Does The Soul Exist? Evidence Says ‘Yes’

[Robert H]

Does The Soul Exist? Evidence Says ‘Yes’'

http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/biocentrism/201112/does-the-soul-exist-evidence-says-yes


New scientific theory recognizes life’s spiritual dimension
Published on December 21, 2011 by Robert Lanza, M.D. in Biocentrism

The reality of the soul is among the most important questions of life.
Although religions go on and on about its existence, how do we know if
souls really exist? A string of new scientific experiments helps
answer this ancient spiritual question.

The idea of the soul is bound up with the idea of a future life and
our belief in a continued existence after death. It's said to be the
ultimate animating principle by which we think and feel, but isn't
dependent on the body. Many infer its existence without scientific
analysis or reflection. Indeed, the mysteries of birth and death, the
play of consciousness during dreams (or after a few martinis), and
even the commonest mental operations – such as imagination and memory
– suggest the existence of a vital life force – an élan vital – that
exists independent of the body.

Yet, the current scientific paradigm doesn't recognize this spiritual
dimension of life. We're told we're just the activity of carbon and
some proteins; we live awhile and die. And the universe? It too has no
meaning. It has all been worked out in the equations – no need for a
soul. But biocentrism – a new ‘theory of everything' – challenges this
traditional, materialistic model of reality. In all directions, this
outdated paradigm leads to insoluble enigmas, to ideas that are
ultimately irrational. But knowledge is the prelude to wisdom, and
soon our worldview will catch up with the facts.

Of course, most spiritual people view the soul as emphatically more
definitive than the scientific concept. It's considered the
incorporeal essence of a person, and is said to be immortal and
transcendent of material existence. But when scientists speak of the
soul (if at all), it's usually in a materialistic context, or treated
as a poetic synonym for the mind. Everything knowable about the "soul"
can be learned by studying the functioning of the brain. In their
view, neuroscience is the only branch of scientific study relevant to
understanding the soul.

Traditionally, science has dismissed the soul as an object of human
belief, or reduced it to a psychological concept that shapes our
cognition of the observable natural world. The terms "life" and
"death" are thus nothing more than the common concepts of "biological
life" and "biological death." The animating principle is simply the
laws of chemistry and physics. You (and all the poets and philosophers
that ever lived) are just dust orbiting the core of the Milky Way
galaxy.

As I sit here in my office surrounded by piles of scientific books, I
can't find a single reference to the soul, or any notion of an
immaterial, eternal essence that occupies our being. Indeed, a soul
has never been seen under an electron microscope, nor spun in the
laboratory in a test tube or ultra-centrifuge. According to these
books, nothing appears to survive the human body after death.

While neuroscience has made tremendous progress illuminating the
functioning of the brain, why we have a subjective experience remains
mysterious. The problem of the soul lies exactly here, in
understanding the nature of the self, the "I" in existence that feels
and lives life. But this isn't just a problem for biology and
cognitive science, but for the whole of Western natural philosophy
itself.

Our current worldview – the world of objectivity and naïve realism –
is beginning to show fatal cracks. Of course, this will not surprise
many of the philosophers and other readers who, contemplating the
works of men such as Plato, Socrates and Kant, and of Buddha and other
great spiritual teachers, kept wondering about the relationship
between the universe and the mind of man.

Recently, biocentrism and other scientific theories have also started
to challenge the old physico-chemical paradigm, and to ask some of the
difficult questions about life: Is there a soul? Does anything endure
the ravages of time?

Life and consciousness are central to this new view of being, reality
and the cosmos. Although the current scientific paradigm is based on
the belief that the world has an objective observer-independent
existence, real experiments suggest just the opposite. We think life
is just the activity of atoms and particles, which spin around for a
while and then dissipate into nothingness. But if we add life to the
equation, we can explain some of the major puzzles of modern science,
including the uncertainty principle, entanglement, and the fine-tuning
of the laws that shape the universe.

Consider the famous two-slit experiment. When you watch a particle go
through the holes, it behaves like a bullet, passing through one slit
or the other. But if no one observes the particle, it exhibits the
behavior of a wave and can pass through both slits at the same time.
This and other experiments tell us that unobserved particles exist
only as ‘waves of probability' as the great Nobel laureate Max Born
demonstrated in 1926. They're statistical predictions – nothing but a
likely outcome. Until observed, they have no real existence; only when
the mind sets the scaffolding in place, can they be thought of as
having duration or a position in space. Experiments make it
increasingly clear that even mere knowledge in the experimenter's mind
is sufficient to convert possibility to reality.

Many scientists dismiss the implications of these experiments, because
until recently, this observer-dependent behavior was thought to be
confined to the subatomic world. However, this is being challenged by
researchers around the world. In fact, just this year a team of
physicists (Gerlich et al, Nature Communications 2:263, 2011) showed
that quantum weirdness also occurs in the human-scale world. They
studied huge compounds composed of up to 430 atoms, and confirmed that
this strange quantum behavior extends into the larger world we live
in.

Importantly, this has a direct bearing on the question of whether
humans and other living creatures have souls. As Kant pointed out over
200 years ago, everything we experience – including all the colors,
sensations and objects we perceive – are nothing but representations
in our mind. Space and time are simply the mind's tools for putting it
all together. Now, to the amusement of idealists, scientists are
beginning dimly to recognize that those rules make existence itself
possible. Indeed, the experiments above suggest that objects only
exist with real properties if they are observed. The results not only
defy our classical intuition, but suggest that a part of the mind –
the soul – is immortal and exists outside of space and time.

"The hope of another life" wrote Will Durant "gives us courage to meet
our own death, and to bear with the death of our loved ones; we are
twice armed if we fight with faith."

And we are thrice armed if we fight with science.

[W.T.S.]

In article <0dee3a16-c31d-4ff4-a113-a2e33c2b5d22
@z8g2000yqd.googlegroups.com>, cra...@comcast.net says...
>
> Does The Soul Exist? Evidence Says ‘Yes’.
Bull shit. No evidence exists.
>


We are indeed Carcinoma Sapiens, destroying, by insane fecundity, that
which we need to survive.
>
As always, organized religion opposes progress -
>
See what RELIGION does to peoples' minds?
>
Adults no longer believe in the Tooth Fairy - but they still torture and
kill each other over ancient myths and superstitions.
>
"We all remember how many religious wars were fought for a religion of
love
and gentleness; how many bodies were burned
alive with the genuinely kind intention of saving souls from the eternal
fire of hell." --- Karl Popper
>
"When one person suffers from a delusion, it is called insanity. When
many
people suffer from a delusion, it is called Religion."
--- Robert M. Pirsig
>
Either God wants to abolish evil and cannot, or he can but does not want
to.
If he wants to but cannot he is impotent. If he can
but does not want to, he is wicked. If he neither can nor wants to, then
he
is both powerless and wicked.
--- Epicurus, Greek philosopher, circa 300 B.C.
>
"Act of God" disasters like the Japanese earthquake expose the myth.
Either
God can do nothing to stop catastrophes like
this, or he doesn't care to, or he doesn't exist. He is thus either
impotent, evil, or imaginary.
--- CNN Belief Blog, 3-20-11
>
"With or without religion, you would have good people doing good things
and
evil people doing evil things. But for good people
to do evil things, that takes religion."
--- Steven Weinberg, quoted in The New York Times, April 20, 1999
>
"Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as when they do it from
religious conviction." --- Blaise Pascal.
>
"Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as
false,
and by rulers as useful."
--- Seneca the Younger (4? BC - 65 AD)
>
"Religion once ruled the world. It was called the Dark Ages." --- Ruth
Green.
>
"Science flies you to the moon. Religion flies you into buildings." ---
Victor Stenger.
>
"I don't believe in God because I don't believe in Mother Goose." ---
Clarence Darrow
>
"As my ancestors are free from slavery, I am free from the slavery of
religion." --- Butterfly McQueen
>
"Religion was invented when the first con-man met the first fool." -
Mark
Twain
>
"Faith is believing what you know ain't so." --- Mark Twain
>
"The God of the Old Testament is arguably the most unpleasant character
in
all fiction." --- Richard Dawkins
>
"Cult today, religion tomorrow."
>
The Freedom From Religion Foundation: http://ffrf.org/
The Secular Coalition for America: www.secular.org
Secular Student Alliance: www.secularstudents.org
www.infidels.org
www.humaniststudies.org
www.atheistalliance.org
www.americanhumanist.org

[Stanislaus Stewart]

On 5/11/2013 2:37 AM, W.T.S. wrote:
> In article <0dee3a16-c31d-4ff4-a113-a2e33c2b5d22
> @z8g2000yqd.googlegroups.com>, cra...@comcast.net says...
>>
>> Does The Soul Exist? Evidence Says ‘Yes’.
> Bull shit. No evidence exists.

“There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, Than are dreamt
of in your philosophy.” Shakespeare
To me death is just a transition from,one phase of existence to
another, of which we know NOTHING, therefore, no evidence. Nothing
religious about it.
Like the caterpillar changing into a butterfly. I have a feeling that he
won't know anything about his previous caterpillar existence.
Religion, like politics, was 'invented' by one small group of people to
take advantage of another. In religion, they use fear of god, in
politics, they use fear of the 'enemy'. You can see a good example of
the latter with what the republican leadership is doing with their
followers regarding Obama.
I once had a discussion with my father-in-law about the existence of
god. When I hit him with point after point showing there could never be
a god, reasoning was beginning to dawn in him. Unfortunately the fear of
living without a god got hold of him and he cried out, " Oh god, leave
me alone with my beliefs."
I looked at his face and what I saw there prompted me to leave him
alone. Very sad that people have this BELIEF that they can't live
without god.

[default]

On Sat, 11 May 2013 22:53:08 -0400, Stanislaus Stewart <me...@att.net>
wrote:

>
> �There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, Than are dreamt

>of in your philosophy.� Shakespeare
> To me death is just a transition from,one phase of existence to
>another, of which we know NOTHING, therefore, no evidence. Nothing
>religious about it.

Nothing on many levels it seems.

>Like the caterpillar changing into a butterfly. I have a feeling that he
>won't know anything about his previous caterpillar existence.
>Religion, like politics, was 'invented' by one small group of people to
>take advantage of another. In religion, they use fear of god, in
>politics, they use fear of the 'enemy'. You can see a good example of
>the latter with what the republican leadership is doing with their
>followers regarding Obama.
> I once had a discussion with my father-in-law about the existence of
>god. When I hit him with point after point showing there could never be
>a god, reasoning was beginning to dawn in him. Unfortunately the fear of
>living without a god got hold of him and he cried out, " Oh god, leave
>me alone with my beliefs."
>I looked at his face and what I saw there prompted me to leave him
>alone. Very sad that people have this BELIEF that they can't live
>without god.

I know. The carefully constructed fantasy is hard to drop. Nature
offers uncertainty challenge and opportunity, Men want certainty,
dominion, and security.

By challenging a religious nut with logic and forcing him to see past
the constructed fantasy, you also call into question his rationality,
sanity, intelligence, and ego; so to have gotten so far with your
father-in-law, is an achievement. Particularly in an older adult who
is more aware of his own mortality.

Manipulating people is part and parcel of all ideological
organizations, Politics, Religion, Fraternal organizations, Street
gangs, Arian brotherhood, KKK, and the so-called "religions" that have
a foot in the political and religious ideological camps (Zionist
Jew/"Radical" Muslims/Christian Fundies)

It is a wonder that there are people who can chart their own course
through life given all the emotional propaganda and hype we are hit
with daily.

[Uncle Vic]

Stanislaus Stewart <me...@att.net> wrote in news:kmmhtl$3li$1@dont-
email.me:

> To me death is just a transition from,one phase of existence to
> another, of which we know NOTHING, therefore, no evidence.

Therefore it's just a big dumb guess.

--
Uncle Vic
aa# 2011
BAAWA

AA Quotemeister

Visit my You Tube Channel!
http://www.youtube.com/user/Vicman6311?feature=mhee

[alen]

Such titanic overconfidence about faith being nothing
but a fantasy! Such smug, effortless, handwaving lack
of doubt!

