dgb (David) wrote:
On 2 Mar 2024 at 15:15:57 GMT, "John Harshman" <john.harshman@gmail.com>It's a common claim among people who accept evolution as a reality that conflicting scientific evidence does not exist. But how does he or she
wrote:
On 3/2/24 12:50 AM, dgb (David) wrote:
[snipped]
Perhaps you could post this in some other, more appropriate newsgroup
instead of one dedicated to arguing about creationism.
I believe in God :-D
know? When confronted, the first time, with an opinion; a belief; a hypothesis or a theory, I think most people initially are inclined to
"like or a dislike" the discovery. If a person dislikes the opinion or theory it's very often ignored, dismissed and forgotten.
By contrast, if a theory is appreciated or liked or seen as in a
favorable light, then the tendency is to search for positive, supportive evidence. If in this search one happens to discover evidence contrary or contradictory to the theory, then the propensity is to ignore the
evidence, explain the contrary evidence away, or go searching for some
means to fit the contradictory evidence into the theory or finally to
label the contradictory evidence religious data or religiously motivated.
I suspect that religious antagonism or resentment is one of the main
driving force enabling evolution to become an overwhelming paradigm in
the minds of some people. Again with this approach it's possible to
"prove" anything the heart desires to be real or true. In this sense evolution becomes an essential part of one's reality and one's identity.
And where there is an absence of expected or required evidence, there is
the trust that the evidence exist, but just not yet found. The final conclusion becomes central to the paradigm, which takes precedence,
supremacy and priority over everything including opinion, observation, evidence and facts. With this endeavor it follows that there can be no contradictory or contrary evidence against evolution. In this evolution demonstrates the characteristics of religion. In the US there is the missionary zeal to educate, IE push evolution as good news (gospel) especially in the American education system. This one sided approach is strongly demanded and any opposing data or information is met with harsh condemnation and even to legal renderings by judicial commitments.
Science is supposed t be impersonal, unemotional and impervious to
criticism, but because of a personal identity with evolution, to attack evolution is seen as a personal attack, rendering
a wrath of embittered, spiteful and rhetorical verbal assaults.
To know less than we don't know is the nature of most knowledge
On Sun, 3 Mar 2024 20:03:45 -0500, Ron Dean
<rondean-noreply@gmail.com> wrote:
Evidence for design in nature is overwhelming. If it looks to be
designed then it is designed. But if you trust evolutionist, what
appears to be design is just an illusion, a chimera or a mirage, if so
then it's a deliberate and willful deception by God. . David
First: Opinions, beliefs, and hypotheses are not evidence. By
definition, they aren't even based on evidence. That you continue to conflate these things with evidence shows you have no idea what
qualifies as evidence, for or against evolution.
Second: I acknowledge the tendency to search for supporting evidence
is a human one, but contrary to the scientific method. Instead, the scientific method is to design experiments which *disprove*
hypotheses, and by so doing remove that human bias. This difference
is the great strength of the scientific method and the great weakness
of Revealed Truth and eyewitness testimony.
Third: The statement "if it looks designed then it is designed" well illustrates First and Second, as it relies entirely on mere opinion,
and lacks any requirement for objective evidence to support that
opinion.
Scientist are human too, how many times through out history have
scientist arrived at conclusions only to reverse them as evidence is increases.
dgb (David) wrote:
On 3 Mar 2024 at 19:39:32 GMT, "Ron Dean" <rondean-noreply@gmail.com>
wrote:
dgb (David) wrote:
On 2 Mar 2024 at 15:15:57 GMT, "John Harshman"It's a common claim among people who accept evolution as a reality that
<john.harshman@gmail.com>
wrote:
On 3/2/24 12:50 AM, dgb (David) wrote:
[snipped]
Perhaps you could post this in some other, more appropriate newsgroup >>>>> instead of one dedicated to arguing about creationism.
I believe in God :-D
conflicting scientific evidence does not exist. But how does he or she
know? When confronted, the first time, with an opinion; a belief; a
hypothesis or a theory, I think most people initially are inclined to
"like or a dislike" the discovery. If a person dislikes the opinion or >>> theory it's very often ignored, dismissed and forgotten.
By contrast, if a theory is appreciated or liked or seen as in a
favorable light, then the tendency is to search for positive, supportive >>> evidence. If in this search one happens to discover evidence contrary or >>> contradictory to the theory, then the propensity is to ignore the
evidence, explain the contrary evidence away, or go searching for some >>> means to fit the contradictory evidence into the theory or finally to
label the contradictory evidence religious data or religiously
motivated.
I suspect that religious antagonism or resentment is one of the main
driving force enabling evolution to become an overwhelming paradigm in
the minds of some people. Again with this approach it's possible to
"prove" anything the heart desires to be real or true. In this sense
evolution becomes an essential part of one's reality and one's identity. >>>
And where there is an absence of expected or required evidence, there is >>> the trust that the evidence exist, but just not yet found. The final
conclusion becomes central to the paradigm, which takes precedence,
supremacy and priority over everything including opinion, observation,
evidence and facts. With this endeavor it follows that there can be no
contradictory or contrary evidence against evolution. In this evolution
demonstrates the characteristics of religion. In the US there is the
missionary zeal to educate, IE push evolution as good news (gospel)
especially in the American education system. This one sided approach is
strongly demanded and any opposing data or information is met with harsh >>> condemnation and even to legal renderings by judicial commitments.
Science is supposed t be impersonal, unemotional and impervious to
criticism, but because of a personal identity with evolution, to attack
evolution is seen as a personal attack, rendering
a wrath of embittered, spiteful and rhetorical verbal assaults.
Interesting thoughts, Ron.
Thank you for posting.
Evidence for design in nature is overwhelming. If it looks to be
designed then it is designed. But if you trust evolutionist, what
appears to be design is just an illusion, a chimera or a mirage, if so
then it's a deliberate and willful deception by God. . David
On Mon, 4 Mar 2024 10:44:51 +0000, "Kerr-Mudd, John" <admin@127.0.0.1>[]
wrote:
On Mon, 04 Mar 2024 03:25:31 -0500
jillery <69jpil69@gmail.com> wrote:
On Sun, 3 Mar 2024 20:03:45 -0500, Ron Dean[]
<rondean-noreply@gmail.com> wrote:
He's been told often enough. I don't think you'll convince him to do >anything rational, such as examine any real evidence.
I accept that I have as much chance to convince R.Dean of anything
rational as I do you.
[...]It's possible to "prove" to yourself the validity or the truth or
virtually anything when your search is only for positive, supportive scientific evidence of a position that you want to believe. I would bet
this describers you! I seriously doubt that you can list any scientific evidence or scientific arguments that's contrary to evolution or that counters evolutionary theory. To search just for supportive evidence is neither justified or honest!
Kerr-Mudd, John wrote:
On Mon, 04 Mar 2024 03:25:31 -0500You think rational means to search for supportive evidence _only_ .
jillery <69jpil69@gmail.com> wrote:
On Sun, 3 Mar 2024 20:03:45 -0500, Ron Dean[]
<rondean-noreply@gmail.com> wrote:
Evidence for design in nature is overwhelming. If it looks to be
designed then it is designed. But if you trust evolutionist, what
appears to be design is just an illusion, a chimera or a mirage, if so >>>> then it's a deliberate and willful deception by God. . David
First: Opinions, beliefs, and hypotheses are not evidence. By
definition, they aren't even based on evidence. That you continue to
conflate these things with evidence shows you have no idea what
qualifies as evidence, for or against evolution.
Second: I acknowledge the tendency to search for supporting evidence
is a human one, but contrary to the scientific method. Instead, the
scientific method is to design experiments which *disprove*
hypotheses, and by so doing remove that human bias. This difference
is the great strength of the scientific method and the great weakness
of Revealed Truth and eyewitness testimony.
Third: The statement "if it looks designed then it is designed" well
illustrates First and Second, as it relies entirely on mere opinion,
and lacks any requirement for objective evidence to support that
opinion.
He's been told often enough. I don't think you'll convince him to do
anything rational, such as examine any real evidence.
Which is exactly what you do, and you think that rational! It is NOT!
Mark Isaak wrote:
On 3/3/24 5:03 PM, Ron Dean wrote:
[...]Evidence for design in nature is overwhelming. If it looks to be
designed then it is designed. But if you trust evolutionist, what
appears to be design is just an illusion, a chimera or a mirage, if
so then it's a deliberate and willful deception by God. . David
What Ron neglects in his analysis is, first, that evolution is a
designer -- not as efficient as human designers, but a designer
nonetheless; and second, that where humans and evolution differ
regarding their being designers, life unquestionably looks like it is
not the result of intelligent design.
In a mindless, purposeless, careless godless universe what it that seems
to be concerned or care about anything before complex living things such
as caring humans?
On 3/6/24 2:13 PM, Mark Isaak wrote:
On 3/5/24 10:19 AM, Ron Dean wrote:People who need people?
Mark Isaak wrote:
On 3/3/24 5:03 PM, Ron Dean wrote:In a mindless, purposeless, careless godless universe what it that
[...]Evidence for design in nature is overwhelming. If it looks to be
designed then it is designed. But if you trust evolutionist, what
appears to be design is just an illusion, a chimera or a mirage, if
so then it's a deliberate and willful deception by God. . David
What Ron neglects in his analysis is, first, that evolution is a
designer -- not as efficient as human designers, but a designer
nonetheless; and second, that where humans and evolution differ
regarding their being designers, life unquestionably looks like it is
not the result of intelligent design.
seems to be concerned or care about anything before complex living
things such as caring humans?
People.
On Wed, 6 Mar 2024 14:38:24 -0800, the following appeared in
talk.origins, posted by John Harshman
<john.harshman@gmail.com>:
On 3/6/24 2:13 PM, Mark Isaak wrote:They're the luckiest people in the world
On 3/5/24 10:19 AM, Ron Dean wrote:People who need people?
Mark Isaak wrote:
On 3/3/24 5:03 PM, Ron Dean wrote:In a mindless, purposeless, careless godless universe what it that
[...]Evidence for design in nature is overwhelming. If it looks to be
designed then it is designed. But if you trust evolutionist, what
appears to be design is just an illusion, a chimera or a mirage, if >>>>>> so then it's a deliberate and willful deception by God. . David
What Ron neglects in his analysis is, first, that evolution is a
designer -- not as efficient as human designers, but a designer
nonetheless; and second, that where humans and evolution differ
regarding their being designers, life unquestionably looks like it is >>>>> not the result of intelligent design.
seems to be concerned or care about anything before complex living
things such as caring humans?
People.
Mark Isaak wrote:
On 3/4/24 7:37 AM, Ron Dean wrote:Listed here are 10 theories that were later debunked. https://www.famousscientists.org/10-most-famous-scientific-theories-that-were-later-debunked/
[...]
Scientist are human too, how many times through out history have
scientist arrived at conclusions only to reverse them as evidence is
increases.
After a consensus has been reached and held for over a century? Zero
times, that I can think of. (At least, since 1834, when the word
"scientist" was coined.)
There probably are a handful of such cases in specialist fields, where
the number of qualified experts capable of evaluating the evidence
varied from zero to a few dozen. But not in widely-known important
fields. Can you think of any?
And there are some that were falsified or superseded by further
discoveries.
But, as I pointed out above, scientist are human committing many of the
same transgressions and having the same moral challenges as the rest of
us humans have. Perhaps, the most devastating factor of all are the
numerous frauds in science by some scientist, beginning with the cold
fusion hoax. There are many other frauds in science and in different
fields of science that were, in many cases, I think were exposed by
other scientist.
Wikipedia list numerous cases of what they labeled "misconduct" by
scientist. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_scientific_misconduct_incidents
With Just a little research there is a world of information about fraud
in research, experiments scientific reports, and some doctoring the
results because of the quest for funding and grants.
But the problem with evolution is it's sacrosanct, [...]
On 3/3/24 5:03 PM, Ron Dean wrote:
dgb (David) wrote:
On 3 Mar 2024 at 19:39:32 GMT, "Ron Dean"Evidence for design in nature is overwhelming. If it looks to be
<rondean-noreply@gmail.com> wrote:
dgb (David) wrote:
On 2 Mar 2024 at 15:15:57 GMT, "John Harshman"It's a common claim among people who accept evolution as a reality
<john.harshman@gmail.com>
wrote:
On 3/2/24 12:50 AM, dgb (David) wrote:
[snipped]
Perhaps you could post this in some other, more appropriate
newsgroup instead of one dedicated to arguing about creationism.
I believe in God :-D
that conflicting scientific evidence does not exist. But how does
he or she know? When confronted, the first time, with an opinion; a
belief; a hypothesis or a theory, I think most people initially are
inclined to "like or a dislike" the discovery. If a person
dislikes the opinion or theory it's very often ignored, dismissed
and forgotten.
By contrast, if a theory is appreciated or liked or seen as in a
favorable light, then the tendency is to search for positive,
supportive evidence. If in this search one happens to discover
evidence contrary or contradictory to the theory, then the
propensity is to ignore the evidence, explain the contrary
evidence away, or go searching for some means to fit the
contradictory evidence into the theory or finally to label the
contradictory evidence religious data or religiously motivated.
I suspect that religious antagonism or resentment is one of the
main driving force enabling evolution to become an overwhelming
paradigm in the minds of some people. Again with this approach it's
possible to "prove" anything the heart desires to be real or
true. In this sense evolution becomes an essential part of one's
reality and one's identity.
And where there is an absence of expected or required evidence,
there is the trust that the evidence exist, but just not yet
found. The final conclusion becomes central to the paradigm, which
takes precedence, supremacy and priority over everything including
opinion, observation, evidence and facts. With this endeavor it
follows that there can be no contradictory or contrary evidence
against evolution. In this evolution demonstrates the
characteristics of religion. In the US there is the missionary
zeal to educate, IE push evolution as good news (gospel) especially
in the American education system. This one sided approach is
strongly demanded and any opposing data or information is met with
harsh condemnation and even to legal renderings by judicial
commitments.
Science is supposed t be impersonal, unemotional and impervious to
criticism, but because of a personal identity with evolution, to
attack evolution is seen as a personal attack, rendering a wrath of
embittered, spiteful and rhetorical verbal assaults.
Interesting thoughts, Ron.
Thank you for posting.
designed then it is designed. But if you trust evolutionist, what
appears to be design is just an illusion, a chimera or a mirage, if
so then it's a deliberate and willful deception by God. . David
What Ron neglects in his analysis is, first, that evolution is a
designer
Mark Isaak <specimenNOSPAM@curioustaxon.omy.net> writes:
On 3/3/24 5:03 PM, Ron Dean wrote:
dgb (David) wrote:
On 3 Mar 2024 at 19:39:32 GMT, "Ron Dean"Evidence for design in nature is overwhelming. If it looks to be
<rondean-noreply@gmail.com> wrote:
dgb (David) wrote:
On 2 Mar 2024 at 15:15:57 GMT, "John Harshman"It's a common claim among people who accept evolution as a reality
<john.harshman@gmail.com>
wrote:
On 3/2/24 12:50 AM, dgb (David) wrote:
[snipped]
Perhaps you could post this in some other, more appropriate
newsgroup instead of one dedicated to arguing about creationism.
I believe in God :-D
that conflicting scientific evidence does not exist. But how does
he or she know? When confronted, the first time, with an opinion; a
belief; a hypothesis or a theory, I think most people initially are
inclined to "like or a dislike" the discovery. If a person
dislikes the opinion or theory it's very often ignored, dismissed
and forgotten.
By contrast, if a theory is appreciated or liked or seen as in a
favorable light, then the tendency is to search for positive,
supportive evidence. If in this search one happens to discover
evidence contrary or contradictory to the theory, then the
propensity is to ignore the evidence, explain the contrary
evidence away, or go searching for some means to fit the
contradictory evidence into the theory or finally to label the
contradictory evidence religious data or religiously motivated.
I suspect that religious antagonism or resentment is one of the
main driving force enabling evolution to become an overwhelming
paradigm in the minds of some people. Again with this approach it's
possible to "prove" anything the heart desires to be real or
true. In this sense evolution becomes an essential part of one's
reality and one's identity.
And where there is an absence of expected or required evidence,
there is the trust that the evidence exist, but just not yet
found. The final conclusion becomes central to the paradigm, which
takes precedence, supremacy and priority over everything including
opinion, observation, evidence and facts. With this endeavor it
follows that there can be no contradictory or contrary evidence
against evolution. In this evolution demonstrates the
characteristics of religion. In the US there is the missionary
zeal to educate, IE push evolution as good news (gospel) especially
in the American education system. This one sided approach is
strongly demanded and any opposing data or information is met with
harsh condemnation and even to legal renderings by judicial
commitments.
Science is supposed t be impersonal, unemotional and impervious to
criticism, but because of a personal identity with evolution, to
attack evolution is seen as a personal attack, rendering a wrath of
embittered, spiteful and rhetorical verbal assaults.
Interesting thoughts, Ron.
Thank you for posting.
designed then it is designed. But if you trust evolutionist, what
appears to be design is just an illusion, a chimera or a mirage, if
so then it's a deliberate and willful deception by God. . David
What Ron neglects in his analysis is, first, that evolution is a
designer
It isn't.
Designer: "a person who plans the look or workings of something prior to
it being made, by preparing drawings or plans"
On Fri, 08 Mar 2024 17:09:46 +0000, the following appeared in
talk.origins, posted by Richmond <dnomhcir@gmx.com>:
Mark Isaak <specimenNOSPAM@curioustaxon.omy.net> writes:I assume it's "person" that's throwing you.
On 3/3/24 5:03 PM, Ron Dean wrote:
dgb (David) wrote:
On 3 Mar 2024 at 19:39:32 GMT, "Ron Dean"Evidence for design in nature is overwhelming. If it looks to be
<rondean-noreply@gmail.com> wrote:
dgb (David) wrote:
On 2 Mar 2024 at 15:15:57 GMT, "John Harshman"It's a common claim among people who accept evolution as a
<john.harshman@gmail.com>
wrote:
On 3/2/24 12:50 AM, dgb (David) wrote:
[snipped]
Perhaps you could post this in some other, more appropriate
newsgroup instead of one dedicated to arguing about
creationism.
I believe in God :-D
reality that conflicting scientific evidence does not exist. But
how does he or she know? When confronted, the first time, with an
opinion; a belief; a hypothesis or a theory, I think most people
initially are inclined to "like or a dislike" the discovery. If
a person dislikes the opinion or theory it's very often ignored,
dismissed and forgotten.
By contrast, if a theory is appreciated or liked or seen as in a
favorable light, then the tendency is to search for positive,
supportive evidence. If in this search one happens to discover
evidence contrary or contradictory to the theory, then the
propensity is to ignore the evidence, explain the contrary
evidence away, or go searching for some means to fit the
contradictory evidence into the theory or finally to label the
contradictory evidence religious data or religiously motivated.
I suspect that religious antagonism or resentment is one of the
main driving force enabling evolution to become an overwhelming
paradigm in the minds of some people. Again with this approach
it's possible to "prove" anything the heart desires to be real or
true. In this sense evolution becomes an essential part of one's
reality and one's identity.
And where there is an absence of expected or required evidence,
there is the trust that the evidence exist, but just not yet
found. The final conclusion becomes central to the paradigm,
which takes precedence, supremacy and priority over everything
including opinion, observation, evidence and facts. With this
endeavor it follows that there can be no contradictory or
contrary evidence against evolution. In this evolution
demonstrates the characteristics of religion. In the US there is >>>>>> the missionary zeal to educate, IE push evolution as good news
(gospel) especially in the American education system. This one
sided approach is strongly demanded and any opposing data or
information is met with harsh condemnation and even to legal
renderings by judicial commitments.
Science is supposed t be impersonal, unemotional and impervious
to criticism, but because of a personal identity with evolution,
to attack evolution is seen as a personal attack, rendering a
wrath of embittered, spiteful and rhetorical verbal assaults.
Interesting thoughts, Ron.
Thank you for posting.
designed then it is designed. But if you trust evolutionist, what
appears to be design is just an illusion, a chimera or a mirage, if
so then it's a deliberate and willful deception by God. . David
What Ron neglects in his analysis is, first, that evolution is a
designer
It isn't.
Designer: "a person who plans the look or workings of something prior
to it being made, by preparing drawings or plans"
Arguing from definitions rather than from functions isn't especially persuasive. Functionally, evolution certainly *is* a designer, since
it performs the functions of a designer -
trial, error, progress.
Richmond wrote:
Bob Casanova <nospam@buzz.off> writes:I disagree. Evolution supposedly can design. In fact, I'm convinced,
On Fri, 08 Mar 2024 17:09:46 +0000, the following appeared innot "thrown". The problem is the "look at the workings prior to being
talk.origins, posted by Richmond <dnomhcir@gmx.com>:
Mark Isaak <specimenNOSPAM@curioustaxon.omy.net> writes:I assume it's "person" that's throwing you. No it isn't, and I am
On 3/3/24 5:03 PM, Ron Dean wrote:
dgb (David) wrote:
On 3 Mar 2024 at 19:39:32 GMT, "Ron Dean">
<rondean-noreply@gmail.com> wrote:
dgb (David) wrote:
On 2 Mar 2024 at 15:15:57 GMT, "John Harshman"It's a common claim among people who accept evolution as a
<john.harshman@gmail.com>
wrote:
On 3/2/24 12:50 AM, dgb (David) wrote:
[snipped]
Perhaps you could post this in some other, more appropriate >>>>>>>>>> newsgroup instead of one dedicated to arguing about
creationism.
I believe in God :-D
reality that conflicting scientific evidence does not
exist. But how does he or she know? When confronted, the first >>>>>>>> time, with an opinion; a belief; a hypothesis or a theory, I
think most people initially are inclined to "like or a dislike" >>>>>>>> the discovery. If a person dislikes the opinion or theory it's >>>>>>>> very often ignored, dismissed and forgotten.
By contrast, if a theory is appreciated or liked or seen as in >>>>>>>> a favorable light, then the tendency is to search for positive, >>>>>>>> supportive evidence. If in this search one happens to discover >>>>>>>> evidence contrary or contradictory to the theory, then the
propensity is to ignore the evidence, explain the contrary
evidence away, or go searching for some means to fit the
contradictory evidence into the theory or finally to label the >>>>>>>> contradictory evidence religious data or religiously motivated. >>>>>>>>
I suspect that religious antagonism or resentment is one of the >>>>>>>> main driving force enabling evolution to become an overwhelming >>>>>>>> paradigm in the minds of some people. Again with this approach >>>>>>>> it's possible to "prove" anything the heart desires to be real >>>>>>>> or true. In this sense evolution becomes an essential part of
one's reality and one's identity.
And where there is an absence of expected or required evidence, >>>>>>>> there is the trust that the evidence exist, but just not yet
found. The final conclusion becomes central to the paradigm,
which takes precedence, supremacy and priority over everything >>>>>>>> including opinion, observation, evidence and facts. With this
endeavor it follows that there can be no contradictory or
contrary evidence against evolution. In this evolution
demonstrates the characteristics of religion. In the US there >>>>>>>> is the missionary zeal to educate, IE push evolution as good
news (gospel) especially in the American education system. This >>>>>>>> one sided approach is strongly demanded and any opposing data
or information is met with harsh condemnation and even to legal >>>>>>>> renderings by judicial commitments.
Science is supposed t be impersonal, unemotional and impervious >>>>>>>> to criticism, but because of a personal identity with
evolution, to attack evolution is seen as a personal attack,
rendering a wrath of embittered, spiteful and rhetorical verbal >>>>>>>> assaults.
Interesting thoughts, Ron.
Thank you for posting.
Evidence for design in nature is overwhelming. If it looks to be
designed then it is designed. But if you trust evolutionist, what
appears to be design is just an illusion, a chimera or a mirage,
if so then it's a deliberate and willful deception by
God. . David
What Ron neglects in his analysis is, first, that evolution is a
designer
It isn't.
Designer: "a person who plans the look or workings of something
prior to it being made, by preparing drawings or plans"
made". It is foresight and planning. It's not what evolution does.
Arguing from definitions rather than from functions isn't especially
persuasive. Functionally, evolution certainly *is* a designer, since
it performs the functions of a designer - >> No it doesn't. It
doesn't make any plans for example. It doesn't >> have >> any
designs.
that after reading Wm. Paley's book in which he attributed design in
nature to his God, Darwin's sole purpose in writing his "origins" was
to build and promote a case for design in nature _without_ Paley's
God.
