Sensible?

[Glenn]

"Any sensible creator would surely use similar genes to make similar organisms."

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4831686/

[AlwaysAskingQuestions]

On Wed, 30 Nov 2016 10:41:46 -0700, "Glenn" <g...@invalid.invalid>
wrote:

>"Any sensible creator would surely use similar genes to make similar organisms."
>
>https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4831686/

Do you agree with that?

[Glenn]

"AlwaysAskingQuestions" <alwaysaski...@gmail.com> wrote in message news:bh4u3cdrhu5d9tuh4...@4ax.com...

Should I?

[AlwaysAskingQuestions]

On Wed, 30 Nov 2016 11:17:38 -0700, "Glenn" <g...@invalid.invalid>
wrote:

That's for you to answer, you are the person who posted it. Perhaps
you would explain your reason(s) for doing so?

[Robert Camp]

On 11/30/16 9:41 AM, Glenn wrote:
> "Any sensible creator would surely use similar genes to make similar organisms."
>
> https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4831686/

(Glenn, in contravention to all expectation, has actually posed a lucid
and percipient question. Best that from now on he limit his attempts to
a single word, thus increasing his chances of accidentally hitting upon
something valid.)

The author of this line was making an offhand remark about whether
Darwin's original proposals about a tree of life could truly be seen as
"disproof" of a theistic account. The entire paragraph follows,

----------
"So, agreement between trees would indeed have been some sort of “proof”
of Darwin’s TOL hypothesis, with two caveats. The first is that no
widely accepted prokaryotic tree “constructed on the basis of organismal
biology” was actually available for comparison: microbiologists had
given up the attempt to make one in the mid-1950s, and no one since has
been foolish enough to reboot the effort. The second is that agreement
of molecular and organismal trees is not really a disproof of the
theistic explanation Darwin wanted to supplant. Any sensible creator

would surely use similar genes to make similar organisms."

----------

The obvious question is, does the last line actually posit a reasonable
case? Does it follow from what we "know" of a proposed
creator(s)-of-life that it would even have any use for *sensibility?*
Does that concept, one which is clearly derived from observation of
human imperfection and limitations, even make sense in the context of an
omnipotent creator of all-that-is?

In this context I'd say that the statement is not just wrong, it's
incoherent, and is a rather sloppy bit of illogic in what I found to be
an otherwise interesting paper.

(FYI: even considering what seems to me to be some overexcited language
- e.g., "One of the several ways in which microbiology puts the
neo-Darwinian synthesis in jeopardy is by the threatening to “uproot the
Tree of Life (TOL)”..." - the article doesn't nod toward ID or any other
nonsense that I could see.)

[John Harshman]

An interesting article marred by a couple of nonsensical statements.
(One of which, the one about the neo-Darwinian synthesis, appears twice.)

[Glenn]

"AlwaysAskingQuestions" <alwaysaski...@gmail.com> wrote in message news:k07u3chgkjd9vml72...@4ax.com...

Must there be an answer?

[Robert Camp]

Question: It sometimes strikes me that biologists of various stripes
(Doolittle is a biochemist, I don't know about Brunet) often seem
surprisingly willing to indulge in the, "Wow, this may just uproot our
whole understanding of the tree of life" trope.

To your mind am I just seeing a sampling artifact of hyped science
journalism (or maybe even the type of article I am drawn to), or is this
a real thing? Perhaps an effect of competition for funding. Or (more
generously) maybe that the lure of new possibilities overwhelms
equability in those equipped to get excited by these things more often
than one would suspect (I am given to understand that scientists are
also human).

[John Harshman]

I'd say it's mostly due to university press releases, and the actual
papers on which those releases are based don't usually make the
extravagant claims. But then again, authors frequently seem complicit in
the releases. And many papers, especially in Science and extra
especially in Nature, do have their significance absurdly hyped
internally. Yes, there is considerable inducement to exaggerate the
importance of one's work. Feh.

[Glenn]

"John Harshman" <jhar...@pacbell.net> wrote in message news:DsedncCCor9yraLF...@giganews.com...

"Should we tailor scientific definitions to improve discussions with non-scientists? It seems to me that we should, given the problems we biologists presently have with the religious right."

http://rstb.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/363/1506/2971

[jillery]

On Wed, 30 Nov 2016 10:41:46 -0700, "Glenn" <g...@invalid.invalid>
wrote:

>"Any sensible creator would surely use similar genes to make similar organisms."
>
>https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4831686/

Assuming the above quote is something to which you agree, how does a
sensible creator imply similar genes to make dissimilar organisms, and
how does a sensible creator imply dissimilar genes to make similar
organisms, both cases which also exist in nature?
--
This space is intentionally not blank.

[czeba...@gmail.com]

Some people on this planet think it sensible to kill those who refuse to share their religious beliefs. Does that mean that a deity would also find it sensible? And how would you determine that?

gregwrld

[Kalkidas]

On 11/30/2016 6:08 PM, czeba...@gmail.com wrote:
> Some people on this planet think it sensible to kill those who refuse to share their religious beliefs. Does that mean that a deity would also find it sensible? And how would you determine that?

A Deity wouldn't have any religious beliefs. He wouldn't have any
beliefs at all, just absolutely accurate knowledge of everything.

[Jonathan]

On 11/30/2016 12:41 PM, Glenn wrote:
> "Any sensible creator would surely use similar genes to make similar organisms."
>
> https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4831686/
>

Any sensible God would create a universe where HE
didn't have to lift a finger, the universe would
spontaneously create and evolve.

Which is does.

The formula for creation is simple.

The rules of operation and freedom of interaction
must be intractably entangled.

OR, genetic (rules) and natural selection (freedom)
must be critically interacting so that no on can
tell which of the two opposing behaviors dominate
the system.

As in the relationship between life and it's
environment, they are both required.

Tell me, which is more important, genetic rules
(forces for order) or natural selection (forces
for disorder) to evolution?

And btw, any creator of this universe must
necessarily ...predate...this universe and
as a result must forever stand outside this
universe and cannot have any interaction
within our universe AT ALL.

[Glenn]

"Kalkidas" <e...@joes.pub> wrote in message news:o1nuq9$bn6$1...@dont-email.me...

And right handed.

