"poofing" stuff into existence
Kent Paul Dolan
Are all the obvious blunders in the design of living
organisms so easily explained? Maybe Earth is the
apprenticeship of a deity, not the finished product.
http://d.yimg.com/a/p/umedia/20090711/cp.55f6043b08ed306101c6c3ca24be86ff.gif
[volatile link, yadda, yadda]
xanthian.
spintronic
> A real "Creator" would have had to start somewhere.
> Are all the obvious blunders in the design of living
> organisms so easily explained? Maybe Earth is the
> apprenticeship of a deity, not the finished product.
The earth is a "person is a state of training"?
Hmm.
Ah well.
> http://d.yimg.com/a/p/umedia/20090711/cp.55f6043b08ed306101c6c3ca24be...
>
> [volatile link, yadda, yadda]
>
> xanthian.
There was a man once, he was blind from birth.
All his life he was told how wonderful vision was.
For him: He imagined being able to see would be like going to heaven.
Perfect.
Then one day he was in an accident, and regained sight.
Instead of being overjoyed, he became depressed.
He saw nothing but imperfection.
"Cracked paint", "littered streets", "P.O.O's wrinkly skin".
Any sane person, would think he was a nut.
How could he not enjoy a beautiful sunset, a childs laughter, a red
rose, a holiday with friends.
You see. He was mentally ill.
I wonder what's your excuse?
Boikat
> On 11 July, 09:04, Kent Paul Dolan <xanth...@well.com> wrote:
>
> > A real "Creator" would have had to start somewhere.
> > Are all the obvious blunders in the design of living
> > organisms so easily explained? Maybe Earth is the
> > apprenticeship of a deity, not the finished product.
>
> The earth is a "person is a state of training"?
>
> Hmm.
>
> Ah well.
>
<snip>
>
> You see. He was mentally ill.
>
> I wonder what's your excuse?
I understood what KPD meant. Is your excuse that you are mentally
ill?
Boikat
Mike Painter
Actually the Designer involved was flunking out of a third rate design
school. In a last attempt to pass a class he plagerized skin, got caught and
was expelled.
His instructor said that skin was good and that nobody who put the fuel and
air intake in the same hole or who made more important parts weaker than
less important parts could have come up with the idea.
"I knew he was not going to make it when he slept through an entire year of
"The Importance of Redundancy in Good Design", said one of the other
instructors.
Kermit
> Kent Paul Dolan wrote:
> > A real "Creator" would have had to start somewhere.
> > Are all the obvious blunders in the design of living
> > organisms so easily explained? Maybe Earth is the
> > apprenticeship of a deity, not the finished product.
>
>
> > [volatile link, yadda, yadda]
>
> > xanthian.
>
> Actually the Designer involved was flunking out of a third rate design
> school. In a last attempt to pass a class he plagerized skin, got caught and
> was expelled.
> His instructor said that skin was good and that nobody who put the fuel and
> air intake in the same hole or who made more important parts weaker than
> less important parts could have come up with the idea.
> "I knew he was not going to make it when he slept through an entire year of
> "The Importance of Redundancy in Good Design", said one of the other
> instructors.
Really? *I heard he was drummed out of school for torturing the lab
animals. I guess ya can't trust rumors.
Kermit
T Pagano
<xant...@well.com> wrote:
>A real "Creator" would have had to start somewhere.
Given the Creator's omnipotence and omniscience this isn't even
correct.
>Are all the obvious blunders in the design of living
>organisms so easily explained?
Dimwit Dolan doesn't realize that he helps make the IDer's point
clear; that is, that the activity of an intelligent designer leaves
observable attributes in some artifact which distinquish its origin
from law--chance. Even so Scripture doesn't Reveal that God created
with perfection. Dolan crashes and burns...again.
Dolan parrots the oft made but always mistaken argument from
perfection. The atheists in this forum never quite learn from their
mistakes.
Genesis teaches that God's work---the material creation, including
life---- was "Good;" that is, it satisfied His purpose NOT that it was
made perfect. English translations of Scripture use the word
"perfect(ion)" but not in Genesis.
> Maybe Earth is the
>apprenticeship of a deity, not the finished product.
>
>http://d.yimg.com/a/p/umedia/20090711/cp.55f6043b08ed306101c6c3ca24be86ff.gif
>
>[volatile link, yadda, yadda]
>
>xanthian.
God is omniscient, omnipotent and He Revealed that His creation was
"good" and not perfect. None of these facts are new. So either
Dolan is a dimwit or he couldn't care less about getting his facts
correctly or both. I suspect it's both.
Not only don't these nimrods atheists have an adequate knowledge base
of their own fairy tale they have no grasp of their competitor's
position. This gives us the advantage. It explains how only a few
creationists can hold back greater numbers including the academic
elitists like blowhard Okimoto.
Regards,
T Pagano
"...too easy drill sgt!!"
Ray Martinez
> On Sat, 11 Jul 2009 01:04:15 -0700, Kent Paul Dolan
>
> >A real "Creator" would have had to start somewhere.
>
> Given the Creator's omnipotence and omniscience this isn't even
> correct.
>
> >Are all the obvious blunders in the design of living
> >organisms so easily explained?
>
> Dimwit Dolan doesn't realize that he helps make the IDer's point
> clear; that is, that the activity of an intelligent designer leaves
> observable attributes in some artifact which distinquish its origin
> from law--chance.
A lot of people do NOT understand the ID point here. If you have the
time and interest could you explain this point?
> Even so Scripture doesn't Reveal that God created
> with perfection. Dolan crashes and burns...again.
>
"Perfection" is a straw man created and exploited by Darwinists.
> Dolan parrots the oft made but always mistaken argument from
> perfection. The atheists in this forum never quite learn from their
> mistakes.
>
You are being kind. It is a deliberate misrepresentation.
Ray
> Genesis teaches that God's work---the material creation, including
> life---- was "Good;" that is, it satisfied His purpose NOT that it was
> made perfect. English translations of Scripture use the word
> "perfect(ion)" but not in Genesis.
>
> > Maybe Earth is the
> >apprenticeship of a deity, not the finished product.
>
> >http://d.yimg.com/a/p/umedia/20090711/cp.55f6043b08ed306101c6c3ca24be...
Robert Camp
>
> >A real "Creator" would have had to start somewhere.
>
> Given the Creator's omnipotence and omniscience this isn't even
> correct.
>
> >Are all the obvious blunders in the design of living
> >organisms so easily explained?
>
> Dimwit Dolan doesn't realize that he helps make the IDer's point
> clear; that is, that the activity of an intelligent designer leaves
> observable attributes in some artifact which distinquish its origin
> from law--chance.
I find myself in the unusual position of seconding a request from Ray,
to wit: could you please, in your own words*, list and explain some of
those "observable attributes" that are diagnostic of intelligent
design? Additionally, it would then be helpful, if not a slam dunk for
your argument, if you could describe those particular observable
attributes which we can use to differentiate between natural
intelligent design and transcendent intelligent design.
[*Try not to rely on boring and juvenile diversions like "Isn't it
amazing how nobody in t.o ever cracks open one of Dembski's books!"
We're all familiar with Dembski, Behe et al, as well as the rebuttals
of their arguments. How about you be a mensch and show us *you*
actually have something to say?
Also, you can do yourself a real favor by avoiding the extreme irony
involved in accusing someone else of being a blowhard.]
RLC
<snip>
Devils Advocaat
> On Sat, 11 Jul 2009 01:04:15 -0700, Kent Paul Dolan
>
> >A real "Creator" would have had to start somewhere.
>
> Given the Creator's omnipotence and omniscience this isn't even
> correct.
>
> >Are all the obvious blunders in the design of living
> >organisms so easily explained?
>
> Dimwit Dolan doesn't realize that he helps make the IDer's point
> clear; that is, that the activity of an intelligent designer leaves
> observable attributes in some artifact which distinquish its origin
> from law--chance. Even so Scripture doesn't Reveal that God created
> with perfection. Dolan crashes and burns...again.
>
> Dolan parrots the oft made but always mistaken argument from
> perfection. The atheists in this forum never quite learn from their
> mistakes.
>
> Genesis teaches that God's work---the material creation, including
> life---- was "Good;" that is, it satisfied His purpose NOT that it was
> made perfect. English translations of Scripture use the word
> "perfect(ion)" but not in Genesis.
>
> > Maybe Earth is the
> >apprenticeship of a deity, not the finished product.
>
>
> >[volatile link, yadda, yadda]
>
> >xanthian.
>
> God is omniscient, omnipotent and He Revealed that His creation was
> "good" and not perfect. None of these facts are new. So either
> Dolan is a dimwit or he couldn't care less about getting his facts
> correctly or both. I suspect it's both.
If as you are saying here, God is all knowing and all powerful, how
could God not create a perfect world?
Correct me if I am wrong, but isn't the usual cant of the creationists
"everything was perfect until Adam sinned"?
Ray Martinez
Life in Eden before the Fall was perfect. The promised curses,
resultant of the Fall, as explicated through-out the Bible, especially
in the Pentateuch, removed the concept from reality.
Ray
Ray Martinez
> On Jul 11, 2:21 pm, T Pagano <not.va...@address.net> wrote:
>
> > On Sat, 11 Jul 2009 01:04:15 -0700, Kent Paul Dolan
>
> > <xanth...@well.com> wrote:
> > >A real "Creator" would have had to start somewhere.
>
> > Given the Creator's omnipotence and omniscience this isn't even
> > correct.
>
> > >Are all the obvious blunders in the design of living
> > >organisms so easily explained?
>
> > Dimwit Dolan doesn't realize that he helps make the IDer's point
> > clear; that is, that the activity of an intelligent designer leaves
> > observable attributes in some artifact which distinquish its origin
> > from law--chance.
>
> I find myself in the unusual position of seconding a request from Ray,
> to wit: could you please, in your own words*, list and explain some of
> those "observable attributes" that are diagnostic of intelligent
> design?
My request only concerned the Explanatory Filter----nothing else.
Also: I just deleted a message to you from Google Groups. We know that
it still remains for the most part, but consider it withdrawn due to
errors.
Ray
Tim DeLaney
> On Sat, 11 Jul 2009 01:04:15 -0700, Kent Paul Dolan
>
> >A real "Creator" would have had to start somewhere.
>
> Given the Creator's omnipotence and omniscience this isn't even
> correct.
>
> >Are all the obvious blunders in the design of living
> >organisms so easily explained?
>
> Dimwit Dolan doesn't realize that he helps make the IDer's point
> clear; that is, that the activity of an intelligent designer leaves
> observable attributes in some artifact which distinquish its origin
> from law--chance. Even so Scripture doesn't Reveal that God created
> with perfection. Dolan crashes and burns...again.
>
> Dolan parrots the oft made but always mistaken argument from
> perfection. The atheists in this forum never quite learn from their
> mistakes.
>
> Genesis teaches that God's work---the material creation, including
> life---- was "Good;" that is, it satisfied His purpose NOT that it was
> made perfect. English translations of Scripture use the word
> "perfect(ion)" but not in Genesis.
>
> > Maybe Earth is the
> >apprenticeship of a deity, not the finished product.
>
>
> >[volatile link, yadda, yadda]
>
> >xanthian.
>
> God is omniscient, omnipotent and He Revealed that His creation was
> "good" and not perfect. None of these facts are new. So either
> Dolan is a dimwit or he couldn't care less about getting his facts
> correctly or both. I suspect it's both.
Oh, you assume your god is omniscient and omnipotent, and by this
assumption you conclude that you must be right. Did it ever in your
entire life occur to you that you, being only human, may be wrong? Is
it impossible for you to err in your beliefs? Or is it your implicit
assumption that you are incapable of error?
>
> Not only don't these nimrods atheists have an adequate knowledge base
> of their own fairy tale they have no grasp of their competitor's
> position. This gives us the advantage. It explains how only a few
> creationists can hold back greater numbers including the academic
> elitists like blowhard Okimoto.
>
> Regards,
> T Pagano
>
> "...too easy drill sgt!!"
Tony, you have nothing but your blind belief in the supernatural to
argue from. No evidence, no reason or logic, just unreasoned belief
in a supernatural for which you can provide no evidence. Just because
you say you are free of error doesn't make it so.
Tim
Boikat
<snip>
>
> God is omniscient, omnipotent
Then you do not believe in the concept of "free will"?
> and He Revealed that His creation was
> "good" and not perfect. None of these facts are new. So either
> Dolan is a dimwit or he couldn't care less about getting his facts
> correctly or both. I suspect it's both.
>
> Not only don't these nimrods atheists have an adequate knowledge base
> of their own fairy tale they have no grasp of their competitor's
> position. This gives us the advantage. It explains how only a few
> creationists can hold back greater numbers including the academic
> elitists like blowhard Okimoto.
"Hold back"? What delusion of yours does that apply to? Who do you
think you are holding back, and from what?
Boikat
Robert Camp
> On Jul 11, 4:04 pm, Robert Camp <robertlc...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Jul 11, 2:21 pm, T Pagano <not.va...@address.net> wrote:
>
> > > On Sat, 11 Jul 2009 01:04:15 -0700, Kent Paul Dolan
>
> > > <xanth...@well.com> wrote:
> > > >A real "Creator" would have had to start somewhere.
>
> > > Given the Creator's omnipotence and omniscience this isn't even
> > > correct.