A computer has a designer, as does an aircraft, automobile,
house, watch, toaster, electric light, etc.etc. Do you
really think that the supposition that the cosmos, just
because it is huge and ancient, has been able to
self-design living things within itself? A vast bunch of
dead mineral globes were able to develop, in beings, a
life and consciousness which they totally lack themselves.
And yet you think, without a shadow of doubt, that this is
a 'rational' position to the extent that anyone who doubts
it, and realises that there must be a designer behind it
all, is to be regarded, without the SLIGHTEST shadow of
a doubt, as indulging in no more than irrational, superstitious
fantasy. Such one-sided, groundless overconfidence is
truly mind boggling!

Alen

[Free Lunch]

On Sun, 12 May 2013 08:10:43 -0700 (PDT), alen <al...@westserv.net.au>
wrote in alt.atheism:

Why do you assume design when there is no need to add such an
assumption?

> A vast bunch of
>dead mineral globes were able to develop, in beings, a
>life and consciousness which they totally lack themselves.

No, you are not correct in your characterization.

>And yet you think, without a shadow of doubt, that this is
>a 'rational' position to the extent that anyone who doubts
>it, and realises that there must be a designer behind it
>all, is to be regarded, without the SLIGHTEST shadow of
>a doubt, as indulging in no more than irrational, superstitious
>fantasy. Such one-sided, groundless overconfidence is
>truly mind boggling!

Where is your evidence that there is a designer?

>Alen

[casey]

Complex systems can have properties not found in
the parts. The secret is in how they are connected.

> And yet you think, without a shadow of doubt, that this is
> a 'rational' position to the extent that anyone who doubts
> it, and realises that there must be a designer behind it
> all, is to be regarded, without the SLIGHTEST shadow of
> a doubt,  as indulging in no more than irrational, superstitious
> fantasy. Such one-sided, groundless overconfidence is
> truly mind boggling!

That complex systems can evolve is indeed mind
boggling but that doesn't make in impossible.


>
> Alen

[Stanislaus Stewart]

On 5/12/2013 10:49 AM, Uncle Vic wrote:
> Stanislaus Stewart <me...@att.net> wrote in news:kmmhtl$3li$1@dont-
> email.me:
>
>> To me death is just a transition from,one phase of existence to
>> another, of which we know NOTHING, therefore, no evidence.
>
> Therefore it's just a big dumb guess.
>

Belief in god is a dumb belief.

[Stanislaus Stewart]

I won't go so far as to say that no one, nothing, is responsible for
existence. Something is, but we know absolutely nothing about
him/her/it. What I am saying is, it ain't any of the 'gods in the
religious books. Those were created by men. Og came out of his cave
one day and decided that Mog and the others could not have made the sun,
moon, stars, trees, etc.,etc., and decided that God made them. That's
why any attempt to describe god ends up in human terms-he wants revenge,
to be worshipped, wants to be loved, wants gifts, wants to make war,
ec., etc. How in the world could a true god sanction slavery?

[Smiler]

Does everything _have_ to have a designer?
If so, who designed your supposed god character?

--
Smiler,

The godless one. a.a.# 2279

All gods are tailored to order. They're made to

exactly fit the prejudices of their believers.

[Uncle Vic]

alen <al...@westserv.net.au> wrote in news:2cf7df33-4f5b-49ec-a11a-
5af499...@hc4g2000pbb.googlegroups.com:

> Such titanic overconfidence about faith being nothing
> but a fantasy! Such smug, effortless, handwaving lack
> of doubt!

Compared to this:

>
> A computer has a designer, as does an aircraft, automobile,
> house, watch, toaster, electric light, etc.etc. Do you
> really think that the supposition that the cosmos, just
> because it is huge and ancient, has been able to
> self-design living things within itself?

C'mon, idjit. Computers, aircraft, etc. are not living things.

Sheesh, you can't even get a strawman right.

[duke]

On Sun, 12 May 2013 09:49:31 -0500, Uncle Vic <so...@noway.com> wrote:

>Stanislaus Stewart <me...@att.net> wrote in news:kmmhtl$3li$1@dont-
>email.me:
>
>> To me death is just a transition from,one phase of existence to
>> another, of which we know NOTHING, therefore, no evidence.
>
>Therefore it's just a big dumb guess.

Actually, God sent Jesus specifically to give us a heads up on the existence of
the heavenly kingdom. Go ahead, fool. Follow satan all you want.

The dukester, American - American

********************************************
Repeal Obama
You simply can't fix stupid.
********************************************

[duke]

On Sun, 12 May 2013 22:37:33 -0400, Stanislaus Stewart <me...@att.net> wrote:

> I won't go so far as to say that no one, nothing, is responsible for
>existence. Something is, but we know absolutely nothing about
>him/her/it. What I am saying is, it ain't any of the 'gods in the
>religious books.

Really. Please reveal to me one (1) fact that supports that comment.

> Those were created by men. Og came out of his cave
>one day and decided that Mog and the others could not have made the sun,
>moon, stars, trees, etc.,etc., and decided that God made them. That's
>why any attempt to describe god ends up in human terms-he wants revenge,
>to be worshipped, wants to be loved, wants gifts, wants to make war,
>ec., etc. How in the world could a true god sanction slavery?

He doesn't. That's what man was doing. God showed us the opposite. Better
luck next time.

[default]

On Sun, 12 May 2013 08:10:43 -0700 (PDT), alen <al...@westserv.net.au>

wrote:

Such a narrow perspective. You weren't there when I was indoctrinated
and did believe in a god, or the years of reason and introspection
that followed to finally be rid of the indoctrination.

People do have a tendency to believe what makes them feel secure.
Religion offers that along with the other rubbish. Total honesty and
self awareness requires effort on one's part to see things for what
they are, not to just submit to a warm fuzzy feeling someone sells
you.

>
>A computer has a designer, as does an aircraft, automobile,
>house, watch, toaster, electric light, etc.etc.

AND, as someone just recently pointed out - if people were assembled
with nuts bolts and forged metal replaceable parts, that would be good
evidence for a creator. Instead we are squishy things that rely on
lots of specialized cells and bacteria and proteins to synthesize
parts and create energy.

>Do you
>really think that the supposition that the cosmos, just
>because it is huge and ancient, has been able to
>self-design living things within itself?

Yes I really do... You seem to think that "all this" was brought forth
in a matter of moments (as all the creation myths in the world's seem
to think).

Instead: Think of seas full of an incredible mix of hot sulphur
compounds, stirred by tremendous storms, a random chemical/electrical
reaction on a grand scale that lasts for many millions or billions of
years - and then evolution to bring what works to more and more
complex life as the world's initial energy slowly runs down.

>A vast bunch of
>dead mineral globes were able to develop, in beings, a
>life and consciousness which they totally lack themselves.
>And yet you think, without a shadow of doubt, that this is
>a 'rational' position to the extent that anyone who doubts
>it, and realises that there must be a designer behind it
>all, is to be regarded, without the SLIGHTEST shadow of
>a doubt, as indulging in no more than irrational, superstitious
>fantasy. Such one-sided, groundless overconfidence is
>truly mind boggling!
>
>Alen

Instead it makes perfect sense to you to assume a creator exists, it
is all done with some forethought and purpose, and then you would
probably go on to tell me exactly what this creator wants? What his
purpose is? and how I can live forever? If I just subscribe to your
completely unfounded groundless (and truth be told arrogant) religion.

NOTHING makes men more arrogant than the absolute certainty that they
do god's work - particularly when the are "fighting" non believers.

[alen]

Why don't you read my post properly,
before you start printing a reply?

> > A vast bunch of
> >dead mineral globes were able to develop, in beings, a
> >life and consciousness which they totally lack themselves.
>
> No, you are not correct in your characterization.
>
> >And yet you think, without a shadow of doubt, that this is
> >a 'rational' position to the extent that anyone who doubts
> >it, and realises that there must be a designer behind it
> >all, is to be regarded, without the SLIGHTEST shadow of
> >a doubt,  as indulging in no more than irrational, superstitious
> >fantasy. Such one-sided, groundless overconfidence is
> >truly mind boggling!
>
> Where is your evidence that there is a designer?

Because the simple, known forces of physics cannot
explain the existence of the huge number of different,
complex, living beings. They can produce nothing more
than some eventual, simple chemical equilibrium. This
leaves no other option than to conclude that there
MUST be the influence of a designer on nature, in order
to explain what the laws of physics can never be
sufficient to explain.

Alen

[alen]

On May 13, 8:37 am, Stanislaus Stewart <me...@att.net> wrote:
> On 5/12/2013 11:10 AM, alen wrote:
>

[...]

Who the designer might be is a separate discussion
to whether or not there must be a designer. There is no
point in raving on about Og, Zeus, Odin, etc.etc. before
you have first reached a conclusion about whether or not
there must be SOME designer.

Alen

[alen]

More - how they GET to be connected. The massively
asymmetrical and improbable selection of connections
necessary to construct a working organism cannot
be explained by the laws of physics, which lead only
to an amorphous chemical equilibrium.

> > And yet you think, without a shadow of doubt, that this is
> > a 'rational' position to the extent that anyone who doubts
> > it, and realises that there must be a designer behind it
> > all, is to be regarded, without the SLIGHTEST shadow of
> > a doubt,  as indulging in no more than irrational, superstitious
> > fantasy. Such one-sided, groundless overconfidence is
> > truly mind boggling!
>
> That complex systems can evolve is indeed mind
> boggling but that doesn't make in impossible.
>

It does if EVERY concept of a designer is excluded.

Alen

[Robert H]

On May 12, 6:11 pm, Stanislaus Stewart <me...@att.net> wrote:
> On 5/12/2013 10:49 AM, Uncle Vic wrote:
>

> > Stanislaus Stewart <me...@att.net> wrote innews:kmmhtl$3li$1@dont-

> > email.me:
>
> >>     To me death is just a transition from,one phase of existence to
> >> another, of which we know NOTHING, therefore, no evidence.
>
> > Therefore it's just a big dumb guess.
>
>   Belief in god is a dumb belief.

You believing that is dumb.

[Tom McDonald]

Oh, well, as long as *you* say so, I guess it must be so. I think it's
an outrage that we as a nation spend so much money on science when all
we'd have to do is ask you! And I bet you'd do it a whole lot cheaper
than all that research and teaching and shit.

How did we never think of this before!

[Uncle Vic]

duke <duckg...@cox.net> wrote in
news:suj1p8puvarm8o4ts...@4ax.com:

> On Sun, 12 May 2013 09:49:31 -0500, Uncle Vic <so...@noway.com> wrote:
>
>>Stanislaus Stewart <me...@att.net> wrote in news:kmmhtl$3li$1@dont-
>>email.me:
>>
>>> To me death is just a transition from,one phase of existence to
>>> another, of which we know NOTHING, therefore, no evidence.
>>
>>Therefore it's just a big dumb guess.
>
> Actually, God sent Jesus specifically to give us a heads up on the
> existence of the heavenly kingdom. Go ahead, fool. Follow satan all
> you want.
>
> The dukester, American - American
>

All made-up characters in a grossly out-dated myth. Smart people can tell
the difference between your dumb fantasy and reality. What's holding you
back?

[Dreamer In Colore]

On Mon, 13 May 2013 08:28:16 -0700 (PDT), alen <al...@westserv.net.au>
wrote:

The simple known forces of physics don't explain the existence of the
huge number of different complex living beings.

That's the job of chemistry and biochemistry.

You would like a simple explanation, and a designer would be a simple
explanation if it were true... however, raising the issue of the
designer raises the issue of who designed the designer.

The laws of physics underpin chemistry and biology. The sciences
inter-relate to form a coherent, though definitely not simple,
explanation for a huge array of phenomena, and your insistence that a
supernatural being is responsible for the design of such phenomena
betrays a lack of understanding of how science works.

Cheers,
Dreamer
AA 2306

[duke]

On Mon, 13 May 2013 12:51:13 -0500, Uncle Vic <so...@noway.com> wrote:

>duke <duckg...@cox.net> wrote in
>news:suj1p8puvarm8o4ts...@4ax.com:
>
>> On Sun, 12 May 2013 09:49:31 -0500, Uncle Vic <so...@noway.com> wrote:
>>
>>>Stanislaus Stewart <me...@att.net> wrote in news:kmmhtl$3li$1@dont-
>>>email.me:
>>>
>>>> To me death is just a transition from,one phase of existence to
>>>> another, of which we know NOTHING, therefore, no evidence.
>>>
>>>Therefore it's just a big dumb guess.
>>
>> Actually, God sent Jesus specifically to give us a heads up on the
>> existence of the heavenly kingdom. Go ahead, fool. Follow satan all
>> you want.

