Why isn't it an option to put the creationist alternative forward?

[RonO]

In the recent thread "What is the creationist's "scientific"
alternative" nothing but denial came out of the ID/creationist faction
on this newsgroup. It has been the same for quite some time. Some of
the ID/creationist posters would argue their alternatives at one time,
but that pretty much ended when the bait and switch intelligent design
scam took over.
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/talk.origins/uUR-o6zn0fs/tNQv2au0AAAJ

The reason why it isn't an option to actually discuss the ID/creationist
options is that there isn't any science that the creationists want to
discuss about their alternatives at this time. That is the worst part
of the ID/creationist political scam. It has just turned into a stupid
bait and switch scam that the creationists are running on themselves.
The ID perps keep selling the rubes that there is some ID science to
teach in the public schools, but when it comes time to put up or shut up
the same ID perps only give the creationist rubes a switch scam that
doesn't even mention that ID nor creationism ever existed. It has been
that way since Ohio in 2002 and nothing has changed except a group of
creationist rubes in Dover would not bend over and take the switch scam
from the ID perps, got their "free" creationist legal service to defend
teaching the bogus junk, and lost in court. They ended up paying a
million dollars for that free legal service and falling for the ID scam
and not being bright enough to bend over and take the switch scam from
the ID perps that sold them the ID scam. After Dover one of the ID
perps that was credited with getting the ID scam rolling (Phillip
Johnson) quit the ID scam, admitted that the ID science did not exist,
and claimed that it was up to the science ID perps to change that.
Nothing has changed for the ID/creationists since Johnson admitted that
in 2006 after the Dover fiasco. The ID scam has just limped along
hoping that the bait and switch does not fail again as it did in Dover.

Yes, this "debate" is that sad at this time. It is now obvious that the
ID/creationists that took over from the scientific creationists never
wanted to do any science to support their claims. That type of argument
had failed. All they needed to do for the current political ploy is
make the claims and then run. They never wanted to have anything to
defend. The reason for that is also obvious. The ID/creationists never
wanted to know what science could tell them about their alternative.
There are aspects of their alternative that science can address (and
already has) but no ID/creationists want to deal with reality, so no
science ever gets done. They never wanted to learn anything about
nature because once they do they would then have to fit that into their
theology. A lot of them already know that nature does not conform to
many creationist theologies, but the ID perps needed the support of the
losers so they kept lying to them about the science.

This is evident by what the ID perps claim on the side and not in the ID
propaganda bull pucky that they publish. A lot of these guys already
know that the young earth creationist option is not viable as any type
of science worth discussing. Dembski had to apologize to his students
at his religious college he was teaching at for claiming that the earth
could be older than a few thousand years, and that the flood may not
have been global. Behe keeps making claims that billions of years of
evolution is a fact, but his designer may be tweeking things every once
in a while. Denton just came out with his alternative, and it is the
worst of all. Denton claims that his designer got the ball rolling with
the big bang and things all unfolded as planned. Billions of years of
earth history that science has been able to address will never be
inconsistent with that alternative, but it obviously is not what the YEC
contingent wants to hear. Nelson is a YEC ID perp, and has been
associated with the ID scam since the founding of the ID/creationist
scam unit of the Discovery Institute back in 1995, but he has never put
up his alternative in an understandable fashion. He was one of the
first ID perps to admit that there was no ID science and that they had
to work to produce what they claimed to have. That is likely why he can
stand to associate with guys like Denton and Behe who know how wrong
Nelson is. Behe and Denton are just dishonest cranks to IDiots like
Nelson and he doesn't have to believe them about anything.

This is the sad state of things for ID/creationists at this time. If
you don't think that it is, put up your alternative and apply the
scientific method to where you can apply it and learn something about
nature. Since you don't want to do that, how can you keep lying to
yourself about what the situation actually is?

Eddies Jehovah's Witnesses have made significant changes to their
alternative over the last 50 years. They don't say why they made the
changes or even that they made the changes, but their alternative has
obviously changed from an earth less than 50,000 years old to one that
is billions of years old and the sun and moon are no longer created on
the 4th day, but were there from very early on. Why did they make the
changes?

What would a lot of ID/creationists have to do if they actually did use
science to evaluate their alternative?

Personally, I do not think that anyone should use science to evaluate
their religious beliefs. This is mainly because a lot of creationists
have an all or nothing mentality and can't cope with the understanding
of the universe that science creates. It is also because science can't
address the parts of their theology that the mainstream religious
factions devote most of their attention to. Science just ends up
chewing around the edges and affecting things that just don't matter
much to their ultimate theology. The notiion of the infallibility of
the Bible ended centuries ago, and you can chalk it up to incorrect
understanding or not, but current human understanding of what is in the
Bible obviously is in error some times. The earth is not the center of
the universe, and it wasn't created around 6,000 years ago as some
people claim to be able to calculate. The earth orbits the sun. The
sun is one star of billions in our galaxy and is found on the edge of
one spiral arm of one of billions of galaxies. Life has existed for
billions of years on this planet. A lot of the current ID perps
understand this science, and are only lying to you to get your money and
political support. There is a reason why no creationist science gets
done. If you can't accept the scientific reality noted above you
already know why no creationist science will get done that would
interest you. This is why the last generation of ID perps never tried
to do any ID science. There aren't any creationists that they depend on
for support of their political machinations interested in what science
can tell them about their alternative.

Ron Okimoto

[Kalkidas]

On 6/10/2017 8:01 AM, RonO (the one trick pony) wrote:

[snip propaganda for scientism mixed with pseudo-Tourette's blather]

[RonO]

On 6/10/2017 8:39 PM, Kalkidas wrote:
> On 6/10/2017 8:01 AM, RonO (the one trick pony) wrote:
>
> [snip propaganda for scientism mixed with pseudo-Tourette's blather]
>
>

Snipping everything out to run from reality is stupid.

REPOST:

END REPOST:

Poor Kalk, denial is all you ever had. How sad is that fact? You kept
going back to the ID perps to get lied to over and over, and what did it
amount to? Why aren't you interested in putting forward your
alternative and looking at the parts that science can address? Why keep
lying to yourself and running away in denial? You are the rube that
believed that there was some ID science, or maybe you were just lying
about it and never believed the bogus junk and just used it as an excuse
for your utter denial. So were you a liar or did you believe that some
science was being done? If you weren't lying, why not try to apply
science to your alternative and make it the best scientific alternative
that it can be? Wasn't that what you should have been doing when you
were an obvious IDiot rube supporting the ID/creationist scam?

The utter dishonesty of the whole ID scam is about as sad as any
religious scam there has ever been, and you know for a fact that it is
the ID perps that are running the bait and switch on the creationist
rubes that believed them. The creationists faction is literally running
the scam on itself. The only creationists rubes that they aren't
running the bait and switch on are the ones that knew how bogus it all
was from the beginning. How sad is that fact?

So why isn't it an option to put your alternative forward and evaluate
it. What could be so bad after what you have already done all these years?

Ron Okimoto

[derdagian1]

I Get to Make stuff up, too! How Soon?

[Wolffan]

On 2017 Jun 10, Kalkidas wrote
(in article <ohi6pb$n7r$2...@dont-email.me>):

> On 6/10/2017 8:01 AM, RonO (the one trick pony) wrote:
>
> [snip propaganda for scientism mixed with pseudo-Tourette's blather]

gee, kalky... if you had posted something, anything, supporting actual
creation ‘science’ you would have utterly destroyed his point. You
didn’t. And, in so not doing, supported his position.

do continue.

<gets more popcorn>

[Kalkidas]

On 6/10/2017 7:04 PM, RonO wrote:
> On 6/10/2017 8:39 PM, Kalkidas wrote:
>> On 6/10/2017 8:01 AM, RonO (the one trick pony) wrote:
>>
>> [snip propaganda for scientism mixed with pseudo-Tourette's blather]
>>
>>
> Snipping everything out to run from reality is stupid.

LOL! Ron discoursing on "reality"! Priceless!

[snip]

[Kalkidas]

LOL! The blithering pseudo-scientist discoursing on "science". Priceless!

[Bill Rogers]

What sort of response were you realistically expecting to get to your original post here? Creationists saying "Oh yes, we've been idiotic fools and rubes all along, now er see the light" ? Your own side saying "Atta boy, go get 'em Ron'?

[Wolffan]

On 2017 Jun 11, Kalkidas wrote
(in article <ohjlvm$rjb$2...@dont-email.me>):

and you still haven’t provided any support for your position.

<hint: I’m not a scientist. I don’t even play one on tv. I’m here for
the entertainment value, and you provide lots and lots and lots of excellent
entertainment as you flail around. Keep it up. I’m getting more popcorn.>

[jillery]

On Sun, 11 Jun 2017 08:11:08 -0700 (PDT), Bill Rogers
<broger...@gmail.com> wrote:

>What sort of response were you realistically expecting to get to your original post here? Creationists saying "Oh yes, we've been idiotic fools and rubes all along, now er see the light" ? Your own side saying "Atta boy, go get 'em Ron'?

It should go without saying that one's expectations is not a
reasonable basis for criticizing posts.

--
I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.

Evelyn Beatrice Hall
Attributed to Voltaire

[jillery]

On Sun, 11 Jun 2017 08:03:42 -0700, Kalkidas <e...@joes.pub> wrote:

>LOL! Ron discoursing on "reality"! Priceless!

LOL! Kalky laughing at Ron discoursing on reality. Priceless!

[RonO]

Laughing at yourself is pretty stupid at this point. Just think if you
had ever wanted to determine if you had an option that could compete
with the actual science?

Repost of what you couldn't deal with:

> [snip propaganda for scientism mixed with pseudo-Tourette's blather]
>
>
Snipping everything out to run from reality is stupid.

END REPOST:

Can't deal with reality in any other way except abject denial and
running from reality. Just imagine what it would be like if you ever
had an alternative worth putting forward?

Ron Okimoto

[RonO]

I would hope that the time has come to give up on the bogus
ID/creationist denial and finally get down to discussing what the heck
the IDiot rubes thought their scientific alternative was and have them
decide if they actually wanted to do any science to verify any part of it.

These IDiots hang around here for some reason, so why not try to figure
out if any science can be done on their alternative? Bill has even
admitted that teaching the alternative was the plan all along, so what
alternative is that and what science can be done to back it up?

If it turns out that they never wanted to do any science, that point
should be foremost in evaluating any of their future posts. Glenn is a
prime example. At one time he did put up his alternative and try to
figure out ways to defend it, but failure 100% of the time forced him to
become the poster that he is at this time. I don't expect anything from
Glenn because he obviously didn't learn anything from the experience.
Kalk never even tried to put up an alternative. He just bought into the
ID scam and rode it down in flames. Even after Dover how many times did
Kalk keep going back to the ID perps that had lied to him about the ID
science to get their bogus arguments that obviously didn't mean squat
because the bait and switch would just keep going down year after year?

Right now TO is basically moribund. The ID perps have kept
ID/creationism out of the public schools for over a decade and a half.
The IDiots don't listen to the science side, but when the ID perps that
sold them the stupid scam tell the IDiots to bend over for the switch
scam they either drop the issue or they bend over and take it. That is
the current reality. It has happened in nearly every case where the
creationists have tried to pass legislation or school board stupidity to
get ID/creationism into the public schools since Ohio in 2002. The only
exception was Dover creationists that would not take the switch scam and
tried to teach the nonexistent ID science, and we all know what happened
then.

The only thing that would get past that stupidity is to actually try to
argue something that can be argued. Eddie put up the Jehovah's
Witnesses alternative, and it was likely a surprise to everyone on TO
that their alternative had changed from what it had been when they were
supporting scientific creationism in the 1980's. That demonstrates that
something changed their minds. It looked like they could no longer deny
an earth billions of years old, and that it didn't make sense to have
the sun and moon created on the fourth day if days could be billions of
years long. Why should they stop there? They still have the order of
creation wrong. Science could help them with that. Any group that can
deny that the Bible states specifically that the sun and moon were made
on the 4th day, and decided that the Bible is obviously wrong in that
aspect of creation, can obviously reorder the creation events to fit
what we already know about nature. They could do some science and
improve their alternative scientifically, but what happens?

Guys like you are only doing junk to perpetuate the denial instead of do
anything constructive, so why criticize me? What have you done to try
to improve things around here and get something more than abject denial
discussed? It could be that I put up more science than anyone else on
this newsgroup, but the ID/creationist faction isn't interested in
discussing science associated with this topic. Why not try to get them
to put forward the alternative they wanted to defend with IDiocy and
discuss it? Eddie tried, but ran from the effort when he couldn't
figure out why they had made the changes to his alternative, and why the
order of creation was still messed up.

Ron Okimoto

[Kalkidas]

On 6/11/2017 11:39 AM, RonO wrote:
> On 6/11/2017 10:03 AM, Kalkidas wrote:
>> On 6/10/2017 7:04 PM, RonO wrote:
>>> On 6/10/2017 8:39 PM, Kalkidas wrote:
>>>> On 6/10/2017 8:01 AM, RonO (the one trick pony) wrote:
>>>>
>>>> [snip propaganda for scientism mixed with pseudo-Tourette's blather]
>>>>
>>>>
>>> Snipping everything out to run from reality is stupid.
>>
>> LOL! Ron discoursing on "reality"! Priceless!
>>
>> [snip]
>>
>
> Laughing at yourself is pretty stupid at this point. Just think if you
> had ever wanted to determine if you had an option that could compete
> with the actual science?

LOL! The one-trick-pony calling scientism "actual science"! Priceless!

[snip bandwidth wasting jibberish...]

[RonO]

Why is snipping and running away in denial all that you have ever
accomplished here? Why not try something different? Why isn't it an
option to discuss your alternative to see if you can apply science in
understanding it better? What were you trying to do with IDiocy all
those years? Wouldn't it be sad if all you were doing was lying to
yourself about reality?

Ron Okimoto

[Kalkidas]

You're a nasty little prick, Ron. This is all you deserve. Go give Satan
another hand-hob.

[RonO]

Lying to yourself about reality isn't going to do you any good. Just
think of what a fool you have already been for years. Why go on like that?

Ron Okimoto

[Ray Martinez]

Ron: We observe design in nature. Said observation falsifies the inference of evolution. And let me stress the fact that an inference cannot falsify an observation. You've started a topic that makes the complaint that Creationism or ID isn't science and has nothing to teach or offer. Yet I've just conveyed the MAIN claim of historic Creationism, which is based on an observation. You can't say observation isn't scientific. And you can't tell others what they see or don't see. All you can do is offer an explanation of what we claim to see. You should make it a good explanation because any objective evaluation of my argument must conclude that it is scientific AND in totality uncomplicated. And don't forget the most important fact: The ToE exists in a state of falsification, my argument has your King in check (mate).

Ray (Paleyan)

[Rolf]

"Ray Martinez" <pyram...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:7687fe4b-43fa-46f1...@googlegroups.com...

Huh, Ray lecturing Ron? His hubris is reaching cosmic proportions. Icaros
comes to mind

You've started a topic that makes the complaint that Creationism or ID
isn't science and has nothing to teach or offer. Yet I've just conveyed the
MAIN claim of historic Creationism, which is based on an observation. You
can't say observation isn't scientific.

Nonsene. An observation is just that - observation. Science is what comes
after the observation has been made. We know how species originate. Not by
divine decree, but by the facts of nature.

We observe that species are changing over time. We don't need superantural
explanations for that. We know how life evolves. Religion is about spiritual
life and can't answer scientific questions.

That's a fact, mutations are another fact of life that not even Ray can do
anything about, they are happening all the time and there isn't anything we
can do about that. The attempt at resurrecting creationism by hiding it
under the term Intelligent Design failed. ID did not live up to the
Discovery Institute's expectations. Dembski bailed out. Cdesign
proponentsists lost. Ray believe rhetorics trumps reality. That's where he
fails.

Creatonism isn't an alternative, it is an aberration.

[Ray Martinez]

Your reply format doesn't divide thoughts correctly, so I will offer rebuttal here at the very end of your message. Note the fact that you dismiss observation in favor of an inference. An inference cannot falsify an observation. That's all that needs to be said. Your king remains in checkmate.

Ray

[Sean Dillon]

Unless you have observed the PROCESS of design as it occurs, you have not observed design, you have inferred it. For example, my wife is an architect. I know the buildings she has worked on are acts of design because I have witnessed her making choices in Revit that determined the features of later actual buildings. I literally witnessed design as it happened.

But we do not and CANNOT observe that any feature in nature is designed, because we were not witnesses to the act of design. Only inference is possible. Which utterly falsifies your line of reasoning, Ray.

[Rolf]

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

news:21c16335-0f26-440b...@googlegroups.com...

Sigh. I don't see how I "dismiss observation in favor of an inference."?

I am 100% in favor of observations. The ToE is built on observation of
facts. ID is built on the ridiculous inference that life is so complicated
that a designer is required to make it evolve, instead of the scientific POW
that evolution works by natural means. As long as you avoid learning the
science of evolution, your opinion is worthless. As you yourself have said
so often, you do not understand the ToE.
I understand creationism, be it YEC or ID and other alterntives, and they
all share the same prominent feature: They stink of ignorance and
unwillingness to learn and understand.

[Rolf]

"Sean Dillon" <seand...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:979ba02f-aadc-4ffe...@googlegroups.com...

AFAICT, that subject has been broached on a number of threads and occacions
before, with Ray steadfast in his opinion that appearance of design =
evidence of design. That is how I interpret what he's written on the
subject.

And his words "The ToE exists in a state of falsification," make no sense to
me.