>
> > > >Are all the obvious blunders in the design of living
> > > >organisms so easily explained?
>
> > > Dimwit Dolan doesn't realize that he helps make the IDer's point
> > > clear; that is, that the activity of an intelligent designer leaves
> > > observable attributes in some artifact which distinquish its origin
> > > from law--chance.
>
> > I find myself in the unusual position of seconding a request from Ray,
> > to wit: could you please, in your own words*, list and explain some of
> > those "observable attributes" that are diagnostic of intelligent
> > design?
>
> My request only concerned the Explanatory Filter----nothing else.
If you want to understand the EF, Tony is probably the last person you
should ask.
In any case, I meant no implication of agreement on our part as to the
reasons for the requests, just that there was some concurrence.
RLC
T Pagano
<delaney...@comcast.net> wrote:
>On Jul 11, 5:21 pm, T Pagano <not.va...@address.net> wrote:
>> On Sat, 11 Jul 2009 01:04:15 -0700, Kent Paul Dolan
>>
>> <xanth...@well.com> wrote:
>> >A real "Creator" would have had to start somewhere.
snip
>>
>> God is omniscient, omnipotent and He Revealed that His creation was
>> "good" and not perfect. None of these facts are new. So either
>> Dolan is a dimwit or he couldn't care less about getting his facts
>> correctly or both. I suspect it's both.
>
>Oh, you assume your god is omniscient and omnipotent, and by this
>assumption you conclude that you must be right.
It isn't my assumption it is what has been Revealed and taught for
2000 years. As a Christian I would be in a better position to offer
the Christian doctrine than that dimwit Dolan who barely gets his own
darwinian fairy tale correctly half the time.
>Did it ever in your
>entire life occur to you that you, being only human, may be wrong? Is
>it impossible for you to err in your beliefs? Or is it your implicit
>assumption that you are incapable of error?
My fallibility is irrelevent. The omniscience and omnipotence of God
was Revealed by Him as recorded in Scripture and taught beginning by
those with first hand knowledge of Jesus beginning almost 2000 years
ago.
>
>>
>> Not only don't these nimrods atheists have an adequate knowledge base
>> of their own fairy tale they have no grasp of their competitor's
>> position. This gives us the advantage. It explains how only a few
>> creationists can hold back greater numbers including the academic
>> elitists like blowhard Okimoto.
>>
>> Regards,
>> T Pagano
>>
>> "...too easy drill sgt!!"
>
>Tony, you have nothing but your blind belief in the supernatural to
>argue from. No evidence, no reason or logic, just unreasoned belief
>in a supernatural for which you can provide no evidence. Just because
>you say you are free of error doesn't make it so.
But it is just the opposite of blind. We have direct eye witness
observation reports in Scripture of events that can only be the result
of Supernatural action. And those are a damn sight better than what
you have with your darwinian fairy tales of (for example) a mesonychid
(a small dog-like animal) transmogrifying into a whale---which is
virtually NOTHIN' but if-so stories.
Since we're dealing with unique, non repeating, non experimentally
reproducible events for both supernatural events and the darwinian
fairy tales circumstantial remnants and eye witness testimony is about
the best either of is going to do.
However it's obvious that Delaney is under the delusion that
scientists KNOW when, where, or how the first life appeared on earth.
Or that they have even one piece of evidence how novel biological
structures and systems emerge from non existence AND coherently
progress to maturity blindly. Recall from the NFL THEOREMS that
evolutionary searches are on average no better than a dumb, blind
search. The fossil record contradicts the ubiquitous emergence and
progressive development of novelty and Lenski's 40,000+ generation
experiment of E coli doesn't give one inch of help either.
If I am blind with real live eye witness reports what must that make
Delaney?
Regards,
T Pagano
Delaney leaves that perenial dimwit twisting in the wind.
Mike Painter
Odd that you should mention that. I believe that school was the one who
coined the phrase that "Curiosity killed the cat."
Most people mistakenly think that it is the cat's curiosity that gets him
killed when in reality it came from "I wonder what will happen if I do this
to the cat?"
Rich Mathers
> On Sat, 11 Jul 2009 01:04:15 -0700, Kent Paul Dolan
>
> >A real "Creator" would have had to start somewhere.
>
> Given the Creator's omnipotence and omniscience this isn't even
> correct.
>
> >Are all the obvious blunders in the design of living
> >organisms so easily explained?
>
> Dimwit Dolan doesn't realize that he helps make the IDer's point
> clear; that is, that the activity of an intelligent designer leaves
> observable attributes in some artifact which distinquish its origin
> from law--chance. Even so Scripture doesn't Reveal that God created
> with perfection. Dolan crashes and burns...again.
>
> Dolan parrots the oft made but always mistaken argument from
> perfection. The atheists in this forum never quite learn from their
> mistakes.
>
> Genesis teaches that God's work---the material creation, including
> life---- was "Good;" that is, it satisfied His purpose NOT that it was
> made perfect. English translations of Scripture use the word
> "perfect(ion)" but not in Genesis.
>
> > Maybe Earth is the
> >apprenticeship of a deity, not the finished product.
>
>
> >[volatile link, yadda, yadda]
>
> >xanthian.
>
> God is omniscient, omnipotent and He Revealed that His creation was
> "good" and not perfect. None of these facts are new. So either
> Dolan is a dimwit or he couldn't care less about getting his facts
> correctly or both. I suspect it's both.
>
> Not only don't these nimrods atheists have an adequate knowledge base
> of their own fairy tale they have no grasp of their competitor's
> position. This gives us the advantage. It explains how only a few
> creationists can hold back greater numbers including the academic
> elitists like blowhard Okimoto.
>
> Regards,
> T Pagano
>
> "...too easy drill sgt!!"
Sgt. Yes Captain. Ole Pagano is raging in the computer shack again.
He's yelling about imperfection and that by God it was intentional.
Maybe this explains his multifaceted incompetence. Say again
Captain! Uh, well I'm just pointing out that Pagano has many
imperfections. He seems to think his ideas are perfect and that the
Bible is perfect but science is so imperfect it can't be trusted.
Say again Captain! Uh, he is an odd duck that believes in a global
flood, a stopped sun and a young earth. And he says science that
imperfect domain supports his Biblical beliefs. Say again Captain!
Uh, he's a real screw ball. Logic and science not his strong suit.
(Captain thinks to himself. I can see why he likes the army. It's
also good that he is a Corporal and not a Chaplain)
AStext
Strikes me as odd too. Religio-political texts from 2000 years ago vs
the ongoing science of the last 200 years. Mmm, who to believe . . . ?
> Say again Captain! Uh, he is an odd duck that believes in a global
> flood, a stopped sun and a young earth. And he says science that
> imperfect domain supports his Biblical beliefs. Say again Captain!
> Uh, he's a real screw ball. Logic and science not his strong suit.
> (Captain thinks to himself. I can see why he likes the army. It's
> also good that he is a Corporal and not a Chaplain)- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Devils Advocaat
But for life to be perfect, would not the world have to be perfect
also?
John Smith
"Mike Painter" <md.pa...@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:m5e6m.15568$bq1....@nlpi066.nbdc.sbc.com...
Or the famous party phrase ................. "Hey everybody - watch this!"
muhadeeb
> A real "Creator" would have had to start somewhere.
> Are all the obvious blunders in the design of living
> organisms so easily explained? Maybe Earth is the
> apprenticeship of a deity, not the finished product.
>
>
> [volatile link, yadda, yadda]
>
> xanthian.
Would a "real"Creator""have fore sight to expect for the future the
full expectations of a fully and complete developed organism or group
of organisms. To me this would leave an out for not completing the
process. In other words the completion of a process is ongoing next to
infinity until the process reaches the end or changes are made without
notice of minutia. This is as close to evolution that modern man can
make.
muhadeeb
Apparently there is a disconnect between simplicity and complexity.
Equalizing both comes with much difficulty without a base of
reference. One can imagine and reconcile the "real world" and
differentiate between. Even some of our greatest abstract artists had
difficulty and painted their frustrations in trying to resolve their
inner muse.
Spence...
The guy's a nut.
Sp.
========
"muhadeeb" <mike...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:e5d42bf2-3858-4f8f-9885-
Spence...
"muhadeeb" <mike...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:9e020029-4643-4945...@l2g2000vba.googlegroups.com...
Rolf
Self-evidently nonsense.
> Ray
Tim DeLaney
> On Sat, 11 Jul 2009 19:19:53 -0700 (PDT), Tim DeLaney
>
> >On Jul 11, 5:21 pm, T Pagano <not.va...@address.net> wrote:
> >> On Sat, 11 Jul 2009 01:04:15 -0700, Kent Paul Dolan
>
> >> <xanth...@well.com> wrote:
> >> >A real "Creator" would have had to start somewhere.
>
> snip
>
>
>
> >> God is omniscient, omnipotent and He Revealed that His creation was
> >> "good" and not perfect. None of these facts are new. So either
> >> Dolan is a dimwit or he couldn't care less about getting his facts
> >> correctly or both. I suspect it's both.
>
> >Oh, you assume your god is omniscient and omnipotent, and by this
> >assumption you conclude that you must be right.
>
> It isn't my assumption it is what has been Revealed and taught for
> 2000 years. As a Christian I would be in a better position to offer
> the Christian doctrine than that dimwit Dolan who barely gets his own
> darwinian fairy tale correctly half the time.
>
> >Did it ever in your
> >entire life occur to you that you, being only human, may be wrong? Is
> >it impossible for you to err in your beliefs? Or is it your implicit
> >assumption that you are incapable of error?
>
> My fallibility is irrelevent. The omniscience and omnipotence of God
> was Revealed by Him as recorded in Scripture and taught beginning by
> those with first hand knowledge of Jesus beginning almost 2000 years
> ago.
Your answer is curious. After a brief nod to the notion of your own
fallibility, you contradict this notion and attempt to explain why it
is impossible for you to err.
Many other believers -- Muslims, Catholics, Mormons, Jews, Hindus,
etc. -- are just as firmly convinced as you are that their god
revealed the truth to them alone. By your lights they must all be
wrong.
If you do not admit that your religious beliefs could be in error,
then why should anybody attempt to exchange views with you? Your
assumption of infallibility has made you impervious to any conclusion
that, in your opinion, contradicts that view.
As to your "direct eye witness observation reports", the reliability
of eye witness accounts in court trials regarding recent events is
notoriously inaccurate. What does that say about purported events of
2000 years ago?
I have snipped your comments on ID, the phylogeny of cetacea, and
other sundry topics, as being attempts to change a subject you
obviously find uncomfortable.
Tim
Reddfrogg
> On Sat, 11 Jul 2009 19:19:53 -0700 (PDT), Tim DeLaney
> >Tony, you have nothing but your blind belief in the supernatural to
> >argue from. No evidence, no reason or logic, just unreasoned belief
> >in a supernatural for which you can provide no evidence. Just because
> >you say you are free of error doesn't make it so.
>
> But it is just the opposite of blind. We have direct eye witness
> observation reports in Scripture of events that can only be the result
> of Supernatural action.
Actually, Tony, in the Bible, you don't have direct eyewitness
accounts. You have stories and legends related long after the
supposed events took place. None of them can be verified.
>And those are a damn sight better than what
> you have with your darwinian fairy tales of (for example) a mesonychid
> (a small dog-like animal) transmogrifying into a whale---which is
> virtually NOTHIN' but if-so stories.
The current concept of whale evolution doesn't deal with
mesonychids. Whales are artiodactyls. Furthermore, there is a
wealth of evidence, including an entire series of fossil intermediates
between land based animals, and modern whales. Of course the real
clincher is the genetic evidence, which shows that whales are nested
within the even toed ungulates.
>
> Since we're dealing with unique, non repeating, non experimentally
> reproducible events for both supernatural events and the darwinian
> fairy tales circumstantial remnants and eye witness testimony is about
> the best either of is going to do.
Eyewitness testimony, even if that was what you have, is notoriously
unreliable. However you don't have eyewitness accounts, only
stories written down long after the supposed event. What you refer
to as "darwinian fairy tales" have actual physical evidence that
supports the theories. One can test the mechanism of evolution, and
observe that populations do change over time.
What tests do you have for the action of a supernatural being?
>
> However it's obvious that Delaney is under the delusion that
> scientists KNOW when, where, or how the first life appeared on earth.
No one is under such a "delusion" except for creationists. They are
the ones who "know" what happened, evidence notwithstanding.
> Or that they have even one piece of evidence how novel biological
> structures and systems emerge from non existence AND coherently
> progress to maturity blindly.
There's a great deal of evidence evolution produces biological
structures and systems that change over time. Since you've never
given a definition of what you mean by "novel", you are free to move
your goalposts. What is "maturity" in this context? All life is
in a state of change, and "maturity" and 'progress' have little
meaning.
> Recall from the NFL THEOREMS that
> evolutionary searches are on average no better than a dumb, blind
> search.
No one else seems to "recall" that, not even the person who wrote the
NFL theorems.
> The fossil record contradicts the ubiquitous emergence and
> progressive development of novelty and Lenski's 40,000+ generation
> experiment of E coli doesn't give one inch of help either.
Perhaps because 'progressive' development is not what evolution
produces. Populations don't "progress", they change in response to
the needs of the here and now. Lenski's study showed clearly that
evolution could produce a new function that didn't exist before.
