Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
Against the theory of evolution - thread 2
48 views
Skip to first unread message
Anthony022071
Dec 5, 2011, 5:14:59 PM12/5/11
to
This is continuation of the "Against the theory of evolution"
thread,which passed 1000 posts. I will begin with replies to some of
the recent posts on that thread.
>>> It is odd that you should say NS is irrelevant to the pattern of the
>>> nested hierarchy,when that is the process that supposedly led to the
>>> variety of species.
>> It's only odd when you don't think about it at all. Natural selection is
>> one of the processes that leads to changes within species, but only a
>> small proportion of the differences between species is due to natural
>> selection. Have you ever heard of junk DNA?
> Yes. But I don't think patterns of similar non-functional DNA are
> persuasive of common descent,just like with those of functional DNA.
>>>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evidence_of_common_descent
>>>>> < Natural selection is tantamount to common descent in the fact that
>>>>> long-term occurrence and selection pressures can lead to the diversity
>>>>> of life on earth as found today. >
>>>> I don't know what you think that link says, but it doesn't say that.
>>> It does,in this paragraph.
>>> < Evidence from observed natural selection
>>> Examples for the evidence for evolution often stems from direct
>>> observation of natural selection in the field and the laboratory.
>>> Scientists have observed and documented a multitude of events where
>>> natural selection is in action. The most well known examples are
>>> antibiotic resistance in the medical field along with better-known
>>> laboratory experiments documenting evolution's occurrence. Natural
>>> selection is tantamount to common descent in the fact that long-term
>>> occurrence and selection pressures can lead to the diversity of life
>>> on earth as found today. All adaptations—documented and undocumented
>>> changes concerned—are caused by natural selection (and a few other
>>> minor processes). The examples below are only a small fraction of the
>>> actual experiments and observations. >
>> That's some of the worst writing I've ever seen. I assume you're trying
>> to point at the 4th sentence, but I have no idea what the author was
>> trying to say there. If interpreted literally, the sentence is nonsense.
>> Natural selection is not the same thing as common descent. Wikipedia, in
>> this case, is very, very confused.
> In the 4th sentence,the author probably meant natural selection in the
> sense of the supposed historical results of the process - the
> diversity of species. NS is often spoken of not just as a process but
> also as the supposed outcome. The word "selection" can refer both to
> an act of selecting or the results of it.
JH: Not that I ever see.
A: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_selection
Following Darwin's primary usage,the term is often used to refer to
both the evolutionary consequence of blind selection and to its
mechanisms.
JH: Nor should one make the assumption that the
diversity of species is due to natural selection. That's a naive
view.
A: That was Darwin's view.
"The fact, as we have seen, that all past and present organic beings
constitute one grand natural system, with group subordinate to group,
and with extinct groups often falling in between recent groups, is
intelligible on the theory of natural selection with its contingencies
of extinction and divergence of character." The Origin of
Species,Chapter 14
>>>> Natural selection is responsible for some of the genetic divergence we
>>>> see, but in fact as a proportion of the divergence it's tiny. All
>>>> effects of selection could be removed or ignored without changing the
>>>> data on which we rely to detect that nested hierarchy.
>>> This is odd for an evolutionist to say. You're the only person I have
>>> debated with who downplays the effects of natural selection. What do
>>> you propose as the more important cause of genetic divergence? Random
>>> mutation?
>> Genetic drift. Only a small part of your genome is under selection. That
>> small part is responsible for all adaptation and for most of the changes
>> you can see without looking at DNA. But the sheer number of neutral
>> differences swamps the selective ones.
> The changes that can be seen without looking at DNA are what matters
> in regard to speciation and evolution theory.
JH: Wherever did you get that idea?
A: Speciation involves changes in characteristics,and the theory of
evolution is about how species have supposedly changed.
> Neutral genetic divergence cannot cause species to change or originate,so how does it
> support the theory of evolution?
JH: Nobody so far is talking about the origination of species, and of
course
neutral variation cases change: it *is* change.
A: In evolution theory,the question of change is connected to the
question of origins. If you believe that one species has evolved from
another species,then that means the former originated from the latter.
JH: You mean it doesn't cause morphological change, but so what? The
part of the theory of
evolution we're talking about here is common descent, and any change
can
be evidence for that.
A: The question of common descent is connected with the question of
whether genetic modifications have effected morphological changes.
Neutral nucleotide sites don't do that. The pattern of distribution of
neutral sites is seen as evidence of common descent,but this
pattern,like that of functional sites,may have resulted from separate
ancestries for all we know.
thread,which passed 1000 posts. I will begin with replies to some of
the recent posts on that thread.
>>> It is odd that you should say NS is irrelevant to the pattern of the
>>> nested hierarchy,when that is the process that supposedly led to the
>>> variety of species.
>> It's only odd when you don't think about it at all. Natural selection is
>> one of the processes that leads to changes within species, but only a
>> small proportion of the differences between species is due to natural
>> selection. Have you ever heard of junk DNA?
> Yes. But I don't think patterns of similar non-functional DNA are
> persuasive of common descent,just like with those of functional DNA.
>>>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evidence_of_common_descent
>>>>> < Natural selection is tantamount to common descent in the fact that
>>>>> long-term occurrence and selection pressures can lead to the diversity
>>>>> of life on earth as found today. >
>>>> I don't know what you think that link says, but it doesn't say that.
>>> It does,in this paragraph.
>>> < Evidence from observed natural selection
>>> Examples for the evidence for evolution often stems from direct
>>> observation of natural selection in the field and the laboratory.
>>> Scientists have observed and documented a multitude of events where
>>> natural selection is in action. The most well known examples are
>>> antibiotic resistance in the medical field along with better-known
>>> laboratory experiments documenting evolution's occurrence. Natural
>>> selection is tantamount to common descent in the fact that long-term
>>> occurrence and selection pressures can lead to the diversity of life
>>> on earth as found today. All adaptations—documented and undocumented
>>> changes concerned—are caused by natural selection (and a few other
>>> minor processes). The examples below are only a small fraction of the
>>> actual experiments and observations. >
>> That's some of the worst writing I've ever seen. I assume you're trying
>> to point at the 4th sentence, but I have no idea what the author was
>> trying to say there. If interpreted literally, the sentence is nonsense.
>> Natural selection is not the same thing as common descent. Wikipedia, in
>> this case, is very, very confused.
> In the 4th sentence,the author probably meant natural selection in the
> sense of the supposed historical results of the process - the
> diversity of species. NS is often spoken of not just as a process but
> also as the supposed outcome. The word "selection" can refer both to
> an act of selecting or the results of it.
JH: Not that I ever see.
A: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_selection
Following Darwin's primary usage,the term is often used to refer to
both the evolutionary consequence of blind selection and to its
mechanisms.
JH: Nor should one make the assumption that the
diversity of species is due to natural selection. That's a naive
view.
A: That was Darwin's view.
"The fact, as we have seen, that all past and present organic beings
constitute one grand natural system, with group subordinate to group,
and with extinct groups often falling in between recent groups, is
intelligible on the theory of natural selection with its contingencies
of extinction and divergence of character." The Origin of
Species,Chapter 14
>>>> Natural selection is responsible for some of the genetic divergence we
>>>> see, but in fact as a proportion of the divergence it's tiny. All
>>>> effects of selection could be removed or ignored without changing the
>>>> data on which we rely to detect that nested hierarchy.
>>> This is odd for an evolutionist to say. You're the only person I have
>>> debated with who downplays the effects of natural selection. What do
>>> you propose as the more important cause of genetic divergence? Random
>>> mutation?
>> Genetic drift. Only a small part of your genome is under selection. That
>> small part is responsible for all adaptation and for most of the changes
>> you can see without looking at DNA. But the sheer number of neutral
>> differences swamps the selective ones.
> The changes that can be seen without looking at DNA are what matters
> in regard to speciation and evolution theory.
JH: Wherever did you get that idea?
A: Speciation involves changes in characteristics,and the theory of
evolution is about how species have supposedly changed.
> Neutral genetic divergence cannot cause species to change or originate,so how does it
> support the theory of evolution?
JH: Nobody so far is talking about the origination of species, and of
course
neutral variation cases change: it *is* change.
A: In evolution theory,the question of change is connected to the
question of origins. If you believe that one species has evolved from
another species,then that means the former originated from the latter.
JH: You mean it doesn't cause morphological change, but so what? The
part of the theory of
evolution we're talking about here is common descent, and any change
can
be evidence for that.
A: The question of common descent is connected with the question of
whether genetic modifications have effected morphological changes.
Neutral nucleotide sites don't do that. The pattern of distribution of
neutral sites is seen as evidence of common descent,but this
pattern,like that of functional sites,may have resulted from separate
ancestries for all we know.
John Harshman
Dec 5, 2011, 5:37:23 PM12/5/11
to
never seen any such thing. Sadly, the article gives no actual examples,
even in terms of usage by Darwin. Perhaps you can supply one?
> JH: Nor should one make the assumption that the
> diversity of species is due to natural selection. That's a naive
> view.
>
> A: That was Darwin's view.
> "The fact, as we have seen, that all past and present organic beings
> constitute one grand natural system, with group subordinate to group,
> and with extinct groups often falling in between recent groups, is
> intelligible on the theory of natural selection with its contingencies
> of extinction and divergence of character." The Origin of
> Species,Chapter 14
wouldn't matter if it did.
>>>>> Natural selection is responsible for some of the genetic divergence we
>>>>> see, but in fact as a proportion of the divergence it's tiny. All
>>>>> effects of selection could be removed or ignored without changing the
>>>>> data on which we rely to detect that nested hierarchy.
>>>> This is odd for an evolutionist to say. You're the only person I have
>>>> debated with who downplays the effects of natural selection. What do
>>>> you propose as the more important cause of genetic divergence? Random
>>>> mutation?
>>> Genetic drift. Only a small part of your genome is under selection. That
>>> small part is responsible for all adaptation and for most of the changes
>>> you can see without looking at DNA. But the sheer number of neutral
>>> differences swamps the selective ones.
>
>> The changes that can be seen without looking at DNA are what matters
>> in regard to speciation and evolution theory.
>
> JH: Wherever did you get that idea?
>
> A: Speciation involves changes in characteristics,and the theory of
> evolution is about how species have supposedly changed.
physical characteristics are purely molecular, I should point out), and
surely a change in DNA is a change in a species, even if it's neutral.
>> Neutral genetic divergence cannot cause species to change or originate,so how does it
>> support the theory of evolution?
>
> JH: Nobody so far is talking about the origination of species, and of
> course
> neutral variation cases change: it *is* change.
>
> A: In evolution theory,the question of change is connected to the
> question of origins. If you believe that one species has evolved from
> another species,then that means the former originated from the latter.
> JH: You mean it doesn't cause morphological change, but so what? The
> part of the theory of
> evolution we're talking about here is common descent, and any change
> can
> be evidence for that.
>
> A: The question of common descent is connected with the question of
> whether genetic modifications have effected morphological changes.
here. You seem to use "connected" as an all-purpose buzzword that
completely obscures any meaning. It's guilt by association, nothing
more. "I can find this word in the same sentence as that other word,
therefore anything I claim must be true."
> Neutral nucleotide sites don't do that. The pattern of distribution of
> neutral sites is seen as evidence of common descent,but this
> pattern,like that of functional sites,may have resulted from separate
> ancestries for all we know.
ancestries result in such a peculiar pattern, the exact pattern that
would result from common descent? Until you engage this question you
have not entered a real discussion.
Anthony022071
Dec 6, 2011, 12:36:46 AM12/6/11
to
TomS Nov 26, 7:32 am
"On Fri, 25 Nov 2011 23:30:57 -0800 (PST), in article
<d6b4b711-5528-4191-babf-7eb700214...@o13g2000vbo.googlegroups.com>,
Anthony022071 stated..."
[...snip...]
>Neutral sites are not an argument against intelligent design or
>necessary similarity. Things that are intentionally designed do not
>always have to have a specific function,they can also be superfluous
>and unnecessary. Nucleotide sites that are functional are evidence of
>intentional design,but this does not mean that non-functional sites
>are not intentionally non-functional. All nucleotides show design for
>the fact they encode information.
[...snip...]
TomS:
What would be an argument against "intelligent design"? Can you give
an example of something which is *not* intelligently designed? Even
a hypothetical something, or even an impossible something? A flying
carpet or a centaur or a "Penrose triangle" are all intelligently
designed, aren't they? (They just don't happen to exist. Being
intelligently designed does not entail existence.)
Anthony:
Things that are not intelligently designed do not show purposeful
order and do not encode genetic information,but are only the result of
chance or accidents or environmental factors. For example,rock
formations or the shape of salt crystals.
Intelligent design does entail existence.
"On Fri, 25 Nov 2011 23:30:57 -0800 (PST), in article
<d6b4b711-5528-4191-babf-7eb700214...@o13g2000vbo.googlegroups.com>,
Anthony022071 stated..."
[...snip...]
>Neutral sites are not an argument against intelligent design or
>necessary similarity. Things that are intentionally designed do not
>always have to have a specific function,they can also be superfluous
>and unnecessary. Nucleotide sites that are functional are evidence of
>intentional design,but this does not mean that non-functional sites
>are not intentionally non-functional. All nucleotides show design for
>the fact they encode information.
[...snip...]
TomS:
What would be an argument against "intelligent design"? Can you give
an example of something which is *not* intelligently designed? Even
a hypothetical something, or even an impossible something? A flying
carpet or a centaur or a "Penrose triangle" are all intelligently
designed, aren't they? (They just don't happen to exist. Being
intelligently designed does not entail existence.)
Anthony:
Things that are not intelligently designed do not show purposeful
order and do not encode genetic information,but are only the result of
chance or accidents or environmental factors. For example,rock
formations or the shape of salt crystals.
Intelligent design does entail existence.
Garamond Lethe
Dec 6, 2011, 1:05:06 AM12/6/11
to
On Mon, 05 Dec 2011 14:14:59 -0800, Anthony022071 wrote:
> JH: You mean it doesn't cause morphological change, but so what? The
> part of the theory of evolution we're talking about here is common
> descent, and any change can be evidence for that.
>
> A: The question of common descent is connected with the question of
> whether genetic modifications have effected morphological changes.
> Neutral nucleotide sites don't do that. The pattern of distribution of
> neutral sites is seen as evidence of common descent,but this
> pattern,like that of functional sites,may have resulted from separate
> ancestries for all we know.
In celebration of these past 1k posts, I'd like to step back from what
> JH: You mean it doesn't cause morphological change, but so what? The
> part of the theory of evolution we're talking about here is common
> descent, and any change can be evidence for that.
>
> A: The question of common descent is connected with the question of
> whether genetic modifications have effected morphological changes.
> Neutral nucleotide sites don't do that. The pattern of distribution of
> neutral sites is seen as evidence of common descent,but this
> pattern,like that of functional sites,may have resulted from separate
> ancestries for all we know.
you believe for a moment and ask why I should believe it.
For example: "[T]his pattern ... may have resulted from separate
ancestries for all we know."
"May" is a very low bar that includes everything but the impossible. I'm
going to assume you meant a higher bar than that: "separate ancestries"
is plausible enough to warrant some serious thought.
What I'd like you to tell me is *why* it's plausible enough to warrant
serious thought.
As best I can remember (and I haven't been following the past few hundred
posts very carefully) your answer will come down to "We can't be
certain". However, I don't need certainty to dismiss implausible answers
in any other part of my life so I'm not sure why it would be required for
biology.
Do you have a better answer than lack of certainty?
Friar Broccoli
Dec 6, 2011, 12:44:04 PM12/6/11
to
Hi Anthony;
Since you didn't address my outstanding post:
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/0258ac6283ecf788
concerning the multilevel contradictions in your evolution denying
system where you appear to begin from:
*NOT* knowing if presumed ancestors where reproductively compatible
TO *knowing* that macro-evolution is impossible
but when presented with specific examples of macro-evolution claim to
*NOT* know if macro-evolution occurred.
So that you can clear up this confusion, here is a copy of that post:
___________________Begin______________________________
On 2011-11-18 02:25, Anthony022071 wrote:
> On Oct 28, 11:31 am, Friar Broccoli<elia...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Oct 26, 11:06 pm, Anthony022071<anthony022...@ameritech.net> wrote:
>>> On Sep 24, 10:20 pm, Friar Broccoli<elia...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> On Sep 23, 9:43 pm, Anthony022071<anthony022...@ameritech.net> wrote:
>>>>> On Sep 18, 1:14 pm, Friar Broccoli<elia...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>> On Sep 17, 9:28 pm, Anthony022071<anthony022...@ameritech.net>
wrote:
>>>>>>> On Sep 17, 1:28 pm, Friar Broccoli<elia...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>> [Cutting to (what I see as) the central discussion points]
>>
>>>>>>>> I specifically asked about the possibility that
>>>>>>>> house_cats/lions or dogs/foxes evolved from a common
>>>>>>>> ancestor, as you agree lions and tigers did.
>>
>>>>>>> The possibility of whether they could have evolved from
>>>>>>> a common ancestor depends upon whether they actually
>>>>>>> did. I don't know if they did.
>>
>>>>>> Does this phrase mean what it says: Is it the case that
>>>>>> you do not know if dogs/foxes had a common ancestor?
>>
>>>>> I don't know if they do.
>>
>> .
>>
>>>> Well if you don't know if dogs and foxes have a common
>>>> ancestor, what about dogs and raccoons. Do you know they
>>>> don't have a common ancestor?
>>
>>> No. There is no way to find out.
>>
>> This ("no way to find out") can only be true if one can also
>> assert (for example) that a judge can *never* "find out" who
>> committed a murder if he didn't witness it himself. Do you
>> believe that or do you believe that evidence other than an
>> eye witness report will allow you to know something?
.
> The evidence for common ancestry is reproductive compatibility.
Below you indicated that you don't know if cats and civets have a common
ancestor. This appears to leave open the possibility that cats and
civets might have a common ancestor. Since cats and civets are NOT
reproductively compatible how could they (according to you) have a
common ancestor?
> We don't need an eye witness report about different species
> descending from a common ancestor,but we do need to know if
> they are at all reproductive compatible,or if they ever were
> seen to be compatible in the distant past.
Are you saying that you think the ancestors of dogs/racoons, cats/civets
may have been reproductively compatible in the past?
>>>>>> I have been asking:
>>>>>> "Can you explain why other separate species like
>>>>>> house_cats/lions and dogs/foxes cannot have arisen from
>>>>>> a common ancestor in exactly the same way as
>>>>>> horses/zebras did?"
>>
>>>>>> I already know you are certain they cannot (although
>>>>>> sometimes you say you don't know). What I want you to
>>>>>> explain is WHY you are *CERTAIN* that speciation could
>>>>>> not have occurred by this process. (Please note the
>>>>>> emphasis on *CERTAIN*).
>>
>>>>> I am not certain that cats and lions cannot have had a
>>>>> common ancestry. It either happened or it didn't. I don't
>>>>> want to presume that something could not have happened
>>>>> that,for all I know,may have happened. What I am fairly
>>>>> certain of is that accumulated mutations cannot lead to
>>>>> macro-evolution. So for that reason,as well as
>>>>> reproductive incompatibility,I doubt that they have a
>>>>> common ancestry.
>>
>>>> Variation of the above question. If you're not sure that
>>>> house cats and lions don't have a common ancestor, what
>>>> about house cats and civets - might they have a common
>>>> ancestor?
>>
>>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civet
>>
>>> It isn't a question of "might". Either they have a common
>>> ancestry or they have completely separate ancestries. I am
>>> not going to presume that they have a common ancestry
>>> because civets are said to have a cat-like appearance.
>>
>> You've had a good long time to think about my questions, so
>> I'm sure you know exactly where I am going with this:
>>
>> If (as you have confirmed in the foregoing) you don't know
>> if dogs/ raccoons and cats/civets have a common ancestor you
>> equally can not know if raccoons and civets have a common
>> ancestor (which the fossil record indicates was probably the
>> Miacids about 42 million years ago
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miacids).
>>
>> It follows that you can not say if they share a common
>> ancestor with other mammals like Pangolins and Armadillos
>> which might share an ancestor with lizards and so on up the
>> evolutionary tree.
>>
>> Thus as far as you know (or as you prefer "don't know")
>> there is no clear line between evolution and
>> macro-evolution. Nothing prevents (as we have discussed
>> above) micro-evolution from proceeding by tiny steps to
>> become macro-evolution.
>
>> Thus macro-evolution is possible (or as you prefer "is not
>> impossible"). It remains only to discuss whether the
>> evidence best supports macro-evolution, separate creation or
>> some other model.
.
> Reproduction,branching and the limited effects of allele
> mutations prevent macro-evolution.
Three weeks ago you told me that you do not know if dogs and racoons
have a common ancestor. If macro-evolution cannot happen, why don't you
know if dogs and racoons have a common ancestor?
> Reproduction is damaged by many genetic
> modifications,resulting in damaged creatures that cannot
> reproduce. Branching causes diminished genetic variability in
> groups,which is the opposite of what would need to happen for
> there to be macro-evolution. Allele mutations do not affect
> the form of creatures much,but determine such things as
> pigmentation,bodily growth,and resistance to disease,and they
> are often harmful. These kinds of genetic modifications,no
> matter how much they accumulate,cannot lead to macro-
> evolution.
___________________ End ______________________________
--
Friar Broccoli (Robert Keith Elias), Quebec Canada
I consider ALL arguments in support of my views
Since you didn't address my outstanding post:
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/0258ac6283ecf788
concerning the multilevel contradictions in your evolution denying
system where you appear to begin from:
*NOT* knowing if presumed ancestors where reproductively compatible
TO *knowing* that macro-evolution is impossible
but when presented with specific examples of macro-evolution claim to
*NOT* know if macro-evolution occurred.
So that you can clear up this confusion, here is a copy of that post:
___________________Begin______________________________
On 2011-11-18 02:25, Anthony022071 wrote:
> On Oct 28, 11:31 am, Friar Broccoli<elia...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Oct 26, 11:06 pm, Anthony022071<anthony022...@ameritech.net> wrote:
>>> On Sep 24, 10:20 pm, Friar Broccoli<elia...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> On Sep 23, 9:43 pm, Anthony022071<anthony022...@ameritech.net> wrote:
>>>>> On Sep 18, 1:14 pm, Friar Broccoli<elia...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>> On Sep 17, 9:28 pm, Anthony022071<anthony022...@ameritech.net>
wrote:
>>>>>>> On Sep 17, 1:28 pm, Friar Broccoli<elia...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>> [Cutting to (what I see as) the central discussion points]
>>
>>>>>>>> I specifically asked about the possibility that
>>>>>>>> house_cats/lions or dogs/foxes evolved from a common
>>>>>>>> ancestor, as you agree lions and tigers did.
>>
>>>>>>> The possibility of whether they could have evolved from
>>>>>>> a common ancestor depends upon whether they actually
>>>>>>> did. I don't know if they did.
>>
>>>>>> Does this phrase mean what it says: Is it the case that
>>>>>> you do not know if dogs/foxes had a common ancestor?
>>
>>>>> I don't know if they do.
>>
>> .
>>
>>>> Well if you don't know if dogs and foxes have a common
>>>> ancestor, what about dogs and raccoons. Do you know they
>>>> don't have a common ancestor?
>>
>>> No. There is no way to find out.
>>
>> This ("no way to find out") can only be true if one can also
>> assert (for example) that a judge can *never* "find out" who
>> committed a murder if he didn't witness it himself. Do you
>> believe that or do you believe that evidence other than an
>> eye witness report will allow you to know something?
.
> The evidence for common ancestry is reproductive compatibility.
Below you indicated that you don't know if cats and civets have a common
ancestor. This appears to leave open the possibility that cats and
civets might have a common ancestor. Since cats and civets are NOT
reproductively compatible how could they (according to you) have a
common ancestor?
