Creationists can do good work. Field of expertise is what really counts.
RonO wrote:
On 12/30/2023 5:31 PM, erik simpson wrote:
Creationists can do good work. Field of expertise is what really counts. >>>
Tour is a good enough scientist, that he understand how bogus the ID
scam has been all these years. He is the one that has claimed that he
does not know how to do any ID science. What should that tell any
creationist that still wants to try to use ID to support their religious
beliefs. Everyone should understand that Tour knows that the ID perps
never had the ID science that they claimed to have. Tour only supports
the science denial.
If intellignet design is the answer
, then trying to find alternative--
explanations is beating a dead horse. And that exactly what's happening
with OoL and the fossils linking back past the Cambrian to some common >ancestor.
RonO wrote:
On 12/30/2023 5:31 PM, erik simpson wrote:
Creationists can do good work. Field of expertise is what really
counts.
Tour is a good enough scientist, that he understand how bogus the ID
scam has been all these years. He is the one that has claimed that he
does not know how to do any ID science. What should that tell any
creationist that still wants to try to use ID to support their
religious beliefs. Everyone should understand that Tour knows that
the ID perps never had the ID science that they claimed to have. Tour
only supports the science denial.
If intellignet design is the answer, then trying to find alternative explanations is beating a dead horse. And that exactly what's happening
with OoL and the fossils linking back past the Cambrian to some common ancestor.
Ron Okimoto
Bob Casanova wrote:
On Sat, 30 Dec 2023 23:03:36 -0500, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by Ron Dean
<rondean-noreply@gmail.com>:
RonO wrote:It has yet to be shown that ID is even *an* answer, never
On 12/30/2023 5:31 PM, erik simpson wrote:If intellignet design is the answer
Creationists can do good work. Field of expertise is what really counts. >>>>>
Tour is a good enough scientist, that he understand how bogus the ID
scam has been all these years. He is the one that has claimed that he >>>> does not know how to do any ID science. What should that tell any
creationist that still wants to try to use ID to support their religious >>>> beliefs. Everyone should understand that Tour knows that the ID perps >>>> never had the ID science that they claimed to have. Tour only supports >>>> the science denial.
mind *the* answer. Whatever it is, it has nothing to do with
science.
Whether or not ID fits into the narrow, restrictive confines of modern >science
, it does not mean intelligent design is not a fact.
In view, of
the fact there is no better explanation, ID remains.
Indeed creationSort of like lightning was explained by Thor throwing a
(design) was the initial explanation for life and searching for
alternative or scientific explanations for Ool may very well be an
exercise in futility.
--, then trying to find alternative
explanations is beating a dead horse. And that exactly what's happening
with OoL and the fossils linking back past the Cambrian to some common
ancestor.
Bob Casanova wrote:
On Sat, 30 Dec 2023 23:03:36 -0500, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by Ron Dean
<rondean-noreply@gmail.com>:
RonO wrote:It has yet to be shown that ID is even *an* answer, never
On 12/30/2023 5:31 PM, erik simpson wrote:If intellignet design is the answer
Creationists can do good work. Field of expertise is what really
counts.
Tour is a good enough scientist, that he understand how bogus the ID
scam has been all these years. He is the one that has claimed that he >>>> does not know how to do any ID science. What should that tell any
creationist that still wants to try to use ID to support their
religious
beliefs. Everyone should understand that Tour knows that the ID perps >>>> never had the ID science that they claimed to have. Tour only supports >>>> the science denial.
mind *the* answer. Whatever it is, it has nothing to do with
science.
Whether or not ID fits into the narrow, restrictive confines of modern science, it does not mean intelligent design is not a fact. In view, of
the fact there is no better explanation, ID remains. Indeed creation
(design) was the initial explanation for life and searching for
alternative or scientific explanations for Ool may very well be an
exercise in futility.
Bob Casanova wrote:Again, what are the "narrow, restrictive confines" you claim
On Sun, 31 Dec 2023 00:13:58 -0500, the following appearedIf it goes beyond the naturalism it's not science, but yet when it's
in talk.origins, posted by Ron Dean
<rondean-noreply@gmail.com>:
Bob Casanova wrote:Care to state those "narrow, restrictive confines"? Science
On Sat, 30 Dec 2023 23:03:36 -0500, the following appearedWhether or not ID fits into the narrow, restrictive confines of modern
in talk.origins, posted by Ron Dean
<rondean-noreply@gmail.com>:
RonO wrote:It has yet to be shown that ID is even *an* answer, never
On 12/30/2023 5:31 PM, erik simpson wrote:If intellignet design is the answer
Creationists can do good work. Field of expertise is what really counts.
Tour is a good enough scientist, that he understand how bogus the ID >>>>>> scam has been all these years. He is the one that has claimed that he >>>>>> does not know how to do any ID science. What should that tell any >>>>>> creationist that still wants to try to use ID to support their religious >>>>>> beliefs. Everyone should understand that Tour knows that the ID perps >>>>>> never had the ID science that they claimed to have. Tour only supports >>>>>> the science denial.
mind *the* answer. Whatever it is, it has nothing to do with
science.
science
is about objective evidence. No more, but certainly no less.
learned that the universe had beginning and there are a couple dozens of >cosmological constants involved, then the multiverse
or infinite numbers of universes come about to explain how we just
lucked out. These universes are witnessed, unknown and outside
conformation. This does not fall short of being supernatural
virtually the same as a religious view.
Again doesn't mean it's not a fact. The very existence of life itself is >objective evidence of deliberate and purposeful design by a mind., it does not mean intelligent design is not a fact.Of course not. But there is no evidence supporting what is
essentially a religious belief; i.e., a belief unsupported
by objective evidence, which puts it outside the realm of
science.
LifeYou make a lot of unsupported assertions and assumptions,
is reality that is _observed_. If the origin of life is derived from
natural processes, it is unknown and certainly unobserved. The
observation of information (DNA) is objective evidence supporting a
mind, since the appearance of information is a known and recognized
mental process, there is no observed verified exception. Furthermore,
_if_ the present is the key to the past, there is absolutely no
objective or observed evidence of randomly appearing information today,
that is - apart from mind And so it must have been in the past!
The appearance of DNA proofreading and repair (P&R)of itself is
observed. This is evidence of purpose, planning design and of mind.
There are hypothesis and theories regarding how the P&E origin via
natural processes originated, however this is unobserved and unknown.
There is no possibility of random, aimless, mindless natural processes
to recognize, envision and
determine the need for DNA proofreading and repair, to say nothing as
to how random, aimless mindless natural means just somehow devised the
five of six highly sophisticated detect and repair mechanisms to correct >mutations.
All modern phylum appeared geologically abrupt during the Cambrian,
except for a very few that have existed even then, but have not been
found or observed: and no new phylum since.
I've heard "God of the gaps countless times" referring to the time span
where there is an absence of fossils observed. Prior to the appearance
of 1) the first living cell, 2) the Cambrian explosion 3) the absence
of links between most species (as reported by Gould & Eldridge). But
this in reality is exactly backwards: in these time spans (gaps) is
exactly where we fine scientist searching the gaps for fossil evidence
they expect and hope for to bridge gaps. The truth is, it's in the gaps
is where one finds hope and faith (in science). It's the appearance
_AFTER_ the gaps is where we find "'God's' finished work". And this >undeniably is observed hard empirical evidence!
<Crickets>In view, ofAgain with this unsupported assertion? The "better
the fact there is no better explanation, ID remains.
explanation" revolves around the mountains of evidence,
combined with known processes of chemistry and physics,
which show several ways life may have started. You've had
some of these explained to you over the past several months;
the fact that you reject them does not mean they don't
exist.
What, no rationalization to "refute" this? Imagine myIndeed creationSort of like lightning was explained by Thor throwing a
(design) was the initial explanation for life and searching for
alternative or scientific explanations for Ool may very well be an
exercise in futility.
hammer or Zeus casting bolts, and therefore looking for a
scientific explanation was an exercise in futility?
--, then trying to find alternative
explanations is beating a dead horse. And that exactly what's happening >>>>> with OoL and the fossils linking back past the Cambrian to some common >>>>> ancestor.
Mark Isaak wrote:
On 12/30/23 9:13 PM, Ron Dean wrote:
Bob Casanova wrote:
On Sat, 30 Dec 2023 23:03:36 -0500, the following appearedWhether or not ID fits into the narrow, restrictive confines of modern
in talk.origins, posted by Ron Dean
<rondean...@gmail.com>:
RonO wrote:It has yet to be shown that ID is even *an* answer, never
On 12/30/2023 5:31 PM, erik simpson wrote:If intellignet design is the answer
Creationists can do good work. Field of expertise is what really >>>>>> counts.
Tour is a good enough scientist, that he understand how bogus the ID >>>>> scam has been all these years. He is the one that has claimed that he >>>>> does not know how to do any ID science. What should that tell any >>>>> creationist that still wants to try to use ID to support their
religious
beliefs. Everyone should understand that Tour knows that the ID perps >>>>> never had the ID science that they claimed to have. Tour only
supports
the science denial.
mind *the* answer. Whatever it is, it has nothing to do with
science.
science, it does not mean intelligent design is not a fact. In view,
of the fact there is no better explanation, ID remains. Indeed
creation (design) was the initial explanation for life and searching
for alternative or scientific explanations for Ool may very well be an
exercise in futility.
That response can be given in response to pretty much *any* answer. How did the Alps form? One possible answer is that God did it. Who invented
the printing press? Possibly God did it. Why was Obama elected
president? God did it. Why was Trump elected president? God did it. Why
Meaningless! The way you responded is not predicated on anything I
believe or wrote. The question is: Why: when I'm challenged, it almost always, somehow comes down to, "my religion or my religious views", when
I never in any way bring the subject up. At no time, have I appealed
to, or used theology as reference in support of anything I've written
does blood circulate? God does it. How do computers work? God does it.
This in _no_ way addresses anything I've written. So, why does it so
often come down to my religion? I strongly suspect it's intended as a
"put down" and a self-serving defense.
I sometimes use the term God, but who or what is God. Is it the God of
the Bible, the Koran
on of the Mormon Gods or none of the above. But anything that can
bring-forth the universe
from nothing is entitled to be called God. If this is a goddamn religion
- so fu*king be it!
The fact that the same answer can answer *anything* makes the answer
worse than wrong; it makes it useless. Worse, the violence that that
answer does to theology makes it worse than useless.
Bob Casanova wrote:Well, yes, if by "naturalism" you mean everything which can
On Mon, 1 Jan 2024 14:48:21 -0500, the following appeared in
talk.origins, posted by Ron Dean
<rondean-noreply@gmail.com>:
Bob Casanova wrote:Again, what are the "narrow, restrictive confines" you claim
On Sun, 31 Dec 2023 00:13:58 -0500, the following appearedIf it goes beyond the naturalism it's not science, but yet when it's
in talk.origins, posted by Ron Dean
<rondean-noreply@gmail.com>:
Bob Casanova wrote:Care to state those "narrow, restrictive confines"? Science
On Sat, 30 Dec 2023 23:03:36 -0500, the following appearedWhether or not ID fits into the narrow, restrictive confines of modern >>>>> science
in talk.origins, posted by Ron Dean
<rondean-noreply@gmail.com>:
RonO wrote:It has yet to be shown that ID is even *an* answer, never
On 12/30/2023 5:31 PM, erik simpson wrote:If intellignet design is the answer
Creationists can do good work. Field of expertise is what really counts.
Tour is a good enough scientist, that he understand how bogus the ID >>>>>>>> scam has been all these years. He is the one that has claimed that he >>>>>>>> does not know how to do any ID science. What should that tell any >>>>>>>> creationist that still wants to try to use ID to support their religious
beliefs. Everyone should understand that Tour knows that the ID perps >>>>>>>> never had the ID science that they claimed to have. Tour only supports
the science denial.
mind *the* answer. Whatever it is, it has nothing to do with
science.
is about objective evidence. No more, but certainly no less.
learned that the universe had beginning and there are a couple dozens of >>> cosmological constants involved, then the multiverse
or infinite numbers of universes come about to explain how we just
lucked out. These universes are (not) witnessed, unknown and outside
conformation. This does not fall short of being supernatural
virtually the same as a religious view.
are keeping scientific inquiry from discovering facts about
reality? Nothing in the above answers that question.
Science is restricted to naturalism!
No ,it is not. The mere existence of *anything* providesAgain doesn't mean it's not a fact. The very existence of life itself is >>> objective evidence of deliberate and purposeful design by a mind., it does not mean intelligent design is not a fact.Of course not. But there is no evidence supporting what is
essentially a religious belief; i.e., a belief unsupported
by objective evidence, which puts it outside the realm of
science.
absolutely *no* evidence of its origin. Logic does not seem
to be your strong suit.
Apparently, this explanation went over your head. There _is_ life:
proving that something (A God) or somehow brought life about.
Otherwise, there would be no life. Nature did not and could not bring
about life there is no observable or empirical evidence that it did. To
think random, aimless, blind and mindless natural processes brought life
into existence requires huge - a tremendous amount of _faith_!
Still no evidence...You make a lot of unsupported assertions and assumptions,
Life
is reality that is _observed_. If the origin of life is derived from
natural processes, it is unknown and certainly unobserved. The
observation of information (DNA) is objective evidence supporting a
mind, since the appearance of information is a known and recognized
mental process, there is no observed verified exception. Furthermore,
_if_ the present is the key to the past, there is absolutely no
objective or observed evidence of randomly appearing information today,
that is - apart from mind And so it must have been in the past!
The appearance of DNA proofreading and repair (P&R)of itself is
observed. This is evidence of purpose, planning design and of mind.
