Paley's stone

[Ray Martinez]

Several replies of mine in a 100+ post topic have failed to post, so I've decided to create a fresh topic and reply here.

Mark Isaak:

"If I may, I think Ray makes a sound (if unsupported) point. As he sees
it (and Ray, please correct if I misrepresent your view), everything is
designed, but not everything *looks* designed. So an appearance of
design indicates design, but lack of appearance of design does not
indicate anything regarding design."

Replace the first appearance of the word "designed" in the second sentence with the word "created" then you have captured my view.

Next issue:

For Robert Camp: In the Creation/Evolution debate the ONLY issue is: What's the origin of the complexity found in species and human beings?

Creationism says organized complexity is the work of an invisible Maker.

Darwinism says nay, organized complexity is mainly the work of mutation and natural selection (previously living species and environment).

Ray

[jillery]

On Tue, 26 Jul 2016 12:53:04 -0700 (PDT), Ray Martinez
<pyram...@yahoo.com> wrote:

>Several replies of mine in a 100+ post topic have failed to post, so I've decided to create a fresh topic and reply here.

Yet another good reason to drop GG and learn to use a real newsreader
and newsserver.

>Mark Isaak:
>
>"If I may, I think Ray makes a sound (if unsupported) point. As he sees
>it (and Ray, please correct if I misrepresent your view), everything is
>designed, but not everything *looks* designed. So an appearance of
>design indicates design, but lack of appearance of design does not
>indicate anything regarding design."
>
>Replace the first appearance of the word "designed" in the second sentence with the word "created" then you have captured my view.
>
>Next issue:
>
>For Robert Camp: In the Creation/Evolution debate the ONLY issue is: What's the origin of the complexity found in species and human beings?
>
>Creationism says organized complexity is the work of an invisible Maker.
>
>Darwinism says nay, organized complexity is mainly the work of mutation and natural selection (previously living species and environment).

You draw a false dichotomy. Even assuming your comments above to be
correct, Creationism doesn't specify *how* their presumptive Maker
established complexity.

And Robert Camp isn't the only one to challenge you on this point.
--
This space is intentionally not blank.

[Earle Jones27]

*
Darwinism says "nay"?

Nay?

Darwinism says, "Yea!"

Darwinism says, "Yea, verily, I say unto you that you are fulleth of
the droppings of the male cattle. Yea!"

earle
*

[jillery]

I hypothesize that Ray is a source of serious amounts of AGW
emissions.

[eridanus]

Very good also
eri

[Ray Martinez]

The reply above is based entirely on subjective thought, belief, claims; when in fact what was written, by myself, conveys the 101 claims of fact made by the Creation/Evolution debate. And Robert Camp made no such challenge as that would render him egregiously ignorant as you.

Ray

[Ray Martinez]

Moreover, IF Paley's watch is designed, and that was his main point based on degree of complexity seen, then said fact renders his stone, the less complex, created, receiving automatic explanation within his supernatural episteme.

Ray

[jillery]

On Wed, 27 Jul 2016 15:19:29 -0700 (PDT), Ray Martinez

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

>On Tuesday, July 26, 2016 at 5:12:54 PM UTC-7, jillery wrote:
>> On Tue, 26 Jul 2016 12:53:04 -0700 (PDT), Ray Martinez
>> <pyram...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>> >Several replies of mine in a 100+ post topic have failed to post, so I've decided to create a fresh topic and reply here.
>>
>>
>> Yet another good reason to drop GG and learn to use a real newsreader
>> and newsserver.
>>
>>
>> >Mark Isaak:
>> >
>> >"If I may, I think Ray makes a sound (if unsupported) point. As he sees
>> >it (and Ray, please correct if I misrepresent your view), everything is
>> >designed, but not everything *looks* designed. So an appearance of
>> >design indicates design, but lack of appearance of design does not
>> >indicate anything regarding design."
>> >
>> >Replace the first appearance of the word "designed" in the second sentence with the word "created" then you have captured my view.
>> >
>> >Next issue:
>> >
>> >For Robert Camp: In the Creation/Evolution debate the ONLY issue is: What's the origin of the complexity found in species and human beings?
>> >
>> >Creationism says organized complexity is the work of an invisible Maker.
>> >
>> >Darwinism says nay, organized complexity is mainly the work of mutation and natural selection (previously living species and environment).
>>
>>
>> You draw a false dichotomy. Even assuming your comments above to be
>> correct, Creationism doesn't specify *how* their presumptive Maker
>> established complexity.
>>
>> And Robert Camp isn't the only one to challenge you on this point.
>

>The reply above is based entirely on subjective thought, belief, claims;

Not even close. You're just making up answers as you go along.

>when in fact what was written, by myself, conveys the 101 claims of fact made by the Creation/Evolution debate.

Cite?

>And Robert Camp made no such challenge as that would render him egregiously ignorant as you.

This mere mortal can only wonder why you directed your comment to him
specifically.

