On 25 Feb 2024 at 18:18:41 GMT, "J. J. Lodder" <J. J. Lodder> wrote:

> David B. <bdb@nomail.afraid.org> wrote:
> [talk.origins added]
>
>> "Secrets of the Cell with Michael Behe"
>>
>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gw94qm4qdn8
>>
>> The video is about half an hour long. I found the content absolutely
>> fascinating.
>>
>> No longer do I believe in Darwin's Theory of Evolution!
>
> Good for you!
>
>> If you take the time out to watch this video presentation, I'd be really
>> interested to learn what YOU think about what you've seen and heard.
>
> May I point you to to the newsgroup talk.origins ?
> They are badly in need of fresh creationists there.
> [Fto: set]
>
> They'll gladly tell you there what they think of Michael Behe,
>
> Jan

That's very kind of you to so advise, Jan.

Thank you.

--
David

On 2/25/24 10:38 AM, David B. wrote:
> On 25 Feb 2024 at 18:18:41 GMT, "J. J. Lodder" <J. J. Lodder> wrote:
>
>> David B. <bdb@nomail.afraid.org> wrote:
>> [talk.origins added]
>>
>>> "Secrets of the Cell with Michael Behe"
>>>
>>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gw94qm4qdn8
>>>
>>> The video is about half an hour long. I found the content absolutely
>>> fascinating.
>>>
>>> No longer do I believe in Darwin's Theory of Evolution!
>>
>> Good for you!
>>
>>> If you take the time out to watch this video presentation, I'd be really
>>> interested to learn what YOU think about what you've seen and heard.
>>
>> May I point you to to the newsgroup talk.origins ?
>> They are badly in need of fresh creationists there.
>> [Fto: set]
>>
>> They'll gladly tell you there what they think of Michael Behe,
>>
>> Jan
>
> That's very kind of you to so advise, Jan.
>
> Thank you.
>
I'm bemused that Google's disinvolvment with groups has led to new
creationists and a couple of older ones to appear (or reappear). For a
while it looked as though there were none left. For the record, I think
Behe is pretty close to being a crank. Ain't tenure wonderful?

On Feb 25, 2024, erik simpson wrote
(in article<a0af9cb8-49a0-4913-af82-c9514e93e9b9@gmail.com>):

> On 2/25/24 10:38 AM, David B. wrote:
> > On 25 Feb 2024 at 18:18:41 GMT, "J. J. Lodder" <J. J. Lodder> wrote:
> >
> > > David B. <bdb@nomail.afraid.org> wrote:
> > > [talk.origins added]
> > >
> > > > "Secrets of the Cell with Michael Behe"
> > > >
> > > > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gw94qm4qdn8
> > > >
> > > > The video is about half an hour long. I found the content absolutely
> > > > fascinating.
> > > >
> > > > No longer do I believe in Darwin's Theory of Evolution!
> > >
> > > Good for you!
> > >
> > > > If you take the time out to watch this video presentation, I'd be really
> > > > interested to learn what YOU think about what you've seen and heard.
> > >
> > > May I point you to to the newsgroup talk.origins ?
> > > They are badly in need of fresh creationists there.
> > > [Fto: set]
> > >
> > > They'll gladly tell you there what they think of Michael Behe,
> > >
> > > Jan
> >
> > That's very kind of you to so advise, Jan.
> >
> > Thank you.
> I'm bemused that Google's disinvolvment with groups has led to new
> creationists and a couple of older ones to appear (or reappear). For a
> while it looked as though there were none left. For the record, I think
> Behe is pretty close to being a crank. Ain't tenure wonderful?

Warning: David Brooks is a stalker and a troll and a complete nutball. He’s
on A Mission From God to prove that certain software, including but not
limited to EtreCheck (a Mac utility) and ClamXAV (a Mac anti-malware system)
are scams, frauds, malware conduits, and more. He is of the opinion that the
devs of those apps, and the mods at Apple Support Communities and assorted
other Mac fora, are all in a conspiracy to silence him, which is why he’s
banned. (Do you know how hard it is to get banned from ASC? He got banned,
was unbanned on the condition that he behaved, and then permabanned because
he refused to behave. He is currently sockpuppeting away at ASC, and his
socks are getting banned, so he’s on and on and on about it in other
places, including Bleeping Computer. Don’t take my word for it, he’s
dumped all over several Mac newsgroups, you casn have a look. Note that he
likes to change nyms to avoid kill files.)

