What Creationist (a topic about Sean Pitman)?
Ray Martinez
"You have a, shall we say, unique definition of the term "creationist"
Ray. For you, someone is not a creationist and cannot believe in God
unless one believes like you do that absolutely everything is the
result of the direct will and activity of God. That I do not
believe....If you claim to be a real scientists then you should be
able to tell the difference between those phenomena that are driven by
God and those that are not. If everything can be explained by
"Goddidit", where is the science? Where is there any ability to test
your theory? How could you possibly be wrong? What evidence, if
presented to you, would disprove your "scientific" theory here?"
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/adcd0a1aa5c8d721
"Where have I ever proposed to argue for the need for the
supernatural? I've never made any such argument. I've only argued
for the need for at least human-level intelligence to explain the
levels of functional biological complexity I've presented in this
forum....I've never argued for a required supernatural intelligence.
That's
your red herring - your strawman misrepresentation of my position."
Both excerpts above were written by Sean. We know he has the
intelligence and knowledge to argue very complicated genetic arguments
with the usual jargon; but in the first excerpt Sean is suddenly
questioning the definition of the word "creationist." He would have us
believe that the word and concept is complex, that I am guilty of
using some type of unique (known correctly as "reportive") meaning.
A Creationist is a person who accepts biological production to be the
direct result of the power of invisible Creator (= God-did-it). The
concepts of "supernatural" or "Intelligence" or "Mind" (large case "I"
and "M" intentional) are perfectly synonymous with invisible Creator,
God or Designer. The point is: the concept of "creation" means
biological existence is directly caused by Divine power operating in
reality (Oxford English Dictionary, Second Edition).
In both excerpts Sean renounces the Divine concept. Both excerpts, if
we didn't know, could have been written by Mark Isaak, Dana Tweedy, or
any well known pro-evolution fanatic that posts here at Talk Origins.
With all this now said: Why is Sean viewed as a Creationist or IDist?
Ray
wf3h
>
> A Creationist is a person who accepts biological production to be the
> direct result of the power of invisible Creator (= God-did-it). The
> concepts of "supernatural" or "Intelligence" or "Mind" (large case "I"
> and "M" intentional) are perfectly synonymous with invisible Creator,
> God or Designer. The point is: the concept of "creation" means
> biological existence is directly caused by Divine power operating in
> reality (Oxford English Dictionary, Second Edition).
>
> In both excerpts Sean renounces the Divine concept. Both excerpts, if
> we didn't know, could have been written by Mark Isaak, Dana Tweedy, or
> any well known pro-evolution fanatic that posts here at Talk Origins.
>
> With all this now said: Why is Sean viewed as a Creationist or IDist?
>
> Ray
this is part of the problem with creationism: its meaning is in the
eye of the believer.
sean is a creationist; he's also a liar. he's straightforward in his
paranoia about science, as well as his contention that his 'designer'
isn't 'god', when he's here on TO, but it IS god on his website.
ray has a paranoid hatred of non christians as well as scientists but
at least he's straightforward about his delusions. he has a view of
science that includes magic, allowing astrology, tarot card reading
etc. to be science. but at least he tells you what he believes.
Perplexed in Peoria
You are misreading Sean, Ray. He is not denouncing Divine creation in the
first excerpt. Instead, he is simply saying that *some things* are not the
direct result of divine will. For example, even you would probably agree
that those things that are the result of human free will are not the *direct*
result of Divine will. God, in creating free will, voluntarily gave up the option
of controlling some things. Similarly, Sean would argue, in creating natural
laws, God abandoned the responsibility of controlling most of the physical
world - planets in their orbits, for example.
And in the second excerpt, he is not actually saying anything that limits
God's power. Instead, he is describing the scope of his own analysis
of the evidence for design in the natural world. There may well be a
super-human intelligence controlling the world, and I suspect that Sean
believes in such an intelligence. But as a cautious analyst of the evidence,
he claims to have demonstrated no more than human intelligence - wise of
him, because we have no experience with intelligences beyond the human.
'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank
blah blah blah everybody's an atheist but Ray blah blah blah nobody's
a Real Creationist except Ray blah blah blah Ray Speaks For God blah
blah blah
(yawn)
Ray, you're boring. Learn some new chords, for crissakes.
================================================
Lenny Flank
"There are no loose threads in the web of life"
Editor, Red and Black Publishers
http://www.RedandBlackPublishers.com
David Hare-Scott
>
> ray has a paranoid hatred of non christians as well as scientists but
> at least he's straightforward about his delusions. he has a view of
> science that includes magic, allowing astrology, tarot card reading
> etc. to be science. but at least he tells you what he believes.
Agreed. I find Ray's ideas puzzling and strange, in some cases outright
confounding, but altogether preferable for their honesty in comparison the
majority of bulk posters on the creation side of this group. I have much
more respect for a person who says what he means and means what he says,
regardless of whether I agree with it.
David
Dana Tweedy
snipping quotes
> Both excerpts above were written by Sean. We know he has the
> intelligence and knowledge to argue very complicated genetic arguments
> with the usual jargon;
Knowing jargon doesn't mean one is intelligent, or able to argue well.
> but in the first excerpt Sean is suddenly
> questioning the definition of the word "creationist."
Specifically, he's questioning how Ray defines the term.
> He would have us
> believe that the word and concept is complex, that I am guilty of
> using some type of unique (known correctly as "reportive") meaning.
Ray, everyone knows you are guilty of making up your own meanings for common
terms. You define "creationist" like no one else does.
>
> A Creationist is a person who accepts biological production to be the
> direct result of the power of invisible Creator (= God-did-it).
That's your own definition. It's not shared by most other creationists.
> The
> concepts of "supernatural" or "Intelligence" or "Mind" (large case "I"
> and "M" intentional) are perfectly synonymous with invisible Creator,
Since "invisible creator" has never been observed, knowing what's synonymous
with "invisible creator" is impossible to tell.
> God or Designer. The point is: the concept of "creation" means
> biological existence is directly caused by Divine power operating in
> reality (Oxford English Dictionary, Second Edition).
The rub is exactly how "Divine power operating in reality" is carried out?
Theistic evolutionists believe that God's divine power is expressed by using
natural processes. Most creationists believe that creation was a miracle,
but that natural processes operate now. Ray seems to think (using the term
loosely) that everything that happens is the result of God directly
peforming miracles.
>
> In both excerpts Sean renounces the Divine concept.
Except that he isn't. He simply sees the "Divine concept" differently.
> Both excerpts, if
> we didn't know, could have been written by Mark Isaak, Dana Tweedy, or
> any well known pro-evolution fanatic that posts here at Talk Origins.
Except that Mark, Myself, and other science minded individuals don't reach
the same silly conclusions that Sean does.
>
> With all this now said: Why is Sean viewed as a Creationist or IDist?
Because he rejects the scientific method, and promotes Creationism.
DJT
Robert Camp
> On Apr 21, 4:10 pm, Ray Martinez <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > A Creationist is a person who accepts biological production to be the
> > direct result of the power of invisible Creator (= God-did-it). The
> > concepts of "supernatural" or "Intelligence" or "Mind" (large case "I"
> > and "M" intentional) are perfectly synonymous with invisible Creator,
> > God or Designer. The point is: the concept of "creation" means
> > biological existence is directly caused by Divine power operating in
> > reality (Oxford English Dictionary, Second Edition).
>
> > In both excerpts Sean renounces the Divine concept. Both excerpts, if
> > we didn't know, could have been written by Mark Isaak, Dana Tweedy, or
> > any well known pro-evolution fanatic that posts here at Talk Origins.
>
> > With all this now said: Why is Sean viewed as a Creationist or IDist?
>
> > Ray
>
> this is part of the problem with creationism: its meaning is in the
> eye of the believer.
>
> sean is a creationist; he's also a liar. he's straightforward in his
> paranoia about science, as well as his contention that his 'designer'
> isn't 'god', when he's here on TO, but it IS god on his website.
You know, it seems like such a waste that I have to stand up here and
defend Sean. It's easy to post responsible criticism of somebody, all
you have to do is stifle the instinct to try for a rhetorical TKO by
doing things like calling them liars.
Based upon my experience, Sean is misguided, deluded, even arrogant at
times. But I don't recall him lying about his belief in the identity
of the designer. I think he's been open, here as well as elsewhere,
that he believes it's the God of Christianity. When Sean refuses to
identify the designer as God, he's restricting the conversation to
naturalism in the hopes of producing a legitimate scientific theory
that explains biological complexity.
We allow theistic scientists this kind of latitude all the time.
Sean's wrong, and wrong-headed in my opinion, but "liar" seems quite a
bit over-the-top.
RLC
Ray Martinez
wrote:
> "Ray Martinez" <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote in messagenews:ef03b431-0ba0-417a...@d38g2000prn.googlegroups.com...
Sean renounces "God-did-it" in the first excerpt. Your opinion
overlooks this fact. Sean "accepts" the concept of creation
momentarily in the first excerpt for the expressed purpose of
dismissing it to account for actual biological production; then, like
a real evolutionist, he says the concept is not scientific, that it
explains everything (he is *basically* correct, the concept does
"explain" everything). The extent of his acceptance of the concept is
deistic. But the concept of creation presupposes Theism, not Deism
(Oxford English Dictionary, Second Edition). The concept of
"evolution" presupposes the falsity of the concept of
"creation" (hence the Creationism-Evolution debate) AND the concept of
Deism: Divine power is not seen or needed in the evolutionary
process.
> For example, even you would probably agree
> that those things that are the result of human free will are not the *direct*
> result of Divine will.
To interject suddenly human free will into a discussion about
biological agency and the extent of the rejection of the agency of
creation by Sean Pitman is baffling.
> God, in creating free will, voluntarily gave up the option
> of controlling some things.
This belief is sourceless, subjective, since the Biblical Theos goes
out of His way to demonstrate the exact opposite: He retains absolute
control despite the monkey wrench of human free will.
> Similarly, Sean would argue, in creating natural
> laws,...
Deism.
Sean claims to be a Theist.
> ....God abandoned the responsibility of controlling most of the physical
> world - planets in their orbits, for example.
>
I realize that you are speculating about Sean's views based on the
excerpts and your understanding of his collective views as a whole.
Theism accepts the worlds and their orbits to result from laws created-
reflecting Divine power. Naturalism rejects Theism----militantly.
> And in the second excerpt, he is not actually saying anything that limits
> God's power. Instead, he is describing the scope of his own analysis
> of the evidence for design in the natural world. There may well be a
> super-human intelligence controlling the world, and I suspect that Sean
> believes in such an intelligence. But as a cautious analyst of the evidence,
> he claims to have demonstrated no more than human intelligence - wise of
> him, because we have no experience with intelligences beyond the human.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Contradiction.
Paragraph begins by saying Sean accepts Divine power. Then the
paragraph admits that Sean is only advocating "human intelligence."
The latter admission (which is true and not in dispute) refutes the
former.
Creationism accepts Divine or Intelligent agency, not human level
intelligence (whatever that is). Evolution rejects Divine or
Intelligent agency while accepting unguided-undirected-unintelligent
material agency. Sean is all alone is left field.
Ray
richardal...@googlemail.com
I don't think its over the top at all.
He has lied about all sorts of things on this forum.
Here are just a few of them:
1) He can carry out complex statistical analyses in your head.
2) He can carry out statistics without a numerical dataset.
3) He has a methodology which can detect "non-deliberate" action in
objects
4) He knows what the outcome of that methodology is without having to
apply it (a trick which would make the lives of every scientist on
the
planet much easier if it could be demonstrated)
5) Organisms can be fossilised by "very rapid flash crystalisation in
a supersaturated environment"
6) "Most fossils show clear evidence of rapid burial or other forms
of
relatively rapid or even catastrophic preservation" (what the hell
*is* "catastrophic preservation", by the way?)
7) "The fossil evidence clearly supports a catastrophic
interpretation
for much of the geologic column".
8) "Most ichthyosaur fossils show evidence of rapid burial, such as
those found clustered together at places like the
Berlin-Ichthyosaur State Park in Nevada."
9) The adaptive landscape of evolutionary theory consists of a series
of isolated islands.
10) Evolution "stalls out" at a level arbitrarily set by Sean Pitman.
11) Human designers commonly produce nested hierarchies
12) Geologists don't have an explanation for concentrations of
fossils of carnivores.
13) "mainstream scientists believe that all the main forms (or phyla)
of animal life, save perhaps one, that exist in the world today were
all present in the Cambrian "
14) "ancient channels of major rivers .. have not been found" in the
Morrison Formation.
15) That "uniformitarianism" means that geologists thought that *all*
sedimentary deposits were laid down gradually over millions of years.
Sean has actually coauthored some papers which have been published in
academic journals, which is why I think he deserves *less* latitude in
these matters than most creationists. He knows (or should know) the
basic principles of scientific research and publication, yet continues
to peddle his silly "theories" even when it is clear that they are
utterly devoid of any scientific content. If he had any integrity, and
had any real confidence in the scientific validity of his ideas he'd
write them up and submit them for publication in an academic journal.
His excuses for not doing so are downright facile.
It seems clear that Sean is a liar, that he knows that his "theories"
have no scientific validity, but that he posts them here and on his
silly web site because it boost his ego that other creationists think
that he has a real scientific alternative to evolutionary theory.
RF
Ilas
a547-f5c...@g19g2000yql.googlegroups.com:
> We allow theistic scientists this kind of latitude all the time.
> Sean's wrong, and wrong-headed in my opinion, but "liar" seems quite a
> bit over-the-top.
The one area I think Sean's pants are definitely on fire is his contention
that he doesn't publish his ideas because a world wide cabal of Dr Evil
type evolutionary biologists would never allow "The Truth"(tm) to be
published, lest they lose their Bentleys, Lear Jets and Cannes holiday
homes. Sean knows as well as anyone else the reason he doesn't attempt to
publish, even if it's just a nagging thought at the back of his mind; his
"theories" would be utterly trashed in seconds. He'd be a laughing stock.
Rolf
> Ray
Robert Camp
First, you know as well as I do that most of the items on your list
above can be accounted for by misunderstanding or ignorance or
delusion. Sean seems to acquaint himself with the particulars of most
situations so ignorance is likely seldom an excuse for him. But he is
clearly deluded, sometimes by his own self-importance, always by his
fealty to theological absolutes. People like him are wrong, perhaps
even willfully so, but calling them liars because of their delusions
is creationist-like oversimplification. It's bad enough *they* try to
turn this issue into a morality play, we don't have to do the same
thing.
Second, the latitude I spoke of was regarding the freedom to believe
whatever the hell one wants and still be respected when employing the
tools of science. Of course there are fundamental problems with Sean's
approach. He's a freakin' creationist, there are likely going to be
unresolvable difficulties in whatever theories or models he eventually
produces. But it is ad hom to denounce those theories or models based
upon his creationism, rather than on the specific flaws contained
within. The fact that Sean knows how to get a paper published
demonstrates that he is capable of lucid reasoning when his
precommitments aren't endangered, not that he's deliberately lying to
anyone.
Last, if you read my post again, you'll notice I was referring
specifically to the situation mentioned by wf3h. He took Sean to
account for being deceptive about the identity of his designer as
determined by his ID theories. There's a lot I haven't discussed with
Sean but the nature and capacity of his hypotheses is something we've
been over quite a bit. I have seen Sean admit to a belief that the
Christian God is the designer, I have also seen Sean attempt to
develop a methodologically legitimate theory to account for the
origins of life. As far as I can tell, he's tried to separate these
issues exactly as we continually complain most ID theorists don't.
He hasn't succeeded, far from it. But the charge of lying, in this
specific case, is overblown.
There may be issues about which Sean has lied (there are several items
on your list that, I admit, surprise me). I am not aware of those and
cannot comment on them. I was responding to a specific charge, and a
general tendency to demonize one's opponent. The former was
inaccurate, and the latter was counterproductive.
RLC
Steven L.
So do I.
Ray Martinez is open and honest about his beliefs and his theories. No
"wink-wink nudge-nudge" implicit hints of God will do for him.
Even though I think he's flat wrong, I respect him.
--
Steven L.
Email: sdli...@earthlinkNOSPAM.net
Remove the NOSPAM before replying to me.
richardal...@googlemail.com
There nothing on that list which on which I have not corrected Sean
many times, giving detailed references to show that he is flatly
wrong.
He still makes the same claims.
> Sean seems to acquaint himself with the particulars of most
> situations so ignorance is likely seldom an excuse for him.
Sean pretends to knowledge he doesn't have, and tries to bluff his way
out of the holes he digs for himself by producing references which he
thinks support his position.
> But he is
> clearly deluded, sometimes by his own self-importance, always by his
> fealty to theological absolutes. People like him are wrong, perhaps
> even willfully so, but calling them liars because of their delusions
> is creationist-like oversimplification.
I rarely call any creationist a liar. I call Sean a liar because there
are many instances in which he makes assertions he must know to be
false, and given the fact that he has actually published in academic
journals, must know enough about the nature of science to know that
his "theories" are scientifically worthless.
> It's bad enough *they* try to
> turn this issue into a morality play, we don't have to do the same
> thing.
>
> Second, the latitude I spoke of was regarding the freedom to believe
> whatever the hell one wants and still be respected when employing the
> tools of science. Of course there are fundamental problems with Sean's
> approach. He's a freakin' creationist, there are likely going to be
> unresolvable difficulties in whatever theories or models he eventually
> produces. But it is ad hom to denounce those theories or models based
> upon his creationism, rather than on the specific flaws contained
> within.
I've never done that. I have always criticised Sean on the basic of
his claims to scientific legitimacy, and the dishonesty with which he
conducts himself.
> The fact that Sean knows how to get a paper published
> demonstrates that he is capable of lucid reasoning when his
> precommitments aren't endangered, not that he's deliberately lying to
> anyone.
>
> Last, if you read my post again, you'll notice I was referring
> specifically to the situation mentioned by wf3h. He took Sean to
> account for being deceptive about the identity of his designer as
> determined by his ID theories. There's a lot I haven't discussed with
> Sean but the nature and capacity of his hypotheses is something we've
> been over quite a bit. I have seen Sean admit to a belief that the
> Christian God is the designer, I have also seen Sean attempt to
> develop a methodologically legitimate theory to account for the
> origins of life.
Well I haven't. All I've seen from Sean is bogus attempts to produce
arguments which seem scientific to those who don't understand the
nature of science.
RF
Ray Martinez
> Remove the NOSPAM before replying to me.
Thanks.
Likewise I respect you and a handful of other T.O evolutionists, even
though you guys are flat wrong.
Ray
Ray Martinez
Some people can.
> 2) He can carry out statistics without a numerical dataset.
> 3) He has a methodology which can detect "non-deliberate" action in
> objects
> 4) He knows what the outcome of that methodology is without having to
> apply it (a trick which would make the lives of every scientist on
> the
> planet much easier if it could be demonstrated)
> 5) Organisms can be fossilised by "very rapid flash crystalisation in
> a supersaturated environment"
This is true.
> 6) "Most fossils show clear evidence of rapid burial or other forms
> of
> relatively rapid or even catastrophic preservation" (what the hell
> *is* "catastrophic preservation", by the way?)
This is also true. The fact that you do not understand catastrophic
preservation is not surprising since you are a closed-minded
uniformitarianist.
> 7) "The fossil evidence clearly supports a catastrophic
> interpretation
> for much of the geologic column".
This is also true.
> 8) "Most ichthyosaur fossils show evidence of rapid burial, such as
> those found clustered together at places like the
> Berlin-Ichthyosaur State Park in Nevada."
> 9) The adaptive landscape of evolutionary theory consists of a series
> of isolated islands.
> 10) Evolution "stalls out" at a level arbitrarily set by Sean Pitman.
> 11) Human designers commonly produce nested hierarchies
> 12) Geologists don't have an explanation for concentrations of
> fossils of carnivores.
> 13) "mainstream scientists believe that all the main forms (or phyla)
> of animal life, save perhaps one, that exist in the world today were
> all present in the Cambrian "
> 14) "ancient channels of major rivers .. have not been found" in the
> Morrison Formation.
> 15) That "uniformitarianism" means that geologists thought that *all*
> sedimentary deposits were laid down gradually over millions of years.
>
Only recently have said geologists been forced to abandon.
> Sean has actually coauthored some papers which have been published in
> academic journals, which is why I think he deserves *less* latitude in
> these matters than most creationists. He knows (or should know) the
> basic principles of scientific research and publication, yet continues
> to peddle his silly "theories" even when it is clear that they are
> utterly devoid of any scientific content.
These comments say "agree with me or you are not practicing science."
Ray
SNIP....
Dana Tweedy
>> 1) He can carry out complex statistical analyses in your head.
>
> Some people can.
Such as?
snip
>> 5) Organisms can be fossilised by "very rapid flash crystalisation in
>> a supersaturated environment"
>
> This is true.
Citation from the primary scientific literature, please.
>
>> 6) "Most fossils show clear evidence of rapid burial or other forms
>> of
>> relatively rapid or even catastrophic preservation" (what the hell
>> *is* "catastrophic preservation", by the way?)
>
> This is also true. The fact that you do not understand catastrophic
> preservation is not surprising since you are a closed-minded
> uniformitarianist.
In this case 'uniformiatarianist" doesn't mean what you seem to think it
does.
As for "castrophic preservation", perhaps you will be so good as to explain
it, since you claim to understand the concept.
>
>> 7) "The fossil evidence clearly supports a catastrophic
>> interpretation
>> for much of the geologic column".
>
> This is also true.
Actually the fossil evidence does not support any such "interpretation".
There are individual castrophies shown in the geologic record, but the
processes involved are explainable by normal geologic actions.
snip
>> 15) That "uniformitarianism" means that geologists thought that *all*
>> sedimentary deposits were laid down gradually over millions of years.
>>
>
> Only recently have said geologists been forced to abandon.
Modern geologists would be surprised at this claim. Geologists throughout
the history of the science have known that small scale catastrophic events
are seen in the geologic record, but the entire picture is one of normal
processes acting over time. There's no evidence of a single global flood.
>
>> Sean has actually coauthored some papers which have been published in
>> academic journals, which is why I think he deserves *less* latitude
>> in these matters than most creationists. He knows (or should know)
>> the basic principles of scientific research and publication, yet
>> continues to peddle his silly "theories" even when it is clear that
>> they are utterly devoid of any scientific content.
>
> These comments say "agree with me or you are not practicing science."
Actually it's saying "if you aren't practicing science, you are not
practicing science".
DJT
Spil...@gmx.net
believe the presented counterevidence. That wouldn't make him a liar,
just misguided.
Lark
richardal...@googlemail.com
Who?
>
> > 2) He can carry out statistics without a numerical dataset.
> > 3) He has a methodology which can detect "non-deliberate" action in
> > objects
> > 4) He knows what the outcome of that methodology is without having to
> > apply it (a trick which would make the lives of every scientist on
> > the
> > planet much easier if it could be demonstrated)
> > 5) Organisms can be fossilised by "very rapid flash crystalisation in
> > a supersaturated environment"
>
> This is true.
Ray, I'm very familiar with the scientific literature on taphonomy. I
have contributed in a small way to that literature.
I have never come across the term "very rapid flash crystalisation in
a supersaturated environment" as part of any process of fossilisation
in the scientific literature, or indeed anywhere other than Sean's web
site. As Sean has plainly carried out no research in this field of
science, published no findings and based on the evidence from his web
site and his contributions to this forum knows little about taphonomy,
I fail to see how this can be anything other than a falsehood.
If you think that such a phenomenon does occur, I suggest that you
post a link to a citation. If you can't - and let's face it, you can't
- why are you bothering to support Sean in such a blatant falsehood?
>
> > 6) "Most fossils show clear evidence of rapid burial or other forms
> > of
> > relatively rapid or even catastrophic preservation" (what the hell
> > *is* "catastrophic preservation", by the way?)
>
> This is also true. The fact that you do not understand catastrophic
> preservation is not surprising since you are a closed-minded
> uniformitarianist.
So, please explain to me what "catastrophic preservation" actually is,
or point me at some sources in the scientific literature which propose
such a concept. As I said, I am very familiar with the scientific
literature on this subject, certainly much more so that either you or
Sean.
If you think that such a phenomenon does occur, I suggest that you
post a link to a citation. If you can't - and let's face it, you can't
- why are you bothering to support Sean in such a blatant falsehood?
>
> > 7) "The fossil evidence clearly supports a catastrophic
> > interpretation
> > for much of the geologic column".
>
> This is also true.
So explain the formation of thousands of meters thickness of
limestones such as chalk.
>
>
>
> > 8) "Most ichthyosaur fossils show evidence of rapid burial, such as
> > those found clustered together at places like the
> > Berlin-Ichthyosaur State Park in Nevada."
> > 9) The adaptive landscape of evolutionary theory consists of a series
> > of isolated islands.
