Re: Pagano fails to explain his recent blunders but has time to make ad hominem attacks

On Mar 4, 7:21 am, "Frank J" <f...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Mar 4, 7:49 am, "Ron O" <rokim...@xxxxxxx> wrote:





On Mar 3, 10:31 pm, Lee Oswald Ving <leeov...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

T Pagano <not.va...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in news:apagano-
a5uju2pj83n34s6ju3die95s6dk5hqm...@xxxxxxx:

Nonetheless he has time to make ad hominem remarks which he couldn't
demonstrate if his life depended on it. And his epithets against me
certainly aren't saving Okimoto. Okimoto certainly never read Behe's
Dover testimony. His only hope now is that who ever gave him the
snipet about Behe's testimony is correct. Otherwise I'm going to a
have field day.

IOW, Pagano hasn't read said testimony, and is *hoping* Ron hasn't.

Pathetic.

<snip>

Forlorn hope. I read the transcript so long ago (I admit to skipping
a whole lot, just try and read that kind of thing, and I tried to
print the parts that I wanted. The NCSE had files or links to them),
that the print out could be in a stack somewhere, but it probably went
in recycling. After Pags reads Behe's testimony, I'd say that he'd
never use Behe as a source of anything again, but you know Pags.
Minnich was much more subdued. He had seen Behe blow it big time, and
he only answered the questions and didn't elaborate. Nothing about ID
equivalent to astrology, that the Big designer could be dead, or that
he didn't think that he had to test his ID notions. He still had to
back Behe in that he nor anyone that he knew of had or was
scientifically testing ID, and that he nor anyone that he knew of had
published any science to support ID. It turned out that ID was only
science in their minds and that they hadn't bothered to actually do
any science in all the years that they had been collecting their
stipends from the Discovery Institute. As far as real science was
concerned it was money well spent by the Discovery Institute, or we
wouldn't have had those "experts" to tell us how bogus ID is.

Speaking of "money well spent," the Templeton Foundation apparently
funded ID in its early days. While some critics complained from the
beginning, how else would we know that, not only did ID have virtually
no chance of scientific success, but that the ID scammers *knew* that
from the beginning? That an organization that bends over backwards to
give the benefit of the doubt to the most far-fetched ideas (lets not
forget that most scientific advances start out that way) admits that
ID is a fraud speaks more volumes than all the evolutionary biologists
on Earth.

My own irony is that, when I received $ for R&D I would often
apologize to the sponsors for the inordinately high % that had to go
to "feed the bureaucrats." In the DI's case, every penny went for
something other than R&D that could have supported a theory that could
replace evolution.



It
would have been a much better show if Meyer and Dembski hadn't run
away. Why would those two want their own lawyers? You can't plead
the fifth when you are an expert witness, can you? I can't imagine
them getting on the stand and answering "My lawyer says that I cannot
answer that questions on the grounds that the answer might incriminate
me."

Ron Okimoto- Hide quoted text -


It is a sad fact that "non-profit" doesn't mean that no one makes
money. The senior fellows at the Discovery Institute have probably
cleared well over half a million dollar each since Renewal of Science
and Culture was started. I don't know what guys like West and Meyer
get's paid on top of that. The Wedgies have a weird sense of morality
when it comes to this funding. When the Wedge document came out they
tried to ignore it, but then had to admit that they wrote it, but they
claimed that it was only a "fund raising" document. In order to
perpetuate their dishonest political scam they were willing to claim
that they lied in order to bilk money out of the creationist rubes
that they conned into giving them money using the Wedge document.
They admitted responsibility for the Wedge document, so they either
lied in the document, were lying about the political scam, or were
both lying in the document and about the political scam. At the time
they had enough faith that the guys that they were lying to, wanted to
be lied to, that they went with the excuse that they were dishonestly
fund raising rather than admit that they were running a dishonest
political scam. The wonder is that their supporters accepted the
excuse. Was there ever a case of someone wanting their money back?

Ron Okimoto

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: I Dream of Jeanne
    ... :> order to make money. ... I don't want the government investing per se. ... manned spaceflight except for Mir. ... Science in general? ...
    (sci.space.policy)
  • Re: BBC - Astronomers must make own case
    ... Persuading politicians is at least as important as ... want this money year in and year out. ... Science is typically bastardised. ... If governments want to alleviate the pain, ...
    (uk.sci.astronomy)
  • Re: "Political Correctness" drives scientific errors
    ... is big money involved, then hazards have to be proven *unambiguously*; ... > validate bad science. ... global climate' was written into the report "after the scientists ... The replications will strengthen the conclusions of ...
    (sci.physics)
  • Re: The Enemies of Reason Part 2 (Channel 4, 20/08/2007)
    ... In that case can we have back the ten million quid of NHS money that the ... I think you and Dawkins should count yourselves lucky that the 25% of the ... As I said we live in a democrarcy not a scientocrarcy. ... That has nothing to do with science. ...
    (uk.media.tv.misc)
  • Re: BBC - Astronomers must make own case
    ... Professor Sir Martin Rees who is now Chairman of the Royal Institution ... girls with no interest in science. ... Still, if that's the folks whose money astronomers want, then they're ...
    (uk.sci.astronomy)