Part 1: Jillery's Fundamental Misunderstandings About Modern ID Theory

[T Pagano]

On Mon, 14 May 2018 15:49:58 -0400, jillery wrote:

> On Sun, 13 May 2018 16:24:41 GMT, T Pagano <notmya...@dot.com> wrote:
>
>>On Fri, 11 May 2018 13:08:44 -0400, jillery wrote:
>>
>>> On Fri, 11 May 2018 12:31:17 GMT, T Pagano <notmya...@dot.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Thu, 10 May 2018 19:14:02 -0500, Freon96 wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>**SUMMARY OF JILLERY'S INCONSISTENT,INVALID,BAD ARGUMENTS ABOUT ID***
>>
>>1. Jillery never demonstrates that she has a basic understanding of any
>>of the modern ID Theories currently offered. She inappropriately
>>conflates a few different modern ID theories into one (IC, CSI, fine
>>tuning). She incorrectly argues that ID Theories, in general, are
>>affirmative recognitions of an intelligent agent instead of what they
>>are-----eliminating material causes as sufficient leaving intelligent
>>agency as the only possibility.
>
>
> Of course, you're entitled to your own opinions, but not to your own
> facts. Jillery's entirely and appropriately responded to your
> conflation, as illustrated by your comments in your "give and take"
> section below.

1. You never demonstrate (anywhere) that you are aware of the premises
or conclusions of Behe's or Dembski's theories. And you never
demonstrate that you understand purpose or the limits of those theories.

2. Virtually all of your discussions about modern ID Theory in this
forum falsely and incorrectly assert that the existence of a supernatural
designer is a foundational assumption. You have not produced a single
quote from Behe or Dembski or from their works which supports such a
claim. I can only assume that you simply don't care about criticizing
their theories but prefer to criticize a strawman.

3. You assert that modern science presupposes the sufficiency of
material causation, but you fail to recognize that such a presupposition
is a metaphysical claim "about" nature and not itself a scientific claim.
In other words modern science is guilty of the same malady as you falsely
accuse ID Theory----presuming metaphysical positions.

4. You fail to recognize that Behe's theory (Irreducible Complexity) and
Dembski's theory (Complex Specified Information) do NOT presuppose either
supernaturalism or materialism.

5. You consistently fail to recognize the difference between the
conclusion of a theory (derived from its internal premises) and the
implications of the conclusion (derived from external premises).

(a) Darwin concluded from his theory that his material mechanism
explained the origin of biological design (from internal premises). The
implication of this conclusion (from external premises) is that a
supernatural designer was either unnecessary or non existent.

(b) Behe concluded (applying the internal premises of his own
theory) that the bacterial flagellum was not explainable by material
processes. Behe's theory goes NO further than this conclusion (using
internal premises). The implication of this conclusion is that an
intelligent agent (possibly a supernatural one) must be the cause.
However this implication comes as a result of premises external to his
theory.

6. You easily separate Darwin's conclusion from its implications by
arguing that Darwin's conclusion was scientifically indisputable. This
simply isn't true:

(a) Darwin, in fact, admitted in "Origin of Species" that the
fossil record disconfirmed his theory (and that the fossil record still
disconfirms his theory). Punc Eq and Evo-Devo sprouted up especially
because Darwin's theory is NOT self evidently true.



more to follow as time permits

[jillery]

On Fri, 18 May 2018 18:23:53 GMT, T Pagano <notmya...@dot.com>
wrote:

<snip Pagano's made up crap because he has nothing intelligent to say>

Oopsie, nothing left.

>more to follow as time permits

If at first you don't succeed...

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

Evelyn Beatrice Hall
Attributed to Voltaire

[jonathan]

On 5/18/2018 2:23 PM, T Pagano wrote:

> On Mon, 14 May 2018 15:49:58 -0400, jillery wrote:
>
>> On Sun, 13 May 2018 16:24:41 GMT, T Pagano <notmya...@dot.com> wrote:
>>

>

>
> 4. You fail to recognize that Behe's theory (Irreducible Complexity) and
> Dembski's theory (Complex Specified Information) do NOT presuppose either
> supernaturalism or materialism.
>

But what you fail to grasp is those early ideas have
been overtaken by the /modern/ concept of emergence.

This in no way diminishes the idea of Intelligent Design
but it redefines it in a rational way entirely consistent
with the properties of nature, while also redefining
the concept of evolution itself.

You're not up to date.

The well developed concept of emergence recently
described below, not the early form you're citing,
shows that the intelligence and design comes naturally
from within the evolving system. It self organizes.

The intelligence is born of the emergent properties
of collective interactions, each at it's own scale
and complexity. And the design flows from that
intelligence as entities eventually evolve the
ability to 'act on their own behalf'. Which allows
the life to help decide or design it's own future.

For instance in reproductive choices, etc.

Nothing supernatural or irrational about the concept
of intelligent design, but only once one understands
how such emergent properties come to be, how they
self organize.

And only the following text describes how this can
and does happen. If you're not versed in the following
then evolution and nature itself will remain mostly a
a mystery.

This concept is the 'missing link' between science and
religion, between Darwin and self organization.

The folks in this ng are incapable of grasping the
concepts below, and even if they were capable refuse
to learn them, as their arrogance won't let them
believe objective science can't have all the answers.

Can you?


Types and Forms of Emergence

http://old-classes.design4complexity.com/7701-S14/reading/critical-thinking/Types-and-Forms-of-Emergence.pdf




s

[RonO]

On 5/18/2018 1:23 PM, T Pagano wrote:
> On Mon, 14 May 2018 15:49:58 -0400, jillery wrote:
>
>> On Sun, 13 May 2018 16:24:41 GMT, T Pagano <notmya...@dot.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On Fri, 11 May 2018 13:08:44 -0400, jillery wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Fri, 11 May 2018 12:31:17 GMT, T Pagano <notmya...@dot.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On Thu, 10 May 2018 19:14:02 -0500, Freon96 wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> **SUMMARY OF JILLERY'S INCONSISTENT,INVALID,BAD ARGUMENTS ABOUT ID***
>>>
>>> 1. Jillery never demonstrates that she has a basic understanding of any
>>> of the modern ID Theories currently offered. She inappropriately
>>> conflates a few different modern ID theories into one (IC, CSI, fine
>>> tuning). She incorrectly argues that ID Theories, in general, are
>>> affirmative recognitions of an intelligent agent instead of what they
>>> are-----eliminating material causes as sufficient leaving intelligent
>>> agency as the only possibility.
>>
>>
>> Of course, you're entitled to your own opinions, but not to your own
>> facts. Jillery's entirely and appropriately responded to your
>> conflation, as illustrated by your comments in your "give and take"
>> section below.
>
> 1. You never demonstrate (anywhere) that you are aware of the premises
> or conclusions of Behe's or Dembski's theories. And you never
> demonstrate that you understand purpose or the limits of those theories.

No IDiots will support you because there never was any IDiot scientific
theories that Behe or Dembski had. Just make whatever "theories you
want to out of the "best" evidence for IDiocy that the ID perps have put
out. Why do you think that most of the IDiots ran away in denial of
this stupidity, and you and Dean can only claim that it isn't the "best".

Really, just state what you think the scientific theories were that
Dembski and Behe are supposed to have had.

Why do you think that the majority of regular IDiots on TO ran instead
of face the reality of the "best" that IDiocy has? Bill even claims
that he never supported the creationists ID scam. How does that work?
Bill was supporting IDiocy on TO before your hiatus, so what would make
someone deny what they have done for years? Have you seen Kalk or Glenn
try to support IDiocy. There never was any ID science to support.

Use the best IDiot evidence to back up your claims and demonstrate it
for yourself.

Ron Okimoto

[Glenn]

"RonO" <roki...@cox.net> wrote in message news:pdpo8e$qnq$1...@dont-email.me...

> On 5/18/2018 1:23 PM, T Pagano wrote:
>> On Mon, 14 May 2018 15:49:58 -0400, jillery wrote:
>>
>>> On Sun, 13 May 2018 16:24:41 GMT, T Pagano <notmya...@dot.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Fri, 11 May 2018 13:08:44 -0400, jillery wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On Fri, 11 May 2018 12:31:17 GMT, T Pagano <notmya...@dot.com>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On Thu, 10 May 2018 19:14:02 -0500, Freon96 wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> **SUMMARY OF JILLERY'S INCONSISTENT,INVALID,BAD ARGUMENTS ABOUT ID***
>>>>
>>>> 1. Jillery never demonstrates that she has a basic understanding of any
>>>> of the modern ID Theories currently offered. She inappropriately
>>>> conflates a few different modern ID theories into one (IC, CSI, fine
>>>> tuning). She incorrectly argues that ID Theories, in general, are
>>>> affirmative recognitions of an intelligent agent instead of what they
>>>> are-----eliminating material causes as sufficient leaving intelligent
>>>> agency as the only possibility.
>>>
>>>
>>> Of course, you're entitled to your own opinions, but not to your own
>>> facts. Jillery's entirely and appropriately responded to your
>>> conflation, as illustrated by your comments in your "give and take"
>>> section below.
>>
>> 1. You never demonstrate (anywhere) that you are aware of the premises
>> or conclusions of Behe's or Dembski's theories. And you never
>> demonstrate that you understand purpose or the limits of those theories.
>
> No IDiots will support you because there never was any IDiot scientific
> theories that Behe or Dembski had.