> > 10) Evolution "stalls out" at a level arbitrarily set by Sean Pitman.
> > 11) Human designers commonly produce nested hierarchies
> > 12) Geologists don't have an explanation for concentrations of
> > fossils of carnivores.
> > 13) "mainstream scientists believe that all the main forms (or phyla)
> > of animal life, save perhaps one, that exist in the world today were
> > all present in the Cambrian "
> > 14) "ancient channels of major rivers .. have not been found" in the
> > Morrison Formation.
> > 15) That "uniformitarianism" means that geologists thought that *all*
> > sedimentary deposits were laid down gradually over millions of years.
>
> Only recently have said geologists been forced to abandon.
No, it's very clear if you read the works of Lyell that he referred to
catastrophic events. The frontispiece of "Principles of Geology"
includes an engraving of the Temple of Seraphis as evidence for rapid
sea level changes connected with volcanic eruptions at nearby Mount
Vesuvius. Uniformitarianism means that the *processes* we observe in
the present are those which created the geological record of the past.
>
> > Sean has actually coauthored some papers which have been published in
> > academic journals, which is why I think he deserves *less* latitude in
> > these matters than most creationists. He knows (or should know) the
> > basic principles of scientific research and publication, yet continues
> > to peddle his silly "theories" even when it is clear that they are
> > utterly devoid of any scientific content.
>
> These comments say "agree with me or you are not practicing science."
No, they say that if you are not practicing science you are not
practicing science, and to claim that you are practicing science when
it is clear that you are not is dishonest.
RF
>
> Ray
>
> SNIP....
Ernest Major
<3ad22abb-ecec-4e8c...@w40g2000yqd.googlegroups.com>,
"richardal...@googlemail.com" <richardal...@googlemail.com>
writes
>13) "mainstream scientists believe that all the main forms (or phyla)
>of animal life, save perhaps one, that exist in the world today were
>all present in the Cambrian "
That might actually be a truthful statement. The usual misrepresentation
is that all animal phyla are known to have originated in the Cambrian.
The truth is that several phyla have no fossil records, and some phyla
have fossil records that don't extend back to the Cambrian; but as a
matter of practice any phylum that turned out to be much more recent is
liable to be sunk in another phylum (e.g.Pentastomida, Pogonophora and
Vestimentifera). That all animal phyla existed in the Cambrian is a not
unreasonable inference from phylogeny.
The other points commonly overlooked is that some phyla have
pre-Cambrian records, and that the origins of non-animal phyla don't
cluster in the same period.
--
alias Ernest Major
Dana Tweedy
> On Apr 23, 4:00 am, "richardalanforr...@googlemail.com"
snip
>> Ray, I'm very familiar with the scientific literature on taphonomy. I
>> have contributed in a small way to that literature.
>> I have never come across the term "very rapid flash crystalisation in
>> a supersaturated environment" as part of any process of fossilisation
>> in the scientific literature, or indeed anywhere other than Sean's
>> web site.
>
> The quoted phrase simply means that a catastrophe has taken place in
> taphonomic environment.
What kind of catastrophe would produce such an event, Ray? Do you even
know what a "taphonomic environment" is? (Hint, "Taphonomy" is the study
of how things die and are fossilized)
Do you have any citations from any scinentific literature to support such a
claim?
>
>> As Sean has plainly carried out no research in this field of
>> science, published no findings and based on the evidence from his web
>> site and his contributions to this forum knows little about
>> taphonomy, I fail to see how this can be anything other than a
>> falsehood.
>>
>> If you think that such a phenomenon does occur, I suggest that you
>> post a link to a citation. If you can't - and let's face it, you
>> can't - why are you bothering to support Sean in such a blatant
>> falsehood?
>>
>
> Evolutionists routinely say that the paucity of whole and intact
> fossil organisms is because such events only occur in taphonomic
> environments.
Again, Ray, you seems to be confused about what a "taphonomic environment"
is. All environments are "taphonomic environments", as creatures die,
and fossils form in any number of environments. "Whole and intact"
fossils of particular types are not particularly rare. It's common to find
whole and intact fossils of marine creatures, as they live in areas where
fossilization is more common. It's less common to find "whole and
intact" fossils of land animals, because they are less likely to fossilize.
snip
>>
>
>> If you think that such a phenomenon does occur, I suggest that you
>> post a link to a citation. If you can't - and let's face it, you
>> can't - why are you bothering to support Sean in such a blatant
>> falsehood?
>
> Catastrophic preservation means that a catastrophe has preserved a
> biomass as it appeared moments before its unexpected death.
Actually, the preservation is quite normal, and non catastrophic. The
catastrophe is what caused the death of a group of individuals, but didn't
produce any different type of preservation.
>
> Evidence:
>
> http://www.apollonius.net/upheaval.html
>
> I. Velikoksy ("Earth in Upheaval" 1955:17,18):
Oh dear. Citing Velikovsky as "evidence" is hardly convincing. How
about presenting some citations from orginial scientific literature? For
example, check out this article:
" Frozen Mammoths and Modern Geology: The death of the giants can be
explained as a hazard of tundra life, without evoking catastrophic events"
William R. Farrand Science 17 March 1961: 729-735.
>
> "Charles Darwin, who denied the occurrence of continental catastrophes
> in the past, in a letter to Sir Henry Howorth admitted that the
> extinction of mammoths in Siberia was for him an insoluble problem.
Neither is correct. Darwin himself witnessed a "continental catastrophe"
when he saw an earthquake when visiting South America. The extinction of
mammoths in Siberia was a simple matter of climate change, and possibly
human overhunting.
> J.D. Dana, the leading American geologist of the second half of the
> last century, wrote: "The encasing in ice of huge elephants, and the
> perfect preservation of the flesh, shows that the cold finally became
> suddenly extreme, as of a single winter's night, and knew no relenting
> afterward."
Those "huge elephants" died most likely of natural causes, fell into marshy
areas, and were preserved by the premafrost. There's no evidence that
they died from some out of the ordinary means. There are only a very few
of these mammoth finds on record.
>
> In the stomachs and between the teeth of the mammoths were found
> plants and grasses that do not grow now in northern Siberia.
But undboutedly grew at one time there.....
> "The
> contents of the stomachs have been carefully examined; they showed the
> undigested food ... which was a proof of a sudden death.""
There are a lot of means of "sudden death' which are quite natural.
Elephant's digestive systems are fairly slow, so finding undigested food in
their stomachs is hardly surprising.
See:
http://www.crystalinks.com/woollymammoth.html
"Preserved frozen remains of woolly mammoths have been found in the northern
parts of Siberia. This is a rare occurrence, essentially requiring the
animal to have been buried rapidly in liquid or semi-solids such as silt,
mud and icy water which then froze.
This may have occurred in a number of ways. Mammoths may have been trapped
in bogs or quicksands and either died of starvation or exposure, or drowning
if they sank under the surface. They may have fallen through frozen ice into
small ponds or potholes, entombing them. Many are certainly known to have
been killed in rivers, perhaps through being swept away by river floods; in
one location, by the Berelekh River in Yakutia in Siberia, more than 9,000
bones from at least 156 individual mammoths have been found in a single
spot, apparently having been swept there by the current.
To date, thirty-nine preserved bodies have been found, but only four of them
are complete. In most cases the flesh shows signs of decay before its
freezing and later desiccation. Stories abound about frozen mammoth corpses
that were still edible once defrosted, but the original sources (e.g.
William R. Farrand's article in Science 133 [March 17, 1961]:729-735)
indicate that the corpses were in fact terribly decayed, and the stench so
unbearable that only the dogs accompanying the finders showed any interest
in the flesh."
>
> Please note that Siberia became a taphonomic environment.
Ray, all environments are taphonomic. You've been led astray by
Velikovsky yet again.
>
>>
>>
>>
>>>> 7) "The fossil evidence clearly supports a catastrophic
>>>> interpretation
>>>> for much of the geologic column".
>>
>>> This is also true.
>>
>> So explain the formation of thousands of meters thickness of
>> limestones such as chalk.
No answer, Ray?
snip
>>> Only recently have said geologists been forced to abandon.
>>
>> No, it's very clear if you read the works of Lyell that he referred
>> to catastrophic events. The frontispiece of "Principles of Geology"
>> includes an engraving of the Temple of Seraphis as evidence for rapid
>> sea level changes connected with volcanic eruptions at nearby Mount
>> Vesuvius. Uniformitarianism means that the *processes* we observe in
>> the present are those which created the geological record of the
>> past.
>>
>
> I agree that uniformitarianism means the present is the key to the
> past. But your paragraph above seems to contradict, accepting
> uniformitarianism to not be in conflict with catastrophism.
Where do you get the idea there is any conflict? As Richard is pointing
out "uniformitarianism" does not mean that catastrophies can't or don't
happen . Catastrophies are part of the normal geological processes that
operate. The "catastrophism" that died out in the early 1800s was the idea
that geology was produced by catastrophic events that aren't happening
today.
>
> Fact: uniformitarianism and catastrophism are two different and
> conflicting explanatory concepts.
Obviously Ray remains ignorant of the history of science, and how the two
concepts were debated, and ultimately how uniformitarianism won out.
snip more evidence of Ray's ignorance.
DJT
Dana Tweedy
snip
> CORRECTION: the correct spelling of the greatest scholar of the 20th
> century last name is: Velikovsky.
Correction: Velikovsky was no great scholar at all. For a refutation the
"frozen mamoth" claims, see:
Frozen Mammoths and Modern Geology: The death of the giants can be
explained as a hazard of tundra life, without evoking catastrophic events
William R. Farrand
Science 17 March 1961: 729-735.
DJT
Ray Martinez
>
> - Show quoted text -
You might have some good points, and I might have made some mistakes;
but since you really believe there is no difference between Deism and
Theism I see no reason to engage you in these complicated matters.
Ray
Ray Martinez
"Very rapid flash crystalisation" means a catastrophe has taken place
"in a supersaturated environment" which means an ideal taphonomic
environment (= wet or water-based).
> If you think that such a phenomenon does occur, I suggest that you
> post a link to a citation. If you can't - and let's face it, you can't
> - why are you bothering to support Sean in such a blatant falsehood?
>
>
>
> > > 6) "Most fossils show clear evidence of rapid burial or other forms
> > > of
> > > relatively rapid or even catastrophic preservation" (what the hell
> > > *is* "catastrophic preservation", by the way?)
>
> > This is also true. The fact that you do not understand catastrophic
> > preservation is not surprising since you are a closed-minded
> > uniformitarianist.
>
> So, please explain to me what "catastrophic preservation" actually is,....
Catastrophic preservation means that a catastrophe has preserved a
biomass as it appeared moments before its unexpected death.
> ....or point me at some sources in the scientific literature which propose
I agree that uniformitarianism means the present is the key to the
past. But your paragraph above seems to contradict, accepting
uniformitarianism to not be in conflict with catastrophism.
Fact: uniformitarianism and catastrophism are two different and
conflicting explanatory concepts.
Ray
SNIP....
Dana Tweedy
> On Apr 23, 4:24 pm, "Dana Tweedy" <reddfr...@bresnan.net> wrote:
>> Ray Martinez wrote:
>>> On Apr 23, 4:00 am, "richardalanforr...@googlemail.com"
>>
>> snip
>>
>>>> Ray, I'm very familiar with the scientific literature on
>>>> taphonomy. I have contributed in a small way to that literature.
>>>> I have never come across the term "very rapid flash crystalisation
>>>> in a supersaturated environment" as part of any process of
>>>> fossilisation in the scientific literature, or indeed anywhere
>>>> other than Sean's web site.
>>
>>> The quoted phrase simply means that a catastrophe has taken place in
>>> taphonomic environment.
>>
>> What kind of catastrophe would produce such an event, Ray? Do you
>> even
>> know what a "taphonomic environment" is? (Hint, "Taphonomy" is the
>> study
>> of how things die and are fossilized)
>>
>> Do you have any citations from any scinentific literature to support
>> such a claim?
this is an admission that Ray has no citations, or support.
snip
>>>> If you think that such a phenomenon does occur, I suggest that you
>>>> post a link to a citation. If you can't - and let's face it, you
>>>> can't - why are you bothering to support Sean in such a blatant
>>>> falsehood?
>>
>>> Evolutionists routinely say that the paucity of whole and intact
>>> fossil organisms is because such events only occur in taphonomic
>>> environments.
>>
>> Again, Ray, you seems to be confused about what a "taphonomic
>> environment" is. All environments are "taphonomic environments", as
>> creatures die,
>> and fossils form in any number of environments. "Whole and intact"
>> fossils of particular types are not particularly rare. It's common
>> to find whole and intact fossils of marine creatures, as they live
>> in areas where fossilization is more common. It's less common to
>> find "whole and
>> intact" fossils of land animals, because they are less likely to
>> fossilize.
>>
>> snip
Ray silently admits he doesn't understand taphonomy.
>>
>>
>>
>>>> If you think that such a phenomenon does occur, I suggest that you
>>>> post a link to a citation. If you can't - and let's face it, you
>>>> can't - why are you bothering to support Sean in such a blatant
>>>> falsehood?
>>
>>> Catastrophic preservation means that a catastrophe has preserved a
>>> biomass as it appeared moments before its unexpected death.
>>
>> Actually, the preservation is quite normal, and non catastrophic. The
>> catastrophe is what caused the death of a group of individuals, but
>> didn't produce any different type of preservation.
>>
>>
>>
>>> Evidence:
>>
>>> http://www.apollonius.net/upheaval.html
>>
>>> I. Velikoksy ("Earth in Upheaval" 1955:17,18):
>>
>> Oh dear. Citing Velikovsky as "evidence" is hardly convincing. How
>> about presenting some citations from orginial scientific literature?
>> For example, check out this article:
>>
>> " Frozen Mammoths and Modern Geology: The death of the giants can be
>> explained as a hazard of tundra life, without evoking catastrophic
>> events" William R. Farrand Science 17 March 1961: 729-735.
Here Ray doesn't bother to dispute that Velikovsky's claims are bunk.
snipping much more that was totally ignored.
>> snip more evidence of Ray's ignorance.
>>
>> DJT- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> - Show quoted text -
>
> You might have some good points,
Face it Ray, I sank your battleship. One shot, one kill. You can't even
begin to dispute the facts of the case.
> and I might have made some mistakes;
That counts as the Undestatement of the Millennia.
And you continue to make major mistakes, which you refuse to acknowledge.
> but since you really believe there is no difference between Deism and
> Theism I see no reason to engage you in these complicated matters.
As noted before in a different thread, you have a severe problem with the
concept of groups within groups. I would not say that there is no
difference between deism and theism, but deism is within the set of concepts
covered by the category "theistic beliefs". There are many forms of
theism, of which deism is just one.
As for the 'complicated matters" and "engaging", I'm quite familiar with you
running away when you see you are losing. I don't see this as any
different from the many other times I've seen you retreating a high
velocity. Apparently the way you "push around" people is to blow them down
by the breeze you produce by rapidly fleeing the discussion.
DJT
Dana Tweedy
>> I fail to see how this can be anything other than a falsehood.
>>
>
> "Very rapid flash crystalisation" means a catastrophe has taken place
> "in a supersaturated environment" which means an ideal taphonomic
> environment (= wet or water-based).
What kind of catastrophe would produce that, Ray? Please provide some
citation from the scientific literature to support your answer.
As I pointed out before, all environments are "taphonomic environments".
Wet or 'water based' environments themselves won't produce fossilzation
unless there are the proper conditions.
How would water become "super saturated", and "supersaturated" by what?
>
snip
>>
>> So, please explain to me what "catastrophic preservation" actually
>> is,....
>
> Catastrophic preservation means that a catastrophe has preserved a
> biomass as it appeared moments before its unexpected death.
What catastrophe, Ray? While a mudslide will cover part of a sea floor,
or a sandstorm will cover part of a dry land, the mudslide, or sand storm
itself won't preserve things differently than other events. What
preserves the fossils is a combinations of factors.
snip
>>
>
> I agree that uniformitarianism means the present is the key to the
> past. But your paragraph above seems to contradict, accepting
> uniformitarianism to not be in conflict with catastrophism.
Again,. Ray, you are making a big mistake here. The modern idea of
"uniformitarianism" does not mean that no catastrophies have ever taken
place. It simply means that the processes that produced the geologic
record are normal, and naturally occuring events, which sometimes include
local catastrophic events. Geologists are aware of things such as bolide
impacts, large scale vulcanism, earthquakes, storms, flash floods, etc.
All of these are seen in the geologic record.
>
> Fact: uniformitarianism and catastrophism are two different and
> conflicting explanatory concepts.
As ponted out before, Ray demonstrates his ignorance of the history of
science. The dispute among early geologists over "catastrophism" and
"uniformitarianism" was settled long ago.
see:
http://www.infoplease.com/ce6/sci/A0810833.html
DJT
Ray Martinez
From your own link source:
http://www.infoplease.com/ce6/sci/A0810833.html
"catastrophism (kutăs'trufizum)...., in geology, the doctrine that at
intervals in the earth's history all living things have been destroyed
by cataclysms (e.g., floods or earthquakes) and replaced by an
entirely different population. During these cataclysms the features of
the earth's surface, such as mountains and valleys, were formed. The
theory, popularly accepted from the earliest times, was attacked in
the late 18th cent., notably by James Hutton, who may be regarded as
the precursor of the ***opposite doctrine of uniformitarianism.***
Catastrophism, however, was more easily correlated with religious
doctrines (e.g., the Mosaic account of the Flood) and remained for
some time the interpretation of the earth's history accepted by the
great majority of geologists. It was systematized and defended by the
Frenchman Georges Cuvier, whose position as the greatest geologist of
his day easily overbore all opposition. In the 19th cent., ***it [=
catastrophism] was attacked by George Poulett Scrope and especially by
Sir Charles Lyell,*** under whose influence the contrary doctrine
gradually became more popular. Recent theories of meteorite, asteroid,
or comet impacts triggering mass extinctions can be interpreted as a
revival of catastrophism."
[***emphasis added***]
[bracket added]
Previously I said:
"Fact: uniformitarianism and catastrophism are two different and
conflicting explanatory concepts" (Ray Martinez).
Face your astronomic ignorance and errors, Dana.
Ray
Ray Martinez
> intervals in the earth's history all living things have been destroyed
> by cataclysms (e.g., floods or earthquakes) and replaced by an
> entirely different population. During these cataclysms the features of
> the earth's surface, such as mountains and valleys, were formed. The
> theory, popularly accepted from the earliest times, was attacked in
> the late 18th cent., notably by James Hutton, who may be regarded as
> the precursor of the ***opposite doctrine of uniformitarianism.***
>
> Catastrophism, however, was more easily correlated with religious
> doctrines (e.g., the Mosaic account of the Flood) and remained for
> some time the interpretation of the earth's history accepted by the
> great majority of geologists. It was systematized and defended by the
> Frenchman Georges Cuvier, whose position as the greatest geologist of
> his day easily overbore all opposition. In the 19th cent., ***it [=
> catastrophism] was attacked by George Poulett Scrope and especially by
> gradually became more popular. Recent theories of meteorite, asteroid,
> or comet impacts triggering mass extinctions can be interpreted as a
> revival of catastrophism."
>
> [***emphasis added***]
>
> [bracket added]
>
[Second bracket now added.]
> Previously I said:
>
> "Fact: uniformitarianism and catastrophism are two different and
> conflicting explanatory concepts" (Ray Martinez).
>
> Face your astronomic ignorance and errors, Dana.
>
> Ray
Uniformitarianism and Catastrophism are "contrary doctrines" (see link
reference material).
Previously I said: "Fact: uniformitarianism and catastrophism are two
different and conflicting explanatory concepts" (Ray Martinez).
Ray
richardal...@googlemail.com
Supersaturated solutions do *NOT* occur in natural environments,
fossils are *NOT* preserved by "flash crystalisation" and very few wet
environments provide ideal conditions for fossilisation.
Oh, and there is no such this as an "ideal taphonomic environment".
That's as silly as referring to an "ideal gravitational environment".
>
>
>
> > If you think that such a phenomenon does occur, I suggest that you
> > post a link to a citation. If you can't - and let's face it, you can't
> > - why are you bothering to support Sean in such a blatant falsehood?
>
> > > > 6) "Most fossils show clear evidence of rapid burial or other forms
> > > > of
> > > > relatively rapid or even catastrophic preservation" (what the hell
> > > > *is* "catastrophic preservation", by the way?)
>
> > > This is also true. The fact that you do not understand catastrophic
> > > preservation is not surprising since you are a closed-minded
> > > uniformitarianist.
>
> > So, please explain to me what "catastrophic preservation" actually is,....
>
> Catastrophic preservation means that a catastrophe has preserved a
> biomass as it appeared moments before its unexpected death.
Catastrophes do not preserve a "biomass".
Catastrophism was the idea that the fossil record represents
successive creation events, each of which wiped out completely its
precursor. Here's my favourite nut-case, Thomas Hawkins, on the
subject:
"The limestones compose the fourth section: the inestimable treasury
of the most splendid epoch in the records ot the planet-ante-human.
Deposited in a fathomless occan, the stern universality of which was
only marred by the sombrous sand-bank as of yesterday's creation, they
perpetuate the characters ol the things that were:-figures so much
stranger than those of fiction that man, gazing upon them, doubted
their import, and-oh, the monstrous creatures of his vain reverie.
But the immortal mind, progressing to infinity has at length
comprehended some of the surviving wrecks of the olden realities, and
their admirable constructions reveal,-instead of the unclouth
phantasms that bewilderd the inquirer of yore,-the earliest essays of
the Ineffable First Cause in the stupendous but all-harmonious chain
of effects.
The globe, sweltering with the intense heat that its primitive
revolution in space generated, was a fitting habitation for the cold-
blooded reptiles, whose day and generation-hid in the AGE before ages-
may not computed by us finite. In the crust-the external covering of
the mighty frame,-in the lias limestones are exhibited the most
fascinating oryctological features. Ichthyosauri, fish-molluscous and
vertebrate,-which delighted in the depths of the deep sea; Ferns and
banana-like trees that flourished in the slimy marsh or fringed the
sunny lagoon and estuary where preyed the wondrous Plesiosauri. The
ptero-dactyle too, that paradox which, uniting some of the most
specilfic distinctions of the saurian head with a bird-and-bat-like
conformation of body and extremities, has given rise to vagaries ef
thought as uncertain as the sombre twilight of the ungarnished and
desolalte world which echoed to the flapping of its leathern wings.
They have ceased from off the face of the earth: inexorable time long
since extinguished the last of their race and all that survives of
these once grim and omnipetent aborigines are a few crushed bones as
unsightly as they are rare."
>
> Fact: uniformitarianism and catastrophism are two different and
> conflicting explanatory concepts.
So why not educate yourself in what those terms meant in the context
of early 19th century geology?
FACT: You misrepresent the nature of the dispute between
catastrophists and uniformitarianists.
RF
>
> Ray
>
> SNIP....
richardal...@googlemail.com
Quite so.
However, catastrophism had lost and uniformitarianism had won by the
middle of the 19th century.
The whole modern science of geology is founded on the principle of
uniformitarianism. In fact, the basic principle of uniformitarianism
underlies much of modern science. It is the assumption which makes
science possible. If the universe in the past was not constrained by
the same basic laws as it is today, there is no point in any science
which looks into the past - which all science does to some extent.
RF
>
> Ray
Dana Tweedy
>> As ponted out before, Ray demonstrates his ignorance of the history
>> of science. The dispute among early geologists over "catastrophism"
>> and "uniformitarianism" was settled long ago.
>>
>> see:http://www.infoplease.com/ce6/sci/A0810833.html
>>
>> DJT
>
> From your own link source:
The linked source was to show you what the real controversy was in early
geology, rather than the creationist distortion.
>
> http://www.infoplease.com/ce6/sci/A0810833.html
>
> "catastrophism (kutãs'trufizum)...., in geology, the doctrine that at
> intervals in the earth's history all living things have been destroyed
> by cataclysms (e.g., floods or earthquakes) and replaced by an
> entirely different population. During these cataclysms the features of
> the earth's surface, such as mountains and valleys, were formed. The
> theory, popularly accepted from the earliest times, was attacked in
> the late 18th cent., notably by James Hutton, who may be regarded as
> the precursor of the ***opposite doctrine of uniformitarianism.***
Yep, but the modern idea of uniformitarianism does take into account that
catastrophies happen within natural law. The point is that no modern
geologist accepts the classical idea of "catastrophism", ie, that the entire
geologic record was one of castastophies.
