See no pattern, hear no pattern, speak no pattern
Robert Camp
Anthony022071, taken from the "Against the theory of evolution"
thread.)
>>> Reproduction certainly causes DNA to be shared among offspring,but
>>> this does not mean that the DNA held in common between species is
>>> "shared" in the sense of have been inherited from the same ancestral
>>> species.
>> Why not? What other explanation is possible?
> Separate species which happen to have been created with various grades
> of genetic similarity and difference. What is with this need to tie
> all species together through supposed evolution from a hypothetical
> urtext-organism at the beginning?
"What is this need...," indeed. I think it's an interesting, and
revealing question. What Anthony doesn't appear to have considered is
that he might as well ask "What is this need to collate atmospheric
and temperature observations into models through supposed
meteorological assumptions about predicting the weather?" or, for that
matter, "What is this need to collect clues about the possible
location of something once you have lost it?" (Hint: it has something
to do with wanting to retrieve the thing.)
This is an attitude creationists display with enough frequency that it
seems to me it should have a name (maybe it already does), something
along the lines of "Argument from the Three Monkeys." The approach,
when it's not an outright denial that a pattern of observations
prompting causal questions actually exists, seems to have a thrust
akin to denying that such questions should concern us, or should even
be considered.
One of the reasons I find this attitude so fascinating is that it
strikes me as a direct repudiation of a singular, vital, and noble
aspect of humanity - the ability, and desire, to aggregate multiple
(sometimes apparently disparate) bits of information into connected
events, which, when considered in the light of experience with cause
and effect, can be crafted into hypotheses, and eventually knowledge.
Humans tease patterns out of associated observations. It’s part of our
cognitive structure to acknowledge and collate connections that go on
to form the basis for understanding. We can no more ignore this part
of ourselves than we can disavow the instinct to nurture our
offspring.
Few creationists (I hope), would have considered it a reasonable
question to ask of our ancestors "What is this need to gather details
about the repeated behaviors of predators through supposed
observation, hypothesis and testing?" (Were they able, I suspect those
individuals suffering removal of their genetic material from the gene
pool would happily attest to the value of tying together observations
about the habits of tigers and lions.) Yet those same creationists
remain singularly unimpressed upon marking the qualities shared by
tigers and lions, and, say, a house cat. Let's be clear - this is a
pattern of the most simple and conspicuous type. It requires no leap
of imagination or scientific insight to perceive the similarities of
movement and appearance (and, upon deeper observation, biology) of
these organisms. "There must be a relationship," nearly all of us
think. But for creationists (as exemplified by Anthony), the
identification of this very obvious pattern is either rejected
outright, chalked up to institutional convention, or dismissed as
immaterial.
The perception of a relationship between a tiger and a house cat is no
leap of inspiration, or prejudice, it's the barest extension of the
obvious. It's one step beyond observing that two house cats belong in
the same category. Noticing similarity, tumbling to an underlying
order or structure in nature, then attempting to understand it, is a
good, *fit*, thing. It's what we do, it's who we are.
RLC
Kleuskes & Moos
Compliments.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
_________________________________
< What UNIVERSE is this, please?? >
---------------------------------
\
\
___
{~._.~}
( Y )
()~*~()
(_)-(_)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Chris Thompson
Kleuskes & Moos <kle...@somewhere.else.net> wrote in
news:j36ake$3nt$1...@dont-email.me:
quantum.dotproduct
Pass the crossover parcel.
Lets get X, to spread.
(This game is highly complex, so I've simplified it to show X grows)
A) XY Parent 1
> First Family
B) YZ Parent 2
********************
C) ZY Parent 1
> Second Family
D) YZ Parent 2
Once mating occurs, lets pretend they are families & incest is
forbidden, so in the second generation Family 1, can only mate with
Family 2.
A) XY
B) YZ
=
a1b1) = XY
or
a1b2) = XZ
or
a2b1) = YY
or
a2b2) = YZ
You've now doubled the chance of X in this first generation/family.
And again for;
C) ZY
D) YZ
=
c1d1) = ZY
or
c1d2) = ZZ
or
c2d1) = YY
or
c2d2) = YZ
In *all* 8 groups we have
XY, XZ, YY, YY, YZ, YZ, ZY, ZZ
or
XY '
XZ ''
YY *
YY *
YZ .
YZ .
ZY ~
ZZ :
Occurances are;
1 XY '
1 XZ ''
2 YY *
2 YZ .
1 ZY ~
1 ZZ :
We can assume 2 things here. The placement 1 or 2 left right doesn't
matter, or it does. (I'm gonna say it doesn't to simplify things)
So we have;
1 XY
1 XZ
2 YY
3 YZ
1 ZZ
With X in 2 of 8, equals of 1 of 4 *Originally*.
However:
Originally we had these groups;
XY
ZY = YZ
So we now have 3 extra groups.
XZ, YY, & ZZ.
You had X in 1 out of 2 groups, now you have X in 2 of 5 groups.
Or *ORIGINALLY*;
X was 0.5
Now it is
2 / 5 = 0.4
Since 0.5 is greater than 0.4.
X *isn't* spreading, through the population in this first generation.
Anyone care to prove it spreads in the second or 3rd?
VoiceOfReason
wrote:
> < What UNIVERSE is this, please?? >
> � \
> � �\
> � � � �___ �
> � � �{~._.~}
> � � � ( Y )
> � � �()~*~() �
> � � �(_)-(_) �
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Agreed. Good post.
I guess we could get into a lot of socio-economic-religio anaylsis,
but I just ate dinner and I'm lazy at the moment.
T Pagano
<rober...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>(The following is part of an exchange between John Harshman and
>Anthony022071, taken from the "Against the theory of evolution"
>thread.)
>
>>>> Reproduction certainly causes DNA to be shared among offspring,but
>>>> this does not mean that the DNA held in common between species is
>>>> "shared" in the sense of have been inherited from the same ancestral
>>>> species.
Similarity is necessary but not sufficient to prove lineal continuity
and transformational change between discrete species. All that is
observed are discrete discontinuous species in both fossil record and
in extant species.
>
>>> Why not? What other explanation is possible?
Certainly design by intelligent agent.
Stasis and sudden appearance of the fossil record disconfirm the
neoDarwinian mechanism but not intelligent design.
>
>> Separate species which happen to have been created with various grades
>> of genetic similarity and difference. What is with this need to tie
>> all species together through supposed evolution from a hypothetical
>> urtext-organism at the beginning?
>
>"What is this need...," indeed. I think it's an interesting, and
>revealing question.
I suspect Anthony's question was rhetorical. And if not, the "need" is
simple to understand. Atheists (and Darwin was an atheist) are
compelled by their metaphysical biases to require the solution be
purely materialistic. Scientific methods and our observational tools
are silent about the nature of the true explanation.
>What Anthony doesn't appear to have considered is
>that he might as well ask "What is this need to collate atmospheric
>and temperature observations into models through supposed
>meteorological assumptions about predicting the weather?"
Remember that purely naturalistic processes must be continuous. In
this example we can observe the continuity of meteorological
processes. No such thing is true of prehistoric life. All of the
evidence points to profound discontinuites of prehistoric life. And
no one has ever observed continuous, transformational change in any
extant life forms during recorded history.
>or, for that
>matter, "What is this need to collect clues about the possible
>location of something once you have lost it?" (Hint: it has something
>to do with wanting to retrieve the thing.)
The loss of an object is a singular discontinuous event and not part
of any continuous, naturalistic process analogous to hypothesized
neoDarwinian evolution.
>
>This is an attitude creationists display with enough frequency that it
>seems to me it should have a name (maybe it already does), something
>along the lines of "Argument from the Three Monkeys." The approach,
>when it's not an outright denial that a pattern of observations
>prompting causal questions actually exists, seems to have a thrust
>akin to denying that such questions should concern us, or should even
>be considered.
To suggest that this nonsense is to be kind.
What Anthony points out is that the atheist insistence on limiting the
interpretation of biological similarity to purely naturalistic
darwinism is not justified by any logical argument or philosophy of
science. It is the result of a metaphysical bias----atheism and
naturalism.
>
>One of the reasons I find this attitude so fascinating is that it
>strikes me as a direct repudiation of a singular, vital, and noble
>aspect of humanity - the ability, and desire, to aggregate multiple
>(sometimes apparently disparate) bits of information into connected
>events, which, when considered in the light of experience with cause
>and effect, can be crafted into hypotheses, and eventually knowledge.
>Humans tease patterns out of associated observations. It’s part of our
>cognitive structure to acknowledge and collate connections that go on
>to form the basis for understanding. We can no more ignore this part
>of ourselves than we can disavow the instinct to nurture our
>offspring.
This is both misquided and false. No collection of
observations----large or small-----can be fed mechanically into some
deductive logic engine on one end with the true explanation popping
out the other. Any collection of observations is ALWAYS interpreted
in the the light of an existing theory under consideration. Raw
observations are NEVER self interpreting.
The issue that Anthony raises is: Why do evolutionist restrict what
theories can be considered and employed to interpret the observations.
Interpretations of the same raw observations which may be
diametrically opposed? This is a question which neither Harshman nor
Camp will answer.
The rest snipped as more evidence of a completely misguided notion of
the philosophy of science in general and scientific practice in
particular.
Regards,
T Pagano
SortingItOut
Your groupings are arbitrary. In both generations, 1 in 4 have X. No
increase, no decrease.
What is your point, anyway?
Robert Camp
> On Thu, 25 Aug 2011 11:58:36 -0700 (PDT), Robert Camp
>
> >(The following is part of an exchange between John Harshman and
> >Anthony022071, taken from the "Against the theory of evolution"
> >thread.)
>
> >>>> Reproduction certainly causes DNA to be shared among offspring,but
> >>>> this does not mean that the DNA held in common between species is
> >>>> "shared" in the sense of have been inherited from the same ancestral
> >>>> species.
