Question for broger...@gmail.com

[anonymousgeniu...@gmail.com]

I attempted to respond to your latest reply to my other thread but it did not post after 3 attempts. I do intend on addressing your overall argument and elaborate on my response to your 4 points that you posted earlier. Before I do, I am interested in your take on the arguments by Dr. Fuz Rana in this video:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2CnZ3n8I5b8

He begins talking at the 31:30 mark and within 5 minutes or so addresses his main points.


I have no doubt that you will disagree with his conclusions and have valid scientific reasoning for doing so. My specific question is: Is his analysis simply religion disguised as science or does he make valid scientific points?

[broger...@gmail.com]

You are kind to provide the link. I'm happy to discuss your own arguments, but less interested in discussion by proxy.

[broger...@gmail.com]

On Friday, May 16, 2014 3:10:04 AM UTC-4, anonymousgeniu...@gmail.com wrote:

You bring up the question as to whether Intelligent Design or "genius design" is a religious or scientific view. I think it's pretty hard to make "design" non-religious, but not impossible. I'm just talking about the arguments themselves, as I am not interested in judging anyone's motivations for making a particular argument.

Here's a definitely religious version. Cells (eyes, brains, flagella, what have you) are so complicated that there is no conceivable path for their evolution. We have no idea how it could have happened. Therefore they must have been designed and created by God. That's clearly God of the Gaps, and a religious, non-scientific approach. You say repeatedly that that is NOT your argument. OK.

The start of a potential scientific design argument would be the one you made. Cells and man-made machines have some striking similarities (I think they have even more striking differences, but no matter). The similarities are so striking that it is reasonable to hypothesize that, like man-made machines, cells were designed and built by some designer. And given the complexity of cells, that designer must have been a genius. Nothing wrong here yet. It is perfectly fine to use an analogy to motivate scientific questions or experiments. But if you want this to be something more than a disguised version of God of the Gaps, you have to move on from here. You have to think in detail about your designer model. There are many questions to think about.

1. Is your designer supernatural? If yes, then no experiment can refute his existence or role in the origin of life. That might be fine if you have a prior belief in an omnipotent God, but it takes the whole question back to the realm of religion.

2. If you designer is not supernatural, who is it? Is it biological? That takes you to the super-genius aliens type of designer. To me that just pushes the problem of the origin of life to another planet. If it's too hard for cells to evolve, isn't it even harder for genius designers to evolve? So you don't really get anywhere by plunking for a non-supernatural designer. So for me, you're either stuck with a religious claim of a supernatural, untestable designer, or a designer of cells whose own cells would have had to evolve somewhere else. But never mind, let's keep asking questions.

3. If you have a non-supernatural designer, ie one within the realm of science, what exactly did he do? Do you think he built a single Archaea cell somewhere several billion years ago? Where did he live while he was working? What sort of tools did he use? Was his design based upon his own structure? Or, did he just build some very simple imperfect replicator knowing that a cell would eventually evolve from it? If he was active only several billion years ago did he implant the future course of evolution in the first cells he built, so that he designed the human brain to show up billions of years later? Or has he been hanging around somewhere adding complex features to whole clades of organisms over the last millions of years? If so, where is he living? How does he do it? If you had been there to see the first cell designed and built what would you have seen? Ditto for the first human brain? These are, among others, the sorts of questions any scientist would have upon entertaining the idea of a genius designer

responsible for all the many nifty features of living organisms (and as I pointed out in an earlier post, I really am familiar with those nifty features in a lot of detail).

4. Virtually nobody arguing for design seems to me interested in these obviously interesting questions, which is why most design arguments seem like God of the Gaps to me. But then, you might be different.

5. Finally, in earlier posts, I've agreed that we definitely do not understand the details of the origin of life. But even so, contrast the attitude of people working in that field to design advocates. Design advocates seem utterly uninterested in testing any ideas about who the designer is or how, in detail he designed and built life. People working in abiogenesis develop and test models all the time. Of course, they are incomplete. But if someone says, "Maybe it was an RNA world first and catalytic and structural proteins came later," then they also say "But if that's true, RNA would have to be able to catalyze reactions like RNA cleavage or elongation," and then they go to the lab and find out whether that is possible (it is). It's still a puzzle in bits and pieces, but people make hypotheses about the details and test them to see if they are plausible. For all the study of the origin of life is at an early stage, it acts like science, it asks questions, makes models, tests them, rejects one's that don't

work. Nobody does that with the "genius designer."

To sum up. I do think that the design argument is generally just a dressed up version of God of the Gaps. There is, however, nothing intrinsically unscientific in hypothesizing that life was designed. It's just that nobody making that claim seems remotely interested in asking scientific questions about exactly how it happened.

[RSNorman]

On Fri, 16 May 2014 05:39:06 -0700 (PDT), broger...@gmail.com
wrote:

This is an excellent review of the serious problems in proposals about
intelligent design and I nominate it for POTM.

[James Beck]

On Fri, 16 May 2014 09:17:48 -0400, RSNorman <r_s_n...@comcast.net>
wrote:

Second

[alias Ernest Major]

Seconded.

--
alias Ernest Major

[jillery]

On Fri, 16 May 2014 05:39:06 -0700 (PDT), broger...@gmail.com
wrote:

Excellent post. A topic that explored how a design inference can be a
valid scientific hypothesis would be interesting.

[alias Ernest Major]

Several years ago I proposed that the Intelligent Design hypothesis does
not predict that genomes form a non-arbitrary nested hierarchy, and that
ID's backers should be funding genome sequencing to investigate whether
they do. (Other people have gone and done the work in the interim.)

--
alias Ernest Major

[Ymir]

In article <6m3cn9tn5stu4e1ro...@4ax.com>,

RSNorman <r_s_n...@comcast.net> wrote:

> On Fri, 16 May 2014 05:39:06 -0700 (PDT), broger...@gmail.com
> wrote:

<snip>

> This is an excellent review of the serious problems in proposals about
> intelligent design and I nominate it for POTM.

Seconded (or thirded, or whatever).

Andre

[anonymousgeniu...@gmail.com]

I combined our thread from my previous post entitled:
Genius Design, God of Gaps, Authority and Burden of Proof

No one else had a single valid argument and most directly validated the entire point of the post.

Your 4 valid points are listed below.

Also, (on another thread) you talked about your experience and understanding of cells. Good information about your background, very much as I expected. Those points are also basically contained in these 4 points so I did not list them separately.


Copied text follows:

1. Natural laws explain an enormous number of phenomena that we see in the world, electromagnetism, fluid dynamics, planetary orbital mechanics, enzyme mechanism, DNA replication, protein translation, intermediary metabolism, acid-base chemistry, and on and on. In none of those cases is it necessary to invoke the intervention of a genius designer to explain what's happening. It seems unlikely to me that there is a special set of phenomena in the world (e.g. cells or consciousness) that, unlike all the others, DO require invoking a genius designer to explain them.



2. The evidence that evolution, descent with modification, speciation, and genetics explain the current distribution of life on earth, the relationships between living species, and the change of species over geologic time is so strong and internally coherent that it would be silly to deny it. When you trace that tree of life back to its root, you certainly come to a point where you currently have insufficient evidence to know how the whole thing got started, but that's not a good reason for invoking a genius designer. That would be "God of the Gaps" which you explicitly say is NOT the argument you want to make.

3. The complexity of cells, in itself, is not good enough evidence of a genius designer to cause me to change my mind. Many things in biology are complex, the mammalian eye, the symbiosis between figs and wasps, the inner ear, and yet we have very good evidence for their evolution by mutation and natural selection. The complexity of the mitochondrion or the protein translation apparatus, therefore, doesn't make me leap to a new class of explanation, the genius designer, which is not required anywhere else in science. Coming at it from another angle, there are many simple systems of interacting rules which can lead to great complexity (Google Conway's Game of Life as an example). So the evidence that cells are complex (duh) is not, to me, a good reason to invoke a genius designer.

4. The analogy to machines is not evidence of a genius designer. There are indeed good points of resemblance between cells an man-made machines. And since we make machines we are quick to notice those similarities. But the analogy is simply not strong enough to make your argument logically compelling. Here is your argument, presented fairly, I think:
[snip]


Also, from another response to this thread:
Quoted text follows:

You are kind to provide the link. I'm happy to discuss your own arguments, but less interested in discussion by proxy.

End of quoted text.

I am not interested in discussing his arguments since I am not qualified to do so. I am interested in whether or not you view them as valid science.

Addressing original point #1 and new points #1-4:
As to who the designer is and how the design was implemented and deviation from physical law let me be clear. The entire argument for design is based upon a very low statistical probability of an occurrence based upon physical law. For example, if we looked at Jupiter and all of its light colored and dark colored swirling clouds suddenly formed letters that spelled out "Helo, my name is Jupiter" in perfect Arial Font I think everyone would conclude that intelligence was involved. According to basic physics, there is nothing preventing the light colored gasses and dark colored gasses from happening to arrange themselves in such a pattern yet the probability of it occurring is so low that we would conclude that intelligence was involved.

The continued arguments by you and others wanting to "know" about the designer would amount to the following in our analogy:
We should not conclude intelligence because:
1. They missed spelled "hello". Anyone smart enough to write such a thing should be smart enough to spell.
2. We do not know how they did it.
3. We do not know their intent.
4. Just because it is a highly improbable event doesn't mean it has intelligent origin.