There are hypothesis and theories regarding how the P&E origin via
natural processes originated, however this is unobserved and unknown.
There is no possibility of random, aimless, mindless natural processes
to recognize, envision and
determine the need for DNA proofreading and repair, to say nothing as
to how random, aimless mindless natural means just somehow devised the
five of six highly sophisticated detect and repair mechanisms to correct >>> mutations.
All modern phylum appeared geologically abrupt during the Cambrian,
except for a very few that have existed even then, but have not been
found or observed: and no new phylum since.
I've heard "God of the gaps countless times" referring to the time span
where there is an absence of fossils observed. Prior to the appearance
of 1) the first living cell, 2) the Cambrian explosion 3) the absence
of links between most species (as reported by Gould & Eldridge). But
this in reality is exactly backwards: in these time spans (gaps) is
exactly where we fine scientist searching the gaps for fossil evidence
they expect and hope for to bridge gaps. The truth is, it's in the gaps
is where one finds hope and faith (in science). It's the appearance
_AFTER_ the gaps is where we find "'God's' finished work". And this
undeniably is observed hard empirical evidence!
and as usual fail to provide evidence for any of them.
<Crickets>In view, ofAgain with this unsupported assertion? The "better
the fact there is no better explanation, ID remains.
explanation" revolves around the mountains of evidence,
combined with known processes of chemistry and physics,
which show several ways life may have started. You've had
some of these explained to you over the past several months;
the fact that you reject them does not mean they don't
exist.
--What, no rationalization to "refute" this? Imagine my
Indeed creationSort of like lightning was explained by Thor throwing a
(design) was the initial explanation for life and searching for
alternative or scientific explanations for Ool may very well be an
exercise in futility.
hammer or Zeus casting bolts, and therefore looking for a
scientific explanation was an exercise in futility?
(non)surprise...
, then trying to find alternative
explanations is beating a dead horse. And that exactly what's happening >>>>>>> with OoL and the fossils linking back past the Cambrian to some common >>>>>>> ancestor.
Bob Casanova wrote:
Again, what are the "narrow, restrictive confines" you claim[...]
are keeping scientific inquiry from discovering facts about
reality? Nothing in the above answers that question.
Science is restricted to naturalism!
No ,it is not. The mere existence of *anything* providesAgain doesn't mean it's not a fact. The very existence of life itself is >>> objective evidence of deliberate and purposeful design by a mind., it does not mean intelligent design is not a fact.Of course not. But there is no evidence supporting what is
essentially a religious belief; i.e., a belief unsupported
by objective evidence, which puts it outside the realm of
science.
absolutely *no* evidence of its origin. Logic does not seem
to be your strong suit.
Apparently, this explanation went over your head. There _is_ life:
proving that something (A God) or somehow brought life about. Otherwise, there would be no life. Nature did not and could not bring about life
there is no observable or empirical evidence that it did. To think
random, aimless, blind and mindless natural processes brought life into existence requires huge - a tremendous amount of _faith_!
On Mon, 1 Jan 2024 22:14:09 -0500, Ron Dean
<rondean-noreply@gmail.com> wrote:
Apparently, this explanation went over your head. There _is_ life:
proving that something (A God) or somehow brought life about.
Otherwise, there would be no life. Nature did not and could not bring
about life there is no observable or empirical evidence that it did. To >>think random, aimless, blind and mindless natural processes brought life >>into existence requires huge - a tremendous amount of _faith_!
There is no observable or empirical evidence of a God or Mind that
created life, either.
On Mon, 01 Jan 2024 23:28:12 -0500, jillery <69jpil69@gmail.com>
wrote:
On Mon, 1 Jan 2024 22:14:09 -0500, Ron Dean
<rondean-noreply@gmail.com> wrote:
Apparently, this explanation went over your head. There _is_ life:
proving that something (A God) or somehow brought life about.
Otherwise, there would be no life. Nature did not and could not bring
about life there is no observable or empirical evidence that it did. To
think random, aimless, blind and mindless natural processes brought life >>> into existence requires huge - a tremendous amount of _faith_!
There is no observable or empirical evidence of a God or Mind that
created life, either.
You mean "*I* don't see any observable or empirical evidence of a God
or Mind that created life".
That's not the same as there isn't any evidence.
If I see something you don't see, is it then me that sees something
that isn't there, or you who don't see sometning that is there?
On Mon, 01 Jan 2024 23:28:12 -0500, jillery <69jpil69@gmail.com>
wrote:
On Mon, 1 Jan 2024 22:14:09 -0500, Ron Dean
<rondean-noreply@gmail.com> wrote:
Apparently, this explanation went over your head. There _is_ life: >>>proving that something (A God) or somehow brought life about.
Otherwise, there would be no life. Nature did not and could not bring >>>about life there is no observable or empirical evidence that it did. To >>>think random, aimless, blind and mindless natural processes brought life >>>into existence requires huge - a tremendous amount of _faith_!
There is no observable or empirical evidence of a God or Mind that
created life, either.
You mean "*I* don't see any observable or empirical evidence of a God
or Mind that created life".
That's not the same as there isn't any evidence.
If I see something you don't see, is it then me that sees something
that isn't there, or you who don't see sometning that is there?
Mark Isaak wrote:
On 12/30/23 9:13 PM, Ron Dean wrote:Meaningless! The way you responded is not predicated on anything I
Bob Casanova wrote:
On Sat, 30 Dec 2023 23:03:36 -0500, the following appearedWhether or not ID fits into the narrow, restrictive confines of
in talk.origins, posted by Ron Dean
<rondean-noreply@gmail.com>:
RonO wrote:It has yet to be shown that ID is even *an* answer, never
On 12/30/2023 5:31 PM, erik simpson wrote:If intellignet design is the answer
Creationists can do good work. Field of expertise is what really >>>>>>> counts.
Tour is a good enough scientist, that he understand how bogus the ID >>>>>> scam has been all these years. He is the one that has claimed
that he
does not know how to do any ID science. What should that tell any >>>>>> creationist that still wants to try to use ID to support their
religious
beliefs. Everyone should understand that Tour knows that the ID
perps
never had the ID science that they claimed to have. Tour only
supports
the science denial.
mind *the* answer. Whatever it is, it has nothing to do with
science.
;
modern science, it does not mean intelligent design is not a fact. In
view, of the fact there is no better explanation, ID remains. Indeed
creation (design) was the initial explanation for life and searching
for alternative or scientific explanations for Ool may very well be
an exercise in futility.
That response can be given in response to pretty much *any* answer.
How did the Alps form? One possible answer is that God did it. Who
invented the printing press? Possibly God did it. Why was Obama
elected president? God did it. Why was Trump elected president? God
did it. Why
believe or wrote. The question is: Why: when I'm challenged, it almost always, somehow comes down to, "my religion or my religious views", when
I never in any way bring the subject up. At no time, have I appealed
to, or used theology as reference in support of anything I've written
does blood circulate? God does it. How do computers work? God does it.
This in _no_ way addresses anything I've written. So, why does it so
often come down to my religion? I strongly suspect it's intended as a
"put down" and a self-serving defense.
I sometimes use the term God, but who or what is God. Is it the God of
the Bible, the Koran
on of the Mormon Gods or none of the above. But anything that can
bring-forth the universe
from nothing is entitled to be called God. If this is a goddamn religion
- so fu*king be it!
The fact that the same answer can answer *anything* makes the answer
worse than wrong; it makes it useless. Worse, the violence that that answer does to theology makes it worse than useless.
jillery wrote:
On Wed, 03 Jan 2024 11:37:58 +0100, IDentity <identity@invalid.org>
wrote:
On Mon, 01 Jan 2024 23:28:12 -0500, jillery <69jpil69@gmail.com>
wrote:
On Mon, 1 Jan 2024 22:14:09 -0500, Ron Dean
<rondean-noreply@gmail.com> wrote:
Apparently, this explanation went over your head. There _is_ life:
proving that something (A God) or somehow brought life about.
Otherwise, there would be no life. Nature did not and could not bring >>>>> about life there is no observable or empirical evidence that it
did. To
think random, aimless, blind and mindless natural processes brought
life
into existence requires huge - a tremendous amount of _faith_!
There is no observable or empirical evidence of a God or Mind that
created life, either.
You mean "*I* don't see any observable or empirical evidence of a God
or Mind that created life".
That's not the same as there isn't any evidence.
If I see something you don't see, is it then me that sees something
that isn't there, or you who don't see sometning that is there?
My words have exactly the same sense as R.Dean's words, and show that
his words don't show what he claims they show. R.Dean is a
pseudoskeptic who regularly demands observable or empirical evidence
for the hypotheses he rejects, while he completely fails to provide
any observable or empirical evidence for his favored hypothesis.
There is a difference, since ID occurred millions, tens of million, even billions of years in the past, there were no documentation, no witnesses
of any of these events. The fact that new organisms
appeared abruptly in the strata, with no verifiable gradual linkages
from the past, can be seen as circumstantial evidence they were
"planted" there. This applies to the first living cell, the first multicellular cell organisms during the Cambrian, and most species
appear abruptly in the
strata with no fossil evidence leading to the new arrived species.
On Thu, 4 Jan 2024 21:16:44 -0500, Ron Dean
<rondean...@gmail.com> wrote:
[...]Ron Dean is very committed to find scientific proof that at least the Christian deity
There is a difference, since ID occurred millions, tens of million, even >billions of years in the past, there were no documentation, no witnesses >of any of these events.I asked this question to MarkE but he declined to give any
explanation, perhaps you might do so.
How do you get from God fiddling with molecules millions or billions
of years ago to a personal God with whom humans (apparently
exclusively) can interact? That's the God that Stephen Meyer describes
in his book "Return of the God Hypothesis"; the God that all the
leading proponents of ID believe in; the God that *I* believe in.
[...]
broger...@gmail.com wrote:
On Saturday, January 6, 2024 at 7:57:31 PM UTC-5, Ron Dean wrote:
broger...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thursday, January 4, 2024 at 9:17:29 PM UTC-5, Ron Dean wrote:..
jillery wrote:......
On Wed, 03 Jan 2024 11:37:58 +0100, IDentity <iden...@invalid.org> >>>>>> wrote:There is a difference, since ID occurred millions, tens of million,
On Mon, 01 Jan 2024 23:28:12 -0500, jillery <69jp...@gmail.com>
wrote:
On Mon, 1 Jan 2024 22:14:09 -0500, Ron Dean
<rondean...@gmail.com> wrote:
Apparently, this explanation went over your head. There _is_ life: >>>>>>>>> proving that something (A God) or somehow brought life about. >>>>>>>>> Otherwise, there would be no life. Nature did not and could not >>>>>>>>> bring
about life there is no observable or empirical evidence that it >>>>>>>>> did. To
think random, aimless, blind and mindless natural processes
brought life
into existence requires huge - a tremendous amount of _faith_! >>>>>>>>
There is no observable or empirical evidence of a God or Mind that >>>>>>>> created life, either.
You mean "*I* don't see any observable or empirical evidence of a >>>>>>> God
or Mind that created life".
That's not the same as there isn't any evidence.
If I see something you don't see, is it then me that sees something >>>>>>> that isn't there, or you who don't see sometning that is there?
My words have exactly the same sense as R.Dean's words, and show that >>>>>> his words don't show what he claims they show. R.Dean is a
pseudoskeptic who regularly demands observable or empirical evidence >>>>>> for the hypotheses he rejects, while he completely fails to provide >>>>>> any observable or empirical evidence for his favored hypothesis.
even
billions of years in the past, there were no documentation, no
witnesses
of any of these events. The fact that new organisms
appeared abruptly in the strata, with no verifiable gradual linkages >>>>> from the past, can be seen as circumstantial evidence they were
"planted" there. This applies to the first living cell, the first
multicellular cell organisms during the Cambrian, and most species
appear abruptly in the
strata with no fossil evidence leading to the new arrived species.
(Gould - Eldredge)
And this cast doubt upon the species claimed to have evolutionary
linkages back into the past.
Meanwhile, I and others repeatedly respond to his demands and put
before him documented observable and empirical evidence, which he
then
conveniently ignores/forgets. His post above is MOTS, rinse and
repeat.
That's the problem. There is no observation or empirical evidence, but >>>>> the discovered evidence is interpreted in accordance with and so as to >>>>> fit with in the accepted paradigm. Truth is most evidence can be
fitted
within the ID concept, just as well as within evolution, but exclusive >>>>> authority to interpret the evidence is demanded by Darwinist.
All evidence can be fitted within the ID concept. The ID concept
says simply that something of unknown identity, powers,
characteristics, location, and intentions made a bunch of things
happen (life, bacterial flagella, eukaryotic body plans, physical
constants of the universe). Since there is nothing specific in the
ID concept, any possible evidence is always going to be compatible
with it. It is too vague to be falsifiable.
The abrupt appearance of new forms in the earth's strata, such as during >>> the Cambrian could certainly be taken as supportive evidence of ID. This >>> is _exactly_ what one would expect if design happened. Why, would you
say, this is this not falsifiable?
Because anything at all that you find is _exactly_ what one would
expect if design happened. "Design" is not a specific hypothesis. It
is too vague to be testable. There is no possible evidence that could
disprove design.
I disagree. If scientist were to find several continuous fossil links
from the past to a majority of new life forms this would falsify the
design hypothesis.
You think it can be applied to fossils, but new fossil species are
discovered all the time. There is no evidence of a plateau or of
"closing in on a level status," much as you might wish it to be the case.
It's not the issue of a wish! It's also logical that new and different
life forms become rarer and rarer as time and collecting continues. To
argue this is _not_ the case is wishful thinking.