You're insane.

[Wolffan]

On 19 May 2018, Glenn wrote
(in article <pdq4t3$aam$1...@dont-email.me>):

Cool. List the _scientific_ ID theories put forward by Behe or Dembski or
both.

[RonO]

You could take the "best" evidence for ID and make some type of
scientific theory out of it. It is the same list they would have had 22
years ago, so it should have been done decades ago. So go for it and
show everyone who is insane.

Why run from what you can't deal with and call someone else insane? You
are the one that kept claiming that the ID science existed, and when you
were told what it was by the guys that have been selling you the junk
for decades, what did you do?

What are you doing now?

Stop running in denial and put up the ID science. Ask Kalk and Nyikos
for all the help that they can give to you. You guys have had 6 months
to come to grips with reality, but what have you all been doing. Pags
is the only one that has contested the demise of IDiocy and he claims
that the "best" is bogus and that some of it doesn't even apply to
IDiocy. So give it your best shot and demonstrate what the insanity has
been all these years. You shouldn't run forever, but it looks like you
are going to try.

What does it tell you about what IDiocy has been all these years when a
long time IDiot like Bill claims that he never supported the creationist
ID scam? What was Bill, you and Kalk doing all those years? What have
you been doing the last 6 months?

Ron Okimoto

[Glenn]

"RonO" <roki...@cox.net> wrote in message news:pdqall$9ct$1...@dont-email.me...

Seriously, you are insane. Of course being told won't help.

[Pro Plyd]

"Modern" "ID Theory" - hard to swallow considering it's just cretinism,
er, creationism, dressed up (see, lipstick-on-a-pig).

[RonO]

I think we all know what group of people on TO should be in the insane
category.

Are you actually trying to deny that you have been an IDiot for years?
Are you going to start denying that you supported the creationists ID
scam like Bill has done? What good is such denial going to do for you?
Your current behavior doesn't change what you have been doing for years.

The IDiots on TO should obviously be wallowing in the greatness of what
the ID perps have finally bestowed upon you, but what are all the IDiots
on TO doing with the gift? It is a gift that the ID perps never gave
their IDiot supporters before. The reason that they never admitted to
what they had is obvious. Look at the reaction of the IDiots on TO.

What do you think that you are doing? In your own words describe how
you are dealing with the last 6 months since you found out what the
"best" evidence for ID is.

Do you see Kalk or Nyikos dealing with what they now know? Running
isn't going to accomplish anything. What do you think of Pag's solution
to the problem? Dean found out how bogus the junk was and tried to
misdirect the argument to plagiarism before claiming that he still had
some ID science, but Dean's junk wasn't good enough to make the list.

Really, why don't you describe exactly what you are doing with what you
now know about the ID scam. Before this denial you were running like
the others. Not just for a few weeks but half a year.

Ron Okimoto

[Glenn]

"RonO" <roki...@cox.net> wrote in message news:pdqh1r$5qa$1...@dont-email.me...

Without your other demonstrations of insanity this could be attributed to stupidity.

[RonO]

Glenn, why deny what you are obviously doing? What did Pags do and what
is he doing now? What are you, Kalk and Nyikos doing? Was the ID scam
always this dishonest and stupid? Are you just going to keep running
from reality and pretending that everyone else has the issues?

Really, what are you going to do? Doing what you did in the last couple
of posts isn't going to change anything.

Why don't you get together with the other IDiots and discuss what you
can't deal with and see if you guys can come to some sensible way to
deal with what you can't deal with. Nothing is going to change by doing
whatever you think that you are doing. The last 6 months did happen
even if all the IDiots want to run from that reality. You probably know
that Bill has started to claim that he never supported the ID scam.
What do you think of that claim? Bill is the IDiot that claimed that he
knew some real ID scientists not associated with the Discovery Institute
that had the real ID science. Pags and Dean, at least, looked at the
"best" and decided that it wasn't worth anything, and what did they do?
Pags even claimed that the junk was bogus and that some of it didn't
even apply to IDiocy. The rest of you just ran. If you claim that you
didn't run, why not address the material and see if you can do better
than Pags and Dean.

The same guys that wrote the propaganda pamphlet that you keep putting
up to claim that the ID perps still claim to have the ID science created
the list of the "best" so why can't any IDiots deal with it? You should
be wallowing in the greatness of the junk, but what are you doing?

This post has a link to the "best" list that you have run from for half
a year.

https://groups.google.com/d/msg/talk.origins/w2ESKUPLNQ4/ADpN83HDCQAJ

This is the link to the propaganda pamphlet that you keep putting up to
claim that the ID perps claim to have the ID science.

http://www.discovery.org/f/1453

So deal with the "best" and see what their other claims are worth.

Ron Okimoto

[Glenn]

"RonO" <roki...@cox.net> wrote in message news:pdqrkg$q2p$1...@dont-email.me...

That's insane.

[Bob Casanova]

On Sat, 19 May 2018 14:28:00 -0700, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by "Glenn" <g...@invalid.invalid>:

>"RonO" <roki...@cox.net> wrote in message news:pdpo8e$qnq$1...@dont-email.me...

<snip to the point>

>> ...there never was any IDiot scientific

>> theories that Behe or Dembski had.

>You're insane.

Really? Please state the scientific theories propounded by
Behe and/or Demski:
--

Bob C.

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

- Isaac Asimov

[Wolffan]

On 20 May 2018, Bob Casanova wrote
(in article<ukc3gdptht9gm3lnk...@4ax.com>):

> On Sat, 19 May 2018 14:28:00 -0700, the following appeared
> in talk.origins, posted by "Glenn"<g...@invalid.invalid>:
>
> > "RonO" <roki...@cox.net> wrote in message
> > news:pdpo8e$qnq$1...@dont-email.me...
>
> <snip to the point>
>
> > > ...there never was any IDiot scientific
> > > theories that Behe or Dembski had.
>
> > You're insane.
>
> Really? Please state the scientific theories propounded by
> Behe and/or Demski:

he can’t.

[RonO]

Glenn, can you even describe what you are doing. Use simple words so
that you can remember what you wrote. Just go through this thread and
demonstrate that you understand what you think that you are doing.

Do you understand why you have been an IDiot for years? Do you
understand why you put up the propaganda pamphlet? Just demonstrate
that you understand what it is that you have done and are doing.

Ron Okimoto

[Glenn]

"Bob Casanova" <nos...@buzz.off> wrote in message news:ukc3gdptht9gm3lnk...@4ax.com...

> On Sat, 19 May 2018 14:28:00 -0700, the following appeared
> in talk.origins, posted by "Glenn" <g...@invalid.invalid>:
>
>>"RonO" <roki...@cox.net> wrote in message news:pdpo8e$qnq$1...@dont-email.me...
>
> <snip to the point>
>

>>> Behe and Dembski are homosexual.

>
>>You're insane.
>
> Really? Please state the scientific theories propounded by
> Behe and/or Demski:
> --

You're sick.

[Glenn]

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

I'm telling you that you are insane.

[RonO]

What are you doing by doing that? You know that you don't believe it
because nothing that I have written isn't the truth or even contested by
you, so why would I be the insane one? If you think that you do contest
something that I have written point it out instead of snipping it out
and running. Beats me what removing the material does to make it OK to
lie to yourself about it, but it seems to be common among the IDiots
that are left.

So just point out something that I have written that would make your
classification valid, and demonstrate that what I have written is insane
instead of the truth about reality that you can't deal with. It should
be easy, but you will likely just run again, just like the rest of your
posts in this thread.

Ron Okimoto

[Glenn]

"RonO" <roki...@cox.net> wrote in message news:pdsrs6$447$1...@dont-email.me...

By doing that that I am doing.

[RonO]

Glenn, do you understand that the material that you have snipped out and
run from still exists one post up in the thread?

I'll repost it to remind you of what you are doing.

Repost:

What are you doing by doing that? You know that you don't believe it
because nothing that I have written isn't the truth or even contested by
you, so why would I be the insane one? If you think that you do contest
something that I have written point it out instead of snipping it out
and running. Beats me what removing the material does to make it OK to
lie to yourself about it, but it seems to be common among the IDiots
that are left.