Ron Dean <rondean-noreply@gmail.com> writes:
Richmond wrote:
Bob Casanova <nospam@buzz.off> writes:I disagree. Evolution supposedly can design. In fact, I'm convinced,
On Fri, 08 Mar 2024 17:09:46 +0000, the following appeared innot "thrown". The problem is the "look at the workings prior to being
talk.origins, posted by Richmond <dnomhcir@gmx.com>:
Mark Isaak <specimenNOSPAM@curioustaxon.omy.net> writes:I assume it's "person" that's throwing you. No it isn't, and I am
On 3/3/24 5:03 PM, Ron Dean wrote:
dgb (David) wrote:
On 3 Mar 2024 at 19:39:32 GMT, "Ron Dean">
<rondean-noreply@gmail.com> wrote:
dgb (David) wrote:
On 2 Mar 2024 at 15:15:57 GMT, "John Harshman"It's a common claim among people who accept evolution as a
<john.harshman@gmail.com>
wrote:
On 3/2/24 12:50 AM, dgb (David) wrote:
[snipped]
Perhaps you could post this in some other, more appropriate >>>>>>>>>>> newsgroup instead of one dedicated to arguing about
creationism.
I believe in God :-D
reality that conflicting scientific evidence does not
exist. But how does he or she know? When confronted, the first >>>>>>>>> time, with an opinion; a belief; a hypothesis or a theory, I >>>>>>>>> think most people initially are inclined to "like or a dislike" >>>>>>>>> the discovery. If a person dislikes the opinion or theory it's >>>>>>>>> very often ignored, dismissed and forgotten.
By contrast, if a theory is appreciated or liked or seen as in >>>>>>>>> a favorable light, then the tendency is to search for positive, >>>>>>>>> supportive evidence. If in this search one happens to discover >>>>>>>>> evidence contrary or contradictory to the theory, then the
propensity is to ignore the evidence, explain the contrary
evidence away, or go searching for some means to fit the
contradictory evidence into the theory or finally to label the >>>>>>>>> contradictory evidence religious data or religiously motivated. >>>>>>>>>
I suspect that religious antagonism or resentment is one of the >>>>>>>>> main driving force enabling evolution to become an overwhelming >>>>>>>>> paradigm in the minds of some people. Again with this approach >>>>>>>>> it's possible to "prove" anything the heart desires to be real >>>>>>>>> or true. In this sense evolution becomes an essential part of >>>>>>>>> one's reality and one's identity.
And where there is an absence of expected or required evidence, >>>>>>>>> there is the trust that the evidence exist, but just not yet >>>>>>>>> found. The final conclusion becomes central to the paradigm, >>>>>>>>> which takes precedence, supremacy and priority over everything >>>>>>>>> including opinion, observation, evidence and facts. With this >>>>>>>>> endeavor it follows that there can be no contradictory or
contrary evidence against evolution. In this evolution
demonstrates the characteristics of religion. In the US there >>>>>>>>> is the missionary zeal to educate, IE push evolution as good >>>>>>>>> news (gospel) especially in the American education system. This >>>>>>>>> one sided approach is strongly demanded and any opposing data >>>>>>>>> or information is met with harsh condemnation and even to legal >>>>>>>>> renderings by judicial commitments.
Science is supposed t be impersonal, unemotional and impervious >>>>>>>>> to criticism, but because of a personal identity with
evolution, to attack evolution is seen as a personal attack, >>>>>>>>> rendering a wrath of embittered, spiteful and rhetorical verbal >>>>>>>>> assaults.
Interesting thoughts, Ron.
Thank you for posting.
Evidence for design in nature is overwhelming. If it looks to be >>>>>>> designed then it is designed. But if you trust evolutionist, what >>>>>>> appears to be design is just an illusion, a chimera or a mirage, >>>>>>> if so then it's a deliberate and willful deception by
God. . David
What Ron neglects in his analysis is, first, that evolution is a
designer
It isn't.
Designer: "a person who plans the look or workings of something
prior to it being made, by preparing drawings or plans"
made". It is foresight and planning. It's not what evolution does.
Arguing from definitions rather than from functions isn't especially
persuasive. Functionally, evolution certainly *is* a designer, since
it performs the functions of a designer - >> No it doesn't. It
doesn't make any plans for example. It doesn't >> have >> any
designs.
that after reading Wm. Paley's book in which he attributed design in
nature to his God, Darwin's sole purpose in writing his "origins" was
to build and promote a case for design in nature _without_ Paley's
God.
What are the examples of design? There are plenty of examples of lack of >design: the blind spot in the human eye, the ostrich which cannot fly,
the whale which has to come up for air, the fish whose eye moves from
one side of its head to the other so it can become a flatfish.
Bob Casanova <nospam@buzz.off> writes:
On Fri, 08 Mar 2024 17:09:46 +0000, the following appeared in
talk.origins, posted by Richmond <dnomhcir@gmx.com>:
Mark Isaak <specimenNOSPAM@curioustaxon.omy.net> writes:I assume it's "person" that's throwing you.
On 3/3/24 5:03 PM, Ron Dean wrote:
dgb (David) wrote:
On 3 Mar 2024 at 19:39:32 GMT, "Ron Dean"Evidence for design in nature is overwhelming. If it looks to be
<rondean-noreply@gmail.com> wrote:
dgb (David) wrote:
On 2 Mar 2024 at 15:15:57 GMT, "John Harshman"It's a common claim among people who accept evolution as a
<john.harshman@gmail.com>
wrote:
On 3/2/24 12:50 AM, dgb (David) wrote:
[snipped]
Perhaps you could post this in some other, more appropriate
newsgroup instead of one dedicated to arguing about
creationism.
I believe in God :-D
reality that conflicting scientific evidence does not exist. But >>>>>>> how does he or she know? When confronted, the first time, with an >>>>>>> opinion; a belief; a hypothesis or a theory, I think most people >>>>>>> initially are inclined to "like or a dislike" the discovery. If >>>>>>> a person dislikes the opinion or theory it's very often ignored, >>>>>>> dismissed and forgotten.
By contrast, if a theory is appreciated or liked or seen as in a >>>>>>> favorable light, then the tendency is to search for positive,
supportive evidence. If in this search one happens to discover
evidence contrary or contradictory to the theory, then the
propensity is to ignore the evidence, explain the contrary
evidence away, or go searching for some means to fit the
contradictory evidence into the theory or finally to label the
contradictory evidence religious data or religiously motivated.
I suspect that religious antagonism or resentment is one of the
main driving force enabling evolution to become an overwhelming
paradigm in the minds of some people. Again with this approach
it's possible to "prove" anything the heart desires to be real or >>>>>>> true. In this sense evolution becomes an essential part of one's >>>>>>> reality and one's identity.
And where there is an absence of expected or required evidence,
there is the trust that the evidence exist, but just not yet
found. The final conclusion becomes central to the paradigm,
which takes precedence, supremacy and priority over everything
including opinion, observation, evidence and facts. With this
endeavor it follows that there can be no contradictory or
contrary evidence against evolution. In this evolution
demonstrates the characteristics of religion. In the US there is >>>>>>> the missionary zeal to educate, IE push evolution as good news
(gospel) especially in the American education system. This one
sided approach is strongly demanded and any opposing data or
information is met with harsh condemnation and even to legal
renderings by judicial commitments.
Science is supposed t be impersonal, unemotional and impervious
to criticism, but because of a personal identity with evolution, >>>>>>> to attack evolution is seen as a personal attack, rendering a
wrath of embittered, spiteful and rhetorical verbal assaults.
Interesting thoughts, Ron.
Thank you for posting.
designed then it is designed. But if you trust evolutionist, what
appears to be design is just an illusion, a chimera or a mirage, if
so then it's a deliberate and willful deception by God. . David
What Ron neglects in his analysis is, first, that evolution is a
designer
It isn't.
Designer: "a person who plans the look or workings of something prior
to it being made, by preparing drawings or plans"
No it isn't, and I am not "thrown". The problem is the "look at the
workings prior to being made". It is foresight and planning. It's not
what evolution does.
Arguing from definitions rather than from functions isn't especially
persuasive. Functionally, evolution certainly *is* a designer, since
it performs the functions of a designer -
No it doesn't. It doesn't make any plans for example. It doesn't have
any designs.
trial, error, progress.
Designers don't operate by trial and error alone.
On Fri, 08 Mar 2024 22:43:29 +0000, the following appearedI believe you may be misunderstanding Richmond. I think that he does not
in talk.origins, posted by Richmond <dnomhcir@gmx.com>:
Ron Dean <rondean-noreply@gmail.com> writes:You do realize, of course, that every example you listed
Richmond wrote:
Bob Casanova <nospam@buzz.off> writes:I disagree. Evolution supposedly can design. In fact, I'm convinced,
On Fri, 08 Mar 2024 17:09:46 +0000, the following appeared innot "thrown". The problem is the "look at the workings prior to being
talk.origins, posted by Richmond <dnomhcir@gmx.com>:
Mark Isaak <specimenNOSPAM@curioustaxon.omy.net> writes:I assume it's "person" that's throwing you. No it isn't, and I am
On 3/3/24 5:03 PM, Ron Dean wrote:
dgb (David) wrote:
On 3 Mar 2024 at 19:39:32 GMT, "Ron Dean">
<rondean-noreply@gmail.com> wrote:
dgb (David) wrote:
On 2 Mar 2024 at 15:15:57 GMT, "John Harshman"It's a common claim among people who accept evolution as a >>>>>>>>>> reality that conflicting scientific evidence does not
<john.harshman@gmail.com>
wrote:
On 3/2/24 12:50 AM, dgb (David) wrote:
[snipped]
Perhaps you could post this in some other, more appropriate >>>>>>>>>>>> newsgroup instead of one dedicated to arguing about
creationism.
I believe in God :-D
exist. But how does he or she know? When confronted, the first >>>>>>>>>> time, with an opinion; a belief; a hypothesis or a theory, I >>>>>>>>>> think most people initially are inclined to "like or a dislike" >>>>>>>>>> the discovery. If a person dislikes the opinion or theory it's >>>>>>>>>> very often ignored, dismissed and forgotten.
By contrast, if a theory is appreciated or liked or seen as in >>>>>>>>>> a favorable light, then the tendency is to search for positive, >>>>>>>>>> supportive evidence. If in this search one happens to discover >>>>>>>>>> evidence contrary or contradictory to the theory, then the >>>>>>>>>> propensity is to ignore the evidence, explain the contrary >>>>>>>>>> evidence away, or go searching for some means to fit the
contradictory evidence into the theory or finally to label the >>>>>>>>>> contradictory evidence religious data or religiously motivated. >>>>>>>>>>
I suspect that religious antagonism or resentment is one of the >>>>>>>>>> main driving force enabling evolution to become an overwhelming >>>>>>>>>> paradigm in the minds of some people. Again with this approach >>>>>>>>>> it's possible to "prove" anything the heart desires to be real >>>>>>>>>> or true. In this sense evolution becomes an essential part of >>>>>>>>>> one's reality and one's identity.
And where there is an absence of expected or required evidence, >>>>>>>>>> there is the trust that the evidence exist, but just not yet >>>>>>>>>> found. The final conclusion becomes central to the paradigm, >>>>>>>>>> which takes precedence, supremacy and priority over everything >>>>>>>>>> including opinion, observation, evidence and facts. With this >>>>>>>>>> endeavor it follows that there can be no contradictory or
contrary evidence against evolution. In this evolution
demonstrates the characteristics of religion. In the US there >>>>>>>>>> is the missionary zeal to educate, IE push evolution as good >>>>>>>>>> news (gospel) especially in the American education system. This >>>>>>>>>> one sided approach is strongly demanded and any opposing data >>>>>>>>>> or information is met with harsh condemnation and even to legal >>>>>>>>>> renderings by judicial commitments.
Science is supposed t be impersonal, unemotional and impervious >>>>>>>>>> to criticism, but because of a personal identity with
evolution, to attack evolution is seen as a personal attack, >>>>>>>>>> rendering a wrath of embittered, spiteful and rhetorical verbal >>>>>>>>>> assaults.
Interesting thoughts, Ron.
Thank you for posting.
Evidence for design in nature is overwhelming. If it looks to be >>>>>>>> designed then it is designed. But if you trust evolutionist, what >>>>>>>> appears to be design is just an illusion, a chimera or a mirage, >>>>>>>> if so then it's a deliberate and willful deception by
God. . David
What Ron neglects in his analysis is, first, that evolution is a >>>>>>> designer
It isn't.
Designer: "a person who plans the look or workings of something
prior to it being made, by preparing drawings or plans"
made". It is foresight and planning. It's not what evolution does.
Arguing from definitions rather than from functions isn't especially >>>>> persuasive. Functionally, evolution certainly *is* a designer, since >>>>> it performs the functions of a designer - >> No it doesn't. It
doesn't make any plans for example. It doesn't >> have >> any
designs.
that after reading Wm. Paley's book in which he attributed design in
nature to his God, Darwin's sole purpose in writing his "origins" was
to build and promote a case for design in nature _without_ Paley's
God.
What are the examples of design? There are plenty of examples of lack of
design: the blind spot in the human eye, the ostrich which cannot fly,
the whale which has to come up for air, the fish whose eye moves from
one side of its head to the other so it can become a flatfish.
supports the "good enough" assumption for how evolution
works, right? And that they all are evidence that there is
no advance planning involved? Your examples are evidence
that evolution is a blind process which has no predetermined
goal, and only requires that its products work well enough
to ensure survival and reproductive success.
Have any other examples disproving your assertions?
On 2024-03-08 6:55 PM, Bob Casanova wrote:
On Fri, 08 Mar 2024 22:43:29 +0000, the following appearedI believe you may be misunderstanding Richmond. I think that he does not >think that the products of evolution (the life we see around us and its >history) appear designed. He is not attacking evolution but the idea
in talk.origins, posted by Richmond <dnomhcir@gmx.com>:
Ron Dean <rondean-noreply@gmail.com> writes:You do realize, of course, that every example you listed
Richmond wrote:
Bob Casanova <nospam@buzz.off> writes:I disagree. Evolution supposedly can design. In fact, I'm convinced,
On Fri, 08 Mar 2024 17:09:46 +0000, the following appeared innot "thrown". The problem is the "look at the workings prior to being >>>>> made". It is foresight and planning. It's not what evolution does.
talk.origins, posted by Richmond <dnomhcir@gmx.com>:
Mark Isaak <specimenNOSPAM@curioustaxon.omy.net> writes:I assume it's "person" that's throwing you. No it isn't, and I am
On 3/3/24 5:03 PM, Ron Dean wrote:
dgb (David) wrote:
On 3 Mar 2024 at 19:39:32 GMT, "Ron Dean">
<rondean-noreply@gmail.com> wrote:
dgb (David) wrote:
On 2 Mar 2024 at 15:15:57 GMT, "John Harshman"It's a common claim among people who accept evolution as a >>>>>>>>>>> reality that conflicting scientific evidence does not
<john.harshman@gmail.com>
wrote:
On 3/2/24 12:50 AM, dgb (David) wrote:
[snipped]
Perhaps you could post this in some other, more appropriate >>>>>>>>>>>>> newsgroup instead of one dedicated to arguing about
creationism.
I believe in God :-D
exist. But how does he or she know? When confronted, the first >>>>>>>>>>> time, with an opinion; a belief; a hypothesis or a theory, I >>>>>>>>>>> think most people initially are inclined to "like or a dislike" >>>>>>>>>>> the discovery. If a person dislikes the opinion or theory it's >>>>>>>>>>> very often ignored, dismissed and forgotten.
By contrast, if a theory is appreciated or liked or seen as in >>>>>>>>>>> a favorable light, then the tendency is to search for positive, >>>>>>>>>>> supportive evidence. If in this search one happens to discover >>>>>>>>>>> evidence contrary or contradictory to the theory, then the >>>>>>>>>>> propensity is to ignore the evidence, explain the contrary >>>>>>>>>>> evidence away, or go searching for some means to fit the >>>>>>>>>>> contradictory evidence into the theory or finally to label the >>>>>>>>>>> contradictory evidence religious data or religiously motivated. >>>>>>>>>>>
I suspect that religious antagonism or resentment is one of the >>>>>>>>>>> main driving force enabling evolution to become an overwhelming >>>>>>>>>>> paradigm in the minds of some people. Again with this approach >>>>>>>>>>> it's possible to "prove" anything the heart desires to be real >>>>>>>>>>> or true. In this sense evolution becomes an essential part of >>>>>>>>>>> one's reality and one's identity.
And where there is an absence of expected or required evidence, >>>>>>>>>>> there is the trust that the evidence exist, but just not yet >>>>>>>>>>> found. The final conclusion becomes central to the paradigm, >>>>>>>>>>> which takes precedence, supremacy and priority over everything >>>>>>>>>>> including opinion, observation, evidence and facts. With this >>>>>>>>>>> endeavor it follows that there can be no contradictory or >>>>>>>>>>> contrary evidence against evolution. In this evolution
demonstrates the characteristics of religion. In the US there >>>>>>>>>>> is the missionary zeal to educate, IE push evolution as good >>>>>>>>>>> news (gospel) especially in the American education system. This >>>>>>>>>>> one sided approach is strongly demanded and any opposing data >>>>>>>>>>> or information is met with harsh condemnation and even to legal >>>>>>>>>>> renderings by judicial commitments.
Science is supposed t be impersonal, unemotional and impervious >>>>>>>>>>> to criticism, but because of a personal identity with
evolution, to attack evolution is seen as a personal attack, >>>>>>>>>>> rendering a wrath of embittered, spiteful and rhetorical verbal >>>>>>>>>>> assaults.
Interesting thoughts, Ron.
Thank you for posting.
Evidence for design in nature is overwhelming. If it looks to be >>>>>>>>> designed then it is designed. But if you trust evolutionist, what >>>>>>>>> appears to be design is just an illusion, a chimera or a mirage, >>>>>>>>> if so then it's a deliberate and willful deception by
God. . David
What Ron neglects in his analysis is, first, that evolution is a >>>>>>>> designer
It isn't.
Designer: "a person who plans the look or workings of something
prior to it being made, by preparing drawings or plans"
Arguing from definitions rather than from functions isn't especially >>>>>> persuasive. Functionally, evolution certainly *is* a designer, since >>>>>> it performs the functions of a designer - >> No it doesn't. It
doesn't make any plans for example. It doesn't >> have >> any
designs.
that after reading Wm. Paley's book in which he attributed design in
nature to his God, Darwin's sole purpose in writing his "origins" was
to build and promote a case for design in nature _without_ Paley's
God.
What are the examples of design? There are plenty of examples of lack of >>> design: the blind spot in the human eye, the ostrich which cannot fly,
the whale which has to come up for air, the fish whose eye moves from
one side of its head to the other so it can become a flatfish.
supports the "good enough" assumption for how evolution
works, right? And that they all are evidence that there is
no advance planning involved? Your examples are evidence
that evolution is a blind process which has no predetermined
goal, and only requires that its products work well enough
to ensure survival and reproductive success.
Have any other examples disproving your assertions?
that the products of evolution look/are designed.
On Fri, 08 Mar 2024 22:43:29 +0000, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by Richmond <dnomhcir@gmx.com>:
Ron Dean <rondean-noreply@gmail.com> writes:You do realize, of course, that every example you listed
Richmond wrote:
Bob Casanova <nospam@buzz.off> writes:I disagree. Evolution supposedly can design. In fact, I'm convinced,
On Fri, 08 Mar 2024 17:09:46 +0000, the following appeared innot "thrown". The problem is the "look at the workings prior to being
talk.origins, posted by Richmond <dnomhcir@gmx.com>:
Mark Isaak <specimenNOSPAM@curioustaxon.omy.net> writes:I assume it's "person" that's throwing you. No it isn't, and I am
On 3/3/24 5:03 PM, Ron Dean wrote:
dgb (David) wrote:
On 3 Mar 2024 at 19:39:32 GMT, "Ron Dean">
<rondean-noreply@gmail.com> wrote:
dgb (David) wrote:
On 2 Mar 2024 at 15:15:57 GMT, "John Harshman"It's a common claim among people who accept evolution as a >>>>>>>>>> reality that conflicting scientific evidence does not
<john.harshman@gmail.com>
wrote:
On 3/2/24 12:50 AM, dgb (David) wrote:
[snipped]
Perhaps you could post this in some other, more appropriate >>>>>>>>>>>> newsgroup instead of one dedicated to arguing about
creationism.
I believe in God :-D
exist. But how does he or she know? When confronted, the first >>>>>>>>>> time, with an opinion; a belief; a hypothesis or a theory, I >>>>>>>>>> think most people initially are inclined to "like or a dislike" >>>>>>>>>> the discovery. If a person dislikes the opinion or theory it's >>>>>>>>>> very often ignored, dismissed and forgotten.
By contrast, if a theory is appreciated or liked or seen as in >>>>>>>>>> a favorable light, then the tendency is to search for positive, >>>>>>>>>> supportive evidence. If in this search one happens to discover >>>>>>>>>> evidence contrary or contradictory to the theory, then the >>>>>>>>>> propensity is to ignore the evidence, explain the contrary >>>>>>>>>> evidence away, or go searching for some means to fit the
contradictory evidence into the theory or finally to label the >>>>>>>>>> contradictory evidence religious data or religiously motivated. >>>>>>>>>>
I suspect that religious antagonism or resentment is one of the >>>>>>>>>> main driving force enabling evolution to become an overwhelming >>>>>>>>>> paradigm in the minds of some people. Again with this approach >>>>>>>>>> it's possible to "prove" anything the heart desires to be real >>>>>>>>>> or true. In this sense evolution becomes an essential part of >>>>>>>>>> one's reality and one's identity.
And where there is an absence of expected or required evidence, >>>>>>>>>> there is the trust that the evidence exist, but just not yet >>>>>>>>>> found. The final conclusion becomes central to the paradigm, >>>>>>>>>> which takes precedence, supremacy and priority over everything >>>>>>>>>> including opinion, observation, evidence and facts. With this >>>>>>>>>> endeavor it follows that there can be no contradictory or
contrary evidence against evolution. In this evolution
demonstrates the characteristics of religion. In the US there >>>>>>>>>> is the missionary zeal to educate, IE push evolution as good >>>>>>>>>> news (gospel) especially in the American education system. This >>>>>>>>>> one sided approach is strongly demanded and any opposing data >>>>>>>>>> or information is met with harsh condemnation and even to legal >>>>>>>>>> renderings by judicial commitments.
Science is supposed t be impersonal, unemotional and impervious >>>>>>>>>> to criticism, but because of a personal identity with
evolution, to attack evolution is seen as a personal attack, >>>>>>>>>> rendering a wrath of embittered, spiteful and rhetorical verbal >>>>>>>>>> assaults.
Interesting thoughts, Ron.
Thank you for posting.
Evidence for design in nature is overwhelming. If it looks to be >>>>>>>> designed then it is designed. But if you trust evolutionist, what >>>>>>>> appears to be design is just an illusion, a chimera or a mirage, >>>>>>>> if so then it's a deliberate and willful deception by
God. . David
What Ron neglects in his analysis is, first, that evolution is a >>>>>>> designer
It isn't.
Designer: "a person who plans the look or workings of something
prior to it being made, by preparing drawings or plans"
made". It is foresight and planning. It's not what evolution does.
Arguing from definitions rather than from functions isn't especially >>>>> persuasive. Functionally, evolution certainly *is* a designer, since >>>>> it performs the functions of a designer - >> No it doesn't. It
doesn't make any plans for example. It doesn't >> have >> any
designs.
that after reading Wm. Paley's book in which he attributed design in
nature to his God, Darwin's sole purpose in writing his "origins" was
to build and promote a case for design in nature _without_ Paley's
God.
What are the examples of design? There are plenty of examples of lack of >>design: the blind spot in the human eye, the ostrich which cannot fly,
the whale which has to come up for air, the fish whose eye moves from
one side of its head to the other so it can become a flatfish.
supports the "good enough" assumption for how evolution
works, right? And that they all are evidence that there is
no advance planning involved?
Your examples are evidence
that evolution is a blind process which has no predetermined
goal, and only requires that its products work well enough
to ensure survival and reproductive success.