He got bounced out of the Royal Navy two steps ahead of a court for conduct
unbecoming involving three black recruits. Three male black recruits. It’s
not as if the RN was overflowing with blacks...

He’s a whack job. Don’t give him any personal info, he WILL attempt to
use it to stalk you. He has, on several occasions, threatened to contact my
employers to have me disciplined, and has contacted SuperNews, my news feed,
to get my account revoked at least twice. You’ll notice that I still post
via SuperNews.

He’s on a par with Nando.

On 25 Feb 2024 at 20:42:03 GMT, "WolfFan" is a *LIAR!

> He got bounced out of the Royal Navy two steps ahead of a court for conduct
> unbecoming involving three black recruits. Three male black recruits. It’s
> not as if the RN was overflowing with blacks...

FALSE!

On 25 Feb 2024 at 18:52:30 GMT, "erik simpson" <eastside.erik@gmail.com>
wrote:

> For the record, I think
> Behe is pretty close to being a crank.

What evidence do you have for reaching such a conclusion, Erik?

TIA

On 2/25/24 2:49 PM, David B. wrote:
> On 25 Feb 2024 at 18:52:30 GMT, "erik simpson" <eastside.erik@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> For the record, I think
>> Behe is pretty close to being a crank.
>
> What evidence do you have for reaching such a conclusion, Erik?
>
> TIA
>
Senior Fellow at Discovery Institute says all you need to know.

On 25 Feb 2024 at 23:04:07 GMT, "erik simpson" <eastside.erik@gmail.com>
wrote:

> On 2/25/24 2:49 PM, David B. wrote:
>> On 25 Feb 2024 at 18:52:30 GMT, "erik simpson" <eastside.erik@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> For the record, I think
>>> Behe is pretty close to being a crank.
>>
>> What evidence do you have for reaching such a conclusion, Erik?
>>
>> TIA
>>
> Senior Fellow at Discovery Institute says all you need to know.

I've not heard of the organisation before. I've read here:-
https://www.discovery.org/about/

What do you feel is contentious?

On Feb 25, 2024, David B. wrote
(in article <l41nvoFr6ajU1@mid.individual.net>):

> On 25 Feb 2024 at 20:42:03 GMT, "WolfFan" is a *LIAR!

the truth burns you, boyo
>
>
> > He got bounced out of the Royal Navy two steps ahead of a court for conduct
> > unbecoming involving three black recruits. Three male black recruits. It’s
> > not as if the RN was overflowing with blacks...
>
> FALSE!

notice how he doesn’t even try to deny the other points. He just hates
being outed. poor boy.

On 2/25/24 3:24 PM, David B. wrote:
> On 25 Feb 2024 at 23:04:07 GMT, "erik simpson" <eastside.erik@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> On 2/25/24 2:49 PM, David B. wrote:
>>> On 25 Feb 2024 at 18:52:30 GMT, "erik simpson" <eastside.erik@gmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> For the record, I think
>>>> Behe is pretty close to being a crank.
>>>
>>> What evidence do you have for reaching such a conclusion, Erik?
>>>
>>> TIA
>>>
>> Senior Fellow at Discovery Institute says all you need to know.
>
> I've not heard of the organisation before. I've read here:-
> https://www.discovery.org/about/
>
> What do you feel is contentious?
>
The focus on Intellligent Design (ID). This has been kicked around on
this group for many years, and has its proponents. Obviously, I'm not
one of them. I don't propose to re-argue this subject. Check through
prior discussions here if you want to get the flavor of it. I'm not
interested in getting involved in such a discussion.

