Answering Robert Camp

[Ray Martinez]

On Sunday, December 4, 2016 at 11:05:01 AM UTC-8, Robert Camp wrote:
> On 12/3/16 11:21 AM, Ray Martinez wrote:

To avoid answering in an off-topic mega thread, and to avoid the horrible format defect of "Show trimmed content," I decided to create a new on topic, topic, and answer here.

> > On Thursday, December 1, 2016 at 10:15:01 AM UTC-8, Bob Casanova
> > wrote:
> >> On Wed, 30 Nov 2016 18:06:22 -0500, the following appeared in
> >> talk.origins, posted by jillery <69jp...@gmail.com>:
> >>
> >>> On Wed, 30 Nov 2016 10:36:11 -0700, Bob Casanova
> >>> <nos...@buzz.off> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> On Wed, 30 Nov 2016 02:01:07 -0500, the following appeared in
> >>>> talk.origins, posted by jillery <69jp...@gmail.com>:
> >>>>
> >>>>> On Tue, 29 Nov 2016 10:22:54 -0700, Bob Casanova
> >>>>> <nos...@buzz.off> wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> On Mon, 28 Nov 2016 22:50:25 -0500, the following appeared
> >>>>>> in talk.origins, posted by jillery <69jp...@gmail.com>:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>> On Mon, 28 Nov 2016 10:29:58 -0700, Bob Casanova
> >>>>>>> <nos...@buzz.off> wrote:
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> On Sun, 27 Nov 2016 16:02:40 -0500, the following
> >>>>>>>> appeared in talk.origins, posted by jillery
> >>>>>>>> <69jp...@gmail.com>:
>
> <snip>
>
> >>> First, it's important to correct a small technical point.
> >>> Panspermia is only tangentially related to Directed Panspermia,
> >>> and has nothing to do with ID. Conflating the two causes
> >>> confusion.
> >>
> >> Granted; I meant DP. And since one of the scenarios I addressed in
> >> a prior post involved the notion that sufficiently advanced aliens,
> >> like a micromanaging deity, could also have "programmed" that life
> >> to respond to challenges in a particular way with predictable
> >> results. Far-fetched, granted, but less so than a deity who
> >> personally designs each snowflake, as Ray has alluded to.
> >>
> >
> > Never said any such thing. What I've ALWAYS said is that the process
> > whereby snowflakes are made is designed----that's why and how each
> > flake is unique.
>
> So how is that different from the theistic evolutionist view?

Are you suggesting TEists accept the concept of design existing in nature?

While I await your answer: When normal six sided flakes fall to the ground, during a snow storm, the process reflects design; also design seen in each unique six sided flake. And the process that created them is known, organized, and predictable. We don't see any evidence of accident or chance or unpredictability. So how is the conclusion for design faulty?

> (If you
> protest that your "designer" designed the specific process of snowflake
> creation, then you're missing the clear parallel and indulging in
> special pleading.)
>

Ridiculous! Are you telling me that you don't know the main claim of Victorian Creationism? Nature is designed? Where did you obtain the idea that Victorian Creationism didn't accept all phenomena designed? Hurricanes, tornadoes, rain storms, snow storms, hail, etc. etc. all self-evidently designed, not products of accident and chance.

> What is the relevant (not semantic) difference between your perspective
> and one which suggests the "designer" designed a very simple,
> fundamental iterative and branching creative process that purposely gave
> rise to countless subsumed processes (like snowflake production)?

TEism accepts Deism, not Theism (see the contradiction there?). The fundamental difference is that we accept the concept of design to be the dominant concept seen in natural reality, TEism doesn't. They accept an evolutionary implementation front loaded, which is logically invalid (Designer created un-designed processes).

>
> > You've proven yourself unable to represent an opponent correctly
> > because their real position conveys a view that you desire to
> > suppress.
>
> And you continue to prove yourself incapable of addressing actual
> arguments, preferring instead to avoid substance by personally attacking
> motives. This is a particularly juvenile evasion. You're not the only
> one who indulges it, but you wouldn't appreciate the comparison with
> those who do.

We've been suppressed so many times. This is a right conclusion when opponents refuse to understand, and convey, our main claim: nature is designed.

It's patently ridiculous to say God hand-crafted each snow flake. What is sensible to say is that the process is designed----created to produce one-of-a-kind results. What's so hard to understand? When we look at the process, and each result, we seen design.

Snowflakes provide marquee evidence of design. In response ditzy Evolutionists, with doctorates, have said: "We know how flakes are made....nothing supernatural in the process," which evades every point made. Yes, we've been
deliberately suppressed.

Ray

[Robert Camp]

Of course I am, because of course they do.

> While I await your answer: When normal six sided flakes fall to the
> ground, during a snow storm, the process reflects design; also design
> seen in each unique six sided flake. And the process that created
> them is known, organized, and predictable. We don't see any evidence
> of accident or chance or unpredictability. So how is the conclusion
> for design faulty?

The ways in which any general inference to design, as well as your
specific conclusions above, are faulty are quite plentiful, but not the
point of my question. For the purposes of this discussion I'm willing to
grant that design of nature can be inferred. The question is how is the
design inference you're describing any different from that which you so
often castigate as being non-Christian?

>> (If you protest that your "designer" designed the specific process
>> of snowflake creation, then you're missing the clear parallel and
>> indulging in special pleading.)
>>
>
> Ridiculous! Are you telling me that you don't know the main claim of
> Victorian Creationism? Nature is designed? Where did you obtain the
> idea that Victorian Creationism didn't accept all phenomena designed?
> Hurricanes, tornadoes, rain storms, snow storms, hail, etc. etc. all
> self-evidently designed, not products of accident and chance.

I quite clearly never said that creationists didn't believe in design.
Let me spell it out. I shouldn't have to help you keep up but I'm
willing to do so for a round or two.

1) You were accused of positing that your "designer" designs (which we
can assume also includes creates) each snowflake.
2) You protested that what you actually believe is that the "process
whereby snowflakes are made" is what is designed, not each snowflake.
3) I asked a question which implied that your position is functionally
equivalent with that of a theistic evolutionist in that both suggest
"design" could have happened at a rudimentary stage - and from that
basal foundation other processes could proliferate.
4) You then proceeded, in typical fashion, to respond with a complete
non-sequitur, i.e., "...Are you telling me..."

All caught up now. Good, then let's move forward.

>> What is the relevant (not semantic) difference between your
>> perspective and one which suggests the "designer" designed a very
>> simple, fundamental iterative and branching creative process that
>> purposely gave rise to countless subsumed processes (like snowflake
>> production)?
>
> TEism accepts Deism, not Theism (see the contradiction there?). The
> fundamental difference is that we accept the concept of design to be
> the dominant concept seen in natural reality, TEism doesn't. They
> accept an evolutionary implementation front loaded, which is
> logically invalid (Designer created un-designed processes).

And just as I asked you not to do, you respond with a silly semantic
quibble.

The difference between deism and theism is irrelevant here. The point
I'm asking you to defend is the fact that you feel you can credit your
"designer" with producing a process which can give rise to numerous
products and ancillary processes without also crediting others for using
the same argument.

When you say that it is the *process* of snowflake production that is
designed, *not* each flake, you're tacitly acknowledging that a
"designer" could conjure a process which gives rise to subordinate
processes (the fact that most snowflakes are different means there must
either be subsidiary processes, or randomness, involved). You are, in
other words, removing your "designer" from direct involvement in every
natural event and allowing that such things could simply be the
propagative result of very basal, iterative systems (otherwise know as
"poof").

This is, but for where the specific act of design takes place, exactly
what theistic evolutionists do. Their "designer's" universe derives all
of its processes and products from a unitary act of instantiation.
Yours' simply continues "designing" a bit further down the path, but
still allows phenomena to disseminate from initial conditions.

The difference, as far as I can see, is neither logically nor
theologically consequential.

<snip nonsense>

[Peter Nyikos]

On Monday, December 5, 2016 at 5:25:02 PM UTC-5, Ray Martinez wrote:
> On Sunday, December 4, 2016 at 11:05:01 AM UTC-8, Robert Camp wrote:
> > On 12/3/16 11:21 AM, Ray Martinez wrote:
>
> To avoid answering in an off-topic mega thread, and to avoid the horrible format defect of "Show trimmed content,"

It only causes me problems when I absent-mindedly click on the reply
arrow without first clicking on "Show trimmed content."

I've noticed, though, that others can be just as absent-minded as
I am, so you probably made a good decision.

>I decided to create a new on topic, topic, and answer here.
>
> > > On Thursday, December 1, 2016 at 10:15:01 AM UTC-8, Bob Casanova
> > > wrote:
> > >> On Wed, 30 Nov 2016 18:06:22 -0500, the following appeared in
> > >> talk.origins, posted by jillery <69jp...@gmail.com>:
> > >>
> > >>> On Wed, 30 Nov 2016 10:36:11 -0700, Bob Casanova
> > >>> <nos...@buzz.off> wrote:
> > >>>
> > >>>> On Wed, 30 Nov 2016 02:01:07 -0500, the following appeared in
> > >>>> talk.origins, posted by jillery <69jp...@gmail.com>:
> > >>>>
> > >>>>> On Tue, 29 Nov 2016 10:22:54 -0700, Bob Casanova
> > >>>>> <nos...@buzz.off> wrote:
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>>> On Mon, 28 Nov 2016 22:50:25 -0500, the following appeared
> > >>>>>> in talk.origins, posted by jillery <69jp...@gmail.com>:
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>>> On Mon, 28 Nov 2016 10:29:58 -0700, Bob Casanova
> > >>>>>>> <nos...@buzz.off> wrote:
> > >>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>> On Sun, 27 Nov 2016 16:02:40 -0500, the following
> > >>>>>>>> appeared in talk.origins, posted by jillery
> > >>>>>>>> <69jp...@gmail.com>:
> >
> > <snip>
> >
> > >>> First, it's important to correct a small technical point.
> > >>> Panspermia is only tangentially related to Directed Panspermia,

What jillery calls Panspermia comes in various forms, including
the Arrhenius way of naked spores, and then the Hoyle-Wikramasinghe
way of comets.

And I think the best terminology would be to talk about Undirected
Panspermia and Directed Panspermia. The distinction is academic
to you, Ray, since both are anathema to you.

> > >>> and has nothing to do with ID.

Here jillery is imposing her own ideas on what ought to be called
ID, which only has to do with evolution once life is established,
and MAYBE abiogenesis not involving intelligent agents (like
panspermists inventing new forms of life in their laboratories).

> > >>> Conflating the two causes confusion.

I doubt that anyone conflated Undirected Panspermia with Directed
Panspermia. Jillery loves to create conflatings where none exist,
like when she lied that I had conflated fusion with fission when
I didn't even mention fission, but only radioactivity, which SHE
conflated with fission.

And I kept fusion and radioactivity VERY separate, but she couldn't
resist falsely accusing me of saying that fusion is what keeps
the interior of the earth so hot.

> > >>
> > >> Granted; I meant DP. And since one of the scenarios I addressed in
> > >> a prior post involved the notion that sufficiently advanced aliens,

"sufficiently" means advanced at most a decade in scientific knowledge
beyond ourselves. Technologically it is a slightly different story,
but just look at how much it progressed between the Jupiter-C [which
should really have been called the Redstone-C] that launched the
first US satellite, and the Saturn V that took astronauts to the moon.
Only a dozen years separated the two, ten if we count Apollo 8 which
sent Borman, Lovell, and Anders into several orbits around the moon.

> > >> like a micromanaging deity, could also have "programmed" that life
> > >> to respond to challenges in a particular way with predictable
> > >> results. Far-fetched, granted, but less so than a deity who
> > >> personally designs each snowflake, as Ray has alluded to.

Of course it is farfetched. Casanova is here constructing a straw
man having nothing to do with the Crick-Orgel DP hypothesis, which
I favor.

> > >
> > > Never said any such thing. What I've ALWAYS said is that the process
> > > whereby snowflakes are made is designed----that's why and how each
> > > flake is unique.
> >
> > So how is that different from the theistic evolutionist view?
>
> Are you suggesting TEists accept the concept of design existing in nature?

I don't know what Camp thinks, but the answer is YES. TEs envision
God designing the initial conditions at the moment of the Big Bang
to produce the physical properties of H2O to make beautiful
snowflakes possible.

This is intelligent design of the cosmos, which neither Casanova,
nor Camp, nor jillery "conflates" with ID, which is a specialized
form of the Argument From Design, described above, having only
to do with earth biology, and only to do with certain aspects of it,
as I explained above.

> While I await your answer: When normal six sided flakes fall to the ground, during a snow storm, the process reflects design; also design seen in each unique six sided flake. And the process that created them is known,

...and you believe, along with theistic evolutionists, that the process
is due to the natural laws God front-loaded our universe with.
Fair enough.

> organized, and predictable. We don't see any evidence of accident or chance or unpredictability. So how is the conclusion for design faulty?

Only this: the process is natural, and needs no additional input
from whatever supernatural powers exist.

And so we need to see some arguments as to how the process had
to be front-loaded supernaturally into the laws of physics.

> > (If you
> > protest that your "designer" designed the specific process of snowflake
> > creation, then you're missing the clear parallel and indulging in
> > special pleading.)
> >
>
> Ridiculous! Are you telling me that you don't know the main claim of Victorian Creationism? Nature is designed? Where did you obtain the idea that Victorian Creationism didn't accept all phenomena designed? Hurricanes, tornadoes, rain storms, snow storms, hail, etc. etc. all self-evidently designed, not products of accident and chance.
>
> > What is the relevant (not semantic) difference between your perspective
> > and one which suggests the "designer" designed a very simple,
> > fundamental iterative and branching creative process that purposely gave
> > rise to countless subsumed processes (like snowflake production)?
>
> TEism accepts Deism, not Theism (see the contradiction there?). The fundamental difference is that we accept the concept of design to be the dominant concept seen in natural reality, TEism doesn't. They accept an evolutionary implementation front loaded, which is logically invalid (Designer created un-designed processes).
>
> >
> > > You've proven yourself unable to represent an opponent correctly
> > > because their real position conveys a view that you desire to
> > > suppress.
> >
> > And you continue to prove yourself incapable of addressing actual
> > arguments, preferring instead to avoid substance by personally attacking
> > motives. This is a particularly juvenile evasion. You're not the only
> > one who indulges it, but you wouldn't appreciate the comparison with
> > those who do.
>
> We've been suppressed so many times. This is a right conclusion when opponents refuse to understand, and convey, our main claim: nature is designed.
>
> It's patently ridiculous to say God hand-crafted each snow flake. What is sensible to say is that the process is designed----created to produce one-of-a-kind results.

It is only because the "seeds" of snowflakes are of so many different
shapes that one never sees two identical snowflakes. But it is NOT
a natural law that they are NECESSARILY one of a kind; in fact,
identical snowflakes may have occurred at widely separated times
and places.

>What's so hard to understand? When we look at the process, and each result, we seen design.
>
> Snowflakes provide marquee evidence of design. In response ditzy Evolutionists, with doctorates, have said: "We know how flakes are made....nothing supernatural in the process," which evades every point made.

They might accuse you of evading their every point, since you've never
tried to argue for the points you make.

But to be fair, neither have I seen any of them arguing for the "point"
that no supernatural beings were involved in the origins of the
natural laws of matter.

> Yes, we've been
> deliberately suppressed.

ID theorists HAVE been deliberately suppressed. A good example is
Michael Behe, who was the victim of sheep-like colleagues
who unanimously signed a screed disavowing any support for or
even respect for Behe's ID theories.

These sheep went along to get along with the biological establishment,
in which a few aggressive and well-placed anti-ID fanatics have
set the tone for debate. I doubt that more than 10% of the scientists
who disavow respect for ID know the first thing about what Behe has
really done.

Peter Nyikos
Professor, Dept. of Mathematics -- standard disclaimer--
University of South Carolina

[Ray Martinez]

Then they don't accept the evolution that science accepts. Can't be both at the same time. One cannot accept evolution and design. The latter infers a vertical origin (immaterial); the former a horizontal origin (material).

How bout Ken Miller?

>
> > While I await your answer: When normal six sided flakes fall to the
> > ground, during a snow storm, the process reflects design; also design
> > seen in each unique six sided flake. And the process that created
> > them is known, organized, and predictable. We don't see any evidence
> > of accident or chance or unpredictability. So how is the conclusion
> > for design faulty?
>
> The ways in which any general inference to design, as well as your
> specific conclusions above, are faulty are quite plentiful, but not the
> point of my question. For the purposes of this discussion I'm willing to
> grant that design of nature can be inferred. The question is how is the
> design inference you're describing any different from that which you so
> often castigate as being non-Christian?
>

Where did you obtain the idea that design is inferred? From a "Christian" Evolutionist perhaps?

> >> (If you protest that your "designer" designed the specific process
> >> of snowflake creation, then you're missing the clear parallel and
> >> indulging in special pleading.)
> >>
> >
> > Ridiculous! Are you telling me that you don't know the main claim of
> > Victorian Creationism? Nature is designed? Where did you obtain the
> > idea that Victorian Creationism didn't accept all phenomena designed?
> > Hurricanes, tornadoes, rain storms, snow storms, hail, etc. etc. all
> > self-evidently designed, not products of accident and chance.
>
> I quite clearly never said that creationists didn't believe in design.
> Let me spell it out. I shouldn't have to help you keep up but I'm
> willing to do so for a round or two.
>
> 1) You were accused of positing that your "designer" designs (which we
> can assume also includes creates) each snowflake.
> 2) You protested that what you actually believe is that the "process
> whereby snowflakes are made" is what is designed, not each snowflake.

Wrong, I said each flake as well designed by the process.