>
> If I am blind with real live eye witness reports what must that make
> Delaney?
In a much better position, as Delaney and others are using the
evidence. Your "eyewitness reports" are not derived from
eyewitnesses, but stories written down much later.
>
> Regards,
> T Pagano
>
> Delaney leaves that perenial dimwit twisting in the wind.
Really, Tony? How does it feel to be twisting in the wind?
DJT
gregwrld
> On Sat, 11 Jul 2009 19:19:53 -0700 (PDT), Tim DeLaney
>
You don't have direct eyewitness observation
in "scripture", you have second-hand and hearsay
reports. Whale evo is far better supported by the
evidence than the resurrection, virgin birth and the
"transformation" of water to wine none of which
have any basis in science.
You're just kidding yourself, but we knew that
already.
gregwrld
John Harshman
[snip all but just one point]
> And those are a damn sight better than what
> you have with your darwinian fairy tales of (for example) a mesonychid
> (a small dog-like animal) transmogrifying into a whale---which is
> virtually NOTHIN' but if-so stories.
Of course Tony's ignorance of biology is near-total. The relationships
of mesonychids to whales is unclear, but it appears that they are not
artiodactyls, and so are not particularly close to whales. The evidence
that tells us whales are artiodactyls is extensive and multifarous, from
fossils to SINEs, and calling it an "if-so" story is just a further
reflection of his ignorance.
I'm willing to suppose that there may some subjects on which Tony is not
ignorant, but this isn't one of them.
Bob Casanova
in talk.origins, posted by T Pagano <not....@address.net>:
<snip>
>...We have direct eye witness
>observation reports in Scripture of events that can only be the result
>of Supernatural action.
We have the same in the Vedas, in Homer's accounts of the
Trojan War, and in many other places. Are they also correct
because someone wrote them down?
Oh, and while we're on the subject of Biblical content, can
you inform the group whether, if scientific knowledge and
contemporary observation contradict the Bible, the Bible
should be considered correct; i.e., read literally? A simple
"yes" or "no", or at most a single sentence, should be
sufficient. You seemed to have a problem addressing this in
the past; you wrote several paragraphs of obfuscation, but
never answered the question. As I said, a simple and direct
answer is sufficient.
<snip>
--
Bob C.
"Evidence confirming an observation is
evidence that the observation is wrong."
- McNameless
Desertphile
Please provide a metric fir "simplicity," and another for
"complexity." Than you.
> Equalizing both comes with much difficulty without a base of
> reference. One can imagine and reconcile the "real world" and
> differentiate between. Even some of our greatest abstract artists had
> difficulty and painted their frustrations in trying to resolve their
> inner muse.
Idiot.
--
http://desertphile.org
Desertphile's Desert Soliloquy. WARNING: view with plenty of water
"Why aren't resurrections from the dead noteworthy?" -- Jim Rutz
Desertphile
<mike...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Jul 11, 4:04 am, Kent Paul Dolan <xanth...@well.com> wrote:
> > A real "Creator" would have had to start somewhere.
> > Are all the obvious blunders in the design of living
> > organisms so easily explained? Maybe Earth is the
> > apprenticeship of a deity, not the finished product.
> >
> > http://d.yimg.com/a/p/umedia/20090711/cp.55f6043b08ed306101c6c3ca24be...
> >
> > [volatile link, yadda, yadda]
> >
> > xanthian.
> Would a "real"Creator""have fore sight to expect for the future the
> full expectations of a fully and complete developed organism or group
> of organisms.
All species are fully formed and always have been.
richardal...@googlemail.com
<garbage snipped>
> Recall from the NFL THEOREMS that
> evolutionary searches are on average no better than a dumb, blind
> search.
But Tony! David Wolpert, the guy who *formulated* NFL theorem, has
said that Dembski application of his theorem is incompetent and that
it is inappropriate to apply it evolutionary biology!
This has been pointed out to you on more than one previous occasion,
and yet you repeat this outright falsehood. Most people would call
this a lie.
What do you call it?
By the way, could you answer a simple question I've asked you over and
over again, and from which you run like the intellectual and moral
coward you are:
Is the Pope and atheist, or is he a liar?
He has made statement in support of evolutionary theory. According to
you, that makes him an atheist.
You have also said that he has made such statements for reasons of
political expediency - which would make him a liar.
Which is it?
The way in which you evade the implications of your pronouncements is
giving many of us a lot of amusement. There is something very
satisfying in watching a creationist make a public display of dogmatic
ignorance, dishonesty, arrogance and buffoonery.
Thank you for the entertainment you provide.
RF
<more garbage snipped>
wf3h
> On Sat, 11 Jul 2009 19:19:53 -0700 (PDT), Tim DeLaney
> >
> >assumption you conclude that you must be right.
>
> It isn't my assumption it is what has been Revealed and taught for
> 2000 years. As a Christian I would be in a better position to offer
> the Christian doctrine than that dimwit Dolan who barely gets his own
> darwinian fairy tale correctly half the time.
well you're not a christian, pagano. you're certainly not a member in
good standing of any church in the christian tradition.
>
> >Did it ever in your
> >entire life occur to you that you, being only human, may be wrong? Is
> >it impossible for you to err in your beliefs? Or is it your implicit
> >assumption that you are incapable of error?
>
> My fallibility is irrelevent. The omniscience and omnipotence of God
> was Revealed by Him as recorded in Scripture and taught beginning by
> those with first hand knowledge of Jesus beginning almost 2000 years
> ago.
care to name any person who wrote the NT who had a 'first hand
knowledge' (sic) of jesus?
because there aren't any.
>
> >Tony, you have nothing but your blind belief in the supernatural to
> >argue from. No evidence, no reason or logic, just unreasoned belief
> >in a supernatural for which you can provide no evidence. Just because
> >you say you are free of error doesn't make it so.
>
> But it is just the opposite of blind. We have direct eye witness
> observation reports in Scripture of events that can only be the result
> of Supernatural action.
well...no we dont. jesus himself wrote nothing. you'd think the guy
who was actually resurrected and was walking around would have written
that down somewhere, because it is somewhat important. but i guess he
forgot
and no one...no one at all...who wrote the NT ever witnessed anything
recorded in that book. it's all hearsay. the earliest book of the NT
was written about 35 years after christ died and the person who wrote
that book did not see him die, see him resurrected, and, in fact,
never met jesus at all.
so you're lying. which, of course, accounts for your bizarre and
discredited view of scripture.
And those are a damn sight better than what
> you have with your darwinian fairy tales of (for example) a mesonychid
> (a small dog-like animal) transmogrifying into a whale---which is
> virtually NOTHIN' but if-so stories.
we have the fossils. you can actually see them
show me jesus. show me his tomb. oh. you can't.
we have evidence of evolution. you? you got a game of 'telephone'
>
> Since we're dealing with unique, non repeating, non experimentally
> reproducible events for both supernatural events and the darwinian
> fairy tales circumstantial remnants and eye witness testimony is about
> the best either of is going to do.
>
well...no. you creationists keep pretending you know how science
works. you're like a butcher who thinks he's a surgeon. you've heard
of science. you know there are people who call themselves
scientists...which means you know all about it, right?
we are not dealing with unique events at all. evolution happens now.
right before our eyes. it's testable. and repeatable.
creationism? it's been wrong for 2000 years. all the time. without
exception.
so you have another lie.
> However it's obvious that Delaney is under the delusion that
> scientists KNOW when, where, or how the first life appeared on earth.
> Or that they have even one piece of evidence how novel biological
> structures and systems emerge from non existence AND coherently
> progress to maturity blindly.
guess he's never heard of the 'hox' gene and how, when it's caused to
mutate in the lab, we can see new structures develop.
oh. that's evidence and creatinists don't do evidence
Recall from the NFL THEOREMS that
> evolutionary searches are on average no better than a dumb, blind
> search.
hmmm...pagano's never read wolpert either (wolpert invented the NFL
theorem), nor wolpert's paper ripping creationism a new
asshole....because, he said, creationism is based on unfalsifiable
assumptions and on distortions about evolution
pagano's read ABOUT wolpert in his bible thumper tracts. he has no
more idea of what wolpert says than he does of what christianity
teaches. he's ignorant about both
The fossil record contradicts the ubiquitous emergence and
> progressive development of novelty and Lenski's 40,000+ generation
> experiment of E coli doesn't give one inch of help either.
>
> If I am blind with real live eye witness reports what must that make
> Delaney?
care to tell us of one eyewitness who wrote in the bible?
'cuz there ain't none. sorry, pagano. you're a gullible moron who
believes horseshit.
>
Kent Paul Dolan
> I'm willing to suppose that there may some
> subjects on which Tony is not ignorant,
Could you provide some examples of subjects on which
Tony has proved himself other than ignorant? I try
to avoid reading what he writes anymore, it proved
itself to me to be of vacuous worth quite some time
ago.
> but this isn't one of them.
And indeed, the evidence on whale evolution just
keeps on rolling in, year after year.
I'd think the vestigial rear leg bones found
"floating" inside the whale's body for some living
whales would have cured a _lot_ of creationists of
their delusions, but invincible ignorance has its
name for good reason.
xanthian.
John Harshman
> John Harshman wrote:
>
> > I'm willing to suppose that there may some
> > subjects on which Tony is not ignorant,
>
> Could you provide some examples of subjects on which
> Tony has proved himself other than ignorant? I try
> to avoid reading what he writes anymore, it proved
> itself to me to be of vacuous worth quite some time
> ago.
No. I merely give him the benefit of the doubt. There are still many
subjects on which he has not yet expressed an opinion.
T Pagano
<jharshman....@pacbell.net> wrote:
>T Pagano wrote:
>[snip all but just one point]
>
>> And those are a damn sight better than what
>> you have with your darwinian fairy tales of (for example) a mesonychid
>> (a small dog-like animal) transmogrifying into a whale---which is
>> virtually NOTHIN' but if-so stories.
>
>Of course Tony's ignorance of biology is near-total.
Biology is the study of living creatures as they exist now not how
they came to arise in the first place. So "my" ignorance of biology
is largely irrelevent. Harshman doesn't get the basics correct and
he calls me ignorant?
Origins is an exercise in attempting to uncover UNOBSERVED, unique,
non recurring, non experimentally reproducible events. Scientific
methodology is its strongest ONLY IF events are recurring, observable
or otherwise experimentally reproducible. So AT BEST scientists are
left searching for remnants of events that "might" be observable now.
But sadly for "Bonehead" Harshman the remnants NEVER uniquely
circumscribe one set of events. He never quite seems to grasp this
simple and irrefutable fact.
At least the Creationist model offers something with the causal power
to create life and its diversity. On the other hand Abiogenesis isn't
just flawed it's completely FAILED. The fossil record shows "stasis"
not the ubiquitous change predicted by darwian theory. Lenski's
40,000+ generation experiment in change shows NOTHING of the sort. The
NFL theorems proved conclusively that evolutionary algorithms like the
Darwinian mechanism are no better or worse than a blind search.
And what do the likes of Harshman and Okimoto and the vast array of
elitists have to offer? Classification schemes and
similarities---that is ALL. Apparently evolutionary biology (as
opposed to biology you bonehead) is merely a branch of taxonomy. They
have yet to produce any reproducible, observable evidence that
biological novelty has ever arose or is arising now so they are left
trying to show that taxonomic classification trees are really lineal
trees. But even this is smoke and mirrors. All these trees show are
end nodes; all the common ancestors are vaporous.
>The relationships
>of mesonychids to whales is unclear, but it appears that they are not
>artiodactyls, and so are not particularly close to whales.
None of it is clear. I use the mesonychid-to-whale fairy tale as
simply illustrative of the foolishness. Evolutionary biology is
little more than a branch of taxonomy. Classification schemes are the
production of sets of biological entities. How the sets are populated
is arbitrary depending upon what attributes are considered and how
they are weighted. The relationships between sets are based upon set
theory not lineal connection. So whenever the attributes or their
weighting changes then so do the sets and how they are related by set
theory. So whenever the evolutionary biologists (or is it set
theorists?) change which attributes are considered or their weighting
the lineal tree changes (or is it the relationships between sets given
by set theory?).
The whole affair is less trustworth than the scientific nonsense that
tells us one year that coffee is bad for us, good the next, and bad
the third. They don't have an f'in clue.
> The evidence
>that tells us whales are artiodactyls is extensive and multifarous, from
>fossils to SINEs, and calling it an "if-so" story is just a further
>reflection of his ignorance.
Simply point us all to the scientific reports which show the
reproducible, observable mechanism of novelty arising and coherently
progressing to maturity (preferably with photos). Harshman ain't
likely to be getting that kind of proof from Lenski's 40,000+
generation experiment cause Lenski hasn't seen any such thing.
I better make sure that Harshman is actually interested in science
rather than naturalistic philosophy and atheism.
>
>I'm willing to suppose that there may some subjects on which Tony is not
>ignorant, but this isn't one of them.
Then produce the articles showing the proof to extinquish my
ignorance. And if these articles existed the authors would be Nobel
Prize winners no doubt. Should be plenty of links to such earth
shattering stuff. But I can't say as I've seen it on the news or the
Discovery Channel. Perhaps it was kept hush-hush.