>All made-up characters in a grossly out-dated myth. Smart people can tell
>the difference between your dumb fantasy and reality. What's holding you
>back?

I'm extremely smarter than you.

The dukester, American - American

[Dreamer In Colore]

On Mon, 13 May 2013 08:40:18 -0700 (PDT), alen <al...@westserv.net.au>

You think that they are improbable only because you're looking at them
at the end of the chain.

There were untold numbers of connections and interactions that
actually did happen before any current complex system occurred. No
complex systems existed prior to the existence of simpler ones. That's
how evolution works.

>> > And yet you think, without a shadow of doubt, that this is
>> > a 'rational' position to the extent that anyone who doubts
>> > it, and realises that there must be a designer behind it
>> > all, is to be regarded, without the SLIGHTEST shadow of
>> > a doubt,  as indulging in no more than irrational, superstitious
>> > fantasy. Such one-sided, groundless overconfidence is
>> > truly mind boggling!
>>
>> That complex systems can evolve is indeed mind
>> boggling but that doesn't make in impossible.
>>
>
>It does if EVERY concept of a designer is excluded.
>

No, Alen. Complicated systems not only have evolved in the past, but
continue to evolve even now. A simple example would be the colour
changes in moths in industrial England. Changing colour pigmentation
systems is non-trivial, and this has happened in response to the
increase in pollution levels from coal-burning plants.

That complicated system didn't require a designer... it required
evolutionary theory, which explains the phenomenon very well, without
resorting to a supernatural entity.

You're continuing to hold an opinion concerning an entity for which
you have no supporting evidence: intelligent design is neither
intelligent, nor particularly good evidence for either efficient or
beautiful design.

Cheers,
Dreamer
AA 2306

[Stanislaus Stewart]

Tcha! I wasn't raving, just having fun. I think Zeus and Odin were
considered gods. Og is just a caveman.
Stan

[Syd M.]

On May 13, 2:14 pm, duke <duckgumb...@cox.net> wrote:
> On Mon, 13 May 2013 12:51:13 -0500, Uncle Vic <so...@noway.com> wrote:

> >duke <duckgumb...@cox.net> wrote in

> >news:suj1p8puvarm8o4ts...@4ax.com:
>
> >> On Sun, 12 May 2013 09:49:31 -0500, Uncle Vic <so...@noway.com> wrote:
>

> >>>Stanislaus Stewart <me...@att.net> wrote innews:kmmhtl$3li$1@dont-

> >>>email.me:
>
> >>>>    To me death is just a transition from,one phase of existence to
> >>>> another, of which we know NOTHING, therefore, no evidence.
>
> >>>Therefore it's just a big dumb guess.
>
> >> Actually, God sent Jesus specifically to give us a heads up on the
> >> existence of the heavenly kingdom.  Go ahead, fool.  Follow satan all
> >> you want.
> >All made-up characters in a grossly out-dated myth.  Smart people can tell
> >the difference between your dumb fantasy and reality.  What's holding you
> >back?
>
> I'm extremely smarter than you.
>
>

BWHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAAAAAAAAA!!!!!!!!

PDW

[Free Lunch]

On Mon, 13 May 2013 08:28:16 -0700 (PDT), alen <al...@westserv.net.au>

wrote in alt.atheism:

>On May 13, 2:28�am, Free Lunch <lu...@nofreelunch.us> wrote:
>> On Sun, 12 May 2013 08:10:43 -0700 (PDT), alen <al...@westserv.net.au>
>> wrote in alt.atheism:

...

>> >Such titanic overconfidence about faith being nothing
>> >but a fantasy! Such smug, effortless, handwaving lack
>> >of doubt!
>>
>> >A computer has a designer, as does an aircraft, automobile,
>> >house, watch, toaster, electric light, etc.etc. Do you
>> >really think that the supposition that the cosmos, just
>> >because it is huge and ancient, has been able to
>> >self-design living things within itself?
>>
>> Why do you assume design when there is no need to add such an
>> assumption?
>
>Why don't you read my post properly,
>before you start printing a reply?

How did I misread it. You have assumed that there is design associated
with life.

>> > A vast bunch of
>> >dead mineral globes were able to develop, in beings, a
>> >life and consciousness which they totally lack themselves.
>>
>> No, you are not correct in your characterization.
>>
>> >And yet you think, without a shadow of doubt, that this is
>> >a 'rational' position to the extent that anyone who doubts
>> >it, and realises that there must be a designer behind it
>> >all, is to be regarded, without the SLIGHTEST shadow of
>> >a doubt, �as indulging in no more than irrational, superstitious
>> >fantasy. Such one-sided, groundless overconfidence is
>> >truly mind boggling!
>>
>> Where is your evidence that there is a designer?
>
>Because the simple, known forces of physics cannot
>explain the existence of the huge number of different,
>complex, living beings.

Why not? Must we take your unevidenced assertion for that?

>They can produce nothing more
>than some eventual, simple chemical equilibrium. This
>leaves no other option than to conclude that there
>MUST be the influence of a designer on nature, in order
>to explain what the laws of physics can never be
>sufficient to explain.

Not at all. We cannot even consider that step until you actually show
that " the simple, known forces of physics cannot explain the existence

[Free Lunch]

On Mon, 13 May 2013 08:40:18 -0700 (PDT), alen <al...@westserv.net.au>
wrote in alt.atheism:

It seems to me that a god is far more improbable than nature.

>> > And yet you think, without a shadow of doubt, that this is
>> > a 'rational' position to the extent that anyone who doubts
>> > it, and realises that there must be a designer behind it
>> > all, is to be regarded, without the SLIGHTEST shadow of
>> > a doubt, �as indulging in no more than irrational, superstitious
>> > fantasy. Such one-sided, groundless overconfidence is
>> > truly mind boggling!
>>
>> That complex systems can evolve is indeed mind
>> boggling but that doesn't make in impossible.
>
>It does if EVERY concept of a designer is excluded.

No need to even bring up the concept.

[Silen...@hotmail.com]

On Mon, 13 May 2013 06:40:09 -0500, duke <duckg...@cox.net> wrote:

>On Sun, 12 May 2013 22:37:33 -0400, Stanislaus Stewart <me...@att.net> wrote:
>
>> I won't go so far as to say that no one, nothing, is responsible for
>>existence. Something is, but we know absolutely nothing about
>>him/her/it. What I am saying is, it ain't any of the 'gods in the
>>religious books.
>
>Really.

Yes, really, Dook.

>Please reveal to me one (1) fact that supports that comment.

-All- facts support that comment, Dook.

>> Those were created by men. Og came out of his cave
>>one day and decided that Mog and the others could not have made the sun,
>>moon, stars, trees, etc.,etc., and decided that God made them. That's
>>why any attempt to describe god ends up in human terms-he wants revenge,
>>to be worshipped, wants to be loved, wants gifts, wants to make war,
>>ec., etc. How in the world could a true god sanction slavery?
>
>He doesn't.

Which Bible have you been reading, again?

Because, it's not the one the Catholics use.

Heh heh...

Lying racist rightard socialists...

Batshit crazy and dogshit stupid, every single last one of you.

[linuxgal]

duke wrote:
> I'm extremely smarter than you.

'Nuff said.

--
Halftime at Circvs Maximvs, and the Lions lead the Christians 326-0

[Yap]

On May 12, 6:53 am, Stanislaus Stewart <me...@att.net> wrote:
> On 5/11/2013 2:37 AM, W.T.S. wrote:
>
> > In article <0dee3a16-c31d-4ff4-a113-a2e33c2b5d22
> > @z8g2000yqd.googlegroups.com>, craz...@comcast.net says...
>
> >> Does The Soul Exist? Evidence Says ‘Yes’.
> > Bull shit.  No evidence exists.
>
>     “There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, Than are dreamt

> of in your philosophy.” Shakespeare

Massive bullshit......did Shakespeare been to heaven when he talked
like that?

>    To me death is just a transition from,one phase of existence to
> another, of which we know NOTHING, therefore, no evidence. Nothing
> religious about it.

> Like the caterpillar changing into a butterfly. I have a feeling that he
> won't know anything about his previous caterpillar existence.
> Religion, like politics, was 'invented' by one small group of people to
> take advantage of another. In religion, they use fear of god, in
> politics, they use fear of the 'enemy'. You can see a good example of
> the latter with what the republican leadership is doing with their
> followers regarding Obama.
>   I once had a discussion with my father-in-law about the existence of
> god. When I hit him with point after point showing there could never be
> a god, reasoning was beginning to dawn in him. Unfortunately the fear of
> living without a god got hold of him and he cried out, " Oh god, leave
> me alone with my beliefs."
> I looked at his face and what I saw there prompted me to leave him
> alone. Very sad that people have this BELIEF that they can't live
> without god.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

> > We are indeed Carcinoma Sapiens, destroying, by insane fecundity, that
> > which we need to survive.
>
> > As always, organized religion opposes progress -
>
> > See what RELIGION does to peoples' minds?
>
> > Adults no longer believe in the Tooth Fairy - but they still torture and
> > kill each other over ancient myths and superstitions.
>
> > "We all remember how many religious wars were fought for a religion of
> > love
> > and gentleness; how many bodies were burned
> > alive with the genuinely kind intention of saving souls from the eternal
> > fire of hell." --- Karl Popper
>
> > "When one person suffers from a delusion, it is called insanity. When
> > many
> > people suffer from a delusion, it is called Religion."
> >   --- Robert M. Pirsig
>
> > Either God wants to abolish evil and cannot, or he can but does not want
> > to.
> > If he wants to but cannot he is impotent. If he can
> > but does not want to, he is wicked. If he neither can nor wants to, then
> > he
> > is both powerless and wicked.
> > --- Epicurus, Greek philosopher, circa 300 B.C.
>
> > "Act of God" disasters like the Japanese earthquake expose the myth.
> > Either
> > God can do nothing to stop catastrophes like
> > this, or he doesn't care to, or he doesn't exist. He is thus either
> > impotent, evil, or imaginary.
> > --- CNN Belief Blog, 3-20-11
>
> > "With or without religion, you would have good people doing good things
> > and
> > evil people doing evil things. But for good people
> > to do evil things, that takes religion."
> > --- Steven Weinberg, quoted in The New York Times, April 20, 1999
>
> > "Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as when they do it from
> > religious conviction." --- Blaise Pascal.
>
> > "Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as
> > false,
> > and by rulers as useful."
> > --- Seneca the Younger (4? BC - 65 AD)
>
> > "Religion once ruled the world. It was called the Dark Ages." --- Ruth
> > Green.
>
> > "Science flies you to the moon. Religion flies you into buildings." ---
> > Victor Stenger.
>
> > "I don't believe in God because I don't believe in Mother Goose." ---
> > Clarence Darrow
>
> > "As my ancestors are free from slavery, I am free from the slavery of
> > religion." --- Butterfly McQueen
>
> > "Religion was invented when the first con-man met the first fool." -
> > Mark
> > Twain
>
> > "Faith is believing what you know ain't so." --- Mark Twain
>
> > "The God of the Old Testament is arguably the most unpleasant character
> > in
> > all fiction." --- Richard Dawkins
>
> > "Cult today, religion tomorrow."
>
> > The Freedom From Religion Foundation:  http://ffrf.org/
> > The Secular Coalition for America:  www.secular.org
> > Secular Student Alliance:  www.secularstudents.org
> >www.infidels.org
> >www.humaniststudies.org
> >www.atheistalliance.org
> >www.americanhumanist.org

[Yap]

Until the Mog does come out to claim his position, we should all not
bother with such imagination.
We all have physical development to do for this earth of ours.

Why would any supernatural thing be sleeping when we have come a long
way for the last 2000 or more years?

[Yap]

On May 13, 7:36 pm, duke <duckgumb...@cox.net> wrote:
> On Sun, 12 May 2013 09:49:31 -0500, Uncle Vic <so...@noway.com> wrote:

> >Stanislaus Stewart <me...@att.net> wrote innews:kmmhtl$3li$1@dont-

> >email.me:
>
> >>    To me death is just a transition from,one phase of existence to
> >> another, of which we know NOTHING, therefore, no evidence.
>
> >Therefore it's just a big dumb guess.
>
> Actually, God sent Jesus specifically to give us a heads up on the existence of
> the heavenly kingdom.  Go ahead, fool.  Follow satan all you want.