>
> Similarity is necessary but not sufficient to prove lineal continuity
> and transformational change between discrete species. All that is
> observed are discrete discontinuous species in both fossil record and
> in extant species.
>
> >>> Why not? What other explanation is possible?
>
> Certainly design by intelligent agent.
>
> Stasis and sudden appearance of the fossil record disconfirm the
> neoDarwinian mechanism but not intelligent design.
These things offer no such disconfirmation. This has been explained to
you many times, as has the fact that "Intelligent Design" is not, in
any objective sense, an explanation for anything. Any analogy between
ID and what we know to be (natural and noncontroversial) intelligent
design is logically flawed and therefore useless in support of an
inference to design. And any otherwise unsupported inference to ID as
possible causal agency is an unwarranted assumption.
ID cannot offer an explanation if the very existence of ID, not to
mention its causal connection to the phenomena in question, cannot be
demonstrated.
> >> Separate species which happen to have been created with various grades
> >> of genetic similarity and difference. What is with this need to tie
> >> all species together through supposed evolution from a hypothetical
> >> urtext-organism at the beginning?
>
> >"What is this need...," indeed. I think it's an interesting, and
> >revealing question.
>
> I suspect Anthony's question was rhetorical.
You can be forgiven for not being familiar with much of Anthony's
output. Examples of this approach occur in much of what he writes.
> And if not, the "need" is
> simple to understand. Atheists (and Darwin was an atheist) are
> compelled by their metaphysical biases to require the solution be
> purely materialistic. Scientific methods and our observational tools
> are silent about the nature of the true explanation.
I used to think you were aware of your own sophistry. I'm not so sure
anymore. "True explanation?" C'mon, Tony, do you suppose there is
anyone who cannot see through such specious nonsense.
> >What Anthony doesn't appear to have considered is
> >that he might as well ask "What is this need to collate atmospheric
> >and temperature observations into models through supposed
> >meteorological assumptions about predicting the weather?"
>
> Remember that purely naturalistic processes must be continuous. In
> this example we can observe the continuity of meteorological
> processes. No such thing is true of prehistoric life. All of the
> evidence points to profound discontinuites of prehistoric life. And
> no one has ever observed continuous, transformational change in any
> extant life forms during recorded history.
A silly, inapplicable analogy, coupled with a silly misconception of
the nature of observation and inference, based upon a silly
misunderstanding of geologic time and natural processes.
In short, it's just silly.
> >or, for that
> >matter, "What is this need to collect clues about the possible
> >location of something once you have lost it?" (Hint: it has something
> >to do with wanting to retrieve the thing.)
>
> The loss of an object is a singular discontinuous event and not part
> of any continuous, naturalistic process analogous to hypothesized
> neoDarwinian evolution.
Nor was the example meant to be analogous to such a thing.
> >This is an attitude creationists display with enough frequency that it
> >seems to me it should have a name (maybe it already does), something
> >along the lines of "Argument from the Three Monkeys." The approach,
> >when it's not an outright denial that a pattern of observations
> >prompting causal questions actually exists, seems to have a thrust
> >akin to denying that such questions should concern us, or should even
> >be considered.
>
> To suggest that this nonsense is to be kind.
>
> What Anthony points out is that the atheist insistence on limiting the
> interpretation of biological similarity to purely naturalistic
> darwinism is not justified by any logical argument or philosophy of
> science. It is the result of a metaphysical bias----atheism and
> naturalism.
Please read a book on philosophy of science, or just a book on
science. Heck, I'd be happy if you just read a philosophy book,
perhaps it might dissuade you from your foolish notions about
induction.
> >One of the reasons I find this attitude so fascinating is that it
> >strikes me as a direct repudiation of a singular, vital, and noble
> >aspect of humanity - the ability, and desire, to aggregate multiple
> >(sometimes apparently disparate) bits of information into connected
> >events, which, when considered in the light of experience with cause
> >and effect, can be crafted into hypotheses, and eventually knowledge.
> >Humans tease patterns out of associated observations. It’s part of our
> >cognitive structure to acknowledge and collate connections that go on
> >to form the basis for understanding. We can no more ignore this part
> >of ourselves than we can disavow the instinct to nurture our
> >offspring.
>
> This is both misquided and false. No collection of
> observations----large or small-----can be fed mechanically into some
> deductive logic engine on one end with the true explanation popping
> out the other.
It is fortunate, then, that no one said, or even implied such a thing.
In responding to a post do you ever consider it part of your
rhetorical responsibility to actually read and understand what was
written, thus resulting in coherent reply?
> Any collection of observations is ALWAYS interpreted
> in the the light of an existing theory under consideration. Raw
> observations are NEVER self interpreting.
See above.
> The issue that Anthony raises is: Why do evolutionist restrict what
> theories can be considered and employed to interpret the observations.
Restrict in what way, Tony? I'll leave this question open-ended in the
(likely vain) hope that it might prompt profitable exposition of your
ideas. Feel free to snip everything else in this post if you wish,
just answer this - How have "evolutionists" restricted the
consideration of possible theories, how is this in error, and how
would you do it differently?
You know this question, Tony. You've seen it many times in many forms,
but you've never had the courage to deal with it.
> Interpretations of the same raw observations which may be
> diametrically opposed? This is a question which neither Harshman nor
> Camp will answer.
In the very thread from which the above exchange was lifted Harshman
has asked Anthony several times for his alternate interpretation of
the observations. Like you, Anthony mistakes an ungrounded fiction for
an explanation. And like yours (ID), his "explanation" is uncorrelated
and unconstrained, leaving it impotent to explain anything.
What you don't seem to realize here is that your (and others') bitter
complaints about scientific methodology disallowing non-natural
inference is just another misunderstanding of what it is that
constitutes an actual explanation. And it is another example of what I
spoke of in the OP, an inability or unwillingness to recognize (or
outright denial of) the existence of connected patterns of
observations, and the purpose and utility of attempting to understand
what they mean.
Your ignorance has provided a useful model. Thank you.*
RLC
(* While the above "Thank you" may have been a tad sarcastic, I do
appreciate your restraint in not abusing the headers for this thread.
It is a most welcome change.)
Robert Camp
wrote:
Thanks, everyone, for the kind comments.
RLC
Boikat
<snip>
>
> The issue that Anthony raises is: Why do evolutionist restrict what
> theories can be considered and employed to interpret the observations.
You mean the exclusion of supernatural causal agents? If your answer
is "Yes", how would you propose testing that, given supernatural
causal agents do not have to be consistant? If that is not the case,
by all means, share.
> Interpretations of the same raw observations which may be
> diametrically opposed?
If the logic behind the interpretations are sound, obviously more data
is needed. The more correct interpretaion will not be solved by
proclaiming, "The supernatural causal agent did it!"
> This is a question which neither Harshman nor
> Camp will answer.
>
They probably have, but, as usual, your selective blindness caused ypu
to "not see it".
> The rest snipped as more evidence of a completely misguided notion of
> the philosophy of science in general and scientific practice in
> particular.
The ironic nature of that comment depends on how you answered my
question concerning "supernatural causal agents". Or will your
selective blindness kick in, and cause you to "not see it"?
Boikat
jillery
wrote:
I'm pretty sure that question has been answered many times.
"Evolutionists", or more correctly scientists, restrict their theories
to those which can be tested and falsified. To do anything else is to
go beyond the methodology of science.
John Harshman
> On Thu, 25 Aug 2011 11:58:36 -0700 (PDT), Robert Camp
> <rober...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>> (The following is part of an exchange between John Harshman and
>> Anthony022071, taken from the "Against the theory of evolution"
>> thread.)
>>
>>>>> Reproduction certainly causes DNA to be shared among offspring,but
>>>>> this does not mean that the DNA held in common between species is
>>>>> "shared" in the sense of have been inherited from the same ancestral
>>>>> species.
>
> Similarity is necessary but not sufficient to prove lineal continuity
> and transformational change between discrete species. All that is
> observed are discrete discontinuous species in both fossil record and
> in extant species.
Or, in other words, exactly what we would expect to see from common descent.
>>>> Why not? What other explanation is possible?
>
> Certainly design by intelligent agent.
That isn't an explanation for the pattern being discussed. Why should an
intelligent agent produce a nested hierarchy?
> Stasis and sudden appearance of the fossil record disconfirm the
> neoDarwinian mechanism but not intelligent design.
I'm afraid the first claim is false. And the second is vacuous. Stasis
and sudden appearance are fully compatible with common descent if the
record itself is what's discontinuous. And of course nothing could
possibly disconfirm the vague pronouncement "intelligent design", since
an omnipotent creator could produce anything, up to and including the
entire universe last Thursday.
>>> Separate species which happen to have been created with various grades
>>> of genetic similarity and difference. What is with this need to tie
>>> all species together through supposed evolution from a hypothetical
>>> urtext-organism at the beginning?
>
>> "What is this need...," indeed. I think it's an interesting, and
>> revealing question.
>
> I suspect Anthony's question was rhetorical. And if not, the "need" is
> simple to understand. Atheists (and Darwin was an atheist) are
> compelled by their metaphysical biases to require the solution be
> purely materialistic. Scientific methods and our observational tools
> are silent about the nature of the true explanation.
Then you will be able to come up with an alternative explanation that
fits the data. What is it?
>> What Anthony doesn't appear to have considered is
>> that he might as well ask "What is this need to collate atmospheric
>> and temperature observations into models through supposed
>> meteorological assumptions about predicting the weather?"
>
> Remember that purely naturalistic processes must be continuous.
Why?
> In
> this example we can observe the continuity of meteorological
> processes.
What does that even mean?
> No such thing is true of prehistoric life. All of the
> evidence points to profound discontinuites of prehistoric life. And
> no one has ever observed continuous, transformational change in any
> extant life forms during recorded history.
Irrelevant if such change is necessary to explain the data. And it is.
If you disagree, please present your alternative explanation for the
nested hierarchy of life.