[Sean Dillon]

Well, there are a few problems there: the "appearance" of design is a matter of subjective opinion, since there is no consistent standard we can apply as to what "appears designed." However, even IF there is a general consensus that something "appears" designed, that is only circumstantial evidence that it WAS designed, as there are other plausible explanations for such an appearance. And finally, "design" is an activity. And you can only observe the activity by actually observing the activity. If you are only seeing the aftermath, it is unavoidably necessary to INFER the activity from the available evidence.

Example: if I go out to my car, and discover that one of the windows is in pieces on the ground. All that I can OBSERVE is that my window is in pieces on the ground. But from that I can INFER that my window was smashed. But I can't OBSERVE that my window was smashed, because I wasn't there to see anything smashing my window.

Likewise life: we can OBSERVE that it is highly organized. We can OBSERVE that its various component parts word well together. We can OBSERVE that many aspects of the body resemble devices that were designed by humans. But we can only INFER that life was designed, because we didn't get to watch any designing as it was occurring.

There is nothing WRONG with inference... indeed, some inferences are logically airtight. By which I mean, some observations lead to the necessary truth of certain inferences. However, the inference of design in nature is not such a case, as there exist alternative plausible explanations for the same observable data.

>
> And his words "The ToE exists in a state of falsification," make no sense to
> me.

Ithink he's indicating that he has shown the ToE to be wrong. Which he very obviously hasn't.

[Bill Rogers]

You aren't the first and you won't be the last to try to convince Ray that there's a difference between appearance of design and actual design. I doubt you'll have any better success than the rest of us, but there's no harm in trying.

[Sean Dillon]

That wouldn't surprise me. My interest at present is less in convincing Ray than in making the paucity of his argument (or in this case his alleged argument) evident to anyone who bothers to read the exchange.

[Rolf]

"Sean Dillon" <seand...@gmail.com> wrote in message

news:44cead6e-b6cf-4f07...@googlegroups.com...

The theory of evolution is of course potentially falsifiable, such as for
instance the classical example of the unlikely happening that a rabbit
fossil would be found in a sediment dated to the Cambrian.

What happens in the world of reality is what we learned from the example of
Tiktaalik, which was found just where we expected an intermediate species
beween sea-living and land-living cratures.

How long before we get evidence of the invisible and/or intelligent designer
at work? That shouldn't be to difficult - if it was true. I think
creationists have a problem.

[Ray Martinez]

Go ahead, define each phrase as showing a real and discernible difference.

Waiting....

Ray

[Sean Dillon]

Appearance: what something looks like.
Actuality: what something IS.

Is there a real and discernable different between what something looks like and what something is?

Yes.

Why? Because appearances are subjective perceptions, while actuality is literally reality. And some appearances are more subjective than others.

For examples:

I am hard of hearing (random cochlear infection a couple years ago very sad I've moved on). As such, I can attest that in my experience, my friends, family, and coworkers frequently APPEAR to have said things that they did not actually say. Appearance is separated from actuality by the limits of the senses.

Speaking of my cochlear infection... in my limited amateur experience, it originally APPEARED to be a typical if unusually severe outer ear infection. But to the ENT doctor, who has a better understand of the ear, it was clearly a much deeper problem. Appearance is separated from actuality by knowledge and experience.

To the minds of Flat-Earthers, it certainly APPEARS that the Earth is flat. Nevermind that this makes no sense if you reason it out, because they have weak reasoning skills. Appearance is separated from actuality by the ability to reason soundly.

And last today -- to get all too topical -- a police officer was acquitted of manslaughter, in the shooting death of Philando Castile, a man who -- by all accounts -- had done nothing violent nor intended to. But in the moment, to that cop, it APPEARED that he did. Appearance is separated from actuality by prejudice and presupposition.

So you see, Ray... there are LOTS of reasons that appearance should not and must not be automatically assumed to be actuality/reality. "Appearances can be deceiving" is a cliche for a reason.

[Burkhard]

There is always a bit of a danger when replying to Ray on this to
over-egg it into the opposite extreme. You avoid this, and your examples
are very good, but just to be on the safe side:

Ray would be right if the only thing he claimed was: "If something
appears to be X, this is a good prima facie reason to think that it is
actually X"

We have of course good evolutionary explanations why this is the case:
if sabre tooth tigers appear to you to be small fluffy kittens, your
chances to pass on this mutation in the way your brain deals with
certain sensory inputs is unlikely to be passed on to the next
generation (if there are hungry sabre tooth tigers in the vicinity, of
course).

And in science, we reflect this by demanding that our theories ought to
be observationally adequate.

Ray also has an answer to the last type of examples you gave, mere
subjective mistakes: He can point to the the overwhelmingly large
numbers of people who said they see (or saw) design in nature - not just
creationists, but by their own words also lots of evolutionary
biologists such as Dawkins. So mutual corroboration rules out many forms
of mere prejudice and presupposition.

The best counterexamples are indeed of the type you gave earlier, e.g.
the appearance that the earth is flt, or all shared optical illusions,
such as the grey blops in e Hermann grid. Everybody sees them, and they
are persistent even after explanation, that is knowing what is really
going on does not make the appearance disappears.

Things like these do show that while observing that something appears to
be X is a good reason to think it is X, but only that: a good reason
that may need revising in the light of other observations, and indeed
our theories.

So Ray's first mistake is to give observations a status they do not
merit - but that he goes too far in the direction of "observation =
reality" should not lead to an equally overstated
"appearances/observations are just subjective.

There are other things wrong with his account.

First, he has an overly primitive and simplistic concept of what
observation in science means. It is not just "looking at things with an
untutored eye". Observations are methodologically guided and informed
by theories This is the "theory ladenness of observation, that in
science we observe "in the torchlight of" the theory we study - which
Popper contrasts with the "bucket theory" where you just walk around
looking at things and then throw them unsystematically into a bucket.

So while Ray talks a lot about the primacy of observation, his own
hero Paley never spend a day in the laboratory, or on field trips like
Darwin,and also would not have had the right training and skills for it.

That in science, observations are part of and backed up by theories,
including theories of measurement, is one of the reasons why conflicts
between observations and theories are not necessarily resolved in favour
of the observation, naive falsificationism is not an accurate
description of scientific practice. If a well supported theory with high
explanatory value clashes with an observation, then chances are the
observation was misguided, not done correctly, or the theory of
measurement that interpreted what we saw was wrong.

While this is particularly clear in science, it's also the case for
everyday observations. If I suddenly see giant pink elephants flying
down Princess Street, I do not conclude that an unknown species that
defies the laws of gravity has suddenly been discovered, but check if I
have eaten funny mushrooms. My theory on how the world works, and my
other theories on what can influence my sense perceptions, trump what my
eyes tell me in this case.

So "observations" are in varying degrees theory dependent, some are
close to being "bare" observations (I perceive something heavy in my
hand now", others are dependent on lots of theory: I observed that acid
was neutralised by lime? Yes and no. I saw a piece of paper change
colour, which according to my mini-theory on how our lab works tells me
was probably litmus, and my other theory about quality control tells me
probably stored correctly etc etc and then my other theories tell me
what a change in colour means. SO I both observed and inferred that we
had here a chemical reaction of neutralization.

The problem Ray has is with the very idea of "design". He thinks it is
one of the "bare" observations that require nothing but looking at a
thing, like finding out is colour etc.

But that is of course not the type of property "being designed" is.
Rather, what we perceive are things like multiple interlocking parts,
that do reliably the same thing over and over again - and because we
also observe this in things we design ourselves, we infer that these
things too are designed. Some of this inferencing happens subconsciously
and very quick - that's why it is persistent, pace Dawkins even when we
know it is a wrong inference.

And again there are good evolutionary reasons for it: so see design in
things helps us out them int causal explanations, with that to control
them, use them as tools.

[Rolf]

"Sean Dillon" <seand...@gmail.com> wrote in message

news:b04780d1-5683-44db...@googlegroups.com...

Right.

All it takes to realize that appearances may be deceiving is to watch ships
on the ocean - they appear and disappear on the horizon all the time.
Obvious if you know a little physics.

[Ray Martinez]

Sean (or anybody): How does an appearance or look of design not indicate actual design? Answer: Only if one assumes contrary to the look. What, then, justifies said assumption? And assumptions, in and of themselves, do not constitute evidence.

> Is there a real and discernable different between what something looks like and what something is?
>
> Yes.
>
> Why? Because appearances are subjective perceptions, while actuality is literally reality. And some appearances are more subjective than others.
>

Wait! You've just inflicted a certain definition onto "appearances" that doesn't make sense. No definition of "appearances" includes the concept of "subjective." So your argument begins with a misconception. When we Paleyans use the word "appearances" we are making a rhetorical point; asking, for example, why do humming birds appear designed? Again, our question isn't literal, but rhetorical.

> For examples:
>
> I am hard of hearing (random cochlear infection a couple years ago very sad I've moved on). As such, I can attest that in my experience, my friends, family, and coworkers frequently APPEAR to have said things that they did not actually say. Appearance is separated from actuality by the limits of the senses.
>
> Speaking of my cochlear infection... in my limited amateur experience, it originally APPEARED to be a typical if unusually severe outer ear infection. But to the ENT doctor, who has a better understand of the ear, it was clearly a much deeper problem. Appearance is separated from actuality by knowledge and experience.
>
> To the minds of Flat-Earthers, it certainly APPEARS that the Earth is flat. Nevermind that this makes no sense if you reason it out, because they have weak reasoning skills. Appearance is separated from actuality by the ability to reason soundly.
>
> And last today -- to get all too topical -- a police officer was acquitted of manslaughter, in the shooting death of Philando Castile, a man who -- by all accounts -- had done nothing violent nor intended to. But in the moment, to that cop, it APPEARED that he did. Appearance is separated from actuality by prejudice and presupposition.
>
> So you see, Ray... there are LOTS of reasons that appearance should not and must not be automatically assumed to be actuality/reality. "Appearances can be deceiving" is a cliche for a reason.
>

Sean departs topic, origins biology, while using a particular definition of "appearance" that supports his examples. But in the Creation v. Evolution debate the word "appearance" simply means "looks." Why do humming birds look designed? My question is rhetorical. They look designed because they were designed.

I have an inference of Intelligence based on an observation. My inference, therefore, is logical and of course scientific.

What does evolution propose?

The inference of evolution (older species originating newer species). In other words, one cannot logically observe or infer a look of design.

So our observation falsifies your inference.

Ray

[Sean Dillon]

In design, as in all cases, appearance may be deceiving. We don't have to assume that reality IS contrary to appearance, but merely accept that reality MAY be contrary to appearance.

>
> > Is there a real and discernable different between what something looks like and what something is?
> >
> > Yes.
> >
> > Why? Because appearances are subjective perceptions, while actuality is literally reality. And some appearances are more subjective than others.
> >
>
> Wait! You've just inflicted a certain definition onto "appearances" that doesn't make sense. No definition of "appearances" includes the concept of "subjective." So your argument begins with a misconception. When we Paleyans use the word "appearances" we are making a rhetorical point; asking, for example, why do humming birds appear designed? Again, our question isn't literal, but rhetorical.

Of COURSE "appearance" is subjective. Appearance is intrinsically about perception, and perception is intrinsically subjective. If we say something "appears" designed, the logical question is, "TO WHOM does it appear designed, and on what basis." And if we have to ask "to whom?" that is a pretty classic hallmark of subjectivity.

Your question IS rhetorical, but it is also based on a faulty premise. Because you're missing part of that sentence. The full question is "Why does the hummingbird appear designed TO YOU (Ray)?" Because the fact is, the hummingbird does NOT appear designed to me (Sean). And the obvious answer to "Why does the hummingbird appear designed TO RAY?" is "Ray is predisposed to attribute design because of his strongly held worldview."

>
> > For examples:
> >
> > I am hard of hearing (random cochlear infection a couple years ago very sad I've moved on). As such, I can attest that in my experience, my friends, family, and coworkers frequently APPEAR to have said things that they did not actually say. Appearance is separated from actuality by the limits of the senses.
> >
> > Speaking of my cochlear infection... in my limited amateur experience, it originally APPEARED to be a typical if unusually severe outer ear infection. But to the ENT doctor, who has a better understand of the ear, it was clearly a much deeper problem. Appearance is separated from actuality by knowledge and experience.
> >
> > To the minds of Flat-Earthers, it certainly APPEARS that the Earth is flat. Nevermind that this makes no sense if you reason it out, because they have weak reasoning skills. Appearance is separated from actuality by the ability to reason soundly.
> >
> > And last today -- to get all too topical -- a police officer was acquitted of manslaughter, in the shooting death of Philando Castile, a man who -- by all accounts -- had done nothing violent nor intended to. But in the moment, to that cop, it APPEARED that he did. Appearance is separated from actuality by prejudice and presupposition.
> >
> > So you see, Ray... there are LOTS of reasons that appearance should not and must not be automatically assumed to be actuality/reality. "Appearances can be deceiving" is a cliche for a reason.
> >
>
> Sean departs topic, origins biology, while using a particular definition of "appearance" that supports his examples. But in the Creation v. Evolution debate the word "appearance" simply means "looks." Why do humming birds look designed? My question is rhetorical. They look designed because they were designed.

Yes, I am also using the word "appears" to mean "looks." But how something looks is subjective, based on the viewer doing the looking. How it looks to a particular viewer may be impacted by (again): limitations of the senses, prior experience, the degree of the viewers ability to reason, and prejudice and presupposition.

Again, hummingbirds DON'T look designed to me. That's a subjective view. And so is yours, Ray.

>
> I have an inference of Intelligence based on an observation. My inference, therefore, is logical and of course scientific.

Yeah... you skipped a few steps there. Your inference may be based on observation, but that doesn't automatically mean it is logical... and it certainly doesn't mean it is automatically scientific.

>
> What does evolution propose?
>
> The inference of evolution (older species originating newer species). In other words, one cannot logically observe or infer a look of design.

The APPEARANCE of design is your subjective opinion. There is a stronger case for a RESEMBLANCE to design, which I will happily grant: many features of living things RESEMBLE designed objects. And evolution absolutely has an explanation for this... MORE than one, actually. The first is that, through a process of trial-and-error, evolution will naturally but unwittingly trend toward useful and efficient solutions. Since useful and efficient solutions is ALSO generally the goal of human design, it is unsurprising that nature and humanity have reached similar solutions. Another is that humans observed the solutions that we already devised by nature, and immitated them in their designed. So it isn't so much that nature is the result of design as that design is the result of nature.

>
> So our observation falsifies your inference.
>
> Ray

Nope. Sorry. Try again.

[ernobe]

Part of the reason you don't get to discuss further is that this is a
newsgroup, and what someones' abject denial may be is not news worthy.
The alternative they are defending is not science based, but based on
the assumption that the religious truth can be as true as science
without contradiction.


--
https://archive.org/services/purl/bahai

[jillery]

The above is another one of your many mindless PRATTs. Over the
years, I and others have cited multiple times multiple examples of
phenomena which appear designed but are not. I have no reason to
believe citing them again would convince you this time any better than
before.

>> Is there a real and discernable different between what something looks like and what something is?
>>
>> Yes.
>>
>> Why? Because appearances are subjective perceptions, while actuality is literally reality. And some appearances are more subjective than others.
>>
>
>Wait! You've just inflicted a certain definition onto "appearances" that doesn't make sense. No definition of "appearances" includes the concept of "subjective."

From dictionary.com:

**************************************************
appearance: noun

3. outward show or seeming; semblance:

5. appearances, outward impressions, indications, or circumstances:
**************************************************

Both refer to subjective characteristics. Your claim above is
disproved.

>So your argument begins with a misconception. When we Paleyans use the word "appearances" we are making a rhetorical point; asking, for example, why do humming birds appear designed? Again, our question isn't literal, but rhetorical.

Since you admit your question is rhetorical, posting it merely begs
the question without proving anything, except perhaps that you can't
tell the difference between facts and your opinions.

>> For examples:
>>
>> I am hard of hearing (random cochlear infection a couple years ago very sad I've moved on). As such, I can attest that in my experience, my friends, family, and coworkers frequently APPEAR to have said things that they did not actually say. Appearance is separated from actuality by the limits of the senses.
>>
>> Speaking of my cochlear infection... in my limited amateur experience, it originally APPEARED to be a typical if unusually severe outer ear infection. But to the ENT doctor, who has a better understand of the ear, it was clearly a much deeper problem. Appearance is separated from actuality by knowledge and experience.
>>
>> To the minds of Flat-Earthers, it certainly APPEARS that the Earth is flat. Nevermind that this makes no sense if you reason it out, because they have weak reasoning skills. Appearance is separated from actuality by the ability to reason soundly.
>>
>> And last today -- to get all too topical -- a police officer was acquitted of manslaughter, in the shooting death of Philando Castile, a man who -- by all accounts -- had done nothing violent nor intended to. But in the moment, to that cop, it APPEARED that he did. Appearance is separated from actuality by prejudice and presupposition.
>>
>> So you see, Ray... there are LOTS of reasons that appearance should not and must not be automatically assumed to be actuality/reality. "Appearances can be deceiving" is a cliche for a reason.
>>
>
>Sean departs topic, origins biology, while using a particular definition of "appearance" that supports his examples. But in the Creation v. Evolution debate the word "appearance" simply means "looks." Why do humming birds look designed? My question is rhetorical. They look designed because they were designed.

You're just repeating your error from before. Your opinions are not
the same as facts.

>I have an inference of Intelligence based on an observation. My inference, therefore, is logical and of course scientific.

But it's not necessarily factual. You can't reasonably claim your
inference is factual just because you assume it to be.