>
> Catastrophism, however, was more easily correlated with religious
> doctrines (e.g., the Mosaic account of the Flood) and remained for
> some time the interpretation of the earth's history accepted by the
> great majority of geologists. It was systematized and defended by the
> Frenchman Georges Cuvier, whose position as the greatest geologist of
> his day easily overbore all opposition. In the 19th cent., ***it [=
> catastrophism] was attacked by George Poulett Scrope and especially by
> Sir Charles Lyell,*** under whose influence the contrary doctrine
> gradually became more popular. Recent theories of meteorite, asteroid,
> or comet impacts triggering mass extinctions can be interpreted as a
> revival of catastrophism."
>
> [***emphasis added***]
>
> [bracket added]
>
> Previously I said:
>
> "Fact: uniformitarianism and catastrophism are two different and
> conflicting explanatory concepts" (Ray Martinez).
That's the modern creationist distortion, which I'm trying to show you how
you are wrong.
You are missing the fact that the inclusion of local, and incidental
catastrophic events does not change the over all idea of uniform geologic
processes. The doctrine of catastrophism lost out before Darwin published
his work. You seem to be unaware that this controversy in geology was
resolved long ago.
>
> Face your astronomic ignorance and errors, Dana.
Actually, Ray, you are just demonstrating your own ignorance and errors
here. You were wrong to claim that a "uniformitarian" couldn't recognize
catastrophies. You were wrong to assume that the two "doctrines" were
incompatable. You appear to be ignorant of what the original "doctrines"
were all about.
DJT
Dana Tweedy
> Uniformitarianism and Catastrophism are "contrary doctrines" (see link
> reference material).
Sigh:
Ray, sometimes I wonder why I even bother. The whole ''lead a horse to
water" thing applies, apparenlty. There was, at one time a doctrine of
"catastrophism" in geology, but it lost out to uniformitarianism, as the
evidence supported the latter. Catastrophism was not the idea that
catastrophies occasional happen, but that the geologic record was the result
of cataclysms separated by periods of geologic stasis. Uniformitarianism
is the concept that geology is the result of constant and incremental
changes over time. These constant and incremental changes also include the
occasional catastrophic events, such as earthquakes, landslides, storms,
asteroid impacts, etc.
>
> Previously I said: "Fact: uniformitarianism and catastrophism are two
> different and conflicting explanatory concepts" (Ray Martinez).
Which was the creationist distortion. Catastrophism lost out before Darwin
published his work.
DJT
Mark Isaak
wrote:
> [...]
> Supersaturated solutions do *NOT* occur in natural environments,
> fossils are *NOT* preserved by "flash crystalisation" and very few wet
> environments provide ideal conditions for fossilisation.
This reminds me of something I read once in a science-fiction book
(_Heliconia Spring_, I think) and have wondered about since.
The bad guys charged through a calm, clear pond to get to the good guy,
but the pond was supercooled, and their disturbing it caused it to freeze
suddenly, so that they became trapped in the ice. Does supercooling on
that scale ever happen in nature?
--
Mark Isaak eciton (at) earthlink (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
Seanpit
>
> > > With all this now said: Why is Sean viewed as a Creationist or IDist?
>
> > first excerpt. Instead, he is simply saying that *some things* are not the
> > direct result of divine will.
>
> Sean renounces "God-did-it" in the first excerpt.
That's not true. Arguing that at least human level intelligence was
required to produce certain levels of functional complexity is not the
same thing as arguing against God or the possibility of God's
involvement. I personally believe in God and God's involvement with
the creation of live and much of its variety on this planet. However,
this concept is not provable by science.
What science can achieve is the ability to support the design-only
hypothesis. That can be and is done by science all the time - to at
least the human level if not a bit beyond. Science can in fact
determine, quite accurately and with a very high degree of predictive
power, if at least human level intelligence was most likely required
to produce a given phenomenon.
Ray, you seem to miss, or at least misunderstand, the "at least" part
of the equation. Arguing that "at least" human-level intelligence as
required leaves the door wide open for the possibility that even
higher levels of intelligence could have been involved. That
possibility, or the God hypothesis, is never excluded by science
because that is impossible from the scientific perspective.
> Your opinion
> overlooks this fact.Sean"accepts" the concept of creation
> momentarily in the first excerpt for the expressed purpose of
> dismissing it to account for actual biological production; then, like
> a real evolutionist, he says the concept is not scientific, that it
> explains everything (he is *basically* correct, the concept does
> "explain" everything). The extent of his acceptance of the concept is
> deistic. But the concept of creation presupposes Theism, not Deism
> (Oxford English Dictionary, Second Edition). The concept of
> "evolution" presupposes the falsity of the concept of
> "creation" (hence the Creationism-Evolution debate) AND the concept of
> Deism: Divine power is not seen or needed in the evolutionary
> process.
You've completely misread me Ray. I believe in a personal Creator God
and that this God was responsible for producing life and its variety
on this planet and is still active and interested in this planet and
in us as individuals. However, this is not what is under discussion
in this forum. This is a different issue that is related, but is not
the same concept as the concept I'm arguing for in this forum. You
don't seem to be able to grasp the difference.
> > For example, even you would probably agree
> > that those things that are the result of human free will are not the *direct*
> > result of Divine will.
>
> To interject suddenly human free will into a discussion about
> biological agency and the extent of the rejection of the agency of
> creation by Sean Pitman is baffling.
The point, Ray, is that not everything in this universe is directly
designed by God. For example, practically all of the various breeds
of dogs that we have today were produced by the deliberate intent of
human breeders - not by God directly. What God did was produce the
first dog-type, something like the wolf most likely, as well as the
potential for genetic diversity that we actually see expressed today.
God did not produce all the various types of breeds originally. The
same thing goes for certain types of mutations that result in numerous
phenotypic variations for all living things. God doesn't direct each
random mutation with deliberate forethought. God didn't deliberately
make the single point mutation that produced sickle cell anemia for
example. God doesn't make the mutations that result in various forms
of cancer, like CML or AML, for example. Would you at least agree
with that?
So far, whenever I've presented this last question to you, you never
answer it. Is there anything that is produced or created outside of
God's direct deliberate will and action?
> > God, in creating free will, voluntarily gave up the option
> > of controlling some things.
>
> This belief is sourceless, subjective, since the Biblical Theos goes
> out of His way to demonstrate the exact opposite: He retains absolute
> control despite the monkey wrench of human free will.
God retains absolute sovereignty or the option to act, but God does
not maintain absolute control of all actions or no one would be able
to be held responsible for his/her own actions. According to your
argument here, God would be chargeable with extreme evil and cruelty.
For example, would you credit an act of child rape to the absolute
control and deliberate will and action of God? Hmmmm?
Please at least try and give this question a fair shot, at least an
attempt at a thoughtful answer, next time you post a thread like this
one.
> > Similarly,Sean would argue, in creating natural
> > laws,...
>
> Deism.
You really think I'm a deist? Deists typically reject most
supernatural events (prophecy, miracles) and tend to assert that God
(or "The Supreme Architect") has a plan for the universe which that
Architect does not alter either by intervening in the affairs of human
life or suspending the natural laws of the universe. What organized
religions see as divine revelation and holy books, most deists see as
interpretations made by other humans, rather than as authoritative
sources.
That's the definition of deism Ray. I'm no deist. I believe that God
is active in current affairs. However, I also believe that God has
produced natural laws with which he does not constantly interfere.
Again I ask the question. Do you believe that God deliberately
produced the mutation that causes sickle cell anemia? - or leukemias
like CML or AML? Simple question Ray . . .
> Sean claims to be a Theist.
In a specific sense in current usage, theism generally refers to a
particular doctrine concerning the nature of God and his relationship
to the universe. Theism, in this specific sense, conceives of God as
personal and active in the governance and organization of the world
and the universe.
In this sense, I am a theist, and so are you - - and so are many
evolutionists actually.
> > ....God abandoned the responsibility of controlling most of the physical
> > world - planets in their orbits, for example.
>
> I realize that you are speculating about Sean's views based on the
> excerpts and your understanding of his collective views as a whole.
> Theism accepts the worlds and their orbits to result from laws created-
> reflecting Divine power. Naturalism rejects Theism----militantly.
Naturalism only suggests that humans cannot prove the divine. This
point is actually correct. We may be able to suspect the divine, but
we can never prove it since we are finite creatures. Hence, the
problem for those who think to use science or human reason to "prove
God". It can't be done. It can only be approximated to a very
limited degree "at at least the human level and likely beyond" at
best. How far beyond cannot be know by finite mortals - only
suspected.
> > And in the second excerpt, he is not actually saying anything that limits
> > God's power. Instead, he is describing the scope of his own analysis
> > of the evidence for design in the natural world. There may well be a
> > super-human intelligence controlling the world, and I suspect thatSean
> > believes in such an intelligence. But as a cautious analyst of the evidence,
> > he claims to have demonstrated no more than human intelligence - wise of
> > him, because we have no experience with intelligences beyond the human.-
>
> Contradiction.
>
> Paragraph begins by saying Sean accepts Divine power. Then the
> paragraph admits that Sean is only advocating "human intelligence."
> The latter admission (which is true and not in dispute) refutes the
> former.
You forget the qualifier "at least" human level intelligence. I'm not
only advocating human intelligence here. I'm arguing that at least
human level intelligence is needed to explain certain types of
phenomena. And, the specific phenomena that I'm talking about are
very limited and are arguably themselves within the limited ability of
human-level intelligence and technology. Only those who are very
ignorant about human engineering and technology would think the levels
of functional complexity I'm discussing in this forum clearly beyond
human production. Humans can create at very high levels of functional
complexity - far greater than any known non-deliberate or mindless
force of nature or natural law.
> Creationism accepts Divine or Intelligent agency, not human level
> intelligence (whatever that is).
Creationists accept both - most creationists that is. Humans are
creative agents just like God is a creative agent - if only on a much
much lower level. This is all about what various levels of functional
informational complexity can achieve. Humans can achieve certain
levels of functional complexity and humans can detect when only human-
level intelligence, or perhaps beyond a bit, can do the job. This is
the basis of the ID-only theories that are prevalent - even within
mainstream science. This ID-only theory forms the basis of
anthropology, forensics, and even SETI.
> Evolution rejects Divine or
> Intelligent agency while accepting unguided-undirected-unintelligent
> material agency.Sean is all alone is left field.
Creationism, as per the vast majority of creationists, also rejects
the idea that God guides, directs, or intelligently wills or
manipulates every aspect of our universe, thoughts, or daily lives.
He simply does not. Your notion that He does would make God the most
evil being you could possibly imagine - directly responsible for every
evil thing that you, or anyone else, have ever seen, done, or
imagined. Think about that for just a minute Ray . . .
> Ray
Sean Pitman
www.DetectingDesign.com
richardal...@googlemail.com
> On Fri, 24 Apr 2009 01:27:09 -0700, richardalanforr...@googlemail.com
> wrote:
>
> > [...]
> > Supersaturated solutions do *NOT* occur in natural environments,
> > fossils are *NOT* preserved by "flash crystalisation" and very few wet
> > environments provide ideal conditions for fossilisation.
>
> This reminds me of something I read once in a science-fiction book
> (_Heliconia Spring_, I think) and have wondered about since.
>
> The bad guys charged through a calm, clear pond to get to the good guy,
> but the pond was supercooled, and their disturbing it caused it to freeze
> suddenly, so that they became trapped in the ice. Does supercooling on
> that scale ever happen in nature?
As far as I know it can't. Any minute particle will act as the seed
for crystal growth, and I can't see that any natural pond will be that
clear. The demonstration I remember from my science lessons at school
showed that scratching the inside of a test-tube lightly with a glass
rod created enough seeds for a supersaturated solution to turn almost
instantly into a mass of crystals.
RF
'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank
Hi Sean. Welcome back.
Last time you were here, you ran away without answering a few simple
questions I asked of you. So I'll ask again.
*ahem*
What mechanism for ID are you proposing, Sean? You've said it
involves a
"human-level intelligence". That rules out any supernatural or
divine
influence, right? No God required, right? No need for anything that
plain old ordinary humans can't do, right? "Design theory" is just
as athiestic and godless as Darwinism is, right, Sean?
So what WAS involved, Sean, if it wasn't god. Space aliens? Time-
travelling human biologists from the future? Where did THEY come
from,
Sean? Did they evolve natgurally? Or were THEY designed by some
OTHER human-level intelligence, and where did THAT come from?
And what did this human-level designer DO, Sean? How did it make new
genetic sequencies? What mechanisms did it use? Where can we see it
using similar mechanisms today to do . . . well . . . anything?
You declared that the IDer manipulates natural forces and materials to
accomplish its design. Show us. WHat natural forces and materials
has the ID manipulated? What mechanisms did it use to manipulate
them? Where can we se it using any mechanisms to manipulate anything
today?
Oh, and hey-- you said that your "ID theory" is testable. Show me.
How can I go about testing the, uh, hypothesis that "an unknown thing
did an unknown thing at an unknown time using unknown methods" . . ?
How could anyone falsify your, uh, hypothesis, Sean -- how could
anyone show that an unknown thing did NOT do an unknown thing at an
unknown time using unknown methods? Do you think there are things
that God -- uh, I mean "the unknown intelligent designer" -- could not
have done, Sean?
And, since every time someone mentions "designer", you burp up your
SETI bullshit -- SETI doesn't say "We think a designer did this. But,
ya know, we're really not interested, at all, in finding out what that
designer is, what it did, how it did it, or what it's doing today."
Why does ID "science" say that, Sean?
Can you think of any OTHER area of science which concludes "We think
something happened here, but we're not remotely interested in finding
out what it was or what did it."
Why does ID "science" say that, Sean? Is there some non-science
reason for that? A legal strategy, perhaps . . . ?
Oh, and would you mind pointing to an example of any scientific
discovery, of any note, in any area of science, that has resulted
from
the hypothesis "Godiddit!!!!" . . .?
By the way, Sean, why have you not tried to publish all of your
startling wonderful mathy findings? By golly, such world-shaking
earth-shattering paradigm-changing darwin-destroying mathematical
statistical thingies would make you WORLD FAMOUS, Sean. You'd be
bigger than Carl Sagan, Albert Einstein, and Bill Nye the Science Guy,
all rolled into one. That next Nobel Prize would be yours, you could
have your pick of any university you wanted, the Discovery Channel
would do endless specials on you. You would pack lecture halls all
across the country. Just think of it, Sean -- all those thousands and
thousands of people waiting for YOU to tell them why Ellen G White was
a prophet. And yet you foolishly toss all that fame, fortune and world
position away by presenting your world-shattering findings in an
obscure Internet newsgroup, instead of the front page of Nature or
Science.
Why is that, Sean?
Since everyone you have explained your wonderful mathy sciency stuff
to, thinks you're full of shit, which do you think is more likely,
Sean -- that (1) everyone else is wrong and you really HAVE made the
scientific discovery of the millenium and are just too stoopid and
incompetent to explain it properly to anyone, or that (2) everyone
else is right and you really ARE just full of shit?
Is that why you can't be bothered to publish your earth-shattering
paradigm-changing science, Sean?
Why won't you answer those simple questions, Sean? What is it you
have to hide, Sean?
================================================
Lenny Flank
"There are no loose threads in the web of life"
Editor, Red and Black Publishers
http://www.RedandBlackPublishers.com
wf3h
> On Apr 21, 7:55 pm, Ray Martinez <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > Sean renounces "God-did-it" in the first excerpt.
> >
> hypothesis.
except, of course, the argument from design, historically, has been
developed in the context of the absence of any NATURAL process to
produce species. that is, evolution is wrong.
thus ray is correct in sofar as he's arguing a position against
evolution. sean tries to play both sides and fails at both. sean wants
to exclude NATURAL processes (he says so himself quite bluntly) then
they shyly averts his eyes when asked HOW this magical 'design'
process works. he refuses even to address or discuss the issue.
THAT is why i call sean a liar and say that, although ray is deluded,
he's honest. seans is BOTH deluded AND dishonest in his assertions.
That can be and is done by science all the time - to at
> least the human level if not a bit beyond. Science can in fact
> determine, quite accurately and with a very high degree of predictive
> power, if at least human level intelligence was most likely required
> to produce a given phenomenon.
not unless it knows enough to exclude natural processes. and this
knowledge is on a case by case basis. it is NOT universal. analogies
to "SETI" and other nonsense is a misapplication of the logic and
rules of science
proof of this is in the very fact that sean can not, will not, and
does not tell us ANYTHING about HOW his mythical designer works. in
order to be able to exclude natural processes and include the
supernatural (which he says he's not doing, but plainly is), he has to
know how this process works. he does not.
since we've never seen a supernatural process at work, and since ALL
claims to supernaturalism have been wrong, sean tries to invoke a
failed idea.
ray says such an idea is, a priori, true. he does not justify it. he
does not argue it by logic at all. he simply says it's true by
assertion.
sean, OTOH, tries to put an evening gown on a pig and dress up
supernaturalism in the language of science. this is, quite frankly,
impossible and sean has had no luck in doing so.
>
> > To interject suddenly human free will into a discussion about
> > biological agency and the extent of the rejection of the agency of
> > creation by Sean Pitman is baffling.
>
> The point, Ray, is that not everything in this universe is directly
> designed by God.
creationists have a cafeteria approach to science. it's a flavor of
the month view. THIS month planetary motion is created by god, but
everything is natural....WHOOPS! that's wrong, so let's try
speciation....etc. etc.
>
> God retains absolute sovereignty or the option to act, but God does
> not maintain absolute control of all actions or no one would be able
> to be held responsible for his/her own actions. According to your
> argument here, God would be chargeable with extreme evil and cruelty.
ever read 'exodus' or 'job'?
Humans can create at very high levels of functional
> complexity - far greater than any known non-deliberate or mindless
> force of nature or natural law.
really? humans can create a universe?
that must be in next month's edition of 'scientific american' because
i haven't seen it in april's edition.
>
> > Creationism accepts Divine or Intelligent agency, not human level
> > intelligence (whatever that is).
>
> Creationists accept both - most creationists that is. Humans are
> creative agents just like God is a creative agent - if only on a much
> much lower level. This is all about what various levels of functional
> informational complexity can achieve. Humans can achieve certain
> levels of functional complexity and humans can detect when only human-
> level intelligence, or perhaps beyond a bit, can do the job. This is
> the basis of the ID-only theories that are prevalent - even within
> mainstream science. This ID-only theory forms the basis of
> anthropology, forensics, and even SETI.
as i say, sean argues by analogy. no serious scientist would EVER
propose that as a justification for a theory.
also, such an analysis depends on a thorough knowledge of the system
under study.
SETI is based on radio waves. DNA is based on chemistry. there is no
correspondence whatsoever. none.
Ray Martinez
Glad to see that you agree with me, Richard. Again, this is basic
stuff.
> However, catastrophism had lost and uniformitarianism had won by the
> middle of the 19th century.
Yes, I know. Uniformitarianism is geologic gradualism. This is where
Darwin obtained the conceptual idea that species evolve gradually.
> The whole modern science of geology is founded on the principle of
> uniformitarianism.
Yes, I know.
> In fact, the basic principle of uniformitarianism
> underlies much of modern science.
Yes, I know.
> It is the assumption which makes
> science possible. If the universe in the past was not constrained by
> the same basic laws as it is today, there is no point in any science
> which looks into the past - which all science does to some extent.
>
> RF
The acceptance of uniformitarianism does not mean that the underlying
assumption, nor the concept itself, is true. It just means that most
scientific men chose to explain reality through this explanatory
filter.
Uniformitarianism is utterly false. It is a doctrine of Scientism, not
Science. The world plainly reflects a past full of catastrophes. This
is objectively true. Atheists and Darwinists only care about
describing the world so the Bible is seen to be false. Anyone who
looks at the world objectively plainly sees that uniformitarianism is
anti-reality and that catastrophism is reality.
Ray
Robert Camp
> On Apr 21, 7:55 pm, Ray Martinez <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote:
<snip>
> Creationism, as per the vast majority of creationists, also rejects
> the idea that God guides, directs, or intelligently wills or
> manipulates every aspect of our universe, thoughts, or daily lives.
> He simply does not.
How much of your certainty in this assertion depends upon the weight
of numbers you cite just previous?
RLC
Seanpit
> On Apr 24, 12:03 pm, Seanpit <sean...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Apr 21, 7:55 pm, Ray Martinez <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
> > Creationism, as per the vast majority of creationists, also rejects
> > the idea that God guides, directs, or intelligently wills or
> > manipulates every aspect of our universe, thoughts, or daily lives.
> > He simply does not.
>
> How much of your certainty in this assertion depends upon the weight
> of numbers you cite just previous?
Every hear of freedom of will? Most people, especially creationists,
believe that humans have been given freedom of will . . .
> RLC
Sean Pitman
www.DetectingDesign.com
'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank
I dunno -- you have to ask Ray. After all, Ray is The Only Real
Creationist In The Whole Wide World(tm)(c), ya know . . . .
YOU are just an atheist.
Right, Ray?
Go on, Sean, tell Ray that you do TOO believe the IDer is God (right
before you go on to tell everyone ELSE that the designer could be a
space alien).
I *love* watching creationuts entangle themselves in their own web of
evasive dishonest bullshit.
(snicker) (giggle)
Seanpit
> On Apr 24, 3:03 pm, Seanpit <sean...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Apr 21, 7:55 pm, Ray Martinez <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > That's not true. Arguing that at
> > least human level intelligence was
> > required to produce certain levels
> > of functional complexity is not the
> > same thing as arguing against
> > God or the possibility of God's
> > involvement. I personally believe
> > in God and God's involvement with
> > the creation of life and much of
> > its variety on this planet. However,
> > this concept is not provable by science.
> >
> > What science can achieve is
> > the ability to support the design-only
> > hypothesis.
>
> except, of course, the argument from design, historically, has been
> developed in the context of the absence of any NATURAL process to
> produce species.
Again, you forget that you're arguing with me here. My argument is
that natural processes are indeed in play, but only to a very limited
extent and that this line of limitation can in fact be delineated by
scientific investigation.
> that is, evolution is wrong.
The evolutionary mechanism only works at very very low levels of
functional complexity. This doesn't mean that it doesn't work at
all. It does work. It just isn't capable of explaining all aspects
of the functional complexity of living things.
> thus ray is correct in sofar as he's arguing a position against
> evolution.sean tries to play both sides and fails at both.sean wants
> to exclude NATURAL processes (he says so himself quite bluntly) then
> they shyly averts his eyes when asked HOW this magical 'design'
> process works. he refuses even to address or discuss the issue.
Again, if you want to call human-level creativity "magical" that's
your problem. You've actually admitted just the opposite already -
that ID can be quite natural indeed. What is magical here are your
notions that the mechanism of RM/NS is based on actual science beyond
low levels of functional complexity. The truth is that beyond the
1000 fsaar level all ideas about this mechanism are based on pure
fantasy and just-so story telling - not science.
> THAT is why i callseana liar and say that, although ray is deluded,
> he's honest. seans is BOTH deluded AND dishonest in his assertions.
And you're just an idiot . . .
> > That can be and is done by science all the time - to at
> > least the human level if not a bit beyond. Science can in fact
> > determine, quite accurately and with a very high degree of predictive
> > power, if at least human level intelligence was most likely required
> > to produce a given phenomenon.
>
> not unless it knows enough to exclude natural processes.
That's correct. Scientists must know enough to be able to exclude, to
at least a useful level of certainty, non-deliberate non-intelligent
natural processes. Note that this exclusion cannot be done with
perfection. That's the nature of science. Science only deals with
limited knowledge and limited information that never reaches 100%
perfection.
> and this
> knowledge is on a case by case basis. it is NOT universal.
The application of the rational behind SETI is indeed universal.
> analogies
> to "SETI" and other nonsense is a misapplication of the logic and
> rules of science
This isn't an analogy.
> proof of this is in the very fact that sean can not, will not, and
> does not tell us ANYTHING about HOW his mythical designer works.
Neither do SETI scientists. All that need to be known is that the
designer could have worked much like humans work. That's it. You
don't have to know how the designer actually worked. If you knew
that, you wouldn't need science. You'd have direct observational
evidence which would remove the need or usefulness of a scientific
theory of design.
> in
> order to be able to exclude natural processes and include the
> supernatural (which he says he's not doing, but plainly is), he has to
> know how this process works. he does not.
Again, you have to know how the process could have worked . . . not
how it actually worked.
> since we've never seen a supernatural process at work, and since ALL
> claims to supernaturalism have been wrong,sean tries to invoke a
> failed idea.
No one is invoking the need for the supernatural here. The presented
hypothesis is the ID-only hypothesis on at least the human level of
intelligence - natural intelligence. Proving God is impossible.
> ray says such an idea is, a priori, true. he does not justify it. he
> does not argue it by logic at all. he simply says it's true by
> assertion.
>
> sean, OTOH, tries to put an evening gown on a pig and dress up
> supernaturalism in the language of science. this is, quite frankly,
> impossible and sean has had no luck in doing so.
