By their fruits Nov 2015

[RonO]

This just the usual By their fruits thread. It is just a list of TO
posters that have a beef with the science. They are nearly all
creationists of one type or another. For some reason many of them still
try to support IDiocy at this late date. You can get on Google Groups
and search for "By their fruits" and bring up a lot of the past threads
in this series. Anyone can click on the links and go to the pull down
menu and look up the recent activity of these posters using Google
Groups to get all the posts that you can stand to read from them. These
are the defenders of whatever faith they claim to be defending. What is
weird is that you hardly ever find them defending their alternative.
Everyone knows that they have one, but it is likely too whacked to even
put forward for rational discussion.

I just pick posts as I find them and if the post is too badly off I pick
another so that I can't be accused of cherry picking. I basically go
though a couple of weeks of active threads to find them, so I may miss some.

For some reason Kleinman started posting again:
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/talk.origins/0NwX-o6sFhw/MBjldXhlAwAJ

Jonathan:
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/talk.origins/0NwX-o6sFhw/vRim3WFtAwAJ

Dale claims to now be an agnostic:
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/talk.origins/ZmIPBmuQbNM/rJjX2HM7AwAJ

Glenn still snipes from time to time:
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/talk.origins/R2Wn5AW3NnQ/zk8PvH1cAwAJ

Ray:
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/talk.origins/K5ub9WU94Nc/xDUne2fhDAAJ

Nyikos:
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/talk.origins/K5ub9WU94Nc/0EuMhoptBQAJ

Bill:
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/talk.origins/K5ub9WU94Nc/SCq0WHAvDQAJ

Grasso:
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/talk.origins/dSxg8tmalBo/7ajCeJ1rCwAJ

R. Dean:
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/talk.origins/dSxg8tmalBo/T5aGNXALBwAJ

Steady Eddie:
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/talk.origins/dSxg8tmalBo/8uf74u0hCQAJ

Someone:
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/talk.origins/nhqCiF2Zbs8/nsBjKXTFBAAJ

abhiriksh:
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/talk.origins/dFsSdtL7FIA/zj55OjyzBwAJ

Kalkidas:
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/talk.origins/KRV28OR4w78/OkDs3P3ECQAJ

Hines ?:
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/talk.origins/zAVOUW69aLc/Lya2kHTFEAAJ

Post and run:
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/talk.origins/um6XscjIu-8/L868Xgp5CAAJ

I found the thread where IDiots should be discussing their alternatives,
but just continue to run from reality. Why isn't doing the science that
can be done not an option? Why are they all satisfied with arguments
that are all worse than what they claim is not good enough? Why not
work on efforts where they could at least equal the existing science?

https://groups.google.com/d/msg/talk.origins/v9WcGvAKTY0/noTwZV8JCQAJ

Ron Okimoto

[Bill]

It's obvious that you have mastery over your own opinions, but you seem
incapable of comprehending other opinions. Maybe if you provide your
credentials as an expert on the topics wherein you pose as an expert, there
might be some basis for taking you seriously.

Bill

[Ray Martinez]

On Saturday, November 14, 2015 at 6:24:25 AM UTC-8, Ron O wrote:
> This just the usual By their fruits thread. It is just a list of TO
> posters that have a beef with the science.

Not true at all.

Our beef is with evolution, not science. Creationists invented science. Evolution is an off-shoot, wayward branch, or schism. And Ron Okimoto is probably one of the nuttiest Evolutionists around. He quote-mines a phrase found in the New Testament "by their fruits" as his topic title. In other words he resorts to the main source of Creationism (the Bible) to defend evolution.

Ray

[....]

[RonO]

I don't have to worry about that Bill, because no one with a brain takes
you seriously.

Where are those ID scientists and their ID science? You know the IDiots
that aren't associated with the Discovery Institute ID creationist scam
unit that have the real ID science.

What about putting up your IDiot alternative and testing the parts that
can be tested?

Why is this kind of post all that you can do?

Ron Okimoto

[jillery]

<PING> Dang it!
--
This space is intentionally not blank.

[Rolf]

"Ray Martinez" <pyram...@yahoo.com> skrev i melding
news:0f526208-ee98-4d8c...@googlegroups.com...

Says the nuttiest creationist of them all.

They like most everoyne else, may have had some faith in the fairytales of
scripture, but many of them discovered that the world was not quite what the
church wanted them to believe. They used their brains, studied nature and
discovered thy'd been lied to. The Earth was not the center of the entire
world with perfect celestial spheres, planets in epicycles, it was just one
of the satellites to an ordinary sun.

Their creationism didn't prevent them from using their brains.

Thales of Miletus invented science.

Thales attempted to explain natural phenomena without reference to
mythology. Almost all of the other Pre-Socratic philosophers follow him in
attempting to provide an explanation of ultimate substance, change, and the
existence of the world without reference to mythology.
In mathematics, Thales used geometry to calculate the heights of pyramids
and the distance of ships from the shore. He is the first known individual
to use deductive reasoning applied to geometry, by deriving four corollaries
to Thales' Theorem. He is the first known individual to whom a mathematical
discovery has been attributed.[3]

I found the above at Wikipedia; if you persist with what you've claimed
before, that Wikipedia is untrustworthy there are enough other sources
available to enlighten you.

The ancient Greeks were not creationists; they invented philosophy and
science, they searched for knowledge and understanding.