>> or, for that
>> matter, "What is this need to collect clues about the possible
>> location of something once you have lost it?" (Hint: it has something
>> to do with wanting to retrieve the thing.)
>
> The loss of an object is a singular discontinuous event and not part
> of any continuous, naturalistic process analogous to hypothesized
> neoDarwinian evolution.
What does that even mean? Why is the loss of an object "discontinuous"?
>> This is an attitude creationists display with enough frequency that it
>> seems to me it should have a name (maybe it already does), something
>> along the lines of "Argument from the Three Monkeys." The approach,
>> when it's not an outright denial that a pattern of observations
>> prompting causal questions actually exists, seems to have a thrust
>> akin to denying that such questions should concern us, or should even
>> be considered.
>
> To suggest that this nonsense is to be kind.
>
> What Anthony points out is that the atheist insistence on limiting the
> interpretation of biological similarity to purely naturalistic
> darwinism is not justified by any logical argument or philosophy of
> science. It is the result of a metaphysical bias----atheism and
> naturalism.
I don't think, based on his prior record, that he actually means that.
You're projecting your view onto him. Of course methodological
naturalism isn't atheism, just a necessary condition to do any science.
We must assume some regularity of causation, which means that notions
incorporating omnipotence, without any limitations, are useless to anyone.
>> One of the reasons I find this attitude so fascinating is that it
>> strikes me as a direct repudiation of a singular, vital, and noble
>> aspect of humanity - the ability, and desire, to aggregate multiple
>> (sometimes apparently disparate) bits of information into connected
>> events, which, when considered in the light of experience with cause
>> and effect, can be crafted into hypotheses, and eventually knowledge.
>> Humans tease patterns out of associated observations. It’s part of our
>> cognitive structure to acknowledge and collate connections that go on
>> to form the basis for understanding. We can no more ignore this part
>> of ourselves than we can disavow the instinct to nurture our
>> offspring.
>
> This is both misquided and false. No collection of
> observations----large or small-----can be fed mechanically into some
> deductive logic engine on one end with the true explanation popping
> out the other.
Nobody mentioned "deductive" until you did. Induction works perfectly well.
> Any collection of observations is ALWAYS interpreted
> in the the light of an existing theory under consideration. Raw
> observations are NEVER self interpreting.
True but pointless.
> The issue that Anthony raises is: Why do evolutionist restrict what
> theories can be considered and employed to interpret the observations.
> Interpretations of the same raw observations which may be
> diametrically opposed? This is a question which neither Harshman nor
> Camp will answer.
That isn't actually Anthony's issue. It's yours. I would try to answer
it, but it doesn't even seem to be a grammatical sentence, much less a
question. Could you rephrase?
Ernest Major
Pagano <not....@address.net> writes
>Stasis and sudden appearance of the fossil record disconfirm the
>neoDarwinian mechanism but not intelligent design.
You're confusing Paganist evolution with neoDarwinism again.
--
alias Ernest Major
Rolf
Against stupidity the gods themselves contend in vain.
Quoted by Rolf
Rolf
Atheism and naturalism = metphysical? Creationism = science!
Rolf
I raise the question:
Why do creationists restrict what theories can be considered and employed
to interpret the observations. Interpretations of the same raw observations
which may be
diametrically opposed? This is a question TP cannot answer.
>
> The rest snipped as more evidence of a completely misguided notion of
> the philosophy of science in general and scientific practice in
> particular.
>
Says The Authority, Tony Pagano!
>
> Regards,
> T Pagano
Burkhard
Steven L.
"T Pagano" <not....@address.net> wrote in message
news:apagano-daud5711771d3...@4ax.com:
Speaking only for myself:
I would have no problem with science considering supernatural
causes--but *only if* said supernatural causes were then investigated
scientifically like any material cause would be.
A favorite example of mine is those real-world
"ghostbusters"--paranormal investigators who try to take photographs, do
measurements, use radiation detectors, etc., to find real evidence of
ghosts. So far they haven't succeeded. But at least they are treating
ghosts as a phenomenon to be *studied objectively*.
That's quite different from attributing life on Earth to some unnamed,
unexplained, inexplicable, ineffable "Intelligent Designer"--and then
leaving it at that.
To me, the dichotomy is not between natural and supernatural. It's
between objective analysis vs. the ineffable.
Creationists are invariably believers in some Supreme God as the
Designer. But by placing that God beyond human investigation, beyond
scientific analysis, and even beyond human description, they have made a
scientific explanation of the claim of an Intelligent Designer
impossible.
If the Intelligent Designer were some ultra-advanced space aliens, then
we could investigate: What are these aliens like? Where did they come
from? When did they arrive on Earth? Just what did they do here?
If you're prepared to ask those questions of the Supernatural Designer,
then we can indeed move that hypothesis into science:
What is God really like as a scientific phenomenon?
Where did God come from?
What is God's interest in Earth?
What did God do here on Earth? And when did he do it?
These questions would need to be answered from a modern perspective.
It's no longer enough to just say "And God said 'Let the earth bring
forth trees." We would have to analyze just which organic molecules God
created, and in what order.
-- Steven L.
Steven L.
"Robert Camp" <rober...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:8ff10bd2-9d47-443a...@l7g2000vbz.googlegroups.com:
That was in fact a common human belief, centuries ago.
Folks would observe that someone got sick (say smallpox). Then others
of his family got sick with the same illness. Then even the priest who
visited that sick person got sick with the same illness.
Why? It's just God's will. God works in mysterious ways.
Or witches put a spell on those victims.
Or the Jews did it.
Creationists are nostalgic for the days when "It's God's will" was a
sufficiently satisfying explanation.
> One of the reasons I find this attitude so fascinating is that it
> strikes me as a direct repudiation of a singular, vital, and noble
> aspect of humanity - the ability, and desire, to aggregate multiple
> (sometimes apparently disparate) bits of information into connected
> events, which, when considered in the light of experience with cause
> and effect, can be crafted into hypotheses, and eventually knowledge.
You're wrong--on two counts.
First of all, humans always aggregated events into patterns. But the
"pattern" that they recognized was that of an angry god punishing them
with plagues, floods, pestilence, earthquakes. Or a benevolent god
blessing them with good health and bountiful harvests. Even today,
folks will say "Thank God" after they've had a lucky escape from some
disaster.
Creationists aren't against finding patterns. They're against finding
naturalistic patterns. To them, just as to most folks centuries ago,
it's more satisfying to attribute the pattern to the work of God.
They're just coy about saying that today, because the Supreme Court
banned such talk in public school science classes. But before that,
Henry Morris was quite forthright about it.
Secondly, the fact that humans are very good at finding patterns doesn't
mean they're always right. Two examples of seeing patterns that really
aren't there are the constellations in the sky and those famous
Rorschach inkblot tests.
Finding patterns says almost as much about your psychology as it does
about the data.
Everybody wants to find patterns. But what made science into a
discipline was its insistence on finding patterns that withstood careful
analysis, test, and experiment.
-- Steven L.
Robert Camp
> "Robert Camp" <robertlc...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
This, as you imply below ("humans always aggregated events into
patterns. But the "pattern" that they recognized was that of an angry
god punishing them"), was simply a less sophisticated bit of analysis
that had not yet been replaced by more empirical methods. It's easy to
see how hypotheses which explained the habits of predators by
referring to God's will would be quickly found wanting in favor of
more objective evaluations.
It's difficult to blame "creationists" of centuries ago since they had
no modern germ theory to frame their analyses. Likewise, I wouldn't
think less of contemporary individuals who live in societies where
that information is not available. But as you suggest, the offenders
of whom we speak have no such excuses.
> > One of the reasons I find this attitude so fascinating is that it
> > strikes me as a direct repudiation of a singular, vital, and noble
> > aspect of humanity - the ability, and desire, to aggregate multiple
> > (sometimes apparently disparate) bits of information into connected
> > events, which, when considered in the light of experience with cause
> > and effect, can be crafted into hypotheses, and eventually knowledge.
>
> You're wrong--on two counts.
It wouldn't be the first (and second) time.
> First of all, humans always aggregated events into patterns. But the
> "pattern" that they recognized was that of an angry god punishing them
> with plagues, floods, pestilence, earthquakes. Or a benevolent god
> blessing them with good health and bountiful harvests. Even today,
> folks will say "Thank God" after they've had a lucky escape from some
> disaster.
True enough.
> Creationists aren't against finding patterns. They're against finding
> naturalistic patterns. To them, just as to most folks centuries ago,
> it's more satisfying to attribute the pattern to the work of God.
I don't think this argument holds up. Creationists today occupy a
reality, and live their lives, dominated by observation and analysis
of "naturalistic" patterns. This, again as you imply, has always been
true but the underlying framework of epistemological thought hasn't
always been there.
Broadly put, the Enlightenment happened. Obviously this change in
thought was and still is a continuous process. But, allowing for the
extremes, I think it fair to say that virtually everyone alive today
with access to education and media operates in, and understands, a
reality that recognizes a difference between sense and superstition.
The point is that for one to believe one has found a non-naturalistic
pattern is no less a misconception than Anthony's suggestion that "God
did it" is an "explanation." Neither misapprehension offers
evidential, empirically useful elucidation of observations. Both
represent, not just a different interpretation, but an intentional
disregard of parsimony.
As I suggested, I think this is all about differences in the available
cognitive models. The cultural sea in which we swim today imbues us
all with the basics of observation and evaluation that impel inference
to natural cause, not mythology.* This is easily demonstrated by
observation of behavior. Even the most religiously/magically inclined
among us attribute virtually all of the events in their lives to
naturalistic agency.
Again, there are those who, perhaps even in the U.S. (Appalachia?),
who don't have access to this modern reality and therefore cannot be
faulted. But there are hardly any creationists today, including
Anthony, who deserve such exemption. They know, or remain willfully
ignorant of, what they're doing (denying the existence or importance
of simple and obvious patterns of observation). They do it
selectively, and they do it in spite of intellectual consistency, not
because of it.
