GIRAFFES LONG NECK; still a mystery.

[R. Dean]

In spite of theories, fossil discoveries, just-so-stories
how the giraffes long neck evolved is still an unsolved
mystery.

[RonO]

Another more unfathomable mystery is why there are still IDiots like
Dean when they know that they have to deal with reality at some time.
No matter how long you run reality isn't going to change.

Why worry about something that happened millions of years ago? Why not
deal with issues that you can deal with today?

Newsflash for the incompetent: How the giraffes evolved their long
necks is also a mystery for IDiots. Just try to find an IDiot that
knows how it evolved. Ask iD perps like Behe and Denton. They
understand that descent with modification is fact, but they don't know
the answer either.

Ron Okimoto

[R. Dean]

Why do you chose to be such a godamn bastard? Just curious.
>
> Ron Okimoto
>

[jillery]

On Wed, 23 Aug 2017 20:15:50 -0400, "R. Dean" <"R. Dean"@Gmail.com>
wrote:

>
>In spite of theories, fossil discoveries, just-so-stories
>how the giraffes long neck evolved is still an unsolved
>mystery.

Why are you surprised there are still mysteries? Do you think we
should know everything?

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

Evelyn Beatrice Hall
Attributed to Voltaire

[czeba...@gmail.com]

Even a just-so story is more than any creationist has.

gregwrld

[jillery]

On Wed, 23 Aug 2017 23:01:38 -0400, "R. Dean" <"R. Dean"@Gmail.com>
wrote:

So you raise the point RonO acts like a godamn [sic] bastard. Given
your gratuitous ad hominem, that qualifies your behavior similarly,
and so disqualifies you from complaining about his genealogical
heritage.

Or is your complaint based on RonO raising valid and relevant issues,
which you don't address, while all you post in reply is your
gratuitous ad hominem? Not sure why you can't see the difference.

[Burkhard]

Well, you call it "just so stories", we call it testable hypothesis that
tells us a lot new and exiting things about giraffes (their mating
behavior e.g. for a more recent candidate) even if the specific
hypothesis turns out to be wrong or inconclusive.

When given the choice to repeat ad nauseam long debunked but emotionally
comforting ideas that I picked up as teen sometime, and learning new
and exciting things even at the risk of being wrong on occasion, I know
which path I chose

[RonO]

Why do you chose to be a dishonest creationist/IDiot? Telling you the
straight facts of life may seem to be bad to you, but the truth is the
truth. One day, you will have to accept that, as other IDiots have,
like Bill, Mike Gene, Phillip Johnson etc. These guys are still
creationists, they just don't lie to themselves about the ID scam.

Denton and Behe both have creationist alternatives that include
biological evolution as fact. Did you read the Mike Gene thread? These
IDiots have been associated with the ID scam unit since it started
(Denton did quit for a while and Mike Gene may never have been a fellow,
but no one knows for sure). This is your reality. Calling others names
doesn't do you any good. Reality is just reality.

Your giraffe stupidity is bogus because it is bogus based on what your
fellow IDiots understand about nature.

Ron Okimoto

>>
>> Ron Okimoto
>>
>

[Martin Harran]

On Wed, 23 Aug 2017 20:15:50 -0400, "R. Dean" <"R. Dean"@Gmail.com>
wrote:

>

>In spite of theories, fossil discoveries, just-so-stories
>how the giraffes long neck evolved is still an unsolved
>mystery.

Yes, life is full of unsolved mysteries like:

When did the Intelligent Designer implement the long neck?

Was it always the length giraffes have now or was it ever something
shorter?

Why did the Intelligent Designer give such a long neck just to
giraffes?

[Martin Harran]

I apologise, Ron, for criticising you in the past for using the word
"IDiots". There are clearly some people for whom that word is a
perfect description.

[Burkhard]

"Chukwu, Chukwu, look at me, look at me, look what I'm doing, look, you
can pull the neck of this meat-thingy, and pull, and pull and...<pop>
ooops"

"Sigh, Ekwensu, not again...."

[R. Dean]

On 8/23/2017 10:55 PM, jillery wrote:
> On Wed, 23 Aug 2017 20:15:50 -0400, "R. Dean" <"R. Dean"@Gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>>
>> In spite of theories, fossil discoveries, just-so-stories
>> how the giraffes long neck evolved is still an unsolved
>> mystery.
>
>
> Why are you surprised there are still mysteries? Do you think we
> should know everything?
>

No, but one would expect the fossil record to have an abundance of
giraffes with gradually increasingly longer necks. Maybe punc.eek
best explains this phenomenon.

[Burkhard]

R. Dean wrote:
> On 8/23/2017 10:55 PM, jillery wrote:
>> On Wed, 23 Aug 2017 20:15:50 -0400, "R. Dean" <"R. Dean"@Gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> In spite of theories, fossil discoveries, just-so-stories
>>> how the giraffes long neck evolved is still an unsolved
>>> mystery.
>>
>>
>> Why are you surprised there are still mysteries? Do you think we
>> should know everything?
>>
> No, but one would expect the fossil record to have an abundance of
> giraffes with gradually increasingly longer necks. Maybe punc.eek
> best explains this phenomenon.

Well, for the "abundance" you'd have to show us your math, factoring in
rates fossiles are formed and population sieze.

As for intermediaries see e.g. this one:
https://www.livescience.com/52903-transitional-giraffe-fossils.html

And as for punctuated equilibrium, you'd need to show much more than
that to make the theory work, in particular you'd need to identify the
mechanism that keeps species in stasis even when changing environments
should result in significant selective pressures.

[jillery]

On Thu, 24 Aug 2017 09:37:31 -0400, "R. Dean" <"R. Dean"@Gmail.com>

wrote:

>On 8/23/2017 10:55 PM, jillery wrote:
>> On Wed, 23 Aug 2017 20:15:50 -0400, "R. Dean" <"R. Dean"@Gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> In spite of theories, fossil discoveries, just-so-stories
>>> how the giraffes long neck evolved is still an unsolved
>>> mystery.
>>
>>
>> Why are you surprised there are still mysteries? Do you think we
>> should know everything?
> >
>No, but one would expect the fossil record to have an abundance of
>giraffes with gradually increasingly longer necks. Maybe punc.eek
>best explains this phenomenon.

You continue to express a credulous confidence in the perfection of
the fossil record. Not sure what you think qualifies as "abundance".
My impression is you won't say.

You have admitted previously your rejection of the conclusions of
punc.eek's creators. Based on that, my impression is your
"explanation" would have little or no resemblance to it.

Your comments above imply you know something about giraffe fossils,
enough to make a reasoned conclusion there is an unexplained lack of
them. My impression is you won't cite your source of those "facts"
unsurprisingly not in evidence. Are you sure your "conclusion" isn't
just a mindless repetition of some IDiot website?

OTOH and equally unsurprising, Wikipedia identifies 18 members of the
giraffe family:

<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Giraffidae>

All but two, okapi and giraffe, are extinct.

Also unsurprising, a trivial Google search for Giraffe fossils comes
up with 500K hits. Examples:

<https://www.livescience.com/52903-transitional-giraffe-fossils.html>

<http://www.abc.net.au/news/science/2015-11-25/fossil-bones-from-extinct-cousin-reveal-how-giraffe-got-its-neck/6970488>

I'm not an expert on giraffe taphonomy. Based on your posts, my
impression is neither are you. I am aware that some posters look down
on secondary sources like the above, and instead recommend cites of
original work. My impression is the above are adequate for someone
who shows your level of interest.

[Bob Casanova]

On Wed, 23 Aug 2017 20:15:50 -0400, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by "R. Dean" <"R. Dean"@Gmail.com>:

>
>In spite of theories, fossil discoveries, just-so-stories
>how the giraffes long neck evolved is still an unsolved
>mystery.

No, it's not, any more than any adaptive change is.
--

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

[Bob Casanova]

On Thu, 24 Aug 2017 09:37:31 -0400, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by "R. Dean" <"R. Dean"@Gmail.com>:

>On 8/23/2017 10:55 PM, jillery wrote:
>> On Wed, 23 Aug 2017 20:15:50 -0400, "R. Dean" <"R. Dean"@Gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> In spite of theories, fossil discoveries, just-so-stories
>>> how the giraffes long neck evolved is still an unsolved
>>> mystery.
>>
>>
>> Why are you surprised there are still mysteries? Do you think we
>> should know everything?
> >
>No, but one would expect the fossil record to have an abundance of
>giraffes with gradually increasingly longer necks. Maybe punc.eek
>best explains this phenomenon.

Ah, so it's "God of the Gaps" revisited, with a dash of "If
we don't know everything, we don't know anything", all
flavored with "All extinct creatures fossilized, and we have
all the fossils". OK, but why didn't you say so initially?

[Mark Isaak]

Just 400 years ago, almost everything was still a mystery -- why leaves
change color, why the sky is blue, where dew comes from, how various
rocks form, how the comma was invented, etc. Then there was a change in
intellectual attitude, at least in some parts of the world, and trying
to answer questions like that became not merely acceptable but
honorable. And so many of those questions got answered that remaining
mysteries stand out to R. Dean. That is a success story for science. A
great success. Thank you, R. Dean, for emphasizing just how much more
science has given us than religion has.

--
Mark Isaak eciton (at) curioustaxonomy (dot) net
"Ignorance, allied with power, is the most ferocious enemy justice can
have." - James Baldwin

[R. Dean]

On 8/24/2017 1:18 PM, Bob Casanova wrote:
> On Thu, 24 Aug 2017 09:37:31 -0400, the following appeared
> in talk.origins, posted by "R. Dean" <"R. Dean"@Gmail.com>:
>
>> On 8/23/2017 10:55 PM, jillery wrote:
>>> On Wed, 23 Aug 2017 20:15:50 -0400, "R. Dean" <"R. Dean"@Gmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>> In spite of theories, fossil discoveries, just-so-stories
>>>> how the giraffes long neck evolved is still an unsolved
>>>> mystery.
>>>
>>>
>>> Why are you surprised there are still mysteries? Do you think we
>>> should know everything?
>>>
>> No, but one would expect the fossil record to have an abundance of
>> giraffes with gradually increasingly longer necks. Maybe punc.eek
>> best explains this phenomenon.
>
> Ah, so it's "God of the Gaps" revisited,
>

I never argue this!

with a dash of "If
> we don't know everything, we don't know anything", all
> flavored with "All extinct creatures fossilized, and we have
> all the fossils". OK, but why didn't you say so initially?
>

We don't have all the fossils. Ok, but the crucial fossils are
absent. But of course that means nothing: we shouldn't expect
to find finely graded fossils, since fossils form only under
special conditions, where there is rapid burial, little or no erosion,
and no preditation, and of course knowing and searching in the right
locations. But given random mutation and natural selection none of that
matters.

[R. Dean]

On 8/24/2017 2:42 PM, Mark Isaak wrote:
> On 8/23/17 5:15 PM, R. Dean wrote:
>>
>> In spite of theories, fossil discoveries, just-so-stories
>> how the giraffes long neck evolved is still an unsolved
>> mystery.
>
> Just 400 years ago, almost everything was still a mystery -- why leaves
> change color, why the sky is blue, where dew comes from, how various
> rocks form, how the comma was invented, etc.  Then there was a change in
> intellectual attitude, at least in some parts of the world, and trying
> to answer questions like that became not merely acceptable but
> honorable.  And so many of those questions got answered that remaining
> mysteries stand out to R. Dean.  That is a success story for science.  A
> great success.  Thank you, R. Dean, for emphasizing just how much more
> science has given us than religion has.
>

Why do you bring religion into this discussion. It has no place and I
never argue for religion.

[Martin Harran]

On Thu, 24 Aug 2017 16:30:24 -0400, "R. Dean" <"R. Dean"@Gmail.com>
wrote:

Mark detests religion in pretty much the same way as you clearly
detest the Theory of Evolution.

[RonO]

Religion isn't such a bad thing, but guys like Dean make religion
something to be suspect of. Why IDiots have to lie about their
religious beliefs and run stupid political scams to support those
religious beliefs is one of the worst aspects of religion.

There are religious organization that don't do that and Dean could go to
the clergy letter page to find examples of clergy that don't like the ID
scam and have come out against it, but he can't even deal with what the
guys that sold him the ID scam do to rubes like him when they need the
ID science.

Something on giraffe evolution.

https://www.livescience.com/52903-transitional-giraffe-fossils.html

QUOTE:
The finding is "very important," said Donald Prothero, a research
associate in vertebrate paleontology at the Natural History Museum of
Los Angeles County, who was not involved with the new study.

"Contrary to what some creationists say, we do have transitional fossils
that show how one kind of animal evolved from another," Prothero told
Live Science. "We finally have fossils that show how giraffes got their
long neck from short-necked ancestors, which most fossil giraffids were."
END QUOTE:

Why doesn't IDiocy have anything as good to back up their version of
reality?

Why doesn't it ever register with IDiots when what they have isn't as
good as what they claim is not good enough? It should tell them that
their own stupidity isn't good enough for IDiots.

Ron Okimoto

[RonO]

I found the IDiot article on Giraffes that Dean likely took to heart,
but unlike the article from the ID perps who were hoping no transitional
fossils would be found, what got described in 2015?

This article is from 2007. The year after Phillip Johnson admitted that
the ID science did not exist, and still has not come back to support the
ID scam.

https://evolutionnews.org/2007/05/a_tall_tale_of_evolution_the_n/

One thing about this IDiot article is that they claim that it might be
possible to apply IDiocy to the perceived problem. The stupid thing is
that if IDiocy was good for something it should be used in archeology or
real CSI (crime scene investigation) and not the ID scam CSI about
complex specified information.

Ron Okimoto

[jillery]

On Thu, 24 Aug 2017 16:30:24 -0400, "R. Dean" <"R. Dean"@Gmail.com>
wrote:

Incorrect. You repeatedly make religious arguments.

[jillery]

It should go without saying, even if your comments were true, they
have nothing to do with the veracity of either Mark's or Dean's
comments above.

