis.-a Neither cuts it for me, and
the fine tuning actually rolls into the origin of the universe for me.
Third, the origin of life, though most likely outside of complete
scientific exploration, is something that cannot be explained by natural processes for me.-a I love the research into it, as it keeps giving us
the amazing discoveries like the real complexity of the cell.-a It would
be a much longer discussion than this post permits, but the origin of
DNA and the where the initial information came from alone for me is
evidence of intelligent design.-a Again, the research is great.-a It continues to show just how powerful and intelligent the designer was.
So after concluding these three things could not arise by natural means, yes, I go looking for what could have caused them.-a This is where we get
to that dirty word.....the Supernatural-a <gasp!>
First, I look at how through our known history humanity has processed thinking about a creator.-a What were their beliefs and what religions
rose from them.-a "Many Infallible Proofs" by Henry M. Morris III, aside from being a great book, does exactly this and gives a relatively short,
but precise accounting of all the major religions we know today.-a I have chosen and am a Christian.-a The Bible's historical accuracy, the widely accepted correctness to known original manuscript, prophecy, and the way
the apostles lived after witnessing the resurrected Christ are all
powerful motivation for me.-a But most important, obviously, are the Messianic prophecies.-a I have accepted all the above and truly belief
Jesus was resurrected and fulfilled these prophecies.
It's all a personal choice, and I don't care if anyone else has a
similar belief or not.-a I'm not a preacher.-a The only reason I am even bringing this up is because I have said I would explain why people who
do things like what the Emperor does are wrong.-a This is where it gets
to the point, I know, finally.-a Once I accepted Christ, it came with the realization that he himself supported the whole of Jewish scripture as
the direct word of God.-a As Dr. Gitt put it in this book, rCLThe special key to understanding Scripture is given by GodrCOs Son himself. Jesus
states that His words will never pass away (Matt. 24: 35). He guarantees that everything that has been written will be fulfilled (Luke 18: 31).
He authorized all the meaningful elements of the text of the Bible
(e.g., Luke 16: 17) and confirmed that all biblical accounts described
real historical events, for example the creation of the first human
couple (Matt. 19: 4rCo5), the universality of the Flood and the
destruction of all air-breathing creatures (Matt. 24: 38rCo39), and the history of Jonah (Matt. 12: 40rCo41).rCY-a When people here claim we like being lied to, I just laugh.-a I have made my choice in who I believe.-a I believe the Bible is the inspired word of God.
Yet, while my faith does influence the things I'm willing to accept,
that does not mean I refuse to listen to science.-a The difference
between someone like me and theistic evolutionists lies right here.
People like the Emperor demand others accept their interpretations of everything, and he especially seems to revel in saying flat out that The Bible is wrong.-a I will never do that.-a I may not understand things completely, but I believe there will be a time I will, which is
obviously after my death.
Once you make the decisions like I have, yes, you look at things
completely differently.-a The materialist cannot do this.-a He has to
figure out things on the assumption that all this came about on its own,
and there was nothing supernatural involved.-a I don't have to do that. I don't have to accept geological uniformitarianism, I can question the assumptions made in accepting Radiometric dating, I can consider
evidence along the lines of thousands of years instead of millions, and
yes, I can believe you can't get something from nothing, and that
includes not only the universe, but life itself.-a I don't care if others share my beliefs.-a It is what I have to do to live with myself, and try
to honor my creator.
This is getting too long for the other thing about Dr. Gitt's book I
wanted to comment on.-a I'll do that for you in another post.
On 4/16/26 2:30 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Wed, 15 Apr 2026 18:41:59 +0100, Ernest Major
<{$to$}@meden.demon.co.uk> wrote:
On 15/04/2026 18:02, Martin Harran wrote:
On Wed, 15 Apr 2026 08:39:07 -0700, John Harshman
<john.harshman@gmail.com> wrote:
On 4/15/26 12:36 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Mon, 13 Apr 2026 18:32:13 -0700, Mark IsaakLet us recall Buffon again, who was censured by the faculty of the
<specimenNOSPAM@curioustaxon.omy.net> wrote:
On 4/13/26 4:14 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Sat, 11 Apr 2026 18:49:14 -0500, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com> >>>>>>>> wrote:
[rCa]
Harran knows that the Biblical interpretations are wrong, he >>>>>>>>> just wants it to be due to faulty human interpretation instead >>>>>>>>> of faulty
authorship.
Harran is adopting the exact same approach as mainstream
Christianity
has done for 2000 years. Biblical literalism is a relatively new >>>>>>>> kid
on the block, developed in the late 19th/early 20th century, by >>>>>>>> American evangelicals and fundamentalists - you should really >>>>>>>> target
your ire towards gullible USians.
That's an overstatement. Geologists in the 18th century were
trying to
interpret their observations in terms of a global flood. Maybe
the flood
they envisioned wasn't a word-for-word match with Genesis, but it >>>>>>> was a
far cry from gradualism.
Maybe I've got this wrong, but I don't think there were any
significant religious issues involved at that stage, it was just
scientists doing what scientists do - trying to figure things out. >>>>>> The
religious opposition in the form of fundamentalism came about
later as
a reaction against the geologists' findings along with other
scientific developments like Darwin's theory and contemporaneous
processes like higher criticism being applied to the Bible.
Sorbonne for claiming, among other things, that the earth might be as >>>>> much as 100,000 years old. YEC is as old as or older than the
science of
geology.
John, you really need to learn to do a wee bit of research before
taking a comment in Wikipedia at face value.
https://bedejournal.blogspot.com/2009/01/comte-de-buffon-and-
sorbonne.html
<quote>
Later on, in the late 19th century, the story of Buffon and the
Sorbonne was used by Dickinson White in his 'History of the Conflict
between Religion and Science' ( and as a favourite anecdote in the
introductions of biology textbooks) ; although as we have seen, the
Buffon retraction of 1751 was prompted by the rabble rousing
Jansensists. The Sorbonne was far from hostile and actually worked to
protect Buffon from criticism. Eventually in 1779 the Sorbonne and
Buffon became involved in a petty squabble but there was no formal
condemnation and the faculty's low-key protest fell on deaf ears.
Rather than some sinister suppression of science by religion, the
activities of Buffon and the religious groups in 18th century France
merely displayed the factionalism, squabbling and double dealing we
are all familiar with. When history is co-opted for other agendas,
these subtleties tend to be lost.
</quote>
I suggest you read the full article before mouthing off any further
about Buffon and the Church.
The issue at this point is not religious persecution, but a presumption
of Biblical literalism. For other examples
No, it was about Biblical Literalism not having been part of
mainstream Christianity for the last 2000 years. [...]
None of the literalist scientists mentioned in this thread, to the best
of my knowledge, were anything but mainstream; none were members of heretical cults or even created-this-generation offshoot denominations.
I think you forget, sometimes, how wide the stream is.
OOL seems to me to be an area where science will (already does) point compellingly to supernatural agency.
Science leads me to glimpse in a some small way the glory of God,
whether in the intricacies of a single cell or trillions of them
assembled into a human, bearing the image of our creator.
On Sun, 19 Apr 2026 19:09:21 +1000
MarkE <me22over7@gmail.com> wrote:
OOL seems to me to be an area where science will (already does) pointI thought you were going to give scientists a 1000 years to "solve" it?
compellingly to supernatural agency.
As RonO keeps saying: if so, it ain't the god from the bible.
Still, Rome wasn't burnt in a day.
[]
Science leads me to glimpse in a some small way the glory of God,Science is not about looking for a god. But it hasn't found one, and
whether in the intricacies of a single cell or trillions of them
assembled into a human, bearing the image of our creator.
there's less and less need for divine intervention to fill the gaps.
Science has shown us how wonderfully complicated things can be; also that there are vast swathes of the Universe that are immicable to humans (let alone life), and thus not any good for a god that requires constant
worship.
Fiddling around occasionally, just when science isn't looking, in
one small corner, just isn't becoming of a proper god, IMO.
On 4/18/2026 6:53 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Thu, 16 Apr 2026 11:53:29 -0500, sticks <wolverine01@charter.net>
wrote:
On 4/16/2026 6:29 AM, Kerr-Mudd, John wrote:
I imagine MarkE is uncomfortable with this
Ron posts some absolute rubbish about religion and religious
believers, but he is right on that specific point. I have repeatedly >>>>> asked you and other ID'ers to explain how you get from a God fiddling >>>>> about with atoms and molecules (AKA 'fine tuning') to the God that you >>>>> and I and most of them believe in, a God with whom we can have a
personal relationship. None of you have been able to offer any
suggestion. Until you deal with that, you are going to have problems >>>>> with believers like myself, never mind with scientists.
Speaking for myself, not at all.-a I fail to see the difficulty to be
honest.-a For one thing, I don't think God was "fiddling" at the time of >>> creation.
You have stated elsewhere how fine tuning is important to the
conclusions you have drawn about scientific claims on the origin of
life. Perhaps you don't like my word "fiddling" but you seem to be
essentially saying that God directly created all those constants that
enable life to exist on this earth.
Yep, being all powerful surely gave him the ability to do this
Next, the two are completely unrelated.
To me, the fact that there is only one God means that*every* aspect of
that God is interrelated. As part of my Christian faith, I have to
combine God in the Old Testament with Christ in the New Testament.
Similarly, if God created life by directly creating the constants in
fine tuning, then I have to somehow combine those two with the God I
understand from the Bible.
Perhaps I am misunderstanding you here. Do you believe that God
directly created humans with no evolution from previous lifeforms?
Abraham, Jacob, Moses and Jesus himself affirm this.-a I take their word
for it.
On 20/04/2026 1:55 am, Kerr-Mudd, John wrote:
On Sun, 19 Apr 2026 19:09:21 +1000
MarkE <me22over7@gmail.com> wrote:
OOL seems to me to be an area where science will (already does) pointI thought you were going to give scientists a 1000 years to "solve" it?
compellingly to supernatural agency.
Go back and read my thought experiment.
As RonO keeps saying: if so, it ain't the god from the bible.
Still, Rome wasn't burnt in a day.
[]
Science leads me to glimpse in a some small way the glory of God,Science is not about looking for a god. But it hasn't found one, and there's less and less need for divine intervention to fill the gaps.
whether in the intricacies of a single cell or trillions of them
assembled into a human, bearing the image of our creator.
I found God (or he found me) through means other than science. But
science certainly enhances my appreciation of him as Artist,
Mathematician, Designer, and Creator of all things.
Science has shown us how wonderfully complicated things can be; also that there are vast swathes of the Universe that are immicable to humans (let alone life), and thus not any good for a god that requires constant worship.
Fiddling around occasionally, just when science isn't looking, in
one small corner, just isn't becoming of a proper god, IMO.
On Mon, 20 Apr 2026 12:14:58 +1000
MarkE <me22over7@gmail.com> wrote:
On 20/04/2026 1:55 am, Kerr-Mudd, John wrote:Good for you. But your faith is lacking; you seek holes in science to
On Sun, 19 Apr 2026 19:09:21 +1000
MarkE <me22over7@gmail.com> wrote:
OOL seems to me to be an area where science will (already does) pointI thought you were going to give scientists a 1000 years to "solve" it?
compellingly to supernatural agency.
Go back and read my thought experiment.
As RonO keeps saying: if so, it ain't the god from the bible.
Still, Rome wasn't burnt in a day.
[]
Science leads me to glimpse in a some small way the glory of God,Science is not about looking for a god. But it hasn't found one, and
whether in the intricacies of a single cell or trillions of them
assembled into a human, bearing the image of our creator.
there's less and less need for divine intervention to fill the gaps.
I found God (or he found me) through means other than science. But
support your faith - you shouldn't be so insecure as to need to do
that.
science certainly enhances my appreciation of him as Artist,
Mathematician, Designer, and Creator of all things.
The (appearance of) Design arises from Evolution!
Like I said, much simpler 'designs' would have been possible and far less wasteful.Science has shown us how wonderfully complicated things can be; also that >>> there are vast swathes of the Universe that are immicable to humans (let >>> alone life), and thus not any good for a god that requires constant
worship.
Fiddling around occasionally, just when science isn't looking, in
one small corner, just isn't becoming of a proper god, IMO.
No answer?
On 4/18/26 2:53 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
My point was that Buffon and the Sorbonne was not the Church rejecting
science as you tried to make out. I achieved that point. You got
something wrong, live with it instead of embarrassing yourself by
trying to wriggle out of it by trying to make something out of
nothing.
Sorry, wrong topic. This is about whether young earth creationism is a
late 19th Century phenomenon. Religious objections to an old earth, from >whatever source, are on topic. Your point is not.
I could argue about your point, but I choose not to right now.
"Gratuitous" implies unwarranted. The things I have pointed out about
your behaviour are well warranted.
No, it implied unnecessary. Whether they are warranted or not isn't
relevant to whether the insult is gratuitous. Just how Christian are you?
On 4/15/26 12:36 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Mon, 13 Apr 2026 18:32:13 -0700, Mark Isaak
<specimenNOSPAM@curioustaxon.omy.net> wrote:
On 4/13/26 4:14 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Sat, 11 Apr 2026 18:49:14 -0500, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>
wrote:
[rCa]
Harran knows that the Biblical interpretations are wrong, he
just wants it to be due to faulty human interpretation instead of faulty >>>>> authorship.
Harran is adopting the exact same approach as mainstream Christianity
has done for 2000 years. Biblical literalism is a relatively new kid
on the block, developed in the late 19th/early 20th century, by
American evangelicals and fundamentalists - you should really target
your ire towards gullible USians.
That's an overstatement. Geologists in the 18th century were trying to
interpret their observations in terms of a global flood. Maybe the flood >>> they envisioned wasn't a word-for-word match with Genesis, but it was a
far cry from gradualism.
Maybe I've got this wrong, but I don't think there were any
significant religious issues involved at that stage, it was just
scientists doing what scientists do - trying to figure things out. The
religious opposition in the form of fundamentalism came about later as
a reaction against the geologists' findings along with other
scientific developments like Darwin's theory and contemporaneous
processes like higher criticism being applied to the Bible.
You apparently have a different definition of "religious issue" than I
do. In my view, if your religious beliefs determine what interpretations
you put on geological (or any) observations, then those interpretations
are religious issues.
What set apart the fundamentalism of the 20th century (to oversimplify)
is that the literalism became practically an end in itself, used to
signal social and political affiliation. Granted, that is different (and >worse) than religion affecting only science, but it is not the start of >biblical literalism.
On 4/18/2026 7:04 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
Can you identify any book you
have ever read by a theistic evolutionist?
Back when I actually read the Emperor's posts here, time after time he
would inform us of the ID people who had abandoned something or another
and believed like he did. I have read many of those authors. However,
like I have stated before, the issue is not all that important to me,
other than being told I have to accept it by people like said Emperor.
The important difference between myself and the materialist is having a >creator in the equation. Once you have a creator everything is viewed >differently. Squabbling how the details are worked out is noise to me,
and I don't care if people have different interpretations than I do.
That's their problem to come to grips with.
That said, the last book along the lines of what you are probably
looking for was "A Catholic Case for Intelligent Design" by FR. Martin >Hilbert.
<https://www.amazon.com/Catholic-Case-Intelligent-Design/dp/1637120710#>
I wanted to get a better understanding of the differences in beliefs
with him Catholic and me not. I have to admit Hilbert really surprised
me with this book. Though I was anticipating ID remarks, his tying it
into theistic evolution was not at all what I was expecting. He ends up >criticizing theistic evolution in truth. He quotes a lot of the people >talked about here, Behe in particular, and the book is well done.
Though I don't agree with everything he says, most of the disagreement
is philosophical and not scientific.
When I read things I know ahead of time I won't agree
with, it is written by more contemporary scientific authors so I can
understand what they believe and what their theories appear to give
evidence for. Sometimes it is a struggle to get through, and I can't
finish them in entirety. Point is, I am not against differing opinions
as you seem to suggest.
Not because those challenges will necessarily change your existing
opinions but because they may encourage you to think about your
existing opinions in a different, possibly deeper, way.
Deeper? Unlike the Emperor, I realize people interpret and accept
things differently than I do. What I don't do is demand they think the
way I do.
Nor do I.
I don't care, to be honest.
I think that is the key difference between us - I do care. When people
disagree with me about my religious beliefs, I take that as a failure
on my part because as a Christian, I have the duty of trying to spread
the Good News and I may have failed to do so. If I can understand why
people disagree with me and try to deal with those disagreements, I
have a better chance of at least showing that my religious belief is
not quite as foolish as they might think on first appearance.
We all have our skills. I wish you luck in using yours.
---snip---
I will be adding some thoughts to Mark shortly, but I gotta get to the
gym and mow the lawn before it rains.
BTW, I did manage to beat the storms. The weather has been wild here
this week. We've been very lucky to not get hit, and the only damage
was about 4 hours of electricity loss last night. A few miles from my
house a couple spots had some bad tornado damage, and a buddy got nailed >with this huge hail. This would have put my RV back in the repair shop
if it hit here.
<https://i.postimg.cc/rpSxckJp/Hail.jpg>
On 4/16/26 2:30 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
No, it was about Biblical Literalism not having been part of
mainstream Christianity for the last 2000 years. [...]
None of the literalist scientists mentioned in this thread, to the best
of my knowledge, were anything but mainstream; none were members of >heretical cults or even created-this-generation offshoot denominations.
I think you forget, sometimes, how wide the stream is.
On 17/04/2026 5:33 pm, Martin Harran wrote:
Both of you - instead of just reading someone who agrees with your
existing opinions, why not read someone who challenges those opinions?
Not because those challenges will necessarily change your existing
opinions but because they may encourage you to think about your
existing opinions in a different, possibly deeper, way.
Why do you assume we are "just reading someone who agrees with your
existing opinions"?
This book is also about the ideas of a "Scientist of Faith" who is not
just an accomplished scientist but also a highly regarded theologian.
A bit more expensive at $20 but worth every cent - I cannot recommend
it highly enough.
https://www.amazon.com/Teilhard-Chardins-Phenomenon-Man-Explained-ebook/dp/B09GS6499G/ref=sr_1_1
On 4/18/2026 6:24 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Wed, 15 Apr 2026 14:31:27 -0500, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>
wrote:
On 4/15/2026 11:36 AM, Martin Harran wrote:[rCa]
On Wed, 15 Apr 2026 16:59:56 +0100, "Kerr-Mudd, John"
No one is going to convince an opponent by stating that "they are lying". >>>>> and probably not by constant repetition of the same arguments (no matter >>>>> how valid) that failed to get through the first 50 times.
Tell that to RonO, he's the one who keeps calling everyone who
disagrees with him a liar.
Who got caught lying and quote mining? You need to deal with reality,
and quit lying about it. Lying about me is just so stupid that it is
pretty much insane. You have always lied about the sources that you
could not deal honestly with. Who's sources have always come up short?
Look at what you are doing now. Is there any excuse for you not dealing >>> with your own stupid dishonest behavior?
The tiresomeness of you continually claiming that my sources were
caught lying and that I have been lying and quote mining is matched by
the tiresomeness of your inability to ever identify what lie my
sources were caught in, what lies I have told or where I have quote
mined.
[... more big snip ...]
Why keep lying about what your sources did and what you did? That is
just stupid and dishonest. Just look up your past posts to determine
for yourself what went down. You tried to lie about my sources being >deficient when your sources had always come up short or even supported
my sources by putting up the lame lie that heliocentrism had never been >condemned other then by the inquisition. It was stupid because it did
not negate what you and your sources had been wrong about. It turned
out that your source was lying and you ran. You ran twice from the same >evidence that your source was lying. You tried to come back with your
lame quote mining efforts and trying to distract the argument from what
it had been. You did that, and your source was demonstrated to have
lied about the issue. You need to go back and deal with what you did.
An appology for your disgraceful behavior would be in order. Just try
not to do it again. Continuing to lie about what happened is just
adding to how low you needed to go.
On 4/18/2026 6:53 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
Perhaps I am misunderstanding you here. Do you believe that God
directly created humans with no evolution from previous lifeforms?
Abraham, Jacob, Moses and Jesus himself affirm this. I take their word
for it.
On Sat, 18 Apr 2026 13:11:29 -0500, sticks <wolverine01@charter.net>
wrote:
On 4/18/2026 7:04 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
[rCa]
Can you identify any book you
have ever read by a theistic evolutionist?
Back when I actually read the Emperor's posts here, time after time he
would inform us of the ID people who had abandoned something or another
and believed like he did. I have read many of those authors. However,
like I have stated before, the issue is not all that important to me,
other than being told I have to accept it by people like said Emperor.
The important difference between myself and the materialist is having a
creator in the equation. Once you have a creator everything is viewed
differently. Squabbling how the details are worked out is noise to me,
and I don't care if people have different interpretations than I do.
That's their problem to come to grips with.
That said, the last book along the lines of what you are probably
looking for was "A Catholic Case for Intelligent Design" by FR. Martin
Hilbert.
<https://www.amazon.com/Catholic-Case-Intelligent-Design/dp/1637120710#>
Err rCa somebody supporting ID and rejecting theistic evolution is not exactly a good example of a theistic evolutionist!
I wanted to get a better understanding of the differences in beliefs
with him Catholic and me not. I have to admit Hilbert really surprised
me with this book. Though I was anticipating ID remarks, his tying it
into theistic evolution was not at all what I was expecting. He ends up
criticizing theistic evolution in truth. He quotes a lot of the people
talked about here, Behe in particular, and the book is well done.
Though I don't agree with everything he says, most of the disagreement
is philosophical and not scientific.
On Sat, 18 Apr 2026 17:52:13 -0700, John Harshman
<john.harshman@gmail.com> wrote:
On 4/18/26 2:53 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
[...]
My point was that Buffon and the Sorbonne was not the Church rejecting
science as you tried to make out. I achieved that point. You got
something wrong, live with it instead of embarrassing yourself by
trying to wriggle out of it by trying to make something out of
nothing.
Sorry, wrong topic. This is about whether young earth creationism is a
late 19th Century phenomenon. Religious objections to an old earth, from
whatever source, are on topic. Your point is not.
Do I really need to remind you that it was *you* who brought up Buffon
and the Church?
I could argue about your point, but I choose not to right now.
You mean you can't.
"Gratuitous" implies unwarranted. The things I have pointed out about
your behaviour are well warranted.
No, it implied unnecessary. Whether they are warranted or not isn't
relevant to whether the insult is gratuitous. Just how Christian are you?
A far from perfect one but responding to your bad behaviour is pretty
far down on my list of transgressions.
On Sat, 18 Apr 2026 12:06:53 -0500, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>
wrote:
On 4/18/2026 6:24 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Wed, 15 Apr 2026 14:31:27 -0500, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>
wrote:
On 4/15/2026 11:36 AM, Martin Harran wrote:[rCa]
On Wed, 15 Apr 2026 16:59:56 +0100, "Kerr-Mudd, John"
No one is going to convince an opponent by stating that "they are lying".
and probably not by constant repetition of the same arguments (no matter >>>>>> how valid) that failed to get through the first 50 times.
Tell that to RonO, he's the one who keeps calling everyone who
disagrees with him a liar.
Who got caught lying and quote mining? You need to deal with reality, >>>> and quit lying about it. Lying about me is just so stupid that it is
pretty much insane. You have always lied about the sources that you
could not deal honestly with. Who's sources have always come up short? >>>> Look at what you are doing now. Is there any excuse for you not dealing >>>> with your own stupid dishonest behavior?
The tiresomeness of you continually claiming that my sources were
caught lying and that I have been lying and quote mining is matched by
the tiresomeness of your inability to ever identify what lie my
sources were caught in, what lies I have told or where I have quote
mined.
[... more big snip ...]
Why keep lying about what your sources did and what you did? That is
just stupid and dishonest. Just look up your past posts to determine
for yourself what went down. You tried to lie about my sources being
deficient when your sources had always come up short or even supported
my sources by putting up the lame lie that heliocentrism had never been
condemned other then by the inquisition. It was stupid because it did
not negate what you and your sources had been wrong about. It turned
out that your source was lying and you ran. You ran twice from the same
evidence that your source was lying. You tried to come back with your
lame quote mining efforts and trying to distract the argument from what
it had been. You did that, and your source was demonstrated to have
lied about the issue. You need to go back and deal with what you did.
An appology for your disgraceful behavior would be in order. Just try
not to do it again. Continuing to lie about what happened is just
adding to how low you needed to go.
Yet again, you make all sorts of accusations without a single example
of something to support them.
What I cannot figure out is whether you just can't grasp that your
failure to produce a single example of supporting evidence portrays
*you* as the one telling lies; or whether you do grasp it and just
don't care; or whether, like a certain President, you think that if
you repeat a lie enough times that someone will eventually believe it.
On Sat, 18 Apr 2026 12:06:53 -0500, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>
wrote:
On 4/18/2026 6:24 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Wed, 15 Apr 2026 14:31:27 -0500, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>
wrote:
On 4/15/2026 11:36 AM, Martin Harran wrote:[rCa]
On Wed, 15 Apr 2026 16:59:56 +0100, "Kerr-Mudd, John"
No one is going to convince an opponent by stating that "they are lying".
and probably not by constant repetition of the same arguments (no matter >>>>>> how valid) that failed to get through the first 50 times.
Tell that to RonO, he's the one who keeps calling everyone who
disagrees with him a liar.
Who got caught lying and quote mining? You need to deal with reality, >>>> and quit lying about it. Lying about me is just so stupid that it is
pretty much insane. You have always lied about the sources that you
could not deal honestly with. Who's sources have always come up short? >>>> Look at what you are doing now. Is there any excuse for you not dealing >>>> with your own stupid dishonest behavior?
The tiresomeness of you continually claiming that my sources were
caught lying and that I have been lying and quote mining is matched by
the tiresomeness of your inability to ever identify what lie my
sources were caught in, what lies I have told or where I have quote
mined.
[... more big snip ...]
Why keep lying about what your sources did and what you did? That is
just stupid and dishonest. Just look up your past posts to determine
for yourself what went down. You tried to lie about my sources being
deficient when your sources had always come up short or even supported
my sources by putting up the lame lie that heliocentrism had never been
condemned other then by the inquisition. It was stupid because it did
not negate what you and your sources had been wrong about. It turned
out that your source was lying and you ran. You ran twice from the same
evidence that your source was lying. You tried to come back with your
lame quote mining efforts and trying to distract the argument from what
it had been. You did that, and your source was demonstrated to have
lied about the issue. You need to go back and deal with what you did.
An appology for your disgraceful behavior would be in order. Just try
not to do it again. Continuing to lie about what happened is just
adding to how low you needed to go.
Yet again, you make all sorts of accusations without a single example
of something to support them.
What I cannot figure out is whether you just can't grasp that your
failure to produce a single example of supporting evidence portrays
*you* as the one telling lies; or whether you do grasp it and just
don't care; or whether, like a certain President, you think that if
you repeat a lie enough times that someone will eventually believe it.
On 4/18/26 10:39 AM, sticks wrote:
On 4/18/2026 6:53 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
Perhaps I am misunderstanding you here. Do you believe that God
directly created humans with no evolution from previous lifeforms?
Abraham, Jacob, Moses and Jesus himself affirm this.-a I take their
word for it.
Specifically, what did God create,
and when?
And when, if ever, did God stop creating?
On Sun, 19 Apr 2026 18:19:44 +1000, MarkE <me22over7@gmail.com> wrote:
On 17/04/2026 5:33 pm, Martin Harran wrote:
[..]
Both of you - instead of just reading someone who agrees with your
existing opinions, why not read someone who challenges those opinions?
Not because those challenges will necessarily change your existing
opinions but because they may encourage you to think about your
existing opinions in a different, possibly deeper, way.
Why do you assume we are "just reading someone who agrees with your
existing opinions"?
Same question as I asked sticks - can you identify any book you have
ever read by a theistic evolutionist?
This book is also about the ideas of a "Scientist of Faith" who is not
just an accomplished scientist but also a highly regarded theologian.
A bit more expensive at $20 but worth every cent - I cannot recommend
it highly enough.
https://www.amazon.com/Teilhard-Chardins-Phenomenon-Man-Explained-ebook/dp/B09GS6499G/ref=sr_1_1
Books by Howard van Till
On 20/04/2026 3:04 pm, Kerr-Mudd, John wrote:
On Mon, 20 Apr 2026 12:14:58 +1000
MarkE <me22over7@gmail.com> wrote:
On 20/04/2026 1:55 am, Kerr-Mudd, John wrote:Good for you. But your faith is lacking; you seek holes in science to support your faith - you shouldn't be so insecure as to need to do
On Sun, 19 Apr 2026 19:09:21 +1000Go back and read my thought experiment.
MarkE <me22over7@gmail.com> wrote:
OOL seems to me to be an area where science will (already does) point >>>> compellingly to supernatural agency.I thought you were going to give scientists a 1000 years to "solve" it? >>
As RonO keeps saying: if so, it ain't the god from the bible.
Still, Rome wasn't burnt in a day.
[]
Science leads me to glimpse in a some small way the glory of God,Science is not about looking for a god. But it hasn't found one, and
whether in the intricacies of a single cell or trillions of them
assembled into a human, bearing the image of our creator.
there's less and less need for divine intervention to fill the gaps.
I found God (or he found me) through means other than science. But
that.
You've got it back-to-front. For me, it's Anselm of Canterbury's
ordering: "faith seeking understanding". Faith, being established, seeks understanding, in the first instance theologically deeper understanding,
but also from other knowledge domains, including science.
science certainly enhances my appreciation of him as Artist,
Mathematician, Designer, and Creator of all things.
The (appearance of) Design arises from Evolution!
Like I said, much simpler 'designs' would have been possible and far less wasteful.Science has shown us how wonderfully complicated things can be; also that >>> there are vast swathes of the Universe that are immicable to humans (let >>> alone life), and thus not any good for a god that requires constant
worship.
Fiddling around occasionally, just when science isn't looking, in
one small corner, just isn't becoming of a proper god, IMO.
No answer?
Answers, yes. But what in the tone and content of your "questions" would give me reason to invest my time and effort in a response?
On Mon, 20 Apr 2026 16:01:24 +1000
MarkE <me22over7@gmail.com> wrote:
On 20/04/2026 3:04 pm, Kerr-Mudd, John wrote:To convert the ungodly? To fully explain to undecided readers how you have convincing reasons for your belief? I dunno. It's your choice, but I
On Mon, 20 Apr 2026 12:14:58 +1000
MarkE <me22over7@gmail.com> wrote:
On 20/04/2026 1:55 am, Kerr-Mudd, John wrote:Good for you. But your faith is lacking; you seek holes in science to
On Sun, 19 Apr 2026 19:09:21 +1000Go back and read my thought experiment.
MarkE <me22over7@gmail.com> wrote:
OOL seems to me to be an area where science will (already does) point >>>>>> compellingly to supernatural agency.I thought you were going to give scientists a 1000 years to "solve" it? >>>>
As RonO keeps saying: if so, it ain't the god from the bible.
Still, Rome wasn't burnt in a day.
[]
Science leads me to glimpse in a some small way the glory of God,Science is not about looking for a god. But it hasn't found one, and >>>>> there's less and less need for divine intervention to fill the gaps.
whether in the intricacies of a single cell or trillions of them
assembled into a human, bearing the image of our creator.
I found God (or he found me) through means other than science. But
support your faith - you shouldn't be so insecure as to need to do
that.
You've got it back-to-front. For me, it's Anselm of Canterbury's
ordering: "faith seeking understanding". Faith, being established, seeks
understanding, in the first instance theologically deeper understanding,
but also from other knowledge domains, including science.
science certainly enhances my appreciation of him as Artist,
Mathematician, Designer, and Creator of all things.
The (appearance of) Design arises from Evolution!
Like I said, much simpler 'designs' would have been possible and far less >>> wasteful.Science has shown us how wonderfully complicated things can be; also that >>>>> there are vast swathes of the Universe that are immicable to humans (let >>>>> alone life), and thus not any good for a god that requires constant
worship.
Fiddling around occasionally, just when science isn't looking, in
one small corner, just isn't becoming of a proper god, IMO.
No answer?
Answers, yes. But what in the tone and content of your "questions" would
give me reason to invest my time and effort in a response?
thought the idea of TO was to expound on various ideas. Hey ho.
On 4/20/2026 4:08 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Sat, 18 Apr 2026 12:06:53 -0500, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>
wrote:
On 4/18/2026 6:24 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Wed, 15 Apr 2026 14:31:27 -0500, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>
wrote:
On 4/15/2026 11:36 AM, Martin Harran wrote:[rCa]
On Wed, 15 Apr 2026 16:59:56 +0100, "Kerr-Mudd, John"
No one is going to convince an opponent by stating that "they are lying".
and probably not by constant repetition of the same arguments (no matter
how valid) that failed to get through the first 50 times.
Tell that to RonO, he's the one who keeps calling everyone who
disagrees with him a liar.
Who got caught lying and quote mining? You need to deal with reality, >>>>> and quit lying about it. Lying about me is just so stupid that it is >>>>> pretty much insane. You have always lied about the sources that you >>>>> could not deal honestly with. Who's sources have always come up short? >>>>> Look at what you are doing now. Is there any excuse for you not dealing >>>>> with your own stupid dishonest behavior?
The tiresomeness of you continually claiming that my sources were
caught lying and that I have been lying and quote mining is matched by >>>> the tiresomeness of your inability to ever identify what lie my
sources were caught in, what lies I have told or where I have quote
mined.
[... more big snip ...]
Why keep lying about what your sources did and what you did? That is
just stupid and dishonest. Just look up your past posts to determine
for yourself what went down. You tried to lie about my sources being
deficient when your sources had always come up short or even supported
my sources by putting up the lame lie that heliocentrism had never been
condemned other then by the inquisition. It was stupid because it did
not negate what you and your sources had been wrong about. It turned
out that your source was lying and you ran. You ran twice from the same >>> evidence that your source was lying. You tried to come back with your
lame quote mining efforts and trying to distract the argument from what
it had been. You did that, and your source was demonstrated to have
lied about the issue. You need to go back and deal with what you did.
An appology for your disgraceful behavior would be in order. Just try
not to do it again. Continuing to lie about what happened is just
adding to how low you needed to go.
Yet again, you make all sorts of accusations without a single example
of something to support them.
Yet again you take no responsibility for your own dishonest actions and >stupidity.
What I cannot figure out is whether you just can't grasp that your
failure to produce a single example of supporting evidence portrays
*you* as the one telling lies; or whether you do grasp it and just
don't care; or whether, like a certain President, you think that if
you repeat a lie enough times that someone will eventually believe it.
Why keep lying about what you did. If Google was still archiving posts
I could just give you links to what you did and you could run from them
all over again. Do you want me to start requoting your entire posts?
It is senseless and stupid to keep lying about the past. You should be >apologizing instead of continuing your dishonest smear campaign.
If you do not stop I will start quoting your entire past posts and the >context.
Your source was caught lying, you ran. You had only tried to
put up that stupid lie in order to try to negate how your sources had >previously come up short and you were trying to support your stupid lies >about my sources being deficient. Instead of accept that your source
had lied you tried to quote mine and distract from what your source had >done. You did that in order to defend your dishonest source. You did
that so recently that you have no excuse for lying about what you did.
Ron Okimoto
On 4/20/2026 4:08 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Sat, 18 Apr 2026 12:06:53 -0500, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>
wrote:
On 4/18/2026 6:24 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Wed, 15 Apr 2026 14:31:27 -0500, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>
wrote:
On 4/15/2026 11:36 AM, Martin Harran wrote:[rCa]
On Wed, 15 Apr 2026 16:59:56 +0100, "Kerr-Mudd, John"
No one is going to convince an opponent by stating that "they are lying".
and probably not by constant repetition of the same arguments (no matter
how valid) that failed to get through the first 50 times.
Tell that to RonO, he's the one who keeps calling everyone who
disagrees with him a liar.
Who got caught lying and quote mining? You need to deal with reality, >>>>> and quit lying about it. Lying about me is just so stupid that it is >>>>> pretty much insane. You have always lied about the sources that you >>>>> could not deal honestly with. Who's sources have always come up short? >>>>> Look at what you are doing now. Is there any excuse for you not dealing >>>>> with your own stupid dishonest behavior?
The tiresomeness of you continually claiming that my sources were
caught lying and that I have been lying and quote mining is matched by >>>> the tiresomeness of your inability to ever identify what lie my
sources were caught in, what lies I have told or where I have quote
mined.
[... more big snip ...]
Why keep lying about what your sources did and what you did? That is
just stupid and dishonest. Just look up your past posts to determine
for yourself what went down. You tried to lie about my sources being
deficient when your sources had always come up short or even supported
my sources by putting up the lame lie that heliocentrism had never been
condemned other then by the inquisition. It was stupid because it did
not negate what you and your sources had been wrong about. It turned
out that your source was lying and you ran. You ran twice from the same >>> evidence that your source was lying. You tried to come back with your
lame quote mining efforts and trying to distract the argument from what
it had been. You did that, and your source was demonstrated to have
lied about the issue. You need to go back and deal with what you did.
An appology for your disgraceful behavior would be in order. Just try
not to do it again. Continuing to lie about what happened is just
adding to how low you needed to go.
Yet again, you make all sorts of accusations without a single example
of something to support them.
What I cannot figure out is whether you just can't grasp that your
failure to produce a single example of supporting evidence portrays
*you* as the one telling lies; or whether you do grasp it and just
don't care; or whether, like a certain President, you think that if
you repeat a lie enough times that someone will eventually believe it.
You should apologize for what you have been doing and stop doing it. I >found the posts where you ran from your source having been caught lying,
you then snipped the evidence out of your response to your running.
The thread: There is no legitimate scientific support for the ID scam.
I can post your quote mining attempts and other stupid behavior that you >resorted to to defend your running and defense of your bogus source.
You should not continue to add to your own dishonest stupidity.
Trusting your source was obviously a stupid thing to do, and trying to >continue to support that source was just stupid and dishonest.
Ron Okimoto
On 21/04/2026 6:44 pm, Kerr-Mudd, John wrote:
On Mon, 20 Apr 2026 16:01:24 +1000
MarkE <me22over7@gmail.com> wrote:
On 20/04/2026 3:04 pm, Kerr-Mudd, John wrote:To convert the ungodly? To fully explain to undecided readers how you
On Mon, 20 Apr 2026 12:14:58 +1000
MarkE <me22over7@gmail.com> wrote:
On 20/04/2026 1:55 am, Kerr-Mudd, John wrote:Good for you. But your faith is lacking; you seek holes in science to
On Sun, 19 Apr 2026 19:09:21 +1000
MarkE <me22over7@gmail.com> wrote:
OOL seems to me to be an area where science will (already does) >>>>>>> pointI thought you were going to give scientists a 1000 years to
compellingly to supernatural agency.
"solve" it?
Go back and read my thought experiment.
I found God (or he found me) through means other than science. But
As RonO keeps saying: if so, it ain't the god from the bible.
Still, Rome wasn't burnt in a day.
[]
Science leads me to glimpse in a some small way the glory of God, >>>>>>> whether in the intricacies of a single cell or trillions of them >>>>>>> assembled into a human, bearing the image of our creator.Science is not about looking for a god. But it hasn't found one, and >>>>>> there's less and less need for divine intervention to fill the gaps. >>>>>
support your faith - you shouldn't be so insecure as to need to do
that.
You've got it back-to-front. For me, it's Anselm of Canterbury's
ordering: "faith seeking understanding". Faith, being established, seeks >>> understanding, in the first instance theologically deeper understanding, >>> but also from other knowledge domains, including science.
science certainly enhances my appreciation of him as Artist,
Mathematician, Designer, and Creator of all things.
The (appearance of) Design arises from Evolution!
Like I said, much simpler 'designs' would have been possible and farScience has shown us how wonderfully complicated things can be;
also that
there are vast swathes of the Universe that are immicable to
humans (let
alone life), and thus not any good for a god that requires constant >>>>>> worship.
Fiddling around occasionally, just when science isn't looking, in
one small corner, just isn't becoming of a proper god, IMO.
less
wasteful.
No answer?
Answers, yes. But what in the tone and content of your "questions" would >>> give me reason to invest my time and effort in a response?
have
convincing reasons for your belief? I dunno. It's your choice, but I
thought the idea of TO was to expound on various ideas. Hey ho.
I'm interested in fair-minded dialogue, not chasing down lazy potshots.
On Mon, 20 Apr 2026 09:16:40 -0500, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>
wrote:
On 4/20/2026 4:08 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Sat, 18 Apr 2026 12:06:53 -0500, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>
wrote:
On 4/18/2026 6:24 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Wed, 15 Apr 2026 14:31:27 -0500, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>
wrote:
On 4/15/2026 11:36 AM, Martin Harran wrote:[rCa]
On Wed, 15 Apr 2026 16:59:56 +0100, "Kerr-Mudd, John"
No one is going to convince an opponent by stating that "they are lying".
and probably not by constant repetition of the same arguments (no matter
how valid) that failed to get through the first 50 times.
Tell that to RonO, he's the one who keeps calling everyone who
disagrees with him a liar.
Who got caught lying and quote mining? You need to deal with reality, >>>>>> and quit lying about it. Lying about me is just so stupid that it is >>>>>> pretty much insane. You have always lied about the sources that you >>>>>> could not deal honestly with. Who's sources have always come up short? >>>>>> Look at what you are doing now. Is there any excuse for you not dealing >>>>>> with your own stupid dishonest behavior?
The tiresomeness of you continually claiming that my sources were
caught lying and that I have been lying and quote mining is matched by >>>>> the tiresomeness of your inability to ever identify what lie my
sources were caught in, what lies I have told or where I have quote
mined.
[... more big snip ...]
Why keep lying about what your sources did and what you did? That is
just stupid and dishonest. Just look up your past posts to determine
for yourself what went down. You tried to lie about my sources being
deficient when your sources had always come up short or even supported >>>> my sources by putting up the lame lie that heliocentrism had never been >>>> condemned other then by the inquisition. It was stupid because it did >>>> not negate what you and your sources had been wrong about. It turned
out that your source was lying and you ran. You ran twice from the same >>>> evidence that your source was lying. You tried to come back with your >>>> lame quote mining efforts and trying to distract the argument from what >>>> it had been. You did that, and your source was demonstrated to have
lied about the issue. You need to go back and deal with what you did. >>>> An appology for your disgraceful behavior would be in order. Just try >>>> not to do it again. Continuing to lie about what happened is just
adding to how low you needed to go.
Yet again, you make all sorts of accusations without a single example
of something to support them.
Yet again you take no responsibility for your own dishonest actions and
stupidity.
What I cannot figure out is whether you just can't grasp that your
failure to produce a single example of supporting evidence portrays
*you* as the one telling lies; or whether you do grasp it and just
don't care; or whether, like a certain President, you think that if
you repeat a lie enough times that someone will eventually believe it.
Why keep lying about what you did. If Google was still archiving posts
I could just give you links to what you did and you could run from them
all over again. Do you want me to start requoting your entire posts?
It is senseless and stupid to keep lying about the past. You should be
apologizing instead of continuing your dishonest smear campaign.
If you do not stop I will start quoting your entire past posts and the
context.
Do that if you want but it will just highlight that you cannot produce
a singlespecific example of a lie that my sources told, a lie that I
told or a single example of me quote mining.
Your source was caught lying, you ran. You had only tried to
put up that stupid lie in order to try to negate how your sources had
previously come up short and you were trying to support your stupid lies
about my sources being deficient. Instead of accept that your source
had lied you tried to quote mine and distract from what your source had
done. You did that in order to defend your dishonest source. You did
that so recently that you have no excuse for lying about what you did.
Ron Okimoto
On Mon, 20 Apr 2026 13:40:43 -0500, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>
wrote:
On 4/20/2026 4:08 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Sat, 18 Apr 2026 12:06:53 -0500, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>
wrote:
On 4/18/2026 6:24 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Wed, 15 Apr 2026 14:31:27 -0500, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>
wrote:
On 4/15/2026 11:36 AM, Martin Harran wrote:[rCa]
On Wed, 15 Apr 2026 16:59:56 +0100, "Kerr-Mudd, John"
No one is going to convince an opponent by stating that "they are lying".
and probably not by constant repetition of the same arguments (no matter
how valid) that failed to get through the first 50 times.
Tell that to RonO, he's the one who keeps calling everyone who
disagrees with him a liar.
Who got caught lying and quote mining? You need to deal with reality, >>>>>> and quit lying about it. Lying about me is just so stupid that it is >>>>>> pretty much insane. You have always lied about the sources that you >>>>>> could not deal honestly with. Who's sources have always come up short? >>>>>> Look at what you are doing now. Is there any excuse for you not dealing >>>>>> with your own stupid dishonest behavior?
The tiresomeness of you continually claiming that my sources were
caught lying and that I have been lying and quote mining is matched by >>>>> the tiresomeness of your inability to ever identify what lie my
sources were caught in, what lies I have told or where I have quote
mined.
[... more big snip ...]
Why keep lying about what your sources did and what you did? That is
just stupid and dishonest. Just look up your past posts to determine
for yourself what went down. You tried to lie about my sources being
deficient when your sources had always come up short or even supported >>>> my sources by putting up the lame lie that heliocentrism had never been >>>> condemned other then by the inquisition. It was stupid because it did >>>> not negate what you and your sources had been wrong about. It turned
out that your source was lying and you ran. You ran twice from the same >>>> evidence that your source was lying. You tried to come back with your >>>> lame quote mining efforts and trying to distract the argument from what >>>> it had been. You did that, and your source was demonstrated to have
lied about the issue. You need to go back and deal with what you did. >>>> An appology for your disgraceful behavior would be in order. Just try >>>> not to do it again. Continuing to lie about what happened is just
adding to how low you needed to go.
Yet again, you make all sorts of accusations without a single example
of something to support them.
What I cannot figure out is whether you just can't grasp that your
failure to produce a single example of supporting evidence portrays
*you* as the one telling lies; or whether you do grasp it and just
don't care; or whether, like a certain President, you think that if
you repeat a lie enough times that someone will eventually believe it.
You should apologize for what you have been doing and stop doing it. I
found the posts where you ran from your source having been caught lying,
you then snipped the evidence out of your response to your running.
The thread: There is no legitimate scientific support for the ID scam.
I can post your quote mining attempts and other stupid behavior that you
resorted to to defend your running and defense of your bogus source.
So why don't you instead of talking about it?
Specific examples, please, not reams and reams of obfuscatory cut'n
paste.
On Sun, 16 Nov 2025 18:25:18 -0600, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>claiming you
wrote:
On 11/16/2025 4:40 PM, Martin Harran wrote:[rCa]
The links that I put up were from the Catholics that continue to be
geocentric creationists, and the Catholics that are trying to refute
them. Both sides do not agree with you. What does your continued
denial of reality tell you?
You gave no such links. All you have to do to prove me wrong is give
them again.
Do you not see how stupid you are making yourself look by
gave links but cannot repeat them?
Why lie about something so stupid. One of the links was your own
trusted Catholic site, and you initially gave that link.
That was this site:
https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/06342b.htm
The one where the Catholic Church states:
" In thus acting, it is undeniable that the ecclesiastical authorities
committed a grave and deplorable error, and sanctioned an altogether
false principle as to the proper use of Scripture."
The one that cites Professor Augustus De Morgan (Budget of Paradoxes)
declaring
"It is clear that the absurdity was the act of the Italian
Inquisition, for the private and personal pleasure of the pope - who
knew that the course he took could not convict him as pope - and not
of the body which calls itself the Church."
The one that cites von Gebler ("Galileo Galilei"):
"The Church never condemned it (the Copernican system) at all, for the
Qualifiers of the Holy Office never mean the Church."
It beats me how you figure out that site and the people referred to in
it somehow back your claim that heliocentrism really was a heresy. I
guess you have to convince yourself in order to maintain your delusion
as you clearly can't find a reputable source that actually does back
you up.
Yes, everyone admits that they were wrong about geocentrism except for
the Catholics that are still geocentrics. This source called what
Galileo faced both times a charge of heresy. They did not make a
distinction between formal heresy and heresy like the anti geocentric
site, but it was still a heresy.
What part of "The Church never condemned it (the Copernican system) at
all" did you not understand?
The only place that formal comes into all this is in the judgement
issued after Galileo's first trial where the verdict stated that the proposition that the Sun is stationary at the centre of the universe
is "foolish and absurd in philosophy, and formally heretical since it explicitly contradicts in many places the sense of Holy Scripture".
That, however, is t the Catholic Encyclopaedia refers to where it
says:
"it is undeniable that the ecclesiastical authorities committed a
grave and deplorable error, and sanctioned an altogether false
principle as to the proper use of Scripture."
Note also that the words "formally heretical" are wrong - I'm not sure whether it was the Inquisition using weasel words or whether it was a
bad translation from the Latin.
The word "heresy" can be used in two ways; it can apply to the
rejection of a specific doctrine of the Church or it can refer to the
act of committing heresy. The word "formal" applies to the latter -
the act of committing heresy - and is used to categorise the degree of
guilt of the person committing the heresy. "Formal heresy" means they
knew they were going against doctrine and are therefore guilty of
mortal sin; "material heresy" means they did not know they were going against doctrine so they are not guilty sin.
It's a bit like first degree versus second degree murder and Galileo's
trial was like him being charged with first-degree murder without a
murder being established in the first place.
The Inquisition made it into a formal heresy after the Council of Trent.
They were supposedly wrong, and a couple centuries later things got
reversed to what they had been at the time that the findings of the
Council of Trent were published.
The holy office (the inquisition) had Galileo facing a formal heresy
charge in his first encounter. When the pope got involved they just did
not call it a formal heresy in the sentencing. Galileo's views were
still condemned. They claimed that Galileo was facing a charge of
heresy. His heliocentric notions were still considered to be heresy and
the heresy that he was guilty of was clearly defined in the sentencing.
The anti geocentrics admitted that the pope had the Galileo case
published and disseminated throughout the church in order to quash the
heliocentric notions that were becoming an issue for the church. They
just want to claim that, that was not an official act. That is just
stupid. The pope did it for known reasons, and who cares if they want
to plead that he was not acting as pope?
There is no doubt that the actors were wrong, and that is the issue.
They do not want it to reflect on papal infallibility. That in itself
should be considered to be a non scriptural unjustifiable claim.
The Inquisition had Copernican writings banned and made heliocentrism
into a formal heresy because all the church fathers were geocentrics,
and that meant that Copernicans were in conflict with the beliefs of the
church fathers. Both the geocentric Catholics and the anti geocentric
Catholics claim that the Inquisition did this because of what the church
came up with at the Council of Trent where they made the beliefs of the
church fathers as a legitimate and necessary authority for interpreting
scripture. Both Catholic sides of the geocentric issue understand this
to be true.
QUOTE:
Council of Trent
Session IV, April 8, 1546, Decree Concerning the Edition and the Use of
the Sacred Books:
... "Furthermore, in order to restrain petulant spirits, it [the Council
of Trent] decrees that no one, relying on his own skill, shall,-in
matters of faith, and of morals pertaining to the edification of
Christian doctrine,-wresting the sacred Scriptures to his own senses,
presume to interpret the said sacred Scripture contrary to that sense
which holy Mother Church-to whom it belongs to judge of the true sense
and interpretation of the Holy Scriptures-hath held and doth hold; or
even contrary to the unanimous consent of the Fathers; even though such
interpretations were never (intended) to be at any time published.
Contraveners shall be made known by their Ordinaries and be punished
with the penalties by law established."
END QUOTE:
https://www.biblelightinfo.com/unanimous-consent.htm
Both Catholic sides of the issue claim that the Council of Trent caused
the Inquisition to ban Copernican writings and start treating
heliocentrism as a formal heresy because it went against the geocentric
beliefs of the church fathers.
You are taking all that crap from your geocentric hero; if you want to persist in taking his opinion against that of the Church's own
theologians then that is you just acting like Spikes rejecting the
opinion of scientists in favour of people who play to his confirmation
bias.
It was a mistake and the actors were in error only because of our
current understanding of nature. The Pope was wrong about it. He was
one of the mistaken actors.
The Pope was not a "mistaken actor", he was pissed off with Galileo presenting the Pope's views as those of a simpleton and misused his
powers to hit back at Galileo. Again, the Catholic Encyclopaedia
spells that explicitly:
"It is clear that the absurdity was the act of the Italian
Inquisition, for the private and personal pleasure of the pope - who
knew that the course he took could not convict him as pope - and not
of the body which calls itself the Church."
The Galileo affair was a shameful episode in the Church's history but
was all about the animosity between the Pope and Galileo, it had
nothing to do with heliocentrism being a heresy, that was just the
vehicle that the Pope used to attack Galileo.
On Mon, 17 Nov 2025 14:40:05 -0600, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>
wrote:
On 11/17/2025 11:45 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Mon, 17 Nov 2025 09:57:31 -0600, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>
wrote:
[...]
Oops, the Pope was not infallible.
So papal infallibility is another thing you don't understand.
I am just repeating what the anti geocentrist want to claim about it.
The "anti-geocentrists" of whom you cannot identify even one. Mind
you, when you first brought in the website of your geocentrist mentor,
it was anonymous and you didn't even know who the author was until I
figured out; the fact that he is a declared geocentrist and you knew
nothing about him didn't stop you placing high value on his opinions
and continuing to do so.
Weird to say the least.
[...]
On Wed, 19 Nov 2025 14:55:52 -0600, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>
wrote:
On 11/19/2025 12:01 PM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Mon, 17 Nov 2025 14:40:05 -0600, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>
wrote:
On 11/17/2025 11:45 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Mon, 17 Nov 2025 09:57:31 -0600, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>
wrote:
[...]
Oops, the Pope was not infallible.
So papal infallibility is another thing you don't understand.
I am just repeating what the anti geocentrist want to claim about it.
The "anti-geocentrists" of whom you cannot identify even one. Mind
you, when you first brought in the website of your geocentrist mentor,
it was anonymous and you didn't even know who the author was until I
figured out; the fact that he is a declared geocentrist and you knew
nothing about him didn't stop you placing high value on his opinions
and continuing to do so.
Weird to say the least.
[...]
You were given the links before,
Nope
so stop lying about it. Why should I
look up that junk again.
So you can prove I'm lying. But you can't because I'm not lying, you
gave no links except to the geocentrist idiot whose opinion you value
so highly.
You just denied that it was valid and kept
lying. Even your own trusted source backed up the anti geocentric site.
The anti geocentrists were on your side in terms of denying that it
was a formal heresy that Galileo faced the second time, but they agreed
with the geocentrists that the Inquisition had made it a formal heresy
charge the first time Galileo faced it and agreed with the Wiki. The
Vatican Observatory article that you have run from and snipped out of
this post backs up the geocentrists and anti geocentrists.
Just stop lying about the issue.
https://www.vaticanobservatory.org/sacred-space-astronomy/heliocentrism-condemned-400-years-ago-on-march-5-2/
They admit that helicentrism was condemned 400 years ago. 1616 is when
Galileo faced the formal heresy charge.
They do not consider the heresy cases, but they were based upon the
Inquisitions opinion of the topic.
Your claim of "never" having been condemned seems to be a lie.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galileo_Galilei
QUOTE:
In February 1616, an Inquisitorial commission declared heliocentrism to
be "foolish and absurd in philosophy, and formally heretical since it
explicitly contradicts in many places the sense of Holy Scripture".
END QUOTE:
Now YOU are the one lying about me. I never said it was never
condemned; on the contrary, I gave that exact same quote. What I did
was to point out that what it said was a FALSE CLAIM and it wasn't me
who came to that conclusion, it was the Catholic Church who came to
it, supported by every historian I know of who investigated it, people
like De Morgan and von Gebler. The only person I have ever known to
say there actually was a heresy is the geocentrist idiot whose opinion
you value so highly.
Both the geocentrists that you don't like, and the anti geocentric
catholics that do not agree with geocentric beliefs agreed that it was a
formal heresy charge the first time that Galileo faced the issue.
Now you seem to be trying to worm your way out of it by admitting
there was a *charge* without retracting that there was an actual
heresy which is what you have been claiming all long.
You can't just keep refusing to deal with reality and expect anything to
change.
You can't keep claiming support from "anti-geocentrists" about
heliocentrism having been an actual heresy without being able to
identify even one and expect people to take you seriously.
On Thu, 20 Nov 2025 09:38:56 -0600, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>heliocentrism to
wrote:
On 11/20/2025 4:47 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Wed, 19 Nov 2025 14:55:52 -0600, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>
wrote:
[snip for focus]
Your claim of "never" having been condemned seems to be a lie.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galileo_Galilei
QUOTE:
In February 1616, an Inquisitorial commission declared
be "foolish and absurd in philosophy, and formally heretical since it
explicitly contradicts in many places the sense of Holy Scripture".
END QUOTE:
Now YOU are the one lying about me. I never said it was never
condemned; on the contrary, I gave that exact same quote. What I did
was to point out that what it said was a FALSE CLAIM and it wasn't me
who came to that conclusion, it was the Catholic Church who came to
it, supported by every historian I know of who investigated it, people
like De Morgan and von Gebler. The only person I have ever known to
say there actually was a heresy is the geocentrist idiot whose opinion
you value so highly.
You put up the quote that said it had never been condemned. Go back up
and check. It was your quote.
Here is verbatim what I quoted:
Message-ID: 2gkkhk9bvctolude5jf6b6e0kothd5723d@4ax.com ========================================
<quote>
The [site] that cites von Gebler ("Galileo Galilei"):
"The Church never condemned it (the Copernican system) at all, for the Qualifiers of the Holy Office never mean the Church."
==========================================
#1: it was von Gebler who said rCLnever condemnedrCY, not me as you
claimed two posts ago.
#2 he did not say it was never condemned, he said *the Church* never condemned it.
Why do you post lies that are so easily shown to be lies?
On Fri, 21 Nov 2025 17:33:49 -0600, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>
wrote:
On 11/21/2025 12:29 PM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Fri, 21 Nov 2025 09:04:37 -0600, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>
wrote:
[rCa]
Let's cut to the chase here.
No lies to retract. You lied.
What lie are you claiming I told? Please quote exactly what I said
that you regard as a lie.
The ones that you keep telling.
"Never condemned"
I'm out of here. George Bernard Shaw warned that you shouldn't wrestle
with a pig as you get dirty and the pig enjoys it. I'm not going to
waste any more time trying to have a sensible discussion with someone
who thinks it's ok to take two words out of what somebody else said to
give a completely different meaning and then attribute those two words
to me. It doesn't even reach the level of quote-mining.
What beggars belief is that you do it where the exact quote from von
Gerber [1] and what I said about it are preserved just a couple of
posts above for all to see. As I noted earlier, it is really sad to
see this sort of behaviour from someone whose ability as a scientist I respect so much EfOU
===========================================
[1] "The Church never condemned it (the Copernican system) at all, for
the Qualifiers of the Holy Office never mean the Church."
[von Gebler ("Galileo Galilei")]
[..]
You should not continue to add to your own dishonest stupidity.
Trusting your source was obviously a stupid thing to do, and trying to
continue to support that source was just stupid and dishonest.
Ron Okimoto
On 4/19/2026 10:36 PM, Mark Isaak wrote:
On 4/18/26 10:39 AM, sticks wrote:
On 4/18/2026 6:53 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
Perhaps I am misunderstanding you here. Do you believe that God
directly created humans with no evolution from previous lifeforms?
Abraham, Jacob, Moses and Jesus himself affirm this.-a I take their
word for it.
I know Mark knows how I would answer this and he is trolling me, but
I'll go ahead and play anyway.
Specifically, what did God create,
Everything.
and when?
In the beginning.
And when, if ever, did God stop creating?
He was finished on Day 6.
Anything done after that is ongoing
providence and sustaining as he chooses.-a I believe it was on a
Saturday. <g>
On Sat, 18 Apr 2026 13:58:26 -0700, Mark Isaak <specimenNOSPAM@curioustaxon.omy.net> wrote:
On 4/16/26 2:30 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
[rCa]
No, it was about Biblical Literalism not having been part of
mainstream Christianity for the last 2000 years. [...]
None of the literalist scientists mentioned in this thread, to the best
of my knowledge, were anything but mainstream; none were members of
heretical cults or even created-this-generation offshoot denominations.
As I have noted in another post, they may have been mainstream in a
general sense but regarding bible interpretation, they were speaking
as individuals, not as official representatives of any particular
religious group.
On 21/04/2026 12:43, MarkE wrote:
On 21/04/2026 6:44 pm, Kerr-Mudd, John wrote:
On Mon, 20 Apr 2026 16:01:24 +1000
MarkE <me22over7@gmail.com> wrote:
On 20/04/2026 3:04 pm, Kerr-Mudd, John wrote:To convert the ungodly? To fully explain to undecided readers how you
On Mon, 20 Apr 2026 12:14:58 +1000
MarkE <me22over7@gmail.com> wrote:
On 20/04/2026 1:55 am, Kerr-Mudd, John wrote:Good for you. But your faith is lacking; you seek holes in science to >>>>> support your faith - you shouldn't be so insecure as to need to do
On Sun, 19 Apr 2026 19:09:21 +1000
MarkE <me22over7@gmail.com> wrote:
OOL seems to me to be an area where science will (already does) >>>>>>>> pointI thought you were going to give scientists a 1000 years to
compellingly to supernatural agency.
"solve" it?
Go back and read my thought experiment.
I found God (or he found me) through means other than science. But >>>>>>
As RonO keeps saying: if so, it ain't the god from the bible.
Still, Rome wasn't burnt in a day.
[]
Science leads me to glimpse in a some small way the glory of God, >>>>>>>> whether in the intricacies of a single cell or trillions of them >>>>>>>> assembled into a human, bearing the image of our creator.Science is not about looking for a god. But it hasn't found one, and >>>>>>> there's less and less need for divine intervention to fill the gaps. >>>>>>
that.
You've got it back-to-front. For me, it's Anselm of Canterbury's
ordering: "faith seeking understanding". Faith, being established,
seeks
understanding, in the first instance theologically deeper
understanding,
but also from other knowledge domains, including science.
science certainly enhances my appreciation of him as Artist,
Mathematician, Designer, and Creator of all things.
The (appearance of) Design arises from Evolution!
Like I said, much simpler 'designs' would have been possible andScience has shown us how wonderfully complicated things can be; >>>>>>> also that
there are vast swathes of the Universe that are immicable to
humans (let
alone life), and thus not any good for a god that requires constant >>>>>>> worship.
Fiddling around occasionally, just when science isn't looking, in >>>>>>> one small corner, just isn't becoming of a proper god, IMO.
far less
wasteful.
No answer?
Answers, yes. But what in the tone and content of your "questions"
would
give me reason to invest my time and effort in a response?
have
convincing reasons for your belief? I dunno. It's your choice, but I
thought the idea of TO was to expound on various ideas. Hey ho.
I'm interested in fair-minded dialogue, not chasing down lazy potshots.
Your fuddery about cosmogenesis, fine tuning, abiogenesis,
macroevolution, etc. doesn't strike me as qualifying as fair-minded dialogue.
On 20/04/2026 7:03 pm, Martin Harran wrote:
On Sun, 19 Apr 2026 18:19:44 +1000, MarkE <me22over7@gmail.com> wrote:
On 17/04/2026 5:33 pm, Martin Harran wrote:
[..]
Both of you - instead of just reading someone who agrees with your
existing opinions, why not read someone who challenges those opinions? >>>> Not because those-a challenges will necessarily change your existing
opinions but because they may encourage you to think about your
existing opinions in a different, possibly deeper, way.
Why do you assume we are "just reading someone who agrees with your
existing opinions"?
Same question as I asked sticks - can you identify any book you have
ever read by a theistic evolutionist?
Books by Howard van Till and John Polkinghorne. Can't recall offhand the titles, but they formed a basis for discussion with friends.
This book is also about the ideas of a "Scientist of Faith" who is not >>>> just an accomplished scientist but also a highly regarded theologian.
A bit more expensive at $20 but worth every cent - I cannot recommend
it highly enough.
https://www.amazon.com/Teilhard-Chardins-Phenomenon-Man-Explained-
ebook/dp/B09GS6499G/ref=sr_1_1
On 4/20/26 12:17 PM, sticks wrote:
On 4/19/2026 10:36 PM, Mark Isaak wrote:
On 4/18/26 10:39 AM, sticks wrote:
On 4/18/2026 6:53 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
Perhaps I am misunderstanding you here. Do you believe that God
directly created humans with no evolution from previous lifeforms?
Abraham, Jacob, Moses and Jesus himself affirm this.-a I take their
word for it.
I know Mark knows how I would answer this and he is trolling me, but
I'll go ahead and play anyway.
Specifically, what did God create,
Everything.
So you accept that God created death and suffering, including diseases
such as pertussis, schizophrenia, cancer, and arthritis. Some people
give credit for that to Satan, or even Adam and/or Eve.
and when?
In the beginning.
And when, if ever, did God stop creating?
He was finished on Day 6.
That rules out a literal interpretation of the stories of Adam and Eve (which would entail a wholesale restructuring of ecologies) and Noah
(which would require new creation of species after the deluge).
Anything done after that is ongoing providence and sustaining as he
chooses.-a I believe it was on a Saturday. <g>
Friday, I believe, according to Hebrew tradition.
On 4/20/26 2:01 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Sat, 18 Apr 2026 13:58:26 -0700, Mark Isaak
<specimenNOSPAM@curioustaxon.omy.net> wrote:
On 4/16/26 2:30 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
[rCa]
No, it was about Biblical Literalism not having been part of
mainstream Christianity for the last 2000 years. [...]
None of the literalist scientists mentioned in this thread, to the best
of my knowledge, were anything but mainstream; none were members of
heretical cults or even created-this-generation offshoot denominations.
As I have noted in another post, they may have been mainstream in a
general sense but regarding bible interpretation, they were speaking
as individuals, not as official representatives of any particular
religious group.
In other words, religion is never to blame for anything bad done under
its inspiration. Nice escape hatch.
Neither the Catholic Church nor any of the other mainstream churches, however, have used biblical literalism to try to dismiss science in
the way that US fundamentalist and evangelicals have done.
On 4/22/2026 8:10 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
---snip---
Neither the Catholic Church nor any of the other mainstream churches,
however, have used biblical literalism to try to dismiss science in
the way that US fundamentalist and evangelicals have done.
To be honest, I don't really like the way you frame your objection.-a I,
for example, am not trying to "dismiss science" at all.-a Quite the opposite, really.-a I encourage continued research and even the craziest
of theories deserve investigation.-a The one doing the dismissing here is you, Martin.-a You've dismissed a literal reading of the scriptures as
being a valid opinion.-a You've dismissed differing interpretations of scientific "evidence" based on the fact your church tells you it is OK
to do so.-a Even though I have problems accepting secular evolution
theory, you think I should consider weaving it into my theistic beliefs
on creation anyways.
To the point, you sound like the Emperor when you claim a certain
religious group is dismissing science in your tone.
On Tue, 21 Apr 2026 13:41:24 -0700, Mark Isaak <specimenNOSPAM@curioustaxon.omy.net> wrote:
On 4/20/26 2:01 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Sat, 18 Apr 2026 13:58:26 -0700, Mark Isaak
<specimenNOSPAM@curioustaxon.omy.net> wrote:
On 4/16/26 2:30 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
[rCa]
As I have noted in another post, they may have been mainstream in aNo, it was about Biblical Literalism not having been part of
mainstream Christianity for the last 2000 years. [...]
None of the literalist scientists mentioned in this thread, to the best >>>> of my knowledge, were anything but mainstream; none were members of
heretical cults or even created-this-generation offshoot denominations. >>>
general sense but regarding bible interpretation, they were speaking
as individuals, not as official representatives of any particular
religious group.
In other words, religion is never to blame for anything bad done under
its inspiration. Nice escape hatch.
Please stop making up rubbish about what I am saying; I have agreed
with you numerous times that there are plenty of bad things that
religion has done. The cover up of child abuse by the Catholic Church
was just the most recent one but there are plenty through history -
the Crusades; the activities of the Spanish Inquisition; the treatment
of the Huguenots by the Catholic Church are just some. Also, plenty of individual things like the burning of Bruno and, not quite on the same
scale, the abuse of papal powers to silence Galileo.
Neither the Catholic Church nor any of the other mainstream churches, however, have used biblical literalism to try to dismiss science in
the way that US fundamentalist and evangelicals have done.
As I've said to you before, attack my Church or other churches for
things they have genuinely done and I will agree with you but I make
no apology for pointing out when you and others attack with claims
that simply don't stand up to even minimal scrutiny.
On Mon, 20 Apr 2026 13:40:43 -0500, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>
wrote:
On 4/20/2026 4:08 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Sat, 18 Apr 2026 12:06:53 -0500, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>
wrote:
On 4/18/2026 6:24 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Wed, 15 Apr 2026 14:31:27 -0500, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>
wrote:
On 4/15/2026 11:36 AM, Martin Harran wrote:[rCa]
On Wed, 15 Apr 2026 16:59:56 +0100, "Kerr-Mudd, John"
No one is going to convince an opponent by stating that "they are lying".
and probably not by constant repetition of the same arguments (no matter
how valid) that failed to get through the first 50 times.
Tell that to RonO, he's the one who keeps calling everyone who
disagrees with him a liar.
Who got caught lying and quote mining? You need to deal with reality, >>>>>> and quit lying about it. Lying about me is just so stupid that it is >>>>>> pretty much insane. You have always lied about the sources that you >>>>>> could not deal honestly with. Who's sources have always come up short? >>>>>> Look at what you are doing now. Is there any excuse for you not dealing >>>>>> with your own stupid dishonest behavior?
The tiresomeness of you continually claiming that my sources were
caught lying and that I have been lying and quote mining is matched by >>>>> the tiresomeness of your inability to ever identify what lie my
sources were caught in, what lies I have told or where I have quote
mined.
[... more big snip ...]
Why keep lying about what your sources did and what you did? That is
just stupid and dishonest. Just look up your past posts to determine
for yourself what went down. You tried to lie about my sources being
deficient when your sources had always come up short or even supported >>>> my sources by putting up the lame lie that heliocentrism had never been >>>> condemned other then by the inquisition. It was stupid because it did >>>> not negate what you and your sources had been wrong about. It turned
out that your source was lying and you ran. You ran twice from the same >>>> evidence that your source was lying. You tried to come back with your >>>> lame quote mining efforts and trying to distract the argument from what >>>> it had been. You did that, and your source was demonstrated to have
lied about the issue. You need to go back and deal with what you did. >>>> An appology for your disgraceful behavior would be in order. Just try >>>> not to do it again. Continuing to lie about what happened is just
adding to how low you needed to go.
Yet again, you make all sorts of accusations without a single example
of something to support them.
What I cannot figure out is whether you just can't grasp that your
failure to produce a single example of supporting evidence portrays
*you* as the one telling lies; or whether you do grasp it and just
don't care; or whether, like a certain President, you think that if
you repeat a lie enough times that someone will eventually believe it.
You should apologize for what you have been doing and stop doing it. I
found the posts where you ran from your source having been caught lying,
you then snipped the evidence out of your response to your running.
The thread: There is no legitimate scientific support for the ID scam.
I can post your quote mining attempts and other stupid behavior that you
resorted to to defend your running and defense of your bogus source.
So why don't you instead of talking about it?
Specific examples, please, not reams and reams of obfuscatory cut'n
paste.
You should not continue to add to your own dishonest stupidity.
Trusting your source was obviously a stupid thing to do, and trying to
continue to support that source was just stupid and dishonest.
Ron Okimoto
On Sun, 22 Feb 2026 13:40:10 -0600, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>what you
wrote:
On 2/22/2026 10:18 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Sat, 21 Feb 2026 12:44:57 -0600, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>
wrote:
On 2/21/2026 11:59 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
What documents are you talking about that you keep saying the Jesuits
put up?
You can keep lying about what has been discussed, but you know
was notdid. You need to be the one that finds it and satisfy yourself with
what you did.
You put up your source lying about heliocentrism never being condemned
by anyone but the Inquisition. You claimed that the Inquisition
ordered bythe Church. I put up the Jesuit Observatory claim that the Papal
offices had condemned heliocentrism and this condemnation was
sources havethe Pope. They put up the relevant document and stated what the Pope
did. Your source was caught lying and you ran. Go find it. It is
something that you should do because you will uncover all your other
evasions on this issue while doing it. Your quotes of your
always come up short. The sources that you claim are unreliable, have
repeatedly been shown to be more reliable than what you come up with.
Oh, you mean the link you gave back in November, this one:
https://www.vaticanobservatory.org/sacred-space-astronomy/heliocentrism-condemned-400-years-ago-on-march-5-2/
The one where they posted the full 1616 decree on it's 400th
anniversary and commented:
<quote>
The formulation here is much milder than the one found in the working
document of February 24. The Decree talks about the "false Pythagorean
doctrine" and declare it "altogether contrary to the Holy Scripture".
This is not nearly as harsh as "foolish and absurd" philosophically,
and "formally heretical" because contrary to Scripture.
</quote>
How fucking dense can you be? It doesn't get much stupider than
posting something that contradicts what you are claiming.
If I am the dense one why did you run from what they admitted about the
document?
LOL, you post something that you think supports your claim but
actually rejects it and the best defence you can offer is to accuse me
of running away from it.
The Pope did condemn heliocentrism.
Beats me why you keep repeating this. The Pope did not personally
condemn heliocentrism, he allowed the Inquisition's condemnation of it
to be made public - that did not make it a heresy.
That is what your side was lying
about.
The only one telling lies here is you. For example, when you keep
insisting that all the "anti-geocentrists" in the Catholic
Encyclopaedia article agree with you that heliocentrism was a heresy
when they all say explicitly that it wasn't. Your lie is underlined by
the fact that you can't produce identify any source that agrees that heliocentrism was a heresy except your geocentrist mentors.
reality.It doesn't matter that the final wording was milder than the
initial draft. They admit that the Pope condemned heliocentrism, and
supported using the Council of Trent's scriptural interpretation on the
matter. It doesn't matter what it was called because the authors and
books are named. You ran from this link because your source was found
to have lied about heliocentrism never having been condemned except by
the Inquisition. The Pope obviously represents the Church and condemned
heliocentrism. He supported the Inquisition in 1616, and their
additions to the Index in order to protect against heresy. The books
would not have been added to the Index if they were not considered to be
heretical. The document even talks about the heretical parts of the
books, and indicates that after one of them is rewritten, so that it is
not against scripture, that it can be removed from the Index.
Keep lying to yourself about the issue. It isn't going to change
The Inquisition made heliocentrism a formal heresy in 1615-1616.
The decree is given in full on the Vatican Observatory site that you
tried to claim supports you and the word 'heresy' or 'heretical' does
not even appear in it.
They
did this because of their interpretation of scripture as the Council of
Trent had decided.
The decree doesn't make any reference whatsoever to Trent regarding interpretation of scripture; the one and only reference is to the *punishment* under Trent for disobeying the decree.
They added heliocentric writings to the Index,
They declare that "the books by Nicolaus Copernicus (On the
Revolutions of Spheres) and by Diego de Zu|#iga (On Job) be suspended
until corrected".
I've given details of the required corrections to Revolutions in a
different post to Harshman and they are all minor edits - not one of
them makes any change to the core principle of heliocentrism. A rather
weird declaration of heresy that allows Copernicus's book supporting
it to be published with minor edits that don't undermine his
proposition.
and
had their first encounter with Galileo. The Pope agreed with them and
condemned heliocentrism, and agreed with their additions to the Index of
banned writings.
Before your source lied about "never being condemned" the Pope's
involvement in 1616 was not an issue between the geocentric and
anti-geocentric Catholics in terms of what you were lying about at the
time. Both sides agreed that it was a formal heresy charge faced by
Galileo in 1615-1616. They disagreed about it being a formal heresy
charge the second time because it was only written up as "heresy" and
not formal heresy in the sentencing. It remained a heresy charge.
You obviously struggle with grasping that a *charge* does not make
someone guilty. I hope I'm never on trial for something I didn't do
with you on the jury.
The
Pope had the Galileo case, sentencing, and punishment published and
distributed throughout the Church in order to quash the heliocentric
heresy, but the guys that want to maintain Papal infallibility claim
that that was not an official Papal action. They admitted that there
was an issue with helicentrism at the time, but they do not want the
Pope to have been on the wrong side of the issue.
You need to deal with reality.
I think it's very clear who has the problem with accepting reality and
it's not me.
It is well understood that the Bible is
just wrong about a lot of things that we can figure out for ourselves.
Your own quotes from Pope Francis makes that claim. The Bible can be
misinterpreted because the author's understanding of the creation was
faulty. Francis knows that the universe was not created in 6 magic
episodes. Only those in complete denial do not understand that the
order of creation described in the Bible is wrong. There are still
young earth, old earth day for agers, geocentric, and flat earth
Biblical creationists because they are in the same type of denial that
you are in. There are just different levels of denial.
Ron Okimoto
On Sat, 18 Apr 2026 13:52:24 -0700, Mark Isaak <specimenNOSPAM@curioustaxon.omy.net> wrote:
On 4/15/26 12:36 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Mon, 13 Apr 2026 18:32:13 -0700, Mark Isaak
<specimenNOSPAM@curioustaxon.omy.net> wrote:
On 4/13/26 4:14 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Sat, 11 Apr 2026 18:49:14 -0500, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>
wrote:
[rCa]
Harran knows that the Biblical interpretations are wrong, he
just wants it to be due to faulty human interpretation instead of faulty >>>>>> authorship.
Harran is adopting the exact same approach as mainstream Christianity >>>>> has done for 2000 years. Biblical literalism is a relatively new kid >>>>> on the block, developed in the late 19th/early 20th century, by
American evangelicals and fundamentalists - you should really target >>>>> your ire towards gullible USians.
That's an overstatement. Geologists in the 18th century were trying to >>>> interpret their observations in terms of a global flood. Maybe the flood >>>> they envisioned wasn't a word-for-word match with Genesis, but it was a >>>> far cry from gradualism.
Maybe I've got this wrong, but I don't think there were any
significant religious issues involved at that stage, it was just
scientists doing what scientists do - trying to figure things out. The
religious opposition in the form of fundamentalism came about later as
a reaction against the geologists' findings along with other
scientific developments like Darwin's theory and contemporaneous
processes like higher criticism being applied to the Bible.
You apparently have a different definition of "religious issue" than I
do. In my view, if your religious beliefs determine what interpretations
you put on geological (or any) observations, then those interpretations
are religious issues.
I think we are talking past each other here. I mean the same religious
issues as you but I meant specifically in the context them being used
in a coordinated way to reject science. Of course there were YECs
before the 19th century, but my underlying point was that it was never mainstream Christianity - the opening sentence in my OP was "Harran is adopting the exact same approach [to Biblical interpretation] as
mainstream Christianity has done for 2000 years." I think I right in
saying that the various examples that have given here were people
speaking as individuals, not as any kind of representation of a
significant religious grouping.
What set apart the fundamentalism of the 20th century (to oversimplify)
is that the literalism became practically an end in itself, used to
signal social and political affiliation. Granted, that is different (and
worse) than religion affecting only science, but it is not the start of
biblical literalism.
I was talking in the context of biblical literalism being used to
attack science which is what we regularly encounter here in TO; that
type of opposition didn't really happen prior to the 19th century
because there wasn't any substantial science that was seen as a
challenge to religious belief.
On 4/21/2026 3:36 PM, Mark Isaak wrote:
On 4/20/26 12:17 PM, sticks wrote:
On 4/19/2026 10:36 PM, Mark Isaak wrote:
On 4/18/26 10:39 AM, sticks wrote:
On 4/18/2026 6:53 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
Perhaps I am misunderstanding you here. Do you believe that God
directly created humans with no evolution from previous lifeforms?
Abraham, Jacob, Moses and Jesus himself affirm this.-a I take their >>>>> word for it.
I know Mark knows how I would answer this and he is trolling me, but
I'll go ahead and play anyway.
Specifically, what did God create,
Everything.
So you accept that God created death and suffering, including diseases
such as pertussis, schizophrenia, cancer, and arthritis. Some people
give credit for that to Satan, or even Adam and/or Eve.
Again, I'm fairly certain you know the Christian response to this, but I will go a little further than even that.
I have come to believe that
not only does God allow death and suffering, he knew it would all happen before he began creation.-a So why allow it then?-a Because the whole
point in creating us, was to create something that didn't exist without
life forms like us.-a Though God has aseity, he must have seen the value
in giving free will to us and allowing for Love to come into existence.
It is the greatest and most valuable thing there is in the universe.
Love is the reason for everything!
Now I struggled with this time issue and God knowing past, present, and future.-a How could God know what I am going to do 1/2 hour from now, if
I don't even know it?-a This is where scripture and prophesy comes into things.-a It became obvious to me that time is not the same for God as it
is for us.-a I think the past, present and future are all rolled up into
one thing for God.-a We might call it the now, but I think it must be
much more than that for him.
So yeah, creation was perfect and without suffering and death initially.
-aAdam's sin changed all that.-a God did not create the pain and
suffering, we did.
-a We had a choice, and made the wrong one.-a Of course
God knew all this ahead of time.-a There can only be one perfect being.
The entire plan of creation, all the way to the crucifixion,
resurrection, and coming judgment were all known to him.-a To those of us who believe this, it was worth it.-a We suffer and die because of sin and its effects.-a It is the only way for us to be in the presence and share
the afterlife with a loving God.
BTW, this question is one of the reasons I lost a little respect for
David Attenborough.-a I always liked his shows, even though almost every
one contained his views on evolution which he states as fact.-a What I didn't like is his remarks along the lines of how could anyone believe
in a God that would allow the suffering of Chimpanzees eating their prey live, and the little African worm that blinds people, or at least used
to until Ivermectin was found effective against the parasite.-a It is a simple question to answer, though you may disagree with the theistic principles.-a If he wanted to believe in evolution fine.-a What was the point in having to bad mouth religion for such a simple problem, where
the answer is fundamental to the entire Christian faith?-a It was an unnecessary attack on God and religion IMO.
and when?
In the beginning.
And when, if ever, did God stop creating?
He was finished on Day 6.
That rules out a literal interpretation of the stories of Adam and Eve
(which would entail a wholesale restructuring of ecologies) and Noah
(which would require new creation of species after the deluge).
No, and no.-a Of course you know this answer, too.-a No sense in me going there.
On 4/21/26 3:03 PM, sticks wrote:
On 4/21/2026 3:36 PM, Mark Isaak wrote:
On 4/20/26 12:17 PM, sticks wrote:
On 4/19/2026 10:36 PM, Mark Isaak wrote:
On 4/18/26 10:39 AM, sticks wrote:
On 4/18/2026 6:53 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
Perhaps I am misunderstanding you here. Do you believe that GodAbraham, Jacob, Moses and Jesus himself affirm this.-a I take their >>>>>> word for it.
directly created humans with no evolution from previous lifeforms? >>>>>>
I know Mark knows how I would answer this and he is trolling me, but
I'll go ahead and play anyway.
Specifically, what did God create,
Everything.
So you accept that God created death and suffering, including
diseases such as pertussis, schizophrenia, cancer, and arthritis.
Some people give credit for that to Satan, or even Adam and/or Eve.
Again, I'm fairly certain you know the Christian response to this, but
I will go a little further than even that.
I know several different Christian responses, including the one you
gave. (And I very much appreciate your giving it; thank you.) I also
know some problems with most of those responses.
-aI have come to believe that not only does God allow death and
suffering, he knew it would all happen before he began creation.-a So
why allow it then?-a Because the whole point in creating us, was to
create something that didn't exist without life forms like us.-a Though
God has aseity, he must have seen the value in giving free will to us
and allowing for Love to come into existence. It is the greatest and
most valuable thing there is in the universe. Love is the reason for
everything!
Is there free will in Heaven?
(I'm surprised I don't see that question more often. It raises all sorts
of important theological issues.)
Now I struggled with this time issue and God knowing past, present,
and future.-a How could God know what I am going to do 1/2 hour from
now, if I don't even know it?-a This is where scripture and prophesy
comes into things.-a It became obvious to me that time is not the same
for God as it is for us.-a I think the past, present and future are all
rolled up into one thing for God.-a We might call it the now, but I
think it must be much more than that for him.
So yeah, creation was perfect and without suffering and death
initially. -a-aAdam's sin changed all that.-a God did not create the pain >> and suffering, we did.
That's a huge problem for me. What is the mechanism by which eating a
fruit creates bot flies, brambles, bubonic plague, and bracket fungus? I don't buy it. Changes on that scale had to have divine agency behind it,
if it happened in less than 100 million years. And, as I alluded to,
such profound change amounts to a second Creation, which you deny happened.
Another problem, of course, is that much suffering is unnecessary. Why
does God want gratuitous misery? Your theology makes God something of an asshole. And no, don't blame Adam. You already admitted God had it all planned out ahead of time, and besides, Adam is long gone. Being
punished for something you didn't do is unjust.
-a We had a choice, and made the wrong one.-a Of course God knew all
this ahead of time.-a There can only be one perfect being. The entire
plan of creation, all the way to the crucifixion, resurrection, and
coming judgment were all known to him.-a To those of us who believe
this, it was worth it.-a We suffer and die because of sin and its
effects.-a It is the only way for us to be in the presence and share
the afterlife with a loving God.
BTW, this question is one of the reasons I lost a little respect for
David Attenborough.-a I always liked his shows, even though almost
every one contained his views on evolution which he states as fact.
What I didn't like is his remarks along the lines of how could anyone
believe in a God that would allow the suffering of Chimpanzees eating
their prey live, and the little African worm that blinds people, or at
least used to until Ivermectin was found effective against the
parasite.-a It is a simple question to answer, though you may disagree
with the theistic principles.-a If he wanted to believe in evolution
fine.-a What was the point in having to bad mouth religion for such a
simple problem, where the answer is fundamental to the entire
Christian faith?-a It was an unnecessary attack on God and religion IMO.
and when?
In the beginning.
And when, if ever, did God stop creating?
He was finished on Day 6.
That rules out a literal interpretation of the stories of Adam and
Eve (which would entail a wholesale restructuring of ecologies) and
Noah (which would require new creation of species after the deluge).
No, and no.-a Of course you know this answer, too.-a No sense in me
going there.
I know creationists answer that way, but only by denying the real world.
On Sat, 11 Apr 2026 18:49:14 -0500, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>
wrote:
[rCa]
Harran knows that the Biblical interpretations are wrong, he
just wants it to be due to faulty human interpretation instead of faulty
authorship.
Harran is adopting the exact same approach as mainstream Christianity
has done for 2000 years. Biblical literalism is a relatively new kid
on the block, developed in the late 19th/early 20th century, by
American evangelicals and fundamentalists - you should really target
your ire towards gullible USians.
On 4/22/2026 9:54 PM, Mark Isaak wrote:
On 4/21/26 3:03 PM, sticks wrote:
On 4/21/2026 3:36 PM, Mark Isaak wrote:
On 4/20/26 12:17 PM, sticks wrote:
On 4/19/2026 10:36 PM, Mark Isaak wrote:
On 4/18/26 10:39 AM, sticks wrote:
On 4/18/2026 6:53 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
Perhaps I am misunderstanding you here. Do you believe that God >>>>>>>> directly created humans with no evolution from previous lifeforms? >>>>>>>Abraham, Jacob, Moses and Jesus himself affirm this.a I take their >>>>>>> word for it.
I know Mark knows how I would answer this and he is trolling me, but >>>>> I'll go ahead and play anyway.
Specifically, what did God create,
Everything.
So you accept that God created death and suffering, including
diseases such as pertussis, schizophrenia, cancer, and arthritis.
Some people give credit for that to Satan, or even Adam and/or Eve.
Again, I'm fairly certain you know the Christian response to this, but
I will go a little further than even that.
I know several different Christian responses, including the one you
gave. (And I very much appreciate your giving it; thank you.) I also
know some problems with most of those responses.
aI have come to believe that not only does God allow death and
suffering, he knew it would all happen before he began creation.a So
why allow it then?a Because the whole point in creating us, was to
create something that didn't exist without life forms like us.a Though
God has aseity, he must have seen the value in giving free will to us
and allowing for Love to come into existence. It is the greatest and
most valuable thing there is in the universe. Love is the reason for
everything!
Is there free will in Heaven?
(I'm surprised I don't see that question more often. It raises all sorts
of important theological issues.)
Of course, there has to be. What would the point be otherwise.
What heaven and hell are exactly is the question. I don't spend a lot
of time on it because I believe it must be good. But I'll give an
example to show the main difference. On earth you can ignore God with >seemingly no consequences in your daily life. If you choose to reject
God and end up in "hell" that is entirely different. You get to spend
all of eternity in complete separation from God, absolutely knowing
finally that God is real, and there is no way to ever be near him.
Eternal separation from the love of God. Horrible.
Now I struggled with this time issue and God knowing past, present,
and future.a How could God know what I am going to do 1/2 hour from
now, if I don't even know it?a This is where scripture and prophesy
comes into things.a It became obvious to me that time is not the same
for God as it is for us.a I think the past, present and future are all
rolled up into one thing for God.a We might call it the now, but I
think it must be much more than that for him.
So yeah, creation was perfect and without suffering and death
initially. aaAdam's sin changed all that.a God did not create the pain
and suffering, we did.
That's a huge problem for me. What is the mechanism by which eating a
fruit creates bot flies, brambles, bubonic plague, and bracket fungus? I
don't buy it. Changes on that scale had to have divine agency behind it,
if it happened in less than 100 million years. And, as I alluded to,
such profound change amounts to a second Creation, which you deny happened.
All of creation groans. We had free will. The option to live sinfully
was there in the beginning. We chose it. God allowed us to live with
our choice and the corruption of everything began.
Another problem, of course, is that much suffering is unnecessary. Why
does God want gratuitous misery? Your theology makes God something of an
asshole. And no, don't blame Adam. You already admitted God had it all
planned out ahead of time, and besides, Adam is long gone. Being
punished for something you didn't do is unjust.
God did not plan for us to act as you suggest. He just knew we would.
As I say below, he had to give us free will, a choice, or there would
not be real love. Puppets are fun to play with, but they can't
experience love. Doing this meant he also had to do something horrible
to himself in the process. Something he was willing to do for us and
for love. Jesus had to suffer and die. I feel like a hypocrite when I >complain about the little things, when I think about what he was willing
to do for us. I don't blame Adam, we all would have done the same
thing. We're human, and yet I believe God loves us.
a We had a choice, and made the wrong one.a Of course God knew all
this ahead of time.a There can only be one perfect being. The entire
plan of creation, all the way to the crucifixion, resurrection, and
coming judgment were all known to him.a To those of us who believe
this, it was worth it.a We suffer and die because of sin and its
effects.a It is the only way for us to be in the presence and share
the afterlife with a loving God.
BTW, this question is one of the reasons I lost a little respect for
David Attenborough.a I always liked his shows, even though almost
every one contained his views on evolution which he states as fact.
What I didn't like is his remarks along the lines of how could anyone
believe in a God that would allow the suffering of Chimpanzees eating
their prey live, and the little African worm that blinds people, or at
least used to until Ivermectin was found effective against the
parasite.a It is a simple question to answer, though you may disagree
with the theistic principles.a If he wanted to believe in evolution
fine.a What was the point in having to bad mouth religion for such a
simple problem, where the answer is fundamental to the entire
Christian faith?a It was an unnecessary attack on God and religion IMO.
and when?
In the beginning.
And when, if ever, did God stop creating?
He was finished on Day 6.
That rules out a literal interpretation of the stories of Adam and
Eve (which would entail a wholesale restructuring of ecologies) and
Noah (which would require new creation of species after the deluge).
No, and no.a Of course you know this answer, too.a No sense in me
going there.
I know creationists answer that way, but only by denying the real world.
We have theories on how things might have happened, just like the
naturalist does. I am not denying the "real world" or science as you >suggest, though you wisely didn't specifically say denying science. But
it does point to where we quickly part ways. I have the opinion that >creation had to have had a supernatural hand in beginning the process, >whatever that process was. I think it is just as crazy that there are
those who give the God like power to something material of being
eternal, as you think me crazy for me believing it needed something
beyond the natural to come into existence.
Whether the naturalist just accepts the brute fact that something
material has just always existed, eternal, or just kicks the can down
the road trying to find another way you get something from nothing,
looks at scientific evidence along those lines and makes interpretations >along those lines. I can still look at the same scientific work and
come to a completely different interpretation because I don't have to
start with this all just happening by itself.
If someone believes it
happened on its own, we really will never have a chance on much
agreement moving forward. To me, you are looking at everything through
the wrong lens. I guess I could say YOU are the one denying reality,
but I don't recall you weighing in on this specific issue. Forgive me
if you have.
As just one example, I'll use the Big Bang. Now I know there are those
who would say there is not proof that it is something that actually >happened, even with the CMB. Of course they are correct, it is theory.
But I am not one who dismisses it, or something like it, so easily. It >sound like an awesome way to get the party started to me. Something
that would show the incredible power of a creator.
I know of different
theories on how it could have worked, even the distant starlight problem
has possible solutions. I just think whatever and however it happened,
it didn't happen on its own. All the details after that are just noise
in the bigger picture. Either it happened on its own, or something >supernatural did it.
On 4/22/2026 9:54 PM, Mark Isaak wrote:
On 4/21/26 3:03 PM, sticks wrote:
On 4/21/2026 3:36 PM, Mark Isaak wrote:
On 4/20/26 12:17 PM, sticks wrote:
On 4/19/2026 10:36 PM, Mark Isaak wrote:
On 4/18/26 10:39 AM, sticks wrote:
On 4/18/2026 6:53 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
Perhaps I am misunderstanding you here. Do you believe that God >>>>>>>> directly created humans with no evolution from previous lifeforms? >>>>>>>Abraham, Jacob, Moses and Jesus himself affirm this.-a I take
their word for it.
I know Mark knows how I would answer this and he is trolling me,
but I'll go ahead and play anyway.
Specifically, what did God create,
Everything.
So you accept that God created death and suffering, including
diseases such as pertussis, schizophrenia, cancer, and arthritis.
Some people give credit for that to Satan, or even Adam and/or Eve.
Again, I'm fairly certain you know the Christian response to this,
but I will go a little further than even that.
I know several different Christian responses, including the one you
gave. (And I very much appreciate your giving it; thank you.) I also
know some problems with most of those responses.
-aI have come to believe that not only does God allow death and
suffering, he knew it would all happen before he began creation.-a So
why allow it then?-a Because the whole point in creating us, was to
create something that didn't exist without life forms like us.
Though God has aseity, he must have seen the value in giving free
will to us and allowing for Love to come into existence. It is the
greatest and most valuable thing there is in the universe. Love is
the reason for everything!
Is there free will in Heaven?
(I'm surprised I don't see that question more often. It raises all
sorts of important theological issues.)
Of course, there has to be.-a What would the point be otherwise.
What heaven and hell are exactly is the question.-a I don't spend a lot
of time on it because I believe it must be good.-a But I'll give an
example to show the main difference.-a On earth you can ignore God with seemingly no consequences in your daily life.-a If you choose to reject
God and end up in "hell" that is entirely different.-a You get to spend
all of eternity in complete separation from God, absolutely knowing
finally that God is real, and there is no way to ever be near him.