> We don't need an eye witness report about different species
> descending from a common ancestor,but we do need to know if
> they are at all reproductive compatible,or if they ever were
> seen to be compatible in the distant past.
Are you saying that you think the ancestors of dogs/racoons, cats/civets
may have been reproductively compatible in the past?
>>>>>> I have been asking:
>>>>>> "Can you explain why other separate species like
>>>>>> house_cats/lions and dogs/foxes cannot have arisen from
>>>>>> a common ancestor in exactly the same way as
>>>>>> horses/zebras did?"
>>
>>>>>> I already know you are certain they cannot (although
>>>>>> sometimes you say you don't know). What I want you to
>>>>>> explain is WHY you are *CERTAIN* that speciation could
>>>>>> not have occurred by this process. (Please note the
>>>>>> emphasis on *CERTAIN*).
>>
>>>>> I am not certain that cats and lions cannot have had a
>>>>> common ancestry. It either happened or it didn't. I don't
>>>>> want to presume that something could not have happened
>>>>> that,for all I know,may have happened. What I am fairly
>>>>> certain of is that accumulated mutations cannot lead to
>>>>> macro-evolution. So for that reason,as well as
>>>>> reproductive incompatibility,I doubt that they have a
>>>>> common ancestry.
>>
>>>> Variation of the above question. If you're not sure that
>>>> house cats and lions don't have a common ancestor, what
>>>> about house cats and civets - might they have a common
>>>> ancestor?
>>
>>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civet
>>
>>> It isn't a question of "might". Either they have a common
>>> ancestry or they have completely separate ancestries. I am
>>> not going to presume that they have a common ancestry
>>> because civets are said to have a cat-like appearance.
>>
>> You've had a good long time to think about my questions, so
>> I'm sure you know exactly where I am going with this:
>>
>> If (as you have confirmed in the foregoing) you don't know
>> if dogs/ raccoons and cats/civets have a common ancestor you
>> equally can not know if raccoons and civets have a common
>> ancestor (which the fossil record indicates was probably the
>> Miacids about 42 million years ago
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miacids).
>>
>> It follows that you can not say if they share a common
>> ancestor with other mammals like Pangolins and Armadillos
>> which might share an ancestor with lizards and so on up the
>> evolutionary tree.
>>
>> Thus as far as you know (or as you prefer "don't know")
>> there is no clear line between evolution and
>> macro-evolution. Nothing prevents (as we have discussed
>> above) micro-evolution from proceeding by tiny steps to
>> become macro-evolution.
>
>> Thus macro-evolution is possible (or as you prefer "is not
>> impossible"). It remains only to discuss whether the
>> evidence best supports macro-evolution, separate creation or
>> some other model.
.
> Reproduction,branching and the limited effects of allele
> mutations prevent macro-evolution.
Three weeks ago you told me that you do not know if dogs and racoons
have a common ancestor. If macro-evolution cannot happen, why don't you
know if dogs and racoons have a common ancestor?
> Reproduction is damaged by many genetic
> modifications,resulting in damaged creatures that cannot
> reproduce. Branching causes diminished genetic variability in
> groups,which is the opposite of what would need to happen for
> there to be macro-evolution. Allele mutations do not affect
> the form of creatures much,but determine such things as
> pigmentation,bodily growth,and resistance to disease,and they
> are often harmful. These kinds of genetic modifications,no
> matter how much they accumulate,cannot lead to macro-
> evolution.
___________________ End ______________________________
--
Friar Broccoli (Robert Keith Elias), Quebec Canada
I consider ALL arguments in support of my views
Message has been deleted
Message has been deleted
Kleuskes & Moos
Dec 6, 2011, 1:31:16 PM12/6/11
to
On Tue, 06 Dec 2011 10:24:41 -0800, Anthony022071 wrote:
> Inez Dec 25
>
> On Dec 5, 8:22 am, Anthony022071 <anthony022...@ameritech.net> wrote:
>> > >> >> Are you an occasionalist?
>> > >> >> --
>> > >> >> alias Ernest Major
>> > >> >No. I was distinguishing the creation of living creatures from
>> > >> >earthly elements (amino acids,proteins) and from parents.
>> > >> Your denial of occasionalism is bald enough. But I don't
>> > >> understand the remainder of your response. It seems as if you're
>> > >> denying human reproduction as a natural process (in which case how
>> > >> does your position differ from occasionalism?).
>> > >> http://pandasthumb.org/archives/2007/10/intelligent-del.html
>> > >> --
>> > >> alias Ernest Major
>> > >Reproduction is obviously a natural process,but it is also made to
>> > >happen by God's power. It is spirit that animates living creatures
>> > >and their reproductive material.
>> > In which case, how does your position differ from occasionalism? --
>> > alias Ernest Major
>
>> It's different because I don't deny that natural substances can be
>> efficient causes for events. What I deny is that natural substances can
>> create life or living organisms. There is no reason to think that they
>> have the necessary power.
>
>
> Inez: They do it all the time. Have you never planted a seed in your
> garden?
>
>
> The power that makes seeds grow to become plants is life,which is
> spirit.
The power that makes it grow is metabolism and it thrives on horse manure.
See the analogy to creationism?
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
____________________________________
/ What's the MATTER Sid? ... Is your \
\ BEVERAGE unsatisfactory? /
------------------------------------
\
\
___
{~._.~}
( Y )
()~*~()
(_)-(_)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Inez Dec 25
>
> On Dec 5, 8:22 am, Anthony022071 <anthony022...@ameritech.net> wrote:
>> > >> >> Are you an occasionalist?
>> > >> >> --
>> > >> >> alias Ernest Major
>> > >> >No. I was distinguishing the creation of living creatures from
>> > >> >earthly elements (amino acids,proteins) and from parents.
>> > >> Your denial of occasionalism is bald enough. But I don't
>> > >> understand the remainder of your response. It seems as if you're
>> > >> denying human reproduction as a natural process (in which case how
>> > >> does your position differ from occasionalism?).
>> > >> http://pandasthumb.org/archives/2007/10/intelligent-del.html
>> > >> --
>> > >> alias Ernest Major
>> > >Reproduction is obviously a natural process,but it is also made to
>> > >happen by God's power. It is spirit that animates living creatures
>> > >and their reproductive material.
>> > In which case, how does your position differ from occasionalism? --
>> > alias Ernest Major
>
>> It's different because I don't deny that natural substances can be
>> efficient causes for events. What I deny is that natural substances can
>> create life or living organisms. There is no reason to think that they
>> have the necessary power.
>
>
> Inez: They do it all the time. Have you never planted a seed in your
> garden?
>
>
> The power that makes seeds grow to become plants is life,which is
> spirit.
The power that makes it grow is metabolism and it thrives on horse manure.
See the analogy to creationism?
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
____________________________________
/ What's the MATTER Sid? ... Is your \
\ BEVERAGE unsatisfactory? /
------------------------------------
\
\
___
{~._.~}
( Y )
()~*~()
(_)-(_)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Anthony022071
Dec 6, 2011, 1:53:14 PM12/6/11
to
Vincent Maycock Dec 5
"Anthony022071" <anthony022...@ameritech.net> wrote in message
news:21b93bfc-24ca-47a8-9c9d-
f6c6217cd...@l24g2000yqm.googlegroups.com...
> On Nov 25, 4:53 am, Ernest Major <{$t...@meden.demon.co.uk> wrote:
snip
Anthony: Because it requires power to move the natural processes of
living creatures. Life in organisms is power that organizes and
animates natural processes to co-operate in a purposeful manner.
"Anthony022071" <anthony022...@ameritech.net> wrote in message
news:21b93bfc-24ca-47a8-9c9d-
f6c6217cd...@l24g2000yqm.googlegroups.com...
> On Nov 25, 4:53 am, Ernest Major <{$t...@meden.demon.co.uk> wrote:
snip
>> In which case, how does your position differ from occasionalism?
>> --
>> alias Ernest Major
> It's different because I don't deny that natural substances can be
> efficient causes for events. What I deny is that natural substances
> can create life or living organisms. There is no reason to think that
> they have the necessary power.
VM: Why would "power" be needed to create life?
>> --
>> alias Ernest Major
> It's different because I don't deny that natural substances can be
> efficient causes for events. What I deny is that natural substances
> can create life or living organisms. There is no reason to think that
> they have the necessary power.
Anthony: Because it requires power to move the natural processes of
living creatures. Life in organisms is power that organizes and
animates natural processes to co-operate in a purposeful manner.
Message has been deleted
Message has been deleted
Message has been deleted
Cory Albrecht
Dec 6, 2011, 2:00:18 PM12/6/11
to
On 11-12-06 01:24 PM, Anthony022071 wrote:
> Inez Dec 25
>
> On Dec 5, 8:22 am, Anthony022071<anthony022...@ameritech.net> wrote:
>>>>>>> Are you an occasionalist?
>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>> alias Ernest Major
>>>>>> No. I was distinguishing the creation of living creatures from earthly
>>>>>> elements (amino acids,proteins) and from parents.
>>>>> Your denial of occasionalism is bald enough. But I don't understand the
>>>>> remainder of your response. It seems as if you're denying human
>>>>> reproduction as a natural process (in which case how does your position
>>>>> differ from occasionalism?).
>>>>> http://pandasthumb.org/archives/2007/10/intelligent-del.html
>>>>> --
>>>>> alias Ernest Major
>>>> Reproduction is obviously a natural process,but it is also made to
>>>> happen by God's power. It is spirit that animates living creatures and
>>>> their reproductive material.
> Inez Dec 25
>
> On Dec 5, 8:22 am, Anthony022071<anthony022...@ameritech.net> wrote:
>>>>>>> Are you an occasionalist?
>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>> alias Ernest Major
>>>>>> No. I was distinguishing the creation of living creatures from earthly
>>>>>> elements (amino acids,proteins) and from parents.
>>>>> Your denial of occasionalism is bald enough. But I don't understand the
>>>>> remainder of your response. It seems as if you're denying human
>>>>> reproduction as a natural process (in which case how does your position
>>>>> differ from occasionalism?).
>>>>> http://pandasthumb.org/archives/2007/10/intelligent-del.html
>>>>> --
>>>>> alias Ernest Major
>>>> Reproduction is obviously a natural process,but it is also made to
>>>> happen by God's power. It is spirit that animates living creatures and
>>>> their reproductive material.
>>> In which case, how does your position differ from occasionalism?
>>> --
>>> alias Ernest Major
>
>> It's different because I don't deny that natural substances can be
>> efficient causes for events. What I deny is that natural substances
>> can create life or living organisms. There is no reason to think that
>> they have the necessary power.
>
>
>>> --
>>> alias Ernest Major
>
>> It's different because I don't deny that natural substances can be
>> efficient causes for events. What I deny is that natural substances
>> can create life or living organisms. There is no reason to think that
>> they have the necessary power.
>
>
> Inez: They do it all the time. Have you never planted a seed in your
> garden?
>
>
> The power that makes seeds grow to become plants is life,which is
> spirit.
>
And how, exactly, do you measure "spirit", as distinct from the normal
> garden?
>
>
> The power that makes seeds grow to become plants is life,which is
> spirit.
>
chemical processes of life?
Anthony022071
Dec 6, 2011, 2:16:05 PM12/6/11
to
Inez Dec 5
On Dec 5, 8:22 am, Anthony022071 <anthony022...@ameritech.net> wrote:
> > >> >> Are you an occasionalist?
> > >> >> --
> > >> >> alias Ernest Major
> > >> >No. I was distinguishing the creation of living creatures from earthly
> > >> >elements (amino acids,proteins) and from parents.
> > >> Your denial of occasionalism is bald enough. But I don't understand the
> > >> remainder of your response. It seems as if you're denying human
> > >> reproduction as a natural process (in which case how does your position
> > >> differ from occasionalism?).
> > >> http://pandasthumb.org/archives/2007/10/intelligent-del.html
> > >> --
> > >> alias Ernest Major
> > >Reproduction is obviously a natural process,but it is also made to
> > >happen by God's power. It is spirit that animates living creatures and
> > >their reproductive material.
life,which is spirit created by God. Life is the principle of the
growth of organisms.
On Dec 5, 8:22 am, Anthony022071 <anthony022...@ameritech.net> wrote:
> > >> >> Are you an occasionalist?
> > >> >> --
> > >> >> alias Ernest Major
> > >> >No. I was distinguishing the creation of living creatures from earthly
> > >> >elements (amino acids,proteins) and from parents.
> > >> Your denial of occasionalism is bald enough. But I don't understand the
> > >> remainder of your response. It seems as if you're denying human
> > >> reproduction as a natural process (in which case how does your position
> > >> differ from occasionalism?).
> > >> http://pandasthumb.org/archives/2007/10/intelligent-del.html
> > >> --
> > >> alias Ernest Major
> > >Reproduction is obviously a natural process,but it is also made to
> > >happen by God's power. It is spirit that animates living creatures and
> > >their reproductive material.
> > In which case, how does your position differ from occasionalism?
> > --
> > alias Ernest Major
> It's different because I don't deny that natural substances can be
> efficient causes for events. What I deny is that natural substances
> can create life or living organisms. There is no reason to think that
> they have the necessary power.
> > --
> > alias Ernest Major
> It's different because I don't deny that natural substances can be
> efficient causes for events. What I deny is that natural substances
> can create life or living organisms. There is no reason to think that
> they have the necessary power.
Inez: They do it all the time. Have you never planted a seed in your
garden?
Anthony: The power that makes seeds grow to become plants is
garden?
life,which is spirit created by God. Life is the principle of the
growth of organisms.
John Harshman
Dec 6, 2011, 2:36:13 PM12/6/11
to
Anthony022071 wrote:
> John Harshman Dec 25
> know exactly how God's power is manifested in, for example, mitosis.
>
>
> Anthony: I'm not an occasionalist at all. I don't believe that all
> natural events are caused directly by God.
But you do appear to believe that all of a certain class of natural
events, that is everything having to do with life, is caused by God. So
you're an occasional occasionalist.
> God's power is manifested in mitosis in its very happening. It IS a
> manifestation of God's power.
Can you present any evidence for that claim? You understand that just
saying something is true doesn't constitute evidence. And do I
understand correctly that God personally intervenes to enable every cell
division, which otherwise could nothapen?
> It is a process of life,which is spirit
> created by God. A cell can do nothing but decay if it does not have
> life.
Agreed, but we appear to have a disagreement about what that "life" is.
I suggest that it's a complex network of ordinary chemical processes,
not some mysterious and undetectable "power".
> John Harshman Dec 25
>
>
>>>>>>> Are you an occasionalist?
>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>> alias Ernest Major
>>>>>> No. I was distinguishing the creation of living creatures from earthly
>>>>>> elements (amino acids,proteins) and from parents.
>>>>> Your denial of occasionalism is bald enough. But I don't understand the
>>>>> remainder of your response. It seems as if you're denying human
>>>>> reproduction as a natural process (in which case how does your position
>>>>> differ from occasionalism?).
>>>>> http://pandasthumb.org/archives/2007/10/intelligent-del.html
>>>>> --
>>>>> alias Ernest Major
>>>> Reproduction is obviously a natural process,but it is also made to
>>>> happen by God's power. It is spirit that animates living creatures and
>>>> their reproductive material.
>>> In which case, how does your position differ from occasionalism?
>>> --
>>> alias Ernest Major
>> It's different because I don't deny that natural substances can be
>> efficient causes for events. What I deny is that natural substances
>> can create life or living organisms. There is no reason to think that
>> they have the necessary power.
>
>
> JH: So he's an occasional occasionalist. I would be interested to
>
>>>>>>> Are you an occasionalist?
>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>> alias Ernest Major
>>>>>> No. I was distinguishing the creation of living creatures from earthly
>>>>>> elements (amino acids,proteins) and from parents.
>>>>> Your denial of occasionalism is bald enough. But I don't understand the
>>>>> remainder of your response. It seems as if you're denying human
>>>>> reproduction as a natural process (in which case how does your position
>>>>> differ from occasionalism?).
>>>>> http://pandasthumb.org/archives/2007/10/intelligent-del.html
>>>>> --
>>>>> alias Ernest Major
>>>> Reproduction is obviously a natural process,but it is also made to
>>>> happen by God's power. It is spirit that animates living creatures and
>>>> their reproductive material.
>>> In which case, how does your position differ from occasionalism?
>>> --
>>> alias Ernest Major
>> It's different because I don't deny that natural substances can be
>> efficient causes for events. What I deny is that natural substances
>> can create life or living organisms. There is no reason to think that
>> they have the necessary power.
>
>
> know exactly how God's power is manifested in, for example, mitosis.
>
>
> Anthony: I'm not an occasionalist at all. I don't believe that all
> natural events are caused directly by God.
But you do appear to believe that all of a certain class of natural
events, that is everything having to do with life, is caused by God. So
you're an occasional occasionalist.
> God's power is manifested in mitosis in its very happening. It IS a
> manifestation of God's power.
Can you present any evidence for that claim? You understand that just
saying something is true doesn't constitute evidence. And do I
understand correctly that God personally intervenes to enable every cell
division, which otherwise could nothapen?
> It is a process of life,which is spirit
> created by God. A cell can do nothing but decay if it does not have
> life.
Agreed, but we appear to have a disagreement about what that "life" is.
I suggest that it's a complex network of ordinary chemical processes,
not some mysterious and undetectable "power".
Message has been deleted
Vincent Maycock
Dec 6, 2011, 3:54:36 PM12/6/11
to
"Anthony022071" <anthon...@ameritech.net> wrote in message
news:e162ae77-fa87-465d...@u32g2000yqe.googlegroups.com...
> Vincent Maycock Dec 5
>
> "Anthony022071" <anthony022...@ameritech.net> wrote in message
>
> news:21b93bfc-24ca-47a8-9c9d-
> f6c6217cd...@l24g2000yqm.googlegroups.com...
>> On Nov 25, 4:53 am, Ernest Major <{$t...@meden.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
> snip
>>> In which case, how does your position differ from occasionalism?
>>> --
>>> alias Ernest Major
>> It's different because I don't deny that natural substances can be
>> efficient causes for events. What I deny is that natural substances
>> can create life or living organisms. There is no reason to think that
>> they have the necessary power.
>
>
> VM: Why would "power" be needed to create life?
>
>
> Anthony: Because it requires power to move the natural processes of
> living creatures.
Is this a natural, supernatural, or mystical type of power?
>
> "Anthony022071" <anthony022...@ameritech.net> wrote in message
>
> news:21b93bfc-24ca-47a8-9c9d-
> f6c6217cd...@l24g2000yqm.googlegroups.com...
>> On Nov 25, 4:53 am, Ernest Major <{$t...@meden.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
> snip
>>> In which case, how does your position differ from occasionalism?
>>> --
>>> alias Ernest Major
>> It's different because I don't deny that natural substances can be
>> efficient causes for events. What I deny is that natural substances
>> can create life or living organisms. There is no reason to think that
>> they have the necessary power.
>
>
> VM: Why would "power" be needed to create life?
>
>
> Anthony: Because it requires power to move the natural processes of
> living creatures.
> Life in organisms is power that organizes and
> animates natural processes to co-operate in a purposeful manner.
Message has been deleted
Message has been deleted
Anthony022071
Dec 6, 2011, 4:37:51 PM12/6/11
to
John Harshman Dec 5
>>>>>>> Are you an occasionalist?
>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>> alias Ernest Major
>>>>>> No. I was distinguishing the creation of living creatures from earthly
>>>>>> elements (amino acids,proteins) and from parents.
>>>>> Your denial of occasionalism is bald enough. But I don't understand the
>>>>> remainder of your response. It seems as if you're denying human
>>>>> reproduction as a natural process (in which case how does your position
>>>>> differ from occasionalism?).
>>>>> http://pandasthumb.org/archives/2007/10/intelligent-del.html
>>>>> --
>>>>> alias Ernest Major
>>>> Reproduction is obviously a natural process,but it is also made to
>>>> happen by God's power. It is spirit that animates living creatures and
>>>> their reproductive material.
That seed will not germinate without God's direct intervention.
Sorry,
but that intervention is undetectable by any of your nasty
materialistic
tests. If you could detect God, faith would be unnecessary, and we
just
can't have that, 'cause faith is His favorite.
Anthony:
The phenomena of life and order in creatures are as
immaterial as God,yet they are detectable by common observation and
by
scientific tests,insofar as they are manifested in physical things.
The recognition of God's power in nature does not make faith
unnecessary. That is an idea held by people who separate faith and
reason,like skeptical rationalists and fideists. Faith is not
intended
to be a fill-in for natural reason or scientific knowledge. Faith is
based upon reason,the first reason being that the universe must have
been created by an almighty Creator.
>>>>>>> Are you an occasionalist?
>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>> alias Ernest Major
>>>>>> No. I was distinguishing the creation of living creatures from earthly
>>>>>> elements (amino acids,proteins) and from parents.
>>>>> Your denial of occasionalism is bald enough. But I don't understand the
>>>>> remainder of your response. It seems as if you're denying human
>>>>> reproduction as a natural process (in which case how does your position
>>>>> differ from occasionalism?).
>>>>> http://pandasthumb.org/archives/2007/10/intelligent-del.html
>>>>> --
>>>>> alias Ernest Major
>>>> Reproduction is obviously a natural process,but it is also made to
>>>> happen by God's power. It is spirit that animates living creatures and
>>>> their reproductive material.
>>> In which case, how does your position differ from occasionalism?
>>> --
>>> alias Ernest Major
>> It's different because I don't deny that natural substances can be
>> efficient causes for events. What I deny is that natural substances
>> can create life or living organisms. There is no reason to think that
>> they have the necessary power.- Hide quoted text -
>>> --
>>> alias Ernest Major
>> It's different because I don't deny that natural substances can be
>> efficient causes for events. What I deny is that natural substances
>> can create life or living organisms. There is no reason to think that
> Inez:
> They do it all the time. Have you never planted a seed in your garden?
JH:
> They do it all the time. Have you never planted a seed in your garden?
That seed will not germinate without God's direct intervention.
Sorry,
but that intervention is undetectable by any of your nasty
materialistic
tests. If you could detect God, faith would be unnecessary, and we
just
can't have that, 'cause faith is His favorite.
Anthony:
The phenomena of life and order in creatures are as
immaterial as God,yet they are detectable by common observation and
by
scientific tests,insofar as they are manifested in physical things.
The recognition of God's power in nature does not make faith
unnecessary. That is an idea held by people who separate faith and
reason,like skeptical rationalists and fideists. Faith is not
intended
to be a fill-in for natural reason or scientific knowledge. Faith is
based upon reason,the first reason being that the universe must have
been created by an almighty Creator.
John Harshman
Dec 6, 2011, 5:01:24 PM12/6/11
to
Anthony022071 wrote:
> John Harshman Dec 5
language has all the same words as English, but they all mean something
different? If your faith were based on reason, you would have been able
to display some of that reasoning, but all you put up are mushy,
new-age-type platitudes. This, I suppose, is what comes from imagining
that faith and reason are not separate.
So I despair of getting any answers to my questions, but still: what
evidence do you have that life is immaterial?
> John Harshman Dec 5
>
>>>>>>>> Are you an occasionalist?
>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>> alias Ernest Major
>>>>>>> No. I was distinguishing the creation of living creatures from earthly
>>>>>>> elements (amino acids,proteins) and from parents.
>>>>>> Your denial of occasionalism is bald enough. But I don't understand the
>>>>>> remainder of your response. It seems as if you're denying human
>>>>>> reproduction as a natural process (in which case how does your position
>>>>>> differ from occasionalism?).