[*This is not to impugn faith. Just to imply that it inevitably
reflects culture and time. In this day and age there is hardly anyone
who bothers to ascribe every detail of day to day naturalistic
phenomena to supernatural cause (barring such extraordinarily odd
ducks as Ray M.)]
> They're just coy about saying that today, because the Supreme Court
> banned such talk in public school science classes. But before that,
> Henry Morris was quite forthright about it.
>
> Secondly, the fact that humans are very good at finding patterns doesn't
> mean they're always right. Two examples of seeing patterns that really
> aren't there are the constellations in the sky and those famous
> Rorschach inkblot tests.
>
> Finding patterns says almost as much about your psychology as it does
> about the data.
Again, true enough, but not relevant.
> Everybody wants to find patterns. But what made science into a
> discipline was its insistence on finding patterns that withstood careful
> analysis, test, and experiment.
Agreed, almost. What allows science to be a successful discipline
depends entirely upon replication and agreement upon the results of
analysis, test and experiment. Even though I (in another time) might
have tried to analyze objectively, I might be entirely wrong about
what a tiger intends by certain behaviors. It's much more likely that
I won't suffer for this miscalculation if I share my analysis with
others who've done the same but not necessarily come to similar
conclusions.
What makes science something more than just an informative hobby, what
makes it so powerful, is collaboration, replication and consensus. And
that's something we've had to do from our very beginnings. It wasn't
science then, but it was adaptive, and current denial by creationists
of clear and demonstrable empirical patterns, while it may be locally
"fit" (adaptive within their community) is, in my opinion, a silly
denial of the evidence of their own eyes, and some basic rules of
logic.
RLC
John Stockwell
> On Thu, 25 Aug 2011 11:58:36 -0700 (PDT), Robert Camp
>
> >(The following is part of an exchange between John Harshman and
> >Anthony022071, taken from the "Against the theory of evolution"
> >thread.)
>
> >>>> Reproduction certainly causes DNA to be shared among offspring,but
> >>>> this does not mean that the DNA held in common between species is
> >>>> "shared" in the sense of have been inherited from the same ancestral
> >>>> species.
>
> Similarity is necessary but not sufficient to prove lineal continuity
> and transformational change between discrete species. All that is
> observed are discrete discontinuous species in both fossil record and
> in extant species.
The fossil record is entirely consistent with the notion of common
descent. Period.
>
>
>
> >>> Why not? What other explanation is possible?
>
> Certainly design by intelligent agent.
How? By what process did this hypothetical "intelligent agent" do
this?
With the theory of evolution, the process is on the table--->
reproduction
followed by selection.
>
> Stasis and sudden appearance of the fossil record disconfirm the
> neoDarwinian mechanism but not intelligent design.
Nope. The nested hierarchical structure of biology holds up at all
levels of
taxonomic investigation, so the basic mechanism of "descent with
modification"
holds-->thus common descent holds.
>
>
>
> >> Separate species which happen to have been created with various grades
> >> of genetic similarity and difference. What is with this need to tie
> >> all species together through supposed evolution from a hypothetical
> >> urtext-organism at the beginning?
>
> >"What is this need...," indeed. I think it's an interesting, and
> >revealing question.
>
> I suspect Anthony's question was rhetorical. And if not, the "need" is
> simple to understand. Atheists (and Darwin was an atheist) are
> compelled by their metaphysical biases to require the solution be
> purely materialistic. Scientific methods and our observational tools
> are silent about the nature of the true explanation.
Anthony is making the same mistake that you are, which is that somehow
assertions from religion count the same in scientific discussions as
scientific observations.
>
> >What Anthony doesn't appear to have considered is
> >that he might as well ask "What is this need to collate atmospheric
> >and temperature observations into models through supposed
> >meteorological assumptions about predicting the weather?"
>
> Remember that purely naturalistic processes must be continuous. In
> this example we can observe the continuity of meteorological
> processes. No such thing is true of prehistoric life. All of the
> evidence points to profound discontinuites of prehistoric life. And
> no one has ever observed continuous, transformational change in any
> extant life forms during recorded history.
All observations in science are discrete. There is no evidence that
the discontinuities
in the fossil record are anything but due to sampling.
>
> >or, for that
> >matter, "What is this need to collect clues about the possible
> >location of something once you have lost it?" (Hint: it has something
> >to do with wanting to retrieve the thing.)
>
> The loss of an object is a singular discontinuous event and not part
> of any continuous, naturalistic process analogous to hypothesized
> neoDarwinian evolution.
...unless of course the process involved operates has at its core
relatively rapidly
happening events that are not sampled.
>
>
>
> >This is an attitude creationists display with enough frequency that it
> >seems to me it should have a name (maybe it already does), something
> >along the lines of "Argument from the Three Monkeys." The approach,
> >when it's not an outright denial that a pattern of observations
> >prompting causal questions actually exists, seems to have a thrust
> >akin to denying that such questions should concern us, or should even
> >be considered.
>
> To suggest that this nonsense is to be kind.
>
> What Anthony points out is that the atheist insistence on limiting the
> interpretation of biological similarity to purely naturalistic
> darwinism is not justified by any logical argument or philosophy of
> science. It is the result of a metaphysical bias----atheism and
> naturalism.
Science, of course, is "limited" to reasonable expectations, which is
to say that
we don't base our conclusions on what we would like to have happened,
but to what
evidence shows we have can reasonably conclude.
>
>
>
> >One of the reasons I find this attitude so fascinating is that it
> >strikes me as a direct repudiation of a singular, vital, and noble
> >aspect of humanity - the ability, and desire, to aggregate multiple
> >(sometimes apparently disparate) bits of information into connected
> >events, which, when considered in the light of experience with cause
> >and effect, can be crafted into hypotheses, and eventually knowledge.
> >Humans tease patterns out of associated observations. It’s part of our
> >cognitive structure to acknowledge and collate connections that go on
> >to form the basis for understanding. We can no more ignore this part
> >of ourselves than we can disavow the instinct to nurture our
> >offspring.
>
> This is both misquided and false. No collection of
> observations----large or small-----can be fed mechanically into some
> deductive logic engine on one end with the true explanation popping
> out the other. Any collection of observations is ALWAYS interpreted
> in the the light of an existing theory under consideration. Raw
> observations are NEVER self interpreting.
Yep. The difference is that evolution is a theory, and creationism is
an assertion.
>
> The issue that Anthony raises is: Why do evolutionist restrict what
> theories can be considered and employed to interpret the observations.
> Interpretations of the same raw observations which may be
> diametrically opposed? This is a question which neither Harshman nor
> Camp will answer.
The reason that scientists restrict ourselves to what we can
reasonably expect to
know is because this notion of rational thinking is one of the aspects
of science
that allows science to deliver the goods.
The opposite mentality is to decide _a priori_, maybe based on an
interpretation from
religion, or personal philsophy, what the "truth" is, and then to try
to force or cherry
pick observations to fit that predetermined desired result.
Now, the real question is:"While Tony seems to be seeing the merit in
Anthony's viewpoint,
does Anthony also ascribe to Tony's geocentric viewpoint?"
It's clear that Tony, Anthony, Ray, Glen, and others who have been on
this board all agree
that they don't like the notion of evolution, but would these people
all fall in line behind
Pagano in his ill-conceived giant leap into the geocentric past?
>
> Regards,
> T Pagano
-John
Arkalen
quantum.dotproduct
>>
>> You had X in 1 out of 2 groups, now you have X in 2 of 5 groups.
>>
>> Or *ORIGINALLY*;
>>
>> X was 0.5
>>
>> Now it is
>>
>> 2 / 5 = 0.4
>>
>> Since 0.5 is greater than 0.4.
>>
>> X *isn't* spreading, through the population in this first generation.
>>
>> Anyone care to prove it spreads in the second or 3rd?
..
> Your groupings are arbitrary. In both generations, 1 in 4 have X. No
> increase, no decrease.
Wrong.
Err, err.
Original groups are;
"XY,
ZY = YZ"
New groups, are.
"XZ, YY, & ZZ."
> What is your point, anyway?
I'm getting to that.
I'll just let you get past the;
1/2 = 2/8 = 2/5,
first.
>
>
Anthony022071
> (The following is part of an exchange between John Harshman and
> Anthony022071, taken from the "Against the theory of evolution"
> thread.)
>
> >>> Reproduction certainly causes DNA to be shared among offspring,but
> >>> this does not mean that the DNA held in common between species is
> >>> "shared" in the sense of have been inherited from the same ancestral
> >>> species.
> >> Why not? What other explanation is possible?
> > Separate species which happen to have been created with various grades
> > of genetic similarity and difference. What is with this need to tie
> > all species together through supposed evolution from a hypothetical
> > urtext-organism at the beginning?
>
> "What is this need...," indeed. I think it's an interesting, and
> revealing question. What Anthony doesn't appear to have considered is
> that he might as well ask "What is this need to collate atmospheric
> and temperature observations into models through supposed
> meteorological assumptions about predicting the weather?" or, for that
> matter, "What is this need to collect clues about the possible
> location of something once you have lost it?" (Hint: it has something
> to do with wanting to retrieve the thing.)
>
have to do with how matter,order and living creatures came into
existence,so they don't logically require explanations that
that involve supernatural power. And tracing biological ancestry
involves making very different connections than with tracing
lost objects or predicting the weather. The causal connections of
ancestry are reproductive events,not patterns.
>
> This is an attitude creationists display with enough frequency that it
> seems to me it should have a name (maybe it already does), something
> along the lines of "Argument from the Three Monkeys." The approach,
> when it's not an outright denial that a pattern of observations
> prompting causal questions actually exists, seems to have a thrust
> akin to denying that such questions should concern us, or should even
> be considered.
>
hierarchy model,I deny that they say anything about ancestry and
descent between species,because that is all about reproductive
connections,which cannot be known except by reproductive
compatibility.