Clearly, no one would be asking these questions because they are not relevant. What is relevant is the clear text.

Same for cells, what matters is the intricacy and function of the structure similar to machinery of known origin combined with the very low statistical probability of occurrence naturally.



Responding to your original points 2 and 3 (original point 4 was more of a conclusion rather than an independent point):

You like to mention the validity of evolution and tracing it back to its point of origin into "unknown territory" due to our lack of knowledge of early Earth. Yet you fail to mention the substantive structural differences between living species evolving higher order features and simple molecules "evolving" into more complex ones.

In the case of evolution we have a stable system with generation spawning generation. Within the iterations of this reproductive cycle contain the needed "chances" for a mutation to yield survival value.

The "evolution" of a cell is fundamentally different. Until we reach the point of a cell capable of cell division (at which point we can call it a cell), we have no mechanism for all the "trial and error". Therefore, each "Step" in cellular evolution would have to be the result of a stable chemical reaction based upon only the local environment conditions: chemical composition, temperature, pressure, etc.

Furthermore, each step would need to reach chemical equilibrium to ensure an abundant supply of raw materials for the next step. For example, whatever conditions on Earth that produced basic amino acids would have to continuously form an abundant supply of such amino acids to ensure that there were enough of them to form complex proteins.

A theory of how this occurred is given here:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2253472/


Note two things:
1) We need an equilibrium at each step
2) individual chemical reactions take very little time

The entire argument for cellular evolution is based upon a step by step increase of complexity. Yet the actual time it takes for the reaction to occur between steps is very small. Therefore the very long amount of time needed for a complete cell to "evolve" is not due to the time between steps but rather the changes in environment needed to create the proper conditions to move to the next step.

Since you explicitly are arguing that a "miracle" event is not required to move between steps, then (as most suggest) some type of "emergent phenomenon" is needed to produce the equilibrium that will provide the raw materials for each successive step. For example, in the case of snowflakes, proper conditions will always result in the formation of snowflakes. The argument for the possibility of life on other planets is similar: Find the right conditions and life will form.

So, putting this all together, while the early Earth had to wait around for the right conditions to find the "emergent phenomenon" that would produce simple amino acids, modern science can cherry pick whatever environment it wants to. Some would argue that the Miller-Urey experiment did exactly that. Ok, let's ignore any objections and say it did. That should be step 1. Non-living to amino acids. Check. Now we should be able to take those amino acids (or make a computer model to do the same), put them in our "new Earth conditions" and watch them form into the next step. And so on. We can choose any environmental conditions we like (as long as they only include simple elements that would have been present on early Earth). Since we have very smart people working on this to make educated guesses at the conditions needed for each step, we should expect continued progress toward a cell, just like evolution only except without having to wait for the environment to change since we specify what it is.

Now the Miller-Urey experiment was over 60 years ago. So should we not have many steps in the drive toward a cell by now? I mean, if it is really an "emergent phenomenon" then there should be entire solution spaces that generate each step in the process just like the large number of conditions needed to generate snowflakes.

Now you say "it's a hard problem". Really? So then how long do we have to wait? another 60 years? 2014 years? And are any individual step that hard to recreate? And if so, is it not even POSSIBLE that you people are trying to reproduce something that required as statistical "miracle".



As for your point #5, much research opportunity is contained Dr. Rana's arguments....the ones you refused to address.

[broger...@gmail.com]

On Friday, May 16, 2014 11:45:53 AM UTC-4, anonymousgeniu...@gmail.com wrote:
> I combined our thread from my previous post entitled:
>
> Genius Design, God of Gaps, Authority and Burden of Proof
>
>

>snip>

>
>
>
>
>
> Copied text follows:
>
>
>
> 1. Natural laws explain an enormous number of phenomena that we see in the world, electromagnetism, fluid dynamics, planetary orbital mechanics, enzyme mechanism, DNA replication, protein translation, intermediary metabolism, acid-base chemistry, and on and on. In none of those cases is it necessary to invoke the intervention of a genius designer to explain what's happening. It seems unlikely to me that there is a special set of phenomena in the world (e.g. cells or consciousness) that, unlike all the others, DO require invoking a genius designer to explain them.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> 2. The evidence that evolution, descent with modification, speciation, and genetics explain the current distribution of life on earth, the relationships between living species, and the change of species over geologic time is so strong and internally coherent that it would be silly to deny it. When you trace that tree of life back to its root, you certainly come to a point where you currently have insufficient evidence to know how the whole thing got started, but that's not a good reason for invoking a genius designer. That would be "God of the Gaps" which you explicitly say is NOT the argument you want to make.
>
>
>
> 3. The complexity of cells, in itself, is not good enough evidence of a genius designer to cause me to change my mind. Many things in biology are complex, the mammalian eye, the symbiosis between figs and wasps, the inner ear, and yet we have very good evidence for their evolution by mutation and natural selection. The complexity of the mitochondrion or the protein translation apparatus, therefore, doesn't make me leap to a new class of explanation, the genius designer, which is not required anywhere else in science. Coming at it from another angle, there are many simple systems of interacting rules which can lead to great complexity (Google Conway's Game of Life as an example). So the evidence that cells are complex (duh) is not, to me, a good reason to invoke a genius designer.
>
>
>
> 4. The analogy to machines is not evidence of a genius designer. There are indeed good points of resemblance between cells an man-made machines. And since we make machines we are quick to notice those similarities. But the analogy is simply not strong enough to make your argument logically compelling. Here is your argument, presented fairly, I think:
>
> [snip]
>
>
>
>
>
> Also, from another response to this thread:
>
> Quoted text follows:
>
> You are kind to provide the link. I'm happy to discuss your own arguments, but less interested in discussion by proxy.
>
> End of quoted text.
>
>
>
> I am not interested in discussing his arguments since I am not qualified to do so. I am interested in whether or not you view them as valid science.

Well, I'd rather stick to things you feel qualified to discuss.


<snip my earlier post, just to reduce lines>

> Addressing original point #1 and new points #1-4:
>
> As to who the designer is and how the design was implemented and deviation from physical law let me be clear. The entire argument for design is based upon a very low statistical probability of an occurrence based upon physical law. For example, if we looked at Jupiter and all of its light colored and dark colored swirling clouds suddenly formed letters that spelled out "Helo, my name is Jupiter" in perfect Arial Font I think everyone would conclude that intelligence was involved. According to basic physics, there is nothing preventing the light colored gasses and dark colored gasses from happening to arrange themselves in such a pattern yet the probability of it occurring is so low that we would conclude that intelligence was involved.
>
>
>
> The continued arguments by you and others wanting to "know" about the designer would amount to the following in our analogy:
>
> We should not conclude intelligence because:
>
> 1. They missed spelled "hello". Anyone smart enough to write such a thing should be smart enough to spell.
>
> 2. We do not know how they did it.
>
> 3. We do not know their intent.
>
> 4. Just because it is a highly improbable event doesn't mean it has intelligent origin.
>
>
>
> Clearly, no one would be asking these questions because they are not relevant. What is relevant is the clear text.

Correct, we would know immediately, for example, that whoever engineered that pattern spoke English and probably wanted to communicate with us. Our conclusion would be based on recognizing the content of the message rather than on its improbability of arising naturally.

Here's an analogical finding that would clinch a designer for cells. Imagine you sequenced the human genome and found in allegedly junk DNA a pattern of bases that encoded, in a simple way, the complete text of Hamlet. I would then be completely convinced that life was designed.

> Same for cells, what matters is the intricacy and function of the structure similar to machinery of known origin combined with the very low statistical probability of occurrence naturally.

The problem here is that you have yet to prove the low statistical probability of cells occurring naturally. Indeed, the fact that life seems to have appeared quite quickly once the earth cooled down enough for liquid water to be stable rather suggests that life has a rather high statistical probability of appearing.

>
> Responding to your original points 2 and 3 (original point 4 was more of a conclusion rather than an independent point):
>
>
>
> You like to mention the validity of evolution and tracing it back to its point of origin into "unknown territory" due to our lack of knowledge of early Earth. Yet you fail to mention the substantive structural differences between living species evolving higher order features and simple molecules "evolving" into more complex ones.
>
>
>
> In the case of evolution we have a stable system with generation spawning generation. Within the iterations of this reproductive cycle contain the needed "chances" for a mutation to yield survival value.
>
>
>
> The "evolution" of a cell is fundamentally different. Until we reach the point of a cell capable of cell division (at which point we can call it a cell), we have no mechanism for all the "trial and error". Therefore, each "Step" in cellular evolution would have to be the result of a stable chemical reaction based upon only the local environment conditions: chemical composition, temperature, pressure, etc.

You are correct here. There is a fundamental difference between imperfect replicators evolving, and the first imperfect replicator appearing. Figuring out how those first imperfect replicators got there, what they were made of, how they formed... those are all key questions to which answers are not there yet.

>
>
>
> Furthermore, each step would need to reach chemical equilibrium to ensure an abundant supply of raw materials for the next step. For example, whatever conditions on Earth that produced basic amino acids would have to continuously form an abundant supply of such amino acids to ensure that there were enough of them to form complex proteins.

This is not correct. Chemical equilibrium is not required at all. There do need to be enough raw materials around to get started, but that need not require equilibrium.

>
>
>
> A theory of how this occurred is given here:
>
> http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2253472/

Hmm, that's an article about the evolution of new functional proteins within existing organisms. Nothing about the origin of life. It does refute some of Behe's sillier ideas and misinterpetations of Darwinian evolution, but it is not related to your points about abiogenesis. Perhaps you linked to the wrong article. Or the source from whom you got the reference, referenced it incorrectly.