Every time I ask for the scientific articles producing the evidence I
am offered either articles that are irrelevent or articles which were
never intended to prove the point at issue. Forrest was highly
embarassed the last time he produced links to articles that were
supposed to settle arguments concerning my ignorance.
Everytime articles are presented my opponents pray that I don't
respond because many times I lack the time. Forrest bet wrong....
Care to roll the dice?
Regards,
T Pagano
Augray
wrote in <apagano-llik55h89cauc...@4ax.com> :
>On Sun, 12 Jul 2009 10:05:26 -0700, John Harshman
><jharshman....@pacbell.net> wrote:
[snip]
>>I'm willing to suppose that there may some subjects on which Tony is not
>>ignorant, but this isn't one of them.
>
>Then produce the articles showing the proof to extinquish my
>ignorance.
Why bother? It's shriekingly obvious that you're not interested in
extinguishing your ignorance. For instance, it took five years of
regular corrections from others to dissuade you that no one claimed
that bats were descended from mesonychids. Five years! God knows how
long it would take for you to learn something a bit more challenging.
[snip]
wf3h
> On Sat, 11 Jul 2009 01:04:15 -0700, Kent Paul Dolan
> correct.
>
> >organisms so easily explained?
>
> clear; that is, that the activity of an intelligent designer leaves
> observable attributes in some artifact which distinquish its origin
> from law--chance. Even so Scripture doesn't Reveal that God created
> with perfection. Dolan crashes and burns...again.
given the fact that EVERY designer we have ever seen has:
1. had a material brain
2. operated in accord with natural law
pagano's assertion that god is observably 'poofing' creatures into
existence is illogical, unsupportable and irrational
>
> Dolan parrots the oft made but always mistaken argument from
> perfection. The atheists in this forum never quite learn from their
> mistakes.
>
> Genesis teaches that God's work---the material creation, including
> life---- was "Good;" that is, it satisfied His purpose NOT that it was
> made perfect. English translations of Scripture use the word
> "perfect(ion)" but not in Genesis.
how does god make something 'good' but not perfect? it's useless
sophistry.
and translations are not the bible.
>
> Not only don't these nimrods atheists have an adequate knowledge base
> of their own fairy tale they have no grasp of their competitor's
> position. This gives us the advantage. It explains how only a few
> creationists can hold back greater numbers including the academic
> elitists like blowhard Okimoto.
>
pagano is expounding a view of scripture that is not in accord with
any christian tradition. his views are solely his own, and are not
taught by any tradition or doctrine.
wf3h
> On Sun, 12 Jul 2009 10:05:26 -0700, John Harshman
> >
>
> Biology is the study of living creatures as they exist now not how
> they came to arise in the first place.
where did THAT come from?
pagano's theology is rogue theology unsupported by either scripture OR
christian tradition. his view of biology is simply remarkable. it's as
if he beamed to earth yesterday and was charged with inventing a
dictionary...
So "my" ignorance of biology
> is largely irrelevent. Harshman doesn't get the basics correct and
> he calls me ignorant?
>
> Origins is an exercise in attempting to uncover UNOBSERVED,
fossils are observed. again, the planet where he came from may not
have fossils. but here on earth, we DO observe fossils
unique,
> non recurring, non experimentally reproducible events. Scientific
> methodology is its strongest ONLY IF events are recurring, observable
> or otherwise experimentally reproducible.
a mechanism is a testable process that makes prediction. natural
selection is such a mechanism. pagano is, again, ignorant of
1. science in general (his confusion of 'events' with processes is
typical of creationists who make up science)
2. evolution in particular, especially the testable mechanism of
natural selection
not surprising: creationists have failed for 2000 years to explain
even how rocks fall off cliffs. explaining the development of life is
slightly beyond their mental capabilities.
>
> At least the Creationist model offers something with the causal power
> to create life and its diversity.
'causal power' implies process: something that happens in nature in
accord with natural laws. EVERY process we've EVER seen in nature
follows natural law. thus creationists defy what every day experience
tells a normal person: the universe is orderly. that's another reason
creationism has failed for thousands of years to explain anything
On the other hand Abiogenesis isn't
> just flawed it's completely FAILED. The fossil record shows "stasis"
> not the ubiquitous change predicted by darwian theory.
uh...if it showed 'stasis' we wouldnt be here. humans have not always
existed. so if nothing changed in nature pagano wouldnt be here to
tell us how he got here.
more creationist contradictions.
>
> And what do the likes of Harshman and Okimoto and the vast array of
> elitists have to offer? Classification schemes and
> similarities---that is ALL.
and such is the grist of science. similarities bespeak mechanism. we
chemists are familiar with the periodic table. it's called 'periodic'
because of similarities between various elements. this similarity is
CAUSED by quantum mechanics.
and the similarity between living organisms is CAUSED by evolution.
chemistry...biology...both sciences
creationism cant explain the similarity.
Apparently evolutionary biology (as
> opposed to biology you bonehead) is merely a branch of taxonomy. They
> have yet to produce any reproducible, observable evidence that
> biological novelty has ever arose or is arising now so they are left
> trying to show that taxonomic classification trees are really lineal
> trees. But even this is smoke and mirrors. All these trees show are
> end nodes; all the common ancestors are vaporous.
i suggest pagano read up on the 'hox' genes and how slight mutations
cause new structures to emerge in organisms. his ignorance on this
score, like so many others, is fatal to his argument, and disasterous
for creationism.
>
> >The relationships
> >of mesonychids to whales is unclear, but it appears that they are not
> >artiodactyls, and so are not particularly close to whales.
>
> None of it is clear. I use the mesonychid-to-whale fairy tale as
> simply illustrative of the foolishness.
IOW you made up a lie and got your ass handed to you and NOW want to
back out. uh huh...
>
> The whole affair is less trustworth than the scientific nonsense that
> tells us one year that coffee is bad for us, good the next, and bad
> the third. They don't have an f'in clue.
and creationism? rather than having problems measured in years, its
failures are measured in millenia. thousands of years...
pagano's arguments are so easy to refute that i'm surprised he even
posts them. it's embarrassing to watch his flailing defense of an idea
that died 2000 years ago. his humiliation is painful to behold
but satisfying nonethe less...
John Harshman
> On Sun, 12 Jul 2009 10:05:26 -0700, John Harshman
> <jharshman....@pacbell.net> wrote:
>
>> T Pagano wrote:
>> [snip all but just one point]
>>
>>> And those are a damn sight better than what
>>> you have with your darwinian fairy tales of (for example) a mesonychid
>>> (a small dog-like animal) transmogrifying into a whale---which is
>>> virtually NOTHIN' but if-so stories.
>> Of course Tony's ignorance of biology is near-total.
>
> Biology is the study of living creatures as they exist now not how
> they came to arise in the first place. So "my" ignorance of biology
> is largely irrelevent. Harshman doesn't get the basics correct and
> he calls me ignorant?
Yes. I call you ignorant because you're ignorant. Biology includes both
paleobiology and evolutionary biology, as should be obvious from the
names. Your claim is wrong.
> Origins is an exercise in attempting to uncover UNOBSERVED, unique,
> non recurring, non experimentally reproducible events. Scientific
> methodology is its strongest ONLY IF events are recurring, observable
> or otherwise experimentally reproducible. So AT BEST scientists are
> left searching for remnants of events that "might" be observable now.
> But sadly for "Bonehead" Harshman the remnants NEVER uniquely
> circumscribe one set of events. He never quite seems to grasp this
> simple and irrefutable fact.
I and every other scientist in the world. If we believed you, science
would be impossible. Every event is unique and non-recurring. Some
events are similar enough to other events (or so we suppose) that we can
claim to know something about one by seeing another. Thus we suppose
that one electron resembles another. Of course that requires induction,
which you reject.
> At least the Creationist model offers something with the causal power
> to create life and its diversity.
Not quite. The creationist model, if it can be dignified with the term,
merely posits an unobserved entity and, because the entity is
unobserved, is free also to posit any conceivable set of characteristics
for that entity, including the ability and desire to do whatever we see.
This methodology can be applied to everyday life too. If, for example, I
find my car missing from its parking place, I can posit that the
intelligent poofer has transported it to Venus. Clearly, the unknown
poofer would have this capability, and therefore it must be true.
> On the other hand Abiogenesis isn't
> just flawed it's completely FAILED. The fossil record shows "stasis"
> not the ubiquitous change predicted by darwian theory. Lenski's
> 40,000+ generation experiment in change shows NOTHING of the sort. The
> NFL theorems proved conclusively that evolutionary algorithms like the
> Darwinian mechanism are no better or worse than a blind search.
None of this is true. Abiogenesis is another subject about which you
know nothing. Evolutionary theory doesn't predict ubiquitous change.
Lenski's experiments have nothing to do with either abiogenesis or
stasis. And the NFL theorem shows conclusively that natural selection is
no better than a blind search if you average over all conceivable
fitness surfaces, most of which are random.
> And what do the likes of Harshman and Okimoto and the vast array of
> elitists have to offer? Classification schemes and
> similarities---that is ALL.
Well, phylogenetics is what I do, and it happens to be what you were
talking about in the bit I respond to. I fail to see the problem. Of
course evolutionary biology covers a great deal in addition to
phylogenetics.
> Apparently evolutionary biology (as
> opposed to biology you bonehead) is merely a branch of taxonomy.
You appear not to know what taxonomy is as well as what biology is.
> They
> have yet to produce any reproducible, observable evidence that
> biological novelty has ever arose or is arising now so they are left
> trying to show that taxonomic classification trees are really lineal
> trees. But even this is smoke and mirrors. All these trees show are
> end nodes; all the common ancestors are vaporous.
Not exactly. The common ancestors are merely unknowable. We are unable
to distinguish an ancestor from the ancestor's second cousin. That's why
we choose to put all real entities at the tips of branches. It's a
convention. This has nothing to do with the point, which I will repeat
since you don't ever seem to get it:
These "mere similarities" you disdain are the primary data of
phylogenetics. If they produce a single nested hierarchy -- and they do
-- common descent is the only hypothesis that can explain the pattern.
Therefore we accept, provionally as always in science, that this descent
has happened. If you come up with a new hypothesis that explains the
data better, I will be glad to abandon common descent. What do you have?
>> The relationships
>> of mesonychids to whales is unclear, but it appears that they are not
>> artiodactyls, and so are not particularly close to whales.
>
> None of it is clear.
Not to you. But that's because you are nearly completely ignorant of
biology.
> I use the mesonychid-to-whale fairy tale as
> simply illustrative of the foolishness. Evolutionary biology is
> little more than a branch of taxonomy. Classification schemes are the
> production of sets of biological entities. How the sets are populated
> is arbitrary depending upon what attributes are considered and how
> they are weighted. The relationships between sets are based upon set
> theory not lineal connection. So whenever the attributes or their
> weighting changes then so do the sets and how they are related by set
> theory. So whenever the evolutionary biologists (or is it set
> theorists?) change which attributes are considered or their weighting
> the lineal tree changes (or is it the relationships between sets given
> by set theory?).
How do you manage to do this? You're pontificating on a subject you know
nothing about to a person (me) who's a professional in that field. And
you're not even slightly embarrassed! The interesting feature of a
robust nested hierarchy is that it doesn't matter very much which
characters you pick to look at, because they all present a similar
pattern. This is true of whales as of other taxa. Now this sort of thing
is easiest to show with randomly picked bits of the genome than with
morphology, because there are many more genetic characters and because
they're easier to code objectively. But however you do it, you find that
whales are most closely related to hippos. If this were a subjective
exercise as you imagine, wouldn't different samples of the genome tell
us that whales were closest to frogs, or bats, or paramecia?
> The whole affair is less trustworth than the scientific nonsense that
> tells us one year that coffee is bad for us, good the next, and bad
> the third. They don't have an f'in clue.
I'm pretty sure that next year whales are not going to turn out to be
closely related to squirrels, and the year after that to flounders. It's
been turning out to be hippos for quite a while now. Sorry.
>> The evidence
>> that tells us whales are artiodactyls is extensive and multifarous, from
>> fossils to SINEs, and calling it an "if-so" story is just a further
>> reflection of his ignorance.
>
> Simply point us all to the scientific reports which show the
> reproducible, observable mechanism of novelty arising and coherently
> progressing to maturity (preferably with photos). Harshman ain't
> likely to be getting that kind of proof from Lenski's 40,000+
> generation experiment cause Lenski hasn't seen any such thing.
And he also didn't do anything with whales, which is what we were
discussing. But you are trying to change the subject. We can know quite
a bit about the tree of life without knowing just why or how whales went
back to the water, or developed any of their novel features. It happens
we know something about that too, but it's another question.
> I better make sure that Harshman is actually interested in science
> rather than naturalistic philosophy and atheism.
I'm actually interested in a great many things, but I do assure you that
science is one of them. It's what I do.
>> I'm willing to suppose that there may some subjects on which Tony is not
>> ignorant, but this isn't one of them.
>
> Then produce the articles showing the proof to extinquish my
> ignorance.
I'm afraid that your ignorance is incapable of being extinquished.
> And if these articles existed the authors would be Nobel
> Prize winners no doubt. Should be plenty of links to such earth
> shattering stuff. But I can't say as I've seen it on the news or the
> Discovery Channel. Perhaps it was kept hush-hush.