You appear like you suffer a lack of curiosity, no desire to learn and
understand the world. I am you opposite, since I taught myself to read and
write at four, I left scholl at thirteen with these words from my teacher:
You know everything, except the schoolwork.

I bought my first science book at thirteen. That's where I met
Australopithecus and Peking man, and realized that I had found the beginning
of a story that I wanted to learn everything about: Our origins!

A long time thereafter I dreamed about becoming a palaeontologist but many
other scientific interests diverted me from that route.

What have you accomplished so far in your life, Ray? Have you learned
anything of substance?

You have lost the debate on evolution but I am fully aware of the reason you
are determined to stay on your chosen track for the rest of your life.

Rolf

> Ray
>
> [....]
>

[Bill]

Rolf wrote:

>
>
> "Ray Martinez" <pyram...@yahoo.com> skrev i melding
> news:0f526208-ee98-4d8c...@googlegroups.com...
>> On Saturday, November 14, 2015 at 6:24:25 AM UTC-8, Ron O wrote:
>>> This just the usual By their fruits thread. It is just a list of TO
>>> posters that have a beef with the science.
>>
>> Not true at all.
>>
>> Our beef is with evolution, not science. Creationists invented science.
>> Evolution is an off-shoot, wayward branch, or schism. And Ron Okimoto is
>> probably one of the nuttiest Evolutionists around. He quote-mines a
>> phrase found in the New Testament "by their fruits" as his topic title.

>> In other words he resorts to person of interest the main source of

Creationism (the Bible)
>> to defend evolution.
>>
>
> Says the nuttiest creationist of them all.
>
> They like most everoyne else, may have had some faith in the fairytales
of
> scripture, but many of them discovered that the world was not quite what
> the church wanted them to believe. They used their brains, studied nature
> and discovered thy'd been lied to. The Earth was not the center of the
> entire world with perfect celestial spheres, planets in epicycles, it was
> just one of the satellites to an ordinary sun.
>
> Their creationism didn't prevent them from using their brains.
>
> Thales of Miletus invented science.
>
> Thales attempted to explain natural phenomena without reference to
> mythology. Almost all of the other Pre-Socratic philosophers follow him
in
> attempting to provide an explanation of ultimate substance, change, and
> the existence of the world without reference to mythology.
> In mathematics, Thales used geometry to calculate the heights of pyramids
> and the distance of ships from the shore. He is the first known
individual
> to use deductive reasoning applied to geometry, by deriving four
> corollaries to Thales' Theorem. He is the first known individual to whom
a
> mathematical discovery has been attributed.[3]

It is even more noteworthy that the Greeks did nothing with the knowledge
being sought. In fact, no one until the 17th century advanced the knowledge
of nature. The study of nature was considered a branch of philosophy where
tradition mattered more than discovery.

The Greek philosopher Aristotle became the most authoritative source for
the study of nature, and he was mostly wrong. Since no discernible progress
in knowledge emerged until the 17th century or so, the accomplishments of
the Greeks are little more than an historical curiosity.

>
> I found the above at Wikipedia; if you persist with what you've claimed
> before, that Wikipedia is untrustworthy there are enough other sources
> available to enlighten you.
>
> The ancient Greeks were not creationists; they invented philosophy and
> science, they searched for knowledge and understanding.
>
>
> You appear like you suffer a lack of curiosity, no desire to learn and
> understand the world.

What you seem to have missed is that there was no Scientific Revolution or
Industrial Revolution anywhere in the world at any time by any people. It
wasn't until the 17th century in Europe that science began to matter. It
wasn't until the end of the 18th century that technology began to have any
meaningful impact on society.

This occurred nowhere else, ever. What's most interesting in all this in
that the people doing it were believers in biblical creation, they were all
Christians. The facts, easily verified, almost exactly contradict your
views.

Bill

[Bill]

So you have no credentials demonstrating your competence as an evolutionary
biologist. You pose as an expert by misrepresenting science you don't
understand, characterizing arguments you can't refute, and calling people
names that don't apply.

Bill

[RonO]

Bill your inability to generate any kind of rational argument does not
reflect on me no matter who I am. As it turns out, and others know this
very well I have spent a long time in academia before going into
industry. Just go to Google Scholar and check it out.

https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&q=Ronald+Okimoto&btnG=&as_sdt=1%2C4&as_sdtp=

This was my first publication in the journal of molecular evolution in
1994. I can't remember how many publications I have in that journal, at
least 3 or 4.

http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/BF00160405

Google messes up and puts in publcations from other Okimotos, but if you
are in doubt and you think it is important give me the ref and I'll tell
you if that is me.

So my qualifications obviously do not matter. What matters is that you
never have a valid argument to put forward.

Ron Okimoto

[Ray Martinez]

Since you invoked your credentials the negative statement "So my qualifications obviously do not matter" is throwaway. Your entire case against Bill is based on assertion "supported" by the invalid argument-from-authority: you're right based on credentials.

Ray

[Rolf]

"Bill" <fre...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:n28avq$5g3$1...@dont-email.me...

I am of course aware of all that, but the fact that scientific thinking was
being used long before that is undeniable.
Without the clamp on free thinking imposed by the Church, real scientific
and industrial progress would have taken place much earlier. The term "dark
ages" maybe a bit of an exaggeration but from what I've read that time
didn't have the right climate for what came later.