>
>
>
>
>
> Note two things:
>
> 1) We need an equilibrium at each step
>
> 2) individual chemical reactions take very little time
>
>
>
> The entire argument for cellular evolution is based upon a step by step increase of complexity. Yet the actual time it takes for the reaction to occur between steps is very small. Therefore the very long amount of time needed for a complete cell to "evolve" is not due to the time between steps but rather the changes in environment needed to create the proper conditions to move to the next step.
>
>
>
> Since you explicitly are arguing that a "miracle" event is not required to move between steps, then (as most suggest) some type of "emergent phenomenon" is needed to produce the equilibrium that will provide the raw materials for each successive step. For example, in the case of snowflakes, proper conditions will always result in the formation of snowflakes. The argument for the possibility of life on other planets is similar: Find the right conditions and life will form.

There's nothing magical about "emergent phenomena." In fact, I personally think the phrase is overused. It really just means things that are too hard for us to predict from first principles. Weather, for example, is an emergent phenomenon. Nothing especially mysterious. And once you CAN predict it from first principles it ceases to be emergent.

>
>
>
> So, putting this all together, while the early Earth had to wait around for the right conditions to find the "emergent phenomenon" that would produce simple amino acids, modern science can cherry pick whatever environment it wants to. Some would argue that the Miller-Urey experiment did exactly that. Ok, let's ignore any objections and say it did. That should be step 1. Non-living to amino acids. Check. Now we should be able to take those amino acids (or make a computer model to do the same), put them in our "new Earth conditions" and watch them form into the next step. And so on. We can choose any environmental conditions we like (as long as they only include simple elements that would have been present on early Earth). Since we have very smart people working on this to make educated guesses at the conditions needed for each step, we should expect continued progress toward a cell, just like evolution only except without having to wait for the environment to change since we specify what it is.
>
>
>
> Now the Miller-Urey experiment was over 60 years ago. So should we not have many steps in the drive toward a cell by now? I mean, if it is really an "emergent phenomenon" then there should be entire solution spaces that generate each step in the process just like the large number of conditions needed to generate snowflakes.
>
>
>
> Now you say "it's a hard problem". Really? So then how long do we have to wait? another 60 years? 2014 years? And are any individual step that hard to recreate? And if so, is it not even POSSIBLE that you people are trying to reproduce something that required as statistical "miracle".

I'm patient. Postulating miracles has never been scientifically very fruitful. And again your argument is veering towards God of the Gaps by depending on what science hasn't figured out, rather than on direct evidence for your own model.

>
> As for your point #5, much research opportunity is contained Dr. Rana's arguments....the ones you refused to address.

I didn't refuse to address them. I just haven't heard them. If you yourself say you are not qualified to discuss them, it seems pointless.

[anonymousgeniu...@gmail.com]

Fine. Then let's just say that the material products of each successive step must exist in an abundant supply to precede to the next step. The point is that you are not advocating that a couple amino acids happened to form but that many of them formed and persisted. The same for each step in the process.

>
>
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > A theory of how this occurred is given here:
>
> >
>
> > http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2253472/
>
>
>
> Hmm, that's an article about the evolution of new functional proteins within existing organisms. Nothing about the origin of life. It does refute some of Behe's sillier ideas and misinterpetations of Darwinian evolution, but it is not related to your points about abiogenesis. Perhaps you linked to the wrong article. Or the source from whom you got the reference, referenced it incorrectly.
>
>
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > Note two things:
>
> >
>
> > 1) We need an equilibrium at each step
>
> >
>
> > 2) individual chemical reactions take very little time
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > The entire argument for cellular evolution is based upon a step by step increase of complexity. Yet the actual time it takes for the reaction to occur between steps is very small. Therefore the very long amount of time needed for a complete cell to "evolve" is not due to the time between steps but rather the changes in environment needed to create the proper conditions to move to the next step.
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > Since you explicitly are arguing that a "miracle" event is not required to move between steps, then (as most suggest) some type of "emergent phenomenon" is needed to produce the equilibrium that will provide the raw materials for each successive step. For example, in the case of snowflakes, proper conditions will always result in the formation of snowflakes. The argument for the possibility of life on other planets is similar: Find the right conditions and life will form.
>
>
>
> There's nothing magical about "emergent phenomena." In fact, I personally think the phrase is overused. It really just means things that are too hard for us to predict from first principles. Weather, for example, is an emergent phenomenon. Nothing especially mysterious. And once you CAN predict it from first principles it ceases to be emergent.
>
>
>
>
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > So, putting this all together, while the early Earth had to wait around for the right conditions to find the "emergent phenomenon" that would produce simple amino acids, modern science can cherry pick whatever environment it wants to. Some would argue that the Miller-Urey experiment did exactly that. Ok, let's ignore any objections and say it did. That should be step 1. Non-living to amino acids. Check. Now we should be able to take those amino acids (or make a computer model to do the same), put them in our "new Earth conditions" and watch them form into the next step. And so on. We can choose any environmental conditions we like (as long as they only include simple elements that would have been present on early Earth). Since we have very smart people working on this to make educated guesses at the conditions needed for each step, we should expect continued progress toward a cell, just like evolution only except without having to wait for the environment to change since we specify what it is.
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > Now the Miller-Urey experiment was over 60 years ago. So should we not have many steps in the drive toward a cell by now? I mean, if it is really an "emergent phenomenon" then there should be entire solution spaces that generate each step in the process just like the large number of conditions needed to generate snowflakes.
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > Now you say "it's a hard problem". Really? So then how long do we have to wait? another 60 years? 2014 years? And are any individual step that hard to recreate? And if so, is it not even POSSIBLE that you people are trying to reproduce something that required as statistical "miracle".
>
>
>
> I'm patient. Postulating miracles has never been scientifically very fruitful. And again your argument is veering towards God of the Gaps by depending on what science hasn't figured out, rather than on direct evidence for your own model.

Postulating miracles....good one. How about giving valid reasoning why the probability of life occurring is very low, the central point of the entire issue that you entirely ignored. You don't want to address any argument regarding the low probability of life forming but instead want to focus on the intent of the designer. Exactly the point of my original post: Genius Design, God of Gaps, Authority and Burden of Proof


You actually had some valid points earlier. Now you sound like the majority of other posters here who just address the questions that they know the answer to.

>
>
>
>
>
> >
>
> > As for your point #5, much research opportunity is contained Dr. Rana's arguments....the ones you refused to address.
>
>
>
> I didn't refuse to address them. I just haven't heard them. If you yourself say you are not qualified to discuss them, it seems pointless.

For the second time, I am not interested in discussing the content only your informed opinion on whether or not it represents legitimate science. My guess is that you cannot answer yes because that would legitimize design (what would people think). But you cannot answer no, because that would be disparaging a fellow Biologist (what would people think). So instead you deflect the issue. How political of you. You should run for public office.

[Inez]

On Friday, May 16, 2014 8:45:53 AM UTC-7, anonymousgeniu...@gmail.com wrote:

<snip>

> Addressing original point #1 and new points #1-4:
>
> As to who the designer is and how the design was implemented and deviation from physical law let me be clear. The entire argument for design is based upon a very low statistical probability of an occurrence based upon physical law. For example, if we looked at Jupiter and all of its light colored and dark colored swirling clouds suddenly formed letters that spelled out "Helo, my name is Jupiter" in perfect Arial Font I think everyone would conclude that intelligence was involved. According to basic physics, there is nothing preventing the light colored gasses and dark colored gasses from happening to arrange themselves in such a pattern yet the probability of it occurring is so low that we would conclude that intelligence was involved.
>
>
>
> The continued arguments by you and others wanting to "know" about the designer would amount to the following in our analogy:
>
> We should not conclude intelligence because:
>
> 1. They missed spelled "hello". Anyone smart enough to write such a thing should be smart enough to spell.
>
> 2. We do not know how they did it.
>
> 3. We do not know their intent.
>
> 4. Just because it is a highly improbable event doesn't mean it has intelligent origin.
>
>
>
> Clearly, no one would be asking these questions because they are not relevant. What is relevant is the clear text.
>
>
>
> Same for cells, what matters is the intricacy and function of the structure similar to machinery of known origin combined with the very low statistical probability of occurrence naturally.
>

I think that probability can be used to determine the cause of something. For example, when you see a smooshed possum in the road you can figure that the chances are much greater that it was hit by a car than that it has learned a new and extremely convincing way of playing dead.

But you can really only make probability arguments when you know approximately what the probabilities are of both of the theories you're comparing. You can't calculate the probability of life arising naturally unless you know how it happened, so you're missing that valuable data. A naturalistic designer would have to have arisen naturally and that tends to make it at least if not more improbably than life on earth just doing it on its own. That leaves you with magic. How probable is magic?

I think this goes to the heart of the original objection to ID in this thread. You're not considering the specifics of what ID would entail and thus not thinking about the probability of it. You're not even trying to compare probabilities, you're trying to look at one theory, guess that it's improbable, and assume that the other option that occurs to you must therefore be more likely.

[Inez]

>
> > I didn't refuse to address them. I just haven't heard them. If you yourself say you are not qualified to discuss them, it seems pointless.
>
>
>
> For the second time, I am not interested in discussing the content only your informed opinion on whether or not it represents legitimate science. My guess is that you cannot answer yes because that would legitimize design (what would people think). But you cannot answer no, because that would be disparaging a fellow Biologist (what would people think). So instead you deflect the issue. How political of you. You should run for public office.