> 3) I asked a question which implied that your position is functionally
> equivalent with that of a theistic evolutionist in that both suggest
> "design" could have happened at a rudimentary stage - and from that
> basal foundation other processes could proliferate.
> 4) You then proceeded, in typical fashion, to respond with a complete
> non-sequitur, i.e., "...Are you telling me..."
>
> All caught up now. Good, then let's move forward.
>
> >> What is the relevant (not semantic) difference between your
> >> perspective and one which suggests the "designer" designed a very
> >> simple, fundamental iterative and branching creative process that
> >> purposely gave rise to countless subsumed processes (like snowflake
> >> production)?
> >
> > TEism accepts Deism, not Theism (see the contradiction there?). The
> > fundamental difference is that we accept the concept of design to be
> > the dominant concept seen in natural reality, TEism doesn't. They
> > accept an evolutionary implementation front loaded, which is
> > logically invalid (Designer created un-designed processes).
>
> And just as I asked you not to do, you respond with a silly semantic
> quibble.

Contradiction is not a "silly semantic quibble."

>
> The difference between deism and theism is irrelevant here.

Nope, very relevant.

> The point
> I'm asking you to defend is the fact that you feel you can credit your
> "designer" with producing a process which can give rise to numerous
> products and ancillary processes without also crediting others for using
> the same argument.

Okay, so Robert finally gets to his target issue. You need to provide an example. You're accusing me of inconsistency, so spell it out.

>
> When you say that it is the *process* of snowflake production that is

> designed, *not* each flake....

Except I did say both. How many times must I say it now? It was this very point which I used to point out that our view has been suppressed by Darwinian intellectuals like yourself. How ironic! Of course you snipped those comments below. How ironic!

If a process is designed then it's logical to say results are designed as well. Each flake is unique, designed; the process is designed as well. So I've said it AGAIN.

> ....you're tacitly acknowledging that a

> "designer" could conjure a process which gives rise to subordinate
> processes (the fact that most snowflakes are different means there must
> either be subsidiary processes, or randomness, involved). You are, in
> other words, removing your "designer" from direct involvement in every
> natural event and allowing that such things could simply be the
> propagative result of very basal, iterative systems (otherwise know as
> "poof").
>

Flabbergasting! Your conclusion ("poof") is a silly conveyance of direct creation, which isn't denied. So I don't see your point?

> This is, but for where the specific act of design takes place, exactly
> what theistic evolutionists do. Their "designer's" universe derives all
> of its processes and products from a unitary act of instantiation.
> Yours' simply continues "designing" a bit further down the path, but
> still allows phenomena to disseminate from initial conditions.
>
> The difference, as far as I can see, is neither logically nor
> theologically consequential.
>
> <snip nonsense>

TEism accepts the ToE except for abiogenesis.

Ray

[Robert Camp]

Of course they do.

> Can't be
> both at the same time.

Of course it can. That is the very point of opting to believe in an
initial designing process. Because the assertion then follows that by
virtue of its inherent fecundity, all other processes can propagate.
This clearly allows the theistic evolutionist to accept all of
biological science.

This philosophical choice is functionally indistinguishable from your
choice to believe that your "designer" designed the process for
producing snowflakes, not each individual snowflake. You just choose to
inject the act of design in a different place.

> One cannot accept evolution and design. The
> latter infers a vertical origin (immaterial); the former a horizontal
> origin (material).

One cannot argue by definitional fiat. I know, having previously
observed your belief in your own infallibility, that you think this is a
legitimate rhetorical course to simply declare things to be true, but
you have to realize that everyone else knows you're plenty fallible.

> How bout Ken Miller?

How about him?

>>> While I await your answer: When normal six sided flakes fall to
>>> the ground, during a snow storm, the process reflects design;
>>> also design seen in each unique six sided flake. And the process
>>> that created them is known, organized, and predictable. We don't
>>> see any evidence of accident or chance or unpredictability. So
>>> how is the conclusion for design faulty?
>>
>> The ways in which any general inference to design, as well as your
>> specific conclusions above, are faulty are quite plentiful, but
>> not the point of my question. For the purposes of this discussion
>> I'm willing to grant that design of nature can be inferred. The
>> question is how is the design inference you're describing any
>> different from that which you so often castigate as being
>> non-Christian?
>>
>
> Where did you obtain the idea that design is inferred? From a
> "Christian" Evolutionist perhaps?

It doesn't matter which semantic escapes you attempt, you are inferring
design. So are theistic evolutionists. This is not an arguable premise.

>>>> (If you protest that your "designer" designed the specific
>>>> process of snowflake creation, then you're missing the clear
>>>> parallel and indulging in special pleading.)
>>>>
>>>
>>> Ridiculous! Are you telling me that you don't know the main claim
>>> of Victorian Creationism? Nature is designed? Where did you
>>> obtain the idea that Victorian Creationism didn't accept all
>>> phenomena designed? Hurricanes, tornadoes, rain storms, snow
>>> storms, hail, etc. etc. all self-evidently designed, not products
>>> of accident and chance.
>>
>> I quite clearly never said that creationists didn't believe in
>> design. Let me spell it out. I shouldn't have to help you keep up
>> but I'm willing to do so for a round or two.
>>
>> 1) You were accused of positing that your "designer" designs (which
>> we can assume also includes creates) each snowflake. 2) You
>> protested that what you actually believe is that the "process
>> whereby snowflakes are made" is what is designed, not each
>> snowflake.
>
> Wrong, I said each flake as well designed by the process.

Then I have to believe you are either a child or insane. Only someone
that logically and linguistically unsophisticated would try to,

a) claim that individual snowflakes are "designed," however not designed
by a designer but by the designer's design, and,
b) also insist that the "designer" doesn't personally design each
individual snowflake, thereby,
c) creating a rhetorical paradox in which snowflakes are both
individually designed and not individually designed.

The word design has a specific meaning. One that you don't get to
distort out of rhetorical convenience.

>> 3) I asked a question which implied that your position is
>> functionally equivalent with that of a theistic evolutionist in
>> that both suggest "design" could have happened at a rudimentary
>> stage - and from that basal foundation other processes could
>> proliferate. 4) You then proceeded, in typical fashion, to respond
>> with a complete non-sequitur, i.e., "...Are you telling me..."
>>
>> All caught up now. Good, then let's move forward.
>>
>>>> What is the relevant (not semantic) difference between your
>>>> perspective and one which suggests the "designer" designed a
>>>> very simple, fundamental iterative and branching creative
>>>> process that purposely gave rise to countless subsumed
>>>> processes (like snowflake production)?
>>>
>>> TEism accepts Deism, not Theism (see the contradiction there?).
>>> The fundamental difference is that we accept the concept of
>>> design to be the dominant concept seen in natural reality, TEism
>>> doesn't. They accept an evolutionary implementation front loaded,
>>> which is logically invalid (Designer created un-designed
>>> processes).
>>
>> And just as I asked you not to do, you respond with a silly
>> semantic quibble.
>
> Contradiction is not a "silly semantic quibble."

Missing the point is not contradiction, it is ineptitude.

>> The difference between deism and theism is irrelevant here.
>
> Nope, very relevant.
>
>> The point I'm asking you to defend is the fact that you feel you
>> can credit your "designer" with producing a process which can give
>> rise to numerous products and ancillary processes without also
>> crediting others for using the same argument.
>
> Okay, so Robert finally gets to his target issue. You need to provide
> an example. You're accusing me of inconsistency, so spell it out.
>
>>
>> When you say that it is the *process* of snowflake production that
>> is designed, *not* each flake....
>
> Except I did say both. How many times must I say it now?

It doesn't matter how many times you say it. All that matters is that
you say it once in a way that actually makes some sense.

> It was this
> very point which I used to point out that our view has been
> suppressed by Darwinian intellectuals like yourself. How ironic! Of
> course you snipped those comments below. How ironic!
>
> If a process is designed then it's logical to say results are
> designed as well.

It is absolutely not logical at all. There are all sorts of designed
processes the results of which are not in any way reasonably considered
designed. In fact there are many processes specifically designed to
avoid producing designed results. Once again you are completely mangling
not just basic language, but also coherent thought.

> Each flake is unique, designed; the process is
> designed as well. So I've said it AGAIN.

Yes, you have. And I now realize that you are actually asserting
something so silly that I wouldn't have thought you could be that foolish.

But the original question still applies, if at this point somewhat
reframed. What is the relevant difference between you considering the
products of your "designer's" process (snowflakes) to be designed, and
theistic evolutionists considering the products of their "designer's"
process (the universe) to be designed?

You both employ the exact same logical and theological strategy.

<snip even more nonsense>

[jillery]

There is a natural and relevant distinction between Directed
Panspermia, which is explicitly described as a case of intelligent
design, and panspermia, all varieties of which are cases of unguided
natural processes.

>And I think the best terminology would be to talk about Undirected
>Panspermia and Directed Panspermia. The distinction is academic
>to you, Ray, since both are anathema to you.

That would also be a good way to make that important distinction going
forward. However, there remains a large amount of literature which
use simply panspermia to refer to both, which causes confusion.

I don't know that Ray Martinez has ever commented about (undirected)
panspermia.

>> > >>> and has nothing to do with ID.
>
>Here jillery is imposing her own ideas on what ought to be called
>ID, which only has to do with evolution once life is established,
>and MAYBE abiogenesis not involving intelligent agents (like
>panspermists inventing new forms of life in their laboratories).

The topic itself imposes that distinction, which is about ID. Directed
Panspermia is the only variety which is even tangentially related to
ID.

Since you disagree, right here would have been a good place for you to
have explained how you think (undirected) panspermia applies to ID.
Don't be insulted that I don't wait for an intelligent reply, as
you're too busy overwhelming all coherence in this topic with your
irrelevant noise, like you do below.

>> > >>> Conflating the two causes confusion.
>
>I doubt that anyone conflated Undirected Panspermia with Directed
>Panspermia. Jillery loves to create conflatings where none exist,
>like when she lied that I had conflated fusion with fission when
>I didn't even mention fission, but only radioactivity, which SHE
>conflated with fission.

Of course, only you would bother to inject irrelevant comments from an
entirely different topic into this one. You never learn.

>And I kept fusion and radioactivity VERY separate, but she couldn't
>resist falsely accusing me of saying that fusion is what keeps
>the interior of the earth so hot.

Try not to conflate different threads, if only for the novelty of the
experience.

>> > >> Granted; I meant DP. And since one of the scenarios I addressed in
>> > >> a prior post involved the notion that sufficiently advanced aliens,
>
>"sufficiently" means advanced at most a decade in scientific knowledge
>beyond ourselves. Technologically it is a slightly different story,
>but just look at how much it progressed between the Jupiter-C [which
>should really have been called the Redstone-C] that launched the
>first US satellite, and the Saturn V that took astronauts to the moon.
>Only a dozen years separated the two, ten if we count Apollo 8 which
>sent Borman, Lovell, and Anders into several orbits around the moon.

The degree of advancement isn't relevant here. There's no reason for
you to obsess about the point.

>> > >> like a micromanaging deity, could also have "programmed" that life
>> > >> to respond to challenges in a particular way with predictable
>> > >> results. Far-fetched, granted, but less so than a deity who
>> > >> personally designs each snowflake, as Ray has alluded to.
>
>Of course it is farfetched. Casanova is here constructing a straw
>man having nothing to do with the Crick-Orgel DP hypothesis, which
>I favor.

My impression is what you prefer matters not to anybody but yourself.
This may come as a surprise to you, but it's not always about you.

>> > > Never said any such thing. What I've ALWAYS said is that the process
>> > > whereby snowflakes are made is designed----that's why and how each
>> > > flake is unique.
>> >
>> > So how is that different from the theistic evolutionist view?
>>
>> Are you suggesting TEists accept the concept of design existing in nature?
>
>I don't know what Camp thinks, but the answer is YES. TEs envision
>God designing the initial conditions at the moment of the Big Bang
>to produce the physical properties of H2O to make beautiful
>snowflakes possible.
>
>This is intelligent design of the cosmos, which neither Casanova,
>nor Camp, nor jillery "conflates" with ID, which is a specialized
>form of the Argument From Design, described above, having only
>to do with earth biology, and only to do with certain aspects of it,
>as I explained above.

The point here is that the designers in your Crick-Orgel DP hypothesis
are insufficient to cover the claims of the designer of ID proponents,
and so references to DP say nothing about ID as argued by its
proponents.

--
This space is intentionally not blank.

[Ray Martinez]

You don't see their view immersed in contradiction? I just wanted to ask you this one question before I answer your entire message. Your view and their view cannot be consistent. Your view being the view of science, of course.

Ray

[Robert Camp]

My view and their view is not consistent. I'm simply taking a position
for the purposes of discussion. I've agreed to ignore any irrationality
I see in inferring a designer (god) in order to make a point.

The point is that there is no logical (or even theological) difference
between inferring,

a) a "designer" who fashions some particular process from which specific
products spring, and,
b)a designer who creates the conditions from which the universe, with
its myriad potential processes and products, issues forth.

If you value consistency, I don't believe you can opt for "a)" and then
dismiss the religious bona fides of those who chose "b)". Both place the
"designing act" at some point in the process and then let the
ramifications propagate.

[Peter Nyikos]

On Monday, December 5, 2016 at 5:25:02 PM UTC-5, Ray Martinez wrote:

> On Sunday, December 4, 2016 at 11:05:01 AM UTC-8, Robert Camp wrote:
> > On 12/3/16 11:21 AM, Ray Martinez wrote:

> To avoid answering in an off-topic mega thread, and to avoid the horrible format defect of "Show trimmed content," I decided to create a new on topic, topic, and answer here.

<snip for focus>

> > > Never said any such thing. What I've ALWAYS said is that the process
> > > whereby snowflakes are made is designed----that's why and how each
> > > flake is unique.
> >
> > So how is that different from the theistic evolutionist view?
>
> Are you suggesting TEists accept the concept of design existing in nature?
>
> While I await your answer: When normal six sided flakes fall to the ground, during a snow storm, the process reflects design; also design seen in each unique six sided flake. And the process that created them is known, organized, and predictable.
> We don't see any evidence of accident or chance or unpredictability. So how is the conclusion for design faulty?

As Yogi Berra famously said: "It's deja vu all over again". Last year
you began a thread, "Answering John Harshman" [notice the resemblance
to the present Subject: line?] and the following reply of yours to
John also harps on the theme of apparent design = ? actual design.

_______________ begin included post ________________________

On Sunday, February 8, 2015 at 3:26:11 PM UTC-8, John Harshman wrote:
> On 2/8/15, 2:46 PM, Ray Martinez wrote:
> > John Harshman: nested hierarchies.
> >
> > Creationist: appearance of design.
> >
> > John Harshman:
> >
> How can a nested hierarchy be appearance of design if it would happen
> entirely naturally through known processes, i.e. simple time and branching.

Clear indication that you don't understand what I'm saying. I'll place the blame on myself.

Another stab: I'm saying, first and foremost, that appearance of design means, as a claim, that supernatural or Intelligent causation is operating in nature. Therefore whatever else exists in nature MUST be the work of God as well.

Therefore your apple cart is upended and/or trumped by the appearance of design and the claim of supernatural or Intelligent causation operating in nature.

Note the fact that I believe evo scholars themselves do NOT accept an appearance of design existing in nature; rather, these persons acknowledge what Creationists claim to see, which is all they can do because a person cannot tell another person what they claim to see or not see; rather, they can only explain what others claim to see.

What I'm after, if I've failed again, is for you to take a position concerning appearance of design. If you accept existence of an appearance then doesn't that trump a natural explanation for branching descent?

Ray

==================== end of post archived at

https://groups.google.com/d/msg/talk.origins/rTfZz8hGGhs/2gi6595n4rEJ
Subject: Re: Answering John Harshman
Date: Sun, 8 Feb 2015 15:42:21 -0800 (PST)
Message-ID: <e33c7d28-90b0-4777...@googlegroups.com>

The answer to your last question is NO, but I don't want to derail
the theme of snowflakes unless you want details for why I say NO.

Peter Nyikos
Professor, Department of Mathematics -- standard disclaimer --
U. of South Carolina
http://www.math.sc.edu/~nyikos/

[Ray Martinez]

By any objective criteria the concept of evolution, as accepted by science, and the concept of design, as conveyed by Paley, are mutually exclusive.

So it's hard to fathom what you're talking about?

> > Can't be
> > both at the same time.
>
> Of course it can. That is the very point of opting to believe in an
> initial designing process. Because the assertion then follows that by
> virtue of its inherent fecundity, all other processes can propagate.
> This clearly allows the theistic evolutionist to accept all of
> biological science.
>

Since there is only one intervention, what you referred to as "initial," the same cannot qualify as Theism. As a student of the history of science I happen to know that prior to circa 1800 the word "Deism" did NOT convey a single one-off intervention, but acceptance of a designed nature. Thus acceptance of design in nature is accounted for in the original meaning but NOT in the post circa 1800 meaning of Deism. The post circa 1800 meaning of Deism does not entail acceptance of designed phenomena. Therefore Theism cannot entail a one-off intervention while acceptance of designed phenomena. You can stipulate, or even special plead, but facts don't allow Theism and Deism to be synonyms.

> This philosophical choice is functionally indistinguishable from your
> choice to believe that your "designer" designed the process for
> producing snowflakes, not each individual snowflake. You just choose to
> inject the act of design in a different place.
>

A one-off intervention and periodic intervention are not "homo" or the same. You cannot ascribe the former to be theistic.

> > One cannot accept evolution and design. The
> > latter infers a vertical origin (immaterial); the former a horizontal
> > origin (material).
>
> One cannot argue by definitional fiat.

Shouldn't an example of support follow your accusation?