Mark Isaak wrote:
On 1/7/24 3:35 PM, Ron Dean wrote:
broger...@gmail.com wrote:
On Saturday, January 6, 2024 at 7:57:31 PM UTC-5, Ron Dean wrote:I disagree. If scientist were to find several continuous fossil links
broger...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thursday, January 4, 2024 at 9:17:29 PM UTC-5, Ron Dean wrote: >>>>>> jillery wrote:..
......On Wed, 03 Jan 2024 11:37:58 +0100, IDentity <iden...@invalid.org> >>>>>>> wrote:There is a difference, since ID occurred millions, tens of
On Mon, 01 Jan 2024 23:28:12 -0500, jillery <69jp...@gmail.com> >>>>>>>> wrote:
On Mon, 1 Jan 2024 22:14:09 -0500, Ron Dean
<rondean...@gmail.com> wrote:
Apparently, this explanation went over your head. There _is_ >>>>>>>>>> life:
proving that something (A God) or somehow brought life about. >>>>>>>>>> Otherwise, there would be no life. Nature did not and could >>>>>>>>>> not bring
about life there is no observable or empirical evidence that >>>>>>>>>> it did. To
think random, aimless, blind and mindless natural processes >>>>>>>>>> brought life
into existence requires huge - a tremendous amount of _faith_! >>>>>>>>>
There is no observable or empirical evidence of a God or Mind that >>>>>>>>> created life, either.
You mean "*I* don't see any observable or empirical evidence of >>>>>>>> a God
or Mind that created life".
That's not the same as there isn't any evidence.
If I see something you don't see, is it then me that sees something >>>>>>>> that isn't there, or you who don't see sometning that is there? >>>>>>>
My words have exactly the same sense as R.Dean's words, and show >>>>>>> that
his words don't show what he claims they show. R.Dean is a
pseudoskeptic who regularly demands observable or empirical evidence >>>>>>> for the hypotheses he rejects, while he completely fails to provide >>>>>>> any observable or empirical evidence for his favored hypothesis. >>>>>>>
million, even
billions of years in the past, there were no documentation, no
witnesses
of any of these events. The fact that new organisms
appeared abruptly in the strata, with no verifiable gradual linkages >>>>>> from the past, can be seen as circumstantial evidence they were >>>>>> "planted" there. This applies to the first living cell, the first >>>>>> multicellular cell organisms during the Cambrian, and most species >>>>>> appear abruptly in the
strata with no fossil evidence leading to the new arrived species. >>>>>> (Gould - Eldredge)
And this cast doubt upon the species claimed to have evolutionary >>>>>> linkages back into the past.
Meanwhile, I and others repeatedly respond to his demands and put >>>>>>> before him documented observable and empirical evidence, which he >>>>>>> then
conveniently ignores/forgets. His post above is MOTS, rinse and >>>>>>> repeat.
That's the problem. There is no observation or empirical evidence, >>>>>> but
the discovered evidence is interpreted in accordance with and so >>>>>> as to
fit with in the accepted paradigm. Truth is most evidence can be >>>>>> fitted
within the ID concept, just as well as within evolution, but
exclusive
authority to interpret the evidence is demanded by Darwinist.
All evidence can be fitted within the ID concept. The ID concept
says simply that something of unknown identity, powers,
characteristics, location, and intentions made a bunch of things
happen (life, bacterial flagella, eukaryotic body plans, physical >>>>> constants of the universe). Since there is nothing specific in the >>>>> ID concept, any possible evidence is always going to be compatible >>>>> with it. It is too vague to be falsifiable.
The abrupt appearance of new forms in the earth's strata, such as
during
the Cambrian could certainly be taken as supportive evidence of ID. >>>> This
is _exactly_ what one would expect if design happened. Why, would you >>>> say, this is this not falsifiable?
Because anything at all that you find is _exactly_ what one would
expect if design happened. "Design" is not a specific hypothesis. It
is too vague to be testable. There is no possible evidence that could >>> disprove design.
from the past to a majority of new life forms this would falsify the
design hypothesis.
Yet you have already said that finding several continuous fossil links
to a minority of life forms does *not* falsify the design hypothesis.
Not exactly my argument, but when there is a strong conviction, there is
the desire to find transitional linkage, between species when there's
none. There are a few that's claimed. But I believe what it comes down
to, is that which can be best fitted into the overall picture. An
example of this is the whale series. Especially when 99%+ of all species that ever lived became extinct, what we have, then with each of the
whale ancestors being depicted is questionable.
There is no way to know
that any of the forms "between" had any decedents,
see is the "best in the field".
you state exactly how many transitional fossil sequences it takes
before you consider your design hypothesis falsified?
To find even one sequence from the 1/th living cell, to any one of the modern animal phylum that
appeared during the Cambrian would falsify the design hypothesis.
But
failure to find even one verifiable sequence of fossil links from the
first living cell to a single one of the Cambrian modern animal phylum should falsify evolution.
In the final analysis, the truth as to which, evolution or deliberate
design is the correct answer, comes down to this one factor. But you
cannot accept this analysis, can you?
..
T
For that matter, can you state your design hypothesis? In particular, *why* would transitional fossil sequences falsify it? Why do you expect
a designer of life not work like a typical designer and make progressive modifications to its designs?
Several times previously, you have cherry-picked observations by Gould
and Eldredge but ignored their overall conclusions. ISTM that you are
doing the same thing here - cherry-picking arguments by the leading ID proponents but ignoring their overall conclusions.
Mark Isaak wrote:
On 1/7/24 3:35 PM, Ron Dean wrote:
broger...@gmail.com wrote:
On Saturday, January 6, 2024 at 7:57:31 PM UTC-5, Ron Dean wrote:I disagree. If scientist were to find several continuous fossil
broger...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thursday, January 4, 2024 at 9:17:29 PM UTC-5, Ron Dean wrote: >>>>>>> jillery wrote:..
......On Wed, 03 Jan 2024 11:37:58 +0100, IDentity <iden...@invalid.org> >>>>>>>> wrote:There is a difference, since ID occurred millions, tens of
On Mon, 01 Jan 2024 23:28:12 -0500, jillery <69jp...@gmail.com> >>>>>>>>> wrote:
On Mon, 1 Jan 2024 22:14:09 -0500, Ron Dean
<rondean...@gmail.com> wrote:
Apparently, this explanation went over your head. There _is_ >>>>>>>>>>> life:
proving that something (A God) or somehow brought life about. >>>>>>>>>>> Otherwise, there would be no life. Nature did not and could >>>>>>>>>>> not bring
about life there is no observable or empirical evidence that >>>>>>>>>>> it did. To
think random, aimless, blind and mindless natural processes >>>>>>>>>>> brought life
into existence requires huge - a tremendous amount of _faith_! >>>>>>>>>>
There is no observable or empirical evidence of a God or Mind >>>>>>>>>> that
created life, either.
You mean "*I* don't see any observable or empirical evidence of >>>>>>>>> a God
or Mind that created life".
That's not the same as there isn't any evidence.
If I see something you don't see, is it then me that sees
something
that isn't there, or you who don't see sometning that is there? >>>>>>>>
My words have exactly the same sense as R.Dean's words, and show >>>>>>>> that
his words don't show what he claims they show. R.Dean is a
pseudoskeptic who regularly demands observable or empirical
evidence
for the hypotheses he rejects, while he completely fails to provide >>>>>>>> any observable or empirical evidence for his favored hypothesis. >>>>>>>>
million, even
billions of years in the past, there were no documentation, no
witnesses
of any of these events. The fact that new organisms
appeared abruptly in the strata, with no verifiable gradual linkages >>>>>>> from the past, can be seen as circumstantial evidence they were
"planted" there. This applies to the first living cell, the first >>>>>>> multicellular cell organisms during the Cambrian, and most species >>>>>>> appear abruptly in the
strata with no fossil evidence leading to the new arrived species. >>>>>>> (Gould - Eldredge)
And this cast doubt upon the species claimed to have evolutionary >>>>>>> linkages back into the past.
Meanwhile, I and others repeatedly respond to his demands and put >>>>>>>> before him documented observable and empirical evidence, which >>>>>>>> he then
conveniently ignores/forgets. His post above is MOTS, rinse and >>>>>>>> repeat.
That's the problem. There is no observation or empirical
evidence, but
the discovered evidence is interpreted in accordance with and so >>>>>>> as to
fit with in the accepted paradigm. Truth is most evidence can be >>>>>>> fitted
within the ID concept, just as well as within evolution, but
exclusive
authority to interpret the evidence is demanded by Darwinist.
All evidence can be fitted within the ID concept. The ID concept
says simply that something of unknown identity, powers,
characteristics, location, and intentions made a bunch of things
happen (life, bacterial flagella, eukaryotic body plans, physical
constants of the universe). Since there is nothing specific in the >>>>>> ID concept, any possible evidence is always going to be compatible >>>>>> with it. It is too vague to be falsifiable.
The abrupt appearance of new forms in the earth's strata, such as
during
the Cambrian could certainly be taken as supportive evidence of ID.
This
is _exactly_ what one would expect if design happened. Why, would you >>>>> say, this is this not falsifiable?
Because anything at all that you find is _exactly_ what one would
expect if design happened. "Design" is not a specific hypothesis. It
is too vague to be testable. There is no possible evidence that
could disprove design.
;
links from the past to a majority of new life forms this would
falsify the design hypothesis.
Yet you have already said that finding several continuous fossil links
to a minority of life forms does *not* falsify the design hypothesis.
Not exactly my argument, but when there is a strong conviction, there is
the desire to find transitional linkage, between species when there's
none.
There are a few that's claimed. But I believe what it comes down
to, is that which can be best fitted into the overall picture. An
example of this is the whale series. Especially when 99%+ of all species
that ever lived became extinct, what we have, then with each of the
whale ancestors being depicted is questionable. There is no way to know
that any of the forms "between" had any decedents, so what we actually
see is the "best in the field".
you state exactly how many transitional fossil sequences it takes
before you consider your design hypothesis falsified?
To find even one sequence from the 1/th living cell, to any one of the
modern animal phylum that
appeared during the Cambrian would falsify the design hypothesis. But
failure to find even one verifiable sequence of fossil links from the
first living cell to a single one of the Cambrian modern animal phylum
should falsify evolution.
In the final analysis, the truth as to which, evolution or deliberate
design is the correct answer, comes down to this one factor. But you
cannot accept this analysis, can you?
broger...@gmail.com wrote:
On Monday, January 8, 2024 at 12:57:33?PM UTC-5, Ron Dean wrote:
jillery wrote:
On Sun, 7 Jan 2024 17:29:26 -0500, Ron DeanOk, what is the _common_ grounds for morality that's shared throughout
<rondean...@gmail.com> wrote:
jillery wrote:
On Sat, 6 Jan 2024 20:00:43 -0500, Ron DeanIOW you cannot!
<rondean...@gmail.com> wrote:
<snip for focus>
You say the evidence can be fitted within the ID concept. Then do so, >>>>>>>> using all the evidence, instead of cherry-picking what you can fit, >>>>>>>> and handwaving away what you can't, as other cdesign proponentsists >>>>>>>> do.You can make such accusations, but proving your charges against me, is >>>>>>> another matter.
Do everybody a favor and focus on your own accusations and claims, if >>>>>> only for the novelty of the experience.
You mean YOU won't. You continue to meet my expectations.
What accusations can you point to, that I should I focus on?
To accomodate your convenient amnesia:
***************************************
On Wed, 18 Oct 2023 15:33:02 -0400, Ron Dean
<rondean...@gmail.com> wrote:
This in part makes my case. Since evolution often leads to atheism,**************************************
this explains why atheism discounts right or wrong. So, slavery,
abortion, infanticide is neither right or wrong. There is no common
moral grounds for evolution or atheism.
all of atheism.
People, atheists or not, generally agree on major moral issues - murder is wrong, cooperating is good, taking care of your kids is good, etc.
Why? Murder is illegal in the US, but why is is morally wrong? If
someone decides to rob store, it's to his advantage not to leave
witnesses, "Survival" comes into play, why is morally wrong for him to
not leave witnesses to testify against him in a court of law?
themselves, so there's no more _commonality_ among the religious than there is among atheists. Morality does not come from religion, even for religious people, it comes from our natural moral sentiments. If you need the Bible to tell you that murder isYou emphasized _common_ moral ground. There are differences in how people regard specific moral issues, abortion, the death penalty, euthanasia, how far a duty to help others extends, etc. But religious people do not agree about these things among
--
Or do a search on any post where I reminded you to be mindful of your
legacy on this Earth. Or are you going to blame these comments of
yours on your doppelganger?
--
To know less than we don't know is the nature of most knowledge
broger...@gmail.com wrote:<...>
On Monday, January 8, 2024 at 12:52:33?PM UTC-5, Ron Dean wrote:
broger...@gmail.com wrote:
Such fossil links would be perfectly compatible with design. It would simply mean that the designer had intervened frequently to make small changes in his designs over time. Of course such linked fossils are compatible with design.That's essentially my argument: I've been making this argument for quite >> some time now. I've pointed out that the same evidence can be
interpreted in support of design as well as evolution.
This is due to the fact that fossil evidence is rarely objective and can >> be interpreted either way.
The difference is that there is hypothetically possible evidence that could falsify evolution.
What for example? A mammal fossil discovered in the per-Cambrian? No, it could be explained away by a burial or over-thrust. What about abrupt
appearance in strata by new and different life forms or species? No,
they could be explained away by having evolved elsewhere (peripheral isolates) and migration into the area where they fossilized and later
found (S.J. Gould). So, evolution cannot be falsified, so long as the
_mind_ can explain away contradictory evidence.