And I say that the model and the patterns are arbitrary and
misleading because the model is not based upon known or reasonable-
to-believe reproductive connections.
>
> One of the reasons I find this attitude so fascinating is that it
> strikes me as a direct repudiation of a singular, vital, and noble
> aspect of humanity - the ability, and desire, to aggregate multiple
> (sometimes apparently disparate) bits of information into connected
> events, which, when considered in the light of experience with cause
> and effect, can be crafted into hypotheses, and eventually knowledge.
> cognitive structure to acknowledge and collate connections that go on
> to form the basis for understanding. We can no more ignore this part
> of ourselves than we can disavow the instinct to nurture our
> offspring.
>
connections ought to be logically necessary or at least reasonable.
It is not logically necessary and not beyond reasonable doubt that
the patterns of the nested hierarchy model entail common descent
of all species. Evolution theory is like a Hegelian master-narrative
of the
history of life on earth.
>
> Few creationists (I hope), would have considered it a reasonable
> question to ask of our ancestors "What is this need to gather details
> about the repeated behaviors of predators through supposed
> observation, hypothesis and testing?" (Were they able, I suspect those
> individuals suffering removal of their genetic material from the gene
> pool would happily attest to the value of tying together observations
> about the habits of tigers and lions.) Yet those same creationists
> remain singularly unimpressed upon marking the qualities shared by
> tigers and lions, and, say, a house cat.
>
>
> Let's be clear - this is a pattern
> of the most simple and conspicuous type. It requires no leap
> of imagination or scientific insight to perceive the similarities of
> movement and appearance (and, upon deeper observation, biology) of
> these organisms. "There must be a relationship," nearly all of us
> think. But for creationists (as exemplified by Anthony), the
> identification of this very obvious pattern is either rejected
> outright, chalked up to institutional convention, or dismissed as
> immaterial.
>
not seen elsewhere.
>
> The perception of a relationship between a tiger and a house cat is no
> leap of inspiration, or prejudice, it's the barest extension of the
> obvious.
>
clear that hurdle if you want to draw a connection between different
species. Otherwise,the only obvious relationship consists of
genetic and structural parallels,which could have come about with
separate biological origins.
>
> It's one step beyond observing that two house cats belong in
> the same category. Noticing similarity, tumbling to an underlying
> order or structure in nature, then attempting to understand it, is a
> good, *fit*, thing. It's what we do, it's who we are.
>
that cannot be adequately justified. It is assuming a connection
between species that cannot be known to be related by ancestry
because of the lack of reproductive compatibility and
the separate identities of the groups. The fact that we recognize
"house cat" and "lion" as separate identities is itself reason
to doubt that they are related by ancestry.
If one grouping is already identified by common,non-scientific
to be within another grouping,then it would be alright to assume that
they are related by ancestry. But humans have already identified them
as separate groups,and the obvious similarities will not persuade
people from thinking that they are,in fact,separately created kinds of
creatures.
Friar Broccoli
wrote:
> I'm not against making connections between disparate things,but the
> connections ought to be logically necessary or at least reasonable.
> It is not logically necessary and not beyond reasonable doubt that
> the patterns of the nested hierarchy model entail common descent
> of all species.
Would you be kind enough to clarify your position here. You appear to
have made two incompatible comments here. (I'm not interested in
"logically necessary" which can never be reliably translated into the
real world - It's not *logically* necessary that apples fall as a
result of gravity)
I am interested in:
1) "connections ought to be ... at least reasonable"
versus
2) "It is ... not beyond reasonable doubt"
You appear to have mangled your phrases a bit here (something I do
often myself) but if I am correctly capturing your intent you are
arguing that:
1) descent with modification is UNreasonable.
2) descent with modification is not necessarily true.
So are you arguing that descent with modification is not reasonable or
that it is "not beyond reasonable doubt"?
Depending on your response I may be following up with a reference to
this comment by you:
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/a54385386d3d20d6
"The fact that genetic isolation happens does not mean that the
populations are no longer subspecies and that they may gradually
become separate primary species in their own right."
Frank J
Do you ever criticize other creationists? Particularly those who
concede common descent, as do ~99.9% of scientists working in relevant
fields - who have the most to gain by falsifying it?
>
> > The perception of a relationship between a tiger and a house cat is no
> > leap of inspiration, or prejudice, it's the barest extension of the
> > obvious.
>
> Not with that thing called reproductive incompatibility. You have to
> clear that hurdle if you want to draw a connection between different
> species. Otherwise,the only obvious relationship consists of
> genetic and structural parallels,which could have come about with
> separate biological origins.
>
> > It's one step beyond observing that two house cats belong in
> > the same category. Noticing similarity, tumbling to an underlying
> > order or structure in nature, then attempting to understand it, is a
> > good, *fit*, thing. It's what we do, it's who we are.
>
> That one step beyond the boundary of "house cat" is a presumption
> that cannot be adequately justified. It is assuming a connection
> between species that cannot be known to be related by ancestry
> because of the lack of reproductive compatibility and
> the separate identities of the groups. The fact that we recognize
> "house cat" and "lion" as separate identities is itself reason
> to doubt that they are related by ancestry.
> If one grouping is already identified by common,non-scientific
> to be within another grouping,then it would be alright to assume that
> they are related by ancestry. But humans have already identified them
> as separate groups,and the obvious similarities will not persuade
> people from thinking that they are,in fact,separately created kinds of
> creatures.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Frank J
That's why I find it increasingly difficult, and counterproductive, to
use the word "creationists." Today's rank-and-file
"creationists" (evolution deniers) are much like those of centuries
past, innocently uninformed of both the facts and the nature of
science. While today's professional "creationists" (anti-evolution
activists) know just enough to know what they're doing. Sure, they's
no hard line between the two groups, and possibly no hard line between
the activists who are genuinely afflicted by Morton's Demon and the
ones who know they're wrong, but unless we are clear about which group
we are referring to, we can expect a majority, including most who
don't personally buy creationism/ID, to react with "what's the harm,
let them believe."
> RLC- Hide quoted text -
Burkhard
>> On Aug 31, 10:41 pm, Anthony022071<anthony022...@ameritech.net>
>> wrote:
>>> I'm not against making connections between disparate things,but the
>>> connections ought to be logically necessary or at least reasonable.
>>> It is not logically necessary and not beyond reasonable doubt that
>>> the patterns of the nested hierarchy model entail common descent
>>> of all species.
>>
>> Would you be kind enough to clarify your position here. You appear to
>> have made two incompatible comments here. (I'm not interested in
>> "logically necessary" which can never be reliably translated into the
>> real world - It's not *logically* necessary that apples fall as a
>> result of gravity)
>>
> for what happens. When apples fall from a tree by their own
> weight,their weight and the force of gravity is the necessary cause.
> Another example is reproduction being the necessary cause
> of biological descent.
> I am interested in:
>
> 1) "connections ought to be ... at least reasonable"
>
> versus
>
> 2) "It is ... not beyond reasonable doubt"
>
> You appear to have mangled your phrases a bit here (something I do
> often myself) but if I am correctly capturing your intent you are
> arguing that:
>
> 1) descent with modification is UNreasonable.
> 2) descent with modification is not necessarily true.
>
> So are you arguing that descent with modification is not reasonable
> or
> that it is "not beyond reasonable doubt"?
>>
> against common descent theory,because it reads relatedness
> between species into the so-called patterns of the NH model.
> To me,the theory of evolution is unreasonable because it assumes
> common descent of all species based upon their genetic and
> structural commonalities,even though these commonalities
> do not say anything about reproductive connections. It has not been
> shown that there had to have been a common ancestry for all
> species for them to have the distribution of commonalities that
> they do,so it is misguided and presumptuous to read common
> descent into that.
>> So are you arguing that descent with modification is not reasonable or
>> that it is "not beyond reasonable doubt"?
>>
> genetic and structural commonalities do not necessarily suggest
> common ancestry. And the theory is not reasonable because it
> ignores the actual means of descent,which is reproduction,and
> instead attributes descent to processes that do not cause descent,
> namely,genetic mutation and natural selection.
That does not make any sense at all. Of course the theory of evolution
attributes descent to reproduction. We simply observe that during
reproduction, ever so slightly altered copies of the original are
produced (that is as close to a direct observation as you can get, so
not an assumption). We also know that individuals whose genetic make-up
is too different can't reproduce with each other. From these two simple
observations, we can predict that as copy errors accumulate over time,
there simply has to be a time when so many changes, small as they are
individually, have accumulated over the generations that the generation
now could not any longer reproduce with the members of the generation of
its great-great-great great..........grandparents.
I'm beginning to wonder if you think that speciation (according to your
understanding of the ToE) happens at some stage between parent and
offspring population?
Steven L.
"Anthony022071" <anthon...@ameritech.net> wrote in message
news:b68c4f58-18a7-4224...@br5g2000vbb.googlegroups.com:
> On Sep 3, 10:20 pm, Friar Broccoli <elia...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Aug 31, 10:41 pm, Anthony022071 <anthony022...@ameritech.net>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > I'm not against making connections between disparate things,but the
> > > connections ought to be logically necessary or at least reasonable.
> > > It is not logically necessary and not beyond reasonable doubt that
> > > the patterns of the nested hierarchy model entail common descent
> > > of all species.
> >
> > Would you be kind enough to clarify your position here. You appear to
> > have made two incompatible comments here. (I'm not interested in
> > "logically necessary" which can never be reliably translated into the
> > real world - It's not *logically* necessary that apples fall as a
> > result of gravity)
> >
> Logical necessity in the natural world is necessary causation for what
> happens.
> is the necessary
> cause.
> >
> >
> > 1) "connections ought to be ... at least reasonable"
> >
> > versus
> >
> > 2) "It is ... not beyond reasonable doubt"
> >
> > You appear to have mangled your phrases a bit here (something I do
> > often myself) but if I am correctly capturing your intent you are
> > arguing that:
> >
> > 1) descent with modification is UNreasonable.