> I know, having previously
> observed your belief in your own infallibility, that you think this is a
> legitimate rhetorical course to simply declare things to be true, but
> you have to realize that everyone else knows you're plenty fallible.
>
> > How bout Ken Miller?
>
> How about him?
>

He does not accept design in nature; designed processes.

> >>> While I await your answer: When normal six sided flakes fall to
> >>> the ground, during a snow storm, the process reflects design;
> >>> also design seen in each unique six sided flake. And the process
> >>> that created them is known, organized, and predictable. We don't
> >>> see any evidence of accident or chance or unpredictability. So
> >>> how is the conclusion for design faulty?
> >>
> >> The ways in which any general inference to design, as well as your
> >> specific conclusions above, are faulty are quite plentiful, but
> >> not the point of my question. For the purposes of this discussion
> >> I'm willing to grant that design of nature can be inferred. The
> >> question is how is the design inference you're describing any
> >> different from that which you so often castigate as being
> >> non-Christian?
> >>
> >
> > Where did you obtain the idea that design is inferred? From a
> > "Christian" Evolutionist perhaps?
>
> It doesn't matter which semantic escapes you attempt, you are inferring
> design. So are theistic evolutionists. This is not an arguable premise.
>

Design is a noun; it's observable. Please don't special plead.

The process creates each unique flake. So the Creator gets the credit, but His hand didn't form each one.

So Robert was arguing the exception, and not the rule.

>
> > Each flake is unique, designed; the process is
> > designed as well. So I've said it AGAIN.
>
> Yes, you have. And I now realize that you are actually asserting
> something so silly that I wouldn't have thought you could be that foolish.
>
> But the original question still applies, if at this point somewhat
> reframed. What is the relevant difference between you considering the
> products of your "designer's" process (snowflakes) to be designed, and
> theistic evolutionists considering the products of their "designer's"
> process (the universe) to be designed?
>
> You both employ the exact same logical and theological strategy.
>
> <snip even more nonsense>

Ray

[Ray Martinez]

I think the best way to show the falsity of your claim is to simply summarize and re-phrase:

Robert argues TEism and Theism should be viewed essentially the same. The former accepts intervention; the latter accepts intervention.

In reality, acceptance of a one-off intervention, and acceptance of periodic intervention, are indisputably different.

And since evolution entails undirected processes exclusively, the same to be the one-off work of an invisible Director does not follow.

Ray

[Burkhard]

That depends on what you mean with "accepts". A TEist typically accepts
the theory of evolution as science presents it, but simply says that it
is not "the whole truth", that something in addition can be said that
interprets the scientific theory in the light of a specific
philosophical or theological perspective - the "ultimate nature" of the
scientific laws.

So science simply states a sets of laws, facts and predictions.
An ontological naturalist (or an atheists as a subgroup) then adds to
this a "and this is the whole truth" clause - which is not a statement
of science, but a philosophical or metaphysical commitment.

A TE-ler takes the same set of laws, facts and predictions, and then
adds something like "and furthermore, these laws were put in
place(designed) by god(s) to achieve a certain, typically inscrutable,
end)This "furthermore" too is not a statement of science, but a
philosophical or metaphysical commitment.

Both positions are consistent with the science, but inconsistent with
each other.

>One cannot accept evolution and design.

Sure one can - humans are using evolution for design purposes too.

>The latter infers a vertical origin (immaterial); the former a horizontal origin (material).

That is where once again you just don't get the "methodological" in
methodological naturalism. One can of course say that scientifically,
the best explanation of nature as we observe it is stating a set of
material (immediate) causes, while philosophically, the "deeper truth"
of these causes is that they are ultimately designed (immaterially) to
achieve a specific end.

That's a philosophical or theological position, not a scientific
position, but it is consistent with science.

>
> How bout Ken Miller?
>
>>
>>> While I await your answer: When normal six sided flakes fall to the
>>> ground, during a snow storm, the process reflects design; also design
>>> seen in each unique six sided flake. And the process that created
>>> them is known, organized, and predictable. We don't see any evidence
>>> of accident or chance or unpredictability. So how is the conclusion
>>> for design faulty?
>>
>> The ways in which any general inference to design, as well as your
>> specific conclusions above, are faulty are quite plentiful, but not the
>> point of my question. For the purposes of this discussion I'm willing to
>> grant that design of nature can be inferred. The question is how is the
>> design inference you're describing any different from that which you so
>> often castigate as being non-Christian?
>>
>
> Where did you obtain the idea that design is inferred? From a "Christian" Evolutionist perhaps?
>

In that case he got it from you, that's where the "for the sake of the
argument" comes in,

>>>> (If you protest that your "designer" designed the specific process
>>>> of snowflake creation, then you're missing the clear parallel and
>>>> indulging in special pleading.)
>>>>
>>>
>>> Ridiculous! Are you telling me that you don't know the main claim of
>>> Victorian Creationism? Nature is designed? Where did you obtain the
>>> idea that Victorian Creationism didn't accept all phenomena designed?
>>> Hurricanes, tornadoes, rain storms, snow storms, hail, etc. etc. all
>>> self-evidently designed, not products of accident and chance.
>>
>> I quite clearly never said that creationists didn't believe in design.
>> Let me spell it out. I shouldn't have to help you keep up but I'm
>> willing to do so for a round or two.
>>
>> 1) You were accused of positing that your "designer" designs (which we
>> can assume also includes creates) each snowflake.
>> 2) You protested that what you actually believe is that the "process
>> whereby snowflakes are made" is what is designed, not each snowflake.
>
> Wrong, I said each flake as well designed by the process.

That's what he says. The process is designed directly, the most you can
say of the individual flakes is that they are designed indirectly, by a
process that is itself designed.

He does this in the very next sentence. There are a couple of known
natural laws that cause snowflakes (and we can indeed replicate them and
get the same result). Now, you are saying that these laws of nature are
themselves designed, and hence everything they produce ought to be
deemed designed too.

Fine, but if you make this argument, you can just as well say that the
set of laws that ToE is postulating to cause species diversity were in
turn designed, and hence all species (or maybe even all individuals
making up a speciess) were designed.

It really is the sme hting, in particular as the laws of biology are
reducible to the laws of physics, ultimately, that is the very same laws
that also generate snowflakes.

If it works for physics, it also works for biology.

>
>>
>> When you say that it is the *process* of snowflake production that is
>> designed, *not* each flake....
>
> Except I did say both. How many times must I say it now?

Well, once suffices, if it is in a way that makes sense.
You also explicitly deny that god designs each snowflake "hands-on",
which is the most natural reading of "design".

If you don't mean that, but want to include "indirect design", you have
to say it explicitly. Of course, deists too could in that case say that
god designed each individual.

>It was this very point which I used to point out that our view has been suppressed by Darwinian intellectuals like yourself. How ironic! Of course you snipped those comments below. How ironic!
>
> If a process is designed then it's logical to say results are designed as well.

Not really. At best, one could stipulate it as an extended and
non-standard meaning of the word. No objections, but it needs to be said
explicitly as it then means something rather different from what people
usually term with the term.

[Ray Martinez]

Yes, I most certainly would like to see any details.

Let me summarize:

In relevant literature the phrase "appearance of design" found abundantly. But John Harshman has said that evolutionary science does not accept appearance of design in nature. He is correct of course. So the phrase found in relevant literature conveys what the Christian masses claim to see. Fine. That said, evolutionary science can document the existence of nested hierarchies all they want as demonstrably supporting and proving the fact of evolution, however. When it's all said and done nested hierarchies are dependent on the occurrence of micro-evolution and micro-evolution is dependent on the existence of natural selection. So what we claim to see, appearance of design, not logically explainable by an unintelligent process. Remember, one cannot tell another what they see or don't see, all one can do is explain what they see or don't see. So the existence of nested hierarchies, based on the inability of Evolutionists to logically explain the appearance of design, BECOMES the way the theistic Divine Mastermind (= Biblical Creator) chose to create.

Evolutionary theorists: Your King is in checkmate. You must move your King to a safe square or expose the mate to be just another check.

Ray

[Burkhard]

Depends. Yes when seen as competing scientific theories, no if the
second is interpreted as a metaphysical interpretation of science.

That is, if a Paleyan approach comes to specific predictions that
contradict those of science, then and only then would there be a
conflict. Let's use yet another example.

Take a population of moth, some light coloured, some dark coloured, and
release them in an environment where most things (trees, houses, ground)
are dark, and theory main predators hunt by sight.

Science opens the game and predicts that over time, the percentage of
light coloured moth in the population will decrease, the one of dark
coloured moth increase.

Now the Paleyan has two possible moves

1) direct conflict with science: Based on some other source of evidence,
say scripture, he says: I already know what god's plan for moth is, he
wants lots of light coloured ones, so their numbers will increase
regardless of the environment.

Direct contradiction with science on its own territory, 2 conflicting
predictions, and we then have to look and see who was right.

2) interpretation of science: The Paleyan accepts that in this
situation, the predators of moths will be much more likely to catch
light moths than dark moths, which are going to become more numerous in
comparison to the light ones (i.e natural selection) However, he argues
that the laws of optics which make it more difficult to see dark objects
on dark grounds (plus numerous other laws) were designed by god to
achieve just this, an intended and planned outcome. An ex-post -facto
analysis of the scientific claim the results in a specific theological
or philosophical position.

No contradiction in this case, just a different type of claim.

>
> So it's hard to fathom what you're talking about?
>
>>> Can't be
>>> both at the same time.
>>
>> Of course it can. That is the very point of opting to believe in an
>> initial designing process. Because the assertion then follows that by
>> virtue of its inherent fecundity, all other processes can propagate.
>> This clearly allows the theistic evolutionist to accept all of
>> biological science.
>>
>
> Since there is only one intervention, what you referred to as "initial," the same cannot qualify as Theism. As a student of the history of science I happen to know that prior to circa 1800 the word "Deism" did NOT convey a single one-off intervention, but acceptance of a designed nature. Thus acceptance of design in nature is accounted for in the original meaning but NOT in the post circa 1800 meaning of Deism. The post circa 1800 meaning of Deism does not entail acceptance of designed phenomena.

It does IF one uses design as you do, and includes "indirect design" -
as you do in the snowflake example

>Therefore Theism cannot entail a one-off intervention while acceptance of designed phenomena. You can stipulate, or even special plead, but facts don't allow Theism and Deism to be synonyms.
>
>> This philosophical choice is functionally indistinguishable from your
>> choice to believe that your "designer" designed the process for
>> producing snowflakes, not each individual snowflake. You just choose to
>> inject the act of design in a different place.
>>
>
> A one-off intervention and periodic intervention are not "homo" or the same. You cannot ascribe the former to be theistic.

Shrug, I'd say. Two possibilities (well, 3 if we include: you have no
clue what you are talking about): The first is that you too are not a
theist, but a deist in this meaning of the word - one natural reading of
your snowflake analysis where only the process is designed directly, and
the outcome of the process at best indirectly.

The second is that you mean something else when you say that both the
process and the individual outcome of the process are designed. And yes,
there are possible theological positions that can work this way -
pantheism or occasionalism both argue that god remains more involved
with nature than the deist says, and still the net effect is
indistinguishable from a natural law.

>
>>> One cannot accept evolution and design. The
>>> latter infers a vertical origin (immaterial); the former a horizontal
>>> origin (material).
>>
>> One cannot argue by definitional fiat.
>
> Shouldn't an example of support follow your accusation?

the example is your statement directly above it, where you make a claim
what evolution in your eyes means, without giving support for it.

Lots of things noun by nouns are not observable. "Five" is a noun, yet
the number five is not observable. "Happiness", "energy", "law" etc are
all nouns yet what they name is not directly observable, though its
presence can be inferred.

The only way to observe design is by looking at someone building a model
for later purposes, maybe, or making a blueprint, but even that will
require a lot if inferences.

Which again is not distinguishable from what a deist would claim.

[Ray Martinez]

Addendum: Appearance of design infers the work of an invisible Maker, not unintelligent process. An appearance or observation cannot be trumped by an inference or set of inferences. Groups within groups becomes the way the Creator chose to create.

Final Conclusion: supernatural or intelligent causation exists exclusively in nature. Paley remains correct after all:

"Natural Theology: or, Evidences of the Existence and Attributes of the Deity; Collected from the Appearances of Nature" (1802).

Ray

[*Hemidactylus*]

Ray Martinez <pyram...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Tuesday, December 6, 2016 at 3:50:01 PM UTC-8, Ray Martinez wrote:
>>

[snip]

Your usage of "appearance" confuses the hell outta me because it is easy to
equivocate meanings of the word. In my view based on Kant the way things
appear may not reflect deeper reality. Appearance in that sense can
dovetail into illusion in the Schopenhauerian sense. So you and Paley see
complex stuff in nature and based on flawed watch analogy project your
theist assumptions onto nature. Darwin came along and peeled the scales
from many eyes and the apparent design of complex organisms evaporated as
illusion. I think that is what Dawkins was getting at with his "designoid"
concept. So now with your notion of "appearance" of design in nature you
are deluding yourself and trying to do the same to gullible others. You
suffer confirmation bias as you filter bubble or firewall yourself from
reality and refuse to seriously explore alternative views that might upset
the applecart in your obsolete early 19th century worldview.

Organisms do not exist in static permanent Platonic categories, but are a
product of allelic flux that produces over time the illusion of permanence.
And as for nested groups within groups that is imperfectly conceived within
the Goethian-Owenian concept of archetypes. But just as Darwin flipped the
script on Paley with the concept of natural selection accounting for the
perceived appearance of design, Darwin also flipped the script on Richard
Owen by replacing the archetype with the common ancestor. Those
pre-Darwinian Ideas in the mind of God become nothing more than
anthropomorphic artefacts of our projections onto nature.

And when Sewall Wright and Motoo Kimura came along and introduced the
concepts of drift and neutral alleles respectively Darwinian illusions were
shattered as the realities behind the molecular shadowplay upon the
cavewall were revealed.

As the eminent objectivist Scholar Karl Popper realized the alternative to
selection known as drift thus refuted selection rendering it
non-tautological and not metaphysical. Popper, not Rand, sits with God and
the Baby Jesus in Heaven.

[Robert Camp]

Absolutely incorrect. Theism is an extremely broad category, within
which theistic evolutionism is a subset.

> The former accepts intervention; the latter accepts intervention.

I haven't really thought about it, but I would guess all theists accept
intervention. You certainly do.

> In reality, acceptance of a one-off intervention, and acceptance of
> periodic intervention, are indisputably different.

Indisputably. However, the relevant issue here is not whether they are
different in degree, but are they logically different?

I content that the reasoning behind either is the same. I could be
wrong, but you have not yet come close to making that case.

> And since evolution entails undirected processes exclusively, the
> same to be the one-off work of an invisible Director does not
> follow.

I said nothing about evolution. But it *was* you who said that anything
that results from a designing act can be considered designed. Following
that logic, any processes that propagate from a theistic evolutionist
designer's "one-off intervention" are also designed, and cannot
rationally be dismissed by you as being categorically different from the
products that result from a periodic designer's acts.

[Robert Camp]

>>>>> Are you suggesting TEists accept the concept of design
>>>>> existing in nature?
>>>>
>>>> Of course I am, because of course they do.
>>>
>>> Then they don't accept the evolution that science accepts.
>>
>> Of course they do.
>
> By any objective criteria the concept of evolution, as accepted by
> science, and the concept of design, as conveyed by Paley, are
> mutually exclusive.

First, you have no clue what "objective criteria" are.

Second, as usual, the issue encompasses far more than the small-minded
binary options you constantly seem to believe actually represent
reality. Case in point, the design involved in theistic evolution is not
equivalent with the kind of design argued for by Paley. But they are
both reasonably (in this context) referred to as "design."

> So it's hard to fathom what you're talking about?

Of that I have no doubt.

>>> Can't be both at the same time.
>>
>> Of course it can. That is the very point of opting to believe in an
>> initial designing process. Because the assertion then follows that
>> by virtue of its inherent fecundity, all other processes can
>> propagate. This clearly allows the theistic evolutionist to accept
>> all of biological science.
>>
>
> Since there is only one intervention, what you referred to as
> "initial," the same cannot qualify as Theism. As a student of the
> history of science I happen to know that prior to circa 1800 the word
> "Deism" did NOT convey a single one-off intervention, but acceptance
> of a designed nature. Thus acceptance of design in nature is
> accounted for in the original meaning but NOT in the post circa 1800
> meaning of Deism. The post circa 1800 meaning of Deism does not
> entail acceptance of designed phenomena. Therefore Theism cannot
> entail a one-off intervention while acceptance of designed phenomena.
> You can stipulate, or even special plead, but facts don't allow
> Theism and Deism to be synonyms.

You don't seem to understand that facts don't fall out of what you want
or need to believe. Obvious examples here are that you don't get to
decide for theistic evolutionists what they believe, you don't get to
base your arguments on an idiosyncratic definition of "design" without
prior agreement from your interlocutors, and you, especially you, don't
get to tell anyone which words are acceptable and what they mean.

In other words, your comments above represent another word-magic attempt
to argue from your personal abuse of language.

>> This philosophical choice is functionally indistinguishable from
>> your choice to believe that your "designer" designed the process
>> for producing snowflakes, not each individual snowflake. You just
>> choose to inject the act of design in a different place.
>>
>
> A one-off intervention and periodic intervention are not "homo" or
> the same.

That's about the most egregiously extraneous attempt at sounding
scholarly I have ever seen.

And saying, "No, you're wrong," which is what you're doing, is not the
same as explaining how I am wrong. I await the latter.

> You cannot ascribe the former to be theistic.

Of course I can. In fact the ascription is right there in the name (you
know, theistic evolution).

>>> One cannot accept evolution and design. The latter infers a
>>> vertical origin (immaterial); the former a horizontal origin
>>> (material).
>>
>> One cannot argue by definitional fiat.
>
> Shouldn't an example of support follow your accusation?

