Re: Ron O makes more accusations but his cowardice to produce quotes

On Nov 17, 1:00 pm, Ray Martinez <pyramid...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Nov 17, 4:52 am, Ron O <rokim...@xxxxxxx> wrote:





On Nov 16, 11:37 pm, "Aerion" <Aer...@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

"T Pagano" <not.va...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message

news:apagano-g5c1i41lipdkj5h5731ougbmmo4jgt8d83@xxxxxxxxxx
On Sat, 15 Nov 2008 15:04:26 -0800 (PST), Ron O <rokim...@xxxxxxx>
wrote:

On Nov 15, 4:35 pm, T Pagano <not.va...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Sat, 15 Nov 2008 12:01:52 -0800 (PST), Ron O <rokim...@xxxxxxx>
wrote:

While an engineer at N.A.S.A, I worked with a Tony Pagano who
was an engineer with a contractor company. Was that you by any
chance?

snip

On talk origins there is something called the Salem hypothesis.  The
assertion is that engineers seem to be more susceptible to the
scientific creationist claptrap.  There seems to be a disproportionate
number of engineers that accept the creationist arguments.  As a group
engineers should not be anti-science.  They are restricted to the same
set of rules that science is restricted to.  You have to expect that
things in nature will work about the same tomorrow as they do today.
You have to limit yourself to naturalistic explanations or you would
likely lose your job.  You have to be able to verify everything that
you do or someone's life may be on the line.  Yet there are a lot of
engineers that do not understand that science has to work the same
way.

Take the intelligent design scam.  The purpose of the whole scam was
to use ID as a wedge to get supernatural explanations to be allowed
into the science class.  When the Ohio State board of education found
out that ID wasn't science some of them proposed to change the
definition of science to allow the supernatural so ID could be taught
in the science class.  When would an engineer be allowed to use a
supernatural explanation to do their jobs?  Never.  There has never
been a supernatural explanation verified in nature.  We have filled a
lot of the unknown, but with natural explanations.  It isn't that
supernatural explanations haven't been put forward.  "God's plan" or
"God did it" was the default explanation for Western science for
centuries, but it never amounted to anything.  100% failure of the
assertion.  That is why engineers can't use it, and neither can
science.  It is really that simple.  If the concept did work and it
was useful for something we would all be using it or be left behind.

This is so much hot air.

In July/August 2008 I challenged the atheists in the forum to advance
their best arguments with my extensive talk.origin record as evidence
to show, if they could, that

1. Espousal of anti-darwinist positions are necessarily also
anti-science, or
2. that creationist positions in general are also by necessity
anti-science

Of the dozen or more opponents one or two conceded that I was not
anti-science, most were childishly ad hominem, and not a single quote
of my work was ever produced---NOT ONE. Ron O never produced a single
purported vacuous quote either.

And Harshman was the only one who actually produced anything
resembling a substantive argument. He argued that my criticism of
Induction made my position anti-science. Unfortunately he never
showed how Induction, which is logically invalid, was required for the
practice of science.

While everyone in the forum is wrong sometimes Ron O couldn't prove
with a series of my quotes that my position is vacuous if his life
depended on it. In fact, let's see if Ron O has any guts. Let him
demonstrate with the very post of mine he links to below to
demonstrate the vacuousness of my position:

Oh yeah I remember.  This is where you refuted your own contention
that you were not anti-science in your response to the first list.

http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/0c852f06caf68a90?hl=e...

If you left anything out about science that you didn't accept, let me
know.

Your posts are not attributing properly.  Pagano said this:

More hot air from Ron O but he again fails to produce quotes to
justify his hot air accusations.

A link to a post does not an argument make.  Had I really refuted my
one contention it would have been much sweeter to have posted my
quotes, but they are noticeably and totally absent.

It should be noted that in the challenge to the atheists to
demonstrate with my t.o quotes that I am anti-science Ron O produced
not one quote he says are abundant and not one substantive argument.

End Pagano Rant:

Ron O is a little more than an atheist cheerleading coward.

Pagano knows that I am not an atheist, but to guys like Pagano anyone
that doesn't believe what they do is an atheist.  I am a Methodist.  I
even admitted to Pagano that I pray to God.  You have to have a
strange definition of athiest to fit me in.

How does anyone verify your claims of being a Christian?

How do we know you are not lying or confused?

Because unlike you, I usually put forward things that anyone can
confirm.

Got any examples where I have lied. My wife teaches Sunday school,
and we do have receipts for what we donate to the church for tax
purposes.


Since you side with Atheists concerning origin of living things this
position contradicts your claim about yourself. Since Atheists defend
and support and agree with you the same is evidence that you are
either a liar or confused.

I side with the science, not the atheists. There is more than one
post where I've taken pot shots at the atheists if I think that they
have oversteped what they can claim. I just don't keep such posts
cataloged and if you want to you can search through my posts and look
for some. There was some thread within the last few months that got
pretty disgusting, but I can't recall what it was about. There is
someone that is likely confused, but it isn't me. You probably should
get help, Ray. I don't know how to help you. You know why I
basically leave you alone. Do you ever wonder why you have so much to
get angry about? Do you ever wonder why none of your arguments ever
impress anyone? You even dis guys like Adman for not being
creationist enough. Do you know what that means? It means that you
are alone in your own state of mind. Do you understand why I would
call someone like Sean Pitman a liar, but I avoid putting the same tag
on you?

Ron Okimoto


The Bible provides a full-proof litmus test to determine who is
walking with God and who is not. Rejection by secular AND mainstream
religious community determines if you are walking with God.

St. Paul: he was vilified by both and spent much of his life in prison
for preaching the gospel of Christ.

Jesus: He was rejected by his own people and crucified when the Temple
leaders incited the Romans to do their bidding.

Secular and mainstream religious support Rom Okimoto; therefore, he is
not a Christian and he is not walking with God.

Jesus said His true disciples would be treated like Him: slandered as
a demon possessed liar. The enemies of Christ (= Atheists) support Ron
Okimoto tooth and nail because he aint a real Christian.

How do we explain Ron's belief about himself ("I am a Christian")?

The same way the Bible explains original Apostle Judas: controlled-
deceived by Satan. The Bible explains Ron and the Clergy Letter
Project.





I am not alone in opposing this whole creationist mess.  The
Methodists have been against this modern resurgence of anti-science
junk since the scientific creationists started up about 40 years ago.
They were against teaching scientific creationism in the science class
back during the Arkansas trial in 1980-1981.  Some people do
understand the difference between science and religion, and religion
does not belong in the science class.

You don't have to be an atheist to be against something that is just
plain wrong.  Pagano and Ray should be enough to convince anyone that
we really do need a separation of church and state.  Would any
rational person want people like that responsible for teaching their
kids anything?  I have admitted that the regular anti-science
creationist posters that have posted for years are a select group.
The more rational types just do not last long defending the poor state
of the arguments that they are stuck with, but it does indicate just
how poor the arguments are if only these guys are willing to keep
repeating them.

Ron Okimoto

Ray-

.

Relevant Pages