>What does evolution propose?
>
>The inference of evolution (older species originating newer species). In other words, one cannot logically observe or infer a look of design.
>
>So our observation falsifies your inference.

That's not "our" inference.

[RonO]

You are just restating the reason for my type of post in pointing out
what the ID/creationists have been doing. They never wanted to do any
science. Some may have been too ignorant and or incompetent to realize
that, but that is the point no IDiot science was ever done. ID perps
like they have at the Discovery Institute have been lying about what
they have been doing for decades. What these recent posts should do is
make all such posters realize that, and if they actually want to do what
they were claiming that they have been doing all these years, they have
to do something different than the usual senseless denial. They can
give up like Bill and major IDiots like Mike Gene and Philip Johnson,
but they do have a sensible option.

These guys have been lying about arguing the science for years. As I
have said some may have been too ignorant and or incompetent to
understand what they have been doing, but all you ever get out of them
is denial. If they ever wanted to argue the science, they should give
it a try.

Instead of doing something sensible you get threads like Pointless
Prattle, and Fuzzy Facts. The IDiot/creationists obviously need to be
reminded of just what a stupid thing that they have done, and are
continuing to do. Reality isn't going to get any better for them, and
they should learn to deal with it. Hopefully, in some type of rational
way. Right now denial is all they have. It would obviously be a major
step forward for all of them to actually try to determine what
alternative is that they think that they are defending here. Since they
have been lying about the ID science for years, it would obviously be a
step forward for them to try to produce the best alternative that they
can and see where that leads and where science could help them out in
making their alternative better. That would be a positive thing, and
creationists like Eddie already know that they could make progress in
determining what the best alternative might be in terms of the known
science.

The IDiots claimed that they wanted to do science to demonstrate that
they had an alternative, so why not give it a try. Personally, I do not
think that mixing science and theology is something that most of these
guys should do, but it is what they have been claiming to do, so why not
do it instead of continue to lie about doing it.

Ron Okimoto

[Öö Tiib]

On Wednesday, 21 June 2017 03:39:58 UTC+3, Ray Martinez wrote:
>
> Sean (or anybody): How does an appearance or look of design not indicate
> actual design? Answer: Only if one assumes contrary to the look. What,
> then, justifies said assumption? And assumptions, in and of themselves,
> do not constitute evidence.

Ron's point was that why dos no one do and put forward creationist science
of it? Why there are no science of "appearances being evidence" or whatever? Nothing. Just such accusations like it is our (my? his?) fault that we haven't
accepted your "evidence". Why don't you make it to classify?
Why don't you define your "non-subjective appearances" or whatever was the
point. Would be interesting to read at least. Insults? That is pathetic,
sorry.
Nice midsummer to you.

[Ray Martinez]

On Wednesday, June 21, 2017 at 3:59:54 PM UTC-7, Ray Martinez wrote:

> My points were rhetorical. Since you admittedly don't see a look of design in nature, explaining what others see as a deception or illusion still doesn't harm existence of the look that we observe. Very many people see design in nature including a lot of non-Christians. So the observation remains as an objective fact.

>
> > >
> > > > Is there a real and discernable different between what something looks like and what something is?
> > > >
> > > > Yes.
> > > >
> > > > Why? Because appearances are subjective perceptions, while actuality is literally reality. And some appearances are more subjective than others.
> > > >
> > >
> > > Wait! You've just inflicted a certain definition onto "appearances" that doesn't make sense. No definition of "appearances" includes the concept of "subjective." So your argument begins with a misconception. When we Paleyans use the word "appearances" we are making a rhetorical point; asking, for example, why do humming birds appear designed? Again, our question isn't literal, but rhetorical.
> >
> > Of COURSE "appearance" is subjective.
>

> Total evasion of what I said while reiterating the point that I addressed. The word "appearance" could have several valid definitional senses, as I show, but subjective is not one of them. By calling into question observation as subjective you have inadvertently undermined every observation that you rely on as well. Not a good argument, Sean. Moreover, your claim of subjectivity presupposes false appearances to be the rule or the norm. The concept of appearance does not presuppose false appearances as the norm or rule, and the word has several valid definitional senses. I have conveyed the sense in which we use the term----you, as mentioned, have evaded.
>
> Appearance of design simply means we observe organized complexity to a degree that has direct correspondence to the work of an invisible Designer.
>
> In response, Sean uses "appearance" in the sense of false appearance or misleading appearance, which isn't the historic claim. Creationists don't use your rendering, simply absurd.

>
> >
> Appearance is intrinsically about perception, and perception is intrinsically subjective. If we say something "appears" designed, the logical question is, "TO WHOM does it appear designed, and on what basis." And if we have to ask "to whom?" that is a pretty classic hallmark of subjectivity.
> >
>

> All observation is reliant on the sense of perception, including observations that are used to infer evolution. Any objective application of your claims renders evolution subjective as well. And like I said: very many people from all walks of life and social status see design in nature. This is WHY Creationism thrives. We believe our eyes and senses, not the claims of those who are deluded by inferior inferences of evolution. Our observation explains your inference as the way the Designer chose to create: similar or variant species. Genesis says God saw that what He created was good, which implies that He made similar good things (= species).

>
> > Your question IS rhetorical, but it is also based on a faulty premise. Because you're missing part of that sentence. The full question is "Why does the hummingbird appear designed TO YOU (Ray)?" Because the fact is, the hummingbird does NOT appear designed to me (Sean). And the obvious answer to "Why does the hummingbird appear designed TO RAY?" is "Ray is predisposed to attribute design because of his strongly held worldview."
> >
>

> Which renders Sean strongly predisposed to attribute evolution because of his Atheist worldview. AGAIN, very many people from all walks of life and social status see design in nature (= objective fact). Thomas Jefferson, a non-Christian, for example, saw a designed nature. So did David Hume, but he denied the inference to the work of a God.

>
> > >
> > > > For examples:
> > > >
> > > > I am hard of hearing (random cochlear infection a couple years ago very sad I've moved on). As such, I can attest that in my experience, my friends, family, and coworkers frequently APPEAR to have said things that they did not actually say. Appearance is separated from actuality by the limits of the senses.
> > > >
> > > > Speaking of my cochlear infection... in my limited amateur experience, it originally APPEARED to be a typical if unusually severe outer ear infection. But to the ENT doctor, who has a better understand of the ear, it was clearly a much deeper problem. Appearance is separated from actuality by knowledge and experience.
> > > >
> > > > To the minds of Flat-Earthers, it certainly APPEARS that the Earth is flat. Nevermind that this makes no sense if you reason it out, because they have weak reasoning skills. Appearance is separated from actuality by the ability to reason soundly.
> > > >
> > > > And last today -- to get all too topical -- a police officer was acquitted of manslaughter, in the shooting death of Philando Castile, a man who -- by all accounts -- had done nothing violent nor intended to. But in the moment, to that cop, it APPEARED that he did. Appearance is separated from actuality by prejudice and presupposition.
> > > >
> > > > So you see, Ray... there are LOTS of reasons that appearance should not and must not be automatically assumed to be actuality/reality. "Appearances can be deceiving" is a cliche for a reason.
> > > >
> > >
> > > Sean departs topic, origins biology, while using a particular definition of "appearance" that supports his examples. But in the Creation v. Evolution debate the word "appearance" simply means "looks." Why do humming birds look designed? My question is rhetorical. They look designed because they were designed.
> >
> > Yes, I am also using the word "appears" to mean "looks." But how something looks is subjective, based on the viewer doing the looking. How it looks to a particular viewer may be impacted by (again): limitations of the senses, prior experience, the degree of the viewers ability to reason, and prejudice and presupposition.
> >
> > Again, hummingbirds DON'T look designed to me. That's a subjective view. And so is yours, Ray.
> >
> > >
> > > I have an inference of Intelligence based on an observation. My inference, therefore, is logical and of course scientific.
> >
> > Yeah... you skipped a few steps there.
>

> Nope, I conveyed the universal scientific logic of cause-and-effect.

>
> >
> Your inference may be based on observation, but that doesn't automatically mean it is logical... and it certainly doesn't mean it is automatically scientific.
> >
>

> In both cases, yes it does. Before the evolution revolution of Darwinism science accepted design in nature and the inference to the work of God.

>
> > >
> > > What does evolution propose?
> > >
> > > The inference of evolution (older species originating newer species). In other words, one cannot logically observe or infer a look of design.
> >
> > The APPEARANCE of design is your subjective opinion. There is a stronger case for a RESEMBLANCE to design, which I will happily grant: many features of living things RESEMBLE designed objects. And evolution absolutely has an explanation for this... MORE than one, actually.
> >
>

> Totally false: no effect or result can be described or identified as designed if produced by an unguided material agent. Therefore mere existence of a resemblance or appearance or illusion of design falsifies the inference of evolution ***to be false*** because the observation of design infers supernatural causation, not natural or unguided causation.
>

ERROR seen above, should not have written the phrase ***to be false,*** please ignore.

Ray

[Ray Martinez]

On Wednesday, June 21, 2017 at 3:49:56 PM UTC-7, Öö Tiib wrote:
> On Wednesday, 21 June 2017 03:39:58 UTC+3, Ray Martinez wrote:
> >
> > Sean (or anybody): How does an appearance or look of design not indicate
> > actual design? Answer: Only if one assumes contrary to the look. What,
> > then, justifies said assumption? And assumptions, in and of themselves,
> > do not constitute evidence.
>

> Ron's point was that why does no one do and put forward creationist science

> of it? Why there are no science of "appearances being evidence" or whatever? Nothing. Just such accusations like it is our (my? his?) fault that we haven't
> accepted your "evidence". Why don't you make it to classify?
> Why don't you define your "non-subjective appearances" or whatever was the
> point. Would be interesting to read at least. Insults? That is pathetic,
> sorry.
> Nice midsummer to you.

Not entirely sure what you're asking?

Ray

[Ray Martinez]

On Tuesday, June 20, 2017 at 6:19:53 PM UTC-7, Sean Dillon wrote:
> On Tuesday, June 20, 2017 at 7:39:58 PM UTC-5, Ray Martinez wrote:

Corrected version.....

> > On Friday, June 16, 2017 at 6:49:56 PM UTC-7, Sean Dillon wrote:
> > > On Friday, June 16, 2017 at 6:39:54 PM UTC-5, Ray Martinez wrote:
> > > > On Thursday, June 15, 2017 at 1:39:54 PM UTC-7, Bill Rogers wrote:
> > > > > On Thursday, June 15, 2017 at 4:04:54 PM UTC-4, Sean Dillon wrote:
> > > > > > On Thursday, June 15, 2017 at 2:19:54 PM UTC-5, Rolf wrote:
> > > > > > > "Sean Dillon" <seand...@gmail.com> wrote in message

- show quoted text -

My points were rhetorical. Since you admittedly don't see a look of design in nature, explaining what others see as a deception or illusion still doesn't harm existence of the look that we observe. Very many people see design in nature including a lot of non-Christians. So the observation remains as an objective fact.

> >

> > > Is there a real and discernable different between what something looks like and what something is?
> > >
> > > Yes.
> > >
> > > Why? Because appearances are subjective perceptions, while actuality is literally reality. And some appearances are more subjective than others.
> > >
> >
> > Wait! You've just inflicted a certain definition onto "appearances" that doesn't make sense. No definition of "appearances" includes the concept of "subjective." So your argument begins with a misconception. When we Paleyans use the word "appearances" we are making a rhetorical point; asking, for example, why do humming birds appear designed? Again, our question isn't literal, but rhetorical.
>
> Of COURSE "appearance" is subjective.

Total evasion of what I said while reiterating the point that I addressed. The word "appearance" could have several valid definitional senses, as I show, but subjective is not one of them. By calling into question observation as subjective you have inadvertently undermined every observation that you rely on as well. Not a good argument, Sean. Moreover, your claim of subjectivity presupposes false appearances to be the rule or the norm. The concept of appearance does not presuppose false appearances as the norm or rule, and the word has several valid definitional senses. I have conveyed the sense in which we use the term----you, as mentioned, have evaded.

Appearance of design simply means we observe organized complexity to a degree that has direct correspondence to the work of an invisible Designer.

In response, Sean uses "appearance" in the sense of false appearance or misleading appearance, which isn't the historic claim. Creationists don't use your rendering, simply absurd.

>

Appearance is intrinsically about perception, and perception is intrinsically subjective. If we say something "appears" designed, the logical question is, "TO WHOM does it appear designed, and on what basis." And if we have to ask "to whom?" that is a pretty classic hallmark of subjectivity.
>

All observation is reliant on the sense of perception, including observations that are used to infer evolution. Any objective application of your claims renders evolution subjective as well. And like I said: very many people from all walks of life and social status see design in nature. This is WHY Creationism thrives. We believe our eyes and senses, not the claims of those who are deluded by inferior inferences of evolution. Our observation explains your inference as the way the Designer chose to create: similar or variant species. Genesis says God saw that what He created was good, which implies that He made similar good things (= species).

> Your question IS rhetorical, but it is also based on a faulty premise. Because you're missing part of that sentence. The full question is "Why does the hummingbird appear designed TO YOU (Ray)?" Because the fact is, the hummingbird does NOT appear designed to me (Sean). And the obvious answer to "Why does the hummingbird appear designed TO RAY?" is "Ray is predisposed to attribute design because of his strongly held worldview."
>

Which renders Sean strongly predisposed to attribute evolution because of his Atheist worldview. AGAIN, very many people from all walks of life and social status see design in nature (= objective fact). Thomas Jefferson, a non-Christian, for example, saw a designed nature. So did David Hume, but he denied the inference to the work of a God.

> >

> > > For examples:
> > >
> > > I am hard of hearing (random cochlear infection a couple years ago very sad I've moved on). As such, I can attest that in my experience, my friends, family, and coworkers frequently APPEAR to have said things that they did not actually say. Appearance is separated from actuality by the limits of the senses.
> > >
> > > Speaking of my cochlear infection... in my limited amateur experience, it originally APPEARED to be a typical if unusually severe outer ear infection. But to the ENT doctor, who has a better understand of the ear, it was clearly a much deeper problem. Appearance is separated from actuality by knowledge and experience.
> > >
> > > To the minds of Flat-Earthers, it certainly APPEARS that the Earth is flat. Nevermind that this makes no sense if you reason it out, because they have weak reasoning skills. Appearance is separated from actuality by the ability to reason soundly.
> > >
> > > And last today -- to get all too topical -- a police officer was acquitted of manslaughter, in the shooting death of Philando Castile, a man who -- by all accounts -- had done nothing violent nor intended to. But in the moment, to that cop, it APPEARED that he did. Appearance is separated from actuality by prejudice and presupposition.
> > >
> > > So you see, Ray... there are LOTS of reasons that appearance should not and must not be automatically assumed to be actuality/reality. "Appearances can be deceiving" is a cliche for a reason.
> > >
> >
> > Sean departs topic, origins biology, while using a particular definition of "appearance" that supports his examples. But in the Creation v. Evolution debate the word "appearance" simply means "looks." Why do humming birds look designed? My question is rhetorical. They look designed because they were designed.
>
> Yes, I am also using the word "appears" to mean "looks." But how something looks is subjective, based on the viewer doing the looking. How it looks to a particular viewer may be impacted by (again): limitations of the senses, prior experience, the degree of the viewers ability to reason, and prejudice and presupposition.
>
> Again, hummingbirds DON'T look designed to me. That's a subjective view. And so is yours, Ray.
>
> >
> > I have an inference of Intelligence based on an observation. My inference, therefore, is logical and of course scientific.
>
> Yeah... you skipped a few steps there.

Nope, I conveyed the universal scientific logic of cause-and-effect.

>

Your inference may be based on observation, but that doesn't automatically mean it is logical... and it certainly doesn't mean it is automatically scientific.
>

In both cases, yes it does. Before the evolution revolution of Darwinism science accepted design in nature and the inference to the work of God.

> >

> > What does evolution propose?
> >
> > The inference of evolution (older species originating newer species). In other words, one cannot logically observe or infer a look of design.
>
> The APPEARANCE of design is your subjective opinion. There is a stronger case for a RESEMBLANCE to design, which I will happily grant: many features of living things RESEMBLE designed objects. And evolution absolutely has an explanation for this... MORE than one, actually.
>

Totally false: no effect or result can be described or identified as designed if produced by an unguided material agent. Therefore mere existence of a resemblance or appearance or illusion of design falsifies the inference of evolution because the observation of design infers supernatural causation, not natural or unguided causation. This is WHY science today rejects appearance of design existing in nature. Contrary to Burk's gross misunderstanding of Richard Dawkins, he too completely rejects appearance of design existing in nature for the reason I just explained.

Tell you what, Sean, go ask John Harshman if evolutionary science accepts appearance of design in nature? I'll wait right here.

>
The first is that, through a process of trial-and-error, evolution will naturally but unwittingly trend toward useful and efficient solutions. Since useful and efficient solutions is ALSO generally the goal of human design, it is unsurprising that nature and humanity have reached similar solutions. Another is that humans observed the solutions that we already devised by nature, and immitated them in their designed. So it isn't so much that nature is the result of design as that design is the result of nature.
>

Logically invalid: no effect can be described or identified as designed if produced by an unintelligent material agent. The point: evolutionary theory is UNABLE to logically account for the appearance of design seen by very many people from all walks of life.

Ray

[Sean Dillon]

Rather than responding to that piecemeal, let me take it all at once:

Appearance, by definition, is about how something looks. We might mean that in the very limited sense of how it visually looks, or more broadly how it "looks" to all of our senses (it appears that, or what we mentally conclude something looks LIKE. But one way or another, "appearance" is always about is always about perception.