[Dana Tweedy]

On 7/27/16 4:24 PM, Ray Martinez wrote:
> On Tuesday, July 26, 2016 at 12:57:55 PM UTC-7, Ray Martinez wrote:
>> Several replies of mine in a 100+ post topic have failed to post, so I've decided to create a fresh topic and reply here.
>>
>> Mark Isaak:
>>
>> "If I may, I think Ray makes a sound (if unsupported) point. As he sees
>> it (and Ray, please correct if I misrepresent your view), everything is
>> designed, but not everything *looks* designed. So an appearance of
>> design indicates design, but lack of appearance of design does not
>> indicate anything regarding design."
>>
>> Replace the first appearance of the word "designed" in the second sentence with the word "created" then you have captured my view.
>>
>> Next issue:
>>
>> For Robert Camp: In the Creation/Evolution debate the ONLY issue is: What's the origin of the complexity found in species and human beings?
>>
>> Creationism says organized complexity is the work of an invisible Maker.
>>
>> Darwinism says nay, organized complexity is mainly the work of mutation and natural selection (previously living species and environment).
>>
>> Ray
>
> Moreover, IF Paley's watch is designed, and that was his main point based on degree of complexity seen,

The point, however is lost when one realizes that complexity can,
and does come from natural processes, without any need to invoke a
unnecessary complication of a supernatural being. Paley assumed, just
as you are assuming, that only a deliberate designer can produce
complexity. That is just not true.

> then said fact renders his stone, the less complex, created, receiving automatic explanation within his supernatural episteme.

The problem with that (among others) is the assumption that the
stone is "less complex". The molecular and chemical composition of a
stone is quite complex, in some ways more complex than a simple
mechanism cobbled together by a human being. Paley didn't know about
geology, so he didn't consider a stone to be a complex item.

More importantly, the "supernatural" is not an explanation. It's if
you merely assume that a supernatural being can do anything, you have no
testable explanation. You are just assuming your conclusion, yet again.
"Goddidit" is not a useful explanation, no matter how much you want it
to be.



DJT

[Oxyaena]

Ray Martinez wrote:
> Several replies of mine in a 100+ post topic have failed to post, so I've decided to create a fresh topic and reply here.

Unfortunately you had to ruin talk.origins by smearing your shit on the
wall, but go on.

>
> Mark Isaak:
>
> "If I may, I think Ray makes a sound (if unsupported) point. As he sees
> it (and Ray, please correct if I misrepresent your view), everything is
> designed, but not everything *looks* designed. So an appearance of
> design indicates design, but lack of appearance of design does not
> indicate anything regarding design."
>
> Replace the first appearance of the word "designed" in the second sentence with the word "created" then you have captured my view.

Those two mean practically the same thing. So why do we have to replace
one synonymous term with another equally synonymous term? It just
testifies to your lack of basic knowledge of elementary-level
linguistics, than capturing your "view".

>
> Next issue:
>
> For Robert Camp: In the Creation/Evolution debate the ONLY issue is: What's the origin of the complexity found in species and human beings?
>
> Creationism says organized complexity is the work of an invisible Maker.

For once! A prediction that we can actually test! Let's see how this
"prediction" holds up, shall we? Unfortunately, it doesn't hold any
weight, you see, the appearance of design does not actually indicate
design, these are what are called "designoids" (by Dawkins, among
others), such a feature includes the vertebrate eye, which unfortunately
when compared to the cephalopod eye doesn't hold any water. There are
many types of transitional eyes in nature, including among protozoans a
simple light-receiving pigment, in slightly more complex organisms such
as flatworms, they can detect light and darkness, among slightly more
complex organisms such as mussels, they can also detect shadows, even
further with the nautilus one has a pinhole eye, generally a good eye
except extremely narrow field of vision and lack of a lens, one goes
further and you end up with the vertebrate eye, very good, with a lens,
except with a few defects, such as a blind spot (which one can
demonstrate by moving a pencil between their eyes, as well as several
other features I`m not going into any more detail, the cephalopod
removes these features entirely, and one gets the ultimate eye, a
pinnacle (if there were such a thing, which there aren't, "pinnacle" is
purely metaphorical FYI) of evolution, a "designoid".

>
> Darwinism says nay, organized complexity is mainly the work of mutation and natural selection (previously living species and environment).
>
> Ray
>

I believe that this "work of mutation and natural selection" is entirely
correct! Of course, a cat cannot come out of a dog, that's not
evolution, one problem among many is that evolution can only work with
preexisting structures, a dog cannot become a cat, and vise-versa, once
upon a time there was a sort of "cat-dog" (for want of a better term),
not the kind you're thinking about (which reminds me of the show
"Cat-Dog" I used to watch with my kids), but a common ancestor of
feliforms and caniforms, respectively, the "cat" and "dog" branches of
the carnivore family tree, feliformes including hyenas, civets,
mongooses, cats (all members of the felid family, including Smilodon,
Proailurus, lions, leopards, tigers, jaguars, ocelots, margays, pampas
cats, kodkods, house cats, wild cats, pumas, fishing cats, servals,
caracals etc.) and the like. Caniformes include dogs (obviously),
bears, seals, sea lions, bear-cats, raccoons, tayras, weasels, otters,
red pandas, badgers, skunks, martens, wolverines, foxes, jackals,
coyotes, elephant seals, black bears etc.

So yes, approximately 42 Ma there was a "cat-dog" but only in the sense
of being the common ancestor of all the carnivora species we have now,
probably a miacid, since they are the most basal of the carnivoramorphs,
an indication of common ancestry among these groups are the presence of
carnassials, the fourth upper premolar and first lower molar,
respectively, this trait is shared among all the carnivorans.

Creodonts have carnassials, but they occur in different teeth from the
carnivores, and even from each other, the two families of creodonts have
two separate sets of teeth that form the carnassials, one indication
that the order is polyphyletic. So going by evidence of the carnivorans,
there is evidence for "organized complexity" being derived from
"mutation and natural selection", but you're going to be the creatard
you are and ignore what I`m explaining to you, as usual, aren't you?

--
"I would rather betray the whole world than let the whole world betray
me." - Cao Cao

http://oxyaena.org/

also see: http://thrinaxodon.org/

oxyaena (at) oxyaena.org