You'd be correct if I was actually claiming the ability to demonstrate
the need for the supernatural here. I'm not. I'm not doing that at
all. What I'm claiming to be able to do is to present a real
scientific hypothesis that only invokes the need for very natural
intelligence of at least the human level of intelligence.
> > > To interject suddenly human free will into a discussion about
> > > biological agency and the extent of the rejection of the agency of
> > > creation by Sean Pitman is baffling.
>
> > The point, Ray, is that not everything in this universe is directly
> > designed by God.
>
> creationists have a cafeteria approach to science. it's a flavor of
> the month view. THIS month planetary motion is created by god, but
> everything is natural....WHOOPS! that's wrong, so let's try
> speciation....etc. etc.
>
>
>
> > God retains absolute sovereignty or the option to act, but God does
> > not maintain absolute control of all actions or no one would be able
> > to be held responsible for his/her own actions. According to your
> > argument here, God would be chargeable with extreme evil and cruelty.
>
> ever read 'exodus' or 'job'?
What about it? If God prevented all evil produced by free moral
agents, where would freedom be found?
> > Humans can create at very high levels of functional
> > complexity - far greater than any known non-deliberate or mindless
> > force of nature or natural law.
>
> really? humans can create a universe?
The informational complexity in a single 1000 fsaar system is greater
than all the functional information in the entire non-living
universe.
> that must be in next month's edition of 'scientific american' because
> i haven't seen it in april's edition.
You just don't understand the concept of functional informational
complexity.
> > > Creationism accepts Divine or Intelligent agency, not human level
> > > intelligence (whatever that is).
>
> > Creationists accept both - most creationists that is. Humans are
> > creative agents just like God is a creative agent - if only on a much
> > much lower level. This is all about what various levels of functional
> > informational complexity can achieve. Humans can achieve certain
> > levels of functional complexity and humans can detect when only human-
> > level intelligence, or perhaps beyond a bit, can do the job. This is
> > the basis of the ID-only theories that are prevalent - even within
> > mainstream science. This ID-only theory forms the basis of
> > anthropology, forensics, and even SETI.
>
> as i say,sean argues by analogy. no serious scientist would EVER
> propose that as a justification for a theory.
There is no analogy here. The argument is exactly the same.
> also, such an analysis depends on a thorough knowledge of the system
> under study.
The term "thorough" is a relative term. It all depends upon how
thorough is thorough enough to be useful as a scientific hypothesis.
Again, no scientific hypothesis or theory, no matter how thorough,
ever reaches 100% perfection. Science is based on degrees of
predictive value. Even a slight advantage is better than nothing.
Slight advantages, though based on only moderate "thoroughness" are
still real scientific advantages and therefore real scientific
hypotheses that are based on the best currently available evidence.
The theory of evolution, when it comes to its proposed mechanism, is
not based on the best available evidence. Not even remotely.
Suprisingly, it is based on nothing better than fairytales, vivid
imaginations, hot air, enormous bravado, and endless just-so
stories.
> SETI is based on radio waves. DNA is based on chemistry. there is no
> correspondence whatsoever. none.
SETI is based, not on radio waves, but on the idea that any phenomenon
that goes significantly beyond what any known non-deliberate mindless
force of nature come remotely close to being able to produce, yet is
within the real of at least human-level intelligence, is a likely
artifact. That is the basis of SETI and this basis can be universally
applied to all phenomena. For example, if SETI scientists happened to
discover a highly polished granite cube on, say, Mars, with a land
rover, a cube that measured, say, one meter on each side, such a cube
would be hailed, by SETI scientists, as an obvious artifact - even
though this phenomena isn't in the form of a radio signal. The SETI
argument would be the very same. It has universal application.
Sean Pitman
www.DetectingDesign.com
Robert Camp
Of course. To the degree such a concept even makes sense, it would be
silly to deny it. That wasn't the subject of my question.
What I'd like to know is: How much of your certainty in the assertion
that "Creationism... also rejects the idea that God guides...etc."
depends upon the weight of numbers, the consensus of creationists as
it were ("...as per the majority of creationists,...") to which you've
referred?
If the answer is "very little or none," the I must ask why it is you
think Ray should be swayed by this argument? If "quite a bit, or all,"
well, then I think you can guess the next bit.
RLC
> > RLC
>
> Sean Pitmanwww.DetectingDesign.com
Seanpit
> > We allow theistic scientists this kind of latitude all the time.
> > Sean's wrong, and wrong-headed in
> > my opinion, but "liar" seems quite a
> > bit over-the-top.
You're too kind ; )
> I don't think its over the top at all.
> He has lied about all sorts of things on this forum.
> Here are just a few of them:
> 1) He can carry out complex statistical analyses in your head.
Who said the statistical analyzes are complex?
> 2) He can carry out statistics without a numerical dataset.
That's not true either. Data is needed for any kind of statistical
analysis. It is just that not all the relevant analyzes are complex
or the data sets difficult to remember.
> 3) He has a methodology which can detect "non-deliberate" action in
> objects
I think most would agree that a hurricane or a tornado or apparently
random mutations are indistinguishable from what anyone would call non-
deliberate activity.
> 4) He knows what the outcome of that methodology is without having to
> apply it (a trick which would make the lives of every scientist on
> the planet much easier if it could be demonstrated)
The applications of my methodology are very simple and downright
obvious. I've produced the relevant statistical analyzes on my
website. If you have anything statistically substantive, either
counter to my analyzes or in support of your own position on the
mechanism of RM/NS, by all means present it. So far all I've seen
from you and those in your corner are bald assertions, just-so stories
and bold bravado based on nothing more significant than the fairytales
in your vivid imaginations.
> 5) Organisms can be fossilised by "very rapid flash crystalisation in
> a supersaturated environment"
They can. Martill refers to this sort of thing as the "Medusa
Effect".
In a 2008 edition of Geology Today he published paper entitled, "The
Medusa effect: instantaneous fossilization" with the following
abstract:
"Rapid fossilization of fishes and other animals in the Lower
Cretaceous of the Chapada do Araripe, north-east Brazil, has preserved
the most delicate structures known in the fossil record. Gills,
muscles, stomachs and even eggs with yolks have been found.
Interestingly, the material is not particularly rare, and specimens
can be purchased from your local rock shop."
I've already noted for you his arguments that such a high degree of
preservation, that includes even the turgidity of cells in the gills
of fish, requires fossilization to be complete within one hour of
death.
> 6) "Most fossils show clear
> evidence of rapid burial or other forms
> of relatively rapid or even catastrophic
> preservation" (what the hell
> *is* "catastrophic preservation", by the way?)
Most fossils do show evidence of rapid burial or catastrophic
preservation - to include those found in the Santana formation
describe above (Martill reference). Bioturbation is minimal within
the geologic/fossil record - as is scavenging. There is abundant
evidence of rapid burial on massive scales by floods (often referred
to in mainstream literature as local floods or local catastrophic
events).
> 7) "The fossil evidence clearly supports a catastrophic
> interpretation for much of the geologic column".
It does.
> 8) "Most ichthyosaur fossils show evidence of rapid burial, such as
> those found clustered together at places like the
> Berlin-Ichthyosaur State Park in Nevada."
They do - especailly those clustered together at places like the
Berlin-Ichthyosaur State Park.
> 9) The adaptive landscape of evolutionary theory consists of a series
> of isolated islands.
The islands do show a clustering effect with a fairly uniform
distribution of beneficial islands within sequence space. The problem
is that the clustering gets exponentially less and less as one move up
on the ladder of functional complexity. This is a demonstrable fact
for anyone who actually cares to look at the available data with his/
her own eyes.
> 10) Evolution "stalls out" at a level
> arbitrarily set by Sean Pitman.
The level of stalling is not arbitrary. It is observed. There simply
are no examples of evolution in action beyond the levels of functional
complexity that require minimums of more than a few hundreds fairly
specified residues working together at the same time. There isn't a
single example of evolution in action in all of literature that comes
remotely close to the 1000 fsaar threshold level - not a single
example. And, this stalling out effect is not only observationally
supported; it is statistically supported as well.
> 11) Human designers commonly produce nested hierarchies
This is also a fact. Humans produce nested hierarchies all the time.
You, like Harshman, are confused about the definition of a NHP. The
only real argument here is just that humans don't often produced NHPs
of the particular *type* found in the Tree of Life (ToL) all the time
- at least not to nearly the level of detail. However, even NHP of
the type found in the ToL are produced to at least a fair degree of
proximity in certain endeavors - such as human designed computer
operating systems like object oriented programming.
> 12) Geologists don't have an explanation for concentrations of
> fossils of carnivores.
There are lots of harebrained explanations for all kinds of phenomena,
just not good ones that make sense to me. The explanations you've
given and referenced are much like those given to J Harlan Bretz when
he first presented his flood model for the Scablands of Washington
State.
> 13) "mainstream scientists believe that all the main forms (or phyla)
> of animal life, save perhaps one, that exist in the world today were
> all present in the Cambrian "
What phyla do not have representatives in the Cambrian?
> 14) "ancient channels of major rivers .. have not been found" in the
> Morrison Formation.
The Morrison Formation and its fossil assemblages are examples of
catastrophic deposits.
An interesting feature of the Morrison Formation, especially in
locations such as Dinosaur National Monument (DNM), are a group of
fresh-water clams of the genus Unio. Some of these clams are found in
the articulated form with the two matching shells closed and intact.
"This feature indicates that the cause of death for these clams was
rapid burial and represent a 'transported death assemblage'. The same
sedimentary layers found in other locations, like Grand Junction,
Colorado, display a large number of these unionids, all articulated,
and generally recognized as having been 'buried alive during an
episode of rapid sedimentation.'"
Good, S., 1998, Bivalves as tools for paleoenvironmental analysis--
Upper Jurassic Morrison Formation of the Western Interior: final
report: in, C. Turner and F. Peterson, eds., Final Report: The
Morrison Formation Extinct Ecosystems Project, op. cit., pp. 121-158.
Evanoff, E., Good, S., and Hanley, J., 1998, An overview of the
freshwater mollusks from the Morrison Formation (Upper Jurassic,
Western Interior, USA): Modern Geology, vol. 22, pp. 423-450.
The remains of whole dinosaurs, unionid clams, snails, logs, and wood
fragments from the Quarry sandstone, many with stream orientation, all
testify to some degree of watery transport. The more easily
transported bones like ribs and phalanges are under-represented in DNM
compared to less-easily transported items like femurs, which suggests
the winnowing action of water.
As far as the argument for "major rivers" consider the DNM quarry.
Within this region the bones are found in three distinct intervals
within the 50-foot-thick, channel-shaped Quarry sandstone. The three
sandstone "channels" scour into the surfaces beneath, and experts have
struggled to imagine the kind of "rivers" that each of the channels
represent. The notion taught for decades at the Quarry Visitor Center
by DNM rangers, that dinosaurs were washed up on a point bar along the
bank of a meandering river, seems rather strained for numerous
reasons. For example, bones are especially concentrated in the
bottoms, not the sides, of the scour channels. The sand grains and
pebbles in the sandstone are dominantly composed not of quartz, the
typical river sediment, but of altered tuff and chert fragments of
probable volcanic origin. The lowest of the three levels, where
dinosaur bones are most abundant, contains isolated larger pebbles
dispersed in a sandy matrix, a texture unlike that of normal rivers.
The texture and composition of the lower interval suggests deposition
from a muddy suspension, not normal bedload transport in a river.
Mudflows associated with catastrophic floods during the recent
eruptions at Mount St. Helens volcano produced fluidized sediment
slurries in wide river valleys and deposited similar textures.
The upper two intervals of the Quarry sandstone, where dinosaur bones
are less abundant, have noteworthy scour surfaces with cross beds of
sand and pebbles indicating eastward transport of muddy and sandy
sediment over large dune structures by very fast water currents. We
can imagine dinosaur carcasses suspended buoyantly in a denser-than-
water flow. How far they floated is unknown, but the process of
suspension may have not been very abrasive. Clams, snails and logs
were also moved with the volcanic pebbles and carcasses within the
slurry. As deposition of sediment and carcasses occurred, the
remaining flow became enriched in water going from a muddy, slurry
suspension current to a less-muddy traction current. The deposit
itself gives the impression of catastrophic watery deposition events -
i.e., a massive flood or series of large fluvial events.
Also, fossils within this entire region show general current
orientation (confirmed by work of Arthur Chadwick, Ph.D. with GPS
orientation of the fossil fragments within the Morrison Formation).
It seems, to me at least, like such massive and concentrated burial
grounds as are found in the Morrison Formation that show current
orientation with little associated vegetation are best explained by
very large catastrophic flooding events with massive sorting and
transport of large dinosaur bones and other fossil assemblages.
> 15) That "uniformitarianism" means that geologists thought that *all*
> sedimentary deposits were laid down gradually over millions of years.
That was in fact the case for a very long time. Not until fairly
recently have mainstream geologists started to accept that episodic ca
strophes are a way of life within the geologic/fossil records. The
vast amounts of time are thought to have largely passed between these
episodes of massive catastrophe.
> Sean has actually coauthored some papers which have been published in
> academic journals,
I'm the primary author on almost all of them and actually did the
research and wrote and submitted almost all of them myself.
> which is why I think he deserves *less* latitude in
> these matters than most creationists. He knows (or should know) the
> basic principles of scientific research and publication, yet continues
> to peddle his silly "theories" even when it is clear that they are
> utterly devoid of any scientific content. If he had any integrity, and
> had any real confidence in the scientific validity of his ideas he'd
> write them up and submit them for publication in an academic journal.
> His excuses for not doing so are downright facile.
LOL - you're very naive.
> It seems clear that Sean is a liar, that he knows that his "theories"
> have no scientific validity, but that he posts them here and on his
> silly web site because it boost his ego that other creationists think
> that he has a real scientific alternative to evolutionary theory.
Ignorant or deluded, maybe. Liar, no. I actually believe the stuff I
say on my website and in this forum. I also given the benefit of the
doubt to those like yourself in this forum who present the lamest
arguments and strained evidence to support the most harebrained
notions. I actually think you guys believe the nonsense you spout
off. I think you're sincere. At least I give you that much benefit
of the doubt - though sometimes even I am amazed how densely hard
headed you and others in this forum have actually become.
> RF
Sean Pitman
www.DetectingDesign.com
Seanpit
> On Apr 24, 1:24 pm, Seanpit <sean...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Apr 24, 12:57 pm, Robert Camp <robertlc...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Apr 24, 12:03 pm, Seanpit <sean...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > On Apr 21, 7:55 pm, Ray Martinez <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > <snip>
>
> > > > Creationism, as per the vast majority of creationists, also rejects
> > > > the idea that God guides, directs, or intelligently wills or
> > > > manipulates every aspect of our universe, thoughts, or daily lives.
> > > > He simply does not.
>
> > > How much of your certainty in this assertion depends upon the weight
> > > of numbers you cite just previous?
>
> > Every hear of freedom of will? Most people, especially creationists,
> > believe that humans have been given freedom of will . . .
>
> Of course. To the degree such a concept even makes sense, it would be
> silly to deny it. That wasn't the subject of my question.
>
> What I'd like to know is: How much of your certainty in the assertion
> that "Creationism... also rejects the idea that God guides...etc."
> depends upon the weight of numbers, the consensus of creationists as
> it were ("...as per the majority of creationists,...") to which you've
> referred?
I just answered this question. Just about all creationists believe in
freedom of will and action.
> If the answer is "very little or none," the I must ask why it is you
> think Ray should be swayed by this argument? If "quite a bit, or all,"
> well, then I think you can guess the next bit.
I have no idea what you're getting at?
> RLC
Sean Pitman
www.DetectingDesign.com
Ray Martinez
>
>
>
> > > > With all this now said: Why is Sean viewed as a Creationist or IDist?
>
> > > You are misreading Sean, Ray. He is not denouncing Divine creation in the
> > > first excerpt. Instead, he is simply saying that *some things* are not the
> > > direct result of divine will.
>
> > Sean renounces "God-did-it" in the first excerpt.
>
> That's not true. Arguing that at least human level intelligence was
> required to produce certain levels of functional complexity is not the
> same thing as arguing against God or the possibility of God's
> involvement. I personally believe in God and God's involvement with
> the creation of live and much of its variety on this planet. However,
> this concept is not provable by science.
>
What concept?
I assume that you are talking about the concept of Theism (= God
involvement)?
And for the first time, due to the paragraph above, I am beginning to
understand what you meant by "human level intelligence."
> What science can achieve is the ability to support the design-only
> hypothesis.
Agreed.
BUT, HOWEVER, the Design Hypothesis says----explicitly----that design
corresponds to the work of invisible Designer (= Theos), which is
direct evidence supporting the concept of Theism. This is why
Darwinists oppose said hypothesis tooth and nail.
> That can be and is done by science all the time - to at
> least the human level if not a bit beyond. Science can in fact
> determine, quite accurately and with a very high degree of predictive
> power, if at least human level intelligence was most likely required
> to produce a given phenomenon.
>
> Ray, you seem to miss, or at least misunderstand, the "at least" part
> of the equation.
[blushing begins] Agreed. I have completely misunderstood. Now I
understand. I thought that you were actually attempting to argue that
human beings caused species, IC systems, and rain forests to exist![/
blushing ends]
I finally understand your position. But let me tell you that "human
level intelligence" is nowhere to be found in History of Science-
Creationism v. Darwinism-evolution literature. This is why I was
baffled with your argument. I kinda like your approach, now. You are
saying that life reflects at least human level intelligence.
> Arguing that "at least" human-level intelligence as
> required leaves the door wide open for the possibility that even
> higher levels of intelligence could have been involved.
The Creationism-Evolution debate is historically framed as
Intelligence or Mind vs. unguided-undirected-unintelligent material
causation. If you are arguing for at least human level, that is,
biological phenomena to reflect human **level** intelligence, a level
that we should be able to recognize readily, and easily, then I
finally understand.
> That possibility, or the God hypothesis, is never excluded by science
> because that is impossible from the scientific perspective.
>
> > Your opinion
> > overlooks this fact.Sean"accepts" the concept of creation
> > momentarily in the first excerpt for the expressed purpose of
> > dismissing it to account for actual biological production; then, like
> > a real evolutionist, he says the concept is not scientific, that it
> > explains everything (he is *basically* correct, the concept does
> > "explain" everything). The extent of his acceptance of the concept is
> > deistic. But the concept of creation presupposes Theism, not Deism
> > (Oxford English Dictionary, Second Edition). The concept of
> > "evolution" presupposes the falsity of the concept of
> > "creation" (hence the Creationism-Evolution debate) AND the concept of
> > Deism: Divine power is not seen or needed in the evolutionary
> > process.
>
> You've completely misread me Ray. I believe in a personal Creator God
> and that this God was responsible for producing life and its variety
> on this planet and is still active and interested in this planet and
> in us as individuals.
I have always recognized you to be a Christian/Theist.
> However, this is not what is under discussion
> in this forum. This is a different issue that is related, but is not
> the same concept as the concept I'm arguing for in this forum. You
> don't seem to be able to grasp the difference.
>
Darwinism and this Forum exists to say that Theism has been proven
false. And I now understand the concept that you are arguing.
> > > For example, even you would probably agree
> > > that those things that are the result of human free will are not the *direct*
> > > result of Divine will.
>
> > To interject suddenly human free will into a discussion about
> > biological agency and the extent of the rejection of the agency of
> > creation by Sean Pitman is baffling.
>
> The point, Ray, is that not everything in this universe is directly
> designed by God.
Agreed.
But everything is under His control----everything. I am sure you would
agree that there is a difference between the concept of "design" and
the concept of "control."
> For example, practically all of the various breeds
> of dogs that we have today were produced by the deliberate intent of
> human breeders - not by God directly.
Self-evidently true.
> What God did was produce the
> first dog-type, something like the wolf most likely, as well as the
> potential for genetic diversity that we actually see expressed today.
> God did not produce all the various types of breeds originally.
God *introduced* the species or concept of "dog" and the species or
concept of "wolf." Dogs and wolves are not the same species. Wolves
exist as a species in the wild because wolves mate with other
wolves----not dogs. While both species have the ability to mate with
one another, the unions are difficult.
> The same thing goes for certain types of mutations that result in numerous
> phenotypic variations for all living things. God doesn't direct each
> random mutation with deliberate forethought. God didn't deliberately
> make the single point mutation that produced sickle cell anemia for
> example. God doesn't make the mutations that result in various forms
> of cancer, like CML or AML, for example. Would you at least agree
> with that?
>
Sean: the Creation v. Evolution debate is NOT about cancer, sickle
cell anemia, or antibiotic resistance. The Creation v. Evolution
debate is about how species come to be in nature, that is, what caused
or causes their existence, past and present. Divine agency or unguided
material?
William Paley (Divine agency):
"IN crossing a heath, suppose I pitched my foot against a stone, and
were asked how the stone came to be there; I might possibly answer,
that, for any thing I knew to the contrary, it had lain there for
ever: nor would it perhaps be very easy to show the absurdity of this
answer. But suppose I had found a watch [= species] upon the ground,
and it should be inquired how the watch happened to be in that
place...." (1802; bracket added).
Charles Darwin (unguided material):
"On The Origin Of Species [= "watches"] By Means Of Natural
Selection" (1859).
But to answer your question: God does not cause cancer; but He allows
its existence and spread. I agree with Dr. Walter Lammerts (genetics;
species immutabilist): Satan is a master geneticist (reference upon
request). The Bible plainly tells us that disease is a result from the
Fall. The N.T. tells us that ALL curses are off, null and void, to
those who are IN Christ.
Dr. Sean Pitman: "Ray's God is Evil"
Dr. Gene Scott: Whatever God says or does is righteousness.
God told Joshua to kill every man, woman and child in the promise land
(= righteousness).
You need to read the Pentateuch where God catalogs----specifically----
the curses that He will inflict upon Israel IF they forsake Him and
worship idols.
> So far, whenever I've presented this last question to you, you never
> answer it. Is there anything that is produced or created outside of
> God's direct deliberate will and action?
>
I have now answered.
There are two and only two sources: God and the license He allows to
Satan because of the Fall.
> > > God, in creating free will, voluntarily gave up the option
> > > of controlling some things.
>
> > This belief is sourceless, subjective, since the Biblical Theos goes
> > out of His way to demonstrate the exact opposite: He retains absolute
> > control despite the monkey wrench of human free will.
>
> God retains absolute sovereignty or the option to act, but God does
> not maintain absolute control of all actions or no one would be able
> to be held responsible for his/her own actions. According to your
> argument here, God would be chargeable with extreme evil and cruelty.
> For example, would you credit an act of child rape to the absolute
> control and deliberate will and action of God? Hmmmm?
>
You have misunderstood my argument because my argument is a skeleton
at best. This subject or topic takes too much time and explanation for
this Forum. But my master argument will appear in my forth-coming
paper.
But for now: we must face the fact that God *could have* intervened
and stopped the unspeakable act----but He didn't.
> Please at least try and give this question a fair shot, at least an
> attempt at a thoughtful answer, next time you post a thread like this
> one.
>
Again, I fail to see the relevance of evil human acts to biological
production.
> > > Similarly,Sean would argue, in creating natural
> > > laws,...
>
> > Deism.
>
> You really think I'm a deist?
Nope. Below I said you claim to be a Theist. Above, I recognized the
comment to be advocating Deism.
"Similarly, Sean would argue, in creating natural laws,..."
Deism. The real issue is: why is a Theist advocating Deism? Do you
understand? I would really like an answer, Sean.
> Deists typically reject most
> supernatural events (prophecy, miracles)....
All supernatural events and Revelation.
> ....and tend to assert that God
> (or "The Supreme Architect") has a plan for the universe which that
> Architect does not alter either by intervening in the affairs of human
> life or suspending the natural laws of the universe.
Agreed.
> What organized
> religions see as divine revelation and holy books, most deists see as
> interpretations made by other humans, rather than as authoritative
> sources.
>
Like I said, they reject all Revelation.
> That's the definition of deism Ray. I'm no deist. I believe that God
> is active in current affairs. However, I also believe that God has
> produced natural laws with which he does not constantly interfere.
The difference between Theism and Deism is: the involvement or non-
involvement of God IN reality; otherwise the concepts are rendered
meaningless.
> Again I ask the question. Do you believe that God deliberately
> produced the mutation that causes sickle cell anemia? - or leukemias
> like CML or AML? Simple question Ray . . .
>
No, but He allowed Satan. God is in control.
> > Sean claims to be a Theist.
>
> In a specific sense in current usage, theism generally refers to a
> particular doctrine concerning the nature of God and his relationship
> to the universe. Theism, in this specific sense, conceives of God as
> personal and active in the governance and organization of the world
> and the universe.
>
Okay. The key concept is "personal."
