Re: Some thoughts about Seanpit's argument for design
Inez
> The contradictions are only mendable if we assume the first designer
> is God, who is needless to say not bound by natural restrictions, but
> we would have then left the realm of science. As an argument for God
> the ID-hypothesis is of course still fallacious.
I don't think this is fair to say. If you're going to accept magic you
can't logically conclude anything about anything. Why is any god
necessary if you accept magic? Where is the logic in saying "there's
magic, but it must be personified in the form of a friendly father
figure with a beard and sandals." Why can logic and causality be
violated only by an intelligent wielder of magic?
Spil...@gmx.net
of random mutation and natural selection is impossible this side of
trillions and trillions of years, more than the age of the universe. I
won’t discuss his calculations, instead I will take a look at how
Seanpit proceeds from his statistical argument, and how he concludes
that, random mutation and natural selection discarded as too less
likely to be true, intelligent design instead is the most likely
alternative. He unfortunately stops his argumentation at the point at
which he detects design, and thus intelligence, giving SETI as an
analogy as to why it isn’t necessary to investigate the nature of the
detected intelligence. But why does SETI stop, being content to have
detected intelligence. Because as of now, no one can go look for the
extraterrestrial intelligence, interstellar travel still being Science
Fiction. If I receive a Texas TV broadcast and have doubts it is of
intelligent origin I can take a plane to Texas and go look for myself
and if I find no possible source, than I'd have to rethink my
assumptions about the origin of TV programs. I will take the argument
beyond the point, at which Seanpit leaves it, and follow it through.
*If there is design, we can conclude, that there is a designer. But
this means too, that if there is no designer, than there is no design,
but only the appearance of design.*
I will show in my argument, that there is indeed no natural designer
for the complexity and variety of life. I will show that discarding
undirected causes for the complexity and variety of life leads to
logical contradictions, which are unsolvable – if we don’t want to
assume supernatural causation, in which case the argument for design
leaves the scope of science and becomes an argument for god.
In my argument I will not look at the origin of mycoplasma
laboratorium, we know for sure who “designed” it. I will only look at
life forms, whose origins are disputed, at least by IDists.
Whereever I write "cause", please read "natural cause", whereever
"design" read "intelligent design", whereever "change" read "genetic
change", "RM&NS" = random mutation and natural selection, "fsaars" =
functionally specified amino acid residues.
If I understand correctly Seanpit's Argument for design goes as
follows:
1. The complexity and variety of life have a cause.
2. Evolution by means of RM&NS is a supposed cause for complexity and
variety of life.
3. Evolution by means of RM&NS requires trillions upon trillions of
years for changes above a certain level. (level of complexity
equivalent of 1000 "fsaars"; See Seanpit's calculation)
4. Evolution by means of RM&NS cannot account for changes above a
certain level.
5. Some other cause has to be accountable for changes above a certain
level.
6. A cause can either be directed or undirected.
7. We know of no other undirected cause for the complexity and variety
of life than evolution by means of RM&NS.
8. We know of a directed cause.
9. A designer is a directed cause.
10. Craig Venter is a designer.
11. Craig Venter can account for changes above a certain level.
12. A designer of at least human level intelligence with access to at
least the equivalent of 21st century technology can account for
changes above a certain level.
13. Therefore a directed cause is accountable for the complexity and
variety of life. (I guess Seanpit would agree with me until this
point, and would close the argument here, but let's take it a bit
further. I will proceed to show that 13. is false)
14. Everything that is designed has a designer.
15. Every designer belongs to a species.
16. Every species containing changes above a certain level of
complexity is designed.
17. Every species containing designers capable of designing other
species is complex enough to be designed itself.
18. The human species is designed.
19. A designer cannot be the designer of his own species.
20. Human designers cannot be the designers of the human species.
21. A designer of some other unknown species ET1 of at least human
level intelligence with access to unknown technology more advanced
that the equivalent of 21st century technology has to be the designer
of the human species.
22. A designer of some other unknown species ET2 of at least human
level intelligence with access to unknown technology more advanced
that the equivalent of 21st century technology has to be the designer
of the unknown species ET1
23. A designer of some other unknown species ETn-1 of at least human
level intelligence with access to unknown technology more advanced
that the equivalent of 21st century technologyhas to be the designer
of the unknown species En-2.
24. A designer of some other unknown species ETn of at least human
level intelligence with access to unknown technology more advanced
that the equivalent of 21st century technologyhas to be the designer
of the unknown species ETn-1.
25. It takes time for a species to develop technology capable of
designing a species, even more if it's a species of at least human
intelligence.
26. The universe is only a finite amount of time old.
27. An infinite regress in a finite amount of time is impossible.
28. There is a first designer.
29. according to 17. the first designer must be designed.
30. according to 19. the first designer cannot design himself.
31. Some other designer must have designed the first designer.
32. If some other designer must have designed the first designer, the
first designer can’t be the first designer.
33. There is no first designer, that is a natural entity.
34. Therefore EITHER the first designer is a supernatural entity OR a
directed cause is not accountable the complexity and variety of life.
So we see that the assumption that the complexity and variety of life
has a directed cause, and hence no undirected cause leads into a
contradiction: If we propose, that life had a designer, the question
immediately arises: "Who designed the designer?" He couldn't logically
have evolved. If we assume that evolution of complex lifeforms is nigh
impossible for life on this planet, we must assume that it is nigh
impossible for life elsewhere, no matter how its equivalent genetic
information is coded. So we get into a neverending chain of designers,
that are designed by other designers, and so on. But this can't be
continued endlessly, the universe sets a finite timeline. Habitable
planets did appear a finite time ago, so who designed the first
possible designers? Since we cannot solve the dilemma, we have to
conclude that there was no first designer, at which time the
argumentation breaks down:
No first designer - no second designer - no n-1th designer - no nth
designer, that designed the human species - no human species - no
craig vent... But wait, we know for sure that we are here, so WHO
designed us? Well, maybe nobody? Maybe the proposition that complex
life has a directed cause is simply false. Maybe complex life had an
undirected cause all along. The only undirected cause for complex life
we know of is evolution by random mutation and natural selection. So
either we need to look for a yet unknown undirected cause for complex
life, or the proposition that evolution by means of random mutation
and natural selection cannot account for the complexity of life is
false.
The contradictions are only mendable if we assume the first designer
is God, who is needless to say not bound by natural restrictions, but
we would have then left the realm of science. As an argument for God
the ID-hypothesis is of course still fallacious.
Concerning Seanpit's Calculation of the odds of evolution according to
his argument, I can't evaluate it. It appears valid to me, but is it
sound? Being no expert in biochemistry and statistics, I can't assess
his sources and how he uses them. I have no definite opinion about it,
but since it contradicts a well established theory that is
corroborated by several lines of numerous evidence, I remain skeptical
towards his claims until I see some other expertly opinions about it.
Considering this, and considering the alternatives for the theory of
evolution, it appears far more likely, that he is simply wrong, than
that he really stumbled on something. Of course it is possible, maybe
the mechanism of random mutation and natural selection isn't very well
understood, maybe, who knows, maybe Seanpit will be famous, but of
course still no reason to insert ID. So Seanpit, if you are interested
in reaching non-scientists like me, who have to rely on experts for
answers, I ask you to send your hypothesis to a scientific paper and
let the scientific community scrutinize it, then let us know what are
the results.
So we have seen that the ID-hypothesis fails, so what is then its
probability? Exactly 0.
Best regards,
Lark
Spil...@gmx.net
> > The contradictions are only mendable if we assume the first designer
> > is God, who is needless to say not bound by natural restrictions, but
> > we would have then left the realm of science. As an argument for God
> > the ID-hypothesis is of course still fallacious.
>
> can't logically conclude anything about anything. Why is any god
> necessary if you accept magic? Where is the logic in saying "there's
> magic, but it must be personified in the form of a friendly father
> figure with a beard and sandals." Why can logic and causality be
> violated only by an intelligent wielder of magic?
You are right, if we accept magic we can not conclude anything. I just
wanted to point out that this argument *is* used by many people in
this fashion, the argument from design is more popular as an argument
for god than as a scientific proposition. Quite telling.
Lark
John Smith
<Spil...@gmx.net> wrote in message
news:c0a97edd-80c3-4f20...@y9g2000yqg.googlegroups.com...
Seanpit argues, that evolution of complex biological features by means
of random mutation and natural selection is impossible this side of
trillions and trillions of years, more than the age of the universe.
**There is no way, shape or form he could possibly make that assertion as
reality.
I
won’t discuss his calculations, instead I will take a look at how
Seanpit proceeds from his statistical argument, and how he concludes
that, random mutation and natural selection discarded as too less
likely to be true, intelligent design instead is the most likely
alternative.
** Disproving one scenario, gives absolutely NO weight to another being
right.
He unfortunately stops his argumentation at the point at
which he detects design, and thus intelligence, giving SETI as an
analogy as to why it isn’t necessary to investigate the nature of the
detected intelligence. But why does SETI stop, being content to have
detected intelligence. Because as of now, no one can go look for the
extraterrestrial intelligence, interstellar travel still being Science
Fiction. If I receive a Texas TV broadcast and have doubts if it is of
intelligent origin, I can take a plane to Texas and go look for myself
and if I find no possible source, than I'd have to rethink my
assumptions about the origin of TV programs. I will take the argument
beyond the point, at which Seanpit leaves it, and follow it through.