On Fri, 8 Mar 2024 19:44:05 -0600, the following appeared in
talk.origins, posted by DB Cates <cates_db@hotmail.com>:
On 2024-03-08 6:55 PM, Bob Casanova wrote:Could be, but the assertion that evolution is not a designer, using a dictionary definition of "designer" he cites above, rather than
On Fri, 08 Mar 2024 22:43:29 +0000, the following appeared inI believe you may be misunderstanding Richmond. I think that he does
talk.origins, posted by Richmond <dnomhcir@gmx.com>:
Ron Dean <rondean-noreply@gmail.com> writes:You do realize, of course, that every example you listed supports
Richmond wrote:
Bob Casanova <nospam@buzz.off> writes:I disagree. Evolution supposedly can design. In fact, I'm
On Fri, 08 Mar 2024 17:09:46 +0000, the following appeared inam not "thrown". The problem is the "look at the workings prior
talk.origins, posted by Richmond <dnomhcir@gmx.com>:
Mark Isaak <specimenNOSPAM@curioustaxon.omy.net> writes:I assume it's "person" that's throwing you. No it isn't, and I
On 3/3/24 5:03 PM, Ron Dean wrote:
dgb (David) wrote:
On 3 Mar 2024 at 19:39:32 GMT, "Ron Dean">
<rondean-noreply@gmail.com> wrote:
dgb (David) wrote:
On 2 Mar 2024 at 15:15:57 GMT, "John Harshman"It's a common claim among people who accept evolution as a >>>>>>>>>>>> reality that conflicting scientific evidence does not
<john.harshman@gmail.com>
wrote:
On 3/2/24 12:50 AM, dgb (David) wrote:
[snipped]
Perhaps you could post this in some other, more
appropriate newsgroup instead of one dedicated to arguing >>>>>>>>>>>>>> about creationism.
I believe in God :-D
exist. But how does he or she know? When confronted, the >>>>>>>>>>>> first time, with an opinion; a belief; a hypothesis or a >>>>>>>>>>>> theory, I think most people initially are inclined to "like >>>>>>>>>>>> or a dislike" the discovery. If a person dislikes the >>>>>>>>>>>> opinion or theory it's very often ignored, dismissed and >>>>>>>>>>>> forgotten.
By contrast, if a theory is appreciated or liked or seen as >>>>>>>>>>>> in a favorable light, then the tendency is to search for >>>>>>>>>>>> positive, supportive evidence. If in this search one
happens to discover evidence contrary or contradictory to >>>>>>>>>>>> the theory, then the propensity is to ignore the evidence, >>>>>>>>>>>> explain the contrary evidence away, or go searching for >>>>>>>>>>>> some means to fit the contradictory evidence into the
theory or finally to label the contradictory evidence
religious data or religiously motivated.
I suspect that religious antagonism or resentment is one of >>>>>>>>>>>> the main driving force enabling evolution to become an >>>>>>>>>>>> overwhelming paradigm in the minds of some people. Again >>>>>>>>>>>> with this approach it's possible to "prove" anything the >>>>>>>>>>>> heart desires to be real or true. In this sense evolution >>>>>>>>>>>> becomes an essential part of one's reality and one's
identity.
And where there is an absence of expected or required
evidence, there is the trust that the evidence exist, but >>>>>>>>>>>> just not yet found. The final conclusion becomes central to >>>>>>>>>>>> the paradigm, which takes precedence, supremacy and
priority over everything including opinion, observation, >>>>>>>>>>>> evidence and facts. With this endeavor it follows that >>>>>>>>>>>> there can be no contradictory or contrary evidence against >>>>>>>>>>>> evolution. In this evolution demonstrates the
characteristics of religion. In the US there is the
missionary zeal to educate, IE push evolution as good news >>>>>>>>>>>> (gospel) especially in the American education system. This >>>>>>>>>>>> one sided approach is strongly demanded and any opposing >>>>>>>>>>>> data or information is met with harsh condemnation and even >>>>>>>>>>>> to legal renderings by judicial commitments.
Science is supposed t be impersonal, unemotional and
impervious to criticism, but because of a personal identity >>>>>>>>>>>> with evolution, to attack evolution is seen as a personal >>>>>>>>>>>> attack, rendering a wrath of embittered, spiteful and
rhetorical verbal assaults.
Interesting thoughts, Ron.
Thank you for posting.
Evidence for design in nature is overwhelming. If it looks to >>>>>>>>>> be designed then it is designed. But if you trust
evolutionist, what appears to be design is just an illusion, >>>>>>>>>> a chimera or a mirage, if so then it's a deliberate and
willful deception by God. . David
What Ron neglects in his analysis is, first, that evolution is >>>>>>>>> a designer
It isn't.
Designer: "a person who plans the look or workings of something >>>>>>>> prior to it being made, by preparing drawings or plans"
to being made". It is foresight and planning. It's not what
evolution does.
Arguing from definitions rather than from functions isn't
especially persuasive. Functionally, evolution certainly *is* a
designer, since it performs the functions of a designer - >> No
it doesn't. It doesn't make any plans for example. It doesn't >> >>>>>>> have >> any designs.
convinced, that after reading Wm. Paley's book in which he
attributed design in nature to his God, Darwin's sole purpose in
writing his "origins" was to build and promote a case for design
in nature _without_ Paley's God.
What are the examples of design? There are plenty of examples of
lack of design: the blind spot in the human eye, the ostrich which
cannot fly, the whale which has to come up for air, the fish whose
eye moves from one side of its head to the other so it can become a
flatfish.
the "good enough" assumption for how evolution works, right? And
that they all are evidence that there is no advance planning
involved? Your examples are evidence that evolution is a blind
process which has no predetermined goal, and only requires that its
products work well enough to ensure survival and reproductive
success.
Have any other examples disproving your assertions?
not think that the products of evolution (the life we see around us
and its history) appear designed. He is not attacking evolution but
the idea that the products of evolution look/are designed.
considering what "designer" actually means, tends to refute that.
Patterns exist
everywhere, from stars in the sky to cloud formations to rain drops on
a window,
and most of them were created without benefit of intelligence
or purpose or plan.
On Fri, 08 Mar 2024 17:44:11 +0000, Richmond <dnomhcir@gmx.com> wrote:
Bob Casanova <nospam@buzz.off> writes:
On Fri, 08 Mar 2024 17:09:46 +0000, the following appeared in
talk.origins, posted by Richmond <dnomhcir@gmx.com>:
Mark Isaak <specimenNOSPAM@curioustaxon.omy.net> writes:I assume it's "person" that's throwing you.
On 3/3/24 5:03 PM, Ron Dean wrote:
dgb (David) wrote:
On 3 Mar 2024 at 19:39:32 GMT, "Ron Dean"Evidence for design in nature is overwhelming. If it looks to be
<rondean-noreply@gmail.com> wrote:
dgb (David) wrote:
On 2 Mar 2024 at 15:15:57 GMT, "John Harshman"It's a common claim among people who accept evolution as a
<john.harshman@gmail.com>
wrote:
On 3/2/24 12:50 AM, dgb (David) wrote:
[snipped]
Perhaps you could post this in some other, more appropriate >>>>>>>>>> newsgroup instead of one dedicated to arguing about
creationism.
I believe in God :-D
reality that conflicting scientific evidence does not
exist. But how does he or she know? When confronted, the first >>>>>>>> time, with an opinion; a belief; a hypothesis or a theory, I
think most people initially are inclined to "like or a dislike" >>>>>>>> the discovery. If a person dislikes the opinion or theory it's >>>>>>>> very often ignored, dismissed and forgotten.
By contrast, if a theory is appreciated or liked or seen as in >>>>>>>> a favorable light, then the tendency is to search for positive, >>>>>>>> supportive evidence. If in this search one happens to discover >>>>>>>> evidence contrary or contradictory to the theory, then the
propensity is to ignore the evidence, explain the contrary
evidence away, or go searching for some means to fit the
contradictory evidence into the theory or finally to label the >>>>>>>> contradictory evidence religious data or religiously motivated. >>>>>>>>
I suspect that religious antagonism or resentment is one of the >>>>>>>> main driving force enabling evolution to become an overwhelming >>>>>>>> paradigm in the minds of some people. Again with this approach >>>>>>>> it's possible to "prove" anything the heart desires to be real >>>>>>>> or true. In this sense evolution becomes an essential part of
one's reality and one's identity.
And where there is an absence of expected or required evidence, >>>>>>>> there is the trust that the evidence exist, but just not yet
found. The final conclusion becomes central to the paradigm,
which takes precedence, supremacy and priority over everything >>>>>>>> including opinion, observation, evidence and facts. With this
endeavor it follows that there can be no contradictory or
contrary evidence against evolution. In this evolution
demonstrates the characteristics of religion. In the US there >>>>>>>> is the missionary zeal to educate, IE push evolution as good
news (gospel) especially in the American education system. This >>>>>>>> one sided approach is strongly demanded and any opposing data
or information is met with harsh condemnation and even to legal >>>>>>>> renderings by judicial commitments.
Science is supposed t be impersonal, unemotional and impervious >>>>>>>> to criticism, but because of a personal identity with
evolution, to attack evolution is seen as a personal attack,
rendering a wrath of embittered, spiteful and rhetorical verbal >>>>>>>> assaults.
Interesting thoughts, Ron.
Thank you for posting.
designed then it is designed. But if you trust evolutionist, what
appears to be design is just an illusion, a chimera or a mirage,
if so then it's a deliberate and willful deception by
God. . David
What Ron neglects in his analysis is, first, that evolution is a
designer
It isn't.
Designer: "a person who plans the look or workings of something
prior to it being made, by preparing drawings or plans"
No it isn't, and I am not "thrown". The problem is the "look at the >>workings prior to being made". It is foresight and planning. It's not
what evolution does.
Arguing from definitions rather than from functions isn't especially
persuasive. Functionally, evolution certainly *is* a designer, since
it performs the functions of a designer -
No it doesn't. It doesn't make any plans for example. It doesn't have
any designs.
trial, error, progress.
Designers don't operate by trial and error alone.
Your uncited definition is a broadly useful wrt to how most people use
the word. However, it doesn't cover all the possibilities.
Metaphorically, "designer" can be anything which creates designs, and
designs can be any pattern which performs a function, and function can
be anything which can be imagined patterns perform. Patterns exist everywhere, from stars in the sky to cloud formations to rain drops on
a window, and most of them were create without benefit of intelligence
or purpose or plan.
It's the nature of the human mind to presume purpose where none
exists. That's what Dawkins means when he speaks of the illusion of
design.
Mark Isaak wrote:
On 3/6/24 8:06 PM, Ron Dean wrote:As the Wikipedia list dozens case of "misconduct" in the various
Mark Isaak wrote:
On 3/4/24 7:37 AM, Ron Dean wrote:Listed here are 10 theories that were later debunked.
[...]
Scientist are human too, how many times through out history have
scientist arrived at conclusions only to reverse them as evidence
is increases.
After a consensus has been reached and held for over a century?
Zero times, that I can think of. (At least, since 1834, when the
word "scientist" was coined.)
There probably are a handful of such cases in specialist fields,
where the number of qualified experts capable of evaluating the
evidence varied from zero to a few dozen. But not in widely-known
important fields. Can you think of any?
https://www.famousscientists.org/10-most-famous-scientific-theories-that-were-later-debunked/
And there are some that were falsified or superseded by further
discoveries.
That list helps make my point. Half of the items on it are from before
the scientific era (note, for example, that phrenology was already
dying by the 1834 date I gave above), and the other half were either
quickly discredited or never accepted by the scientific consensus in
the first place. Probably the best example from your list, Martian
canals, was proposed first in 1877 and under severe criticism already
by 1907. The first item on the list, Pons & Fleishman's cold fusion,
never got scientific acceptance in the first place.
But, as I pointed out above, scientist are human committing many of
the same transgressions and having the same moral challenges as the
rest of us humans have. Perhaps, the most devastating factor of all
are the numerous frauds in science by some scientist, beginning with
the cold fusion hoax. There are many other frauds in science and in
different fields of science that were, in many cases, I think were
exposed by other scientist.
Wikipedia list numerous cases of what they labeled "misconduct" by
scientist.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_scientific_misconduct_incidents
With Just a little research there is a world of information about
fraud in research, experiments scientific reports, and some doctoring
the results because of the quest for funding and grants.
But the problem with evolution is it's sacrosanct, [...]
Sorry, your hypothesis of sacrosanctity is falsified by evidence. If
evolution were sacrosanct, it would not have been falsified at least
twice (and revised into a new theory with the problem fixed, and much
in common with the old, even the original, theory).
Also, evolution is not only a theory in biology; it is a tool in
engineering. Engineers don't use things that don't work, at least not
for very long.
branches of Science. The fact that there is only one or two instances of reported fraud in evolution is highly suspicious, considering the large number of science researchers.
But as I pointed out before if, as a
scientist, you seriously want to believe something if true, then in the search for supportive evidence, contrary evidence and conflicting data
is uncovered, scientist are humans too, there is a strong tendency to
invent reasons and justifications in which the unwelcome evidence is overlooked, discarded or it is somehow integrated in evolutionary
theory.
And when there is a large group of scientist committed to
evolution I suspect there are quite a few scientist and other
intellectuals who are in disbelief of evolution, but do not reveal their doubts for fear of retribution. But for every individual referenced
in this list below, I would bet there are numerous others who fall into
the doubters category, but because of they have no desire or willingness
to face the consequences, they just keep quite.
http://www.ideacenter.org/contentmgr/showdetails.php/id/1207
And in fact anyone who doubts or challenges evolution is very frequently
met with ire, scorn and indignation. This I think is a unique reaction,
with evolution. I cannot think of another branch or field of science
such as astronomy, anthropology, sociology etc. that invokes such
acrimony and wrath upon the challengers.
jillery wrote:
On Sat, 09 Mar 2024 11:12:52 +0000, Richmond <dnomhcir@gmx.com> wrote:
jillery <69jpil69@gmail.com> writes:
On Fri, 08 Mar 2024 17:44:11 +0000, Richmond <dnomhcir@gmx.com> wrote: >>>>
Bob Casanova <nospam@buzz.off> writes:
On Fri, 08 Mar 2024 17:09:46 +0000, the following appeared in
talk.origins, posted by Richmond <dnomhcir@gmx.com>:
Mark Isaak <specimenNOSPAM@curioustaxon.omy.net> writes:I assume it's "person" that's throwing you.
On 3/3/24 5:03 PM, Ron Dean wrote:
dgb (David) wrote:
On 3 Mar 2024 at 19:39:32 GMT, "Ron Dean">
<rondean-noreply@gmail.com> wrote:
dgb (David) wrote:
On 2 Mar 2024 at 15:15:57 GMT, "John Harshman"It's a common claim among people who accept evolution as a >>>>>>>>>>> reality that conflicting scientific evidence does not
<john.harshman@gmail.com>
wrote:
On 3/2/24 12:50 AM, dgb (David) wrote:
[snipped]
Perhaps you could post this in some other, more appropriate >>>>>>>>>>>>> newsgroup instead of one dedicated to arguing about
creationism.
I believe in God :-D
exist. But how does he or she know? When confronted, the first >>>>>>>>>>> time, with an opinion; a belief; a hypothesis or a theory, I >>>>>>>>>>> think most people initially are inclined to "like or a dislike" >>>>>>>>>>> the discovery. If a person dislikes the opinion or theory it's >>>>>>>>>>> very often ignored, dismissed and forgotten.
By contrast, if a theory is appreciated or liked or seen as in >>>>>>>>>>> a favorable light, then the tendency is to search for positive, >>>>>>>>>>> supportive evidence. If in this search one happens to discover >>>>>>>>>>> evidence contrary or contradictory to the theory, then the >>>>>>>>>>> propensity is to ignore the evidence, explain the contrary >>>>>>>>>>> evidence away, or go searching for some means to fit the >>>>>>>>>>> contradictory evidence into the theory or finally to label the >>>>>>>>>>> contradictory evidence religious data or religiously motivated. >>>>>>>>>>>
I suspect that religious antagonism or resentment is one of the >>>>>>>>>>> main driving force enabling evolution to become an overwhelming >>>>>>>>>>> paradigm in the minds of some people. Again with this approach >>>>>>>>>>> it's possible to "prove" anything the heart desires to be real >>>>>>>>>>> or true. In this sense evolution becomes an essential part of >>>>>>>>>>> one's reality and one's identity.
And where there is an absence of expected or required evidence, >>>>>>>>>>> there is the trust that the evidence exist, but just not yet >>>>>>>>>>> found. The final conclusion becomes central to the paradigm, >>>>>>>>>>> which takes precedence, supremacy and priority over everything >>>>>>>>>>> including opinion, observation, evidence and facts. With this >>>>>>>>>>> endeavor it follows that there can be no contradictory or >>>>>>>>>>> contrary evidence against evolution. In this evolution
demonstrates the characteristics of religion. In the US there >>>>>>>>>>> is the missionary zeal to educate, IE push evolution as good >>>>>>>>>>> news (gospel) especially in the American education system. This >>>>>>>>>>> one sided approach is strongly demanded and any opposing data >>>>>>>>>>> or information is met with harsh condemnation and even to legal >>>>>>>>>>> renderings by judicial commitments.
Science is supposed t be impersonal, unemotional and impervious >>>>>>>>>>> to criticism, but because of a personal identity with
evolution, to attack evolution is seen as a personal attack, >>>>>>>>>>> rendering a wrath of embittered, spiteful and rhetorical verbal >>>>>>>>>>> assaults.
Interesting thoughts, Ron.
Thank you for posting.
Evidence for design in nature is overwhelming. If it looks to be >>>>>>>>> designed then it is designed. But if you trust evolutionist, what >>>>>>>>> appears to be design is just an illusion, a chimera or a mirage, >>>>>>>>> if so then it's a deliberate and willful deception by
God. . David
What Ron neglects in his analysis is, first, that evolution is a >>>>>>>> designer
It isn't.
Designer: "a person who plans the look or workings of something
prior to it being made, by preparing drawings or plans"
No it isn't, and I am not "thrown". The problem is the "look at the
workings prior to being made". It is foresight and planning. It's not >>>>> what evolution does.
Arguing from definitions rather than from functions isn't especially >>>>>> persuasive. Functionally, evolution certainly *is* a designer, since >>>>>> it performs the functions of a designer -
No it doesn't. It doesn't make any plans for example. It doesn't have >>>>> any designs.
trial, error, progress.
Designers don't operate by trial and error alone.
Your uncited definition is a broadly useful wrt to how most people use >>>> the word. However, it doesn't cover all the possibilities.
Metaphorically, "designer" can be anything which creates designs, and
designs can be any pattern which performs a function, and function can >>>> be anything which can be imagined patterns perform. Patterns exist
everywhere, from stars in the sky to cloud formations to rain drops on >>>> a window, and most of them were create without benefit of intelligence >>>> or purpose or plan.
It's the nature of the human mind to presume purpose where none
exists. That's what Dawkins means when he speaks of the illusion of
design.
Metaphorical design is not design any more than a shit storm is a storm
of shit.
He said it is an illusion of design because it is not design.
More accurately, he said it is an illusion because it *appears*
designed. His point and mine is that appearances are deceiving.
Observation is a cornerstone of science. Generally considered the first principle of the scientific method.
This is true! But since the observation of design aligns with the first principle of the scientific method, then it follows that ID is
The blind watch maker didn't have any designs, not even in Braille.
I think using the word 'design' in a metophorical sense in a discussion
about evolution is going to cause no end of problems.
These problems are the basis of ID, and so already exist. There's no
"going to" about it.
scientific. By contrast evolution pretends that observation is false, misleading and deceptive.
--
To know less than we don't know is the nature of most knowledge
On 9 Mar 2024 at 10:50:47 GMT, "jillery" <69jpil69@gmail.com> wrote:
Patterns exist
everywhere, from stars in the sky to cloud formations to rain drops on
a window,
They do indeed!
and most of them were created without benefit of intelligence
or purpose or plan.
You cannot /possibly/ know that to be true!
I think you are wrong.
Bob Casanova <nospam@buzz.off> writes:
On Fri, 8 Mar 2024 19:44:05 -0600, the following appeared in
talk.origins, posted by DB Cates <cates_db@hotmail.com>:
On 2024-03-08 6:55 PM, Bob Casanova wrote:Could be, but the assertion that evolution is not a designer, using a
On Fri, 08 Mar 2024 22:43:29 +0000, the following appeared inI believe you may be misunderstanding Richmond. I think that he does
talk.origins, posted by Richmond <dnomhcir@gmx.com>:
Ron Dean <rondean-noreply@gmail.com> writes:You do realize, of course, that every example you listed supports
Richmond wrote:
Bob Casanova <nospam@buzz.off> writes:I disagree. Evolution supposedly can design. In fact, I'm
On Fri, 08 Mar 2024 17:09:46 +0000, the following appeared into being made". It is foresight and planning. It's not what
talk.origins, posted by Richmond <dnomhcir@gmx.com>:
Mark Isaak <specimenNOSPAM@curioustaxon.omy.net> writes:I assume it's "person" that's throwing you. No it isn't, and I >>>>>>> am not "thrown". The problem is the "look at the workings prior
On 3/3/24 5:03 PM, Ron Dean wrote:
dgb (David) wrote:
On 3 Mar 2024 at 19:39:32 GMT, "Ron Dean">
<rondean-noreply@gmail.com> wrote:
dgb (David) wrote:
On 2 Mar 2024 at 15:15:57 GMT, "John Harshman"It's a common claim among people who accept evolution as a >>>>>>>>>>>>> reality that conflicting scientific evidence does not >>>>>>>>>>>>> exist. But how does he or she know? When confronted, the >>>>>>>>>>>>> first time, with an opinion; a belief; a hypothesis or a >>>>>>>>>>>>> theory, I think most people initially are inclined to "like >>>>>>>>>>>>> or a dislike" the discovery. If a person dislikes the >>>>>>>>>>>>> opinion or theory it's very often ignored, dismissed and >>>>>>>>>>>>> forgotten.
<john.harshman@gmail.com>
wrote:
On 3/2/24 12:50 AM, dgb (David) wrote:
[snipped]
Perhaps you could post this in some other, more
appropriate newsgroup instead of one dedicated to arguing >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> about creationism.
I believe in God :-D
By contrast, if a theory is appreciated or liked or seen as >>>>>>>>>>>>> in a favorable light, then the tendency is to search for >>>>>>>>>>>>> positive, supportive evidence. If in this search one >>>>>>>>>>>>> happens to discover evidence contrary or contradictory to >>>>>>>>>>>>> the theory, then the propensity is to ignore the evidence, >>>>>>>>>>>>> explain the contrary evidence away, or go searching for >>>>>>>>>>>>> some means to fit the contradictory evidence into the >>>>>>>>>>>>> theory or finally to label the contradictory evidence >>>>>>>>>>>>> religious data or religiously motivated.
I suspect that religious antagonism or resentment is one of >>>>>>>>>>>>> the main driving force enabling evolution to become an >>>>>>>>>>>>> overwhelming paradigm in the minds of some people. Again >>>>>>>>>>>>> with this approach it's possible to "prove" anything the >>>>>>>>>>>>> heart desires to be real or true. In this sense evolution >>>>>>>>>>>>> becomes an essential part of one's reality and one's >>>>>>>>>>>>> identity.
And where there is an absence of expected or required >>>>>>>>>>>>> evidence, there is the trust that the evidence exist, but >>>>>>>>>>>>> just not yet found. The final conclusion becomes central to >>>>>>>>>>>>> the paradigm, which takes precedence, supremacy and
priority over everything including opinion, observation, >>>>>>>>>>>>> evidence and facts. With this endeavor it follows that >>>>>>>>>>>>> there can be no contradictory or contrary evidence against >>>>>>>>>>>>> evolution. In this evolution demonstrates the
characteristics of religion. In the US there is the >>>>>>>>>>>>> missionary zeal to educate, IE push evolution as good news >>>>>>>>>>>>> (gospel) especially in the American education system. This >>>>>>>>>>>>> one sided approach is strongly demanded and any opposing >>>>>>>>>>>>> data or information is met with harsh condemnation and even >>>>>>>>>>>>> to legal renderings by judicial commitments.
Science is supposed t be impersonal, unemotional and >>>>>>>>>>>>> impervious to criticism, but because of a personal identity >>>>>>>>>>>>> with evolution, to attack evolution is seen as a personal >>>>>>>>>>>>> attack, rendering a wrath of embittered, spiteful and >>>>>>>>>>>>> rhetorical verbal assaults.
Interesting thoughts, Ron.
Thank you for posting.
Evidence for design in nature is overwhelming. If it looks to >>>>>>>>>>> be designed then it is designed. But if you trust
evolutionist, what appears to be design is just an illusion, >>>>>>>>>>> a chimera or a mirage, if so then it's a deliberate and
willful deception by God. . David
What Ron neglects in his analysis is, first, that evolution is >>>>>>>>>> a designer
It isn't.
Designer: "a person who plans the look or workings of something >>>>>>>>> prior to it being made, by preparing drawings or plans"
evolution does.