On the other hand, there is no possible evidence that could falsify
the design hypothesis that "a designer of unknown characteristics,
identity, capabilities, intentions and motivations" is responsible for
the origin and development of life on earth."
Or imagine you find that each organism uses a different genetic code.No, it would be seen as very bad or flawed engineering. If it works why re-invent the wheel!
Also totally compatible with design - the designer designed a specific
genetic code for each organism based on its specific requirements.
Whatever you find, a designer can explain it.
Perhaps the genetic code that exist is the most reliable, compact, information rich genetic code that is possible. Even so, mistakes,
copying errors, omissions, breaks etc happens constantly happen.
But a
mind, IE a highly intelligent that cares and that's capable of creating
such information, and realizing that such errors and mistakes will
occur, would purposely engineer proofreading and repair mechanisms,
designed to correct such errors and mistakes. This compared to
evolutionary concept of random mutations and natural selection, a
mindless, care-less, hazardous, purpose-less
universe.
broger...@gmail.com wrote:
On Monday, January 8, 2024 at 12:57:33 PM UTC-5, Ron Dean wrote:
jillery wrote:
On Sun, 7 Jan 2024 17:29:26 -0500, Ron DeanOk, what is the _common_ grounds for morality that's shared throughout
<rondean...@gmail.com> wrote:
jillery wrote:
On Sat, 6 Jan 2024 20:00:43 -0500, Ron DeanIOW you cannot!
<rondean...@gmail.com> wrote:
<snip for focus>
You say the evidence can be fitted within the ID concept. Then do so,You can make such accusations, but proving your charges against me, is
using all the evidence, instead of cherry-picking what you can fit, >>>>>>> and handwaving away what you can't, as other cdesign proponentsists >>>>>>> do.
another matter.
Do everybody a favor and focus on your own accusations and claims, if >>>>> only for the novelty of the experience.
You mean YOU won't. You continue to meet my expectations.
What accusations can you point to, that I should I focus on?
To accomodate your convenient amnesia:
***************************************
On Wed, 18 Oct 2023 15:33:02 -0400, Ron Dean
<rondean...@gmail.com> wrote:
This in part makes my case. Since evolution often leads to atheism, >>>> this explains why atheism discounts right or wrong. So, slavery,**************************************
abortion, infanticide is neither right or wrong. There is no common >>>> moral grounds for evolution or atheism.
all of atheism.
People, atheists or not, generally agree on major moral issues - murder is wrong, cooperating is good, taking care of your kids is good, etc.
Why? Murder is illegal in the US, but why is is morally wrong?
Ifthemselves, so there's no more _commonality_ among the religious than there is among atheists. Morality does not come from religion, even for religious people, it comes from our natural moral sentiments. If you need the Bible to tell you that murder is
someone decides to rob store, it's to his advantage not to leave
witnesses, "Survival" comes into play, why is morally wrong for him to
not leave witnesses to testify against him in a court of law?
You emphasized _common_ moral ground. There are differences in how people regard specific moral issues, abortion, the death penalty, euthanasia, how far a duty to help others extends, etc. But religious people do not agree about these things among
Or do a search on any post where I reminded you to be mindful of your >>> legacy on this Earth. Or are you going to blame these comments of
yours on your doppelganger?
--
To know less than we don't know is the nature of most knowledge
On 10/01/2024 03:14, Ron Dean wrote:
Perhaps the genetic code that exist is the most reliable, compact,
information rich genetic code that is possible. Even so, mistakes,
copying errors, omissions, breaks etc happens constantly happen.
People have actually investigated this. The conclusion that I understand
was reached is that the standard genetic code is a lot better than a
random code, but it is not optimal.
Mark Isaak wrote:
On 1/8/24 5:58 PM, Ron Dean wrote:Which of the 1000s of Gods are we talking about?
Mark Isaak wrote:
On 1/7/24 3:35 PM, Ron Dean wrote:Not exactly my argument, but when there is a strong conviction, there
broger...@gmail.com wrote:
On Saturday, January 6, 2024 at 7:57:31 PM UTC-5, Ron Dean wrote: >>>>>>> broger...@gmail.com wrote:I disagree. If scientist were to find several continuous fossil
On Thursday, January 4, 2024 at 9:17:29 PM UTC-5, Ron Dean wrote: >>>>>>>>> jillery wrote:The abrupt appearance of new forms in the earth's strata, such as >>>>>>> during
......On Wed, 03 Jan 2024 11:37:58 +0100, IDentityThere is a difference, since ID occurred millions, tens of
<iden...@invalid.org>
wrote:
On Mon, 01 Jan 2024 23:28:12 -0500, jillery <69jp...@gmail.com> >>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
On Mon, 1 Jan 2024 22:14:09 -0500, Ron Dean
<rondean...@gmail.com> wrote:
Apparently, this explanation went over your head. There >>>>>>>>>>>>> _is_ life:
proving that something (A God) or somehow brought life about. >>>>>>>>>>>>> Otherwise, there would be no life. Nature did not and could >>>>>>>>>>>>> not bring
about life there is no observable or empirical evidence >>>>>>>>>>>>> that it did. To
think random, aimless, blind and mindless natural processes >>>>>>>>>>>>> brought life
into existence requires huge - a tremendous amount of _faith_! >>>>>>>>>>>>
There is no observable or empirical evidence of a God or >>>>>>>>>>>> Mind that
created life, either.
You mean "*I* don't see any observable or empirical evidence >>>>>>>>>>> of a God
or Mind that created life".
That's not the same as there isn't any evidence.
If I see something you don't see, is it then me that sees >>>>>>>>>>> something
that isn't there, or you who don't see sometning that is there? >>>>>>>>>>
My words have exactly the same sense as R.Dean's words, and >>>>>>>>>> show that
his words don't show what he claims they show. R.Dean is a >>>>>>>>>> pseudoskeptic who regularly demands observable or empirical >>>>>>>>>> evidence
for the hypotheses he rejects, while he completely fails to >>>>>>>>>> provide
any observable or empirical evidence for his favored hypothesis. >>>>>>>>>>
million, even
billions of years in the past, there were no documentation, no >>>>>>>>> witnesses
of any of these events. The fact that new organisms
appeared abruptly in the strata, with no verifiable gradual
linkages
from the past, can be seen as circumstantial evidence they were >>>>>>>>> "planted" there. This applies to the first living cell, the first >>>>>>>>> multicellular cell organisms during the Cambrian, and most species >>>>>>>>> appear abruptly in the
strata with no fossil evidence leading to the new arrived species. >>>>>>>>> (Gould - Eldredge)
And this cast doubt upon the species claimed to have evolutionary >>>>>>>>> linkages back into the past.
Meanwhile, I and others repeatedly respond to his demands and put >>>>>>>>>> before him documented observable and empirical evidence, which >>>>>>>>>> he then
conveniently ignores/forgets. His post above is MOTS, rinse and >>>>>>>>>> repeat.
That's the problem. There is no observation or empiricalAll evidence can be fitted within the ID concept. The ID concept >>>>>>>> says simply that something of unknown identity, powers,
evidence, but
the discovered evidence is interpreted in accordance with and >>>>>>>>> so as to
fit with in the accepted paradigm. Truth is most evidence can >>>>>>>>> be fitted
within the ID concept, just as well as within evolution, but >>>>>>>>> exclusive
authority to interpret the evidence is demanded by Darwinist. >>>>>>>>
characteristics, location, and intentions made a bunch of things >>>>>>>> happen (life, bacterial flagella, eukaryotic body plans,
physical constants of the universe). Since there is nothing
specific in the ID concept, any possible evidence is always
going to be compatible with it. It is too vague to be falsifiable. >>>>>>> ..
the Cambrian could certainly be taken as supportive evidence of
ID. This
is _exactly_ what one would expect if design happened. Why, would >>>>>>> you
say, this is this not falsifiable?
Because anything at all that you find is _exactly_ what one would
expect if design happened. "Design" is not a specific hypothesis.
It is too vague to be testable. There is no possible evidence that >>>>>> could disprove design.
;
links from the past to a majority of new life forms this would
falsify the design hypothesis.
Yet you have already said that finding several continuous fossil
links to a minority of life forms does *not* falsify the design
hypothesis.
;
is the desire to find transitional linkage, between species when
there's none.
Where the strong conviction exists, the desire is *not* to see
linkages where they are obvious. You exemplify this. Actual
paleontology is carried out by people of diverse backgrounds and
beliefs, who know that they must appeal to evidence, not ideology, to
make their points.
So yes, strong convictions can be a problem. Science has developed
ways to minimize that problem. What are you doing to minimize it on
your side, where it really is a humongous problem?
There are a few that's claimed. But I believe what it comes down to,
is that which can be best fitted into the overall picture. An example
of this is the whale series. Especially when 99%+ of all species that
ever lived became extinct, what we have, then with each of the whale
ancestors being depicted is questionable. There is no way to know
that any of the forms "between" had any decedents, so what we
actually see is the "best in the field".
Yet you dismiss--no, reject--even the best.
you state exactly how many transitional fossil sequences it takesTo find even one sequence from the 1/th living cell, to any one of
before you consider your design hypothesis falsified?
;
the modern animal phylum that
appeared during the Cambrian would falsify the design hypothesis. But
failure to find even one verifiable sequence of fossil links from the
first living cell to a single one of the Cambrian modern animal
phylum should falsify evolution.
That literally makes as much sense as saying that Julius Caesar being
assassinated in the senate in 44 BC is falsified by the absence of a
motion-picture photographic record of the event.
Obviously, you are so set in your beliefs that evidence has ceased to
matter to you. You have decided that magical design is the source of
life and of life forms, and nothing can dissuade you.
In the final analysis, the truth as to which, evolution or deliberate
design is the correct answer, comes down to this one factor. But you
cannot accept this analysis, can you?
Of course not, because it is not true. Why can you not even consider
the possibility that evolution *is* the deliberate design?
But you have made it clear that you know better than God how to create
a world, so there is little point arguing with you further.
On 1/10/24 4:07 AM, Ernest Major wrote:
On 10/01/2024 03:14, Ron Dean wrote:
Perhaps the genetic code that exist is the most reliable, compact,
information rich genetic code that is possible. Even so, mistakes,
copying errors, omissions, breaks etc happens constantly happen.
People have actually investigated this. The conclusion that I
understand was reached is that the standard genetic code is a lot
better than a random code, but it is not optimal.
Also, there are multiple genetic codes. The standard one is by far the
most common, but NCBI lists 32 others:
1. The Standard Code
2. The Vertebrate Mitochondrial Code
3. The Yeast Mitochondrial Code
4. The Mold, Protozoan, and Coelenterate Mitochondrial Code and the Mycoplasma/Spiroplasma Code
5. The Invertebrate Mitochondrial Code
6. The Ciliate, Dasycladacean and Hexamita Nuclear Code
9. The Echinoderm and Flatworm Mitochondrial Code
10. The Euplotid Nuclear Code
11. The Bacterial, Archaeal and Plant Plastid Code
12. The Alternative Yeast Nuclear Code
13. The Ascidian Mitochondrial Code
14. The Alternative Flatworm Mitochondrial Code
15. Blepharisma Nuclear Code
16. Chlorophycean Mitochondrial Code
21. Trematode Mitochondrial Code
22. Scenedesmus obliquus Mitochondrial Code
23. Thraustochytrium Mitochondrial Code
24. Rhabdopleuridae Mitochondrial Code
25. Candidate Division SR1 and Gracilibacteria Code
26. Pachysolen tannophilus Nuclear Code
27. Karyorelict Nuclear Code
28. Condylostoma Nuclear Code
29. Mesodinium Nuclear Code
30. Peritrich Nuclear Code
31. Blastocrithidia Nuclear Code
33. Cephalodiscidae Mitochondrial UAA-Tyr Code
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/Taxonomy/Utils/wprintgc.cgi
Ernest Major wrote:
On 10/01/2024 03:14, Ron Dean wrote:Change occur with the passage of time, things tend towards decay. We
Or imagine you find that each organism uses a different genetic code.No, it would be seen as very bad or flawed engineering. If it works why
Also totally compatible with design - the designer designed a specific >>>> genetic code for each organism based on its specific requirements.
Whatever you find, a designer can explain it.
re-invent the wheel!
If each species had its own genetic code that would prevent viruses
jumping species - we wouldn't have to worry about monkeypox, or bat
coronaviruses, or avian influenza.
get older and tend to run down, after awhile problems develop where
before there were none. (this I experience everyday) Because of the
2/nd law, things tend towards increased entropy.
I suspect that, as time passes, the DNA proofread and repair
mechanisms are subject to some similar and some unique destructive
factors.
Mark Isaak wrote:
On 1/10/24 4:07 AM, Ernest Major wrote:Interesting! But rather than the 4 DNA nucleic acids, what do these different codes use? I'm really curious!
On 10/01/2024 03:14, Ron Dean wrote:
Perhaps the genetic code that exist is the most reliable, compact,
information rich genetic code that is possible. Even so, mistakes,
copying errors, omissions, breaks etc happens constantly happen.
People have actually investigated this. The conclusion that I
understand was reached is that the standard genetic code is a lot
better than a random code, but it is not optimal.