Scientists disparage each other all the time. It's like they're second favorite thing to do after drinking beer.

[alias Ernest Major]

I watched those 5 minutes. Your question ("Is his analysis simply
religion disguised as science or does he make valid scientific points?")
presumed that he had an analysis, and made points. My evaluation is that
he showed no analysis and made no points, so the answers are mu and no.

But you are doing him an injustice by asking people to judge him by
those 5 minutes alone.

--
alias Ernest Major

[anonymousgeniu...@gmail.com]

Here is the thing about you guys. I give you a valid counter to your reasoning that receives no legitimate response. Then Pavlov rings the dinner bell and you start chanting "Magic" and "God of Gaps" exactly the way you are trained to do. Then you object when I say that you are completely indoctrinated exactly like religion. (Then the extremely weak minded people point out that RELIGION is the one that is indoctrinated as if that is not exactly what I just said...sigh).

Not that it will do any good but....

Little cells are little machines. We know machines are designed. Therefore if we can show that natural laws cannot have produced cells it is valid to conclude that they are designed just like any other amazing little machine we would happen to find.

Pretty simple logic. No magic here.
But it won't matter because you will likely do one of the following:
1) Change the argument to make it about religion (or magic)
2) Ask what I mean by "design" or "machine" or "or"
3) Ignore the substance of my argument and just say what you want to anyway
4) Make some other very weak comment

But you could surprise me and actually say something of substance that I have not already heard and countered completely.

[Bob Casanova]

On Fri, 16 May 2014 09:32:18 -0600, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by Ymir <agi...@gmail.com>:

I think it's about fifthed or sixthed by now... ;-)
--

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

[Bob Casanova]

On Fri, 16 May 2014 09:17:48 -0400, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by RSNorman
<r_s_n...@comcast.net>:

Seconded.

[anonymousgeniu...@gmail.com]

Yes you are correct on both counts.
It takes nearly the 20 minutes for him to make his arguments.

I watched the video several weeks ago and somehow erroneously put it in my brain that he summarized his main points up front.
Thank you for the correction.

[Jimbo]

On Fri, 16 May 2014 11:19:15 -0700 (PDT),
anonymousgeniu...@gmail.com wrote:

>On Friday, May 16, 2014 12:25:43 PM UTC-5, Inez wrote:
>> On Friday, May 16, 2014 8:45:53 AM UTC-7, anonymousgeniu...@gmail.com wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> <snip>
>>
>>
>>
>> > Addressing original point #1 and new points #1-4:
>>
>> >
>>
>> > As to who the designer is and how the design was implemented and deviation from physical law let me be clear. The entire argument for design is based upon a very low statistical probability of an occurrence based upon physical law. For example, if we looked at Jupiter and all of its light colored and dark colored swirling clouds suddenly formed letters that spelled out "Helo, my name is Jupiter" in perfect Arial Font I think everyone would conclude that intelligence was involved. According to basic physics, there is nothing preventing the light colored gasses and dark colored gasses from happening to arrange themselves in such a pattern yet the probability of it occurring is so low that we would conclude that intelligence was involved.
>>
>> >
>>
>> >
>>
>> >
>>
>> > The continued arguments by you and others wanting to "know" about the designer would amount to the following in our analogy:
>>
>> >
>>
>> > We should not conclude intelligence because:
>>
>> >
>>
>> > 1. They missed spelled "hello". Anyone smart enough to write such a thing should be smart enough to spell.
>>
>> >
>>
>> > 2. We do not know how they did it.
>>
>> >
>>
>> > 3. We do not know their intent.
>>
>> >
>>
>> > 4. Just because it is a highly improbable event doesn't mean it has intelligent origin.
>>
>> >
>>
>> >
>>
>> >
>>
>> > Clearly, no one would be asking these questions because they are not relevant. What is relevant is the clear text.
>>
>> >
>>
>> >
>>
>> >
>>
>> > Same for cells, what matters is the intricacy and function of the structure similar to machinery of known origin combined with the very low statistical probability of occurrence naturally.
>>
>> >
>>
>>
>>
>> I think that probability can be used to determine the cause of something. For example, when you see a smooshed possum in the road you can figure that the chances are much greater that it was hit by a car than that it has learned a new and extremely convincing way of playing dead.
>>
>>
>>
>> But you can really only make probability arguments when you know approximately what the probabilities are of both of the theories you're comparing. You can't calculate the probability of life arising naturally unless you know how it happened, so you're missing that valuable data. A naturalistic designer would have to have arisen naturally and that tends to make it at least if not more improbably than life on earth just doing it on its own. That leaves you with magic. How probable is magic?
>>
>>
>>
>> I think this goes to the heart of the original objection to ID in this thread. You're not considering the specifics of what ID would entail and thus not thinking about the probability of it. You're not even trying to compare probabilities, you're trying to look at one theory, guess that it's improbable, and assume that the other option that occurs to you must therefore be more likely.
>
>Here is the thing about you guys. I give you a valid counter to your reasoning that receives no legitimate response. Then Pavlov rings the dinner bell and you start chanting "Magic" and "God of Gaps" exactly the way you are trained to do. Then you object when I say that you are completely indoctrinated exactly like religion. (Then the extremely weak minded people point out that RELIGION is the one that is indoctrinated as if that is not exactly what I just said...sigh).
>
>Not that it will do any good but....
>
>Little cells are little machines. We know machines are designed. Therefore if we can show that natural laws cannot have produced cells it is valid to conclude that they are designed just like any other amazing little machine we would happen to find.

You've been given examples of naturally occurring machines. Not only
have you refused to discuss these examples, you won't even acknowledge
that they've been presented. You just dismiss all opposing arguments
and data as 'invalid.' If you were serious about engaging in a
reasoned discussion, you wouldn't behave in such a manner.

>Pretty simple logic. No magic here.

It's not logic at all. It's a specious analogy. That's all you've
presented. You've absolutely refused to engage in rational
evidence-based discussion.

>But it won't matter because you will likely do one of the following:
>1) Change the argument to make it about religion (or magic)

The only argument you've made is the claim that your analogy should be
regarded as self-evidently true. When people point out to you that
it's just an analogy and that you've presented no evidence to turn it
into an evidence-based and logically coherent argument, you simply
dismiss their points as 'not valid.'

>2) Ask what I mean by "design" or "machine" or "or"

How did you get the idea that such questions are irrelevant or
invalid? They are exactly the questions you should be asking yourself.
As it stands now, you've done nothing more than repeat and repeat
again your claim that cells are complex and therefore they must be
intelligently designed machines - while steadfastly refusing to define
what you think you mean by the term 'machine.' You seem to regard
precise definitions and logical analysis of data as sins.

>3) Ignore the substance of my argument and just say what you want to anyway

There is no substance to your argument. There isn't even an argument.
You've got nothing more than a vague impression that cells are complex
and complex things can't occur naturally. You won't even acknowledge
the examples of complex things that do occur naturally. You are simply
pretending that you have an evidence-based and logically coherent
argument. When someone asks you to define what you think you mean by
'machine' they are not bringing in irrelevancies. Perhaps you think
you're not required to make precise and coherent claims, and then to
support those claims with logic and evidence, but until you do so,
nothing you say has any real content or meaning.

[jillery]

On Fri, 16 May 2014 11:24:39 -0700, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off>

wrote:

>On Fri, 16 May 2014 09:32:18 -0600, the following appeared
>in talk.origins, posted by Ymir <agi...@gmail.com>:
>
>>In article <6m3cn9tn5stu4e1ro...@4ax.com>,
>> RSNorman <r_s_n...@comcast.net> wrote:
>>
>>> On Fri, 16 May 2014 05:39:06 -0700 (PDT), broger...@gmail.com
>>> wrote:
>>
>><snip>
>>
>>
>>> This is an excellent review of the serious problems in proposals about
>>> intelligent design and I nominate it for POTM.
>>
>>Seconded (or thirded, or whatever).
>
>I think it's about fifthed or sixthed by now... ;-)

This has been seconded so many times, it should be awarded by
acclamation.

[jillery]

On Fri, 16 May 2014 11:19:15 -0700 (PDT),
anonymousgeniu...@gmail.com wrote:

>Here is the thing about you guys. I give you a valid counter to your reasoning that receives no legitimate response. Then Pavlov rings the dinner bell and you start chanting "Magic" and "God of Gaps" exactly the way you are trained to do. Then you object when I say that you are completely indoctrinated exactly like religion. (Then the extremely weak minded people point out that RELIGION is the one that is indoctrinated as if that is not exactly what I just said...sigh).
>
>Not that it will do any good but....
>
>Little cells are little machines. We know machines are designed. Therefore if we can show that natural laws cannot have produced cells it is valid to conclude that they are designed just like any other amazing little machine we would happen to find.
>
>Pretty simple logic. No magic here.
>But it won't matter because you will likely do one of the following:
>1) Change the argument to make it about religion (or magic)

That's a predictable problem for something that assumes an unknown,
unseen, undefined designer.

>2) Ask what I mean by "design" or "machine" or "or"

How is defining your terms a bad thing?

>3) Ignore the substance of my argument and just say what you want to anyway

Does your argument have any substance to ignore?

>4) Make some other very weak comment

So you reject other posters doing what you do?

