It Seems Like Design - Is it Design?

[Wm. M. Betts]

Richard Dawkins wrote, “biology is the study of complicated things that
have the appearance of having been designed with a purpose.”
(The Blind Watchmaker, '96. pg 1)

Francis Crick, the co-discoverer of the double helix structure of DNA,
wrote, “Biologists must constantly keep in mind that what they see was
not designed, but rather evolved.”
(What Mad Pursuit, 1990, p.138.

If it seems designed, How can we KNOW it's not designed?

--- news://freenews.netfront.net/ - complaints: ne...@netfront.net ---

[Virgil]

In article <mabnnk$22sb$1...@adenine.netfront.net>,

"Wm. M. Betts" <"Wm. Betts"@gmail.com> wrote:

> Richard Dawkins wrote, “biology is the study of complicated things that
> have the appearance of having been designed with a purpose.”
> (The Blind Watchmaker, '96. pg 1)
>
> Francis Crick, the co-discoverer of the double helix structure of DNA,
> wrote, “Biologists must constantly keep in mind that what they see was
> not designed, but rather evolved.”
> (What Mad Pursuit, 1990, p.138.
>
> If it seems designed, How can we KNOW it's not designed?

Absent unequivocal scientific evidence for the existence of a designer,
we certainly cannot KNOW that life has been designed!

And so far all evidence presented in favor of any such designer has most
definitely been equivocal.

Other than for the various species whose present forms have been
designed by humans, such as the many wildly varying breeds of dogs!
--
Virgil
"Mit der Dummheit kampfen Gotter selbst vergebens." (Schiller)

[Sylvia Else]

The appearance of design is only superficial. Once one starts to look in
detail, the deficiencies become obvious, and it looks much less likely
that we're seeing the results of design, and much more likely that the
results are what one gets by incremental changes.

If I knew who'd designed my body, I'd be suing the designer for
incompetence.

Sylvia.

[Wm. M. Betts]

On 1/28/2015 5:47 PM, Virgil wrote:
> In article <mabnnk$22sb$1...@adenine.netfront.net>,
> "Wm. M. Betts" <"Wm. Betts"@gmail.com> wrote:
>

>> Richard Dawkins wrote, “biology is the study of complicated things that
>> have the appearance of having been designed with a purpose.â€

>> (The Blind Watchmaker, '96. pg 1)
>>
>> Francis Crick, the co-discoverer of the double helix structure of DNA,

>> wrote, “Biologists must constantly keep in mind that what they see was
>> not designed, but rather evolved.â€

>> (What Mad Pursuit, 1990, p.138.
>>
>> If it seems designed, How can we KNOW it's not designed?
>
> Absent unequivocal scientific evidence for the existence of a designer,
> we certainly cannot KNOW that life has been designed!
>

Let me understand this.
Before recognizing design, you first want evidence of a designer?

Lets say you go away on a six week vacation. Returning home you find
your lawn cleanly mowed, grass neatly edged along driveway, shrubbery
nicely trimmed, no wind blown trash, pine cones, limbs, papers etc
strewn across the yards. Are you going to say before I recognize any
yardwork, I need to first see evidence of a yardman?

>
> And so far all evidence presented in favor of any such designer has
> most definitely been equivocal.
>
> Other than for the various species whose present forms have been
> designed by humans, such as the many wildly varying breeds of dogs!
>

[Wm. M. Betts]

Could you provide examples?

>
> If I knew who'd designed my body, I'd be suing the designer for
> incompetence.
>

My ex-wife is 5'2" tall weighs about 350 Lbs, 38 years old: has
diabetes, high blood pressure, heart problems, joint problems, kidney
problems, can't get around very well, has difficulty breathing and
complains about doctors and medical bills. She _too_ blames the God who
made her for her body's ailments and design.
>
> Sylvia.