Now... neither our minds nor our senses are infallible. Both CAN be tricked. And that means that our perceptions CAN be wrong. Appearances CAN be wrong. (Which is what makes magic shows so much fun.) That doesn't mean they are always or even often wrong. Odds are, most of our perceptions match up to some greater or lesser extent with reality. But they CAN be wrong. The possibility always exists that our perception of reality -- how reality "appears" to us -- MAY be wrong.

Point being, the mere fact that something APPEARS a particular way to someone, or even LOTS of someones, is not in-and-of-itself a guarantee that the appearance accurately reflects reality. For example, from a ground-eye view, the Earth APPEARS roughly flat to nearly EVERYbody. However, we know, through logic and experience, that the Earth is NOT flat. Its flat APPEARANCE is an illusion caused by the fact that the roundness of the Earth is on a much larger scale that the the scale most of us live on day-to-day.

So... appearances aren't always wrong. They probably aren't even usually wrong. But they are sometimes wrong. And they are sometimes wrong even if they appear the same way to most people.

So you tell me that life "appears" designed. You tell me it appears designed to lots of people, and those people include many scientists. And I accept all of that. What I REJECT is the idea that because it APPEARS that way, it necessarily must BE that way. As we've seen above, there are counter-factual examples to claims of this nature. Just because the Earth APPEARS flat doesn't mean it is. Just because life APPEARS designed doesn't mean it is.

So the onus is on you to show any logical reason why the APPEARANCE of design cannot have any explanation other than actual design. You have so far failed to do this. You've just repeatedly made the claim that it must be.

Which is not very compelling, especially because we have a working alternative explanation for why life may appear designed to many people. To whit: evolution is a process of trial and error, that -- over a very long time -- tries a massive number of different possible solutions in an iterative and cumulative way. Solutions that are effective or adaptable will tend to be rewarded at the expense of less effective/adaptable alternatives. This process will, naturally, drive life in the direction of effective, adaptable forms, and because more effective, adaptable forms are frequently (though not always) more sophisticated, this has the side effect of driving the development of complexity.

So if we are using organised complexity as our benchmark of "appearing designed" (which you appear to be), evolution provides a strong alternative contender to actual design as an explanation for that appearance.

Not only that... evolution provides strong and specific explanation for things in nature that are strange or challenging to explain as the result of actual design.

For examples:
- There is no a priori reason to assume that a direct designer would make all living things in a strict, dual nested heirarchy of geno- and phenotype similarity. There is no reason, for example, to expect a designer not to extensively mix and match features. But we don't see any of that. What we DO see is exactly the one and only inter-relationship of similarity of living things that is compatible with the evolution hypothesis: a nested heirarchy... aka a family tree.

http://tolweb.org/tree/

- There is no reason to expect a direct designer to put broken versions of the genes for reptile teeth into chickens. And yet, chickens have those genes, and when activated, they do grow reptilian teeth. But it makes total sense under the evolutionary hypothesis

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/mutant-chicken-grows-alli/

- There is no reason to expect that, between major animal groups (say, reptiles and birds for example), a designer would design an entire series of species that span the gaps between those two groups by a series of small changes. And yet, that's exactly what we have. And it IS exactly what we'd expect under the evolution hypothesis.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/section1.html#morphological_intermediates_ex1

- There is no logical reason for a designer to run the left recurrent larygeal nerve in giraffes all the way from the brain, down the neck, around the heart, and back up to the throat just inches from the brain, given that this nerve only the brain and larynx. But the evolutionary hypothesis has a sound explanation for it...

http://imgur.com/NP50sD1

So... despite the fact that life may APPEAR designed to a lot of people, there is a lot of reason to think that it isn't. Just as there is lots of reason to think the Earth isn't flat, despite appearances.

[Bill]

Sean Dillon wrote:


>
> So... despite the fact that life may APPEAR designed to a
> lot of people, there is a lot of reason to think that it
> isn't. Just as there is lots of reason to think the Earth

> isn't flat, despite appearances...

I think that the pyramids of Giza are natural formations
created by erosion, they certainly appear that way. This
explanation is much simpler than the proposition that people
with nothing but copper tools deliberately built them a
block at a time. Human perception resolves these natural
formations into forms that make sense to human perception.

Bill

[John Harshman]

I can't tell if that's a joke or if you're serious. You've said
similarly absurd things before. Please advise.

[Sean Dillon]

What an interesting hypothesis. Let's take a further look at the evidence. When examined more closely, it becomes apparent that the pyramid is largely composed of rectangular-solid granite stone blocks. Granite is a plausible material for a natural rock formation (both uplift and volcanic mountains might be formed of it). However, regular 90 angles and edges are not something that is consistent with natural formation, given granite's crystal structure. There are minerals that might crystalize in a similar structure, but granit is not one of them. Nor have crystals of that sheer magnitude (not to mention quantity) ever been observed at any other site. Nor would we anticipate granite eroding so considently into separate and regular blocks. There are also accounts on papyri dating from the period which describe the process of construction. I could go on, but I think we've taken this bit far enough.

So all in all, while the human construction of the pyramids is remarkable, it does appear to be a much better fit than the "natural formation" hypothesis.

[Ray Martinez]

Agreed (don't forget).

> We might mean that in the very limited sense of how it visually looks, or more broadly how it "looks" to all of our senses (it appears that, or what we mentally conclude something looks LIKE. But one way or another, "appearance" is always about is always about perception.
>
> Now... neither our minds nor our senses are infallible. Both CAN be tricked. And that means that our perceptions CAN be wrong. Appearances CAN be wrong. (Which is what makes magic shows so much fun.) That doesn't mean they are always or even often wrong. Odds are, most of our perceptions match up to some greater or lesser extent with reality. But they CAN be wrong. The possibility always exists that our perception of reality -- how reality "appears" to us -- MAY be wrong.
>

All of what you say is indisputably true, however. Before the point of fact becomes lost it needs to be said that we are actually talking about scientific observation. My claims are not unique or original but derived from scientific sources. Appearance of design is an old scientific claim. Victorian naturalists understood the same as presupposing observation of design----the subsequent definitional sense of a misleading appearance was never argued until after the rise of evolution in science.

> Point being, the mere fact that something APPEARS a particular way to someone, or even LOTS of someones, is not in-and-of-itself a guarantee that the appearance accurately reflects reality. For example, from a ground-eye view, the Earth APPEARS roughly flat to nearly EVERYbody. However, we know, through logic and experience, that the Earth is NOT flat. Its flat APPEARANCE is an illusion caused by the fact that the roundness of the Earth is on a much larger scale that the the scale most of us live on day-to-day.
>
> So... appearances aren't always wrong. They probably aren't even usually wrong. But they are sometimes wrong. And they are sometimes wrong even if they appear the same way to most people.
>
> So you tell me that life "appears" designed. You tell me it appears designed to lots of people, and those people include many scientists. And I accept all of that. What I REJECT is the idea that because it APPEARS that way, it necessarily must BE that way.
>

That's essentially what David Hume said and argued. Note the fact that an observation is being called into question without any valid logic or scientific reasoning....please continue.

>
As we've seen above, there are counter-factual examples to claims of this nature. Just because the Earth APPEARS flat doesn't mean it is. Just because life APPEARS designed doesn't mean it is.
>

We both know that there are fairly easy ways to expose the appearance of a flat earth to be false, what's the method for exposing the observation of design to be likewise?

> So the onus is on you to show any logical reason why the APPEARANCE of design cannot have any explanation other than actual design. You have so far failed to do this. You've just repeatedly made the claim that it must be.
>

I think you botched your question? If not, are you asking me to show how appearance equals actual? If so your question assumes that a particular observation is false. There is no way to answer because we have an assumption that calls into question an observation. The observation itself is assumed real or actual, why else or how else is it seen? So your question is contradictory, it places an observation on trial as false then demands evidence for its facticity. Facticity is based solely on the observation, which is the main tool of the scientific method. In essence your error is admitting existence of the appearance. As an Evolutionist you have only one option, which, whether intended or not, is exercised in your replies below. You argue that evolution explains our observation. But this explanation of our observation is logically invalid. If design exists in nature then evolution is falsified.

> Which is not very compelling, especially because we have a working alternative explanation for why life may appear designed to many people. To whit: evolution is a process of trial and error, that -- over a very long time -- tries a massive number of different possible solutions in an iterative and cumulative way. Solutions that are effective or adaptable will tend to be rewarded at the expense of less effective/adaptable alternatives. This process will, naturally, drive life in the direction of effective, adaptable forms, and because more effective, adaptable forms are frequently (though not always) more sophisticated, this has the side effect of driving the development of complexity.
>

Sean invokes the standard claim made by the ToE. Evolution produces organized complexity. Round and round WE go. No, unguidedness cannot produce organization, logically invalid, which means impossible.

> So if we are using organised complexity as our benchmark of "appearing designed" (which you appear to be), evolution provides a strong alternative contender to actual design as an explanation for that appearance.
>
> Not only that... evolution provides strong and specific explanation for things in nature that are strange or challenging to explain as the result of actual design.
>
> For examples:
> - There is no a priori reason to assume that a direct designer would make all living things in a strict, dual nested heirarchy of geno- and phenotype similarity. There is no reason, for example, to expect a designer not to extensively mix and match features. But we don't see any of that. What we DO see is exactly the one and only inter-relationship of similarity of living things that is compatible with the evolution hypothesis: a nested heirarchy... aka a family tree.
>
> http://tolweb.org/tree/
>
> - There is no reason to expect a direct designer to put broken versions of the genes for reptile teeth into chickens. And yet, chickens have those genes, and when activated, they do grow reptilian teeth. But it makes total sense under the evolutionary hypothesis
>
> https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/mutant-chicken-grows-alli/
>
> - There is no reason to expect that, between major animal groups (say, reptiles and birds for example), a designer would design an entire series of species that span the gaps between those two groups by a series of small changes. And yet, that's exactly what we have. And it IS exactly what we'd expect under the evolution hypothesis.
>
> http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/section1.html#morphological_intermediates_ex1
>
> - There is no logical reason for a designer to run the left recurrent larygeal nerve in giraffes all the way from the brain, down the neck, around the heart, and back up to the throat just inches from the brain, given that this nerve only the brain and larynx. But the evolutionary hypothesis has a sound explanation for it...
>
> http://imgur.com/NP50sD1
>
> So... despite the fact that life may APPEAR designed to a lot of people, there is a lot of reason to think that it isn't. Just as there is lots of reason to think the Earth isn't flat, despite appearances.
>

Sean ends his argument with a bang----citing MUCH specific evidence that is easily seen as supporting evolution. I do not, for the most part, contest these examples as existing. The only thing that falsifies Sean's master conclusion that evolution did it is the observation of design. Said observation dictates that the Biblical Divine Mastermind intentionally did these things. So we are thrust right back to our initial debate about observation of design. IF we observe design then each specific example cited by Sean becomes the deliberate work of our God.

Ray

[Ray Martinez]

We do in fact observe design, that is, science before evolution and a host of diverse persons from every walk of life and social status see design in nature. So every example cited by Sean becomes the work of the Biblical God.

Correction: What I said about Hume in my message above is error. Hume attacked the logic that design infers the work of God. He did not call into question the observation of design.

Ray

[Sean Dillon]

Yes, but the Theory of Evolution displaces creationism because it was a better fit to the data.

>
>
> > Point being, the mere fact that something APPEARS a particular way to someone, or even LOTS of someones, is not in-and-of-itself a guarantee that the appearance accurately reflects reality. For example, from a ground-eye view, the Earth APPEARS roughly flat to nearly EVERYbody. However, we know, through logic and experience, that the Earth is NOT flat. Its flat APPEARANCE is an illusion caused by the fact that the roundness of the Earth is on a much larger scale that the the scale most of us live on day-to-day.
> >
> > So... appearances aren't always wrong. They probably aren't even usually wrong. But they are sometimes wrong. And they are sometimes wrong even if they appear the same way to most people.
> >
> > So you tell me that life "appears" designed. You tell me it appears designed to lots of people, and those people include many scientists. And I accept all of that. What I REJECT is the idea that because it APPEARS that way, it necessarily must BE that way.
> >
>
> That's essentially what David Hume said and argued. Note the fact that an observation is being called into question without any valid logic or scientific reasoning....please continue.

The logic and reasoning you're looking for came at the end of the post... the several examples of data that much better fits the evolutionary model than a direct Creation model.

>
> >
> As we've seen above, there are counter-factual examples to claims of this nature. Just because the Earth APPEARS flat doesn't mean it is. Just because life APPEARS designed doesn't mean it is.
> >
> We both know that there are fairly easy ways to expose the appearance of a flat earth to be false, what's the method for exposing the observation of design to be likewise?

It isn't necessary to show that it is false. It is only necessary to show that the alternative theory is a much better fit to the data.

>
>
> > So the onus is on you to show any logical reason why the APPEARANCE of design cannot have any explanation other than actual design. You have so far failed to do this. You've just repeatedly made the claim that it must be.
> >
>
> I think you botched your question? If not, are you asking me to show how appearance equals actual? If so your question assumes that a particular observation is false. There is no way to answer because we have an assumption that calls into question an observation. The observation itself is assumed real or actual, why else or how else is it seen? So your question is contradictory, it places an observation on trial as false then demands evidence for its facticity. Facticity is based solely on the observation, which is the main tool of the scientific method. In essence your error is admitting existence of the appearance. As an Evolutionist you have only one option, which, whether intended or not, is exercised in your replies below. You argue that evolution explains our observation.

No, I did not botch my question. You stated that "no effect can be described or identified as designed if produced by an unintelligent material agent." And I am saying that in order to make that argument, you have to establish that there IS no possible alternative explanation. Which you haven't. In fact, I have presented you with an alternative explanation, and your only reponse was to once again repeat your claim, without backing it up with anything.

>But this explanation of our observation is logically invalid. If design exists in nature then evolution is falsified.

If design EXISTS in nature, then you may have a point. But if only the APPEARANCE of design exists in nature, you don't. Because as we've well and thoroughly covered at this point, not all appearances are wrong, but appearance ALONE is not sufficient to prove your case. Especially when there IS a valid alternative explanation for that appearance... one that BETTER explains the data than a naive claim that it is what it appears (to you) to be.

>
> > Which is not very compelling, especially because we have a working alternative explanation for why life may appear designed to many people. To whit: evolution is a process of trial and error, that -- over a very long time -- tries a massive number of different possible solutions in an iterative and cumulative way. Solutions that are effective or adaptable will tend to be rewarded at the expense of less effective/adaptable alternatives. This process will, naturally, drive life in the direction of effective, adaptable forms, and because more effective, adaptable forms are frequently (though not always) more sophisticated, this has the side effect of driving the development of complexity.
> >
>
> Sean invokes the standard claim made by the ToE. Evolution produces organized complexity. Round and round WE go. No, unguidedness cannot produce organization, logically invalid, which means impossible.
>

Another claim without backing. You have no proof or evidence that an unguided process cannot produce organization. You declaring it "logically invalid" does not make it so, because you have provided no logic.

>
> > So if we are using organised complexity as our benchmark of "appearing designed" (which you appear to be), evolution provides a strong alternative contender to actual design as an explanation for that appearance.
> >
> > Not only that... evolution provides strong and specific explanation for things in nature that are strange or challenging to explain as the result of actual design.
> >
> > For examples:
> > - There is no a priori reason to assume that a direct designer would make all living things in a strict, dual nested heirarchy of geno- and phenotype similarity. There is no reason, for example, to expect a designer not to extensively mix and match features. But we don't see any of that. What we DO see is exactly the one and only inter-relationship of similarity of living things that is compatible with the evolution hypothesis: a nested heirarchy... aka a family tree.
> >
> > http://tolweb.org/tree/
> >
> > - There is no reason to expect a direct designer to put broken versions of the genes for reptile teeth into chickens. And yet, chickens have those genes, and when activated, they do grow reptilian teeth. But it makes total sense under the evolutionary hypothesis
> >
> > https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/mutant-chicken-grows-alli/
> >
> > - There is no reason to expect that, between major animal groups (say, reptiles and birds for example), a designer would design an entire series of species that span the gaps between those two groups by a series of small changes. And yet, that's exactly what we have. And it IS exactly what we'd expect under the evolution hypothesis.
> >
> > http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/section1.html#morphological_intermediates_ex1
> >
> > - There is no logical reason for a designer to run the left recurrent larygeal nerve in giraffes all the way from the brain, down the neck, around the heart, and back up to the throat just inches from the brain, given that this nerve only the brain and larynx. But the evolutionary hypothesis has a sound explanation for it...
> >
> > http://imgur.com/NP50sD1
> >
> > So... despite the fact that life may APPEAR designed to a lot of people, there is a lot of reason to think that it isn't. Just as there is lots of reason to think the Earth isn't flat, despite appearances.
> >
>
> Sean ends his argument with a bang----citing MUCH specific evidence that is easily seen as supporting evolution. I do not, for the most part, contest these examples as existing. The only thing that falsifies Sean's master conclusion that evolution did it is the observation of design.

But you're not observing design. You are observing features that you INTERPRET to be designed. Unless you actually watched God doing the designing, you did not "observe design."

>Said observation dictates that the Biblical Divine Mastermind intentionally did these things. So we are thrust right back to our initial debate about observation of design. IF we observe design then each specific example cited by Sean becomes the deliberate work of our God.
>
> Ray

It dictates absolutely no such thing.
A) Because you don't observe design. You observe features that you interpret to BE designed, because they look LIKE design through the lens of naive interpretation.
B) Even if it WERE determined that they were designed (which it hasn't been), that still wouldn't specific the God of the Bible as the designer.