>But you could surprise me and actually say something of substance that I have not already heard and countered completely.

...perhaps in an alternate Universe, but not here.

That was easy. You got anything else?

[jillery]

On Fri, 16 May 2014 10:28:07 -0700 (PDT), Inez
<savagem...@hotmail.com> wrote:

>Scientists disparage each other all the time. It's like they're second favorite thing to do after drinking beer.

... and even while drinking beer 8-)

[Inez]

On Friday, May 16, 2014 11:19:15 AM UTC-7, anonymousgeniu...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Friday, May 16, 2014 12:25:43 PM UTC-5, Inez wrote:
>
> > On Friday, May 16, 2014 8:45:53 AM UTC-7, anonymousgeniu...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > <snip>
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > > Addressing original point #1 and new points #1-4:
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > As to who the designer is and how the design was implemented and deviation from physical law let me be clear. The entire argument for design is based upon a very low statistical probability of an occurrence based upon physical law. For example, if we looked at Jupiter and all of its light colored and dark colored swirling clouds suddenly formed letters that spelled out "Helo, my name is Jupiter" in perfect Arial Font I think everyone would conclude that intelligence was involved. According to basic physics, there is nothing preventing the light colored gasses and dark colored gasses from happening to arrange themselves in such a pattern yet the probability of it occurring is so low that we would conclude that intelligence was involved.
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > The continued arguments by you and others wanting to "know" about the designer would amount to the following in our analogy:
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > We should not conclude intelligence because:
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > 1. They missed spelled "hello". Anyone smart enough to write such a thing should be smart enough to spell.
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > 2. We do not know how they did it.
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > 3. We do not know their intent.
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > 4. Just because it is a highly improbable event doesn't mean it has intelligent origin.
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > Clearly, no one would be asking these questions because they are not relevant. What is relevant is the clear text.
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > Same for cells, what matters is the intricacy and function of the structure similar to machinery of known origin combined with the very low statistical probability of occurrence naturally.
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > I think that probability can be used to determine the cause of something. For example, when you see a smooshed possum in the road you can figure that the chances are much greater that it was hit by a car than that it has learned a new and extremely convincing way of playing dead.
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > But you can really only make probability arguments when you know approximately what the probabilities are of both of the theories you're comparing. You can't calculate the probability of life arising naturally unless you know how it happened, so you're missing that valuable data. A naturalistic designer would have to have arisen naturally and that tends to make it at least if not more improbably than life on earth just doing it on its own. That leaves you with magic. How probable is magic?
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > I think this goes to the heart of the original objection to ID in this thread. You're not considering the specifics of what ID would entail and thus not thinking about the probability of it. You're not even trying to compare probabilities, you're trying to look at one theory, guess that it's improbable, and assume that the other option that occurs to you must therefore be more likely.
>
>
>
> Here is the thing about you guys. I give you a valid counter to your reasoning that receives no legitimate response. Then Pavlov rings the dinner bell and you start chanting "Magic" and "God of Gaps" exactly the way you are trained to do. Then you object when I say that you are completely indoctrinated exactly like religion. (Then the extremely weak minded people point out that RELIGION is the one that is indoctrinated as if that is not exactly what I just said...sigh).
>
>
>
> Not that it will do any good but....
>
>
>
> Little cells are little machines. We know machines are designed. Therefore if we can show that natural laws cannot have produced cells it is valid to conclude that they are designed just like any other amazing little machine we would happen to find.
>

I don't disagree with your logic there other than I don't find cells to be very like machines. But you started out making a probability argument, and I said that you needed to compare the probability of your theory with the one you're trying to disprove. You can't supplant an improbably theory with a less probable one.

But now you've changed your argument. Now you're not doing probability, you're showing that life cannot have been produced by natural laws. I certainly grant you that if life cannot have been produced by natural laws then it wasn't produced by natural laws. How in the world do you plan on demonstrating this? The abiogenesis researchers have it tough enough, trying to reproduce complicated chemistry that happened billions of years ago in an unknown environment; you need to show that no conceivable chemistry in any realistic environment could have produced life. I don't see how that can be done.

>
> Pretty simple logic. No magic here.
>
> But it won't matter because you will likely do one of the following:
>
> 1) Change the argument to make it about religion (or magic)
>
> 2) Ask what I mean by "design" or "machine" or "or"
>
> 3) Ignore the substance of my argument and just say what you want to anyway
>
> 4) Make some other very weak comment
>

Pre-whining is not very flattering.

[Inez]

Also, sometimes scientists use the correct form of "they're/there/their." Apparently I am not a scientist.

[broger...@gmail.com]

On Friday, May 16, 2014 1:03:43 PM UTC-4, anonymousgeniu...@gmail.com wrote:

>
> Fine. Then let's just say that the material products of each successive step must exist in an abundant supply to precede to the next step. The point is that you are not advocating that a couple amino acids happened to form but that many of them formed and persisted. The same for each step in the process.

Yes, there needs to be some local environment in which the concentrations of these things can get high enough to be useful. There used to be arguments about concentration by evaporation in tidal pools, adsorption to clays, even concentration by storage of the monomers as polymers - this is an early idea for how RNA precursors might accumulate in proteinoid microspheres. It's an interesting problem.

>

> > I'm patient. Postulating miracles has never been scientifically very fruitful. And again your argument is veering towards God of the Gaps by depending on what science hasn't figured out, rather than on direct evidence for your own model.
>
>
>
> Postulating miracles....good one. How about giving valid reasoning why the probability of life occurring is very low, the central point of the entire issue that you entirely ignored. You don't want to address any argument regarding the low probability of life forming but instead want to focus on the intent of the designer. Exactly the point of my original post: Genius Design, God of Gaps, Authority and Burden of Proof

Hold on, before you go off addressing my (guessed at motivations) how about you speaking to the "central point of the issue that I entirely ignored." What is the evidence that the probability of life occurring by natural processes is very low? You have not presented any such evidence at all. All you've presented is the analogy to machines. I repeat, that analogy is a perfectly fine motivation for a hypothesis or an experiment, but it is not itself evidence of anything at all. So if you have evidence that life cannot form according to natural processes, you have yet to show it.

> You actually had some valid points earlier. Now you sound like the majority of other posters here who just address the questions that they know the answer to.
>

>

> For the second time, I am not interested in discussing the content only your informed opinion on whether or not it represents legitimate science. My guess is that you cannot answer yes because that would legitimize design (what would people think). But you cannot answer no, because that would be disparaging a fellow Biologist (what would people think). So instead you deflect the issue. How political of you. You should run for public office.

Good grief. Have you never in your life met a scientist? Our greatest joy in life is to prove that the other scientist is wrong. Since you seem really keen on this guy, though, I'll give him a listen and tell you what I think (and what I think will not depend one bit on whether he's a biologist or an opera singer).

[broger...@gmail.com]

On Friday, May 16, 2014 1:03:43 PM UTC-4, anonymousgeniu...@gmail.com wrote:

> For the second time, I am not interested in discussing the content only your informed opinion on whether or not it represents legitimate science. My guess is that you cannot answer yes because that would legitimize design (what would people think). But you cannot answer no, because that would be disparaging a fellow Biologist (what would people think). So instead you deflect the issue. How political of you. You should run for public office.

OK. I watched your guy. What he says does not represent legitimate science. No. Since you say you are not in a position to discuss his arguments, I suppose I should just leave it there. But...

He says some accurate and well known things about how cells work. He correctly classifies three main lines of thought about origin of life (replicator first, membrane first, metabolism first). The he falls apart. He provides no evidence to support his claims as to why replicator first is impossible. Why is it than homopolymers are required? Why can't early replication systems be sloppy? Indeed, it seems unlikely that they would be as rigid as the fully developed ones.

I tend to agree that metabolism first is less likely, not that he gave persuasive arguments as to why it is impossible. And he barely touched on membrane first models, so his claim that they are unworkable is simply a bald assertion.

Next, he tries to turn successful experiments on their head. For example, he takes lab based success in producing biological monomers or catalytic RNA as *supporting* intelligent design because a scientist was involved in the experiment. Well, you can't beat that argument. If you cannot produce the result in the lab, that's evidence against natural abiogenesis. And if you can produce the result in the lab, that's evidence against natural abiogenesis because an intelligent agent, the scientist, was required to make the experiment happen.

Even if abiogenesis happened somewhere on earth within 10,000 years of its cooling enough to support liquid water, that's still a process much too slow to expect to happen in a dish in the lab without any manipulation.

He uses enough scientific terms and squeezes in enough true statements (though the true statements do not support his argument) that if you don't know anything much about biology or chemistry you might be fooled into thinking he was making a scientific argument. He's not. His argument boils down to - we don't see how it could have happened naturally, therefore God made it. At least he is genuine about his religious conclusion though. No nonsense about some unspecified designer. (You may not have gotten just how extravagantly unscientific it would be for a scientist to conclude that he had irrefutable evidence that life was designed, and then suddenly to lose all interest in questions about who actually did the designing, and how, and when, and where). Your guy, at least, is plain that he is trying to argue for the existence of God.