>>>>>> http://pandasthumb.org/archives/2007/10/intelligent-del.html
>>>>>> --
>>>>>> alias Ernest Major
>>>>> Reproduction is obviously a natural process,but it is also made to
>>>>> happen by God's power. It is spirit that animates living creatures and
>>>>> their reproductive material.
>>>> In which case, how does your position differ from occasionalism?
>>>> --
>>>> alias Ernest Major
>>> It's different because I don't deny that natural substances can be
>>> efficient causes for events. What I deny is that natural substances
>>> can create life or living organisms. There is no reason to think that
>>>>>>>> Are you an occasionalist?
>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>> alias Ernest Major
>>>>>>> No. I was distinguishing the creation of living creatures from earthly
>>>>>>> elements (amino acids,proteins) and from parents.
>>>>>> Your denial of occasionalism is bald enough. But I don't understand the
>>>>>> remainder of your response. It seems as if you're denying human
>>>>>> reproduction as a natural process (in which case how does your position
>>>>>> differ from occasionalism?).
>>>>>> http://pandasthumb.org/archives/2007/10/intelligent-del.html
>>>>>> --
>>>>>> alias Ernest Major
>>>>> Reproduction is obviously a natural process,but it is also made to
>>>>> happen by God's power. It is spirit that animates living creatures and
>>>>> their reproductive material.
>>>> In which case, how does your position differ from occasionalism?
>>>> --
>>>> alias Ernest Major
>>> It's different because I don't deny that natural substances can be
>>> efficient causes for events. What I deny is that natural substances
>>> can create life or living organisms. There is no reason to think that
>>> they have the necessary power.- Hide quoted text -
>
>
>
>
>> Inez: They do it all the time. Have you never planted a seed in your garden?
>
>
>
>
> JH: That seed will not germinate without God's direct intervention.
> Sorry,
> but that intervention is undetectable by any of your nasty
> materialistic
> tests. If you could detect God, faith would be unnecessary, and we
> just
> can't have that, 'cause faith is His favorite.
>
>
> Anthony: The phenomena of life and order in creatures are as
> immaterial as God,yet they are detectable by common observation and by
> scientific tests,insofar as they are manifested in physical things.
>
> The recognition of God's power in nature does not make faith
> unnecessary. That is an idea held by people who separate faith and
> reason,like skeptical rationalists and fideists. Faith is not intended
> to be a fill-in for natural reason or scientific knowledge. Faith is
> based upon reason,the first reason being that the universe must have
> been created by an almighty Creator.
>
Are you perhaps posting from some parallel universe in which the
> Sorry,
> but that intervention is undetectable by any of your nasty
> materialistic
> tests. If you could detect God, faith would be unnecessary, and we
> just
> can't have that, 'cause faith is His favorite.
>
>
> Anthony: The phenomena of life and order in creatures are as
> immaterial as God,yet they are detectable by common observation and by
> scientific tests,insofar as they are manifested in physical things.
>
> The recognition of God's power in nature does not make faith
> unnecessary. That is an idea held by people who separate faith and
> reason,like skeptical rationalists and fideists. Faith is not intended
> to be a fill-in for natural reason or scientific knowledge. Faith is
> based upon reason,the first reason being that the universe must have
> been created by an almighty Creator.
>
language has all the same words as English, but they all mean something
different? If your faith were based on reason, you would have been able
to display some of that reasoning, but all you put up are mushy,
new-age-type platitudes. This, I suppose, is what comes from imagining
that faith and reason are not separate.
So I despair of getting any answers to my questions, but still: what
evidence do you have that life is immaterial?
John Stockwell
Dec 6, 2011, 5:20:42 PM12/6/11
to
have some source of energy from outside of biology for biology
to work. The fact is that we don't biology operates 100% by chemistry.
There is no God-shaped socket in organisms, waiting for the finger
of God to plug into.
-John
Tim Anderson
Dec 7, 2011, 2:47:06 PM12/7/11
to
On Dec 7, 5:53 am, Anthony022071 <anthony022...@ameritech.net> wrote:
> Vincent Maycock Dec 5
>
> "Anthony022071" <anthony022...@ameritech.net> wrote in message
>
<snip>
> Vincent Maycock Dec 5
>
> "Anthony022071" <anthony022...@ameritech.net> wrote in message
>
>
> Anthony: Because it requires power to move the natural processes of
> living creatures. Life in organisms is power that organizes and
> animates natural processes to co-operate in a purposeful manner.
Is god's vital essence an active principle (an active divine
> Anthony: Because it requires power to move the natural processes of
> living creatures. Life in organisms is power that organizes and
> animates natural processes to co-operate in a purposeful manner.
intervention in every biological event) or is it a potentiating
substrate that has to be there in the background for life to proceed
by purely biochemical processes?
Steven L.
Dec 8, 2011, 10:47:29 AM12/8/11
to
news:786502f3-007e-4f83...@s26g2000yqd.googlegroups.com:
> Acts of the Apostles 17,19-28:
>
> Then Paul stood up at the Areopagus and said: "You Athenians, I see
> that in every respect you are very religious.
>
> For as I walked around looking carefully at your shrines, I even
> discovered an altar inscribed, 'To an Unknown God.' What therefore
> you unknowingly worship, I proclaim to you.
>
> The God who made the world and all that is in it, the Lord of heaven
> and earth, does not dwell in sanctuaries made by human hands,
>
> nor is he served by human hands because he needs anything. Rather it
> is he who gives to everyone life and breath and everything.
>
> He made from one the whole human race to dwell on the entire surface
> of the earth, and he fixed the ordered seasons and the boundaries of
> their regions,
>
> so that people might seek God, even perhaps grope for him and find
> him, though indeed he is not far from any one of us.
>
> For 'In him we live and move and have our being,' [Epimenides] as even
> some of your poets have said, 'For we too are his offspring.' [Aratus]
>
>
>
> Letter to the Romans 1,18-25:
>
> The wrath of God is indeed being revealed from heaven against every
> impiety and wickedness of those who suppress the truth by their
> wickedness.
>
> For what can be known about God is evident to them, because God made
> it evident to them.
>
> Ever since the creation of the world, his invisible attributes of
> eternal power and divinity have been able to be understood and
> perceived in what he has made. As a result, they have no excuse;
>
> for although they knew God they did not accord him glory as God or
> give him thanks. Instead, they became vain in their reasoning, and
> their senseless minds were darkened.
>
> While claiming to be wise, they became fools
>
> and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for the likeness of an
> image of mortal man or of birds or of four-legged animals or of
> snakes.
>
> Therefore, God handed them over to impurity through the lusts of their
> hearts for the mutual degradation of their bodies.
>
> They exchanged the truth of God for a lie and revered and worshiped
> the creature rather than the creator, who is blessed forever. Amen.
Well, I guess we're past all the "scientific" critiques of evolution,
back to Christian teaching. Though this particular stuff from Acts of
the Apostles has nothing to do with our discussion thread to date.
-- Steven L.
> Acts of the Apostles 17,19-28:
>
> Then Paul stood up at the Areopagus and said: "You Athenians, I see
> that in every respect you are very religious.
>
> For as I walked around looking carefully at your shrines, I even
> discovered an altar inscribed, 'To an Unknown God.' What therefore
> you unknowingly worship, I proclaim to you.
>
> The God who made the world and all that is in it, the Lord of heaven
> and earth, does not dwell in sanctuaries made by human hands,
>
> nor is he served by human hands because he needs anything. Rather it
> is he who gives to everyone life and breath and everything.
>
> He made from one the whole human race to dwell on the entire surface
> of the earth, and he fixed the ordered seasons and the boundaries of
> their regions,
>
> so that people might seek God, even perhaps grope for him and find
> him, though indeed he is not far from any one of us.
>
> For 'In him we live and move and have our being,' [Epimenides] as even
> some of your poets have said, 'For we too are his offspring.' [Aratus]
>
>
>
> Letter to the Romans 1,18-25:
>
> The wrath of God is indeed being revealed from heaven against every
> impiety and wickedness of those who suppress the truth by their
> wickedness.
>
> For what can be known about God is evident to them, because God made
> it evident to them.
>
> Ever since the creation of the world, his invisible attributes of
> eternal power and divinity have been able to be understood and
> perceived in what he has made. As a result, they have no excuse;
>
> for although they knew God they did not accord him glory as God or
> give him thanks. Instead, they became vain in their reasoning, and
> their senseless minds were darkened.
>
> While claiming to be wise, they became fools
>
> and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for the likeness of an
> image of mortal man or of birds or of four-legged animals or of
> snakes.
>
> Therefore, God handed them over to impurity through the lusts of their
> hearts for the mutual degradation of their bodies.
>
> They exchanged the truth of God for a lie and revered and worshiped
> the creature rather than the creator, who is blessed forever. Amen.
Well, I guess we're past all the "scientific" critiques of evolution,
back to Christian teaching. Though this particular stuff from Acts of
the Apostles has nothing to do with our discussion thread to date.
-- Steven L.
Harry K
Dec 8, 2011, 11:05:09 AM12/8/11
to
>
> - Show quoted text -
Amazing how brain dead theists can twist the meanings of words until
it comes out idiocy.
Harry K
Steven L.
Dec 8, 2011, 2:47:31 PM12/8/11
to
news:de071ee6-79e7-4de8...@a17g2000yqj.googlegroups.com:
> Inez Dec 25
So you're a vitalist, believing in that elan vital.
-- Steven L.
> Inez Dec 25
> > > >> >> Are you an occasionalist?
> > > >> >> --
> > > >> >> alias Ernest Major
> > > >> >No. I was distinguishing the creation of living creatures from earthly
> > > >> >elements (amino acids,proteins) and from parents.
> > > >> Your denial of occasionalism is bald enough. But I don't understand the
> > > >> remainder of your response. It seems as if you're denying human
> > > >> reproduction as a natural process (in which case how does your position
> > > >> differ from occasionalism?).
> > > >> http://pandasthumb.org/archives/2007/10/intelligent-del.html
> > > >> --
> > > >> alias Ernest Major
> > > >Reproduction is obviously a natural process,but it is also made to
> > > >happen by God's power. It is spirit that animates living creatures and
> > > >their reproductive material.
> > > In which case, how does your position differ from occasionalism?
> > > --
> > > alias Ernest Major
>
> > It's different because I don't deny that natural substances can be
> > efficient causes for events. What I deny is that natural substances
> > can create life or living organisms. There is no reason to think that
> > they have the necessary power.
>
>
> > > >> >> --
> > > >> >> alias Ernest Major
> > > >> >No. I was distinguishing the creation of living creatures from earthly
> > > >> >elements (amino acids,proteins) and from parents.
> > > >> Your denial of occasionalism is bald enough. But I don't understand the
> > > >> remainder of your response. It seems as if you're denying human
> > > >> reproduction as a natural process (in which case how does your position
> > > >> differ from occasionalism?).
> > > >> http://pandasthumb.org/archives/2007/10/intelligent-del.html
> > > >> --
> > > >> alias Ernest Major
> > > >Reproduction is obviously a natural process,but it is also made to
> > > >happen by God's power. It is spirit that animates living creatures and
> > > >their reproductive material.
> > > In which case, how does your position differ from occasionalism?
> > > --
> > > alias Ernest Major
>
> > It's different because I don't deny that natural substances can be
> > efficient causes for events. What I deny is that natural substances
> > can create life or living organisms. There is no reason to think that
> > they have the necessary power.
>
>
> Inez: They do it all the time. Have you never planted a seed in your
> garden?
>
>
> garden?
>
>
> The power that makes seeds grow to become plants is life,which is
> spirit.
So you're a vitalist, believing in that elan vital.
-- Steven L.
Steven L.
Dec 8, 2011, 2:47:04 PM12/8/11
to
news:c326c8df-8024-4dc4...@y18g2000yqy.googlegroups.com:
> Vincent Maycock Dec 25
> news:21b93bfc-24ca-47a8-9c9d-
> f6c621...@l24g2000yqm.googlegroups.com...
anaerobic organisms metabolize food in the presence of oxygen to create
energy that drives the organisms. (Aerobic creatures like ourselves do
that too--but we also have an add-on, aerobic metabolism, to extract
even more energy.)
http://www-rohan.sdsu.edu/course/ens304/public_html/section1/Glycolysis.htm
All I see operating here is a sequence of chemical reactions, most of
them catalyzed by enzymes.
This entire sequence of chemical reactions can be duplicated in the
laboratory, entirely by materialistic means.
-- Steven L.
> Vincent Maycock Dec 25
> news:21b93bfc-24ca-47a8-9c9d-
> f6c621...@l24g2000yqm.googlegroups.com...
> >> In which case, how does your position differ from occasionalism?
> >> --
> >> alias Ernest Major
> > It's different because I don't deny that natural substances can be
> > efficient causes for events. What I deny is that natural substances
> > can create life or living organisms. There is no reason to think that
> > they have the necessary power.
>
>
> >> --
> >> alias Ernest Major
> > It's different because I don't deny that natural substances can be
> > efficient causes for events. What I deny is that natural substances
> > can create life or living organisms. There is no reason to think that
> > they have the necessary power.
>
>
> VM: Why would "power" be needed to create life?
>
>
>
>
> Anthony: Because it requires power to move the natural processes of
> living creatures. Life in organisms is power that organizes and
> animates natural processes to co-operate in a purposeful manner.
Let's take a look at anaerobic glycolysis, the process by which
> living creatures. Life in organisms is power that organizes and
> animates natural processes to co-operate in a purposeful manner.
anaerobic organisms metabolize food in the presence of oxygen to create
energy that drives the organisms. (Aerobic creatures like ourselves do
that too--but we also have an add-on, aerobic metabolism, to extract
even more energy.)
http://www-rohan.sdsu.edu/course/ens304/public_html/section1/Glycolysis.htm
All I see operating here is a sequence of chemical reactions, most of
them catalyzed by enzymes.
This entire sequence of chemical reactions can be duplicated in the
laboratory, entirely by materialistic means.
-- Steven L.
Steven L.
Dec 8, 2011, 2:57:24 PM12/8/11
to
news:72e55288-5201-423c...@s26g2000yqd.googlegroups.com:
> John Harshman Dec 25
Here's an old friend of mine:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Rhinovirus.PNG
On an environmental surface away from living cells, this guy does
NOTHING. No metabolism, no reproduction, no movement, nothing. In your
terminology, no evidence of any animating spirit whatsoever.
But what happens when this guy comes into contact with the cells in the
back of your throat? It hijacks the machinery of those cells to
replicate that virus like hell, a hundred thousand copies in just one
hour.
When did the spirit enter the virus? Or do you classify viruses as
non-spiritual?
-- Steven L.
> John Harshman Dec 25
>
>
> >>>>>> Are you an occasionalist?
> >>>>>> --
> >>>>>> alias Ernest Major
> >>>>> No. I was distinguishing the creation of living creatures from earthly
> >>>>> elements (amino acids,proteins) and from parents.
> >>>> Your denial of occasionalism is bald enough. But I don't understand the
> >>>> remainder of your response. It seems as if you're denying human
> >>>> reproduction as a natural process (in which case how does your position
> >>>> differ from occasionalism?).
> >>>> http://pandasthumb.org/archives/2007/10/intelligent-del.html
> >>>> --
> >>>> alias Ernest Major
> >>> Reproduction is obviously a natural process,but it is also made to
> >>> happen by God's power. It is spirit that animates living creatures and
> >>> their reproductive material.
>
> >>>>>> Are you an occasionalist?
> >>>>>> --
> >>>>>> alias Ernest Major
> >>>>> No. I was distinguishing the creation of living creatures from earthly
> >>>>> elements (amino acids,proteins) and from parents.
> >>>> Your denial of occasionalism is bald enough. But I don't understand the
> >>>> remainder of your response. It seems as if you're denying human
> >>>> reproduction as a natural process (in which case how does your position
> >>>> differ from occasionalism?).
> >>>> http://pandasthumb.org/archives/2007/10/intelligent-del.html
> >>>> --
> >>>> alias Ernest Major
> >>> Reproduction is obviously a natural process,but it is also made to
> >>> happen by God's power. It is spirit that animates living creatures and
> >>> their reproductive material.
> >> In which case, how does your position differ from occasionalism?
> >> --
> >> alias Ernest Major
> > It's different because I don't deny that natural substances can be
> > efficient causes for events. What I deny is that natural substances
> > can create life or living organisms. There is no reason to think that
> > they have the necessary power.
>
>
> >> --
> >> alias Ernest Major
> > It's different because I don't deny that natural substances can be
> > efficient causes for events. What I deny is that natural substances
> > can create life or living organisms. There is no reason to think that
> > they have the necessary power.
>
>
> JH: So he's an occasional occasionalist. I would be interested to
> know
> exactly how God's power is manifested in, for example, mitosis.
>
>
> Anthony: I'm not an occasionalist at all. I don't believe that all
> natural events are caused directly by God.
>
> know
> exactly how God's power is manifested in, for example, mitosis.
>
>
> Anthony: I'm not an occasionalist at all. I don't believe that all
> natural events are caused directly by God.
>
> God's power is manifested in mitosis in its very happening. It IS a
> manifestation of God's power. It is a process of life,which is spirit
> created by God. A cell can do nothing but decay if it does not have
> life.
What about viruses?
> life.
Here's an old friend of mine:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Rhinovirus.PNG
On an environmental surface away from living cells, this guy does
NOTHING. No metabolism, no reproduction, no movement, nothing. In your
terminology, no evidence of any animating spirit whatsoever.
But what happens when this guy comes into contact with the cells in the
back of your throat? It hijacks the machinery of those cells to
replicate that virus like hell, a hundred thousand copies in just one
hour.
When did the spirit enter the virus? Or do you classify viruses as
non-spiritual?
-- Steven L.
Anthony022071
Dec 11, 2011, 1:45:06 PM12/11/11
to
Faith means belief and trust,not superstition or delusional thinking.
Reason means the faculty of discursive and inferential thinking,not
naturalistic thinking. Reason is based upon prior belief in facts or
things taken as facts,and faith is based upon discursive and
inferential thinking upon facts or things taken as facts. Faith in God
is based upon thinking discursively and inferentially upon personal
experience of his goodness and the existence of the natural world.
Nothing I have said is mushy. The belief that spirit is what gives
life to creatures is common knowledge found throughout history and the
world.
> So I despair of getting any answers to my questions, but still: what
> evidence do you have that life is immaterial?
energy,so it is immaterial. It is the invisible and intangible power
that makes living creatures alive. When a living creature dies,the
physical elements are still present but not that which animated the
creature.
Free Lunch
Dec 11, 2011, 2:12:54 PM12/11/11
to
On Sun, 11 Dec 2011 10:45:06 -0800 (PST), Anthony022071
<anthon...@ameritech.net> wrote in talk.origins:
No, faith does not used evidence or reason.
<anthon...@ameritech.net> wrote in talk.origins:
Free Lunch
Dec 11, 2011, 2:13:36 PM12/11/11
to
On Sun, 11 Dec 2011 10:45:06 -0800 (PST), Anthony022071
<anthon...@ameritech.net> wrote in talk.origins:
<anthon...@ameritech.net> wrote in talk.origins:
>On Dec 6, 4:01 pm, John Harshman <jharsh...@pacbell.net> wrote:
...
>> So I despair of getting any answers to my questions, but still: what
>> evidence do you have that life is immaterial?
>
>Life is by definition something distinct from material elements and
>energy,so it is immaterial. It is the invisible and intangible power
>that makes living creatures alive. When a living creature dies,the
>physical elements are still present but not that which animated the
>creature.
>
No, life is just a self-sustaining biochemical reaction. It is
>> evidence do you have that life is immaterial?
>
>Life is by definition something distinct from material elements and
>energy,so it is immaterial. It is the invisible and intangible power
>that makes living creatures alive. When a living creature dies,the
>physical elements are still present but not that which animated the
>creature.
>
completely "material".
John Harshman
Dec 11, 2011, 3:06:16 PM12/11/11
to
of evidence.
> Reason means the faculty of discursive and inferential thinking,not
> naturalistic thinking. Reason is based upon prior belief in facts or
> things taken as facts,and faith is based upon discursive and
> inferential thinking upon facts or things taken as facts. Faith in God
> is based upon thinking discursively and inferentially upon personal
> experience of his goodness and the existence of the natural world.
inferentially here. You're just believing. "His goodness" is not
objectively in evidence and "the existence of the natural world" doesn't
imply what you claim it does.
> Nothing I have said is mushy.
> The belief that spirit is what gives
> life to creatures is common knowledge found throughout history and the
> world.
dome. "Common knowledge" is often wrong. The way to distinguish wrong
common knowledge from right is by arguing from evidence. You haven't
presented any.
>> So I despair of getting any answers to my questions, but still: what
>> evidence do you have that life is immaterial?
>
> Life is by definition something distinct from material elements and
> energy,so it is immaterial.
that what we see fits your definition. Your reasoning, such as it may
be, is circular.
> It is the invisible and intangible power
> that makes living creatures alive. When a living creature dies,the
> physical elements are still present but not that which animated the
> creature.
chemical reactions that sustain it stop happening. Why didn't you say so?
Mark Isaak
Dec 12, 2011, 7:06:34 PM12/12/11
to
On 12/11/11 10:45 AM, Anthony022071 wrote:
>
> Life is by definition something distinct from material elements and
> energy,so it is immaterial.
You left out a couple words. Here, I'll correct:
>
> Life is by definition something distinct from material elements and
> energy,so it is immaterial.
Life is by definition something not distinct from material elements and
energy, so it is not immaterial.
> It is the invisible and intangible power
> that makes living creatures alive.
because there is skin (or similar covering) between you and it.
> When a living creature dies,the
> physical elements are still present but not that which animated the
> creature.
--
Mark Isaak eciton (at) curioustaxonomy (dot) net
"It is certain, from experience, that the smallest grain of natural
honesty and benevolence has more effect on men's conduct, than the most
pompous views suggested by theological theories and systems." - D. Hume
Steven L.
Dec 13, 2011, 10:18:21 AM12/13/11
to
"Free Lunch" <lu...@nofreelunch.us> wrote in message
news:s40ae75cjjoe7hv6l...@4ax.com:
constructed with reason.
They're based on axioms rather than on evidence.
So is geometry and much of theoretical math.
-- Steven L.
Anthony022071
Dec 23, 2011, 9:15:01 PM12/23/11
to
On Dec 6, 11:44 am, Friar Broccoli <elia...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi Anthony;
>
> Since you didn't address my outstanding post:
>
> http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/0258ac6283ecf788
>
> concerning the multilevel contradictions in your evolution denying
> system where you appear to begin from:
>
> *NOT* knowing if presumed ancestors where reproductively compatible
> TO *knowing* that macro-evolution is impossible
I consider macro-evolution impossible because the processes that are
said to have made it happen - natural selection,accumulating mutations
- cannot logically or biologically lead to macro-evolution. Natural
selection is a process of elimination,not a process that creates or
develops anything. And mutations do not affect the physical structure
of species nearly enough to change a species beyond its level. Most
features of a species do not seem to be subject to modification
through allele mutations. The few kinds of known mutations that are
used to show how evolution works cannot possibly lead to macro-
evolution,no matter how many millions of years elapse.
> but when presented with specific examples of macro-evolution claim to
> *NOT* know if macro-evolution occurred.
Right,I don't know if the examples of supposed macro-evolution really
happened,because we don't know of any reproductive links between the
different species. But I do have reason to think that the examples
could not have happened,because the processes that are said to have
led to macro-evolution don't add up.