** You cannot compare the reality of "man made" designs to ANYTHING that
happens in nature - as evidence of a designer.
*If there is design, we can conclude, that there is a designer. But
this means too, that if there is no designer, than there is no design,
but only the appearance of design.*
**When these morons come up with an exact, scientific, definition and
measurements for design - we'll talk.
Until then - "design" is nothing more than an empty opinion!
I will show in my argument, that there is indeed no natural designer
for the complexity and variety of life. I will show that discarding
undirected causes for the complexity and variety of life leads to
logical contradictions, which are unsolvable – if we don’t want to
assume supernatural causation, in which case the argument for design
leaves the scope of science and becomes an argument for god.
In my argument I will not look at the origin of plasmodium
The contradictions are only mendable if we assume the first designer
is God, who is needless to say not bound by natural restrictions, but
we would have then left the realm of science. As an argument for God
the ID-hypothesis is of course still fallacious.
Concerning Seanpit's Calculation of the odds of evolution according to
his argument, I can't evaluate it. It appears valid to me, but is it
sound? Being no expert in biochemistry and statistics, I can't assess
his sources and how he uses them. I have no definite opinion about it,
but since it contradicts a well established theory that is
corroborated by several lines of numerous evidence, I remain skeptical
towards his claims until I see some other expertly opinions about it.
Considering this, and considering the alternatives for the theory of
evolution, it appears far more likely, that he is simply wrong, than
that he really stumbled on something. Of course it is possible, maybe
the mechanism of random mutation and natural selection isn't very well
understood, maybe, who knows, maybe Seanpit will be famous, but of
course still no reason to insert ID. So Seanpit, if you are interested
in reaching non-scientists like me, who have to rely on experts for
answers, I ask you to send your hypothesis to a scientific paper and
let the scientific community scrutinize it, then let us know what are
the results.
So we have seen that the ID-hypothesis fails, what is then its
Perplexed in Peoria
[snip much]
> *If there is design, we can conclude, that there is a designer. But
> this means too, that if there is no designer, than there is no design,
> but only the appearance of design.*
-------------------
Careful with your tenses here. Sean argues that if there is design,
then we can conclude that there *was* a designer. We can't tell
that the designer is still around, nor that he left any other evidence
of his past existence.
Thus, your flip side should be "If there never was a designer, then
there is no design, only the appearance."
[M]adman
1) You base all of the above on the fact that the original designer has to
conform to known physical laws.
Which is not the case.
2) You also base some of the above on the element of time moving in a liner
fashion only. We know from the bible that time does not move in a straight
forward line in the realm of Angels and God. Time is in a circular motion
that spirals up.
Sorry, Your probability of zero is in err.
Damaeus
Inez <savagem...@hotmail.com> posted:
Why does it need that? The creator power could just as easily been left
alone to respond to the whims of humans. In effect, we have been reaping
the fruits of the things we create, even from the ideas.
It relates to the "you are what you think" concept. The more you think of
yourself as something, the more you become that thing.
Damaeus
Inez
> > The contradictions are only mendable if we assume the first designer
> > is God, who is needless to say not bound by natural restrictions, but
> > we would have then left the realm of science. As an argument for God
> > the ID-hypothesis is of course still fallacious.
<snip>
>
> 1) You base all of the above on the fact that the original designer has to
> conform to known physical laws.
>
> Which is not the case.
I snipped so the part that makes your response look foolish is more
easily seen.
> 2) You also base some of the above on the element of time moving in a liner
> fashion only. We know from the bible that time does not move in a straight
> forward line in the realm of Angels and God. Time is in a circular motion
> that spirals up.
>
No no! Time is shapped like a pony with a braided mane and ribbons in
its tail.
Spil...@gmx.net
wrote:
[snip]
> Careful with your tenses here. Sean argues that if there is design,
> then we can conclude that there *was* a designer. We can't tell
> that the designer is still around, nor that he left any other evidence
> of his past existence.
>
> Thus, your flip side should be "If there never was a designer, then
> there is no design, only the appearance."
You're right, this was the thing I meant to say.
Glenn
wrote:
> <Spille...@gmx.net> wrote:
>
> [snip much]> *If there is design, we can conclude, that there is a designer. But
> > this means too, that if there is no designer, than there is no design,
> > but only the appearance of design.*
>
> [snip much more]
>
> -------------------
> Careful with your tenses here. Sean argues that if there is design,
> then we can conclude that there *was* a designer. We can't tell
> that the designer is still around, nor that he left any other evidence
> of his past existence.
Sean has argued that we *can not* tell that the designer is still
around, or whether a designer left any other evidence of his
existence? Doesn't sound like Sean to be making absolutist claims.
>
> Thus, your flip side should be "If there never was a designer, then
> there is no design, only the appearance."
No PiP, that isn't a flip side. If there never was a designer, there
would be no design. Full stop.The conclusion that there would be an
appearance of design does not logically follow.
Frank J
wrote:
> <Spille...@gmx.net> wrote:
>
> [snip much]> *If there is design, we can conclude, that there is a designer. But
> > this means too, that if there is no designer, than there is no design,
> > but only the appearance of design.*
>
> [snip much more]
>
> -------------------
> Careful with your tenses here. Sean argues that if there is design,
> then we can conclude that there *was* a designer. We can't tell
> that the designer is still around, nor that he left any other evidence
> of his past existence.
Michael Behe even admitted at Dover that the designer might no longer
exist.
Sean, if you're reading, do you think Behe could be right? Or do you
have independent evidence that the designer is still around?
wf3h
> On Apr 9, 1:11 pm, "Perplexed in Peoria" <jimmene...@sbcglobal.net>
> wrote:
>
> > <Spille...@gmx.net> wrote:
>
> > [snip much]> *If there is design, we can conclude, that there is a designer. But
> > > this means too, that if there is no designer, than there is no design,
> > > but only the appearance of design.*
>
> > [snip much more]
>
> > -------------------
> > Careful with your tenses here. Sean argues that if there is design,
> > then we can conclude that there *was* a designer. We can't tell
> > that the designer is still around, nor that he left any other evidence
> > of his past existence.
>
> Sean has argued that we *can not* tell that the designer is still
> around, or whether a designer left any other evidence of his
> existence? Doesn't sound like Sean to be making absolutist claims.
sean argues anything that can't be tested
>
>
>
> > Thus, your flip side should be "If there never was a designer, then
> > there is no design, only the appearance."
>
> No PiP, that isn't a flip side. If there never was a designer, there
> would be no design. Full stop.The conclusion that there would be an
> appearance of design does not logically follow.
the presence of a designer is a NECESSARY but NOT sufficient
requirement for design
and sean ignores that, too
Greg G.
Department:
[M]adman
Your childish stupidity knows no bounds. Like the time that spirals upward
and forever.
Glenn
> On Apr 10, 5:31 pm, Glenn <GlennShel...@msn.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Apr 9, 1:11 pm, "Perplexed in Peoria" <jimmene...@sbcglobal.net>
> > wrote:
>
> > > <Spille...@gmx.net> wrote:
>
> > > [snip much]> *If there is design, we can conclude, that there is a designer. But
> > > > this means too, that if there is no designer, than there is no design,
> > > > but only the appearance of design.*
>
> > > [snip much more]
>
> > > -------------------
> > > Careful with your tenses here. Sean argues that if there is design,
> > > then we can conclude that there *was* a designer. We can't tell
> > > that the designer is still around, nor that he left any other evidence
> > > of his past existence.
>
> > Sean has argued that we *can not* tell that the designer is still
> > around, or whether a designer left any other evidence of his
> > existence? Doesn't sound like Sean to be making absolutist claims.
>
> sean argues anything that can't be tested
>
>
> > > Thus, your flip side should be "If there never was a designer, then
> > > there is no design, only the appearance."
>
> > No PiP, that isn't a flip side. If there never was a designer, there
> > would be no design. Full stop.The conclusion that there would be an
> > appearance of design does not logically follow.
>
> the presence of a designer is a NECESSARY but NOT sufficient
> requirement for design
>
> and sean ignores that, too
>
'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank
Hey Glenn, are you and Sean BFF's now that Madman and Spinny have
kicked you out of their creationist clubhouse?
How about Ray -- is HE allowed in your clubhouse?
(snicker) (giggle) <---- yes, Glenn, I am laughing at you
================================================
Lenny Flank
"There are no loose threads in the web of life"
Editor, Red and Black Publishers
http://www.RedandBlackPublishers.com
'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank
> wrote:
>
> > <Spille...@gmx.net> wrote:
>
> > [snip much]> *If there is design, we can conclude, that there is a designer. But
> > > this means too, that if there is no designer, than there is no design,
> > > but only the appearance of design.*
>
> > [snip much more]
>
> > -------------------
> > Careful with your tenses here. Sean argues that if there is design,
> > then we can conclude that there *was* a designer. We can't tell
> > that the designer is still around, nor that he left any other evidence
> > of his past existence.
>
> Sean has argued that we *can not* tell that the designer is still
> around, or whether a designer left any other evidence of his
> existence? Doesn't sound like Sean to be making absolutist claims.
No, it sounds like Sean is trying to bullshit everyone (particularly a
judge) that "the designer" isn't necessarily "god", even though
EVERYBODY ALREADY KNOWS that Sean doesn't think that at all and
neither does any other IDer, including you.