[jillery]

On Fri, 16 May 2014 15:15:01 +0100, alias Ernest Major
<{$to$}@meden.demon.co.ukl> wrote:

>>> To sum up. I do think that the design argument is generally just a dressed up version of God of the Gaps. There is, however, nothing intrinsically unscientific in hypothesizing that life was designed. It's just that nobody making that claim seems remotely interested in asking scientific questions about exactly how it happened.
>>
>>
>> Excellent post. A topic that explored how a design inference can be a
>> valid scientific hypothesis would be interesting.
>>
>Several years ago I proposed that the Intelligent Design hypothesis does
>not predict that genomes form a non-arbitrary nested hierarchy, and that
>ID's backers should be funding genome sequencing to investigate whether
>they do. (Other people have gone and done the work in the interim.)

On a related note, I can't resist pointing out that Michael Behe
admitted, in his testimony at the Dover trial, that there are no
peer-reviewed articles which show how ID in biological systems occurs,
or supports his assertions that the bacterial flagellum, the
blood-clotting cascade, or the immune system are examples of ID, or
that any biological systems are irreducibly complex, or of any
scientific research or testing. I am no expert, but to the best of my
knowledge, all of the above remain true at stated, almost a decade
later.

[broger...@gmail.com]

On Friday, May 16, 2014 11:45:53 AM UTC-4, anonymousgeniu...@gmail.com wrote:

>

> For example, if we looked at Jupiter and all of its light colored and dark colored swirling clouds suddenly formed letters that spelled out "Helo, my name is Jupiter" in perfect Arial Font I think everyone would conclude that intelligence was involved. According to basic physics, there is nothing preventing the light colored gasses and dark colored gasses from happening to arrange themselves in such a pattern yet the probability of it occurring is so low that we would conclude that intelligence was involved.

Just as an aside. Asking for an English word is asking for a lot. If you saw a perfect hexagon with each side 8600 miles long in the clouds of Jupiter, would you conclude that it was designed?



>
>

[Roger Shrubber]

broger...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Friday, May 16, 2014 1:03:43 PM UTC-4, anonymousgeniu...@gmail.com
> wrote:
>
>> For the second time, I am not interested in discussing the content
>> only your informed opinion on whether or not it represents
>> legitimate science. My guess is that you cannot answer yes because
>> that would legitimize design (what would people think). But you
>> cannot answer no, because that would be disparaging a fellow
>> Biologist (what would people think). So instead you deflect the
>> issue. How political of you. You should run for public office.
>
> OK. I watched your guy. What he says does not represent legitimate
> science. No. Since you say you are not in a position to discuss his
> arguments, I suppose I should just leave it there. But...

Since you have endured the pain, is it worth watching?
You can readily anticipate my expectations, and they are
not of enlightenment. Rather, are they potentially worth
refuting? You have been doing the heavy lifting in addressing
worthless claims for reasons that are clearly distinct from
the merits of the claims. But I won't watch such a long
winded video without cause, the repercussions of enduring
that sort of video impacts on my liver.

[broger...@gmail.com]

On Friday, May 16, 2014 6:20:03 PM UTC-4, Roger Shrubber wrote:

>
> Since you have endured the pain, is it worth watching?
>
> You can readily anticipate my expectations, and they are
>
> not of enlightenment. Rather, are they potentially worth
>
> refuting? You have been doing the heavy lifting in addressing
>
> worthless claims for reasons that are clearly distinct from
>
> the merits of the claims. But I won't watch such a long
>
> winded video without cause, the repercussions of enduring
>
> that sort of video impacts on my liver.

No. It's not very interesting. I've noticed that you are quite patient in making detailed refutations of very poor arguments, so I suppose you might like it, but really, there's nothing much there.

[Roger Shrubber]

I thank you and my liver thanks you. Given that the erstwhile
protagonist does not appear to be competent to engage in anything
approaching scientific content, the didactic value of an exchange
is unlikely.

[jillery]

On Fri, 16 May 2014 14:31:01 -0700 (PDT), broger...@gmail.com
wrote:

>On Friday, May 16, 2014 11:45:53 AM UTC-4, anonymousgeniu...@gmail.com wrote:
>
>>
>> For example, if we looked at Jupiter and all of its light colored and dark colored swirling clouds suddenly formed letters that spelled out "Helo, my name is Jupiter" in perfect Arial Font I think everyone would conclude that intelligence was involved. According to basic physics, there is nothing preventing the light colored gasses and dark colored gasses from happening to arrange themselves in such a pattern yet the probability of it occurring is so low that we would conclude that intelligence was involved.
>
>Just as an aside. Asking for an English word is asking for a lot. If you saw a perfect hexagon with each side 8600 miles long in the clouds of Jupiter, would you conclude that it was designed?

Yabbut how intelligent can it be when it addresses a message to "Helo"
that everbody can see 8-)

[Mark Isaak]

On 5/16/14 11:19 AM, anonymousgeniu...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> Little cells are little machines. We know machines are designed.

We also know that some machines are not designed. You out-and-out lie
by leaving out that fact.

Now look closer at the history of any of your favorite man-made
machines. You will find that the machines have evolved.

> Therefore if we can show that natural laws cannot have produced
> cells it is valid to conclude that they are designed just like any
> other amazing little machine we would happen to find.

We can rather trivially show that cells can be produced without
violating any natural laws. I have produced many millions of them myself.

--
Mark Isaak eciton (at) curioustaxonomy (dot) net
"Keep the company of those who seek the truth; run from those who have
found it." - Vaclav Havel

[anonymousgeniu...@gmail.com]

On Friday, May 16, 2014 3:38:53 PM UTC-5, broger...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Friday, May 16, 2014 1:03:43 PM UTC-4, anonymousgeniu...@gmail.com wrote:
>
>
>
> >
>
> > Fine. Then let's just say that the material products of each successive step must exist in an abundant supply to precede to the next step. The point is that you are not advocating that a couple amino acids happened to form but that many of them formed and persisted. The same for each step in the process.
>
>
>
> Yes, there needs to be some local environment in which the concentrations of these things can get high enough to be useful. There used to be arguments about concentration by evaporation in tidal pools, adsorption to clays, even concentration by storage of the monomers as polymers - this is an early idea for how RNA precursors might accumulate in proteinoid microspheres. It's an interesting problem.
>
> >
>
>
>
> > > I'm patient. Postulating miracles has never been scientifically very fruitful. And again your argument is veering towards God of the Gaps by depending on what science hasn't figured out, rather than on direct evidence for your own model.
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > Postulating miracles....good one. How about giving valid reasoning why the probability of life occurring is very low, the central point of the entire issue that you entirely ignored. You don't want to address any argument regarding the low probability of life forming but instead want to focus on the intent of the designer. Exactly the point of my original post: Genius Design, God of Gaps, Authority and Burden of Proof
>
>
>
> Hold on, before you go off addressing my (guessed at motivations) how about you speaking to the "central point of the issue that I entirely ignored." What is the evidence that the probability of life occurring by natural processes is very low? You have not presented any such evidence at all. All you've presented is the analogy to machines. I repeat, that analogy is a perfectly fine motivation for a hypothesis or an experiment, but it is not itself evidence of anything at all. So if you have evidence that life cannot form according to natural processes, you have yet to show it.

I did show it.
Simplified it looks like this:
1) We don't see life spontaneously forming
2) Even when science tries it cannot figure it out
3) Each step in the many step process for the evolution of life should not take much time once the conditions are correct.

#3 explains why you cannot just keep saying "but it took a very long time for nature to evolve cells". That would make sense overall but not for a given step. So we should expect to see continuous progress since Miller-Urey, step by step. And we should expect to see computer models that show these steps.


Furthermore, the part that I did not say here but is nevertheless completely valid, is that complex number spaces grow very quickly. For example, the number of images that are possible on a common office printer is a number will a million digits. Compare that to the estimated number of atoms in the Universe at a measly 80 digits or the age of the universe in plank time units coming in at under 100 digits.

What I find hypocritical, dishonest and "non-science" is how the people that run science rarely talk about these kinds of numbers and the argument that I presented above. Any data that is contrary to the belief that living cells formed all by themselves is simply dismissed from the discussion. That is not science, it is indoctrination.




[snip]

[broger...@gmail.com]

On Saturday, May 17, 2014 10:08:18 AM UTC-4, anonymousgeniu...@gmail.com wrote:


>
> I did show it.
>
> Simplified it looks like this:
>
> 1) We don't see life spontaneously forming

Models of abiogenesis do not predict that we will observe life forming spontaneously. We also do not see genius designers building life.

>
> 2) Even when science tries it cannot figure it out

Here you go again. You keep getting closer and closer to God of the Gaps. You are correct that science has not figured out how natural process got life started. On the other hand, science has gotten a lot farther down that road than design advocates, who offer absolutely no specifics or hypotheses about who the designer is, or how, where, or when he did his design and manufacturing of life.

>
> 3) Each step in the many step process for the evolution of life should not take much time once the conditions are correct.

How on earth do you know that? Even if true, it may well be the case that we've not figured out what the required conditions are.

>
>
>
> #3 explains why you cannot just keep saying "but it took a very long time for nature to evolve cells". That would make sense overall but not for a given step. So we should expect to see continuous progress since Miller-Urey, step by step. And we should expect to see computer models that show these steps.

Why do you think we should see continuous step by step progress in the research? That's rarely how science works. We don't know the answer, remember?

Indeed, the problem is that we do not know what the steps were. We only have general ideas about what large steps were required, and evidence about the plausibility of models of how those steps happened. If you think the evidence is that there must have been a designer, go ahead and suggest models and experiments based on a designer. In the meanwhile, scientists will keeping trying to understand natural abiogenesis.