Arguing from definitions rather than from functions isn't
especially persuasive. Functionally, evolution certainly *is* a >>>>>>>> designer, since it performs the functions of a designer - >> No >>>>>>>> it doesn't. It doesn't make any plans for example. It doesn't >> >>>>>>>> have >> any designs.
convinced, that after reading Wm. Paley's book in which he
attributed design in nature to his God, Darwin's sole purpose in
writing his "origins" was to build and promote a case for design
in nature _without_ Paley's God.
What are the examples of design? There are plenty of examples of
lack of design: the blind spot in the human eye, the ostrich which
cannot fly, the whale which has to come up for air, the fish whose
eye moves from one side of its head to the other so it can become a
flatfish.
the "good enough" assumption for how evolution works, right? And
that they all are evidence that there is no advance planning
involved? Your examples are evidence that evolution is a blind
process which has no predetermined goal, and only requires that its
products work well enough to ensure survival and reproductive
success.
Have any other examples disproving your assertions?
not think that the products of evolution (the life we see around us
and its history) appear designed. He is not attacking evolution but
the idea that the products of evolution look/are designed.
dictionary definition of "designer" he cites above, rather than
considering what "designer" actually means, tends to refute that.
By "what designer actually means" you mean what you redefined it to mean
so that you could claim evolution designs.
Mark Isaak <specimenNOSPAM@curioustaxon.omy.net> writes:
On 3/3/24 5:03 PM, Ron Dean wrote:
> [...]
Evidence for design in nature is overwhelming. If it looks to be
designed then it is designed. But if you trust evolutionist, what
appears to be design is just an illusion, a chimera or a mirage, if
so then it's a deliberate and willful deception by God. . David
What Ron neglects in his analysis is, first, that evolution is a
designer
It isn't.
Designer: "a person who plans the look or workings of something prior to
it being made, by preparing drawings or plans"
On 9 Mar 2024 11:01:49 GMT, dgb (David) <david@nomail.afraid.org>
wrote:
On 9 Mar 2024 at 10:50:47 GMT, "jillery" <69jpil69@gmail.com> wrote:
Patterns exist
everywhere, from stars in the sky to cloud formations to rain drops on
a window,
They do indeed!
and most of them were created without benefit of intelligence
or purpose or plan.
You cannot /possibly/ know that to be true!
I acknowledge I can't know with absolute certainty it's true, just as
I can't know some intelligence didn't purposely make these patterns
appear as if they followed statistical probability.
However, the standard is to identify evidence for a claim. Since
these patterns are consistent with unguided natural processes, that is sufficient to support my claim. What evidence do you have the
existence of these patterns required intelligence?
I think you are wrong.
You're entitled to your opinion, which is as good as any other
baseless opinion.
Mark Isaak wrote:
On 3/3/24 5:03 PM, Ron Dean wrote:
dgb (David) wrote:
On 3 Mar 2024 at 19:39:32 GMT, "Ron Dean"Evidence for design in nature is overwhelming. If it looks to be
<rondean-noreply@gmail.com> wrote:
dgb (David) wrote:
On 2 Mar 2024 at 15:15:57 GMT, "John Harshman"It's a common claim among people who accept evolution as a reality
<john.harshman@gmail.com>
wrote:
On 3/2/24 12:50 AM, dgb (David) wrote:
[snipped]
Perhaps you could post this in some other, more appropriate
newsgroup
instead of one dedicated to arguing about creationism.
I believe in God :-D
that
conflicting scientific evidence does not exist. But how does he or she >>>>> know? When confronted, the first time, with an opinion; a belief; a
hypothesis or a theory, I think most people initially are inclined to >>>>> "like or a dislike" the discovery. If a person dislikes the
opinion or
theory it's very often ignored, dismissed and forgotten.
By contrast, if a theory is appreciated or liked or seen as in a
favorable light, then the tendency is to search for positive,
supportive
evidence. If in this search one happens to discover evidence
contrary or
contradictory to the theory, then the propensity is to ignore the
evidence, explain the contrary evidence away, or go searching for
some
means to fit the contradictory evidence into the theory or finally to >>>>> label the contradictory evidence religious data or religiously
motivated.
I suspect that religious antagonism or resentment is one of the main >>>>> driving force enabling evolution to become an overwhelming paradigm in >>>>> the minds of some people. Again with this approach it's possible to
"prove" anything the heart desires to be real or true. In this sense >>>>> evolution becomes an essential part of one's reality and one's
identity.
And where there is an absence of expected or required evidence,
there is
the trust that the evidence exist, but just not yet found. The final >>>>> conclusion becomes central to the paradigm, which takes precedence,
supremacy and priority over everything including opinion, observation, >>>>> evidence and facts. With this endeavor it follows that there can be no >>>>> contradictory or contrary evidence against evolution. In this
evolution
demonstrates the characteristics of religion. In the US there is the >>>>> missionary zeal to educate, IE push evolution as good news (gospel)
especially in the American education system. This one sided
approach is
strongly demanded and any opposing data or information is met with
harsh
condemnation and even to legal renderings by judicial commitments.
Science is supposed t be impersonal, unemotional and impervious to
criticism, but because of a personal identity with evolution, to
attack
evolution is seen as a personal attack, rendering
a wrath of embittered, spiteful and rhetorical verbal assaults.
Interesting thoughts, Ron.
Thank you for posting.
;
designed then it is designed. But if you trust evolutionist, what
appears to be design is just an illusion, a chimera or a mirage, if
so then it's a deliberate and willful deception by God. . David
What Ron neglects in his analysis is, first, that evolution is a
designer -- not as efficient as human designers, but a designer
nonetheless; and second, that where humans and evolution differ
regarding their being designers, life unquestionably looks like it is
not the result of intelligent design.
Of course life looks designed. There is nothing else on the planet with
the capacity to replace or reproduce itself with the same level of
complexity and organization as does life. Life alone has the capability
and the information to obtain needed raw materials, modify and order
these materials into the highly organized entities called living
organisms. Secondly, one of the fact that's of the essentials of all is
the question of origins. Darwin himself acknowledged that the key to the
past is the present.
If one accepts this truism, then to our present knowledge the
_only_source of highly complex information is mind.
Information is key,
Darwin observed pigeons and finches that were varying sizes shapes and differing beaks and he concluded that change was unlimited. This proved false, unknown to Darwin was the information contained in DNA. We
observe dogs and hogs of differing sizes and shapes, but there is a
limit to the change possible which is determined by information.
There is no information (DNA) which expresses for wings on a hog. But
there can be a loss of information, birds that lost the ability to fly.
The origin of life itself: since the present is key to the past, the
Pasteur experiment that life comes only from life has never been
falsified. Life must have been created billion years ago. And until a
better explanation is discovered. In science the origin of life remains unresolved, there is no more logical or rational conclusion available than what we observe in the present. We do not observe new non carbon
life or other substances forming a unique type of life at present, again verifying the fact that life comes from life. "And God breathed the
breath of life into man and man became a living soul". Man as the only concern of the writer of the statement, but also life was breathed into
other life forms. \
On 3/10/24 7:25 AM, dgb (David) wrote:
On 9 Mar 2024 at 11:41:03 GMT, "jillery" <69jpil69@gmail.com> wrote:
On 9 Mar 2024 11:01:49 GMT, dgb (David) <david@nomail.afraid.org>
wrote:
On 9 Mar 2024 at 10:50:47 GMT, "jillery" <69jpil69@gmail.com> wrote:
Patterns exist
everywhere, from stars in the sky to cloud formations to rain drops on >>>>> a window,
They do indeed!
and most of them were created without benefit of intelligence
or purpose or plan.
You cannot /possibly/ know that to be true!
I acknowledge I can't know with absolute certainty it's true, just as
I can't know some intelligence didn't purposely make these patterns
appear as if they followed statistical probability.
However, the standard is to identify evidence for a claim. Since
these patterns are consistent with unguided natural processes, that is
sufficient to support my claim. What evidence do you have the
existence of these patterns required intelligence?
The evidence may be found here:-
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Existence_of_God
No, those are arguments, not evidence. Try again.
--I think you are wrong.
You're entitled to your opinion, which is as good as any other
baseless opinion.
If I had wanted YOUR opinion I'd have given it to you!
On 3/11/24 9:09 AM, Bob Casanova wrote:
On Sun, 10 Mar 2024 22:19:19 -0700, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by John Harshman
<john.harshman@gmail.com>:
On 3/10/24 7:25 AM, dgb (David) wrote:"This argument is evidence!"
On 9 Mar 2024 at 11:41:03 GMT, "jillery" <69jpil69@gmail.com> wrote:
On 9 Mar 2024 11:01:49 GMT, dgb (David) <david@nomail.afraid.org>
wrote:
On 9 Mar 2024 at 10:50:47 GMT, "jillery" <69jpil69@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>
Patterns exist
everywhere, from stars in the sky to cloud formations to rain drops on >>>>>>> a window,
They do indeed!
and most of them were created without benefit of intelligence
or purpose or plan.
You cannot /possibly/ know that to be true!
I acknowledge I can't know with absolute certainty it's true, just as >>>>> I can't know some intelligence didn't purposely make these patterns
appear as if they followed statistical probability.
However, the standard is to identify evidence for a claim. Since
these patterns are consistent with unguided natural processes, that is >>>>> sufficient to support my claim. What evidence do you have the
existence of these patterns required intelligence?
The evidence may be found here:-
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Existence_of_God
No, those are arguments, not evidence. Try again.
There does seem to be a repeating pattern here. The question
is, is it malice or simply ignorance?
Never discount malicious ignorance. Or ignorant malice, for that matter.
Science is supposed t be impersonal, unemotional and impervious to
criticism, but because of a personal identity with evolution, to attack >evolution is seen as a personal attack, rendering
a wrath of embittered, spiteful and rhetorical verbal assaults.
Mark Isaak wrote:
On 3/8/24 7:59 AM, Ron Dean wrote:
Mark Isaak wrote:
[...]Of course life looks designed. There is nothing else on the planet
What Ron neglects in his analysis is, first, that evolution is a
designer -- not as efficient as human designers, but a designer
nonetheless; and second, that where humans and evolution differ
regarding their being designers, life unquestionably looks like it
is not the result of intelligent design.
;
with the capacity to replace or reproduce itself with the same level
of complexity and organization as does life. Life alone has the
capability and the information to obtain needed raw materials,
modify and order these materials into the highly organized entities
called living organisms. Secondly, one of the fact that's of the
essentials of all is the question of origins. Darwin himself
acknowledged that the key to the past is the present.
If one accepts this truism, then to our present knowledge the
_only_source of highly complex information is mind.
That is a huge non sequitur, and it is not true. We know from physics
(and astronomy and geology and meteorology) that complexity forms
spontaneously in a wide variety of circumstances.
Complex forms do no constitute highly complex information which in this
case infers knowledge, know-how or instructions. Crystals can form
complex strictures so can bubbles in water, star formations, but there
is nothing pertaining to information.
Information is key,
No, energy flow is key.
I agree, energy is key, but energy without information that's
controlling energy, energy can be and usually is destructive. A tornado
is not controlled by intelligence energy. But a tractor with a
controlling factor (a man) is controlled energy, if the man has a heart attack and dies, the throtle remains open, now the tractors energy is uncontrolled. The barn, stables and building can be destroyed.
Darwin observed pigeons and finches that were varying sizes shapes
and differing beaks and he concluded that change was unlimited. This
proved false, unknown to Darwin was the information contained in DNA.
We observe dogs and hogs of differing sizes and shapes, but there is
a limit to the change possible which is determined by information.
That doesn't even make sense. If change is limited by information,
then a change to the information eliminates those limits.
True, but cave fish went blind, some birds lost their ability to fly.
Dogs can vary in size and shape, but they cannot grow new organs.
Because the information in DNA to express new organs don't exist. But
it's possible to lose information and fail to survive. We once owed a
dog that gave birth to
pups that were blind on two different occasions. So, the information
required for functioning eyes was lost.
Also, I don't believe Darwin ever supported the idea that change was
unlimited. Change is still limited by constraints imposed by physics
and resources,
I agree, also absent in DNA.
and there appear to be some possibilities (large wheels is
the only example I know) that cannot evolve from existing forms.At the present there is no better explanation.
There is no information (DNA) which expresses for wings on a hog. But
there can be a loss of information, birds that lost the ability to
fly. The origin of life itself: since the present is key to the past,
the Pasteur experiment that life comes only from life has never been
falsified. Life must have been created billion years ago. And until a
better explanation is discovered. In science the origin of life
remains unresolved, there is no more logical or rational conclusion
available than what we observe in the present. We do not observe new
non carbon life or other substances forming a unique type of life at
present, again verifying the fact that life comes from life. "And God
breathed the breath of life into man and man became a living soul".
Man as the only concern of the writer of the statement, but also life
was breathed into other life forms. \
Unfortunately for your position, the constraints to change do not
include one's choice of religion or lack of ability to conceive of
alternatives.
Don't get my wrong I am
against organized religion. But this is a religious dogma which comes
from religious sources. But the only argument against this dogma is
atheism - there is a God or there is no God, either of which is in
reality, just a philosophy.
But my bet would be on the positive.
Mark Isaak wrote:
[Crosspost to uk.comp.sys.mac removed. I'll remove alt.computer.workshop
in my next reply, if any.]
On 3/12/24 9:01 PM, Ron Dean wrote:
Mark Isaak wrote:
On 3/8/24 7:59 AM, Ron Dean wrote:
Mark Isaak wrote:
[...]
What Ron neglects in his analysis is, first, that evolution is a designer -- not as efficient as human designers, but a designer nonetheless; and second, that where humans and evolution differ regarding their being designers, life unquestionably looks like it is not the result of intelligent design.
Of course life looks designed. There is nothing else on the planet with the capacity to replace or reproduce itself with the same level of complexity and organization as does life. Life alone has the capability and the information to obtain needed raw materials, modify and order these materials into the highly organized entities called living organisms. Secondly, one of the fact that's of the essentials of all is the question of origins. Darwin himself acknowledged that the key to the past is the present.
If one accepts this truism, then to our present knowledge the _only_source of highly complex information is mind.
That is a huge non sequitur, and it is not true. We know from physics (and astronomy and geology and meteorology) that complexity forms spontaneously in a wide variety of circumstances.
Complex forms do no constitute highly complex information which in this case infers knowledge, know-how or instructions. Crystals can form complex strictures so can bubbles in water, star formations, but there is nothing pertaining to information.
That's because you define information away in those cases. By most definitions of information, information forms, or at least gets localized, in stars, hurricanes, cave formations, river systems, etc.
Information is key,
No, energy flow is key.
I agree, energy is key, but energy without information that's
controlling energy, energy can be and usually is destructive. A tornado is not controlled by intelligence energy. But a tractor with a controlling factor (a man) is controlled energy, if the man has a heart attack and dies, the throtle remains open, now the tractors energy is uncontrolled. The barn, stables and building can be destroyed.
You miss the reality. Energy flow *without controlling information* can
and does, observably and repeatably, produce complex, information-dense formations. Yes, energy can be destructive. So can intelligence; homicide kills a lot more people than tornadoes do. But flowing energy has a tendency to produce order. If the principle could be quantified, it would probably be a fourth law of thermodynamics.
Darwin observed pigeons and finches that were varying sizes shapes and differing beaks and he concluded that change was unlimited. This proved false, unknown to Darwin was the information contained in
DNA. We observe dogs and hogs of differing sizes and shapes, but there is a limit to the change possible which is determined by information.
That doesn't even make sense. If change is limited by information,
then a change to the information eliminates those limits.
True, but cave fish went blind, some birds lost their ability to fly. Dogs can vary in size and shape, but they cannot grow new organs. Because the information in DNA to express new organs don't exist. But it's possible to lose information and fail to survive. We once owed a
dog that gave birth to pups that were blind on two different occasions. So, the information required for functioning eyes was lost.
Yeah, so? I have lost money on more than one occasion, and I know the same is true of most people. If I were to go by your logic, everybody is losing money, and nobody is making any.
Don't forget also to look at such things as the adaptions to high
altitude, evolved separately in the Andes and Tibet, and tetrachromacy.
Also, I don't believe Darwin ever supported the idea that change was unlimited. Change is still limited by constraints imposed by physics and resources,
I agree, also absent in DNA.
-------------------------------------and there appear to be some possibilities (large wheels is
the only example I know) that cannot evolve from existing forms.
There is no information (DNA) which expresses for wings on a hog.
But there can be a loss of information, birds that lost the ability to fly. The origin of life itself: since the present is key to the past, the Pasteur experiment that life comes only from life has
never been falsified. Life must have been created billion years ago. And until a better explanation is discovered. In science the origin of life remains unresolved, there is no more logical or rational conclusion available than what we observe in the present. We do not observe new non carbon life or other substances forming a unique
type of life at present, again verifying the fact that life comes from life. "And God breathed the breath of life into man and man became a living soul". Man as the only concern of the writer of the statement, but also life was breathed into other life forms. \
Unfortunately for your position, the constraints to change do not include one's choice of religion or lack of ability to conceive of alternatives.
At the present there is no better explanation.
There is no better explanation for biological change of populations over extended time than evolution. I know of only one other explanation -- tampering by super-high-tech extraterrestrials --, and nobody takes it seriously. Creationism, aka magic, is not an explanation; it is a word to use in place of one.
Don't get my wrong I am against organized religion. But this is a religious dogma which comes from religious sources. But the only
argument against this dogma is atheism - there is a God or there is no God, either of which is in reality, just a philosophy. But my bet would be on the positive.
None of which has any relevance to the issue of evolution.
No one on TO is serious! I'm not dealing with this any longer. This is it! My Final Post!
On 3/16/24 3:37 PM, Ron Dean wrote:
jillery wrote:
On Wed, 13 Mar 2024 23:38:10 -0400, Ron Dean
<rondean-noreply@gmail.com> wrote:
jillery wrote:
On Tue, 12 Mar 2024 23:08:26 -0400, Ron Dean
<rondean-noreply@gmail.com> wrote:
jillery wrote:
On Sat, 9 Mar 2024 12:27:49 -0500, Ron Dean
<rondean-noreply@gmail.com> wrote:
jillery wrote:
On Sat, 09 Mar 2024 11:12:52 +0000, Richmond <dnomhcir@gmx.com> wrote:
jillery <69jpil69@gmail.com> writes:
On Fri, 08 Mar 2024 17:44:11 +0000, Richmond <dnomhcir@gmx.com> wrote:
<snip uncommented text>
The blind watch maker didn't have any designs, not even in Braille.
I think using the word 'design' in a metophorical sense in a discussion about evolution is going to cause no end of problems.
These problems are the basis of ID, and so already exist. There's no "going to" about it.
This is true! But since the observation of design aligns with the first principle of the scientific method, then it follows that ID is scientific. By contrast evolution pretends that observation is false, misleading and deceptive.
Your comment above uses a nonsense understanding of "observation". The design to which Dawkins refers is of pattern, a noun, not of purposeful design, a verb.
You are "interpreting" what Dawkins said. His actual words were:
“Biology is the study of complicated things that give the appearance of having been designed for a purpose.” {Richard Dawkins, The Blind Watchmaker, 1996, p. 1}
Another comment:
“Natural selection is the blind watchmaker, blind because it does not see ahead, does not plan consequences, has no purpose in view. Yet the living results of natural selection overwhelmingly impress us with the illusion of design and planning.” {Richard Dawkins, The
Blind Watchmaker, 1996, p. 21.}
The above quotes show I interpreted Dawkins correctly, and show you continue to quotemine him. Neither quote shows Dawkins implies design
as a verb is observed. Instead, he explicitly says such observations
are illusions due to the natural but incorrect conclusions that design as a noun necessarily are purposely created by intelligence.
A quote mine is when the meaning of a statement is altered. The quotes I
offered were not altered nor was the meaning changed. So, what's your problem? Dawkins is quite capable of expressing his views, so an interpretation of what he wrote is unnecessary.
Everything everybody reads and hears are interpreted. Your objection above is both mindless and pointless.
This is idiotic! You are wrong. I did not interpret anything, I simply quoted his own words. If there is any interpretation it's by you. The
point is, you find no fault in my comment above, so you resort to
smearing. That disguising!
I acknowledged the fact
that Dawkins represents the _appearance_of design in nature to be false, misleading or an illusion. There was nothing in my quotes of Dawkins that proposed or implied that design was purposely created by intelligence. He's an atheist, so why would I contend what you suggested? I definitely would not!
Then explain your purpose for asking your question immediately below:
"So, how does he know that what is observed here is not the actual
case?"
Because, it's just his opinion based upon his atheist paradigm. It's impossible to prove or disprove. So, no one can possibly know for an absolute certainty. It simply comes down to a belief or a faith, not knowledge.
Once again, you identified no observation of design as a verb, only observation of design as a noun. Just as a thirsty desert traveler will observe a mirage and conclude water, you observe design as
a noun and conclude design as a verb.
No, I drew no such conclusions from anything Dawkins wrote.
You, Ron Dean, observe the appearance of design in nature, and from
that observation you conclude actual design. You have argued this
in the past, and your previous question implies you do again. If
that's not the case, then what's the point of your question?
If it has the overwhelming capacity to impress us with the illusion of design and planning. If this is not the case, then the designer purposefully, willfully and deliberately deceived us.
Incorrect. It merely shows natural human tendencies to perceive patterns where none exist, and to perceive intent in inanimate objects, a tendency trivially explained by natural selection.
Not that I disagree with your statement, but your comment here, has
no bearing on what I wrote.
To the contrary, it's entirely relevant to what you wrote. It identifies the fatal flaw in your line of reasoning against evolution
and for ID. For you to say it has no bearing shows you have no idea what you're talking about.
It's you who fails to understand. To perceive intent in inanimate objects is insanity. No where is this a comment and inference or a position. This proves you failed to understand.
It's my contention
that Dawkins or anyone can know for certain. In reality, this is a psychological position and a philosophy, and since
atheism is his supreme paradigm, he has no option. His paradigm takes priority and overwhelms
everything, including observation, evidence and facts.
When you, Ron Dean, say " If it looks to
be designed then it is designed.", you have jumped to a conclusion.
No, but I admit I went too far out on a limb.
Actual observations are not informed by limb length; conclusions are. Your admission shows you know you jumped to a conclusion. Just admit
it.
I said nothing about limb length. It's you not reading, but you are jumping to unrelated conclusions.
That number of times you say you didn't say what you actually said is unbelievable. Try reading your posts before you put your foot in
your mouth.
"Going too far out on a limb", is a fairly common phrase. It says nothing about the length of a limb. I thought you were more intelligence than that!. The phrase is an idiom. https://www.collinsdictionary.com/dictionary/english/go-out-on-a-limb
It's you not reading, but you are jumping to unrelated conclusions.
You mean like you saying that you didn't write
"I went too far out on a limb"
I did, but it's nothing about the length of a limb! You are being idiotic.
and then complain that I made an unrelated conclusion about you going
out on a limb, while you completely ignored my point that you
repeatedly insisted "If it looks to be designed then it is designed."
I explained what I meant you ignored it!
is a case of you jumping to the conclusion aka "going out on a limb", that appearance of design is evidence of design? You mean like that?
Or are you making pointless and mindless objections for the sake of
it?
<comment mode off>
I know there are things
that give a false impression. Stars appear to be tiny dots of light on a black background, the earth appears to be stationary, with the sun traveling around it. And there are others. Mountains in the distance appear to be small. But there absolutely must be examination and testing. You can travel to the mountain and determine its not tiny. There are ways to determine star distances and sizes. The earth movements, can be understood relative to the changing patterns of stars. But how can you determine that life was not designed? If the present is key to the past, we know from Pasteur's experiment and from present experience life comes only from preexisting life and from the _key_this must have been true in the past "And God breathed the breath of life into nan and man became a living soul". So, far there's no better explanation! So, how do we know that the record of complex creatures first appearing during the Cambrian were not just placed there?
The origin of complex information contained in DNA. In every case in the present all complex information is derived from intelligence - that is a mind: there is no exceptions today and so it must have been so in the past - 3.8 - 4 billion years ago according to the present day observations.
Not that evolution cannot theorize explanation for what is observed.
However, I see evolution as a deliberately conceived alternative to intelligent design.
I believe there are many cases where evolution and design can be seen as the explanation, but there are examples where, except for biases, deliberately engineered design seems to be the better explanation. This is in reference to the _master_control_genes_ called the "homobox genes".
The eye is one that's readily comes to mind, but is just one of many
homeboy genes. It is often stated that the eye evolved independently
over a period of millions of years at least 39 times. However, it's know that many of these trilobites had highly developed eyes when they first appeared in the fossil record over 520 million years ago.