[Sylvia Else]

On 29/01/2015 3:45 PM, Wm. M. Betts wrote:
> On 1/28/2015 5:54 PM, Sylvia Else wrote:
>> On 29/01/2015 9:27 AM, Wm. M. Betts wrote:
>>>
>>> Richard Dawkins wrote, “biology is the study of complicated things that
>>> have the appearance of having been designed with a purpose.”
>>> (The Blind Watchmaker, '96. pg 1)
>>>
>>> Francis Crick, the co-discoverer of the double helix structure of DNA,
>>> wrote, “Biologists must constantly keep in mind that what they see was
>>> not designed, but rather evolved.”
>>> (What Mad Pursuit, 1990, p.138.
>>>
>>> If it seems designed, How can we KNOW it's not designed?
>>>
>>> --- news://freenews.netfront.net/ - complaints: ne...@netfront.net ---
>>
>> The appearance of design is only superficial. Once one starts to look in
>> detail, the deficiencies become obvious, and it looks much less likely
>> that we're seeing the results of design, and much more likely that the
>> results are what one gets by incremental changes.
> >
> Could you provide examples?

The eye is a good example. The retina is back-to-front, so that the
light has to go through it to reach the light sensitive cells which are
on the back, thus reducing sensitivity. The blood vessels and nerve
fibres run across the front of the retina causing further loss of
sensitivity and acuity, and pass through it at one point, causing a
blind spot.

The retina isn't attached to the rear of the eyeball, so that it can
quite easily pull away. It is, however, attached to a membrane that
surrounds the vitreous humour, and when the latter breaks down, as it
does later in life, the membrane pulls at the retina and can tear it
(happened to me).

None of the above make any design sense, and no sensible designer would
do it that way.

Sylvia

[Wm. M. Betts]

On 1/29/2015 12:25 AM, Sylvia Else wrote:
> On 29/01/2015 3:45 PM, Wm. M. Betts wrote:
>> On 1/28/2015 5:54 PM, Sylvia Else wrote:
>>> On 29/01/2015 9:27 AM, Wm. M. Betts wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Richard Dawkins wrote, “biology is the study of complicated things that
>>>> have the appearance of having been designed with a purpose.”
>>>> (The Blind Watchmaker, '96. pg 1)
>>>>
>>>> Francis Crick, the co-discoverer of the double helix structure of
>>>> DNA,
>>>> wrote, “Biologists must constantly keep in mind that what they see was
>>>> not designed, but rather evolved.”
>>>> (What Mad Pursuit, 1990, p.138.
>>>>
>>>> If it seems designed, How can we KNOW it's not designed?
>>>>
>>>> --- news://freenews.netfront.net/ - complaints: ne...@netfront.net ---
>>>
>>> The appearance of design is only superficial. Once one starts to look in
>>> detail, the deficiencies become obvious, and it looks much less likely
>>> that we're seeing the results of design, and much more likely that the
>>> results are what one gets by incremental changes.
>> >
>> Could you provide examples?
>
> The eye is a good example. The retina is back-to-front, so that the
> light has to go through it to reach the light sensitive cells which are
> on the back, thus reducing sensitivity.
>

The environment may play a role in the degree of sensitivity we
enjoy. Bright sun is a common environmental problem for us.
We squint, we shield our eyes with our hands, we buy sunglasses etc.
The sensitivity we have, may be opportune for the environment we find
ourselves.

>>>
The blood vessels and nerve
> fibres run across the front of the retina causing further loss of
> sensitivity and acuity, and pass through it at one point, causing a
> blind spot.
>

Actually, there is a trade off. The eye of the octopi, squid and related
forms have eyes similar to human eyes, but without the "faults" you
mentioned. However, the eye of the octopi has vessels, optical fibers
ETC to the sides or the eye vs nerves etc centered in human eye. The
octopi eye has restricted movement within it's socket. To look to the
side the octopi has to turn it's entire head. So, the trade off is an
advantage to humans. Furthermore, the blind spots in human eye is
aligned so that one at the time is "blind". (I believe this is true,
needs conformation) Also the brain accounts for the shortcomings.