I have laid out the support for my position ad nauseam in the preceding
posts.

>> I know, having previously observed your belief in your own
>> infallibility, that you think this is a legitimate rhetorical
>> course to simply declare things to be true, but you have to realize
>> that everyone else knows you're plenty fallible.
>>
>>> How bout Ken Miller?
>>
>> How about him?
>>
>
> He does not accept design in nature; designed processes.

Does he believe in a creator? Yes. Do you believe in a creator? Yes.

Does it matter whether we call the one-off act of beginning the universe
"creation" or "design"? No. Does it matter whether we call periodic
inventive actions "creation" or "design"? No.

If you really think there is a relevant, operational difference between
the contextual use of creation and design, feel free to elucidate the
distinguishing specifics (and that doesn't mean feel free to offer some
argument from idiosyncratic definitions).

>>>>> While I await your answer: When normal six sided flakes fall
>>>>> to the ground, during a snow storm, the process reflects
>>>>> design; also design seen in each unique six sided flake. And
>>>>> the process that created them is known, organized, and
>>>>> predictable. We don't see any evidence of accident or chance
>>>>> or unpredictability. So how is the conclusion for design
>>>>> faulty?
>>>>
>>>> The ways in which any general inference to design, as well as
>>>> your specific conclusions above, are faulty are quite
>>>> plentiful, but not the point of my question. For the purposes
>>>> of this discussion I'm willing to grant that design of nature
>>>> can be inferred. The question is how is the design inference
>>>> you're describing any different from that which you so often
>>>> castigate as being non-Christian?
>>>>
>>>
>>> Where did you obtain the idea that design is inferred? From a
>>> "Christian" Evolutionist perhaps?
>>
>> It doesn't matter which semantic escapes you attempt, you are
>> inferring design. So are theistic evolutionists. This is not an
>> arguable premise.
>
> Design is a noun; it's observable. Please don't special plead.

You have no clue what special pleading is. And you still, despite many
rounds of explanation, have no clue about the nature of either inference
or design.

I know your case of Dunning-Kruger is especially profound, so I don't
expect you to ever really be able to understand this, but your personal
definitions don't actually count as arguments. If you can't use words
the way others do, and extrapolate your arguments from that common
usage, then all that you offer becomes word salad.

If you're wondering, yes that's why so often people observe that they
have no idea what you're saying. And it's also why even more often
people conclude that *you* have no idea what you're saying.


<snip incredible misunderstanding of virtually everything>

[Rolf]

"Ray Martinez" <pyram...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:14a3b664-f0f5-4c2c...@googlegroups.com...

You're paranoid.

I see no suppression here. Who's suppressed? What's suppressed?

Define supernature and how you discriminate between natural and supernatural
processes.



> Ray
>

[Ray Martinez]

Supernatural: exceedingly real.

A natural or Darwinian process is non-supernatural; originating from the material.


Can't give an example because none are known to exist.

Ray

[Ray Martinez]

Fine example of subjective opinion. There's no such thing inhabiting reality nor can any such paradox inhabit Aristotelian reality.

Suffix ("evolutionism") negates prefix ("theistic") as false. If not, then evolution becomes evidence supporting existence of God, your subset category then requires Theism to be replaced with a more accurate term----Creationism. When this occurs the term "evolutionism" is rendered inaccurate as well, replace with teleological.

>
> > The former accepts intervention; the latter accepts intervention.
>
> I haven't really thought about it, but I would guess all theists accept
> intervention. You certainly do.
>
> > In reality, acceptance of a one-off intervention, and acceptance of
> > periodic intervention, are indisputably different.
>
> Indisputably. However, the relevant issue here is not whether they are
> different in degree, but are they logically different?

Yes, that's the point! Where did ANYONE obtain the idea that invisible Director created by evolution/undirected process?

The contradiction seen here explains why the proposition has no valid source, and is thus a fine example of subjective thought.

>
> I conten[d] that the reasoning behind either is the same. I could be

> wrong, but you have not yet come close to making that case.
>
> > And since evolution entails undirected processes exclusively, the
> > same to be the one-off work of an invisible Director does not
> > follow.
>
> I said nothing about evolution. But it *was* you who said that anything
> that results from a designing act can be considered designed.

But I most certainly wasn't talking about undirected processes. Ultimately I am and was arguing against the term evolution as an illogical proposition.

> Following
> that logic, any processes that propagate from a theistic evolutionist
> designer's "one-off intervention" are also designed, and cannot
> rationally be dismissed by you as being categorically different from the
> products that result from a periodic designer's acts.

Regarding topic: evolution and design are antonyms. You don't seem to understand that mainstream TEism accepts the ToE in full EXCEPT abiogenesis, which equates to supernatural Director created undirected process.

Ray

[Ray Martinez]

A clear sentence, lacking jargon, that gets to the point----a point that you're evading. You're arguing lack of difference, same as, so I have explained the difference to be numeric; and the conceptual problem of Theism being defined in terms of one intervention, which is preposterous. Deism entails one intervention, not Theism.

> And saying, "No, you're wrong," which is what you're doing, is not the
> same as explaining how I am wrong. I await the latter.
>

Plenty of explanation exists, not a matter of opinion.

> > You cannot ascribe the former to be theistic.
>
> Of course I can. In fact the ascription is right there in the name (you
> know, theistic evolution).
>
> >>> One cannot accept evolution and design. The latter infers a
> >>> vertical origin (immaterial); the former a horizontal origin
> >>> (material).
> >>
> >> One cannot argue by definitional fiat.
> >
> > Shouldn't an example of support follow your accusation?
>
> I have laid out the support for my position ad nauseam in the preceding
> posts.
>
> >> I know, having previously observed your belief in your own
> >> infallibility, that you think this is a legitimate rhetorical
> >> course to simply declare things to be true, but you have to realize
> >> that everyone else knows you're plenty fallible.
> >>
> >>> How bout Ken Miller?
> >>
> >> How about him?
> >>
> >
> > He does not accept design in nature; designed processes.
>
> Does he believe in a creator? Yes. Do you believe in a creator? Yes.
>
> Does it matter whether we call the one-off act of beginning the universe
> "creation" or "design"? No. Does it matter whether we call periodic
> inventive actions "creation" or "design"? No.

One cannot call the work of God using a term that specifically entails antonymic attributes.

Ridiculous.

Enough.

Ray

[Robert Camp]

I read the first sentence of the above paragraph and gave up. I'm not
going to bother with you if you're going to converse in Rayspeak. When
conclusions are unfalsifiable due to them being embedded in your
idiosyncratic language, it's a waste of everyone's time.

>>> The former accepts intervention; the latter accepts
>>> intervention.
>>
>> I haven't really thought about it, but I would guess all theists
>> accept intervention. You certainly do.
>>
>>> In reality, acceptance of a one-off intervention, and acceptance
>>> of periodic intervention, are indisputably different.
>>
>> Indisputably. However, the relevant issue here is not whether they
>> are different in degree, but are they logically different?
>
> Yes, that's the point! Where did ANYONE obtain the idea that
> invisible Director created by evolution/undirected process?

Yeah, more irrelevant Rayspeak.

> The contradiction seen here explains why the proposition has no valid
> source, and is thus a fine example of subjective thought.

>> I conten[d] that the reasoning behind either is the same. I could
>> be wrong, but you have not yet come close to making that case.
>>
>>> And since evolution entails undirected processes exclusively,
>>> the same to be the one-off work of an invisible Director does
>>> not follow.
>>
>> I said nothing about evolution. But it *was* you who said that
>> anything that results from a designing act can be considered
>> designed.
>
> But I most certainly wasn't talking about undirected processes.
> Ultimately I am and was arguing against the term evolution as an
> illogical proposition.

At no point were we speaking about evolution (Jesus, it's like pulling
teeth). I have, all along, been suggesting that a comparison between the
beliefs of theistic evolutionists and your own reveals only a difference
of surface detail, not underlying logic.

>> Following that logic, any processes that propagate from a theistic
>> evolutionist designer's "one-off intervention" are also designed,
>> and cannot rationally be dismissed by you as being categorically
>> different from the products that result from a periodic designer's
>> acts.
>
> Regarding topic: evolution and design are antonyms. You don't seem to
> understand that mainstream TEism accepts the ToE in full EXCEPT
> abiogenesis, which equates to supernatural Director created
> undirected process.

I give up. Your head is stuck in a tiny little box of your own making,
and you simply cannot perceive enough of the world outside of it to
sustain a coherent conversation.

[Robert Camp]

>>>> This philosophical choice is functionally indistinguishable
>>>> from your choice to believe that your "designer" designed the
>>>> process for producing snowflakes, not each individual
>>>> snowflake. You just choose to inject the act of design in a
>>>> different place.
>>>>
>>>
>>> A one-off intervention and periodic intervention are not "homo"
>>> or the same.
>>
>> That's about the most egregiously extraneous attempt at sounding
>> scholarly I have ever seen.
>
> A clear sentence, lacking jargon,

It very obviously *includes* jargon, that being the utterly superfluous
"homo."

> that gets to the point----a point
> that you're evading. You're arguing lack of difference,

At no point have I argued a lack of difference. At every juncture I have
noted that the difference is to be found in the technical specifics,
time and place etc., rather than the logical formulation. The latter
goes directly to whether one is legitimate (something you deny for
theistic evolution) and the other not.

> same as, so I
> have explained the difference to be numeric; and the conceptual
> problem of Theism being defined in terms of one intervention, which
> is preposterous. Deism entails one intervention, not Theism.

It doesn't matter what you call it. What matter is whether the logical
expedients are equivalent or not.

We've apparently gotten too deep into the discussion for you to keep up.
And I'm growing tired of your ridiculous dependence upon your personal
assumptions and definitions.

<snip>

>>>>> How bout Ken Miller?
>>>>
>>>> How about him?
>>>>
>>>
>>> He does not accept design in nature; designed processes.
>>
>> Does he believe in a creator? Yes. Do you believe in a creator?
>> Yes.
>>
>> Does it matter whether we call the one-off act of beginning the
>> universe "creation" or "design"? No. Does it matter whether we call
>> periodic inventive actions "creation" or "design"? No.
>
> One cannot call the work of God using a term that specifically
> entails antonymic attributes.

When you base an argument on your well-known misunderstanding of a
simple English word, the discussion is necessarily over.

>> If you really think there is a relevant, operational difference
>> between the contextual use of creation and design, feel free to
>> elucidate the distinguishing specifics (and that doesn't mean feel
>> free to offer some argument from idiosyncratic definitions).

You see, following this paragraph would have been a great place for you
to go beyond definitional silliness and produce the details that support
your position.

Is your book going to be nothing but word-magic?

[Peter Nyikos]

First of all, "nested hierarchy" and "branching descent" are
two very different things. Swearing by the former and fighting
against the latter, Harshman essentially stalemates the argument
between you and him.

Branching descent produces two different nested hierarchies,
and that gives it extra strength over Harshman's system
already. But the real strength is in them supplemented by
fossil evidence. The horse family is the classic and still
the best known example although the camel family [what with llamas
and alpacas and vicunas being part of it] may actually be even
better.

The evidence for a species-by-species line of descent from
Hyracotherium to Equus and also along some other branches (like the
one leading to Hypohippus) is so strong that you haven't been
able to argue against it. Once you claimed that we had no mechanism
for this descent, but there is the old standby: mutations and
natural selection (and/or genetic drift).

And the Bible is of little use. It doesn't tell us whether horses
and asses are the same "kind" (because they can interbreed to produce
mules and hinnies) or different "kinds" because the offspring are
practically always sterile. Once you tried to bluff your way past
this, and I hope you won't try to do it again.

> Let me summarize:
>
> In relevant literature the phrase "appearance of design" found abundantly. But John Harshman has said that evolutionary science does not accept appearance of design in nature.

Are you sure he said that, and not the old comeback of "appearances can
be deceiving?"

>He is correct of course. So the phrase found in relevant literature conveys what the Christian masses claim to see. Fine. That said, evolutionary science can document the existence of nested hierarchies all they want as demonstrably supporting and proving the fact of evolution, however. When it's all said and done nested hierarchies are dependent on the occurrence of micro-evolution and micro-evolution is dependent on the existence of natural selection.

AND mutations.

>So what we claim to see, appearance of design, not logically explainable by an unintelligent process.

That's what you claim, all right, but where's your argument that
it is NOT logically explainable?

>Remember, one cannot tell another what they see or don't see, all one can do is explain what they see or don't see. So the existence of nested hierarchies, based on the inability of Evolutionists to logically explain the appearance of design,

Wrong in two ways. First, common descent of mammals (and other groups
of organisms, just not so strongly) has been supported by paleontology
and biochemistry without ever having to talk about design or lack of
it. (And it is perfectly compatible with divine intervention in the
course that descent takes.)

Second, one can argue that God designed the process of evolution
just as He created the universe in a way that makes the process
of snowflake production possible.

[Pedantic quibble: those beautiful 6-fold symmetry pieces of frozen
water are snow *crystals*. Snow *flakes* are typically bits of crystals
and/or whole crystals stuck together, although single-crystal snowflakes
are also fairly common.]

> BECOMES the way the theistic Divine Mastermind (= Biblical Creator) chose to create.
>
> Evolutionary theorists: Your King is in checkmate. You must move your King to a safe square or expose the mate to be just another check.

At best (from your POV) the king is in perpetual check, which is just a
draw in chess. It is only because most people here are either ignorant
of paleontology or (like Harshman) perversely unwilling to make the
best use of it, that your species immutabilism is so seldom put in
danger of checkmate.

Peter Nyikos
Professor, Dept. of Mathematics -- standard disclaimer--
University of South Carolina

http://people.math.sc.edu/nyikos/

[Burkhard]

There is no logical connection between the last two sentences. There is
no reason to claim a priori that unintelligent processes can not make
something look as if ("mere" appearance) designed - The Rohrschach test
e.g. is based on the idea that people will see figures and structures in
random;y generated patterns, paraidolia, our tendency to see faces in
naturally grown objects is well known, and something similar was
described by Leonardo for objects other than faces:

"If you look at any walls spotted with various stains or with a mixture
of different kinds of stones, if you are about to invent some scene you
will be able to see in it a resemblance to various different landscapes
adorned with mountains, rivers, rocks, trees, plains, wide valleys, and
various groups of hills,"

The same can happen with sound perception - people hearing "Paul is
dead" when listening to "Strawberry fields forever" - a cognitive
illusion known as "backmasking".

>Remember, one cannot tell another what they see or don't see, all one can do is explain what they see or don't see. So the existence of nested hierarchies, based on the inability of Evolutionists to logically explain the appearance of design,

but evolutionists can explain the appearance of design. It is similar to
the reason that we use analogies and metaphors so efficiently to
understand our environment - explaining something we do not know
(here:external nature) by something we do know and understand (here, our
ability to make tools). In this way it is related to our ability to make
tools, which required that we evolved the ability to think in terms of
purpose and purposefully manipulating physical objects to achieve a goal
(i.e. to design things).

Designing things is what we humans do if we want to exercise control
over our environment and understand it. We make tools that help us to
achieve our goals, and for this it helps to "see" the environment not
just as unrelated clumps of matter, but as "there for us" - seeing in a
piece of rock the arrowhead it might become, or in the tree the planks
for shelter.

And as they say, for some of us if they have a hammer, every problem
becomes a nail - similarly here, design is such an important human
activity that we "see" it everywhere (just as facial recognition is so
important, which is why our brain uses shortcuts and makes us "see"
faces whee there aren't any - getting it sometimes wrong but being fast
is often better, from a natural selection perspective, then getting it
always right but being too slow).

So when things appear designed to us, we simply project our design
methods into nature. Which explains why creation stories always use
whatever method of design and manufacturing is prevalent at that time-
agriculture in some cultures (Zulu), bakery in others (in Mayan culture
humans were baked from maize), pottery in the bible, analogue mechanical
devices such as clocks in Paley, and these days computers and
programming, hence the many "information processing" ideas in modern
creationism.

They are ultimately all the same form of projection - our activity into
the environment - which is a very useful way for us to make sense of
the world, but can like all optical illusions also be misleading.

[John Harshman]

On 12/7/16 7:10 PM, Peter Nyikos wrote:

I am curious about several points in this post.

> First of all, "nested hierarchy" and "branching descent" are
> two very different things. Swearing by the former and fighting
> against the latter, Harshman essentially stalemates the argument
> between you and him.

How? It's true that nested hierarchy and branching descent are two
different things, as nested hierarchy is the product of branching
descent. Why would you imagine I'm fighting against branching descent?

> Branching descent produces two different nested hierarchies,
> and that gives it extra strength over Harshman's system
> already.

What are these two different nested hierarchies? Which of them do I,
apparently, dislike?

>> Let me summarize:
>>
>> In relevant literature the phrase "appearance of design" found abundantly. But John Harshman has said that evolutionary science does not accept appearance of design in nature.
>
> Are you sure he said that, and not the old comeback of "appearances can
> be deceiving?"

Appearance is in the eye of the beholder. Ray has an odd take on the
meaning of "appearance", which makes his statements hard to interpret.

> Second, one can argue that God designed the process of evolution
> just as He created the universe in a way that makes the process
> of snowflake production possible.

What would designing the process of evolution entail, beyond setting up
the laws of physics to make life possible? How could one avoid having
evolution occur, and if one could not, why would designing it be either
necessary or possible?

> At best (from your POV) the king is in perpetual check, which is just a
> draw in chess. It is only because most people here are either ignorant
> of paleontology or (like Harshman) perversely unwilling to make the
> best use of it, that your species immutabilism is so seldom put in
> danger of checkmate.

Nonsense. I'm glad to make the best use of paleontology, but the best
use is not in making unwarranted assertions. And Ray is in no danger of
checkmate because he refuses to play chess.