So, evolution of a highly developed eye already existed during the Cambrian which contradicts the long standing doctrine regarding the long term multiple and independent gradual development or the origin of eyes; that is except for a theoretical rendition of an evolutionary process leading to highly developed eyes before or during the early Cambrian for which evidence is scant if at all. Another important characteristic of homeobox genes is they are extremely ancient, these master control genes are universal and they are fixed or stable virtually unchanged from the beginning. Evidence of this is an experment where eye gene called Pax6 gene was
taken from a mammal a mouse and placed in the fruit fly and the mouse master control genes controlled the downstream specific eye genes of the fly to produce fly eyes. IOW the Mouse gene controlled the development of the fly eye in the fruit fly.
https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/library/03/4/l_034_04.html
"....unusually high degree of homology between Drosophila ey(e) and both the mouse and human PAX6 genes...."
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5746045/
This is an outstanding example of a highly developmental form of a proficient and an excellent engineering practice. Of course the same
Pax6 gene is involved in human eyes.
<comment mode on>
Your "observation" aka conclusion is no more valid than if I said that by observing the constellation Taurus, I saw an actual bull in night sky. Even electrical engineers should be able to understand the difference.
That's a stupid example! I gave you more credit that - Jill!
That's a stupid opinion! You don't even try to say how my example is
stupid.
Seeing a bull animal in the sky is a stupid comment! It's so extremely far-fetched that even my beautiful and very smart pet cat would see it as an absurd joke.
And now you pointlessly deny the historical fact of astrology. Not
sure how can sound more absurd.
There is no fact - IE nothing is factual about astrology!
In fact, it's a perfect example of your expressed line of reasoning: "If it looks to be designed then it is designed." Either acknowledge the analogy or admit you don't understand the difference. Pick your poison.
You have no idea as to what I meant by appearance of design... I expressed exactly what I meant above which, you failed to read of failed
to understand or just failed to comment on.
I stipulate that I might not know what you mean. That would be
because I can only go by what you post. Here's a suggestion: Try to make what you write better fit what you mean, if only for the novelty
of the experience.
But you are right in one respect, as I discussed above. design can be deceptive, but if you cannot prove that it's false or an illusion, then there is no reason and no justification for ruling out design.
You demand others prove a negative, which I know you know is impossible.
If a scientific theory or purported discovery is not falsifiable, then it's not science.
Correct. That's why ID isn't science.
It's possible to falsify intelligent design by proving
(not just asserting) that life itself was formed through natural unguided, blind random processes.
Incorrect. Once again, a purposeful designer could make it appear *as if* life was formed through natural, unguided, blind random processes. That's why ID is unfalsifiable.
The same criteria applies to evolution.
Meanwhile, all of the things you baselessly assert to be contrary to natural, unguided, blind random processes, are instead consistent
with them. Not sure how you still don't understand this.
We don't see unguided random processes developing complex structures or
any complexities today. So, why think it happened in the past? The point is, one can make the claims that anything can happen in the distant past, considering that observation is impossibility.
Life appeared abruptly in the fossil record,
I suppose, if your "abruptly" means over the course of billions of years. Why did it take so long for your unknown, unseen, unspecified Designer to get the job done?
Time to us humans is seen in respect to our lifetimes, not in terms of the universe.
life comes only from life,
And only chickens lay chicken eggs. But that's true only by definition. Unless chickens existed forever, there must have been a time when there were no chickens and no chicken eggs. So how is it scientific to assert that some unseen, unknown, unspecified Designer poofed a chicken into existence? How is it UN-scientific to accept
the evidence that life evolved from not-a-chicken into a chicken?
And to preclude yet another example of foot-in-mouth disease, I acknowledge you didn't say anything about chickens. Try to understand
the point, if only for the novelty of the experience.
prove that Life appeared not from
non- life which is exactly what a believer would predict.
I suppose, if your "believer" believes the Bible stories of God
breathing life into dust.
I heard this statement as a child. Not sure where in the Bible it's found. But you as an atheist naturally would rather die before admitting there may be a God (designer).
Another
example, that would falsify ID prove that the first complex animals that
appeared during the Cambrian arose through numerous transforming links between the first living cells and the complex multicultural animals that later came into existence.
So you continue to cherrypick the evidence that fits your beliefs,
while you continue to ignore the evidence that doesn't. How is it scientific to deny that bacterial life existed before eukaryotic life,
You're trying to change the subject. Because eukaryotic was not found doesn't mean it didn't exist, just not found.
that single-celled forms existed before multicellular forms,How do you know this? Can you say tomorrow such evidence will not be located. If it were found would it be published or kept secret?
aquatic life existed before terrestrial life, that simple body plans existed before complex body plans? These are evidence of life
evolving.
OTOH an example of ID would be to find life out of sequence. There's
no reason for a purposeful Designer to wait 4 billion years before creating humans. Find something like a Cambrian rabbit, and that
would get my attention. Otherwise, all you got is baseless denial and willful ignorance.
What is four billion years to a being that has no beginning?
I went into homeobox genes above, (not commented on by you)
You have mentioned homeobox genes many times over many years. And
every time you do, I and others point out that homeobox genes don't
show ID but instead show evolution using unguided natural processes. I see no point in going down these same rabbit holes, repeating the same things, over and over, just so you can ignore them, again and again, while you continue to deny you wrote what you wrote.
I think ID
is the better explanation of the virtual uniformity of these master control genes (called genetic tool-kit) throughout the animal kingdom that controls the shape of animal bodies, the eyes, heart,other organs and body parts arms, legs head etc.
And you're entitled to believe what you believe. It's just as good as
any other baseless belief.
Explain how if eyes evolved independently about 40 times, how is it that the same master control gene exist in fruit flies, mice and humans. The
eye gene (Pax6 gene) was taken from a mouse and placed into a fruit fly embryo and the mouse gene produced eyes in the fruit fly, but not mouse eyes, but fruit fly eyes. . Furthermore, some of the first complex organisms ie certain species of trilobites had highly complex functioning eyes. Is there reason to think the same Pax6 gene was not involved in the eyes of trilobites with vision?
-- To know less than we don't know is the nature of most knowledge
You don't sound like the Ron Dean that left in snit yesterday. Is this your other personality? Not that it's much better.-------------------------------------
Explain how if eyes evolved independently about 40 times, how is it that
the same master control gene exist in fruit flies, mice and humans. The
eye gene (Pax6 gene) was taken from a mouse and placed into a fruit fly embryo and the mouse gene produced eyes in the fruit fly, but not mouse
eyes, but fruit fly eyes. . Furthermore, some of the first complex
organisms ie certain species of trilobites had highly complex
functioning eyes. Is there reason to think the same Pax6 gene was not involved in the eyes of trilobites with vision?
On 3/17/24 4:42 PM, Ron Dean wrote:
Dexter wrote:
erik simpson wrote:
On 3/16/24 3:37 PM, Ron Dean wrote:
jillery wrote:wrote:
On Wed, 13 Mar 2024 23:38:10 -0400, Ron Dean
<rondean-noreply@gmail.com> wrote:
jillery wrote:
On Tue, 12 Mar 2024 23:08:26 -0400, Ron Dean
<rondean-noreply@gmail.com> wrote:
jillery wrote:
On Sat, 9 Mar 2024 12:27:49 -0500, Ron Dean
<rondean-noreply@gmail.com> wrote:
jillery wrote:
On Sat, 09 Mar 2024 11:12:52 +0000, Richmond <dnomhcir@gmx.com> >>> wrote:
jillery <69jpil69@gmail.com> writes:
On Fri, 08 Mar 2024 17:44:11 +0000, Richmond
<dnomhcir@gmx.com>
<snip uncommented text>
I've been part of this NG for more than a decade. I decided not to allow one dishonest freak run me off!. I don't recall ever reading or responding to anything you ever wrote. I do not know you, I don't care about you, So, as a new-comer to the NG why is anything I do, anyYou don't sound like the Ron Dean that left in snit yesterday. Is-------------------------------------
this your
other personality? Not that it's much better.
Perhaps he has MPD and doesn't remember? I've never understood
why people (usually trolls) *_announce_* their departure, like anyone
actually cares.
god-damn business of yours?
The question is whether you're more than one person or have more than
one personality. Do you remember, recently, denying that you had written
a couple of posts that came from your nym?
And here you seem unusually testy.
On 3/18/24 4:51 AM, jillery wrote:
On Sun, 17 Mar 2024 19:42:32 -0400, Ron Dean<snip, for good reason>
<rondean-noreply@gmail.com> wrote:
Do you really think aping Trump by repeating willfully stupid liesWhy not run him off? Talk about gratuitous noise, he's got nothing else.
makes you sound more coherent? Nobody is trying to "run you off!".
And since you asked, Dexter has as much right to post his opinions as
you do. Your tenure, and his novelty, gives you zero right to
challenge his right. You're acting like a troll. Stop it.
--
To know less than we don't know is the nature of most knowledge
On Mon, 18 Mar 2024 08:09:51 -0700, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by erik simpson
<eastside.erik@gmail.com>:
[ … ]
Why not run him off? Talk about gratuitous noise, he's got nothing else.Although I have him killfiled, I admit that some may find
his posts of interest; for them, "running him off" is the
opposite of polite discussion. Better to simply not see his
posts via killfile if possible, and ignore the ones
responding to him.
John Harshman wrote:
On 3/17/24 4:42 PM, Ron Dean wrote:
Dexter wrote:
erik simpson wrote:
On 3/16/24 3:37 PM, Ron Dean wrote:
jillery wrote:wrote:
On Wed, 13 Mar 2024 23:38:10 -0400, Ron Dean
<rondean-noreply@gmail.com> wrote:
jillery wrote:
On Tue, 12 Mar 2024 23:08:26 -0400, Ron Dean
<rondean-noreply@gmail.com> wrote:
jillery wrote:
On Sat, 9 Mar 2024 12:27:49 -0500, Ron Dean
<rondean-noreply@gmail.com> wrote:
jillery wrote:
On Sat, 09 Mar 2024 11:12:52 +0000, Richmond <dnomhcir@gmx.com> >>>> wrote:
jillery <69jpil69@gmail.com> writes:
On Fri, 08 Mar 2024 17:44:11 +0000, Richmond
<dnomhcir@gmx.com>
<snip uncommented text>
And here you seem unusually testy.
I responded in kind!
On Mon, 18 Mar 2024 11:20:46 -0400
Ron Dean <rondean-noreply@gmail.com> wrote:
John Harshman wrote:
On 3/17/24 4:42 PM, Ron Dean wrote:
Dexter wrote:
erik simpson wrote:
On 3/16/24 3:37 PM, Ron Dean wrote:
jillery wrote:wrote:
On Wed, 13 Mar 2024 23:38:10 -0400, Ron Dean
<rondean-noreply@gmail.com> wrote:
jillery wrote:
On Tue, 12 Mar 2024 23:08:26 -0400, Ron Dean
<rondean-noreply@gmail.com> wrote:
jillery wrote:
On Sat, 9 Mar 2024 12:27:49 -0500, Ron Dean
<rondean-noreply@gmail.com> wrote:
jillery wrote:
On Sat, 09 Mar 2024 11:12:52 +0000, Richmond <dnomhcir@gmx.com>
wrote:
jillery <69jpil69@gmail.com> writes:
On Fri, 08 Mar 2024 17:44:11 +0000, Richmond
<dnomhcir@gmx.com>
<snip uncommented text>
I asked nicely for snipping, why is that so difficult?
And here you seem unusually testy.
I responded in kind!
On 2024-03-18 15:48:28 +0000, Bob Casanova said:
On Mon, 18 Mar 2024 08:09:51 -0700, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by erik simpson
<eastside.erik@gmail.com>:
[ ]
Why not run him off? Talk about gratuitous noise, he's got nothing else. >>>Although I have him killfiled, I admit that some may find
his posts of interest; for them, "running him off" is the
opposite of polite discussion. Better to simply not see his
posts via killfile if possible, and ignore the ones
responding to him.
I had him killfiled before, after he revealed himself as a shameless
liar with nothing interesting to say. However, when GoogleGroups
carried out its purge a couple of weeks ago I cleaned out my killfile >competely, thinking that many of the people in it were unlikely to
trouble us again. On the whole that has worked well, but there are
certainly people who need to be put back, and Ron Dean is clearly one
of them. (JTEM was the first to go, after a brief moment of freedom.)
[...]The most vexing problem I have with evolution is the dogma of a blind, random, unguided process.
I'm an engineer. In engineering we never see
this, there no chance that a complex program can undergo random changes without dire consequence. There might possibly be on rare occasion where
an unguided change might have no effect. Engineering starts out with an objective or goal, so must evolution. If there's no goal, then what distinguishes a beneficial mutation from a bad mutation. Survival one
might say? But no! offspring with bad mutations can do frequently
survive, protected by the mother. And they can have offspring; only the
worst die out.
The members that usually survival depends largely upon luck, surviving
to adulthood without being eaten by other beast while at rest or asleep
at night and living long enough to reproduce is real. The fittest is in reality survival of the luckiest. In other cases massive numbers of eggs
are laid. Sea turtles for example, lay eggs by thousands and they hatch
and rush forwards into the sea, except for the large numbers that become
food for birds and other animals. Another consideration is the fact that
each cell has it's own DNA proofreading and repair systems, a defective
cell can repair itself or it is destroyed.
Another vexing issue for me is the will to survive. In the case of the turtles, it's as if they _know_ they are in danger, and seek the
protection of the sea. How do the know. Instinct where did instinct come from. Going back the first living cell. What was the impetuous of dead inorganic chemicals to created a living cell. Did the first living cell
have the will to survive? Where did this will come from?
Dexter wrote:
erik simpson wrote:
On 3/16/24 3:37 PM, Ron Dean wrote:
jillery wrote:
On Wed, 13 Mar 2024 23:38:10 -0400, Ron Dean
<rondean-noreply@gmail.com> wrote:
jillery wrote:
On Tue, 12 Mar 2024 23:08:26 -0400, Ron Dean
<rondean-noreply@gmail.com> wrote:
jillery wrote:
On Sat, 9 Mar 2024 12:27:49 -0500, Ron Dean
<rondean-noreply@gmail.com> wrote:
wrote:jillery wrote:
On Sat, 09 Mar 2024 11:12:52 +0000, Richmond <dnomhcir@gmx.com>
jillery <69jpil69@gmail.com> writes:
wrote:On Fri, 08 Mar 2024 17:44:11 +0000, Richmond <dnomhcir@gmx.com>
<snip uncommented text>
The blind watch maker didn't have any designs, not even in Braille.
I think using the word 'design' in a metophorical sense in a discussion about evolution is going to cause no end of problems.
These problems are the basis of ID, and so already exist. There's no "going to" about it.
This is true! But since the observation of design aligns with the first principle of the scientific method, then it follows that ID is scientific. By contrast evolution pretends that observation is false, misleading and deceptive.
Your comment above uses a nonsense understanding of "observation". The design to which Dawkins refers is of pattern, a noun, not of purposeful design, a verb.
You are "interpreting" what Dawkins said. His actual words were:
“Biology is the study of complicated things that give the appearance of having been designed for a purpose.” {Richard Dawkins, The Blind Watchmaker, 1996, p. 1}
Another comment:
“Natural selection is the blind watchmaker, blind because it does not see ahead, does not plan consequences, has no purpose in view. Yet the living results of natural selection overwhelmingly impress us with the illusion of design and planning.” {Richard Dawkins, The Blind Watchmaker, 1996, p. 21.}
The above quotes show I interpreted Dawkins correctly, and show you continue to quotemine him. Neither quote shows Dawkins implies design as a verb is observed. Instead, he explicitly says such observations are illusions due to the natural but incorrect conclusions that design as a noun necessarily are purposely created by intelligence.
A quote mine is when the meaning of a statement is altered. The quotes I offered were not altered nor was the meaning changed. So, what's your problem? Dawkins is quite capable of expressing his views, so an interpretation of what he wrote is unnecessary.
Everything everybody reads and hears are interpreted. Your objection
above is both mindless and pointless.
This is idiotic! You are wrong. I did not interpret anything, I simply quoted his own words. If there is any interpretation it's by you. The point is, you find no fault in my comment above, so you resort to smearing. That disguising!
I acknowledged the fact
that Dawkins represents the _appearance_of design in nature to be false, misleading or an illusion. There was nothing in my quotes of Dawkins that proposed or implied that design was purposely created by intelligence. He's an atheist, so why would I contend what you suggested? I definitely would not!
Then explain your purpose for asking your question immediately below:
"So, how does he know that what is observed here is not the actual case?"
Because, it's just his opinion based upon his atheist paradigm. It's impossible to prove or disprove. So, no one can possibly know for an absolute certainty. It simply comes down to a belief or a faith, not knowledge.
Once again, you identified no observation of design as a verb, only observation of design as a noun. Just as a thirsty desert traveler will observe a mirage and conclude water, you observe design as a noun and conclude design as a verb.
No, I drew no such conclusions from anything Dawkins wrote.
You, Ron Dean, observe the appearance of design in nature, and from that observation you conclude actual design. You have argued this in the past, and your previous question implies you do again. If that's not the case, then what's the point of your question?
If it has the overwhelming capacity to impress us with the illusion of design and planning. If this is not the case, then the designer purposefully, willfully and deliberately deceived us.
Incorrect. It merely shows natural human tendencies to perceive patterns where none exist, and to perceive intent in inanimate objects, a tendency trivially explained by natural selection.
Not that I disagree with your statement, but your comment here, has
no bearing on what I wrote.
To the contrary, it's entirely relevant to what you wrote. It identifies the fatal flaw in your line of reasoning against evolution and for ID. For you to say it has no bearing shows you have no idea what you're talking about.
It's you who fails to understand. To perceive intent in inanimate objects is insanity. No where is this a comment and inference or a position. This proves you failed to understand.
It's my contention
that Dawkins or anyone can know for certain. In reality, this is a psychological position and a philosophy, and since
atheism is his supreme paradigm, he has no option. His paradigm takes priority and overwhelms
everything, including observation, evidence and facts.
When you, Ron Dean, say " If it looks to
be designed then it is designed.", you have jumped to a conclusion.
No, but I admit I went too far out on a limb.
Actual observations are not informed by limb length; conclusions are. Your admission shows you know you jumped to a conclusion. Just admit it.
I said nothing about limb length. It's you not reading, but you are jumping to unrelated conclusions.
That number of times you say you didn't say what you actually said is unbelievable. Try reading your posts before you put your foot in your mouth.
"Going too far out on a limb", is a fairly common phrase. It says nothing about the length of a limb. I thought you were more intelligence than that!. The phrase is an idiom.
https://www.collinsdictionary.com/dictionary/english/go-out-on-a-limb
It's you not reading, but you are jumping to unrelated conclusions.
You mean like you saying that you didn't write
"I went too far out on a limb"
I did, but it's nothing about the length of a limb! You are being idiotic.
and then complain that I made an unrelated conclusion about you going out on a limb, while you completely ignored my point that you repeatedly insisted "If it looks to be designed then it is designed."
I explained what I meant you ignored it!
is a case of you jumping to the conclusion aka "going out on a limb", that appearance of design is evidence of design? You mean like that? Or are you making pointless and mindless objections for the sake of it?
<comment mode off>
I know there are things
that give a false impression. Stars appear to be tiny dots of light on a black background, the earth appears to be stationary, with the sun traveling around it. And there are others. Mountains in the distance appear to be small. But there absolutely must be examination and testing. You can travel to the mountain and determine its not tiny. There are ways to determine star distances and sizes. The earth movements, can be understood relative to the changing patterns of stars. But how can you determine that life was not designed? If the present is key to the past, we know from Pasteur's experiment and from present experience life comes only from preexisting life and from the _key_this must have been true in the past "And God breathed the breath of life into nan and man became a living soul". So, far there's no better explanation! So, how do we know that the record of complex creatures first appearing during the Cambrian were not just placed there?
The origin of complex information contained in DNA. In every case in the present all complex information is derived from intelligence - that is a mind: there is no exceptions today and so it must have been so in the past - 3.8 - 4 billion years ago according to the present day observations.
Not that evolution cannot theorize explanation for what is observed. However, I see evolution as a deliberately conceived alternative to intelligent design.
I believe there are many cases where evolution and design can be
seen as the explanation, but there are examples where, except for biases, deliberately engineered design seems to be the better explanation. This is in reference to the _master_control_genes_ called the "homobox genes".
The eye is one that's readily comes to mind, but is just one of many homeboy genes. It is often stated that the eye evolved independently over a period of millions of years at least 39 times. However, it's know that many of these trilobites had highly developed eyes when they first appeared in the fossil record over 520 million years ago.
So, evolution of a highly developed eye already existed during
the Cambrian which contradicts the long standing doctrine regarding the long term multiple and independent gradual development or the origin of eyes; that is except for a theoretical rendition of an evolutionary process leading to highly developed eyes before or during the early Cambrian for which evidence is scant if at all. Another important characteristic of homeobox genes is they are extremely ancient, these master control genes are universal and they are fixed or stable virtually unchanged from the beginning. Evidence of this is an experment where eye gene called Pax6 gene was taken from a mammal a mouse and placed in the fruit fly and the mouse master control genes controlled the downstream specific eye genes of the fly to produce fly eyes. IOW the Mouse gene controlled the development of the fly eye in the fruit fly.
https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/library/03/4/l_034_04.html
https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/library/04/4/text_pop/l_044_01.html
"....unusually high degree of homology between Drosophila ey(e) and both the mouse and human PAX6 genes...."
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5746045/
This is an outstanding example of a highly developmental form of a proficient and an excellent engineering practice. Of course the same Pax6 gene is involved in human eyes.
<comment mode on>
Your "observation" aka conclusion is no more valid than if I said that by observing the constellation Taurus, I saw an actual bull in night sky. Even electrical engineers should be able to understand the difference.
That's a stupid example! I gave you more credit that - Jill!
That's a stupid opinion! You don't even try to say how my example is stupid.
Seeing a bull animal in the sky is a stupid comment! It's so extremely far-fetched that even my beautiful and very smart pet cat would see it as an absurd joke.
And now you pointlessly deny the historical fact of astrology. Not sure how can sound more absurd.
There is no fact - IE nothing is factual about astrology!
In fact, it's a perfect example of your expressed line of
reasoning: "If it looks to be designed then it is designed." Either acknowledge the analogy or admit you don't understand the difference. Pick your poison.
You have no idea as to what I meant by appearance of design... I expressed exactly what I meant above which, you failed to read of failed to understand or just failed to comment on.
I stipulate that I might not know what you mean. That would be because I can only go by what you post. Here's a suggestion: Try to make what you write better fit what you mean, if only for the novelty of the experience.
But you are right in one respect, as I discussed above. design can be deceptive, but if you cannot prove that it's false or an illusion, then there is no reason and no justification for ruling out design.
You demand others prove a negative, which I know you know is impossible.
If a scientific theory or purported discovery is not falsifiable, then it's not science.
Correct. That's why ID isn't science.
It's possible to falsify intelligent design by proving
(not just asserting) that life itself was formed through natural unguided, blind random processes.
Incorrect. Once again, a purposeful designer could make it appear *as
if* life was formed through natural, unguided, blind random processes.
That's why ID is unfalsifiable.
The same criteria applies to evolution.
Meanwhile, all of the things you baselessly assert to be contrary to natural, unguided, blind random processes, are instead consistent with them. Not sure how you still don't understand this.
We don't see unguided random processes developing complex structures or any complexities today. So, why think it happened in the past? The point
is, one can make the claims that anything can happen in the distant past, considering that observation is impossibility.
Life appeared abruptly in the fossil record,
I suppose, if your "abruptly" means over the course of billions of years. Why did it take so long for your unknown, unseen, unspecified
Designer to get the job done?
Time to us humans is seen in respect to our lifetimes, not in terms of the universe.
life comes only from life,
And only chickens lay chicken eggs. But that's true only by definition. Unless chickens existed forever, there must have been a time when there were no chickens and no chicken eggs. So how is it scientific to assert that some unseen, unknown, unspecified Designer poofed a chicken into existence? How is it UN-scientific to accept the evidence that life evolved from not-a-chicken into a chicken?
And to preclude yet another example of foot-in-mouth disease, I acknowledge you didn't say anything about chickens. Try to understand the point, if only for the novelty of the experience.
prove that Life appeared not from
non- life which is exactly what a believer would predict.
I suppose, if your "believer" believes the Bible stories of God breathing life into dust.
I heard this statement as a child. Not sure where in the Bible it's found. But you as an atheist naturally would rather die before admitting there may be a God (designer).
