The genetic code, unsurmountable problem for non-intelligent origin

[grassoempree...@gmail.com]

The genetic code, unsurmountable problem for non-intelligent origin

http://reasonandscience.heavenforum.org/t2363-the-genetic-code-unsurmountable-problem-for-non-intelligent-origin



Problem no.1
The genetic code system ( language ) must be created, and the universal code is nearly optimal and maximally efficient

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8335231
The genetic language is a collection of rules and regularities of genetic information coding for genetic texts. It is defined by alphabet, grammar, collection of punctuation marks and regulatory sites, semantics.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3293468/
In our opinion, despite extensive and, in many cases, elaborate attempts to model code optimization, ingenious theorizing along the lines of the coevolution theory, and considerable experimentation, very little definitive progress has been made.
Summarizing the state of the art in the study of the code evolution, we cannot escape considerable skepticism. It seems that the two-pronged fundamental question: “why is the genetic code the way it is and how did it come to be?”, that was asked over 50 years ago, at the dawn of molecular biology, might remain pertinent even in another 50 years. Our consolation is that we cannot think of a more fundamental problem in biology.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9732450
The genetic code is one in a million
if we employ weightings to allow for biases in translation, then only 1 in every million random alternative codes generated is more efficient than the natural code. We thus conclude not only that the natural genetic code is extremely efficient at minimizing the effects of errors, but also that its structure reflects biases in these errors, as might be expected were the code the product of selection.

Problem no.2

The origin of the information to make the first living cells must be explained.
http://mmbr.asm.org/content/68/3/518.full.pdf
Determination of the Core of a Minimal Bacterial Gene Set Based on the conjoint analysis of several computational and experimental strategies designed to define the minimal set of protein-coding genes that are necessary to maintain a functional bacterial cell, we propose a minimal gene set composed of 206 genes ( which code for 13 protein complexes ) Such a gene set will be able to sustain the main vital functions of a hypothetical simplest bacterial cell with the following features.
These protein complexes could not emerge through evolution ( muations and natural selection ) , because evolution depends on the dna replication, which requires precisely these original genes and proteins ( chicken and egg prolem ). So the only mechanism left is chance, and physical necessity.

Paul Davies once said;

How did stupid atoms spontaneously write their own software … ? Nobody knows … … there is no known law of physics able to create information from nothing.

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0019103513000791?np=y

Genomic DNA is already used on Earth to store non-biological information. Though smaller in capacity, but stronger in noise immunity is the genetic code. The code is a flexible mapping between codons and amino acids, and this flexibility allows modifying the code artificially. But once fixed, the code might stay unchanged over cosmological timescales; in fact, it is the most durable construct known. Therefore it represents an exceptionally reliable storage for an intelligent signature, if that conforms to biological and thermodynamic requirements. As the actual scenario for the origin of terrestrial life is far from being settled, the proposal that it might have been seeded intentionally cannot be ruled out.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1832087/?report=classic
DNA sequences that code for proteins need to convey, in addition to the protein-coding information, several different signals at the same time. These “parallel codes” include binding sequences for regulatory and structural proteins, signals for splicing, and RNA secondary structure. Here, we show that the universal genetic code can efficiently carry arbitrary parallel codes much better than the vast majority of other possible genetic codes. This property is related to the identity of the stop codons. We find that the ability to support parallel codes is strongly tied to another useful property of the genetic code—minimization of the effects of frame-shift translation errors. Whereas many of the known regulatory codes reside in nontranslated regions of the genome, the present findings suggest that protein-coding regions can readily carry abundant additional information.

Problem no.3
The genetic cipher
The British biologist John Maynard Smith has described the origin of the code as the most perplexing problem in evolutionary biology. With collaborator Eörs Szathmáry he writes: “The existing translational machinery is at the same time so complex, so universal, and so essential that it is hard to see how it could have come into existence, or how life could have existed without it.” To get some idea of why the code is such an enigma, consider whether there is anything special about the numbers involved. Why does life use twenty amino acids and four nucleotide bases? It would be far simpler to employ, say, sixteen amino acids and package the four bases into doublets rather than triplets. Easier still would be to have just two bases and use a binary code, like a computer. If a simpler system had evolved, it is hard to see how the more complicated triplet code would ever take over. The answer could be a case of “It was a good idea at the time.” A good idea of whom ? If the code evolved at a very early stage in the history of life, perhaps even during its prebiotic phase, the numbers four and twenty may have been the best way to go for chemical reasons relevant at that stage. Life simply got stuck with these numbers thereafter, their original purpose lost. Or perhaps the use of four and twenty is the optimum way to do it. There is an advantage in life’s employing many varieties of amino acid, because they can be strung together in more ways to offer a wider selection of proteins. But there is also a price: with increasing numbers of amino acids, the risk of translation errors grows. With too many amino acids around, there would be a greater likelihood that the wrong one would be hooked onto the protein chain. So maybe twenty is a good compromise. Do random chemical reactions have knowledge to arrive at a optimal conclusion, or a " good compromise" ?

An even tougher problem concerns the coding assignments—i.e., which triplets code for which amino acids. How did these designations come about? Because nucleic-acid bases and amino acids don’t recognize each other directly, but have to deal via chemical intermediaries, there is no obvious reason why particular triplets should go with particular amino acids. Other translations are conceivable. Coded instructions are a good idea, but the actual code seems to be pretty arbitrary. Perhaps it is simply a frozen accident, a random choice that just locked itself in, with no deeper significance.

That frozen accident means, that good old luck would have hit the jackpot trough trial and error amongst 1.5 × 1084 possible genetic codes . That is the number of atoms in the whole universe. That puts any real possibility of chance providing the feat out of question. Its , using Borel's law, in the realm of impossibility. The maximum time available for it to originate was estimated at 6.3 x 10^15 seconds. Natural selection would have to evaluate roughly 10^55 codes per second to find the one that's universal. Put simply, natural selection lacks the time necessary to find the universal genetic code.

Put it in other words : The task compares to invent two languages, two alphabets, and a translation system, and the information content of a book ( for example hamlet) being written in english translated to chinese in a extremely sophisticared hardware system. The conclusion that a intelligent designer had to setup the system follows not based on missing knowledge ( argument from ignorance ). We know that minds do invent languages, codes, translation systems, ciphers, and complex, specified information all the time. The genetic code and its translation system is best explained through the action of a intelligent designer.

Origin and evolution of the genetic code: the universal enigma
http://reasonandscience.heavenforum.org/t2001-origin-and-evolution-of-the-genetic-code-the-universal-enigma

The genetic code is nearly optimal for allowing additional information within protein-coding sequences
http://reasonandscience.heavenforum.org/t1404-the-genetic-code-is-nearly-optimal-for-allowing-additional-information-within-protein-coding-sequences

The genetic code cannot arise through natural selection
http://reasonandscience.heavenforum.org/t1405-the-genetic-code-cannot-arise-through-natural-selection

The origin of the genetic cipher, the most perplexing problem in biology
http://reasonandscience.heavenforum.org/t2267-the-origin-of-the-genetic-cipher-the-most-perplexing-problem-in-biology

[Bill Rogers]

Why do you keep doing this? You just copy and paste other people's arguments and then are not capable of defending them by yourself. Why not make your own case and argue it?

And most of the arguments you copy are essentially identical "Biological system X is so complicated that it could not possibly have evolved." But when you look more closely, the best you have is that for X there is as yet no detailed model for its evolution ("detailed" meaning whatever level of detail is one step beyond the level of detail that is currently available). That is in no way evidence for design.

[grassoempree...@gmail.com]

"Biological system X is so complicated that it could not possibly have evolved."

nice strawman.

Strawman arguments of intelligen design

http://reasonandscience.heavenforum.org/t2361-strawman-arguments-of-intelligen-design

ID and Biochemistry:

Observation: Intelligent agents solve complex problems by acting with an end goal in mind, producing high levels of CSI. In our experience, systems with large amounts of specified complexity -- such as codes and languages -- invariably originate from an intelligent source. Likewise, in our experience, intelligence is the only known cause of irreducibly complex machines.21
Hypothesis (Prediction): Natural structures will be found that contain many parts arranged in intricate patterns (including irreducible complexity) that perform a specific function -- indicating high levels of CSI.
Experiment: Experimental investigations of DNA indicate that it is full of a CSI-rich, language-based code. Biologists have performed mutational sensitivity tests on proteins and determined that their amino acid sequences are highly specified.22 Additionally, genetic knockout experiments and other studies have shown that some molecular machines, like the flagellum, are irreducibly complex.23
Conclusion: The high levels of CSI -- including irreducible complexity -- in biochemical systems are best explained by the action of an intelligent agent.

[jillery]

The above is a very good example of assuming one's conclusion,
circular reasoning, and begging the question. "In our experience" is
limited to systems manufactured by humans, so its a truism they're
manufactured from an intelligent source, by definition.

The assumed conclusion made by the above is that anything with large
amounts of specified complexity, however that's defined, necessarily
comes from an intelligent source. At best, the argument jumps to that
conclusion based on a sample of one; ie human manufactured objects.

Science has shown that unguided natural processes also create systems
with large amounts of specified complexity, however that's defined,
and so its presence does not demonstrate an intelligent source.

In order to counter the scientific argument, the ID community would
need to identify other intelligent sources besides humans which create
systems with large amounts of specified complexity. Paradoxically,
this is something the ID community has explicitly and universally
refused to do, instead relying on the circular reasoning previously
described.

And so they condemn themselves to the Pit of Willful Stupidity, along
with Birthers, Global-Warming Deniers, Geocentrists, Anti-Vaxxers,
Moon-Landing Skeptics, and the Shroud of Turin Faithful.
--
This space is intentionally not blank.

[grassoempree...@gmail.com]

> Science has shown that unguided natural processes also create systems
> with large amounts of specified complexity
>

nope. It has newer shown that.

[Robert Camp]

Of course it has shown, and continues to show, that.

Would you also protest that science has never shown that nebular
formation can result in planets? Will you similarly assert that because
we don't know all the details of planetary formation angels must have
sculpted them?

These kinds of inductions (biological and stellar complexity) are
confirmed every day, with every new observation or experiment or paper
that fails to offer evidence for the influence of processes other than
natural. They very clearly demonstrate that there is no reason for us to
infer the action of some deliberative agency. If you believe
differently, your task is to provide positive evidence for your
alternative, not to repeat your god-of-the-gaps fallacies.

You constantly argue that because we don't know everything about the
processes which produce biological complexity it is reasonable to
conclude that some deity must be the author of it all. This is wrong for
many reasons - including the fact that it's a false dichotomy, that it
assumes its conclusion, and that it misunderstands the nature of evidence.

Three things are clear from your postings: you believe in a god, you are
interested in the science, and you don't integrate how you think about
these things very well. This will continue to be a problem until you
address the many flaws in your logic that have so often been noted but
left unaddressed.

[Ray Martinez]

On Wednesday, July 13, 2016 at 3:13:35 PM UTC-7, Robert Camp wrote:
> On 7/13/16 1:46 PM, grassoempree...@gmail.com wrote:
> >
> >> Science has shown that unguided natural processes also create systems
> >> with large amounts of specified complexity
> >>
> >
> > nope. It has newer shown that.
>
> Of course it has shown, and continues to show, that.

Organization isn't an expectation of un-guided-ness. The issue here is a matter of logic.

Logical: organization, guided-ness.

Illogical: organization, un-guided-ness.

Evolutionary theorists, like Robert Camp, make their living re-defining words, case in point seen above.

>
> Would you also protest that science has never shown that nebular
> formation can result in planets? Will you similarly assert that because
> we don't know all the details of planetary formation angels must have
> sculpted them?
>
> These kinds of inductions (biological and stellar complexity) are
> confirmed every day, with every new observation or experiment or paper
> that fails to offer evidence for the influence of processes other than
> natural. They very clearly demonstrate that there is no reason for us to
> infer the action of some deliberative agency. If you believe
> differently, your task is to provide positive evidence for your
> alternative, not to repeat your god-of-the-gaps fallacies.
>
> You constantly argue that because we don't know everything about the
> processes which produce biological complexity it is reasonable to
> conclude that some deity must be the author of it all. This is wrong for
> many reasons - including the fact that it's a false dichotomy, that it
> assumes its conclusion, and that it misunderstands the nature of evidence.
>
> Three things are clear from your postings: you believe in a god, you are
> interested in the science, and you don't integrate how you think about
> these things very well. This will continue to be a problem until you
> address the many flaws in your logic that have so often been noted but
> left unaddressed.