> > 2) descent with modification is not necessarily true.
> >
> common descent theory,
> because it reads relatedness between species into the so-called
> patterns of the NH model.
> common descent between
> species based upon genetic and structural commonalities,even though
> do not say anything about reproductive connections. It has not been
> shown that there had
> to have been a common ancestry for all species for them to have the
> distribution of
> presumptuous to read
> common descent into that distribution of traits.
> > So are you arguing that descent with modification is not reasonable or
> > that it is "not beyond reasonable doubt"?
> >
> The theory of evolution is not beyond reasonable doubt because genetic
> and structural
> commonalities do not necessarily suggest common ancestry. And the
> theory is not
> instead attributes descent to processes that do not cause
> descent,namely,genetic mutation
> and natural selection.
creatures in their natural habitats, as well as laboratory experiments,
both deal with how creatures reproduce and what their progeny are like.
Obviously we can't do this for extinct creatures unless someone invents
a workable time machine and we go back in time and watch trilobites
mating or something. But it's highly plausible that the genetics of
sexual reproduction worked similarly then to how it works now.
Tyrannosaurus Rex's germ plasm underwent meiosis too.
Which gets us to a deeper question.
When I've tried to shift the discussion to the other things that were
going on in ancient times--the age of the Earth, the age of the
Universe, the shapes and placement of the continents--you've expressed
skepticism about all that as well.
That means your problem is deeper than just your claim about ignoring
reproduction.
You have a problem with the basic axiom of science, which is that the
universe works by unbroken natural laws. That's the main reason you
can't take the evidence we have gathered about past and present biology,
and accept that a valid theory can be constructed around it.
All creationists have a problem with that. They have to. To be a YEC
you have to break the constancy of the speed of light in free space, and
much else in chemistry and geology as well.
But because of that axiom, we don't have to *watch* Brachiosaurus mating
and laying eggs, or *measure* how Brachiosaurus' offspring differed
slightly from their parent, to know that happened. Because it's been
happening ever since, including to all the egg-laying animals today.
No time machine is needed. Only that axiom. The scientific laws of
today were the same laws 100 million years ago. That's the basis of
science.
-- Steven L.
Vincent Maycock
snip
> So are you arguing that descent with modification is not reasonable
> or
> that it is "not beyond reasonable doubt"?
>>
> common descent of all species based upon their genetic and
> structural commonalities,
>even though these commonalities
> do not say anything about reproductive connections.
>It has not been
> shown that there had to have been a common ancestry for all
Do you accept that some species are more closely related to each other than
to
other species?
snip
Robert Camp
have to do with the heuristic one uses in order to determine the
answers to those questions, whether it is consistently applied and
whether it delivers reliable results. Yours is convenient, as it is
subject to the authority of your theology.
In order to make this appear not to be so you, like all other
creationists, try to act as if you are applying your analytical
instincts consistently (hence your very misguided insistence upon
something that, to you, feels "sciency" but is in fact silly:
reproductive compatibility). But, like all other creationists, you
have to ignore or deny basic, and obvious, facts of observation in
order to sustain your arguments.
> And tracing biological ancestry
> involves making very different connections than with tracing
> lost objects or predicting the weather. The causal connections of
> ancestry are reproductive events,not patterns.
you make. That you do so with a straight face (keyboard?) stands as
pure and perfect testimony to the point of this thread.
> > This is an attitude creationists display with enough frequency that it
> > seems to me it should have a name (maybe it already does), something
> > along the lines of "Argument from the Three Monkeys." The approach,
> > when it's not an outright denial that a pattern of observations
> > prompting causal questions actually exists, seems to have a thrust
> > akin to denying that such questions should concern us, or should even
> > be considered.
>
> I don't deny what scientists call the "patterns" of the nested
> hierarchy model,I deny that they say anything about ancestry and
> descent between species,because that is all about reproductive
> connections,which cannot be known except by reproductive
> compatibility.
temperatures, storm clouds, a well-developed eye and high-speed
spiraling winds, I deny that they say anything about phenomena we call
"hurricanes," because those are all about the movement of molecules,
which cannot be known except by exact knowledge of every molecular
interaction."
> And I say that the model and the patterns are arbitrary and
> misleading because the model is not based upon known or reasonable-
> to-believe reproductive connections.
can say this with certainty because your assertions just above, as
elsewhere, are clearly the result of an unfamiliarity with both the
science of biological evolution and the nature of scientific
investigation itself.
> > One of the reasons I find this attitude so fascinating is that it
> > strikes me as a direct repudiation of a singular, vital, and noble
> > aspect of humanity - the ability, and desire, to aggregate multiple
> > (sometimes apparently disparate) bits of information into connected
> > events, which, when considered in the light of experience with cause
> > and effect, can be crafted into hypotheses, and eventually knowledge.
> > Humans tease patterns out of associated observations. It’s part of our
> > cognitive structure to acknowledge and collate connections that go on
> > to form the basis for understanding. We can no more ignore this part
> > of ourselves than we can disavow the instinct to nurture our
> > offspring.
>
> I'm not against making connections between disparate things,but the
> connections ought to be logically necessary or at least reasonable.
investigating just these things tell you they are eminently reasonable
it gives you no pause at all. Is there nothing about humility in your
theology?
> It is not logically necessary and not beyond reasonable doubt that
> the patterns of the nested hierarchy model entail common descent
> of all species.
equate "at least reasonable" in your antecedent with "beyond
reasonable doubt" in the consequent just above. But I do know that it
is a specious argument either way.
> Evolution theory is like a Hegelian master-narrative
> of the
> history of life on earth.
>
> > Few creationists (I hope), would have considered it a reasonable
> > question to ask of our ancestors "What is this need to gather details
> > about the repeated behaviors of predators through supposed
> > observation, hypothesis and testing?" (Were they able, I suspect those
> > individuals suffering removal of their genetic material from the gene
> > pool would happily attest to the value of tying together observations
> > about the habits of tigers and lions.) Yet those same creationists
> > remain singularly unimpressed upon marking the qualities shared by
> > tigers and lions, and, say, a house cat.
>
> That's because of the lack of known reproductive connections.
based upon commitment to a theological absolute.
> > Let's be clear - this is a pattern
> > of the most simple and conspicuous type. It requires no leap
> > of imagination or scientific insight to perceive the similarities of
> > movement and appearance (and, upon deeper observation, biology) of
> > these organisms. "There must be a relationship," nearly all of us
> > think. But for creationists (as exemplified by Anthony), the
> > identification of this very obvious pattern is either rejected
> > outright, chalked up to institutional convention, or dismissed as
> > immaterial.
>
> I don't exemplify any other creationists. I use arguments that I have
> not seen elsewhere.
details of the arguments used (yours being sillier than most). I was
referring to the denial and rejection of obvious patterns.
> > The perception of a relationship between a tiger and a house cat is no
> > leap of inspiration, or prejudice, it's the barest extension of the
> > obvious.
>
> Not with that thing called reproductive incompatibility.
of an argument that exists only in your head. It requires ignorance of
virtually all of the evidence of biology, including reproductive
biology by the way, as well as a near-complete repudiation of any
legitimate investigative epistemology. Your evidential demands of
evolutionary biology call into question the very nature of science.
> You have to
> clear that hurdle if you want to draw a connection between different
> species. Otherwise,the only obvious relationship consists of
> genetic and structural parallels,which could have come about with
> separate biological origins.
deserving of being called an "explanation" must actually explain: it
must elucidate causal mechanisms and processes in connection with
known physical and natural laws. It must provide a theoretical
framework from which we may derive predictions in order to test the
explanation. It must enable us to *understand* better, not encourage a
maintenance of ignorance.
- "It just is"
- "It was magic"
- "God did it"
...are all equivalent in their (lack of) explanatory value. They
perpetuate ignorance, they don't explain.
I await your theory of genetic and structural parallels coming about
as a result of separate biological origins.
> > It's one step beyond observing that two house cats belong in
> > the same category. Noticing similarity, tumbling to an underlying
> > order or structure in nature, then attempting to understand it, is a
> > good, *fit*, thing. It's what we do, it's who we are.
>
> That one step beyond the boundary of "house cat" is a presumption
> that cannot be adequately justified. It is assuming a connection
> between species that cannot be known to be related by ancestry
> because of the lack of reproductive compatibility and
> the separate identities of the groups. The fact that we recognize
> "house cat" and "lion" as separate identities is itself reason
> to doubt that they are related by ancestry.
similarity? Is it not possible for things to look different enough for
us to give them different names while noticing that they look and
behave more alike than some other set of things? Are you really
willing to be this naive in your desperation to deny clear patterns of
similarity?
> If one grouping is already identified by common,non-scientific
> to be within another grouping,then it would be alright to assume that
> they are related by ancestry. But humans have already identified them
> as separate groups,and the obvious similarities will not persuade
> people from thinking that they are,in fact,separately created kinds of
> creatures.
RLC
Ray Martinez
> (The following is part of an exchange between John Harshman and
> Anthony022071, taken from the "Against the theory of evolution"
> thread.)
>
> >>> Reproduction certainly causes DNA to be shared among offspring,but
> >>> this does not mean that the DNA held in common between species is
> >>> "shared" in the sense of have been inherited from the same ancestral
> >>> species.
> >> Why not? What other explanation is possible?
> > Separate species which happen to have been created with various grades
> > of genetic similarity and difference. What is with this need to tie
> > all species together through supposed evolution from a hypothetical
> > urtext-organism at the beginning?
>
> "What is this need...," indeed. I think it's an interesting, and
> revealing question. What Anthony doesn't appear to have considered is
> that he might as well ask "What is this need to collate atmospheric
> and temperature observations into models through supposed
> meteorological assumptions about predicting the weather?" or, for that
> matter, "What is this need to collect clues about the possible
> location of something once you have lost it?" (Hint: it has something
> to do with wanting to retrieve the thing.)