So just point out something that I have written that would make your
classification valid, and demonstrate that what I have written is insane
instead of the truth about reality that you can't deal with. It should
be easy, but you will likely just run again, just like the rest of your
posts in this thread.

END Repost:

Ron Okimoto

[Glenn]

"RonO" <roki...@cox.net> wrote in message news:pdtbep$fr4$1...@dont-email.me...

I don't need to be reminded. You are insane.

[Bob Casanova]

On Sun, 20 May 2018 14:39:07 -0700, the following appeared

in talk.origins, posted by "Glenn" <g...@invalid.invalid>:

>"Bob Casanova" <nos...@buzz.off> wrote in message news:ukc3gdptht9gm3lnk...@4ax.com...

>> On Sat, 19 May 2018 14:28:00 -0700, the following appeared
>> in talk.origins, posted by "Glenn" <g...@invalid.invalid>:

>>>"RonO" <roki...@cox.net> wrote in message news:pdpo8e$qnq$1...@dont-email.me...

>> <snip to the point>

<Fake quote by Glenn replaced with the original:>

>>>> ...there never was any IDiot scientific
>>>> theories that Behe or Dembski had.

>>>You're insane.

>> Really? Please state the scientific theories propounded by
>> Behe and/or Demski:

>You're sick.

So, no idea what those illusory "scientific theories" might
be? No surprise; there aren't any.

So, going to do more text replacement, since you can't
answer the question?

[Bob Casanova]

On Sun, 20 May 2018 21:38:18 -0500, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by RonO <roki...@cox.net>:

He's apparently been taking ideas from The Good DrDr's
playbook: Say nothing meaningful, and post irrelevant and
false attacks.

He even substituted a fake, and rather sick, quote for one
of your comments elsethread since he couldn't address the
question regarding the illusory "scientific theories" of ID.

[Glenn]

"Bob Casanova" <nos...@buzz.off> wrote in message news:6a06gddcik5do0l4m...@4ax.com...

> On Sun, 20 May 2018 14:39:07 -0700, the following appeared
> in talk.origins, posted by "Glenn" <g...@invalid.invalid>:
>
>>"Bob Casanova" <nos...@buzz.off> wrote in message news:ukc3gdptht9gm3lnk...@4ax.com...
>
>>> On Sat, 19 May 2018 14:28:00 -0700, the following appeared
>>> in talk.origins, posted by "Glenn" <g...@invalid.invalid>:
>
>>>>"RonO" <roki...@cox.net> wrote in message news:pdpo8e$qnq$1...@dont-email.me...
>
>>> <snip to the point>
>
> <Fake quote by Glenn replaced with the original:>
>
>>>>> ...there never was any IDiot scientific
>>>>> theories that Behe or Dembski had.
>
>>>>You're insane.
>
>>> Really? Please state the scientific theories propounded by
>>> Behe and/or Demski:
>
>>You're sick.
>
> So, no idea what those illusory "scientific theories" might
> be? No surprise; there aren't any.
>
> So, going to do more text replacement, since you can't
> answer the question?
> --

You're sick.

[Glenn]

"Bob Casanova" <nos...@buzz.off> wrote in message news:6n06gd5i2h8a9saot...@4ax.com...

That's insane.

[RonO]

Here it is reposted again so that you can snip and run again while
calling someone else insane. This is why the only IDiots left are the
ignorant, incompetent, and or dishonest.

Repost:
What are you doing by doing that? You know that you don't believe it
because nothing that I have written isn't the truth or even contested by
you, so why would I be the insane one? If you think that you do contest
something that I have written point it out instead of snipping it out
and running. Beats me what removing the material does to make it OK to
lie to yourself about it, but it seems to be common among the IDiots
that are left.

So just point out something that I have written that would make your
classification valid, and demonstrate that what I have written is insane
instead of the truth about reality that you can't deal with. It should
be easy, but you will likely just run again, just like the rest of your
posts in this thread.
END Repost:

Ron Okimoto

Ron Okimoto

[Glenn]

"RonO" <roki...@cox.net> wrote in message news:pdvkg9$e82$1...@dont-email.me...

Because you are insane.

[RonO]

Are all the IDiots left on TO just going to let ID die with a whimper?

Is snipping and running from reality all that you can think of to do?

Don't you think that this is just a little sad after all these years?

You have finally been given the "best" from the ID perps and what have
you done with it for the last half year?

Repost:

[Glenn]

"RonO" <roki...@cox.net> wrote in message news:pdvsir$4if$1...@dont-email.me...

You're insane.

[RonO]

Snipping and running is whimpering. What do you think that it is? Is
this really all that IDiocy is going to be on TO from now on?

REPOST of REPOST:

Are all the IDiots left on TO just going to let ID die with a whimper?

Is snipping and running from reality all that you can think of to do?

Don't you think that this is just a little sad after all these years?

You have finally been given the "best" from the ID perps and what have
you done with it for the last half year?

Repost:

[Glenn]

"RonO" <roki...@cox.net> wrote in message news:pe00sc$mpk$1...@dont-email.me...

Jumping and gagging is slapping. You're insane.

[RonO]

REPOST the REPOST for the snipper and runner.

Snipping and running is whimpering. What do you think that it is? Is
this really all that IDiocy is going to be on TO from now on?

REPOST of REPOST:

Are all the IDiots left on TO just going to let ID die with a whimper?

Is snipping and running from reality all that you can think of to do?

Don't you think that this is just a little sad after all these years?

You have finally been given the "best" from the ID perps and what have
you done with it for the last half year?

Repost:

What are you doing by doing that? You know that you don't believe it
because nothing that I have written isn't the truth or even contested by
you, so why would I be the insane one? If you think that you do contest
something that I have written point it out instead of snipping it out
and running. Beats me what removing the material does to make it OK to
lie to yourself about it, but it seems to be common among the IDiots
that are left.

So just point out something that I have written that would make your
classification valid, and demonstrate that what I have written is insane
instead of the truth about reality that you can't deal with. It should
be easy, but you will likely just run again, just like the rest of your
posts in this thread.
END Repost:

END REPOST of REPOST:

Ron Okimoto

[Glenn]

"RonO" <roki...@cox.net> wrote in message news:pe073q$ib5$1...@dont-email.me...

You really are insane.

[Mark Isaak]

[...]

>>>>>>> Repost:
>>>>>>> What are you doing by doing that?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Because you are insane.
>>>>>
>>>>> Are all the IDiots left on TO just going to let ID die with a whimper?
>>>>>
>>>> You're insane.
>>>
>>> Snipping and running is whimpering.
>>
>> Jumping and gagging is slapping. You're insane.
>
> REPOST the REPOST for the snipper and runner.
> Snipping and running is whimpering.  What do you think that it is?  Is
> this really all that IDiocy is going to be on TO from now on?

> [...]

For once, I agree with Glenn. A popular definition of insanity is doing
the same thing over and over and expecting different results. Every
time Glenn troll, RonO bites. That fits the definition.

Glenn, on the other hand, is not insane by that definition, since he
expects exactly the response he gets. His problem is much, much worse.

--
Mark Isaak eciton (at) curioustaxonomy (dot) net
"I think if we ever reach the point where we think we thoroughly
understand who we are and where we come from, we will have failed."
- Carl Sagan

[Bob Casanova]

On Mon, 21 May 2018 13:06:18 -0700, the following appeared

in talk.origins, posted by "Glenn" <g...@invalid.invalid>:

>
>"Bob Casanova" <nos...@buzz.off> wrote in message news:6a06gddcik5do0l4m...@4ax.com...
>> On Sun, 20 May 2018 14:39:07 -0700, the following appeared
>> in talk.origins, posted by "Glenn" <g...@invalid.invalid>:
>>
>>>"Bob Casanova" <nos...@buzz.off> wrote in message news:ukc3gdptht9gm3lnk...@4ax.com...
>>
>>>> On Sat, 19 May 2018 14:28:00 -0700, the following appeared
>>>> in talk.origins, posted by "Glenn" <g...@invalid.invalid>:
>>
>>>>>"RonO" <roki...@cox.net> wrote in message news:pdpo8e$qnq$1...@dont-email.me...
>>
>>>> <snip to the point>
>>
>> <Fake quote by Glenn replaced with the original:>
>>
>>>>>> ...there never was any IDiot scientific
>>>>>> theories that Behe or Dembski had.
>>
>>>>>You're insane.
>>
>>>> Really? Please state the scientific theories propounded by
>>>> Behe and/or Demski:
>>
>>>You're sick.
>>
>> So, no idea what those illusory "scientific theories" might
>> be? No surprise; there aren't any.
>>
>> So, going to do more text replacement, since you can't
>> answer the question?

>You're sick.

You've improved; at least you didn't substitute sick fake
quotes this time. Congratulations.

So, still no idea what those illusory "scientific theories"
might be? OK.