"flaws in your logic" (Robert Camp).

At least we agree the issue here is about logic.

Ray

[Ray Martinez]

On Wednesday, July 13, 2016 at 3:13:35 PM UTC-7, Robert Camp wrote:

Speaking of flaws in logic: Where did you obtain the idea that a natural process can be un-guided and non-random at the same time?

Ray

[Ernest Major]

Do I misremember, or did you use to consider gravity to be a natural
process?
>
> Ray
>


--
alias Ernest Major

[jillery]

That's exactly the complete lack of reasoning I expected from you.
Give yourself a gold star for meeting my expectations.

[jillery]

Where did you get the idea that a natural process can't be unguided

and non-random at the same time?

[jillery]

On Wed, 13 Jul 2016 16:19:04 -0700 (PDT), Ray Martinez
<pyram...@yahoo.com> wrote:

>On Wednesday, July 13, 2016 at 3:13:35 PM UTC-7, Robert Camp wrote:
>> On 7/13/16 1:46 PM, grassoempree...@gmail.com wrote:
>> >
>> >> Science has shown that unguided natural processes also create systems
>> >> with large amounts of specified complexity
>> >>
>> >
>> > nope. It has newer shown that.
>>
>> Of course it has shown, and continues to show, that.
>
>Organization isn't an expectation of un-guided-ness. The issue here is a matter of logic.

Reality trumps logic. Galileo trumps Socrates.

[Jimbo]

On Wed, 13 Jul 2016 16:19:04 -0700 (PDT), Ray Martinez
<pyram...@yahoo.com> wrote:

>On Wednesday, July 13, 2016 at 3:13:35 PM UTC-7, Robert Camp wrote:
>> On 7/13/16 1:46 PM, grassoempree...@gmail.com wrote:
>> >
>> >> Science has shown that unguided natural processes also create systems
>> >> with large amounts of specified complexity
>> >>
>> >
>> > nope. It has newer shown that.
>>
>> Of course it has shown, and continues to show, that.
>
>Organization isn't an expectation of un-guided-ness. The issue here is a matter of logic.
>
>Logical: organization, guided-ness.
>
>Illogical: organization, un-guided-ness.

You're making a self-contradictory statement when you claim that it's
illogical to postulate unguided organization. Since intelligence
involves a highly organized interaction between parts of an
information processing system, your "logic" implies that any
intelligent designer must itself have been designed. If you say that
an intelligent designer has always existed then you're contradicting
your own claim that unguided organization is illogical. Who designed
the information processing system constituting the intelligent
designer's mind?

[Bill Rogers]

On Wednesday, July 13, 2016 at 12:33:38 PM UTC-4, grassoempree...@gmail.com wrote:
> "Biological system X is so complicated that it could not possibly have evolved."
>
> nice strawman.
>
> Strawman arguments of intelligen design

It's not a strawman. It's the argument that's right there in the title of the thread you started - "the genetic code, insurmountable problem for non-intelligent origin".

That's your argument right there - the genetic code is too complicated to have a non-intelligent origin (e.g. to have evolved).

If that's not what you meant to say, no problem, but you can hardly accuse me of creating a straw man argument when you yourself put it right in the thread title.

[Steady Eddie]

On Wednesday, 13 July 2016 07:23:40 UTC-6, grassoempree...@gmail.com wrote:
> The genetic code, unsurmountable problem for non-intelligent origin
>
> http://reasonandscience.heavenforum.org/t2363-the-genetic-code-unsurmountable-problem-for-non-intelligent-origin
>
>
>
> Problem no.1
> The genetic code system ( language ) must be created, and the universal code is nearly optimal and maximally efficient
>
> http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8335231
> The genetic language is a collection of rules and regularities of genetic information coding for genetic texts. It is defined by alphabet, grammar, collection of punctuation marks and regulatory sites, semantics.
>
> http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3293468/
> In our opinion, despite extensive and, in many cases, elaborate attempts to model code optimization, ingenious theorizing along the lines of the coevolution theory, and considerable experimentation, very little definitive progress has been made.
> Summarizing the state of the art in the study of the code evolution, we cannot escape considerable skepticism. It seems that the two-pronged fundamental question: “why is the genetic code the way it is and how did it come to be?”, that was asked over 50 years ago, at the dawn of molecular biology, might remain pertinent even in another 50 years. Our consolation is that we cannot think of a more fundamental problem in biology.

It's nice to see the odd honest biologist, isn't it?

[grassoempree...@gmail.com]

> It's not a strawman. It's the argument that's right there in the title of the thread you started - "the genetic code, insurmountable problem for non-intelligent origin".

Well, you go on and then assert that my argument follows as this : the best you have is that for X there is as yet no detailed model for its evolution ("detailed" meaning whatever level of detail is one step beyond the level of detail that is currently available). That is in no way evidence for design.

And THAT is the strawman, since that is not as it follows. My conclusion is based on POSITIVE observation, namely, as i write in the end :

Put it in other words : The task compares to invent two languages, two alphabets, and a translation system, and the information content of a book ( for example hamlet) being written in english translated to chinese in a extremely sophisticared hardware system. The conclusion that a intelligent designer had to setup the system follows not based on missing knowledge ( argument from ignorance ). We know that minds do invent languages, codes, translation systems, ciphers, and complex, specified information all the time. The genetic code and its translation system is best explained through the action of a intelligent designer.

So each time you come up with this STRAWMAN ARGUMENT, i will point it out to you.

[Jimbo]

Your claim is self-contradictory. If the genetic system is too complex
to have originated naturally, and must therefore have been designed by
an intelligent entity, then the entity's mind would have to be even
more complex than the genetic system. Therefore the designer's mind,
by your reasoning, must itself be designed by an intelligent designer.
If you don't agree with this assessment, then please explain how the
complexity of the designer's mind can exist without a designer to
design it.

[jillery]

On Wed, 13 Jul 2016 19:53:49 -0700 (PDT), Steady Eddie
<1914o...@gmail.com> wrote:

>It's nice to see the odd honest biologist, isn't it?

It would be really nice to see an honest ID advocate, but that's
practically a contradiction of terms.

[jillery]

On Wed, 13 Jul 2016 20:35:47 -0700 (PDT),
grassoempree...@gmail.com wrote:

>

>> It's not a strawman. It's the argument that's right there in the title of the thread you started - "the genetic code, insurmountable problem for non-intelligent origin".
>
>Well, you go on and then assert that my argument follows as this : the best you have is that for X there is as yet no detailed model for its evolution ("detailed" meaning whatever level of detail is one step beyond the level of detail that is currently available). That is in no way evidence for design.

So are you now rejecting your own topic title? You can't have it both
ways.

>And THAT is the strawman, since that is not as it follows. My conclusion is based on POSITIVE observation, namely, as i write in the end :
>
> Put it in other words : The task compares to invent two languages, two alphabets, and a translation system, and the information content of a book ( for example hamlet) being written in english translated to chinese in a extremely sophisticared hardware system. The conclusion that a intelligent designer had to setup the system follows not based on missing knowledge ( argument from ignorance ). We know that minds do invent languages, codes, translation systems, ciphers, and complex, specified information all the time. The genetic code and its translation system is best explained through the action of a intelligent designer.
>
>So each time you come up with this STRAWMAN ARGUMENT, i will point it out to you.

Too bad that what you point out is not a strawman. OTOH what you
posted is assuming your conclusions, circular reasoning, and begging
the question.

[Bill Rogers]

On Wednesday, July 13, 2016 at 11:38:34 PM UTC-4, grassoempree...@gmail.com wrote:
> > It's not a strawman. It's the argument that's right there in the title of the thread you started - "the genetic code, insurmountable problem for non-intelligent origin".
>
> Well, you go on and then assert that my argument follows as this : the best you have is that for X there is as yet no detailed model for its evolution ("detailed" meaning whatever level of detail is one step beyond the level of detail that is currently available). That is in no way evidence for design.
>

> And THAT is the strawman, since that is not as it follows. My conclusion is based on POSITIVE observation, namely, as i write in the end :
>

> Put it in other words : The task compares to invent two languages, two alphabets, and a translation system, and the information content of a book ( for example hamlet) being written in english translated to chinese in a extremely sophisticared hardware system. The conclusion that a intelligent designer had to setup the system follows not based on missing knowledge ( argument from ignorance ). We know that minds do invent languages, codes, translation systems, ciphers, and complex, specified information all the time. The genetic code and its translation system is best explained through the action of a intelligent designer.
>

> So each time you come up with this STRAWMAN ARGUMENT, i will point it out to you.

Well, it's certainly possible that I've misunderstood you. So, just to be clear, what is the argument in support of your claim that "The genetic code and its translation system is best explained through the action of a intelligent designer"?

If you are not making the argument I thought you were, which was to claim that evolution could not have produced it, what is the positive evidence that a designer built it? Can you, in fact, make such an argument without claiming that "evolution (or 'natural processes' or 'unintelligent processes') cannot explain it"? I guess the best way to do that would be to have independent evidence of the existence and character of the designer and his manufacturing processes, but you have not shown any of that yet.

Or you might make an argument that the genetic code is so much like codes that humans have designed that it, too, must have been designed. That would be fine as a motivation to look for actual evidence of the designer and the processes he used, but by itself, that analogy (between the genetic code and stuff people have designed and built) is not convincing. A cave is analogous to a house, but I cannot conclude from that analogy that caves were built - still, if I find a cave, and tools that could have been used to dig or expand it, and pottery, and human bones, then I might think that the cave had indeed been built. The analogy can motivate a search for a designer, but it's not evidence on its own.

[RonO]

On 7/13/2016 9:53 PM, Steady Eddie wrote:
> On Wednesday, 13 July 2016 07:23:40 UTC-6, grassoempree...@gmail.com wrote:
>> The genetic code, unsurmountable problem for non-intelligent origin
>>
>> http://reasonandscience.heavenforum.org/t2363-the-genetic-code-unsurmountable-problem-for-non-intelligent-origin
>>
>>
>>
>> Problem no.1
>> The genetic code system ( language ) must be created, and the universal code is nearly optimal and maximally efficient
>>
>> http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8335231
>> The genetic language is a collection of rules and regularities of genetic information coding for genetic texts. It is defined by alphabet, grammar, collection of punctuation marks and regulatory sites, semantics.
>>
>> http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3293468/
>> In our opinion, despite extensive and, in many cases, elaborate attempts to model code optimization, ingenious theorizing along the lines of the coevolution theory, and considerable experimentation, very little definitive progress has been made.
>> Summarizing the state of the art in the study of the code evolution, we cannot escape considerable skepticism. It seems that the two-pronged fundamental question: “why is the genetic code the way it is and how did it come to be?”, that was asked over 50 years ago, at the dawn of molecular biology, might remain pertinent even in another 50 years. Our consolation is that we cannot think of a more fundamental problem in biology.
>
> It's nice to see the odd honest biologist, isn't it?

Read the paper for understanding. The authors are claiming that the
current ideas for the evolution of the genetic code cannot be
distinguished to a degree that we can tell which is more plausible.
Many are inclusive. This just means that what actually happened could
be a combination of the various notions around at this time. He is
saying that we may have to wait until we understand more about how the
translation system evolved before we can make any solid determinations.
Where does intelligent design fit in? How did the designer do it? Do
you even have a plausible alternative to compare and add to the effort?
Why is the answer No? What plausible alternative do you have? Why
isn't it as plausible as what is described in this paper? You don't
even have an agent that could do what you claim it did. So what is your
beef?

Remember the translation threads? What happened? Why is it a fact that
IDiots have nothing by comparison?

Why aren't you testing the testable parts of your alternative? Why is
obfuscation about what we do not fully understand the only thing that
IDiots can think of to do? You know that you have an alternative, so
why not work on it instead of lying to yourself about translation and
the genetic code?

Ron Okimoto

[RonO]

Grasso, instead of do this sort of stupid behavior over and over, why
not do something sensible.

Do something rational and pertinent to the discussion.

Check out these threads and do something about the abject denial instead
of just repeating the same old stupidity that hasn't amounted to
anything in decades. Really, what has your type of junk ever amounted
to? Why has the bait and switch gone down every single time if you are
really onto something viable?