> Hi Anthony;
>
> Since you didn't address my outstanding post:
>
> http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/0258ac6283ecf788
>
> concerning the multilevel contradictions in your evolution denying
> system where you appear to begin from:
>
> *NOT* knowing if presumed ancestors where reproductively compatible
> TO *knowing* that macro-evolution is impossible
I consider macro-evolution impossible because the processes that are
said to have made it happen - natural selection,accumulating mutations
- cannot logically or biologically lead to macro-evolution. Natural
selection is a process of elimination,not a process that creates or
develops anything. And mutations do not affect the physical structure
of species nearly enough to change a species beyond its level. Most
features of a species do not seem to be subject to modification
through allele mutations. The few kinds of known mutations that are
used to show how evolution works cannot possibly lead to macro-
evolution,no matter how many millions of years elapse.
> but when presented with specific examples of macro-evolution claim to
> *NOT* know if macro-evolution occurred.
Right,I don't know if the examples of supposed macro-evolution really
happened,because we don't know of any reproductive links between the
different species. But I do have reason to think that the examples
could not have happened,because the processes that are said to have
led to macro-evolution don't add up.
Anthony022071
Dec 23, 2011, 9:32:24 PM12/23/11
to
On Dec 12, 6:06 pm, Mark Isaak <eci...@curioustaxonomyNOSPAM.net>
wrote:
energy,and not to be confused with them. They are involved with the
processes of life in organisms,but they do not create life.
> > It is the invisible and intangible power
> > that makes living creatures alive.
> What makes creatures alive is not intangible and is invisible only
> because there is skin (or similar covering) between you and it.
What makes creatures alive is spiritual power.
> > When a living creature dies,the
> > physical elements are still present but not that which animated the
> > creature.
>
> Like a fire going out. Is fire a spirit being?
Fire is made up of physical particles and their energy.
wrote:
> On 12/11/11 10:45 AM, Anthony022071 wrote:
>
>
>
> > Life is by definition something distinct from material elements and
> > energy,so it is immaterial.
>
> You left out a couple words. Here, I'll correct:
>
> Life is by definition something not distinct from material elements and
> energy, so it is not immaterial.
It is distinct. It is a different phenomena from material elements and
>
>
>
> > Life is by definition something distinct from material elements and
> > energy,so it is immaterial.
>
> You left out a couple words. Here, I'll correct:
>
> Life is by definition something not distinct from material elements and
> energy, so it is not immaterial.
energy,and not to be confused with them. They are involved with the
processes of life in organisms,but they do not create life.
> > It is the invisible and intangible power
> > that makes living creatures alive.
> What makes creatures alive is not intangible and is invisible only
> because there is skin (or similar covering) between you and it.
> > When a living creature dies,the
> > physical elements are still present but not that which animated the
> > creature.
>
> Like a fire going out. Is fire a spirit being?
Anthony022071
Dec 23, 2011, 9:45:36 PM12/23/11
to
On Dec 8, 9:47 am, "Steven L." <sdlit...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> "Anthony022071" <anthony022...@ameritech.net> wrote in message
I used that quote to show that the belief in God's power in nature is
a matter of reason as well as faith. St. Paul was talking about how
the pagans knew about God through observation of the natural things
and reasoning,but they suppressed the truth.
> "Anthony022071" <anthony022...@ameritech.net> wrote in message
a matter of reason as well as faith. St. Paul was talking about how
the pagans knew about God through observation of the natural things
and reasoning,but they suppressed the truth.
Free Lunch
Dec 23, 2011, 9:53:09 PM12/23/11
to
On Fri, 23 Dec 2011 18:45:36 -0800 (PST), Anthony022071
<anthon...@ameritech.net> wrote in talk.origins:
But it is obvious that Paul is wrong. There is no reasoning your way to
believing in any god.
<anthon...@ameritech.net> wrote in talk.origins:
believing in any god.
Anthony022071
Dec 23, 2011, 9:47:40 PM12/23/11
to
On Dec 8, 1:47 pm, "Steven L." <sdlit...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> "Anthony022071" <anthony022...@ameritech.net> wrote in message
Except that I identify the vital principle as spirit created and
sustained by God.
> "Anthony022071" <anthony022...@ameritech.net> wrote in message
sustained by God.
Anthony022071
Dec 23, 2011, 9:54:34 PM12/23/11
to
On Dec 11, 1:12 pm, Free Lunch <lu...@nofreelunch.us> wrote:
> On Sun, 11 Dec 2011 10:45:06 -0800 (PST), Anthony022071
> <anthony022...@ameritech.net> wrote in talk.origins:
> On Sun, 11 Dec 2011 10:45:06 -0800 (PST), Anthony022071
It does. The evidence and reason for faith in God is the
existence,purposeful order and life of the world. Evidence is not
limited to scientific evidence,and reason is not naturalism.
Free Lunch
Dec 23, 2011, 10:05:25 PM12/23/11
to
On Fri, 23 Dec 2011 18:47:40 -0800 (PST), Anthony022071
<anthon...@ameritech.net> wrote in talk.origins:
Even though there is no such thing. Why?
<anthon...@ameritech.net> wrote in talk.origins:
Free Lunch
Dec 23, 2011, 10:06:52 PM12/23/11
to
On Fri, 23 Dec 2011 18:54:34 -0800 (PST), Anthony022071
<anthon...@ameritech.net> wrote in talk.origins:
No, it is not. You are merely assuming your conclusion.
>Evidence is not
>limited to scientific evidence,and reason is not naturalism.
Reason and evidence are well-defined concepts. Clearly you would prefer
to lie about both of them rather than acknowledge your error.
<anthon...@ameritech.net> wrote in talk.origins:
>Evidence is not
>limited to scientific evidence,and reason is not naturalism.
to lie about both of them rather than acknowledge your error.
Anthony022071
Dec 23, 2011, 10:09:57 PM12/23/11
to
On Dec 11, 1:13 pm, Free Lunch <lu...@nofreelunch.us> wrote:
> On Sun, 11 Dec 2011 10:45:06 -0800 (PST), Anthony022071
> <anthony022...@ameritech.net> wrote in talk.origins:
> On Sun, 11 Dec 2011 10:45:06 -0800 (PST), Anthony022071
The fact that biochemical reactions are involved with life in
organisms does not mean that they are life itself.
They are organized by spirit to work purposefully in the processes of
organisms. They cannot organize themselves into an organism self-
sufficiently.
Anthony022071
Dec 23, 2011, 10:47:02 PM12/23/11
to
organism,but spiritual power. Energy pertains to physical matter. Life
pertains to spirit. We should make a distinction between biology and
mere chemical reactions that occur in biology. Biology is about living
things,not just the chemical components of living things,and so to
reduce the workings of biology to chemical reactions is to miss the
forest for the trees.
> There is no God-shaped socket in organisms, waiting for the finger
> of God to plug into.
being created by God.
Anthony022071
Dec 23, 2011, 11:28:46 PM12/23/11
to
On Dec 6, 12:05 am, Garamond Lethe <cartographi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Mon, 05 Dec 2011 14:14:59 -0800, Anthony022071 wrote:
> > JH: You mean it doesn't cause morphological change, but so what? The
> > part of the theory of evolution we're talking about here is common
> > descent, and any change can be evidence for that.
>
> > A: The question of common descent is connected with the question of
> > whether genetic modifications have effected morphological changes.
> > Neutral nucleotide sites don't do that. The pattern of distribution of
> > neutral sites is seen as evidence of common descent,but this
> > pattern,like that of functional sites,may have resulted from separate
> > ancestries for all we know.
>
> In celebration of these past 1k posts, I'd like to step back from what
> you believe for a moment and ask why I should believe it.
>
> For example: "[T]his pattern ... may have resulted from separate
> ancestries for all we know."
>
> "May" is a very low bar that includes everything but the impossible. I'm
> going to assume you meant a higher bar than that: "separate ancestries"
> is plausible enough to warrant some serious thought.
>
> What I'd like you to tell me is *why* it's plausible enough to warrant
> serious thought.
It is plausible enough because I cannot see why the patterns of the NH
model could only have resulted from common ancestry and not from
separate ancestries. I cannot see why it is out of the question that
similar species cannot have been created separately and show similar
patterns of genetic distribution. If two species have much in common
genetically to begin with,why should we be impressed if they show
similar patterns of genetic distribution?
> As best I can remember (and I haven't been following the past few hundred
> posts very carefully) your answer will come down to "We can't be
> certain". However, I don't need certainty to dismiss implausible answers
> in any other part of my life so I'm not sure why it would be required for
> biology.
>
> Do you have a better answer than lack of certainty?
I'm not just uncertain about common descent,I really doubt that what
it entails - macro-evolution - is possible,because the processes that
supposedly lead to it don't add up. And I am fairly certain that the
patterns of the NH model could have resulted from separate
ancestries.
> On Mon, 05 Dec 2011 14:14:59 -0800, Anthony022071 wrote:
> > JH: You mean it doesn't cause morphological change, but so what? The
> > part of the theory of evolution we're talking about here is common
> > descent, and any change can be evidence for that.
>
> > A: The question of common descent is connected with the question of
> > whether genetic modifications have effected morphological changes.
> > Neutral nucleotide sites don't do that. The pattern of distribution of
> > neutral sites is seen as evidence of common descent,but this
> > pattern,like that of functional sites,may have resulted from separate
> > ancestries for all we know.
>
> In celebration of these past 1k posts, I'd like to step back from what
> you believe for a moment and ask why I should believe it.
>
> For example: "[T]his pattern ... may have resulted from separate
> ancestries for all we know."
>
> "May" is a very low bar that includes everything but the impossible. I'm
> going to assume you meant a higher bar than that: "separate ancestries"
> is plausible enough to warrant some serious thought.
>
> What I'd like you to tell me is *why* it's plausible enough to warrant
> serious thought.
It is plausible enough because I cannot see why the patterns of the NH
model could only have resulted from common ancestry and not from
separate ancestries. I cannot see why it is out of the question that
similar species cannot have been created separately and show similar
patterns of genetic distribution. If two species have much in common
genetically to begin with,why should we be impressed if they show
similar patterns of genetic distribution?
> As best I can remember (and I haven't been following the past few hundred
> posts very carefully) your answer will come down to "We can't be
> certain". However, I don't need certainty to dismiss implausible answers
> in any other part of my life so I'm not sure why it would be required for
> biology.
>
> Do you have a better answer than lack of certainty?
I'm not just uncertain about common descent,I really doubt that what
it entails - macro-evolution - is possible,because the processes that
supposedly lead to it don't add up. And I am fairly certain that the
patterns of the NH model could have resulted from separate
ancestries.
John Harshman
Dec 24, 2011, 1:24:10 AM12/24/11
to
Anthony022071 wrote:
> On Dec 12, 6:06 pm, Mark Isaak <eci...@curioustaxonomyNOSPAM.net>
> wrote:
>> On 12/11/11 10:45 AM, Anthony022071 wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>> Life is by definition something distinct from material elements and
>>> energy,so it is immaterial.
>> You left out a couple words. Here, I'll correct:
>>
>> Life is by definition something not distinct from material elements and
>> energy, so it is not immaterial.
>
> It is distinct. It is a different phenomena from material elements and
> energy,and not to be confused with them. They are involved with the
> processes of life in organisms,but they do not create life.
>
>>> It is the invisible and intangible power
>>> that makes living creatures alive.
>
>> What makes creatures alive is not intangible and is invisible only
>> because there is skin (or similar covering) between you and it.
>
> What makes creatures alive is spiritual power.
How do you know that? What evidence do you have for the existence of
> On Dec 12, 6:06 pm, Mark Isaak <eci...@curioustaxonomyNOSPAM.net>
> wrote:
>> On 12/11/11 10:45 AM, Anthony022071 wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>> Life is by definition something distinct from material elements and
>>> energy,so it is immaterial.
>> You left out a couple words. Here, I'll correct:
>>
>> Life is by definition something not distinct from material elements and
>> energy, so it is not immaterial.
>
> It is distinct. It is a different phenomena from material elements and
> energy,and not to be confused with them. They are involved with the
> processes of life in organisms,but they do not create life.
>
>>> It is the invisible and intangible power
>>> that makes living creatures alive.
>
>> What makes creatures alive is not intangible and is invisible only
>> because there is skin (or similar covering) between you and it.
>
> What makes creatures alive is spiritual power.
something non-physical in organisms? (Do bacteria really have souls?)
>>> When a living creature dies,the
>>> physical elements are still present but not that which animated the
>>> creature.
>> Like a fire going out. Is fire a spirit being?
>
> Fire is made up of physical particles and their energy.
Uergil
Dec 24, 2011, 1:38:25 AM12/24/11
to
In article
<035ed833-d717-45fb...@32g2000yqp.googlegroups.com>,
some evidence of it, considering the profusion of the life that you
allege it inspires?
> Energy pertains to physical matter. Life pertains to spirit.
Then why does life require energy to sustain it and cease when such
energy becomes unavailable?
> We should make a distinction between biology and
> mere chemical reactions that occur in biology.
All chemical reactions either require energy or produce it, and without
those reactions no life can exist.
> Biology is about living
> things,not just the chemical components of living things,and so to
> reduce the workings of biology to chemical reactions is to miss the
> forest for the trees.
Except that there is no evidence of anything other than energy
You may have faith in that claim but you have no physical evidence
supporting that faith.
--
"Ignorance is preferable to error, and he is less
remote from the- truth who believes nothing than
he who believes what is wrong.
Thomas Jefferson
<035ed833-d717-45fb...@32g2000yqp.googlegroups.com>,
Anthony022071 <anthon...@ameritech.net> wrote:
> It isn't a source of energy that move biological processes into an
> organism,but spiritual power.
If any such spiritual power existed it "inspire" life would there not be
> It isn't a source of energy that move biological processes into an
> organism,but spiritual power.
some evidence of it, considering the profusion of the life that you
allege it inspires?
> Energy pertains to physical matter. Life pertains to spirit.
energy becomes unavailable?
> We should make a distinction between biology and
> mere chemical reactions that occur in biology.
those reactions no life can exist.
> Biology is about living
> things,not just the chemical components of living things,and so to
> reduce the workings of biology to chemical reactions is to miss the
> forest for the trees.
>
> > There is no God-shaped socket in organisms, waiting for the finger
> > of God to plug into.
>
> The point is that organisms cannot exist in the first place without
> being created by God.
Where is your evidence for any such claim.
> > There is no God-shaped socket in organisms, waiting for the finger
> > of God to plug into.
>
> The point is that organisms cannot exist in the first place without
> being created by God.
You may have faith in that claim but you have no physical evidence
supporting that faith.
--
"Ignorance is preferable to error, and he is less
remote from the- truth who believes nothing than
he who believes what is wrong.
Thomas Jefferson
Rolf
Dec 24, 2011, 10:52:43 AM12/24/11
to
Rolf
Dec 24, 2011, 10:51:56 AM12/24/11
to
mean?
Something that holds in court, or whatever you prefer to believe anyway?
Rolf
Dec 24, 2011, 10:53:45 AM12/24/11
to
Rolf
Dec 24, 2011, 10:57:15 AM12/24/11
to
I am certain, no qualifier, that what you write is nonsense. That's what
you get when fundamentalistic religion infest the human mind.
Free Lunch
Dec 24, 2011, 10:58:44 AM12/24/11
to
On Fri, 23 Dec 2011 19:09:57 -0800 (PST), Anthony022071
<anthon...@ameritech.net> wrote in talk.origins:
>On Dec 11, 1:13 pm, Free Lunch <lu...@nofreelunch.us> wrote:
>> On Sun, 11 Dec 2011 10:45:06 -0800 (PST), Anthony022071
>> <anthony022...@ameritech.net> wrote in talk.origins:
>>
>> >On Dec 6, 4:01 pm, John Harshman <jharsh...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>> ...
>> >> So I despair of getting any answers to my questions, but still: what
>> >> evidence do you have that life is immaterial?
>>
>> >Life is by definition something distinct from material elements and
>> >energy,so it is immaterial. It is the invisible and intangible power
>> >that makes living creatures alive. When a living creature dies,the
>> >physical elements are still present but not that which animated the
>> >creature.
>>
>> No, life is just a self-sustaining biochemical reaction. It is
>> completely "material".
>
>Life is a phenomenon of power that creates and sustains an organism.
No, life is what we call the self-sustaining biochemical reaction.
>The fact that biochemical reactions are involved with life in
>organisms does not mean that they are life itself.
Why not? Nothing else is needed.
>They are organized by spirit to work purposefully in the processes of
>organisms. They cannot organize themselves into an organism self-
>sufficiently.
You know that you cannot back up your claim and the scientific evidence
shows that there is no need for such a "spirit". Life is just fine
without your mystical nonsense.
<anthon...@ameritech.net> wrote in talk.origins:
>On Dec 11, 1:13 pm, Free Lunch <lu...@nofreelunch.us> wrote:
>> On Sun, 11 Dec 2011 10:45:06 -0800 (PST), Anthony022071
>> <anthony022...@ameritech.net> wrote in talk.origins:
>>
>> >On Dec 6, 4:01 pm, John Harshman <jharsh...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>> ...
>> >> So I despair of getting any answers to my questions, but still: what
>> >> evidence do you have that life is immaterial?
>>
>> >Life is by definition something distinct from material elements and
>> >energy,so it is immaterial. It is the invisible and intangible power
>> >that makes living creatures alive. When a living creature dies,the
>> >physical elements are still present but not that which animated the
>> >creature.
>>
>> No, life is just a self-sustaining biochemical reaction. It is
>> completely "material".
>
>Life is a phenomenon of power that creates and sustains an organism.
>The fact that biochemical reactions are involved with life in
>organisms does not mean that they are life itself.
>They are organized by spirit to work purposefully in the processes of
>organisms. They cannot organize themselves into an organism self-
>sufficiently.
shows that there is no need for such a "spirit". Life is just fine
without your mystical nonsense.
Free Lunch
Dec 24, 2011, 10:59:16 AM12/24/11
to
On Fri, 23 Dec 2011 19:47:02 -0800 (PST), Anthony022071
<anthon...@ameritech.net> wrote in talk.origins:
And you know that you cannot prove that claim because you know it is
false.
<anthon...@ameritech.net> wrote in talk.origins:
false.
Free Lunch
Dec 24, 2011, 11:01:36 AM12/24/11
to
On Fri, 23 Dec 2011 20:28:46 -0800 (PST), Anthony022071
<anthon...@ameritech.net> wrote in talk.origins:
>On Dec 6, 12:05 am, Garamond Lethe <cartographi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Mon, 05 Dec 2011 14:14:59 -0800, Anthony022071 wrote:
>> > JH: You mean it doesn't cause morphological change, but so what? The
>> > part of the theory of evolution we're talking about here is common
>> > descent, and any change can be evidence for that.
>>
>> > A: The question of common descent is connected with the question of
>> > whether genetic modifications have effected morphological changes.
>> > Neutral nucleotide sites don't do that. The pattern of distribution of
>> > neutral sites is seen as evidence of common descent,but this
>> > pattern,like that of functional sites,may have resulted from separate
>> > ancestries for all we know.
>>
>> In celebration of these past 1k posts, I'd like to step back from what
>> you believe for a moment and ask why I should believe it.
>>
>> For example: "[T]his pattern ... may have resulted from separate
>> ancestries for all we know."
>>
>> "May" is a very low bar that includes everything but the impossible. I'm
>> going to assume you meant a higher bar than that: "separate ancestries"
>> is plausible enough to warrant some serious thought.
>>
>> What I'd like you to tell me is *why* it's plausible enough to warrant
>> serious thought.
>
>It is plausible enough because I cannot see why the patterns of the NH
>model could only have resulted from common ancestry and not from
>separate ancestries.
The simplest explanation is common descent. It is also an explanation
that is completely consistent with the evidence. Why assume a far more
complicated explanation when there is no need for it?
>I cannot see why it is out of the question that
>similar species cannot have been created separately and show similar
>patterns of genetic distribution. If two species have much in common
>genetically to begin with,why should we be impressed if they show
>similar patterns of genetic distribution?
Why do you assume creation when you have absolutely no supporting
evidence?
>> As best I can remember (and I haven't been following the past few hundred
>> posts very carefully) your answer will come down to "We can't be
>> certain". However, I don't need certainty to dismiss implausible answers
>> in any other part of my life so I'm not sure why it would be required for
>> biology.
>>
>> Do you have a better answer than lack of certainty?
>
>I'm not just uncertain about common descent,I really doubt that what
>it entails - macro-evolution - is possible,because the processes that
>supposedly lead to it don't add up. And I am fairly certain that the
>patterns of the NH model could have resulted from separate
>ancestries.
If you bothered to learn some science, you wouldn't be spewing mystical
gibberish.
<anthon...@ameritech.net> wrote in talk.origins:
>On Dec 6, 12:05 am, Garamond Lethe <cartographi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Mon, 05 Dec 2011 14:14:59 -0800, Anthony022071 wrote:
>> > JH: You mean it doesn't cause morphological change, but so what? The
>> > part of the theory of evolution we're talking about here is common
>> > descent, and any change can be evidence for that.
>>
>> > A: The question of common descent is connected with the question of
>> > whether genetic modifications have effected morphological changes.
>> > Neutral nucleotide sites don't do that. The pattern of distribution of
>> > neutral sites is seen as evidence of common descent,but this
>> > pattern,like that of functional sites,may have resulted from separate
>> > ancestries for all we know.
>>
>> In celebration of these past 1k posts, I'd like to step back from what
>> you believe for a moment and ask why I should believe it.
>>
>> For example: "[T]his pattern ... may have resulted from separate
>> ancestries for all we know."
>>
>> "May" is a very low bar that includes everything but the impossible. I'm
>> going to assume you meant a higher bar than that: "separate ancestries"
>> is plausible enough to warrant some serious thought.
>>
>> What I'd like you to tell me is *why* it's plausible enough to warrant
>> serious thought.
>
>It is plausible enough because I cannot see why the patterns of the NH
>model could only have resulted from common ancestry and not from
>separate ancestries.
that is completely consistent with the evidence. Why assume a far more
complicated explanation when there is no need for it?
>I cannot see why it is out of the question that
>similar species cannot have been created separately and show similar
>patterns of genetic distribution. If two species have much in common
>genetically to begin with,why should we be impressed if they show
>similar patterns of genetic distribution?
evidence?
>> As best I can remember (and I haven't been following the past few hundred
>> posts very carefully) your answer will come down to "We can't be
>> certain". However, I don't need certainty to dismiss implausible answers
>> in any other part of my life so I'm not sure why it would be required for
>> biology.
>>
>> Do you have a better answer than lack of certainty?
>
>I'm not just uncertain about common descent,I really doubt that what
>it entails - macro-evolution - is possible,because the processes that
>supposedly lead to it don't add up. And I am fairly certain that the
>patterns of the NH model could have resulted from separate
>ancestries.
gibberish.
Harry K
Dec 24, 2011, 12:40:25 PM12/24/11
to
>
> - Show quoted text -
Boils down to "argument from incredulity" then proposing a "what if",
e.g., mental masturbation.
Harry K
Steven L.
Dec 25, 2011, 8:21:21 AM12/25/11
to
"Anthony022071" <anthon...@ameritech.net> wrote in message
news:035ed833-d717-45fb...@32g2000yqp.googlegroups.com:
every 20 minutes on the average. Including trillions of bacteria in the
intestines of each human and every other mammal on Earth.
If God has to imbue each one with spirit separately, He must keep pretty
busy.
-- Steven L.
Steven L.
Dec 25, 2011, 8:29:14 AM12/25/11
to
news:7ntbf7p9ncric5cc0...@4ax.com:
Vitalism--that living creatures contained some "elan vital" or "life
force"--was a widespread belief centuries ago.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vitalism
In the West, the discovery that just about any chemical from any life
form can be artificially synthesized (starting with the famous synthesis
of urea) pretty much ended vitalism.
It still exists in Eastern healing traditions like Reiki, which attempts
to draw on the body's life force (qi) for healing.