>
> The retina isn't attached to the rear of the eyeball, so that it can
> quite easily pull away. It is, however, attached to a membrane that
> surrounds the vitreous humour, and when the latter breaks down, as it
> does later in life, the membrane pulls at the retina and can tear it
> (happened to me).
>
> None of the above make any design sense, and no sensible designer would
> do it that way.
>

This may be a life-style problem. My maternal g.parents lived into
their late 90's with excellent sight. So, care and prevention,
proper diet etc may prevent many problems we have.
>
> Sylvia

[A Nony Mouse]

In article <cituhg...@mid.individual.net>,

And that is by no means the only example of inept design.
A designer that is any good should have done far better!
Whereas evolving only requires that things work just barely well enough!

[Sylvia Else]

It's not surprising that other eyes have their own faults, but that
doesn't make the design of the mammalian eye any better. A decent design
would have avoid all the faults, and produced an eye better than any
that exist.

The brain does its best to cope, but there's a limit to what it can do.

>>
>> The retina isn't attached to the rear of the eyeball, so that it can
>> quite easily pull away. It is, however, attached to a membrane that
>> surrounds the vitreous humour, and when the latter breaks down, as it
>> does later in life, the membrane pulls at the retina and can tear it
>> (happened to me).
>>
>> None of the above make any design sense, and no sensible designer would
>> do it that way.
> >
> This may be a life-style problem. My maternal g.parents lived into
> their late 90's with excellent sight. So, care and prevention,
> proper diet etc may prevent many problems we have.

There's another design problem - a liking for foods that are bad for us.

Sylvia.

[A Nony Mouse]

In article <ciu8k3...@mid.individual.net>,

Sylvia Else <syl...@not.at.this.address> wrote:

> >>>>> If it seems designed, How can we KNOW it's not designed?

Rorschach inkblots seem to contain designs, too!

Humans have evolved a design/pattern detection talent to the point that
it often "detects" designs/patterns where there aren't any.

[Bob Casanova]

On Wed, 28 Jan 2015 17:27:01 -0500, the following appeared
in sci.skeptic, posted by "Wm. M. Betts" <"Wm.
Betts"@gmail.com>:

>
>Richard Dawkins wrote, “biology is the study of complicated things that
>have the appearance of having been designed with a purpose.”
>(The Blind Watchmaker, '96. pg 1)
>
> Francis Crick, the co-discoverer of the double helix structure of DNA,
>wrote, “Biologists must constantly keep in mind that what they see was
>not designed, but rather evolved.”
>(What Mad Pursuit, 1990, p.138.
>
>If it seems designed, How can we KNOW it's not designed?

We can't, just as we can't KNOW that invisible aliens don't
run the world.

As with everything else, assertions of design require
evidence, starting with an unambiguous definition of design,
which is not "it looks designed". And that would require
knowledge of (not belief in) the designer.
--

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

[Wm. M. Betts]

The eye, whether human, octopi or fly is designed to serve it's owner
sufficiently well for the purpose it serves. No one says that humans
need the acuity of an eagle or the night vision of a cat.

>
> The brain does its best to cope, but there's a limit to what it can do.
>

If some one hadn't informed you of this blind spot. I doubt you would
have ever known. Besides both eyes, are not blind at exactly the same
angle of vision. You have to close one eye to find the blind spot.
www.lancelhoff.com/how-to-find-your-eyes-blind-spot/

>>>
>>> The retina isn't attached to the rear of the eyeball, so that it can
>>> quite easily pull away. It is, however, attached to a membrane that
>>> surrounds the vitreous humour, and when the latter breaks down, as it
>>> does later in life, the membrane pulls at the retina and can tear it
>>> (happened to me).
>>>
>>> None of the above make any design sense, and no sensible designer would
>>> do it that way.
>> >
>> This may be a life-style problem. My maternal g.parents lived into
>> their late 90's with excellent sight. So, care and prevention,
>> proper diet etc may prevent many problems we have.
>
> There's another design problem - a liking for foods that are bad for us.
>

Don't you think that most people would rather choose our foods rather
than be forced to consume _only_ foods that are good for us?
>
> Sylvia.