Also, there are multiple genetic codes. The standard one is by far the
most common, but NCBI lists 32 others:
1. The Standard Code
2. The Vertebrate Mitochondrial Code
3. The Yeast Mitochondrial Code
4. The Mold, Protozoan, and Coelenterate Mitochondrial Code and the
Mycoplasma/Spiroplasma Code
5. The Invertebrate Mitochondrial Code
6. The Ciliate, Dasycladacean and Hexamita Nuclear Code
9. The Echinoderm and Flatworm Mitochondrial Code
10. The Euplotid Nuclear Code
11. The Bacterial, Archaeal and Plant Plastid Code
12. The Alternative Yeast Nuclear Code
13. The Ascidian Mitochondrial Code
14. The Alternative Flatworm Mitochondrial Code
15. Blepharisma Nuclear Code
16. Chlorophycean Mitochondrial Code
21. Trematode Mitochondrial Code
22. Scenedesmus obliquus Mitochondrial Code
23. Thraustochytrium Mitochondrial Code
24. Rhabdopleuridae Mitochondrial Code
25. Candidate Division SR1 and Gracilibacteria Code
26. Pachysolen tannophilus Nuclear Code
27. Karyorelict Nuclear Code
28. Condylostoma Nuclear Code
29. Mesodinium Nuclear Code
30. Peritrich Nuclear Code
31. Blastocrithidia Nuclear Code
33. Cephalodiscidae Mitochondrial UAA-Tyr Code
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/Taxonomy/Utils/wprintgc.cgi
Ernest Major wrote:
On 10/01/2024 03:14, Ron Dean wrote:
Perhaps the genetic code that exist is the most reliable, compact,
information rich genetic code that is possible. Even so, mistakes,
copying errors, omissions, breaks etc happens constantly happen.
People have actually investigated this. The conclusion that I
understand was reached is that the standard genetic code is a lot
better than a random code, but it is not optimal.
Okay, but how is it that an aimless, haphazardous, mindless random
universe would provide anything other than a random code?
I suspect that random mutations and natural selection is analogues to
the magic bullet that killed President Kennedy.
I answered this elsewhere. Decay and rundown which occurs with the
But a mind, IE a highly intelligent that cares and that's capable of
creating such information, and realizing that such errors and mistakes
will occur, would purposely engineer proofreading and repair
mechanisms, designed to correct such errors and mistakes. This compared
to evolutionary concept of random mutations and natural selection, a
mindless, care-less, hazardous, purpose-less
universe.
Did this mind fail to foresee the existence of viruses (2 of the 3
models for the origin of viruses have them originating from more
complex organisms), was it unable to see or implement the
countermeasure of species specific genetic codes, or did it want
viruses to be able to jump species?
passage of time.
Mark Isaak wrote:
On 1/10/24 4:07 AM, Ernest Major wrote:Interesting! But rather than the 4 DNA nucleic acids, what do these different codes use? I'm really curious!
On 10/01/2024 03:14, Ron Dean wrote:
Perhaps the genetic code that exist is the most reliable, compact,
information rich genetic code that is possible. Even so, mistakes,
copying errors, omissions, breaks etc happens constantly happen.
People have actually investigated this. The conclusion that I
understand was reached is that the standard genetic code is a lot
better than a random code, but it is not optimal.
Also, there are multiple genetic codes. The standard one is by far the
most common, but NCBI lists 32 others:
1. The Standard Code
2. The Vertebrate Mitochondrial Code
3. The Yeast Mitochondrial Code
4. The Mold, Protozoan, and Coelenterate Mitochondrial Code and the
Mycoplasma/Spiroplasma Code
5. The Invertebrate Mitochondrial Code
6. The Ciliate, Dasycladacean and Hexamita Nuclear Code
9. The Echinoderm and Flatworm Mitochondrial Code
10. The Euplotid Nuclear Code
11. The Bacterial, Archaeal and Plant Plastid Code
12. The Alternative Yeast Nuclear Code
13. The Ascidian Mitochondrial Code
14. The Alternative Flatworm Mitochondrial Code
15. Blepharisma Nuclear Code
16. Chlorophycean Mitochondrial Code
21. Trematode Mitochondrial Code
22. Scenedesmus obliquus Mitochondrial Code
23. Thraustochytrium Mitochondrial Code
24. Rhabdopleuridae Mitochondrial Code
25. Candidate Division SR1 and Gracilibacteria Code
26. Pachysolen tannophilus Nuclear Code
27. Karyorelict Nuclear Code
28. Condylostoma Nuclear Code
29. Mesodinium Nuclear Code
30. Peritrich Nuclear Code
31. Blastocrithidia Nuclear Code
33. Cephalodiscidae Mitochondrial UAA-Tyr Code
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/Taxonomy/Utils/wprintgc.cgi
Ernest Major wrote:
On 10/01/2024 03:14, Ron Dean wrote:
Perhaps the genetic code that exist is the most reliable, compact,
information rich genetic code that is possible. Even so, mistakes,
copying errors, omissions, breaks etc happens constantly happen.
People have actually investigated this. The conclusion that I
understand was reached is that the standard genetic code is a lot
better than a random code, but it is not optimal.
Okay, but how is it that an aimless, haphazardous, mindless random
universe would provide anything other than a random code?
I suspect that random mutations and natural selection is analogues to
the magic bullet that killed President Kennedy.
 I answered this elsewhere. Decay and rundown which occurs with the
But a mind, IE a highly intelligent that cares and that's capable of
creating such information, and realizing that such errors and
mistakes will occur, would purposely engineer proofreading and repair
mechanisms, designed to correct such errors and mistakes. This
compared to evolutionary concept of random mutations and natural
selection, a mindless, care-less, hazardous, purpose-less
universe.
Did this mind fail to foresee the existence of viruses (2 of the 3
models for the origin of viruses have them originating from more
complex organisms), was it unable to see or implement the
countermeasure of species specific genetic codes, or did it want
viruses to be able to jump species?
passage of time.
On 2024-01-10 18:45:00 +0000, Ron Dean said:
Ernest Major wrote:
On 10/01/2024 03:14, Ron Dean wrote:Change occur with the passage of time, things tend towards decay. We
Or imagine you find that each organism uses a different genetic code. >>>>> Also totally compatible with design - the designer designed a specific >>>>> genetic code for each organism based on its specific requirements.No, it would be seen as very bad or flawed engineering. If it works why >>>> re-invent the wheel!
Whatever you find, a designer can explain it.
If each species had its own genetic code that would prevent viruses
jumping species - we wouldn't have to worry about monkeypox, or bat
coronaviruses, or avian influenza.
get older and tend to run down, after awhile problems develop where
before there were none. (this I experience everyday) Because of the
2/nd law, things tend towards increased entropy.
A typical misstatement of the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics by someone who doesn't understand it. The entropy of the universe cannot decrease, OK,
but you are not the universe. At the local level that is also true of a closed system, but you are not a closed system, and neither is the
biosphere.
I suspect that, as time passes, the DNA proofread and repair
mechanisms are subject to some similar and some unique destructive
factors.
It's hard to believe your claims of having once been a "committed,
convinced evolutionist" if you don't even understand what a genetic code
is.
Ernest Major wrote:
On 10/01/2024 03:14, Ron Dean wrote:Change occur with the passage of time, things tend towards decay. We get older and tend to run down, after awhile problems develop where before
Or imagine you find that each organism uses a different geneticNo, it would be seen as very bad or flawed engineering. If it works
code. Also totally compatible with design - the designer designed a
specific genetic code for each organism based on its specific
requirements. Whatever you find, a designer can explain it.
why re-invent the wheel!
If each species had its own genetic code that would prevent viruses
jumping species - we wouldn't have to worry about monkeypox, or bat
coronaviruses, or avian influenza.
there were none. (this I experience everyday) Because of the 2/nd law,
things tend towards increased entropy. I suspect that, as time passes,
the DNAÂ proofread and repair mechanisms are subject to some similar and some unique destructive factors.
Bob Casanova wrote:
On Tue, 9 Jan 2024 22:25:34 -0500, the following appeared in
talk.origins, posted by Ron Dean
<rondean-noreply@gmail.com>:
broger...@gmail.com wrote:Are you *really* trying to equate expediency with
On Monday, January 8, 2024 at 12:57:33?PM UTC-5, Ron Dean wrote:Why? Murder is illegal in the US, but why is is morally wrong? If
jillery wrote:
On Sun, 7 Jan 2024 17:29:26 -0500, Ron DeanOk, what is the _common_ grounds for morality that's shared throughout >>>>> all of atheism.
<rondean...@gmail.com> wrote:
jillery wrote:
On Sat, 6 Jan 2024 20:00:43 -0500, Ron DeanIOW you cannot!
<rondean...@gmail.com> wrote:
<snip for focus>
You say the evidence can be fitted within the ID concept. Then >>>>>>>>>> do so,You can make such accusations, but proving your charges against >>>>>>>>> me, is
using all the evidence, instead of cherry-picking what you can >>>>>>>>>> fit,
and handwaving away what you can't, as other cdesign
proponentsists
do.
another matter.
Do everybody a favor and focus on your own accusations and
claims, if
only for the novelty of the experience.
You mean YOU won't. You continue to meet my expectations.
What accusations can you point to, that I should I focus on?
To accomodate your convenient amnesia:
***************************************
On Wed, 18 Oct 2023 15:33:02 -0400, Ron Dean
<rondean...@gmail.com> wrote:
This in part makes my case. Since evolution often leads to atheism, >>>>>>> this explains why atheism discounts right or wrong. So, slavery, >>>>>>> abortion, infanticide is neither right or wrong. There is no common >>>>>>> moral grounds for evolution or atheism.**************************************
People, atheists or not, generally agree on major moral issues -
murder is wrong, cooperating is good, taking care of your kids is
good, etc.
someone decides to rob store, it's to his advantage not to leave
witnesses, "Survival"Â comes into play, why is morally wrong for him to >>> not leave witnesses to testify against him in a court of law?
morality?!? IOW, that which is expedient is moral?
Everybody tries to turn this around on me. But I was _not_ describing
how I felt, but this was a question for _you_!
Ernest Major wrote:
On 10/01/2024 03:14, Ron Dean wrote:
Perhaps the genetic code that exist is the most reliable, compact,
information rich genetic code that is possible. Even so, mistakes,
copying errors, omissions, breaks etc happens constantly happen.
People have actually investigated this. The conclusion that I
understand was reached is that the standard genetic code is a lot
better than a random code, but it is not optimal.
Okay, but how is it that an aimless, haphazardous, mindless random
universe would provide anything other than a random code?
Bob Casanova wrote:*You* were the one who used the expediency of a murder as a
On Tue, 9 Jan 2024 22:25:34 -0500, the following appeared in
talk.origins, posted by Ron Dean
<rondean-noreply@gmail.com>:
broger...@gmail.com wrote:Are you *really* trying to equate expediency with
On Monday, January 8, 2024 at 12:57:33?PM UTC-5, Ron Dean wrote:Why? Murder is illegal in the US, but why is is morally wrong? If
jillery wrote:
On Sun, 7 Jan 2024 17:29:26 -0500, Ron DeanOk, what is the _common_ grounds for morality that's shared throughout >>>>> all of atheism.
<rondean...@gmail.com> wrote:
jillery wrote:
On Sat, 6 Jan 2024 20:00:43 -0500, Ron DeanIOW you cannot!
<rondean...@gmail.com> wrote:
<snip for focus>
You say the evidence can be fitted within the ID concept. Then do so,You can make such accusations, but proving your charges against me, is
using all the evidence, instead of cherry-picking what you can fit, >>>>>>>>>> and handwaving away what you can't, as other cdesign proponentsists >>>>>>>>>> do.
another matter.
Do everybody a favor and focus on your own accusations and claims, if >>>>>>>> only for the novelty of the experience.
You mean YOU won't. You continue to meet my expectations.
What accusations can you point to, that I should I focus on?
To accomodate your convenient amnesia:
***************************************
On Wed, 18 Oct 2023 15:33:02 -0400, Ron Dean
<rondean...@gmail.com> wrote:
This in part makes my case. Since evolution often leads to atheism, >>>>>>> this explains why atheism discounts right or wrong. So, slavery, >>>>>>> abortion, infanticide is neither right or wrong. There is no common >>>>>>> moral grounds for evolution or atheism.**************************************
People, atheists or not, generally agree on major moral issues - murder is wrong, cooperating is good, taking care of your kids is good, etc.
someone decides to rob store, it's to his advantage not to leave
witnesses, "Survival" comes into play, why is morally wrong for him to
not leave witnesses to testify against him in a court of law?
morality?!? IOW, that which is expedient is moral?
Everybody tries to turn this around on me. But I was _not_ describing
how I felt, but this was a question for _you_!
themselves, so there's no more _commonality_ among the religious than there is among atheists. Morality does not come from religion, even for religious people, it comes from our natural moral sentiments. If you need the Bible to tell you that murder isWow.
You emphasized _common_ moral ground. There are differences in how people regard specific moral issues, abortion, the death penalty, euthanasia, how far a duty to help others extends, etc. But religious people do not agree about these things among
--
Or do a search on any post where I reminded you to be mindful of your >>>>>> legacy on this Earth. Or are you going to blame these comments of
yours on your doppelganger?
--
To know less than we don't know is the nature of most knowledge
Are you *really* trying to equate expediency with
morality?!? IOW, that which is expedient is moral?
Everybody tries to turn this around on me. But I was _not_ describing
how I felt, but this was a question for _you_!
Have you considered that the common flaws, shortcoming and failures of evolution is obvious to anyone with a questioning mind and who looks at
both sides of the issue?
Ernest Major wrote:
On 10/01/2024 19:40, Ron Dean wrote:Organized religion were founded by human beings and also controlled by people. You cannot escape this: so, in reality, this is where your faith
Are you *really* trying to equate expediency withEverybody tries to turn this around on me. But I was _not_ describing
morality?!? IOW, that which is expedient is moral?
;
how I felt, but this was a question for _you_!