Eternal separation from the love of God.-a Horrible.
Now I struggled with this time issue and God knowing past, present,
and future.-a How could God know what I am going to do 1/2 hour from
now, if I don't even know it?-a This is where scripture and prophesy
comes into things.-a It became obvious to me that time is not the same
for God as it is for us.-a I think the past, present and future are
all rolled up into one thing for God.-a We might call it the now, but
I think it must be much more than that for him.
So yeah, creation was perfect and without suffering and death
initially. -a-aAdam's sin changed all that.-a God did not create the
pain and suffering, we did.
That's a huge problem for me. What is the mechanism by which eating a
fruit creates bot flies, brambles, bubonic plague, and bracket fungus?
I don't buy it. Changes on that scale had to have divine agency behind
it, if it happened in less than 100 million years. And, as I alluded
to, such profound change amounts to a second Creation, which you deny
happened.
All of creation groans.-a We had free will.-a The option to live sinfully was there in the beginning.-a We chose it.-a God allowed us to live with
our choice and the corruption of everything began.
Another problem, of course, is that much suffering is unnecessary. Why
does God want gratuitous misery? Your theology makes God something of
an asshole. And no, don't blame Adam. You already admitted God had it
all planned out ahead of time, and besides, Adam is long gone. Being
punished for something you didn't do is unjust.
God did not plan for us to act as you suggest.-a He just knew we would.
As I say below, he had to give us free will, a choice, or there would
not be real love.-a Puppets are fun to play with, but they can't
experience love.-a Doing this meant he also had to do something horrible
to himself in the process.-a Something he was willing to do for us and
for love.-a Jesus had to suffer and die.-a I feel like a hypocrite when I complain about the little things, when I think about what he was willing
to do for us.-a I don't blame Adam, we all would have done the same
thing.-a We're human, and yet I believe God loves us.
-a We had a choice, and made the wrong one.-a Of course God knew all
this ahead of time.-a There can only be one perfect being. The entire
plan of creation, all the way to the crucifixion, resurrection, and
coming judgment were all known to him.-a To those of us who believe
this, it was worth it.-a We suffer and die because of sin and its
effects.-a It is the only way for us to be in the presence and share
the afterlife with a loving God.
BTW, this question is one of the reasons I lost a little respect for
David Attenborough.-a I always liked his shows, even though almost
every one contained his views on evolution which he states as fact.
What I didn't like is his remarks along the lines of how could anyone
believe in a God that would allow the suffering of Chimpanzees eating
their prey live, and the little African worm that blinds people, or
at least used to until Ivermectin was found effective against the
parasite.-a It is a simple question to answer, though you may disagree
with the theistic principles.-a If he wanted to believe in evolution
fine.-a What was the point in having to bad mouth religion for such a
simple problem, where the answer is fundamental to the entire
Christian faith?-a It was an unnecessary attack on God and religion IMO. >>>
and when?
In the beginning.
And when, if ever, did God stop creating?
He was finished on Day 6.
That rules out a literal interpretation of the stories of Adam and
Eve (which would entail a wholesale restructuring of ecologies) and
Noah (which would require new creation of species after the deluge).
No, and no.-a Of course you know this answer, too.-a No sense in me
going there.
I know creationists answer that way, but only by denying the real world.
We have theories on how things might have happened, just like the
naturalist does.
-a I am not denying the "real world" or science as you
suggest, though you wisely didn't specifically say denying science.-a But
it does point to where we quickly part ways.-a I have the opinion that creation had to have had a supernatural hand in beginning the process, whatever that process was.-a I think it is just as crazy that there are those who give the God like power to something material of being
eternal, as you think me crazy for me believing it needed something
beyond the natural to come into existence.
Whether the naturalist just accepts the brute fact that something
material has just always existed, eternal, or just kicks the can down
the road trying to find another way you get something from nothing, he
looks at scientific evidence along those lines and makes interpretations along those lines.-a I can still look at the same scientific work and
come to a completely different interpretation because I don't have to
start with this all just happening by itself.-a If someone believes it happened on its own, we really will never have a chance on much
agreement moving forward.-a To me, you are looking at everything through
the wrong lens.-a I guess I could say YOU are the one denying reality,
but I don't recall you weighing in on this specific issue.-a Forgive me
if you have.
As just one example, I'll use the Big Bang.-a Now I know there are those
who would say there is not proof that it is something that actually happened, even with the CMB.-a Of course they are correct, it is theory.
But I am not one who dismisses it, or something like it, so easily.-a It sound like an awesome way to get the party started to me.-a Something
that would show the incredible power of a creator.-a I know of different theories on how it could have worked, even the distant starlight problem
has possible solutions.-a I just think whatever and however it happened,
it didn't happen on its own.-a All the details after that are just noise
in the bigger picture.-a Either it happened on its own, or something supernatural did it.
On 4/23/26 7:10 AM, sticks wrote:
On 4/22/2026 9:54 PM, Mark Isaak wrote:
On 4/21/26 3:03 PM, sticks wrote:
On 4/21/2026 3:36 PM, Mark Isaak wrote:
On 4/20/26 12:17 PM, sticks wrote:
On 4/19/2026 10:36 PM, Mark Isaak wrote:
On 4/18/26 10:39 AM, sticks wrote:
On 4/18/2026 6:53 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
Perhaps I am misunderstanding you here. Do you believe that God >>>>>>>>> directly created humans with no evolution from previous lifeforms? >>>>>>>>Abraham, Jacob, Moses and Jesus himself affirm this.-a I take >>>>>>>> their word for it.
I know Mark knows how I would answer this and he is trolling me,
but I'll go ahead and play anyway.
Specifically, what did God create,
Everything.
So you accept that God created death and suffering, including
diseases such as pertussis, schizophrenia, cancer, and arthritis.
Some people give credit for that to Satan, or even Adam and/or Eve.
Again, I'm fairly certain you know the Christian response to this,
but I will go a little further than even that.
I know several different Christian responses, including the one you
gave. (And I very much appreciate your giving it; thank you.) I also
know some problems with most of those responses.
-aI have come to believe that not only does God allow death and
suffering, he knew it would all happen before he began creation.-a So >>>> why allow it then?-a Because the whole point in creating us, was to
create something that didn't exist without life forms like us.
Though God has aseity, he must have seen the value in giving free
will to us and allowing for Love to come into existence. It is the
greatest and most valuable thing there is in the universe. Love is
the reason for everything!
Is there free will in Heaven?
(I'm surprised I don't see that question more often. It raises all
sorts of important theological issues.)
Of course, there has to be.-a What would the point be otherwise.
What heaven and hell are exactly is the question.-a I don't spend a lot
of time on it because I believe it must be good.-a But I'll give an
example to show the main difference.-a On earth you can ignore God with
seemingly no consequences in your daily life.-a If you choose to reject
God and end up in "hell" that is entirely different.-a You get to spend
all of eternity in complete separation from God, absolutely knowing
finally that God is real, and there is no way to ever be near him.
Eternal separation from the love of God.-a Horrible.
But having free will was the start of all the problems. Allowing free
will in Heaven means allowing problems in Heaven. Or maybe people
(souls?) who have been in Heaven for a while get kicked down to Hell on
a regular basis as they choose wrongly?
Now I struggled with this time issue and God knowing past, present,
and future.-a How could God know what I am going to do 1/2 hour from
now, if I don't even know it?-a This is where scripture and prophesy
comes into things.-a It became obvious to me that time is not the
same for God as it is for us.-a I think the past, present and future
are all rolled up into one thing for God.-a We might call it the now, >>>> but I think it must be much more than that for him.
So yeah, creation was perfect and without suffering and death
initially. -a-aAdam's sin changed all that.-a God did not create the
pain and suffering, we did.
That's a huge problem for me. What is the mechanism by which eating a
fruit creates bot flies, brambles, bubonic plague, and bracket
fungus? I don't buy it. Changes on that scale had to have divine
agency behind it, if it happened in less than 100 million years. And,
as I alluded to, such profound change amounts to a second Creation,
which you deny happened.
All of creation groans.-a We had free will.-a The option to live
sinfully was there in the beginning.-a We chose it.-a God allowed us to
live with our choice and the corruption of everything began.
You seem to think that free will gives someone unlimited godlike power.
In particular, you are saying that, because I have free will, I have the power to create new orders of parasitic worms. I assure you that is not
the case.
Free will did not create the second creation after the Fall. A god had
to have done that. And yes, it most definitely was a second creation you describe. A "creation" refers to the deliberate origin of anything significant (animals, mountains, constellations), not just a universe.
The origin of death and all the new species and adaptations that go with
it certainly qualifies.
Another problem, of course, is that much suffering is unnecessary.
Why does God want gratuitous misery? Your theology makes God
something of an asshole. And no, don't blame Adam. You already
admitted God had it all planned out ahead of time, and besides, Adam
is long gone. Being punished for something you didn't do is unjust.
God did not plan for us to act as you suggest.-a He just knew we would.
As I say below, he had to give us free will, a choice, or there would
not be real love.-a Puppets are fun to play with, but they can't
experience love.-a Doing this meant he also had to do something
horrible to himself in the process.-a Something he was willing to do
for us and for love.-a Jesus had to suffer and die.-a I feel like a
hypocrite when I complain about the little things, when I think about
what he was willing to do for us.-a I don't blame Adam, we all would
have done the same thing.-a We're human, and yet I believe God loves us.
People don't get malaria because they have free will; they get malaria because God created plasmodium protozoans to infect them. If God
eradicated Plasmodium, people would still have free will, AND they would stop suffering and dying from malaria.
Your god wants them to suffer and die.
-a We had a choice, and made the wrong one.-a Of course God knew all
this ahead of time.-a There can only be one perfect being. The entire >>>> plan of creation, all the way to the crucifixion, resurrection, and
coming judgment were all known to him.-a To those of us who believe
this, it was worth it.-a We suffer and die because of sin and its
effects.-a It is the only way for us to be in the presence and share
the afterlife with a loving God.
BTW, this question is one of the reasons I lost a little respect for
David Attenborough.-a I always liked his shows, even though almost
every one contained his views on evolution which he states as fact.
What I didn't like is his remarks along the lines of how could
anyone believe in a God that would allow the suffering of
Chimpanzees eating their prey live, and the little African worm that
blinds people, or at least used to until Ivermectin was found
effective against the parasite.-a It is a simple question to answer,
though you may disagree with the theistic principles.-a If he wanted
to believe in evolution fine.-a What was the point in having to bad
mouth religion for such a simple problem, where the answer is
fundamental to the entire Christian faith?-a It was an unnecessary
attack on God and religion IMO.
and when?
In the beginning.
And when, if ever, did God stop creating?
He was finished on Day 6.
That rules out a literal interpretation of the stories of Adam and
Eve (which would entail a wholesale restructuring of ecologies) and >>>>> Noah (which would require new creation of species after the deluge).
No, and no.-a Of course you know this answer, too.-a No sense in me
going there.
I know creationists answer that way, but only by denying the real world.
We have theories on how things might have happened, just like the
naturalist does.
You have scenarios, not scientific theories. A theory has to be
consistent with all the evidence. Creationists (unless you include
theistic evolutionists under that label) need to ignore much of the evidence.
-a I am not denying the "real world" or science as you suggest, though
you wisely didn't specifically say denying science.-a But it does point
to where we quickly part ways.-a I have the opinion that creation had
to have had a supernatural hand in beginning the process, whatever
that process was.-a I think it is just as crazy that there are those
who give the God like power to something material of being eternal, as
you think me crazy for me believing it needed something beyond the
natural to come into existence.
Whether the naturalist just accepts the brute fact that something
material has just always existed, eternal, or just kicks the can down
the road trying to find another way you get something from nothing, he
looks at scientific evidence along those lines and makes
interpretations along those lines.-a I can still look at the same
scientific work and come to a completely different interpretation
because I don't have to start with this all just happening by itself.
If someone believes it happened on its own, we really will never have
a chance on much agreement moving forward.-a To me, you are looking at
everything through the wrong lens.-a I guess I could say YOU are the
one denying reality, but I don't recall you weighing in on this
specific issue.-a Forgive me if you have.
As just one example, I'll use the Big Bang.-a Now I know there are
those who would say there is not proof that it is something that
actually happened, even with the CMB.-a Of course they are correct, it
is theory. But I am not one who dismisses it, or something like it, so
easily.-a It sound like an awesome way to get the party started to me.
Something that would show the incredible power of a creator.-a I know
of different theories on how it could have worked, even the distant
starlight problem has possible solutions.-a I just think whatever and
however it happened, it didn't happen on its own.-a All the details
after that are just noise in the bigger picture.-a Either it happened
on its own, or something supernatural did it.
Perhaps the biggest obstacle to rational thinking is starting with the conclusion and seeking arguments to support it. Creationism does this
almost by definition. Creationists claim that evolutionists do it too,
but, that's just crazy. First, half of evolutionists are just as
religious as creationists. Second, who does not *want* a loving god?
On 4/25/2026 11:30 AM, Mark Isaak wrote:
On 4/23/26 7:10 AM, sticks wrote:
On 4/22/2026 9:54 PM, Mark Isaak wrote:
On 4/21/26 3:03 PM, sticks wrote:
On 4/21/2026 3:36 PM, Mark Isaak wrote:
On 4/20/26 12:17 PM, sticks wrote:Again, I'm fairly certain you know the Christian response to this,
On 4/19/2026 10:36 PM, Mark Isaak wrote:
On 4/18/26 10:39 AM, sticks wrote:
On 4/18/2026 6:53 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
Perhaps I am misunderstanding you here. Do you believe that God >>>>>>>>>> directly created humans with no evolution from previous lifeforms? >>>>>>>>>Abraham, Jacob, Moses and Jesus himself affirm this.a I take >>>>>>>>> their word for it.
I know Mark knows how I would answer this and he is trolling me, >>>>>>> but I'll go ahead and play anyway.
Specifically, what did God create,
Everything.
So you accept that God created death and suffering, including
diseases such as pertussis, schizophrenia, cancer, and arthritis. >>>>>> Some people give credit for that to Satan, or even Adam and/or Eve. >>>>>
but I will go a little further than even that.
I know several different Christian responses, including the one you
gave. (And I very much appreciate your giving it; thank you.) I also
know some problems with most of those responses.
aI have come to believe that not only does God allow death and
suffering, he knew it would all happen before he began creation.a So >>>>> why allow it then?a Because the whole point in creating us, was to
create something that didn't exist without life forms like us.
Though God has aseity, he must have seen the value in giving free
will to us and allowing for Love to come into existence. It is the
greatest and most valuable thing there is in the universe. Love is
the reason for everything!
Is there free will in Heaven?
(I'm surprised I don't see that question more often. It raises all
sorts of important theological issues.)
Of course, there has to be.a What would the point be otherwise.
What heaven and hell are exactly is the question.a I don't spend a lot
of time on it because I believe it must be good.a But I'll give an
example to show the main difference.a On earth you can ignore God with
seemingly no consequences in your daily life.a If you choose to reject
God and end up in "hell" that is entirely different.a You get to spend
all of eternity in complete separation from God, absolutely knowing
finally that God is real, and there is no way to ever be near him.
Eternal separation from the love of God.a Horrible.
But having free will was the start of all the problems. Allowing free
will in Heaven means allowing problems in Heaven. Or maybe people
(souls?) who have been in Heaven for a while get kicked down to Hell on
a regular basis as they choose wrongly?
As I said above, I don't spend a lot of time investigating concepts of >heaven and hell. That said, the point of my example was really for the >opposite of choosing wrongly. I can't fully understand what the
afterlife is, but I get the impression once you are immersed with the
power, goodness, and love of God, you probably aren't gong to be
spending your time thinking of how you can do wrong. I'm willing to
just wait and see.
Now I struggled with this time issue and God knowing past, present, >>>>> and future.a How could God know what I am going to do 1/2 hour from >>>>> now, if I don't even know it?a This is where scripture and prophesy >>>>> comes into things.a It became obvious to me that time is not the
same for God as it is for us.a I think the past, present and future >>>>> are all rolled up into one thing for God.a We might call it the now, >>>>> but I think it must be much more than that for him.
So yeah, creation was perfect and without suffering and death
initially. aaAdam's sin changed all that.a God did not create the
pain and suffering, we did.
That's a huge problem for me. What is the mechanism by which eating a >>>> fruit creates bot flies, brambles, bubonic plague, and bracket
fungus? I don't buy it. Changes on that scale had to have divine
agency behind it, if it happened in less than 100 million years. And, >>>> as I alluded to, such profound change amounts to a second Creation,
which you deny happened.
All of creation groans.a We had free will.a The option to live
sinfully was there in the beginning.a We chose it.a God allowed us to
live with our choice and the corruption of everything began.
You seem to think that free will gives someone unlimited godlike power.
You know that's not my position.
In particular, you are saying that, because I have free will, I have the
power to create new orders of parasitic worms. I assure you that is not
the case.
I guess that is your interpretation of what a Christian believes. It >certainly isn't mine.
Free will did not create the second creation after the Fall. A god had
to have done that. And yes, it most definitely was a second creation you
describe. A "creation" refers to the deliberate origin of anything
significant (animals, mountains, constellations), not just a universe.
The origin of death and all the new species and adaptations that go with
it certainly qualifies.
Obviously, I don't know exactly how it was done. Like everything
created, information is the key.
My guess is that all the information
for both pleasant and unpleasant things were included in the initial >creation. We still have a long way to go in understanding the genetic
code.
Did God throw a switch once man rebelled to turn on the
unpleasant? Hell, I don't know. All I do know is he said his creation
was complete after day 6. Everything since is his providence. I'll
take his word for it.
Another problem, of course, is that much suffering is unnecessary.
Why does God want gratuitous misery? Your theology makes God
something of an asshole. And no, don't blame Adam. You already
admitted God had it all planned out ahead of time, and besides, Adam
is long gone. Being punished for something you didn't do is unjust.
God did not plan for us to act as you suggest.a He just knew we would.
As I say below, he had to give us free will, a choice, or there would
not be real love.a Puppets are fun to play with, but they can't
experience love.a Doing this meant he also had to do something
horrible to himself in the process.a Something he was willing to do
for us and for love.a Jesus had to suffer and die.a I feel like a
hypocrite when I complain about the little things, when I think about
what he was willing to do for us.a I don't blame Adam, we all would
have done the same thing.a We're human, and yet I believe God loves us.
People don't get malaria because they have free will; they get malaria
because God created plasmodium protozoans to infect them. If God
eradicated Plasmodium, people would still have free will, AND they would
stop suffering and dying from malaria.
God didn't specifically create disease. He allows it because we broke
the rules and allowed it into our lives.
If he did what you suggest it
would just be a care free world of puppets.
You seem to want him to
turn a blind eye to sin because it causes suffering.
He can't do that
in this life. That was the whole purpose of the death and resurrection
of Christ.
Your god wants them to suffer and die.
No. I know I will get old, probably get something or another, and >eventually die. I cannot begin to think I don't deserve this if I
intend on being in the presence of God someday. He too, suffered and
died a human death to pay for my sin. A most horrible death as they go, >too.
I did not think I was going to get into theological talk like this here,
but so far you've been fair and asked me why on a couple things. I know
you completely disagree with me, but if your interest is sincere, I am >willing to do it. My hope is that your intention is simply in gaining a
better understanding how someone can hold views that seem so
completely irrational to you. That is commendable.
We have theories on how things might have happened, just like thea We had a choice, and made the wrong one.a Of course God knew all
this ahead of time.a There can only be one perfect being. The entire >>>>> plan of creation, all the way to the crucifixion, resurrection, and >>>>> coming judgment were all known to him.a To those of us who believe
this, it was worth it.a We suffer and die because of sin and its
effects.a It is the only way for us to be in the presence and share >>>>> the afterlife with a loving God.
BTW, this question is one of the reasons I lost a little respect for >>>>> David Attenborough.a I always liked his shows, even though almost
every one contained his views on evolution which he states as fact. >>>>> What I didn't like is his remarks along the lines of how could
anyone believe in a God that would allow the suffering of
Chimpanzees eating their prey live, and the little African worm that >>>>> blinds people, or at least used to until Ivermectin was found
effective against the parasite.a It is a simple question to answer, >>>>> though you may disagree with the theistic principles.a If he wanted >>>>> to believe in evolution fine.a What was the point in having to bad
mouth religion for such a simple problem, where the answer is
fundamental to the entire Christian faith?a It was an unnecessary
attack on God and religion IMO.
No, and no.a Of course you know this answer, too.a No sense in meand when?
In the beginning.
And when, if ever, did God stop creating?
He was finished on Day 6.
That rules out a literal interpretation of the stories of Adam and >>>>>> Eve (which would entail a wholesale restructuring of ecologies) and >>>>>> Noah (which would require new creation of species after the deluge). >>>>>
going there.
I know creationists answer that way, but only by denying the real world. >>>
naturalist does.
You have scenarios, not scientific theories. A theory has to be
consistent with all the evidence. Creationists (unless you include
theistic evolutionists under that label) need to ignore much of the
evidence.
While I completely disagree with this, it's going to have to wait. I'm >going out of town and getting into this will take more time than I
currently have to give.
a I am not denying the "real world" or science as you suggest, though
you wisely didn't specifically say denying science.a But it does point
to where we quickly part ways.a I have the opinion that creation had
to have had a supernatural hand in beginning the process, whatever
that process was.a I think it is just as crazy that there are those
who give the God like power to something material of being eternal, as
you think me crazy for me believing it needed something beyond the
natural to come into existence.
Whether the naturalist just accepts the brute fact that something
material has just always existed, eternal, or just kicks the can down
the road trying to find another way you get something from nothing, he
looks at scientific evidence along those lines and makes
interpretations along those lines.a I can still look at the same
scientific work and come to a completely different interpretation
because I don't have to start with this all just happening by itself.
If someone believes it happened on its own, we really will never have
a chance on much agreement moving forward.a To me, you are looking at
everything through the wrong lens.a I guess I could say YOU are the
one denying reality, but I don't recall you weighing in on this
specific issue.a Forgive me if you have.
As just one example, I'll use the Big Bang.a Now I know there are
those who would say there is not proof that it is something that
actually happened, even with the CMB.a Of course they are correct, it
is theory. But I am not one who dismisses it, or something like it, so
easily.a It sound like an awesome way to get the party started to me.
Something that would show the incredible power of a creator.a I know
of different theories on how it could have worked, even the distant
starlight problem has possible solutions.a I just think whatever and
however it happened, it didn't happen on its own.a All the details
after that are just noise in the bigger picture.a Either it happened
on its own, or something supernatural did it.
Perhaps the biggest obstacle to rational thinking is starting with the
conclusion and seeking arguments to support it. Creationism does this
almost by definition. Creationists claim that evolutionists do it too,
but, that's just crazy. First, half of evolutionists are just as
religious as creationists. Second, who does not *want* a loving god?
I've already given you my process of getting to where I am at today. As
I said, unless and until someone can answer the origin of the universe
or the origin of life by naturalistic means acceptably, I think it is >logical to consider an intelligent designer in the equation.
So let's go ahead and start with that one, again.
Evolutionists/naturalists are certainly starting the origins of life and
the universe with the paradigm that there was nothing supernatural.
This all exists naturally. Would you agree that if one really holds
that opinion, you must accept that "something" has existed for eternity?
REPOST 1:
On 11/17/2025 6:52 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Sun, 16 Nov 2025 18:25:18 -0600, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>
wrote:
What part of "The Church never condemned it (the Copernican system) at
all" did you not understand?
It was true until it became a lie after the Council of Trent.
Both Catholic sides of the issue acknowledge that Galileo faced a charge
of formal heresy in 1616. You were given the links, and they supported
the Wiki claims.
On Tue, 21 Apr 2026 14:27:30 -0500, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>
wrote:
[...]
REPOST 1:
On 11/17/2025 6:52 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Sun, 16 Nov 2025 18:25:18 -0600, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>
wrote:
[...]
What part of "The Church never condemned it (the Copernican system) at
all" did you not understand?
It was true until it became a lie after the Council of Trent.
No, it was *never* condemned by the Church, neither before nor after
the Council of Trent. Here's another researcher, Stillman Drake [1]:
<quote>
[Galileo's] own books were not mentioned at all in the official
decree.
Here it may be remarked that the edict of 1616 was worded with
considerable care and did not prohibit Copernican books outright. It distinguished those which purported to reconcile the earth's motion
with the Bible, like Foscarini's book, from those which alluded only incidentally to such matters. Books of the first type were to be
absolutely prohibited and destroyed. Those of the second type, of
which only De revolutionibns and a commentary on the Book of Job by
Diego de Zuniga were mentioned, were simply suspended "until
corrected" by deletion of the offending passages. There followed a
sentence repeating this distinction and the respective treatments with respect to future books. Hence it appears that the persons most
concerned in 1616, including Galileo (who was not mentioned in the
edict even though at the end of his Sunspot Letters he had
unequivocally endorsed the Copernican astronomy), did not take the
order to mean suppression of Copernican works as such, but only of
those reconciling the new astronomy with the Bible, or of incidental
passages in other books attempting such a reconciliation. This was not
at all the later interpretation of the edict, after most of the
principals in 1616 were dead, but was certainly Galileo's own
understanding of its intention, concerning which he was well informed
at the time.
</quote>
[(1978) Galileo At Work. Chicago: University of Chicago Press]
Stillman Drake was described "probably the foremost authority on
Galileo of our times" by Roger Hahn, a professor in the history of
science at Berkeley university and director of their Office for the
History of Science and Technology (OHST) from 1993 to 1998. On past performance, I expect you to dismiss Drake and Hahn as lying or
mistaken as your geocentrist mentor knows better.
[1] Stillman' Drake's son Dan was a regular contributor to TO some
years ago. He was thoroughly familiar with his father's work and a
series of exchanges with him here helped me to better understand
exactly what the whole affair as about.
[rCa]
Both Catholic sides of the issue acknowledge that Galileo faced a charge
of formal heresy in 1616. You were given the links, and they supported
the Wiki claims.
He was not charged with anything in 1616, he was simply interviewed by
the Inquisition and informed of the decree that had decided to issue
which did not even mention him or any of his works.
He was charged with heresy and found guilty in 1633. You have been
told ad nauseum that nobody disputes that he was so *charged*. The
point you are unwilling to accept is that it was a FALSE CHARGE
because there was no such heresy. The Catholic Church admits that and
every reputable scholar or researcher agrees. You have not been able
to produce anyone who thinks there was an actual heresy except some
guy promoting geocentrism. It really beggars belief that you would
accept the opinion of somebody like that and dismiss reputable
scholars as liars.
[rCa]
On 4/26/2026 10:46 AM, Martin Harran wrote:[]
On Tue, 21 Apr 2026 14:27:30 -0500, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>
wrote:
[...]
REPOST 1:
On 11/17/2025 6:52 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Sun, 16 Nov 2025 18:25:18 -0600, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>
wrote:
[...]
What part of "The Church never condemned it (the Copernican system) at >>> all" did you not understand?
Galileo faced a formal heresy charge in 1616. He was forced to swear an[]
On Sun, 26 Apr 2026 12:07:27 -0500
RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com> wrote:
On 4/26/2026 10:46 AM, Martin Harran wrote:[]
On Tue, 21 Apr 2026 14:27:30 -0500, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>
wrote:
[...]
REPOST 1:
On 11/17/2025 6:52 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Sun, 16 Nov 2025 18:25:18 -0600, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>
wrote:
[...]
What part of "The Church never condemned it (the Copernican system) at >> >>> all" did you not understand?
Galileo faced a formal heresy charge in 1616. He was forced to swear an >[]
Yawn. 410 years and still not settled?
On 4/22/26 6:10 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Tue, 21 Apr 2026 13:41:24 -0700, Mark IsaakWhat about the Church of England in the person of Bishop Wilberforce?
<specimenNOSPAM@curioustaxon.omy.net> wrote:
On 4/20/26 2:01 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Sat, 18 Apr 2026 13:58:26 -0700, Mark Isaak
<specimenNOSPAM@curioustaxon.omy.net> wrote:
On 4/16/26 2:30 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
[rCa]
As I have noted in another post, they may have been mainstream in aNo, it was about Biblical Literalism not having been part of
mainstream Christianity for the last 2000 years. [...]
None of the literalist scientists mentioned in this thread, to the best >>>>> of my knowledge, were anything but mainstream; none were members of
heretical cults or even created-this-generation offshoot denominations. >>>>
general sense but regarding bible interpretation, they were speaking
as individuals, not as official representatives of any particular
religious group.
In other words, religion is never to blame for anything bad done under
its inspiration. Nice escape hatch.
Please stop making up rubbish about what I am saying; I have agreed
with you numerous times that there are plenty of bad things that
religion has done. The cover up of child abuse by the Catholic Church
was just the most recent one but there are plenty through history -
the Crusades; the activities of the Spanish Inquisition; the treatment
of the Huguenots by the Catholic Church are just some. Also, plenty of
individual things like the burning of Bruno and, not quite on the same
scale, the abuse of papal powers to silence Galileo.
Neither the Catholic Church nor any of the other mainstream churches,
however, have used biblical literalism to try to dismiss science in
the way that US fundamentalist and evangelicals have done.
As I've said to you before, attack my Church or other churches for
things they have genuinely done and I will agree with you but I make
no apology for pointing out when you and others attack with claims
that simply don't stand up to even minimal scrutiny.
Would that count?
Your source lied.
Why do you think that you have to snip out what you did and do whatever
you think that you are doing?
Your own trusted source told you that Galileo faced the charge of heresy both times (1616 and 1633).
On 4/13/26 4:14 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Sat, 11 Apr 2026 18:49:14 -0500, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>
wrote:
[rCa]
Harran knows that the Biblical interpretations are wrong, he
just wants it to be due to faulty human interpretation instead of faulty >>> authorship.
Harran is adopting the exact same approach as mainstream Christianity
has done for 2000 years. Biblical literalism is a relatively new kid
on the block, developed in the late 19th/early 20th century, by
American evangelicals and fundamentalists - you should really target
your ire towards gullible USians.
Here are some cases of biblical literalism resulting in rejection of >science, both European and preceding the late 19th/early 20th century:
https://web.archive.org/web/20241110105607/http://talkreason.org/articles/More.cfm
Though perhaps the writers are not "mainstream". Hard to tell.
On 21/04/2026 7:11 am, MarkE wrote:
On 20/04/2026 7:03 pm, Martin Harran wrote:
On Sun, 19 Apr 2026 18:19:44 +1000, MarkE <me22over7@gmail.com> wrote:
On 17/04/2026 5:33 pm, Martin Harran wrote:
[..]
Both of you - instead of just reading someone who agrees with your
existing opinions, why not read someone who challenges those opinions? >>>>> Not because those-a challenges will necessarily change your existing >>>>> opinions but because they may encourage you to think about your
existing opinions in a different, possibly deeper, way.
Why do you assume we are "just reading someone who agrees with your
existing opinions"?
Same question as I asked sticks - can you identify any book you have
ever read by a theistic evolutionist?
Books by Howard van Till and John Polkinghorne. Can't recall offhand the
titles, but they formed a basis for discussion with friends.
And so again I ask, Martin, why the assumption?
This book is also about the ideas of a "Scientist of Faith" who is not >>>>> just an accomplished scientist but also a highly regarded theologian. >>>>> A bit more expensive at $20 but worth every cent - I cannot recommend >>>>> it highly enough.
https://www.amazon.com/Teilhard-Chardins-Phenomenon-Man-Explained-
ebook/dp/B09GS6499G/ref=sr_1_1
On 4/20/2026 3:41 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Sat, 18 Apr 2026 13:11:29 -0500, sticks <wolverine01@charter.net>
wrote:
On 4/18/2026 7:04 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
[rCa]
Can you identify any book you
have ever read by a theistic evolutionist?
Back when I actually read the Emperor's posts here, time after time he
would inform us of the ID people who had abandoned something or another
and believed like he did. I have read many of those authors. However,
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
like I have stated before, the issue is not all that important to me,
other than being told I have to accept it by people like said Emperor.
The important difference between myself and the materialist is having a
creator in the equation. Once you have a creator everything is viewed
differently. Squabbling how the details are worked out is noise to me,
and I don't care if people have different interpretations than I do.
That's their problem to come to grips with.
That said, the last book along the lines of what you are probably
looking for was "A Catholic Case for Intelligent Design" by FR. Martin
Hilbert.
<https://www.amazon.com/Catholic-Case-Intelligent-Design/dp/1637120710#>
Err rCa somebody supporting ID and rejecting theistic evolution is not
exactly a good example of a theistic evolutionist!
see above, Martin
I wanted to get a better understanding of the differences in beliefs
with him Catholic and me not. I have to admit Hilbert really surprised
me with this book. Though I was anticipating ID remarks, his tying it
into theistic evolution was not at all what I was expecting. He ends up >>> criticizing theistic evolution in truth. He quotes a lot of the people
talked about here, Behe in particular, and the book is well done.
Though I don't agree with everything he says, most of the disagreement
is philosophical and not scientific.
the point is I was not anticipating this catholic view on theistic >evolution, but I did admire the way he laid out the arguments as he sees >them and makes comparisons. I mostly agree with his analysis.
I don't
feel the need to spend my limited time reading someone trying to
convince me to become a believer in theistic evolution. Personally, I
have enough difficulty with secular evolution.
On 4/22/2026 8:10 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
---snip---
Neither the Catholic Church nor any of the other mainstream churches,
however, have used biblical literalism to try to dismiss science in
the way that US fundamentalist and evangelicals have done.
To be honest, I don't really like the way you frame your objection. I,
for example, am not trying to "dismiss science" at all.
Quite the
opposite, really. I encourage continued research and even the craziest
of theories deserve investigation.
The one doing the dismissing here is
you, Martin. You've dismissed a literal reading of the scriptures as
being a valid opinion. You've dismissed differing interpretations of >scientific "evidence" based on the fact your church tells you it is OK
to do so.
Even though I have problems accepting secular evolution
theory, you think I should consider weaving it into my theistic beliefs
on creation anyways.
To the point, you sound like the Emperor when you claim a certain
religious group is dismissing science in your tone.
On Sun, 26 Apr 2026 19:21:47 +0100, "Kerr-Mudd, John"
<admin@127.0.0.1> wrote:
On Sun, 26 Apr 2026 12:07:27 -0500
RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com> wrote:
On 4/26/2026 10:46 AM, Martin Harran wrote:[]
On Tue, 21 Apr 2026 14:27:30 -0500, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>
wrote:
[...]
REPOST 1:
On 11/17/2025 6:52 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Sun, 16 Nov 2025 18:25:18 -0600, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>
wrote:
[...]
What part of "The Church never condemned it (the Copernican system) at >>>>>> all" did you not understand?
Galileo faced a formal heresy charge in 1616. He was forced to swear an[]
Yawn. 410 years and still not settled?
Settled for everyone except modern day geocentrists and those who
value their opinions.
On Sun, 26 Apr 2026 12:07:27 -0500, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>
wrote:
[...]
Your source lied.
So you reckon that the Catholic Church lied about what happened;
Professor Augustus De Morgan lied; Karl von Gebler lied; Stillman
Drake lied; basically, everybody lied except your geocentrist mentor.
[...]
Why do you think that you have to snip out what you did and do whatever
you think that you are doing?
I snip your rubbish because it doesn't improve with repetition.
[..]
Your own trusted source told you that Galileo faced the charge of heresy both times (1616 and 1633).
Now you are lying. Here is exactly what my source - the Catholic
Encyclopedia - says:
<quote>
In these circumstances, Galileo, hearing that some had denounced his
doctrine as anti-Scriptural, presented himself at Rome in December,
1615, and was courteously received. He was presently interrogated
before the Inquisition, which after consultation declared the system
he upheld to be scientifically false, and anti-Scriptural or
heretical, and that he must renounce it. This he obediently did,
promising to teach it no more.
</quote>
https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/06342b.htm
Nothing whatsoever about him being charged with anything.
On Thu, 23 Apr 2026 08:33:07 -0700, John Harshman
<john.harshman@gmail.com> wrote:
On 4/13/26 4:14 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Sat, 11 Apr 2026 18:49:14 -0500, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>
wrote:
[rCa]
Harran knows that the Biblical interpretations are wrong, he
just wants it to be due to faulty human interpretation instead of faulty >>>> authorship.
Harran is adopting the exact same approach as mainstream Christianity
has done for 2000 years. Biblical literalism is a relatively new kid
on the block, developed in the late 19th/early 20th century, by
American evangelicals and fundamentalists - you should really target
your ire towards gullible USians.
Here are some cases of biblical literalism resulting in rejection of
science, both European and preceding the late 19th/early 20th century:
https://web.archive.org/web/20241110105607/http://talkreason.org/articles/More.cfm
Though perhaps the writers are not "mainstream". Hard to tell.
More relevantly - did any of them speak on behalf of any mainstream denomination?
On Wed, 22 Apr 2026 13:21:52 -0700, John Harshman
<john.harshman@gmail.com> wrote:
On 4/22/26 6:10 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Tue, 21 Apr 2026 13:41:24 -0700, Mark IsaakWhat about the Church of England in the person of Bishop Wilberforce?
<specimenNOSPAM@curioustaxon.omy.net> wrote:
On 4/20/26 2:01 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Sat, 18 Apr 2026 13:58:26 -0700, Mark Isaak
<specimenNOSPAM@curioustaxon.omy.net> wrote:
On 4/16/26 2:30 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
[rCa]
As I have noted in another post, they may have been mainstream in aNo, it was about Biblical Literalism not having been part of
mainstream Christianity for the last 2000 years. [...]
None of the literalist scientists mentioned in this thread, to the best >>>>>> of my knowledge, were anything but mainstream; none were members of >>>>>> heretical cults or even created-this-generation offshoot denominations. >>>>>
general sense but regarding bible interpretation, they were speaking >>>>> as individuals, not as official representatives of any particular
religious group.
In other words, religion is never to blame for anything bad done under >>>> its inspiration. Nice escape hatch.
Please stop making up rubbish about what I am saying; I have agreed
with you numerous times that there are plenty of bad things that
religion has done. The cover up of child abuse by the Catholic Church
was just the most recent one but there are plenty through history -
the Crusades; the activities of the Spanish Inquisition; the treatment
of the Huguenots by the Catholic Church are just some. Also, plenty of
individual things like the burning of Bruno and, not quite on the same
scale, the abuse of papal powers to silence Galileo.
Neither the Catholic Church nor any of the other mainstream churches,
however, have used biblical literalism to try to dismiss science in
the way that US fundamentalist and evangelicals have done.
As I've said to you before, attack my Church or other churches for
things they have genuinely done and I will agree with you but I make
no apology for pointing out when you and others attack with claims
that simply don't stand up to even minimal scrutiny.
Would that count?
Certainly - if you can identify the statement he made on behalf of the
Church of England.
On Sun, 26 Apr 2026 12:07:27 -0500Here we go again!
RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com> wrote:
On 4/26/2026 10:46 AM, Martin Harran wrote:[]
On Tue, 21 Apr 2026 14:27:30 -0500, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>
wrote:
[...]
REPOST 1:
On 11/17/2025 6:52 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Sun, 16 Nov 2025 18:25:18 -0600, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>
wrote:
[...]
What part of "The Church never condemned it (the Copernican system) at >> >>> all" did you not understand?
Galileo faced a formal heresy charge in 1616. He was forced to swear an >[]
Yawn. 410 years and still not settled?
On 4/26/26 2:14 PM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Wed, 22 Apr 2026 13:21:52 -0700, John HarshmanSo your position is that religious attacks on science due to biblical >literalism only count if they're explicitly attached to the authority of
<john.harshman@gmail.com> wrote:
On 4/22/26 6:10 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Tue, 21 Apr 2026 13:41:24 -0700, Mark IsaakWhat about the Church of England in the person of Bishop Wilberforce?
<specimenNOSPAM@curioustaxon.omy.net> wrote:
On 4/20/26 2:01 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Sat, 18 Apr 2026 13:58:26 -0700, Mark Isaak
<specimenNOSPAM@curioustaxon.omy.net> wrote:
On 4/16/26 2:30 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
[rCa]
As I have noted in another post, they may have been mainstream in a >>>>>> general sense but regarding bible interpretation, they were speaking >>>>>> as individuals, not as official representatives of any particularNo, it was about Biblical Literalism not having been part of
mainstream Christianity for the last 2000 years. [...]
None of the literalist scientists mentioned in this thread, to the best >>>>>>> of my knowledge, were anything but mainstream; none were members of >>>>>>> heretical cults or even created-this-generation offshoot denominations. >>>>>>
religious group.
In other words, religion is never to blame for anything bad done under >>>>> its inspiration. Nice escape hatch.
Please stop making up rubbish about what I am saying; I have agreed
with you numerous times that there are plenty of bad things that
religion has done. The cover up of child abuse by the Catholic Church
was just the most recent one but there are plenty through history -
the Crusades; the activities of the Spanish Inquisition; the treatment >>>> of the Huguenots by the Catholic Church are just some. Also, plenty of >>>> individual things like the burning of Bruno and, not quite on the same >>>> scale, the abuse of papal powers to silence Galileo.
Neither the Catholic Church nor any of the other mainstream churches,
however, have used biblical literalism to try to dismiss science in
the way that US fundamentalist and evangelicals have done.
As I've said to you before, attack my Church or other churches for
things they have genuinely done and I will agree with you but I make
no apology for pointing out when you and others attack with claims
that simply don't stand up to even minimal scrutiny.
Would that count?
Certainly - if you can identify the statement he made on behalf of the
Church of England.
a mainstream denomination. Perhaps a sentence has to begin, "In my
capacity as bishop of the Church of England...".
On 4/26/2026 4:11 PM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Sun, 26 Apr 2026 12:07:27 -0500, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>
wrote:
[...]
Your source lied.
So you reckon that the Catholic Church lied about what happened;
Professor Augustus De Morgan lied; Karl von Gebler lied; Stillman
Drake lied; basically, everybody lied except your geocentrist mentor.
[...]
Why do you think that you have to snip out what you did and do whatever
you think that you are doing?
I snip your rubbish because it doesn't improve with repetition.
[..]
Your own trusted source told you that Galileo faced the charge of heresy both times (1616 and 1633).
Now you are lying. Here is exactly what my source - the Catholic
Encyclopedia - says:
It was your source, so why put up some other quote to counter what you
just lied about. It was not an Encyclopedia entry. It was just an
article on the Galileo incident.
The anti-geocentrists and Wiki agreed on Galileo facing a formal heresy >charge.
Your own trusted source claimed that Galileo faced a heresy
charge in 1616.
On Sun, 26 Apr 2026 20:45:22 -0700, John Harshman
<john.harshman@gmail.com> wrote:
On 4/26/26 2:14 PM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Wed, 22 Apr 2026 13:21:52 -0700, John HarshmanSo your position is that religious attacks on science due to biblical
<john.harshman@gmail.com> wrote:
On 4/22/26 6:10 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Tue, 21 Apr 2026 13:41:24 -0700, Mark IsaakWhat about the Church of England in the person of Bishop Wilberforce?
<specimenNOSPAM@curioustaxon.omy.net> wrote:
On 4/20/26 2:01 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Sat, 18 Apr 2026 13:58:26 -0700, Mark Isaak
<specimenNOSPAM@curioustaxon.omy.net> wrote:
On 4/16/26 2:30 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
[rCa]
No, it was about Biblical Literalism not having been part of >>>>>>>>> mainstream Christianity for the last 2000 years. [...]
None of the literalist scientists mentioned in this thread, to the best
of my knowledge, were anything but mainstream; none were members of >>>>>>>> heretical cults or even created-this-generation offshoot denominations.
As I have noted in another post, they may have been mainstream in a >>>>>>> general sense but regarding bible interpretation, they were speaking >>>>>>> as individuals, not as official representatives of any particular >>>>>>> religious group.
In other words, religion is never to blame for anything bad done under >>>>>> its inspiration. Nice escape hatch.
Please stop making up rubbish about what I am saying; I have agreed
with you numerous times that there are plenty of bad things that
religion has done. The cover up of child abuse by the Catholic Church >>>>> was just the most recent one but there are plenty through history -
the Crusades; the activities of the Spanish Inquisition; the treatment >>>>> of the Huguenots by the Catholic Church are just some. Also, plenty of >>>>> individual things like the burning of Bruno and, not quite on the same >>>>> scale, the abuse of papal powers to silence Galileo.
Neither the Catholic Church nor any of the other mainstream churches, >>>>> however, have used biblical literalism to try to dismiss science in
the way that US fundamentalist and evangelicals have done.
As I've said to you before, attack my Church or other churches for
things they have genuinely done and I will agree with you but I make >>>>> no apology for pointing out when you and others attack with claims
that simply don't stand up to even minimal scrutiny.
Would that count?
Certainly - if you can identify the statement he made on behalf of the
Church of England.
literalism only count if they're explicitly attached to the authority of
a mainstream denomination. Perhaps a sentence has to begin, "In my
capacity as bishop of the Church of England...".
Only if he's making a statement on behalf of the Church of England
rather than a personal opinion.
On Sun, 26 Apr 2026 22:01:34 -0500, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>
wrote:
On 4/26/2026 4:11 PM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Sun, 26 Apr 2026 12:07:27 -0500, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>
wrote:
[...]
Your source lied.
So you reckon that the Catholic Church lied about what happened;
Professor Augustus De Morgan lied; Karl von Gebler lied; Stillman
Drake lied; basically, everybody lied except your geocentrist mentor.
[...]
Why do you think that you have to snip out what you did and do whatever >>>> you think that you are doing?
I snip your rubbish because it doesn't improve with repetition.
[..]
Your own trusted source told you that Galileo faced the charge of heresy both times (1616 and 1633).
Now you are lying. Here is exactly what my source - the Catholic
Encyclopedia - says:
It was your source, so why put up some other quote to counter what you
just lied about. It was not an Encyclopedia entry. It was just an
article on the Galileo incident.
What article? I don't recall posting anything else except the Catholic Encyclopedia - that is what I regard as an authoritative source and is
the one I quoted originally about what the Catholic Church, Augustus
De Morgan and Karl von Gebler all said.
[...]
The anti-geocentrists and Wiki agreed on Galileo facing a formal heresy
charge.
Please cite:
a) any "anti-geocentrist" who says that Galileo faced a heresy charge
in 1616 because I am not aware of a single one who says it.
b) what Wiki article says he faced a heresy charge in 1616 because I
cannot find that in any Wiki article about the affair.
Your own trusted source claimed that Galileo faced a heresy
charge in 1616.
Again, what "trusted source" are you on about? My trusted source is
the Catholic Encyclopedia and that certainly does not say it.
On 4/27/2026 7:17 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Sun, 26 Apr 2026 22:01:34 -0500, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>
wrote:
On 4/26/2026 4:11 PM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Sun, 26 Apr 2026 12:07:27 -0500, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>
wrote:
[...]
Your source lied.
So you reckon that the Catholic Church lied about what happened;
Professor Augustus De Morgan lied; Karl von Gebler lied; Stillman
Drake lied; basically, everybody lied except your geocentrist mentor.
[...]
Why do you think that you have to snip out what you did and do whatever >>>>> you think that you are doing?
I snip your rubbish because it doesn't improve with repetition.
[..]
Your own trusted source told you that Galileo faced the charge of heresy both times (1616 and 1633).
Now you are lying. Here is exactly what my source - the Catholic
Encyclopedia - says:
It was your source, so why put up some other quote to counter what you
just lied about. It was not an Encyclopedia entry. It was just an
article on the Galileo incident.
What article? I don't recall posting anything else except the Catholic
Encyclopedia - that is what I regard as an authoritative source and is
the one I quoted originally about what the Catholic Church, Augustus
De Morgan and Karl von Gebler all said.
[...]
The article that came from your trusted source. You put up the link and
I just found the article that just stating matter of factly that Galileo >faced a heresy charge both times in 1616 and 1633.
On 4/27/26 4:26 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Sun, 26 Apr 2026 20:45:22 -0700, John Harshman
<john.harshman@gmail.com> wrote:
On 4/26/26 2:14 PM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Wed, 22 Apr 2026 13:21:52 -0700, John HarshmanSo your position is that religious attacks on science due to biblical
<john.harshman@gmail.com> wrote:
On 4/22/26 6:10 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Tue, 21 Apr 2026 13:41:24 -0700, Mark IsaakWhat about the Church of England in the person of Bishop Wilberforce? >>>>> Would that count?
<specimenNOSPAM@curioustaxon.omy.net> wrote:
On 4/20/26 2:01 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Sat, 18 Apr 2026 13:58:26 -0700, Mark Isaak
<specimenNOSPAM@curioustaxon.omy.net> wrote:
On 4/16/26 2:30 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
[rCa]
No, it was about Biblical Literalism not having been part of >>>>>>>>>> mainstream Christianity for the last 2000 years. [...]
None of the literalist scientists mentioned in this thread, to the best
of my knowledge, were anything but mainstream; none were members of >>>>>>>>> heretical cults or even created-this-generation offshoot denominations.
As I have noted in another post, they may have been mainstream in a >>>>>>>> general sense but regarding bible interpretation, they were speaking >>>>>>>> as individuals, not as official representatives of any particular >>>>>>>> religious group.
In other words, religion is never to blame for anything bad done under >>>>>>> its inspiration. Nice escape hatch.
Please stop making up rubbish about what I am saying; I have agreed >>>>>> with you numerous times that there are plenty of bad things that
religion has done. The cover up of child abuse by the Catholic Church >>>>>> was just the most recent one but there are plenty through history - >>>>>> the Crusades; the activities of the Spanish Inquisition; the treatment >>>>>> of the Huguenots by the Catholic Church are just some. Also, plenty of >>>>>> individual things like the burning of Bruno and, not quite on the same >>>>>> scale, the abuse of papal powers to silence Galileo.
Neither the Catholic Church nor any of the other mainstream churches, >>>>>> however, have used biblical literalism to try to dismiss science in >>>>>> the way that US fundamentalist and evangelicals have done.
As I've said to you before, attack my Church or other churches for >>>>>> things they have genuinely done and I will agree with you but I make >>>>>> no apology for pointing out when you and others attack with claims >>>>>> that simply don't stand up to even minimal scrutiny.
Certainly - if you can identify the statement he made on behalf of the >>>> Church of England.
literalism only count if they're explicitly attached to the authority of >>> a mainstream denomination. Perhaps a sentence has to begin, "In my
capacity as bishop of the Church of England...".
Only if he's making a statement on behalf of the Church of England
rather than a personal opinion.
How do you tell if a bishop is speaking on behalf of the Church or not?
On Mon, 27 Apr 2026 09:06:44 -0500, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>
wrote:
On 4/27/2026 7:17 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Sun, 26 Apr 2026 22:01:34 -0500, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>
wrote:
On 4/26/2026 4:11 PM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Sun, 26 Apr 2026 12:07:27 -0500, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>
wrote:
[...]
Your source lied.
So you reckon that the Catholic Church lied about what happened;
Professor Augustus De Morgan lied; Karl von Gebler lied; Stillman
Drake lied; basically, everybody lied except your geocentrist mentor. >>>>>
[...]
Why do you think that you have to snip out what you did and do whatever >>>>>> you think that you are doing?
I snip your rubbish because it doesn't improve with repetition.
[..]
Your own trusted source told you that Galileo faced the charge of heresy both times (1616 and 1633).
Now you are lying. Here is exactly what my source - the Catholic
Encyclopedia - says:
It was your source, so why put up some other quote to counter what you >>>> just lied about. It was not an Encyclopedia entry. It was just an
article on the Galileo incident.
What article? I don't recall posting anything else except the Catholic
Encyclopedia - that is what I regard as an authoritative source and is
the one I quoted originally about what the Catholic Church, Augustus
De Morgan and Karl von Gebler all said.
[...]
The article that came from your trusted source. You put up the link and
I just found the article that just stating matter of factly that Galileo
faced a heresy charge both times in 1616 and 1633.
I haven't a clue what article you are talking about and neither do you apparently. Time to put up or shut up, Ron - repost the post where you
claim I put up that article. Otherwise, we will just have to put it
down as another product of your fertile imagination.
[rCa]
On 4/25/2026 11:30 AM, Mark Isaak wrote:[...]
On 4/23/26 7:10 AM, sticks wrote:
On 4/22/2026 9:54 PM, Mark Isaak wrote:
Again, I'm fairly certain you know the Christian response to this,Specifically, what did God create,
Everything.
So you accept that God created death and suffering, including
diseases such as pertussis, schizophrenia, cancer, and arthritis. >>>>>> Some people give credit for that to Satan, or even Adam and/or Eve. >>>>>
but I will go a little further than even that.
I know several different Christian responses, including the one you
gave. (And I very much appreciate your giving it; thank you.) I also
know some problems with most of those responses.
-aI have come to believe that not only does God allow death and
suffering, he knew it would all happen before he began creation.
So why allow it then?-a Because the whole point in creating us, was >>>>> to create something that didn't exist without life forms like us.
Though God has aseity, he must have seen the value in giving free
will to us and allowing for Love to come into existence. It is the
greatest and most valuable thing there is in the universe. Love is
the reason for everything!
Is there free will in Heaven?
(I'm surprised I don't see that question more often. It raises all
sorts of important theological issues.)
Of course, there has to be.-a What would the point be otherwise.
What heaven and hell are exactly is the question.-a I don't spend a
lot of time on it because I believe it must be good.-a But I'll give
an example to show the main difference.-a On earth you can ignore God
with seemingly no consequences in your daily life.-a If you choose to
reject God and end up in "hell" that is entirely different.-a You get
to spend all of eternity in complete separation from God, absolutely
knowing finally that God is real, and there is no way to ever be near
him. Eternal separation from the love of God.-a Horrible.
But having free will was the start of all the problems. Allowing free
will in Heaven means allowing problems in Heaven. Or maybe people
(souls?) who have been in Heaven for a while get kicked down to Hell
on a regular basis as they choose wrongly?
As I said above, I don't spend a lot of time investigating concepts of heaven and hell.
That said, the point of my example was really for the
opposite of choosing wrongly.-a I can't fully understand what the
afterlife is, but I get the impression once you are immersed with the
power, goodness, and love of God, you probably aren't gong to be
spending your time thinking of how you can do wrong.-a I'm willing to
just wait and see.
[...]
So yeah, creation was perfect and without suffering and death
initially. -a-aAdam's sin changed all that.-a God did not create the >>>>> pain and suffering, we did.
That's a huge problem for me. What is the mechanism by which eating
a fruit creates bot flies, brambles, bubonic plague, and bracket
fungus? I don't buy it. Changes on that scale had to have divine
agency behind it, if it happened in less than 100 million years.
And, as I alluded to, such profound change amounts to a second
Creation, which you deny happened.
All of creation groans.-a We had free will.-a The option to live
sinfully was there in the beginning.-a We chose it.-a God allowed us to >>> live with our choice and the corruption of everything began.
You seem to think that free will gives someone unlimited godlike power.
You know that's not my position.
[...]
Free will did not create the second creation after the Fall. A god had
to have done that. And yes, it most definitely was a second creation
you describe. A "creation" refers to the deliberate origin of anything
significant (animals, mountains, constellations), not just a universe.
The origin of death and all the new species and adaptations that go
with it certainly qualifies.
Obviously, I don't know exactly how it was done.-a Like everything
created, information is the key.
My guess is that all the information
for both pleasant and unpleasant things were included in the initial creation.-a We still have a long way to go in understanding the genetic code.-a Did God throw a switch once man rebelled to turn on the unpleasant?-a Hell, I don't know.-a All I do know is he said his creation was complete after day 6.-a Everything since is his providence.-a I'll
take his word for it.
[...]
People don't get malaria because they have free will; they get malaria
because God created plasmodium protozoans to infect them. If God
eradicated Plasmodium, people would still have free will, AND they
would stop suffering and dying from malaria.
God didn't specifically create disease.
He allows it because we broke
the rules and allowed it into our lives.-a If he did what you suggest it would just be a care free world of puppets.-a You seem to want him to
turn a blind eye to sin because it causes suffering.-a He can't do that
in this life.-a That was the whole purpose of the death and resurrection
of Christ.
[big snip]
I've already given you my process of getting to where I am at today.-a As
I said, unless and until someone can answer the origin of the universe
or the origin of life by naturalistic means acceptably, I think it is logical to consider an intelligent designer in the equation.
So let's go ahead and start with that one, again.
On Thu, 23 Apr 2026 08:33:07 -0700, John Harshman
<john.harshman@gmail.com> wrote:
On 4/13/26 4:14 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Sat, 11 Apr 2026 18:49:14 -0500, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>
wrote:
[rCa]
Harran knows that the Biblical interpretations are wrong, he
just wants it to be due to faulty human interpretation instead of faulty >>>> authorship.
Harran is adopting the exact same approach as mainstream Christianity
has done for 2000 years. Biblical literalism is a relatively new kid
on the block, developed in the late 19th/early 20th century, by
American evangelicals and fundamentalists - you should really target
your ire towards gullible USians.
Here are some cases of biblical literalism resulting in rejection of
science, both European and preceding the late 19th/early 20th century:
https://web.archive.org/web/20241110105607/http://talkreason.org/articles/More.cfm
Though perhaps the writers are not "mainstream". Hard to tell.
More relevantly - did any of them speak on behalf of any mainstream denomination?
On Mon, 27 Apr 2026 06:19:27 -0700, John Harshman
<john.harshman@gmail.com> wrote:
On 4/27/26 4:26 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Sun, 26 Apr 2026 20:45:22 -0700, John Harshman
<john.harshman@gmail.com> wrote:
On 4/26/26 2:14 PM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Wed, 22 Apr 2026 13:21:52 -0700, John HarshmanSo your position is that religious attacks on science due to biblical
<john.harshman@gmail.com> wrote:
On 4/22/26 6:10 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Tue, 21 Apr 2026 13:41:24 -0700, Mark IsaakWhat about the Church of England in the person of Bishop Wilberforce? >>>>>> Would that count?
<specimenNOSPAM@curioustaxon.omy.net> wrote:
On 4/20/26 2:01 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Sat, 18 Apr 2026 13:58:26 -0700, Mark Isaak
<specimenNOSPAM@curioustaxon.omy.net> wrote:
On 4/16/26 2:30 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
[rCa]
No, it was about Biblical Literalism not having been part of >>>>>>>>>>> mainstream Christianity for the last 2000 years. [...]
None of the literalist scientists mentioned in this thread, to the best
of my knowledge, were anything but mainstream; none were members of >>>>>>>>>> heretical cults or even created-this-generation offshoot denominations.
As I have noted in another post, they may have been mainstream in a >>>>>>>>> general sense but regarding bible interpretation, they were speaking >>>>>>>>> as individuals, not as official representatives of any particular >>>>>>>>> religious group.
In other words, religion is never to blame for anything bad done under >>>>>>>> its inspiration. Nice escape hatch.
Please stop making up rubbish about what I am saying; I have agreed >>>>>>> with you numerous times that there are plenty of bad things that >>>>>>> religion has done. The cover up of child abuse by the Catholic Church >>>>>>> was just the most recent one but there are plenty through history - >>>>>>> the Crusades; the activities of the Spanish Inquisition; the treatment >>>>>>> of the Huguenots by the Catholic Church are just some. Also, plenty of >>>>>>> individual things like the burning of Bruno and, not quite on the same >>>>>>> scale, the abuse of papal powers to silence Galileo.
Neither the Catholic Church nor any of the other mainstream churches, >>>>>>> however, have used biblical literalism to try to dismiss science in >>>>>>> the way that US fundamentalist and evangelicals have done.
As I've said to you before, attack my Church or other churches for >>>>>>> things they have genuinely done and I will agree with you but I make >>>>>>> no apology for pointing out when you and others attack with claims >>>>>>> that simply don't stand up to even minimal scrutiny.
Certainly - if you can identify the statement he made on behalf of the >>>>> Church of England.
literalism only count if they're explicitly attached to the authority of >>>> a mainstream denomination. Perhaps a sentence has to begin, "In my
capacity as bishop of the Church of England...".
Only if he's making a statement on behalf of the Church of England
rather than a personal opinion.
How do you tell if a bishop is speaking on behalf of the Church or not?
If a statement Is on behalf of the Church, it will clearly say so.
Here is a recent example - pay attention to the first six words.
https://www.churchofengland.org/sites/default/files/2026-01/bishops-statement-jan-2026-final.pdf
You should also look at the press release that accompanied it,
particularly the 'Notes to Editors' at the bottom which shows where
the authority came from.
https://www.thinkinganglicans.org.uk/llf-house-of-bishops-issues-statement/
On 4/26/26 2:16 PM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Thu, 23 Apr 2026 08:33:07 -0700, John Harshman
<john.harshman@gmail.com> wrote:
On 4/13/26 4:14 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Sat, 11 Apr 2026 18:49:14 -0500, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>
wrote:
[rCa]
Harran knows that the Biblical interpretations are wrong, he
just wants it to be due to faulty human interpretation instead of
faulty
authorship.
Harran is adopting the exact same approach as mainstream Christianity
has done for 2000 years. Biblical literalism is a relatively new kid
on the block, developed in the late 19th/early 20th century, by
American evangelicals and fundamentalists - you should really target
your ire towards gullible USians.
Here are some cases of biblical literalism resulting in rejection of
science, both European and preceding the late 19th/early 20th century:
https://web.archive.org/web/20241110105607/http://talkreason.org/articles/More.cfm
Though perhaps the writers are not "mainstream". Hard to tell.
More relevantly - did any of them speak on behalf of any mainstream
denomination?
You belong to an extremely hierarchical rule-dominated denomination of Christianity, and I can see that that can influence your views of Christianity. However, Christianity outside Catholicism (and Mormonism
and perhaps some other minor sects) is not nearly so formally organized.
A Christian preacher can get in front of a congregation and say that he
(or, rarely, she) speaks for God, and can tell you what the Bible means
on sundry issues. Many do. Do they speak "on behalf of" a mainstream denomination? They belong to mainstream denominations, and they will
tell you that they speak on behalf of God. Surely that qualifies.
This is true not just today, but back at least to the early 1800s.
On 4/27/2026 9:24 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Mon, 27 Apr 2026 09:06:44 -0500, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>Just try to deal with what you snipped out of the last few posts to >demonstrate for yourself that your recollection is so bogus and
wrote:
On 4/27/2026 7:17 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Sun, 26 Apr 2026 22:01:34 -0500, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>
wrote:
On 4/26/2026 4:11 PM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Sun, 26 Apr 2026 12:07:27 -0500, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>
wrote:
[...]
Your source lied.
So you reckon that the Catholic Church lied about what happened;
Professor Augustus De Morgan lied; Karl von Gebler lied; Stillman
Drake lied; basically, everybody lied except your geocentrist mentor. >>>>>>
[...]
Why do you think that you have to snip out what you did and do whatever >>>>>>> you think that you are doing?
I snip your rubbish because it doesn't improve with repetition.
[..]
Your own trusted source told you that Galileo faced the charge of heresy both times (1616 and 1633).
Now you are lying. Here is exactly what my source - the Catholic
Encyclopedia - says:
It was your source, so why put up some other quote to counter what you >>>>> just lied about. It was not an Encyclopedia entry. It was just an
article on the Galileo incident.
What article? I don't recall posting anything else except the Catholic >>>> Encyclopedia - that is what I regard as an authoritative source and is >>>> the one I quoted originally about what the Catholic Church, Augustus
De Morgan and Karl von Gebler all said.
[...]
The article that came from your trusted source. You put up the link and >>> I just found the article that just stating matter of factly that Galileo >>> faced a heresy charge both times in 1616 and 1633.
I haven't a clue what article you are talking about and neither do you
apparently. Time to put up or shut up, Ron - repost the post where you
claim I put up that article. Otherwise, we will just have to put it
down as another product of your fertile imagination.
[rCa]
dishonest that you should not even try that gambit at this time. Your >inability to recall what stupid things that you did is legendary in just >these last couple of threads. What have you been denying that you are >currently running from?
You should just apologize and quit lying about the past.
Really, you just snipped out the reposts that you have been claiming
never happened. Your stupid lies and denial are just tragically lame.
On 4/27/26 7:35 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Mon, 27 Apr 2026 06:19:27 -0700, John Harshman
<john.harshman@gmail.com> wrote:
On 4/27/26 4:26 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Sun, 26 Apr 2026 20:45:22 -0700, John Harshman
<john.harshman@gmail.com> wrote:
On 4/26/26 2:14 PM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Wed, 22 Apr 2026 13:21:52 -0700, John HarshmanSo your position is that religious attacks on science due to biblical >>>>> literalism only count if they're explicitly attached to the authority of >>>>> a mainstream denomination. Perhaps a sentence has to begin, "In my
<john.harshman@gmail.com> wrote:
On 4/22/26 6:10 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Tue, 21 Apr 2026 13:41:24 -0700, Mark IsaakWhat about the Church of England in the person of Bishop Wilberforce? >>>>>>> Would that count?
<specimenNOSPAM@curioustaxon.omy.net> wrote:
On 4/20/26 2:01 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Sat, 18 Apr 2026 13:58:26 -0700, Mark Isaak
<specimenNOSPAM@curioustaxon.omy.net> wrote:
On 4/16/26 2:30 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
[rCa]
No, it was about Biblical Literalism not having been part of >>>>>>>>>>>> mainstream Christianity for the last 2000 years. [...]
None of the literalist scientists mentioned in this thread, to the best
of my knowledge, were anything but mainstream; none were members of >>>>>>>>>>> heretical cults or even created-this-generation offshoot denominations.
As I have noted in another post, they may have been mainstream in a >>>>>>>>>> general sense but regarding bible interpretation, they were speaking >>>>>>>>>> as individuals, not as official representatives of any particular >>>>>>>>>> religious group.
In other words, religion is never to blame for anything bad done under
its inspiration. Nice escape hatch.
Please stop making up rubbish about what I am saying; I have agreed >>>>>>>> with you numerous times that there are plenty of bad things that >>>>>>>> religion has done. The cover up of child abuse by the Catholic Church >>>>>>>> was just the most recent one but there are plenty through history - >>>>>>>> the Crusades; the activities of the Spanish Inquisition; the treatment >>>>>>>> of the Huguenots by the Catholic Church are just some. Also, plenty of >>>>>>>> individual things like the burning of Bruno and, not quite on the same >>>>>>>> scale, the abuse of papal powers to silence Galileo.
Neither the Catholic Church nor any of the other mainstream churches, >>>>>>>> however, have used biblical literalism to try to dismiss science in >>>>>>>> the way that US fundamentalist and evangelicals have done.
As I've said to you before, attack my Church or other churches for >>>>>>>> things they have genuinely done and I will agree with you but I make >>>>>>>> no apology for pointing out when you and others attack with claims >>>>>>>> that simply don't stand up to even minimal scrutiny.
Certainly - if you can identify the statement he made on behalf of the >>>>>> Church of England.
capacity as bishop of the Church of England...".
Only if he's making a statement on behalf of the Church of England
rather than a personal opinion.
How do you tell if a bishop is speaking on behalf of the Church or not?
If a statement Is on behalf of the Church, it will clearly say so.
Here is a recent example - pay attention to the first six words.
https://www.churchofengland.org/sites/default/files/2026-01/bishops-statement-jan-2026-final.pdf
You should also look at the press release that accompanied it,
particularly the 'Notes to Editors' at the bottom which shows where
the authority came from.
https://www.thinkinganglicans.org.uk/llf-house-of-bishops-issues-statement/
Granted. Still, even if it wasn't official doctrine, the opposition to >evolution among many prominent figure in the C of E would seem to me >sufficient to make a point.
There's another point of contention. Of course resistance to science
could not pre-exist the science being resisted. Thus belief in a young
earth would have been uncontroversial and likely never questioned until >modern geology began. And belief in the separate creation of species
would have been similarly unquestioned until evolutionary biology began. >Thus it's unlikely to find many doctrinal pronouncements on the subject
much before the mid-nineteenth century. And it requires a special
definition of YEC, that it must arise explicitly in opposition to
science, in order to exclude all the prior believers from that category.
Maybe I've got this wrong, but I don't think there were any
significant religious issues involved at that stage [1], it was just >scientists doing what scientists do - trying to figure things out. The >religious opposition in the form of fundamentalism came about later as
a reaction against the geologists' findings along with other
scientific developments like Darwin's theory and contemporaneous
processes like higher criticism being applied to the Bible.
On Mon, 27 Apr 2026 10:49:10 -0500, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>
wrote:
On 4/27/2026 9:24 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Mon, 27 Apr 2026 09:06:44 -0500, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>Just try to deal with what you snipped out of the last few posts to
wrote:
On 4/27/2026 7:17 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Sun, 26 Apr 2026 22:01:34 -0500, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>
wrote:
On 4/26/2026 4:11 PM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Sun, 26 Apr 2026 12:07:27 -0500, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com> >>>>>>> wrote:
[...]
Your source lied.
So you reckon that the Catholic Church lied about what happened; >>>>>>> Professor Augustus De Morgan lied; Karl von Gebler lied; Stillman >>>>>>> Drake lied; basically, everybody lied except your geocentrist mentor. >>>>>>>
[...]
Why do you think that you have to snip out what you did and do whatever
you think that you are doing?
I snip your rubbish because it doesn't improve with repetition.
[..]
Your own trusted source told you that Galileo faced the charge of heresy both times (1616 and 1633).
Now you are lying. Here is exactly what my source - the Catholic >>>>>>> Encyclopedia - says:
It was your source, so why put up some other quote to counter what you >>>>>> just lied about. It was not an Encyclopedia entry. It was just an >>>>>> article on the Galileo incident.
What article? I don't recall posting anything else except the Catholic >>>>> Encyclopedia - that is what I regard as an authoritative source and is >>>>> the one I quoted originally about what the Catholic Church, Augustus >>>>> De Morgan and Karl von Gebler all said.
[...]
The article that came from your trusted source. You put up the link and >>>> I just found the article that just stating matter of factly that Galileo >>>> faced a heresy charge both times in 1616 and 1633.
I haven't a clue what article you are talking about and neither do you
apparently. Time to put up or shut up, Ron - repost the post where you
claim I put up that article. Otherwise, we will just have to put it
down as another product of your fertile imagination.
[rCa]
demonstrate for yourself that your recollection is so bogus and
dishonest that you should not even try that gambit at this time. Your
inability to recall what stupid things that you did is legendary in just
these last couple of threads. What have you been denying that you are
currently running from?
You should just apologize and quit lying about the past.
Really, you just snipped out the reposts that you have been claiming
never happened. Your stupid lies and denial are just tragically lame.
So, you can't put up and you won't shut up. You have called me a liar
and called reputable scholars liars; now I going to call you out as
the liar here.
You claim I put up an article that Galileo faced a heresy charge both
times in 1616 and 1633. You can't find that article because I didn't
post any such article; it's just a lie by you.
You claim that Wikipedia says Galileo faced a heresy charge in 1616.
You can't cite it because It doesn't say that; just another lie by
you.
You claim that all the "anti-geocentrists" agree with you that
heliocentrism was a heresy. You can't quote any of them because not
one of them does agree with you; yet another lie by you.
I was originally willing to put your errors down to misunderstanding
on your part but your failure to produce anything whatsoever to back
up your claims yet still persist with them whilst attacking other
people makes them outright lies.Really stupid lies at that when they
are so obvious.
On Mon, 27 Apr 2026 13:34:33 -0700, John Harshman
<john.harshman@gmail.com> wrote:
On 4/27/26 7:35 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Mon, 27 Apr 2026 06:19:27 -0700, John HarshmanGranted. Still, even if it wasn't official doctrine, the opposition to
<john.harshman@gmail.com> wrote:
On 4/27/26 4:26 AM, Martin Harran wrote:If a statement Is on behalf of the Church, it will clearly say so.
On Sun, 26 Apr 2026 20:45:22 -0700, John Harshman
<john.harshman@gmail.com> wrote:
On 4/26/26 2:14 PM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Wed, 22 Apr 2026 13:21:52 -0700, John HarshmanSo your position is that religious attacks on science due to biblical >>>>>> literalism only count if they're explicitly attached to the authority of >>>>>> a mainstream denomination. Perhaps a sentence has to begin, "In my >>>>>> capacity as bishop of the Church of England...".
<john.harshman@gmail.com> wrote:
On 4/22/26 6:10 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Tue, 21 Apr 2026 13:41:24 -0700, Mark IsaakWhat about the Church of England in the person of Bishop Wilberforce? >>>>>>>> Would that count?
<specimenNOSPAM@curioustaxon.omy.net> wrote:
On 4/20/26 2:01 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Sat, 18 Apr 2026 13:58:26 -0700, Mark Isaak
<specimenNOSPAM@curioustaxon.omy.net> wrote:
On 4/16/26 2:30 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
[rCa]
No, it was about Biblical Literalism not having been part of >>>>>>>>>>>>> mainstream Christianity for the last 2000 years. [...] >>>>>>>>>>>>None of the literalist scientists mentioned in this thread, to the best
of my knowledge, were anything but mainstream; none were members of
heretical cults or even created-this-generation offshoot denominations.
As I have noted in another post, they may have been mainstream in a >>>>>>>>>>> general sense but regarding bible interpretation, they were speaking
as individuals, not as official representatives of any particular >>>>>>>>>>> religious group.
In other words, religion is never to blame for anything bad done under
its inspiration. Nice escape hatch.
Please stop making up rubbish about what I am saying; I have agreed >>>>>>>>> with you numerous times that there are plenty of bad things that >>>>>>>>> religion has done. The cover up of child abuse by the Catholic Church >>>>>>>>> was just the most recent one but there are plenty through history - >>>>>>>>> the Crusades; the activities of the Spanish Inquisition; the treatment
of the Huguenots by the Catholic Church are just some. Also, plenty of
individual things like the burning of Bruno and, not quite on the same
scale, the abuse of papal powers to silence Galileo.
Neither the Catholic Church nor any of the other mainstream churches, >>>>>>>>> however, have used biblical literalism to try to dismiss science in >>>>>>>>> the way that US fundamentalist and evangelicals have done.
As I've said to you before, attack my Church or other churches for >>>>>>>>> things they have genuinely done and I will agree with you but I make >>>>>>>>> no apology for pointing out when you and others attack with claims >>>>>>>>> that simply don't stand up to even minimal scrutiny.
Certainly - if you can identify the statement he made on behalf of the >>>>>>> Church of England.
Only if he's making a statement on behalf of the Church of England
rather than a personal opinion.
How do you tell if a bishop is speaking on behalf of the Church or not? >>>
Here is a recent example - pay attention to the first six words.
https://www.churchofengland.org/sites/default/files/2026-01/bishops-statement-jan-2026-final.pdf
You should also look at the press release that accompanied it,
particularly the 'Notes to Editors' at the bottom which shows where
the authority came from.
https://www.thinkinganglicans.org.uk/llf-house-of-bishops-issues-statement/ >>
evolution among many prominent figure in the C of E would seem to me
sufficient to make a point.
There's another point of contention. Of course resistance to science
could not pre-exist the science being resisted. Thus belief in a young
earth would have been uncontroversial and likely never questioned until
modern geology began. And belief in the separate creation of species
would have been similarly unquestioned until evolutionary biology began.
Thus it's unlikely to find many doctrinal pronouncements on the subject
much before the mid-nineteenth century. And it requires a special
definition of YEC, that it must arise explicitly in opposition to
science, in order to exclude all the prior believers from that category.
Gosh, I wish I'd thought of that. Oops, wait a minute:
=======================
On Wed, 15 Apr 2026 08:36:59 +0100, Martin Harran
<martinharran@gmail.com> wrote:
Maybe I've got this wrong, but I don't think there were any
significant religious issues involved at that stage [1], it was just
scientists doing what scientists do - trying to figure things out. The
religious opposition in the form of fundamentalism came about later as
a reaction against the geologists' findings along with other
scientific developments like Darwin's theory and contemporaneous
processes like higher criticism being applied to the Bible.
=======================
[1] Pre 19th century
On 4/28/2026 3:14 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Mon, 27 Apr 2026 10:49:10 -0500, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>
wrote:
On 4/27/2026 9:24 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Mon, 27 Apr 2026 09:06:44 -0500, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>Just try to deal with what you snipped out of the last few posts to
wrote:
On 4/27/2026 7:17 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Sun, 26 Apr 2026 22:01:34 -0500, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>
wrote:
On 4/26/2026 4:11 PM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Sun, 26 Apr 2026 12:07:27 -0500, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com> >>>>>>>> wrote:
[...]
Your source lied.
So you reckon that the Catholic Church lied about what happened; >>>>>>>> Professor Augustus De Morgan lied; Karl von Gebler lied; Stillman >>>>>>>> Drake lied; basically, everybody lied except your geocentrist mentor. >>>>>>>>
[...]
Why do you think that you have to snip out what you did and do whatever
you think that you are doing?
I snip your rubbish because it doesn't improve with repetition. >>>>>>>>
[..]
Your own trusted source told you that Galileo faced the charge of heresy both times (1616 and 1633).
Now you are lying. Here is exactly what my source - the Catholic >>>>>>>> Encyclopedia - says:
It was your source, so why put up some other quote to counter what you >>>>>>> just lied about. It was not an Encyclopedia entry. It was just an >>>>>>> article on the Galileo incident.
What article? I don't recall posting anything else except the Catholic >>>>>> Encyclopedia - that is what I regard as an authoritative source and is >>>>>> the one I quoted originally about what the Catholic Church, Augustus >>>>>> De Morgan and Karl von Gebler all said.
[...]
The article that came from your trusted source. You put up the link and >>>>> I just found the article that just stating matter of factly that Galileo >>>>> faced a heresy charge both times in 1616 and 1633.
I haven't a clue what article you are talking about and neither do you >>>> apparently. Time to put up or shut up, Ron - repost the post where you >>>> claim I put up that article. Otherwise, we will just have to put it
down as another product of your fertile imagination.
[rCa]
demonstrate for yourself that your recollection is so bogus and
dishonest that you should not even try that gambit at this time. Your
inability to recall what stupid things that you did is legendary in just >>> these last couple of threads. What have you been denying that you are
currently running from?
You should just apologize and quit lying about the past.
Really, you just snipped out the reposts that you have been claiming
never happened. Your stupid lies and denial are just tragically lame.
So, you can't put up and you won't shut up. You have called me a liar
and called reputable scholars liars; now I going to call you out as
the liar here.
You claim I put up an article that Galileo faced a heresy charge both
times in 1616 and 1633. You can't find that article because I didn't
post any such article; it's just a lie by you.
You claim that Wikipedia says Galileo faced a heresy charge in 1616.
You can't cite it because It doesn't say that; just another lie by
you.
You claim that all the "anti-geocentrists" agree with you that
heliocentrism was a heresy. You can't quote any of them because not
one of them does agree with you; yet another lie by you.
I was originally willing to put your errors down to misunderstanding
on your part but your failure to produce anything whatsoever to back
up your claims yet still persist with them whilst attacking other
people makes them outright lies.Really stupid lies at that when they
are so obvious.
I do not need to counter any of your stupid junk.
On Tue, 28 Apr 2026 09:25:11 -0500, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>
wrote:
On 4/28/2026 3:14 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Mon, 27 Apr 2026 10:49:10 -0500, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>
wrote:
On 4/27/2026 9:24 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Mon, 27 Apr 2026 09:06:44 -0500, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>Just try to deal with what you snipped out of the last few posts to
wrote:
On 4/27/2026 7:17 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Sun, 26 Apr 2026 22:01:34 -0500, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com> >>>>>>> wrote:
On 4/26/2026 4:11 PM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Sun, 26 Apr 2026 12:07:27 -0500, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com> >>>>>>>>> wrote:
[...]
Your source lied.
So you reckon that the Catholic Church lied about what happened; >>>>>>>>> Professor Augustus De Morgan lied; Karl von Gebler lied; Stillman >>>>>>>>> Drake lied; basically, everybody lied except your geocentrist mentor. >>>>>>>>>
[...]
Why do you think that you have to snip out what you did and do whatever
you think that you are doing?
I snip your rubbish because it doesn't improve with repetition. >>>>>>>>>
[..]
Your own trusted source told you that Galileo faced the charge of heresy both times (1616 and 1633).
Now you are lying. Here is exactly what my source - the Catholic >>>>>>>>> Encyclopedia - says:
It was your source, so why put up some other quote to counter what you >>>>>>>> just lied about. It was not an Encyclopedia entry. It was just an >>>>>>>> article on the Galileo incident.
What article? I don't recall posting anything else except the Catholic >>>>>>> Encyclopedia - that is what I regard as an authoritative source and is >>>>>>> the one I quoted originally about what the Catholic Church, Augustus >>>>>>> De Morgan and Karl von Gebler all said.
[...]
The article that came from your trusted source. You put up the link and >>>>>> I just found the article that just stating matter of factly that Galileo >>>>>> faced a heresy charge both times in 1616 and 1633.
I haven't a clue what article you are talking about and neither do you >>>>> apparently. Time to put up or shut up, Ron - repost the post where you >>>>> claim I put up that article. Otherwise, we will just have to put it
down as another product of your fertile imagination.
[rCa]
demonstrate for yourself that your recollection is so bogus and
dishonest that you should not even try that gambit at this time. Your >>>> inability to recall what stupid things that you did is legendary in just >>>> these last couple of threads. What have you been denying that you are >>>> currently running from?
You should just apologize and quit lying about the past.
Really, you just snipped out the reposts that you have been claiming
never happened. Your stupid lies and denial are just tragically lame. >>>>
So, you can't put up and you won't shut up. You have called me a liar
and called reputable scholars liars; now I going to call you out as
the liar here.
You claim I put up an article that Galileo faced a heresy charge both
times in 1616 and 1633. You can't find that article because I didn't
post any such article; it's just a lie by you.
You claim that Wikipedia says Galileo faced a heresy charge in 1616.
You can't cite it because It doesn't say that; just another lie by
you.
You claim that all the "anti-geocentrists" agree with you that
heliocentrism was a heresy. You can't quote any of them because not
one of them does agree with you; yet another lie by you.
I was originally willing to put your errors down to misunderstanding
on your part but your failure to produce anything whatsoever to back
up your claims yet still persist with them whilst attacking other
people makes them outright lies.Really stupid lies at that when they
are so obvious.
I do not need to counter any of your stupid junk.
You would if you could but the reality is that you cannot produce a
single thing to support your own junk because that is where the lies
really are.
On 4/29/2026 12:56 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Tue, 28 Apr 2026 09:25:11 -0500, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>
wrote:
On 4/28/2026 3:14 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Mon, 27 Apr 2026 10:49:10 -0500, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>
wrote:
On 4/27/2026 9:24 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Mon, 27 Apr 2026 09:06:44 -0500, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>Just try to deal with what you snipped out of the last few posts to
wrote:
On 4/27/2026 7:17 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Sun, 26 Apr 2026 22:01:34 -0500, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com> >>>>>>>> wrote:
On 4/26/2026 4:11 PM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Sun, 26 Apr 2026 12:07:27 -0500, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com> >>>>>>>>>> wrote:
[...]
Your source lied.
So you reckon that the Catholic Church lied about what happened; >>>>>>>>>> Professor Augustus De Morgan lied; Karl von Gebler lied; Stillman >>>>>>>>>> Drake lied; basically, everybody lied except your geocentrist mentor.
[...]
Why do you think that you have to snip out what you did and do whatever
you think that you are doing?
I snip your rubbish because it doesn't improve with repetition. >>>>>>>>>>
[..]
Your own trusted source told you that Galileo faced the charge of heresy both times (1616 and 1633).
Now you are lying. Here is exactly what my source - the Catholic >>>>>>>>>> Encyclopedia - says:
It was your source, so why put up some other quote to counter what you
just lied about. It was not an Encyclopedia entry. It was just an >>>>>>>>> article on the Galileo incident.
What article? I don't recall posting anything else except the Catholic >>>>>>>> Encyclopedia - that is what I regard as an authoritative source and is >>>>>>>> the one I quoted originally about what the Catholic Church, Augustus >>>>>>>> De Morgan and Karl von Gebler all said.
[...]
The article that came from your trusted source. You put up the link and
I just found the article that just stating matter of factly that Galileo
faced a heresy charge both times in 1616 and 1633.
I haven't a clue what article you are talking about and neither do you >>>>>> apparently. Time to put up or shut up, Ron - repost the post where you >>>>>> claim I put up that article. Otherwise, we will just have to put it >>>>>> down as another product of your fertile imagination.
[rCa]
demonstrate for yourself that your recollection is so bogus and
dishonest that you should not even try that gambit at this time. Your >>>>> inability to recall what stupid things that you did is legendary in just >>>>> these last couple of threads. What have you been denying that you are >>>>> currently running from?
You should just apologize and quit lying about the past.
Really, you just snipped out the reposts that you have been claiming >>>>> never happened. Your stupid lies and denial are just tragically lame. >>>>>
So, you can't put up and you won't shut up. You have called me a liar
and called reputable scholars liars; now I going to call you out as
the liar here.
You claim I put up an article that Galileo faced a heresy charge both
times in 1616 and 1633. You can't find that article because I didn't
post any such article; it's just a lie by you.
You claim that Wikipedia says Galileo faced a heresy charge in 1616.
You can't cite it because It doesn't say that; just another lie by
you.
You claim that all the "anti-geocentrists" agree with you that
heliocentrism was a heresy. You can't quote any of them because not
one of them does agree with you; yet another lie by you.
I was originally willing to put your errors down to misunderstanding
on your part but your failure to produce anything whatsoever to back
up your claims yet still persist with them whilst attacking other
people makes them outright lies.Really stupid lies at that when they
are so obvious.
I do not need to counter any of your stupid junk.
You would if you could but the reality is that you cannot produce a
single thing to support your own junk because that is where the lies
really are.
It has already been countered.
On Wed, 29 Apr 2026 09:01:16 -0500, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>
wrote:
On 4/29/2026 12:56 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Tue, 28 Apr 2026 09:25:11 -0500, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>
wrote:
On 4/28/2026 3:14 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Mon, 27 Apr 2026 10:49:10 -0500, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>
wrote:
On 4/27/2026 9:24 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Mon, 27 Apr 2026 09:06:44 -0500, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com> >>>>>>> wrote:Just try to deal with what you snipped out of the last few posts to >>>>>> demonstrate for yourself that your recollection is so bogus and
On 4/27/2026 7:17 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Sun, 26 Apr 2026 22:01:34 -0500, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com> >>>>>>>>> wrote:
On 4/26/2026 4:11 PM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Sun, 26 Apr 2026 12:07:27 -0500, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com> >>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
[...]
Your source lied.
So you reckon that the Catholic Church lied about what happened; >>>>>>>>>>> Professor Augustus De Morgan lied; Karl von Gebler lied; Stillman >>>>>>>>>>> Drake lied; basically, everybody lied except your geocentrist mentor.
[...]
Why do you think that you have to snip out what you did and do whatever
you think that you are doing?
I snip your rubbish because it doesn't improve with repetition. >>>>>>>>>>>
[..]
Your own trusted source told you that Galileo faced the charge of heresy both times (1616 and 1633).
Now you are lying. Here is exactly what my source - the Catholic >>>>>>>>>>> Encyclopedia - says:
It was your source, so why put up some other quote to counter what you
just lied about. It was not an Encyclopedia entry. It was just an >>>>>>>>>> article on the Galileo incident.
What article? I don't recall posting anything else except the Catholic
Encyclopedia - that is what I regard as an authoritative source and is
the one I quoted originally about what the Catholic Church, Augustus >>>>>>>>> De Morgan and Karl von Gebler all said.
[...]
The article that came from your trusted source. You put up the link and
I just found the article that just stating matter of factly that Galileo
faced a heresy charge both times in 1616 and 1633.
I haven't a clue what article you are talking about and neither do you >>>>>>> apparently. Time to put up or shut up, Ron - repost the post where you >>>>>>> claim I put up that article. Otherwise, we will just have to put it >>>>>>> down as another product of your fertile imagination.
[rCa]
dishonest that you should not even try that gambit at this time. Your >>>>>> inability to recall what stupid things that you did is legendary in just >>>>>> these last couple of threads. What have you been denying that you are >>>>>> currently running from?
You should just apologize and quit lying about the past.
Really, you just snipped out the reposts that you have been claiming >>>>>> never happened. Your stupid lies and denial are just tragically lame. >>>>>>
So, you can't put up and you won't shut up. You have called me a liar >>>>> and called reputable scholars liars; now I going to call you out as
the liar here.
You claim I put up an article that Galileo faced a heresy charge both >>>>> times in 1616 and 1633. You can't find that article because I didn't >>>>> post any such article; it's just a lie by you.
You claim that Wikipedia says Galileo faced a heresy charge in 1616. >>>>> You can't cite it because It doesn't say that; just another lie by
you.
You claim that all the "anti-geocentrists" agree with you that
heliocentrism was a heresy. You can't quote any of them because not
one of them does agree with you; yet another lie by you.
I was originally willing to put your errors down to misunderstanding >>>>> on your part but your failure to produce anything whatsoever to back >>>>> up your claims yet still persist with them whilst attacking other
people makes them outright lies.Really stupid lies at that when they >>>>> are so obvious.
I do not need to counter any of your stupid junk.
You would if you could but the reality is that you cannot produce a
single thing to support your own junk because that is where the lies
really are.
It has already been countered.
No it hasn't. I asked you to substantiate three things that you
claimed and you couldn't even substantiate one, never mind all three.
Not even the easiest one. It's not hard to search Wikipedia; no great research involved. You claimed it stated that Galileo faced a heresy
charge in 1616 - how come you can't find that in any of the Wiki
articles about Galileo. That's because you either imagined it or just
made it up; either way, persisting with the claim when you can't
substantiate it is an outright lie.
The same applies to accusing me of lying and accusing the repeatable
scholars of being liars - you can't give even one example. As I've
said before, I can't figure out whether you can't see how idiotic you
are making yourself here or whether you see it and just don't care.
[ snip patheic handwaving ]
On Mon, 20 Apr 2026 13:40:43 -0500, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>are lying".
wrote:
On 4/20/2026 4:08 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Sat, 18 Apr 2026 12:06:53 -0500, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>
wrote:
On 4/18/2026 6:24 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Wed, 15 Apr 2026 14:31:27 -0500, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>
wrote:
On 4/15/2026 11:36 AM, Martin Harran wrote:[rCa]
On Wed, 15 Apr 2026 16:59:56 +0100, "Kerr-Mudd, John"
No one is going to convince an opponent by stating that "they
(no matterand probably not by constant repetition of the same arguments
reality,how valid) that failed to get through the first 50 times.
Tell that to RonO, he's the one who keeps calling everyone who
disagrees with him a liar.
Who got caught lying and quote mining? You need to deal with
it isand quit lying about it. Lying about me is just so stupid that
matched bypretty much insane. You have always lied about the sources that you
could not deal honestly with. Who's sources have always come up short?
Look at what you are doing now. Is there any excuse for you not dealing
with your own stupid dishonest behavior?
The tiresomeness of you continually claiming that my sources were
caught lying and that I have been lying and quote mining is
beenthe tiresomeness of your inability to ever identify what lie my
sources were caught in, what lies I have told or where I have quote
mined.
[... more big snip ...]
Why keep lying about what your sources did and what you did? That is
just stupid and dishonest. Just look up your past posts to determine
for yourself what went down. You tried to lie about my sources being
deficient when your sources had always come up short or even supported
my sources by putting up the lame lie that heliocentrism had never
the samecondemned other then by the inquisition. It was stupid because it did
not negate what you and your sources had been wrong about. It turned
out that your source was lying and you ran. You ran twice from
whatevidence that your source was lying. You tried to come back with your
lame quote mining efforts and trying to distract the argument from
it had been. You did that, and your source was demonstrated to have
lied about the issue. You need to go back and deal with what you did.
An appology for your disgraceful behavior would be in order. Just try
not to do it again. Continuing to lie about what happened is just
adding to how low you needed to go.
Yet again, you make all sorts of accusations without a single example
of something to support them.
What I cannot figure out is whether you just can't grasp that your
failure to produce a single example of supporting evidence portrays
*you* as the one telling lies; or whether you do grasp it and just
don't care; or whether, like a certain President, you think that if
you repeat a lie enough times that someone will eventually believe it.
You should apologize for what you have been doing and stop doing it. I
found the posts where you ran from your source having been caught lying,
you then snipped the evidence out of your response to your running.
The thread: There is no legitimate scientific support for the ID scam.
I can post your quote mining attempts and other stupid behavior that you
resorted to to defend your running and defense of your bogus source.
So why don't you instead of talking about it?
Specific examples, please, not reams and reams of obfuscatory cut'n
paste.
On Sun, 16 Nov 2025 18:25:18 -0600, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>claiming you
wrote:
On 11/16/2025 4:40 PM, Martin Harran wrote:[rCa]
The links that I put up were from the Catholics that continue to be
geocentric creationists, and the Catholics that are trying to refute
them. Both sides do not agree with you. What does your continued
denial of reality tell you?
You gave no such links. All you have to do to prove me wrong is give
them again.
Do you not see how stupid you are making yourself look by
gave links but cannot repeat them?
Why lie about something so stupid. One of the links was your own
trusted Catholic site, and you initially gave that link.
That was this site:
https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/06342b.htm
The one where the Catholic Church states:
" In thus acting, it is undeniable that the ecclesiastical authorities
committed a grave and deplorable error, and sanctioned an altogether
false principle as to the proper use of Scripture."
The one that cites Professor Augustus De Morgan (Budget of Paradoxes)
declaring
"It is clear that the absurdity was the act of the Italian
Inquisition, for the private and personal pleasure of the pope - who
knew that the course he took could not convict him as pope - and not
of the body which calls itself the Church."
The one that cites von Gebler ("Galileo Galilei"):
"The Church never condemned it (the Copernican system) at all, for the
Qualifiers of the Holy Office never mean the Church."
It beats me how you figure out that site and the people referred to in
it somehow back your claim that heliocentrism really was a heresy. I
guess you have to convince yourself in order to maintain your delusion
as you clearly can't find a reputable source that actually does back
you up.
Yes, everyone admits that they were wrong about geocentrism except for
the Catholics that are still geocentrics. This source called what
Galileo faced both times a charge of heresy. They did not make a
distinction between formal heresy and heresy like the anti geocentric
site, but it was still a heresy.
What part of "The Church never condemned it (the Copernican system) at
all" did you not understand?
The only place that formal comes into all this is in the judgement
issued after Galileo's first trial where the verdict stated that the proposition that the Sun is stationary at the centre of the universe
is "foolish and absurd in philosophy, and formally heretical since it explicitly contradicts in many places the sense of Holy Scripture".
That, however, is t the Catholic Encyclopaedia refers to where it
says:
"it is undeniable that the ecclesiastical authorities committed a
grave and deplorable error, and sanctioned an altogether false
principle as to the proper use of Scripture."