[Burkhard]

John Harshman wrote:
> On 12/7/16 7:10 PM, Peter Nyikos wrote:
>
> I am curious about several points in this post.
>
>> First of all, "nested hierarchy" and "branching descent" are
>> two very different things. Swearing by the former and fighting
>> against the latter, Harshman essentially stalemates the argument
>> between you and him.
>
> How? It's true that nested hierarchy and branching descent are two
> different things, as nested hierarchy is the product of branching
> descent. Why would you imagine I'm fighting against branching descent?
>
>> Branching descent produces two different nested hierarchies,
>> and that gives it extra strength over Harshman's system
>> already.
>
> What are these two different nested hierarchies? Which of them do I,
> apparently, dislike?
>
>>> Let me summarize:
>>>
>>> In relevant literature the phrase "appearance of design" found
>>> abundantly. But John Harshman has said that evolutionary science does
>>> not accept appearance of design in nature.
>>
>> Are you sure he said that, and not the old comeback of "appearances can
>> be deceiving?"
>
> Appearance is in the eye of the beholder. Ray has an odd take on the
> meaning of "appearance", which makes his statements hard to interpret.
>

He reads it as in "In the second Act, Dame Judy Dench made a welcomed
appearance" or "suddenly, a car appeared from the mist". In this usage,
it is indeed carrying an existential presupposition.

[RSNorman]

On Thu, 8 Dec 2016 09:29:04 -0800, John Harshman
<jhar...@pacbell.net> wrote:

>On 12/7/16 7:10 PM, Peter Nyikos wrote:
>
>I am curious about several points in this post.
>
>> First of all, "nested hierarchy" and "branching descent" are
>> two very different things. Swearing by the former and fighting
>> against the latter, Harshman essentially stalemates the argument
>> between you and him.
>
>How? It's true that nested hierarchy and branching descent are two
>different things, as nested hierarchy is the product of branching
>descent. Why would you imagine I'm fighting against branching descent?
>
>> Branching descent produces two different nested hierarchies,
>> and that gives it extra strength over Harshman's system
>> already.
>
>What are these two different nested hierarchies? Which of them do I,
>apparently, dislike?
>

<snip remainder>

I don't understand the distinction, either. Every nested hierarchy
can be represented by a branching descent and every branching descent
can be represented by a nested hierarchy.

The branching pattern alone does not define how groups or subsets
should be defined or named. It is possible to organize the assignment
of subsets using paraphyletic groups in such a way as to call the
system a nested hierarchy. The key seems to be how you define
"nested".

[erik simpson]

I think Peter's distinction consists of his demand that specific (or maybe
generic?) identification of ancestors must be possible. "Bubble diagrams"
and overlapping paraphyletic 'taxa' make sense to him in that context.

[Rolf]

"Robert Camp" <rober...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:o2ae54$enf$1...@dont-email.me...

On June 23, 2013, in the thread "Preliminary refutation of Darwinism",
we could read this reply to Ray by someone using the name Roger Shrubber:

QUOTE
Ray Martinez wrote:
> The episteme of Victorian Creationism (teleological): Intelligent
> cause(Supernaturalism) creates the designed effects of organized
> complexityand order seen in diversity.

Ray, you keep using "diversity" in this absurd way. "Diversity" is
not a recognized short-hand for the _the diversity of life seen in
the biosphere_. You've been corrected on this point by multiple
people. You will not find any glossary entry in any biology or
ecology book that defines "diversity" in the way you seem to
want to use it.

Your stubborn use of common words with these special meanings that
are unique to you really hurts your cause. It is especially absurd
when you toss it in to a claim that something was common understanding.
It's hard to have a common understanding based on a word usage that
is essentially unique to Ray Martinez.
UNQUOTE

That is how it is, always have been, and forever will be with Ray Martinez.

[Rolf]

"Peter Nyikos" <nyi...@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:69b3221a-c03f-4ab9...@googlegroups.com...

With Ray Martinez at the table, a stalemate is the natural outcome.

[Rolf]

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

news:c0cb5aa7-7b2d-4fc1...@googlegroups.com...

Predictable.

I spent the last hour on googling, startig with Douglas Hofstaedter, having
read a couple of his fascinating books many years ago. That led me to
Atanasoff, another important character in the evolution of our world of
intellectual achievments.

There are so many smart and very intelligent people responsible - for good
or bad - of the state of the world today as a product not so much of
politics as of science and technology. But Ray wouldn't understand any of
that, he's lost in the irrgangs, i.e. the " verschlungener Weg in einem
Labyrinth (1a) " of his brain. It works like a mixmaster.

[Peter Nyikos]

On Thursday, December 8, 2016 at 1:30:01 PM UTC-5, RSNorman wrote:
> On Thu, 8 Dec 2016 09:29:04 -0800, John Harshman
> <jhar...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>
> >On 12/7/16 7:10 PM, Peter Nyikos wrote:
> >
> >I am curious about several points in this post.
> >
> >> First of all, "nested hierarchy" and "branching descent" are
> >> two very different things. Swearing by the former and fighting
> >> against the latter, Harshman essentially stalemates the argument
> >> between you and him.
> >
> >How? It's true that nested hierarchy and branching descent are two
> >different things, as nested hierarchy is the product of branching
> >descent. Why would you imagine I'm fighting against branching descent?

Harshman is implacably opposed to REAL branching descent, where the
word "descent" means what laymen naturally assume it does, direct
descent of one species from another.

> >> Branching descent produces two different nested hierarchies,
> >> and that gives it extra strength over Harshman's system
> >> already.
> >
> >What are these two different nested hierarchies? Which of them do I,
> >apparently, dislike?
> >
>
> <snip remainder>
>
> I don't understand the distinction, either. Every nested hierarchy
> can be represented by a branching descent and every branching descent
> can be represented by a nested hierarchy.

Branching descent would be a terrible misnomer if you apply the
standard algorithm to the traditional nested Linnean hierarchy,
which had oodles of paraphyletic taxa.

But even if it only consisted of clades, the
tree is a god-awful mess. Every single taxon, from the three
domains down to individual species, is at the tip of a branch,
and the nodes (branching points) correspond to absolutely
nothing, certainly not the LCA's of the clades.

Where is the descent in this kind of 'branching descent,' huh?

> The branching pattern alone does not define how groups or subsets
> should be defined or named.

You seem to only be thinking of the cladistic classification,
but that subscribes to the fiction that NONE of the fossils
we have represents an ancestral species to any living creature
nor to any other species of which we have fossils.

> It is possible to organize the assignment
> of subsets using paraphyletic groups in such a way as to call the
> system a nested hierarchy. The key seems to be how you define
> "nested".

The paraphyletic groups take their place in the Linnean nested
hierarchy like all others. The branching DESCENT is to be found
in a totally different place. Where it has been worked down
to individual genera, like in the horse family, you get highly
satisfactory ideas about what is probably descended from what,
as in the diagram in Kathleen Hunt's excellent FAQ --see
excerpt below from a reply to AlwaysAskingQuestions:

_____________________________ excerpt_______________
[AAQ:]
> I lecture in communications skills and one of the things I emphasise
> is that if people misunderstand or misuse words or language, it is
> much better to correct than to pretend it doesn't really matter.

Yes, and one of the worst offenders is the use of "phylogenetic tree"
to talk about a tree that has ALL organisms, living or extinct,
at the tip of a branch. Even if, say, the most complete
skeleton we have of *Mesohippus* passes every test for what one
would ask for a direct ancestor of modern horses and asses,
even calling it "an actual candidate for a direct ancestor"
is barred as a scientific hypothesis by the cladists who reign
in biological systematics.

It is the cladists who either invented or appropriated the term
"phylogenetic tree" to describe what I describe. Contrast that
with the evolutionary tree in the Talk.Origins FAQ Archive, where
*Mesohippus* and most other species are NOT located at the
tips of branches, but at the nodes where two lines of descent diverge,
or one species gets replaced by another further along the branch:

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/horses/horse_evol.html

The branch that leads to modern horses, asses, and zebras
[all genus *Equus*] is especially noteworthy:

Hyracotherium/Eohippus - Orohippus - Epihippus - Mesohippus -
Miohippus - Parahippus - Merychippus - Dinohippus - Plesippus - Equus.


Kathleen Hunt has an excellent commentary in the FAQ, adding
lots of details to the tree as it stands. If the cladists had
not derailed these lines of research, we would not only have
refinements of this tree, we would also have similar trees
for many Linnean families of mammals: camel, deer, dog, etc.


If people like Harshman had their way, trees like the one in this
horse FAQ would be a thing of the past. And as a result, the argument
with the creationists ("religious right" in the quote above) would
be made much harder than it has already been made by the likes
of John Harshman.

======================= end of excerpt from
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/talk.origins/9-UbzP7oeKg/O-dGLX9-DgAJ
Subject: Re: Sensible?

Wishing you and yours a happy holiday season, Richard. This is
my last day of posting until 3+ weeks from now.

Peter Nyikos
Professor, Dept. of Mathematics -- standard disclaimer--
University of South Carolina
http://people.math.sc.edu/nyikos/

nyikos "at" math.sc.edu

[Mark Isaak]

> [...]

Here's some background relative to Peter's point.

For every named species, there must be a type specimen. The type
specimen serves the purpose of providing a concrete, unchanging example
of the species, immune to changes in interpretation of language, so that
the species name does not come to shift to a look-alike species later.
This is true of fossil species, too, though the fossil need not be complete.

(It's a little more complicated than that in practice. Photographs can
serve as type specimens for rare animals where the alternative would be
to risk the species' extinction by collecting a living animal. There
are rules in place for what to do if a type specimen gets lost. And I
don't remember what the rules are for bacteria, where isolating and
culturing a species can be a huge problem.)

Every biologist knows that there are lots of species, living and
extinct, which are not formally named.

It is impossible to know exactly what species is the common ancestor of
two others, with the exception of a very few recently diverged species.
At best, we could say that species A and B diverged from a common
ancestor which looked something like fossil species C, and which in fact
*might* have been C, but which could also have been something close to
C. In cases like this, saying that C *is* the ancestor of A and B is
simply wrong. The ancestor of A and B is an unknown species. Since it
is unknown, there is no type specimen for it (at least, none known), and
so it cannot be named.

That does not mean that A and B did not descend from a species. They
did. It merely means that the species they descended from cannot be
given a valid species name.

--
Mark Isaak eciton (at) curioustaxonomy (dot) net
"We are not looking for answers. We are looking to come to an
understanding, recognizing that it is temporary--leaving us open to an
even richer understanding as further evidence surfaces." - author unknown

[Earle Jones27]

*
I wonder if there might be a young linguist here who has some time to
write a simple dictionary that converts "Rayspeak" to English. That
would simplify some of our responses.

Thanks,

earle
*

[Earle Jones27]

*
Here is a good start on the forthcoming "Rayspeak to English" dictionary:

"Supernatural: exceedingly real." (Quoted from above.)

I'm not sure of the function of the colon after "Supernatural" – it is
not the equal sign.

But in Rayspeak, 'Supernatural' has something to do with 'exceedingly real.'

Not just 'ordinary' real, but 'exceedingly' real. (One of the highest
degrees of reality.)

Where is that young linguist who is willing to take on the dictionary job?

We need you!

earle
*

[jillery]

The colon is an homonymous metaphor for the definition's point source,
and illustrates the quality of the output.

>But in Rayspeak, 'Supernatural' has something to do with 'exceedingly real.'
>
>Not just 'ordinary' real, but 'exceedingly' real. (One of the highest
>degrees of reality.)
>
>Where is that young linguist who is willing to take on the dictionary job?
>
>We need you!
>
>earle
>*

--
This space is intentionally not blank.

[Richard Clayton]

Ray-to-English dictionaries have been attempted before. (See
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/talk.origins/Ovm3o09HjRM/CdVSA4Y67rIJ
for an example, and holy cow has Google Groups become clunkier and less
usable than ever.) Unfortunately the effort has proved thoroughly
pointless, since Ray can't be bothered to be consistent even when he's
speaking his own private language.

On the other hand, without argumentum ad Humpty Dumpty, what else would
he *have?* His only other rhetorical gambit is "Shut up, infidel!" and
it's hard to pad that into a significant post.

--
[The address listed is a spam trap. To reply, take off every zig.]
Richard Clayton
"I keep six honest serving men (they taught me all I knew); their names
are What and Why and When and How and Where and Who." — Rudyard Kipling

[eridanus]

The argument makes sense. At least to me. We should ask Peter what he
thinks. I love to hear "We do not damn know this or that".
Eri

[Earle Jones27]

*

I suggested a few days ago that we need someone to take on the task of producing a "Rayspeak-to-English" dictionary.

Richard Clayton pointed out that this was already done, a bit over ten years ago, by poster Tristan Miller on May 2, 2006.  I had forgotten about Miller's 10+ year old dictionary that attempts to translate Ray-speak to English.

Miller's work is very thorough – all it needs now is for some young student to bring it up to date.

It is Ray's recent comment, "Supernatural: exceedingly real" that inspired me to raise the issue.

Clayton has pointed out that this dictionary project is not a static assignment.  The definitions by Ray Martinez are known to vary with the times.  You must think of this dictionary as an ongoing document.  Feel free to edit and amend it as you see fit.

Thanks to Tristan Miller for the excellent and well-referenced original work and to Richard Clayton for bringing it to our attention.

earle

*

Supernatural: exceedingly real.

A natural or Darwinian process is non-supernatural; originating from

the material.

Can't give an example because none are known to exist.

Ray

***

Greetings.

I've noticed that posters here often find it difficult to communicate

with a certain regular by the name of Ray Martinez.  After much

consideration, I have determined where the problem lies: Ray Martinez

does not speak English.  Rather, he speaks some hitherto unknown

language which, while superficially similar to English, has its own

unique set of definitions and etymologies.  Therefore, in the interest

of facilitating communication between Mr. Martinez and other denizens

of this newsgroup, I have taken it upon myself to compile a bilingual

Ray Martinez–English dictionary.  To facilitate browsing I have

divided the dictionary into three broad subject categories: a general

lexicon, a historical/philosophical/scientific lexicon, and a lexicon

covering various terms involving discourse and debate.  Wherever usage

of a term is not ubiquitous, one or more citations for the definition

(all of which come from Mr. Martinez himself) are provided.

Feel free to let me know if there are any important terms or

definitions I've left out.

Regards,

Tristan

                    Ray Martinez–English Dictionary

PART I — GENERAL WORDS

   absence of evidence

          evidence of absence [1]

   absence

          paucity [2]

   apostrophe

          a punctuation mark (') used for expressing emphasis; more

          apostrophes indicate greater emphasis [3]

   ban

          banish [4]

   banishment

         1. death sentence [5]

         2. murder [6]

         3. the criminal atheist way of history [7]

   bright

          a self-loving dildo user [8]

   cannibal

         1. Catholic doctrine [9]

         2. priests of Christ [10]

         3. absolute Satanic heresy [11]

   convenyance

          contention [12]

   darkening

         1. absence or withdrawal of light [13]

         2. the ability to see intelligent design [14]

   defect

          distract [15]

   dispute

          reject [16]

   equal sign

          a punctuation mark (=) used to indicate definition,

          implication, equivalence, subsumption, inclusion,

          inheritance, containment, antecedence, attribution,

          conclusion, conjunction, disjunction, consequence,

          connection, contingency, derivation, deduction, union,

          extension, elucidation, generalization, specialization,

          predication, transformation, proposition, relation,

          satisfaction, consistency, soundness, substitution,

          similarity, commonality, identity, induction, instantiation,

          interpretation, opinion, distinction, exemplification,

          contraposition, comparison, conversion, resolution,

          membership, equality, or inequality

   fact

         1. a claim of truth that corresponds to objects in reality [17]

         2. any claim made by a text containing several other facts [18]

         3. a claim verified by two or three witnesses [19]

   faither

          theist [20]

   fool

          the arguments of all Darwinists evading Intelligent Design

          [21, 22]

   genius

          disingenuous [23]

   Greek

          a language descended from Sanskrit [24]

   howler

          an anti-creationist Internet vandal who employes cancelbots

          and spambots [25]

   image

          icon [26]

   in lieu of

          in consideration of [27, 28]

   mass

          a round unbroken wafer baked for the Queen of Heaven by

          priests of Baal [29]

   myth

          lie [30]

   number

          a corruptible private datum which can be used to prove

          anything and which requires the trust of the ordinary man to

          take a scientist's word on it [31, 32]

   poisoning the well

          the logical fallacy of pointing out circular reasoning [33]

   quotation mark

          a punctuation mark (") used for expressing emphasis; more

          quotation marks indicate greater emphasis [34]

   quote mining

          a tactic employed by Darwinist debaters to prevent anyone

          from establishing a fact they disagree with [35]

   rarity

          absence [36]

   reject

          dispute [37]

   right angle bracket

          a punctuation mark (>) which should under no circumstances be

          used for indicating quoted text in e-mail messages or

          newsgroup articles

   spam

          to argue [38]

   special pleading

          some unspecified logical fallacy which attempts to refute Ray

          Martinez's arguments [39]

   Talibanism

          the way Darwinism stays in power [40]

   uncontested

          disputed [41]

   Wikipedia

          an atheist-controlled Internet tabloid which should not be

          considered a valid source of information, except when Ray

          Martinez cites it [42, 43, 44]

   wise

          sophistry [45, 46]

PART II — HISTORY, PHILOSOPHY, AND SCIENCE

   agnostic

          atheist (from a Biblical Greek word meaning "unknown Theos")

          [47]

   amphibious

          remaining in the water [48]

   Ararat

          the highest mountain; i.e., Mount Everest [49]

   atheism

         1. Darwinism [50]

         2. naturalism [51]