[Glenn]

"Jonathan" <wr...@gmail.com> wrote in message news:N6idnY-HE9zc4qLF...@giganews.com...

He can't even get cable?

[AlwaysAskingQuestions]

On Wed, 30 Nov 2016 12:43:56 -0700, "Glenn" <g...@invalid.invalid>

wrote:

>
>"AlwaysAskingQuestions" <alwaysaski...@gmail.com> wrote in message news:k07u3chgkjd9vml72...@4ax.com...
>> On Wed, 30 Nov 2016 11:17:38 -0700, "Glenn" <g...@invalid.invalid>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>"AlwaysAskingQuestions" <alwaysaski...@gmail.com> wrote in message news:bh4u3cdrhu5d9tuh4...@4ax.com...
>>>> On Wed, 30 Nov 2016 10:41:46 -0700, "Glenn" <g...@invalid.invalid>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>"Any sensible creator would surely use similar genes to make similar organisms."
>>>>>
>>>>>https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4831686/
>>>>
>>>> Do you agree with that?
>>>>
>>>Should I?
>>
>> That's for you to answer, you are the person who posted it. Perhaps
>> you would explain your reason(s) for doing so?
>>
>Must there be an answer?

So you post a link to an article with a selected quotation from it but
you decline to indicate whether you agree or disagree with that quote.
That gives the appearance of someone not willing to stand up for what
they believe in - cowardice, in other words.

[Bob Casanova]

On Wed, 30 Nov 2016 12:43:56 -0700, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by "Glenn" <g...@invalid.invalid>:

Excessively long-winded; a simple "No" would have sufficed.
--

Bob C.

"The most exciting phrase to hear in science,
the one that heralds new discoveries, is not
'Eureka!' but 'That's funny...'"

- Isaac Asimov

[Glenn]

"Bob Casanova" <nos...@buzz.off> wrote in message news:1pr04cpu0bqggdkvd...@4ax.com...

> On Wed, 30 Nov 2016 12:43:56 -0700, the following appeared
> in talk.origins, posted by "Glenn" <g...@invalid.invalid>:
>
>>
>>"AlwaysAskingQuestions" <alwaysaski...@gmail.com> wrote in message news:k07u3chgkjd9vml72...@4ax.com...
>>> On Wed, 30 Nov 2016 11:17:38 -0700, "Glenn" <g...@invalid.invalid>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>>"AlwaysAskingQuestions" <alwaysaski...@gmail.com> wrote in message news:bh4u3cdrhu5d9tuh4...@4ax.com...
>>>>> On Wed, 30 Nov 2016 10:41:46 -0700, "Glenn" <g...@invalid.invalid>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>"Any sensible creator would surely use similar genes to make similar organisms."
>>>>>>
>>>>>>https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4831686/
>>>>>
>>>>> Do you agree with that?
>>>>>
>>>>Should I?
>>>
>>> That's for you to answer, you are the person who posted it. Perhaps
>>> you would explain your reason(s) for doing so?
>>>
>>Must there be an answer?
>
> Excessively long-winded; a simple "No" would have sufficed.
> --

No.

[czeba...@gmail.com]

Kalkidas said:"A deity wouldn't have religious beliefs..."

I didn't ask about any deity's religious beliefs. I asked what it would think is sensible and how you would know?
Your response is worthless.

gregwrld

[Bob Casanova]

On Thu, 1 Dec 2016 12:23:36 -0700, the following appeared in

talk.origins, posted by "Glenn" <g...@invalid.invalid>:

>
>"Bob Casanova" <nos...@buzz.off> wrote in message news:1pr04cpu0bqggdkvd...@4ax.com...
>> On Wed, 30 Nov 2016 12:43:56 -0700, the following appeared
>> in talk.origins, posted by "Glenn" <g...@invalid.invalid>:
>>
>>>
>>>"AlwaysAskingQuestions" <alwaysaski...@gmail.com> wrote in message news:k07u3chgkjd9vml72...@4ax.com...
>>>> On Wed, 30 Nov 2016 11:17:38 -0700, "Glenn" <g...@invalid.invalid>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>"AlwaysAskingQuestions" <alwaysaski...@gmail.com> wrote in message news:bh4u3cdrhu5d9tuh4...@4ax.com...
>>>>>> On Wed, 30 Nov 2016 10:41:46 -0700, "Glenn" <g...@invalid.invalid>
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>"Any sensible creator would surely use similar genes to make similar organisms."
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4831686/
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Do you agree with that?
>>>>>>
>>>>>Should I?
>>>>
>>>> That's for you to answer, you are the person who posted it. Perhaps
>>>> you would explain your reason(s) for doing so?
>>>>
>>>Must there be an answer?
>>
>> Excessively long-winded; a simple "No" would have sufficed.

>No.

*Good* boy! Have a biscuit!

[Bob Casanova]

On Thu, 1 Dec 2016 16:34:55 -0800 (PST), the following
appeared in talk.origins, posted by czeba...@gmail.com:

>Kalkidas said:"A deity wouldn't have religious beliefs..."
>
>I didn't ask about any deity's religious beliefs. I asked what it would think is sensible and how you would know?
> Your response is worthless.

It usually is.

[Kalkidas]

Actually your question is worthless. My response is quite charitable,
considering.

[Glenn]

"Bob Casanova" <nos...@buzz.off> wrote in message news:19c34ctele8e69uaf...@4ax.com...

> On Thu, 1 Dec 2016 12:23:36 -0700, the following appeared in
> talk.origins, posted by "Glenn" <g...@invalid.invalid>:
>
>>
>>"Bob Casanova" <nos...@buzz.off> wrote in message news:1pr04cpu0bqggdkvd...@4ax.com...
>>> On Wed, 30 Nov 2016 12:43:56 -0700, the following appeared
>>> in talk.origins, posted by "Glenn" <g...@invalid.invalid>:
>>>
>>>>
>>>>"AlwaysAskingQuestions" <alwaysaski...@gmail.com> wrote in message news:k07u3chgkjd9vml72...@4ax.com...
>>>>> On Wed, 30 Nov 2016 11:17:38 -0700, "Glenn" <g...@invalid.invalid>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>"AlwaysAskingQuestions" <alwaysaski...@gmail.com> wrote in message news:bh4u3cdrhu5d9tuh4...@4ax.com...
>>>>>>> On Wed, 30 Nov 2016 10:41:46 -0700, "Glenn" <g...@invalid.invalid>
>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>"Any sensible creator would surely use similar genes to make similar organisms."
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4831686/
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Do you agree with that?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>Should I?
>>>>>
>>>>> That's for you to answer, you are the person who posted it. Perhaps
>>>>> you would explain your reason(s) for doing so?
>>>>>
>>>>Must there be an answer?
>>>
>>> Excessively long-winded; a simple "No" would have sufficed.
>
>>No.
>
> *Good* boy! Have a biscuit!
> --

Did it taste good?