[Bob Casanova]

On Tue, 22 May 2018 08:10:57 -0700, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by Mark Isaak
<eciton@curiousta/xyz/xonomy.net>:

Y'know, those are both valid points. Matbe it's time to stop
enabling him...

[Bob Casanova]

On Mon, 21 May 2018 13:06:59 -0700, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by "Glenn" <g...@invalid.invalid>:

>That's insane.

I agree; perhaps you should seek professional help.

[Glenn]

"Mark Isaak" <eciton@curiousta/xyz/xonomy.net> wrote in message news:pe1btt$c93$1...@dont-email.me...

You're an idiot.

[Glenn]

"Bob Casanova" <nos...@buzz.off> wrote in message news:53l8gd9e3vamfn6qj...@4ax.com...

Or you.

[Earle Jones]

On 2018-05-22 12:56:52 +0000, Glenn said:

[... big clip...]

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> That's insane.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Glenn, can you even describe what you are doing.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> I'm telling you that you are insane.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> What are you doing by doing that?
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> By doing that that I am doing.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Glenn, do you understand that the material that you have snipped out and
>>>>>>>>>> run from still exists one post up in the thread?
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> I'll repost it to remind you of what you are doing.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I don't need to be reminded. You are insane.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Here it is reposted again so that you can snip and run again while
>>>>>>>> calling someone else insane. This is why the only IDiots left are the
>>>>>>>> ignorant, incompetent, and or dishonest.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Repost:
>>>>>>>> What are you doing by doing that?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Because you are insane.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Are all the IDiots left on TO just going to let ID die with a whimper?
>>>>>>
>>>>> You're insane.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Snipping and running is whimpering.
>>>
>>> Jumping and gagging is slapping. You're insane.
>>
>> REPOST the REPOST for the snipper and runner.
>> Snipping and running is whimpering. What do you think that it is?
>
> You really are insane.

*
As I recall from ten or more years ago, Glenn Sheldon was a relatively
coherent poster, sometimes offering opinion that, although I generally
did not agree with them, were at least readable and, I think,
representing his ideas honestly.

Glenn, what happened? Are you all right?

Lately all you do is the one-sentence fly-by potshot. Do you not have
anything to say any more?

Cheers!

earle
*

[Glenn]

"Earle Jones" <earle...@comcast.net> wrote in message news:2018052211475117721-earlejones@comcastnet...

Oh, Hey, good Buddy!

[RonO]

REPOST the REPOST of the REPOST for Glenn the snipper and runner. Why
do IDiots have to remove what the are running from? It still exists one
post up in the thread.

REPOST the REPOST for the snipper and runner.

Snipping and running is whimpering. What do you think that it is? Is
this really all that IDiocy is going to be on TO from now on?

REPOST of REPOST:

Are all the IDiots left on TO just going to let ID die with a whimper?

Is snipping and running from reality all that you can think of to do?

Don't you think that this is just a little sad after all these years?

You have finally been given the "best" from the ID perps and what have
you done with it for the last half year?

Repost:

What are you doing by doing that? You know that you don't believe it
because nothing that I have written isn't the truth or even contested by
you, so why would I be the insane one? If you think that you do contest
something that I have written point it out instead of snipping it out
and running. Beats me what removing the material does to make it OK to
lie to yourself about it, but it seems to be common among the IDiots
that are left.

So just point out something that I have written that would make your
classification valid, and demonstrate that what I have written is insane
instead of the truth about reality that you can't deal with. It should
be easy, but you will likely just run again, just like the rest of your
posts in this thread.
END Repost:
END REPOST of REPOST:

END REPOST of REPOST of the REPOST:

Some people just can't deal with reality.

Ron Okimoto

[RonO]

Glenn Sheldon was a normal anti evolution creationist poster when he
first started on TO. IDiocy came later for him. Glenn even started
with his own take on the standard creationist arguments. I even
encouraged him and supported some of his early efforts because he was
unique among the creationist posters of the time in terms of trying to
produce a reasonable argument.

The ID scam unit at the Discovery Institute had already existed for
several years when Glenn started posting, but the ID creationist scam
hadn't been noticed by most of the creationists of the time. Later
Nyikos was one of the first IDiots on TO to take up IDiocy, but Nyikos
had his hiatus from TO at the turn of the century and missed the bait
and switch run on the IDiot rubes in 2002 and IDiot loss in Dover in
2005. Nyikos still supported the creationist ID scam when he returned
in 2010, and even claimed that the ID perps hadn't been involved in
running the bait and switch on the creationist rubes since 2002. He has
run from being wrong about that for the last 8 years, but he still
supported the IDiocy for some stupid reason known only to him and his
fellow IDiots.

So Glenn was late to the ID scam, but doesn't seem to know when to quit
like he quit his plain vanilla anti evolution claims in favor of the ID
creationist scam.

Ron Okimoto

[RonO]

What do you think that I am doing by pointing out what Glenn keeps
doing. He is the one that claims that someone else is insane, but he
keeps doing his snipping and running. I am the one that is using that
old adage. What do you not get? Do you really believe that I don't
know that old adage? What does Glenn keep doing? Isn't that insane?

Ron Okimoto

[Glenn]

"RonO" <roki...@cox.net> wrote in message news:pe272q$ap8$1...@dont-email.me...

You really are insane.

[RonO]

REPOST et al.: Reality isn't going to change by snipping and running.
What you are running from still exists after you remove it from your
posts. If you do not understand that, who is the insane one?

REPOST the REPOST of the REPOST for Glenn the snipper and runner. Why

do IDiots have to remove what the are running from? It still exists one
post up in the thread.

REPOST the REPOST for the snipper and runner.

Snipping and running is whimpering. What do you think that it is? Is
this really all that IDiocy is going to be on TO from now on?

REPOST of REPOST:

Are all the IDiots left on TO just going to let ID die with a whimper?

Is snipping and running from reality all that you can think of to do?

Don't you think that this is just a little sad after all these years?

You have finally been given the "best" from the ID perps and what have
you done with it for the last half year?

Repost:

What are you doing by doing that? You know that you don't believe it
because nothing that I have written isn't the truth or even contested by
you, so why would I be the insane one? If you think that you do contest
something that I have written point it out instead of snipping it out
and running. Beats me what removing the material does to make it OK to
lie to yourself about it, but it seems to be common among the IDiots
that are left.

So just point out something that I have written that would make your
classification valid, and demonstrate that what I have written is insane
instead of the truth about reality that you can't deal with. It should
be easy, but you will likely just run again, just like the rest of your
posts in this thread.
END Repost:
END REPOST of REPOST:
END REPOST of REPOST of the REPOST:

Some people just can't deal with reality.

END REPOST et al.

Ron Okimoto

[Glenn]

"RonO" <roki...@cox.net> wrote in message news:pe2eie$im0$1...@dont-email.me...

You're insane.

[RonO]

REPOST et al et al: You know what is really sad, you couldn't even leave
the initial comment and had to snip it out too before you could run.
This likely means that you aren't insane, just utterly dishonest.

REPOST et al.: Reality isn't going to change by snipping and running.
What you are running from still exists after you remove it from your
posts. If you do not understand that, who is the insane one?

REPOST the REPOST of the REPOST for Glenn the snipper and runner. Why

do IDiots have to remove what the are running from? It still exists one
post up in the thread.

REPOST the REPOST for the snipper and runner.

Snipping and running is whimpering. What do you think that it is? Is
this really all that IDiocy is going to be on TO from now on?

REPOST of REPOST:

Are all the IDiots left on TO just going to let ID die with a whimper?

Is snipping and running from reality all that you can think of to do?

Don't you think that this is just a little sad after all these years?

You have finally been given the "best" from the ID perps and what have
you done with it for the last half year?

Repost:

What are you doing by doing that? You know that you don't believe it
because nothing that I have written isn't the truth or even contested by
you, so why would I be the insane one? If you think that you do contest
something that I have written point it out instead of snipping it out
and running. Beats me what removing the material does to make it OK to
lie to yourself about it, but it seems to be common among the IDiots
that are left.

So just point out something that I have written that would make your
classification valid, and demonstrate that what I have written is insane
instead of the truth about reality that you can't deal with. It should
be easy, but you will likely just run again, just like the rest of your
posts in this thread.
END Repost:
END REPOST of REPOST:
END REPOST of REPOST of the REPOST:

Some people just can't deal with reality.
END REPOST et al.

END REPOST et al et al:

Ron Okimoto

[Glenn]

"RonO" <roki...@cox.net> wrote in message news:pe2grm$rt6$2...@dont-email.me...

You're really insane, Ron.

[RonO]

Poor Glenn, can't cope with even the first line any longer.

REPOST et al et al et al: Just snip and run again in denial, realty
doesn't change.

REPOST et al et al: You know what is really sad, you couldn't even leave
the initial comment and had to snip it out too before you could run.
This likely means that you aren't insane, just utterly dishonest.