         3. a penalty from God for not recognizing him as creator of

            the world [52]

   Atlantis

          a lost island continent on which could be found the Garden of

          Eden, the Tigris, the Euphrates, and a race of

          superintelligent, flying antediluvians [53, 54, 55]

   Biblical literalism

          an invention of atheists and Darwinists [56]

   cell

          a microscopic mass of protoplasm, the human version of which

          contains 30 volumes of information [57]

   Christ

          the English representation of a word meaning "deliverer" [58]

   corruptible man

          hominid fossils [59]

   creationism

         1. science [60]

         2. acknowledging publicly that the God of Genesis is the

            Creator [61]

   Darwinism

         1. assigning created things to originate from other created

            things instead of God [62]

         2. transubstantiation [63]

         3. atheism [64]

         4. naturalism [65]

         5. zoolatry [66]

   Darwinist

         1. a reverse fundy [67]

         2. someone so enraged with God that they make up evidence [68]

         3. a sophisticated moron [69]

         4. a person who can deduce obscure fossil scraps found with no

            birth certificate [70]

   Eden

          a word which, contrary to thousands of years of accepted

          Hebrew scholarship which claims otherwise, means "heart of

          God" [71]

   evolutionist

          a storyteller [72]

   faith

          based on the facts of the Bible corresponding with reality [73]

   free will

          the ability to change one's mind at will [74]

   fundamentalism

          the bad element in any given good [75]

   genetic homeostasis

          large groups of species called kinds [76]

   intermediacy

          a nonentity which God-hating Darwinists invoke to the degree

          they need to support their personal anti-Genesis worldview

          [77]

   Gnosticism

          the opposite of agnostic [78]

   God

          an omnipotent being whose original Sanskrit name means

          "light" [79]

   Great Pyramid

          an ultra-scientific monument designed by God to encase the

          central, yet-unwritten Biblical claims [80]

   Jehovah

          a pictorial name for God, meaning "anything wanting or

          attempting to burst forth" [81]

   macroevolution

          the belief that living things originate from other living

          things and not ultimately from the God of Genesis [82, 83]

   Mazatlan

          a Mexican city whose name, which does not derive from the

          Nahuatl word meaning "place of the deer", linguistically

          supports the existence of the lost continent of Atlantis

          (q.v.) [84]

   natural selection

          nonsense; a term with no objective definition [85]

   naturalism

         1. atheism [86]

         2. Darwinism [87]

         3. a prison created by God in order to confine his enemies to

            a place where they will never run into him for denying him

            Creator credit and status [88]

   pi

          a mathematical constant, equal to 3.1400, first recorded in

          the works of Archimedes [89]

   religion

          re-binding, presumably with God [90]

   science

         1. creationism [91]

         2. the exploration and discovery of God's creation via various

            highly learned and academic methodologies [92]

   scientism

         1. the accepted modern term for naturalism, yet with the

            specific added dimension that God, the supernatural, and

            miracles do not exist [93]

         2. the branch of science which militantly rules out the

            divine, under the attempted objective color that the

            exclusion and dismissal of God is the correct way of

            pursuing scientific investigation and enquiry [94]

         3. the atheist religion where the parishioners themselves are

            the deity, and which has as its only goal to erase God out

            of all equations despite the evidence [95, 96]

   supernatural

         1. more natural [97]

   supernaturalism

         1. belief in the facts as declared in the textual evidence of

            the Bible to be evidently true [98]

         2. a worldview predicated on the belief that Jesus was the

            most natural person to ever live [99]

   theory of evolution

         1. a term which has no clear universal definition [100]

         2. the message of Satan [101]

         3. an expression of atheist rage against the Bible [102]

         4. atheist philosophy disguised as science [103]

   theory of probability

          a wacko theory asserting that irreducibly complex systems

          evolved [104]

   transitional

          a type of fossil, the characteristics of which no one can

          give with certainty, but which definitely do not exist [105]

PART III — DISCOURSE

   ad hoc

          inability to refute

   ad hominem

          inability to refute

   angry

          inability to refute

   asking for evidence

          inability to refute

   claim of incoherence

          inability to refute

   confuse

          inability to refute

   correcting a student

          inability to refute

   Darwinian yawns

          inability to refute

   denial

          inability to refute

   evade

          inability to refute

   evade

          inability to refute

   excuse

          inability to refute

   frustration

          inability to refute

   guilty

          inability to refute

   hate card

          inability to refute

   ignorance

          inability to refute

   illogic

          inability to refute

   initiate worldview

          inability to refute

   insult

          inability to refute

   misrepresentation

          inability to refute

   moralizing

          inability to refute

   non-sequitur

          inability to refute

   nuh-uh

          inability to refute

   poison the well

          inability to refute

   quick reply

          inability to refute

   rant

          inability to refute

   slander

          inability to refute

   stalling

          inability to refute

   the Emperor has no clothes

          inability to refute

   twisting

          inability to refute

REFERENCES

   1. <news:1123634848.0...@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>

      <http://shorl.com/giramyvanegri>

   2. <news:1123634848.0...@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>

      <http://shorl.com/giramyvanegri>

   3. <news:112389780...@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>

      <http://shorl.com/fohetrefurypi>

   4. <news:1133554514.8...@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>

      <http://shorl.com/jafakahugaty>

   5. <news:113234691...@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com>

      <http://shorl.com/dypistedrefryho>

   6. <news:1133554514.8...@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>

      <http://shorl.com/jafakahugaty>

   7. <news:113356866...@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>

      <http://shorl.com/dibrivubufrosu>

   8. <news:1140208274.7...@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>

      <http://shorl.com/duvylamahipe>

   9. <news:1131234654.7...@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com>

      <http://shorl.com/jemodragrukasto>

  10. <news:1131234654.7...@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com>

      <http://shorl.com/jemodragrukasto>

  11. <news:1131234654.7...@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com>

      <http://shorl.com/jemodragrukasto>

  12. <news:114635024...@u72g2000cwu.googlegroups.com>

      <http://shorl.com/jasosyrejepry>

  13. <news:1133233081.7...@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com>

      <http://shorl.com/hyradidostisty>

  14. <news:1133233081.7...@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com>

      <http://shorl.com/hyradidostisty>

  15. <news:1111707115.5...@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com>

      <http://shorl.com/bystagruprykili>

  16. <news:1143517879.6...@j33g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>

      <http://shorl.com/bybrybatistutre>

  17. <news:112389780...@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>

      <http://shorl.com/fohetrefurypi>

  18. <news:112389780...@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>

      <http://shorl.com/fohetrefurypi>

  19. <news:1122435684.4...@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com>

      <http://shorl.com/gidugeroboro>

  20. <news:1141966577.7...@e56g2000cwe.googlegroups.com>

      <http://shorl.com/dovupografripo>

  21. <news:1112322945.4...@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>

      <http://shorl.com/jajatretenori>

  22. <news:1119553074.3...@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>

      <http://shorl.com/hujopakysturo>

  23. <news:111171847...@l41g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>

      <http://shorl.com/genesefrabyla>

  24. <news:113830179...@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>

      <http://shorl.com/beragegrisupa>

  25. <news:113642530...@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com>

      <http://shorl.com/dodubrinostegry>

  26. <news:1112322945.4...@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>

      <http://shorl.com/jajatretenori>

  27. <news:114626519...@e56g2000cwe.googlegroups.com>

      <http://shorl.com/banesagrulebu>

  28. <news:1123634848.0...@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>

      <http://shorl.com/giramyvanegri>

  29. <news:1131234654.7...@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com>

      <http://shorl.com/jemodragrukasto>

  30. <news:11444449...@z34g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>

      <http://shorl.com/badrabrumobory>

  31. <news:112458221...@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>

      <http://shorl.com/gystafrybrygrehe>

  32. <news:1124664389.9...@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com>

      <http://shorl.com/hosilydrysista>

  33. <news:1129501028.7...@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com>

      <http://shorl.com/fijohebibrene>

  34. <news:112406345...@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>

      <http://shorl.com/gystupastavodi>

  35. <news:1124499080.7...@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>

      <http://shorl.com/fapybrysagafa>

  36. <news:1123634848.0...@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>

      <http://shorl.com/giramyvanegri>

  37. <news:1143517879.6...@j33g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>

      <http://shorl.com/bybrybatistutre>

  38. <news:114635024...@u72g2000cwu.googlegroups.com>

      <http://shorl.com/jasosyrejepry>

  39. <news:1144875540.6...@j33g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>

      <http://shorl.com/jestogrerestuma>

  40. <news:1133554514.8...@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>

      <http://shorl.com/jafakahugaty>

  41. <news:114635024...@u72g2000cwu.googlegroups.com>

      <http://shorl.com/jasosyrejepry>

  42. <news:1144875540.6...@j33g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>

      <http://shorl.com/jestogrerestuma>

  43. <news:1126141197.8...@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>

      <http://shorl.com/jalekegidrobo>

  44. <news:1142211183.1...@i39g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>

      <http://shorl.com/fanasostapolu>

  45. <news:1112322945.4...@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>

      <http://shorl.com/jajatretenori>

  46. <news:1119553074.3...@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>

      <http://shorl.com/hujopakysturo>

  47. <news:11401521...@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>

      <http://shorl.com/dydriropagobo>

  48. <news:1144378101.2...@i40g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>

      <http://shorl.com/bokabebrobihu>

  49. <news:114619236...@i39g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>

      <http://shorl.com/hatulipopyse>

  50. <news:113356866...@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>

      <http://shorl.com/dibrivubufrosu>

  51. <news:113356866...@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>

      <http://shorl.com/dibrivubufrosu>

  52. <news:111481127...@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com>

      <http://shorl.com/binofryfrehufre>

  53. <news:1114809862.0...@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com>

      <http://shorl.com/hihistyprydrogo>

  54. <news:1138942589.7...@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>

      <http://shorl.com/degrenodenepra>

  55. <news:<1144793136....@e56g2000cwe.googlegroups.com>

      <http://shorl.com/hilopragijojy>

  56. <news:1137555962.6...@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>

      <http://shorl.com/jatrebrabrefeny>

  57. <news:1124928808.7...@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>

      <http://shorl.com/gavydridilevo>

  58. <news:113830179...@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>

      <http://shorl.com/beragegrisupa>

  59. <news:1112322945.4...@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>

      <http://shorl.com/jajatretenori>

  60. <news:1133052794.8...@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>

      <http://shorl.com/dabinostistopi>

  61. <news:1137709425.0...@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com>

      <http://shorl.com/fygrynipritepro>

  62. <news:1114721493.4...@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com>

      <http://shorl.com/bedrobimibreni>

  63. <news:1131234654.7...@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com>

      <http://shorl.com/jemodragrukasto>

  64. <news:113356866...@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>

      <http://shorl.com/dibrivubufrosu>

  65. <news:113356866...@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>

      <http://shorl.com/dibrivubufrosu>

  66. <news:114512628...@u72g2000cwu.googlegroups.com>

      <http://shorl.com/gogehubrumini>

  67. <news:1137555962.6...@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>

      <http://shorl.com/jatrebrabrefeny>

  68. <news:1123962862.3...@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>

      <http://shorl.com/fuvejadrivita>

  69. <news:1119481861.2...@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>

      <http://shorl.com/hafredevityni>

  70. <news:114470108...@j33g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>

      <http://shorl.com/bifroranufego>

  71. <news:1123634848.0...@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>

      <http://shorl.com/giramyvanegri>

  72. <news:1140390422.6...@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>

      <http://shorl.com/hifapasapobry>

  73. <news:1141953930.8...@j33g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>

      <http://shorl.com/bagryrystidrytre>

  74. <news:112441067...@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>

      <http://shorl.com/hodafrifanita>

  75. <news:111171847...@l41g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>

      <http://shorl.com/genesefrabyla>

  76. <news:1133050431.7...@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>

      <http://shorl.com/dokutafugrohi>

  77. <news:111240860...@l41g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>

      <http://shorl.com/hibrafobrygogro>

  78. <news:114022184...@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com>

      <http://shorl.com/jamekulavogu>

  79. <news:113830179...@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>

      <http://shorl.com/beragegrisupa>

  80. <news:1114741062.0...@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com>

      <http://shorl.com/hybyhokutresty>

  81. <news:113830179...@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>

      <http://shorl.com/beragegrisupa>

  82. <news:1130811145.9...@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>

      <http://shorl.com/hybrubusukigy>

  83. <news:1130892474.0...@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com>

      <http://shorl.com/beprahysegufu>

  84. <news:1144794663.9...@z34g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>

      <http://shorl.com/jajalygigipro>

  85. <news:1111620666.9...@l41g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>

      <http://shorl.com/gogretujupagy>

  86. <news:113356866...@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>

      <http://shorl.com/dibrivubufrosu>

  87. <news:113356866...@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>

      <http://shorl.com/dibrivubufrosu>

  88. <news:11377065...@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>

      <http://shorl.com/gyfitretyvyby>

  89. <news:112146540...@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>

      <http://shorl.com/fejulytabosti>

  90. <news:1140208274.7...@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>

      <http://shorl.com/duvylamahipe>

  91. <news:1133052794.8...@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>

      <http://shorl.com/dabinostistopi>

  92. <news:112389780...@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>

      <http://shorl.com/fohetrefurypi>

  93. <news:112389780...@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>

      <http://shorl.com/fohetrefurypi>

  94. <news:112389780...@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>

      <http://shorl.com/fohetrefurypi>

  95. <news:112389780...@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>

      <http://shorl.com/fohetrefurypi>

  96. <news:1140208274.7...@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>

      <http://shorl.com/duvylamahipe>

  97. <news:112389780...@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>

      <http://shorl.com/fohetrefurypi>

  98. <news:112389780...@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>

      <http://shorl.com/fohetrefurypi>

  99. <news:1123965565.8...@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>

      <http://shorl.com/dylastirupodru>

 100. <news:111187968...@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>

      <http://shorl.com/besugresodreku>

 101. <news:1111791001.8...@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>

      <http://shorl.com/hifrogabrehasy>

 102. <news:112576911...@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com>

      <http://shorl.com/gudrydrokufomu>

 103. <news:1123965565.8...@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>

      <http://shorl.com/dylastirupodru>

 104. <news:1111697308.8...@l41g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>

      <http://shorl.com/hupajibribalo>

 105. <news:1119642610.3...@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>

      <http://shorl.com/gofivyfydugre>

***

-- 

[Ray Martinez]

On Friday, December 30, 2016 at 11:05:01 PM UTC-8, Earle Jones27 wrote:
> *
>
> I suggested a few days ago that we need someone to take on the task of producing a "Rayspeak-to-English" dictionary.
>
>
>
>
> Richard Clayton pointed out that this was already done, a bit over ten years ago, by poster Tristan Miller on May 2, 2006.  I had forgotten about Miller's 10+ year old dictionary that attempts to translate Ray-speak to English.
>
>
>
>
> Miller's work is very thorough – all it needs now is for some young student to bring it up to date.
>
>
>
>
> It is Ray's recent comment, "Supernatural: exceedingly real" that inspired me to raise the issue.
>
>
>

You've produced an incredibly long misrepresentation of my thought. This is what happens when an enemy gets real mad at his opponent. I don't have the time to go through each and every misrepresentation, but will handle the one seen above, that is, my definition of the word supernatural.

super defined to convey exceedingly.

natural defined to convey what is real or reality.

So the word supernatural means "exceedingly real."

Ray

[*Hemidactylus*]

Ray Martinez <pyram...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Friday, December 30, 2016 at 11:05:01 PM UTC-8, Earle Jones27 wrote:
>> *
>>
>> I suggested a few days ago that we need someone to take on the task of
>> producing a "Rayspeak-to-English" dictionary.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Richard Clayton pointed out that this was already done, a bit over ten
>> years ago, by poster Tristan Miller on May 2, 2006.  I had forgotten
>> about Miller's 10+ year old dictionary that attempts to translate Ray-speak to English.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Miller's work is very thorough – all it needs now is for some young
>> student to bring it up to date.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> It is Ray's recent comment, "Supernatural: exceedingly real" that
>> inspired me to raise the issue.
>>
>>
>>
>
> You've produced an incredibly long misrepresentation of my thought. This
> is what happens when an enemy gets real mad at his opponent. I don't have
> the time to go through each and every misrepresentation, but will handle
> the one seen above, that is, my definition of the word supernatural.
>
> super defined to convey exceedingly.
>
> natural defined to convey what is real or reality.
>
> So the word supernatural means "exceedingly real."
>

WTF?

So could there be supernatural foods that are exceedingly good for you? Is
that akin to a supernaturalistic fallacy?

Supernatural is instead beyond the natural or what is said to transcend.
Yours is a bizarre form of immanence.

Exceedingly becomes a value judgement where anything supernatural is more
real than mere natural entities. You are elevating your metaphysical
position via sophistic wordplay. That's a cheater's move.