[Wm. M. Betts]

On 1/29/2015 1:11 AM, A Nony Mouse wrote:
> In article <cituhg...@mid.individual.net>,
> Sylvia Else <syl...@not.at.this.address> wrote:
>
>> On 29/01/2015 3:45 PM, Wm. M. Betts wrote:
>>> On 1/28/2015 5:54 PM, Sylvia Else wrote:
>>>> On 29/01/2015 9:27 AM, Wm. M. Betts wrote:
>>>>>

>>>>> Richard Dawkins wrote, “biology is the study of complicated things that
>>>>> have the appearance of having been designed with a purpose.â€

>>>>> (The Blind Watchmaker, '96. pg 1)
>>>>>
>>>>> Francis Crick, the co-discoverer of the double helix structure of DNA,

>>>>> wrote, “Biologists must constantly keep in mind that what they see was
>>>>> not designed, but rather evolved.â€

One of the most interesting facts is that the eyes of every life form in
the animal kingdom are designed from the same set of genes called Pax 6
Indeed, in an experment, the eye gene from a mouse has been placed in
the genome of a fruit fly and the mouse gene produced an eye in the fly,
but not a mouse eye, but the many faceted eye of a fruit fly.

[Wm. M. Betts]

On 1/29/2015 11:43 AM, Bob Casanova wrote:
> On Wed, 28 Jan 2015 17:27:01 -0500, the following appeared
> in sci.skeptic, posted by "Wm. M. Betts" <"Wm.
> Betts"@gmail.com>:
>
>>
>> Richard Dawkins wrote, “biology is the study of complicated things that
>> have the appearance of having been designed with a purpose.”
>> (The Blind Watchmaker, '96. pg 1)
>>
>> Francis Crick, the co-discoverer of the double helix structure of DNA,
>> wrote, “Biologists must constantly keep in mind that what they see was
>> not designed, but rather evolved.”
>> (What Mad Pursuit, 1990, p.138.
>>
>> If it seems designed, How can we KNOW it's not designed?
>
> We can't, just as we can't KNOW that invisible aliens don't
> run the world.
>
> As with everything else, assertions of design require
> evidence, starting with an unambiguous definition of design,
> which is not "it looks designed". And that would require
> knowledge of (not belief in) the designer.
>

I disagree! It's frequently possible to detect design without
knowing anything about the designer. A good example might be
the flat top mountains of Peru where natives created the Nazca
lines. The tops of these mountains have been sheared off, but
the material debris is nowhere to be found, there are straight
lines that were created at the time of the original excavation.

There is no question that the lines were created by native
artisans, but the shearing off off of massive mountains tops
and the removal of debris is beyond the abilities of primitive
peoples. Indeed the massive removal of earth and rock would
be a challenge of modern humans and equipment.

These tops are a flat as a table top

There are examples of natural "flat top" mountains, but
none with the finesse or the flatness of the mountains of
Peru.
Of course, there are theories, but no one knows who
or how it was accomplished.
>
See:

nazca lines flat top mountains

also You tube: flat top mountains

[Sylvia Else]

There are plenty of rubbish designs around that do the job, more or
less. That doesn't make them any the less rubbish designs.

>>
>> The brain does its best to cope, but there's a limit to what it can do.
>>
> If some one hadn't informed you of this blind spot. I doubt you would
> have ever known.

I don't think that's true. It's reasonably obvious in some situations.
Someone must have been the first to notice, and that person cannot have
been told.