Put up your alternative and test the testable parts. Demonstrate that
you have a viable alternative before you claim that the alternative that
you don't like isn't good enough. When what you have isn't as good as
what you claim is not good enough, what does that mean?

https://groups.google.com/d/msg/talk.origins/-l60imbsXZA/xGOgwnsBBQAJ

https://groups.google.com/d/msg/talk.origins/kYj7vKoQDtA/tGaiNKvmBQAJ

Why does another IDiot like Jonathan think that you are a fringe
creationists that doesn't matter to this debate? How do you think the
ID perps like Denton and Behe think of you? Demonstrate that Jonathan
is wrong.

Ron Okimoto

[grassoempree...@gmail.com]

Strawman arguments of intelligen design

http://reasonandscience.heavenforum.org/t2361-strawman-arguments-of-intelligen-design

The strawman claim:

1) Wow, the genetic code is AMAZING!!!
2) I have no idea where that came from!!!
3) Therefore,..... God!

Response:

[grassoempree...@gmail.com]

God is not complex

http://reasonandscience.heavenforum.org/t1332-god-is-not-complex

http://www.reasonablefaith.org/richard-dawkins-argument-for-atheism-in-the-god-delusion

God is a remarkably simple entity. As a non-physical entity, a mind is not composed of parts, and its salient properties, like self-consciousness, rationality, and volition, are essential to it. In contrast to the contingent and variegated universe with all its inexplicable quantities and constants, a divine mind is startlingly simple. Certainly such a mind may have complex ideas—it may be thinking, for example, of the infinitesimal calculus—, but the mind itself is a remarkably simple entity

[grassoempree...@gmail.com]

the comparison is between the capability of intelligence or non intelligence to be capable of the task that compares to invent two languages, two alphabets, and a translation system, and the information content of a book ( for example hamlet) being written in english translated to chinese in a extremely sophisticared hardware system.

To think non intelligence is able to, is IRRATIONAL TO THE EXTREME.

[jillery]

On Thu, 14 Jul 2016 05:17:18 -0700 (PDT),
grassoempree...@gmail.com wrote:

>the comparison is between the capability of intelligence or non intelligence to be capable of the task that compares to invent two languages, two alphabets, and a translation system, and the information content of a book ( for example hamlet) being written in english translated to chinese in a extremely sophisticared hardware system.
>
>To think non intelligence is able to, is IRRATIONAL TO THE EXTREME.

Of course, no one makes that claim. OTOH your claim above refers to
objects and processes of human design, which is the only source of
intelligent design you're familiar with. It's as if you're trying to
understand nuclear physics by comparing it to astronomy.

[jillery]

On Thu, 14 Jul 2016 05:12:05 -0700 (PDT),
grassoempree...@gmail.com wrote:

>On Thursday, July 14, 2016 at 6:08:35 AM UTC-3, jillery wrote:
>> On Wed, 13 Jul 2016 20:35:47 -0700 (PDT),
>> grassoempree...@gmail.com wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >> It's not a strawman. It's the argument that's right there in the title of the thread you started - "the genetic code, insurmountable problem for non-intelligent origin".
>> >
>> >Well, you go on and then assert that my argument follows as this : the best you have is that for X there is as yet no detailed model for its evolution ("detailed" meaning whatever level of detail is one step beyond the level of detail that is currently available). That is in no way evidence for design.
>>
>>
>> So are you now rejecting your own topic title? You can't have it both
>> ways.

No reply. Is anybody surprised?

>> >And THAT is the strawman, since that is not as it follows. My conclusion is based on POSITIVE observation, namely, as i write in the end :
>> >
>> > Put it in other words : The task compares to invent two languages, two alphabets, and a translation system, and the information content of a book ( for example hamlet) being written in english translated to chinese in a extremely sophisticared hardware system. The conclusion that a intelligent designer had to setup the system follows not based on missing knowledge ( argument from ignorance ). We know that minds do invent languages, codes, translation systems, ciphers, and complex, specified information all the time. The genetic code and its translation system is best explained through the action of a intelligent designer.
>> >
>> >So each time you come up with this STRAWMAN ARGUMENT, i will point it out to you.
>>
>>
>> Too bad that what you point out is not a strawman. OTOH what you
>> posted is assuming your conclusions, circular reasoning, and begging
>> the question.
>> --
>> This space is intentionally not blank.
>
>Strawman arguments of intelligen design
>
>http://reasonandscience.heavenforum.org/t2361-strawman-arguments-of-intelligen-design
>
>The strawman claim:
>
>1) Wow, the genetic code is AMAZING!!!
>2) I have no idea where that came from!!!
>3) Therefore,..... God!
>
>Response:
>
>
>ID and Biochemistry:
>
>Observation: Intelligent agents solve complex problems by acting with an end goal in mind, producing high levels of CSI. In our experience, systems with large amounts of specified complexity -- such as codes and languages -- invariably originate from an intelligent source. Likewise, in our experience, intelligence is the only known cause of irreducibly complex machines.21
>Hypothesis (Prediction): Natural structures will be found that contain many parts arranged in intricate patterns (including irreducible complexity) that perform a specific function -- indicating high levels of CSI.
>Experiment: Experimental investigations of DNA indicate that it is full of a CSI-rich, language-based code. Biologists have performed mutational sensitivity tests on proteins and determined that their amino acid sequences are highly specified.22 Additionally, genetic knockout experiments and other studies have shown that some molecular machines, like the flagellum, are irreducibly complex.23
>Conclusion: The high levels of CSI -- including irreducible complexity -- in biochemical systems are best explained by the action of an intelligent agent.

Ah yes, more unresponsive, mindless cut-and-paste spam. Give yourself
another gold star. You're doing a great job of meeting my
expectations.

[Robert Camp]

On 7/13/16 4:19 PM, Ray Martinez wrote:
> On Wednesday, July 13, 2016 at 3:13:35 PM UTC-7, Robert Camp wrote:
>> On 7/13/16 1:46 PM, grassoempree...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>
>>>> Science has shown that unguided natural processes also create
>>>> systems with large amounts of specified complexity
>>>>
>>>
>>> nope. It has newer shown that.
>>
>> Of course it has shown, and continues to show, that.
>
> Organization isn't an expectation of un-guided-ness.

I have no idea what your expectations are, but they usually have little
to do with reality. Organization *is* often a result of natural
processes. This is an obvious fact substantiated by simple observation.

> The issue here
> is a matter of logic.

And as you have amply demonstrated you are ill-equipped to deal with
those kinds of issues.

> Logical: organization, guided-ness.
>
> Illogical: organization, un-guided-ness.

Sorry, Ray, word-magic is ineffectual. Argument by definition doesn't
change or trump empirical observation. If you want to anchor your
arguments in science and logic, your first obligation is to deal with
the world as it is, not as you wish it to be.

> Evolutionary theorists, like Robert Camp, make their living
> re-defining words, case in point seen above.

Ah, so you've finally thrown up your hands and just gone with "Am not,
you are!"

Unfortunately your reputation, and years of postings, precedes you.

[Rolf]

 

 

"jillery" <69jp...@gmail.com> wrote in message news:bsmdobpg7od9qomh0...@4ax.com...

For once, Ray is right.

 

Reality trumps Ray's peculiar, homemade version of logic.

 

There's a good match between reality and logic as defined by sources beyond Ray's comprehension.

 

LOL "Galileo trumps Socrates".

 

Reality trumps Ray every time. 

 

BTW, June 23, 2013 Roger Shrubber wrote:

 

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's the best that can be said about Ray, he is true to his idiosyncrasies.

Besides, using the crackpot Grasso as a source, I'd be ashamed using such poor standing cjharacter as a source.

 

We have really qualified scientists in the world, why not listen and use them.

 

But since Ray had to abandon his grand project of debunking the ToE he's been clutching at straws. pretending he can swim.

 

Rolf

[Rolf]

<grassoempree...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:920339ab-7278-4e64...@googlegroups.com...

Before I can believe that I want to see an example of CSI calculated. That
should'nt be too difficult if you believe in it?



All it takes is to show some evidence of CSI calculation.


I find it hard to believe that Dembski would have jumped overboard from the
sinking ID boat if he really believed that.

[Rolf]

"RonO" <roki...@cox.net> wrote in message
news:nm7skt$7uh$1...@dont-email.me...

>> How did stupid atoms spontaneously write their own software . ? Nobody
>> knows . . there is no known law of physics able to create information

>> from nothing.
>>
>> http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0019103513000791?np=y
>>
>> Genomic DNA is already used on Earth to store non-biological information.
>> Though smaller in capacity, but stronger in noise immunity is the genetic
>> code. The code is a flexible mapping between codons and amino acids, and
>> this flexibility allows modifying the code artificially. But once fixed,
>> the code might stay unchanged over cosmological timescales; in fact, it
>> is the most durable construct known. Therefore it represents an
>> exceptionally reliable storage for an intelligent signature, if that
>> conforms to biological and thermodynamic requirements. As the actual
>> scenario for the origin of terrestrial life is far from being settled,
>> the proposal that it might have been seeded intentionally cannot be ruled
>> out.
>>
>> http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1832087/?report=classic
>> DNA sequences that code for proteins need to convey, in addition to the
>> protein-coding information, several different signals at the same time.
>> These "parallel codes" include binding sequences for regulatory and
>> structural proteins, signals for splicing, and RNA secondary structure.
>> Here, we show that the universal genetic code can efficiently carry
>> arbitrary parallel codes much better than the vast majority of other
>> possible genetic codes. This property is related to the identity of the
>> stop codons. We find that the ability to support parallel codes is

>> strongly tied to another useful property of the genetic code-minimization

>> An even tougher problem concerns the coding assignments-i.e., which

A good try, but you are asking too much of the poor guy. He can't deliver,
maybe Ray Martinez will come to his resque?

Rolf

[Rolf]

"Ray Martinez" <pyram...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:8ae77a14-e250-4774...@googlegroups.com...

Why do you pretend you understand science? You are not interested in
science, you don't want to know science, you redefine logic to suit your own
idiosyncrasies. You are a victiom of your preconceptions.
The best that may be said is that you are clueless. That may not be due to
any fault of your own, maybe it's 'just one of those things'. Why should you
be perfect, very few of us are.

Rolf.

> Ray
>

[Jimbo]

Intelligence *is* a form of highly complex information
processing. It's pure sophistry to claim that the complexity of "mere
thought" somehow doesn't really count as complexity. Can you explain
how complex thoughts arise spontaneously within ultimate simplicity?
If you can't, then you have no real explanation. Saying God is
simple-minded explains nothing at all. Physics, chemistry and
evolutionary theory, on the other hand, can account for a great deal
of the world's complexity.

[Rolf]

"Jimbo" <ji...@abyz.com> wrote in message
news:s1hfob5m724dtshv9...@4ax.com...

>>may have complex ideas-it may be thinking, for example, of the
>>infinitesimal calculus-, but the mind >itself is a remarkably simple

>>entity
>
> Intelligence *is* a form of highly complex information
> processing. It's pure sophistry to claim that the complexity of "mere
> thought" somehow doesn't really count as complexity. Can you explain
> how complex thoughts arise spontaneously within ultimate simplicity?
> If you can't, then you have no real explanation. Saying God is
> simple-minded explains nothing at all. Physics, chemistry and
> evolutionary theory, on the other hand, can account for a great deal
> of the world's complexity.
>

Indeed. Unless Ray Martinez can prove that it isn't so. He's got a certain
knack with logic that can make the moon being made of green cheese.

[Ray Martinez]

On Wednesday, July 13, 2016 at 5:13:34 PM UTC-7, Ernest Major wrote:

> Do I misremember, or did you use to consider gravity to be a natural
> process?
> >
> > Ray
> >
>
>
> --
> alias Ernest Major

The definition of "natural" depends on context. Natural could mean "non-supernatural" or it could mean "non man-made reality."

The laws of gravitation are obviously designed; we do not see any evidence of chance, accident, or unpredictability in these laws.

Ray

[Ray Martinez]

Answer: the rules of logic; non-random and unguided contradict therefore both cannot be true at the same time; no such thing or phenomenon exists----that's the point about identifying contradictions. When a contradiction is identified the identifier is saying "this cannot be true."

And note the fact that Robert Camp has avoided answering.