Theism derives from the Greek word for God----"Theos." The Bible
portrays a theistic Theos, not a deistic Deity. The point here is that
there is no source for Deism. Deism says God resides external to
reality and *never* intervenes. The position is ad hoc. It seeks to
avoid the eternity of matter. Atheism believes that matter has had
eternal existence because no deity exists to have caused its
existence. Deism was invented to escape this deranged belief.
> In this sense, I am a theist, and so are you - - and so are many
> evolutionists actually.
>
> > > ....God abandoned the responsibility of controlling most of the physical
> > > world - planets in their orbits, for example.
>
> > I realize that you are speculating about Sean's views based on the
> > excerpts and your understanding of his collective views as a whole.
> > Theism accepts the worlds and their orbits to result from laws created-
> > reflecting Divine power. Naturalism rejects Theism----militantly.
>
> Naturalism only suggests that humans cannot prove the divine. This
> point is actually correct.
False.
Naturalism says only nature exists. It is a statement that says God
doesn't exist.
> We may be able to suspect the divine, but
> we can never prove it since we are finite creatures.
Design corresponds to the work of invisible Designer (= Theos).
You do accept the concept of design to exist in nature as a whole and
in every species, correct?
Come on, Sean: **electric** fish, bat **sonar**?
> Hence, the
> problem for those who think to use science or human reason to "prove
> God". It can't be done.
Atheism ideology.
Why does a Theist accept Atheism ideology?
> It can only be approximated to a very
> limited degree "at at least the human level and likely beyond" at
> best. How far beyond cannot be know by finite mortals - only
> suspected.
>
In my forth-coming paper I will show you otherwise.
> > > And in the second excerpt, he is not actually saying anything that limits
> > > God's power. Instead, he is describing the scope of his own analysis
> > > of the evidence for design in the natural world. There may well be a
> > > super-human intelligence controlling the world, and I suspect thatSean
> > > believes in such an intelligence. But as a cautious analyst of the evidence,
> > > he claims to have demonstrated no more than human intelligence - wise of
> > > him, because we have no experience with intelligences beyond the human.-
>
> > Contradiction.
>
> > Paragraph begins by saying Sean accepts Divine power. Then the
> > paragraph admits that Sean is only advocating "human intelligence."
> > The latter admission (which is true and not in dispute) refutes the
> > former.
>
> You forget the qualifier "at least" human level intelligence. I'm not
> only advocating human intelligence here. I'm arguing that at least
> human level intelligence is needed to explain certain types of
> phenomena. And, the specific phenomena that I'm talking about are
> very limited and are arguably themselves within the limited ability of
> human-level intelligence and technology. Only those who are very
> ignorant about human engineering and technology would think the levels
> of functional complexity I'm discussing in this forum clearly beyond
> human production. Humans can create at very high levels of functional
> complexity - far greater than any known non-deliberate or mindless
> force of nature or natural law.
>
I now understand your position.
> > Creationism accepts Divine or Intelligent agency, not human level
> > intelligence (whatever that is).
>
> Creationists accept both - most creationists that is. Humans are
> creative agents just like God is a creative agent - if only on a much
> much lower level. This is all about what various levels of functional
> informational complexity can achieve. Humans can achieve certain
> levels of functional complexity and humans can detect when only human-
> level intelligence, or perhaps beyond a bit, can do the job. This is
> the basis of the ID-only theories that are prevalent - even within
> mainstream science. This ID-only theory forms the basis of
> anthropology, forensics, and even SETI.
>
> > Evolution rejects Divine or
> > Intelligent agency while accepting unguided-undirected-unintelligent
> > material agency.Sean is all alone is left field.
>
> Creationism, as per the vast majority of creationists, also rejects
> the idea that God guides, directs, or intelligently wills or
> manipulates every aspect of our universe, thoughts, or daily lives.
> He simply does not. Your notion that He does would make God the most
> evil being you could possibly imagine - directly responsible for every
> evil thing that you, or anyone else, have ever seen, done, or
> imagined. Think about that for just a minute Ray . . .
>
> > Ray
>
> Sean Pitmanwww.DetectingDesign.com
I have explained myself a bit more and I now understand your position
concerning human level intelligence. And like I said: I like the
approach. It really infuriates Darwinists.
Ray
Dana Tweedy
>>> Previously I said: "Fact: uniformitarianism and catastrophism are
>>> two different and conflicting explanatory concepts" (Ray Martinez).
>>
>> Quite so.
>
> Glad to see that you agree with me, Richard. Again, this is basic
> stuff.
Which you've gotten wrong.
>
>> However, catastrophism had lost and uniformitarianism had won by the
>> middle of the 19th century.
>
> Yes, I know. Uniformitarianism is geologic gradualism.
No, it's the concept that geology is governed by natural events.
> This is where
> Darwin obtained the conceptual idea that species evolve gradually.
Actually, the contribution is one of the concept of deep time.
>
>> The whole modern science of geology is founded on the principle of
>> uniformitarianism.
>
> Yes, I know.
Then why do you get it wrong?
>
>> In fact, the basic principle of uniformitarianism
>> underlies much of modern science.
>
> Yes, I know.
But you get it wrong, time and time again.
>
>> It is the assumption which makes
>> science possible. If the universe in the past was not constrained by
>> the same basic laws as it is today, there is no point in any science
>> which looks into the past - which all science does to some extent.
>>
>> RF
>
> The acceptance of uniformitarianism does not mean that the underlying
> assumption, nor the concept itself, is true. It just means that most
> scientific men chose to explain reality through this explanatory
> filter.
Scientific men explain reality through the "filter" of science. If the
'underlying assumption' is not true, then science wouldn't work. Science
does work, and supernatural claims do not.
>
> Uniformitarianism is utterly false. It is a doctrine of Scientism, not
> Science.
Wrong again, Ray. The "scientism" you claim, does not really exist.
> The world plainly reflects a past full of catastrophes.
All of which are fully natural, and of "uniformitarian" means.
>This
> is objectively true. Atheists and Darwinists only care about
> describing the world so the Bible is seen to be false.
That the Bible was unscientific was found long before Darwin, by devout
Christians studying early geology.
> Anyone who
> looks at the world objectively plainly sees that uniformitarianism is
> anti-reality and that catastrophism is reality.
Geologists, however who actually study the evidence disagree. You are
utterly wrong, here, Ray. Why not admit your mistake?
DJT
Robert Camp
> On Apr 24, 2:16 pm, Robert Camp <robertlc...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Apr 24, 1:24 pm, Seanpit <sean...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Apr 24, 12:57 pm, Robert Camp <robertlc...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > On Apr 24, 12:03 pm, Seanpit <sean...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > On Apr 21, 7:55 pm, Ray Martinez <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > > <snip>
>
> > > > > Creationism, as per the vast majority of creationists, also rejects
> > > > > the idea that God guides, directs, or intelligently wills or
> > > > > manipulates every aspect of our universe, thoughts, or daily lives.
> > > > > He simply does not.
>
> > > > How much of your certainty in this assertion depends upon the weight
> > > > of numbers you cite just previous?
>
> > > Every hear of freedom of will? Most people, especially creationists,
> > > believe that humans have been given freedom of will . . .
>
> > Of course. To the degree such a concept even makes sense, it would be
> > silly to deny it. That wasn't the subject of my question.
>
> > What I'd like to know is: How much of your certainty in the assertion
> > that "Creationism... also rejects the idea that God guides...etc."
> > depends upon the weight of numbers, the consensus of creationists as
> > it were ("...as per the majority of creationists,...") to which you've
> > referred?
>
> I just answered this question. Just about all creationists believe in
> freedom of will and action.
No Sean.
The answer - "Just about all creationists believe in freedom of will
and action. - is a response to a question about numbers or percentages
of creationists who share a particular belief.
The answer to a question about how much of an individual's (that would
be you) personal acceptance of an observation ("Creationism... also
rejects the idea that God guides...etc.") depends upon the consensus
of those intimately involved with that idea ("...as per the majority
of creationists,...") takes one of the following forms,
a) None --- of my acceptance of the notion that "Creationism... also
rejects the idea that God guides...etc." depends upon the plurality of
creationists ("...as per the majority of creationists,...") who feel
the same, even though I cited that consensus as a part of my argument
with Ray
b) Very little --- of my acceptance of the notion that "Creationism...
also rejects the idea that God guides...etc." depends upon the
plurality of creationists ("...as per the majority of
creationists,...") who feel the same, even though I cited that
consensus as a part of my argument with Ray
c) Some --- etc.
d) A lot --- etc.
The question is clearly about your use of - a majority of opinion
among those most qualified and intimately involved with determining or
defining the nature of a particular concept - as an argument in favor
of the consensus view.
If the answer is "very little or none," then I ask again why it is you
think Ray should be swayed by this argument? If "a significant
amount," or "quite a bit," or "all," then I wonder how you square this
with your dismissal of the majority of opinion among those most
qualified and intimately involved with determining or defining the
nature of biology?
RLC
> > RLC
>
> Sean Pitmanwww.DetectingDesign.com
hersheyh
> On Apr 22, 1:21 am, "richardalanforr...@googlemail.com" >
>
> > > We allow theistic scientists this kind of latitude all the time.
> > > Sean's wrong, and wrong-headed in
> > > my opinion, but "liar" seems quite a
> > > bit over-the-top.
>
> You're too kind ; )
>
> > I don't think its over the top at all.
> > He has lied about all sorts of things on this forum.
> > Here are just a few of them:
> > 1) He can carry out complex statistical analyses in your head.
>
> Who said the statistical analyzes are complex?
You have not done *any* real statistical analysis of any data. What
you have done is generate a probability value based on a number of
bogus assumptions that have no relevance to the "real" world. [I
specify these bogus assumptions in another thread entitled, "Real
versus Imaginary"] Then you take this "imaginary" probability value
and construct a false dichotomy, claiming that reality either works by
the mechanism that meets all you bogus assumptions or it is "designed
by something that magically poofs whatever I want to exist."
> > 2) He can carry out statistics without a numerical dataset.
>
> That's not true either. Data is needed for any kind of statistical
> analysis.
Yes it is. And you utterly fail to present any actual data capable of
statistical analysis that is relevant to testing any of your bogus
assumptions. Such as a plot showing that there is a correlation
between the number of mutations needed to produce a modified protein
that has a selectable phenotypic effect and the size of that protein
or protein system. Such as a plot showing that functional systems
that *do* exist are randomly scattered in total sequence space in a
pattern that fits your so-called "sequence space". Heck, you cannot
even do it for structure space (which is more relevant).
> It is just that not all the relevant analyzes are complex
> or the data sets difficult to remember.
What actual *data set* do you use?
>
> > 3) He has a methodology which can detect "non-deliberate" action in
> > objects
>
> I think most would agree that a hurricane or a tornado or apparently
> random mutations are indistinguishable from what anyone would call non-
> deliberate activity.
Selection among random mutations by the dumb stupid ignorant
unintelligent environment such that some of these mutations tend to
reduce in frequency and others increase is indistinguishable from what
*you* call 'deliberate' action. Which is why it is called
"selection".
> > 4) He knows what the outcome of that methodology is without having to
> > apply it (a trick which would make the lives of every scientist on
> > the planet much easier if it could be demonstrated)
>
> The applications of my methodology are very simple and downright
> obvious.
Yes. A magical fairy poofs whatever you think is needed by a process
that cannot be observed, but must be praised.
> I've produced the relevant statistical analyzes on my
> website. If you have anything statistically substantive, either
> counter to my analyzes or in support of your own position on the
> mechanism of RM/NS, by all means present it.
I have pointed out several times how RM/NS actually works (and, no, it
does not work by the mechanism you describe in your bogus probability
number) in the *real* world rather than in your hypothetical total
sequence space. You keep pretending that your hypothetical total
sequence space is relevant rather than an intentional attempt to
produce the 747-in-a-tornado completely random assembly numerology
without actually admitting that that is what you are doing.
> So far all I've seen
> from you and those in your corner are bald assertions, just-so stories
> and bold bravado based on nothing more significant than the fairytales
> in your vivid imaginations.
Says the person who generates a false dichotomy between a bogus
strawman description of evolution and the idea of a magical fairy able
to do whatever he wants it to do. Someone who attributes *reality* to
magical fairies for which he has NO EVIDENCE whatsoever is not someone
who has standing to complain that other explanations (based on *real*
starting points) involve "vivid imagination."
>
[snip]
wf3h
and they did their level best to destroy it.
wf3h
> On Apr 24, 2:16 pm, Robert Camp <robertlc...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Apr 24, 1:24 pm, Seanpit <sean...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Apr 24, 12:57 pm, Robert Camp <robertlc...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > On Apr 24, 12:03 pm, Seanpit <sean...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > On Apr 21, 7:55 pm, Ray Martinez <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > > <snip>
>
> > > > > Creationism, as per the vast majority of creationists, also rejects
> > > > > the idea that God guides, directs, or intelligently wills or
> > > > > manipulates every aspect of our universe, thoughts, or daily lives.
> > > > > He simply does not.
>
> > > > How much of your certainty in this assertion depends upon the weight
> > > > of numbers you cite just previous?
>
> > > Every hear of freedom of will? Most people, especially creationists,
> > > believe that humans have been given freedom of will . . .
>
> > Of course. To the degree such a concept even makes sense, it would be
> > silly to deny it. That wasn't the subject of my question.
>
> > What I'd like to know is: How much of your certainty in the assertion
> > that "Creationism... also rejects the idea that God guides...etc."
> > depends upon the weight of numbers, the consensus of creationists as
> > it were ("...as per the majority of creationists,...") to which you've
> > referred?
>
> I just answered this question. Just about all creationists believe in
> freedom of will and action.
a rather late conversion. for 2000 years supernaturalists believed
that slavery was the will of god. in fact, virtually every single
american slave owner was a creationist.
>
wf3h
> On Apr 24, 12:24 pm, wf3h <w...@vsswireless.net> wrote:
>
> >
> > except, of course, the argument from design, historically, has been
> > developed in the context of the absence of any NATURAL process to
> > produce species.
>
> Again, you forget that you're arguing with me here. My argument is
> that natural processes are indeed in play, but only to a very limited
> extent and that this line of limitation can in fact be delineated by
> scientific investigation.
IOW it's science until it's not.
neat trick. for 2000 years you guys cried "WOLF" regarding the
supernatural. NOW you decide it's science up unto the point where you
think science fails THEN supernaturalism takes over
this isn't an argument. it's a delusion. a hopeless mishmash of half
formed ideas, theological arguments borrowed from the 4th century and
mixed up with american fundamentalism
no wonder you've never told us what a mechanism is. with your
diagnosis of the situtation, it's pretty much incoherent.
since we have never SEEN a supernatural event, have no idea HOW such
an event would look, and have no means to test for it, how do you
propose to resolve the contradictions in your argument that has
prevented it from being tested for 2000 years?
>
> > that is, evolution is wrong.
>
> The evolutionary mechanism only works at very very low levels of
> functional complexity. This doesn't mean that it doesn't work at
> all. It does work. It just isn't capable of explaining all aspects
> of the functional complexity of living things.
which means it is better than supernaturalism at explaining how
populations change with time. because if you admit evolution
functions, and you can't tell us ANYTHING about YOUR mechanism then
your mechanism is useless. as it has been for 2 millenia.
>
> > thus ray is correct in sofar as he's arguing a position against
> > evolution.sean tries to play both sides and fails at both.sean wants
> > to exclude NATURAL processes (he says so himself quite bluntly) then
> > they shyly averts his eyes when asked HOW this magical 'design'
> > process works. he refuses even to address or discuss the issue.
>
> Again, if you want to call human-level creativity "magical" that's
> your problem.
as somoeone once said in answer to a question from pilate, 'those are
your words not mine'. you say less than nothing about your whole
argument. that's the problem. for 2000 years you supernaturalists have
tried to put wheels on this bus and drive it away. but you keep coming
up flat.
do all the handwaving you want. it's still not science unless you come
up with a testable mechanism.
You've actually admitted just the opposite already -
> that ID can be quite natural indeed. What is magical here are your
> notions that the mechanism of RM/NS is based on actual science beyond
> low levels of functional complexity. The truth is that beyond the
> 1000 fsaar level all ideas about this mechanism are based on pure
> fantasy and just-so story telling - not science.
i dont care whether evolution is true or not. im a chemist and if
evolution is wrong, then so be it. what i DO insist on is scientific
rigor
and so far you aint gotz.
> > THAT is why i callseana liar and say that, although ray is deluded,
> > he's honest. seans is BOTH deluded AND dishonest in his assertions.
>
> And you're just an idiot . . .
better an honest idiot than a lying fundamentalist. in the history of
the world you guys have done so much damage to humanity.
>
> > > That can be and is done by science all the time - to at
> > > least the human level if not a bit beyond. Science can in fact
> > > determine, quite accurately and with a very high degree of predictive
> > > power, if at least human level intelligence was most likely required
> > > to produce a given phenomenon.
>
> > not unless it knows enough to exclude natural processes.
>
> That's correct. Scientists must know enough to be able to exclude, to
> at least a useful level of certainty, non-deliberate non-intelligent
> natural processes. Note that this exclusion cannot be done with
> perfection. That's the nature of science. Science only deals with
> limited knowledge and limited information that never reaches 100%
> perfection.
and we do not have that level of certainty with DNA. in fact it's an
active research area, whereas radio wave technology is mature.
>
> > and this
> > knowledge is on a case by case basis. it is NOT universal.
>
> The application of the rational behind SETI is indeed universal.
no, it is not. chemistry is not radio waves. you made an assertion;
prove it.
>
> > analogies
> > to "SETI" and other nonsense is a misapplication of the logic and
> > rules of science
>
> This isn't an analogy.
it certainly isn't a MECHANISM. so apparently either you're
prevaricating...AGAIN or, as a result of your fundamentalist
education, you simply don't know how science works
>
> > proof of this is in the very fact that sean can not, will not, and
> > does not tell us ANYTHING about HOW his mythical designer works.
>
> Neither do SETI scientists.
sure they do. they know enough about radio waves to exclude natural
processes. we can't do that with DNA.
and, again, an ANALOGY is not a MECHANISM. you're not arguing
science.
All that need to be known is that the
> designer could have worked much like humans work. That's it. You
> don't have to know how the designer actually worked.
sure you do. if you have an observation in nature you have to be able
to exclude natural processes
prove you've done so. otherwise your argument isn't scientific. it's
just ANOTHER in a 2000 year history of failure
are you seeing a pattern here? you guys scream GOD at every discovery.
you did it in every case in the last 400 years when an unknown process
was observed in nature. you're just doing it again....
>
> > in
> > order to be able to exclude natural processes and include the
> > supernatural (which he says he's not doing, but plainly is), he has to
> > know how this process works. he does not.
>
> Again, you have to know how the process could have worked . . . not
> how it actually worked.
and you haven't done that for DNA. so your SETI analogy is neither a
mechanism, nor a valid analogy since it excludes possible natural
processes that you can not rule out.
>
> > since we've never seen a supernatural process at work, and since ALL
> > claims to supernaturalism have been wrong,sean tries to invoke a
> > failed idea.
>
> No one is invoking the need for the supernatural here. The presented
> hypothesis is the ID-only hypothesis on at least the human level of
> intelligence - natural intelligence. Proving God is impossible.
and unless you can exclude natural processes, your argument is just
another in the 2000 year old history of creationist failures. and
it's why i call you a liar. you are just invoking a failed argument
as your predecesssors have always done and have always been wrong in
doing so.
you're just another failure.
>
> > sean, OTOH, tries to put an evening gown on a pig and dress up
> > supernaturalism in the language of science. this is, quite frankly,
> > impossible and sean has had no luck in doing so.
>
> You'd be correct if I was actually claiming the ability to demonstrate
> the need for the supernatural here. I'm not. I'm not doing that at
> all. What I'm claiming to be able to do is to present a real
> scientific hypothesis that only invokes the need for very natural
> intelligence of at least the human level of intelligence.
we do not know enough about DNA to exclude natural processes. even the
human level processes depend on material from previously existing life
and creationist bill dembski agrees with me as you well know. HE
argues your position is wrong PRECISELY because we can not exclude
natural processes
so if SCIENTISTS argue you're wrong because you have no
mechanism....AND CREATIONISTS argue you're wrong because your
argument depends on life processes
then it's a pretty good chance your argument is wrong.
>
> > creationists have a cafeteria approach to science. it's a flavor of
> > the month view. THIS month planetary motion is created by god, but
> > everything is natural....WHOOPS! that's wrong, so let's try
> > speciation....etc. etc.
>
> > > God retains absolute sovereignty or the option to act, but God does
> > > not maintain absolute control of all actions or no one would be able
> > > to be held responsible for his/her own actions. According to your
> > > argument here, God would be chargeable with extreme evil and cruelty.
>
> > ever read 'exodus' or 'job'?
>
> What about it? If God prevented all evil produced by free moral
> agents, where would freedom be found?
god didn't prevent anything in exodus. he committed mass murder on
innocent human beings. in job he tortured an innocent human being for
his own glory. it appears god has fewer morals than dick cheney.
>
> > > Humans can create at very high levels of functional
> > > complexity - far greater than any known non-deliberate or mindless
> > > force of nature or natural law.
>
> > really? humans can create a universe?
>
> The informational complexity in a single 1000 fsaar system is greater
> than all the functional information in the entire non-living
> universe.
except, of course, the non living universe includes proteins that are
longer than 1000aa. and we KNOW natural processes can produce
complexity because DNA produces complex proteins
again and again you beg the question. you have a circular argument.
>
> > that must be in next month's edition of 'scientific american' because
> > i haven't seen it in april's edition.
>
> You just don't understand the concept of functional informational
> complexity.
and you don't understand science. handwaving is a poor way to make an
argument. and that's all you do, as your prdecessors have done for
2000 years.
>
> > as i say,sean argues by analogy. no serious scientist would EVER
> > propose that as a justification for a theory.
>
> There is no analogy here. The argument is exactly the same.
wrong. because we know enough about radio waves to exclude natural
processes
only you...and you alone...exclude natural processes for DNA.
scientists dont do it.. other CREATIONISTS don't do it. only you do
it.
and you do it by assertion. you yourself admit only KNOWN processes
can be excluded AND when confronted by the fact scientists are doing
research...you INSIST they stop since you already know the answer.
that's creationism. it's certainly NOT science
>
> > also, such an analysis depends on a thorough knowledge of the system
> > under study.
>
> The term "thorough" is a relative term. It all depends upon how
> thorough is thorough enough to be useful as a scientific hypothesis.
> Again, no scientific hypothesis or theory, no matter how thorough,
and if MY argument hinged on an idea that:
1. has been wrong for 2000 years
2. depends on an arbitrary exclusion of unknown processes
i would NOT go around saying i had an answer at all. i'd be ashamed to
make this argument
but being a fundamentalist means never having to say you're sorry.
> ever reaches 100% perfection. Science is based on degrees of
> predictive value. Even a slight advantage is better than nothing.
invoking an argument that's failed for 2000 years and is
methodologically sloppy is not 'better than nothing'
it is possible to go backwards. and your argument is a regression
towards ignorance
> Slight advantages, though based on only moderate "thoroughness" are
> still real scientific advantages and therefore real scientific
> hypotheses that are based on the best currently available evidence.
you don't have a hypothesis. a hypothesis is a testable mechanism. you
do not have a mechanism.
>
> The theory of evolution, when it comes to its proposed mechanism, is
> not based on the best available evidence. Not even remotely.
i dont care.
> Suprisingly, it is based on nothing better than fairytales, vivid
> imaginations, hot air, enormous bravado, and endless just-so
> stories.
you yourself admit it explains SOME features of life
YOUR argument explains NOTHING. if YOUR argument were taken at face
value before evolution we'd know nothing more about the development of
life than we did without your argument. your argument is totally
useless.
>
> > SETI is based on radio waves. DNA is based on chemistry. there is no
> > correspondence whatsoever. none.
>
> SETI is based, not on radio waves,
it ain't based on telepathy.
but on the idea that any phenomenon
> that goes significantly beyond what any known non-deliberate mindless
> force of nature come remotely close to being able to produce, yet is
> within the real of at least human-level intelligence, is a likely
> artifact.
wrong. absolutely wrong. it's a MECHANSIM based idea. it's based on
the idea that we DO know enough about radio waves to exclude non
natural processes for certain observations.
we do NOT have that certainty for DNA. scientists say we don't.
CREATIONIISTS say we don't. only YOU say we do and YOU make this
argument by saying we HAVE to exclude natural processes or your
argument is wrong.
well, guess what? your argument is wrong.
That is the basis of SETI and this basis can be universally
> applied to all phenomena. For example, if SETI scientists happened to
> discover a highly polished granite cube
we know enough about granite to know we can exclude natural processes.
we can not do so for DNA
for 2000 years people tried your argument. your own church tried it
with george mccready price.
you're a revionist. you're hoping that, after 2000 years of failure,
people will just ignore your failures and, one more time, give you
another shot at it.
it's not going to happen. your idea was a failure in 209. and it's a
failure in 2009.
live with it.