[czeba...@gmail.com]

Kalkidas said, "Actually, your question is worthless..."

My question was on topic. Your response pure evasion. Pretty much what I've come to expect from a prima donna who pretends to be enlightened.

gregwrld

[Kalkidas]

On 12/2/2016 5:59 PM, czeba...@gmail.com wrote:
> Kalkidas said, "Actually, your question is worthless..."
>
> My question was on topic. Your response pure evasion. Pretty much what I've come to expect from a prima donna who pretends to be enlightened.

No pretense about it, son. I'm educating you.

[czeba...@gmail.com]

Kalky, you couldn't teach a rock to sit.

gregwrld

[jillery]

Actually Greg's question was charitable, since it implied the
possibility of you giving a coherent answer to it. It's your reply
that was worthless.

[Kalkidas]

On 12/3/2016 12:23 AM, czeba...@gmail.com wrote:
> Kalky, you couldn't teach a rock to sit.
>
> gregwrld
>

Rocks don't need to be taught how to sit. You do.

[Bob Casanova]

On Sat, 03 Dec 2016 02:51:01 -0500, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by jillery <69jp...@gmail.com>:

I'm unable to decide...

Is Dunning-Kruger applicable to self-bestowed
"enlightenment"?

[Bob Casanova]

On Fri, 2 Dec 2016 12:10:08 -0700, the following appeared in

talk.origins, posted by "Glenn" <g...@invalid.invalid>:

>
>"Bob Casanova" <nos...@buzz.off> wrote in message news:19c34ctele8e69uaf...@4ax.com...
>> On Thu, 1 Dec 2016 12:23:36 -0700, the following appeared in
>> talk.origins, posted by "Glenn" <g...@invalid.invalid>:
>>
>>>
>>>"Bob Casanova" <nos...@buzz.off> wrote in message news:1pr04cpu0bqggdkvd...@4ax.com...
>>>> On Wed, 30 Nov 2016 12:43:56 -0700, the following appeared
>>>> in talk.origins, posted by "Glenn" <g...@invalid.invalid>:
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>"AlwaysAskingQuestions" <alwaysaski...@gmail.com> wrote in message news:k07u3chgkjd9vml72...@4ax.com...
>>>>>> On Wed, 30 Nov 2016 11:17:38 -0700, "Glenn" <g...@invalid.invalid>
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>"AlwaysAskingQuestions" <alwaysaski...@gmail.com> wrote in message news:bh4u3cdrhu5d9tuh4...@4ax.com...
>>>>>>>> On Wed, 30 Nov 2016 10:41:46 -0700, "Glenn" <g...@invalid.invalid>
>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>"Any sensible creator would surely use similar genes to make similar organisms."
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4831686/
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Do you agree with that?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Should I?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> That's for you to answer, you are the person who posted it. Perhaps
>>>>>> you would explain your reason(s) for doing so?
>>>>>>
>>>>>Must there be an answer?
>>>>
>>>> Excessively long-winded; a simple "No" would have sufficed.
>>
>>>No.
>>
>> *Good* boy! Have a biscuit!

>Did it taste good?

Why ask me? I can't read your mind, such as it is.

[Glenn]

"Bob Casanova" <nos...@buzz.off> wrote in message news:he264c9moeu300fvq...@4ax.com...

Could have fooled me.

[czeba...@gmail.com]

Kalkidas said: Rocks don't need to be taught how to sit. You do.

Actually, dipwad, I've been doing Buddhist meditation for 40 years. That's how I know you're a sham, not a shaman.

gregwrld

[Kalkidas]

On 12/3/2016 6:17 PM, czeba...@gmail.com wrote:
> Kalkidas said: Rocks don't need to be taught how to sit. You do.
>
> Actually, dipwad, I've been doing Buddhist meditation for 40 years. That's how I know you're a sham, not a shaman.

Actually, you have been wasting your time, as your empty boasts and
angry insults prove.

[jillery]

<PING> Dang it.

[Bob Casanova]

On Sat, 3 Dec 2016 15:27:33 -0700, the following appeared in

>Could have fooled me.

That bar seems excessively low.

[Glenn]

"Bob Casanova" <nos...@buzz.off> wrote in message news:20p84cd8ivobtvpgi...@4ax.com...

Not low enough.

[czeba...@gmail.com]

Kalkidas said: "You have been wasting your time..."

You're not qualified to judge. That was my point.
And you still haven't answered my questions:
What would a deity consider sensible and how would you know?

gregwrld

[Steady Eddie]

On Wednesday, 30 November 2016 17:10:01 UTC-6, jillery wrote:
> On Wed, 30 Nov 2016 10:41:46 -0700, "Glenn" <g...@invalid.invalid>
> wrote:
>
> >"Any sensible creator would surely use similar genes to make similar organisms."
> >
> >https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4831686/
>
>

> Assuming the above quote is something to which you agree, how does a
> sensible creator imply similar genes to make dissimilar organisms, and
> how does a sensible creator imply dissimilar genes to make similar
> organisms, both cases which also exist in nature?

I know. Darwindom has already instituted a rhetoric to handle these cases, but that's not to its credit.