>
> seems to me it should have a name (maybe it already does), something
> along the lines of "Argument from the Three Monkeys." The approach,
> when it's not an outright denial that a pattern of observations
> prompting causal questions actually exists, seems to have a thrust
> akin to denying that such questions should concern us, or should even
> be considered.
>
relationship is an illusion.
We don't see it, Robert. We see design which tells us that **each**
species was the result of Special Creation.
Ray (Old Earth, species immutabilist)
> One of the reasons I find this attitude so fascinating is that it
> strikes me as a direct repudiation of a singular, vital, and noble
> aspect of humanity - the ability, and desire, to aggregate multiple
> (sometimes apparently disparate) bits of information into connected
> events, which, when considered in the light of experience with cause
> and effect, can be crafted into hypotheses, and eventually knowledge.
> Humans tease patterns out of associated observations. It’s part of our
> cognitive structure to acknowledge and collate connections that go on
> to form the basis for understanding. We can no more ignore this part
> of ourselves than we can disavow the instinct to nurture our
> offspring.
>
> question to ask of our ancestors "What is this need to gather details
> about the repeated behaviors of predators through supposed
> observation, hypothesis and testing?" (Were they able, I suspect those
> individuals suffering removal of their genetic material from the gene
> pool would happily attest to the value of tying together observations
> about the habits of tigers and lions.) Yet those same creationists
> remain singularly unimpressed upon marking the qualities shared by
> of imagination or scientific insight to perceive the similarities of
> movement and appearance (and, upon deeper observation, biology) of
> these organisms. "There must be a relationship," nearly all of us
> think. But for creationists (as exemplified by Anthony), the
> identification of this very obvious pattern is either rejected
> outright, chalked up to institutional convention, or dismissed as
> immaterial.
>
> leap of inspiration, or prejudice, it's the barest extension of the
> order or structure in nature, then attempting to understand it, is a
> good, *fit*, thing. It's what we do, it's who we are.
>
Robert Camp
your personal philosophy such belief bolsters. But it's not science.
It is, in fact, a misunderstanding of the methodology of science, as
well as current biological knowledge.
> We don't see it, Robert. We see design which tells us that **each**
> species was the result of Special Creation.
eyes when it comes to virtually all other aspects of reality. In the
rest of your life you detect events and characters, you perceive
patters of similarity, and you connect these observations into a
tentative hypothesis. It's what we all do when we try to figure out
why the sink won't drain, the newspaper's in the bushes, or our car
keys aren't where we thought we'd left them. It's also what untold
numbers of scientists have done when they determine the order in which
certain phenomena appeared in our universe (light, night and day, the
planets etc.), the orbital mechanics of our solar system, and the age
of the earth - the consensus wisdom of all of which I assume you
accept.
You accept most of what scientific methodology brings to the
contemporary table. In that act (and in the events of your daily
existence) you implicitly accept far more complex and cryptic patterns
than the basic observations which support a hypothesis of common
descent. What you "see" in that case suddenly becomes a matter of
defensive wishfulness, it's no longer a matter of perceived patterns
but of perceived threats to your philosophy. You're not seeing
anymore, you're simply denying what the vast majority of others see.
I understand that in most other acts and acceptances of empirical
methodology there is little at stake for you and other creationists. I
understand some of the reasons why you have chosen to stake your flag
on the subject of biological evolution and say "I've gone this far,
but I'll go no farther." And I have some sympathy for your dilemma:
you've placed a particular bit of dogma above logic and reason, you've
put it on a pedestal of absolute certainty, not to be contradicted by
even the most obvious and voluminous of evidence. This has got to be a
difficult cognitive cul-de-sac to suffer.
I understand why you (and Anthony and other creationists) do what you
do. I'm just trying to get you to step outside of the box you're stuck
in, if only for a moment, and truly "see" the larger perspective.
Maybe then you'll all be less inclined to try to deflect the internal
dissonance by inflicting it upon the rest of us.
RLC
Anthony022071
trying to edit it.
for what happens. When apples fall from a tree by their own
Another example is reproduction being the necessary cause
of biological descent.
> 1) "connections ought to be ... at least reasonable"
> versus
> 2) "It is ... not beyond reasonable doubt"
> You appear to have mangled your phrases a bit here (something I do
> often myself) but if I am correctly capturing your intent you are
> arguing that:
> 1) descent with modification is UNreasonable.
> 2) descent with modification is not necessarily true.
> So are you arguing that descent with modification is not reasonable
> or
> that it is "not beyond reasonable doubt"?
against common descent theory,because it reads relatedness
between species into the so-called patterns of the NH model.
To me,the theory of evolution is unreasonable because it assumes
common descent of all species based upon their genetic and
do not say anything about reproductive connections. It has not been
species for them to have the distribution of commonalities that
they do,so it is misguided and presumptuous to read common
descent into that.
> that it is "not beyond reasonable doubt"?
genetic and structural commonalities do not necessarily suggest
common ancestry. And the theory is not reasonable because it
jillery
you can show and prove cause the effect of design from Special
Creation is an illusion?
>We don't see it, Robert. We see design which tells us that **each**
>species was the result of Special Creation.
Bruce Stephens
[...]
> Logical necessity in the natural world is necessary causation
> for what happens. When apples fall from a tree by their own
> weight,their weight and the force of gravity is the necessary cause.
> Another example is reproduction being the necessary cause
> of biological descent.
don't see such a problem with "necessary causes", but why do you insist
on using "logical necessity" in this way? It has a useful (if
technical) definition which doesn't seem to me to fit the use you want
to make of it.
At least, unless you have more of a medieval (or even ancient) model of
science.
[...]
Friar Broccoli
discussion going with you in the thread titled "Against the theory of
evolution".
On Sep 17, 10:11�pm, Anthony022071 <anthony022...@ameritech.net>
wrote:
Rolf
there cases where your method fails? What if?
Ray Martinez
Does the same apply to Dawkins when he says design is an illusion
caused by the power of natural selection?
> > We don't see it, Robert. We see design which tells us that **each**
> > species was the result of Special Creation.
>
> The problem, to stay on topic, is that you don't "see" with the same
> eyes when it comes to virtually all other aspects of reality. In the
> rest of your life you detect events and characters, you perceive
> patters of similarity, and you connect these observations into a
> tentative hypothesis. It's what we all do when we try to figure out
> why the sink won't drain, the newspaper's in the bushes, or our car
> keys aren't where we thought we'd left them. It's also what untold
> numbers of scientists have done when they determine the order in which
> certain phenomena appeared in our universe (light, night and day, the
> planets etc.), the orbital mechanics of our solar system, and the age
> of the earth - the consensus wisdom of all of which I assume you
> accept.
>
> You accept most of what scientific methodology brings to the
> contemporary table. In that act (and in the events of your daily
> existence) you implicitly accept far more complex and cryptic patterns
> than the basic observations which support a hypothesis of common
> descent. What you "see" in that case suddenly becomes a matter of
> defensive wishfulness, it's no longer a matter of perceived patterns
> but of perceived threats to your philosophy. You're not seeing
> anymore, you're simply denying what the vast majority of others see.
>
You haven't said anything that tips the scale of evidence in your
favor. In reverse we could say "you're simply denying what the vast
majority of others see" (design).
> I understand that in most other acts and acceptances of empirical
> methodology there is little at stake for you and other creationists. I
> understand some of the reasons why you have chosen to stake your flag
> on the subject of biological evolution and say "I've gone this far,
> but I'll go no farther." And I have some sympathy for your dilemma:
> you've placed a particular bit of dogma above logic and reason, you've
> put it on a pedestal of absolute certainty, not to be contradicted by
> even the most obvious and voluminous of evidence. This has got to be a
> difficult cognitive cul-de-sac to suffer.
>
> I understand why you (and Anthony and other creationists) do what you
> do. I'm just trying to get you to step outside of the box you're stuck
> in, if only for a moment, and truly "see" the larger perspective.
> Maybe then you'll all be less inclined to try to deflect the internal
> dissonance by inflicting it upon the rest of us.
>
> RLC
I could reverse everything you say and apply it to what you say and
believe.
Ray
Robert Camp
were a relevant rejoinder. Dawkins doesn't believe evolutionary
relationships are illusory, and Dawkins doesn't believe science
"proves" anything. So no, when Dawkins notes that people are deriving
false inferences from biology, he is being consistent both with the
current scholarship on the subject as well as the underlying
methodology.
On the other hand, I believe Dawkins makes a critical mistake when he
grants the use of the word "design," even in the context of illusion.
I don't believe biology exhibits the slightest intimation of design,
and have argued that point many times here in this group.
whatsoever to the truth.
> > I understand that in most other acts and acceptances of empirical
> > methodology there is little at stake for you and other creationists. I
> > understand some of the reasons why you have chosen to stake your flag
> > on the subject of biological evolution and say "I've gone this far,
> > but I'll go no farther." And I have some sympathy for your dilemma:
> > you've placed a particular bit of dogma above logic and reason, you've
> > put it on a pedestal of absolute certainty, not to be contradicted by
> > even the most obvious and voluminous of evidence. This has got to be a
> > difficult cognitive cul-de-sac to suffer.
>
> > I understand why you (and Anthony and other creationists) do what you
> > do. I'm just trying to get you to step outside of the box you're stuck
> > in, if only for a moment, and truly "see" the larger perspective.
> > Maybe then you'll all be less inclined to try to deflect the internal
> > dissonance by inflicting it upon the rest of us.
>
> > RLC
>
> I could reverse everything you say and apply it to what you say and
> believe.
RLC
Anthony022071
creationist,since belief in God's creative action entails belief that
he creates creatures individually,rather than through an amorphous
process. This belief is confirmed by natural reality anyway. I have
not criticized creationists yet,because they do not dominate science
and their opinions do not hold sway in the schools and public opinion
and among intellectuals as evolution does. I do debate with theistic
evolutionists. I don't think that scientists are inclined to try to
falsify common descent theory,because they take its premises as
true,and they might lose credibility among their peers.