> Besides both eyes, are not blind at exactly the same
> angle of vision. You have to close one eye to find the blind spot.
> www.lancelhoff.com/how-to-find-your-eyes-blind-spot/
>>>>
>>>> The retina isn't attached to the rear of the eyeball, so that it can
>>>> quite easily pull away. It is, however, attached to a membrane that
>>>> surrounds the vitreous humour, and when the latter breaks down, as it
>>>> does later in life, the membrane pulls at the retina and can tear it
>>>> (happened to me).
>>>>
>>>> None of the above make any design sense, and no sensible designer would
>>>> do it that way.
>>> >
>>> This may be a life-style problem. My maternal g.parents lived into
>>> their late 90's with excellent sight. So, care and prevention,
>>> proper diet etc may prevent many problems we have.
>>
>> There's another design problem - a liking for foods that are bad for us.
> >
> Don't you think that most people would rather choose our foods rather
> than be forced to consume _only_ foods that are good for us?

What we like and dislike is, in large part, determined for us by our
bodies. The element of choice is largely illusory. We like sugar and
fat, even to excess. Our bodies could easily be constructed so that
wasn't true, and we wouldn't feel the lack.

Sylvia.

[Sylvia Else]

All that tells you is that Pax 6 is not the only gene involved.

Sylvia.

[Wm. M. Betts]

Pax 6 gene is called a master control gene.
>
> Sylvia.

[Sylvia Else]

On 30/01/2015 2:01 PM, Wm. M. Betts wrote:

> Pax 6 gene is called a master control gene.

Just makes my point, then.

Sylvia.

[Wm. M. Betts]

What do you really know about homeobox genes?

[Sylvia Else]

On 30/01/2015 4:52 PM, Wm. M. Betts wrote:
> On 1/29/2015 10:35 PM, Sylvia Else wrote:
>> On 30/01/2015 2:01 PM, Wm. M. Betts wrote:
>>
>>> Pax 6 gene is called a master control gene.
>>
>> Just makes my point, then.
> >
> What do you really know about homeobox genes?

That they're a rotten design.

Sylvia.

[BruceS]

When you're dealing with the kind of evil psychopath who commits
genocide for trivial reasons, tricks his victims into violating
arbitrary rules, and rapes an innocent woman while she sleeps
(apparently without waking her!), rotten design is pretty much to be
expected. You're not going to convince Wm. M. Betts to stop worshiping
that vicious malicious magical invisible friend of his, or to understand
any sort of reason. Those who pray to demons will simply continue to do
so, whatever logic they're exposed to.

[Bob Casanova]

On Thu, 29 Jan 2015 12:41:13 -0500, the following appeared

in sci.skeptic, posted by "Wm. M. Betts" <"Wm.
Betts"@gmail.com>:

>On 1/29/2015 11:43 AM, Bob Casanova wrote:
>> On Wed, 28 Jan 2015 17:27:01 -0500, the following appeared
>> in sci.skeptic, posted by "Wm. M. Betts" <"Wm.
>> Betts"@gmail.com>:
>>
>>>
>>> Richard Dawkins wrote, “biology is the study of complicated things that
>>> have the appearance of having been designed with a purpose.”
>>> (The Blind Watchmaker, '96. pg 1)
>>>
>>> Francis Crick, the co-discoverer of the double helix structure of DNA,
>>> wrote, “Biologists must constantly keep in mind that what they see was
>>> not designed, but rather evolved.”
>>> (What Mad Pursuit, 1990, p.138.
>>>
>>> If it seems designed, How can we KNOW it's not designed?
>>
>> We can't, just as we can't KNOW that invisible aliens don't
>> run the world.
>>
>> As with everything else, assertions of design require
>> evidence, starting with an unambiguous definition of design,
>> which is not "it looks designed". And that would require
>> knowledge of (not belief in) the designer.
>>
>I disagree!

Your privilege.