[R. Dean]

Then he must not. I don't detest evolution, I just disagree with
the gradualism advocated by Darwin etc.

[R. Dean]

It's obvious you know nothing about me. If you did you would realize
that I _never_ discuss religion and I strongly object to religion being
introduced into any discussion.

>
> There are religious organization that don't do that and Dean could go to
> the clergy letter page to find examples of clergy that don't like the ID
> scam and have come out against it, but he can't even deal with what the
> guys that sold him the ID scam do to rubes like him when they need the
> ID science.
>

Again you don't know me. If you did, you would realize that I never go
to religious sources of any kind. You never find me discussing religion.

>
> Something on giraffe evolution.
>
> https://www.livescience.com/52903-transitional-giraffe-fossils.html
>
> QUOTE:
> The finding is "very important," said Donald Prothero, a research
> associate in vertebrate paleontology at the Natural History Museum of
> Los Angeles County, who was not involved with the new study.
>
> "Contrary to what some creationists say, we do have transitional fossils
> that show how one kind of animal evolved from another," Prothero told
> Live Science. "We finally have fossils that show how giraffes got their
> long neck from short-necked ancestors, which most fossil giraffids were."
> END QUOTE:
>

Of course there is no claim of a series of fossil giraffids with
gradually increasing neck lengths that I see in the quote you provided.

[R. Dean]

On 8/24/2017 11:18 PM, jillery wrote:
> On Thu, 24 Aug 2017 16:30:24 -0400, "R. Dean" <"R. Dean"@Gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> On 8/24/2017 2:42 PM, Mark Isaak wrote:
>>> On 8/23/17 5:15 PM, R. Dean wrote:
>>>>
>>>> In spite of theories, fossil discoveries, just-so-stories
>>>> how the giraffes long neck evolved is still an unsolved
>>>> mystery.
>>>
>>> Just 400 years ago, almost everything was still a mystery -- why leaves
>>> change color, why the sky is blue, where dew comes from, how various
>>> rocks form, how the comma was invented, etc.  Then there was a change in
>>> intellectual attitude, at least in some parts of the world, and trying
>>> to answer questions like that became not merely acceptable but
>>> honorable.  And so many of those questions got answered that remaining
>>> mysteries stand out to R. Dean.  That is a success story for science.  A
>>> great success.  Thank you, R. Dean, for emphasizing just how much more
>>> science has given us than religion has.
>>>
>> Why do you bring religion into this discussion. It has no place and I
>> never argue for religion.
>
>
> Incorrect. You repeatedly make religious arguments.
>

When or where do I ever discussed religion, quote religious sources,
discuss Christianity, Islam, the Jewish religion or any other religion.
You should know that I make it a point not to. I didn't expect this from
you Jill!

[joecummin...@gmail.com]

On Fri, 25 Aug 2017 00:07:57 -0400, "R. Dean" <"R. Dean"@Gmail.com>

It's possible that you haven't brought religion into your arguments.

What I'd like to know is how you differentiate your arguments from
those of creationists.


That is, we know the origin of the creationist point of view - that
everything was created by the almighty. On what grounds do you
criticise evolution, then, if not from a creationist p.o.v.?




Have fun,

Joe Cummings

[ed wolf]

On Thursday, August 24, 2017 at 2:10:02 AM UTC+2, R. Dean wrote:
> In spite of theories, fossil discoveries, just-so-stories
> how the giraffes long neck evolved is still an unsolved
> mystery.

The Creator gave it the long neck to enable
grazing with legs so long it had to lie
down sideways to eat grass, and it looked
pretty ridiculous, too.
The lack of fossilized transitional necks almost
everywhere is also proof of something or other.
Giraffes and humans both having 7 vertebra in
the neck show they both come from the
same Designer.

[Martin Harran]

On Thu, 24 Aug 2017 23:39:15 -0400, "R. Dean" <"R. Dean"@Gmail.com>

I said earlier that as far as I can see, you can tell us nothing
whatsoever about the intelligent designer; it might be God but then
again it might not; basically, people are free to make up their own
mind about the nature of the intelligent designer, not on any
evidential basis, simply on whatever they would like the designer to
be.

You made no effort to challenge that and, despite several requests
from me and others, you have given no explanation as to why you prefer
a vague, undefined explanation against one based on real evidence.
Your continuing failure to do so makes it reasonable to assume that
your rejection of the Theory of Evolution is based on emotion rather
than any form of logic.

[RonO]

What happened to the scientific creationists when a chain of fossil
intermediate whales were discovered. Why make the claims about giraffes
after that creationist stupidity. As you likely know by now the ID
perps were making a big deal about there not being any transitional
fossils in 2007. Back then they were in denial of the DNA evidence
linking Okapi to giraffes. Even you can likely look at the Okapi and
know that it is related to giraffes. It also has a longer neck than
some other antelopes. Remaining in denial when the evidence appears to
make you look as stupid as you were to even try the bogus argument is
even stupider than trying it in the first place.

Combined with the DNA evidence how many transitionals would you need?
Why do ID perps like Denton and Behe accept common descent as fact?
Both of them know that Okapi and giraffes share a common ancestor. The
animals morphology, DNA and fossil evidence has no acceptable designer
did it alternative. Go for it. How did the designer create the DNA,
morphological and fossil evidence? Do it for whales if you need more
transitional fossils.

Denial is stupid and dishonest.

Ron Okimoto

[jillery]

On Fri, 25 Aug 2017 00:01:58 -0400, "R. Dean" <"R. Dean"@Gmail.com>

As I have pointed out to you every time I noticed you make your
nonsense claim above, you make a religious claim when you invoke a
supernatural Designer to explain natural phenomena, something you
have done repeatedly and for years.

>> There are religious organization that don't do that and Dean could go to
>> the clergy letter page to find examples of clergy that don't like the ID
>> scam and have come out against it, but he can't even deal with what the
>> guys that sold him the ID scam do to rubes like him when they need the
>> ID science.
> >
>Again you don't know me. If you did, you would realize that I never go
>to religious sources of any kind. You never find me discussing religion.

Again incorrect. Your goto ID cites are religious sources. A problem
here is you use a personal and nonstandard definition of "religious
source".

>> Something on giraffe evolution.
>>
>> https://www.livescience.com/52903-transitional-giraffe-fossils.html
>>
>> QUOTE:
>> The finding is "very important," said Donald Prothero, a research
>> associate in vertebrate paleontology at the Natural History Museum of
>> Los Angeles County, who was not involved with the new study.
>>
>> "Contrary to what some creationists say, we do have transitional fossils
>> that show how one kind of animal evolved from another," Prothero told
>> Live Science. "We finally have fossils that show how giraffes got their
>> long neck from short-necked ancestors, which most fossil giraffids were."
>> END QUOTE:
> >
>Of course there is no claim of a series of fossil giraffids with
>gradually increasing neck lengths that I see in the quote you provided.

Of course, the article provides exactly what you say it doesn't. It
shows a series of three giraffids with progressively larger neck
vertebrae; Okapia, Samotherium, Giraffa.

Or are you now claiming that three examples don't satisfy your
personal definition of "series"?

>> Why doesn't IDiocy have anything as good to back up their version of
>> reality?
>>
>> Why doesn't it ever register with IDiots when what they have isn't as
>> good as what they claim is not good enough?  It should tell them that
>> their own stupidity isn't good enough for IDiots.
>>
>> Ron Okimoto
>>

[jillery]

On Fri, 25 Aug 2017 00:07:57 -0400, "R. Dean" <"R. Dean"@Gmail.com>

You should know that every time I notice you reply as above, I point
out that said reply is utterly irrelevant to the fact that you make a
religious argument every time you invoke a supernatural
Designer/Tuner/Deity to explain natural phenomena.

What I didn't expect from you is that you usually ignore said point,
and then affect shock as if you have never read said point before,
like you do above.

After all these years, your overwrought overreaction is just silly.
Who do you think you're fooling?

[Bob Casanova]

On Thu, 24 Aug 2017 16:27:50 -0400, the following appeared

in talk.origins, posted by "R. Dean" <"R. Dean"@Gmail.com>:

>On 8/24/2017 1:18 PM, Bob Casanova wrote:
>> On Thu, 24 Aug 2017 09:37:31 -0400, the following appeared
>> in talk.origins, posted by "R. Dean" <"R. Dean"@Gmail.com>:
>>
>>> On 8/23/2017 10:55 PM, jillery wrote:
>>>> On Wed, 23 Aug 2017 20:15:50 -0400, "R. Dean" <"R. Dean"@Gmail.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> In spite of theories, fossil discoveries, just-so-stories
>>>>> how the giraffes long neck evolved is still an unsolved
>>>>> mystery.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Why are you surprised there are still mysteries? Do you think we
>>>> should know everything?
>>>>
>>> No, but one would expect the fossil record to have an abundance of
>>> giraffes with gradually increasingly longer necks. Maybe punc.eek
>>> best explains this phenomenon.
>>
>> Ah, so it's "God of the Gaps" revisited,
> >
>I never argue this!

Actually, that is *exactly* what you argued above.

> with a dash of "If
>> we don't know everything, we don't know anything", all
>> flavored with "All extinct creatures fossilized, and we have
>> all the fossils". OK, but why didn't you say so initially?

>We don't have all the fossils. Ok, but the crucial fossils are
>absent. But of course that means nothing: we shouldn't expect
>to find finely graded fossils, since fossils form only under
>special conditions, where there is rapid burial, little or no erosion,
>and no preditation, and of course knowing and searching in the right
>locations. But given random mutation and natural selection none of that
>matters.

I'm a bit confused; did you just refute your own implied
complaint?

[Mark Isaak]

Yes you do. When you enter a creationism vs. evolution forum and argue
against evolution using creationist arguments, you are implicitly
arguing for creationism. And creationism is inseparable from religion,
which means YOU bring up religion. If that is not your intent, you need
to spell out what your alternative is.

[Mark Isaak]

I detest bad religion. Any religion which tries to belittle creation by
insisting it had to be done according to one sect's private rules is bad
religion. Any religion which opposes the wonder of creation by trying
to keep much of it shrouded in ignorance and/or mystery is bad religion.

[Bob Casanova]

On Fri, 25 Aug 2017 00:07:57 -0400, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by "R. Dean" <"R. Dean"@Gmail.com>:

She didn't say you discuss religion; she said you make
religious arguments. Which you do; any argument in which ID
is proposed as the source of life is a religious one.

[Martin Harran]

On Fri, 25 Aug 2017 08:54:23 -0700, Mark Isaak
<eciton@curiousta/xyz/xonomy.net> wrote:

>On 8/24/17 2:02 PM, Martin Harran wrote:
>> On Thu, 24 Aug 2017 16:30:24 -0400, "R. Dean" <"R. Dean"@Gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On 8/24/2017 2:42 PM, Mark Isaak wrote:
>>>> On 8/23/17 5:15 PM, R. Dean wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> In spite of theories, fossil discoveries, just-so-stories
>>>>> how the giraffes long neck evolved is still an unsolved
>>>>> mystery.
>>>>
>>>> Just 400 years ago, almost everything was still a mystery -- why leaves
>>>> change color, why the sky is blue, where dew comes from, how various
>>>> rocks form, how the comma was invented, etc. Then there was a change in
>>>> intellectual attitude, at least in some parts of the world, and trying
>>>> to answer questions like that became not merely acceptable but
>>>> honorable. And so many of those questions got answered that remaining
>>>> mysteries stand out to R. Dean. That is a success story for science. A
>>>> great success. Thank you, R. Dean, for emphasizing just how much more
>>>> science has given us than religion has.
>>>>
>>> Why do you bring religion into this discussion. It has no place and I
>>> never argue for religion.
>>
>> Mark detests religion in pretty much the same way as you clearly
>> detest the Theory of Evolution.
>
>I detest bad religion.

I have yet to see you identify any *good* religion.

I actually don't have any issue with your detestation of religion
except that it irritates me when a clearly intelligent person comes
out with daft statements that are clearly driven by personal feelings
rather than logic.

Your statement above about "how much more science has given us than
religion has" is a good example of such a statement. Science and
religion deal with totally disparate matters - and you should know
that - so making comparisons about benefits that they bring is totally
meaningless.

[R. Dean]

Had you been reading my stuff, you would realize that my position is;
that while there is evidence of design in the universe and life, but
there is absolutely no direct empirical evidence pointing to the
identity of the designer. One may believe the designer is Zeus, Ra, the
god of the bible or some other god, this would be strictly a matter of
belief and faith not evidence.

>
> You made no effort to challenge that and, despite several requests
> from me and others, you have given no explanation as to why you prefer
> a vague, undefined explanation against one based on real evidence.
> Your continuing failure to do so makes it reasonable to assume that
> your rejection of the Theory of Evolution is based on emotion rather
> than any form of logic.
>

I see evolution as the alternative evidence of what is observed. I
go back to Darwin and Paley. Where Paley observed nature and saw
his god's hand in design and purpose as seen in living organisms:
Darwin who was very familiar with Paley's works, _in_my_view_ took
an irascible attitude towards Paley. As a consequence he saw Paley's
explanation as a challenge which caused him to become obsessed with
finding an alternative and "godless" explanation for what Paley observed.
Apparently, the militant atheist Richard Dawkins took up Darwin's
case, he wrote, the "Blind Watchmaker" an obvious 'take off" of Paley's
watchmaker.
"To Dawkins, the blind force of natural selection is the basis for the
apparent design” around us that appears to cry out “for an explanation”
(the blind watchmaker, 1988, p. ix)

And I recognize this same antagonism in how Darwinian view the Paley's
god in the intelligent Design movement today. I see evolution today as
an alternative to actual design in nature.

Certainly, Francis Crick recognized evidence of design, however, his
a piori commitment dictated his response to what biologist see.