If you disagree, then please by all means go ahead and tell us what,
other than god, the designer COULD be. Space aliens? Time-travelling
human biologists?
Do tell, Glenn . . . . .
(snicker) (giggle)
Why do IDers continue to make themsleves look ridiculous like this,
just to avoid saying out loud what EVERYBODY ALREADY KNOWS ANYWAY --
the Intelligent Designer is God.
Ohhhhh, that's right --- it's because ID "theory" is just a deceptive
dishonest legal strategy to try to get around some Supreme Court
rulings that the fundies don't like.
No WONDER they keep losing in court.
Inez
Time isn't childishly stupid. You're just mad that you live in the
poopy part of time's pony.
wf3h
must have really hurt his feelings...
>
> How about Ray -- is HE allowed in your clubhouse?
wonder if it has a mental ward...
>
wf3h
> On Apr 10, 3:12 pm, wf3h <w...@vsswireless.net> wrote:
>
> >
> > sean argues anything that can't be tested
>
> How does one test your lunacy?
you ask if i'm a creationist. if not, i'm sane.
and you?
>
> > > > Thus, your flip side should be "If there never was a designer, then
> > > > there is no design, only the appearance."
>
> > > No PiP, that isn't a flip side. If there never was a designer, there
> > > would be no design. Full stop.The conclusion that there would be an
> > > appearance of design does not logically follow.
>
> > the presence of a designer is a NECESSARY but NOT sufficient
> > requirement for design
>
> > and sean ignores that, too
>
> If so it's because that makes no sense.-
IOW you don't understand the argument.
thanks. i already new that.
Spil...@gmx.net
[snip]
> If you disagree, then please by all means go ahead and tell us what,
> other than god, the designer COULD be. Space aliens? Time-travelling
> human biologists?
[snip]
The designer couldn't be any natural designer, because that would lead
to logical contradictions. The designer could be a supernatural
designer, but only if you are willing to invoke special pleading.
Lark
TomS
<ad5a16c4-d90c-411a...@l13g2000vba.googlegroups.com>,
Spil...@gmx.net stated..."
>
>On 11 Apr., 12:49, "'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank" <lfl...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>[snip]
>
>> If you disagree, then please by all means go ahead and tell us what,
>g
>> human biologists?
>
>[snip]
>
>The designer couldn't be any natural designer, because that would lead
>to logical contradictions. The designer could be a supernatural
>designer, but only if you are willing to invoke special pleading.
>
>
>Lark
>
"Possible candidates for the role of designer include: the God of
Christianity; an angel--fallen or not; Plato's demi-urge; some
mystical new age force; space aliens from Alpha Centauri; time
travelers; or some utterly unknown intelligent being."
Michael Behe, "The Modern Intelligent Design Hypothesis," Philosophia
Christi, Series 2, Vol. 3, No. 1 (2001), pg. 165, as cited by Casey
Luskin, "Is Intelligent Design Theory Really an Argument for God?"
on the web page for IDEA, Intelligent Design and Evolution Awareness
Center:
<http://www.ideacenter.org/contentmgr/showdetails.php/id/1341>
--
---Tom S.
"As scarce as truth is, the supply has always been in excess of the demand."
attributed to Josh Billings
Seanpit
> On 11 Apr., 12:49, "'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank" <lfl...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> [snip]
>
> > If you disagree, then please by all means go ahead and tell us what,
> > other than god, the designer COULD be. Space aliens? Time-travelling
> > human biologists?
>
> [snip]
>
> The designer couldn't be any natural designer, because that would lead
> to logical contradictions.
Not true. A great many phenomena can be explained by perfectly
natural designers.
> The designer could be a supernatural
> designer, but only if you are willing to
> invoke special pleading.
The non-supernatural, like us humans, cannot prove or even remotely
test the need for the supernatural. This concept of the supernatural
is a theoretical concept that is truly outside of the realm of
scientific investigation. It can only be reasonably believed based
simply on the statements of the understandable reliability of the one
who claims to be "supernatural". It is essentially a "trust me"
argument that is based on those very limited evidences that we can
actually understand.
> Lark
Sean Pitman
www.DetectingDesign.com
Seanpit
>
> > Careful with your tenses here. Sean argues that if there is design,
> > then we can conclude that there *was* a designer. We can't tell
> > that the designer is still around, nor that he left any other evidence
> > of his past existence.
>
> Michael Behe even admitted at Dover that the designer might no longer
> exist.
>
> Sean, if you're reading, do you think Behe could be right? Or do you
> have independent evidence that the designer is still around?
As far as scientific investigation is concerned, Behe is absolutely
right here. It is quite possible that "the designer" is no longer
around.
Sean Pitman
www.DetectingDesign.com
Seanpit
> Seanpitargues, that evolution of complex biological features by means
> of random mutation and natural selection is impossible this side of
> trillions and trillions of years, more than the age of the universe. I
> that, random mutation and natural selection discarded as too less
> likely to be true, intelligent design instead is the most likely
> alternative. He unfortunately stops his argumentation at the point at
> which he detects design, and thus intelligence, giving SETI as an
> analogy as to why it isn’t necessary to investigate the nature of the
> detected intelligence. But why does SETI stop, being content to have
> detected intelligence. Because as of now, no one can go look for the
> extraterrestrial intelligence, interstellar travel still being Science
> Fiction. If I receive a Texas TV broadcast and have doubts it is of
> intelligent origin I can take a plane to Texas and go look for myself
> and if I find no possible source, than I'd have to rethink my
> assumptions about the origin of TV programs. I will take the argument
>
> *If there is design, we can conclude, that there is a designer. But
> this means too, that if there is no designer, than there is no design,
> but only the appearance of design.*
>
> I will show in my argument, that there is indeed no natural designer
> for the complexity and variety of life. I will show that discarding
> undirected causes for the complexity and variety of life leads to
> logical contradictions, which are unsolvable – if we don’t want to
> assume supernatural causation, in which case the argument for design
> leaves the scope of science and becomes an argument for god.
>
> In my argument I will not look at the origin of mycoplasma
> laboratorium, we know for sure who “designed” it. I will only look at
> life forms, whose origins are disputed, at least by IDists.
>
> Whereever I write "cause", please read "natural cause", whereever
> "design" read "intelligent design", whereever "change" read "genetic
> change", "RM&NS" = random mutation and natural selection, "fsaars" =
> functionally specified amino acid residues.
>
> follows:
>
> 1. The complexity and variety of life have a cause.
>
> 2. Evolution by means of RM&NS is a supposed cause for complexity and
> variety of life.
>
> 3. Evolution by means of RM&NS requires trillions upon trillions of
> years for changes above a certain level. (level of complexity
> equivalent of 1000 "fsaars"; SeeSeanpit'scalculation)
>
> 4. Evolution by means of RM&NS cannot account for changes above a
> certain level.
>
> 5. Some other cause has to be accountable for changes above a certain
> level.
>
> 6. A cause can either be directed or undirected.
>
> 7. We know of no other undirected cause for the complexity and variety
> of life than evolution by means of RM&NS.
>
> 8. We know of a directed cause.
>
> 9. A designer is a directed cause.
>
> 10. Craig Venter is a designer.
>
> 11. Craig Venter can account for changes above a certain level.
>
> 12. A designer of at least human level intelligence with access to at
> least the equivalent of 21st century technology can account for
> changes above a certain level.
>
> 13. Therefore a directed cause is accountable for the complexity and
> his argument, I can't evaluate it. It appears valid to me, but is it
> sound? Being no expert in biochemistry and statistics, I can't assess
> his sources and how he uses them. I have no definite opinion about it,
> but since it contradicts a well established theory that is
> corroborated by several lines of numerous evidence, I remain skeptical
> towards his claims until I see some other expertly opinions about it.
> Considering this, and considering the alternatives for the theory of
> evolution, it appears far more likely, that he is simply wrong, than
> that he really stumbled on something. Of course it is possible, maybe
> the mechanism of random mutation and natural selection isn't very well
> course still no reason to insert ID. SoSeanpit, if you are interested
> in reaching non-scientists like me, who have to rely on experts for
> answers, I ask you to send your hypothesis to a scientific paper and
> let the scientific community scrutinize it, then let us know what are
> the results.
>
> So we have seen that the ID-hypothesis fails, so what is then its
> probability? Exactly 0.
Ever hear of Zeno's paradox?
There are lots of paradoxes in science that cannot be explained.
First causes is one of these. Ultimately, not matter what path you
choose, you come to the problem of first cause. Even mainstream
scientists have this problem. For example, what caused the big bang?
Where did the first singularity come from? How can something come
from nothing? Scientists have no idea how to answer these questions -
yet they believe in something that other laws of science say are
impossible or at the very least not remotely understood.
So, your "logic" here essentially makes it impossible for you to
believe in the existence of anything - designed or not. Yet, here we
are. Of the two impossible explanations, or at least paradoxical
explanations that are not remotely understandable, which one is most
likely? That's the real question here . . .
The requirement for deliberate design behind certain phenomena is just
as overwhelming as any of the most established theories in science -
regardless of your opinion about "first causes". So, go from
there . . .
> Best regards,
> Lark
Sean Pitman
www.DetectingDesign.com
roki...@cox.net
> On Apr 9, 12:50 pm, Spille...@gmx.net wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> Ever hear of Zeno's paradox?
>
> There are lots of paradoxes in science that cannot be explained.