> Every time I ask for the scientific articles producing the evidence I
> am offered either articles that are irrelevent or articles which were
> never intended to prove the point at issue. Forrest was highly
> embarassed the last time he produced links to articles that were
> supposed to settle arguments concerning my ignorance.
> Everytime articles are presented my opponents pray that I don't
> respond because many times I lack the time. Forrest bet wrong....
>
> Care to roll the dice?
This is the problem with your ignorance. You are unequipped to remedy it
because you deny that the articles you are shown do what they do. Now
it's my understanding we were talking about whether we really do know
that whales are related to other artiodactyls, and indeed are nested
within them. I think I know how this is going. I will give you (in a
minute) several references to papers showing that whales are
artiodactyls, and you will tell me they show no such thing because I
didn't see a hippo give birth to a whale, or can't show you a video of a
leg changing into a flipper. Right?
But here are a couple anyway:
Shedlock, A. M., M. C. Milinkovitch, and N. Okada. 2000. SINE evolution,
missing data, and the origin of whales. Syst. Biol. 49:808-817.
I like that one because it gives a very understandable explanation of
what SINEs are and how they can be used for phylogenetic analysis.
Thewissen, J. G. M., L. N. Cooper, J. C. George, and S. Bajpai. 2009.
From Land to Water: the Origin of Whales, Dolphins, and Porpoises.
Evol. Edu. Outreach 2:272–288.
That was a nice recent review of the fossil evidence.
Matthee, C. A., J. D. Burzlaff, J. F. Taylor, and S. K. Davis. 2001.
Mining the mammalian genome for artiodactyl systematics. Syst. Biol.
50:367-390.
And that's an analysis of multiple gene sequences, both nuclear and
mitochondrial.
The point is that common descent explains the data very well, but we
don't know of any other possible explanation. Perhaps you can come up
with one?
Ernest Major
<jharshman....@pacbell.net> writes
supposed to be descended from mesonychids.
--
alias Ernest Major
Ernest Major
Pagano <not....@address.net> writes
>Recall from the NFL THEOREMS that evolutionary searches are on average
>no better than a dumb, blind search.
Do you recall that this result is irrelevant to the question of the
factuality of common descent with modification through the agency of
natural selection?
You may recall that the NFL theorems say that no search algorithm (not
just stochastic hill climbing ("evolutionary") methods) performs better
than a random search, when averaged over every possible fixed search
space. That doesn't mean that search algorithms can't perform better in
some domains than a random search - as should be obvious from the
extended research into search algorithms performed by computer
scientists and system analysts. It has also been noted that evolution
does not work in a fixed search space; but regardless of whether the
theorems can be extended to relax that constraint, the first point
remains - that evolutionary algorithms can't solve every problem says
nothing about whether they can solve sufficient problems.
There's a similar result in the field of data compression. No lossless
compression algorithm can, averaged over all strings, perform better
than not compressing the string. However, in many cases where not
interested in all strings, but instead in a non-random subset, and
lossless compression algorithms find wide usage.
--
alias Ernest Major
Ernest Major
Pagano <not....@address.net> writes
>On Sun, 12 Jul 2009 10:05:26 -0700, John Harshman
><jharshman....@pacbell.net> wrote:
>
>>T Pagano wrote:
>>[snip all but just one point]
>>
>>> And those are a damn sight better than what
>>> you have with your darwinian fairy tales of (for example) a mesonychid
>>> (a small dog-like animal) transmogrifying into a whale---which is
>>> virtually NOTHIN' but if-so stories.
>>
>>Of course Tony's ignorance of biology is near-total.
>
>Biology is the study of living creatures as they exist now not how they
>came to arise in the first place. So "my" ignorance of biology is
>largely irrelevent. Harshman doesn't get the basics correct and he
>calls me ignorant?
There probably some ambiguity about which field of study abiogenesis
falls into - biology or chemistry, though I would lean to the former.
But, to deny that palaeontology is part of biology in an attempt to
claim a lack of ignorance over an error that Tony has been corrected on
more than once over the years - whistles in amazement.
--
alias Ernest Major
spintronic
> On 11 July, 22:21, T Pagano <not.va...@address.net> wrote:
> If as you are saying here, God is all knowing and all powerful, how
> could God not create a perfect world?
And what would such a thing look like?
Tim DeLaney
Unlike John Harshman, I am not a professional scientist, and unlike
Tony Pagano, I do not argue about things of which I am ignorant. But
I'd like to comment on the following paragraph written by Tony:
> Origins is an exercise in attempting to uncover UNOBSERVED, unique,
> non recurring, non experimentally reproducible events. Scientific
> methodology is its strongest ONLY IF events are recurring, observable
> or otherwise experimentally reproducible. So AT BEST scientists are
> left searching for remnants of events that "might" be observable now.
> But sadly for "Bonehead" Harshman the remnants NEVER uniquely
> circumscribe one set of events. He never quite seems to grasp this
> simple and irrefutable fact.
If this were a simple irrefutable fact, then we could never hope to
determine the cause of airplane crashes, could we Tony?. But
investigators regularly do what you assert cannot be done. One of the
most stunning examples of this is the investigation of the crash of
Pan Am flight 103 over Lockerbie, Scotland.
How did investigators determine what happened? Not by repeatedly
crashing 707's from 31,000 feet. They picked up what little remained
and pieced together what happened. A charred scrap of circuit board
was a key piece of evidence. Puts you in mind of a fossilized tooth
fragment, doesn't it?
The crash of flight 103 was a "unique, non recurring, non
experimentally reproducible event", yet investigators were able to
determine with great precision what happened, the exact make-up of the
bomb itself, how it got on board, and ultimately who did it.
The investigation of this crash is not an isolated event. When a
plane goes down, the exact cause is usually determined: A faulty wire
harness, a malfunctioning instrument, or perhaps a specific type of
metal fatigue on a specific part. It takes a lot of work that is
similar in many ways to the work done by paleontologists.
Tim
TomS
<ec9809d6-afbe-41cd...@j19g2000vbp.googlegroups.com>, Tim DeLaney
stated..."
>
>On Jul 12, 9:39=A0pm, T Pagano <not.va...@address.net> wrote:
>
>Unlike John Harshman, I am not a professional scientist, and unlike
>Tony Pagano, I do not argue about things of which I am ignorant. But
>I'd like to comment on the following paragraph written by Tony:
>
>> Origins is an exercise in attempting to uncover UNOBSERVED, unique,
>> methodology is its strongest ONLY IF events are recurring, observable
>> left searching for remnants of events that "might" be observable now.
>> But sadly for "Bonehead" Harshman the remnants NEVER uniquely
>> simple and irrefutable fact.
>
>If this were a simple irrefutable fact, then we could never hope to
>determine the cause of airplane crashes, could we Tony?. But
>investigators regularly do what you assert cannot be done. One of the
>most stunning examples of this is the investigation of the crash of
>Pan Am flight 103 over Lockerbie, Scotland.
>
>How did investigators determine what happened? Not by repeatedly
>crashing 707's from 31,000 feet. They picked up what little remained
>and pieced together what happened. A charred scrap of circuit board
>was a key piece of evidence. Puts you in mind of a fossilized tooth
>fragment, doesn't it?
>
>The crash of flight 103 was a "unique, non recurring, non
>experimentally reproducible event", yet investigators were able to
>determine with great precision what happened, the exact make-up of the
>bomb itself, how it got on board, and ultimately who did it.
>
>The investigation of this crash is not an isolated event. When a
>plane goes down, the exact cause is usually determined: A faulty wire
>harness, a malfunctioning instrument, or perhaps a specific type of
>metal fatigue on a specific part. It takes a lot of work that is
>similar in many ways to the work done by paleontologists.
>
>Tim
>
I am reminded of this passage from the Sherlock Holmes story,
"The Five Orange Pips":
'"The ideal reasoner," he remarked, "would, when he had once been
shown a single fact in all its bearings, deduce from it not only all
the chain of events which led up to it but also all the results
which would follow from it. As Cuvier could correctly describe a
whole animal by the contemplation of a single bone, so the observer
who has thoroughly understood one link in a series of incidents
should be able to accurately state all the other ones, both before
and after. We have not yet grasped the results which the reason alone
can attain to. Problems may be solved in the study which have baffled
all those who have sought a solution by the aid of their senses.'
What fascinates me about claims like the one that T Pagano made is
not that they are so obviously false, but that if they were true,
then we would have to throw out lots of our knowledge about the world.
So, what this tells me about creationism is that the creationists
are so desperate in the face of the overwhelming evidence for
evolutionary biology that they are driven to claims like that one.
If creationism had something going for it, then the creationists
would be "going positive" and telling us about the advantages to
creationism, rather than trying to call into question vast areas
of knowledge, areas of knowledge whose only "fault" is that they
include evolutionary biology.
--
---Tom S.
"...ID is not science ... because we simply do not know what it is saying."
Sahotra Sarkar, "The science question in intelligent design", Synthese,
DOI:10,1007/s11229-009-9540-x
Steven L.
> On 12 July, 02:49, Ray Martinez <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> On Jul 11, 4:10 pm, Devils Advocaat <mankyg...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> On 11 July, 22:21, T Pagano <not.va...@address.net> wrote:
>>>> <xanth...@well.com> wrote:
>>>>> A real "Creator" would have had to start somewhere.
>>>> Given the Creator's omnipotence and omniscience this isn't even
>>>> correct.
>>>>> Are all the obvious blunders in the design of living
>>>>> organisms so easily explained?
>>>> Dimwit Dolan doesn't realize that he helps make the IDer's point
>>>> clear; that is, that the activity of an intelligent designer leaves
>>>> observable attributes in some artifact which distinquish its origin
>>>> from law--chance. Even so Scripture doesn't Reveal that God created
>>>> with perfection. Dolan crashes and burns...again.
>>>> perfection. The atheists in this forum never quite learn from their
>>>> mistakes.
>>>> Genesis teaches that God's work---the material creation, including
>>>> life---- was "Good;" that is, it satisfied His purpose NOT that it was
>>>> made perfect. English translations of Scripture use the word
>>>> "perfect(ion)" but not in Genesis.
>>>>> apprenticeship of a deity, not the finished product.
>>>>> http://d.yimg.com/a/p/umedia/20090711/cp.55f6043b08ed306101c6c3ca24be...
>>>>> [volatile link, yadda, yadda]
>>>>> xanthian.
>>>> "good" and not perfect. None of these facts are new. So either
>>>> Dolan is a dimwit or he couldn't care less about getting his facts
>>>> correctly or both. I suspect it's both.
>>> could God not create a perfect world?
>>> "everything was perfect until Adam sinned"?
>>>> of their own fairy tale they have no grasp of their competitor's
>>>> position. This gives us the advantage. It explains how only a few
>>>> creationists can hold back greater numbers including the academic
>>>> elitists like blowhard Okimoto.
>>>> T Pagano
>>>> "...too easy drill sgt!!"
>> resultant of the Fall, as explicated through-out the Bible, especially
>> in the Pentateuch, removed the concept from reality.
>>
>
> But for life to be perfect, would not the world have to be perfect
> also?
According to the creationists, it was perfect.
Life would have to be pretty cool if you could sit down next to a
Tyrannosaurus Rex and not have her attack you. Visualize: T-Rex is a
vegetarian; he's friendly, like a puppy dog. You go over to him and he
bends his big head down so you can pet him. He rubs his tongue over
your face to learn about you and show he's friendly.
After Adam and Eve sinned, God turned T-Rex into a carnivorous hunter,
so it could chase Adam and Eve out of the Garden of Eden for good.
--
Steven L.
Email: sdli...@earthlinkNOSPAM.net
Remove the NOSPAM before replying to me.
Steven L.
> God is omniscient, omnipotent and He Revealed that His creation was
> "good" and not perfect.
I'm confused. Why would an omniscient, omnipotent god create something
that was imperfect? There's no evidence in the Bible that this was His
original intention. So how could an omniscient, omnipotent god create a
flawed Earth? Why?
It's precisely paradoxes like these that led Rabbi Harold Kushner to
conclude that God is *not* all-powerful. In fact, He can only work
through us. And since each of us is limited in our own powers (Superman
exists only in fiction), that puts big limits on what God can accomplish.
To Rabbi Kushner, God can still be a source of moral authority, even if
He has limited physical powers.
Steven L.
Not at all.
Here's what the creationists say about vestigials:
"Those so called vestigial organs that have functions can be explained
by economy of design. That is using similar parts whenever possible,
this happens in design all the time. The few non-functional examples can
be explained by decay."
There are plenty of "vestigial organs" in Microsoft Vista, holdovers
from previous versions going all the way back to MS-DOS. They have to
be there for compatibility with old legacy applications. Illustrating
that vestigial organs are also part of conscious design.
I'm not a creationist, but the notion that vestigial organs cannot be
explained by Intelligent Design is just false.
An old and large subway system, like the one in New York City--has
plenty of "vestigial organs"--old trackways (of old routes) and old
stations that were shut down for various reasons, but still exist
physically. They were never physically destroyed.
Steven L.
> At least the Creationist model offers something with the causal power
> to create life and its diversity. On the other hand Abiogenesis isn't
> just flawed it's completely FAILED. The fossil record shows "stasis"
> not the ubiquitous change predicted by darwian theory. Lenski's
> 40,000+ generation experiment in change shows NOTHING of the sort.