[Steady Eddie]

On Wednesday, 30 November 2016 14:10:01 UTC-6, John Harshman wrote:
> On 11/30/16 11:50 AM, Robert Camp wrote:
> > On 11/30/16 11:25 AM, John Harshman wrote:
> >> On 11/30/16 11:04 AM, Robert Camp wrote:

> >>> On 11/30/16 9:41 AM, Glenn wrote:
> >>>> "Any sensible creator would surely use similar genes to make similar
> >>>> organisms."
> >>>>
> >>>> https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4831686/
> >>>

> >>> (Glenn, in contravention to all expectation, has actually posed a lucid
> >>> and percipient question. Best that from now on he limit his attempts to
> >>> a single word, thus increasing his chances of accidentally hitting upon
> >>> something valid.)
> >>>
> >>> The author of this line was making an offhand remark about whether
> >>> Darwin's original proposals about a tree of life could truly be seen as
> >>> "disproof" of a theistic account. The entire paragraph follows,
> >>>
> >>> ----------
> >>> "So, agreement between trees would indeed have been some sort of “proof”
> >>> of Darwin’s TOL hypothesis, with two caveats. The first is that no
> >>> widely accepted prokaryotic tree “constructed on the basis of organismal
> >>> biology” was actually available for comparison: microbiologists had
> >>> given up the attempt to make one in the mid-1950s, and no one since has
> >>> been foolish enough to reboot the effort. The second is that agreement
> >>> of molecular and organismal trees is not really a disproof of the
> >>> theistic explanation Darwin wanted to supplant. Any sensible creator

> >>> would surely use similar genes to make similar organisms."

> >>> ----------
> >>>
> >>> The obvious question is, does the last line actually posit a reasonable
> >>> case? Does it follow from what we "know" of a proposed
> >>> creator(s)-of-life that it would even have any use for *sensibility?*
> >>> Does that concept, one which is clearly derived from observation of
> >>> human imperfection and limitations, even make sense in the context of an
> >>> omnipotent creator of all-that-is?
> >>>
> >>> In this context I'd say that the statement is not just wrong, it's
> >>> incoherent, and is a rather sloppy bit of illogic in what I found to be
> >>> an otherwise interesting paper.
> >>>
> >>> (FYI: even considering what seems to me to be some overexcited language
> >>> - e.g., "One of the several ways in which microbiology puts the
> >>> neo-Darwinian synthesis in jeopardy is by the threatening to “uproot the
> >>> Tree of Life (TOL)”..." - the article doesn't nod toward ID or any other
> >>> nonsense that I could see.)
> >>
> >> An interesting article marred by a couple of nonsensical statements.
> >> (One of which, the one about the neo-Darwinian synthesis, appears twice.)
> >
> > Question: It sometimes strikes me that biologists of various stripes
> > (Doolittle is a biochemist, I don't know about Brunet) often seem
> > surprisingly willing to indulge in the, "Wow, this may just uproot our
> > whole understanding of the tree of life" trope.
> >
> > To your mind am I just seeing a sampling artifact of hyped science
> > journalism (or maybe even the type of article I am drawn to), or is this
> > a real thing? Perhaps an effect of competition for funding. Or (more
> > generously) maybe that the lure of new possibilities overwhelms
> > equability in those equipped to get excited by these things more often
> > than one would suspect (I am given to understand that scientists are
> > also human).
> >
> I'd say it's mostly due to university press releases, and the actual
> papers on which those releases are based don't usually make the
> extravagant claims. But then again, authors frequently seem complicit in
> the releases. And many papers, especially in Science and extra
> especially in Nature, do have their significance absurdly hyped
> internally. Yes, there is considerable inducement to exaggerate the
> importance of one's work. Feh.

Yes. Quite so.

[Steady Eddie]

On Wednesday, 30 November 2016 14:45:03 UTC-6, Glenn wrote:
> "John Harshman" <jhar...@pacbell.net> wrote in message news:DsedncCCor9yraLF...@giganews.com...

> "Should we tailor scientific definitions to improve discussions with non-scientists? It seems to me that we should, given the problems we biologists presently have with the religious right."
>
> http://rstb.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/363/1506/2971

OF COURSE you should speak common English when communicating with common English speakers.
Why would you dream of anything else?

[Steady Eddie]

Want some cheese with that whine?

[Steady Eddie]

LOL!
+1

[Steady Eddie]

On Wednesday, 30 November 2016 19:10:02 UTC-6, czeba...@gmail.com wrote:
> Some people on this planet think it sensible to kill those who refuse to share their religious beliefs. Does that mean that a deity would also find it sensible? And how would you determine that?
>
> gregwrld

No, I don't think any reasonable Deity would be influenced by its creation's opinion.

[jillery]

Right, so that way you can stomp your feet about scientists changing
the definitions of common words.

[jillery]

Whether Darwindom has an answer is irrelevant to ID's answer.

Apparently you conveniently forgot to answer the question. Try again.

[AlwaysAskingQuestions]

Just when I thought your standards can't get any lower, you start
aping Glen. Sad, really.

[AlwaysAskingQuestions]

On Sun, 4 Dec 2016 17:37:33 -0800 (PST), Steady Eddie
<1914o...@gmail.com> wrote:

[..,]

>> "Should we tailor scientific definitions to improve discussions with non-scientists? It seems to me that we should, given the problems we biologists presently have with the religious right."
>>
>> http://rstb.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/363/1506/2971
>
>OF COURSE you should speak common English when communicating with common English speakers.
>Why would you dream of anything else?

I lecture in communications skills and one of the things I emphasise
is that if people misunderstand or misuse words or language, it is
much better to correct than to pretend it doesn't really matter.

[Kalkidas]

On 12/4/2016 6:22 PM, czeba...@gmail.com wrote:
> Kalkidas said: "You have been wasting your time..."
>
> You're not qualified to judge. That was my point.

Judge? No. Applied reason. You're obviously not happy, so "40 years of
buddhist meditation" has failed. You wasted your time. It didn't work.

> And you still haven't answered my questions:
> What would a deity consider sensible and how would you know?

That wasn't your question. You left out the "gotcha" part about people
killing other people who refuse to share their religious beliefs.

My response was that God has no religious beliefs, in fact no beliefs of
any kind, so there is no question of Him killing anyone over "beliefs".

That's the best "answer" your question deserves, and if your "40 years
of buddhist meditation" had been successful, you could learn a lot from it.

[Steady Eddie]

Do you mention in your lectures that it's better to communicate in the language of your audience?