> First causes is one of these. Ultimately, not matter what path you
> choose, you come to the problem of first cause. Even mainstream
> scientists have this problem. For example, what caused the big bang?
> Where did the first singularity come from? How can something come
> from nothing? Scientists have no idea how to answer these questions -
> yet they believe in something that other laws of science say are
> impossible or at the very least not remotely understood.
>
> So, your "logic" here essentially makes it impossible for you to
> believe in the existence of anything - designed or not. Yet, here we
> are. Of the two impossible explanations, or at least paradoxical
>
Ever hear of running and pretending? In another thread I was just
commenting on the fact that the only guys left that support the
intelligent design creationist scam are ignorant, incompetent and or
dishonest, and Sean pops up to verify the dishonest classification.
Sean why is it that you don't have any anti-science creationist
arguments that do not depend on ignorance, incompetence or
dishonesty? Where is that science of intelligent design that you
would have taught to school kids? You claimed that you had it, so why
haven't you ever put any forward for evaluation? Where is that
alternative you have to common descent that is just as good as the
explanation that real science has? You know the one with evidence
that you claimed was just as good as the evidence for biological
evolution that you think isn't good enough.
Ignorance, incompetence and dishonesty. How sad is that? No science
worth putting forward, no alternative worth supporting, just bogus
scam. Just run and pretend and verify everything that I have just
written. You are the one that made the claims. If you don't have the
science or the alternative, why not just admit it and then admit that
you are just blowing smoke instead of lying to yourself about it?
Ron Okimoto
Spil...@gmx.net
[snip]
> > The designer couldn't be any natural designer, because that would lead
> > to logical contradictions.
>
> Not true. A great many phenomena can be explained by perfectly
> natural designers.
>
[snip]
Sure, we have natural designers of all sorts of things, such as cars,
computers and even mycoplasma laboratorium, but I am talking of
designers of complex lifeforms, that themselves design complex
lifeforms *under the premise that undirected causes can't be
responsible for complex lifeforms*, which leads to contadictions and
is thus not tenable, as I have laid out in my argumentation.
Lark
Robert Camp
There's a perfectly reasonable answer to these questions - "I don't
know, it's a mystery" (apologies to Geoffrey Rush). I don't know what
came before the Big Bang. I'm not even sure I could understand the
explanation were it available (I'm still trying to wrap my head around
11 dimensional string theory). There are things each of us will never
understand, things the human race may never know. Uncertainty means
surprise and wonder are inevitable. Why some feel the need to curtail
those experiences by filling in the blanks with wishful thinking
eludes me.
> yet they believe in something that other laws of science say are
> impossible or at the very least not remotely understood.
They do? Certainly some do (depending upon what you mean by
"something," and "they"), but I don't believe this generalization is
accurate. It was my understanding that only about a fifth of
physicists believe in god, and even then it doesn't mean they are
inferring this deity as the proximate cause of the Big Bang.
RLC
> So, your "logic" here essentially makes it impossible for you to
> believe in the existence of anything - designed or not. Yet, here we
> are. Of the two impossible explanations, or at least paradoxical
> explanations that are not remotely understandable, ...
>
> read more »
hersheyh
> On Apr 11, 6:34 am, Spille...@gmx.net wrote:
>
> > On 11 Apr., 12:49, "'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank" <lfl...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > [snip]
>
> > > If you disagree, then please by all means go ahead and tell us what,
> > > other than god, the designer COULD be. Space aliens? Time-travelling
> > > human biologists?
>
> > [snip]
>
> > The designer couldn't be any natural designer, because that would lead
> > to logical contradictions.
>
> Not true. A great many phenomena can be explained by perfectly
> natural designers.
The designer of life on earth, if there is such, is either natural or
supernatural. The former is possible but relegates life on earth to
an insignificant secondary phenomenon and begs the question of who,
what, or how the natural designer arose or was designed. Perhaps its
turtles all the way down? But that conflicts with the evidence that
our universe has an origin and was unable to support life-as-we-know-
it for some significant amount of time. Ultimately, if one claims
that life on earth was designed by some alien natural life, one either
has to posit a supernatural designer in the chain of design or propose
a natural process akin to evolution -- just not on the earth.
Sean, I presume, is aware of this problem of "who designed the
designer". Which is why he is completely uninterested in testing his
idea of a natural designer on the earth. He posits a vague untestable
natural designer with a wink, wink. He merely wants the principle of
being able to call vague untested magical fairy equivalents "science"
to be affirmed. It is only after, in his wildest dreams, that science
accepts imaginary magical fairy solutions that he will point out that
"Gee, somewhere in the chain it must be due to a supernatural God.
Perhaps it would be simpler to just call my imaginary magic fairy
"God" and be done with it."
Spil...@gmx.net
[snip]
> Ever hear of Zeno's paradox?
>
Of which one do you talk? Achilles and the tortoise? The arrow
paradox? Any other? If you look closely at my argument you will notice
that it bears no resemblance to any of Zeno's paradoxes.
> There are lots of paradoxes in science that cannot be explained.
> First causes is one of these. Ultimately, not matter what path you
> choose, you come to the problem of first cause. Even mainstream
> scientists have this problem. For example, what caused the big bang?
> Where did the first singularity come from? How can something come
> from nothing? Scientists have no idea how to answer these questions -
> yet they believe in something that other laws of science say are
> impossible or at the very least not remotely understood.
>
The Big Bang is completely irrelevant to my argument.
> So, your "logic" here essentially makes it impossible for you to
> believe in the existence of anything - designed or not.
Not true.
>Yet, here we are.
Yes, I adressed that.
> Of the two impossible explanations, or at least paradoxical
> explanations that are not remotely understandable, which one is most
> likely? That's the real question here . . .
>
Does that mean you agree, that the ID-hypothesis leads to a logical
contradiction?
> The requirement for deliberate design behind certain phenomena is just
> as overwhelming as any of the most established theories in science -
I agree for certain phenomena as cars, computers and mycoplasma
laboratorium, not so for complex lifeforms. I wouldn't call logical
contradictory propositions as "overwhelmingly" required.
> regardless of your opinion about "first causes". So, go from
> there . . .
>
The assumption, that only directed causes can account for the
existence of complex lifeforms has brought you into this mess.
[snip]
I'm not talking of the impossibility of crossing an infinite number of
intervals like in "Achilles and the tortoise", I am talking about the
impossibility of having first designer under the premise that
undirected causes can not account for the existence of complex
lifeforms. My line of argumentation is called "reductio ad absurdum".
As I explained in my argument: We have a finite amount of time for
that galaxies existed (about 13 billion years), species need a certain
amount of time to reach a technology level that enables them to design
complex species (it took humanity about 200.000 years to design the
first bacterium). So I argue, quite contrary to Zeno, that we don't
get into an infinite regress but that we have to get to the point
where the first designer existed - which is logically contradictory:
The first designer can not have a designer because he is the *first*
designer, and can not not have a designer because every designer must
have a designer.
Conclusion: The premise, that undirected causes can not account for
the existence of complex lifeforms is false.
Probability of the design hypothesis: 0
> Sean Pitmanwww.DetectingDesign.com
Lark
Spil...@gmx.net
[snip]
> The designer of life on earth, if there is such, is either natural or
> supernatural. The former is possible but relegates life on earth to
> an insignificant secondary phenomenon and begs the question of who,
> what, or how the natural designer arose or was designed. Perhaps its
> turtles all the way down? But that conflicts with the evidence that
> our universe has an origin and was unable to support life-as-we-know-
> it for some significant amount of time. Ultimately, if one claims
> that life on earth was designed by some alien natural life, one either
> has to posit a supernatural designer in the chain of design or propose
> a natural process akin to evolution -- just not on the earth.
>
> Sean, I presume, is aware of this problem of "who designed the
> designer". Which is why he is completely uninterested in testing his
> idea of a natural designer on the earth. He posits a vague untestable
> natural designer with a wink, wink. He merely wants the principle of
> being able to call vague untested magical fairy equivalents "science"
> to be affirmed. It is only after, in his wildest dreams, that science
> accepts imaginary magical fairy solutions that he will point out that
> "Gee, somewhere in the chain it must be due to a supernatural God.
> Perhaps it would be simpler to just call my imaginary magic fairy
> "God" and be done with it."
>
If IDists are unwilling to answer the question "who designed the
designer", then someone else can answer it for them.
Lark
heekster
wrote:
It IS a mental ward.
Look at who is in it.
wf3h
> On Apr 11, 10:36 am, Seanpit <sean...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > So, your "logic" here essentially makes it impossible for you to
> > believe in the existence of anything - designed or not. Yet, here we
> > are. Of the two impossible explanations, or at least paradoxical
> > explanations that are not remotely understandable, ...
>
> Ever hear of running and pretending? In another thread I was just
> commenting on the fact that the only guys left that support the
> intelligent design creationist scam are ignorant, incompetent and or
> dishonest, and Sean pops up to verify the dishonest classification.
great summary! sean is shocked...SHOCKED to find out that creationists
use the term 'intelligent design' to mean god even though hsi very own
CHURCH teaches it....
>
> Ignorance, incompetence and dishonesty. How sad is that? No science
> worth putting forward, no alternative worth supporting, just bogus
> scam.
absolutely. sean tried to tell me his designer isn't god...that he
never even thinks of it in terms of god....except, of course, when you
go to his own website, GOD is plastered all over the place...
wf3h
>
> > On 11 Apr., 12:49, "'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank" <lfl...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > [snip]
>
> > > If you disagree, then please by all means go ahead and tell us what,
> > > other than god, the designer COULD be. Space aliens? Time-travelling
> > > human biologists?