You are devoid of a brain, really.

[Yap]

Indeed....

But even this alen fool would know he is a disappointment.

[casey]

On 13 May, 08:28, alen <al...@westserv.net.au> wrote:
> On May 13, 2:28 am, Free Lunch <lu...@nofreelunch.us> wrote:

> [...]

> > Where is your evidence that there is a designer?
>
> Because the simple, known forces of physics cannot
> explain the existence of the huge number of different,
> complex, living beings.

And your evidence that they cannot explain the existence
of the huge number of different complex, living beings is?

> They can produce nothing more
> than some eventual, simple chemical equilibrium.

And living complex beings are no different. If the input
of energy and resources are halted we move toward
a simple chemical equilibrium called death.

> This
> leaves no other option than to conclude that there
> MUST be the influence of a designer on nature, in order
> to explain what the laws of physics can never be
> sufficient to explain.

There is no evidence that the laws of physics that
determine how molecules interact will not be able to
fully explain how complex living things evolved.


>
> Alen

[casey]

On 13 May, 08:40, alen <al...@westserv.net.au> wrote:
> On May 13, 3:14 am, casey <jgkjca...@yahoo.com.au> wrote:

> [...]

> > Complex systems can have properties not found in
> > the parts. The secret is in how they are connected.
>
> More - how they GET to be connected. The massively
> asymmetrical and improbable selection of connections
> necessary to construct a working organism cannot
> be explained by the laws of physics, which lead only
> to an amorphous chemical equilibrium.

And yet there is nothing we know about the molecules
of living things that aren't subject to the laws of physics
which kind of flags that the laws are sufficient to lead
to complex dynamic living systems. You can actually
watch it happen just by observing living systems even
if you don't understand the details of how it happens.

> > > And yet you think, without a shadow of doubt, that this is
> > > a 'rational' position to the extent that anyone who doubts
> > > it, and realises that there must be a designer behind it
> > > all, is to be regarded, without the SLIGHTEST shadow of
> > > a doubt,  as indulging in no more than irrational, superstitious
> > > fantasy. Such one-sided, groundless overconfidence is
> > > truly mind boggling!

Once the view you express was a natural view to take
just as a flat earth was a natural view to take. However
as we learnt the real causes behind the natural world
the idea of a designer was pushed all the way back to
the designing the Universe after which it could run all
by itself.

> > That complex systems can evolve is indeed mind
> > boggling but that doesn't make in impossible.
>
> It does if EVERY concept of a designer is excluded.

The Universe was designed by natural selection.
An act of design is an act of selection.


>
> Alen

[SkyEyes]

BZZZZZT! Wrong. But thank you for playing. If you can let go of
your own dick long enough to look something up, look up "fractals" and
"Benoit Mandelbrot." What Mandelbrot proved, with math, was that
simple processes, repeated over and over and over and over and over
and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and
over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over
and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and
over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over
and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and
over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over
and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and
over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over
and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and
over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over
and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and
over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over
and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and
over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over
and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and
over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over
and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and
over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over
and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and
over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over
and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and
over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over
and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and
over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over
and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and
over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over
and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and
over and over and over and over again, but with different variables,
can produce highly complex results.

-
Brenda Nelson, A.A.#34 and A+ atheist
BAAWA Knight of the Golden Litterbox
EAC Professor of Feline Thermometrics and Cat-Herding
skyeyes nine at cox dot net OR
skyeyes nine at yahoo dot com
-

[SkyEyes]

There *is* no designer other than evolution.

[casey]

On 13 May, 22:06, SkyEyes <skyey...@cox.net> wrote:
> On May 13, 8:28 am, alen <al...@westserv.net.au> wrote:

> [snip for brevity]

> > > >And yet you think, without a shadow of doubt, that this is
> > > >a 'rational' position to the extent that anyone who doubts
> > > >it, and realises that there must be a designer behind it
> > > >all, is to be regarded, without the SLIGHTEST shadow of
> > > >a doubt,  as indulging in no more than irrational, superstitious
> > > >fantasy. Such one-sided, groundless overconfidence is
> > > >truly mind boggling!
>
> > > Where is your evidence that there is a designer?
>
> > Because the simple, known forces of physics cannot
> > explain the existence of the huge number of different,
> > complex, living beings. They can produce nothing more
> > than some eventual, simple chemical equilibrium. This
> > leaves no other option than to conclude that there
> > MUST be the influence of a designer on nature, in order
> > to explain what the laws of physics can never be
> > sufficient to explain.
>
> BZZZZZT!  Wrong.  But thank you for playing.  If you can let go of
> your own dick long enough to look something up, look up "fractals" and
> "Benoit Mandelbrot."  What Mandelbrot proved, with math, was that
> simple processes, repeated over and over and over and over and over
> and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and

> [snip for brevity]

> over and over and over and over again, but with different variables,
> can produce highly complex results.

A nice little book on the contribution math can provide
to understanding life written for the layman is:

"Life's Other Secret" - The new mathematics of the Living World.
Ian Stewart

[duke]

On Mon, 13 May 2013 17:24:40 -0500, Free Lunch <lu...@nofreelunch.us> wrote:

>It seems to me that a god is far more improbable than nature.

What is "nature_al" if not from God?

[duke]

On Mon, 13 May 2013 19:15:31 -0400, Silen...@hotmail.com wrote:

>On Mon, 13 May 2013 06:40:09 -0500, duke <duckg...@cox.net> wrote:
>
>>On Sun, 12 May 2013 22:37:33 -0400, Stanislaus Stewart <me...@att.net> wrote:
>>
>>> I won't go so far as to say that no one, nothing, is responsible for
>>>existence. Something is, but we know absolutely nothing about
>>>him/her/it. What I am saying is, it ain't any of the 'gods in the
>>>religious books.
>>
>>Really.

>Yes, really, Dook.
>>Please reveal to me one (1) fact that supports that comment.
>-All- facts support that comment, Dook.

Then your revealing one (1) should be simple.

[duke]

>There *is* no designer other than evolution.

Where does evolution live? Also, are you saying you are a complete accident?

[duke]

On Mon, 13 May 2013 18:50:59 -0800, linuxgal <linu...@cleanposts.com> wrote:

>duke wrote:
>> I'm extremely smarter than you.
>
>'Nuff said.

I've been saying that for a long time.

[alen]

On May 14, 7:36 pm, Attila <<procho...@here.now> wrote:
> On Mon, 13 May 2013 08:28:16 -0700 (PDT), alen <al...@westserv.net.au>

> in alt.abortion with message-id
> <ee661886-72db-4659-9aa8-f0823e5fd...@d8g2000pbe.googlegroups.com>

> wrote:
>
> >Because the simple, known forces of physics cannot
> >explain the existence of the huge number of different,
> >complex, living beings. They can produce nothing more
> >than some eventual, simple chemical equilibrium. This
> >leaves no other option than to conclude that there
> >MUST be the influence of a designer on nature, in order
> >to explain what the laws of physics can never be
> >sufficient to explain.
>

> Nonsense.  I have seen nothing that supports the existence of any
> 'designer' and that tired old argument that there must be one because
> the universe is complex is ridiculous.

There is nothing 'tired' or ridiculous about it.
The invention of a purely theoretical concept of
random mutation and natural selection is assumed
to work just because it is obscure and unclear,
and this allows people to just BELIEVE it works.
But a random principle does not and cannot
produce anything positive and is far too powerfully
destructive to be controlled by any selection
principle. Evolutionary evidence is factual, but
the theory invented to interpret it is pure fantasy.

Alen

[alen]

On May 14, 4:15 am, Dreamer In Colore <dreamerincol...@hotmail.com>
wrote:

If untold numbers of connections and interactions
were occurring randomly, the result would be nothing
but chaos. No selection principle would be able
to control such chaos in order to build a working
organism out of them

> >> > And yet you think, without a shadow of doubt, that this is
> >> > a 'rational' position to the extent that anyone who doubts
> >> > it, and realises that there must be a designer behind it
> >> > all, is to be regarded, without the SLIGHTEST shadow of
> >> > a doubt, as indulging in no more than irrational, superstitious
> >> > fantasy. Such one-sided, groundless overconfidence is
> >> > truly mind boggling!
>
> >> That complex systems can evolve is indeed mind
> >> boggling but that doesn't make in impossible.
>
> >It does if EVERY concept of a designer is excluded.
>
> No, Alen. Complicated systems not only have evolved in the past, but
> continue to evolve even now. A simple example would be the colour
> changes in moths in industrial England. Changing colour pigmentation
> systems is non-trivial, and this has happened in response to the
> increase in pollution levels from coal-burning plants.

If colour pigmentation changes were totally random, a
single, successful pigmentation result would not be
able to persist, since continuing random alterations
would not allow the selection principle to work, because
no pigmentation would ever display any stability from
one moth to the next. The moths must therefore also
have a property that resists or prevents or severely
restricts changes, in order for a successful change to
remain stable.

> That complicated system didn't require a designer... it required
> evolutionary theory, which explains the phenomenon very well, without
> resorting to a supernatural entity.
>
> You're continuing to hold an opinion concerning an entity for which
> you have no supporting evidence: intelligent design is neither
> intelligent, nor particularly good evidence for either efficient or
> beautiful design.
>
> Cheers,
> Dreamer
> AA 2306

Random mutation and natural selection is a fantasy
which people can believe only because its working is
obscure and unclear. The only intelligent theory to
explain evolution would be designed mutation and
natural selection.

Alen

[alen]

On May 14, 1:51 pm, casey <jgkjca...@yahoo.com.au> wrote:
> On 13 May, 08:40, alen <al...@westserv.net.au> wrote:
>
> > On May 13, 3:14 am, casey <jgkjca...@yahoo.com.au> wrote:
> > [...]
> > > Complex systems can have properties not found in
> > > the parts. The secret is in how they are connected.
>
> > More - how they GET to be connected. The massively
> > asymmetrical and improbable selection of connections
> > necessary to construct a working organism cannot
> > be explained by the laws of physics, which lead only
> > to an amorphous chemical equilibrium.
>
> And yet there is nothing we know about the molecules
> of living things that aren't subject to the laws of physics
> which kind of flags that the laws are sufficient to lead
> to complex dynamic living systems. You can actually
> watch it happen just by observing living systems even
> if you don't understand the details of how it happens.

That is to suppose that because the laws of physics
are involved, they therefore must be the sole and
sufficient cause.

> > > > And yet you think, without a shadow of doubt, that this is
> > > > a 'rational' position to the extent that anyone who doubts
> > > > it, and realises that there must be a designer behind it
> > > > all, is to be regarded, without the SLIGHTEST shadow of
> > > > a doubt,  as indulging in no more than irrational, superstitious
> > > > fantasy. Such one-sided, groundless overconfidence is
> > > > truly mind boggling!
>
> Once the view you express was a natural view to take
> just as a flat earth was a natural view to take. However
> as we learnt the real causes behind the natural world
> the idea of a designer was pushed all the way back to
> the designing the Universe after which it could run all
> by itself.

We didn't learn the real causes. The suppose 'real cause'
is just a theory, not a fact. People always mix up evidence
and theory in science. Evidence, in science, is fact, but
theory is not itself fact just because it tries to interpret facts.
People never seem to be able to grasp that truth, and talk
as if a theory is a fact just because it attempts to
interpret something factual.

Alen

[Christopher A. Lee]

On Tue, 14 May 2013 08:14:40 -0700 (PDT), alen <al...@westserv.net.au>
wrote:

>On May 14, 7:36 pm, Attila <<procho...@here.now> wrote:
>> On Mon, 13 May 2013 08:28:16 -0700 (PDT), alen <al...@westserv.net.au>
>> in alt.abortion with message-id
>> <ee661886-72db-4659-9aa8-f0823e5fd...@d8g2000pbe.googlegroups.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >Because the simple, known forces of physics cannot
>> >explain the existence of the huge number of different,
>> >complex, living beings. They can produce nothing more
>> >than some eventual, simple chemical equilibrium. This
>> >leaves no other option than to conclude that there
>> >MUST be the influence of a designer on nature, in order
>> >to explain what the laws of physics can never be
>> >sufficient to explain.