[Ray Martinez]

Note the fact that Rolf, an Atheist-Evolutionist, uses Wikipedia as a source. Said source epitomizes the unscholarly because anyone with a computer can write an article; this would include any celebrity, your neighbor's uncle, or Lenny Flank's pizza delivery boy.

Ray

[Bill]

It appears that you really do have a suitable academic background. Odd that
it doesn't seem to affect your posts. Maybe you can get a refund ...

Bill

[Bill]

You show a euro-centric bias. If religion was impeding scientific progress,
the Science Revolution should have happened in some non-religious society
somewhere. It never did, anywhere. No society anywhere in human history
ever had a Science Revolution - never.

The only place it happened was in Europe and England when religion was
dominant in society. This revolution began in the 16th century. This mode
of thinking increased steadily but only in Europe and England, nowhere
else. Obviously religion was no impediment to this progress.

It can even be argued that religion was a motive force since it forced
people to think about their world. You're not just a little bit wrong about
the history of science, you're completely wrong.

Bill

[RonO]

Poor Bill befuddled again. No argument and nowhere to go but further down.

Just think what it would be like if you actually had an argument instead
of the assoholic degenerate ploy that you just tried? Being as bad as
you are is really no reflection on me.

Ron Okimoto

[Ray Martinez]

Ron now resorts to using profanity, which is another sign that his credentials are not exhibited in his thinking.

Ray

[Rolf]

"Ray Martinez" <pyram...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:303d7cec-a9d2-4c90...@googlegroups.com...

Credentials matter! Not just by themselves, we see many Dr's., even double
maybe even triple Dr's that obviously use their degrees to make people
believe their arguments beat professional evolution scientists.That's why
the DI loves professional lawyers, they do their best trying to make red
look green by words alone. Much in the same way Ray use homemade definitions
of words.to make them mean what Ray want them to mean in spite of what
common use or professional linguists says.

I trust a Nobel Prize winner in Physics more than Ray in matters of physics.
Physics is the study of how nature works frome both the bottom up and bottom
down. When we take a closer look at that we find that the world is much more
fantastic, magical and wondrous than any creationsit might ever imagine.

That's the creationists problem: He doesn't want to know the real world. His
mind is closed and locked with the keys of religion.

Among my lifelong studies I may also mention religions and the human psyche:
The Bhagavad Gita, The Upanishads, The Dead Sea Scrolls, Albert Schweitzer,
Freud, Jung, Mazlow, R. D. Laing and much more. I've been all over the
"world of science" and human knowledge. I have yet to see a creationist
argument carrying any weight.

I make no argument from authority, I just stand on the shoulders of giants.
The competitive atmosphere in scientific circles is not matched by any
similar attitude among creationsts. YEC's support ID. If you are against
the scientific theory of evolution you are welcome in the big tent of
creationism. "If you are not against us, you are one of us". I don't know
many cases of scientists that I do not trust but Fred Hoyle and
Wickramasinghe are promiinent among them. And the guys that discovered Cold
Fusion.

Rolf

> Ray
>

[Rolf]

"Ray Martinez" <pyram...@yahoo.com> wrote in message

news:86eefe24-3490-4fff...@googlegroups.com...

I don't see why the rather less than subtle character assassination of Ron
shouldn't deserve some free spoken retort.

Seems to me like Ray and Bill walk happily together hand in hand.

> Ray
>

[Bill Rogers]

Ray, it was Bill that asked for credentials. Ron didn't bring them up until he was asked.

[RonO]

I am going to tell a story because it is stupid and upsetting. It
involves a guy named Bill. I openly admit that this Bill may not be the
same Bill as the story progresses. The current Bill has not denied
being that person after I have inquired a couple of times. The story is
just that, the only evidence I have is in the story, and it is in no way
proof of anything, but the pettiness should stop.

Around 2001 I started posting over at the ARN discussion board because I
wanted to see exactly what Intelligent Design was to its supporters.
ARN seems to have been started by the Discovery Institute ID perps as
their sales arm that sold their ID claptrap. You can still buy ID junk
there today like the booklet published in 1999 that was supposed to
support teaching intelligent design in the public schools. I have
quoted out of that booklet and it was still for sale the last time I
checked. ARN used to run an intelligent design discussion board, but the
discussion board is now defunct.

We would get some creationists on TO that would spout the IDiot stuff,
but they obviously didn't know what they were talking about.
Intelligent design had started to make the newspapers and things like
the Santorum "amendment" in the no child left behind bill were claiming
that intelligent design was some type of creation science that could be
taught in the public schools. The Discovery Institute's ID scam wing
had been in operation since the mid 1990s and the Wedge document had
already been exposed. Places like Ohio were heating up and creationists
were starting to claim to be able to teach IDiocy in the public schools.

What I found at ARN was ignorance and incompetence, but what really
upset me was the dishonesty and degenerate behavior of IDiot supporters
that likely knew that ID was just a creationist scam. No ID science
appeared there, and the guys that were claiming to be discussing the ID
science likely understood that. When the bait and switch went down on
the Ohio State School board it should have been a major event at ARN.
This was supposed to be when ID had its day and would be demonstrated to
be the wonderful science that everyone was claiming it to be. The
problem was that instead of getting the promised ID science all the Ohio
creationist rubes got was the obfuscation switch scan that didn't
mention ID nor anything about ID like IC. The bait and switch has gone
down on every IDiot rube legislator or school board that has needed the
ID science since 2002.