>
> > [snip]
>
> > The designer couldn't be any natural designer, because that would lead
> > to logical contradictions.
>
> Not true. A great many phenomena can be explained by perfectly
> natural designers.
>
> > The designer could be a supernatural
> > designer, but only if you are willing to
> > invoke special pleading.
>
> The non-supernatural, like us humans, cannot prove or even remotely
> test the need for the supernatural. This concept of the supernatural
> is a theoretical concept that is truly outside of the realm of
> scientific investigation.
well not quite. since the concept of the supernatural has infinite
plasticity and is thought of by some religious denominations as
provable, all we have to do is look and see if a denominations is
stupid enough to have a testable prediction based on
supernaturalism...something REALLY stupid like 'there's an intelligent
designer responsible for life on earth'
and there are quite a number of christian denominations ridiculous
enough to make such an infantile prediction. they're wrong.
Spil...@gmx.net
Some more thoughts on Seanpit's answer:
[snip]
Red herrings upon red herrings:
> There are lots of paradoxes in science that cannot be explained.
I'm not sure how you use "paradox" here and how you use "can not be
explained". If there are lots of paradoxes that can not be explained,
are there some paradoxes that can be explained? I just assume that you
meant: "There are lots of things in science than can not be
explained." I think it depends, how you understand "can not be
explained".
1. Can not be explained - at the moment.
2. Can not be explained - ever.
I assume there are lots of things in science that can not be explained
as of now, but few that can never be explained.
> First causes is one of these. Ultimately, not matter what path you
> choose, you come to the problem of first cause.
Not true, there are events in nature that have no cause.
You run into less problems if you assume there are events in nature
that are uncaused or self-caused (quantum effects come to mind). But
you yourself caused the problem of the first designer by stating that
complex lifeforms couldn't come to be by unguided natural processes.
There's a simple way out - by allowing unguided natural processes as
an explanation.
> Even mainstream
> scientists have this problem. For example, what caused the big bang?
How is that relevant to my argument?
> Where did the first singularity come from?
How is that relevant to my argument?
> How can something come from nothing?
How is that relevant to my argument?
> Scientists have no idea how to answer these questions -
Non true, there are at least some hypothesis.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bang#Speculative_physics_beyond_Big_Bang_theory
> yet they believe in something that other laws of science say are
> impossible or at the very least not remotely understood.
>
Well, that was a swarm of red herrings.
[snip]
Remember, I'm talking not about something speculative at the very
border of spacetime, I'm talking about something that happened well
after the Big Bang. No infinities involved and no need to question the
very possibility of knowledge itself. I'm talking about a finite
number of events in a finite amount of time. And at the end of that
chain of events awaits a contradiction, that destroys the argument for
design
Lark
Frank J
Why the quotes?
IIRC, Behe also said that he thinks that the designer is God (though
like his theistic critics was careful not to pretend that it was a
*scientific* conclusion), and to my knowledge never claimed
(scientifically or otherwise) that there were intermediate designers.
And by "no longer around" he meant "no longer in existence" as in
"deceased," not "not on Earth." Do you still agree with him?
>
> Sean Pitmanwww.DetectingDesign.com
Frank J
Update, TomS's post above has a Behe quote that named other potential
designers, though not necessarily as God's delegates, so unless I just
missed it, the possibility that God is dead remains undenied by Behe's.
Ray Martinez
> On Apr 11, 11:19 am, Seanpit <sean...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Apr 11, 6:34 am, Spille...@gmx.net wrote:
>
> > > On 11 Apr., 12:49, "'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank" <lfl...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > [snip]
>
> > > > If you disagree, then please by all means go ahead and tell us what,
> > > > other than god, the designer COULD be. Space aliens? Time-travelling
> > > > human biologists?
>
> > > [snip]
>
> > > The designer couldn't be any natural designer, because that would lead
> > > to logical contradictions.
>
> > Not true. A great many phenomena can be explained by perfectly
> > natural designers.
>
> The designer of life on earth, if there is such, is either natural or
> supernatural.
The "either-or" seen above is completely accurate: that is the
choice----NOT BOTH. Sean has shown no understanding of this basic
fact.
> The former is possible
No: the former (= natural) is not possible. It is impossible for life
to have come about without Mind (= supernatural).
> but relegates life on earth to....secondary phenomenon....
Yes, that is the claim.
> ....and begs the question of who,
> what, or how....design....arose or was designed.
True: natural means the supernatural was not involved; therefore it
begs the question. This means natural limits the answer to anything
but the supernatural. Again, Sean does not understand along with many
other evolutionists who think "natural" allows ultimate supernatural
control or initiation. "Natural" means supernatural is absent and/or
does not exist.
> Perhaps its
> turtles all the way down? But that conflicts with the evidence that
> our universe has an origin and was unable to support life-as-we-know-
> it for some significant amount of time. Ultimately, if one claims
> that life on earth was designed by some alien natural life, one either
> has to posit a supernatural designer in the chain of design or propose
> a natural process akin to evolution -- just not on the earth.
>
> [SNIP....] Which is why he is completely uninterested in testing his
> idea of a natural designer on the earth. He posits a vague untestable
> natural designer with a wink, wink. He merely wants the principle of
> being able to call vague untested magical fairy equivalents "science"
> to be affirmed. It is only after, in his wildest dreams, that science
> accepts imaginary magical fairy solutions that he will point out that
> "Gee, somewhere in the chain it must be due to a supernatural God.
> Perhaps it would be simpler to just call my imaginary magic fairy
> "God" and be done with it."
>
Comments mock the intelligence-insulting claims of Sean Pitman----good
job. AGAIN, it's "either-or" (either natural or supernatural). The
"either-or" is the only choice allowed by the History of Science. Any
fusion of both has always been rejected by science since each choice
is postulated under the assumption that the other does not exist.
Again, Sean and many other evolutionists do not understand this basic
fact.
Ray
>
>
>
>
> > > The designer could be a supernatural
> > > designer, but only if you are willing to
> > > invoke special pleading.
>
> > The non-supernatural, like us humans, cannot prove or even remotely
> > test the need for the supernatural. This concept of the supernatural
> > is a theoretical concept that is truly outside of the realm of
> > scientific investigation. It can only be reasonably believed based
> > simply on the statements of the understandable reliability of the one
> > who claims to be "supernatural". It is essentially a "trust me"
> > argument that is based on those very limited evidences that we can
> > actually understand.
>
> > > Lark
>
> > Sean Pitmanwww.DetectingDesign.com- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Burkhard
>
> The "either-or" seen above is completely accurate: that is the
> choice----NOT BOTH. Sean has shown no understanding of this basic
> fact.
>
> > The former is possible
>
> No: the former (= natural) is not possible. It is impossible for life
> to have come about without Mind (= supernatural).
So you are saying humans are mindless?
>
> Comments mock the intelligence-insulting claims of Sean Pitman----good
> job. AGAIN, it's "either-or" (either natural or supernatural). The
> "either-or" is the only choice allowed by the History of Science.
Even if it were true, the "history of science" is in no position to
prohibit or allow anything. In particular, it does not constraint
contemporary scientists.
Ray Martinez
SNIP....
>
> Ever hear of Zeno's paradox?
>
> There are lots of paradoxes in science....
That's right.
The concept of "paradox": two mutually contradicting realities co-
existing in the same time, place and/or space, simultaneously. And
according to Aristotelian Logic "A" cannot be "A" and not "A" at the
same time. This logic is the logic of Naturalism----not
Supernaturalism. The logic of Supernaturalism says the exact opposite:
"A" can be "A" and not "A" at the same time. The Incarnation says
Christ was all Theos and all Man at the same time all of the time. The
existence of paradox is direct evidence supporting the existence of
supernatural (= Mind or Intelligent or Divine) causation and
involvement.
> ....that cannot be explained.
> First causes is one of these.
> Ultimately, not matter what path you
> choose, you come to the problem of first cause. Even mainstream
> scientists have this problem. For example, what caused the big bang?
> Where did the first singularity come from? How can something come
> from nothing? Scientists have no idea how to answer these questions -
> yet they believe in something that other laws of science say are
> impossible or at the very least not remotely understood.
>
> So, your "logic" here essentially makes it impossible for you to
> believe in the existence of anything - designed or not. Yet, here we
> are. Of the two impossible explanations, or at least paradoxical
> explanations that are not remotely understandable, ...
>
> read more »- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Ray
Ray Martinez
> On Apr 11, 6:34 am, Spille...@gmx.net wrote:
>
> > On 11 Apr., 12:49, "'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank" <lfl...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > [snip]
>
> > > If you disagree, then please by all means go ahead and tell us what,
> > > other than god, the designer COULD be. Space aliens? Time-travelling
> > > human biologists?
>
> > [snip]
>
> > The designer couldn't be any natural designer, because that would lead
> > to logical contradictions.
>
> Not true. A great many phenomena can be explained by perfectly
> natural designers.
>
> > The designer could be a supernatural
> > designer, but only if you are willing to
> > invoke special pleading.
>
> The non-supernatural, like us humans, cannot prove or even remotely
> test the need for the supernatural. This concept of the supernatural
> is a theoretical concept that is truly outside of the realm of
> scientific investigation.