Liar.

>> Nonsense.  I have seen nothing that supports the existence of any
>> 'designer' and that tired old argument that there must be one because
>> the universe is complex is ridiculous.
>
>There is nothing 'tired' or ridiculous about it.

Liar.

>The invention of a purely theoretical concept of
>random mutation and natural selection is assumed
>to work just because it is obscure and unclear,
>and this allows people to just BELIEVE it works.

Liar.

The mechanisms that cause evolution are well understood.

The genetic mutations are random, but they are filtered by natural
selection.

>But a random principle does not and cannot
>produce anything positive and is far too powerfully
>destructive to be controlled by any selection
>principle. Evolutionary evidence is factual, but
>the theory invented to interpret it is pure fantasy.

Liar.

The rigorously researched and well understood mechanisms that cause
evolution have led to whole new sciences and technologies that
wouldn't even exist let alone work if they were the fantasy you lie
about.

Eg genetics and its spinoff technologies like forensic DNA
identification, biotech without which modern medicine and agriculture
would be different, etc.

>Alen

Get an education.

[Dreamer In Colore]

On Tue, 14 May 2013 08:31:29 -0700 (PDT), alen <al...@westserv.net.au>

Connections and interactions that yield evolutionary advantage are the
ones that are maintained in subsequent generations. That's the
"selection principle" to which you refer.

>> >> > And yet you think, without a shadow of doubt, that this is
>> >> > a 'rational' position to the extent that anyone who doubts
>> >> > it, and realises that there must be a designer behind it
>> >> > all, is to be regarded, without the SLIGHTEST shadow of
>> >> > a doubt, as indulging in no more than irrational, superstitious
>> >> > fantasy. Such one-sided, groundless overconfidence is
>> >> > truly mind boggling!
>>
>> >> That complex systems can evolve is indeed mind
>> >> boggling but that doesn't make in impossible.
>>
>> >It does if EVERY concept of a designer is excluded.
>>
>> No, Alen. Complicated systems not only have evolved in the past, but
>> continue to evolve even now. A simple example would be the colour
>> changes in moths in industrial England. Changing colour pigmentation
>> systems is non-trivial, and this has happened in response to the
>> increase in pollution levels from coal-burning plants.
>
>If colour pigmentation changes were totally random, a
>single, successful pigmentation result would not be
>able to persist, since continuing random alterations
>would not allow the selection principle to work, because
>no pigmentation would ever display any stability from
>one moth to the next. The moths must therefore also
>have a property that resists or prevents or severely
>restricts changes, in order for a successful change to
>remain stable.
>

The _surviving_ moths' colour pigmentation changes are due to
evolutionary advantage. The moths whose colour pigmentation didn't
occur in a favourable way died out.

The changes aren't instant. They occur with successive generations,
and the generations that don't have favourable colouration die out.
There's no property that resists or prevents or restricts changes
other than death.

>> That complicated system didn't require a designer... it required
>> evolutionary theory, which explains the phenomenon very well, without
>> resorting to a supernatural entity.
>>
>> You're continuing to hold an opinion concerning an entity for which
>> you have no supporting evidence: intelligent design is neither
>> intelligent, nor particularly good evidence for either efficient or
>> beautiful design.
>>
>> Cheers,
>> Dreamer
>> AA 2306
>
>Random mutation and natural selection is a fantasy
>which people can believe only because its working is
>obscure and unclear. The only intelligent theory to
>explain evolution would be designed mutation and
>natural selection.
>

Natural selection is simple, Alen. Successive generations of a given
species incorporate all of the evolutionary advantages of prior
generations, together with new ones that occur in the current
generation due to genetics.

This is second-year university level biology, with no supernatural
entity required. I suggest you open up a decent textbook and read a
little, because it seems to me that when you say "the only intelligent
theory to explain evolution would be designed mutation" is wilful
ignorance of what actually exists in the real world.

Cheers,
Dreamer
AA 2306

[casey]

On 14 May, 08:31, alen <al...@westserv.net.au> wrote:
> On May 14, 4:15 am, Dreamer In Colore <dreamerincol...@hotmail.com>
> wrote:

> [...]

> If untold numbers of connections and interactions
> were occurring randomly, the result would be nothing
> but chaos. No selection principle would be able
> to control such chaos in order to build a working
> organism out of them

An analogy with evolution because it involves
random variation and selection is learning.

An important point to make is that over time
non-random trials may be selected for.

TD-Gammon used a network of artificial neurons
to value a backgammon game and the connections
were random to start with. Selective feedback
from a win/loss would strengthen or weaken these
connections. After thousands of games the chaos
of these connections became a working network that
was able to play backgammon against the best
players. So your suggestion that selection cannot
not bring order to chaos is not true.

> Random mutation and natural selection is a fantasy
> which people can believe only because its working is
> obscure and unclear.

On the contrary the principles as to how it works are
very clear and have been used in examples like the
learning program I outlined above.

> The only intelligent theory to explain evolution would
> be designed mutation and natural selection.

"Designed mutation" doesn't make sense. The "design"
of the above network was done by random variations
and selection. Design is an act of selection.


>
> Alen

[Free Lunch]

On Tue, 14 May 2013 05:50:34 -0500, duke <duckg...@cox.net> wrote in
alt.atheism:

>On Mon, 13 May 2013 17:24:40 -0500, Free Lunch <lu...@nofreelunch.us> wrote:
>
>>It seems to me that a god is far more improbable than nature.
>
>What is "nature_al" if not from God?

If your god is nothing but another name for nature.

[Jeanne Douglas]

In article <1r54p8pv8m5nubl5o...@4ax.com>,

duke <duckg...@cox.net> wrote:

> >There *is* no designer other than evolution.
>
> Where does evolution live? Also, are you saying you are a complete accident?

Why would you ask such a silly question. NOBODY thinks evolution is an
accident.

--

JD

"Osama Bin Laden is dead and GM is alive."--VP Joseph Biden

[Silen...@hotmail.com]

On Tue, 14 May 2013 05:51:48 -0500, duke <duckg...@cox.net> wrote:

>On Mon, 13 May 2013 19:15:31 -0400, Silen...@hotmail.com wrote:
>
>>On Mon, 13 May 2013 06:40:09 -0500, duke <duckg...@cox.net> wrote:
>>
>>>On Sun, 12 May 2013 22:37:33 -0400, Stanislaus Stewart <me...@att.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>> I won't go so far as to say that no one, nothing, is responsible for
>>>>existence. Something is, but we know absolutely nothing about
>>>>him/her/it. What I am saying is, it ain't any of the 'gods in the
>>>>religious books.
>>>
>>>Really.
>
>>Yes, really, Dook.
>>>Please reveal to me one (1) fact that supports that comment.
>>-All- facts support that comment, Dook.
>
>Then your revealing one (1) should be simple.

The Earth is roughly 4.7 billion years old, instead of the 9,000 the
Bible implies.

Done.

Heh heh...

Lying racist rightard socialists...

Batshit crazy and dogshit stupid, every single last one of you.

[Silen...@hotmail.com]

On Tue, 14 May 2013 05:53:56 -0500, duke <duckg...@cox.net> wrote:

>On Mon, 13 May 2013 18:50:59 -0800, linuxgal <linu...@cleanposts.com> wrote:
>
>>duke wrote:
>>> I'm extremely smarter than you.
>>
>>'Nuff said.
>
>I've been saying that for a long time.

You've been lying for a long time too, Dook.

Heh heh...

Lying racist rightard socialists...

Batshit crazy and dogshit stupid, every single last one of you.



>

[nature bats last]

On May 13, 4:36 am, duke <duckgumb...@cox.net> wrote:
> On Sun, 12 May 2013 09:49:31 -0500, Uncle Vic <so...@noway.com> wrote:
> >Stanislaus Stewart <me...@att.net> wrote innews:kmmhtl$3li$1@dont-
> >email.me:
>

> >>    To me death is just a transition from,one phase of existence to
> >> another, of which we know NOTHING, therefore, no evidence.
>

;

> >Therefore it's just a big dumb guess.

;
> Actually, God sent Jesus specifically to give us a heads up on the existence of
> the heavenly kingdom.

And then provided virtually no details about this
"heavenly kingdom". Let alone why anyone would want to
end up there.

(note: saying "Well, at least it's better than hell" is
like saying "At least the slums of Mumbai are better
than the slums of Calcutta". Not a lot of incentives
in that)

>  Go ahead, fool.  Follow satan all you want.
>

[nature bats last]

On May 13, 4:36 am, duke <duckgumb...@cox.net> wrote:
> On Sun, 12 May 2013 09:49:31 -0500, Uncle Vic <so...@noway.com> wrote:
> >Stanislaus Stewart <me...@att.net> wrote innews:kmmhtl$3li$1@dont-
> >email.me:
>
> >>    To me death is just a transition from,one phase of existence to
> >> another, of which we know NOTHING, therefore, no evidence.


;
> >Therefore it's just a big dumb guess.

;
> Actually, God sent Jesus specifically to give us a heads up on the existence of
> the heavenly kingdom.

You talking about this place?


"And out of the throne proceeded lightnings and
thunderings and voices: and there were seven lamps
of fire burning before the throne, which are the
seven Spirits of God.

And before the throne there was a sea of glass like
unto crystal: and in the midst of the throne, and
round about the throne, were four beasts full of
eyes before and behind.

And the first beast was like a lion, and the second
beast like a calf, and the third beast had a face
as a man, and the fourth beast was like a flying
eagle.

And the four beasts had each of them six wings
about him; and they were full of eyes within: and
they rest not day and night, saying, Holy, holy,
holy, Lord God Almighty, which was, and is, and is
to come. "

Yeah, that sounds like a real fun place to spend
eternity.

(I'm betting Dook never knew that God
has seven spirits)

NBL

[nature bats last]

On May 13, 11:14 am, duke <duckgumb...@cox.net> wrote:
> On Mon, 13 May 2013 12:51:13 -0500, Uncle Vic <so...@noway.com> wrote:
> >duke <duckgumb...@cox.net> wrote in
> >news:suj1p8puvarm8o4ts...@4ax.com:

>
> >> On Sun, 12 May 2013 09:49:31 -0500, Uncle Vic <so...@noway.com> wrote:
>
> >>>Stanislaus Stewart <me...@att.net> wrote innews:kmmhtl$3li$1@dont-
> >>>email.me:
>
> >>>>    To me death is just a transition from,one phase of existence to
> >>>> another, of which we know NOTHING, therefore, no evidence.
>
> >>>Therefore it's just a big dumb guess.
>
> >> Actually, God sent Jesus specifically to give us a heads up on the

> >> existence of the heavenly kingdom.  Go ahead, fool.  Follow satan all
> >> you want.
;
> >All made-up characters in a grossly out-dated myth. Smart people can tell
> >the difference between your dumb fantasy and reality. What's holding you
> >back?

;

> I'm extremely smarter than you.

Actual smart people do not commit linguistic atrocities
such as "I'm extremely smarter".

Seriously.


NBL

[duke]

On Tue, 14 May 2013 17:05:47 -0700, Jeanne Douglas <hlwd...@NOSPAMgmail.com>
wrote:

>In article <1r54p8pv8m5nubl5o...@4ax.com>,
> duke <duckg...@cox.net> wrote:
>
>> >There *is* no designer other than evolution.
>>
>> Where does evolution live? Also, are you saying you are a complete accident?
>
>Why would you ask such a silly question. NOBODY thinks evolution is an
>accident.

YOU do. Just think, you had a better than even odds of being a tree.

[duke]

I talk WITH God every day. Do you talk WITH a tree ever day, tree hugger?
Heeheehee.

[duke]

On Tue, 14 May 2013 20:06:24 -0400, Silen...@hotmail.com wrote:

>On Tue, 14 May 2013 05:51:48 -0500, duke <duckg...@cox.net> wrote:
>>On Mon, 13 May 2013 19:15:31 -0400, Silen...@hotmail.com wrote:
>>>On Mon, 13 May 2013 06:40:09 -0500, duke <duckg...@cox.net> wrote:
>>>>On Sun, 12 May 2013 22:37:33 -0400, Stanislaus Stewart <me...@att.net> wrote:

>>>>Please reveal to me one (1) fact that supports that comment.
>>>-All- facts support that comment, Dook.