Another
example, that would falsify ID prove that the first complex animals that appeared during the Cambrian arose through numerous transforming links between the first living cells and the complex multicultural animals that later came into existence.
So you continue to cherrypick the evidence that fits your beliefs, while you continue to ignore the evidence that doesn't. How is it scientific to deny that bacterial life existed before eukaryotic life,
You're trying to change the subject. Because eukaryotic was not found doesn't mean it didn't exist, just not found.
that single-celled forms existed before multicellular forms,How do you know this? Can you say tomorrow such evidence will not be located. If it were found would it be published or kept secret?
aquatic life existed before terrestrial life, that simple body plans existed before complex body plans? These are evidence of life evolving.
OTOH an example of ID would be to find life out of sequence. There's
no reason for a purposeful Designer to wait 4 billion years before creating humans. Find something like a Cambrian rabbit, and that would get my attention. Otherwise, all you got is baseless denial and
willful ignorance.
What is four billion years to a being that has no beginning?
I went into homeobox genes above, (not commented on by you)
You have mentioned homeobox genes many times over many years. And every time you do, I and others point out that homeobox genes don't show ID but instead show evolution using unguided natural processes. I
see no point in going down these same rabbit holes, repeating the same
things, over and over, just so you can ignore them, again and again, while you continue to deny you wrote what you wrote.
I think ID
is the better explanation of the virtual uniformity of these master
control genes (called genetic tool-kit) throughout the animal kingdom that controls the shape of animal bodies, the eyes, heart,other organs and body parts arms, legs head etc.
And you're entitled to believe what you believe. It's just as good as any other baseless belief.
Explain how if eyes evolved independently about 40 times, how is it that
the same master control gene exist in fruit flies, mice and humans. The eye gene (Pax6 gene) was taken from a mouse and placed into a fruit fly embryo and the mouse gene produced eyes in the fruit fly, but not mouse eyes, but fruit fly eyes. . Furthermore, some of the first complex organisms ie certain species of trilobites had highly complex functioning eyes. Is there reason to think the same Pax6 gene was not involved in the eyes of trilobites with vision?
-- To know less than we don't know is the nature of most knowledge
-------------------------------------You don't sound like the Ron Dean that left in snit yesterday. Is this your other personality? Not that it's much better.-------------------------------------
Perhaps he has MPD and doesn't remember? I've never understood
why people (usually trolls) announce their departure, like anyone
actually cares.
I've been part of this NG for more than a decade. I decided not to allow one dishonest freak run me off!. I don't recall ever reading or responding to anything you ever wrote. I do not know you, I don't care about you, So, as a new-comer to the NG why is anything I do, any god-damn business of yours?
Mark Isaak wrote:
On 3/17/24 4:25 PM, Ron Dean wrote:You just pass over everything without any explanation. You cannot fault
[...]The most vexing problem I have with evolution is the dogma of a
blind, random, unguided process.
Perhaps you will feel better, then, knowing that every evolutionist
also has a vexing problem with evolution as a dogma of a blind,
random, unguided process. (In their case, the vexation typically
comes from knowing that other people mistake evolution for that.)
I'm an engineer. In engineering we never see this, there no chance
that a complex program can undergo random changes without dire
consequence. There might possibly be on rare occasion where an
unguided change might have no effect. Engineering starts out with an
objective or goal, so must evolution. If there's no goal, then what
distinguishes a beneficial mutation from a bad mutation. Survival one
might say? But no! offspring with bad mutations can do frequently
survive, protected by the mother. And they can have offspring; only
the worst die out.
Your "I'm an engineer" comment sounds like an ecologist specializing
in whale migrations glancing at a paper on fern genetics and
commenting, "I'm a biologist. In biology we never see this."
Take a few years to study evolution algorithms. There is an entire
field of engineering dedicated to the study and utilization of what
you say does not exist.
The members that usually survival depends largely upon luck,
surviving to adulthood without being eaten by other beast while at
rest or asleep at night and living long enough to reproduce is real.
The fittest is in reality survival of the luckiest. In other cases
massive numbers of eggs are laid. Sea turtles for example, lay eggs
by thousands and they hatch and rush forwards into the sea, except
for the large numbers that become food for birds and other animals.
Another consideration is the fact that each cell has it's own DNA
proofreading and repair systems, a defective cell can repair itself
or it is destroyed.
Another vexing issue for me is the will to survive. In the case of
the turtles, it's as if they _know_ they are in danger, and seek the
protection of the sea. How do the know. Instinct where did instinct
come from. Going back the first living cell. What was the impetuous
of dead inorganic chemicals to created a living cell. Did the first
living cell have the will to survive? Where did this will come from?
Have you thought of publishing your doubts in a scientific venue?
Probably not, maybe because if you have an ounce of sense you would
realize that your points have been raised and satisfactorily answered
long ago, probably within a couple months of when _Origins_ was
published. But more likely because your unshakeable conviction that
everyone who disagrees with you is a dogmatist makes you think it
doesn't matter to you what the scientists say in any case.
the implied message, so what do you do: you shoot the messenger. Which
is about the only thing I ever get from you!
Mark Isaak wrote:
On 3/17/24 4:25 PM, Ron Dean wrote:You just pass over everything without any explanation. You cannot fault
[...]The most vexing problem I have with evolution is the dogma of a
blind, random, unguided process.
Perhaps you will feel better, then, knowing that every evolutionist
also has a vexing problem with evolution as a dogma of a blind,
random, unguided process. (In their case, the vexation typically
comes from knowing that other people mistake evolution for that.)
I'm an engineer. In engineering we never see this, there no chance
that a complex program can undergo random changes without dire
consequence. There might possibly be on rare occasion where an
unguided change might have no effect. Engineering starts out with an
objective or goal, so must evolution. If there's no goal, then what
distinguishes a beneficial mutation from a bad mutation. Survival one
might say? But no! offspring with bad mutations can do frequently
survive, protected by the mother. And they can have offspring; only
the worst die out.
Your "I'm an engineer" comment sounds like an ecologist specializing
in whale migrations glancing at a paper on fern genetics and
commenting, "I'm a biologist. In biology we never see this."
Take a few years to study evolution algorithms. There is an entire
field of engineering dedicated to the study and utilization of what
you say does not exist.
The members that usually survival depends largely upon luck,
surviving to adulthood without being eaten by other beast while at
rest or asleep at night and living long enough to reproduce is real.
The fittest is in reality survival of the luckiest. In other cases
massive numbers of eggs are laid. Sea turtles for example, lay eggs
by thousands and they hatch and rush forwards into the sea, except
for the large numbers that become food for birds and other animals.
Another consideration is the fact that each cell has it's own DNA
proofreading and repair systems, a defective cell can repair itself
or it is destroyed.
Another vexing issue for me is the will to survive. In the case of
the turtles, it's as if they _know_ they are in danger, and seek the
protection of the sea. How do the know. Instinct where did instinct
come from. Going back the first living cell. What was the impetuous
of dead inorganic chemicals to created a living cell. Did the first
living cell have the will to survive? Where did this will come from?
Have you thought of publishing your doubts in a scientific venue?
Probably not, maybe because if you have an ounce of sense you would
realize that your points have been raised and satisfactorily answered
long ago, probably within a couple months of when _Origins_ was
published. But more likely because your unshakeable conviction that
everyone who disagrees with you is a dogmatist makes you think it
doesn't matter to you what the scientists say in any case.
the implied message, so what do you do: you shoot the messenger. Which
is about the only thing I ever get from you!
As I've pointed out so many times before, several writers most famous
was Wm. Paley who presented the scientific evidence, known at the time
as evidence of design. But he went one step to far, he identified his
God as the designer. But with no supportive evidence. I personally think
this became the purpoise of Darwin's labors. To "explain design without Paley's God". If true, and I think it is, Evolution is an _alternative_ methodology to explain the same evidence and the same facts.
And in the final analysis it's ones own personal _paradigm_ that takes charge, presides and over-rides every thing: opinion, belief evidence
and facts. So, I think it's a stalemate!~
[...]
As I've pointed out so many times before, several writers most famous
was Wm. Paley who presented the scientific evidence, known at the time
as evidence of design. But he went one step to far, he identified his
God as the designer. But with no supportive evidence. I personally think
this became the purpoise of Darwin's labors. To "explain design without Paley's God". If true, and I think it is, Evolution is an _alternative_ methodology to explain the same evidence and the same facts.
And in the final analysis it's ones own personal _paradigm_ that takes charge, presides and over-rides every thing: opinion, belief evidence
and facts. So, I think it's a stalemate!~
Mark Isaak wrote:
On 3/19/24 9:13 AM, Ron Dean wrote:
Mark Isaak wrote:
On 3/17/24 4:25 PM, Ron Dean wrote:You just pass over everything without any explanation. You cannot
[...]The most vexing problem I have with evolution is the dogma of a
blind, random, unguided process.
Perhaps you will feel better, then, knowing that every evolutionist
also has a vexing problem with evolution as a dogma of a blind,
random, unguided process. (In their case, the vexation typically
comes from knowing that other people mistake evolution for that.)
I'm an engineer. In engineering we never see this, there no chance
that a complex program can undergo random changes without dire
consequence. There might possibly be on rare occasion where an
unguided change might have no effect. Engineering starts out with
an objective or goal, so must evolution. If there's no goal, then
what distinguishes a beneficial mutation from a bad mutation.
Survival one might say? But no! offspring with bad mutations can do
frequently survive, protected by the mother. And they can have
offspring; only the worst die out.
Your "I'm an engineer" comment sounds like an ecologist specializing
in whale migrations glancing at a paper on fern genetics and
commenting, "I'm a biologist. In biology we never see this."
Take a few years to study evolution algorithms. There is an entire
field of engineering dedicated to the study and utilization of what
you say does not exist.
The members that usually survival depends largely upon luck,
surviving to adulthood without being eaten by other beast while at
rest or asleep at night and living long enough to reproduce is
real. The fittest is in reality survival of the luckiest. In other
cases massive numbers of eggs are laid. Sea turtles for example,
lay eggs by thousands and they hatch and rush forwards into the
sea, except for the large numbers that become food for birds and
other animals. Another consideration is the fact that each cell has
it's own DNA proofreading and repair systems, a defective cell can
repair itself or it is destroyed.
Another vexing issue for me is the will to survive. In the case of
the turtles, it's as if they _know_ they are in danger, and seek
the protection of the sea. How do the know. Instinct where did
instinct come from. Going back the first living cell. What was the
impetuous of dead inorganic chemicals to created a living cell. Did
the first living cell have the will to survive? Where did this will
come from?
Have you thought of publishing your doubts in a scientific venue?
Probably not, maybe because if you have an ounce of sense you would
realize that your points have been raised and satisfactorily
answered long ago, probably within a couple months of when _Origins_
was published. But more likely because your unshakeable conviction
that everyone who disagrees with you is a dogmatist makes you think
it doesn't matter to you what the scientists say in any case.
fault the implied message, so what do you do: you shoot the
messenger. Which is about the only thing I ever get from you!
You have shown repeatedly that you have no interest in answers to your
challenges, so why should I waste my time? If you really want
answers, prove it.
I do respond to answers, but the answers, but all to often what I see,
is something like, "it's been explained to you over and over repeatedly
and you just ignore. Or go to a library for the answer. Or finally
someone will give an opinion without proof.
Mark Isaak wrote:
On 3/20/24 10:12 AM, Ron Dean wrote:I'm sorry I don't have the time to read or to respond to every post
Mark Isaak wrote:
On 3/19/24 9:13 AM, Ron Dean wrote:I do respond to answers, but the answers, but all to often what I
Mark Isaak wrote:
On 3/17/24 4:25 PM, Ron Dean wrote:You just pass over everything without any explanation. You cannot
[...]The most vexing problem I have with evolution is the dogma of a
blind, random, unguided process.
Perhaps you will feel better, then, knowing that every
evolutionist also has a vexing problem with evolution as a dogma
of a blind, random, unguided process. (In their case, the
vexation typically comes from knowing that other people mistake
evolution for that.)
I'm an engineer. In engineering we never see this, there no
chance that a complex program can undergo random changes without >>>>>>> dire consequence. There might possibly be on rare occasion where >>>>>>> an unguided change might have no effect. Engineering starts out
with an objective or goal, so must evolution. If there's no
goal, then what distinguishes a beneficial mutation from a bad
mutation. Survival one might say? But no! offspring with bad
mutations can do frequently survive, protected by the mother. And >>>>>>> they can have offspring; only the worst die out.
Your "I'm an engineer" comment sounds like an ecologist
specializing in whale migrations glancing at a paper on fern
genetics and commenting, "I'm a biologist. In biology we never see >>>>>> this."
Take a few years to study evolution algorithms. There is an
entire field of engineering dedicated to the study and utilization >>>>>> of what you say does not exist.
The members that usually survival depends largely upon luck,
surviving to adulthood without being eaten by other beast while
at rest or asleep at night and living long enough to reproduce is >>>>>>> real. The fittest is in reality survival of the luckiest. In
other cases massive numbers of eggs are laid. Sea turtles for
example, lay eggs by thousands and they hatch and rush forwards
into the sea, except for the large numbers that become food for
birds and other animals. Another consideration is the fact that
each cell has it's own DNA proofreading and repair systems, a
defective cell can repair itself or it is destroyed.
Another vexing issue for me is the will to survive. In the case
of the turtles, it's as if they _know_ they are in danger, and
seek the protection of the sea. How do the know. Instinct where
did instinct come from. Going back the first living cell. What
was the impetuous of dead inorganic chemicals to created a living >>>>>>> cell. Did the first living cell have the will to survive? Where
did this will come from?
Have you thought of publishing your doubts in a scientific venue?
Probably not, maybe because if you have an ounce of sense you
would realize that your points have been raised and satisfactorily >>>>>> answered long ago, probably within a couple months of when
_Origins_ was published. But more likely because your unshakeable >>>>>> conviction that everyone who disagrees with you is a dogmatist
makes you think it doesn't matter to you what the scientists say
in any case.
fault the implied message, so what do you do: you shoot the
messenger. Which is about the only thing I ever get from you!
You have shown repeatedly that you have no interest in answers to
your challenges, so why should I waste my time? If you really want
answers, prove it.
;
see, is something like, "it's been explained to you over and over
repeatedly and you just ignore. Or go to a library for the answer. Or
finally someone will give an opinion without proof.
Like you responded to my pointing out the engineering field of
evolutionary algorithms?
directed to me. I still have to earn my salary.
I don't know what you are asking for. I understand that the _concept_
of evolution or evolutionary algorithms has been used in computer programming(s) leading in the direction of Artificial Intelligence AI.
There are so many fields of engineering, so no one can know about
everything or everything about anything. Few things change and advances
as rapidly as certain fields of engineering, especially electronics.
jillery wrote:
On Wed, 20 Mar 2024 13:04:32 -0400, Ron DeanI never deliberately lie. I been mistaken, but they were honest mistakes.
<rondean-noreply@gmail.com> posted yet another self-parody:
jillery wrote:
On Sat, 16 Mar 2024 18:37:55 -0400, Ron DeanEven though I have thought of you as an atheist, This was the only time
<rondean-noreply@gmail.com> posted yet another self-parody:
<snip pointless digressions>
I heard this statement as a child. Not sure where in the Bible it'sprove that Life appeared not from
non- life which is exactly what a believer would predict.
I suppose, if your "believer" believes the Bible stories of God
breathing life into dust.
found. But you as an atheist naturally would rather die before admitting >>>>> there may be a God (designer).
Since you mention it:
Genesis 2:7 And the Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground, and >>>> breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living >>>> soul.
Genesis 3:19 for dust thou art, and unto dust shalt thou return.
As someone you repeatedly and baselessly and pointlessly claim to be
an atheist, that I quote the Bible to you raises your words to scorn.
I actually expressed this thought.
Even if your comment above was technically correct, which it isn't,
that you assert the point even once, and without apology, is
sufficient to raise your words to scorn.
Worse, you repeatedly and baselessly and pointlessly conflate
evolutionists and atheists.
Worse, you now evade the original point, that Bible believers claim
life comes from non-life.
Worse, once again you post a lie trivially proved false:
**********************************
From: Ron Dean <rondean-noreply@gmail.com>
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: Masterclass
Date: Sat, 10 Feb 2024 12:28:33 -0500
Approved: moderator@beagle.ediacara.org
Message-ID: <6nOxN.99620$STLe.82442@fx34.iad>
As an atheist, for you to bear false witness against someone has no*************************************
consequence for you.
Is it your intent to continue to lie for God? If so, you're doing a
great job.
Explain to me what consequences do you think atheist are concerned with.
IOW what was Hitler's, Stalin's or Pol Pot's concern about consequences
of their actions. Remember these men were engaged in genocide, after
they gained the power, each had millions of people murdered. Do you
think either of the 3 gave thought as to the consequences of such
actions for themselves?
I'm just curious. I'm not suggestion this action would be taken by
another atheist given the power to do so. But what about the mass
murderers in the US in recent years. I also know many serial killers
were raised in religious households. But many turn away from their
religious roots, but only to return later.
Mark Isaak wrote:
On 3/20/24 10:12 AM, Ron Dean wrote:I'm sorry I don't have the time to read or to respond to every post
Mark Isaak wrote:
On 3/19/24 9:13 AM, Ron Dean wrote:I do respond to answers, but the answers, but all to often what I see,
Mark Isaak wrote:
On 3/17/24 4:25 PM, Ron Dean wrote:You just pass over everything without any explanation. You cannot
[...]The most vexing problem I have with evolution is the dogma of a
blind, random, unguided process.
Perhaps you will feel better, then, knowing that every evolutionist >>>>>> also has a vexing problem with evolution as a dogma of a blind,
random, unguided process. (In their case, the vexation typically >>>>>> comes from knowing that other people mistake evolution for that.)
I'm an engineer. In engineering we never see this, there no chance >>>>>>> that a complex program can undergo random changes without dire
consequence. There might possibly be on rare occasion where an
unguided change might have no effect. Engineering starts out with >>>>>>> an objective or goal, so must evolution. If there's no goal, then >>>>>>> what distinguishes a beneficial mutation from a bad mutation.
Survival one might say? But no! offspring with bad mutations can >>>>>>> do frequently survive, protected by the mother. And they can have >>>>>>> offspring; only the worst die out.
Your "I'm an engineer" comment sounds like an ecologist
specializing in whale migrations glancing at a paper on fern
genetics and commenting, "I'm a biologist. In biology we never see >>>>>> this."
Take a few years to study evolution algorithms. There is an entire >>>>>> field of engineering dedicated to the study and utilization of what >>>>>> you say does not exist.
The members that usually survival depends largely upon luck,
surviving to adulthood without being eaten by other beast while at >>>>>>> rest or asleep at night and living long enough to reproduce is
real. The fittest is in reality survival of the luckiest. In other >>>>>>> cases massive numbers of eggs are laid. Sea turtles for example, >>>>>>> lay eggs by thousands and they hatch and rush forwards into the
sea, except for the large numbers that become food for birds and >>>>>>> other animals. Another consideration is the fact that each cell
has it's own DNA proofreading and repair systems, a defective cell >>>>>>> can repair itself or it is destroyed.
Another vexing issue for me is the will to survive. In the case of >>>>>>> the turtles, it's as if they _know_ they are in danger, and seek >>>>>>> the protection of the sea. How do the know. Instinct where did
instinct come from. Going back the first living cell. What was the >>>>>>> impetuous of dead inorganic chemicals to created a living cell.
Did the first living cell have the will to survive? Where did this >>>>>>> will come from?
Have you thought of publishing your doubts in a scientific venue?
Probably not, maybe because if you have an ounce of sense you would >>>>>> realize that your points have been raised and satisfactorily
answered long ago, probably within a couple months of when
_Origins_ was published. But more likely because your unshakeable >>>>>> conviction that everyone who disagrees with you is a dogmatist
makes you think it doesn't matter to you what the scientists say in >>>>>> any case.
fault the implied message, so what do you do: you shoot the
messenger. Which is about the only thing I ever get from you!
You have shown repeatedly that you have no interest in answers to
your challenges, so why should I waste my time? If you really want
answers, prove it.
;
is something like, "it's been explained to you over and over
repeatedly and you just ignore. Or go to a library for the answer. Or
finally someone will give an opinion without proof.
Like you responded to my pointing out the engineering field of
evolutionary algorithms?
directed to me. I still have to earn my salary.
I don't know what you are asking for. I understand that the _concept_
of evolution or evolutionary algorithms has been used in computer programming(s) leading in the direction of Artificial Intelligence AI.
There are so many fields of engineering, so no one can know about
everything or everything about anything. Few things change and advances
as rapidly as certain fields of engineering, especially electronics.
Ron Dean wrote:
Mark Isaak wrote:
On 3/20/24 10:12 AM, Ron Dean wrote:I'm sorry I don't have the time to read or to respond to every post
Mark Isaak wrote:
On 3/19/24 9:13 AM, Ron Dean wrote:I do respond to answers, but the answers, but all to often what I
Mark Isaak wrote:
On 3/17/24 4:25 PM, Ron Dean wrote:You just pass over everything without any explanation. You cannot
[...]The most vexing problem I have with evolution is the dogma of a >>>>>>>> blind, random, unguided process.
Perhaps you will feel better, then, knowing that every
evolutionist also has a vexing problem with evolution as a dogma >>>>>>> of a blind, random, unguided process. (In their case, the
vexation typically comes from knowing that other people mistake
evolution for that.)
I'm an engineer. In engineering we never see this, there no
chance that a complex program can undergo random changes without >>>>>>>> dire consequence. There might possibly be on rare occasion where >>>>>>>> an unguided change might have no effect. Engineering starts out >>>>>>>> with an objective or goal, so must evolution. If there's no
goal, then what distinguishes a beneficial mutation from a bad >>>>>>>> mutation. Survival one might say? But no! offspring with bad
mutations can do frequently survive, protected by the mother.
And they can have offspring; only the worst die out.
Your "I'm an engineer" comment sounds like an ecologist
specializing in whale migrations glancing at a paper on fern
genetics and commenting, "I'm a biologist. In biology we never
see this."
Take a few years to study evolution algorithms. There is an
entire field of engineering dedicated to the study and
utilization of what you say does not exist.
The members that usually survival depends largely upon luck,
surviving to adulthood without being eaten by other beast while >>>>>>>> at rest or asleep at night and living long enough to reproduce >>>>>>>> is real. The fittest is in reality survival of the luckiest. In >>>>>>>> other cases massive numbers of eggs are laid. Sea turtles for
example, lay eggs by thousands and they hatch and rush forwards >>>>>>>> into the sea, except for the large numbers that become food for >>>>>>>> birds and other animals. Another consideration is the fact that >>>>>>>> each cell has it's own DNA proofreading and repair systems, a
defective cell can repair itself or it is destroyed.
Another vexing issue for me is the will to survive. In the case >>>>>>>> of the turtles, it's as if they _know_ they are in danger, and >>>>>>>> seek the protection of the sea. How do the know. Instinct where >>>>>>>> did instinct come from. Going back the first living cell. What >>>>>>>> was the impetuous of dead inorganic chemicals to created a
living cell. Did the first living cell have the will to survive? >>>>>>>> Where did this will come from?
Have you thought of publishing your doubts in a scientific venue? >>>>>>> Probably not, maybe because if you have an ounce of sense you
would realize that your points have been raised and
satisfactorily answered long ago, probably within a couple months >>>>>>> of when _Origins_ was published. But more likely because your
unshakeable conviction that everyone who disagrees with you is a >>>>>>> dogmatist makes you think it doesn't matter to you what the
scientists say in any case.
fault the implied message, so what do you do: you shoot the
messenger. Which is about the only thing I ever get from you!
You have shown repeatedly that you have no interest in answers to
your challenges, so why should I waste my time? If you really want >>>>> answers, prove it.
;
see, is something like, "it's been explained to you over and over
repeatedly and you just ignore. Or go to a library for the answer.
Or finally someone will give an opinion without proof.
Like you responded to my pointing out the engineering field of
evolutionary algorithms?
directed to me. I still have to earn my salary.
And that would be fine if you didn't also complain frequently
that your questions are not answered, or that certain issues
are not discussed but swept under the carpet etc. Because
claims like this would require to read the actual posts made
in reply to you
I don't know what you are asking for. I understand that the
_concept_ of evolution or evolutionary algorithms has been used in
computer programming(s) leading in the direction of Artificial
Intelligence AI. There are so many fields of engineering, so no one
can know about everything or everything about anything. Few things
change and advances as rapidly as certain fields of engineering,
especially electronics.
jillery wrote:
On Wed, 20 Mar 2024 13:04:32 -0400, Ron DeanI never deliberately lie. I been mistaken, but they were honest mistakes.