Pro-Atheism ideology, that is, the idea that God is invisible to
scientific investigation.
But Sean Pitman is a Christian, a Theist, that is, a person who
accepts the Father (= Theos) of his Savior to be personal, involved
with reality. Why is a Theist advocating ordinary Atheism ideology?
Answer: He is either genuinely confused or not a real Theist-Christian
because the concept of "Theism" accepts the involvement of a personal
God in reality (design = work of invisible Designer).
Ray
SNIP.....
Dr. Acula
Get back to your paper Ray; I'm waiting to hear about those eels.
redd...@bresnan.net
> On Apr 11, 10:03 am, hersheyh <hershe...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> The "either-or" seen above is completely accurate: that is the
> choice----NOT BOTH. Sean has shown no understanding of this basic
> fact.
What if the supernatural uses natural means?
>
> > The former is possible
>
> No: the former (= natural) is not possible. It is impossible for life
> to have come about without Mind (= supernatural).
What evidence do you have for this assertion? Also, "mind" and
"supernatural" are not the same thing.
>
> > but relegates life on earth to....secondary phenomenon....
>
> Yes, that is the claim.
It's the old 'who designed the designer" puzzle.
>
> > ....and begs the question of who,
> > what, or how....design....arose or was designed.
>
> True: natural means the supernatural was not involved;
No, it only means that the supernatural is not a necessary
condition. A supernatural being may ,or may not be involved, as
science has no way to tell.
> therefore it
> begs the question.
What question do you feel is being begged?
> This means natural limits the answer to anything
> but the supernatural.
However the supernatural cannot be observed, so it's not an
explanation.
> Again, Sean does not understand along with many
> other evolutionists who think "natural" allows ultimate supernatural
> control or initiation. "Natural" means supernatural is absent and/or
> does not exist.
Have you ever considered that you might be the one who is wrong
here? Natural does not require the supernatural to be absent, nor
does absence means non existent.
>
>
>
> > Perhaps its
> > turtles all the way down? But that conflicts with the evidence that
> > our universe has an origin and was unable to support life-as-we-know-
> > it for some significant amount of time. Ultimately, if one claims
> > that life on earth was designed by some alien natural life, one either
> > has to posit a supernatural designer in the chain of design or propose
> > a natural process akin to evolution -- just not on the earth.
>
> > [SNIP....] Which is why he is completely uninterested in testing his
> > idea of a natural designer on the earth. He posits a vague untestable
> > natural designer with a wink, wink. He merely wants the principle of
> > being able to call vague untested magical fairy equivalents "science"
> > to be affirmed. It is only after, in his wildest dreams, that science
> > accepts imaginary magical fairy solutions that he will point out that
> > "Gee, somewhere in the chain it must be due to a supernatural God.
> > Perhaps it would be simpler to just call my imaginary magic fairy
> > "God" and be done with it."
>
> Comments mock the intelligence-insulting claims of Sean Pitman-
Ray, you don't have any intelligence to insult.
> ---good
> job. AGAIN, it's "either-or" (either natural or supernatural).
Or, you might be wrong. The supernatural may use natural causes.
> The
> "either-or" is the only choice allowed by the History of Science.
Of course, the history of science doesn't even bother with such
questions. The supernatural is beyond the ability for science to
study.
> Any
> fusion of both has always been rejected by science since each choice
> is postulated under the assumption that the other does not exist.
Once again, Ray makes a huge mistake. The reason a "fusion of both"
is rejected by science is because speculating about the activities of
the supernatural is unscientific. There's no assumption that the
'other' doesn't exist. Even the most devout Churchman is going to
agree that the natural does exist. Even the most atheistic
secularist must admit that the mere existence of the natural does not
rule out the possibility of the supernatural.
Learned men have had no problem with fusing the two concepts as
religious or philosophy. Science, however operates differently. It's
the ignorant, like Ray who can't have both existing.
> Again, Sean and many other evolutionists do not understand this basic
> fact.
That's because Sean, and the "evolutionists" are the ones who are
correct on that matter, and Ray who is wrong.
DJT
redd...@bresnan.net
> On Apr 11, 8:36 am, Seanpit <sean...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> SNIP....
>
>
>
> > Ever hear of Zeno's paradox?
>
> > There are lots of paradoxes in science....
>
> That's right.
>
> The concept of "paradox":
Note to Ray, a "paradox" is not two doctors.
> two mutually contradicting realities co-
> existing in the same time, place and/or space, simultaneously. And
> according to Aristotelian Logic "A" cannot be "A" and not "A" at the
> same time.
Here Ray shows he doesn't understand Aristotle or logic.
> This logic is the logic of Naturalism----not
> Supernaturalism. The logic of Supernaturalism says the exact opposite:
> "A" can be "A" and not "A" at the same time.
That's why "supernaturalism" is not science, and can't be.
> The Incarnation says
> Christ was all Theos and all Man at the same time all of the time. The
> existence of paradox is direct evidence supporting the existence of
> supernatural (= Mind or Intelligent or Divine) causation and
> involvement.
Except for that one little thing: There isn't any observation of
"divine causation" anywhere in science.
Snip rest
DJT
redd...@bresnan.net
> On Apr 11, 8:19 am, Seanpit <sean...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > The non-supernatural, like us humans, cannot prove or even remotely
> > test the need for the supernatural. This concept of the supernatural
> > is a theoretical concept that is truly outside of the realm of
> > scientific investigation.
>
> Pro-Atheism ideology, that is, the idea that God is invisible to
> scientific investigation.
Actually, the 'pro athesim ideology" is that God must be visible to
scientific investigation, or he doesn't exist. Ray despises science
for not showing God to exist, when it's his own "ideology" that leads
him to such a silly position.
>
> But Sean Pitman is a Christian, a Theist, that is, a person who
> accepts the Father (= Theos) of his Savior to be personal, involved
> with reality. Why is a Theist advocating ordinary Atheism ideology?
He's not. Ray is.
>
> Answer: He is either genuinely confused or not a real Theist-Christian
> because the concept of "Theism" accepts the involvement of a personal
> God in reality (design = work of invisible Designer).
The concept of Theism is that a god, or gods exist. Belief in a
personal God, and the meddling of that God in nature is a highly
idiosyncratic belief. The idea that "design =work of an invisible
designer" is a delusion held by you alone.
DJT
Ray Martinez
You have misunderstood.
When I said the History of Science does not allow thus and such this
means no evidence exists to support fusion (combination of natural and
supernatural).
SINCE DARWIN 1859: "Natural" means "supernatural" does not exist in
nature; "supernatural" means "natural" does not exist in nature. This
means persons like Sean have no source to support their fusion views
in the realm of causation or agency. This means Sean's views are ad
hoc or made-up.
Any scientist can say anything he or she wants----no doubt. But when a
scientist departs the two historic streams (natural OR supernatural)
he or she has an ulterior motive or is ignorant concerning the History
of Science.
Ray
Caranx latus
redd...@bresnan.net
> On Apr 11, 2:25 pm, Burkhard <b.scha...@ed.ac.uk> wrote:
> > Even if it were true, the "history of science" is in no position to
> > prohibit or allow anything. In particular, it does not constraint
> > contemporary scientists.
>
> You have misunderstood.
No, he got it right.
>
> When I said the History of Science does not allow thus and such this
> means no evidence exists to support fusion (combination of natural and
> supernatural).
Which only means that such a "fusion" is a personal belief. There's
no reason why a person can't hold both beliefs.
>
> SINCE DARWIN 1859: "Natural" means "supernatural" does not exist in
> nature;
Wrong again, Ray. Both before and after Darwin, natural only means
that which can be observed. There's no way for science to tell if
the supernatural exists, or if it does not.
> "supernatural" means "natural" does not exist in nature.
No, "supernatural' means "beyond the natural". That the natural
exists in nature is a simple truism. Where else would the natural
exist?
> This
> means persons like Sean have no source to support their fusion views
> in the realm of causation or agency.
Ray, you have no source for your own bizarre and illogical beliefs
either. "Fusion views" are matters of belief, not science.
> This means Sean's views are ad
> hoc or made-up.
So, why are you the only one one allowed made up views?
>
> Any scientist can say anything he or she wants----no doubt. But when a
> scientist departs the two historic streams (natural OR supernatural)
> he or she has an ulterior motive or is ignorant concerning the History
> of Science.
The supernatural has never been a part of science, Ray. Science has
always been the study of natural causes for natural events. Your
inability to recognize this is another one of your major mistakes.
DJT
Burkhard
That would be the same as a prohibition. There is no reason why a
scientist should not decide that in the light of the evidence,
historic dichotomies have had their day and should be replaced by a
better, uniform theory. We see this e.g. in the contemporary
discussion about the nature of light (wave, particle - or both?)
Scientists follow the evidence, not history,and to claim that tey are
either driven by ulterior motives or stupid is a fallacious
"poisoning of the well" argument.
R. Baldwin
6310e0...@q33g2000pra.googlegroups.com:
> On Apr 11, 6:34 am, Spille...@gmx.net wrote:
>> On 11 Apr., 12:49, "'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank" <lfl...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>> [snip]
>>
>> > If you disagree, then please by all means go ahead and tell us what,
>> > other than god, the designer COULD be. Space aliens? Time-travell
> ing
>> > human biologists?
>>
>> [snip]
>>
>> The designer couldn't be any natural designer, because that would lead
>> to logical contradictions.