He wrote, "Biologists must constantly keep in mind that what they see
was not designed, but rather evolved." He further 'clarifies' his point
"It might be thought, therefore, that evolutionary arguments would play
a large part in guiding biological research, but this is far from the
case. It is difficult enough to study what is happening now. To figure
out exactly what happened in evolution is even more difficult. Thus
evolutionary achievements can be used as hints to suggest possible lines
of research, but it is highly dangerous to trust them too much. It is
all too easy to make mistaken inferences unless the process involved is
already very well understood".
>
darwinianfundamentalism.blogspot.com/2013/11/biologists-must-constantly-keep-in-mind.html
>
Biology is the study of complicated things that give the appearance of
having been designed for a purpose. Physics is the study of simple
things that do not tempt us to invoke design
>
dbanach.com/dawkins1.htm

>
So, it's clear that there is an a piori consideration which overrides
observation. This comes down to - the question: how can Crick
and Dawkins know that what they see is not real desugn? Without this
overwhelming devotion to evolution, would anyone, not devoted to
Darwin's theory not see this as real and intelligent design?

[R. Dean]

So, you want to get away from fossil giraffes with increasing necks to
whales? I remember something I read about whales by Niles Eldridge
in his book "Reinventing Darwin". As I recall, in his discussion of
whales and bat evolution. He references George Simpson who said that
both bats and whales dates back about 55 million years. They
were, compared to today's modern bats and whales primitive, but still
recognizable as bats and whales. If you extrapolate the rate of
evolution back to the point where each stock diverged from their
common ancestor, whales and bats must have emerged from this
primitive ancestor before any placental mammals had evolved.
This result he said is absurd. (this is strictly from memory, but
it is close to what I read. You'll find this on pages 74 and 75
of Reinventing Darwin)

>
> Denial is stupid and dishonest.
>

Attacking the messenger is by far the most stupid thing in your arsenal:
that is the basis of virtually _all_ your arguments! Examples "perp'
"dishonest" the commingling the Bibically based creationism with its
6000 year old universe and ID which is science based and an ancient
14^9 year old universe and no Bibical basis. And you want to talk
about dishonesty. You should be very, very careful here. By modern
species they are primitive but they are recognizable as bats and
whales

[R. Dean]

It's obvious that you and I have a different concept regarding what is
and what is not religious. I think turning to religion as a source of
information, IE quoting from sacred books, religious publications
some priest or minister etc is appealing to religion. I _never_ ever
turn to religion for support.

I make no assumptions, since I have no basis for claiming an identity.
I never use the term deity, since deity
is not an explanation for anything. OTOH Where is see design I do
infer a designer or where I recognize fine tuning I think of a tuner.
IOW design requires a designer, fine tuning requires a tuner. Each term
has a role to play.

[R. Dean]

Okay Jill. To me religion is organized, controlled and directed by
human beings. This is the Roman Catholic Church, the Protestant Church
Jewish organizations etc, priest, bishops, preachers decons etc. To me
if I don't appeal to these sources for supporting information, then I'm
not turning to religion for evidence.

It's true that I think the evidence clearly demonstrates design in the
universe and nature, and this implies a designer. OK, I see the
difference. I arrive at a conclusion from what I see as evidence from
observation and by scientist. So, if my designer is supernatural, it
follows the evidence. So am I appealing to religion? The term
"supernatural" is superficial.

>
>
>>> There are religious organization that don't do that and Dean could go to
>>> the clergy letter page to find examples of clergy that don't like the ID
>>> scam and have come out against it, but he can't even deal with what the
>>> guys that sold him the ID scam do to rubes like him when they need the
>>> ID science.
>>>
>> Again you don't know me. If you did, you would realize that I never go
>> to religious sources of any kind. You never find me discussing religion.
>
>
> Again incorrect. Your goto ID cites are religious sources. A problem
> here is you use a personal and nonstandard definition of "religious
> source".
>

I am careful to quote and reference scientist such as Hawking, Susskind
Dawkins, Gould, Eldredge and other scientist. I do not reference
priest, ministers. One exception might be Wm. Paley, but not as an
authority.

[R. Dean]

On 8/25/2017 11:47 AM, Mark Isaak wrote:
> On 8/24/17 1:30 PM, R. Dean wrote:
>> On 8/24/2017 2:42 PM, Mark Isaak wrote:
>>> On 8/23/17 5:15 PM, R. Dean wrote:
>>>>
>>>> In spite of theories, fossil discoveries, just-so-stories
>>>> how the giraffes long neck evolved is still an unsolved
>>>> mystery.
>>>
>>> Just 400 years ago, almost everything was still a mystery -- why
>>> leaves change color, why the sky is blue, where dew comes from, how
>>> various rocks form, how the comma was invented, etc.  Then there was
>>> a change in intellectual attitude, at least in some parts of the
>>> world, and trying to answer questions like that became not merely
>>> acceptable but honorable.  And so many of those questions got
>>> answered that remaining mysteries stand out to R. Dean.  That is a
>>> success story for science.  A great success.  Thank you, R. Dean, for
>>> emphasizing just how much more science has given us than religion has.
>>>
>> Why do you bring religion into this discussion. It has no place and I
>> never argue for religion.
>
> Yes you do.  When you enter a creationism vs. evolution forum and argue
> against evolution using creationist arguments, you are implicitly
> arguing for creationism.  And creationism is inseparable from religion,
> which means YOU bring up religion.  If that is not your intent, you need
> to spell out what your alternative is.
>

Some clarification is needed. I do not claim the earth is 6 - 10000
years old, I do not appeal to Genesis or the Bible, priest, biships
or organized religion's publications in support of my arguments
I do see design in the universe and nature and this in my mind implies
a designer. Who or what this designer is - I don't claim to know. Jill
assumes it is supernatural, but this is superficial. It might be
but I don't know this. But I do not think it's natural.

[RonO]

What an idiot IDiot. I am just pointing out that your tactic doesn't
work and has failed many times previously. What do you not get? You
can't just run in denial of reality. What a bonehead. Your argument
failed when one transitional was brought up. Don't you get it? Why do
you need more? What is your alternative explanation? Why do the iD
perps that you still bend over for and take their stupid IDiot junk tell
you about the fact of biological evolution? Your giraffe example is a
failure because it is a failure and other similar stupid arguments have
failed before you put up the giraffe example when it had already failed,
you just didn't know it.

>
>>
>> Denial is stupid and dishonest.
> >
> Attacking the messenger is by far the most stupid thing in your arsenal:
> that is the basis of virtually _all_ your arguments! Examples "perp'
> "dishonest" the commingling the Bibically based creationism with its
> 6000 year old universe and ID which is science based and an ancient
> 14^9 year old universe and no Bibical basis. And you want to talk
> about dishonesty. You should be very, very careful here. By modern
> species they are primitive but they are recognizable as bats and
> whales

Denial is stupid and dishonest. You obviously know what you are because
you know that stupid and dishonest sums you up. How stupid do you have
to be to still be a dishonest IDiot when all you need to be is the
creationist that you are? Just ask Bill how stupid you have to be to
continue to be an IDiot at this time. As dishonest as you are you have
to be stupid or you would be doing something else bogus by now. That is
how badly off you are.

The giraffe argument failed you before you put it up. Not only was a
transitional already found, but the same stupid argument had failed many
times before for other lineages because when what you claim doesn't
exist is found the argument fails. Denial of all the other evidence
that tells ID perps like Denton and Behe that giraffes evolved by
descent with modification is stupid. Denton and Behe didn't even have
to wait for the transitional fossil to be found to understand that
biological evolution is fact. You don't have to wait for all the
transitionals to be found. You can't even expect all of them to have
been preserved in the fossil record and even if they were just imagine
how many have already eroded out of the ground. Deal with the evidence
that exists instead of asking for more to deny. Look how you denied the
first transistional. You know that you will deny the next one too.

Really put up your alternative and explain the existing DNA evidence and
the existence of extant forms like the Okapi and giraffe and the
transitional fossil. Go for it.

Ron Okimoto

[Vincent Maycock]

On Fri, 25 Aug 2017 19:28:09 -0400, "R. Dean" <"R. Dean"@Gmail.com>
wrote:

But you *believe,* on faith, that this Designer is the Christian god,
and *wanting* to believe that ... leads you to all sorts of stupid
arguments for your beliefs about His supposed existence.

I have to ask, though, how much time do you spend reading creationist
sources (not bishops or priests as sources -- that's a straw man) to
help you formulate your ideas?

[Vincent Maycock]

On Fri, 25 Aug 2017 16:23:01 -0400, "R. Dean" <"R. Dean"@Gmail.com>
wrote:

snip

> He wrote, "Biologists must constantly keep in mind that what they see
>was not designed, but rather evolved." He further 'clarifies' his point
>"It might be thought, therefore, that evolutionary arguments would play
>a large part in guiding biological research, but this is far from the
>case. It is difficult enough to study what is happening now. To figure
>out exactly what happened in evolution is even more difficult. Thus
>evolutionary achievements can be used as hints to suggest possible lines
>of research, but it is highly dangerous to trust them too much. It is
>all too easy to make mistaken inferences unless the process involved is
>already very well understood".
> >
>darwinianfundamentalism.blogspot.com/2013/11/biologists-must-constantly-keep-in-mind.html
> >
>Biology is the study of complicated things that give the appearance of
>having been designed for a purpose. Physics is the study of simple
>things that do not tempt us to invoke design
> >
>dbanach.com/dawkins1.htm
>
> >
>So, it's clear that there is an a piori consideration which overrides
>observation. This comes down to - the question: how can Crick
>and Dawkins know that what they see is not real desugn?

Because of the vast amount of evidence that they evolved and were not
designed.

[R. Dean]

You brought up whales, I referenced the topic of whales written by
Niles Eldredge. I certainly credit his authority above yours.

>
I am just pointing out that your tactic doesn't
> work and has failed many times previously.  What do you not get?  You
> can't just run in denial of reality.  What a bonehead.  Your argument
> failed when one transitional was brought up.  Don't you get it?  Why do
> you need more?  What is your alternative explanation?  Why do the iD
> perps that you still bend over for and take their stupid IDiot junk tell
> you about the fact of biological evolution?  Your giraffe example is a
> failure because it is a failure and other similar stupid arguments have
> failed before you put up the giraffe example when it had already failed,
> you just didn't know it.
>

That's all you have personal attacks, character assassination and
accusations. Consequently, there is no need for further discourse with
you and from now on I will neither read nor respond to your
self-righteous and slanderous attacks on people whom you hate and have
such animosity towards for no other reason they have a different view
from you. Good bye

[Martin Harran]

On Fri, 25 Aug 2017 16:23:01 -0400, "R. Dean" <"R. Dean"@Gmail.com>

You have been asked time and time again to identify what that evidence
is but you have produced absolutely nothing other than "it looks
designed".

>but
>there is absolutely no direct empirical evidence pointing to the
>identity of the designer. One may believe the designer is Zeus, Ra, the
>god of the bible or some other god, this would be strictly a matter of
>belief and faith not evidence.
>>
>> You made no effort to challenge that and, despite several requests
>> from me and others, you have given no explanation as to why you prefer
>> a vague, undefined explanation against one based on real evidence.
>> Your continuing failure to do so makes it reasonable to assume that
>> your rejection of the Theory of Evolution is based on emotion rather
>> than any form of logic.
>>
>I see evolution as the alternative evidence of what is observed. I
>go back to Darwin and Paley.

Why go back over 200 years? Do you prefer to simply ignore all the
advances in knowledge - science and otherwise - which had been made
over the last two centuries? As I previously asked Ray (and, as usual,
he ignored) - if you are feeling unwell would you go to a doctor who
was practising what doctors believed 200 years ago?

>Where Paley observed nature and saw
>his god's hand in design and purpose as seen in living organisms:

Simple observation is probably the most unreliable way of figuring
anything out. In ancient times, people thought that the earth was flat
because it looked flat. For a long time, people thought the sun goes
around the earth because that's the way it looks. I can show you
hundreds of optical illusions were things look completely different
from what they actually are so why do you put so much reliance on
simple observation?

>Darwin who was very familiar with Paley's works, _in_my_view_ took
>an irascible attitude towards Paley. As a consequence he saw Paley's
>explanation as a challenge which caused him to become obsessed with
>finding an alternative and "godless" explanation for what Paley observed.

Again, I have asked you previously to offer some justification for
your insistence that Darwin set out to prove Paley wrong; you still
haven't done so. Neither have you explained why it would matter even
if it were true; Darwin's findings and conclusions stand or fall on
their own merit and his motives in doing his research have no bearing
whatsoever on that. Unless, of course you want to accuse him of
telling lies manipulating his findings in some way?

> Apparently, the militant atheist Richard Dawkins took up Darwin's
>case, he wrote, the "Blind Watchmaker" an obvious 'take off" of Paley's
>watchmaker.
>"To Dawkins, the blind force of natural selection is the basis for the
>apparent design” around us that appears to cry out “for an explanation”
>(the blind watchmaker, 1988, p. ix)
>
> And I recognize this same antagonism in how Darwinian view the Paley's
>god in the intelligent Design movement today. I see evolution today as
>an alternative to actual design in nature.
>
>Certainly, Francis Crick recognized evidence of design, however, his
>a piori commitment dictated his response to what biologist see.
>
> He wrote, "Biologists must constantly keep in mind that what they see
>was not designed, but rather evolved."

Ahem, he wrote that over 50 years after he helped discover the
structure of DNA. Something written over 50 years after an event
hardly qualifies as evidence of a priori!

> He further 'clarifies' his point
>"It might be thought, therefore, that evolutionary arguments would play
>a large part in guiding biological research, but this is far from the
>case. It is difficult enough to study what is happening now. To figure
>out exactly what happened in evolution is even more difficult. Thus
>evolutionary achievements can be used as hints to suggest possible lines
>of research, but it is highly dangerous to trust them too much. It is
>all too easy to make mistaken inferences unless the process involved is
>already very well understood".
> >
>darwinianfundamentalism.blogspot.com/2013/11/biologists-must-constantly-keep-in-mind.html
> >
>Biology is the study of complicated things that give the appearance of
>having been designed for a purpose. Physics is the study of simple
>things that do not tempt us to invoke design
> >
>dbanach.com/dawkins1.htm
>
> >
>So, it's clear that there is an a piori consideration which overrides
>observation.