[Sean Dillon]

No, we do not observe design. We observe features that you INTERPRET to be designed. We observe features that you read design INTO. There are alternative explanations for these features that do not depend on design. As such, the design hypothesis and the evolution hypothesis need to be weighed against each other on their ability to fit and well-explain the evidence, rather than naively assuming that it must be what -- in your OPINION -- it appears it be.

And the examples I offered do not make much sense as the work of a divine direct designer, which is why I offered them as examples. They are examples of the kind of data that drove the scientific community away from the design hypothesis.

[John Harshman]

Mostly limestone, actually. There's some granite in them, and some
basalt, but mostly limestone.

[Sean Dillon]

My understanding was limestone facing, granite structure. Have I been misinformed?

[jillery]

Also, there are tool marks on many of the blocks. And there are
quarries with the tools which created those marks, and partially cut
blocks of the same size and shape as on the pyramids.

Bill posted a false equivalence. As the above shows, there is more
than the mere appearance of design to show that pyramids were
designed. Unfortunately for Bill, he has nothing similar to show that
life was designed.

[jillery]

Whether you were misinformed remains unknown, but your understanding
is incorrect:

<http://www.touregypt.net/featurestories/material.htm>

*************************************************
Many of the pyramids were built with a number of different stone
materials. Most of the material used was fairly rough, low grade
limestone used to build the pyramid core, while fine white limestone
was often employed for the outer casing as well as to cover interior
walls...

[...]

Pink granite, basalt and alabaster were used much more sparingly.
**************************************************

[Bill]

Biological structures have far more parts than a pyramid and
are far more complex yet are alleged to be entirely natural.
If nature can create something like people who can build
pyramids, it can surely build pyramids. Makes perfect sense.

Bill

[Sean Dillon]

I'm not saying it is implausible that natural pyramids could occur. There is just zero evidence that they did. All pyramids we have encountered have no plausible means to have arisen on their own, and we have no reason to think that they did.

And life is distinct from the pyramids in BOTH of those ways... it has a MEANS to have complexified on its own, and we have REASONS to think that it did. Living things reproduced slightly varied copies of themselves. Through the filter of highly iterated reproduction and survival selection, that provides a means for life to complexify and diversify. And I've already provided examples of a few of the reasons we have to conclude that it DID.

[John Harshman]

Of course. Because it's the number of parts that determine whether
nature can build something. Not. If I can make a cantilever bridge out
of steel beams, surely I can make a grain of sand out of them too,
because a grain of sand has fewer parts. Again, not. Your thinking is fuzzy.

Now of course we have evidence that the pyramids were built by humans,
and we have evidence that humans were built by nature (to use your
problematic, personified formulation). Is evidence a concern for you,
even just a little?

[Bill]

The point was that there are things which appear designed.
Some folks believe they can tell those that are and those
that aren't. Since any appearance of anything can only exist
to something having perceptions (living entities), we can't
expect nature itself to be much help.

Bill

[Bill]

Evidence is, like perception, something that only exists in
a thinking being. In fact, evidence is perception. What we
really know that we perceive "things" and those perceptions
become evidence which then mutate into still more
perceptions. An endless feedback loop. Befuddlement is
inevitable. Denial of befuddlement is the only remedy.

Bill

[Burkhard]

They sometimes do, to the point that lots of people for quite some time
can;t distinguish the too - well. appearance of design can be deceptive.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bosnian_pyramid_claims

Apart from that, "nature" does not create, specific processes do. We
understand pretty well how natural pyramids are formed, and how those
build by humans look - toolmarks are a pretty good sign.

Now, in your private universe there might be sexually reproducing
pyramids, in the real world, there aren't so really no reason to expect
them.

[John Harshman]

On 6/22/17 3:24 PM, Burkhard wrote:

>
> Now, in your private universe there might be sexually reproducing
> pyramids, in the real world, there aren't so really no reason to expect
> them.

Yeah, but I'd pay to watch that.

[Bill]

John Harshman wrote:

> On 6/22/17 3:24 PM, Burkhard wrote:
>
>>

>> Now, in your private universe there might be sexually
>> reproducing pyramids, in the real world, there aren't so
>> really no reason to expect them.
>

> Yeah, but I'd pay to watch that.

Sexually reproducing pyramids? How could we tell?

Bill

[Ray Martinez]

Note that I retracted what I said about Hume.

> The logic and reasoning you're looking for came at the end of the post... the several examples of data that much better fits the evolutionary model than a direct Creation model.
> >
> > >
> > As we've seen above, there are counter-factual examples to claims of this nature. Just because the Earth APPEARS flat doesn't mean it is. Just because life APPEARS designed doesn't mean it is.
> > >
> > We both know that there are fairly easy ways to expose the appearance of a flat earth to be false, what's the method for exposing the observation of design to be likewise?
>
> It isn't necessary to show that it is false. It is only necessary to show that the alternative theory is a much better fit to the data.
>
> >
> >
> > > So the onus is on you to show any logical reason why the APPEARANCE of design cannot have any explanation other than actual design. You have so far failed to do this. You've just repeatedly made the claim that it must be.
> > >
> >
> > I think you botched your question? If not, are you asking me to show how appearance equals actual? If so your question assumes that a particular observation is false. There is no way to answer because we have an assumption that calls into question an observation. The observation itself is assumed real or actual, why else or how else is it seen? So your question is contradictory, it places an observation on trial as false then demands evidence for its facticity. Facticity is based solely on the observation, which is the main tool of the scientific method. In essence your error is admitting existence of the appearance. As an Evolutionist you have only one option, which, whether intended or not, is exercised in your replies below. You argue that evolution explains our observation.
>
> No, I did not botch my question. You stated that "no effect can be described or identified as designed if produced by an unintelligent material agent." And I am saying that in order to make that argument, you have to establish that there IS no possible alternative explanation. Which you haven't. In fact, I have presented you with an alternative explanation, and your only reponse was to once again repeat your claim, without backing it up with anything.
>
>

You've misunderstood the issue, which is about logic. When I said no effect can be identified as designed if produced by an unintelligent agent, I'm reminding the debate of the problem faced by evolutionary theory. Since the theory posits undirected agency the same does not and cannot explain an observation or appearance of design, which is logically invalid because the cause and effect contradict.

Ray

[RonO]

In the reality that you live in nature is the only factor that we can
determine as having anything to do with us and so the pyramids are a act
of nature. So are nuclear weapons. If nature was not the way that it
is pyramids and nuclear weapons would not be possible. You can define
it any way that you want, but if nature is all there is, then nature is
ultimately the basis for what has happened. Nature can obviously do
more than you credit. Denial accomplishes nothing.

What you need is an alternative explanation, but you have no evidence
that your alternative exists to do what you want it to do. Theology
isn't science, and science is the study of nature. Where does that get
you? What were the claims out of the ID perps? When they started
running the bait and switch it came out that they never wanted to do the
science. They wanted to add the supernatural to science. That is
totally different from actually doing any science. They clearly
admitted this after Ohio. Their goal was to give some alternative to
materialism as they saw it. The problem is that no experimental designs
had to change with their addition. Nothing about our scientific
knowledge had to change. Their change would have had zero effect on how
science was actually accomplished because their addition didn't matter.
They could not determine if their addition actually existed, and it
affected nothing.

Really, what experimental protocols would have to change? What results
would come out differently? What would be affected?

When you add nothing to our understanding of nature you are not doing
any science worth calling science.

Put forward your alternative and see where the science leads. If you
already know that you don't want to do the science that you can do to
make your alternative the best and most consistent that it can be with
science, why go on with the denial?

Why is it not an option for you to put your alternative forward and use
science to make it the best that it can be? Isn't that what should have
been done instead of the ID bait and switch scam that creationists are
running on themselves?

Ron Okimoto

[Stevet]

Exactly, but the logical conclusion would be that either undirected agency
does not apply and is incorrect OR that the observation or appearance of
design is itself incorrect. These either/or logical alternatives are
themselves empirical questions, not logical ones

E

--
Stevet

[Sean Dillon]

I have not misunderstood the issue. There is neither a logical nor an evidentiary basis for the claim that undirected causes cannot produce organized effects. If you think I'm wrong, I'd very much like you to point me to a reputable source on logic that states such a logical law.

The notion of a cause and effect "condradicting" each other isn't sensical. After all, effects are OFTEN different -- or even diametrically opposite -- to their causes. That doesn't mean they "contradict."

For instance, in physics - Newton's 3rd Law: every action shall have an equal and opposite reaction.

Or in psychology - The Backfire Effect: Presenting people with evidence that disproves their closely held beliefs will only cause them to further dig in their heels.

Of course, both of the above are very different from the question of complexity from unguided causes, but they illustrate the general principle that there is no logical principle preventing a cause from having effects that are different from or even if opposition to that cause.

So your claim that it is "logically invalid" is made up bullshit with no basis in actual logic. Want to prove me wrong? Again: show me a reputable source that states the law of logic you are citing in your claim. Until then, it is just private madeup Ray-logic which has nothing to do with the real world.

[Öö Tiib]

On Thursday, 22 June 2017 02:24:52 UTC+3, Ray Martinez wrote:
> On Wednesday, June 21, 2017 at 3:49:56 PM UTC-7, Öö Tiib wrote:
> > On Wednesday, 21 June 2017 03:39:58 UTC+3, Ray Martinez wrote:
> > >
> > > Sean (or anybody): How does an appearance or look of design not indicate
> > > actual design? Answer: Only if one assumes contrary to the look. What,
> > > then, justifies said assumption? And assumptions, in and of themselves,
> > > do not constitute evidence.
> >
> > Ron's point was that why does no one do and put forward creationist science
> > of it? Why there are no science of "appearances being evidence" or whatever? Nothing. Just such accusations like it is our (my? his?) fault that we haven't
> > accepted your "evidence". Why don't you make it to classify?
> > Why don't you define your "non-subjective appearances" or whatever was the
> > point. Would be interesting to read at least. Insults? That is pathetic,
> > sorry.
> > Nice midsummer to you.
>
> Not entirely sure what you're asking?

I was asking where is that science of how these appearances outweigh all
the amounts of evidence that alive beings have evolved from their
ancestors?

We have read such arguments like "If one complex object (like watch) is
designed so therefore other complex object (like frog) is also designed".
That is clearly false analogy since we have lot of evidence that frogs
are spawned by parents and watches are made in factories.

So where is the science about appearances of design that does fit with
other evidence and does not ignore such dissimilarities?

[Ray Martinez]

Refresh

[Ray Martinez]

On Monday, June 26, 2017 at 2:04:55 PM UTC-7, Öö Tiib wrote:
> On Thursday, 22 June 2017 02:24:52 UTC+3, Ray Martinez wrote:
> > On Wednesday, June 21, 2017 at 3:49:56 PM UTC-7, Öö Tiib wrote:
> > > On Wednesday, 21 June 2017 03:39:58 UTC+3, Ray Martinez wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Sean (or anybody): How does an appearance or look of design not indicate
> > > > actual design? Answer: Only if one assumes contrary to the look. What,
> > > > then, justifies said assumption? And assumptions, in and of themselves,
> > > > do not constitute evidence.
> > >
> > > Ron's point was that why does no one do and put forward creationist science
> > > of it? Why there are no science of "appearances being evidence" or whatever? Nothing. Just such accusations like it is our (my? his?) fault that we haven't
> > > accepted your "evidence". Why don't you make it to classify?
> > > Why don't you define your "non-subjective appearances" or whatever was the
> > > point. Would be interesting to read at least. Insults? That is pathetic,
> > > sorry.
> > > Nice midsummer to you.
> >
> > Not entirely sure what you're asking?
>
> I was asking where is that science of how these appearances outweigh all
> the amounts of evidence that alive beings have evolved from their
> ancestors?
>

Appearance of design or observation of design means we have the basis to infer the work of invisible Intelligence. Said inference, based on observation, dictates that supernatural causation is operating in nature. The inferences supporting evolution are therefore rendered false. So the importance of our initial observation of appearance of design looms very large. This is precisely why evolutionary scientists completely reject ANY notion or conception of design existing in nature. As long as our observation is rejected as existing the same prevents our inference to the work of invisible Intelligence, which in turn allows the inference of evolution to proceed including the inferences needed to explain natural selection.

Ray

[Ray Martinez]

On Monday, June 26, 2017 at 2:04:55 PM UTC-7, Öö Tiib wrote:
> On Thursday, 22 June 2017 02:24:52 UTC+3, Ray Martinez wrote:
> > On Wednesday, June 21, 2017 at 3:49:56 PM UTC-7, Öö Tiib wrote:
> > > On Wednesday, 21 June 2017 03:39:58 UTC+3, Ray Martinez wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Sean (or anybody): How does an appearance or look of design not indicate
> > > > actual design? Answer: Only if one assumes contrary to the look. What,
> > > > then, justifies said assumption? And assumptions, in and of themselves,
> > > > do not constitute evidence.
> > >
> > > Ron's point was that why does no one do and put forward creationist science
> > > of it? Why there are no science of "appearances being evidence" or whatever? Nothing. Just such accusations like it is our (my? his?) fault that we haven't
> > > accepted your "evidence". Why don't you make it to classify?
> > > Why don't you define your "non-subjective appearances" or whatever was the
> > > point. Would be interesting to read at least. Insults? That is pathetic,
> > > sorry.
> > > Nice midsummer to you.
> >
> > Not entirely sure what you're asking?
>
> I was asking where is that science of how these appearances outweigh all
> the amounts of evidence that alive beings have evolved from their
> ancestors?

Your question assumes inference trumps observation----it does not and cannot. Evolution is NOT observed directly as it allegedly occurs. Rather, it is inferred to have occurred after the fact. So your question conveys a fundamental methodological error. Observation is the preeminent logical method of determining what exists. It is only dependent on the sense of sight. Inference, on the other hand, is dependent on observation.

These things said, the argument from design is only reliant on observation. Evolution, on the other hand, is completely reliant on inference.

Ray

[jillery]

On Wed, 28 Jun 2017 19:54:39 -0700 (PDT), Ray Martinez
<pyram...@yahoo.com> wrote:

>On Monday, June 26, 2017 at 2:04:55 PM UTC-7, 嘱 Tiib wrote:
>> On Thursday, 22 June 2017 02:24:52 UTC+3, Ray Martinez wrote:

>> > On Wednesday, June 21, 2017 at 3:49:56 PM UTC-7, 嘱 Tiib wrote:
>> > > On Wednesday, 21 June 2017 03:39:58 UTC+3, Ray Martinez wrote:
>> > > >
>> > > > Sean (or anybody): How does an appearance or look of design not indicate
>> > > > actual design? Answer: Only if one assumes contrary to the look. What,
>> > > > then, justifies said assumption? And assumptions, in and of themselves,
>> > > > do not constitute evidence.
>> > >
>> > > Ron's point was that why does no one do and put forward creationist science
>> > > of it? Why there are no science of "appearances being evidence" or whatever? Nothing. Just such accusations like it is our (my? his?) fault that we haven't
>> > > accepted your "evidence". Why don't you make it to classify?
>> > > Why don't you define your "non-subjective appearances" or whatever was the
>> > > point. Would be interesting to read at least. Insults? That is pathetic,
>> > > sorry.
>> > > Nice midsummer to you.
>> >
>> > Not entirely sure what you're asking?
>>
>> I was asking where is that science of how these appearances outweigh all
>> the amounts of evidence that alive beings have evolved from their
>> ancestors?
>>
>
>Appearance of design or observation of design means we have the basis to infer the work of invisible Intelligence. Said inference, based on observation, dictates that supernatural causation is operating in nature. The inferences supporting evolution are therefore rendered false. So the importance of our initial observation of appearance of design looms very large. This is precisely why evolutionary scientists completely reject ANY notion or conception of design existing in nature. As long as our observation is rejected as existing the same prevents our inference to the work of invisible Intelligence, which in turn allows the inference of evolution to proceed including the inferences needed to explain natural selection.
>
>Ray

Yes, appearance of design is a basis to infer design.
No, that's not the *only* inference for which appearance of design is
a basis. It's also a basis for recognizing that appearances can be
deceiving. This inference is in fact the more parsimonious one, and
the one which better explains the evidence.

>> We have read such arguments like "If one complex object (like watch) is
>> designed so therefore other complex object (like frog) is also designed".
>> That is clearly false analogy since we have lot of evidence that frogs
>> are spawned by parents and watches are made in factories.
>>
>> So where is the science about appearances of design that does fit with
>> other evidence and does not ignore such dissimilarities?
>

[Sean Dillon]

On Wednesday, June 28, 2017 at 10:35:06 PM UTC-5, Ray Martinez wrote:
> On Monday, June 26, 2017 at 2:04:55 PM UTC-7, Öö Tiib wrote:
> > On Thursday, 22 June 2017 02:24:52 UTC+3, Ray Martinez wrote:
> > > On Wednesday, June 21, 2017 at 3:49:56 PM UTC-7, Öö Tiib wrote:
> > > > On Wednesday, 21 June 2017 03:39:58 UTC+3, Ray Martinez wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > Sean (or anybody): How does an appearance or look of design not indicate
> > > > > actual design? Answer: Only if one assumes contrary to the look. What,
> > > > > then, justifies said assumption? And assumptions, in and of themselves,
> > > > > do not constitute evidence.
> > > >
> > > > Ron's point was that why does no one do and put forward creationist science
> > > > of it? Why there are no science of "appearances being evidence" or whatever? Nothing. Just such accusations like it is our (my? his?) fault that we haven't
> > > > accepted your "evidence". Why don't you make it to classify?
> > > > Why don't you define your "non-subjective appearances" or whatever was the
> > > > point. Would be interesting to read at least. Insults? That is pathetic,
> > > > sorry.
> > > > Nice midsummer to you.
> > >
> > > Not entirely sure what you're asking?
> >
> > I was asking where is that science of how these appearances outweigh all
> > the amounts of evidence that alive beings have evolved from their
> > ancestors?
>
> Your question assumes inference trumps observation----it does not and cannot. Evolution is NOT observed directly as it allegedly occurs. Rather, it is inferred to have occurred after the fact.