Note also that the words "formally heretical" are wrong - I'm not sure whether it was the Inquisition using weasel words or whether it was a
bad translation from the Latin.
The word "heresy" can be used in two ways; it can apply to the
rejection of a specific doctrine of the Church or it can refer to the
act of committing heresy. The word "formal" applies to the latter -
the act of committing heresy - and is used to categorise the degree of
guilt of the person committing the heresy. "Formal heresy" means they
knew they were going against doctrine and are therefore guilty of
mortal sin; "material heresy" means they did not know they were going against doctrine so they are not guilty sin.
It's a bit like first degree versus second degree murder and Galileo's
trial was like him being charged with first-degree murder without a
murder being established in the first place.
The Inquisition made it into a formal heresy after the Council of Trent.
They were supposedly wrong, and a couple centuries later things got
reversed to what they had been at the time that the findings of the
Council of Trent were published.
The holy office (the inquisition) had Galileo facing a formal heresy
charge in his first encounter. When the pope got involved they just did
not call it a formal heresy in the sentencing. Galileo's views were
still condemned. They claimed that Galileo was facing a charge of
heresy. His heliocentric notions were still considered to be heresy and
the heresy that he was guilty of was clearly defined in the sentencing.
The anti geocentrics admitted that the pope had the Galileo case
published and disseminated throughout the church in order to quash the
heliocentric notions that were becoming an issue for the church. They
just want to claim that, that was not an official act. That is just
stupid. The pope did it for known reasons, and who cares if they want
to plead that he was not acting as pope?
There is no doubt that the actors were wrong, and that is the issue.
They do not want it to reflect on papal infallibility. That in itself
should be considered to be a non scriptural unjustifiable claim.
The Inquisition had Copernican writings banned and made heliocentrism
into a formal heresy because all the church fathers were geocentrics,
and that meant that Copernicans were in conflict with the beliefs of the
church fathers. Both the geocentric Catholics and the anti geocentric
Catholics claim that the Inquisition did this because of what the church
came up with at the Council of Trent where they made the beliefs of the
church fathers as a legitimate and necessary authority for interpreting
scripture. Both Catholic sides of the geocentric issue understand this
to be true.
QUOTE:
Council of Trent
Session IV, April 8, 1546, Decree Concerning the Edition and the Use of
the Sacred Books:
... "Furthermore, in order to restrain petulant spirits, it [the Council
of Trent] decrees that no one, relying on his own skill, shall,-in
matters of faith, and of morals pertaining to the edification of
Christian doctrine,-wresting the sacred Scriptures to his own senses,
presume to interpret the said sacred Scripture contrary to that sense
which holy Mother Church-to whom it belongs to judge of the true sense
and interpretation of the Holy Scriptures-hath held and doth hold; or
even contrary to the unanimous consent of the Fathers; even though such
interpretations were never (intended) to be at any time published.
Contraveners shall be made known by their Ordinaries and be punished
with the penalties by law established."
END QUOTE:
https://www.biblelightinfo.com/unanimous-consent.htm
Both Catholic sides of the issue claim that the Council of Trent caused
the Inquisition to ban Copernican writings and start treating
heliocentrism as a formal heresy because it went against the geocentric
beliefs of the church fathers.
You are taking all that crap from your geocentric hero; if you want to persist in taking his opinion against that of the Church's own
theologians then that is you just acting like Spikes rejecting the
opinion of scientists in favour of people who play to his confirmation
bias.
It was a mistake and the actors were in error only because of our
current understanding of nature. The Pope was wrong about it. He was
one of the mistaken actors.
The Pope was not a "mistaken actor", he was pissed off with Galileo presenting the Pope's views as those of a simpleton and misused his
powers to hit back at Galileo. Again, the Catholic Encyclopaedia
spells that explicitly:
"It is clear that the absurdity was the act of the Italian
Inquisition, for the private and personal pleasure of the pope - who
knew that the course he took could not convict him as pope - and not
of the body which calls itself the Church."
The Galileo affair was a shameful episode in the Church's history but
was all about the animosity between the Pope and Galileo, it had
nothing to do with heliocentrism being a heresy, that was just the
vehicle that the Pope used to attack Galileo.
On Mon, 17 Nov 2025 14:40:05 -0600, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>
wrote:
On 11/17/2025 11:45 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Mon, 17 Nov 2025 09:57:31 -0600, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>
wrote:
[...]
Oops, the Pope was not infallible.
So papal infallibility is another thing you don't understand.
I am just repeating what the anti geocentrist want to claim about it.
The "anti-geocentrists" of whom you cannot identify even one. Mind
you, when you first brought in the website of your geocentrist mentor,
it was anonymous and you didn't even know who the author was until I
figured out; the fact that he is a declared geocentrist and you knew
nothing about him didn't stop you placing high value on his opinions
and continuing to do so.
Weird to say the least.
[...]
On Wed, 19 Nov 2025 14:55:52 -0600, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>
wrote:
On 11/19/2025 12:01 PM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Mon, 17 Nov 2025 14:40:05 -0600, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>
wrote:
On 11/17/2025 11:45 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Mon, 17 Nov 2025 09:57:31 -0600, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>
wrote:
[...]
Oops, the Pope was not infallible.
So papal infallibility is another thing you don't understand.
I am just repeating what the anti geocentrist want to claim about it.
The "anti-geocentrists" of whom you cannot identify even one. Mind
you, when you first brought in the website of your geocentrist mentor,
it was anonymous and you didn't even know who the author was until I
figured out; the fact that he is a declared geocentrist and you knew
nothing about him didn't stop you placing high value on his opinions
and continuing to do so.
Weird to say the least.
[...]
You were given the links before,
Nope
so stop lying about it. Why should I
look up that junk again.
So you can prove I'm lying. But you can't because I'm not lying, you
gave no links except to the geocentrist idiot whose opinion you value
so highly.
You just denied that it was valid and kept
lying. Even your own trusted source backed up the anti geocentric site.
The anti geocentrists were on your side in terms of denying that it
was a formal heresy that Galileo faced the second time, but they agreed
with the geocentrists that the Inquisition had made it a formal heresy
charge the first time Galileo faced it and agreed with the Wiki. The
Vatican Observatory article that you have run from and snipped out of
this post backs up the geocentrists and anti geocentrists.
Just stop lying about the issue.
https://www.vaticanobservatory.org/sacred-space-astronomy/heliocentrism-condemned-400-years-ago-on-march-5-2/
They admit that helicentrism was condemned 400 years ago. 1616 is when
Galileo faced the formal heresy charge.
They do not consider the heresy cases, but they were based upon the
Inquisitions opinion of the topic.
Your claim of "never" having been condemned seems to be a lie.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galileo_Galilei
QUOTE:
In February 1616, an Inquisitorial commission declared heliocentrism to
be "foolish and absurd in philosophy, and formally heretical since it
explicitly contradicts in many places the sense of Holy Scripture".
END QUOTE:
Now YOU are the one lying about me. I never said it was never
condemned; on the contrary, I gave that exact same quote. What I did
was to point out that what it said was a FALSE CLAIM and it wasn't me
who came to that conclusion, it was the Catholic Church who came to
it, supported by every historian I know of who investigated it, people
like De Morgan and von Gebler. The only person I have ever known to
say there actually was a heresy is the geocentrist idiot whose opinion
you value so highly.
Both the geocentrists that you don't like, and the anti geocentric
catholics that do not agree with geocentric beliefs agreed that it was a
formal heresy charge the first time that Galileo faced the issue.
Now you seem to be trying to worm your way out of it by admitting
there was a *charge* without retracting that there was an actual
heresy which is what you have been claiming all long.
You can't just keep refusing to deal with reality and expect anything to
change.
You can't keep claiming support from "anti-geocentrists" about
heliocentrism having been an actual heresy without being able to
identify even one and expect people to take you seriously.
On Thu, 20 Nov 2025 09:38:56 -0600, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>heliocentrism to
wrote:
On 11/20/2025 4:47 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Wed, 19 Nov 2025 14:55:52 -0600, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>
wrote:
[snip for focus]
Your claim of "never" having been condemned seems to be a lie.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galileo_Galilei
QUOTE:
In February 1616, an Inquisitorial commission declared
be "foolish and absurd in philosophy, and formally heretical since it
explicitly contradicts in many places the sense of Holy Scripture".
END QUOTE:
Now YOU are the one lying about me. I never said it was never
condemned; on the contrary, I gave that exact same quote. What I did
was to point out that what it said was a FALSE CLAIM and it wasn't me
who came to that conclusion, it was the Catholic Church who came to
it, supported by every historian I know of who investigated it, people
like De Morgan and von Gebler. The only person I have ever known to
say there actually was a heresy is the geocentrist idiot whose opinion
you value so highly.
You put up the quote that said it had never been condemned. Go back up
and check. It was your quote.
Here is verbatim what I quoted:
Message-ID: 2gkkhk9bvctolude5jf6b6e0kothd5723d@4ax.com ========================================
<quote>
The [site] that cites von Gebler ("Galileo Galilei"):
"The Church never condemned it (the Copernican system) at all, for the Qualifiers of the Holy Office never mean the Church."
==========================================
#1: it was von Gebler who said rCLnever condemnedrCY, not me as you
claimed two posts ago.
#2 he did not say it was never condemned, he said *the Church* never condemned it.
Why do you post lies that are so easily shown to be lies?
On Fri, 21 Nov 2025 17:33:49 -0600, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>
wrote:
On 11/21/2025 12:29 PM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Fri, 21 Nov 2025 09:04:37 -0600, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>
wrote:
[rCa]
Let's cut to the chase here.
No lies to retract. You lied.
What lie are you claiming I told? Please quote exactly what I said
that you regard as a lie.
The ones that you keep telling.
"Never condemned"
I'm out of here. George Bernard Shaw warned that you shouldn't wrestle
with a pig as you get dirty and the pig enjoys it. I'm not going to
waste any more time trying to have a sensible discussion with someone
who thinks it's ok to take two words out of what somebody else said to
give a completely different meaning and then attribute those two words
to me. It doesn't even reach the level of quote-mining.
What beggars belief is that you do it where the exact quote from von
Gerber [1] and what I said about it are preserved just a couple of
posts above for all to see. As I noted earlier, it is really sad to
see this sort of behaviour from someone whose ability as a scientist I respect so much EfOU
===========================================
[1] "The Church never condemned it (the Copernican system) at all, for
the Qualifiers of the Holy Office never mean the Church."
[von Gebler ("Galileo Galilei")]
[..]
You should not continue to add to your own dishonest stupidity.
Trusting your source was obviously a stupid thing to do, and trying to
continue to support that source was just stupid and dishonest.
Ron Okimoto
On 4/29/2026 10:48 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Wed, 29 Apr 2026 09:01:16 -0500, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>
wrote:
On 4/29/2026 12:56 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Tue, 28 Apr 2026 09:25:11 -0500, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>
wrote:
On 4/28/2026 3:14 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Mon, 27 Apr 2026 10:49:10 -0500, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>
wrote:
On 4/27/2026 9:24 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Mon, 27 Apr 2026 09:06:44 -0500, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com> >>>>>>>> wrote:Just try to deal with what you snipped out of the last few posts to >>>>>>> demonstrate for yourself that your recollection is so bogus and
On 4/27/2026 7:17 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Sun, 26 Apr 2026 22:01:34 -0500, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com> >>>>>>>>>> wrote:
On 4/26/2026 4:11 PM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Sun, 26 Apr 2026 12:07:27 -0500, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com> >>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
[...]
Your source lied.
So you reckon that the Catholic Church lied about what happened; >>>>>>>>>>>> Professor Augustus De Morgan lied; Karl von Gebler lied; Stillman >>>>>>>>>>>> Drake lied; basically, everybody lied except your geocentrist mentor.
[...]
Why do you think that you have to snip out what you did and do whatever
you think that you are doing?
I snip your rubbish because it doesn't improve with repetition. >>>>>>>>>>>>
[..]
Your own trusted source told you that Galileo faced the charge of heresy both times (1616 and 1633).
Now you are lying. Here is exactly what my source - the Catholic >>>>>>>>>>>> Encyclopedia - says:
It was your source, so why put up some other quote to counter what you
just lied about. It was not an Encyclopedia entry. It was just an >>>>>>>>>>> article on the Galileo incident.
What article? I don't recall posting anything else except the Catholic
Encyclopedia - that is what I regard as an authoritative source and is
the one I quoted originally about what the Catholic Church, Augustus
De Morgan and Karl von Gebler all said.
[...]
The article that came from your trusted source. You put up the link and
I just found the article that just stating matter of factly that Galileo
faced a heresy charge both times in 1616 and 1633.
I haven't a clue what article you are talking about and neither do you >>>>>>>> apparently. Time to put up or shut up, Ron - repost the post where you >>>>>>>> claim I put up that article. Otherwise, we will just have to put it >>>>>>>> down as another product of your fertile imagination.
[rCa]
dishonest that you should not even try that gambit at this time. Your >>>>>>> inability to recall what stupid things that you did is legendary in just
these last couple of threads. What have you been denying that you are >>>>>>> currently running from?
You should just apologize and quit lying about the past.
Really, you just snipped out the reposts that you have been claiming >>>>>>> never happened. Your stupid lies and denial are just tragically lame. >>>>>>>
So, you can't put up and you won't shut up. You have called me a liar >>>>>> and called reputable scholars liars; now I going to call you out as >>>>>> the liar here.
You claim I put up an article that Galileo faced a heresy charge both >>>>>> times in 1616 and 1633. You can't find that article because I didn't >>>>>> post any such article; it's just a lie by you.
You claim that Wikipedia says Galileo faced a heresy charge in 1616. >>>>>> You can't cite it because It doesn't say that; just another lie by >>>>>> you.
You claim that all the "anti-geocentrists" agree with you that
heliocentrism was a heresy. You can't quote any of them because not >>>>>> one of them does agree with you; yet another lie by you.
I was originally willing to put your errors down to misunderstanding >>>>>> on your part but your failure to produce anything whatsoever to back >>>>>> up your claims yet still persist with them whilst attacking other
people makes them outright lies.Really stupid lies at that when they >>>>>> are so obvious.
I do not need to counter any of your stupid junk.
You would if you could but the reality is that you cannot produce a
single thing to support your own junk because that is where the lies
really are.
It has already been countered.
No it hasn't. I asked you to substantiate three things that you
claimed and you couldn't even substantiate one, never mind all three.
Not even the easiest one. It's not hard to search Wikipedia; no great
research involved. You claimed it stated that Galileo faced a heresy
charge in 1616 - how come you can't find that in any of the Wiki
articles about Galileo. That's because you either imagined it or just
made it up; either way, persisting with the claim when you can't
substantiate it is an outright lie.
The same applies to accusing me of lying and accusing the repeatable
scholars of being liars - you can't give even one example. As I've
said before, I can't figure out whether you can't see how idiotic you
are making yourself here or whether you see it and just don't care.
[ snip patheic handwaving ]
Snipping and lying about what you have done is just stupid and insane.
On Wed, 29 Apr 2026 12:43:53 -0500, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>
wrote:
On 4/29/2026 10:48 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Wed, 29 Apr 2026 09:01:16 -0500, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>
wrote:
On 4/29/2026 12:56 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Tue, 28 Apr 2026 09:25:11 -0500, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>
wrote:
On 4/28/2026 3:14 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Mon, 27 Apr 2026 10:49:10 -0500, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com> >>>>>>> wrote:
On 4/27/2026 9:24 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Mon, 27 Apr 2026 09:06:44 -0500, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com> >>>>>>>>> wrote:Just try to deal with what you snipped out of the last few posts to >>>>>>>> demonstrate for yourself that your recollection is so bogus and >>>>>>>> dishonest that you should not even try that gambit at this time. Your >>>>>>>> inability to recall what stupid things that you did is legendary in just
On 4/27/2026 7:17 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Sun, 26 Apr 2026 22:01:34 -0500, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com> >>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
On 4/26/2026 4:11 PM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Sun, 26 Apr 2026 12:07:27 -0500, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com> >>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
[...]
Your source lied.
So you reckon that the Catholic Church lied about what happened; >>>>>>>>>>>>> Professor Augustus De Morgan lied; Karl von Gebler lied; Stillman >>>>>>>>>>>>> Drake lied; basically, everybody lied except your geocentrist mentor.
[...]
Why do you think that you have to snip out what you did and do whatever
you think that you are doing?
I snip your rubbish because it doesn't improve with repetition. >>>>>>>>>>>>>
[..]
Your own trusted source told you that Galileo faced the charge of heresy both times (1616 and 1633).
Now you are lying. Here is exactly what my source - the Catholic >>>>>>>>>>>>> Encyclopedia - says:
It was your source, so why put up some other quote to counter what you
just lied about. It was not an Encyclopedia entry. It was just an
article on the Galileo incident.
What article? I don't recall posting anything else except the Catholic
Encyclopedia - that is what I regard as an authoritative source and is
the one I quoted originally about what the Catholic Church, Augustus
De Morgan and Karl von Gebler all said.
[...]
The article that came from your trusted source. You put up the link and
I just found the article that just stating matter of factly that Galileo
faced a heresy charge both times in 1616 and 1633.
I haven't a clue what article you are talking about and neither do you
apparently. Time to put up or shut up, Ron - repost the post where you
claim I put up that article. Otherwise, we will just have to put it >>>>>>>>> down as another product of your fertile imagination.
[rCa]
these last couple of threads. What have you been denying that you are >>>>>>>> currently running from?
You should just apologize and quit lying about the past.
Really, you just snipped out the reposts that you have been claiming >>>>>>>> never happened. Your stupid lies and denial are just tragically lame. >>>>>>>>
So, you can't put up and you won't shut up. You have called me a liar >>>>>>> and called reputable scholars liars; now I going to call you out as >>>>>>> the liar here.
You claim I put up an article that Galileo faced a heresy charge both >>>>>>> times in 1616 and 1633. You can't find that article because I didn't >>>>>>> post any such article; it's just a lie by you.
You claim that Wikipedia says Galileo faced a heresy charge in 1616. >>>>>>> You can't cite it because It doesn't say that; just another lie by >>>>>>> you.
You claim that all the "anti-geocentrists" agree with you that
heliocentrism was a heresy. You can't quote any of them because not >>>>>>> one of them does agree with you; yet another lie by you.
I was originally willing to put your errors down to misunderstanding >>>>>>> on your part but your failure to produce anything whatsoever to back >>>>>>> up your claims yet still persist with them whilst attacking other >>>>>>> people makes them outright lies.Really stupid lies at that when they >>>>>>> are so obvious.
I do not need to counter any of your stupid junk.
You would if you could but the reality is that you cannot produce a
single thing to support your own junk because that is where the lies >>>>> really are.
It has already been countered.
No it hasn't. I asked you to substantiate three things that you
claimed and you couldn't even substantiate one, never mind all three.
Not even the easiest one. It's not hard to search Wikipedia; no great
research involved. You claimed it stated that Galileo faced a heresy
charge in 1616 - how come you can't find that in any of the Wiki
articles about Galileo. That's because you either imagined it or just
made it up; either way, persisting with the claim when you can't
substantiate it is an outright lie.
The same applies to accusing me of lying and accusing the repeatable
scholars of being liars - you can't give even one example. As I've
said before, I can't figure out whether you can't see how idiotic you
are making yourself here or whether you see it and just don't care.
[ snip patheic handwaving ]
Snipping and lying about what you have done is just stupid and insane.
Not as stupid and insane as making a claim you can't support. C'mon,
Ron, give the link to the Wiki article that says Galileo faced a
heresy charge in 1616 rCa surely it can't be that difficult.
[snip desperation attempt to avoid issue]
On Mon, 20 Apr 2026 13:40:43 -0500, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>are lying".
wrote:
On 4/20/2026 4:08 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Sat, 18 Apr 2026 12:06:53 -0500, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>
wrote:
On 4/18/2026 6:24 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Wed, 15 Apr 2026 14:31:27 -0500, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>
wrote:
On 4/15/2026 11:36 AM, Martin Harran wrote:[rCa]
On Wed, 15 Apr 2026 16:59:56 +0100, "Kerr-Mudd, John"
No one is going to convince an opponent by stating that "they
(no matterand probably not by constant repetition of the same arguments
reality,how valid) that failed to get through the first 50 times.
Tell that to RonO, he's the one who keeps calling everyone who
disagrees with him a liar.
Who got caught lying and quote mining? You need to deal with
it isand quit lying about it. Lying about me is just so stupid that
matched bypretty much insane. You have always lied about the sources that you
could not deal honestly with. Who's sources have always come up short?
Look at what you are doing now. Is there any excuse for you not dealing
with your own stupid dishonest behavior?
The tiresomeness of you continually claiming that my sources were
caught lying and that I have been lying and quote mining is
beenthe tiresomeness of your inability to ever identify what lie my
sources were caught in, what lies I have told or where I have quote
mined.
[... more big snip ...]
Why keep lying about what your sources did and what you did? That is
just stupid and dishonest. Just look up your past posts to determine
for yourself what went down. You tried to lie about my sources being
deficient when your sources had always come up short or even supported
my sources by putting up the lame lie that heliocentrism had never
the samecondemned other then by the inquisition. It was stupid because it did
not negate what you and your sources had been wrong about. It turned
out that your source was lying and you ran. You ran twice from
whatevidence that your source was lying. You tried to come back with your
lame quote mining efforts and trying to distract the argument from
it had been. You did that, and your source was demonstrated to have
lied about the issue. You need to go back and deal with what you did.
An appology for your disgraceful behavior would be in order. Just try
not to do it again. Continuing to lie about what happened is just
adding to how low you needed to go.
Yet again, you make all sorts of accusations without a single example
of something to support them.
What I cannot figure out is whether you just can't grasp that your
failure to produce a single example of supporting evidence portrays
*you* as the one telling lies; or whether you do grasp it and just
don't care; or whether, like a certain President, you think that if
you repeat a lie enough times that someone will eventually believe it.
You should apologize for what you have been doing and stop doing it. I
found the posts where you ran from your source having been caught lying,
you then snipped the evidence out of your response to your running.
The thread: There is no legitimate scientific support for the ID scam.
I can post your quote mining attempts and other stupid behavior that you
resorted to to defend your running and defense of your bogus source.
So why don't you instead of talking about it?
Specific examples, please, not reams and reams of obfuscatory cut'n
paste.
On Sun, 16 Nov 2025 18:25:18 -0600, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>claiming you
wrote:
On 11/16/2025 4:40 PM, Martin Harran wrote:[rCa]
The links that I put up were from the Catholics that continue to be
geocentric creationists, and the Catholics that are trying to refute
them. Both sides do not agree with you. What does your continued
denial of reality tell you?
You gave no such links. All you have to do to prove me wrong is give
them again.
Do you not see how stupid you are making yourself look by
gave links but cannot repeat them?
Why lie about something so stupid. One of the links was your own
trusted Catholic site, and you initially gave that link.
That was this site:
https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/06342b.htm
The one where the Catholic Church states:
" In thus acting, it is undeniable that the ecclesiastical authorities
committed a grave and deplorable error, and sanctioned an altogether
false principle as to the proper use of Scripture."
The one that cites Professor Augustus De Morgan (Budget of Paradoxes)
declaring
"It is clear that the absurdity was the act of the Italian
Inquisition, for the private and personal pleasure of the pope - who
knew that the course he took could not convict him as pope - and not
of the body which calls itself the Church."
The one that cites von Gebler ("Galileo Galilei"):
"The Church never condemned it (the Copernican system) at all, for the
Qualifiers of the Holy Office never mean the Church."
It beats me how you figure out that site and the people referred to in
it somehow back your claim that heliocentrism really was a heresy. I
guess you have to convince yourself in order to maintain your delusion
as you clearly can't find a reputable source that actually does back
you up.
Yes, everyone admits that they were wrong about geocentrism except for
the Catholics that are still geocentrics. This source called what
Galileo faced both times a charge of heresy. They did not make a
distinction between formal heresy and heresy like the anti geocentric
site, but it was still a heresy.
What part of "The Church never condemned it (the Copernican system) at
all" did you not understand?
The only place that formal comes into all this is in the judgement
issued after Galileo's first trial where the verdict stated that the proposition that the Sun is stationary at the centre of the universe
is "foolish and absurd in philosophy, and formally heretical since it explicitly contradicts in many places the sense of Holy Scripture".
That, however, is t the Catholic Encyclopaedia refers to where it
says:
"it is undeniable that the ecclesiastical authorities committed a
grave and deplorable error, and sanctioned an altogether false
principle as to the proper use of Scripture."
Note also that the words "formally heretical" are wrong - I'm not sure whether it was the Inquisition using weasel words or whether it was a
bad translation from the Latin.
The word "heresy" can be used in two ways; it can apply to the
rejection of a specific doctrine of the Church or it can refer to the
act of committing heresy. The word "formal" applies to the latter -
the act of committing heresy - and is used to categorise the degree of
guilt of the person committing the heresy. "Formal heresy" means they
knew they were going against doctrine and are therefore guilty of
mortal sin; "material heresy" means they did not know they were going against doctrine so they are not guilty sin.
It's a bit like first degree versus second degree murder and Galileo's
trial was like him being charged with first-degree murder without a
murder being established in the first place.
The Inquisition made it into a formal heresy after the Council of Trent.
They were supposedly wrong, and a couple centuries later things got
reversed to what they had been at the time that the findings of the
Council of Trent were published.
The holy office (the inquisition) had Galileo facing a formal heresy
charge in his first encounter. When the pope got involved they just did
not call it a formal heresy in the sentencing. Galileo's views were
still condemned. They claimed that Galileo was facing a charge of
heresy. His heliocentric notions were still considered to be heresy and
the heresy that he was guilty of was clearly defined in the sentencing.
The anti geocentrics admitted that the pope had the Galileo case
published and disseminated throughout the church in order to quash the
heliocentric notions that were becoming an issue for the church. They
just want to claim that, that was not an official act. That is just
stupid. The pope did it for known reasons, and who cares if they want
to plead that he was not acting as pope?
There is no doubt that the actors were wrong, and that is the issue.
They do not want it to reflect on papal infallibility. That in itself
should be considered to be a non scriptural unjustifiable claim.
The Inquisition had Copernican writings banned and made heliocentrism
into a formal heresy because all the church fathers were geocentrics,
and that meant that Copernicans were in conflict with the beliefs of the
church fathers. Both the geocentric Catholics and the anti geocentric
Catholics claim that the Inquisition did this because of what the church
came up with at the Council of Trent where they made the beliefs of the
church fathers as a legitimate and necessary authority for interpreting
scripture. Both Catholic sides of the geocentric issue understand this
to be true.
QUOTE:
Council of Trent
Session IV, April 8, 1546, Decree Concerning the Edition and the Use of
the Sacred Books:
... "Furthermore, in order to restrain petulant spirits, it [the Council
of Trent] decrees that no one, relying on his own skill, shall,-in
matters of faith, and of morals pertaining to the edification of
Christian doctrine,-wresting the sacred Scriptures to his own senses,
presume to interpret the said sacred Scripture contrary to that sense
which holy Mother Church-to whom it belongs to judge of the true sense
and interpretation of the Holy Scriptures-hath held and doth hold; or
even contrary to the unanimous consent of the Fathers; even though such
interpretations were never (intended) to be at any time published.
Contraveners shall be made known by their Ordinaries and be punished
with the penalties by law established."
END QUOTE:
https://www.biblelightinfo.com/unanimous-consent.htm
Both Catholic sides of the issue claim that the Council of Trent caused
the Inquisition to ban Copernican writings and start treating
heliocentrism as a formal heresy because it went against the geocentric
beliefs of the church fathers.
You are taking all that crap from your geocentric hero; if you want to persist in taking his opinion against that of the Church's own
theologians then that is you just acting like Spikes rejecting the
opinion of scientists in favour of people who play to his confirmation
bias.
It was a mistake and the actors were in error only because of our
current understanding of nature. The Pope was wrong about it. He was
one of the mistaken actors.
The Pope was not a "mistaken actor", he was pissed off with Galileo presenting the Pope's views as those of a simpleton and misused his
powers to hit back at Galileo. Again, the Catholic Encyclopaedia
spells that explicitly:
"It is clear that the absurdity was the act of the Italian
Inquisition, for the private and personal pleasure of the pope - who
knew that the course he took could not convict him as pope - and not
of the body which calls itself the Church."
The Galileo affair was a shameful episode in the Church's history but
was all about the animosity between the Pope and Galileo, it had
nothing to do with heliocentrism being a heresy, that was just the
vehicle that the Pope used to attack Galileo.
On Mon, 17 Nov 2025 14:40:05 -0600, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>
wrote:
On 11/17/2025 11:45 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Mon, 17 Nov 2025 09:57:31 -0600, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>
wrote:
[...]
Oops, the Pope was not infallible.
So papal infallibility is another thing you don't understand.
I am just repeating what the anti geocentrist want to claim about it.
The "anti-geocentrists" of whom you cannot identify even one. Mind
you, when you first brought in the website of your geocentrist mentor,
it was anonymous and you didn't even know who the author was until I
figured out; the fact that he is a declared geocentrist and you knew
nothing about him didn't stop you placing high value on his opinions
and continuing to do so.
Weird to say the least.
[...]
On Wed, 19 Nov 2025 14:55:52 -0600, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>
wrote:
On 11/19/2025 12:01 PM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Mon, 17 Nov 2025 14:40:05 -0600, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>
wrote:
On 11/17/2025 11:45 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Mon, 17 Nov 2025 09:57:31 -0600, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>
wrote:
[...]
Oops, the Pope was not infallible.
So papal infallibility is another thing you don't understand.
I am just repeating what the anti geocentrist want to claim about it.
The "anti-geocentrists" of whom you cannot identify even one. Mind
you, when you first brought in the website of your geocentrist mentor,
it was anonymous and you didn't even know who the author was until I
figured out; the fact that he is a declared geocentrist and you knew
nothing about him didn't stop you placing high value on his opinions
and continuing to do so.
Weird to say the least.
[...]
You were given the links before,
Nope
so stop lying about it. Why should I
look up that junk again.
So you can prove I'm lying. But you can't because I'm not lying, you
gave no links except to the geocentrist idiot whose opinion you value
so highly.
You just denied that it was valid and kept
lying. Even your own trusted source backed up the anti geocentric site.
The anti geocentrists were on your side in terms of denying that it
was a formal heresy that Galileo faced the second time, but they agreed
with the geocentrists that the Inquisition had made it a formal heresy
charge the first time Galileo faced it and agreed with the Wiki. The
Vatican Observatory article that you have run from and snipped out of
this post backs up the geocentrists and anti geocentrists.
Just stop lying about the issue.
https://www.vaticanobservatory.org/sacred-space-astronomy/heliocentrism-condemned-400-years-ago-on-march-5-2/
They admit that helicentrism was condemned 400 years ago. 1616 is when
Galileo faced the formal heresy charge.
They do not consider the heresy cases, but they were based upon the
Inquisitions opinion of the topic.
Your claim of "never" having been condemned seems to be a lie.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galileo_Galilei
QUOTE:
In February 1616, an Inquisitorial commission declared heliocentrism to
be "foolish and absurd in philosophy, and formally heretical since it
explicitly contradicts in many places the sense of Holy Scripture".
END QUOTE:
Now YOU are the one lying about me. I never said it was never
condemned; on the contrary, I gave that exact same quote. What I did
was to point out that what it said was a FALSE CLAIM and it wasn't me
who came to that conclusion, it was the Catholic Church who came to
it, supported by every historian I know of who investigated it, people
like De Morgan and von Gebler. The only person I have ever known to
say there actually was a heresy is the geocentrist idiot whose opinion
you value so highly.
Both the geocentrists that you don't like, and the anti geocentric
catholics that do not agree with geocentric beliefs agreed that it was a
formal heresy charge the first time that Galileo faced the issue.
Now you seem to be trying to worm your way out of it by admitting
there was a *charge* without retracting that there was an actual
heresy which is what you have been claiming all long.
You can't just keep refusing to deal with reality and expect anything to
change.
You can't keep claiming support from "anti-geocentrists" about
heliocentrism having been an actual heresy without being able to
identify even one and expect people to take you seriously.
On Thu, 20 Nov 2025 09:38:56 -0600, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>heliocentrism to
wrote:
On 11/20/2025 4:47 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Wed, 19 Nov 2025 14:55:52 -0600, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>
wrote:
[snip for focus]
Your claim of "never" having been condemned seems to be a lie.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galileo_Galilei
QUOTE:
In February 1616, an Inquisitorial commission declared
be "foolish and absurd in philosophy, and formally heretical since it
explicitly contradicts in many places the sense of Holy Scripture".
END QUOTE:
Now YOU are the one lying about me. I never said it was never
condemned; on the contrary, I gave that exact same quote. What I did
was to point out that what it said was a FALSE CLAIM and it wasn't me
who came to that conclusion, it was the Catholic Church who came to
it, supported by every historian I know of who investigated it, people
like De Morgan and von Gebler. The only person I have ever known to
say there actually was a heresy is the geocentrist idiot whose opinion
you value so highly.
You put up the quote that said it had never been condemned. Go back up
and check. It was your quote.
Here is verbatim what I quoted:
Message-ID: 2gkkhk9bvctolude5jf6b6e0kothd5723d@4ax.com ========================================
<quote>
The [site] that cites von Gebler ("Galileo Galilei"):
"The Church never condemned it (the Copernican system) at all, for the Qualifiers of the Holy Office never mean the Church."
==========================================
#1: it was von Gebler who said rCLnever condemnedrCY, not me as you
claimed two posts ago.
#2 he did not say it was never condemned, he said *the Church* never condemned it.
Why do you post lies that are so easily shown to be lies?
On Fri, 21 Nov 2025 17:33:49 -0600, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>
wrote:
On 11/21/2025 12:29 PM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Fri, 21 Nov 2025 09:04:37 -0600, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>
wrote:
[rCa]
Let's cut to the chase here.
No lies to retract. You lied.
What lie are you claiming I told? Please quote exactly what I said
that you regard as a lie.
The ones that you keep telling.
"Never condemned"
I'm out of here. George Bernard Shaw warned that you shouldn't wrestle
with a pig as you get dirty and the pig enjoys it. I'm not going to
waste any more time trying to have a sensible discussion with someone
who thinks it's ok to take two words out of what somebody else said to
give a completely different meaning and then attribute those two words
to me. It doesn't even reach the level of quote-mining.
What beggars belief is that you do it where the exact quote from von
Gerber [1] and what I said about it are preserved just a couple of
posts above for all to see. As I noted earlier, it is really sad to
see this sort of behaviour from someone whose ability as a scientist I respect so much EfOU
===========================================
[1] "The Church never condemned it (the Copernican system) at all, for
the Qualifiers of the Holy Office never mean the Church."
[von Gebler ("Galileo Galilei")]
[..]
You should not continue to add to your own dishonest stupidity.
Trusting your source was obviously a stupid thing to do, and trying to
continue to support that source was just stupid and dishonest.
Ron Okimoto
On 4/29/2026 1:13 PM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Wed, 29 Apr 2026 12:43:53 -0500, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>
wrote:
Snipping and lying about what you have done is just stupid and insane.
Not as stupid and insane as making a claim you can't support. C'mon,
Ron, give the link to the Wiki article that says Galileo faced a
heresy charge in 1616 rCa surely it can't be that difficult.
[snip desperation attempt to avoid issue]
What a lying asshole. This is the second time that you have snipped and
run from what you have lied about as being handwaving.
On Wed, 29 Apr 2026 19:41:58 -0500, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>
wrote:
On 4/29/2026 1:13 PM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Wed, 29 Apr 2026 12:43:53 -0500, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>
wrote:
[...]
Snipping and lying about what you have done is just stupid and insane.
Not as stupid and insane as making a claim you can't support. C'mon,
Ron, give the link to the Wiki article that says Galileo faced a
heresy charge in 1616 rCa surely it can't be that difficult.
[snip desperation attempt to avoid issue]
What a lying asshole. This is the second time that you have snipped and
run from what you have lied about as being handwaving.
C'mon Ron, no need to repost 7000 words that nobody wants to read. All
that's needed to show me to be the lying asshole, not you, is a simple
quote from the Wiki article that says what you insist it says. A dozen
or so words should cover it or even a simple URL. Can't be that hard
can it?
[...]
On Mon, 20 Apr 2026 13:40:43 -0500, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>are lying".
wrote:
On 4/20/2026 4:08 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Sat, 18 Apr 2026 12:06:53 -0500, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>
wrote:
On 4/18/2026 6:24 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Wed, 15 Apr 2026 14:31:27 -0500, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>
wrote:
On 4/15/2026 11:36 AM, Martin Harran wrote:[rCa]
On Wed, 15 Apr 2026 16:59:56 +0100, "Kerr-Mudd, John"
No one is going to convince an opponent by stating that "they
(no matterand probably not by constant repetition of the same arguments
reality,how valid) that failed to get through the first 50 times.
Tell that to RonO, he's the one who keeps calling everyone who
disagrees with him a liar.
Who got caught lying and quote mining? You need to deal with
it isand quit lying about it. Lying about me is just so stupid that
matched bypretty much insane. You have always lied about the sources that you
could not deal honestly with. Who's sources have always come up short?
Look at what you are doing now. Is there any excuse for you not dealing
with your own stupid dishonest behavior?
The tiresomeness of you continually claiming that my sources were
caught lying and that I have been lying and quote mining is
beenthe tiresomeness of your inability to ever identify what lie my
sources were caught in, what lies I have told or where I have quote
mined.
[... more big snip ...]
Why keep lying about what your sources did and what you did? That is
just stupid and dishonest. Just look up your past posts to determine
for yourself what went down. You tried to lie about my sources being
deficient when your sources had always come up short or even supported
my sources by putting up the lame lie that heliocentrism had never
the samecondemned other then by the inquisition. It was stupid because it did
not negate what you and your sources had been wrong about. It turned
out that your source was lying and you ran. You ran twice from
whatevidence that your source was lying. You tried to come back with your
lame quote mining efforts and trying to distract the argument from
it had been. You did that, and your source was demonstrated to have
lied about the issue. You need to go back and deal with what you did.
An appology for your disgraceful behavior would be in order. Just try
not to do it again. Continuing to lie about what happened is just
adding to how low you needed to go.
Yet again, you make all sorts of accusations without a single example
of something to support them.
What I cannot figure out is whether you just can't grasp that your
failure to produce a single example of supporting evidence portrays
*you* as the one telling lies; or whether you do grasp it and just
don't care; or whether, like a certain President, you think that if
you repeat a lie enough times that someone will eventually believe it.
You should apologize for what you have been doing and stop doing it. I
found the posts where you ran from your source having been caught lying,
you then snipped the evidence out of your response to your running.
The thread: There is no legitimate scientific support for the ID scam.
I can post your quote mining attempts and other stupid behavior that you
resorted to to defend your running and defense of your bogus source.
So why don't you instead of talking about it?
Specific examples, please, not reams and reams of obfuscatory cut'n
paste.
On Sun, 16 Nov 2025 18:25:18 -0600, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>claiming you
wrote:
On 11/16/2025 4:40 PM, Martin Harran wrote:[rCa]
The links that I put up were from the Catholics that continue to be
geocentric creationists, and the Catholics that are trying to refute
them. Both sides do not agree with you. What does your continued
denial of reality tell you?
You gave no such links. All you have to do to prove me wrong is give
them again.
Do you not see how stupid you are making yourself look by
gave links but cannot repeat them?
Why lie about something so stupid. One of the links was your own
trusted Catholic site, and you initially gave that link.
That was this site:
https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/06342b.htm
The one where the Catholic Church states:
" In thus acting, it is undeniable that the ecclesiastical authorities
committed a grave and deplorable error, and sanctioned an altogether
false principle as to the proper use of Scripture."
The one that cites Professor Augustus De Morgan (Budget of Paradoxes)
declaring
"It is clear that the absurdity was the act of the Italian
Inquisition, for the private and personal pleasure of the pope - who
knew that the course he took could not convict him as pope - and not
of the body which calls itself the Church."
The one that cites von Gebler ("Galileo Galilei"):
"The Church never condemned it (the Copernican system) at all, for the
Qualifiers of the Holy Office never mean the Church."
It beats me how you figure out that site and the people referred to in
it somehow back your claim that heliocentrism really was a heresy. I
guess you have to convince yourself in order to maintain your delusion
as you clearly can't find a reputable source that actually does back
you up.
Yes, everyone admits that they were wrong about geocentrism except for
the Catholics that are still geocentrics. This source called what
Galileo faced both times a charge of heresy. They did not make a
distinction between formal heresy and heresy like the anti geocentric
site, but it was still a heresy.
What part of "The Church never condemned it (the Copernican system) at
all" did you not understand?
The only place that formal comes into all this is in the judgement
issued after Galileo's first trial where the verdict stated that the proposition that the Sun is stationary at the centre of the universe
is "foolish and absurd in philosophy, and formally heretical since it explicitly contradicts in many places the sense of Holy Scripture".
That, however, is t the Catholic Encyclopaedia refers to where it
says:
"it is undeniable that the ecclesiastical authorities committed a
grave and deplorable error, and sanctioned an altogether false
principle as to the proper use of Scripture."
Note also that the words "formally heretical" are wrong - I'm not sure whether it was the Inquisition using weasel words or whether it was a
bad translation from the Latin.
The word "heresy" can be used in two ways; it can apply to the
rejection of a specific doctrine of the Church or it can refer to the
act of committing heresy. The word "formal" applies to the latter -
the act of committing heresy - and is used to categorise the degree of
guilt of the person committing the heresy. "Formal heresy" means they
knew they were going against doctrine and are therefore guilty of
mortal sin; "material heresy" means they did not know they were going against doctrine so they are not guilty sin.
It's a bit like first degree versus second degree murder and Galileo's
trial was like him being charged with first-degree murder without a
murder being established in the first place.
The Inquisition made it into a formal heresy after the Council of Trent.
They were supposedly wrong, and a couple centuries later things got
reversed to what they had been at the time that the findings of the
Council of Trent were published.
The holy office (the inquisition) had Galileo facing a formal heresy
charge in his first encounter. When the pope got involved they just did
not call it a formal heresy in the sentencing. Galileo's views were
still condemned. They claimed that Galileo was facing a charge of
heresy. His heliocentric notions were still considered to be heresy and
the heresy that he was guilty of was clearly defined in the sentencing.
The anti geocentrics admitted that the pope had the Galileo case
published and disseminated throughout the church in order to quash the
heliocentric notions that were becoming an issue for the church. They
just want to claim that, that was not an official act. That is just
stupid. The pope did it for known reasons, and who cares if they want
to plead that he was not acting as pope?
There is no doubt that the actors were wrong, and that is the issue.
They do not want it to reflect on papal infallibility. That in itself
should be considered to be a non scriptural unjustifiable claim.
The Inquisition had Copernican writings banned and made heliocentrism
into a formal heresy because all the church fathers were geocentrics,
and that meant that Copernicans were in conflict with the beliefs of the
church fathers. Both the geocentric Catholics and the anti geocentric
Catholics claim that the Inquisition did this because of what the church
came up with at the Council of Trent where they made the beliefs of the
church fathers as a legitimate and necessary authority for interpreting
scripture. Both Catholic sides of the geocentric issue understand this
to be true.
QUOTE:
Council of Trent
Session IV, April 8, 1546, Decree Concerning the Edition and the Use of
the Sacred Books:
... "Furthermore, in order to restrain petulant spirits, it [the Council
of Trent] decrees that no one, relying on his own skill, shall,-in
matters of faith, and of morals pertaining to the edification of
Christian doctrine,-wresting the sacred Scriptures to his own senses,
presume to interpret the said sacred Scripture contrary to that sense
which holy Mother Church-to whom it belongs to judge of the true sense
and interpretation of the Holy Scriptures-hath held and doth hold; or
even contrary to the unanimous consent of the Fathers; even though such
interpretations were never (intended) to be at any time published.
Contraveners shall be made known by their Ordinaries and be punished
with the penalties by law established."
END QUOTE:
https://www.biblelightinfo.com/unanimous-consent.htm
Both Catholic sides of the issue claim that the Council of Trent caused
the Inquisition to ban Copernican writings and start treating
heliocentrism as a formal heresy because it went against the geocentric
beliefs of the church fathers.
You are taking all that crap from your geocentric hero; if you want to persist in taking his opinion against that of the Church's own
theologians then that is you just acting like Spikes rejecting the
opinion of scientists in favour of people who play to his confirmation
bias.
It was a mistake and the actors were in error only because of our
current understanding of nature. The Pope was wrong about it. He was
one of the mistaken actors.
The Pope was not a "mistaken actor", he was pissed off with Galileo presenting the Pope's views as those of a simpleton and misused his
powers to hit back at Galileo. Again, the Catholic Encyclopaedia
spells that explicitly:
"It is clear that the absurdity was the act of the Italian
Inquisition, for the private and personal pleasure of the pope - who
knew that the course he took could not convict him as pope - and not
of the body which calls itself the Church."
The Galileo affair was a shameful episode in the Church's history but
was all about the animosity between the Pope and Galileo, it had
nothing to do with heliocentrism being a heresy, that was just the
vehicle that the Pope used to attack Galileo.
On Mon, 17 Nov 2025 14:40:05 -0600, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>
wrote:
On 11/17/2025 11:45 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Mon, 17 Nov 2025 09:57:31 -0600, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>
wrote:
[...]
Oops, the Pope was not infallible.
So papal infallibility is another thing you don't understand.
I am just repeating what the anti geocentrist want to claim about it.
The "anti-geocentrists" of whom you cannot identify even one. Mind
you, when you first brought in the website of your geocentrist mentor,
it was anonymous and you didn't even know who the author was until I
figured out; the fact that he is a declared geocentrist and you knew
nothing about him didn't stop you placing high value on his opinions
and continuing to do so.
Weird to say the least.
[...]
On Wed, 19 Nov 2025 14:55:52 -0600, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>
wrote:
On 11/19/2025 12:01 PM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Mon, 17 Nov 2025 14:40:05 -0600, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>
wrote:
On 11/17/2025 11:45 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Mon, 17 Nov 2025 09:57:31 -0600, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>
wrote:
[...]
Oops, the Pope was not infallible.
So papal infallibility is another thing you don't understand.
I am just repeating what the anti geocentrist want to claim about it.
The "anti-geocentrists" of whom you cannot identify even one. Mind
you, when you first brought in the website of your geocentrist mentor,
it was anonymous and you didn't even know who the author was until I
figured out; the fact that he is a declared geocentrist and you knew
nothing about him didn't stop you placing high value on his opinions
and continuing to do so.
Weird to say the least.
[...]
You were given the links before,
Nope
so stop lying about it. Why should I
look up that junk again.
So you can prove I'm lying. But you can't because I'm not lying, you
gave no links except to the geocentrist idiot whose opinion you value
so highly.
You just denied that it was valid and kept
lying. Even your own trusted source backed up the anti geocentric site.
The anti geocentrists were on your side in terms of denying that it
was a formal heresy that Galileo faced the second time, but they agreed
with the geocentrists that the Inquisition had made it a formal heresy
charge the first time Galileo faced it and agreed with the Wiki. The
Vatican Observatory article that you have run from and snipped out of
this post backs up the geocentrists and anti geocentrists.
Just stop lying about the issue.
https://www.vaticanobservatory.org/sacred-space-astronomy/heliocentrism-condemned-400-years-ago-on-march-5-2/
They admit that helicentrism was condemned 400 years ago. 1616 is when
Galileo faced the formal heresy charge.
They do not consider the heresy cases, but they were based upon the
Inquisitions opinion of the topic.
Your claim of "never" having been condemned seems to be a lie.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galileo_Galilei
QUOTE:
In February 1616, an Inquisitorial commission declared heliocentrism to
be "foolish and absurd in philosophy, and formally heretical since it
explicitly contradicts in many places the sense of Holy Scripture".
END QUOTE:
Now YOU are the one lying about me. I never said it was never
condemned; on the contrary, I gave that exact same quote. What I did
was to point out that what it said was a FALSE CLAIM and it wasn't me
who came to that conclusion, it was the Catholic Church who came to
it, supported by every historian I know of who investigated it, people
like De Morgan and von Gebler. The only person I have ever known to
say there actually was a heresy is the geocentrist idiot whose opinion
you value so highly.
Both the geocentrists that you don't like, and the anti geocentric
catholics that do not agree with geocentric beliefs agreed that it was a
formal heresy charge the first time that Galileo faced the issue.
Now you seem to be trying to worm your way out of it by admitting
there was a *charge* without retracting that there was an actual
heresy which is what you have been claiming all long.
You can't just keep refusing to deal with reality and expect anything to
change.
You can't keep claiming support from "anti-geocentrists" about
heliocentrism having been an actual heresy without being able to
identify even one and expect people to take you seriously.
On Thu, 20 Nov 2025 09:38:56 -0600, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>heliocentrism to
wrote:
On 11/20/2025 4:47 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Wed, 19 Nov 2025 14:55:52 -0600, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>
wrote:
[snip for focus]
Your claim of "never" having been condemned seems to be a lie.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galileo_Galilei
QUOTE:
In February 1616, an Inquisitorial commission declared
be "foolish and absurd in philosophy, and formally heretical since it
explicitly contradicts in many places the sense of Holy Scripture".
END QUOTE:
Now YOU are the one lying about me. I never said it was never
condemned; on the contrary, I gave that exact same quote. What I did
was to point out that what it said was a FALSE CLAIM and it wasn't me
who came to that conclusion, it was the Catholic Church who came to
it, supported by every historian I know of who investigated it, people
like De Morgan and von Gebler. The only person I have ever known to
say there actually was a heresy is the geocentrist idiot whose opinion
you value so highly.
You put up the quote that said it had never been condemned. Go back up
and check. It was your quote.
Here is verbatim what I quoted:
Message-ID: 2gkkhk9bvctolude5jf6b6e0kothd5723d@4ax.com ========================================
<quote>
The [site] that cites von Gebler ("Galileo Galilei"):
"The Church never condemned it (the Copernican system) at all, for the Qualifiers of the Holy Office never mean the Church."
==========================================
#1: it was von Gebler who said rCLnever condemnedrCY, not me as you
claimed two posts ago.
#2 he did not say it was never condemned, he said *the Church* never condemned it.
Why do you post lies that are so easily shown to be lies?
On Fri, 21 Nov 2025 17:33:49 -0600, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>
wrote:
On 11/21/2025 12:29 PM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Fri, 21 Nov 2025 09:04:37 -0600, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>
wrote:
[rCa]
Let's cut to the chase here.
No lies to retract. You lied.
What lie are you claiming I told? Please quote exactly what I said
that you regard as a lie.
The ones that you keep telling.
"Never condemned"
I'm out of here. George Bernard Shaw warned that you shouldn't wrestle
with a pig as you get dirty and the pig enjoys it. I'm not going to
waste any more time trying to have a sensible discussion with someone
who thinks it's ok to take two words out of what somebody else said to
give a completely different meaning and then attribute those two words
to me. It doesn't even reach the level of quote-mining.
What beggars belief is that you do it where the exact quote from von
Gerber [1] and what I said about it are preserved just a couple of
posts above for all to see. As I noted earlier, it is really sad to
see this sort of behaviour from someone whose ability as a scientist I respect so much EfOU
===========================================
[1] "The Church never condemned it (the Copernican system) at all, for
the Qualifiers of the Holy Office never mean the Church."
[von Gebler ("Galileo Galilei")]
[..]
You should not continue to add to your own dishonest stupidity.
Trusting your source was obviously a stupid thing to do, and trying to
continue to support that source was just stupid and dishonest.
Ron Okimoto
On 4/30/2026 5:44 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Wed, 29 Apr 2026 19:41:58 -0500, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>
wrote:
On 4/29/2026 1:13 PM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Wed, 29 Apr 2026 12:43:53 -0500, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>
wrote:
[...]
Not as stupid and insane as making a claim you can't support. C'mon,
Snipping and lying about what you have done is just stupid and insane. >>>>
Ron, give the link to the Wiki article that says Galileo faced a
heresy charge in 1616 rCa surely it can't be that difficult.
[snip desperation attempt to avoid issue]
What a lying asshole. This is the second time that you have snipped and >>> run from what you have lied about as being handwaving.
C'mon Ron, no need to repost 7000 words that nobody wants to read. All
that's needed to show me to be the lying asshole, not you, is a simple
quote from the Wiki article that says what you insist it says. A dozen
or so words should cover it or even a simple URL. Can't be that hard
can it?
[...]
You need to stop harassing me with your stupid lies about the past.
What excuse do you have for continuing to lie about the situation when
you need to remove it before continuing to lie about reality. You need
to apologize and stop doing it. Removing what you lied about not
existing and snipping it out of this post in order to keep lying about
it is insane. You are just being a lying assoholic harasser, and you
know it.
You have just snipped and run from the posts where you are lying and >committing the stupid junk that you are lying about doing.
This is what
you have actually done. No wiki article is needed to do anything.
You
can't even face the repost where you were caught quote mining in order
to defend your dishonest source.
On Thu, 30 Apr 2026 08:49:48 -0500, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>
wrote:
On 4/30/2026 5:44 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Wed, 29 Apr 2026 19:41:58 -0500, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>
wrote:
On 4/29/2026 1:13 PM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Wed, 29 Apr 2026 12:43:53 -0500, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>
wrote:
[...]
Not as stupid and insane as making a claim you can't support. C'mon, >>>>> Ron, give the link to the Wiki article that says Galileo faced a
Snipping and lying about what you have done is just stupid and insane. >>>>>
heresy charge in 1616 rCa surely it can't be that difficult.
[snip desperation attempt to avoid issue]
What a lying asshole. This is the second time that you have snipped and >>>> run from what you have lied about as being handwaving.
C'mon Ron, no need to repost 7000 words that nobody wants to read. All
that's needed to show me to be the lying asshole, not you, is a simple
quote from the Wiki article that says what you insist it says. A dozen
or so words should cover it or even a simple URL. Can't be that hard
can it?
[...]
You need to stop harassing me with your stupid lies about the past.
I'll gladly stop harassing you when you either give a specific example
of a lie told by either me or those I cited in support. Or else
withdraw your own stupid lies.
On Mon, 20 Apr 2026 13:40:43 -0500, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>are lying".
wrote:
On 4/20/2026 4:08 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Sat, 18 Apr 2026 12:06:53 -0500, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>
wrote:
On 4/18/2026 6:24 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Wed, 15 Apr 2026 14:31:27 -0500, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>
wrote:
On 4/15/2026 11:36 AM, Martin Harran wrote:[rCa]
On Wed, 15 Apr 2026 16:59:56 +0100, "Kerr-Mudd, John"
No one is going to convince an opponent by stating that "they
(no matterand probably not by constant repetition of the same arguments
reality,how valid) that failed to get through the first 50 times.
Tell that to RonO, he's the one who keeps calling everyone who
disagrees with him a liar.
Who got caught lying and quote mining? You need to deal with
it isand quit lying about it. Lying about me is just so stupid that
matched bypretty much insane. You have always lied about the sources that you
could not deal honestly with. Who's sources have always come up short?
Look at what you are doing now. Is there any excuse for you not dealing
with your own stupid dishonest behavior?
The tiresomeness of you continually claiming that my sources were
caught lying and that I have been lying and quote mining is
beenthe tiresomeness of your inability to ever identify what lie my
sources were caught in, what lies I have told or where I have quote
mined.
[... more big snip ...]
Why keep lying about what your sources did and what you did? That is
just stupid and dishonest. Just look up your past posts to determine
for yourself what went down. You tried to lie about my sources being
deficient when your sources had always come up short or even supported
my sources by putting up the lame lie that heliocentrism had never
the samecondemned other then by the inquisition. It was stupid because it did
not negate what you and your sources had been wrong about. It turned
out that your source was lying and you ran. You ran twice from
whatevidence that your source was lying. You tried to come back with your
lame quote mining efforts and trying to distract the argument from
it had been. You did that, and your source was demonstrated to have
lied about the issue. You need to go back and deal with what you did.
An appology for your disgraceful behavior would be in order. Just try
not to do it again. Continuing to lie about what happened is just
adding to how low you needed to go.
Yet again, you make all sorts of accusations without a single example
of something to support them.
What I cannot figure out is whether you just can't grasp that your
failure to produce a single example of supporting evidence portrays
*you* as the one telling lies; or whether you do grasp it and just
don't care; or whether, like a certain President, you think that if
you repeat a lie enough times that someone will eventually believe it.
You should apologize for what you have been doing and stop doing it. I
found the posts where you ran from your source having been caught lying,
you then snipped the evidence out of your response to your running.
The thread: There is no legitimate scientific support for the ID scam.
I can post your quote mining attempts and other stupid behavior that you
resorted to to defend your running and defense of your bogus source.
So why don't you instead of talking about it?
Specific examples, please, not reams and reams of obfuscatory cut'n
paste.
On Sun, 16 Nov 2025 18:25:18 -0600, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>claiming you
wrote:
On 11/16/2025 4:40 PM, Martin Harran wrote:[rCa]
The links that I put up were from the Catholics that continue to be
geocentric creationists, and the Catholics that are trying to refute
them. Both sides do not agree with you. What does your continued
denial of reality tell you?
You gave no such links. All you have to do to prove me wrong is give
them again.
Do you not see how stupid you are making yourself look by
gave links but cannot repeat them?
Why lie about something so stupid. One of the links was your own
trusted Catholic site, and you initially gave that link.
That was this site:
https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/06342b.htm
The one where the Catholic Church states:
" In thus acting, it is undeniable that the ecclesiastical authorities
committed a grave and deplorable error, and sanctioned an altogether
false principle as to the proper use of Scripture."
The one that cites Professor Augustus De Morgan (Budget of Paradoxes)
declaring
"It is clear that the absurdity was the act of the Italian
Inquisition, for the private and personal pleasure of the pope - who
knew that the course he took could not convict him as pope - and not
of the body which calls itself the Church."
The one that cites von Gebler ("Galileo Galilei"):
"The Church never condemned it (the Copernican system) at all, for the
Qualifiers of the Holy Office never mean the Church."
It beats me how you figure out that site and the people referred to in
it somehow back your claim that heliocentrism really was a heresy. I
guess you have to convince yourself in order to maintain your delusion
as you clearly can't find a reputable source that actually does back
you up.
Yes, everyone admits that they were wrong about geocentrism except for
the Catholics that are still geocentrics. This source called what
Galileo faced both times a charge of heresy. They did not make a
distinction between formal heresy and heresy like the anti geocentric
site, but it was still a heresy.
What part of "The Church never condemned it (the Copernican system) at
all" did you not understand?
The only place that formal comes into all this is in the judgement
issued after Galileo's first trial where the verdict stated that the proposition that the Sun is stationary at the centre of the universe
is "foolish and absurd in philosophy, and formally heretical since it explicitly contradicts in many places the sense of Holy Scripture".
That, however, is t the Catholic Encyclopaedia refers to where it
says:
"it is undeniable that the ecclesiastical authorities committed a
grave and deplorable error, and sanctioned an altogether false
principle as to the proper use of Scripture."
Note also that the words "formally heretical" are wrong - I'm not sure whether it was the Inquisition using weasel words or whether it was a
bad translation from the Latin.
The word "heresy" can be used in two ways; it can apply to the
rejection of a specific doctrine of the Church or it can refer to the
act of committing heresy. The word "formal" applies to the latter -
the act of committing heresy - and is used to categorise the degree of
guilt of the person committing the heresy. "Formal heresy" means they
knew they were going against doctrine and are therefore guilty of
mortal sin; "material heresy" means they did not know they were going against doctrine so they are not guilty sin.
It's a bit like first degree versus second degree murder and Galileo's
trial was like him being charged with first-degree murder without a
murder being established in the first place.
The Inquisition made it into a formal heresy after the Council of Trent.
They were supposedly wrong, and a couple centuries later things got
reversed to what they had been at the time that the findings of the
Council of Trent were published.
The holy office (the inquisition) had Galileo facing a formal heresy
charge in his first encounter. When the pope got involved they just did
not call it a formal heresy in the sentencing. Galileo's views were
still condemned. They claimed that Galileo was facing a charge of
heresy. His heliocentric notions were still considered to be heresy and
the heresy that he was guilty of was clearly defined in the sentencing.
The anti geocentrics admitted that the pope had the Galileo case
published and disseminated throughout the church in order to quash the
heliocentric notions that were becoming an issue for the church. They
just want to claim that, that was not an official act. That is just
stupid. The pope did it for known reasons, and who cares if they want
to plead that he was not acting as pope?
There is no doubt that the actors were wrong, and that is the issue.
They do not want it to reflect on papal infallibility. That in itself
should be considered to be a non scriptural unjustifiable claim.
The Inquisition had Copernican writings banned and made heliocentrism
into a formal heresy because all the church fathers were geocentrics,
and that meant that Copernicans were in conflict with the beliefs of the
church fathers. Both the geocentric Catholics and the anti geocentric
Catholics claim that the Inquisition did this because of what the church
came up with at the Council of Trent where they made the beliefs of the
church fathers as a legitimate and necessary authority for interpreting
scripture. Both Catholic sides of the geocentric issue understand this
to be true.
QUOTE:
Council of Trent
Session IV, April 8, 1546, Decree Concerning the Edition and the Use of
the Sacred Books:
... "Furthermore, in order to restrain petulant spirits, it [the Council
of Trent] decrees that no one, relying on his own skill, shall,-in
matters of faith, and of morals pertaining to the edification of
Christian doctrine,-wresting the sacred Scriptures to his own senses,
presume to interpret the said sacred Scripture contrary to that sense
which holy Mother Church-to whom it belongs to judge of the true sense
and interpretation of the Holy Scriptures-hath held and doth hold; or
even contrary to the unanimous consent of the Fathers; even though such
interpretations were never (intended) to be at any time published.
Contraveners shall be made known by their Ordinaries and be punished
with the penalties by law established."
END QUOTE:
https://www.biblelightinfo.com/unanimous-consent.htm
Both Catholic sides of the issue claim that the Council of Trent caused
the Inquisition to ban Copernican writings and start treating
heliocentrism as a formal heresy because it went against the geocentric
beliefs of the church fathers.
You are taking all that crap from your geocentric hero; if you want to persist in taking his opinion against that of the Church's own
theologians then that is you just acting like Spikes rejecting the
opinion of scientists in favour of people who play to his confirmation
bias.
It was a mistake and the actors were in error only because of our
current understanding of nature. The Pope was wrong about it. He was
one of the mistaken actors.
The Pope was not a "mistaken actor", he was pissed off with Galileo presenting the Pope's views as those of a simpleton and misused his
powers to hit back at Galileo. Again, the Catholic Encyclopaedia
spells that explicitly:
"It is clear that the absurdity was the act of the Italian
Inquisition, for the private and personal pleasure of the pope - who
knew that the course he took could not convict him as pope - and not
of the body which calls itself the Church."
The Galileo affair was a shameful episode in the Church's history but
was all about the animosity between the Pope and Galileo, it had
nothing to do with heliocentrism being a heresy, that was just the
vehicle that the Pope used to attack Galileo.
On Mon, 17 Nov 2025 14:40:05 -0600, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>
wrote:
On 11/17/2025 11:45 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Mon, 17 Nov 2025 09:57:31 -0600, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>
wrote:
[...]
Oops, the Pope was not infallible.
So papal infallibility is another thing you don't understand.
I am just repeating what the anti geocentrist want to claim about it.
The "anti-geocentrists" of whom you cannot identify even one. Mind
you, when you first brought in the website of your geocentrist mentor,
it was anonymous and you didn't even know who the author was until I
figured out; the fact that he is a declared geocentrist and you knew
nothing about him didn't stop you placing high value on his opinions
and continuing to do so.
Weird to say the least.
[...]
On Wed, 19 Nov 2025 14:55:52 -0600, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>
wrote:
On 11/19/2025 12:01 PM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Mon, 17 Nov 2025 14:40:05 -0600, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>
wrote:
On 11/17/2025 11:45 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Mon, 17 Nov 2025 09:57:31 -0600, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>
wrote:
[...]
Oops, the Pope was not infallible.
So papal infallibility is another thing you don't understand.
I am just repeating what the anti geocentrist want to claim about it.
The "anti-geocentrists" of whom you cannot identify even one. Mind
you, when you first brought in the website of your geocentrist mentor,
it was anonymous and you didn't even know who the author was until I
figured out; the fact that he is a declared geocentrist and you knew
nothing about him didn't stop you placing high value on his opinions
and continuing to do so.
Weird to say the least.
[...]
You were given the links before,
Nope
so stop lying about it. Why should I
look up that junk again.
So you can prove I'm lying. But you can't because I'm not lying, you
gave no links except to the geocentrist idiot whose opinion you value
so highly.
You just denied that it was valid and kept
lying. Even your own trusted source backed up the anti geocentric site.
The anti geocentrists were on your side in terms of denying that it
was a formal heresy that Galileo faced the second time, but they agreed
with the geocentrists that the Inquisition had made it a formal heresy
charge the first time Galileo faced it and agreed with the Wiki. The
Vatican Observatory article that you have run from and snipped out of
this post backs up the geocentrists and anti geocentrists.
Just stop lying about the issue.
https://www.vaticanobservatory.org/sacred-space-astronomy/heliocentrism-condemned-400-years-ago-on-march-5-2/
They admit that helicentrism was condemned 400 years ago. 1616 is when
Galileo faced the formal heresy charge.
They do not consider the heresy cases, but they were based upon the
Inquisitions opinion of the topic.
Your claim of "never" having been condemned seems to be a lie.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galileo_Galilei
QUOTE:
In February 1616, an Inquisitorial commission declared heliocentrism to
be "foolish and absurd in philosophy, and formally heretical since it
explicitly contradicts in many places the sense of Holy Scripture".
END QUOTE:
Now YOU are the one lying about me. I never said it was never
condemned; on the contrary, I gave that exact same quote. What I did
was to point out that what it said was a FALSE CLAIM and it wasn't me
who came to that conclusion, it was the Catholic Church who came to
it, supported by every historian I know of who investigated it, people
like De Morgan and von Gebler. The only person I have ever known to
say there actually was a heresy is the geocentrist idiot whose opinion
you value so highly.
Both the geocentrists that you don't like, and the anti geocentric
catholics that do not agree with geocentric beliefs agreed that it was a
formal heresy charge the first time that Galileo faced the issue.
Now you seem to be trying to worm your way out of it by admitting
there was a *charge* without retracting that there was an actual
heresy which is what you have been claiming all long.
You can't just keep refusing to deal with reality and expect anything to
change.
You can't keep claiming support from "anti-geocentrists" about
heliocentrism having been an actual heresy without being able to
identify even one and expect people to take you seriously.
On Thu, 20 Nov 2025 09:38:56 -0600, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>heliocentrism to
wrote:
On 11/20/2025 4:47 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Wed, 19 Nov 2025 14:55:52 -0600, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>
wrote:
[snip for focus]
Your claim of "never" having been condemned seems to be a lie.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galileo_Galilei
QUOTE:
In February 1616, an Inquisitorial commission declared
be "foolish and absurd in philosophy, and formally heretical since it
explicitly contradicts in many places the sense of Holy Scripture".
END QUOTE:
Now YOU are the one lying about me. I never said it was never
condemned; on the contrary, I gave that exact same quote. What I did
was to point out that what it said was a FALSE CLAIM and it wasn't me
who came to that conclusion, it was the Catholic Church who came to
it, supported by every historian I know of who investigated it, people
like De Morgan and von Gebler. The only person I have ever known to
say there actually was a heresy is the geocentrist idiot whose opinion
you value so highly.
You put up the quote that said it had never been condemned. Go back up
and check. It was your quote.
Here is verbatim what I quoted:
Message-ID: 2gkkhk9bvctolude5jf6b6e0kothd5723d@4ax.com ========================================
<quote>
The [site] that cites von Gebler ("Galileo Galilei"):
"The Church never condemned it (the Copernican system) at all, for the Qualifiers of the Holy Office never mean the Church."
==========================================
#1: it was von Gebler who said rCLnever condemnedrCY, not me as you
claimed two posts ago.
#2 he did not say it was never condemned, he said *the Church* never condemned it.
Why do you post lies that are so easily shown to be lies?
On Fri, 21 Nov 2025 17:33:49 -0600, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>
wrote:
On 11/21/2025 12:29 PM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Fri, 21 Nov 2025 09:04:37 -0600, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>
wrote:
[rCa]
Let's cut to the chase here.
No lies to retract. You lied.
What lie are you claiming I told? Please quote exactly what I said
that you regard as a lie.
The ones that you keep telling.
"Never condemned"
I'm out of here. George Bernard Shaw warned that you shouldn't wrestle
with a pig as you get dirty and the pig enjoys it. I'm not going to
waste any more time trying to have a sensible discussion with someone
who thinks it's ok to take two words out of what somebody else said to
give a completely different meaning and then attribute those two words
to me. It doesn't even reach the level of quote-mining.
What beggars belief is that you do it where the exact quote from von
Gerber [1] and what I said about it are preserved just a couple of
posts above for all to see. As I noted earlier, it is really sad to
see this sort of behaviour from someone whose ability as a scientist I respect so much EfOU
===========================================
[1] "The Church never condemned it (the Copernican system) at all, for
the Qualifiers of the Holy Office never mean the Church."
[von Gebler ("Galileo Galilei")]
[..]
You should not continue to add to your own dishonest stupidity.
Trusting your source was obviously a stupid thing to do, and trying to
continue to support that source was just stupid and dishonest.
Ron Okimoto
On Mon, 20 Apr 2026 13:40:43 -0500, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>are lying".
wrote:
On 4/20/2026 4:08 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Sat, 18 Apr 2026 12:06:53 -0500, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>
wrote:
On 4/18/2026 6:24 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Wed, 15 Apr 2026 14:31:27 -0500, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>
wrote:
On 4/15/2026 11:36 AM, Martin Harran wrote:[rCa]
On Wed, 15 Apr 2026 16:59:56 +0100, "Kerr-Mudd, John"
No one is going to convince an opponent by stating that "they
(no matterand probably not by constant repetition of the same arguments
reality,how valid) that failed to get through the first 50 times.
Tell that to RonO, he's the one who keeps calling everyone who
disagrees with him a liar.
Who got caught lying and quote mining? You need to deal with
it isand quit lying about it. Lying about me is just so stupid that
matched bypretty much insane. You have always lied about the sources that you
could not deal honestly with. Who's sources have always come up short?
Look at what you are doing now. Is there any excuse for you not dealing
with your own stupid dishonest behavior?
The tiresomeness of you continually claiming that my sources were
caught lying and that I have been lying and quote mining is
beenthe tiresomeness of your inability to ever identify what lie my
sources were caught in, what lies I have told or where I have quote
mined.
[... more big snip ...]
Why keep lying about what your sources did and what you did? That is
just stupid and dishonest. Just look up your past posts to determine
for yourself what went down. You tried to lie about my sources being
deficient when your sources had always come up short or even supported
my sources by putting up the lame lie that heliocentrism had never
the samecondemned other then by the inquisition. It was stupid because it did
not negate what you and your sources had been wrong about. It turned
out that your source was lying and you ran. You ran twice from
whatevidence that your source was lying. You tried to come back with your
lame quote mining efforts and trying to distract the argument from
it had been. You did that, and your source was demonstrated to have
lied about the issue. You need to go back and deal with what you did.
An appology for your disgraceful behavior would be in order. Just try
not to do it again. Continuing to lie about what happened is just
adding to how low you needed to go.
Yet again, you make all sorts of accusations without a single example
of something to support them.
What I cannot figure out is whether you just can't grasp that your
failure to produce a single example of supporting evidence portrays
*you* as the one telling lies; or whether you do grasp it and just
don't care; or whether, like a certain President, you think that if
you repeat a lie enough times that someone will eventually believe it.
You should apologize for what you have been doing and stop doing it. I
found the posts where you ran from your source having been caught lying,
you then snipped the evidence out of your response to your running.
The thread: There is no legitimate scientific support for the ID scam.
I can post your quote mining attempts and other stupid behavior that you
resorted to to defend your running and defense of your bogus source.
So why don't you instead of talking about it?
Specific examples, please, not reams and reams of obfuscatory cut'n
paste.
You should not continue to add to your own dishonest stupidity.
Trusting your source was obviously a stupid thing to do, and trying to
continue to support that source was just stupid and dishonest.
Ron Okimoto
On Sun, 22 Feb 2026 13:40:10 -0600, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>what you
wrote:
On 2/22/2026 10:18 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Sat, 21 Feb 2026 12:44:57 -0600, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>
wrote:
On 2/21/2026 11:59 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
What documents are you talking about that you keep saying the Jesuits
put up?
You can keep lying about what has been discussed, but you know
was notdid. You need to be the one that finds it and satisfy yourself with
what you did.
You put up your source lying about heliocentrism never being condemned
by anyone but the Inquisition. You claimed that the Inquisition
ordered bythe Church. I put up the Jesuit Observatory claim that the Papal
offices had condemned heliocentrism and this condemnation was
sources havethe Pope. They put up the relevant document and stated what the Pope
did. Your source was caught lying and you ran. Go find it. It is
something that you should do because you will uncover all your other
evasions on this issue while doing it. Your quotes of your
always come up short. The sources that you claim are unreliable, have
repeatedly been shown to be more reliable than what you come up with.
Oh, you mean the link you gave back in November, this one:
https://www.vaticanobservatory.org/sacred-space-astronomy/heliocentrism-condemned-400-years-ago-on-march-5-2/
The one where they posted the full 1616 decree on it's 400th
anniversary and commented:
<quote>
The formulation here is much milder than the one found in the working
document of February 24. The Decree talks about the "false Pythagorean
doctrine" and declare it "altogether contrary to the Holy Scripture".
This is not nearly as harsh as "foolish and absurd" philosophically,
and "formally heretical" because contrary to Scripture.
</quote>
How fucking dense can you be? It doesn't get much stupider than
posting something that contradicts what you are claiming.
If I am the dense one why did you run from what they admitted about the
document?
LOL, you post something that you think supports your claim but
actually rejects it and the best defence you can offer is to accuse me
of running away from it.
The Pope did condemn heliocentrism.
Beats me why you keep repeating this. The Pope did not personally
condemn heliocentrism, he allowed the Inquisition's condemnation of it
to be made public - that did not make it a heresy.
That is what your side was lying
about.
The only one telling lies here is you. For example, when you keep
insisting that all the "anti-geocentrists" in the Catholic
Encyclopaedia article agree with you that heliocentrism was a heresy
when they all say explicitly that it wasn't. Your lie is underlined by
the fact that you can't produce identify any source that agrees that heliocentrism was a heresy except your geocentrist mentors.
reality.It doesn't matter that the final wording was milder than the
initial draft. They admit that the Pope condemned heliocentrism, and
supported using the Council of Trent's scriptural interpretation on the
matter. It doesn't matter what it was called because the authors and
books are named. You ran from this link because your source was found
to have lied about heliocentrism never having been condemned except by
the Inquisition. The Pope obviously represents the Church and condemned
heliocentrism. He supported the Inquisition in 1616, and their
additions to the Index in order to protect against heresy. The books
would not have been added to the Index if they were not considered to be
heretical. The document even talks about the heretical parts of the
books, and indicates that after one of them is rewritten, so that it is
not against scripture, that it can be removed from the Index.
Keep lying to yourself about the issue. It isn't going to change
The Inquisition made heliocentrism a formal heresy in 1615-1616.
The decree is given in full on the Vatican Observatory site that you
tried to claim supports you and the word 'heresy' or 'heretical' does
not even appear in it.
They
did this because of their interpretation of scripture as the Council of
Trent had decided.
The decree doesn't make any reference whatsoever to Trent regarding interpretation of scripture; the one and only reference is to the *punishment* under Trent for disobeying the decree.
They added heliocentric writings to the Index,
They declare that "the books by Nicolaus Copernicus (On the
Revolutions of Spheres) and by Diego de Zu|#iga (On Job) be suspended
until corrected".
I've given details of the required corrections to Revolutions in a
different post to Harshman and they are all minor edits - not one of
them makes any change to the core principle of heliocentrism. A rather
weird declaration of heresy that allows Copernicus's book supporting
it to be published with minor edits that don't undermine his
proposition.
and
had their first encounter with Galileo. The Pope agreed with them and
condemned heliocentrism, and agreed with their additions to the Index of
banned writings.
Before your source lied about "never being condemned" the Pope's
involvement in 1616 was not an issue between the geocentric and
anti-geocentric Catholics in terms of what you were lying about at the
time. Both sides agreed that it was a formal heresy charge faced by
Galileo in 1615-1616. They disagreed about it being a formal heresy
charge the second time because it was only written up as "heresy" and
not formal heresy in the sentencing. It remained a heresy charge.
You obviously struggle with grasping that a *charge* does not make
someone guilty. I hope I'm never on trial for something I didn't do
with you on the jury.
The
Pope had the Galileo case, sentencing, and punishment published and
distributed throughout the Church in order to quash the heliocentric
heresy, but the guys that want to maintain Papal infallibility claim
that that was not an official Papal action. They admitted that there
was an issue with helicentrism at the time, but they do not want the
Pope to have been on the wrong side of the issue.
You need to deal with reality.
I think it's very clear who has the problem with accepting reality and
it's not me.
It is well understood that the Bible is
just wrong about a lot of things that we can figure out for ourselves.
Your own quotes from Pope Francis makes that claim. The Bible can be
misinterpreted because the author's understanding of the creation was
faulty. Francis knows that the universe was not created in 6 magic
episodes. Only those in complete denial do not understand that the
order of creation described in the Bible is wrong. There are still
young earth, old earth day for agers, geocentric, and flat earth
Biblical creationists because they are in the same type of denial that
you are in. There are just different levels of denial.
Ron Okimoto
What excuse do you have for continuing to lie about the situation when
you need to remove it before continuing to lie about reality. You need
to apologize and stop doing it. Removing what you lied about not
existing and snipping it out of this post in order to keep lying about
it is insane. You are just being a lying assoholic harasser, and you
know it.
You have just snipped and run from the posts where you are lying and
committing the stupid junk that you are lying about doing.
I will keep snipping irrelevant stuff you keep reposting to try to
hide the fact that you cannot give a single example of alie told by me
or those I cited - not even one.
This is what
you have actually done. No wiki article is needed to do anything.
Seeing as how you are so coy about producing the relevant information
from Wiki, I will do it for you. There are actually two articles on
Galileo in Wiki, a general biographical one and a detailed one about
his dealings with the Church
General Article:
==============
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galileo_Galilei
<quote>
By 1615, Galileo's writings on heliocentrism had been submitted to the
Roman Inquisition by Father Niccol|# Lorini, who claimed that Galileo
and his followers were attempting to reinterpret the Bible,[h] which
was seen as a violation of the Council of Trent and looked dangerously
like Protestantism.[141] Lorini specifically cited Galileo's letter to Castelli.[142] Galileo went to Rome to defend himself and his ideas.
</quote>
Detailed article about his problems with the Church ========================================== https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galileo_affair
<quote>
Galileo soon heard reports that Lorini had obtained a copy of his
letter to Castelli and was claiming that it contained many heresies.
He also heard that Caccini had gone to Rome and suspected him of
trying to stir up trouble with Lorini's copy of the letter.[33] As
1615 wore on he became more concerned, and eventually determined to go
to Rome as soon as his health permitted, which it did at the end of
the year. By presenting his case there, he hoped to clear his name of
any suspicion of heresy, and to persuade the Church authorities not to suppress heliocentric ideas.
In going to Rome Galileo was acting against the advice of friends and
allies, and of the Tuscan ambassador to Rome, Piero Guicciardini.[34] </quote>
Note how the first article says "Galileo went to Rome to defend
himself and his ideas" and the second one "and [he] eventually
determined to go to Rome as soon as his health permitted, which it did
at the end of the year. By presenting his case there, he hoped to
clear his name of any suspicion of heresy, and to persuade the Church authorities not to suppress heliocentric ideas" and he did so against
the advice of his friends. In other words, going to Rome was his own decision, he wasn't even summoned by the Inquisition , let alone
charged with anything.
Are you going to keep on insisting that one of the articles says he
was charged with heresy?
You
can't even face the repost where you were caught quote mining in order
to defend your dishonest source.
You were the one who did the quote mining. You said the Vatican
Observatory article (*your* source, not mine) supported your claim
that heliocentrism was declared a heresy; the article states the exact opposite.
[rCa]
On Mon, 20 Apr 2026 13:40:43 -0500, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>are lying".
wrote:
On 4/20/2026 4:08 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Sat, 18 Apr 2026 12:06:53 -0500, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>
wrote:
On 4/18/2026 6:24 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Wed, 15 Apr 2026 14:31:27 -0500, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>
wrote:
On 4/15/2026 11:36 AM, Martin Harran wrote:[rCa]
On Wed, 15 Apr 2026 16:59:56 +0100, "Kerr-Mudd, John"
No one is going to convince an opponent by stating that "they
(no matterand probably not by constant repetition of the same arguments
reality,how valid) that failed to get through the first 50 times.
Tell that to RonO, he's the one who keeps calling everyone who
disagrees with him a liar.
Who got caught lying and quote mining? You need to deal with
it isand quit lying about it. Lying about me is just so stupid that
matched bypretty much insane. You have always lied about the sources that you
could not deal honestly with. Who's sources have always come up short?
Look at what you are doing now. Is there any excuse for you not dealing
with your own stupid dishonest behavior?
The tiresomeness of you continually claiming that my sources were
caught lying and that I have been lying and quote mining is
beenthe tiresomeness of your inability to ever identify what lie my
sources were caught in, what lies I have told or where I have quote
mined.
[... more big snip ...]
Why keep lying about what your sources did and what you did? That is
just stupid and dishonest. Just look up your past posts to determine
for yourself what went down. You tried to lie about my sources being
deficient when your sources had always come up short or even supported
my sources by putting up the lame lie that heliocentrism had never
the samecondemned other then by the inquisition. It was stupid because it did
not negate what you and your sources had been wrong about. It turned
out that your source was lying and you ran. You ran twice from
whatevidence that your source was lying. You tried to come back with your
lame quote mining efforts and trying to distract the argument from
it had been. You did that, and your source was demonstrated to have
lied about the issue. You need to go back and deal with what you did.
An appology for your disgraceful behavior would be in order. Just try
not to do it again. Continuing to lie about what happened is just
adding to how low you needed to go.
Yet again, you make all sorts of accusations without a single example
of something to support them.
What I cannot figure out is whether you just can't grasp that your
failure to produce a single example of supporting evidence portrays
*you* as the one telling lies; or whether you do grasp it and just
don't care; or whether, like a certain President, you think that if
you repeat a lie enough times that someone will eventually believe it.
You should apologize for what you have been doing and stop doing it. I
found the posts where you ran from your source having been caught lying,
you then snipped the evidence out of your response to your running.
The thread: There is no legitimate scientific support for the ID scam.
I can post your quote mining attempts and other stupid behavior that you
resorted to to defend your running and defense of your bogus source.
So why don't you instead of talking about it?
Specific examples, please, not reams and reams of obfuscatory cut'n
paste.
You should not continue to add to your own dishonest stupidity.
Trusting your source was obviously a stupid thing to do, and trying to
continue to support that source was just stupid and dishonest.
Ron Okimoto
On Sun, 22 Feb 2026 13:40:10 -0600, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>what you
wrote:
On 2/22/2026 10:18 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Sat, 21 Feb 2026 12:44:57 -0600, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>
wrote:
On 2/21/2026 11:59 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
What documents are you talking about that you keep saying the Jesuits
put up?
You can keep lying about what has been discussed, but you know
was notdid. You need to be the one that finds it and satisfy yourself with
what you did.
You put up your source lying about heliocentrism never being condemned
by anyone but the Inquisition. You claimed that the Inquisition
ordered bythe Church. I put up the Jesuit Observatory claim that the Papal
offices had condemned heliocentrism and this condemnation was
sources havethe Pope. They put up the relevant document and stated what the Pope
did. Your source was caught lying and you ran. Go find it. It is
something that you should do because you will uncover all your other
evasions on this issue while doing it. Your quotes of your
always come up short. The sources that you claim are unreliable, have
repeatedly been shown to be more reliable than what you come up with.
Oh, you mean the link you gave back in November, this one:
https://www.vaticanobservatory.org/sacred-space-astronomy/heliocentrism-condemned-400-years-ago-on-march-5-2/
The one where they posted the full 1616 decree on it's 400th
anniversary and commented:
<quote>
The formulation here is much milder than the one found in the working
document of February 24. The Decree talks about the "false Pythagorean
doctrine" and declare it "altogether contrary to the Holy Scripture".
This is not nearly as harsh as "foolish and absurd" philosophically,
and "formally heretical" because contrary to Scripture.
</quote>
How fucking dense can you be? It doesn't get much stupider than
posting something that contradicts what you are claiming.
If I am the dense one why did you run from what they admitted about the
document?
LOL, you post something that you think supports your claim but
actually rejects it and the best defence you can offer is to accuse me
of running away from it.
The Pope did condemn heliocentrism.
Beats me why you keep repeating this. The Pope did not personally
condemn heliocentrism, he allowed the Inquisition's condemnation of it
to be made public - that did not make it a heresy.
That is what your side was lying
about.
The only one telling lies here is you. For example, when you keep
insisting that all the "anti-geocentrists" in the Catholic
Encyclopaedia article agree with you that heliocentrism was a heresy
when they all say explicitly that it wasn't. Your lie is underlined by
the fact that you can't produce identify any source that agrees that heliocentrism was a heresy except your geocentrist mentors.
reality.It doesn't matter that the final wording was milder than the
initial draft. They admit that the Pope condemned heliocentrism, and
supported using the Council of Trent's scriptural interpretation on the
matter. It doesn't matter what it was called because the authors and
books are named. You ran from this link because your source was found
to have lied about heliocentrism never having been condemned except by
the Inquisition. The Pope obviously represents the Church and condemned
heliocentrism. He supported the Inquisition in 1616, and their
additions to the Index in order to protect against heresy. The books
would not have been added to the Index if they were not considered to be
heretical. The document even talks about the heretical parts of the
books, and indicates that after one of them is rewritten, so that it is
not against scripture, that it can be removed from the Index.
Keep lying to yourself about the issue. It isn't going to change
The Inquisition made heliocentrism a formal heresy in 1615-1616.
The decree is given in full on the Vatican Observatory site that you
tried to claim supports you and the word 'heresy' or 'heretical' does
not even appear in it.
They
did this because of their interpretation of scripture as the Council of
Trent had decided.
The decree doesn't make any reference whatsoever to Trent regarding interpretation of scripture; the one and only reference is to the *punishment* under Trent for disobeying the decree.
They added heliocentric writings to the Index,
They declare that "the books by Nicolaus Copernicus (On the
Revolutions of Spheres) and by Diego de Zu|#iga (On Job) be suspended
until corrected".
I've given details of the required corrections to Revolutions in a
different post to Harshman and they are all minor edits - not one of
them makes any change to the core principle of heliocentrism. A rather
weird declaration of heresy that allows Copernicus's book supporting
it to be published with minor edits that don't undermine his
proposition.
and
had their first encounter with Galileo. The Pope agreed with them and
condemned heliocentrism, and agreed with their additions to the Index of
banned writings.
Before your source lied about "never being condemned" the Pope's
involvement in 1616 was not an issue between the geocentric and
anti-geocentric Catholics in terms of what you were lying about at the
time. Both sides agreed that it was a formal heresy charge faced by
Galileo in 1615-1616. They disagreed about it being a formal heresy
charge the second time because it was only written up as "heresy" and
not formal heresy in the sentencing. It remained a heresy charge.
You obviously struggle with grasping that a *charge* does not make
someone guilty. I hope I'm never on trial for something I didn't do
with you on the jury.
The
Pope had the Galileo case, sentencing, and punishment published and
distributed throughout the Church in order to quash the heliocentric
heresy, but the guys that want to maintain Papal infallibility claim
that that was not an official Papal action. They admitted that there
was an issue with helicentrism at the time, but they do not want the
Pope to have been on the wrong side of the issue.
You need to deal with reality.
I think it's very clear who has the problem with accepting reality and
it's not me.
It is well understood that the Bible is
just wrong about a lot of things that we can figure out for ourselves.
Your own quotes from Pope Francis makes that claim. The Bible can be
misinterpreted because the author's understanding of the creation was
faulty. Francis knows that the universe was not created in 6 magic
episodes. Only those in complete denial do not understand that the
order of creation described in the Bible is wrong. There are still
young earth, old earth day for agers, geocentric, and flat earth
Biblical creationists because they are in the same type of denial that
you are in. There are just different levels of denial.
Ron Okimoto
On Thu, 30 Apr 2026 08:49:48 -0500, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>insane.
wrote:
On 4/30/2026 5:44 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Wed, 29 Apr 2026 19:41:58 -0500, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>
wrote:
On 4/29/2026 1:13 PM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Wed, 29 Apr 2026 12:43:53 -0500, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>
wrote:
[...]
Snipping and lying about what you have done is just stupid and
snipped and
Not as stupid and insane as making a claim you can't support. C'mon,
Ron, give the link to the Wiki article that says Galileo faced a
heresy charge in 1616 rCa surely it can't be that difficult.
[snip desperation attempt to avoid issue]
What a lying asshole. This is the second time that you have
run from what you have lied about as being handwaving.
C'mon Ron, no need to repost 7000 words that nobody wants to read. All
that's needed to show me to be the lying asshole, not you, is a simple
quote from the Wiki article that says what you insist it says. A dozen
or so words should cover it or even a simple URL. Can't be that hard
can it?
[...]
You need to stop harassing me with your stupid lies about the past.
I'll gladly stop harassing you when you either give a specific example
of a lie told by either me or those I cited in support. Or else
withdraw your own stupid lies.
On Mon, 20 Apr 2026 13:40:43 -0500, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>are lying".
wrote:
On 4/20/2026 4:08 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Sat, 18 Apr 2026 12:06:53 -0500, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>
wrote:
On 4/18/2026 6:24 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Wed, 15 Apr 2026 14:31:27 -0500, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>
wrote:
On 4/15/2026 11:36 AM, Martin Harran wrote:[rCa]
On Wed, 15 Apr 2026 16:59:56 +0100, "Kerr-Mudd, John"
No one is going to convince an opponent by stating that "they
(no matterand probably not by constant repetition of the same arguments
reality,how valid) that failed to get through the first 50 times.
Tell that to RonO, he's the one who keeps calling everyone who
disagrees with him a liar.
Who got caught lying and quote mining? You need to deal with
it isand quit lying about it. Lying about me is just so stupid that
matched bypretty much insane. You have always lied about the sources that you
could not deal honestly with. Who's sources have always come up short?
Look at what you are doing now. Is there any excuse for you not dealing
with your own stupid dishonest behavior?
The tiresomeness of you continually claiming that my sources were
caught lying and that I have been lying and quote mining is
beenthe tiresomeness of your inability to ever identify what lie my
sources were caught in, what lies I have told or where I have quote
mined.
[... more big snip ...]
Why keep lying about what your sources did and what you did? That is
just stupid and dishonest. Just look up your past posts to determine
for yourself what went down. You tried to lie about my sources being
deficient when your sources had always come up short or even supported
my sources by putting up the lame lie that heliocentrism had never
the samecondemned other then by the inquisition. It was stupid because it did
not negate what you and your sources had been wrong about. It turned
out that your source was lying and you ran. You ran twice from
whatevidence that your source was lying. You tried to come back with your
lame quote mining efforts and trying to distract the argument from
it had been. You did that, and your source was demonstrated to have
lied about the issue. You need to go back and deal with what you did.
An appology for your disgraceful behavior would be in order. Just try
not to do it again. Continuing to lie about what happened is just
adding to how low you needed to go.
Yet again, you make all sorts of accusations without a single example
of something to support them.
What I cannot figure out is whether you just can't grasp that your
failure to produce a single example of supporting evidence portrays
*you* as the one telling lies; or whether you do grasp it and just
don't care; or whether, like a certain President, you think that if
you repeat a lie enough times that someone will eventually believe it.
You should apologize for what you have been doing and stop doing it. I
found the posts where you ran from your source having been caught lying,
you then snipped the evidence out of your response to your running.
The thread: There is no legitimate scientific support for the ID scam.
I can post your quote mining attempts and other stupid behavior that you
resorted to to defend your running and defense of your bogus source.
So why don't you instead of talking about it?
Specific examples, please, not reams and reams of obfuscatory cut'n
paste.
On Sun, 16 Nov 2025 18:25:18 -0600, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>claiming you
wrote:
On 11/16/2025 4:40 PM, Martin Harran wrote:[rCa]
The links that I put up were from the Catholics that continue to be
geocentric creationists, and the Catholics that are trying to refute
them. Both sides do not agree with you. What does your continued
denial of reality tell you?
You gave no such links. All you have to do to prove me wrong is give
them again.
Do you not see how stupid you are making yourself look by
gave links but cannot repeat them?
Why lie about something so stupid. One of the links was your own
trusted Catholic site, and you initially gave that link.
That was this site:
https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/06342b.htm
The one where the Catholic Church states:
" In thus acting, it is undeniable that the ecclesiastical authorities
committed a grave and deplorable error, and sanctioned an altogether
false principle as to the proper use of Scripture."
The one that cites Professor Augustus De Morgan (Budget of Paradoxes)
declaring
"It is clear that the absurdity was the act of the Italian
Inquisition, for the private and personal pleasure of the pope - who
knew that the course he took could not convict him as pope - and not
of the body which calls itself the Church."
The one that cites von Gebler ("Galileo Galilei"):
"The Church never condemned it (the Copernican system) at all, for the
Qualifiers of the Holy Office never mean the Church."
It beats me how you figure out that site and the people referred to in
it somehow back your claim that heliocentrism really was a heresy. I
guess you have to convince yourself in order to maintain your delusion
as you clearly can't find a reputable source that actually does back
you up.
Yes, everyone admits that they were wrong about geocentrism except for
the Catholics that are still geocentrics. This source called what
Galileo faced both times a charge of heresy. They did not make a
distinction between formal heresy and heresy like the anti geocentric
site, but it was still a heresy.
What part of "The Church never condemned it (the Copernican system) at
all" did you not understand?
The only place that formal comes into all this is in the judgement
issued after Galileo's first trial where the verdict stated that the proposition that the Sun is stationary at the centre of the universe
is "foolish and absurd in philosophy, and formally heretical since it explicitly contradicts in many places the sense of Holy Scripture".
That, however, is t the Catholic Encyclopaedia refers to where it
says:
"it is undeniable that the ecclesiastical authorities committed a
grave and deplorable error, and sanctioned an altogether false
principle as to the proper use of Scripture."
Note also that the words "formally heretical" are wrong - I'm not sure whether it was the Inquisition using weasel words or whether it was a
bad translation from the Latin.
The word "heresy" can be used in two ways; it can apply to the
rejection of a specific doctrine of the Church or it can refer to the
act of committing heresy. The word "formal" applies to the latter -
the act of committing heresy - and is used to categorise the degree of
guilt of the person committing the heresy. "Formal heresy" means they
knew they were going against doctrine and are therefore guilty of
mortal sin; "material heresy" means they did not know they were going against doctrine so they are not guilty sin.