I thought that you were engaging in well poisoning, but the well that
you were poisoning feeds your own water supply, so it's understandable
that people might interpret the question as representing your own
position.
is placed.
You studiously refrain from speculating on the identity and
nature of the "Intelligent Designer";
I'm convinced what we observe, is the involvement of some immensely intelligent and powerful life force or agent who I believe, as an
experiment, set things in motion and left the scene. There is no reason
to believe it is directly or purposefully controls the lives, events or mechanisms of the universe today. Things are designed to be able to self regulate and automatically continue.
This we observe everyday. The existence of the laws of physics, the
universal constants.
The evidence for me concerns the fact that there is order in the
universe, evidenced by the fact that it's possible to define and
describe the universe, the motions etc with mathematics. including the earth, and the solar system. This the handy-work of the Deity I believe exist.
....you claim to reject organised religion; so with regards to the
question as to why murder is wrong
you're in no different position to the people you were aiming thequestion at.
You are right. I've recognized this and it's really distressing.
Eventhough, I reject organized religion, I recognize the fact that the
Judo - Christian principles and morality is historical and very much at
the root of our national moral codes - not that I believe we are all in agreement, but I think this
holds true for the majority of Americans and the West. I contrast this
with the fact that in other parts of the world, especially the Middle
East they are not grounded in the same way as the west.
I also recognize the fact that Japan, China, Russia and some other
nations are not as well. But
today's Japan, to a large extent is founded upon western concepts due to
the WWII defeat and
western, mainly American influence.
For me personally, having been born and grew up in the US I've accepted
for my life, these same
Judo-Christian values and morality. But I am conflicted! To be perfectly honest. I _do_not_ know
the truth of Darwinism. Perhaps evolution is the explanation for all
that we observe and accept. If
evolution is factual, then we humans having descended from primitive
animals, like it or not, but
we are nothing, but animals ourselves. I look at the animal world, kill
or be kill, eat or starve. My
cat killed a bird ate a part of it and left a part at my back door. On
TV a hyena catches a zebra, it
struggles while other hyenas are eating it while it's still alive. Of
course, I could not watch this.Who could!
But if we are just another animal, then what makes us different and
special. Why is it more wrong
to kill another person from a Darwinism standpoint than a deer for the
sport and the fun of hunting.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK254313/
I think that Darwinism is generally looked upon as amoral, but is it?
When I was young, locking doors was not very common. About the most common problem in schools was shooting spit balls and running down the hall.
Compare this to today.
If we are just another animal why is it morally wrong for school
shootings to occur and robbing the
store next door? It's wrong from these Judo-Christian standards, but I believe Darwinian thought _tends_ to undermines these Judi- Christian principles and morals. I desperately wish, I was wrong. I'm not sure
this was not Darwin's purpose after his reading of Wm. Paley's Book,
"Natural Theology" And maybe not. Perhaps, he wrote his book not
thinking are caring where the chips fell.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S1369848613001726
Martin Harran wrote:
On Tue, 9 Jan 2024 23:25:55 -0500, Ron Dean
<rondean-noreply@gmail.com> wrote:
Martin Harran wrote:
On Mon, 8 Jan 2024 13:03:55 -0500, Ron DeanThe arguments I make generally are mine, based upon what I personally
<rondean-noreply@gmail.com> wrote:
Martin Harran wrote:
On Thu, 4 Jan 2024 21:16:44 -0500, Ron Dean
<rondean-noreply@gmail.com> wrote:
[...]
There is a difference, since ID occurred millions, tens of
million, even
billions of years in the past, there were no documentation, no
witnesses
of any of these events.
I asked this question to MarkE but he declined to give any
explanation, perhaps you might do so.
Then again, perhaps not.
Personal God?? I've pointed out numerous times, that I know of no
How do you get from God fiddling with molecules millions or billions >>>>>> of years ago to a personal God with whom humans (apparently
exclusively) can interact?
evidence pointing to the identity of the designer. But if you
choose to
call this designer, "God", it's okay with me. But there are thousands >>>>> and thousands of Gods throughout human history. So, I'm at a loss
as to
which one is the designer.
That's the God that Stephen Meyer describes
in his book "Return of the God Hypothesis"; the God that all theWhich of the Gods is that?
leading proponents of ID believe in; the God that *I* believe in.
Phillip Johnson (recognised as the 'Father of Intelligent Design'):
=========================================
"This [the intelligent design movement] isn't really, and never has
been, a debate about science, it's about religion and philosophy."
[World Magazine, 30 November 1996]
"The Intelligent Design movement starts with the recognition that 'In
the beginning was the Word,' and 'In the beginning God created.' "
[Foreword to "Creation, Evolution, & Modern Science" (2000)]
'In the beginning was the Word,' is the start of Gospel according to
John so he's obviously talking about the Christian God.
William Dembski::
============
"Indeed, intelligent design is just the Logos theology of John's
Gospel restated in the idiom of information theory."
["Signs of Intelligence," 1999, Touchstone magazine.]
Clearly the Christian God.
Michael Behe:
========
" I think I said that at the beginning of my testimony yesterday, that >>>> I think in fact from -- from other perspectives, that the designer is
in fact God."
[Dover, Day 11PM, Cross Examination by Eric Rothschild]
Behe is a committed Catholic so I think it reasonable to assume that
he is talking about the Christian God.
Stephen Meyer (arguably the current leading current face of ID):
=========================================
In his book 'The Return of the God Hypothesis', he describes the
theism he is talking about as "a personal, intelligent, transcendent
God." [p269]
He doesn't specifically refer to Christianity in that description but
in multiple places in the book, he emphatically places modern science
as originating in Judeo-Christian beliefs and the Christian God
certainly fits his description of the theism he is arguing in favour
of.
Several times previously, you have cherry-picked observations by Gould >>>> and Eldredge but ignored their overall conclusions. ISTM that you are
doing the same thing here - cherry-picking arguments by the leading ID >>>> proponents but ignoring their overall conclusions.
observe.
I find it a strange coincidence that you use more or less same
arguments as those proponents of ID. We are all influenced in our
opinions by we read or what we hear from other people - what is
regarded as an *informed* opinion. I suspect that you are more
influenced by stuff you have read from those ID proponents than you
fully realise. [1]
Have you considered that the common flaws, shortcoming and failures of evolution is obvious to anyone with a questioning mind and who looks at
both sides of the issue?
 There always two sides to disagreements. A
couple years ago I was called to be on a juror where a man was accused robbing
a gas store and shot the lady operator. Suppose the judge after hearing
the accuser and attorney saying "we've heard enough", ordered the
defense to be silent "you have no case and no defense".
That's exactly what is happening in our schools and universities the naturalist saying "you have
no case ( there's no evidence). So, this while masquerading as truth
demands silence on the other side and even passed laws prohibiting it.
There is a word for this.....! You know exactly what it is!
Well it should make sense to you, if homo sapiens evolved along with
other countless other animals, then what do you thinks makes us more
special than the our cousin the chimp or the more distant relative the baboon?
On 1/11/24 4:13 PM, Ron Dean wrote:
Judo-Christian values
That part really threw me.
On 1/11/24 9:56 PM, Ron Dean wrote:
[ … ]
 There always two sides to disagreements. A couple years ago I was
called to be on a juror where a man was accused robbing
a gas store and shot the lady operator. Suppose the judge after hearing
the accuser and attorney saying "we've heard enough", ordered the
defense to be silent "you have no case and no defense".
That's exactly what is happening in our schools and universities the
naturalist saying "you have
no case ( there's no evidence). So, this while masquerading as truth
demands silence on the other side and even passed laws prohibiting it.
There is a word for this.....! You know exactly what it is!
Interestingly enough, whenever I head about book bannings, the people
calling for the banning have ideological leanings that align them more
with your ideas than with the people you are arguing with.
Ernest Major wrote:
On 12/01/2024 00:13, Ron Dean wrote:I've read Gould, and Dawkins, but not the other guy. Nature is red on
Ernest Major wrote:
On 10/01/2024 19:40, Ron Dean wrote:Organized religion were founded by human beings and also controlled
Are you *really* trying to equate expediency withEverybody tries to turn this around on me. But I was _not_
morality?!? IOW, that which is expedient is moral?
;
describing how I felt, but this was a question for _you_!
I thought that you were engaging in well poisoning, but the well
that you were poisoning feeds your own water supply, so it's
understandable that people might interpret the question as
representing your own position.
by people. You cannot escape this: so, in reality, this is where your
faith is placed.
;I'm convinced what we observe, is the involvement of some immensely
You studiously refrain from speculating on the identity and
nature of the "Intelligent Designer";
;
intelligent and powerful life force or agent who I believe, as an
experiment, set things in motion and left the scene. There is no
reason to believe it is directly or purposefully controls the lives,
events or mechanisms of the universe today. Things are designed to be
able to self regulate and automatically continue.
This we observe everyday. The existence of the laws of physics, the
universal constants.
The evidence for me concerns the fact that there is order in the
universe, evidenced by the fact that it's possible to define and
describe the universe, the motions etc with mathematics. including
the earth, and the solar system. This the handy-work of the Deity I
believe exist.
;....you claim to reject organised religion; so with regards to the
question as to why murder is wrong
you're in no different position to the people you were aiming thequestion at.
;You are right. I've recognized this and it's really distressing.
Eventhough, I reject organized religion, I recognize the fact that
the Judo - Christian principles and morality is historical and very
much at the root of our national moral codes - not that I believe we
are all in agreement, but I think this
holds true for the majority of Americans and the West. I contrast
this with the fact that in other parts of the world, especially the
Middle East they are not grounded in the same way as the west.
I also recognize the fact that Japan, China, Russia and some other
nations are not as well. But
today's Japan, to a large extent is founded upon western concepts due
to the WWII defeat and
western, mainly American influence.
For me personally, having been born and grew up in the US I've
accepted for my life, these same
Judo-Christian values and morality. But I am conflicted! To be
perfectly honest. I _do_not_ know
the truth of Darwinism. Perhaps evolution is the explanation for all
that we observe and accept. If
evolution is factual, then we humans having descended from primitive
animals, like it or not, but
we are nothing, but animals ourselves. I look at the animal world,
kill or be kill, eat or starve. My
cat killed a bird ate a part of it and left a part at my back door.
On TV a hyena catches a zebra, it
struggles while other hyenas are eating it while it's still alive. Of
course, I could not watch this.Who could!
But if we are just another animal, then what makes us different and
special. Why is it more wrong
to kill another person from a Darwinism standpoint than a deer for
the sport and the fun of hunting.
You complain that people interpreted you as not understanding why
murder is wrong, but now you double down on not understanding that
murder is wrong.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK254313/
I think that Darwinism is generally looked upon as amoral, but is it?
When I was young, locking doors was not very common. About the most
common
problem in schools was shooting spit balls and running down the hall.
Compare this to today.
If we are just another animal why is it morally wrong for school
shootings to occur and robbing the
store next door? It's wrong from these Judo-Christian standards, but
I believe Darwinian thought _tends_ to undermines these Judi-
Christian principles and morals. I desperately wish, I was wrong. I'm
not sure this was not Darwin's purpose after his reading of Wm.
Paley's Book, "Natural Theology" And maybe not. Perhaps, he wrote his
book not thinking are caring where the chips fell.
The weird thing is that it's mostly people who reject evolution that
are Social Tennysonists.
If you'd read Gould or the younger Dawkins (probably also Kropotkin,
but I haven't read him) with an open mind you'd understand that
evolution by natural selection and other processes doesn't entail
society red in tooth and claw.
tooth and claw. What do you think, the eat or be eaten world of nature
is, if not red in tooth and claw. The big cat kills and eats a
deer, wolfs kills and eats a buffalo. This _is_ nature! Humans are part
of nature, we kill and eat other animals cows, hogs, birds etc.: and we humans have been known to kill and eat each other. We evolved along with other animals, so what makes humans special from our cousin the chimp or
the more distant relative the baboon?
If evolution is a reality, then we are not different, we're just another animal. To ignore or deny this, is just self-aggrandizement and
arrogance on our part. But people who push Darwinism refuse to accept
this or face the music.
Ernest Major wrote:
On 12/01/2024 00:13, Ron Dean wrote:
Ernest Major wrote:
On 10/01/2024 19:40, Ron Dean wrote:Organized religion were founded by human beings and also controlled by
Are you *really* trying to equate expediency withEverybody tries to turn this around on me. But I was _not_
morality?!? IOW, that which is expedient is moral?
describing how I felt, but this was a question for _you_!
I thought that you were engaging in well poisoning, but the well that >>> you were poisoning feeds your own water supply, so it's
understandable that people might interpret the question as
representing your own position.
people. You cannot escape this: so, in reality, this is where your
faith is placed.
I'm convinced what we observe, is the involvement of some immensely
You studiously refrain from speculating on the identity and
nature of the "Intelligent Designer";
intelligent and powerful life force or agent who I believe, as an
experiment, set things in motion and left the scene. There is no
reason to believe it is directly or purposefully controls the lives,
events or mechanisms of the universe today. Things are designed to be
able to self regulate and automatically continue.
This we observe everyday. The existence of the laws of physics, the
universal constants.
The evidence for me concerns the fact that there is order in the
universe, evidenced by the fact that it's possible to define and
describe the universe, the motions etc with mathematics. including
the earth, and the solar system. This the handy-work of the Deity I
believe exist.
....you claim to reject organised religion; so with regards to the
question as to why murder is wrong
you're in no different position to the people you were aiming thequestion at.
You are right. I've recognized this and it's really distressing.