> Furthermore, the part that I did not say here but is nevertheless completely valid, is that complex number spaces grow very quickly. For example, the number of images that are possible on a common office printer is a number will a million digits. Compare that to the estimated number of atoms in the Universe at a measly 80 digits or the age of the universe in plank time units coming in at under 100 digits.
>
>
>
> What I find hypocritical, dishonest and "non-science" is how the people that run science rarely talk about these kinds of numbers and the argument that I presented above. Any data that is contrary to the belief that living cells formed all by themselves is simply dismissed from the discussion. That is not science, it is indoctrination.

I'm not sure why you find it hypocritical that "scientists rarely talk about these kinds of numbers." Raising numbers to high exponential powers is easy. Scientists do it all the time, when it is relevant. But it is not relevant to the origin of life. If you want to make an argument against abiogenesis you have to argue why those numbers matter.

And once again, faced with a mass of people who reject your argument, your immediate recourse is to the claim that they are indoctrinated. That's just too convenient.

It should be obvious, but I am just not remotely convinced by your argument that natural processes could not lead to the origin of life. In fact, science has a very, very hard time identifying things that are really impossible. The closest candidates might be building a perpetual motion machine or sending a message at greater than the speed of light. Those things are pretty clearly impossible because they violate very well established laws of physics.

And note that nobody concluded that a perpetual motion machine or faster then light travel was impossible because nobody had yet succeeded in making it happen. They concluded it was impossible because it would violate very well-established, fundamental principles of thermodynamics or relativity.

So what is the deep, fundamental physical law that prevents naturally occurring chemistry from leading to life? All you've offered so far is the failure of science to provide a detailed pathway. That's just God of the Gaps again. You need some positive evidence for the designer apart from the failure of science to settle on a convincing model of abiogenesis.

[anonymousgeniu...@gmail.com]

Where do you draw the line in determining what is clearly designed? This is exactly the point in classifying design based upon what we observe.

The more we go back and forth the more one thing is clear: there is no getting past indoctrination. Here is my opinion:

Atheists turn to atheism because religion is so stupid and terrible. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to see all of the atrocities from religion. The list of direct contradictions in the Bible is very long and I'm not even talking about things that don't make sense like people turning into pillars of salt or walking around in ovens. I'm talking about direct contradictions where both things cannot be true at once. Like saying Mary was a virgin when Jesus was born but then saying that the lineage from Adam to Joseph proves the bloodline of Jesus. Makes no sense.

But to people who believe it does not matter in the least. They believe it anyway and no amount of evidence and logic will cause them to believe otherwise.

There is something inside people that make them this way, possibly relating to the survival value of being part of a group. Considering the vast history of this type of irrational behavior I regularly question whether I am under this "spell of irrationality". I logically reject the idea that I am because:
1) I know of no other individual person who shares even the basic premise of my belief
2) I am communicate best with computers rather than people
3) I continually evaluate my reasoning
4) I think all groups in power corrupt the truth for their own benefit
5) I once believed in science but now I just don't trust authority period. I question everything it says and only evaluate something as true if it makes sense on its own.


I see #4 as certainly including religion but also including science. But here is the part that no amount of logic and reasoning can get past. You want to believe that science is different than religion. You want to believe that highly impressionable young people are drawing their own conclusions based on all the evidence. You want to believe that you did the same to reach your own conclusions. You want to but you do not. You cannot.

Unlike the majority of people in "Talk origins" you have the ability to actually apply reasoning rather than simply chant in a mantra. Of course, most of the time you do simply chant endlessly just like they do. But occasionally, we get a glimpse of a real live human inside there who is capable of following logical conclusions even when they are outside the "groupthink". Like when you wrote this:


BEGIN QUOTE:
And because I actually do understand the detailed mechanisms that make them work, I see that, as far down as you look, all you see are physical laws. Look at an enzyme, any enzyme of intermediary metabolism. Any one of them is in itself a remarkable "machine" accelerating a particular chemical reaction by thousands-fold. As an undergraduate I worked in a chemistry lab that synthesised stable analogs of unstable reaction intermediates to figure out how a particular enzyme (phosphodiesterase) works. It's a very intricate story of how the particular 3-d structure of the enzyme active site and bound magnesium ions stabilize a particular unstable intermediate and lower the activation energy required for hydrolysis. It is beautiful and complicated and "machine-like" and it all follows the laws of chemistry and thermodynamics.

That's one tiny example. But there are many, many more. The electron transfer chain in the mitochondrion, the opening and closing of ion channels in a nerve cell in response to the binding of a neurotransmitter, the release of protein complexes from Entamoeba histolytica to punch holes in the membrane of colonic epithelial cells. Seriously, you can go on for ever. And every single time you study one of these systems in detail, all you see are the laws of physics and chemistry working themselves out.

It is indeed amazing that these things have evolved, really amazing. If you don't look at the details but just have a general idea that cells are unbelievably complex, and maybe look at an article on the proteins of the bacterial flagellum, without understanding much but that there are lots of interacting proteins involved, you may understandably think, "Wow, this is amazing, it can't have evolved without being designed." That's a totally understandable reaction. But when you spend the time to get down to the very detailed details, all you see are simple laws of chemistry and physics working themselves out in complex situations. It is impressive, amazing, inspiring, indeed, but there's no trace of anything other than natural laws.
END QUOTE:


Here we see a glimpse back to a young man who wanted to know the truth before he turned into an older man who is set in his ways. Yet you can still calculate, so use that ability. Not to convince the knuckle draggers that hang on your words around here. But to convince yourself.

Forget our debate about whether natural laws can explain the origin of the cell or about what should be taught in schools.

You SEE the design. Just like I do. It doesn't matter what you write to the contrary for the benefit of others, I know you see it.

But you cannot keep your attention on it because of your animosity of all of those religious idiots. Just because they all say that they represent whoever designed this place does not mean that they do. Fighting against a bunch of idiots will never lead you to the truth. Yet that is the fuel that drives you and all the others here: Fighting religion.

Yet in this zeal to fight religion, you are turning into them. You don't want to believe this but, again, you can directly calculate that it always works out like this. And in order to keep from turning into what they are, you fight harder....and become more like them. This is one of your greatest fears clearly displayed in your writing.

I was once like you and believed as you did. Then I looked at the design right in front of me. Let go of the hate and you can too. Once you see it, it opens your mind to a whole new world that can have real benefits in this world. Good luck.

[broger...@gmail.com]

I am not interested in trying to figure out your motivations. It doesn't matter to me whether you thought them up yourself or scooped them up from a intelligent design or creationist website, whether you find them attractive because they fit with some idiosyncratic religious view, whether you are a thoroughly indoctrinated YEC, or enjoy thinking you've noticed something scientists are too blind to see, or just reach these arguments by your best attempt at clear reasoning. It does not matter. I just do not find them convincing. You are utterly free to attribute that to my indoctrination, if you like. I think that's laying a bit of a flattering unction to your soul, but there's nothing I can do about that.

[anonymousgeniu...@gmail.com]

say what you want for the benefit of those reading but you do not fool me

[Bob Casanova]

On Fri, 16 May 2014 15:47:09 -0400, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by jillery <69jp...@gmail.com>:

I'd agree if I hadn't just nominated one by Ron Okimoto.

Let the campaign begin!

[Bob Casanova]

On Fri, 16 May 2014 10:28:07 -0700 (PDT), the following
appeared in talk.origins, posted by Inez
<savagem...@hotmail.com>:

>Scientists disparage each other all the time. It's like they're second favorite thing to do after drinking beer.

I'd ask what their *most* favorite thing to do is after
drinking beer, but we probably shouldn't get into that...

[RSNorman]

On Sat, 17 May 2014 12:50:44 -0700, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off>
wrote:

>On Fri, 16 May 2014 10:28:07 -0700 (PDT), the following
>appeared in talk.origins, posted by Inez
><savagem...@hotmail.com>:
>
>>Scientists disparage each other all the time. It's like they're second favorite thing to do after drinking beer.
>
>I'd ask what their *most* favorite thing to do is after
>drinking beer, but we probably shouldn't get into that...

It isn't usually a "favorite" but the classic reason for animal
physiologists to drink beer is to do yet another experimental test of
the hypothesis that ethanol inhibits the release of the hormone ADH
from the posterior pituitary gland. The experimental data consists of
determining the volume of fluid released by the kidneys. Usually a
qualitative estimate of volume from the duration of urethral flow is
sufficient to prove the hypothesis. The main problem is finding a
subject to be the control.

[Robert Carnegie]

On Saturday, 17 May 2014 20:50:44 UTC+1, Bob Casanova wrote:
> On Fri, 16 May 2014 10:28:07 -0700 (PDT), the following
> appeared in talk.origins, posted by Inez
> <savagem...@hotmail.com>:
> >Scientists disparage each other all the time. It's like they're
> >second favorite thing to do after drinking beer.
>
> I'd ask what their *most* favorite thing to do is after
> drinking beer, but we probably shouldn't get into that...

Of course, Inez meant to say "Approximately speaking, it is
their second favourite thing to do; drinking beer is the first."

I don't think she meant it to be taken literally, and it
shouldn't be.

If you have drunk a lot of beer, then I think I know what
you will most want to do, afterwards.

[broger...@gmail.com]

On Saturday, May 17, 2014 4:31:54 PM UTC-4, Robert Carnegie wrote:

>
>
> If you have drunk a lot of beer, then I think I know what
>
> you will most want to do, afterwards.