REPOST et al.: Reality isn't going to change by snipping and running.
What you are running from still exists after you remove it from your
posts. If you do not understand that, who is the insane one?

REPOST the REPOST of the REPOST for Glenn the snipper and runner. Why

do IDiots have to remove what the are running from? It still exists one
post up in the thread.

REPOST the REPOST for the snipper and runner.

Snipping and running is whimpering. What do you think that it is? Is
this really all that IDiocy is going to be on TO from now on?

REPOST of REPOST:

Are all the IDiots left on TO just going to let ID die with a whimper?

Is snipping and running from reality all that you can think of to do?

Don't you think that this is just a little sad after all these years?

You have finally been given the "best" from the ID perps and what have
you done with it for the last half year?

Repost:

What are you doing by doing that? You know that you don't believe it
because nothing that I have written isn't the truth or even contested by
you, so why would I be the insane one? If you think that you do contest
something that I have written point it out instead of snipping it out
and running. Beats me what removing the material does to make it OK to
lie to yourself about it, but it seems to be common among the IDiots
that are left.

So just point out something that I have written that would make your
classification valid, and demonstrate that what I have written is insane
instead of the truth about reality that you can't deal with. It should
be easy, but you will likely just run again, just like the rest of your
posts in this thread.
END Repost:
END REPOST of REPOST:
END REPOST of REPOST of the REPOST:

Some people just can't deal with reality.
END REPOST et al.

END REPOST et al et al:
END REPOST et al et al et al:

Ron Okimoto

[Glenn]

"RonO" <roki...@cox.net> wrote in message news:pe3h2c$4kq$1...@dont-email.me...

Really? Ron, you are insane.
-

[Mark Isaak]

Wasting your time. Nothing more.

> He is the one that claims that someone else is insane, but he
> keeps doing his snipping and running.  I am the one that is using that
> old adage.  What do you not get?  Do you really believe that I don't
> know that old adage?  What does Glenn keep doing?  Isn't that insane?

I don't know what Glenn's motive is, but if it is to get you to waste
time that you could more productively spend elsewhere, he is masterful.
You've got to know that Glenn does not care, and probably does not even
read, how you respond, and that everyone else can see for themselves
that Glenn is vacuous at best. So why let him control a significant
chunk of your life?

[Ron Dean]

On 5/19/2018 1:01 PM, jonathan wrote:

> On 5/18/2018 2:23 PM, T Pagano wrote:
>
>> On Mon, 14 May 2018 15:49:58 -0400, jillery wrote:
>>
>>> On Sun, 13 May 2018 16:24:41 GMT, T Pagano <notmya...@dot.com> wrote:
>>>
>
>>
>
>>

>> 4.  You fail to recognize that Behe's theory (Irreducible Complexity) and
>> Dembski's theory (Complex Specified Information) do NOT presuppose either
>> supernaturalism or materialism.
>>
>
>
>
> But what you fail to grasp is those early ideas have
> been overtaken by the /modern/ concept of emergence.
>
> This in no way diminishes the idea of Intelligent Design
> but it redefines it in a rational way entirely consistent
> with the properties of nature, while also redefining
> the concept of evolution itself.
>
> You're not up to date.
>
> The well developed concept of emergence recently
> described below, not the early form you're citing,
> shows that the intelligence and design comes naturally
> from within the evolving system. It self organizes.
>
> The intelligence is born of the emergent properties
> of collective interactions, each at it's own scale
> and complexity. And the design flows from that
> intelligence as entities eventually evolve the
> ability to 'act on their own behalf'. Which allows
> the life to help decide or design it's own future.
>
> For instance in reproductive choices, etc.
>
> Nothing supernatural or irrational about the concept
> of intelligent design, but only once one understands
> how such emergent properties come to be, how they
> self organize.
>
> And only the following text describes how this can
> and does happen. If you're not versed in the following
> then evolution and nature itself will remain mostly a
> a mystery.
>
> This concept is the 'missing link' between science and
> religion, between Darwin and self organization.
>
> The folks in this ng are incapable of grasping the
> concepts below, and even if they were capable refuse
> to learn them, as their arrogance won't let them
> believe objective science can't have all the answers.
>
A primary reason most folks cannot understand intelligent
design is due to the fact that they identify and integrate ID
with "scientific" creationism. But these schools of thought
are not the same. There is an important reason to link the
two together. It's simply because critics of ID believe it's
easier to discredit creationism rather than actually deal
with the content of intelligent design. Or as:"University of Wisconsin
historian of science Ronald Numbers is critical of intelligent design,
yet according to the Associated Press, he 'agrees the creationist label
is inaccurate when it comes to the ID [intelligent design] movement.'
Why, then, do some Darwinists keep trying to conflate intelligent design
with creationism? According to Dr. Numbers, it is because they think
such claims are "the easiest way to discredit intelligent design." In
other words, the charge that intelligent design is "creationism" is a
rhetorical strategy on the part of Darwinists who wish to delegitimize
design theory without actually addressing the merits of its case".
>
> Can you?
>
>
> Types and Forms of Emergence
>
> http://old-classes.design4complexity.com/7701-S14/reading/critical-thinking/Types-and-Forms-of-Emergence.pdf
>
>
>
>
>
> s
>

[Ron Dean]

Or as according to Dr. Ronald Numbers, who much better than I
could state:

"the charge that intelligent design is "creationism" is a rhetorical
strategy on the part of Darwinists who wish to delegitimize design
theory without actually addressing the merits of its case".

The complete quite:

"University of Wisconsin historian of science Ronald Numbers is critical
of intelligent design, yet according to the Associated Press, he 'agrees
the creationist label is inaccurate when it comes to the ID [intelligent
design] movement.' Why, then, do some Darwinists keep trying to conflate
intelligent design with creationism? According to Dr. Numbers, it is
because they think such claims are "the easiest way to discredit
intelligent design." In other words, the charge that intelligent design
is "creationism" is a rhetorical strategy on the part of Darwinists who
wish to delegitimize design theory without actually addressing the
merits of its case".

>

www.intelligentdesign.org/whatisid.php

[Bill Rogers]

There is indeed an important reason to link the two ideas together....The founders of the Intelligent Design Movement were quite candid that their aim was to overthrow scientific materialism and open up a space for theism. It's right there in their founding documents (e.g. "The Wedge.")

http://www.antievolution.org/features/wedge.pdf

[Mark Isaak]

That's what the people who *do* understand intelligent design do. In
fact, it's what the people who *created* intelligent design did.

> [...] > It's simply because critics of ID believe it's

> easier to discredit creationism rather than actually deal
> with the content of intelligent design.

There is no content of intelligent design, at least, none that has the
least bit of validity. There is only the abject bogosity from Behe and
Dembski, and the age-old (literally) "it sure looks designed to me"
regardless of what it looks like.

[RonO]

You are the one that snipped it out and ran.
REPOST et al et al et al et al:

Poor Glenn, can't cope with even the first line any longer.

REPOST et al et al et al: Just snip and run again in denial, realty
doesn't change.

REPOST et al et al: You know what is really sad, you couldn't even leave
the initial comment and had to snip it out too before you could run.
This likely means that you aren't insane, just utterly dishonest.

REPOST et al.: Reality isn't going to change by snipping and running.
What you are running from still exists after you remove it from your
posts. If you do not understand that, who is the insane one?

REPOST the REPOST of the REPOST for Glenn the snipper and runner. Why

do IDiots have to remove what the are running from? It still exists one
post up in the thread.

REPOST the REPOST for the snipper and runner.

Snipping and running is whimpering. What do you think that it is? Is
this really all that IDiocy is going to be on TO from now on?

REPOST of REPOST:

Are all the IDiots left on TO just going to let ID die with a whimper?

Is snipping and running from reality all that you can think of to do?

Don't you think that this is just a little sad after all these years?

You have finally been given the "best" from the ID perps and what have
you done with it for the last half year?

Repost:

What are you doing by doing that? You know that you don't believe it
because nothing that I have written isn't the truth or even contested by
you, so why would I be the insane one? If you think that you do contest
something that I have written point it out instead of snipping it out
and running. Beats me what removing the material does to make it OK to
lie to yourself about it, but it seems to be common among the IDiots
that are left.

So just point out something that I have written that would make your
classification valid, and demonstrate that what I have written is insane
instead of the truth about reality that you can't deal with. It should
be easy, but you will likely just run again, just like the rest of your
posts in this thread.
END Repost:
END REPOST of REPOST:
END REPOST of REPOST of the REPOST:

Some people just can't deal with reality.
END REPOST et al.

END REPOST et al et al:
END REPOST et al et al et al:
END REPOST et al et al et al et al:

Ron Okimoto

[RonO]

Well, now you know my motive, so what is your beef? Nothing else is
happening except the IDiots are running away from reality. Glenn, just
wants to keep pointing out what all of them are doing, and I am going to
let him for as long as he wants to do it.