No, it is not clear at all. You seem unable to accept the idea that
people like Darwin and other scientists simply follow the evidence
wherever it takes them; your attacks on them as having some underlying
agenda comes across as thinly veiled ad hominem.

>This comes down to - the question: how can Crick
>and Dawkins know that what they see is not real desugn?

Science is not and cannot be in the business of proving negatives.
Scientists have provided explanations for evolution that are well
evidenced and supported by a multitude of sources, as Pope Benedict
famously put it " converging evidence from many studies in the
physical and biological sciences". If you or somebody else want to
replace that with intelligent design, then you need to provide
evidence to support your claim; you and they have singularly failed to
do that time after time.

>Without this
>overwhelming devotion to evolution, would anyone, not devoted to
>Darwin's theory not see this as real and intelligent design?

Again you seem to believe that anyone who accepts evolution is blinded
through some sort of "devotion". I personally am certainly not
"devoted" to Darwin's theory; the only things to which I am devoted
are my family and my religious beliefs. I have told you previously
that as a religious believer I am inherently open to the idea of an
intelligent designer and I have invited you to put forward a good case
for me rejecting the explanations that science offers and which I find
to support rather than undermine my religious beliefs; you have
declined my invitation.

[Martin Harran]

On Fri, 25 Aug 2017 19:14:23 -0400, "R. Dean" <"R. Dean"@Gmail.com>
wrote:

[...]

>To me religion is organized, controlled and directed by
>human beings. This is the Roman Catholic Church, the Protestant Church
>Jewish organizations etc, priest, bishops, preachers decons etc. To me
>if I don't appeal to these sources for supporting information, then I'm
>not turning to religion for evidence.

You have a very limited concept of what religion is; essentially, it
is belief in some form supernatural being which may or may not be
called God.

It is possible to be very religious without belonging to any organised
religious group; it is equally possible to belong to a religious group
but only pay lip service to the beliefs that the group profess.

[...]

[jillery]

On Fri, 25 Aug 2017 18:04:46 -0400, "R. Dean" <"R. Dean"@Gmail.com>

For someone who habitually quotemines and misinterprets scientists'
observations and conclusions, and who does his own share of gratuitous
ad hominem attacks and appeals to special privilege, you should be
very careful about playing the "dishonesty" card. Just sayin'.

[jillery]

On Fri, 25 Aug 2017 16:23:01 -0400, "R. Dean" <"R. Dean"@Gmail.com>

My impression is only you care about what you don't call your
supernatural designer. You repeatedly raise this point, so you
obviously think it's important, as if you think a Deity's name says
anything about it.

And every time I notice you raise this point over and over, I remind
you that the identity of your Designer, it's specific name, is utterly
and completely irrelevant to any actual issue under discussion. So I
remain unclear why you continue to raise this point at all.

>> You made no effort to challenge that and, despite several requests
>> from me and others, you have given no explanation as to why you prefer
>> a vague, undefined explanation against one based on real evidence.
>> Your continuing failure to do so makes it reasonable to assume that
>> your rejection of the Theory of Evolution is based on emotion rather
>> than any form of logic.
>>
>I see evolution as the alternative evidence of what is observed.

I assume you mean "alternative explanation".

Once again, you're entitled to your own opinions, but not your own
facts. What you incorrectly interpret as an antagonism to God is
instead a desire, one shared by most scientists, to identify real
explanations to natural phenomena.

You continue to claim that Goddidit is an explanation, but you fail to
say how it explains anything. Instead, you habitually resort to
invoking your "feelings", as if how you feel about it should be the
deciding factor.

So let's assume for argument's sake, the appearance of design is
actual design. Where do we go from there? What new lines of research
do you think it would support? What new things do you think we could
learn about the universe that we could not learn without said
assumption?

[jillery]

On Fri, 25 Aug 2017 19:28:09 -0400, "R. Dean" <"R. Dean"@Gmail.com>
wrote:

Since AOTA are entirely irrelevant to the issue of whether your
argument is a religious claim, not sure how you think your comments
above clarify anything.

>I do see design in the universe and nature and this in my mind implies
>a designer. Who or what this designer is - I don't claim to know. Jill
>assumes it is supernatural, but this is superficial. It might be
>but I don't know this. But I do not think it's natural.

Specify what you think are the functional differences between:

"assumes it is supernatural"

and

"do not think it is natural"

Also, explain what you mean by "this is superficial".

[jillery]

On Fri, 25 Aug 2017 18:47:11 -0400, "R. Dean" <"R. Dean"@Gmail.com>

Of course you don't do those specific things you identify above. That
would be too obvious. And if those specific things were the *only*
ways to invoke a religious argument, your would have made a valid
point.

Your definition of what is a religious argument is too conveniently
narrow. I provided a definition, to which you never responded. To
refresh your too convenient amnesia:

***************************************************
religion : The belief in and worship of a supernatural controlling
power, especially a personal god or gods.
***************************************************

FWIW the above is used in both Wiktionary and Oxford Online. So at
the very least, you know that my understanding of what is a religious
argument isn't based on just my personal opinion. My impression is
you can't say the same about your understanding.

>I make no assumptions, since I have no basis for claiming an identity.
>I never use the term deity, since deity
> is not an explanation for anything. OTOH Where is see design I do
>infer a designer or where I recognize fine tuning I think of a tuner.
>IOW design requires a designer, fine tuning requires a tuner. Each term
>has a role to play.

Your denials notwithstanding, your paragraph above illustrates your
circular reasoning in a nutshell, where your arguments assume your
conclusions. That you see design is an *assumption*. And you don't
explain how you distinguish apparent design from actual design. And
when you say how you recognize design, you invariably invoke an
*assumption* of a designer, ex. tracks in the snow. And you say
nothing at all about whether you accept design from unguided natural
processes, and how you distinguish those designs from purposeful
design.

[jillery]

On Fri, 25 Aug 2017 19:14:23 -0400, "R. Dean" <"R. Dean"@Gmail.com>

Your denials notwithstanding, you typically quotemine scientists, ex.
your recent use of G&E's punq eeq, where you claimed they observed
evidence which supported ID, when in fact they observed no such thing.

Also, that "godamn [sic] bastard" RonO identified the likely source of
your OP for this topic to be from Evolution News and Views, an ID
apologist blog associated with Discotut. Apparently you carefully did
*not* cite your source there.

[RonO]

Run in denial. What good will it ever do you? All the half way honest
and competent IDiots have already quit the ID scam. Can you even buy a
clue? What do you think happened to the International Society of
Complexity, Information, and Design (ISCID) that was started by the ID
perps and was supposed to be composed of IDiot scientists? Most of them
quit after Dover. The society disbanded in 2008 because the only IDiots
left there were likely associated with the Discovery Institute and there
was no reason to have two bogus ID scam outfits composed of the same guys.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Society_for_Complexity,_Information,_and_Design

Look up the IDEA student clubs. Sure, most of them were just converted
from scientific creationist clubs that had already existed, but what
happened to the IDEA college clubs? You can go to the IDEA web site and
look. Most stopped updating their site after the bait and switch
started to go down in 2002. None of them updated their sites after
Dover in 2005. These were college clubs that were supposed to be
discussing the ID science, but they found out that there was no such ID
science to discuss.

http://www.ideacenter.org/clubs/locations.php

I clicked on all the university chapters and didn't find a single
functional IDiot club. I went to the Berkeley and Stanford web sites
and looked up active student clubs and no IDEA clubs come up. The IDEA
is still asking for donations and they are still updating their site,
but there don't seem to be enough students stupid enough to be IDiots at
this time to get a group of them together at any one college.

These guys have had press releases (the last in 2016) but haven't
updated their site much since 2009.

The ID Network of academic IDiots disbanded in 2009 and they were the
second most influential group of IDiots next to the ID scam outfit at
the Discovery Institute. It isn't that they quit being creationists
because some of them are now involved with COPE a creationist
organization selling the switch scam. They had difficulty selling the
switch scam with intelligent design in the name of their organization.

http://www.intelligentdesignnetwork.org/

The only IDiots left are the ignorant, incompetent, and or dishonest.
The half way honest and competent IDiots have already quit the ID
creationist scam.

Running away in denial of reality is stupid, and that is what you are.
Face that fact. Only you can make yourself less stupid.

Ron Okimoto

[R. Dean]

I don't even know it a Deity.

>
> And every time I notice you raise this point over and over, I remind
> you that the identity of your Designer, it's specific name, is utterly
> and completely irrelevant to any actual issue under discussion. So I
> remain unclear why you continue to raise this point at all.
>

You don't, but other people almost invariably bring up religion, god
or christanity as if this is somehow my justification for my views.
For some people this is important.

>
>
>>> You made no effort to challenge that and, despite several requests
>>> from me and others, you have given no explanation as to why you prefer
>>> a vague, undefined explanation against one based on real evidence.
>>> Your continuing failure to do so makes it reasonable to assume that
>>> your rejection of the Theory of Evolution is based on emotion rather
>>> than any form of logic.
>>>
>> I see evolution as the alternative evidence of what is observed.
>
>
> I assume you mean "alternative explanation".
>

Yes, I did thanks.

[R. Dean]

I never deliberately take quotes out of context or change the meaning
of the quote nor do I intentionally misinterpret scientist. Furthermore,
you don't provide any examples, so that I might defend myself against
these charges and accusations you bring against me.

[Bob Casanova]

On Fri, 25 Aug 2017 18:37:58 +0100, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by Martin Harran
<martin...@gmail.com>:

Hear, hear! I've been trying to get across that point, that
science and religion aren't mutually exclusive, for years.
Religion doesn't (or shouldn't; some fanatics believe
otherwise) deal with facts of the physical world, and
science doesn't (or shouldn't; some fanatics believe
otherwise) deal with morality and ethics.

>>Any religion which tries to belittle creation by
>>insisting it had to be done according to one sect's private rules is bad
>>religion. Any religion which opposes the wonder of creation by trying
>>to keep much of it shrouded in ignorance and/or mystery is bad religion.

Agreed. And the problem seems to be that only the "bad" ones
get any press.

[Bob Casanova]

On Fri, 25 Aug 2017 16:23:01 -0400, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by "R. Dean" <"R. Dean"@Gmail.com>:

>>>> On Thu, 24 Aug 2017 16:30:24 -0400, "R. Dean" <"R. Dean"@Gmail.com>

<snip>

>>>>> Why do you bring religion into this discussion. It has no place and I
>>>>> never argue for religion.

<snip>

>Had you been reading my stuff, you would realize that my position is;
>that while there is evidence of design in the universe and life, but
>there is absolutely no direct empirical evidence pointing to the
>identity of the designer. One may believe the designer is Zeus, Ra, the
>god of the bible or some other god, this would be strictly a matter of
>belief and faith not evidence.

Granted. Perhaps you might want to note that *all* of these
purported designers are religious in nature; it's
inescapable.

So you do indeed post religious arguments, even though they
aren't creed-specific.

[R. Dean]

On 8/26/2017 1:03 PM, Bob Casanova wrote:
> On Fri, 25 Aug 2017 16:23:01 -0400, the following appeared
> in talk.origins, posted by "R. Dean" <"R. Dean"@Gmail.com>:
>
>>>>> On Thu, 24 Aug 2017 16:30:24 -0400, "R. Dean" <"R. Dean"@Gmail.com>
>
> <snip>
>
>>>>>> Why do you bring religion into this discussion. It has no place and I
>>>>>> never argue for religion.
>
> <snip>
>
>> Had you been reading my stuff, you would realize that my position is;
>> that while there is evidence of design in the universe and life, but
>> there is absolutely no direct empirical evidence pointing to the
>> identity of the designer. One may believe the designer is Zeus, Ra, the
>> god of the bible or some other god, this would be strictly a matter of
>> belief and faith not evidence.
>
> Granted. Perhaps you might want to note that *all* of these
> purported designers are religious in nature; it's
> inescapable.
>
> So you do indeed post religious arguments, even though they
> aren't creed-specific.
>

Only if the evidence points to "religious conclusions".
It would be wrong if religious conclusions were the starting
point.

[Burkhard]

Sure, sure. The designer is apparently several billion years old, and so
powerful and knowledgeable that they can do through methods unknown
things that are far beyond the human ken, like designing entire
universes and setting the physical constants for them. But that does not
mean it's a god, no siree! For all you know the physical constants of
this universe were set by Mrs. B.J. Smegma of 13, The Crescent, Belmont,
as part of a laugh with the girls during bingo night.

Now me, I'm simple. If it throws bolts of lightning like a god, and
kills millions in jealous rage like a god, and seduces mortal woman like
a god, it probably is god

>

[jillery]

On Sat, 26 Aug 2017 13:04:46 -0400, "R. Dean" <"R. Dean"@Gmail.com>

Thou doth protest too much, methinks:

On Sat, 26 Aug 2017 07:12:11 -0400, jillery <69jp...@gmail.com>
wrote:

<8ql2qct2sfpeip59f...@4ax.com>

<https://groups.google.com/d/msg/talk.origins/Yl5q1kHZqXA/IwQ2kUl8CAAJ>

It should go without saying, the above was posted just minutes after
the post to which you replied. So I'm not sure why you conveniently
ignored it, since I include examples of the very things you say I do
not.

Also, I reposted a definition of "religion" which shows that your
supernatural designer is a religious claim.

Also, I reposted a criticism of your circular reasoning, where you
assume design in order to assume a designer.

So far, you have replied to NOTA. My impression is your selective
replies demonstrate an intelligently designed process.

And of course, the above are only the most recent posts. Over the
years, I have identified other examples of your quotemines and your ad
hominem attacks.

Would it really make a difference if I cited them also, just so you
can not reply to them as well?

[jillery]

On Sat, 26 Aug 2017 17:03:33 -0400, "R. Dean" <"R. Dean"@Gmail.com>
wrote:

Of course, your argument is circular, which I also pointed out
recently, which you also did not reply to. Imagine that.

[jillery]

On Sat, 26 Aug 2017 12:48:04 -0400, "R. Dean" <"R. Dean"@Gmail.com>

That's a meaningless semantic quibble. That you resort to it suggests
you have nothing meaningful to say. That you don't respond to my
questions at the end of my post confirms it.