It was interesting to note the lack of discussion about the bait and
switch that everyone knew had gone down. No ID science was presented to
be taught. Even with the moderation some of us could note that no ID
science had been put forward. Then Mike Gene released his bomb shell
admission. He admitted that he had given up on teaching the ID claptrap
in the public schools back in 1999 (it was around 2003 when he made that
admission after the Ohio model lesson plan was released and there was no
doubt that the bait and switch had gone down). You have to understand
that Mike Gene was likely the major science advocate on the IDiot side
of the issue at ARN. He was an avid IDiot supporter, but understood
that ID was just a scam. It wasn't what it was claimed to be. I lost
all respect for the ID movement because none of the ID advocates could
accept the reality that they had been handed. They (including Mike
Gene) continued to argue that there was some science to discuss, but
apparently none of them knew what it could be.

Before the bait and switch went down I got into a discussion with
someone named Bill, and he threatened to have a couple of his friends
look me up in Arkansas. My car got vandalized. I was ticked, but I
could not say anything at ARN. You have to understand that ARN was
moderated and heavily biased to IDiocy so there had been no name
calling, just Bill's inability to deal with the facts.

Now, it could be coincidence, but Bill returns and is what he is, and my
mail box that has never been vandalized for over 18 years gets broken
off its stand. Now, I would hope that all of this is just coincidence,
but it should stop.

After my experience with ARN I started calling intelligent design just
what it is "IDiocy." There isn't a single IDiot that can contest the
moniker because there is no ID science and there never was. Guys like
Mike Gene understood that, but it doesn't matter to them. That is what
makes them IDiots.

If any IDiots can be honest with themselves they only had the hope that
some type of intelligent design science might appear, but it never did.
That reality isn't going to change no matter what stupid things that
you want to do.

Ron Okimoto

[Dana Tweedy]

On 11/14/15 12:35 PM, Ray Martinez wrote:
> On Saturday, November 14, 2015 at 6:24:25 AM UTC-8, Ron O wrote:
>> This just the usual By their fruits thread. It is just a list of TO
>> posters that have a beef with the science.
>
> Not true at all.
>
> Our beef is with evolution, not science.

That's just another one of your lies, Ray. Evolution is a scientific
theory, and a well established part of science. You object to the use
of methodological naturalism, which is a necessary component of any
scientific inquiry.

Your 'beef' is with science. Evolution is just the theory that offends
you the most.


> Creationists invented science.

People invented science, Ray. What they invented was a means of
investigating natural events, by use of a process that includes
methodological naturalism.

> Evolution is an off-shoot, wayward branch, or schism.

Exactly how is the scientific theory of evolution not fully scientific?
Please explain how science can operate without making use of
methodological naturalism.

> And Ron Okimoto is probably one of the nuttiest Evolutionists around. He quote-mines a phrase found in the New Testament "by their fruits" as his topic title.

Ray once again shows he doesn't know what the term "quote mining" means.

> In other words he resorts to the main source of Creationism (the Bible) to defend evolution.

The "main source" of creationism is wishful wishful thinking, and
logical fallacies. The Bible itself is not a impediment to science.
Slavish worship of the Bible, and casting off logic and reason is what
makes science impossible.


DJT

[Dana Tweedy]

Note that Ray uses no "sources" at all, except for his own ego.

> Said source epitomizes the unscholarly because anyone with a computer can write an article; this would include any celebrity, your neighbor's uncle, or Lenny Flank's pizza delivery boy.
>

Which does not mean that such an article is wrong. Ray once again
employs the ad hominem fallacy. Attack the person, not the information
being presented.

Wikipedia is and adequate source for general information, but like
anything, care should be used. Wikipedia is as about accurate as any
standard encyclopedia reference.


DJT

[Rolf]

"RonO" <roki...@cox.net> skrev i melding news:n2a4gv$b21$1...@dont-email.me...

>I am going to tell a story because it is stupid and upsetting. It involves
>a guy named Bill. I openly admit that this Bill may not be the same Bill
>as the story progresses. The current Bill has not denied being that person
>after I have inquired a couple of times. The story is just that, the only
>evidence I have is in the story, and it is in no way proof of anything, but
>the pettiness should stop.
>

[snip]

> Before the bait and switch went down I got into a discussion with someone
> named Bill, and he threatened to have a couple of his friends look me up
> in Arkansas. My car got vandalized. I was ticked, but I could not say
> anything at ARN. You have to understand that ARN was moderated and
> heavily biased to IDiocy so there had been no name calling, just Bill's
> inability to deal with the facts.
>
> Now, it could be coincidence, but Bill returns and is what he is, and my
> mail box that has never been vandalized for over 18 years gets broken off
> its stand. Now, I would hope that all of this is just coincidence, but it
> should stop.
>
> After my experience with ARN I started calling intelligent design just
> what it is "IDiocy." There isn't a single IDiot that can contest the
> moniker because there is no ID science and there never was. Guys like
> Mike Gene understood that, but it doesn't matter to them. That is what
> makes them IDiots.
>
> If any IDiots can be honest with themselves they only had the hope that
> some type of intelligent design science might appear, but it never did.
> That reality isn't going to change no matter what stupid things that you
> want to do.
>
> Ron Okimoto
>

I remember the days of the ARN forum. I soon discovered that Mike Gene was a
more civilized kind of ID proponent than most, so I got into debate with
him.
I don't exactly remember his words, but he mentioned being engaged in
developing tools for the study of ID. But he didn't see that as science, so
it seemed he didn't consider ID a subject of science but something of a
different order - whatever that might be.