Design ALSO cannot be directly observed as it allegedly occurs. It too is an inference after the fact. Did you SEE a Creator designing? No? Then you didn't directly observe design. You observed something that you INFER to have been designed.

Setting aside all else, this alone busts your argument.

>So your question conveys a fundamental methodological error. Observation is the preeminent logical method of determining what exists. It is only dependent on the sense of sight. Inference, on the other hand, is dependent on observation.
>
> These things said, the argument from design is only reliant on observation.

False. We have never observed a living thing being designed by a Higher Power. That such design has occurred is your inference, through the (faulty) logic that organized complexity cannot logically have arisen from an unintelligent process. Hint: the fact that the word "logic" comes into play indicates that you are NECESSARILY dealing with an inference, not an observation.

>Evolution, on the other hand, is completely reliant on inference.

Also actually untrue. You have been shown a video of E. Coli evolving antibiotic resistance. So the reality of evolution is, at least in that case, observable at a human time-scale.

http://www.express.co.uk/news/world/781168/Harvard-antibiotic-resistance-doomsday-apocalypse

So... we have actually observed evolution directly, as it occurred. But you can only INFER that design has occurred. So by your own argument, that naive observation always trumps inference (which is also false, by the way), we would have to conclude that evolution is the better explanation.

[Sean Dillon]

I want to dig in a little further into the concept of the "appearance" of design, because that's a part of where your semantic sleight of hand is showing, Ray.

"Design" is not a physical, visually perceptible quality. It is not like "round" or "bright" or "blue."

Design is an ACTIVITY... the act of planning the arrangement of something. We can observe design exactly the way we can observe any other activity: by seeing it happen. We can observe an architect design by sitting with them at the drafting table, for example.

After the fact, we are not visually observing design. In the case of architecture, what we are visually observing is a building. When we speak of the "appearance" of design, what that means, practically, is that, based on a somewhat nebulous set of criteria derived from past encounters with designed objects, we have CONCLUDED that what we are now observing RESEMBLES a designed object, to some greater or lesser extent. That is, it fits our preconceptions of the qualities that designed objects have.

The "appearance" of design is much like the "appearance" of impropriety. That is, it is an impression that *may or may not* be accurate. It is a sound basis for asking the QUESTION of whether design or impropriety occurred, but it is not, in and of itself, sufficient evidence to ANSWER that question. We must further interrogate the evidence, to find out whether the "appearance" is accurate. Because again: design and impropriety are not sensorally perceptible qualities, they are conceptual designations that a certain set of sensory perceptions may be inferred to fit.

[Vincent Maycock]

On Wed, 28 Jun 2017 20:29:48 -0700 (PDT), Ray Martinez
<pyram...@yahoo.com> wrote:

>On Monday, June 26, 2017 at 2:04:55 PM UTC-7, 嘱 Tiib wrote:
>> On Thursday, 22 June 2017 02:24:52 UTC+3, Ray Martinez wrote:

>> > On Wednesday, June 21, 2017 at 3:49:56 PM UTC-7, 嘱 Tiib wrote:
>> > > On Wednesday, 21 June 2017 03:39:58 UTC+3, Ray Martinez wrote:
>> > > >
>> > > > Sean (or anybody): How does an appearance or look of design not indicate
>> > > > actual design? Answer: Only if one assumes contrary to the look. What,
>> > > > then, justifies said assumption? And assumptions, in and of themselves,
>> > > > do not constitute evidence.
>> > >
>> > > Ron's point was that why does no one do and put forward creationist science
>> > > of it? Why there are no science of "appearances being evidence" or whatever? Nothing. Just such accusations like it is our (my? his?) fault that we haven't
>> > > accepted your "evidence". Why don't you make it to classify?
>> > > Why don't you define your "non-subjective appearances" or whatever was the
>> > > point. Would be interesting to read at least. Insults? That is pathetic,
>> > > sorry.
>> > > Nice midsummer to you.
>> >
>> > Not entirely sure what you're asking?
>>
>> I was asking where is that science of how these appearances outweigh all
>> the amounts of evidence that alive beings have evolved from their
>> ancestors?
>
>Your question assumes inference trumps observation----it does not and cannot. Evolution is NOT observed directly as it allegedly occurs. Rather, it is inferred to have occurred after the fact. So your question conveys a fundamental methodological error. Observation is the preeminent logical method of determining what exists. It is only dependent on the sense of sight. Inference, on the other hand, is dependent on observation.
>
>These things said, the argument from design is only reliant on observation.

Then why don't we ever observe the supposed designer creating new life
forms?

> Evolution, on the other hand, is completely reliant on inference.

Why did ID proponent William Dembski describe ID as "the design
*inference*", not the Design Observation?

[Öö Tiib]

On Thursday, 29 June 2017 06:35:06 UTC+3, Ray Martinez wrote:
> On Monday, June 26, 2017 at 2:04:55 PM UTC-7, Öö Tiib wrote:
> > On Thursday, 22 June 2017 02:24:52 UTC+3, Ray Martinez wrote:
> > > On Wednesday, June 21, 2017 at 3:49:56 PM UTC-7, Öö Tiib wrote:
> > > > On Wednesday, 21 June 2017 03:39:58 UTC+3, Ray Martinez wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > Sean (or anybody): How does an appearance or look of design not indicate
> > > > > actual design? Answer: Only if one assumes contrary to the look. What,
> > > > > then, justifies said assumption? And assumptions, in and of themselves,
> > > > > do not constitute evidence.
> > > >
> > > > Ron's point was that why does no one do and put forward creationist science
> > > > of it? Why there are no science of "appearances being evidence" or whatever? Nothing. Just such accusations like it is our (my? his?) fault that we haven't
> > > > accepted your "evidence". Why don't you make it to classify?
> > > > Why don't you define your "non-subjective appearances" or whatever was the
> > > > point. Would be interesting to read at least. Insults? That is pathetic,
> > > > sorry.
> > > > Nice midsummer to you.
> > >
> > > Not entirely sure what you're asking?
> >
> > I was asking where is that science of how these appearances outweigh all
> > the amounts of evidence that alive beings have evolved from their
> > ancestors?
>
> Your question assumes inference trumps observation----it does not and
> cannot. Evolution is NOT observed directly as it allegedly occurs.

My question assumes only that if knowledge about some phenomena (on
current case alleged design of beings) can be built and organized and
explanations and predictions about it can be made then there can be
science about it. So what is the reason that there are no such
science?

> Rather, it is inferred to have occurred after the fact. So your
> question conveys a fundamental methodological error. Observation is
> the preeminent logical method of determining what exists. It is only
> dependent on the sense of sight. Inference, on the other hand, is
> dependent on observation.

How? No one has ever claimed observing how designing (or construction)
of alive beings does happen. It can be only inferred. You assume
that it happened but that is not same that you observed that it
happened.

>
> These things said, the argument from design is only reliant on
> observation. Evolution, on the other hand, is completely reliant
> on inference.

Lot of science is about observation, recording data with instruments.
So where is that science abut that design?

[Ray Martinez]

Sean's ideas concerning design and appearance are not how Creationists or science uses and understands these terms. Nothing more needs to be said.

Ray

[Ray Martinez]

No one ever made that particular claim. The claim is design, a noun, is observed in species, work of invisible Intelligence is inferred.

>
> > Evolution, on the other hand, is completely reliant on inference.
>
> Why did ID proponent William Dembski describe ID as "the design
> *inference*", not the Design Observation?

Because he is an Evolutionist, he accepts existence of natural selection causing microevolution, so he can't logically say design is observed.

Why did Dawkins say "Biology is the study of complicated things that give the appearance of having been designed for a purpose"? If design is inferred he wouldn't have said what he said.

Ray

[Burkhard]

Pretty much how science understands them. I know too little about
creationists, but would not be surprised if even there you are the
outlier. Paley as said before made it clear that was it observed is not
design, but things such as coordinated moving parts - you know, the
thing we observe in watches - from which then design is inferred (by
analogy to thing we know are made by human, like, you know, watches)

[Sean Dillon]

You're conflating "appearance" with "observation" in a way that is not consistent with the usage scientists would put to those words. They don't mean the same thing in this context.

An "observation" is data from the senses or from recording devices that act as sensory apparata.

An "appearance" on the other hand, is not rigorous scientific language. It generally indicates an casual impression, based on potentially incomplete data. When we speak of the "appearance" of design, that is what is meant: the IMPRESSION of design, based on our INFERENCE from from limited data.

Yes, that is how science uses those terms.

An "appearance" is not an "observation." And observation is just data. An appearance is a conclusion from data.

"Design" is NOT something we can observe (except if we are actually watching design happen), because there no specific and consistent sensory input that corresponds to "design." Virtually ANY object or circumstance COULD plausibly be designed, even if it was specifically designed to APPEAR undesigned. (See, for example, the rock outcroppings in Central Park, which look accidental but were in fact carefully placed and crafted for their pleasing effect.)

Something may APPEAR designed, but this is an inference. And like any inference, it is only as strong as the data and logic supporting it.

[Vincent Maycock]

On Fri, 30 Jun 2017 10:44:38 -0700 (PDT), Ray Martinez

<pyram...@yahoo.com> wrote:

>On Thursday, June 29, 2017 at 1:05:05 PM UTC-7, Vincent Maycock wrote:
>> On Wed, 28 Jun 2017 20:29:48 -0700 (PDT), Ray Martinez
>> <pyram...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>

>> >On Monday, June 26, 2017 at 2:04:55 PM UTC-7, ? Tiib wrote:
>> >> On Thursday, 22 June 2017 02:24:52 UTC+3, Ray Martinez wrote:

>> >> > On Wednesday, June 21, 2017 at 3:49:56 PM UTC-7, ? Tiib wrote:
>> >> > > On Wednesday, 21 June 2017 03:39:58 UTC+3, Ray Martinez wrote:
>> >> > > >
>> >> > > > Sean (or anybody): How does an appearance or look of design not indicate
>> >> > > > actual design? Answer: Only if one assumes contrary to the look. What,
>> >> > > > then, justifies said assumption? And assumptions, in and of themselves,
>> >> > > > do not constitute evidence.
>> >> > >
>> >> > > Ron's point was that why does no one do and put forward creationist science
>> >> > > of it? Why there are no science of "appearances being evidence" or whatever? Nothing. Just such accusations like it is our (my? his?) fault that we haven't
>> >> > > accepted your "evidence". Why don't you make it to classify?
>> >> > > Why don't you define your "non-subjective appearances" or whatever was the
>> >> > > point. Would be interesting to read at least. Insults? That is pathetic,
>> >> > > sorry.
>> >> > > Nice midsummer to you.
>> >> >
>> >> > Not entirely sure what you're asking?
>> >>
>> >> I was asking where is that science of how these appearances outweigh all
>> >> the amounts of evidence that alive beings have evolved from their
>> >> ancestors?
>> >
>> >Your question assumes inference trumps observation----it does not and cannot. Evolution is NOT observed directly as it allegedly occurs. Rather, it is inferred to have occurred after the fact. So your question conveys a fundamental methodological error. Observation is the preeminent logical method of determining what exists. It is only dependent on the sense of sight. Inference, on the other hand, is dependent on observation.
>> >
>> >These things said, the argument from design is only reliant on observation.
>>
>> Then why don't we ever observe the supposed designer creating new life
>> forms?
>
>No one ever made that particular claim.

What would prevent the supposed designer from creating new life forms
today?

>The claim is design, a noun, is observed in species,

No, it just appears to be design; on closer inspection we find that
evolution has created the species.

> work of invisible Intelligence is inferred.

Why would the designer go around being invisible when he knows very
well that more people would believe in him if he were Visible?

>> > Evolution, on the other hand, is completely reliant on inference.
>>
>> Why did ID proponent William Dembski describe ID as "the design
>> *inference*", not the Design Observation?
>
>Because he is an Evolutionist,

And an Atheist, in your view?

>he accepts existence of natural selection causing microevolution, so he can't logically say design is observed.

He believes that at least some creatures were designed by God.

>Why did Dawkins say "Biology is the study of complicated things that give the appearance of having been designed for a purpose"?

Notice he says they *give the appearance of* being designed for a
purpose. So they may look superficially like they were, but they
really weren't.

> If design is inferred he wouldn't have said what he said.

Right, because he doesn't infer any designer at all.

[Ray Martinez]

No scientist or scholar, Creationist or Darwinist, models design that way, none.

> I know too little about
> creationists,

That's what I said.

In order to show falsity in the argument from deign one must define and use terms the exact way Creationists use them, just like Creationists must define and use evolutionary terms the exact way Darwinists define and use them. Otherwise both camps have criticized "evolution" instead of evolution; "design" instead of design.

> ....but would not be surprised if even there you are the

> outlier. Paley as said before made it clear that was it observed is not
> design, but things such as coordinated moving parts - you know, the
> thing we observe in watches - from which then design is inferred (by
> analogy to thing we know are made by human, like, you know, watches)

Paley said no such thing. And you just admitted "I know too little about
creationists," which means you've just contradicted yourself again.

Ray

[Ray Martinez]

Since I didn't address anything that you said, but observed that your lexical understandings and ensuing conveyances of teleological terms are not in any way objective, but subjective, I couldn't have conflated anything; your remark, therefore, is rendered a mindless non-sequitur.

Ray

[snip unsupported subjective ideas about creationist terminology....]

[Burkhard]

pretty mainstream for science.

Flavell, John H., Eleanor R. Flavell, and Frances L. Green. "Development
of the appearance-reality distinction." Cognitive psychology 15.1
(1983): 95-120.

Langer, Jonas, and Sidney Strauss. "Appearance, reality, and identity."
Cognition 1.1 (1972): 105-128.

Flavell, John H. "The development of children's knowledge about the
appearance–reality distinction." American Psychologist 41.4 (1986): 418.

>
>> I know too little about
>> creationists,
>
> That's what I said.
>
> In order to show falsity in the argument from deign one must define and use terms the exact way Creationists use them, just like Creationists must define and use evolutionary terms the exact way Darwinists define and use them. Otherwise both camps have criticized "evolution" instead of evolution; "design" instead of design.

Not really, no. The issue here is wat normal word use is, as opposed to
"Ray martinez word use"

>
>> ....but would not be surprised if even there you are the
>> outlier. Paley as said before made it clear that was it observed is not
>> design, but things such as coordinated moving parts - you know, the
>> thing we observe in watches - from which then design is inferred (by
>> analogy to thing we know are made by human, like, you know, watches)
>
> Paley said no such thing. And you just admitted "I know too little about
> creationists," which means you've just contradicted yourself again.

Not really, no. I know Paley well, who was for his time a sound thinker.
But not a creationist in the modern sense, a term that really only
acquired its modern meaning around 1880.

And even the little I know about modern creationists, partly from TO,
partly from news, is enough to tell me that you are a minority of 1 even
in this group - hence Dembksi's talk about the "design inference", a use
endorsed by amongst others J. P. Moreland and William Lane Craig
>
> Ray
>

[Ray Martinez]

Creationists disagree, so does Richard Dawkins:

Despite the fact that he wholly rejects the argument from design, he writes:

"Paley's argument is made with passionate sincerity and is informed
by the best biological scholarship of his day."

>
> > Rather, it is inferred to have occurred after the fact. So your
> > question conveys a fundamental methodological error. Observation is
> > the preeminent logical method of determining what exists. It is only
> > dependent on the sense of sight. Inference, on the other hand, is
> > dependent on observation.
>
> How? No one has ever claimed observing how designing (or construction)
> of alive beings does happen.

That's what I said.

> It can be only inferred.

Where did you obtain that idea?

Once again, let us listen to Richard Dawkins:

"Biology is the study of complicated things that give the appearance of having been designed for a purpose."

Later on in his text he explains design to be an illusion produced by the power of natural selection. Yet to the relevant point: design is observed----living things appear designed; illusions are observed. The word "appearance" or its plural presupposes by observation. Note the absence of any term in the Dawkins quotation that implies "by inference." The term "appearance" is observational. The issue here is not complicated. Appearance never means or implies inference. If X appears designed then one is saying it looks designed. To look is to observe.

> You assume
> that it happened but that is not same that you observed that it
> happened.

Again, nobody has ever made that claim. The word "design" in these context is a noun, not a verb.

All arguments from design are modeled as such:

Design observed, work of God inferred; appearance of design observed, work of God inferred.

>
> >
> > These things said, the argument from design is only reliant on
> > observation. Evolution, on the other hand, is completely reliant
> > on inference.
>
> Lot of science is about observation, recording data with instruments.
> So where is that science abut that design?
>

Richard Dawkins:

"The watchmaker of my title is borrowed from a famous treatise by
the eighteenth-century theologian William Paley. His [i]Natural
Theology - or Evidences of the Existence and Attributes of the Deity
Collected from the Appearances of Nature[/i], published in 1802, is the
best-known exposition of the 'Argument from Design', always the
most influential of the arguments for the existence of a God. It is a
book that I greatly admire, for in his own time its author succeeded in
doing what I am struggling to do now. He had a point to make, he
passionately believed in it, and he spared no effort to ram it home
clearly"

"Paley's argument is made with passionate sincerity and is informed
by the best biological scholarship of his day."