Robert Camp
> On Apr 22, 1:21 am, "richardalanforr...@googlemail.com" >
<snip>
> > 3) He has a methodology which can detect "non-deliberate" action in
> > objects
>
> I think most would agree that a hurricane or a tornado or apparently
> random mutations are indistinguishable from what anyone would call non-
> deliberate activity.
I would agree that because we are all familiar with the history and
science (to whatever degree) behind these events we conclude, based
upon experience, that they betray no hint of purpose or deliberation.
Early man, without this information, no doubt in many cases attributed
(at least hurricanes and tornados) these things to a supernatural
will. This does not mean that there is something intrinsic to these
phenomena that marks them as non-deliberate, something that intuition
can be relied upon to discover. If it is possible to understand,
model, and recreate the conditions that lead to a tornado there is no
inherent reason one could not be designed. Again, however, the point
is that intuition is not a reliable guide. We depend acutely upon the
historical patterns that inform our judgements, whether in the case of
deliberate or not.
You might rejoin that there is indeed something diagnostic of non-
purposiveness in the unpredictable nature of these phenomena, that
their "sloppy" propagation (they display variations depending upon the
conditions of their production) seems to indicate a lack of
intelligent deliberation. To this I would respond in two ways,
1) Deliberation could be obscured by the intent of the designer
(consider that the use of genetic algorithms can produce optimality,
along with a lot of sub-optimality),
and,
2) This condition is one shared by the whole of life on earth, and
(absent evidence for the existence, capacity, responsibility and
motives of a transcendental designer) it strongly supports the
conclusion that life is the result of non-deliberate activity.
RLC
'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank
> On Apr 22, 1:21 am, "richardalanforr...@googlemail.com" >
>
> > > We allow theistic scientists this kind of latitude all the time.
> > > Sean's wrong, and wrong-headed in
> > > my opinion, but "liar" seems quite a
> > > bit over-the-top.
>
> You're too kind ; )
And he's wrong. You ARE a liar, Sean. A deliberate calculating
evasive one.
But don't feel bad -- *all* IDers are liars. The sole and only
PURPOSE of "intelligent design theory" is to lie to Federal courts by
claiming that ID "theory (1) is science and has no religious aim,
motive, or agenda, and (2) isn't just a repackaged version of creation
"science".
Both of those claims are lies. They are lies cooked up by lawyers in
a dishonest attempt to get around some Supreme Court rulings that the
creationists lost.
And Sean knows it just as well as everyone else does. Sean KNOWS what
the agenda is behind the ID movement, Sean KNOWS what the legal
strategy is behind the ID movement, and Sean lies -- carefully,
deliberately and calculatingly -- to advance that agenda and strategy.
He is a liar.
'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank
> On Apr 24, 12:03 pm, Seanpit <sean...@gmail.com> wrote:
Cool ! A kook-fight !!!
Seanpit
What you seem to forget is that science can actually tell the
difference, reliably, between something that likely requires the input
of at least human level intelligence, making it a likely "artifact",
and something that cannot be clearly determined to require the input
of at least human level intelligence to produce. Chaos or apparent
randomness or unpredictability is usually associated, at least by
most, with a lack of evident direction and therefore a need for
directed intelligent manipulation. That is why such things are not
clearly artifactual.
Genetic algorithms, without the input of outside human-level
intelligence, are every limited to very low levels of creativity.
They simply cannot produce, on their own, functional or useful
informational complexity beyond systems that require at least a few
thousand basic characters in any symbolic language - as in letters in
the English alphabet or zeros and ones in computer code or based pairs
in DNA or amino acids for protein-based biosystems. Very specified
directed information is needed to produce such high levels of
functionality. That sort of information is only produced by
deliberate high-level intelligence.
> RLC
Sean Pitman
www.DetectingDesign.com
Seanpit
In short, this is a discussion about the generally understood
definition of the word "creationist". So, obviously, it is very
important to my understanding of this term what most people think or
understand when they hear or read this word. In this case, the vast
majority, probably over 99%, would disagree with Ray's definition of
what it means to be a creationist. It does not mean for the vast
majority, contrary to Ray's personal definition, that God's will and
deliberate action is behind every event in his universe.
> RLC
Sean Pitman
www.DetectingDesign.com
[M]adman
> On Apr 24, 5:52 pm, Ray Martinez <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> On Apr 24, 12:03 pm, Seanpit <sean...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
> Cool ! A kook-fight !!!
Well, ONE of them is a k00k. Two if we count you
wf3h
>
> What you seem to forget is that science can actually tell the
> difference, reliably, between something that likely requires the input
> of at least human level intelligence, making it a likely "artifact",
if and only if we know enough about natural processes to exclude them
as a cause. we do not know that for DNA. you yourself have admitted
that. in addition, supernaturalism has a 2000 year history of failure
so it appears NO amount of evidence will convince you that
createionism is wrong. that's not sceince, it's religion
Ray Martinez
That is not my definition, Sean. You have made an honest mistake.
Creationist: a person who accepts the action of Divine power operating
in reality causing biological production.
I can support this definition by citing many scholars and scholarly
sources.
In my last message to you (in this thread) I plainly admitted that I
misunderstood your entire position concerning human level
intelligence. I suppose you have done the same here?
Because you accept biological production to reflect intelligence this
makes you a Creationist. "Intelligence" is perfectly synonymous with
"Divine power." I withdraw the OP based on my revised understanding of
your position.
Ray
Seanpit
>
> > I just answered this question. Just about all creationists believe in
> > freedom of will and action.
>
> a rather late conversion. for 2000 years supernaturalists believed
> that slavery was the will of god. in fact, virtually every single
> american slave owner was a creationist.
Slaves and slave owners have been part of every culture and
individuals who have claimed every belief system since the beginning
of time. However, It is the clear statement of Christ that his purpose
is to "set the captives free". Specifically Jesus said, "The Spirit
of the Lord is upon me, because he hath anointed me to preach the
gospel to the poor; he hath sent me to heal the brokenhearted, to
preach deliverance to the captives, and recovering of sight to the
blind, to set at liberty them that are bruised, to preach the
acceptable year of the Lord."
Just because one claims to be a Christian doesn't mean much. Outside
of the story of Jesus concerning the "Good Samaritan", I think St.
James put it best:
"If you really keep the royal law found in Scripture, "Love your
neighbor as yourself," you are doing right. . . Show me your faith
without deeds, and I will show you my faith by what I do. You believe
that there is one God. Good! Even the demons believe that—and
shudder. . . Suppose a brother or sister is without clothes and daily
food. If one of you says to him, "Go, I wish you well; keep warm and
well fed," but does nothing about his physical needs, what good is it?
In the same way, faith by itself, if it is not accompanied by action,
is dead."
That's what it really means to be a true Christian toward all
humanity.
Sean Pitman
www.DetectingDesign.com
Lee Jay
> Creationist: a person who accepts the action of Divine power operating
> in reality causing biological production.
The word "creation" implies something that happens at the beginning of
something. MW defines it as "the act of creating ; especially : the
act of bringing the world into ordered existence". Why would your
definition of "creation*ist*" be about an on-going ("operating" and
"causing") process, rather than the beginning-only definition of its
base word, "creation"?
Lee Jay
Seanpit
> On Apr 24, 12:03 pm, Seanpit <sean...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Apr 21, 7:55 pm, Ray Martinez <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > With all this now said: Why is Sean viewed as a Creationist or IDist?
>
> > > > You are misreading Sean, Ray. He is not denouncing Divine creation in the
> > > > first excerpt. Instead, he is simply saying that *some things* are not the
> > > > direct result of divine will.
>
> > > Sean renounces "God-did-it" in the first excerpt.
>
> > That's not true. Arguing that at least human level intelligence was
> > required to produce certain levels of functional complexity is not the
> > same thing as arguing against God or the possibility of God's
> > involvement. I personally believe in God and God's involvement with
> > this concept is not provable by science.
>
> What concept?
>
> I assume that you are talking about the concept of Theism (= God
> involvement)?
No. I'm talking about the notion that science can prove that God had
to have been the one to make certain types of phenomena - like the
bacterial flagellum. That's impossible for science. Science cannot
determine if supernatural power is or was required to produce such an
artifact.
> And for the first time, due to the paragraph above, I am beginning to
> understand what you meant by "human level intelligence."
You need to include the words *at least* human level intelligence to
this phrase when you quote me on here.
> > What science can achieve is the ability to support the design-only
> > hypothesis.
>
> Agreed.
>
> BUT, HOWEVER, the Design Hypothesis says----explicitly----that design
> corresponds to the work of invisible Designer (= Theos), which is
> direct evidence supporting the concept of Theism. This is why
> Darwinists oppose said hypothesis tooth and nail.
That's not the first step for science. The first step for science is
that design of some sort is required to at least the human level of
creative power. That's the first step. If science can't get you this
far as a first step, there is absolutely no way that you can move
beyond this first step toward considering who the designer might be -
as in an actual identity.
> > That can be and is done by science all the time - to at
> > least the human level if not a bit beyond. Science can in fact
> > determine, quite accurately and with a very high degree of predictive
> > power, if at least human level intelligence was most likely required
> > to produce a given phenomenon.
>
> > Ray, you seem to miss, or at least misunderstand, the "at least" part
> > of the equation.
>
> [blushing begins] Agreed. I have completely misunderstood. Now I
> understand. I thought that you were actually attempting to argue that
> human beings caused species, IC systems, and rain forests to exist![/
> blushing ends]
>
> I finally understand your position. But let me tell you that "human
> level intelligence" is nowhere to be found in History of Science-
> Creationism v. Darwinism-evolution literature. This is why I was
> baffled with your argument. I kinda like your approach, now. You are
> saying that life reflects at least human level intelligence.
Very good.
> > Arguing that "at least" human-level intelligence as
> > required leaves the door wide open for the possibility that even
> > higher levels of intelligence could have been involved.
>
> The Creationism-Evolution debate is historically framed as
> Intelligence or Mind vs. unguided-undirected-unintelligent material
> causation. If you are arguing for at least human level, that is,
> biological phenomena to reflect human **level** intelligence, a level
> that we should be able to recognize readily, and easily, then I
> finally understand.
Great!
< snip rest >
Sean Pitman
www.DetectingDesign.com
Ray Martinez
I am relieved to be rejected as a kook by a "Creationist" who accepts
the main scientific claim of Materialism: the concept of evolution or
species mutability. Real Creationists do not accept the main claims of
their enemy. Species mutability is an earth shattering claim. The Book
of Genesis (1 and 2) was written to say the claim is BLASPHEMOUS.
Science has always shown and proven that Genesis 1 and 2 is
scientifically accurate (Darwin 1859:310). I have no respect
whatsoever for stupid Creationists who kiss the ass of Charles Darwin
and Richard Dawkins (= the two most famous Materialists to ever live;
Darwin, Notebooks M and N 1838-1839).
Ray (immutabilist)
Ray Martinez
Yeah, and these same slave owners produced the Document that freed the
slaves in every capacity. From voting to where they can sit on a bus.
Ray
Lee Jay
> I have no respect
> whatsoever for stupid Creationists who kiss the ass of Charles Darwin
> and Richard Dawkins (= the two most famous Materialists to ever live;
> Darwin, Notebooks M and N 1838-1839).
Darwin's notebooks describe RD as a famous Materialist?
Lee Jay
Seanpit
> On Apr 24, 9:58 pm, Seanpit <sean...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > What you seem to forget is that science can actually tell the
> > difference, reliably, between something that likely requires the input
> > of at least human level intelligence, making it a likely "artifact",
>
> if and only if we know enough about natural processes to exclude them
> as a cause.
You can never exclude them with 100% certainty. That's why science is
needed. Science is always useful when there is less than adequate
evidence. It is not needed when the evidence is entirely complete.
> we do not know that for DNA. you yourself have admitted
> that.
We know plenty enough about DNA and the information contained within
it to make very good scientific hypotheses that carry with them a
great deal of predictive power. Do we know everything there is to
know? Of course not. That's why science is so useful for
understanding the potential and limits of DNA as it reacts with
various forces of nature - intelligent and non-intelligent.
> in addition, supernaturalism has a 2000 year history of failure
> so it appears NO amount of evidence will convince you that
> createionism is wrong. that's not sceince, it's religion
Good thing I'm not talking about supernaturalism then ; )
You don't seem to be able to grasp the idea that someone can believe
in God without trying to prove that belief in a discussion like this
one. I do believe in God and that God created life on this planet.
That's quite clear to everyone in this forum despite your attempts to
suggest otherwise. However, there is quite a difference between my
beliefs in God and the basis for my arguments in this forum.
I repeat: I'm not arguing for or trying to prove the need for God
here. I'm only arguing that the need for at least human-level
intelligent input is obviously required to explain certain phenomena.
That's a perfectly natural argument that suggests a perfectly natural
explanation and mechanism. Just because I believe in the supernatural
doesn't mean that is what I'm trying to prove here.
I repeat yet again: It is impossible to prove the supernatural. It
is not, however, impossible to scientifically support the very natural
ID-only hypothesis on at least the human level of creativity.
Sean Pitman
www.DetectingDesign.com
Seanpit
Ray, you can't call yourself a species immutabilist until you can
define the term "species". So far, this definition has been very
elusive. It is a very subjective term in mainstream science. And, I
haven't seen any creationist produce a better definition either that
can be precisely defined. That is why I prefer to draw my line of
"immutability" at the level of functional complexity specifically
defined as any novel system of function that requires more than 1000
fairly specified residues working together at the same time.
You see, I'm an immutabilist too. It is just that I have a precise
definition for what I'm talking about while I don't see that you do.
That is why you have such a hard time defending yourself,
convincingly, even to those who are also "creationists", in forums
like this one.
Sean Pitman
www.DetectingDesign.com
Ray Martinez
Your comments presuppose the claims of pseudo-Creationism to be true:
a single original creation event (= beginning only; one-off; limited
transmutation occurring thereafter). But historic Creationism, also
known as British Natural Theology, accepted nature to reflect real
time operation of Divine power (it never ceased); hence the origin of
new species. BNT utterly rejected the concept of transmutation to
exist in nature, species are immutable, products of real time special
creation. In the 19th century, before 1859, only Atheists advocated
transmutation.
Also see Oxford English Dictionary, Second Edition, for the correct
definition of the word "creation."
Ray (immutabilist)
Ray Martinez
No, you misunderstood. I provided the reference for Darwin. No one
denies Dawkins a Materialist.
Ray
Ray Martinez
> On Apr 24, 7:47 pm, Ray Martinez <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Apr 24, 7:16 pm, "[M]adman" <ad...@hotmail.et> wrote:
>
> > > 'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank wrote:
>
> > > > On Apr 24, 5:52 pm, Ray Martinez <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > >> On Apr 24, 12:03 pm, Seanpit <sean...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > Cool ! A kook-fight !!!
>
> > > Well, ONE of them is a k00k. Two if we count you
>
> > I am relieved to be rejected as a kook by a "Creationist" who accepts
> > the main scientific claim of Materialism: the concept of evolution or
> > species mutability. Real Creationists do not accept the main claims of
> > their enemy. Species mutability is an earth shattering claim. The Book
> > of Genesis (1 and 2) was written to say the claim is BLASPHEMOUS.
> > Science has always shown and proven that Genesis 1 and 2 is
> > scientifically accurate (Darwin 1859:310). I have no respect
> > whatsoever for stupid Creationists who kiss the ass of Charles Darwin
> > and Richard Dawkins (= the two most famous Materialists to ever live;
> > Darwin, Notebooks M and N 1838-1839).
>
> > Ray (immutabilist)
>
> Ray, you can't call yourself a species immutabilist until you can
> define the term "species". So far, this definition has been very
> elusive. It is a very subjective term in mainstream science.
No, not really.
Start with Linnaeus and end with Mayr (and the Bible).
> And, I
> haven't seen any creationist produce a better definition either that
> can be precisely defined. That is why I prefer to draw my line of
> "immutability" at the level of functional complexity specifically
> defined as any novel system of function that requires more than 1000
> fairly specified residues working together at the same time.
>
I accept the standard: Ernst Mayr's biological species concept. And I
have asked you, in previous threads, if the threshold seen above
corresponds to the species level? A species is a male and a female
that can instantly and excessively reproduce in the wild. The
Creationism-Evolutionism debate is only concerned as to how this
concept, past and present, comes to exist in nature.
> You see, I'm an immutabilist too.
What?
Sean: you accept the concept of "low level evolution" to exist in
nature therefore you cannot be a fixist. A fixist is a person who
rejects the concept of evolution to exist.
> It is just that I have a precise
> definition for what I'm talking about while I don't see that you do.
> That is why you have such a hard time defending yourself,
> convincingly, even to those who are also "creationists", in forums
> like this one.
>
> Sean Pitmanwww.DetectingDesign.com
I have never really tried to convince other Creationists except to try
and shame them a little and tell the story of how I became an
immutabilist. I do not try because I am saving my arguments for my
paper. Sean: I can prove that species are immutable; the concept of
evolution is scientifically false. I can prove that the nine great
scientific authorities that Darwin mentioned on page 310 of the
"Origin" are correct: species are immutable.
Ray
Robert Camp
I'm not forgetting that. It's just not germane to my point, which is
that too often those asserting identification of design do not realize
that there is a huge cultural and cognitive architecture underlying
what they experience as gut instinct ("I can just tell"). They
confidently intuit design when it seems warranted. This mirrors, and
is related to, similarly confident assertions of the converse, that
non-deliberate phenomena (tornados, hurricanes) can just as easily be
identified. Such intuition works for most people in most situations
because most of the time familiarity with the history and condition of
artifacture is enough.
But sometimes our intuition leads us astray. We think there must be
something intrinsic in the phenomena themselves that allows us
confident identification. I don't believe this is true either for
utterly random or purposefully designed phenomena, complex or simple.
What is true is that it is our experiential understanding of these
things that informs our appraisals. It's all about context.
Like I said, this works most of the time. But sometimes we go wrong.
That's when having a methodology that transcends personal intuition
can be awfully handy (e.g., the elucidation of pulsars). It all works
fairly well until we start having to deal with people who are willing
to deliberately dismiss the results of that methodology in favor of
personal conviction.
Your identification of complex phenomena as non-deliberate (tornados)
or obligately deliberate (DNA) is based on an arbitrary emphasis of
features important to, and congruent with, your personal philosophy.
It's convenient to your purposes to examine design no deeper than that
which confirms your beliefs. But the truth is, there is no reason,
other than your unevidenced personal conviction, that you could not
have included DNA in your list of things which are "are
indistinguishable from what anyone would call non-deliberate
activity." *Design*, for those of the creationist persuasion, is no
longer an objective determination. It is an entirely prejudiced (in
the literal sense) concern.
What I'm trying to get IDists and other creationists to recognize is
that this is a matter of survival for religion (in some form). There
can be no hope in the long term for a perspective that reserves to
itself, rather than empirical methodology, the right to determine that
which is empirical. In an increasingly educated society, the collapse
of such a perspective is inevitable, even if a long way off.
RLC
Robert Camp
> On Apr 24, 8:10 pm, Seanpit <sean...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Apr 24, 7:47 pm, Ray Martinez <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Apr 24, 7:16 pm, "[M]adman" <ad...@hotmail.et> wrote:
>
> > > > 'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank wrote:
>
> > > > > On Apr 24, 5:52 pm, Ray Martinez <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > > >> On Apr 24, 12:03 pm, Seanpit <sean...@gmail.com> wrote:
<snip>
> I have never really tried to convince other Creationists except to try
> and shame them a little and tell the story of how I became an
> immutabilist. I do not try because I am saving my arguments for my
> paper. Sean: I can prove that species are immutable; the concept of
> evolution is scientifically false. I can prove that the nine great
> scientific authorities that Darwin mentioned on page 310 of the
> "Origin" are correct: species are immutable.
>
> Ray
A word of caution, Ray.
Before you (*ahem*) publish your paper, be sure to go through it with
an eye for elimination of any argument that takes the form --- "This
(notion, observation, hypothesis, theory etc.) is wrong because it
contradicts what I believe."
Since you use this rhetorically vacuous construction (in one disguise
or another) in most* of your posted arguments you may have to employ
the services of a qualified proof reader in order to find and remove
them as you clearly do not recognize your own use of the fallacy (or
do not recognize its invalidity).
RLC
[Okay, my sample size is small. I read very few of your posts, but
your consistency in this endeavor is quite remarkable.]
'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank
I thought you killfiled me. You fucking liar.
So shut the fuck up and don't talk to me.
'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank
But can you do it with statistical analysis and
mathematics . . . . . ?
(snicker) (giggle)
'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank
> If science can't get you this
> far as a first step, there is absolutely no way that you can move
> beyond this first step toward considering who the designer might be -
> as in an actual identity.
>
Uh, how do you propose science can do that, Sean . . . . . ?
'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank
Cool, ANOTHER kook fight !!!!
This is starting to get entertaining now . . . .
Hey Sean, what do YOU think of Spinny and Madman . . . . ?
John Harshman
>> 11) Human designers commonly produce nested hierarchies
>
> This is also a fact. Humans produce nested hierarchies all the time.
> You, like Harshman, are confused about the definition of a NHP. The
> only real argument here is just that humans don't often produced NHPs
> of the particular *type* found in the Tree of Life (ToL) all the time
> - at least not to nearly the level of detail. However, even NHP of
> the type found in the ToL are produced to at least a fair degree of
> proximity in certain endeavors - such as human designed computer
> operating systems like object oriented programming.
Please present an example of such a nested hierarchy. Remember that
natural nested hierarchies can be derived from arbitrarily chosen
portions of genomes, not just from a single feature.
>> 13) "mainstream scientists believe that all the main forms (or phyla)
>> of animal life, save perhaps one, that exist in the world today were
>> all present in the Cambrian "
>
> What phyla do not have representatives in the Cambrian?
Of well-skeletonized animal phyla, only Bryozoa. However, the great
majority of animal phyla are not well-skeletonized, and nearly half the
phyla have no fossil record at all. Also, not a single one of the many
plant phyla is known from the Cambrian. I'm pretty sure we've covered
this before, many times.
Seanpit
wrote:
> Seanpit wrote:
> > On Apr 22, 1:21 am, "richardalanforr...@googlemail.com" >
>
> [snip out a few that I like]
>
> >> 11) Human designers commonly produce nested hierarchies
>
> > This is also a fact. Humans produce nested hierarchies all the time.
> > You, like Harshman, are confused about the definition of a NHP. The
> > only real argument here is just that humans don't often produced NHPs
> > of the particular *type* found in the Tree of Life (ToL) all the time
> > - at least not to nearly the level of detail. However, even NHP of
> > the type found in the ToL are produced to at least a fair degree of
> > proximity in certain endeavors - such as human designed computer
> > operating systems like object oriented programming.
>
> Please present an example of such a nested hierarchy. Remember that
> natural nested hierarchies can be derived from arbitrarily chosen
> portions of genomes, not just from a single feature.
I just did. Object oriented computer programming uses a NHP
approach.
> >> 13) "mainstream scientists believe that all the main forms (or phyla)
> >> of animal life, save perhaps one, that exist in the world today were
> >> all present in the Cambrian "
>
> > What phyla do not have representatives in the Cambrian?
>
> Of well-skeletonized animal phyla, only Bryozoa. However, the great
> majority of animal phyla are not well-skeletonized, and nearly half the
> phyla have no fossil record at all. Also, not a single one of the many
> plant phyla is known from the Cambrian. I'm pretty sure we've covered
> this before, many times.
As far as animal phyla, obviously we're only dealing with the ones
that can actually leave a fossil record. With regard to the plant
phyla, you're mistaken in your notion that there is no argument over
the notion that no plant phyla are known from the Cambrian. That's
simply not true - as we've discussed before:
It is often argued that the pollen or spores of modern plants are
limited to the modern or Tertiary (often Eocene) layers of the
geologic column. Despite such common assertions, there seem to be at
least a few long-standing problems with this notion. Although the
subject of the Salt Range beds is prohibited among Indian and many
western paleontologists today, the case rests precisely where it did
in the early 1950s (Ghosh et al. 1951). The fossils are modern in
aspect ("Eocene" according to Sahni 1944) yet the beds containing the
fossils are overlain conformably by early Cambrian sediments (Coates
et al. 1945).