And as far as I can see, ID never advanced past that stage. It is a clone of
Paley, it's followers genuine cdesignproponentsists. It was designed to be a
wedge, nothing more. But the strategy failed, the high priests Dembski and
Behe failed 100% in their mission. I understand why they never give up; it
is not easy to give up on something you have invested more of yourself in
than you can afford to lose. There's no turning back, you got to run the
gauntlet and hope there still is a light shining at the end of the tunnel.

The position in which we find Dembski today speaks for itself. Once
proclaimed the "Isaac Newton of Information Technology", IIRC now
languishing at a Southern Baptist Seminary or something like that.

(http://scienceblogs.com/goodmath/2006/06/16/dembskis-profound-lack-of-comp/)

It ought perhaps be noted that the DI/Dembski version of ID, as far as I
have been able to understand is that the ID version of the history of life
on earth is consistent with the version painted by mainstream evolutionary
science. The difference lies in how ID has impacted events. The prime
example is what Behe tried to prove with his mousetrap analogy in "Darwin's
Black Box". The triumph of ID over science was exemplified by an analogy
based on the ordinary mousetrap. If one part is missing, the mousetrap
doesn't work. In the same manner, Behe claims that the bacterial flagellum
can not be the result of mutations and natural selection because all the
required mutations have to be present at the same time. Before that, the
genes that would be required would not stay in the genome beacuse they were
of no use.

I don't remember how the ToE camp responded to that, but one argument that
had a ring of probability to it was an analogy with building arches.An arch
can be built with the help of scaffolding. When the arch is complete the
scaffolding may be removed, the arch will support itself. No evidence of the
existence of a scaffold remains. One might say that a linear process need
not be the only viable way for a flagellum to evolve.

[Bill]

Evolution is a legitimate theory derived from legitimate science but that
does not make it the best explanation. There are theories such as string
theory, multiverse theory, parallel universe theory, sociology, psychology,
anthropology theories that are likewise science for the same reasons. In
fact a theory can be about anything, paranormal, UFOs, aliens, etc. and
still be science. The methodology is what makes something science, not the
truth.

Evolution is a conclusion based on a theory that is a conclusion of the
theory. If one posits evolution then one has to explain the relevant data
in the context of the theory. The risk is confirmation bias, ad hoc
hypotheses, and force fitting data. The data is not the problem but rather
how it is interpreted and the more dogmatic the defense, the less
persuasive the defense.

Bill

[Dana Tweedy]

Perhaps not, but until a better explanation is put forth, it will have
to do. Evolution has been very successful in explaining the evidence so
far, and making accurate predictions about what's to come. It's
presently the best explanation available. No one says there can't be a
better explanation, however if there is, it's up to those who propose a
better explanation to show it. Complaining that the current theory
isn't the best explanation, without providing a better one is pointless.

> There are theories such as string
> theory, multiverse theory, parallel universe theory, sociology, psychology,
> anthropology theories that are likewise science for the same reasons. In
> fact a theory can be about anything, paranormal, UFOs, aliens, etc. and
> still be science. The methodology is what makes something science, not the
> truth.

Science is interested in ideas that provide utility, not abstractions
like "the truth"(tm) Evolution is a useful model of reality. It
doesn't matter if you don't like it, or can't accept it. It works well,
for the time being.

>
> Evolution is a conclusion based on a theory that is a conclusion of the
> theory.

No, that species change over time is a fact that's been observed many
times, under both controlled, and uncontrolled conditions. The theory
is what explains and coordinates the observations. No matter how it
happens, genetic changes in populations happen. Species change over
time. The theory of evolution explains that fact, and many more. ID
and Creationism explain nothing.

> If one posits evolution then one has to explain the relevant data
> in the context of the theory.

That's what theories are for, of course. A theory that does not
explain the relevant data is either modified so that it does, or
discarded for a better theory.

> The risk is confirmation bias, ad hoc
> hypotheses, and force fitting data.

Which is why theories are always provisional, and why they are always
tested to see if they fit the evidence. Confirmation bias is always a
problem, but the process of science is to reduce confirmation bias.
Scientists don't get promotions and fame by toeing the party line, but
by challenging the status quo. If evolution were as infirm as
creationists claim, then scientists would be the ones making the
changes, not outsiders who refuse to follow the methodology.

Confirmation bias, of course, runs the other way as well. The only
reason why Creationism and "Intelligent Design" last is because their
proponents live and breathe confirmation bias.

> The data is not the problem but rather
> how it is interpreted and the more dogmatic the defense, the less
> persuasive the defense.

And so far, the most accurate interpretation methodology known is
science. Evolution is not defended dogmatically, it's accepted
scientificaly. If you have evidence that disputes evolution you are
free to present it. That said, you also have to be prepared to show why
your explanation is better, and more useful than the current theory. ID
and Creationism fail precisely because they don't offer a better
explanation.

DJT

[RonO]

There is likely little doubt that Mike Gene was one of the primary IDiot
cheerleaders on ARN. He may have been more circumspect than other
IDiots, but if it was IDiocy he was defending it. After his admission
his arguments became less honest than before in terms of that the
arguments did not change, but you knew that he wasn't making the points
that other IDiots expected him to be making. He was off on some if
maybe argument and not direct.