Ray

[Ray Martinez]

On Wednesday, July 13, 2016 at 5:28:34 PM UTC-7, jillery wrote:

You miss the entire point because, like I've ALAWYS said, Evolutionists don't know the first thing about logic.

A thing or phenomenon cannot be "unguided and non-random" at the same time because these concepts contradict. And when a contradiction is identified the person who identifies the contradiction is saying no such thing can exist because a thing or phenomenon cannot exhibit contradictory action. Therefore the fact of illogic or contradiction supports my claim that unguided and/or undirected and/or unintelligent agencies, namely natural selection, do not exist. Reality cannot trump logic because logic is about what can and cannot exist----that's the point.

The fact that you and your fellow Evolutionists in this thread don't know any of these BASIC facts about logic and reality is not the least bit surprising. If you possessed basic knowledge about logic you wouldn't be Evolutionists.

Ray

[Ray Martinez]

On Wednesday, July 13, 2016 at 5:53:34 PM UTC-7, Jimbo wrote:
> On Wed, 13 Jul 2016 16:19:04 -0700 (PDT), Ray Martinez
> <pyram...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> >On Wednesday, July 13, 2016 at 3:13:35 PM UTC-7, Robert Camp wrote:
> >> On 7/13/16 1:46 PM, grassoempree...@gmail.com wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> Science has shown that unguided natural processes also create systems
> >> >> with large amounts of specified complexity
> >> >>
> >> >
> >> > nope. It has newer shown that.
> >>
> >> Of course it has shown, and continues to show, that.
> >
> >Organization isn't an expectation of un-guided-ness. The issue here is a matter of logic.
> >
> >Logical: organization, guided-ness.
> >
> >Illogical: organization, un-guided-ness.
>
> You're making a self-contradictory statement when you claim that it's
> illogical to postulate unguided organization. Since intelligence
> involves a highly organized interaction between parts of an
> information processing system, your "logic" implies that any
> intelligent designer must itself have been designed. If you say that
> an intelligent designer has always existed then you're contradicting
> your own claim that unguided organization is illogical.

Don't understand, or doesn't follow.

> Who designed
> the information processing system constituting the intelligent
> designer's mind?

Ray

[Ray Martinez]

On Thursday, July 14, 2016 at 2:08:32 PM UTC-7, Ray Martinez wrote:
> On Wednesday, July 13, 2016 at 5:28:34 PM UTC-7, jillery wrote:
> > On Wed, 13 Jul 2016 16:19:04 -0700 (PDT), Ray Martinez
> > <pyram...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >
> > >On Wednesday, July 13, 2016 at 3:13:35 PM UTC-7, Robert Camp wrote:
> > >> On 7/13/16 1:46 PM, grassoempree...@gmail.com wrote:
> > >> >
> > >> >> Science has shown that unguided natural processes also create systems
> > >> >> with large amounts of specified complexity
> > >> >>
> > >> >
> > >> > nope. It has newer shown that.
> > >>
> > >> Of course it has shown, and continues to show, that.
> > >
> > >Organization isn't an expectation of un-guided-ness. The issue here is a matter of logic.
> >
> >
> > Reality trumps logic. Galileo trumps Socrates.
> >
> > --
> > This space is intentionally not blank.
>
> You miss the entire point because, like I've ALAWYS said, Evolutionists don't know the first thing about logic.
>
> A thing or phenomenon cannot be "unguided and non-random" at the same time because these concepts contradict. And when a contradiction is identified the person who identifies the contradiction is saying no such thing can exist because a thing or phenomenon cannot exhibit contradictory action. Therefore the fact of illogic or contradiction supports my claim that unguided and/or undirected and/or unintelligent agencies, namely natural selection, do not exist. Reality cannot trump logic because logic is about what can and cannot exist----that's the point.
>

CORRECTION; Should say: "Reality cannot trump logic because logic is about what can OR cannot exist----that's the point."

RM

[Ray Martinez]

On Thursday, July 14, 2016 at 7:03:33 AM UTC-7, Robert Camp wrote:
> On 7/13/16 4:19 PM, Ray Martinez wrote:
> > On Wednesday, July 13, 2016 at 3:13:35 PM UTC-7, Robert Camp wrote:
> >> On 7/13/16 1:46 PM, grassoempree...@gmail.com wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> Science has shown that unguided natural processes also create
> >>>> systems with large amounts of specified complexity
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>> nope. It has newer shown that.
> >>
> >> Of course it has shown, and continues to show, that.
> >
> > Organization isn't an expectation of un-guided-ness.
>
> I have no idea what your expectations are, but they usually have little
> to do with reality. Organization *is* often a result of natural
> processes. This is an obvious fact substantiated by simple observation.

A thing CANNOT exhibit contradictory action (un-guided-ness and non-random-ness) at the same time. This observation, rooted in logic, supports my claim that natural selection does not exist; a delusion is at work, but its working on believers in evolution, not believers in God.

>
> > The issue here
> > is a matter of logic.
>
> And as you have amply demonstrated you are ill-equipped to deal with
> those kinds of issues.
>
> > Logical: organization, guided-ness.
> >
> > Illogical: organization, un-guided-ness.
>
> Sorry, Ray, word-magic is ineffectual. Argument by definition doesn't
> change or trump empirical observation. If you want to anchor your
> arguments in science and logic, your first obligation is to deal with
> the world as it is, not as you wish it to be.
>
> > Evolutionary theorists, like Robert Camp, make their living
> > re-defining words, case in point seen above.
>
> Ah, so you've finally thrown up your hands and just gone with "Am not,
> you are!"
>
> Unfortunately your reputation, and years of postings, precedes you.

You refuse to address because the facts have you cornered, falsified, refuted. Like we've always said: Evolutionary theorists have changed the meaning of logic, and when the facts of the original definition are argued, Evolutionists respond with ad hominem and other evasive maneuvers, as seen above.

A thing or phenomenon cannot be "unguided and non-random" at the same time because said respective actions contradict. This explains WHY we do not see any evidence supporting the existence of natural selection, it doesn't exist, the rules of reality/logic say so. The Atheists are suffering from the "evolusion-delusion."

Ray (anti-evolutionist)

[Bill Rogers]

Ray, is the motion of the earth around the sun random or guided?

[Ray Martinez]

Guided, designed.

Ray

[Ray Martinez]

Moreover, Schrodinger's cat: it's both dead and alive at the same time; phenomenon is designed, supernatural. Since natural selection was offered as replacing God as the true origin of new species said contradiction, argued above, dictates non-existence.

Ray

[Jimbo]

On Thu, 14 Jul 2016 14:06:33 -0700 (PDT), Ray Martinez

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

>On Wednesday, July 13, 2016 at 5:53:34 PM UTC-7, Jimbo wrote:
>> On Wed, 13 Jul 2016 16:19:04 -0700 (PDT), Ray Martinez
>> <pyram...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>> >On Wednesday, July 13, 2016 at 3:13:35 PM UTC-7, Robert Camp wrote:
>> >> On 7/13/16 1:46 PM, grassoempree...@gmail.com wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> >> Science has shown that unguided natural processes also create systems
>> >> >> with large amounts of specified complexity
>> >> >>
>> >> >
>> >> > nope. It has newer shown that.
>> >>
>> >> Of course it has shown, and continues to show, that.
>> >
>> >Organization isn't an expectation of un-guided-ness. The issue here is a matter of logic.
>> >
>> >Logical: organization, guided-ness.
>> >
>> >Illogical: organization, un-guided-ness.
>>
>> You're making a self-contradictory statement when you claim that it's
>> illogical to postulate unguided organization. Since intelligence
>> involves a highly organized interaction between parts of an
>> information processing system, your "logic" implies that any
>> intelligent designer must itself have been designed. If you say that
>> an intelligent designer has always existed then you're contradicting
>> your own claim that unguided organization is illogical.
>
>Don't understand, or doesn't follow.

You claim organized systems must be designed because complex
organization requires Intelligence to guide it. But intelligence *is*
complex information processing. There can be no intelligence without
complex organization. Therefore, when you claim that God's mind can
exist without external guidance you are contradicting your claim that
organization requires guidance.

Either you think that God's mind is completely unorganized and
therefore unintelligent, or you don't believe your own claim that
organization requires an external intelligence to guide it. If you
don't agree that intelligence is an inherently complex process of
information processing system, then please explain how a "mind" that
does no information processing can design complex bio-molecular
systems or anything else.

[RonO]

Do you even understand what you just wrote? Would it make any
difference? No.

Why not present your alternative and test the testable parts? Why not
do something rational and constructive? Did you check out the Ark
thread and Jonathan's response about people like yourself? Your type of
IDiocy doesn't matter to IDiots like Jonathan. You are just a fringe
religious nut job that is not what the discussion is about. What do you
think that the ID perps like Behe think about IDiots like yourself?

Put up your alternative and compare it to what Behe and Denton claim.

Ron Okimoto

[Robert Camp]

On 7/14/16 3:04 PM, Ray Martinez wrote:
> On Thursday, July 14, 2016 at 2:43:31 PM UTC-7, Ray Martinez wrote:
>> On Thursday, July 14, 2016 at 7:03:33 AM UTC-7, Robert Camp wrote:
>>> On 7/13/16 4:19 PM, Ray Martinez wrote:
>>>> On Wednesday, July 13, 2016 at 3:13:35 PM UTC-7, Robert Camp
>>>> wrote:
>>>>> On 7/13/16 1:46 PM, grassoempree...@gmail.com
>>>>> wrote:

<snip>

> Moreover, Schrodinger's cat: it's both dead and alive at the same
> time; phenomenon is designed, supernatural. Since natural selection
> was offered as replacing God as the true origin of new species said
> contradiction, argued above, dictates non-existence.

Not only are you not making sense - not unusual for you - but you're not
making sense in a rather more deranged way than usual. Are you off of
your meds?

[grassoempree...@gmail.com]

> Ron Okimoto

When you stop with personal attacks, we might talk.

[Robert Camp]

On 7/14/16 2:39 PM, Ray Martinez wrote:
> On Thursday, July 14, 2016 at 7:03:33 AM UTC-7, Robert Camp wrote:
>> On 7/13/16 4:19 PM, Ray Martinez wrote:
>>> On Wednesday, July 13, 2016 at 3:13:35 PM UTC-7, Robert Camp
>>> wrote:
>>>> On 7/13/16 1:46 PM, grassoempree...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Science has shown that unguided natural processes also
>>>>>> create systems with large amounts of specified complexity
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> nope. It has newer shown that.
>>>>
>>>> Of course it has shown, and continues to show, that.
>>>
>>> Organization isn't an expectation of un-guided-ness.
>>
>> I have no idea what your expectations are, but they usually have
>> little to do with reality. Organization *is* often a result of
>> natural processes. This is an obvious fact substantiated by simple
>> observation.
>
> A thing CANNOT exhibit contradictory action (un-guided-ness and
> non-random-ness) at the same time.

Perhaps not. But you are quite capable, predictably so in fact, of being
wrong about whether actions you've attributed to some particular
phenomenon are actually "contradictory."

> This observation, rooted in logic,
> supports my claim that natural selection does not exist; a delusion
> is at work, but its working on believers in evolution, not believers
> in God.

Okay, so you're not interested in evidential or logical rationale,
opting instead for more argument by definition and silly conspiracy
theories.

>>> The issue here is a matter of logic.
>>
>> And as you have amply demonstrated you are ill-equipped to deal
>> with those kinds of issues.
>>
>>> Logical: organization, guided-ness.
>>>
>>> Illogical: organization, un-guided-ness.
>>
>> Sorry, Ray, word-magic is ineffectual. Argument by definition
>> doesn't change or trump empirical observation. If you want to
>> anchor your arguments in science and logic, your first obligation
>> is to deal with the world as it is, not as you wish it to be.
>>
>>> Evolutionary theorists, like Robert Camp, make their living
>>> re-defining words, case in point seen above.
>>
>> Ah, so you've finally thrown up your hands and just gone with "Am
>> not, you are!"
>>
>> Unfortunately your reputation, and years of postings, precedes
>> you.
>
> You refuse to address because the facts have you cornered, falsified,
> refuted.

Address what? If I've skipped over something you consider particularly
trenchant - *not* your word-magic silliness - please point it out and
I'll deal with it.

- Like we've always said:

Is there someone standing behind you?