>>Then your revealing one (1) should be simple.
>The Earth is roughly 4.7 billion years old, instead of the 9,000 the
>Bible implies.

There is exactly nothing in the bible that implies or suggests 9000 years
(actually 6000 years) as the age of the earth.

Heeheehee.

Are you asking for stani steward now?

[duke]

On Tue, 14 May 2013 21:35:38 -0700 (PDT), nature bats last <seqk...@gmail.com>
wrote:

>On May 13, 4:36 am, duke <duckgumb...@cox.net> wrote:
>> On Sun, 12 May 2013 09:49:31 -0500, Uncle Vic <so...@noway.com> wrote:
>> >Stanislaus Stewart <me...@att.net> wrote innews:kmmhtl$3li$1@dont-
>> >email.me:

>> >>    To me death is just a transition from,one phase of existence to
>> >> another, of which we know NOTHING, therefore, no evidence.
>> >Therefore it's just a big dumb guess.

>> Actually, God sent Jesus specifically to give us a heads up on the existence of
>> the heavenly kingdom.

>And then provided virtually no details about this
>"heavenly kingdom". Let alone why anyone would want to
>end up there.

He spoke of the heavenly kingdom on a regular basis as seen in the scriptures.
And he made the choice very simple.

[duke]

On Tue, 14 May 2013 21:36:54 -0700 (PDT), nature bats last <seqk...@gmail.com>
wrote:

>> Actually, God sent Jesus specifically to give us a heads up on the existence of
>> the heavenly kingdom.
>You talking about this place?

Yes, in apocalyptic language as traditional in Revelations..

> "And out of the throne proceeded lightnings and
> thunderings and voices: and there were seven lamps
> of fire burning before the throne, which are the
> seven Spirits of God.
>
> And before the throne there was a sea of glass like
> unto crystal: and in the midst of the throne, and
> round about the throne, were four beasts full of
> eyes before and behind.
>
> And the first beast was like a lion, and the second
> beast like a calf, and the third beast had a face
> as a man, and the fourth beast was like a flying
> eagle.
>
> And the four beasts had each of them six wings
> about him; and they were full of eyes within: and
> they rest not day and night, saying, Holy, holy,
> holy, Lord God Almighty, which was, and is, and is
> to come. "
>
>Yeah, that sounds like a real fun place to spend
>eternity.
>
>(I'm betting Dook never knew that God
>has seven spirits)

Heehehee.

>NBL

[duke]

On Mon, 13 May 2013 20:51:09 -0700 (PDT), casey <jgkj...@yahoo.com.au> wrote:

>And yet there is nothing we know about the molecules
>of living things that aren't subject to the laws of physics
>which kind of flags that the laws are sufficient to lead
>to complex dynamic living systems. You can actually
>watch it happen just by observing living systems even
>if you don't understand the details of how it happens.

Thanks be to God.

[duke]

On Tue, 14 May 2013 21:42:15 -0700 (PDT), nature bats last <seqk...@gmail.com>
wrote:

>On May 13, 11:14�am, duke <duckgumb...@cox.net> wrote:
>> On Mon, 13 May 2013 12:51:13 -0500, Uncle Vic <so...@noway.com> wrote:
>> >duke <duckgumb...@cox.net> wrote in
>> >news:suj1p8puvarm8o4ts...@4ax.com:
>>
>> >> On Sun, 12 May 2013 09:49:31 -0500, Uncle Vic <so...@noway.com> wrote:
>>
>> >>>Stanislaus Stewart <me...@att.net> wrote innews:kmmhtl$3li$1@dont-
>> >>>email.me:
>>
>> >>>> � �To me death is just a transition from,one phase of existence to
>> >>>> another, of which we know NOTHING, therefore, no evidence.
>>
>> >>>Therefore it's just a big dumb guess.
>>
>> >> Actually, God sent Jesus specifically to give us a heads up on the
>> >> existence of the heavenly kingdom. �Go ahead, fool. �Follow satan all
>> >> you want.
>;
>> >All made-up characters in a grossly out-dated myth. Smart people can tell
>> >the difference between your dumb fantasy and reality. What's holding you
>> >back?
>
>;
>> I'm extremely smarter than you.
>
>Actual smart people do not commit linguistic atrocities
>such as "I'm extremely smarter".
>
>Seriously.

I can't hide from the truth. I could have said "you smart, I'm extremely
smarter than you". Heeheehee.

[alen]

On May 15, 5:39 am, Dreamer In Colore <dreamerincol...@hotmail.com>
wrote:

> On Tue, 14 May 2013 08:31:29 -0700 (PDT), alen <al...@westserv.net.au>
> wrote:
>

[...]

> >If colour pigmentation changes were totally random, a
> >single, successful pigmentation result would not be
> >able to persist, since continuing random alterations
> >would not allow the selection principle to work, because
> >no pigmentation would ever display any stability from
> >one moth to the next. The moths must therefore also
> >have a property that resists or prevents or severely
> >restricts changes, in order for a successful change to
> >remain stable.
>
> The _surviving_ moths' colour pigmentation changes are due to
> evolutionary advantage. The moths whose colour pigmentation didn't
> occur in a favourable way died out.
>
> The changes aren't instant. They occur with successive generations,
> and the generations that don't have favourable colouration die out.
> There's no property that resists or prevents or restricts changes
> other than death.

This is nothing but a mirage in which something
that cannot work looks as if it works.

Any pigmentation established by selection would
be once again randomly mutated out of existence.
The computer binary description of colours uses
the hex number ffffff, which provides more than
16 million colours. If the moth pigmentation was
randomly mutating, there would be only a tiny fraction
of moths with a 'favourable' pigmentation. Since the
surviving moths would have a reduced population, and
they, in turn would continue to mutate randomly, only
a tiny fraction of their population would, in turn, survive
so that, in the end, no moths would be left. If the
mutations themselves are not designed to resist
random mutations of the successful pigmentation, then
it cannot survive.

Ir is too simple to be credible. Even intelligent
scientists are completely fooled by it ("thinking
themselves to be wise, they became fools")
You can't 'incorporate' the 'evolutionary advantages'
of something in which the advantages continue to
be randomly mutated and destroyed. You can't
'successfully select', as permanent, a property
which is totally unstable because of continuing
random alterations. The whole theory is pure,
unworkable illusion.

Alen

[alen]

On May 15, 5:53 am, casey <jgkjca...@yahoo.com.au> wrote:
> On 14 May, 08:31, alen <al...@westserv.net.au> wrote:
>
> > On May 14, 4:15 am, Dreamer In Colore <dreamerincol...@hotmail.com>
> > wrote:
> > [...]
> > If untold numbers of connections and interactions
> > were occurring randomly, the result would be nothing
> > but chaos. No selection principle would be able
> > to control such chaos in order to build a working
> > organism out of them
>
> An analogy with evolution because it involves
> random variation and selection is learning.
>
> An important point to make is that over time
> non-random trials may be selected for.
>
> TD-Gammon used a network of artificial neurons
> to value a backgammon game and the connections
> were random to start with. Selective feedback
> from a win/loss would strengthen or weaken these
> connections. After thousands of games the chaos
> of these connections became a working network that
> was able to play backgammon against the best
> players. So your suggestion that selection cannot
> not bring order to chaos is not true.

Selection can bring order only if it excludes any
further random changes. That means that selection
must eliminate the random mutations themselves.
The game connections you mention are really
'designed' to be 'strengthened'. That is not a simple
external selection process, since this 'strengthening'
is a designed interference with the nature of the
connections themselves (mutations themselves are
progressively restricted by a designed bias towards
'success', as understood by the designer of this
'evolution'.

> > Random mutation and natural selection is a fantasy
> > which people can believe only because its working is
> > obscure and unclear.
>
> On the contrary the principles as to how it works are
> very clear and have been used in examples like the
> learning program I outlined above.
>
> > The only intelligent theory to explain evolution would
> > be designed mutation and natural selection.
>
> "Designed mutation" doesn't make sense. The "design"
> of the above network was done by random variations
> and selection. Design is an act of selection.

That is merely an inaccurate description that
makes the process appear as if it is less designed
than it really is

Alen

[Silen...@hotmail.com]

On Wed, 15 May 2013 06:23:06 -0500, duke <duckg...@cox.net> wrote:

>On Tue, 14 May 2013 20:06:24 -0400, Silen...@hotmail.com wrote:
>
>>On Tue, 14 May 2013 05:51:48 -0500, duke <duckg...@cox.net> wrote:
>>>On Mon, 13 May 2013 19:15:31 -0400, Silen...@hotmail.com wrote:
>>>>On Mon, 13 May 2013 06:40:09 -0500, duke <duckg...@cox.net> wrote:
>>>>>On Sun, 12 May 2013 22:37:33 -0400, Stanislaus Stewart <me...@att.net> wrote:
>
>>>>>Please reveal to me one (1) fact that supports that comment.
>>>>-All- facts support that comment, Dook.
>
>>>Then your revealing one (1) should be simple.
>>The Earth is roughly 4.7 billion years old, instead of the 9,000 the
>>Bible implies.
>
>There is exactly nothing in the bible that implies or suggests 9000 years
>(actually 6000 years) as the age of the earth.

Many, many of your fellow theists disagree with your claim, Dook.

The Bible states how long it took to create the earth and provides a
unbroken chain of people who've lived, and their ages, up to times
that have known dates, allowing for the calculation.

Heh heh...

Lying racist rightard socialists...

Batshit crazy and dogshit stupid, every single last one of you.





>

[Dreamer In Colore]

On Wed, 15 May 2013 08:16:55 -0700 (PDT), alen <al...@westserv.net.au>

You're predicating your argument on faulty math.

The moth pigmentation doesn't "randomly" mutate among 16 million
colours. Here's how it works: you first start with a set of moths that
is brown, with shades of brown along the entire continuum of hues and
shades. There will be lots of variation there, even though it's not
immediately obvious because you can't tell the difference between
FFFFFF and FFFFFE.

Now, over time, pollution enters the air, and the moths that tend to
have lighter pigmentations are going to survive better than the darker
ones because they'll fit in better with the polluted air.

Over time, those dark moths die out. The lighter coloured ones thrive.
Not particularly complicated to describe, and is in fact exactly how
it happens.

You can even do this in the lab with fruit flies because the genetics
are simple and the reproductive rates are wicked fast.

There's no "resisting random mutations of the successful
pigmentations" at all.

You don't want to believe it because you feel that a supernatural
creator has more gravitas, or is somehow more credible for you.

The fact remains that creatures retain advantages as long as they are
necessary, and you can see this in the evolution of things like bat
wings. Why else would bats retain claws in the middle joints of their
"fingers" if they have already gained the ability to fly?

The whole theory is admirably supported with plenty of physical
evidence. Your theory is supported by nothing but wishful thinking.

Cheers,
Dreamer
AA 2306

[Budikka666]

Creationists have consistently RAN from supporting their claim that we
have a soul:
http://tinyurl.com/4mrd32d
http://tinyurl.com/4bbwf4v
Thereby admitting that they have no evidence whatsoever for one.

http://www.google.com/url?sa=D&q=http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/80beats/2011/11/14/despite-debilitating-memory-loss-an-amnesic-cellist-learns-and-remembers-music/&usg=AFQjCNE486JhNmPaIB6Dx0jiDJBXYAsYGg

So this guy has his medial temporal lobes - brain structures important
in remembering facts and events - destroyed because of an infection
(an infection the creationists must claim was deliberately and
purposefully created by their god), so he cannot recall his loved
ones, he cannot remember the joys of his life, he cannot remember his
sins to ask forgiveness for them, he cannot even remember which god he
prayed too, but he can remember and learn music.

So where's his soul?

Nowhere.

Theism loses. Again.

Budikka

[Jeanne Douglas]

In article <svq6p8hscl99h1c1t...@4ax.com>,

duke <duckg...@cox.net> wrote:

> On Tue, 14 May 2013 17:05:47 -0700, Jeanne Douglas <hlwd...@NOSPAMgmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> >In article <1r54p8pv8m5nubl5o...@4ax.com>,
> > duke <duckg...@cox.net> wrote:
> >
> >> >There *is* no designer other than evolution.
> >>
> >> Where does evolution live? Also, are you saying you are a complete
> >> accident?
> >
> >Why would you ask such a silly question. NOBODY thinks evolution is an
> >accident.
>
> YOU do.