How about this experiment?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mcAq9bmCeR0
> None of it is clear. I use the mesonychid-to-whale fairy tale as
> simply illustrative of the foolishness. Evolutionary biology is
> little more than a branch of taxonomy.
How about cosmology?
Scientists tell us that stars have a life cycle. Some are born, they
live for billions of years, and then they explode. And the material
thus ejected goes into new generations of stars and planets.
That's where the planet Earth got its uranium from.
Scientists weren't around to see the planet Earth get its uranium. But
they can observe stars and classify them into life cycles of stars.
Do you accept any of that?
You seem reflexively skeptical of any process that has taken so long
that humans weren't around to observe most of it. From this I must
conclude that you don't accept astronomical theories about the evolution
of stars and galaxies either--because that was going on even before life
on Earth began. Am I right?
John Harshman
It may be that ID can be explain vestigial organs, but your example was
terrible -- it requires Vista to have descended from a previous
operating system. So it retains the notion of ID, but also retains, and
even strengthens, the claim that vestigial organs are evidence of common
descent. (Note that ID and common descent are not, strictly speaking,
incompatible; but we were discussing the latter, not the former.)
> An old and large subway system, like the one in New York City--has
> plenty of "vestigial organs"--old trackways (of old routes) and old
> stations that were shut down for various reasons, but still exist
> physically. They were never physically destroyed.
Again, this is an argument in favor of common descent, since that's how
the current subway system accumulated these vestigial organs.
I know ID is a form of creationism, but you have confused the issue
seriously be equating them. ID is a big-tent, political movement that
encompasses such creationists as are prepared to follow the "don't ask,
don't tell" agreement. ID is compatible with common descent, as some of
its adherents admit; creationism is not.
John Harshman
> T Pagano wrote:
>
>> God is omniscient, omnipotent and He Revealed that His creation was
>> "good" and not perfect.
>
> I'm confused. Why would an omniscient, omnipotent god create something
> that was imperfect? There's no evidence in the Bible that this was His
> original intention. So how could an omniscient, omnipotent god create a
> flawed Earth? Why?
>
> It's precisely paradoxes like these that led Rabbi Harold Kushner to
> conclude that God is *not* all-powerful. In fact, He can only work
> through us. And since each of us is limited in our own powers (Superman
> exists only in fiction), that puts big limits on what God can accomplish.
>
> To Rabbi Kushner, God can still be a source of moral authority, even if
> He has limited physical powers.
I'm reminded of a scene in the movie "Diner" in which two characters are
arguing about which was stronger, Superman or Mighty Mouse. And one of
them settles the argument by pointing out that Mighty Mouse is just a
cartoon character.
Mike Painter
> Not at all.
> Here's what the creationists say about vestigials:
>
> "Those so called vestigial organs that have functions can be explained
> by economy of design. That is using similar parts whenever possible,
> this happens in design all the time. The few non-functional examples
> can be explained by decay."
>
> There are plenty of "vestigial organs" in Microsoft Vista, holdovers
> from previous versions going all the way back to MS-DOS. They have to
> be there for compatibility with old legacy applications. Illustrating
> that vestigial organs are also part of conscious design.
>
> I'm not a creationist, but the notion that vestigial organs cannot be
> explained by Intelligent Design is just false.
>
> An old and large subway system, like the one in New York City--has
> plenty of "vestigial organs"--old trackways (of old routes) and old
> stations that were shut down for various reasons, but still exist
> physically. They were never physically destroyed.
If the claim was that the Designer continued to work on his design for some
indefinite period and that he was not smart enough to come out with new
models then you might have something.
I've not seen any argument about this.
However animals are more like cars than tunnels. A change in the design of a
car does not leave old parts behind.
If it did the latest Cadallic would still have tail fins, a clutch, two or
three transmission levers, two braking systems - maybe three and the
windows would be two layers thick.
Evolution explains this. Design does not and if you add the word Intelligent
to what the human body is, then the "I" in ID stands for Idiotic.
Andrew Cunningham
One that doesn't have animal A eating animal B from the inside out
while animal B is still alive? What kind of twisted mind comes up with
a concept like that?
Mike Painter
>
> According to the creationists, it was perfect.
>
> Life would have to be pretty cool if you could sit down next to a
> Tyrannosaurus Rex and not have her attack you. Visualize: T-Rex is a
> vegetarian; he's friendly, like a puppy dog. You go over to him and
> he bends his big head down so you can pet him. He rubs his tongue
> over your face to learn about you and show he's friendly.
>
> After Adam and Eve sinned, God turned T-Rex into a carnivorous hunter,
> so it could chase Adam and Eve out of the Garden of Eden for good.
Absolutely and the fossil record also shows that grapes used to fly.
Picture it in your mind. A happy little purple grape flying along and WAP.
It's flight is interrupted. The last thing it sees as the spider races
across the web to drink it is the ground below, littered with raisins.
There was no death before the fall but a spider has to eat.
Garamond Lethe
<snip>
> Recall from the NFL THEOREMS that
> evolutionary searches are on average no better than a dumb, blind
> search....
....across all possible fitness spaces, in the absence of coevolution.
Since we don't live in all possible fitness spaces and we live in
the presence of coevolution, the NFL theorems have remarkably little
to say about biology.
I was going to return Dembski's _No Free Lunch_ to the library, but
I think I'll renew it. You're still the only creationist I know who
got so desperate you had to quote-mine from a creationist tract.
<snip>
spintronic
So why call a white shark "the perfect killing machine"?
I asked what perfection would look like, not for a lesson on morals
from someone with none.
spintronic
wrote:
> Steven L. wrote:
> > I'm not a creationist, but the notion that vestigial organs cannot be
> > explained by Intelligent Design is just false.
>
> It may be that ID can be explain vestigial organs, but your example was
> terrible -- it requires Vista to have descended from a previous
> operating system.
It was.
Lets use a *subjective trait*.
"The start bar".
Are you saying vistas start bar is nothing like XP's start bar?
John Harshman
> On 13 July, 18:48, John Harshman <jharshman.diespam...@pacbell.net>
> wrote:
>> Steven L. wrote:
>
>
>>> I'm not a creationist, but the notion that vestigial organs cannot be
>>> explained by Intelligent Design is just false.
>> It may be that ID can be explain vestigial organs, but your example was
>> terrible -- it requires Vista to have descended from a previous
>> operating system.
>
> It was.
That was my point. Thanks.
> Lets use a *subjective trait*.
>
> "The start bar".
>
> Are you saying vistas start bar is nothing like XP's start bar?
>
Thankfully, I have no idea, never having had experience with either.
Klaus Hellnick
Vista is Windows NT 5.
Augray
<khel...@sbcglobal.net> wrote in <h3iv8a$o58$1...@news.albasani.net> :
NT 5 is Windows XP. Vista has a version number of 6. And the
forthcoming Windows 7 is..., well, I'm sure you can figure it out.
J.J. O'Shea
(in article <h3iv8a$o58$1...@news.albasani.net>):
Ah... no. Windows 2000 is NT 5. XP is NT 5.1. Vista is NT 6.
--
email to oshea dot j dot j at gmail dot com.
John Harshman
Boikat
> On Jul 11, 4:21 pm, T Pagano <not.va...@address.net> wrote:
> <snip>
>
>
>
> > God is omniscient, omnipotent
>
> Then you do not believe in the concept of "free will"?
It is a simple question.
>
> > and He Revealed that His creation was
> > "good" and not perfect. None of these facts are new. So either
> > Dolan is a dimwit or he couldn't care less about getting his facts
> > correctly or both. I suspect it's both.
>
> > Not only don't these nimrods atheists have an adequate knowledge base
> > of their own fairy tale they have no grasp of their competitor's
> > position. This gives us the advantage. It explains how only a few
> > creationists can hold back greater numbers including the academic
> > elitists like blowhard Okimoto.
>
> "Hold back"? What delusion of yours does that apply to? Who do you
> think you are holding back, and from what?
This is a simple question too. I wonder why Tony doesn't answer it?
Boikat
Ray Martinez
> On Jul 12, 12:14 am, T Pagano <not.va...@address.net> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Sat, 11 Jul 2009 19:19:53 -0700 (PDT), Tim DeLaney
>
> > <delaney.timo...@comcast.net> wrote:
> > >On Jul 11, 5:21 pm, T Pagano <not.va...@address.net> wrote:
> > >> On Sat, 11 Jul 2009 01:04:15 -0700, Kent Paul Dolan
>
> > >> <xanth...@well.com> wrote:
> > >> >A real "Creator" would have had to start somewhere.
>
>
> > >> God is omniscient, omnipotent and He Revealed that His creation was
> > >> "good" and not perfect. None of these facts are new. So either
> > >> Dolan is a dimwit or he couldn't care less about getting his facts
> > >> correctly or both. I suspect it's both.
>
> > >assumption you conclude that you must be right.
>
> > It isn't my assumption it is what has been Revealed and taught for
> > 2000 years. As a Christian I would be in a better position to offer
> > the Christian doctrine than that dimwit Dolan who barely gets his own
> > darwinian fairy tale correctly half the time.
>
> > >Did it ever in your
> > >entire life occur to you that you, being only human, may be wrong? Is
> > >it impossible for you to err in your beliefs? Or is it your implicit
> > >assumption that you are incapable of error?
>
> > My fallibility is irrelevent. The omniscience and omnipotence of God
> > was Revealed by Him as recorded in Scripture and taught beginning by
> > those with first hand knowledge of Jesus beginning almost 2000 years
> > ago.
>
> Your answer is curious. After a brief nod to the notion of your own
> fallibility, you contradict this notion and attempt to explain why it
> is impossible for you to err.
>
> Many other believers -- Muslims, Catholics, Mormons, Jews, Hindus,
> etc. -- are just as firmly convinced as you are that their god
> revealed the truth to them alone. By your lights they must all be
> wrong.
>
> If you do not admit that your religious beliefs could be in error,
> then why should anybody attempt to exchange views with you?
The purpose of debate is to convince the non-participant, who is
reading, that your opponent is wrong, if not confused and/or deluded.
No one claims infallibility. You sound like an angry Atheist.
Ray
> Your
> assumption of infallibility has made you impervious to any conclusion
> that, in your opinion, contradicts that view.
>
> As to your "direct eye witness observation reports", the reliability
> of eye witness accounts in court trials regarding recent events is
> notoriously inaccurate. What does that say about purported events of
> 2000 years ago?
>
> I have snipped your comments on ID, the phylogeny of cetacea, and
> other sundry topics, as being attempts to change a subject you
> obviously find uncomfortable.
>
> Tim- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
J.J. O'Shea
(in article
<559b5793-e264-4122...@r2g2000yqm.googlegroups.com>):
> The purpose of debate is to convince the non-participant, who is
> reading, that your opponent is wrong, if not confused and/or deluded.
> No one claims infallibility. You sound like an angry Atheist.
Ray-ray, your posts have convinced me that you are an arrogant fool and
simply have no clue about a great many things, including but not limited to:
science in general and biology in particular
history
theology
philosophy
logic
mathematics
Your every post continues to reinforce the impression that you are completely
clueless and have absolutely no desire to even start looking for a clue. And
wouldn't know what to do with a clue if you accidentally tripped over one.
And, for the record, I'm neither angry nor an atheist.
Devils Advocaat
paper:
"The Invulnerable Refutation Of Darwinism"
and who said in the same thread:
"Invulnerable does not mean non-falsifiable. Since my work will be
both the issue is moot".
Which suggests that he feels is position is infallible.
Tim DeLaney
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Ray, you are half right. Celebrate! A great victory for you.
I am not a bit angry. I have only pointed out that Tony has
implicitly claimed that his religious beliefs cannot be in error.
Read what he wrote; is that not right? If not, tell me why not. Has
he ever conceded that he could be in error regarding his religious
beliefs? Please elucidate, if you can.
My non-belief is not a claim of infallibility. Any number of events
could prove me wrong, and I would cheerfully change my mind if they
occurred. Meanwhile, unless the totally improbable occurs, I consider
myself an atheist. This is not by any means dogma. It is simply my
conclusion based upon best evidence.
Prove me wrong, Ray.
Tim
Steven L.
Well, it sounds like cladistics might be successfully applied to
Microsoft's products.
Steven L.
> Steven L. wrote:
> > Not at all.
>> Here's what the creationists say about vestigials:
>>
>> "Those so called vestigial organs that have functions can be explained
>> by economy of design. That is using similar parts whenever possible,
>> this happens in design all the time. The few non-functional examples
>> can be explained by decay."
>>
>> There are plenty of "vestigial organs" in Microsoft Vista, holdovers
>> from previous versions going all the way back to MS-DOS. They have to
>> be there for compatibility with old legacy applications. Illustrating
>> that vestigial organs are also part of conscious design.
>>
>> I'm not a creationist, but the notion that vestigial organs cannot be
>> explained by Intelligent Design is just false.
>>
>> An old and large subway system, like the one in New York City--has
>> plenty of "vestigial organs"--old trackways (of old routes) and old
>> stations that were shut down for various reasons, but still exist
>> physically. They were never physically destroyed.
>
> If the claim was that the Designer continued to work on his design for some
> indefinite period and that he was not smart enough to come out with new
> models then you might have something.
> I've not seen any argument about this.