> Evolutionary theorists have changed
> the meaning of logic, and when the facts of the original definition
> are argued, Evolutionists respond with ad hominem and other evasive
> maneuvers, as seen above.

When everyone but you agrees that "logic" is one thing, and you insist
it is something different, whom do you suppose is actually changing the
meaning of logic?

> A thing or phenomenon cannot be "unguided and non-random" at the same
> time because said respective actions contradict. This explains WHY we
> do not see any evidence supporting the existence of natural
> selection, it doesn't exist, the rules of reality/logic say so. The
> Atheists are suffering from the "evolusion-delusion."

Unfortunately for your word-magic, empirical observation says different.

Reality is calling, Ray. Are you going to answer?

[Ray Martinez]

Your commentary assumes Materialism true: Matter-first, immaterial Intelligence is an effect, created by the imagination of mankind. On the other hand my commentaries assume Supernaturalism true: Mind-first, matter is an effect.

Observation of design falsifies your starting assumption. Observation of design is the main scientific claim of Supernaturalism: design observed, work of immaterial Intelligence inferred.

So your commentary, argument, and questions are rhetorical, based on starting Matter-first assumptions.

Ray

[jillery]

On Thu, 14 Jul 2016 17:48:09 +0200, "Rolf" <rolf.a...@gmail.com>
wrote:

>
>
>"jillery" <69jp...@gmail.com> wrote in message news:bsmdobpg7od9qomh0...@4ax.com...
>> On Wed, 13 Jul 2016 16:19:04 -0700 (PDT), Ray Martinez
>> <pyram...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>>>On Wednesday, July 13, 2016 at 3:13:35 PM UTC-7, Robert Camp wrote:
>>>> On 7/13/16 1:46 PM, grassoempree...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>> >
>>>> >> Science has shown that unguided natural processes also create systems
>>>> >> with large amounts of specified complexity
>>>> >>
>>>> >
>>>> > nope. It has newer shown that.
>>>>
>>>> Of course it has shown, and continues to show, that.
>>>
>>>Organization isn't an expectation of un-guided-ness. The issue here is a matter of logic.
>>
>>
>> Reality trumps logic. Galileo trumps Socrates.
>>
>
>For once, Ray is right.
>
>Reality trumps Ray's peculiar, homemade version of logic.
>
>There's a good match between reality and logic as defined by sources beyond Ray's comprehension.
>
>LOL "Galileo trumps Socrates".
>
>Reality trumps Ray every time.

Please check your attributions. Apparently you think Ray posted what
I did.

[jillery]

Which raises the question: what do you think is not designed?

[Ray Martinez]

Creationism 101: Paley's stone.

Ray

[Ray Martinez]

Either what you say is true or you can't refute what I said?

I, of course, go with the latter.

Everyone well knows that Schrodinger's cat has befuddled physicists for decades. I contend the cat is both dead and alive at the same time, science has affirmed the paradoxical state, the same equates to crystal clear evidence supporting existence of the supernatural. When the supernatural is present a thing can be two different things at the same time. Case in point: the person of Christ. All God and all Man at the same time every moment of His life. Schrodinger's cat is another example. This is WHY we are Christians: faith is based on facts.

Ray

[jillery]

On Thu, 14 Jul 2016 13:41:04 -0700 (PDT), Ray Martinez

The rules of logic are trumped by reality. Your argument above is a
word game based on your personal definitions. The standard English
definitions have no contradictions between those two words.

>And note the fact that Robert Camp has avoided answering.

I did not notice that. Perhaps he avoided answering because he
replies to you more coherently than he does to me.

[jillery]

On Thu, 14 Jul 2016 14:03:43 -0700 (PDT), Ray Martinez

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

>On Wednesday, July 13, 2016 at 5:28:34 PM UTC-7, jillery wrote:
>> On Wed, 13 Jul 2016 16:19:04 -0700 (PDT), Ray Martinez
>> <pyram...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>> >On Wednesday, July 13, 2016 at 3:13:35 PM UTC-7, Robert Camp wrote:
>> >> On 7/13/16 1:46 PM, grassoempree...@gmail.com wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> >> Science has shown that unguided natural processes also create systems
>> >> >> with large amounts of specified complexity
>> >> >>
>> >> >
>> >> > nope. It has newer shown that.
>> >>
>> >> Of course it has shown, and continues to show, that.
>> >
>> >Organization isn't an expectation of un-guided-ness. The issue here is a matter of logic.
>>
>>
>> Reality trumps logic. Galileo trumps Socrates.
>>
>

>You miss the entire point because, like I've ALAWYS said, Evolutionists don't know the first thing about logic.

That's not why. To the contrary, I got your point. Instead, I don't
accept your personal definitions.

>A thing or phenomenon cannot be "unguided and non-random" at the same time because these concepts contradict. And when a contradiction is identified the person who identifies the contradiction is saying no such thing can exist because a thing or phenomenon cannot exhibit contradictory action. Therefore the fact of illogic or contradiction supports my claim that unguided and/or undirected and/or unintelligent agencies, namely natural selection, do not exist. Reality cannot trump logic because logic is about what can and cannot exist----that's the point.
>
>The fact that you and your fellow Evolutionists in this thread don't know any of these BASIC facts about logic and reality is not the least bit surprising. If you possessed basic knowledge about logic you wouldn't be Evolutionists.
>
>Ray

[jillery]

On Thu, 14 Jul 2016 14:23:32 -0700 (PDT), Ray Martinez

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

>On Thursday, July 14, 2016 at 2:08:32 PM UTC-7, Ray Martinez wrote:
>> On Wednesday, July 13, 2016 at 5:28:34 PM UTC-7, jillery wrote:
>> > On Wed, 13 Jul 2016 16:19:04 -0700 (PDT), Ray Martinez
>> > <pyram...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> >
>> > >On Wednesday, July 13, 2016 at 3:13:35 PM UTC-7, Robert Camp wrote:
>> > >> On 7/13/16 1:46 PM, grassoempree...@gmail.com wrote:
>> > >> >
>> > >> >> Science has shown that unguided natural processes also create systems
>> > >> >> with large amounts of specified complexity
>> > >> >>
>> > >> >
>> > >> > nope. It has newer shown that.
>> > >>
>> > >> Of course it has shown, and continues to show, that.
>> > >
>> > >Organization isn't an expectation of un-guided-ness. The issue here is a matter of logic.
>> >
>> >
>> > Reality trumps logic. Galileo trumps Socrates.
>> >
>> > --
>> > This space is intentionally not blank.
>>
>> You miss the entire point because, like I've ALAWYS said, Evolutionists don't know the first thing about logic.
>>
>> A thing or phenomenon cannot be "unguided and non-random" at the same time because these concepts contradict. And when a contradiction is identified the person who identifies the contradiction is saying no such thing can exist because a thing or phenomenon cannot exhibit contradictory action. Therefore the fact of illogic or contradiction supports my claim that unguided and/or undirected and/or unintelligent agencies, namely natural selection, do not exist. Reality cannot trump logic because logic is about what can and cannot exist----that's the point.
>>
>
>CORRECTION; Should say: "Reality cannot trump logic because logic is about what can OR cannot exist----that's the point."

It doesn't matter. Your sentence is just as wrong either way. When
Aristotle logically deduced that heavier objects fall faster than
lighter objects, Reality ignored him, and all the planets continued to
move about the Sun without regard to their weight.

[Jimbo]

On Thu, 14 Jul 2016 15:38:50 -0700 (PDT), Ray Martinez

No, Ray, I did not assume either materialism or immaterialism to be
true. I merely noted that intelligence involves complex information
processing. It doesn't matter if the basis for this processing is
material or immaterial. If complex and structured information
processing is occurring then this processing may possibly constitute
some kind of intelligence.

If no complex information process is occurring then there is no
intelligence. You may deny this but then why didn't you respond to my
request that you explain how a "mind" that does no information
processing can design complex bio-molecular systems or anything else?
If you can support this claim then please do so. If you can't answer
this question then it seems clear you have no idea what you mean when
you use the terms "intelligence" and "intelligent design." But you
have another opportunity to prove me wrong. If you want to demonstrate
that you're using those terms as anything more than meaningless
labels, then explain how intelligence can exist without complex
structured information processing.

>Observation of design falsifies your starting assumption. Observation of design is the main scientific claim of Supernaturalism: design observed, work of immaterial Intelligence inferred.

As previously noted, I made no such assumption. Demonstrate how an
immaterial "mind" can manifest intelligence without processing any
information. If you can't do it, then you have no basis for claiming
any such intelligence does or can exist.

>So your commentary, argument, and questions are rhetorical, based on starting Matter-first assumptions.

Once again, Ray: I made no such assumption. Explain how an immaterial
"mind" can exhibit intelligence without doing any complex information
processing.

>
>Ray

[Ray Martinez]

The claim seen above equates to an admission that evolutionary theory, and the rules of logic, contradict. That's exactly what I've been saying. Thanks.

> Your argument above is a
> word game based on your personal definitions.

Why repeat your claim without accompanying examples in support?

> The standard English
> definitions have no contradictions between those two words.
>

Let's see: non-random speaks of organization as does guided-ness. So un-guided-ness cannot speak of organization as well; antonyms do not speak of the same effect. Again, evolutionary theory is illogical, illogical means contradictory and contradictory means non-existence and non-existence is my on-going claim supported.

Ray

[snip....]

[Mark Isaak]

On 7/14/16 5:12 AM, grassoempree...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> Observation: Intelligent agents solve complex problems by
> acting with an end goal in mind, producing high levels of CSI.

Irrelevant to your argument about what non-intelligent processes are
capable of.

> In our experience, systems with large amounts of specified
> complexity -- such as codes and languages -- invariably
> originate from an intelligent source.

Your experience is just plain wrong. Large amounts of specified
complexity are generated daily via natural, and sometimes almost
trivially simple, processes.

> Likewise, in our experience, intelligence is the only known
> cause of irreducibly complex machines.21

It's not. Stop assuming your conclusion.

> Hypothesis (Prediction): Natural structures will be found
> that contain many parts arranged in intricate patterns
> (including irreducible complexity) that perform a specific
> function -- indicating high levels of CSI.

Yes, that is what we expect if intelligent design is false. Do you have
a competing hypothesis that we might test *against* that one?

--
Mark Isaak eciton (at) curioustaxonomy (dot) net
"The evil that is in the world always comes of ignorance, and good
intentions may do as much harm as malevolence, if they lack
understanding." - Albert Camus, _The Plague_

[Ray Martinez]

Imagine that; Aristotelian logic refuted by one scientific error by the founder! As if inerrancy is an accepted criteria of truth in secular thought! Yet said logic, as a whole, remains in a state of widespread scholarly acceptance. And AGAIN, Jillery's entire response is crafted against the rules of logic or accepted logic; the same supports my claim that the rules of logic, and evolutionary theory, contradict; and that evolutionary theorists don't know ANYTHING about logic; if they did they wouldn't be evolutionary theorists.

Ray (anti-evolutionist)

[jillery]

On Thu, 14 Jul 2016 16:11:23 -0700 (PDT), Ray Martinez

>Creationism 101: Paley's stone.

Which simply raises the next question: how is the appearance of
Paley's stone any more unpredictable than the appearance of gravity?