[Mark Isaak]

On 8/25/17 10:37 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
> On Fri, 25 Aug 2017 08:54:23 -0700, Mark Isaak
> <eciton@curiousta/xyz/xonomy.net> wrote:
>

>> On 8/24/17 2:02 PM, Martin Harran wrote:
>>> On Thu, 24 Aug 2017 16:30:24 -0400, "R. Dean" <"R. Dean"@Gmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 8/24/2017 2:42 PM, Mark Isaak wrote:
>>>>> On 8/23/17 5:15 PM, R. Dean wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> In spite of theories, fossil discoveries, just-so-stories
>>>>>> how the giraffes long neck evolved is still an unsolved
>>>>>> mystery.
>>>>>
>>>>> Just 400 years ago, almost everything was still a mystery -- why leaves
>>>>> change color, why the sky is blue, where dew comes from, how various
>>>>> rocks form, how the comma was invented, etc. Then there was a change in
>>>>> intellectual attitude, at least in some parts of the world, and trying
>>>>> to answer questions like that became not merely acceptable but
>>>>> honorable. And so many of those questions got answered that remaining
>>>>> mysteries stand out to R. Dean. That is a success story for science. A
>>>>> great success. Thank you, R. Dean, for emphasizing just how much more
>>>>> science has given us than religion has.
>>>>>
>>>> Why do you bring religion into this discussion. It has no place and I
>>>> never argue for religion.
>>>
>>> Mark detests religion in pretty much the same way as you clearly
>>> detest the Theory of Evolution.
>>

>> I detest bad religion.
>
> I have yet to see you identify any *good* religion.

A good religion is one which promotes humility. A good religion is one
that you can see in people actions, not in what they talk about.

(In fact I met an excellent example of such a person last weekend, and I
am happy to give a plug to Burney Mountain Guest Ranch
<www.burneymountainguestranch.com>, and its owner/operators.)

> I actually don't have any issue with your detestation of religion
> except that it irritates me when a clearly intelligent person comes
> out with daft statements that are clearly driven by personal feelings
> rather than logic.
>
> Your statement above about "how much more science has given us than
> religion has" is a good example of such a statement. Science and
> religion deal with totally disparate matters - and you should know
> that - so making comparisons about benefits that they bring is totally
> meaningless.

I had just finished a book (_The Birth of Plenty_) which made the point
that the human condition improved very little for several millennia,
with religion prominent all that time, but science allowed technological
growth which has improved living standards in all sorts of ways, in just
400 years or so. I agree with you that religion is not an unalloyed
evil -- that it is usually to the good, in fact. But I still think my
statement that science has given us more is empirically sound.

--
Mark Isaak eciton (at) curioustaxonomy (dot) net
"Ignorance, allied with power, is the most ferocious enemy justice can
have." - James Baldwin

[Mark Isaak]

It is likely that religion -- from Paley and his successors -- has
prompted you to infer that design. You did not simply *see* it.

> Who or what this designer is - I don't claim to know. Jill
> assumes it is supernatural, but this is superficial. It might be
> but I don't know this. But I do not think it's natural.

That is a common religious argument. It remains so even if the person
using it is not religious, just as a church remains a religious
structure even if an atheist is the only one in it.

[Burkhard]

R. Dean wrote:
> On 8/25/2017 5:41 AM, Martin Harran wrote:

>> On Thu, 24 Aug 2017 23:39:15 -0400, "R. Dean" <"R. Dean"@Gmail.com>
>> wrote:

>>
>>> On 8/24/2017 5:02 PM, Martin Harran wrote:
>>>> On Thu, 24 Aug 2017 16:30:24 -0400, "R. Dean" <"R. Dean"@Gmail.com>

>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On 8/24/2017 2:42 PM, Mark Isaak wrote:
>>>>>> On 8/23/17 5:15 PM, R. Dean wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> In spite of theories, fossil discoveries, just-so-stories
>>>>>>> how the giraffes long neck evolved is still an unsolved
>>>>>>> mystery.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Just 400 years ago, almost everything was still a mystery -- why
>>>>>> leaves
>>>>>> change color, why the sky is blue, where dew comes from, how various
>>>>>> rocks form, how the comma was invented, etc. Then there was a
>>>>>> change in
>>>>>> intellectual attitude, at least in some parts of the world, and
>>>>>> trying
>>>>>> to answer questions like that became not merely acceptable but
>>>>>> honorable. And so many of those questions got answered that
>>>>>> remaining
>>>>>> mysteries stand out to R. Dean. That is a success story for
>>>>>> science. A
>>>>>> great success. Thank you, R. Dean, for emphasizing just how much
>>>>>> more
>>>>>> science has given us than religion has.
>>>>>>
>>>>> Why do you bring religion into this discussion. It has no place and I
>>>>> never argue for religion.
>>>>

>>>> Mark detests religion in pretty much the same way as you clearly
>>>> detest the Theory of Evolution.
>>>>

>>> Then he must not. I don't detest evolution, I just disagree with
>>> the gradualism advocated by Darwin etc.
>>
>> I said earlier that as far as I can see, you can tell us nothing
>> whatsoever about the intelligent designer; it might be God but then
>> again it might not; basically, people are free to make up their own
>> mind about the nature of the intelligent designer, not on any
>> evidential basis, simply on whatever they would like the designer to
>> be.
>>
> Had you been reading my stuff, you would realize that my position is;
> that while there is evidence of design in the universe and life, but
> there is absolutely no direct empirical evidence pointing to the
> identity of the designer. One may believe the designer is Zeus, Ra, the
> god of the bible or some other god, this would be strictly a matter of
> belief and faith not evidence.
>>

>> You made no effort to challenge that and, despite several requests
>> from me and others, you have given no explanation as to why you prefer
>> a vague, undefined explanation against one based on real evidence.
>> Your continuing failure to do so makes it reasonable to assume that
>> your rejection of the Theory of Evolution is based on emotion rather
>> than any form of logic.
>>
> I see evolution as the alternative evidence of what is observed. I

> go back to Darwin and Paley. Where Paley observed nature and saw
> his god's hand in design and purpose as seen in living organisms:
> Darwin who was very familiar with Paley's works, _in_my_view_ took
> an irascible attitude towards Paley.

Underlining it only emphasizes that this is just "shit I made up". It
has no basis in the extensive notes and correspondence of Darwin, and
does not align with the timeline of his work. If anything, Darwin was
irritated about the fact that some people would focus on perceived
religious implications of his work - it was one of the reasons why he
delayed publication, to be on the one hand certain that every detail was
sound if a public backlash came, and also out of concern for his rather
pious wife.

I also note that in some other posts, you accuse people of "attacking
the messenger" and not engaging with the content, but ascribed motives.
Maybe you should heed your own advice, especially since your ideas about
Darwin's motives are confabulated out of thin cloth?

As a consequence he saw Paley's
> explanation as a challenge which caused him to become obsessed with
> finding an

ore shot R Dean made up as he can;t cope with the content of Darwin's
arguments and the evidence with other words

alternative and "godless" explanation for what Paley observed.
> Apparently, the militant

yah, I head bootcamp is really tough, but it's made up for by the time
spend on the shooting range.

>atheist Richard Dawkins took up Darwin's case,
> he wrote, the "Blind Watchmaker" an obvious 'take off" of Paley's
> watchmaker.
> "To Dawkins, the blind force of natural selection is the basis for the
> apparent design” around us that appears to cry out “for an explanation”
> (the blind watchmaker, 1988, p. ix)
>
> And I recognize this same antagonism in how Darwinian view the Paley's
> god in the intelligent Design movement today.

"recognize" = "mde up without a scintilla of evidence"

I see evolution today as
> an alternative to actual design in nature.
>
> Certainly, Francis Crick recognized evidence of design, however, his
> a piori commitment dictated his response to what biologist see.
>
> He wrote, "Biologists must constantly keep in mind that what they see
> was not designed, but rather evolved." He further 'clarifies' his point
> "It might be thought, therefore, that evolutionary arguments would play
> a large part in guiding biological research, but this is far from the
> case. It is difficult enough to study what is happening now. To figure
> out exactly what happened in evolution is even more difficult. Thus
> evolutionary achievements can be used as hints to suggest possible lines
> of research, but it is highly dangerous to trust them too much. It is
> all too easy to make mistaken inferences unless the process involved is
> already very well understood".
>>
> darwinianfundamentalism.blogspot.com/2013/11/biologists-must-constantly-keep-in-mind.html
>
>>
> Biology is the study of complicated things that give the appearance of
> having been designed for a purpose. Physics is the study of simple
> things that do not tempt us to invoke design
>>
> dbanach.com/dawkins1.htm
>
>>
> So, it's clear that there is an a piori consideration which overrides
> observation.

No it isn't, that's just more things you made up, and not supported by
the quotes you give above.

They are a simple reminder of the need for methodological rigorous in
the light of human failings - nothing more remarkable than reminding a
novice spear fisher that the fish is not quite where it seems to be, but
due to an optical illusion isn't.

We are a tool using species, and evolved to reason about other people's
intention and state of mind. These remarkable achievements came with a
cost - we now see intent where there isn't. This is why people across
cultures and ages swear at inanimate objects when they don't work/hurt
them (hammer on finger, broken down car), or why across cultures we
think flooding or lightning can be placated by offerings or why all
cultures anthropomorphize animals.

This evolutionary trait also found it's way into our language, where
terms often carry teleological or intentional connotations where there
aren't any - e.g. talking about "force" or "work" in physics, even
though we know that neither violence nor anything lie human labouring is
involved.

The quotes are a simple reminder of that fact and tell you that if you
want to show design, you need to apply the same methodological rigor as
with all theories and test it, because initial impressions, due to the
way our cognition and language evolved, can lead you astray otherwise.

If of course the tests were to work out, that would be another story

This comes down to - the question: how can Crick
> and Dawkins know that what they see is not real desugn?

By rigorously testing the assumption, as you do with all scientific
theories. You ask what else you would expect to find, and what you must
not find if your hypotheses were true, and then you check.

Without this
> overwhelming devotion to evolution, would anyone, not devoted to
> Darwin's theory not see this as real and intelligent design?

Possibly, juts as without the devotion to physics, we would still think
the earth is flat (it sure looks as if, in most places), the sun
circles the earth (it sire looks like is) and Zeus is behind lightening
(it sure sounds and feels frightening enough) Some of us are willing to
learn, and accept that appearances can be deceptive the easy explanation
might be wrong, others, sadly, are not.

>

[Martin Harran]

On Fri, 25 Aug 2017 16:23:01 -0400, "R. Dean" <"R. Dean"@Gmail.com>
wrote:

[...]

>Had you been reading my stuff, you would realize that my position is;
>that while there is evidence of design in the universe and life

Once again, when you are asked "What evidence?" you go totally silent.

Why do you keep saying there is evidence when you cannot identify any?

[...]

[R. Dean]

If true, then it follows from the evidence; it does not proceed the
evidence.

>
> Also, I reposted a criticism of your circular reasoning, where you
> assume design in order to assume a designer.
>

I don't assume design. Design is obvious. What is not so obvious is
what caused this "appearence of design" (Dawkins) and for "biologist to
constantly keep in mind that what they see was not designed but evolved"
(Crick). There is obvious reason as to why design was anathema to Darwin
and his followers they cannot allow it even when it's so apparent that
biologist must be warned against."

>
> So far, you have replied to NOTA. My impression is your selective
> replies demonstrate an intelligently designed process.
>
> And of course, the above are only the most recent posts. Over the
> years, I have identified other examples of your quotemines and your ad
> hominem attacks.
>

This is so easy to claim.
>
> Woul it really make a difference if I cited them also, just so you

> can not reply to them as well?
>

I usually reply to you, but I don't always give the explanation you want.

[R. Dean]

On 8/27/2017 1:03 AM, jillery wrote:

How is what I wrote above circular reasoning? I don't think you
understood what I wrote. If a religious conclusion follows how is this
circular reasoning?

[R. Dean]

If I know of no way to identify the designer, how can I explain what it
is or is not?

[R. Dean]

So long as a religious conclusion is not the starting point, there is
no problem. If in reading about genetics one learns that a Roman
Catholic priest is the founder (father) of this branch of science
this is not a mingling of science and religion. My research is
the same.

[Burkhard]

And yet you persistently and without any evidence to back you up talk
about Darwin's preferred metaphysics, and how it in your view influenced
his work.

>

[R. Dean]

So far I haven't found anyone seriously interested in what _I_ base my
opinion on. Most people, so far assume a defensive posture, but I'm no
crusader. I would like to have an honest straight forward discourse on
the topic of design Vs evolution without the inventiveness, personal
insults and character assassination that too often follows.

>
> [...]
>

[Bob Casanova]

On Sat, 26 Aug 2017 17:03:33 -0400, the following appeared

in talk.origins, posted by "R. Dean" <"R. Dean"@Gmail.com>:

>On 8/26/2017 1:03 PM, Bob Casanova wrote:
>> On Fri, 25 Aug 2017 16:23:01 -0400, the following appeared
>> in talk.origins, posted by "R. Dean" <"R. Dean"@Gmail.com>:
>>
>>>>>> On Thu, 24 Aug 2017 16:30:24 -0400, "R. Dean" <"R. Dean"@Gmail.com>
>>
>> <snip>
>>
>>>>>>> Why do you bring religion into this discussion. It has no place and I
>>>>>>> never argue for religion.
>>
>> <snip>
>>
>>> Had you been reading my stuff, you would realize that my position is;
>>> that while there is evidence of design in the universe and life, but
>>> there is absolutely no direct empirical evidence pointing to the
>>> identity of the designer. One may believe the designer is Zeus, Ra, the
>>> god of the bible or some other god, this would be strictly a matter of
>>> belief and faith not evidence.
>>
>> Granted. Perhaps you might want to note that *all* of these
>> purported designers are religious in nature; it's
>> inescapable.
>>
>> So you do indeed post religious arguments, even though they
>> aren't creed-specific.