>
> Not true. A great many phenomena can be explained by perfectly
> natural designers.
Apparently you did not get so far as to read his explanation of the
infinite regress, which was his point about logical contradictions. Why
don't you try again?
[snip]
Ray Martinez
>
> - Show quoted text -
These comments tell us that you have drunk the Kool-Aid: "scientists
are infallible and I am their mindless servant."
Ray
R. Baldwin
news:4dfbefd4-e69e-46ac...@f18g2000vbf.googlegroups.com:
> On 11 Apr., 17:36, Seanpit <sean...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Some more thoughts on Seanpit's answer:
>
> [snip]
>
> Red herrings upon red herrings:
Sean excels at that. It is amusing watching him trying to weasel his way
out.
redd...@bresnan.net
snip
>
> > That would be the same as a prohibition. There is no reason why a
> > scientist should not decide that in the light of the evidence,
> > historic dichotomies have had their day and should be replaced by a
> > better, uniform theory. We see this e.g. in the contemporary
> > discussion about the nature of light (wave, particle - or both?)
> > Scientists follow the evidence, not history,and to claim that tey are
> > either driven by ulterior motives or stupid is a fallacious
> > "poisoning of the well" argument.- Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -
>
> These comments tell us that you have drunk the Kool-Aid: "scientists
> are infallible and I am their mindless servant."
Ray, you are describing your own relationship with your idol Gene
Scott, here. You have declared in so many words that Mr. Scott is
infallible, and the 'mindless servant' part certainly fits you.
DJT
heekster
wrote:
>On Apr 11, 12:16 pm, rokim...@cox.net wrote:
>> On Apr 11, 10:36 am, Seanpit <sean...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> > So, your "logic" here essentially makes it impossible for you to
>> > believe in the existence of anything - designed or not. Yet, here we
>> > are. Of the two impossible explanations, or at least paradoxical
>> > explanations that are not remotely understandable, ...
>>
>> Ever hear of running and pretending? In another thread I was just
>> commenting on the fact that the only guys left that support the
>> intelligent design creationist scam are ignorant, incompetent and or
>> dishonest, and Sean pops up to verify the dishonest classification.
>
>great summary! sean is shocked...SHOCKED to find out that creationists
>use the term 'intelligent design' to mean god even though hsi very own
>CHURCH teaches it....
>
Yeah, it's *cdesign proponentist* just terrible. i mean the way that
*cdesign proponentist* he was completely unaware of what *cdesign
proponentist* his own church was teaching *cdesign proponentist*.
>
>>
>> Ignorance, incompetence and dishonesty. How sad is that? No science
>> worth putting forward, no alternative worth supporting, just bogus
>> scam.
>
>absolutely. sean tried to tell me his designer isn't god...that he
>never even thinks of it in terms of god....except, of course, when you
>go to his own website, GOD is plastered all over the place...
Well, *cdesign proponentist* he is a known liar, and *cdesign
proponentist* IDiot. He thinks *cdesign proponentist* that his silly
Jedi *cdesign proponentist* mind tricks will work *cdesign
proponentist* on us. Boy, is he ever in *cdesign proponentist* for a
Great Disappointment.
*cdesign proponentist*
*cdesign proponentist*
*cdesign proponentist*
--
Ridendo dicere verum.
wf3h
sigh...if only there were such a kool aid...i know several women i
wish i could have convinced this was true...
Paul J Gans
>Inez wrote:
>> <snip>
>>
>>>> The contradictions are only mendable if we assume the first designer
>>>> is God, who is needless to say not bound by natural restrictions,
>>>> but we would have then left the realm of science. As an argument
>>>> for God the ID-hypothesis is of course still fallacious.
>>
>> <snip>
>>>
>>> 1) You base all of the above on the fact that the original designer
>>> has to conform to known physical laws.
>>>
>>> Which is not the case.
>>
>> I snipped so the part that makes your response look foolish is more
>> easily seen.
>>
>>> 2) You also base some of the above on the element of time moving in
>>> a liner fashion only. We know from the bible that time does not move
>>> in a straight forward line in the realm of Angels and God. Time is
>>> in a circular motion that spirals up.
>>>
>> No no! Time is shapped like a pony with a braided mane and ribbons in
>> its tail.
>Your childish stupidity knows no bounds. Like the time that spirals upward
>and forever.
Nominated for the funniest post of the month.
--
--- Paul J. Gans
roki...@cox.net
> On Sat, 11 Apr 2009 11:12:06 -0700 (PDT), wf3h <w...@vsswireless.net>
I believe that the transitional fossil left in Pandas and People's
early draft was "cdesign proponentsists."
Ron Okimoto
hersheyh
> On Apr 11, 10:03 am, hersheyh <hershe...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Apr 11, 11:19 am, Seanpit <sean...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Apr 11, 6:34 am, Spille...@gmx.net wrote:
>
> > > > On 11 Apr., 12:49, "'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank" <lfl...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > > [snip]
>
> > > > > If you disagree, then please by all means go ahead and tell us what,
> > > > > other than god, the designer COULD be. Space aliens? Time-travelling
> > > > > human biologists?
>
> > > > [snip]
>
> > > > The designer couldn't be any natural designer, because that would lead
> > > > to logical contradictions.
>
> > > Not true. A great many phenomena can be explained by perfectly
> > > natural designers.
>
> > The designer of life on earth, if there is such, is either natural or
> > supernatural.
>
> The "either-or" seen above is completely accurate: that is the
> choice----NOT BOTH. Sean has shown no understanding of this basic
> fact.
>
> > The former is possible
>
> No: the former (= natural) is not possible. It is impossible for life
> to have come about without Mind (= supernatural).
So you assert. Nice if you had some evidence to support that
conclusion, but you don't. [Nor do I have evidence that it is
possible for life "to have come about" without Mind (natural or
supernatural), but life has continued to self-reproduce and change
over time (i.e., evolve) ever since its origin.]
>
> > but relegates life on earth to....secondary phenomenon....
>
> Yes, that is the claim.
>
> > ....and begs the question of who,
> > what, or how....design....arose or was designed.
What I said was:
The former is possible but relegates life on earth to
an insignificant secondary phenomenon and begs the question of who,
what, or how the natural designer arose or was designed.
Pretending that the above is what I wrote is not particularly honest
scholarship. But I don't see why you would have a problem with the
words you deleted.
> True: natural means the supernatural was not involved; therefore it
> begs the question. This means natural limits the answer to anything
> but the supernatural. Again, Sean does not understand along with many
> other evolutionists who think "natural" allows ultimate supernatural
> control or initiation. "Natural" means supernatural is absent and/or
> does not exist.
You should try to avoid thinking about such things, as you do a piss
poor job of it.
>
>
>
> > Perhaps its
> > turtles all the way down? But that conflicts with the evidence that
> > our universe has an origin and was unable to support life-as-we-know-
> > it for some significant amount of time. Ultimately, if one claims
> > that life on earth was designed by some alien natural life, one either
> > has to posit a supernatural designer in the chain of design or propose
> > a natural process akin to evolution -- just not on the earth.
>
> > [SNIP....] Which is why he is completely uninterested in testing his
> > idea of a natural designer on the earth. He posits a vague untestable
> > natural designer with a wink, wink. He merely wants the principle of
> > being able to call vague untested magical fairy equivalents "science"
> > to be affirmed. It is only after, in his wildest dreams, that science
> > accepts imaginary magical fairy solutions that he will point out that
> > "Gee, somewhere in the chain it must be due to a supernatural God.
> > Perhaps it would be simpler to just call my imaginary magic fairy
> > "God" and be done with it."
>
> Comments mock the intelligence-insulting claims of Sean Pitman----good
> job. AGAIN, it's "either-or" (either natural or supernatural). The
> "either-or" is the only choice allowed by the History of Science. Any
> fusion of both has always been rejected by science
At least you did say, correctly, "science" and not just "Darwinism" or
"evolution." Indeed, science does reject, as outside its capacity to
analyze, anything attributed to "supernatural" explanation. Science,
all science, is agnostic wrt whether there is any such thing as the
"supernatural".
> since each choice
> is postulated under the assumption that the other does not exist.
Ooops. There you go again. Making false dichotomies. One can
certainly *ignore* supernatural explanations as scientifically
untenable and untestable without having to declare that the
supernatural doesn't exist. After all, one of the requirements of
science is that one support one's claims by reference to empirical or
natural evidence. If the evidence is supernatural, one cannot support
that by the only type of evidence that science can accept. The
supernatural is just not scientific, and would be 'not scientific'
whether or not it exists.
> Again, Sean and many other evolutionists do not understand this basic
> fact.
>
> Ray
>
>
>
> > > > The designer could be a supernatural
> > > > designer, but only if you are willing to
> > > > invoke special pleading.
>
> > > The non-supernatural, like us humans, cannot prove or even remotely
> > > test the need for the supernatural. This concept of the supernatural
> > > is a theoretical concept that is truly outside of the realm of
> > > scientific investigation. It can only be reasonably believed based
> > > simply on the statements of the understandable reliability of the one
> > > who claims to be "supernatural". It is essentially a "trust me"
> > > argument that is based on those very limited evidences that we can
> > > actually understand.
>
> > > > Lark
>
> > > Sean Pitmanwww.DetectingDesign.com-Hide quoted text -
Vend
<snip>
> Ever hear of Zeno's paradox?