Again, the fact that Dawkins completely rejects Paley's case for design is not the point. The point is that the ex Professor for the Public Understanding of Science at Oxford University addressed Paley's argument because it is scientific.

Ray

[Sean Dillon]

Now Ray: you just casually dismissed my post that directly refuted your misunderstanding that appearance and observation are conflatable. They are not.

Let me make it clear again:

You're conflating "appearance" with "observation" in a way that is not consistent with the usage scientists would put to those words. They don't mean the same thing in this context.

An "observation" is data from the senses or from recording devices that act as sensory apparata.

An "appearance" on the other hand, is not rigorous scientific language. It generally indicates an casual *impression*, based on potentially incomplete data. When we speak of the "appearance" of design, that is what is meant: the IMPRESSION of design, based on our INFERENCE from from limited data.

Yes, that is how science uses those terms.

An "appearance" is not an "observation." And observation is just data. An appearance is a conclusion from data.

"Design" is NOT something we can observe (except if we are actually watching design happen), because there no specific and consistent sensory input that corresponds to "design." Virtually ANY object or circumstance COULD plausibly be designed, even if it was specifically designed to APPEAR undesigned. (See, for example, the rock outcroppings in Central Park, which look accidental but were in fact carefully placed and crafted for their pleasing effect.)

Something may APPEAR designed, but this is an inference. And like any inference, it is only as strong as the data and logic supporting it.

>The issue here is not complicated. Appearance never means or implies inference. If X appears designed then one is saying it looks designed. To look is to observe.

OF COURSE appearance often implies inference, you ignoramus. And it certainly does in this case. You are conflating two definition of the word "look" to play word games.

Here are those two DIFFERENT definitions you are treating as the same:

LOOK:
1. direct one's gaze toward something.
2. give the impression of being.

The first is about observation. The second is about inferring something from observation.

E.g.: I looked at my friend's face (observation). He looked tired (inference).

>
> > You assume
> > that it happened but that is not same that you observed that it
> > happened.
>
> Again, nobody has ever made that claim. The word "design" in these context is a noun, not a verb.

Yes, it is a noun that implies the verb. It if wasn't designed, then it isn't design, even if it appears that way. (And not everything that APPEARS a particular way necessarily IS that particular way.)

>
> All arguments from design are modeled as such:
>
> Design observed, work of God inferred; appearance of design observed, work of God inferred.

Appearance of design observed =/ design observed. This continues to be the central (though far from only) failure in your current line of argument.

[Anonymous]

Ray Martinez <pyram...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Thursday, June 29, 2017 at 8:05:05 AM UTC-7, Sean Dillon wrote:
>> On Thursday, June 29, 2017 at 8:05:05 AM UTC-5, Sean Dillon wrote:

>>> On Wednesday, June 28, 2017 at 10:35:06 PM UTC-5, Ray Martinez wrote:
>>>> On Monday, June 26, 2017 at 2:04:55 PM UTC-7, Öö Tiib wrote:
>>>>> On Thursday, 22 June 2017 02:24:52 UTC+3, Ray Martinez wrote:
>>>>>> On Wednesday, June 21, 2017 at 3:49:56 PM UTC-7, Öö Tiib wrote:
>>>>>>> On Wednesday, 21 June 2017 03:39:58 UTC+3, Ray Martinez wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Sean (or anybody): How does an appearance or look of design not indicate
>>>>>>>> actual design? Answer: Only if one assumes contrary to the look. What,
>>>>>>>> then, justifies said assumption? And assumptions, in and of themselves,
>>>>>>>> do not constitute evidence.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Ron's point was that why does no one do and put forward creationist science
>>>>>>> of it? Why there are no science of "appearances being evidence" or
>>>>>>> whatever? Nothing. Just such accusations like it is our (my? his?)
>>>>>>> fault that we haven't
>>>>>>> accepted your "evidence". Why don't you make it to classify?
>>>>>>> Why don't you define your "non-subjective appearances" or whatever was the
>>>>>>> point. Would be interesting to read at least. Insults? That is pathetic,
>>>>>>> sorry.
>>>>>>> Nice midsummer to you.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Not entirely sure what you're asking?
>>>>>
>>>>> I was asking where is that science of how these appearances outweigh all
>>>>> the amounts of evidence that alive beings have evolved from their
>>>>> ancestors?
>>>>
>>>> Your question assumes inference trumps observation----it does not and
>>>> cannot. Evolution is NOT observed directly as it allegedly occurs.

>>>> Rather, it is inferred to have occurred after the fact.
>>>

>>> Design ALSO cannot be directly observed as it allegedly occurs. It too
>>> is an inference after the fact. Did you SEE a Creator designing? No?
>>> Then you didn't directly observe design. You observed something that
>>> you INFER to have been designed.
>>>
>>> Setting aside all else, this alone busts your argument.
>>>

>>>> So your question conveys a fundamental methodological error.
>>>> Observation is the preeminent logical method of determining what
>>>> exists. It is only dependent on the sense of sight. Inference, on the
>>>> other hand, is dependent on observation.
>>>>

>>>> These things said, the argument from design is only reliant on observation.
>>>

>>> False. We have never observed a living thing being designed by a Higher
>>> Power. That such design has occurred is your inference, through the
>>> (faulty) logic that organized complexity cannot logically have arisen
>>> from an unintelligent process. Hint: the fact that the word "logic"
>>> comes into play indicates that you are NECESSARILY dealing with an

>>> inference, not an observation.

>>>
>>>> Evolution, on the other hand, is completely reliant on inference.
>>>

Science doesn't USE the term design, in the manner you are using it. There
is no qualitative or quantitative measure of "design" after the fact.
Therefore, design after the fact is not something scientific observation
can determine (either for or against).

As for how Creationist use terms... sorry, Ray: you're defining the word
self-servingly, in a manner that begs the question, by assuming your
desired conclusion in your definition. That doesn't logically fly.

[Ray Martinez]

Burk has not provided a quote from this source to support any claim made by him or Sean. And note the fact that he alludes to a psychology source, not a biological source.

> Langer, Jonas, and Sidney Strauss. "Appearance, reality, and identity."
> Cognition 1.1 (1972): 105-128.
>

Burk has not provided a quote from this source to support any claim made by him or Sean. And note the fact that he alludes to a psychology source, not a biological source.

> Flavell, John H. "The development of children's knowledge about the
> appearance–reality distinction." American Psychologist 41.4 (1986): 418.
>

Burk has not provided a quote from this source to support any claim made by him or Sean. And note the fact that he alludes to a psychology source, not a biological source.

> >
> >> I know too little about
> >> creationists,
> >
> > That's what I said.
> >
> > In order to show falsity in the argument from deign one must define and use terms the exact way Creationists use them, just like Creationists must define and use evolutionary terms the exact way Darwinists define and use them. Otherwise both camps have criticized "evolution" instead of evolution; "design" instead of design.
>
> Not really, no. The issue here is wat normal word use is, as opposed to
> "Ray martinez word use"
>

Your "reply" doesn't begin to address my on-topic observations and points.

I've simply asked two Evolutionists to use teleological words exactly how Creationists and Darwinists use these terms, and all I get is guff, ad hom, and citations to psychology sources that lack a claim and quotation in support. The fact that Burk has not quoted a Creationist or Darwinian biological source indicates that everything I'm saying is completely true.

> >
> >> ....but would not be surprised if even there you are the
> >> outlier. Paley as said before made it clear that was it observed is not
> >> design, but things such as coordinated moving parts - you know, the
> >> thing we observe in watches - from which then design is inferred (by
> >> analogy to thing we know are made by human, like, you know, watches)
> >
> > Paley said no such thing. And you just admitted "I know too little about
> > creationists," which means you've just contradicted yourself again.
>
> Not really, no. I know Paley well, who was for his time a sound thinker.
> But not a creationist in the modern sense, a term that really only
> acquired its modern meaning around 1880.
>
> And even the little I know about modern creationists, partly from TO,
> partly from news, is enough to tell me that you are a minority of 1 even
> in this group - hence Dembksi's talk about the "design inference", a use
> endorsed by amongst others J. P. Moreland and William Lane Craig
> >
> > Ray
> >

Burk names three scholars----all of whom accept the main cause-and-effect claim of evolutionary theory: natural selection causing micro-evolution.

Again, Dembski modeled design as an inference because he accepts the main cause-and-effect scheme of evolutionary theory. IF he were to have offered an observational model----the same, and his acceptance of the Darwinian cause-and-effect scheme, would then contradict. Thus an enemy like myself wouldn't hesitate to nail him for said contradiction. So he had to model design as an inference or face an embarrassing error in logic. In short: design observed falsifies the evolutionary cause-and-effect scheme.

Acceptance of natural selection causing micro-evolution clearly indicates pro-evolution thinking----that's my assumption or premise. I offer Dembski's design inference model as supporting my premise or assumption.

Ray

[Ray Martinez]

On Friday, June 30, 2017 at 3:15:03 PM UTC-7, Anonymous wrote:

Is this your first post?

Richard Dawkins writing in "The Blind Watchmaker: Why the Evidence of Evolution Reveals a Universe Without Design" (1986):

"The watchmaker of my title is borrowed from a famous treatise by
the eighteenth-century theologian William Paley. His [i]Natural
Theology - or Evidences of the Existence and Attributes of the Deity
Collected from the Appearances of Nature[/i], published in 1802, is the
best-known exposition of the 'Argument from Design', always the
most influential of the arguments for the existence of a God. It is a
book that I greatly admire, for in his own time its author succeeded in
doing what I am struggling to do now. He had a point to make, he
passionately believed in it, and he spared no effort to ram it home
clearly"

"Paley's argument is made with passionate sincerity and is informed
by the best biological scholarship of his day."

And ever since Behe published Black Box there exists a massive amount of evolutionary responses that say his version of design does not exist in nature.

So you don't know what you're talking about.

> As for how Creationist use terms... sorry, Ray: you're defining the word
> self-servingly, in a manner that begs the question, by assuming your
> desired conclusion in your definition. That doesn't logically fly.

Your claim is noted.

Again, all I've asked of the Evolutionists is to use teleological terms the exact way Creationists use these terms because if you don't you haven't said anything about design.

Evolutionists insist critics use their definitions and models of naturalistic terms. If not, evolution is not being addressed.

There isn't anything unreasonable being asked here. We Creationists model design as follows: appearance of design observed, work of invisible Intelligence, or Maker, inferred.

Note the fact that the term "appearance" is observational. Living things appear designed or look designed. To look is to observe. Moreover, you can't tell others that what they claim to see doesn't exist. All you can do is offer an explanation of what they claim to see, as Richard Dawkins has done. He explained appearance of design to be an illusion produced by the power of natural selection (reference available upon request). Note the fact that the concept of illusion is also observational. Illusions are observed.

Inference is a conclusion based on an observation. For example, once again: appearance of design observed, work of God inferred.

Ray

[Ray Martinez]

Absolutely nothing. New species appear via direct creation (= Theism).

> >The claim [of] design, a noun, is observed in species,

>
> No, it just appears to be design; on closer inspection we find that
> evolution has created the species.
>

But we weren't talking about evolutionary explanations of design, we were talking about real design models, not the fake ones offered by Evolutionists Sean Dillon and Burkhard.

> > work of invisible Intelligence is inferred.
>
> Why would the designer go around being invisible when he knows very
> well that more people would believe in him if he were Visible?
>

He isn't completely invisible; we infer His visibility via the appearance of design observed in living things; and the Biblical Doctrine of the Incarnation says if you have seen Christ then you have seen God. The word "God" has a material referent----Christ.

Your god----natural selection----remains invisible, wholly reliant on multiple inferences. So like our God, your god is invisible as well. All gods are invisible. No one ever claimed otherwise.

> >> > Evolution, on the other hand, is completely reliant on inference.
> >>
> >> Why did ID proponent William Dembski describe ID as "the design
> >> *inference*", not the Design Observation?
> >
> >Because he is an Evolutionist,
>
> And an Atheist, in your view?

Since Dembski accepts the MAIN scientific claim of Materialism----natural selection causing micro-evolution----it could be said.

>
> >he accepts existence of natural selection causing microevolution, so he can't logically say design is observed.
>
> He believes that at least some creatures were designed by God.
>
> >Why did Dawkins say "Biology is the study of complicated things that give the appearance of having been designed for a purpose"?
>
> Notice he says they *give the appearance of* being designed for a
> purpose. So they may look superficially like they were, but they
> really weren't.
>

Not the point at hand, which was: appearance of design is observed.

> > If design is inferred he wouldn't have said what he said.
>
> Right, because he doesn't infer any designer at all.

True, of course.

Dawkins accurately conveyed, unlike Sean and Burk, the main claim of Creationism.

Ray

[Sean Dillon]

On Friday, June 30, 2017 at 5:55:03 PM UTC-5, Ray Martinez wrote:
> On Friday, June 30, 2017 at 3:15:03 PM UTC-7, Anonymous wrote:
>
> Is this your first post?

Nope, that was me. Tried to post from my phone, and thought I had lost it to the ether. I would tell you to disregard, but since you've already responsed.

Paley didn't use the word the way you're using it either. He started with the fact that things in nature APPEAR (or SEEM) designed, but he did not ASSUME the reality of design from this. He rather INFERRED the reality of design from this, via his famous watchmaker analogy. That is the key difference between you and Paley... Paley recognized the need to REASON design from the evidence, rather than playing semantic games to simply claim appearance=reality.

>
> > As for how Creationist use terms... sorry, Ray: you're defining the word
> > self-servingly, in a manner that begs the question, by assuming your
> > desired conclusion in your definition. That doesn't logically fly.
>
> Your claim is noted.
>
> Again, all I've asked of the Evolutionists is to use teleological terms the exact way Creationists use these terms because if you don't you haven't said anything about design.
>
> Evolutionists insist critics use their definitions and models of naturalistic terms. If not, evolution is not being addressed.
>
> There isn't anything unreasonable being asked here. We Creationists model design as follows: appearance of design observed, work of invisible Intelligence, or Maker, inferred.

Actually that's wholly unreasonable. You are asking us to accept the conclusion you are trying to argue as a premise of the argument. That's called Begging the Question, Ray, and it is a logical fallacy

>
> Note the fact that the term "appearance" is observational.

Nope, sorry. I already took this one apart, but you keep ignoring it out of hand. So again:

You're conflating "appearance" with "observation" in a way that is not consistent with the usage scientists would put to those words. They don't mean the same thing in this context.

An "observation" is data from the senses or from recording devices that act as sensory apparata.

An "appearance" on the other hand, is not rigorous scientific language. It generally indicates an casual impression, based on potentially incomplete data. When we speak of the "appearance" of design, that is what is meant: the IMPRESSION of design, based on our INFERENCE from from limited data.

Yes, that is how science uses those terms.

An "appearance" is not an "observation." And observation is just data. An appearance is a conclusion from data.

"Design" is NOT something we can observe (except if we are actually watching design happen), because there no specific and consistent sensory input that corresponds to "design." Virtually ANY object or circumstance COULD plausibly be designed, even if it was specifically designed to APPEAR undesigned. (See, for example, the rock outcroppings in Central Park, which look accidental but were in fact carefully placed and crafted for their pleasing effect.)

Something may APPEAR designed, but this is an inference. And like any inference, it is only as strong as the data and logic supporting it.

OF COURSE appearance often implies inference, you ignoramus. And it certainly does in this case.

>Living things appear designed or look designed. To look is to observe.

Once again, since you've also ignored this:

You are conflating two definition of the word "look" to play word games.

Here are those two DIFFERENT definitions you are treating as the same:

LOOK:
1. direct one's gaze toward something.
2. give the impression of being.

The first is about observation. The second is about inferring something from observation.

E.g.: I looked at my friend's face (observation). He looked tired (inference).

>Moreover, you can't tell others that what they claim to see doesn't exist.

I can absolutely tell people that their inference of design is inaccurate. Which I do.

>All you can do is offer an explanation of what they claim to see, as Richard Dawkins has done.

We're both offering explanations for what people see. Your explanation is actual design. My explanation (and Dawkins) is another process with the same outcome.

>He explained appearance of design to be an illusion produced by the power of natural selection (reference available upon request). Note the fact that the concept of illusion is also observational. Illusions are observed.

Not in this case. In this case, the illusion is the conclusion drawn FROM observations. One could similarly speak of "the illusion of a happy marriage" or "the illusion Presidential competence." In those circumstances, as in this one, the illusion is a conclusion drawn from many observations, which, because those observations provide misleading/incomplete data, lead to incorrect conclusions. Hence, an illusion.

"Design" (noun) is not a visual property, it is a conclusion about the origins of the thing, inferred FROM its observable qualities.

>
> Inference is a conclusion based on an observation. For example, once again: appearance of design observed, work of God inferred.
>
> Ray

Once again, still wrong.

[Bill]

When all else fails challenge the terms used. Since science
is fundamentally the vocabulary used to describe the
phenomena being investigated, misunderstandings are
inevitable.

Bill

[Vincent Maycock]

On Fri, 30 Jun 2017 16:15:48 -0700 (PDT), Ray Martinez

LOL. Can you watch the Invisible Designer actually creating these
species? Does clay or dirt seem to rise up and get molded as the
Invisible Designer designs them?