He knew that ID hadn't developed any science worth the name, but it did
not stop him from defending the claptrap.

>
> And as far as I can see, ID never advanced past that stage. It is a clone of
> Paley, it's followers genuine cdesignproponentsists. It was designed to be a
> wedge, nothing more. But the strategy failed, the high priests Dembski and
> Behe failed 100% in their mission. I understand why they never give up; it
> is not easy to give up on something you have invested more of yourself in
> than you can afford to lose. There's no turning back, you got to run the
> gauntlet and hope there still is a light shining at the end of the tunnel.

The thing is that guys like Mike Gene (it was a pseudonym) associated
with the ID perps. He went to some of their meetings because I recall
the IDiots making a big deal about "Mike Gene" showing up. Mike likely
knew the mission statement of the ID scam unit of the Discovery
Institute and if he disagreed with it that was not apparent. Mike
likely wanted the same thing that the other ID perps wanted.

QUOTE:
Discovery Institute's Center for the Renewal of Science and Culture
seeks nothing less than the overthrow of materialism and its damning
cultural legacies. Bringing together leading scholars from the natural
sciences and those from the humanities and social sciences, the Center
explores how new developments in biology, physics and cognitive science
raise serious doubts about scientific materialism and have re-opened the
case for the supernatural. The Center awards fellowships for original
research, holds conferences, and briefs policymakers about the
opportunities for life after materialism.
END QUOTE:
http://web.archive.org/web/19980114111554/http://discovery.org/crsc/aboutcrsc.html

This was the mission statement that guys like Dembski and Behe signed up
for.

>
> The position in which we find Dembski today speaks for itself. Once
> proclaimed the "Isaac Newton of Information Technology", IIRC now
> languishing at a Southern Baptist Seminary or something like that.
>
> (http://scienceblogs.com/goodmath/2006/06/16/dembskis-profound-lack-of-comp/)

Actually Dembski had an issue with the Christian College that he was
teaching at and had to apologize for some non literal interpretations of
the Bible that he told to his students.

He quit that job and is now full time employee of the Discovery
Institute, as far as I know.

From what was announced at one time the Discovery Institute pays for
his fellowship at some web based lab run by Marks.
http://www.discovery.org/p/32

Richard Sternberg also joined the Discovery Institute full time, but I
don't know what he does. I haven't heard anything since he joined. I
think that he has been at the Discovery Institute for over 5 years now,
but he is keeping a low profile.
http://www.discovery.org/p/531

>
> It ought perhaps be noted that the DI/Dembski version of ID, as far as I
> have been able to understand is that the ID version of the history of life
> on earth is consistent with the version painted by mainstream evolutionary
> science. The difference lies in how ID has impacted events. The prime
> example is what Behe tried to prove with his mousetrap analogy in "Darwin's
> Black Box". The triumph of ID over science was exemplified by an analogy
> based on the ordinary mousetrap. If one part is missing, the mousetrap
> doesn't work. In the same manner, Behe claims that the bacterial flagellum
> can not be the result of mutations and natural selection because all the
> required mutations have to be present at the same time. Before that, the
> genes that would be required would not stay in the genome beacuse they were
> of no use.

I don't think that you can say what these guys believe. They will have
to outline it in no uncertain terms, but that is likely never going to
happen for as long as they can keep scamming the creationist rubes.

>
> I don't remember how the ToE camp responded to that, but one argument that
> had a ring of probability to it was an analogy with building arches.An arch
> can be built with the help of scaffolding. When the arch is complete the
> scaffolding may be removed, the arch will support itself. No evidence of the
> existence of a scaffold remains. One might say that a linear process need
> not be the only viable way for a flagellum to evolve.
>
>

The primary science response to junk like IC and CSI was "So what?"
Once Behe and Dembski produce working tools, they can apply them to
nature and see what they get. Until they do that, they have nothing.
Really, Evoguide's (Evoguide was an IDiot that tried to get other IDiots
to be better than they are) admission that ID had never even gotten into
the ring was 100% correct. No ID science was ever done. The IDiots
have been unable to verify any of their junk. Science isn't just making
junk up and pretending that it means something, but that is all ID ever
was and still is. Nothing about ID made any more progress than their
stupid claims about a new law of thermodynamics that was supposed to
make ID viable. There is no new law of thermodynamics on the books and
CSI and IC exist in that same state.

Ron Okimoto

[Ray Martinez]

How does that change anything?

Ray

[Ray Martinez]

Obviously I said nothing against credentials. Rather, I observed Ron Okimoto used an INVALID argument-from-authority. Note the emphasized term, which implies existence of a valid argument-from-authority.

An invalid argument-from-authority is when a person claims fact or truth based only on possessing credentials. WHEN claims are being challenged one cannot invoke credentials in support of any claim; the same is invalid because facts or what is exists, or what does no exist, is not dependent on credentials.

To his credit, for example, I've never seen John Harshman attempt to use an invalid argument-from-authority.

Ray

[jillery]

On Sun, 15 Nov 2015 18:38:20 +0100, "Rolf" <rolf.a...@tele2.no>
wrote:

I would like to share with you what I think is an excellent response
to Behe's IC:

<https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rW_2lLG9EZM>

In just two minutes, Ken Miller parodies Behe's iconic mousetrap, and
shows that Behe's central thesis, that evolution has no plausible
pathway to create complex systems, is simply wrong, because parts can
be used for other functions.