Substantially solved, as far as I know.
> There are lots of paradoxes in science that cannot be explained.
> First causes is one of these. Ultimately, not matter what path you
> choose, you come to the problem of first cause. Even mainstream
> scientists have this problem. For example, what caused the big bang?
> Where did the first singularity come from? How can something come
> from nothing? Scientists have no idea how to answer these questions -
> yet they believe in something that other laws of science say are
> impossible or at the very least not remotely understood.
I don't think these questions are necessarly paradoxical.
The task of science is to explain the observations with the simplest
theories available. There is no point in asking where the entities of
such theories come from unless this increases our ability to explain
observations or allows the formulation of simpler theories.
> The requirement for deliberate design behind certain phenomena is just
> as overwhelming as any of the most established theories in science -
Incorrect.
Burkhard
Quite in the contrary I would say. Scientists are very much fallible,
they know that, and are precisely because of this willing and capable
to leave the history of science behind and try soemthing different
when things don't work. Even if historically, you would find a debate
framed in a conceptual dichotomy, there is nothing to prevent
scientists from giving up this framework at any time and develop a
new conceptual frame if this is more promising or better in line with
the data as available now. I note that you haven;t addressed my
specific example and opted for the personal insult line instead, but
am not really surprised about this.
TomS
<e4a5cf58-e1ac-4ae2...@g36g2000vbi.googlegroups.com>, Frank J
stated..."
>
>On Apr 11, 11:21=A0am, Seanpit <sean...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Apr 10, 2:54=A0pm, Frank J <f...@verizon.net> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> > > Careful with your tenses here. =A0Sean argues that if there is design=
>,
>> > > then we can conclude that there *was* a designer. =A0We can't tell
>> > > that the designer is still around, nor that he left any other evidenc=
>e
>> > > of his past existence.
>>
>> > Michael Behe even admitted at Dover that the designer might no longer
>> > exist.
>>
>> > Sean, if you're reading, do you think Behe could be right? Or do you
>> > have independent evidence that the designer is still around?
>>
>> As far as scientific investigation is concerned, Behe is absolutely
>> around.
>
>Why the quotes?
>
>IIRC, Behe also said that he thinks that the designer is God (though
>like his theistic critics was careful not to pretend that it was a
>*scientific* conclusion), and to my knowledge never claimed
>(scientifically or otherwise) that there were intermediate designers.
>And by "no longer around" he meant "no longer in existence" as in
>"deceased," not "not on Earth." Do you still agree with him?
>
>>
>> Sean Pitmanwww.DetectingDesign.com
>
The "watchmaker" analogy is a classic statement of deism - the
denial of providence. That the "designer" might not have done anything
recently, that we can do without the "designer" today, or that the
"designer" might no longer be "around" (that is, not doing anything of
consequence in our world, or even no longer being in existence) - that's
quite in the same mold.
I don't understand how people can reconcile "intelligent design" with
Christianity.
--
---Tom S.
"As scarce as truth is, the supply has always been in excess of the demand."
attributed to Josh Billings
Frank J
> "On Sat, 11 Apr 2009 13:54:30 -0700 (PDT), in article
Not people who actually give it some thought. But you must admit that
most people - religious or otherwise - don't think it through, but
rather operate on feel-good sound bites. And in that respect, ID is
miles ahead of the cold, dry language of science. And IMO more
effective than Biblical creationism, as it lets the reader/listener
participate in telling the story.
>
> --
> ---Tom S.
> "As scarce as truth is, the supply has always been in excess of the demand."
> attributed to Josh Billings- Hide quoted text -
Stephen
[snip prior]
>
> Ever hear of Zeno's paradox?
>
[snip rest]
You mean the one that denies the possibility of something happening
that clearly happens by empirical evidence, which denial uses
quasi-mathematical reasoning as its basis?
Regards,
Stephen
--
hersheyh
Yep. That sure sounds like Sean's so-called cutting edge "science".
'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank
> On Apr 11, 6:34 am, Spille...@gmx.net wrote:
>
> > On 11 Apr., 12:49, "'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank" <lfl...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > [snip]
>
> > > If you disagree, then please by all means go ahead and tell us what,
> > > other than god, the designer COULD be. Space aliens? Time-travelling
> > > human biologists?
>
> > [snip]
>
> > The designer couldn't be any natural designer, because that would lead
> > to logical contradictions.
>
> Not true. A great many phenomena can be explained by perfectly
> natural designers.
And where did the natural designers come from, Sean. Did they
evolve? Or did they come from OTHER natural designers? If so, where
did THOSE natural designers come from . . . ?
>
> > The designer could be a supernatural
> > designer, but only if you are willing to
> > invoke special pleading.
>
> The non-supernatural,
What the fuck is "non-supernatural", Sean? What the hell are you
babbling about?
like us humans, cannot prove or even remotely
> test the need for the supernatural. This concept of the supernatural
> is a theoretical concept that is truly outside of the realm of
> scientific investigation.
No shit, Sherlock.
It can only be reasonably believed based
> simply on the statements of the understandable reliability of the one
> who claims to be "supernatural". It is essentially a "trust me"
> argument that is based on those very limited evidences that we can
> actually understand.
So what.
================================================
Lenny Flank
"There are no loose threads in the web of life"
Editor, Red and Black Publishers
http://www.RedandBlackPublishers.com
heekster
You probably wouldn't buy it if I tried to blame the keyboard, would
you?
--
Ridendo dicere verum.
Desertphile
<lfl...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Apr 11, 11:19 am, Seanpit <sean...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Apr 11, 6:34 am, Spille...@gmx.net wrote:
> > > On 11 Apr., 12:49, "'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank" <lfl...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > [snip]
> > > > If you disagree, then please by all means go ahead and tell us what,
> > > > other than god, the designer COULD be. Space aliens? Time-travelling
> > > > human biologists?
> > > [snip]
> > > The designer couldn't be any natural designer, because that would lead
> > > to logical contradictions.
> > Not true. A great many phenomena can be explained by perfectly
> > natural designers.
Yes, Tinkerbell explains a great many things perfectly.
> And where did the natural designers come from, Sean. Did they
> evolve? Or did they come from OTHER natural designers? If so, where
> did THOSE natural designers come from . . . ?
Behe believes the designers were evil fiends from the lowest level
of Hell who delight in the misery and suffering of billions of
people and other species.
> > > The designer could be a supernatural
> > > designer, but only if you are willing to
> > > invoke special pleading.
> > The non-supernatural,
> What the fuck is "non-supernatural", Sean?
He means "Real."
--
http://desertphile.org
Desertphile's Desert Soliloquy. WARNING: view with plenty of water
"Why aren't resurrections from the dead noteworthy?" -- Jim Rutz
Rolf
Please get it right next time so I wont have to correct you all the time.
> Ray
Devils Advocaat
> "supernatural" means "natural" does not exist in nature.
From the man who on the 5th April 2009 suggested that supernatural
means more natural.
'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank
> Scríobh "Greg G." <ggw...@gmail.com>:
>
> >For the "There's Never a Time Lord Around When You Need One"
> >Department:
>
> >> > 2) You also base some of the above on the element of time moving in a liner
> >> > fashion only. We know from the bible that time does not move in a straight
> >> > forward line in the realm of Angels and God. Time is in a circular motion
> >> > that spirals up.
>
> >> No no! Time is shapped like a pony with a braided mane and ribbons in
> >> its tail.
>
> But actually, from a non-linear, non-subjective viewpoint, it's more
> like a big ball of wibbly-wobbly timey-wimey stuff.
>
> --
Time is just one damn thing after another.
'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank
> On Apr 10, 2:54 pm, Frank J <f...@verizon.net> wrote:
>
>
>
> > > Careful with your tenses here. Sean argues that if there is design,
> > > then we can conclude that there *was* a designer. We can't tell
> > > that the designer is still around, nor that he left any other evidence
> > > of his past existence.
>
> > Michael Behe even admitted at Dover that the designer might no longer
> > exist.
>
> > Sean, if you're reading, do you think Behe could be right? Or do you
> > have independent evidence that the designer is still around?
>
> As far as scientific investigation is concerned, Behe is absolutely
> around.
>
So God is dead?
'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank
Indeed. By denying three times before the cock crows that the
designer is God, ID establishes that it is nothing but atheism.
Right, Ray?
(snicker) (giggle)
Garamond Lethe
> On Apr 14, 7:00 am, Féachadóir <Féach@d.óir> wrote:
>> Scríobh "Greg G." <ggw...@gmail.com>:
>>
>> >For the "There's Never a Time Lord Around When You Need One"
>> >Department:
>>
>> >> > 2) You also base some of the above on the element of time moving
>> >> > in a liner fashion only. We know from the bible that time does not
>> >> > move in a straight forward line in the realm of Angels and God.
>> >> > Time is in a circular motion that spirals up.
>>
>> >> No no! Time is shapped like a pony with a braided mane and ribbons
>> >> in its tail.
>>
>> People assume that time is a strict progression from cause to effect.
>> But actually, from a non-linear, non-subjective viewpoint, it's more
>> like a big ball of wibbly-wobbly timey-wimey stuff.
>>
>> --
>
>
>
>
>
> Time is just one damn thing after another.
"Death needs time for what it kills to grow in."
WSB, "Ah Pook Is Here". I know it from "Dead City Radio" although I
expect many other versions exist.