> It's frequently possible to detect design without
>knowing anything about the designer. A good example might be
>the flat top mountains of Peru where natives created the Nazca
>lines. The tops of these mountains have been sheared off, but
>the material debris is nowhere to be found, there are straight
>lines that were created at the time of the original excavation.
>
>There is no question that the lines were created by native
>artisans, but the shearing off off of massive mountains tops
>and the removal of debris is beyond the abilities of primitive
>peoples. Indeed the massive removal of earth and rock would
>be a challenge of modern humans and equipment.
>
>These tops are a flat as a table top
>
>There are examples of natural "flat top" mountains, but
>none with the finesse or the flatness of the mountains of
>Peru.
>Of course, there are theories, but no one knows who
>or how it was accomplished.

That's a typical argument from incredulity: "I can't imagine
how this could be natural, so it isn't".

So, other than the inability to imagine otherwise, your
evidence that the tops were "sheared off" is...? Tool marks,
etc? You already admitted there are no debris piles, so
that's out as evidence.

Oh, and creation of the Nazca Lines is no issue; it doesn't
require a high-altitude view, merely the ability to walk in
a straight line to a visible marker (such as another
person), dropping rocks along the way.

>See:
>
>nazca lines flat top mountains
>
>also You tube: flat top mountains
>
>--- news://freenews.netfront.net/ - complaints: ne...@netfront.net ---

[Wm. M. Betts]

You don't have a clue do you?
>
Homeobox genes are ancient, dating back into the precambrian
and they are static, virtually unchanged for over 1/2 billion
years (Called highly conserved) and the homeobox genes control
the development limbs, organs body parts of all animals in the
animal kingdom from fruit flies, zebra fish, mice to humans.
The remarkable fact is it's the same genes, not just similiar
genes, but the exact same set of genes. The most incrediable
fact of all is the fact that they appeared so early in the
history of life and yet remained highly conserved for over
half billion years. And the control the development of the
body, parts and the physology of all animal species both
extinct and extant.

[Sylvia Else]

You seem to be making an argument for evolution rather than design.

Sylvia.

[Sylvia Else]

Betts does seem to become rather aggressive when challenged.

Sylvia.

[Virgil]

Rorschach inkblots seem like they contain designs too!

[Wm. M. Betts]

No, Sylvia I am not an aggressive person. But I will not respond
to someone who acts on his own biases and resorts to personal
insults in his efforts to hide his own prejudices. I will not waste time
on such people.
>
> Sylvia.

[Sylvia Else]

Resorts to personal insults?

Do you remember "You don't have a clue do you?"

Or is it only an insult when you're on the receiving end?

Sylvia.

[Wm. M. Betts]

It was obvious that you knew nothing about homeobox genes.
I hoped you would read about this. In my view evolution
itself is determined by these specific genes.
>
> Sylvia.
>

[Sylvia Else]

You're avoiding the question. There is no way someone uses the sentence
"You don't have a clue do you?" in the normal course of debate. It is
intended to be derogatory. Apparently, you insult people so
automatically, you don't even realise you're doing it.

Sylvia.

[Wm. M. Betts]

I'm sorry you took it that way. Nevertheless, to the question:
had you ever heard of homeobox genes before I mentioned them?
>
> Sylvia.
>

[BruceS]

This is typical behavior for those who worship evil magical sky pixies.
Don't take it personally, as he likely has the same approach to those
who worship a slightly different version of the same evil magical sky pixie.

[Wm. M. Betts]

Actually, I got the attribution wrong. I thought the post I responded to
was Sylvia's but no, you are the one who showed extreme bias, complete
intolerance and condemnation of something which you are
completely ignorant. So, my complaint was actually to _you_, not Sylvia.

[BruceS]

Arrogance, ignorance, and failure to pay attention...pretty much what I
expect from you. I'll just go ahead and be every bit as hurt by having
a mentally ill magic worshiper dislike me as I advise others to be. Go
back to your magic rituals and superstitious mumbo jumbo, and don't
expect rational people to suddenly stop being rational just because you
learned a few monkey tricks.