It's a bit like first degree versus second degree murder and Galileo's
trial was like him being charged with first-degree murder without a
murder being established in the first place.
The Inquisition made it into a formal heresy after the Council of Trent.
They were supposedly wrong, and a couple centuries later things got
reversed to what they had been at the time that the findings of the
Council of Trent were published.
The holy office (the inquisition) had Galileo facing a formal heresy
charge in his first encounter. When the pope got involved they just did
not call it a formal heresy in the sentencing. Galileo's views were
still condemned. They claimed that Galileo was facing a charge of
heresy. His heliocentric notions were still considered to be heresy and
the heresy that he was guilty of was clearly defined in the sentencing.
The anti geocentrics admitted that the pope had the Galileo case
published and disseminated throughout the church in order to quash the
heliocentric notions that were becoming an issue for the church. They
just want to claim that, that was not an official act. That is just
stupid. The pope did it for known reasons, and who cares if they want
to plead that he was not acting as pope?
There is no doubt that the actors were wrong, and that is the issue.
They do not want it to reflect on papal infallibility. That in itself
should be considered to be a non scriptural unjustifiable claim.
The Inquisition had Copernican writings banned and made heliocentrism
into a formal heresy because all the church fathers were geocentrics,
and that meant that Copernicans were in conflict with the beliefs of the
church fathers. Both the geocentric Catholics and the anti geocentric
Catholics claim that the Inquisition did this because of what the church
came up with at the Council of Trent where they made the beliefs of the
church fathers as a legitimate and necessary authority for interpreting
scripture. Both Catholic sides of the geocentric issue understand this
to be true.
QUOTE:
Council of Trent
Session IV, April 8, 1546, Decree Concerning the Edition and the Use of
the Sacred Books:
... "Furthermore, in order to restrain petulant spirits, it [the Council
of Trent] decrees that no one, relying on his own skill, shall,-in
matters of faith, and of morals pertaining to the edification of
Christian doctrine,-wresting the sacred Scriptures to his own senses,
presume to interpret the said sacred Scripture contrary to that sense
which holy Mother Church-to whom it belongs to judge of the true sense
and interpretation of the Holy Scriptures-hath held and doth hold; or
even contrary to the unanimous consent of the Fathers; even though such
interpretations were never (intended) to be at any time published.
Contraveners shall be made known by their Ordinaries and be punished
with the penalties by law established."
END QUOTE:
https://www.biblelightinfo.com/unanimous-consent.htm
Both Catholic sides of the issue claim that the Council of Trent caused
the Inquisition to ban Copernican writings and start treating
heliocentrism as a formal heresy because it went against the geocentric
beliefs of the church fathers.
You are taking all that crap from your geocentric hero; if you want to persist in taking his opinion against that of the Church's own
theologians then that is you just acting like Spikes rejecting the
opinion of scientists in favour of people who play to his confirmation
bias.
It was a mistake and the actors were in error only because of our
current understanding of nature. The Pope was wrong about it. He was
one of the mistaken actors.
The Pope was not a "mistaken actor", he was pissed off with Galileo presenting the Pope's views as those of a simpleton and misused his
powers to hit back at Galileo. Again, the Catholic Encyclopaedia
spells that explicitly:
"It is clear that the absurdity was the act of the Italian
Inquisition, for the private and personal pleasure of the pope - who
knew that the course he took could not convict him as pope - and not
of the body which calls itself the Church."
The Galileo affair was a shameful episode in the Church's history but
was all about the animosity between the Pope and Galileo, it had
nothing to do with heliocentrism being a heresy, that was just the
vehicle that the Pope used to attack Galileo.
On Mon, 17 Nov 2025 14:40:05 -0600, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>
wrote:
On 11/17/2025 11:45 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Mon, 17 Nov 2025 09:57:31 -0600, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>
wrote:
[...]
Oops, the Pope was not infallible.
So papal infallibility is another thing you don't understand.
I am just repeating what the anti geocentrist want to claim about it.
The "anti-geocentrists" of whom you cannot identify even one. Mind
you, when you first brought in the website of your geocentrist mentor,
it was anonymous and you didn't even know who the author was until I
figured out; the fact that he is a declared geocentrist and you knew
nothing about him didn't stop you placing high value on his opinions
and continuing to do so.
Weird to say the least.
[...]
On Wed, 19 Nov 2025 14:55:52 -0600, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>
wrote:
On 11/19/2025 12:01 PM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Mon, 17 Nov 2025 14:40:05 -0600, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>
wrote:
On 11/17/2025 11:45 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Mon, 17 Nov 2025 09:57:31 -0600, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>
wrote:
[...]
Oops, the Pope was not infallible.
So papal infallibility is another thing you don't understand.
I am just repeating what the anti geocentrist want to claim about it.
The "anti-geocentrists" of whom you cannot identify even one. Mind
you, when you first brought in the website of your geocentrist mentor,
it was anonymous and you didn't even know who the author was until I
figured out; the fact that he is a declared geocentrist and you knew
nothing about him didn't stop you placing high value on his opinions
and continuing to do so.
Weird to say the least.
[...]
You were given the links before,
Nope
so stop lying about it. Why should I
look up that junk again.
So you can prove I'm lying. But you can't because I'm not lying, you
gave no links except to the geocentrist idiot whose opinion you value
so highly.
You just denied that it was valid and kept
lying. Even your own trusted source backed up the anti geocentric site.
The anti geocentrists were on your side in terms of denying that it
was a formal heresy that Galileo faced the second time, but they agreed
with the geocentrists that the Inquisition had made it a formal heresy
charge the first time Galileo faced it and agreed with the Wiki. The
Vatican Observatory article that you have run from and snipped out of
this post backs up the geocentrists and anti geocentrists.
Just stop lying about the issue.
https://www.vaticanobservatory.org/sacred-space-astronomy/heliocentrism-condemned-400-years-ago-on-march-5-2/
They admit that helicentrism was condemned 400 years ago. 1616 is when
Galileo faced the formal heresy charge.
They do not consider the heresy cases, but they were based upon the
Inquisitions opinion of the topic.
Your claim of "never" having been condemned seems to be a lie.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galileo_Galilei
QUOTE:
In February 1616, an Inquisitorial commission declared heliocentrism to
be "foolish and absurd in philosophy, and formally heretical since it
explicitly contradicts in many places the sense of Holy Scripture".
END QUOTE:
Now YOU are the one lying about me. I never said it was never
condemned; on the contrary, I gave that exact same quote. What I did
was to point out that what it said was a FALSE CLAIM and it wasn't me
who came to that conclusion, it was the Catholic Church who came to
it, supported by every historian I know of who investigated it, people
like De Morgan and von Gebler. The only person I have ever known to
say there actually was a heresy is the geocentrist idiot whose opinion
you value so highly.
Both the geocentrists that you don't like, and the anti geocentric
catholics that do not agree with geocentric beliefs agreed that it was a
formal heresy charge the first time that Galileo faced the issue.
Now you seem to be trying to worm your way out of it by admitting
there was a *charge* without retracting that there was an actual
heresy which is what you have been claiming all long.
You can't just keep refusing to deal with reality and expect anything to
change.
You can't keep claiming support from "anti-geocentrists" about
heliocentrism having been an actual heresy without being able to
identify even one and expect people to take you seriously.
On Thu, 20 Nov 2025 09:38:56 -0600, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>heliocentrism to
wrote:
On 11/20/2025 4:47 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Wed, 19 Nov 2025 14:55:52 -0600, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>
wrote:
[snip for focus]
Your claim of "never" having been condemned seems to be a lie.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galileo_Galilei
QUOTE:
In February 1616, an Inquisitorial commission declared
be "foolish and absurd in philosophy, and formally heretical since it
explicitly contradicts in many places the sense of Holy Scripture".
END QUOTE:
Now YOU are the one lying about me. I never said it was never
condemned; on the contrary, I gave that exact same quote. What I did
was to point out that what it said was a FALSE CLAIM and it wasn't me
who came to that conclusion, it was the Catholic Church who came to
it, supported by every historian I know of who investigated it, people
like De Morgan and von Gebler. The only person I have ever known to
say there actually was a heresy is the geocentrist idiot whose opinion
you value so highly.
You put up the quote that said it had never been condemned. Go back up
and check. It was your quote.
Here is verbatim what I quoted:
Message-ID: 2gkkhk9bvctolude5jf6b6e0kothd5723d@4ax.com ========================================
<quote>
The [site] that cites von Gebler ("Galileo Galilei"):
"The Church never condemned it (the Copernican system) at all, for the Qualifiers of the Holy Office never mean the Church."
==========================================
#1: it was von Gebler who said rCLnever condemnedrCY, not me as you
claimed two posts ago.
#2 he did not say it was never condemned, he said *the Church* never condemned it.
Why do you post lies that are so easily shown to be lies?
On Fri, 21 Nov 2025 17:33:49 -0600, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>
wrote:
On 11/21/2025 12:29 PM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Fri, 21 Nov 2025 09:04:37 -0600, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>
wrote:
[rCa]
Let's cut to the chase here.
No lies to retract. You lied.
What lie are you claiming I told? Please quote exactly what I said
that you regard as a lie.
The ones that you keep telling.
"Never condemned"
I'm out of here. George Bernard Shaw warned that you shouldn't wrestle
with a pig as you get dirty and the pig enjoys it. I'm not going to
waste any more time trying to have a sensible discussion with someone
who thinks it's ok to take two words out of what somebody else said to
give a completely different meaning and then attribute those two words
to me. It doesn't even reach the level of quote-mining.
What beggars belief is that you do it where the exact quote from von
Gerber [1] and what I said about it are preserved just a couple of
posts above for all to see. As I noted earlier, it is really sad to
see this sort of behaviour from someone whose ability as a scientist I respect so much EfOU
===========================================
[1] "The Church never condemned it (the Copernican system) at all, for
the Qualifiers of the Holy Office never mean the Church."
[von Gebler ("Galileo Galilei")]
[..]
You should not continue to add to your own dishonest stupidity.
Trusting your source was obviously a stupid thing to do, and trying to
continue to support that source was just stupid and dishonest.
Ron Okimoto
On 5/1/2026 8:14 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
No wiki article is needed to do anything.
Seeing as how you are so coy about producing the relevant information
from Wiki, I will do it for you. There are actually two articles on
Galileo in Wiki, a general biographical one and a detailed one about
his dealings with the Church
General Article:
==============
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galileo_Galilei
<quote>
By 1615, Galileo's writings on heliocentrism had been submitted to the
Roman Inquisition by Father Niccol|# Lorini, who claimed that Galileo
and his followers were attempting to reinterpret the Bible,[h] which
was seen as a violation of the Council of Trent and looked dangerously
like Protestantism.[141] Lorini specifically cited Galileo's letter to
Castelli.[142] Galileo went to Rome to defend himself and his ideas.
</quote>
Detailed article about his problems with the Church
==========================================
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galileo_affair
<quote>
Galileo soon heard reports that Lorini had obtained a copy of his
letter to Castelli and was claiming that it contained many heresies.
He also heard that Caccini had gone to Rome and suspected him of
trying to stir up trouble with Lorini's copy of the letter.[33] As
1615 wore on he became more concerned, and eventually determined to go
to Rome as soon as his health permitted, which it did at the end of
the year. By presenting his case there, he hoped to clear his name of
any suspicion of heresy, and to persuade the Church authorities not to
suppress heliocentric ideas.
In going to Rome Galileo was acting against the advice of friends and
allies, and of the Tuscan ambassador to Rome, Piero Guicciardini.[34]
</quote>
Note how the first article says "Galileo went to Rome to defend
himself and his ideas" and the second one "and [he] eventually
determined to go to Rome as soon as his health permitted, which it did
at the end of the year. By presenting his case there, he hoped to
clear his name of any suspicion of heresy, and to persuade the Church
authorities not to suppress heliocentric ideas" and he did so against
the advice of his friends. In other words, going to Rome was his own
decision, he wasn't even summoned by the Inquisition , let alone
charged with anything.
Are you going to keep on insisting that one of the articles says he
was charged with heresy?
On Fri, 1 May 2026 09:06:06 -0500, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com> wrote:
On 5/1/2026 8:14 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
[...]
No wiki article is needed to do anything.
Seeing as how you are so coy about producing the relevant information
from Wiki, I will do it for you. There are actually two articles on
Galileo in Wiki, a general biographical one and a detailed one about
his dealings with the Church
General Article:
==============
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galileo_Galilei
<quote>
By 1615, Galileo's writings on heliocentrism had been submitted to the
Roman Inquisition by Father Niccol|# Lorini, who claimed that Galileo
and his followers were attempting to reinterpret the Bible,[h] which
was seen as a violation of the Council of Trent and looked dangerously
like Protestantism.[141] Lorini specifically cited Galileo's letter to
Castelli.[142] Galileo went to Rome to defend himself and his ideas.
</quote>
Detailed article about his problems with the Church
==========================================
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galileo_affair
<quote>
Galileo soon heard reports that Lorini had obtained a copy of his
letter to Castelli and was claiming that it contained many heresies.
He also heard that Caccini had gone to Rome and suspected him of
trying to stir up trouble with Lorini's copy of the letter.[33] As
1615 wore on he became more concerned, and eventually determined to go
to Rome as soon as his health permitted, which it did at the end of
the year. By presenting his case there, he hoped to clear his name of
any suspicion of heresy, and to persuade the Church authorities not to
suppress heliocentric ideas.
In going to Rome Galileo was acting against the advice of friends and
allies, and of the Tuscan ambassador to Rome, Piero Guicciardini.[34]
</quote>
Note how the first article says "Galileo went to Rome to defend
himself and his ideas" and the second one "and [he] eventually
determined to go to Rome as soon as his health permitted, which it did
at the end of the year. By presenting his case there, he hoped to
clear his name of any suspicion of heresy, and to persuade the Church
authorities not to suppress heliocentric ideas" and he did so against
the advice of his friends. In other words, going to Rome was his own
decision, he wasn't even summoned by the Inquisition , let alone
charged with anything.
Are you going to keep on insisting that one of the articles says he
was charged with heresy?
No answer to this, Ron?
You continually insisted that Wiki says Galileo faced a heresy charge
in 1616 so where does it say that?
On Sun, 22 Feb 2026 13:40:10 -0600, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>Jesuits
wrote:
On 2/22/2026 10:18 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Sat, 21 Feb 2026 12:44:57 -0600, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>
wrote:
On 2/21/2026 11:59 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
What documents are you talking about that you keep saying the
what youput up?
You can keep lying about what has been discussed, but you know
condemneddid. You need to be the one that finds it and satisfy yourself with
what you did.
You put up your source lying about heliocentrism never being
was notby anyone but the Inquisition. You claimed that the Inquisition
ordered bythe Church. I put up the Jesuit Observatory claim that the Papal
offices had condemned heliocentrism and this condemnation was
sources havethe Pope. They put up the relevant document and stated what the Pope
did. Your source was caught lying and you ran. Go find it. It is
something that you should do because you will uncover all your other
evasions on this issue while doing it. Your quotes of your
havealways come up short. The sources that you claim are unreliable,
repeatedly been shown to be more reliable than what you come up with.
Oh, you mean the link you gave back in November, this one:
https://www.vaticanobservatory.org/sacred-space-astronomy/heliocentrism-condemned-400-years-ago-on-march-5-2/
The one where they posted the full 1616 decree on it's 400th
anniversary and commented:
<quote>
The formulation here is much milder than the one found in the working
document of February 24. The Decree talks about the "false Pythagorean
doctrine" and declare it "altogether contrary to the Holy Scripture".
This is not nearly as harsh as "foolish and absurd" philosophically,
and "formally heretical" because contrary to Scripture.
</quote>
How fucking dense can you be? It doesn't get much stupider than
posting something that contradicts what you are claiming.
If I am the dense one why did you run from what they admitted about the
document?
LOL, you post something that you think supports your claim but
actually rejects it and the best defence you can offer is to accuse me
of running away from it.
The Pope did condemn heliocentrism.
Beats me why you keep repeating this. The Pope did not personally
condemn heliocentrism, he allowed the Inquisition's condemnation of it
to be made public - that did not make it a heresy.
That is what your side was lying
about.
The only one telling lies here is you. For example, when you keep
insisting that all the "anti-geocentrists" in the Catholic
Encyclopaedia article agree with you that heliocentrism was a heresy
when they all say explicitly that it wasn't. Your lie is underlined by
the fact that you can't produce identify any source that agrees that heliocentrism was a heresy except your geocentrist mentors.
condemnedIt doesn't matter that the final wording was milder than the
initial draft. They admit that the Pope condemned heliocentrism, and
supported using the Council of Trent's scriptural interpretation on the
matter. It doesn't matter what it was called because the authors and
books are named. You ran from this link because your source was found
to have lied about heliocentrism never having been condemned except by
the Inquisition. The Pope obviously represents the Church and
to beheliocentrism. He supported the Inquisition in 1616, and their
additions to the Index in order to protect against heresy. The books
would not have been added to the Index if they were not considered
reality.heretical. The document even talks about the heretical parts of the
books, and indicates that after one of them is rewritten, so that it is
not against scripture, that it can be removed from the Index.
Keep lying to yourself about the issue. It isn't going to change
The Inquisition made heliocentrism a formal heresy in 1615-1616.
The decree is given in full on the Vatican Observatory site that you
tried to claim supports you and the word 'heresy' or 'heretical' does
not even appear in it.
They
did this because of their interpretation of scripture as the Council of
Trent had decided.
The decree doesn't make any reference whatsoever to Trent regarding interpretation of scripture; the one and only reference is to the *punishment* under Trent for disobeying the decree.
They added heliocentric writings to the Index,
They declare that "the books by Nicolaus Copernicus (On the
Revolutions of Spheres) and by Diego de Zu|#iga (On Job) be suspended
until corrected".
I've given details of the required corrections to Revolutions in a
different post to Harshman and they are all minor edits - not one of
them makes any change to the core principle of heliocentrism. A rather
weird declaration of heresy that allows Copernicus's book supporting
it to be published with minor edits that don't undermine his
proposition.
Index ofand
had their first encounter with Galileo. The Pope agreed with them and
condemned heliocentrism, and agreed with their additions to the
banned writings.
Before your source lied about "never being condemned" the Pope's
involvement in 1616 was not an issue between the geocentric and
anti-geocentric Catholics in terms of what you were lying about at the
time. Both sides agreed that it was a formal heresy charge faced by
Galileo in 1615-1616. They disagreed about it being a formal heresy
charge the second time because it was only written up as "heresy" and
not formal heresy in the sentencing. It remained a heresy charge.
You obviously struggle with grasping that a *charge* does not make
someone guilty. I hope I'm never on trial for something I didn't do
with you on the jury.
The
Pope had the Galileo case, sentencing, and punishment published and
distributed throughout the Church in order to quash the heliocentric
heresy, but the guys that want to maintain Papal infallibility claim
that that was not an official Papal action. They admitted that there
was an issue with helicentrism at the time, but they do not want the
Pope to have been on the wrong side of the issue.
You need to deal with reality.
I think it's very clear who has the problem with accepting reality and
it's not me.
It is well understood that the Bible is
just wrong about a lot of things that we can figure out for ourselves.
Your own quotes from Pope Francis makes that claim. The Bible can be
misinterpreted because the author's understanding of the creation was
faulty. Francis knows that the universe was not created in 6 magic
episodes. Only those in complete denial do not understand that the
order of creation described in the Bible is wrong. There are still
young earth, old earth day for agers, geocentric, and flat earth
Biblical creationists because they are in the same type of denial that
you are in. There are just different levels of denial.
Ron Okimoto
On Fri, 1 May 2026 09:06:06 -0500, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com> wrote:
On 5/1/2026 8:14 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
[...]
No wiki article is needed to do anything.
Seeing as how you are so coy about producing the relevant information
from Wiki, I will do it for you. There are actually two articles on
Galileo in Wiki, a general biographical one and a detailed one about
his dealings with the Church
General Article:
==============
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galileo_Galilei
<quote>
By 1615, Galileo's writings on heliocentrism had been submitted to the
Roman Inquisition by Father Niccol|# Lorini, who claimed that Galileo
and his followers were attempting to reinterpret the Bible,[h] which
was seen as a violation of the Council of Trent and looked dangerously
like Protestantism.[141] Lorini specifically cited Galileo's letter to
Castelli.[142] Galileo went to Rome to defend himself and his ideas.
</quote>
Detailed article about his problems with the Church
==========================================
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galileo_affair
<quote>
Galileo soon heard reports that Lorini had obtained a copy of his
letter to Castelli and was claiming that it contained many heresies.
He also heard that Caccini had gone to Rome and suspected him of
trying to stir up trouble with Lorini's copy of the letter.[33] As
1615 wore on he became more concerned, and eventually determined to go
to Rome as soon as his health permitted, which it did at the end of
the year. By presenting his case there, he hoped to clear his name of
any suspicion of heresy, and to persuade the Church authorities not to
suppress heliocentric ideas.
In going to Rome Galileo was acting against the advice of friends and
allies, and of the Tuscan ambassador to Rome, Piero Guicciardini.[34]
</quote>
Note how the first article says "Galileo went to Rome to defend
himself and his ideas" and the second one "and [he] eventually
determined to go to Rome as soon as his health permitted, which it did
at the end of the year. By presenting his case there, he hoped to
clear his name of any suspicion of heresy, and to persuade the Church
authorities not to suppress heliocentric ideas" and he did so against
the advice of his friends. In other words, going to Rome was his own
decision, he wasn't even summoned by the Inquisition , let alone
charged with anything.
Are you going to keep on insisting that one of the articles says he
was charged with heresy?
No answer to this, Ron?
You continually insisted that Wiki says Galileo faced a heresy charge
in 1616 so where does it say that?
On Thu, 30 Apr 2026 08:49:48 -0500, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>insane.
wrote:
On 4/30/2026 5:44 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Wed, 29 Apr 2026 19:41:58 -0500, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>
wrote:
On 4/29/2026 1:13 PM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Wed, 29 Apr 2026 12:43:53 -0500, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>
wrote:
[...]
Snipping and lying about what you have done is just stupid and
snipped and
Not as stupid and insane as making a claim you can't support. C'mon,
Ron, give the link to the Wiki article that says Galileo faced a
heresy charge in 1616 rCa surely it can't be that difficult.
[snip desperation attempt to avoid issue]
What a lying asshole. This is the second time that you have
run from what you have lied about as being handwaving.
C'mon Ron, no need to repost 7000 words that nobody wants to read. All
that's needed to show me to be the lying asshole, not you, is a simple
quote from the Wiki article that says what you insist it says. A dozen
or so words should cover it or even a simple URL. Can't be that hard
can it?
[...]
You need to stop harassing me with your stupid lies about the past.
I'll gladly stop harassing you when you either give a specific example
of a lie told by either me or those I cited in support. Or else
withdraw your own stupid lies.
On Mon, 20 Apr 2026 13:40:43 -0500, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>are lying".
wrote:
On 4/20/2026 4:08 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Sat, 18 Apr 2026 12:06:53 -0500, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>
wrote:
On 4/18/2026 6:24 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Wed, 15 Apr 2026 14:31:27 -0500, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>
wrote:
On 4/15/2026 11:36 AM, Martin Harran wrote:[rCa]
On Wed, 15 Apr 2026 16:59:56 +0100, "Kerr-Mudd, John"
No one is going to convince an opponent by stating that "they
(no matterand probably not by constant repetition of the same arguments
reality,how valid) that failed to get through the first 50 times.
Tell that to RonO, he's the one who keeps calling everyone who
disagrees with him a liar.
Who got caught lying and quote mining? You need to deal with
short?and quit lying about it. Lying about me is just so stupid that it is
pretty much insane. You have always lied about the sources that you
could not deal honestly with. Who's sources have always come up
matched byLook at what you are doing now. Is there any excuse for you not dealing
with your own stupid dishonest behavior?
The tiresomeness of you continually claiming that my sources were
caught lying and that I have been lying and quote mining is
beenthe tiresomeness of your inability to ever identify what lie my
sources were caught in, what lies I have told or where I have quote
mined.
[... more big snip ...]
Why keep lying about what your sources did and what you did? That is
just stupid and dishonest. Just look up your past posts to determine
for yourself what went down. You tried to lie about my sources being
deficient when your sources had always come up short or even supported
my sources by putting up the lame lie that heliocentrism had never
samecondemned other then by the inquisition. It was stupid because it did
not negate what you and your sources had been wrong about. It turned
out that your source was lying and you ran. You ran twice from the
whatevidence that your source was lying. You tried to come back with your
lame quote mining efforts and trying to distract the argument from
it had been. You did that, and your source was demonstrated to have
lied about the issue. You need to go back and deal with what you did.
An appology for your disgraceful behavior would be in order. Just try
not to do it again. Continuing to lie about what happened is just
adding to how low you needed to go.
Yet again, you make all sorts of accusations without a single example
of something to support them.
What I cannot figure out is whether you just can't grasp that your
failure to produce a single example of supporting evidence portrays
*you* as the one telling lies; or whether you do grasp it and just
don't care; or whether, like a certain President, you think that if
you repeat a lie enough times that someone will eventually believe it.
You should apologize for what you have been doing and stop doing it. I
found the posts where you ran from your source having been caught lying,
you then snipped the evidence out of your response to your running.
The thread: There is no legitimate scientific support for the ID scam.
I can post your quote mining attempts and other stupid behavior that you
resorted to to defend your running and defense of your bogus source.
So why don't you instead of talking about it?
Specific examples, please, not reams and reams of obfuscatory cut'n
paste.
On Sun, 16 Nov 2025 18:25:18 -0600, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>claiming you
wrote:
On 11/16/2025 4:40 PM, Martin Harran wrote:[rCa]
The links that I put up were from the Catholics that continue to be
geocentric creationists, and the Catholics that are trying to refute
them. Both sides do not agree with you. What does your continued
denial of reality tell you?
You gave no such links. All you have to do to prove me wrong is give
them again.
Do you not see how stupid you are making yourself look by
gave links but cannot repeat them?
Why lie about something so stupid. One of the links was your own
trusted Catholic site, and you initially gave that link.
That was this site:
https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/06342b.htm
The one where the Catholic Church states:
" In thus acting, it is undeniable that the ecclesiastical authorities
committed a grave and deplorable error, and sanctioned an altogether
false principle as to the proper use of Scripture."
The one that cites Professor Augustus De Morgan (Budget of Paradoxes)
declaring
"It is clear that the absurdity was the act of the Italian
Inquisition, for the private and personal pleasure of the pope - who
knew that the course he took could not convict him as pope - and not
of the body which calls itself the Church."
The one that cites von Gebler ("Galileo Galilei"):
"The Church never condemned it (the Copernican system) at all, for the
Qualifiers of the Holy Office never mean the Church."
It beats me how you figure out that site and the people referred to in
it somehow back your claim that heliocentrism really was a heresy. I
guess you have to convince yourself in order to maintain your delusion
as you clearly can't find a reputable source that actually does back
you up.
Yes, everyone admits that they were wrong about geocentrism except for
the Catholics that are still geocentrics. This source called what
Galileo faced both times a charge of heresy. They did not make a
distinction between formal heresy and heresy like the anti geocentric
site, but it was still a heresy.
What part of "The Church never condemned it (the Copernican system) at
all" did you not understand?
The only place that formal comes into all this is in the judgement
issued after Galileo's first trial where the verdict stated that the proposition that the Sun is stationary at the centre of the universe
is "foolish and absurd in philosophy, and formally heretical since it explicitly contradicts in many places the sense of Holy Scripture".
That, however, is t the Catholic Encyclopaedia refers to where it
says:
"it is undeniable that the ecclesiastical authorities committed a
grave and deplorable error, and sanctioned an altogether false
principle as to the proper use of Scripture."
Note also that the words "formally heretical" are wrong - I'm not sure whether it was the Inquisition using weasel words or whether it was a
bad translation from the Latin.
The word "heresy" can be used in two ways; it can apply to the
rejection of a specific doctrine of the Church or it can refer to the
act of committing heresy. The word "formal" applies to the latter -
the act of committing heresy - and is used to categorise the degree of
guilt of the person committing the heresy. "Formal heresy" means they
knew they were going against doctrine and are therefore guilty of
mortal sin; "material heresy" means they did not know they were going against doctrine so they are not guilty sin.
It's a bit like first degree versus second degree murder and Galileo's
trial was like him being charged with first-degree murder without a
murder being established in the first place.
The Inquisition made it into a formal heresy after the Council of Trent.
They were supposedly wrong, and a couple centuries later things got
reversed to what they had been at the time that the findings of the
Council of Trent were published.
The holy office (the inquisition) had Galileo facing a formal heresy
charge in his first encounter. When the pope got involved they just did
not call it a formal heresy in the sentencing. Galileo's views were
still condemned. They claimed that Galileo was facing a charge of
heresy. His heliocentric notions were still considered to be heresy and
the heresy that he was guilty of was clearly defined in the sentencing.
The anti geocentrics admitted that the pope had the Galileo case
published and disseminated throughout the church in order to quash the
heliocentric notions that were becoming an issue for the church. They
just want to claim that, that was not an official act. That is just
stupid. The pope did it for known reasons, and who cares if they want
to plead that he was not acting as pope?
There is no doubt that the actors were wrong, and that is the issue.
They do not want it to reflect on papal infallibility. That in itself
should be considered to be a non scriptural unjustifiable claim.
The Inquisition had Copernican writings banned and made heliocentrism
into a formal heresy because all the church fathers were geocentrics,
and that meant that Copernicans were in conflict with the beliefs of the
church fathers. Both the geocentric Catholics and the anti geocentric
Catholics claim that the Inquisition did this because of what the church
came up with at the Council of Trent where they made the beliefs of the
church fathers as a legitimate and necessary authority for interpreting
scripture. Both Catholic sides of the geocentric issue understand this
to be true.
QUOTE:
Council of Trent
Session IV, April 8, 1546, Decree Concerning the Edition and the Use of
the Sacred Books:
... "Furthermore, in order to restrain petulant spirits, it [the Council
of Trent] decrees that no one, relying on his own skill, shall,-in
matters of faith, and of morals pertaining to the edification of
Christian doctrine,-wresting the sacred Scriptures to his own senses,
presume to interpret the said sacred Scripture contrary to that sense
which holy Mother Church-to whom it belongs to judge of the true sense
and interpretation of the Holy Scriptures-hath held and doth hold; or
even contrary to the unanimous consent of the Fathers; even though such
interpretations were never (intended) to be at any time published.
Contraveners shall be made known by their Ordinaries and be punished
with the penalties by law established."
END QUOTE:
https://www.biblelightinfo.com/unanimous-consent.htm
Both Catholic sides of the issue claim that the Council of Trent caused
the Inquisition to ban Copernican writings and start treating
heliocentrism as a formal heresy because it went against the geocentric
beliefs of the church fathers.
You are taking all that crap from your geocentric hero; if you want to persist in taking his opinion against that of the Church's own
theologians then that is you just acting like Spikes rejecting the
opinion of scientists in favour of people who play to his confirmation
bias.
It was a mistake and the actors were in error only because of our
current understanding of nature. The Pope was wrong about it. He was
one of the mistaken actors.
The Pope was not a "mistaken actor", he was pissed off with Galileo presenting the Pope's views as those of a simpleton and misused his
powers to hit back at Galileo. Again, the Catholic Encyclopaedia
spells that explicitly:
"It is clear that the absurdity was the act of the Italian
Inquisition, for the private and personal pleasure of the pope - who
knew that the course he took could not convict him as pope - and not
of the body which calls itself the Church."
The Galileo affair was a shameful episode in the Church's history but
was all about the animosity between the Pope and Galileo, it had
nothing to do with heliocentrism being a heresy, that was just the
vehicle that the Pope used to attack Galileo.
On Mon, 17 Nov 2025 14:40:05 -0600, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>
wrote:
On 11/17/2025 11:45 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Mon, 17 Nov 2025 09:57:31 -0600, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>
wrote:
[...]
Oops, the Pope was not infallible.
So papal infallibility is another thing you don't understand.
I am just repeating what the anti geocentrist want to claim about it.
The "anti-geocentrists" of whom you cannot identify even one. Mind
you, when you first brought in the website of your geocentrist mentor,
it was anonymous and you didn't even know who the author was until I
figured out; the fact that he is a declared geocentrist and you knew
nothing about him didn't stop you placing high value on his opinions
and continuing to do so.
Weird to say the least.
[...]
On Wed, 19 Nov 2025 14:55:52 -0600, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>
wrote:
On 11/19/2025 12:01 PM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Mon, 17 Nov 2025 14:40:05 -0600, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>
wrote:
On 11/17/2025 11:45 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Mon, 17 Nov 2025 09:57:31 -0600, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>
wrote:
[...]
Oops, the Pope was not infallible.
So papal infallibility is another thing you don't understand.
I am just repeating what the anti geocentrist want to claim about it.
The "anti-geocentrists" of whom you cannot identify even one. Mind
you, when you first brought in the website of your geocentrist mentor,
it was anonymous and you didn't even know who the author was until I
figured out; the fact that he is a declared geocentrist and you knew
nothing about him didn't stop you placing high value on his opinions
and continuing to do so.
Weird to say the least.
[...]
You were given the links before,
Nope
so stop lying about it. Why should I
look up that junk again.
So you can prove I'm lying. But you can't because I'm not lying, you
gave no links except to the geocentrist idiot whose opinion you value
so highly.
You just denied that it was valid and kept
lying. Even your own trusted source backed up the anti geocentric site.
The anti geocentrists were on your side in terms of denying that it
was a formal heresy that Galileo faced the second time, but they agreed
with the geocentrists that the Inquisition had made it a formal heresy
charge the first time Galileo faced it and agreed with the Wiki. The
Vatican Observatory article that you have run from and snipped out of
this post backs up the geocentrists and anti geocentrists.
Just stop lying about the issue.
https://www.vaticanobservatory.org/sacred-space-astronomy/heliocentrism-condemned-400-years-ago-on-march-5-2/
They admit that helicentrism was condemned 400 years ago. 1616 is when
Galileo faced the formal heresy charge.
They do not consider the heresy cases, but they were based upon the
Inquisitions opinion of the topic.
Your claim of "never" having been condemned seems to be a lie.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galileo_Galilei
QUOTE:
In February 1616, an Inquisitorial commission declared heliocentrism to
be "foolish and absurd in philosophy, and formally heretical since it
explicitly contradicts in many places the sense of Holy Scripture".
END QUOTE:
Now YOU are the one lying about me. I never said it was never
condemned; on the contrary, I gave that exact same quote. What I did
was to point out that what it said was a FALSE CLAIM and it wasn't me
who came to that conclusion, it was the Catholic Church who came to
it, supported by every historian I know of who investigated it, people
like De Morgan and von Gebler. The only person I have ever known to
say there actually was a heresy is the geocentrist idiot whose opinion
you value so highly.
Both the geocentrists that you don't like, and the anti geocentric
catholics that do not agree with geocentric beliefs agreed that it was a
formal heresy charge the first time that Galileo faced the issue.
Now you seem to be trying to worm your way out of it by admitting
there was a *charge* without retracting that there was an actual
heresy which is what you have been claiming all long.
You can't just keep refusing to deal with reality and expect anything to
change.
You can't keep claiming support from "anti-geocentrists" about
heliocentrism having been an actual heresy without being able to
identify even one and expect people to take you seriously.
On Thu, 20 Nov 2025 09:38:56 -0600, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>heliocentrism to
wrote:
On 11/20/2025 4:47 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Wed, 19 Nov 2025 14:55:52 -0600, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>
wrote:
[snip for focus]
Your claim of "never" having been condemned seems to be a lie.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galileo_Galilei
QUOTE:
In February 1616, an Inquisitorial commission declared
be "foolish and absurd in philosophy, and formally heretical since it
explicitly contradicts in many places the sense of Holy Scripture".
END QUOTE:
Now YOU are the one lying about me. I never said it was never
condemned; on the contrary, I gave that exact same quote. What I did
was to point out that what it said was a FALSE CLAIM and it wasn't me
who came to that conclusion, it was the Catholic Church who came to
it, supported by every historian I know of who investigated it, people
like De Morgan and von Gebler. The only person I have ever known to
say there actually was a heresy is the geocentrist idiot whose opinion
you value so highly.
You put up the quote that said it had never been condemned. Go back up
and check. It was your quote.
Here is verbatim what I quoted:
Message-ID: 2gkkhk9bvctolude5jf6b6e0kothd5723d@4ax.com ========================================
<quote>
The [site] that cites von Gebler ("Galileo Galilei"):
"The Church never condemned it (the Copernican system) at all, for the Qualifiers of the Holy Office never mean the Church."
==========================================
#1: it was von Gebler who said rCLnever condemnedrCY, not me as you
claimed two posts ago.
#2 he did not say it was never condemned, he said *the Church* never condemned it.
Why do you post lies that are so easily shown to be lies?
On Fri, 21 Nov 2025 17:33:49 -0600, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>
wrote:
On 11/21/2025 12:29 PM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Fri, 21 Nov 2025 09:04:37 -0600, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>
wrote:
[rCa]
Let's cut to the chase here.
No lies to retract. You lied.
What lie are you claiming I told? Please quote exactly what I said
that you regard as a lie.
The ones that you keep telling.
"Never condemned"
I'm out of here. George Bernard Shaw warned that you shouldn't wrestle
with a pig as you get dirty and the pig enjoys it. I'm not going to
waste any more time trying to have a sensible discussion with someone
who thinks it's ok to take two words out of what somebody else said to
give a completely different meaning and then attribute those two words
to me. It doesn't even reach the level of quote-mining.
What beggars belief is that you do it where the exact quote from von
Gerber [1] and what I said about it are preserved just a couple of
posts above for all to see. As I noted earlier, it is really sad to
see this sort of behaviour from someone whose ability as a scientist I respect so much EfOU
===========================================
[1] "The Church never condemned it (the Copernican system) at all, for
the Qualifiers of the Holy Office never mean the Church."
[von Gebler ("Galileo Galilei")]
[..]
You should not continue to add to your own dishonest stupidity.
Trusting your source was obviously a stupid thing to do, and trying to
continue to support that source was just stupid and dishonest.
Ron Okimoto
On 5/2/2026 4:13 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Fri, 1 May 2026 09:06:06 -0500, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com> wrote:
On 5/1/2026 8:14 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
[...]
No wiki article is needed to do anything.
Seeing as how you are so coy about producing the relevant information
from Wiki, I will do it for you. There are actually two articles on
Galileo in Wiki, a general biographical one and a detailed one about
his dealings with the Church
General Article:
==============
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galileo_Galilei
<quote>
By 1615, Galileo's writings on heliocentrism had been submitted to the >>>> Roman Inquisition by Father Niccol|# Lorini, who claimed that Galileo
and his followers were attempting to reinterpret the Bible,[h] which
was seen as a violation of the Council of Trent and looked dangerously >>>> like Protestantism.[141] Lorini specifically cited Galileo's letter to >>>> Castelli.[142] Galileo went to Rome to defend himself and his ideas.
</quote>
Detailed article about his problems with the Church
==========================================
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galileo_affair
<quote>
Galileo soon heard reports that Lorini had obtained a copy of his
letter to Castelli and was claiming that it contained many heresies.
He also heard that Caccini had gone to Rome and suspected him of
trying to stir up trouble with Lorini's copy of the letter.[33] As
1615 wore on he became more concerned, and eventually determined to go >>>> to Rome as soon as his health permitted, which it did at the end of
the year. By presenting his case there, he hoped to clear his name of
any suspicion of heresy, and to persuade the Church authorities not to >>>> suppress heliocentric ideas.
In going to Rome Galileo was acting against the advice of friends and
allies, and of the Tuscan ambassador to Rome, Piero Guicciardini.[34]
</quote>
Note how the first article says "Galileo went to Rome to defend
himself and his ideas" and the second one "and [he] eventually
determined to go to Rome as soon as his health permitted, which it did >>>> at the end of the year. By presenting his case there, he hoped to
clear his name of any suspicion of heresy, and to persuade the Church
authorities not to suppress heliocentric ideas" and he did so against
the advice of his friends. In other words, going to Rome was his own
decision, he wasn't even summoned by the Inquisition , let alone
charged with anything.
Are you going to keep on insisting that one of the articles says he
was charged with heresy?
No answer to this, Ron?
You continually insisted that Wiki says Galileo faced a heresy charge
in 1616 so where does it say that?
You have to face what you have done and deal with it in an honest
fashion. You degenerated into quote mining in order to try to support
your dishonest source
On 5/3/2026 3:29 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
You have to be some type of dishonest clown. The first wiki is not the
one that you ran from when it did not support your version of events, so >>> it is no defense as to why you ran from the evidence years ago. The
second wiki is likely the one that I cited, but it has been edited since >>> I used it.
Is there no end to your foolishness? What I quoted from the article
has NOT been edited. You kicked of this argument about heresy back on
9th Aug 2020 when you cited an idiotic post by an anonymous blogger
who tried to argue that heresy was and still is a heresy and the
Catholic Church is still geocentric. Here is a link to the Wayback
Machine copy of the Wiki article on 6th Aug 2020, just 3 days before
your post. It says exactly what I quoted above.
What a clown. I was just claiming that the page looked different from
years ago. You still quote mined the document. The editing had nothing
to do with your quote mining.
On Sun, 3 May 2026 08:49:05 -0500, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com> wrote:
On 5/3/2026 3:29 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
[rCa]
You have to be some type of dishonest clown. The first wiki is not the >>>> one that you ran from when it did not support your version of events, so >>>> it is no defense as to why you ran from the evidence years ago. The
second wiki is likely the one that I cited, but it has been edited since >>>> I used it.
Is there no end to your foolishness? What I quoted from the article
has NOT been edited. You kicked of this argument about heresy back on
9th Aug 2020 when you cited an idiotic post by an anonymous blogger
who tried to argue that heresy was and still is a heresy and the
Catholic Church is still geocentric. Here is a link to the Wayback
Machine copy of the Wiki article on 6th Aug 2020, just 3 days before
your post. It says exactly what I quoted above.
What a clown. I was just claiming that the page looked different from
years ago. You still quote mined the document. The editing had nothing
to do with your quote mining.
That is a perfect example of the sort of behaviour you have been up to
in this discussion.
On Thu, 30 Apr 2026 08:49:48 -0500, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>insane.
wrote:
On 4/30/2026 5:44 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Wed, 29 Apr 2026 19:41:58 -0500, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>
wrote:
On 4/29/2026 1:13 PM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Wed, 29 Apr 2026 12:43:53 -0500, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>
wrote:
[...]
Snipping and lying about what you have done is just stupid and
snipped and
Not as stupid and insane as making a claim you can't support. C'mon,
Ron, give the link to the Wiki article that says Galileo faced a
heresy charge in 1616 rCa surely it can't be that difficult.
[snip desperation attempt to avoid issue]
What a lying asshole. This is the second time that you have
run from what you have lied about as being handwaving.
C'mon Ron, no need to repost 7000 words that nobody wants to read. All
that's needed to show me to be the lying asshole, not you, is a simple
quote from the Wiki article that says what you insist it says. A dozen
or so words should cover it or even a simple URL. Can't be that hard
can it?
[...]
You need to stop harassing me with your stupid lies about the past.
I'll gladly stop harassing you when you either give a specific example
of a lie told by either me or those I cited in support. Or else
withdraw your own stupid lies.
On Mon, 20 Apr 2026 13:40:43 -0500, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>are lying".
wrote:
On 4/20/2026 4:08 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Sat, 18 Apr 2026 12:06:53 -0500, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>
wrote:
On 4/18/2026 6:24 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Wed, 15 Apr 2026 14:31:27 -0500, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>
wrote:
On 4/15/2026 11:36 AM, Martin Harran wrote:[rCa]
On Wed, 15 Apr 2026 16:59:56 +0100, "Kerr-Mudd, John"
No one is going to convince an opponent by stating that "they
(no matterand probably not by constant repetition of the same arguments
reality,how valid) that failed to get through the first 50 times.
Tell that to RonO, he's the one who keeps calling everyone who
disagrees with him a liar.
Who got caught lying and quote mining? You need to deal with
short?and quit lying about it. Lying about me is just so stupid that it is
pretty much insane. You have always lied about the sources that you
could not deal honestly with. Who's sources have always come up
matched byLook at what you are doing now. Is there any excuse for you not dealing
with your own stupid dishonest behavior?
The tiresomeness of you continually claiming that my sources were
caught lying and that I have been lying and quote mining is
beenthe tiresomeness of your inability to ever identify what lie my
sources were caught in, what lies I have told or where I have quote
mined.
[... more big snip ...]
Why keep lying about what your sources did and what you did? That is
just stupid and dishonest. Just look up your past posts to determine
for yourself what went down. You tried to lie about my sources being
deficient when your sources had always come up short or even supported
my sources by putting up the lame lie that heliocentrism had never
samecondemned other then by the inquisition. It was stupid because it did
not negate what you and your sources had been wrong about. It turned
out that your source was lying and you ran. You ran twice from the
whatevidence that your source was lying. You tried to come back with your
lame quote mining efforts and trying to distract the argument from
it had been. You did that, and your source was demonstrated to have
lied about the issue. You need to go back and deal with what you did.
An appology for your disgraceful behavior would be in order. Just try
not to do it again. Continuing to lie about what happened is just
adding to how low you needed to go.
Yet again, you make all sorts of accusations without a single example
of something to support them.
What I cannot figure out is whether you just can't grasp that your
failure to produce a single example of supporting evidence portrays
*you* as the one telling lies; or whether you do grasp it and just
don't care; or whether, like a certain President, you think that if
you repeat a lie enough times that someone will eventually believe it.
You should apologize for what you have been doing and stop doing it. I
found the posts where you ran from your source having been caught lying,
you then snipped the evidence out of your response to your running.
The thread: There is no legitimate scientific support for the ID scam.
I can post your quote mining attempts and other stupid behavior that you
resorted to to defend your running and defense of your bogus source.
So why don't you instead of talking about it?
Specific examples, please, not reams and reams of obfuscatory cut'n
paste.
On Sun, 16 Nov 2025 18:25:18 -0600, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>claiming you
wrote:
On 11/16/2025 4:40 PM, Martin Harran wrote:[rCa]
The links that I put up were from the Catholics that continue to be
geocentric creationists, and the Catholics that are trying to refute
them. Both sides do not agree with you. What does your continued
denial of reality tell you?
You gave no such links. All you have to do to prove me wrong is give
them again.
Do you not see how stupid you are making yourself look by
gave links but cannot repeat them?
Why lie about something so stupid. One of the links was your own
trusted Catholic site, and you initially gave that link.
That was this site:
https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/06342b.htm
The one where the Catholic Church states:
" In thus acting, it is undeniable that the ecclesiastical authorities
committed a grave and deplorable error, and sanctioned an altogether
false principle as to the proper use of Scripture."
The one that cites Professor Augustus De Morgan (Budget of Paradoxes)
declaring
"It is clear that the absurdity was the act of the Italian
Inquisition, for the private and personal pleasure of the pope - who
knew that the course he took could not convict him as pope - and not
of the body which calls itself the Church."
The one that cites von Gebler ("Galileo Galilei"):
"The Church never condemned it (the Copernican system) at all, for the
Qualifiers of the Holy Office never mean the Church."
It beats me how you figure out that site and the people referred to in
it somehow back your claim that heliocentrism really was a heresy. I
guess you have to convince yourself in order to maintain your delusion
as you clearly can't find a reputable source that actually does back
you up.
Yes, everyone admits that they were wrong about geocentrism except for
the Catholics that are still geocentrics. This source called what
Galileo faced both times a charge of heresy. They did not make a
distinction between formal heresy and heresy like the anti geocentric
site, but it was still a heresy.
What part of "The Church never condemned it (the Copernican system) at
all" did you not understand?
The only place that formal comes into all this is in the judgement
issued after Galileo's first trial where the verdict stated that the proposition that the Sun is stationary at the centre of the universe
is "foolish and absurd in philosophy, and formally heretical since it explicitly contradicts in many places the sense of Holy Scripture".
That, however, is t the Catholic Encyclopaedia refers to where it
says:
"it is undeniable that the ecclesiastical authorities committed a
grave and deplorable error, and sanctioned an altogether false
principle as to the proper use of Scripture."
Note also that the words "formally heretical" are wrong - I'm not sure whether it was the Inquisition using weasel words or whether it was a
bad translation from the Latin.
The word "heresy" can be used in two ways; it can apply to the
rejection of a specific doctrine of the Church or it can refer to the
act of committing heresy. The word "formal" applies to the latter -
the act of committing heresy - and is used to categorise the degree of
guilt of the person committing the heresy. "Formal heresy" means they
knew they were going against doctrine and are therefore guilty of
mortal sin; "material heresy" means they did not know they were going against doctrine so they are not guilty sin.
It's a bit like first degree versus second degree murder and Galileo's
trial was like him being charged with first-degree murder without a
murder being established in the first place.
The Inquisition made it into a formal heresy after the Council of Trent.
They were supposedly wrong, and a couple centuries later things got
reversed to what they had been at the time that the findings of the
Council of Trent were published.
The holy office (the inquisition) had Galileo facing a formal heresy
charge in his first encounter. When the pope got involved they just did
not call it a formal heresy in the sentencing. Galileo's views were
still condemned. They claimed that Galileo was facing a charge of
heresy. His heliocentric notions were still considered to be heresy and
the heresy that he was guilty of was clearly defined in the sentencing.
The anti geocentrics admitted that the pope had the Galileo case
published and disseminated throughout the church in order to quash the
heliocentric notions that were becoming an issue for the church. They
just want to claim that, that was not an official act. That is just
stupid. The pope did it for known reasons, and who cares if they want
to plead that he was not acting as pope?
There is no doubt that the actors were wrong, and that is the issue.
They do not want it to reflect on papal infallibility. That in itself
should be considered to be a non scriptural unjustifiable claim.
The Inquisition had Copernican writings banned and made heliocentrism
into a formal heresy because all the church fathers were geocentrics,
and that meant that Copernicans were in conflict with the beliefs of the
church fathers. Both the geocentric Catholics and the anti geocentric
Catholics claim that the Inquisition did this because of what the church
came up with at the Council of Trent where they made the beliefs of the
church fathers as a legitimate and necessary authority for interpreting
scripture. Both Catholic sides of the geocentric issue understand this
to be true.
QUOTE:
Council of Trent
Session IV, April 8, 1546, Decree Concerning the Edition and the Use of
the Sacred Books:
... "Furthermore, in order to restrain petulant spirits, it [the Council
of Trent] decrees that no one, relying on his own skill, shall,-in
matters of faith, and of morals pertaining to the edification of
Christian doctrine,-wresting the sacred Scriptures to his own senses,
presume to interpret the said sacred Scripture contrary to that sense
which holy Mother Church-to whom it belongs to judge of the true sense
and interpretation of the Holy Scriptures-hath held and doth hold; or
even contrary to the unanimous consent of the Fathers; even though such
interpretations were never (intended) to be at any time published.
Contraveners shall be made known by their Ordinaries and be punished
with the penalties by law established."
END QUOTE:
https://www.biblelightinfo.com/unanimous-consent.htm
Both Catholic sides of the issue claim that the Council of Trent caused
the Inquisition to ban Copernican writings and start treating
heliocentrism as a formal heresy because it went against the geocentric
beliefs of the church fathers.
You are taking all that crap from your geocentric hero; if you want to persist in taking his opinion against that of the Church's own
theologians then that is you just acting like Spikes rejecting the
opinion of scientists in favour of people who play to his confirmation
bias.
It was a mistake and the actors were in error only because of our
current understanding of nature. The Pope was wrong about it. He was
one of the mistaken actors.
The Pope was not a "mistaken actor", he was pissed off with Galileo presenting the Pope's views as those of a simpleton and misused his
powers to hit back at Galileo. Again, the Catholic Encyclopaedia
spells that explicitly:
"It is clear that the absurdity was the act of the Italian
Inquisition, for the private and personal pleasure of the pope - who
knew that the course he took could not convict him as pope - and not
of the body which calls itself the Church."
The Galileo affair was a shameful episode in the Church's history but
was all about the animosity between the Pope and Galileo, it had
nothing to do with heliocentrism being a heresy, that was just the
vehicle that the Pope used to attack Galileo.
On Mon, 17 Nov 2025 14:40:05 -0600, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>
wrote:
On 11/17/2025 11:45 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Mon, 17 Nov 2025 09:57:31 -0600, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>
wrote:
[...]
Oops, the Pope was not infallible.
So papal infallibility is another thing you don't understand.
I am just repeating what the anti geocentrist want to claim about it.
The "anti-geocentrists" of whom you cannot identify even one. Mind
you, when you first brought in the website of your geocentrist mentor,
it was anonymous and you didn't even know who the author was until I
figured out; the fact that he is a declared geocentrist and you knew
nothing about him didn't stop you placing high value on his opinions
and continuing to do so.
Weird to say the least.
[...]
On Wed, 19 Nov 2025 14:55:52 -0600, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>
wrote:
On 11/19/2025 12:01 PM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Mon, 17 Nov 2025 14:40:05 -0600, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>
wrote:
On 11/17/2025 11:45 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Mon, 17 Nov 2025 09:57:31 -0600, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>
wrote:
[...]
Oops, the Pope was not infallible.
So papal infallibility is another thing you don't understand.
I am just repeating what the anti geocentrist want to claim about it.
The "anti-geocentrists" of whom you cannot identify even one. Mind
you, when you first brought in the website of your geocentrist mentor,
it was anonymous and you didn't even know who the author was until I
figured out; the fact that he is a declared geocentrist and you knew
nothing about him didn't stop you placing high value on his opinions
and continuing to do so.
Weird to say the least.
[...]
You were given the links before,
Nope
so stop lying about it. Why should I
look up that junk again.
So you can prove I'm lying. But you can't because I'm not lying, you
gave no links except to the geocentrist idiot whose opinion you value
so highly.
You just denied that it was valid and kept
lying. Even your own trusted source backed up the anti geocentric site.
The anti geocentrists were on your side in terms of denying that it
was a formal heresy that Galileo faced the second time, but they agreed
with the geocentrists that the Inquisition had made it a formal heresy
charge the first time Galileo faced it and agreed with the Wiki. The
Vatican Observatory article that you have run from and snipped out of
this post backs up the geocentrists and anti geocentrists.
Just stop lying about the issue.
https://www.vaticanobservatory.org/sacred-space-astronomy/heliocentrism-condemned-400-years-ago-on-march-5-2/
They admit that helicentrism was condemned 400 years ago. 1616 is when
Galileo faced the formal heresy charge.
They do not consider the heresy cases, but they were based upon the
Inquisitions opinion of the topic.
Your claim of "never" having been condemned seems to be a lie.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galileo_Galilei
QUOTE:
In February 1616, an Inquisitorial commission declared heliocentrism to
be "foolish and absurd in philosophy, and formally heretical since it
explicitly contradicts in many places the sense of Holy Scripture".
END QUOTE:
Now YOU are the one lying about me. I never said it was never
condemned; on the contrary, I gave that exact same quote. What I did
was to point out that what it said was a FALSE CLAIM and it wasn't me
who came to that conclusion, it was the Catholic Church who came to
it, supported by every historian I know of who investigated it, people
like De Morgan and von Gebler. The only person I have ever known to
say there actually was a heresy is the geocentrist idiot whose opinion
you value so highly.
Both the geocentrists that you don't like, and the anti geocentric
catholics that do not agree with geocentric beliefs agreed that it was a
formal heresy charge the first time that Galileo faced the issue.
Now you seem to be trying to worm your way out of it by admitting
there was a *charge* without retracting that there was an actual
heresy which is what you have been claiming all long.
You can't just keep refusing to deal with reality and expect anything to
change.
You can't keep claiming support from "anti-geocentrists" about
heliocentrism having been an actual heresy without being able to
identify even one and expect people to take you seriously.
On Thu, 20 Nov 2025 09:38:56 -0600, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>heliocentrism to
wrote:
On 11/20/2025 4:47 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Wed, 19 Nov 2025 14:55:52 -0600, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>
wrote:
[snip for focus]
Your claim of "never" having been condemned seems to be a lie.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galileo_Galilei
QUOTE:
In February 1616, an Inquisitorial commission declared
be "foolish and absurd in philosophy, and formally heretical since it
explicitly contradicts in many places the sense of Holy Scripture".
END QUOTE:
Now YOU are the one lying about me. I never said it was never
condemned; on the contrary, I gave that exact same quote. What I did
was to point out that what it said was a FALSE CLAIM and it wasn't me
who came to that conclusion, it was the Catholic Church who came to
it, supported by every historian I know of who investigated it, people
like De Morgan and von Gebler. The only person I have ever known to
say there actually was a heresy is the geocentrist idiot whose opinion
you value so highly.
You put up the quote that said it had never been condemned. Go back up
and check. It was your quote.
Here is verbatim what I quoted:
Message-ID: 2gkkhk9bvctolude5jf6b6e0kothd5723d@4ax.com ========================================
<quote>
The [site] that cites von Gebler ("Galileo Galilei"):
"The Church never condemned it (the Copernican system) at all, for the Qualifiers of the Holy Office never mean the Church."
==========================================
#1: it was von Gebler who said rCLnever condemnedrCY, not me as you
claimed two posts ago.
#2 he did not say it was never condemned, he said *the Church* never condemned it.
Why do you post lies that are so easily shown to be lies?
On Fri, 21 Nov 2025 17:33:49 -0600, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>
wrote:
On 11/21/2025 12:29 PM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Fri, 21 Nov 2025 09:04:37 -0600, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>
wrote:
[rCa]
Let's cut to the chase here.
No lies to retract. You lied.
What lie are you claiming I told? Please quote exactly what I said
that you regard as a lie.
The ones that you keep telling.
"Never condemned"
I'm out of here. George Bernard Shaw warned that you shouldn't wrestle
with a pig as you get dirty and the pig enjoys it. I'm not going to
waste any more time trying to have a sensible discussion with someone
who thinks it's ok to take two words out of what somebody else said to
give a completely different meaning and then attribute those two words
to me. It doesn't even reach the level of quote-mining.
What beggars belief is that you do it where the exact quote from von
Gerber [1] and what I said about it are preserved just a couple of
posts above for all to see. As I noted earlier, it is really sad to
see this sort of behaviour from someone whose ability as a scientist I respect so much EfOU
===========================================
[1] "The Church never condemned it (the Copernican system) at all, for
the Qualifiers of the Holy Office never mean the Church."
[von Gebler ("Galileo Galilei")]
[..]
You should not continue to add to your own dishonest stupidity.
Trusting your source was obviously a stupid thing to do, and trying to
continue to support that source was just stupid and dishonest.
Ron Okimoto
You persistently claimed the Wiki article said that Galileo faced a
heresy charge in 1616 even though I told you repeatedly that it
didn't.
I quoted the article to show that it said no such thing and you
claimed that somebody had edited it since you used it.
I used the Wayback Machine to show that it hadn't been edited and you
tried to deny you had said it was edited, that you only claimed it
"looked different" even though your exact words are preserved above.
Please, just man up and admit you read the article wrong instead of
making such an embarrassing show of yourself.
On Sun, 3 May 2026 08:49:05 -0500, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com> wrote:
On 5/3/2026 3:29 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
[rCa]
You have to be some type of dishonest clown. The first wiki is not the >>>> one that you ran from when it did not support your version of events, so >>>> it is no defense as to why you ran from the evidence years ago. The
second wiki is likely the one that I cited, but it has been edited since >>>> I used it.
Is there no end to your foolishness? What I quoted from the article
has NOT been edited. You kicked of this argument about heresy back on
9th Aug 2020 when you cited an idiotic post by an anonymous blogger
who tried to argue that heresy was and still is a heresy and the
Catholic Church is still geocentric. Here is a link to the Wayback
Machine copy of the Wiki article on 6th Aug 2020, just 3 days before
your post. It says exactly what I quoted above.
What a clown. I was just claiming that the page looked different from
years ago. You still quote mined the document. The editing had nothing
to do with your quote mining.
That is a perfect example of the sort of behaviour you have been up to
in this discussion.
You persistently claimed the Wiki article said that Galileo faced a
heresy charge in 1616 even though I told you repeatedly that it
didn't.
I quoted the article to show that it said no such thing and you
claimed that somebody had edited it since you used it.
I used the Wayback Machine to show that it hadn't been edited and you
tried to deny you had said it was edited, that you only claimed it
"looked different" even though your exact words are preserved above.
Please, just man up and admit you read the article wrong instead of
making such an embarrassing show of yourself.
On Sun, 22 Feb 2026 13:40:10 -0600, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>what you
wrote:
On 2/22/2026 10:18 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Sat, 21 Feb 2026 12:44:57 -0600, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>
wrote:
On 2/21/2026 11:59 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
What documents are you talking about that you keep saying the Jesuits
put up?
You can keep lying about what has been discussed, but you know
was notdid. You need to be the one that finds it and satisfy yourself with
what you did.
You put up your source lying about heliocentrism never being condemned
by anyone but the Inquisition. You claimed that the Inquisition
ordered bythe Church. I put up the Jesuit Observatory claim that the Papal
offices had condemned heliocentrism and this condemnation was
sources havethe Pope. They put up the relevant document and stated what the Pope
did. Your source was caught lying and you ran. Go find it. It is
something that you should do because you will uncover all your other
evasions on this issue while doing it. Your quotes of your
always come up short. The sources that you claim are unreliable, have
repeatedly been shown to be more reliable than what you come up with.
Oh, you mean the link you gave back in November, this one:
https://www.vaticanobservatory.org/sacred-space-astronomy/heliocentrism-condemned-400-years-ago-on-march-5-2/
The one where they posted the full 1616 decree on it's 400th
anniversary and commented:
<quote>
The formulation here is much milder than the one found in the working
document of February 24. The Decree talks about the "false Pythagorean
doctrine" and declare it "altogether contrary to the Holy Scripture".
This is not nearly as harsh as "foolish and absurd" philosophically,
and "formally heretical" because contrary to Scripture.
</quote>
How fucking dense can you be? It doesn't get much stupider than
posting something that contradicts what you are claiming.
If I am the dense one why did you run from what they admitted about the
document?
LOL, you post something that you think supports your claim but
actually rejects it and the best defence you can offer is to accuse me
of running away from it.
The Pope did condemn heliocentrism.
Beats me why you keep repeating this. The Pope did not personally
condemn heliocentrism, he allowed the Inquisition's condemnation of it
to be made public - that did not make it a heresy.
That is what your side was lying
about.
The only one telling lies here is you. For example, when you keep
insisting that all the "anti-geocentrists" in the Catholic
Encyclopaedia article agree with you that heliocentrism was a heresy
when they all say explicitly that it wasn't. Your lie is underlined by
the fact that you can't produce identify any source that agrees that heliocentrism was a heresy except your geocentrist mentors.
reality.It doesn't matter that the final wording was milder than the
initial draft. They admit that the Pope condemned heliocentrism, and
supported using the Council of Trent's scriptural interpretation on the
matter. It doesn't matter what it was called because the authors and
books are named. You ran from this link because your source was found
to have lied about heliocentrism never having been condemned except by
the Inquisition. The Pope obviously represents the Church and condemned
heliocentrism. He supported the Inquisition in 1616, and their
additions to the Index in order to protect against heresy. The books
would not have been added to the Index if they were not considered to be
heretical. The document even talks about the heretical parts of the
books, and indicates that after one of them is rewritten, so that it is
not against scripture, that it can be removed from the Index.
Keep lying to yourself about the issue. It isn't going to change
The Inquisition made heliocentrism a formal heresy in 1615-1616.
The decree is given in full on the Vatican Observatory site that you
tried to claim supports you and the word 'heresy' or 'heretical' does
not even appear in it.
They
did this because of their interpretation of scripture as the Council of
Trent had decided.
The decree doesn't make any reference whatsoever to Trent regarding interpretation of scripture; the one and only reference is to the *punishment* under Trent for disobeying the decree.
They added heliocentric writings to the Index,
They declare that "the books by Nicolaus Copernicus (On the
Revolutions of Spheres) and by Diego de Zu|#iga (On Job) be suspended
until corrected".
I've given details of the required corrections to Revolutions in a
different post to Harshman and they are all minor edits - not one of
them makes any change to the core principle of heliocentrism. A rather
weird declaration of heresy that allows Copernicus's book supporting
it to be published with minor edits that don't undermine his
proposition.
and
had their first encounter with Galileo. The Pope agreed with them and
condemned heliocentrism, and agreed with their additions to the Index of
banned writings.
Before your source lied about "never being condemned" the Pope's
involvement in 1616 was not an issue between the geocentric and
anti-geocentric Catholics in terms of what you were lying about at the
time. Both sides agreed that it was a formal heresy charge faced by
Galileo in 1615-1616. They disagreed about it being a formal heresy
charge the second time because it was only written up as "heresy" and
not formal heresy in the sentencing. It remained a heresy charge.
You obviously struggle with grasping that a *charge* does not make
someone guilty. I hope I'm never on trial for something I didn't do
with you on the jury.
The
Pope had the Galileo case, sentencing, and punishment published and
distributed throughout the Church in order to quash the heliocentric
heresy, but the guys that want to maintain Papal infallibility claim
that that was not an official Papal action. They admitted that there
was an issue with helicentrism at the time, but they do not want the
Pope to have been on the wrong side of the issue.
You need to deal with reality.
I think it's very clear who has the problem with accepting reality and
it's not me.
It is well understood that the Bible is
just wrong about a lot of things that we can figure out for ourselves.
Your own quotes from Pope Francis makes that claim. The Bible can be
misinterpreted because the author's understanding of the creation was
faulty. Francis knows that the universe was not created in 6 magic
episodes. Only those in complete denial do not understand that the
order of creation described in the Bible is wrong. There are still
young earth, old earth day for agers, geocentric, and flat earth
Biblical creationists because they are in the same type of denial that
you are in. There are just different levels of denial.
Ron Okimoto
On 5/3/2026 11:52 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Sun, 3 May 2026 08:49:05 -0500, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com> wrote:
On 5/3/2026 3:29 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
[rCa]
You have to be some type of dishonest clown. The first wiki is not the >>>>> one that you ran from when it did not support your version of events, so >>>>> it is no defense as to why you ran from the evidence years ago. The >>>>> second wiki is likely the one that I cited, but it has been edited since >>>>> I used it.
Is there no end to your foolishness? What I quoted from the article
has NOT been edited. You kicked of this argument about heresy back on
9th Aug 2020 when you cited an idiotic post by an anonymous blogger
who tried to argue that heresy was and still is a heresy and the
Catholic Church is still geocentric. Here is a link to the Wayback
Machine copy of the Wiki article on 6th Aug 2020, just 3 days before
your post. It says exactly what I quoted above.
What a clown. I was just claiming that the page looked different from
years ago. You still quote mined the document. The editing had nothing >>> to do with your quote mining.
That is a perfect example of the sort of behaviour you have been up to
in this discussion.
You are currently running and prevaricating to what you have
consistently brought into this argument. Your sources have always been
the deficient ones
You persistently claimed the Wiki article said that Galileo faced a
heresy charge in 1616 even though I told you repeatedly that it
didn't.
I quoted the article to show that it said no such thing and you
claimed that somebody had edited it since you used it.
I used the Wayback Machine to show that it hadn't been edited and you
tried to deny you had said it was edited, that you only claimed it
"looked different" even though your exact words are preserved above.
Please, just man up and admit you read the article wrong instead of
making such an embarrassing show of yourself.
On Sun, 3 May 2026 16:02:43 -0500, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com> wrote:
On 5/3/2026 11:52 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Sun, 3 May 2026 08:49:05 -0500, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com> wrote:
On 5/3/2026 3:29 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
[rCa]
You have to be some type of dishonest clown. The first wiki is not the >>>>>> one that you ran from when it did not support your version of events, so >>>>>> it is no defense as to why you ran from the evidence years ago. The >>>>>> second wiki is likely the one that I cited, but it has been edited since >>>>>> I used it.
Is there no end to your foolishness? What I quoted from the article
has NOT been edited. You kicked of this argument about heresy back on >>>>> 9th Aug 2020 when you cited an idiotic post by an anonymous blogger
who tried to argue that heresy was and still is a heresy and the
Catholic Church is still geocentric. Here is a link to the Wayback
Machine copy of the Wiki article on 6th Aug 2020, just 3 days before >>>>> your post. It says exactly what I quoted above.
What a clown. I was just claiming that the page looked different from >>>> years ago. You still quote mined the document. The editing had nothing >>>> to do with your quote mining.
That is a perfect example of the sort of behaviour you have been up to
in this discussion.
You are currently running and prevaricating to what you have
consistently brought into this argument. Your sources have always been
the deficient ones
As summarised below, you are the one producing sources that don't say
what you claim they said; you are the one trying to run and hide by
reposting reams of previous posts including the ones where you have
claimed Wiki said things that it did not say.
[ big snip of obfuscation attempt]
You persistently claimed the Wiki article said that Galileo faced a
heresy charge in 1616 even though I told you repeatedly that it
didn't.
I quoted the article to show that it said no such thing and you
claimed that somebody had edited it since you used it.
I used the Wayback Machine to show that it hadn't been edited and you
tried to deny you had said it was edited, that you only claimed it
"looked different" even though your exact words are preserved above.
Please, just man up and admit you read the article wrong instead of
making such an embarrassing show of yourself.
Let's make it clear, Ron. Do you still claim that your Wiki source
says Galileo faced a heresy charge in 1616?
On Thu, 30 Apr 2026 08:49:48 -0500, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>insane.
wrote:
On 4/30/2026 5:44 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Wed, 29 Apr 2026 19:41:58 -0500, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>
wrote:
On 4/29/2026 1:13 PM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Wed, 29 Apr 2026 12:43:53 -0500, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>
wrote:
[...]
Snipping and lying about what you have done is just stupid and
snipped and
Not as stupid and insane as making a claim you can't support. C'mon,
Ron, give the link to the Wiki article that says Galileo faced a
heresy charge in 1616 rCa surely it can't be that difficult.
[snip desperation attempt to avoid issue]
What a lying asshole. This is the second time that you have
run from what you have lied about as being handwaving.
C'mon Ron, no need to repost 7000 words that nobody wants to read. All
that's needed to show me to be the lying asshole, not you, is a simple
quote from the Wiki article that says what you insist it says. A dozen
or so words should cover it or even a simple URL. Can't be that hard
can it?
[...]
You need to stop harassing me with your stupid lies about the past.
I'll gladly stop harassing you when you either give a specific example
of a lie told by either me or those I cited in support. Or else
withdraw your own stupid lies.
On Mon, 20 Apr 2026 13:40:43 -0500, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>are lying".
wrote:
On 4/20/2026 4:08 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Sat, 18 Apr 2026 12:06:53 -0500, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>
wrote:
On 4/18/2026 6:24 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Wed, 15 Apr 2026 14:31:27 -0500, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>
wrote:
On 4/15/2026 11:36 AM, Martin Harran wrote:[rCa]
On Wed, 15 Apr 2026 16:59:56 +0100, "Kerr-Mudd, John"
No one is going to convince an opponent by stating that "they
(no matterand probably not by constant repetition of the same arguments
reality,how valid) that failed to get through the first 50 times.
Tell that to RonO, he's the one who keeps calling everyone who
disagrees with him a liar.
Who got caught lying and quote mining? You need to deal with
short?and quit lying about it. Lying about me is just so stupid that it is
pretty much insane. You have always lied about the sources that you
could not deal honestly with. Who's sources have always come up
matched byLook at what you are doing now. Is there any excuse for you not dealing
with your own stupid dishonest behavior?
The tiresomeness of you continually claiming that my sources were
caught lying and that I have been lying and quote mining is
beenthe tiresomeness of your inability to ever identify what lie my
sources were caught in, what lies I have told or where I have quote
mined.
[... more big snip ...]
Why keep lying about what your sources did and what you did? That is
just stupid and dishonest. Just look up your past posts to determine
for yourself what went down. You tried to lie about my sources being
deficient when your sources had always come up short or even supported
my sources by putting up the lame lie that heliocentrism had never
samecondemned other then by the inquisition. It was stupid because it did
not negate what you and your sources had been wrong about. It turned
out that your source was lying and you ran. You ran twice from the
whatevidence that your source was lying. You tried to come back with your
lame quote mining efforts and trying to distract the argument from
it had been. You did that, and your source was demonstrated to have
lied about the issue. You need to go back and deal with what you did.
An appology for your disgraceful behavior would be in order. Just try
not to do it again. Continuing to lie about what happened is just
adding to how low you needed to go.
Yet again, you make all sorts of accusations without a single example
of something to support them.
What I cannot figure out is whether you just can't grasp that your
failure to produce a single example of supporting evidence portrays
*you* as the one telling lies; or whether you do grasp it and just
don't care; or whether, like a certain President, you think that if
you repeat a lie enough times that someone will eventually believe it.
You should apologize for what you have been doing and stop doing it. I
found the posts where you ran from your source having been caught lying,
you then snipped the evidence out of your response to your running.
The thread: There is no legitimate scientific support for the ID scam.
I can post your quote mining attempts and other stupid behavior that you
resorted to to defend your running and defense of your bogus source.
So why don't you instead of talking about it?
Specific examples, please, not reams and reams of obfuscatory cut'n
paste.
On Sun, 16 Nov 2025 18:25:18 -0600, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>claiming you
wrote:
On 11/16/2025 4:40 PM, Martin Harran wrote:[rCa]
The links that I put up were from the Catholics that continue to be
geocentric creationists, and the Catholics that are trying to refute
them. Both sides do not agree with you. What does your continued
denial of reality tell you?
You gave no such links. All you have to do to prove me wrong is give
them again.
Do you not see how stupid you are making yourself look by
gave links but cannot repeat them?
Why lie about something so stupid. One of the links was your own
trusted Catholic site, and you initially gave that link.
That was this site:
https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/06342b.htm
The one where the Catholic Church states:
" In thus acting, it is undeniable that the ecclesiastical authorities
committed a grave and deplorable error, and sanctioned an altogether
false principle as to the proper use of Scripture."
The one that cites Professor Augustus De Morgan (Budget of Paradoxes)
declaring
"It is clear that the absurdity was the act of the Italian
Inquisition, for the private and personal pleasure of the pope - who
knew that the course he took could not convict him as pope - and not
of the body which calls itself the Church."
The one that cites von Gebler ("Galileo Galilei"):
"The Church never condemned it (the Copernican system) at all, for the
Qualifiers of the Holy Office never mean the Church."
It beats me how you figure out that site and the people referred to in
it somehow back your claim that heliocentrism really was a heresy. I
guess you have to convince yourself in order to maintain your delusion
as you clearly can't find a reputable source that actually does back
you up.
Yes, everyone admits that they were wrong about geocentrism except for
the Catholics that are still geocentrics. This source called what
Galileo faced both times a charge of heresy. They did not make a
distinction between formal heresy and heresy like the anti geocentric
site, but it was still a heresy.
What part of "The Church never condemned it (the Copernican system) at
all" did you not understand?
The only place that formal comes into all this is in the judgement
issued after Galileo's first trial where the verdict stated that the proposition that the Sun is stationary at the centre of the universe
is "foolish and absurd in philosophy, and formally heretical since it explicitly contradicts in many places the sense of Holy Scripture".
That, however, is t the Catholic Encyclopaedia refers to where it
says:
"it is undeniable that the ecclesiastical authorities committed a
grave and deplorable error, and sanctioned an altogether false
principle as to the proper use of Scripture."
Note also that the words "formally heretical" are wrong - I'm not sure whether it was the Inquisition using weasel words or whether it was a
bad translation from the Latin.
The word "heresy" can be used in two ways; it can apply to the
rejection of a specific doctrine of the Church or it can refer to the
act of committing heresy. The word "formal" applies to the latter -
the act of committing heresy - and is used to categorise the degree of
guilt of the person committing the heresy. "Formal heresy" means they
knew they were going against doctrine and are therefore guilty of
mortal sin; "material heresy" means they did not know they were going against doctrine so they are not guilty sin.
It's a bit like first degree versus second degree murder and Galileo's
trial was like him being charged with first-degree murder without a
murder being established in the first place.
The Inquisition made it into a formal heresy after the Council of Trent.
They were supposedly wrong, and a couple centuries later things got
reversed to what they had been at the time that the findings of the
Council of Trent were published.
The holy office (the inquisition) had Galileo facing a formal heresy
charge in his first encounter. When the pope got involved they just did
not call it a formal heresy in the sentencing. Galileo's views were
still condemned. They claimed that Galileo was facing a charge of
heresy. His heliocentric notions were still considered to be heresy and
the heresy that he was guilty of was clearly defined in the sentencing.
The anti geocentrics admitted that the pope had the Galileo case
published and disseminated throughout the church in order to quash the
heliocentric notions that were becoming an issue for the church. They
just want to claim that, that was not an official act. That is just
stupid. The pope did it for known reasons, and who cares if they want
to plead that he was not acting as pope?
There is no doubt that the actors were wrong, and that is the issue.
They do not want it to reflect on papal infallibility. That in itself
should be considered to be a non scriptural unjustifiable claim.
The Inquisition had Copernican writings banned and made heliocentrism
into a formal heresy because all the church fathers were geocentrics,
and that meant that Copernicans were in conflict with the beliefs of the
church fathers. Both the geocentric Catholics and the anti geocentric
Catholics claim that the Inquisition did this because of what the church
came up with at the Council of Trent where they made the beliefs of the
church fathers as a legitimate and necessary authority for interpreting
scripture. Both Catholic sides of the geocentric issue understand this
to be true.
QUOTE:
Council of Trent
Session IV, April 8, 1546, Decree Concerning the Edition and the Use of
the Sacred Books:
... "Furthermore, in order to restrain petulant spirits, it [the Council
of Trent] decrees that no one, relying on his own skill, shall,-in
matters of faith, and of morals pertaining to the edification of
Christian doctrine,-wresting the sacred Scriptures to his own senses,
presume to interpret the said sacred Scripture contrary to that sense
which holy Mother Church-to whom it belongs to judge of the true sense
and interpretation of the Holy Scriptures-hath held and doth hold; or
even contrary to the unanimous consent of the Fathers; even though such
interpretations were never (intended) to be at any time published.
Contraveners shall be made known by their Ordinaries and be punished
with the penalties by law established."
END QUOTE:
https://www.biblelightinfo.com/unanimous-consent.htm
Both Catholic sides of the issue claim that the Council of Trent caused
the Inquisition to ban Copernican writings and start treating
heliocentrism as a formal heresy because it went against the geocentric
beliefs of the church fathers.
You are taking all that crap from your geocentric hero; if you want to persist in taking his opinion against that of the Church's own
theologians then that is you just acting like Spikes rejecting the
opinion of scientists in favour of people who play to his confirmation
bias.
It was a mistake and the actors were in error only because of our
current understanding of nature. The Pope was wrong about it. He was
one of the mistaken actors.
The Pope was not a "mistaken actor", he was pissed off with Galileo presenting the Pope's views as those of a simpleton and misused his
powers to hit back at Galileo. Again, the Catholic Encyclopaedia
spells that explicitly:
"It is clear that the absurdity was the act of the Italian
Inquisition, for the private and personal pleasure of the pope - who
knew that the course he took could not convict him as pope - and not
of the body which calls itself the Church."
The Galileo affair was a shameful episode in the Church's history but
was all about the animosity between the Pope and Galileo, it had
nothing to do with heliocentrism being a heresy, that was just the
vehicle that the Pope used to attack Galileo.
On Mon, 17 Nov 2025 14:40:05 -0600, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>
wrote:
On 11/17/2025 11:45 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Mon, 17 Nov 2025 09:57:31 -0600, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>
wrote:
[...]
Oops, the Pope was not infallible.
So papal infallibility is another thing you don't understand.
I am just repeating what the anti geocentrist want to claim about it.
The "anti-geocentrists" of whom you cannot identify even one. Mind
you, when you first brought in the website of your geocentrist mentor,
it was anonymous and you didn't even know who the author was until I
figured out; the fact that he is a declared geocentrist and you knew
nothing about him didn't stop you placing high value on his opinions
and continuing to do so.
Weird to say the least.
[...]
On Wed, 19 Nov 2025 14:55:52 -0600, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>
wrote:
On 11/19/2025 12:01 PM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Mon, 17 Nov 2025 14:40:05 -0600, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>
wrote:
On 11/17/2025 11:45 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Mon, 17 Nov 2025 09:57:31 -0600, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>
wrote:
[...]
Oops, the Pope was not infallible.
So papal infallibility is another thing you don't understand.
I am just repeating what the anti geocentrist want to claim about it.
The "anti-geocentrists" of whom you cannot identify even one. Mind
you, when you first brought in the website of your geocentrist mentor,
it was anonymous and you didn't even know who the author was until I
figured out; the fact that he is a declared geocentrist and you knew
nothing about him didn't stop you placing high value on his opinions
and continuing to do so.
Weird to say the least.
[...]
You were given the links before,
Nope
so stop lying about it. Why should I
look up that junk again.
So you can prove I'm lying. But you can't because I'm not lying, you
gave no links except to the geocentrist idiot whose opinion you value
so highly.
You just denied that it was valid and kept
lying. Even your own trusted source backed up the anti geocentric site.
The anti geocentrists were on your side in terms of denying that it
was a formal heresy that Galileo faced the second time, but they agreed
with the geocentrists that the Inquisition had made it a formal heresy
charge the first time Galileo faced it and agreed with the Wiki. The
Vatican Observatory article that you have run from and snipped out of
this post backs up the geocentrists and anti geocentrists.
Just stop lying about the issue.
https://www.vaticanobservatory.org/sacred-space-astronomy/heliocentrism-condemned-400-years-ago-on-march-5-2/
They admit that helicentrism was condemned 400 years ago. 1616 is when
Galileo faced the formal heresy charge.
They do not consider the heresy cases, but they were based upon the
Inquisitions opinion of the topic.
Your claim of "never" having been condemned seems to be a lie.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galileo_Galilei
QUOTE:
In February 1616, an Inquisitorial commission declared heliocentrism to
be "foolish and absurd in philosophy, and formally heretical since it
explicitly contradicts in many places the sense of Holy Scripture".
END QUOTE:
Now YOU are the one lying about me. I never said it was never
condemned; on the contrary, I gave that exact same quote. What I did
was to point out that what it said was a FALSE CLAIM and it wasn't me
who came to that conclusion, it was the Catholic Church who came to
it, supported by every historian I know of who investigated it, people
like De Morgan and von Gebler. The only person I have ever known to
say there actually was a heresy is the geocentrist idiot whose opinion
you value so highly.
Both the geocentrists that you don't like, and the anti geocentric
catholics that do not agree with geocentric beliefs agreed that it was a
formal heresy charge the first time that Galileo faced the issue.
Now you seem to be trying to worm your way out of it by admitting
there was a *charge* without retracting that there was an actual
heresy which is what you have been claiming all long.
You can't just keep refusing to deal with reality and expect anything to
change.
You can't keep claiming support from "anti-geocentrists" about
heliocentrism having been an actual heresy without being able to
identify even one and expect people to take you seriously.
On Thu, 20 Nov 2025 09:38:56 -0600, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>heliocentrism to
wrote:
On 11/20/2025 4:47 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Wed, 19 Nov 2025 14:55:52 -0600, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>
wrote:
[snip for focus]
Your claim of "never" having been condemned seems to be a lie.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galileo_Galilei
QUOTE:
In February 1616, an Inquisitorial commission declared
be "foolish and absurd in philosophy, and formally heretical since it
explicitly contradicts in many places the sense of Holy Scripture".
END QUOTE:
Now YOU are the one lying about me. I never said it was never
condemned; on the contrary, I gave that exact same quote. What I did
was to point out that what it said was a FALSE CLAIM and it wasn't me
who came to that conclusion, it was the Catholic Church who came to
it, supported by every historian I know of who investigated it, people
like De Morgan and von Gebler. The only person I have ever known to
say there actually was a heresy is the geocentrist idiot whose opinion
you value so highly.
You put up the quote that said it had never been condemned. Go back up
and check. It was your quote.
Here is verbatim what I quoted:
Message-ID: 2gkkhk9bvctolude5jf6b6e0kothd5723d@4ax.com ========================================
<quote>
The [site] that cites von Gebler ("Galileo Galilei"):
"The Church never condemned it (the Copernican system) at all, for the Qualifiers of the Holy Office never mean the Church."
==========================================
#1: it was von Gebler who said rCLnever condemnedrCY, not me as you
claimed two posts ago.
#2 he did not say it was never condemned, he said *the Church* never condemned it.
Why do you post lies that are so easily shown to be lies?
On Fri, 21 Nov 2025 17:33:49 -0600, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>
wrote:
On 11/21/2025 12:29 PM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Fri, 21 Nov 2025 09:04:37 -0600, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>
wrote:
[rCa]
Let's cut to the chase here.
No lies to retract. You lied.
What lie are you claiming I told? Please quote exactly what I said
that you regard as a lie.
The ones that you keep telling.
"Never condemned"
I'm out of here. George Bernard Shaw warned that you shouldn't wrestle
with a pig as you get dirty and the pig enjoys it. I'm not going to
waste any more time trying to have a sensible discussion with someone
who thinks it's ok to take two words out of what somebody else said to
give a completely different meaning and then attribute those two words
to me. It doesn't even reach the level of quote-mining.
What beggars belief is that you do it where the exact quote from von
Gerber [1] and what I said about it are preserved just a couple of
posts above for all to see. As I noted earlier, it is really sad to
see this sort of behaviour from someone whose ability as a scientist I respect so much EfOU
===========================================
[1] "The Church never condemned it (the Copernican system) at all, for
the Qualifiers of the Holy Office never mean the Church."
[von Gebler ("Galileo Galilei")]
[..]
You should not continue to add to your own dishonest stupidity.
Trusting your source was obviously a stupid thing to do, and trying to
continue to support that source was just stupid and dishonest.
Ron Okimoto
On Sun, 3 May 2026 16:02:43 -0500, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com> wrote:
On 5/3/2026 11:52 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Sun, 3 May 2026 08:49:05 -0500, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com> wrote:
On 5/3/2026 3:29 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
[rCa]
You have to be some type of dishonest clown. The first wiki is not the >>>>>> one that you ran from when it did not support your version of events, so >>>>>> it is no defense as to why you ran from the evidence years ago. The >>>>>> second wiki is likely the one that I cited, but it has been edited since >>>>>> I used it.
Is there no end to your foolishness? What I quoted from the article
has NOT been edited. You kicked of this argument about heresy back on >>>>> 9th Aug 2020 when you cited an idiotic post by an anonymous blogger
who tried to argue that heresy was and still is a heresy and the
Catholic Church is still geocentric. Here is a link to the Wayback
Machine copy of the Wiki article on 6th Aug 2020, just 3 days before >>>>> your post. It says exactly what I quoted above.
What a clown. I was just claiming that the page looked different from >>>> years ago. You still quote mined the document. The editing had nothing >>>> to do with your quote mining.
That is a perfect example of the sort of behaviour you have been up to
in this discussion.
You are currently running and prevaricating to what you have
consistently brought into this argument. Your sources have always been
the deficient ones
As summarised below, you are the one producing sources that don't say
what you claim they said; you are the one trying to run and hide by
reposting reams of previous posts including the ones where you have
claimed Wiki said things that it did not say.
[ big snip of obfuscation attempt]
You persistently claimed the Wiki article said that Galileo faced a
heresy charge in 1616 even though I told you repeatedly that it
didn't.
I quoted the article to show that it said no such thing and you
claimed that somebody had edited it since you used it.
I used the Wayback Machine to show that it hadn't been edited and you
tried to deny you had said it was edited, that you only claimed it
"looked different" even though your exact words are preserved above.
Please, just man up and admit you read the article wrong instead of
making such an embarrassing show of yourself.
Let's make it clear, Ron. Do you still claim that your Wiki source
says Galileo faced a heresy charge in 1616?
On Sun, 22 Feb 2026 13:40:10 -0600, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>what you
wrote:
On 2/22/2026 10:18 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Sat, 21 Feb 2026 12:44:57 -0600, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>
wrote:
On 2/21/2026 11:59 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
What documents are you talking about that you keep saying the Jesuits
put up?
You can keep lying about what has been discussed, but you know
was notdid. You need to be the one that finds it and satisfy yourself with
what you did.
You put up your source lying about heliocentrism never being condemned
by anyone but the Inquisition. You claimed that the Inquisition
ordered bythe Church. I put up the Jesuit Observatory claim that the Papal
offices had condemned heliocentrism and this condemnation was
sources havethe Pope. They put up the relevant document and stated what the Pope
did. Your source was caught lying and you ran. Go find it. It is
something that you should do because you will uncover all your other
evasions on this issue while doing it. Your quotes of your
always come up short. The sources that you claim are unreliable, have
repeatedly been shown to be more reliable than what you come up with.
Oh, you mean the link you gave back in November, this one:
https://www.vaticanobservatory.org/sacred-space-astronomy/heliocentrism-condemned-400-years-ago-on-march-5-2/
The one where they posted the full 1616 decree on it's 400th
anniversary and commented:
<quote>
The formulation here is much milder than the one found in the working
document of February 24. The Decree talks about the "false Pythagorean
doctrine" and declare it "altogether contrary to the Holy Scripture".
This is not nearly as harsh as "foolish and absurd" philosophically,
and "formally heretical" because contrary to Scripture.
</quote>
How fucking dense can you be? It doesn't get much stupider than
posting something that contradicts what you are claiming.
If I am the dense one why did you run from what they admitted about the
document?
LOL, you post something that you think supports your claim but
actually rejects it and the best defence you can offer is to accuse me
of running away from it.
The Pope did condemn heliocentrism.
Beats me why you keep repeating this. The Pope did not personally
condemn heliocentrism, he allowed the Inquisition's condemnation of it
to be made public - that did not make it a heresy.
That is what your side was lying
about.
The only one telling lies here is you. For example, when you keep
insisting that all the "anti-geocentrists" in the Catholic
Encyclopaedia article agree with you that heliocentrism was a heresy
when they all say explicitly that it wasn't. Your lie is underlined by
the fact that you can't produce identify any source that agrees that heliocentrism was a heresy except your geocentrist mentors.
reality.It doesn't matter that the final wording was milder than the
initial draft. They admit that the Pope condemned heliocentrism, and
supported using the Council of Trent's scriptural interpretation on the
matter. It doesn't matter what it was called because the authors and
books are named. You ran from this link because your source was found
to have lied about heliocentrism never having been condemned except by
the Inquisition. The Pope obviously represents the Church and condemned
heliocentrism. He supported the Inquisition in 1616, and their
additions to the Index in order to protect against heresy. The books
would not have been added to the Index if they were not considered to be
heretical. The document even talks about the heretical parts of the
books, and indicates that after one of them is rewritten, so that it is
not against scripture, that it can be removed from the Index.
Keep lying to yourself about the issue. It isn't going to change
The Inquisition made heliocentrism a formal heresy in 1615-1616.
The decree is given in full on the Vatican Observatory site that you
tried to claim supports you and the word 'heresy' or 'heretical' does
not even appear in it.
They
did this because of their interpretation of scripture as the Council of
Trent had decided.
The decree doesn't make any reference whatsoever to Trent regarding interpretation of scripture; the one and only reference is to the *punishment* under Trent for disobeying the decree.
They added heliocentric writings to the Index,
They declare that "the books by Nicolaus Copernicus (On the
Revolutions of Spheres) and by Diego de Zu|#iga (On Job) be suspended
until corrected".
I've given details of the required corrections to Revolutions in a
different post to Harshman and they are all minor edits - not one of
them makes any change to the core principle of heliocentrism. A rather
weird declaration of heresy that allows Copernicus's book supporting
it to be published with minor edits that don't undermine his
proposition.
and
had their first encounter with Galileo. The Pope agreed with them and
condemned heliocentrism, and agreed with their additions to the Index of
banned writings.
Before your source lied about "never being condemned" the Pope's
involvement in 1616 was not an issue between the geocentric and
anti-geocentric Catholics in terms of what you were lying about at the
time. Both sides agreed that it was a formal heresy charge faced by
Galileo in 1615-1616. They disagreed about it being a formal heresy
charge the second time because it was only written up as "heresy" and
not formal heresy in the sentencing. It remained a heresy charge.
You obviously struggle with grasping that a *charge* does not make
someone guilty. I hope I'm never on trial for something I didn't do
with you on the jury.
The
Pope had the Galileo case, sentencing, and punishment published and
distributed throughout the Church in order to quash the heliocentric
heresy, but the guys that want to maintain Papal infallibility claim
that that was not an official Papal action. They admitted that there
was an issue with helicentrism at the time, but they do not want the
Pope to have been on the wrong side of the issue.
You need to deal with reality.
I think it's very clear who has the problem with accepting reality and
it's not me.
It is well understood that the Bible is
just wrong about a lot of things that we can figure out for ourselves.
Your own quotes from Pope Francis makes that claim. The Bible can be
misinterpreted because the author's understanding of the creation was
faulty. Francis knows that the universe was not created in 6 magic
episodes. Only those in complete denial do not understand that the
order of creation described in the Bible is wrong. There are still
young earth, old earth day for agers, geocentric, and flat earth
Biblical creationists because they are in the same type of denial that
you are in. There are just different levels of denial.
Ron Okimoto
On 5/4/2026 2:45 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Sun, 3 May 2026 16:02:43 -0500, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com> wrote:
On 5/3/2026 11:52 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Sun, 3 May 2026 08:49:05 -0500, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>
On 5/3/2026 3:29 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
[rCa]
You have to be some type of dishonest clown. The first wiki is not the >>>>>>> one that you ran from when it did not support your version of events, so
it is no defense as to why you ran from the evidence years ago. The >>>>>>> second wiki is likely the one that I cited, but it has been edited since
I used it.
Is there no end to your foolishness? What I quoted from the article >>>>>> has NOT been edited. You kicked of this argument about heresy back on >>>>>> 9th Aug 2020 when you cited an idiotic post by an anonymous blogger >>>>>> who tried to argue that heresy was and still is a heresy and the
Catholic Church is still geocentric. Here is a link to the Wayback >>>>>> Machine copy of the Wiki article on 6th Aug 2020, just 3 days before >>>>>> your post. It says exactly what I quoted above.
What a clown. I was just claiming that the page looked different from >>>>> years ago. You still quote mined the document. The editing had nothing >>>>> to do with your quote mining.
That is a perfect example of the sort of behaviour you have been up to >>>> in this discussion.
You are currently running and prevaricating to what you have
consistently brought into this argument. Your sources have always been
the deficient ones
As summarised below, you are the one producing sources that don't say
what you claim they said; you are the one trying to run and hide by
reposting reams of previous posts including the ones where you have
claimed Wiki said things that it did not say.
[ big snip of obfuscation attempt]
You persistently claimed the Wiki article said that Galileo faced a
heresy charge in 1616 even though I told you repeatedly that it
didn't.