Eventhough, I reject organized religion, I recognize the fact that the
Judo - Christian principles and morality is historical and very much
at the root of our national moral codes - not that I believe we are
all in agreement, but I think this
holds true for the majority of Americans and the West. I contrast this
with the fact that in other parts of the world, especially the Middle
East they are not grounded in the same way as the west.
I also recognize the fact that Japan, China, Russia and some other
nations are not as well. But
today's Japan, to a large extent is founded upon western concepts due
to the WWII defeat and
western, mainly American influence.
For me personally, having been born and grew up in the US I've
accepted for my life, these same
Judo-Christian values and morality. But I am conflicted! To be
perfectly honest. I _do_not_ know
the truth of Darwinism. Perhaps evolution is the explanation for all
that we observe and accept. If
evolution is factual, then we humans having descended from primitive
animals, like it or not, but
we are nothing, but animals ourselves. I look at the animal world,
kill or be kill, eat or starve. My
cat killed a bird ate a part of it and left a part at my back door. On
TV a hyena catches a zebra, it
struggles while other hyenas are eating it while it's still alive. Of
course, I could not watch this.Who could!
But if we are just another animal, then what makes us different and
special. Why is it more wrong
to kill another person from a Darwinism standpoint than a deer for the
sport and the fun of hunting.
You complain that people interpreted you as not understanding why murder is wrong, but now you double down on not understanding that murder is wrong.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK254313/
I think that Darwinism is generally looked upon as amoral, but is it?
When I was young, locking doors was not very common. About the most
common
problem in schools was shooting spit balls and running down the hall.
Compare this to today.
If we are just another animal why is it morally wrong for school
shootings to occur and robbing the
store next door? It's wrong from these Judo-Christian standards, but I
believe Darwinian thought _tends_ to undermines these Judi- Christian
principles and morals. I desperately wish, I was wrong. I'm not sure
this was not Darwin's purpose after his reading of Wm. Paley's Book,
"Natural Theology" And maybe not. Perhaps, he wrote his book not
thinking are caring where the chips fell.
The weird thing is that it's mostly people who reject evolution that are Social Tennysonists.
If you'd read Gould or the younger Dawkins (probably also Kropotkin, but
I haven't read him) with an open mind you'd understand that evolution by natural selection and other processes doesn't entail society red in
tooth and claw.
I've read Gould, and Dawkins, but not the other guy. Nature is red on
tooth and claw. What do you think, the eat or be eaten world of nature
is, if not red in tooth and claw. The big cat kills and eats a
deer, wolfs kills and eats a buffalo. This _is_ nature! Humans are part
of nature, we kill and eat other animals cows, hogs, birds etc.: and we humans have been known to kill and eat each other. We evolved along with other animals, so what makes humans special from our cousin the chimp or
the more distant relative the baboon?
If evolution is a reality, then we are not different, we're just another animal. To ignore or deny this, is just self-aggrandizement and
arrogance on our part. But people who push Darwinism refuse to accept
this or face the music.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S1369848613001726 >>
Martin Harran wrote:
On Tue, 9 Jan 2024 23:25:55 -0500, Ron Dean
<rondean...@gmail.com> wrote:
Martin Harran wrote:
On Mon, 8 Jan 2024 13:03:55 -0500, Ron DeanThe arguments I make generally are mine, based upon what I personally
<rondean...@gmail.com> wrote:
Martin Harran wrote:
On Thu, 4 Jan 2024 21:16:44 -0500, Ron Dean
<rondean...@gmail.com> wrote:
[...]
There is a difference, since ID occurred millions, tens of million, even
billions of years in the past, there were no documentation, no witnesses
of any of these events.
I asked this question to MarkE but he declined to give any
explanation, perhaps you might do so.
Then again, perhaps not.
Personal God?? I've pointed out numerous times, that I know of no
How do you get from God fiddling with molecules millions or billions >>>>> of years ago to a personal God with whom humans (apparently
exclusively) can interact?
evidence pointing to the identity of the designer. But if you choose to >>>> call this designer, "God", it's okay with me. But there are thousands >>>> and thousands of Gods throughout human history. So, I'm at a loss as to >>>> which one is the designer.
That's the God that Stephen Meyer describes
in his book "Return of the God Hypothesis"; the God that all theWhich of the Gods is that?
leading proponents of ID believe in; the God that *I* believe in. >>>>>
Phillip Johnson (recognised as the 'Father of Intelligent Design'):
=========================================
"This [the intelligent design movement] isn't really, and never has
been, a debate about science, it's about religion and philosophy."
[World Magazine, 30 November 1996]
"The Intelligent Design movement starts with the recognition that 'In >>> the beginning was the Word,' and 'In the beginning God created.' "
[Foreword to "Creation, Evolution, & Modern Science" (2000)]
'In the beginning was the Word,' is the start of Gospel according to
John so he's obviously talking about the Christian God.
William Dembski::
============
"Indeed, intelligent design is just the Logos theology of John's
Gospel restated in the idiom of information theory."
["Signs of Intelligence," 1999, Touchstone magazine.]
Clearly the Christian God.
Michael Behe:
========
" I think I said that at the beginning of my testimony yesterday, that >>> I think in fact from -- from other perspectives, that the designer is >>> in fact God."
[Dover, Day 11PM, Cross Examination by Eric Rothschild]
Behe is a committed Catholic so I think it reasonable to assume that
he is talking about the Christian God.
Stephen Meyer (arguably the current leading current face of ID):
=========================================
In his book 'The Return of the God Hypothesis', he describes the
theism he is talking about as "a personal, intelligent, transcendent
God." [p269]
He doesn't specifically refer to Christianity in that description but >>> in multiple places in the book, he emphatically places modern science >>> as originating in Judeo-Christian beliefs and the Christian God
certainly fits his description of the theism he is arguing in favour
of.
Several times previously, you have cherry-picked observations by Gould >>> and Eldredge but ignored their overall conclusions. ISTM that you are >>> doing the same thing here - cherry-picking arguments by the leading ID >>> proponents but ignoring their overall conclusions.
observe.
I find it a strange coincidence that you use more or less same
arguments as those proponents of ID. We are all influenced in our
opinions by we read or what we hear from other people - what is
regarded as an *informed* opinion. I suspect that you are more
influenced by stuff you have read from those ID proponents than you
fully realise. [1]
Have you considered that the common flaws, shortcoming and failures of evolution is obvious to anyone with a questioning mind and who looks at
both sides of the issue? There always two sides to disagreements. A
couple years ago I was called to be on a juror where a man was accused robbing
a gas store and shot the lady operator. Suppose the judge after hearing
the accuser and attorney saying "we've heard enough", ordered the
defense to be silent "you have no case and no defense".
That's exactly what is happening in our schools and universities the naturalist saying "you have
no case ( there's no evidence). So, this while masquerading as truth
demands silence on the other side and even passed laws prohibiting it.
There is a word for this.....! You know exactly what it is!
Even taking what you say at face value, on what basis do you think
your judgement as an engineer with limited knowledge and no practical experience of, for example, palaeontology is more reliable than the conclusions drawn by people who are professionally qualified in
subject and have spent their working lives (and beyond) studying it?
Medicine is a typical area of science where experts regularly disagree
on some of the details, where they don't always get the answers right
and sometimes do make mistakes. When you were going through your
recent medical problems, would you have done some limited research on those problems and then felt competent to inform the medical exerts
you were dealing with like your opinion differed to theirs, that their diagnosis and recommended action didn't "look right" to you?
============================
[1] In his book, Meyer summarises the 3 main issues that he believes science has failed to answer:
- The 'vast': the origins of the Universe, the Big Bang.
- The 'very small' - DNA and coding/intelligence
- The 'very old': the Cambrian explosion and development of so
many novel life-forms
Sound familiar?
The latest argument for example, is strictly my own, that is
the DNA's 5 or 6 proofreading and repair mechanisms which are integral
to DNA. I've yet to see this addressed, so I question that any other
IDest has addressed this.
I failed to understand how a mindless, purpose-less, care-less and
thought-less universe could have arrived at these mechanisms, especially >> so early at, or near the beginning of this (DNA) information system. I
personally think that this result strongly infers the existence of a
caring, purposeful, thoughtful intelligent mind, which, I think is the
_better_ explanation. I realize this is _not_ proof, but can be seen as >> supportive evidence. I think it's unscientific when one's commitment
(one's paradigm) to a religion or a scientific theory takes precedence, >> priority and overrides logic, rationality and reason. And I see this in >> myself, which I fight to overcome.
[...]
Burkhard wrote:
On Wednesday, January 10, 2024 at 3:27:34 AM UTC, Ron Dean wrote:
broger...@gmail.com wrote:
On Monday, January 8, 2024 at 12:57:33 PM UTC-5, Ron Dean wrote:Why? Murder is illegal in the US, but why is is morally wrong?
jillery wrote:
On Sun, 7 Jan 2024 17:29:26 -0500, Ron DeanOk, what is the _common_ grounds for morality that's shared throughout >>>> all of atheism.
<rondean...@gmail.com> wrote:
jillery wrote:
On Sat, 6 Jan 2024 20:00:43 -0500, Ron DeanIOW you cannot!
<rondean...@gmail.com> wrote:
<snip for focus>
You say the evidence can be fitted within the ID concept. Then do so,You can make such accusations, but proving your charges against me, is
using all the evidence, instead of cherry-picking what you can fit,
and handwaving away what you can't, as other cdesign proponentsists
do.
another matter.
Do everybody a favor and focus on your own accusations and claims, if
only for the novelty of the experience.
You mean YOU won't. You continue to meet my expectations.
What accusations can you point to, that I should I focus on?
To accomodate your convenient amnesia:
***************************************
On Wed, 18 Oct 2023 15:33:02 -0400, Ron Dean
<rondean...@gmail.com> wrote:
This in part makes my case. Since evolution often leads to atheism, >>>>>> this explains why atheism discounts right or wrong. So, slavery, >>>>>> abortion, infanticide is neither right or wrong. There is no common >>>>>> moral grounds for evolution or atheism.**************************************
People, atheists or not, generally agree on major moral issues - murder is wrong, cooperating is good, taking care of your kids is good, etc.
You don't know that? That's really worrying!
So, you turn that around on me! That was _my_ complaint.
themselves, so there's no more _commonality_ among the religious than there is among atheists. Morality does not come from religion, even for religious people, it comes from our natural moral sentiments. If you need the Bible to tell you that murder isIf
someone decides to rob store, it's to his advantage not to leave
witnesses, "Survival" comes into play, why is morally wrong for him to
not leave witnesses to testify against him in a court of law?
You emphasized _common_ moral ground. There are differences in how people regard specific moral issues, abortion, the death penalty, euthanasia, how far a duty to help others extends, etc. But religious people do not agree about these things among
Or do a search on any post where I reminded you to be mindful of your >>>>> legacy on this Earth. Or are you going to blame these comments of >>>>> yours on your doppelganger?
--
To know less than we don't know is the nature of most knowledge
jillery wrote:
You keep asking the same question. I and others keep explaining to
you that evolution and morality have NOTHING to do with each other. As
far as I'm concerned, you might as well ask if its moral for the Sun
to shine. Seriously, what's your point?
So here's some questions for you:
1. How do you think ToE and morality are involved with each other? Specifically, do you think people who eat other people do so because
they accept ToE? Can you consider the likelihood they do so for
reasons having nothing whatever to do with ToE?
According to ToE we are nothing more than evolved animals, so can you
condemn cannibals on their practice of killing and eating humans? No,
you cannot! You have _NO_ moral grounds to do so!
2. Do you think swapping ToE with ID/Creationism would make people
more moral? Specifically, do you think people would stop eating other people if they accepted ID/Creationism? Would it be enough for you if
they just felt really, really bad about doing it?
Whether they would or not, it has nothing to do with the issue I
mentioned. It's just an attempt at escape. In fact since we are just
animals ToE tends to undermine morality. From an evolutionary basis
there is _NO_ grounds for one animal killing and eating another
morality. It happens in the
natural world and we are animals in the natural world. If evolution is reality there's nothing special about us animals.
jillery wrote:
On Sun, 14 Jan 2024 22:49:30 -0500, Ron Dean
<rondean...@gmail.com> wrote:
jillery wrote:
On Sun, 14 Jan 2024 13:44:16 -0800 (PST), BurkhardIn history and perhaps even today, tribes of people who kill and eat
<b.sc...@ed.ac.uk> wrote:
On Wednesday, January 10, 2024 at 6:52:35?PM UTC, Ron Dean wrote:
Burkhard wrote:
On Wednesday, January 10, 2024 at 3:27:34?AM UTC, Ron Dean wrote: >>>>>>> broger...@gmail.com wrote:So, you turn that around on me! That was _my_ complaint.
On Monday, January 8, 2024 at 12:57:33?PM UTC-5, Ron Dean wrote: >>>>>>>>> jillery wrote:Why? Murder is illegal in the US, but why is is morally wrong? >>>>>>
On Sun, 7 Jan 2024 17:29:26 -0500, Ron DeanOk, what is the _common_ grounds for morality that's shared throughout
<rondean...@gmail.com> wrote:
jillery wrote:
On Sat, 6 Jan 2024 20:00:43 -0500, Ron DeanIOW you cannot!
<rondean...@gmail.com> wrote:
<snip for focus>
You say the evidence can be fitted within the ID concept. Then do so,You can make such accusations, but proving your charges against me, is
using all the evidence, instead of cherry-picking what you can fit,
and handwaving away what you can't, as other cdesign proponentsists
do.
another matter.
Do everybody a favor and focus on your own accusations and claims, if
only for the novelty of the experience.