<rondean-noreply@gmail.com> posted yet another self-parody:
jillery wrote:
On Sat, 16 Mar 2024 18:37:55 -0400, Ron DeanEven though I have thought of you as an atheist, This was the only time
<rondean-noreply@gmail.com> posted yet another self-parody:
<snip pointless digressions>
I heard this statement as a child. Not sure where in the Bible it'sprove that Life appeared not from
non- life which is exactly what a believer would predict.
I suppose, if your "believer" believes the Bible stories of God
breathing life into dust.
found. But you as an atheist naturally would rather die before
admitting
there may be a God (designer).
Since you mention it:
Genesis 2:7 And the Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground, and >>>> breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living >>>> soul.
Genesis 3:19 for dust thou art, and unto dust shalt thou return.
As someone you repeatedly and baselessly and pointlessly claim to be
an atheist, that I quote the Bible to you raises your words to scorn.
I actually expressed this thought.
Even if your comment above was technically correct, which it isn't,
that you assert the point even once, and without apology, is
sufficient to raise your words to scorn.
Worse, you repeatedly and baselessly and pointlessly conflate
evolutionists and atheists.
Worse, you now evade the original point, that Bible believers claim
life comes from non-life.
Worse, once again you post a lie trivially proved false:
**********************************
From: Ron Dean <rondean-noreply@gmail.com>
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: Masterclass
Date: Sat, 10 Feb 2024 12:28:33 -0500
Approved: moderator@beagle.ediacara.org
Message-ID: <6nOxN.99620$STLe.82442@fx34.iad>
As an atheist, for you to bear false witness against someone has no*************************************
consequence for you.
Is it your intent to continue to lie for God? If so, you're doing a
great job.
Explain to me what consequences do you think atheist are concerned with.
IOW what was Hitler's, Stalin's or Pol Pot's concern about consequences
of their actions. Remember these men were engaged in genocide, after
they gained the power, each had millions of people murdered. Do you
think either of the 3 gave thought as to the consequences of such
actions for themselves?
I'm just curious. I'm not suggestion this action would be taken by
another atheist given the power to do so. But what about the mass
murderers in the US in recent years. I also know many serial killers
were raised in religious households. But many turn away from their religious roots, but only to return later.
To know less than we don't know is the nature of most knowledge
jillery wrote:
On Mon, 18 Mar 2024 15:31:28 -0400, Ron Dean
<rondean-noreply@gmail.com> wrote:
jillery wrote:
On Sun, 17 Mar 2024 19:25:07 -0400, Ron DeanThanks for the cite, but it confirms what I wrote.
<rondean-noreply@gmail.com> wrote:
Ernest Major wrote:
On 16/03/2024 22:37, Ron Dean wrote:Ok, but the pax6 gene function is a function of eyes and part of the >>>>> brain. But the fact that a mouse gene function controlling or switching >>>>> on the downstream fly genes suggest it's the same gene. What seems
Explain how if eyes evolved independently about 40 times, how is it >>>>>>> that the same master control gene exist in fruit flies, mice and >>>>>>> humans. The eye gene (Pax6 gene) was taken from a mouse and placed >>>>>>> into a fruit fly embryo and the mouse gene produced eyes in the fruit >>>>>>> fly, but not mouse eyes, but fruit fly eyes. . Furthermore, some of >>>>>>> the first complex organisms ie certain species of trilobites had >>>>>>> highly complex functioning eyes. Is there reason to think the same >>>>>>> Pax6 gene was not involved in the eyes of trilobites with vision? >>>>>>One of the functions of DNA binding regulatory proteins is to "specify" >>>>>> parts of the body. For example the Hox proteins divide the bilaterian >>>>>> body into regions along the anterior/posterior axis. Some MADS box genes >>>>>> in plants divide the developing flower along the proximal/distal access >>>>>> into the floral whorls of calyx, corolla, androecium and gynoecium. >>>>>>
There is an obvious hypothesis for the role of Pax6 genes in
independently evolved eye development - that Pax6, among it's other >>>>>> roles, specifies a forward facing region of the head, which is where >>>>>> eyes usually developed, and has been pressed into service as a switch in >>>>>> the early stages of eye development. One possible test for this
hypothesis is look at the control of eye development in organisms with >>>>>> non-cephalic eyes - is the claim that Pax6 is a "master control gene" >>>>>> for eye development across all Bilateria an overly hasty generalisation? >>>>>>
amazing is that this gene remains "fixed" or unchanged back into deep >>>>> time,100s of millions of years. I think deliberate and purposeful design >>>>> is a better explanation than random, unguided blind natural forces for >>>>> what is observed.
The most vexing problem I have with evolution is the dogma of a blind, >>>>> random, unguided process. I'm an engineer. In engineering we never see >>>>> this, there no chance that a complex program can undergo random changes >>>>> without dire consequence. There might possibly be on rare occasion where >>>>> an unguided change might have no effect. Engineering starts out with an >>>>> objective or goal, so must evolution. If there's no goal, then what >>>>> distinguishes a beneficial mutation from a bad mutation. Survival one >>>>> might say? But no! offspring with bad mutations can do frequently
survive, protected by the mother. And they can have offspring; only the >>>>> worst die out.
The members that usually survival depends largely upon luck, surviving >>>>> to adulthood without being eaten by other beast while at rest or asleep >>>>> at night and living long enough to reproduce is real. The fittest is in >>>>> reality survival of the luckiest. In other cases massive numbers of eggs >>>>> are laid. Sea turtles for example, lay eggs by thousands and they hatch >>>>> and rush forwards into the sea, except for the large numbers that become >>>>> food for birds and other animals. Another consideration is the fact that >>>>> each cell has it's own DNA proofreading and repair systems, a defective >>>>> cell can repair itself or it is destroyed.
Another vexing issue for me is the will to survive. In the case of the >>>>> turtles, it's as if they _know_ they are in danger, and seek the
protection of the sea. How do the know. Instinct where did instinct come >>>>> from. Going back the first living cell. What was the impetuous of dead >>>>> inorganic chemicals to created a living cell. Did the first living cell >>>>> have the will to survive? Where did this will come from?
Having conceived of this issue, I identified a group of organisms with >>>>>> non-cephalic eyes, i.e. Pectinidae (scallop), and asked a question of >>>>>> the web. The reply was Wang et al, Scallop genome provides insights into >>>>>> evolution of bilaterian karyotype and development, Nature Ecology and >>>>>> Evolution 1: 0120 (2017), which reports that eye development inI can accept that there are exceptions, but where commonality exist I >>>>> think this is valid. According to some sources the homo eye gene is the >>>>> same as the mouse eye gene. I can accept that there or other genes in >>>>> addition to the Pax6 gene involvement in the development of the homo eye. >>>>
Patinopecten yessoensis does not utilise Pax6, nor several other genes >>>>>> involved in eye development in Homo.
Here's a link that shouldn't tax your comprehension:
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PAX6>
**************************************
It acts as a "master control" gene for the development of eyes
AND OTHER SENSORY ORGANS [emphasis mine]
***************************************
Incorrect. To refresh your convenient amnesia from your own words:
"but the pax6 gene function is a function of eyes and part of the
brain."
The cite confirms the pax6 gene is *not* a function of eyes
specifically, but of sensory organs generally, nor is it part of the
brain. These facts confirm how pax6 has been exapted for use in the
development of multiple and different sensory systems.
In addition, you completely ignored Ernest Major's point that many
organisms develop eyes sans pax6, which also refutes what you wrote
and I quoted.
Some people call your comment immediately above a lie aka bearing
false witness. Do you think it's ok to lie for God?
I realize that it is
involved in other body parts including the head and the brain. But the
term "master control gene", is the term used by the scientist who
discovered homeobox genes Dr. Walter Gehring. In fact the title of his
book on the subject is entitled "Master Control genes in Development and >>> Evolution". Furthermore, the term "master Control Genes is commonly used >>> by another scientist, considered a leader in the field Dr. Sean B.
Carroll in his book entitled, " The New Science of Evo Devo" Subtitled
Endless Forms Most
beautiful".
Quote from the article you referenced:
PAX6 protein function is highly conserved across bilaterian species. For >>> instance, mouse PAX6 can trigger eye development in Drosophila
melanogaster. Additionally, mouse and human PAX6 have identical amino
acid sequences.[11]
These papers reported an unusually high degree of homology between
Drosophila ey and both the mouse and human PAX6 genes. The authors went
on to show that mouse Pax6 could substitute for Ey during normal and
ectopic eye development (Halder et al., 1995a). This startling
observation prompted a profound rethinking of how the eye evolved within >>> the animal kingdom and eventually led to the replacement of the
polyphyletic hypothesis (Salvini-Plawen and Mayr, 1977) with a single
origin model for the evolution of the eye (Halder et al., 1995b;
Callaerts et al., 1997)
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5746045/#R22
Historically evolution theorized that the eye evolved independently
about 39 times. But according to the article above there was a single
evolution of the eye. I contended for years that evolution is
unfalsifiable. This is an example.
You have posted about pax6 many times over many years. Each time, you
have mentioned the same bunch of facts not in dispute, while you have
made zero effort to explain how these facts are evidence for ID and/or
against evolution by natural processes, while you have completely
ignored the informed explanations posted in reply.
As I've pointed out so many times before, several writers most famous
was Wm. Paley who presented the scientific evidence, known at the time
as evidence of design. But he went one step to far, he identified his
God as the designer. But with no supportive evidence. I personally think
this became the purpoise of Darwin's labors. To "explain design without Paley's God". If true, and I think it is, Evolution is an _alternative_ methodology to explain the same evidence and the same facts.
And in the final analysis it's ones own personal _paradigm_ that takes charge, presides and over-rides every thing: opinion, belief evidence
and facts. So, I think it's a stalemate!~
With that in mind, it's necessary to ask: Is it your intent to spam?
If so, you're doing a great job.
--
To know less than we don't know is the nature of most knowledge
jillery wrote:
On Wed, 20 Mar 2024 13:04:32 -0400, Ron DeanI never deliberately lie. I been mistaken, but they were honest mistakes.
<rondean-noreply@gmail.com> posted yet another self-parody:
jillery wrote:
On Sat, 16 Mar 2024 18:37:55 -0400, Ron DeanEven though I have thought of you as an atheist, This was the only time
<rondean-noreply@gmail.com> posted yet another self-parody:
<snip pointless digressions>
I heard this statement as a child. Not sure where in the Bible it'sprove that Life appeared not from
non- life which is exactly what a believer would predict.
I suppose, if your "believer" believes the Bible stories of God
breathing life into dust.
found. But you as an atheist naturally would rather die before
admitting
there may be a God (designer).
Since you mention it:
Genesis 2:7 And the Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground, and >>>> breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living >>>> soul.
Genesis 3:19 for dust thou art, and unto dust shalt thou return.
As someone you repeatedly and baselessly and pointlessly claim to be
an atheist, that I quote the Bible to you raises your words to scorn.
I actually expressed this thought.
Even if your comment above was technically correct, which it isn't,
that you assert the point even once, and without apology, is
sufficient to raise your words to scorn.
Worse, you repeatedly and baselessly and pointlessly conflate
evolutionists and atheists.
Worse, you now evade the original point, that Bible believers claim
life comes from non-life.
Worse, once again you post a lie trivially proved false:
**********************************
From: Ron Dean <rondean-noreply@gmail.com>
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: Masterclass
Date: Sat, 10 Feb 2024 12:28:33 -0500
Approved: moderator@beagle.ediacara.org
Message-ID: <6nOxN.99620$STLe.82442@fx34.iad>
As an atheist, for you to bear false witness against someone has no*************************************
consequence for you.
Is it your intent to continue to lie for God? If so, you're doing a
great job.
Explain to me what consequences do you think atheist are concerned with.
IOW what was Hitler's, Stalin's or Pol Pot's concern about consequences
of their actions. Remember these men were engaged in genocide, after
they gained the power, each had millions of people murdered. Do you
think either of the 3 gave thought as to the consequences of such
actions for themselves?
I'm just curious. I'm not suggestion this action would be taken by
another atheist given the power to do so. But what about the mass
murderers in the US in recent years. I also know many serial killers
were raised in religious households. But many turn away from their religious roots, but only to return later.
To know less than we don't know is the nature of most knowledge
Ron Dean wrote:
jillery wrote:
On Wed, 20 Mar 2024 13:04:32 -0400, Ron DeanI never deliberately lie. I been mistaken, but they were honest mistakes.
<rondean-noreply@gmail.com> posted yet another self-parody:
jillery wrote:
On Sat, 16 Mar 2024 18:37:55 -0400, Ron DeanEven though I have thought of you as an atheist, This was the only time >>>> I actually expressed this thought.
<rondean-noreply@gmail.com> posted yet another self-parody:
<snip pointless digressions>
I heard this statement as a child. Not sure where in the Bible it's >>>>>> found. But you as an atheist naturally would rather die before admitting >>>>>> there may be a God (designer).prove that Life appeared not from
non- life which is exactly what a believer would predict.
I suppose, if your "believer" believes the Bible stories of God
breathing life into dust.
Since you mention it:
Genesis 2:7 And the Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground, and >>>>> breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living >>>>> soul.
Genesis 3:19 for dust thou art, and unto dust shalt thou return.
As someone you repeatedly and baselessly and pointlessly claim to be >>>>> an atheist, that I quote the Bible to you raises your words to scorn. >>>>>
Even if your comment above was technically correct, which it isn't,
that you assert the point even once, and without apology, is
sufficient to raise your words to scorn.
Worse, you repeatedly and baselessly and pointlessly conflate
evolutionists and atheists.
Worse, you now evade the original point, that Bible believers claim
life comes from non-life.
Worse, once again you post a lie trivially proved false:
**********************************
From: Ron Dean <rondean-noreply@gmail.com>
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: Masterclass
Date: Sat, 10 Feb 2024 12:28:33 -0500
Approved: moderator@beagle.ediacara.org
Message-ID: <6nOxN.99620$STLe.82442@fx34.iad>
As an atheist, for you to bear false witness against someone has no*************************************
consequence for you.
Is it your intent to continue to lie for God? If so, you're doing a
great job.
That itself is a lie.
Explain to me what consequences do you think atheist are concerned
with. IOW what was Hitler's, Stalin's or Pol Pot's concern about
consequences of their actions. Remember these men were engaged in
genocide, after they gained the power, each had millions of people
murdered. Do you think either of the 3 gave thought as to the
consequences of such actions for themselves?
I'm just curious. I'm not suggestion this action would be taken by
another atheist given the power to do so. But what about the mass
murderers in the US in recent years. I also know many serial killers
were raised in religious households. But many turn away from their
religious roots, but only to return later.
To know less than we don't know is the nature of most knowledge
Did it really escape your notice that Hitler, Stalin and Pol Pot
amassed armies numbering in the tens of thousands or millions, and in 2
cases had their nations fight prolonged wars against people who were
trying to force them to account for their actions? In the third case
(Stalin) by the time others were ready to force him to account, his
nation had grown so powerful that it simply couldn't be done (except retroactively, after he died).
What am I saying? Of course you're willing to ignore World War 2, and
the war between Vietnam and Cambodia. Just like you're willing to
ignore every other explanation people have provided you for years. Keep
lyin' bro, god loves you for it.
Ernest Major wrote:
On 21/03/2024 16:06, Ron Dean wrote:
jillery wrote:
On Wed, 20 Mar 2024 13:04:32 -0400, Ron DeanI never deliberately lie. I been mistaken, but they were honest
<rondean-noreply@gmail.com> posted yet another self-parody:
jillery wrote:
On Sat, 16 Mar 2024 18:37:55 -0400, Ron DeanEven though I have thought of you as an atheist, This was the only
<rondean-noreply@gmail.com> posted yet another self-parody:
<snip pointless digressions>
I heard this statement as a child. Not sure where in the Bible it's >>>>>>> found. But you as an atheist naturally would rather die beforeprove that Life appeared not from
non- life which is exactly what a believer would predict.
I suppose, if your "believer" believes the Bible stories of God >>>>>>>> breathing life into dust.
admitting
there may be a God (designer).
Since you mention it:
Genesis 2:7 And the Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground, >>>>>> and
breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a
living
soul.
Genesis 3:19 for dust thou art, and unto dust shalt thou return.
As someone you repeatedly and baselessly and pointlessly claim to be >>>>>> an atheist, that I quote the Bible to you raises your words to scorn. >>>>>>
time
I actually expressed this thought.
Even if your comment above was technically correct, which it isn't,
that you assert the point even once, and without apology, is
sufficient to raise your words to scorn.
Worse, you repeatedly and baselessly and pointlessly conflate
evolutionists and atheists.
Worse, you now evade the original point, that Bible believers claim
life comes from non-life.
Worse, once again you post a lie trivially proved false:
**********************************
From: Ron Dean <rondean-noreply@gmail.com>
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: Masterclass
Date: Sat, 10 Feb 2024 12:28:33 -0500
Approved: moderator@beagle.ediacara.org
Message-ID: <6nOxN.99620$STLe.82442@fx34.iad>
As an atheist, for you to bear false witness against someone has no*************************************
consequence for you.
Is it your intent to continue to lie for God? If so, you're doing a
great job.
mistakes.
Explain to me what consequences do you think atheist are concerned
with. IOW what was Hitler's, Stalin's or Pol Pot's concern about
consequences of their actions. Remember these men were engaged in
genocide, after they gained the power, each had millions of people
murdered. Do you think either of the 3 gave thought as to the
consequences of such actions for themselves?
What answers did you get last time you engaged in this bit of ad-hominem?
One could turn round your question, and ask what consequences you
think Christians like Hitler, Putin and Trump are concerned with.
Pure cynicism!
Mark Isaak wrote:[snip
Are you suggesting that Obama bin Laden is typical of Islam? If so,
And what about people for whom theism is their greatest motivator, such
as Obama bin Laden? Cynicism seems a rational response.
you're probably right.
On 3/22/24 5:39 PM, Ron Dean wrote:
Ernest Major wrote:
On 21/03/2024 16:06, Ron Dean wrote:
jillery wrote:
On Wed, 20 Mar 2024 13:04:32 -0400, Ron DeanI never deliberately lie. I been mistaken, but they were honest
<rondean-noreply@gmail.com> posted yet another self-parody:
jillery wrote:
On Sat, 16 Mar 2024 18:37:55 -0400, Ron DeanEven though I have thought of you as an atheist, This was the only >>>>>> time
<rondean-noreply@gmail.com> posted yet another self-parody:
<snip pointless digressions>
I heard this statement as a child. Not sure where in the Bible it's >>>>>>>> found. But you as an atheist naturally would rather die before >>>>>>>> admittingprove that Life appeared not from
non- life which is exactly what a believer would predict.
I suppose, if your "believer" believes the Bible stories of God >>>>>>>>> breathing life into dust.
there may be a God (designer).
Since you mention it:
Genesis 2:7 And the Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground, >>>>>>> and
breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a
living
soul.
Genesis 3:19 for dust thou art, and unto dust shalt thou return. >>>>>>>
As someone you repeatedly and baselessly and pointlessly claim to be >>>>>>> an atheist, that I quote the Bible to you raises your words to scorn. >>>>>>>
I actually expressed this thought.
Even if your comment above was technically correct, which it isn't,
that you assert the point even once, and without apology, is
sufficient to raise your words to scorn.
Worse, you repeatedly and baselessly and pointlessly conflate
evolutionists and atheists.
Worse, you now evade the original point, that Bible believers claim
life comes from non-life.
Worse, once again you post a lie trivially proved false:
**********************************
From: Ron Dean <rondean-noreply@gmail.com>
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: Masterclass
Date: Sat, 10 Feb 2024 12:28:33 -0500
Approved: moderator@beagle.ediacara.org
Message-ID: <6nOxN.99620$STLe.82442@fx34.iad>
As an atheist, for you to bear false witness against someone has no >>>>>> consequence for you.*************************************
Is it your intent to continue to lie for God? If so, you're doing a >>>>> great job.
mistakes.
Explain to me what consequences do you think atheist are concerned
with. IOW what was Hitler's, Stalin's or Pol Pot's concern about
consequences of their actions. Remember these men were engaged in
genocide, after they gained the power, each had millions of people
murdered. Do you think either of the 3 gave thought as to the
consequences of such actions for themselves?
What answers did you get last time you engaged in this bit of ad-hominem? >>>
One could turn round your question, and ask what consequences you
think Christians like Hitler, Putin and Trump are concerned with.
Pure cynicism!
And what about people for whom theism is their greatest motivator, such
as Osama bin Laden? Cynicism seems a rational response.
Ron Dean <rondean-noreply@gmail.com> wrote:
Mark Isaak wrote:[snip
Are you suggesting that Obama bin Laden is typical of Islam? If so,
And what about people for whom theism is their greatest motivator, such
as Obama bin Laden? Cynicism seems a rational response.
you're probably right.
My apologies to Mark as I just Chez Watted this without realizing Mark had originally posted Osama bin Laden and in Ron Dean’s reply Mark’s spelling morphed to Obama bin Laden matching Ron Dean’s spelling. I wonder what that indicates about Ron Dean…
Ron Dean <rondean-noreply@gmail.com> wrote:
Mark Isaak wrote:[snip
Are you suggesting that Obama bin Laden is typical of Islam? If so,
And what about people for whom theism is their greatest motivator, such
as Obama bin Laden? Cynicism seems a rational response.
you're probably right.
My apologies to Mark as I just Chez Watted this without realizing Mark had originally posted Osama bin Laden and in Ron Dean’s reply Mark’s spelling morphed to Obama bin Laden matching Ron Dean’s spelling. I wonder what that indicates about Ron Dean…
Athel Cornish-Bowden wrote:
On 2024-03-23 23:31:58 +0000, *Hemidactylus* said:I spelled it correctly. Look at the above spelling. Can you hazard a
Ron Dean <rondean-noreply@gmail.com> wrote:
Mark Isaak wrote:[snip
Are you suggesting that Obama bin Laden is typical of Islam? If so,
And what about people for whom theism is their greatest motivator, such >>>>> as Obama bin Laden? Cynicism seems a rational response.
you're probably right.
My apologies to Mark as I just Chez Watted this without realizing Mark
had
originally posted Osama bin Laden and in Ron Dean’s reply Mark’s spelling
morphed to Obama bin Laden matching Ron Dean’s spelling. I wonder what >>> that
indicates about Ron Dean…
Nothing we didn't know already.
guess what happened?! Probably not!
*Hemidactylus* wrote:
Ron Dean <rondean-noreply@gmail.com> wrote:That's meaningless statement. But my spell checker thinks Obama and
Athel Cornish-Bowden wrote:When confronted by one’s own deception of others double down.
On 2024-03-23 23:31:58 +0000, *Hemidactylus* said:I spelled it correctly. Look at the above spelling. Can you hazard a
Ron Dean <rondean-noreply@gmail.com> wrote:
Mark Isaak wrote:[snip
Are you suggesting that Obama bin Laden is typical of Islam? If so, >>>>>> you're probably right.
And what about people for whom theism is their greatest motivator, such >>>>>>> as Obama bin Laden? Cynicism seems a rational response.
My apologies to Mark as I just Chez Watted this without realizing Mark >>>>> had
originally posted Osama bin Laden and in Ron Dean’s reply Mark’s spelling
morphed to Obama bin Laden matching Ron Dean’s spelling. I wonder what >>>>> that
indicates about Ron Dean…
Nothing we didn't know already.
guess what happened?! Probably not!
Osama is the same. Maybe so!
Mark Isaak wrote:
On 3/22/24 5:39 PM, Ron Dean wrote:
Ernest Major wrote:
On 21/03/2024 16:06, Ron Dean wrote:
jillery wrote:
On Wed, 20 Mar 2024 13:04:32 -0400, Ron DeanI never deliberately lie. I been mistaken, but they were honest
<rondean-noreply@gmail.com> posted yet another self-parody:
jillery wrote:
On Sat, 16 Mar 2024 18:37:55 -0400, Ron DeanEven though I have thought of you as an atheist, This was the only >>>>>>> time
<rondean-noreply@gmail.com> posted yet another self-parody:
<snip pointless digressions>
I heard this statement as a child. Not sure where in the Bible it's >>>>>>>>> found. But you as an atheist naturally would rather die before >>>>>>>>> admittingprove that Life appeared not fromI suppose, if your "believer" believes the Bible stories of God >>>>>>>>>> breathing life into dust.
non- life which is exactly what a believer would predict. >>>>>>>>>>
there may be a God (designer).