On 25 Feb 2024 at 23:35:17 GMT, "erik simpson" <eastside.erik@gmail.com>
wrote:

> On 2/25/24 3:24 PM, David B. wrote:
>> On 25 Feb 2024 at 23:04:07 GMT, "erik simpson" <eastside.erik@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On 2/25/24 2:49 PM, David B. wrote:
>>>> On 25 Feb 2024 at 18:52:30 GMT, "erik simpson" <eastside.erik@gmail.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> For the record, I think
>>>>> Behe is pretty close to being a crank.
>>>>
>>>> What evidence do you have for reaching such a conclusion, Erik?
>>>>
>>>> TIA
>>>>
>>> Senior Fellow at Discovery Institute says all you need to know.
>>
>> I've not heard of the organisation before. I've read here:-
>> https://www.discovery.org/about/
>>
>> What do you feel is contentious?
>>
> The focus on Intellligent Design (ID). This has been kicked around on
> this group for many years, and has its proponents. Obviously, I'm not
> one of them. I don't propose to re-argue this subject. Check through
> prior discussions here if you want to get the flavor of it. I'm not
> interested in getting involved in such a discussion.

OK. Thanks, Erik.

If you can point me to any specific past discussion, it will be much
appreciated.

--
David

On 2/25/24 3:44 PM, David B. wrote:
> On 25 Feb 2024 at 23:35:17 GMT, "erik simpson" <eastside.erik@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> On 2/25/24 3:24 PM, David B. wrote:
>>> On 25 Feb 2024 at 23:04:07 GMT, "erik simpson" <eastside.erik@gmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 2/25/24 2:49 PM, David B. wrote:
>>>>> On 25 Feb 2024 at 18:52:30 GMT, "erik simpson" <eastside.erik@gmail.com>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> For the record, I think
>>>>>> Behe is pretty close to being a crank.
>>>>>
>>>>> What evidence do you have for reaching such a conclusion, Erik?
>>>>>
>>>>> TIA
>>>>>
>>>> Senior Fellow at Discovery Institute says all you need to know.
>>>
>>> I've not heard of the organisation before. I've read here:-
>>> https://www.discovery.org/about/
>>>
>>> What do you feel is contentious?
>>>
>> The focus on Intellligent Design (ID). This has been kicked around on
>> this group for many years, and has its proponents. Obviously, I'm not
>> one of them. I don't propose to re-argue this subject. Check through
>> prior discussions here if you want to get the flavor of it. I'm not
>> interested in getting involved in such a discussion.
>
> OK. Thanks, Erik.
>
> If you can point me to any specific past discussion, it will be much
> appreciated.
>
I've deleted all but this year's discussions. Go to Google Groups and
you can see everything except the most recent posts. Posts by Peter
Nyikos and the responses to his posts will discover the hottest discussions.

On 25 Feb 2024 at 23:30:47 GMT, "WolfFan" - *Usenet LIAR*
>
> notice how he doesn’t even try to deny the other points. He just hates
> being outed. poor boy.

Words That Harm

The tongue is a fire, a world of unrighteousness. The tongue is set among our
members, staining the whole body, setting on fire the entire course of life,
and set on fire by hell … No human being can tame the tongue.

James 3:6, James 3:8

Three things never come back: the spent arrow, the spoken word, and the lost
opportunity. What we say cannot be unsaid. What’s more, we will be called to
account for every word we have spoken—even our careless ones—at the day of
reckoning (see Matthew 12:36). As King Solomon put it, “Whoever guards his
mouth preserves his life; he who opens wide his lips comes to ruin” (Proverbs
13:3); and “Death and life are in the power of the tongue” (18:21). Our words
can serve to encourage, to nourish, and to heal. But they can also cause
strife, create dissension, and do harm. Solomon gives us a multifaceted
picture of what characterizes such harmful words. He describes words that harm
as those that are reckless, as being “like sword thrusts” (12:18). Our words
so often spill forth unguardedly, and we become someone who “gives an answer
before he hears” (18:13). “When words are many, transgression is not lacking”
(10:19).

You will likely have heard the saying that sticks and stones can break our
bones, but words can never harm us—but that is dead wrong. Bruises may fade
and the marks they made be forgotten. But hurtful words that have been said to
us and about us tend to remain with us for a long time. Truer are these lines:

A careless word may kindle strife,
A cruel word may wreck a life,
A bitter word may hate instill,
A brutal word may smite and kill.
It would be difficult to estimate how many friendships are broken, how many
reputations are ruined, or the peace of how many homes is destroyed through
harmful words. The very source of all such animosity and abusive language,
according to James, is none other than hell itself. Yes, our tongue is “a
fire,” and “no human being can tame the tongue” without the work of God’s Holy
Spirit.