I quoted the article to show that it said no such thing and you
claimed that somebody had edited it since you used it.
I used the Wayback Machine to show that it hadn't been edited and you
tried to deny you had said it was edited, that you only claimed it
"looked different" even though your exact words are preserved above.
Please, just man up and admit you read the article wrong instead of
making such an embarrassing show of yourself.
Let's make it clear, Ron. Do you still claim that your Wiki source
says Galileo faced a heresy charge in 1616?
There is nothing that I have to do in order to demonstrate that you have >been lying about this situation for years, and every time that you come
back to lie about it, you end up running from what you do. Just the
fact that you cannot deal with the REPOSTS that you have consistently >snipped out and run from demonstrates that this has always been true and >continues to be true.
END REPOST:
END REPOST of the REPOST:
END of first of two REPOSTS:
Ron Okimoto
On Mon, 4 May 2026 09:40:07 -0500
RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com> wrote:
[47k deleted]
Please don't do this, no-one; especially you opponent, is going to read
all that. Also it's not about origins any more, it's about what
catholic orthodoxy was several centuries ago. You might even be right;
but it's all got too personal.
Please let it go.
Or keep going nowhere. Both of you.
>
END REPOST:
END REPOST of the REPOST:
END of first of two REPOSTS:
Ron Okimoto
On Mon, 4 May 2026 09:40:07 -0500, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com> wrote:
On 5/4/2026 2:45 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Sun, 3 May 2026 16:02:43 -0500, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com> wrote:
On 5/3/2026 11:52 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Sun, 3 May 2026 08:49:05 -0500, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>
On 5/3/2026 3:29 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
[rCa]
You have to be some type of dishonest clown. The first wiki is not the
one that you ran from when it did not support your version of events, so
it is no defense as to why you ran from the evidence years ago. The >>>>>>>> second wiki is likely the one that I cited, but it has been edited since
I used it.
Is there no end to your foolishness? What I quoted from the article >>>>>>> has NOT been edited. You kicked of this argument about heresy back on >>>>>>> 9th Aug 2020 when you cited an idiotic post by an anonymous blogger >>>>>>> who tried to argue that heresy was and still is a heresy and the >>>>>>> Catholic Church is still geocentric. Here is a link to the Wayback >>>>>>> Machine copy of the Wiki article on 6th Aug 2020, just 3 days before >>>>>>> your post. It says exactly what I quoted above.
What a clown. I was just claiming that the page looked different from >>>>>> years ago. You still quote mined the document. The editing had nothing >>>>>> to do with your quote mining.
That is a perfect example of the sort of behaviour you have been up to >>>>> in this discussion.
You are currently running and prevaricating to what you have
consistently brought into this argument. Your sources have always been >>>> the deficient ones
As summarised below, you are the one producing sources that don't say
what you claim they said; you are the one trying to run and hide by
reposting reams of previous posts including the ones where you have
claimed Wiki said things that it did not say.
[ big snip of obfuscation attempt]
You persistently claimed the Wiki article said that Galileo faced a
heresy charge in 1616 even though I told you repeatedly that it
didn't.
I quoted the article to show that it said no such thing and you
claimed that somebody had edited it since you used it.
I used the Wayback Machine to show that it hadn't been edited and you >>>>> tried to deny you had said it was edited, that you only claimed it
"looked different" even though your exact words are preserved above. >>>>>
Please, just man up and admit you read the article wrong instead of
making such an embarrassing show of yourself.
Let's make it clear, Ron. Do you still claim that your Wiki source
says Galileo faced a heresy charge in 1616?
There is nothing that I have to do in order to demonstrate that you have
been lying about this situation for years, and every time that you come
back to lie about it, you end up running from what you do. Just the
fact that you cannot deal with the REPOSTS that you have consistently
snipped out and run from demonstrates that this has always been true and
continues to be true.
Your refusal to answer is an answer. It shows that you realise that
you got this completely wrong but aren't man enough to admit it. The
question now is, do you want to discreetly retire from your other
stupid claims, or do I have to go through them in the same way, one by
one to show how then they are also wrong?
[snip more reams of puerile attempt at obfuscation]
On Sun, 22 Feb 2026 13:40:10 -0600, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>what you
wrote:
On 2/22/2026 10:18 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Sat, 21 Feb 2026 12:44:57 -0600, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>
wrote:
On 2/21/2026 11:59 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
What documents are you talking about that you keep saying the Jesuits
put up?
You can keep lying about what has been discussed, but you know
was notdid. You need to be the one that finds it and satisfy yourself with
what you did.
You put up your source lying about heliocentrism never being condemned
by anyone but the Inquisition. You claimed that the Inquisition
ordered bythe Church. I put up the Jesuit Observatory claim that the Papal
offices had condemned heliocentrism and this condemnation was
sources havethe Pope. They put up the relevant document and stated what the Pope
did. Your source was caught lying and you ran. Go find it. It is
something that you should do because you will uncover all your other
evasions on this issue while doing it. Your quotes of your
always come up short. The sources that you claim are unreliable, have
repeatedly been shown to be more reliable than what you come up with.
Oh, you mean the link you gave back in November, this one:
https://www.vaticanobservatory.org/sacred-space-astronomy/heliocentrism-condemned-400-years-ago-on-march-5-2/
The one where they posted the full 1616 decree on it's 400th
anniversary and commented:
<quote>
The formulation here is much milder than the one found in the working
document of February 24. The Decree talks about the "false Pythagorean
doctrine" and declare it "altogether contrary to the Holy Scripture".
This is not nearly as harsh as "foolish and absurd" philosophically,
and "formally heretical" because contrary to Scripture.
</quote>
How fucking dense can you be? It doesn't get much stupider than
posting something that contradicts what you are claiming.
If I am the dense one why did you run from what they admitted about the
document?
LOL, you post something that you think supports your claim but
actually rejects it and the best defence you can offer is to accuse me
of running away from it.
The Pope did condemn heliocentrism.
Beats me why you keep repeating this. The Pope did not personally
condemn heliocentrism, he allowed the Inquisition's condemnation of it
to be made public - that did not make it a heresy.
That is what your side was lying
about.
The only one telling lies here is you. For example, when you keep
insisting that all the "anti-geocentrists" in the Catholic
Encyclopaedia article agree with you that heliocentrism was a heresy
when they all say explicitly that it wasn't. Your lie is underlined by
the fact that you can't produce identify any source that agrees that heliocentrism was a heresy except your geocentrist mentors.
reality.It doesn't matter that the final wording was milder than the
initial draft. They admit that the Pope condemned heliocentrism, and
supported using the Council of Trent's scriptural interpretation on the
matter. It doesn't matter what it was called because the authors and
books are named. You ran from this link because your source was found
to have lied about heliocentrism never having been condemned except by
the Inquisition. The Pope obviously represents the Church and condemned
heliocentrism. He supported the Inquisition in 1616, and their
additions to the Index in order to protect against heresy. The books
would not have been added to the Index if they were not considered to be
heretical. The document even talks about the heretical parts of the
books, and indicates that after one of them is rewritten, so that it is
not against scripture, that it can be removed from the Index.
Keep lying to yourself about the issue. It isn't going to change
The Inquisition made heliocentrism a formal heresy in 1615-1616.
The decree is given in full on the Vatican Observatory site that you
tried to claim supports you and the word 'heresy' or 'heretical' does
not even appear in it.
They
did this because of their interpretation of scripture as the Council of
Trent had decided.
The decree doesn't make any reference whatsoever to Trent regarding interpretation of scripture; the one and only reference is to the *punishment* under Trent for disobeying the decree.
They added heliocentric writings to the Index,
They declare that "the books by Nicolaus Copernicus (On the
Revolutions of Spheres) and by Diego de Zu|#iga (On Job) be suspended
until corrected".
I've given details of the required corrections to Revolutions in a
different post to Harshman and they are all minor edits - not one of
them makes any change to the core principle of heliocentrism. A rather
weird declaration of heresy that allows Copernicus's book supporting
it to be published with minor edits that don't undermine his
proposition.
and
had their first encounter with Galileo. The Pope agreed with them and
condemned heliocentrism, and agreed with their additions to the Index of
banned writings.
Before your source lied about "never being condemned" the Pope's
involvement in 1616 was not an issue between the geocentric and
anti-geocentric Catholics in terms of what you were lying about at the
time. Both sides agreed that it was a formal heresy charge faced by
Galileo in 1615-1616. They disagreed about it being a formal heresy
charge the second time because it was only written up as "heresy" and
not formal heresy in the sentencing. It remained a heresy charge.
You obviously struggle with grasping that a *charge* does not make
someone guilty. I hope I'm never on trial for something I didn't do
with you on the jury.
The
Pope had the Galileo case, sentencing, and punishment published and
distributed throughout the Church in order to quash the heliocentric
heresy, but the guys that want to maintain Papal infallibility claim
that that was not an official Papal action. They admitted that there
was an issue with helicentrism at the time, but they do not want the
Pope to have been on the wrong side of the issue.
You need to deal with reality.
I think it's very clear who has the problem with accepting reality and
it's not me.
It is well understood that the Bible is
just wrong about a lot of things that we can figure out for ourselves.
Your own quotes from Pope Francis makes that claim. The Bible can be
misinterpreted because the author's understanding of the creation was
faulty. Francis knows that the universe was not created in 6 magic
episodes. Only those in complete denial do not understand that the
order of creation described in the Bible is wrong. There are still
young earth, old earth day for agers, geocentric, and flat earth
Biblical creationists because they are in the same type of denial that
you are in. There are just different levels of denial.
Ron Okimoto
On Mon, 4 May 2026 09:40:07 -0500, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com> wrote:
On 5/4/2026 2:45 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Sun, 3 May 2026 16:02:43 -0500, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com> wrote:
On 5/3/2026 11:52 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Sun, 3 May 2026 08:49:05 -0500, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>
On 5/3/2026 3:29 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
[rCa]
You have to be some type of dishonest clown. The first wiki is not the
one that you ran from when it did not support your version of events, so
it is no defense as to why you ran from the evidence years ago. The >>>>>>>> second wiki is likely the one that I cited, but it has been edited since
I used it.
Is there no end to your foolishness? What I quoted from the article >>>>>>> has NOT been edited. You kicked of this argument about heresy back on >>>>>>> 9th Aug 2020 when you cited an idiotic post by an anonymous blogger >>>>>>> who tried to argue that heresy was and still is a heresy and the >>>>>>> Catholic Church is still geocentric. Here is a link to the Wayback >>>>>>> Machine copy of the Wiki article on 6th Aug 2020, just 3 days before >>>>>>> your post. It says exactly what I quoted above.
What a clown. I was just claiming that the page looked different from >>>>>> years ago. You still quote mined the document. The editing had nothing >>>>>> to do with your quote mining.
That is a perfect example of the sort of behaviour you have been up to >>>>> in this discussion.
You are currently running and prevaricating to what you have
consistently brought into this argument. Your sources have always been >>>> the deficient ones
As summarised below, you are the one producing sources that don't say
what you claim they said; you are the one trying to run and hide by
reposting reams of previous posts including the ones where you have
claimed Wiki said things that it did not say.
[ big snip of obfuscation attempt]
You persistently claimed the Wiki article said that Galileo faced a
heresy charge in 1616 even though I told you repeatedly that it
didn't.
I quoted the article to show that it said no such thing and you
claimed that somebody had edited it since you used it.
I used the Wayback Machine to show that it hadn't been edited and you >>>>> tried to deny you had said it was edited, that you only claimed it
"looked different" even though your exact words are preserved above. >>>>>
Please, just man up and admit you read the article wrong instead of
making such an embarrassing show of yourself.
Let's make it clear, Ron. Do you still claim that your Wiki source
says Galileo faced a heresy charge in 1616?
There is nothing that I have to do in order to demonstrate that you have
been lying about this situation for years, and every time that you come
back to lie about it, you end up running from what you do. Just the
fact that you cannot deal with the REPOSTS that you have consistently
snipped out and run from demonstrates that this has always been true and
continues to be true.
Your refusal to answer is an answer. It shows that you realise that
you got this completely wrong but aren't man enough to admit it. The
question now is, do you want to discreetly retire from your other
stupid claims, or do I have to go through them in the same way, one by
one to show how then they are also wrong?
[snip more reams of puerile attempt at obfuscation]
On Thu, 30 Apr 2026 08:49:48 -0500, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>insane.
wrote:
On 4/30/2026 5:44 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Wed, 29 Apr 2026 19:41:58 -0500, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>
wrote:
On 4/29/2026 1:13 PM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Wed, 29 Apr 2026 12:43:53 -0500, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>
wrote:
[...]
Snipping and lying about what you have done is just stupid and
snipped and
Not as stupid and insane as making a claim you can't support. C'mon,
Ron, give the link to the Wiki article that says Galileo faced a
heresy charge in 1616 rCa surely it can't be that difficult.
[snip desperation attempt to avoid issue]
What a lying asshole. This is the second time that you have
run from what you have lied about as being handwaving.
C'mon Ron, no need to repost 7000 words that nobody wants to read. All
that's needed to show me to be the lying asshole, not you, is a simple
quote from the Wiki article that says what you insist it says. A dozen
or so words should cover it or even a simple URL. Can't be that hard
can it?
[...]
You need to stop harassing me with your stupid lies about the past.
I'll gladly stop harassing you when you either give a specific example
of a lie told by either me or those I cited in support. Or else
withdraw your own stupid lies.
On Mon, 20 Apr 2026 13:40:43 -0500, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>are lying".
wrote:
On 4/20/2026 4:08 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Sat, 18 Apr 2026 12:06:53 -0500, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>
wrote:
On 4/18/2026 6:24 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Wed, 15 Apr 2026 14:31:27 -0500, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>
wrote:
On 4/15/2026 11:36 AM, Martin Harran wrote:[rCa]
On Wed, 15 Apr 2026 16:59:56 +0100, "Kerr-Mudd, John"
No one is going to convince an opponent by stating that "they
(no matterand probably not by constant repetition of the same arguments
reality,how valid) that failed to get through the first 50 times.
Tell that to RonO, he's the one who keeps calling everyone who
disagrees with him a liar.
Who got caught lying and quote mining? You need to deal with
short?and quit lying about it. Lying about me is just so stupid that it is
pretty much insane. You have always lied about the sources that you
could not deal honestly with. Who's sources have always come up
matched byLook at what you are doing now. Is there any excuse for you not dealing
with your own stupid dishonest behavior?
The tiresomeness of you continually claiming that my sources were
caught lying and that I have been lying and quote mining is
beenthe tiresomeness of your inability to ever identify what lie my
sources were caught in, what lies I have told or where I have quote
mined.
[... more big snip ...]
Why keep lying about what your sources did and what you did? That is
just stupid and dishonest. Just look up your past posts to determine
for yourself what went down. You tried to lie about my sources being
deficient when your sources had always come up short or even supported
my sources by putting up the lame lie that heliocentrism had never
samecondemned other then by the inquisition. It was stupid because it did
not negate what you and your sources had been wrong about. It turned
out that your source was lying and you ran. You ran twice from the
whatevidence that your source was lying. You tried to come back with your
lame quote mining efforts and trying to distract the argument from
it had been. You did that, and your source was demonstrated to have
lied about the issue. You need to go back and deal with what you did.
An appology for your disgraceful behavior would be in order. Just try
not to do it again. Continuing to lie about what happened is just
adding to how low you needed to go.
Yet again, you make all sorts of accusations without a single example
of something to support them.
What I cannot figure out is whether you just can't grasp that your
failure to produce a single example of supporting evidence portrays
*you* as the one telling lies; or whether you do grasp it and just
don't care; or whether, like a certain President, you think that if
you repeat a lie enough times that someone will eventually believe it.
You should apologize for what you have been doing and stop doing it. I
found the posts where you ran from your source having been caught lying,
you then snipped the evidence out of your response to your running.
The thread: There is no legitimate scientific support for the ID scam.
I can post your quote mining attempts and other stupid behavior that you
resorted to to defend your running and defense of your bogus source.
So why don't you instead of talking about it?
Specific examples, please, not reams and reams of obfuscatory cut'n
paste.
On Sun, 16 Nov 2025 18:25:18 -0600, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>claiming you
wrote:
On 11/16/2025 4:40 PM, Martin Harran wrote:[rCa]
The links that I put up were from the Catholics that continue to be
geocentric creationists, and the Catholics that are trying to refute
them. Both sides do not agree with you. What does your continued
denial of reality tell you?
You gave no such links. All you have to do to prove me wrong is give
them again.
Do you not see how stupid you are making yourself look by
gave links but cannot repeat them?
Why lie about something so stupid. One of the links was your own
trusted Catholic site, and you initially gave that link.
That was this site:
https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/06342b.htm
The one where the Catholic Church states:
" In thus acting, it is undeniable that the ecclesiastical authorities
committed a grave and deplorable error, and sanctioned an altogether
false principle as to the proper use of Scripture."
The one that cites Professor Augustus De Morgan (Budget of Paradoxes)
declaring
"It is clear that the absurdity was the act of the Italian
Inquisition, for the private and personal pleasure of the pope - who
knew that the course he took could not convict him as pope - and not
of the body which calls itself the Church."
The one that cites von Gebler ("Galileo Galilei"):
"The Church never condemned it (the Copernican system) at all, for the
Qualifiers of the Holy Office never mean the Church."
It beats me how you figure out that site and the people referred to in
it somehow back your claim that heliocentrism really was a heresy. I
guess you have to convince yourself in order to maintain your delusion
as you clearly can't find a reputable source that actually does back
you up.
Yes, everyone admits that they were wrong about geocentrism except for
the Catholics that are still geocentrics. This source called what
Galileo faced both times a charge of heresy. They did not make a
distinction between formal heresy and heresy like the anti geocentric
site, but it was still a heresy.
What part of "The Church never condemned it (the Copernican system) at
all" did you not understand?
The only place that formal comes into all this is in the judgement
issued after Galileo's first trial where the verdict stated that the proposition that the Sun is stationary at the centre of the universe
is "foolish and absurd in philosophy, and formally heretical since it explicitly contradicts in many places the sense of Holy Scripture".
That, however, is t the Catholic Encyclopaedia refers to where it
says:
"it is undeniable that the ecclesiastical authorities committed a
grave and deplorable error, and sanctioned an altogether false
principle as to the proper use of Scripture."
Note also that the words "formally heretical" are wrong - I'm not sure whether it was the Inquisition using weasel words or whether it was a
bad translation from the Latin.
The word "heresy" can be used in two ways; it can apply to the
rejection of a specific doctrine of the Church or it can refer to the
act of committing heresy. The word "formal" applies to the latter -
the act of committing heresy - and is used to categorise the degree of
guilt of the person committing the heresy. "Formal heresy" means they
knew they were going against doctrine and are therefore guilty of
mortal sin; "material heresy" means they did not know they were going against doctrine so they are not guilty sin.
It's a bit like first degree versus second degree murder and Galileo's
trial was like him being charged with first-degree murder without a
murder being established in the first place.
The Inquisition made it into a formal heresy after the Council of Trent.
They were supposedly wrong, and a couple centuries later things got
reversed to what they had been at the time that the findings of the
Council of Trent were published.
The holy office (the inquisition) had Galileo facing a formal heresy
charge in his first encounter. When the pope got involved they just did
not call it a formal heresy in the sentencing. Galileo's views were
still condemned. They claimed that Galileo was facing a charge of
heresy. His heliocentric notions were still considered to be heresy and
the heresy that he was guilty of was clearly defined in the sentencing.
The anti geocentrics admitted that the pope had the Galileo case
published and disseminated throughout the church in order to quash the
heliocentric notions that were becoming an issue for the church. They
just want to claim that, that was not an official act. That is just
stupid. The pope did it for known reasons, and who cares if they want
to plead that he was not acting as pope?
There is no doubt that the actors were wrong, and that is the issue.
They do not want it to reflect on papal infallibility. That in itself
should be considered to be a non scriptural unjustifiable claim.
The Inquisition had Copernican writings banned and made heliocentrism
into a formal heresy because all the church fathers were geocentrics,
and that meant that Copernicans were in conflict with the beliefs of the
church fathers. Both the geocentric Catholics and the anti geocentric
Catholics claim that the Inquisition did this because of what the church
came up with at the Council of Trent where they made the beliefs of the
church fathers as a legitimate and necessary authority for interpreting
scripture. Both Catholic sides of the geocentric issue understand this
to be true.
QUOTE:
Council of Trent
Session IV, April 8, 1546, Decree Concerning the Edition and the Use of
the Sacred Books:
... "Furthermore, in order to restrain petulant spirits, it [the Council
of Trent] decrees that no one, relying on his own skill, shall,-in
matters of faith, and of morals pertaining to the edification of
Christian doctrine,-wresting the sacred Scriptures to his own senses,
presume to interpret the said sacred Scripture contrary to that sense
which holy Mother Church-to whom it belongs to judge of the true sense
and interpretation of the Holy Scriptures-hath held and doth hold; or
even contrary to the unanimous consent of the Fathers; even though such
interpretations were never (intended) to be at any time published.
Contraveners shall be made known by their Ordinaries and be punished
with the penalties by law established."
END QUOTE:
https://www.biblelightinfo.com/unanimous-consent.htm
Both Catholic sides of the issue claim that the Council of Trent caused
the Inquisition to ban Copernican writings and start treating
heliocentrism as a formal heresy because it went against the geocentric
beliefs of the church fathers.
You are taking all that crap from your geocentric hero; if you want to persist in taking his opinion against that of the Church's own
theologians then that is you just acting like Spikes rejecting the
opinion of scientists in favour of people who play to his confirmation
bias.
It was a mistake and the actors were in error only because of our
current understanding of nature. The Pope was wrong about it. He was
one of the mistaken actors.
The Pope was not a "mistaken actor", he was pissed off with Galileo presenting the Pope's views as those of a simpleton and misused his
powers to hit back at Galileo. Again, the Catholic Encyclopaedia
spells that explicitly:
"It is clear that the absurdity was the act of the Italian
Inquisition, for the private and personal pleasure of the pope - who
knew that the course he took could not convict him as pope - and not
of the body which calls itself the Church."
The Galileo affair was a shameful episode in the Church's history but
was all about the animosity between the Pope and Galileo, it had
nothing to do with heliocentrism being a heresy, that was just the
vehicle that the Pope used to attack Galileo.
On Mon, 17 Nov 2025 14:40:05 -0600, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>
wrote:
On 11/17/2025 11:45 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Mon, 17 Nov 2025 09:57:31 -0600, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>
wrote:
[...]
Oops, the Pope was not infallible.
So papal infallibility is another thing you don't understand.
I am just repeating what the anti geocentrist want to claim about it.
The "anti-geocentrists" of whom you cannot identify even one. Mind
you, when you first brought in the website of your geocentrist mentor,
it was anonymous and you didn't even know who the author was until I
figured out; the fact that he is a declared geocentrist and you knew
nothing about him didn't stop you placing high value on his opinions
and continuing to do so.
Weird to say the least.
[...]
On Wed, 19 Nov 2025 14:55:52 -0600, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>
wrote:
On 11/19/2025 12:01 PM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Mon, 17 Nov 2025 14:40:05 -0600, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>
wrote:
On 11/17/2025 11:45 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Mon, 17 Nov 2025 09:57:31 -0600, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>
wrote:
[...]
Oops, the Pope was not infallible.
So papal infallibility is another thing you don't understand.
I am just repeating what the anti geocentrist want to claim about it.
The "anti-geocentrists" of whom you cannot identify even one. Mind
you, when you first brought in the website of your geocentrist mentor,
it was anonymous and you didn't even know who the author was until I
figured out; the fact that he is a declared geocentrist and you knew
nothing about him didn't stop you placing high value on his opinions
and continuing to do so.
Weird to say the least.
[...]
You were given the links before,
Nope
so stop lying about it. Why should I
look up that junk again.
So you can prove I'm lying. But you can't because I'm not lying, you
gave no links except to the geocentrist idiot whose opinion you value
so highly.
You just denied that it was valid and kept
lying. Even your own trusted source backed up the anti geocentric site.
The anti geocentrists were on your side in terms of denying that it
was a formal heresy that Galileo faced the second time, but they agreed
with the geocentrists that the Inquisition had made it a formal heresy
charge the first time Galileo faced it and agreed with the Wiki. The
Vatican Observatory article that you have run from and snipped out of
this post backs up the geocentrists and anti geocentrists.
Just stop lying about the issue.
https://www.vaticanobservatory.org/sacred-space-astronomy/heliocentrism-condemned-400-years-ago-on-march-5-2/
They admit that helicentrism was condemned 400 years ago. 1616 is when
Galileo faced the formal heresy charge.
They do not consider the heresy cases, but they were based upon the
Inquisitions opinion of the topic.
Your claim of "never" having been condemned seems to be a lie.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galileo_Galilei
QUOTE:
In February 1616, an Inquisitorial commission declared heliocentrism to
be "foolish and absurd in philosophy, and formally heretical since it
explicitly contradicts in many places the sense of Holy Scripture".
END QUOTE:
Now YOU are the one lying about me. I never said it was never
condemned; on the contrary, I gave that exact same quote. What I did
was to point out that what it said was a FALSE CLAIM and it wasn't me
who came to that conclusion, it was the Catholic Church who came to
it, supported by every historian I know of who investigated it, people
like De Morgan and von Gebler. The only person I have ever known to
say there actually was a heresy is the geocentrist idiot whose opinion
you value so highly.
Both the geocentrists that you don't like, and the anti geocentric
catholics that do not agree with geocentric beliefs agreed that it was a
formal heresy charge the first time that Galileo faced the issue.
Now you seem to be trying to worm your way out of it by admitting
there was a *charge* without retracting that there was an actual
heresy which is what you have been claiming all long.
You can't just keep refusing to deal with reality and expect anything to
change.
You can't keep claiming support from "anti-geocentrists" about
heliocentrism having been an actual heresy without being able to
identify even one and expect people to take you seriously.
On Thu, 20 Nov 2025 09:38:56 -0600, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>heliocentrism to
wrote:
On 11/20/2025 4:47 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Wed, 19 Nov 2025 14:55:52 -0600, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>
wrote:
[snip for focus]
Your claim of "never" having been condemned seems to be a lie.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galileo_Galilei
QUOTE:
In February 1616, an Inquisitorial commission declared
be "foolish and absurd in philosophy, and formally heretical since it
explicitly contradicts in many places the sense of Holy Scripture".
END QUOTE:
Now YOU are the one lying about me. I never said it was never
condemned; on the contrary, I gave that exact same quote. What I did
was to point out that what it said was a FALSE CLAIM and it wasn't me
who came to that conclusion, it was the Catholic Church who came to
it, supported by every historian I know of who investigated it, people
like De Morgan and von Gebler. The only person I have ever known to
say there actually was a heresy is the geocentrist idiot whose opinion
you value so highly.
You put up the quote that said it had never been condemned. Go back up
and check. It was your quote.
Here is verbatim what I quoted:
Message-ID: 2gkkhk9bvctolude5jf6b6e0kothd5723d@4ax.com ========================================
<quote>
The [site] that cites von Gebler ("Galileo Galilei"):
"The Church never condemned it (the Copernican system) at all, for the Qualifiers of the Holy Office never mean the Church."
==========================================
#1: it was von Gebler who said rCLnever condemnedrCY, not me as you
claimed two posts ago.
#2 he did not say it was never condemned, he said *the Church* never condemned it.
Why do you post lies that are so easily shown to be lies?
On Fri, 21 Nov 2025 17:33:49 -0600, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>
wrote:
On 11/21/2025 12:29 PM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Fri, 21 Nov 2025 09:04:37 -0600, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>
wrote:
[rCa]
Let's cut to the chase here.
No lies to retract. You lied.
What lie are you claiming I told? Please quote exactly what I said
that you regard as a lie.
The ones that you keep telling.
"Never condemned"
I'm out of here. George Bernard Shaw warned that you shouldn't wrestle
with a pig as you get dirty and the pig enjoys it. I'm not going to
waste any more time trying to have a sensible discussion with someone
who thinks it's ok to take two words out of what somebody else said to
give a completely different meaning and then attribute those two words
to me. It doesn't even reach the level of quote-mining.
What beggars belief is that you do it where the exact quote from von
Gerber [1] and what I said about it are preserved just a couple of
posts above for all to see. As I noted earlier, it is really sad to
see this sort of behaviour from someone whose ability as a scientist I respect so much EfOU
===========================================
[1] "The Church never condemned it (the Copernican system) at all, for
the Qualifiers of the Holy Office never mean the Church."
[von Gebler ("Galileo Galilei")]
[..]
You should not continue to add to your own dishonest stupidity.
Trusting your source was obviously a stupid thing to do, and trying to
continue to support that source was just stupid and dishonest.
Ron Okimoto
On 5/5/2026 6:49 AM, Kerr-Mudd, John wrote:
On Mon, 4 May 2026 09:40:07 -0500I've already settled on my conclusion.-a It is Harran that keeps snipping and running from reality.-a Nothing is going to change from this point forward until Harran wants to stop lying about the past.
RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com> wrote:
[47k deleted]
Please don't do this, no-one; especially you opponent, is going to read
all that. Also it's not about origins any more, it's about what
catholic orthodoxy was several centuries ago. You might even be right;
but it's all got too personal.
Please let it go.
Or keep going nowhere. Both of you.
-a >
END REPOST:
END REPOST of the REPOST:
END of first of two REPOSTS:
Ron Okimoto
On 5/5/26 7:01 AM, RonO wrote:
On 5/5/2026 6:49 AM, Kerr-Mudd, John wrote:
On Mon, 4 May 2026 09:40:07 -0500I've already settled on my conclusion.-a It is Harran that keeps
RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com> wrote:
[47k deleted]
Please don't do this, no-one; especially you opponent, is going to read
all that. Also it's not about origins any more, it's about what
catholic orthodoxy was several centuries ago. You might even be right;
but it's all got too personal.
Please let it go.
Or keep going nowhere. Both of you.
-a >
END REPOST:
END REPOST of the REPOST:
END of first of two REPOSTS:
Ron Okimoto
snipping and running from reality.-a Nothing is going to change from
this point forward until Harran wants to stop lying about the past.
Apparently, "Nothing is going to change" includes RonO continuing to
make post after post that he knows won't change anything.
On 5/5/2026 1:40 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Mon, 4 May 2026 09:40:07 -0500, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com> wrote:
On 5/4/2026 2:45 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
haveLet's make it clear, Ron. Do you still claim that your Wiki source
says Galileo faced a heresy charge in 1616?
There is nothing that I have to do in order to demonstrate that you
true andbeen lying about this situation for years, and every time that you come
back to lie about it, you end up running from what you do. Just the
fact that you cannot deal with the REPOSTS that you have consistently
snipped out and run from demonstrates that this has always been
continues to be true.
Your refusal to answer is an answer. It shows that you realise that
you got this completely wrong but aren't man enough to admit it. The
question now is, do you want to discreetly retire from your other
stupid claims, or do I have to go through them in the same way, one by
one to show how then they are also wrong?
[snip more reams of puerile attempt at obfuscation]
Let's make it very clear, Harran. You have lied about the situation for
years. Your sources have always come up short or supported what you
want to lie about.
On Mon, 4 May 2026 09:40:07 -0500
RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com> wrote:
[47k deleted]
Please don't do this, no-one; especially you opponent, is going to read
all that.
Also it's not about origins any more, it's about what
catholic orthodoxy was several centuries ago. You might even be right;
but it's all got too personal.
Please let it go.
Or keep going nowhere. Both of you.
END REPOST:
END REPOST of the REPOST:
END of first of two REPOSTS:
Ron Okimoto
On Tue, 5 May 2026 09:11:28 -0500, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com> wrote:
On 5/5/2026 1:40 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Mon, 4 May 2026 09:40:07 -0500, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com> wrote:
On 5/4/2026 2:45 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
[rCa]
comeLet's make it clear, Ron. Do you still claim that your Wiki source
says Galileo faced a heresy charge in 1616?
There is nothing that I have to do in order to demonstrate that you have
been lying about this situation for years, and every time that you
true andback to lie about it, you end up running from what you do.-a Just the
fact that you cannot deal with the REPOSTS that you have consistently
snipped out and run from demonstrates that this has always been
continues to be true.
Your refusal to answer is an answer. It shows that you realise that
you got this completely wrong but aren't man enough to admit it. The
question now is, do you want to discreetly retire from your other
stupid claims, or do I have to go through them in the same way, one by
one to show how then they are also wrong?
[snip more reams of puerile attempt at obfuscation]
Let's make it very clear, Harran.-a You have lied about the situation for
years.-a Your sources have always come up short or supported what you
want to lie about.
OK, you seem to recognise that you have nothing to support your claim
that Galileo was charged with heresy in 1616, so let's look now at
your persistent claim that "all anti-geocentrists" agree with you that heliocentrism was declared a heresy
On Thu, 30 Apr 2026 08:49:48 -0500, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>insane.
wrote:
On 4/30/2026 5:44 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Wed, 29 Apr 2026 19:41:58 -0500, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>
wrote:
On 4/29/2026 1:13 PM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Wed, 29 Apr 2026 12:43:53 -0500, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>
wrote:
[...]
Snipping and lying about what you have done is just stupid and
snipped and
Not as stupid and insane as making a claim you can't support. C'mon,
Ron, give the link to the Wiki article that says Galileo faced a
heresy charge in 1616 rCa surely it can't be that difficult.
[snip desperation attempt to avoid issue]
What a lying asshole. This is the second time that you have
run from what you have lied about as being handwaving.
C'mon Ron, no need to repost 7000 words that nobody wants to read. All
that's needed to show me to be the lying asshole, not you, is a simple
quote from the Wiki article that says what you insist it says. A dozen
or so words should cover it or even a simple URL. Can't be that hard
can it?
[...]
You need to stop harassing me with your stupid lies about the past.
I'll gladly stop harassing you when you either give a specific example
of a lie told by either me or those I cited in support. Or else
withdraw your own stupid lies.
On Mon, 20 Apr 2026 13:40:43 -0500, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>are lying".
wrote:
On 4/20/2026 4:08 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Sat, 18 Apr 2026 12:06:53 -0500, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>
wrote:
On 4/18/2026 6:24 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Wed, 15 Apr 2026 14:31:27 -0500, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>
wrote:
On 4/15/2026 11:36 AM, Martin Harran wrote:[rCa]
On Wed, 15 Apr 2026 16:59:56 +0100, "Kerr-Mudd, John"
No one is going to convince an opponent by stating that "they
(no matterand probably not by constant repetition of the same arguments
reality,how valid) that failed to get through the first 50 times.
Tell that to RonO, he's the one who keeps calling everyone who
disagrees with him a liar.
Who got caught lying and quote mining? You need to deal with
short?and quit lying about it. Lying about me is just so stupid that it is
pretty much insane. You have always lied about the sources that you
could not deal honestly with. Who's sources have always come up
matched byLook at what you are doing now. Is there any excuse for you not dealing
with your own stupid dishonest behavior?
The tiresomeness of you continually claiming that my sources were
caught lying and that I have been lying and quote mining is
beenthe tiresomeness of your inability to ever identify what lie my
sources were caught in, what lies I have told or where I have quote
mined.
[... more big snip ...]
Why keep lying about what your sources did and what you did? That is
just stupid and dishonest. Just look up your past posts to determine
for yourself what went down. You tried to lie about my sources being
deficient when your sources had always come up short or even supported
my sources by putting up the lame lie that heliocentrism had never
samecondemned other then by the inquisition. It was stupid because it did
not negate what you and your sources had been wrong about. It turned
out that your source was lying and you ran. You ran twice from the
whatevidence that your source was lying. You tried to come back with your
lame quote mining efforts and trying to distract the argument from
it had been. You did that, and your source was demonstrated to have
lied about the issue. You need to go back and deal with what you did.
An appology for your disgraceful behavior would be in order. Just try
not to do it again. Continuing to lie about what happened is just
adding to how low you needed to go.
Yet again, you make all sorts of accusations without a single example
of something to support them.
What I cannot figure out is whether you just can't grasp that your
failure to produce a single example of supporting evidence portrays
*you* as the one telling lies; or whether you do grasp it and just
don't care; or whether, like a certain President, you think that if
you repeat a lie enough times that someone will eventually believe it.
You should apologize for what you have been doing and stop doing it. I
found the posts where you ran from your source having been caught lying,
you then snipped the evidence out of your response to your running.
The thread: There is no legitimate scientific support for the ID scam.
I can post your quote mining attempts and other stupid behavior that you
resorted to to defend your running and defense of your bogus source.
So why don't you instead of talking about it?
Specific examples, please, not reams and reams of obfuscatory cut'n
paste.
On Sun, 16 Nov 2025 18:25:18 -0600, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>claiming you
wrote:
On 11/16/2025 4:40 PM, Martin Harran wrote:[rCa]
The links that I put up were from the Catholics that continue to be
geocentric creationists, and the Catholics that are trying to refute
them. Both sides do not agree with you. What does your continued
denial of reality tell you?
You gave no such links. All you have to do to prove me wrong is give
them again.
Do you not see how stupid you are making yourself look by
gave links but cannot repeat them?
Why lie about something so stupid. One of the links was your own
trusted Catholic site, and you initially gave that link.
That was this site:
https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/06342b.htm
The one where the Catholic Church states:
" In thus acting, it is undeniable that the ecclesiastical authorities
committed a grave and deplorable error, and sanctioned an altogether
false principle as to the proper use of Scripture."
The one that cites Professor Augustus De Morgan (Budget of Paradoxes)
declaring
"It is clear that the absurdity was the act of the Italian
Inquisition, for the private and personal pleasure of the pope - who
knew that the course he took could not convict him as pope - and not
of the body which calls itself the Church."
The one that cites von Gebler ("Galileo Galilei"):
"The Church never condemned it (the Copernican system) at all, for the
Qualifiers of the Holy Office never mean the Church."
It beats me how you figure out that site and the people referred to in
it somehow back your claim that heliocentrism really was a heresy. I
guess you have to convince yourself in order to maintain your delusion
as you clearly can't find a reputable source that actually does back
you up.
Yes, everyone admits that they were wrong about geocentrism except for
the Catholics that are still geocentrics. This source called what
Galileo faced both times a charge of heresy. They did not make a
distinction between formal heresy and heresy like the anti geocentric
site, but it was still a heresy.
What part of "The Church never condemned it (the Copernican system) at
all" did you not understand?
The only place that formal comes into all this is in the judgement
issued after Galileo's first trial where the verdict stated that the proposition that the Sun is stationary at the centre of the universe
is "foolish and absurd in philosophy, and formally heretical since it explicitly contradicts in many places the sense of Holy Scripture".
That, however, is t the Catholic Encyclopaedia refers to where it
says:
"it is undeniable that the ecclesiastical authorities committed a
grave and deplorable error, and sanctioned an altogether false
principle as to the proper use of Scripture."
Note also that the words "formally heretical" are wrong - I'm not sure whether it was the Inquisition using weasel words or whether it was a
bad translation from the Latin.
The word "heresy" can be used in two ways; it can apply to the
rejection of a specific doctrine of the Church or it can refer to the
act of committing heresy. The word "formal" applies to the latter -
the act of committing heresy - and is used to categorise the degree of
guilt of the person committing the heresy. "Formal heresy" means they
knew they were going against doctrine and are therefore guilty of
mortal sin; "material heresy" means they did not know they were going against doctrine so they are not guilty sin.
It's a bit like first degree versus second degree murder and Galileo's
trial was like him being charged with first-degree murder without a
murder being established in the first place.
The Inquisition made it into a formal heresy after the Council of Trent.
They were supposedly wrong, and a couple centuries later things got
reversed to what they had been at the time that the findings of the
Council of Trent were published.
The holy office (the inquisition) had Galileo facing a formal heresy
charge in his first encounter. When the pope got involved they just did
not call it a formal heresy in the sentencing. Galileo's views were
still condemned. They claimed that Galileo was facing a charge of
heresy. His heliocentric notions were still considered to be heresy and
the heresy that he was guilty of was clearly defined in the sentencing.
The anti geocentrics admitted that the pope had the Galileo case
published and disseminated throughout the church in order to quash the
heliocentric notions that were becoming an issue for the church. They
just want to claim that, that was not an official act. That is just
stupid. The pope did it for known reasons, and who cares if they want
to plead that he was not acting as pope?
There is no doubt that the actors were wrong, and that is the issue.
They do not want it to reflect on papal infallibility. That in itself
should be considered to be a non scriptural unjustifiable claim.
The Inquisition had Copernican writings banned and made heliocentrism
into a formal heresy because all the church fathers were geocentrics,
and that meant that Copernicans were in conflict with the beliefs of the
church fathers. Both the geocentric Catholics and the anti geocentric
Catholics claim that the Inquisition did this because of what the church
came up with at the Council of Trent where they made the beliefs of the
church fathers as a legitimate and necessary authority for interpreting
scripture. Both Catholic sides of the geocentric issue understand this
to be true.
QUOTE:
Council of Trent
Session IV, April 8, 1546, Decree Concerning the Edition and the Use of
the Sacred Books:
... "Furthermore, in order to restrain petulant spirits, it [the Council
of Trent] decrees that no one, relying on his own skill, shall,-in
matters of faith, and of morals pertaining to the edification of
Christian doctrine,-wresting the sacred Scriptures to his own senses,
presume to interpret the said sacred Scripture contrary to that sense
which holy Mother Church-to whom it belongs to judge of the true sense
and interpretation of the Holy Scriptures-hath held and doth hold; or
even contrary to the unanimous consent of the Fathers; even though such
interpretations were never (intended) to be at any time published.
Contraveners shall be made known by their Ordinaries and be punished
with the penalties by law established."
END QUOTE:
https://www.biblelightinfo.com/unanimous-consent.htm
Both Catholic sides of the issue claim that the Council of Trent caused
the Inquisition to ban Copernican writings and start treating
heliocentrism as a formal heresy because it went against the geocentric
beliefs of the church fathers.
You are taking all that crap from your geocentric hero; if you want to persist in taking his opinion against that of the Church's own
theologians then that is you just acting like Spikes rejecting the
opinion of scientists in favour of people who play to his confirmation
bias.
It was a mistake and the actors were in error only because of our
current understanding of nature. The Pope was wrong about it. He was
one of the mistaken actors.
The Pope was not a "mistaken actor", he was pissed off with Galileo presenting the Pope's views as those of a simpleton and misused his
powers to hit back at Galileo. Again, the Catholic Encyclopaedia
spells that explicitly:
"It is clear that the absurdity was the act of the Italian
Inquisition, for the private and personal pleasure of the pope - who
knew that the course he took could not convict him as pope - and not
of the body which calls itself the Church."
The Galileo affair was a shameful episode in the Church's history but
was all about the animosity between the Pope and Galileo, it had
nothing to do with heliocentrism being a heresy, that was just the
vehicle that the Pope used to attack Galileo.
On Mon, 17 Nov 2025 14:40:05 -0600, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>
wrote:
On 11/17/2025 11:45 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Mon, 17 Nov 2025 09:57:31 -0600, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>
wrote:
[...]
Oops, the Pope was not infallible.
So papal infallibility is another thing you don't understand.
I am just repeating what the anti geocentrist want to claim about it.
The "anti-geocentrists" of whom you cannot identify even one. Mind
you, when you first brought in the website of your geocentrist mentor,
it was anonymous and you didn't even know who the author was until I
figured out; the fact that he is a declared geocentrist and you knew
nothing about him didn't stop you placing high value on his opinions
and continuing to do so.
Weird to say the least.
[...]
On Wed, 19 Nov 2025 14:55:52 -0600, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>
wrote:
On 11/19/2025 12:01 PM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Mon, 17 Nov 2025 14:40:05 -0600, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>
wrote:
On 11/17/2025 11:45 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Mon, 17 Nov 2025 09:57:31 -0600, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>
wrote:
[...]
Oops, the Pope was not infallible.
So papal infallibility is another thing you don't understand.
I am just repeating what the anti geocentrist want to claim about it.
The "anti-geocentrists" of whom you cannot identify even one. Mind
you, when you first brought in the website of your geocentrist mentor,
it was anonymous and you didn't even know who the author was until I
figured out; the fact that he is a declared geocentrist and you knew
nothing about him didn't stop you placing high value on his opinions
and continuing to do so.
Weird to say the least.
[...]
You were given the links before,
Nope
so stop lying about it. Why should I
look up that junk again.
So you can prove I'm lying. But you can't because I'm not lying, you
gave no links except to the geocentrist idiot whose opinion you value
so highly.
You just denied that it was valid and kept
lying. Even your own trusted source backed up the anti geocentric site.
The anti geocentrists were on your side in terms of denying that it
was a formal heresy that Galileo faced the second time, but they agreed
with the geocentrists that the Inquisition had made it a formal heresy
charge the first time Galileo faced it and agreed with the Wiki. The
Vatican Observatory article that you have run from and snipped out of
this post backs up the geocentrists and anti geocentrists.
Just stop lying about the issue.
https://www.vaticanobservatory.org/sacred-space-astronomy/heliocentrism-condemned-400-years-ago-on-march-5-2/
They admit that helicentrism was condemned 400 years ago. 1616 is when
Galileo faced the formal heresy charge.
They do not consider the heresy cases, but they were based upon the
Inquisitions opinion of the topic.
Your claim of "never" having been condemned seems to be a lie.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galileo_Galilei
QUOTE:
In February 1616, an Inquisitorial commission declared heliocentrism to
be "foolish and absurd in philosophy, and formally heretical since it
explicitly contradicts in many places the sense of Holy Scripture".
END QUOTE:
Now YOU are the one lying about me. I never said it was never
condemned; on the contrary, I gave that exact same quote. What I did
was to point out that what it said was a FALSE CLAIM and it wasn't me
who came to that conclusion, it was the Catholic Church who came to
it, supported by every historian I know of who investigated it, people
like De Morgan and von Gebler. The only person I have ever known to
say there actually was a heresy is the geocentrist idiot whose opinion
you value so highly.
Both the geocentrists that you don't like, and the anti geocentric
catholics that do not agree with geocentric beliefs agreed that it was a
formal heresy charge the first time that Galileo faced the issue.
Now you seem to be trying to worm your way out of it by admitting
there was a *charge* without retracting that there was an actual
heresy which is what you have been claiming all long.
You can't just keep refusing to deal with reality and expect anything to
change.
You can't keep claiming support from "anti-geocentrists" about
heliocentrism having been an actual heresy without being able to
identify even one and expect people to take you seriously.
On Thu, 20 Nov 2025 09:38:56 -0600, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>heliocentrism to
wrote:
On 11/20/2025 4:47 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Wed, 19 Nov 2025 14:55:52 -0600, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>
wrote:
[snip for focus]
Your claim of "never" having been condemned seems to be a lie.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galileo_Galilei
QUOTE:
In February 1616, an Inquisitorial commission declared
be "foolish and absurd in philosophy, and formally heretical since it
explicitly contradicts in many places the sense of Holy Scripture".
END QUOTE:
Now YOU are the one lying about me. I never said it was never
condemned; on the contrary, I gave that exact same quote. What I did
was to point out that what it said was a FALSE CLAIM and it wasn't me
who came to that conclusion, it was the Catholic Church who came to
it, supported by every historian I know of who investigated it, people
like De Morgan and von Gebler. The only person I have ever known to
say there actually was a heresy is the geocentrist idiot whose opinion
you value so highly.
You put up the quote that said it had never been condemned. Go back up
and check. It was your quote.
Here is verbatim what I quoted:
Message-ID: 2gkkhk9bvctolude5jf6b6e0kothd5723d@4ax.com ========================================
<quote>
The [site] that cites von Gebler ("Galileo Galilei"):
"The Church never condemned it (the Copernican system) at all, for the Qualifiers of the Holy Office never mean the Church."
==========================================
#1: it was von Gebler who said rCLnever condemnedrCY, not me as you
claimed two posts ago.
#2 he did not say it was never condemned, he said *the Church* never condemned it.
Why do you post lies that are so easily shown to be lies?
On Fri, 21 Nov 2025 17:33:49 -0600, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>
wrote:
On 11/21/2025 12:29 PM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Fri, 21 Nov 2025 09:04:37 -0600, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>
wrote:
[rCa]
Let's cut to the chase here.
No lies to retract. You lied.
What lie are you claiming I told? Please quote exactly what I said
that you regard as a lie.
The ones that you keep telling.
"Never condemned"
I'm out of here. George Bernard Shaw warned that you shouldn't wrestle
with a pig as you get dirty and the pig enjoys it. I'm not going to
waste any more time trying to have a sensible discussion with someone
who thinks it's ok to take two words out of what somebody else said to
give a completely different meaning and then attribute those two words
to me. It doesn't even reach the level of quote-mining.
What beggars belief is that you do it where the exact quote from von
Gerber [1] and what I said about it are preserved just a couple of
posts above for all to see. As I noted earlier, it is really sad to
see this sort of behaviour from someone whose ability as a scientist I respect so much EfOU
===========================================
[1] "The Church never condemned it (the Copernican system) at all, for
the Qualifiers of the Holy Office never mean the Church."
[von Gebler ("Galileo Galilei")]
[..]
You should not continue to add to your own dishonest stupidity.
Trusting your source was obviously a stupid thing to do, and trying to
continue to support that source was just stupid and dishonest.
Ron Okimoto
On Tue, 5 May 2026 09:11:28 -0500, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com> wrote:
On 5/5/2026 1:40 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Mon, 4 May 2026 09:40:07 -0500, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com> wrote:
On 5/4/2026 2:45 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
[rCa]
comeLet's make it clear, Ron. Do you still claim that your Wiki source
says Galileo faced a heresy charge in 1616?
There is nothing that I have to do in order to demonstrate that you have
been lying about this situation for years, and every time that you
true andback to lie about it, you end up running from what you do.-a Just the
fact that you cannot deal with the REPOSTS that you have consistently
snipped out and run from demonstrates that this has always been
continues to be true.
Your refusal to answer is an answer. It shows that you realise that
you got this completely wrong but aren't man enough to admit it. The
question now is, do you want to discreetly retire from your other
stupid claims, or do I have to go through them in the same way, one by
one to show how then they are also wrong?
[snip more reams of puerile attempt at obfuscation]
Let's make it very clear, Harran.-a You have lied about the situation for
years.-a Your sources have always come up short or supported what you
want to lie about.
OK, you seem to recognise that you have nothing to support your claim
that Galileo was charged with heresy in 1616, so let's look now at
your persistent claim that "all anti-geocentrists" agree with you that heliocentrism was declared a heresy
On Sun, 22 Feb 2026 13:40:10 -0600, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>what you
wrote:
On 2/22/2026 10:18 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Sat, 21 Feb 2026 12:44:57 -0600, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>
wrote:
On 2/21/2026 11:59 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
What documents are you talking about that you keep saying the Jesuits
put up?
You can keep lying about what has been discussed, but you know
was notdid. You need to be the one that finds it and satisfy yourself with
what you did.
You put up your source lying about heliocentrism never being condemned
by anyone but the Inquisition. You claimed that the Inquisition
ordered bythe Church. I put up the Jesuit Observatory claim that the Papal
offices had condemned heliocentrism and this condemnation was
sources havethe Pope. They put up the relevant document and stated what the Pope
did. Your source was caught lying and you ran. Go find it. It is
something that you should do because you will uncover all your other
evasions on this issue while doing it. Your quotes of your
always come up short. The sources that you claim are unreliable, have
repeatedly been shown to be more reliable than what you come up with.
Oh, you mean the link you gave back in November, this one:
https://www.vaticanobservatory.org/sacred-space-astronomy/heliocentrism-condemned-400-years-ago-on-march-5-2/
The one where they posted the full 1616 decree on it's 400th
anniversary and commented:
<quote>
The formulation here is much milder than the one found in the working
document of February 24. The Decree talks about the "false Pythagorean
doctrine" and declare it "altogether contrary to the Holy Scripture".
This is not nearly as harsh as "foolish and absurd" philosophically,
and "formally heretical" because contrary to Scripture.
</quote>
How fucking dense can you be? It doesn't get much stupider than
posting something that contradicts what you are claiming.
If I am the dense one why did you run from what they admitted about the
document?
LOL, you post something that you think supports your claim but
actually rejects it and the best defence you can offer is to accuse me
of running away from it.
The Pope did condemn heliocentrism.
Beats me why you keep repeating this. The Pope did not personally
condemn heliocentrism, he allowed the Inquisition's condemnation of it
to be made public - that did not make it a heresy.
That is what your side was lying
about.
The only one telling lies here is you. For example, when you keep
insisting that all the "anti-geocentrists" in the Catholic
Encyclopaedia article agree with you that heliocentrism was a heresy
when they all say explicitly that it wasn't. Your lie is underlined by
the fact that you can't produce identify any source that agrees that heliocentrism was a heresy except your geocentrist mentors.
reality.It doesn't matter that the final wording was milder than the
initial draft. They admit that the Pope condemned heliocentrism, and
supported using the Council of Trent's scriptural interpretation on the
matter. It doesn't matter what it was called because the authors and
books are named. You ran from this link because your source was found
to have lied about heliocentrism never having been condemned except by
the Inquisition. The Pope obviously represents the Church and condemned
heliocentrism. He supported the Inquisition in 1616, and their
additions to the Index in order to protect against heresy. The books
would not have been added to the Index if they were not considered to be
heretical. The document even talks about the heretical parts of the
books, and indicates that after one of them is rewritten, so that it is
not against scripture, that it can be removed from the Index.
Keep lying to yourself about the issue. It isn't going to change
The Inquisition made heliocentrism a formal heresy in 1615-1616.
The decree is given in full on the Vatican Observatory site that you
tried to claim supports you and the word 'heresy' or 'heretical' does
not even appear in it.
They
did this because of their interpretation of scripture as the Council of
Trent had decided.
The decree doesn't make any reference whatsoever to Trent regarding interpretation of scripture; the one and only reference is to the *punishment* under Trent for disobeying the decree.
They added heliocentric writings to the Index,
They declare that "the books by Nicolaus Copernicus (On the
Revolutions of Spheres) and by Diego de Zu|#iga (On Job) be suspended
until corrected".
I've given details of the required corrections to Revolutions in a
different post to Harshman and they are all minor edits - not one of
them makes any change to the core principle of heliocentrism. A rather
weird declaration of heresy that allows Copernicus's book supporting
it to be published with minor edits that don't undermine his
proposition.
and
had their first encounter with Galileo. The Pope agreed with them and
condemned heliocentrism, and agreed with their additions to the Index of
banned writings.
Before your source lied about "never being condemned" the Pope's
involvement in 1616 was not an issue between the geocentric and
anti-geocentric Catholics in terms of what you were lying about at the
time. Both sides agreed that it was a formal heresy charge faced by
Galileo in 1615-1616. They disagreed about it being a formal heresy
charge the second time because it was only written up as "heresy" and
not formal heresy in the sentencing. It remained a heresy charge.
You obviously struggle with grasping that a *charge* does not make
someone guilty. I hope I'm never on trial for something I didn't do
with you on the jury.
The
Pope had the Galileo case, sentencing, and punishment published and
distributed throughout the Church in order to quash the heliocentric
heresy, but the guys that want to maintain Papal infallibility claim
that that was not an official Papal action. They admitted that there
was an issue with helicentrism at the time, but they do not want the
Pope to have been on the wrong side of the issue.
You need to deal with reality.
I think it's very clear who has the problem with accepting reality and
it's not me.
It is well understood that the Bible is
just wrong about a lot of things that we can figure out for ourselves.
Your own quotes from Pope Francis makes that claim. The Bible can be
misinterpreted because the author's understanding of the creation was
faulty. Francis knows that the universe was not created in 6 magic
episodes. Only those in complete denial do not understand that the
order of creation described in the Bible is wrong. There are still
young earth, old earth day for agers, geocentric, and flat earth
Biblical creationists because they are in the same type of denial that
you are in. There are just different levels of denial.
Ron Okimoto
Let's start by looking at what is said by the Catholic Church who
define heresy and the procedures involved in determining one:
-ahttps://www.newadvent.org/cathen/06342b.htm
In regard to the 1616 review of Heliocentrism:
<quote>
Then followed a decree of the Congregation of the Index dated 5 March
1616, prohibiting various heretical works to which were added any
advocating the Copernican system. In this decree no mention is made of Galileo, or of any of his works. Neither is the name of the pope
introduced, though there is no doubt that he fully approved the
decision, having presided at the session of the Inquisition, wherein
the matter was discussed and decided. In thus acting, it is undeniable
that the ecclesiastical authorities committed a grave and deplorable
error, and sanctioned an altogether false principle as to the proper
use of Scripture. Galileo and Foscarini rightly urged that the Bible
is intended to teach men to go to heaven, not how the heavens go. At
the same time, it must not be forgotten that, while there was as yet
no sufficient proof of the Copernican system, no objection was made to
its being taught as an hypothesis which explained all phenomena in a
simpler manner than the Ptolemaic, and might for all practical
purposes be adopted by astronomers. What was objected to was the
assertion that Copernicanism was in fact true, "which appears to
contradict Scripture". It is clear, moreover, that the authors of the judgment themselves did not consider it to be absolutely final and irreversible, for Cardinal Bellarmine, the most influential member of
the Sacred College, writing to Foscarini, after urging that he and
Galileo should be content to show that their system explains all
celestial phenomena - an unexceptional proposition, and one sufficient
for all practical purposes - but should not categorically assert what
seemed to contradict the Bible, thus continued:
"I say that if a real proof be found that the sun is fixed and does
not revolve round the earth, but the earth round the sun, then it will
be necessary, very carefully, to proceed to the explanation of the
passages of Scripture which appear to be contrary, and we should
rather say that we have misunderstood these than pronounce that to be
false which is demonstrated."
<quote>
In regard to the 1632 trial:
<quote>
Can it be said that either Paul V or Urban VIII so committed himself
to the doctrine of geocentricism as to impose it upon the Church as an article of faith, and so to teach as pope what is now acknowledged to
be untrue? That both these pontiffs were convinced anti-Copernicans
cannot be doubted, nor that they believed the Copernican system to be unscriptural and desired its suppression. The question is, however,
whether either of them condemned the doctrine ex cathedra. This, it is
clear, they never did. As to the decree of 1616, we have seen that it
was issued by the Congregation of the Index, which can raise no
difficulty in regard of infallibility, this tribunal being absolutely incompetent to make a dogmatic decree. Nor is the case altered by the
fact that the pope approved the Congregation's decision in forma
communi, that is to say, to the extent needful for the purpose
intended, namely to prohibit the circulation of writings which were
judged harmful. The pope and his assessors may have been wrong in such
a judgment, but this does not alter the character of the
pronouncement, or convert it into a decree ex cathedra.
As to the second trial in 1633, this was concerned not so much with
the doctrine as with the person of Galileo, and his manifest breach of contract in not abstaining from the active propaganda of Copernican doctrines. The sentence, passed upon him in consequence, clearly
implied a condemnation of Copernicanism, but it made no formal decree
on the subject, and did not receive the pope's signature.
</quote>
In regard to independent scholars, I have previously given the two
cited in The Catholic Encyclopedia article quoted above:
1) Professor Augustus De Morgan ("Budget of Paradoxes):
"It is clear that the absurdity was the act of the Italian
Inquisition, for the private and personal pleasure of the pope - who
knew that the course he took could not convict him as pope - and not
of the body which calls itself the Church."
2-a Karl von Gebler ("Galileo Galilei"):
"The Church never condemned it (the Copernican system) at all, for the Qualifiers of the Holy Office never mean the Church."
Another scholar whom I hadn't previously picked up on is referred to
in the Wiki article that you tried to claim supported you; it's
reference #60:
<quote>
"Vehemently suspect of heresy" was a technical term of canon law and
did not necessarily imply that the Inquisition considered the opinions
giving rise to the verdict to be heretical. The same verdict would
have been possible even if the opinions had been subject only to the
less serious censure of "erroneous in faith"
(Fantoli, 2005, p. 140; Heilbron, 2005, pp. 282-284).
</quote>
Care to explain how these-a "anti-geocentrists", the Catholic Church
and three independent researchers,-a support your claim that
heliocentrism was indeed a heresy?
[snip even more reams of puerile attempt at obfuscation]
On Tue, 5 May 2026 12:49:14 +0100, "Kerr-Mudd, John" <admin@127.0.0.1>
wrote:
On Mon, 4 May 2026 09:40:07 -0500
RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com> wrote:
[47k deleted]
Please don't do this, no-one; especially you opponent, is going to read
all that.
I've got a brick wall you can borrow if you like.
Also it's not about origins any more, it's about what
catholic orthodoxy was several centuries ago. You might even be right;
but it's all got too personal.
Please let it go.
Or keep going nowhere. Both of you.
Believe me, I take no pleasure whatsoever in this stupid discussion.
The problem is that I have a thing about people calling me a liar. I
doubt if anyone takes Ron's claims seriously at this stage but I have
walked away from this several times but what happens is that Ron
brings it up again a few weeks later and claims that my "running away"
show that he was right about me telling lies :(
The only way around this seems to be to go through his stupid claims
once more, one by one, and show exactly how they are wrong, just as I
have done with his categoric insistence that the Wiki article said
Galileo was charged with heresy in 1616 when it said the opposite.
I do promise not to post any 47k messages!
On Thu, 30 Apr 2026 08:49:48 -0500, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>insane.
wrote:
On 4/30/2026 5:44 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Wed, 29 Apr 2026 19:41:58 -0500, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>
wrote:
On 4/29/2026 1:13 PM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Wed, 29 Apr 2026 12:43:53 -0500, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>
wrote:
[...]
Snipping and lying about what you have done is just stupid and
snipped and
Not as stupid and insane as making a claim you can't support. C'mon,
Ron, give the link to the Wiki article that says Galileo faced a
heresy charge in 1616 rCa surely it can't be that difficult.
[snip desperation attempt to avoid issue]
What a lying asshole. This is the second time that you have
run from what you have lied about as being handwaving.
C'mon Ron, no need to repost 7000 words that nobody wants to read. All
that's needed to show me to be the lying asshole, not you, is a simple
quote from the Wiki article that says what you insist it says. A dozen
or so words should cover it or even a simple URL. Can't be that hard
can it?
[...]
You need to stop harassing me with your stupid lies about the past.
I'll gladly stop harassing you when you either give a specific example
of a lie told by either me or those I cited in support. Or else
withdraw your own stupid lies.
On Mon, 20 Apr 2026 13:40:43 -0500, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>are lying".
wrote:
On 4/20/2026 4:08 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Sat, 18 Apr 2026 12:06:53 -0500, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>
wrote:
On 4/18/2026 6:24 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Wed, 15 Apr 2026 14:31:27 -0500, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>
wrote:
On 4/15/2026 11:36 AM, Martin Harran wrote:[rCa]
On Wed, 15 Apr 2026 16:59:56 +0100, "Kerr-Mudd, John"
No one is going to convince an opponent by stating that "they
(no matterand probably not by constant repetition of the same arguments
reality,how valid) that failed to get through the first 50 times.
Tell that to RonO, he's the one who keeps calling everyone who
disagrees with him a liar.
Who got caught lying and quote mining? You need to deal with
short?and quit lying about it. Lying about me is just so stupid that it is
pretty much insane. You have always lied about the sources that you
could not deal honestly with. Who's sources have always come up
matched byLook at what you are doing now. Is there any excuse for you not dealing
with your own stupid dishonest behavior?
The tiresomeness of you continually claiming that my sources were
caught lying and that I have been lying and quote mining is
beenthe tiresomeness of your inability to ever identify what lie my
sources were caught in, what lies I have told or where I have quote
mined.
[... more big snip ...]
Why keep lying about what your sources did and what you did? That is
just stupid and dishonest. Just look up your past posts to determine
for yourself what went down. You tried to lie about my sources being
deficient when your sources had always come up short or even supported
my sources by putting up the lame lie that heliocentrism had never
samecondemned other then by the inquisition. It was stupid because it did
not negate what you and your sources had been wrong about. It turned
out that your source was lying and you ran. You ran twice from the
whatevidence that your source was lying. You tried to come back with your
lame quote mining efforts and trying to distract the argument from
it had been. You did that, and your source was demonstrated to have
lied about the issue. You need to go back and deal with what you did.
An appology for your disgraceful behavior would be in order. Just try
not to do it again. Continuing to lie about what happened is just
adding to how low you needed to go.
Yet again, you make all sorts of accusations without a single example
of something to support them.
What I cannot figure out is whether you just can't grasp that your
failure to produce a single example of supporting evidence portrays
*you* as the one telling lies; or whether you do grasp it and just
don't care; or whether, like a certain President, you think that if
you repeat a lie enough times that someone will eventually believe it.
You should apologize for what you have been doing and stop doing it. I
found the posts where you ran from your source having been caught lying,
you then snipped the evidence out of your response to your running.
The thread: There is no legitimate scientific support for the ID scam.
I can post your quote mining attempts and other stupid behavior that you
resorted to to defend your running and defense of your bogus source.
So why don't you instead of talking about it?
Specific examples, please, not reams and reams of obfuscatory cut'n
paste.
On Sun, 16 Nov 2025 18:25:18 -0600, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>claiming you
wrote:
On 11/16/2025 4:40 PM, Martin Harran wrote:[rCa]
The links that I put up were from the Catholics that continue to be
geocentric creationists, and the Catholics that are trying to refute
them. Both sides do not agree with you. What does your continued
denial of reality tell you?
You gave no such links. All you have to do to prove me wrong is give
them again.
Do you not see how stupid you are making yourself look by
gave links but cannot repeat them?
Why lie about something so stupid. One of the links was your own
trusted Catholic site, and you initially gave that link.
That was this site:
https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/06342b.htm
The one where the Catholic Church states:
" In thus acting, it is undeniable that the ecclesiastical authorities
committed a grave and deplorable error, and sanctioned an altogether
false principle as to the proper use of Scripture."
The one that cites Professor Augustus De Morgan (Budget of Paradoxes)
declaring
"It is clear that the absurdity was the act of the Italian
Inquisition, for the private and personal pleasure of the pope - who
knew that the course he took could not convict him as pope - and not
of the body which calls itself the Church."
The one that cites von Gebler ("Galileo Galilei"):
"The Church never condemned it (the Copernican system) at all, for the
Qualifiers of the Holy Office never mean the Church."
It beats me how you figure out that site and the people referred to in
it somehow back your claim that heliocentrism really was a heresy. I
guess you have to convince yourself in order to maintain your delusion
as you clearly can't find a reputable source that actually does back
you up.
Yes, everyone admits that they were wrong about geocentrism except for
the Catholics that are still geocentrics. This source called what
Galileo faced both times a charge of heresy. They did not make a
distinction between formal heresy and heresy like the anti geocentric
site, but it was still a heresy.
What part of "The Church never condemned it (the Copernican system) at
all" did you not understand?
The only place that formal comes into all this is in the judgement
issued after Galileo's first trial where the verdict stated that the proposition that the Sun is stationary at the centre of the universe
is "foolish and absurd in philosophy, and formally heretical since it explicitly contradicts in many places the sense of Holy Scripture".
That, however, is t the Catholic Encyclopaedia refers to where it
says:
"it is undeniable that the ecclesiastical authorities committed a
grave and deplorable error, and sanctioned an altogether false
principle as to the proper use of Scripture."
Note also that the words "formally heretical" are wrong - I'm not sure whether it was the Inquisition using weasel words or whether it was a
bad translation from the Latin.
The word "heresy" can be used in two ways; it can apply to the
rejection of a specific doctrine of the Church or it can refer to the
act of committing heresy. The word "formal" applies to the latter -
the act of committing heresy - and is used to categorise the degree of
guilt of the person committing the heresy. "Formal heresy" means they
knew they were going against doctrine and are therefore guilty of
mortal sin; "material heresy" means they did not know they were going against doctrine so they are not guilty sin.
It's a bit like first degree versus second degree murder and Galileo's
trial was like him being charged with first-degree murder without a
murder being established in the first place.
The Inquisition made it into a formal heresy after the Council of Trent.
They were supposedly wrong, and a couple centuries later things got
reversed to what they had been at the time that the findings of the
Council of Trent were published.
The holy office (the inquisition) had Galileo facing a formal heresy
charge in his first encounter. When the pope got involved they just did
not call it a formal heresy in the sentencing. Galileo's views were
still condemned. They claimed that Galileo was facing a charge of
heresy. His heliocentric notions were still considered to be heresy and
the heresy that he was guilty of was clearly defined in the sentencing.
The anti geocentrics admitted that the pope had the Galileo case
published and disseminated throughout the church in order to quash the
heliocentric notions that were becoming an issue for the church. They
just want to claim that, that was not an official act. That is just
stupid. The pope did it for known reasons, and who cares if they want
to plead that he was not acting as pope?
There is no doubt that the actors were wrong, and that is the issue.
They do not want it to reflect on papal infallibility. That in itself
should be considered to be a non scriptural unjustifiable claim.
The Inquisition had Copernican writings banned and made heliocentrism
into a formal heresy because all the church fathers were geocentrics,
and that meant that Copernicans were in conflict with the beliefs of the
church fathers. Both the geocentric Catholics and the anti geocentric
Catholics claim that the Inquisition did this because of what the church
came up with at the Council of Trent where they made the beliefs of the
church fathers as a legitimate and necessary authority for interpreting
scripture. Both Catholic sides of the geocentric issue understand this
to be true.
QUOTE:
Council of Trent
Session IV, April 8, 1546, Decree Concerning the Edition and the Use of
the Sacred Books:
... "Furthermore, in order to restrain petulant spirits, it [the Council
of Trent] decrees that no one, relying on his own skill, shall,-in
matters of faith, and of morals pertaining to the edification of
Christian doctrine,-wresting the sacred Scriptures to his own senses,
presume to interpret the said sacred Scripture contrary to that sense
which holy Mother Church-to whom it belongs to judge of the true sense
and interpretation of the Holy Scriptures-hath held and doth hold; or
even contrary to the unanimous consent of the Fathers; even though such
interpretations were never (intended) to be at any time published.
Contraveners shall be made known by their Ordinaries and be punished
with the penalties by law established."
END QUOTE:
https://www.biblelightinfo.com/unanimous-consent.htm
Both Catholic sides of the issue claim that the Council of Trent caused
the Inquisition to ban Copernican writings and start treating
heliocentrism as a formal heresy because it went against the geocentric
beliefs of the church fathers.
You are taking all that crap from your geocentric hero; if you want to persist in taking his opinion against that of the Church's own
theologians then that is you just acting like Spikes rejecting the
opinion of scientists in favour of people who play to his confirmation
bias.
It was a mistake and the actors were in error only because of our
current understanding of nature. The Pope was wrong about it. He was
one of the mistaken actors.
The Pope was not a "mistaken actor", he was pissed off with Galileo presenting the Pope's views as those of a simpleton and misused his
powers to hit back at Galileo. Again, the Catholic Encyclopaedia
spells that explicitly:
"It is clear that the absurdity was the act of the Italian
Inquisition, for the private and personal pleasure of the pope - who
knew that the course he took could not convict him as pope - and not
of the body which calls itself the Church."
The Galileo affair was a shameful episode in the Church's history but
was all about the animosity between the Pope and Galileo, it had
nothing to do with heliocentrism being a heresy, that was just the
vehicle that the Pope used to attack Galileo.
On Mon, 17 Nov 2025 14:40:05 -0600, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>
wrote:
On 11/17/2025 11:45 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Mon, 17 Nov 2025 09:57:31 -0600, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>
wrote:
[...]
Oops, the Pope was not infallible.
So papal infallibility is another thing you don't understand.
I am just repeating what the anti geocentrist want to claim about it.
The "anti-geocentrists" of whom you cannot identify even one. Mind
you, when you first brought in the website of your geocentrist mentor,
it was anonymous and you didn't even know who the author was until I
figured out; the fact that he is a declared geocentrist and you knew
nothing about him didn't stop you placing high value on his opinions
and continuing to do so.
Weird to say the least.
[...]
On Wed, 19 Nov 2025 14:55:52 -0600, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>
wrote:
On 11/19/2025 12:01 PM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Mon, 17 Nov 2025 14:40:05 -0600, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>
wrote:
On 11/17/2025 11:45 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Mon, 17 Nov 2025 09:57:31 -0600, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>
wrote:
[...]
Oops, the Pope was not infallible.
So papal infallibility is another thing you don't understand.
I am just repeating what the anti geocentrist want to claim about it.
The "anti-geocentrists" of whom you cannot identify even one. Mind
you, when you first brought in the website of your geocentrist mentor,
it was anonymous and you didn't even know who the author was until I
figured out; the fact that he is a declared geocentrist and you knew
nothing about him didn't stop you placing high value on his opinions
and continuing to do so.
Weird to say the least.
[...]
You were given the links before,
Nope
so stop lying about it. Why should I
look up that junk again.
So you can prove I'm lying. But you can't because I'm not lying, you
gave no links except to the geocentrist idiot whose opinion you value
so highly.
You just denied that it was valid and kept
lying. Even your own trusted source backed up the anti geocentric site.
The anti geocentrists were on your side in terms of denying that it
was a formal heresy that Galileo faced the second time, but they agreed
with the geocentrists that the Inquisition had made it a formal heresy
charge the first time Galileo faced it and agreed with the Wiki. The
Vatican Observatory article that you have run from and snipped out of
this post backs up the geocentrists and anti geocentrists.
Just stop lying about the issue.
https://www.vaticanobservatory.org/sacred-space-astronomy/heliocentrism-condemned-400-years-ago-on-march-5-2/
They admit that helicentrism was condemned 400 years ago. 1616 is when
Galileo faced the formal heresy charge.
They do not consider the heresy cases, but they were based upon the
Inquisitions opinion of the topic.
Your claim of "never" having been condemned seems to be a lie.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galileo_Galilei
QUOTE:
In February 1616, an Inquisitorial commission declared heliocentrism to
be "foolish and absurd in philosophy, and formally heretical since it
explicitly contradicts in many places the sense of Holy Scripture".
END QUOTE:
Now YOU are the one lying about me. I never said it was never
condemned; on the contrary, I gave that exact same quote. What I did
was to point out that what it said was a FALSE CLAIM and it wasn't me
who came to that conclusion, it was the Catholic Church who came to
it, supported by every historian I know of who investigated it, people
like De Morgan and von Gebler. The only person I have ever known to
say there actually was a heresy is the geocentrist idiot whose opinion
you value so highly.
Both the geocentrists that you don't like, and the anti geocentric
catholics that do not agree with geocentric beliefs agreed that it was a
formal heresy charge the first time that Galileo faced the issue.
Now you seem to be trying to worm your way out of it by admitting
there was a *charge* without retracting that there was an actual
heresy which is what you have been claiming all long.
You can't just keep refusing to deal with reality and expect anything to
change.
You can't keep claiming support from "anti-geocentrists" about
heliocentrism having been an actual heresy without being able to
identify even one and expect people to take you seriously.
On Thu, 20 Nov 2025 09:38:56 -0600, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>heliocentrism to
wrote:
On 11/20/2025 4:47 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Wed, 19 Nov 2025 14:55:52 -0600, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>
wrote:
[snip for focus]
Your claim of "never" having been condemned seems to be a lie.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galileo_Galilei
QUOTE:
In February 1616, an Inquisitorial commission declared
be "foolish and absurd in philosophy, and formally heretical since it
explicitly contradicts in many places the sense of Holy Scripture".
END QUOTE:
Now YOU are the one lying about me. I never said it was never
condemned; on the contrary, I gave that exact same quote. What I did
was to point out that what it said was a FALSE CLAIM and it wasn't me
who came to that conclusion, it was the Catholic Church who came to
it, supported by every historian I know of who investigated it, people
like De Morgan and von Gebler. The only person I have ever known to
say there actually was a heresy is the geocentrist idiot whose opinion
you value so highly.
You put up the quote that said it had never been condemned. Go back up
and check. It was your quote.
Here is verbatim what I quoted:
Message-ID: 2gkkhk9bvctolude5jf6b6e0kothd5723d@4ax.com ========================================
<quote>
The [site] that cites von Gebler ("Galileo Galilei"):
"The Church never condemned it (the Copernican system) at all, for the Qualifiers of the Holy Office never mean the Church."
==========================================
#1: it was von Gebler who said rCLnever condemnedrCY, not me as you
claimed two posts ago.
#2 he did not say it was never condemned, he said *the Church* never condemned it.
Why do you post lies that are so easily shown to be lies?
On Fri, 21 Nov 2025 17:33:49 -0600, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>
wrote:
On 11/21/2025 12:29 PM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Fri, 21 Nov 2025 09:04:37 -0600, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>
wrote:
[rCa]
Let's cut to the chase here.
No lies to retract. You lied.
What lie are you claiming I told? Please quote exactly what I said
that you regard as a lie.
The ones that you keep telling.
"Never condemned"
I'm out of here. George Bernard Shaw warned that you shouldn't wrestle
with a pig as you get dirty and the pig enjoys it. I'm not going to
waste any more time trying to have a sensible discussion with someone
who thinks it's ok to take two words out of what somebody else said to
give a completely different meaning and then attribute those two words
to me. It doesn't even reach the level of quote-mining.
What beggars belief is that you do it where the exact quote from von
Gerber [1] and what I said about it are preserved just a couple of
posts above for all to see. As I noted earlier, it is really sad to
see this sort of behaviour from someone whose ability as a scientist I respect so much EfOU
===========================================
[1] "The Church never condemned it (the Copernican system) at all, for
the Qualifiers of the Holy Office never mean the Church."
[von Gebler ("Galileo Galilei")]
[..]
You should not continue to add to your own dishonest stupidity.
Trusting your source was obviously a stupid thing to do, and trying to
continue to support that source was just stupid and dishonest.
Ron Okimoto
-a >
END REPOST:
END REPOST of the REPOST:
END of first of two REPOSTS:
Ron Okimoto
On Tue, 5 May 2026 12:49:14 +0100, "Kerr-Mudd, John" <admin@127.0.0.1>
wrote:
On Mon, 4 May 2026 09:40:07 -0500
RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com> wrote:
[47k deleted]
Please don't do this, no-one; especially you opponent, is going to read
all that.
I've got a brick wall you can borrow if you like.
Also it's not about origins any more, it's about what
catholic orthodoxy was several centuries ago. You might even be right;
but it's all got too personal.
Please let it go.
Or keep going nowhere. Both of you.
Believe me, I take no pleasure whatsoever in this stupid discussion.
The problem is that I have a thing about people calling me a liar. I
doubt if anyone takes Ron's claims seriously at this stage but I have
walked away from this several times but what happens is that Ron
brings it up again a few weeks later and claims that my "running away"
show that he was right about me telling lies :(
The only way around this seems to be to go through his stupid claims
once more, one by one, and show exactly how they are wrong, just as I
have done with his categoric insistence that the Wiki article said
Galileo was charged with heresy in 1616 when it said the opposite.
I do promise not to post any 47k messages!
On Sun, 22 Feb 2026 13:40:10 -0600, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>what you
wrote:
On 2/22/2026 10:18 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Sat, 21 Feb 2026 12:44:57 -0600, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>
wrote:
On 2/21/2026 11:59 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
What documents are you talking about that you keep saying the Jesuits
put up?
You can keep lying about what has been discussed, but you know
was notdid. You need to be the one that finds it and satisfy yourself with
what you did.
You put up your source lying about heliocentrism never being condemned
by anyone but the Inquisition. You claimed that the Inquisition
ordered bythe Church. I put up the Jesuit Observatory claim that the Papal
offices had condemned heliocentrism and this condemnation was
sources havethe Pope. They put up the relevant document and stated what the Pope
did. Your source was caught lying and you ran. Go find it. It is
something that you should do because you will uncover all your other
evasions on this issue while doing it. Your quotes of your
always come up short. The sources that you claim are unreliable, have
repeatedly been shown to be more reliable than what you come up with.
Oh, you mean the link you gave back in November, this one:
https://www.vaticanobservatory.org/sacred-space-astronomy/heliocentrism-condemned-400-years-ago-on-march-5-2/
The one where they posted the full 1616 decree on it's 400th
anniversary and commented:
<quote>
The formulation here is much milder than the one found in the working
document of February 24. The Decree talks about the "false Pythagorean
doctrine" and declare it "altogether contrary to the Holy Scripture".
This is not nearly as harsh as "foolish and absurd" philosophically,
and "formally heretical" because contrary to Scripture.
</quote>
How fucking dense can you be? It doesn't get much stupider than
posting something that contradicts what you are claiming.
If I am the dense one why did you run from what they admitted about the
document?
LOL, you post something that you think supports your claim but
actually rejects it and the best defence you can offer is to accuse me
of running away from it.
The Pope did condemn heliocentrism.
Beats me why you keep repeating this. The Pope did not personally
condemn heliocentrism, he allowed the Inquisition's condemnation of it
to be made public - that did not make it a heresy.
That is what your side was lying
about.
The only one telling lies here is you. For example, when you keep
insisting that all the "anti-geocentrists" in the Catholic
Encyclopaedia article agree with you that heliocentrism was a heresy
when they all say explicitly that it wasn't. Your lie is underlined by
the fact that you can't produce identify any source that agrees that heliocentrism was a heresy except your geocentrist mentors.
reality.It doesn't matter that the final wording was milder than the
initial draft. They admit that the Pope condemned heliocentrism, and
supported using the Council of Trent's scriptural interpretation on the
matter. It doesn't matter what it was called because the authors and
books are named. You ran from this link because your source was found
to have lied about heliocentrism never having been condemned except by
the Inquisition. The Pope obviously represents the Church and condemned
heliocentrism. He supported the Inquisition in 1616, and their
additions to the Index in order to protect against heresy. The books
would not have been added to the Index if they were not considered to be
heretical. The document even talks about the heretical parts of the
books, and indicates that after one of them is rewritten, so that it is
not against scripture, that it can be removed from the Index.
Keep lying to yourself about the issue. It isn't going to change
The Inquisition made heliocentrism a formal heresy in 1615-1616.
The decree is given in full on the Vatican Observatory site that you
tried to claim supports you and the word 'heresy' or 'heretical' does
not even appear in it.
They
did this because of their interpretation of scripture as the Council of
Trent had decided.
The decree doesn't make any reference whatsoever to Trent regarding interpretation of scripture; the one and only reference is to the *punishment* under Trent for disobeying the decree.
They added heliocentric writings to the Index,
They declare that "the books by Nicolaus Copernicus (On the
Revolutions of Spheres) and by Diego de Zu|#iga (On Job) be suspended
until corrected".
I've given details of the required corrections to Revolutions in a
different post to Harshman and they are all minor edits - not one of
them makes any change to the core principle of heliocentrism. A rather
weird declaration of heresy that allows Copernicus's book supporting
it to be published with minor edits that don't undermine his
proposition.
and
had their first encounter with Galileo. The Pope agreed with them and
condemned heliocentrism, and agreed with their additions to the Index of
banned writings.
Before your source lied about "never being condemned" the Pope's
involvement in 1616 was not an issue between the geocentric and
anti-geocentric Catholics in terms of what you were lying about at the
time. Both sides agreed that it was a formal heresy charge faced by
Galileo in 1615-1616. They disagreed about it being a formal heresy
charge the second time because it was only written up as "heresy" and
not formal heresy in the sentencing. It remained a heresy charge.
You obviously struggle with grasping that a *charge* does not make
someone guilty. I hope I'm never on trial for something I didn't do
with you on the jury.
The
Pope had the Galileo case, sentencing, and punishment published and
distributed throughout the Church in order to quash the heliocentric
heresy, but the guys that want to maintain Papal infallibility claim
that that was not an official Papal action. They admitted that there
was an issue with helicentrism at the time, but they do not want the
Pope to have been on the wrong side of the issue.
You need to deal with reality.
I think it's very clear who has the problem with accepting reality and
it's not me.
It is well understood that the Bible is
just wrong about a lot of things that we can figure out for ourselves.
Your own quotes from Pope Francis makes that claim. The Bible can be
misinterpreted because the author's understanding of the creation was
faulty. Francis knows that the universe was not created in 6 magic
episodes. Only those in complete denial do not understand that the
order of creation described in the Bible is wrong. There are still
young earth, old earth day for agers, geocentric, and flat earth
Biblical creationists because they are in the same type of denial that
you are in. There are just different levels of denial.
Ron Okimoto
-a >
END REPOST:
END REPOST of the REPOST:
END of first of two REPOSTS:
Ron Okimoto
On 5/7/2026 8:15 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
Nothing that you could ever put up will change what you have already
lied about. Look at your previous attempts to snip and run from
reality. You tried to quote mine the wiki. It still clearly claimed
that Galileo faced a formal heresy charge in 1616, but what did you
quote from that source?
On Tue, 5 May 2026 12:49:14 +0100, "Kerr-Mudd, John" <admin@127.0.0.1>
wrote:
On Mon, 4 May 2026 09:40:07 -0500
RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com> wrote:
[47k deleted]
Here's an idea; stop calling other people liars. It might work.Please don't do this, no-one; especially you opponent, is going to read
all that.
I've got a brick wall you can borrow if you like.
Also it's not about origins any more, it's about what
catholic orthodoxy was several centuries ago. You might even be right;
but it's all got too personal.
Please let it go.
Or keep going nowhere. Both of you.
Believe me, I take no pleasure whatsoever in this stupid discussion.
The problem is that I have a thing about people calling me a liar.
I
doubt if anyone takes Ron's claims seriously at this stage but I have
walked away from this several times but what happens is that Ron
brings it up again a few weeks later and claims that my "running away"
show that he was right about me telling lies :(
The only way around this seems to be to go through his stupid claims
once more, one by one, and show exactly how they are wrong, just as I
have done with his categoric insistence that the Wiki article said
Galileo was charged with heresy in 1616 when it said the opposite.
I do promise not to post any 47k messages!
--END REPOST:
END REPOST of the REPOST:
END of first of two REPOSTS:
Ron Okimoto
On Thu, 7 May 2026 08:48:35 -0500, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com> wrote:
On 5/7/2026 8:15 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
[rCa]
Nothing that you could ever put up will change what you have already
lied about. Look at your previous attempts to snip and run from
reality. You tried to quote mine the wiki. It still clearly claimed
that Galileo faced a formal heresy charge in 1616, but what did you
quote from that source?
I quoted the section explaining how he ended up in Rome in 1616; the
section that explains that Galileo wasn't summoned to Rome, he decided himself, against the advice of his friends, to go because he heard the Inquisition was investigating heliocentrism for possible heresy and he
wanted to make a case on its behalf.
Now, if you reckon I am quote mining, why don't you quote the bit
where it said he faced a formal heresy charge?
You might also explain how come neither the Qualifiers' report nor the Inquisition's decree even mention Galileo.
On Thu, 30 Apr 2026 08:49:48 -0500, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>insane.
wrote:
On 4/30/2026 5:44 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Wed, 29 Apr 2026 19:41:58 -0500, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>
wrote:
On 4/29/2026 1:13 PM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Wed, 29 Apr 2026 12:43:53 -0500, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>
wrote:
[...]
Snipping and lying about what you have done is just stupid and
snipped and
Not as stupid and insane as making a claim you can't support. C'mon,
Ron, give the link to the Wiki article that says Galileo faced a
heresy charge in 1616 rCa surely it can't be that difficult.
[snip desperation attempt to avoid issue]
What a lying asshole. This is the second time that you have
run from what you have lied about as being handwaving.
C'mon Ron, no need to repost 7000 words that nobody wants to read. All
that's needed to show me to be the lying asshole, not you, is a simple
quote from the Wiki article that says what you insist it says. A dozen
or so words should cover it or even a simple URL. Can't be that hard
can it?
[...]
You need to stop harassing me with your stupid lies about the past.
I'll gladly stop harassing you when you either give a specific example
of a lie told by either me or those I cited in support. Or else
withdraw your own stupid lies.
On Mon, 20 Apr 2026 13:40:43 -0500, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>are lying".
wrote:
On 4/20/2026 4:08 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Sat, 18 Apr 2026 12:06:53 -0500, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>
wrote:
On 4/18/2026 6:24 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Wed, 15 Apr 2026 14:31:27 -0500, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>
wrote:
On 4/15/2026 11:36 AM, Martin Harran wrote:[rCa]
On Wed, 15 Apr 2026 16:59:56 +0100, "Kerr-Mudd, John"
No one is going to convince an opponent by stating that "they
(no matterand probably not by constant repetition of the same arguments
reality,how valid) that failed to get through the first 50 times.
Tell that to RonO, he's the one who keeps calling everyone who
disagrees with him a liar.
Who got caught lying and quote mining? You need to deal with
short?and quit lying about it. Lying about me is just so stupid that it is
pretty much insane. You have always lied about the sources that you
could not deal honestly with. Who's sources have always come up
matched byLook at what you are doing now. Is there any excuse for you not dealing
with your own stupid dishonest behavior?
The tiresomeness of you continually claiming that my sources were
caught lying and that I have been lying and quote mining is
beenthe tiresomeness of your inability to ever identify what lie my
sources were caught in, what lies I have told or where I have quote
mined.
[... more big snip ...]
Why keep lying about what your sources did and what you did? That is
just stupid and dishonest. Just look up your past posts to determine
for yourself what went down. You tried to lie about my sources being
deficient when your sources had always come up short or even supported
my sources by putting up the lame lie that heliocentrism had never
samecondemned other then by the inquisition. It was stupid because it did
not negate what you and your sources had been wrong about. It turned
out that your source was lying and you ran. You ran twice from the
whatevidence that your source was lying. You tried to come back with your
lame quote mining efforts and trying to distract the argument from
it had been. You did that, and your source was demonstrated to have
lied about the issue. You need to go back and deal with what you did.
An appology for your disgraceful behavior would be in order. Just try
not to do it again. Continuing to lie about what happened is just
adding to how low you needed to go.
Yet again, you make all sorts of accusations without a single example
of something to support them.
What I cannot figure out is whether you just can't grasp that your
failure to produce a single example of supporting evidence portrays
*you* as the one telling lies; or whether you do grasp it and just
don't care; or whether, like a certain President, you think that if
you repeat a lie enough times that someone will eventually believe it.
You should apologize for what you have been doing and stop doing it. I
found the posts where you ran from your source having been caught lying,
you then snipped the evidence out of your response to your running.
The thread: There is no legitimate scientific support for the ID scam.
I can post your quote mining attempts and other stupid behavior that you
resorted to to defend your running and defense of your bogus source.
So why don't you instead of talking about it?
Specific examples, please, not reams and reams of obfuscatory cut'n
paste.
On Sun, 16 Nov 2025 18:25:18 -0600, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>claiming you
wrote:
On 11/16/2025 4:40 PM, Martin Harran wrote:[rCa]
The links that I put up were from the Catholics that continue to be
geocentric creationists, and the Catholics that are trying to refute
them. Both sides do not agree with you. What does your continued
denial of reality tell you?
You gave no such links. All you have to do to prove me wrong is give
them again.
Do you not see how stupid you are making yourself look by
gave links but cannot repeat them?
Why lie about something so stupid. One of the links was your own
trusted Catholic site, and you initially gave that link.
That was this site:
https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/06342b.htm
The one where the Catholic Church states:
" In thus acting, it is undeniable that the ecclesiastical authorities
committed a grave and deplorable error, and sanctioned an altogether
false principle as to the proper use of Scripture."
The one that cites Professor Augustus De Morgan (Budget of Paradoxes)
declaring
"It is clear that the absurdity was the act of the Italian
Inquisition, for the private and personal pleasure of the pope - who
knew that the course he took could not convict him as pope - and not
of the body which calls itself the Church."
The one that cites von Gebler ("Galileo Galilei"):
"The Church never condemned it (the Copernican system) at all, for the
Qualifiers of the Holy Office never mean the Church."
It beats me how you figure out that site and the people referred to in
it somehow back your claim that heliocentrism really was a heresy. I
guess you have to convince yourself in order to maintain your delusion
as you clearly can't find a reputable source that actually does back
you up.
Yes, everyone admits that they were wrong about geocentrism except for
the Catholics that are still geocentrics. This source called what
Galileo faced both times a charge of heresy. They did not make a
distinction between formal heresy and heresy like the anti geocentric
site, but it was still a heresy.
What part of "The Church never condemned it (the Copernican system) at
all" did you not understand?
The only place that formal comes into all this is in the judgement
issued after Galileo's first trial where the verdict stated that the proposition that the Sun is stationary at the centre of the universe
is "foolish and absurd in philosophy, and formally heretical since it explicitly contradicts in many places the sense of Holy Scripture".
That, however, is t the Catholic Encyclopaedia refers to where it
says:
"it is undeniable that the ecclesiastical authorities committed a
grave and deplorable error, and sanctioned an altogether false
principle as to the proper use of Scripture."
Note also that the words "formally heretical" are wrong - I'm not sure whether it was the Inquisition using weasel words or whether it was a
bad translation from the Latin.
The word "heresy" can be used in two ways; it can apply to the
rejection of a specific doctrine of the Church or it can refer to the
act of committing heresy. The word "formal" applies to the latter -
the act of committing heresy - and is used to categorise the degree of
guilt of the person committing the heresy. "Formal heresy" means they
knew they were going against doctrine and are therefore guilty of
mortal sin; "material heresy" means they did not know they were going against doctrine so they are not guilty sin.
It's a bit like first degree versus second degree murder and Galileo's
trial was like him being charged with first-degree murder without a
murder being established in the first place.
The Inquisition made it into a formal heresy after the Council of Trent.
They were supposedly wrong, and a couple centuries later things got
reversed to what they had been at the time that the findings of the
Council of Trent were published.
The holy office (the inquisition) had Galileo facing a formal heresy
charge in his first encounter. When the pope got involved they just did
not call it a formal heresy in the sentencing. Galileo's views were
still condemned. They claimed that Galileo was facing a charge of
heresy. His heliocentric notions were still considered to be heresy and
the heresy that he was guilty of was clearly defined in the sentencing.
The anti geocentrics admitted that the pope had the Galileo case
published and disseminated throughout the church in order to quash the
heliocentric notions that were becoming an issue for the church. They
just want to claim that, that was not an official act. That is just
stupid. The pope did it for known reasons, and who cares if they want
to plead that he was not acting as pope?
There is no doubt that the actors were wrong, and that is the issue.
They do not want it to reflect on papal infallibility. That in itself
should be considered to be a non scriptural unjustifiable claim.
The Inquisition had Copernican writings banned and made heliocentrism
into a formal heresy because all the church fathers were geocentrics,
and that meant that Copernicans were in conflict with the beliefs of the
church fathers. Both the geocentric Catholics and the anti geocentric
Catholics claim that the Inquisition did this because of what the church
came up with at the Council of Trent where they made the beliefs of the
church fathers as a legitimate and necessary authority for interpreting
scripture. Both Catholic sides of the geocentric issue understand this
to be true.