[AlwaysAskingQuestions]

On Mon, 5 Dec 2016 07:13:36 -0800 (PST), Steady Eddie

<1914o...@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Monday, 5 December 2016 01:15:01 UTC-6, AlwaysAskingQuestions wrote:
>> On Sun, 4 Dec 2016 17:37:33 -0800 (PST), Steady Eddie
>> <1914o...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> [..,]
>>
>> >> "Should we tailor scientific definitions to improve discussions with non-scientists? It seems to me that we should, given the problems we biologists presently have with the religious right."
>> >>
>> >> http://rstb.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/363/1506/2971
>> >
>> >OF COURSE you should speak common English when communicating with common English speakers.
>> >Why would you dream of anything else?
>>
>> I lecture in communications skills and one of the things I emphasise
>> is that if people misunderstand or misuse words or language, it is
>> much better to correct than to pretend it doesn't really matter.
>
>Do you mention in your lectures that it's better to communicate in the language of your audience?

Depends on context. In my current class I have a mixture of English,
Irish, Indian, Brazilian and Peruvian so in the absence of the Gift of
Tongues, I stick to English.

Anyway, whatever the language, I do not recommend changing the meaning
of words and, if the same word has different meanings in different
languages, then I emphasise the importance of knowing that and
avoiding difficulties due to it.

[Bob Casanova]

On Sun, 4 Dec 2016 16:13:42 -0700, the following appeared in

>Not low enough.

Apparently not; I'll lower the "Just how foolish *is*
Glenn?" bar a bit more.

[Bob Casanova]

On Sun, 4 Dec 2016 17:41:34 -0800 (PST), the following
appeared in talk.origins, posted by Steady Eddie
<1914o...@gmail.com>:

Yep, refusal to communicate *would* gain your approbation.

[Glenn]

"Bob Casanova" <nos...@buzz.off> wrote in message news:ftcb4cp6pdinolak5...@4ax.com...

Oh goody.

[Glenn]

"Bob Casanova" <nos...@buzz.off> wrote in message news:c1db4ct4qt711cfdn...@4ax.com...

Your powers are amazing!

[czeba...@gmail.com]

Kalkidas said: That's the best answer your question deserves.

So more evasion. My question was about what is sensible to a deity and how would you know? There was no "gottcha". Instead, as usual you pretend you know better without actually demonstrating you know anything at all. You've declared yourself wise but all you spew is woo.
So one more time, o wise one, how do you know anything about how deities think?

gregwrld

[Bob Casanova]

On Mon, 5 Dec 2016 12:16:58 -0700, the following appeared in

>Your powers are amazing!

You can have the last word. Enjoy!

[Robert Carnegie]

On Wednesday, 30 November 2016 23:10:01 UTC, jillery wrote:
> On Wed, 30 Nov 2016 10:41:46 -0700, "Glenn" <g...@invalid.invalid>
> wrote:
>
> >"Any sensible creator would surely use similar genes to make similar organisms."
> >
> >https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4831686/
>
>

> Assuming the above quote is something to which you agree, how does a
> sensible creator imply similar genes to make dissimilar organisms, and
> how does a sensible creator imply dissimilar genes to make similar
> organisms, both cases which also exist in nature?

Indeed. Creationists usually propose that God knew
the best possible design for esch of his creatures.
But mny forms in nature are not "the best possible"
but, at most, the best that evolution can produce.
Some parts of the human body are claimed by we
Darwinists as evolutionary work in progress, not in
a perfected state.

A Creationist creator knows that genes don't have to
be separate independent components of the organism's
biological process - and they aren't, they interact
with one another all the time - and presumably each
creature would have all its genes designed specifically
for its role in the creator's world.

And would a conservative creator make "similar organisms"
at all? Do we really need different types of camels
and elephants?
Why not just one model of each?

It did occur to me that the human authors of the
bible surely didn't know that prokaryotes are
microscopic living things, since this is before
there were microscopes. So their creation or
evolution wasn't seen or mentioned, and when Man
is made out of soil (which I don't believe), it is
soil that is already full of microbes...

[Steady Eddie]

On Wednesday, 30 November 2016 11:45:02 UTC-6, Glenn wrote:
> "Any sensible creator would surely use similar genes to make similar organisms."
>
> https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4831686/

"After Darwin, classifications were most often assumed without proof to be evolutionary: phenetics was taken to be identical to phylogenetics. As De Querioz noted, “…the relationships expressed in existing taxonomies were merely reinterpreted as the result of evolution, and evolutionary concepts were developed to justify existing methods” [8]. Not much could be done to improve on this as long as the methods of comparative biology (mostly anatomical) remained the basis for classification, as they had been for centuries."

So, right out of the Darwinian gate, observations were "tweaked" to fit into Darwinian theory, and ad-hoc "concepts were developed" to try to fit the data to the theory.

Has anything changed?

[Bob Casanova]

On Sat, 10 Dec 2016 09:00:20 -0800 (PST), the following

appeared in talk.origins, posted by Steady Eddie
<1914o...@gmail.com>:

Perhaps you should address the objections posted by jillery
and Robert instead of misinterpreting your referenced cite.

[jillery]

If one assumes a perfectionist (not the same as perfect) Creator, It
might make variations of a basic design in order to accommodate
variations in the environment.

Of course, depending on what one means by "basic design" it could be
argued that's what life on Earth shows; a basic design (DNA+supporting
molecules in a lipid bag) modified to take advantage of all the
environments Earth provides using a variety of strategies.

Of course, this raises a corollary pointed out by Darwin himself, that
many similar environments aren't populated by similar organisms.
Instead, they're populated by very different organisms most similar to
organism from very different environments close by, ex. Galapagos
marine iguanas.

So even if a perfectionist Creator was so OCD as to impose similar
patterns onto different organisms, for some reason Its OCD didn't
extend to placing similar organisms into similar environments.