Stop and think of how many words you have used in the last 24 hours, and how
they were used. “Death and life are in the power of the tongue”—so did any of
your words cause harm, tearing someone else down in some way? That is a sin to
be repented of and turned from. Is that something you need to do, both before
God and to the person to whom those words were spoken?

Then think of the words you may speak over the next 24 hours. How might they
be used to bring life? How might you reflect the one who “committed no sin,
neither was deceit found in his mouth”? Rather, “when he was reviled, he did
not revile in return … He himself bore our sins … that we might die to sin and
live to righteousness” (1 Peter 2:22-24).

erik simpson formulated on Sunday :
> On 2/25/24 3:44 PM, David B. wrote:
>> On 25 Feb 2024 at 23:35:17 GMT, "erik simpson" <eastside.erik@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On 2/25/24 3:24 PM, David B. wrote:
>>>> On 25 Feb 2024 at 23:04:07 GMT, "erik simpson" <eastside.erik@gmail.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On 2/25/24 2:49 PM, David B. wrote:
>>>>>> On 25 Feb 2024 at 18:52:30 GMT, "erik simpson"
>>>>>> <eastside.erik@gmail.com>
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> For the record, I think
>>>>>>> Behe is pretty close to being a crank.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> What evidence do you have for reaching such a conclusion, Erik?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> TIA
>>>>>>
>>>>> Senior Fellow at Discovery Institute says all you need to know.
>>>>
>>>> I've not heard of the organisation before. I've read here:-
>>>> https://www.discovery.org/about/
>>>>
>>>> What do you feel is contentious?
>>>>
>>> The focus on Intellligent Design (ID). This has been kicked around on
>>> this group for many years, and has its proponents. Obviously, I'm not
>>> one of them. I don't propose to re-argue this subject. Check through
>>> prior discussions here if you want to get the flavor of it. I'm not
>>> interested in getting involved in such a discussion.
>>
>> OK. Thanks, Erik.
>>
>> If you can point me to any specific past discussion, it will be much
>> appreciated.
>>
> I've deleted all but this year's discussions. Go to Google Groups and you
> can see everything except the most recent posts. Posts by Peter Nyikos and
> the responses to his posts will discover the hottest discussions.

Does GG still archive NNTP articles?

erik simpson <eastside.erik@gmail.com> writes:

> On 2/25/24 3:24 PM, David B. wrote:
>> On 25 Feb 2024 at 23:04:07 GMT, "erik simpson"
>> <eastside.erik@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On 2/25/24 2:49 PM, David B. wrote:
>>>> On 25 Feb 2024 at 18:52:30 GMT, "erik simpson"
>>>> <eastside.erik@gmail.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> For the record, I think Behe is pretty close to being a crank.
>>>>
>>>> What evidence do you have for reaching such a conclusion, Erik?
>>>>
>>>> TIA
>>>>
>>> Senior Fellow at Discovery Institute says all you need to know.
>> I've not heard of the organisation before. I've read here:-
>> https://www.discovery.org/about/ What do you feel is contentious?
>>
> The focus on Intellligent Design (ID). This has been kicked around on
> this group for many years, and has its proponents. Obviously, I'm not
> one of them. I don't propose to re-argue this subject. Check through
> prior discussions here if you want to get the flavor of it. I'm not
> interested in getting involved in such a discussion.

In a group whose description is "Evolution versus creationism (sometimes
hot!)." I would have thought the subject will come up over and over.

On 26 Feb 2024 at 00:17:23 GMT, "erik simpson" <eastside.erik@gmail.com>
wrote:

> On 2/25/24 3:44 PM, David B. wrote:
>> On 25 Feb 2024 at 23:35:17 GMT, "erik simpson" <eastside.erik@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On 2/25/24 3:24 PM, David B. wrote:
>>>> On 25 Feb 2024 at 23:04:07 GMT, "erik simpson" <eastside.erik@gmail.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On 2/25/24 2:49 PM, David B. wrote:
>>>>>> On 25 Feb 2024 at 18:52:30 GMT, "erik simpson" <eastside.erik@gmail.com>
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> For the record, I think
>>>>>>> Behe is pretty close to being a crank.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> What evidence do you have for reaching such a conclusion, Erik?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> TIA
>>>>>>
>>>>> Senior Fellow at Discovery Institute says all you need to know.
>>>>
>>>> I've not heard of the organisation before. I've read here:-
>>>> https://www.discovery.org/about/
>>>>
>>>> What do you feel is contentious?
>>>>
>>> The focus on Intellligent Design (ID). This has been kicked around on
>>> this group for many years, and has its proponents. Obviously, I'm not
>>> one of them. I don't propose to re-argue this subject. Check through
>>> prior discussions here if you want to get the flavor of it. I'm not
>>> interested in getting involved in such a discussion.
>>
>> OK. Thanks, Erik.
>>
>> If you can point me to any specific past discussion, it will be much
>> appreciated.
>>
> I've deleted all but this year's discussions. Go to Google Groups and
> you can see everything except the most recent posts. Posts by Peter
> Nyikos and the responses to his posts will discover the hottest discussions.

Thank you again, Erik!

I found him here:-
https://groups.google.com/g/talk.origins/c/R_eO1Sek5RM/m/BmhA91GQFOsJ

On 26 Feb 2024 at 11:18:39 GMT, "FromTheRafters" <FTR@nomail.afraid.org>
wrote:

> erik simpson formulated on Sunday :
>> On 2/25/24 3:44 PM, David B. wrote:
>>> On 25 Feb 2024 at 23:35:17 GMT, "erik simpson" <eastside.erik@gmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 2/25/24 3:24 PM, David B. wrote:
>>>>> On 25 Feb 2024 at 23:04:07 GMT, "erik simpson" <eastside.erik@gmail.com>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 2/25/24 2:49 PM, David B. wrote:
>>>>>>> On 25 Feb 2024 at 18:52:30 GMT, "erik simpson"
>>>>>>> <eastside.erik@gmail.com>
>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> For the record, I think
>>>>>>>> Behe is pretty close to being a crank.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> What evidence do you have for reaching such a conclusion, Erik?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> TIA
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> Senior Fellow at Discovery Institute says all you need to know.
>>>>>
>>>>> I've not heard of the organisation before. I've read here:-
>>>>> https://www.discovery.org/about/
>>>>>
>>>>> What do you feel is contentious?
>>>>>
>>>> The focus on Intellligent Design (ID). This has been kicked around on
>>>> this group for many years, and has its proponents. Obviously, I'm not
>>>> one of them. I don't propose to re-argue this subject. Check through
>>>> prior discussions here if you want to get the flavor of it. I'm not
>>>> interested in getting involved in such a discussion.
>>>
>>> OK. Thanks, Erik.
>>>
>>> If you can point me to any specific past discussion, it will be much
>>> appreciated.
>>>
>> I've deleted all but this year's discussions. Go to Google Groups and you
>> can see everything except the most recent posts. Posts by Peter Nyikos and
>> the responses to his posts will discover the hottest discussions.
>
> Does GG still archive NNTP articles?

I found THIS one!

https://groups.google.com/g/talk.origins/c/R_eO1Sek5RM/m/BmhA91GQFOsJ

On 26 Feb 2024 at 11:18:39 GMT, "FromTheRafters" <FTR@nomail.afraid.org>
wrote:

> [....]
> Does GG still archive NNTP articles?

Yes!

https://groups.google.com/g/alt.computer.workshop/c/tD8nrRKw3nA

(Dustin Cook posting under his 'Diesel' name!)

WolfFan <akwolffan@zoho.com> wrote:

> On Feb 25, 2024, erik simpson wrote
> (in article<a0af9cb8-49a0-4913-af82-c9514e93e9b9@gmail.com>):
>
> > On 2/25/24 10:38 AM, David B. wrote:
> > > On 25 Feb 2024 at 18:18:41 GMT, "J. J. Lodder" <J. J. Lodder> wrote:
> > >
> > > > David B. <bdb@nomail.afraid.org> wrote:
> > > > [talk.origins added]
> > > >
> > > > > "Secrets of the Cell with Michael Behe"
> > > > >
> > > > > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gw94qm4qdn8
> > > > >
> > > > > The video is about half an hour long. I found the content absolutely
> > > > > fascinating.
> > > > >
> > > > > No longer do I believe in Darwin's Theory of Evolution!
> > > >
> > > > Good for you!
> > > >
> > > > > If you take the time out to watch this video presentation, I'd be
> > > > > really interested to learn what YOU think about what you've seen
> > > > > and heard.
> > > >
> > > > May I point you to to the newsgroup talk.origins ?
> > > > They are badly in need of fresh creationists there.
> > > > [Fto: set]
> > > >
> > > > They'll gladly tell you there what they think of Michael Behe,
> > > >
> > > > Jan
> > >
> > > That's very kind of you to so advise, Jan.
> > >
> > > Thank you.
> > I'm bemused that Google's disinvolvment with groups has led to new
> > creationists and a couple of older ones to appear (or reappear). For a
> > while it looked as though there were none left. For the record, I think
> > Behe is pretty close to being a crank. Ain't tenure wonderful?
>
> Warning: David Brooks is a stalker and a troll and a complete nutball.

What's wrong with that? This is TO, remember?
The question is, can he be an amusing nutball?
[snip irrelevancies about software and misconduct IRL by D.B.]

> He's on a par with Nando.

See? Nando was banned here once, but apparently DIG relented,
and Nando is present again, under several nyms even,

Jan

On Mon, 26 Feb 2024 11:46:40 +0000, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by Richmond <dnomhcir@gmx.com>:

>erik simpson <eastside.erik@gmail.com> writes:
>
>> On 2/25/24 3:24 PM, David B. wrote:
>>> On 25 Feb 2024 at 23:04:07 GMT, "erik simpson"
>>> <eastside.erik@gmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 2/25/24 2:49 PM, David B. wrote:
>>>>> On 25 Feb 2024 at 18:52:30 GMT, "erik simpson"
>>>>> <eastside.erik@gmail.com>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> For the record, I think Behe is pretty close to being a crank.
>>>>>
>>>>> What evidence do you have for reaching such a conclusion, Erik?
>>>>>
>>>>> TIA
>>>>>
>>>> Senior Fellow at Discovery Institute says all you need to know.
>>> I've not heard of the organisation before. I've read here:-
>>> https://www.discovery.org/about/ What do you feel is contentious?
>>>
>> The focus on Intellligent Design (ID). This has been kicked around on
>> this group for many years, and has its proponents. Obviously, I'm not
>> one of them. I don't propose to re-argue this subject. Check through
>> prior discussions here if you want to get the flavor of it. I'm not
>> interested in getting involved in such a discussion.
>
>In a group whose description is "Evolution versus creationism (sometimes
>hot!)." I would have thought the subject will come up over and over.
>
It has, always with the same arguments, including the same
many-times-refuted "evidence" for ID. Does that tell you why
he's not interested in the 4327th iteration?
>
--

Bob C.

"The most exciting phrase to hear in science,
the one that heralds new discoveries, is not
'Eureka!' but 'That's funny...'"

- Isaac Asimov

On 2/26/24 3:18 AM, FromTheRafters wrote:
> erik simpson formulated on Sunday :
>> On 2/25/24 3:44 PM, David B. wrote:
>>> On 25 Feb 2024 at 23:35:17 GMT, "erik simpson" <eastside.erik@gmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 2/25/24 3:24 PM, David B. wrote:
>>>>> On 25 Feb 2024 at 23:04:07 GMT, "erik simpson"
>>>>> <eastside.erik@gmail.com>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 2/25/24 2:49 PM, David B. wrote:
>>>>>>> On 25 Feb 2024 at 18:52:30 GMT, "erik simpson"
>>>>>>> <eastside.erik@gmail.com>
>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>     For the record, I think
>>>>>>>> Behe is pretty close to being a crank.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> What evidence do you have for reaching such a conclusion, Erik?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> TIA
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> Senior Fellow at Discovery Institute says all you need to know.
>>>>>
>>>>> I've not heard of the organisation before. I've read here:-
>>>>> https://www.discovery.org/about/
>>>>>
>>>>> What do you feel is contentious?
>>>>>
>>>> The focus on Intellligent Design (ID).  This has been kicked around on
>>>> this group for many years, and has its proponents.  Obviously, I'm not
>>>> one of them.  I don't propose to re-argue this subject.  Check through
>>>> prior discussions here if you want to get the flavor of it.  I'm not
>>>> interested in getting involved in such a discussion.
>>>
>>> OK. Thanks, Erik.
>>>
>>> If you can point me to any specific past discussion, it will be much
>>> appreciated.
>>>
>> I've deleted all but this year's discussions.  Go to Google Groups and
>> you can see everything except the most recent posts.  Posts by Peter
>> Nyikos and the responses to his posts will discover the hottest
>> discussions.
>
> Does GG still archive NNTP articles?
>
Everything from before the cutoff date. BTW: TO discourages
nym-shifting. Don't go out on thin ice.