Most modern Western creationists are not vitalists. It's interesting
that Anthony still is.
-- Steven L.
force"--was a widespread belief centuries ago.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vitalism
In the West, the discovery that just about any chemical from any life
form can be artificially synthesized (starting with the famous synthesis
of urea) pretty much ended vitalism.
It still exists in Eastern healing traditions like Reiki, which attempts
to draw on the body's life force (qi) for healing.
Most modern Western creationists are not vitalists. It's interesting
that Anthony still is.
-- Steven L.
Steven L.
Dec 25, 2011, 9:44:03 AM12/25/11
to
news:4963bab6-318d-4b3b...@m7g2000vbc.googlegroups.com:
So your assertion is that self-organization is impossible by the natural
laws of science alone, right?
The possibility of a chemical system organizing itself from its
component parts is not obvious--but it has been shown to be
theoretically possible.
Take a look at some of the research in autocatalytic sets--sets of
chemical reactions that can catalyze their own replication.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Autocatalytic_reactions_and_order_creation
This sort of stuff was not known until the last few decades--though the
basic math on which it's based were known earlier.
Or, just consider the weather.
From individual molecules of air and water vapor, a hurricane can form
spontaneously with a well-organized spiral shape--and maintain that
shape over several days.
How does that happen? Or are you claiming that a hurricane has a spirit
too?
-- Steven L.
laws of science alone, right?
The possibility of a chemical system organizing itself from its
component parts is not obvious--but it has been shown to be
theoretically possible.
Take a look at some of the research in autocatalytic sets--sets of
chemical reactions that can catalyze their own replication.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Autocatalytic_reactions_and_order_creation
This sort of stuff was not known until the last few decades--though the
basic math on which it's based were known earlier.
Or, just consider the weather.
From individual molecules of air and water vapor, a hurricane can form
spontaneously with a well-organized spiral shape--and maintain that
shape over several days.
How does that happen? Or are you claiming that a hurricane has a spirit
too?
-- Steven L.
Steven L.
Dec 25, 2011, 9:59:33 AM12/25/11
to
"John Harshman" <jhar...@pacbell.net> wrote in message
news:5ZmdnVHZ2Pi...@giganews.com:
> Anthony022071 wrote:
> > On Dec 12, 6:06 pm, Mark Isaak <eci...@curioustaxonomyNOSPAM.net>
> > wrote:
> >> On 12/11/11 10:45 AM, Anthony022071 wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>> Life is by definition something distinct from material elements and
> >>> energy,so it is immaterial.
> >> You left out a couple words. Here, I'll correct:
> >>
> >> Life is by definition something not distinct from material elements and
> >> energy, so it is not immaterial.
> >
> > It is distinct. It is a different phenomena from material elements and
> > energy,and not to be confused with them. They are involved with the
> > processes of life in organisms,but they do not create life.
> >
> >>> It is the invisible and intangible power
> >>> that makes living creatures alive.
> >
> >> What makes creatures alive is not intangible and is invisible only
> >> because there is skin (or similar covering) between you and it.
> >
> > What makes creatures alive is spiritual power.
>
> How do you know that? What evidence do you have for the existence of
> something non-physical in organisms? (Do bacteria really have souls?)
Can one accept modern biological science--even become a biologist--and
still believe he has an immortal soul?
I sure hope so,
because otherwise we've made non-theism a prerequisite for learning
about biological science.
That would certainly make Eugenie Scott's job impossible.
So if we don't want to indulge in animism or vitalism (in which as you
say even bacteria would have an elan vital), the alternative is that--as
the Bible strongly suggests--humans are special.
-- Steven L.
Steven L.
Dec 25, 2011, 10:18:13 AM12/25/11
to
news:107faa6e-bfae-4695...@t16g2000vba.googlegroups.com:
Two points:
1. The Romans were not atheists in the modern sense. They had their
own gods, as did the Greeks before them. They had their own creation
myths. In fact, the basic theme in Greek mythology--immortal gods
creating order out of chaos--has some similarities to the Genesis myth.
The Christians weren't the first people to wonder about how order and
regularity came into the world. Many peoples around the world wondered
about that--and had their own myths and their own gods which they held
responsible. St. Paul was being too dismissive of those other beliefs.
2. St. Paul also seemed to be implying that failing to accept evidence
for the God of the Hebrews (which is understandable since Yahweh wasn't
all that famous in Rome and Jesus was even less so)--led to some moral
failings on the part of the Romans.
That sort of thing muddied your basic point, Anthony, and next time you
ought to just delete those passages.
A man can still believe that the God of Abraham created living things,
even if that man has slept with fifty women and enjoys watching
gladiator contests--or Fear Factor.
-- Steven L.
1. The Romans were not atheists in the modern sense. They had their
own gods, as did the Greeks before them. They had their own creation
myths. In fact, the basic theme in Greek mythology--immortal gods
creating order out of chaos--has some similarities to the Genesis myth.
The Christians weren't the first people to wonder about how order and
regularity came into the world. Many peoples around the world wondered
about that--and had their own myths and their own gods which they held
responsible. St. Paul was being too dismissive of those other beliefs.
2. St. Paul also seemed to be implying that failing to accept evidence
for the God of the Hebrews (which is understandable since Yahweh wasn't
all that famous in Rome and Jesus was even less so)--led to some moral
failings on the part of the Romans.
That sort of thing muddied your basic point, Anthony, and next time you
ought to just delete those passages.
A man can still believe that the God of Abraham created living things,
even if that man has slept with fifty women and enjoys watching
gladiator contests--or Fear Factor.
-- Steven L.
walksalone
Dec 25, 2011, 10:21:13 AM12/25/11
to
"Steven L." <sdli...@earthlink.net> wrote in
news:6rCdnUXDDLMqq2rT...@earthlink.com:
>
>
> "Anthony022071" <anthon...@ameritech.net> wrote in message
> news:4963bab6-318d-4b3b...@m7g2000vbc.googlegroups.com:
>
>> On Dec 11, 1:13 pm, Free Lunch <lu...@nofreelunch.us> wrote:
>> > On Sun, 11 Dec 2011 10:45:06 -0800 (PST), Anthony022071
>> > <anthony022...@ameritech.net> wrote in talk.origins:
>> >
>> > >On Dec 6, 4:01 pm, John Harshman <jharsh...@pacbell.net> wrote:
snip
> Take a look at some of the research in autocatalytic sets--sets of
> chemical reactions that can catalyze their own replication.
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Autocatalytic_reactions_and_order_creation
>
> This sort of stuff was not known until the last few decades--though
> the basic math on which it's based were known earlier.
>
> Or, just consider the weather.
>
> From individual molecules of air and water vapor, a hurricane can form
> spontaneously with a well-organized spiral shape--and maintain that
> shape over several days.
>
> How does that happen? Or are you claiming that a hurricane has a
> spirit too?
<SEAG> Now that you ask.
From my notebook, various sources.
Hurukan [Hurican] Ancient mayan creator god who made the earth, animals,
and mankind. Symbolizes fire, spiritual enlightenment, thunder, hurricanes,
whirlwinds, disasters. His element is fire.
</SEAG>
HTH, & no I did not take you seriously when you asked if a hurricane has a
spirit. Though it sometimes looks like it. Hurricane Eloise, from Panama
City Florida to Minniapolis St. Paul where it died as a drepression. Now
that was a wind. & My first hurricane. Not sure which I prefer, a high
range blizzard or a flat land hurricane. In terms of dollars & lives, I'll
take the blizzard.
walksalone who has a list that normally he does not share with other
groups. Alt.atheism is my home group, if such a phrase is appropriate. The
subjects are normally OT for this group. Even though some of those gods
are indeed, creator gods.
I would love to believe that when I die I will live again, that some
thinking, feeling, remembering part of me will continue. But as much as I
want to believe that, and despite the ancient and worldwide cultural
traditions that assert an afterlife, I know of nothing to suggest that it
is more than wishful thinking.
Carl Sagan, The Demon Haunted World
news:6rCdnUXDDLMqq2rT...@earthlink.com:
>
>
> "Anthony022071" <anthon...@ameritech.net> wrote in message
> news:4963bab6-318d-4b3b...@m7g2000vbc.googlegroups.com:
>
>> On Dec 11, 1:13 pm, Free Lunch <lu...@nofreelunch.us> wrote:
>> > On Sun, 11 Dec 2011 10:45:06 -0800 (PST), Anthony022071
>> > <anthony022...@ameritech.net> wrote in talk.origins:
>> >
>> > >On Dec 6, 4:01 pm, John Harshman <jharsh...@pacbell.net> wrote:
> Take a look at some of the research in autocatalytic sets--sets of
> chemical reactions that can catalyze their own replication.
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Autocatalytic_reactions_and_order_creation
>
> This sort of stuff was not known until the last few decades--though
> the basic math on which it's based were known earlier.
>
> Or, just consider the weather.
>
> From individual molecules of air and water vapor, a hurricane can form
> spontaneously with a well-organized spiral shape--and maintain that
> shape over several days.
>
> How does that happen? Or are you claiming that a hurricane has a
> spirit too?
From my notebook, various sources.
Hurukan [Hurican] Ancient mayan creator god who made the earth, animals,
and mankind. Symbolizes fire, spiritual enlightenment, thunder, hurricanes,
whirlwinds, disasters. His element is fire.
</SEAG>
HTH, & no I did not take you seriously when you asked if a hurricane has a
spirit. Though it sometimes looks like it. Hurricane Eloise, from Panama
City Florida to Minniapolis St. Paul where it died as a drepression. Now
that was a wind. & My first hurricane. Not sure which I prefer, a high
range blizzard or a flat land hurricane. In terms of dollars & lives, I'll
take the blizzard.
walksalone who has a list that normally he does not share with other
groups. Alt.atheism is my home group, if such a phrase is appropriate. The
subjects are normally OT for this group. Even though some of those gods
are indeed, creator gods.
I would love to believe that when I die I will live again, that some
thinking, feeling, remembering part of me will continue. But as much as I
want to believe that, and despite the ancient and worldwide cultural
traditions that assert an afterlife, I know of nothing to suggest that it
is more than wishful thinking.
Carl Sagan, The Demon Haunted World
John Harshman
Dec 25, 2011, 11:17:45 AM12/25/11
to
Steven L. wrote:
>
>
> "John Harshman" <jhar...@pacbell.net> wrote in message
> news:5ZmdnVHZ2Pi...@giganews.com:
>
>> Anthony022071 wrote:
>> > On Dec 12, 6:06 pm, Mark Isaak <eci...@curioustaxonomyNOSPAM.net>
>> > wrote:
>> >> On 12/11/11 10:45 AM, Anthony022071 wrote:
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>> Life is by definition something distinct from material elements and
>> >>> energy,so it is immaterial.
>> >> You left out a couple words. Here, I'll correct:
>> >>
>> >> Life is by definition something not distinct from material elements
>> and
>> >> energy, so it is not immaterial.
>> >
>> > It is distinct. It is a different phenomena from material elements and
>> > energy,and not to be confused with them. They are involved with the
>> > processes of life in organisms,but they do not create life.
>> >
>> >>> It is the invisible and intangible power
>> >>> that makes living creatures alive.
>> >
>> >> What makes creatures alive is not intangible and is invisible only
>> >> because there is skin (or similar covering) between you and it.
>> >
>> > What makes creatures alive is spiritual power.
>>
>> How do you know that? What evidence do you have for the existence of
>> something non-physical in organisms? (Do bacteria really have souls?)
>
> Do humans have souls?
Let's work our way up to that, shall we?
>
>
> "John Harshman" <jhar...@pacbell.net> wrote in message
> news:5ZmdnVHZ2Pi...@giganews.com:
>
>> Anthony022071 wrote:
>> > On Dec 12, 6:06 pm, Mark Isaak <eci...@curioustaxonomyNOSPAM.net>
>> > wrote:
>> >> On 12/11/11 10:45 AM, Anthony022071 wrote:
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>> Life is by definition something distinct from material elements and
>> >>> energy,so it is immaterial.
>> >> You left out a couple words. Here, I'll correct:
>> >>
>> >> Life is by definition something not distinct from material elements
>> and
>> >> energy, so it is not immaterial.
>> >
>> > It is distinct. It is a different phenomena from material elements and
>> > energy,and not to be confused with them. They are involved with the
>> > processes of life in organisms,but they do not create life.
>> >
>> >>> It is the invisible and intangible power
>> >>> that makes living creatures alive.
>> >
>> >> What makes creatures alive is not intangible and is invisible only
>> >> because there is skin (or similar covering) between you and it.
>> >
>> > What makes creatures alive is spiritual power.
>>
>> How do you know that? What evidence do you have for the existence of
>> something non-physical in organisms? (Do bacteria really have souls?)
>
> Do humans have souls?
> Can one accept modern biological science--even become a biologist--and
> still believe he has an immortal soul?
as a recording device that is capable of maintaining your existence
after you die, but has no function while you're alive. That would work.
No evidence for, but at least no evidence against.
> I sure hope so,
> because otherwise we've made non-theism a prerequisite for learning
> about biological science.
> That would certainly make Eugenie Scott's job impossible.
prerequisite, merely (to the degree it's amenable to empirical evidence)
a rational conclusion.
> So if we don't want to indulge in animism or vitalism (in which as you
> say even bacteria would have an elan vital), the alternative is that--as
> the Bible strongly suggests--humans are special.
explore here.
John Harshman
Dec 25, 2011, 11:19:05 AM12/25/11
to
John S. Wilkins
Dec 25, 2011, 7:49:13 PM12/25/11
to
be fundamentally moral, in defiance of all evidence to the contrary, a
soul is a good solution (it bears responsibility and all sanctions are
applied to it in the long run. It has to have no discernible effect on
the physical world, though, or it ceases to be what it is defined for.
>
> > I sure hope so,
> > because otherwise we've made non-theism a prerequisite for learning
> > about biological science.
> > That would certainly make Eugenie Scott's job impossible.
>
> It may indeed be that her job is impossible. But non-theism isn't a
> prerequisite, merely (to the degree it's amenable to empirical evidence)
> a rational conclusion.
If your rationality is intended only to give you beliefs that are
> > I sure hope so,
> > because otherwise we've made non-theism a prerequisite for learning
> > about biological science.
> > That would certainly make Eugenie Scott's job impossible.
>
> It may indeed be that her job is impossible. But non-theism isn't a
> prerequisite, merely (to the degree it's amenable to empirical evidence)
> a rational conclusion.
evidentiary. But that, too, is am argument based on nonevidentiary
premises (what sort of statement is the statement "the only statements
you should accept are those that are based on evidence"? What evidence
is there that this is true?
If, on the other hand, you allow some statements should be assented to
without evidentiary support (like that one), then you can't exclude
theists who do not assert their theism is evidential (i.e.,
non-apologetic types), and so you (the eponymous you) can't object to
those theists doing or accepting biology.
Also, I am unsure of the rationality of adopting a statement based on
the absence of evidence as the *only* solution available. If we had
positive evidence there were no gods (such as the problem of evil, which
excludes only a few kinds of deities), then the non-theism belief would
be rational in the broader and vernacular sense. But Genie's view is
tenable because nothing she believes in possibly conflicts with the
evidence (she is a Christian, I gather). So I can't see how non-theism
is a forced conclusion. If you did not mean that, then ignore me here.
>
> > So if we don't want to indulge in animism or vitalism (in which as you
> > say even bacteria would have an elan vital), the alternative is that--as
> > the Bible strongly suggests--humans are special.
>
> Perhaps. But that isn't Anthony's claim, whose limits I'm trying to
> explore here.
I could give a gloss on it (a kind of Aristotelian formalism), but
> > So if we don't want to indulge in animism or vitalism (in which as you
> > say even bacteria would have an elan vital), the alternative is that--as
> > the Bible strongly suggests--humans are special.
>
> Perhaps. But that isn't Anthony's claim, whose limits I'm trying to
> explore here.
that's up to Anthony.
--
John S. Wilkins, Associate, Philosophy, University of Sydney
http://evolvingthoughts.net
But al be that he was a philosophre,
Yet hadde he but litel gold in cofre
John Harshman
Dec 25, 2011, 11:26:31 PM12/25/11
to
all should be fine.
>>> I sure hope so,
>>> because otherwise we've made non-theism a prerequisite for learning
>>> about biological science.
>>> That would certainly make Eugenie Scott's job impossible.
>> It may indeed be that her job is impossible. But non-theism isn't a
>> prerequisite, merely (to the degree it's amenable to empirical evidence)
>> a rational conclusion.
>
> If your rationality is intended only to give you beliefs that are
> evidentiary. But that, too, is am argument based on nonevidentiary
> premises (what sort of statement is the statement "the only statements
> you should accept are those that are based on evidence"? What evidence
> is there that this is true?
non-evidentiary beliefs then anything is allowed.
> If, on the other hand, you allow some statements should be assented to
> without evidentiary support (like that one), then you can't exclude
> theists who do not assert their theism is evidential (i.e.,
> non-apologetic types), and so you (the eponymous you) can't object to
> those theists doing or accepting biology.
case to theists doing or accepting biology?
> Also, I am unsure of the rationality of adopting a statement based on
> the absence of evidence as the *only* solution available. If we had
> positive evidence there were no gods (such as the problem of evil, which
> excludes only a few kinds of deities), then the non-theism belief would
> be rational in the broader and vernacular sense.
gods with visible effects can be rejected on that basis.
> But Genie's view is
> tenable because nothing she believes in possibly conflicts with the
> evidence (she is a Christian, I gather).
> So I can't see how non-theism
> is a forced conclusion. If you did not mean that, then ignore me here.
>>> So if we don't want to indulge in animism or vitalism (in which as you
>>> say even bacteria would have an elan vital), the alternative is that--as
>>> the Bible strongly suggests--humans are special.
>> Perhaps. But that isn't Anthony's claim, whose limits I'm trying to
>> explore here.
>
> I could give a gloss on it (a kind of Aristotelian formalism), but
> that's up to Anthony.
Garamond Lethe
Dec 26, 2011, 1:03:04 AM12/26/11
to
On Dec 23, 8:28 pm, Anthony022071 <anthony022...@ameritech.net> wrote:
explanation (assuming infinitely powerful trickster gods don't have
measurable plausibility). Since I can see this --- and more
important, since I have some familiarity with the mathematical methods
used to quantify this --- I don't see where you're making anything
more than an argument from incredulity.
If you wanted to make a better argument than that, start by
understanding the one you're arguing against.
>
> > As best I can remember (and I haven't been following the past few hundred
> > posts very carefully) your answer will come down to "We can't be
> > certain". However, I don't need certainty to dismiss implausible answers
> > in any other part of my life so I'm not sure why it would be required for
> > biology.
>
> > Do you have a better answer than lack of certainty?
>
> I'm not just uncertain about common descent,I really doubt that what
> it entails - macro-evolution - is possible,because the processes that
> supposedly lead to it don't add up. And I am fairly certain that the
> patterns of the NH model could have resulted from separate
> ancestries.
plenty of "I don't see" and "I really doubt" and "I'm fairly certain",
but that's it.
Where's your math? Where are your measurements? Where are your
proposed alternative ancestries any what makes them plausible?
In short, where's your argument?
Rolf
Dec 26, 2011, 5:15:47 PM12/26/11
to
Frank J
Dec 26, 2011, 6:14:06 PM12/26/11
to
On Dec 23, 9:15 pm, Anthony022071 <anthony022...@ameritech.net> wrote:
> On Dec 6, 11:44 am, Friar Broccoli <elia...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Hi Anthony;
>
> > Since you didn't address my outstanding post:
>
> >http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/0258ac6283ecf788
>
> > concerning the multilevel contradictions in your evolution denying
> > system where you appear to begin from:
>
> > *NOT* knowing if presumed ancestors where reproductively compatible
> > TO *knowing* that macro-evolution is impossible
>
> I consider macro-evolution impossible because the processes that are
> said to have made it happen - natural selection,accumulating mutations
> - cannot logically or biologically lead to macro-evolution. Natural
> selection is a process of elimination,not a process that creates or
> develops anything. And mutations do not affect the physical structure
> of species nearly enough to change a species beyond its level.
Just dropping by to try again after several months:
Some deniers of "macroevolution" concede that changes do occur beyond
the species level. Have you challenged them? Particularly the ones who
concede that whatever processes occur in lieu of "microevolution" that
they nevertheless occur in a biological continuum?
> Most
> features of a species do not seem to be subject to modification
> through allele mutations. The few kinds of known mutations that are
> used to show how evolution works cannot possibly lead to macro-
> evolution,no matter how many millions of years elapse.
Do you agree that the millions of years do occur, with only your
"microevolution"? Or do you think life itself is far younger, in which
case your incredulity of "macroevolution" would be mostly irrelevant?
>
> > but when presented with specific examples of macro-evolution claim to
> > *NOT* know if macro-evolution occurred.
>
> Right,I don't know if the examples of supposed macro-evolution really
> happened,because we don't know of any reproductive links between the
> different species. But I do have reason to think that the examples
> could not have happened,because the processes that are said to have
> led to macro-evolution don't add up.
That may be your problem - looking for (& personally selecting)
evidence to "add up" instead of *converge*.
What I find fascinating is how no one dares to actually test what
could conceivably falsify "macroevolution":
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/section1.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/section2.html
but instead relies on the same old incredulity arguments.
> On Dec 6, 11:44 am, Friar Broccoli <elia...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Hi Anthony;
>
> > Since you didn't address my outstanding post:
>
> >http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/0258ac6283ecf788
>
> > concerning the multilevel contradictions in your evolution denying
> > system where you appear to begin from:
>
> > *NOT* knowing if presumed ancestors where reproductively compatible
> > TO *knowing* that macro-evolution is impossible
>
> I consider macro-evolution impossible because the processes that are
> said to have made it happen - natural selection,accumulating mutations
> - cannot logically or biologically lead to macro-evolution. Natural
> selection is a process of elimination,not a process that creates or
> develops anything. And mutations do not affect the physical structure
> of species nearly enough to change a species beyond its level.
Just dropping by to try again after several months:
Some deniers of "macroevolution" concede that changes do occur beyond
the species level. Have you challenged them? Particularly the ones who
concede that whatever processes occur in lieu of "microevolution" that
they nevertheless occur in a biological continuum?
> Most
> features of a species do not seem to be subject to modification
> through allele mutations. The few kinds of known mutations that are
> used to show how evolution works cannot possibly lead to macro-
> evolution,no matter how many millions of years elapse.
Do you agree that the millions of years do occur, with only your
"microevolution"? Or do you think life itself is far younger, in which
case your incredulity of "macroevolution" would be mostly irrelevant?
>
> > but when presented with specific examples of macro-evolution claim to
> > *NOT* know if macro-evolution occurred.
>
> Right,I don't know if the examples of supposed macro-evolution really
> happened,because we don't know of any reproductive links between the
> different species. But I do have reason to think that the examples
> could not have happened,because the processes that are said to have
> led to macro-evolution don't add up.
That may be your problem - looking for (& personally selecting)
evidence to "add up" instead of *converge*.
What I find fascinating is how no one dares to actually test what
could conceivably falsify "macroevolution":
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/section1.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/section2.html
but instead relies on the same old incredulity arguments.
Anthony022071
Dec 28, 2011, 3:33:55 PM12/28/11
to
On Dec 23, 9:05 pm, Free Lunch <lu...@nofreelunch.us> wrote:
> On Fri, 23 Dec 2011 18:47:40 -0800 (PST), Anthony022071
> <anthony022...@ameritech.net> wrote in talk.origins:
>
> >> > Inez Dec 25
> >> > spirit.
>
> >> So you're a vitalist, believing in that elan vital.
>
> >Except that I identify the vital principle as spirit created and
> >sustained by God.
>
> Even though there is no such thing. Why?