Since you mention it:
Genesis 2:7 And the Lord God formed man of the dust of the
ground, and
breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a >>>>>>>> living
soul.
Genesis 3:19 for dust thou art, and unto dust shalt thou return. >>>>>>>>
As someone you repeatedly and baselessly and pointlessly claim to be >>>>>>>> an atheist, that I quote the Bible to you raises your words to >>>>>>>> scorn.
I actually expressed this thought.
Even if your comment above was technically correct, which it isn't, >>>>>> that you assert the point even once, and without apology, is
sufficient to raise your words to scorn.
Worse, you repeatedly and baselessly and pointlessly conflate
evolutionists and atheists.
Worse, you now evade the original point, that Bible believers claim >>>>>> life comes from non-life.
Worse, once again you post a lie trivially proved false:
**********************************
From: Ron Dean <rondean-noreply@gmail.com>
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: Masterclass
Date: Sat, 10 Feb 2024 12:28:33 -0500
Approved: moderator@beagle.ediacara.org
Message-ID: <6nOxN.99620$STLe.82442@fx34.iad>
As an atheist, for you to bear false witness against someone has no >>>>>>> consequence for you.*************************************
Is it your intent to continue to lie for God? If so, you're doing a >>>>>> great job.
mistakes.
Explain to me what consequences do you think atheist are concerned
with. IOW what was Hitler's, Stalin's or Pol Pot's concern about
consequences of their actions. Remember these men were engaged in
genocide, after they gained the power, each had millions of people
murdered. Do you think either of the 3 gave thought as to the
consequences of such actions for themselves?
What answers did you get last time you engaged in this bit of
ad-hominem?
One could turn round your question, and ask what consequences you
think Christians like Hitler, Putin and Trump are concerned with.
Pure cynicism!
And what about people for whom theism is their greatest motivator, such
as Obama bin Laden? Cynicism seems a rational response.
Are you suggesting that Obama bin Laden is typical of Islam?
you're probably right. Historically, Arab Armies conquered the middle
east and started to conquered Europe.
were stopped at the French border and driven half way back across Spain.
Muslim influences are remain strong in half of the Spain to the present.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muslim_conquest_of_the_Iberian_Peninsula
https://yaqeeninstitute.org/read/paper/did-islam-spread-by-the-sword-a-critical-look-at-forced-conversions
And look at recent history https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_modern_conflicts_in_the_Middle_East
On 2024-03-23 02:30:19 +0000, Chris Thompson said:
Ron Dean wrote:
jillery wrote:
On Wed, 20 Mar 2024 13:04:32 -0400, Ron DeanI never deliberately lie. I been mistaken, but they were honest
<rondean-noreply@gmail.com> posted yet another self-parody:
jillery wrote:
On Sat, 16 Mar 2024 18:37:55 -0400, Ron DeanEven though I have thought of you as an atheist, This was the only
<rondean-noreply@gmail.com> posted yet another self-parody:
<snip pointless digressions>
I heard this statement as a child. Not sure where in the Bible it's >>>>>>> found. But you as an atheist naturally would rather die beforeprove that Life appeared not from
non- life which is exactly what a believer would predict.
I suppose, if your "believer" believes the Bible stories of God >>>>>>>> breathing life into dust.
admitting
there may be a God (designer).
Since you mention it:
Genesis 2:7 And the Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground, >>>>>> and
breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a
living
soul.
Genesis 3:19 for dust thou art, and unto dust shalt thou return.
As someone you repeatedly and baselessly and pointlessly claim to be >>>>>> an atheist, that I quote the Bible to you raises your words to scorn. >>>>>>
time
I actually expressed this thought.
Even if your comment above was technically correct, which it isn't,
that you assert the point even once, and without apology, is
sufficient to raise your words to scorn.
Worse, you repeatedly and baselessly and pointlessly conflate
evolutionists and atheists.
Worse, you now evade the original point, that Bible believers claim
life comes from non-life.
Worse, once again you post a lie trivially proved false:
**********************************
From: Ron Dean <rondean-noreply@gmail.com>
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: Masterclass
Date: Sat, 10 Feb 2024 12:28:33 -0500
Approved: moderator@beagle.ediacara.org
Message-ID: <6nOxN.99620$STLe.82442@fx34.iad>
As an atheist, for you to bear false witness against someone has no*************************************
consequence for you.
Is it your intent to continue to lie for God? If so, you're doing a
great job.
mistakes.
That itself is a lie.
Explain to me what consequences do you think atheist are concerned
with. IOW what was Hitler's, Stalin's or Pol Pot's concern about
consequences of their actions. Remember these men were engaged in
genocide, after they gained the power, each had millions of people
murdered. Do you think either of the 3 gave thought as to the
consequences of such actions for themselves?
I'm just curious. I'm not suggestion this action would be taken by
another atheist given the power to do so. But what about the mass
murderers in the US in recent years. I also know many serial killers
were raised in religious households. But many turn away from their
religious roots, but only to return later.
To know less than we don't know is the nature of most knowledge
Did it really escape your notice that Hitler, Stalin and Pol Pot
amassed armies numbering in the tens of thousands or millions, and in
2 cases had their nations fight prolonged wars against people who were
trying to force them to account for their actions? In the third case
(Stalin) by the time others were ready to force him to account, his
nation had grown so powerful that it simply couldn't be done (except
retroactively, after he died).
What am I saying? Of course you're willing to ignore World War 2, and
the war between Vietnam and Cambodia. Just like you're willing to
ignore every other explanation people have provided you for years.
Keep lyin' bro, god loves you for it.
It would be inaccurate to call the later Stalin a Christian, but he was brought up in a Christian environment, and at one time trained to become
a priest.
*Hemidactylus* wrote:
Ron Dean <rondean-noreply@gmail.com> wrote:I responded to Mark Isaak's post on 3/23 at 7:17. It was 14 minutes
*Hemidactylus* wrote:Did you deliberately alter the wording of Mark Isaak’s post? Stop fucking >> around with me.
Ron Dean <rondean-noreply@gmail.com> wrote:That's meaningless statement. But my spell checker thinks Obama and
Athel Cornish-Bowden wrote:When confronted by one’s own deception of others double down.
On 2024-03-23 23:31:58 +0000, *Hemidactylus* said:I spelled it correctly. Look at the above spelling. Can you hazard a >>>>> guess what happened?! Probably not!
Ron Dean <rondean-noreply@gmail.com> wrote:
Mark Isaak wrote:[snip
Are you suggesting that Obama bin Laden is typical of Islam? If so, >>>>>>>> you're probably right.
And what about people for whom theism is their greatest motivator, such
as Obama bin Laden? Cynicism seems a rational response.
My apologies to Mark as I just Chez Watted this without realizing Mark >>>>>>> had
originally posted Osama bin Laden and in Ron Dean’s reply Mark’s spelling
morphed to Obama bin Laden matching Ron Dean’s spelling. I wonder what
that
indicates about Ron Dean…
Nothing we didn't know already.
Osama is the same. Maybe so!
later when the misspelling was
pointed out by you. I saw the post which Jillery posted At 3/23 at
11:44. Early this morning I read
Jill's post until then I was unaware of misspelling. Then I checked and learned that you had pointed this out yesterday. I frequently correspond
with Jill, but rarely with you. Had I not read Jill's post today I
seriously doubt I would have have ever known about it.
Ron Dean <rondean-noreply@gmail.com> wrote:
Mark Isaak wrote:[snip
Are you suggesting that Obama bin Laden is typical of Islam? If so,
And what about people for whom theism is their greatest motivator, such
as Obama bin Laden? Cynicism seems a rational response.
you're probably right.
My apologies to Mark as I just Chez Watted this without realizing Mark had originally posted Osama bin Laden and in Ron Dean’s reply Mark’s spelling morphed to Obama bin Laden matching Ron Dean’s spelling. I wonder what that indicates about Ron Dean…
Mark Isaak wrote:
On 3/22/24 5:39 PM, Ron Dean wrote:
Ernest Major wrote:
On 21/03/2024 16:06, Ron Dean wrote:
jillery wrote:
On Wed, 20 Mar 2024 13:04:32 -0400, Ron DeanI never deliberately lie. I been mistaken, but they were honest
<rondean-noreply@gmail.com> posted yet another self-parody:
jillery wrote:
On Sat, 16 Mar 2024 18:37:55 -0400, Ron DeanEven though I have thought of you as an atheist, This was the
<rondean-noreply@gmail.com> posted yet another self-parody:
<snip pointless digressions>
I heard this statement as a child. Not sure where in the Bible >>>>>>>>> it'sprove that Life appeared not fromI suppose, if your "believer" believes the Bible stories of God >>>>>>>>>> breathing life into dust.
non- life which is exactly what a believer would predict. >>>>>>>>>>
found. But you as an atheist naturally would rather die before >>>>>>>>> admitting
there may be a God (designer).
Since you mention it:
Genesis 2:7 And the Lord God formed man of the dust of the
ground, and
breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a >>>>>>>> living
soul.
Genesis 3:19 for dust thou art, and unto dust shalt thou return. >>>>>>>>
As someone you repeatedly and baselessly and pointlessly claim >>>>>>>> to be
an atheist, that I quote the Bible to you raises your words to >>>>>>>> scorn.
only time
I actually expressed this thought.
Even if your comment above was technically correct, which it isn't, >>>>>> that you assert the point even once, and without apology, is
sufficient to raise your words to scorn.
Worse, you repeatedly and baselessly and pointlessly conflate
evolutionists and atheists.
Worse, you now evade the original point, that Bible believers claim >>>>>> life comes from non-life.
Worse, once again you post a lie trivially proved false:
**********************************
From: Ron Dean <rondean-noreply@gmail.com>
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: Masterclass
Date: Sat, 10 Feb 2024 12:28:33 -0500
Approved: moderator@beagle.ediacara.org
Message-ID: <6nOxN.99620$STLe.82442@fx34.iad>
As an atheist, for you to bear false witness against someone has no >>>>>>> consequence for you.*************************************
Is it your intent to continue to lie for God? If so, you're doing a >>>>>> great job.
mistakes.
Explain to me what consequences do you think atheist are concerned
with. IOW what was Hitler's, Stalin's or Pol Pot's concern about
consequences of their actions. Remember these men were engaged in
genocide, after they gained the power, each had millions of people
murdered. Do you think either of the 3 gave thought as to the
consequences of such actions for themselves?
What answers did you get last time you engaged in this bit of
ad-hominem?
One could turn round your question, and ask what consequences you
think Christians like Hitler, Putin and Trump are concerned with.
Pure cynicism!
And what about people for whom theism is their greatest motivator,
such as Obama bin Laden? Cynicism seems a rational response.
Are you suggesting that Obama bin Laden is typical of Islam?
If so,
you're probably right. Historically, Arab Armies conquered the middle
east and started to conquered Europe.
I only named only 3 atheist.
Chris Thompson wrote:
Ron Dean wrote:It's so easy to accuse anyone of anything so long as you don't have to
jillery wrote:
On Wed, 20 Mar 2024 13:04:32 -0400, Ron DeanI never deliberately lie. I been mistaken, but they were honest
<rondean-noreply@gmail.com> posted yet another self-parody:
jillery wrote:
On Sat, 16 Mar 2024 18:37:55 -0400, Ron DeanEven though I have thought of you as an atheist, This was the only
<rondean-noreply@gmail.com> posted yet another self-parody:
<snip pointless digressions>
I heard this statement as a child. Not sure where in the Bible it's >>>>>>> found. But you as an atheist naturally would rather die beforeprove that Life appeared not from
non- life which is exactly what a believer would predict.
I suppose, if your "believer" believes the Bible stories of God >>>>>>>> breathing life into dust.
admitting
there may be a God (designer).
Since you mention it:
Genesis 2:7 And the Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground, >>>>>> and
breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a
living
soul.
Genesis 3:19 for dust thou art, and unto dust shalt thou return.
As someone you repeatedly and baselessly and pointlessly claim to be >>>>>> an atheist, that I quote the Bible to you raises your words to scorn. >>>>>>
time
I actually expressed this thought.
Even if your comment above was technically correct, which it isn't,
that you assert the point even once, and without apology, is
sufficient to raise your words to scorn.
Worse, you repeatedly and baselessly and pointlessly conflate
evolutionists and atheists.
Worse, you now evade the original point, that Bible believers claim
life comes from non-life.
Worse, once again you post a lie trivially proved false:
**********************************
From: Ron Dean <rondean-noreply@gmail.com>
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: Masterclass
Date: Sat, 10 Feb 2024 12:28:33 -0500
Approved: moderator@beagle.ediacara.org
Message-ID: <6nOxN.99620$STLe.82442@fx34.iad>
As an atheist, for you to bear false witness against someone has no*************************************
consequence for you.
Is it your intent to continue to lie for God? If so, you're doing a
great job.
mistakes.
That itself is a lie.
back up your accusation/charge.
When you don't - this amounts to you bearing false witness.
Explain to me what consequences do you think atheist are concerned
with. IOW what was Hitler's, Stalin's or Pol Pot's concern about
consequences of their actions. Remember these men were engaged in
genocide, after they gained the power, each had millions of people
murdered. Do you think either of the 3 gave thought as to the
consequences of such actions for themselves?
I'm just curious. I'm not suggestion this action would be taken by
another atheist given the power to do so. But what about the mass
murderers in the US in recent years. I also know many serial killers
were raised in religious households. But many turn away from their
religious roots, but only to return later.
To know less than we don't know is the nature of most knowledge
Did it really escape your notice that Hitler, Stalin and Pol Pot
amassed armies numbering in the tens of thousands or millions, and in
2 cases had their nations fight prolonged wars against people who were
trying to force them to account for their actions? In the third case
(Stalin) by the time others were ready to force him to account, his
nation had grown so powerful that it simply couldn't be done (except
retroactively, after he died).
What am I saying? Of course you're willing to ignore World War 2, and
the war between Vietnam and Cambodia. Just like you're willing to
ignore every other explanation people have provided you for years.
Keep lyin' bro, god loves you for it.
Chris
Mark Isaak wrote:
On 3/23/24 4:31 PM, *Hemidactylus* wrote:Here you are so unfair. It's easy to make accusations and charges
Ron Dean <rondean-noreply@gmail.com> wrote:
Mark Isaak wrote:[snip
Are you suggesting that Obama bin Laden is typical of Islam? If so,
And what about people for whom theism is their greatest motivator,
such
as Obama bin Laden? Cynicism seems a rational response.
you're probably right.
My apologies to Mark as I just Chez Watted this without realizing
Mark had
originally posted Osama bin Laden and in Ron Dean’s reply Mark’s
spelling
morphed to Obama bin Laden matching Ron Dean’s spelling. I wonder
what that
indicates about Ron Dean…
Even without the typo, Ron's reply shows that he is grossly bigoted
against Arabs and Moslems. The typo suggests that Blacks and Democrats
may be added to the list.
without even attempting to support them. This in and of itself
demonstrates your extreme bias and hatred of anyone with a
point of view, opinion or belief different from yours.
On 3/25/24 10:26 AM, Ron Dean wrote:
Mark Isaak wrote:
On 3/23/24 4:31 PM, *Hemidactylus* wrote:Here you are so unfair. It's easy to make accusations and charges
Ron Dean <rondean-noreply@gmail.com> wrote:
Mark Isaak wrote:[snip
Are you suggesting that Obama bin Laden is typical of Islam? If so,
And what about people for whom theism is their greatest motivator, >>>>>> such
as Obama bin Laden? Cynicism seems a rational response.
you're probably right.
My apologies to Mark as I just Chez Watted this without realizing
Mark had
originally posted Osama bin Laden and in Ron Dean’s reply Mark’s
spelling
morphed to Obama bin Laden matching Ron Dean’s spelling. I wonder
what that
indicates about Ron Dean…
Even without the typo, Ron's reply shows that he is grossly bigoted
against Arabs and Moslems. The typo suggests that Blacks and Democrats
may be added to the list.
without even attempting to support them. This in and of itself
demonstrates your extreme bias and hatred of anyone with a
point of view, opinion or belief different from yours.
The support for your bigotry against Moslems is in your own post, and
that bigotry in turn is support for a suggestion of further bigotry. I
must admit that I had not considered the intervention of a
spell-checker. I have never known a spell-checker, uninvited, to alter
text that the user did not type himself.
Ernest Major wrote:
On 24/03/2024 21:10, Ron Dean wrote:I suspect you are speaking of Hitler. If so - you have offered no proof.
I only named only 3 atheist.
One of whom was a Christian, not an atheist. (I'm not certain about the
other two, but it seems more likely that not that they were indeed
atheists.) >
I quote:
"Hitler wasn't a Christian. The fact that so many atheist insist he was
and use his quotations in public speeches to 'prove' this is...
embarrassing. It's no better than right-wingers citing his party's name. National Socialist German Workers' party, as proof that Hitler was a socialist."
https://www.reddit.com/r/DebateAnAtheist/comments/xzfrn6/hitler_wasnt_a_christian_the_fact_that_so_many/
In public he says one thing, but in private his true self emerges.
This goes to show something that I've pointed out several times. One's paradigm takes precedence, priority, overrules and reigns supreme over everything: opinion, observation, facts, truth and empirical evidence.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/history/2019/04/20/hitler-hated-judaism-he-loathed-christianity-too/
Hitler's inter circle knew him for what he was. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_views_of_Adolf_Hitler
https://warfarehistorynetwork.com/hitlers-religion-was-hitler-an-atheist-christian-or-something-else/
On other words you have nothing, so you appeal to others to prove your accusations. You are a fraud and a false witness!
Chris
Explain to me what consequences do you think atheist are concerned
with. IOW what was Hitler's, Stalin's or Pol Pot's concern about
consequences of their actions. Remember these men were engaged in
genocide, after they gained the power, each had millions of people
murdered. Do you think either of the 3 gave thought as to the
consequences of such actions for themselves?
I'm just curious. I'm not suggestion this action would be taken by >>>>> another atheist given the power to do so. But what about the mass
murderers in the US in recent years. I also know many serial
killers were raised in religious households. But many turn away
from their religious roots, but only to return later.
To know less than we don't know is the nature of most knowledge
Did it really escape your notice that Hitler, Stalin and Pol Pot
amassed armies numbering in the tens of thousands or millions, and
in 2 cases had their nations fight prolonged wars against people who
were trying to force them to account for their actions? In the third
case (Stalin) by the time others were ready to force him to account,
his nation had grown so powerful that it simply couldn't be done
(except retroactively, after he died).
What am I saying? Of course you're willing to ignore World War 2,
and the war between Vietnam and Cambodia. Just like you're willing
to ignore every other explanation people have provided you for
years. Keep lyin' bro, god loves you for it.
Chris
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_views_of_Adolf_Hitler
On 27/03/2024 00:33, Burkhard quoted:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_views_of_Adolf_Hitler
How good or bad is that Wikipedia article? (It's not a subject I would
trust Wikipedia on, as it's vulnerable to communities with axes to grind.)
Could be much worse I guess. The main problem is that while it covers
the main views, and broadly does so fairly, it does not aim at a source-critical evaluation
of its own
On 27/03/2024 00:33, Burkhard quoted:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_views_of_Adolf_Hitler
How good or bad is that Wikipedia article? (It's not a subject I would
trust Wikipedia on, as it's vulnerable to communities with axes to grind.)
On Wed, 27 Mar 2024 13:17:54 +0000
Ernest Major <{$to$}@meden.demon.co.uk> wrote:
On 27/03/2024 00:33, Burkhard quoted:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_views_of_Adolf_Hitler
How good or bad is that Wikipedia article? (It's not a subject I would
trust Wikipedia on, as it's vulnerable to communities with axes to grind.) >>
Does it matter?
As a non-scientist whatever Hitler's views on evolution were are
unimportant.
Kerr-Mudd, John wrote:
On Wed, 27 Mar 2024 13:17:54 +0000
Ernest Major <{$to$}@meden.demon.co.uk> wrote:
On 27/03/2024 00:33, Burkhard quoted:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_views_of_Adolf_Hitler
How good or bad is that Wikipedia article? (It's not a subject I would
trust Wikipedia on, as it's vulnerable to communities with axes to grind.) >>>
Does it matter?
As a non-scientist whatever Hitler's views on evolution were are
unimportant.
For the validity of the theory of evolution? Not at all. But
I think history deserves to be treated as a serious academic
endeavour too, and I just hate the fake histories that get
repeated at nauseam.
On 3/26/24 10:29 AM, Ron Dean wrote:
Mark Isaak wrote:
On 3/25/24 10:26 AM, Ron Dean wrote:I asked a question. "Are you suggesting that Osama bin Laden is typical
Mark Isaak wrote:
On 3/23/24 4:31 PM, *Hemidactylus* wrote:Here you are so unfair. It's easy to make accusations and charges
Ron Dean <rondean-noreply@gmail.com> wrote:
Mark Isaak wrote:[snip
Are you suggesting that Obama bin Laden is typical of Islam? If so, >>>>>>> you're probably right.
And what about people for whom theism is their greatest motivator, such
as Obama bin Laden? Cynicism seems a rational response.
My apologies to Mark as I just Chez Watted this without realizing Mark had
originally posted Osama bin Laden and in Ron Dean’s reply Mark’s spelling
morphed to Obama bin Laden matching Ron Dean’s spelling. I wonder what that
indicates about Ron Dean…
Even without the typo, Ron's reply shows that he is grossly bigoted
against Arabs and Moslems. The typo suggests that Blacks and Democrats >>>>> may be added to the list.
without even attempting to support them. This in and of itself
demonstrates your extreme bias and hatred of anyone with a
point of view, opinion or belief different from yours.
The support for your bigotry against Moslems is in your own post, and
that bigotry in turn is support for a suggestion of further bigotry. I
must admit that I had not considered the intervention of a
spell-checker. I have never known a spell-checker, uninvited, to alter
text that the user did not type himself.
of Islam? If so (if you confirmed) you are probably right". If you
failed. I placed the burden on you! (Note here I defeated my
spell-checker)
Do you honestly not recognize the overt bigotry in what you just
repeated? It is really extremely gross and unforgivable.
Mark Isaak wrote:
On 3/25/24 10:26 AM, Ron Dean wrote:I asked a question. "Are you suggesting that Osama bin Laden is typical
Mark Isaak wrote:
On 3/23/24 4:31 PM, *Hemidactylus* wrote:Here you are so unfair. It's easy to make accusations and charges
Ron Dean <rondean-noreply@gmail.com> wrote:
Mark Isaak wrote:[snip
Are you suggesting that Obama bin Laden is typical of Islam? If so, >>>>>> you're probably right.
And what about people for whom theism is their greatest
motivator, such
as Obama bin Laden? Cynicism seems a rational response.
My apologies to Mark as I just Chez Watted this without realizing
Mark had
originally posted Osama bin Laden and in Ron Dean’s reply Mark’s >>>>> spelling
morphed to Obama bin Laden matching Ron Dean’s spelling. I wonder
what that
indicates about Ron Dean…
Even without the typo, Ron's reply shows that he is grossly bigoted
against Arabs and Moslems. The typo suggests that Blacks and
Democrats may be added to the list.
without even attempting to support them. This in and of itself
demonstrates your extreme bias and hatred of anyone with a
point of view, opinion or belief different from yours.
The support for your bigotry against Moslems is in your own post, and
that bigotry in turn is support for a suggestion of further bigotry. I
must admit that I had not considered the intervention of a
spell-checker. I have never known a spell-checker, uninvited, to alter
text that the user did not type himself.
of Islam? If so (if you confirmed) you are probably right". If you
failed. I placed the burden on you! (Note here I defeated my spell-checker)
On 3/28/24 3:27 PM, Ron Dean wrote:
I suggest that reading meaning into (or in) what Ron writes is never aYou are reading meaning into what I write that I never thought and never meant.
good idea.
Perhaps in some remote universe or some far-flung corner of your mind,<quote>If so, you're probably right, If not, you are probably right.
"Are you suggesting that Obama bin Laden is typical of Islam? If so,
you're probably right."
that response has some meaning but I guess I'm just not smart enough
to grasp it.
On Fri, 29 Mar 2024 09:18:46 -0400, Ron Dean
<rondean-noreply@gmail.com> wrote:
All I get from you is unsupported accusations.
All I get from you are unsupported denials... and embarrassing typos.
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 498 |
| Nodes: | 16 (3 / 13) |
| Uptime: | 14:07:39 |
| Calls: | 9,824 |
| Calls today: | 3 |
| Files: | 13,761 |
| Messages: | 6,191,019 |