[jillery]

On Thu, 14 Jul 2016 17:13:38 -0700 (PDT), Ray Martinez

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

>On Thursday, July 14, 2016 at 4:23:31 PM UTC-7, jillery wrote:
>> On Thu, 14 Jul 2016 14:23:32 -0700 (PDT), Ray Martinez
>> <pyram...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>> >On Thursday, July 14, 2016 at 2:08:32 PM UTC-7, Ray Martinez wrote:
>> >> On Wednesday, July 13, 2016 at 5:28:34 PM UTC-7, jillery wrote:
>> >> > On Wed, 13 Jul 2016 16:19:04 -0700 (PDT), Ray Martinez
>> >> > <pyram...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> > >On Wednesday, July 13, 2016 at 3:13:35 PM UTC-7, Robert Camp wrote:
>> >> > >> On 7/13/16 1:46 PM, grassoempree...@gmail.com wrote:
>> >> > >> >
>> >> > >> >> Science has shown that unguided natural processes also create systems
>> >> > >> >> with large amounts of specified complexity
>> >> > >> >>
>> >> > >> >
>> >> > >> > nope. It has newer shown that.
>> >> > >>
>> >> > >> Of course it has shown, and continues to show, that.
>> >> > >
>> >> > >Organization isn't an expectation of un-guided-ness. The issue here is a matter of logic.
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> > Reality trumps logic. Galileo trumps Socrates.
>> >> >
>> >>

>> >> You miss the entire point because, like I've ALAWYS said, Evolutionists don't know the first thing about logic.
>> >>
>> >> A thing or phenomenon cannot be "unguided and non-random" at the same time because these concepts contradict. And when a contradiction is identified the person who identifies the contradiction is saying no such thing can exist because a thing or phenomenon cannot exhibit contradictory action. Therefore the fact of illogic or contradiction supports my claim that unguided and/or undirected and/or unintelligent agencies, namely natural selection, do not exist. Reality cannot trump logic because logic is about what can and cannot exist----that's the point.
>> >>
>> >
>> >CORRECTION; Should say: "Reality cannot trump logic because logic is about what can OR cannot exist----that's the point."
>>
>>
>> It doesn't matter. Your sentence is just as wrong either way. When
>> Aristotle logically deduced that heavier objects fall faster than
>> lighter objects, Reality ignored him, and all the planets continued to
>> move about the Sun without regard to their weight.
>
>

>Imagine that; Aristotelian logic refuted by one scientific error by the founder! As if inerrancy is an accepted criteria of truth in secular thought! Yet said logic, as a whole, remains in a state of widespread scholarly acceptance. And AGAIN, Jillery's entire response is crafted against the rules of logic or accepted logic; the same supports my claim that the rules of logic, and evolutionary theory, contradict; and that evolutionary theorists don't know ANYTHING about logic; if they did they wouldn't be evolutionary theorists.

Do you really believe that Aristotle made only one howler? Apparently
you never heard that he also claimed objects in motion stop moving
unless acted on by an outside force. An irony is Aristotle could have
proved for himself both of these logical deductions false if he had
bothered to do some actual experiments, just like Galileo did
centuries later.

Aristotle made many more painfully wrong but logically valid
deductions, because he started with wrong premises, just like you do
above. That's why reality trumps logic.

[jillery]

On Thu, 14 Jul 2016 16:40:16 -0700 (PDT), Ray Martinez

>> >Answer: the rules of logic; non-random and unguided contradict therefore both cannot be true at the same time; no such thing or phenomenon exists----that's the point about identifying contradictions. When a contradiction is identified the identifier is saying "this cannot be true."
>> >
>>
>> The rules of logic are trumped by reality.
>
>The claim seen above equates to an admission that evolutionary theory, and the rules of logic, contradict. That's exactly what I've been saying. Thanks.

The claim seen above equates to no such thing. You just made it up.
You're welcome.

>> Your argument above is a
>> word game based on your personal definitions.
>
>Why repeat your claim without accompanying examples in support?

Just following your lead. Why do you get to be the only one to not
give examples?

>> The standard English
>> definitions have no contradictions between those two words.
>>
>
>Let's see: non-random speaks of organization as does guided-ness. So un-guided-ness cannot speak of organization as well; antonyms do not speak of the same effect. Again, evolutionary theory is illogical, illogical means contradictory and contradictory means non-existence and non-existence is my on-going claim supported.

Right here would have been a good place for you to cite any online
dictionary where it says non-random and guided-ness speak of
organization. Your failure to do so is evidence that you're using
personal ad hoc definitions.

[RMcBane]

On Thu, 14 Jul 2016 16:11:23 -0700 (PDT), Ray Martinez

How did God design and create the earth if he didn't design Paley's
stone during the creation event?

[RonO]

On 7/14/2016 5:32 PM, grassoempree...@gmail.com wrote:
>
>> Ron Okimoto
>
> When you stop with personal attacks, we might talk.
>

Why lie?

You problem is that I just state the facts, they aren't personal
attacks. It only seems personal because that is what you are and what
you do. That is why you had to snip it out because you can't deal with
reality. Really, why lie like this? You will likely never do what can
be done because you know that it is not worth doing, so all you can do
is what you are currently wasting your time doing.

If you have a valid alternative put it forward, or continue to lie to
yourself about it when you know that you don't have one that is worth
putting forward. You know what happened to Eddie. You don't see Eddie
trying again do you? Isn't that why you don't do the rational and
honest thing?

Ron Okimoto

[passer...@gmail.com]

Correct, they couldn't pass an elementary test on logic. For starters, DNA is LESS COMPLEX than a tub of mixed chemicals they come from. Less complicated. Less disc space to describe it. DNA contains LESS information than the raw chemicals it comes from, not more.

Use a different word, that's what COMPLEX means in logic. How complicated it is, how much information it contains. The more random, the more complex and the more information. A perfectly compressed file or a perfectly compressed radio transmission sounds like pure random noise.

[Cloud Hobbit]

On Wednesday, July 13, 2016 at 6:23:40 AM UTC-7, grassoempree...@gmail.com wrote:
> The genetic code, unsurmountable problem for non-intelligent origin
>
> http://reasonandscience.heavenforum.org/t2363-the-genetic-code-unsurmountable-problem-for-non-intelligent-origin
>
>
>
> Problem no.1
> The genetic code system ( language ) must be created, and the universal code is nearly optimal and maximally efficient
>
> http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8335231
> The genetic language is a collection of rules and regularities of genetic information coding for genetic texts. It is defined by alphabet, grammar, collection of punctuation marks and regulatory sites, semantics.
>
> http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3293468/
> In our opinion, despite extensive and, in many cases, elaborate attempts to model code optimization, ingenious theorizing along the lines of the coevolution theory, and considerable experimentation, very little definitive progress has been made.
> Summarizing the state of the art in the study of the code evolution, we cannot escape considerable skepticism. It seems that the two-pronged fundamental question: “why is the genetic code the way it is and how did it come to be?”, that was asked over 50 years ago, at the dawn of molecular biology, might remain pertinent even in another 50 years. Our consolation is that we cannot think of a more fundamental problem in biology.
>

The same old bullshit. All of which has been previously debunked. Research has been done that shows that abiogenesis is very likely how life started.

From Rationalwiki
In the 1950s, several experiments by Stanley Miller and Harold Urey verified that the natural formation of amino acids, components of DNA, and other organic compounds out of inorganic materials was possible under the atmospheric conditions of Primordial Earth. Le-Chatelier's principle states that protein synthesis is not possible on water since it requires a condensation reaction. The UV radiations from the Sun would've made it impossible on land. Today, it is generally accepted that Abiogenesis happened in neither land nor oceans, but a combination of both.

There is no such thing as irreducible complexity in nature.

[Rolf]

 

 

"Ray Martinez" <pyram...@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:04315754-d7bc-4809...@googlegroups.com...

What point do you think Schrödinger is trying to make with his hypothetical example?

 

 

> Ray
>

[Ernest Major]

On 14/07/2016 21:34, Ray Martinez wrote:
> On Wednesday, July 13, 2016 at 5:13:34 PM UTC-7, Ernest Major wrote:

>> On 14/07/2016 00:30, Ray Martinez wrote:
>>> On Wednesday, July 13, 2016 at 3:13:35 PM UTC-7, Robert Camp wrote:
>>>> On 7/13/16 1:46 PM, grassoempree...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Science has shown that unguided natural processes also create systems
>>>>>> with large amounts of specified complexity
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> nope. It has newer shown that.
>>>>
>>>> Of course it has shown, and continues to show, that.
>>>>

You seem to have evaded the question.

You need also to open your eyes. Gravitating systems of any complexity
are chaotic and thereby unpredictable.

[grassoempree...@gmail.com]

Most frequent responses given by proponents of naturalism in a debate, and how they can improve their debate skills

http://reasonandscience.heavenforum.org/t2288-most-frequent-responses-given-by-atheists-in-a-debate-and-how-they-can-improve-their-debate-skills

- Nor acuse me or my source of lying ( unless you have proof of it, then point out exactly why its a lie )

[grassoempree...@gmail.com]

> The same old bullshit. All of which has been previously debunked. Research has been done that shows that abiogenesis is very likely how life started.
>
> From Rationalwiki
> In the 1950s, several experiments by Stanley Miller and Harold Urey verified that the natural formation of amino acids, components of DNA, and other organic compounds out of inorganic materials was possible under the atmospheric conditions of Primordial Earth. Le-Chatelier's principle states that protein synthesis is not possible on water since it requires a condensation reaction. The UV radiations from the Sun would've made it impossible on land. Today, it is generally accepted that Abiogenesis happened in neither land nor oceans, but a combination of both.
>
> There is no such thing as irreducible complexity in nature.

Abiogenesis is impossible

http://reasonandscience.heavenforum.org/t1279-abiogenesis-is-impossible

Harold Urey, a founder of origin-of-life research, describes evolution as a faith which seems to defy logic:
“All of us who study the origin of life find that the more we look into it, the more we feel that it is too complex to have evolved anywhere. We believe as an article of faith that life evolved from dead matter on this planet. It is just that its complexity is so great, it is hard for us to imagine that it did.

[RonO]

What do you think that this is? What is your alternative? Why can't
you even put it forward for evaluation? Isn't it stupid to run in
denial like this? You haven't presented anything worth evaluating. So
what good is this list?

The only IDiots left are the ignorant, incompetent, and or dishonest and
you have just proven that again.

Ron Okimoto

[Bill Rogers]

On Friday, July 15, 2016 at 6:28:30 AM UTC-4, grassoempree...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Thursday, July 14, 2016 at 11:38:30 PM UTC-3, Ron O wrote:
> > On 7/14/2016 5:32 PM, grassoempree...@gmail.com wrote:
> > >
> > >> Ron Okimoto
> > >
> > > When you stop with personal attacks, we might talk.
> > >
> >
> > Why lie?
> >
> > You problem is that I just state the facts, they aren't personal
> > attacks. It only seems personal because that is what you are and what
> > you do. That is why you had to snip it out because you can't deal with
> > reality. Really, why lie like this? You will likely never do what can
> > be done because you know that it is not worth doing, so all you can do
> > is what you are currently wasting your time doing.
> >
> > If you have a valid alternative put it forward, or continue to lie to
> > yourself about it when you know that you don't have one that is worth
> > putting forward. You know what happened to Eddie. You don't see Eddie
> > trying again do you? Isn't that why you don't do the rational and
> > honest thing?
> >
> > Ron Okimoto
>
> Most frequent responses given by proponents of naturalism in a debate, and how they can improve their debate skills
>
> http://reasonandscience.heavenforum.org/t2288-most-frequent-responses-given-by-atheists-in-a-debate-and-how-they-can-improve-their-debate-skills
>
> - Nor acuse me or my source of lying ( unless you have proof of it, then point out exactly why its a lie )

I don't think your lying, wrong maybe, but not lying. In fact it seems pointless to think about whether somebody making an argument knows it is false (ie is lying) or is simply mistaken. All you can do is respond to the argument.

I characterized your (or your source's) arguments as generally boiling down to "Biological system X is so complex that it could not have evolved. Evolution has no adequate explanation for its origin. Therefore it was intelligently designed."

You claim that that is a straw man. Well, it's certainly possible that I've misunderstood you. So, just to be clear, what is the argument in support of your claim that "The genetic code and its translation system is best explained through the action of a intelligent designer"?

If you are not making the argument I thought you were, which was to claim that evolution could not have produced it, what is the positive evidence that a designer built it? Can you, in fact, make such an argument without claiming that "evolution (or 'natural processes' or 'unintelligent processes') cannot explain it"? I guess the best way to do that would be to have independent evidence of the existence and character of the designer and his manufacturing processes, but you have not shown any of that yet.

Or you might make an argument that the genetic code is so much like codes that humans have designed that it, too, must have been designed. That would be fine as a motivation to look for actual evidence of the designer and the processes he used, but by itself, that analogy (between the genetic code and stuff people have designed and built) is not convincing. A cave is analogous to a house, but I cannot conclude from that analogy that caves were built - still, if I find a cave, and tools that could have been used to dig or expand it, and pottery, and human bones, then I might think that the cave had indeed been built. The analogy can motivate a search for a designer, but it's not evidence on its own.

[Steady Eddie]

U MAD BRO?

[AlwaysAskingQuestions]

Eddie, do you really think that is an appropriate response for a
Christian?