Of course I don't. Because I know better.

> Just think, you had a better than even odds of being a tree.

How would my mother have given birth to a tree?

[casey]

You don't seem to understand how it works.

> The game connections you mention are really
> 'designed' to be 'strengthened'. That is not a simple
> external selection process, since this 'strengthening'
> is a designed interference with the nature of the
> connections themselves (mutations themselves are
> progressively restricted by a designed bias towards
> 'success', as understood by the designer of this
> 'evolution'.

Success as "understood" by evolution is reproductive
success.

> > > Random mutation and natural selection is a fantasy
> > > which people can believe only because its working is
> > > obscure and unclear.
> >
> > On the contrary the principles as to how it works are
> > very clear and have been used in examples like the
> > learning program I outlined above.
>
> > > The only intelligent theory to explain evolution would
> > > be designed mutation and natural selection.
>
> > "Designed mutation" doesn't make sense. The "design"
> > of the above network was done by random variations
> > and selection. Design is an act of selection.
>
> That is merely an inaccurate description that
> makes the process appear as if it is less designed
> than it really is

??


>
> Alen

[nature bats last]

The evolutionary algorithm is one which has wide
application and is not limited just to the evolution of
organisms -- one example is the cellular arm of the
immune system, which employs exactly the same algorithm
in evolving successful antigen recognition sites -- the
algorithm itself is quite simple:


1) generate a random bunch of thingies.

2) use some selection process to ignore those not
fitting some criterion, and strongly amplify those
the which do satisfy the criterion.

3) Rinse, repeat.


Alen ignores the last half of step two, where a
successful variation (not limited just to simple
mutations, incidentally) can be amplified to produce
millions or billions of carriers.

He also, while paying lip service to the "digital"
picture of heredity, actually evokes instead the 19th century,
"drop of ink in a swimming pool" pre-Medellian model of
heredity, that which caused Darwin such distress.

In that model of heredity a successful variation can
indeed be "diluted out of existence". Not nearly so
easy in the digital model, when the carriers may
number in the millions or billions -- and as long as a
single carrier remains in the pool, the trait can re-
emerge when conditions change and it becomes
beneficial.

Which is precisely why, although antibiotic resistance
can take decades to evolve, once it appers, trying to
counter by taking the drug out use, and continuing that
restraint for countless generations of bacteria will not work --
as long as an infinitesimal fraction of the gene pool
remembers the gene for antibiotic resistance, it will
reappear like a shot if the drug is re-introduced.

Alen further paints a picture of genomes bombarded by a
relentless storm of mutations, where in fact mutations
are relatively rare, more often than not neutral, and
are constantly being repaired by the cell's DNA repair
enzymes.

I'll also note that Alen's arguments are all of the
form:

You can't 'successfully select', as permanent, a
property which is totally unstable because of
continuing random alterations.

In other words: flat assertations with no further
evidence attached. Contrast this with field of
population genetics, which has been dealing with such
issues on a mathematical, quantitave basis for the
better part of a century now.

Are their models paragons of perfection? No
Are they preferable to the qualitative
speculations of a layman?

Me, I'll go with the latter.

NBL

[nature bats last]

On May 15, 4:26 am, duke <duckgumb...@cox.net> wrote:
> On Tue, 14 May 2013 21:35:38 -0700 (PDT), nature bats last <seqkl...@gmail.com>

> wrote:
>
> >On May 13, 4:36 am, duke <duckgumb...@cox.net> wrote:
> >> On Sun, 12 May 2013 09:49:31 -0500, Uncle Vic <so...@noway.com> wrote:
> >> >Stanislaus Stewart <me...@att.net> wrote innews:kmmhtl$3li$1@dont-
> >> >email.me:
> >> >>    To me death is just a transition from,one phase of existence to
> >> >> another, of which we know NOTHING, therefore, no evidence.
> >> >Therefore it's just a big dumb guess.
;
> >> Actually, God sent Jesus specifically to give us a heads up on the existence of
> >> the heavenly kingdom.

;
> >And then provided virtually no details about this
> >"heavenly kingdom". Let alone why anyone would want to
> >end up there.

;
> He spoke of the heavenly kingdom on a regular basis as seen in the scriptures.

And then provided virtually no details about this
"heavenly kingdom".

No? Got a bunch of details Jesus let spill about what
this "Heaven" is like?

Cool! -- put `em right here:

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.


NBL

[Jeanne Douglas]

In article <cer6p89uun2adofo0...@4ax.com>,

duke <duckg...@cox.net> wrote:

> On Tue, 14 May 2013 17:19:26 -0500, Free Lunch <lu...@nofreelunch.us> wrote:
>
> >On Tue, 14 May 2013 05:50:34 -0500, duke <duckg...@cox.net> wrote in
> >alt.atheism:
> >
> >>On Mon, 13 May 2013 17:24:40 -0500, Free Lunch <lu...@nofreelunch.us> wrote:
> >>
> >>>It seems to me that a god is far more improbable than nature.
> >>
> >>What is "nature_al" if not from God?
> >
> >If your god is nothing but another name for nature.
>
> I talk WITH God every day. Do you talk WITH a tree ever day, tree hugger?
> Heeheehee.

Of course he doesn't. He's not delusional.

[duke]

On Mon, 13 May 2013 17:24:40 -0500, Free Lunch <lu...@nofreelunch.us> wrote:

>It seems to me that a god is far more improbable than nature.

So where does "nature" come from if not from God?

[duke]

On Wed, 15 May 2013 18:51:08 -0400, Silen...@hotmail.com wrote:

>>>>Then your revealing one (1) should be simple.
>>>The Earth is roughly 4.7 billion years old, instead of the 9,000 the
>>>Bible implies.
>>
>>There is exactly nothing in the bible that implies or suggests 9000 years
>>(actually 6000 years) as the age of the earth.
>
>Many, many of your fellow theists disagree with your claim, Dook.

Yet there is zero reference in the bible for a 6000 year old earth.

>The Bible states how long it took to create the earth and provides a
>unbroken chain of people who've lived, and their ages, up to times
>that have known dates, allowing for the calculation.

Unbroken - haahaahaa.

[duke]

On Wed, 15 May 2013 19:12:44 -0700 (PDT), nature bats last <seqk...@gmail.com>
wrote:

>> He spoke of the heavenly kingdom on a regular basis as seen in the scriptures.

>And then provided virtually no details about this
>"heavenly kingdom".

He told us what it would be like. And he was very dramatic as to what the
alternative would be like.

[duke]

On Wed, 15 May 2013 17:03:46 -0700, Jeanne Douglas <hlwd...@NOSPAMgmail.com>

wrote:

>In article <svq6p8hscl99h1c1t...@4ax.com>,
> duke <duckg...@cox.net> wrote:
>
>> On Tue, 14 May 2013 17:05:47 -0700, Jeanne Douglas <hlwd...@NOSPAMgmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >In article <1r54p8pv8m5nubl5o...@4ax.com>,
>> > duke <duckg...@cox.net> wrote:
>> >
>> >> >There *is* no designer other than evolution.
>> >>
>> >> Where does evolution live? Also, are you saying you are a complete
>> >> accident?
>> >
>> >Why would you ask such a silly question. NOBODY thinks evolution is an
>> >accident.
>>
>> YOU do.
>
>Of course I don't. Because I know better.

Then you can offer an explanation for the universe "evolving" from nothing.

[Uncle Vic]

duke <duckg...@cox.net> wrote in
news:hff9p89k19f57sqdt...@4ax.com:

> On Wed, 15 May 2013 19:12:44 -0700 (PDT), nature bats last
> <seqk...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>> He spoke of the heavenly kingdom on a regular basis as seen in the
>>> scriptures.
>
>>And then provided virtually no details about this
>>"heavenly kingdom".
>
> He told us what it would be like. And he was very dramatic as to what
> the alternative would be like.
>

What if there was no hell? Would you still be a believer?

--
Uncle Vic
aa# 2011
BAAWA

AA Quotemeister

Visit my You Tube Channel!
http://www.youtube.com/user/Vicman6311?feature=mhee

[Uncle Vic]

nature bats last <seqk...@gmail.com> wrote in
news:07d2d2bf-f54c-4740...@d8g2000pbe.googlegroups.com:

Sounds like Revelation, more of a play-by-play for a holy acid trip than
a testimonial.

[alen]

On May 16, 9:08 am, Dreamer In Colore <dreamerincol...@hotmail.com>

Why not? The above scenario can work only because
the mutations are not really random. The fact that the
above process works says nothing about the underlying
mutations not being designed.

Wrong guess!

> The fact remains that creatures retain advantages as long as they are
> necessary, and you can see this in the evolution of things like bat
> wings. Why else would bats retain claws in the middle joints of their
> "fingers" if they have already gained the ability to fly?
>
> The whole theory is admirably supported with plenty of physical
> evidence. Your theory is supported by nothing but wishful thinking.
>
> Cheers,
> Dreamer
> AA 2306

Sure they retain advantages, but they can do so only
because they are not subject to any destructive
randomising effect. It must be the case that organisms
are designed to resist most mutations, especially
destructive ones and favour constructive ones.
That is, mutation possibilities are formed with an
intrinsic bias - i.e. they are non-random mutations. You
can't prove mutations are random - it is merely a theoretical
supposition which would, in fact, destroy the theory.

Alen

[alen]

Ha - so we don't really have an underlying random
mutation principle at all! Mutations are curtailed,
and negative ones are 'repaired'. Those are features
of design which make the mutations non-random.

That is my point. I don't argue at all that the selection
processes don't work. You can detail any number of
them you like. Such descriptions, however, never
amount to a proof that the mutations themselves
are random - rather they indicate the contrary.

> I'll also note that Alen's arguments are all of the
> form:
>
>   You can't 'successfully select', as permanent, a
>   property which is totally unstable because of
>   continuing random alterations.
>
> In other words: flat assertations with no further
> evidence attached.  Contrast this with field of
> population genetics, which has been dealing with such
> issues on a mathematical, quantitave basis for the
> better part of a century now.

The random mutation principle is pure assertion,
and an unworkable one at that.

Alen

[PATRICK]

On Thu, 16 May 2013 09:03:23 -0500, Uncle Vic <so...@noway.com> wrote:

>duke <duckg...@cox.net> wrote in
>news:hff9p89k19f57sqdt...@4ax.com:
>
>> On Wed, 15 May 2013 19:12:44 -0700 (PDT), nature bats last
>> <seqk...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>> He spoke of the heavenly kingdom on a regular basis as seen in the
>>>> scriptures.
>>
>>>And then provided virtually no details about this
>>>"heavenly kingdom".
>>
>> He told us what it would be like. And he was very dramatic as to what
>> the alternative would be like.
>>
>
>What if there was no hell? Would you still be a believer?

Only if you promised to be nice.

[Jeanne Douglas]

In article <f1k9p8dh766kq7v2s...@4ax.com>,

duke <duckg...@cox.net> wrote:

> On Wed, 15 May 2013 17:03:46 -0700, Jeanne Douglas <hlwd...@NOSPAMgmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> >In article <svq6p8hscl99h1c1t...@4ax.com>,
> > duke <duckg...@cox.net> wrote:
> >
> >> On Tue, 14 May 2013 17:05:47 -0700, Jeanne Douglas
> >> <hlwd...@NOSPAMgmail.com>
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >> >In article <1r54p8pv8m5nubl5o...@4ax.com>,
> >> > duke <duckg...@cox.net> wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> >There *is* no designer other than evolution.
> >> >>
> >> >> Where does evolution live? Also, are you saying you are a complete
> >> >> accident?
> >> >
> >> >Why would you ask such a silly question. NOBODY thinks evolution is an
> >> >accident.
> >>
> >> YOU do.
> >
> >Of course I don't. Because I know better.
>
> Then you can offer an explanation for the universe "evolving" from nothing.

Why would I explain your strawman?

NOBODY claims the universe "evolved" from nothing.

[Smiler]

> Sure they retain advantages, but they can do so only because they are not
> subject to any destructive randomising effect. It must be the case that
> organisms are designed to resist most mutations, especially destructive
> ones and favour constructive ones.