And here's another twist to Behe's mousetrap:

<http://udel.edu/~mcdonald/mousetrap.html>

John McDonald describes several different ways a mousetrap can be
reduced and still function as a mousetrap.

I understand how arguments like IC, CSI, and Paley's Design analogy
are accepted uncritically by people ignorant of molecular biology, but
people like Michael Behe don't have that excuse.

[Ray Martinez]

All this says is that a credentialed person should reject the concept of "irreducible complexity" existing at the molecular level because almost all credentialed persons do.

What is seen above is a good example of the invalid argument-from-authority: said argument has the fact mentioned wholly supported based on possession of credentials.

Ray

[RonO]

At this point in time it may be still applicable, but a waste of time to
demonstrate how wrong these guys were. The actual ID science was never
accomplished. Behe never even tried to apply IC in any reproducible
format. He only made his basket case claims that if something was IC
that it could not evolve and people were just happy to destroy one
argument after another, when Behe never really made the argument that he
should have made. Behe's type of IC was never tested and verified to
exist in nature. Behe can't do it because of his response to his
critics. He made IC totally untestable and unverifiable. There is no
evidence that I have seen where Behe has tried to define well matched so
that it can be measured and applied to biological systems. There is no
evidence that Behe has ever determined a single unselected step in the
evolution of the flagellum when he claims that the order and number of
unselected steps makes his systems IC. The only thing that matters is
that the ID science was never done. That is why IDiocy is idiocy at
this time.

Just Google "Dembski's fourth law of thermodynamics" Just like IC and
CSI the IDiots proposed something that they could not verify existed in
nature and then claimed that if it did exist evolution would be
impossible. Is there a new fourth law of thermodynamics that Dembski is
world famous for inventing? You can't find any verification for IC, CSI
or the new law of thermodynamics because the ID perps never got around
to doing the actual science.

That is the state of IDiocy at this time. There is no confirmation of
IC, CSI, nor a new law of thermodynamics in science. They just keep
claiming to be developing the tools, but no working tools ever get
developed. That is just a fact. Just try to get Dembski to admit to a
definition of CSI that is testable, or ask him how he has been verifying
the new law of thermodynamics. The ID science never gets done.

Ron Okimoto

[Dana Tweedy]

It shows your assertion that Ron invoked credentials inappropriately is
wrong. Ron stated clearly that his qualifications were not the issue,
but Bill's (not Bill Rogers) inability to put forward a valid argument.

Will you admit you were wrong? (what are the odds?)


DJT

[Dana Tweedy]

Ron did not make any appeal to credentials, or authority. In fact he
stated plainly his credentials did not matter.

>
> An invalid argument-from-authority is when a person claims fact or truth based only on possessing credentials.

That would be, for example claiming someone with a PhD in "Philosophies
of Education" is an authority on religion, science, linguistics, etc, etc.

> WHEN claims are being challenged one cannot invoke credentials in support of any claim; the same is invalid because facts or what is exists, or what does no exist, is not dependent on credentials.

Actually pointing out that someone has an education in a particular
subject does tend to indicate that person opinion is more likely to be
informed. Facts may exist independently from a person's education, but
a person with a relevant education is more likely to be aware of, and
correctly apply those facts.

>
> To his credit, for example, I've never seen John Harshman attempt to use an invalid argument-from-authority.

And to Ray's discredit, he's attempted many times to use invalid
arguments from authority (along with dozens of other logical fallacies).

DJT

[Dana Tweedy]

Actually, Ray, it says that persons should reject Behe's claim
"irreducible complexity" because the example Behe used was indeed
reducible.

What's being refuted here is Behe's claim on evidence. It's not a
statement that anyone with credentials should reject that claim.

> What is seen above is a good example of the invalid argument-from-authority: said argument has the fact mentioned wholly supported based on possession of credentials.

Ray, this would be a good example of how you simply don't understand the
words you try to employ against others. Where exactly is there any
suggestion whatsoever that people should reject Behe's claim simply
because the people who have shown Behe wrong have credentials?


DJT

[jillery]

>All this says is that a credentialed person should reject the concept of "irreducible complexity" existing at the molecular level because almost all credentialed persons do.

My cites above make no reference to authorities. The arguments they
present stand entirely on their own merits.

>What is seen above is a good example of the invalid argument-from-authority: said argument has the fact mentioned wholly supported based on possession of credentials.

You argue as if you believe that academic qualifications in a relevant
field actually disqualify people from presenting a valid argument. A
better assumption is to judge an argument on its merits. Will you do
that?

[TomS]

"On Sun, 15 Nov 2015 21:57:36 -0700, in article
<E9ednYYogcmj_9TL...@giganews.com>, Dana Tweedy stated..."

Isn't the last we heard about Irreducible Complexity that the definition
of it needs some work? The simple "mousetrap" kind of IC was not good
enough. Evolution could easily account for basic IC.


--
God is not a demiurge or a magician - Pope Francis
---Tom S.

[Rolf]

"Ray Martinez" <pyram...@yahoo.com> skrev i melding

news:5a22bf9d-2941-480b...@googlegroups.com...

You always are a disappointment. You shouldn't be, you never change.