[Robert Camp]

The only way the foregoing "equates to crystal clear evidence" for the
supernatural is if you allow yourself the luxury of at least two (and
probably more) fallacies: affirming the consequent and false inference
or gap argument.

Yours is simply a crazy notion, Ray. Schrodinger's cat is a thought
experiment. It provides not the slightest logical compulsion to an
inference to the supernatural.

> When
> the supernatural is present a thing can be two different things at
> the same time. Case in point: the person of Christ. All God and all
> Man at the same time every moment of His life. Schrodinger's cat is
> another example. This is WHY we are Christians: faith is based on
> facts.

Not yours, Ray. I know you'd like that to be so, but you have always
misunderstood what a "fact" is. In your world facts depend directly
upon, and must be interpreted through personal ideology. In the real
world facts are independent of such things.

[Steady Eddie]

Actually, a Christian wouldn't waste his time with this insulting child.
But to ask someone who is clearly off on a tirade whether anger is the cause is perfectly reasonable.

[Ernest Major]

You have to remember that Eddie is an anti-Christian propagandist.

--
alias Ernest Major

[Rolf]

"Ernest Major" <{$to$}@meden.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:nmaajs$5st$1...@dont-email.me...

I don't think Ray perceive of "gravitating systems of any complexity"; he
knows only two organizational 'phases' of matter:
Chaos, and Order.

He as got a hangup on antonyms:
a.. Complementary Antonyms: These express binary relationships in which
there is no middle-ground.
That's his entire rationale.

Just take a look at his writings..

Rolf

[Ray Martinez]

Where did you obtain the idea that Genesis creation is deistic?

(I already know the answer). But like Paley said: the stone, for all he knew, might have been laying there since time began.

And where did you obtain the idea that Paley's stone is designed? Paley, via analogy, said it wasn't or that it cannot be used to infer the work of a Maker.

Originally Jillery was making the often made point that design needs a counter-example. That example is Paley's stone offered in the context of a watch found in the wild. If the latter is designed, and that was Paley's main point, then the former was created. In other words, if the more complex is designed then the less complex receives automatic explanation within the episteme or paradigm.

Ray

[jillery]

On Fri, 15 Jul 2016 05:09:22 -0700 (PDT), Steady Eddie
<1914o...@gmail.com> wrote:

>

>U MAD BRO?


How old are you, exactly?

[jillery]

On Fri, 15 Jul 2016 15:22:45 -0700 (PDT), Ray Martinez

It would have been appropriate for you to answer my post you cite
*before* you cited it.

And don't blame Paley here. *YOU* said Paley's stone wasn't designed,
in order to evade the substance of my question. So, once again, how
is the appearance of Paley's stone any different from gravity's
appearance, wrt knowing if either is designed?

[jillery]

On Fri, 15 Jul 2016 11:36:30 -0700 (PDT), Steady Eddie
<1914o...@gmail.com> wrote:

>Actually, a Christian wouldn't waste his time with this insulting child.

<PING> Dang it!

[RMcBane]

I got the idea that the stone was designed from
you Ray. There are many man made materials that
are similar to stones. For example certain types
of counter tops or for that manner concrete.

I know that concrete is designed and that there
are a number of different designs depending on the
use of the material and strength requirement. And
if I take a detailed look at the concrete, it
consists of mineral grains held together with a
cementing agent. We know that it is designed and
made by man.

If I look at many stones, they consists of
minerals that are bonded together by a cementing
agent. Thus the stone has the appearance of
design and according to you, the appearance of
design means that it was designed.

So either both the stone and the watch are
designed, which invalidating Paley's argument as
he was really examining two designed objects, one
designed by man and the other by some other agent.

Or if you continue to claim that Paley's stone was
not designed then it invalidates your argument
that the appearance of design means that it is
designed.


--
Richard McBane

[Ray Martinez]

On Thursday, July 14, 2016 at 4:28:31 PM UTC-7, Jimbo wrote:
> On Thu, 14 Jul 2016 15:38:50 -0700 (PDT), Ray Martinez
> <pyram...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> >On Thursday, July 14, 2016 at 3:18:32 PM UTC-7, Jimbo wrote:
> >> On Thu, 14 Jul 2016 14:06:33 -0700 (PDT), Ray Martinez
> >> <pyram...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> >On Wednesday, July 13, 2016 at 5:53:34 PM UTC-7, Jimbo wrote:

> >> >> On Wed, 13 Jul 2016 16:19:04 -0700 (PDT), Ray Martinez
> >> >> <pyram...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> >On Wednesday, July 13, 2016 at 3:13:35 PM UTC-7, Robert Camp wrote:
> >> >> >> On 7/13/16 1:46 PM, grassoempree...@gmail.com wrote:
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >> Science has shown that unguided natural processes also create systems
> >> >> >> >> with large amounts of specified complexity
> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> > nope. It has newer shown that.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> Of course it has shown, and continues to show, that.
> >> >> >

> >> >> >Organization isn't an expectation of un-guided-ness. The issue here is a matter of logic.

> >> >> >
> >> >> >Logical: organization, guided-ness.
> >> >> >
> >> >> >Illogical: organization, un-guided-ness.
> >> >>

> >> >> You're making a self-contradictory statement when you claim that it's
> >> >> illogical to postulate unguided organization. Since intelligence
> >> >> involves a highly organized interaction between parts of an
> >> >> information processing system, your "logic" implies that any
> >> >> intelligent designer must itself have been designed. If you say that
> >> >> an intelligent designer has always existed then you're contradicting
> >> >> your own claim that unguided organization is illogical.
> >> >
> >> >Don't understand, or doesn't follow.
> >>
> >> You claim organized systems must be designed because complex
> >> organization requires Intelligence to guide it. But intelligence *is*
> >> complex information processing. There can be no intelligence without
> >> complex organization. Therefore, when you claim that God's mind can
> >> exist without external guidance you are contradicting your claim that
> >> organization requires guidance.
> >>
> >> Either you think that God's mind is completely unorganized and
> >> therefore unintelligent, or you don't believe your own claim that
> >> organization requires an external intelligence to guide it. If you
> >> don't agree that intelligence is an inherently complex process of
> >> information processing system, then please explain how a "mind" that
> >> does no information processing can design complex bio-molecular
> >> systems or anything else.
> >>
> >
> >Your commentary assumes Materialism true: Matter-first, immaterial Intelligence is an effect, created by the imagination of mankind. On the other hand my commentaries assume Supernaturalism true: Mind-first, matter is an effect.
>
> No, Ray, I did not assume either materialism or immaterialism to be
> true. I merely noted that intelligence involves complex information
> processing. It doesn't matter if the basis for this processing is
> material or immaterial. If complex and structured information
> processing is occurring then this processing may possibly constitute
> some kind of intelligence.
>
> If no complex information process is occurring then there is no
> intelligence. You may deny this but then why didn't you respond to my
> request that you explain how a "mind" that does no information
> processing can design complex bio-molecular systems or anything else?

Where did you obtain your ideas about the mind of God?

> If you can support this claim then please do so.

I made no such claim----a claim that I find borderline incoherent.

> If you can't answer
> this question then it seems clear you have no idea what you mean when
> you use the terms "intelligence" and "intelligent design."

Nonsense; we know what these terms mean, just like Evolutionists know what their terms mean.

> But you
> have another opportunity to prove me wrong. If you want to demonstrate
> that you're using those terms as anything more than meaningless
> labels, then explain how intelligence can exist without complex
> structured information processing.

Again, where did you obtain the idea that immaterial intelligence is as you describe?

>
> >Observation of design falsifies your starting assumption. Observation of design is the main scientific claim of Supernaturalism: design observed, work of immaterial Intelligence inferred.
> >
> As previously noted, I made no such assumption. Demonstrate how an
> immaterial "mind" can manifest intelligence without processing any
> information. If you can't do it, then you have no basis for claiming
> any such intelligence does or can exist.

If you're asking how implementation occurs then the answer is: at the species level it is by miracle, below said level it happens in the womb by design.

When we speak of immaterial intelligence we are talking about the mind of God. And when we talk about the mind of God we assume the omnipotence of God to implement His ideas. It just so happens that the secret of God's power is found in His words----when God speaks, good or bad, reality conforms to what He said. And my ideas about God were obtained from the Bible.

>
> >So your commentary, argument, and questions are rhetorical, based on starting Matter-first assumptions.
>
> Once again, Ray: I made no such assumption. Explain how an immaterial
> "mind" can exhibit intelligence without doing any complex information
> processing.
>
> >
> >Ray

Ray

[Ray Martinez]

Impossible! I've **never** said Paley's stone was designed! Paley said the EXACT opposite so why would I say it was designed? Apparently you've made an honest error.

Your claims are too far in left field.

Have a nice day.

Ray

[Ray Martinez]

I did when I wrote: "Creationism 101: Paley's stone."

>
> And don't blame Paley here. *YOU* said Paley's stone wasn't designed,

Yes, I said Paley's stone wasn't designed because Paley said his stone wasn't designed! I'm a Paleyan, you know that. I'm not going to say anything that contradicts my superior.

> in order to evade the substance of my question. So, once again, how
> is the appearance of Paley's stone any different from gravity's
> appearance, wrt knowing if either is designed?
> --
> This space is intentionally not blank.

You've changed the question dramatically. Not sure what you're asking?

Ray

[Ray Martinez]

On Thursday, July 14, 2016 at 6:13:31 PM UTC-7, jillery wrote:
> On Thu, 14 Jul 2016 17:13:38 -0700 (PDT), Ray Martinez
> <pyram...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> >On Thursday, July 14, 2016 at 4:23:31 PM UTC-7, jillery wrote:
> >> On Thu, 14 Jul 2016 14:23:32 -0700 (PDT), Ray Martinez
> >> <pyram...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> >On Thursday, July 14, 2016 at 2:08:32 PM UTC-7, Ray Martinez wrote:
> >> >> On Wednesday, July 13, 2016 at 5:28:34 PM UTC-7, jillery wrote:

> >> >> > On Wed, 13 Jul 2016 16:19:04 -0700 (PDT), Ray Martinez
> >> >> > <pyram...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >> >> >
> >> >> > >On Wednesday, July 13, 2016 at 3:13:35 PM UTC-7, Robert Camp wrote:
> >> >> > >> On 7/13/16 1:46 PM, grassoempree...@gmail.com wrote:
> >> >> > >> >
> >> >> > >> >> Science has shown that unguided natural processes also create systems
> >> >> > >> >> with large amounts of specified complexity
> >> >> > >> >>
> >> >> > >> >
> >> >> > >> > nope. It has newer shown that.
> >> >> > >>
> >> >> > >> Of course it has shown, and continues to show, that.
> >> >> > >

> >> >> > >Organization isn't an expectation of un-guided-ness. The issue here is a matter of logic.
> >> >> >
> >> >> >

> >> >> > Reality trumps logic. Galileo trumps Socrates.
> >> >> >
> >> >>

> >> >> You miss the entire point because, like I've ALAWYS said, Evolutionists don't know the first thing about logic.
> >> >>
> >> >> A thing or phenomenon cannot be "unguided and non-random" at the same time because these concepts contradict. And when a contradiction is identified the person who identifies the contradiction is saying no such thing can exist because a thing or phenomenon cannot exhibit contradictory action. Therefore the fact of illogic or contradiction supports my claim that unguided and/or undirected and/or unintelligent agencies, namely natural selection, do not exist. Reality cannot trump logic because logic is about what can and cannot exist----that's the point.
> >> >>
> >> >
> >> >CORRECTION; Should say: "Reality cannot trump logic because logic is about what can OR cannot exist----that's the point."
> >>
> >>
> >> It doesn't matter. Your sentence is just as wrong either way. When
> >> Aristotle logically deduced that heavier objects fall faster than
> >> lighter objects, Reality ignored him, and all the planets continued to
> >> move about the Sun without regard to their weight.
> >
> >

> >Imagine that; Aristotelian logic refuted by one scientific error by the founder! As if inerrancy is an accepted criteria of truth in secular thought! Yet said logic, as a whole, remains in a state of widespread scholarly acceptance. And AGAIN, Jillery's entire response is crafted against the rules of logic or accepted logic; the same supports my claim that the rules of logic, and evolutionary theory, contradict; and that evolutionary theorists don't know ANYTHING about logic; if they did they wouldn't be evolutionary theorists.
>
>

> Do you really believe that Aristotle made only one howler? Apparently
> you never heard that he also claimed objects in motion stop moving
> unless acted on by an outside force. An irony is Aristotle could have
> proved for himself both of these logical deductions false if he had
> bothered to do some actual experiments, just like Galileo did
> centuries later.
>
> Aristotle made many more painfully wrong but logically valid
> deductions, because he started with wrong premises, just like you do
> above. That's why reality trumps logic.