No design needed to resist destructive mutations. Why don't we see tribes
of Down's syndrome (a destructive mutation) people? Because, until modern
medicine stepped in, Down's syndrome children usually DIED before reaching
puberty, therefore, they were unable to breed.

In evolution, the ability to run from your predator faster than the
rest of your kind is an advantage. Who is the predator going to catch,
you or other, slower, members of your kind? Who is more likely to breed,
you or dead and eaten members of your kind? No design is needed to favour
successful mutations and disfavour unsuccessful mutations.

> That is, mutation possibilities are
> formed with an intrinsic bias - i.e. they are non-random mutations. You
> can't prove mutations are random - it is merely a theoretical supposition
> which would, in fact, destroy the theory.

You can't prove they are NOT random.

--
Smiler,

The godless one. a.a.# 2279

All gods are tailored to order. They're made to

exactly fit the prejudices of their believers.

[Smiler]

On Thu, 16 May 2013 06:04:17 -0500, duke wrote:

> On Mon, 13 May 2013 17:24:40 -0500, Free Lunch <lu...@nofreelunch.us>
> wrote:
>
>>It seems to me that a god is far more improbable than nature.
>
> So where does "nature" come from if not from God?
>

Nature just is, much like your supposed god character.

>
> The dukester, Repellent Wannabe-Christian
>
> ********* You simply can't fix puke's stupid.
> ********************************************

[Free Lunch]

On Thu, 16 May 2013 06:07:18 -0500, duke <duckg...@cox.net> wrote in
alt.atheism:

>On Wed, 15 May 2013 18:51:08 -0400, Silen...@hotmail.com wrote:
>
>>>>>Then your revealing one (1) should be simple.
>>>>The Earth is roughly 4.7 billion years old, instead of the 9,000 the
>>>>Bible implies.
>>>
>>>There is exactly nothing in the bible that implies or suggests 9000 years
>>>(actually 6000 years) as the age of the earth.
>>
>>Many, many of your fellow theists disagree with your claim, Dook.
>
>Yet there is zero reference in the bible for a 6000 year old earth.

Take it up with Bishop Ussher.

[casey]

On May 17, 1:40 am, alen <al...@westserv.net.au> wrote:
> [...]

> It must be the case that organisms
> are designed to resist most mutations, especially
> destructive ones and favour constructive ones.

Yes biological systems probably have evolved to
resist destructive variations. Learning systems do
the same thing. They start off with 100% random
trials and then slow down the trials as evidence
accumulates as to what are good moves. However
trial moves are still retained so should there be
a change and the previous moves begin to fail
the system can quickly make random moves to
search for better solutions.

There was no designer required external to the
system for it to learn to make good moves just
as there was no designer there to give the ANN
used in TD-Gammon good connections.

> That is, mutation possibilities are formed with an
> intrinsic bias - i.e. they are non-random mutations.

A system may evolve a biased random move
generator but this bias itself is a learned bias
not an intrinsic bias.

> You can't prove mutations are random - it is
> merely a theoretical supposition which would,
> in fact, destroy the theory.

Before learning has taken place random moves
are the only moves that can be taken. If you were
given a machine with buttons but no instructions
on how to use the machine you would start by
pressing buttons at random to see what would
happen. That feedback would change you so
that in future you could make less random moves.

So in some way you are probably correct except
the non-random nature of the system evolved
it wasn't there to start with.

[Andrew W]

>"duke" wrote in message news:q9f9p8d64lj49khfd...@4ax.com...

>
>On Wed, 15 May 2013 18:51:08 -0400, Silen...@hotmail.com wrote:
>
>>>>>Then your revealing one (1) should be simple.
>>>>The Earth is roughly 4.7 billion years old, instead of the 9,000 the
>>>>Bible implies.
>>>
>>>There is exactly nothing in the bible that implies or suggests 9000 years
>>>(actually 6000 years) as the age of the earth.
>>
>>Many, many of your fellow theists disagree with your claim, Dook.
>
>Yet there is zero reference in the bible for a 6000 year old earth.
>

No *direct* reference that is.
Apparently your child like mind cannot process anything else.

>
>>The Bible states how long it took to create the earth and provides a
>>unbroken chain of people who've lived, and their ages, up to times
>>that have known dates, allowing for the calculation.
>
>Unbroken - haahaahaa.
>

Yeh, kind of like the alleged unbroken chain of Popes *allegedly*
established by Christ since Paul that your haughty church loves to trumpet
about.
Now that's a haahaahaa moment.
You really got to learn when to laugh, dupe.


--
Forcing someone to either worship or burn is called tyranny.
My motto: Never follow any leader who gives lifelong (or eternal) torture in
a fire as one of your 'free' choices, because that is a despot.

Religions breed hypocrisy, ignorance and self-righteousness.

[Silen...@hotmail.com]

On Thu, 16 May 2013 06:07:18 -0500, duke <duckg...@cox.net> wrote:

>On Wed, 15 May 2013 18:51:08 -0400, Silen...@hotmail.com wrote:
>
>>>>>Then your revealing one (1) should be simple.
>>>>The Earth is roughly 4.7 billion years old, instead of the 9,000 the
>>>>Bible implies.
>>>
>>>There is exactly nothing in the bible that implies or suggests 9000 years
>>>(actually 6000 years) as the age of the earth.
>>
>>Many, many of your fellow theists disagree with your claim, Dook.
>
>Yet there is zero reference in the bible for a 6000 year old earth.

So, you're saying that the only thing we can know about the Bible is
what's explicitly stated?

You're sounding more like an atheist all the time, Dook.

As for my point, it's not like that's the only fact that science has
discovered that isn't dependent on a supreme being.

>>The Bible states how long it took to create the earth and provides a
>>unbroken chain of people who've lived, and their ages, up to times
>>that have known dates, allowing for the calculation.
>
>Unbroken - haahaahaa.

Take it up with your fellow theists.

They seem to believe they can make the calculation.

Heh heh...

Lying racist rightard socialists...

Batshit crazy and dogshit stupid, every single last one of you.



>
>

[Jeanne Douglas]

In article <l8oap8hfd4jtog318...@6ax.com>,

Silen...@hotmail.com wrote:

> On Thu, 16 May 2013 06:07:18 -0500, duke <duckg...@cox.net> wrote:
>
> >On Wed, 15 May 2013 18:51:08 -0400, Silen...@hotmail.com wrote:
> >
> >>>>>Then your revealing one (1) should be simple.
> >>>>The Earth is roughly 4.7 billion years old, instead of the 9,000 the
> >>>>Bible implies.
> >>>
> >>>There is exactly nothing in the bible that implies or suggests 9000 years
> >>>(actually 6000 years) as the age of the earth.
> >>
> >>Many, many of your fellow theists disagree with your claim, Dook.
> >
> >Yet there is zero reference in the bible for a 6000 year old earth.
>
> So, you're saying that the only thing we can know about the Bible is
> what's explicitly stated?
>
> You're sounding more like an atheist all the time, Dook.

Yes, I'm glad you agree with me on this issue. It's quite obvious.

[Alex W]

Which also makes recurring mutations relatively harmless.
There are weak spots in our DNA, places where errors are
more likely to occur. But as they do not reproduce and
hence spread, they are negligible. We see this with humans
as well as animals.

[Dreamer In Colore]

On Thu, 16 May 2013 08:40:04 -0700 (PDT), alen <al...@westserv.net.au>

That's silly. You don't need a designer to have mutations occur. In
fact, mutations themselves point to the absence of a designer, because
... why would a designer make something that required mutation? It's
very inefficient.

If you've got evidence that conclusively demonstrates the hand of a
designer, I welcome you to post it here:

.

.

.

.

.


>

It's not the organisms themselves that resist mutations, Alen. The
organisms mutate, and natural selection takes care of the rest of the
concept.

Destructive mutations will either cause the organism to die
immediately, in which case the mutation will die out before
reproduction takes place, or it will cause the organism to become
easier prey...

The fact remains that mutations do occur at random intervals. You
cannot prove that they occur according to any schedule, divine or
otherwise. Once again, you're making a claim for the divine origin of
design, and thus the burden of proof is upon you twice. The first is
to give sufficient evidence of a divine being's existence, and the
second is that said being is in fact capable of designing anything at
all.

Until you do these things, the reasonable alternative would be to get
a firm grounding in biological and physical sciences, rather than
place unnecessary burden on hitherto unverifiable supernatural beings.

Cheers,
Dreamer
AA 2306

[casey]

On May 17, 1:19 pm, Dreamer In Colore <dreamerincol...@hotmail.com>
wrote:

> You don't need a designer to
> have mutations occur. In fact, mutations
> themselves point to the absence of a designer,
> because ... why would a designer make
> something that required mutation? It's
> very inefficient.

What if the designer wanted a system that
could evolve by itself?

That is exactly how TD-Gammon connections
are changed until the network is able to
make good value judgments on backgammon
board game states.

The evidence is that we are products in
an evolving system but not all systems
are able to evolve. Small variations will
only result in more complex systems if
the potential is there in the first place.

Cheers,
Casey


> Cheers,
> Dreamer
> AA 2306

[Yap]

On May 17, 11:57 am, casey <jgkjca...@yahoo.com.au> wrote:
> On May 17, 1:19 pm, Dreamer In Colore <dreamerincol...@hotmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> > You don't need a designer to
> > have mutations occur. In fact, mutations
> > themselves point to the absence of a designer,
> > because ... why would a designer make
> > something that required mutation? It's
> > very inefficient.
>
> What if the designer wanted a system that
> could evolve by itself?

But mutation can be bad and good, so the designer will be left a lot
of doubts when mutation has no direction.
And that is where no human could buy its existence, unless he is a
deluded idiot.

>
> That is exactly how TD-Gammon connections
> are changed until the network is able to
> make good value judgments on backgammon
> board game states.
>
> The evidence is that we are products in
> an evolving system but not all systems
> are able to evolve. Small variations will
> only result in more complex systems if
> the potential is there in the first place.

The evidence is that chemical systems, especially biological ones,
tend to change with input.
There is no definitive path for the change.
The deluded will take unknowns as the mysteries for creator, because
they have no brains capable for research.

[Yap]

On May 16, 11:57 pm, PATRICK <pbarker...@woh.rr.com> wrote:
> On Thu, 16 May 2013 09:03:23 -0500, Uncle Vic <so...@noway.com> wrote:

> >duke <duckgumb...@cox.net> wrote in

> >news:hff9p89k19f57sqdt...@4ax.com:
>
> >> On Wed, 15 May 2013 19:12:44 -0700 (PDT), nature bats last
> >> <seqkl...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >>>> He spoke of the heavenly kingdom on a regular basis as seen in the
> >>>> scriptures.
>
> >>>And then provided virtually no details about this
> >>>"heavenly kingdom".
>
> >> He told us what it would be like.  And he was very dramatic as to what
> >> the alternative would be like.
>
> >What if there was no hell?  Would you still be a believer?
>
> Only if you promised to be nice.

Your return to sanity does not carry any benefit for any of us, why
should we be nice to a lesser human?

[Yap]

On May 15, 7:28 pm, duke <duckgumb...@cox.net> wrote:

> On Tue, 14 May 2013 21:36:54 -0700 (PDT), nature bats last <seqkl...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> >> Actually, God sent Jesus specifically to give us a heads up on the existence of
> >> the heavenly kingdom.
> >You talking about this place?
>

> Yes, in apocalyptic language as traditional in Revelations..

Ya, an old fool has been blinded by those con works until this day.

>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >    "And out of the throne proceeded lightnings and
> >    thunderings and voices: and there were seven lamps
> >    of fire burning before the throne, which are the
> >    seven Spirits of God.
>
> >    And before the throne there was a sea of glass like
> >    unto crystal: and in the midst of the throne, and
> >    round about the throne, were four beasts full of
> >    eyes before and behind.
>
> >    And the first beast was like a lion, and the second
> >    beast like a calf, and the third beast had a face
> >    as a man, and the fourth beast was like a flying
> >    eagle.
>
> >    And the four beasts had each of them six wings
> >    about him; and they were full of eyes within: and
> >    they rest not day and night, saying, Holy, holy,
> >    holy, Lord God Almighty, which was, and is, and is
> >    to come. "
>
> >Yeah, that sounds like a real fun place to spend
> >eternity.
>
> >(I'm betting Dook never knew that God
> >has seven spirits)
>

> Heehehee.
>
> >NBL