I know you'd have to still think that IDiots could reason, but what do
you think that Kalk, Nyikos, Dean and Bill think about Glenn's running
in denial? It likely just reminds them of what they are doing.

Ron Okimoto

[Glenn]

"RonO" <roki...@cox.net> wrote in message news:pe4rtn$gnc$2...@dont-email.me...

You're insane.

[jillery]

On Wed, 23 May 2018 12:23:27 -0400, Ron Dean <"R. Dean"@gmail.com>
wrote:

[...]

>A primary reason most folks cannot understand intelligent
>design is due to the fact that they identify and integrate ID
>with "scientific" creationism. But these schools of thought
>are not the same. There is an important reason to link the
>two together. It's simply because critics of ID believe it's
>easier to discredit creationism rather than actually deal
>with the content of intelligent design. Or as:"University of Wisconsin
>historian of science Ronald Numbers is critical of intelligent design,
>yet according to the Associated Press, he 'agrees the creationist label
>is inaccurate when it comes to the ID [intelligent design] movement.'
>Why, then, do some Darwinists keep trying to conflate intelligent design
>with creationism? According to Dr. Numbers, it is because they think
>such claims are "the easiest way to discredit intelligent design." In
>other words, the charge that intelligent design is "creationism" is a
>rhetorical strategy on the part of Darwinists who wish to delegitimize
>design theory without actually addressing the merits of its case".

My understanding is most proponentists try to separate ID from
Creationism as a legal tactic, in order to work around the SCOTUS
exclusion of teaching religious doctrines in public schools, as
described in the Wedge Document:

<https://ncse.com/creationism/general/wedge-document>

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

Evelyn Beatrice Hall
Attributed to Voltaire

[jillery]

On Wed, 23 May 2018 08:15:36 -0700, Mark Isaak
<eciton@curiousta/xyz/xonomy.net> wrote:

[...]

>>> For once, I agree with Glenn.  A popular definition of insanity is
>>> doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results.
>>> Every time Glenn troll, RonO bites.  That fits the definition.
>>
>> What do you think that I am doing by pointing out what Glenn keeps
>> doing.
>
>Wasting your time. Nothing more.
>
>> He is the one that claims that someone else is insane, but he
>> keeps doing his snipping and running.  I am the one that is using that
>> old adage.  What do you not get?  Do you really believe that I don't
>> know that old adage?  What does Glenn keep doing?  Isn't that insane?
>
>I don't know what Glenn's motive is, but if it is to get you to waste
>time that you could more productively spend elsewhere, he is masterful.
>You've got to know that Glenn does not care, and probably does not even
>read, how you respond, and that everyone else can see for themselves
>that Glenn is vacuous at best. So why let him control a significant
>chunk of your life?

Of course, how people choose to waste their time is entirely up to
them, even assuming they think they're wasting their time. As for who
is controlling whom, that's also a matter of opinion. Your entitled
to your opinions, but they don't really matter to the participants'
behavior.

More to the point, if the original expressed purpose of T.O. still has
any relevance, anybody posting here is wasting their time, including
you. Based on that, it's not a matter of wasting time as much as
one's personal timewasting preferences. For me, posting to T.O. beats
collecting bellybutton lint. YMMV.

[RonO]

Poor Glenn, can you read a message in the material that you have left
behind in your snipping and running efforts?

Nothing has changed in the last few days

REPOST et al et al et al et al:

Poor Glenn, can't cope with even the first line any longer.

REPOST et al et al et al: Just snip and run again in denial, realty
doesn't change.

REPOST et al et al: You know what is really sad, you couldn't even leave
the initial comment and had to snip it out too before you could run.
This likely means that you aren't insane, just utterly dishonest.

REPOST et al.: Reality isn't going to change by snipping and running.
What you are running from still exists after you remove it from your
posts. If you do not understand that, who is the insane one?

REPOST the REPOST of the REPOST for Glenn the snipper and runner. Why

do IDiots have to remove what the are running from? It still exists one
post up in the thread.

REPOST the REPOST for the snipper and runner.

Snipping and running is whimpering. What do you think that it is? Is
this really all that IDiocy is going to be on TO from now on?

REPOST of REPOST:

Are all the IDiots left on TO just going to let ID die with a whimper?

Is snipping and running from reality all that you can think of to do?

Don't you think that this is just a little sad after all these years?

You have finally been given the "best" from the ID perps and what have
you done with it for the last half year?

Repost:

[Ron Dean]

What happened to the quote from Dr. Ronald Numbers? He confirmed
what I wrote.

>
>> [...] > It's simply because critics of ID believe it's
>> easier to discredit creationism rather than actually deal
>> with the content of intelligent design.
>
> There is no content of intelligent design, at least, none that has the
> least bit of validity.  There is only the abject bogosity from Behe and
> Dembski, and the age-old (literally) "it sure looks designed to me"
> regardless of what it looks like.
>

Of course, that's your opinion. But Dawkins comments "it appears to be
designed". If it appears designed who is to say it's not designed?
And why?

[Mark Isaak]

It's what you wanted me to do. At least, I assume as much because it is
exactly what you do with the multitude of posts by ID proponents saying
that the purpose of ID is to promote God.

>>> [...] > It's simply because critics of ID believe it's
>>> easier to discredit creationism rather than actually deal
>>> with the content of intelligent design.
>>
>> There is no content of intelligent design, at least, none that has the
>> least bit of validity.  There is only the abject bogosity from Behe
>> and Dembski, and the age-old (literally) "it sure looks designed to
>> me" regardless of what it looks like.
>>
> Of course, that's your opinion. But Dawkins comments "it appears to be
> designed". If it appears designed who is to say it's not designed?
> And why?

Because "looks designed" and "looks evolved" are practically the same
thing. Evolution is a designer. It goes through most of the same
motions that intelligent designers go through. In fact, in many
respects, evolution designs better than intelligent designers do.

May I remind you that you yourself cannot provided an iota of evidence
in favor of intelligent design.

[jonathan]

Right, instead of talking about the idea itself, they'd
rather just find issues with the messenger.

It's as if someone claimed God were some wise old man
out there that can create a planet with the wink of
an eye. Like what is taught to children.

They criticize that simplistic version of God as if
that would discredit the entire concept. It does not.

Instead of trying to build a rational definition of God
or explore if the idea of intelligent design has merit
they simply point to a mistake and walk away.

Intelligence is a collective or emergent property.
So is design. Natural systems evolve those capabilities
through the process of self organization.

Natural systems create their own internal intelligence
which help guide their own future evolutionary paths
or...design.

And just as important is such emergent capabilities
ALSO have the quality of being mysterious from
an...objective...perspective.

The truth is this, Creation or even the generalized
theory of speciation would have the quality that
the ultimate starting point, or 'first-cause' would
define the point where objective methods of observing
are at their most futile possible.

Or, from an...objective...frame of reference Creation
is the one point that's the most invisible and mysterious
possible.

Someday these reductionists will realize that fact.

That as one reduces and reduces, organization also
reduces and reduces so that the first cause is
utter chaos or randomness, essentially nothing
at all. Like a cloud of interstellar gas and dust
or that infamous primordial soup.

And yet these reductionists obsessively look for
what came first...fossils...fossils...fossils
without realizing this defines the concept
of scientific folly for the reasons above.

They search obsessively for 'nothing at all'.

I mean, it's like watching cave-men bashing
everything into little-bitty pieces and
then scratch their heads wondering why
the secrets to nature didn't just roll out
onto the ground for them to pick up.

This is scientific reality we live in today
the Dark Ages. But there is a new way and
it's so simple, just expand to ever greater
emergent wholes instead of reducing to ever
smaller or older parts.

And at the end of that journey is where science
and religion, at long last, become one in the same.

I can't urge enough to read the essay below and
study it, once the concept takes hold nothing
in the universe will ever look the same again.

It'll all make complete sense.

Types and Forms of Emergence

http://old-classes.design4complexity.com/7701-S14/reading/critical-thinking/Types-and-Forms-of-Emergence.pdf




s









> >
>> Can you?
>>
>>
>> Types and Forms of Emergence
>>
>> http://old-classes.design4complexity.com/7701-S14/reading/critical-thinking/Types-and-Forms-of-Emergence.pdf
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> s
>>
>

--

[jillery]

On Thu, 24 May 2018 10:56:17 -0400, Ron Dean <"R. Dean"@gmail.com>
wrote:

Since you asked, Dawkins is to say it's not designed.


>And why?


Since you asked, because Dawkins understands that the appearance of
design does not make it designed.

You're welcome.