There is such a thing as spirit. It is what makes us alive. It IS
life. People throughout the ages and the world have always recognized
life as spirit.
> On Fri, 23 Dec 2011 18:47:40 -0800 (PST), Anthony022071
> <anthony022...@ameritech.net> wrote in talk.origins:
>
>
>
>
>
> >On Dec 8, 1:47 pm, "Steven L." <sdlit...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> >> "Anthony022071" <anthony022...@ameritech.net> wrote in message
>
> >>news:de071ee6-79e7-4de8...@a17g2000yqj.googlegroups.com:
>
>
>
>
> >On Dec 8, 1:47 pm, "Steven L." <sdlit...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> >> "Anthony022071" <anthony022...@ameritech.net> wrote in message
>
>
> >> > Inez Dec 25
>
> >> > On Dec 5, 8:22 am, Anthony022071 <anthony022...@ameritech.net> wrote:
> >> > > > >> >> Are you an occasionalist?
> >> > > > >> >> --
> >> > > > >> >> alias Ernest Major
> >> > > > >> >No. I was distinguishing the creation of living creatures from earthly
> >> > > > >> >elements (amino acids,proteins) and from parents.
> >> > > > >> Your denial of occasionalism is bald enough. But I don't understand the
> >> > > > >> remainder of your response. It seems as if you're denying human
> >> > > > >> reproduction as a natural process (in which case how does your position
> >> > > > >> differ from occasionalism?).
> >> > > > >> http://pandasthumb.org/archives/2007/10/intelligent-del.html
> >> > > > >> --
> >> > > > >> alias Ernest Major
> >> > > > >Reproduction is obviously a natural process,but it is also made to
> >> > > > >happen by God's power. It is spirit that animates living creatures and
> >> > > > >their reproductive material.
> >> > On Dec 5, 8:22 am, Anthony022071 <anthony022...@ameritech.net> wrote:
> >> > > > >> >> Are you an occasionalist?
> >> > > > >> >> --
> >> > > > >> >> alias Ernest Major
> >> > > > >> >No. I was distinguishing the creation of living creatures from earthly
> >> > > > >> >elements (amino acids,proteins) and from parents.
> >> > > > >> Your denial of occasionalism is bald enough. But I don't understand the
> >> > > > >> remainder of your response. It seems as if you're denying human
> >> > > > >> reproduction as a natural process (in which case how does your position
> >> > > > >> differ from occasionalism?).
> >> > > > >> http://pandasthumb.org/archives/2007/10/intelligent-del.html
> >> > > > >> --
> >> > > > >> alias Ernest Major
> >> > > > >Reproduction is obviously a natural process,but it is also made to
> >> > > > >happen by God's power. It is spirit that animates living creatures and
> >> > > > >their reproductive material.
> >> > > > In which case, how does your position differ from occasionalism?
> >> > > > --
> >> > > > alias Ernest Major
>
> >> > > It's different because I don't deny that natural substances can be
> >> > > efficient causes for events. What I deny is that natural substances
> >> > > can create life or living organisms. There is no reason to think that
> >> > > they have the necessary power.
>
> >> > > > --
> >> > > > alias Ernest Major
>
> >> > > It's different because I don't deny that natural substances can be
> >> > > efficient causes for events. What I deny is that natural substances
> >> > > can create life or living organisms. There is no reason to think that
> >> > > they have the necessary power.
>
> >> > Inez: They do it all the time. Have you never planted a seed in your
> >> > garden?
>
> >> > The power that makes seeds grow to become plants is life,which is
> >> > garden?
>
> >> > spirit.
>
> >> So you're a vitalist, believing in that elan vital.
>
> >Except that I identify the vital principle as spirit created and
> >sustained by God.
>
> Even though there is no such thing. Why?
There is such a thing as spirit. It is what makes us alive. It IS
life. People throughout the ages and the world have always recognized
life as spirit.
Anthony022071
Dec 28, 2011, 3:42:07 PM12/28/11
to
On Dec 23, 9:06 pm, Free Lunch <lu...@nofreelunch.us> wrote:
> On Fri, 23 Dec 2011 18:54:34 -0800 (PST), Anthony022071
> <anthony022...@ameritech.net> wrote in talk.origins:
>
>
>
>
>
> >On Dec 11, 1:12 pm, Free Lunch <lu...@nofreelunch.us> wrote:
> >> On Sun, 11 Dec 2011 10:45:06 -0800 (PST), Anthony022071
> >> <anthony022...@ameritech.net> wrote in talk.origins:
>
> No, it is not. You are merely assuming your conclusion.
It is a reasoned conclusion,and entirely justifiable by reason.
> >Evidence is not
> >limited to scientific evidence,and reason is not naturalism.
>
> Reason and evidence are well-defined concepts. Clearly you would prefer
> to lie about both of them rather than acknowledge your error.
They are not narrowly defined concepts,and they certainly are not
defined by naturalism and science.
> On Fri, 23 Dec 2011 18:54:34 -0800 (PST), Anthony022071
> <anthony022...@ameritech.net> wrote in talk.origins:
>
>
>
>
>
> >On Dec 11, 1:12 pm, Free Lunch <lu...@nofreelunch.us> wrote:
> >> On Sun, 11 Dec 2011 10:45:06 -0800 (PST), Anthony022071
> >> <anthony022...@ameritech.net> wrote in talk.origins:
>
> >> >On Dec 6, 4:01 pm, John Harshman <jharsh...@pacbell.net> wrote:
> >> >> Anthony022071 wrote:
> >> >> > John Harshman Dec 5
>
> >> >> > John Harshman Dec 5
>
> >> >> >>>>>>>> Are you an occasionalist?
> >> >> >>>>>>>> --
> >> >> >>>>>>>> alias Ernest Major
> >> >> >>>>>>> No. I was distinguishing the creation of living creatures from earthly
> >> >> >>>>>>> elements (amino acids,proteins) and from parents.
> >> >> >>>>>> Your denial of occasionalism is bald enough. But I don't understand the
> >> >> >>>>>> remainder of your response. It seems as if you're denying human
> >> >> >>>>>> reproduction as a natural process (in which case how does your position
> >> >> >>>>>> differ from occasionalism?).
> >> >> >>>>>> http://pandasthumb.org/archives/2007/10/intelligent-del.html
> >> >> >>>>>> --
> >> >> >>>>>> alias Ernest Major
> >> >> >>>>> Reproduction is obviously a natural process,but it is also made to
> >> >> >>>>> happen by God's power. It is spirit that animates living creatures and
> >> >> >>>>> their reproductive material.
> >> >> >>>> In which case, how does your position differ from occasionalism?
> >> >> >>>> --
> >> >> >>>> alias Ernest Major
> >> >> >>> It's different because I don't deny that natural substances can be
> >> >> >>> efficient causes for events. What I deny is that natural substances
> >> >> >>> can create life or living organisms. There is no reason to think that
> >> >> >>>>>>>> --
> >> >> >>>>>>>> alias Ernest Major
> >> >> >>>>>>> No. I was distinguishing the creation of living creatures from earthly
> >> >> >>>>>>> elements (amino acids,proteins) and from parents.
> >> >> >>>>>> Your denial of occasionalism is bald enough. But I don't understand the
> >> >> >>>>>> remainder of your response. It seems as if you're denying human
> >> >> >>>>>> reproduction as a natural process (in which case how does your position
> >> >> >>>>>> differ from occasionalism?).
> >> >> >>>>>> http://pandasthumb.org/archives/2007/10/intelligent-del.html
> >> >> >>>>>> --
> >> >> >>>>>> alias Ernest Major
> >> >> >>>>> Reproduction is obviously a natural process,but it is also made to
> >> >> >>>>> happen by God's power. It is spirit that animates living creatures and
> >> >> >>>>> their reproductive material.
> >> >> >>>> In which case, how does your position differ from occasionalism?
> >> >> >>>> --
> >> >> >>>> alias Ernest Major
> >> >> >>> It's different because I don't deny that natural substances can be
> >> >> >>> efficient causes for events. What I deny is that natural substances
> >> >> >>> can create life or living organisms. There is no reason to think that
> >> >> >>> they have the necessary power.- Hide quoted text -
>
>
> >> >> >> Inez: They do it all the time. Have you never planted a seed in your garden?
>
>
It is a reasoned conclusion,and entirely justifiable by reason.
> >Evidence is not
> >limited to scientific evidence,and reason is not naturalism.
>
> to lie about both of them rather than acknowledge your error.
They are not narrowly defined concepts,and they certainly are not
defined by naturalism and science.
Anthony022071
Dec 28, 2011, 4:02:42 PM12/28/11
to
On Dec 24, 12:24 am, John Harshman <jharsh...@pacbell.net> wrote:
> Anthony022071 wrote:
> > On Dec 12, 6:06 pm, Mark Isaak <eci...@curioustaxonomyNOSPAM.net>
> > wrote:
> >> On 12/11/11 10:45 AM, Anthony022071 wrote:
>
> >>> Life is by definition something distinct from material elements and
> >>> energy,so it is immaterial.
> >> You left out a couple words. Here, I'll correct:
>
> >> Life is by definition something not distinct from material elements and
> >> energy, so it is not immaterial.
>
> > It is distinct. It is a different phenomena from material elements and
> > energy,and not to be confused with them. They are involved with the
> > processes of life in organisms,but they do not create life.
>
> >>> It is the invisible and intangible power
> >>> that makes living creatures alive.
>
> >> What makes creatures alive is not intangible and is invisible only
> >> because there is skin (or similar covering) between you and it.
>
> > What makes creatures alive is spiritual power.
>
> How do you know that? What evidence do you have for the existence of
> something non-physical in organisms? (Do bacteria really have souls?)
The evidence is the purposeful,moving order seen in organisms,which
> Anthony022071 wrote:
> > On Dec 12, 6:06 pm, Mark Isaak <eci...@curioustaxonomyNOSPAM.net>
> > wrote:
> >> On 12/11/11 10:45 AM, Anthony022071 wrote:
>
> >>> Life is by definition something distinct from material elements and
> >>> energy,so it is immaterial.
> >> You left out a couple words. Here, I'll correct:
>
> >> Life is by definition something not distinct from material elements and
> >> energy, so it is not immaterial.
>
> > It is distinct. It is a different phenomena from material elements and
> > energy,and not to be confused with them. They are involved with the
> > processes of life in organisms,but they do not create life.
>
> >>> It is the invisible and intangible power
> >>> that makes living creatures alive.
>
> >> What makes creatures alive is not intangible and is invisible only
> >> because there is skin (or similar covering) between you and it.
>
> > What makes creatures alive is spiritual power.
>
> How do you know that? What evidence do you have for the existence of
> something non-physical in organisms? (Do bacteria really have souls?)
could only be caused by an infinitely wise and subtle power that
pervades and organizes them.
Bacteria do have souls in the Aristotelian sense of vital principle
and form of the body,but not in the sense of human souls. Yes,I know
it sounds ridiculous,but that is because we normally use the word
"soul" only as meaning the human soul.
> >>> When a living creature dies,the
> >>> physical elements are still present but not that which animated the
> >>> creature.
> >> Like a fire going out. Is fire a spirit being?
>
> > Fire is made up of physical particles and their energy.
>
> Not quite an answer.
John Harshman
Dec 28, 2011, 6:26:54 PM12/28/11
to
Anthony022071 wrote:
> On Dec 24, 12:24 am, John Harshman <jharsh...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>> Anthony022071 wrote:
>>> On Dec 12, 6:06 pm, Mark Isaak <eci...@curioustaxonomyNOSPAM.net>
>>> wrote:
>>>> On 12/11/11 10:45 AM, Anthony022071 wrote:
>>>>> Life is by definition something distinct from material elements and
>>>>> energy,so it is immaterial.
>>>> You left out a couple words. Here, I'll correct:
>>>> Life is by definition something not distinct from material elements and
>>>> energy, so it is not immaterial.
>>> It is distinct. It is a different phenomena from material elements and
>>> energy,and not to be confused with them. They are involved with the
>>> processes of life in organisms,but they do not create life.
>>>>> It is the invisible and intangible power
>>>>> that makes living creatures alive.
>>>> What makes creatures alive is not intangible and is invisible only
>>>> because there is skin (or similar covering) between you and it.
>>> What makes creatures alive is spiritual power.
>> How do you know that? What evidence do you have for the existence of
>> something non-physical in organisms? (Do bacteria really have souls?)
>
> The evidence is the purposeful,moving order seen in organisms,which
> could only be caused by an infinitely wise and subtle power that
> pervades and organizes them.
Objection: assumes the conclusion.
> On Dec 24, 12:24 am, John Harshman <jharsh...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>> Anthony022071 wrote:
>>> On Dec 12, 6:06 pm, Mark Isaak <eci...@curioustaxonomyNOSPAM.net>
>>> wrote:
>>>> On 12/11/11 10:45 AM, Anthony022071 wrote:
>>>>> Life is by definition something distinct from material elements and
>>>>> energy,so it is immaterial.
>>>> You left out a couple words. Here, I'll correct:
>>>> Life is by definition something not distinct from material elements and
>>>> energy, so it is not immaterial.
>>> It is distinct. It is a different phenomena from material elements and
>>> energy,and not to be confused with them. They are involved with the
>>> processes of life in organisms,but they do not create life.
>>>>> It is the invisible and intangible power
>>>>> that makes living creatures alive.
>>>> What makes creatures alive is not intangible and is invisible only
>>>> because there is skin (or similar covering) between you and it.
>>> What makes creatures alive is spiritual power.
>> How do you know that? What evidence do you have for the existence of
>> something non-physical in organisms? (Do bacteria really have souls?)
>
> The evidence is the purposeful,moving order seen in organisms,which
> could only be caused by an infinitely wise and subtle power that
> pervades and organizes them.
> Bacteria do have souls in the Aristotelian sense of vital principle
> and form of the body,but not in the sense of human souls. Yes,I know
> it sounds ridiculous,but that is because we normally use the word
> "soul" only as meaning the human soul.
of soul is silly.
>>>>> When a living creature dies,the
>>>>> physical elements are still present but not that which animated the
>>>>> creature.
>>>> Like a fire going out. Is fire a spirit being?
>>> Fire is made up of physical particles and their energy.
>> Not quite an answer.
>
> Fire is not a spirit being.
viruses spirit beings, by the way?
Frank J
Dec 28, 2011, 6:29:51 PM12/28/11
to
piece of cake. Unfortuntely if He did do it that way He left no
testable evidence of it. And plenty evidence that He did it a
different way.
Did Anthony claim (or hint) that he thinks God created every organism
- or even species - independently? Or did he just not say, and evade
any question that attempted to find out?
>
> -- Steven L.- Hide quoted text -
Kermit
Dec 28, 2011, 6:48:09 PM12/28/11
to
On Dec 28, 12:42 pm, Anthony022071 <anthony022...@ameritech.net>
wrote:
No, it is an emotionally satisfying model that cannot be verified and
which explains nothing. If i suggest there are no gods, the behavior
of the universe is no different in your model and mine (as far as we
can tell). Except that you have something gaudy and useless tacked on,
like a flower taped to a swan. Nothing we can perceive in any way
behaves differently.
>
> > >Evidence is not
> > >limited to scientific evidence,and reason is not naturalism.
>
> > Reason and evidence are well-defined concepts. Clearly you would prefer
> > to lie about both of them rather than acknowledge your error.
>
> They are not narrowly defined concepts,and they certainly are not
> defined by naturalism and science.
Arguably so, which is why the scientific community frequently says
"verifiable evidence" when describing science to people. Could you
give an example of evidence which cannot be verified? I can think of
one - personal experiences which cannot be repeated at will (e.g. as
seen in the book / movie "Contact"). As the scientist in that movie
noted, she had nothing to offer other rational people to support her
claims. If I said that I had spoken to the Goddess of the East, and
she assured me that Yahweh was a delinquent thrown out of the palace
of gods, would you change your mind on anything based on that?
Science can only work with verifiable evidence. Humans are too
fallible to base anything important on the say of one person,
especially for anything dramatic. And I have no idea how to verify non-
materialistic claims. You claim that everything alive has some
undetectable and therefore unverifiable spirit. What good is that? No
prediction is made by this model.
Kermit
wrote:
which explains nothing. If i suggest there are no gods, the behavior
of the universe is no different in your model and mine (as far as we
can tell). Except that you have something gaudy and useless tacked on,
like a flower taped to a swan. Nothing we can perceive in any way
behaves differently.
>
> > >Evidence is not
> > >limited to scientific evidence,and reason is not naturalism.
>
> > Reason and evidence are well-defined concepts. Clearly you would prefer
> > to lie about both of them rather than acknowledge your error.
>
> They are not narrowly defined concepts,and they certainly are not
> defined by naturalism and science.
"verifiable evidence" when describing science to people. Could you
give an example of evidence which cannot be verified? I can think of
one - personal experiences which cannot be repeated at will (e.g. as
seen in the book / movie "Contact"). As the scientist in that movie
noted, she had nothing to offer other rational people to support her
claims. If I said that I had spoken to the Goddess of the East, and
she assured me that Yahweh was a delinquent thrown out of the palace
of gods, would you change your mind on anything based on that?
Science can only work with verifiable evidence. Humans are too
fallible to base anything important on the say of one person,
especially for anything dramatic. And I have no idea how to verify non-
materialistic claims. You claim that everything alive has some
undetectable and therefore unverifiable spirit. What good is that? No
prediction is made by this model.
Kermit
Mark Isaak
Dec 28, 2011, 9:30:19 PM12/28/11
to
times, and my house is rather a mess just now, so it is possible that I
have more souls that I don't know about. They are all immortal, but
since they never do anything, that does not mean much.
Of course, I have no evidence by which you can verify any of this
(except my house being messy), so I do not expect you to believe it
unless you want to. I hope you have the same attitude about your souls.
--
Mark Isaak eciton (at) curioustaxonomy (dot) net
"It is certain, from experience, that the smallest grain of natural
honesty and benevolence has more effect on men's conduct, than the most
pompous views suggested by theological theories and systems." - D. Hume
Free Lunch
Dec 28, 2011, 9:37:14 PM12/28/11
to
On Wed, 28 Dec 2011 12:33:55 -0800 (PST), Anthony022071
<anthon...@ameritech.net> wrote in talk.origins:
So you assert, even though there is absolutely no supporting evidence
for the concept and there is no need for it in describing and
understanding life. Now, why do you believe this?
>It is what makes us alive.
No, our continuing biochemical processes make us alive.
>It IS life. People throughout the ages and the world have always recognized
>life as spirit.
There is no independent entity keeping things alive. Life is exactly
what we see happening in living organisms. The fact that people invented
an explanation, a just-so story. long ago does not make the story true.
The fact that no scientific evidence supports the concept means that we
cannot accept the claim.
Now you may not believe me, so why don't you tell me what scientific
test would show that spirit exists.
<anthon...@ameritech.net> wrote in talk.origins:
for the concept and there is no need for it in describing and
understanding life. Now, why do you believe this?
>It is what makes us alive.
>It IS life. People throughout the ages and the world have always recognized
>life as spirit.
what we see happening in living organisms. The fact that people invented
an explanation, a just-so story. long ago does not make the story true.
The fact that no scientific evidence supports the concept means that we
cannot accept the claim.
Now you may not believe me, so why don't you tell me what scientific
test would show that spirit exists.
Free Lunch
Dec 28, 2011, 9:41:19 PM12/28/11
to
On Wed, 28 Dec 2011 12:42:07 -0800 (PST), Anthony022071
<anthon...@ameritech.net> wrote in talk.origins:
>On Dec 23, 9:06 pm, Free Lunch <lu...@nofreelunch.us> wrote:
>> On Fri, 23 Dec 2011 18:54:34 -0800 (PST), Anthony022071
>> <anthony022...@ameritech.net> wrote in talk.origins:
>>
>> >On Dec 11, 1:12 pm, Free Lunch <lu...@nofreelunch.us> wrote:
...
reasoned conclusion. Why don't you start with the assumption that no god
exists and then prove that there is a god.
>> >Evidence is not
>> >limited to scientific evidence,and reason is not naturalism.
>>
>> Reason and evidence are well-defined concepts. Clearly you would prefer
>> to lie about both of them rather than acknowledge your error.
>
>They are not narrowly defined concepts,and they certainly are not
>defined by naturalism and science.
They are well-defined.
Reason is defined by logic. Evidence by science and in a more general
sense, a less reliable sense, by law. Theology offers nothing of value
in the discussion of either.
<anthon...@ameritech.net> wrote in talk.origins:
>On Dec 23, 9:06 pm, Free Lunch <lu...@nofreelunch.us> wrote:
>> On Fri, 23 Dec 2011 18:54:34 -0800 (PST), Anthony022071
>> <anthony022...@ameritech.net> wrote in talk.origins:
>>
>> >On Dec 11, 1:12 pm, Free Lunch <lu...@nofreelunch.us> wrote:
>> >> No, faith does not use evidence or reason.
>>
>> >It does. The evidence and reason for faith in God is the
>> >existence,purposeful order and life of the world.
>>
>> No, it is not. You are merely assuming your conclusion.
>
>It is a reasoned conclusion,and entirely justifiable by reason.
No conclusion that is inherent in the assumptions will ever be a
>>
>> >It does. The evidence and reason for faith in God is the
>> >existence,purposeful order and life of the world.
>>
>> No, it is not. You are merely assuming your conclusion.
>
>It is a reasoned conclusion,and entirely justifiable by reason.
reasoned conclusion. Why don't you start with the assumption that no god
exists and then prove that there is a god.
>> >Evidence is not
>> >limited to scientific evidence,and reason is not naturalism.
>>
>> Reason and evidence are well-defined concepts. Clearly you would prefer
>> to lie about both of them rather than acknowledge your error.
>
>They are not narrowly defined concepts,and they certainly are not
>defined by naturalism and science.
Reason is defined by logic. Evidence by science and in a more general
sense, a less reliable sense, by law. Theology offers nothing of value
in the discussion of either.
Message has been deleted
Anthony022071
Dec 29, 2011, 7:14:58 PM12/29/11
to
> > On Dec 11, 1:13 pm, Free Lunch <lu...@nofreelunch.us> wrote:
> >> On Sun, 11 Dec 2011 10:45:06 -0800 (PST), Anthony022071
> >> <anthony022...@ameritech.net> wrote in talk.origins:
>
> >>> that makes living creatures alive. When a living creature dies,the
Life is essentially spirit. In organisms,the state of being alive is
caused by the presence of spirit,which organizes and animates the
physical elements into a purposeful order.
> >> On Sun, 11 Dec 2011 10:45:06 -0800 (PST), Anthony022071
> >> <anthony022...@ameritech.net> wrote in talk.origins:
>
> >>> On Dec 6, 4:01 pm, John Harshman <jharsh...@pacbell.net> wrote:
> >> ...
> >>>> So I despair of getting any answers to my questions, but still:
> >>>> what evidence do you have that life is immaterial?
> >>>> So I despair of getting any answers to my questions, but still:
>
> >>> Life is by definition something distinct from material elements and
> >>> energy,so it is immaterial. It is the invisible and intangible power
> >>> Life is by definition something distinct from material elements and
> >>> that makes living creatures alive. When a living creature dies,the
> >>> physical elements are still present but not that which animated the
> >>> creature.
>
> >>> creature.
>
> >> No, life is just a self-sustaining biochemical reaction. It is
> >> completely "material".
>
> > Life is a phenomenon of power that creates and sustains an organism.
> > The fact that biochemical reactions are involved with life in
> > organisms does not mean that they are life itself.
> > They are organized by spirit to work purposefully in the processes of
> > organisms. They cannot organize themselves into an organism self-
> > sufficiently.
>
> Please define 'life itself'. You know what it is, don't you?
> >> completely "material".