>Only if the evidence points to "religious conclusions".

Nope; sorry. Religious arguments don't change to secular
ones based on their "conclusions", unless those conclusions
sum to "no deities exist".That has nothing to do with the
issue at hand, which is that any argument which invokes
*any* deity and its purported actions, especially if those
actions involve supernatural abilities, is a religious
argument.

>It would be wrong if religious conclusions were the starting
>point.

Sure, just as any argument which begins with its conclusions
are wrong.

[Bob Casanova]

On Sun, 27 Aug 2017 12:32:24 -0400, the following appeared

in talk.origins, posted by "R. Dean" <"R. Dean"@Gmail.com>:

Sorry, but it's not, just as your example regarding genetics
would not be *if* the priest invoked the actions of a deity
to "explain" any unknown in his research. Invoking deities
is by nature a religious argument.

[jillery]

On Sun, 27 Aug 2017 12:12:57 -0400, "R. Dean" <"R. Dean"@Gmail.com>

Really? So you have no clue about the *nature* of your supernatural
Designer? If so, how can you even assume what It's capable of
designing?

And you *still* didn't respond to my questions at the end of my post.
Do you have no clue how to do that also?

[jillery]

On Sun, 27 Aug 2017 12:06:01 -0400, "R. Dean" <"R. Dean"@Gmail.com>

Not sure why you think I misunderstood. I suppose it's possible,
however unlikely. Restate your point using other words.

And you *still* haven't replied to that post.

[jillery]

On Sun, 27 Aug 2017 12:02:35 -0400, "R. Dean" <"R. Dean"@Gmail.com>

Not even a retraction of your stated claim that I didn't give
examples. And you *still* didn't reply to that post.

>> Also, I reposted a definition of "religion" which shows that your
>> supernatural designer is a religious claim.
> >
>If true, then it follows from the evidence; it does not proceed the
>evidence.

Either way works for me. And you *still* didn't reply to that post.

>> Also, I reposted a criticism of your circular reasoning, where you
>> assume design in order to assume a designer.
> >
>I don't assume design. Design is obvious.

Your last two sentences above contradict each other. If it's so
obvious to you, why do you *still* not explain how you recognize
design?

>What is not so obvious is
>what caused this "appearence of design" (Dawkins) and for "biologist to
>constantly keep in mind that what they see was not designed but evolved"
>(Crick). There is obvious reason as to why design was anathema to Darwin
>and his followers they cannot allow it even when it's so apparent that
>biologist must be warned against."

You have the cart before the horse. Answering how one recognizes
design would likely also answer what causes its appearance.

>> So far, you have replied to NOTA. My impression is your selective
>> replies demonstrate an intelligently designed process.

And you *still* didn't reply to any of these posts.

>> And of course, the above are only the most recent posts. Over the
>> years, I have identified other examples of your quotemines and your ad
>> hominem attacks.
> >
>This is so easy to claim.

As I showed above, I back up my claims.
As you showed above, you don't back up your claims.

>> Woul it really make a difference if I cited them also, just so you
>> can not reply to them as well?
> >
>I usually reply to you, but I don't always give the explanation you want.

What you "usually" do isn't relevant here. What you *have* done here
is to accuse me of doing something dishonest I didn't do, while
dishonestly evading the issues. And when I proved that, you failed to
retract your accusation, and you *still* didn't reply to that post.

You have gone beyond playing the dishonesty card, and have stacked the
deck with multiple copies.

[jillery]

On Sun, 27 Aug 2017 12:32:24 -0400, "R. Dean" <"R. Dean"@Gmail.com>
wrote:

My understanding is Mendel didn't invoke a supernatural Designer to
explain his observations. Not sure how you don't understand that
difference.

Your "research"? What original insights have you discovered?

[jillery]

On Sun, 27 Aug 2017 13:09:43 -0400, "R. Dean" <"R. Dean"@Gmail.com>

wrote:

>On 8/27/2017 5:36 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
>> On Fri, 25 Aug 2017 16:23:01 -0400, "R. Dean" <"R. Dean"@Gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> [...]
>>
>>> Had you been reading my stuff, you would realize that my position is;
>>> that while there is evidence of design in the universe and life
>>
>> Once again, when you are asked "What evidence?" you go totally silent.
>>
>> Why do you keep saying there is evidence when you cannot identify any?
> >
>So far I haven't found anyone seriously interested in what _I_ base my
>opinion on. Most people, so far assume a defensive posture, but I'm no
>crusader. I would like to have an honest straight forward discourse on
>the topic of design Vs evolution without the inventiveness, personal
>insults and character assassination that too often follows.

Then stop doing those things, and instead start an honest, straight
forward discourse by explaining how you recognize design in nature.

[Martin Harran]

On Sun, 27 Aug 2017 13:09:43 -0400, "R. Dean" <"R. Dean"@Gmail.com>

wrote:

>On 8/27/2017 5:36 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
>> On Fri, 25 Aug 2017 16:23:01 -0400, "R. Dean" <"R. Dean"@Gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> [...]
>>
>>> Had you been reading my stuff, you would realize that my position is;
>>> that while there is evidence of design in the universe and life
>>
>> Once again, when you are asked "What evidence?" you go totally silent.
>>
>> Why do you keep saying there is evidence when you cannot identify any?
> >
>So far I haven't found anyone seriously interested in what _I_ base my
>opinion on.

I have pointed out to you several times that as a religious believer,
I would be predisposed to the idea of an intelligent designer and I
have invited you to put forward good reasons why I should abandon my
acceptance of evolution so that claim does not stand up.

So far, however, every time I have asked you for examples of the
evidence you claim to exist, you have simply walked away.

> Most people, so far assume a defensive posture, but I'm no
>crusader. I would like to have an honest straight forward discourse on
>the topic of design Vs evolution without the inventiveness, personal
>insults and character assassination that too often follows.

You have been guilty of a fair bit of that yourself. Why don't you
drop the ad hominems present your actual logic? I obviously can't
speak for other people but I am certainly willing to give it a fair
hearing.

>
>>
>> [...]
>>

[Martin Harran]

On Sat, 26 Aug 2017 23:33:14 -0700, Mark Isaak

Well, Christianity is the religion most discussed around here and it
certainly promotes humility. Not all Christians practice that
humility; within the Catholic Church for example, you have at one
extreme Cardinals who live in absolute luxury and grandeur but, at the
other end of the scale, you have priests, monks and nuns who have
given up everything to live in primitive conditions in the Third World
and service to the unfortunates living there. The fact that some
people fail to achieve the necessary standards is a reflection of
human weakness and not the underlying religion.

> A good religion is one

>that you can see in people actions, not in what they talk about.

I agree and unfortunately, many Christians are better at talking than
they are doing; again, however, the failure of some humans does not
diminish the underlying value of the religion the practice.

>
>(In fact I met an excellent example of such a person last weekend, and I
>am happy to give a plug to Burney Mountain Guest Ranch
><www.burneymountainguestranch.com>, and its owner/operators.)
>
>> I actually don't have any issue with your detestation of religion
>> except that it irritates me when a clearly intelligent person comes
>> out with daft statements that are clearly driven by personal feelings
>> rather than logic.
>>
>> Your statement above about "how much more science has given us than
>> religion has" is a good example of such a statement. Science and
>> religion deal with totally disparate matters - and you should know
>> that - so making comparisons about benefits that they bring is totally
>> meaningless.
>
>I had just finished a book (_The Birth of Plenty_) which made the point
>that the human condition improved very little for several millennia,
>with religion prominent all that time, but science allowed technological
>growth which has improved living standards in all sorts of ways, in just
>400 years or so. I agree with you that religion is not an unalloyed
>evil -- that it is usually to the good, in fact. But I still think my
>statement that science has given us more is empirically sound.

I haven't read that book but if your conclusion is accurate then both
the authors of the book and yourself ignore the fact that most of that
400 years was a period when all technological and economic and
scientific progress was made under a Christian culture where the
Catholic Church was the overwhelmingly dominant force. Some people,
for example, like to present Galileo as some sort of evidence of the
church being anti-science but they ignore the fact that Galileo was a
devout Catholic even after his abysmal treatment by the Church; they
also ignore the fact that Galileo, like most scientists of the "golden
age" of science received his early education at a monastic school and
university education at an institution that had grown out of the
monastic schools and that most of their work was directly encouraged
and supported by people like the Jesuits.

In case it sounds like I am promoting the Catholic Church, the same
applied in other denominations; people like Newton and Darwin and
other British scientists operated in a staunchly Protestant culture
which provided similar fertile ground for their scientific work.

Thomas E. Woods wrote a book a few years ago called " How the Catholic
Church Built Western Civilization"; I wouldn't expect you to read the
book but here is a link to a publicity blurb summarising its main
conclusions.

https://archive.lewrockwell.com/woods/woods40.html

You will likely challenge some of those conclusions but I think there
is no doubt that Christianity was directly responsible for providing a
fertile ground for most of the technological and scientific advances
that have been made over the last 500 years or so.

[R. Dean]

I offered my justification for this conclusion. IE his familiarity with
Paley's work and his obsession to find an alternative explanation to
Paleys. WHich he did and it is widely accepted.

and how it in your view influenced his work.
>

Of course, there's no way to prove it, but he no doubt had Paley on his
mind as he took his 5 year journey and searched for his evidence which
he later compiled in his book about "transmutation".
>
>>
>

[Bill Rogers]

Do you not see that on the one hand you freely attribute anti-religious motives to Darwin, which you cannot actually document from his writings (as Burkhard has shown in detail), and on the other hand you continually take umbrage when you think people are attributing pro-religious motives to you? The double standard seems to be obvious to everyone but yourself.

[R. Dean]

I disagree. I think design in the universe and nature can be observed.
This I see as evidence. I think this is sufficent; it isn't necessary to
take this to the next step. But the implication is there.

[jillery]

On Sun, 27 Aug 2017 22:26:04 -0400, "R. Dean" <"R. Dean"@Gmail.com>
wrote:

Once again, you're entitled to your own opinions, you're not entitled
to your own facts. That you think design in nature can be observed is
your opinion. Before you can treat that as factual evidence, you need
to explain *how* you observe design in nature. That you don't is one
reason why your argument is circular.

[Burkhard]

Nope. You reasserted your speculation. That is not a justification. That
is just what we in science call "making shit up" (technical term)

IE his familiarity with
> Paley's work and his obsession to find an alternative explanation to
> Paleys.

This is question begging, as the "obsession" only exists in your mind.

> WHich he did and it is widely accepted.
>
> and how it in your view influenced his work.
>>
> Of course, there's no way to prove it,

There are ways to evidence it. Darwin left copious notes behind, and
volumes of communication with friends, colleagues and competitors.

None of them bears out your claim, none of them fit the timeline you
suggest, many of them flat contradict what you are saying. There is not
even an outlay plan for any of this when he starts his journey, nothing
that indication that species diversity etc is anywhere near his mind.
Instead, we find the same reasons that are behind all the numerous
expedition that scientists did at the time, which is simple fact gathering.

but he no doubt had Paley on his
> mind as he took his 5 year journey and searched for his evidence which
> he later compiled in his book about "transmutation".

Not according to any of the detailed notes and letters he left behind
Again, that is just you making stuff up to avoid engaging with the
actual evidence he found that informed his theory,and instated engaging
in wild and unsupported speculation about motives,


>>
>>>
>>
>

[Ernest Major]

On 26/08/2017 00:28, R. Dean wrote:
> I do see design in the universe and nature and this in my mind implies
> a designer.

You seem to be more enthusiastic about denying that Intelligent Design
is religious, in spite of all the contrary evidence provided the
Discovery Institute and its fellow travellers, than about providing an
argument in support of the claim that somehow something somewhere
somewhen was designed.

Until you specify what was designed, you don't even have a hypothesis
that is in disagreement with the theory of evolution. There is nothing
in fine-tuning that disagrees with the theory of evolution. There is
nothing in supernatural abiogenesis (or eternal panspermia on the other
side of the coin) that disagrees with the theory of evolution.

For an example, what forms of RNA editing do you think are designed? One
could, if one assumed design, imagine a design reason for RNA editing of
catalytic RNAs such as rRNA and tRNA, as this gives access to a wider
domain of potential interactions, but I can't see why anyone should
design in mRNA editing.

Is protein synthesis designed? If so, why is the mechanism of the
incorporation of selenocysteine and pyrolysine in proteins kludgy?

If you argue life is designed, you have to thread your way between the
Scylla of arguing that evolution has achieved very little and thereby
agreeing with the young earth creationists, and the Charybdis of
conceding that evolution has done a lot, in which case one is led to ask
why one complex biological system is considered a result of evolution,
but another a result of design. Given that you recently brought up the
giraffe's neck as if it was evidence against evolution (and by
implication evidence for design), you seem to be allied with the young
earth creationists.