> --
> This space is intentionally not blank.

What is written above admits evolutionary theory violates the rules of accepted logic----logic that remains at the foundation of Western scholarly thought. I never dreamed an Evolutionist would renounce Aristotelian logic, but that's exactly what has happened. I am delighted. Once again: logic tells us what can or cannot exist. So logic is about reality. The claims of evolutionary theory are illogical or contradictory (unguided AND non-random). This explains why we do not see ANY evidence of natural selection in nature. The delusion is working on believers in evolution, and not on believers in God as Richard Dawkins contends ("The God Delusion").

Jillery has conceded evolution falsified. Again, I am delighted. Rarest of moments at Talk.Origins.

Ray

[Jimbo]

On Fri, 15 Jul 2016 15:55:55 -0700 (PDT), Ray Martinez

I presented no ideas that are specifically about the mind of God. I
claimed that intelligence consists of complex and ordered information
processing. If you believe that God can be intelligent and rational
without doing any complex structured information processing, then you
apparently don't know what the words "intelligence" and "rationality
mean. I have been asking you to explain what you mean when you use the
labels "intelligence" and "intelligent design." So far you haven't
done so.

>> If you can support this claim then please do so.
>
>I made no such claim----a claim that I find borderline incoherent.

You claimed that God's mind is very simple. You attempted to make a
distinction between God's simple mind and God's complex thoughts. I
informed you that intelligence and rational thought is inherently
complex and organized. Thus, according to your own claims in this
thread, organization can't exist without guidance. Since intelligence
is both organized and complex then, according to you, intelligence
can't exist without external guidance. Your "logic" is inherently
self-contradictory since it implies that an intelligent designer must
itself be designed by an intelligent designer.

>> If you can't answer
>> this question then it seems clear you have no idea what you mean when
>> you use the terms "intelligence" and "intelligent design."
>
>Nonsense; we know what these terms mean, just like Evolutionists know what their terms mean.

I have asked you repeatedly to explain how an

immaterial "mind" can manifest intelligence without processing any

information. You have refused to answer this simple and fundamental
question.

>> But you
>> have another opportunity to prove me wrong. If you want to demonstrate
>> that you're using those terms as anything more than meaningless
>> labels, then explain how intelligence can exist without complex
>> structured information processing.
>
>Again, where did you obtain the idea that immaterial intelligence is as you describe?

"Immaterial intelligence" is your term not mine. Therefore it's up to
you to explain what you think it means. You haven't made any effort so
far to do so. All known intelligence is as I describe - complex and
highly organized information processing. I've asked you repeatedly to
explain how you think intelligent and rational thought can exist
without complex and highly ordered information processing. You haven't
answered. You are not giving an explanation when you merely invoke the
term "immaterial intelligence."

>> >Observation of design falsifies your starting assumption. Observation of design is the main scientific claim of Supernaturalism: design observed, work of immaterial Intelligence inferred.
>> >
>> As previously noted, I made no such assumption. Demonstrate how an
>> immaterial "mind" can manifest intelligence without processing any
>> information. If you can't do it, then you have no basis for claiming
>> any such intelligence does or can exist.
>
>If you're asking how implementation occurs then the answer is: at the species level it is by miracle, below said level it happens in the womb by design.

Scientists already know a great deal about how intelligence works in
our own species. It does not involve a miracle. It involves complex
and highly organized information processing by the human brain and
nervous system (including our sensory systems) Saying "It's a miracle"
is just flat out ignorant and wrong. All known intelligence involves
complex and highly organized information processing. Apparently you
know nothing of how the human brain and nervous system works and feel
entitled, based on your own ignorance, to claim that an intelligent
designer exists whose intelligence doesn't need explaining either. You
have neither logical nor empirical justification for making such a
claim.

>When we speak of immaterial intelligence we are talking about the mind of God. And when we talk about the mind of God we assume the omnipotence of God to implement His ideas. It just so happens that the secret of God's power is found in His words----when God speaks, good or bad, reality conforms to what He said. And my ideas about God were obtained from the Bible.

You are free to make the faith-based claim that God created everything
by miraculous words, but you are not justified in claiming that you're
making any kind of logically or scientifically valid argument when you
do so. You have completely failed to explain how intelligence can
exist without complex information processing. Intelligence *IS*
complex information processing - all your claims about miracles
notwithstanding. I've asked you a number of times to explain how any
entity - natural or spiritual - can think intelligently and rationally
without doing any complex information processing. It's obvious now
that you can't do it. This inability apparently is shared by all ID
proponents and points up the fact that the entire ID movement is based
on an underlying claim that is completely self-contradictory and
lacking any real explanatory power.

[jillery]

On Fri, 15 Jul 2016 16:03:28 -0700 (PDT), Ray Martinez

As I previously pointed out, the above is a question-begging answer.

>> And don't blame Paley here. *YOU* said Paley's stone wasn't designed,
>
>Yes, I said Paley's stone wasn't designed because Paley said his stone wasn't designed!

That qualifies as blaming Paley.

And why do you keep referring to "Paley's stone" as if it had some
distinctive property? Don't you understand Paley's analogy describes
just a run-of-the-mill stone, nothing distinctive about it, a stone
that could have been replaced by any one of hundreds of other stones
that one's foot might have pitched while crossing a heath?

>I'm a Paleyan, you know that. I'm not going to say anything that contradicts my superior.

Of course, you say things that contradict Paley quite regularly. For
example, you invoke God's mysterious ways, which completely
contradicts Paley's basic premise, that the mind of God can be
inferred by examining His designs.

>> in order to evade the substance of my question. So, once again, how
>> is the appearance of Paley's stone any different from gravity's
>> appearance, wrt knowing if either is designed?
>> --
>> This space is intentionally not blank.
>
>You've changed the question dramatically. Not sure what you're asking?

That's exactly the question I asked in response to your
question-begging reply. Why act surprised now? Did you conveniently
miss that?

[jillery]

On Fri, 15 Jul 2016 16:20:17 -0700 (PDT), Ray Martinez

No it doesn't, not even close. You just made that up.

>---logic that remains at the foundation of Western scholarly thought. I never dreamed an Evolutionist would renounce Aristotelian logic, but that's exactly what has happened. I am delighted. Once again: logic tells us what can or cannot exist. So logic is about reality. The claims of evolutionary theory are illogical or contradictory (unguided AND non-random). This explains why we do not see ANY evidence of natural selection in nature. The delusion is working on believers in evolution, and not on believers in God as Richard Dawkins contends ("The God Delusion").
>
>Jillery has conceded evolution falsified. Again, I am delighted. Rarest of moments at Talk.Origins.

Apparently you think heavier objects fall faster than lighter ones. Is
anybody surprised?

[RMcBane]

I think you usually use some weird comment about
failure to refute... well you know the rest.
Remember your failure the next time to refer to
Paley's watch and stone.



--
Richard McBane

[jillery]

Ray's posts remind me of the warden from "Cool Hand Luke", where he
declares "What we have here is, failure to communicate."

[Ernest Major]

For an alternative take, Paley's Stone, as an abstract concept
introduced to support Paley's argument, was designed by Paley to play a
role in his argument. (Ray specifically refers to Paley's stone, as
opposed to stones in general. Is his failure to generalise significant?)

--
alias Ernest Major

[Ernest Major]

You've said that there are no natural processes. That seems to imply
that the stone is designed.

They're not his claims; they are your claims - you claim that the
appearance of design is equivalent to the actuality of design. You claim
that Paley's stone is not designed. That these two claims contradict is
your problem - though you've never seemed to hold a coherent position.

[RonO]

Poor Eddie, stating facts is just too much for IDiots to cope with. Why
did Grasso have to lie about why he wouldn't put up his alternative? He
was lying and you know it. He has never and likely will never put up
his alternative because he wants to remain in denial. He doesn't want
to know what the best alternative is. He isn't interested in any
science that pertains to his alternative.

What did you find out about your alternative? Grasso's alternative is
likely even worse off than yours. You two could compare them and help
each other out, but nothing like that ever gets done among IDiots.

Why be this stupid and dishonest, yourself? Why aren't you doing
something constructive like trying to figure out what the best IDiot
alternative is? Wouldn't that tell you what you have to work on and
what is worth doing to determine if IDiocy has any future at all?

Ron Okimoto

[Ray Martinez]

Did you not ask for a non-designed natural object? I reminded you that Paley answered this question long ago.

>
>
> >> And don't blame Paley here. *YOU* said Paley's stone wasn't designed,
> >
> >Yes, I said Paley's stone wasn't designed because Paley said his stone wasn't designed!
>
>
> That qualifies as blaming Paley.

Ridiculous.

>
> And why do you keep referring to "Paley's stone" as if it had some
> distinctive property?

I only refer to it when necessary; so your accusation is groundless. If not provide a quotation to support your claim?

> Don't you understand Paley's analogy describes
> just a run-of-the-mill stone, nothing distinctive about it, a stone
> that could have been replaced by any one of hundreds of other stones
> that one's foot might have pitched while crossing a heath?
>

I completely agree, always have. Glad to see that you understand Paley's stone.

>
> >I'm a Paleyan, you know that. I'm not going to say anything that contradicts my superior.
>
>
> Of course, you say things that contradict Paley quite regularly. For
> example, you invoke God's mysterious ways, which completely
> contradicts Paley's basic premise, that the mind of God can be
> inferred by examining His designs.
>

Totally false, cough up quotations or drop it.

>
> >> in order to evade the substance of my question. So, once again, how
> >> is the appearance of Paley's stone any different from gravity's
> >> appearance, wrt knowing if either is designed?
> >> --
> >> This space is intentionally not blank.
> >
> >You've changed the question dramatically. Not sure what you're asking?
>
>
> That's exactly the question I asked in response to your
> question-begging reply. Why act surprised now? Did you conveniently
> miss that?
> --
> This space is intentionally not blank.

Again, not sure what you're asking?

And can you provide an example of a natural object that did not evolve?

Ray

[Rolf]

"Ray Martinez" <pyram...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:b72eba25-1612-4200...@googlegroups.com...

Atoms and molecules, and objcects consisting of collections of such normally
don't evolve, thy just engage in interaction with other atoms and molecules
according to natural "laws". The world of organic chemistry is of course a
different matter.

There should be plenty of examples of non-evolved natural objects to chose
from, take your pick - for instance from rocks.

Rolf

> Ray
>

[Ray Martinez]

The fact that unintelligent agents of causation do not exist does not imply each stone designed. AGAIN, if the watch is designed, and that's Paley's main point, then the less complex object, the stone, must be created.

Ridiculous.

> you claim that the
> appearance of design is equivalent to the actuality of design.

Yes, I stand behind Paley. And actuality claims are actually made by Darwinists, not Creationists. It's a nonsensical statement that assumes said appearance isn't real. We assume what we see is real. To assume said observation is false is blatant denial of evidence, exactly why the Bible says you guys are "without excuse" and are suffering the wrath of God.

We see no evidence of evolution in nature----NONE. We literally have no idea what you're talking about when you talk about "natural selection." I live near a wooded area; plenty of wild life: deer, bobcats, foxes, hawks, etc. I've never seen "natural selection." But admittedly, I don't know what to look for. Natural selection is 100 percent nonsense. For you guys to think something called "natural selection" is responsible for the wonders of nature is pitifully delusional. We see no evidence of unintelligence in nature----NONE.

> You claim
> that Paley's stone is not designed. That these two claims contradict is
> your problem - though you've never seemed to hold a coherent position.
>
> >
> > Ray
> >
>
> --
> alias Ernest Major

No contradictions, just your inability to understand. In real life Darwinists are considered the dumbest people in the world, bar none. This best seen in the fact that you guys actually believe the wondrous complexity of nature was the product of chance and accident.

Ray

[Ray Martinez]

If present reality didn't originate from previous reality (Materialism, the evidence interpreting philosophy of evolution) then where did it originate?

You see, you guys can't answer your own questions in reverse.

Ray