One source point to other sources and so down in a hierarchy. Your downplay
of the use of Wikoipedia is an evasion, because you have no argument.

If you are dissatisfied, why don't you you grab the opportunity and edit the
articles to 'make them better' in your view?

You are not so poorly informed that you don't know and understand that
Wikipedia have links to sources, so one can learn more about the subject as
well as check the validity of the text?

That appiles to all subjects in a debate, there almost always is possible to
find links to more authorative, original sources. One start at the top, and
drill down as far as one needs to get at a source considered authoritative.
Is that to much to ask of you? Of course not, a serious person would do, but
you take the easiest way out when you are stomped.

BTW, How often do I have to tell you that I am not an Atheist-Evolutionist?
You write from ignorance, as usual.

I have on many occacions stated my position WRT religions - not only the
fake religion of institutionzed Christendom: I am as close as possible can
be in our age, a Gnostic. The Gnostics were in fact the first Christians,
the "Christian Gnostics" was one of the main enemies of orthodoxy. There are
reasons why the Gnostics referred to Paul as their teacher! A sincere
search of the sources leave little doubt about the connection between Paul
and the Gnostics.

There are good reasons why so many of Paul's letters are forgeries! They
were to downplay Gnosticism. And yet, A close reading of the scriptures
still reveal Gnostic ideas. BTW, the Holy Inquisition, an instituion it
seems Ray denies ever existed - the inquistion was erected for the purpose
of eradicating the last Gnostc stronghold, the Qatars.

Faith, blind, too strong, is the enemy of objective thinking.

When I say I am a Gnostic I add that I can of course not be one of them in
the original context. What they knew and understood of the human mind and
soul has been researched and found to be in agrement with depth psychology.
Carl Gustav Jung was important in that field. He made important discoveries
abut juman use of symbols. Symbols are the thing Christians are clueless
about. That's the tragedy of the Church: It has the key, but are unable to
find the lock and open them up for the world! The most important symbol in
the history of human symbolism: The Dying-and-Resurrecting-God-Man!

I have quoted Angelus Silesius (Psevd) many times before about that.

One observant reader may not Paul's references to "Christ in Me". The
resurrected God-Man is a Christ the spirit, he is not Jesus, the man. That's
the Gospels are strangely dubious on the subject of the identity of the
surrected one, is he a real person, or what? And in the end, he just
disappears before ther eyes! It should not be a surprise to anyone to learn
that it was not a person (Jesus) that disappeared out of sight from the
dsiciples, it was the spirit, the Christ.

We may safely assume the the writers were rather dumbfounded themselves, we
are dealing with the development of a new myth.

One of the characters known from the history of the early Church wrote to
supprt his claim that there were ony four Gospels: Because there are "four
corners of the earth and four principal winds". We know that there were
many more Gospels in use by early Christian sects. The source of the quote
was given in "Jesus and the Lost Goddes, I was stupid enough to give it
away. It is such an interesting book, with a wealth of information about
scholarly works, and not least: references to the characters of the struggle
and their writings, or rather war between orthodoxy and both the Pagans and
the Gnostics. And Mithraism as well, the religion that today might have been
our own if Xerxes had not lost at Peloponnes. And yet we would in essence
have got the same religion as we now have; that's how little difference
there were between them. The Jews didn't have Hell, Hell was an import from
Mithraism. Was that an improvement?

Elaine Pages did a superb job in researching the Gnostics. And as mentioned
before, the Dead Sea Scrolls are very informative about early Christendom,
but it takes patience to read it all. And the Qumran sect is well worth a
study that is food for thought. Johm Allegro was the main character in the
process of making the Scrolls available to us. Apologetics were so
disappointed with the facts brought to light that they directed their anger
at Allegro - not at the texts themselves.


Rolf

> Ray
>

[Rolf]

"jillery" <69jp...@gmail.com> skrev i melding
news:801j4blhdnop2vq2v...@4ax.com...

I don't think he could even if he wanted to, and wanting to do such a thing
is beyond him.

Rolf

[TomS]

"On Sun, 15 Nov 2015 17:43:00 -0600, in article <n2b55s$fnk$1...@dont-email.me>,
RonO
stated..."

What particularly interests me is the presentation of the "conservation
of information". One ordinarily would expect that one of the first
things one would do would be to show how the conservation works.

(The first would be to describe the concept was. But forget that. That
would be one of those petty details that only naturalists spend their
time on.)

But rather than oresenting confirmation instances, we are given the
ways in which it does *not* work.

1) "Information" can spontaneously decrease. We don't have to search
for a cause for that.

2) When a human is involved, then, uniquely among all of the laws of
nature, conservation is suspended.

3) In the ordinary, everyday workings of life, *it* (whatever it is)
will increase.

[RonO]

Well, Dembski never became world famous for developing the new law of
thermodynamics. If he ever does we will likely have a better idea of
how it was all supposed to work.

Ron Okimoto

[jillery]

On Mon, 16 Nov 2015 02:22:23 -0500, jillery <69jp...@gmail.com>

Do you have no response, Ray?

[Rolf]

"jillery" <69jp...@gmail.com> skrev i melding

news:gtao4btgnrpedd99f...@4ax.com...

What questions might be asked of Ray wrt his mentor Dr. Scott?
What were Dr. Scott's credentials, achievments, and his opinion in general
worth above the cost of paper pulp? (If he put anything on paper, I don't
know and don't care.)