> However animals are more like cars than tunnels. A change in the design of a
> car does not leave old parts behind.
I've explained to you once before that there's a manufacturing cost
associated with building cars on an assembly line. Redundant parts
would raise the cost of building the car (and hence the cost of selling
the car).
There's not that much "manufacturing cost" associated with life forms.
The gestation period doesn't suffer for keeping vestigial organs around.
The gestation period for whales wouldn't decrease if those vestigial
rear limbs were eliminated. So there's no constraint forcing the
removal of vestigials.
But when there is no "manufacturing cost" for design products, as with
software, you end up with lots of vestigial organs--old functions and
old features that are deprecated, but not eliminated--because legacy
applications from long ago still have to work.
> If it did the latest Cadallic would still have tail fins, a clutch, two or
> three transmission levers, two braking systems - maybe three and the
> windows would be two layers thick.
>
> Evolution explains this. Design does not
Evolution and conscious design are not incompatible. I keep explaining
this.
Lots of designed systems are made to evolve over time. Often that kind
of "growth potential" is designed in from the beginning.
The problem with ID is that so far at least, the assumption of an
Intelligent Designer is extraneous. They have found nothing that
*requires* it, so Occam's Razor shaves it away.
The problem with ID is that the "I" doesn't explain anything that the
ToE already explains well.
Steven L.
You're assuming that creationists believe that God's designs are not
conserved; that the design of Man had nothing whatsoever to do with the
design of the animals that preceded Man. That's not true. I don't even
think Ray Martinez believes that. How could he, when DNA evidence has
convinced even creationists that there are genetic similarities between
the human genome and the genomes of other species. Creationists don't
deny that basic fact.
Creationists have no problem with good design being conserved and
adapted. They don't necessarily believe in all designs being conserved
and adapted from one ancestral species; but to accuse them of believing
that God created humans without reusing good design from other mammals
is creating a strawman.
John Harshman
This requires some very odd theology. I know creationists don't want to
think about the actual process of creation, but the god you hypothesize
here is a tinkerer who works sequentially on new models: one bound by
time, with limitations to his thought, whose method is trial and error.
In short, a god who closely resembles a rough description of the process
of evolution.
On the other hand, Christians generally believe in an omnipotent and
omniscient god. If such a god wanted to create a set of organisms, he
would just create them, all at once, according to the individual
requirements of the designs. Re-using wouldn't enter into it.
Nested hierarchy results from common descent, or, to a limited degree,
from design processes that possess elements of common descent, as with
Windows. And human design has some resemblance to common descent
precisely because of the limitations of human ability. Creationists have
no problem with good design being conserved and adapted because they
refuse to consider the implications.
Ray Martinez
Well Tim, most evolutionists here refuse to be honest and say what you
have just said: that the evidence of evolution induces you to be an
Atheist. If I could find even one scrap of evidence supporting
evolution I would join you immediately, right after tossing my Bible
in the round file.
Backing up: when you say "so and so has said that his religious
beliefs cannot be in error" the claim is way too ambiguous. What do
you mean by "religious beliefs"?
Ray
Ernest Major
<c86f2c0d-528a-42f5...@r2g2000yqm.googlegroups.com>, Ray
Martinez <pyram...@yahoo.com> writes
In the material that you quoted he doesn't say that the evidence of
evolution induced him to be an atheist. He may well, like myself, hold
that the factuality of common descent has next to nothing to say on the
subject of the existence of God/s.
However, late in the 19th century two species of Primula, one from the
area between Sinai and northern India (Primula floribunda) and one from
further south (I believe there's some uncertainty whether is was Primula
verticillata from southern Arabia or Primula simiensis from Ethiopia)
were grown together at Kew. A sterile hybrid occurred spontaneously in
1899, and other hybrid plants were subsequently produced by intentional
crosses. These plants were propagated vegetatively from offsets. On at
least 3 occasions (in 1905, 1923 and 1926) fertility was restored by
chromosome doubling giving rise to a new allopolyploid species. (It's
not clear to me whether the name Primula x kewensis is correctly applied
to the sterile diploids or the fertile tetraploids.)
Now, this seems a silly reason for you to abandon your faith in God, and
throw away your Bible, but if that's what you think is appropriate, go
ahead.
>
>Backing up: when you say "so and so has said that his religious
>beliefs cannot be in error" the claim is way too ambiguous. What do
>you mean by "religious beliefs"?
>
>Ray
>
--
alias Ernest Major
Bob Casanova
in talk.origins, posted by Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off>:
>On Sun, 12 Jul 2009 00:14:50 -0400, the following appeared
>in talk.origins, posted by T Pagano <not....@address.net>:
>
><snip>
>
>>...We have direct eye witness
>>observation reports in Scripture of events that can only be the result
>>of Supernatural action.
>
>We have the same in the Vedas, in Homer's accounts of the
>Trojan War, and in many other places. Are they also correct
>because someone wrote them down?
>
>Oh, and while we're on the subject of Biblical content, can
>you inform the group whether, if scientific knowledge and
>contemporary observation contradict the Bible, the Bible
>should be considered correct; i.e., read literally? A simple
>"yes" or "no", or at most a single sentence, should be
>sufficient. You seemed to have a problem addressing this in
>the past; you wrote several paragraphs of obfuscation, but
>never answered the question. As I said, a simple and direct
>answer is sufficient.
And once again Tony runs and hides rather than address
embarrassing questions...
--
Bob C.
"Evidence confirming an observation is
evidence that the observation is wrong."
- McNameless
Tim DeLaney
Ray, do you have a reading comprehension problem? I said no such
thing.
I became an atheist at age 18 for reasons that had nothing to do with
evolution. Around age 40 or therabouts I took a layman's interest in
evolution. I did not then, nor do I now, connect atheism with
evolution.
Having said that, I agree that an atheist would logically choose
evolution if the choices were limited to creationism and the modern
state of evolutionary theory. But then, so should an intelligent
theist.
> If I could find even one scrap of evidence supporting
> evolution I would join you immediately, right after tossing my Bible
> in the round file.
I don't believe you.
> Backing up: when you say "so and so has said that his religious
> beliefs cannot be in error" the claim is way too ambiguous. What do
> you mean by "religious beliefs"?
We have a convention in the English language. When using quote marks,
we do not paraphrase what the other said. This is what I actually
said: "I have only pointed out that Tony has implicitly claimed that
his religious beliefs cannot be in error."
If you truly find the term "religious beliefs" ambiguous, I cannot
help you. I don't propose to divert the argument into a semantic
brawl.
Tim
Dana Tweedy
>> Ray, you are half right. Celebrate! A great victory for you.
>>
>> I am not a bit angry. I have only pointed out that Tony has
>> implicitly claimed that his religious beliefs cannot be in error.
>> Read what he wrote; is that not right? If not, tell me why not. Has
>> he ever conceded that he could be in error regarding his religious
>> beliefs? Please elucidate, if you can.
>>
>> My non-belief is not a claim of infallibility. Any number of events
>> could prove me wrong, and I would cheerfully change my mind if they
>> occurred. Meanwhile, unless the totally improbable occurs, I consider
>> myself an atheist. This is not by any means dogma. It is simply my
>> conclusion based upon best evidence.
>>
>> Prove me wrong, Ray.
>>
>> Tim- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> - Show quoted text -
>
> Well Tim, most evolutionists here refuse to be honest and say what you
> have just said: that the evidence of evolution induces you to be an
> Atheist.
Tim didn't say that the evidence of evolution "induces" him to be an
atheist. His statement above is that he considers himself an atheist,
based on "best evidence", ie, a lack of evidence for God. When you accuse
others of "misrepresentation", don't you feel the slightest twinge of irony?
> If I could find even one scrap of evidence supporting
> evolution I would join you immediately, right after tossing my Bible
> in the round file.
There's that "atheist ideology" that Ray argues for so strongly. Ray
seems to feel that evidence for evolution would be reason to reject God.
People of faith believe in God, and accept the evidence of evolution.
Also, Ray, you've found much more than a "scrap" of evidence for evolution.
That's why you keep running away from any discussion of the evidence.
>
> Backing up: when you say "so and so has said that his religious
> beliefs cannot be in error" the claim is way too ambiguous. What do
> you mean by "religious beliefs"?
Perhaps such as your belief that you can't make a mistake about the
interpretation of the Bible. ?
DJT
>
> Ray
Dana Tweedy
> On Jul 15, 7:14 am, "Steven L." <sdlit...@earthlink.net> wrote:
snip
>> You're assuming that creationists believe that God's designs are not
>> conserved; that the design of Man had nothing whatsoever to do with
>> the design of the animals that preceded Man. That's not true. I
>> don't even think Ray Martinez believes that.
>
> But I do.
>
> Species are immutable. Each one are an incarnate expression of Mind
> (Louis Agassiz).
Agassiz was famously wrong on this point. Species are not immutable, they
change as a result of variation and selection.
>
>> How could he, when DNA evidence has
>> convinced even creationists that there are genetic similarities
>> between the human genome and the genomes of other species.
>> Creationists don't deny that basic fact.
>>
>
> I do not deny the concept of "similarity" to exist between the
> concepts of Man and Ape. We *explain* the facts to evidence the
> existence of the concept seen in "Mastermind."
Of course, the any potential event could be "seen" in the concept of
"Mastermind", which is why such a concept is useless for science.
Similarity in apes and humans, or no similarity in apes and humans could be
"explained" by the same "concept". Common descent, on the other hand
explains the common features of apes and humans, but could be falsified if
there was no similarity.
>
> You might say that a contradiction exists in these positions, that is,
> the one above and the initial.
In which case, you'd be correct.
> Not so. I agree with Harshman when he
> said that you are advocating "odd theology." It is actually sourceless
> theology.
Ray, your own theology is sourceless as well.
> The textual evidence of Genesis 1 and 2 were written to
> specifically shoot down the idea of common ancestry, that is, that the
> inhabitants of nature are related.
Actually the text of Genesis was written before there was any concept of
common ancestry. The finding that humans and other life forms are
interrelated was discovered later, after observation showed the claim of
special creation to be false.
> We don't see a connected nature.
The only reason you don't "see" connected nature is because you deny it for
religious reasons. Other persons don't suffer from your blindness.
Thestrong similarity between humans and other apes is strong evidence for
the connection between humans and apes. Humans are connected to every
other living thing by common descent.
> The same is an illusion caused by the power of Mastermind----"a snare
> to entrap [your] judgment" (Darwin 1871:32). We see ID, which tells us
> that supernatural or Intelligent agency is operating in nature.
Ray, you are assuming the supernatural or "intelligent agency" and then
ignoring all evidence that natural processes are the actual causes.
Misquoting Darwin doesn't help your position.
DJT-
wf3h
>
> You might say that a contradiction exists in these positions, that is,
> the one above and the initial. Not so. I agree with Harshman when he
> said that you are advocating "odd theology." It is actually sourceless
> theology. The textual evidence of Genesis 1 and 2 were written to
> specifically shoot down the idea of common ancestry, that is, that the
> inhabitants of nature are related. We don't see a connected nature.
> The same is an illusion caused by the power of Mastermind----"a snare
> to entrap [your] judgment" (Darwin 1871:32). We see ID, which tells us
> that supernatural or Intelligent agency is operating in nature.
>
1. supernaturalism has historically been used to explain:
-disease
-earthquakes
-eclipses
-attacks by invading armies
and almost every other event
2. this explanation has ALWAYS been wrong
ray's view of nature is the equivalent of 'i'll still respect you in
the morning'. there's no more reason it's true about the origin of
species than it was true about earthquakes.
Rolf
>
> Species are immutable. Each one are an incarnate expression of Mind
> (Louis Agassiz).
>
>> convinced even creationists that there are genetic similarities
>> between the human genome and the genomes of other species.
>> Creationists don't deny that basic fact.
>>
>
> concepts of Man and Ape. We *explain* the facts to evidence the
> existence of the concept seen in "Mastermind."
>
First, change the "We" to "I, Ray". *You* explain the facts away, ignoring
the *fact* that they are *evidence* in their own right and the facts do
*not* indicate there is any *concept seen in Mastermind*(TM Ray.M.). The
evidence, the facts show that mastermind is an idiot, deliberately
masterminding poor and mediocre design that would have any earthly engineer
out of his job pronto. Heck, an idiot like *concept seen in Mastermind*(TM
Ray.M) wouldn't even get a job in the first place, except maybe as a proof
reader for Ray's Opus Magnum.
'concept seen in "Mastermind."' WTF does that mean? You may just as well
take whatever facts you like and say "they are evidence for "X", or "Y",
or whatever you like. That is not how evidence shal be treated, there must
be a logical connection between a fact and its interpretation. YOU misuse
evidence, you claim it means something that just is not derivable from the
facts.
Using your mode of reasoning (well, it isn't really reason at all), I can
explain whatever fact I want as evidence for invisible designer. That is
what children do to ecxplain why the cookie jar is empty.
> You might say that a contradiction exists in these positions, that is,
> the one above and the initial. Not so. I agree with Harshman when he
> said that you are advocating "odd theology." It is actually sourceless
> theology. The textual evidence of Genesis 1 and 2 were written to
> specifically shoot down the idea of common ancestry, that is, that the
> inhabitants of nature are related. We don't see a connected nature.