You mean YOU won't. You continue to meet my expectations. >>>>>>>>>>
What accusations can you point to, that I should I focus on? >>>>>>>>>>
To accomodate your convenient amnesia:
***************************************
On Wed, 18 Oct 2023 15:33:02 -0400, Ron Dean
<rondean...@gmail.com> wrote:
This in part makes my case. Since evolution often leads to atheism,**************************************
this explains why atheism discounts right or wrong. So, slavery, >>>>>>>>>>> abortion, infanticide is neither right or wrong. There is no common
moral grounds for evolution or atheism.
all of atheism.
People, atheists or not, generally agree on major moral issues - murder is wrong, cooperating is good, taking care of your kids is good, etc.
You don't know that? That's really worrying!
If you understood why murder is morally wrong, you would not ask]the question,
or wonder why atheists and theist typically agree that (many forms of) >>>> murder are wrong.
ISTM B.Rogers hit it on the nose elsethread:
***********************************
You seem to think that admitting we are animals means that there's no >>> reason to behave morally. That's nonsense. You seem to share with a
number of evangelicals I have known the idea that if we are not the
special creation of a personal God, the purpose for which the universe >>> was created, then life had no meaning and there's no morality. That's >>> your own failure of imagination, not a consequence of the theory of
evolution.
**********************************
other people. How do we apply our morality to people who practice
cannibalism. Is this immoral; if so why? After all, we are nothing more >> than animals that evolved along with and from other animals. Do you
think that people involved in cannibalism had any moral concerns, more
so than than animals.
https://duckduckgo.com/?q=people+who+eat+people+facts&va=b&t=hr&ia=web
You keep asking the same question. I and others keep explaining to
you that evolution and morality have NOTHING to do with each other. As
far as I'm concerned, you might as well ask if its moral for the Sun
to shine. Seriously, what's your point?
So here's some questions for you:
1. How do you think ToE and morality are involved with each other? Specifically, do you think people who eat other people do so because
they accept ToE? Can you consider the likelihood they do so for
reasons having nothing whatever to do with ToE?
According to ToE we are nothing more than evolved animals, so can you condemn cannibals on their practice of killing and eating humans? No,
you cannot! You have _NO_ moral grounds to do so!
2. Do you think swapping ToE with ID/Creationism would make people
more moral? Specifically, do you think people would stop eating other people if they accepted ID/Creationism? Would it be enough for you if
they just felt really, really bad about doing it?
Whether they would or not, it has nothing to do with the issue I
mentioned.
It's just an attempt at escape. In fact since we are just
animals ToE tends to undermine morality. From an evolutionary basis
there is _NO_ grounds for one animal killing and eating another
morality. It happens in the
natural world and we are animals in the natural world. If evolution is reality there's nothing special about us animals.
among themselves, so there's no more _commonality_ among the religious than there is among atheists. Morality does not come from religion, even for religious people, it comes from our natural moral sentiments. If you need the Bible to tell you thatIf
someone decides to rob store, it's to his advantage not to leave >>>>>>> witnesses, "Survival" comes into play, why is morally wrong for him to
not leave witnesses to testify against him in a court of law? >>>>>>>>
You emphasized _common_ moral ground. There are differences in how people regard specific moral issues, abortion, the death penalty, euthanasia, how far a duty to help others extends, etc. But religious people do not agree about these things
Or do a search on any post where I reminded you to be mindful of your
legacy on this Earth. Or are you going to blame these comments of >>>>>>>>>> yours on your doppelganger?
--
To know less than we don't know is the nature of most knowledge >>>>>>>>>>
--
To know less than we don't know is the nature of most knowledge
--
To know less than we don't know is the nature of most knowledge
Burkhard wrote:
On Monday, January 15, 2024 at 6:52:39 AM UTC, Ron Dean wrote:
jillery wrote:
On Sun, 14 Jan 2024 22:49:30 -0500, Ron DeanAccording to ToE we are nothing more than evolved animals, so can you
<rondean...@gmail.com> wrote:
jillery wrote:
On Sun, 14 Jan 2024 13:44:16 -0800 (PST), BurkhardIn history and perhaps even today, tribes of people who kill and eat >>>> other people. How do we apply our morality to people who practice
<b.sc...@ed.ac.uk> wrote:
On Wednesday, January 10, 2024 at 6:52:35?PM UTC, Ron Dean wrote: >>>>>>> Burkhard wrote:
On Wednesday, January 10, 2024 at 3:27:34?AM UTC, Ron Dean wrote: >>>>>>>>> broger...@gmail.com wrote:So, you turn that around on me! That was _my_ complaint.
On Monday, January 8, 2024 at 12:57:33?PM UTC-5, Ron Dean wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> jillery wrote:Why? Murder is illegal in the US, but why is is morally wrong? >>>>>>>>
On Sun, 7 Jan 2024 17:29:26 -0500, Ron DeanOk, what is the _common_ grounds for morality that's shared throughout
<rondean...@gmail.com> wrote:
jillery wrote:
On Sat, 6 Jan 2024 20:00:43 -0500, Ron DeanIOW you cannot!
<rondean...@gmail.com> wrote:
<snip for focus>
You say the evidence can be fitted within the ID concept. Then do so,You can make such accusations, but proving your charges against me, is
using all the evidence, instead of cherry-picking what you can fit,
and handwaving away what you can't, as other cdesign proponentsists
do.
another matter.
Do everybody a favor and focus on your own accusations and claims, if
only for the novelty of the experience.
You mean YOU won't. You continue to meet my expectations. >>>>>>>>>>>>
What accusations can you point to, that I should I focus on? >>>>>>>>>>>>
To accomodate your convenient amnesia:
***************************************
On Wed, 18 Oct 2023 15:33:02 -0400, Ron Dean
<rondean...@gmail.com> wrote:
This in part makes my case. Since evolution often leads to atheism,**************************************
this explains why atheism discounts right or wrong. So, slavery,
abortion, infanticide is neither right or wrong. There is no common
moral grounds for evolution or atheism.
all of atheism.
People, atheists or not, generally agree on major moral issues - murder is wrong, cooperating is good, taking care of your kids is good, etc.
You don't know that? That's really worrying!
If you understood why murder is morally wrong, you would not ask]the question,
or wonder why atheists and theist typically agree that (many forms of)
murder are wrong.
ISTM B.Rogers hit it on the nose elsethread:
***********************************
You seem to think that admitting we are animals means that there's no >>>>> reason to behave morally. That's nonsense. You seem to share with a >>>>> number of evangelicals I have known the idea that if we are not the >>>>> special creation of a personal God, the purpose for which the universe >>>>> was created, then life had no meaning and there's no morality. That's >>>>> your own failure of imagination, not a consequence of the theory of >>>>> evolution.
**********************************
cannibalism. Is this immoral; if so why? After all, we are nothing more >>>> than animals that evolved along with and from other animals. Do you >>>> think that people involved in cannibalism had any moral concerns, more >>>> so than than animals.
https://duckduckgo.com/?q=people+who+eat+people+facts&va=b&t=hr&ia=web >>>
You keep asking the same question. I and others keep explaining to
you that evolution and morality have NOTHING to do with each other. As >>> far as I'm concerned, you might as well ask if its moral for the Sun
to shine. Seriously, what's your point?
So here's some questions for you:
1. How do you think ToE and morality are involved with each other?
Specifically, do you think people who eat other people do so because
they accept ToE? Can you consider the likelihood they do so for
reasons having nothing whatever to do with ToE?
condemn cannibals on their practice of killing and eating humans? No,
you cannot! You have _NO_ moral grounds to do so!
According to the theory of gravity, we are just objects - proven e.g.
by the fact that no two of us can occupy the same space at the
same time, and that when thrown off a building we accelerate with something around 9.8m/s2 (depending on latitude, longitude, altitude and not accounting for drag). Just the same as rocks or cars
Okay!
So anyone who accept the theory of physics can't distinguish between rocks, cars and us, and therefore has NO moral grounds to evaluate
human behaviour but not that of rocks and cars.
That's a real problem. If they cannot distinguish between us, living
human beings and dead, lifeless matter. There's no way to ascribe a
moral behavior to rocks and cars. But that's what you are doing. As far
as the moral behavior of the person pushing this rock or a car off a
cliff. This is an amoral act. (unless the car is not his) But this goes
far beyond the humanity of the person who is sacrificed, indeed it's
unfair to cast a moral value on the destruction on an inanimate matter
and the life of the human being who was slaughtered. But, I'm sure this
is _not_ what you meant.
That argument is just as silly as yours, and for the same reason.
Rephrase your comment using TOE (not physics) and human beings as
animals (not lifeless matter).
Whether they would or not, it has nothing to do with the issue I
2. Do you think swapping ToE with ID/Creationism would make people
more moral? Specifically, do you think people would stop eating other >>> people if they accepted ID/Creationism? Would it be enough for you if >>> they just felt really, really bad about doing it?
mentioned.
Of course it does. In most if not all cases where we have good evidence for institutionalised cannibalism, we find a religious
justification. Similarly, in many cultures that reject cannibalism , this has a religious justification.
Here you are implying that all religions are the same. Paganism is a religion, but vastly different from Judaism or the New Testament Christian.
Some religions prohibit cannibalism - including
forms that you in all likelihood find not only permissible, but morally desirable
yourself.
Some religions permit but don't demand cannibalism, for instance in situations
like the Andean aircraft crash, where eating some of the dead was necessary
for survival (excused based e.g. on 2 Kings 6:28-29.
That would cause me a great deal of anguish and stress.
And some religions demand cannibalism. Some demand the eating of
members of the same culture, typically as a funeral ritual and with explanations not too dissimilar we find in our society with regards to organ donation.
Here again, you're treating religions as being the same, this is a bias
- to the extreme. Religions are not the same.
Some demand the eating of one's enemies from other
cultures - the crusaders e.g. engaged in cannibalism of muslims as
a form of terror, and the religious justification essentially denied Muslims
full status as human beings (so in a way, it was not, from the perspective of the Crusaders, "real" cannibalism.
If true, I would consider this as utterly morally corrupt!
And of course some protestants always accused the catholic version of Christianity to engage in cannibalism as a religious ceremony - so e.g. Pastor Alexander Hislop in his "Two Babylons"
That's true, but this is specific to a specific denomination.
Furthermore, in reality this is figurative not real cannibalism.
So rejecting evolution and accepting a designer tells you precisely nothing about the legitimacy of cannibalism - indeed, some gods are cannibals themselves. The God Cronus famously ate his own children
It's just an attempt at escape. In fact since we are just
animals ToE tends to undermine morality. From an evolutionary basis
there is _NO_ grounds for one animal killing and eating another
morality. It happens in the
natural world and we are animals in the natural world. If evolution is
reality there's nothing special about us animals.
The ToE explains also the differences between animals, and what is special about
each species. Birds are the animals that evolved to fly - that birds and elephants
are both animals does not mean that elephants can fly,
This is an obvious description. Birds were _designed_ to fly, wings
hollow bones flow-through lungs etc elephants were not.
We happen to be a species that evolved to use moral rules for coordinating group behaviour.
I disagree. I think behavior is primarily governed by the social
structure and institutions we are brought up in. Muslims have different moral values than most of us in the US have. If you were born and
brought up in a entirely different social system chances what ever
berhavior was acceptable in that society, chances are these would be
your standards. There may be cultures where lying to a stranger is
moral. Sex before marriage is acceptable with no moral consequences. In others it's condemned.
There are in
fact lots of studies that show why this form of coordination provides benefits for the
survival of some species, and hence likely an evolved trait - and one that at least to
some degree we probably share with other primates, which for me would be a good
reason to include them as moral agents and give them rights.
I personally love animals and in fact, I do not eat animals except occasionally seafood and
turkey on a certain holliday.
As to animal rights. I'm OK with this. They should not be mistreated.
So a human lacking the ability to moral reflection is simply failing in being a human in
the same way a bird that can not fly fails to embody all that makes birds unique. A theist
who is creationist, a theist who accepts evolution, and an atheist who accepts evolution
can all agree on that , even though their understanding of what that means will differ.
Theist creationists will tend to understand such a human as either sinful or possessed
by demons, separated from god, and deserving punishment in this world and/or the next, or
possibly in need of an exorcism. An atheist who accepts evolution might me more inclined
to see it as a type of illness that requires treatment or in need of a psychiatrist, and will
think of any punishment not so much in terms of deserts but needs of society. A theist
who accepts evolution may frame it as either,, depending on the details of how they reconcile
evolution and theism, and with an atheists who does not accept evolution it will depend on
which alternative exactly they follow. But for neither, there is a problem seeing an a-moral
person as failing in being a human
among themselves, so there's no more _commonality_ among the religious than there is among atheists. Morality does not come from religion, even for religious people, it comes from our natural moral sentiments. If you need the Bible to tell you that
If
someone decides to rob store, it's to his advantage not to leave >>>>>>>>> witnesses, "Survival" comes into play, why is morally wrong for him to
not leave witnesses to testify against him in a court of law? >>>>>>>>>>
You emphasized _common_ moral ground. There are differences in how people regard specific moral issues, abortion, the death penalty, euthanasia, how far a duty to help others extends, etc. But religious people do not agree about these things
Or do a search on any post where I reminded you to be mindful of your
legacy on this Earth. Or are you going to blame these comments of
yours on your doppelganger?
--
To know less than we don't know is the nature of most knowledge >>>>>>>>>>>>
--
To know less than we don't know is the nature of most knowledge
--
To know less than we don't know is the nature of most knowledge
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 498 |
| Nodes: | 16 (2 / 14) |
| Uptime: | 10:34:47 |
| Calls: | 9,822 |
| Calls today: | 1 |
| Files: | 13,757 |
| Messages: | 6,190,853 |