[Earle Jones27]

On 2016-12-07 02:43:24 +0000, *Hemidactylus* said:

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

>> On Tuesday, December 6, 2016 at 3:50:01 PM UTC-8, Ray Martinez wrote:
>>>
> [snip]

>>>
>>> Let me summarize:
>>>
>>> In relevant literature the phrase "appearance of design" found
>>> abundantly. But John Harshman has said that evolutionary science does

>>> not accept appearance of design in nature. He is correct of course. So

>>> the phrase found in relevant literature conveys what the Christian
>>> masses claim to see. Fine. That said, evolutionary science can document
>>> the existence of nested hierarchies all they want as demonstrably
>>> supporting and proving the fact of evolution, however. When it's all
>>> said and done nested hierarchies are dependent on the occurrence of
>>> micro-evolution and micro-evolution is dependent on the existence of

>>> natural selection. So what we claim to see, appearance of design, not
>>> logically explainable by an unintelligent process. Remember, one cannot

>>> tell another what they see or don't see, all one can do is explain what
>>> they see or don't see. So the existence of nested hierarchies, based on
>>> the inability of Evolutionists to logically explain the appearance of

>>> design, BECOMES the way the theistic Divine Mastermind (= Biblical

>>> Creator) chose to create.
>>>
>>> Evolutionary theorists: Your King is in checkmate. You must move your
>>> King to a safe square or expose the mate to be just another check.
>>>

>>> Ray
>>
>> Addendum: Appearance of design infers the work of an invisible Maker, not
>> unintelligent process. An appearance or observation cannot be trumped by
>> an inference or set of inferences. Groups within groups becomes the way
>> the Creator chose to create.
>>
>> Final Conclusion: supernatural or intelligent causation exists
>> exclusively in nature. Paley remains correct after all:
>>
>> "Natural Theology: or, Evidences of the Existence and Attributes of the
>> Deity; Collected from the Appearances of Nature" (1802).
>>
> Your usage of "appearance" confuses the hell outta me because it is easy to
> equivocate meanings of the word. In my view based on Kant the way things
> appear may not reflect deeper reality. Appearance in that sense can
> dovetail into illusion in the Schopenhauerian sense. So you and Paley see
> complex stuff in nature and based on flawed watch analogy project your
> theist assumptions onto nature. Darwin came along and peeled the scales
> from many eyes and the apparent design of complex organisms evaporated as
> illusion. I think that is what Dawkins was getting at with his "designoid"
> concept. So now with your notion of "appearance" of design in nature you
> are deluding yourself and trying to do the same to gullible others. You
> suffer confirmation bias as you filter bubble or firewall yourself from
> reality and refuse to seriously explore alternative views that might upset
> the applecart in your obsolete early 19th century worldview.
>
> Organisms do not exist in static permanent Platonic categories, but are a
> product of allelic flux that produces over time the illusion of permanence.
> And as for nested groups within groups that is imperfectly conceived within
> the Goethian-Owenian concept of archetypes. But just as Darwin flipped the
> script on Paley with the concept of natural selection accounting for the
> perceived appearance of design, Darwin also flipped the script on Richard
> Owen by replacing the archetype with the common ancestor. Those
> pre-Darwinian Ideas in the mind of God become nothing more than
> anthropomorphic artefacts of our projections onto nature.
>
> And when Sewall Wright and Motoo Kimura came along and introduced the
> concepts of drift and neutral alleles respectively Darwinian illusions were
> shattered as the realities behind the molecular shadowplay upon the
> cavewall were revealed.
>
> As the eminent objectivist Scholar Karl Popper realized the alternative to
> selection known as drift thus refuted selection rendering it
> non-tautological and not metaphysical. Popper, not Rand, sits with God and
> the Baby Jesus in Heaven.

*
I thought "Baby" Jesus died at the age of 33.

earle
*

[*Hemidactylus*]

We are contemplating Ayn Rand vs Karl Popper in the heaven court and you're
worried how old Jesus might be?

[Ray Martinez]

Your reply is filled with your subjective beliefs concerning the supernatural. Transcendence can be part of a definition but in your thought the concept appears exclusive or at least predominant. And your inclusion of the metaphysical indicates Deism, which indicates your belief that the only possible place the supernatural might have in reality is one act billions of years ago, simply atheistic ridiculous. If that is the only possible place or role for the supernatural then my definition is exceedingly false.

I broke the term supernatural down into two parts, super and natural. Each meaning rendered to each part is self-evidently true or synonymous. Said definition equates to a claim that the supernatural is exceedingly real in the natural. This would correspond to the claim of design, which Creationism says is seen in each species. So "exceedingly real" is shown to be an accurate definition.

Ray

[Mark Isaak]

On 1/2/17 9:25 PM, Ray Martinez wrote:
> [...]

> I broke the term supernatural down into two parts, super and natural. Each meaning rendered to each part is self-evidently true or synonymous. Said definition equates to a claim that the supernatural is exceedingly real in the natural. This would correspond to the claim of design, which Creationism says is seen in each species. So "exceedingly real" is shown to be an accurate definition.

Likewise, the definition of "penmanship" is: A large vessel which has an
enclosure for confining human males. Don't even ask what "therapist" means.

[Burkhard]

Mark Isaak wrote:
> On 1/2/17 9:25 PM, Ray Martinez wrote:
>> [...]
>> I broke the term supernatural down into two parts, super and natural.
>> Each meaning rendered to each part is self-evidently true or
>> synonymous. Said definition equates to a claim that the supernatural
>> is exceedingly real in the natural. This would correspond to the claim
>> of design, which Creationism says is seen in each species. So
>> "exceedingly real" is shown to be an accurate definition.
>
> Likewise, the definition of "penmanship" is: A large vessel which has an
> enclosure for confining human males.

I thought it was a floating retreat for writers, but maybe that reading
is now supernumerary (which is either exceedingly numerous, or an
exceedingly good member of Opus dei)

[Burkhard]

It's rather unclear what you are arguing. Do you think that is the
current word meaning? The historical word meaning? Or a normative claim
(hence not true or false) of the way the word ought to be understood in
the future? The first two are wrong, the last would be an "argument by
etymology" which often is fallacious, but I could see it as a sort of
cute rhetorical device to reclaim a term that these days refers to
ghosts and PSI at least as much as it refers to gods or theology.

In case you tried to argue one of the first two options:
It is not generally possible to reconstruct the meaning of a compound
expression from the etymology of its parts - sometimes it works, more
often it does not. "Person" is (probably) a combination of "per",
"through", and "sonare", "to sound" - derived from the masks the actors
in Roman theatre would "speak through". But that is of course not how we
understand the term these days. "Transpire" is derived from "Trans" and
"spirare", "to breath". Transpire thus translates as "exhale", and
again, that it not how we use the term today. So committing the
etymological fallacy is a tragedy, or "goat-song" (from "tragos", goat,
and "oide", song).

As Howard Jackson puts it: "Etymology does not make a contribution to
the description of the contemporary meaning and usage of words; it may
help to illuminate how things have got to where they are now, but it as
likely to be misleading as helpful (as with the 'etymological fallacy').
Etymology offers no advice to one who consults a dictionary on the
appropriate use of a word in the context of a written text or spoken
discourse. It merely provides some passing insight for the interested
dictionary browser with the requisite background knowledge and
interpretative skills."
(Lexicography: An Introduction. Routledge, 2002)

Or if you prefer a theologian:

"We are aware that nothing is more unsafe and treacherous than the
guidance of etymology. An ounce of usage is worth a pound of it.
Etymology is theory, usage is fact" (John Westley Hanson, Aiōn-aiōnios
: the Greek word translated everlasting, eternal in the Holy Bible,
shown to denote limited duration, Chicago 1876)

Of course, sometimes it is possible to get the meaning form a compound
term from its constituent parts, so what about the term in hand?

The core meaning of Latin "Super- " is indeed as Hemi says, "above, on
the top (of), beyond, besides, or "in addition to". It is derived from
Proto Indo-european (s)uper, from which you also get the German "ueber"
or the English "over". The term had originally a strong spatial element
(which you see in terms such as "superimposed" or "superlunary") and
then also a more abstract "next higher", as in "supertonic" (the second
note of a diatonic scale, one "above" the tonic

That resonated with biblical theology whose cosmology is also spatially
arranged. First you get the older "layer-model" of the Bible with sheol,
the underworld, on the bottom, then in the middle eres, earth, and
finally "above" heavens (shamayim). From the 4th century onward, this
then merged with the Greek "scientific" cosmology: a spherical earth
surrounded by multiple concentric heavens. (see e.g. David Aune,
(2003). "Cosmology". Westminster Dictionary of the New Testament and
Early Christian Literature) In either model, "heaven", the dominion of
God, is literally "above" or "super", the earth. "supernatural" then
came to mean throughout the middle ages and early modernity simply the
divine, what is above (beyond) earth, without any indication of the
relation between the realms (so consistent with both theism and deism).

Your meaning of "super" as "particularly good" or "very much" by
contrast is a relative newcomer - it started to become the more
prominent meaning only from the 19th century onward. "Super" alone, not
used as a prefix and indicating "good", is from the 1830s. You can
trace the change of the meaning of "super-" through this interesting
example: The term "supersexual" was coined by Kenelm H. Digby in "The
Broad Stone of Honour, or Rules for the Gentlemen of England", 1822.
This was a typical romanticist take on the medieval concept of Chivalry,
and with that the idea that "true love" is not tainted by lust or sexual
desire (what we would call today "platonic"). A true gentleman was
therefore "supersexual", that is "beyond sex", leaving these urges
behind - or with other words not sexual at all.

But then the dominant meaning of "super-" began to change to your
preferred one, and oday, the term "supersexual" means the exact opposite
of what Digby had meant with it, that is someone who is exceedingly
sexual (so used from 1960s onwards, e.g in Sexology, Volume 37 p35)

So "super" the way you read it only took off in the 19th century- but
that was also the time "supernatural" lost its exclusively theological
meaning and became more a term for ghosts, PSI and everything else
outside modern science.

With other words, you are using a very recent meaning for "super", and
your analysis does not correctly describe either the historical or
contemporary meaning of the term.

[Andre G. Isaak]

In article <o4hels$2e2$1...@dont-email.me>, Burkhard <b.sc...@ed.ac.uk>
wrote:

I have no idea where either of you get your definitions from. Penmanship
is a pelvic disorder common among those who carry too many quills in
their pocketses.

Andre

--
To email remove 'invalid' & replace 'gm' with well known Google mail service.

[*Hemidactylus*]

And in some cases that leads to a priapic disorder known as inkhorn. ✒️🎷

[Ray Martinez]

A careful read of what Burk has written above reveals no harm to anything I've said about the definition of the word "supernatural."

Supernatural is a contraction of two words: super and natural.

super conveys exceedingly; and natural conveys what is real or reality.

So the word supernatural conveys a claim that is either true or false. Creationists, of course, know the claim is overwhelmingly true; the concept of design exists in each species.

Ray

[Robert Camp]

So...that whole "careful read" thing was a joke, right?

[Burkhard]

Erm, at this point nobody knows what exactly you are saying - which is
why I started with a question, and 3 options of what you might mean.

So what is it? That "supernatural" meant "exceedingly real" when the
term was coined? That is means "exceedingly real" when used by
philosophers and theologians now? Or that you think it would be a good
idea to give it the meaning "exceedingly real"?

The first two are false, as my data shows.

>
> Supernatural is a contraction of two words: super and natural.

Wrong term. You probably mean composition or compound, not
contradiction. Technically speaking, it's also not a composition, but an
affixiation, but lots of folks confuse this so it's not quite as bad as
calling it a contradiction.


>
> super conveys exceedingly;

but only since the 1830s or so, not when the word was coined. And by
then "supernatural" had begun to include ghosts, PSI and other
non-religious phenomena and acquired a totally different meaning as a
result.

>and natural conveys what is real or reality.


>
> So the word supernatural conveys a claim that is either true or false.

Eh, no? The word supernatural can be used to make claims, but it is not
a claim. One possible claim is that supernatural entities can act
causally on natural entities. Another claim could be that supernatural
entities exist but cannot causally effect natural entities. A third
could be that no supernatural entities exist. each of these 3 claims is
true or false, but not the word supernatural. Being true or false is a
property of sentences, not words.

[Ray Martinez]

Simply cut a quotation that harms what I said and I will promptly acknowledge. And as an aside please explain how unintelligent evolutionary process indicates the work of supernatural intelligence?

Ray

[jillery]

On Wed, 4 Jan 2017 19:32:36 -0800 (PST), Ray Martinez
<pyram...@yahoo.com> wrote:

>And as an aside please explain how unintelligent evolutionary process indicates the work of supernatural intelligence?

Anyone can answer that: a supernatural intelligence can do anything it
wants to do, including making it appear that unintelligent
evolutionary processes apply.

[Mark Isaak]

On 1/4/17 4:29 PM, Ray Martinez wrote:

No, it most certainly does not. "Super" is Latin for "above" or
"beyond". Look it up.

> and natural conveys what is real or reality.
>

> So the word supernatural [...]

Means "beyond reality". In other words, outside of existence, or unreal.

[Ray Martinez]

So when Young Earth Creationists argue God made earth appear really old when in fact earth is really young, said argument is valid?

Ray

[Robert Camp]

Sure, depending upon your assumptions. Validating an apparently absurd
argument is child's play when there is little constraint upon your
choice of premises.

(This is what you do.)

It's just not an argument that is valid from a scientific (or rational)
perspective. Why? Because science puts constraints on the process.

(This is what you don't understand.)

[Ray Martinez]

On Wednesday, January 4, 2017 at 9:59:59 PM UTC-8, jillery wrote:

What about the fact that one cannot use the process to infer the supernatural?

Ray

[Burkhard]

For a given value of valid, yes. It comes at a cost though. Because as
Jillery said, a supernatural agent can do whatever he/she/they want,
every possible set of data is consistent with it. So the old earth
position is also consistent with it. And the position that several
omnipotent gods did it together etc etc.

With other words, you lose the ability to convince anyone on the basis
of what we actually observe that your account is the right one. So
nobody who is not already convinced of their position needs to change
their opinion - the argument is formally valid, but empirically empty.

Now, lots of YECs want to give non-YECs reasons from observation that
their belief is right - and that is what they lose with appeals to an
omnipotent, unconstrained deity.

This is related to the concept of falsifiability, loosely. The easier
your claim is to falsify, the higher the risk you take to be wrong the
more persuasive (ceteris paribus) is your argument as long as it has not
been falsified.

[Burkhard]

Well, this is too strong. "Super" can indeed also mean "exceedingly",
"lots of", to a high degree.

We find examples of both: superfine e.g uses "super" as "exceedingly" or
"to the highest degree", superimposition uses the "above" meaning.

It just so happens that "supernatural" was formed from this second
meaning, which was the much more prominent at the time (the "to a high
degree" rose to prominence much later, even though you get a few forms
using it also early one - superfine as "excessively elegant" is form the
16th century e.g.

[Ray Martinez]

> >> term from its constituent parts, so what about the term in hand?tt

Your definition says the word at issue does not exist in reality, which coincides with your Atheist worldview. But according to my definition the same equates a claim that is either true or false, you therefore have answered in the negative and inadvertently confirmed my definition to be valid.

Ray

[Bob Casanova]

On Thu, 5 Jan 2017 09:15:44 -0800 (PST), the following
appeared in talk.origins, posted by Ray Martinez
<pyram...@yahoo.com>:

Of course it is, *as an argument*. It says nothing about
reality, though, since an omnipotent deity can make anything
look any way it wants, and we have no way to determine
whether any particular claim is accurate. "Last Thursdayism"
is just as valid *as an argument*, and just as barren as a
way to analyze reality.
--

Bob C.

"The most exciting phrase to hear in science,
the one that heralds new discoveries, is not
'Eureka!' but 'That's funny...'"

- Isaac Asimov

[jillery]

On Thu, 5 Jan 2017 09:36:35 -0800 (PST), Ray Martinez

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

>On Wednesday, January 4, 2017 at 9:59:59 PM UTC-8, jillery wrote:
>> On Wed, 4 Jan 2017 19:32:36 -0800 (PST), Ray Martinez
>> <pyram...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>> >And as an aside please explain how unintelligent evolutionary process indicates the work of supernatural intelligence?
>>
>>
>> Anyone can answer that: a supernatural intelligence can do anything it
>> wants to do, including making it appear that unintelligent
>> evolutionary processes apply.
>

>What about the fact that one cannot use the process to infer the supernatural?

What about it? What do your two questions have to do with each other?

[jillery]

On Thu, 5 Jan 2017 09:15:44 -0800 (PST), Ray Martinez

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

>On Wednesday, January 4, 2017 at 9:59:59 PM UTC-8, jillery wrote:
>> On Wed, 4 Jan 2017 19:32:36 -0800 (PST), Ray Martinez
>> <pyram...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>> >And as an aside please explain how unintelligent evolutionary process indicates the work of supernatural intelligence?
>>
>>
>> Anyone can answer that: a supernatural intelligence can do anything it
>> wants to do, including making it appear that unintelligent
>> evolutionary processes apply.
>

>So when Young Earth Creationists argue God made earth appear really old when in fact earth is really young, said argument is valid?

It's as valid an argument as yours. The problem with both is they
conflate "consistent with" and "necessary and sufficient".

[Ray Martinez]

So we have three Atheist-Evolutionists saying it's a valid argument (Bob C., Robert C., and Burk). In reality it's not a valid argument. Their collective assent is ad hoc, having a special purpose----protection of an oxymoron, so called "Christian Evolutionism." My question was rhetorical. Sound logic says old does not indicate young. And no one can produce a source for God that supports such an illogical proposition. So the proposition is entirely subjective and therefore false. The same goes for the proposition that says unintelligent process indicates supernatural Intelligence. It does not. If it did then Atheists would not be Evolutionists. The process, if it exists, and it doesn't, falsifies the alleged Cause, which renders the Cause a falsifiable concept. Low and behold, this is exactly why all Atheists are Evolutionists: unintelligent processes indicate the non-existence of supernatural Intelligence. "Christian" Evolutionists are exposed to be completely deluded morons and traitors, standing with the enemies of God and truth. Yes, enemies of truth, since the three Atheists mentioned have attempted to suppress the illogical nature of both propositions, saying these arguments are valid when they most certainly are invalid and of course false.

Herein one can see why we are anti-evolutionaries: Evolutionists cannot be trusted to convey any objective truth. They will not hesitate to lie even when the truth is known and uncomplicated (invalidity of old indicating young; unintelligence indicating Intelligence). And there is no shortage of scholarly material lambasting the Young Earth position that says earth is young, but God made it appear old.