> The same is an illusion caused by the power of Mastermind----"a snare
> to entrap [your] judgment" (Darwin 1871:32). We see ID, which tells us
> that supernatural or Intelligent agency is operating in nature.
>
> Ray
>
> > Creationists have no problem with good design being conserved and
>> adapted. They don't necessarily believe in all designs being
>> conserved and adapted from one ancestral species; but to accuse them
>> of believing that God created humans without reusing good design
>> from other mammals is creating a strawman.
>>
>> --
>> Steven L.
>> Email: sdlit...@earthlinkNOSPAM.net
>> Remove the NOSPAM before replying to me.- Hide quoted text -
Rolf
But Ray, have you ever looked for evidence? What books have you read, can
you please tell us what are your qualifications for judging the ToE? I
challenge you, I say that you are very ignorant about the ToE, you know next
to nothing about it!
Prove me wrong or shut up.
Besides, it is possible to draw different conclusions even if one accept
evolution - it all depends upon which god you believe in. Like it is no
problem for my God - My God is not of this world, he is a matter of spirit
and is not about physical events on this planet or elsewhere in the
universe. And my God is not about believing, it is about knowing.
Devils Advocaat
Child: Nobody.
Which means we have the invisible bas.. I mean designer's name.
And that calls to mind the problem Cyclops had when he was blinded by
Odysseus.
So perhaps the Creationists are in the same quandary as Cyclops was?
Rolf
I believe a better purpose for debate is to demonstrate that you are right.
But you have no evidence for that, therefore your only hope lies in
"convincing your opponent that he is wrong." But that won't happen as long
as your case rest on false claims about the facts.
Augray
<sdli...@earthlink.net> wrote in
<5OWdndydHLVpccDX...@earthlink.com> :
I very much doubt that, especially when taking Windows 95, Windows 98,
and Windows Me into account.
Augray
<pyram...@yahoo.com> wrote in
<c86f2c0d-528a-42f5...@r2g2000yqm.googlegroups.com> :
[snip]
>If I could find even one scrap of evidence supporting
>evolution I would join you immediately, right after tossing my Bible
>in the round file.
Everyone knows that's not true. You run away from evidence.
[snip]
Ye Old One
enriched this group when s/he wrote:
>On Tue, 14 Jul 2009 17:01:49 -0500, Klaus Hellnick
><khel...@sbcglobal.net> wrote in <h3iv8a$o58$1...@news.albasani.net> :
>
>>John Harshman wrote:
>>> spintronic wrote:
>>>> On 13 July, 18:48, John Harshman <jharshman.diespam...@pacbell.net>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>> Steven L. wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>> I'm not a creationist, but the notion that vestigial organs cannot be
>>>>>> explained by Intelligent Design is just false.
>>>>> It may be that ID can be explain vestigial organs, but your example was
>>>>> terrible -- it requires Vista to have descended from a previous
>>>>> operating system.
>>>>
>>>> It was.
>>>
>>> That was my point. Thanks.
>>>
>>>> Lets use a *subjective trait*.
>>>>
>>>> "The start bar".
>>>>
>>>> Are you saying vistas start bar is nothing like XP's start bar?
>>>>
>>> Thankfully, I have no idea, never having had experience with either.
>>
>>Vista is Windows NT 5.
>
>NT 5 is Windows XP. Vista has a version number of 6. And the
>forthcoming Windows 7 is..., well, I'm sure you can figure it out.
Windows 2000 was NT5 and that title is still buried deep in some of
the code.
--
Bob.
Ray Martinez
[CORRECTED VERSION: ORIGINAL WAS DELETED BECAUSE OF ERRORS.]
> You're assuming that creationists believe that God's designs are not
> conserved; that the design of Man had nothing whatsoever to do with the
> design of the animals that preceded Man. That's not true. I don't even
> think Ray Martinez believes that. How could he, when DNA evidence has
> convinced even creationists that there are genetic similarities between
> the human genome and the genomes of other species. Creationists don't
> deny that basic fact.
>
But I do.
Species are immutable. Each one is an incarnate expression of Mind
(Harvard Professor Louis Agassiz).
> How could he, when DNA evidence has
> convinced even creationists that there are genetic similarities between
> the human genome and the genomes of other species. Creationists don't
> deny that basic fact.
I do not deny the concept of "similarity" to exist between the
concepts of Man and Ape. We *explain* the facts to evidence the
existence of the concept seen in "Mastermind."
You might say that a contradiction exists in these positions, that is,
the one above and the initial. Not so. I agree with Harshman when he
said that you are advocating "odd theology." It is actually
sourceless
theology. The textual evidence of Genesis 1 and 2 was written to
specifically shoot down the idea of common ancestry, that is, that the
inhabitants of nature are related. We don't see a connected nature.
The same is an illusion caused by the power of Mastermind----"a snare
to entrap [your] judgment" (Darwin 1871:32). We see ID, which tells us
that supernatural or Intelligent agency is operating in nature.
Ray
SNIP....
Ray Martinez
wrote:
Special creation is not a process----it is an ACTion of invisible
Creator. The concept of "process" corresponds to words and terms used
to describe the alleged actions of evolution.
> ....but the god you hypothesize
> here is a tinkerer who works sequentially on new models: one bound by
> time, with limitations to his thought, whose method is trial and error.
> In short, a god who closely resembles a rough description of the process
> of evolution.
>
Correct.
There is no source for *this* God (limitations, tinkerer, trial &
error, created evolution).
> On the other hand, Christians generally believe in an omnipotent and
> omniscient god. If such a god wanted to create a set of organisms, he
> would just create them, all at once, according to the individual
> requirements of the designs. Re-using wouldn't enter into it.
>
Absolutely correct.
> Nested hierarchy results from common descent, or, to a limited degree,
> from design processes that possess elements of common descent, as with
> Windows. And human design has some resemblance to common descent
> precisely because of the limitations of human ability. Creationists have
> no problem with good design being conserved and adapted because they
> refuse to consider the implications.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Harshman's foray into logic and facts was never expected to last.
Ray
wf3h
>
> I do not deny the concept of "similarity" to exist between the
> concepts of Man and Ape. We *explain* the facts to evidence the
> existence of the concept seen in "Mastermind."
>
> You might say that a contradiction exists in these positions, that is,
> the one above and the initial. Not so. I agree with Harshman when he
> said that you are advocating "odd theology." It is actually
> sourceless
> theology. The textual evidence of Genesis 1 and 2 was written to
> specifically shoot down the idea of common ancestry, that is, that the
> inhabitants of nature are related. We don't see a connected nature.
> The same is an illusion caused by the power of Mastermind----"a snare
> to entrap [your] judgment" (Darwin 1871:32). We see ID, which tells us
> that supernatural or Intelligent agency is operating in nature.
>
when i read this stuff, i'm amazed by the ability of religion to cloud
judgement and produce delusional thinking completely divorced from
reality. this kind of 'universal paranoia' regarding cause and effect
(or lack thereof), the lack of ability to look back at history and see
what a failure this idea is....
all speak to the nature of some aspects of religion to produce a view
of reality that is profoundly childlike, based on wishful thinking,
etc....
amazing. truly amazing.
John Harshman
Actually, there is. Many aspects of the Genesis story refer to such a
god, one who can't see Adam hiding in the bushes, one who is localized
(walks in a garden), one who takes quite a while to figure out what sort
of companion Adam needs, one who doesn't foresee the Fall, etc.
>> On the other hand, Christians generally believe in an omnipotent and
>> omniscient god. If such a god wanted to create a set of organisms, he
>> would just create them, all at once, according to the individual
>> requirements of the designs. Re-using wouldn't enter into it.
>>
>
> Absolutely correct.
>
>> Nested hierarchy results from common descent, or, to a limited degree,
>> from design processes that possess elements of common descent, as with
>> Windows. And human design has some resemblance to common descent
>> precisely because of the limitations of human ability. Creationists have
>> no problem with good design being conserved and adapted because they
>> refuse to consider the implications.
>
> Harshman's foray into logic and facts was never expected to last.
I notice you don't consider the implications.
wf3h
wrote:
i was thinking about the first commandment the other day....'thou
shalt have no gods before me'.
LITERALLY this means that:
1. there are many gods (god said so himself)
2. it's OK to worship them as long as YHWH is given precedence
lots of problems with a literal interpretation of scripture.
lots.
wf3h
> On Jul 15, 8:31 am, John Harshman <jharshman.diespam...@pacbell.net>
> wrote:
>
>
>
> > This requires some very odd theology. I know creationists don't want to
> > think about the actual process of creation,...
>
> Special creation is not a process----it is an ACTion of invisible
> Creator. The concept of "process" corresponds to words and terms used
> to describe the alleged actions of evolution.
a process means a specific method. ALL methods that create events in
nature...ALL of them...are based on natural laws.
this has been true throughout history. we have NEVER seen a process in
nature that was NOT based on natural laws.
and EVERY statement to the contrary has ALWAYS been wrong. there are
few times in history that allow us to speak with such determination
and confidence but this is one.
supernaturalism has ALWAYS been wrong. always. without exception.
materialist processes in nature are ALWAYS the cause of events in
nature. without exception.
Kent Paul Dolan
> Well, it sounds like cladistics might be
> successfully applied to Microsoft's products.
Personally, I've found that a push-broom and a
rubbish bin are the tools of choice for applying to
Microsoft's products, and I say that on 27 years of
disgusted experience with them.
xanthian.
Rolf
If by referring to WE you mean WE, no - WE don't, even if you do.
How do you know agent is supernatural or intelligent? Maybe he is just a
bored space traveller. There are too many examples of real sloppy
craftmanship - not even a mere earthly scientist or engineer would get away
with such sloppiness.
But that is exactly what we expect from nature, and we even know both why
and how. What do you know? Nothing at all.
And you stay away from any debate about facts and evidence. Your reference
to "Harvard Professor Louis Agassiz" is but another example of your
stupidity. You have to point ot that Agassiz was a professor, Harvard to
boot, because in yor little mind you think that ohmygood, a real Harvard
profesor - that will show those evilutionist bastards that what he said is
The Truth from the horses mouth. But ohmygod poor Ray, Agassiz words are
just that, words without weight as far as evidence goes. But you believe
anything written more that anything concrete. That helps you uphold the
illusion uppermost in your mind. Waking up to reality would be too painful
for you.
But you really should do something about that before it is too late. I am
here to help you, but you refuse to take my hand.
> Ray
>
> SNIP....
Rolf
Then, what about all the examples of sloppy design? Are they evidence that
nature have disobeyed God's instructions? Or is nature rebelling against
God? There must be an explanation for that, don't you think? Or are closing
your eyes to facts? Please consider the subject and tell us how it is, you
should know. But I know you, you will pretend the subject doesn't exist,
ostrich style.
Ray Martinez
wrote:
Atheist "understanding" of the Bible.
> one who is localized
> (walks in a garden),
Wherever God is, He is absolutely there.
> one who takes quite a while to figure out what sort
> of companion Adam needs,
More bizarrre Atheist "understanding" of the Bible.
> one who doesn't foresee the Fall, etc.
>
I completely agree.
It's the only thing God does NOT know: if a human being will choose to
obey/trust/love God given the opportunity to do otherwise.
Again, we see Harshman's foray into logic and facts to be
intermittent.
>
>
>
>
> >> On the other hand, Christians generally believe in an omnipotent and
> >> omniscient god. If such a god wanted to create a set of organisms, he
> >> would just create them, all at once, according to the individual
> >> requirements of the designs. Re-using wouldn't enter into it.
>
> > Absolutely correct.
>
> >> Nested hierarchy results from common descent, or, to a limited degree,
> >> from design processes that possess elements of common descent, as with
> >> Windows. And human design has some resemblance to common descent
> >> precisely because of the limitations of human ability. Creationists have
> >> no problem with good design being conserved and adapted because they
> >> refuse to consider the implications.
>
> > Harshman's foray into logic and facts was never expected to last.
>
Ray
> I notice you don't consider the implications.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
Reddfrogg
> On Jul 16, 12:05 pm, John Harshman <jharshman.diespam...@pacbell.net>
> wrote:
> > > There is no source for *this* God (limitations, tinkerer, trial &
> > > error, created evolution).
>
> > Actually, there is. Many aspects of the Genesis story refer to such a
> > god, one who can't see Adam hiding in the bushes,
>
> Atheist "understanding" of the Bible.
Can you demonstrate why the "atheist" understanding of the Bible is
worse than your own?
>
> > one who is localized
> > (walks in a garden),
>
> Wherever God is, He is absolutely there.
The conventional belief is that God is everywhere, not localized to
one particular spot.
>
> > one who takes quite a while to figure out what sort
> > of companion Adam needs,
>
> More bizarrre Atheist "understanding" of the Bible.
What then is the point of Adam trying out different animals to find a
"helpmeet" then?
>
> > one who doesn't foresee the Fall, etc.
>
> I completely agree.
>
> It's the only thing God does NOT know: if a human being will choose to
> obey/trust/love God given the opportunity to do otherwise.
You seem to be implying that God doesn't have the insight to realize
that if one puts a temptation in front of a person, it's likely that
person will give in to it. Is that what you meant to imply?
>
> Again, we see Harshman's foray into logic and facts to be
> intermittent.
Again "we" see that Ray has no acquaintance with logic, or facts.
DJT