>
> > Life is a phenomenon of power that creates and sustains an organism.
> > The fact that biochemical reactions are involved with life in
> > organisms does not mean that they are life itself.
> > They are organized by spirit to work purposefully in the processes of
> > organisms. They cannot organize themselves into an organism self-
> > sufficiently.
>
Life is essentially spirit. In organisms,the state of being alive is
caused by the presence of spirit,which organizes and animates the
physical elements into a purposeful order.
John S. Wilkins
Dec 29, 2011, 7:18:28 PM12/29/11
to
Anthony022071 <anthon...@ameritech.net> dropped the following gem:
> Micro-evolution is more accurately called
> speciation or sub-speciation. Evolution is not the right word for the
> coming into existence of species from prior species.
Actually, macroevolution *is* speciation or above. By definition.
And evolution is *exactly* the right word for new species. And it always
has been since the early 18th century. Darwin wanted to replace the
term, but he had too much prior usage to overcome.
You don't get to redefine any term you like, boyo.
> Micro-evolution is more accurately called
> speciation or sub-speciation. Evolution is not the right word for the
> coming into existence of species from prior species.
Actually, macroevolution *is* speciation or above. By definition.
And evolution is *exactly* the right word for new species. And it always
has been since the early 18th century. Darwin wanted to replace the
term, but he had too much prior usage to overcome.
You don't get to redefine any term you like, boyo.
Message has been deleted
Richard Norman
Dec 29, 2011, 7:27:39 PM12/29/11
to
Nobel Prize winner, Henri Bergson. I believe there is a relatively
large literature on this subject if you would care to investigate it.
Anthony022071
Dec 29, 2011, 8:21:05 PM12/29/11
to
On Dec 26, 5:14 pm, Frank J <f...@verizon.net> wrote:
> Just dropping by to try again after several months:
> Some deniers of "macroevolution" concede that changes do occur beyond
> the species level. Have you challenged them? Particularly the ones who
> concede that whatever processes occur in lieu of "microevolution" that
> they nevertheless occur in a biological continuum?
I haven't come across them. Macro-evolution is defined as change above
> Just dropping by to try again after several months:
> Some deniers of "macroevolution" concede that changes do occur beyond
> the species level. Have you challenged them? Particularly the ones who
> concede that whatever processes occur in lieu of "microevolution" that
> they nevertheless occur in a biological continuum?
the species level,so I would have to know what changes in species they
are referring to. I don't know what you mean in your third sentence.
> > Most
> > features of a species do not seem to be subject to modification
> > through allele mutations. The few kinds of known mutations that are
> > used to show how evolution works cannot possibly lead to macro-
> > evolution,no matter how many millions of years elapse.
> Do you agree that the millions of years do occur, with only your
> "microevolution"? Or do you think life itself is far younger, in which
> case your incredulity of "macroevolution" would be mostly irrelevant?
years,but I suspect it may have. Micro-evolution is more accurately
called speciation or sub-speciation. Evolution is not the right word
for the coming into existence of species from prior species. It is not
mere modification or development,it involves the conception or
reproduction of individual creatures,which is individual creation.
> > > but when presented with specific examples of macro-evolution claim to
> > > *NOT* know if macro-evolution occurred.
> > Right,I don't know if the examples of supposed macro-evolution really
> > happened,because we don't know of any reproductive links between the
> > different species. But I do have reason to think that the examples
> > could not have happened,because the processes that are said to have
> > led to macro-evolution don't add up.
> That may be your problem - looking for (& personally selecting)
> evidence to "add up" instead of *converge*.
millions of mutations has led to macro-evolution,in spite of the
impossibility of knowing what mutations occurred. The "converging"
evidence of evolution doesn't add up in the logical sense
either,because evolution theory has faulty and presumptuous notions
about natural causes.
> What I find fascinating is how no one dares to actually test what
> could conceivably falsify "macroevolution":
> but instead relies on the same old incredulity arguments.
It is hardly possible to scientifically test and falsify a theory of
the history of organisms. We cannot put that to the test. The actual
history of organisms is not something that can be experimentally
repeated,so we cannot verify the theory. Why are you dismissive of
arguments from incredulity? Don't you use them against the belief in
separate creation of species by God? And don't we always argue from
incredulity when we oppose statements that are unconvincing to us and
which are a matter of different interpretation of evidence?
David Hare-Scott
Dec 29, 2011, 8:25:36 PM12/29/11
to
Anthony022071 wrote:
>
> It is hardly possible to scientifically test and falsify a theory of
> the history of organisms. We cannot put that to the test. The actual
> history of organisms is not something that can be experimentally
> repeated,so we cannot verify the theory.
>
So all the sciences where lab experimentation is impossible for many of
>
> It is hardly possible to scientifically test and falsify a theory of
> the history of organisms. We cannot put that to the test. The actual
> history of organisms is not something that can be experimentally
> repeated,so we cannot verify the theory.
>
their topics, such as astronomy, geology etc are unverifiable too, or is it
just evolution?
David
Anthony022071
Dec 29, 2011, 7:58:47 PM12/29/11
to
> Just dropping by to try again after several months:
> Some deniers of "macroevolution" concede that changes do occur beyond
> the species level. Have you challenged them? Particularly the ones who
> concede that whatever processes occur in lieu of "microevolution" that
> they nevertheless occur in a biological continuum?
I haven't come across them. Macro-evolution is commonly defined as
> Some deniers of "macroevolution" concede that changes do occur beyond
> the species level. Have you challenged them? Particularly the ones who
> concede that whatever processes occur in lieu of "microevolution" that
> they nevertheless occur in a biological continuum?
change above the species level,so I would have to know what changes in
species they are referring to. I don't know what you mean in your
third sentence.
species they are referring to. I don't know what you mean in your
third sentence.
> > Most
> > features of a species do not seem to be subject to modification
> > through allele mutations. The few kinds of known mutations that are
> > used to show how evolution works cannot possibly lead to macro-
> > evolution,no matter how many millions of years elapse.
> Do you agree that the millions of years do occur, with only your
> "microevolution"? Or do you think life itself is far younger, in which
> case your incredulity of "macroevolution" would be mostly irrelevant?
> > features of a species do not seem to be subject to modification
> > through allele mutations. The few kinds of known mutations that are
> > used to show how evolution works cannot possibly lead to macro-
> > evolution,no matter how many millions of years elapse.
> Do you agree that the millions of years do occur, with only your
> "microevolution"? Or do you think life itself is far younger, in which
> case your incredulity of "macroevolution" would be mostly irrelevant?
I don't know that life in nature has been in existence for millions of
years,but I suspect it has. Micro-evolution is more accurately called
speciation or sub-speciation. Evolution is not the right word for the
coming into existence of species from prior species. It is not mere
modification or development,it involves the conception or reproduction
of individual creatures,which is individual creation.
coming into existence of species from prior species. It is not mere
modification or development,it involves the conception or reproduction
of individual creatures,which is individual creation.
> > > but when presented with specific examples of macro-evolution claim to
> > > *NOT* know if macro-evolution occurred.
> > Right,I don't know if the examples of supposed macro-evolution really
> > happened,because we don't know of any reproductive links between the
> > different species. But I do have reason to think that the examples
> > could not have happened,because the processes that are said to have
> > led to macro-evolution don't add up.
> That may be your problem - looking for (& personally selecting)
> evidence to "add up" instead of *converge*.
> > > *NOT* know if macro-evolution occurred.
> > Right,I don't know if the examples of supposed macro-evolution really
> > happened,because we don't know of any reproductive links between the
> > different species. But I do have reason to think that the examples
> > could not have happened,because the processes that are said to have
> > led to macro-evolution don't add up.
> That may be your problem - looking for (& personally selecting)
> evidence to "add up" instead of *converge*.
I was referring to the belief that the accumulation (adding up) of
millions of mutations has led to macro-evolution,in spite of the
impossibility of knowing what mutations occurred. The "converging"
evidence of evolution doesn't add up in the logical sense
either,because evolution theory has faulty and presumptuous notions
about natural causes.
millions of mutations has led to macro-evolution,in spite of the
impossibility of knowing what mutations occurred. The "converging"
evidence of evolution doesn't add up in the logical sense
either,because evolution theory has faulty and presumptuous notions
about natural causes.
> What I find fascinating is how no one dares to actually test what
> could conceivably falsify "macroevolution":
> http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/section1.htmlhttp://www.talko...
> could conceivably falsify "macroevolution":
> but instead relies on the same old incredulity arguments.
It is hardly possible to scientifically test and falsify a theory of
the history of organisms. We cannot put that to the test. The actual
history of organisms is not something that can be experimentally
the history of organisms. We cannot put that to the test. The actual
history of organisms is not something that can be experimentally
repeated,so we cannot verify the theory. Why are you dismissive of
arguments from incredulity? Don't you use them in response to the
belief in the separate creation of species by God? Don't we always
argue from incredulity when we argue against something that is
unconvincing to us and which is a matter of different interpretation
of evidence?
TomS
Dec 29, 2011, 9:28:14 PM12/29/11
to
"On Thu, 29 Dec 2011 16:01:45 -0800 (PST), in article
<497874c2-f39a-4d64...@h3g2000yqa.googlegroups.com>,
Anthony022071 stated..."
[...snip...]
It is certainly possible to falsify a theory of the history of
organisms.
Consider the theory that organisms always evolve from larger
predecessors.
--
---Tom S.
"Ah, yeah, well, whenever you notice something like that, a wizard did it"
Lucy Lawless, the Simpsons "Treehouse of Horror X: Desperately Xeeking Xena"
(1999)
<497874c2-f39a-4d64...@h3g2000yqa.googlegroups.com>,
Anthony022071 stated..."
[...snip...]
>It is hardly possible to scientifically test and falsify a theory of
>the history of organisms. We cannot put that to the test. The actual
>history of organisms is not something that can be experimentally
>repeated,so we cannot verify the theory.
[...snip...]
>the history of organisms. We cannot put that to the test. The actual
>history of organisms is not something that can be experimentally
>repeated,so we cannot verify the theory.
It is certainly possible to falsify a theory of the history of
organisms.
Consider the theory that organisms always evolve from larger
predecessors.
--
---Tom S.
"Ah, yeah, well, whenever you notice something like that, a wizard did it"
Lucy Lawless, the Simpsons "Treehouse of Horror X: Desperately Xeeking Xena"
(1999)
TomS
Dec 29, 2011, 10:37:42 PM12/29/11
to
"On Fri, 30 Dec 2011 12:25:36 +1100, in article
<jdj3us$45k$1...@news.albasani.net>, David Hare-Scott stated..."
When creationists make such arguments against evolution, they are
granting that the basis for evolution is so overwhelming that drastic
measures are needed.
<jdj3us$45k$1...@news.albasani.net>, David Hare-Scott stated..."
granting that the basis for evolution is so overwhelming that drastic
measures are needed.
Free Lunch
Dec 30, 2011, 10:16:53 AM12/30/11
to
On Thu, 29 Dec 2011 16:14:58 -0800 (PST), Anthony022071
<anthon...@ameritech.net> wrote in talk.origins:
>On Dec 24, 9:52 am, "Rolf" <rolf.aalb...@tele2.no> wrote:
>> Anthony022071 wrote:
>> > On Dec 11, 1:13 pm, Free Lunch <lu...@nofreelunch.us> wrote:
>> >> On Sun, 11 Dec 2011 10:45:06 -0800 (PST), Anthony022071
>> >> <anthony022...@ameritech.net> wrote in talk.origins:
>>
>> >>> On Dec 6, 4:01 pm, John Harshman <jharsh...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>> >> ...
>> >>>> So I despair of getting any answers to my questions, but still:
>> >>>> what evidence do you have that life is immaterial?
>>
>> >>> Life is by definition something distinct from material elements and
>> >>> energy,so it is immaterial. It is the invisible and intangible power
>> >>> that makes living creatures alive. When a living creature dies,the
>> >>> physical elements are still present but not that which animated the
>> >>> creature.
>>
>> >> No, life is just a self-sustaining biochemical reaction. It is
>> >> completely "material".
>>
>> > Life is a phenomenon of power that creates and sustains an organism.
>> > The fact that biochemical reactions are involved with life in
>> > organisms does not mean that they are life itself.
>> > They are organized by spirit to work purposefully in the processes of
>> > organisms. They cannot organize themselves into an organism self-
>> > sufficiently.
>> Please define 'life itself'. You know what it is, don't you?
>
>Life is essentially spirit.
>In organisms,the state of being alive is
>caused by the presence of spirit,which organizes and animates the
>physical elements into a purposeful order.
Steven L.
Dec 30, 2011, 11:10:43 AM12/30/11
to
"Anthony022071" <anthon...@ameritech.net> wrote in message
news:7779b7f4-68b4-42eb...@k10g2000yqk.googlegroups.com:
When theologians claim that human beings have souls, they're not
attempting to claim that a soul is a scientific phenomenon that can be
studied scientifically.
So may I assume that the "life spirit" you have postulated is not a
scientific phenomenon either.
-- Steven L.
Steven L.
Jan 1, 2012, 8:11:30 AM1/1/12
to
"John S. Wilkins" <jo...@wilkins.id.au> wrote in message
news:1kcvrsq.ptkis9pwekhsN%jo...@wilkins.id.au:
> John Harshman <jhar...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>
> > Steven L. wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > > "John Harshman" <jhar...@pacbell.net> wrote in message
> > > news:5ZmdnVHZ2Pi...@giganews.com:
> > >
> > >> Anthony022071 wrote:
> > >> > On Dec 12, 6:06 pm, Mark Isaak <eci...@curioustaxonomyNOSPAM.net>
> > >> > wrote:
> > >> >> On 12/11/11 10:45 AM, Anthony022071 wrote:
> > >> >>
> > >> >>
> > >> >>
> > >> >>> Life is by definition something distinct from material elements and
> > >> >>> energy,so it is immaterial.
> > >> >>> energy,so it is immaterial.
> > >> >> You left out a couple words. Here, I'll correct:
> > >> >>
> > >> >> Life is by definition something not distinct from material elements
> > >> >>
> > >> and
> > >> >> energy, so it is not immaterial.
> > >> >
> > >> > It is distinct. It is a different phenomena from material elements and
> > >> > energy,and not to be confused with them. They are involved with the
> > >> > processes of life in organisms,but they do not create life.
> > >> >
> > >> >
> > >> > It is distinct. It is a different phenomena from material elements and
> > >> > energy,and not to be confused with them. They are involved with the
> > >> > processes of life in organisms,but they do not create life.
> > >> >
> > >> >>> It is the invisible and intangible power
> > >> >>> that makes living creatures alive.
> > >> >
> > >> >>> that makes living creatures alive.
> > >> >
> > >> >> What makes creatures alive is not intangible and is invisible only
> > >> >> because there is skin (or similar covering) between you and it.
> > >> >
> > >> > What makes creatures alive is spiritual power.
> > >>
> > >> How do you know that? What evidence do you have for the existence of
> > >> something non-physical in organisms? (Do bacteria really have souls?)
> > >
> > > Do humans have souls?
> >
> > >> >> because there is skin (or similar covering) between you and it.
> > >> >
> > >> > What makes creatures alive is spiritual power.
> > >>
> > >> How do you know that? What evidence do you have for the existence of
> > >> something non-physical in organisms? (Do bacteria really have souls?)
> > >
> > > Do humans have souls?
> >
> > Let's work our way up to that, shall we?
> >
> >
> > > Can one accept modern biological science--even become a biologist--and
> > > still believe he has an immortal soul?
> >
> > > still believe he has an immortal soul?
> >
> > Yes, as long as the soul has no detectable effects. We might imagine it
> > as a recording device that is capable of maintaining your existence
> > after you die, but has no function while you're alive. That would work.
> > No evidence for, but at least no evidence against.
>
> The Divine Bookeeping Thesis. Makes sense: if you want the universe to
> be fundamentally moral, in defiance of all evidence to the contrary, a
> soul is a good solution (it bears responsibility and all sanctions are
> applied to it in the long run. It has to have no discernible effect on
> the physical world, though, or it ceases to be what it is defined for.
> >
> > as a recording device that is capable of maintaining your existence
> > after you die, but has no function while you're alive. That would work.
> > No evidence for, but at least no evidence against.
>
> The Divine Bookeeping Thesis. Makes sense: if you want the universe to
> be fundamentally moral, in defiance of all evidence to the contrary, a
> soul is a good solution (it bears responsibility and all sanctions are
> applied to it in the long run. It has to have no discernible effect on
> the physical world, though, or it ceases to be what it is defined for.
> >
> > > I sure hope so,
> > > because otherwise we've made non-theism a prerequisite for learning
> > > about biological science.
> > > That would certainly make Eugenie Scott's job impossible.
> >
> > It may indeed be that her job is impossible. But non-theism isn't a
> > prerequisite, merely (to the degree it's amenable to empirical evidence)
> > a rational conclusion.
>
> If your rationality is intended only to give you beliefs that are
> evidentiary. But that, too, is am argument based on nonevidentiary
> premises (what sort of statement is the statement "the only statements
> you should accept are those that are based on evidence"? What evidence
> is there that this is true?
>
> > > because otherwise we've made non-theism a prerequisite for learning
> > > about biological science.
> > > That would certainly make Eugenie Scott's job impossible.
> >
> > It may indeed be that her job is impossible. But non-theism isn't a
> > prerequisite, merely (to the degree it's amenable to empirical evidence)
> > a rational conclusion.
>
> If your rationality is intended only to give you beliefs that are
> evidentiary. But that, too, is am argument based on nonevidentiary
> premises (what sort of statement is the statement "the only statements
> you should accept are those that are based on evidence"? What evidence
> is there that this is true?
>
> If, on the other hand, you allow some statements should be assented to
> without evidentiary support (like that one), then you can't exclude
> theists who do not assert their theism is evidential (i.e.,
> non-apologetic types), and so you (the eponymous you) can't object to
> those theists doing or accepting biology.
>
> without evidentiary support (like that one), then you can't exclude
> theists who do not assert their theism is evidential (i.e.,
> non-apologetic types), and so you (the eponymous you) can't object to
> those theists doing or accepting biology.
>
> Also, I am unsure of the rationality of adopting a statement based on
> the absence of evidence as the *only* solution available. If we had
> positive evidence there were no gods (such as the problem of evil, which
> excludes only a few kinds of deities), then the non-theism belief would
> be rational in the broader and vernacular sense. But Genie's view is
> the absence of evidence as the *only* solution available. If we had
> positive evidence there were no gods (such as the problem of evil, which
> excludes only a few kinds of deities), then the non-theism belief would
> tenable because nothing she believes in possibly conflicts with the
> evidence (she is a Christian, I gather).
Eugenie Scott is a self-described non-theist.
> evidence (she is a Christian, I gather).
But I wasn't referring to her personal beliefs, but her heroic attempts
to try to "sell" evolution on the basis that it doesn't "really"
conflict with religion.
> So I can't see how non-theism
> is a forced conclusion. If you did not mean that, then ignore me here.
But I'm also hoping that elan vital can be ruled out though.
That one just causes too much trouble on the evolutionary tree.
And it causes too much trouble for religion too.
A lot of pet owners believe that their beloved pets (dogs, cats, etc.)
will accompany them to Heaven.
But even they don't hope that after they go to Heaven, their dust mites
and cockroaches and carpenter ants and MRSA will accompany them in
Heaven.
"If this is Heaven, there wouldn't be dust all over everything"
-- Beetlejuice
-- Steven L.
Steven L.
Jan 1, 2012, 8:21:10 AM1/1/12
to
news:497874c2-f39a-4d64...@h3g2000yqa.googlegroups.com:
> > http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/section1.htmlhttp://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/section2.html
We can't repeat *anything* about the past, not just the history of life.
Do you apply your solipsism also to history, archaeology, and forensic
science?
After all:
We can't re-enact World War I all over again to learn more about how it
worked.
We're not going to build the Pyramids and the Sphinxes all over again.
We can't bring a murder victim back to life and kill him all over again
to learn how he was murdered.
We can't get God to make more Covenants for us or send us another Ten
Commandments, so we can't learn more about that either.
Your claim is that since the past is unrepeatable, we can't know
anything about it. That's clearly false in these examples I've given.
The past leaves *evidence* behind, evidence that we can test. It also
enables us to make predictions that we can also test.
In forensic science, they do both. From the evidence they hope to learn
the criminal's modus operandi, so they can actually predict what type of
crimes he might commit next. That makes it easier to apprehend him.
> Why are you dismissive of arguments from incredulity when that is you
> do the same in response to the belief in the separate creation of
> species by God?
You're contradicting yourself.
If theories about the past are inherently suspect because the past is
unrepeatable (that's what you said), then your belief in separate
creation of species by God is *just as suspect*.
You're stuck with solipsism:
The past is gone, unrepeatable, just forget about it.
We can't repeat the writing down of the Bible either or God's covenant
with Abraham or Jesus's birth, so let's just treat the Bible as suspect
too. Right?
-- Steven L.
> > On Dec 23, 9:15 pm, Anthony022071 <anthony022...@ameritech.net> wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > > On Dec 6, 11:44 am, Friar Broccoli <elia...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > > Hi Anthony;
> >
> > > > Since you didn't address my outstanding post:
> >
> > > >http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/0258ac6283ecf788
> >
> > > > concerning the multilevel contradictions in your evolution denying
> > > > system where you appear to begin from:
> >
> > > > *NOT* knowing if presumed ancestors where reproductively compatible
> > > > TO *knowing* that macro-evolution is impossible
> >
> > > I consider macro-evolution impossible because the processes that are
> > > said to have made it happen - natural selection,accumulating mutations
> > > - cannot logically or biologically lead to macro-evolution. Natural
> > > selection is a process of elimination,not a process that creates or
> > > develops anything. And mutations do not affect the physical structure
> > > of species nearly enough to change a species beyond its level.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > > On Dec 6, 11:44 am, Friar Broccoli <elia...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > > Hi Anthony;
> >
> > > > Since you didn't address my outstanding post:
> >
> > > >http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/0258ac6283ecf788
> >
> > > > concerning the multilevel contradictions in your evolution denying
> > > > system where you appear to begin from:
> >
> > > > *NOT* knowing if presumed ancestors where reproductively compatible
> > > > TO *knowing* that macro-evolution is impossible
> >
> > > I consider macro-evolution impossible because the processes that are
> > > said to have made it happen - natural selection,accumulating mutations
> > > - cannot logically or biologically lead to macro-evolution. Natural
> > > selection is a process of elimination,not a process that creates or
> > > develops anything. And mutations do not affect the physical structure
> > > of species nearly enough to change a species beyond its level.
> >
> > Just dropping by to try again after several months:
> >
> > Some deniers of "macroevolution" concede that changes do occur beyond
> > the species level. Have you challenged them? Particularly the ones who
> > concede that whatever processes occur in lieu of "microevolution" that
> > they nevertheless occur in a biological continuum?
>
> I haven't come across them. Macro-evolution is defined as change above
> >
> > Some deniers of "macroevolution" concede that changes do occur beyond
> > the species level. Have you challenged them? Particularly the ones who
> > concede that whatever processes occur in lieu of "microevolution" that
> > they nevertheless occur in a biological continuum?
>
> >
> > but instead relies on the same old incredulity arguments.
>
> > but instead relies on the same old incredulity arguments.
>
> It is hardly possible to scientifically test and falsify a theory of
> the history of organisms. We cannot put that to the test. The actual
> history of organisms is not something that can be experimentally
> repeated,so we cannot verify the theory.
That is illogical and false.
> the history of organisms. We cannot put that to the test. The actual
> history of organisms is not something that can be experimentally
> repeated,so we cannot verify the theory.
We can't repeat *anything* about the past, not just the history of life.