Also, in 1956 S. Leclercq published a paper in the journal Evolution
entitled, "Evidence of vascular plants in the Cambrian" that included
the following introduction:
"While the information given by palynology agrees with the flora
known in the Upper and Middle Devonian, the assemblage of spores found
in the Lower Devonian, Silurian and Cambrian plead in favor of a more
varied and advanced type of flora than the plant impressions have so
far suggested. The recent discovery of Lycopodiaceous shoots in the
Middle Cambrian of East-Siberia appears to confirm the evidence of
palynology investigation." - S. Leclercq, Evidence of Vascular Plants
in the Cambrian, Evolution, The International Journal of Organic
Evolution 10: 109-114, June 1956
Some researchers have reported finding pollen of higher plants in
strata shown by standard dating methods to be extremely old. These
findings call into question the whole conventional account of the
evolution of plants. In one instance, parties of scientists in
Venezuela reported finding pollen of flowering plants in Precambrian
rock formations judged to be 1.7-2.0 billion years old. This posed a
serious problem, because according to current theory the flowering
plants evolved fairly recently, only 100 million years ago. Their
conclusion to this find is as follows:
"As to interpretation of the significance of the fossil pollen
and spores, two sharply divided opinions have been expressed. The
writers make no attempt to adjudicate, but state the two concepts
impartially.
One group adopts the attitude that the radiometric dating of
dolerites and a hornfels within the Roraima Formation as Precambrian
is beyond dispute, hence the pollen (and spores) must have entered as
secondary contamination. The improbability that pollen could withstand
the baking process, which converted shale to hornfels, is adduced as
the radiometric technique is valid there should be a long and clear-
cut time-gap between ages assigned to the basement rocks and to the
Roraima beds. Such a gap does not exist in the experimental results
published, but this discrepancy is glossed over in the latest summary
of radiometric dating in British Guiana." - R. M. Stainforth,
"Occurrence of Pollen and Spores in the Roraima Formation of Venezuela
and British Guiana," Nature, Vol. 210, No. 5033 (April 16, 1966), pp.
292--294.
So, to resolve the difficulty, one group of scientists decided that
although the dates of the rock were correct the pollen must have been
a recent intrusion or contaminant even though entry of the pollen into
those layers defies a simple explanation. The second group held that
the pollen had been there since the rock had formed, but concluded
that the dating was wrong and the rock was of recent origin. The two
groups thus contradicted each other in their interpretations of the
evidence. The real significance of this treatment is that both groups
felt compelled to look for ways to avoid contradicting the standard
story of evolution, to which they were both strongly committed.
By 2001 at least, this problem had not been resolved. Here is an
interesting presentation given by Michael Cremo in 2001 at the XXI
International Congress of History of Science, Mexico City, entitled,
"Paleobotanical Anomalies Bearing on the Age of the Salt Range
Formation of Pakistan: A Historical Survey of an Unresolved Scientific
Controversy":
"The age of the Salt Range Formation in the Salt Range Mountains
of Pakistan was a matter of extreme controversy among geologists from
the middle nineteenth century to the middle twentieth century. Of
great importance in the later discussions were fragments of advanced
plants and insects discovered in the Salt Range Formation by
researchers such as B. Sahni. According to Sahni, these finds
indicated an Eocene age for the Salt Range Formation. But geological
evidence cited by others was opposed to this conclusion, supporting
instead a Cambrian age for the Salt Range formation. Modern geological
opinion is unanimous that the Salt Range Formation is Cambrian. But
Sahni's evidence for advanced plant and insect remains in the Salt
Range Formation is not easily dismissed.
It would appear that there is still a contradiction between the
geological and paleontological evidence, just as there was during the
time of active controversy. During the time of active controversy, E.
R. Gee suggested that the conflict might be resolved by positing the
existence of an advanced flora and fauna in the Cambrian. This idea
was summarily dismissed at the time, but, although it challenges
accepted ideas about the evolution of life on earth, it appears to
provide the best fit with the different lines of evidence. The
existence of advanced plant and animal life during the Cambrian is
consistent with accounts found in the Puranic literature of India." -
Michael A. Cremo, Paleobotanical Anomalies Bearing on the Age of the
Salt Range Formation of Pakistan: A Historical Survey of an Unresolved
Scientific Controversy, Presentation at XXI International Congress of
History of Science, Mexico City, July 8-14, 2001
Sean Pitman
www.DetectingDesign.com
wf3h
> one.
and you seem to want to bullshit your way through this. you seem to
want scientists to accept at face value:
1. exclusion of natural processes even though YOU admit it's being
actively researched
2. admission of the most commonly used failed idea in history:
supernaturalism
you simply can't grasp the idea that someone can objectively look at
1. your history
2 the history of your church
3, the history of creationism
and come to the conclusion that you ARE arguing creationism because
you exclude natural processes based ONLY on a religoius belief.
I do believe in God and that God created life on this planet.
> That's quite clear to everyone in this forum despite your attempts to
> suggest otherwise.
i dont know what this means; i have never suggested you WERENT a
creationist. in fact, it's the ONLY reason you argue as you do.
However, there is quite a difference between my
> beliefs in God and the basis for my arguments in this forum.
no, there is not. core to your argument is the exclusion of natural
processes. you have NO basis for doing so since as you admit, active
research is being done. since there is no SCIENTIFIC reason to
exclude natural processes, the ONLY reason to do so is RELIGIOUS
and that's your argument: religion. i don't care that you say it's
not. an objective analysis demonstrates why you exclude natural
processes.
>
> I repeat yet again: It is impossible to prove the supernatural. It
> is not, however, impossible to scientifically support the very natural
> ID-only hypothesis on at least the human level of creativity.
>
ID is not a hypothesis. a SETI radio wave is not part of nature like
DNA is. it is not chemistry
and no scientist....NONE...would exclude natural processes based ONLY
on religoius beliefs. that's your argument: religion allows you to
exclude natural processes because your religion is true.
it's a circular argument. and it's wrong.
roki...@cox.net
SNIP:
Good thread title change. Which one are you, Sean?
Where is that science of intelligent design that you claimed to have
to teach to school kids?
Does running and pretending for around 6 years make you an evil liar
our just deluded?
Where is that alternative to common descent that you claimed to have
and the evidence for it that you claimed was just as good as the
evidence science has that you don't like?
Does running and pretending for around 8 or 9 years make you an evil
liar or just deluded?
These aren't just stupid matters of whether you can do statistics.
These are arguments that are central to your whole bogus argument. If
you don't have the science and you don't have a valid alternative what
are you arguing about? Lying about it makes about as much sense as
calling someone else deluded or an evil liar.
Ron Okimoto
Rolf
science have is just evidence.
Evidence is always open for interpretation; proof is beyond that. Like if I
should say Ray is an idiot, that would be proof, but if I would say "Rays
writings are evidence he is an idiot; it could at least theoretically be
false.
> Ray
Rolf
> On Apr 24, 7:46 pm, Lee Jay <ljfin...@msn.com> wrote:
>> On Apr 24, 8:26 pm, Ray Martinez <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Creationist: a person who accepts the action of Divine power
>>> operating in reality causing biological production.
>>
>> The word "creation" implies something that happens at the beginning
>> of something. MW defines it as "the act of creating ; especially :
>> the act of bringing the world into ordered existence". Why would your
>> definition of "creation*ist*" be about an on-going ("operating" and
>> "causing") process, rather than the beginning-only definition of its
>> base word, "creation"?
>>
>> Lee Jay
>
> Your comments presuppose the claims of pseudo-Creationism to be true:
> a single original creation event (= beginning only; one-off; limited
> transmutation occurring thereafter).
How do you determine the limits? God (or Satan, who knows) whispering in
your ear?
'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank
What mechanism for ID are you proposing, Sean? You've said it
involves a
"human-level intelligence". That rules out any supernatural or
divine
influence, right? No God required, right? No need for anything that
plain old ordinary humans can't do, right? "Design theory" is just
as athiestic and godless as Darwinism is, right, Sean?
So what WAS involved, Sean, if it wasn't god. Space aliens? Time-
travelling human biologists from the future? Where did THEY come
from,
Sean? Did they evolve natgurally? Or were THEY designed by some
OTHER human-level intelligence, and where did THAT come from?
And what did this human-level designer DO, Sean? How did it make new
genetic sequencies? What mechanisms did it use? Where can we see it
using similar mechanisms today to do . . . well . . . anything?
You declared that the IDer manipulates natural forces and materials to
accomplish its design. Show us. WHat natural forces and materials
has the ID manipulated? What mechanisms did it use to manipulate
them? Where can we se it using any mechanisms to manipulate anything
today?
Oh, and hey-- you said that your "ID theory" is testable. Show me.
How can I go about testing the, uh, hypothesis that "an unknown thing
did an unknown thing at an unknown time using unknown methods" . . ?
How could anyone falsify your, uh, hypothesis, Sean -- how could
anyone show that an unknown thing did NOT do an unknown thing at an
unknown time using unknown methods? Do you think there are things
that God -- uh, I mean "the unknown intelligent designer" -- could not
have done, Sean?
And, since every time someone mentions "designer", you burp up your
SETI bullshit -- SETI doesn't say "We think a designer did this. But,
ya know, we're really not interested, at all, in finding out what that
designer is, what it did, how it did it, or what it's doing today."
Why does ID "science" say that, Sean?
Can you think of any OTHER area of science which concludes "We think
something happened here, but we're not remotely interested in finding
out what it was or what did it."
Why does ID "science" say that, Sean? Is there some non-science
reason for that? A legal strategy, perhaps . . . ?
Oh, and would you mind pointing to an example of any scientific
discovery, of any note, in any area of science, that has resulted
from
the hypothesis "Godiddit!!!!" . . .?
You are a bullshitter, Sean. You have no specific examples to show
(and your arm-waving doesn't hide the simple fact that you can't show
any specific example) because THERE AREN'T ANY. Your world-changing
statistical mathematical analysis, doesn't do jackshit in the real
world. But then, it's not SUPPOSED to do jackshit in the real world,
is it Sean. It's just a legal strategy, cooked up by lawyers to try
to get around some Supreme Court decisions they don't like because
they want to teach religious apologetics in a science classroom.
Why is it that every person you have shown your wonderful scientific
argument to, thinks it shit? Why is that, Sean? Is it because (1)
you're too stupid to explain it to people so they understand what a
genius you are, or (2) it really is shit.
'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank
> The fossils are modern in
> aspect
Indeed, they are mdoern species that are indigenous to the area. Your
creationist "scientists" are too incompetent to take an uncontaminated
soil sample. Just ask Carl Baugh. (shrug)
Dude, if 50 year old quote mines and crap from MICHAEL CREMO are the
best you have, it's no wonder nobody takes creationists seriously
anymore.
Stick with your mathy sciency-sounding stuff, Sean. It fools more
people. (shrug)
Rolf
> On Apr 24, 1:32 am, "richardalanforr...@googlemail.com"
> <richardalanforr...@googlemail.com> wrote:
>> On Apr 24, 4:33 am, Ray Martinez <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> On Apr 23, 8:25 pm, Ray Martinez <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote:>>>>>> On Apr 23, 4:00 am, "richardalanforr...@googlemail.com"
>>
>>>>> snip
>>
>>>>>>> I fail to see how this can be anything other than a falsehood.
>>
>>>>>> "Very rapid flash crystalisation" means a catastrophe has taken
>>>>>> place "in a supersaturated environment" which means an ideal
>>>>>> taphonomic environment (= wet or water-based).
>>
>>>>> What kind of catastrophe would produce that, Ray? Please provide
>>>>> some citation from the scientific literature to support your
>>>>> answer.
>>
>>>>> As I pointed out before, all environments are "taphonomic
>>>>> environments". Wet or 'water based' environments themselves won't
>>>>> produce fossilzation unless there are the proper conditions.
>>
>>>>> How would water become "super saturated", and "supersaturated" by
>>>>> what?
>>
>>>>> snip
>>
>>>>>>> So, please explain to me what "catastrophic preservation"
>>>>>>> actually is,....
>>
>>>>>> Catastrophic preservation means that a catastrophe has preserved
>>>>>> a biomass as it appeared moments before its unexpected death.
>>
>>>>> What catastrophe, Ray? While a mudslide will cover part of a sea
>>>>> floor, or a sandstorm will cover part of a dry land, the
>>>>> mudslide, or sand storm itself won't preserve things differently
>>>>> than other events. What preserves the fossils is a combinations
>>>>> of factors.
>>
>>>>> snip
>>
>>>>>> I agree that uniformitarianism means the present is the key to
>>>>>> the past. But your paragraph above seems to contradict, accepting
>>>>>> uniformitarianism to not be in conflict with catastrophism.
>>
>>>>> Again,. Ray, you are making a big mistake here. The modern idea of
>>>>> "uniformitarianism" does not mean that no catastrophies have ever
>>>>> taken place. It simply means that the processes that produced the
>>>>> geologic record are normal, and naturally occuring events, which
>>>>> sometimes include local catastrophic events. Geologists are aware
>>>>> of things such as bolide impacts, large scale vulcanism,
>>>>> earthquakes, storms, flash floods, etc. All of these are seen in
>>>>> the geologic record.
>>
>>>>>> Fact: uniformitarianism and catastrophism are two different and
>>>>>> conflicting explanatory concepts.
>>
>>>>> As ponted out before, Ray demonstrates his ignorance of the
>>>>> history of science. The dispute among early geologists over
>>>>> "catastrophism" and "uniformitarianism" was settled long ago.
>>
>>>>> see:http://www.infoplease.com/ce6/sci/A0810833.html
>>
>>>>> DJT
>>
>>>> From your own link source:
>>
>>>> http://www.infoplease.com/ce6/sci/A0810833.html
>>
>>>> "catastrophism (kutãs'trufizum)...., in geology, the doctrine that
>>>> at
>>>> intervals in the earth's history all living things have been
>>>> destroyed
>>>> by cataclysms (e.g., floods or earthquakes) and replaced by an
>>>> entirely different population. During these cataclysms the
>>>> features of
>>>> the earth's surface, such as mountains and valleys, were formed.
>>>> The
>>>> theory, popularly accepted from the earliest times, was attacked in
>>>> the late 18th cent., notably by James Hutton, who may be regarded
>>>> as
>>>> the precursor of the ***opposite doctrine of uniformitarianism.***
>>
>>>> Catastrophism, however, was more easily correlated with religious
>>>> doctrines (e.g., the Mosaic account of the Flood) and remained for
>>>> some time the interpretation of the earth's history accepted by the
>>>> great majority of geologists. It was systematized and defended by
>>>> the
>>>> Frenchman Georges Cuvier, whose position as the greatest geologist
>>>> of
>>>> his day easily overbore all opposition. In the 19th cent., ***it [=
>>>> catastrophism] was attacked by George Poulett Scrope and
>>>> especially by
>>>> Sir Charles Lyell,*** under whose influence the contrary doctrine
>>>> [= uniformitarianism] gradually became more popular. Recent
>>>> theories of meteorite, asteroid,
>>>> or comet impacts triggering mass extinctions can be interpreted as
>>>> a
>>>> revival of catastrophism."
>>
>>>> [***emphasis added***]
>>
>>>> [bracket added]
>>
>>> [Second bracket now added.]
>>
>>>> Previously I said:
>>
>>>> "Fact: uniformitarianism and catastrophism are two different and
>>>> conflicting explanatory concepts" (Ray Martinez).
>>
>>>> Face your astronomic ignorance and errors, Dana.
>>
>>>> Ray
>>
>>> Uniformitarianism and Catastrophism are "contrary doctrines" (see
>>> link reference material).
>>
>>> Previously I said: "Fact: uniformitarianism and catastrophism are
>>> two different and conflicting explanatory concepts" (Ray Martinez).
>>
>> Quite so.
>
> Glad to see that you agree with me, Richard. Again, this is basic
> stuff.
>
>> However, catastrophism had lost and uniformitarianism had won by the
>> middle of the 19th century.
>
> Yes, I know. Uniformitarianism is geologic gradualism. This is where
> Darwin obtained the conceptual idea that species evolve gradually.
>
>> The whole modern science of geology is founded on the principle of
>> uniformitarianism.
>
> Yes, I know.
>
>> In fact, the basic principle of uniformitarianism
>> underlies much of modern science.
>
> Yes, I know.
>
>> It is the assumption which makes
>> science possible. If the universe in the past was not constrained by
>> the same basic laws as it is today, there is no point in any science
>> which looks into the past - which all science does to some extent.
>>
>> RF
>
> The acceptance of uniformitarianism does not mean that the underlying
> assumption, nor the concept itself, is true. It just means that most
> scientific men chose to explain reality through this explanatory
> filter.
>
Isn't that what the EF is for? But you've, as always, got it wrong.
Scientists do not use the EF, it belongs in the domain of creationism. Being
a creationist yourself, you should know that.
> Uniformitarianism is utterly false. It is a doctrine of Scientism, not
> Science. The world plainly reflects a past full of catastrophes. This
> is objectively true. Atheists and Darwinists only care about
> describing the world so the Bible is seen to be false. Anyone who
> looks at the world objectively plainly sees that uniformitarianism is
> anti-reality and that catastrophism is reality.
>
> Ray
Rolf
>>
>>
>>
>>>>> With all this now said: Why is Sean viewed as a Creationist or
>>>>> IDist?
>>
>>>> You are misreading Sean, Ray. He is not denouncing Divine creation
>>>> in the first excerpt. Instead, he is simply saying that *some
>>>> things* are not the direct result of divine will.
>>
>>> Sean renounces "God-did-it" in the first excerpt.
>>
>> That's not true. Arguing that at least human level intelligence was
>> required to produce certain levels of functional complexity is not
>> the same thing as arguing against God or the possibility of God's
>> involvement. I personally believe in God and God's involvement with
>> this concept is not provable by science.
>>
>
> What concept?
>
> I assume that you are talking about the concept of Theism (= God
> involvement)?
>
> understand what you meant by "human level intelligence."
>
>> hypothesis.
>
> Agreed.
>
> BUT, HOWEVER, the Design Hypothesis says----explicitly----that design
> corresponds to the work of invisible Designer (= Theos), which is
> direct evidence supporting the concept of Theism. This is why
> Darwinists oppose said hypothesis tooth and nail.
>
>> least the human level if not a bit beyond. Science can in fact
>> determine, quite accurately and with a very high degree of predictive
>> power, if at least human level intelligence was most likely required
>> to produce a given phenomenon.
>>
>> Ray, you seem to miss, or at least misunderstand, the "at least" part
>> of the equation.
>
> [blushing begins] Agreed. I have completely misunderstood. Now I
> understand. I thought that you were actually attempting to argue that
> human beings caused species, IC systems, and rain forests to exist![/
> blushing ends]
>
> I finally understand your position. But let me tell you that "human
> level intelligence" is nowhere to be found in History of Science-
> Creationism v. Darwinism-evolution literature. This is why I was
> baffled with your argument. I kinda like your approach, now. You are
> saying that life reflects at least human level intelligence.
>
>> required leaves the door wide open for the possibility that even
>> higher levels of intelligence could have been involved.
>
> The Creationism-Evolution debate is historically framed as
> Intelligence or Mind vs. unguided-undirected-unintelligent material
> causation. If you are arguing for at least human level, that is,
> biological phenomena to reflect human **level** intelligence, a level
> that we should be able to recognize readily, and easily, then I
> finally understand.
>
>> because that is impossible from the scientific perspective.
>>
>>> Your opinion
>>> overlooks this fact.Sean"accepts" the concept of creation
>>> momentarily in the first excerpt for the expressed purpose of
>>> dismissing it to account for actual biological production; then,
>>> like a real evolutionist, he says the concept is not scientific,
>>> that it explains everything (he is *basically* correct, the concept
>>> does "explain" everything). The extent of his acceptance of the
>>> concept is deistic. But the concept of creation presupposes Theism,
>>> not Deism (Oxford English Dictionary, Second Edition). The concept
>>> of "evolution" presupposes the falsity of the concept of
>>> "creation" (hence the Creationism-Evolution debate) AND the concept
>>> of Deism: Divine power is not seen or needed in the evolutionary
>>> process.
>>
>> You've completely misread me Ray. I believe in a personal Creator God
>> and that this God was responsible for producing life and its variety
>> on this planet and is still active and interested in this planet and
>> in us as individuals.
>
> I have always recognized you to be a Christian/Theist.
>
>> However, this is not what is under discussion
>> in this forum. This is a different issue that is related, but is not
>> the same concept as the concept I'm arguing for in this forum. You
>> don't seem to be able to grasp the difference.
>>
>
> Darwinism and this Forum exists to say that Theism has been proven
> false. And I now understand the concept that you are arguing.
>
>>>> For example, even you would probably agree
>>>> that those things that are the result of human free will are not
>>>> the *direct* result of Divine will.
>>
>>> To interject suddenly human free will into a discussion about
>>> biological agency and the extent of the rejection of the agency of
>>> creation by Sean Pitman is baffling.
>>
>> The point, Ray, is that not everything in this universe is directly
>> designed by God.
>
> Agreed.
>
> But everything is under His control----everything. I am sure you would
> agree that there is a difference between the concept of "design" and
> the concept of "control."
>
>> For example, practically all of the various breeds
>> of dogs that we have today were produced by the deliberate intent of
>> human breeders - not by God directly.
>
> Self-evidently true.
>
>> What God did was produce the
>> first dog-type, something like the wolf most likely, as well as the
>> potential for genetic diversity that we actually see expressed today.
>> God did not produce all the various types of breeds originally.
>
> God *introduced* the species or concept of "dog" and the species or
> concept of "wolf." Dogs and wolves are not the same species. Wolves
> exist as a species in the wild because wolves mate with other
> wolves----not dogs. While both species have the ability to mate with
> one another, the unions are difficult.
>
>> The same thing goes for certain types of mutations that result in
>> numerous phenotypic variations for all living things. God doesn't
>> direct each random mutation with deliberate forethought. God didn't
>> deliberately
>> make the single point mutation that produced sickle cell anemia for
>> example. God doesn't make the mutations that result in various forms
>> of cancer, like CML or AML, for example. Would you at least agree
>> with that?
>>
>
> Sean: the Creation v. Evolution debate is NOT about cancer, sickle
> cell anemia, or antibiotic resistance. The Creation v. Evolution
> debate is about how species come to be in nature, that is, what caused
> or causes their existence, past and present. Divine agency or unguided
> material?
>
> William Paley (Divine agency):
>
> "IN crossing a heath, suppose I pitched my foot against a stone, and
> were asked how the stone came to be there; I might possibly answer,
> that, for any thing I knew to the contrary, it had lain there for
> ever: nor would it perhaps be very easy to show the absurdity of this
> answer. But suppose I had found a watch [= species] upon the ground,
> and it should be inquired how the watch happened to be in that
> place...." (1802; bracket added).
>
> Charles Darwin (unguided material):
>
> "On The Origin Of Species [= "watches"] By Means Of Natural
> Selection" (1859).
>
> But to answer your question: God does not cause cancer; but He allows
> its existence and spread. I agree with Dr. Walter Lammerts (genetics;
> species immutabilist): Satan is a master geneticist (reference upon
> request). The Bible plainly tells us that disease is a result from the
> Fall. The N.T. tells us that ALL curses are off, null and void, to
> those who are IN Christ.
>
> Dr. Sean Pitman: "Ray's God is Evil"
>
> Dr. Gene Scott: Whatever God says or does is righteousness.
>
> God told Joshua to kill every man, woman and child in the promise land
> (= righteousness).
>
> You need to read the Pentateuch where God catalogs----specifically----
> the curses that He will inflict upon Israel IF they forsake Him and
> worship idols.
>
>> So far, whenever I've presented this last question to you, you never
>> answer it. Is there anything that is produced or created outside of
>> God's direct deliberate will and action?
>>
>
> I have now answered.
>
> There are two and only two sources: God and the license He allows to
> Satan because of the Fall.
>
>>>> God, in creating free will, voluntarily gave up the option
>>>> of controlling some things.
>>
>>> This belief is sourceless, subjective, since the Biblical Theos goes
>>> out of His way to demonstrate the exact opposite: He retains
>>> absolute control despite the monkey wrench of human free will.
>>
>> God retains absolute sovereignty or the option to act, but God does
>> not maintain absolute control of all actions or no one would be able
>> to be held responsible for his/her own actions. According to your
>> argument here, God would be chargeable with extreme evil and cruelty.
>> For example, would you credit an act of child rape to the absolute
>> control and deliberate will and action of God? Hmmmm?
>>
>
> You have misunderstood my argument because my argument is a skeleton
> at best. This subject or topic takes too much time and explanation for
> this Forum. But my master argument will appear in my forth-coming
> paper.
>
> But for now: we must face the fact that God *could have* intervened
> and stopped the unspeakable act----but He didn't.
>
>> Please at least try and give this question a fair shot, at least an
>> attempt at a thoughtful answer, next time you post a thread like this
>> one.
>>
>
> Again, I fail to see the relevance of evil human acts to biological
> production.
>
>>>> Similarly,Sean would argue, in creating natural
>>>> laws,...
>>
>>> Deism.
>>
>> You really think I'm a deist?
>
> Nope. Below I said you claim to be a Theist. Above, I recognized the
> comment to be advocating Deism.
>
> "Similarly, Sean would argue, in creating natural laws,..."