QUOTE:
Council of Trent
Session IV, April 8, 1546, Decree Concerning the Edition and the Use of
the Sacred Books:
... "Furthermore, in order to restrain petulant spirits, it [the Council
of Trent] decrees that no one, relying on his own skill, shall,-in
matters of faith, and of morals pertaining to the edification of
Christian doctrine,-wresting the sacred Scriptures to his own senses,
presume to interpret the said sacred Scripture contrary to that sense
which holy Mother Church-to whom it belongs to judge of the true sense
and interpretation of the Holy Scriptures-hath held and doth hold; or
even contrary to the unanimous consent of the Fathers; even though such
interpretations were never (intended) to be at any time published.
Contraveners shall be made known by their Ordinaries and be punished
with the penalties by law established."
END QUOTE:
https://www.biblelightinfo.com/unanimous-consent.htm
Both Catholic sides of the issue claim that the Council of Trent caused
the Inquisition to ban Copernican writings and start treating
heliocentrism as a formal heresy because it went against the geocentric
beliefs of the church fathers.
You are taking all that crap from your geocentric hero; if you want to persist in taking his opinion against that of the Church's own
theologians then that is you just acting like Spikes rejecting the
opinion of scientists in favour of people who play to his confirmation
bias.
It was a mistake and the actors were in error only because of our
current understanding of nature. The Pope was wrong about it. He was
one of the mistaken actors.
The Pope was not a "mistaken actor", he was pissed off with Galileo presenting the Pope's views as those of a simpleton and misused his
powers to hit back at Galileo. Again, the Catholic Encyclopaedia
spells that explicitly:
"It is clear that the absurdity was the act of the Italian
Inquisition, for the private and personal pleasure of the pope - who
knew that the course he took could not convict him as pope - and not
of the body which calls itself the Church."
The Galileo affair was a shameful episode in the Church's history but
was all about the animosity between the Pope and Galileo, it had
nothing to do with heliocentrism being a heresy, that was just the
vehicle that the Pope used to attack Galileo.
On Mon, 17 Nov 2025 14:40:05 -0600, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>
wrote:
On 11/17/2025 11:45 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Mon, 17 Nov 2025 09:57:31 -0600, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>
wrote:
[...]
Oops, the Pope was not infallible.
So papal infallibility is another thing you don't understand.
I am just repeating what the anti geocentrist want to claim about it.
The "anti-geocentrists" of whom you cannot identify even one. Mind
you, when you first brought in the website of your geocentrist mentor,
it was anonymous and you didn't even know who the author was until I
figured out; the fact that he is a declared geocentrist and you knew
nothing about him didn't stop you placing high value on his opinions
and continuing to do so.
Weird to say the least.
[...]
On Wed, 19 Nov 2025 14:55:52 -0600, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>
wrote:
On 11/19/2025 12:01 PM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Mon, 17 Nov 2025 14:40:05 -0600, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>
wrote:
On 11/17/2025 11:45 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Mon, 17 Nov 2025 09:57:31 -0600, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>
wrote:
[...]
Oops, the Pope was not infallible.
So papal infallibility is another thing you don't understand.
I am just repeating what the anti geocentrist want to claim about it.
The "anti-geocentrists" of whom you cannot identify even one. Mind
you, when you first brought in the website of your geocentrist mentor,
it was anonymous and you didn't even know who the author was until I
figured out; the fact that he is a declared geocentrist and you knew
nothing about him didn't stop you placing high value on his opinions
and continuing to do so.
Weird to say the least.
[...]
You were given the links before,
Nope
so stop lying about it. Why should I
look up that junk again.
So you can prove I'm lying. But you can't because I'm not lying, you
gave no links except to the geocentrist idiot whose opinion you value
so highly.
You just denied that it was valid and kept
lying. Even your own trusted source backed up the anti geocentric site.
The anti geocentrists were on your side in terms of denying that it
was a formal heresy that Galileo faced the second time, but they agreed
with the geocentrists that the Inquisition had made it a formal heresy
charge the first time Galileo faced it and agreed with the Wiki. The
Vatican Observatory article that you have run from and snipped out of
this post backs up the geocentrists and anti geocentrists.
Just stop lying about the issue.
https://www.vaticanobservatory.org/sacred-space-astronomy/heliocentrism-condemned-400-years-ago-on-march-5-2/
They admit that helicentrism was condemned 400 years ago. 1616 is when
Galileo faced the formal heresy charge.
They do not consider the heresy cases, but they were based upon the
Inquisitions opinion of the topic.
Your claim of "never" having been condemned seems to be a lie.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galileo_Galilei
QUOTE:
In February 1616, an Inquisitorial commission declared heliocentrism to
be "foolish and absurd in philosophy, and formally heretical since it
explicitly contradicts in many places the sense of Holy Scripture".
END QUOTE:
Now YOU are the one lying about me. I never said it was never
condemned; on the contrary, I gave that exact same quote. What I did
was to point out that what it said was a FALSE CLAIM and it wasn't me
who came to that conclusion, it was the Catholic Church who came to
it, supported by every historian I know of who investigated it, people
like De Morgan and von Gebler. The only person I have ever known to
say there actually was a heresy is the geocentrist idiot whose opinion
you value so highly.
Both the geocentrists that you don't like, and the anti geocentric
catholics that do not agree with geocentric beliefs agreed that it was a
formal heresy charge the first time that Galileo faced the issue.
Now you seem to be trying to worm your way out of it by admitting
there was a *charge* without retracting that there was an actual
heresy which is what you have been claiming all long.
You can't just keep refusing to deal with reality and expect anything to
change.
You can't keep claiming support from "anti-geocentrists" about
heliocentrism having been an actual heresy without being able to
identify even one and expect people to take you seriously.
On Thu, 20 Nov 2025 09:38:56 -0600, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>heliocentrism to
wrote:
On 11/20/2025 4:47 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Wed, 19 Nov 2025 14:55:52 -0600, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>
wrote:
[snip for focus]
Your claim of "never" having been condemned seems to be a lie.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galileo_Galilei
QUOTE:
In February 1616, an Inquisitorial commission declared
be "foolish and absurd in philosophy, and formally heretical since it
explicitly contradicts in many places the sense of Holy Scripture".
END QUOTE:
Now YOU are the one lying about me. I never said it was never
condemned; on the contrary, I gave that exact same quote. What I did
was to point out that what it said was a FALSE CLAIM and it wasn't me
who came to that conclusion, it was the Catholic Church who came to
it, supported by every historian I know of who investigated it, people
like De Morgan and von Gebler. The only person I have ever known to
say there actually was a heresy is the geocentrist idiot whose opinion
you value so highly.
You put up the quote that said it had never been condemned. Go back up
and check. It was your quote.
Here is verbatim what I quoted:
Message-ID: 2gkkhk9bvctolude5jf6b6e0kothd5723d@4ax.com ========================================
<quote>
The [site] that cites von Gebler ("Galileo Galilei"):
"The Church never condemned it (the Copernican system) at all, for the Qualifiers of the Holy Office never mean the Church."
==========================================
#1: it was von Gebler who said rCLnever condemnedrCY, not me as you
claimed two posts ago.
#2 he did not say it was never condemned, he said *the Church* never condemned it.
Why do you post lies that are so easily shown to be lies?
On Fri, 21 Nov 2025 17:33:49 -0600, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>
wrote:
On 11/21/2025 12:29 PM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Fri, 21 Nov 2025 09:04:37 -0600, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>
wrote:
[rCa]
Let's cut to the chase here.
No lies to retract. You lied.
What lie are you claiming I told? Please quote exactly what I said
that you regard as a lie.
The ones that you keep telling.
"Never condemned"
I'm out of here. George Bernard Shaw warned that you shouldn't wrestle
with a pig as you get dirty and the pig enjoys it. I'm not going to
waste any more time trying to have a sensible discussion with someone
who thinks it's ok to take two words out of what somebody else said to
give a completely different meaning and then attribute those two words
to me. It doesn't even reach the level of quote-mining.
What beggars belief is that you do it where the exact quote from von
Gerber [1] and what I said about it are preserved just a couple of
posts above for all to see. As I noted earlier, it is really sad to
see this sort of behaviour from someone whose ability as a scientist I respect so much EfOU
===========================================
[1] "The Church never condemned it (the Copernican system) at all, for
the Qualifiers of the Holy Office never mean the Church."
[von Gebler ("Galileo Galilei")]
[..]
You should not continue to add to your own dishonest stupidity.
Trusting your source was obviously a stupid thing to do, and trying to
continue to support that source was just stupid and dishonest.
Ron Okimoto
On Thu, 7 May 2026 08:48:35 -0500, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com> wrote:
On 5/7/2026 8:15 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
[rCa]
Nothing that you could ever put up will change what you have already
lied about. Look at your previous attempts to snip and run from
reality. You tried to quote mine the wiki. It still clearly claimed
that Galileo faced a formal heresy charge in 1616, but what did you
quote from that source?
I quoted the section explaining how he ended up in Rome in 1616; the
section that explains that Galileo wasn't summoned to Rome, he decided himself, against the advice of his friends, to go because he heard the Inquisition was investigating heliocentrism for possible heresy and he
wanted to make a case on its behalf.
Now, if you reckon I am quote mining, why don't you quote the bit
where it said he faced a formal heresy charge?
You might also explain how come neither the Qualifiers' report nor the Inquisition's decree even mention Galileo.
On Sun, 22 Feb 2026 13:40:10 -0600, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>what you
wrote:
On 2/22/2026 10:18 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Sat, 21 Feb 2026 12:44:57 -0600, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>
wrote:
On 2/21/2026 11:59 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
What documents are you talking about that you keep saying the Jesuits
put up?
You can keep lying about what has been discussed, but you know
was notdid. You need to be the one that finds it and satisfy yourself with
what you did.
You put up your source lying about heliocentrism never being condemned
by anyone but the Inquisition. You claimed that the Inquisition
ordered bythe Church. I put up the Jesuit Observatory claim that the Papal
offices had condemned heliocentrism and this condemnation was
sources havethe Pope. They put up the relevant document and stated what the Pope
did. Your source was caught lying and you ran. Go find it. It is
something that you should do because you will uncover all your other
evasions on this issue while doing it. Your quotes of your
always come up short. The sources that you claim are unreliable, have
repeatedly been shown to be more reliable than what you come up with.
Oh, you mean the link you gave back in November, this one:
https://www.vaticanobservatory.org/sacred-space-astronomy/heliocentrism-condemned-400-years-ago-on-march-5-2/
The one where they posted the full 1616 decree on it's 400th
anniversary and commented:
<quote>
The formulation here is much milder than the one found in the working
document of February 24. The Decree talks about the "false Pythagorean
doctrine" and declare it "altogether contrary to the Holy Scripture".
This is not nearly as harsh as "foolish and absurd" philosophically,
and "formally heretical" because contrary to Scripture.
</quote>
How fucking dense can you be? It doesn't get much stupider than
posting something that contradicts what you are claiming.
If I am the dense one why did you run from what they admitted about the
document?
LOL, you post something that you think supports your claim but
actually rejects it and the best defence you can offer is to accuse me
of running away from it.
The Pope did condemn heliocentrism.
Beats me why you keep repeating this. The Pope did not personally
condemn heliocentrism, he allowed the Inquisition's condemnation of it
to be made public - that did not make it a heresy.
That is what your side was lying
about.
The only one telling lies here is you. For example, when you keep
insisting that all the "anti-geocentrists" in the Catholic
Encyclopaedia article agree with you that heliocentrism was a heresy
when they all say explicitly that it wasn't. Your lie is underlined by
the fact that you can't produce identify any source that agrees that heliocentrism was a heresy except your geocentrist mentors.
reality.It doesn't matter that the final wording was milder than the
initial draft. They admit that the Pope condemned heliocentrism, and
supported using the Council of Trent's scriptural interpretation on the
matter. It doesn't matter what it was called because the authors and
books are named. You ran from this link because your source was found
to have lied about heliocentrism never having been condemned except by
the Inquisition. The Pope obviously represents the Church and condemned
heliocentrism. He supported the Inquisition in 1616, and their
additions to the Index in order to protect against heresy. The books
would not have been added to the Index if they were not considered to be
heretical. The document even talks about the heretical parts of the
books, and indicates that after one of them is rewritten, so that it is
not against scripture, that it can be removed from the Index.
Keep lying to yourself about the issue. It isn't going to change
The Inquisition made heliocentrism a formal heresy in 1615-1616.
The decree is given in full on the Vatican Observatory site that you
tried to claim supports you and the word 'heresy' or 'heretical' does
not even appear in it.
They
did this because of their interpretation of scripture as the Council of
Trent had decided.
The decree doesn't make any reference whatsoever to Trent regarding interpretation of scripture; the one and only reference is to the *punishment* under Trent for disobeying the decree.
They added heliocentric writings to the Index,
They declare that "the books by Nicolaus Copernicus (On the
Revolutions of Spheres) and by Diego de Zu|#iga (On Job) be suspended
until corrected".
I've given details of the required corrections to Revolutions in a
different post to Harshman and they are all minor edits - not one of
them makes any change to the core principle of heliocentrism. A rather
weird declaration of heresy that allows Copernicus's book supporting
it to be published with minor edits that don't undermine his
proposition.
and
had their first encounter with Galileo. The Pope agreed with them and
condemned heliocentrism, and agreed with their additions to the Index of
banned writings.
Before your source lied about "never being condemned" the Pope's
involvement in 1616 was not an issue between the geocentric and
anti-geocentric Catholics in terms of what you were lying about at the
time. Both sides agreed that it was a formal heresy charge faced by
Galileo in 1615-1616. They disagreed about it being a formal heresy
charge the second time because it was only written up as "heresy" and
not formal heresy in the sentencing. It remained a heresy charge.
You obviously struggle with grasping that a *charge* does not make
someone guilty. I hope I'm never on trial for something I didn't do
with you on the jury.
The
Pope had the Galileo case, sentencing, and punishment published and
distributed throughout the Church in order to quash the heliocentric
heresy, but the guys that want to maintain Papal infallibility claim
that that was not an official Papal action. They admitted that there
was an issue with helicentrism at the time, but they do not want the
Pope to have been on the wrong side of the issue.
You need to deal with reality.
I think it's very clear who has the problem with accepting reality and
it's not me.
It is well understood that the Bible is
just wrong about a lot of things that we can figure out for ourselves.
Your own quotes from Pope Francis makes that claim. The Bible can be
misinterpreted because the author's understanding of the creation was
faulty. Francis knows that the universe was not created in 6 magic
episodes. Only those in complete denial do not understand that the
order of creation described in the Bible is wrong. There are still
young earth, old earth day for agers, geocentric, and flat earth
Biblical creationists because they are in the same type of denial that
you are in. There are just different levels of denial.
Ron Okimoto
On 5/9/2026 1:24 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Thu, 7 May 2026 08:48:35 -0500, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com> wrote:
[rCa]
Nothing that you could ever put up will change what you have already
lied about. Look at your previous attempts to snip and run from
reality. You tried to quote mine the wiki. It still clearly claimed
that Galileo faced a formal heresy charge in 1616, but what did you
quote from that source?
I quoted the section explaining how he ended up in Rome in 1616; the
section that explains that Galileo wasn't summoned to Rome, he decided
himself, against the advice of his friends, to go because he heard the
Inquisition was investigating heliocentrism for possible heresy and he
wanted to make a case on its behalf.
Now, if you reckon I am quote mining, why don't you quote the bit
where it said he faced a formal heresy charge?
You might also explain how come neither the Qualifiers' report nor the
Inquisition's decree even mention Galileo.
You have consistently lied about this for years. You have harassed me
with the same stupid lies about my sources being inadequate, when your >sources and stupid behavior have always come up short. You are
currently putting up more prevarication in order to lie about how stupid
and dishonest you have already been.
All that you will ever get is what you have to keep snipping and running >from. You can't face what you have already done, so why keep lying
about the past the way in which you continue to do?
On Sat, 9 May 2026 09:09:26 -0500, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com> wrote:
On 5/9/2026 1:24 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Thu, 7 May 2026 08:48:35 -0500, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com> wrote:
[rCa]
Nothing that you could ever put up will change what you have already
lied about. Look at your previous attempts to snip and run from
reality. You tried to quote mine the wiki. It still clearly claimed
that Galileo faced a formal heresy charge in 1616, but what did you
quote from that source?
I quoted the section explaining how he ended up in Rome in 1616; the
section that explains that Galileo wasn't summoned to Rome, he decided
himself, against the advice of his friends, to go because he heard the
Inquisition was investigating heliocentrism for possible heresy and he
wanted to make a case on its behalf.
Now, if you reckon I am quote mining, why don't you quote the bit
where it said he faced a formal heresy charge?
You might also explain how come neither the Qualifiers' report nor the
Inquisition's decree even mention Galileo.
You have consistently lied about this for years. You have harassed me
with the same stupid lies about my sources being inadequate, when your
sources and stupid behavior have always come up short. You are
currently putting up more prevarication in order to lie about how stupid
and dishonest you have already been.
You can't quote where it says he faced a heresy charge in 1616 because
it doesn't say that and reposting endless copies of the same 49K of
text doesn't hide that.
You are quick to accuse others of telling lies but let's just look at
the lies you have told on this issue alone.
Lie No 1: You claimed multiple times that the Wiji page says Galileo
faced a heresy charge in 1616. It doesn't as shown by you not being
able to say where it does.
Lie No 2: When I quoted what it actually did say, you claimed the site
had been edited since you used it. It hadn't.
Lie No 3: When I produced the Wayback Machine copy to show the site
hadn't been edited you claimed you hadn't said it was edited, that you
only said it looked different.
What gets me about these lies is how totally fucking stupid they were.
Take the third one, you tried to claim you didn't say it was edited
yet your exact words - " rCa it has been edited since I used it" were preserved in the text above your denial. As I said before, the only
thing I can't figure out is whether you are too stupid to realise how
idiotic you are making yourself here or whether you see it and just
don't care.
All that you will ever get is what you have to keep snipping and running
from. You can't face what you have already done, so why keep lying
about the past the way in which you continue to do?
Seems that all I am going to get is your wild claims that you can
produce SFA to back up.
[rCa]
On Thu, 30 Apr 2026 08:49:48 -0500, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>insane.
wrote:
On 4/30/2026 5:44 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Wed, 29 Apr 2026 19:41:58 -0500, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>
wrote:
On 4/29/2026 1:13 PM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Wed, 29 Apr 2026 12:43:53 -0500, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>
wrote:
[...]
Snipping and lying about what you have done is just stupid and
snipped and
Not as stupid and insane as making a claim you can't support. C'mon,
Ron, give the link to the Wiki article that says Galileo faced a
heresy charge in 1616 rCa surely it can't be that difficult.
[snip desperation attempt to avoid issue]
What a lying asshole. This is the second time that you have
run from what you have lied about as being handwaving.
C'mon Ron, no need to repost 7000 words that nobody wants to read. All
that's needed to show me to be the lying asshole, not you, is a simple
quote from the Wiki article that says what you insist it says. A dozen
or so words should cover it or even a simple URL. Can't be that hard
can it?
[...]
You need to stop harassing me with your stupid lies about the past.
I'll gladly stop harassing you when you either give a specific example
of a lie told by either me or those I cited in support. Or else
withdraw your own stupid lies.
On Mon, 20 Apr 2026 13:40:43 -0500, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>are lying".
wrote:
On 4/20/2026 4:08 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Sat, 18 Apr 2026 12:06:53 -0500, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>
wrote:
On 4/18/2026 6:24 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Wed, 15 Apr 2026 14:31:27 -0500, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>
wrote:
On 4/15/2026 11:36 AM, Martin Harran wrote:[rCa]
On Wed, 15 Apr 2026 16:59:56 +0100, "Kerr-Mudd, John"
No one is going to convince an opponent by stating that "they
(no matterand probably not by constant repetition of the same arguments
reality,how valid) that failed to get through the first 50 times.
Tell that to RonO, he's the one who keeps calling everyone who
disagrees with him a liar.
Who got caught lying and quote mining? You need to deal with
short?and quit lying about it. Lying about me is just so stupid that it is
pretty much insane. You have always lied about the sources that you
could not deal honestly with. Who's sources have always come up
matched byLook at what you are doing now. Is there any excuse for you not dealing
with your own stupid dishonest behavior?
The tiresomeness of you continually claiming that my sources were
caught lying and that I have been lying and quote mining is
beenthe tiresomeness of your inability to ever identify what lie my
sources were caught in, what lies I have told or where I have quote
mined.
[... more big snip ...]
Why keep lying about what your sources did and what you did? That is
just stupid and dishonest. Just look up your past posts to determine
for yourself what went down. You tried to lie about my sources being
deficient when your sources had always come up short or even supported
my sources by putting up the lame lie that heliocentrism had never
samecondemned other then by the inquisition. It was stupid because it did
not negate what you and your sources had been wrong about. It turned
out that your source was lying and you ran. You ran twice from the
whatevidence that your source was lying. You tried to come back with your
lame quote mining efforts and trying to distract the argument from
it had been. You did that, and your source was demonstrated to have
lied about the issue. You need to go back and deal with what you did.
An appology for your disgraceful behavior would be in order. Just try
not to do it again. Continuing to lie about what happened is just
adding to how low you needed to go.
Yet again, you make all sorts of accusations without a single example
of something to support them.
What I cannot figure out is whether you just can't grasp that your
failure to produce a single example of supporting evidence portrays
*you* as the one telling lies; or whether you do grasp it and just
don't care; or whether, like a certain President, you think that if
you repeat a lie enough times that someone will eventually believe it.
You should apologize for what you have been doing and stop doing it. I
found the posts where you ran from your source having been caught lying,
you then snipped the evidence out of your response to your running.
The thread: There is no legitimate scientific support for the ID scam.
I can post your quote mining attempts and other stupid behavior that you
resorted to to defend your running and defense of your bogus source.
So why don't you instead of talking about it?
Specific examples, please, not reams and reams of obfuscatory cut'n
paste.
On Sun, 16 Nov 2025 18:25:18 -0600, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>claiming you
wrote:
On 11/16/2025 4:40 PM, Martin Harran wrote:[rCa]
The links that I put up were from the Catholics that continue to be
geocentric creationists, and the Catholics that are trying to refute
them. Both sides do not agree with you. What does your continued
denial of reality tell you?
You gave no such links. All you have to do to prove me wrong is give
them again.
Do you not see how stupid you are making yourself look by
gave links but cannot repeat them?
Why lie about something so stupid. One of the links was your own
trusted Catholic site, and you initially gave that link.
That was this site:
https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/06342b.htm
The one where the Catholic Church states:
" In thus acting, it is undeniable that the ecclesiastical authorities
committed a grave and deplorable error, and sanctioned an altogether
false principle as to the proper use of Scripture."
The one that cites Professor Augustus De Morgan (Budget of Paradoxes)
declaring
"It is clear that the absurdity was the act of the Italian
Inquisition, for the private and personal pleasure of the pope - who
knew that the course he took could not convict him as pope - and not
of the body which calls itself the Church."
The one that cites von Gebler ("Galileo Galilei"):
"The Church never condemned it (the Copernican system) at all, for the
Qualifiers of the Holy Office never mean the Church."
It beats me how you figure out that site and the people referred to in
it somehow back your claim that heliocentrism really was a heresy. I
guess you have to convince yourself in order to maintain your delusion
as you clearly can't find a reputable source that actually does back
you up.
Yes, everyone admits that they were wrong about geocentrism except for
the Catholics that are still geocentrics. This source called what
Galileo faced both times a charge of heresy. They did not make a
distinction between formal heresy and heresy like the anti geocentric
site, but it was still a heresy.
What part of "The Church never condemned it (the Copernican system) at
all" did you not understand?
The only place that formal comes into all this is in the judgement
issued after Galileo's first trial where the verdict stated that the proposition that the Sun is stationary at the centre of the universe
is "foolish and absurd in philosophy, and formally heretical since it explicitly contradicts in many places the sense of Holy Scripture".
That, however, is t the Catholic Encyclopaedia refers to where it
says:
"it is undeniable that the ecclesiastical authorities committed a
grave and deplorable error, and sanctioned an altogether false
principle as to the proper use of Scripture."
Note also that the words "formally heretical" are wrong - I'm not sure whether it was the Inquisition using weasel words or whether it was a
bad translation from the Latin.
The word "heresy" can be used in two ways; it can apply to the
rejection of a specific doctrine of the Church or it can refer to the
act of committing heresy. The word "formal" applies to the latter -
the act of committing heresy - and is used to categorise the degree of
guilt of the person committing the heresy. "Formal heresy" means they
knew they were going against doctrine and are therefore guilty of
mortal sin; "material heresy" means they did not know they were going against doctrine so they are not guilty sin.
It's a bit like first degree versus second degree murder and Galileo's
trial was like him being charged with first-degree murder without a
murder being established in the first place.
The Inquisition made it into a formal heresy after the Council of Trent.
They were supposedly wrong, and a couple centuries later things got
reversed to what they had been at the time that the findings of the
Council of Trent were published.
The holy office (the inquisition) had Galileo facing a formal heresy
charge in his first encounter. When the pope got involved they just did
not call it a formal heresy in the sentencing. Galileo's views were
still condemned. They claimed that Galileo was facing a charge of
heresy. His heliocentric notions were still considered to be heresy and
the heresy that he was guilty of was clearly defined in the sentencing.
The anti geocentrics admitted that the pope had the Galileo case
published and disseminated throughout the church in order to quash the
heliocentric notions that were becoming an issue for the church. They
just want to claim that, that was not an official act. That is just
stupid. The pope did it for known reasons, and who cares if they want
to plead that he was not acting as pope?
There is no doubt that the actors were wrong, and that is the issue.
They do not want it to reflect on papal infallibility. That in itself
should be considered to be a non scriptural unjustifiable claim.
The Inquisition had Copernican writings banned and made heliocentrism
into a formal heresy because all the church fathers were geocentrics,
and that meant that Copernicans were in conflict with the beliefs of the
church fathers. Both the geocentric Catholics and the anti geocentric
Catholics claim that the Inquisition did this because of what the church
came up with at the Council of Trent where they made the beliefs of the
church fathers as a legitimate and necessary authority for interpreting
scripture. Both Catholic sides of the geocentric issue understand this
to be true.
QUOTE:
Council of Trent
Session IV, April 8, 1546, Decree Concerning the Edition and the Use of
the Sacred Books:
... "Furthermore, in order to restrain petulant spirits, it [the Council
of Trent] decrees that no one, relying on his own skill, shall,-in
matters of faith, and of morals pertaining to the edification of
Christian doctrine,-wresting the sacred Scriptures to his own senses,
presume to interpret the said sacred Scripture contrary to that sense
which holy Mother Church-to whom it belongs to judge of the true sense
and interpretation of the Holy Scriptures-hath held and doth hold; or
even contrary to the unanimous consent of the Fathers; even though such
interpretations were never (intended) to be at any time published.
Contraveners shall be made known by their Ordinaries and be punished
with the penalties by law established."
END QUOTE:
https://www.biblelightinfo.com/unanimous-consent.htm
Both Catholic sides of the issue claim that the Council of Trent caused
the Inquisition to ban Copernican writings and start treating
heliocentrism as a formal heresy because it went against the geocentric
beliefs of the church fathers.
You are taking all that crap from your geocentric hero; if you want to persist in taking his opinion against that of the Church's own
theologians then that is you just acting like Spikes rejecting the
opinion of scientists in favour of people who play to his confirmation
bias.
It was a mistake and the actors were in error only because of our
current understanding of nature. The Pope was wrong about it. He was
one of the mistaken actors.
The Pope was not a "mistaken actor", he was pissed off with Galileo presenting the Pope's views as those of a simpleton and misused his
powers to hit back at Galileo. Again, the Catholic Encyclopaedia
spells that explicitly:
"It is clear that the absurdity was the act of the Italian
Inquisition, for the private and personal pleasure of the pope - who
knew that the course he took could not convict him as pope - and not
of the body which calls itself the Church."
The Galileo affair was a shameful episode in the Church's history but
was all about the animosity between the Pope and Galileo, it had
nothing to do with heliocentrism being a heresy, that was just the
vehicle that the Pope used to attack Galileo.
On Mon, 17 Nov 2025 14:40:05 -0600, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>
wrote:
On 11/17/2025 11:45 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Mon, 17 Nov 2025 09:57:31 -0600, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>
wrote:
[...]
Oops, the Pope was not infallible.
So papal infallibility is another thing you don't understand.
I am just repeating what the anti geocentrist want to claim about it.
The "anti-geocentrists" of whom you cannot identify even one. Mind
you, when you first brought in the website of your geocentrist mentor,
it was anonymous and you didn't even know who the author was until I
figured out; the fact that he is a declared geocentrist and you knew
nothing about him didn't stop you placing high value on his opinions
and continuing to do so.
Weird to say the least.
[...]
On Wed, 19 Nov 2025 14:55:52 -0600, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>
wrote:
On 11/19/2025 12:01 PM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Mon, 17 Nov 2025 14:40:05 -0600, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>
wrote:
On 11/17/2025 11:45 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Mon, 17 Nov 2025 09:57:31 -0600, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>
wrote:
[...]
Oops, the Pope was not infallible.
So papal infallibility is another thing you don't understand.
I am just repeating what the anti geocentrist want to claim about it.
The "anti-geocentrists" of whom you cannot identify even one. Mind
you, when you first brought in the website of your geocentrist mentor,
it was anonymous and you didn't even know who the author was until I
figured out; the fact that he is a declared geocentrist and you knew
nothing about him didn't stop you placing high value on his opinions
and continuing to do so.
Weird to say the least.
[...]
You were given the links before,
Nope
so stop lying about it. Why should I
look up that junk again.
So you can prove I'm lying. But you can't because I'm not lying, you
gave no links except to the geocentrist idiot whose opinion you value
so highly.
You just denied that it was valid and kept
lying. Even your own trusted source backed up the anti geocentric site.
The anti geocentrists were on your side in terms of denying that it
was a formal heresy that Galileo faced the second time, but they agreed
with the geocentrists that the Inquisition had made it a formal heresy
charge the first time Galileo faced it and agreed with the Wiki. The
Vatican Observatory article that you have run from and snipped out of
this post backs up the geocentrists and anti geocentrists.
Just stop lying about the issue.
https://www.vaticanobservatory.org/sacred-space-astronomy/heliocentrism-condemned-400-years-ago-on-march-5-2/
They admit that helicentrism was condemned 400 years ago. 1616 is when
Galileo faced the formal heresy charge.
They do not consider the heresy cases, but they were based upon the
Inquisitions opinion of the topic.
Your claim of "never" having been condemned seems to be a lie.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galileo_Galilei
QUOTE:
In February 1616, an Inquisitorial commission declared heliocentrism to
be "foolish and absurd in philosophy, and formally heretical since it
explicitly contradicts in many places the sense of Holy Scripture".
END QUOTE:
Now YOU are the one lying about me. I never said it was never
condemned; on the contrary, I gave that exact same quote. What I did
was to point out that what it said was a FALSE CLAIM and it wasn't me
who came to that conclusion, it was the Catholic Church who came to
it, supported by every historian I know of who investigated it, people
like De Morgan and von Gebler. The only person I have ever known to
say there actually was a heresy is the geocentrist idiot whose opinion
you value so highly.
Both the geocentrists that you don't like, and the anti geocentric
catholics that do not agree with geocentric beliefs agreed that it was a
formal heresy charge the first time that Galileo faced the issue.
Now you seem to be trying to worm your way out of it by admitting
there was a *charge* without retracting that there was an actual
heresy which is what you have been claiming all long.
You can't just keep refusing to deal with reality and expect anything to
change.
You can't keep claiming support from "anti-geocentrists" about
heliocentrism having been an actual heresy without being able to
identify even one and expect people to take you seriously.
On Thu, 20 Nov 2025 09:38:56 -0600, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>heliocentrism to
wrote:
On 11/20/2025 4:47 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Wed, 19 Nov 2025 14:55:52 -0600, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>
wrote:
[snip for focus]
Your claim of "never" having been condemned seems to be a lie.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galileo_Galilei
QUOTE:
In February 1616, an Inquisitorial commission declared
be "foolish and absurd in philosophy, and formally heretical since it
explicitly contradicts in many places the sense of Holy Scripture".
END QUOTE:
Now YOU are the one lying about me. I never said it was never
condemned; on the contrary, I gave that exact same quote. What I did
was to point out that what it said was a FALSE CLAIM and it wasn't me
who came to that conclusion, it was the Catholic Church who came to
it, supported by every historian I know of who investigated it, people
like De Morgan and von Gebler. The only person I have ever known to
say there actually was a heresy is the geocentrist idiot whose opinion
you value so highly.
You put up the quote that said it had never been condemned. Go back up
and check. It was your quote.
Here is verbatim what I quoted:
Message-ID: 2gkkhk9bvctolude5jf6b6e0kothd5723d@4ax.com ========================================
<quote>
The [site] that cites von Gebler ("Galileo Galilei"):
"The Church never condemned it (the Copernican system) at all, for the Qualifiers of the Holy Office never mean the Church."
==========================================
#1: it was von Gebler who said rCLnever condemnedrCY, not me as you
claimed two posts ago.
#2 he did not say it was never condemned, he said *the Church* never condemned it.
Why do you post lies that are so easily shown to be lies?
On Fri, 21 Nov 2025 17:33:49 -0600, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>
wrote:
On 11/21/2025 12:29 PM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Fri, 21 Nov 2025 09:04:37 -0600, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>
wrote:
[rCa]
Let's cut to the chase here.
No lies to retract. You lied.
What lie are you claiming I told? Please quote exactly what I said
that you regard as a lie.
The ones that you keep telling.
"Never condemned"
I'm out of here. George Bernard Shaw warned that you shouldn't wrestle
with a pig as you get dirty and the pig enjoys it. I'm not going to
waste any more time trying to have a sensible discussion with someone
who thinks it's ok to take two words out of what somebody else said to
give a completely different meaning and then attribute those two words
to me. It doesn't even reach the level of quote-mining.
What beggars belief is that you do it where the exact quote from von
Gerber [1] and what I said about it are preserved just a couple of
posts above for all to see. As I noted earlier, it is really sad to
see this sort of behaviour from someone whose ability as a scientist I respect so much EfOU
===========================================
[1] "The Church never condemned it (the Copernican system) at all, for
the Qualifiers of the Holy Office never mean the Church."
[von Gebler ("Galileo Galilei")]
[..]
You should not continue to add to your own dishonest stupidity.
Trusting your source was obviously a stupid thing to do, and trying to
continue to support that source was just stupid and dishonest.
Ron Okimoto
On Sat, 9 May 2026 09:09:26 -0500, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com> wrote:
On 5/9/2026 1:24 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Thu, 7 May 2026 08:48:35 -0500, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com> wrote:
[rCa]
Nothing that you could ever put up will change what you have already
lied about. Look at your previous attempts to snip and run from
reality. You tried to quote mine the wiki. It still clearly claimed
that Galileo faced a formal heresy charge in 1616, but what did you
quote from that source?
I quoted the section explaining how he ended up in Rome in 1616; the
section that explains that Galileo wasn't summoned to Rome, he decided
himself, against the advice of his friends, to go because he heard the
Inquisition was investigating heliocentrism for possible heresy and he
wanted to make a case on its behalf.
Now, if you reckon I am quote mining, why don't you quote the bit
where it said he faced a formal heresy charge?
You might also explain how come neither the Qualifiers' report nor the
Inquisition's decree even mention Galileo.
You have consistently lied about this for years. You have harassed me
with the same stupid lies about my sources being inadequate, when your
sources and stupid behavior have always come up short. You are
currently putting up more prevarication in order to lie about how stupid
and dishonest you have already been.
You can't quote where it says he faced a heresy charge in 1616 because
it doesn't say that and reposting endless copies of the same 49K of
text doesn't hide that.
You are quick to accuse others of telling lies but let's just look at
the lies you have told on this issue alone.
Lie No 1: You claimed multiple times that the Wiji page says Galileo
faced a heresy charge in 1616. It doesn't as shown by you not being
able to say where it does.
Lie No 2: When I quoted what it actually did say, you claimed the site
had been edited since you used it. It hadn't.
Lie No 3: When I produced the Wayback Machine copy to show the site
hadn't been edited you claimed you hadn't said it was edited, that you
only said it looked different.
What gets me about these lies is how totally fucking stupid they were.
Take the third one, you tried to claim you didn't say it was edited
yet your exact words - " rCa it has been edited since I used it" were preserved in the text above your denial. As I said before, the only
thing I can't figure out is whether you are too stupid to realise how
idiotic you are making yourself here or whether you see it and just
don't care.
All that you will ever get is what you have to keep snipping and running
from. You can't face what you have already done, so why keep lying
about the past the way in which you continue to do?
Seems that all I am going to get is your wild claims that you can
produce SFA to back up.
[rCa]
On Sun, 22 Feb 2026 13:40:10 -0600, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>what you
wrote:
On 2/22/2026 10:18 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Sat, 21 Feb 2026 12:44:57 -0600, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>
wrote:
On 2/21/2026 11:59 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
What documents are you talking about that you keep saying the Jesuits
put up?
You can keep lying about what has been discussed, but you know
was notdid. You need to be the one that finds it and satisfy yourself with
what you did.
You put up your source lying about heliocentrism never being condemned
by anyone but the Inquisition. You claimed that the Inquisition
ordered bythe Church. I put up the Jesuit Observatory claim that the Papal
offices had condemned heliocentrism and this condemnation was
sources havethe Pope. They put up the relevant document and stated what the Pope
did. Your source was caught lying and you ran. Go find it. It is
something that you should do because you will uncover all your other
evasions on this issue while doing it. Your quotes of your
always come up short. The sources that you claim are unreliable, have
repeatedly been shown to be more reliable than what you come up with.
Oh, you mean the link you gave back in November, this one:
https://www.vaticanobservatory.org/sacred-space-astronomy/heliocentrism-condemned-400-years-ago-on-march-5-2/
The one where they posted the full 1616 decree on it's 400th
anniversary and commented:
<quote>
The formulation here is much milder than the one found in the working
document of February 24. The Decree talks about the "false Pythagorean
doctrine" and declare it "altogether contrary to the Holy Scripture".
This is not nearly as harsh as "foolish and absurd" philosophically,
and "formally heretical" because contrary to Scripture.
</quote>
How fucking dense can you be? It doesn't get much stupider than
posting something that contradicts what you are claiming.
If I am the dense one why did you run from what they admitted about the
document?
LOL, you post something that you think supports your claim but
actually rejects it and the best defence you can offer is to accuse me
of running away from it.
The Pope did condemn heliocentrism.
Beats me why you keep repeating this. The Pope did not personally
condemn heliocentrism, he allowed the Inquisition's condemnation of it
to be made public - that did not make it a heresy.
That is what your side was lying
about.
The only one telling lies here is you. For example, when you keep
insisting that all the "anti-geocentrists" in the Catholic
Encyclopaedia article agree with you that heliocentrism was a heresy
when they all say explicitly that it wasn't. Your lie is underlined by
the fact that you can't produce identify any source that agrees that heliocentrism was a heresy except your geocentrist mentors.
reality.It doesn't matter that the final wording was milder than the
initial draft. They admit that the Pope condemned heliocentrism, and
supported using the Council of Trent's scriptural interpretation on the
matter. It doesn't matter what it was called because the authors and
books are named. You ran from this link because your source was found
to have lied about heliocentrism never having been condemned except by
the Inquisition. The Pope obviously represents the Church and condemned
heliocentrism. He supported the Inquisition in 1616, and their
additions to the Index in order to protect against heresy. The books
would not have been added to the Index if they were not considered to be
heretical. The document even talks about the heretical parts of the
books, and indicates that after one of them is rewritten, so that it is
not against scripture, that it can be removed from the Index.
Keep lying to yourself about the issue. It isn't going to change
The Inquisition made heliocentrism a formal heresy in 1615-1616.
The decree is given in full on the Vatican Observatory site that you
tried to claim supports you and the word 'heresy' or 'heretical' does
not even appear in it.
They
did this because of their interpretation of scripture as the Council of
Trent had decided.
The decree doesn't make any reference whatsoever to Trent regarding interpretation of scripture; the one and only reference is to the *punishment* under Trent for disobeying the decree.
They added heliocentric writings to the Index,
They declare that "the books by Nicolaus Copernicus (On the
Revolutions of Spheres) and by Diego de Zu|#iga (On Job) be suspended
until corrected".
I've given details of the required corrections to Revolutions in a
different post to Harshman and they are all minor edits - not one of
them makes any change to the core principle of heliocentrism. A rather
weird declaration of heresy that allows Copernicus's book supporting
it to be published with minor edits that don't undermine his
proposition.
and
had their first encounter with Galileo. The Pope agreed with them and
condemned heliocentrism, and agreed with their additions to the Index of
banned writings.
Before your source lied about "never being condemned" the Pope's
involvement in 1616 was not an issue between the geocentric and
anti-geocentric Catholics in terms of what you were lying about at the
time. Both sides agreed that it was a formal heresy charge faced by
Galileo in 1615-1616. They disagreed about it being a formal heresy
charge the second time because it was only written up as "heresy" and
not formal heresy in the sentencing. It remained a heresy charge.
You obviously struggle with grasping that a *charge* does not make
someone guilty. I hope I'm never on trial for something I didn't do
with you on the jury.
The
Pope had the Galileo case, sentencing, and punishment published and
distributed throughout the Church in order to quash the heliocentric
heresy, but the guys that want to maintain Papal infallibility claim
that that was not an official Papal action. They admitted that there
was an issue with helicentrism at the time, but they do not want the
Pope to have been on the wrong side of the issue.
You need to deal with reality.
I think it's very clear who has the problem with accepting reality and
it's not me.
It is well understood that the Bible is
just wrong about a lot of things that we can figure out for ourselves.
Your own quotes from Pope Francis makes that claim. The Bible can be
misinterpreted because the author's understanding of the creation was
faulty. Francis knows that the universe was not created in 6 magic
episodes. Only those in complete denial do not understand that the
order of creation described in the Bible is wrong. There are still
young earth, old earth day for agers, geocentric, and flat earth
Biblical creationists because they are in the same type of denial that
you are in. There are just different levels of denial.
Ron Okimoto
On 5/9/2026 2:26 PM, Martin Harran wrote:
I do not have to do anything.
On Sat, 9 May 2026 09:09:26 -0500, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com> wrote:
On 5/9/2026 1:24 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Thu, 7 May 2026 08:48:35 -0500, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com> wrote:
[rCa]
Nothing that you could ever put up will change what you have already >>>>> lied about. Look at your previous attempts to snip and run from
reality. You tried to quote mine the wiki. It still clearly claimed >>>>> that Galileo faced a formal heresy charge in 1616, but what did you
quote from that source?
I quoted the section explaining how he ended up in Rome in 1616; the
section that explains that Galileo wasn't summoned to Rome, he decided >>>> himself, against the advice of his friends, to go because he heard the >>>> Inquisition was investigating heliocentrism for possible heresy and he >>>> wanted to make a case on its behalf.
Now, if you reckon I am quote mining, why don't you quote the bit
where it said he faced a formal heresy charge?
You might also explain how come neither the Qualifiers' report nor the >>>> Inquisition's decree even mention Galileo.
You have consistently lied about this for years. You have harassed me
with the same stupid lies about my sources being inadequate, when your
sources and stupid behavior have always come up short. You are
currently putting up more prevarication in order to lie about how stupid >>> and dishonest you have already been.
You can't quote where it says he faced a heresy charge in 1616 because
it doesn't say that and reposting endless copies of the same 49K of
text doesn't hide that.
You are quick to accuse others of telling lies but let's just look at
the lies you have told on this issue alone.
Lie No 1: You claimed multiple times that the Wiji page says Galileo
faced a heresy charge in 1616. It doesn't as shown by you not being
able to say where it does.
Lie No 2: When I quoted what it actually did say, you claimed the site
had been edited since you used it. It hadn't.
Lie No 3: When I produced the Wayback Machine copy to show the site
hadn't been edited you claimed you hadn't said it was edited, that you
only said it looked different.
What gets me about these lies is how totally fucking stupid they were.
Take the third one, you tried to claim you didn't say it was edited
yet your exact words - " rCa it has been edited since I used it" were
preserved in the text above your denial. As I said before, the only
thing I can't figure out is whether you are too stupid to realise how
idiotic you are making yourself here or whether you see it and just
don't care.
All that you will ever get is what you have to keep snipping and running >>> from. You can't face what you have already done, so why keep lying
about the past the way in which you continue to do?
Seems that all I am going to get is your wild claims that you can
produce SFA to back up.
[rCa]
On Sat, 9 May 2026 17:57:12 -0500, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com> wrote:
On 5/9/2026 2:26 PM, Martin Harran wrote:
I do not have to do anything.
On Sat, 9 May 2026 09:09:26 -0500, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com> wrote:
On 5/9/2026 1:24 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Thu, 7 May 2026 08:48:35 -0500, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com> wrote: >>>
[rCa]
Nothing that you could ever put up will change what you have already >>>>>> lied about. Look at your previous attempts to snip and run from
reality. You tried to quote mine the wiki. It still clearly claimed >>>>>> that Galileo faced a formal heresy charge in 1616, but what did you >>>>>> quote from that source?
I quoted the section explaining how he ended up in Rome in 1616; the >>>>> section that explains that Galileo wasn't summoned to Rome, he decided >>>>> himself, against the advice of his friends, to go because he heard the >>>>> Inquisition was investigating heliocentrism for possible heresy and he >>>>> wanted to make a case on its behalf.
Now, if you reckon I am quote mining, why don't you quote the bit
where it said he faced a formal heresy charge?
You might also explain how come neither the Qualifiers' report nor the >>>>> Inquisition's decree even mention Galileo.
You have consistently lied about this for years. You have harassed me >>>> with the same stupid lies about my sources being inadequate, when your >>>> sources and stupid behavior have always come up short. You are
currently putting up more prevarication in order to lie about how stupid >>>> and dishonest you have already been.
You can't quote where it says he faced a heresy charge in 1616 because
it doesn't say that and reposting endless copies of the same 49K of
text doesn't hide that.
You are quick to accuse others of telling lies but let's just look at
the lies you have told on this issue alone.
Lie No 1: You claimed multiple times that the Wiji page says Galileo
faced a heresy charge in 1616. It doesn't as shown by you not being
able to say where it does.
Lie No 2: When I quoted what it actually did say, you claimed the site
had been edited since you used it. It hadn't.
Lie No 3: When I produced the Wayback Machine copy to show the site
hadn't been edited you claimed you hadn't said it was edited, that you
only said it looked different.
What gets me about these lies is how totally fucking stupid they were.
Take the third one, you tried to claim you didn't say it was edited
yet your exact words - " rCa it has been edited since I used it" were
preserved in the text above your denial. As I said before, the only
thing I can't figure out is whether you are too stupid to realise how
idiotic you are making yourself here or whether you see it and just
don't care.
All that you will ever get is what you have to keep snipping and running >>>> from. You can't face what you have already done, so why keep lying
about the past the way in which you continue to do?
Seems that all I am going to get is your wild claims that you can
produce SFA to back up.
[rCa]
Runaway Ron.
On Thu, 30 Apr 2026 08:49:48 -0500, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>insane.
wrote:
On 4/30/2026 5:44 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Wed, 29 Apr 2026 19:41:58 -0500, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>
wrote:
On 4/29/2026 1:13 PM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Wed, 29 Apr 2026 12:43:53 -0500, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>
wrote:
[...]
Snipping and lying about what you have done is just stupid and
snipped and
Not as stupid and insane as making a claim you can't support. C'mon,
Ron, give the link to the Wiki article that says Galileo faced a
heresy charge in 1616 rCa surely it can't be that difficult.
[snip desperation attempt to avoid issue]
What a lying asshole. This is the second time that you have
run from what you have lied about as being handwaving.
C'mon Ron, no need to repost 7000 words that nobody wants to read. All
that's needed to show me to be the lying asshole, not you, is a simple
quote from the Wiki article that says what you insist it says. A dozen
or so words should cover it or even a simple URL. Can't be that hard
can it?
[...]
You need to stop harassing me with your stupid lies about the past.
I'll gladly stop harassing you when you either give a specific example
of a lie told by either me or those I cited in support. Or else
withdraw your own stupid lies.
On Mon, 20 Apr 2026 13:40:43 -0500, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>are lying".
wrote:
On 4/20/2026 4:08 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Sat, 18 Apr 2026 12:06:53 -0500, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>
wrote:
On 4/18/2026 6:24 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Wed, 15 Apr 2026 14:31:27 -0500, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>
wrote:
On 4/15/2026 11:36 AM, Martin Harran wrote:[rCa]
On Wed, 15 Apr 2026 16:59:56 +0100, "Kerr-Mudd, John"
No one is going to convince an opponent by stating that "they
(no matterand probably not by constant repetition of the same arguments
reality,how valid) that failed to get through the first 50 times.
Tell that to RonO, he's the one who keeps calling everyone who
disagrees with him a liar.
Who got caught lying and quote mining? You need to deal with
short?and quit lying about it. Lying about me is just so stupid that it is
pretty much insane. You have always lied about the sources that you
could not deal honestly with. Who's sources have always come up
matched byLook at what you are doing now. Is there any excuse for you not dealing
with your own stupid dishonest behavior?
The tiresomeness of you continually claiming that my sources were
caught lying and that I have been lying and quote mining is
beenthe tiresomeness of your inability to ever identify what lie my
sources were caught in, what lies I have told or where I have quote
mined.
[... more big snip ...]
Why keep lying about what your sources did and what you did? That is
just stupid and dishonest. Just look up your past posts to determine
for yourself what went down. You tried to lie about my sources being
deficient when your sources had always come up short or even supported
my sources by putting up the lame lie that heliocentrism had never
samecondemned other then by the inquisition. It was stupid because it did
not negate what you and your sources had been wrong about. It turned
out that your source was lying and you ran. You ran twice from the
whatevidence that your source was lying. You tried to come back with your
lame quote mining efforts and trying to distract the argument from
it had been. You did that, and your source was demonstrated to have
lied about the issue. You need to go back and deal with what you did.
An appology for your disgraceful behavior would be in order. Just try
not to do it again. Continuing to lie about what happened is just
adding to how low you needed to go.
Yet again, you make all sorts of accusations without a single example
of something to support them.
What I cannot figure out is whether you just can't grasp that your
failure to produce a single example of supporting evidence portrays
*you* as the one telling lies; or whether you do grasp it and just
don't care; or whether, like a certain President, you think that if
you repeat a lie enough times that someone will eventually believe it.
You should apologize for what you have been doing and stop doing it. I
found the posts where you ran from your source having been caught lying,
you then snipped the evidence out of your response to your running.
The thread: There is no legitimate scientific support for the ID scam.
I can post your quote mining attempts and other stupid behavior that you
resorted to to defend your running and defense of your bogus source.
So why don't you instead of talking about it?
Specific examples, please, not reams and reams of obfuscatory cut'n
paste.
On Sun, 16 Nov 2025 18:25:18 -0600, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>claiming you
wrote:
On 11/16/2025 4:40 PM, Martin Harran wrote:[rCa]
The links that I put up were from the Catholics that continue to be
geocentric creationists, and the Catholics that are trying to refute
them. Both sides do not agree with you. What does your continued
denial of reality tell you?
You gave no such links. All you have to do to prove me wrong is give
them again.
Do you not see how stupid you are making yourself look by
gave links but cannot repeat them?
Why lie about something so stupid. One of the links was your own
trusted Catholic site, and you initially gave that link.
That was this site:
https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/06342b.htm
The one where the Catholic Church states:
" In thus acting, it is undeniable that the ecclesiastical authorities
committed a grave and deplorable error, and sanctioned an altogether
false principle as to the proper use of Scripture."
The one that cites Professor Augustus De Morgan (Budget of Paradoxes)
declaring
"It is clear that the absurdity was the act of the Italian
Inquisition, for the private and personal pleasure of the pope - who
knew that the course he took could not convict him as pope - and not
of the body which calls itself the Church."
The one that cites von Gebler ("Galileo Galilei"):
"The Church never condemned it (the Copernican system) at all, for the
Qualifiers of the Holy Office never mean the Church."
It beats me how you figure out that site and the people referred to in
it somehow back your claim that heliocentrism really was a heresy. I
guess you have to convince yourself in order to maintain your delusion
as you clearly can't find a reputable source that actually does back
you up.
Yes, everyone admits that they were wrong about geocentrism except for
the Catholics that are still geocentrics. This source called what
Galileo faced both times a charge of heresy. They did not make a
distinction between formal heresy and heresy like the anti geocentric
site, but it was still a heresy.
What part of "The Church never condemned it (the Copernican system) at
all" did you not understand?
The only place that formal comes into all this is in the judgement
issued after Galileo's first trial where the verdict stated that the proposition that the Sun is stationary at the centre of the universe
is "foolish and absurd in philosophy, and formally heretical since it explicitly contradicts in many places the sense of Holy Scripture".
That, however, is t the Catholic Encyclopaedia refers to where it
says:
"it is undeniable that the ecclesiastical authorities committed a
grave and deplorable error, and sanctioned an altogether false
principle as to the proper use of Scripture."
Note also that the words "formally heretical" are wrong - I'm not sure whether it was the Inquisition using weasel words or whether it was a
bad translation from the Latin.
The word "heresy" can be used in two ways; it can apply to the
rejection of a specific doctrine of the Church or it can refer to the
act of committing heresy. The word "formal" applies to the latter -
the act of committing heresy - and is used to categorise the degree of
guilt of the person committing the heresy. "Formal heresy" means they
knew they were going against doctrine and are therefore guilty of
mortal sin; "material heresy" means they did not know they were going against doctrine so they are not guilty sin.
It's a bit like first degree versus second degree murder and Galileo's
trial was like him being charged with first-degree murder without a
murder being established in the first place.
The Inquisition made it into a formal heresy after the Council of Trent.
They were supposedly wrong, and a couple centuries later things got
reversed to what they had been at the time that the findings of the
Council of Trent were published.
The holy office (the inquisition) had Galileo facing a formal heresy
charge in his first encounter. When the pope got involved they just did
not call it a formal heresy in the sentencing. Galileo's views were
still condemned. They claimed that Galileo was facing a charge of
heresy. His heliocentric notions were still considered to be heresy and
the heresy that he was guilty of was clearly defined in the sentencing.
The anti geocentrics admitted that the pope had the Galileo case
published and disseminated throughout the church in order to quash the
heliocentric notions that were becoming an issue for the church. They
just want to claim that, that was not an official act. That is just
stupid. The pope did it for known reasons, and who cares if they want
to plead that he was not acting as pope?
There is no doubt that the actors were wrong, and that is the issue.
They do not want it to reflect on papal infallibility. That in itself
should be considered to be a non scriptural unjustifiable claim.
The Inquisition had Copernican writings banned and made heliocentrism
into a formal heresy because all the church fathers were geocentrics,
and that meant that Copernicans were in conflict with the beliefs of the
church fathers. Both the geocentric Catholics and the anti geocentric
Catholics claim that the Inquisition did this because of what the church
came up with at the Council of Trent where they made the beliefs of the
church fathers as a legitimate and necessary authority for interpreting
scripture. Both Catholic sides of the geocentric issue understand this
to be true.
QUOTE:
Council of Trent
Session IV, April 8, 1546, Decree Concerning the Edition and the Use of
the Sacred Books:
... "Furthermore, in order to restrain petulant spirits, it [the Council
of Trent] decrees that no one, relying on his own skill, shall,-in
matters of faith, and of morals pertaining to the edification of
Christian doctrine,-wresting the sacred Scriptures to his own senses,
presume to interpret the said sacred Scripture contrary to that sense
which holy Mother Church-to whom it belongs to judge of the true sense
and interpretation of the Holy Scriptures-hath held and doth hold; or
even contrary to the unanimous consent of the Fathers; even though such
interpretations were never (intended) to be at any time published.
Contraveners shall be made known by their Ordinaries and be punished
with the penalties by law established."
END QUOTE:
https://www.biblelightinfo.com/unanimous-consent.htm
Both Catholic sides of the issue claim that the Council of Trent caused
the Inquisition to ban Copernican writings and start treating
heliocentrism as a formal heresy because it went against the geocentric
beliefs of the church fathers.
You are taking all that crap from your geocentric hero; if you want to persist in taking his opinion against that of the Church's own
theologians then that is you just acting like Spikes rejecting the
opinion of scientists in favour of people who play to his confirmation
bias.
It was a mistake and the actors were in error only because of our
current understanding of nature. The Pope was wrong about it. He was
one of the mistaken actors.
The Pope was not a "mistaken actor", he was pissed off with Galileo presenting the Pope's views as those of a simpleton and misused his
powers to hit back at Galileo. Again, the Catholic Encyclopaedia
spells that explicitly:
"It is clear that the absurdity was the act of the Italian
Inquisition, for the private and personal pleasure of the pope - who
knew that the course he took could not convict him as pope - and not
of the body which calls itself the Church."
The Galileo affair was a shameful episode in the Church's history but
was all about the animosity between the Pope and Galileo, it had
nothing to do with heliocentrism being a heresy, that was just the
vehicle that the Pope used to attack Galileo.
On Mon, 17 Nov 2025 14:40:05 -0600, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>
wrote:
On 11/17/2025 11:45 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Mon, 17 Nov 2025 09:57:31 -0600, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>
wrote:
[...]
Oops, the Pope was not infallible.
So papal infallibility is another thing you don't understand.
I am just repeating what the anti geocentrist want to claim about it.
The "anti-geocentrists" of whom you cannot identify even one. Mind
you, when you first brought in the website of your geocentrist mentor,
it was anonymous and you didn't even know who the author was until I
figured out; the fact that he is a declared geocentrist and you knew
nothing about him didn't stop you placing high value on his opinions
and continuing to do so.
Weird to say the least.
[...]
On Wed, 19 Nov 2025 14:55:52 -0600, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>
wrote:
On 11/19/2025 12:01 PM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Mon, 17 Nov 2025 14:40:05 -0600, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>
wrote:
On 11/17/2025 11:45 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Mon, 17 Nov 2025 09:57:31 -0600, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>
wrote:
[...]
Oops, the Pope was not infallible.
So papal infallibility is another thing you don't understand.
I am just repeating what the anti geocentrist want to claim about it.
The "anti-geocentrists" of whom you cannot identify even one. Mind
you, when you first brought in the website of your geocentrist mentor,
it was anonymous and you didn't even know who the author was until I
figured out; the fact that he is a declared geocentrist and you knew
nothing about him didn't stop you placing high value on his opinions
and continuing to do so.
Weird to say the least.
[...]
You were given the links before,
Nope
so stop lying about it. Why should I
look up that junk again.
So you can prove I'm lying. But you can't because I'm not lying, you
gave no links except to the geocentrist idiot whose opinion you value
so highly.
You just denied that it was valid and kept
lying. Even your own trusted source backed up the anti geocentric site.
The anti geocentrists were on your side in terms of denying that it
was a formal heresy that Galileo faced the second time, but they agreed
with the geocentrists that the Inquisition had made it a formal heresy
charge the first time Galileo faced it and agreed with the Wiki. The
Vatican Observatory article that you have run from and snipped out of
this post backs up the geocentrists and anti geocentrists.
Just stop lying about the issue.
https://www.vaticanobservatory.org/sacred-space-astronomy/heliocentrism-condemned-400-years-ago-on-march-5-2/
They admit that helicentrism was condemned 400 years ago. 1616 is when
Galileo faced the formal heresy charge.
They do not consider the heresy cases, but they were based upon the
Inquisitions opinion of the topic.
Your claim of "never" having been condemned seems to be a lie.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galileo_Galilei
QUOTE:
In February 1616, an Inquisitorial commission declared heliocentrism to
be "foolish and absurd in philosophy, and formally heretical since it
explicitly contradicts in many places the sense of Holy Scripture".
END QUOTE:
Now YOU are the one lying about me. I never said it was never
condemned; on the contrary, I gave that exact same quote. What I did
was to point out that what it said was a FALSE CLAIM and it wasn't me
who came to that conclusion, it was the Catholic Church who came to
it, supported by every historian I know of who investigated it, people
like De Morgan and von Gebler. The only person I have ever known to
say there actually was a heresy is the geocentrist idiot whose opinion
you value so highly.
Both the geocentrists that you don't like, and the anti geocentric
catholics that do not agree with geocentric beliefs agreed that it was a
formal heresy charge the first time that Galileo faced the issue.
Now you seem to be trying to worm your way out of it by admitting
there was a *charge* without retracting that there was an actual
heresy which is what you have been claiming all long.
You can't just keep refusing to deal with reality and expect anything to
change.
You can't keep claiming support from "anti-geocentrists" about
heliocentrism having been an actual heresy without being able to
identify even one and expect people to take you seriously.
On Thu, 20 Nov 2025 09:38:56 -0600, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>heliocentrism to
wrote:
On 11/20/2025 4:47 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Wed, 19 Nov 2025 14:55:52 -0600, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>
wrote:
[snip for focus]
Your claim of "never" having been condemned seems to be a lie.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galileo_Galilei
QUOTE:
In February 1616, an Inquisitorial commission declared
be "foolish and absurd in philosophy, and formally heretical since it
explicitly contradicts in many places the sense of Holy Scripture".
END QUOTE:
Now YOU are the one lying about me. I never said it was never
condemned; on the contrary, I gave that exact same quote. What I did
was to point out that what it said was a FALSE CLAIM and it wasn't me
who came to that conclusion, it was the Catholic Church who came to
it, supported by every historian I know of who investigated it, people
like De Morgan and von Gebler. The only person I have ever known to
say there actually was a heresy is the geocentrist idiot whose opinion
you value so highly.
You put up the quote that said it had never been condemned. Go back up
and check. It was your quote.
Here is verbatim what I quoted:
Message-ID: 2gkkhk9bvctolude5jf6b6e0kothd5723d@4ax.com ========================================
<quote>
The [site] that cites von Gebler ("Galileo Galilei"):
"The Church never condemned it (the Copernican system) at all, for the Qualifiers of the Holy Office never mean the Church."
==========================================
#1: it was von Gebler who said rCLnever condemnedrCY, not me as you
claimed two posts ago.
#2 he did not say it was never condemned, he said *the Church* never condemned it.
Why do you post lies that are so easily shown to be lies?
On Fri, 21 Nov 2025 17:33:49 -0600, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>
wrote:
On 11/21/2025 12:29 PM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Fri, 21 Nov 2025 09:04:37 -0600, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>
wrote:
[rCa]
Let's cut to the chase here.
No lies to retract. You lied.
What lie are you claiming I told? Please quote exactly what I said
that you regard as a lie.
The ones that you keep telling.
"Never condemned"
I'm out of here. George Bernard Shaw warned that you shouldn't wrestle
with a pig as you get dirty and the pig enjoys it. I'm not going to
waste any more time trying to have a sensible discussion with someone
who thinks it's ok to take two words out of what somebody else said to
give a completely different meaning and then attribute those two words
to me. It doesn't even reach the level of quote-mining.
What beggars belief is that you do it where the exact quote from von
Gerber [1] and what I said about it are preserved just a couple of
posts above for all to see. As I noted earlier, it is really sad to
see this sort of behaviour from someone whose ability as a scientist I respect so much EfOU
===========================================
[1] "The Church never condemned it (the Copernican system) at all, for
the Qualifiers of the Holy Office never mean the Church."
[von Gebler ("Galileo Galilei")]
[..]
You should not continue to add to your own dishonest stupidity.
Trusting your source was obviously a stupid thing to do, and trying to
continue to support that source was just stupid and dishonest.
Ron Okimoto
[...]
On Sat, 9 May 2026 17:57:12 -0500, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com> wrote:
On 5/9/2026 2:26 PM, Martin Harran wrote:
I do not have to do anything.
On Sat, 9 May 2026 09:09:26 -0500, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com> wrote:
On 5/9/2026 1:24 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Thu, 7 May 2026 08:48:35 -0500, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com> wrote: >>>
[rCa]
Nothing that you could ever put up will change what you have already >>>>>> lied about. Look at your previous attempts to snip and run from
reality. You tried to quote mine the wiki. It still clearly claimed >>>>>> that Galileo faced a formal heresy charge in 1616, but what did you >>>>>> quote from that source?
I quoted the section explaining how he ended up in Rome in 1616; the >>>>> section that explains that Galileo wasn't summoned to Rome, he decided >>>>> himself, against the advice of his friends, to go because he heard the >>>>> Inquisition was investigating heliocentrism for possible heresy and he >>>>> wanted to make a case on its behalf.
Now, if you reckon I am quote mining, why don't you quote the bit
where it said he faced a formal heresy charge?
You might also explain how come neither the Qualifiers' report nor the >>>>> Inquisition's decree even mention Galileo.
You have consistently lied about this for years. You have harassed me >>>> with the same stupid lies about my sources being inadequate, when your >>>> sources and stupid behavior have always come up short. You are
currently putting up more prevarication in order to lie about how stupid >>>> and dishonest you have already been.
You can't quote where it says he faced a heresy charge in 1616 because
it doesn't say that and reposting endless copies of the same 49K of
text doesn't hide that.
You are quick to accuse others of telling lies but let's just look at
the lies you have told on this issue alone.
Lie No 1: You claimed multiple times that the Wiji page says Galileo
faced a heresy charge in 1616. It doesn't as shown by you not being
able to say where it does.
Lie No 2: When I quoted what it actually did say, you claimed the site
had been edited since you used it. It hadn't.
Lie No 3: When I produced the Wayback Machine copy to show the site
hadn't been edited you claimed you hadn't said it was edited, that you
only said it looked different.
What gets me about these lies is how totally fucking stupid they were.
Take the third one, you tried to claim you didn't say it was edited
yet your exact words - " rCa it has been edited since I used it" were
preserved in the text above your denial. As I said before, the only
thing I can't figure out is whether you are too stupid to realise how
idiotic you are making yourself here or whether you see it and just
don't care.
All that you will ever get is what you have to keep snipping and running >>>> from. You can't face what you have already done, so why keep lying
about the past the way in which you continue to do?
Seems that all I am going to get is your wild claims that you can
produce SFA to back up.
[rCa]
Runaway Ron.
[...]
On Sun, 22 Feb 2026 13:40:10 -0600, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>what you
wrote:
On 2/22/2026 10:18 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Sat, 21 Feb 2026 12:44:57 -0600, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>
wrote:
On 2/21/2026 11:59 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
What documents are you talking about that you keep saying the Jesuits
put up?
You can keep lying about what has been discussed, but you know
was notdid. You need to be the one that finds it and satisfy yourself with
what you did.
You put up your source lying about heliocentrism never being condemned
by anyone but the Inquisition. You claimed that the Inquisition
ordered bythe Church. I put up the Jesuit Observatory claim that the Papal
offices had condemned heliocentrism and this condemnation was
sources havethe Pope. They put up the relevant document and stated what the Pope
did. Your source was caught lying and you ran. Go find it. It is
something that you should do because you will uncover all your other
evasions on this issue while doing it. Your quotes of your
always come up short. The sources that you claim are unreliable, have
repeatedly been shown to be more reliable than what you come up with.
Oh, you mean the link you gave back in November, this one:
https://www.vaticanobservatory.org/sacred-space-astronomy/heliocentrism-condemned-400-years-ago-on-march-5-2/
The one where they posted the full 1616 decree on it's 400th
anniversary and commented:
<quote>
The formulation here is much milder than the one found in the working
document of February 24. The Decree talks about the "false Pythagorean
doctrine" and declare it "altogether contrary to the Holy Scripture".
This is not nearly as harsh as "foolish and absurd" philosophically,
and "formally heretical" because contrary to Scripture.
</quote>
How fucking dense can you be? It doesn't get much stupider than
posting something that contradicts what you are claiming.
If I am the dense one why did you run from what they admitted about the
document?
LOL, you post something that you think supports your claim but
actually rejects it and the best defence you can offer is to accuse me
of running away from it.
The Pope did condemn heliocentrism.
Beats me why you keep repeating this. The Pope did not personally
condemn heliocentrism, he allowed the Inquisition's condemnation of it
to be made public - that did not make it a heresy.
That is what your side was lying
about.
The only one telling lies here is you. For example, when you keep
insisting that all the "anti-geocentrists" in the Catholic
Encyclopaedia article agree with you that heliocentrism was a heresy
when they all say explicitly that it wasn't. Your lie is underlined by
the fact that you can't produce identify any source that agrees that heliocentrism was a heresy except your geocentrist mentors.
reality.It doesn't matter that the final wording was milder than the
initial draft. They admit that the Pope condemned heliocentrism, and
supported using the Council of Trent's scriptural interpretation on the
matter. It doesn't matter what it was called because the authors and
books are named. You ran from this link because your source was found
to have lied about heliocentrism never having been condemned except by
the Inquisition. The Pope obviously represents the Church and condemned
heliocentrism. He supported the Inquisition in 1616, and their
additions to the Index in order to protect against heresy. The books
would not have been added to the Index if they were not considered to be
heretical. The document even talks about the heretical parts of the
books, and indicates that after one of them is rewritten, so that it is
not against scripture, that it can be removed from the Index.
Keep lying to yourself about the issue. It isn't going to change
The Inquisition made heliocentrism a formal heresy in 1615-1616.
The decree is given in full on the Vatican Observatory site that you
tried to claim supports you and the word 'heresy' or 'heretical' does
not even appear in it.
They
did this because of their interpretation of scripture as the Council of
Trent had decided.
The decree doesn't make any reference whatsoever to Trent regarding interpretation of scripture; the one and only reference is to the *punishment* under Trent for disobeying the decree.
They added heliocentric writings to the Index,
They declare that "the books by Nicolaus Copernicus (On the
Revolutions of Spheres) and by Diego de Zu|#iga (On Job) be suspended
until corrected".
I've given details of the required corrections to Revolutions in a
different post to Harshman and they are all minor edits - not one of
them makes any change to the core principle of heliocentrism. A rather
weird declaration of heresy that allows Copernicus's book supporting
it to be published with minor edits that don't undermine his
proposition.
and
had their first encounter with Galileo. The Pope agreed with them and
condemned heliocentrism, and agreed with their additions to the Index of
banned writings.
Before your source lied about "never being condemned" the Pope's
involvement in 1616 was not an issue between the geocentric and
anti-geocentric Catholics in terms of what you were lying about at the
time. Both sides agreed that it was a formal heresy charge faced by
Galileo in 1615-1616. They disagreed about it being a formal heresy
charge the second time because it was only written up as "heresy" and
not formal heresy in the sentencing. It remained a heresy charge.
You obviously struggle with grasping that a *charge* does not make
someone guilty. I hope I'm never on trial for something I didn't do
with you on the jury.
The
Pope had the Galileo case, sentencing, and punishment published and
distributed throughout the Church in order to quash the heliocentric
heresy, but the guys that want to maintain Papal infallibility claim
that that was not an official Papal action. They admitted that there
was an issue with helicentrism at the time, but they do not want the
Pope to have been on the wrong side of the issue.
You need to deal with reality.
I think it's very clear who has the problem with accepting reality and
it's not me.
It is well understood that the Bible is
just wrong about a lot of things that we can figure out for ourselves.
Your own quotes from Pope Francis makes that claim. The Bible can be
misinterpreted because the author's understanding of the creation was
faulty. Francis knows that the universe was not created in 6 magic
episodes. Only those in complete denial do not understand that the
order of creation described in the Bible is wrong. There are still
young earth, old earth day for agers, geocentric, and flat earth
Biblical creationists because they are in the same type of denial that
you are in. There are just different levels of denial.
Ron Okimoto
[... more big snip ...]
END REPOST:
On Sun, 10 May 2026 09:11:48 -0500
RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com> wrote:
Keeping reposting 53k and 25k reams doesn't help your cause any; whatever
it is.
[... more big snip ...]
END REPOST:
Yeah, right.
On 5/9/2026 9:29 PM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Sat, 9 May 2026 17:57:12 -0500, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com> wrote:
On 5/9/2026 2:26 PM, Martin Harran wrote:
I do not have to do anything.
On Sat, 9 May 2026 09:09:26 -0500, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>
On 5/9/2026 1:24 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Thu, 7 May 2026 08:48:35 -0500, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>
[rCa]
Nothing that you could ever put up will change what you have already >>>>>>> lied about. Look at your previous attempts to snip and run from >>>>>>> reality. You tried to quote mine the wiki. It still clearly claimed >>>>>>> that Galileo faced a formal heresy charge in 1616, but what did you >>>>>>> quote from that source?
I quoted the section explaining how he ended up in Rome in 1616; the >>>>>> section that explains that Galileo wasn't summoned to Rome, he decided >>>>>> himself, against the advice of his friends, to go because he heard the >>>>>> Inquisition was investigating heliocentrism for possible heresy and he >>>>>> wanted to make a case on its behalf.
Now, if you reckon I am quote mining, why don't you quote the bit
where it said he faced a formal heresy charge?
You might also explain how come neither the Qualifiers' report nor the >>>>>> Inquisition's decree even mention Galileo.
You have consistently lied about this for years. You have harassed me >>>>> with the same stupid lies about my sources being inadequate, when your >>>>> sources and stupid behavior have always come up short. You are
currently putting up more prevarication in order to lie about how stupid >>>>> and dishonest you have already been.
You can't quote where it says he faced a heresy charge in 1616 because >>>> it doesn't say that and reposting endless copies of the same 49K of
text doesn't hide that.
You are quick to accuse others of telling lies but let's just look at
the lies you have told on this issue alone.
Lie No 1: You claimed multiple times that the Wiji page says Galileo
faced a heresy charge in 1616. It doesn't as shown by you not being
able to say where it does.
Lie No 2: When I quoted what it actually did say, you claimed the site >>>> had been edited since you used it. It hadn't.
Lie No 3: When I produced the Wayback Machine copy to show the site
hadn't been edited you claimed you hadn't said it was edited, that you >>>> only said it looked different.
What gets me about these lies is how totally fucking stupid they were. >>>> Take the third one, you tried to claim you didn't say it was edited
yet your exact words - " rCa it has been edited since I used it" were
preserved in the text above your denial. As I said before, the only
thing I can't figure out is whether you are too stupid to realise how
idiotic you are making yourself here or whether you see it and just
don't care.
All that you will ever get is what you have to keep snipping and running >>>>> from. You can't face what you have already done, so why keep lying
about the past the way in which you continue to do?
Seems that all I am going to get is your wild claims that you can
produce SFA to back up.
[rCa]
Runaway Ron.
Nyikos would indulge in projection like this even as he was doing what
he was projecting onto his victims.
On Sun, 10 May 2026 09:09:18 -0500, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>
wrote:
On 5/9/2026 9:29 PM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Sat, 9 May 2026 17:57:12 -0500, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com> wrote:
On 5/9/2026 2:26 PM, Martin Harran wrote:
I do not have to do anything.
On Sat, 9 May 2026 09:09:26 -0500, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>
On 5/9/2026 1:24 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Thu, 7 May 2026 08:48:35 -0500, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>
[rCa]
Nothing that you could ever put up will change what you have already >>>>>>>> lied about. Look at your previous attempts to snip and run from >>>>>>>> reality. You tried to quote mine the wiki. It still clearly claimed >>>>>>>> that Galileo faced a formal heresy charge in 1616, but what did you >>>>>>>> quote from that source?
I quoted the section explaining how he ended up in Rome in 1616; the >>>>>>> section that explains that Galileo wasn't summoned to Rome, he decided >>>>>>> himself, against the advice of his friends, to go because he heard the >>>>>>> Inquisition was investigating heliocentrism for possible heresy and he >>>>>>> wanted to make a case on its behalf.
Now, if you reckon I am quote mining, why don't you quote the bit >>>>>>> where it said he faced a formal heresy charge?
You might also explain how come neither the Qualifiers' report nor the >>>>>>> Inquisition's decree even mention Galileo.
You have consistently lied about this for years. You have harassed me >>>>>> with the same stupid lies about my sources being inadequate, when your >>>>>> sources and stupid behavior have always come up short. You are
currently putting up more prevarication in order to lie about how stupid >>>>>> and dishonest you have already been.
You can't quote where it says he faced a heresy charge in 1616 because >>>>> it doesn't say that and reposting endless copies of the same 49K of
text doesn't hide that.
You are quick to accuse others of telling lies but let's just look at >>>>> the lies you have told on this issue alone.
Lie No 1: You claimed multiple times that the Wiji page says Galileo >>>>> faced a heresy charge in 1616. It doesn't as shown by you not being
able to say where it does.
Lie No 2: When I quoted what it actually did say, you claimed the site >>>>> had been edited since you used it. It hadn't.
Lie No 3: When I produced the Wayback Machine copy to show the site
hadn't been edited you claimed you hadn't said it was edited, that you >>>>> only said it looked different.
What gets me about these lies is how totally fucking stupid they were. >>>>> Take the third one, you tried to claim you didn't say it was edited
yet your exact words - " rCa it has been edited since I used it" were >>>>> preserved in the text above your denial. As I said before, the only
thing I can't figure out is whether you are too stupid to realise how >>>>> idiotic you are making yourself here or whether you see it and just
don't care.
All that you will ever get is what you have to keep snipping and running >>>>>> from. You can't face what you have already done, so why keep lying >>>>>> about the past the way in which you continue to do?
Seems that all I am going to get is your wild claims that you can
produce SFA to back up.
[rCa]
Runaway Ron.
Nyikos would indulge in projection like this even as he was doing what
he was projecting onto his victims.
Blethering about a guy who is dead does nothing to deal with your lies
as detailed above. Just another incident of runaway Ron.
[snip feeble attempt at obfuscation]
On Thu, 30 Apr 2026 08:49:48 -0500, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>insane.
wrote:
On 4/30/2026 5:44 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Wed, 29 Apr 2026 19:41:58 -0500, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>
wrote:
On 4/29/2026 1:13 PM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Wed, 29 Apr 2026 12:43:53 -0500, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>
wrote:
[...]
Snipping and lying about what you have done is just stupid and
snipped and
Not as stupid and insane as making a claim you can't support. C'mon,
Ron, give the link to the Wiki article that says Galileo faced a
heresy charge in 1616 rCa surely it can't be that difficult.
[snip desperation attempt to avoid issue]
What a lying asshole. This is the second time that you have
run from what you have lied about as being handwaving.
C'mon Ron, no need to repost 7000 words that nobody wants to read. All
that's needed to show me to be the lying asshole, not you, is a simple
quote from the Wiki article that says what you insist it says. A dozen
or so words should cover it or even a simple URL. Can't be that hard
can it?
[...]
You need to stop harassing me with your stupid lies about the past.
I'll gladly stop harassing you when you either give a specific example
of a lie told by either me or those I cited in support. Or else
withdraw your own stupid lies.
On Mon, 20 Apr 2026 13:40:43 -0500, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>are lying".
wrote:
On 4/20/2026 4:08 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Sat, 18 Apr 2026 12:06:53 -0500, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>
wrote:
On 4/18/2026 6:24 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Wed, 15 Apr 2026 14:31:27 -0500, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>
wrote:
On 4/15/2026 11:36 AM, Martin Harran wrote:[rCa]
On Wed, 15 Apr 2026 16:59:56 +0100, "Kerr-Mudd, John"
No one is going to convince an opponent by stating that "they
(no matterand probably not by constant repetition of the same arguments
reality,how valid) that failed to get through the first 50 times.
Tell that to RonO, he's the one who keeps calling everyone who
disagrees with him a liar.
Who got caught lying and quote mining? You need to deal with
short?and quit lying about it. Lying about me is just so stupid that it is
pretty much insane. You have always lied about the sources that you
could not deal honestly with. Who's sources have always come up
matched byLook at what you are doing now. Is there any excuse for you not dealing
with your own stupid dishonest behavior?
The tiresomeness of you continually claiming that my sources were
caught lying and that I have been lying and quote mining is
beenthe tiresomeness of your inability to ever identify what lie my
sources were caught in, what lies I have told or where I have quote
mined.
[... more big snip ...]
Why keep lying about what your sources did and what you did? That is
just stupid and dishonest. Just look up your past posts to determine
for yourself what went down. You tried to lie about my sources being
deficient when your sources had always come up short or even supported
my sources by putting up the lame lie that heliocentrism had never
samecondemned other then by the inquisition. It was stupid because it did
not negate what you and your sources had been wrong about. It turned
out that your source was lying and you ran. You ran twice from the
whatevidence that your source was lying. You tried to come back with your
lame quote mining efforts and trying to distract the argument from
it had been. You did that, and your source was demonstrated to have
lied about the issue. You need to go back and deal with what you did.
An appology for your disgraceful behavior would be in order. Just try
not to do it again. Continuing to lie about what happened is just
adding to how low you needed to go.
Yet again, you make all sorts of accusations without a single example
of something to support them.
What I cannot figure out is whether you just can't grasp that your
failure to produce a single example of supporting evidence portrays
*you* as the one telling lies; or whether you do grasp it and just
don't care; or whether, like a certain President, you think that if
you repeat a lie enough times that someone will eventually believe it.
You should apologize for what you have been doing and stop doing it. I
found the posts where you ran from your source having been caught lying,
you then snipped the evidence out of your response to your running.
The thread: There is no legitimate scientific support for the ID scam.
I can post your quote mining attempts and other stupid behavior that you
resorted to to defend your running and defense of your bogus source.
So why don't you instead of talking about it?
Specific examples, please, not reams and reams of obfuscatory cut'n
paste.
On Sun, 16 Nov 2025 18:25:18 -0600, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>claiming you
wrote:
On 11/16/2025 4:40 PM, Martin Harran wrote:[rCa]
The links that I put up were from the Catholics that continue to be
geocentric creationists, and the Catholics that are trying to refute
them. Both sides do not agree with you. What does your continued
denial of reality tell you?
You gave no such links. All you have to do to prove me wrong is give
them again.
Do you not see how stupid you are making yourself look by
gave links but cannot repeat them?
Why lie about something so stupid. One of the links was your own
trusted Catholic site, and you initially gave that link.
That was this site:
https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/06342b.htm
The one where the Catholic Church states:
" In thus acting, it is undeniable that the ecclesiastical authorities
committed a grave and deplorable error, and sanctioned an altogether
false principle as to the proper use of Scripture."
The one that cites Professor Augustus De Morgan (Budget of Paradoxes)
declaring
"It is clear that the absurdity was the act of the Italian
Inquisition, for the private and personal pleasure of the pope - who
knew that the course he took could not convict him as pope - and not
of the body which calls itself the Church."
The one that cites von Gebler ("Galileo Galilei"):
"The Church never condemned it (the Copernican system) at all, for the
Qualifiers of the Holy Office never mean the Church."
It beats me how you figure out that site and the people referred to in
it somehow back your claim that heliocentrism really was a heresy. I
guess you have to convince yourself in order to maintain your delusion
as you clearly can't find a reputable source that actually does back
you up.
Yes, everyone admits that they were wrong about geocentrism except for
the Catholics that are still geocentrics. This source called what
Galileo faced both times a charge of heresy. They did not make a
distinction between formal heresy and heresy like the anti geocentric
site, but it was still a heresy.
What part of "The Church never condemned it (the Copernican system) at
all" did you not understand?
The only place that formal comes into all this is in the judgement
issued after Galileo's first trial where the verdict stated that the proposition that the Sun is stationary at the centre of the universe
is "foolish and absurd in philosophy, and formally heretical since it explicitly contradicts in many places the sense of Holy Scripture".
That, however, is t the Catholic Encyclopaedia refers to where it
says:
"it is undeniable that the ecclesiastical authorities committed a
grave and deplorable error, and sanctioned an altogether false
principle as to the proper use of Scripture."
Note also that the words "formally heretical" are wrong - I'm not sure whether it was the Inquisition using weasel words or whether it was a
bad translation from the Latin.
The word "heresy" can be used in two ways; it can apply to the
rejection of a specific doctrine of the Church or it can refer to the
act of committing heresy. The word "formal" applies to the latter -
the act of committing heresy - and is used to categorise the degree of
guilt of the person committing the heresy. "Formal heresy" means they
knew they were going against doctrine and are therefore guilty of
mortal sin; "material heresy" means they did not know they were going against doctrine so they are not guilty sin.
It's a bit like first degree versus second degree murder and Galileo's
trial was like him being charged with first-degree murder without a
murder being established in the first place.
The Inquisition made it into a formal heresy after the Council of Trent.
They were supposedly wrong, and a couple centuries later things got
reversed to what they had been at the time that the findings of the
Council of Trent were published.
The holy office (the inquisition) had Galileo facing a formal heresy
charge in his first encounter. When the pope got involved they just did
not call it a formal heresy in the sentencing. Galileo's views were
still condemned. They claimed that Galileo was facing a charge of
heresy. His heliocentric notions were still considered to be heresy and
the heresy that he was guilty of was clearly defined in the sentencing.
The anti geocentrics admitted that the pope had the Galileo case
published and disseminated throughout the church in order to quash the
heliocentric notions that were becoming an issue for the church. They
just want to claim that, that was not an official act. That is just
stupid. The pope did it for known reasons, and who cares if they want
to plead that he was not acting as pope?
There is no doubt that the actors were wrong, and that is the issue.
They do not want it to reflect on papal infallibility. That in itself
should be considered to be a non scriptural unjustifiable claim.
The Inquisition had Copernican writings banned and made heliocentrism
into a formal heresy because all the church fathers were geocentrics,
and that meant that Copernicans were in conflict with the beliefs of the
church fathers. Both the geocentric Catholics and the anti geocentric
Catholics claim that the Inquisition did this because of what the church
came up with at the Council of Trent where they made the beliefs of the
church fathers as a legitimate and necessary authority for interpreting
scripture. Both Catholic sides of the geocentric issue understand this
to be true.
QUOTE:
Council of Trent
Session IV, April 8, 1546, Decree Concerning the Edition and the Use of
the Sacred Books:
... "Furthermore, in order to restrain petulant spirits, it [the Council
of Trent] decrees that no one, relying on his own skill, shall,-in
matters of faith, and of morals pertaining to the edification of
Christian doctrine,-wresting the sacred Scriptures to his own senses,
presume to interpret the said sacred Scripture contrary to that sense
which holy Mother Church-to whom it belongs to judge of the true sense
and interpretation of the Holy Scriptures-hath held and doth hold; or
even contrary to the unanimous consent of the Fathers; even though such
interpretations were never (intended) to be at any time published.
Contraveners shall be made known by their Ordinaries and be punished
with the penalties by law established."
END QUOTE:
https://www.biblelightinfo.com/unanimous-consent.htm
Both Catholic sides of the issue claim that the Council of Trent caused
the Inquisition to ban Copernican writings and start treating
heliocentrism as a formal heresy because it went against the geocentric
beliefs of the church fathers.
You are taking all that crap from your geocentric hero; if you want to persist in taking his opinion against that of the Church's own
theologians then that is you just acting like Spikes rejecting the
opinion of scientists in favour of people who play to his confirmation
bias.
It was a mistake and the actors were in error only because of our
current understanding of nature. The Pope was wrong about it. He was
one of the mistaken actors.
The Pope was not a "mistaken actor", he was pissed off with Galileo presenting the Pope's views as those of a simpleton and misused his
powers to hit back at Galileo. Again, the Catholic Encyclopaedia
spells that explicitly:
"It is clear that the absurdity was the act of the Italian
Inquisition, for the private and personal pleasure of the pope - who
knew that the course he took could not convict him as pope - and not
of the body which calls itself the Church."
The Galileo affair was a shameful episode in the Church's history but
was all about the animosity between the Pope and Galileo, it had
nothing to do with heliocentrism being a heresy, that was just the
vehicle that the Pope used to attack Galileo.
On Mon, 17 Nov 2025 14:40:05 -0600, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>
wrote:
On 11/17/2025 11:45 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Mon, 17 Nov 2025 09:57:31 -0600, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>
wrote:
[...]
Oops, the Pope was not infallible.
So papal infallibility is another thing you don't understand.
I am just repeating what the anti geocentrist want to claim about it.
The "anti-geocentrists" of whom you cannot identify even one. Mind
you, when you first brought in the website of your geocentrist mentor,
it was anonymous and you didn't even know who the author was until I
figured out; the fact that he is a declared geocentrist and you knew
nothing about him didn't stop you placing high value on his opinions
and continuing to do so.
Weird to say the least.
[...]
On Wed, 19 Nov 2025 14:55:52 -0600, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>
wrote:
On 11/19/2025 12:01 PM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Mon, 17 Nov 2025 14:40:05 -0600, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>
wrote:
On 11/17/2025 11:45 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Mon, 17 Nov 2025 09:57:31 -0600, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>
wrote:
[...]
Oops, the Pope was not infallible.
So papal infallibility is another thing you don't understand.
I am just repeating what the anti geocentrist want to claim about it.
The "anti-geocentrists" of whom you cannot identify even one. Mind
you, when you first brought in the website of your geocentrist mentor,
it was anonymous and you didn't even know who the author was until I
figured out; the fact that he is a declared geocentrist and you knew
nothing about him didn't stop you placing high value on his opinions
and continuing to do so.
Weird to say the least.
[...]
You were given the links before,
Nope
so stop lying about it. Why should I
look up that junk again.
So you can prove I'm lying. But you can't because I'm not lying, you
gave no links except to the geocentrist idiot whose opinion you value
so highly.
You just denied that it was valid and kept
lying. Even your own trusted source backed up the anti geocentric site.
The anti geocentrists were on your side in terms of denying that it
was a formal heresy that Galileo faced the second time, but they agreed
with the geocentrists that the Inquisition had made it a formal heresy
charge the first time Galileo faced it and agreed with the Wiki. The
Vatican Observatory article that you have run from and snipped out of
this post backs up the geocentrists and anti geocentrists.
Just stop lying about the issue.
https://www.vaticanobservatory.org/sacred-space-astronomy/heliocentrism-condemned-400-years-ago-on-march-5-2/
They admit that helicentrism was condemned 400 years ago. 1616 is when
Galileo faced the formal heresy charge.
They do not consider the heresy cases, but they were based upon the
Inquisitions opinion of the topic.
Your claim of "never" having been condemned seems to be a lie.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galileo_Galilei
QUOTE:
In February 1616, an Inquisitorial commission declared heliocentrism to
be "foolish and absurd in philosophy, and formally heretical since it
explicitly contradicts in many places the sense of Holy Scripture".
END QUOTE:
Now YOU are the one lying about me. I never said it was never
condemned; on the contrary, I gave that exact same quote. What I did
was to point out that what it said was a FALSE CLAIM and it wasn't me
who came to that conclusion, it was the Catholic Church who came to
it, supported by every historian I know of who investigated it, people
like De Morgan and von Gebler. The only person I have ever known to
say there actually was a heresy is the geocentrist idiot whose opinion
you value so highly.
Both the geocentrists that you don't like, and the anti geocentric
catholics that do not agree with geocentric beliefs agreed that it was a
formal heresy charge the first time that Galileo faced the issue.
Now you seem to be trying to worm your way out of it by admitting
there was a *charge* without retracting that there was an actual
heresy which is what you have been claiming all long.
You can't just keep refusing to deal with reality and expect anything to
change.
You can't keep claiming support from "anti-geocentrists" about
heliocentrism having been an actual heresy without being able to
identify even one and expect people to take you seriously.
On Thu, 20 Nov 2025 09:38:56 -0600, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>heliocentrism to
wrote:
On 11/20/2025 4:47 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Wed, 19 Nov 2025 14:55:52 -0600, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>
wrote:
[snip for focus]
Your claim of "never" having been condemned seems to be a lie.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galileo_Galilei
QUOTE:
In February 1616, an Inquisitorial commission declared
be "foolish and absurd in philosophy, and formally heretical since it
explicitly contradicts in many places the sense of Holy Scripture".
END QUOTE:
Now YOU are the one lying about me. I never said it was never
condemned; on the contrary, I gave that exact same quote. What I did
was to point out that what it said was a FALSE CLAIM and it wasn't me
who came to that conclusion, it was the Catholic Church who came to
it, supported by every historian I know of who investigated it, people
like De Morgan and von Gebler. The only person I have ever known to
say there actually was a heresy is the geocentrist idiot whose opinion
you value so highly.
You put up the quote that said it had never been condemned. Go back up
and check. It was your quote.
Here is verbatim what I quoted:
Message-ID: 2gkkhk9bvctolude5jf6b6e0kothd5723d@4ax.com ========================================
<quote>
The [site] that cites von Gebler ("Galileo Galilei"):
"The Church never condemned it (the Copernican system) at all, for the Qualifiers of the Holy Office never mean the Church."
==========================================
#1: it was von Gebler who said rCLnever condemnedrCY, not me as you
claimed two posts ago.
#2 he did not say it was never condemned, he said *the Church* never condemned it.
Why do you post lies that are so easily shown to be lies?
On Fri, 21 Nov 2025 17:33:49 -0600, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>
wrote:
On 11/21/2025 12:29 PM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Fri, 21 Nov 2025 09:04:37 -0600, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>
wrote:
[rCa]
Let's cut to the chase here.
No lies to retract. You lied.
What lie are you claiming I told? Please quote exactly what I said
that you regard as a lie.
The ones that you keep telling.
"Never condemned"
I'm out of here. George Bernard Shaw warned that you shouldn't wrestle
with a pig as you get dirty and the pig enjoys it. I'm not going to
waste any more time trying to have a sensible discussion with someone
who thinks it's ok to take two words out of what somebody else said to
give a completely different meaning and then attribute those two words
to me. It doesn't even reach the level of quote-mining.
What beggars belief is that you do it where the exact quote from von
Gerber [1] and what I said about it are preserved just a couple of
posts above for all to see. As I noted earlier, it is really sad to
see this sort of behaviour from someone whose ability as a scientist I respect so much EfOU
===========================================
[1] "The Church never condemned it (the Copernican system) at all, for
the Qualifiers of the Holy Office never mean the Church."
[von Gebler ("Galileo Galilei")]
[..]
You should not continue to add to your own dishonest stupidity.
Trusting your source was obviously a stupid thing to do, and trying to
continue to support that source was just stupid and dishonest.
Ron Okimoto
On Sun, 10 May 2026 09:09:18 -0500, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>
wrote:
On 5/9/2026 9:29 PM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Sat, 9 May 2026 17:57:12 -0500, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com> wrote:
On 5/9/2026 2:26 PM, Martin Harran wrote:
I do not have to do anything.
On Sat, 9 May 2026 09:09:26 -0500, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>
On 5/9/2026 1:24 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Thu, 7 May 2026 08:48:35 -0500, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>
[rCa]
Nothing that you could ever put up will change what you have already >>>>>>>> lied about. Look at your previous attempts to snip and run from >>>>>>>> reality. You tried to quote mine the wiki. It still clearly claimed >>>>>>>> that Galileo faced a formal heresy charge in 1616, but what did you >>>>>>>> quote from that source?
I quoted the section explaining how he ended up in Rome in 1616; the >>>>>>> section that explains that Galileo wasn't summoned to Rome, he decided >>>>>>> himself, against the advice of his friends, to go because he heard the >>>>>>> Inquisition was investigating heliocentrism for possible heresy and he >>>>>>> wanted to make a case on its behalf.
Now, if you reckon I am quote mining, why don't you quote the bit >>>>>>> where it said he faced a formal heresy charge?