[Wm. M. Betts]

There's a couple of things.
1 - I do not worship whatever it is that you think you are describing.
It doesn't exist.
2 - Magic rituals and superstitious mumbo jumbo exist inside you brain
no where else.
3 - You found yourself out of your league, in your efforts to hide
your ignorance of the subject, you resort to personal insults, slander,
and intolerance of people with views different from yours. The world
don't need people like you!

Good bye

[BruceS]

You've made it abundantly clear that you don't understand what anyone is
telling you, and what first looked like your attempts to learn were
really just empty gestures in hopes of confirming your beliefs. Thus, I
deduced that you are a magic worshiper, as that's typical behavior for one.

> 2 - Magic rituals and superstitious mumbo jumbo exist inside you brain
> no where else.

Nope, the rituals are all around, and the magic exists in other brains
(I strongly suspect yours included), and not in mine. I don't believe
in magic, whether it's Bible crap or Harry Potter. It's all fiction.

> 3 - You found yourself out of your league, in your efforts to hide
> your ignorance of the subject, you resort to personal insults, slander,
> and intolerance of people with views different from yours. The world
> don't need people like you!

I agree that I'm not in your "league", and maybe it's unfair for an
adult to laugh at a child playing t-ball, but it's sometimes hard to
resist when that child pretends he's in the majors.

> Good bye

Hey, don't go away mad! Tell us more about what your priest said about
science.

[Wm. M. Betts]

I don't worship any magic.

>
>> 2 - Magic rituals and superstitious mumbo jumbo exist inside you brain
>> no where else.
>
> Nope, the rituals are all around, and the magic exists in other brains
> (I strongly suspect yours included), and not in mine. I don't believe
> in magic, whether it's Bible crap or Harry Potter. It's all fiction.
>

Prove harry Potter doesn't exist. You can never prove a negative.

>
>> 3 - You found yourself out of your league, in your efforts to hide
>> your ignorance of the subject, you resort to personal insults, slander,
>> and intolerance of people with views different from yours. The world
>> don't need people like you!
>
> I agree that I'm not in your "league", and maybe it's unfair for an
> adult to laugh at a child playing t-ball, but it's sometimes hard to
> resist when that child pretends he's in the majors.
>

The only child here is _you_! Certainly, you're child-like.

>
>> Good bye
>
> Hey, don't go away mad! Tell us more about what your priest said about
> science.
>

What priest. I have _NO_ priest. IOW you think you know something you
don't.

I came to this NG expecting a honest, civil discussion, but all I seen
so far is personal attacks which began with you. I began thread
"It seems like design, Is it design?" No one has seriously addressed
this issue. Why not?

[BruceS]

On 02/03/2015 08:33 PM, Wm. M. Betts wrote:
<snip>

> I don't worship any magic.

So you're an atheist? Your earlier postings make that seem unlikely.

[Wm. M. Betts]

I consider myself gnostic bordering on agnostic. It's impossible to
_know_ whether some higher intelligence exist or not. No one can know.

[Chris F.A. Johnson]

On 2015-02-04, Wm. M. Betts wrote:
...

> You can never prove a negative.

Can you prove that?

--
Chris F.A. Johnson

[Wm. M. Betts]

On 2/5/2015 5:00 PM, Chris F.A. Johnson wrote:
> On 2015-02-04, Wm. M. Betts wrote:
> ...
>> You can never prove a negative.
>
> Can you prove that?
>

If it's not falsifiable it's not scientific. So, yes this is
proof that you can falsify a negative. The luminiferous aether
hypothesis was falsified by Michaelson and Morley.

[Chris F.A. Johnson]

On 2015-02-06, Wm. M. Betts wrote:
> On 2/5/2015 5:00 PM, Chris F.A. Johnson wrote:
>> On 2015-02-04, Wm. M. Betts wrote:
>> ...
>>> You can never prove a negative.
>>
>> Can you prove that?
>>
> If it's not falsifiable it's not scientific. So, yes this is
> proof that you can falsify a negative. The luminiferous aether
> hypothesis was falsified by Michaelson and Morley.

My question referred to the sentence I quoted.