Do you apply your solipsism also to history, archaeology, and forensic
science?
After all:
We can't re-enact World War I all over again to learn more about how it
worked.
We're not going to build the Pyramids and the Sphinxes all over again.
We can't bring a murder victim back to life and kill him all over again
to learn how he was murdered.
We can't get God to make more Covenants for us or send us another Ten
Commandments, so we can't learn more about that either.
Your claim is that since the past is unrepeatable, we can't know
anything about it. That's clearly false in these examples I've given.
The past leaves *evidence* behind, evidence that we can test. It also
enables us to make predictions that we can also test.
In forensic science, they do both. From the evidence they hope to learn
the criminal's modus operandi, so they can actually predict what type of
crimes he might commit next. That makes it easier to apprehend him.
> Why are you dismissive of arguments from incredulity when that is you
> do the same in response to the belief in the separate creation of
> species by God?
You're contradicting yourself.
If theories about the past are inherently suspect because the past is
unrepeatable (that's what you said), then your belief in separate
creation of species by God is *just as suspect*.
You're stuck with solipsism:
The past is gone, unrepeatable, just forget about it.
We can't repeat the writing down of the Bible either or God's covenant
with Abraham or Jesus's birth, so let's just treat the Bible as suspect
too. Right?
-- Steven L.
TomS
Jan 1, 2012, 8:41:08 AM1/1/12
to
"On Sun, 1 Jan 2012 13:21:10 +0000, in article
<LdSdnfu2JNlMwJ3S...@earthlink.com>, Steven L. stated..."
The contradiction is a bit more basic than that.
There is a claim that we can't know about things that can't be
experimentally repeated.
That claim can't be experimentally repeated. What evidence is there
for it?
And how do we know that we can't go back into the past to repeat it?
<LdSdnfu2JNlMwJ3S...@earthlink.com>, Steven L. stated..."
There is a claim that we can't know about things that can't be
experimentally repeated.
That claim can't be experimentally repeated. What evidence is there
for it?
And how do we know that we can't go back into the past to repeat it?
Frank J
Jan 1, 2012, 9:52:11 AM1/1/12
to
On Dec 29 2011, 7:18 pm, j...@wilkins.id.au (John S. Wilkins) wrote:
> Anthony022071 <anthony022...@ameritech.net> dropped the following gem:
find pre-20th century English hard to follow), but I do recall that he
used the word "evolution" very sparingly. And I would bet that he not
only never used the word "Darwinism" but would object to its use in
any definition, expecially the caricature of evolution that deniers
apply it to obsessively.
But that he wanted to replace it is news to me. Though not at all
surprising.
>
> You don't get to redefine any term you like, boyo.
Give him a break. How else can he get all that feeding, while still
evading my simple questions about his "theory"?
> --
> John S. Wilkins, Associate, Philosophy, University of Sydneyhttp://evolvingthoughts.net
> Anthony022071 <anthony022...@ameritech.net> dropped the following gem:
>
> > Micro-evolution is more accurately called
> > speciation or sub-speciation. Evolution is not the right word for the
> > coming into existence of species from prior species.
>
> Actually, macroevolution *is* speciation or above. By definition.
>
> And evolution is *exactly* the right word for new species. And it always
> has been since the early 18th century. Darwin wanted to replace the
> term, but he had too much prior usage to overcome.
I admit that I don't read enough of Darwin's own writings enough (I
> > Micro-evolution is more accurately called
> > speciation or sub-speciation. Evolution is not the right word for the
> > coming into existence of species from prior species.
>
> Actually, macroevolution *is* speciation or above. By definition.
>
> And evolution is *exactly* the right word for new species. And it always
> has been since the early 18th century. Darwin wanted to replace the
> term, but he had too much prior usage to overcome.
find pre-20th century English hard to follow), but I do recall that he
used the word "evolution" very sparingly. And I would bet that he not
only never used the word "Darwinism" but would object to its use in
any definition, expecially the caricature of evolution that deniers
apply it to obsessively.
But that he wanted to replace it is news to me. Though not at all
surprising.
>
> You don't get to redefine any term you like, boyo.
evading my simple questions about his "theory"?
> --
> John S. Wilkins, Associate, Philosophy, University of Sydneyhttp://evolvingthoughts.net
Frank J
Jan 1, 2012, 10:07:56 AM1/1/12
to
On Dec 29 2011, 10:37 pm, TomS <TomS_mem...@newsguy.com> wrote:
> "On Fri, 30 Dec 2011 12:25:36 +1100, in article
> <jdj3us$45...@news.albasani.net>, David Hare-Scott stated..."
> "On Fri, 30 Dec 2011 12:25:36 +1100, in article
>
>
>
> >Anthony022071 wrote:
>
> >> It is hardly possible to scientifically test and falsify a theory of
> >> the history of organisms. We cannot put that to the test. The actual
> >> history of organisms is not something that can be experimentally
> >> repeated,so we cannot verify the theory.
>
> >So all the sciences where lab experimentation is impossible for many of
> >their topics, such as astronomy, geology etc are unverifiable too, or is it
> >just evolution?
>
> When creationists make such arguments against evolution, they are
> granting that the basis for evolution is so overwhelming that drastic
> measures are needed.
The measures, which get increasingly drastic all the time, reflect
>
>
> >Anthony022071 wrote:
>
> >> It is hardly possible to scientifically test and falsify a theory of
> >> the history of organisms. We cannot put that to the test. The actual
> >> history of organisms is not something that can be experimentally
> >> repeated,so we cannot verify the theory.
>
> >So all the sciences where lab experimentation is impossible for many of
> >their topics, such as astronomy, geology etc are unverifiable too, or is it
> >just evolution?
>
> When creationists make such arguments against evolution, they are
> granting that the basis for evolution is so overwhelming that drastic
> measures are needed.
deniers' painful awareness that evolution is the only explanation
among conceivable equivalent alternatives that is backed by a
convergence, neither sought nor fabricated of evidence.
Now, for many deniers, Morton's demon may prevent them from
identifying that painful awareness as such, but when they know just
which questions to evade, when to claim that evolution is falsified or
that its unfalsifiable, when to claim that their "theory" is scientifc
or that evolution is "a religion too," it's a safe bet that they know
what the problem is.
Frank J
Jan 1, 2012, 11:00:20 AM1/1/12
to
On Dec 29 2011, 8:21 pm, Anthony022071 <anthony022...@ameritech.net>
wrote:
in correct "tree" order.
I am referring in particular to Michael Behe, who is one of the most
cited deniers of "macroevolution." If you read his 2 books "Darwin's
Black Box" (1996) and "Edge of "Evolution" (2007) you will clearly see
that, although he does not consider the process "Darwinian evolution,"
he fully concedes that whatever occurred to change species, occurred
in a "biological continum" via common ancestors. Most people who rave
about him, seem to disagree, and think - despite providing no evidence
to support it - that many species (or "kinds") originated
independently from non-life. But they hesitate to challenge him
directly. Which makes me wonder if they either privately fear that his
explanation is closer to reality than theirs, or if they hesitate
because he's an ally in their crusade against "Darwinism."
In fact, while Behe seems quite clear that human and broccoli, for
example, descended from their common ancestors by some process other
than "RM + NS", he does not rule it out as the process by which humans
and other apes descended from their common ancestors. IOW, while he's
pretty clear that "designer intervention" was necessary to create a
bacterial flagellum, he's not so sure if it was necessary to create
the H. sapiens brain.
>
> > > Most
> > > features of a species do not seem to be subject to modification
> > > through allele mutations. The few kinds of known mutations that are
> > > used to show how evolution works cannot possibly lead to macro-
> > > evolution,no matter how many millions of years elapse.
> > Do you agree that the millions of years do occur, with only your
> > "microevolution"? Or do you think life itself is far younger, in which
> > case your incredulity of "macroevolution" would be mostly irrelevant?
>
> I don't know that life in nature has been in existence for millions of
> years,but I suspect it may have.
Life on Earth has been around for 3.5 to 4 billion years. That
conclusion comes from many fields of science independent of
evolutionary biology, and is so compelling, that many (most?) self-
described creationists, and nearly all self-described "design
proponents" fully accept it.
So if you only "suepect" it, you might not be paying attention to the
evidence as well as they are.
> Micro-evolution is more accurately
> called speciation or sub-speciation. Evolution is not the right word
> for the coming into existence of species from prior species. It is not
> mere modification or development,it involves the conception or
> reproduction of individual creatures,which is individual creation.
Others have answered that.
>
> > > > but when presented with specific examples of macro-evolution claim to
> > > > *NOT* know if macro-evolution occurred.
> > > Right,I don't know if the examples of supposed macro-evolution really
> > > happened,because we don't know of any reproductive links between the
> > > different species. But I do have reason to think that the examples
> > > could not have happened,because the processes that are said to have
> > > led to macro-evolution don't add up.
> > That may be your problem - looking for (& personally selecting)
> > evidence to "add up" instead of *converge*.
>
> I was referring to the belief that the accumulation (adding up) of
> millions of mutations has led to macro-evolution,in spite of the
> impossibility of knowing what mutations occurred. The "converging"
> evidence of evolution doesn't add up in the logical sense
> either,because evolution theory has faulty and presumptuous notions
> about natural causes.
Others will likely take the bait and tangent on "natural causes" but I
won't. What I will ask, though, is that, why, after many decades of
millions of people making the assertion that "mutations" don't "add
up," there has been no sign of convergence - even *with* blatant
attempt to force-fit it - into a simple outline of which lineages
originated independently, and when?
Maybe you can be the first. But since you admit that you barely pay
attention to the "when" questions that *converge* - again, neither
sought nor planned - from multiple fields of science - I don't think
there's much hope for that.
>
> > What I find fascinating is how no one dares to actually test what
> > could conceivably falsify "macroevolution":
> > http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/section1.htmlhttp://www.talko...
> > but instead relies on the same old incredulity arguments.
>
> It is hardly possible to scientifically test and falsify a theory of
> the history of organisms. We cannot put that to the test.
Hmm. AiG and RTB say otherwise. Have you challenged them?
> The actual
> history of organisms is not something that can be experimentally
> repeated,so we cannot verify the theory. Why are you dismissive of
> arguments from incredulity? Don't you use them against the belief in
> separate creation of species by God?
I dismiss arguments from incredulity *as used by evolution-deniers*
because theu use them as (1) an excuse to avoid supporting their own
explanation, and (2) a bait-and-switch with the argument from design.
I do not use the AFI in any sense, and certainly not in the evasion/
bait-and-switch sense, to dismiss separate creation of species. If
someone provided some evidence - supported on its own merits, not
sought and fabricated "weaknesses" of anything else - that would show
that species (or other "kinds") arose independently, I'd be ecstatic.
But as you know, evolution-deniers know better than to even try.
wrote:
> On Dec 26, 5:14 pm, Frank J <f...@verizon.net> wrote:
>
> > Just dropping by to try again after several months:
> > Some deniers of "macroevolution" concede that changes do occur beyond
> > the species level. Have you challenged them? Particularly the ones who
> > concede that whatever processes occur in lieu of "microevolution" that
> > they nevertheless occur in a biological continuum?
>
> I haven't come across them. Macro-evolution is defined as change above
> the species level,so I would have to know what changes in species they
> are referring to. I don't know what you mean in your third sentence.
Sorry for not noticing this earlier. For some reason the posts are not
>
> > Just dropping by to try again after several months:
> > Some deniers of "macroevolution" concede that changes do occur beyond
> > the species level. Have you challenged them? Particularly the ones who
> > concede that whatever processes occur in lieu of "microevolution" that
> > they nevertheless occur in a biological continuum?
>
> I haven't come across them. Macro-evolution is defined as change above
> the species level,so I would have to know what changes in species they
> are referring to. I don't know what you mean in your third sentence.
in correct "tree" order.
I am referring in particular to Michael Behe, who is one of the most
cited deniers of "macroevolution." If you read his 2 books "Darwin's
Black Box" (1996) and "Edge of "Evolution" (2007) you will clearly see
that, although he does not consider the process "Darwinian evolution,"
he fully concedes that whatever occurred to change species, occurred
in a "biological continum" via common ancestors. Most people who rave
about him, seem to disagree, and think - despite providing no evidence
to support it - that many species (or "kinds") originated
independently from non-life. But they hesitate to challenge him
directly. Which makes me wonder if they either privately fear that his
explanation is closer to reality than theirs, or if they hesitate
because he's an ally in their crusade against "Darwinism."
In fact, while Behe seems quite clear that human and broccoli, for
example, descended from their common ancestors by some process other
than "RM + NS", he does not rule it out as the process by which humans
and other apes descended from their common ancestors. IOW, while he's
pretty clear that "designer intervention" was necessary to create a
bacterial flagellum, he's not so sure if it was necessary to create
the H. sapiens brain.
>
> > > Most
> > > features of a species do not seem to be subject to modification
> > > through allele mutations. The few kinds of known mutations that are
> > > used to show how evolution works cannot possibly lead to macro-
> > > evolution,no matter how many millions of years elapse.
> > Do you agree that the millions of years do occur, with only your
> > "microevolution"? Or do you think life itself is far younger, in which
> > case your incredulity of "macroevolution" would be mostly irrelevant?
>
> I don't know that life in nature has been in existence for millions of
> years,but I suspect it may have.
conclusion comes from many fields of science independent of
evolutionary biology, and is so compelling, that many (most?) self-
described creationists, and nearly all self-described "design
proponents" fully accept it.
So if you only "suepect" it, you might not be paying attention to the
evidence as well as they are.
> Micro-evolution is more accurately
> called speciation or sub-speciation. Evolution is not the right word
> for the coming into existence of species from prior species. It is not
> mere modification or development,it involves the conception or
> reproduction of individual creatures,which is individual creation.
>
> > > > but when presented with specific examples of macro-evolution claim to
> > > > *NOT* know if macro-evolution occurred.
> > > Right,I don't know if the examples of supposed macro-evolution really
> > > happened,because we don't know of any reproductive links between the
> > > different species. But I do have reason to think that the examples
> > > could not have happened,because the processes that are said to have
> > > led to macro-evolution don't add up.
> > That may be your problem - looking for (& personally selecting)
> > evidence to "add up" instead of *converge*.
>
> I was referring to the belief that the accumulation (adding up) of
> millions of mutations has led to macro-evolution,in spite of the
> impossibility of knowing what mutations occurred. The "converging"
> evidence of evolution doesn't add up in the logical sense
> either,because evolution theory has faulty and presumptuous notions
> about natural causes.
won't. What I will ask, though, is that, why, after many decades of
millions of people making the assertion that "mutations" don't "add
up," there has been no sign of convergence - even *with* blatant
attempt to force-fit it - into a simple outline of which lineages
originated independently, and when?
Maybe you can be the first. But since you admit that you barely pay
attention to the "when" questions that *converge* - again, neither
sought nor planned - from multiple fields of science - I don't think
there's much hope for that.
>
> > What I find fascinating is how no one dares to actually test what
> > could conceivably falsify "macroevolution":
> > http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/section1.htmlhttp://www.talko...
> > but instead relies on the same old incredulity arguments.
>
> It is hardly possible to scientifically test and falsify a theory of
> the history of organisms. We cannot put that to the test.
> The actual
> history of organisms is not something that can be experimentally
> repeated,so we cannot verify the theory. Why are you dismissive of
> arguments from incredulity? Don't you use them against the belief in
> separate creation of species by God?
because theu use them as (1) an excuse to avoid supporting their own
explanation, and (2) a bait-and-switch with the argument from design.
I do not use the AFI in any sense, and certainly not in the evasion/
bait-and-switch sense, to dismiss separate creation of species. If
someone provided some evidence - supported on its own merits, not
sought and fabricated "weaknesses" of anything else - that would show
that species (or other "kinds") arose independently, I'd be ecstatic.
But as you know, evolution-deniers know better than to even try.
Steven L.
Jan 1, 2012, 3:52:06 PM1/1/12
to
news:743ce849-7eac-450d...@n39g2000yqh.googlegroups.com:
> It is hardly possible to scientifically test and falsify a theory of
> the history of organisms. We cannot put that to the test. The actual
> history of organisms is not something that can be experimentally
> repeated,so we cannot verify the theory.
Most past events cannot be experimentally repeated.
We can't repeat the rise of the civilizations of the Incas and Mayas
either. Or the first dynasties of China. or the fall of the Roman
Empire.
So do you regard historians' attempts at figuring out the causes of
these events to be inherently suspect?
I'm trying to understand why you are so suspicious of theories of the
history of organisms, but not--for example--theories of the history of
the Roman Empire or theories of the history of the Incas (who left no
written records behind for us to study).
We study all these things the same way--by the evidence they left behind
for us to rediscover.
> Why are you dismissive of
> arguments from incredulity? Don't you use them against the belief in
> separate creation of species by God?
Separate creation of species by God cannot be experimentally repeated
today. Hence by your lights, it is no more credible than evolution.
-- Steven L.
> It is hardly possible to scientifically test and falsify a theory of
> the history of organisms. We cannot put that to the test. The actual
> history of organisms is not something that can be experimentally
> repeated,so we cannot verify the theory.
We can't repeat the rise of the civilizations of the Incas and Mayas
either. Or the first dynasties of China. or the fall of the Roman
Empire.
So do you regard historians' attempts at figuring out the causes of
these events to be inherently suspect?
I'm trying to understand why you are so suspicious of theories of the
history of organisms, but not--for example--theories of the history of
the Roman Empire or theories of the history of the Incas (who left no
written records behind for us to study).
We study all these things the same way--by the evidence they left behind
for us to rediscover.
> Why are you dismissive of
> arguments from incredulity? Don't you use them against the belief in
> separate creation of species by God?
today. Hence by your lights, it is no more credible than evolution.
-- Steven L.
John S. Wilkins
Jan 1, 2012, 5:56:47 PM1/1/12
to
Frank J <fc...@verizon.net> wrote:
> On Dec 29 2011, 7:18 pm, j...@wilkins.id.au (John S. Wilkins) wrote:
> > Anthony022071 <anthony022...@ameritech.net> dropped the following gem:
> >
> > > Micro-evolution is more accurately called
> > > speciation or sub-speciation. Evolution is not the right word for the
> > > coming into existence of species from prior species.
> >
> > Actually, macroevolution *is* speciation or above. By definition.
> >
> > And evolution is *exactly* the right word for new species. And it always
> > has been since the early 18th century. Darwin wanted to replace the
> > term, but he had too much prior usage to overcome.
>
> I admit that I don't read enough of Darwin's own writings enough (I
> find pre-20th century English hard to follow), but I do recall that he
> used the word "evolution" very sparingly. And I would bet that he not
> only never used the word "Darwinism" but would object to its use in
> any definition, expecially the caricature of evolution that deniers
> apply it to obsessively.
Wallace published his Darwinism in 1889, 7 years after Darwin's death.
> On Dec 29 2011, 7:18 pm, j...@wilkins.id.au (John S. Wilkins) wrote:
> > Anthony022071 <anthony022...@ameritech.net> dropped the following gem:
> >
> > > Micro-evolution is more accurately called
> > > speciation or sub-speciation. Evolution is not the right word for the
> > > coming into existence of species from prior species.
> >
> > Actually, macroevolution *is* speciation or above. By definition.
> >
> > And evolution is *exactly* the right word for new species. And it always
> > has been since the early 18th century. Darwin wanted to replace the
> > term, but he had too much prior usage to overcome.
>
> I admit that I don't read enough of Darwin's own writings enough (I
> find pre-20th century English hard to follow), but I do recall that he
> used the word "evolution" very sparingly. And I would bet that he not
> only never used the word "Darwinism" but would object to its use in
> any definition, expecially the caricature of evolution that deniers
> apply it to obsessively.
Nobody used it with his approval in his lifetime, although Haeckel
called his views Darwinismus in 1868 in the Naturliche
Schöpfungsgeschichte, and Huxley had called Darwin's theories Darwinism
in the review in the Westminster Review in 1860.
The creationist caricature began with Charles Hodge's What is Darwinism
in 1874, although Hodge was way more subtle than the current crop. That
isn't saying much; it's the LCA of most canards against Darwin.
John S. Wilkins
Jan 1, 2012, 5:56:41 PM1/1/12
to
sanctuary last year, I chatted to her and got the impresson she was a
methodist or something similar. But you are right.
>
> But I wasn't referring to her personal beliefs, but her heroic attempts
> to try to "sell" evolution on the basis that it doesn't "really"
> conflict with religion.
For certain values of "religion"...
> But I wasn't referring to her personal beliefs, but her heroic attempts
> to try to "sell" evolution on the basis that it doesn't "really"
> conflict with religion.
>
>
> > So I can't see how non-theism
> > is a forced conclusion. If you did not mean that, then ignore me here.
>
> Actually, I'm hoping it's not a forced conclusion.
>
> But I'm also hoping that elan vital can be ruled out though.
Not only can be, has been.
>
> > So I can't see how non-theism
> > is a forced conclusion. If you did not mean that, then ignore me here.
>
> Actually, I'm hoping it's not a forced conclusion.
>
> But I'm also hoping that elan vital can be ruled out though.
> That one just causes too much trouble on the evolutionary tree.
> And it causes too much trouble for religion too.
>
> A lot of pet owners believe that their beloved pets (dogs, cats, etc.)
> will accompany them to Heaven.
> But even they don't hope that after they go to Heaven, their dust mites
> and cockroaches and carpenter ants and MRSA will accompany them in
> Heaven.
heaven? If not, how will I digest? If I won't, how will it be my body? I
was promised bodily resurrection, and I damned well better have the
ability to metabolise too, or it will be a short stay in heaven.
>
>
>
> "If this is Heaven, there wouldn't be dust all over everything"
> -- Beetlejuice
>
>
> -- Steven L.
>
>
> "If this is Heaven, there wouldn't be dust all over everything"
> -- Beetlejuice
>
>
> -- Steven L.
Cory Albrecht
Jan 1, 2012, 6:34:41 PM1/1/12
to
On 12-01-01 05:56 PM, John S. Wilkins wrote:
CSIcon 2011 and my admittedly faulty memory (I didn't know I would be
quizzed!) was that she was of Methodist background but is personally no
longer religious.
> Steven L. <sdli...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>> Eugenie Scott is a self-described non-theist.
>
> Really? When I showed her and her husband around the local koala
> sanctuary last year, I chatted to her and got the impresson she was a
> methodist or something similar. But you are right.
I had some chances to chat with Eugenie Scott at both NECSS 2011 and
>> Eugenie Scott is a self-described non-theist.
>
> Really? When I showed her and her husband around the local koala
> sanctuary last year, I chatted to her and got the impresson she was a
> methodist or something similar. But you are right.
CSIcon 2011 and my admittedly faulty memory (I didn't know I would be
quizzed!) was that she was of Methodist background but is personally no
longer religious.
Frank J
Jan 1, 2012, 6:40:20 PM1/1/12
to
On Jan 1, 8:11 am, "Steven L." <sdlit...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> "John S. Wilkins" <j...@wilkins.id.au> wrote in messagenews:1kcvrsq.ptkis9pwekhsN%jo...@wilkins.id.au:
> > > > "John Harshman" <jharsh...@pacbell.net> wrote in message
Not to mention all the plants and animals they ate during their
lifetime.
>
> "If this is Heaven, there wouldn't be dust all over everything"
> -- Beetlejuice
>
> -- Steven L.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
> "John S. Wilkins" <j...@wilkins.id.au> wrote in messagenews:1kcvrsq.ptkis9pwekhsN%jo...@wilkins.id.au:
> > > > "John Harshman" <jharsh...@pacbell.net> wrote in message
lifetime.
>
> "If this is Heaven, there wouldn't be dust all over everything"
> -- Beetlejuice
>
>
> - Show quoted text -
It is loading more messages.
0 new messages