You might also explain how come neither the Qualifiers' report nor the >>>>>>> Inquisition's decree even mention Galileo.
You have consistently lied about this for years. You have harassed me >>>>>> with the same stupid lies about my sources being inadequate, when your >>>>>> sources and stupid behavior have always come up short. You are
currently putting up more prevarication in order to lie about how stupid >>>>>> and dishonest you have already been.
You can't quote where it says he faced a heresy charge in 1616 because >>>>> it doesn't say that and reposting endless copies of the same 49K of
text doesn't hide that.
You are quick to accuse others of telling lies but let's just look at >>>>> the lies you have told on this issue alone.
Lie No 1: You claimed multiple times that the Wiji page says Galileo >>>>> faced a heresy charge in 1616. It doesn't as shown by you not being
able to say where it does.
Lie No 2: When I quoted what it actually did say, you claimed the site >>>>> had been edited since you used it. It hadn't.
Lie No 3: When I produced the Wayback Machine copy to show the site
hadn't been edited you claimed you hadn't said it was edited, that you >>>>> only said it looked different.
What gets me about these lies is how totally fucking stupid they were. >>>>> Take the third one, you tried to claim you didn't say it was edited
yet your exact words - " rCa it has been edited since I used it" were >>>>> preserved in the text above your denial. As I said before, the only
thing I can't figure out is whether you are too stupid to realise how >>>>> idiotic you are making yourself here or whether you see it and just
don't care.
All that you will ever get is what you have to keep snipping and running >>>>>> from. You can't face what you have already done, so why keep lying >>>>>> about the past the way in which you continue to do?
Seems that all I am going to get is your wild claims that you can
produce SFA to back up.
[rCa]
Runaway Ron.
Nyikos would indulge in projection like this even as he was doing what
he was projecting onto his victims.
Blethering about a guy who is dead does nothing to deal with your lies
as detailed above. Just another incident of runaway Ron.
[snip feeble attempt at obfuscation]
On Sun, 22 Feb 2026 13:40:10 -0600, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>what you
wrote:
On 2/22/2026 10:18 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Sat, 21 Feb 2026 12:44:57 -0600, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>
wrote:
On 2/21/2026 11:59 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
What documents are you talking about that you keep saying the Jesuits
put up?
You can keep lying about what has been discussed, but you know
was notdid. You need to be the one that finds it and satisfy yourself with
what you did.
You put up your source lying about heliocentrism never being condemned
by anyone but the Inquisition. You claimed that the Inquisition
ordered bythe Church. I put up the Jesuit Observatory claim that the Papal
offices had condemned heliocentrism and this condemnation was
sources havethe Pope. They put up the relevant document and stated what the Pope
did. Your source was caught lying and you ran. Go find it. It is
something that you should do because you will uncover all your other
evasions on this issue while doing it. Your quotes of your
always come up short. The sources that you claim are unreliable, have
repeatedly been shown to be more reliable than what you come up with.
Oh, you mean the link you gave back in November, this one:
https://www.vaticanobservatory.org/sacred-space-astronomy/heliocentrism-condemned-400-years-ago-on-march-5-2/
The one where they posted the full 1616 decree on it's 400th
anniversary and commented:
<quote>
The formulation here is much milder than the one found in the working
document of February 24. The Decree talks about the "false Pythagorean
doctrine" and declare it "altogether contrary to the Holy Scripture".
This is not nearly as harsh as "foolish and absurd" philosophically,
and "formally heretical" because contrary to Scripture.
</quote>
How fucking dense can you be? It doesn't get much stupider than
posting something that contradicts what you are claiming.
If I am the dense one why did you run from what they admitted about the
document?
LOL, you post something that you think supports your claim but
actually rejects it and the best defence you can offer is to accuse me
of running away from it.
The Pope did condemn heliocentrism.
Beats me why you keep repeating this. The Pope did not personally
condemn heliocentrism, he allowed the Inquisition's condemnation of it
to be made public - that did not make it a heresy.
That is what your side was lying
about.
The only one telling lies here is you. For example, when you keep
insisting that all the "anti-geocentrists" in the Catholic
Encyclopaedia article agree with you that heliocentrism was a heresy
when they all say explicitly that it wasn't. Your lie is underlined by
the fact that you can't produce identify any source that agrees that heliocentrism was a heresy except your geocentrist mentors.
reality.It doesn't matter that the final wording was milder than the
initial draft. They admit that the Pope condemned heliocentrism, and
supported using the Council of Trent's scriptural interpretation on the
matter. It doesn't matter what it was called because the authors and
books are named. You ran from this link because your source was found
to have lied about heliocentrism never having been condemned except by
the Inquisition. The Pope obviously represents the Church and condemned
heliocentrism. He supported the Inquisition in 1616, and their
additions to the Index in order to protect against heresy. The books
would not have been added to the Index if they were not considered to be
heretical. The document even talks about the heretical parts of the
books, and indicates that after one of them is rewritten, so that it is
not against scripture, that it can be removed from the Index.
Keep lying to yourself about the issue. It isn't going to change
The Inquisition made heliocentrism a formal heresy in 1615-1616.
The decree is given in full on the Vatican Observatory site that you
tried to claim supports you and the word 'heresy' or 'heretical' does
not even appear in it.
They
did this because of their interpretation of scripture as the Council of
Trent had decided.
The decree doesn't make any reference whatsoever to Trent regarding interpretation of scripture; the one and only reference is to the *punishment* under Trent for disobeying the decree.
They added heliocentric writings to the Index,
They declare that "the books by Nicolaus Copernicus (On the
Revolutions of Spheres) and by Diego de Zu|#iga (On Job) be suspended
until corrected".
I've given details of the required corrections to Revolutions in a
different post to Harshman and they are all minor edits - not one of
them makes any change to the core principle of heliocentrism. A rather
weird declaration of heresy that allows Copernicus's book supporting
it to be published with minor edits that don't undermine his
proposition.
and
had their first encounter with Galileo. The Pope agreed with them and
condemned heliocentrism, and agreed with their additions to the Index of
banned writings.
Before your source lied about "never being condemned" the Pope's
involvement in 1616 was not an issue between the geocentric and
anti-geocentric Catholics in terms of what you were lying about at the
time. Both sides agreed that it was a formal heresy charge faced by
Galileo in 1615-1616. They disagreed about it being a formal heresy
charge the second time because it was only written up as "heresy" and
not formal heresy in the sentencing. It remained a heresy charge.
You obviously struggle with grasping that a *charge* does not make
someone guilty. I hope I'm never on trial for something I didn't do
with you on the jury.
The
Pope had the Galileo case, sentencing, and punishment published and
distributed throughout the Church in order to quash the heliocentric
heresy, but the guys that want to maintain Papal infallibility claim
that that was not an official Papal action. They admitted that there
was an issue with helicentrism at the time, but they do not want the
Pope to have been on the wrong side of the issue.
You need to deal with reality.
I think it's very clear who has the problem with accepting reality and
it's not me.
It is well understood that the Bible is
just wrong about a lot of things that we can figure out for ourselves.
Your own quotes from Pope Francis makes that claim. The Bible can be
misinterpreted because the author's understanding of the creation was
faulty. Francis knows that the universe was not created in 6 magic
episodes. Only those in complete denial do not understand that the
order of creation described in the Bible is wrong. There are still
young earth, old earth day for agers, geocentric, and flat earth
Biblical creationists because they are in the same type of denial that
you are in. There are just different levels of denial.
Ron Okimoto
Runaway Ron.Let's all pretend Harran isn't once again trying to get the last word.
On 5/11/2026 10:17 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Sun, 10 May 2026 09:09:18 -0500, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>
wrote:
Nyikos would indulge in projection like this even as he was doing what
he was projecting onto his victims.
Blethering about a guy who is dead does nothing to deal with your lies
as detailed above. Just another incident of runaway Ron.
[snip feeble attempt at obfuscation]
Blathers the guy running from what he can't deal honestly with. You
need to apologize and stop doing what you are doing. You are so badly
off that you can't even snip and run from the post where you had to
quote mine in order to keep lying about the first REPOSTS.
On Mon, 11 May 2026 13:33:43 -0500, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>
wrote:
On 5/11/2026 10:17 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Sun, 10 May 2026 09:09:18 -0500, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>
wrote:
[rCa]
Nyikos would indulge in projection like this even as he was doing what >>>> he was projecting onto his victims.
In fairness to Nyikos, when he was caught out in a lie he had the guts
to admit it or at least slink away from it - neither of which are you
capable of doing.
Blethering about a guy who is dead does nothing to deal with your lies
as detailed above. Just another incident of runaway Ron.
[snip feeble attempt at obfuscation]
Blathers the guy running from what he can't deal honestly with. You
need to apologize and stop doing what you are doing. You are so badly
off that you can't even snip and run from the post where you had to
quote mine in order to keep lying about the first REPOSTS.
I haven'r run away from anything because you have posted nothing for
me to run from. I have asked you innumerable times to identify an
example of a specific I told or something I quote mined and you
haven't been able to do so - not even one example of either.
On Thu, 30 Apr 2026 08:49:48 -0500, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>insane.
wrote:
On 4/30/2026 5:44 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Wed, 29 Apr 2026 19:41:58 -0500, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>
wrote:
On 4/29/2026 1:13 PM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Wed, 29 Apr 2026 12:43:53 -0500, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>
wrote:
[...]
Snipping and lying about what you have done is just stupid and
snipped and
Not as stupid and insane as making a claim you can't support. C'mon,
Ron, give the link to the Wiki article that says Galileo faced a
heresy charge in 1616 rCa surely it can't be that difficult.
[snip desperation attempt to avoid issue]
What a lying asshole. This is the second time that you have
run from what you have lied about as being handwaving.
C'mon Ron, no need to repost 7000 words that nobody wants to read. All
that's needed to show me to be the lying asshole, not you, is a simple
quote from the Wiki article that says what you insist it says. A dozen
or so words should cover it or even a simple URL. Can't be that hard
can it?
[...]
You need to stop harassing me with your stupid lies about the past.
I'll gladly stop harassing you when you either give a specific example
of a lie told by either me or those I cited in support. Or else
withdraw your own stupid lies.
On Mon, 20 Apr 2026 13:40:43 -0500, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>are lying".
wrote:
On 4/20/2026 4:08 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Sat, 18 Apr 2026 12:06:53 -0500, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>
wrote:
On 4/18/2026 6:24 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Wed, 15 Apr 2026 14:31:27 -0500, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>
wrote:
On 4/15/2026 11:36 AM, Martin Harran wrote:[rCa]
On Wed, 15 Apr 2026 16:59:56 +0100, "Kerr-Mudd, John"
No one is going to convince an opponent by stating that "they
(no matterand probably not by constant repetition of the same arguments
reality,how valid) that failed to get through the first 50 times.
Tell that to RonO, he's the one who keeps calling everyone who
disagrees with him a liar.
Who got caught lying and quote mining? You need to deal with
short?and quit lying about it. Lying about me is just so stupid that it is
pretty much insane. You have always lied about the sources that you
could not deal honestly with. Who's sources have always come up
matched byLook at what you are doing now. Is there any excuse for you not dealing
with your own stupid dishonest behavior?
The tiresomeness of you continually claiming that my sources were
caught lying and that I have been lying and quote mining is
beenthe tiresomeness of your inability to ever identify what lie my
sources were caught in, what lies I have told or where I have quote
mined.
[... more big snip ...]
Why keep lying about what your sources did and what you did? That is
just stupid and dishonest. Just look up your past posts to determine
for yourself what went down. You tried to lie about my sources being
deficient when your sources had always come up short or even supported
my sources by putting up the lame lie that heliocentrism had never
samecondemned other then by the inquisition. It was stupid because it did
not negate what you and your sources had been wrong about. It turned
out that your source was lying and you ran. You ran twice from the
whatevidence that your source was lying. You tried to come back with your
lame quote mining efforts and trying to distract the argument from
it had been. You did that, and your source was demonstrated to have
lied about the issue. You need to go back and deal with what you did.
An appology for your disgraceful behavior would be in order. Just try
not to do it again. Continuing to lie about what happened is just
adding to how low you needed to go.
Yet again, you make all sorts of accusations without a single example
of something to support them.
What I cannot figure out is whether you just can't grasp that your
failure to produce a single example of supporting evidence portrays
*you* as the one telling lies; or whether you do grasp it and just
don't care; or whether, like a certain President, you think that if
you repeat a lie enough times that someone will eventually believe it.
You should apologize for what you have been doing and stop doing it. I
found the posts where you ran from your source having been caught lying,
you then snipped the evidence out of your response to your running.
The thread: There is no legitimate scientific support for the ID scam.
I can post your quote mining attempts and other stupid behavior that you
resorted to to defend your running and defense of your bogus source.
So why don't you instead of talking about it?
Specific examples, please, not reams and reams of obfuscatory cut'n
paste.
On Sun, 16 Nov 2025 18:25:18 -0600, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>claiming you
wrote:
On 11/16/2025 4:40 PM, Martin Harran wrote:[rCa]
The links that I put up were from the Catholics that continue to be
geocentric creationists, and the Catholics that are trying to refute
them. Both sides do not agree with you. What does your continued
denial of reality tell you?
You gave no such links. All you have to do to prove me wrong is give
them again.
Do you not see how stupid you are making yourself look by
gave links but cannot repeat them?
Why lie about something so stupid. One of the links was your own
trusted Catholic site, and you initially gave that link.
That was this site:
https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/06342b.htm
The one where the Catholic Church states:
" In thus acting, it is undeniable that the ecclesiastical authorities
committed a grave and deplorable error, and sanctioned an altogether
false principle as to the proper use of Scripture."
The one that cites Professor Augustus De Morgan (Budget of Paradoxes)
declaring
"It is clear that the absurdity was the act of the Italian
Inquisition, for the private and personal pleasure of the pope - who
knew that the course he took could not convict him as pope - and not
of the body which calls itself the Church."
The one that cites von Gebler ("Galileo Galilei"):
"The Church never condemned it (the Copernican system) at all, for the
Qualifiers of the Holy Office never mean the Church."
It beats me how you figure out that site and the people referred to in
it somehow back your claim that heliocentrism really was a heresy. I
guess you have to convince yourself in order to maintain your delusion
as you clearly can't find a reputable source that actually does back
you up.
Yes, everyone admits that they were wrong about geocentrism except for
the Catholics that are still geocentrics. This source called what
Galileo faced both times a charge of heresy. They did not make a
distinction between formal heresy and heresy like the anti geocentric
site, but it was still a heresy.
What part of "The Church never condemned it (the Copernican system) at
all" did you not understand?
The only place that formal comes into all this is in the judgement
issued after Galileo's first trial where the verdict stated that the proposition that the Sun is stationary at the centre of the universe
is "foolish and absurd in philosophy, and formally heretical since it explicitly contradicts in many places the sense of Holy Scripture".
That, however, is t the Catholic Encyclopaedia refers to where it
says:
"it is undeniable that the ecclesiastical authorities committed a
grave and deplorable error, and sanctioned an altogether false
principle as to the proper use of Scripture."
Note also that the words "formally heretical" are wrong - I'm not sure whether it was the Inquisition using weasel words or whether it was a
bad translation from the Latin.
The word "heresy" can be used in two ways; it can apply to the
rejection of a specific doctrine of the Church or it can refer to the
act of committing heresy. The word "formal" applies to the latter -
the act of committing heresy - and is used to categorise the degree of
guilt of the person committing the heresy. "Formal heresy" means they
knew they were going against doctrine and are therefore guilty of
mortal sin; "material heresy" means they did not know they were going against doctrine so they are not guilty sin.
It's a bit like first degree versus second degree murder and Galileo's
trial was like him being charged with first-degree murder without a
murder being established in the first place.
The Inquisition made it into a formal heresy after the Council of Trent.
They were supposedly wrong, and a couple centuries later things got
reversed to what they had been at the time that the findings of the
Council of Trent were published.
The holy office (the inquisition) had Galileo facing a formal heresy
charge in his first encounter. When the pope got involved they just did
not call it a formal heresy in the sentencing. Galileo's views were
still condemned. They claimed that Galileo was facing a charge of
heresy. His heliocentric notions were still considered to be heresy and
the heresy that he was guilty of was clearly defined in the sentencing.
The anti geocentrics admitted that the pope had the Galileo case
published and disseminated throughout the church in order to quash the
heliocentric notions that were becoming an issue for the church. They
just want to claim that, that was not an official act. That is just
stupid. The pope did it for known reasons, and who cares if they want
to plead that he was not acting as pope?
There is no doubt that the actors were wrong, and that is the issue.
They do not want it to reflect on papal infallibility. That in itself
should be considered to be a non scriptural unjustifiable claim.
The Inquisition had Copernican writings banned and made heliocentrism
into a formal heresy because all the church fathers were geocentrics,
and that meant that Copernicans were in conflict with the beliefs of the
church fathers. Both the geocentric Catholics and the anti geocentric
Catholics claim that the Inquisition did this because of what the church
came up with at the Council of Trent where they made the beliefs of the
church fathers as a legitimate and necessary authority for interpreting
scripture. Both Catholic sides of the geocentric issue understand this
to be true.
QUOTE:
Council of Trent
Session IV, April 8, 1546, Decree Concerning the Edition and the Use of
the Sacred Books:
... "Furthermore, in order to restrain petulant spirits, it [the Council
of Trent] decrees that no one, relying on his own skill, shall,-in
matters of faith, and of morals pertaining to the edification of
Christian doctrine,-wresting the sacred Scriptures to his own senses,
presume to interpret the said sacred Scripture contrary to that sense
which holy Mother Church-to whom it belongs to judge of the true sense
and interpretation of the Holy Scriptures-hath held and doth hold; or
even contrary to the unanimous consent of the Fathers; even though such
interpretations were never (intended) to be at any time published.
Contraveners shall be made known by their Ordinaries and be punished
with the penalties by law established."
END QUOTE:
https://www.biblelightinfo.com/unanimous-consent.htm
Both Catholic sides of the issue claim that the Council of Trent caused
the Inquisition to ban Copernican writings and start treating
heliocentrism as a formal heresy because it went against the geocentric
beliefs of the church fathers.
You are taking all that crap from your geocentric hero; if you want to persist in taking his opinion against that of the Church's own
theologians then that is you just acting like Spikes rejecting the
opinion of scientists in favour of people who play to his confirmation
bias.
It was a mistake and the actors were in error only because of our
current understanding of nature. The Pope was wrong about it. He was
one of the mistaken actors.
The Pope was not a "mistaken actor", he was pissed off with Galileo presenting the Pope's views as those of a simpleton and misused his
powers to hit back at Galileo. Again, the Catholic Encyclopaedia
spells that explicitly:
"It is clear that the absurdity was the act of the Italian
Inquisition, for the private and personal pleasure of the pope - who
knew that the course he took could not convict him as pope - and not
of the body which calls itself the Church."
The Galileo affair was a shameful episode in the Church's history but
was all about the animosity between the Pope and Galileo, it had
nothing to do with heliocentrism being a heresy, that was just the
vehicle that the Pope used to attack Galileo.
On Mon, 17 Nov 2025 14:40:05 -0600, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>
wrote:
On 11/17/2025 11:45 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Mon, 17 Nov 2025 09:57:31 -0600, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>
wrote:
[...]
Oops, the Pope was not infallible.
So papal infallibility is another thing you don't understand.
I am just repeating what the anti geocentrist want to claim about it.
The "anti-geocentrists" of whom you cannot identify even one. Mind
you, when you first brought in the website of your geocentrist mentor,
it was anonymous and you didn't even know who the author was until I
figured out; the fact that he is a declared geocentrist and you knew
nothing about him didn't stop you placing high value on his opinions
and continuing to do so.
Weird to say the least.
[...]
On Wed, 19 Nov 2025 14:55:52 -0600, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>
wrote:
On 11/19/2025 12:01 PM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Mon, 17 Nov 2025 14:40:05 -0600, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>
wrote:
On 11/17/2025 11:45 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Mon, 17 Nov 2025 09:57:31 -0600, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>
wrote:
[...]
Oops, the Pope was not infallible.
So papal infallibility is another thing you don't understand.
I am just repeating what the anti geocentrist want to claim about it.
The "anti-geocentrists" of whom you cannot identify even one. Mind
you, when you first brought in the website of your geocentrist mentor,
it was anonymous and you didn't even know who the author was until I
figured out; the fact that he is a declared geocentrist and you knew
nothing about him didn't stop you placing high value on his opinions
and continuing to do so.
Weird to say the least.
[...]
You were given the links before,
Nope
so stop lying about it. Why should I
look up that junk again.
So you can prove I'm lying. But you can't because I'm not lying, you
gave no links except to the geocentrist idiot whose opinion you value
so highly.
You just denied that it was valid and kept
lying. Even your own trusted source backed up the anti geocentric site.
The anti geocentrists were on your side in terms of denying that it
was a formal heresy that Galileo faced the second time, but they agreed
with the geocentrists that the Inquisition had made it a formal heresy
charge the first time Galileo faced it and agreed with the Wiki. The
Vatican Observatory article that you have run from and snipped out of
this post backs up the geocentrists and anti geocentrists.
Just stop lying about the issue.
https://www.vaticanobservatory.org/sacred-space-astronomy/heliocentrism-condemned-400-years-ago-on-march-5-2/
They admit that helicentrism was condemned 400 years ago. 1616 is when
Galileo faced the formal heresy charge.
They do not consider the heresy cases, but they were based upon the
Inquisitions opinion of the topic.
Your claim of "never" having been condemned seems to be a lie.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galileo_Galilei
QUOTE:
In February 1616, an Inquisitorial commission declared heliocentrism to
be "foolish and absurd in philosophy, and formally heretical since it
explicitly contradicts in many places the sense of Holy Scripture".
END QUOTE:
Now YOU are the one lying about me. I never said it was never
condemned; on the contrary, I gave that exact same quote. What I did
was to point out that what it said was a FALSE CLAIM and it wasn't me
who came to that conclusion, it was the Catholic Church who came to
it, supported by every historian I know of who investigated it, people
like De Morgan and von Gebler. The only person I have ever known to
say there actually was a heresy is the geocentrist idiot whose opinion
you value so highly.
Both the geocentrists that you don't like, and the anti geocentric
catholics that do not agree with geocentric beliefs agreed that it was a
formal heresy charge the first time that Galileo faced the issue.
Now you seem to be trying to worm your way out of it by admitting
there was a *charge* without retracting that there was an actual
heresy which is what you have been claiming all long.
You can't just keep refusing to deal with reality and expect anything to
change.
You can't keep claiming support from "anti-geocentrists" about
heliocentrism having been an actual heresy without being able to
identify even one and expect people to take you seriously.
On Thu, 20 Nov 2025 09:38:56 -0600, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>heliocentrism to
wrote:
On 11/20/2025 4:47 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Wed, 19 Nov 2025 14:55:52 -0600, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>
wrote:
[snip for focus]
Your claim of "never" having been condemned seems to be a lie.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galileo_Galilei
QUOTE:
In February 1616, an Inquisitorial commission declared
be "foolish and absurd in philosophy, and formally heretical since it
explicitly contradicts in many places the sense of Holy Scripture".
END QUOTE:
Now YOU are the one lying about me. I never said it was never
condemned; on the contrary, I gave that exact same quote. What I did
was to point out that what it said was a FALSE CLAIM and it wasn't me
who came to that conclusion, it was the Catholic Church who came to
it, supported by every historian I know of who investigated it, people
like De Morgan and von Gebler. The only person I have ever known to
say there actually was a heresy is the geocentrist idiot whose opinion
you value so highly.
You put up the quote that said it had never been condemned. Go back up
and check. It was your quote.
Here is verbatim what I quoted:
Message-ID: 2gkkhk9bvctolude5jf6b6e0kothd5723d@4ax.com ========================================
<quote>
The [site] that cites von Gebler ("Galileo Galilei"):
"The Church never condemned it (the Copernican system) at all, for the Qualifiers of the Holy Office never mean the Church."
==========================================
#1: it was von Gebler who said rCLnever condemnedrCY, not me as you
claimed two posts ago.
#2 he did not say it was never condemned, he said *the Church* never condemned it.
Why do you post lies that are so easily shown to be lies?
On Fri, 21 Nov 2025 17:33:49 -0600, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>
wrote:
On 11/21/2025 12:29 PM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Fri, 21 Nov 2025 09:04:37 -0600, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>
wrote:
[rCa]
Let's cut to the chase here.
No lies to retract. You lied.
What lie are you claiming I told? Please quote exactly what I said
that you regard as a lie.
The ones that you keep telling.
"Never condemned"
I'm out of here. George Bernard Shaw warned that you shouldn't wrestle
with a pig as you get dirty and the pig enjoys it. I'm not going to
waste any more time trying to have a sensible discussion with someone
who thinks it's ok to take two words out of what somebody else said to
give a completely different meaning and then attribute those two words
to me. It doesn't even reach the level of quote-mining.
What beggars belief is that you do it where the exact quote from von
Gerber [1] and what I said about it are preserved just a couple of
posts above for all to see. As I noted earlier, it is really sad to
see this sort of behaviour from someone whose ability as a scientist I respect so much EfOU
===========================================
[1] "The Church never condemned it (the Copernican system) at all, for
the Qualifiers of the Holy Office never mean the Church."
[von Gebler ("Galileo Galilei")]
[..]
You should not continue to add to your own dishonest stupidity.
Trusting your source was obviously a stupid thing to do, and trying to
continue to support that source was just stupid and dishonest.
Ron Okimoto
On the other hand, I have given 3 specific examples of lies you have
told in this thread alone. Here they are again:
1) Your lie that the Wiki article says Galileo faced a heresy charge
in 1616
2) Your lie that somebody had edited it the Wiki article since you
used it.
3) Your lie that you didn't say it was edited.
Each of those is specific and documented but you try to ignore them by reposting loads of text as some sort of feeble diversion tactic.
*That* is running away.
[rCa]
On Mon, 11 May 2026 13:33:43 -0500, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>
wrote:
On 5/11/2026 10:17 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Sun, 10 May 2026 09:09:18 -0500, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>
wrote:
[rCa]
Nyikos would indulge in projection like this even as he was doing what >>>> he was projecting onto his victims.
In fairness to Nyikos, when he was caught out in a lie he had the guts
to admit it or at least slink away from it - neither of which are you
capable of doing.
Blethering about a guy who is dead does nothing to deal with your lies
as detailed above. Just another incident of runaway Ron.
[snip feeble attempt at obfuscation]
Blathers the guy running from what he can't deal honestly with. You
need to apologize and stop doing what you are doing. You are so badly
off that you can't even snip and run from the post where you had to
quote mine in order to keep lying about the first REPOSTS.
I haven'r run away from anything because you have posted nothing for
me to run from. I have asked you innumerable times to identify an
example of a specific I told or something I quote mined and you
haven't been able to do so - not even one example of either.
On Sun, 22 Feb 2026 13:40:10 -0600, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>what you
wrote:
On 2/22/2026 10:18 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Sat, 21 Feb 2026 12:44:57 -0600, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>
wrote:
On 2/21/2026 11:59 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
What documents are you talking about that you keep saying the Jesuits
put up?
You can keep lying about what has been discussed, but you know
was notdid. You need to be the one that finds it and satisfy yourself with
what you did.
You put up your source lying about heliocentrism never being condemned
by anyone but the Inquisition. You claimed that the Inquisition
ordered bythe Church. I put up the Jesuit Observatory claim that the Papal
offices had condemned heliocentrism and this condemnation was
sources havethe Pope. They put up the relevant document and stated what the Pope
did. Your source was caught lying and you ran. Go find it. It is
something that you should do because you will uncover all your other
evasions on this issue while doing it. Your quotes of your
always come up short. The sources that you claim are unreliable, have
repeatedly been shown to be more reliable than what you come up with.
Oh, you mean the link you gave back in November, this one:
https://www.vaticanobservatory.org/sacred-space-astronomy/heliocentrism-condemned-400-years-ago-on-march-5-2/
The one where they posted the full 1616 decree on it's 400th
anniversary and commented:
<quote>
The formulation here is much milder than the one found in the working
document of February 24. The Decree talks about the "false Pythagorean
doctrine" and declare it "altogether contrary to the Holy Scripture".
This is not nearly as harsh as "foolish and absurd" philosophically,
and "formally heretical" because contrary to Scripture.
</quote>
How fucking dense can you be? It doesn't get much stupider than
posting something that contradicts what you are claiming.
If I am the dense one why did you run from what they admitted about the
document?
LOL, you post something that you think supports your claim but
actually rejects it and the best defence you can offer is to accuse me
of running away from it.
The Pope did condemn heliocentrism.
Beats me why you keep repeating this. The Pope did not personally
condemn heliocentrism, he allowed the Inquisition's condemnation of it
to be made public - that did not make it a heresy.
That is what your side was lying
about.
The only one telling lies here is you. For example, when you keep
insisting that all the "anti-geocentrists" in the Catholic
Encyclopaedia article agree with you that heliocentrism was a heresy
when they all say explicitly that it wasn't. Your lie is underlined by
the fact that you can't produce identify any source that agrees that heliocentrism was a heresy except your geocentrist mentors.
reality.It doesn't matter that the final wording was milder than the
initial draft. They admit that the Pope condemned heliocentrism, and
supported using the Council of Trent's scriptural interpretation on the
matter. It doesn't matter what it was called because the authors and
books are named. You ran from this link because your source was found
to have lied about heliocentrism never having been condemned except by
the Inquisition. The Pope obviously represents the Church and condemned
heliocentrism. He supported the Inquisition in 1616, and their
additions to the Index in order to protect against heresy. The books
would not have been added to the Index if they were not considered to be
heretical. The document even talks about the heretical parts of the
books, and indicates that after one of them is rewritten, so that it is
not against scripture, that it can be removed from the Index.
Keep lying to yourself about the issue. It isn't going to change
The Inquisition made heliocentrism a formal heresy in 1615-1616.
The decree is given in full on the Vatican Observatory site that you
tried to claim supports you and the word 'heresy' or 'heretical' does
not even appear in it.
They
did this because of their interpretation of scripture as the Council of
Trent had decided.
The decree doesn't make any reference whatsoever to Trent regarding interpretation of scripture; the one and only reference is to the *punishment* under Trent for disobeying the decree.
They added heliocentric writings to the Index,
They declare that "the books by Nicolaus Copernicus (On the
Revolutions of Spheres) and by Diego de Zu|#iga (On Job) be suspended
until corrected".
I've given details of the required corrections to Revolutions in a
different post to Harshman and they are all minor edits - not one of
them makes any change to the core principle of heliocentrism. A rather
weird declaration of heresy that allows Copernicus's book supporting
it to be published with minor edits that don't undermine his
proposition.
and
had their first encounter with Galileo. The Pope agreed with them and
condemned heliocentrism, and agreed with their additions to the Index of
banned writings.
Before your source lied about "never being condemned" the Pope's
involvement in 1616 was not an issue between the geocentric and
anti-geocentric Catholics in terms of what you were lying about at the
time. Both sides agreed that it was a formal heresy charge faced by
Galileo in 1615-1616. They disagreed about it being a formal heresy
charge the second time because it was only written up as "heresy" and
not formal heresy in the sentencing. It remained a heresy charge.
You obviously struggle with grasping that a *charge* does not make
someone guilty. I hope I'm never on trial for something I didn't do
with you on the jury.
The
Pope had the Galileo case, sentencing, and punishment published and
distributed throughout the Church in order to quash the heliocentric
heresy, but the guys that want to maintain Papal infallibility claim
that that was not an official Papal action. They admitted that there
was an issue with helicentrism at the time, but they do not want the
Pope to have been on the wrong side of the issue.
You need to deal with reality.
I think it's very clear who has the problem with accepting reality and
it's not me.
It is well understood that the Bible is
just wrong about a lot of things that we can figure out for ourselves.
Your own quotes from Pope Francis makes that claim. The Bible can be
misinterpreted because the author's understanding of the creation was
faulty. Francis knows that the universe was not created in 6 magic
episodes. Only those in complete denial do not understand that the
order of creation described in the Bible is wrong. There are still
young earth, old earth day for agers, geocentric, and flat earth
Biblical creationists because they are in the same type of denial that
you are in. There are just different levels of denial.
Ron Okimoto
On the other hand, I have given 3 specific examples of lies you have
told in this thread alone. Here they are again:
1) Your lie that the Wiki article says Galileo faced a heresy charge
in 1616
2) Your lie that somebody had edited it the Wiki article since you
used it.
3) Your lie that you didn't say it was edited.
Each of those is specific and documented but you try to ignore them by reposting loads of text as some sort of feeble diversion tactic.
*That* is running away.
[rCa]
On 5/13/2026 7:26 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Mon, 11 May 2026 13:33:43 -0500, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>
wrote:
On 5/11/2026 10:17 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
Blethering about a guy who is dead does nothing to deal with your lies >>>> as detailed above. Just another incident of runaway Ron.
[snip feeble attempt at obfuscation]
Blathers the guy running from what he can't deal honestly with. You
need to apologize and stop doing what you are doing. You are so badly
off that you can't even snip and run from the post where you had to
quote mine in order to keep lying about the first REPOSTS.
I haven'r run away from anything because you have posted nothing for
me to run from. I have asked you innumerable times to identify an
example of a specific I told or something I quote mined and you
haven't been able to do so - not even one example of either.
Nyikos used to snip and run and lie about what he was doing, but he had
a limit for doing it.
Here it is again, and it is all that you are
going to get because it is all that I need to do in order to demonstrate >that you need to apologize for what you have been doing, and quit doing
it.
On Wed, 13 May 2026 11:49:06 -0500, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>
wrote:
On 5/13/2026 7:26 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Mon, 11 May 2026 13:33:43 -0500, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>
wrote:
On 5/11/2026 10:17 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
[rCa]
Blethering about a guy who is dead does nothing to deal with your lies >>>>> as detailed above. Just another incident of runaway Ron.
[snip feeble attempt at obfuscation]
Blathers the guy running from what he can't deal honestly with. You
need to apologize and stop doing what you are doing. You are so badly >>>> off that you can't even snip and run from the post where you had to
quote mine in order to keep lying about the first REPOSTS.
I haven'r run away from anything because you have posted nothing for
me to run from. I have asked you innumerable times to identify an
example of a specific I told or something I quote mined and you
haven't been able to do so - not even one example of either.
Nyikos used to snip and run and lie about what he was doing, but he had
a limit for doing it.
Whereas you have no limit for trying to run away.
On Thu, 30 Apr 2026 08:49:48 -0500, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>insane.
wrote:
On 4/30/2026 5:44 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Wed, 29 Apr 2026 19:41:58 -0500, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>
wrote:
On 4/29/2026 1:13 PM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Wed, 29 Apr 2026 12:43:53 -0500, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>
wrote:
[...]
Snipping and lying about what you have done is just stupid and
snipped and
Not as stupid and insane as making a claim you can't support. C'mon,
Ron, give the link to the Wiki article that says Galileo faced a
heresy charge in 1616 rCa surely it can't be that difficult.
[snip desperation attempt to avoid issue]
What a lying asshole. This is the second time that you have
run from what you have lied about as being handwaving.
C'mon Ron, no need to repost 7000 words that nobody wants to read. All
that's needed to show me to be the lying asshole, not you, is a simple
quote from the Wiki article that says what you insist it says. A dozen
or so words should cover it or even a simple URL. Can't be that hard
can it?
[...]
You need to stop harassing me with your stupid lies about the past.
I'll gladly stop harassing you when you either give a specific example
of a lie told by either me or those I cited in support. Or else
withdraw your own stupid lies.
On Mon, 20 Apr 2026 13:40:43 -0500, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>are lying".
wrote:
On 4/20/2026 4:08 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Sat, 18 Apr 2026 12:06:53 -0500, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>
wrote:
On 4/18/2026 6:24 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Wed, 15 Apr 2026 14:31:27 -0500, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>
wrote:
On 4/15/2026 11:36 AM, Martin Harran wrote:[rCa]
On Wed, 15 Apr 2026 16:59:56 +0100, "Kerr-Mudd, John"
No one is going to convince an opponent by stating that "they
(no matterand probably not by constant repetition of the same arguments
reality,how valid) that failed to get through the first 50 times.
Tell that to RonO, he's the one who keeps calling everyone who
disagrees with him a liar.
Who got caught lying and quote mining? You need to deal with
short?and quit lying about it. Lying about me is just so stupid that it is
pretty much insane. You have always lied about the sources that you
could not deal honestly with. Who's sources have always come up
matched byLook at what you are doing now. Is there any excuse for you not dealing
with your own stupid dishonest behavior?
The tiresomeness of you continually claiming that my sources were
caught lying and that I have been lying and quote mining is
beenthe tiresomeness of your inability to ever identify what lie my
sources were caught in, what lies I have told or where I have quote
mined.
[... more big snip ...]
Why keep lying about what your sources did and what you did? That is
just stupid and dishonest. Just look up your past posts to determine
for yourself what went down. You tried to lie about my sources being
deficient when your sources had always come up short or even supported
my sources by putting up the lame lie that heliocentrism had never
samecondemned other then by the inquisition. It was stupid because it did
not negate what you and your sources had been wrong about. It turned
out that your source was lying and you ran. You ran twice from the
whatevidence that your source was lying. You tried to come back with your
lame quote mining efforts and trying to distract the argument from
it had been. You did that, and your source was demonstrated to have
lied about the issue. You need to go back and deal with what you did.
An appology for your disgraceful behavior would be in order. Just try
not to do it again. Continuing to lie about what happened is just
adding to how low you needed to go.
Yet again, you make all sorts of accusations without a single example
of something to support them.
What I cannot figure out is whether you just can't grasp that your
failure to produce a single example of supporting evidence portrays
*you* as the one telling lies; or whether you do grasp it and just
don't care; or whether, like a certain President, you think that if
you repeat a lie enough times that someone will eventually believe it.
You should apologize for what you have been doing and stop doing it. I
found the posts where you ran from your source having been caught lying,
you then snipped the evidence out of your response to your running.
The thread: There is no legitimate scientific support for the ID scam.
I can post your quote mining attempts and other stupid behavior that you
resorted to to defend your running and defense of your bogus source.
So why don't you instead of talking about it?
Specific examples, please, not reams and reams of obfuscatory cut'n
paste.
On Sun, 16 Nov 2025 18:25:18 -0600, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>claiming you
wrote:
On 11/16/2025 4:40 PM, Martin Harran wrote:[rCa]
The links that I put up were from the Catholics that continue to be
geocentric creationists, and the Catholics that are trying to refute
them. Both sides do not agree with you. What does your continued
denial of reality tell you?
You gave no such links. All you have to do to prove me wrong is give
them again.
Do you not see how stupid you are making yourself look by
gave links but cannot repeat them?
Why lie about something so stupid. One of the links was your own
trusted Catholic site, and you initially gave that link.
That was this site:
https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/06342b.htm
The one where the Catholic Church states:
" In thus acting, it is undeniable that the ecclesiastical authorities
committed a grave and deplorable error, and sanctioned an altogether
false principle as to the proper use of Scripture."
The one that cites Professor Augustus De Morgan (Budget of Paradoxes)
declaring
"It is clear that the absurdity was the act of the Italian
Inquisition, for the private and personal pleasure of the pope - who
knew that the course he took could not convict him as pope - and not
of the body which calls itself the Church."
The one that cites von Gebler ("Galileo Galilei"):
"The Church never condemned it (the Copernican system) at all, for the
Qualifiers of the Holy Office never mean the Church."
It beats me how you figure out that site and the people referred to in
it somehow back your claim that heliocentrism really was a heresy. I
guess you have to convince yourself in order to maintain your delusion
as you clearly can't find a reputable source that actually does back
you up.
Yes, everyone admits that they were wrong about geocentrism except for
the Catholics that are still geocentrics. This source called what
Galileo faced both times a charge of heresy. They did not make a
distinction between formal heresy and heresy like the anti geocentric
site, but it was still a heresy.
What part of "The Church never condemned it (the Copernican system) at
all" did you not understand?
The only place that formal comes into all this is in the judgement
issued after Galileo's first trial where the verdict stated that the proposition that the Sun is stationary at the centre of the universe
is "foolish and absurd in philosophy, and formally heretical since it explicitly contradicts in many places the sense of Holy Scripture".
That, however, is t the Catholic Encyclopaedia refers to where it
says:
"it is undeniable that the ecclesiastical authorities committed a
grave and deplorable error, and sanctioned an altogether false
principle as to the proper use of Scripture."
Note also that the words "formally heretical" are wrong - I'm not sure whether it was the Inquisition using weasel words or whether it was a
bad translation from the Latin.
The word "heresy" can be used in two ways; it can apply to the
rejection of a specific doctrine of the Church or it can refer to the
act of committing heresy. The word "formal" applies to the latter -
the act of committing heresy - and is used to categorise the degree of
guilt of the person committing the heresy. "Formal heresy" means they
knew they were going against doctrine and are therefore guilty of
mortal sin; "material heresy" means they did not know they were going against doctrine so they are not guilty sin.
It's a bit like first degree versus second degree murder and Galileo's
trial was like him being charged with first-degree murder without a
murder being established in the first place.
The Inquisition made it into a formal heresy after the Council of Trent.
They were supposedly wrong, and a couple centuries later things got
reversed to what they had been at the time that the findings of the
Council of Trent were published.
The holy office (the inquisition) had Galileo facing a formal heresy
charge in his first encounter. When the pope got involved they just did
not call it a formal heresy in the sentencing. Galileo's views were
still condemned. They claimed that Galileo was facing a charge of
heresy. His heliocentric notions were still considered to be heresy and
the heresy that he was guilty of was clearly defined in the sentencing.
The anti geocentrics admitted that the pope had the Galileo case
published and disseminated throughout the church in order to quash the
heliocentric notions that were becoming an issue for the church. They
just want to claim that, that was not an official act. That is just
stupid. The pope did it for known reasons, and who cares if they want
to plead that he was not acting as pope?
There is no doubt that the actors were wrong, and that is the issue.
They do not want it to reflect on papal infallibility. That in itself
should be considered to be a non scriptural unjustifiable claim.
The Inquisition had Copernican writings banned and made heliocentrism
into a formal heresy because all the church fathers were geocentrics,
and that meant that Copernicans were in conflict with the beliefs of the
church fathers. Both the geocentric Catholics and the anti geocentric
Catholics claim that the Inquisition did this because of what the church
came up with at the Council of Trent where they made the beliefs of the
church fathers as a legitimate and necessary authority for interpreting
scripture. Both Catholic sides of the geocentric issue understand this
to be true.
QUOTE:
Council of Trent
Session IV, April 8, 1546, Decree Concerning the Edition and the Use of
the Sacred Books:
... "Furthermore, in order to restrain petulant spirits, it [the Council
of Trent] decrees that no one, relying on his own skill, shall,-in
matters of faith, and of morals pertaining to the edification of
Christian doctrine,-wresting the sacred Scriptures to his own senses,
presume to interpret the said sacred Scripture contrary to that sense
which holy Mother Church-to whom it belongs to judge of the true sense
and interpretation of the Holy Scriptures-hath held and doth hold; or
even contrary to the unanimous consent of the Fathers; even though such
interpretations were never (intended) to be at any time published.
Contraveners shall be made known by their Ordinaries and be punished
with the penalties by law established."
END QUOTE:
https://www.biblelightinfo.com/unanimous-consent.htm
Both Catholic sides of the issue claim that the Council of Trent caused
the Inquisition to ban Copernican writings and start treating
heliocentrism as a formal heresy because it went against the geocentric
beliefs of the church fathers.
You are taking all that crap from your geocentric hero; if you want to persist in taking his opinion against that of the Church's own
theologians then that is you just acting like Spikes rejecting the
opinion of scientists in favour of people who play to his confirmation
bias.
It was a mistake and the actors were in error only because of our
current understanding of nature. The Pope was wrong about it. He was
one of the mistaken actors.
The Pope was not a "mistaken actor", he was pissed off with Galileo presenting the Pope's views as those of a simpleton and misused his
powers to hit back at Galileo. Again, the Catholic Encyclopaedia
spells that explicitly:
"It is clear that the absurdity was the act of the Italian
Inquisition, for the private and personal pleasure of the pope - who
knew that the course he took could not convict him as pope - and not
of the body which calls itself the Church."
The Galileo affair was a shameful episode in the Church's history but
was all about the animosity between the Pope and Galileo, it had
nothing to do with heliocentrism being a heresy, that was just the
vehicle that the Pope used to attack Galileo.
On Mon, 17 Nov 2025 14:40:05 -0600, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>
wrote:
On 11/17/2025 11:45 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Mon, 17 Nov 2025 09:57:31 -0600, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>
wrote:
[...]
Oops, the Pope was not infallible.
So papal infallibility is another thing you don't understand.
I am just repeating what the anti geocentrist want to claim about it.
The "anti-geocentrists" of whom you cannot identify even one. Mind
you, when you first brought in the website of your geocentrist mentor,
it was anonymous and you didn't even know who the author was until I
figured out; the fact that he is a declared geocentrist and you knew
nothing about him didn't stop you placing high value on his opinions
and continuing to do so.
Weird to say the least.
[...]
On Wed, 19 Nov 2025 14:55:52 -0600, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>
wrote:
On 11/19/2025 12:01 PM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Mon, 17 Nov 2025 14:40:05 -0600, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>
wrote:
On 11/17/2025 11:45 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Mon, 17 Nov 2025 09:57:31 -0600, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>
wrote:
[...]
Oops, the Pope was not infallible.
So papal infallibility is another thing you don't understand.
I am just repeating what the anti geocentrist want to claim about it.
The "anti-geocentrists" of whom you cannot identify even one. Mind
you, when you first brought in the website of your geocentrist mentor,
it was anonymous and you didn't even know who the author was until I
figured out; the fact that he is a declared geocentrist and you knew
nothing about him didn't stop you placing high value on his opinions
and continuing to do so.
Weird to say the least.
[...]
You were given the links before,
Nope
so stop lying about it. Why should I
look up that junk again.
So you can prove I'm lying. But you can't because I'm not lying, you
gave no links except to the geocentrist idiot whose opinion you value
so highly.
You just denied that it was valid and kept
lying. Even your own trusted source backed up the anti geocentric site.
The anti geocentrists were on your side in terms of denying that it
was a formal heresy that Galileo faced the second time, but they agreed
with the geocentrists that the Inquisition had made it a formal heresy
charge the first time Galileo faced it and agreed with the Wiki. The
Vatican Observatory article that you have run from and snipped out of
this post backs up the geocentrists and anti geocentrists.
Just stop lying about the issue.
https://www.vaticanobservatory.org/sacred-space-astronomy/heliocentrism-condemned-400-years-ago-on-march-5-2/
They admit that helicentrism was condemned 400 years ago. 1616 is when
Galileo faced the formal heresy charge.
They do not consider the heresy cases, but they were based upon the
Inquisitions opinion of the topic.
Your claim of "never" having been condemned seems to be a lie.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galileo_Galilei
QUOTE:
In February 1616, an Inquisitorial commission declared heliocentrism to
be "foolish and absurd in philosophy, and formally heretical since it
explicitly contradicts in many places the sense of Holy Scripture".
END QUOTE:
Now YOU are the one lying about me. I never said it was never
condemned; on the contrary, I gave that exact same quote. What I did
was to point out that what it said was a FALSE CLAIM and it wasn't me
who came to that conclusion, it was the Catholic Church who came to
it, supported by every historian I know of who investigated it, people
like De Morgan and von Gebler. The only person I have ever known to
say there actually was a heresy is the geocentrist idiot whose opinion
you value so highly.
Both the geocentrists that you don't like, and the anti geocentric
catholics that do not agree with geocentric beliefs agreed that it was a
formal heresy charge the first time that Galileo faced the issue.
Now you seem to be trying to worm your way out of it by admitting
there was a *charge* without retracting that there was an actual
heresy which is what you have been claiming all long.
You can't just keep refusing to deal with reality and expect anything to
change.
You can't keep claiming support from "anti-geocentrists" about
heliocentrism having been an actual heresy without being able to
identify even one and expect people to take you seriously.
On Thu, 20 Nov 2025 09:38:56 -0600, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>heliocentrism to
wrote:
On 11/20/2025 4:47 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Wed, 19 Nov 2025 14:55:52 -0600, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>
wrote:
[snip for focus]
Your claim of "never" having been condemned seems to be a lie.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galileo_Galilei
QUOTE:
In February 1616, an Inquisitorial commission declared
be "foolish and absurd in philosophy, and formally heretical since it
explicitly contradicts in many places the sense of Holy Scripture".
END QUOTE:
Now YOU are the one lying about me. I never said it was never
condemned; on the contrary, I gave that exact same quote. What I did
was to point out that what it said was a FALSE CLAIM and it wasn't me
who came to that conclusion, it was the Catholic Church who came to
it, supported by every historian I know of who investigated it, people
like De Morgan and von Gebler. The only person I have ever known to
say there actually was a heresy is the geocentrist idiot whose opinion
you value so highly.
You put up the quote that said it had never been condemned. Go back up
and check. It was your quote.
Here is verbatim what I quoted:
Message-ID: 2gkkhk9bvctolude5jf6b6e0kothd5723d@4ax.com ========================================
<quote>
The [site] that cites von Gebler ("Galileo Galilei"):
"The Church never condemned it (the Copernican system) at all, for the Qualifiers of the Holy Office never mean the Church."
==========================================
#1: it was von Gebler who said rCLnever condemnedrCY, not me as you
claimed two posts ago.
#2 he did not say it was never condemned, he said *the Church* never condemned it.
Why do you post lies that are so easily shown to be lies?
On Fri, 21 Nov 2025 17:33:49 -0600, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>
wrote:
On 11/21/2025 12:29 PM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Fri, 21 Nov 2025 09:04:37 -0600, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>
wrote:
[rCa]
Let's cut to the chase here.
No lies to retract. You lied.
What lie are you claiming I told? Please quote exactly what I said
that you regard as a lie.
The ones that you keep telling.
"Never condemned"
I'm out of here. George Bernard Shaw warned that you shouldn't wrestle
with a pig as you get dirty and the pig enjoys it. I'm not going to
waste any more time trying to have a sensible discussion with someone
who thinks it's ok to take two words out of what somebody else said to
give a completely different meaning and then attribute those two words
to me. It doesn't even reach the level of quote-mining.
What beggars belief is that you do it where the exact quote from von
Gerber [1] and what I said about it are preserved just a couple of
posts above for all to see. As I noted earlier, it is really sad to
see this sort of behaviour from someone whose ability as a scientist I respect so much EfOU
===========================================
[1] "The Church never condemned it (the Copernican system) at all, for
the Qualifiers of the Holy Office never mean the Church."
[von Gebler ("Galileo Galilei")]
[..]
You should not continue to add to your own dishonest stupidity.
Trusting your source was obviously a stupid thing to do, and trying to
continue to support that source was just stupid and dishonest.
Ron Okimoto
[rCa]
Here it is again, and it is all that you are
going to get because it is all that I need to do in order to demonstrate
that you need to apologize for what you have been doing, and quit doing
it.
You mean it is all I am going to get because you have nothing better
to offer, nothing to defend your clearly identified lies.
[rCa]
On Wed, 13 May 2026 11:49:06 -0500, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>
wrote:
On 5/13/2026 7:26 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Mon, 11 May 2026 13:33:43 -0500, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>
wrote:
On 5/11/2026 10:17 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
[rCa]
Blethering about a guy who is dead does nothing to deal with your lies >>>>> as detailed above. Just another incident of runaway Ron.
[snip feeble attempt at obfuscation]
Blathers the guy running from what he can't deal honestly with. You
need to apologize and stop doing what you are doing. You are so badly >>>> off that you can't even snip and run from the post where you had to
quote mine in order to keep lying about the first REPOSTS.
I haven'r run away from anything because you have posted nothing for
me to run from. I have asked you innumerable times to identify an
example of a specific I told or something I quote mined and you
haven't been able to do so - not even one example of either.
Nyikos used to snip and run and lie about what he was doing, but he had
a limit for doing it.
Whereas you have no limit for trying to run away.
[rCa]
Here it is again, and it is all that you are
going to get because it is all that I need to do in order to demonstrate
that you need to apologize for what you have been doing, and quit doing
it.
You mean it is all I am going to get because you have nothing better
to offer, nothing to defend your clearly identified lies.
[rCa]
On Sun, 22 Feb 2026 13:40:10 -0600, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>what you
wrote:
On 2/22/2026 10:18 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Sat, 21 Feb 2026 12:44:57 -0600, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>
wrote:
On 2/21/2026 11:59 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
What documents are you talking about that you keep saying the Jesuits
put up?
You can keep lying about what has been discussed, but you know
was notdid. You need to be the one that finds it and satisfy yourself with
what you did.
You put up your source lying about heliocentrism never being condemned
by anyone but the Inquisition. You claimed that the Inquisition
ordered bythe Church. I put up the Jesuit Observatory claim that the Papal
offices had condemned heliocentrism and this condemnation was
sources havethe Pope. They put up the relevant document and stated what the Pope
did. Your source was caught lying and you ran. Go find it. It is
something that you should do because you will uncover all your other
evasions on this issue while doing it. Your quotes of your
always come up short. The sources that you claim are unreliable, have
repeatedly been shown to be more reliable than what you come up with.
Oh, you mean the link you gave back in November, this one:
https://www.vaticanobservatory.org/sacred-space-astronomy/heliocentrism-condemned-400-years-ago-on-march-5-2/
The one where they posted the full 1616 decree on it's 400th
anniversary and commented:
<quote>
The formulation here is much milder than the one found in the working
document of February 24. The Decree talks about the "false Pythagorean
doctrine" and declare it "altogether contrary to the Holy Scripture".
This is not nearly as harsh as "foolish and absurd" philosophically,
and "formally heretical" because contrary to Scripture.
</quote>
How fucking dense can you be? It doesn't get much stupider than
posting something that contradicts what you are claiming.
If I am the dense one why did you run from what they admitted about the
document?
LOL, you post something that you think supports your claim but
actually rejects it and the best defence you can offer is to accuse me
of running away from it.
The Pope did condemn heliocentrism.
Beats me why you keep repeating this. The Pope did not personally
condemn heliocentrism, he allowed the Inquisition's condemnation of it
to be made public - that did not make it a heresy.
That is what your side was lying
about.
The only one telling lies here is you. For example, when you keep
insisting that all the "anti-geocentrists" in the Catholic
Encyclopaedia article agree with you that heliocentrism was a heresy
when they all say explicitly that it wasn't. Your lie is underlined by
the fact that you can't produce identify any source that agrees that heliocentrism was a heresy except your geocentrist mentors.
reality.It doesn't matter that the final wording was milder than the
initial draft. They admit that the Pope condemned heliocentrism, and
supported using the Council of Trent's scriptural interpretation on the
matter. It doesn't matter what it was called because the authors and
books are named. You ran from this link because your source was found
to have lied about heliocentrism never having been condemned except by
the Inquisition. The Pope obviously represents the Church and condemned
heliocentrism. He supported the Inquisition in 1616, and their
additions to the Index in order to protect against heresy. The books
would not have been added to the Index if they were not considered to be
heretical. The document even talks about the heretical parts of the
books, and indicates that after one of them is rewritten, so that it is
not against scripture, that it can be removed from the Index.
Keep lying to yourself about the issue. It isn't going to change
The Inquisition made heliocentrism a formal heresy in 1615-1616.
The decree is given in full on the Vatican Observatory site that you
tried to claim supports you and the word 'heresy' or 'heretical' does
not even appear in it.
They
did this because of their interpretation of scripture as the Council of
Trent had decided.
The decree doesn't make any reference whatsoever to Trent regarding interpretation of scripture; the one and only reference is to the *punishment* under Trent for disobeying the decree.
They added heliocentric writings to the Index,
They declare that "the books by Nicolaus Copernicus (On the
Revolutions of Spheres) and by Diego de Zu|#iga (On Job) be suspended
until corrected".
I've given details of the required corrections to Revolutions in a
different post to Harshman and they are all minor edits - not one of
them makes any change to the core principle of heliocentrism. A rather
weird declaration of heresy that allows Copernicus's book supporting
it to be published with minor edits that don't undermine his
proposition.
and
had their first encounter with Galileo. The Pope agreed with them and
condemned heliocentrism, and agreed with their additions to the Index of
banned writings.
Before your source lied about "never being condemned" the Pope's
involvement in 1616 was not an issue between the geocentric and
anti-geocentric Catholics in terms of what you were lying about at the
time. Both sides agreed that it was a formal heresy charge faced by
Galileo in 1615-1616. They disagreed about it being a formal heresy
charge the second time because it was only written up as "heresy" and
not formal heresy in the sentencing. It remained a heresy charge.
You obviously struggle with grasping that a *charge* does not make
someone guilty. I hope I'm never on trial for something I didn't do
with you on the jury.
The
Pope had the Galileo case, sentencing, and punishment published and
distributed throughout the Church in order to quash the heliocentric
heresy, but the guys that want to maintain Papal infallibility claim
that that was not an official Papal action. They admitted that there
was an issue with helicentrism at the time, but they do not want the
Pope to have been on the wrong side of the issue.
You need to deal with reality.
I think it's very clear who has the problem with accepting reality and
it's not me.
It is well understood that the Bible is
just wrong about a lot of things that we can figure out for ourselves.
Your own quotes from Pope Francis makes that claim. The Bible can be
misinterpreted because the author's understanding of the creation was
faulty. Francis knows that the universe was not created in 6 magic
episodes. Only those in complete denial do not understand that the
order of creation described in the Bible is wrong. There are still
young earth, old earth day for agers, geocentric, and flat earth
Biblical creationists because they are in the same type of denial that
you are in. There are just different levels of denial.
Ron Okimoto
On 5/15/2026 4:06 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Wed, 13 May 2026 11:49:06 -0500, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>
wrote:
On 5/13/2026 7:26 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Mon, 11 May 2026 13:33:43 -0500, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>
wrote:
On 5/11/2026 10:17 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
[rCa]
Blethering about a guy who is dead does nothing to deal with your lies >>>>>> as detailed above. Just another incident of runaway Ron.
[snip feeble attempt at obfuscation]
Blathers the guy running from what he can't deal honestly with. You >>>>> need to apologize and stop doing what you are doing. You are so badly >>>>> off that you can't even snip and run from the post where you had to
quote mine in order to keep lying about the first REPOSTS.
I haven'r run away from anything because you have posted nothing for
me to run from. I have asked you innumerable times to identify an
example of a specific I told or something I quote mined and you
haven't been able to do so - not even one example of either.
Nyikos used to snip and run and lie about what he was doing, but he had
a limit for doing it.
Whereas you have no limit for trying to run away.
Projection is just nuts. You have to know that you are the one that is >running. Look what you just did. I am the one that stopped
demonstrating that your further harassment is just as bogus as it has
always been. You need to apologize for what you have done and quit
doing it. Look what you had to do in order to start running from the >REPOSTS. You tried to quote mine the wiki when the wiki continued to >clearly claim that Galileo faced a formal heresy charge in 1616.
Running and quote mining in order to continue your harassment is just nuts.
On 5/15/2026 4:06 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Wed, 13 May 2026 11:49:06 -0500, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>
wrote:
On 5/13/2026 7:26 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Mon, 11 May 2026 13:33:43 -0500, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>
wrote:
On 5/11/2026 10:17 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
[rCa]
Blethering about a guy who is dead does nothing to deal with your lies >>>>>> as detailed above. Just another incident of runaway Ron.
[snip feeble attempt at obfuscation]
Blathers the guy running from what he can't deal honestly with. You >>>>> need to apologize and stop doing what you are doing. You are so badly >>>>> off that you can't even snip and run from the post where you had to
quote mine in order to keep lying about the first REPOSTS.
I haven'r run away from anything because you have posted nothing for
me to run from. I have asked you innumerable times to identify an
example of a specific I told or something I quote mined and you
haven't been able to do so - not even one example of either.
Nyikos used to snip and run and lie about what he was doing, but he had
a limit for doing it.
Whereas you have no limit for trying to run away.
Projection is just nuts. You have to know that you are the one that is >running. Look what you just did. I am the one that stopped
demonstrating that your further harassment is just as bogus as it has
always been. You need to apologize for what you have done and quit
doing it. Look what you had to do in order to start running from the >REPOSTS. You tried to quote mine the wiki when the wiki continued to >clearly claim that Galileo faced a formal heresy charge in 1616.
Running and quote mining in order to continue your harassment is just nuts.
On Fri, 15 May 2026 08:57:36 -0500, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>
wrote:
On 5/15/2026 4:06 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Wed, 13 May 2026 11:49:06 -0500, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>
wrote:
On 5/13/2026 7:26 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Mon, 11 May 2026 13:33:43 -0500, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>
wrote:
On 5/11/2026 10:17 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
[rCa]
Blethering about a guy who is dead does nothing to deal with your lies >>>>>>> as detailed above. Just another incident of runaway Ron.
[snip feeble attempt at obfuscation]
Blathers the guy running from what he can't deal honestly with. You >>>>>> need to apologize and stop doing what you are doing. You are so badly >>>>>> off that you can't even snip and run from the post where you had to >>>>>> quote mine in order to keep lying about the first REPOSTS.
I haven'r run away from anything because you have posted nothing for >>>>> me to run from. I have asked you innumerable times to identify an
example of a specific I told or something I quote mined and you
haven't been able to do so - not even one example of either.
Nyikos used to snip and run and lie about what he was doing, but he had >>>> a limit for doing it.
Whereas you have no limit for trying to run away.
Projection is just nuts. You have to know that you are the one that is
running. Look what you just did. I am the one that stopped
demonstrating that your further harassment is just as bogus as it has
always been. You need to apologize for what you have done and quit
doing it. Look what you had to do in order to start running from the
REPOSTS. You tried to quote mine the wiki when the wiki continued to
clearly claim that Galileo faced a formal heresy charge in 1616.
Running and quote mining in order to continue your harassment is just nuts.
The Wiki does not say that and you effectively admitted it when tried
to make out that the Wiki had been edited, which it hadn't.
I don't think you can be so stupid that you don't realise you got it
wrong about 1616. You should be asking yourself what else you might
have got wrong.
It seems to me that you just can't bring yourself to publicly admit
that you got it all wrong so I'll make you an offer. Just walk away
from this, just stop posting bullshit about me lying and insisting
that the reputable scholars I quoted were also lying. Just stop doing
that and I will leave you alone. The only proviso I make is that you
don't start this all up again in a few weeks time.
[rCa]On Fri, 15 May 2026 08:57:36 -0500, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>
wrote:
On 5/15/2026 4:06 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Wed, 13 May 2026 11:49:06 -0500, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>
wrote:
On 5/13/2026 7:26 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Mon, 11 May 2026 13:33:43 -0500, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>
wrote:
On 5/11/2026 10:17 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
[rCa]
Blethering about a guy who is dead does nothing to deal with your lies >>>>>>> as detailed above. Just another incident of runaway Ron.
[snip feeble attempt at obfuscation]
Blathers the guy running from what he can't deal honestly with. You >>>>>> need to apologize and stop doing what you are doing. You are so badly >>>>>> off that you can't even snip and run from the post where you had to >>>>>> quote mine in order to keep lying about the first REPOSTS.
I haven'r run away from anything because you have posted nothing for >>>>> me to run from. I have asked you innumerable times to identify an
example of a specific I told or something I quote mined and you
haven't been able to do so - not even one example of either.
Nyikos used to snip and run and lie about what he was doing, but he had >>>> a limit for doing it.
Whereas you have no limit for trying to run away.
Projection is just nuts. You have to know that you are the one that is
running. Look what you just did. I am the one that stopped
demonstrating that your further harassment is just as bogus as it has
always been. You need to apologize for what you have done and quit
doing it. Look what you had to do in order to start running from the
REPOSTS. You tried to quote mine the wiki when the wiki continued to
clearly claim that Galileo faced a formal heresy charge in 1616.
Running and quote mining in order to continue your harassment is just nuts.
The Wiki does not say that and you effectively admitted it when tried
to make out that the Wiki had been edited, which it hadn't.
I don't think you can be so stupid that you don't realise you got it
wrong about 1616. You should be asking yourself what else you got
wrong.
It seems to me that you just can't bring yourself to publicly admit
that you got it all wrong so I'll make you an offer. Just walk away
from this, just stop posting bullshit about me lying and claiming that
the reputable scholars I quoted were also lying. Just stop doing that
and I will leave you alone. The only proviso I make is that you don't
start this all up again in a few weeks time.
[rCa]
On Sun, 22 Feb 2026 13:40:10 -0600, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>what you
wrote:
On 2/22/2026 10:18 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Sat, 21 Feb 2026 12:44:57 -0600, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>
wrote:
On 2/21/2026 11:59 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
What documents are you talking about that you keep saying the Jesuits
put up?
You can keep lying about what has been discussed, but you know
was notdid. You need to be the one that finds it and satisfy yourself with
what you did.
You put up your source lying about heliocentrism never being condemned
by anyone but the Inquisition. You claimed that the Inquisition
ordered bythe Church. I put up the Jesuit Observatory claim that the Papal
offices had condemned heliocentrism and this condemnation was
sources havethe Pope. They put up the relevant document and stated what the Pope
did. Your source was caught lying and you ran. Go find it. It is
something that you should do because you will uncover all your other
evasions on this issue while doing it. Your quotes of your
always come up short. The sources that you claim are unreliable, have
repeatedly been shown to be more reliable than what you come up with.
Oh, you mean the link you gave back in November, this one:
https://www.vaticanobservatory.org/sacred-space-astronomy/heliocentrism-condemned-400-years-ago-on-march-5-2/
The one where they posted the full 1616 decree on it's 400th
anniversary and commented:
<quote>
The formulation here is much milder than the one found in the working
document of February 24. The Decree talks about the "false Pythagorean
doctrine" and declare it "altogether contrary to the Holy Scripture".
This is not nearly as harsh as "foolish and absurd" philosophically,
and "formally heretical" because contrary to Scripture.
</quote>
How fucking dense can you be? It doesn't get much stupider than
posting something that contradicts what you are claiming.
If I am the dense one why did you run from what they admitted about the
document?
LOL, you post something that you think supports your claim but
actually rejects it and the best defence you can offer is to accuse me
of running away from it.
The Pope did condemn heliocentrism.
Beats me why you keep repeating this. The Pope did not personally
condemn heliocentrism, he allowed the Inquisition's condemnation of it
to be made public - that did not make it a heresy.
That is what your side was lying
about.
The only one telling lies here is you. For example, when you keep
insisting that all the "anti-geocentrists" in the Catholic
Encyclopaedia article agree with you that heliocentrism was a heresy
when they all say explicitly that it wasn't. Your lie is underlined by
the fact that you can't produce identify any source that agrees that heliocentrism was a heresy except your geocentrist mentors.
reality.It doesn't matter that the final wording was milder than the
initial draft. They admit that the Pope condemned heliocentrism, and
supported using the Council of Trent's scriptural interpretation on the
matter. It doesn't matter what it was called because the authors and
books are named. You ran from this link because your source was found
to have lied about heliocentrism never having been condemned except by
the Inquisition. The Pope obviously represents the Church and condemned
heliocentrism. He supported the Inquisition in 1616, and their
additions to the Index in order to protect against heresy. The books
would not have been added to the Index if they were not considered to be
heretical. The document even talks about the heretical parts of the
books, and indicates that after one of them is rewritten, so that it is
not against scripture, that it can be removed from the Index.
Keep lying to yourself about the issue. It isn't going to change
The Inquisition made heliocentrism a formal heresy in 1615-1616.
The decree is given in full on the Vatican Observatory site that you
tried to claim supports you and the word 'heresy' or 'heretical' does
not even appear in it.
They
did this because of their interpretation of scripture as the Council of
Trent had decided.
The decree doesn't make any reference whatsoever to Trent regarding interpretation of scripture; the one and only reference is to the *punishment* under Trent for disobeying the decree.
They added heliocentric writings to the Index,
They declare that "the books by Nicolaus Copernicus (On the
Revolutions of Spheres) and by Diego de Zu|#iga (On Job) be suspended
until corrected".
I've given details of the required corrections to Revolutions in a
different post to Harshman and they are all minor edits - not one of
them makes any change to the core principle of heliocentrism. A rather
weird declaration of heresy that allows Copernicus's book supporting
it to be published with minor edits that don't undermine his
proposition.
and
had their first encounter with Galileo. The Pope agreed with them and
condemned heliocentrism, and agreed with their additions to the Index of
banned writings.
Before your source lied about "never being condemned" the Pope's
involvement in 1616 was not an issue between the geocentric and
anti-geocentric Catholics in terms of what you were lying about at the
time. Both sides agreed that it was a formal heresy charge faced by
Galileo in 1615-1616. They disagreed about it being a formal heresy
charge the second time because it was only written up as "heresy" and
not formal heresy in the sentencing. It remained a heresy charge.
You obviously struggle with grasping that a *charge* does not make
someone guilty. I hope I'm never on trial for something I didn't do
with you on the jury.
The
Pope had the Galileo case, sentencing, and punishment published and
distributed throughout the Church in order to quash the heliocentric
heresy, but the guys that want to maintain Papal infallibility claim
that that was not an official Papal action. They admitted that there
was an issue with helicentrism at the time, but they do not want the
Pope to have been on the wrong side of the issue.
You need to deal with reality.
I think it's very clear who has the problem with accepting reality and
it's not me.
It is well understood that the Bible is
just wrong about a lot of things that we can figure out for ourselves.
Your own quotes from Pope Francis makes that claim. The Bible can be
misinterpreted because the author's understanding of the creation was
faulty. Francis knows that the universe was not created in 6 magic
episodes. Only those in complete denial do not understand that the
order of creation described in the Bible is wrong. There are still
young earth, old earth day for agers, geocentric, and flat earth
Biblical creationists because they are in the same type of denial that
you are in. There are just different levels of denial.
Ron Okimoto
On Fri, 15 May 2026 08:57:36 -0500, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>
wrote:
On 5/15/2026 4:06 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Wed, 13 May 2026 11:49:06 -0500, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>
wrote:
On 5/13/2026 7:26 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Mon, 11 May 2026 13:33:43 -0500, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>
wrote:
On 5/11/2026 10:17 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
[rCa]
Blethering about a guy who is dead does nothing to deal with your lies >>>>>>> as detailed above. Just another incident of runaway Ron.
[snip feeble attempt at obfuscation]
Blathers the guy running from what he can't deal honestly with. You >>>>>> need to apologize and stop doing what you are doing. You are so badly >>>>>> off that you can't even snip and run from the post where you had to >>>>>> quote mine in order to keep lying about the first REPOSTS.
I haven'r run away from anything because you have posted nothing for >>>>> me to run from. I have asked you innumerable times to identify an
example of a specific I told or something I quote mined and you
haven't been able to do so - not even one example of either.
Nyikos used to snip and run and lie about what he was doing, but he had >>>> a limit for doing it.
Whereas you have no limit for trying to run away.
Projection is just nuts. You have to know that you are the one that is
running. Look what you just did. I am the one that stopped
demonstrating that your further harassment is just as bogus as it has
always been. You need to apologize for what you have done and quit
doing it. Look what you had to do in order to start running from the
REPOSTS. You tried to quote mine the wiki when the wiki continued to
clearly claim that Galileo faced a formal heresy charge in 1616.
Running and quote mining in order to continue your harassment is just nuts.
The Wiki does not say that and you effectively admitted it when tried
to make out that the Wiki had been edited, which it hadn't.
On Thu, 30 Apr 2026 08:49:48 -0500, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>insane.
wrote:
On 4/30/2026 5:44 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Wed, 29 Apr 2026 19:41:58 -0500, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>
wrote:
On 4/29/2026 1:13 PM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Wed, 29 Apr 2026 12:43:53 -0500, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>
wrote:
[...]
Snipping and lying about what you have done is just stupid and
snipped and
Not as stupid and insane as making a claim you can't support. C'mon,
Ron, give the link to the Wiki article that says Galileo faced a
heresy charge in 1616 rCa surely it can't be that difficult.
[snip desperation attempt to avoid issue]
What a lying asshole. This is the second time that you have
run from what you have lied about as being handwaving.
C'mon Ron, no need to repost 7000 words that nobody wants to read. All
that's needed to show me to be the lying asshole, not you, is a simple
quote from the Wiki article that says what you insist it says. A dozen
or so words should cover it or even a simple URL. Can't be that hard
can it?
[...]
You need to stop harassing me with your stupid lies about the past.
I'll gladly stop harassing you when you either give a specific example
of a lie told by either me or those I cited in support. Or else
withdraw your own stupid lies.
On Mon, 20 Apr 2026 13:40:43 -0500, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>are lying".
wrote:
On 4/20/2026 4:08 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Sat, 18 Apr 2026 12:06:53 -0500, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>
wrote:
On 4/18/2026 6:24 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Wed, 15 Apr 2026 14:31:27 -0500, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>
wrote:
On 4/15/2026 11:36 AM, Martin Harran wrote:[rCa]
On Wed, 15 Apr 2026 16:59:56 +0100, "Kerr-Mudd, John"
No one is going to convince an opponent by stating that "they
(no matterand probably not by constant repetition of the same arguments
reality,how valid) that failed to get through the first 50 times.
Tell that to RonO, he's the one who keeps calling everyone who
disagrees with him a liar.
Who got caught lying and quote mining? You need to deal with
short?and quit lying about it. Lying about me is just so stupid that it is
pretty much insane. You have always lied about the sources that you
could not deal honestly with. Who's sources have always come up
matched byLook at what you are doing now. Is there any excuse for you not dealing
with your own stupid dishonest behavior?
The tiresomeness of you continually claiming that my sources were
caught lying and that I have been lying and quote mining is
beenthe tiresomeness of your inability to ever identify what lie my
sources were caught in, what lies I have told or where I have quote
mined.
[... more big snip ...]
Why keep lying about what your sources did and what you did? That is
just stupid and dishonest. Just look up your past posts to determine
for yourself what went down. You tried to lie about my sources being
deficient when your sources had always come up short or even supported
my sources by putting up the lame lie that heliocentrism had never
samecondemned other then by the inquisition. It was stupid because it did
not negate what you and your sources had been wrong about. It turned
out that your source was lying and you ran. You ran twice from the
whatevidence that your source was lying. You tried to come back with your
lame quote mining efforts and trying to distract the argument from
it had been. You did that, and your source was demonstrated to have
lied about the issue. You need to go back and deal with what you did.
An appology for your disgraceful behavior would be in order. Just try
not to do it again. Continuing to lie about what happened is just
adding to how low you needed to go.
Yet again, you make all sorts of accusations without a single example
of something to support them.
What I cannot figure out is whether you just can't grasp that your
failure to produce a single example of supporting evidence portrays
*you* as the one telling lies; or whether you do grasp it and just
don't care; or whether, like a certain President, you think that if
you repeat a lie enough times that someone will eventually believe it.
You should apologize for what you have been doing and stop doing it. I
found the posts where you ran from your source having been caught lying,
you then snipped the evidence out of your response to your running.
The thread: There is no legitimate scientific support for the ID scam.
I can post your quote mining attempts and other stupid behavior that you
resorted to to defend your running and defense of your bogus source.
So why don't you instead of talking about it?
Specific examples, please, not reams and reams of obfuscatory cut'n
paste.
On Sun, 16 Nov 2025 18:25:18 -0600, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>claiming you
wrote:
On 11/16/2025 4:40 PM, Martin Harran wrote:[rCa]
The links that I put up were from the Catholics that continue to be
geocentric creationists, and the Catholics that are trying to refute
them. Both sides do not agree with you. What does your continued
denial of reality tell you?
You gave no such links. All you have to do to prove me wrong is give
them again.
Do you not see how stupid you are making yourself look by
gave links but cannot repeat them?
Why lie about something so stupid. One of the links was your own
trusted Catholic site, and you initially gave that link.
That was this site:
https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/06342b.htm
The one where the Catholic Church states:
" In thus acting, it is undeniable that the ecclesiastical authorities
committed a grave and deplorable error, and sanctioned an altogether
false principle as to the proper use of Scripture."
The one that cites Professor Augustus De Morgan (Budget of Paradoxes)
declaring
"It is clear that the absurdity was the act of the Italian
Inquisition, for the private and personal pleasure of the pope - who
knew that the course he took could not convict him as pope - and not
of the body which calls itself the Church."
The one that cites von Gebler ("Galileo Galilei"):
"The Church never condemned it (the Copernican system) at all, for the
Qualifiers of the Holy Office never mean the Church."
It beats me how you figure out that site and the people referred to in
it somehow back your claim that heliocentrism really was a heresy. I
guess you have to convince yourself in order to maintain your delusion
as you clearly can't find a reputable source that actually does back
you up.
Yes, everyone admits that they were wrong about geocentrism except for
the Catholics that are still geocentrics. This source called what
Galileo faced both times a charge of heresy. They did not make a
distinction between formal heresy and heresy like the anti geocentric
site, but it was still a heresy.
What part of "The Church never condemned it (the Copernican system) at
all" did you not understand?
The only place that formal comes into all this is in the judgement
issued after Galileo's first trial where the verdict stated that the proposition that the Sun is stationary at the centre of the universe
is "foolish and absurd in philosophy, and formally heretical since it explicitly contradicts in many places the sense of Holy Scripture".
That, however, is t the Catholic Encyclopaedia refers to where it
says:
"it is undeniable that the ecclesiastical authorities committed a
grave and deplorable error, and sanctioned an altogether false
principle as to the proper use of Scripture."
Note also that the words "formally heretical" are wrong - I'm not sure whether it was the Inquisition using weasel words or whether it was a
bad translation from the Latin.
The word "heresy" can be used in two ways; it can apply to the
rejection of a specific doctrine of the Church or it can refer to the
act of committing heresy. The word "formal" applies to the latter -
the act of committing heresy - and is used to categorise the degree of
guilt of the person committing the heresy. "Formal heresy" means they
knew they were going against doctrine and are therefore guilty of
mortal sin; "material heresy" means they did not know they were going against doctrine so they are not guilty sin.
It's a bit like first degree versus second degree murder and Galileo's
trial was like him being charged with first-degree murder without a
murder being established in the first place.
The Inquisition made it into a formal heresy after the Council of Trent.
They were supposedly wrong, and a couple centuries later things got
reversed to what they had been at the time that the findings of the
Council of Trent were published.
The holy office (the inquisition) had Galileo facing a formal heresy
charge in his first encounter. When the pope got involved they just did
not call it a formal heresy in the sentencing. Galileo's views were
still condemned. They claimed that Galileo was facing a charge of
heresy. His heliocentric notions were still considered to be heresy and
the heresy that he was guilty of was clearly defined in the sentencing.
The anti geocentrics admitted that the pope had the Galileo case
published and disseminated throughout the church in order to quash the
heliocentric notions that were becoming an issue for the church. They
just want to claim that, that was not an official act. That is just
stupid. The pope did it for known reasons, and who cares if they want
to plead that he was not acting as pope?
There is no doubt that the actors were wrong, and that is the issue.
They do not want it to reflect on papal infallibility. That in itself
should be considered to be a non scriptural unjustifiable claim.
The Inquisition had Copernican writings banned and made heliocentrism
into a formal heresy because all the church fathers were geocentrics,
and that meant that Copernicans were in conflict with the beliefs of the
church fathers. Both the geocentric Catholics and the anti geocentric
Catholics claim that the Inquisition did this because of what the church
came up with at the Council of Trent where they made the beliefs of the
church fathers as a legitimate and necessary authority for interpreting
scripture. Both Catholic sides of the geocentric issue understand this
to be true.
QUOTE:
Council of Trent
Session IV, April 8, 1546, Decree Concerning the Edition and the Use of
the Sacred Books:
... "Furthermore, in order to restrain petulant spirits, it [the Council
of Trent] decrees that no one, relying on his own skill, shall,-in
matters of faith, and of morals pertaining to the edification of
Christian doctrine,-wresting the sacred Scriptures to his own senses,
presume to interpret the said sacred Scripture contrary to that sense
which holy Mother Church-to whom it belongs to judge of the true sense
and interpretation of the Holy Scriptures-hath held and doth hold; or
even contrary to the unanimous consent of the Fathers; even though such
interpretations were never (intended) to be at any time published.
Contraveners shall be made known by their Ordinaries and be punished
with the penalties by law established."
END QUOTE:
https://www.biblelightinfo.com/unanimous-consent.htm
Both Catholic sides of the issue claim that the Council of Trent caused
the Inquisition to ban Copernican writings and start treating
heliocentrism as a formal heresy because it went against the geocentric
beliefs of the church fathers.
You are taking all that crap from your geocentric hero; if you want to persist in taking his opinion against that of the Church's own
theologians then that is you just acting like Spikes rejecting the
opinion of scientists in favour of people who play to his confirmation
bias.
It was a mistake and the actors were in error only because of our
current understanding of nature. The Pope was wrong about it. He was
one of the mistaken actors.
The Pope was not a "mistaken actor", he was pissed off with Galileo presenting the Pope's views as those of a simpleton and misused his
powers to hit back at Galileo. Again, the Catholic Encyclopaedia
spells that explicitly:
"It is clear that the absurdity was the act of the Italian
Inquisition, for the private and personal pleasure of the pope - who
knew that the course he took could not convict him as pope - and not
of the body which calls itself the Church."
The Galileo affair was a shameful episode in the Church's history but
was all about the animosity between the Pope and Galileo, it had
nothing to do with heliocentrism being a heresy, that was just the
vehicle that the Pope used to attack Galileo.
On Mon, 17 Nov 2025 14:40:05 -0600, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>
wrote:
On 11/17/2025 11:45 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Mon, 17 Nov 2025 09:57:31 -0600, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>
wrote:
[...]
Oops, the Pope was not infallible.
So papal infallibility is another thing you don't understand.
I am just repeating what the anti geocentrist want to claim about it.
The "anti-geocentrists" of whom you cannot identify even one. Mind
you, when you first brought in the website of your geocentrist mentor,
it was anonymous and you didn't even know who the author was until I
figured out; the fact that he is a declared geocentrist and you knew
nothing about him didn't stop you placing high value on his opinions
and continuing to do so.
Weird to say the least.
[...]
On Wed, 19 Nov 2025 14:55:52 -0600, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>
wrote:
On 11/19/2025 12:01 PM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Mon, 17 Nov 2025 14:40:05 -0600, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>
wrote:
On 11/17/2025 11:45 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Mon, 17 Nov 2025 09:57:31 -0600, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>
wrote:
[...]
Oops, the Pope was not infallible.
So papal infallibility is another thing you don't understand.
I am just repeating what the anti geocentrist want to claim about it.
The "anti-geocentrists" of whom you cannot identify even one. Mind
you, when you first brought in the website of your geocentrist mentor,
it was anonymous and you didn't even know who the author was until I
figured out; the fact that he is a declared geocentrist and you knew
nothing about him didn't stop you placing high value on his opinions
and continuing to do so.
Weird to say the least.
[...]
You were given the links before,
Nope
so stop lying about it. Why should I
look up that junk again.
So you can prove I'm lying. But you can't because I'm not lying, you
gave no links except to the geocentrist idiot whose opinion you value
so highly.
You just denied that it was valid and kept
lying. Even your own trusted source backed up the anti geocentric site.
The anti geocentrists were on your side in terms of denying that it
was a formal heresy that Galileo faced the second time, but they agreed
with the geocentrists that the Inquisition had made it a formal heresy
charge the first time Galileo faced it and agreed with the Wiki. The
Vatican Observatory article that you have run from and snipped out of
this post backs up the geocentrists and anti geocentrists.
Just stop lying about the issue.
https://www.vaticanobservatory.org/sacred-space-astronomy/heliocentrism-condemned-400-years-ago-on-march-5-2/
They admit that helicentrism was condemned 400 years ago. 1616 is when
Galileo faced the formal heresy charge.
They do not consider the heresy cases, but they were based upon the
Inquisitions opinion of the topic.
Your claim of "never" having been condemned seems to be a lie.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galileo_Galilei
QUOTE:
In February 1616, an Inquisitorial commission declared heliocentrism to
be "foolish and absurd in philosophy, and formally heretical since it
explicitly contradicts in many places the sense of Holy Scripture".
END QUOTE:
Now YOU are the one lying about me. I never said it was never
condemned; on the contrary, I gave that exact same quote. What I did
was to point out that what it said was a FALSE CLAIM and it wasn't me
who came to that conclusion, it was the Catholic Church who came to
it, supported by every historian I know of who investigated it, people
like De Morgan and von Gebler. The only person I have ever known to
say there actually was a heresy is the geocentrist idiot whose opinion
you value so highly.
Both the geocentrists that you don't like, and the anti geocentric
catholics that do not agree with geocentric beliefs agreed that it was a
formal heresy charge the first time that Galileo faced the issue.
Now you seem to be trying to worm your way out of it by admitting
there was a *charge* without retracting that there was an actual
heresy which is what you have been claiming all long.
You can't just keep refusing to deal with reality and expect anything to
change.
You can't keep claiming support from "anti-geocentrists" about
heliocentrism having been an actual heresy without being able to
identify even one and expect people to take you seriously.
On Thu, 20 Nov 2025 09:38:56 -0600, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>heliocentrism to
wrote:
On 11/20/2025 4:47 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Wed, 19 Nov 2025 14:55:52 -0600, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>
wrote:
[snip for focus]
Your claim of "never" having been condemned seems to be a lie.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galileo_Galilei
QUOTE:
In February 1616, an Inquisitorial commission declared
be "foolish and absurd in philosophy, and formally heretical since it
explicitly contradicts in many places the sense of Holy Scripture".
END QUOTE:
Now YOU are the one lying about me. I never said it was never
condemned; on the contrary, I gave that exact same quote. What I did
was to point out that what it said was a FALSE CLAIM and it wasn't me
who came to that conclusion, it was the Catholic Church who came to
it, supported by every historian I know of who investigated it, people
like De Morgan and von Gebler. The only person I have ever known to
say there actually was a heresy is the geocentrist idiot whose opinion
you value so highly.
You put up the quote that said it had never been condemned. Go back up
and check. It was your quote.
Here is verbatim what I quoted:
Message-ID: 2gkkhk9bvctolude5jf6b6e0kothd5723d@4ax.com ========================================
<quote>
The [site] that cites von Gebler ("Galileo Galilei"):
"The Church never condemned it (the Copernican system) at all, for the Qualifiers of the Holy Office never mean the Church."
==========================================
#1: it was von Gebler who said rCLnever condemnedrCY, not me as you
claimed two posts ago.
#2 he did not say it was never condemned, he said *the Church* never condemned it.
Why do you post lies that are so easily shown to be lies?
On Fri, 21 Nov 2025 17:33:49 -0600, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>
wrote:
On 11/21/2025 12:29 PM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Fri, 21 Nov 2025 09:04:37 -0600, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>
wrote:
[rCa]
Let's cut to the chase here.
No lies to retract. You lied.
What lie are you claiming I told? Please quote exactly what I said
that you regard as a lie.
The ones that you keep telling.
"Never condemned"
I'm out of here. George Bernard Shaw warned that you shouldn't wrestle
with a pig as you get dirty and the pig enjoys it. I'm not going to
waste any more time trying to have a sensible discussion with someone
who thinks it's ok to take two words out of what somebody else said to
give a completely different meaning and then attribute those two words
to me. It doesn't even reach the level of quote-mining.
What beggars belief is that you do it where the exact quote from von
Gerber [1] and what I said about it are preserved just a couple of
posts above for all to see. As I noted earlier, it is really sad to
see this sort of behaviour from someone whose ability as a scientist I respect so much EfOU
===========================================
[1] "The Church never condemned it (the Copernican system) at all, for
the Qualifiers of the Holy Office never mean the Church."
[von Gebler ("Galileo Galilei")]
[..]
You should not continue to add to your own dishonest stupidity.
Trusting your source was obviously a stupid thing to do, and trying to
continue to support that source was just stupid and dishonest.
Ron Okimoto
I don't think you can be so stupid that you don't realise you got it
wrong about 1616. You should be asking yourself what else you might
have got wrong.
It seems to me that you just can't bring yourself to publicly admit
that you got it all wrong so I'll make you an offer. Just walk away
from this, just stop posting bullshit about me lying and insisting
that the reputable scholars I quoted were also lying. Just stop doing
that and I will leave you alone. The only proviso I make is that you
don't start this all up again in a few weeks time.
[rCa]On Fri, 15 May 2026 08:57:36 -0500, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>
wrote:
On 5/15/2026 4:06 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Wed, 13 May 2026 11:49:06 -0500, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>
wrote:
On 5/13/2026 7:26 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Mon, 11 May 2026 13:33:43 -0500, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>
wrote:
On 5/11/2026 10:17 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
[rCa]
Blethering about a guy who is dead does nothing to deal with your lies >>>>>>> as detailed above. Just another incident of runaway Ron.
[snip feeble attempt at obfuscation]
Blathers the guy running from what he can't deal honestly with. You >>>>>> need to apologize and stop doing what you are doing. You are so badly >>>>>> off that you can't even snip and run from the post where you had to >>>>>> quote mine in order to keep lying about the first REPOSTS.
I haven'r run away from anything because you have posted nothing for >>>>> me to run from. I have asked you innumerable times to identify an
example of a specific I told or something I quote mined and you
haven't been able to do so - not even one example of either.
Nyikos used to snip and run and lie about what he was doing, but he had >>>> a limit for doing it.
Whereas you have no limit for trying to run away.
Projection is just nuts. You have to know that you are the one that is
running. Look what you just did. I am the one that stopped
demonstrating that your further harassment is just as bogus as it has
always been. You need to apologize for what you have done and quit
doing it. Look what you had to do in order to start running from the
REPOSTS. You tried to quote mine the wiki when the wiki continued to
clearly claim that Galileo faced a formal heresy charge in 1616.
Running and quote mining in order to continue your harassment is just nuts.
The Wiki does not say that and you effectively admitted it when tried
to make out that the Wiki had been edited, which it hadn't.
I don't think you can be so stupid that you don't realise you got it
wrong about 1616. You should be asking yourself what else you got
wrong.
It seems to me that you just can't bring yourself to publicly admit
that you got it all wrong so I'll make you an offer. Just walk away
from this, just stop posting bullshit about me lying and claiming that
the reputable scholars I quoted were also lying. Just stop doing that
and I will leave you alone. The only proviso I make is that you don't
start this all up again in a few weeks time.
[rCa]
On 5/15/2026 11:39 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Fri, 15 May 2026 08:57:36 -0500, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>
wrote:
You tried to quote mine the wiki when the wiki continued toThe Wiki does not say that and you effectively admitted it when tried
clearly claim that Galileo faced a formal heresy charge in 1616.
Running and quote mining in order to continue your harassment is just nuts. >>
to make out that the Wiki had been edited, which it hadn't.
Just go up to the quote from that wiki that you ran from further up in
this thread.
On Fri, 15 May 2026 17:26:12 -0500, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>
wrote:
On 5/15/2026 11:39 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Fri, 15 May 2026 08:57:36 -0500, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>
wrote:
[rCa]
You tried to quote mine the wiki when the wiki continued to
clearly claim that Galileo faced a formal heresy charge in 1616.
Running and quote mining in order to continue your harassment is just nuts.
The Wiki does not say that and you effectively admitted it when tried
to make out that the Wiki had been edited, which it hadn't.
Just go up to the quote from that wiki that you ran from further up in
this thread.
I'm not going to plough through over 1000 posts trying to figure out
what post you are referring to, let alone what part of it - especially
when I already know that no quote exists that says Galileo faced a
heresy charge in 1616. If it did, you would simply repeat it to show
me wrong but you can't because it doesn't exist.
On Thu, 30 Apr 2026 08:49:48 -0500, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>insane.
wrote:
On 4/30/2026 5:44 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Wed, 29 Apr 2026 19:41:58 -0500, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>
wrote:
On 4/29/2026 1:13 PM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Wed, 29 Apr 2026 12:43:53 -0500, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>
wrote:
[...]
Snipping and lying about what you have done is just stupid and
snipped and
Not as stupid and insane as making a claim you can't support. C'mon,
Ron, give the link to the Wiki article that says Galileo faced a
heresy charge in 1616 rCa surely it can't be that difficult.
[snip desperation attempt to avoid issue]
What a lying asshole. This is the second time that you have
run from what you have lied about as being handwaving.
C'mon Ron, no need to repost 7000 words that nobody wants to read. All
that's needed to show me to be the lying asshole, not you, is a simple
quote from the Wiki article that says what you insist it says. A dozen
or so words should cover it or even a simple URL. Can't be that hard
can it?
[...]
You need to stop harassing me with your stupid lies about the past.
I'll gladly stop harassing you when you either give a specific example
of a lie told by either me or those I cited in support. Or else
withdraw your own stupid lies.
On Mon, 20 Apr 2026 13:40:43 -0500, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>are lying".
wrote:
On 4/20/2026 4:08 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Sat, 18 Apr 2026 12:06:53 -0500, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>
wrote:
On 4/18/2026 6:24 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Wed, 15 Apr 2026 14:31:27 -0500, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>
wrote:
On 4/15/2026 11:36 AM, Martin Harran wrote:[rCa]
On Wed, 15 Apr 2026 16:59:56 +0100, "Kerr-Mudd, John"
No one is going to convince an opponent by stating that "they
(no matterand probably not by constant repetition of the same arguments
reality,how valid) that failed to get through the first 50 times.
Tell that to RonO, he's the one who keeps calling everyone who
disagrees with him a liar.
Who got caught lying and quote mining? You need to deal with
short?and quit lying about it. Lying about me is just so stupid that it is
pretty much insane. You have always lied about the sources that you
could not deal honestly with. Who's sources have always come up
matched byLook at what you are doing now. Is there any excuse for you not dealing
with your own stupid dishonest behavior?
The tiresomeness of you continually claiming that my sources were
caught lying and that I have been lying and quote mining is
beenthe tiresomeness of your inability to ever identify what lie my
sources were caught in, what lies I have told or where I have quote
mined.
[... more big snip ...]
Why keep lying about what your sources did and what you did? That is
just stupid and dishonest. Just look up your past posts to determine
for yourself what went down. You tried to lie about my sources being
deficient when your sources had always come up short or even supported
my sources by putting up the lame lie that heliocentrism had never
samecondemned other then by the inquisition. It was stupid because it did
not negate what you and your sources had been wrong about. It turned
out that your source was lying and you ran. You ran twice from the
whatevidence that your source was lying. You tried to come back with your
lame quote mining efforts and trying to distract the argument from
it had been. You did that, and your source was demonstrated to have
lied about the issue. You need to go back and deal with what you did.
An appology for your disgraceful behavior would be in order. Just try
not to do it again. Continuing to lie about what happened is just
adding to how low you needed to go.
Yet again, you make all sorts of accusations without a single example
of something to support them.
What I cannot figure out is whether you just can't grasp that your
failure to produce a single example of supporting evidence portrays
*you* as the one telling lies; or whether you do grasp it and just
don't care; or whether, like a certain President, you think that if
you repeat a lie enough times that someone will eventually believe it.