Can you prove that "You can never prove a negative"?

--
Chris F.A. Johnson

[Bob Casanova]

On Fri, 6 Feb 2015 13:28:11 -0500, the following appeared in
sci.skeptic, posted by "Chris F.A. Johnson"
<cfajo...@cfaj.ca>:

Of course he can't, since it's a false statement. And he
even admitted it was false in his next post. Or something;
he seems a bit confused...

[Wm. M. Betts]

As I stated before a valid scientific theory is falsifiable,
However, can you never prove a negative, is a flawed and it's
an irrational question (I presume you meant "ever")

[Chris F.A. Johnson]

No, I meant exactly what I wrote.

Are you saying that you agree that, "You can never prove a negative"?

--
Chris F.A. Johnson

[Wm. M. Betts]

Put the question on a real situation. Can I prove that life on other
planets don't exist. No, I cannot. Can I prove you are real? No, I
cannot. You may be a computer program.

[Chris F.A. Johnson]

On 2015-02-09, Wm. M. Betts wrote:
> On 2/8/2015 9:52 PM, Chris F.A. Johnson wrote:

...

>>> As I stated before a valid scientific theory is falsifiable,
>>> However, can you never prove a negative, is a flawed and it's
>>> an irrational question (I presume you meant "ever")
>>
>> No, I meant exactly what I wrote.
>>
>> Are you saying that you agree that, "You can never prove a negative"?
>>
> Put the question on a real situation. Can I prove that life on other
> planets don't exist. No, I cannot. Can I prove you are real? No, I
> cannot. You may be a computer program.

Can you prove that Mitt Romney is not the president of the USA?

Of course you can. IOW, the statement that "You can never prove a
negative" is nonsense.

--
Chris F.A. Johnson

[Wm. M. Betts]

Ok, Most people say say God exist. Can you prove that God does not exist?

[A Nony Mouse]

In article <mbbukq$21eg$1...@adenine.netfront.net>,

"Wm. M. Betts" <"Wm. Betts"@gmail.com> wrote:

> Ok, Most people say say God exist. Can you prove that God does not exist?

First of all, "most people" do not accept that your particular gods
exist!
Secondly, can you
(1) prove that your notion of gods exists to anyone who believes in an
incompatible gods,
(2) prove that your notion of gods exists to anyone who does not believe
in any gods?
(3) find any scientific evidence supporting you god hypothesis?

[Wm. M. Betts]

Evidently, you missed the gist of this thread. Chris Johnson argued
that the claim "it's impossible to prove a negative", is nonsense.

So, God doesn't exist is a negative claim, which if Chris is right
should be provable.

So, I have absolutely no reason to try to prove God(s) exist to you,

[Chris F.A. Johnson]

On 2015-02-10, Wm. M. Betts wrote:
...

> Evidently, you missed the gist of this thread. Chris Johnson argued
> that the claim "it's impossible to prove a negative", is nonsense.
>
> So, God doesn't exist is a negative claim, which if Chris is right
> should be provable.

It may or may not be provable, or falsifiable.

Its being a negative has nothing to do with it.


I recommend this book:
"God: The Failed Hypothesis. How Science Shows That God Does Not Exist"
<http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/1591026520/ref=nosim/cfajbooks08-20>

--
Chris F.A. Johnson

[Wm. M. Betts]

Thanks for the recommendation. I have read some of the late Victor
Stenger's articles and books including this one. My problems with this
book, is that he presumes to speak for science. He begins with a point
to prove (God does not exist) and argues throughout the book towards
that goal. He assumes to analysis the scientific evidence what he
considers the traditional definition and attributes of god, then he
presents one-sided arguments against this god.
In my view, unless you are already predisposed in Stenger's direction,
this book fails to meet his claim of disproving God. And if you
are already disposed towards atheism this book serves to reassure you.

You cannot not know, neither theist nor atheist can know with any degree
of certainty that their position is right, the most logical
and rational position is that of agnosticism.