--
alias Ernest Major

[Peter Nyikos]

On Friday, August 25, 2017 at 6:45:04 PM UTC-4, R. Dean wrote:
> On 8/25/2017 8:55 AM, jillery wrote:
> > On Fri, 25 Aug 2017 00:07:57 -0400, "R. Dean" <"R. Dean"@Gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> >
> >> On 8/24/2017 11:18 PM, jillery wrote:
> >>> On Thu, 24 Aug 2017 16:30:24 -0400, "R. Dean" <"R. Dean"@Gmail.com>

> >>> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> On 8/24/2017 2:42 PM, Mark Isaak wrote:
> >>>>> On 8/23/17 5:15 PM, R. Dean wrote:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> In spite of theories, fossil discoveries, just-so-stories
> >>>>>> how the giraffes long neck evolved is still an unsolved
> >>>>>> mystery.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Just 400 years ago, almost everything was still a mystery -- why leaves
> >>>>> change color, why the sky is blue, where dew comes from, how various
> >>>>> rocks form, how the comma was invented, etc.  Then there was a change in
> >>>>> intellectual attitude, at least in some parts of the world, and trying
> >>>>> to answer questions like that became not merely acceptable but
> >>>>> honorable.  And so many of those questions got answered that remaining
> >>>>> mysteries stand out to R. Dean.  That is a success story for science.  A
> >>>>> great success.  Thank you, R. Dean, for emphasizing just how much more
> >>>>> science has given us than religion has.
> >>>>>
> >>>> Why do you bring religion into this discussion. It has no place and I
> >>>> never argue for religion.
> >>>
> >>>

> >>> Incorrect. You repeatedly make religious arguments.
> >>>
> >> When or where do I ever discussed religion, quote religious sources,
> >> discuss Christianity, Islam, the Jewish religion or any other religion.
> >> You should know that I make it a point not to. I didn't expect this from
> >> you Jill!
> >
> >
> > You should know that every time I notice you reply as above, I point
> > out that said reply is utterly irrelevant to the fact that you make a
> > religious argument every time you invoke a supernatural
> > Designer/Tuner/Deity to explain natural phenomena.
> >
> > What I didn't expect from you is that you usually ignore said point,
> > and then affect shock as if you have never read said point before,
> > like you do above.
> >
> > After all these years, your overwrought overreaction is just silly.
> > Who do you think you're fooling?
> >
> It's obvious that you and I have a different concept regarding what is
> and what is not religious. I think turning to religion as a source of
> information, IE quoting from sacred books, religious publications
> some priest or minister etc is appealing to religion. I _never_ ever
> turn to religion for support.
>
> I make no assumptions, since I have no basis for claiming an identity.
> I never use the term deity,

Ah, so jillery was just falling in line with Bob Casanova's peculiar
usage when she wrote that you had admitted that your designer
was "a supernatural deity". This is a bit of what I wrote in reply
to her just a few minutes ago:

_______________ excerpts from reply, names added in brackets ___________

[jillery:]
> >>>> The relevant point here is ID is not married to any particular
> >>>> religion, and all religions are not married to ID, but ID is
> >>>> necessarily linked to an assumption of a supernatural creative deity,
> >>>> a religious claim.

[Peter:]
That depends on what you mean by "supernatural". It could simply mean
"outside our physical ca. 13.7 gigayear old universe" in which case
it is a no-brainer.


[...]

[Bob:]
> >>That being the case, please describe the "Designer" in such
> >>a way that it does *not* equal a deity. The only
> >>"assumptions" regarding the nature of the purported
> >>"Designer" relate to the abilities ascribed to said
> >>"Designer", all of which involve the supernatural.

Here, Bob seems to be using the word "supernatural" in the restricted
sense described above. Hence his use of "deity" is a tad strange.


[...]

[jillery to Bob:]

> FWIW R.Dean had previously admitted that his Designer is a
> supernatural deity.

Did he really use the word "deity," or are you just falling in
line with Bob's usage?

====================== end of excerpts, deletia denoted by [...] ========

The above was posted on a thread you were very active on until last
week, in:

https://groups.google.com/d/msg/talk.origins/Y9ARb2PSVck/vstBhlwFAQAJ
Subject: Re: Why wasn't doing science the objective for the ID scam?
Date: Mon, 28 Aug 2017 08:32:36 -0700 (PDT)
Message-ID: <7a8bc67b-93f2-4013...@googlegroups.com>

I recommend that you re-visit that thread, if only to see how I handle
the issue of ID. I did another post there a bit earlier this morning, in
reply to Martin Harran, who made some rather naive comments in reply to you
after you stopped posting to that thread.


> since deity
> is not an explanation for anything. OTOH Where is see design I do
> infer a designer or where I recognize fine tuning I think of a tuner.
> IOW design requires a designer, fine tuning requires a tuner. Each term
> has a role to play.

The way you define terms, it is clear that you *think* you see design
and fine tuning. I prefer to use the term "fine tuning" to be
synonymous with "extremely low tolerances as far as being hospitable
to life". That's an awkward enough phrase to make it worthwhile to
NOT use "fine tuning" in a way that logically entails the existence
of a fine tuner.

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

[Bob Casanova]

On Sun, 27 Aug 2017 22:26:04 -0400, the following appeared

Then present your arguments regarding how design can be
distinguished from that which looks similar to design but
isn't. You've been asked to do this several times and
ignored it every time.

>This I see as evidence. I think this is sufficent; it isn't necessary to
>take this to the next step. But the implication is there.

Implications are nice; they are also frequently subjective.
I'm looking for an *objective* way to distinguish design
from its false appearance (the unavoidable beginning to a
serious discussion), and so far no one has been willing to
take up that challenge.

And BTW, you haven't addressed my actual point, that the
invocation of an entity with apparently-supernatural
abilities is by nature a religious argument.

[Peter Nyikos]

On Friday, August 25, 2017 at 11:50:04 AM UTC-4, Mark Isaak wrote:
> On 8/24/17 1:30 PM, R. Dean wrote:
> > On 8/24/2017 2:42 PM, Mark Isaak wrote:
> >> On 8/23/17 5:15 PM, R. Dean wrote:
> >>>
> >>> In spite of theories, fossil discoveries, just-so-stories
> >>> how the giraffes long neck evolved is still an unsolved
> >>> mystery.
> >>
> >> Just 400 years ago, almost everything was still a mystery

By that time, Kepler had worked out all three laws of planetary
motion.

Try again.

> >> -- why
> >> leaves change color, why the sky is blue, where dew comes from,

I really doubt that this was unknown by then. Did you see my
satire on the Sandman in reply to Greg Guarino?

> >> how various rocks form, how the comma was invented, etc. Then there was a
> >> change in intellectual attitude, at least in some parts of the world,
> >> and trying to answer questions like that became not merely acceptable
> >> but honorable. And so many of those questions got answered

All the sciences have lots of "mysteries" to replace the ones that
you listed. One about which I've entered in serious discussion is:

What did the intermediate forms between a glider like the
colugo and the first bats of which we have fossils look like?

http://scienceblogs.com/tetrapodzoology/2011/03/05/visualising-protobats/

> >> the remaining mysteries stand out to R. Dean. That is a success story for
> >> science. A great success.

I won't argue with that, once one gets past your unimaginative
laundry list. By the way, the question about the comma is a
historical question, not a scientific one.

> >> Thank you, R. Dean, for emphasizing just
> >> how much more science has given us than religion has.

As usual, you ignore the other side of the ledger.

> > Why do you bring religion into this discussion. It has no place and I
> > never argue for religion.
>
> Yes you do. When you enter a creationism vs. evolution forum and argue
> against evolution using creationist arguments,

You mean arguments that happen to be used by creationists for
creationist ends.

To dismiss an argument as "creationist" for that reason is to
be guilty of an ad hominem fallacy.

But you are in good company: Ray Martinez uses the same fallacy
you do, but with "atheistic" in place of "creationist."

> you are implicitly
> arguing for creationism.

I wonder -- did Ray Martinez pick this fallacy up from you, or
did you pick it up from him?

Or did both of you arrive at it independently?

> And creationism is inseparable from religion,

Only if "creationism" means magically conjuring up organisms
(e.g. *Homo sapiens*) ex nihilo.

But others have been accused of creationism on much more tenuous
grounds. For example, Ron O has labeled anyone who goes to Roman
Catholic church services regularly and is named "Peter Nyikos"
as a creationist.

Granted, that's still inseparable from religion, but the very
best hope (still a flimsy one) that I have for anything remotely
resembling theism being true has nothing to do with religion.

You can read about it in a reply I did to jillery this morning:

https://groups.google.com/d/msg/talk.origins/Y9ARb2PSVck/vstBhlwFAQAJ
Subject: Re: Why wasn't doing science the objective for the ID scam?
Date: Mon, 28 Aug 2017 08:32:36 -0700 (PDT)
Message-ID: <7a8bc67b-93f2-4013...@googlegroups.com>

> which means YOU bring up religion. If that is not your intent, you need
> to spell out what your alternative is.

I have a number of alternatives, depending on how much "design" is
supposed to encompass. As I said to Martin Harran this morning, on
the same thread as above:

What do you mean by "things"? the biological organisms of our planet?
the first organisms of our planet? organisms in general? our whole
universe?

This was in response to Martin having written to R.Dean:

So what you're saying is that things were clearly designed by an
intelligent designer

I've dealt with two extremes many times in the past: "the first
organisms on our planet" and "our whole universe". I dealt with
the latter in the theory I described for jillery on the linked post.

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

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

[solar penguin]

On Fri, 25 Aug 2017 01:59:02 -0700, ed wolf wrote...

>
> The Creator gave it the long neck to enable grazing with legs so long it
> had to lie down sideways to eat grass, and it looked pretty ridiculous,
> too.
> The lack of fossilized transitional necks almost everywhere is also
> proof of something or other.
> Giraffes and humans both having 7 vertebra in the neck show they both
> come from the same Designer.

Giraffe's necks aren't long. Everyone else's necks are just very short.

[Peter Nyikos]

On Friday, August 25, 2017 at 5:00:05 AM UTC-4, ed wolf wrote:

> On Thursday, August 24, 2017 at 2:10:02 AM UTC+2, R. Dean wrote:
> > In spite of theories, fossil discoveries, just-so-stories
> > how the giraffes long neck evolved is still an unsolved
> > mystery.
>

> The Creator gave it the long neck to enable
> grazing with legs so long it had to lie
> down sideways to eat grass,

Giraffes are browsers, not grazers. What's more, their necks don't quite
compensate for the length of their legs. They have to spread
their front legs wide apart in order to drink from a pool or stream.

Yeah, I know you are lampooning creationism, but that could
be done in lots of ways that don't get the science wrong.

> and it looked
> pretty ridiculous, too.
> The lack of fossilized transitional necks almost
> everywhere is also proof of something or other.

Yeah, no matter how many transitional fossils you
find or how fine the gradation, some silly creationist
is bound to taunt, "The missing link is still missing."

> Giraffes and humans both having 7 vertebra in
> the neck show they both come from the
> same Designer.

Thanks for finding another mystery for Mark Isaak to chew on:
why do mammals not have the ability to add more vertebrae to
their necks, the way dinosaurs did?

Not only would the giraffe's neck be a lot more flexible than
it is now, but it could be made a lot longer, to rival
the neck of *Mamenchisaurus* and to enable the giraffe to reach lots
of leaves currently out of reach.

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

[Peter Nyikos]

On Friday, August 25, 2017 at 11:55:04 AM UTC-4, Bob Casanova wrote:
> On Fri, 25 Aug 2017 00:07:57 -0400, the following appeared

> in talk.origins, posted by "R. Dean" <"R. Dean"@Gmail.com>:
>

> >On 8/24/2017 11:18 PM, jillery wrote:

> >> On Thu, 24 Aug 2017 16:30:24 -0400, "R. Dean" <"R. Dean"@Gmail.com>

> >> wrote:
> >>
> >>> On 8/24/2017 2:42 PM, Mark Isaak wrote:

> >>>> On 8/23/17 5:15 PM, R. Dean wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>> In spite of theories, fossil discoveries, just-so-stories
> >>>>> how the giraffes long neck evolved is still an unsolved
> >>>>> mystery.

> >>>> Just 400 years ago, almost everything was still a mystery -- why leaves
> >>>> change color, why the sky is blue, where dew comes from, how various

> >>>> rocks form, how the comma was invented, etc.  Then there was a change in
> >>>> intellectual attitude, at least in some parts of the world, and trying
> >>>> to answer questions like that became not merely acceptable but

> >>>> honorable.  And so many of those questions got answered that remaining

> >>>> mysteries stand out to R. Dean.  That is a success story for science.  A
> >>>> great success. 

See my reply to Mark Isaak, taking some of the wind out of his sails.
Also see my reply ed wolf a few minutes ago, for another juicy
mystery that I've never seen any scientific explanation for.
To make it even juicier, it gives a much more interesting and
difficult mystery about the giraffe's neck than any that R.Dean
has hinted at.

And I'm not holding my breath waiting for either Mark or ed to
give one. Or anyone else here, for that matter.

> >>>> Thank you, R. Dean, for emphasizing just how much more
> >>>> science has given us than religion has.
> >>>>

> >>> Why do you bring religion into this discussion. It has no place and I
> >>> never argue for religion.
> >>
> >>

> >> Incorrect. You repeatedly make religious arguments.
> > >
> > When or where do I ever discussed religion, quote religious sources,
> >discuss Christianity, Islam, the Jewish religion or any other religion.
> >You should know that I make it a point not to. I didn't expect this from
> >you Jill!
>

> She didn't say you discuss religion; she said you make
> religious arguments. Which you do; any argument in which ID
> is proposed as the source of life is a religious one.

That's rather sophomoric, like saying, "any sufficiently advanced technology
is indistinguishable from magic."

I'm in the process of challenging you and jillery on this, on
another thread:

https://groups.google.com/d/msg/talk.origins/Y9ARb2PSVck/2_iVHpVeAQAJ

Subject: Re: Why wasn't doing science the objective for the ID scam?

Date: Tue, 29 Aug 2017 11:49:51 -0700 (PDT)
Message-ID: <81758f9d-cb9e-4e61...@googlegroups.com>

Peter Nyikos
Professor, Department of Math. -- standard disclaimer --
U. of South Carolina

http://www.math.sc.edu/~nyikos/

[solar penguin]

On Tue, 29 Aug 2017 12:05:48 -0700, Peter Nyikos wrote...

> On Friday, August 25, 2017 at 5:00:05 AM UTC-4, ed wolf wrote:
>>
>> The Creator gave it the long neck to enable grazing with legs so long
>> it had to lie down sideways to eat grass,
>
> Giraffes are browsers, not grazers. What's more, their necks don't quite
> compensate for the length of their legs. They have to spread their front
> legs wide apart in order to drink from a pool or stream.
>
> Yeah, I know you are lampooning creationism, but that could be done in
> lots of ways that don't get the science wrong.
>

But getting the science wrong is an important part of lampooning
creationism!