Port. Faith, sir, we were carousing till the second cock; and drink,
sir, is a great provoker of three things.
Macd. What three things does drink especially provoke?
Port. Marry, sir, nose-painting, sleep and urine. Lechery, sir, it provokes, and unprovokes; it provokes the desire, but it takes away the performance; therefore, much drink may be said to be an equivocator with lechery: it makes him, and it mars him; it sets him on, and it takes him off; it persuades him, and disheartens him; makes him stand to, and not stand to; in conclusion, equivocates him in a sleep, and, giving him the lie, leaves him.

[Nick Roberts]

In the Not Really Self-Referential At All department:

> say what you want for the benefit of those reading but you do not fool me

--
Nick Roberts tigger @ orpheusinternet.co.uk

Hanlon's Razor: Never attribute to malice that which
can be adequately explained by stupidity.

[jillery]

On Sat, 17 May 2014 13:31:54 -0700 (PDT), Robert Carnegie
<rja.ca...@excite.com> wrote:

>On Saturday, 17 May 2014 20:50:44 UTC+1, Bob Casanova wrote:
>> On Fri, 16 May 2014 10:28:07 -0700 (PDT), the following
>> appeared in talk.origins, posted by Inez
>> <savagem...@hotmail.com>:
>> >Scientists disparage each other all the time. It's like they're
>> >second favorite thing to do after drinking beer.
>>
>> I'd ask what their *most* favorite thing to do is after
>> drinking beer, but we probably shouldn't get into that...
>
>Of course, Inez meant to say "Approximately speaking, it is
>their second favourite thing to do; drinking beer is the first."
>
>I don't think she meant it to be taken literally, and it
>shouldn't be.

Do you really think anybody took it literally?

[Robert Carnegie]

On Saturday, 17 May 2014 23:49:42 UTC+1, jillery wrote:
> On Sat, 17 May 2014 13:31:54 -0700 (PDT), Robert Carnegie
> <rja.ca...@excite.com> wrote:
> >On Saturday, 17 May 2014 20:50:44 UTC+1, Bob Casanova wrote:
> >> On Fri, 16 May 2014 10:28:07 -0700 (PDT), the following
> >> appeared in talk.origins, posted by Inez
> >> <savagem...@hotmail.com>:
> >> >Scientists disparage each other all the time. It's like they're
> >> >second favorite thing to do after drinking beer.
> >>
> >> I'd ask what their *most* favorite thing to do is after
> >> drinking beer, but we probably shouldn't get into that...
> >
> >Of course, Inez meant to say "Approximately speaking, it is
> >their second favourite thing to do; drinking beer is the first."
> >
> >I don't think she meant it to be taken literally, and it
> >shouldn't be.
>
> Do you really think anybody took it literally?

Wilful misinterpretation often happens here. In fact,
it just did.

[jillery]

On Sat, 17 May 2014 16:22:37 -0700 (PDT), Robert Carnegie

Some people make a distinction between willful misinterpretation and
whimsy. YMMV

[anonymousgeniu...@gmail.com]

On Saturday, May 17, 2014 5:49:42 PM UTC-5, jillery wrote:
> On Sat, 17 May 2014 13:31:54 -0700 (PDT), Robert Carnegie
>
> <rja.ca...@excite.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> >On Saturday, 17 May 2014 20:50:44 UTC+1, Bob Casanova wrote:
>
> >> On Fri, 16 May 2014 10:28:07 -0700 (PDT), the following
>
> >> appeared in talk.origins, posted by Inez
>
> >> <savagem...@hotmail.com>:
>
> >> >Scientists disparage each other all the time. It's like they're
>
> >> >second favorite thing to do after drinking beer.
>
> >>
>
> >> I'd ask what their *most* favorite thing to do is after
>
> >> drinking beer, but we probably shouldn't get into that...
>
> >
>
> >Of course, Inez meant to say "Approximately speaking, it is
>
> >their second favourite thing to do; drinking beer is the first."
>
> >
>
> >I don't think she meant it to be taken literally, and it
>
> >shouldn't be.
>
>
>
>
>
> Do you really think anybody took it literally?
>
>

Do you mean "literally" literally or just literally?

[jillery]

Ask Robert.

[Mike Dworetsky]

And you may also remember that during cross examination Behe was presented
with a stack of journal papers that did explain how such "irreducibly
complex" systems could evolve, but he said he simply had not had time to
read them. How does one quantify willful ignorance?

The Templeton Foundation would be pleased (I think) to consider grant
applications for "serious" research into intelligent design, so why haven't
any of its advocates applied for a grant?

--
Mike Dworetsky

(Remove pants sp*mbl*ck to reply)

[Robert Carnegie]

I don't see what "literally" could mean in this context
other than "literally".

I am still confident that the correct interpretation of
the remark is as a whimsical statement about scientists'
first and second favourite things to do. Also, that
"they're" ought to have been "their", but that could
happen to anyone - I think; it frequently happens to me.

[jillery]

Yeppers. That episode is on Ken Miller's highlight reel:

<https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lxf9-_kz58A&index=8&list=PL29E681EB1799AA2F>

>The Templeton Foundation would be pleased (I think) to consider grant
>applications for "serious" research into intelligent design, so why haven't
>any of its advocates applied for a grant?

That question is the basis of Ron O's bait-and-switch thesis.

[jillery]

On Sun, 18 May 2014 03:21:32 -0700 (PDT), Robert Carnegie

Exactly who do you think you're arguing with?

[Robert Carnegie]

With anyone who thinks that we need to keep talking about it.

[jillery]

On Sun, 18 May 2014 17:28:00 -0700 (PDT), Robert Carnegie

<rja.ca...@excite.com> wrote:

>On Sunday, 18 May 2014 16:47:30 UTC+1, jillery wrote:
>> On Sun, 18 May 2014 03:21:32 -0700 (PDT), Robert Carnegie
>> <rja.ca...@excite.com> wrote:
>> >I am still confident that the correct interpretation of
>> >the remark is as a whimsical statement about scientists'
>> >first and second favourite things to do. Also, that
>> >"they're" ought to have been "their", but that could
>> >happen to anyone - I think; it frequently happens to me.
>>
>> Exactly who do you think you're arguing with?
>
>With anyone who thinks that we need to keep talking about it.

So you're arguing with yourself, which is what I thought.

[Bob Casanova]

On Sat, 17 May 2014 13:31:54 -0700 (PDT), the following
appeared in talk.origins, posted by Robert Carnegie
<rja.ca...@excite.com>:

>On Saturday, 17 May 2014 20:50:44 UTC+1, Bob Casanova wrote:
>> On Fri, 16 May 2014 10:28:07 -0700 (PDT), the following
>> appeared in talk.origins, posted by Inez
>> <savagem...@hotmail.com>:
>> >Scientists disparage each other all the time. It's like they're
>> >second favorite thing to do after drinking beer.
>>
>> I'd ask what their *most* favorite thing to do is after
>> drinking beer, but we probably shouldn't get into that...
>
>Of course, Inez meant to say "Approximately speaking, it is
>their second favourite thing to do; drinking beer is the first."
>
>I don't think she meant it to be taken literally, and it
>shouldn't be.

Nor did I; my response was intended as a mild joke.

>If you have drunk a lot of beer, then I think I know what
>you will most want to do, afterwards.

Based on extensive experience I'd guess that what I'd most
*want* to do would differ from what I'd feel the most *need*
to do; YMMV.

[Bob Casanova]

On Sat, 17 May 2014 14:03:06 -0700 (PDT), the following
appeared in talk.origins, posted by broger...@gmail.com:

I'll go with "Have Some Madeira, M'Dear".

[Bob Casanova]

On Sun, 18 May 2014 09:06:02 +0100, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by "Mike Dworetsky"
<plati...@pants.btinternet.com>:

One should not attempt to quantify it; rather one should
slap it upside the head with a dead mackerel, preferably one
weighing at least 10 pounds. Hard. And repeatedly.

>The Templeton Foundation would be pleased (I think) to consider grant
>applications for "serious" research into intelligent design, so why haven't
>any of its advocates applied for a grant?

I love rhetorical questions... ;-)

[Walter Bushell]

In article <vr2ln9dqr7r047jim...@4ax.com>,

Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off> wrote:

> >The Templeton Foundation would be pleased (I think) to consider grant
> >applications for "serious" research into intelligent design, so why haven't
> >any of its advocates applied for a grant?
>
> I love rhetorical questions... ;-)

Rhetorically speaking, what if there were no rhetorical questions?

--
Never attribute to stupidity that which can be explained by greed. Me.

[Walter Bushell]

In article <qj2ln9lckf9p3jfhk...@4ax.com>,

Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off> wrote:

> Based on extensive experience I'd guess that what I'd most
> *want* to do would differ from what I'd feel the most *need*
> to do; YMMV.

If you're prohibited from doing what you need to do long enough it
moves up your desire hierarchy.

[Bob Casanova]

On Sat, 31 May 2014 09:50:36 -0400, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by Walter Bushell <pr...@panix.com>:

>In article <qj2ln9lckf9p3jfhk...@4ax.com>,
> Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off> wrote:
>
>> Based on extensive experience I'd guess that what I'd most
>> *want* to do would differ from what I'd feel the most *need*
>> to do; YMMV.
>
>If you're prohibited from doing what you need to do long enough it
>moves up your desire hierarchy.

Since this is so old that I misremember the snipped context
I'll refrain from commenting on the content.