On 2/26/24 5:24 AM, J. J. Lodder wrote:
> WolfFan <akwolffan@zoho.com> wrote:
>
>> On Feb 25, 2024, erik simpson wrote
>> (in article<a0af9cb8-49a0-4913-af82-c9514e93e9b9@gmail.com>):
>>
>>> On 2/25/24 10:38 AM, David B. wrote:
>>>> On 25 Feb 2024 at 18:18:41 GMT, "J. J. Lodder" <J. J. Lodder> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> David B. <bdb@nomail.afraid.org> wrote:
>>>>> [talk.origins added]
>>>>>
>>>>>> "Secrets of the Cell with Michael Behe"
>>>>>>
>>>>>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gw94qm4qdn8
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The video is about half an hour long. I found the content absolutely
>>>>>> fascinating.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> No longer do I believe in Darwin's Theory of Evolution!
>>>>>
>>>>> Good for you!
>>>>>
>>>>>> If you take the time out to watch this video presentation, I'd be
>>>>>> really interested to learn what YOU think about what you've seen
>>>>>> and heard.
>>>>>
>>>>> May I point you to to the newsgroup talk.origins ?
>>>>> They are badly in need of fresh creationists there.
>>>>> [Fto: set]
>>>>>
>>>>> They'll gladly tell you there what they think of Michael Behe,
>>>>>
>>>>> Jan
>>>>
>>>> That's very kind of you to so advise, Jan.
>>>>
>>>> Thank you.
>>> I'm bemused that Google's disinvolvment with groups has led to new
>>> creationists and a couple of older ones to appear (or reappear). For a
>>> while it looked as though there were none left. For the record, I think
>>> Behe is pretty close to being a crank. Ain't tenure wonderful?
>>
>> Warning: David Brooks is a stalker and a troll and a complete nutball.
>
> What's wrong with that? This is TO, remember?
> The question is, can he be an amusing nutball?
> [snip irrelevancies about software and misconduct IRL by D.B.]
>
>> He's on a par with Nando.
>
> See? Nando was banned here once, but apparently DIG relented,
> and Nando is present again, under several nyms even,
>
> Jan
>
>
>
Agreed. There's a significant difference between amusing nutters and
irritating ones.

On Feb 26, 2024, David B. wrote
(in article <l433ndF30jpU1@mid.individual.net>):

> On 25 Feb 2024 at 23:30:47 GMT, "WolfFan" - *Usenet LIAR*
> >
> > notice how he doesn’t even try to deny the other points. He just hates
> > being outed. poor boy.
>
> Words That Harm
>
> The tongue is a fire, a world of unrighteousness. The tongue is set among our
> members, staining the whole body, setting on fire the entire course of life,
> and set on fire by hell … No human being can tame the tongue.
>
> James 3:6, James 3:8
>
> Three things never come back: the spent arrow, the spoken word, and the lost
> opportunity. What we say cannot be unsaid. What’s more, we will be called to
> account for every word we have spoken—even our careless ones—at the day of
> reckoning (see Matthew 12:36). As King Solomon put it, “Whoever guards his
> mouth preserves his life; he who opens wide his lips comes to ruin”
> (Proverbs
> 13:3); and “Death and life are in the power of the tongue” (18:21). Our
> words
> can serve to encourage, to nourish, and to heal. But they can also cause
> strife, create dissension, and do harm. Solomon gives us a multifaceted
> picture of what characterizes such harmful words. He describes words that harm
> as those that are reckless, as being “like sword thrusts” (12:18). Our
> words
> so often spill forth unguardedly, and we become someone who “gives an answer
> before he hears” (18:13). “When words are many, transgression is not
> lacking”
> (10:19).
>
> You will likely have heard the saying that sticks and stones can break our
> bones, but words can never harm us—but that is dead wrong. Bruises may fade
> and the marks they made be forgotten. But hurtful words that have been said to
> us and about us tend to remain with us for a long time. Truer are these lines:
>
> A careless word may kindle strife,
> A cruel word may wreck a life,
> A bitter word may hate instill,
> A brutal word may smite and kill.
> It would be difficult to estimate how many friendships are broken, how many
> reputations are ruined, or the peace of how many homes is destroyed through
> harmful words. The very source of all such animosity and abusive language,
> according to James, is none other than hell itself. Yes, our tongue is “a
> fire,” and “no human being can tame the tongue” without the work of
> God’s Holy
> Spirit.
>
> Stop and think of how many words you have used in the last 24 hours, and how
> they were used. “Death and life are in the power of the tongue”—so did
> any of
> your words cause harm, tearing someone else down in some way? That is a sin to
> be repented of and turned from. Is that something you need to do, both before
> God and to the person to whom those words were spoken?
>
> Then think of the words you may speak over the next 24 hours. How might they
> be used to bring life? How might you reflect the one who “committed no sin,
> neither was deceit found in his mouth”? Rather, “when he was reviled, he
> did
> not revile in return … He himself bore our sins … that we might die to
> sin and
> live to righteousness” (1 Peter 2:22-24).