>> >The claim [of] design, a noun, is observed in species,
>>
>> No, it just appears to be design; on closer inspection we find that
>> evolution has created the species.
>>
>
>But we weren't talking about evolutionary explanations of design, we were talking about real design models, not the fake ones offered by Evolutionists Sean Dillon and Burkhard.
>
>> > work of invisible Intelligence is inferred.
>>
>> Why would the designer go around being invisible when he knows very
>> well that more people would believe in him if he were Visible?
>>
>
>He isn't completely invisible; we infer His visibility via the appearance of design observed in living things;

Doesn't he do anything besides design living things? Like when you're
praying to him, why won't he appear for you to see -- like a real
friend-- rather than an imaginary one?

> and the Biblical Doctrine of the Incarnation says if you have seen Christ then you have seen God.

And when have you seen Christ?

>The word "God" has a material referent----Christ.
>
>Your god----natural selection----remains invisible,

No, natural selection can be observed visibly in the development of,
for example, the development of bacterial resistance to antibiotics.

> wholly reliant on multiple inferences. So like our God, your god is invisible as well. All gods are invisible.

Yes, because no gods exist.

> No one ever claimed otherwise.

Maybe they should have, if your ideas are true.

>> >> > Evolution, on the other hand, is completely reliant on inference.
>> >>
>> >> Why did ID proponent William Dembski describe ID as "the design
>> >> *inference*", not the Design Observation?
>> >
>> >Because he is an Evolutionist,
>>
>> And an Atheist, in your view?
>
>Since Dembski accepts the MAIN scientific claim of Materialism----natural selection causing micro-evolution----it could be said.

You seem more reluctant, here, to pronounce people at random as
Atheists.

>> >he accepts existence of natural selection causing microevolution, so he can't logically say design is observed.
>>
>> He believes that at least some creatures were designed by God.
>>
>> >Why did Dawkins say "Biology is the study of complicated things that give the appearance of having been designed for a purpose"?
>>
>> Notice he says they *give the appearance of* being designed for a
>> purpose. So they may look superficially like they were, but they
>> really weren't.
>>
>
>Not the point at hand, which was: appearance of design is observed.

*Superficial* appearance of design.

>> > If design is inferred he wouldn't have said what he said.
>>
>> Right, because he doesn't infer any designer at all.
>
>True, of course.
>
>Dawkins accurately conveyed, unlike Sean and Burk, the main claim of Creationism.

Would that be your personal version of creationism or creationism as
defined by society?

[Ray Martinez]

Yes he did. The issue here is not a matter of opinion neither is the issue here in any way complicated.

>
He started with the fact that things in nature APPEAR (or SEEM) designed, but he did not ASSUME the reality of design from this. He rather INFERRED the reality of design from this,
>

Complete nonsense----subjective nonsense. The vast majority know exactly what the argument from design says. What you have written completely contradicts this common knowledge of appearance of design observed, work of invisible Maker inferred. What I just conveyed is not in any way contested as the design model. Do me a favor, from now on don't assert what Paley said absent a clear quotation in support. Based on the fact that you have not conveyed the main common knowledge claim of Victorian Creationsim you're not talking about the very well known argument from design.

> via his famous watchmaker analogy. That is the key difference between you and Paley... Paley recognized the need to REASON design from the evidence, rather than playing semantic games to simply claim appearance=reality.
>
>
> >
> > > As for how Creationist use terms... sorry, Ray: you're defining the word
> > > self-servingly, in a manner that begs the question, by assuming your
> > > desired conclusion in your definition. That doesn't logically fly.
> >
> > Your claim is noted.
> >
> > Again, all I've asked of the Evolutionists is to use teleological terms the exact way Creationists use these terms because if you don't you haven't said anything about design.
> >
> > Evolutionists insist critics use their definitions and models of naturalistic terms. If not, evolution is not being addressed.
> >
> > There isn't anything unreasonable being asked here. We Creationists model design as follows: appearance of design observed, work of invisible Intelligence, or Maker, inferred.
>
> Actually that's wholly unreasonable. You are asking us to accept the conclusion you are trying to argue as a premise of the argument. That's called Begging the Question, Ray, and it is a logical fallacy
>

These comments reveal fundamental misunderstanding of the historic argument from design. Design is not a premise, but an observation. Paley said the mechanism observed, work of Maker inferred. You're inflicting your false conceptions and beliefs about design then calling the same Paley's model----it isn't. I've already quoted Dawkins as correctly conveying the Paley scheme when he said "Biology is the study of complicated things that give the appearance of having been designed for a purpose." Any interpretation of this statement that says appearance is inferred does so without any basis. Appearance means how something looks and the only way to look is to observe. We can test my interpretation. Dawkins goes on to say design is an illusion produced by natural selection. So he has explained the observation of appearance of design as an illusion. Creationists see an illusion. Dawkins and modern science see no such illusion. How do we know? Just read the full sub title on the cover of his book.

>
> >
> > Note the fact that the term "appearance" is observational.
>
> Nope, sorry. I already took this one apart, but you keep ignoring it out of hand. So again:
>
> You're conflating "appearance" with "observation" in a way that is not consistent with the usage scientists would put to those words. They don't mean the same thing in this context.
>

Ridiculous. Appearance means how X looks and looking is observing. Observation, looking, appearance, are all synonymous in these context.

> An "observation" is data from the senses or from recording devices that act as sensory apparata.
>
> An "appearance" on the other hand, is not rigorous scientific language.

More nonsense. Dawkins said Paley's work is based on the best biological scholarship of the time, Darwin said the same. Paley used the word appearances on purpose, to make a point that you can't fathom because you don't have any objective understanding of his Watchmaker unlike Darwin and Dawkins.

> It generally indicates an casual impression, based on potentially incomplete data. When we speak of the "appearance" of design, that is what is meant: the IMPRESSION of design, based on our INFERENCE from from limited data.
>

You're not talking about Paley's usage so you're not talking about design.

> Yes, that is how science uses those terms.
>
> An "appearance" is not an "observation." And observation is just data. An appearance is a conclusion from data.
>
> "Design" is NOT something we can observe (except if we are actually watching design happen), because there no specific and consistent sensory input that corresponds to "design." Virtually ANY object or circumstance COULD plausibly be designed, even if it was specifically designed to APPEAR undesigned. (See, for example, the rock outcroppings in Central Park, which look accidental but were in fact carefully placed and crafted for their pleasing effect.)
>
> Something may APPEAR designed, but this is an inference. And like any inference, it is only as strong as the data and logic supporting it.
>
> OF COURSE appearance often implies inference, you ignoramus. And it certainly does in this case.
> >Living things appear designed or look designed. To look is to observe.
>
> Once again, since you've also ignored this:
>
> You are conflating two definition of the word "look" to play word games.
>
> Here are those two DIFFERENT definitions you are treating as the same:
>
> LOOK:
> 1. direct one's gaze toward something.
> 2. give the impression of being.
>
> The first is about observation. The second is about inferring something from observation.
>
> E.g.: I looked at my friend's face (observation). He looked tired (inference).
>
> >Moreover, you can't tell others that what they claim to see doesn't exist.
>
> I can absolutely tell people that their inference of design is inaccurate. Which I do.
>
> >All you can do is offer an explanation of what they claim to see, as Richard Dawkins has done.
>
> We're both offering explanations for what people see. Your explanation is actual design. My explanation (and Dawkins) is another process with the same outcome.
>
>
> >He explained appearance of design to be an illusion produced by the power of natural selection (reference available upon request). Note the fact that the concept of illusion is also observational. Illusions are observed.
>
> Not in this case. In this case, the illusion is the conclusion drawn FROM observations. One could similarly speak of "the illusion of a happy marriage" or "the illusion Presidential competence." In those circumstances, as in this one, the illusion is a conclusion drawn from many observations, which, because those observations provide misleading/incomplete data, lead to incorrect conclusions. Hence, an illusion.
>
> "Design" (noun) is not a visual property, it is a conclusion about the origins of the thing, inferred FROM its observable qualities.
>
> >
> > Inference is a conclusion based on an observation. For example, once again: appearance of design observed, work of God inferred.
> >
> > Ray
>
> Once again, still wrong.

Self evident subjective nonsense. As if observation is a strange concept. Everything you say is ad hoc, created for a special purpose, denying common and uncontested basic knowledge just because you don't want to say Creationists are deluded, which is Dawkins ultimate conclusion. We see something that isn't there.

Ray

[Sean Dillon]

Let me be clear on a few things:

1. Creationists don't get to have private self-serving definitions of terminology... not if they expect to converse with anyone other than Creationists.

2. ANYONE who says that design can be observed (except via the actual observation of the ACT of design) is wrong. It wouldn't matter IF Paley had so argued... if he had, his argument would have been fallacious. The fact is, "design" indicates that something was created with teleological purpose, according to a plan. There is NO WAY to directly observe such a thing through the senses, or through any recording apparata acting in a sensory capacity. If Creationists claim they can observe design, then that claim is WRONG, by necessity.

3. Paley, while he was wrong, was not an idiot. He, unlike you, did not claim that design was some physically observable quality. What he visually OBSERVED was the many finely structured pieces of the watch, and the manner in which all of those pieces worked together toward a function. What he CONCLUDED (aka INFERRED) from this that the watch must have had a maker (aka a designer).

Don't believe me? Here is Paley in his own words (emphasis mine):

"To reckon up a few of the plainest of these parts, and of their offices, all tending to one result:-- We see a cylindrical box containing a coiled elastic spring, which, by its endeavour to relax itself, turns round the box. We next observe a flexible chain ... [other mechanical parts listed, elided here for space] ... that over the face of the watch there is placed a glass, a material employed in no other part of the work, but in the room of which, if there had been any other than a transparent substance, the hour could not be seen without opening the case.

**This mechanism being observed**

(it requires indeed an examination of the instrument, and perhaps some previous knowledge of the subject, to perceive and understand it; but being once, as we have said, observed and understood),

**the inference, we think, is inevitable, that the watch must have had a maker: that there must have existed, at some time, and at some place or other, an artificer or artificers who formed it for the purpose which we find it actually to answer; who comprehended its construction, and designed its use.**"

So you see: the MECHANISM is OBSERVED. That it was DESIGNED by a MAKER is INFERRED. In Paley's own words. You OBSERVE the physical, and from that, design by a maker is inferred. That that maker is God is a further inference, which Paley doesn't even get into in the above, but no doubt gets to later in his book. Paley's argument, while it doesn't hold up in the final estimation, does NOT fall into the idiotic trap that you have, of supposing that design itself is somehow physically observable data.

But I want to be clear, again: Even if you COULD somehow show that Paley shared your view on the visual observability of design, it wouldn't matter. That wouldn't make you right, it would just make Paley wrong. Because there is no way for you, or Paley, or anyone else, to actually SEE design with your eyes,* because "design" indicates a thing's teleological origin and purpose, and origin and purpose are not sensory qualities (like light or heat or color or sound), but rather conclusions drawn FROM those sensory perceptions. If Creationists disagree (and I've never heard any Creationist but you argue this, by the way), then Creationists are wrong. Sorry, you don't get to redefine the entire concept of design, in order to build you desired conclusion into the definition of the term. That is Begging the Question, and it is a fallacy of logic. An ACTUAL fallacy of logic, not one of your made up Ray-logic fallacies.

*Again, here, I mean seeing design after the fact. You can in fact see design with your eyes if you are witnessing the act OF design, as it occurs.

[Öö Tiib]

How can someone disagree with a question? Where is that science of alive
beings been designed? What is the reason that such science is not pointed
at? Scientists who are also creationists exist. Why they never do
science about that design?

>
> >
> > > Rather, it is inferred to have occurred after the fact. So your
> > > question conveys a fundamental methodological error. Observation is
> > > the preeminent logical method of determining what exists. It is only
> > > dependent on the sense of sight. Inference, on the other hand, is
> > > dependent on observation.
> >
> > How? No one has ever claimed observing how designing (or construction)
> > of alive beings does happen.
>
> That's what I said.
>
> > It can be only inferred.
>
> Where did you obtain that idea?
>
> Once again, let us listen to Richard Dawkins:
>
> "Biology is the study of complicated things that give the appearance
> of having been designed for a purpose."
>
> Later on in his text he explains design to be an illusion produced by
> the power of natural selection. Yet to the relevant point: design
> is observed----living things appear designed; illusions are observed. The
> word "appearance" or its plural presupposes by observation. Note the
> absence of any term in the Dawkins quotation that implies "by inference."
> The term "appearance" is observational. The issue here is not
> complicated. Appearance never means or implies inference. If X
> appears designed then one is saying it looks designed. To look is to
> observe.

You claim that observation of appearance that something has been designed
is observation of design? That sounds unscientific.

>
> > You assume
> > that it happened but that is not same that you observed that it
> > happened.
>
> Again, nobody has ever made that claim. The word "design" in these
> context is a noun, not a verb.
>
> All arguments from design are modeled as such:
>
> Design observed, work of God inferred; appearance of design observed,
> work of God inferred.

What scientific publication claims that appearance of design = design?

>
> >
> > >
> > > These things said, the argument from design is only reliant on
> > > observation. Evolution, on the other hand, is completely reliant
> > > on inference.
> >
> > Lot of science is about observation, recording data with instruments.
> > So where is that science abut that design?
> >
>
> Richard Dawkins:
>
> "The watchmaker of my title is borrowed from a famous treatise by
> the eighteenth-century theologian William Paley. His [i]Natural
> Theology - or Evidences of the Existence and Attributes of the Deity
> Collected from the Appearances of Nature[/i], published in 1802, is the
> best-known exposition of the 'Argument from Design', always the
> most influential of the arguments for the existence of a God. It is a
> book that I greatly admire, for in his own time its author succeeded in
> doing what I am struggling to do now. He had a point to make, he
> passionately believed in it, and he spared no effort to ram it home
> clearly"
>
> "Paley's argument is made with passionate sincerity and is informed
> by the best biological scholarship of his day."
>
> Again, the fact that Dawkins completely rejects Paley's case for
> design is not the point. The point is that the ex Professor for the
> Public Understanding of Science at Oxford University addressed
> Paley's argument because it is scientific.

It was compatible with science of more than two centuries ago when steam
engine and thermometer were just invented, theory of evolution did not
exist and evidence for evolution was not collected.

[Rolf]

"Ray Martinez" <pyram...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:bb3280cd-1531-4b57...@googlegroups.com...

What is creationism except it's fundamental claim, shared by all
creationists: Goddidit?

What more is there to say? Science says we know nothing about God and are
forced to rely on nature itself to reveal the facts we need.

All that remains for creationists to do, is to show their evidence that God
did it.

I have never found an answer to that question, even Ray has not been able to
help us with that.

So again: How, where, and when did God do it?

Rolf


> Ray
>

[Bill]

Don't the sciences provide the answer? We supposedly have
the evidence for how, where and when goddidit so what's
problem?

Bill

[RonO]

Bill if you have learned one thing, you should know that science has no
scientific evidence that any god exists to have done anything. The
whole point of the ID creationist scam was to claim that there was some
science that would demonstrate that some designer did something, but it
was only a scam, and no such scientific evidence was ever produced. Did
Behe ever try to scientifically verify if his type of IC systems existed
in nature? Behe claimed under oath that his IC IDiocy might be
scientifically testable, but he admitted that he had not done the
testing. It has been around 12 years since Dover and no ID science ever
got done.

That is where you are at. Nothing scientifically credible supports your
view point. That is what all such religious notions have to deal with.
It is just fact and no amount of denial can change that. There is no
verifiable scientific evidence that your designer exists. That is why
the bait and switch went down instead of any IDiot science getting put
forward. That is why IDiocy was found not to be any science worth
calling science in Dover.

You could learn more about the your creation, but you refuse to do that.
Science is the study of nature and if nature was created it would be
the study of what was created. You don't want to deal with that simple
fact and all you have is denial at this point. Why isn't it an option
to try to figure out what science can tell you about the creation? What
does Behe's tweeking alternative tell you about what the science tells Behe?

The sad thing is that you have already let science dictate your
creationist alternative. You aren't a geocentric flat earther.
Hopefully you wouldn't burn anyone at the stake for claiming that the
earth was not the center of our solar system or the universe. The earth
is not at the center of the universe. Even the Answers in Genesis YEC
place the earth on the edge of one arm of one of billions of spiral
galaxies. Eddie's JW YEC beliefs changed from a 7 day creation of less
than 50,000 years to one where a creation day could be billions of years
long. This change happened since the 1980s and they obviously do not
think that it is a very big deal. They don't even mention that their
views changed. They even changed the day that the sun and moon were
created.

You could build the best creationist alternative using the best science,
but what do you do instead?

Denial is just sad at this point.

Ron Okimoto

[jillery]

I missed where you said what you think is the evidence for how, where,
and when Goddidit. Or is the above supposed to be a rhetorical
question?

--
I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.

Evelyn Beatrice Hall
Attributed to Voltaire

[Bill Rogers]

In a sense (maybe not the sense Bill intended) Bill is right. Since science can't say anything about God, Bill is free to see the equivalence of the statements "We know the processes by which this happened" and "We know the processes by which God did this." Throwing God in there doesn't add anything much, but it's important to some people, and as long as they get the details of the process right, science has nothing to say about calling those processes "something that happens" versus "something that God does."

[Öö Tiib]

Isn't that non sequitur? I assume Bill is free to see and to believe any
gods or devils he pleases, regardless of what science, logic or common
sense tells.

> Throwing God in there doesn't add anything much, but it's important to
> some people, and as long as they get the details of the process right,
> science has nothing to say about calling those processes "something
> that happens" versus "something that God does."

Throwing God into anything is unscientific and if God exists then
also unethical. Leave it up to God to provide observable evidence about
His existence.