[Steady Eddie]

On Wednesday, 30 November 2016 13:30:00 UTC-6, John Harshman wrote:
> On 11/30/16 11:04 AM, Robert Camp wrote:

> > On 11/30/16 9:41 AM, Glenn wrote:
> >> "Any sensible creator would surely use similar genes to make similar
> >> organisms."
> >>
> >> https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4831686/
> >

> > (Glenn, in contravention to all expectation, has actually posed a lucid
> > and percipient question. Best that from now on he limit his attempts to
> > a single word, thus increasing his chances of accidentally hitting upon
> > something valid.)
> >
> > The author of this line was making an offhand remark about whether
> > Darwin's original proposals about a tree of life could truly be seen as
> > "disproof" of a theistic account. The entire paragraph follows,
> >
> > ----------
> > "So, agreement between trees would indeed have been some sort of “proof”
> > of Darwin’s TOL hypothesis, with two caveats. The first is that no
> > widely accepted prokaryotic tree “constructed on the basis of organismal
> > biology” was actually available for comparison: microbiologists had
> > given up the attempt to make one in the mid-1950s, and no one since has
> > been foolish enough to reboot the effort. The second is that agreement
> > of molecular and organismal trees is not really a disproof of the

> > theistic explanation Darwin wanted to supplant. Any sensible creator

> > would surely use similar genes to make similar organisms."

> > ----------
> >
> > The obvious question is, does the last line actually posit a reasonable
> > case? Does it follow from what we "know" of a proposed
> > creator(s)-of-life that it would even have any use for *sensibility?*
> > Does that concept, one which is clearly derived from observation of
> > human imperfection and limitations, even make sense in the context of an
> > omnipotent creator of all-that-is?
> >
> > In this context I'd say that the statement is not just wrong, it's
> > incoherent, and is a rather sloppy bit of illogic in what I found to be
> > an otherwise interesting paper.
> >
> > (FYI: even considering what seems to me to be some overexcited language
> > - e.g., "One of the several ways in which microbiology puts the
> > neo-Darwinian synthesis in jeopardy is by the threatening to “uproot the
> > Tree of Life (TOL)”..." - the article doesn't nod toward ID or any other
> > nonsense that I could see.)
>
> An interesting article marred by a couple of nonsensical statements.
> (One of which, the one about the neo-Darwinian synthesis, appears twice.)

Interesting how you react to a rare sensible, honest account of the progression of Darwinian thought by a Darwinist.

[Steady Eddie]

On Wednesday, 30 November 2016 11:45:02 UTC-6, Glenn wrote:
> "Any sensible creator would surely use similar genes to make similar organisms."
>
> https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4831686/

"The claim that a quarter of the genes of the thermophilic bacterium Thermotoga maritima had been transferred from Archaea [15] stunned many of us when it appeared in 1999, and prompted one of us to write that if…

“…different genes give different trees, and there is no fair way to suppress this disagreement, then a species (or phylum) can ‘belong’ to many genera (or kingdoms) at the same time: There really can be no universal phylogenetic tree of organisms based on such a reduction to genes” [2]."

Doesn't bode well for the "tree of life" hypothesis...

[Ray Martinez]

On Wednesday, November 30, 2016 at 9:45:02 AM UTC-8, Glenn wrote:
> "Any sensible creator would surely use similar genes to make similar organisms."
>
> https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4831686/

Most logical, however. Similarity is the primary concept used to infer evolution. See, for example, faunal succession; namely, the equine sequence. But existence of similarity, between species, no matter how close, does not mean transmutation or speciation has occurred. So the concept of similarity supports evolution, and design-creation.

Ray

[Steady Eddie]

True nuff.

[Bob Casanova]

On Thu, 15 Dec 2016 19:20:10 -0800 (PST), the following

appeared in talk.origins, posted by Steady Eddie
<1914o...@gmail.com>:

>True nuff.

Sorry, but it's not. The implication that similarity between
fossils which exist in temporal succession in the fossil
record is the only means by which speciation among extinct
creatures is incorrect, at least in the sense of "it looks a
bit like the other, therefore speciation". And neither you
nor Ray is qualified to evaluate the techniques used to
infer relationships among extinct creatures.

[Peter Nyikos]

Yes, and one of the worst offenders is the use of "phylogenetic tree"
to talk about a tree that has ALL organisms, living or extinct,
at the tip of a branch. Even if, say, the most complete
skeleton we have of *Mesohippus* passes every test for what one
would ask for a direct ancestor of modern horses and asses,
even calling it "an actual candidate for a direct ancestor"
is barred as a scientific hypothesis by the cladists who reign
in biological systematics.

It is the cladists who either invented or appropriated the term
"phylogenetic tree" to describe what I describe. Contrast that
with the evolutionary tree in the Talk.Origins FAQ Archive, where
*Mesohippus* and most other species are NOT located at the
tips of branches, but at the nodes where two lines of descent diverge,
or one species gets replaced by another further along the branch:

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/horses/horse_evol.html

The branch that leads to modern horses, asses, and zebras
[all genus *Equus*] is especially noteworthy:

Hyracotherium/Eohippus - Orohippus - Epihippus - Mesohippus -
Miohippus - Parahippus - Merychippus - Dinohippus - Plesippus - Equus.


Kathleen Hunt has an excellent commentary in the FAQ, adding
lots of details to the tree as it stands. If the cladists had
not derailed these lines of research, we would not only have
refinements of this tree, we would also have similar trees
for many Linnean families of mammals: camel, deer, dog, etc.


If people like Harshman had their way, trees like the one in this
horse FAQ would be a thing of the past. And as a result, the argument
with the creationists ("religious right" in the quote above) would
be made much harder than it has already been made by the likes
of John Harshman.

I'm going on a 3+ week posting break for the holidays, possibly
as early as today, but looking in on this thread will be one
of my top priorities on my return, so that should not deter
anyone reading this from posting replies to me here.

Peter Nyikos
Professor, Dept. of Mathematics -- standard disclaimer--
University of South Carolina
http://people.math.sc.edu/nyikos/

[Ray Martinez]

On Friday, December 16, 2016 at 10:45:00 AM UTC-8, Bob Casanova wrote:
> On Thu, 15 Dec 2016 19:20:10 -0800 (PST), the following
> appeared in talk.origins, posted by Steady Eddie
> <1914o...@gmail.com>:
>
> >On Monday, 12 December 2016 16:30:01 UTC-7, Ray Martinez wrote:
> >> On Wednesday, November 30, 2016 at 9:45:02 AM UTC-8, Glenn wrote:
> >> > "Any sensible creator would surely use similar genes to make similar organisms."
> >> >
> >> > https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4831686/
> >>
> >> Most logical, however. Similarity is the primary concept used to infer evolution. See, for example, faunal succession; namely, the equine sequence. But existence of similarity, between species, no matter how close, does not mean transmutation or speciation has occurred. So the concept of similarity supports evolution, and design-creation.
>
> >True nuff.
>
> Sorry, but it's not. The implication that similarity between
> fossils which exist in temporal succession in the fossil
> record is the only means by which speciation among extinct
> creatures is incorrect, at least in the sense of "it looks a
> bit like the other, therefore speciation". And neither you
> nor Ray is qualified to evaluate the techniques used to
> infer relationships among extinct creatures.