Ray Martinez
illusion.
> and Dawkins doesn't believe science
> "proves" anything.
> So no, when Dawkins notes that people are deriving
> false inferences from biology, he is being consistent both with the
> current scholarship on the subject as well as the underlying
> methodology.
>
> On the other hand, I believe Dawkins makes a critical mistake when he
> grants the use of the word "design," even in the context of illusion.
> I don't believe biology exhibits the slightest intimation of design,
> and have argued that point many times here in this group.
>
explain what Paley sees. He can't call him a liar so he explains
design to be an illusion produced by the power of natural selection.
On the other hand, I can't call Dawkins a liar, so I explain what he
sees to be an illusion produced by the power of Mastermind. We do not
see any relationship between species, Robert. And when I say "we" I am
talking about Linnaeus, Cuvier, Paley, etc.etc.
Ray
[....]
Mark Isaak
>> [...]
> creationist,since belief in God's creative action entails belief that
> he creates creatures individually,rather than through an amorphous
> process.
coats individually, and coatmaker #2 makes a process -- a machine, say
-- that not only makes a variety of coats, but modifies them
appropriately according to changes in climate, style, economics, etc.
Who would you say is the better designer?
--
Mark Isaak eciton (at) curioustaxonomy (dot) net
"It is certain, from experience, that the smallest grain of natural
honesty and benevolence has more effect on men's conduct, than the most
pompous views suggested by theological theories and systems." - D. Hume
Robert Camp
> > and Dawkins doesn't believe science
> > "proves" anything.
>
> Ridiculous.
> > So no, when Dawkins notes that people are deriving
> > false inferences from biology, he is being consistent both with the
> > current scholarship on the subject as well as the underlying
> > methodology.
>
> > On the other hand, I believe Dawkins makes a critical mistake when he
> > grants the use of the word "design," even in the context of illusion.
> > I don't believe biology exhibits the slightest intimation of design,
> > and have argued that point many times here in this group.
>
> Dawkins agrees: design does not exist in nature.
not design. That has nothing to do with the point I was making. Please
try to comprehend what is being said before you respond to it.
> He is attempting to
> explain what Paley sees. He can't call him a liar so he explains
> design to be an illusion produced by the power of natural selection.
> On the other hand, I can't call Dawkins a liar, so I explain what he
> sees to be an illusion produced by the power of Mastermind. We do not
> see any relationship between species, Robert. And when I say "we" I am
> talking about Linnaeus, Cuvier, Paley, etc.etc.
Hipparchus and Ptolemy next time you want to argue solar orbital
mechanics.
RLC
Rolf
and many more, we see!
Who do you think knows the most about that subject? Linnaeus, Paley; or
Dawkins, Sean B. Carrol, Nick Matzke, or John Wilkins?
Mastermind, phew.
>
> Ray
>
> [....]
Steven L.
God created every one of the millions of species over billions of years
individually?
God created every one of the 10^30 bacteria on earth today individually?
I would have expected a more elegant solution from an omniscient God.
We had better solutions for mass-producing Springfield rifles and Model
T cars than God came up with.
Even Santa Claus delegates a lot of work to the elves in his workshop.
-- Steven L.
Ray Martinez
in nature. His illusion of design explanation is an attempt to explain
what Creationists see. Your point seems to be saying, based on the
fact that design is non-existent, it is a mistake to argue anything
that might contradict?
Ray
> > He is attempting to
> > explain what Paley sees. He can't call him a liar so he explains
> > design to be an illusion produced by the power of natural selection.
> > On the other hand, I can't call Dawkins a liar, so I explain what he
> > sees to be an illusion produced by the power of Mastermind. We do not
> > see any relationship between species, Robert. And when I say "we" I am
> > talking about Linnaeus, Cuvier, Paley, etc.etc.
>
> Well that's quite the phalanx of support there, Ray. Be sure to cite
> Hipparchus and Ptolemy next time you want to argue solar orbital
> mechanics.
>
Robert Camp
not exist in nature, I'm saying nature exhibits no characters or
qualities of design. Frankly, I don't think it's possible to
demonstrate that nature is *not* designed, but thatt's clearly the
most reasonable conclusion based upon the available evidence.
> His illusion of design explanation is an attempt to explain
> what Creationists see.
> Your point seems to be saying, based on the
> fact that design is non-existent, it is a mistake to argue anything
> that might contradict?
said above I don't think this can be proved, so I wouldn't base an
argument on the assumption of this as a fact.
What I'm saying are two specific and related things,
1) - Dawkins is making a mistake when he grants even the illusion of
design, because...
2) - ...nothing in nature looks designed (given conventional usage of
the word). There are no natural observations or data to which you can
refer which suggest the influence of a purposeful agency.
The point is, then, that it's perfectly okay to argue in contradiction
of this position, but to do so you've got to present contrary
evidence. Neither you, nor anyone else that I've asked, has done so.
RLC
Ray Martinez
> Frankly, I don't think it's possible to
>
> > His illusion of design explanation is an attempt to explain
> > what Creationists see.
>
> It is.
>
> > Your point seems to be saying, based on the
> > fact that design is non-existent, it is a mistake to argue anything
> > that might contradict?
>
> Not at all. Though I do believe "design" (ID) is non-existent, as I
> said above I don't think this can be proved, so I wouldn't base an
> argument on the assumption of this as a fact.
>
> What I'm saying are two specific and related things,
>
> 1) - Dawkins is making a mistake when he grants even the illusion of
> design, because...
> 2) - ...nothing in nature looks designed (given conventional usage of
> the word). There are no natural observations or data to which you can
> refer which suggest the influence of a purposeful agency.
>
> The point is, then, that it's perfectly okay to argue in contradiction
> of this position, but to do so you've got to present contrary
> evidence. Neither you, nor anyone else that I've asked, has done so.
>
> RLC
Ray
Robert Camp
"think" so simplistically. However, shouldn't an omnipotent God be
capable of designing and creating a universe that develops as a result
of unguided physical processes? Barring that, shouldn't an omnipotent
God be capable of guiding physical processes to produce a particular
result while obscuring evidence of such intervention? And barring even
that, shouldn't an omnipotent God be capable of designing and creating
memories of a universe that only exists in our minds, a Last Thursday
event, as it were?
Now had *you* said what I did above, it would surely be an egregious
contradiction. But that's because the God you worship is a lowly
creature, entirely constrained by your personal whims and
presumptions. I just happen to think more highly of the Christian God
than you do.
> > Frankly, I don't think it's possible to
> > demonstrate that nature is *not* designed, but that's clearly the
> > most reasonable conclusion based upon the available evidence.
>
> Another egregious contradiction.
inability to read and comprehend anything that does not conform to
your preconceived notions. We all have our crosses to bear, eh?
RLC
Ray Martinez
unlike mine.
> > > Frankly, I don't think it's possible to
> > > demonstrate that nature is *not* designed, but that's clearly the
> > > most reasonable conclusion based upon the available evidence.
>
> > Another egregious contradiction.
>
> I'm sure it must seem that way to you, and I'm sorry for your
> inability to read and comprehend anything that does not conform to
> your preconceived notions. We all have our crosses to bear, eh?
>
> RLC
supports delusion. Please don't feel slighted, all Evolutionists have
the exact same problem. A certain Stanford Ph.D. told us why.
Ray
Burkhard
a) nature does not even have the appearance of being designed
and
b) that the mere absence of apparent design is insufficient to
disprove design.
A perfectly consistent position, as the following shows: A competent
and powerful designer _could_ have intentionally imitated nature, and
designed things that look outwardly undistinguishable from natural
products (in fact, that is what quite a number of human designers do
every day - it is called biomimicry in designer circles) . In that
situation, it would be impossible for us to _see_ any sign of design,
but it would nonetheless be there. So there is at least one possible
model where both of Robert's claims are true, and hence they cannot be
contradictory.
Ray Martinez
> A perfectly consistent position, as the following shows: A competent
> and powerful designer _could_ have intentionally imitated nature, and
> designed things that look outwardly undistinguishable from natural
> products (in fact, that is what quite a number of human designers do
> every day - it is called biomimicry in designer circles) . In that
> situation, it would be impossible for us to _see_ any sign of design,
> but it would nonetheless be there. So there is at least one possible
> model where both of Robert's claims are true, and hence they cannot be
> contradictory.
disprove design, is egregious contradiction. Neither you nor Robert
are making any sense whatsoever. The fact that you think you are
making sense once again proves that the delusion is working on persons
who accept the existence of evolution, not God.
No evidence means false or disproven in the minds of normal people.
Ray (Paleyan IDist)
Burkhard
la Bishop Berkley (that is, the exact opposite of an objectivist)
Things exist independently of whether we have evidence for them or
not, esse is not percipii. There is no evidence whether or not there
was a frog sitting in the rain where I'm now 400 years ago. This does
not disprove the sentence "there was a frog here 400 years ago", let
alone render it false.
>Neither you nor Robert
> are making any sense whatsoever.
Robert's sentences are true. It is one of the most basic results of
classical logic that if a set of sentences has a model, it can't be
contradictory. That alone is sufficient to disprove your claim. I
notice though that you once gain utterly fail to address the argument
I have made - it gave you a simple scenario where we would have no
evidence of design simply because the designer chose to design in such
a way that it can't be noticed.
The fact that you think you are
> making sense once again proves that the delusion is working on persons
> who accept the existence of evolution, not God.
>
> No evidence means false or disproven in the minds of normal people.
>
who things the world stops existing unless he "evidences", that it
quite literally "sees" it, but normally healthy 4 year's old give up
the idea that the world disappears just when they close their eyes.
There a many things for which we have no evidence, that is simply a
statement abut our _knowledge_. This does not affect what is really
there. In your world, before Pluto was discovered, it did not exists
(the statement "there is a 9th planet" would have been false) that
does not make any sense whatsoever.
> Ray (Paleyan IDist)