[Oxyaena]

On 5/18/2018 2:23 PM, T Pagano wrote:
> On Mon, 14 May 2018 15:49:58 -0400, jillery wrote:
>
>> On Sun, 13 May 2018 16:24:41 GMT, T Pagano <notmya...@dot.com> wrote:
>>

>>> On Fri, 11 May 2018 13:08:44 -0400, jillery wrote:
>>>

>>>> On Fri, 11 May 2018 12:31:17 GMT, T Pagano <notmya...@dot.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On Thu, 10 May 2018 19:14:02 -0500, Freon96 wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> **SUMMARY OF JILLERY'S INCONSISTENT,INVALID,BAD ARGUMENTS ABOUT ID***
>>>
>>> 1. Jillery never demonstrates that she has a basic understanding of any
>>> of the modern ID Theories currently offered. She inappropriately
>>> conflates a few different modern ID theories into one (IC, CSI, fine
>>> tuning). She incorrectly argues that ID Theories, in general, are
>>> affirmative recognitions of an intelligent agent instead of what they
>>> are-----eliminating material causes as sufficient leaving intelligent
>>> agency as the only possibility.
>>
>>
>> Of course, you're entitled to your own opinions, but not to your own
>> facts. Jillery's entirely and appropriately responded to your
>> conflation, as illustrated by your comments in your "give and take"
>> section below.
>
> 1. You never demonstrate (anywhere) that you are aware of the premises
> or conclusions of Behe's or Dembski's theories. And you never
> demonstrate that you understand purpose or the limits of those theories.

The premises of Behe's bullshit, er, I mean, "theories" (even though
they aren't actual theories) go like this, certain structures in biology
are too complex to have evolved, therefore God, I mean, a "designer"
designed them. This is simply an argument from incredulity as well as an
argument from ignorance, just because you don't know how something
evolved or you don't believe something evolved doesn't mean it didn't
actually evolve in the first place.

One of Behe's favorite examples to use as "proof" of IC (IC shorthand
for "irreducible complexity") was the bacterial flagellum, which he
claims was such a complex structure that it couldn't possibly have
evolved. Except it did, and we know how it evolved as well. In certain
bacteria they possess the same proteins as the base of the bacterial
flagellum even without having flagella in the first place, these
proteins *are* the base of the bacterial flagellum, but are used for a
different purpose, to drill into flesh, certain pathogens possess them.
Therefore we can see examples of parts of a flagellum in other
structures despite what Behe's notions entail.

Behe thinks that a structure will fall apart without its base
components, but we found a structure comprised of the same proteins as
the base of the flagellum that works just fine, clearly someone is wrong
here, and it ain't us.


>
> 2. Virtually all of your discussions about modern ID Theory in this
> forum falsely and incorrectly assert that the existence of a supernatural
> designer is a foundational assumption. You have not produced a single
> quote from Behe or Dembski or from their works which supports such a
> claim. I can only assume that you simply don't care about criticizing
> their theories but prefer to criticize a strawman.


"If we take seriously the word-flesh Christology of Chalcedon (i.e., the
doctrine that Christ is fully human and fully divine) and view Christ as
the telos toward which God is drawing the whole of creation, then any
view of the sciences that leaves Christ out of the picture must be seen
as fundamentally deficient." - William Dembski, Intelligent design: the
bridge between science & theology. Downers Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity
Press. 1999. LCC BL240.2.D46 1999. ISBN 9780830823147.


>
> 3. You assert that modern science presupposes the sufficiency of
> material causation, but you fail to recognize that such a presupposition
> is a metaphysical claim "about" nature and not itself a scientific claim.
> In other words modern science is guilty of the same malady as you falsely
> accuse ID Theory----presuming metaphysical positions.

That is complete and utter horseshit, science doesn't "presume"
anything, methodological naturalism isn't a "presupposition", it's a
form of methodology, science can only deal with the tangible, the
physical, the natural. Anything that is paranormal or supernatural is
outside the purview of science specifically because it is not physical
in nature, science doesn't say whether there's a god or not because it
can't make that claim, science is agnostic on matters of the
supernatural. Methodological naturalism is not metaphysical naturalism,
there is a difference, a HUGE difference that you blatantly ignore and
lie about.

Methodological naturalism only states that science can only deal with
the natural, which excludes everything supernatural, since things of a
supernatural nature fall outside of the purview of science as I stated
above. Metaphysical naturalism states that there are no supernatural or
paranormal entities, and everything is physical in nature.
Methodological naturalism says no such thing.

>
> 4. You fail to recognize that Behe's theory (Irreducible Complexity) and
> Dembski's theory (Complex Specified Information) do NOT presuppose either
> supernaturalism or materialism.

This is both wrong AND redundant, as you made this same "point" in
number 2 of your fallacious list of creationist misunderstandings about
science, of which all I had to do was pull out a quote by Dembski
stating the exact opposite of what you are claiming.


>
> 5. You consistently fail to recognize the difference between the
> conclusion of a theory (derived from its internal premises) and the
> implications of the conclusion (derived from external premises).


Irrelevant, what the hell does this have to do with whether ID is
science or not?

>
> (a) Darwin concluded from his theory that his material mechanism
> explained the origin of biological design (from internal premises). The
> implication of this conclusion (from external premises) is that a
> supernatural designer was either unnecessary or non existent.


No shit, but that doesn't mean a goddamn thing when it comes to science,
the personal beliefs of a scientist don't mean anything to the science
he is researching, they are irrelevant, science is an apolitical and
agnostic field, evolution doesn't say if there's a god or note, atheism
does, and atheism IS NOT science.


>
> (b) Behe concluded (applying the internal premises of his own
> theory) that the bacterial flagellum was not explainable by material
> processes. Behe's theory goes NO further than this conclusion (using
> internal premises). The implication of this conclusion is that an
> intelligent agent (possibly a supernatural one) must be the cause.
> However this implication comes as a result of premises external to his
> theory.


Irrelevant and wrong at the same fucking time. Read my response to point
number 1 of your fallacious list of creationist misunderstandings about
science.


>
> 6. You easily separate Darwin's conclusion from its implications by
> arguing that Darwin's conclusion was scientifically indisputable. This
> simply isn't true:


See above.



>
> (a) Darwin, in fact, admitted in "Origin of Species" that the
> fossil record disconfirmed his theory (and that the fossil record still
> disconfirms his theory). Punc Eq and Evo-Devo sprouted up especially
> because Darwin's theory is NOT self evidently true.


Darwin also says that the fossil record was also notoriously incomplete,
and nowhere does he say that the fossil record disproves evolution. In
fact, the fossil record was one of the first strong evidence for
evolution, with the discovery of *Archaeopteryx* just two years after
the publication of the *Origin*.

Perhaps a simple reading of http://talkorigins.org/ will do wonders for
your brain, since you seem to lack a brain otherwise.



>
>
>
> more to follow as time permits
>
>
>


--
"Biology only makes sense in the light of evolution." - Theodosius
Dobzhansky

[Ron Dean]

He never, says it's not designed. I agree, in his assessment he called
it "apparent" meaning not real.

>
>> And why?
>
>
> Since you asked, because Dawkins understands that the appearance of
> design does not make it designed.
>

But he's a hardcore atheist, so why expect
anything different from an atheist?

[Glenn]

"Ron Dean" <"R. Dean"@gmail.com> wrote in message news:Ta2PC.114511$oR2....@fx25.iad...

What answer to this would you expect from atheists?

[jillery]

On Mon, 28 May 2018 21:38:58 -0400, Ron Dean <"R. Dean"@gmail.com>

>> You're welcome.

>
>But he's a hardcore atheist, so why expect
> anything different from an atheist?

You say above that Dawkins doesn't say it's not designed. But that's
what you don't say. So according to you, that makes you a hardcore
atheist too.

Of course, based on your posts, you're not any kind of atheist.
Instead, you're a hardcore proponentist. So using your reasoning, why
expect anything different from you?

See the problem? Your asinine assertions are sooo easy to turn back
on you.

OTOH Dawkins does say apparent design is not designed:

<https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cO1a1Ek-HD0>

From the transcript:
************************************
We get used to the idea that evolution is so good at producing
beautiful elegant animals that look as though they're being designed.
We forget that sometimes they're not perfect and there are
imperfections. And the imperfections are very revealing because
they're exactly the kind of imperfections you'd expect from the
accidents of history if there were no designer.
**************************************

Of course, I know you know this, because this has been pointed out to
you many times. Not sure why you keep raising the same PRATTs. They
are just as stupid now as when they were first asked.

[Ron Dean]

No, if anything it would make me a dedicated believer.

> Of course, based on your posts, you're not any kind of atheist.
> Instead, you're a hardcore proponentist. So using your reasoning, why
> expect anything different from you?
>

The only time I get to voice my views is on this NG. I'm no crusader,
so I what I'm trying to do is defend my views against what I consider
unjustified critiques.