Very sloppy, Bob; no one said anything about "the only means." What I said was that similarity is the primary concept used to infer evolution. And what I said is true.

Ray

[Ray Martinez]

On Friday, December 16, 2016 at 10:45:00 AM UTC-8, Bob Casanova wrote:

> On Thu, 15 Dec 2016 19:20:10 -0800 (PST), the following
> appeared in talk.origins, posted by Steady Eddie
> <1914o...@gmail.com>:
>
> >On Monday, 12 December 2016 16:30:01 UTC-7, Ray Martinez wrote:
> >> On Wednesday, November 30, 2016 at 9:45:02 AM UTC-8, Glenn wrote:
> >> > "Any sensible creator would surely use similar genes to make similar organisms."
> >> >
> >> > https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4831686/
> >>
> >> Most logical, however. Similarity is the primary concept used to infer evolution. See, for example, faunal succession; namely, the equine sequence. But existence of similarity, between species, no matter how close, does not mean transmutation or speciation has occurred. So the concept of similarity supports evolution, and design-creation.
>
> >True nuff.
>
> Sorry, but it's not. The implication that similarity between
> fossils which exist in temporal succession in the fossil
> record is the only means by which speciation among extinct
> creatures is incorrect, at least in the sense of "it looks a
> bit like the other, therefore speciation". And neither you
> nor Ray is qualified to evaluate the techniques used to
> infer relationships among extinct creatures.

As for the remainder of Bob's comment, concerning qualifications, all he said was that neither Eddie nor I possessed the necessary bias to infer speciation.

As Creationists we understand nature quite well. Our forefathers invented science. Evolutionists, and their theory, are the new kids on the block; a schism or wayward branch. Their "understanding" of diversity has been rejected by tens of millions of persons.

In response, get ready for Bob to break out the evolutionary standard: argument-from-authority.

Ray

[Bob Casanova]

On Fri, 16 Dec 2016 14:08:04 -0800 (PST), the following
appeared in talk.origins, posted by Ray Martinez
<pyram...@yahoo.com>:

>On Friday, December 16, 2016 at 10:45:00 AM UTC-8, Bob Casanova wrote:
>> On Thu, 15 Dec 2016 19:20:10 -0800 (PST), the following
>> appeared in talk.origins, posted by Steady Eddie
>> <1914o...@gmail.com>:
>>
>> >On Monday, 12 December 2016 16:30:01 UTC-7, Ray Martinez wrote:
>> >> On Wednesday, November 30, 2016 at 9:45:02 AM UTC-8, Glenn wrote:
>> >> > "Any sensible creator would surely use similar genes to make similar organisms."
>> >> >
>> >> > https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4831686/
>> >>
>> >> Most logical, however. Similarity is the primary concept used to infer evolution. See, for example, faunal succession; namely, the equine sequence. But existence of similarity, between species, no matter how close, does not mean transmutation or speciation has occurred. So the concept of similarity supports evolution, and design-creation.
>>
>> >True nuff.
>>
>> Sorry, but it's not. The implication that similarity between
>> fossils which exist in temporal succession in the fossil
>> record is the only means by which speciation among extinct
>> creatures is incorrect, at least in the sense of "it looks a
>> bit like the other, therefore speciation". And neither you
>> nor Ray is qualified to evaluate the techniques used to
>> infer relationships among extinct creatures.

>Very sloppy, Bob

My IronyMeter thanks you for the test.

>; no one said anything about "the only means." What I said was that similarity is the primary concept used to infer evolution. And what I said is true.

Similarity of morphology is indeed a starting point for
further examination, but it is not, as you asserted, "the
primary concept used to infer evolution"; check the whale
sequence for additional information on this issue. So please
replace "only" with "primary" in my response above; thanks.

And *any* observation can be used to support
"design-creation" (after all, an omnipotent creator/designer
is not limited to *any* particular process), so no such
observation has any value in determining whether deistic
creation and/or design actually occurred.

[Bob Casanova]

On Fri, 16 Dec 2016 14:18:41 -0800 (PST), the following
appeared in talk.origins, posted by Ray Martinez
<pyram...@yahoo.com>:

>On Friday, December 16, 2016 at 10:45:00 AM UTC-8, Bob Casanova wrote:
>> On Thu, 15 Dec 2016 19:20:10 -0800 (PST), the following
>> appeared in talk.origins, posted by Steady Eddie
>> <1914o...@gmail.com>:
>>
>> >On Monday, 12 December 2016 16:30:01 UTC-7, Ray Martinez wrote:
>> >> On Wednesday, November 30, 2016 at 9:45:02 AM UTC-8, Glenn wrote:
>> >> > "Any sensible creator would surely use similar genes to make similar organisms."
>> >> >
>> >> > https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4831686/
>> >>
>> >> Most logical, however. Similarity is the primary concept used to infer evolution. See, for example, faunal succession; namely, the equine sequence. But existence of similarity, between species, no matter how close, does not mean transmutation or speciation has occurred. So the concept of similarity supports evolution, and design-creation.
>>
>> >True nuff.
>>
>> Sorry, but it's not. The implication that similarity between
>> fossils which exist in temporal succession in the fossil
>> record is the only means by which speciation among extinct
>> creatures is incorrect, at least in the sense of "it looks a
>> bit like the other, therefore speciation". And neither you
>> nor Ray is qualified to evaluate the techniques used to
>> infer relationships among extinct creatures.
>
>As for the remainder of Bob's comment, concerning qualifications, all he said was that neither Eddie nor I possessed the necessary bias to infer speciation.