>
> Deism. The real issue is: why is a Theist advocating Deism? Do you
> understand? I would really like an answer, Sean.
>
>> Deists typically reject most
>> supernatural events (prophecy, miracles)....
>
> All supernatural events and Revelation.
>
>> ....and tend to assert that God
>> (or "The Supreme Architect") has a plan for the universe which that
>> Architect does not alter either by intervening in the affairs of
>> human life or suspending the natural laws of the universe.
>
> Agreed.
>
>> What organized
>> religions see as divine revelation and holy books, most deists see as
>> interpretations made by other humans, rather than as authoritative
>> sources.
>>
>
> Like I said, they reject all Revelation.
>
>> That's the definition of deism Ray. I'm no deist. I believe that God
>> is active in current affairs. However, I also believe that God has
>> produced natural laws with which he does not constantly interfere.
>
> The difference between Theism and Deism is: the involvement or non-
> involvement of God IN reality; otherwise the concepts are rendered
> meaningless.
>
>> Again I ask the question. Do you believe that God deliberately
>> produced the mutation that causes sickle cell anemia? - or leukemias
>> like CML or AML? Simple question Ray . . .
>>
>
> No, but He allowed Satan. God is in control.
>
>>> Sean claims to be a Theist.
>>
>> In a specific sense in current usage, theism generally refers to a
>> particular doctrine concerning the nature of God and his relationship
>> to the universe. Theism, in this specific sense, conceives of God as
>> personal and active in the governance and organization of the world
>> and the universe.
>>
>
> Okay. The key concept is "personal."
>
> Theism derives from the Greek word for God----"Theos." The Bible
> portrays a theistic Theos, not a deistic Deity. The point here is that
> there is no source for Deism. Deism says God resides external to
> reality and *never* intervenes. The position is ad hoc. It seeks to
> avoid the eternity of matter. Atheism believes that matter has had
> eternal existence because no deity exists to have caused its
> existence. Deism was invented to escape this deranged belief.
>
>> In this sense, I am a theist, and so are you - - and so are many
>> evolutionists actually.
>>
>>>> ....God abandoned the responsibility of controlling most of the
>>>> physical world - planets in their orbits, for example.
>>
>>> I realize that you are speculating about Sean's views based on the
>>> excerpts and your understanding of his collective views as a whole.
>>> Theism accepts the worlds and their orbits to result from laws
>>> created- reflecting Divine power. Naturalism rejects
>>> Theism----militantly.
>>
>> Naturalism only suggests that humans cannot prove the divine. This
>> point is actually correct.
>
> False.
>
> Naturalism says only nature exists. It is a statement that says God
> doesn't exist.
>
>> We may be able to suspect the divine, but
>> we can never prove it since we are finite creatures.
>
> Design corresponds to the work of invisible Designer (= Theos).
>
> You do accept the concept of design to exist in nature as a whole and
> in every species, correct?
>
> Come on, Sean: **electric** fish, bat **sonar**?
>
>> Hence, the
>> problem for those who think to use science or human reason to "prove
>> God". It can't be done.
>
> Atheism ideology.
>
> Why does a Theist accept Atheism ideology?
>
>> It can only be approximated to a very
>> limited degree "at at least the human level and likely beyond" at
>> best. How far beyond cannot be know by finite mortals - only
>> suspected.
>>
>
> In my forth-coming paper I will show you otherwise.
>
>>>> And in the second excerpt, he is not actually saying anything that
>>>> limits God's power. Instead, he is describing the scope of his own
>>>> analysis
>>>> of the evidence for design in the natural world. There may well be
>>>> a super-human intelligence controlling the world, and I suspect
>>>> thatSean believes in such an intelligence. But as a cautious
>>>> analyst of the evidence, he claims to have demonstrated no more
>>>> than human intelligence - wise of him, because we have no
>>>> experience with intelligences beyond the human.-
>>
>>> Contradiction.
>>
>>> Paragraph begins by saying Sean accepts Divine power. Then the
>>> paragraph admits that Sean is only advocating "human intelligence."
>>> The latter admission (which is true and not in dispute) refutes the
>>> former.
>>
>> You forget the qualifier "at least" human level intelligence. I'm not
>> only advocating human intelligence here. I'm arguing that at least
>> human level intelligence is needed to explain certain types of
>> phenomena. And, the specific phenomena that I'm talking about are
>> very limited and are arguably themselves within the limited ability
>> of human-level intelligence and technology. Only those who are very
>> ignorant about human engineering and technology would think the
>> levels
>> of functional complexity I'm discussing in this forum clearly beyond
>> human production. Humans can create at very high levels of functional
>> complexity - far greater than any known non-deliberate or mindless
>> force of nature or natural law.
>>
>
> I now understand your position.
>
>>> Creationism accepts Divine or Intelligent agency, not human level
>>> intelligence (whatever that is).
>>
>> Creationists accept both - most creationists that is. Humans are
>> creative agents just like God is a creative agent - if only on a much
>> much lower level. This is all about what various levels of functional
>> informational complexity can achieve. Humans can achieve certain
>> levels of functional complexity and humans can detect when only
>> human- level intelligence, or perhaps beyond a bit, can do the job.
>> This is
>> the basis of the ID-only theories that are prevalent - even within
>> mainstream science. This ID-only theory forms the basis of
>> anthropology, forensics, and even SETI.
>>
>>> Evolution rejects Divine or
>>> Intelligent agency while accepting unguided-undirected-unintelligent
>>> material agency.Sean is all alone is left field.
>>
>> Creationism, as per the vast majority of creationists, also rejects
>> the idea that God guides, directs, or intelligently wills or
>> manipulates every aspect of our universe, thoughts, or daily lives.
>> evil being you could possibly imagine - directly responsible for
>> every evil thing that you, or anyone else, have ever seen, done, or
>> imagined. Think about that for just a minute Ray . . .
>>
>>> Ray
>>
>> Sean Pitmanwww.DetectingDesign.com
>
> I have explained myself a bit more and I now understand your position
> concerning human level intelligence. And like I said: I like the
> approach. It really infuriates Darwinists.
>
How do you know? We don't give a f**k. We just enjoy watching your stupditiy
growing, waiting for you to disappear round the bend.
> Ray
Rolf
> or comet impacts triggering mass extinctions can be interpreted as a
> revival of catastrophism."
>
> [***emphasis added***]
>
> [bracket added]
>
>
> "Fact: uniformitarianism and catastrophism are two different and
> conflicting explanatory concepts" (Ray Martinez).
>
> Face your astronomic ignorance and errors, Dana.
>
> Ray
Here Ray employs his unlimited access to incomprehensible stupidity in order
to to prove the equivalent of black=white, QED. And vice versa.
Rolf
>> On Apr 22, 9:39 pm, Ray Martinez <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> On Apr 22, 1:21 am, "richardalanforr...@googlemail.com"
>>
>>> <richardalanforr...@googlemail.com> wrote:
>>>> On Apr 22, 12:36 am, Robert Camp <robertlc...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>>> On Apr 21, 1:21 pm, wf3h <w...@vsswireless.net> wrote:
>>
>>>>>> On Apr 21, 4:10 pm, Ray Martinez <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>>>>>>> A Creationist is a person who accepts biological production to
>>>>>>> be the direct result of the power of invisible Creator (=
>>>>>>> God-did-it). The concepts of "supernatural" or "Intelligence"
>>>>>>> or "Mind" (large case "I" and "M" intentional) are perfectly
>>>>>>> synonymous with invisible Creator, God or Designer. The point
>>>>>>> is: the concept of "creation" means biological existence is
>>>>>>> directly caused by Divine power operating in reality (Oxford
>>>>>>> English Dictionary, Second Edition).
>>
>>>>>>> In both excerpts Sean renounces the Divine concept. Both
>>>>>>> excerpts, if we didn't know, could have been written by Mark
>>>>>>> Isaak, Dana Tweedy, or any well known pro-evolution fanatic
>>>>>>> that posts here at Talk Origins.
>>
>>>>>>> With all this now said: Why is Sean viewed as a Creationist or
>>>>>>> IDist?
>>
>>
>>>>>> this is part of the problem with creationism: its meaning is in
>>>>>> the eye of the believer.
>>
>>>>>> sean is a creationist; he's also a liar. he's straightforward in
>>>>>> his paranoia about science, as well as his contention that his
>>>>>> 'designer' isn't 'god', when he's here on TO, but it IS god on
>>>>>> his website.
>>
>>>>> You know, it seems like such a waste that I have to stand up here
>>>>> and defend Sean. It's easy to post responsible criticism of
>>>>> somebody, all you have to do is stifle the instinct to try for a
>>>>> rhetorical TKO by doing things like calling them liars.
>>
>>>>> Based upon my experience, Sean is misguided, deluded, even
>>>>> arrogant at times. But I don't recall him lying about his belief
>>>>> in the identity of the designer. I think he's been open, here as
>>>>> well as elsewhere, that he believes it's the God of Christianity.
>>>>> When Sean refuses to identify the designer as God, he's
>>>>> restricting the conversation to naturalism in the hopes of
>>>>> producing a legitimate scientific theory that explains biological
>>>>> complexity.
>>
>>>>> We allow theistic scientists this kind of latitude all the time.
>>>>> Sean's wrong, and wrong-headed in my opinion, but "liar" seems
>>>>> quite a bit over-the-top.
>>
>>>> I don't think its over the top at all.
>>>> He has lied about all sorts of things on this forum.
>>>> Here are just a few of them:
>>>> 1) He can carry out complex statistical analyses in your head.
>>
>>> Some people can.
>>
>> Who?
>>
>>
>>
>>>> 2) He can carry out statistics without a numerical dataset.
>>>> 3) He has a methodology which can detect "non-deliberate" action in
>>>> objects
>>>> to apply it (a trick which would make the lives of every scientist
>>>> on the
>>>> planet much easier if it could be demonstrated)
>>>> 5) Organisms can be fossilised by "very rapid flash crystalisation
>>>> in a supersaturated environment"
>>
>>> This is true.
>>
>> Ray, I'm very familiar with the scientific literature on taphonomy. I
>> have contributed in a small way to that literature.
>> I have never come across the term "very rapid flash crystalisation in
>> a supersaturated environment" as part of any process of fossilisation
>> in the scientific literature, or indeed anywhere other than Sean's
>> web site. As Sean has plainly carried out no research in this field
>> of science, published no findings and based on the evidence from his
>> web site and his contributions to this forum knows little about
>> taphonomy,
>> I fail to see how this can be anything other than a falsehood.
>>
>
> "Very rapid flash crystalisation" means a catastrophe has taken place
> "in a supersaturated environment" which means an ideal taphonomic
> environment (= wet or water-based).
>
>> post a link to a citation. If you can't - and let's face it, you
>> can't - why are you bothering to support Sean in such a blatant
>> falsehood?
>>
>>
>>
>>>> 6) "Most fossils show clear evidence of rapid burial or other forms
>>>> of
>>>> relatively rapid or even catastrophic preservation" (what the hell
>>>> *is* "catastrophic preservation", by the way?)
>>
>>> This is also true. The fact that you do not understand catastrophic
>>> preservation is not surprising since you are a closed-minded
>>> uniformitarianist.
>>
>> So, please explain to me what "catastrophic preservation" actually
>> is,....
>
> Catastrophic preservation means that a catastrophe has preserved a
> biomass as it appeared moments before its unexpected death.
>
>> propose such a concept. As I said, I am very familiar with the
>> scientific literature on this subject, certainly much more so that
>> either you or Sean.
>>
>> If you think that such a phenomenon does occur, I suggest that you
>> post a link to a citation. If you can't - and let's face it, you
>> can't - why are you bothering to support Sean in such a blatant
>> falsehood?
>>
>>
>>
>>>> 7) "The fossil evidence clearly supports a catastrophic
>>>> interpretation
>>>> for much of the geologic column".
>>
>>> This is also true.
>>
>> So explain the formation of thousands of meters thickness of
>> limestones such as chalk.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>>> 8) "Most ichthyosaur fossils show evidence of rapid burial, such as
>>>> those found clustered together at places like the
>>>> Berlin-Ichthyosaur State Park in Nevada."
>>>> 9) The adaptive landscape of evolutionary theory consists of a
>>>> series of isolated islands.
>>>> 10) Evolution "stalls out" at a level arbitrarily set by Sean
>>>> Pitman. 11) Human designers commonly produce nested hierarchies
>>>> 12) Geologists don't have an explanation for concentrations of
>>>> fossils of carnivores.
>>>> 13) "mainstream scientists believe that all the main forms (or
>>>> phyla) of animal life, save perhaps one, that exist in the world
>>>> today were all present in the Cambrian "
>>>> the Morrison Formation.
>>>> 15) That "uniformitarianism" means that geologists thought that
>>>> *all* sedimentary deposits were laid down gradually over millions
>>>> of years.
>>
>>> Only recently have said geologists been forced to abandon.
>>
>> No, it's very clear if you read the works of Lyell that he referred
>> to catastrophic events. The frontispiece of "Principles of Geology"
>> includes an engraving of the Temple of Seraphis as evidence for rapid
>> sea level changes connected with volcanic eruptions at nearby Mount
>> Vesuvius. Uniformitarianism means that the *processes* we observe in
>> the present are those which created the geological record of the
>> past.
>>
>
> I agree that uniformitarianism means the present is the key to the
> past. But your paragraph above seems to contradict, accepting
> uniformitarianism to not be in conflict with catastrophism.
>
> conflicting explanatory concepts.
>
Ray displaying his usual literalisttic confusion. The history of the Earth
is the history of events throughout 4.6 billion years, based on available
evidence. Was the Mt. St. Helens eruption a catastrophic or unformitarian
'event'? Is the present (I hope)abcsence of hurricanes in the USA evidence
for uniformitariansim, and will the hurricanes that I
I am afraid will strike again be evidnece for catastrophism?
Does the one contradict the other - or can we have both, at different times,
at different places?
Only an idiot like Ray will insist that anyone thinks its gotta be this or
that, and that's that. It is both, just the way that it is.
> Ray
>
> SNIP....
Lee Jay
So, why not call yourself a "BNT-ist" (if, in fact that has any
meaning) or just an "immutabilist" as you did above since the word
"creationist" doesn't suit your beliefs?
Lee Jay
Ray Martinez
> (snip Sean's bullshit from MICHAEL CREMO, of all people . . . .)
>
> What mechanism for ID are you proposing, Sean? You've said it
> involves a
> "human-level intelligence". That rules out any supernatural or
> divine
> influence, right? No God required, right? No need for anything that
> plain old ordinary humans can't do, right? "Design theory" is just
> as athiestic and godless as Darwinism is, right, Sean?
>
I too thought the same about Sean's argument; that he was ruling out
the Divine. But in our most recent exchanges in this thread he re-
explained and made it clear that he was arguing biological production
to exhibit **at least** human level intelligence. It is actually a
very clever and logical approach. Based on this revised understanding
I have withdrawn the OP.
I am actually glad to see that I am not the only person to
misunderstand.
Ray
Ray Martinez
>
> - Show quoted text -
Creationist *does convey* my scientific position; and in the past I
have signed my name *many times* as I do below (conduct a search and
confirm if you like).
Ray Martinez, Protestant Evangelical, Old Earth-Young Biosphere
Creationist-species immutabilist, Paleyan Designist, British Natural
Theologian.
Ray Martinez
> On Apr 24, 8:46 pm, Ray Martinez <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > On Apr 24, 8:10 pm, Seanpit <sean...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Apr 24, 7:47 pm, Ray Martinez <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > > On Apr 24, 7:16 pm, "[M]adman" <ad...@hotmail.et> wrote:
>
> > > > > 'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank wrote:
>
> > > > > > On Apr 24, 5:52 pm, Ray Martinez <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > > > >> On Apr 24, 12:03 pm, Seanpit <sean...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
> > I have never really tried to convince other Creationists except to try
> > and shame them a little and tell the story of how I became an
> > immutabilist. I do not try because I am saving my arguments for my
> > paper. Sean: I can prove that species are immutable; the concept of
> > evolution is scientifically false. I can prove that the nine great
> > scientific authorities that Darwin mentioned on page 310 of the
> > "Origin" are correct: species are immutable.
>
> > Ray
>
> A word of caution, Ray.
>
> Before you (*ahem*) publish your paper, be sure to go through it with
> an eye for elimination of any argument that takes the form --- "This
> (notion, observation, hypothesis, theory etc.) is wrong because it
> contradicts what I believe."
>
> Since you use this rhetorically vacuous construction (in one disguise
Wouldn't it have been a good idea to post at least one example?
> ....you may have to employ
> the services of a qualified proof reader in order to find and remove
> them as you clearly do not recognize your own use of the fallacy (or
> do not recognize its invalidity).
>
What fallacy?
> RLC
>
> [Okay, my sample size is small. I read very few of your posts, but
> your consistency in this endeavor is quite remarkable.]
What sample?
Please post an example, my curiosity is peaked.
Thanks in advance.
Ray
John Harshman
> On Apr 25, 6:14 am, John Harshman <jharshman.diespam...@pacbell.net>
> wrote:
>> Seanpit wrote:
>>> On Apr 22, 1:21 am, "richardalanforr...@googlemail.com" >
>> [snip out a few that I like]
>>
>>>> 11) Human designers commonly produce nested hierarchies
>>> This is also a fact. Humans produce nested hierarchies all the time.
>>> You, like Harshman, are confused about the definition of a NHP. The
>>> only real argument here is just that humans don't often produced NHPs
>>> of the particular *type* found in the Tree of Life (ToL) all the time
>>> - at least not to nearly the level of detail. However, even NHP of
>>> the type found in the ToL are produced to at least a fair degree of
>>> proximity in certain endeavors - such as human designed computer
>>> operating systems like object oriented programming.
>> Please present an example of such a nested hierarchy. Remember that
>> natural nested hierarchies can be derived from arbitrarily chosen
>> portions of genomes, not just from a single feature.
>
> I just did. Object oriented computer programming uses a NHP
> approach.
Not, however, of the sort found in life, which has the characteristics I
asked for. The nesting in that programming derives from single features.
So in fact you just didn't.
>>>> 13) "mainstream scientists believe that all the main forms (or phyla)
>>>> of animal life, save perhaps one, that exist in the world today were
>>>> all present in the Cambrian "
>>> What phyla do not have representatives in the Cambrian?
>> Of well-skeletonized animal phyla, only Bryozoa. However, the great
>> majority of animal phyla are not well-skeletonized, and nearly half the
>> phyla have no fossil record at all. Also, not a single one of the many
>> plant phyla is known from the Cambrian. I'm pretty sure we've covered
>> this before, many times.
>
> As far as animal phyla, obviously we're only dealing with the ones
> that can actually leave a fossil record.
I ask you merely to say what you mean. And you should also know that
several animal phyla that do have fossil records do not have Cambrian
fossil records, Bryozoa being the most prominent, Nematoda being the
most diverse. Also don't forget that phyla are merely the most inclusive
of animal taxa. You would have to explain also why there are no Cambrian
teleosts, or sharks, or lizards, or mammals, etc.
> With regard to the plant
> phyla, you're mistaken in your notion that there is no argument over
> the notion that no plant phyla are known from the Cambrian. That's
> simply not true - as we've discussed before:
>
> It is often argued that the pollen or spores of modern plants are
> limited to the modern or Tertiary (often Eocene) layers of the
> geologic column.
Who often says that? Give me a citation for such a claim.
> Despite such common assertions, there seem to be at
> least a few long-standing problems with this notion. Although the
> subject of the Salt Range beds is prohibited among Indian and many
> western paleontologists today, the case rests precisely where it did
> in the early 1950s (Ghosh et al. 1951). The fossils are modern in
> aspect ("Eocene" according to Sahni 1944) yet the beds containing the
> fossils are overlain conformably by early Cambrian sediments (Coates
> et al. 1945).
That's your claim, then? Plants are known from the Cambrian because of
some confused geology from 60 years ago?
> Also, in 1956 S. Leclercq published a paper in the journal Evolution
> entitled, "Evidence of vascular plants in the Cambrian" that included
> the following introduction:
>
> "While the information given by palynology agrees with the flora
> known in the Upper and Middle Devonian, the assemblage of spores found
> in the Lower Devonian, Silurian and Cambrian plead in favor of a more
> varied and advanced type of flora than the plant impressions have so
> far suggested. The recent discovery of Lycopodiaceous shoots in the
> Middle Cambrian of East-Siberia appears to confirm the evidence of
> palynology investigation." - S. Leclercq, Evidence of Vascular Plants
> in the Cambrian, Evolution, The International Journal of Organic
> Evolution 10: 109-114, June 1956
Notice: a 1956 citation, and nothing more recent. Incorrect claims do
make it into print.
> Some researchers have reported finding pollen of higher plants in
> strata shown by standard dating methods to be extremely old. These
> findings call into question the whole conventional account of the
> evolution of plants. In one instance, parties of scientists in
> Venezuela reported finding pollen of flowering plants in Precambrian
> rock formations judged to be 1.7-2.0 billion years old. This posed a
> serious problem, because according to current theory the flowering
> plants evolved fairly recently, only 100 million years ago. Their
> conclusion to this find is as follows:
What parties? Citation?
> "As to interpretation of the significance of the fossil pollen
> and spores, two sharply divided opinions have been expressed. The
> writers make no attempt to adjudicate, but state the two concepts
> impartially.
> One group adopts the attitude that the radiometric dating of
> dolerites and a hornfels within the Roraima Formation as Precambrian
> is beyond dispute, hence the pollen (and spores) must have entered as
> secondary contamination. The improbability that pollen could withstand
> the baking process, which converted shale to hornfels, is adduced as
> the radiometric technique is valid there should be a long and clear-
> cut time-gap between ages assigned to the basement rocks and to the
> Roraima beds. Such a gap does not exist in the experimental results
> published, but this discrepancy is glossed over in the latest summary
> of radiometric dating in British Guiana." - R. M. Stainforth,
> "Occurrence of Pollen and Spores in the Roraima Formation of Venezuela
> and British Guiana," Nature, Vol. 210, No. 5033 (April 16, 1966), pp.
> 292--294.
Excellent. Now we're up to citations only 40 years old.
Do you consider Cremo an unbiased observer of nature? Do you agree with
Cremo that humans have been around in their current form for billions of
years?
This is pathetic. You gather together a few ancient and isolated
publications, add a Hindu creationist, and call that an argument? I
suppose you agree with Cremo that only a vast conspiracy of evolutionist
scientists imposes any sort of temporal pattern on life, right? I know
nothing about these particular cases, but I do suggest that there may be
more recent geological information than the decades-old bits you have
presented here. On the other hand, if your scenario were true, wouldn't
we expect the Cambrian to have pretty much the same biota as the Recent,
barring the odd extinction during the past few thousand years?
For that matter, what is the Cambrian to you? Flood sediments? Preflood?
Postflood? How does it differ from the Ordovician, Silurian, etc.?
Lee Jay
> Ray Martinez, Protestant Evangelical, Old Earth-Young Biosphere
> Creationist-species immutabilist, Paleyan Designist, British Natural
> Theologian.
None of this is contagious, is it?
Lee Jay
J.J. O'Shea
(in article
<e2a0febd-7984-4a29...@d7g2000prl.googlegroups.com>):
Not unless you swallow it.
--
email to oshea dot j dot j at gmail dot com.
Lee Jay
> On Apr 24, 9:47 pm, Robert Camp <robertlc...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > Before you (*ahem*) publish your paper, be sure to go through it with
> > an eye for elimination of any argument that takes the form --- "This
> > (notion, observation, hypothesis, theory etc.) is wrong because it
> > contradicts what I believe."
[snip]
> What fallacy?
That one above the snip. Do a search for "Ray Martinez" and "self-
evident" for a whole bunch of examples of that fallacy.
Lee Jay
'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank
> On Apr 25, 7:48 am, "'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank" <lfl...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > (snip Sean's bullshit from MICHAEL CREMO, of all people . . . .)
>
> > What mechanism for ID are you proposing, Sean? You've said it
> > involves a
> > "human-level intelligence". That rules out any supernatural or
> > divine
> > influence, right? No God required, right? No need for anything that
> > plain old ordinary humans can't do, right? "Design theory" is just
> > as athiestic and godless as Darwinism is, right, Sean?
>
> I too thought the same about Sean's argument; that he was ruling out
> the Divine. But in our most recent exchanges in this thread he re-
> explained and made it clear that he was arguing biological production
> to exhibit **at least** human level intelligence. It is actually a
> very clever and logical approach. Based on this revised understanding
> I have withdrawn the OP.
>
So you are no longer The Only Real Creationist In the Whole Wide World
(tm)(c) now, Ray . . . . . ?
(snicker) (giggle)
Oh, and when Sean says that ID doesn't have any religious agenda and
that the designer could be space aliens, is he just lying to us?