You should apologize for what you have been doing and stop doing it. I
found the posts where you ran from your source having been caught lying,
you then snipped the evidence out of your response to your running.
The thread: There is no legitimate scientific support for the ID scam.
I can post your quote mining attempts and other stupid behavior that you
resorted to to defend your running and defense of your bogus source.
So why don't you instead of talking about it?
Specific examples, please, not reams and reams of obfuscatory cut'n
paste.
On Sun, 16 Nov 2025 18:25:18 -0600, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>claiming you
wrote:
On 11/16/2025 4:40 PM, Martin Harran wrote:[rCa]
The links that I put up were from the Catholics that continue to be
geocentric creationists, and the Catholics that are trying to refute
them. Both sides do not agree with you. What does your continued
denial of reality tell you?
You gave no such links. All you have to do to prove me wrong is give
them again.
Do you not see how stupid you are making yourself look by
gave links but cannot repeat them?
Why lie about something so stupid. One of the links was your own
trusted Catholic site, and you initially gave that link.
That was this site:
https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/06342b.htm
The one where the Catholic Church states:
" In thus acting, it is undeniable that the ecclesiastical authorities
committed a grave and deplorable error, and sanctioned an altogether
false principle as to the proper use of Scripture."
The one that cites Professor Augustus De Morgan (Budget of Paradoxes)
declaring
"It is clear that the absurdity was the act of the Italian
Inquisition, for the private and personal pleasure of the pope - who
knew that the course he took could not convict him as pope - and not
of the body which calls itself the Church."
The one that cites von Gebler ("Galileo Galilei"):
"The Church never condemned it (the Copernican system) at all, for the
Qualifiers of the Holy Office never mean the Church."
It beats me how you figure out that site and the people referred to in
it somehow back your claim that heliocentrism really was a heresy. I
guess you have to convince yourself in order to maintain your delusion
as you clearly can't find a reputable source that actually does back
you up.
Yes, everyone admits that they were wrong about geocentrism except for
the Catholics that are still geocentrics. This source called what
Galileo faced both times a charge of heresy. They did not make a
distinction between formal heresy and heresy like the anti geocentric
site, but it was still a heresy.
What part of "The Church never condemned it (the Copernican system) at
all" did you not understand?
The only place that formal comes into all this is in the judgement
issued after Galileo's first trial where the verdict stated that the proposition that the Sun is stationary at the centre of the universe
is "foolish and absurd in philosophy, and formally heretical since it explicitly contradicts in many places the sense of Holy Scripture".
That, however, is t the Catholic Encyclopaedia refers to where it
says:
"it is undeniable that the ecclesiastical authorities committed a
grave and deplorable error, and sanctioned an altogether false
principle as to the proper use of Scripture."
Note also that the words "formally heretical" are wrong - I'm not sure whether it was the Inquisition using weasel words or whether it was a
bad translation from the Latin.
The word "heresy" can be used in two ways; it can apply to the
rejection of a specific doctrine of the Church or it can refer to the
act of committing heresy. The word "formal" applies to the latter -
the act of committing heresy - and is used to categorise the degree of
guilt of the person committing the heresy. "Formal heresy" means they
knew they were going against doctrine and are therefore guilty of
mortal sin; "material heresy" means they did not know they were going against doctrine so they are not guilty sin.
It's a bit like first degree versus second degree murder and Galileo's
trial was like him being charged with first-degree murder without a
murder being established in the first place.
The Inquisition made it into a formal heresy after the Council of Trent.
They were supposedly wrong, and a couple centuries later things got
reversed to what they had been at the time that the findings of the
Council of Trent were published.
The holy office (the inquisition) had Galileo facing a formal heresy
charge in his first encounter. When the pope got involved they just did
not call it a formal heresy in the sentencing. Galileo's views were
still condemned. They claimed that Galileo was facing a charge of
heresy. His heliocentric notions were still considered to be heresy and
the heresy that he was guilty of was clearly defined in the sentencing.
The anti geocentrics admitted that the pope had the Galileo case
published and disseminated throughout the church in order to quash the
heliocentric notions that were becoming an issue for the church. They
just want to claim that, that was not an official act. That is just
stupid. The pope did it for known reasons, and who cares if they want
to plead that he was not acting as pope?
There is no doubt that the actors were wrong, and that is the issue.
They do not want it to reflect on papal infallibility. That in itself
should be considered to be a non scriptural unjustifiable claim.
The Inquisition had Copernican writings banned and made heliocentrism
into a formal heresy because all the church fathers were geocentrics,
and that meant that Copernicans were in conflict with the beliefs of the
church fathers. Both the geocentric Catholics and the anti geocentric
Catholics claim that the Inquisition did this because of what the church
came up with at the Council of Trent where they made the beliefs of the
church fathers as a legitimate and necessary authority for interpreting
scripture. Both Catholic sides of the geocentric issue understand this
to be true.
QUOTE:
Council of Trent
Session IV, April 8, 1546, Decree Concerning the Edition and the Use of
the Sacred Books:
... "Furthermore, in order to restrain petulant spirits, it [the Council
of Trent] decrees that no one, relying on his own skill, shall,-in
matters of faith, and of morals pertaining to the edification of
Christian doctrine,-wresting the sacred Scriptures to his own senses,
presume to interpret the said sacred Scripture contrary to that sense
which holy Mother Church-to whom it belongs to judge of the true sense
and interpretation of the Holy Scriptures-hath held and doth hold; or
even contrary to the unanimous consent of the Fathers; even though such
interpretations were never (intended) to be at any time published.
Contraveners shall be made known by their Ordinaries and be punished
with the penalties by law established."
END QUOTE:
https://www.biblelightinfo.com/unanimous-consent.htm
Both Catholic sides of the issue claim that the Council of Trent caused
the Inquisition to ban Copernican writings and start treating
heliocentrism as a formal heresy because it went against the geocentric
beliefs of the church fathers.
You are taking all that crap from your geocentric hero; if you want to persist in taking his opinion against that of the Church's own
theologians then that is you just acting like Spikes rejecting the
opinion of scientists in favour of people who play to his confirmation
bias.
It was a mistake and the actors were in error only because of our
current understanding of nature. The Pope was wrong about it. He was
one of the mistaken actors.
The Pope was not a "mistaken actor", he was pissed off with Galileo presenting the Pope's views as those of a simpleton and misused his
powers to hit back at Galileo. Again, the Catholic Encyclopaedia
spells that explicitly:
"It is clear that the absurdity was the act of the Italian
Inquisition, for the private and personal pleasure of the pope - who
knew that the course he took could not convict him as pope - and not
of the body which calls itself the Church."
The Galileo affair was a shameful episode in the Church's history but
was all about the animosity between the Pope and Galileo, it had
nothing to do with heliocentrism being a heresy, that was just the
vehicle that the Pope used to attack Galileo.
On Mon, 17 Nov 2025 14:40:05 -0600, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>
wrote:
On 11/17/2025 11:45 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Mon, 17 Nov 2025 09:57:31 -0600, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>
wrote:
[...]
Oops, the Pope was not infallible.
So papal infallibility is another thing you don't understand.
I am just repeating what the anti geocentrist want to claim about it.
The "anti-geocentrists" of whom you cannot identify even one. Mind
you, when you first brought in the website of your geocentrist mentor,
it was anonymous and you didn't even know who the author was until I
figured out; the fact that he is a declared geocentrist and you knew
nothing about him didn't stop you placing high value on his opinions
and continuing to do so.
Weird to say the least.
[...]
On Wed, 19 Nov 2025 14:55:52 -0600, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>
wrote:
On 11/19/2025 12:01 PM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Mon, 17 Nov 2025 14:40:05 -0600, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>
wrote:
On 11/17/2025 11:45 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Mon, 17 Nov 2025 09:57:31 -0600, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>
wrote:
[...]
Oops, the Pope was not infallible.
So papal infallibility is another thing you don't understand.
I am just repeating what the anti geocentrist want to claim about it.
The "anti-geocentrists" of whom you cannot identify even one. Mind
you, when you first brought in the website of your geocentrist mentor,
it was anonymous and you didn't even know who the author was until I
figured out; the fact that he is a declared geocentrist and you knew
nothing about him didn't stop you placing high value on his opinions
and continuing to do so.
Weird to say the least.
[...]
You were given the links before,
Nope
so stop lying about it. Why should I
look up that junk again.
So you can prove I'm lying. But you can't because I'm not lying, you
gave no links except to the geocentrist idiot whose opinion you value
so highly.
You just denied that it was valid and kept
lying. Even your own trusted source backed up the anti geocentric site.
The anti geocentrists were on your side in terms of denying that it
was a formal heresy that Galileo faced the second time, but they agreed
with the geocentrists that the Inquisition had made it a formal heresy
charge the first time Galileo faced it and agreed with the Wiki. The
Vatican Observatory article that you have run from and snipped out of
this post backs up the geocentrists and anti geocentrists.
Just stop lying about the issue.
https://www.vaticanobservatory.org/sacred-space-astronomy/heliocentrism-condemned-400-years-ago-on-march-5-2/
They admit that helicentrism was condemned 400 years ago. 1616 is when
Galileo faced the formal heresy charge.
They do not consider the heresy cases, but they were based upon the
Inquisitions opinion of the topic.
Your claim of "never" having been condemned seems to be a lie.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galileo_Galilei
QUOTE:
In February 1616, an Inquisitorial commission declared heliocentrism to
be "foolish and absurd in philosophy, and formally heretical since it
explicitly contradicts in many places the sense of Holy Scripture".
END QUOTE:
Now YOU are the one lying about me. I never said it was never
condemned; on the contrary, I gave that exact same quote. What I did
was to point out that what it said was a FALSE CLAIM and it wasn't me
who came to that conclusion, it was the Catholic Church who came to
it, supported by every historian I know of who investigated it, people
like De Morgan and von Gebler. The only person I have ever known to
say there actually was a heresy is the geocentrist idiot whose opinion
you value so highly.
Both the geocentrists that you don't like, and the anti geocentric
catholics that do not agree with geocentric beliefs agreed that it was a
formal heresy charge the first time that Galileo faced the issue.
Now you seem to be trying to worm your way out of it by admitting
there was a *charge* without retracting that there was an actual
heresy which is what you have been claiming all long.
You can't just keep refusing to deal with reality and expect anything to
change.
You can't keep claiming support from "anti-geocentrists" about
heliocentrism having been an actual heresy without being able to
identify even one and expect people to take you seriously.
On Thu, 20 Nov 2025 09:38:56 -0600, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>heliocentrism to
wrote:
On 11/20/2025 4:47 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Wed, 19 Nov 2025 14:55:52 -0600, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>
wrote:
[snip for focus]
Your claim of "never" having been condemned seems to be a lie.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galileo_Galilei
QUOTE:
In February 1616, an Inquisitorial commission declared
be "foolish and absurd in philosophy, and formally heretical since it
explicitly contradicts in many places the sense of Holy Scripture".
END QUOTE:
Now YOU are the one lying about me. I never said it was never
condemned; on the contrary, I gave that exact same quote. What I did
was to point out that what it said was a FALSE CLAIM and it wasn't me
who came to that conclusion, it was the Catholic Church who came to
it, supported by every historian I know of who investigated it, people
like De Morgan and von Gebler. The only person I have ever known to
say there actually was a heresy is the geocentrist idiot whose opinion
you value so highly.
You put up the quote that said it had never been condemned. Go back up
and check. It was your quote.
Here is verbatim what I quoted:
Message-ID: 2gkkhk9bvctolude5jf6b6e0kothd5723d@4ax.com ========================================
<quote>
The [site] that cites von Gebler ("Galileo Galilei"):
"The Church never condemned it (the Copernican system) at all, for the Qualifiers of the Holy Office never mean the Church."
==========================================
#1: it was von Gebler who said rCLnever condemnedrCY, not me as you
claimed two posts ago.
#2 he did not say it was never condemned, he said *the Church* never condemned it.
Why do you post lies that are so easily shown to be lies?
On Fri, 21 Nov 2025 17:33:49 -0600, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>
wrote:
On 11/21/2025 12:29 PM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Fri, 21 Nov 2025 09:04:37 -0600, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>
wrote:
[rCa]
Let's cut to the chase here.
No lies to retract. You lied.
What lie are you claiming I told? Please quote exactly what I said
that you regard as a lie.
The ones that you keep telling.
"Never condemned"
I'm out of here. George Bernard Shaw warned that you shouldn't wrestle
with a pig as you get dirty and the pig enjoys it. I'm not going to
waste any more time trying to have a sensible discussion with someone
who thinks it's ok to take two words out of what somebody else said to
give a completely different meaning and then attribute those two words
to me. It doesn't even reach the level of quote-mining.
What beggars belief is that you do it where the exact quote from von
Gerber [1] and what I said about it are preserved just a couple of
posts above for all to see. As I noted earlier, it is really sad to
see this sort of behaviour from someone whose ability as a scientist I respect so much EfOU
===========================================
[1] "The Church never condemned it (the Copernican system) at all, for
the Qualifiers of the Holy Office never mean the Church."
[von Gebler ("Galileo Galilei")]
[..]
You should not continue to add to your own dishonest stupidity.
Trusting your source was obviously a stupid thing to do, and trying to
continue to support that source was just stupid and dishonest.
Ron Okimoto
On Fri, 15 May 2026 17:26:12 -0500, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>
wrote:
On 5/15/2026 11:39 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Fri, 15 May 2026 08:57:36 -0500, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>
wrote:
[rCa]
You tried to quote mine the wiki when the wiki continued to
clearly claim that Galileo faced a formal heresy charge in 1616.
Running and quote mining in order to continue your harassment is just nuts.
The Wiki does not say that and you effectively admitted it when tried
to make out that the Wiki had been edited, which it hadn't.
Just go up to the quote from that wiki that you ran from further up in
this thread.
I'm not going to plough through over 1000 posts trying to figure out
what post you are referring to, let alone what part of it - especially
when I already know that no quote exists that says Galileo faced a
heresy charge in 1616. If it did, you would simply repeat it to show
me wrong but you can't because it doesn't exist.
On Sun, 22 Feb 2026 13:40:10 -0600, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>what you
wrote:
On 2/22/2026 10:18 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Sat, 21 Feb 2026 12:44:57 -0600, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>
wrote:
On 2/21/2026 11:59 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
What documents are you talking about that you keep saying the Jesuits
put up?
You can keep lying about what has been discussed, but you know
was notdid. You need to be the one that finds it and satisfy yourself with
what you did.
You put up your source lying about heliocentrism never being condemned
by anyone but the Inquisition. You claimed that the Inquisition
ordered bythe Church. I put up the Jesuit Observatory claim that the Papal
offices had condemned heliocentrism and this condemnation was
sources havethe Pope. They put up the relevant document and stated what the Pope
did. Your source was caught lying and you ran. Go find it. It is
something that you should do because you will uncover all your other
evasions on this issue while doing it. Your quotes of your
always come up short. The sources that you claim are unreliable, have
repeatedly been shown to be more reliable than what you come up with.
Oh, you mean the link you gave back in November, this one:
https://www.vaticanobservatory.org/sacred-space-astronomy/heliocentrism-condemned-400-years-ago-on-march-5-2/
The one where they posted the full 1616 decree on it's 400th
anniversary and commented:
<quote>
The formulation here is much milder than the one found in the working
document of February 24. The Decree talks about the "false Pythagorean
doctrine" and declare it "altogether contrary to the Holy Scripture".
This is not nearly as harsh as "foolish and absurd" philosophically,
and "formally heretical" because contrary to Scripture.
</quote>
How fucking dense can you be? It doesn't get much stupider than
posting something that contradicts what you are claiming.
If I am the dense one why did you run from what they admitted about the
document?
LOL, you post something that you think supports your claim but
actually rejects it and the best defence you can offer is to accuse me
of running away from it.
The Pope did condemn heliocentrism.
Beats me why you keep repeating this. The Pope did not personally
condemn heliocentrism, he allowed the Inquisition's condemnation of it
to be made public - that did not make it a heresy.
That is what your side was lying
about.
The only one telling lies here is you. For example, when you keep
insisting that all the "anti-geocentrists" in the Catholic
Encyclopaedia article agree with you that heliocentrism was a heresy
when they all say explicitly that it wasn't. Your lie is underlined by
the fact that you can't produce identify any source that agrees that heliocentrism was a heresy except your geocentrist mentors.
reality.It doesn't matter that the final wording was milder than the
initial draft. They admit that the Pope condemned heliocentrism, and
supported using the Council of Trent's scriptural interpretation on the
matter. It doesn't matter what it was called because the authors and
books are named. You ran from this link because your source was found
to have lied about heliocentrism never having been condemned except by
the Inquisition. The Pope obviously represents the Church and condemned
heliocentrism. He supported the Inquisition in 1616, and their
additions to the Index in order to protect against heresy. The books
would not have been added to the Index if they were not considered to be
heretical. The document even talks about the heretical parts of the
books, and indicates that after one of them is rewritten, so that it is
not against scripture, that it can be removed from the Index.
Keep lying to yourself about the issue. It isn't going to change
The Inquisition made heliocentrism a formal heresy in 1615-1616.
The decree is given in full on the Vatican Observatory site that you
tried to claim supports you and the word 'heresy' or 'heretical' does
not even appear in it.
They
did this because of their interpretation of scripture as the Council of
Trent had decided.
The decree doesn't make any reference whatsoever to Trent regarding interpretation of scripture; the one and only reference is to the *punishment* under Trent for disobeying the decree.
They added heliocentric writings to the Index,
They declare that "the books by Nicolaus Copernicus (On the
Revolutions of Spheres) and by Diego de Zu|#iga (On Job) be suspended
until corrected".
I've given details of the required corrections to Revolutions in a
different post to Harshman and they are all minor edits - not one of
them makes any change to the core principle of heliocentrism. A rather
weird declaration of heresy that allows Copernicus's book supporting
it to be published with minor edits that don't undermine his
proposition.
and
had their first encounter with Galileo. The Pope agreed with them and
condemned heliocentrism, and agreed with their additions to the Index of
banned writings.
Before your source lied about "never being condemned" the Pope's
involvement in 1616 was not an issue between the geocentric and
anti-geocentric Catholics in terms of what you were lying about at the
time. Both sides agreed that it was a formal heresy charge faced by
Galileo in 1615-1616. They disagreed about it being a formal heresy
charge the second time because it was only written up as "heresy" and
not formal heresy in the sentencing. It remained a heresy charge.
You obviously struggle with grasping that a *charge* does not make
someone guilty. I hope I'm never on trial for something I didn't do
with you on the jury.
The
Pope had the Galileo case, sentencing, and punishment published and
distributed throughout the Church in order to quash the heliocentric
heresy, but the guys that want to maintain Papal infallibility claim
that that was not an official Papal action. They admitted that there
was an issue with helicentrism at the time, but they do not want the
Pope to have been on the wrong side of the issue.
You need to deal with reality.
I think it's very clear who has the problem with accepting reality and
it's not me.
It is well understood that the Bible is
just wrong about a lot of things that we can figure out for ourselves.
Your own quotes from Pope Francis makes that claim. The Bible can be
misinterpreted because the author's understanding of the creation was
faulty. Francis knows that the universe was not created in 6 magic
episodes. Only those in complete denial do not understand that the
order of creation described in the Bible is wrong. There are still
young earth, old earth day for agers, geocentric, and flat earth
Biblical creationists because they are in the same type of denial that
you are in. There are just different levels of denial.
Ron Okimoto
On 5/16/2026 1:29 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Fri, 15 May 2026 17:26:12 -0500, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>Why keep lying about the situation.
wrote:
On 5/15/2026 11:39 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Fri, 15 May 2026 08:57:36 -0500, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>
wrote:
[rCa]
You tried to quote mine the wiki when the wiki continued to
clearly claim that Galileo faced a formal heresy charge in 1616.
Running and quote mining in order to continue your harassment is just nuts.
The Wiki does not say that and you effectively admitted it when tried
to make out that the Wiki had been edited, which it hadn't.
Just go up to the quote from that wiki that you ran from further up in
this thread.
I'm not going to plough through over 1000 posts trying to figure out
what post you are referring to, let alone what part of it - especially
when I already know that no quote exists that says Galileo faced a
heresy charge in 1616. If it did, you would simply repeat it to show
me wrong but you can't because it doesn't exist.
On Sat, 16 May 2026 08:21:28 -0500, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>
wrote:
On 5/16/2026 1:29 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Fri, 15 May 2026 17:26:12 -0500, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>Why keep lying about the situation.
wrote:
On 5/15/2026 11:39 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Fri, 15 May 2026 08:57:36 -0500, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>
wrote:
[rCa]
You tried to quote mine the wiki when the wiki continued to
clearly claim that Galileo faced a formal heresy charge in 1616.
Running and quote mining in order to continue your harassment is just nuts.
The Wiki does not say that and you effectively admitted it when tried >>>>> to make out that the Wiki had been edited, which it hadn't.
Just go up to the quote from that wiki that you ran from further up in >>>> this thread.
I'm not going to plough through over 1000 posts trying to figure out
what post you are referring to, let alone what part of it - especially
when I already know that no quote exists that says Galileo faced a
heresy charge in 1616. If it did, you would simply repeat it to show
me wrong but you can't because it doesn't exist.
Your inability to give the quote demonstrates that you are the one
lying yet again - the quote doesn't exist, you made its existence up.
[rCa]
On Thu, 30 Apr 2026 08:49:48 -0500, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>insane.
wrote:
On 4/30/2026 5:44 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Wed, 29 Apr 2026 19:41:58 -0500, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>
wrote:
On 4/29/2026 1:13 PM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Wed, 29 Apr 2026 12:43:53 -0500, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>
wrote:
[...]
Snipping and lying about what you have done is just stupid and
snipped and
Not as stupid and insane as making a claim you can't support. C'mon,
Ron, give the link to the Wiki article that says Galileo faced a
heresy charge in 1616 rCa surely it can't be that difficult.
[snip desperation attempt to avoid issue]
What a lying asshole. This is the second time that you have
run from what you have lied about as being handwaving.
C'mon Ron, no need to repost 7000 words that nobody wants to read. All
that's needed to show me to be the lying asshole, not you, is a simple
quote from the Wiki article that says what you insist it says. A dozen
or so words should cover it or even a simple URL. Can't be that hard
can it?
[...]
You need to stop harassing me with your stupid lies about the past.
I'll gladly stop harassing you when you either give a specific example
of a lie told by either me or those I cited in support. Or else
withdraw your own stupid lies.
On Mon, 20 Apr 2026 13:40:43 -0500, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>are lying".
wrote:
On 4/20/2026 4:08 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Sat, 18 Apr 2026 12:06:53 -0500, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>
wrote:
On 4/18/2026 6:24 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Wed, 15 Apr 2026 14:31:27 -0500, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>
wrote:
On 4/15/2026 11:36 AM, Martin Harran wrote:[rCa]
On Wed, 15 Apr 2026 16:59:56 +0100, "Kerr-Mudd, John"
No one is going to convince an opponent by stating that "they
(no matterand probably not by constant repetition of the same arguments
reality,how valid) that failed to get through the first 50 times.
Tell that to RonO, he's the one who keeps calling everyone who
disagrees with him a liar.
Who got caught lying and quote mining? You need to deal with
short?and quit lying about it. Lying about me is just so stupid that it is
pretty much insane. You have always lied about the sources that you
could not deal honestly with. Who's sources have always come up
matched byLook at what you are doing now. Is there any excuse for you not dealing
with your own stupid dishonest behavior?
The tiresomeness of you continually claiming that my sources were
caught lying and that I have been lying and quote mining is
beenthe tiresomeness of your inability to ever identify what lie my
sources were caught in, what lies I have told or where I have quote
mined.
[... more big snip ...]
Why keep lying about what your sources did and what you did? That is
just stupid and dishonest. Just look up your past posts to determine
for yourself what went down. You tried to lie about my sources being
deficient when your sources had always come up short or even supported
my sources by putting up the lame lie that heliocentrism had never
samecondemned other then by the inquisition. It was stupid because it did
not negate what you and your sources had been wrong about. It turned
out that your source was lying and you ran. You ran twice from the
whatevidence that your source was lying. You tried to come back with your
lame quote mining efforts and trying to distract the argument from
it had been. You did that, and your source was demonstrated to have
lied about the issue. You need to go back and deal with what you did.
An appology for your disgraceful behavior would be in order. Just try
not to do it again. Continuing to lie about what happened is just
adding to how low you needed to go.
Yet again, you make all sorts of accusations without a single example
of something to support them.
What I cannot figure out is whether you just can't grasp that your
failure to produce a single example of supporting evidence portrays
*you* as the one telling lies; or whether you do grasp it and just
don't care; or whether, like a certain President, you think that if
you repeat a lie enough times that someone will eventually believe it.
You should apologize for what you have been doing and stop doing it. I
found the posts where you ran from your source having been caught lying,
you then snipped the evidence out of your response to your running.
The thread: There is no legitimate scientific support for the ID scam.
I can post your quote mining attempts and other stupid behavior that you
resorted to to defend your running and defense of your bogus source.
So why don't you instead of talking about it?
Specific examples, please, not reams and reams of obfuscatory cut'n
paste.
On Sun, 16 Nov 2025 18:25:18 -0600, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>claiming you
wrote:
On 11/16/2025 4:40 PM, Martin Harran wrote:[rCa]
The links that I put up were from the Catholics that continue to be
geocentric creationists, and the Catholics that are trying to refute
them. Both sides do not agree with you. What does your continued
denial of reality tell you?
You gave no such links. All you have to do to prove me wrong is give
them again.
Do you not see how stupid you are making yourself look by
gave links but cannot repeat them?
Why lie about something so stupid. One of the links was your own
trusted Catholic site, and you initially gave that link.
That was this site:
https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/06342b.htm
The one where the Catholic Church states:
" In thus acting, it is undeniable that the ecclesiastical authorities
committed a grave and deplorable error, and sanctioned an altogether
false principle as to the proper use of Scripture."
The one that cites Professor Augustus De Morgan (Budget of Paradoxes)
declaring
"It is clear that the absurdity was the act of the Italian
Inquisition, for the private and personal pleasure of the pope - who
knew that the course he took could not convict him as pope - and not
of the body which calls itself the Church."
The one that cites von Gebler ("Galileo Galilei"):
"The Church never condemned it (the Copernican system) at all, for the
Qualifiers of the Holy Office never mean the Church."
It beats me how you figure out that site and the people referred to in
it somehow back your claim that heliocentrism really was a heresy. I
guess you have to convince yourself in order to maintain your delusion
as you clearly can't find a reputable source that actually does back
you up.
Yes, everyone admits that they were wrong about geocentrism except for
the Catholics that are still geocentrics. This source called what
Galileo faced both times a charge of heresy. They did not make a
distinction between formal heresy and heresy like the anti geocentric
site, but it was still a heresy.
What part of "The Church never condemned it (the Copernican system) at
all" did you not understand?
The only place that formal comes into all this is in the judgement
issued after Galileo's first trial where the verdict stated that the proposition that the Sun is stationary at the centre of the universe
is "foolish and absurd in philosophy, and formally heretical since it explicitly contradicts in many places the sense of Holy Scripture".
That, however, is t the Catholic Encyclopaedia refers to where it
says:
"it is undeniable that the ecclesiastical authorities committed a
grave and deplorable error, and sanctioned an altogether false
principle as to the proper use of Scripture."
Note also that the words "formally heretical" are wrong - I'm not sure whether it was the Inquisition using weasel words or whether it was a
bad translation from the Latin.
The word "heresy" can be used in two ways; it can apply to the
rejection of a specific doctrine of the Church or it can refer to the
act of committing heresy. The word "formal" applies to the latter -
the act of committing heresy - and is used to categorise the degree of
guilt of the person committing the heresy. "Formal heresy" means they
knew they were going against doctrine and are therefore guilty of
mortal sin; "material heresy" means they did not know they were going against doctrine so they are not guilty sin.
It's a bit like first degree versus second degree murder and Galileo's
trial was like him being charged with first-degree murder without a
murder being established in the first place.
The Inquisition made it into a formal heresy after the Council of Trent.
They were supposedly wrong, and a couple centuries later things got
reversed to what they had been at the time that the findings of the
Council of Trent were published.
The holy office (the inquisition) had Galileo facing a formal heresy
charge in his first encounter. When the pope got involved they just did
not call it a formal heresy in the sentencing. Galileo's views were
still condemned. They claimed that Galileo was facing a charge of
heresy. His heliocentric notions were still considered to be heresy and
the heresy that he was guilty of was clearly defined in the sentencing.
The anti geocentrics admitted that the pope had the Galileo case
published and disseminated throughout the church in order to quash the
heliocentric notions that were becoming an issue for the church. They
just want to claim that, that was not an official act. That is just
stupid. The pope did it for known reasons, and who cares if they want
to plead that he was not acting as pope?
There is no doubt that the actors were wrong, and that is the issue.
They do not want it to reflect on papal infallibility. That in itself
should be considered to be a non scriptural unjustifiable claim.
The Inquisition had Copernican writings banned and made heliocentrism
into a formal heresy because all the church fathers were geocentrics,
and that meant that Copernicans were in conflict with the beliefs of the
church fathers. Both the geocentric Catholics and the anti geocentric
Catholics claim that the Inquisition did this because of what the church
came up with at the Council of Trent where they made the beliefs of the
church fathers as a legitimate and necessary authority for interpreting
scripture. Both Catholic sides of the geocentric issue understand this
to be true.
QUOTE:
Council of Trent
Session IV, April 8, 1546, Decree Concerning the Edition and the Use of
the Sacred Books:
... "Furthermore, in order to restrain petulant spirits, it [the Council
of Trent] decrees that no one, relying on his own skill, shall,-in
matters of faith, and of morals pertaining to the edification of
Christian doctrine,-wresting the sacred Scriptures to his own senses,
presume to interpret the said sacred Scripture contrary to that sense
which holy Mother Church-to whom it belongs to judge of the true sense
and interpretation of the Holy Scriptures-hath held and doth hold; or
even contrary to the unanimous consent of the Fathers; even though such
interpretations were never (intended) to be at any time published.
Contraveners shall be made known by their Ordinaries and be punished
with the penalties by law established."
END QUOTE:
https://www.biblelightinfo.com/unanimous-consent.htm
Both Catholic sides of the issue claim that the Council of Trent caused
the Inquisition to ban Copernican writings and start treating
heliocentrism as a formal heresy because it went against the geocentric
beliefs of the church fathers.
You are taking all that crap from your geocentric hero; if you want to persist in taking his opinion against that of the Church's own
theologians then that is you just acting like Spikes rejecting the
opinion of scientists in favour of people who play to his confirmation
bias.
It was a mistake and the actors were in error only because of our
current understanding of nature. The Pope was wrong about it. He was
one of the mistaken actors.
The Pope was not a "mistaken actor", he was pissed off with Galileo presenting the Pope's views as those of a simpleton and misused his
powers to hit back at Galileo. Again, the Catholic Encyclopaedia
spells that explicitly:
"It is clear that the absurdity was the act of the Italian
Inquisition, for the private and personal pleasure of the pope - who
knew that the course he took could not convict him as pope - and not
of the body which calls itself the Church."
The Galileo affair was a shameful episode in the Church's history but
was all about the animosity between the Pope and Galileo, it had
nothing to do with heliocentrism being a heresy, that was just the
vehicle that the Pope used to attack Galileo.
On Mon, 17 Nov 2025 14:40:05 -0600, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>
wrote:
On 11/17/2025 11:45 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Mon, 17 Nov 2025 09:57:31 -0600, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>
wrote:
[...]
Oops, the Pope was not infallible.
So papal infallibility is another thing you don't understand.
I am just repeating what the anti geocentrist want to claim about it.
The "anti-geocentrists" of whom you cannot identify even one. Mind
you, when you first brought in the website of your geocentrist mentor,
it was anonymous and you didn't even know who the author was until I
figured out; the fact that he is a declared geocentrist and you knew
nothing about him didn't stop you placing high value on his opinions
and continuing to do so.
Weird to say the least.
[...]
On Wed, 19 Nov 2025 14:55:52 -0600, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>
wrote:
On 11/19/2025 12:01 PM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Mon, 17 Nov 2025 14:40:05 -0600, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>
wrote:
On 11/17/2025 11:45 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Mon, 17 Nov 2025 09:57:31 -0600, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>
wrote:
[...]
Oops, the Pope was not infallible.
So papal infallibility is another thing you don't understand.
I am just repeating what the anti geocentrist want to claim about it.
The "anti-geocentrists" of whom you cannot identify even one. Mind
you, when you first brought in the website of your geocentrist mentor,
it was anonymous and you didn't even know who the author was until I
figured out; the fact that he is a declared geocentrist and you knew
nothing about him didn't stop you placing high value on his opinions
and continuing to do so.
Weird to say the least.
[...]
You were given the links before,
Nope
so stop lying about it. Why should I
look up that junk again.
So you can prove I'm lying. But you can't because I'm not lying, you
gave no links except to the geocentrist idiot whose opinion you value
so highly.
You just denied that it was valid and kept
lying. Even your own trusted source backed up the anti geocentric site.
The anti geocentrists were on your side in terms of denying that it
was a formal heresy that Galileo faced the second time, but they agreed
with the geocentrists that the Inquisition had made it a formal heresy
charge the first time Galileo faced it and agreed with the Wiki. The
Vatican Observatory article that you have run from and snipped out of
this post backs up the geocentrists and anti geocentrists.
Just stop lying about the issue.
https://www.vaticanobservatory.org/sacred-space-astronomy/heliocentrism-condemned-400-years-ago-on-march-5-2/
They admit that helicentrism was condemned 400 years ago. 1616 is when
Galileo faced the formal heresy charge.
They do not consider the heresy cases, but they were based upon the
Inquisitions opinion of the topic.
Your claim of "never" having been condemned seems to be a lie.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galileo_Galilei
QUOTE:
In February 1616, an Inquisitorial commission declared heliocentrism to
be "foolish and absurd in philosophy, and formally heretical since it
explicitly contradicts in many places the sense of Holy Scripture".
END QUOTE:
Now YOU are the one lying about me. I never said it was never
condemned; on the contrary, I gave that exact same quote. What I did
was to point out that what it said was a FALSE CLAIM and it wasn't me
who came to that conclusion, it was the Catholic Church who came to
it, supported by every historian I know of who investigated it, people
like De Morgan and von Gebler. The only person I have ever known to
say there actually was a heresy is the geocentrist idiot whose opinion
you value so highly.
Both the geocentrists that you don't like, and the anti geocentric
catholics that do not agree with geocentric beliefs agreed that it was a
formal heresy charge the first time that Galileo faced the issue.
Now you seem to be trying to worm your way out of it by admitting
there was a *charge* without retracting that there was an actual
heresy which is what you have been claiming all long.
You can't just keep refusing to deal with reality and expect anything to
change.
You can't keep claiming support from "anti-geocentrists" about
heliocentrism having been an actual heresy without being able to
identify even one and expect people to take you seriously.
On Thu, 20 Nov 2025 09:38:56 -0600, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>heliocentrism to
wrote:
On 11/20/2025 4:47 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Wed, 19 Nov 2025 14:55:52 -0600, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>
wrote:
[snip for focus]
Your claim of "never" having been condemned seems to be a lie.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galileo_Galilei
QUOTE:
In February 1616, an Inquisitorial commission declared
be "foolish and absurd in philosophy, and formally heretical since it
explicitly contradicts in many places the sense of Holy Scripture".
END QUOTE:
Now YOU are the one lying about me. I never said it was never
condemned; on the contrary, I gave that exact same quote. What I did
was to point out that what it said was a FALSE CLAIM and it wasn't me
who came to that conclusion, it was the Catholic Church who came to
it, supported by every historian I know of who investigated it, people
like De Morgan and von Gebler. The only person I have ever known to
say there actually was a heresy is the geocentrist idiot whose opinion
you value so highly.
You put up the quote that said it had never been condemned. Go back up
and check. It was your quote.
Here is verbatim what I quoted:
Message-ID: 2gkkhk9bvctolude5jf6b6e0kothd5723d@4ax.com ========================================
<quote>
The [site] that cites von Gebler ("Galileo Galilei"):
"The Church never condemned it (the Copernican system) at all, for the Qualifiers of the Holy Office never mean the Church."
==========================================
#1: it was von Gebler who said rCLnever condemnedrCY, not me as you
claimed two posts ago.
#2 he did not say it was never condemned, he said *the Church* never condemned it.
Why do you post lies that are so easily shown to be lies?
On Fri, 21 Nov 2025 17:33:49 -0600, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>
wrote:
On 11/21/2025 12:29 PM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Fri, 21 Nov 2025 09:04:37 -0600, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>
wrote:
[rCa]
Let's cut to the chase here.
No lies to retract. You lied.
What lie are you claiming I told? Please quote exactly what I said
that you regard as a lie.
The ones that you keep telling.
"Never condemned"
I'm out of here. George Bernard Shaw warned that you shouldn't wrestle
with a pig as you get dirty and the pig enjoys it. I'm not going to
waste any more time trying to have a sensible discussion with someone
who thinks it's ok to take two words out of what somebody else said to
give a completely different meaning and then attribute those two words
to me. It doesn't even reach the level of quote-mining.
What beggars belief is that you do it where the exact quote from von
Gerber [1] and what I said about it are preserved just a couple of
posts above for all to see. As I noted earlier, it is really sad to
see this sort of behaviour from someone whose ability as a scientist I respect so much EfOU
===========================================
[1] "The Church never condemned it (the Copernican system) at all, for
the Qualifiers of the Holy Office never mean the Church."
[von Gebler ("Galileo Galilei")]
[..]
You should not continue to add to your own dishonest stupidity.
Trusting your source was obviously a stupid thing to do, and trying to
continue to support that source was just stupid and dishonest.
Ron Okimoto
On Sat, 16 May 2026 08:21:28 -0500, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>
wrote:
On 5/16/2026 1:29 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Fri, 15 May 2026 17:26:12 -0500, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>Why keep lying about the situation.
wrote:
On 5/15/2026 11:39 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Fri, 15 May 2026 08:57:36 -0500, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>
wrote:
[rCa]
You tried to quote mine the wiki when the wiki continued to
clearly claim that Galileo faced a formal heresy charge in 1616.
Running and quote mining in order to continue your harassment is just nuts.
The Wiki does not say that and you effectively admitted it when tried >>>>> to make out that the Wiki had been edited, which it hadn't.
Just go up to the quote from that wiki that you ran from further up in >>>> this thread.
I'm not going to plough through over 1000 posts trying to figure out
what post you are referring to, let alone what part of it - especially
when I already know that no quote exists that says Galileo faced a
heresy charge in 1616. If it did, you would simply repeat it to show
me wrong but you can't because it doesn't exist.
Your inability to give the quote demonstrates that you are the one
lying yet again - the quote doesn't exist, you made its existence up.
[rCa]
On Sun, 22 Feb 2026 13:40:10 -0600, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>what you
wrote:
On 2/22/2026 10:18 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Sat, 21 Feb 2026 12:44:57 -0600, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>
wrote:
On 2/21/2026 11:59 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
What documents are you talking about that you keep saying the Jesuits
put up?
You can keep lying about what has been discussed, but you know
was notdid. You need to be the one that finds it and satisfy yourself with
what you did.
You put up your source lying about heliocentrism never being condemned
by anyone but the Inquisition. You claimed that the Inquisition
ordered bythe Church. I put up the Jesuit Observatory claim that the Papal
offices had condemned heliocentrism and this condemnation was
sources havethe Pope. They put up the relevant document and stated what the Pope
did. Your source was caught lying and you ran. Go find it. It is
something that you should do because you will uncover all your other
evasions on this issue while doing it. Your quotes of your
always come up short. The sources that you claim are unreliable, have
repeatedly been shown to be more reliable than what you come up with.
Oh, you mean the link you gave back in November, this one:
https://www.vaticanobservatory.org/sacred-space-astronomy/heliocentrism-condemned-400-years-ago-on-march-5-2/
The one where they posted the full 1616 decree on it's 400th
anniversary and commented:
<quote>
The formulation here is much milder than the one found in the working
document of February 24. The Decree talks about the "false Pythagorean
doctrine" and declare it "altogether contrary to the Holy Scripture".
This is not nearly as harsh as "foolish and absurd" philosophically,
and "formally heretical" because contrary to Scripture.
</quote>
How fucking dense can you be? It doesn't get much stupider than
posting something that contradicts what you are claiming.
If I am the dense one why did you run from what they admitted about the
document?
LOL, you post something that you think supports your claim but
actually rejects it and the best defence you can offer is to accuse me
of running away from it.
The Pope did condemn heliocentrism.
Beats me why you keep repeating this. The Pope did not personally
condemn heliocentrism, he allowed the Inquisition's condemnation of it
to be made public - that did not make it a heresy.
That is what your side was lying
about.
The only one telling lies here is you. For example, when you keep
insisting that all the "anti-geocentrists" in the Catholic
Encyclopaedia article agree with you that heliocentrism was a heresy
when they all say explicitly that it wasn't. Your lie is underlined by
the fact that you can't produce identify any source that agrees that heliocentrism was a heresy except your geocentrist mentors.
reality.It doesn't matter that the final wording was milder than the
initial draft. They admit that the Pope condemned heliocentrism, and
supported using the Council of Trent's scriptural interpretation on the
matter. It doesn't matter what it was called because the authors and
books are named. You ran from this link because your source was found
to have lied about heliocentrism never having been condemned except by
the Inquisition. The Pope obviously represents the Church and condemned
heliocentrism. He supported the Inquisition in 1616, and their
additions to the Index in order to protect against heresy. The books
would not have been added to the Index if they were not considered to be
heretical. The document even talks about the heretical parts of the
books, and indicates that after one of them is rewritten, so that it is
not against scripture, that it can be removed from the Index.
Keep lying to yourself about the issue. It isn't going to change
The Inquisition made heliocentrism a formal heresy in 1615-1616.
The decree is given in full on the Vatican Observatory site that you
tried to claim supports you and the word 'heresy' or 'heretical' does
not even appear in it.
They
did this because of their interpretation of scripture as the Council of
Trent had decided.
The decree doesn't make any reference whatsoever to Trent regarding interpretation of scripture; the one and only reference is to the *punishment* under Trent for disobeying the decree.
They added heliocentric writings to the Index,
They declare that "the books by Nicolaus Copernicus (On the
Revolutions of Spheres) and by Diego de Zu|#iga (On Job) be suspended
until corrected".
I've given details of the required corrections to Revolutions in a
different post to Harshman and they are all minor edits - not one of
them makes any change to the core principle of heliocentrism. A rather
weird declaration of heresy that allows Copernicus's book supporting
it to be published with minor edits that don't undermine his
proposition.
and
had their first encounter with Galileo. The Pope agreed with them and
condemned heliocentrism, and agreed with their additions to the Index of
banned writings.
Before your source lied about "never being condemned" the Pope's
involvement in 1616 was not an issue between the geocentric and
anti-geocentric Catholics in terms of what you were lying about at the
time. Both sides agreed that it was a formal heresy charge faced by
Galileo in 1615-1616. They disagreed about it being a formal heresy
charge the second time because it was only written up as "heresy" and
not formal heresy in the sentencing. It remained a heresy charge.
You obviously struggle with grasping that a *charge* does not make
someone guilty. I hope I'm never on trial for something I didn't do
with you on the jury.
The
Pope had the Galileo case, sentencing, and punishment published and
distributed throughout the Church in order to quash the heliocentric
heresy, but the guys that want to maintain Papal infallibility claim
that that was not an official Papal action. They admitted that there
was an issue with helicentrism at the time, but they do not want the
Pope to have been on the wrong side of the issue.
You need to deal with reality.
I think it's very clear who has the problem with accepting reality and
it's not me.
It is well understood that the Bible is
just wrong about a lot of things that we can figure out for ourselves.
Your own quotes from Pope Francis makes that claim. The Bible can be
misinterpreted because the author's understanding of the creation was
faulty. Francis knows that the universe was not created in 6 magic
episodes. Only those in complete denial do not understand that the
order of creation described in the Bible is wrong. There are still
young earth, old earth day for agers, geocentric, and flat earth
Biblical creationists because they are in the same type of denial that
you are in. There are just different levels of denial.
Ron Okimoto
On 5/16/2026 9:09 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Sat, 16 May 2026 08:21:28 -0500, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>Snipping and running does not change reality. Your inability to deal >honestly with what you are already guilty of is noted once again.
wrote:
On 5/16/2026 1:29 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Fri, 15 May 2026 17:26:12 -0500, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>Why keep lying about the situation.
wrote:
On 5/15/2026 11:39 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Fri, 15 May 2026 08:57:36 -0500, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>
wrote:
[rCa]
You tried to quote mine the wiki when the wiki continued to
clearly claim that Galileo faced a formal heresy charge in 1616. >>>>>>> Running and quote mining in order to continue your harassment is just nuts.
The Wiki does not say that and you effectively admitted it when tried >>>>>> to make out that the Wiki had been edited, which it hadn't.
Just go up to the quote from that wiki that you ran from further up in >>>>> this thread.
I'm not going to plough through over 1000 posts trying to figure out
what post you are referring to, let alone what part of it - especially >>>> when I already know that no quote exists that says Galileo faced a
heresy charge in 1616. If it did, you would simply repeat it to show
me wrong but you can't because it doesn't exist.
Your inability to give the quote demonstrates that you are the one
lying yet again - the quote doesn't exist, you made its existence up.
[rCa]
On Sat, 16 May 2026 17:56:35 -0500, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>
wrote:
On 5/16/2026 9:09 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Sat, 16 May 2026 08:21:28 -0500, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>Snipping and running does not change reality. Your inability to deal
wrote:
On 5/16/2026 1:29 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Fri, 15 May 2026 17:26:12 -0500, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>Why keep lying about the situation.
wrote:
On 5/15/2026 11:39 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Fri, 15 May 2026 08:57:36 -0500, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com> >>>>>>> wrote:
[rCa]
You tried to quote mine the wiki when the wiki continued to
clearly claim that Galileo faced a formal heresy charge in 1616. >>>>>>>> Running and quote mining in order to continue your harassment is just nuts.
The Wiki does not say that and you effectively admitted it when tried >>>>>>> to make out that the Wiki had been edited, which it hadn't.
Just go up to the quote from that wiki that you ran from further up in >>>>>> this thread.
I'm not going to plough through over 1000 posts trying to figure out >>>>> what post you are referring to, let alone what part of it - especially >>>>> when I already know that no quote exists that says Galileo faced a
heresy charge in 1616. If it did, you would simply repeat it to show >>>>> me wrong but you can't because it doesn't exist.
Your inability to give the quote demonstrates that you are the one
lying yet again - the quote doesn't exist, you made its existence up.
[rCa]
honestly with what you are already guilty of is noted once again.
No quote provided - QED
It beats me what you think you are achieving here - everyone can see
that you cannot produce a quote from the Wiki article saying what you
insist it says, even though I was able to quote the extract that
contradicts your claim.
Your continual reposting of 000's of words that have nobody will read
reminds me of a 5 year old child having a meltdown, stamping their
feet and screaming but being ignored by the adults until they learn
that their bad behaviour will get them nothing.
On Thu, 30 Apr 2026 08:49:48 -0500, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>insane.
wrote:
On 4/30/2026 5:44 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Wed, 29 Apr 2026 19:41:58 -0500, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>
wrote:
On 4/29/2026 1:13 PM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Wed, 29 Apr 2026 12:43:53 -0500, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>
wrote:
[...]
Snipping and lying about what you have done is just stupid and
snipped and
Not as stupid and insane as making a claim you can't support. C'mon,
Ron, give the link to the Wiki article that says Galileo faced a
heresy charge in 1616 rCa surely it can't be that difficult.
[snip desperation attempt to avoid issue]
What a lying asshole. This is the second time that you have
run from what you have lied about as being handwaving.
C'mon Ron, no need to repost 7000 words that nobody wants to read. All
that's needed to show me to be the lying asshole, not you, is a simple
quote from the Wiki article that says what you insist it says. A dozen
or so words should cover it or even a simple URL. Can't be that hard
can it?
[...]
You need to stop harassing me with your stupid lies about the past.
I'll gladly stop harassing you when you either give a specific example
of a lie told by either me or those I cited in support. Or else
withdraw your own stupid lies.
On Mon, 20 Apr 2026 13:40:43 -0500, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>are lying".
wrote:
On 4/20/2026 4:08 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Sat, 18 Apr 2026 12:06:53 -0500, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>
wrote:
On 4/18/2026 6:24 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Wed, 15 Apr 2026 14:31:27 -0500, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>
wrote:
On 4/15/2026 11:36 AM, Martin Harran wrote:[rCa]
On Wed, 15 Apr 2026 16:59:56 +0100, "Kerr-Mudd, John"
No one is going to convince an opponent by stating that "they
(no matterand probably not by constant repetition of the same arguments
reality,how valid) that failed to get through the first 50 times.
Tell that to RonO, he's the one who keeps calling everyone who
disagrees with him a liar.
Who got caught lying and quote mining? You need to deal with
short?and quit lying about it. Lying about me is just so stupid that it is
pretty much insane. You have always lied about the sources that you
could not deal honestly with. Who's sources have always come up
matched byLook at what you are doing now. Is there any excuse for you not dealing
with your own stupid dishonest behavior?
The tiresomeness of you continually claiming that my sources were
caught lying and that I have been lying and quote mining is
beenthe tiresomeness of your inability to ever identify what lie my
sources were caught in, what lies I have told or where I have quote
mined.
[... more big snip ...]
Why keep lying about what your sources did and what you did? That is
just stupid and dishonest. Just look up your past posts to determine
for yourself what went down. You tried to lie about my sources being
deficient when your sources had always come up short or even supported
my sources by putting up the lame lie that heliocentrism had never
samecondemned other then by the inquisition. It was stupid because it did
not negate what you and your sources had been wrong about. It turned
out that your source was lying and you ran. You ran twice from the
whatevidence that your source was lying. You tried to come back with your
lame quote mining efforts and trying to distract the argument from
it had been. You did that, and your source was demonstrated to have
lied about the issue. You need to go back and deal with what you did.
An appology for your disgraceful behavior would be in order. Just try
not to do it again. Continuing to lie about what happened is just
adding to how low you needed to go.
Yet again, you make all sorts of accusations without a single example
of something to support them.
What I cannot figure out is whether you just can't grasp that your
failure to produce a single example of supporting evidence portrays
*you* as the one telling lies; or whether you do grasp it and just
don't care; or whether, like a certain President, you think that if
you repeat a lie enough times that someone will eventually believe it.
You should apologize for what you have been doing and stop doing it. I
found the posts where you ran from your source having been caught lying,
you then snipped the evidence out of your response to your running.
The thread: There is no legitimate scientific support for the ID scam.
I can post your quote mining attempts and other stupid behavior that you
resorted to to defend your running and defense of your bogus source.
So why don't you instead of talking about it?
Specific examples, please, not reams and reams of obfuscatory cut'n
paste.
On Sun, 16 Nov 2025 18:25:18 -0600, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>claiming you
wrote:
On 11/16/2025 4:40 PM, Martin Harran wrote:[rCa]
The links that I put up were from the Catholics that continue to be
geocentric creationists, and the Catholics that are trying to refute
them. Both sides do not agree with you. What does your continued
denial of reality tell you?
You gave no such links. All you have to do to prove me wrong is give
them again.
Do you not see how stupid you are making yourself look by
gave links but cannot repeat them?
Why lie about something so stupid. One of the links was your own
trusted Catholic site, and you initially gave that link.
That was this site:
https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/06342b.htm
The one where the Catholic Church states:
" In thus acting, it is undeniable that the ecclesiastical authorities
committed a grave and deplorable error, and sanctioned an altogether
false principle as to the proper use of Scripture."
The one that cites Professor Augustus De Morgan (Budget of Paradoxes)
declaring
"It is clear that the absurdity was the act of the Italian
Inquisition, for the private and personal pleasure of the pope - who
knew that the course he took could not convict him as pope - and not
of the body which calls itself the Church."
The one that cites von Gebler ("Galileo Galilei"):
"The Church never condemned it (the Copernican system) at all, for the
Qualifiers of the Holy Office never mean the Church."
It beats me how you figure out that site and the people referred to in
it somehow back your claim that heliocentrism really was a heresy. I
guess you have to convince yourself in order to maintain your delusion
as you clearly can't find a reputable source that actually does back
you up.
Yes, everyone admits that they were wrong about geocentrism except for
the Catholics that are still geocentrics. This source called what
Galileo faced both times a charge of heresy. They did not make a
distinction between formal heresy and heresy like the anti geocentric
site, but it was still a heresy.
What part of "The Church never condemned it (the Copernican system) at
all" did you not understand?
The only place that formal comes into all this is in the judgement
issued after Galileo's first trial where the verdict stated that the proposition that the Sun is stationary at the centre of the universe
is "foolish and absurd in philosophy, and formally heretical since it explicitly contradicts in many places the sense of Holy Scripture".
That, however, is t the Catholic Encyclopaedia refers to where it
says:
"it is undeniable that the ecclesiastical authorities committed a
grave and deplorable error, and sanctioned an altogether false
principle as to the proper use of Scripture."
Note also that the words "formally heretical" are wrong - I'm not sure whether it was the Inquisition using weasel words or whether it was a
bad translation from the Latin.
The word "heresy" can be used in two ways; it can apply to the
rejection of a specific doctrine of the Church or it can refer to the
act of committing heresy. The word "formal" applies to the latter -
the act of committing heresy - and is used to categorise the degree of
guilt of the person committing the heresy. "Formal heresy" means they
knew they were going against doctrine and are therefore guilty of
mortal sin; "material heresy" means they did not know they were going against doctrine so they are not guilty sin.
It's a bit like first degree versus second degree murder and Galileo's
trial was like him being charged with first-degree murder without a
murder being established in the first place.
The Inquisition made it into a formal heresy after the Council of Trent.
They were supposedly wrong, and a couple centuries later things got
reversed to what they had been at the time that the findings of the
Council of Trent were published.
The holy office (the inquisition) had Galileo facing a formal heresy
charge in his first encounter. When the pope got involved they just did
not call it a formal heresy in the sentencing. Galileo's views were
still condemned. They claimed that Galileo was facing a charge of
heresy. His heliocentric notions were still considered to be heresy and
the heresy that he was guilty of was clearly defined in the sentencing.
The anti geocentrics admitted that the pope had the Galileo case
published and disseminated throughout the church in order to quash the
heliocentric notions that were becoming an issue for the church. They
just want to claim that, that was not an official act. That is just
stupid. The pope did it for known reasons, and who cares if they want
to plead that he was not acting as pope?
There is no doubt that the actors were wrong, and that is the issue.
They do not want it to reflect on papal infallibility. That in itself
should be considered to be a non scriptural unjustifiable claim.
The Inquisition had Copernican writings banned and made heliocentrism
into a formal heresy because all the church fathers were geocentrics,
and that meant that Copernicans were in conflict with the beliefs of the
church fathers. Both the geocentric Catholics and the anti geocentric
Catholics claim that the Inquisition did this because of what the church
came up with at the Council of Trent where they made the beliefs of the
church fathers as a legitimate and necessary authority for interpreting
scripture. Both Catholic sides of the geocentric issue understand this
to be true.
QUOTE:
Council of Trent
Session IV, April 8, 1546, Decree Concerning the Edition and the Use of
the Sacred Books:
... "Furthermore, in order to restrain petulant spirits, it [the Council
of Trent] decrees that no one, relying on his own skill, shall,-in
matters of faith, and of morals pertaining to the edification of
Christian doctrine,-wresting the sacred Scriptures to his own senses,
presume to interpret the said sacred Scripture contrary to that sense
which holy Mother Church-to whom it belongs to judge of the true sense
and interpretation of the Holy Scriptures-hath held and doth hold; or
even contrary to the unanimous consent of the Fathers; even though such
interpretations were never (intended) to be at any time published.
Contraveners shall be made known by their Ordinaries and be punished
with the penalties by law established."
END QUOTE:
https://www.biblelightinfo.com/unanimous-consent.htm
Both Catholic sides of the issue claim that the Council of Trent caused
the Inquisition to ban Copernican writings and start treating
heliocentrism as a formal heresy because it went against the geocentric
beliefs of the church fathers.
You are taking all that crap from your geocentric hero; if you want to persist in taking his opinion against that of the Church's own
theologians then that is you just acting like Spikes rejecting the
opinion of scientists in favour of people who play to his confirmation
bias.
It was a mistake and the actors were in error only because of our
current understanding of nature. The Pope was wrong about it. He was
one of the mistaken actors.
The Pope was not a "mistaken actor", he was pissed off with Galileo presenting the Pope's views as those of a simpleton and misused his
powers to hit back at Galileo. Again, the Catholic Encyclopaedia
spells that explicitly:
"It is clear that the absurdity was the act of the Italian
Inquisition, for the private and personal pleasure of the pope - who
knew that the course he took could not convict him as pope - and not
of the body which calls itself the Church."
The Galileo affair was a shameful episode in the Church's history but
was all about the animosity between the Pope and Galileo, it had
nothing to do with heliocentrism being a heresy, that was just the
vehicle that the Pope used to attack Galileo.
On Mon, 17 Nov 2025 14:40:05 -0600, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>
wrote:
On 11/17/2025 11:45 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Mon, 17 Nov 2025 09:57:31 -0600, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>
wrote:
[...]
Oops, the Pope was not infallible.
So papal infallibility is another thing you don't understand.
I am just repeating what the anti geocentrist want to claim about it.
The "anti-geocentrists" of whom you cannot identify even one. Mind
you, when you first brought in the website of your geocentrist mentor,
it was anonymous and you didn't even know who the author was until I
figured out; the fact that he is a declared geocentrist and you knew
nothing about him didn't stop you placing high value on his opinions
and continuing to do so.
Weird to say the least.
[...]
On Wed, 19 Nov 2025 14:55:52 -0600, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>
wrote:
On 11/19/2025 12:01 PM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Mon, 17 Nov 2025 14:40:05 -0600, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>
wrote:
On 11/17/2025 11:45 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Mon, 17 Nov 2025 09:57:31 -0600, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>
wrote:
[...]
Oops, the Pope was not infallible.
So papal infallibility is another thing you don't understand.
I am just repeating what the anti geocentrist want to claim about it.
The "anti-geocentrists" of whom you cannot identify even one. Mind
you, when you first brought in the website of your geocentrist mentor,
it was anonymous and you didn't even know who the author was until I
figured out; the fact that he is a declared geocentrist and you knew
nothing about him didn't stop you placing high value on his opinions
and continuing to do so.
Weird to say the least.
[...]
You were given the links before,
Nope
so stop lying about it. Why should I
look up that junk again.
So you can prove I'm lying. But you can't because I'm not lying, you
gave no links except to the geocentrist idiot whose opinion you value
so highly.
You just denied that it was valid and kept
lying. Even your own trusted source backed up the anti geocentric site.
The anti geocentrists were on your side in terms of denying that it
was a formal heresy that Galileo faced the second time, but they agreed
with the geocentrists that the Inquisition had made it a formal heresy
charge the first time Galileo faced it and agreed with the Wiki. The
Vatican Observatory article that you have run from and snipped out of
this post backs up the geocentrists and anti geocentrists.
Just stop lying about the issue.
https://www.vaticanobservatory.org/sacred-space-astronomy/heliocentrism-condemned-400-years-ago-on-march-5-2/
They admit that helicentrism was condemned 400 years ago. 1616 is when
Galileo faced the formal heresy charge.
They do not consider the heresy cases, but they were based upon the
Inquisitions opinion of the topic.
Your claim of "never" having been condemned seems to be a lie.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galileo_Galilei
QUOTE:
In February 1616, an Inquisitorial commission declared heliocentrism to
be "foolish and absurd in philosophy, and formally heretical since it
explicitly contradicts in many places the sense of Holy Scripture".
END QUOTE:
Now YOU are the one lying about me. I never said it was never
condemned; on the contrary, I gave that exact same quote. What I did
was to point out that what it said was a FALSE CLAIM and it wasn't me
who came to that conclusion, it was the Catholic Church who came to
it, supported by every historian I know of who investigated it, people
like De Morgan and von Gebler. The only person I have ever known to
say there actually was a heresy is the geocentrist idiot whose opinion
you value so highly.
Both the geocentrists that you don't like, and the anti geocentric
catholics that do not agree with geocentric beliefs agreed that it was a
formal heresy charge the first time that Galileo faced the issue.
Now you seem to be trying to worm your way out of it by admitting
there was a *charge* without retracting that there was an actual
heresy which is what you have been claiming all long.
You can't just keep refusing to deal with reality and expect anything to
change.
You can't keep claiming support from "anti-geocentrists" about
heliocentrism having been an actual heresy without being able to
identify even one and expect people to take you seriously.
On Thu, 20 Nov 2025 09:38:56 -0600, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>heliocentrism to
wrote:
On 11/20/2025 4:47 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Wed, 19 Nov 2025 14:55:52 -0600, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>
wrote:
[snip for focus]
Your claim of "never" having been condemned seems to be a lie.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galileo_Galilei
QUOTE:
In February 1616, an Inquisitorial commission declared
be "foolish and absurd in philosophy, and formally heretical since it
explicitly contradicts in many places the sense of Holy Scripture".
END QUOTE:
Now YOU are the one lying about me. I never said it was never
condemned; on the contrary, I gave that exact same quote. What I did
was to point out that what it said was a FALSE CLAIM and it wasn't me
who came to that conclusion, it was the Catholic Church who came to
it, supported by every historian I know of who investigated it, people
like De Morgan and von Gebler. The only person I have ever known to
say there actually was a heresy is the geocentrist idiot whose opinion
you value so highly.
You put up the quote that said it had never been condemned. Go back up
and check. It was your quote.
Here is verbatim what I quoted:
Message-ID: 2gkkhk9bvctolude5jf6b6e0kothd5723d@4ax.com ========================================
<quote>
The [site] that cites von Gebler ("Galileo Galilei"):
"The Church never condemned it (the Copernican system) at all, for the Qualifiers of the Holy Office never mean the Church."
==========================================
#1: it was von Gebler who said rCLnever condemnedrCY, not me as you
claimed two posts ago.
#2 he did not say it was never condemned, he said *the Church* never condemned it.
Why do you post lies that are so easily shown to be lies?
On Fri, 21 Nov 2025 17:33:49 -0600, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>
wrote:
On 11/21/2025 12:29 PM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Fri, 21 Nov 2025 09:04:37 -0600, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>
wrote:
[rCa]
Let's cut to the chase here.
No lies to retract. You lied.
What lie are you claiming I told? Please quote exactly what I said
that you regard as a lie.
The ones that you keep telling.
"Never condemned"
I'm out of here. George Bernard Shaw warned that you shouldn't wrestle
with a pig as you get dirty and the pig enjoys it. I'm not going to
waste any more time trying to have a sensible discussion with someone
who thinks it's ok to take two words out of what somebody else said to
give a completely different meaning and then attribute those two words
to me. It doesn't even reach the level of quote-mining.
What beggars belief is that you do it where the exact quote from von
Gerber [1] and what I said about it are preserved just a couple of
posts above for all to see. As I noted earlier, it is really sad to
see this sort of behaviour from someone whose ability as a scientist I respect so much EfOU
===========================================
[1] "The Church never condemned it (the Copernican system) at all, for
the Qualifiers of the Holy Office never mean the Church."
[von Gebler ("Galileo Galilei")]
[..]
You should not continue to add to your own dishonest stupidity.
Trusting your source was obviously a stupid thing to do, and trying to
continue to support that source was just stupid and dishonest.
Ron Okimoto
On Sat, 16 May 2026 17:56:35 -0500, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>
wrote:
On 5/16/2026 9:09 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Sat, 16 May 2026 08:21:28 -0500, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>Snipping and running does not change reality. Your inability to deal
wrote:
On 5/16/2026 1:29 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Fri, 15 May 2026 17:26:12 -0500, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>Why keep lying about the situation.
wrote:
On 5/15/2026 11:39 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Fri, 15 May 2026 08:57:36 -0500, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com> >>>>>>> wrote:
[rCa]
You tried to quote mine the wiki when the wiki continued to
clearly claim that Galileo faced a formal heresy charge in 1616. >>>>>>>> Running and quote mining in order to continue your harassment is just nuts.
The Wiki does not say that and you effectively admitted it when tried >>>>>>> to make out that the Wiki had been edited, which it hadn't.
Just go up to the quote from that wiki that you ran from further up in >>>>>> this thread.
I'm not going to plough through over 1000 posts trying to figure out >>>>> what post you are referring to, let alone what part of it - especially >>>>> when I already know that no quote exists that says Galileo faced a
heresy charge in 1616. If it did, you would simply repeat it to show >>>>> me wrong but you can't because it doesn't exist.
Your inability to give the quote demonstrates that you are the one
lying yet again - the quote doesn't exist, you made its existence up.
[rCa]
honestly with what you are already guilty of is noted once again.
No quote provided - QED
It beats me what you think you are achieving here - everyone can see
that you cannot produce a quote from the Wiki article saying what you
insist it says, even though I was able to quote the extract that
contradicts your claim.
Your continual reposting of 000's of words that have nobody will read
reminds me of a 5 year old child having a meltdown, stamping their
feet and screaming but being ignored by the adults until they learn
that their bad behaviour will get them nothing.
On Sun, 22 Feb 2026 13:40:10 -0600, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>what you
wrote:
On 2/22/2026 10:18 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Sat, 21 Feb 2026 12:44:57 -0600, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>
wrote:
On 2/21/2026 11:59 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
What documents are you talking about that you keep saying the Jesuits
put up?
You can keep lying about what has been discussed, but you know
was notdid. You need to be the one that finds it and satisfy yourself with
what you did.
You put up your source lying about heliocentrism never being condemned
by anyone but the Inquisition. You claimed that the Inquisition
ordered bythe Church. I put up the Jesuit Observatory claim that the Papal
offices had condemned heliocentrism and this condemnation was
sources havethe Pope. They put up the relevant document and stated what the Pope
did. Your source was caught lying and you ran. Go find it. It is
something that you should do because you will uncover all your other
evasions on this issue while doing it. Your quotes of your
always come up short. The sources that you claim are unreliable, have
repeatedly been shown to be more reliable than what you come up with.
Oh, you mean the link you gave back in November, this one:
https://www.vaticanobservatory.org/sacred-space-astronomy/heliocentrism-condemned-400-years-ago-on-march-5-2/
The one where they posted the full 1616 decree on it's 400th
anniversary and commented:
<quote>
The formulation here is much milder than the one found in the working
document of February 24. The Decree talks about the "false Pythagorean
doctrine" and declare it "altogether contrary to the Holy Scripture".
This is not nearly as harsh as "foolish and absurd" philosophically,
and "formally heretical" because contrary to Scripture.
</quote>
How fucking dense can you be? It doesn't get much stupider than
posting something that contradicts what you are claiming.
If I am the dense one why did you run from what they admitted about the
document?
LOL, you post something that you think supports your claim but
actually rejects it and the best defence you can offer is to accuse me
of running away from it.
The Pope did condemn heliocentrism.
Beats me why you keep repeating this. The Pope did not personally
condemn heliocentrism, he allowed the Inquisition's condemnation of it
to be made public - that did not make it a heresy.
That is what your side was lying
about.
The only one telling lies here is you. For example, when you keep
insisting that all the "anti-geocentrists" in the Catholic
Encyclopaedia article agree with you that heliocentrism was a heresy
when they all say explicitly that it wasn't. Your lie is underlined by
the fact that you can't produce identify any source that agrees that heliocentrism was a heresy except your geocentrist mentors.
reality.It doesn't matter that the final wording was milder than the
initial draft. They admit that the Pope condemned heliocentrism, and
supported using the Council of Trent's scriptural interpretation on the
matter. It doesn't matter what it was called because the authors and
books are named. You ran from this link because your source was found
to have lied about heliocentrism never having been condemned except by
the Inquisition. The Pope obviously represents the Church and condemned
heliocentrism. He supported the Inquisition in 1616, and their
additions to the Index in order to protect against heresy. The books
would not have been added to the Index if they were not considered to be
heretical. The document even talks about the heretical parts of the
books, and indicates that after one of them is rewritten, so that it is
not against scripture, that it can be removed from the Index.
Keep lying to yourself about the issue. It isn't going to change
The Inquisition made heliocentrism a formal heresy in 1615-1616.
The decree is given in full on the Vatican Observatory site that you
tried to claim supports you and the word 'heresy' or 'heretical' does
not even appear in it.
They
did this because of their interpretation of scripture as the Council of
Trent had decided.
The decree doesn't make any reference whatsoever to Trent regarding interpretation of scripture; the one and only reference is to the *punishment* under Trent for disobeying the decree.
They added heliocentric writings to the Index,
They declare that "the books by Nicolaus Copernicus (On the
Revolutions of Spheres) and by Diego de Zu|#iga (On Job) be suspended
until corrected".
I've given details of the required corrections to Revolutions in a
different post to Harshman and they are all minor edits - not one of
them makes any change to the core principle of heliocentrism. A rather
weird declaration of heresy that allows Copernicus's book supporting
it to be published with minor edits that don't undermine his
proposition.
and
had their first encounter with Galileo. The Pope agreed with them and
condemned heliocentrism, and agreed with their additions to the Index of
banned writings.
Before your source lied about "never being condemned" the Pope's
involvement in 1616 was not an issue between the geocentric and
anti-geocentric Catholics in terms of what you were lying about at the
time. Both sides agreed that it was a formal heresy charge faced by
Galileo in 1615-1616. They disagreed about it being a formal heresy
charge the second time because it was only written up as "heresy" and
not formal heresy in the sentencing. It remained a heresy charge.
You obviously struggle with grasping that a *charge* does not make
someone guilty. I hope I'm never on trial for something I didn't do
with you on the jury.
The
Pope had the Galileo case, sentencing, and punishment published and
distributed throughout the Church in order to quash the heliocentric
heresy, but the guys that want to maintain Papal infallibility claim
that that was not an official Papal action. They admitted that there
was an issue with helicentrism at the time, but they do not want the
Pope to have been on the wrong side of the issue.
You need to deal with reality.
I think it's very clear who has the problem with accepting reality and
it's not me.
It is well understood that the Bible is
just wrong about a lot of things that we can figure out for ourselves.
Your own quotes from Pope Francis makes that claim. The Bible can be
misinterpreted because the author's understanding of the creation was
faulty. Francis knows that the universe was not created in 6 magic
episodes. Only those in complete denial do not understand that the
order of creation described in the Bible is wrong. There are still
young earth, old earth day for agers, geocentric, and flat earth
Biblical creationists because they are in the same type of denial that
you are in. There are just different levels of denial.
Ron Okimoto
On 5/18/2026 4:23 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
No quote provided - QEDWhat a nut job the whole REPOST is a giant quote of you doing what you
It beats me what you think you are achieving here - everyone can see
that you cannot produce a quote from the Wiki article saying what you
insist it says, even though I was able to quote the extract that
contradicts your claim.
Your continual reposting of 000's of words that have nobody will read
reminds me of a 5 year old child having a meltdown, stamping their
feet and screaming but being ignored by the adults until they learn
that their bad behaviour will get them nothing.
are lying about doing.
On Mon, 18 May 2026 09:19:24 -0500, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>
wrote:
On 5/18/2026 4:23 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
[rCa]
No quote provided - QEDWhat a nut job the whole REPOST is a giant quote of you doing what you
It beats me what you think you are achieving here - everyone can see
that you cannot produce a quote from the Wiki article saying what you
insist it says, even though I was able to quote the extract that
contradicts your claim.
Your continual reposting of 000's of words that have nobody will read
reminds me of a 5 year old child having a meltdown, stamping their
feet and screaming but being ignored by the adults until they learn
that their bad behaviour will get them nothing.
are lying about doing.
No, it's a pathetic attempt by you to cover up for you not being able
to give a single quote from the Wiki article supporting your
insistence that it says Galileo faced a heresy charge in 1616.
[rCa]
On Thu, 30 Apr 2026 08:49:48 -0500, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>insane.
wrote:
On 4/30/2026 5:44 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Wed, 29 Apr 2026 19:41:58 -0500, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>
wrote:
On 4/29/2026 1:13 PM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Wed, 29 Apr 2026 12:43:53 -0500, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>
wrote:
[...]
Snipping and lying about what you have done is just stupid and
snipped and
Not as stupid and insane as making a claim you can't support. C'mon,
Ron, give the link to the Wiki article that says Galileo faced a
heresy charge in 1616 rCa surely it can't be that difficult.
[snip desperation attempt to avoid issue]
What a lying asshole. This is the second time that you have
run from what you have lied about as being handwaving.
C'mon Ron, no need to repost 7000 words that nobody wants to read. All
that's needed to show me to be the lying asshole, not you, is a simple
quote from the Wiki article that says what you insist it says. A dozen
or so words should cover it or even a simple URL. Can't be that hard
can it?
[...]
You need to stop harassing me with your stupid lies about the past.
I'll gladly stop harassing you when you either give a specific example
of a lie told by either me or those I cited in support. Or else
withdraw your own stupid lies.
On Mon, 20 Apr 2026 13:40:43 -0500, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>are lying".
wrote:
On 4/20/2026 4:08 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Sat, 18 Apr 2026 12:06:53 -0500, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>
wrote:
On 4/18/2026 6:24 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Wed, 15 Apr 2026 14:31:27 -0500, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>
wrote:
On 4/15/2026 11:36 AM, Martin Harran wrote:[rCa]
On Wed, 15 Apr 2026 16:59:56 +0100, "Kerr-Mudd, John"
No one is going to convince an opponent by stating that "they
(no matterand probably not by constant repetition of the same arguments
reality,how valid) that failed to get through the first 50 times.
Tell that to RonO, he's the one who keeps calling everyone who
disagrees with him a liar.
Who got caught lying and quote mining? You need to deal with
short?and quit lying about it. Lying about me is just so stupid that it is
pretty much insane. You have always lied about the sources that you
could not deal honestly with. Who's sources have always come up
matched byLook at what you are doing now. Is there any excuse for you not dealing
with your own stupid dishonest behavior?
The tiresomeness of you continually claiming that my sources were
caught lying and that I have been lying and quote mining is
beenthe tiresomeness of your inability to ever identify what lie my
sources were caught in, what lies I have told or where I have quote
mined.
[... more big snip ...]
Why keep lying about what your sources did and what you did? That is
just stupid and dishonest. Just look up your past posts to determine
for yourself what went down. You tried to lie about my sources being
deficient when your sources had always come up short or even supported
my sources by putting up the lame lie that heliocentrism had never
samecondemned other then by the inquisition. It was stupid because it did
not negate what you and your sources had been wrong about. It turned
out that your source was lying and you ran. You ran twice from the
whatevidence that your source was lying. You tried to come back with your
lame quote mining efforts and trying to distract the argument from
it had been. You did that, and your source was demonstrated to have
lied about the issue. You need to go back and deal with what you did.
An appology for your disgraceful behavior would be in order. Just try
not to do it again. Continuing to lie about what happened is just
adding to how low you needed to go.
Yet again, you make all sorts of accusations without a single example
of something to support them.
What I cannot figure out is whether you just can't grasp that your
failure to produce a single example of supporting evidence portrays
*you* as the one telling lies; or whether you do grasp it and just
don't care; or whether, like a certain President, you think that if
you repeat a lie enough times that someone will eventually believe it.
You should apologize for what you have been doing and stop doing it. I
found the posts where you ran from your source having been caught lying,
you then snipped the evidence out of your response to your running.
The thread: There is no legitimate scientific support for the ID scam.
I can post your quote mining attempts and other stupid behavior that you
resorted to to defend your running and defense of your bogus source.
So why don't you instead of talking about it?
Specific examples, please, not reams and reams of obfuscatory cut'n
paste.
On Sun, 16 Nov 2025 18:25:18 -0600, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>claiming you
wrote:
On 11/16/2025 4:40 PM, Martin Harran wrote:[rCa]
The links that I put up were from the Catholics that continue to be
geocentric creationists, and the Catholics that are trying to refute
them. Both sides do not agree with you. What does your continued
denial of reality tell you?
You gave no such links. All you have to do to prove me wrong is give
them again.
Do you not see how stupid you are making yourself look by
gave links but cannot repeat them?
Why lie about something so stupid. One of the links was your own
trusted Catholic site, and you initially gave that link.
That was this site:
https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/06342b.htm
The one where the Catholic Church states:
" In thus acting, it is undeniable that the ecclesiastical authorities
committed a grave and deplorable error, and sanctioned an altogether
false principle as to the proper use of Scripture."
The one that cites Professor Augustus De Morgan (Budget of Paradoxes)
declaring
"It is clear that the absurdity was the act of the Italian
Inquisition, for the private and personal pleasure of the pope - who
knew that the course he took could not convict him as pope - and not
of the body which calls itself the Church."
The one that cites von Gebler ("Galileo Galilei"):
"The Church never condemned it (the Copernican system) at all, for the
Qualifiers of the Holy Office never mean the Church."
It beats me how you figure out that site and the people referred to in
it somehow back your claim that heliocentrism really was a heresy. I
guess you have to convince yourself in order to maintain your delusion
as you clearly can't find a reputable source that actually does back
you up.
Yes, everyone admits that they were wrong about geocentrism except for
the Catholics that are still geocentrics. This source called what
Galileo faced both times a charge of heresy. They did not make a
distinction between formal heresy and heresy like the anti geocentric
site, but it was still a heresy.
What part of "The Church never condemned it (the Copernican system) at
all" did you not understand?
The only place that formal comes into all this is in the judgement
issued after Galileo's first trial where the verdict stated that the proposition that the Sun is stationary at the centre of the universe
is "foolish and absurd in philosophy, and formally heretical since it explicitly contradicts in many places the sense of Holy Scripture".
That, however, is t the Catholic Encyclopaedia refers to where it
says:
"it is undeniable that the ecclesiastical authorities committed a
grave and deplorable error, and sanctioned an altogether false
principle as to the proper use of Scripture."
Note also that the words "formally heretical" are wrong - I'm not sure whether it was the Inquisition using weasel words or whether it was a
bad translation from the Latin.
The word "heresy" can be used in two ways; it can apply to the
rejection of a specific doctrine of the Church or it can refer to the
act of committing heresy. The word "formal" applies to the latter -
the act of committing heresy - and is used to categorise the degree of
guilt of the person committing the heresy. "Formal heresy" means they
knew they were going against doctrine and are therefore guilty of
mortal sin; "material heresy" means they did not know they were going against doctrine so they are not guilty sin.
It's a bit like first degree versus second degree murder and Galileo's
trial was like him being charged with first-degree murder without a
murder being established in the first place.
The Inquisition made it into a formal heresy after the Council of Trent.
They were supposedly wrong, and a couple centuries later things got
reversed to what they had been at the time that the findings of the
Council of Trent were published.
The holy office (the inquisition) had Galileo facing a formal heresy
charge in his first encounter. When the pope got involved they just did
not call it a formal heresy in the sentencing. Galileo's views were
still condemned. They claimed that Galileo was facing a charge of
heresy. His heliocentric notions were still considered to be heresy and
the heresy that he was guilty of was clearly defined in the sentencing.
The anti geocentrics admitted that the pope had the Galileo case
published and disseminated throughout the church in order to quash the
heliocentric notions that were becoming an issue for the church. They
just want to claim that, that was not an official act. That is just
stupid. The pope did it for known reasons, and who cares if they want
to plead that he was not acting as pope?
There is no doubt that the actors were wrong, and that is the issue.
They do not want it to reflect on papal infallibility. That in itself
should be considered to be a non scriptural unjustifiable claim.
The Inquisition had Copernican writings banned and made heliocentrism
into a formal heresy because all the church fathers were geocentrics,
and that meant that Copernicans were in conflict with the beliefs of the
church fathers. Both the geocentric Catholics and the anti geocentric
Catholics claim that the Inquisition did this because of what the church
came up with at the Council of Trent where they made the beliefs of the
church fathers as a legitimate and necessary authority for interpreting
scripture. Both Catholic sides of the geocentric issue understand this
to be true.
QUOTE:
Council of Trent
Session IV, April 8, 1546, Decree Concerning the Edition and the Use of
the Sacred Books:
... "Furthermore, in order to restrain petulant spirits, it [the Council
of Trent] decrees that no one, relying on his own skill, shall,-in
matters of faith, and of morals pertaining to the edification of
Christian doctrine,-wresting the sacred Scriptures to his own senses,
presume to interpret the said sacred Scripture contrary to that sense
which holy Mother Church-to whom it belongs to judge of the true sense
and interpretation of the Holy Scriptures-hath held and doth hold; or
even contrary to the unanimous consent of the Fathers; even though such
interpretations were never (intended) to be at any time published.
Contraveners shall be made known by their Ordinaries and be punished
with the penalties by law established."
END QUOTE:
https://www.biblelightinfo.com/unanimous-consent.htm
Both Catholic sides of the issue claim that the Council of Trent caused
the Inquisition to ban Copernican writings and start treating
heliocentrism as a formal heresy because it went against the geocentric
beliefs of the church fathers.
You are taking all that crap from your geocentric hero; if you want to persist in taking his opinion against that of the Church's own
theologians then that is you just acting like Spikes rejecting the
opinion of scientists in favour of people who play to his confirmation
bias.
It was a mistake and the actors were in error only because of our
current understanding of nature. The Pope was wrong about it. He was
one of the mistaken actors.
The Pope was not a "mistaken actor", he was pissed off with Galileo presenting the Pope's views as those of a simpleton and misused his
powers to hit back at Galileo. Again, the Catholic Encyclopaedia
spells that explicitly:
"It is clear that the absurdity was the act of the Italian
Inquisition, for the private and personal pleasure of the pope - who
knew that the course he took could not convict him as pope - and not
of the body which calls itself the Church."
The Galileo affair was a shameful episode in the Church's history but
was all about the animosity between the Pope and Galileo, it had
nothing to do with heliocentrism being a heresy, that was just the
vehicle that the Pope used to attack Galileo.
On Mon, 17 Nov 2025 14:40:05 -0600, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>
wrote:
On 11/17/2025 11:45 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Mon, 17 Nov 2025 09:57:31 -0600, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>
wrote:
[...]
Oops, the Pope was not infallible.
So papal infallibility is another thing you don't understand.
I am just repeating what the anti geocentrist want to claim about it.
The "anti-geocentrists" of whom you cannot identify even one. Mind
you, when you first brought in the website of your geocentrist mentor,
it was anonymous and you didn't even know who the author was until I
figured out; the fact that he is a declared geocentrist and you knew
nothing about him didn't stop you placing high value on his opinions
and continuing to do so.
Weird to say the least.
[...]
On Wed, 19 Nov 2025 14:55:52 -0600, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>
wrote:
On 11/19/2025 12:01 PM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Mon, 17 Nov 2025 14:40:05 -0600, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>
wrote:
On 11/17/2025 11:45 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Mon, 17 Nov 2025 09:57:31 -0600, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>
wrote:
[...]
Oops, the Pope was not infallible.
So papal infallibility is another thing you don't understand.
I am just repeating what the anti geocentrist want to claim about it.
The "anti-geocentrists" of whom you cannot identify even one. Mind
you, when you first brought in the website of your geocentrist mentor,
it was anonymous and you didn't even know who the author was until I
figured out; the fact that he is a declared geocentrist and you knew
nothing about him didn't stop you placing high value on his opinions
and continuing to do so.
Weird to say the least.
[...]
You were given the links before,
Nope
so stop lying about it. Why should I
look up that junk again.
So you can prove I'm lying. But you can't because I'm not lying, you
gave no links except to the geocentrist idiot whose opinion you value
so highly.
You just denied that it was valid and kept
lying. Even your own trusted source backed up the anti geocentric site.
The anti geocentrists were on your side in terms of denying that it
was a formal heresy that Galileo faced the second time, but they agreed
with the geocentrists that the Inquisition had made it a formal heresy
charge the first time Galileo faced it and agreed with the Wiki. The
Vatican Observatory article that you have run from and snipped out of
this post backs up the geocentrists and anti geocentrists.
Just stop lying about the issue.
https://www.vaticanobservatory.org/sacred-space-astronomy/heliocentrism-condemned-400-years-ago-on-march-5-2/
They admit that helicentrism was condemned 400 years ago. 1616 is when
Galileo faced the formal heresy charge.
They do not consider the heresy cases, but they were based upon the
Inquisitions opinion of the topic.
Your claim of "never" having been condemned seems to be a lie.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galileo_Galilei
QUOTE:
In February 1616, an Inquisitorial commission declared heliocentrism to
be "foolish and absurd in philosophy, and formally heretical since it
explicitly contradicts in many places the sense of Holy Scripture".
END QUOTE:
Now YOU are the one lying about me. I never said it was never
condemned; on the contrary, I gave that exact same quote. What I did
was to point out that what it said was a FALSE CLAIM and it wasn't me
who came to that conclusion, it was the Catholic Church who came to
it, supported by every historian I know of who investigated it, people
like De Morgan and von Gebler. The only person I have ever known to
say there actually was a heresy is the geocentrist idiot whose opinion
you value so highly.
Both the geocentrists that you don't like, and the anti geocentric
catholics that do not agree with geocentric beliefs agreed that it was a
formal heresy charge the first time that Galileo faced the issue.
Now you seem to be trying to worm your way out of it by admitting
there was a *charge* without retracting that there was an actual
heresy which is what you have been claiming all long.
You can't just keep refusing to deal with reality and expect anything to
change.
You can't keep claiming support from "anti-geocentrists" about
heliocentrism having been an actual heresy without being able to
identify even one and expect people to take you seriously.
On Thu, 20 Nov 2025 09:38:56 -0600, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>heliocentrism to
wrote:
On 11/20/2025 4:47 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Wed, 19 Nov 2025 14:55:52 -0600, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>
wrote:
[snip for focus]
Your claim of "never" having been condemned seems to be a lie.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galileo_Galilei
QUOTE:
In February 1616, an Inquisitorial commission declared
be "foolish and absurd in philosophy, and formally heretical since it
explicitly contradicts in many places the sense of Holy Scripture".
END QUOTE:
Now YOU are the one lying about me. I never said it was never
condemned; on the contrary, I gave that exact same quote. What I did
was to point out that what it said was a FALSE CLAIM and it wasn't me
who came to that conclusion, it was the Catholic Church who came to
it, supported by every historian I know of who investigated it, people
like De Morgan and von Gebler. The only person I have ever known to
say there actually was a heresy is the geocentrist idiot whose opinion
you value so highly.
You put up the quote that said it had never been condemned. Go back up
and check. It was your quote.
Here is verbatim what I quoted:
Message-ID: 2gkkhk9bvctolude5jf6b6e0kothd5723d@4ax.com ========================================
<quote>
The [site] that cites von Gebler ("Galileo Galilei"):
"The Church never condemned it (the Copernican system) at all, for the Qualifiers of the Holy Office never mean the Church."
==========================================
#1: it was von Gebler who said rCLnever condemnedrCY, not me as you
claimed two posts ago.
#2 he did not say it was never condemned, he said *the Church* never condemned it.
Why do you post lies that are so easily shown to be lies?
On Fri, 21 Nov 2025 17:33:49 -0600, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>
wrote:
On 11/21/2025 12:29 PM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Fri, 21 Nov 2025 09:04:37 -0600, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>
wrote:
[rCa]
Let's cut to the chase here.
No lies to retract. You lied.
What lie are you claiming I told? Please quote exactly what I said
that you regard as a lie.
The ones that you keep telling.
"Never condemned"
I'm out of here. George Bernard Shaw warned that you shouldn't wrestle
with a pig as you get dirty and the pig enjoys it. I'm not going to
waste any more time trying to have a sensible discussion with someone
who thinks it's ok to take two words out of what somebody else said to
give a completely different meaning and then attribute those two words
to me. It doesn't even reach the level of quote-mining.
What beggars belief is that you do it where the exact quote from von
Gerber [1] and what I said about it are preserved just a couple of
posts above for all to see. As I noted earlier, it is really sad to
see this sort of behaviour from someone whose ability as a scientist I respect so much EfOU
===========================================
[1] "The Church never condemned it (the Copernican system) at all, for
the Qualifiers of the Holy Office never mean the Church."
[von Gebler ("Galileo Galilei")]
[..]
You should not continue to add to your own dishonest stupidity.
Trusting your source was obviously a stupid thing to do, and trying to
continue to support that source was just stupid and dishonest.
Ron Okimoto
On Mon, 18 May 2026 09:19:24 -0500, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>
wrote:
On 5/18/2026 4:23 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
[rCa]
No quote provided - QEDWhat a nut job the whole REPOST is a giant quote of you doing what you
It beats me what you think you are achieving here - everyone can see
that you cannot produce a quote from the Wiki article saying what you
insist it says, even though I was able to quote the extract that
contradicts your claim.
Your continual reposting of 000's of words that have nobody will read
reminds me of a 5 year old child having a meltdown, stamping their
feet and screaming but being ignored by the adults until they learn
that their bad behaviour will get them nothing.
are lying about doing.
No, it's a pathetic attempt by you to cover up for you not being able
to give a single quote from the Wiki article supporting your
insistence that it says Galileo faced a heresy charge in 1616.
[rCa]
On Sun, 22 Feb 2026 13:40:10 -0600, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>what you
wrote:
On 2/22/2026 10:18 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Sat, 21 Feb 2026 12:44:57 -0600, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>
wrote:
On 2/21/2026 11:59 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
What documents are you talking about that you keep saying the Jesuits
put up?
You can keep lying about what has been discussed, but you know
was notdid. You need to be the one that finds it and satisfy yourself with
what you did.
You put up your source lying about heliocentrism never being condemned
by anyone but the Inquisition. You claimed that the Inquisition
ordered bythe Church. I put up the Jesuit Observatory claim that the Papal
offices had condemned heliocentrism and this condemnation was
sources havethe Pope. They put up the relevant document and stated what the Pope
did. Your source was caught lying and you ran. Go find it. It is
something that you should do because you will uncover all your other
evasions on this issue while doing it. Your quotes of your
always come up short. The sources that you claim are unreliable, have
repeatedly been shown to be more reliable than what you come up with.
Oh, you mean the link you gave back in November, this one:
https://www.vaticanobservatory.org/sacred-space-astronomy/heliocentrism-condemned-400-years-ago-on-march-5-2/
The one where they posted the full 1616 decree on it's 400th
anniversary and commented:
<quote>
The formulation here is much milder than the one found in the working
document of February 24. The Decree talks about the "false Pythagorean
doctrine" and declare it "altogether contrary to the Holy Scripture".
This is not nearly as harsh as "foolish and absurd" philosophically,
and "formally heretical" because contrary to Scripture.
</quote>
How fucking dense can you be? It doesn't get much stupider than
posting something that contradicts what you are claiming.
If I am the dense one why did you run from what they admitted about the
document?
LOL, you post something that you think supports your claim but
actually rejects it and the best defence you can offer is to accuse me
of running away from it.
The Pope did condemn heliocentrism.
Beats me why you keep repeating this. The Pope did not personally
condemn heliocentrism, he allowed the Inquisition's condemnation of it
to be made public - that did not make it a heresy.
That is what your side was lying
about.
The only one telling lies here is you. For example, when you keep
insisting that all the "anti-geocentrists" in the Catholic
Encyclopaedia article agree with you that heliocentrism was a heresy
when they all say explicitly that it wasn't. Your lie is underlined by
the fact that you can't produce identify any source that agrees that heliocentrism was a heresy except your geocentrist mentors.
reality.It doesn't matter that the final wording was milder than the
initial draft. They admit that the Pope condemned heliocentrism, and
supported using the Council of Trent's scriptural interpretation on the
matter. It doesn't matter what it was called because the authors and
books are named. You ran from this link because your source was found
to have lied about heliocentrism never having been condemned except by
the Inquisition. The Pope obviously represents the Church and condemned
heliocentrism. He supported the Inquisition in 1616, and their
additions to the Index in order to protect against heresy. The books
would not have been added to the Index if they were not considered to be
heretical. The document even talks about the heretical parts of the
books, and indicates that after one of them is rewritten, so that it is
not against scripture, that it can be removed from the Index.
Keep lying to yourself about the issue. It isn't going to change
The Inquisition made heliocentrism a formal heresy in 1615-1616.
The decree is given in full on the Vatican Observatory site that you
tried to claim supports you and the word 'heresy' or 'heretical' does
not even appear in it.
They
did this because of their interpretation of scripture as the Council of
Trent had decided.
The decree doesn't make any reference whatsoever to Trent regarding interpretation of scripture; the one and only reference is to the *punishment* under Trent for disobeying the decree.
They added heliocentric writings to the Index,
They declare that "the books by Nicolaus Copernicus (On the
Revolutions of Spheres) and by Diego de Zu|#iga (On Job) be suspended
until corrected".
I've given details of the required corrections to Revolutions in a
different post to Harshman and they are all minor edits - not one of
them makes any change to the core principle of heliocentrism. A rather
weird declaration of heresy that allows Copernicus's book supporting
it to be published with minor edits that don't undermine his
proposition.
and
had their first encounter with Galileo. The Pope agreed with them and
condemned heliocentrism, and agreed with their additions to the Index of
banned writings.
Before your source lied about "never being condemned" the Pope's
involvement in 1616 was not an issue between the geocentric and
anti-geocentric Catholics in terms of what you were lying about at the
time. Both sides agreed that it was a formal heresy charge faced by
Galileo in 1615-1616. They disagreed about it being a formal heresy
charge the second time because it was only written up as "heresy" and
not formal heresy in the sentencing. It remained a heresy charge.
You obviously struggle with grasping that a *charge* does not make
someone guilty. I hope I'm never on trial for something I didn't do
with you on the jury.
The
Pope had the Galileo case, sentencing, and punishment published and
distributed throughout the Church in order to quash the heliocentric
heresy, but the guys that want to maintain Papal infallibility claim
that that was not an official Papal action. They admitted that there
was an issue with helicentrism at the time, but they do not want the
Pope to have been on the wrong side of the issue.
You need to deal with reality.
I think it's very clear who has the problem with accepting reality and
it's not me.
It is well understood that the Bible is
just wrong about a lot of things that we can figure out for ourselves.
Your own quotes from Pope Francis makes that claim. The Bible can be
misinterpreted because the author's understanding of the creation was
faulty. Francis knows that the universe was not created in 6 magic
episodes. Only those in complete denial do not understand that the
order of creation described in the Bible is wrong. There are still
young earth, old earth day for agers, geocentric, and flat earth
Biblical creationists because they are in the same type of denial that
you are in. There are just different levels of denial.
Ron Okimoto
| Sysop: | Amessyroom |
|---|---|
| Location: | Fayetteville, NC |
| Users: | 65 |
| Nodes: | 6 (0 / 6) |
| Uptime: | 06:57:11 |
| Calls: | 862 |
| Files: | 1,311 |
| D/L today: |
921 files (14,318M bytes) |
| Messages: | 264,771 |