No, what I said was that you aren't qualified to evaluate
the processes by which biologists determine (tentatively;
the data is never 100% certain since the creatures in
question are no longer in existence) relationships among
them. And you're not; you probably don't even understand
them to the limited extent I like to think I do.

>As Creationists we understand nature quite well.

No, actually you don't, to the extent that you imagine you
can determine whether something was designed by the fact
that it shares *some* traits of designed artifacts. You
might note that this is *exactly* the problem you accuse
biologists of when you say that they use similarity of
structure as the primary way to evaluate relationships among
fossils (which they don't, as noted elsethread). IOW, you
think *your* observations reflect reality exactly, but
theirs are only their imagination.

> Our forefathers invented science. Evolutionists, and their theory, are the new kids on the block; a schism or wayward branch. Their "understanding" of diversity has been rejected by tens of millions of persons.
>
>In response, get ready for Bob to break out the evolutionary standard: argument-from-authority.

Sorry, but I don't do that; I usually refer to evidence.
I've seen you do it fairly often, though; your reference
above to "our forefathers" is an example, although in this
instance you name no names, just refer to a group whose
authority you accept as final.

[Peter Nyikos]

On Thursday, December 15, 2016 at 10:25:00 PM UTC-5, Steady Eddie wrote:

Hi, Eddie. Today I think I can wrap up enough loose ends so that
I can start my 3+ week holiday posting break today. One is to touch
base with the folks on this thread. I hope this one post will do for
everyone here, although I might be able to squeeze out time
for a separate reply to Martinez on another thread.

> On Monday, 12 December 2016 16:30:01 UTC-7, Ray Martinez wrote:
> > On Wednesday, November 30, 2016 at 9:45:02 AM UTC-8, Glenn wrote:
> > > "Any sensible creator would surely use similar genes to make similar organisms."
> > >
> > > https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4831686/

True, but even a rookie angel could be trusted with the redesign of the
genes in the horse family tree as it progresses from one equid to another,
following a master plan worked out by an archangel.

A handful of mutations would suffice to go from one genus to the next, in
the tree you can see in Kathleen Hunt's excellent FAQ in the Talk.Origins
Archive:

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/horses/horse_evol.html

Even fewer would suffice to go from one species to the next as described
in the text of the above FAQ.

> > Most logical, however. Similarity is the primary concept used to infer
> > evolution. See, for example, faunal succession; namely, the equine sequence.

As I have remarked many times, this isn't just similarity, like between
golden moles and marsupial moles. What we have are essentially complete
skeletons for many species in the horse family tree, and there is nothing
in any skeleton that disqualifies some individual in a genus from being a
direct ancestor of the ones further up in the tree that you can see
if you click on the url above or paste it in your browser.


OTOH any anatomist could tell you just from looking at the skeletons
that the golden mole is disqualified from direct ancestry to the
marsupial mole, and vice versa. This is based not only on comparing the
two, but even more convincingly, from knowing what the skeletons
of numerous insectivores (related to the golden mole) and marsupials,
respectively, look like.


You won't get this kind of information from anyone else in this
newsgroup, AFAIK. The ones I know to have the requisite amount of knowledge
go along with John Harshman's cladophilia, which makes it anathema
to talk about species X probably being the direct ancestor of species Y.

They are also hamstrung by their prohibition of Linnean ranks
like the "family" in "the family Equidae". They have to say things like
"many clades became extinct at the end of the Cretaceous"
rather than being able to say "_________ families became extinct,..."
with a specific number to put in the blank for the number of
known families.

For a few more details on these issues, see my reply to AlwaysAskingQuestions
on this thread last Friday, the 16th.

> > But existence of similarity, between species, no matter how close,
> > does not mean transmutation or speciation has occurred. So the concept of
> > similarity supports evolution, and design-creation.
> >
> > Ray
>
> True nuff.

Yeah, but what does it say about design-creation? It seems to say that
only a minority of creatures were directly created by God, with hosts
of angels and archangels assigned to the routine stuff. Why else would
the horse sequence behave like a sequence of Toyota Camrys, with this
year's model only a small variation on last year's model?

And even a literal reading of Genesis 1 backs me up on this. You can
see it at work in Genesis 1:11-12, where Elohim is credited with having
the earth bring forth SEED-BEARING plants. No mention of mosses,
ferns, or fungi, all of which the writers of Genesis surely knew
about.

Wishing you and R.Dean and all other Christians on this thread
a blessed Christmas and new year.

Peter Nyikos
Professor, Dept. of Mathematics -- standard disclaimer--
University of South Carolina
http://people.math.sc.edu/nyikos/

Ph.D. Carnegie-Mellon University, 1971

[Bob Casanova]

On Sat, 17 Dec 2016 11:27:23 -0700, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off>:

[Crickets...]

>>As Creationists we understand nature quite well.
>
>No, actually you don't, to the extent that you imagine you
>can determine whether something was designed by the fact
>that it shares *some* traits of designed artifacts. You
>might note that this is *exactly* the problem you accuse
>biologists of when you say that they use similarity of
>structure as the primary way to evaluate relationships among
>fossils (which they don't, as noted elsethread). IOW, you
>think *your* observations reflect reality exactly, but
>theirs are only their imagination.

[Crickets...]

>> Our forefathers invented science. Evolutionists, and their theory, are the new kids on the block; a schism or wayward branch. Their "understanding" of diversity has been rejected by tens of millions of persons.
>>
>>In response, get ready for Bob to break out the evolutionary standard: argument-from-authority.
>
>Sorry, but I don't do that; I usually refer to evidence.
>I've seen you do it fairly often, though; your reference
>above to "our forefathers" is an example, although in this
>instance you name no names, just refer to a group whose
>authority you accept as final.

[Crickets...]

[John Stockwell]

Except there is no scientific theory of "design-creation" which essentially means "appeared magically
from nowhere with no rules."

>
> Ray

[Ray Martinez]

No one knowledgeable said design or creation a theory because neither are nor were ever.

Our science: design observed, invisible Maker inferred. So our science is observation-based, not theory-based. A theory connotes an explanation as to how something occurs or happens, like transmutation. Once design is seen the ensuing inference follows intuitively. And once the inference is made special creation comes with it.

Ray