Ray

[Ray Martinez]

I asked an uncomplicated straightforward question and received an antonymic reply.

Ray

[Ray Martinez]

I've created a stipulated definition, which is completely valid, especially in view of my explanations.

>
> The first two are false, as my data shows.
>
> >
> > Supernatural is a contraction of two words: super and natural.
>
> Wrong term. You probably mean composition or compound, not
> contradiction.

Error.

I said contraction, not contradiction.

> Technically speaking, it's also not a composition, but an
> affixiation, but lots of folks confuse this so it's not quite as bad as
> calling it a contradiction.
>
>
> >
> > super conveys exceedingly;
>
> but only since the 1830s or so, not when the word was coined. And by
> then "supernatural" had begun to include ghosts, PSI and other
> non-religious phenomena and acquired a totally different meaning as a
> result.
>
>
> >and natural conveys what is real or reality.
>
>
> >
> > So the word supernatural conveys a claim that is either true or false.
>
> Eh, no? The word supernatural can be used to make claims, but it is not
> a claim.

Mark Isaak already posted a definition that says the concept is false.

> One possible claim is that supernatural entities can act
> causally on natural entities. Another claim could be that supernatural
> entities exist but cannot causally effect natural entities. A third
> could be that no supernatural entities exist. each of these 3 claims is
> true or false, but not the word supernatural. Being true or false is a
> property of sentences, not words.
>

Here we go again! Words are properties of material reality, not other words or strings of words known as sentences. Your anti-reality Kantian thought is showing badly.

And you ever heard of Natural Theology?

> > Creationists, of course, know the claim is overwhelmingly true; the concept of design exists in each species.
> >
> > Ray
> >

Ray

[Burkhard]

So its option 3, you made it up. Fine, as I said, and sort of cute, just
not how anyone else understands the word,

>
>>
>> The first two are false, as my data shows.
>>
>>>
>>> Supernatural is a contraction of two words: super and natural.
>>
>> Wrong term. You probably mean composition or compound, not
>> contradiction.
>
> Error.
>
> I said contraction, not contradiction.

sorry, spell checker. Yes, you said contraction, and that is the wrong
term. In a contraction, the new word is shorter than the original words,
hence the term. "Let us" to "let's" is a contraction. More unusually,
"o'clock" is a contraction of "of the clock". Portmanteau words are
(arguably, there is a bit a debate) contractions, "liger" is a
contraction of "lion and tiger", "smog" is a contraction of "smoke and
fog"

In all these examples, the result is shorter than the sum of the parts.

supernatural by contrast is just as long as the two individual parts
combined, so not a contraction. If it were a word formation from the
adjective "super" and "natural", it would be a composition. However, the
adjectival use of "super" is much more recent than "supernatural", so it
is the combination of prefix super+ and "natural" - a form of word
formation known as affixiation.

>
>> Technically speaking, it's also not a composition, but an
>> affixiation, but lots of folks confuse this so it's not quite as bad as
>> calling it a contradiction.
>>
>>
>>>
>>> super conveys exceedingly;
>>
>> but only since the 1830s or so, not when the word was coined. And by
>> then "supernatural" had begun to include ghosts, PSI and other
>> non-religious phenomena and acquired a totally different meaning as a
>> result.
>>
>>
>>> and natural conveys what is real or reality.
>>
>>
>>>
>>> So the word supernatural conveys a claim that is either true or false.
>>
>> Eh, no? The word supernatural can be used to make claims, but it is not
>> a claim.
>
> Mark Isaak already posted a definition that says the concept is false.

concepts are neither true nor false, only sentences are. Concepts can
have a referent or be empty, different thing altogether.

>
>> One possible claim is that supernatural entities can act
>> causally on natural entities. Another claim could be that supernatural
>> entities exist but cannot causally effect natural entities. A third
>> could be that no supernatural entities exist. each of these 3 claims is
>> true or false, but not the word supernatural. Being true or false is a
>> property of sentences, not words.
>>
>
> Here we go again! Words are properties of material reality, not other words or strings of words known as sentences. Your anti-reality Kantian thought is showing badly.

Nothing to do with Kant or any epistemology, for that matter. Just basic
logic, and in this form known since Aristotle and the stoics,
systematized by William of Occam and logical mainstream since Frege in
the 19th century.

The smallest entity that can be true or false are sentences. Terms can
be referential or not referential (that is have a corresponding object
or not), a different thing altogether.

that is really, really basic stuff - get any logic textbook for total
beginners, I gave you references to a few in the past

>
> And you ever heard of Natural Theology?

Yes, so what?

[Ray Martinez]

The concept of cat existed before the word "cat" existed.

Want more?

Ray

[Burkhard]

Arguably, so what? Cats existed even earlier than either. We were
talking however about word origin, not concepts. And either way, the
smallest entity to be true or false are still sentences.


>
> Want more?
>
> Ray
>

[Ray Martinez]

Stipulations are completely valid; your reply indicates that personal knowledge limitations have been reached.

Evasion via anti-reality thinking.

> >
> >> One possible claim is that supernatural entities can act
> >> causally on natural entities. Another claim could be that supernatural
> >> entities exist but cannot causally effect natural entities. A third
> >> could be that no supernatural entities exist. each of these 3 claims is
> >> true or false, but not the word supernatural. Being true or false is a
> >> property of sentences, not words.
> >>
> >
> > Here we go again! Words are properties of material reality, not other words or strings of words known as sentences. Your anti-reality Kantian thought is showing badly.
>
> Nothing to do with Kant or any epistemology, for that matter. Just basic
> logic, and in this form known since Aristotle and the stoics,
> systematized by William of Occam and logical mainstream since Frege in
> the 19th century.
>
> The smallest entity that can be true or false are sentences. Terms can
> be referential or not referential (that is have a corresponding object
> or not), a different thing altogether.
>
> that is really, really basic stuff - get any logic textbook for total
> beginners, I gave you references to a few in the past
>

Yep, once again you reveal yourself ignorant of what a noun is: a word AND its referent.

>
> >
> > And you ever heard of Natural Theology?
>
> Yes, so what?
>

Regarding supernatural! God grief! It's frustrating when Evolutionists are shown unable to follow a simple argument.

> >
> >>> Creationists, of course, know the claim is overwhelmingly true; the concept of design exists in each species.
> >>>
> >>> Ray
> >>>
> >
> > Ray
> >

Ray (Objectivist)

[*Hemidactylus*]

Ray Martinez <pyram...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
[snip]

>
> Here we go again! Words are properties of material reality, not other
> words or strings of words known as sentences. Your anti-reality Kantian
> thought is showing badly.
>

Why do Randroids have such a bee in their bonnet for Kant? "Anti-realist"
Kant came up with Nebular hypothesis for Solar System. Name one bit of true
knowledge Rand put forward into the ideosphere.

[Burkhard]

yes, that's what I said. Everyone can make up their own definitions if
they are explicit about what the are doing. You made one up for
supernatural, somewhat cutely based on a false etymology, but as it is
your definition, you can make it up any way you like

Nothing to do with realism or antirealism, just correct usage of the
basic terms of logic and linguistics. Nobody apart from you ever claimed
that concepts are true or false, nobody ever. They can refer to things
or not refer to things (be referential or empty), that's how they relate
to reality

>
>>>
>>>> One possible claim is that supernatural entities can act
>>>> causally on natural entities. Another claim could be that supernatural
>>>> entities exist but cannot causally effect natural entities. A third
>>>> could be that no supernatural entities exist. each of these 3 claims is
>>>> true or false, but not the word supernatural. Being true or false is a
>>>> property of sentences, not words.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Here we go again! Words are properties of material reality, not other words or strings of words known as sentences. Your anti-reality Kantian thought is showing badly.
>>
>> Nothing to do with Kant or any epistemology, for that matter. Just basic
>> logic, and in this form known since Aristotle and the stoics,
>> systematized by William of Occam and logical mainstream since Frege in
>> the 19th century.
>>
>> The smallest entity that can be true or false are sentences. Terms can
>> be referential or not referential (that is have a corresponding object
>> or not), a different thing altogether.
>>
>> that is really, really basic stuff - get any logic textbook for total
>> beginners, I gave you references to a few in the past
>>
>
> Yep, once again you reveal yourself ignorant of what a noun is: a word AND its referent.

only in Ray Martinez' world. For everybody else, words are names of
things, not the things themselves. OK, that's an exaggeration - people
who still believe in word magic sometimes have beliefs similar to yours.

For the rest of the world, in Europe since the Stoics, in India since
Panini, nouns are simply a label for a group of certain words. These
words sometimes have referents, sometimes they don't.

"Schnee", "snow", "cat", "unicorn" are all nouns. Three of them are
English, 1 isn't. 2 of them are synonyms and therefore also pick out the
same referents. They are still different words though, and also
different nouns. 3 of them have as referents physical objects, 1 of them
does not (it then depends on your theory of abstract objects what sort
of thing, if anything, "unicorn" is a referent of - in classical logic
it's the empty set.

Really not rocket science, I wished you just got yourself a really basic
intro to the field before you make yourself look silly.

>
>>
>>>
>>> And you ever heard of Natural Theology?
>>
>> Yes, so what?
>>
>
> Regarding supernatural! God grief! It's frustrating when Evolutionists are shown unable to follow a simple argument.

You have so far failed to make any argument, simple or complex. Natural
theology is a way of doing theology that dates back to Varro in the 1.
century BC, and then had a temporal boom during early modernity, and
lost pretty much traction in the late Victorian era. Still fail to see
what that has to do with anything

[Burkhard]

In the same book he also gives a good (by the standard of the time
excellent) idea of the time scales involved, and also an account of the
number of galaxies we should expect and only much later confirmed.

Before that, he had won the prize of the academy of Sciences in Berlin
for discovering that the friction from the tidal currents reduces the
rotational speed of earth - something Kelvin would later praise him for.

[jillery]

On Thu, 5 Jan 2017 14:07:11 -0800 (PST), Ray Martinez

Once again, you conflate "logically valid" with "correct". The
problem with your YEC analogy is not it's form, but instead is its
unstated assumptions.

[Burkhard]

You are reading carelessly. We all said for a specific understanding of
"valid", that is logical validity alone.

>In reality it's not a valid argument. Their collective assent is ad hoc,

You really should look up one day what ad hoc means, you keep using it
wrongly

>having a special purpose----protection of an oxymoron, so called "Christian Evolutionism." My question was rhetorical. Sound logic says old does not indicate young.

And nobody said it does. However, the appearance of age can be
misleading, and with the right premises "explained away" so that it is
consistent with a younger age.

There are lots of real life examples where this turns out to be correct.

This painting looks old:
http://i.telegraph.co.uk/multimedia/archive/01936/forgery_1936266c.jpg

However, on closer inspection it turns out that it was made to look old
by a 19th century forger.

Did its appearance of old age "indicate" that it was young? No. But
appearances can be deceptive, and as it turns out in this case the
appearance of old age was consistent with a much younger age.

So if humans can make things look older than they are, then presumably
gods can do the same thing.

> And no one can produce a source for God that supports such an illogical proposition.

You mean his claimed omnipotence? That has been claimed for god by quite
a number of Christian authors, though I would agree that the biblical
basis is weak to non-existent.

> So the proposition is entirely subjective and therefore false.

This "therefore" only exists in your mind. Why would subjective
statements be false? They might be (in certain contexts) be
unconvincing, but that is about it. If all subjective statements were
false, we'd be omniscient.

>The same goes for the proposition that says unintelligent process indicates supernatural Intelligence. It does not. If it did then Atheists would not be Evolutionists.

Nobody says it "indicates" supernatural intelligence, only that it is
"consistent with" supernatural intelligence. You keep confusing the two,
they are not the same thing at all.

>The process, if it exists, and it doesn't, falsifies the alleged Cause, which renders the Cause a falsifiable concept.

Ah yes, another of your favourite confusions, between falsifiable and
falsified.

> Low and behold, this is exactly why all Atheists are Evolutionists: unintelligent processes indicate the non-existence of supernatural Intelligence. "Christian" Evolutionists are exposed to be completely deluded morons and traitors, standing with the enemies of God and truth. Yes, enemies of truth, since the three Atheists mentioned have attempted to suppress the illogical nature of both propositions, saying these arguments are valid when they most certainly are invalid and of course false.

... screeches Ray, spittle flying from his mouth - unfortunately, not a
single piece of sound argument in the above.

The existence of unintelligent processes is most certainly consistent
with the absence of supernatural intelligence. It is also consistent
with the existence of intelligent processes if the intelligence is human
- artificial and natural selection both exist. If it is consistent with
intelligent processes where humans are the actors, then it is obviously
also consistent with supernatural processes, assuming a deity can do at
least as much as humans can do.

>
> Herein one can see why we are anti-evolutionaries: Evolutionists cannot be trusted to convey any objective truth. They will not hesitate to lie even when the truth is known and uncomplicated (invalidity of old indicating young; unintelligence indicating Intelligence).

The only reason why we confuse you is a) we use terms in their correct
meaning and b) we are capable of acknowledging the relative strength
even of positions we ultimately agree with. since you are incapable of
either, this must indeed look for you like unnecessary complications. It
is however exactly how scientists evaluate competing claims.

>And there is no shortage of scholarly material lambasting the Young Earth position that says earth is young, but God made it appear old.

Sure. And I gave some of them myself. The argument comes with
significant costs that makes it theologically unappealing. For
scientific purposes, it is totally useless - it renders every possible
argument unfalsifiable.

But all these arguments requires to bring in additional premises and
value judgements (on what makes e.g. a good theological theory). Nobody
here says the YEC position is true, let alone convincing. Only that it
can be made (trivially) consistent, through the argument under
discussion, which is formally (and only formally) valid


>
> Ray
>

[Bob Casanova]

On Thu, 5 Jan 2017 14:07:11 -0800 (PST), the following

appeared in talk.origins, posted by Ray Martinez
<pyram...@yahoo.com>:

>On Thursday, January 5, 2017 at 10:29:58 AM UTC-8, Bob Casanova wrote:
>> On Thu, 5 Jan 2017 09:15:44 -0800 (PST), the following
>> appeared in talk.origins, posted by Ray Martinez
>> <pyram...@yahoo.com>:
>>
>> >On Wednesday, January 4, 2017 at 9:59:59 PM UTC-8, jillery wrote:
>> >> On Wed, 4 Jan 2017 19:32:36 -0800 (PST), Ray Martinez
>> >> <pyram...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >And as an aside please explain how unintelligent evolutionary process indicates the work of supernatural intelligence?
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> Anyone can answer that: a supernatural intelligence can do anything it
>> >> wants to do, including making it appear that unintelligent
>> >> evolutionary processes apply.
>> >> --
>> >> This space is intentionally not blank.
>> >
>> >So when Young Earth Creationists argue God made earth appear really old when in fact earth is really young, said argument is valid?
>>
>> Of course it is, *as an argument*. It says nothing about
>> reality, though, since an omnipotent deity can make anything
>> look any way it wants, and we have no way to determine
>> whether any particular claim is accurate. "Last Thursdayism"
>> is just as valid *as an argument*, and just as barren as a
>> way to analyze reality.

>So we have three Atheist-Evolutionists saying it's a valid argument (Bob C., Robert C., and Burk). In reality it's not a valid argument.

Wrong; you forgot to include "as an argument". An argument
must be self-consistent and not contradict known fact to be
a valid argument, but as I said that doesn't make it valid
with respect to reality. Until you can grasp the difference
you're pissing in the wind.

> Their collective assent is ad hoc, having a special purpose----protection of an oxymoron, so called "Christian Evolutionism." My question was rhetorical. Sound logic says old does not indicate young. And no one can produce a source for God that supports such an illogical proposition. So the proposition is entirely subjective and therefore false. The same goes for the proposition that says unintelligent process indicates supernatural Intelligence. It does not. If it did then Atheists would not be Evolutionists. The process, if it exists, and it doesn't, falsifies the alleged Cause, which renders the Cause a falsifiable concept. Low and behold, this is exactly why all Atheists are Evolutionists: unintelligent processes indicate the non-existence of supernatural Intelligence. "Christian" Evolutionists are exposed to be completely deluded morons and
>traitors, standing with the enemies of God and truth. Yes, enemies of truth, since the three Atheists mentioned have attempted to suppress the illogical nature of both propositions, saying these arguments are valid when they most certainly are invalid and of course false.
>
>Herein one can see why we are anti-evolutionaries: Evolutionists cannot be trusted to convey any objective truth. They will not hesitate to lie even when the truth is known and uncomplicated (invalidity of old indicating young; unintelligence indicating Intelligence). And there is no shortage of scholarly material lambasting the Young Earth position that says earth is young, but God made it appear old.

Please cite some links to that "scholarly material". Note
that any argument which attempts to debunk the concept
without taking into account an omnipotent deity with unknown
and unknowable motives is invalid on its face.

[Mark Isaak]

On 1/5/17 10:06 AM, Ray Martinez wrote:
> On Thursday, January 5, 2017 at 9:00:00 AM UTC-8, Mark Isaak wrote:
>> On 1/4/17 4:29 PM, Ray Martinez wrote:
>>> On Wednesday, January 4, 2017 at 4:54:59 AM UTC-8, Burkhard wrote:

>>>> [...]

> Your definition says the word at issue does not exist in reality, which coincides with your Atheist worldview. But according to my definition the same equates a claim that is either true or false, you therefore have answered in the negative and inadvertently confirmed my definition to be valid.

Neato! My showing that you are wrong confirms that you are right. That
must mean that your saying I am wrong means *I* am right! What an
interesting world you live in. Or live outside of. It is impossible to
tell anything about anything as soon at Ray enters the discussion.

[Ray Martinez]

And I explained why, which you have ignored. And we all know what that means.

Ray