[R. Dean]

On 8/27/2017 3:50 PM, Martin Harran wrote:
> On Sun, 27 Aug 2017 13:09:43 -0400, "R. Dean" <"R. Dean"@Gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> On 8/27/2017 5:36 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
>>> On Fri, 25 Aug 2017 16:23:01 -0400, "R. Dean" <"R. Dean"@Gmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>> [...]
>>>
>>>> Had you been reading my stuff, you would realize that my position is;
>>>> that while there is evidence of design in the universe and life
>>>
>>> Once again, when you are asked "What evidence?" you go totally silent.
>>>
>>> Why do you keep saying there is evidence when you cannot identify any?
>>>
>> So far I haven't found anyone seriously interested in what _I_ base my
>> opinion on.
>
> I have pointed out to you several times that as a religious believer,
> I would be predisposed to the idea of an intelligent designer and I
> have invited you to put forward good reasons why I should abandon my
> acceptance of evolution so that claim does not stand up.
>

I can give reasons I believe as I do, but to convert you to my views>

isn't an objective I have.

>
> So far, however, every time I have asked you for examples of the
> evidence you claim to exist, you have simply walked away.
>

I've had long discussions regarding that which I consider evidence
of design including the Anthropic Principle advanced by theoretical
Physicist Brandon Carter in 1973. Sometimes called the "Fine tuning" of
the Universe which allowed the rise of life on at least one planet.
Secondly, Punctuated Equilibrium re-visited by the late Stephen Gould
and Niles Eldredge and the third; how the new branch of biology called
"evolutionary development" (evo Devo) could explain how the fossil
record could depict abrupt appearance new species in the fossil record
followed by long periods of stasis, and then their sudden disappearance
from the record.
This is unquestionable reality as seen in the fossil record. As far as
gradual change in a finely graded series of sequential steps between
ancestral species to later decedents with radically and profoundly
different morphologies, there is absolutely no possible way to
determine this _without_appealing_ to theory. Theory demands
intermediate forms, so paleontologist searches the rocks for
evidence which must be there, so when suitable forma are
found they are tenative - "best in field". To study any given
species fossilized there's no way to be certain that the species
did not become extinct without leaving any offspring: especially
noting that 97%+ if all species that ever lived has become extinct.

Given the preponderance of stasis in the fossil record and the
unsubstantiated cases of reported gradualism we have numerous examples
of "living fossils" which are essentially the same in form as their
earliest ancestors that lived millions even hundreds of millions
of years ago. This as far as I'm concerned falsifies gradualism,
but demonstrates that the fossil record does not provide support for
Darwinean Theory.

>> Most people, so far assume a defensive posture, but I'm no
>> crusader. I would like to have an honest straight forward discourse on
>> the topic of design Vs evolution without the inventiveness, personal
>> insults and character assassination that too often follows.
>
> You have been guilty of a fair bit of that yourself. Why don't you
> drop the ad hominems present your actual logic? I obviously can't
> speak for other people but I am certainly willing to give it a fair
> hearing.
>

I believe it's possible to have a civil discourse without the rancor,
the attacks on anther person's integrity and character. I don't
choose to do so myself, but when I'm treated in an uncivil manner I
have been guilty of responding in kind.
>>
>>>
>>> [...]
>>>
>

[jillery]

On Wed, 30 Aug 2017 02:24:49 -0400, "R. Dean" <"R. Dean"@Gmail.com>

How is the Anthropic Principle evidence for Design?

> Sometimes called the "Fine tuning" of
>the Universe which allowed the rise of life on at least one planet.

How is Fine-tuning evidence for Design?

>Secondly, Punctuated Equilibrium re-visited by the late Stephen Gould
>and Niles Eldredge and the third;

How is Punctuated Equilibrium evidence for Design?

>how the new branch of biology called
>"evolutionary development" (evo Devo) could explain how the fossil
>record could depict abrupt appearance new species in the fossil record
>followed by long periods of stasis, and then their sudden disappearance
>from the record.

How is evolutionary development evidence for Design?

>This is unquestionable reality as seen in the fossil record.

How is the fossil record evidence for Design?

>As far as
>gradual change in a finely graded series of sequential steps between
>ancestral species to later decedents with radically and profoundly
>different morphologies, there is absolutely no possible way to
>determine this _without_appealing_ to theory.

How is appealing to theory evidence for Design?

>Theory demands
>intermediate forms, so paleontologist searches the rocks for
>evidence which must be there, so when suitable forma are
>found they are tenative - "best in field".

How are intermediate forms evidence for Design?

>To study any given
>species fossilized there's no way to be certain that the species
>did not become extinct without leaving any offspring: especially
>noting that 97%+ if all species that ever lived has become extinct.

How is extinction evidence for Design?

>Given the preponderance of stasis in the fossil record and the
>unsubstantiated cases of reported gradualism we have numerous examples
>of "living fossils" which are essentially the same in form as their
>earliest ancestors that lived millions even hundreds of millions
>of years ago.

How is stasis evidence for Design?

>This as far as I'm concerned falsifies gradualism,
>but demonstrates that the fossil record does not provide support for
>Darwinean Theory.

How is disproving Darwinian Theory evidence for Design?

>>> Most people, so far assume a defensive posture, but I'm no
>>> crusader. I would like to have an honest straight forward discourse on
>>> the topic of design Vs evolution without the inventiveness, personal
>>> insults and character assassination that too often follows.
>>
>> You have been guilty of a fair bit of that yourself. Why don't you
>> drop the ad hominems present your actual logic? I obviously can't
>> speak for other people but I am certainly willing to give it a fair
>> hearing.
>>
>I believe it's possible to have a civil discourse without the rancor,
>the attacks on anther person's integrity and character. I don't
>choose to do so myself, but when I'm treated in an uncivil manner I
>have been guilty of responding in kind.

Your personal problems aside, apparently you don't understand that
"evidence for Design" refers to objects and events and processes which
are best explained by a presumptive supernatural Designer. Simply
baldly asserting X is evidence for Design doesn't cut it. You have to
explicitly identify how X is evidence for Design, and not just an
argument against biological evolution.

And since you have raised the following point before, what is the
source(s) for your arguments above? Would I be incorrect to assume
your source is an organization known for opposing Evolutionary theory
and failing to provide evidence for Design, just like you do above?

[Peter Nyikos]

On Sunday, August 27, 2017 at 3:55:04 PM UTC-4, Martin Harran wrote:
> On Sun, 27 Aug 2017 13:09:43 -0400, "R. Dean" <"R. Dean"@Gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> >On 8/27/2017 5:36 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
> >> On Fri, 25 Aug 2017 16:23:01 -0400, "R. Dean" <"R. Dean"@Gmail.com>
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >> [...]
> >>
> >>> Had you been reading my stuff, you would realize that my position is;
> >>> that while there is evidence of design in the universe and life
> >>
> >> Once again, when you are asked "What evidence?" you go totally silent.
> >>
> >> Why do you keep saying there is evidence when you cannot identify any?
> > >
> >So far I haven't found anyone seriously interested in what _I_ base my
> >opinion on.
>
> I have pointed out to you several times that as a religious believer,
> I would be predisposed to the idea of an intelligent designer

...were it not for the fact that long ago, you decided in favor
of Kenneth Miller and against Michael Behe, despite the fact that
Miller repeatedly "forgot" rebuttals by Behe that he couldn't handle
at the time Behe made them. Correct?

Are you kindly disposed to Miller's neo-Deistic idea of a God
who designed the universe in its early stages, then ignored it until
some time around the lifetime of Abraham? [Or maybe the time of
Noah, except that the flood obviously wasn't worldwide.]

> and I
> have invited you to put forward good reasons why I should abandon my
> acceptance of evolution so that claim does not stand up.

Evolution, in the sense of common descent, is perfectly compatible
with design of a subtle nature, as the agnostic Loren Eiseley
recognized:

``Perhaps there also, among rotting fish heads and blue,
night-burning bog lights, moved the eternal mystery,
the careful finger of God. The increase was not much.
It was two bubbles, two thin-walled little balloons at the
end of the Snout's small brain. The cerebral hemispheres
had appeared.''
--Loren Eiseley_The Immense Journey_

Most people, including myself, believe that Behe subscribes to this
kind of design, since he has several times gone on record as accepting
the common descent of all earth life from primitive unicellular
microorganisms.

Peter Nyikos
Professor, Department of Math. -- standard disclaimer --

U. of South Carolina in Columbia
http://www.math.sc.edu/~nyikos/

[Peter Nyikos]

On Wednesday, August 30, 2017 at 2:20:05 AM UTC-4, R. Dean wrote:
> On 8/27/2017 3:50 PM, Martin Harran wrote:
> > On Sun, 27 Aug 2017 13:09:43 -0400, "R. Dean" <"R. Dean"@Gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> >
> >> On 8/27/2017 5:36 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
> >>> On Fri, 25 Aug 2017 16:23:01 -0400, "R. Dean" <"R. Dean"@Gmail.com>
> >>> wrote:
> >>>
> >>> [...]
> >>>
> >>>> Had you been reading my stuff, you would realize that my position is;
> >>>> that while there is evidence of design in the universe and life
> >>>
> >>> Once again, when you are asked "What evidence?" you go totally silent.
> >>>
> >>> Why do you keep saying there is evidence when you cannot identify any?
> >>>
> >> So far I haven't found anyone seriously interested in what _I_ base my
> >> opinion on.
> >
> > I have pointed out to you several times that as a religious believer,
> > I would be predisposed to the idea of an intelligent designer and I
> > have invited you to put forward good reasons why I should abandon my
> > acceptance of evolution so that claim does not stand up.
> >
> I can give reasons I believe as I do, but to convert you to my views>
>
> isn't an objective I have.

Indeed, I believe it would be a forlorn hope in the case of
Martin; but I've given him a chance to spell out his views more
clearly in reply to what he wrote above.

> > So far, however, every time I have asked you for examples of the
> > evidence you claim to exist, you have simply walked away.
> >
> I've had long discussions regarding that which I consider evidence
> of design including the Anthropic Principle advanced by theoretical
> Physicist Brandon Carter in 1973.

I got wind of that almost immediately, thanks to an article in
the _Scientific American_. My reaction to it was similar to
that of innumerable people here to you: Carter seemed to me like
a "stealth Christian," getting scientists to think actively
about all kinds of phenomena that can be added to the traditional
Argument for Design so very briefly given by Thomas Aquinas.

> Sometimes called the "Fine tuning" of
> the Universe which allowed the rise of life on at least one planet.

The "fine tuning" is so precise, so intolerant of deviation in
some of the key constants, that the only plausible alternative
to a designer is a multiverse with a staggeringly large number
of universes as elaborate as this one, but almost all of them
"garbage" with no hope of the arising of life, let alone its
evolution into something as sophisticated as ourselves.

> Secondly, Punctuated Equilibrium re-visited by the late Stephen Gould
> and Niles Eldredge and the third; how the new branch of biology called
> "evolutionary development" (evo Devo) could explain how the fossil
> record could depict abrupt appearance new species in the fossil record
> followed by long periods of stasis, and then their sudden disappearance
> from the record.

I don't see any real connection with design here; Stephen Jay Gould
was an atheist, and he thought PE was just an explanation for what
we see in the fossil record.

> This is unquestionable reality as seen in the fossil record. As far as
> gradual change in a finely graded series of sequential steps between
> ancestral species to later decedents with radically and profoundly
> different morphologies, there is absolutely no possible way to
> determine this _without_appealing_ to theory.

There are exceptions, the classic example being the fine gradations
one sees in going from *Hyracotherium* to *Equus* in the horse
family *Equidae*. A similar example could be produced where the
camel family is concerned, but motivation for that has been killed
by the systematists who rule the roost in their subject, represented
here by John Harshman and his sidekick, Erik Simpson.

The whale family seems to be heading in that direction too, but
the taboo against even calling ANY member of the horse family
"the prime candidate" for direct ancestry of ANY other member
has killed all efforts to produce evolutionary trees like the
one in Kathleen Hunt's superb horse family FAQ:

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

> Theory demands
> intermediate forms, so paleontologist searches the rocks for
> evidence which must be there, so when suitable forma are
> found they are tenative - "best in field".

And even that is now strictly a layman's term, not sanctioned
by the likes of John Harshman for a peer-reviewed scientific
paper.

> To study any given
> species fossilized there's no way to be certain that the species
> did not become extinct without leaving any offspring: especially
> noting that 97%+ if all species that ever lived has become extinct.

True, but 100% certainty isn't what science is all about. You
can see that with the cavalier attitude that today's reigning
systematists have for calling Y "the sister group" of X.
But the use of "ancestor" or "descendant" is now taboo.

>
> Given the preponderance of stasis in the fossil record and the
> unsubstantiated cases of reported gradualism

It is unrealistic to expect mathematical certainty; but one look
at the individual species in *Equidae* should dispel any reasonable
doubt that every member beyond *Hyracotherium* had ancestors almost
identical to members of earlier species of the family, if not completely
identical.

> we have numerous examples
> of "living fossils" which are essentially the same in form as their
> earliest ancestors that lived millions even hundreds of millions
> of years ago. This as far as I'm concerned falsifies gradualism,
> but demonstrates that the fossil record does not provide support for
> Darwinean Theory.

Darwin never maintained that species HAVE to evolve into other
species, and neither has anyone else here, so I do not follow
your "reasoning" here.

>
> >> Most people, so far assume a defensive posture, but I'm no
> >> crusader. I would like to have an honest straight forward discourse on
> >> the topic of design Vs evolution without the inventiveness, personal
> >> insults and character assassination that too often follows.
> >
> > You have been guilty of a fair bit of that yourself. Why don't you
> > drop the ad hominems present your actual logic? I obviously can't
> > speak for other people but I am certainly willing to give it a fair
> > hearing.
> >
> I believe it's possible to have a civil discourse without the rancor,
> the attacks on anther person's integrity and character. I don't
> choose to do so myself, but when I'm treated in an uncivil manner I
> have been guilty of responding in kind.

I don't respond in an uncivil manner unless I have strong evidence of
dishonesty, insincerity, or hypocrisy. And then I make the appropriate
accusations. I believe this is the main reason a number of people
are so abusive of me: they cannot abide by "goddamn moralizers."

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

nyikos "at" math.sc.edu