[jillery]

On Tue, 29 May 2018 22:55:40 -0400, Ron Dean <"R. Dean"@gmail.com>

Then make up your mind. Either what Dawkins doesn't say can only not
come from hardcore atheists, which makes you one too, or other people
besides hardcore atheists don't say such things, or you simply have no
idea what you're talking about. Pick your poison.

>> Of course, based on your posts, you're not any kind of atheist.
>> Instead, you're a hardcore proponentist. So using your reasoning, why
>> expect anything different from you?
> >
>The only time I get to voice my views is on this NG. I'm no crusader,
>so I what I'm trying to do is defend my views against what I consider
>unjustified critiques.

So defend your views. But merely repeating them ad nauseum is not
defending them. Not sure how you *still* don't understand that.

>> See the problem? Your asinine assertions are sooo easy to turn back
>> on you.
>>
>> OTOH Dawkins does say apparent design is not designed:
>>
>> <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cO1a1Ek-HD0>
>>
>> From the transcript:
>> ************************************
>> We get used to the idea that evolution is so good at producing
>> beautiful elegant animals that look as though they're being designed.
>> We forget that sometimes they're not perfect and there are
>> imperfections. And the imperfections are very revealing because
>> they're exactly the kind of imperfections you'd expect from the
>> accidents of history if there were no designer.
>> **************************************
>>
>> Of course, I know you know this, because this has been pointed out to
>> you many times. Not sure why you keep raising the same PRATTs. They
>> are just as stupid now as when they were first asked.

What, no comment about the above? Part of defending your views is to
have the integrity to admit when you're views are in error.

[Ron Dean]

It's interesting that several fundamentalist have said that
I'm an atheist, since I don't accept Genesis as reality and
I rejected most of their views. But I do think the universe
was designed. But as I've maintained for years the identity
of the designer is not known and at this time cannot be known.

>
>
>>> Of course, based on your posts, you're not any kind of atheist.
>>> Instead, you're a hardcore proponentist. So using your reasoning, why
>>> expect anything different from you?
>>>
>> The only time I get to voice my views is on this NG. I'm no crusader,
>> so I what I'm trying to do is defend my views against what I consider
>> unjustified critiques.
>
>
> So defend your views. But merely repeating them ad nauseum is not
> defending them. Not sure how you *still* don't understand that.
>

When there is no rational answer to my views, there's no reason not
to continue.

[jillery]

On Thu, 31 May 2018 09:03:51 -0400, Ron Dean <"R. Dean"@gmail.com>

Not interested in what others have said about you, nor am I interested
in your PRATT about the identity of the designer. I am well aware
that you think the universe is designed.

Those irrelevancies aside, let me know if you ever scrape together
enough personal integrity to back up or retract your ad hominem about
Dawkins.

>>>> Of course, based on your posts, you're not any kind of atheist.
>>>> Instead, you're a hardcore proponentist. So using your reasoning, why
>>>> expect anything different from you?
>>>>
>>> The only time I get to voice my views is on this NG. I'm no crusader,
>>> so I what I'm trying to do is defend my views against what I consider
>>> unjustified critiques.
>>
>>
>> So defend your views. But merely repeating them ad nauseum is not
>> defending them. Not sure how you *still* don't understand that.
>>
>When there is no rational answer to my views, there's no reason not
>to continue.

You use a non-standard definition of "rational". My impression is you
think it means anything which disagrees with your opinions.


>>>> See the problem?


Apparently not. Is anybody surprised.

>>>>Your asinine assertions are sooo easy to turn back on you.



>>>> OTOH Dawkins does say apparent design is not designed:
>>>>
>>>> <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cO1a1Ek-HD0>
>>>>
>>>> From the transcript:
>>>> ************************************
>>>> We get used to the idea that evolution is so good at producing
>>>> beautiful elegant animals that look as though they're being designed.
>>>> We forget that sometimes they're not perfect and there are
>>>> imperfections. And the imperfections are very revealing because
>>>> they're exactly the kind of imperfections you'd expect from the
>>>> accidents of history if there were no designer.
>>>> **************************************
>>>>
>>>> Of course, I know you know this, because this has been pointed out to
>>>> you many times. Not sure why you keep raising the same PRATTs. They
>>>> are just as stupid now as when they were first asked.
>>
>>
>> What, no comment about the above? Part of defending your views is to
>> have the integrity to admit when you're views are in error.

Do you really think your non-answer to the above qualifies as
"rational"?

[Ron Dean]

I've seen nothing which proves it isn't designed.

>
> Those irrelevancies aside, let me know if you ever scrape together
> enough personal integrity to back up or retract your ad hominem about
> Dawkins.
>

What I said about Dawkins is absolutely true. He is an atheist, he
does not believe in design. So, where is this a wrong opinion of
the man?

>
>>>>> Of course, based on your posts, you're not any kind of atheist.
>>>>> Instead, you're a hardcore proponentist. So using your reasoning, why
>>>>> expect anything different from you?
>>>>>
>>>> The only time I get to voice my views is on this NG. I'm no crusader,
>>>> so I what I'm trying to do is defend my views against what I consider
>>>> unjustified critiques.
>>>
>>>
>>> So defend your views. But merely repeating them ad nauseum is not
>>> defending them. Not sure how you *still* don't understand that.
>>>
>> When there is no rational answer to my views, there's no reason not
>> to continue.
>
>
> You use a non-standard definition of "rational". My impression is you
> think it means anything which disagrees with your opinions.
>

No, if's illogical and without logical reasoning within it's own
confines, then it's irrational. You are not capable of seriously
evaluating intelligent design, since you amalgamate ID and Bibical
creationism.

[jillery]

On Thu, 31 May 2018 13:58:17 -0400, Ron Dean <"R. Dean"@gmail.com>

Since your opinion about Design is entirely subjective, it's not
possible to show you anything which might convince you otherwise.

>> Those irrelevancies aside, let me know if you ever scrape together
>> enough personal integrity to back up or retract your ad hominem about
>> Dawkins.
>>
>What I said about Dawkins is absolutely true. He is an atheist, he
>does not believe in design. So, where is this a wrong opinion of
>the man?

The point isn't whether your opinion is wrong or right. The point is
whether you back up your subjective opinion with something other than
more subjective opinion. Not sure how you *still* don't understand
that.

More to the point, what you said about Dawkins before is not what you
say you said about Dawkins now. His rejection of Design as a
scientific explanation is separate from his atheism, hardcore or
otherwise, which turns your generalization about what atheists "don't
say" into a silly and pointless ad hominem. Not sure how you *still*

don't understand that.


>>>>>> Of course, based on your posts, you're not any kind of atheist.
>>>>>> Instead, you're a hardcore proponentist. So using your reasoning, why
>>>>>> expect anything different from you?
>>>>>>
>>>>> The only time I get to voice my views is on this NG. I'm no crusader,
>>>>> so I what I'm trying to do is defend my views against what I consider
>>>>> unjustified critiques.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> So defend your views. But merely repeating them ad nauseum is not
>>>> defending them. Not sure how you *still* don't understand that.
>>>>
>>> When there is no rational answer to my views, there's no reason not
>>> to continue.
>>
>>
>> You use a non-standard definition of "rational". My impression is you
>> think it means anything which disagrees with your opinions.
>>
>No, if's illogical and without logical reasoning within it's own
>confines, then it's irrational. You are not capable of seriously
>evaluating intelligent design, since you amalgamate ID and Bibical
>creationism.

That's another one of your pointless PRATTs. There's more kinds of
creationism than Biblical creationism, just as there's more kinds of
religion than Christianity.

OTOH it is you who "amalgamates ID and (generic) creationism", when
you presume a supernatural Designer. Not sure how you *still* don't
understand that.

>>>>>> See the problem?
>>
>>
>> Apparently not. Is anybody surprised.

I'm not.

>>>>>> Your asinine assertions are sooo easy to turn back on you.
>>
>>
>>
>>>>>> OTOH Dawkins does say apparent design is not designed:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cO1a1Ek-HD0>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> From the transcript:
>>>>>> ************************************
>>>>>> We get used to the idea that evolution is so good at producing
>>>>>> beautiful elegant animals that look as though they're being designed.
>>>>>> We forget that sometimes they're not perfect and there are
>>>>>> imperfections. And the imperfections are very revealing because
>>>>>> they're exactly the kind of imperfections you'd expect from the
>>>>>> accidents of history if there were no designer.
>>>>>> **************************************
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Of course, I know you know this, because this has been pointed out to
>>>>>> you many times. Not sure why you keep raising the same PRATTs. They
>>>>>> are just as stupid now as when they were first asked.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> What, no comment about the above? Part of defending your views is to
>>>> have the integrity to admit when you're views are in error.
>>
>>
>> Do you really think your non-answer to the above qualifies as
>> "rational"?

Apparently, you do think your non-answer is rational, which shows that
you do conflate "illogical" and "irrational" with "this is how you're
wrong".