the truth continues to burn you.

and you still haven’t denied the other points in my post.

On 2/25/24 2:49 PM, David B. wrote:
> On 25 Feb 2024 at 18:52:30 GMT, "erik simpson" <eastside.erik@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> For the record, I think
>> Behe is pretty close to being a crank.
>
> What evidence do you have for reaching such a conclusion, Erik?

I find it telling that Behe has never acknowledged (that I know of) that
his most famous idea (to creationists and evolutionists) was presented
nearly a hundred years earlier by another biologist.

--
Mark Isaak
"Wisdom begins when you discover the difference between 'That
doesn't make sense' and 'I don't understand.'" - Mary Doria Russell

On 28 Feb 2024 at 06:06:03 GMT, "Mark Isaak"
<specimenNOSPAM@curioustaxon.omy.net> wrote:

> On 2/25/24 2:49 PM, David B. wrote:
>> On 25 Feb 2024 at 18:52:30 GMT, "erik simpson" <eastside.erik@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> For the record, I think
>>> Behe is pretty close to being a crank.
>>
>> What evidence do you have for reaching such a conclusion, Erik?
>
> I find it telling that Behe has never acknowledged (that I know of) that
> his most famous idea (to creationists and evolutionists) was presented
> nearly a hundred years earlier by another biologist.

Thank you for responding, Erik.
I apologise for being so naive. Please will you explain - to what, exactly,
are you referring?

On Mon, 26 Feb 2024 11:46:40 +0000, Richmond <dnomhcir@gmx.com> wrote:

>erik simpson <eastside.erik@gmail.com> writes:
>
>> On 2/25/24 3:24 PM, David B. wrote:
>>> On 25 Feb 2024 at 23:04:07 GMT, "erik simpson"
>>> <eastside.erik@gmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 2/25/24 2:49 PM, David B. wrote:
>>>>> On 25 Feb 2024 at 18:52:30 GMT, "erik simpson"
>>>>> <eastside.erik@gmail.com>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> For the record, I think Behe is pretty close to being a crank.
>>>>>
>>>>> What evidence do you have for reaching such a conclusion, Erik?
>>>>>
>>>>> TIA
>>>>>
>>>> Senior Fellow at Discovery Institute says all you need to know.
>>> I've not heard of the organisation before. I've read here:-
>>> https://www.discovery.org/about/ What do you feel is contentious?
>>>
>> The focus on Intellligent Design (ID). This has been kicked around on
>> this group for many years, and has its proponents. Obviously, I'm not
>> one of them. I don't propose to re-argue this subject. Check through
>> prior discussions here if you want to get the flavor of it. I'm not
>> interested in getting involved in such a discussion.
>
>In a group whose description is "Evolution versus creationism (sometimes
>hot!)." I would have thought the subject will come up over and over.

It has. My impression is that's one reason so many aren't interested.
in it.

--
To know less than we don't know is the nature of most knowledge